Daf Ditty 14: Swept Away

The Death of Prince Leopold of Brunswick

James Northcote (1746–1831) Hunterian Art Gallery, University of Glasgow

Nephew of King Frederic II; from 1776 Regimentskommandeur und Stadtkommandant of Frankfurt (Oder); died tragically attempting to rescue some inhabitants of Frankfurt during the flood of 1785.

1

Halakha 2 · MISHNA There must be no fewer than seven trustees [amarkolin] and three treasurers appointed over the Temple administration. And we do not appoint an authority over the public comprised of fewer than two people, except for ben Aḥiyya, who was responsible for healing priests who suffered from intestinal disease, and Elazar, who was responsible for the weaving of the Temple curtains. The reason for these exceptions is that the majority of the public accepted these men upon themselves as officials who served without the assistance of even a single partner.

2

GEMARA: The mishna states that there must be no fewer three treasurers and seven trustees. The states that it was likewise taught in a that there must be no fewer than two executive supervisors [katalikin].

This is as it is written in the verse that lists the men who supervised the receipt of teruma and from the public and their distribution to the priests and the , as well as the receipt of items dedicated to the Temple:

And Jehiel, and Azaziah, and Nahath, and Asahel, and 13 גי לֵאיִחיִו וּהָיְזַזֲﬠַו תַחַנְו לֵאהָשֲׂﬠַו לֵאהָשֲׂﬠַו תַחַנְו וּהָיְזַזֲﬠַו לֵאיִחיִו Jerimoth, and Jozabad, and Eliel, and Ismachiah, and תוֹמיִריִו ,דָבָזוֹיְו לֵאיִלֱאֶו ,וּהָיְכַמְסִיְו ,וּהָיְכַמְסִיְו לֵאיִלֱאֶו ,דָבָזוֹיְו תוֹמיִריִו Mahath, and Benaiah, were overseers under the hand of מוּ ַ ַ ח ,ת בוּ ְ ָנ ָי וּה -- ,םיִדיִקְפּ דַיִּמ והיננוכ והיננוכ דַיִּמ ,םיִדיִקְפּ Conaniah and Shimei his brother, by the appointment of נָכּ( נַ יְ )וּהָ מִשְׁ ו ﬠְ יִ חָא ,ויִ מְ בּ פִ דַקְ חְ י זִ יִּקְ וּהָ וּהָ יִּקְ זִ חְ י דַקְ פִ מְ בּ ,ויִ חָא יִ ﬠְ מִשְׁ ו )וּהָ יְ נַ נָכּ( Hezekiah the king, and Azariah the ruler of the house of ,ֶלֶמַּה רַזֲﬠַו וּהָיְ דיִגְנ תיֵבּ - .םיִהֱאָה God. II Chron 31:13

“And Jehiel, and Azaziah, and Nahath,” these were the treasurers; “and Asahel, and Jerimoth, and Jozabad, and Eliel, and Ismachiah, and Mahath, and Benaiah,” these were the trustees; “overseers under the hand of Conaniah and Shimei his brother,” these were executive supervisors; “by the appointment of Hezekiah the king and Azariah the ruler of the House of God,” they were the king and the High Priest, the most senior officials.

These officials participated in the supervision of the Temple assets, according to the level and status of their positions. When he would seal an item to store in the treasury until it would be needed, the treasurer would first seal it with his own seal; and subsequently give it to a trustee; the trustee would seal it and give it to an executive supervisor; the executive supervisor would seal it and give it to the High Priest; and the High Priest would seal it and give it to the king, who would place the final seal.

3

And when a treasurer wanted to release an item for usage, the reverse order was followed: First the king would examine his seal and release the restriction on the item; the High Priest would examine his seal and release it; the executive supervisor would examine his seal and release it; the trustee would examine his seal and release it; and finally, the treasurer would examine his seal and release it.

The mishna states that Neḥunya was the well digger. The Gemara explains that he would dig wells and caves, where rainwater would collect, for pilgrims to use on their way to for the Festivals. And he knew [14a] which rock contains water, and which rock contains fissures in which water may be found, and how far those fissures extend. This would enable him to calculate how deep he had to dig to reach water. Rabbi Eliezer said: And his son died of thirst.

Since the previous passage mentioned God’s rigorously exacting attitude toward righteous people like Neḥunya, the Gemara discusses how God relates to sinners. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever says that the Merciful One overlooks the punishment due to sinners, his intestines will be overlooked, i.e., cease functioning. The reason sinners often appear to go unpunished is rather that God extends His patience with evildoers to give them a chance to repent, but eventually He collects His due and punishes the wicked.

The Gemara explains the harsh judgment inflicted on the righteous Neḥunya. Rabbi Aḥa said that it is written:

4 {Our God cometh, and doth not keep silence; {N 3 ג אֹבָי ,וּניֵהֱא לַאְו - :שַׁרֱחֶי a fire devoureth before Him, and round about Him it שֵׁא - ויָנָפְל ;לֵכאֹתּ סוּ בְ ִ בי ָ י ו , ,ויָב ְס .stormeth mightily הָרֲﬠְשִׂנ .דֹאְמ הָרֲﬠְשִׂנ Ps 50:3

“Our God comes and does not keep silence; a fire devours before Him, and His surroundings storm [nis’ara] mightily”

The Hebrew spelling of the word nis’ara is very similar to the word sa’ara, hair. This hints that God is exacting with the righteous, who are close to Him and can be called His surroundings, up to a hairsbreadth. Even slight deviations from the proper path can elicit punishment.

Rabbi Yosei said: This idea is derived not through that source, but rather from that which is written about God:

A God dreaded in the great council of the holy ones, and 8 לֵא ,ץָרֲﬠַנ דוֹסְבּ - םיִשֹׁדְק םיִשֹׁדְק ?feared of all them that are about Him ;הָבַּר ,אָרוֹנְו לַﬠ - לָכּ - .ויָביִבְס Ps 89:8

“And dreadful is He upon all of His surrounding” which indicates that His dread is upon those close to Him, i.e., the righteous, more than upon those distant from Him, i.e., the sinful.

The Gemara cites a related story. Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who would dig pits, wells, and caves to collect water for passersby. Once his daughter was passing over a river for the purpose of marriage, and the river washed her away. And all the people came to console him, but he refused to accept their condolences.

5

Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair came to visit him to console him, but he refused to accept condolences even from Rabbi Pineḥas. Rabbi Pineḥas said to the people of that community: Is this your righteous man, who will not be consoled and accept God’s judgment? They said to him: Rabbi, he would perform such and such acts of righteousness, by supplying water, and yet such and such tragedy, the drowning of his daughter, occurred to him.

Rabbi Pineḥas said: Is it possible that he honors his Creator with water, and yet his Creator strikes him with water? Immediately thereafter, a report spread throughout the city: The daughter of that righteous man has arrived, as she did not actually drown. Some say she grasped a branch and pulled herself out of the river, and some say an angel in the form of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair descended from heaven and rescued her.

Hashem judges the tzaddikim very strictly

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Nechunia, the appointed well-digger in the Beis Hamikdosh, was an expert in determining which underground areas contained the most cold and warm water. However, since this was his specialty, and one time he wasn't so careful in his job, Hashem judged him strictly, and his son died of thirst. A similar story happened where the well-digger's daughter was swept by the river currents. Many people tried comforting the father – who was known to be a chossid – but he wouldn't accept their consolation.

When Rabbi Pinchos Ben Yair spoke to him and he still wasn't comforted, Rabbi Pinchos questioned his chassidus, saying that a person has to accept Hashem's decrees. When Rabbi Pinchos was told of the man's great service in supplying water to the people, he said that it's

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_14.pdf

6 impossible that Hashem will punish a person in the exact thing that he honored Him. Just then rumors started floating that the man's daughter is alive.

One version of the story has it that when she was swept by the currents, she held on to a branch, which saved her. Alternatively, some say that a malach in the image of Rabbi Pinchos Ben Yair saved her.

Nechunia was famous for dedicating his life for the welfare of the nation.2 In anticipation of the arrival of the multitudes of pilgrims for the festivals, he dug many wells and maintained those in service in order to provide for the basic needs of the people coming to Yerushalayim. In consideration of his devotion in this regard, the Gemara (here, and 50a) tells us that when his own daughter fell into a well and was presumed dead, Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa declared that it could not be that he would suffer the loss of a child due to water. Hashem would not allow him to suffer specifically in the area in which he served Klal Yisroel.

