Of Clowns, Giants, Mules, and Centaurs:

The Enigmatic Anah

By Yecheskel Sklar

Yecheskel Sklar, a student of Beth Medrash Govoha in Lakewood NJ, is the author of various essays and kuntreisim. His most recent work – an overview of a debate in Amsterdam between Rabbis Sasportas and Morteira about false witnesses – can be purchased on Amazon.

The verse tells us that Anah is he (or she[1]) who found הימם in the desert while herding the donkeys of his father[2]. What exactly are הימם? What exactly did Anah do regarding them? There are many views on this matter and the following is my attempt to present them.

I. MULES

Perhaps the most well-known interpretation is that הימם refers to mules. In the Talmud it states:

“Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, Mules {came into existence} in the days of Anah, as it says, He is Anah who found הימם in the desert…Anah was unfit, therefore he brought unfitness into the world”[3], “Said Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, Why are they called ימים, for their fear is placed on mankind, for Rabbi Chanina said, No one has ever asked me about the wound inflicted by a white mule…that was healed”[4].

According to this explanation, it would seem that “found” means ‘invented’ or ‘discovered’[5]. Some commentators point out that while Rashi seems to say that Isaac had mules[6], this is not necessarily a contradiction, since it is possible that mules existed before Anah, but only came into being naturally. According to this hypothesis, what Anah discovered was not the mule itself. Rather, Anah discovered the science of crossbreeding animals.[7] For that time the ability to recognize that the two species could crossbreed was considered a mark of great wisdom.[8] Alternatively, it is possible that until Anah mule breeding was exclusive to royalty. Anah introduced the technique to the general populace[9]

This would seem quite straightforward. However, in the Jerusalem Talmud we find an argument about the meaning of this word:

“What are הימם, R’ Yehuda ben Simon says המיונס, and the Rabbis say [10]המיסו, half horse and half donkey. And these are its signs, Rabbi Yehuda says, If it has small ears its mother is a horse and its father a donkey, If they are big its mother is a donkey and its father a horse…What did Tzivon and Anah do, They brought a female donkey and they mated a male horse with it, and a mule came from that.”[11]

What is המיונס and המיסו and what is the difference between them? This difficulty is compounded by the Sefer Mosef Ha’Aruch. In the entry for המיונס he writes “R’ Yehuda Ben Simon says המיונס; The explanation in the Greek language is mule”. The Aruch is referring to the Ancient Greek word for mule, ἡμῐ́ονος, a compound of ἡμῐ, which means half, and ὄνος, meaning donkey[12]. The phonetic pronunciation of this compound would be hēmíonos. In the entry on המיסו, The Mosef Aruch states: ”And the Rabbis say המיסו, half horse and half donkey; The explanation in the Greek language is half”. This is the word ἥμισυ in ancient Greek, which means half[13], and would be pronounced hḗmisu. It is clear, then, that both המיונס and המיסו refer to mules. What, then, is the difference between the two?

This difficulty has already been raised by Rabbi Marcus Lehman. Rabbi Lehman posits that המיונס refers to a mule whose father is a donkey and whose mother is a horse, known in German as Maultier. המיסו however, refers to the adverse, i.e. the product of a male horse and a female donkey. In German this is called a Maulesel. According to this explanation, the Jerusalem Talmud’s statement regarding Tzivon and Anah, “They brought a female donkey and they mated a male horse with it”, is only according to the Rabbis, as Rabbi Lehman readily points out[14].

In fact, in English too there are different names for the two. While a mule born of a male donkey is known simply as a mule, one with a horse for a father is called a hinny. According to this explanation it would be quite understandable why the JT proceeds to describe the method of determining which is which.

However, the etymology is problematic. Rabbi Lehman says that anyone who knows Ancient Greek would recognize the difference between the two. Yet, according to the Aruch and modern dictionaries, as stated above, while המיונס means half-donkey, המיסו means half. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, of המיסו meaning hinny. In fact, the very word hinny comes from the Greek word ‘hinnos’ which means little mule, thus suggesting that there was no word for a hinny in Ancient Greek, and both versions of mules were called by the general ‘hēmíonos’. How, then, does המיסו refer to a hinny? A colleague of mine, Rafael Vim, suggested that because mules in general are more donkey-like, they could be called half-donkey. However, hinnies are not horse-like enough to be called half-horse. Therefore, to reference them one would just say ‘half’.

Alternatively, the argument between Rabbi Yehuda ben Simon and the Rabbis could be along the lines of the argument of Rabbi Yehudah and Chananya in the Babylonian Talmud:

“Rabbi Yehuda says: Those {mules} born from a horse, even though their father is a donkey, are permitted to {be mated with} each other. But those born from a {female} donkey, are forbidden {to be mated} with those born from a {female} horse. Says Rabbi Yehuda says Shmuel: These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda who says that the seed of the father is not taken into consideration. However, the Rabbis say: All types of mules are one. Who are the Rabbis? Chananya, who says we do take the father’s seed into consideration, and whether it is the son of a {female} horse and a {male} donkey, or the son of a {female} donkey and a {male} horse, they are all one species”. [15]

It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda ben Simon says המיונס because he was of the opinion that we consider only what type of animal the mother was to ascertain what legal status this animal has. Hence, ‘Half-donkey’. The Rabbis, however, were of one opinion with Chananya, namely that all mules are the same. Therefore, they could all be called just ‘half’.[16] What is gained by this interpretation, aside from a Halachic difference, is that the statement of the Jerusalem Talmud, “They brought a female donkey and they mated a male horse with it”, could have been said in accordance with the views of both Rabbi Yehuda ben Simon and the Rabbis[17]. In fact, it could be suggested that because of this Midrashic tradition, namely that Anah’s mule was a hinny, Rabbi Yehuda ben Simon says half-donkey, for only the mother is taken into account.

I would like to suggest another possible explanation. Many commentators explain המיסו to be a Hebrew word meaning half[18]. This is based on the Mishna that says that pomegranates are required to be tithed משימסו. The Jerusalem Talmud explains what משימסו means, “When half is ripened. Rabbi Yonah asked: Maybe you heard this from the Haggadic Rabbis, {who explain the verse[19]} אחינו המסו את לבבנו, {to mean} Split our hearts[20].”

If we accept this premise, perhaps we can explain that all the sages agree that הימם are mules. The dispute revolves around the root of the word. Rabbi Yehuda ben Simon believed that הימם is derived from the Greek word המיונס, to which the Rabbis responded that the word is simply a Hebraic word meaning half, i.e. half-horse half-donkey[21].

As previously stated, (though not explained), the Babylonian Talmud circumvents the whole issue by stating that the word is derived from the Hebrew word אימה, meaning fear, so called because of the severity of mule inflicted wounds.

However, that the word הימם refers to mules is far from universally agreed upon. As Ramban already points out, this is only the view of some of the Talmudic sages. He is referring to the fact that in the aforementioned Talmud, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that Anah created mules, is arguing with Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that God put the thought of creating mules in Adam’s mind, and Adam bred them. According to Rabbi Yose, then, mules were already being created well before the time of Anah.

II. Giants

Another explanation of the meaning of הימם is based on the somewhat cryptic translation of the Targum Unkelos. There, הימם is translated as גבוריא, strong ones. The Ramban explains that Unkelos is connecting הימם with the nation called אמים, a nation of giants referred to in the Torah. According to this hypothesis, מצא would either mean that the אמים were attempting to steal Tzivon’s donkeys and Anah was saved from them[22], or that they found him and he was saved. He was thereafter known by this act of great strength.

The אמים are mentioned a few times in the Torah. The Ramban refers to the verse that states, “The אמים had previously lived there, a big and populous nation, and as strong as giants. The רפאים were considered like giants, and the Moabites called them אמים”[23]. They were so called because their fear is placed on mankind.[24] This explanation is lent credence by the fact that the Zohar suggests this is a possible explanation of our verse, before rejecting it because the words are spelled differently.[25]

Some point out that Unkelos there renders אמים as אימתני and not גבוריא. If the Ramban is interpreting Unkelos correctly, why then does Unkelos not interpret ימים to be אימתני? I believe the answer to this question can be found in the commentary to a different verse. In Genesis it states:

“And in the fourteenth year K’darlaomer came, and the kings that were with him, and they struck the רפאים in Ashteros Karnayim, and the זוזים in Ham, and the אמים in Shaveh Kiryasayim”[27].

Rashi writes “The זוזים: They are the זמזומים”. Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi explains that because רפאים, אמים, and זמזומים are three names for the same people, therefore Rashi infers that the זוזים are in fact זמזומים. The Yefe Toer, however, says that this can’t be. If they are all the same, why were they all in different places? Therefore, he says, it is clear that the אמים were a nation in their own right, and later the רפאים were called אמים after them, because of the fear that they too inspired. In other words, while there was a nation called אמים, it was also a word used to describe any people who inspired fear. Therefore, where the verse is referring to the naming process, “and the Moabites called them אמים”, it is appropriate to translate אימתני, namely those that inspire fear. However, when the verse refers to a group of nondescript ימים that were encountered, the correct translation is, in fact, strong ones or giants. For that is the name used to connote giants.

Now, let us move on to the nature of these giants. The Midrash says that they have seven names, and that among those are אמים and נפילים.[28] If so, it seems that we should investigate the Nephilim to discover the true nature of the אמים. The verse states:

“The Nephilim were in the land in those days, and even after, they which the sons of אלהים came onto the daughters of man, they are the strong men, who were always renowned people”.[29]

The identities of both the “sons of אלהים” and the “daughters of man” is a subject of some debate. Some suggest that it refers to the children of Seth, who were of a more refined nature, marrying the wild and murderous daughters of Cain.[30] Alternatively, the sons of the judges, who should have been the most civilized, instead abused their power to forcefully take women.[31] Finally, perhaps the most well-known explanation is that fallen angels took human women.[32] Regardless of the identity of their parents, it seems to be agreed upon that their children were giants.[33]

The Midrash describes these giants:

“Anyone who saw them, his heart melted like wax, Mentromin[34] and Magisters of war, the skull of one of them was measured to be eighteen cubits”. [35]

When the spies saw these giants when they went to scout the Land of Milk and Honey, they reported, “And we were like locusts in our eyes, and so we were in their eyes”.[36] Rashi, quoting the Talmud[37], writes that they overheard the giants, referring to the spies, commenting that ants were seen roaming through the fields.[38]

Giants are in fact mentioned numerous times in the Scriptures. From Og, the king of Bashan, who famously survived the Deluge by holding onto the Ark for dear life, and was fed by Noah through a window, to the still more famous Goliath, felled by the puny slingshot of a young shepherd named David, giants play a large role in many of the stories related in the Bible. This, then, at least according to the Targum, is another to be added to the list, the great donkey herder Anah rescuing his or her father’s donkeys from the wanton violence of these giants.

III. Clowns, Centaurs, and Other Mysterious Creatures

The final explanation to be dealt with at length here also centers around the Jerusalem Talmud and the mysterious word המיונס. The commentary on Bereishes Rabba attributed to Rashi[39] explains this word to mean “A species of wild animal”. His words are quoted by many other commentators[40]. However, what animal it is referring to seems to be a mystery.

One of the preeminent commentators on the JT, however, can shed some light on this. He writes, “I found in the Midrash Divrei Hayamim, types of people who are of an odd shape”[41]. The Midrash Divrei Hayamim, commonly known as Sefer Hayashar[42], records the following story:

“And it happened when {Anah} was herding the donkeys of his father, and he brought them into the desert, as he had many other times, to pasture. And it was on this day, and he brought them into one desert on the shore of the Red Sea, opposite the desert of the nations. And he was herding them thelre and behold! An exceedingly strong whirlwind came from across the sea, and it rested on the donkeys herding there, and they all stood. Afterwards, there came from across the sea, from the desert, around one-hundred and twenty big and awesome beasts, and they all came to the place of the donkeys and stood there. And these beasts; their lower half was like the shape of a person, and their upper half; some resembled bears, and some resembled monkeys[43]. And they had tails behind them, from between their shoulders, and which reached down to the ground, like the tail of a Duchifas[44]. And these beasts came, and they mounted and rode those donkeys, and led all of them, and they all went away until this day. And one of these beasts approached Anah, hit him with his tail, and chased him away from that place. And he saw this story and he was exceedingly scared for his soul, and he ran, and he sprinted, and he dashed to Seir. And he told his father and brothers all that happened, and many men went to search for the donkeys, and they were not found. And Anah and his brothers did not go to that place anymore, from that day onwards, for they were exceedingly scared for their souls.”[45]

Similarly, the Gaon of Vilna, writes in his glosses, “המיונס, Explanation: Half-human, half-horse”[46].

It seems to be that there is some evidence that המיונס refers to a hybrid human. While the beasts described in Sefer Hayashar have almost no parallels, half-human half-horses are one of the most popular creatures in mythology. Known in English as centaurs, from the Greek Centauros, the stories about them are manifold.

References to half-humans in Jewish sources, however, are few and far in between. Perhaps sirens, (better known as mermaids), are the most spoken about. From the Talmud’s reference[47] to הדלפונין or בני ימא, who procreate either like people[48], or with people[49], explained by Rashi to be “Fish in the sea that half of them are in the shape of a person, and half in the shape of a fish[50], And in French Seirene”; to the Toras Kohanim[51] which includes סירונית in the prohibition of eating non-kosher sea animals[52], on which the Raav’ad comments “In French it is called Seirene, and its top half is like the shape of a woman, and it sings like a person”; to the story in the Mosef Aruch about the King of Denmark and Norway almost seeing a siren[53]; all the way to the siren using its unnaturally long[54] hands to open the locked doors of the Egyptians during the plague of wild animals[55], sirens are well documented in Jewish sources.

Other half-human hybrids, however are almost nonexistent. The earliest supposed reference to centaurs is in Genesis Rabbah. [56] It states,

“They asked before Abba Kohein Bardela; Adam, Shes, Enosh, and {than} silence?[57] He said to them: until then they were in the form and image {of God}, from then on , קנטרין

[58]

The Mosef Aruch explains:

“The explanation in Greek and Latin: a type of uncultured people, and the poets invented that from their half up they were people, from their half down horses, to hint that they were as horse, as mule, without understanding”.[59]

However, every other commentator[60] explains קנטרין to mean contrary, that is, in reverse of the form of God. In fact, the continuation of the Midrash would make very little sense if it was actually referring to centaurs, for the Midrash continues:

“Four things changed in the days of Enosh: The mountains became hard, the dead began to rot, their faces became like monkeys, and they became profane for demons”.

If centaurs are being referred to, it should mention the fact that their feet became horse-like. It seems that even the Mosef Aruch sensed this difficulty, which is why he explains the horse-like feature to be an invention of the poets. The Midrash then is only referring to the fact that the later generations weren’t fully cultured in comparison to their predecessors. Instead they were wild and not in the form of God. (This is aside from the obvious difficulty with suggesting that all the post-enoshian generations were centaurs).

I have found two other references to centaurs in Jewish sources. One is in reference to the Dor Haflaga, the Generation of Dispersion, when people decided to build a tower to ascend to the heavens and rebel against God. God responded by changing the people of the world’s language so that they could not cooperate with each other.[61] This is the Biblical story. The Talmud[62] adds a few details: There were three groups of people. There were those who wanted to go up to the sky and live there.[63] They were dispersed. Another group who wanted to go up and worship idols, were punished by having their languages changed. The final group, who wished to ascend to the heavens to wage war on God, were changed into monkeys, spirits, demons, and Liliths.[64] Other sources add that in addition to above, they were also changed to elephants.[65]

In Shalsheles HaKabbalah[66], this theme is expanded on. In his telling, God also changed many of them into other weird creatures. “They say that after the splitting of the languages, God created strange creatures”. He proceeds to list many creatures. One of those listed are: “In Sitea there is a species which has the form of a person, and their legs are similar to a horse, and they are called centaurs”.[67]

The other source, while not strictly Jewish, is the famed letter of that fabled Christian king, Prester John, ostensibly written to the Emperor of Rome and the King of France. It only deserves mention here because it was printed and reprinted many times in Hebrew due to the mention of the Ten Lost Tribes and their fantastical way of living.[68] There too, among unicorns and other mythological creatures it mentions,

“We have in our country bowmen who from the waist up are men, but whose lower part is that of a horse. They carry in their hands bows and arrows, and they can pull harder than any human being, and they live on raw flesh. Some of our courtiers capture them and keep them chained and people come to see this great marvel.”[69]

How does המיונס refer to centaurs or other wild beasts? While it can be argued that this was simply a name for such creatures that was since lost, the Pnei Moshe suggests a different explanation. He refers to the Midrash[70] which talks about the מיומס which is brought into the theaters. He explains that a מיומס is a person who can change his shape, a shapeshifter, and that this word was borrowed here for people who are, in essence, differently shaped.

The word מיומס, in fact, is derived from the Greek word μῖμος, which in turn is the root of the English word Mime. As the Mosef Aruch explains[71], “The explanation in Greek and Roman is: a comedian who acts like another, and at times puts a mask on his face”. According to this explanation we can suggest that perhaps הימם were mimes, and Anah was the first to put the practice of making shows which featured the performances of mimes and clowns. In effect, Anah was the world’s first ringmaster.

