Shabbat 55b (נה:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises an objection: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the universe, why did You impose death upon Adam, the first man?

He said to them: I commanded him a minor 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 be He, said to them

in the language of the verse in Ecclesiastes: “All share the same fate; one fate befalls the righteous and the wicked, the good

and one fate

befalls

the righteous and the wicked, the good

and the pure and the impure.” Once death had been decreed upon man, everyone was included in this decree.

Thus, death was decreed even upon one who had not sinned at all. This is difficult for Rav Ami.

And we answer:

Rav Ami

is the one who stated his opinion in accordance with this tanna:

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

died because of their sin

which they committed at the Waters of Meribah—

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 may infer that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to them:

Had you believed in Me,

and had you not sinned,

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

The Gemara raises an objection: Four

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

died

only

because of

the serpent,

because of the serpent

who seduced Eve regarding 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 Chileab son of David.

And regarding all of them

we know this

from the Gemara

[by tradition],

except for Jesse the father of David, concerning whom the verse explicitly states

that he never sinned.

As it is written: “And Absalom placed Amasa over the army in place of Joab. And Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, who came to Abigail daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, mother of Joab

”. 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.”

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

as

it

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

”! Rather,

from here it is evident that Jesse did not sin. Therefore his daughter was called “daughter of Nahash,” meaning:

the daughter of one who died

only

because of the serpent!

And we inquire concerning this beraita:

whose

is it?

If you say

that it belongs to the same

tanna who

taught: “The

ministering angels

said: Why did You impose death, and so on,”

it is impossible to say this.

For according to that tanna, one must ask:

But there are also Moses and Aaron

who did not sin.

Rather, is it not that this beraita is according to

the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? He said: “Moses and Aaron too died because of their sin.” Thus, 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 this

that everyone agrees that

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

This is difficult for Rav Ami.

And

we conclude:

The refutation of Rav Ami is a conclusive refutation!

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

that

Reuben sinned

in the incident involving Bilhah

is nothing but mistaken.

For

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

”. This teaches that they were all equal to one another!

This was written after the incident involving Bilhah in order to remove the matter from the minds of those who err, so that they would not suspect him.

Rather, how do I understand

the verse: “And Reuben went

and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine

”? It teaches that he disturbed his father’s couch.

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

And Scripture regards it as though he had lain with her.

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

and was innocent

from that sin

Reuben

from that sin

that is implied by the plain meaning of the verse,

and this

did not occur

to him

the act of lying with Bilhah

at all.

For could it possibly be that

the descendants of Reuben

Reuben’s

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

Reuben?!

Rather, how do I understand

[the verse is interpreted]

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

That

Reuben demanded redress for his mother’s humiliation.

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,

should Bilhah,

my mother’s sister’s maidservant,

also

be a rival to my mother?!

Reuben arose

and

disturbed his father’s couch,

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

Others say: Reuben disturbed two couches

—Reuben’s

one belonging to the Divine Presence and one belonging to his father. And this is what is written: “Then you profaned my couch; He has gone up

”. The Name that would ascend upon Jacob’s couch [that is, the Divine Presence] departed from it because of Reuben’s action .

And they inferred this from the fact that the verse does not say, “Then you profaned my couch; you went up,” but rather, “He has gone up.” This indicates that it refers to the Divine Presence. Before 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

matter of dispute among the

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 acrostic for:

P—

You were impetuous,

you were hasty and rushed to sin.

Ḥ—

You sinned,

you committed a sin.

Z—

You showed contempt,

you treated the matter lightly.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: “Impulsive” is an acrostic for

one who

transgressed

[violated]

the law, sinned, and committed adultery.

Rabban Gamliel says: You prayed,

you prayed to be saved from sin;

you pleaded

in the sense of supplication, as in “And Moses pleaded,”

your prayer rose

and you were saved from sin.

Rabban Gamliel said: We still need

Rabbi Elazar

of Modi’in

to interpret this verse for us!

Rabbi Elazar of Modi’in says: Reverse the word and interpret it

as an acrostic from its end to its beginning:

You trembled

and feared sinning.