The note that it is truly shocking to hear that his own son tragically died of thirst. Tiklin Chadtin comments that a person who applies himself to perform a great mitzvah is then held accountable to the highest degree. It must be that Nechunia was recognized for his achievement, but because he assumed this responsibility, he was later treated with exacting scrutiny for any failures in this regard.

As a result, his son was not protected from this type of death. Tosafos (ibid.) answers that Nechunia and his family were treated with special divine protection in the area of the mitzvah of the wells. This is why his daughter was saved. However, the threat of dying of thirst was not precisely within the realm of that area of protection. This is why his son was vulnerable to thirst.

answers that these cases do not fall under the strict category of a tzaddik being קמ ו תצב יש הט protected from harm in the area in which he serves. Nevertheless, in the case of the daughter falling into the well, R’ Chanina ben Dosa prayed on her behalf, as he claimed to Hashem that the girl should not die in the well. As a result of his prayers, she was miraculously saved. Here, however, as the son was dying of thirst, R’ Chanina ben Dosa was no longer alive to pray for him, and the son succumbed.

RABBI ELLIOT GOLDBERG WRITES:3

Chapter 5 began with the ’s list of Temple officers who were responsible for various functions. There was an officer to wake the sleeping priests in the morning, another in charge of the lottery to assign jobs to various priests and a third who closed the Temple gates in the evening. Officers were assigned to different kinds of offerings: libations, pairs of birds and so forth. There

2 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Shekalim%20014.pdf 3 https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/shekalim-14/

7 was an officer who managed the seals which served as proofs of purchase for various sacrifices and other officers who were responsible for music. There was an officer who maintained the Temple curtains and another who kept up the priestly garments. There was even an officer who acted as an in-house doctor and treated priestly intestinal illness. And then there was ⁦Ben Beivai, the officer responsible for the paki’ah (“shreds”).

What exactly did Ben Beivai’s job entail? According to one interpretation in our Gemara, he braided shreds of old garments together to prepare wicks for the Temple’s menorah. (The Temple had a huge gold candelabrum with seven branches that was kept perpetually burning. It was the original Jewish menorah — from which the Hanukkah lights draw their inspiration.) Some of the commentators suggest that Ben Beivai was so good at his job that he could calibrate the length of a particular wick to match the length of the night for which it was prepared.

Wick making may not seem like a terribly glamorous job; the following story sheds some light on what we can learn from its inclusion on the list:

Rabbi Yosei came to the town of Kufra and wanted to appoint community leaders to care for the needs of the community and the provisions of the poor. However, those who were selected would not accept the appointment from him, because they deemed this job beneath their dignity.

⁦Rabbi Yosei said to them: Ben Beivai was responsible for the lowly function of the shreds of garments. If this man, who was appointed to deal with the wicks, merited to be listed with the greatest of that generation, you, who are appointed for life-sustaining matters, all the more so are you not honored by the position? You should therefore accept the request without hesitation.

But not everyone agrees that wick management was Ben Beivai’s job; he may have been braiding something very different. 23 (we’ll get there in about a month!) tells of a priest who cheated during the procedure through which work assignments were made in the Temple and was consequently punished with lashes administered by the person in charge of the paki’ah. In this case, it is clear that paki’ah, which as you may recall means “shreds,” means something like whip- master (because the whip was made of braided shreds of fabric).

If the existence of a Temple whip-master surprises you, it turns out that there are other references to it in the . For example, Mishnah 1:2 tells of an officer who used to go around checking on the priests who were on night watch. If the priests who were supposed to be on watch didn’t rise immediately and greet this officer, he would presume they sleeping on the job and immediately beat them. (If you’re still shocked, it helps to recall that corporal punishment on the job was common in the premodern world.)

So did Ben Beivai serve as wick-maker or master of the whip? While we cannot know for sure, one could argue that because the text from Shekalim, which is from the , is closer to the Temple in both place and time, it may be more likely to preserve a kernel of truth — making him a wick-maker. Yoma 23 reports that Abaye also thought this was true, until he learned about the other tradition and changed his mind, adopting the position that Ben Beivai was

8 in charge of lashing misbehaving priests. A reminder that the sages, too, were constantly sorting through received tradition to find clarity.

HASHEM EXACTS JUSTICE FROM THE RIGHTEOUS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Gemara relates that Nechunia, the "Chofer Shichin" (digger of water wells), had a son who died of thirst. The Gemara says that even though Nechunia dedicated his life to providing water to the people who came to Yerushalayim during the festivals, his son died of thirst because Hash-m is "Medakdek k'Chut ha'Se'arah" with the righteous. When a person has perfected himself in an area of Avodas Hash-m, Hash-m demands from him more exacting standards.

The Gemara then relates that a certain Chasid, who used to dig water wells to provide water for travelers, had a daughter who was tragically swept away by a river while she was on the way to her wedding. (From the words of the Bavli in Bava Kama (50a), it appears that this Chasid was Nechunia himself.) Rebbi prayed to Hash-m and said, "Is it possible that this person honored his Creator with water, and now his Creator punishes him with water?" At that moment, a commotion was heard in the city as the daughter returned safe and sound. If Hash-m indeed does not punish a person with the same thing in which he excels in his service of Hash-m, as Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair expressed and as the second incident demonstrates, then why did Hash-m allow Nechunya's son to die of thirst?

TOSFOS in Bava Kama (50a) and Yevamos (121b) explains that since Nechunia excelled in providing water for others, the fact that his son died of thirst is not considered a form of justice with the same thing with which Nechunia excelled. His son suffered from a lack of water, while Nechunia excelled in providing water. However, if his daughter would have died by drowning in a flood of water, that decree would have been carried out with the same action in which Nechunia excelled -- providing water, and Hash-m does not punish a person in such a way. Alternatively, Nechunia dug wells, but he did not provide the water to fill them. The water came naturally through rainfall. Accordingly, it was possible for his son to die from a lack of water, while it was not possible for his daughter to die in the pit of a well. (This is the explanation of RASHI in Yevamos (121b, DH Chofer Shichin), according to the understanding of the ETZ YOSEF there. This explanation does not conform with the Yerushalmi's description that "he honored his Creator with water.")

SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Bava Kama (50a) suggests that there is no such rule that Hash-m does not exact justice from a person with the object of the Mitzvah in which that person excels. Hash-m has His own considerations based on His infinite wisdom which we cannot comprehend. In the case of the Gemara here, Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair offered a prayer to Hash-m on behalf of the Chasid's daughter. Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair's prayer aroused Hash-m's mercy, and Nechunya's

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-014.htm

9 daughter was saved. His son, however, died of thirst after Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair had passed away, and thus his prayer was no longer effective.

REBBI ELIYAHU FULDA adds that this might be the intention of the Yerushalmi when it says that his daughter was saved by an angel that had the appearance of Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair. Since she was saved in the merit of his prayer on her behalf, the force that saved her manifested itself in the likeness of Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair. In fact, it is possible that this is the difference between the two descriptions offered by the Yerushalmi as to how the daughter was saved. The opinion that says that she was saved by a branch maintains that Hash-m never punishes the righteous with the object in which they excel. The opinion that says that she was saved by an angel with the likeness of Rebbi Pinchas maintains that she was saved only as a result of the intervention of Rebbi Pinchas. (KORBAN HA'EDAH; ETZ YOSEF to Yevamos 121b)

MISHNAS ELIYAHU explains that the principle that Hash-m does not permit harm to befall a person from the object of the Mitzvah in which he excels applies only if that person performs the Mitzvah entirely l'Shem Shamayim, for the sake of Hash-m with no other motives. When a person performs a Mitzvah in that way, the object of that Mitzvah cannot harm him. When Nechunya's daughter was swept away by the torrent, Nechunia was fulfilling the Mitzvah of providing water for the travelers entirely l'Shem Shamayim. Hence, his daughter was saved. However, perhaps at a later time, he had in mind other motives and he did not do the Mitzvah solely for the sake of Hash-m. At that time, his son died of thirst. In that respect, Hash-m was "Medakdek k'Chut ha'Se'arah" with the righteous.

The Tale of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger (Part I)

Rav Dr. Yonatan Feintuch writes:5

Introduction

We will first deal with torts for opening a bor (pit), as discussed in Tractate Bava Kama.

The Mishna there (5:5) states:

If one digs a pit in a private domain and opens it into the public domain, or if one digs a pit in the public domain and opens it into a private domain, or if one digs a pit in a private domain and opens it into another’s private domain, one is liable for the ensuing damages.

The gemara on this in the Babylonian Talmud (49b-50b) is comprised of four parts, each of which opens with, “Our Rabbis taught.”