Other commentators on the actual verse also suggest that הימם are certain wild animals. Rabbi Meyuchas writes, “And הימם, Species of wild animals, and there is no similar word in Scripture, and according to the Targum[72] they are strong animals, as in ‘יקראו להם אמים’. He seems to believe that הימם is the name of a type of wild animal, and then quotes the Targum who argues that the word is derived from אמים. Others[75], however, while also saying that they were wild animals, suggest that the word is derived from אימה, fear.[76] They are so called because they frighten people. Rabbi Nathan Adler, basing himself on this interpretation, suggests that הימם are gorillas, and they are so called because they scare people and are confused with giants[77].

IV: Other Possibilities

There are other explanations for the word הימם.

The Zohar says that הימם refers to the demonic offspring of Cain, who were created between the sixth and seventh day of creation. Only someone as wicked as Anah had the ability to see them[78].

Some suggest that הימם refers to plants. Ibn Ezra emphatically rejects this view, because the donkeys are then superfluous.

The consensus of the non-Jewish Bible scholars is that הימם refers to hot springs, which seems to be built on a non-traditional vowelization of the word. This view is not accepted by any Jewish scholars.[79]

הימם is transliterated in the Septuagint, suggesting that either it was understood to be a proper noun, or that the translation was unknown. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, in his German translation, follows the lead of the Septuagint, and does not deign to translate it.

We can suggest that perhaps הימם is referring to the person named הימם whom the Torah mentions a few verses prior. This הימם was a close relative of Anah. Maybe he was lost for some time and Anah found him roaming the desert. The fact that this possibility is not mentioned by any earlier authority, is most probably because they are vowelized differently. However, this does not seem to me to be an insurmountable difficulty, given that the spelling of people’s names often changes throughout Scriptures.

NOTES

[1] Tosfos Bava Basra 115b S.v. Melamed, “And It seemed to Rabbenu Tam that Anah was a woman, as the verses indicate, for it is written, (Genesis 36,14) ‘And these were the sons of Oholivama daughter of Anah daughter of Tzivon’…And that which it states, ‘He is Anah’ in masculine form, that is because she inherited with her brother Tzivon like a male”. Rashi, however, says that Anah was a man and that Oholivama was the daughter of Tzivon and his daughter-in-law who was Anah’s wife, and therefore she is called both the daughter of Tzivon and Anah. (Genesis 36,2. Quoted by the aforementioned Tosfos).

[2] Genesis 36, 24

[3] Pesachim 54b

[4] Chullin 7b, both brought by Rashi Genesis, ad loc.

[5] Ibn Ezra, ad loc. Cf. Pseudo-Jonathan in which it seems that he mated the animals without a specific purpose, and only later did he find mules being born. According to that interpretation “found” can be understood in its traditional sense.

[6] Genesis 26,13

[7] Chizkuni, Bartenoro on Genesis 36, 24

[8] Ramban, ad loc.

[9] Rabbenu Efraim, Genesis 26,13

[10] This is the version of the Aruch and in the Midrash Rabba and seems to be correct. However, in most editions of the JT, we find היימים.

[11] Jerusalem Talmud Brachos 8,4. Bereishes Rabba 83

[12] Liddell & Scott (1940) A Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Clarendon Press

[13] Ibid.

[14] Meir Nasiv. JT ad loc.

[15] Chullin 79a

[16] Cf. Chidushei Rabbi Eliezer Simcha on Genesis, ad loc. It is not clear if this is his meaning, וצ”ע.

[17] See Rashi Genesis ad loc. who says that it was the opposite, i.e. a male donkey and a female horse. See Tzeda La’Derech and other supercommentaries.

[18] Rashi BR ad loc., Rabbi Shimon Serliau JT ad loc.

[19] Deuteronomy 1, 28

[20] JT Maasros 1,2

[21] See, however, Aruch מס, who seems to suggest that the JT is explaining that the Mishna is using the Greek (or Latin, see Aruch Hashelem) word for half. I find this explanation difficult, because why than would Rabbi Yona have to point to the Haggadic Rabbis translation of the verse?

[22] Based on Psalms 21,9

[23] Deuteronomy 2,11

[24] Rashi ad loc., Cf. Bereishes Rabba 26,7

[25] Vayishlach 178b

[26] Rabbi Nathan Adler, Nesinah La’Ger

[27] 14,5

[28] Bereishes Rabba 26,7

[29] Genesis 6,4

[30] See Rokeach; Midrash brought by M.M. Kasher, Torah Sheleimah; Rosh; Ibn Ezra; ad loc. See also Rabbi S.R. Hirsch who talks about this at some length.

[31] Bereishes Rabba 26,5; Rashi; Ramban; Ibn Ezra.

[32] Yuma 67b; Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 22; Rashi. See Rosh who brings a Midrash about the creation of a constellation: Angels attempted to seduce a righteous woman. Tricking them into giving her wings, she flew to the heavens, and was placed among the stars. This is the constellation Virgo. The angels were than stuck on earth until they were able to return on the ladder of Jacob’s dream.

[33] Abarbanel suggests that נפילים means stillborns. The sons of Elohim were those who lived unnaturally long lives. They were strong, and humongous in stature. They took by force the regular more ‘human’ women, and impregnated them. Their regular human bodies, however, were not strong enough to carry the huge fetuses growing inside them and this caused them to miscarriage. This explanation is perhaps alluded to in the BR, “And they filled the entire world with נפלים with their licentiousness”. Also see Malbim, who ingeniously re-interprets the verse to be an answer to idolatry. Those mythological gods and demi-gods, says the verse, were not more than the warriors of the day. The pagans attributed divinity to anyone powerful. In fact, however, they were only human.

[34] Interpreted by Mosef Aruch to be from the Greek word for fear, meaning here, those who instill fear. Chanoch Kuhut, Aruch Ha’Shalem, suggests that it refers to either monitors or mandates of war.

[35] Bereishes Rabba 26,7

[36] Numbers 13,33

[37] Sotah 35

[38] Ad loc. Malbim suggests that the word כן, normally translated to mean so, here refers to a louse, the singular form of כנים, lice. Accordingly, the spies were saying that while they considered themselves to be as large as locust when compared to the giants, the giants themselves looked at the spies as small and insignificant as a louse. (Perhaps this is why Rashi refers to ants instead of locust).

[39] Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Introduction to Etz Avos, says that it was not written by Rashi. This is brought by the Chida, Shem Hagedolim, Shin, 35, who argues that since it was printed in Tzfas in the generation after Rabbi Yosef Karo, and all the great rabbis there agreed that it was in fact Rashi, that is the truth. See, however Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer, Menuchas Shalom Vol. 4, Pg. 78, who proves quite convincingly that it was not written by Rashi.

[40] Matnas Kehuna Ad loc., Rabbi Shimon Serliau JT ibid.

[41] Pnei Moshe, ad loc.

[42] The Midrashic work Sefer Hayashar was first printed in Venice in 16??. According to the introduction, it is an ancient work that was found by the Roman Emperor Titus in the ruins of Jerusalem. However, Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh of Modena, who was one of the rabbis of Venice at this time, in his work Ari Nohem, questions the authenticity of this work. The Chida in Shem Hagedolim, on the other hand, identifies it with “The Wars of the Sons of Jacob”, mentioned by early authorities such as the Ramban and Rabbenu Bachye. Rabbi Avraham ben Hagr”a in his Rav Poalim also vouches for this works authenticity. See however Yosef Dan’s introduction to his edition of Sefer Hayashar.

[43] Translated from קופים. There are variants of Sefer Hayashar. See M.M. Noah, The Book of Jashar, pg. 108, who translates it as keephas. I have differed from his translations in a few instances.

[44] One of the non-kosher birds; listed in Leviticus 11, 19. See Rashi ad loc. who quotes from the Talmud Gittin 68b that it is Tarnugal Habar. See also Rashi on Chullin 63a. It is commonly translated as a hoopoe. See Rabbi Chaim Fuchs, Hakol Al Segulas Haduchifas, www.kikar.co.il/לעיוורן-לעקרה-להצלחה-סגולת-הד.html.

[45] Sefer Hayashar, Ad loc.

[46] JT, ad loc.

[47] Bechoros 8a

[48] The accepted version of the Talmudic text. See Aruch brought in footnote 35 who has this version also.

[49] Rashi ad loc.

[50] Ibid. See Mosef Aruch Entry דלפון, however, who quite understandably translates it to be dolphins. See also Ha’aruch Hashalem for an explanation of בני ימא according to this translation.

[51] Shmini, 3,7

[52] Rabbi Chanina even entertains the possibility that a dead siren could cause anyone under the same roof to become ritually impure, a law which is (generally) exclusive to humans!!

[53] Entry for סרני

[54] Ten cubits

[55] Sefer Hayashar Parshas Bo, according to Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer’s glosses on Toras Kohanim, ibid. See also Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Rapaport, Ezras Kohanim and Tosfos Ha’azarah, who also ties in this Sefer Hayashar, and adds that sirens have scales near their tail. It is worth mentioning that Rabbi Yisroel Meir Kagan, better known as the Chofetz Chaim, in his explanation of Toras Kohanim, writes that even if they have fins and scales they are non-kosher, for otherwise it would be obvious that they are non-kosher. Cf. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan YD 83,10, who says that they definitely have fins and scales, but adds that without this Toras Kohanim we would think that the fish half would be permitted.

[56] 23, 6

[57] i.e. In Genesis Chapter 4 it talks about the children of Adam, it mentions Shes, than Enosh, and than it states “These are the descendants of Adam…” and proceeds to list all the generations. What than is special about these 3? (Rokeach Ad Loc)

[58] This seems to be a play on Enosh’s sons name קינן. See Ramban who quotes this Midrash as “from than on,קינן “קנטורין.

[59] קינטורין

[60] Pseudo-Rashi, Matnas Kehunah, Maharzav. In fact, as is pointed out by the Mosef Aruch himself, the Aruch brings this Midrash in the entry for קנתר, along with many other places in which the word undoubtedly means contrary, or as the Aruch writes “Words of anger”.

[61] See Genesis 11, 1-9.

[62] Sanhedrin 109a.

[63] Rabbi Yonasan Eybeshutz in his Nefesh Yehonasan ad loc. famously suggested that it was a launching pad for some sort of primitive spacecraft for people who wanted to live on the moon to escape God.

[64] Rashi explains the difference between the three: spirits are bodiless and formless, demons are shaped like humans and have eating patterns similar to them, and Liliths are shaped like humans but have wings. See Rabbi Reuven Margolios, Margoliois HaYam, who asks that in Chagigah 16 it seems that demons have wings too.

[65] Meleches Shlomo, K’layim 8,6 quoting “the wise and pious kabbalist Rabbi Meshulam”, says that in the Generation of the Deluge people were changed into monkeys and elephants, “for monkeys are similar to people, and elephants understand the language of men”. The Meleches Shlomo proceeds to quote the aforementioned Midrash about the days of Enosh as support for this statement. This seems to me to be quite dubious for it says only that their faces were similar to monkeys, and elephants are not mentioned at all. Dovid Yoel Weiss, in his Megadim Chadashim, Brachos 58b, points to what I believe is the correct source for Rabbi Meshulams’ assertion. The Sefer Hayashar, Noach, writes that the people of the Generation of Dispersion were changed into monkeys and שנהבים. שנהבים are mentioned in Kings I 10,22 as things that were brought on the boats of Tarshish to King Solomon along with monkeys and peacocks. It refers to ivory which is made from the tusks of elephants. It is most probable that the Sefer Hayashar was referring to the elephants themselves. This then is the source of Rabbi Meshulam’s statement, and the word ‘Deluge’ should be changed to ‘Dispersion’.

[66] Rabbi Gedalia ibn Yichya. Quoted also in Rabbi Yechiel Halpern, Seder Hadoros. However, Shalsheles HaKabbala is considered notoriously unreliable. See Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmidigo, known as Yashar of Candiya, Metzaref Lechochma p.6, quoted by Rabbi Halpern himself in the introduction to Seder Hadoros. (In a play on the title, The Chain of Tradition, Yashar suggests that Rabbi Ibn Yichya should be placed in chains of iron). The Chida in Shem Hagedolim, Aleph, 9; wonders why Rabbi Halpern, who was “exceedingly wise”, brings many things from the Shalsheles Hakabblah which are not true.

[67] See also Rabbi Azriel Rakovsky, Sheleima Mishnasoi, Brachos 56b, who claims that they were also turned into the “people of the forest” who than went to America and were not killed during the Deluge. These are the people that Cristopher Columbus found. He says that this can answer the question raised by the philosophers, as to how these people exist, if all descend from Adam.

[68] See Beckingham, Charles F. and Ullendorf, Edward. The Hebrew Letters of Prester John. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

[69] Translation from Slessarev, Vsevolod. Prester John: The Letter and the Legend. Minneapolis: The University of

Minnesota Press, 1959. Another being is mentioned there which sounds quite similar, “We have in our country also other men who have hoofed legs like horses and at the back of their heels they have four strong and sharp claws with which they can fight in such a way that no armor can withstand them; and yet they are good Christians and will willingly till their lands and ours and pay us a big tribute.”

[70] Eicha Rabbah, Pesichta 17

[71] ממס

[72] We have discussed this Targum earlier.

[73] Deuteronomy 2, 11

[74] Peirush Rabbi Meyuchas, Genesis Ad loc.

[75] Paneach Raza, Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Yehudah, Ad loc.

[76] As noted before, the Talmud explains הימם this way also, although through this, connecting the word with mules.

[77] Nesinah La’Ger, Ad loc. Similarly, Rabbi Yisroel Lipschutz, Tiferes Yisroel, Klayim 8,5, suggests that the אדני השדה, who according to some could also cause ritual impurity just by being under the same roof, refer to orangutans, who can be taught “to chop wood, draw water, and also to wear clothes exactly as a human, and to sit at a table and eat with a spoon, knife and fork”.

[78] Vayishlach 187b

[79] Aryeh Kaplan, The Living Torah; Nesinah La’ger; Ad loc.

 

The Rising Lion: From Balaam to Leibowitz and Back Again

Warren Zev Harvey

Warren Zev Harvey is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Jewish Thought at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of numerous studies on medieval and modern Jewish philosophy and the recipient of the EMET Prize in the Humanities (2009).

The great prophet of the gentiles, Balaam son of Beor, blessed the people of Israel with a blessing for military success: “Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion [labiʾ], and exalt himself as a regal lion [ari],[1] and shall not lie down until he eat of the prey and drink the blood of the slain” (Numbers 23:24).[2] Israel shall leap up like a lion and not rest until it has fully conquered its enemies. The prophet’s blessing is raw, forceful, and not politically correct. It is just because of verses like this that Friedrich Nietzsche so admired the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, what is the lion rising up and exalting himself if not the terrible blonde Bestie? Such is the morality and style of ancient Hebrew Scripture.

But “the language of the Torah is one thing, and that of the Sages something else” (BT ʿAbodah Zarah 58b). The Sages took Balaam son of Beor’s militaristic prophecy and turned it into a prophecy concerning a spiritual “rising up.” They changed “prey” and “blood” to “Torah” and “mitzvot.” In Midrash Tanḥuma (Mantua, Balak [14], 88b; Buber, Balak 23, 73a; cf. Numbers Rabbah 20:20), we read: “Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion – there is no nation in the world like them. Although they had been asleep to the Torah and the mitzvot, they awoke from their slumber like lions, eagerly recited the Shemaʿ, and proclaimed the kingship of the Holy One, blessed be He.”[4] The midrash speaks of a metaphorical slumber (cf. Maimonides, Laws of Repentance 3:4),[5] that is, a period during which Jews neglected the Torah and the mitzvot, such as the Babylonian exile, but in the end they awakened from their slumber and arose like lions to proclaim the unity of God and to crown Him as King.

In his Commentary on Numbers 23:24, Rashi quotes this text from Midrash Tanḥuma, but with significant changes. First, he does not interpret the Israelites’ sleep as metaphorical, but as literal. Second, he understands the lion to refer not to the Israelite “nation,” but to the individual Jew. Third, he conceives the character of the lion in light the Mishnah: “Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a gazelle, and mighty [gibbor] as a lion to do the will of your Father in heaven” (Abot 5:20).[6] Rashi writes: “‘Behold, a people shall rise up as a lion — when they awake [ʿomdin] from their sleep in the morning, they rise up mightily [mitgabberin] like a lion or regal lion [ke-ari] and eagerly perform the mitzvot: donning the tallit, reciting the Shemaʿ, and laying tefillin.”[7] In Rashi’s artfully revised midrash, the subject is not a historical event in which the people of Israel have sinned but now repent and return to monotheism, but rather it is the daily routine of the individual Jew who arises mightily each morning as a lion to perform the mitzvot. Rashi adroitly shifts the focus from nation to individual, from national morality to personal morality. Inspired by the Mishnah, he employs the verb mitgabberin (“they rise up mightily / valorously / heroically”). The Jew awakens every day at dawn and as a mighty lion he eagerly performs the mitzvot. In the words of Maharal, commenting on Rashi: “The mitzvot are acts of valor” (Gur Aryeh, ad loc.).[8]

When Rabbi Jacob ben Asher sought an opening for the “Laws of Conduct in the Morning” (Hilkhot Hanhagot ha-Adam ba-Boqer) at the beginning of his Arbaʿah Turim, he selected the Mishnah: “Be bold as a leopard, light as an eagle, swift as a gazelle, and mighty [gibbor] as a lion to do the will of your Father in heaven” (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 1). But when Rabbi Joseph Karo sought an opening for his analogous “Laws of Conduct in the Morning” (Hilkhot Hanagat ha-Adam ba-Boqer) at the beginning of his Shulḥan ʿArukh, he recalled Rashi’s Commentary on Numbers 23:24, and wrote: “One should be mighty as a lion to arise [yitgabber ke-ari laʿamod] in the morning for the service of one’s Creator, and one should awaken the dawn! [cf. Psalms 57:9]” (Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 1).[9] The first three Hebrew words here reflect three words in Rashi’s Commentary: mitgabberin, ke-ari, and ʿomdin. Rabbi Joseph Karo thus transformed Rashi’s descriptive account of one’s morning conduct into an explicit command: One should be mighty as a lion to arise in the morning for the service of one’s Creator!