You restrained yourself

from sinning.

Sin fled from you.

It follows that, according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, Reuben sinned, whereas according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar of Modi’in, he sought to sin but did not sin.

Rava said, and some say

that it was

Rav Yirmeya bar Abba who said this: “Impulsive” is a reversed acrostic for:

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

You remembered the punishment for the matter and afflicted yourself with great suffering

to subdue your inclination;

you withdrew from sinning .

The Gemara now explains that there are additional people whom some believe sinned, although in truth they did not sin, and the Gemara provides a mnemonic for them:

Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah—a 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 nothing but mistaken. As it is stated: “And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the Lord

”.

And

he, Rabbi Yonatan, holds in accordance with Rav. For Rav said: Phinehas did not sin,

as will be explained shortly.

And the verse juxtaposes

Hophni with Phinehas.

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

Rather, how do I understand

[how do I interpret] the verse: “And the acts of

lying with the women

who served at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”?

They would delay bringing the offerings, and would bring them only with difficulty, as it is written there. When women who had given birth or had experienced a discharge came to the Tabernacle at Shiloh to offer their bird offerings, they would delay bringing them. The women did not rely on them to offer their bird offerings, and therefore remained there.

And because they delayed

the sons of Eli from offering

their bird offerings,

they caused

the women not to go

the women

to their husbands,

until they saw their bird offerings being sacrificed . Therefore,

Scripture regards it as though they had lain with them, since they prevented them from engaging in procreation.

because they prevented them from engaging in procreation.

Nevertheless, although they did not sin with adultery, they did sin by showing contempt for consecrated property.

The essential 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

who bore the ephod at Shiloh

and so on

”. Could

it be possible that the sin

of adultery

came to him, and

still

the verse praises him

by tracing his grandson through him?!

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

”.

And we interpret it:

If he is an Israelite

the sinful man,

he will not have

a son who is “awake”

[sharp-minded in understanding and teaching

among the Sages, nor

a son who is

“answering” among the disciples.

And if he is a koen

the sinner,

he will not have a son who “presents an offering

”. This verse speaks of one who has relations with a gentile woman or with a prostitute. Here, however, it traces Ahijah son of Ahitub, who was a koen who presented offerings, to Phinehas son of Eli.

Rather, learn from this that Phinehas did not sin.

The verse “who lay with the women” was stated only concerning Hophni. Rav disagrees with Rabbi Yonatan, who said that neither of them sinned.

And we ask:

But

it is difficult, for

it is written

concerning them

“who lay”

, in the plural, indicating that both of them sinned.

And we answer:

“They lay” is written

with a defective spelling, without the letter vav. The verse was stated concerning Hophni alone.

And we ask again:

But it is written

in Eli’s rebuke to his sons:

“No, my sons, for it is not a good report that I hear, the people of the Lord are passing over

[the boundary].”

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

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

And we ask again:

But it is written “passing over

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

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: “He causes them to pass over” is written!

[Rashi did not have this version, since the corrected manuscripts read: “causing.”]

And Rashi wrote: The name of the sage mentioned here is difficult in my eyes, for I say that it is a major error. The meaning of the verse “passing over” is: “The report that I hear is not good: the people of the Lord are passing over [the boundary] upon you.” Thus, “passing over” refers to the report that the people of the Lord are spreading, and not to the language of transgression by the sons of Eli. The Maharsha wondered why Rashi found the name of that sage difficult. He explained that Rashi’s version reads “Rava, son of Rabbi Yehoshua,” but no such name is found in the Talmud. However, the Maharshal reads in Rashi “Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua,” and the Maharam explained that if no name had been mentioned, one could say that it was a gloss added to the Gemara; but since a name is mentioned, it is difficult to say so. This is also how it was explained in the responsa of Hakham Tzvi [section 33]. And we ask:

But it is written “sons of Belial”

in the plural?

And the Gemara answers:

Since Phinehas should have protested to Hophni but did not protest, Scripture regards it as though he had sinned.