5 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-20-tale-nechunya-ditch-digger-part-i

10

A) The dispute between the Tanna’im R. Yishmael and R. Akiva in the baraita regarding liability or exemption therefrom.[1] The Amora’im Rabba and R. Yosef argue regarding the correct interpretation of this baraita, which the sugya explains as a dispute about what makes one liable for damages caused by falling into the pit (the indemnifier, so to speak): ownership of the pit or creation of the pit (either by digging it or by removing its cover). After citing the Amoraic dispute, the redactors of the gemara cite two baraitot that seem to challenge R. Yosef’s position, but both challenges are answered.

B) The law exempting someone who digs or opens a pit but then dedicates it to the public.

C) The aggada of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger.[2]

D) The law of removing stones from private property to the public domain, as well as the story of the pious man and the man removing stones.

The debate in the first baraita (between R. Yishmael and R. Akiva) and the subsequent Amoraic dispute (between Rabba and R. Yosef as to the indemnifier for damages caused by a pit) tie in directly to the mishna: Both deal with pits in various domains, and both fundamentally analyze a topic that deserves to be the Talmudic opening for dealing with the torts of bor in this tractate.

The baraita subsequently cited by the gemara, discussing one who digs a pit and dedicates it to the public, is also naturally interwoven into this debate. This is another case of indemnifying the owner for the damage caused by a pit.[3] The baraita cites the case of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger to present an example of one who excavates, opens, and hands over a bor to the public. Since Nechunia the Ditch-Digger’s name comes up, the third baraita is cited, which contains a narrative about that character.

There is an almost identical parallel to the Nechunia narrative elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud, in 121b, in a sugya dealing with a woman who cannot remarry because her husband’s death has not been verified. The sixteenth and final chapter of Yevamot deals with a long list of such cases, and the Nechunia narrative is cited to illuminate R. Meir’s statement in the fourth mishna:

11 R. Meir says: It once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and rose to the surface three days later.

Below, we will examine the relationship between the parallels and the ramifications of this relationship on the interpretation of the aggada in Bava Kama.

This is the aggada of Nechunia, preceded by the baraita dealing with an excavating a bor and handing it over to the public domain:

Our Rabbis taught: If one digs [a well] and leaves it open, but transfers it to the public, one is exempt, whereas if one digs it and leaves it open without dedicating it to the public, one is liable. Such also was the custom of Nechunia the digger of wells, ditches, and caves; he used to dig wells and leave them open and dedicate them to the public. When this matter became known to the Sages, they observed: This man has fulfilled this law. Only this law and no more? Read, therefore, “this law also.”

1. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the daughter of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger fell into a deep pit.

2. People came and informed R. Chanina ben Dosa.

3. During the first hour, he said to them, “She is well.” During the second, he said to them, “She is still well.” But in the third hour, he said to them, “She has by now come out [of the pit].”

4. They then asked her, “Who brought you up?”

5. Her answer was, “A ram came to my help with an old man leading it.”

6. They then asked R. Chanina ben Dosa, “Are you a prophet?”

7. He said to them, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.

8. “I only said to myself: Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?”[4]

12 9. R. Acha, however, said: Nevertheless, his son died of thirst, as it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round about Him,” which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those round about Him[5] even for matters as light as a single hair.

10. R. Nechunia[6] derived the same lesson from the verse, “God is very daunting, in the secret counsel of His holy ones, and awesome over all surrounding Him.”

11. R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in the execution of justice, that one’s life is yielded,[7] for it is stated, “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice.”

12. But R. Chana,[8] or as others read R. Shemuel bar Nachmani, said: Why is it written, “Long of sufferings,” and not, “Long of suffering”? [It must mean,] “Long of sufferings” to both the righteous and the wicked.

Literary Analysis

The aggada of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger in the Babylonian Talmud can be split into two parts. The first eight lines tell the story of Nechunya’s daughter and her rescue from precisely the type of cisterns that her father would dig for the public welfare. This part ends with R. Chanina ben Dosa dramatic declaration: “Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?” This declaration is meant to explain R. Chanina ben Dosa’s confidence that nothing bad will befall the daughter of Nechunia in a well that he dug for the public welfare. However, in a sharp transition, the second part (the last four lines) opens with R. Acha’s statement about Nechunya’s son dying of dehydration. This statement would seem to contradict the message of the previous story; indeed, this transition is marked with qualifiers: nevertheless, however.

The statement of R. Acha raises other similar examinations of theodicy and the doctrine of reward and punishment.

This aggada, with its different sections, has a parallel in Tractate Shekalim of the Jerusalem Talmud (5:1,48d). We will compare these parallels directly.

13 Babylonian Talmud Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim

Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the Nechunia the Ditch-Digger, who would daughter of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger dig ditches and caves, knew under which fell into a deep pit. rock a water source could be found and People came and informed R. Chanina under which rock it was bone-dry, how far ben Dosa. down the rock went and how far down the During the first hour, he said to them, dryness went. “She is well.” During the second, he said to them, “She is still well.” But in the third hour, he said to them, “She has by now come out [of the pit].” They then asked her, “Who brought you up?” Her answer was, “A ram came to my help with an old man leading it.” They then asked R. Chanina ben Dosa, “Are you a prophet?” He said to them, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. “I only said to myself: Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?”

R. Acha, however, said: Nevertheless, R. Acha, however, said: Nevertheless, his his son died of thirst, as it says, “And it son died of thirst. shall be very tempestuous round about Him,” which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those round about Him even for matters as light as a single hair. Rabbi Nechunia derived the same lesson from the verse “God is very daunting, in the secret counsel of His holy ones, and awesome over all surrounding Him.”

R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in the the execution of justice that one’s life is execution of justice, that one’s innards will yielded, for it is stated, “He is the Rock, be yielded; rather, He is long-suffering and His work is perfect; for all His ways are claims what He is owed. justice.” R. Acha said: As it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round about Him,” which teaches that He is particular with

14 them even for matters as light as a single hair. Said R. Yosa: This is not the source, but rather, “And awesome over all surrounding Him” — the fear of Him is more on those who are close than those who are far.

But R. Chana, or as others read R. R. Chaggai in the name of R. Shemuel bar Shemuel bar Nachmani, said: Why is it Nachman says: It happened that a pious written, “Long of sufferings,” and not, man would dig cisterns, ditches, and caves “Long of suffering”? [It must mean,] for the passers-by. Once his daughter was “Long of sufferings” to both the crossing the river to be married, and she righteous and the wicked. was swept away. All the people came to console him, but he refused to accept their condolences. R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir came to console him, but he refused to accept his condolences. [R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir said], “This is what you call a pious man?” They said to him, “Rabbi, this is what he did, and that is what happened to him.” He said, “Could it be that he honored his Creator with water, and he brings him up short with water?” Suddenly, a tumult was heard in the town and the daughter of that man arrived. Some say she clung to a branch and climbed up; others say an angel came down, with the appearance of R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir, and saved her.

Parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud

In a comparative reading of the parallel narratives, what is most notable is that in the Jerusalem Talmud, unlike the Babylonian Talmud, the aggada consists of two separate tales, each of which stands on its own.[9] At first, Nechunia the Ditch-Digger is described,[10] being cited in the sugya because of his appearance in the list of Temple officeholders in the mishna; the gemara therefore expands on his story. The statement of R. Acha about the son’s tragic death from dehydration is a continuation of the exploration of Nechunya’s background.

From here, the Jerusalem Talmud moves on to a series of theological-exegetical statements about the Attribute of Justice, which are similar or identical to those in the Babylonian Talmud.

15 Afterwards, R. Chagga cites in the name of R. Shemuel bar Nachman a separate story about a pious man and his daughter that is quite similar to that of Nechunia and his daughter in the Babylonian Talmud, albeit with certain distinctions in the details of the plot (which we will address further on). In the mouth of R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir, who fills in this narrative the role of R. Chanina ben Dosa in the Babylonian version,[11] we find the theological axiom that rejects the idea that God would punish a person through the same matter in which that person fulfilled a mitzva or a good deed.

