Rav’s Arrival in Babylonia, Karna’s Test, and Shmuel’s Remedy: A Tale of Testing Scholarship and Curses (Shabbat 108a)
This sugya presents a narrative involving Shmuel, Karna, and Rav, followed by halakhic discussions on tefillin, blood, circumcision, and neveilot/tereifot.
The sugya intertwines the dramatic narrative with halakhic reasoning, demonstrating how scholars tested each other's knowledge and the interplay between rabbinic and sectarian thought.
Outline
Story of Shmuel, Karna, and Rav
From where is it derived that one may write tefillin only on the hide of a kosher animal? (Exodus 13:9)
From where is it derived that blood is red? (II Kings 3:22)
From where is it derived that “mila” (=circumcision) is performed in “that place” (=on the male organ)? (Leviticus 12:3, 19:23)
Rav wished that a "karna" (horn) would grow in his eye
Shmuel’s Medical Treatment and Rav’s Curse
Tefillin and kosher animals
A Boethusian’s Challenges to R' Yehoshua HaGarsi Regarding Neveilot/ Tereifot and Tefillin
Challenge 1: Why can't Tefillin be written on the hide of a non-kosher animal?
Challenge 2: tefillin shouldn’t be allowed to be written on the hides of neveilot and tereifot from kosher animals
Challenge 3: Why aren’t neveilot and tereifot permitted to eat?
The Passage
Story of Shmuel, Karna, and Rav
Shmuel and Karna sat by the Malka River1 and observed the water rising (דלו) and becoming murky (עכירי). Shmuel interpreted this as an omen that a “great man” (גברא רבה) from Eretz Yisrael (מערבא) was arriving and suffering (חייש) from intestinal (מעיה) pain.
He sent Karna to test the scholar’s knowledge.2 Karna found the scholar—Rav—and challenged him with three questions.3
שמואל וקרנא הוו יתבי אגודא דנהר מלכא.
חזונהו למיא דקא דלו ועכירי.
אמר ליה שמואל לקרנא:
גברא רבה קאתי ממערבא
וחייש במעיה,
וקא דלו מיא לאקבולי אפיה (קמיה),
זיל תהי ליה אקנקניה.
אזל אשכחיה לרב.
It was reported: Shmuel and Karna were sitting on the bank of the Malka River.
They saw that the water was rising and was murky.
Shmuel said to Karna:
A great man is coming from the West, Eretz Yisrael,
and his intestines are aching,
and the water is rising to greet him.
Go sniff out his container, i.e., see if he is a Torah scholar.
Karna went and found Rav, who was the Sage that came from Eretz Yisrael, and he asked him several questions to test him.
From where is it derived that one may write tefillin only on the hide of a kosher animal? (Exodus 13:9)
Rav cited Exodus 13:9 as a prooftext that tefillin must be written on the hide of kosher animals, as implied by the phrase "so that God's Torah will be in your mouth", meaning only from animals permitted for consumption.
אמר ליה: מניין שאין כותבין תפילין אלא על גבי עור בהמה טהורה?
אמר ליה: דכתיב: ״למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך״ —
מן המותר בפיך.
He said to him: From where is it derived that one may write phylacteries only on the hide of a kosher animal?
Rav said to him that this halakha is as it is written: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm, and a reminder between your eyes, so that God’s Torah will be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9).
Only hide from those animals that are permitted to be placed in your mouth, i.e., may be eaten, may be used for phylacteries.
From where is it derived that blood is red? (II Kings 3:22)
Rav cited II Kings 3:22 as a prooftext, which describes water appearing red like blood (proving that blood is red).
מניין לדם שהוא אדום?
שנאמר:
״ויראו מואב מנגד את המים
אדמים כדם״.
Karna then asked him: From where is it derived that prohibited blood is red? Karna asked Rav this to determine which shades of menstrual blood are impure.
Rav said to him that it is as it is stated:
“And the Moabites saw the water from afar,
red like blood” (II Kings 3:22).
From where is it derived that “mila” (=circumcision) is performed in “that place” (=on the male organ)? (Leviticus 12:3, 19:23)
Rav used a gezerah shavah (verbal analogy) from "orlato" in the context of circumcision (Leviticus 12:3) (I elide the rest, which is somewhat technical).
מניין למילה שבאותו מקום?
נאמר כאן ״ערלתו״,
[...]
Karna also asked: From where is derived that circumcision is performed in that place?
Rav answered him: It is stated here, with regard to circumcision: “And on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin [orlato]” (Leviticus 12:3),
[...]
Rav wished that a "karna" (horn) would grow in his eye
Rav, realizing that Karna was testing him, asked his name.
Upon hearing "Karna," Rav (playing on his name) wished that a "karna" (horn) would grow in his eye.4
אמר ליה: מאי שמך?
קרנא.
אמר ליה:
יהא רעוא
דתיפוק ליה קרנא בעיניה.
Since Rav understood that Karna came to test him, he said to him: What is your name?
He told him: Karna.
He said to him:
May it be the will of God
that a horn [karna] will emerge in his eyes.
