Sanhedrin 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

And

rather:

what is meant by the statement that he gave her

six se’a

of barley? How can this be said?

Is it customary for a woman to take six se’a

and carry such a large and heavy burden?

Rather,

Boaz actually gave Ruth six barley grains. He did not give them to her as leket; rather,

he hinted to her

to Ruth

that six sons would descend from her, each of whom would be blessed with six blessings.

And these are they:

David, the Messiah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.

David:

from where do we know that he was blessed with six blessings?

As it is written,

when an evil spirit from the Lord rested upon Saul and he sought someone skilled at playing music:

“And one of the young men answered and said: Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who knows how to play, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, discerning in speech, a handsome man, and the Lord is with him, and so on.”

These are the six blessings: “who knows how to play,” “a mighty man of valor,” “a man of war,” “discerning in speech,” “a handsome man,” and “the Lord is with him.”

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Doeg did not say this entire verse

[for he was that “one of the young men”]

except as לשון הרע .

That is, he intended evil when he recounted David’s praises, so that Saul would become jealous of him and kill him.

This is the interpretation of the blessings:

“Who knows how to play” —

that he knows how to ask questions

[to inquire] .

“Mighty” —

that he knows how to answer .

“A man of war” —

that he knows how to engage in give-and-take in the war of Torah

[to debate in Talmudic study].

“Discerning in speech” —

that he understands one matter from another.

“A handsome man” —

that he presents a face in halakha

[that he brings proof for his words].

“And the Lord is with him” —

that the halakha is in accordance with him everywhere.

Regarding all of them,

in all the blessings,

Saul said to them,

to his servants: “Even

my son Jonathan is like him.” Once Doeg told him

the final blessing,

“And the Lord is with him,” this was something that he himself did not possess

[something that was not true of him] —

his spirits fell, and he became jealous of him

[Saul’s spirits fell, and he became jealous of David].

For regarding Saul it is written: “And wherever he turns he acts wickedly”

195, whereas regarding David it is written: “And wherever he turns he succeeds” .

The Gemara now analyzes Rav Yehuda’s statement, that Doeg had said this verse.

From where do we know that it was Doeg

[that the young man who said these words was Doeg]?

It is written here: “And one of the young men answered,”

which indicates

the distinguished one among the young men. And it is written there: “And there was a man among the servants of Saul on that day, detained before the Lord

[to study a great deal of Torah],

and his name was Doeg the Edomite, chief of the shepherds who belonged to Saul.”

From the designation by which Scripture calls him “chief of the shepherds,” it follows that he was the distinguished one among the young men.

The Messiah —

from where do we know that he was blessed with six blessings?

As it is written: “And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,”

and what spirit is this?

“The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord, and so on.”

These are the six blessings: wisdom, understanding, counsel, might, knowledge, and fear of the Lord.

It is further written concerning the Messiah:

“And he shall be imbued with the fear of the Lord”

. Rabbi Alexandri said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, loaded him with

mitzvot and

suffering

like millstones

[“he shall be imbued,” from a term related to millstones].

Rava said: He smells —

and judges

[he smells, and judges on the basis of the smell; that is, by smell alone he can determine between litigants who is liable and who is innocent ].

And from where do we know this?

As it is written: “He shall not judge by the sight of his eyes

and he shall not decide by the hearing of his ears”; nevertheless, although he does not judge by the sight of his eyes or decide by the hearing of his ears,

“He shall judge the poor with righteousness and decide with equity for the humble of the earth.”

This is through smelling .

Bar Koziva,

who was among the kings of the house of Herod,

reigned for two and a half years

[he reigned for two and a half years].

He said to the Sages: I am the Messiah .

They said to him: It is written concerning the Messiah that he smells and judges

[it is written that the Messiah smells and judges];

let us see whether he smells and judges

[let us see whether Bar Koziva smells and judges] .

Once they saw him

[once they saw]

that he did not smell and judge —

they killed him

[they killed him].

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:

from where do we know that they were blessed with six blessings?

For it is written concerning them: “In whom there was no blemish, who were of handsome appearance, skillful in all wisdom, knowledgeable in understanding, discerning in knowledge, and who had the strength to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the book and language of the Chaldeans.”

These are the six blessings: “in whom there was no blemish,” “of handsome appearance,” “skillful in all wisdom,” “knowledgeable in understanding,” “discerning in knowledge,” and “who had the strength,” and so on.

What is the meaning of “in whom there was no blemish”?

Rabbi Hama, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Even a mark like that left by a cupping instrument

[like the puncture made by the craftsman’s instrument used for bloodletting]

was not found in them

[was not found in them], for they had no need for bloodletting .

What is the meaning of “who had the strength to stand in the king’s palace”?

Rabbi Hama, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: This teaches that they forced themselves to refrain from laughter and from conversation

[so that they would not speak frivolously and disgrace themselves before the king],

and from sleep.

[That is, they compelled themselves neither to laugh, converse, nor sleep.]

And

they also

restrained themselves when they needed to relieve themselves.

All this

was because of fear of the government.

It is written concerning the men brought to Nebuchadnezzar to serve him:

“And among them were, from the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.”

Rabbi Elazar said: All of them were from the children of Judah.

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said:

only

Daniel was from the children of Judah.

But

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah —

were from the other tribes

.