This stirring opening of the Shulḥan ʿArukh made a profound impression on the Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz. He quoted it frequently in his writings and lectures. In one passage he writes: “The slogan of theocentric religion is ʿabodah, the service of God, and its purpose is formulated in the first paragraph of the Shulḥan ʿArukh: One should be mighty as a lion to arise in the morning for the service of one’s Creator! In contrast to a religion conceived in terms of what it endows a person, there stands a religion conceived in terms of what it demands of a person. No opposition is deeper than this!” (Yahadut, Am Yehudi, u-Medinat Yisrael, Tel-Aviv 1975, p. 338).[10] The purpose of the demanding religion of Torah and mitzvot, Leibowitz emphasizes, is articulated in the imperative: Yitgabber! Be mighty, be valorous, be heroic! He further clarifies: “Life according to Torah and mitzvot is a life of heroism [geburah] in which a human being conquers his natural inclinations and needs and subjugates them to the service of his Creator” (ibid., p. 61).[11] The heroism of Rashi, Maharal, Rabbi Joseph Karo, and Leibowitz is that of performing the mitzvot.

At present the State of Israel has embarked on a difficult war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and has named its campaign “Operation Rising Lion” (ʿAm ke-Labiʾ). During the long years of Exile, our Rabbis, like the homilists of Midrash Tanḥuma, Rashi, and Rabbi Joseph Karo, creatively developed a spiritual exegesis of the prophecy of Balaam son of Beor. They had a different morality and a different style. Now, with the independence of the sovereign State of Israel, we have – for better or for worse — returned to the original interpretation of the great prophet of the gentiles.

Notes:

* A Hebrew version of this article appeared in Yashar Magazine, 20 June 2025.

[1] It is difficult to translate labiʾ and ari. Hebrew has at least a half-dozen words for “lion” (ari, aryeh, kefir, labiʾ, layish, and shaḥal), while English has only one. Labiʾ may have influenced the Greek léōn, the Latin, leo, the English lion, and the Yiddish leyb. I have translated labiʾ as “lion” and ari as “regal lion” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:9).
[2] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם וְכַאֲרִי יִתְנַשָּׂא, לֹא יִשְׁכַּב עַד יֹאכַל טֶרֶף וְדַם חֲלָלִים יִשְׁתֶּה.
[3] לשון תורה לעצמה, לשון חכמים לעצמן.
[4] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם. אין לך אומה בעולם כיוצא בהם. הרי הם ישנים מן התורה ומן המצות, ועומדין משנתן כאריות, וחוטפין קריאת שמע וממליכין לקב”ה. I thank Rabbi Dr. Yaakov Jaffe, who has noted the very many places where the Rabbis turn military descriptions into spiritual ones; e.g., BT Berakhot 4a and 18b, Shabbat 63a, Pesaḥim 68a, Sanhedrin 7b, and 93b, and 111b, and Ḥagigah 14a.
[5] עורו ישנים משנתכם ונרדמים הקיצו מתרדמתכם וחפשו במעשיכם וחזרו בתשובה וזכרו בוראכם

(“Awake, you who sleep…from your slumber, search your deeds, return in repentance, and remember your Creator”). Cf. Immanuel Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, ed. L.W. Beck, New York 1950, p. 8: “David Hume…interrupted my dogmatic slumber and gave my investigations in the field of speculative philosophy a new direction.”
[6] הווי עז כנמר, וקל כנשר, ורץ כצבי, וגיבור כארי, לעשות רצון אביך שבשמים.
[7] הֶן עָם כְּלָבִיא יָקוּם. כשהן עומדין משנתם שחרית, הן מתגברין כלביא וכארי לחטוף את המצוות, ללבוש טלית, לקרוא את שמע, ולהניח תפילין.
[8] ומפני שהמצוות הן גבורה, לפי שמי שעושה מצוה פועל פעולה אלוהית נפלאה (“The mitzvot are acts of valor, for whoever performs a mitzvah performs a wondrous divine act”).
[9] יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו, שיהא הוא מעורר השחר!
[10] סיסמתה של הדת התיאוצנטרית היא ‘עבודה‘, עבודת השם, ותכליתה מנוסחת בסעיף הראשון של שולחן-ערוך: ‘יתגבר כארי לעמוד בבוקר לעבודת בוראו‘. מול הדת הנתפסת מבחינת מה שהיא מעניקה לאדם, מוצגת הדת הנתפסת מבחינת מה שהיא תובעת מן האדם. ואין לך ניגוד עמוק מזה.
[11] החיים במסגרת של תורה ומצוות – הם חיי גבורה, שבהם האדם מתגבר על נטיותיו הטבעיות ועל צרכיו הטבעיים ומשעבד אותם לעבודת בוראו.

Apostomos Now: Contemporary Conjectures on a Classic Conundrum

Aton M. Holzer
Aton.holzer@gmail.com
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9852-3958
28 Binyamin, Beit Shemesh, Israel 9952200

The Mishnah in Ta’anit (4:6) puts forth a series of lists of five calamities that befell the Jews on each of two major fast days, the seventeenth of Tammuz and the ninth of Av, beginning in the days of Moses in the Wilderness and culminating after Bar Kochba:

חמשה דברים ארעו את אבותינו בשבעה-עשר בתמוז (וב) וחמשה בתשעה באב. בשבעה-עשר בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות ובטל התמיד והובקעה העיר ושרף אפיסטמוס את התורה והעמיד צלם בהיכל. בתשעה באב נגזר על אבותינו שלא יכנסו לארץ וחרב (את) הבית בראשונה ובשנייה [ו]נילכדה בית-תר ונחרשה העיר

Five matters occurred to our forefathers on the seventeenth of Tammuz, and five on the Ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets were broken; the daily offering was nullified; the city was breached; Apistemos[1] burned a Torah scroll; and placed a statue in the hall (heikhal). On the Ninth of Av it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would not enter the Land; and the Temple was destroyed the first time, and the second time; and Beitar was captured; and the city was plowed.[2]

There is little mystery surrounding the five events of the ninth of Av; all of the events – the decree of the death of the generation after the return of the spies in Numbers 14, the destructions of the First and Second temples, the defeat of Bar Kochba at Beitar and the plowing of the city limits by Tineius Rufus in the founding of Aelia are well-documented events, even if some did not precisely occur on the ninth of the month.[3] All share a theme: the final stage of catastrophe, the coup de grâce to a generation’s hopes.

In contrast, the list for the seventeenth of Tammuz is shrouded in mystery.

1. While the date of Moses’ descent from Sinai with the Law (Exodus 32) is not given in Scripture, the Rabbinic calculation assigning it to the seventeenth of Tammuz, forty days after revelation on the seventh of Sivan – itself extrapolated from the text – is straightforward enough. Still, it is somewhat curious that the Mishnah selects the breaking of the Tablets, rather than the other dire events of that day – the crime of the creation of the Golden Calf, its immediate punishment in the execution of three thousand of its Israelite worshippers, or the removal of the peoples’ mysterious ‘adornments’ from Horeb, for example.

The nullification of the daily offering is mentioned in Josephus:
2. Titus now ordered the troops with him to raze Antonia to its foundations and create an easy way up for the whole of his army, while he himself brought Josephus into service. He had learnt that on this day — it was the seventeenth of Panemus (Tammuz)  — the so-called ‘continual sacrifice’ had ceased to be offered to God for lack of officiants, and that this was causing great distress to the people. (The Jewish War 6:93-94).

At first glance, this seems clearly the referent of the Mishnah. However, examination of evidence internal to Rabbinic sources – the Talmuds, early Rabbinic treatments of Daniel 12:11 and medieval commentators on both – yield five possible occasions for the cancellation of the tamid, beginning from the reign of Manasseh and spread over the subsequent seven centuries.[4] To be sure, the events surrounding the Second Temple’s destruction do constitute the fifth possibility, but that is a minor view, resting primarily on the evidence of yBerakhot 4:1 and yTa’anit 4:5. Vered Noam (pace Tal Ilan)[5] reads the Talmudic passages carefully and against Josephus and argues that those Yerushalmi sources are derivative from the parallel narrative in Bavli, which clearly reference an earlier period, and was only secondarily adapted to the context of the destruction of the Second Temple. The Bavli passage (bSotah 49b, bBava Kamma 82b, bMenahot 64b) reads:

The Sages taught: When the kings of the Hasmonean monarchy besieged each other, Hyrcanus was outside, and Aristobulus was inside. On each and every day they would lower dinars in a box, and [they] would send up daily offerings. A certain Elder was there who was familiar with Greek wisdom. He communicated to [them] by Greek wisdom. He said to them: As long as they are engaged in the service, they will not be delivered into your hands. On the following day, they lowered dinars in a box and they sent up a pig to them. Once it reached halfway up the wall, it inserted its hooves [and] Eretz Yisrael shuddered four hundred parasangs. They said at that time: Cursed is the person who raises pigs, and cursed is the person who teaches his son Greek wisdom. And with regard to that year, we learned: An incident in which the omer came from Gaggot Tzerifim, and the two loaves from the valley of Ein Sokher.

For this source, which appears thrice in Bavli, the dramatic event of cancellation of the tamid-offering is firmly linked with the waning days of Hasmonean rule. The placement of the event as second in the Mishnah’s list supports the contention that the identified event preceded those associated with the Great Revolt.

3. The linkage of the ‘breach of the city’ to the seventeenth of Tammuz is more problematic. With regard to the first commonwealth, Jeremiah (39:2) dates the breach of the walls of Jerusalem during the Babylonian conquest to the ninth of Tammuz. With regard to the second, Josephus describes various stages of conquest of the various walls of Jerusalem during the Roman siege under Titus, beginning with the seventh of Artemisius/Iyyar (War 5:302) and culminating near the end of Tammuz, with none actually occurring on the seventeenth of Tammuz.[6]

4. Rabbinic sources never elaborate upon details of the reported incident of the burning of ha-torah, ‘the Torah,’ by the mysterious Apistemos, who appears in Talmud manuscripts as Apostomos or occasionally Postomos (?posthumous). Yerushalmi (Ta’anit 4:5) attempts to clarify its whereabouts:

“Apostomos burned the Torah.” Where did he burn it? Rebbi Aḥa said, at the ford of Lydda. But the rabbis are saying, at the ford of Tarlosa.

In non-Rabbinic sources, the burning of Torah scrolls is recorded as early as the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes; in 1 Maccabees, it is a widespread phenomenon.

On the fifteenth day of Kislev in the 145th year he built an abomination of desolation on the altar, and they built pagan altars in the cities of Judah roundabout and offered up sacrifices at the doors of their houses and in the streets. They tore up and burnt the books of the Law that they found, and wherever they found someone with a book of the covenant, or if anyone insisted upon (observing) the Law, the royal judgment killed him. (1:54-57)

Josephus records the burning of a Torah during the procuratorship of Ventidius Cumanus (48-52 CE):

…This disaster was followed by another disturbance, this time caused by bandits. On the road up to Beth-horon an imperial servant called Stephen was set upon by bandits and robbed of the baggage he was carrying. Cumanus sent troops out round the neighbouring villages to arrest the inhabitants and bring them in to him, to be charged with failure to pursue and capture the robbers. In the course of this, a soldier found in one of the villages a copy of the book of sacred law, which he tore in pieces and threw into the fire. The Jews reacted with horror, as if it were their whole country which had gone up in flames. As soon as the word went out, religious fervour drew them together like a magnet, and they converged in a mass on Caesarea, insistent that Cumanus should not let this insult to their God and their law go unpunished. He could see that the crowd would not stop agitating until they received satisfaction, and thought it best to produce the offending soldier and order him to be led through the ranks of the complainants on his way to execution. (War 2.228-231)

The ancient city of Beth Horon (today Beit Ur al-Fauqa and Beit Ur al-Tahta) is about twenty-six kilometers east of Lod (Lydda), and the ‘road up to Beth Horon’ generally refers to the road running north from Jerusalem, not east from Lydda – so the if the referent of the Jerusalem Talmud is historical, the ‘ford’ (or straits, or passages) of Lydda (or of the mysterious ‘Tarlosa’[7]) is not a good match for this incident.

Rabbinic literature omits all of these, but records several other events at which a Torah scroll was burned; none involve a villain named Apostomos. In a list of sins committed by the Judean kings deemed wicked, some manuscripts of bSanhedrin 103b include:

Amon burned the Torah and sacrificed a gecko upon the altar.

A passage in bYevamot 16b describes:

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said Rabbi Yonatan said: What is which is written: “The adversary has spread out his hand upon all her treasures (Lamentations 1:10)? This is Ammon and Moab. When the gentiles entered the Sanctuary, all turned to the silver and the gold, and they turned to the scrolls of Torah. They said: this in which it is written: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? Let it be burnt by fire.

“When the gentiles entered the sanctuary” can refer to any of at least four events: the Babylonian conquest in 586 BCE, the defilement of the sanctuary by Antiochus in 156 BCE, its destruction by Titus’s legions in 70 CE, or, the incursion of Pompey in 63 BCE:

the disappearance of a golden vine from the Temple when ‘the gentiles entered the sanctum’ (bYoma 21b, 39b) parallels Josephus’s report (Ant. 14.34-36) of Aristobulus’s gift of this particular Temple adornment to Pompey, right around the time that this gentile and his men indeed entered the sanctum.[8]

Other events recorded in Talmud and Midrash include the martyrdom of R. Hanina ben Teradyon, burned alive while wrapped in a Torah scroll, recorded in bAvodah Zarah 18a; and yTa’anit 4:5 records R. Simeon b. Gamaliel reporting precisely the same fate for the children in five hundred schools in the city of Betar, subsequent to its conquest under Hadrian.

Traditional commentators struggle to identify Apostomos – Antiochus? Hadrian? Some unknown Greek soldier? – and why the destruction of a Torah scroll – lamentable as it may be, but something rather common throughout Jewish history, even in Second Temple and Rabbinic sources, as we have seen – would rank among five reasons to establish a fast for all generations. Tif’eret Yisrael fixates upon the hey ha-yedi’a, the definite article, and suggest that the Torah scroll was a special one — the Torah of Ezra, which he suggests, based on Tractate Soferim 6:4, was in the sanctuary and served as the urtext for further copies; or else that Apostomos destroyed many Torahs, in an effort to eradicate Torah from the Jewish people. The 19^th-century commentary Divrei Yirmiyahu (R. Jeremiah Löw) on Rambam (Hilkhot Ta’anit chap. 5) avers that the referent is the Torah of Moses, or Ezra. Imrei Da’at on the Mishnah (R. Nathan Lieberman) argues that regarding the Torah of Moses, this is impossible, as bSotah 9b writes of Moses and David that their enemies never exerted power over their handiwork.

5. The most prominent narrative in both Rabbinic sources and Josephus regarding the placing of an idol in the sanctuary refer to an event that almost did, but ultimately did not, occur: the emplacement of statues of the emperor in the Temple by Gaius Caligula, against the strenuous protest of the Jews – which was not implemented before his assassination. (War 2.184-203, Antiquities 18.256-309; Megillat Ta’anit 22 Shevat with Scholia, tSotah 13:6, et al.)

Given the violent reaction of the people to this initiative, and the record of the celebration of its thwarting with a holiday, it is unlikely that the actual emplacement of a statue in the Temple would be forgotten and thus absent from the historical record.[9] It thus remains to identify the incident with those actually documented to have installed an idol in the sanctuary precincts – the Judahite King Manasseh (II Kings 21:7), Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:34), and probably Hadrian.[10] Complicating this is that some texts link this event to Apostomos (ve-he’emid, and he emplaced, rather than ve-hu’amad, and there was placed), including the best early Mishnah manuscript – MS Kaufmann A50 – which would necessarily restrict the identity of Apostomos to one of those three personalities. But Rabbinic literature elsewhere refers to each of those three by their proper names! And Antiochus, who appears rarely in early Rabbinic literature, in any case had a different Greek nickname — ἐπιμανής, epimanus, “the madman.”

Pompey and Circumstances

An innovative approach[11] was suggested some fifty years ago in an obscure Hebrew journal by Eliyahu Katz (1916-2004), a Rabbinic judge, poet and polymath who served as Chief Rabbi of pre-war Nitra, postwar Bratislava and from 1968 forward, Beersheba – but it received little attention, and suffers from some problems.

His theory focuses upon the incursion of Pompey into the Temple, mentioned earlier in brief. In greater detail: in 63 BCE, the armies under the command of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus – Pompey the Great, finished his Senate-authorized task of pacifying belligerent Asia minor and Syria, and swung south and handily (and completely illegally) consumed civil war-torn Judea, killing thousands, abrogating the Roman Republic’s alliance with Hasmonean Judea. Josephus describes the events in his Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews; in the latter, which relies mostly on pro-Roman sources¹[12] (and in this passage, particularly the Pontic Greek geographer Strabo of Cappadocia[13]), he writes: (Ant. 14.4.3-5, Marcus translation)

And indeed when the city was taken, in the third month, on the Fast Day, in the hundred and seventy-ninth Olympiad, in the consulship of Gaius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero, and the enemy rushed in and were slaughtering the Jews in the temple, those who were busied with the sacrifices none the less continued to perform the sacred ceremonies; nor were they compelled, either by fear for their lives or by the great number of those already slain, to run away, but thought it better to endure whatever they might have to suffer there beside the altars than to neglect any of the ordinances. And that this is not merely a story to set forth the praises of a fictitious piety, but the truth, is attested by all those who have narrated the exploits of Pompey, among them Strabo and Nicolas [of Damascus] and, in addition, Titus Livius, the author of a History of Rome.

Now when the siege-engine was brought up, the largest of the towers was shaken and fell, making a breach through which the enemy poured in; first among them was Cornelius Faustus, the son of Sulla, who with his soldiers mounted the wall, and after him the centurion Furius, with those who followed him, on the other side, and between them Fabius, another centurion, with a strong and compact body of men. And there was slaughter everywhere. For some of the Jews were slain by the Romans, and others by their fellows; and there were some who hurled themselves down the precipices, and setting fire to their houses, burned themselves within them, for they could not bear to accept their fate. And so of the Jews there fell some twelve thousand, but of the Romans only a very few. One of those taken captive was Absalom, the uncle and at the same time father-in-law of Aristobulus. And not light was the sin committed against the sanctuary, which before that time had never been entered or seen. For Pompey and not a few of his men went into it and saw what it was unlawful for any but the high priests to see. But though the golden table was there and the sacred lampstand and the libation vessels and a great quantity of spices, and beside these, in the treasury, the sacred moneys amounting to two thousand talents, he touched none of these because of piety, and in this respect also he acted in a manner worthy of his virtuous character. And on the morrow he instructed the temple servants to cleanse the temple and to offer the customary sacrifice to God, and he restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus because in various ways he had been useful to him and particularly because he had prevented the Jews throughout the country from fighting on Aristobulus’ side; and those responsible for the war he executed by beheading. He also bestowed on Faustus and the others who had mounted the wall with alacrity fitting rewards for their bravery. And he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans, and took from its inhabitants the cities of Coele-Syria which they had formerly subdued, and placed them under his own governor; and the entire nation, which before had raised itself so high, he confined within its own borders. He also rebuilt Gadara, which had been demolished a little while before, to please Demetrius the Gadarene, his freedman; and the other cities, Hippus, Scythopolis, Pella, Dium, Samaria, as well as Marisa, Azotus, Jamneia and Arethusa, he restored to their own inhabitants. And not only these cities in the interior, in addition to those that had been demolished, but also the coast cities of Gaza, Joppa, Dora and Straton’s Tower—this last city, which Herod refounded magnificently and adorned with harbours and temples, was later renamed Caesarea – all these Pompey set free and annexed them to the province.

For this misfortune which befell Jerusalem Hyrcanus and Aristobulus were responsible, because of their dissension, for we lost our freedom and became subject to the Romans, and the territory which we had gained by our arms and taken from the Syrians we were compelled to give back to them, and in addition the Romans exacted of us in a short space of time more than ten thousand talents and the royal power which had formerly been bestowed on those who were high priests by birth became the privilege of commoners.

Rabbi Katz identifies Apostomos with Pompey, on the basis of his replacement of Jewish law with Roman law after his conquest of Jerusalem, thus ‘burning the Torah’, figuratively speaking – and renders Apostomos as efes (Hebrew for null) tomus (Latin for book). He argues that Josephus’ “in the third month, on the Fast Day” refers the fast of the seventeenth of Tammuz. Tammuz is the fourth Jewish month – but he suggests that Josephus’ use of an ancient Judean numeral for ‘four,’ in boustrophedon, was mistaken for a Greek gamma. Josephus records Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem as occurring on the same day as Pompey’s (Ant. 14:16:4), and so Herod’s erection of a golden eagle on the great gate of the Temple (War 1:648–655, Ant. 17:6:2) can also be linked to the seventeenth of Tammuz.

The theory is supported by Sefer Yosippon, a tenth-century Hebrew Italian-Jewish history of the second Temple period that draws upon Josephus, the books of Maccabees, Midrash and Christian and Latin sources; in chapter 36 and 43, which treat Pompey’s and Herod’s siege, respectively, the dates of conquest of the Temple are given as the seventeenth of the fourth month – i.e., the seventeenth of Tammuz.

However, there are difficulties with this theory. For one thing, internal and external evidence points to the probability that the ‘third month’ properly refers to the third month of the siege, and that ‘the fast’ to which Josephus refers in the contexts of both Pompey and Herod is Yom Kippur.[14] In any case, observance of the fast of the seventeenth of Tammuz seems to have crystallized during the second century CE, well after the events and most likely the historian reporting them.[15] While Katz’s interpretation of a ‘figurative’ destruction of the Torah scroll seems a bit forced, it is not impossible to see in Yevamot 16b a reflection of the destruction of an actual scroll by Pompey’s men. But recent work suggests that the report of Herod’s installation of a golden eagle in the Temple is legendary.[16]

But perhaps Rabbi Katz was on to something.

• If Pompey’s invasion of the Temple took place on Yom Kippur, in the third month of the siege, that would place the beginning of Pompey’s siege – which involved the ‘breach of the city’ from its very outset, by Hyrcanus’ men admitting Pompey’s forces into the city (War 1.143) – squarely in the latter part of the month of Tammuz. In that case, huvke’ah ha-ir refers not to the events of 586 BCE or 70 CE, but the initial incursion of Pompey’s army in Tammuz, maybe even 17 Tammuz, 63 BCE.

• As far as butal ha-tamid: as seen above, Josephus takes pains to indicate that at no time during Pompey’s siege and even invasion was any part of the Temple service interrupted – but in the Rabbinic account, interruption of the tamid did indeed occur around the same time as Pompey’s arrival with Hyrcanus’s (or Pompey’s?) betrayal of the besieged Temple by supplying a pig for the tamid sacrifice.[17]

• Admittedly, Heikhal in the Mishnah always refers to the sanctum of the Temple. But this is likely simply accidental; Heikhal properly refers to a kingly hall (cf. II Kings 20:18, Isaiah 39:7, Ezra 5:14, Psalms 45:9, 16, Proverbs 30:28, Daniel 1:4, II Chronicles 36:7), but the Mishnah has no interest in royal palaces. Pompey had built a world-famous Heikhal: the theater-temple complex constructed during his second consulship. The first permanent theater in Rome, Pompey’s theater was an imposing complex in which the Senate would sometimes meet, and where Caesar was assassinated. This hall, much like the heikhal melekh Bavel referenced in some of the aforementioned Biblical citations, included gardens, objects collected during Pompey’s campaigns, and fourteen statues commissioned of sculptor Coponius representing the populations (nationes) that Pompey had subdued;[18] these almost certainly included a statue representing Judea.^[19] As such, the ‘emplacement of a statue in the hall’ may refer to Pompey’s concretization of the conquest of Judea.

Josephus has numerous Greek nicknames for various characters, particularly in his autobiography;[20] this is of a piece with his Greco-Roman milieu, in which proper names and surnames were often subjected to wordplay, and indeed Caesar himself puns on Pompey’s cognomen, magnus, in his writings.[21] Of Pompey’s conquest, Josephus writes in Against Apion,

One should also be particularly amazed at the great intelligence in what Apion goes on to say. For he says that it is evidence of the fact that we do not employ just laws or worship God as we should that [we do not govern,] but are subservient to other nations, one after another, and that we have experienced some misfortunes affecting our city… while we, being free, used to rule in addition over the surrounding cities for about 120 years up till the time of Pompey the Great; and when all the monarchs, on all sides, were hostile to the Romans, ours alone, because of their loyalty, were maintained as allies and friends. (2.11.125-134).[22]

One may detect here a complaint: Judea was unfailingly, singularly, loyal to Rome, and yet it took her freedom.

Pompeius, when encountered in a late Hellenistic milieu – where Semitic languages and Greek were spoken in equal measure – evokes the Aramaic ܦܘܼܡܵܐ (puma) and Hebrew פה, both words for mouth. Heinrich Ewald suggested that Apostomos be parsed αἰπύς στόμος, “big mouth,”[23] and this would fit Pompeius (mouth) Magnus (large) – the conqueror with a too-voracious appetite, who betrayed Judea’s loyalty by conquering and plundering it – כי אכל את יעקב ואת נוהו השמו.

• Even the Biblical reference, the breaking of the tablets, resonates for an identification with Pompey:

So Judas chose Eupolemus the son of John of the Haqqoz clan and Jason the son of Eleazar and sent them to Rome to establish friendship and alliance with them, and to remove the yoke from them, for they saw that the kingdom of the Greeks was subjugating Israel into slavery. They went to Rome—and the trip is very long!—and entered the council and declared: “Judas, also known as Maccabaeus, and his brothers and the community of the Judeans have sent us to you to establish alliance and peace with you, so that we may be listed among your allies and friends.” This found favor in their eyes. And this is the copy of the letter, which they wrote in response on bronze tablets and sent to Jerusalem, so as to be a memorial there, among them, of the peace and alliance: Let it be well for the Romans and the people of the Judeans on sea and on land forever, and let sword and enmity be far from them. But if war is made upon Rome, first of all, or upon any of its allies in its entire realm, the people of the Judeans will fight together with them wholeheartedly, as far as opportunity prescribes to them. And they will neither give nor supply their enemies wheat, weapons, money, or ships—as Rome decided, and they will observe their obligations without receiving anything. In the same way, if the people of the Judeans is attacked first, the Romans will fight enthusiastically as its allies, as far as opportunity prescribes to them. Nor will they give to the allies (of the partner’s enemies) wheat, weapons, money, or ships, as Rome decided, and they will observe these obligations without duplicity. (-I Maccabees 8:17-28)[24]

Pompey’s betrayal of the treaty between the Hasmoneans and Rome in devouring the Judean state was nothing short of a shattering of the bronze tablets, the physical testament to the pact. It seems no coincidence that all aggadic treatments of the Tablets of the Law dilate on Exodus 32:16, ‘harut al ha-luhot’ – inscribed on the tablets – homiletically rendering it herut, freedom (Kallah Rabbati 8:2, Avot de-Rabbi Natan 2:3, bEruvin 54a, Exodus Rabbah 41:7, Leviticus Rabbah 18:3, Numbers Rabbah 10:8, Song of Songs Rabbah 8:6, et al.). Judean freedom ended on the seventeenth of Tammuz, when Pompey ‘broke’ the bronze tablets promising cooperation and non-aggression in exchange for loyalty.

• The burning of the Torah – the definite article – indeed suggests a specific, known Torah scroll. In the Second Temple literature, outside of later Rabbinic sources, there is indeed one attestation of a known Torah scroll:

And they came with the gifts that had been sent and the remarkable parchments on which the legislation had been written in golden writing in Judean characters, the parchment being worked amazingly and the common joins constructed to be imperceptible. When the king saw the men, he inquired about the books. And when they uncovered them rolled up and they unrolled the parchments, pausing for a long time and prostrating himself about seven times, the king said, “I thank you, O Men, and even more the one who sent you, but mostly the God whose utterances these are.” (Letter of Aristeas 176-177)

The grand gold-lettered Sefer Torah from Elazar the high priest of Judea, from the Temple precincts, was the vorlage of the Septuagint, in this second Temple telling. The historicity of the Letter of Aristeas is, to be sure, problematic, to say the least; but the erstwhile existence of an urtext for the Septuagint is supported by most scholars,[25] and the ancient report that it was held in reverence is supported by writers centuries hence. Tertullian reports that in the library of Alexandria, the Septuagint was displayed along with the Hebrew original.[26] John Chrysostom writes that Ptolemy Philadelphus “deposited it [the Septuagint] in the Temple of Serapis . . . and even today the translated books of the prophets are still there.”[27]

The great library of Alexandria – the cultural crossroads of the ancient world – was destroyed when Caesar[28] set fire to the Egyptian fleet in the port at Alexandria, in the ‘straits of Lod’ – Lod, in Rabbinic parlance, also being a name for Egypt, after his son Ludim (Genesis 10:13).

Caesar was good to the Jews, and so even if the Rabbis knew that he was at fault – unlikely in the fog that surrounded the event in the historical record – they blamed the one who compelled Caesar’s stay in Egypt: Apostomos, Pompey. His ill-fated attempt to raise a force against Caesar in Ptolemaic Egypt set off a cascade of events resulting in the incineration of the Torah – the Pentateuch portion of the Septuagint and its vorlage, sent from the high priest of Judea in hoary antiquity, the crown jewel of the Egyptian Jewish community and potent symbol of its full integration and acceptance in the fabric of Ptolemaic Egyptian society from its outset. The subsequent century and a half of Alexandrian Jewish life was marked by anti-Semitic writings, pogroms and ultimately annihilation.

The destruction of the library was one of the most traumatic events in the history of the West, and highlights the manner in which the career of Pompey, the betrayal of an ally in the name of narrowly defined self-interest, was tragic both for the Jewish people, as well as Rome and Western civilization, to which the Hasmoneans had tethered their carriage.

Admittedly, much of the above is conjecture, and some is more than a bit far-fetched. Perhaps it is fitting that for one key villain in Judaism, the villain of Shiva Asar be-Tammuz, be he Pompey or someone else, the imprecation yimah shemo ve-zikhro – may his name and remembrance be erased – indeed was fulfilled!

[1] As it is vocalized in the MS Kaufmann A50 manuscript.
[2] Koren-Steinsaltz translation, from Sefaria, with modifications.
[3] See Yuval Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba and the Destruction of the Temple: The Establishment of the Fast Days” (Heb.), Zion 68:2 (2003), 145-165.
[4] Itamar Warhaftig, “On the Seventeenth of Tammuz the Daily-Offering was Cancelled – in the First Temple or the Second?” (Hebrew) HaMa’ayan 33:4 (1993), 6-14.
[5] Vered Noam, “The Fratricidal Hasmonean Conflict,” Josephus and the Rabbis, Vol. 1 (Heb), 318-340.
[6] See discussion in Shahar, “Rabbi Akiba,” 159-165.
[7] Ben Zion Luria challenges the common scholarly assumption that the referent is the site of the village of Talluza (Tira Luzah) since this village had been Samaritan throughout the Roman period; instead he identifies it with Bethel. Both are a considerable distance from Beth Horon. See his “And Apostomos Burned the Torah” (Heb.), Beit Mikra 32:4 (1987), 293-295.
[8] Daphne Baratz, “A Golden Vine/Garden in The Temple,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, Vol. 1 (Heb), 341-348.
[9] See Steven Fine, “Caligula and the Jews: Some Historiographic Reflections Occasioned by Gaius in Polychrome.” New Studies on the Portrait of Caligula in the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts (Brill, 2020), 100-104.‏
[10]  Étienne Nodet, “On the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple’.” Rethinking the Jewish war (Peeters, 2021), 236-248.‏
[11] Eliyahu Katz, “Who Knows Five” (Heb.), Niv ha-Midrashiyah 10 (1972), 122-125.
[12] Jane Bellemore, “Josephus, Pompey and the Jews,” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte H. 48:1 (1999), 94-118.‏
[13] Alessandro Galimberti, “Josephus and Strabo: The reasons for a choice.” Making History: Josephus And Historical Method (Brill, 2007), 147-167.‏
[14] Nadav Sharon, “The Conquests of Jerusalem by Pompey and Herod: On Sabbath or ‘Sabbath of Sabbaths’?.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 21:3 (2014), 193-220.‏ To be sure, there is some difficulty regarding placing the account to Yom Kippur, since the tamid-offering on Yom Kippur is offered exclusively by the high priest, and it is unclear why so many others would be involved in the sacrificial rites on that day.
[15] Shahar, “Rabbi Akiva.”
[16] Jonathan Bourgel, “Herod’s golden eagle on the Temple gate: a reconsideration.” Journal of Jewish studies 72:1 (2021), 23-44.‏
[17] For Josephus, the referent is the Paschal sacrifice, four months before Pompey’s incursion.
[18] Eleonora Zampieri, Politics in the Monuments of Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar, Routledge, 2022), 64-65.
[19] James M. Scott, Bacchius Iudaeus: a denarius commemorating Pompey’s victory over Judea, (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 34.
[20] I am indebted to Prof. Kenneth Atkinson for this insight.
[21] Lauren Donovan Ginsberg, “Great Expectations: Wordplay as Warfare in caesar’s Bellvm Civile,” The Classical Quarterly 73:1 (2023), 184-197.‏
[22] Translation by Barclay, in Mason, Flavius Josephus, 233-238.
[23] Although he connected the nickname with Antiochus Epiphanes. See Georg Heinrich August von Ewald, The history of Israel, Vol. 5, Transl. J. Estlin Carpenter (Longmans, Green and Co., 1874)‏, 293 note 2.
[24] Translation from Schwartz, 1 Maccabees, 284-285.
[25] Emanuel Tov, “The Septuagint.” The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, Volume 1 Mikra. (Brill, 1988), 161-188.‏
[26] Christophe Rico, “The destruction of the Library of Alexandria: A reassessment.” The Library of Alexandria: A cultural crossroads of the Ancient world (Polis, 2017), 293-330.‏
[27] Thomas Hendrickson, “The Serapeum: Dreams of the Daughter Library,” Classical Philology 111:4 (2016), 453-464.‏
[28] Rico, “The Destruction.”

“Praiseworthy are You Talmidei Chachamim”
Self-Definition, Torah Study, and Jewish Martyrdom

Yaakov Jaffe

There is a unique genre of video on youtube, facebook, or twitter, featuring Yeshivah students of a wide variety of ages, locations, and types of dress singing the song “Ashreichem Talmidei Chachamim” while standing or dancing around the Beit Midrash of their school or Yeshivah.  The song, often also heard at wedding, praises the portion of students of Torah scholars with the following words:

Praiseworthy are you, O students of the wise,
As words of Torah are exceedingly beloved[1] to you.
How much do I love Your [=G-d’s] Torah,
All day long she is my speech.

The words of the song are a quote from the Talmud (Menachot 18a, with the last two lines, themselves, being a quote from Psalms 119:97), and the implication of the song is that those that sing it (or those that dance at the wedding when it is sung) have achieved the status of Torah scholars and are aptly described as those for whom the words of Torah are “exceedingly beloved.”  The song exists as a quasi-performative, self-definitional, transformational act, as the singing of the words, themselves, confer a status and title upon those whom it is sung about.

Like many other Hebrew songs, this quote from the Talmud is taken out of context, and consequently it disguises what exactly are the conditions to consider Torah to be “exceedingly beloved” to someone.  The context is fascinating, and it provides necessary insight for the understanding of this song.

  

Thought-Based Invalidations of Temple Sacrifices

Tractate Menachot is a challenging Tractate, one of the dozen longest, studied through the Daf Yomi and in elite sub-groups of elite schools of Torah study; it is not for the faint of heart.  While some of the very lengthy Talmudic tractates are frequently studied on account of their contribution to the practice of Jewish ritual and family law (Shabbat, Chullin, Psachim, Yevamot and Ketubot), and others as they are vital for building the principles of community and social law (the three Bavot), Menachot is lengthy and on the whole not particularly relevant for contemporary Jewish life and practice.

The first 18 pages are the hardest part of the Tractate, focused less on the Korban Mincha, itself, but more on thought-based invalidations of a Korban Mincha, a Mincha that becomes invalid because of the intentions the Kohein had when performing the sacrifice.  Large parts of Menachot are concrete as they involve the process of the offering and real-world errors made while performing the sacrifice; the first dozen-and-a-half pages are formal, where the sacrifice looks no different from how it always looks but may be invalidated on account of improper thoughts. In these cases, even if the sacrifice was physically offered exactly as required, it might still be invalid because of the ruinous intent.

Much of the discussion focuses on invalidations that are at least alluded to in the Bible: “Pigul,” intent to eat or burn the sacrifice at the wrong time, or “Lo Leshmah,” intent for the action to find favor as a different sacrifice type than required by the owner or a different sacrifice substance.  The long, challenging discussion concludes with another type of thought-based invalidation, so rare that is only discussed in two pages in the entire Talmud, and never in the Bible commentaries or Midrash Halacha, intent to leave over the sacrificial substances of the sacrifice unused indefinitely.  Leaving over the eaten part of a sacrifice, “Notar,” is discussed in the Torah and frequently in the Talmud; leaving over the sacrificial substances is not discussed beyond Menachot 18a and Zevachim 36a.  Intent to sacrifice sacrificial substances on the wrong day, “Pigul,” is discussed in the Torah and frequently in the Talmud; intent to leave over sacrificial substances indefinitely, never to be used, is not discussed beyond Menachot 18a and Zevachim 36a.

In the final outcome, intent to leave over blood un-sprinkled until the next day does not invalidate a sacrifice according to the majority opinion, and so Rambam rules (Psulei Ha-Mukdashim 13:8).  The focus of Menachot 18a is how Yosef Ha-Bavli was interested in exploring the question, nevertheless.  Few realize that this often-sung tune is grounded in an esoteric, arcane sub-sub-topic of sacrificial law, irrelevant to daily practice, rejected in the final halachic conclusion, disconnected from the Biblical text, and regarding largely settled law, which still bothered the praiseworthy student of the wise, Yosef Ha-Bavli.

Who was Yosef Ha-Bavli?

Yosef Ha-Bavli is known for one teaching regarding a Kohen in mourning or who had not yet offered his post-impurity sacrifices who burned a red heifer (Tosefta Para 4:3, cited in Zevachim 117b and Yevamot 74a).  The Talmud (Psachim 113b, Yoma 52b) says that he was also known by a number of pseudonyms which would increase the number of teachings associated with his name from one to a handful; whether the Talmudic teaching should be taken literally is outside the scope of this essay (but see Tosafot and Aruch La-Ner, Nidda 36b and Hyman, Toldot Tanaim Ve-Amoraim, 152).  Yosef Ha-Bavli is not unique among the sages for having composed many Mishnayot, having taught many students, having mastered much Torah, or possessing deep insight; what makes him unique is precisely his care and concern for this rather esoteric topic. Yosef Ha-Bavli was a grand-student of Rebbi Akiva, and so appears to have lived in the late 2nd century, just around the time of the publication of the Mishnah.  Any law related to thought-based invalidations had not been relevant for a century when he lived, and was a detailed, theoretical question about a Temple that was fading from memory.

In his youth, Yosef Ha-Bavli had learned from his teacher, Rebbi Yehudah, that a Kohein’s intent to leave blood un-sprinkled indefinitely invalidates a sacrifice.  Yet, as he grew older, Yosef Ha-Bavli only heard discussions of the opinion of the other rabbis that it was valid.  One Shabbat, he sat before Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who taught him evening, morning, and midday that it was valid, in accordance with the majority opinion.  “Afternoon he said to him ‘It is Kosher, but Rebbi Yehudah says it is invalid.’  Yosef Ha-Bavli’s face brightened from joy… ‘Rebbi Yehudah taught me that it was invalid,[2] and I went after all his students and searched for a colleague [who had the same recollection as me] and did not find one.  Now that you taught me ‘invalid’ you have returned to me my lost object.’ ”

Seeing this scene, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua burst into tears of joy and commented how beloved Torah was for Yosef Ha-Bavli.  Note, however, that it was not Yosef Ha-Bavli’s application of Torah, mastery of Torah, or even mere study of Torah that earned him praise, it was the passionate, deep connection to Torah that led him for years to travel, ask, and search for a sage that confirmed Yosef Ha-Bavli’s studies of his own youth.  Torah is exceedingly beloved when one passes by day from land to land, asking, inquiring, confirming the exact details of every possible law.  Learning the daily practical Halacha or the parsha is not evidence of a passionate, intimate relationship a scholar has with Torah; being madly driven to confirm every last piece of minutia that one has ever learned does.  That is what means for the Torah to be exceedingly beloved, in the view of the author of the text of the song, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.

Who was Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua?

We have demonstrated how the identity of the object of the quote, the Talmid Chacham Yosef Ha-Bavli, and the context of the conversation, thought based invalidations, is crucial in understanding the meaning of the quote in question.  Knowing the background of the speaker, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, is also vital.  

Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua was a student of Rebbi Akiva (Yeavmot 62b), and so he lived through a number of challenging times, including the various Roman persecutions which followed the Bar Kochva revolt and the death of Rebbi Akiva’s earlier generation of students.  A teacher of Rebbi (Yoma 79b, Eiruvin 53a), he was an important bridge figure between two different illustrious ages of sages of the Mishnah who lived an unusually long life (Megillah 27b).  Sanhedrin 14a relates that Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua was ordained by Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava just before the latter was martyred by the Romans for having perpetuated the chain or ordination.  He is a critical figure in the perpetuation of the tradition, and his eyes witnessed how close the tradition was to being lost.[3]

Moreover, the Midrash[4] and liturgy (Tisha B-Av’s Kinah “Arzei Ha-Levanon,” and Yom Kippur’s Slicha “Eileh Ezkera” [Reish]) count Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua among the 10 Martyrs, in which case he was the last of the 10 great sages who lost their lives Al Kiddush Hashem, for no reason other than the fact that they were Jewish.  According to these sources, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua died at the start of Shabbat, while in the middle of reciting Kiddush; his soul departed while performing a Mitzvah.  

The costs of living a life of a Talmid Chacham are much lower today than they were in the past.  Jews across the globe live without fear of persecution for their Torah study and the financial stability of our community means that Jews who study Torah are mostly free of the fear of financial distress that may have been felt in the past.  Yet, speaking just before the year 200 and knowing the dramatic cost of being a Torah scholar, Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua proclaimed how praiseworthy Yosef Ha-Bavli was for his dedication to Torah, a statement that he would not make cavalierly or apply to just anyone who studied Torah in a situation of basic security.    

By Choice or by Necessity?

Today’s Torah scholars become Torah scholars by choice; they enjoy Torah study, feel nourished by, see its value, and are prodded and supported by a community to embrace that avocation.  Rebbi Eleazar ben Shamua was a Torah scholar by necessity – perpetuating a chain nearly lost, which would not have survived were it not for his dedication, and for which he eventually was murdered.  Yosef Ha-Bavli, too, felt similarly, the heart within himself burning for decades as he passed from land to land desperate with agony to substantiate the teachings of the earlier sages.  He didn’t choose to study the esoteric, complicated details of thought-based-temple-invalidations because he found it enjoyable, meaningful, applicable, or valuable, but because of an obsession and a dedication to both the truths of the Torah and to the concept of the tradition.

Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua doesn’t cry because of happiness that a student of his made a good choice to dedicate himself to Torah.  Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua cries because he sees the perseverance of the Torah and the legacy of the tradition even through challenging times, even decades after the Temple’s destruction, through the selfless dedication of students of the wise.[5] Indeed, had Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua not lived so long, and had Yosef Ha-Bavli not persevered to ask him the same question four times that one Shabbat, the teaching of Rebbi Eliezer might have been lost to Judaism for all of time and never have made its way into the Talmud.  100 years and one long summer Shabbat were needed to preserve one detail of Torah and ready it for inclusion in the Talmud.  And so, this is less a song for a wedding feast, as the words of Rebbi Elazar the martyr leave one of sense forlorn.  It’s a song of dedication and commitment to Torah, not a song of joy and happiness.

In the words of the Chazon Ish (Emunah U-Bitachon 3:20): 

The words of are sages are like fine oil which descends upon the bones to excite the hearts towards the love of Torah, and to enjoy the luster of its delight, until the soul of Yosef Ha-Bavli wasted away having lost one law, such that his face brightened upon the intense happiness in having his lost object returned.  And the enthusiasm of Rebbi Elazar upon his affection to his student, that he cried tears of happiness and pleasure of the luster of being exact in one’s learning.[6]

Those are the Talmidei Chachamim, and praiseworthy are they.

ענין הריגת עשו והמסתעף

Shlomo (Steven) Flamer is a fourth-year medical student at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He previously studied at Yeshivas Ohr Hachaim (Queens, NY), and holds an M.A. in Jewish Studies from Touro College

רש”י לפרשת ויחי (מט, כא) ד”ה הנותן אמרי שפר מביא דברי חז”ל אודות מיתת עשו, ז”ל רבותינו דרשוהו על יום קבורת יעקב כשערער עשו על המערה במסכת סוטה דף יג עכ”ל. ובאמת יש לכל הפחות ד’ דיעות מי הרג לעשו: (א) חושים בן דן, (ב) יהודה, (ג) חושים בן דן ויהודה, (ד) יעקב אבינו; וכמו שנבאר.

א. הסוברים שחושים בן דן הרג את עשו

כמעט שגור בפי כל שחושים בן דן הרג את עשו, וכמו שמבואר להדיא בגמ’ (סוטה יג.) ז”ל, אמר להו [עשו לבני יעקב], הבו לי איגרתא. אמרו ליה, איגרתא בארעא דמצרים היא, ומאן ניזיל, ניזיל נפתלי דקליל כי איילתא, דכתיב (בראשית מט, כא) נפתלי אילה שלוחה הנותן אמרי שפר, אמר רבי אבהו אל תקרי אמרי שפר אלא אמרי ספר, חושים בריה דדן תמן הוה ויקירין אודניה, אמר להו מאי האי, ואמרו ליה, קא מעכב האי עד דאתי נפתלי מארעא דמצרים, אמר להו ועד דאתי נפתלי מארעא דמצרים יהא אבי אבא מוטל בבזיון, שקל קולפא [פירש”י מקל] מחייה ארישיה, נתרן עיניה ונפלו אכרעא דיעקב, פתחינהו יעקב לעיניה ואחיך” וכו’, עכ”ל הגמ’.

ועיין במדרש ספר הישר (פרשת ויחי) שהביא כל הסיפור עם קצת שינויים, דבגמ’ איתא שחושים הכהו במקל, ובספר הישר איתא שהתיז את ראשו בחרב ונתגלגל ראשו. וז”ל שם: “ויהי בהבינו הדברים אשר עשה עשו ובניו, ויחר אפו מאד עליהם, וימהר ויקח חרב וירץ אל עשו אל תוך המלחמה, ויך את עשו בחרב ויכרות את ראשו וילך למרחוק ויפול עשו בתוך אנשי המלחמה, ויהי בעשות חושים את הדבר הזה ויגברו בני יעקב על בני עשו”.

התזת ראשו של עשו בחרב מוזכרת גם בתרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל (נ, יג), וז”ל: “מן יד אזל נפתלי ורהט ונחת למצרים, ואתא בההוא יומא ואייתי אוניתא דכתב עשו ליעקב אחוי על פלגות מערת כפלתא, ומן יד רמז [1] לחושים בר דן, ונטל סייפא וקטע רישה דעשו רשיעא, והוה רישיה דעשו מתגלגל עד דעל לגו מערתא ואתנח בגו עיטפה [פירוש חיקו] דיצחק אבוי, וגופיה קברו בנוי דעשו בחקל כפילתא, ובתר כן קברו יתיה בנוי ליעקב במערת חקל כפלתא”.

וכן הוא בפרקי דרבי אליעזר (פ’ לט), ז”ל: “מיד שלף את חרבו והתיז את ראשו ונכנס לתוך מערת המכפילה, ואת גוייתו שלחו לארץ אחוזתו להר שעיר, [2] מה עשה יצחק, אחז בראשו של עשו, והיה מתפלל לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא ואומר לפניו, רבונו של עולם יוחן רשע וכו’ ” (וע”ע בגמ’ מגילה ו: תפילת יצחק).

ועיין עוד בילקוט שמעוני (תהלים רמז, תשעו) נוסח שלישי, שחושים הסיר ראשו של עשו בידים בלי שום מקל או חרב, ז”ל: “עד שהוא הולך בא לו חושים בן דן והיה חרש, כשראה שהיו מונעין לקבור את יעקב, הכהו בידו על צוארו

והתיז את ראשו, ונפלו שני אזניו על מטתו של יעקב”. [3] וביותר תיאור כתב המושב זקנים לבעלי התוספות (מט, כא) ז”ל: “בא חושים בן דן ורקד בידיו על צואריו והתיז את ראשו”.

והנה, ידוע ומפורסם שראשו של עשו נקבר במערת המכפלה, אבל באמת בגמ’ במס’ סוטה נאמר רק על עיניו שנתגלגלו לשם, ובילקו”ש (שם) נאמר רק על אזניו שנפלו על יעקב, ובמדרש ספר הישר נאמר רק שראשו הלך למרחוק, אבל לא נזכר שראשו נתגלגל ונקבר בתוך מערת המכפלה. אמנם בתרגום יונתן ובפרקי דרבי אליעזר שהבאנו נמצא מפורש שראשו של עשו נכנס ונקבר בתוך מערת המכפלה.

ובספר פנים יפות (ויחי מט, לא) ביאר באופן נפלא, שאפילו לאחר שמכר עשו חלקו ליעקב, עדיין נשארה לו טענת אמת שיש לו חלק ששית ממקום קבורת יעקב, ולפיכך קברו שם ראשו שהוא חלק ששית מן האדם, ע”ש מה שהאריך בזה.

ועיין עוד בספר אוצר פלאות התורה (ויחי עמ’ תש הערה קסד, אמור עמ’ תתפט) שציין לשו”ת מנחת אלעזר (ח”ג סי’ סד) בשם מקובלים הראשונים והרמ”ע מפאנו, שכל ראשו של עשו קבור בתוך המערה, וכמו שמבואר בפרקי דרבי אליעזר. ועל פי זה כתב המנחת אלעזר, שאין להביא ראיה שקברי צדיקים כמו האבות מטמאים, ממה שרבי בנאה ציין את מערת המכפלה כדי לסמן מקום הטומאה (גמ’ ב”ב נח.), כי אפשר שקברי צדיקים אינם מטמאים, ואף על פי כן הוצרך לציין הקבר, משום שראשו של עשו קבור שם, והגולגולת מטמא באהל אפילו אם אין בשר עליו, ואף שקברי עכו”ם אינם מטמאים באהל (יבמות סא.), לעשו יש דין של ישראל מומר [4] שמטמא באהל. וכ”ה בשו”ת אבני נזר (יו”ד סי’ תסט, אות ג).

ב. הסוברים שיהודה הרג את עשו

למרות שבגמ’ סוטה הנ”ל נאמר שחושים הרג את עשו, בשני מקומות בירושלמי (גיטין פ”ה ה”ז, כתובות פ”א ה”ה) למדו מהפסוק בברכת יעקב ליהודה “ידך בעורף אויביך” (בראשית מט, ח) שיהודה הרג את עשו, וז”ל הירושלמי כתובות: בראשונה גזרו שמד על יהודה, שכן מסורת בידם מאבותם יהודה הרג את עשו, דכתיב ידך בעורף אויביך, עכ”ל. וכן הביאו כדבר פשוט כמה ראשונים הנזכרים בתחילת דברינו (תוס’, רבנו קרשקש, תלמידי רבינו יונה, מאירי). וצריך ביאור אם ולמה דעה זו חולקת על דברי הגמ’ במסכת סוטה (יג.) שחושים בן דן הרג את עשו.

ובאמת כבר עמדו בזה התוס’ (גיטין נה: ד”ה ביהודה), וכתבו, שע”פ הירושלמי הנ”ל והספרי (וזאת הברכה סי’ שמח) שדרש “ידיו רב לו, בשעה שהרג את עשו” צ”ל שיהודה הרג את עשו, וכתבו ליישב זאת עם הסיפור של חושים בגמ’ סוטה, וז”ל: “שמא לא מת [עשו] באותה הכאה, עד שעמד עליו יהודה והרגו”. וכ”ה במושב זקנים לבעלי התוספות (תולדות כז, מה), בתוס’ הרא”ש (גיטין שם), בתוס’ איוורא (סוטה שם), ובתוס’ שאנץ (סוטה שם, לפי הנוסח המוגה בהערות מהדורת עוז והדר “ויכול להיות ששניהם הרגו לעשו באותו שעה”).

ומלבד מהירושלמי וספרי הנ”ל, יש כמה עוד מדרשי חז”ל שיהודה הרג את עשו. למשל, ז”ל המדרש אגדת בראשית (פרק פג): “ידך בעורף אויביך” שהוא הרג לעשו, עכ”ל. וכעין זה איתא במדרש תנאים (הובא בתורה שלמה ויחי פמ”ט אות קיג), ז”ל: “ידיו רב לו” בהריגתו את עשו, שנאמר “ידך בעורף אויביך”, עכ”ל.

וראה במדרש שוחר טוב (תהלים יח, לב) “ואויבי נתתה לי עורף, פסוק זה מדבר ביהודה, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, מסורת אגדה יהודה הרג את עשו, אימתי בשעה שמת יצחק אבינו, הלכו עשו ויעקב וכל השבטים לקבור אותו, שנאמר ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו, והיו כולן במערת המכפלה יושבין ובוכין, והשבטים עומדין וחולקין כבוד ליעקב, ויוצאין חוץ למערה, כדי שלא יהא יעקב בוכה ומתבזה לפניהם, השחיל עשו עצמו ונכנס למערה, ואמר עכשיו אני הורגו לאחר שמת אבי, שנאמר (בראשית כז, מא) יקרבו ימי אבל אבי ואהרגה את יעקב אחי, נסתכל יהודה וראה שעשו נכנס אחריו, ואמר מיד הוא הורג לאבא בפנים, [5] מיד השחיל וצף הוא בעצמו, ונכנס ונמצא עשו שהיה מבקש להרוג את יעקב, מיד עמד יהודה והרגו מאחריו, ולמה לא הרגו מנגד פניו, לפי שהיה קלסתר פניו דומה לאביו, לפיכך חלק לו כבוד והרגו מאחריו, והוא שיעקב אביו מברכו, ידך בעורף אויביך”.

והנה, במדרש שוחר טוב מבואר שיהודה הרג את עשו בשעת קבורת יצחק, ובגמ’ סוטה איתא, שחושים בן דן הרגו בשעת קבורת יעקב. ומכח זה כתבו החיד”א (ברכי יוסף או”ח סי’ קלא ס”ק ד) והגהות בן אריה (על התוס’ בגיטין שם) שעל כרחנו נחלוק על דברי התוס’, משום שאי אפשר ליישב את כל הסתירות, אלא צריך לפרש שיש מדרשים חלוקים אי יהודה או חושים בן דן הרג את עשו, ואם נהרג בשעת קבורת יצחק אביו או בשעת קבורת יעקב אחיו.

והשתא דאתית להכי שיש מחלוקת בין המדרש שוחר טוב לבבלי, מסתברא שגם אין צורך לדחות כמו שדחו התוס’ שרצו להשוות הירושלמי והספרי עם הגמ’ בסוטה ולפרש שיהודה גמר מה שהתחיל חושים בן דן, שהרי בירושלמי לא נאמר מתי נהרג עשו על ידי יהודה, ויתכן שסבר כדעת השוחר טוב שהרגו יהודה בשעת קבורת יצחק. [6] והוסיף החיד”א (ראש דוד פר’ וישב) לבאר, שרק קשה על התוס’ “בהגלות נגלות מאמר השוחר טוב”, ונראה שלא היה לפניהם מדרש זה.

ועיין בהדר זקנים לבעלי התוספות (ויחי מט, ח) שגם סובר שיש כאן מדרשים חלוקים, ז”ל: “ידך בעורף אויביך”, מדרש, שהרגו יהודה לעשו הרשע כשביקש להרוג את אחיו ויהודה בא והרגו, ולפי שקלסתר פניו דומים קצת ליעקב לא רצה יהודה להרגו דרך פניו משום כבוד יעקב אביו, והכי איתא במדרש בחנוכה שגזרו גזרות על שבט יהודה לבד, לפי שקבלה היא בידם שהרג עשו, ודלא כאותו מדרש דאמר דחושים בן דן הרגו כדמפורש בחלק בשעה שערער על המערה, עכ”ל.

שוב ראיתי, שהוא גם להדיא בילקוט שמעוני (ויחי רמז קסב) שיש מחלוקת על ידי מי ומתי נהרג עשו, שכתב שם בתחילה כסיפור הדברים שיש במס’ סוטה, שחושים הרג את עשו בשעת קבורת יעקב. ואחר כך כתב “אית דאמרי” והביא את דברי המדרש שוחר טוב הנ”ל שיהודה הרגו בשעת קבורת יצחק.

וכעין כל זה נמצא גם בסדר הדורות (ב”א רנ”א) בקיצור, וכתב שם, שאם יהודה הרג את עשו בשעת קבורת יצחק עולה, שחי מאה ועשרים שנה, כי יצחק היה בן ששים כשנולדו יעקב ועשו, ויצחק חי לאחר מכן ק”כ שנה (שהרי מת בן ק”פ), נמצא לפי החשבון שיעקב ועשו היו בני ק”כ שנה כשמת יצחק. אבל אם חושים בן דן הרגו בשעת קבורת יעקב, אז חי עשו קמ”ז שנה (כמו יעקב תאומו). נמצא שיש הבדל של כ”ז שנים בין הבבלי לירושלמי. ועיין בחידושי אגדות למהר”ל (סוטה יג:) שגם סובר שמדרשים חלוקים הם, וכתב שהעיקר כשיטת הגמרא דידן שחושים הרגו.

ויש להוסיף, שדברי התוס’ “דעשו שמא לא מת באותה הכאה עד שעמד עליו יהודה והרגו” יכול להיות רק לפי הגמ’ בסוטה שחושים הכה במקל את ראשו של עשו ונפלו עיניו, ואם כן יתכן שלא מת מאותה הכאה עד שבא יהודה והרגו, ובאמת זהו המקור שדנו בו התוס’ ליישבו עם הירושלמי. אבל לפי נוסחת הילקו”ש תהלים (וכן דעת מדרש ספר הישר, תרגום יב”ע, ופרדר”א כנ”ל) שחושים התיז את ראשו, דוחק לפרש שלא מת באותה התזת ראשו.

ועיין בספר אוצר פלאות התורה (אמור עמ’ תתפט הערה מ) שדייק מלשון פירוש התוס’ כת”י המבורג (הובא בספר תוספות השלם ויחי מט, כא, אות יד) שהתוס’ הללו סוברים כי גם לפי הגמ’ סוטה הותז ראשו של עשו, כי כתבו הסיפור

כמות שהוא במסכת סוטה אלא ששינו התוס’ בלשונם וכתבו בזה הלשון: ובא חושים אל המערה ושקל קלפו והכה עשיו וניתז ראשו של עשיו ונפלו שתי עיניו אכרעיה דיעקב אחיו וצחק, עכ”ל התוס’. ובשו”ת מנחת אלעזר (ח”ג סי’ סד) כתב, וז”ל: “וגם מגמרא נוטה יותר פשטות הפירוש שנפל רישיה, רק עיניו נפלו ביחוד על עיני דיעקב כנזכר”. ולפי המדרשים הנ”ל נראה, שמוכרחים לומר שהם חולקים על המדרשים האומרים שיהודה הרג לעשיו ואי אפשר ליישבם

ששניהם הרגוהו כמו שרצו התוס’.

היוצא מזה, שהתוס’ בגיטין ודעימיה (תוס’ הרא”ש, תוס’ שאנץ, תוס’ איוורא) סוברים שאין שום סתירה בין הגמ’ סוטה שחושים הרג את עשו לירושלמי שיהודה הרגו, כי שניהם הכוהו בזה אחר זה עד שמת. אמנם יש כמה מדרשים וראשונים שמפרשים שעל כרחך שיש כאן שתי סיפורים חלוקים, או שיהודה הרג את עשו בשעת קבורת יצחק, או שחושים הרגו לבדו בשעת קבורת יעקב ואי אפשר ליישבם.

ובחיד”א (פתח עינים גיטין נה:) הביא מספר יפה מראה וספר שדה יהושע מהלך אחר ליישב הגמ’ סוטה שחושים הרגו עם הירושלמי שכתב שיש מסורת ביד אדום שיהודה הרגו. והיינו, שהיה מסורה בידי האדומים שיהודה הרגו ולפיכך גזרו גזירות על ערי יהודה, אלא שהמסורה בידם אינה אמת כי חושים הרגו וכמו שאמרו בסוטה. אבל קשה מאוד לסבול יישוב זו, והחיד”א תמה עליהם שזה מיישב רק לשון הירושלמי, אבל יש כמה מדרשים אחרים שדרשו מן הפסוקים שיהודה הוא שהרגו, ובהם אי אפשר ליישב שאינם אמת והיא מסורה מוטעה ביד הרומיים.

ג. שיטה אחרת שיעקב הרג את עשו

בספר היובלים [7] (פל”ז ופל”ח) נמצא שיטה רביעית בענייננו, ופשוט ששיטה זו חולקת לגמרי על הבבלי והירושלמי ואי אפשר ליישבם. שהרי מסופר שם שאחרי מיתת יצחק, התחילו עשו ובני ביתו מלחמה גדולה נגד יעקב ומשפחתו, ובתוך המלחמה הרג יעקב את עשו בקשתו. ז”ל ספר היובלים: ואחרי כן דבר יהודה את יעקב אביו ויאמר אליו: אבי, דרך נא קשתך ושלח חיצך והפילה את השונא ארצה והמיתה את האויב. התאזר בכוחך אתה, כי אין את נפשנו להמית את אחיך, והוא אצלך ועמך הוא לכבוד אצלנו. וימהר יעקב וידרוך את קשתו וישלך חיצו, ויפל את עשו אחיו ארצה וימיתהו וכו’, וירדפו בני יעקב אחריהם עד הר שעיר, ויעקב קבר את אחיו על הגבעה אשר לעדורים וישב על בניו, עכ”ל.

ועיין עוד במדרש ויסעו (פרק ג, עמ’ כה במהדורת זכרון אהרן), וכן הביאו בילקוט שמעוני (וישלח רמז קלג) ובמדרש בראשית רבתי (וישלח לו, ו, אות קנט) שמתאר המלחמה שערך עשו עם ארבע אלפים גיבורים על יעקב ובניו בשעה שהתאבלו על מיתת לאה, [8] ז”ל המדרש ויסעו (בא”ד): “כיון שראה יעקב לעשו שהחציף פניו לבא עליהם למלחמה להרוג אותם בתוך הבירה והיה מורה עליהם חצים, באותה שעה עמד יעקב על חומת הבירה והיה מדבר עם עשו אחיו דברי שלום ריעות ואחוה, ולא קבל ממנו עשו. מיד ענה יהודה ליעקב אביו, עד מתי אתה מאריך עמו דברי שלומים ואהבה והוא בא עלינו כאויב לבושי שריונים להרגנו. כיון ששמע כן, משך בקשתו והרג לאדורם האדומי, ועוד משך קשתו והכה לעשו בכסל [פירוש שריר הירך הסמוך לכליה] ימנית, ואז נחלה מן החץ נשאוהו בניו והרכיבוהו על עיר [חמור] והלך ומת שם בארודין [שם מקום], ויש אומרים לא מת שם”, עכ”ל. וכתב על זה בזית רענן (ילקוט שם, אות ב) שהיש אומרים שלא מת עשו באותו הזמן הוא הגמ’ סוטה שסובר שחושים בן דן הרגו לאחר זמן.

גם בסדר הדורות (ב”א רי”ד) הביא דעה זו בשם הילקוט שמעוני, שיעקב הרג את עשו סמוך למיתת לאה, ז”ל: “כשהיה יעקב אבל על לאה, בא עשו בחיל גדול, וילחם בו יעקב וי”א בניו כי יוסף כבר נמכר, ונהרג עשיו באותו פעם על ידי יעקב”.והנה הזית רענן (על הילקוט שם, אות ג) דייק שלפי הדעה שנהרג עשו סמוך למיתת לאה, אז מוכרחים גם כן לומר שמתה לאה אחר שמת יצחק, כי נאמר בפסוק מפורש (בראשית לה, כט) שעשו קבר את יצחק אביו עם יעקב, ואם כן ודאי היה חי עדיין באותה שעה, א”כ נמצא שמתה לאה יותר מי”ב שנה אחר מכירת יוסף שאז מת יצחק. והקשה בעל סדר הדורות על דעה זו, שהרי יש מדרשים חלוקים אם מתה לאה בשעת מכירת יוסף או ב’ שנים קודם לכן, אבל לא מצינו מי שסובר שחיה לאה שנים רבות כל כך (לכל הפחות י”ב שנה אחר מכירת יוסף) ומתה רק כשהיתה בת יותר מנ”ה שנים, אחרי מיתת יצחק.

ד. מי היה שוע חותנו של יהודה?

בפרשת וישב (לח, ב) לומדים שיהודה נשא “בת איש כנעני ושמו שוע”, ובמדרש ספר הישר איתא, ששמה של אשתו היה עלית. ולגבי מי היה שוע חותנו של יהודה, התורה תיארו כאיש כנעני, ועי’ בספר למכסה עתיק להגר”ח קניבסקי שיש ב’ דיעות אם הוא כנעני ממש (תנחומא החדש סי’ י, אגדת בראשית פס”ג סי’ ג) או שקראו כנעני על שם שהיה תגר (פסחים נ.). והנה, בספר מדרש תלפיות (ענף יהודה) כתב דבר פלא בשם רבי שמואל קלונימוס, ששוע חותנו של יהודה הוא עשו. וביאר בזה הלשון, “בשביל שהיה רשע, הפך האותיות וקראו שוע” (גם שיטה זו הובאה שם בספר למכסה עתיק).

