תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן סִדְרָן שֶׁל נְבִיאִים יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְשׁוֹפְטִים שְׁמוּאֵל וּמְלָכִים יִרְמְיָה וִיחֶזְקֵאל יְשַׁעְיָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר מִכְּדֵי הוֹשֵׁעַ קָדֵים דִּכְתִיב תְּחִלַּת דִּבֶּר ה׳ בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ וְכִי עִם הוֹשֵׁעַ דִּבֵּר תְּחִלָּה וַהֲלֹא מִמֹּשֶׁה וְעַד הוֹשֵׁעַ כַּמָּה נְבִיאִים הָיוּ וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁהָיָה תְּחִלָּה לְאַרְבָּעָה נְבִיאִים שֶׁנִּתְנַבְּאוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַפֶּרֶק וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הוֹשֵׁעַ וִישַׁעְיָה עָמוֹס וּמִיכָה וְלַיקְדְּמֵיהּ לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בְּרֵישָׁא כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב נְבוּאֲתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי חַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי וְחַגַּי זְכַרְיָה וּמַלְאָכִי סוֹף נְבִיאִים הֲווֹ חָשֵׁיב לֵיהּ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ וְלִיכְתְּבֵיהּ לְחוֹדֵיהּ וְלַיקְדְּמֵיהּ אַיְּידֵי דְּזוּטַר מִירְכַס
the broken pieces of the first set of tablets, which were placed in the Ark. Having cited the baraita, the Gemara now presents its objection to what was taught earlier with regard to the dimensions of a Torah scroll: And if it should enter your mind to say, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held, that the circumference of a Torah scroll is six handbreadths, now since any cylindrical object having a circumference of three handbreadths has a diameter of one handbreadth, a Torah scroll with a circumference of six handbreadths has a diameter of two handbreadths. And since a Torah scroll is wound to the middle, since it is rolled from both sides, it must take up more than two handbreadths due to the space between the sheets of parchment and the double rolling. According to Rabbi Meir, who says that the Torah scroll was placed inside the ark, how did the scroll fit in the remaining two handbreadths [pushkei] of space in the Ark? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: The scroll of the Temple courtyard, which was kept in the Ark, was wound to its beginning, i.e., it had only a single pole, so that its circumference was only two handbreadths. The Gemara asks: But still, how does an item that is two handbreadths wide fit into a space that is precisely two handbreadths? It would be impossible to fit it in. Rav Ashi said: A small section of the scroll was wound separately and then placed on top of the scroll. Having concluded its current discussion, the Gemara now addresses the details of the aforementioned baraita and asks: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the Torah scroll rested on the chest that came from the Philistines, where was the Torah scroll placed before the chest arrived? The Gemara answers: A shelf protruded from the Ark and the Torah scroll rested on it. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, who says that the Torah scroll rested inside the Ark, what does he do with this verse: “Take this Torah scroll and put it at the side of the Ark” (Deuteronomy 31:26)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that the Torah scroll was placed at the side of the tablets, and that it was not placed between the two tablets, but it was actually placed inside the Ark at the side of the tablets. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Meir, where were the silver columns placed? The Gemara answers: Outside the Ark. The Gemara further asks: And from where does Rabbi Meir derive that the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark, as the verse from which Rabbi Yehuda learns this: “There was nothing in the Ark except” (I Kings 8:9), is needed by Rabbi Meir to teach that the Torah scroll was placed there? The Gemara answers: He derives this point from what Rav Huna expounded, as Rav Huna says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Ark of God, whereupon is called the Name, the name of the Lord of hosts that sits upon the cherubs” (II Samuel 6:2)? The phrase “the name, the name of the Lord” teaches that both the second tablets and the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark. The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda, derive from this verse? The Gemara responds: He requires that text for that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: This teaches that the ineffable name of God and all of His appellations were placed in the Ark. The Gemara inquires: And doesn’t the other Sage, Rabbi Meir, also require it for that? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, from where does he derive that the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark? The Gemara expounds: He derives this from that which Rav Yosef taught, as Rav Yosef taught a baraita: The verses state: “At that time the Lord said to me: Hew for yourself two tablets of stone like the first…and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke, and you shall put them in the Ark” (Deuteronomy 10:1–2). This teaches that both the second set of tablets and the broken pieces of the first set of tablets were placed in the Ark. The Gemara asks: And what does the other one, Rabbi Yehuda, learn from this verse? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which Reish Lakish teaches, as Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is stated: “The first tablets, which you broke [asher shibbarta]”? These words allude to the fact that God approved of Moses’ action, as if the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be straight [yishar koḥakha] because you broke them. § The Sages taught: The order of the books of the Prophets when they are attached together is as follows: Joshua and Judges, Samuel and Kings, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Isaiah and the Twelve Prophets. The Gemara asks: Consider: Hosea preceded some of the other prophets whose books are included in the Bible, as it is written: “The Lord spoke first to Hosea” (Hosea 1:2). At first glance this verse is difficult: But did God speak first with Hosea, and not with any other prophet before him? Weren’t there many prophets between Moses and Hosea? And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He was the first of four prophets who prophesied in that period, and they were: Hosea and Isaiah, Amos and Micah. Accordingly, Hosea preceded those three prophets; and the book of Hosea as well should precede the books of those prophets. The Gemara answers: Since his prophecy is written together with those of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in one book of the Twelve Prophets, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets, he is counted with them. The Gemara inquires: But let the book of Hosea be written separately and let it precede the others. The Gemara answers: Were it written separately, since it is small it would be lost. The Gemara further asks: Consider: Isaiah preceded Jeremiah and Ezekiel; let the book of Isaiah precede the books of those other prophets. The Gemara answers: Since the book of Kings ends with the destruction of the Temple, and the book of Jeremiah deals entirely with prophecies of the destruction, and the book of Ezekiel begins with the destruction of the Temple but ends with consolation and the rebuilding of the Temple, and Isaiah deals entirely with consolation, as most of his prophecies refer to the redemption, we juxtapose destruction to destruction and consolation to consolation. This accounts for the order: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. The baraita continues: The order of the Writings is: Ruth and the book of Psalms, and Job and Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Lamentations; Daniel and the Scroll of Esther; and Ezra and Chronicles. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that Job lived in the time of Moses, let the book of Job precede the others. The Gemara answers: We do not begin with suffering, i.e., it is inappropriate to start the Writings with a book that deals so extensively with suffering. The Gemara asks: But the book of Ruth, with which the Writings opens, is also about suffering, since it describes the tragedies that befell the family of Elimelech. The Gemara answers: This is suffering which has a future of hope and redemption. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why was she named Ruth, spelled reish, vav, tav? Because there descended from her David who sated, a word with the root reish, vav, heh, the Holy One, Blessed be He, with songs and praises. The baraita now considers the authors of the biblical books: And who wrote the books of the Bible? Moses wrote his own book, i.e., the Torah, and the portion of Balaam in the Torah, and the book of Job. Joshua wrote his own book and eight verses in the Torah, which describe the death of Moses. Samuel wrote his own book, the book of Judges, and the book of Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms by means of ten elders of previous generations, assembling a collection that included compositions of others along with his own. He included psalms authored by Adam the first man, by Melchizedek king of Salem, and by Abraham, and by Moses, and by Heman, and by Jeduthun, and by Asaph,
Translation:
Our Rabbis taught: The order of the Prophets is: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah* and the Twelve Minor Prophets. Let us examine this. Hosea came first, as it is written "G-d spoke first to Hosea" (Hosea 1:2). But did G-d speak first to Hosea? Were there not many prophets between Moses and Hosea? R. Johanan, however, has explained that [what it means is] he was the first of the four prophets who prophesied at the period, namely, Hosea, Isaiah, Amos and Micah.
Should not then Hosea come first [that is, before Jeremiah and the other prophets]? Since his prophecy is written along with those of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, and Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi came at the end of the prophets, he is reckoned with them. But why should he not be written separately and placed first? Since his book is so small, it might be lost.
*Note that the order of the three major prophets in the Masoretic text is Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel. The Talmud here refers to a different ordering (and gives reasoning for it later in this passage).
Questions:
Does the above make sense to you as an explanation of why Twelve Prophets are combined into one book? Can you think of other reasons why combining these Twelve prophets would make sense? Does their placement at the end of the section of the prophets make sense to you?
כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַרְבֵּה נְבִיאִים עָמְדוּ לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּפְלַיִם כְּיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם. אֶלָּא נְבוּאָה שֶׁהוּצְרְכָה לְדוֹרוֹת — נִכְתְּבָה, וְשֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכָה — לֹא נִכְתְּבָה.
