We begin today’s page of the Gemara Shabbat, page 94, with a prayer for the elevation of the souls of Avraham ben Esther and Yosef ben Sabut. May the Divine spirit rest upon them. Amen.
We begin on page 94b, six lines from the bottom. The Gemara says: “Rav, Rabbi Hanina, Rabbi Yohanan, and Rav Haviva taught throughout the order of Moed.” These rabbis are often brought together as a pair. In some versions, wherever Rabbi Yohanan is mentioned, the text reads Rabbi Yonatan instead. This is simply a technical matter concerning which rabbi is speaking. The more important point is the teaching itself.
Whoever has the ability to rebuke the members of his household but does not do so is held accountable for their sins. Ordinarily, the father or another adult figure is responsible for rebuking the family. If someone is dressed improperly, for example, the father must say, “What is this? You do not go out dressed like that.” If someone is speaking improperly at the table, he must say, “We do not speak that way.” Whoever could have prevented the wrongdoing but did not do so receives punishment for the sins that were committed.
The Gemara continues that a person who has influence over the members of his household is held accountable for the sins of his household. There are other people who have greater authority and influence. They can affect not only their own homes, but an entire city. If they fail to rebuke the people, they are held accountable for the sins of the city.
Someone who has influence over the entire world is held accountable for the entire world. A king, particularly a Jewish king, has authority over the whole nation. When the king speaks, people are afraid and listen to him. He is therefore responsible for the actions of those under his authority.
Rav Huna said that the members of the household of the Exilarch in Babylonia were held accountable for the entire nation, because they were like the chief rabbis of Babylonia. Their influence was extremely powerful. If they saw people committing sins and did not rebuke them, they would be held accountable. In Heaven, they could not say, “What could we do? We had no ability to rebuke them.”
Once, the saintly Chafetz Chaim went to a certain town and delivered a speech. He said, “I have come here to rebuke you and to protest the behavior that I see in this town. Why am I doing this? Because I am an old man, and soon I will go up to Heaven. They will ask me, ‘Yisrael Meir of Radin, you were the great rabbi of the generation. How did you allow this to continue? How did you let this happen?’
“I know that if I do not come to rebuke you, when God calls you to account, you will say, ‘The Chafetz Chaim was alive. He never came to tell us anything. He never rebuked us.’ You will get me into trouble. Therefore, when that claim is made before God, I want to be able to say that I did come. I came and delivered a speech, and I protested. I cannot afford to go to Gehenna because of other people’s sins.”
Rabbi Hanina said that God would come to rebuke the elders and the officers. If the elders sinned, God would punish them. The elders are the members of the Sanhedrin, because the Sanhedrin had not rebuked the poor people. The leaders therefore had to bear the punishment for the sins of the people.
Rabbi Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when a certain woman came into the court shouting about a case. She claimed that someone had wronged her. Shmuel did not pay attention to her. Rabbi Yehuda said to him, “Why are you not listening to her? Do you not want your prayers to be answered?”
Rabbi Yehuda held that the verse says, “One who closes his ear to the cry of the poor will also call out, and he will not be answered.” If a person closes his ears to someone who is suffering, his own prayers will later be ignored.
Shmuel replied, “Young, sharp one, the heads of the nation are judged first.” In other words, “I am not the chief judge here. This responsibility belongs to the head of the court.” The head of the court was Mar Ukva, the presiding judge. Shmuel said, “He is my leader and yours. He is the one who must be held accountable.”
The Gemara brings a verse concerning the House of David: “Thus says God: Judge justice in the morning, and rescue the robbed from the hand of the oppressor. Otherwise My anger will emerge like a fire and burn without anyone being able to extinguish it.” God demands that the leaders judge properly and rescue people who have been robbed. If they fail to do so, the judges themselves are held accountable.
The Gemara then relates that Abaye sent a message to certain people in the house of the Exilarch, instructing them to go and rebuke those who were not behaving properly. They replied, “They will not listen to us. They will not accept our rebuke.” Abaye answered, “Even so, you must rebuke them.”
Abaye said in the name of Rabbi Hanina that ordinarily, when the Holy One, blessed be He, issues a good decree, He does not retract it. A bad decree can be rescinded, but a good decree remains in effect. There is, however, one case in which even a good decree was retracted: when the righteous people failed to rebuke the wicked.
The Gemara brings a verse from the prophecy of Ezekiel, which concerns the future destruction of Jerusalem. God tells Ezekiel to go through the city and place a mark, the letter tav, on the foreheads of the people who were distressed by all the abominations being committed there. These were righteous people who were deeply troubled by the sins around them.
The mark was placed on their foreheads so that when the angel of destruction came to punish the city, he would see the mark and spare those people. However, the Gemara says that the mark placed on the foreheads of the righteous was a mark of blood, indicating that they too would be struck by the destructive forces.
At first, the righteous were to be saved. A good decree had been issued that they would not be destroyed. The Divine attribute of justice then came before God and asked, “What is the difference between these people and those people?”
God answered, “These are completely righteous, and those are completely wicked.” Justice replied, “What do You mean by completely righteous? They had the ability to rebuke the wicked and failed to do so. They too are guilty.”
God answered that He knew the wicked would not have listened even if the righteous had rebuked them. The attribute of justice replied, “You knew that, but did they know it? They were not prophets. They did not know that their rebuke would be rejected. Therefore, they were still obligated to rebuke them.”
At that point, the decree was changed. God instructed the angels of destruction: “Old and young, boys and girls, women and children—destroy them all. But do not approach anyone who has the mark on his forehead. Begin with My sanctuary.”
The verse first says not to approach the people who have the mark, and then says to begin with the holy ones. The reason is that the decree had changed. At first, the righteous were to be spared. Once the attribute of justice argued that they had failed to rebuke the wicked, not only were they no longer protected, but the destruction was to begin with them.
The verse says that the destruction began with the elders who stood before the Temple. Rabbi Yosef taught that “the holy ones” refers to people who had fulfilled the entire Torah, from alef to tav. Nevertheless, because they had failed to rebuke the wicked, they were punished first.
The prophecy continues that six men came from the northern direction. Each had a weapon in his hand, and one of them had a writing case at his waist. They came and stood beside the bronze altar.
The Gemara asks: Was there still a bronze altar at that time? The bronze altar had already been hidden. The Gemara answers that the phrase refers to the place where the people who sang and played music stood before God. Their instruments were made of bronze. Thus, “beside the bronze altar” means beside those who sang and played the instruments—the righteous people who stood near the altar.
The Gemara then explains who the six men were. They represented six destructive forces: wrath, anger, fury, destruction, breaking, and annihilation. These were the forces that came to destroy the city.
Why was the letter tav placed on the foreheads of both the righteous and the wicked? Rav said that for the righteous, tav means “you shall live,” while for the wicked, tav means “you shall die.” The same letter therefore had opposite meanings depending on the person who bore it.
Shmuel said that the letter tav indicated that the merit of the patriarchs had come to an end. We often speak of the merit of the patriarchs protecting the Jewish people. According to this opinion, however, that merit had been exhausted. The balance of ancestral merit was now zero. Therefore, the tav on the foreheads of the wicked meant that the merit of the patriarchs would no longer protect them. The righteous, however, had their own merits, and therefore they could still live.
Rabbi Yohanan said that the letter tav was placed on both groups to indicate that the merit of the patriarchs should have mercy upon them. When the angel saw the tav on the forehead of a righteous person, it meant, “Let the merit of the patriarchs protect him.” When he saw it on the forehead of a wicked person, it meant, “Let the merit of the patriarchs protect him”—but it would not help, because he was wicked.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that tav is the final letter of the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He. The seal of God is truth. As the Gemara says elsewhere, when God seals, He seals with truth. The tav is the last letter of the word truth, and therefore it is part of the Divine seal.
Rashi explains that the word truth contains the first, middle, and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet: alef is the first letter, mem is in the middle, and tav is the final letter. This teaches that God is present at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end.
There are twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, so one might ask how mem can be exactly in the middle. The answer given by Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetzky is that the calculation includes the five final forms of the letters. With those five additional forms, there are twenty-seven letters. Thirteen letters come before mem, thirteen come after it, and mem is in the middle.
It should also be noted that God’s seal is truth. When an author writes a book, he generally signs it. When an artist paints a picture, he signs the painting. God wrote a book—the Torah—and He placed the word truth at its beginning and its end.
At the beginning of the Torah, the final letters of the words “In the beginning God created” spell truth: the final letter of “in the beginning” is tav, the final letter of “created” is alef, and the final letter of “God” is mem. They appear in the order tav, alef, mem, rather than alef, mem, tav.
At the end of the account of creation, the final letters of the words “that God created to make” spell truth in the proper order: the final letter of “created” is alef, the final letter of “God” is mem, and the final letter of “to make” is tav. This is why, on Friday night, when the verse is recited, people sometimes respond, “Truth.” The final letters of those words form the signature of God.
Someone once asked: At the end of creation, the word truth appears in the correct order. Why, at the beginning of creation, does it appear out of order?
The answer is based on the idea that humility is a prerequisite for Torah. Moses was the most humble of all people, and that is why he merited being the one through whom the Torah was given.
There were three exceptionally humble righteous people: Abraham, David, and Moses. Abraham said, “I am dust and ashes.” David said, “I am a worm and not a man.” Moses said, “What are we?”—we are nothing.
This is the meaning of the teaching in Pirkei Avot: “Be exceedingly, exceedingly humble.” Why does it say “exceedingly” twice? It alludes to the three levels of humility represented by Abraham, David, and Moses.
If we were to arrange those three expressions according to their level of humility, David would be at the lowest level, because a worm is at least a living creature. Abraham’s “dust and ashes” is the next level, because it is something, although it is not alive. Moses reached the highest level when he said, “What are we?”—nothing.
The beginning of the Torah hints that in order to study Torah, a person must acquire these three levels of humility. The tav of the first word alludes to a worm. The alef of the next word alludes to dust and ashes. The mem of the following word alludes to Moses saying, “What are we?” Thus, the beginning of the Torah hints at the ascent through the three levels of humility. At the end, the word truth appears in its proper order, alef, mem, tav.
This is the significance of the letter that God placed on the foreheads of the righteous. Those righteous people believed in God, who is the Master of the world. The letter alef itself symbolizes God. According to its form, the alef is constructed from a vav on a diagonal, with a yud above and a yud below. Their numerical values are six, ten, and ten, totaling twenty-six, the numerical value of the Divine Name.
The alef is therefore constructed according to the numerical value of God’s Name. Those who believe in the Master of the world are connected to truth. If the alef is removed from the word truth, what remains is the word for death. This is why God placed the tav on the foreheads: to distinguish between those who would live and those who would die.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said that the letter tav also indicates that these righteous people had fulfilled the entire Torah, from alef to tav, while the others had not.
This interpretation relates to the verse in the Passover Haggadah about the child who does not know how to ask. The verse says that one must begin teaching him. The usual explanation is that this child needs help because he does not know how to ask. However, the word “begin” can also be understood as “from alef to tav.” The father and mother must teach this child the entire Torah, from alef to tav, because he knows nothing.
The Gemara then asks: When did the merit of the patriarchs come to an end?
Rav answered that it ended in the days of the prophet Hosea, based on the verse: “I will reveal their disgrace before the eyes of those who love them, and no one will rescue them from My hand.” The Gemara understands this to mean that even the merit of the patriarchs would no longer rescue the Jewish people.
This prophecy was said during the reign of Jehoahaz, when the king of Aram oppressed Israel. Throughout the days of Jehoahaz, God had mercy on the Jewish people. He had compassion on them and turned toward them for the sake of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God did not wish to destroy them because of the merit of the patriarchs. From that point onward, however, that merit was considered exhausted.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the merit of the patriarchs ended in the days of Elijah. When Elijah confronted the prophets of the Baal, he prayed, “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known today that You are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant.” His words, “let it be known today,” indicate that this was the final day on which the merit of the patriarchs would be invoked.
Rabbi Yohanan said that the merit of the patriarchs ended in the days of King Hezekiah. God had promised Hezekiah that the Davidic dynasty would continue. The verse says that God would establish it through justice and righteousness, but concludes, “The zeal of the Lord of Hosts will accomplish this.” The continuation of the dynasty would therefore be because of God’s own zeal, not because of the merit of the patriarchs.
The Gemara then introduces another principle: there is no death without sin, and there is no suffering without iniquity. If a person dies, there must have been a sin. If a person experiences suffering, there must have been an iniquity that caused it.
The source for the principle that there is no death without sin is the verse, “The soul that sins, it shall die.” The verse also says that a son will not bear the iniquity of his father, and a father will not bear the iniquity of his son. The righteous person receives the result of his righteousness, and the wicked person receives the result of his wickedness.
The source for the principle that there is no suffering without iniquity is the verse, “I will punish their iniquity with a rod, and their sin with afflictions.” The Gemara appears to say clearly that a person does not die without sin and does not suffer without iniquity.
The Gemara challenges this. What about people who appear to have committed no sin and nevertheless died? The angels once asked God, “Master of the universe, why did You impose death upon Adam?” Adam had received only one command—not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge—and he transgressed it. That, they understood.
But what about Moses and Aaron? They fulfilled the entire Torah, yet they died. The angels asked, “How can You say that death comes only because of sin? Adam sinned and died, but Moses and Aaron did not sin and also died.”
God answered with the verse, “This is the fate of the righteous and the wicked.” There is no difference in this matter between the righteous and the wicked: ultimately, everyone dies. Adam sinned and died; Moses and Aaron did not sin, yet they also died. Death is therefore a reality whether or not a person has sinned.
The Gemara says that the teaching that death comes only through sin follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. He says that Moses and Aaron did die because of a sin. The sin was that they failed to sanctify God at the rock, as the verse says, “Because you did not believe in Me.” According to this opinion, Moses and Aaron did have a sin.
There is a very interesting question here. We have one opinion that says Moses and Aaron did not have a sin, and another that says they did. How can we explain the first opinion?
One explanation is that God never explicitly told Moses not to hit the rock. He was not told, “Do not hit it; speak to it.” Therefore, if Moses hit the rock, it was an error or an inadvertent action. God does not ordinarily punish a person for an inadvertent mistake; punishment is imposed for a direct transgression.
The Gemara, however, says elsewhere that at the time of Divine judgment, a person can be punished even for an inadvertent mistake. Therefore, although Moses did not commit a deliberate transgression, his error was still considered a sin in the context of the judgment against him.
The Gemara then brings another challenge. Four people died without sin: Benjamin, the son of Jacob; Amram, the father of Moses; Jesse, the father of David; and Kilab, the son of David. If there is no death without sin, how did these four people die?
The Gemara says that this teaching is a received tradition. In the case of Benjamin, Amram, and Kilab, the Gemara simply transmits the tradition that they died without sin. In the case of Jesse, the Gemara brings a verse to support it.
Amasa became the general in place of Joab. The verse describes Amasa as the son of a man named Jether the Israelite, who had been with Abigail, the daughter of Nahash. Abigail was the sister of Zeruiah, the mother of Joab. The Gemara explains that Abigail’s father was actually Jesse. Why, then, does the verse call him Nahash?
The answer is that he was called Nahash because he died only because of the snake. In other words, Jesse had no sin of his own. The verse uses the name Nahash to indicate that he died as a result of the primordial sin of Adam, who was enticed by the serpent.
The Gemara then asks: Perhaps this teaching follows the opinion of the angels, who said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. If so, perhaps Moses and Aaron did not die because of sin either.
The Gemara answers that the teaching follows Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, who says that Moses and Aaron died because of their sin. This is therefore a challenge to the earlier opinion that there is no death without sin. The conclusion is that, according to the tradition concerning these four people, it is possible for a person to die without sin. The statement is therefore a refutation of Rabbi Meir’s position.
The Gemara now discusses the sins of righteous people. Whoever says that Reuben sinned is making a mistake. The Torah says, “The sons of Jacob were twelve,” teaching that all twelve tribes were equal in righteousness.
But the Torah also says that Reuben went and slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. How can the Torah say that he did this if he was righteous?
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar explains that anyone who reads the verse literally is mistaken. Reuben did not commit the actual sin. Rather, he disturbed his father’s bed. After Rachel died, Jacob moved his bed into Bilhah’s tent. Reuben objected because Bilhah had been Rachel’s maidservant, and he felt that his mother, Leah, was being humiliated. He therefore moved Jacob’s bed from Bilhah’s tent into Leah’s tent.
The Torah describes this act as though Reuben had slept with Bilhah. This teaches that although he did not commit the major transgression, his action was still treated as extremely serious.
This is an important lesson about the way we judge righteous people. Maimonides teaches in Pirkei Avot that one must judge every person favorably. The obligation depends on the person being judged. A person who is known to be righteous does not require the same degree of favorable interpretation, because we already know that he acts properly. A person who is known to be wicked may be judged unfavorably. The requirement to give the benefit of the doubt applies especially to an ordinary person who is neither clearly righteous nor clearly wicked.
If an ordinary person is in a situation that can be interpreted in two ways, one must tilt the judgment in his favor. If that is true of an ordinary person, it is certainly true of a righteous person. Therefore, when the Torah says that Reuben slept with Bilhah, we should not interpret the verse in the worst possible way. We should search for a more favorable explanation.
The Gemara gives a similar example concerning Boaz. The verse says that he came to the threshing floor and lay down. The Gemara explains that the wording does not imply anything improper. He simply returned tired from the field and went to sleep. The expression is entirely innocent. We must therefore be careful not to interpret verses about righteous people in a negative manner.
The phrase used by the Gemara—“whoever says that Reuben sinned is mistaken”—can also be understood as a criticism of the person making the accusation. It does not merely mean that he made one mistake about Reuben. It means that his entire approach to reading the Scriptures is mistaken. If he can interpret Reuben’s act as a major sin, he may be making the same kind of error throughout his study of the biblical text.
