These six statements are presented below. Afterwards, I will sketch an argument that that these six statements are not meant to be taken at face value. Indeed, when we look carefully at these statements in the context of the larger Talmudic discussion and in light of the logic of Midrash more generally, it appears that we have here a very sophisticated critique of abuse of authority, one that is perhaps written in this oblique manner both because indirect rhetorical approaches are often more effective and because there may have been concerns about a backlash from those in power.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר רְאוּבֵן חָטָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּן שְׁקוּלִים כְּאֶחָד. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֶת בִּלְהָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אָבִיו״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבִּלְבֵּל מַצָּעוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו, וּמַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ שָׁכַב עִמָּהּ.
Having mentioned the sins of some of the significant ancestors of the Jewish people, the Gemara now addresses several additional ancestors. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that Reuben sinned with Bilhah is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). The fact that the Torah stated the number of Jacob’s sons at that point in the narrative teaches that, even after the incident involving Bilhah, all of the brothers were equal in righteousness. Apparently, Reuben did not sin. How then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”? The plain understanding of the verse indicates sin. This verse teaches that Reuben rearranged his father’s bed in protest of Jacob’s placement of his bed in the tent of Bilhah and not in the tent of his mother Leah after the death of Rachel. And the verse ascribes to him liability for his action as if he had actually lain with Bilhah.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר בְּנֵי עֵלִי חָטְאוּ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁם שְׁנֵי בְנֵי עֵלִי עִם אֲרוֹן בְּרִית הָאֱלֹהִים חׇפְנִי וּפִנְחָס כֹּהֲנִים לַה׳״.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is written: “And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Pinehas, were there priests of the Lord” (I Samuel 1:3).
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר בְּנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל חָטְאוּ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי (כִּי זָקֵן שְׁמוּאֵל וּבָנָיו לֹא הָלְכוּ) בִּדְרָכָיו״ — בִּדְרָכָיו הוּא דְּלֹא הָלְכוּ, מִיחְטָא נָמֵי לָא חָטְאוּ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that the sons of Samuel sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel…And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice” (I Samuel 8:1–3). By inference: In his ways they did not walk, however, they did not sin either. They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּוִד חָטָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי דָּוִד לְכׇל דְּרָכָיו מַשְׂכִּיל וַה׳ עִמּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. אֶפְשָׁר חֵטְא בָּא לְיָדוֹ וּשְׁכִינָה עִמּוֹ?!
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was with him” (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר שְׁלֹמֹה חָטָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא הָיָה לְבָבוֹ שָׁלֵם עִם ה׳ אֱלֹהָיו כִּלְבַב דָּוִד אָבִיו״ — כִּלְבַב דָּוִד אָבִיו הוּא דְּלָא הֲוָה, מִיחְטָא נָמֵי לָא חֲטָא.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that King Solomon sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David, his father” (I Kings 11:4). By inference: Solomon’s heart was not equal to the heart of David, his father; however, he also did not sin.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ חָטָא — אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיַּעַשׂ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה׳ וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּכׇל דֶּרֶךְ דָּוִד אָבִיו״. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְכָמֹהוּ לֹא הָיָה לְפָנָיו מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר שָׁב וְגוֹ׳״?
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that Josiah sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left” (II Kings 22:2). However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And like him was there no king before him that returned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Torah of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him” (II Kings 23:25)? The verse states: Josiah returned to the Lord. Apparently, in his early days he was a sinner, and later he returned to God.
Yet while this hagiographic approach certainly has foundation in the rabbinic literature through the ages, it is hardly the only voice in the tradition-- or in contemporary Orthodox discussions. To the contrary, once one listens to these contrary voices and the more one is attuned to the literary conventions of midrash, one wonders if the kinds of statements made by RSBN were meant to be taken seriously, even by him.