Thus, after the brief description in the Jerusalem Talmud about Nechunia, three statements are cited. First, R. Chanina comments that God does not yield, but merely waits to collect what He is owed. It may be that citing R. Chanina’s words immediately after those of R. Acha[12] alludes to the fact that Nechunia deserved a heavy punishment (for an unknown sin), but it was delayed and fulfilled by the death of his son.[13]

The next two statements, those of R. Acha and R. Yosa, represent different viewpoints. According to their words, the Attribute of Justice is more exacting when it comes to those who are closest to the Divine, “those round about Him.” If their words in the sugya are directed (by their authors or by its redactors) towards Nechunia as well, then their declarations indicate that this individual’s intimacy with and closeness to God engenders a harsh sentence, perhaps for some minor transgression that is unknown to us, for some misstep by “those round about Him” that demands a severely punitive response.[14]

In truth, we cannot be sure that the three theological statements were formulated in repose to the case of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger, as these statements appear elsewhere as well. One of these places is in Tractate in the Jerusalem Talmud (3:8, 62b), in which the context for these statements is quite different:

It has been taught: There was a story of the son of R. Elazar son of R. Tzadok and of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, who were shopkeepers in Jerusalem. They would fill their measures before the festival and give them to customers on the festival. R. Chanina ben Akavya says that they would also do this on the intermediate days of the festival, in order to saturate the utensils with oil.

16 R. Elazar son of R. Tzadok also gathered three hundred barrels, and his friend gathered three hundred barrels. The Sages said to them: You did not need to do this, but since you were stringent on yourselves, the money should be used for public needs.

Once, Abba Shaul became sick and the Rabbis entered to visit him. Abba Shaul: Have you seen my right hand that would always measure honestly [but is nevertheless in pain]?

R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in the execution of justice, that one’s innards will be yielded; rather, He is long-suffering and claims what He is owed. R. Acha said: As it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round about Him,” which teaches that He is particular with them even for matters as light as a single hair.

Said R. Yosa son of R. Bon: This is not the source, but rather, “And awesome over all surrounding Him” — the fear of Him is more on those who are close than those who are far.

It is difficult to conclusively determine the source of these statements: Were they associated with one story, with the other story, or with some text which we no longer have, after which they were edited into the Jerusalem Talmud and juxtaposed with these narratives?[15] Moreover, we should be dubious about matching up the statements of R. Acha and R. Yosa to the character of Nechunia as presented in Tractate Shekalim.

Unlike the righteous figures in Beitza, whose impeccable morals are well-established in the narrative there, the Jerusalem Talmud does not necessarily present Nechunia as a paragon of virtue or ethics. His hydrological activity is part of his occupation as an officeholder in the Temple, not of some philanthropic endeavor for the public benefit. This is strikingly clear when we contrast his description with the description of the protagonist of R. Chagga’s story, which appears further on in the sugya. This protagonist is identified as a “pious man” looking out for the interests of the “passersby,” and R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir says of him that “he honored his Creator with water.”

Moreover, the fact that Nechunia is a Temple officeholder does not prove anything about him conclusively, as the beginning of that sugya (48c) lists a number of such bureaucrats in order to severely criticize their actions with the imprecation, “The name of the evil shall rot.” Although Nechunia does not appear on that list explicitly, the very fact that the list exists indicates that based on his status as a Temple officeholder alone, there is no reason to consider him a virtuous man.

17

Taking all of this into account, it is reasonable to assume that these three statements were copied, as a set, from another source that we do not have. The redactors of the Jerusalem Talmud then integrated them into each of the two sugyot in Tractates Shekalim and Beitza.

Conclusion

Whatever the case may be of how these sugyot came into their present form, we have two divergent descriptions: Nechunya’s son dies of thirst while the daughter of the pious man is saved from drowning, and there need not be any tension between these cases.

We may read the sugya here as dealing first with Nechunia, who commits a sin (of a major or minor variety) that we know nothing about, and the punishment for this sin is stayed until the death of his son. On the other hand, the pious man, who digs cisterns for the public’s benefit in order to perform a mitzva, is rewarded midda ke-neged midda, as his daughter is saved from drowning. Her death by drowning would have been a slap in the face, a theological inconceivability in light of her father’s praiseworthy enterprise.[16]

In contrast, in the Babylonian Talmud, we have the two stories as one joint narrative, causing some tension between Nechunya’s virtue and the catastrophe that befalls him. We will analyze this phenomenon below.

[1] 49b-50a, from "Our Rabbis taught: One who digs a pit” until “He might reply that it deals with digging for foundations, in regard to which the ruling is unanimous.”

[2] Henceforth we will use the phrase “the aggada of Nechunia” to refer to the entire aggadic section dealing with Nechunia the

Ditch-Digger, while “the Nechunia narrative” or “the narrative” will be used to refer solely to the tale of his daughter’s falling into a cistern and being rescued, excluding the statements following it in the sugya.

[3] In the as well, a baraita such as this appears juxtaposed to the baraita that parallels our mishna (Tosefta Bava

Kama 6:5, Lieberman edition, pp. 21-22).

[4] This expression requires some explanation. Stumbling here could be a reference to receiving a punishment, and if so, it is unclear if Nechunya’s “seed” is sinful in some way or if Nechunia is the transgressor. On the other hand, stumbling might be a reference to sinning itself, naturally incurring a punishment, in which case it would be the seed who are sinful in some manner.

However, there may be a double meaning in our case, as stumbling may have a physical component in this instance, as we are

18 talking about falling into a pit. Below, when Nechunya’s son is mentioned and it is noted that he died of thirst, the implication is that Nechunia himself had sinned; R. Chanina’s statement discusses the son’s death as a delay of punishment, while other statements discuss being “round about Him” — a reference to Nechunya’s relationship to God, as Nechunia is “that righteous man.” It appears that the gemara considers the death of the son to be a punishment for the bereaved father. In the Jerusalem Talmud as well (see below), this is implied, whether concerning the son or the daughter, as R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir says, “Could it be that he honored his

Creator with water and he brings him up short with water?” The focus is clearly on Nechunia, as his work is discussed and contrasted with the “wrong” of his daughter’s death. It appears that the storytellers in both accept simply the fact that a child could die for a parent’s sin, in order to punish the parent; conversely, the righteousness of the parent should prevent the death of the child, as a reward to the parent. However, we cannot make sweeping conclusions about such a worldview in the Talmuds, as the matter requires a more thorough survey and analysis, which is beyond the scope of this series.

[5] Reliable manuscripts have, “over those surrounding him,” which would be more in keeping with the verse cited subsequently,

“God is very daunting, in the secret counsel of His holy ones, and awesome over all surrounding Him.”

[6] Reliable manuscripts have R. Chanina instead here.

[7] Reliable manuscripts have, “That one’s innards will be yielded; rather, He is long-suffering and claims what He is owed.”

[8] Reliable manuscripts have R. Chagga. See below, where we compare this to its parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud.

[9] This is supported, if not outright established, by the fact that the Jerusalem Talmud elsewhere ( 1:3, 21d) cites a parallel story to that of the pious man, without mention Nechunia at all. This parallel is interesting for another reason: The sugya in the

Jerusalem Talmud in Shekalim that we are discussing here talks about various officeholders in the Temple. At the beginning of the discussion, the gemara tells the story of R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir and his donkey; to continue this theme, in connection with mentioning

Nechunia the Ditch-Digger, it cites the above-mentioned story of the pious man. These two stories about R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir are part of a larger collection of stories about the sage, who appears in the above-mentioned sugya in Tractate Demai of the Jerusalem

Talmud. It may be that this collection or a similar collection is the source for both stories in the sugya in Shekalim.

[10] There is some variation between the Talmuds as to the spelling of Nechunya’s name: the Jerusalem Talmud has a double yud followed by a hei at the end, while the Babylonian Talmud has one yud followed by an alef.

[11] There is at times a phenomenon of these two pious men being interchangeable characters, even in the above- mentioned sugya of the Jerusalem Talmud. It may be that beyond the normal interchangeability of these two characters in this case, when it comes to the rescue story about the daughter of Nechunia, who lived at the end of the Second Temple Era, it makes sense to switch out R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir for Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, who could be a contemporary of Nechunia.

[12] If this R. Chanina were the one from the first generation of Amora’im from the Land of (see Albeck, Mavo La-Talmidim, p. 155), he could not have been reacting to the words of R. Acha, from the fourth generation (Albeck, ibid. p. 316). However, as

Albeck notes (p. 155), in many place in the Jerusalem Talmud, it is difficult to determine with certainty which R. Chanina is meant.

[13] See supra fn. 4.

19 [14] As we will note below, Nechunia is not described as a righteous person. Nevertheless, as an officeholder in the Temple, he may be considered to be in proximity to God, in a more physical sense than a spiritual one; because his profession brings him near to the Divine Presence in the Temple, he may be considered close to God, and thus subject to a more exacting standard.

[15] It may be that an ancient source for some of these derashot can be found among the Tanna’im, namely in Mekhilta De-Rabbi

Yishmael, Shira, ch. 8: “Another explanation: ‘Awesome in praises’ — the nature of flesh and blood is that one is feared more by those who are far than those who are close, but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like this: Those who are close to him fear him more than those who are far, as it says, ‘With those who are near to me, I will be sanctified,’ and it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round about Him,” and it says, ‘God is very daunting, in the secret counsel of His holy ones, and awesome over all surrounding Him,’ and it says, ‘Lord, God of Hosts, who is like You? Lord, You are potent, and your faithfulness is round about you.’”

[16] It is worth noting that the Sheyarei Korban ad loc. points to a contradiction between the events. However, as stated above, there is no necessary contradiction between the matters, Nechunia being on his own terms and the pious man on his own terms. If, after all this, the reader still feels a tension between the descriptions concerning the death of Nechunya’s son in a manner that evokes his profession, the sugya may be read as a theological dispute between the Amora’im, who relate to the death of Nechunya’s son, on the one hand, and the tradition of R. Chagga in the name of R. Shemuel bar Nachman about the daughter of the pious man, on the other.

The Tale of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger (Part II)

Rav Dr. Yonatan Feintuch writes:6

Introduction

Above, we saw the story of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger’s daughter (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kama 50a-b) and its parallel in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1, 48d). Now we return to the Babylonian Talmud’s narrative in order to observe its structure, as compared to the version in the Jerusalem Talmud.

To make it easier for readers, we will consider both versions side-by-side:

6 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-21-tale-nechunya-ditch-digger-part-iia

20 Bava Kama ,Babylonian Talmud Shekalim ,Jerusalem Talmud

Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the daughter of Nechunia the .Nechunia the Ditch-Digger fell into a large cistern Ditch-Digger, who .People came and informed R. Chanina ben Dosa would dig ditches During the first hour, he said to them, “She is well;” during and caves, knew the second, he said to them, “She is still well;” but in the under which rock a third hour, he said to them, “She has by now come out [of water source could [.” the pit be found and under ?” They then asked her, “Who brought you up which rock it was Her answer was, “A ram came to my help with an old man bone-dry, how far .” leading it down the rock ?” They then asked R. Chanina ben Dosa, “Are you a prophet went and how far He said to them, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a down the dryness .prophet .went I only said to myself: Shall his seed stumble over the thing ?” to which that righteous man has devoted his labor

R. Acha, however, said: Nevertheless, his son died of thirst, R. Acha said: His as it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round about .son died of thirst Him,” which teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those round about Him even for matters as .light as a single hair R. Nechunia derived the same lesson from the verse, “God is very daunting, in the secret counsel of His holy ones, and .” awesome over all surrounding Him

R. Chanina R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Whoever is yielding in the execution of justice, that one’s innards will be says that the .yielded; rather, He is long-suffering and claims what He is owed Holy One, R. Acha said: as it says, “And it shall be very tempestuous round blessed be He, about Him,” which teaches that He is particular with them even is yielding in .for matters as light as a single hair the execution Said R. Yosa: This is not the source, but rather, “And awesome of justice that over all surrounding Him” — the fear of Him is more on those one’s life is .who are close than those who are far yielded, for it is stated, “He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are .” justice

But R. Chana, R. Chaggai in the name of R. Shemuel bar Nachman says: It or as others happened that a pious man would dig cisterns, ditches, and caves

21 read R. for the passersby. Once his daughter was crossing the river to be Shemuel bar .married, and she was swept away Nachmani, All the people came to console him, but he refused to accept their said: Why is it condolences. R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir came to console him, but he Long “ ,written .refused to accept his condolences of sufferings,” ?” R. Pinchas ben Ya’ir said]: “This is what you call a pious man] and not, They said to him: “Rabbi, this is what he did, and that is what “Long of .” happened to him suffering”? [It He said: “Could it be that he honored his Creator with water and must mean,] ?” He brings him up short with water “Long of Suddenly, a tumult was heard in the town and the daughter of that sufferings” to man arrived. Some say she clung to a branch and climbed up; both the others say an angel came down, with the appearance of R. righteous and .Pinchas ben Ya’ir, and saved her .the wicked

Nechunya’s Narrative in the Babylonian Talmud

In the Jerusalem Talmud, there are two traditions dealing with two separate characters: Nechunia and an anonymous pious man. In the version of the Babylonian Talmud, these two characters are conflated in the personality of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger.

Such a blending of traditions, particularly when we are talking about ascribing an anonymous tradition to a known personality, is a phenomenon that exists in the Babylonian Talmud in a number of contexts. Y. Heinemann explores this phenomenon, described as “focusing of the plot.”[1]

Aside from the distinction concerning the blending of these traditions, the Babylonian Talmud’s version is distinguished from that of the Jerusalem Talmud in a number of additional details, which may be less noticeable to the reader:

A. Circumstances of the Accident: The Jerusalem Talmud tells of drowning in a river, and the connection between this catastrophe and the profession of digging cisterns is more generalized.[2] In the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, the child falls into a large cistern (bor gadol), a manmade device for collecting and holding rainwater, making the connection much more pronounced. Such circumstances for the accident are more appropriate for the sugya in the latter source, which is from Tractate Bava Kama and which deals with the tort of bor and the damages resulting from falling into one, rather than the sugya from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is from Tractate Shekalim and which does not address issues of damage and liability. Thus, we may observe how the Babylonian Talmud in Bava Kama fine-tunes the narrative so it will be a fitting accompaniment to the halakhic discussion there. This point is very significant when we consider how the Babylonian Talmud integrates narrative into various sugyot.

22 However, in this case, interestingly, there is some ambiguity, as there may be another reason to change the scene of the action from a raging river to a giant pit of rainwater. As we noted in the previous shiur, a mishna in the final chapter of Yevamot includes the following statement:

R. Meir says: It once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and rose to the surface three days later.

The gemara analyzes this statement (121b), as R. Meir and the Sages argue about this case, the former maintaining that it was a natural event, while the latter hold that only divine intervention could have allowed it: “R. Meir says: It once happened that a man fell into a large cistern” — But it was taught in a baraita: They said to R. Meir, “We do not mention miraculous events.” What miraculous events? If it was the lack of food and water, does not the verse say, “Fast on my behalf, neither eating nor drinking [for three days]”? (Esther 4:16) Rather, it was because he could not have slept, as R. Yochanan said that one who vows not to sleep for three days receives lashes [for swearing falsely] and may go to sleep right away. What then would R. Meir argue? R. Kahana explained: There were outcroppings over outcroppings. What then would the Rabbis argue? [The outcroppings] would have been [as smooth as] marble. What then would R. Meir argue? It is inconceivable that he could not have curled himself up to doze a bit. Our Rabbis taught: It happened that the daughter of Nechunia the Ditch-Digger fell into a large cistern...

Analyzing this parallel, we must come to the conclusion that is altogether feasible that the circumstances of this accident — at least as the Babylonian Talmud chooses to formulate them — are specifically connected to R. Meir’s account in the mishna there of a man who fell into a bor gadol, as well as the debate he has with his colleagues about the natural or supernatural facts of the man’s survival.[3]

B. Identity of the Rescuer: The Jerusalem Talmud (in the miraculous account) identifies the rescuer as an angel wearing the face of R. Pinchas ben Yair, a central character in the narrative. The Babylonian Talmud recasts the role: “A ram came to my help with an old man leading it.” The appearance of such a character is unprecedented, as far as we know, in the literature of . This wondrous figure[4] does raise some biblical associations, as the aged Avraham takes a ram to replace his son at the Binding of Yitzchak, saving the young man from being a human sacrifice.[5] Arguably, in the Nechunia narrative, this image may represent the Attribute of Divine Mercy, particularly as manifested in the relationship between a father and his imperiled child.[6]

In the Babylonian Talmud, R. Chanina ben Dosa takes the place of R. Pinchas ben Yair. This may be because R. Chanina ben Dosa is famous for praying for others, as in the mishna in 5:5[7] and the corresponding gemara (34b),[8] where the following line appears: “They said to him: ‘Are you a prophet?’ He replied: ‘I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.’”

23 C. The Babylonian Talmud’s expression of theodicy is a key sentence in the narrative,[9] and it is quite different from that of the Jerusalem Talmud. Respectively, they read:

Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?

Could it be that he honored his Creator with water and He brings him up short with water?

