Shabbat 55b — the Talmud in English

It was objected: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed is He: Master of the Universe, why did You decree death upon Adam, the first man?

He said to them: I commanded him a light mitzva—

not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge—

and he transgressed it!

They said to Him: But Moses and Aaron, who fulfilled the entire Torah, and

why did they

die?

The Holy One, blessed is He, said to them

in the language of the verse written in the Book of Ecclesiastes: “All are alike! For one occurrence

befalls

the righteous

and the wicked, the good

and the pure and the impure”! Since death was decreed upon man, everyone was included in this decree.

Thus, death was decreed even upon one who did not sin at all. And this is difficult for Rav Ami.

And we answer:

Rav Ami

is the one who said in accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Moses and Aaron, too—

because of their sin

that they committed at the waters of Meribah—

died. As it is stated, “And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron

,

Because you did not believe in Me

to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them.” They died before entering the Land.

And we must infer that the Holy One, blessed is He, said to them:

Had you indeed believed in Me,

and had you not sinned—

your time to depart from the world still would not have arrived!

It was objected: Four

people, throughout all the generations, were not deserving of death, and did not

die

except

because of

him,

the serpent,

who incited Eve with regard to the Tree of Knowledge, and through this death descended upon the world. They did not die because of their sin, since they never sinned .

And these are they:

Benjamin son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb son of David.

And all of them

we knew this

from the Gemara

[by tradition].

Except for Jesse the father of David, concerning whom the verse explicitly explains

that he never sinned.

As it is written: “And Absalom placed Amasa over the army instead of Joab. And Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Jether the Israelite, who had come to Abigail daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, the mother of Joab”.

And Zeruiah was David’s sister. It follows that Abigail, who was Zeruiah’s sister, was the daughter of Jesse, the father of David. Yet she is called “daughter of Nahash.”

And was she the daughter of Nahash? But she was the daughter of Jesse!—

for

the verse

is written concerning the sons of Jesse: “And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail”!?

Rather,

from here it follows that Jesse did not sin. And therefore they called his daughter “daughter of Nahash,” meaning:

the daughter of one who died

only

because of the serpent!

And we inquire concerning it: This beraita—

whose

is it?

If you say

it is that

tanna of whom

it was taught: “The

ministering angels

said: Why did You decree death, and so on.”

It is impossible to say this.

For according to that tanna, one can object:

But Moses and Aaron are also present,

who did not sin.

Rather, is it not that this beraita is according to

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Who said, “Moses and Aaron, too, died because of their sin.” And there are only those four who died without sin.

who said: “Even Moses and Aaron died because of their sin”? Thus, only those four died without sin.

And learn from it

that everyone agrees that

there is death without sin, and there is suffering without iniquity.

And this is difficult for Rav Ami.

And

we conclude:

The objection against Rav Ami is an objection!

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says

that

Reuben sinned

in the incident of Bilhah

is only mistaken.

For

it is stated: “And the sons of Jacob were twelve”.

This teaches that they were all equal to one another!

And this was written after the incident of Bilhah in order to remove from the hearts of those who err any suspicion of him.

Rather, how do I understand

the verse, “And Reuben went

and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine”?—

This teaches that he confused his father’s bed.

He removed Jacob’s bed from Bilhah’s tent and brought it into Leah’s tent.

And the verse regards him as though he had lain with her.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: That righteous man

—Reuben—

was saved

Reuben,

from that sin

which is understood from the plain meaning of the verse,

and this

—the event of intercourse with Bilhah—

did not occur

—the act of intercourse with Bilhah—

to him.

For—could it be

that his offspring

of Reuben

would stand on Mount Ebal and say, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife,” and this sin would come to him

of Reuben?!

Rather, how do I understand

[it is explained] the verse,

“And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine”?—

That

Reuben demanded the affront of his mother.

During Rachel’s lifetime, Jacob’s bed had been placed in Rachel’s tent. When she died, Jacob brought his bed into the tent of Bilhah, her maidservant.

And

Reuben

said: If Rachel, my mother’s sister, was a rival to my mother,

would Bilhah,

the maidservant of my mother’s sister, be

also

a rival to my mother?!

Reuben arose

and

confused his bed,

moving Jacob’s bed into his mother’s tent.

Others say: Reuben confused two beds

—

one of the Divine Presence and one of his father. And this is what is written: “Then you profaned my couch; he ascended”.

The Name that used to ascend upon Jacob’s couch [that is, the Divine Presence] departed from it through Reuben’s deed .

And they inferred this from the fact that it does not say, “Then you profaned my couch; you ascended,” but rather, “he ascended.” This indicates that it was said concerning the Divine Presence. For until the Tent of Meeting was built, the Divine Presence was found in the tents of the righteous.