The best evidence for not taking these statements as authoritative (and perhaps not even as serious) comes from rabbinic treatment of David's sin with Bathsheba, as thoroughly reviewed by R. Amnon Bazak. It is very clear that rabbis through the ages did not take RSBN's statement on David as authoritative, and were quite willing to subject David to scathing critique. As I review in a recent essay (which focuses less on rabbinic approaches than on the biblical presentation, suggesting there is much more to the biblical treatment of David's great sin and confession than meets the eye), Don Isaac Abravanel stands out for rejecting RSBN's statement tout court and describing David's high crimes and misdemeanors as having five distinctive aspects.
Moreover, not only do other Talmudic discussions provide a strong foundation for Abravanel's approach (see Bazak for references), we need only go back 20 pages to Shabbat 30a to find David being described as sinning in the case of Bathsheba, and as being punished for it. Here the sin is mentioned as a fact, such that it goes unchallenged:
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי וְגוֹ׳״, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִכְתִיב ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי אוֹת לְטוֹבָה וְיִרְאוּ שׂוֹנְאַי וְיֵבוֹשׁוּ״ — אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מְחוֹל לִי עַל אוֹתוֹ עָוֹן. אָמַר לוֹ: מָחוּל לָךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי אוֹת בְּחַיַּי. אָמַר לוֹ: בְּחַיֶּיךָ אֵינִי מוֹדִיעַ, בְּחַיַּי שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ אֲנִי מוֹדִיעַ.
Alternatively, another explanation is given for the verse: “And I praised the dead that are already dead,” is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of the verse that was written: “Work on my behalf a sign for good; that they that hate me may see it, and be put to shame” (Psalms 86:17)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, forgive me for that sin in the matter of Bathsheba. He said to him: It is forgiven you. David said to Him: Show me a sign in my lifetime so that all will know that You have forgiven me. God said to him: In your lifetime I will not make it known that you were forgiven; however, in the lifetime of your son Solomon I will make it known.
There are two very good reasons not to take it face value, however. The first is that rabbinic midrash should never be taken at face value. The literary conventions employed by midrash are a vast topic. For the present discussion, it is sufficient to note that midrash is a homiletic genre that engages the biblical text in an oblique and strategic manner. In particular, and as I discuss here with respect to an earlier sugya in Tractate Shabbat, midrash will often present what appear to be a weakly or thinly founded exegesis but which upon closer inspection is actually hinting at deeper textual foundations and deeper messages.
Second, and most importantly, the larger sugya that frames RSBN's statements and the discussions of them is actually a sharp critique of abuse of authority, with a particular focus on vulnerable women. Put differently, it is hard to take RSBN's statements seriously once we recognize that they are part of a larger message that is the very opposite of what the statements seem to be saying. It therefore seems more likely that RSBN's statements were presented as a form of satire, caricaturing a posture of fawning deference to leaders that is perhaps sometimes necessary myth (for children) but is taken literally (by adults) at our peril.
Note in particular that this sugya is a digression from a discussion of the mundane matter of what the mishna (the second in chapter 5 of Tractate Shabbat) means when it says that the owner of an ewe should not allow the ewe to go out on Shabbat when it is חנונה. It is not clear what this means, and the ambiguity elicits two trial balloons in which it is proposed that the mishna is referring to one or another kind of medicinal treatment (that is potentially problematic on Shabbat because it could fall off in the public domain and thus lead someone to violate the proscription against moving items across domains) for taking care of one's ewe (because it is cold in the aftermath of a shearing; or perhaps because it is warm after giving birth). These suggestions are rejected by referencing the political/rabbinic leader of an earlier talmudic generation, the Babylonian exilarch:
וְאֵין הָרְחֵלִים יוֹצְאוֹת חֲנוּנוֹת: יָתֵיב רַב אַחָא בַּר עוּלָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁגּוֹזְזִין אוֹתָהּ טוֹמְנִין לָהּ עֶזֶק בְּשֶׁמֶן וּמַנִּיחִין לָהּ עַל פַּדַּחְתָּהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּצְטַנֵּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: אִם כֵּן, עֲשִׂיתָהּ מָר עוּקְבָא. אֶלָּא יָתֵיב רַב פָּפָּא בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר: בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁכּוֹרַעַת לֵילֵד טוֹמְנִין לָהּ שְׁנֵי עֲזָקִין שֶׁל שֶׁמֶן, וּמַנִּיחִין לָהּ אֶחָד עַל פַּדַּחְתָּהּ וְאֶחָד עַל הָרֶחֶם כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּתְחַמֵּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: אִם כֵּן, עֲשִׂיתָהּ יַלְתָּא.
