Bava Batra 14b — the Talmud in English

Your answer: from this verse we learn

to include ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

the fragments of the Tablets

that Moses first broke,

that

they too were

placed in the Ark

beneath the second Tablets.

And now the Gemara returns to raise an objection from this beraita against the words of Rabbi, who said that the measure of a Torah scroll on gev il is six handbreadths.

And if it should enter your mind

to say that

a Torah scroll

written on gev il

had a circumference of six handbreadths

(and the Torah scroll that Moses wrote on gev il was so), then raise a difficulty:

Now,

since we have an established principle that

every

round object

whose circumference is three handbreadths

such that, if one takes a cord and encircles it, the length of the cord will be three handbreadths—

has a width of one handbreadth!

The diameter of a circle is one-third of its circumference.

And it follows accordingly that a Torah scroll whose circumference is six handbreadths has a width [diameter] of two handbreadths!

But this measure of circumference and width applies when the Torah scroll is rolled to one side, in which case its circumference is six handbreadths and its width is two handbreadths —

And since

the Torah scroll

is rolled toward its middle,

that is, it is rolled from both its sides toward the middle, as we learned above: “All the scrolls are rolled from their beginning to their end, but a Torah scroll is rolled toward its middle”—it follows that when the scroll is rolled from both its sides,

it is greater than two handbreadths,

its width being greater than two handbreadths, because of

the space between them,

the empty space between one roller and the other .

And according to this it is difficult:

in two handbreadths

[handbreadths],

how could it fit!?

How could the Torah scroll fit in two handbreadths in the Ark? For its width, like the width of the scroll when it is rolled around two rollers, must necessarily be more than two handbreadths .

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: The scroll

of the Torah that Moses wrote and from which they read in the

Temple courtyard,

the scroll from which the king read at the time of the hakhel at the conclusion of the Sabbatical year, and from which the High Priest likewise read on Yom Kippur—that scroll had only one roller, and

it was rolled toward its beginning.

This scroll was rolled entirely only toward one side, from its end toward its beginning; therefore, its width was two handbreadths.

But still,

it is nevertheless difficult, for although the width of the scroll was two handbreadths, in any event,

two

handbreadths

in two

handbreadths

how could it fit?

How did the two handbreadths of the scroll’s width enter a place whose width was exactly two handbreadths?

Rav Ashi said:

In order for the scroll to enter two handbreadths, he did not roll the entire scroll to one side; rather, he rolled only most of it to one side, and this is speaking of a case

where he rolled a little of it,

in which a portion of the scroll was rolled separately.

And

that same portion which he rolled separately,

he rolled it above,

placing it above the roll of most of the scroll.

And the Gemara objects:

And

to

Rabbi Judah,

who holds that the Torah scroll was placed outside the Holy Ark, on top of the chest, this is difficult:

before they brought it,

before they brought the

chest, where did the Torah scroll sit?

Where was the Torah scroll placed?

And it answers:

A plank protruded,

a plank [a wooden shelf] protruded

from it,

from the Ark,

and it sat upon it,

and upon it was placed

the Torah scroll.

It has been explained in the beraita that Rabbi Judah holds that the Torah scroll was not placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, but was placed beside it. For it is stated: “Take this Torah scroll and place it ‘beside’ the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord”—

And the Gemara objects:

And Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the Torah scroll was placed inside the Ark of the Covenant—

this “

beside the Ark”

what does he do with it?

How does he interpret this verse, in which it is explicitly stated that the Torah scroll was placed “beside” the Ark of the Covenant?

And the Gemara explains:

That one,

this verse,

is needed by him

to teach us

that

the Torah scroll

was placed

beside

the side

of the Tablets inside the Ark,

and it was not placed between the Tablets

and was not placed between the two Tablets.

And in any event

the Torah scroll was placed

inside,

inside the Ark,

on the side

of the Tablets.

Above, the beraita brought the view of Rabbi Judah, who holds that in the Ark of the Covenant there lay the silver rollers that Solomon made.

And the Gemara objects:

And

to

Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the Torah scroll was placed in the Ark,

where were the rollers standing?