And what we said, that Reuben did not sin,

is

a dispute between

tannaim

.

As it was taught in a beraita: It is written in Jacob’s blessing to Reuben,

“Impulsive as water, you shall not excel.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: “Impulsive” is an acronym of:

The word’s initial letter

is

“You were reckless”,

you were rash and hurried to sin.

Its second letter is

“You sinned”

—you committed a sin.

Its third letter is

“You disdained”,

you showed contempt.

Rabbi Joshua says: “Impulsive” is an acronym of

“You transgressed

You transgressed

[you violated]

the law, you sinned, you committed adultery.”

Rabban Gamaliel says: “You prayed”,

you prayed to be saved from sin,

“you entreated”

from the language of entreaty, as in “And Moses entreated,”

“your prayer shone forth”

and you were saved from sin.

Rabban Gamaliel said: We still need

Rabbi Eleazar the

Modiite

to explain this verse for us!

Rabbi Eleazar the Modiite says: Reverse the word and expound it

as its acronym from its end to its beginning:

“You trembled”

and feared sinning.

“You deterred yourself”

from sinning.

“Sin flew away from you.”

It follows that according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, Reuben sinned; and according to Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eleazar the Modiite, he sought to sin but did not sin.

Rava said, and some say

that it was said by

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: “Impulsive” is a reversed acronym of:

who said this: “Unstable” is an acronym reversed as follows:

“You remembered the punishment of the matter, afflicted yourself with great suffering”

to subdue your inclination,

“you withdrew from sinning” .

And now the Gemara explains that there are other people whom people think sinned, but in truth they did not sin, and the Gemara gives them the mnemonic:

Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah: mnemonic!

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says

that

the sons of Eli sinned

with the sin of adultery attributed to them

is only mistaken. As it is stated: “And the names of the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord”.

And he agrees

—Rabbi Yonatan—

with Rav. For Rav said: Phinehas did not sin,

as will be explained shortly.

And the verse compares

Hophni to

Phinehas. Just as Phinehas did not sin, so Hophni did not sin.

Rather, how do I understand

[it is explained] the verse, “And

that they lay with the women

who performed service at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”?

They would refuse to offer sacrifices and would offer them only with difficulty, as is written there. And when women who had given birth or discharged came to the Tabernacle at Shiloh to offer their nests, they would delay offering them. The women did not rely upon them to offer their nests and therefore remained there. And

because they delayed

the sons of Eli from offering

their nests,

they caused

the women not to go

to

their husbands,

until they saw their nests being offered . Therefore,

the verse regards them as though they had lain with them,

because they prevented them from being fruitful and multiplying.

However, although they did not sin with the sin of adultery, they did sin in the contempt of sacred things.

The substance of the matter: Rav said: Phinehas

son of Eli

did not sin

with adultery.

As it is stated: “And Ahijah son of Ahitub, brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas son of Eli, priest of the Lord

was wearing an ephod at Shiloh

and so on.”

But is it

possible that a sin

of adultery

came to him, and

he still

is attributed by the verse

for praise, and his grandson is attributed after him?!

But it has already been stated: “The Lord will cut off the man who does this, awake and answering, from the tents of Jacob, and one who brings an offering to the Lord of Hosts.”

And we expound:

If he is an Israelite

—the sinful man—

he will not have

a son

“awake”

[sharp in understanding and capable of giving instruction

among the Sages, nor

a son

“answering” among the students.

And if he is a priest

—the sinner—

he will not have a son who “brings an offering.”

And this verse speaks of one who has intercourse with a gentile woman or with a prostitute. Yet here it attributes Ahijah son of Ahitub, who was a priest who brought an offering, to Phinehas son of Eli.

Rather, is it not so? Learn from it: Phinehas did not sin.

And the verse, “that they lay with the women,” was said concerning Hophni alone. And Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yonatan, who said that neither of them sinned.

And we object:

Rather,

it is difficult, for

it is written

concerning them

“that they lay”,

in the plural, indicating that both of them sinned.

And we answer:

“He caused him to lie” is written,

with defective spelling, without the letter vav. And the verse was said concerning Hophni alone.

And we object again:

But it is written

in Eli’s rebuke to his sons,

“No, my sons, for the report that I hear is not good

—the people of the Lord are causing transgression

.” Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: “My son” is written.

Although the vocalization is “my sons,” in the plural, the written form can be understood as “my son,” in the singular.

And we object again:

But it is written “causing transgressions”,

in the plural, and it was said concerning both of them.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Joshua, said: “He causes him to transgress” is written!

[And Rashi did not have this version. For in the corrected books it is written, “causing transgressions”] .

And we object:

But “sons of worthlessness” is written

in the plural?

And the Gemara answers:

Since Phinehas should have protested against Hophni but did not protest, the verse regards him as though he had sinned.