First of all, the Jerusalem Talmud offers a much more casual connection between the pious man’s activity and the accident that befalls his family, which fits with the plot details there. In the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, the comparison is more exact and more focused on the action of the righteous man: Digging cisterns is his profession and his daughter falls into just such a cistern, and this intensifies the paradox that R. Chanina ben Dosa highlights.[10]

D. Order of the Statements Following the Incident: In the Jerusalem Talmud, immediately after the statement that Nechunya’s son died of thirst, we have a number of formulations of the idea that God is no pushover. The sequence creates a sense in the reader that Nechunia is a sinner. In the Babylonian Talmud, at first some statements are cited in the matter of God’s exacting standards with “those round about him.”[11] These statements better explain the death of the son of “that righteous man,” Nechunia. Only after R. Acha and R. Yosa[12] have had their say does R. Chanina weigh in: “Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in the execution of justice…”[13] If the rearranging of these statements in the Babylonian Talmud is purposeful, this is likely tied to the more positive character of Nechunia in the Babylonian Talmud, created by the blending of these narratives. If Nechunia is a righteous man, the statements about those surrounding God, for whom His standards are so much more exacting, are more fitting than R. Chanina’s statements, whose proximity to the narrative is likely to indicate that Nechunia committed a grievous but unknown sin.

E. The Final Statement: The statement, “R. Chana [Chagga], or as others read, R. Shemuel bar Nachmani,” in the Babylonian Talmud seems to parallel what we find in the Jerusalem Talmud as “R. Chaggai in the name of R. Shemuel bar Nachman.” The Babylonian Talmud attributes another statement to this sage,[14] but the Jerusalem Talmud has no parallel in Shekalim. In Ta’anit (2:1, 65b), however, the Jerusalem Talmud does record such a statement, juxtaposed with that of R. Chananya:

R. Shemuel bar Nachman says in the name of R. Yonatan: It is not written, “Long of suffering,” but rather, “Long of sufferings” — he is long-suffering with the righteous and long-suffering with the wicked.

R. Acha and R. Tanchum Be-Rabbi Chiya say in the name of R. Yochanan: It is not written, “Long of suffering,” but rather, “Long of sufferings” — He is long-suffering before He claims what He is owed, and He is long-suffering as He claims what He is owed.

24 R. Chanina said: Whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is yielding in the execution of justice, that one’s innards will be yielded; rather, He is long-suffering and claims what He is owed.”[15]

The Contrasting Viewpoints of the Two Talmuds

These points indicate that if the narrative in the Babylonian Talmud had a source from the similar to that in the Jerusalem Talmud, this tradition underwent a number of alterations, which apparently appeared at different stages of its being passed down in Babylonian until it was integrated into the sugya in the Babylonian Talmud. Two separate narratives about two different characters in the tradition of the Land of Israel are united in the Babylonian Talmud into one story about one character. Some of the plot details have been altered, and it appears that even the statements and derashot that appear following the stories have themselves been subjected to a certain amount of processing, which is difficult to conclusively ascribe to certain people or times. Furthermore, we have seen that it may be that the context of the narrative in the Babylonian Talmud in Yevamot influenced part of the plot.

What of the version in the Babylonian Talmud? Some of the differences in its narrative appear to emanate from literary format considerations, to polish the story, to make it coherent, and to make it flow better. However, in other points, the Babylonian processing expresses itself in the different shape of the character of Nechunia. The Jerusalem Talmud presents him as the consummate professional, a Temple officeholder, and — as noted above — the description is totally neutral. The Jerusalem Talmud tells us that his son died of thirst, and if we add to this R. Chanina’s statement about how uncompromising God is, we may understand that he sinned in some unknown manner. The man whose daughter is rescued due to his actions is not Nechunia, but a certain pious man.

In the Babylonian Talmud, on the other hand, Nechunia is “that righteous man” whose life’s work is digging cisterns for the public, and therefore his daughter is saved from drowning. However, because the Babylonian Talmud has a unified story, there is an interesting phenomenon in it that does not exist in the Jerusalem Talmud. On the one hand, we find R. Chanina ben Dosa wondering, “Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?” and the rescue of Nechunya’s daughter; on the other hand, we have the tragedy of his son’s death from dehydration.[16] It appears that the Babylonian Talmud is aware of this tension, prefacing the latter with, “R. Acha, however, said: Nevertheless, his son died of thirst,” while the Jerusalem Talmud does not.

It appears that the positon of Rabbi Acha and his colleagues, at least as it is presented in the Babylonian Talmud, is that when push comes to shove, the Holy One, blessed be He, is particular with those closest to Him even for matters as light as a single hair. This overwhelms the objection, “Shall his seed stumble over the thing to which that righteous man has devoted his labor?” This is at least true when the righteous are themselves guilty of some misstep.[17]

25 The Message in Bava Kama

What, then, is the message of Nechunya’s narrative in the sugya of the Babylonian Talmud? The broader context there is the tort of bor. In the context of this debate, the law of exemption for one who digs a cistern and hands it over to the public is raised. This is a statement on the legalistic plane, and Nechunia the Ditch-Digger exemplifies such a practice.

However, immediately afterward, the gemara cites the story of Nechunya’s daughter falling into a bor, which seems to indicate that the message here is not merely on the legalistic plane. Digging a cistern and turning it over to the public is more than a legal loophole excusing one from liability should any passersby fall into that pit. This is not a neutral act, but rather a mitzva, demonstrating concern for the public welfare.

Thus, it may be that there is an attempt to allude to a more general statement: When we are talking about the public domain, there is more to discuss than liability and exemption, damage, and indemnification — despite the fact that deep into Tractate Bava Kama, one might get that impression, as its main preoccupation is torts and damages. The public domain is the sphere in which one may contribute to the welfare of the community. However, as one embarks on such endeavors, there are hazards, as exemplified by the story of Nechunya’s daughter. This danger may lead one to be dissuaded from digging cisterns to benefit the public. Therefore, the narrative comes to emphasize that there are limits when it comes to how cautious one should be about potential damage resulting from one’s activity in the public domain.

In other words, the legal side of the tractate stresses to a great extent the obligation to be circumspect in the public domain, to avoid any activity that may endanger another’s person or property. However, over-cautiousness of this sort could neuter any attempt to take positive action for the public welfare, due to the concern that one might cause damage. This is true not only for physical activities, such as digging cisterns, but any activities, such as taking a leadership role or contributing in any manner to the community. Therefore, the discussion about digging and handing over to the public, together with the Nechunia narrative, stresses that even if some damage were to occur, it is not only that the excavator would be exempt from liability, but the actions of such an individual should guarantee protection from any damages likely to result from such activity.

In the sugya, there is a general call not to hesitate to follow the example of Nechunia, who digs for the public welfare and acts correctly from a legalistic or halakhic point of view. Such a message is certainly more emphasized in the context of the narrative in the Babylonian Talmud, which deals directly with the tort of bor, than in the context of Shekalim in the Jerusalem Talmud, which deals with a totally different topic, that of the officeholders in the Temple.

However, as one continues reading in the sugya in the Babylonian Talmud, it appears that the picture is, in fact, more complex. As we noted, the aggada of Nechunia is composed of two parts, with a certain dialectic between the segments. The story of his daughter’s rescue from the cistern indicates that a person’s positive actions are supposed to keep tragedy from befalling that person or that person’s family — at least, catastrophes directly tied to the good acts performed. However, in the second part, which is composed of Amoraic statements, another direction is indicated, that of the Attribute of Justice (Midat Ha-Din), as due to its exacting nature, the son of “that righteous

26 man” dies of thirst even though his father spent his life bringing water to the nation. In other words, even when there is a general link between the domains, this is not enough to provide absolute protection for a good actor, due to other considerations taking precedence.

Indeed, based on the way the sequence of events differs between the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud, it does not appear that the son dies due to Nechunya’s sin, certainly not a major transgression. His son dies in spite of his father’s righteousness and activity, not because of them. However, here another principle comes into play, the one mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud immediately after the narrative: God’s exacting standards for his intimates. Here, the Babylonian Talmud demonstrates an additional principle that presents its own opportunity and its own cost. The righteousness of Nechunia apparently brings him very close to God. There is a danger inherent in this intimacy that is quite reminiscent of standing on the edge of a bor. Such closeness is absolutely necessary in order to drink of its waters, as one who does not draw near cannot hope to quench his thirst. However, the closer one comes, the greater the danger of falling in. Therefore, those who come closest must exercise the highest degree of caution, more so than others.

These deep and complex messages are created by the Babylonian Talmud by combining two separate tales found in the Jerusalem Talmud into a unified but complex whole.