Where were the silver rollers that Solomon made?

And the Gemara explains: These rollers were

outside,

outside the Ark.

It was explained in the beraita that the verse “There was nothing in the Ark except the two Tablets of stone” comes to include something additional that was in the Ark besides the Tablets. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed about what was placed in the Ark. Rabbi Meir held that besides the Tablets there was a Torah scroll in the Ark. Rabbi Judah, however, held that besides the Tablets there were in the Ark the fragments of the first Tablets.

And the Gemara objects:

And Rabbi Meir—from where does he derive that the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark?

From where does he learn this? Surely according to his view, we learn from the verse only about the Torah scroll that was in the Ark.

And the Gemara explains:

He derives it

this matter,

from Rav Huna.

For Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written [II Samuel 6:2] concerning the Ark of the Covenant: “Which is called by the Name, the Name of the Lord of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubim upon it”?

Why did the verse repeat the word “Name”?

Which is called

by the Name, the Name of the Lord of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubim upon it

—why did the verse repeat the word “Name”?

It teaches that the Tablets and the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark.

And the Gemara objects:

And the other one,

Rabbi Judah, who learns from another verse that the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark—what does he learn from this verse, in which “Name” is stated twice?

And the Gemara explains:

That one,

this verse, “Which is called by the Name, the Name of the Lord of Hosts,”

is needed by him for that which Rabbi Yohanan taught,

for he derives from it what Rabbi Yohanan derived—

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai —

The fact that the verse states that in the Ark there was “the Name, the Name of the Lord of Hosts”

teaches that the Name

the explicit Name

and all its appellations,

all seventy Names of the Holy One, blessed be He, were

placed in the Ark.

And the Gemara objects:

And the other one,

Rabbi Meir,

also needs it for this,

he too needs this verse in order to learn that the explicit Name was in the Ark; so how does he learn from this verse that the fragments of the Tablets were in the Ark?

And the Gemara explains:

Indeed so!

Rabbi Meir too learned from this verse that the explicit Name was in the Ark.

But

if so, the question returns:

the fragments of the Tablets

that were placed in the Ark—from where does he derive them?

This matter, that the fragments of the Tablets were in the Ark,

he derives it,

Rabbi Meir learned

from what Rav Yosef taught.

For Rav Yosef taught—

after Moses our teacher broke the Tablets, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him [Deuteronomy 10:1–2]: “Carve for yourself two Tablets of stone … and I shall write upon the Tablets the words that were upon the first Tablets,

which you broke, and you shall place them

in the Ark.”

The words “which you broke” are superfluous, for when the Holy One, blessed be He, said “the first Tablets,” we know that the reference is to the Tablets that Moses broke . It is necessarily the case that these words were written in order to expound them—

It teaches

the verse

that the Tablets and the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark.

For it is stated, “which you broke,” and immediately afterward it is stated, “and you shall place them in the Ark.” And the Sages expounded the intention of the verse: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “The Tablets which you broke—you shall place in the Ark.”

And the other one,

Rabbi Judah, who learned from another verse that the fragments of the Tablets were placed in the Ark, what does he expound from “which you broke”?

And the Gemara explains:

That one is needed by him

to expound this verse

for that which Resh Lakish taught.

For Resh Lakish said, “‘

which you broke.’

The Holy One, blessed be He, said

to Moses: Your strength is right for you that you broke them!” [The word asher was expounded as related to ashrei, “fortunate.” See note .]

The Sages expounded the word “that” in the sense of “fortunate”; see note ].

And this was one of the things that Moses did on his own initiative, and his understanding agreed with the understanding of the Holy One, blessed be He.

The Sages taught: The order of the Prophets

is as follows:

Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve.

Therefore, a scribe who writes the books of the Prophets must write them in this order.

The Gemara now discusses these words of the beraita, even before it finishes bringing all the words of the beraita:

Now,

indeed,

Hosea preceded

some of the prophets listed in the beraita [as will be explained below],

as it is written [Hosea 1:2]: “

The beginning of the word of the Lord through Hosea.”

The beginning of the word of the Lord through Hosea.”

And, seemingly, the meaning of this verse is that Hosea was the first of the prophets, and the beginning of the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He, with the prophets was with him—

But it is necessarily not the intention of the verse, because:

Was it with Hosea that He spoke

the Holy One, blessed be He,

first?

But from Moses until Hosea, how many prophets there were,

all of whom prophesied before Hosea!

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yohanan

said: The intention of the verse is to say

that he was

prophesying

first among four prophets who prophesied in the same period,

for four prophets prophesied in that period,

and these are: Hosea and Isaiah, Amos

and Micah.

And Hosea was the first among them.

And if so, since Hosea was before Isaiah, it is difficult:

Then let Hosea precede at the beginning!

Why does Hosea not come first in the order of the Prophets, before Isaiah and Jeremiah, who came after him?

And the Gemara explains:

Since his prophecy is written

in the book of the Twelve,

alongside

[together with the prophecy of]

Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

And Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the end

of the period of the

Prophets,

in the days of the Second Temple, and therefore their books are the last books among the books of the Prophets.

And therefore, since the book of Hosea is also included in the Twelve [for the reason that will be explained below],

he counted it together with them.

That is, although Hosea preceded Isaiah, nevertheless it was arranged at the end of the books of the Prophets, since his book was included in the Twelve, together with the prophecy of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were the end of the Prophets.

But it is still necessary to explain why the book of Hosea was included in the book of the Twelve in the first place, and therefore was arranged at the end of the books of the Prophets although it preceded Isaiah?

Then let us write it

the book of Hosea

by itself,

as a separate book,

and let us place it first!

Then it would be possible to place it before the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

And the Gemara explains:

Since it is small,

since the book of Hosea is small in quantity, there is concern that if they wrote it as a separate book,

it would be lost,

the book would be lost. Therefore they included it in the book of the Twelve, together with all the prophecies that are small in quantity .

But the Gemara objects:

Now,

indeed, since

Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel,

for Isaiah prophesied in the days of Uzziah, and afterward Jeremiah prophesied in Jerusalem in the days of Josiah and his sons, and afterward Ezekiel prophesied in exile in the days of Zedekiah.

And since Isaiah was the first of the three,

let Isaiah precede at the beginning!

Why did they not place the book of Isaiah before the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel!?

And the Gemara explains:

Since

the book of

Kings ends with destruction,

its end deals with destruction [the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuzaradan, chief of the executioners, the destruction of the city, and the exile of the people],

and

the book of

Jeremiah is entirely destruction,

it entirely deals with matters of destruction,

and

the book of

Ezekiel begins with destruction

and at its beginning deals with matters of destruction,

and ends with consolation,

and at its end deals with matters of consolation,

and

the book of

Isaiah is entirely consolation,

entirely dealing with matters of consolation.

Therefore they placed the book of Jeremiah next to the book of Kings, because

we place destruction next to destruction.

The matters of destruction should be placed together. And for this reason, although Jeremiah came after Isaiah, nevertheless his book was arranged before the book of Isaiah, in order to place the destruction in Jeremiah next to the destruction in the book of Kings.

And for this reason they placed the book of Ezekiel before the book of Isaiah, although Isaiah preceded Ezekiel. For destruction should be placed next to destruction, and the beginning of the book of Ezekiel deals with matters of destruction, and it is one matter with the book of Jeremiah, which also deals with matters of destruction—

And

after the book of Ezekiel, the book of Isaiah was arranged, as one should place

one consolation next to another.

The end of the book of Ezekiel deals with consolation, and next to it is the book of Isaiah, which deals entirely with consolation.