It is written that Isaiah said to Hezekiah in prophecy:

“And of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, they shall take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

These were Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who served the king of Babylon.

What is the meaning of “eunuchs”?

Rav said: They were actual eunuchs

[they could not father children] and this means that when Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were brought to serve King Nebuchadnezzar, they castrated them. For this was the practice of kings: to castrate those who served them, so that they would not marry women and would remain available for the king’s service .

And Rabbi Hanina said: It means that idolatry was rendered impotent

in their days.

For when the king of Babylon cast them into the furnace and they were saved, everyone learned that there was no substance to idolatry.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says that idolatry was rendered impotent in their days, this is the meaning of what is written

concerning Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah as they walked within the fiery furnace, when Nebuchadnezzar said: “Behold, I see four men, unbound, walking in the midst of the fire,

and no injury is in them”

[and there is no injury in them].

But according to the one who says

that they were

actual eunuchs, what is the meaning of “and no injury is in them”?

They did have a serious physical defect, since they had been castrated!

The Gemara answers: When Nebuchadnezzar said that there was no injury in them, he meant

an injury from the fire

[a burn]. He was astonished that they had not only failed to burn and die, but did not even have a burn upon them. They may, however, have had another injury; Nebuchadnezzar was not speaking of that.

The Gemara raises another difficulty: How can it be explained that the statement that there was no injury in them refers to an injury from fire?

But it is already written

that

“the smell of fire did not pass upon them”

[and the smell of fire did not enter them]. If so, it is certainly unnecessary to say that they had no burn!

Rather, it must be that “and no injury is in them” means that they had no other injury at all.

The Gemara answers: The verse means that they had

neither an injury

from the fire

nor a smell

from the fire.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says that idolatry was rendered impotent in their days, this is the meaning of what is written: “So says the Lord to the eunuchs who keep My Shabbatot, and so on:

I will give them in My House and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.” According to this view, the term “eunuchs” is praise: idolatry was rendered impotent in their days.

But according to the one who says that they were actual eunuchs,

why did Scripture mention that they were eunuchs?

Does Scripture speak of the disgrace of the righteous

[does Scripture speak of the disgrace of the righteous]? The Gemara answers:

Both were true of them.

That is, the term “eunuchs” had both meanings in their case: idolatry was rendered impotent in their days, and they were actual eunuchs .

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says

that they were

actual eunuchs, this is the meaning of what is written:

“I will give them

in My House and within My walls a monument and a name

better than sons and daughters.”

Since they had no children, the Holy One, blessed be He, promised to give them another name.

But according to the one who says that idolatry was rendered impotent in their days,

and that they were not actual eunuchs,

what is the meaning of “better than sons and daughters”?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

They were indeed not eunuchs, and they fathered children. But the children born to them did not survive. The promise that the Holy One, blessed be He, would give them a monument and a name “better than sons and daughters” means:

better than the sons they had already had —

and who died.

What is

the meaning of the continuation of that verse:

“I will give him an everlasting name that shall not be cut off”?

Why is it written in the singular, when Scripture initially spoke in the plural: “to the eunuchs”?

Rabbi Tanḥum said: Bar Kappara taught in Tzippori:

That everlasting name

is the Book of Daniel, which was named after him

Daniel.

Now, since the Book of Daniel was mentioned, the Gemara asks about the Book of Ezra.

Since all the matters of the Book of

the

Book of Ezra —

Nehemiah son of Hacaliah said them

[most of the words of the Book of Ezra were said by Nehemiah] —

why was the book not called by the name of Nehemiah son of Hacaliah

[why was his book not called by his name]?

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Because Nehemiah claimed

Nehemiah

credit for himself. As it is stated

in the Book of Nehemiah:

“Remember me, my God, for good” .

The Gemara objects: But

David also said

similar words in the Book of Psalms:

“Remember me, Lord, with the favor You show Your people; visit me with Your salvation,”

so it must be that this wording does not constitute claiming credit!

The Gemara explains: What

David

said

was a request for mercy [he requested mercy] , asking that the Lord remember him. Nehemiah, however, claimed credit for himself, asking that the Holy One, blessed be He, remember his deeds favorably.

Rav Yosef said:

Indeed, the expression “Remember me, my God, for good” does not constitute taking credit for a favor for oneself, as even David used this expression.

And the reason that the Book of Ezra was not named after Nehemiah is

because he recounted the disgrace of the earlier ones

as it is stated: “But the earlier governors who preceded me placed a heavy burden upon the people, and took from them, in addition to forty silver shekels, bread and wine, and so on.”

And he also recounted the disgrace of Daniel, who was greater than he,

as he did not exclude him from the group of the earlier ones whose disgrace he recounted .

And from where do we know that

Daniel

was greater than him?

As it is written

in the Book of Daniel, concerning a prophetic vision that was revealed to him:

“And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, while the men who were with me did not see the vision; nevertheless, a great trembling fell upon them,

and they fled into hiding.”

“And the men who were with me did not see the vision.” And who were they

[and who were] those

men?

Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: This refers to Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi,

who were with him.

Since he saw and they did not see, it follows that he was greater than they.

And if so, since Daniel was greater than Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were prophets, all the more so he was greater than Nehemiah, who was not a prophet .

And apropos of the mention of this verse, the Gemara continues to discuss this matter: