Daf 4a - Between Blood and Blood
Ein Yaakov
- The World of Talmudic Aggada
By Dr.
Moshe Simon-Shoshan
Lecture
10: Daf 4a
Between
Blood and Blood
The Gemara
now returns to the question of whether Moshe and David knew how to calculate the
exact time of midnight. Previously, the Gemara had determined that the answer in
both cases was no, and that only God knows how to calculate the exact point of
midnight. As we noted at the time, the Gemara provides a less than satisfactory
explanation of the verses regarding Moshes knowledge of midnight. Perhaps
because of this, the Gemara now offers a different answer to the question:
R. Zeira
says:
Moshe
certainly knew and David, too, knew [the exact time of midnight].
Since David
knew, why did he need the harp?
That he might
wake from his sleep.
Since Moshe
knew, why did he say 'about midnight'?
Moshe thought
that the astrologers of Pharaoh might make a mistake,
and then they
would say that Moshe was a liar.
For so a
Master said: Let thy tongue acquire the habit of saying, 'I know not',
lest thou be
caught lying.
R. Ashi says:
It was at
midnight of the night of the thirteenth passing into the fourteenth [of Nisan],
and thus said Moshe to Israel:
The Holy One,
blessed be He, said:
Tomorrow [at
the hour] like the midnight of tonight,
I will go out
into the midst of
R. Zeira
holds that both David and Moshe knew how to calculate the exact time of
midnight. If this is the case, R. Zeira must now re-interpret the previously
cited verses and traditions that appeared to suggest otherwise. With regard to
David, we have the tradition of his miraculous harp which would wake him up
exactly at midnight. If David could calculate the time of midnight, why did he
need the harp? R. Zeira sensibly answers that Davids knowledge of the time of
midnight only helped if he was already awake! Since David was asleep (according
to at least some opinions mentioned previously), he needed the harp to act as an
alarm clock to wake him up on time.
We now must
return to the difficult verse in Shemot in which Moshe announces in Gods
name that He will smite the Egyptians at about midnight. Even if Moshe cannot
calculate midnight, surely God can!
Furthermore, later on, the Torah states that God struck at exactly
midnight. Why then would God use such vague language? R. Zeira suggests a new explanation
of this problem. The reason for giving only an approximate time has nothing to
do with Gods or Moshes lack of precise time-keeping. Rather, Moshe was
concerned that the royal Egyptian astrologers would think that they too have the
ability to calculate midnight, just like God and Moshe. The astrologers
measurements, however, were not as accurate as they thought. As a result, the
astrologers might find a discrepancy between their own calculations and the
actual time of the tenth plague, and they would assume that God had erred. In
order to preclude such a misperception, Moshe did not announce an exact time,
but stated only that God would strike approximately at midnight.
The Gemara
takes this teaching beyond the interpretation of a single difficult verse and
expands it to a universal ethical teaching. It cites what appears to have been a
known proverb, which is also cited in the minor tractate, Derekh Eretz
Zuta: Let thy tongue acquire the habit of saying, 'I know not', lest thou
be caught lying. Whether understood
independently or in its context in Derekh Eretz Zuta (in the beginning of
chapter 3), this proverb, like other familiar rabbinic statements, praises
keeping speech to a minimum and taking great care with the words that one does
say. It emphasizes maintaining humility and never being sure of ones knowledge.
In our context, the proverb takes on a different meaning. Even if one has direct
access to God, and has no reason to doubt the truth of ones knowledge, one
should still hesitate before declaring the truth to the world, because others
may misunderstand and think that you are lying. I believe that this is a
profound message. Knowing and proclaiming the truth are not sufficient. One must
be concerned with the impact that truth will have on the world. If your truth
will be incorrectly perceived as falsehood, it is better to keep silent.
Finally, R.
Ashi offers another interpretation of Moshes words. He understands the
problematic ka in ka-hazot ha-laila as meaning not approximately
midnight but rather as a comparative like (this) midnight He
understand this verse as having been spoken at midnight the night before the
slaying of the first born. One could paraphrase the verse as saying, at exactly
this time, tomorrow night, God shall smite the Egyptians. R. Ashis reading,
like Rashis interpretation cited in last weeks class, has the advantage of
eliminating any vagueness or ambiguity from Moshes words. He does not
approximate the time of the plague, but, rather, gives an exact moment of its
execution, as we would expect from a Divine messenger.
David vs.
the Gentile Kings
Picking up on
the previous theme of portraying King David as an embodiment of rabbinic values,
the Gemara now presents a set of comparisons between David and the other kings
of his day:
A prayer of
David
Keep my soul, for I am pious. (Tehillim 86:1-2)
Levi and R.
Yitzchak:
The one says,
Thus spoke
David before the Holy One, blessed be He;
Master of the
world, am I not pious?
All the kings
of the East and the West sleep to the third hour [of the day],
but I, at
midnight do I rise to give thanks unto Thee.
First, a note
on the language of the verse in Tehillim cited. We tend to translate the
word chasid as pious, as reflected in the translation above. This
translation makes Davids statement seem rather dissonant. Would a truly pious
person declare, I am pious?! In fact, the biblical Hebrew term, chasid,
is best translated as something like loyal follower or ally. David is saying
that God should protect him, because David has been loyal to Him.
