Daf 7b - Naming and Necessity
Ein Yaakov - The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture #28: Daf 7b
Naming and Necessity
The top of page 7b marks the beginning of a new section a series of
statements that R. Yochanan presents in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai. The statements are often followed by
the Gemaras comments on them. Unlike the previous collection of statements that
R. Yochanan presents in the name of R. Yosi, this collection is not unified by a
set of common concerns. Nevertheless, as Benovitz points out, the first and
third statements seem to form a single unit thematically; both statements are
about names, both Divine and human. The second statement, however, is strangely
out of place, breaking up the unit.
R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai:
How do you know that
we must not try to placate a man in the time of his anger?
Because it is said:
My face will go and I will give thee rest (Shemot
33: 14).
This statement appeared previously on page 7a, where
it was presented by R. Yochanan in the name of R. Yosi. We discussed the
statement there. Its reappearance here serves to link the two collections of R.
Yochanans sayings.
The first statement that R. Yochanan presents in the name of
R. Shimon b. Yochai deals with Avrahams relationship with God:
R.
Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai:
From the
day that the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world
there
was no man that called the Holy One, blessed be He, Lord [Adon],
until
Avraham came and called Him Lord.
For it
is said:
He
said, O Lord [Adonai] God,
whereby
shall I know that I shall inherit it? (Bereishit 15:18).
The commentators offer various explanations of why Avraham
was the first to address God as Adonai. The simplest explanation,
however, is that Avraham was the first person to recognize Gods mastery of the
world and the first to be chosen to commit himself to His service. He is,
therefore, the first to call God Master, Adonai.
Tosafot point out a more difficult problem. The verse cited in the Gemara is not
the first instance in the Torah in which Avraham calls God Adonai.
Rather, verse 15:2, just a few verses above in the story of the berit bein
ha-betarim, is the first instance. Tosafot present an involved argument to
prove that the passage in chapter 15 is made up of two parts, 15:1-6 and
berit bein ha-betarim proper, 15:7-21. These two parts represent two
separate encounters between God and Avraham. Furthermore, the second part took
place before the first part. Hence verse eighteen, which the Gemara
cites, actually took place before verse two.
The Gemara now cites a statement of Rav which builds on this
teaching about Avraham:
Rav said:
Even Daniel was heard [in his prayer] only for the sake of
Avraham.
For it says:
Now therefore, O our God, hearken unto the prayer of Thy
servant,
and to his supplications,
and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy sanctuary that is
desolate,
for the Lords
[Adonai] sake (Daniel 9:17).
He ought to have have said:
'For Thy sake',
but [he means]:
for the sake of Avraham, who called Thee Adonai.
Rav
picks up on the apparent anomaly in the wording of Daniels prayer. Since Daniel
was addressing God, it would have made more sense for Daniel to have said for
Your sake, in the second person, rather than for The Lords sake, in the
third person. There are certainly other cases in the Bible in which people
address God in the third person, so from a peshat point of view this is
not a huge problem. However from the perspective of derash, this anomaly
gives Rav the opportunity to draw greater meaning from the text. In finding a
reference to Avraham and his revolutionary relationship with God in Daniels
prayer, Rav emphasizes the importance of Avrahams actions. Avraham being the
first to call God Adonai is not simply a landmark in the history of
religion. Rather, this deed has enduring significance for the Jewish people.
Avrahams merit continues to protect the Jewish people and causes God to heed
their prayers in times of need.
The
third statement in this collection closely resembles the first:
R.
Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai:
From the
day that the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world
there
was no man that gave thanks (hodah) to the Holy One, blessed be He,
until
Leah came and praised Him.
For it
is said:
This
time will I praise [odeh] the Lord (Bereishit 29:35).
This teaching opens with
almost
the exact same words as the first. This statement also tells of a certain way of
relating to God that did not exist until one of our forbearers initiated it. In
this case, Leah initiates the practice of giving thanks to God. This passage
also picks up on the motif of naming and names; Leah is naming her son Yehuda in
this verse.
The
Gemara now goes on to consider the naming of another one of Leahs sons,
Reuven:
Reuven
R.
Eleazar said:
Leah
said:
See the
difference between my son
and the
son of my father-in-law.
The son
of my father-in-law voluntarily sold his birthright,
for it
is written:
And he
sold his birthright unto Yaakov (Bereishit 25:33).
And,
nonetheless, behold, it is written of him:
And
Esav hated Yaakov (Bereishit 27:41),
and it
is also written:
And he
said, is not he rightly named Yaakov?
for he
hath supplanted me these two times (Bereishit 27:36).
My son,
however,
although
Yosef took his birthright from him against his will
as it is
written:
But,
for as much as he defiled his father's couch,
his
birthright was given unto the sons of Yosef (Divrei Ha-yamim I, 5:1),
was not
jealous of him.
For it
is written:
And
Reuven heard it, and delivered him out of their hand (Bereshit 37:21).