The Gemara brings another proof that Reuben did not actually commit the sin. When the tribes later stood on Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, Reuben stood among the tribes on Mount Ebal, where the curses were pronounced. One of the curses was, “Cursed is the one who lies with his father’s wife.” If Reuben had committed that sin, it would be strange for the tribe of Reuben to be included in the assembly that accepted the covenant in that manner. This supports the view that he had not actually slept with Bilhah.
Reuben acted because he was defending the honor of his mother. Jacob had two beds in his tent: one for his wife and another associated with the Divine Presence. Wherever the Divine Presence rested, Jacob knew that he was meant to sleep that night. Reuben moved both beds—Jacob’s bed and the bed associated with the Divine Presence—from Bilhah’s tent to Leah’s tent.
Jacob later said to Reuben, “You were impetuous like water; you shall no longer have superiority.” The word “impetuous” indicates that Reuben acted too quickly. He should have asked Jacob before moving the beds. He rushed to defend his mother’s honor, but in doing so he acted improperly and diminished his father’s authority.
One interpretation understands Jacob’s words as a rebuke: Reuben acted too quickly, sinned, and degraded his father’s honor. According to that interpretation, Reuben did commit a sin, although it was not the sin described literally in the verse.
Rabban Gamliel offers a more favorable interpretation. He says that Reuben prayed, pleaded with God, and ultimately conquered his inclination. He had been tempted to commit the sin, but he prayed and was answered. He therefore remained righteous.
Ben Azai interprets the word “impetuous” by reading it in another direction. Reuben was frightened and trembling at the prospect of sinning. He stepped back from the transgression. The sin moved away from him, and he remained innocent.
Rabban Gamliel adds that Reuben remembered the punishment associated with sleeping with his father’s wife. He became physically ill at the thought of it, conquered his inclination, and thereby saved his descendants from the sin.
The Gemara then turns to the sons of Eli. Whoever says that they actually slept with the women who came to the Temple is also mistaken. The women came to the Temple to bring their offerings after giving birth. A woman who gave birth to a boy brought her offering after forty days, and a woman who gave birth to a girl brought it after eighty days. Before she brought the offering, she could not resume marital relations with her husband.
These women came to the Temple to bring their birds, known as a pair of offerings. The priests were responsible for accepting the birds. The sons of Eli were negligent and delayed in bringing the offerings. The women had to remain in Jerusalem overnight because their offerings had not been handled. As a result, they were delayed one night from returning to their husbands.
The verse describes this as though the sons of Eli had slept with the women. In reality, they did not have relations with them. Rather, because of their laziness and negligence, they delayed the women from returning to their husbands. The verse treats the delay as though they had committed the more serious act.
The Gemara says that the sons of Eli were held accountable because they should have rebuked one another. They were not necessarily guilty of the physical act described in the verse, but they were guilty of failing to protest the wrongdoing and negligence taking place in the Temple.
The verse uses a plural expression concerning the sons of Eli. This indicates that both were involved in the wrongdoing, not necessarily because both committed the physical act, but because both were responsible for the failure to perform their duties properly.
The Gemara traces the lineage of the people mentioned in the verse and asks why certain names are used. When the lineage of a person is traced through a sequence of “son of” expressions, the names themselves can teach something about the individual’s status and character.
The Gemara also discusses a verse that says that God will punish a person so that he will not have descendants who serve as priests. Although the verse uses a plural expression, the Gemara analyzes the exact wording and spelling to determine whether it refers to one person or two. The written form and the way the word is read are examined carefully.
The point is that the sons of Eli were not necessarily guilty of the literal act described by the verse. They were guilty because they failed to rebuke one another and because their negligence caused the women to remain in Jerusalem and be separated from their husbands for an additional night.
The Gemara says that the people spread rumors about the sons of Eli. The expression can be read not as a statement that the sons themselves committed the act, but that the people were spreading the report and speaking against them. The people were the ones who carried the rumor throughout the area.
This is also the explanation offered by Tosafot. Tosafot notes that the wording in the Gemara appears to differ from the wording in the biblical text. The biblical text contains the letter yud, while the Gemara’s wording appears without it. There are places where the text of the Gemara and the text of the Scriptures differ in spelling, and this is one of those places.
There are also other examples of discrepancies between traditions concerning the biblical text. Tosafot mentions the length of a certain reign: one tradition records forty years, while the biblical text appears to indicate twenty years. Such differences sometimes occur between the text preserved in one source and the text preserved in another.
For our purposes, the reading in the Gemara can be maintained. It does not undermine the explanation that the sons of Eli were not guilty of the physical act described in the verse. Rather, they were guilty of negligence and of failing to rebuke one another, while the people spread the rumors about them.
May the One who grants understanding help us study these passages properly and judge righteous people with fairness and respect.