And now the Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, brings the continuation of the beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, concerning the order of the Writings:

This is

the order of the Writings - However, it should be noted that the early authorities explain the distinction differently. Ramban wrote on tractate Rosh HaShana, folio 31, that the order of the Prophets and Writings follows chronological order, and that there is no essential distinction between them. Meiri, in his introduction to the order of Psalms, distinguished between them by saying that the books of the Prophets were spoken through prophecy, whereas the Writings were spoken through divine inspiration, which is a different level from prophecy. Prophecy is on a higher level than divine inspiration. Meiri therefore raised a difficulty concerning what is explained below: that David wrote the book of Psalms through ten elders. Some of those elders were prophets, such as Abraham and Moses, so their statements were in the category of prophecy and not divine inspiration. A similar difficulty was raised by Abarbanel [Ma'ayanei HaYeshu'a, spring 3] concerning the Scroll of Ruth. Our discussion explains that Samuel wrote the Scroll of Ruth, and Samuel was a prophet. If so, why is the Scroll of Ruth included among the Writings and not among the Prophets? Meiri cited another approach, and Abudarham wrote similarly: The distinction between the Prophets and the Writings is that the Prophets were messengers of the Almighty to convey the prophecy to the Jewish people, whereas the Writings do not involve a mission. Rather, divine inspiration rested upon their authors, and they wrote them. See also Abarbanel, who explained in this way the wording of the prayer in the additional service of Rosh HaShana: “And in Your holy words it is written, saying.” This explanation of Meiri and Abudarham is similar to the foundation expressed above by the Gra"h.

The Scroll of

Ruth.

For Ruth preceded all of them, as she lived during the period when the judges judged Israel.

And the book of Psalms,

which King David wrote.

and Job [דף יד - ב [חלק 2/3] [עין הערה]]. It must be said that this is only according to the hava amina, the Gemara’s initial assumption. Later in the Gemara’s discussion, it is clear that this beraita also follows the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, even though his book was nevertheless placed only after the book of Psalms, as the Gemara explains. See also Tosafot, a collection of the commentaries of the Tosafists. At this stage, the Gemara did not yet know that the conclusion of the beraita explicitly states that Moses wrote the book of Job.

см. примечание ].

And

after them come the three books of King Solomon -

Proverbs and Ecclesiastes ,

and

the Song of Songs,

which is the last of Solomon’s books, for he wrote it in his old age. It is possible that Rashi intended to explain why Proverbs was placed before Ecclesiastes. For this he wrote that the two books are equal in level, since both are books of wisdom, and therefore neither has precedence over the other. However, the Rashash below [on Rashi, s.v. “the Song of Songs”] explains that Rashi intended to explain why Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were placed before the Song of Songs. He says that this is because both are books of wisdom. See there for his explanation of Rashi’s statement below, that the Song of Songs was spoken in Solomon’s old age.

And

after them comes the book of

Lamentations,

the Scroll of Lamentations, which Jeremiah wrote; he lived after King Solomon.

After it comes the book of

Daniel,

who lived after Jeremiah, during the exile under Nebuchadnezzar.

And the Scroll of Esther,

which came after Daniel, in the days of Ahasuerus.

After it comes the book of

Ezra

which was written in the days of King Darius II, who ruled after Ahasuerus,

and Chronicles. Accordingly, it is explained that the book of Nehemiah itself is also called by Ezra’s name and not by Nehemiah’s name, because Nehemiah took personal credit. In the book Petah Enayim by the Hida on tractate Sanhedrin there, he wrote in the name of Rabbi Hayyim Vital, who said in the name of the Ari, that in the period of printing, Nehemiah’s punishment was annulled, and people again began calling his book “the Book of Nehemiah.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

But according to the one who says [טו ב]

who maintains that

Job lived in the days of Moses

if so,

Job’s book should have been placed first!

