Shabbat

An objection is raised: The ministering angels asked the Holy One, blessed be He: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why didst Thou impose the penalty of death upon Adam?' Said He to them, I gave him an easy command, yet he violated it.' 'But Moses and Aaron fulfilled the whole Torah,' they pursued — 'yet they died'. 'There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, etc.,  He replied.  — He maintains as the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: Moses and Aaron too died through their sin, for it is said, Because ye believed not in me[...therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them]:  hence, had ye believed in Me, your time had not yet come to depart from the world. An objection is raised: Four died through the serpent's machinations,  viz., Benjamin the son of Jacob, Amram the father of Moses, Jesse the father of David, and Caleb the son of David. Now, all are known by tradition, save Jesse the father of David, in whose case the Writ gives an explicit intimation. For it is written, And Absalom set Amasa over the host instead of Joab. Now Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Ithra the Israelite, that went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother.  Now, was she the daughter of Nahash? Surely she was the daughter of Jesse, for it is written, and their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail?  Hence it must mean, the daughter of one who died through the machinations of the nahash [serpent].  Who is [the author of this]? Shall we say, the Tanna [who taught] about the ministering angels? — Surely there were Moses and Aaron too! Hence it must surely be R. Simeon b. Eleazar, which proves that there is death without sin and suffering without iniquity. Thus the refutation of R. Ammi is [indeed] a refutation. R. Samuel b. Nahman said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that Reuben sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, Now the sons of Jacob were twelve,  teaching that they were all equal.  Then how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine?  This teaches that he transposed his father's couch,  and the Writ imputes [blame] to him as though he had lain with her. It was taught, R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: That righteous man was saved from that sin and that deed did not come to his hand.  Is it possible that his seed was destined to stand on Mount Ebal and proclaim, Cursed be he that lieth with his father's wife,  yet this sin should come to his hand? But how do I interpret, and he lay with Bilhah his father's concubine'? He resented his mother's humiliation. Said he, If my mother's sister was a rival to my mother, shall the bondmaid of my mother's sister be a rival to my mother? [Thereupon] he arose and transposed her couch. Others say, He transposed two couches, one of the Shechinah and the other of his father.  Thus it is written, Then thou defiledst, my couch on which [the Shechinah] went up. This is dependent on Tannaim. Unstable [Pahaz] as water, thou shalt not excel:  R. Eliezer interpreted: Thou wast hasty [Paztah], thou wast guilty [Habtah] thou didst disgrace [Zaltah]. R. Joshua interpreted: Thou didst overstep [Pasatah] the law, thou didst sin [Hatatha], thou didst fornicate [Zanitha]. R. Gamaliel interpreted: Thou didst meditate [Pillaltah],  thou didst supplicate [Haltah], thy prayer shone forth [Zarhah]. Said R. Gamaliel, We still need [the interpretation of] the Modiite. R. Eleazar the Modiite  said, Reverse the word and interpret it: Thou didst tremble [Zi'az'atha], thou didst recoil [Halitha], thy sin fled [Parhah] from thee.  Raba — others state, R. Jeremiah b. Abba interpreted: Thou didst remember [Zakarta] the penalty of the crime, thou wast [grievously] sick [Halitha],  thou heldest aloof [Pirashta] from sinning. (Mnemonic: Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah.)  R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains that the sons of Eli sinned is merely making an error, for it is said, And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests unto the Lord, were there.  Now he agrees with Rab, who said, Phinehas did not sin. [Hence] Hophni is likened to Phinehas: just as Phinehas did not sin, so did Hophni not sin. Then how do I interpret, and how that they [sc. Eli's sons] lay with the women?  Because they delayed their bird-offerings  so that they did not go to their husbands,  the Writ stigmatizes them as though they had lain with them. It was stated above, 'Rab said, Phinehas did not sin,' for it is said, and Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of the Lord, etc.  Now, is it possible that sin had come to his hand, yet the Writ states his descent? Surely It is said, The Lord will cut off to the man that doeth this, him that waketh ['er] and him that answereth, out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts:  [this means:] if an Israelite,  he shall have none awakening [i.e., teaching] among the Sages and none responding among the disciples; if a priest, he shall have no son to offer an offering? Hence it follows that Phinehas did not sin. But it is written, 'how that they lay [etc.']? — 'He lay' is written.  But it is written, Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear?  — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: My son is written.  But it is written, ye make [the Lord's people] to transgress?  — Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, It is written, he causes them to transgess.  But it is written, sons of Belial?  — Because Phinehas should have protested to Hophni but did not, the Writ regards him as though he [too] sinned. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in R. Jonathan's name: Whoever maintains