Daf 3b-4a - Blowin' in the Wind
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture 9: Daf 3b-4a
Blowin' in
the Wind
How many
times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?
-Bob Dylan
The Gemara
continues its discussion of King Davids nocturnal activities:
But did David
know the exact time of midnight?
Even our
teacher Moses did not know it!
For it is
written:
About
midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt (Exodus 11:4)
Why about
midnight?
Shall we say
that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him:
About
midnight?
Can there be
any doubt in the mind of God?
Hence we must
say that God told him 'at midnight,
and he came
and said: 'About midnight.
Hence he
[Moses] was in doubt;
can David
then have known it?
The Gemara
questions the claim that David arose nightly at midnight. How did David know
exactly when midnight was? As I have mentioned previously, the ancients lacked
the precise time measurement tools that we have today. Calculating a particular
time to the second would have been difficult, if not impossible, in those days.
This is particularly true at night, when there is no sun to power a sundial. In
order to divide the night, people had to use the stars, a complex endeavor. As
we have said, this is part of why in the ancient Near East, people made do with
dividing the night into three parts. The Romans increased the precision of this
measure by adding a fourth watch. The practice of dividing the night into twelve
hours, known already to the ancient Egyptians, was not used widely because of
the difficulties in making these measurements. Calculating the exact point of
midnight would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, in those days.
As Ibn Ezra writes in his commentary (arukh) to Shemot 11:4 (cited
above): It is known that the scientist can only calculate the exact moment of
midday with great effort and large copper instruments. Calculating the middle of
the night is even more difficult.
I also wonder
if knowing the exact time of midnight had some magical or mystical significance
to the rabbis, perhaps giving the knower certain powers.
Furthermore,
the Gemara is concerned with the Torahs implication that Moshe himself did not
know how to calculate midnight. How could David know something that was beyond
Moshe Rabbeinu himself? This problem emerges from the verse in Shemot in
which Moshe announces the coming of the tenth plague, the slaying of the first
born: Thus saith the Lord: About midnight I will go out into the midst of
Egypt. We should first note that while
the phrase ka-chatzot ha-layla is generally rendered by commentators and
translators as about midnight, as it is here, Rashi understands it otherwise.
He renders the phrase as when the night divides in half. Part of Rashis
motivation for favoring this reading is that it eliminates the peculiar
ambiguity in the more common interpretation of about midnight. Why should
Moshe give only an approximate time for the plague? Does God work on a precise
schedule?
The Gemara
deals with this problem by asserting that there must have been a gap between
what God said to Moshe and what Moshe declared in His name to the Egyptians. God
must have said at midnight exactly. However, Moshe could not know exactly when
midnight is, so he said about midnight. This answer is not very compelling.
Moshe speaks here in the name of God. How could he change what he heard from
Him? Why is Moshes ignorance of the exact time of midnight relevant, as long as
God knows when it is? I suspect that this is why, later on in the passage, the
Gemara cites another, more compelling interpretation. But first the Gemara
expands further on Davids midnight awakenings:
Hence he
[Moses] was in doubt;
Can David
then have known it?
David had a
sign.
For so said
R. Acha b. Bizana in the name of R. Shimon the Pious:
A harp was
hanging above David's bed.
As soon as
midnight arrived,
a North wind
came and blew upon it and it played of itself.
He arose
immediately and studied the Torah till the break of dawn.
The question
remains, how was David able to calculate the time of midnight, when even Moshe
was not able to do so? The Gemara now answers that David did not possess any
superior celestial knowledge. Rather, he had a sign, essentially a piece of
technology, that allowed him to determine the time of midnight without complex
measurements. This mechanism was a harp, which was presumably hung in a
northward direction, as Rashi notes. At midnight, a north wind would come and
cause the harp to make music, like a wind chime, awakening David. Rashi explains
the principle behind this mechanism as follows: As he said, four winds blow
each day. The first six hours of the day, an east wind blows. From noon through
the second six hours, a south wind. From the beginning of the night, a west
wind. From midnight, a north wind. According to Rashi, we can determine time,
not only based on the movements of the celestial bodies, but also based on
another daily cycle. Each quarter of the day is marked by a different wind. If
one can determine when the wind changes direction, one can accurately mark the
four cardinal points of the day: sunrise, noon, sunset and midnight. Davids
harp is calibrated to be set off by the coming of the north wind, thus alerting
him to the moment of midnight.
