Refuting Heresy: Talmudic Responses to Heretical Claims of Divine Multiplicity in Scripture (Sanhedrin 38b)

A Talmudic Defense of Biblical Monotheism: Responding to Dualism, Trinitarianism, and Polytheism

Outline

1. Responding to Heresy: R' Eliezer and R' Yoḥanan on Engaging with Non-Believers¹

2. R' Yoḥanan's Responses to Six Heretical Claims of Plurality in Biblical Verses

3. Divine Consultation: The Use of Plurality in Biblical References to God in Light of Angelic Counsel

4. Divine Thrones and Roles: A Rabbinic Debate on Interpreting God's Seat in Heaven

5. Debate Over Divine Thrones: R' Akiva and R' Elazar ben Azarya on Judgment, Righteousness, and the Limits of Aggadic Interpretation

The Passage

Sanhedrin.38b.13-18

Responding to Heresy: R' Eliezer and R' Yoḥanan on Engaging with Non-Believers

In Avot 2:14, R' Eliezer advises diligence (שקוד) in learning Torah to be able to respond to heretics.²

R' Yoḥanan qualifies that this applies only to non-Jewish³ heretics, not Jewish ones, as responding to a Jewish heretic would likely deepen their heresy. His reasoning is that Jewish heresy is intentional, and rebutting it may only strengthen their stance.

תנן התם: 

ר"א אומר: 

הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה 

ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס 

אמר ר' יוחנן: 

ל"ש אלא אפיקורוס (של) עובדי כוכבים 

אבל אפיקורוס ישראל, כ"ש דפקר טפי

We learned in a mishna there (Avot 2:14):

R' Eliezer says:

Be persistent to learn Torah,

and know what to respond to the heretic [la’apikoros].

R' Yoḥanan says:

This was taught only with regard to a gentile heretic,

but not with regard to a Jewish heretic, as one should not respond to him. All the more so, if one does respond he will become more heretical. His heresy is assumed to be intentional, and any attempt to rebut it will only cause him to reinforce his position.

R' Yoḥanan's Responses to Six Heretical Claims of Plurality in Biblical Verses

R' Yoḥanan asserts that any biblical verse the heretics use to claim there is more than one god (i.e. that pure monothesim is not correct, rather that the Bible espouses dualism, trinitarianism, or polytheism) has a refutation within the surrounding verses.

He proceeds to provide six such cases, showing that in each case, the plural term is immediately countered by a singular term, upholding pure monotheism:

1. Example 1: Genesis 1:26–27

   • Claim: "Let us make man in our image" (plural).

   • Refutation: "And God created man in His image" (singular).

2. Example 2: Genesis 11:5–7

   • Claim: "Come, let us go down" (plural).

   • Refutation: "And the Lord came down" (singular).

3. Example 3: Genesis 35:3, 7

   • Claim: "There God was revealed [niglu]" (plural).

   • Refutation: "To God Who answers [haoneh]" (singular).

4. Example 4: Deuteronomy 4:7

   • Claim: "God so near to them [kerovim]" (plural).

   • Refutation: "upon Him" (singular).

5. Example 5: II Samuel 7:23

   • Claim: "God went to redeem" (plural).

   • Refutation: "unto Himself" (singular).

6. Example 6: Daniel 7:9

   • Claim: "Thrones were placed" (plural).

   • Refutation: "One that was ancient of days did sit" (singular).

א"ר יוחנן: 

כ"מ שפקרו המינים, תשובתן בצידן 

1. (בראשית א, כו) "נעשה אדם בצלמנו" 

   1. (ואומר) (בראשית א, כז) "ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו" 

2. (בראשית יא, ז) "הבה נרדה, ונבלה שם שפתם" 

   1. (בראשית יא, ה) "וירד ה' לראות את העיר ואת המגדל" 

3. (בראשית לה, ז) "כי שם נגלו אליו האלהים" 

   1. (בראשית לה, ג) "לאל העונה אותי ביום צרתי"

4. (דברים ד, ז) "כי מי גוי גדול, אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו 

   1. כה' אלהינו, בכל קראנו אליו" 

5. (שמואל ב ז, כג) "ומי כעמך כישראל, גוי אחד בארץ, אשר הלכו אלהים 

   1. לפדות לו לעם" 

6. (דניאל ז, ט) "עד די כרסוון רמיו

   1. ועתיק יומין יתיב"

R' Yoḥanan says: 

Any place in the Bible from where the heretics attempt to prove their heresy, i.e., that there is more than one god, the response to their claim is alongside them, i.e., in the immediate vicinity of the verses they cite.

1. The verse states that God said: “Let us make man in our image” (Genesis 1:26), employing the plural,

   1. but it then states: “And God created man in His image” (Genesis 1:27), employing the singular.