Shmuel’s Medical Treatment and Rav’s Curse
Shmuel later hosted Rav, giving him food and drink and not showing him the outhouse, to induce diarrhea (as a remedy for his intestinal issues).
However, Rav (unaware of Shmuel’s intentions) cursed him, saying, "Whoever causes me suffering, may his children not survive."
This curse was fulfilled (i.e. Shmuel’s children indeed did not live long).
לסוף עייליה שמואל לביתיה,
אוכליה נהמא דשערי וכסא דהרסנא
ואשקייה שיכרא
ולא אחוי ליה בית הכסא
כי היכי דלישתלשל.
לט רב ואמר:
מאן דמצערן —
לא ליקיימו ליה בני,
וכן הוה.
[...]
Ultimately, Shmuel brought him into his house.
He fed him barley bread and small fried fish,
and gave him beer to drink,
and he did not show him the lavatory
so he would suffer from diarrhea.
Shmuel was a doctor and he wanted to relieve Rav’s intestinal suffering by feeding him food that would relieve him. Since Rav was unaware of Shmuel’s intention, he became angry at him.
Rav cursed Shmuel and said:
Whoever causes me suffering,
let his children not survive.
Although Rav eventually discovered Shmuel’s good intentions, his curse was fulfilled, and so it was that Shmuel’s children did not survive long.
[...]
Tefillin and kosher animals
A baraita confirms that tefillin must be written on the hide of kosher animals, whether domesticated (בהמה) or wild (חיה), including neveilot5 and tereifot (טרפות), as long as they were originally kosher species.
The hair and sinews (גידן) used to wrap (נכרכות) and sew (נתפרות) the tefillin must also come from kosher animals, based on a “Law given to Moses at Sinai” (הלכה למשה מסיני).
תנו רבנן:
כותבין תפילין
על גבי עור בהמה טהורה,
ועל גבי עור חיה טהורה,
ועל גבי עור נבלות וטרפות שלהן.
ונכרכות בשערן
ונתפרות בגידן,
והלכה למשה מסיני שהתפילין
נכרכות בשערן
ונתפרות בגידן.
אבל אין כותבין
לא על גבי עור בהמה טמאה,
ולא על גבי עור חיה טמאה,
ואינו צריך לומר על גבי עור נבלה וטרפה שלהן.
ואין נכרכות בשערן,
ואין נתפרות בגידן.
The Gemara cites similar proofs. The Sages taught:
One may write phylacteries
on the hide of a kosher domesticated animal,
and on the hide of a kosher non-domesticated animal,
and on the hides of their unslaughtered carcasses [neveilot], and on the hides of animals with a condition that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot].
And one may wrap the parchment with the hair of these animals
and sew them with their sinews;
and it is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that the parchment of phylacteries may be
wrapped with the hair of these animals
and sewn with their sinews.
But one may not write
on the hide of a non-kosher animal,
or on the hide of a non-kosher undomesticated animal,
and it goes without saying that one may not write on their skins when they are neveilot or tereifot.
And one may not wrap the parchment with the hair of non-kosher animals,
nor may one sew them with their sinews.
A Boethusian’s Challenges to R' Yehoshua HaGarsi Regarding Neveilot/ Tereifot and Tefillin
Challenge 1: Why can't Tefillin be written on the hide of a non-kosher animal?
A Boethusian6 asked R' Yehoshua HaGarsi7 how it is derived that tefillin cannot be written on the hide of a non-kosher animal.
R' Yehoshua cited the verse “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth,” which the Rabbis interpreted to mean that tefillin must be written only on materials from animals that are permitted to be eaten.8
וזו שאילה שאל ביתוסי אחד את רבי יהושע הגרסי:
מניין שאין כותבין תפילין על עור בהמה טמאה?
דכתיב: ״למען תהיה תורת ה׳ בפיך״ —
מדבר המותר בפיך.
And this question was asked by a Boethusian to R' Yehoshua HaGarsi:
From where is it derived that one may not write phylacteries on the hide of a non-kosher animal?
He said to him, it is as it is written: “So that God’s Torah will be in your mouth.”
The Rabbis derived that one may write the passages only on an item that is permitted to be placed in one’s mouth, i.e., eaten.
Challenge 2: tefillin shouldn’t be allowed to be written on the hides of neveilot and tereifot from kosher animals
The Boethusian challenged this, arguing that if so, tefillin should also not be written on the hides of neveilot and tereifot from kosher animals, since they are also forbidden to eat.
In response, R' Yehoshua offered a parable:
Two people were sentenced to death—one was executed directly by the king, while the other was killed by an executioner.9
The one executed by the king is considered more honorable. 10
אלא מעתה — על גבי עור נבלות וטרפות אל יכתבו!
אמר לו:
אמשול לך משל, הא למה הדבר דומה —
לשני בני אדם שנתחייבו הריגה למלכות.
אחד הרגו מלך
ואחד הרגו איספקלטור,
איזה מהן משובח?
הוי אומר זה שהרגו מלך.