I cannot find
the source for Rashis idea about the winds. Tosafot note that the most relevant
source is Bava Batra 25a, which presents an extended discussion of the
nature of the four winds. Rav is quoted as saying, four winds blow every day,
and the north wind blows with all of them. For if this were not so, the world
could not exist even for a moment. Though the Tosafot attempt to reconcile this
passage with our passage, Rav does not seem to suggest an equal four part
division of the day between the winds. This passage does, however, attribute a
special, life sustaining quality to the north wind. This fits well with our text
associating the north winds music and King Davids study of Torah. However,
later on in the Bava Batra passage, it states that the north wind
deflates the value of gold. Rashi explains that this means that the north wind
is a dry wind that brings the sharav, causing famine, which results in a
weakening of currency values. This
would suggest that the north wind is, in fact, a malevolent force. The whole
issue of the four winds in rabbinic thought requires further study. Tzarikh
iyun.
We must now
investigate the idea of the self-playing harp. The source of this image is, in
part, the verse from Tehillim 57:9 cited later on in the sugya:
Awake my soul, awake harp and lyre! I will awake the dawn. This verse
describes David, along with a harp and lyre, awakening before dawn. In light of
the previously cited verse, which says that David awoke at midnight to study or
pray, it would be natural for the
rabbis to interpret before dawn as meaning, not a little before dawn, but
midnight. Hence, according to the rabbis, this verse describes Davids awakening
at midnight along with a stringed instrument. But where did the rabbis get the
idea that the harp played itself? The most logical understanding of this verse
is that David himself played the harp, as he was famous for doing, throughout
the night. Other versions of this
aggada cite a verse about the prophet Elisha, Melakhim II 3:15. They
interpret this verse as describing a self-playing harp which inspires Elisha to
prophesy. However, this does not appear to be the simple meaning of the verse
here either. Still, in this context, the wind-activated harp does appear to be
an image of divine inspiration. It is like an antenna tuned to resonate at the
holy frequency of the wind. The music created inspires the prophet to prophesy.
In our
context, the rabbis may have created this image in order to resolve the tension
between prayer and Torah study in the verses and traditions about Davids
nocturnal activities. As we have mentioned, the sources are unclear about
whether David spent his night in study or prayer or some combination of the two.
The relationship between prayer and Torah study is an important theme in the
first chapter of Berakhot. The image of the harp seems to suggest that
David was praying, not studying. However, as we shall discuss shortly, the
rabbis thought it was important to portray David as involved in study. The idea
of the self-playing harp allows us to resolve this contradiction. David was
involved only in study. He did not
play the harp; rather, it made music independently, and this music accompanied
David throughout the night.
The image of
David, studying throughout the night, is part or a much broader tradition in
which the Midrash anachronistically portrays the great figures of the Bible
observing mitzvot and acting like great rabbis. The rabbis of the Midrash
show the Biblical heroes as precursors and precedents for their own activities
and teachings. In this particular case, however, Davids commitment to and love
of Torah is clearly described already in Tehillim 119, from which most of
the verses cited above are taken.
Davids image
becomes much more complex as the story continues:
After the
break of dawn
the wise men
of Israel came in to see him and said to him:
Our lord, the
King, Israel your people require sustenance!
He said to
them: Let them go out and make a living one from the other.
They said to
him:
A handful
(others translate a single locust) cannot satisfy a lion,
nor can a pit
be filled up with its own clods.
He said to
them:
Then go out
in troops and attack [the enemy for plunder].
Previously,
David appears as a rabbinic sage, totally devoted to Torah study, inspired by
the image of David in Tehillim. Now, David appears as a political leader,
absorbed in economic and military issues. This picture of David seems more
consonant with the picture found in the book of Shmuel.