Why was Job’s book not placed at the beginning of all the Writings? According to that view, he was the earliest of them all. The Tosafot answered that when the Gemara raised the question, “But according to the one who says that Job lived in the days of Moses,” it did not yet know the conclusion of the beraita, which explains that Job lived in the days of Moses. The Rashash answered the difficulty of the Tosafot as follows: In the text before us, the words “but according to the one who says” appear in abbreviated form. The Tosafot interpreted the abbreviation to mean “but according to the one who says,” whereas according to the Rashash, the correct interpretation is “but according to what he said,” referring to what the tanna says later. The Hatam Sofer resolved the difficulty of the Tosafot by explaining that although it is stated later that Moses wrote the book of Job, this does not necessarily mean that Job lived in the days of Moses. It is possible that the tanna maintains that Job never existed and that the account was only a parable, in accordance with the view cited by the Gemara below, on folio 15a. Moses wrote this book as a parable. If so, there is no difficulty as to why Job was not placed before the other Prophets: Although Moses wrote it, the books of the Writings were placed before a book that is only a parable. Therefore, the Gemara raised its question only according to the view that Job lived in the days of Moses, because according to that view the account is not a parable; it is true that Job lived in Moses’ time. The Mahatzit HaShekel also answered the difficulty of the Tosafot in accordance with the approach of the Hatam Sofer: Although Moses wrote the book of Job, the book was not placed first because it is only a parable. The Mahatzit HaShekel added that this is why the book of Job, which is a book of parable, was placed next to the book of Proverbs. The Maharal of Prague [Hidushei Aggadot, here] answered the difficulty of the Tosafot differently. In his view, no one disputes that Moses wrote the book of Job. Even according to the one who says that Job lived during the generation that returned from the Babylonian exile, or that Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, and so on, this does not mean that Job wrote his book at that time. Rather, Moses wrote the book of Job through prophecy, concerning what would happen in the generation that returned from exile, or in the generation of Ahasuerus, and so on. Accordingly, the difficulty of the Tosafot is resolved: Although the continuation of the beraita states that Moses wrote the book of Job, this still does not force us to say that this tanna maintains that Job lived in the days of Moses, since even one who maintains that Job lived in another generation agrees that Moses wrote the book of Job.

The Gemara explains: Although Job preceded all the Prophets, nevertheless the Writings should not begin with it, because the book of Job deals with calamity.

We do not begin with calamity.

The order of the Writings should not begin with matters of calamity .

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why is the Scroll of Ruth the first of the Writings? After all, the Scroll of

Ruth also deals with calamity.

It too deals with calamity—famine, the death of Elimelech and his two sons, the loss of his property, and so on.

The Gemara explains: Although the Scroll of Ruth contains calamity, nevertheless it is

calamity that has a positive outcome ,

because its outcome is good. Maharsha answered the difficulty of the Tosafot by saying that the good ending of the book of Job is an imagined good in this world, whereas Ruth’s outcome is the complete and ultimate outcome, since David “gratified the Almighty with songs and praises.” Maharsha wrote that this is also the explanation of the answer of the Tosafot. The Maharal of Prague [Hidushei Aggadot, here] answered the difficulty of the Tosafot by explaining that when the Gemara says that Ruth’s calamity has a positive outcome, it means that the calamity itself is good because of the good outcome that emerged from it. The good outcome came about through the calamity itself: The famine and Elimelech’s death caused them to go to the fields of Moab, marry Moabite women, and Ruth to convert, so that King David would descend from her. Without that calamity, there would have been no good outcome. [Rabbi Zadok HaKohen of Lublin wrote similarly in his book Kometz Minha, folio 5b, and the Torat Hayyim wrote similarly here.] Accordingly, the Maharal answered the difficulty of the Tosafot: Specifically in Ruth, the calamity itself brought about the good that followed it. Therefore, it is a beneficial calamity. In Job, however, although the end of the calamity was good, it was not a good that resulted from the calamity, and this good did not come about through the calamity. [The Iyyun Yaakov and Etz Yosef wrote similarly in their commentaries on the Ein Yaakov.]

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Why was she called Ruth?

Because David descended from her, and he gratified [מלשון רוויה]

from the expression “satisfaction”; he figuratively satisfied

the Almighty with songs and praises. Regarding Maharsha’s essential difficulty, it should be noted that the Zohar [Zohar Hadash, folio 79a] wrote that Ruth received this name only after her conversion; beforehand, her name was Gilit. Accordingly, Maharsha’s difficulty is resolved.

Now the beraita explains

who wrote each of the books of the Prophets and the Writings.

And who wrote them?

Moses wrote his book,

the Five Books of the Torah,

and

Moses also wrote

the portion concerning Balaam,

the prophecies and parables of Balaam. Although the portion concerning Balaam is part of the Torah, and it has already been explained that Moses wrote the entire Torah, the beraita nevertheless specifies that this portion too was written by Moses, for the reason explained in the note .