2. The verse states that God said: “Come, let us go down and there confound their language” (Genesis 11:7),

   1. but it also states: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower” (Genesis 11:5).

3. The verse states in the plural: “There God was revealed [niglu] to him when he fled from the face of his brother” (Genesis 35:7),

   1. but it also states in the singular: “To God Who answers [haoneh] me in the day of my distress” (Genesis 35:3).

4. The verse states: “For what nation is there so great that has God so near to them

   1. as the Lord our God is whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7), where the term “near” is written in plural, kerovim, but the term “upon Him” is written in singular.

5. Another verse states: “And who is like Your people, like Israel, a nation one in the earth, whom God went

   1. to redeem unto Himself for a people?” (II Samuel 7:23), where the term “went” is written in plural, halekhu, but the term “Himself” is written in singular.

6. Another verse states: “I beheld till thrones were placed,

   1. and one that was ancient of days did sit” (Daniel 7:9); where the term “thrones” is written in plural, kharsavan, but the term “sit” is written in singular.

Divine Consultation: The Use of Plurality in Biblical References to God in Light of Angelic Counsel

The Talmud questions why, in fact, the Bible uses plural terms when referring to God.

The Talmud quotes R' Yoḥanan that the plural is used to indicate that God consults with the heavenly entourage⁴ before acting. 

This interpretation is supported by the verse in Daniel 4:14, which speaks of decrees made by "the Watchers" (עירין) and "the holy ones" (קדישין).

הנך למה לי? 

כדרבי יוחנן, דא"ר יוחנן: 

אין הקב"ה עושה דבר, אא"כ נמלך בפמליא של מעלה 

שנאמר (דניאל ד, יד): 

"בגזירת עירין פתגמא, 

ובמאמר קדישין שאילתא"

The Gemara asks: Why do I need these instances of plural words? Why does the verse employ the plural at all when referring to God?

The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the statement of R' Yoḥanan, as R' Yoḥanan says:

The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act unless He consults with the entourage of Above, i.e., the angels,

as it is stated:

“The matter is by the decree of the watchers,

and the sentence by the word of the holy ones” (Daniel 4:14).

Divine Thrones and Roles: A Rabbinic Debate on Interpreting God's Seat in Heaven

The Talmud explores the interpretation of the verse from the Book of Daniel,⁵ “I beheld until thrones (כרסוון) were placed”, examining for whom these thrones are intended and what purpose they serve:⁶ 

R' Akiva interprets it as two thrones: one for God and one for David (traditionally understood to mean the Messiah, David’s descendant). 

R' Yosei rebukes this view, asking rhetorically: “Akiva! Until when will you desacralize (חול) the Shekhina?!” (meaning, by equating God with a person).⁷ 

R’ Yosei then states that, in fact, both thrones are for God, one for judgment (דין) and one for charitableness.⁸ 

התינח כולהי, "עד די כרסוון רמיו" מאי איכא למימר? 

אחד לו, ואחד לדוד 

דתניא: 

אחד לו, ואחד לדוד 

דברי ר"ע 

א"ל ר' יוסי: 

עקיבא! 

עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול?! 

אלא: אחד לדין, ואחד לצדקה

The Gemara clarifies: This works out well for almost all the verses, as they describe an action taken by God, but what is there to say concerning the verse: “I beheld till thrones were placed”?

The Gemara answers: One throne is for Him and one throne is for David, i.e., the messiah,

as it is taught in a baraita:

One throne is for Him and one throne is for David;

this is the statement of R' Akiva.

R' Yosei said to him:

Akiva!

Until when will you desacralize the Divine Presence by equating God with a person?!

Rather, the correct interpretation is that both thrones are for God, as one throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness.

Debate Over Divine Thrones: R' Akiva and R' Elazar ben Azarya on Judgment, Righteousness, and the Limits of Aggadic Interpretation

The Talmud questions whether R' Akiva subsequently accepted the explanation from R' Yosei, in the previous section. 

To explore this, the Talmud quotes a baraita where R' Akiva interprets two thrones as one for judgment and one for righteousness (the exact same explanation as R' Yosei in the previous section, indicating that R’ Akiva indeed subsequently accepted the explanation from R' Yosei). 

R' Elazar ben Azarya rebukes him, with a rhetorical question (similar to what R’ Yosei did): “Akiva! What are you doing near (i.e., discussing) matters of aggada?!” suggesting he should instead focus on halachic topics related to tractates Nega’im and Oholot (which involve detailed laws of ritual purity where R' Akiva’s technical expertise excels, and to avoid aggada). 