The actions of Ahasuerus and Haman can be understood with a parable; to what may they be compared? To two individuals, one of whom had a mound in the middle of his field and the other of whom had a ditch in the middle of his field, each one suffering from his own predicament. The owner of the ditch, noticing the other’s mound of dirt, said to himself: Who will give me this mound of dirt suitable for filling in my ditch; I would even be willing to pay for it with money, and the owner of the mound, noticing the other’s ditch, said to himself: Who will give me this ditch for money, so that I may use it to remove the mound of earth from my property? At a later point, one day, they happened to have met one another. The owner of the ditch said to the owner of the mound: Sell me your mound so I can fill in my ditch. The mound’s owner, anxious to rid himself of the excess dirt on his property, said to him: Take it for free; if only you had done so sooner. Similarly, Ahasuerus himself wanted to destroy the Jews. As he was delighted that Haman had similar aspirations and was willing to do the job for him, he demanded no money from him. § The verse states: “And the king removed his ring from his hand” (Esther 3:10). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: The removal of Ahasuerus’s ring for the sealing of Haman’s decree was more effective than the forty-eight prophets and the seven prophetesses who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. As, they were all unable to return the Jewish people to the right way, but the removal of Ahasuerus’s ring returned them to the right way, since it brought them to repentance. The Sages taught in a baraita: Forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people, and they neither subtracted from nor added onto what is written in the Torah, introducing no changes or additions to the mitzvot except for the reading of the Megilla, which they added as an obligation for all future generations. The Gemara asks: What exposition led them to determine that this was a proper mode of action? On what basis did they add this mitzva? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said that they reasoned as follows: If, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, in which the Jews were delivered from slavery to freedom, we recite songs of praise, the Song of the Sea and the hymns of hallel, then, in order to properly recall the miracle of Purim and commemorate God’s delivering us from death to life, is it not all the more so the case that we must sing God’s praise by reading the story in the Megilla? The Gemara asks: If so, our obligation should be at least as great as when we recall the exodus from Egypt, and let us also recite hallel on Purim. The Gemara answers: Hallel is not said on Purim, because hallel is not recited on a miracle that occurred outside Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the exodus from Egypt as well, which was a miracle that occurred outside Eretz Yisrael, how are we able to recite songs of praise? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: Prior to the time when the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, all lands were deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within their borders, as all lands were treated equally. But after the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. Rav Naḥman said an alternative answer as to why hallel is not recited on Purim: The reading of the Megilla itself is an act of reciting hallel. Rava said a third reason why hallel is not recited on Purim: Granted that hallel is said there, when recalling the exodus from Egypt, as after the salvation there, they could recite the phrase in hallel: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord” (Psalms 113:1); after their servitude to Pharaoh ended with their salvation, they were truly servants of the Lord and not servants of Pharaoh. But can it be said here, after the limited salvation commemorated on Purim: “Give praise, O servants of the Lord,” which would indicate that after the salvation the Jewish people were only servants of the Lord and not servants of Ahasuerus? No, even after the miracle of Purim, we were still the servants of Ahasuerus, as the Jews remained in exile under Persian rule, and consequently the salvation, which was incomplete, did not merit an obligation to say hallel. The Gemara asks: Both according to the opinion of Rava and according to the opinion of Rav Naḥman, this is difficult. Isn’t it taught in the baraita cited earlier: After the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael, that land became endowed with greater sanctity, and all the other lands were no longer deemed fit for songs of praise to be recited for miracles performed within them. Therefore, there should be no hallel obligation on Purim for the miracle performed outside of the land of Israel, and Rav Naḥman’s and Rava’s alternative explanations are incorrect. The Gemara answers: They understood differently, as it can be argued that when the people were exiled from Eretz Yisrael, the other lands returned to their initial suitability, and were once again deemed fit for reciting hallel on miracles performed within them. With regard to the statement that forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people, the Gemara asks: Is there no one else? Isn’t it written with regard to Samuel’s father, Elkanah: “And there was a certain [eḥad] man from Ramathaim-zophim” (I Samuel 1:1), which is expounded as follows to indicate that Elkanah was a prophet: He was one [eḥad] of two hundred [mata’im] prophets [tzofim] who prophesied on behalf of the Jewish people. If so, why was it stated here that there were only forty-eight prophets? The Gemara answers: In fact, there were more prophets, as it is taught in a baraita: Many prophets arose for the Jewish people, numbering double the number of Israelites who left Egypt. However, only a portion of the prophecies were recorded, because only prophecy that was needed for future generations was written down in the Bible for posterity, but that which was not needed, as it was not pertinent to later generations, was not written. Therefore, the fifty-five prophets recorded in the Bible, although not the only prophets of the Jewish people, were the only ones recorded, due to their eternal messages. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said another explanation of the verse “And there was a certain man from Ramathaim-zophim”: A man who comes from two heights [ramot] that face [tzofot] one another. Rabbi Ḥanin said an additional interpretation: A man who descends from people who stood at the height of [rumo] the world. The Gemara asks: And who are these people? The Gemara answers: These are the sons of Korah, as it is written: “But the sons of Korah did not die” (Numbers 26:11), and with regard to them it is taught in the name of our teacher, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: A high place was set aside for them in Gehenna, as the sons of Korah repented in their hearts, and were consequently not propelled very far down in Gehenna when the earth opened to swallow Korah and his followers; and they stood on this high place and sung to the Lord. They alone stood at the height of the lower world. § The Gemara asks with regard to the prophetesses recorded in the baraita: Who were the seven prophetesses? The Gemara answers: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. The Gemara offers textual support: Sarah, as it is written: “Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah” (Genesis 11:29). And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Iscah is in fact Sarah. And why was she called Iscah? For she saw [sakhta] by means of divine inspiration, as it is stated: “In all that Sarah has said to you, hearken to her voice” (Genesis 21:12). Alternatively, Sarah was also called Iscah, for all gazed [sokhin] upon her beauty. Miriam was a prophetess, as it is written explicitly: “And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand” (Exodus 15:20). The Gemara asks: Was she the sister only of Aaron, and not the sister of Moses? Why does the verse mention only one of her brothers? Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: For she prophesied when she was the sister of Aaron, i.e., she prophesied since her youth, even before Moses was born, and she would say: My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver the Jewish people to salvation. And at the time when Moses was born the entire house was filled with light, and her father stood and kissed her on the head, and said to her: My daughter, your prophecy has been fulfilled. But once Moses was cast into the river, her father arose and rapped her on the head, saying to her: My daughter, where is your prophecy now, as it looked as though the young Moses would soon meet his end. This is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Miriam’s watching Moses in the river: “And his sister stood at a distance to know what would be done to him” (Exodus 2:4), i.e., to know what would be with the end of her prophecy, as she had prophesied that her brother was destined to be the savior of the Jewish people. Deborah was a prophetess, as it is written explicitly: “And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth” (Judges 4:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “the wife of Lappidoth”? The Gemara answers: For she used to make wicks for the Sanctuary, and due to the flames [lappidot] on these wicks she was called the wife of Lappidoth, literally, a woman of flames. With regard to Deborah, it says: “And she sat under a palm tree” (Judges 4:5). The Gemara asks: What is different and unique with regard to her sitting “under a palm tree” that there is a need for it to be written? Rabbi Shimon ben Avshalom said: It is due to the prohibition against being alone together with a man. Since men would come before her for judgment, she established for herself a place out in the open and visible to all, in order to avoid a situation in which she would be secluded with a man behind closed doors. Alternatively, the verse means: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, as a palm tree does not send out separate branches, but rather has only one main trunk, so too, the Jewish people in that generation had only one heart, directed to their Father in Heaven. Hannah was a prophetess, as it is written: “And Hannah prayed and said, My heart rejoices in the Lord, my horn is exalted in the Lord” (I Samuel 2:1), and her words were prophecy, in that she said: “My horn is exalted,” and not: My pitcher is exalted. As, with regard to David and Solomon, who were anointed with oil from a horn, their kingship continued, whereas with regard to Saul and Jehu, who were anointed with oil from a pitcher, their kingship did not continue. This demonstrates that Hannah was a prophetess, as she prophesied that only those anointed with oil from a horn will merit that their kingships continue. Apropos the song of Hannah, the Gemara further explains her words: “There is none sacred as the Lord; for there is none beside You [biltekha]” (I Samuel 2:2). Rav Yehuda bar Menashya said: Do not read it as biltekha, “beside You,” but rather read it as levalotekha, to outlast You. As the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is unlike the attribute of flesh and blood. It is an attribute of man that his handiwork outlasts him and continues to exist even after he dies, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, outlasts His handiwork, as He exists eternally. Hannah further said: “Neither is there any rock [tzur] like our God” (I Samuel 2:1). This can be understood as saying that there is no artist [tzayyar] like our God. How is He better than all other artists? Man fashions a form upon a wall, but is unable to endow it with breath and a soul, or fill it with innards and intestines, whereas the Holy One, Blessed be He, fashions a form of a fetus inside the form of its mother, rather than on a flat surface, and endows it with breath and a soul and fills it with innards and intestines. Abigail was a prophetess, as it is written: “And it was so, as she rode on the donkey, and came down by the covert of the mountain” (I Samuel 25:20). The Gemara asks: Why does it say: “By the covert [beseter] of the mountain”? It should have said: From the mountain. The Gemara answers that in fact this must be understood as an allusion to something else. Rabba bar Shmuel said: Abigail, in her attempt to prevent David from killing her husband Nabal, came to David and questioned him on account of menstrual blood that comes from the hidden parts [setarim] of a body. How so? She took a blood-stained cloth and showed it to him, asking him to rule on her status, whether or not she was ritually impure as a menstruating woman. He said to her: Is blood shown at night? One does not examine blood-stained cloths at night, as it is difficult to distinguish between the different shades by candlelight. She said to him: If so, you should also remember another halakha: Are cases of capital law tried at night? Since one does not try capital cases at night, you cannot condemn Nabal to death at night. David said to her:
Translation:
It has been taught [in a baraita]: Many prophets stood for Israel, double the number of those who left Egypt, but prophecies that were necessary for the generations were written down, and those that weren’t necessary, were not written down.
Questions:
We will continue to refer back to this text as we discuss the relevance of the prophets we are studying. For each text we study we can consider, how is this prophecy necessary for our generation?