The Midrash,
however, proposes a somewhat different model for the chasid. This passage
is actually a reworking of a discussion that we found on the previous page of
the Gemara. As the reader will recall, the Gemara there sought to resolve the
debate regarding whether there are three or four watches in the night. The
Gemara juxtaposes the verses, At midnight do I rise to give thanks unto Thee,
and Mine eyes forestall the watches, which the rabbis understand as meaning
that David awoke two watches early. Now if we assume that there are four watches
in the night, this works out perfectly, because there are two watches between
midnight, when David wakes up, and sunrise. The Gemara counters that this verse
can also be interpreted in the context of the three-watch scheme. Since we have
learned that the sons of kings rise only at the beginning of the third hour of
the day, David rises a full two watches (that is eight hours, if there are only
three watches per night) before the other kings.
In its
previous form, this discussion focused on technical issues of halakhic nocturnal
time keeping. The figure of David and certainly that of the sons of kings
exist only to help us expedite our calculations. Now, however, the Gemara
focuses on these individuals and transforms a technical discussion into a moral
and interpretive conversation about the relative merits of David and his
non-Jewish colleagues. David is far superior to the Gentile kings because he
does not lazily sleep in, but, rather awakes in the middle of the night to pray
to God. The ability to sleep late suggests a certain confidence that ones needs
are taken care of. The Gentile king can sleep, because he assumes his loyal
servants woke up before dawn to take care of his households needs. David, on
the other hand, lacks such confidence in own resources. He knows that he lives
at Gods mercy. Rather than sleeping soundly, David arises in the middle of the
night, acutely aware of his own fragile mortality, and spends the night in
prayer to God, the true King.
This passage
may also have a contemporary polemical edge. The term sons of the king
mentioned in the earlier version of this passage probably refers, not only
literally to the children of the reigning monarch, but to the Roman aristocracy
in general. If so, this passage may be seen as arguing for the superiority of
the Jewish elite the Rabbis over the Roman elite. While the Roman aristocrats slept the
day away, the Rabbis were up serving God at all hours of the night. I should
note that from that I have seen thus far in historical literature, Roman
aristocrats were not late-risers, but, rather, got up with the sun, not long
after their servants.
Now the
Gemara offers another comparison between David and the Gentile kings:
The other one
says:
Thus spoke
David before the Holy One, blessed be He:
Master of the
world, am I not pious?
All the kings
of the East and the West sit with all their pomp among their company, whereas my
hands are soiled
with the
blood [of menstruation], with the fetus and the placenta,
in order to
declare a woman clean for her husband.
First we must
note that the phrase rendered here as sit with all their pomp among their
company is difficult to translate. The original Hebrew is yoshvim agudot
agudot bi-kvodam. This
translation seems to interpret agudot agudot" literally as
bundles and bundles to refer to many groups of people who assemble in the
kings courts to honor them. It is difficult, however, to ignore the fact that
the phrase agudot agudot in rabbinic literature most frequently
occurs in the context of lo titgodidu, the prohibition against breaking
into factions. In this context, the term seems to refer to distinct, and even
opposing, groups. This understanding may suggest that the Gemara here means that
the kings are constantly breaking into factions and fighting with one another.
If this is the case, then the Gemara is emphasizing, not the pomp of royal
courts, but, rather, Gentile kings predilection for warfare and bloodshed.
Even more
puzzling, however, is this texts portrayal of King David as spending his day
ruling on questions of hilkhot nida. We have already seen how the Sages
like to portray King David as a paradigmatic rabbinic sage who is devoted to
Torah study. It should hardly be surprising that they portray David as a
posek (rabbinic decisor) as well. But what is the significance of David
specializing in ruling regarding menstrual blood?
First and
foremost, we must look to the context of this passage. The key to understanding
the significance of Davids focus on the laws of nida is the contrast
between Davids activities and those of his royal colleagues. In our first
interpretation, the story emphasizes that kings live exalted lives in which they
are adored by the masses. David, in contrast, is intimately involved with his
subjects and their private lives. He literally gets his hands dirty in order to
ensure the continued relationship between husband and wife.
Alternatively, the Gentile kings are involved in constant warfare. In this
reading the Gemara is contrasting two types of blood, two types of bloodshed,
and two types of impurity, that of the battle field and that of menstruation and
childbirth. This contrast is most clear in another Talmudic passage in which
David is cast as a nida posek. The Gemara describes the scene in
which Avigayil intercepts David, who is on his way to kill her husband, Naval:
Avigayil,
as it is written,
and it was
so as she rode on her ass
and came down
by the covert (seter) of the mountain (I
Shmuel 25:20).
Rabba b.
Shmuel said,
It means that
she came with reference to blood
that came
from the hidden parts (setarim).
She brought
him some blood and showed it to him.
He said to
her:
Is blood to
be shown at night?
She replied:
Are capital
cases tried at night?
He said to
her:
He (Naval) is
a rebel against the king.