And

Moses also wrote the book of

Job. Several explanations have been offered. Rashi here explains that the novelty is that Balaam’s prophecies “are not matters concerning Moses, his Torah, and the order of his deeds.” To prevent us from mistakenly thinking that Moses did not write this part of the Torah, the beraita states that he wrote this part as well. The Maharal [Hidushei Aggadot, second explanation] wrote similarly: “Do not say that although Moses our teacher wrote Balaam’s prophecy in the Torah, since it is Balaam’s prophecy it is not Torah. For what connection does Balaam’s prophecy have to the Torah, which is the prophecy of Moses our teacher? For this reason it says: ‘Moses wrote his book and the portion concerning Balaam.’ Just as his book is Torah, so too the portion of Balaam’s prophecy is Torah; they are all one.” The Shelah was perplexed by Rashi’s words and wrote: “I have not merited understanding the words of this holy teacher. Surely all the stories in the Torah, such as Cain’s killing of Abel and the like, are seemingly not necessary for the Torah or the order of Moses’ deeds. Yet they are all the complete Torah of the Lord, as they said: The verse ‘And Timna was a concubine’ is Torah, just like the verse ‘Hear, Israel.’” A similar difficulty was raised in the responsa of Mahari"l Diskin [end of the second section, writings]: How could one have initially thought that the portion concerning Balaam is not part of the Torah? After all, one who denigrates even a single letter of the Torah is called an apostate. Ritva [below, 15a] offered a novel explanation [and the Shelah alluded to his words in Torah Shebikhtav, at the beginning of the portion of Balak, in a gloss citing the book Tziyuni]. In addition to the portion concerning Balaam written in the Torah, there was another portion written by Moses in which he recorded the account of Balaam at length. This is what the beraita means when it says that Moses wrote the portion concerning Balaam; it does not refer to the portion concerning Balaam written in the Torah. See the Yad Ramah below, 15a [letter 195], whose version reads: “Moses wrote his book and the book of the portion concerning Balaam.” This wording indicates, in accordance with Ritva, that it was a separate book. See also the explanation of Mahari"l Diskin [cited in Avi Ezri, chapter 7 of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, halakha 6].

Joshua wrote his book,

the book of Joshua,

and

he also wrote

the last eight verses

at the end

of the Torah,

beginning with the verse “And Moses died,” as explained below: Moses himself could not have written the verse “And Moses died,” since he was still alive.

Samuel wrote his book,

the book of Samuel,

and

he also wrote the book of

Judges,

because the judges preceded Samuel, who was the last of the judges.

And

the Scroll of

Ruth,

which preceded him. He arose and wrote their books.

David wrote the book of Psalms.

However, part of the book was spoken

by ten elders,

who are listed below. They recited the psalms, and David wrote them down .

These are the ten elders through whom part of the book of Psalms was spoken -

By Adam, the first human being,

who recited Psalm 139, which says, “Your eyes saw my unformed substance.” Adam said this before the Almighty: When I was still an “unformed mass,” and my form was not yet complete, Your eyes saw me!

It also says there, “You placed Your palm upon me.” The Sages interpreted this [Sanhedrin 38b] to mean that Adam extended from the earth to the firmament, and the Almighty placed His hand upon him and reduced his height.

By Malki-Tzedek,

who recited Psalm 110, “A statement of the Lord to my master: Sit at My right hand.” Malki-Tzedek recited this psalm about Abraham.

And by Abraham,

who recited Psalm 89, “A Maskil of Eitan the Ezrahite.” Eitan the Ezrahite is Abraham, as explained below, 15a.

And by Moses,

who recited eleven psalms, from Psalm 90, “A prayer of Moses,” through Psalm 101, which King David recited.

And by Heman,

who recited Psalm 88, “A Maskil of Heman.”

And by Jeduthun,

who said Psalms 39, 62, and 77, in which it is stated, “For the leader, for Jeduthun'.

And by Asaph,

who is mentioned many times in Psalms.