הבעל מדרש תלפיות עצמו תמה על שיטה זו, איך יתכן שיהודה נשא את בתו של עשו, אחרי שעשו החזיק את עצמו כעבודה זרה כדאיתא בזוהר (ח”א קעא.). וכתב ליישב, ז”ל: “ואולי כוונת הרב לומר, דאיש הכנעני הזה הוה שמו עשו כשם עשו אחיו של יעקב, ולכבוד יהודה שלקח בתו הפך שמו שוע דהיינו אותיות עשו, וטעם הפיכת שמו משום שעשו רשע היה וגנאי להיות עליו שם רשע”. אבל הודה שלא משמע כן מלשונו של הרב שמואל קלונימוס, ומסיק ז”ל: “אך אם איתא שהוא קבלה שמוכרחים אנו לקבלה שיהודה לקח בתו של עשו, אינו מהתמיה כל כך איך ער ואונן בני יהודה צדיק גמור שמשו שלא כדרכה כאומרם חז”ל, שבא להם זה מצד האם על היותה בת עשו הרשע. ולתת טעם ליהודה איך לקחה, אפשר שכיון אולי יכול להחזירו למוטב”, עכ”ל.

ומוסיף המדרש תלפיות, שלדעה בירושלמי שיהודה הרג את עשו בשעת קבורת יעקב, אתי שפיר למה דוקא יהודה שהיה חתנו הרגו בעצמו, ז”ל: “משום דכיון דטרח יהודה להחזירו בתשובה ולא חזר, לו נוגע להורגו, דאיך לקח בת רשע אולי יכול להחזירו ועלה חרס בידו”. אם כן, לפי הרב שמואל קלונימוס ששוע חותנו של יהודה היה עשו, בשילוב עם דעת הירושלמי שיהודה הרג את עשו, מרוויחים שלא די שיהודה הרג את דודו, אלא שהרג את דודו שגם היה חותנו.

ה. הטעם שגזרו הרומיים על ערי יהודה דוקא

שנינו במשנה (כתובות יב.): “האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה שלא בעדים, אינו יכול לטעון טענת בתולים מפני שמתייחד עמה”. ומצינו בגמ’ (דף ז:), שרבי יהודה סובר שמברכין ברכת חתנים אף בבית האירוסין, ומבאר שם אביי, שרבי יהודה אינו חולק על הת”ק (כך פירש השטמ”ק), אלא שהוא מוסיף שדוקא ביהודה תיקנו כן חכמים בכדי שיהא מותר לו להתייחד עמה לאחר האירוסין, שכן היה המנהג ביהודה.

והנה, בשיטה מקובצת (שם ז:) ובהגהות הגר”א (אה”ע סי’ נה ס”ק ג) מבואר, שיש כאן מחלוקת רש”י ותוס’ אם ברכת חתנים שתיקנו מועלת רק כדי להתירו בייחוד או שמועלת אפילו להתירו בביאה. שרש”י סובר שמתרת רק ייחוד, ותוס’ סוברים, שמתרת גם ביאה. ובשטמ”ק (שם) הביא שיטה שלישית בשם תלמידי רבינו יונה, וז”ל: “שלא היה בועל אותה, דכלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה, אלא מתוך שהיה מחבק ומנשק לה, היתה חיבה יתירה ביניהם”.

על כל פנים צריך ביאור למה התירו מה שהתירו [ביאה, או יחוד, או חיבוק ונישוק] דוקא ביהודה. ובדברי הראשונים מצינו ב’ טעמים לזה. השטמ”ק (יב.) מביא דברי רבינו יהונתן, שתיקנו כן משום שהרומיים גזרו שכל בתולה הנשאת ברביעי, תיבעל להגמון תחילה, ואם כבר נתייחדו החתן והכלה, או שנבעלה לו, אז הכלה תאהב את החתן ביותר ותהיה לבה גס בו, ואף אם תצטרך להיבעל להגמון, לא תעשה כן אלא באונס ממש. אי נמי, אם ימצאנה ההגמון בעולה שמא יפרוש ממנה ההגמון. ובטעם הדבר שגזירת ‘תיבעל להגמון’ היתה דוקא על ערי יהודה, ביאר רבינו יהונתן, ז”ל: “משום הכי היה מנהג ביהודה יותר משאר מקומות, לפי שרוב גזירותיו ביהודה, משום שיודע שממנו עתיד לצאת משיח שיושיע את ישראל וישפוט את הר עשו”.

ובשטמ”ק (ז:) נתן טעם אחר למה גזרו דוקא על ערי יהודה בשם תלמידי רבינו יונה, וז”ל: “מפרש בירושלמי (פ”א ה”ה), שבשעה שבאו בני יעקב לקבורת אביהם, בא עשו לערער על מקום הקבורה, וקם יהודה והרגו ואחר כך כשגברה ידו של עשו, גזרו על יהודה שכל בתולה שתנשא מהם תבעל לסרדיוט תחילה, ומפני זה היה מנהגם שהיה מתייחד החתן עם ארוסתו בשעת האירוסין”. וכן פירש המאירי (יב.) ז”ל: “והוא שאמרו בתלמוד המערב, בראשונה גזרו שמד ביהודה, שכן מסורת בידם שיהודה הרג את עשו דכתיב (בראשית מט, ח) ידך בעורף אויבך, והיו אונסין את בנותיהן, והתקינו שיהא איסטרטיאוט בועל בתחילה”.

ובמשנה בפרק הניזקין (גיטין נה:) מצינו גזירה אחרת שגזרו הרומיים דוקא על ערי יהודה, והיא הגזירה דסקריקון. ז”ל המשנה שם: “לא היה סקריקון ביהודה בהרוגי מלחמה, מהרוגי מלחמה ואילך יש בה סקריקון”, עכ”ל המשנה. ובהמשך המשנה והגמרא שם מבואר שבתקופת מלחמת טיטוס ביהודה וירושלים, גזרו הרומיים שלש גזירות. הגזירה הראשונה היתה, שכל רומאי שהיה בידו להרוג יהודי ולא הרגו, יהרג [הרומאי], ושוב גזרו גזירה אמצעית, שכל רומאי ההורג יהודי, חייב רק לשלם ארבע זוזים, ולבסוף גזרו גזירה אחרונה, שרומאי ההורג יהודי יהרגוהו. ולפיכך בשעת הגזירה הראשונה והשנייה, כשאנס סקריקון איזה יהודי שימכור לו קרקעו, היה גומר ומקנה לו מחמת פחדו וחל הקנין, והקונה מיד הסקריקון מקחו קיים. אבל בתקופה האחרונה שנתיירא הסקריקון להרוג יהודי, כשאנס הסקריקון איזה יהודי למכור לו קרקעו אינו גומר ומקנה לו ואינו חל הקנין, ולפיכך תיקנו החכמים “שיש בו סקריקון”, היינו שיש תקנת סקריקון שהקונה מידם מקחו בטל, שלא יצא הקרקע מרשות בעלים הראשונים.

על כל פנים נמצינו למדים מהמשנה, שבשעת “הרוגי מלחמה” [דהיינו הגזירות ראשונה ושנייה] גזרו הרומיים על ערי יהודה שהרומאים כמעט יכולים או חייבים להרוג יהודיים בלא עונש מלכות, ומבואר שהגזירה דסקריקון [ותקנת סקריקון מהחכמים] היתה רק על ערי יהודה, וגם כאן צריכים להבין למה גזרו דוקא על ערי יהודה. והנה ממה שכתב השטמ”ק (כתובות יב.) בשם רבינו יהונתן “שרוב גזירותיו ביהודה משום שיודע שממנו עתיד לצאת משיח שיושיע את ישראל וישפוט את הר עשו”, אולי אפשר לדייק מלשונו “רוב גזירותיו” שמפרש בזה גם את הטעם שגזרו הדין דסקריקון דוקא ביהודה.

ויתכן, שגם תלמידי רבינו יונה יפרשו כפי דרכם שגזרו הרומיים על ערי יהודה כמו נקמה על זה שיהודה הרג את עשו אבי אביהם. ובאמת כבר ביארו כן התוס’ (גיטין נה: ד”ה ביהודה) בשם הירושלמי הטעם שגזרו הרומיים על ערי יהודה, ז”ל: “לפי שמסורת בידם מאבותם שיהודה הרג עשו”, עכ”ל התוס’. וכ”ה ברבנו קרשקש (שם) ז”ל: “ובירושלמי פירש, דתקנות אלו לא היו אלא ביהודה, אבל לא בגליל, משום דביהודה היו משתעבדין טפי ואונסין אותם, משום דמסורת בידם מאבותם דיהודה הרג את עשו וכו’ “.

והנה כבר ביארנו שבמסכת סוטה נאמר שחושים בן דן הוא שהרג את עשו, ואף שיש מפרשים הסוברים שאין כאן מחלוקת ומיישבים את דברי הבבלי והירושלמי זה עם זה, עדיין יש מפרשים שסוברים שאכן יש מחלוקת בין הבבלי והירושלמי מי הרג את עשו, אם יהודה או חושים בן דן. ולפי דעתם מובן למה פירש רבינו יהונתן בדרך אחרת את הטעם שגזרו הרומיים דוקא על ערי יהודה, ולא נקט כהתוס’ ודעימיה שזהו נקמה על מה שיהודה הרג את עשו כדברי הירושלמי, והיינו משום שסבר שיש כאן מחלוקת בין התלמודים, והבבלי אינו סובר שיהודה הרג את עשו אלא חושים בן דן, ולפיכך נתן טעם אחר.

הערות:

[1] בסיפור המוזכר במסכת סוטה מבואר, שחושים החליט מעצמו להרוג את עשו בגלל הפגם בכבוד יעקב זקנו, ועיין בדברי ר’ חיים שמואלביץ המפורסמים (שיחות מוסר שערי חיים, שנת תשל”ג מאמר יא) שביאר למה רק חושים בלבד הקפיד על בזיון יעקב, ז”ל: “שכל בני יעקב ובני בניו הנלוים עמו, כיון ששמעו את ערעורו של עשו על מקום הקבורה, החלו נושאים ונותנים עמו והשיבו לו על כל טענותיו וכמבואר בגמ’, ואדהכי והכי התרגלו למצב ושוב לא חשו בבזיון שבדבר, ברם, חושים בן דן שהיו אזניו כבדות, לא שמע את אותן טענות שקדמו, וכיון שראה פתאום את יעקב מוטל בבזיון, מיד בערה בו קנאת כבוד אבי אביו, שקל קולפא מחייה לרישיה”, עכ”ל. ולביאור אחר עיין בחידושי אגדות למהר”ל (סוטה יג:).

אבל בסיפור המוזכר בתרגום יב”ע מבואר, שהריגת עשו לא היתה החלטתו של חושים, אלא שנפתלי ציוהו לעשות כן, כמו שכתב “ומן יד רמז לחושים בר דן”. ובתרגום יונתן הנדפס במקראות גדולות מהדורת ארטסקרול יש גירסא “ומן יד רמז [יוסף] לחושים בר דן”, ולפי גירסא זו הריגת עשו היתה החלטתו של יוסף. עוד יש לציין, שמדברי התרגום יונתן נראה שנפתלי כבר חזר עם השטר ואף על פי כן הרג חושים את עשו, אבל בגמ’ סוטה ופרדר”א מפורש שעדיין לא חזר נפתלי ולפיכך הרג לעשו כדי שלא יהא יעקב מוטל בבזיון עד שיחזור נפתלי.

[2] משמע שיש מחלוקת היכן נקבר גופו של עשו, שהרי בתרגום יונתן כתוב שנקבר בשדה שליד מערת המכפילה, אבל בפרקי דרבי אליעזר איתא ששלחו את גופו להר שעיר. ובספר אוצר פלאות התורה (פרשת אמור, הערה מ) הדגיש מחלוקת זו, והוסיף שהחיד”א בספרו חומת אנך (ירמיה מט, טו) כתב בשם המקובלים, שחושים בן דן גם קצץ את רגליו של עשו, ונשאר שם רק גופו בלי ראשו ורגליו. וע”ע בסדר הדורות (ב”א רנ”ה) ששם נמצא שאחר שגברו בני יעקב על בני עשו במלחמה, הביאו עמם בני עשו את גופו להר שעיר אבל ראשו נקבר במקום המלחמה בחברון.

[3] בתרגום יב”ע ובפרדר”א מבואר, שראשו של עשו נתגלגל עד חיקו של יצחק אביו, אבל בגמ’ סוטה נאמר שעיניו של עשו נפלו על כרעיו של יעקב אחיו, ובילקו”ש איתא, שנפלו אזניו על מטתו של יעקב, נמצא שיש שינויים בין המדרשים גם לגבי איזה איברים הותזו, וגם לגבי על איזה אדם נפלו.

[4] על זה שלעשו יש לו דין ישראל מומר, עי’ להלן בהערה 5.

[5] לפי דעת המדרש שיהודה הרג את עשו כדי להציל את יעקב מעשו הבא מאחוריו להרגו, מובן למה הרגו יהודה, כי יש לו דין רודף ממה שניסה להרוג את יעקב ודמיו בראשו. אבל לפי השיטה שחושים הרגו בשעת קבורת יעקב משום שעיכב את הקבורה, יש להקשות כיצד הותר לחושים להרגו. וכן הקשה בספר תורת הקנאות (סוטה יג:), והוסיף, שאף שעשו בודאי עבר כמה עבירות שחייבים עליהם מיתה (למשל, עיין בגמ’ ב”ב טז: ז”ל אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום, בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכו” עכ”ל, וכן הובא ברש”י תולדות כה, כט ד”ה והוא עיף שפירש מרציחה), אבל מהסיפור כאן משמע שהיה חייב מיתה בשביל אותו משא ומתן אודות קבורת יעקב.

ופירש בעל תורת הקנאות על פי המשנה למלך (מלכים פ”י ה”ז ד”ה ודע) שהבין מהירושלמי (מס’ נזיר) שבן נח מוזהר לקיים שבועתו שהוא סניף של איסור ברכת השם, ולבן נח אזהרתן זוהי מיתתן, לפיכך היות שערער עכשיו על חלק הבכורה שמכר בשבועה (“ויאמר יעקב השבעה לי כיום וישבע לו וימכר את בכורתו ליעקב” תולדות כה, לג), חייב מיתה על חילול שבועתו.

והנה, תירוץ זה מבוסס על כך שלעשו היה דין בן נח, אמנם כבר הבאנו לעיל שהאבני נזר והמנחת אלעזר סבורים שלעשו היה דין של ישראל מומר. ובאמת זהו גמ’ מפורשת בקידושין (יח.), שרצה הגמ’ להוכיח שמן התורה עכו”ם יורש את אביו ממה שעשו ירש את הר שעיר, ופריך על זה, “ודלמא ישראל מומר שאני”, הרי מבואר שלעשו היה דין ישראל מומר. ובכדי ליישב את התורת הקנאות אפשר לומר, שהוא סובר כשיטת חכמי צרפת שאפילו האבות עצמן לא יצאו מכלל בן נח להקל וכל שכן עשו הרשע, אלא שהרמב”ן (אמור כד, י) הקשה על דעה זו מגמ’ זו, שממנה מוכח שאף קודם מתן תורה היה לאבות (וגם לעשו) דין ישראל. ועל ראיה זו כתב הפרשת דרכים (תחי’ דרוש א’ ד”ה הרי מבואר) שלדעתו היא “ראיה חותכת”, ועי’ ביעב”ץ (קידושין יח.) שפירש שזוהי השקלא וטריא של הגמ’, שהמקשן שהביא ראיה מירושת עשו סבר שלאבות היה דין בן נח, והגמ’ דחה את דבריו ומסיק שהיה להם דין ישראל, ועדיין דברי התורת הקנאות צריכים ביאור. [עוד תירוץ לקושיא ראיתי בשם הרב יששכר פראנד, שחושים צדק בהריגת עשו, כי עיכוב מקום הקבורה שקנה ממנו יעקב נחשב כמעשה גזילה על ידי עשו שהוא כבן נח וממילא נתחייב מיתה על הגזילה, וגם על תירוץ זה קשה מכח הגמ’ בקידושין הנ”ל.]

ובאמת אינו כ”כ פשוט שהיה לעשו דין ישראל אע”פ שמשמע כן מקידושין יח., כי על הגמ’ ב”ב טז: הנ”ל שעשו עשה עבירה במה שבעל נערה מאורסה, הקשו התוס’ (שם ד”ה בא) דלא נצטוו בני נח על עריות דארוסה, רק על בעולת בעל כדאיתא בסנהדרין (נז:), ותי’ שם בשם הר”י (וכן בתוס’ סנהדרין נז: ז”ה לנערה בסתם, ובחידושין על התורה לרבינו תם ובית מדרשו, ובמושב זקנים (תולדות כה, כט) בשם ר”ת) שמכל מקום “מכוער הדבר”. והוסיף על זה התוס’ רי”ד שאינו חייב מיתה עליה, אבל עדיין עבירה איכא (ולעוד תירוצים, ע”ע בהגהות יעב”ץ סנהדרין נז: ובספר חבצלת השרון פר’ תולדות עמ’ שפח).

אכן הדברות משה (ב”ב ח”א עמ’ קסה הערה עט) חידש שלא חייב עשו על הנערה המאורסה מחמת איסור עריות, אלא משום גזל, ז”ל: “אף שעדיין לא בעלה וליכא איסור דעריות דבן נח, שהוא דוקא אחר שנבעלה, מ”מ איסור גזל דהלקיחה לביתו ורשותו הוא קנין לענין חשיבות גזל”, עכ”ל [ונפק”מ אם הארוס נתן רשות לבן נח אחר לזנות אם ארוסתו]. והנראה מזה שהתוס’ והדברות משה שניהם סבורים שלעשו יש דין בן נח.