[1] Y Heinemann, Darkhei Ha-Aggada, pp. 28-30. [2] Essentially, the only connection between these two elements is that both are water sources. [3] Indeed, the similarity between the stories is reinforced by the element of time: Nechunya’s daughter is rescued after three hours, while this man climbs out after three days. [4] Indeed, the insertion of this savior figure may also be influenced by the sugya in Yevamot, as the discussion there is about what constitutes a miraculous event; introducing a clearly fantastical figure emphasizes and intensifies the idea of a supernatural event (although there is a miraculous event in the version from the Land of Israel as well). [5] Rabbeinu Chananel and Rashi ad loc. both explain the term in this way, although rather than ayil (ram), the gemara uses the unusual term “zakhar shel recheilim,” literally meaning “a male of the ewes.” Cf. Arukh, Zakhar II (Arukh Ha-Shalem, Vol. III, p. 291). There may be something shared by the two stories of Nechunia and of Avraham; a father almost loses his child, but divine intervention saves the latter at the last moment. On the other hand, there are many important distinctions, as in Avraham’s case, God is the one who tests him by ordering him to bring Yitzchak up on the altar in the first place, while in Nechunya’s case, it may be a divine punishment, one which ultimately is carried out through the death of his son by dehydration. [6] Rashi states that Nechunya’s daughter was protected by the merit of the Binding of Yitzchak. As the Maharsha ad loc. explains, this is based on the midrashic tradition that the Binding of Yitzchak “will be seen” throughout the generations to forgive Israel (Bereishit Rabba 56:10). Another possibility is that this ram recalls Amos, who was both a shepherd and a prophet, as the declaration which R. Chanina ben Dosa makes, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, comes from his book (7:14-15): “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I am a shepherd, and I also tend sycamore-fig trees. But the Lord took me from tending the flock and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy to my people Israel.’” [7] It was said of R. Chanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and afterwards declare: “This one shall live, but that one shall die.” They asked him: “How could you know such a thing?” He replied: “If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that it is accepted; if it does not, I know that it is rejected.” [8] Our Rabbis taught: Once the son of Rabban fell ill, so he sent two scholars to R. Chanina ben Dosa to ask that he pray for him. When he saw them he went up to an upper chamber and prayed for him. When he came down he said to them: “Go, the fever has left him.” They said to him: “Are you a prophet?” He replied: “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I learned this from experience. If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that it is accepted; if it does not, I know that it is rejected.” [9] A similar phrase appears on Megilla 16a and Nidda 52a; however, I have not found a meaningful thematic connection between the Nechunia narrative and those descriptions.

27 [10] Although we are not compelled to say that the cistern the daughter falls into is one of Nechunya’s projects, the connection is still strong enough. [11] The Babylonian Talmud combines the two statements of R. Acha, one about the death of Nechunya’s son and one about God’s exacting standards for His intimates, which are separated in the Jerusalem Talmud. It may be that this is a purposeful juxtaposition, placing the biographical fact about the tragic end of Nechunya’s son next to the principle of divine retribution, thus strengthening the impression that Nechunia, described in the Babylonian Talmud as righteous, belongs in the category of those who are “round about” God. The death of his son would therefore indicate an exacting punishment for a minor offense. On the other hand, it may be that the Babylonian Talmud sees the tradition from R. Acha as an inseparable whole. In the Jerusalem Talmud as well, the reader is left in some doubt. Ostensibly, it appears that the Jerusalem Talmud takes R. Acha’s two statements as independent, but it may be that its redactors were the ones to interrupt R. Acha’s words with those of R. Chanina, juxtaposing his statement about God’s unyielding nature to the report of the son’s death, indicating a severe transgression, more so than having R. Acha’s two statements together, which would allude to attributing the death of Nechunya’s son to a minor offense that God takes seriously because of the sinner’s proximity to the Divine Presence, as mentioned above. [12] Cited in the name of R. Chanina (this is what reliable manuscripts have, although it is R. Nechunia who appears in the printed version; this may be an interpolation from the name of the protagonist of the narrative). [13] To this the gemara adds a verse from 32 (which does not appear in the parallel source; its exact role in this context requires further analysis). [14] This may be because the narrative of the pious man had already been blended with that of Nechunia. [15] In Pesiketa De-Rav Kahana (24:11, Mandelbaum Edition, Vol. II, p. 363), these statements appear with some variations in which Amora’im offer each. [16] The Tosafists (s.v. davar) already take note of this, and they explain that the son does not die due to the exact same thing that the righteous man so exerted himself for – i.e. he does not fall into a bor. Nevertheless, it does not sit well that a man who dedicated his life to making sure others did not go thirsty should have his son die of thirst. Cf. Torat Chayim, ad loc. s.v. af. [17] It may be that according to the Babylonian Talmud, the righteous man has not yet sinned when his daughter falls into the water, so God does not treat him in an exacting manner.

All's Well That Ends Well*

Eliezer Segal writes:7

Amidst the excesses of depressing disasters that monopolize the news media these days, there was something especially uplifting about the recent report about the rescue of nine miners who had been trapped for three days in a flooded shaft in Somerset, Pennsylvania. Some of the accounts noted that prayer played a crucial part in maintaining the spirits of the miners and their anxious loved ones during the ordeal.

In Jewish sources, being stuck at the bottom of a pit or well is a hazard that has vexed people at least since the time of Joseph. The likelihood of a successful rescue was often correlated with the victims' righteousness or faith.

The Talmud records an incident involving a certain Nehunia whose daughter fell into a deep well. The calamity was reported immediately to the saintly miracle-worker .

To everyone's surprise, Hanina displayed no alarm whatsoever, and declared with confidence that the girl was alive and well.

7 https://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/020822_WellRescue.htmla

28 As the hours elapsed, Hanina continued to astound his audience with his inexplicable assurances of the child's safety. After three hours had passed, he announced that the girl had certainly been rescued. And of course, he was proven right.

When Hanina ben Dosa was asked about the source of his clairvoyance, he was quick to dismiss any suggestions that he possessed supernatural powers. He claimed to be neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. Quite the contrary, it was simply inconceivable to him that this particular girl could meet her doom in a well.

Her father, Nehunia, was, after all, a well-digger by trade. In fact, he is listed in the Mishnah as an employee of the Jerusalem Temple, and one of his chief responsibilities was the provision of water for the pilgrims who came to worship at the holy sanctuary.

Given this background (Hanina explained), it was impossible to imagine that the daughter of a man who devoted his life to digging wells for pious purposes should come to an untimely end through the agency of a well! Ergo, there could be no doubt that the young lady was safe and would shortly be pulled out unharmed.

Just how was the girl freed from her plight? The Babylonian Talmud relates that she was extricated from the well by a mysterious old man leading a ram.

Such an enigmatic detail presented the commentators with an irresistible challenge: Who was that mysterious figure, and what did he represent?

The Tosafot cited a tradition from the Jerusalem Talmud according to which the mysterious elder was none other than Hanina ben Dosa himself, who had somehow beamed himself (or perhaps a doppelganger) to the site, notwithstanding his protestations of not having supernatural abilities.

Actually, in the known versions of the Jerusalem Talmud neither Hanina ben Dosa nor Nehunia appear in the story. A virtually identical episode is related there involving an unidentified well-digger and Rabbi Phineas ben Yair, a saint who flourished several generations later. To add to the pathos, in that version the girl was on the way to her wedding when she stumbled.

For Rashi, the presence of the ram was an unmistakable clue that the mysterious old man must be Father Abraham, whose unflinching devotion to his Creator is symbolized by the ram that he sacrificed in place of his beloved Isaac. The merits that were credited to the great patriarch continue to bring protection to his descendants throughout the generations.

As the Maharal of Prague developed this theme, Abraham's act of selfless devotion and unconditional love serves as a model for us all, and through emulation of the patriarch's virtues some of us can become worthy of special divine providence.

The Maharal proposed an additional allegorical interpretation. He explained that the ram represents the rigidity of strict justice, while the elderly stranger symbolizes God's gentle compassion. In this way, the story comes to teach us that the ideal balance is created when the

29 power of justice is subjected to the guidance of divine mercy. In our daily lives, we can emulate this model by letting our compassion rouse us to act with courage and decisiveness to come to the assistance of those in need.

Not all the Jewish sages were as confident as Hanina ben Dosa and Phineas ben Yair about the imperviousness of the righteous to harm. Some rabbis in the Talmud were scrupulous to report that Nehunia the well-digger had a son who perished from thirst. This unfortunate incident was ascribed to the principle that God judges the righteous according to stricter standards than he applies to others, and punishes them (as well as their offspring, it would seem) for even trivial infractions.

The commentators expended a great deal of effort in trying to resolve the apparent inconsistencies between the fortunes of the two siblings. For example, one author proposed that Nehunia collected merit points for the wells, because he had done the digging; but he could not claim credit for the water, which filled the cavity without Nehunia's direct assistance. Hence there is no real unfairness in the fact that the daughter was saved from the well, but the son died from lack of water.

