Rabbi Kook

“His [Uriya’s] wife you took as a wife” (Shmuel II, 12:9). You are capable of marrying her, as R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in R. Yonatan’s name: Whoever went out to the wars of David’s House wrote a get for his wife.

There is a disagreement among the Tannaim as to what failing the sons of Eli were guilty of. Rabbi Meir says: The portion they had coming to them as Levi’im they requested “with their mouths.” Rabbi Yehuda says: They gave the people the responsibility of making money for them. Rabbi Akiva said: They forcefully took a greater share of tithes than usual. Rabbi Yossi says: They took gifts [there are different opinions as to which gifts and whether they had any rights in them] by force.

R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: Whoever says that the sons of Shmuel sinned is making a mistake, as the p’sukim say: “And so it was when Shmuel became old, and he made his sons judges for Israel… and his sons did not follow in his ways” (Shmuel I, 8:1-3). “In his ways” they did not follow, but they did not sin either. So how does one explain the [continuation of the] pasuk: “they went after improper profits (betza)”? This means that they did not act like their father, as the righteous Shmuel would travel to all the places in Israel and judge the people in their cities, as the pasuk says: “He would go year by year and would go to Beit El, Gilgal, and the Mitzpa and judged Israel” (ibid. 7:16). In contrast, his sons did not do so, but they sat in their cities so that they could increase the profits of their assistants and scribes.

Pinchas [the son of Eli] did not sin, as the Pasuk says: “Achiya son of Achitov, the brother of Iy Kavod, the son of Pinchas, the son of Eli Hakohen” (Shmuel I, 14:3). Is it possible that he sinned, and Scripture mentions him as someone’s forefather?! Doesn’t the Pasuk says: “Hashem will cut off the person who will do so an er and an oneh from the tents of Yaakov and one who brings forth an offering to Hashem” (Malachi 2:12). If he is an Israelite, he will not have an er among the scholars or an oneh among the students. If he is a kohen, he will not have a son who brings forth an offering.

R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: Whoever says that the sons of Eli sinned is making a mistake, as the pasuk says: “There were two sons of Eli, Chofni and Pinchas, kohanim for Hashem” (Shmuel I, 1:3). He reasons like Rav, who said that Pinchas did not sin, and Chofni is connected to Pinchas: just as Pinchas did not sin, so too Chofni did not sin. So what does it mean, “…” … since they delayed the bringing of the korbanot after birth to make them permitted to their husbands, the pasuk considers it as if they slept with the women.

[We continue with the question of whether Reuven literally slept with his father’s concubine or not.] It was said in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: That tzaddik (Reuven) was protected from sin, and the sin [as described literally] did not come his way. How is it possible that his offspring were destined to stand on Mt. Eival and pronounce, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife” (Devarim 27:20), and he would come to perpetrate that sin itself?

Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Whoever says that Reuven sinned (to the full extent ostensibly stated by the Torah, by sleeping with Yaakov’s concubine), is mistaken. This is indicated by the pasuk (following the mention of the ostensible sin): “The sons of Yaakov were twelve (in number)” (Bereishit 35:22). This teaches us that they were all equivalent one to the other. So what does it mean, “He slept with Bilha, the concubine of his father”? Because he “mixed up” his father’s bed, the Torah treats it as if he slept with Bilha.

Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting together (on Shabbat). They brought in front of them barda (a mixture of herbs for washing themselves). Ameimar and Rav Ashi washed, but Mar Zutra did not. They said to Mar Zutra: Do you not accept what Rav Sheshet said, that barda is permitted? Rav Mordechai said to them: Do not learn from Mar Zutra in this matter, for he does not permit such washing even during the week. Indeed, Mar Zutra holds like the Tanna who permitted to remove dirt or scabs from one’s body only if he is uncomfortable but not to beautify himself. (Rashi – such female-like beautification is forbidden for men). Ameimar and Rav Ashi followed the Tanna who allowed a man to wash his face, hands, and feet every day in honor of his Creator, as the pasuk states, “All that Hashem made is for Him” (Mishlei 16:4).

Four people died due to the plot of the [biblical] snake (i.e., without sin), and these are the people: Binyamin, the son of Yaakov; Amram, the father of Moshe; Yishai, the father of David; and Kilav, the son of David.

[The opinion we saw last time that no one dies without sin] is in line with the following Tannaic opinion: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Even Moshe and Aharon died due to their sin, as the pasuk says: “Since you did not believe in Me …” (Bamidbar 20:12) – we infer: “had you believed in Me, your time would not have come to take leave of the world.”