וכן משמע מתוס’ קידושין לט: ד”ה מחשבה (והוא מירושלמי פאה א, א אבל לא ציינו כן) ז”ל, ובעובדי עבודת כוכבים איפכא מחשבה רעה הקב”ה מצרפה למעשה דכתיב (עובדיה א) מחמס אחיך יעקב תכסך בושה ונכרת לעולם ולא מצינו שעשה עשו ליעקב שום רעה אלא מחשבתו הרעה אשר חשב עליו מצרפה הקב”ה למעשה, עכ”ל. הרי מבואר שהתוס’ סברו שעשו אינו נחשב כישראל. והקשה שם המהרי”ט בחידושיו שבקידושין יח. מבואר שעשו היה ישראל מומר, וע”ז תירץ החיד”א (דברים אחדים, דרוש טז ד:ה ומהרימ”ט) דלק”מ כי התוס’ אזלו לשיטתם שהאבות לא יצאו מכלל בני נח, ודחק הוכחת הרמב”ן שמה שכתב הגמ’ “ודלמא ישראל מומר שאני” אינה מסקנת הסוגיא אלא דחייה בעלמא ונקטו לרווחא דמילתא (וכן הביא מהרמ”ע). ועיי”ש איך שהצילו הרמב”ן מהירושלמי פאה הובא בתוס’.

שו”ר שכן תי’ הרב מנשה קליין (חידושי משנה, משנה הלכות, מס’ קידושין יח. עמ’ קנד) בדעת התוס’, ז”ל: ונראה דדבר זה במחלוקת שנויה, ויימצא לפי”ז דמה שאמרו בסוגיא דידן “ודלמא ישראל מומר שאני”, ע”כ דכלפי עשו דרך דיחוי אמרו כן ולאו הלכה פסוקה הוא, עכ”ל. וע”ע בספר ציץ הקדש (סי’ לד, אות ח) שנו”נ לברר דינו של עשו וחידש שמאז שנשתמד עשו ונעשית מומר, היה לו דין בן נח לכל דבר חוץ מלענין ירושה שעל זה דחה הש”ס דאולי יש לו מעלה יתירה משאר עכו”ם.

ויש להוסיף שלפי הדעה שעשו היה ישראל מומר אבל ישראל מיהו הוי, מכל מקום בני עשו אין להם דין ישראל כעשו אביהם, וכמו שדורש הגמ’ (סנהדרין נט:) שבני עשו אינם חייבים במילה מהפסוק כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע (בראשית כא, יב), “ביצחק – ולא כל יצחק”. ולבאר למה בני עשו אינם ישראלים, והלא קודם מתן תורה היחס הלך אחר האב ועשו היה ישראל מומר, עי’ בקנטרס ברכת יצחק להרב מנחם גנק (הערות למסכת סנהדרין, סימן נב, עמ’ עז) שביאר ע”פ הגרי”ד והגר”ח סולובייצ’יק שעשו היה ישראל מלידה כמו יעקב אלא שהיה גזה”כ שהכנסת ישראל תצא רק מזרע יעקב, אבל מאז שהשתמד עשו, הוא נעשה כישראל מומר ובניו אחריו הם גויים גמורים (מדאורייתא) דפקע דין ישראל מבני מומר שאינם מכירים כלל שהם מישראל, ע”ש. וע”ע מש”כ על זה בעל המשנה הלכות (שם, עמ’ קנח) בשם הבה”ג דבן מומר הנולד מגויה הוא גוי גמור, ובעל משנה הלכות נתן טעם לזה דחז”ל הפקירו זרע המומר מטעם הפקר ב”ד הפקר, וכן ביאר (שם, עמ’ קס) הסוגיא ריש כתובות (ג.) “תינח קדיש בכספא, קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר, שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות”, שהפקירו חכמים לזרע המקדש ואינו נתייחס לו לקנות באישות, ואכמ”ל.

[6] לכאורה לכו”ע יש להקשות ממאי דאיתא בגמ’ ב”ב (קכג:), “בעא מיניה ר’ חלבו מר’ שמואל בר נחמני כתיב ויהי כאשר ילדה רחל את יוסף וגו’ מאי שנא כי אתיליד יוסף אמר ליה ראה יעקב אבינו שאין זרעו של עשו נמסר אלא ביד זרעו של יוסף שנאמר והיה בית יעקב אש ובית יוסף להבה ובית עשו לקש”, עכ”ל הגמ’, והרי בין אם חושים בן דן הרג לעשו ובין אם יהודה הרגו, שניהם אינם מזרעו של יוסף.

החיד”א (ראש דוד פר’ וישב) תי’ שנחשב כאילו נפל ביד זרעו של יוסף משום שיוסף היה שם עם בניו ויותר מכן הוא היה המלך ושאר השבטים נחשבים כמו אנשי חיילו. וכתב עוד שכ”ז די אם נניח שחושים הרגו בשעת קבורת יעקב, אבל החיד”א עצמו פי’ שאם נניח שיהודה הרגו זה היה בשעת קבורת יצחק, והרי זה קיים הרבה שנים לפני שמלך יוסף על מצרים, ויוסף עצמו לא היה כלל בקבורת יצחק כי כבר נמכר למצרים, ועדיין קשה שיהודה לא היתה מזרעו של יוסף. ותירץ ע”פ הילקוט שמעוני (שופטים רמז נא) ז”ל הילקו”ש, “אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני מסורת אגדה הוא בידינו שאין עשו נופל אלא ביד בניה של רחל, למה, שאם באים השבטים לדין עם עשו לומר לו למה רדפת את אחיך, הוא אומר להם למה רדפתם את יוסף אחיכם ואינכם מועלין ממני, וכיון שהוא בא אצל יוסף אומר לו למה רדפת את אחיך ואינו יכול להשיבו אם תאמר שעשה לך רעה אף אחי שלמו לי רעה ואני שלמתי להם טובה, מיד הוא שותק”, עכ”ל המדרש. ומבואר שם שר’ שמואל בר נחמני (שהוא בעל המימרא במס’ ב”ב) סובר שהקפידה היא שההורגו של עשו יהיה מזרעה של רחל, ולפי זה י”ל שכיון שבנימין היה שם באותו מעמד בקבורת יצחק, שפיר נחשב שעשו נפל בידי זרעה של רחל אע”פ שיהודה הוא ההורגו.

[7] המכונה מדרש בראשית זוטרתא, והוא אחד מספרים החיצוניים שנכתבו בימי בית שני. [וכעי”ז גם בספר החיצון צוואות השבטים (צוואת יהודה ט, ג), נדפס בתוך ספר הספרים החיצונים ח”א, הוצאת אברהם כהנא.]

[8] הרי שלפי הילקוט יעקב הרג את עשו סמוך למיתת לאה, אבל לפי ספר היובלים זה היה מיד אחר מיתת יצחק, ויצחק מת י”ב שנה (או יותר) אחרי מיתת לאה שהיה סמוך למכירת יוסף או ב’ שנים לפניה (כמו שמבואר בסדר הדורות ב”א רי”ד).

 

No, Achashverosh Never Served a Stable-Boy

Yaakov Jaffe

Writings about Purim from virtually every stripe make reference to a well-known myth that Achashverosh, King of Persia, rose to power from being a former stable-boy. A simple google search yields dozens of online results for this myth, some in passing and others expanded,[1] some academic[2] and others some more traditional;[3] some on blogs and others in books.[4] Yet, it seems that these references to Achashverosh the stable-boy are all rooted in a common mistranslation of the Talmud in Megilah.

This essay will investigate the myth that Achashverosh was a stable-boy from a bibliographical, traditional, and textual perspective, and not from a Biblical, historical, or archeological perspective. Our goal is not to prove – based on historical or archeological evidenced – that a king of Persia did or did not rise to power from the stables; it is to analyze whether Jewish tradition has such a view about one specific king of Persia.

Before looking at the key texts, we should note two important factors in this midrash about Achashverosh and reasons to be skeptical about it:

1. Most Midrashim are grounded in some Biblical textual evidence. Haman comes from Amaleik as he is “Agagi” the name of the prior king of Amaleik; the king’s party recalls the exile from Jerusalem as Mordechai’s exile from Jerusalem and the subsequent dispersal of all Jews is a leitmotif across the megillah. But there is no textual evidence anywhere in Tanach connecting Achashverosh with stables or horses.

2. Many of the Midrashim related to Megilat Esther, find numerous echoes across the many Midrashic texts about Esther – the Midrashim in the Talmud (Megilah 11-17), Esther Rabba, and the two Targumim to Esther. Indeed, the idea that Haman came from Amaleik or that the king’s party and garments related to the temple appear numerous times across the many Midrashim. Yet, outside of the gloss of one line in the Megilah found in Talmud Megilah, the other extended Midrashic tradition never develops the idea of the king who was once a stable boy.

We should already therefore be skeptical whether the Jewish Midrashic tradition treats Achashverosh as a former stable-boy or stable-mater. Closer inspection of the Talmud reveals that the Talmud, itself, seems also to not consider him a former stable master, either.

Megilah 12b

The Talmud reads as follows (Megilah 12b):

“ויקצף המלך מאד” אמאי דלקה ביה כולי האי? אמר רבא, שלחה ליה “בר אהורייריה דאבא אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי; וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה.” מיד “וחמתו בערה בו“

This Talmudic quote begins and end with the same verse in Megilat Esther (1:12), that the king became very angry, and his anger burned hot within him. In between the quotes from the Megillah, the Talmud wonders why the king became so angry, and answers that it was because his first wife Vashsti had sent a particularly egregious insult in his direction. The thrust of the insult is that Achashverosh had gotten drunk, intoxicated after a little bit of wine, but that a greater figure from Vashti’s own family had the capacity to drink wine in the presence of 1000 other people[5] and not become drunk. Essentially, the king’s virility is insulted through his inability to consume large quantities of alcohol. The queen has successfully insulted her husband the king, but without invoking stables or horses.

But is there a second insult here as well? The insult includes an unusual Talmudic word “בר[6] אהורייריה” that appears to be part of the criticism. The word is used in only one other occasion in the Talmud (Bava Metziah 85a and its verbatim parallel in Shabbat 113b), and its meaning is not clear in that context either. The traditional translation of the word is that the אהורייריה runs the stables of a king or another wealthy individual, and so explain Rashi (to Megilah,[7] Bava Metziah, and Shabbat[8]) and Aruch (אהורייר).[9]

As a result, Soncino and most Talmudic translations take the reference to stables to be a second insult:

She sent him back answer: Thou son of my father’s steward![10] My father drank wine in the presence of a thousand, and did not get drunk, and that man [=Achashverosh] has become senseless with his wine. Straightway, his wrath burnt within him.

Clearly, this translation is the basis of the view that Achashverosh served as a stable-master prior to becoming king. Yet, the translation should give us pause for grammatical reasons. At the start of Vashti’s answer, Achashverosh is addressed directly “Thou son of my father’s steward!” But at the end, he is referenced coldly in the third person as “that man.” The shift from the second to the third person renders the sentence clunky and difficult to read. We have already been skeptical of this view to begin with, and the feel of the translation seems to be lacking somehow.

Comparatives and Stable-Masters

The wider context of the Talmud in Bava Metzia is a conversation about the great wealth of Rebbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi. His wealth is demonstrated using a comparative sentence, contrasting Rebbe’s great wealth, with the wealth of the Persian King Shapur. The comparative sentence follows the structure that the stable masters of Rebbi were wealthier than King Shapur. The stable master is not an actual person who exists in the story, the stable master provides an even more extreme basis of comparison: not only was Rebbi great, even his stable-masters were great! We can diagram as follows:

“a”	Were more “Y”	Than “b”
אהורייריה דבי רבי	הוה עתיר	משבור מלכא
The stable master of Rebbe	were wealthier	than King Shapur

This suggests that referring to a wealthy individuals stable masters is a turn of phrase to indicate how great the wealthy person’s attendants were, and not an actual fact or reference about his stables, horses, or mules. Indeed, a similar quip appears also in Hebrew regarding the comparison between the mules of Yitzchak and king Avimelech (Bereishis Rabba 64:7 cited by Rashi 26:13), “the dung of the mules of Yitzchak, and not the gold and silver of Avimelech (see Ritva Bava Metziah).

Having deduced this special אהורייריה sentence form, which is a special comparative for a very wealthier or powerful individual, suggests a different punctuation of the Gemara in Megillah, consisting of one insult not two:

“a”	Were more “Y”	Than “b”
אהורייריה דאבא אבא	חמרא שתי ולא רוי לקבל אלפא	וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה
The stable master of grandfather	Drank more and did not become intoxicated	Compared to that man who has become intoxicated

Punctuated not בר אהורייריה דאבא! אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי, וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה

But בר אהורייריה דאבא אבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי, וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה

In this view, the only insult was that the stable master of Vahsti’s grandfather could hold his alcohol better than Achashverosh could. The virility of her grandfather’s lowly stablemaster demonstrates how greater her grandfather was. This translates fits the grammar of the sentence in Megilah better, and has the added benefit of not inventing a new Midrash that Achashverosh served as a stable master. Indeed, one version of the Talmud in megillah reads: בר אהורייריה דאבא ‘לקבל אלפא חמרא שתי‘ ולא רוי וההוא גברא אשתטי בחמריה, and in this version the deletion of the second word “aba” necessitates our reading as well: my parents stable master drunk before 1000..

Which ancestor of Vashti’s was worthy of a boast?

Our reading of the Talmud confers yet another benefit, besides its consistency with the rest of Midrashic literature and its conformity to the grammar and sentence structure of the Talmud. It shifts the queen’s boast from her father Belshatzar, to her grandfather Nevuchadnetzar. The Talmud and Midrash often present Vashti as the granddaughter of Nevuchadnetzar; see Megilah 10b where as part of two separate drashot, one from Isaiah 14 and one from Isaiah 55, she is called the granddaughter of Nevuchadnetzar. Targum Esther 1:11 also refers to “Nevuchadnetzar Avuy de-aba,” her grandfather.[11] Associating her more with her grandfather than her father is sensible, because Nevuchadnetzar is a heroic, conquering figure throughout Tanach – expanding territory, exiling the Jews, “even the beasts of the field I have given to him” (Jeremiah 28:14). Nevuchadnetzar’s sons were not heroic figures, and Belshatzar the second son (see Daniel 5:2, 11, 13, 18, 22[12]) was stricken by fear and then defeated by the Persians in the famous story of the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5). Thus, when boasting of Vashti’s lineage, it would make more sense that she would boast of the virility of her grandfather more than of her father. Our reading correctly connects her with the great Nevuchadnetzar, and not with his less impressive sons.

The common mistranslation of the Talmud, in contrast, connects the boast to her father, ostensibly Belshatzar.[13] Was Belshatzar known for holding his alcohol? Daniel 5:1 does indicate that Belshatzar was able to drink large quantities of wine, but the balance of the chapter suggests the exact opposite of Vashti’s boast – that he was indeed affected by his drinking, weakened by it, and not that he was strong and able to overcome it. As the last Babylonian king, defeated by the Persians, Belshatzar would be a curious choice to be included in any boast about the strength of the Babylonians.[14]

Vashti’s boast speaks about having the capacity to drink in the presence of 1000 men, a turn of phrase which recalls the party of Belshatzar in Daniel 5. But does the Talmud intend to quote and reference the party and drinking of Belshatzar directly? Or does it just use the turn of phrase that appears in that context? The Torah Ohr Commentary of Yehoshua Boaz to the standard Vilna Shas does not source the quote – implying the Talmud uses the language of the phrase but does not intend to reference Belshatzar’s party. In contrast, Rashi does explicitly connect the words to Daniel 5, implying Vashti boasted of her father Belshatzar’s own virility, and not of the fortitude of the stable-masters of her grandfather Nevuchadnetzar.[15]

Was Achashverosh born into royalty?

One final topic related to the stable-boy myth is the question whether Achashverosh was born into royalty or not. Clearly, had the Talmud referenced humble, stable boy origins, then we would see him as a warlord or ruthless strongman who rose to power from outside. Yet, the Midrashim give no account of him exterminating the previous royal family or rebelling and usurping power from the previous king.

In contrast, Targum Sheni argues that Achashverosh was the son of Darius the Mede;[16] thus even if Beltshatzar was Vashti’s father, Achashverosh would still not be considered a stable master. Midrash Aba Gurion shares this view as well. Yalkut Esther (1049) is also of the view that Achashverosh was born into royalty, and was not her father’s stablemaster – but yet still quotes the boast of the king being unable to hold his alcohol compared to the stablemasters of Nevuchadnetzar. The primary boast stands, whether or not Achashverosh was a stable master.

The story of the stable-boy who rose to become king is an imaginative one that grips the mind and inspires the imagination. Yet, it seems to be a particularly late addition to Rabbinic literature, and one based in its core on a mistranslation of the Talmud.