No trial is
necessary for him.
She replied:
Shaul is
still alive and your fame is not spread abroad in the world.
Then he said
to her,
Blessed by
thy discretion and blessed be thou,
that hast
kept me this day from bloodguiltiness (ibid. v.33).
The word
dammim (bloodguiltiness) is plural to refer to two types of blood.
(Megilla
14a)
This passage
clearly relates menstrual blood with blood spilled by the sword. The rabbis
often compare their activities in the study hall to those of soldiers on the
battlefield or gladiators in the stadium. In this case, we see that both
warriors are covered with blood from their activities. However, these two
types of warriors deal with two very different kinds of blood. One is
associated with strife and death, while the other is associated with marital
relations and reproduction. I would go further and suggest that one type of
bloodshed is masculine in nature and the other feminine. People often see the rabbis
involvement in the laws of nida as being a form of masculine control over
the female sphere. I am not sure that the Sages saw it that way. Rather,
they may have seen themselves as willing to leave the masculine realm and enter
the world of the feminine in order to bring Gods law to all who need it.
Finally, the
Gemara presents us with one more image of David as rabbinic sage,
And what is
more, in all that I do I consult my teacher, Mefiboshet,
and I say to
him:
My teacher
Mefiboshet, is my decision right?
Did I
correctly convict, correctly acquit,
correctly
declare clean, correctly declare unclean?
And I am not
ashamed [to ask].
R. Yehoshua,
the son of R. Iddi, says
Which verse [may be cited in support]?
And I recite
Thy testimonies before kings and am not ashamed (Tehillim 119:46).
A Tanna
taught:
His name was
not Mefiboshet. And why then was he called Mefiboshet? Because he humiliated
David in the Halakha.
Therefore was
David worthy of the privilege that Khilav should issue from him.
R. Yokhanan
said:
His name was
not Khilav but Daniel.
Why then was
he called Khilav?
Because he
humiliated [makhlim] Mefiboshet [ab] in the Halakha.
And
concerning him Shlomo said in his wisdom:
My son, if
thy heart be wise, my heart will be glad, even mine.
And he said
further:
My son, be
wise, and make my heart glad, that I may answer him that taunteth me.
This time
Davids positive trait is his deference to his teacher, Mefiboshet. Most kings
defer to no one and will not brook any reminder of their own ignorance. David,
on the other hand, is happy to consult with his teacher about matters of
halakha. This passage also seeks to teach a lesson to contemporary rabbis about
the importance of consulting with ones teachers and recognizing those who are
superior in knowledge.
In the Bible,
Mefiboshet is the crippled grandson of Shaul, son of Yonatan, whom David spares
and makes a member of his household. What moves the Rabbis to declare that
Mefiboshet is a superior scholar and Davids teacher? I dont really know.
Certainly, the notion that Mefiboshet (boshet= shame) is an embarrassment
or potential embarrassment to David is rooted in the biblical text. Mefiboshet
is, after all, the rightful heir to Shauls throne. His existence is a challenge
to Davids right to the throne. Yet David is apparently unashamed to keep him as
a member of the court. Perhaps, the Sages are translating this story into
rabbinic terms. Mefiboshet was a challenge to Davids rule as chief rabbi
because he was Davids teacher and a superior scholar. David, however, does not
seek to sideline Mefiboshet, lest he undermine his credibility. Rather, he
happily consults with him and defers to him.
This may be a
covert polemic against the Patriarch in the
Finally, the
Gemara tells us that David was rewarded by for his forbearance with the birth of
his son Khilav, who was an even greater scholar than Mefiboshet.
How did the Sages come to this conclusion
about Khilav? Furthermore, other midrashic sources relate that Khilav had all of
the signs of being one of the most righteous and holy people in history: He was
born already circumcised, died without sin or, according to another source,
never died, but entered the Garden of Eden alive. This is quite a reputation for
a person about whom all the Bible says is: Sons were born to David in
Chevron
his second was Khilav, by Avigayil wife of Naval (II Shmuel
3:3). How can we understand this? One possibility is that what was so striking
about Khilav to the rabbis was precisely the fact that this is all we are told
about him in the Bible. The same verse lists Davids first, third and fourth
sons: Amnon, Avshalom and Adoniyah. These sons are well known to readers of the
Bible. All three were sinners who were killed in the struggle over the
succession to Davids throne, which dominates much of the end of the Book of
Shmuel and the beginning of the book of Melakhim. Where was Davids
second son in all of this? Why do Avshalom and Adoniyah not have to contend with
Khilavs superior claim to the throne? Perhaps the rabbis deduced from this that
Khilav, unlike his brothers, was a truly righteous individual. Hence, he had no lust for power and
stayed out of the struggle for the throne.
He happily deferred to Shlomo, the true heir. Given that he was so
righteous, the rabbis would find it reasonable to conclude that he was also a
great Torah scholar.
Alternatively, as the Gemara notes, in the book of Divrei Ha-yamim,
Khilav is called Daniel. Perhaps this association with the holy and wise prophet
of the Babylonian exile is what made the rabbis assume that Khilav was also a
scholar and a saint.
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!