The
Gemara ignores the explanation of the name Reuven given in the Torah itself,
"For the Lord has seen (raah) my affliction, for now my husband will
love me. Instead, the Gemara focuses on the literal meaning of the name, reu
ben, see, a son. The Midrash, however, seeks greater significance in this
name. It reads the syllable ben, son, also as beyn, between, and
then reads it as ben once again. The result is reu beyn ben lben,
See (the difference) between (this) son and (that) son. The Midrash uses this
suggestive phrase to present a wider interpretation of the biblical text. In naming Reuven, Leah draws a
literary parallel between the story of Reuven and the story of Esav. Both men
lose their birthrights to their younger siblings, Esav to Yaakov and Reuven to
Yosef. However, they respond to this loss very differently. Esav seeks to kill
Yaakov, while Reuven steps in and saves Yosefs life when the other brothers
want to kill him. Esav serves as a literary foil to highlight Reuvens positive
traits.
One may
ask, how could Leah have known all of this about her sons later life so soon
after he was born? The simple answer would probably invoke the rabbinic notion
that a parent is granted a certain degree of prophecy in naming their child. One
can also argue that the rabbis are interpreting the name in light of their
knowledge of the wider story and not necessarily putting words in Leahs mouth. However, in light of the next
section, we can also argue, Leahs choice of the name Reuven was precisely what
allowed Reuven to take the moral high road so many years later. Names can have
an impact on a person and his deeds.
Ruth.
What is the meaning of Ruth?
R. Yochanan said:
Because she was privileged to be the ancestress of David,
who saturated (rivahu)
the Holy One, blessed be He, with songs and hymns.
How do we know that
the name [of a person] determines his destiny ?
R. Eleazar said:
Scripture says:
Come, behold the works of the Lord,
who hath made desolations in the earth (Tehillim
46:9).
Read not shammot, ['desolations'], but shemot,
[names].
The
Midrash now takes on the name of Ruth. This name is never explained in the
Bible, and it does not have any obvious meaning in biblical Hebrew. As in the previous case, the Gemara
sees Ruths name as foreshadowing her future. However, for the Gemara, the most
significant events related to Ruth are not those that occurred during her
lifetime. Ruths ultimate significance lies in her being the progenitor of King
David. The Gemara, therefore, relates the name Ruth to the many psalms and songs
of praise to God that David wrote. Ruths name does not simply predict her
illustrious grandsons endeavors. Rather, the two are causally connected. As the
Gemara concludes from its interpretation of the verse in Tehillim, names
contain great Divine power; they shape the destinies of their bearers as well as
their descendants.
This
section on names and naming thus ends with the word names and with a
formulation of the fundamental idea underlying the passage, that names can
directly affect the destiny of those who bear them.
A
Promise is a Promise
The
printed texts of the Ein Yaakov now present a final section of the
passage found on daf 7a, which records a series of statements made by R.
Yochanan in the name of R. Yosi. As we noted at the time, the final section of
this passage is missing from the Ein Yaakov. For some reason, it was
placed here instead:
R.
Yochanan further said in the name of R. Yosi:
No word
of blessing that issued from
the
mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He,
even if
based upon a condition,
was ever
withdrawn by Him.
How do
we know this?
From our
teacher Moshe.
For it
is said:
Let me
alone, that I may destroy them,
and blot
out their name from under heaven;
and I
will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they
(Devarim
9:14).
Though
Moshe prayed
that
this might be mercifully averted
and it
was cancelled,
[the
blessing] was nevertheless fulfilled towards his children.
For it
is said:
The
sons of Moshe:
Gershom
and Eliezer
And the
sons of Eliezer were Rechaviah the chief
and the
sons of Rechaviah were very many (Divrei Ha-yamim I, 23:15-16).
And R.
Yosef learnt:
They
were more than sixty myriads.
This is
to be learnt from two occurrences of the term very many.
Here it
is written:
were
very many,
and
elsewhere it is written:
And the
children of Israel were
very
fruitful and increased abundantly,
and
became very many (Shemot 1:7).
Like the
other sections of this passage, this final discussion also deals with Moshes
discussion with God following the sin of the golden calf, albeit based on the
account in Devarim and not the one in Shemot. This text also picks
up on the theme of Gods system of rewards in this world, which was central to
the rest of the passage on 7a.
The
Gemara here asserts that Gods promises are always fulfilled. This includes
cases of conditional promises in which the condition was not fulfilled. God
promised to make Moshe a great nation. This promise was made in the context of
Gods threat to destroy Israel for the sin of the golden calf. Moshe convinced
God not to destroy Israel, so one would have thought that Gods promise to Moshe
was no longer in effect. Moshe, however, was rewarded with numerous descendants.
To prove this point, the Gemara cites a verse from the book of Divrei
Ha-yamim. The simple meaning of this verse is that Moshe had many
descendants through his grandson Rechavia. This does not, however, yet prove
that Moshes descendants were a great nation parallel to the people of Israel
whom they were supposed to replace. To prove this, R. Yosef makes use of a
gezera shava, noting that the word rabu appears both with respect to
Moshes descendants and with respect to the multiplication of the children of
Israel in Egypt. According to R.
Yosef, this teaches us that Moshes descendants numbered six hundred thousand,
just like Israel at the Exodus.
Absalom,
Absalom
The
Gemara now states,
R.
Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon b. Yochai:
delinquence in a man's house
is worse
than the war of Gog and Magog.
For it
is said:
A Psalm
of David,
when he
fled from Avshalom his son (Tehillim 3:1),
and it
is written after that:
Lord,
how many are mine adversaries become!
Many are
they that rise up against me (Tehillim 3:2).
But in
regard to the war of Gog and Magog
it is
written:
Why are
the nations in an uproar?
And why
do the peoples mutter in vain? (Tehillim 2:1),
but it
is not written:
'How
many are mine adversaries become!'
R.
Yochanan makes a bold claim, that delinquence in a persons household is even
worse than the apocalyptic war of Gog and Magog. The word delinquence is my
best effort to translate the term tarbut raah. Literally, tarbut
raah may be rendered as bad manners or bad breeding. In this context,
the term clearly refers to traits or behavior that lead to serious strife, if
not outright violence, in the family.
R.
Yochanans statement emerges from contrasting two consecutive psalms.
Tehillim 2 describes the uprising of the nations against God. This uprising
is understood as referring to the war of Gog and Magog, which will come in the
eschatological era. Tehillim 3 is set during Davids flight from his son
Avshalom. As described in Shmuel II chapter fifteen, David fled Jerusalem
after his son Avshalom staged a coup and seized power. These two psalms also
have very different tones. In the first psalm, there is nothing but scorn for
the bad guys. In the second psalm, David expresses great fear of his pursuer.
The obvious explanation for this is that those who rebel against God face
certain defeat and need not be feared, whereas it is far from clear that
Avshaloms revolt will not be successful. David makes clear in the account in
Shmuel that he is concerned that God is no longer on his side.
The
Gemara takes a different approach, arguing that the different tones of the two
psalms are evidence for its claim about the evils of family strife. The Gemara
here teaches a powerful lesson. We tend to think that events that happen on the
grand scale of politics and history have the most impact. A persons family
context, however, can be far more decisive. The struggles that happen in this
arena can be the most painful and damaging. By extension, peace on the home
front may be even more important than peace on the battlefield.
The
Gemara now presents another interpretation of Davids response to his flight
from Avshalom:
'A Psalm
(mizmor) of David,
when he fled from Avshalom his son.
'A Psalm
of David'?
He ought
to have said:
'A
Lamentation of David'!
R.
Shimon b. Avishalom said:
A
parable: To what is this to be compared?
To a man
who has a bond outstanding against him;
until he
pays it he worries
but
after he has paid it, he rejoices.
So was
it with David.
When the
Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:
Behold,
I will raise up evil
against
thee out of thine own house (Shmuel II 12:2),
he began worrying.
He
thought:
it may
be a slave or a bastard who will have no pity on me.
When he
saw that it was Avshalom,
he was
glad,
and
therefore he said: 'A Psalm.
The
Gemara works from the assumption that the term mizmor must always
introduce a joyous psalm. If so, it is a strange word for David to use to
express his feelings while fleeing for his life from Avshalom. R. Shimon
responds with a parable about a person who is happy after he has finally paid
back a debt. The nimshal, the
application of this parable to the case at hand, seems clear. David is relieved
now that his punishment for the Bat Sheva incident has finally come. Actually
receiving the punishment is not as bad as dreading it. This idea that actually
receiving a punishment may be relieving in some way is consistent with Davids
previous behavior. Immediately following the account of Davids sin with Bat
Sheva in Shmuel II, chapter 12, we read that the child of this union was
struck by illness. David immediately ceases all normal activity, sits on the
floor and refuses to eat. When the child ultimately dies, he promptly gets up
and returns to normal life. His servants inquire as to his behavior. David
replies,
While the child was still alive,
I fasted and wept
Because I thought,
Who knows?
The Lord may have pity upon me
And the child may live.
But now that he is dead,
Why should I fast?
Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him,
But he will never go back to me.
Here
too, David expresses the idea that waiting for the punishment and constantly
praying to avert it take a greater toll than the punishment itself.
Yet, the
nimshal presented in the Gemara does not quite follow the mashal
as we have understood it. According to the Gemara, David is relieved because his
pursuer is his own legitimate son rather than a slave or a bastard. Even if
David is to be deposed, his line will remain in power. Nothing in the parable
suggests this nimshal. Rather, as if often the case, there is a gap
between the mashal and the nimshal. The nimshal comes to
teach us something beyond the interpretation implied in the mashal.
Taken as
a whole, this passage is a sort of meditation on the complexity of Davids
relationship with his son Avshalom. On
the one hand, Avshaloms revolt against David was the most devastating event in
King Davids life. On the other hand, according to R. Shimon b. Avishalom (whose
patronymic can hardly be a coincidence!), David takes a certain comfort in the
fact that it is own son who seeks to kill him. This
tension is paralleled in the biblical account, where David shows great
ambivalence towards Avshalom and his revolt. On a more universal level, we can
see this passage as dealing with the constant struggles of sons to overtake
their fathers. These uprisings are simultaneously transgressive revolts against
the natural order and, at the same time, necessary parts of the process of one
generation replacing the other.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!