Therefore, we may see this story as an
attempt to merge these seemingly contradictory images of David. Previously, when
we saw David studying throughout the night, we assumed this meant that he
studied even at night, and how much more so during the day, fulfilling
the verse and though shalt meditate upon it [the Torah] day and night. Now,
David seems to study all night because he is absorbed in the affairs of state
during the day. This story comes to answer the question: How could David have
been a great Torah scholar and a great political leader at the same time? The
answer is that he didnt get much sleep.
The details
of Davids policies, to be sure, are not in line with contemporary values. By any definition, solving the
peoples economic problems through wars of conquest conforms neither to modern
economic theory nor, more importantly, to modern ethics of warfare. I find it
disturbing that the Sages thought that the Jewish state should enrich itself
through plunder and pillage. I would, however, like to place this story into two
contexts which may make it more understandable. The first is the biblical
context. The book of Shmuel tells of how David engages in a series of
wars and conquests against the neighboring nations. The Sages are not making
this up, but, rather, interpreting Davids expansionist military policy as being
rooted, not in a desire for glory, but in a desire to meet the basic needs of
his people.
The second
context is the historical context in which the rabbis composed this story. It is
difficult to know for certain exactly when or where (the land of Israel or
Babylonia) this story was first composed. Almost certainly, however, the rabbis
wrote this story at a time when the Jewish community lacked the capacity to
execute its own independent economic and military policies, whether under the
Romans and Byzantines in the Land of Israel, or under the Parthians and
Sassinians in Babylonia. At some points,
such as in the Land of Israel in the third and fourth centuries C.E., the
economic situation of the Jews was particularly harsh.
This story may be seen as a rabbinic
fantasy of power, saying, if only we had political and military independence,
we could take our destiny into our own hands and solve our economic problems.
The story now
goes on to transform the image of David once more,
They at once
took counsel with Achitofel
and consulted
the Sanhedrin
and
questioned the Urim and Tummim.
R. Yosef
says:
What verse
[may be cited in support of this]?
And after
Achitofel was Yehoyada, the son of Benayahu,
and Evyatar;
and the captain of the King's host was Yoav.
'Achitofel',
this was the counselor.
And so it is
said:
Now the
counsel of Achitofel, which he counseled in those days,
was as if a
man inquired of the word of God.
'Benayahu the
son of Yehoyada', this means the Sanhedrin.
'And
Evyatar', these are the Urim and Tummim.
And so it
says:
And Benayahu
the son of Yehoyada was over the Kreiti and Pleiti.
Why are they
called 'Kreiti' and 'Pleiti'?
Kreiti,
because their words are decisive [kortim];
Pleiti,
because they are distinguished [mufla'im] through their words.
And then it
comes 'the captain of the King's host Yoav'.
R. Yitzhak b.
Adda says: (Some say, R. Yitzhak the son of Addi says)
Which verse?
Awake, my
glory; awake, psaltery and harp; I will awake the dawn.
Until now, as
we have seen, the rabbis have placed David in the context of three or four
different interpretive horizons: David as political and military leader, as
described in the book of Shmuel; David as seeker of Gods word, as
described in Tehillim; David as Torah scholar who is totally committed to
the study of Torah; and, possibly, David as responding to the rabbis
contemporary social-political situation. Now, the rabbis introduce a new
perspective on David David as the idealized halakhic king as described in
Masekhet Sanhedrin. This king cannot always act on his own; he is subject to
numerous checks and balances. The Mishnah (1:5) states that a king may not go
off to a discretionary war, such as the war of conquest described in our story,
without the consent of the high Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges. The Gemara
there (16a) states that the king also needs the permission of the Urim
Ve-tummim, the divine oracle associated with the high priest. The Bible,
however, does not portray David as operating under such constitutional
restrictions. The story, therefore, cites verses from Shmuel and
Divrei Ha-yamim which describe Davids cabinet, reinterpreting them to refer
to the Sanhedrin and the Urim Ve-tummim.
In
conclusion, this story is a complex effort to bring together many different
aspects of King Davids life and personality as they appear in various sources
in the Bible and rabbinic tradition. David is at once sage and
commander-in-chief; he is a man of private spirituality who also operates in a
political and legal context.
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!