The mishna teaches: And ewes may not go out ḥanunot. The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Ulla sat before Rav Ḥisda and he sat and he said: From when they shear the wool off the animal, they soak a soft swatch of wool or some other material in oil and place it on the animal’s forehead so that it will not catch cold until its wool grows back. Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Ḥisda said to him: If so, you turned the animal into the Exilarch, Mar Ukva. That is treatment fit for him, not for a shorn sheep. Rather, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel sat before Rav Ḥisda, and he sat and he said: At the time that the animal crouches to give birth, those tending to the animal soak two swatches of wool in oil, and place one on the animal’s forehead and the other on its womb so that it will be warmed. Ḥanunot refers to animals with those swatches. Rav Naḥman said to him: If so, you turned the animal into Yalta, my wife, who descended from the house of the Exilarch. That is treatment fit for her, not for an animal.
In particular, whereas the first mentions of the exilarch and his family referenced above imply that he and his children should be treated as royalty, the second and third mentions strike quite different notes, in that they emphasize the great communal responsibilities that political leaders must not shirk and their accountability that such leaders must face.
The second mention of the exilarch (presented next) is most remarkable because it is quite explicit in alleging that the very same exilarch referenced earlier, Mar Ukva, sat atop a corrupt rabbinic hierarchy that was derelict in his duty to take care of the poor and the weak, exemplified by a woman whose pleas for justice are ignored. This passage is also the climax of a discussion that sets a very high standard for abuse of authority, arguing that authorities cannot turn a blind eye to corruption and injustice. Overall, what emerges quite clearly is a remarkable internal critique of the rabbinic hierarchy preserved for the ages.
רַב יְהוּדָה הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אֲתַאי הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא קָא צָוְוחָה קַמֵּיהּ, וְלָא הֲוָה מַשְׁגַּח בַּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא סָבַר לֵיהּ מָר: ״אוֹטֵם אׇזְנוֹ מִזַּעֲקַת דָּל גַּם הוּא יִקְרָא וְלֹא יֵעָנֶה״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁינָּנָא, רֵישָׁךְ בְּקָרִירֵי, רֵישָׁא דְרֵישָׁיךְ בְּחַמִּימֵי. הָא יָתֵיב מָר עוּקְבָא אַב בֵּית דִּין?
The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וְעוֹד אֶחָד בְּדוֹרֵנוּ. וּמַנּוּ? — עוּקְבָן בַּר נְחֶמְיָה רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. וְהַיְינוּ ״נָתָן דְּצוּצִיתָא״. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הֲוָה יָתֵיבְנָא בְּפִירְקָא, וַהֲוָה קָא מְנַמְנַמְנָא, וַחֲזַאי בְּחֶילְמָא דְּקָא פְּשַׁט יְדֵיהּ וְקַבְּלֵיהּ.
Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Neḥemya the Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita, i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka] and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating that his repentance was accepted.
In the foregoing sketch of a theory about RSBN's problematic statements, I have just scratched the surface of the rhetorical strategies that are employed in this sugya, and how they pertain in particular to sex crimes and to gender issues. For instance, one could delve into the choice of a story of ignoring the cries of an impoverished woman to illustrate the corruption of the exilarch and the rabbinic hierarchy under him; presumably, other stories could have been used to illustrate the point.
Note finally how the sugya begins with a focus on a man who lavishes care on his ewe. Given that every rabbi in this discussion knew of a story in which a king's (David!) abuse of power was exposed via a parable about the lavishing care on a ewe (Nathan's parable of II Samuel 12), the segue to a discussion of abuse of power hardly seems like a segue. It appears that everything in this sugya should be read as part of a larger argument about the responsibilities and failures of powerful men.