He said to him: If that is so, on the skin of neveilot and tereifot coming from kosher animals, one should not write phylacteries, as they may not be eaten.
He said to him:
I will tell you a parable. To what is this similar?
To two people who were sentenced to death by the king.
One was killed by the king himself,
and one was killed by an executioner [ispaklitor].
Which one is more praiseworthy?
You must say: The one that the king himself killed.
Therefore, an animal that died at the hands of Heaven and not by a human action is superior.
Challenge 3: Why aren’t neveilot and tereifot permitted to eat?
The Boethusian countered that if so, neveilot and tereifot should be permitted to eat. R' Yehoshua replied that the Torah explicitly forbids them.11
The Boethusian conceded, praising R' Yehoshua HaGarsi’s responses, saying “Kalos!” 12
אלא מעתה — יאכלו!
אמר ליה:
התורה אמרה: ״לא תאכלו כל נבלה״,
ואת אמרת יאכלו?!
אמר ליה: קאלוס.
He said to him: If so, then the neveilot and tereifot should be eaten, as they were killed by the king.
He said to him: The Torah said: “Do not eat any neveila” (Deuteronomy 14:20) and you say they should be eaten? A Torah decree determines that they may not be eaten, but that does not mean they are inferior.
The Boethusian said to him: Well put [kalos].
In Babylonia; the name literally means “King's River".
Saying: “Go sniff (תהי) his jug (קנקניה)” - an idiom, meaning “to test someone”, as one one would test a jug of wine; here meaning, to see if he’s a Torah scholar.
The questions are spelled out in the next few sections. All three questions are about the biblical source for a concept or a halachic law
Presumably, this is a reference to a known historical physical attribute of Karna’s, or a simple wordplay on his name.
For other examples of talmudic wordplay on names, both biblical names as well as rabbinic names, see my comprehensive overview at my piece “Abba” at my Academia page.
ביתוסי - sectarian opponent of rabbinic Judaism; Wikipedia: “ closely related to, if not a development of, the Sadducees”.
His surname should likely be pronounced “HaGerasi”, meaning “from the city of Gerasa”.
Notably, he had a brother with a Greek name: “Nimos” (נימוס), see Hebrew Wikipedia at the hyperlink, section “שמו ומשפחתו”.
The same answer as that given in the previous section, citing Rav.
איספקלטור - Jastrow:
(speculator, spiculator) arm-bearer, esp. guardsman of the Roman Emperor; mostly executioner, torturer
See Wiktionary, speculator > Latin, sense #1:
a particular scout of the Imperial legion’s commander or of a province’s governor also competent to carry out executions
And see also ibid., ʾespuqlāṭrā > Classical Syriac, senses #2-3:
lictor, executioner, hangman
guard, bodyguard, attendant
משובח. Similarly, kosher animals that die naturally (by Heaven) have a different status than animals that are inherently impure.
But prohibition does not imply inferiority.
קאלוס - kalos - Greek, meaning “well put!”
The Greek word καλῶς (kalós) is an adverb meaning "well," "properly," or "in a fitting manner."
It comes from the adjective καλός (kalos), which means "beautiful," "good," or "noble."
The exclamatory use of καλῶς! is essentially equivalent to saying "Well said!" or "Good!" in English.
In ancient Greek discourse, καλῶς could function in different ways:
As an adverb modifying an action (e.g., "he spoke well" → καλῶς ἐλάλησεν).
As an exclamation, praising someone's statement or action: καλῶς! = "Well put!" or "Well done!"
Philosophically, in texts of Aristotle and Plato, καλός and καλῶς carry ethical and aesthetic connotations—something that is both morally and visually "beautiful."
In European languages, words derived from καλός (like the English calligraphy, "beautiful writing") preserve the idea of beauty and excellence.
Notably, the use of “kalos” here as an interjection or exclamation—meaning "you have spoken well!"—is an uncommon usage of this loanword in Talmudic sources. Generally, it appears as a standard verb meaning "to praise"; see Hebrew Wiktionary, קִלֵּס ב.
For example, see Mishnah_Pesachim.10.5, in a list of nine synonyms for “praise”, in a blessing praising God recited at the seder on the first night of Passover, as part of the Haggadah:
לפיכך אנחנו חיבין
להודות,
להלל,
לשבח,
לפאר,
לרומם,
להדר,
לברך,
לעלה,
ולקלס,
למי שעשה לאבותינו ולנו את כל הנסים האלו,
הוציאנו
מעבדות לחרות,
מיגון לשמחה,
ומאבל ליום טוב,
ומאפלה לאור גדול,
ומשעבוד לגאלה.
The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah:
Therefore we are obligated
to thank (להודות),
praise (להלל),
glorify (לשבח),
extol (לפאר),
exalt (לרומם),
honor (להדר),
bless (לברך),
revere (לעלה),
and laud (לקלס)
the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles:
He took us out
from slavery (עבדות) to freedom (חרות),
from sorrow (יגון) to joy,
from mourning to a Festival (יום טוב),
from darkness (אפלה) to a great light,
and from enslavement (שעבוד) to redemption.