R' Elazar ben Azarya proposes a different interpretation: both “thrones” (כרסוון) are for God, with one serving as an actual throne (כסא) to sit on, and the other as a footstool.⁹

קבלה מיניה או לא קבלה מיניה? 

ת"ש: 

דתניא: 

אחד לדין, ואחד לצדקה 

דברי ר"ע 

א"ל ר' אלעזר בן עזריא: 

עקיבא! 

מה לך אצל הגדה?! כלך אצל נגעים ואהלות! 

אלא: אחד לכסא, ואחד לשרפרף

כסא — לישב עליו, שרפרף — להדום רגליו

The Gemara asks: Did R' Akiva accept this explanation from R' Yosei or did he not accept it from him?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to the matter from what was taught in another baraita,

as it is taught in a baraita:

One throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness;

this is the statement of R' Akiva.

R' Elazar ben Azarya said to him:

Akiva!

What are you doing near, i.e., discussing, matters of aggada?! Go near tractates Nega’im and Oholot, which examine the complex halakhot of ritual purity, where your knowledge is unparalleled.

Rather, the correct interpretation is that while both thrones are for God, one is for a throne and one is for a stool.

There is a throne for God to sit upon, and a stool that serves as His footstool.

1. For the previous part of this sugya, see my series on Adam in the Talmud, Part 2 here.

The previous sugya concluded with the statement that "Adam was a heretic, concealed his circumcision, and was a disbeliever":

ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב: אדם הראשון מין היה 

שנאמר [...]

רבי יצחק אמר: מושך בערלתו היה 

כתיב הכא [...] וכתיב התם [...]

רב נחמן אמר: כופר בעיקר היה 

כתיב הכא [...] וכתיב התם [...]

And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Adam the first man was a heretic, 

as it is stated: [...]

R' Yitzḥak says: He was one who drew his foreskin forward, so as to remove any indication that he was circumcised. 

It is written here: [...] and it is written there: [...]

Rav Naḥman says: He was a denier of the fundamental principle of belief in God. 

It is written here:[...] and it is written there: [...]

This sugya begins by association with that conclusion.

2. אפיקורוס - Epikoros; from Greek Epicurus; i.e. Epicurean.

3. גוי - the עובדי כוכבים in the standard printed editions is due to the Christian censor.

4. פמליא - from Latin familia; i.e. the angels.

5. Also cited earlier, in Rabbi Yohanan’s list of biblical verses where “the heretics attempt to prove their heresy (i.e., that there is more than one god), with the response to their claim appearing alongside,” as item #6.

6. See Throne of God - Wikipedia.

7. Compare the talmudic story of Elisha ben Avuyah becoming a heretic after seeing Metatron in heaven on a throne, in Chagigah.15a.5-6:

אחר קיצץ בנטיעות,

עליו הכתוב אומר: ״אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך״.

מאי היא?

חזא מיטטרון דאתיהבא ליה רשותא למיתב למיכתב זכוותא דישראל,

אמר: גמירי דלמעלה לא הוי לא ישיבה ולא תחרות, ולא עורף ולא עיפוי.

שמא, חס ושלום, שתי רשויות הן.

אפקוה למיטטרון ומחיוה שיתין פולסי דנורא

אמרו ליה: מאי טעמא כי חזיתיה לא קמת מקמיה?!

The Gemara stated earlier that Aḥer chopped down the saplings, becoming a heretic.

With regard to him, the verse states: “Do not let your mouth bring your flesh into guilt” (Ecclesiastes 5:5).

The Gemara poses a question: What was it that led [Aḥer] to heresy?

He saw the angel Mitatron, who was granted permission to sit and write the merits of Israel.

He said: There is a tradition that in the world above there is no sitting; no competition; no turning one’s back before Him, i.e., all face the Divine Presence; and no lethargy. Seeing that someone other than God was seated above,

he said: Perhaps, the Gemara here interjects, Heaven forbid, there are two authorities, and there is another source of power in control of the world in addition to God. Such thoughts led Aḥer to heresy.

The Gemara relates: They removed Mitatron from his place in heaven and smote him with sixty rods [pulsei] of fire, so that others would not make the mistake that Aḥer made.

They said to the angel: What is the reason that when you saw Elisha ben Avuya you did not stand before him?!

8. צדקה.

Steinsaltz translates “righteousness”, which is the meaning of the word tzedaka in biblical Hebrew.

However, here it’s clear that the rabbinic Hebrew sense is being used - “charitableness”, since it’s being contrasted with din, meaning “judgement”.

9. שרפרף להדום רגליו - literally “a stool (שרפרף - a rabbinic Hebrew word) for a footstool (הדום רגליו - a biblical Hebrew term, used a few times in the Bible to refer to God’s footstool)”.