On the whole, I am not convinced by these attempts at harmonization. It seems far more plausible that the differing stories reflect a fundamental theological conflict among the rabbis about how much we ought to rely on supernatural assistance and protection, and whether people should put their faith in divine miracles.

Although it is always nice to have the unwavering faith of a Hanina ben Dosa on one's side, this should probably not be viewed as an alternative to more practical precautions. If I ever find myself at the bottom of a well or mine shaft, I would prefer that the authorities summon a team of well-trained rescue engineers with lots of heavy equipment.

30

Love of The Other, The Drowned Duke, and Two People named Pinchas

Jeremy Brown writes:8

8 http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2021/4/1/shekalim-14-brotherly-love-the-drowned-duke-and-two- people-named-pinchas

31 On our daf we read about the miraculous recovery of a young lady who had drowned. It all begins with “a certain pious man who would dig pits, wells, and caves to collect water for passersby. Once his daughter was passing over a river for the purpose of marriage, and the river washed her away. And all the people came to console him, but he refused to accept their condolences.” The story continues:

32 It is a sad story with a happy ending. God could never let the daughter of a righteous person die. That was inconceivable. And certainly not by drowning, since the her father was charitable with water. Let’s put aside the questions this passage raises about theodicy for now. Instead, let’s turn to another drowning event that occurred fifteen- hundred years later. It too involves the drowning death of innocent person, and by a remarkable coincidence, also involved a person named Pinchas.

PINCHAS HUREWITZ AND HIS SEFER HABERIT

In 1797 a new Hebrew encyclopedia was published anonymously in Brno, which is now in the Czech Republic. It was called Sefer Haberit (The Book of the Covenant). It has a simple structure and is divided in two parts. The first part, consisting of some two hundred and fifty pages, is a scientific encyclopedia, addressing what the author calls human wisdom (chochmat adam) and focuses on the material world. It deals with topics like geography, astronomy, biology and medicine. The second part, shorter than the first at only one hundred and thirty pages, is an analysis of divine wisdom (hochmat elohim), and focuses on the spiritual. This part was written to explain a kabbalistic The Gates of Holiness) a mystical book written by the famous) דק השו עש ר י work called kabbalist Chaim Vital, who was himself a student of the even more famous Isaac Luria, known as the Ari.

As we mentioned the book was published anonymously, but in later editions the author revealed his name, though not much else. It was Pinchas Hurwitz, about whom few details are known. He appears to have been born in Vilna, Poland in 1765, and received a traditional Jewish education, but was forced to leave his studies at an early age as a result of both the dire economic situation and the physical threats then facing Polish Jewry. He probably arrived in Frankfurt before his twentieth birthday and while there he met a number of maskilim and picked up a working knowledge of German. He then moved to Holland, where he must have endeared himself to many rabbinic leaders, before crossing to England, where again he met the leading Jewish religious intellectuals of the day. The most prominent of these was Eliakim Gottchalk Hart, an

33 important Jewish intellectual and a wealthy jeweler, who provided financial support for Hurwitz during his time in England. Despite what appears to have been a comfortable time both physically and intellectually in London, for reasons that are not known, Hurwitz returned to Poland, all the time working on his magnum opus. In 1797 he finally published Sefer Haberit anonymously, and spent many years peddling his work from town to town. It had taken a decade of travel and research, but Hurwitz understood the need of the hour and produced a work that was, and would remain, in great demand.

THE POPULARITY OF SEFER HABERIT

In 1934, while studying at the famous yeshiva of the Chofetz Chaim in Radon, Poland, a yeshiva bochur whose name is only known to us as Henech, entered a competition in which he wrote an essay about his life. Here is part of what this twenty one year old student had to say:

Here then is testimony about the popularity Sefer Haberit as a work of science in pre- war Poland, over one hundred and thirty years after it was first published. This book is still readily available modern Jerusalem. I bought a modern edition of Sefer Haberit in a small bookshop in Meah Shearim, in Jerusalem. I asked the owner if he might perhaps have a copy of the work. Without moving from his position behind the counter, he reached behind his shoulder and handed me a copy that had been published in Jerusalem in 1990. I not only appreciated the clear type and crisp pages of this modern edition, but was struck by the ease with which it had been obtained.

34 In fact since it first appeared in 1797 Sefer Haberit has been published in over thirty editions. It was published in 1797, 1801 (twice, as bootlegged printings), 1807, and thirteen more times before the end of that century. It was published in 1900, 1904, 1911, 1913 (by three different publishers), 1920, 1960 and 1990. In addition it was published in Yiddish in 1898, 1929 and 1969, and in Ladino in 1847. This remarkable print run would be the envy of any modern author.

Isaac Bashevis Singer recalled that not only did he read Sefer Haberit as a child, but that his mother also was an avid reader of the work.

SEFER HABERIT AND LOVE OF THE OTHER

Perhaps the most important section of this entire book is a long chapter – some 50 pages Ahavat Reim - The Love of Others. In this section, Horowitz – תבהא ער י ם in all - called רקיע ךרד דקה שו ושו שר לכ תה ו הר דקה השו set out to re-teach a command that is, in his words - the entire point of attaining holiness and the foundation of the entire holy . In The Way of Holiness, and was seen - ךרד דקה שו fact this section follows another called as the key to attaining religious heights that Horowitz had previously described. In this chapter he described a number of ways in which love of the other impacts our daily

35 lives: in loving our families and in respecting the government, in being a model citizen and not cheating on our taxes, in treating our workers with the appreciation they deserve and by condemning domestic abuse, whether physical or verbal.

THE DROWNING DEATH OF PRINCE LEOPOLD

As any good teacher knows, stories have a far greater teaching impact than bland statements or impersonal statistics. So Horowtiz now gave an example of the importance of brotherly love. It was in fact the outstanding story of love of the other of his time, and it concerned the drowning death of Prince Leopold that had occurred in 1785. Here it is. Read it slowly. There is a lot to appreciate.

36

37 The death of Prince Leopold gripped the imagination of Horowitz. It was the sine qua non of the love that one human being could and indeed should have for another. Its importance was not only noticed by this Jewish author from Vilna. The great German poet Goethe wrote a poem about the incident:

And in the British Museum is this wonderful print called La Mort du Prince Leopold de Brunswick.

38

Remember we are talking about eighteenth century Europe, which was not exactly a paradise for the peasants. The constitutional monarchy that had ruled France for three centuries had not yet just been challenged by the French Revolution, and the American War of Independence had ended barely two years earlier. And yet here was a nobleman who, without hesitation, gave his life to save two unknown commoners. It was this example that led Horowitz to conclude that not only was Love of the Other a .a natural law בוח דצמ עבטה commandment from the Torah; it was also a

Horowitz not only learned from the action of this righteous gentile. He extended Love the- ער י ך of the Other to include non-Jews in a radical re-interpretation of the word other. Normally translated as your fellow, Horowitz took it to mean that all

39 contemporary Gentiles were included in this description. He ruled that Gentiles were not idol worshippers, and also reinterpreted the verse that we read from the book of - פש ו ך ךתמח לע גה ו םי רשא אל ךועדי : :Jeremiah towards the end of the “Pour out your wrath on the nations who do not know you.” On whom should God .who do not know Him - ” רשא אל ךועדי “ pour out his anger? Only on those

YES, ALL ARE CREATED EQUAL. OR NOT

Having established this inclusivity, Horowitz wrote about the way in which we should behave:

The contemporary Jewish book I am referring to is volume two of the Rennert edition of The Encyclopedia of Taryag Mitzvoth. This Encyclopedia has excluded anyone who is not Jewish from love of the other.

40

In doing so, the Rennert Encyclopedia was following one school of halakhic thought in which the phrase “your fellow” is interpreted as “your fellow - in observing the commandments.” But there are lots of Jewish texts available to explain the details of the biblical command to love the other. Why not choose one with a maximalist reading? Surely we would want that from other religious traditions? If so, we must demand it from our own.

41

We began with a story from the Talmud in which Rabbi Pinchas believed it was inconceivable that God could act in a way that was cruel or unjust. Today we know that cruelty and injustice are part and parcel of our fractured society. Racial and ethnic bias and discriminatio are still all too common in a country in which all are supposed to have been created equal. We need more thinkers like the other Pinchas, Pinchas Hurwitz who read the command to love the other in a maximalist way. What better way to memorialize the death of Prince Leopold is there than follow his dictum:

42