Talmud - Sanhedrin 104a סנהדרין ק״ד א׳

from Ammon and Moab. Although they were relatives of the Jewish people, as they descend from Lot, Abraham’s nephew, it is prohibited for a Jewish woman to marry a convert from either of those nations, because they failed to provide bread and water to the Jewish people in the wilderness.

And the fact that it draws near the distant is derived from Yitro, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In reward for Yitro telling his daughters: “Call him, that he may eat bread” (Exodus 2:20), inviting Moses to join them for a meal, Yitro’s descendants were privileged and sat as scribes in session with the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. As it is stated: “And the families of the scribes who dwelt in Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These were the Kenites who came of Hammath, father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55). And it is written there with regard to the identity of the Kenites: “And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the city of the palm trees with the children of Judah into the wilderness of Judah, which is in the south of Arad; and they went and dwelt with the people” (Judges 1:16).

And the fact that it averts eyes from the wicked is derived from Micah, who was not punished, because he provided bread to passersby.

And the fact that it causes the Divine Presence to rest on the prophets of the Baal is derived from the colleague of Iddo the prophet, the elderly prophet who convinced Iddo to eat with him contrary to the directive of God, when Iddo went to Bethel to prophesy to Jeroboam, as it is written: “And it happened as they sat at the table, that the word of the Lord came to the prophet that brought him back” (I Kings 13:20). Although the elderly prophet was a false prophet, he was rewarded with true prophecy as a reward for hosting Iddo.

And the fact that an unwitting transgression with regard to it is at times considered an intentional transgression is derived as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Had Jonathan lent David two loaves of bread when he was fleeing Saul, David would not have sought sustenance from the priests in Nov. The residents of Nov, city of the priests, would not have been killed, and Doeg the Edomite would not have been banished from the World-to-Come, and Saul and his three sons would not have been killed as punishment for that massacre.

§ The Gemara asks: And for what reason did the tanna’im not enumerate Ahaz among the kings with no share in the World-to-Come? His wickedness is extensively recounted in the Bible. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says: He is not enumerated because he is cast between two righteous people, between his father, Jotham, and his son, Hezekiah. Rav Yosef says: He is not enumerated because he had a sense of embarrassment from Isaiah the prophet, as it is stated: “And the Lord said to Isaiah: Go out now to meet Ahaz, you, and Shear-Jashub your son, at the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool in the highway of the launderer’s [koves] field” (Isaiah 7:3). What is the meaning of the term koves? There are those who say: It means concealed [kavash], as Ahaz concealed [dekhavshinhu] his face and passed by the prophet because he was embarrassed to be seen. And there are those who say: He placed a launderer’s vessel over his head and passed by the prophet so that Isaiah would be unable to identify him.

The Gemara continues and asks: For what reason did the tanna’im not enumerate the wicked Amon among the kings with no share in the World-to-Come? The Gemara answers: He is not enumerated due to the honor of Josiah, his righteous son. The Gemara challenges: Let us also not enumerate Manasseh due to the honor of Hezekiah, his righteous father. The Gemara explains: The son confers merit upon the father, as it is to the father’s credit that he raised a righteous son; but the father does not confer merit upon the son, as it is written: “None delivers from My hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39). Abraham does not deliver his son Ishmael from the judgment of Heaven; Isaac does not deliver his son Esau from judgment. The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this understanding, Ahaz too was not enumerated in the mishna due to the honor of his son Hezekiah.

The Gemara asks: And for what reason did the tanna’im not enumerate Jehoiakim among the kings with no share in the World-to-Come? His extreme wickedness is described extensively in the Bible. The Gemara explains: It is due to that which was stated by Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Avuya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Avuya, says: It was written on the skull of Jehoiakim: This and yet another, indicating that he will receive a double punishment. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Perida’s grandfather, apparently Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabbi Avuya, found a skull that was cast near the gates of Jerusalem, and on it was written: This and yet another. He buried it, but it did not stay buried. He buried it again, and again it did not stay buried. Each time he buried the skull it emerged from the grave.

He said: This is no doubt the skull of Jehoiakim, as it is written in his regard: “He shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem” (Jeremiah 22:19). The fulfillment of this verse is exemplified in the inability to bury him. Rabbi Perida’s grandfather said: He is a king, and it is inappropriate to display contempt for it. He wrapped the skull in silk and placed it in a box. His wife saw the box and thought: This was the skull of his first wife, as he is not forgetting her. She ignited the oven and incinerated the skull. When she informed her husband what she had done, he said: That is the meaning of that which is written on the skull: This and yet another. Not only was his corpse discarded in a demeaning manner and not buried, but his skull was incinerated. That ordeal atoned for some of his transgressions, and he received a share in the World-to-Come.

§ It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Because of Hezekiah’s boastful statement: “And I have done what is good in Your eyes” (II Kings 20:3), he also asked the prophet inappropriately: “What shall be the sign that the Lord shall heal me” (II Kings 20:8). Because of his question: “What shall be the sign,” gentiles ate at his table. The sign was that the sun reversed its path and appeared lower, rather than higher, on the sundial of Ahaz, leading the king of Babylonia to dispatch messengers to Hezekiah. Because gentiles ate at his table, it ultimately caused the exile of his descendants. The Gemara comments: This supports the statement of Ḥizkiyya, as Ḥizkiyya said: Anyone who invites an idol worshipper into his house and serves him causes the exile of his descendants, as it is stated: “And of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylonia” (II Kings 20:18).

With regard to the verse: “And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them his treasury [beit nekhoto], the silver and the gold, and the spices and the precious ointment” (Isaiah 39:2), Rav says: What is the meaning of beit nekhoto? It means that his wife, who typically did not appear before strangers for reasons of modesty, poured drinks for them. And Shmuel says: It means that he showed them his actual treasury. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It means that he showed them a weapon so powerful that it breaks another weapon.

§ Apropos the exile of the descendants of the kings of Judea to Babylonia, the Gemara cites an aggadic statement about the destruction of the Temple and the sins of the Jewish people that caused it. With regard to the verse: “How [eikha] does the city sit solitary” (Lamentations 1:1), Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For what reason were the Jewish people stricken and their plight bemoaned with the term eikha? It is due to the fact that they violated thirty-six prohibitions punishable with karet that are enumerated in the Torah, corresponding to the numerological value of eikha, spelled alef, yod, kaf, heh.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For what reason were the Jewish people stricken, and their plight bemoaned with an acrostic based on the alef beit, as the book of Lamentations contains multiple alphabetical acrostics? It is due to the fact that they violated the Torah, which was given in the language of the alef beit.

With regard to the phrase “Does the city sit solitary,” Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I said: “And Israel dwells in safety, the fountain of Jacob in solitude, to a land of grain and wine; also His heavens shall drop down dew” (Deuteronomy 33:28), indicating that their solitude shall be one of wealth and prominence. Now that they have rejected my directive and cleaved to and learned from the gentiles, their dwelling shall be solitary in sorrow. With regard to the phrase: “The city that was full of people” (Lamentations 1:1), Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They would marry a younger female to an older male and an older female to a younger male so that they would have many children.

With regard to the phrase describing Jerusalem: “She became like a widow” (Lamentations 1:1), Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Like a widow, but not an actual widow. Rather, Jerusalem is like a woman whose husband has gone to a country overseas, and yet he intends to return to her. With regard to the phrase: “Great among the nations, and princess among the provinces” (Lamentations 1:1), Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Every place they go, when exiled among the nations, the Jewish people become princes to their masters due to their wisdom.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving two Jewish people who were taken captive on Mount Carmel, and their captor was walking behind them.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Sanhedrin 104a explores how hospitality shapes fate, tracing Ammon, Moab, Yitro's descendants, and Micah through biblical examples of reward and consequence.