Daf Ditty Eruvin 25: Genetic Curses

1
The Gemara comments: Let us say that Rava and Rabbi Zeira dispute the same point that was
the subject of dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

These amora’im disagreed about the following, as it was stated: With regard to an enclosed
veranda [akhsadra], which is a roofed structure without walls or with incomplete walls, in a field
that has the status of a karmelit, Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed
veranda, as it is considered a private domain. And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance
of four cubits.

The Gemara explains the two opinions:

Rav said: One is permitted to carry in the entire enclosed veranda, since we say that the edge
of the roof descends to the ground and closes up the enclosed veranda on all sides; consequently,
it is considered a separate private domain.

And Shmuel said: One may carry only a distance of four cubits, as we do not say that the edge
of the roof descends and closes up the enclosed veranda.

2
Jastrow

The Gemara rejects this argument:

If the roof in the covered section of the karpef were made like an enclosed veranda whose roof
is level, indeed, both Rava and Rabbi Zeira would agree that the edge of the roof descends to the
ground and closes up the area.

With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the roof is made like a
hammock, i.e., slanted, and therefore one cannot say that the edge of the roof descends to the
ground and encloses the area.

3
Our Daf 1 introduces the concept of “pi tikra yored v'sosem” (literally: the lip of a roof comes
down and closes; see also 94b).

1
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20025.pdf

4
The principle, as defined in the Shulchan Aruch, (Orach Chaim, 361:2), is that when a roof is at
least four tefachim by four tefachim and set atop two complete walls, we view the thickness of the
roof as an imaginary wall for the remaining two sides. (To employ the principle of pi tikra the
structure must have two walls adjacent to each other connecting at a corner, not two parallel walls,
see Rama, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 361:2).

In one of the early works on eruvin in modern cities, the Tikvas Zecharia, Rabbi Zecharia
Rosenfeld, the first Chief Rabbi of St. Louis, notes that telegraph poles often support a thicket of
wires at their tops. These wires are well within three tefachim of each other. Viewing them,
halachically, as connected, allows one to consider the thicket as a roof. One could then apply the
principle of pi tikra yored v’sosem to them.

In practice, however, Rabbi Rosenfeld does not utilize this approach in sanctioning the use of the
telegraph poles and wires as halachic walls, preferring instead the already accepted trend to view
them as comprising tzuros ha'pesach.

He does, however, propose that the presence of these “roofs” along the length of a street will
diminish their potential to be regarded as a reshus ha'rabbim, since roofed over reshuyos
ha'rabbim are automatically downgraded to carmelis status. – (see Nesivos Shabbos 3:1) and note

5
6, where he considers (inconclusively) how much of a roof is necessary to negate a reshus
ha'rabbim.

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

Rav and Shmuel argue whether the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem" ("the edge of a roof-
beam descends and encloses") applies to an awning that covers part of a valley (which is less than
Beis Se'asayim in size). What exactly is the case?

RASHI says that they argue only about a case in which there are four open sides to the awning
(that is, it is merely a roof placed above four poles). If even one side would have a real Mechitzah,
then both would agree that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem."

TOSFOS in the name of RABEINU TAM explains that they argue about a case in which there
are two or three Mechitzos.

If there is only one Mechitzah, everyone agrees that we do not apply the principle of "Pi Tikrah
Yored v'Sosem." If the awning has more than three Mechitzos (such as three and a half), everyone
agrees that "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem."

However, we may ask a fundamental question about the principle of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem."
Whether we understand the argument as Rashi explains it or as Tosfos explains it, how is it ever
possible to apply the rule of "Pi Tikrah Yored v'Sosem"?

Since there is no Mechitzah on the side at which we view the roof-beam to descend and enclose
the area, the area is exposed, and young goats are able to pass through it ("Gediyim Bok'in Bah")!
Whenever there is a gap between the ground and a partition of more than three Tefachim, Gediyim
Bok'in Bah prevents that area from being viewed as closed by a Mechitzah. Why, then, do we say
that the edge of the roof-beam descends to form a Mechitzah, if there is a gap greater than three
Tefachim below it?

The answer is that the principle of Gediyim Bok'in Bah does not invalidate a Mechitzah in every
case of a three-Tefach gap.

When a hanging Mechitzah is ten Tefachim high, and the normal law of Gud Achis is used to
extend it to the ground, the principle of Gediyim Bok'in Bah prevents Gud Achis from extending
the Mechitzah to the ground.

However, when an area is covered (by an awning or other form of roof) and the law of "Pi Tikrah"
is used, even though "Pi Tikrah" works through the same principle as Gud Achis, Gediyim Bok'in
Bah does not prevent it from extending to the ground. (RITVA, 14a, 17b, 102a; see
also KEHILOS YAKOV #3.)

2
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-025.htm

6
The logical basis for this difference may be as follows. In order for a wall to be viewed as complete,
it must serve not only as a wall, but it must serve as an indicator that a separate Reshus begins
beyond it (that is, it must serve as a "Heker").

If a Mechitzah is raised more than three Tefachim from the ground, Gediyim Bok'in Bah invalidates
it because it does not serve its purpose of indicating that the area inside is separate from the area
outside.

However, when a roof-beam is viewed to descend and form a Mechitzah, the roof itself serves to
indicate that the entire area underneath it is separate from the area outside.

Therefore, the presence of animals walking through the area does not invalidate the Halachic
Mechitzah that "Pi Tikrah" creates.

We have learned that when a karpeif that is enclosed for non-residential purposes covers an area
larger than two se’ah, our sages have prohibited carrying in it farther than four amos.

Yet, in order to remedy the situation, there are several options. One solution is to diminish the size
of the area to be enclosed, so that it is less than two se’ah.

Our Daf speaks about an area which was three se’ah, and in order to make it smaller, the owner
built a roof over an area of one se’ah.

The remaining open area was now less than two se’ah. The efficacy of this solution is a matter of
dispute between two amoraim, Rava and Rebbe Zeira.

Rava is of the opinion that this is of no help. The area under the roof combines with the area which
is open, and the total area of the karpeif is still more than two se’ah.
Rebbe Zeira sees the roofed area as separate from the area which is open. They are distinct, because
the area which has a roof benefits from the Halacha le’moshe mi’sinia. that the roof seals off the
edge and encloses the area beneath it.

Although we generally use the rule of ‫ וסותם יורד תקרה פי‬only by level roofs (see above, S.A. 361:2,
M.B. #14), here we can apply it even by a slanted one.

The reason is that the restriction of not allowing carrying in a karpeif, which is really a private
domain, is only rabbinic. Here, the rabbis will be lenient.

Summary

7
The Gemoro asks: May it be assumed that Rabbah and Rabbi Zeira differ on the same principle as
that on which Rav and Shmuel differed? For was it not stated: If a pavilion (one with a flat roof)
was situated in a valley, Rav ruled: It is permitted to carry objects within its entire interior; but
Shmuel said: Objects may be carried only within four amos. Rav ruled that it was permitted to
carry objects within its entire interior, because we apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling
descends and closes up (and is a valid partition), but Shmuel ruled that objects may be carried
only within four amos, because we do not apply the principle: The edge of the ceiling descends
and closes up?

The Gemoro disagrees with the suggestion: If the roof over the beis se’ah was made like a pavilion,
the ruling would indeed have been the same, but here we are dealing with one that was made in
the shape of a shed (i.e., it was slanted).

Rabbi Zeira stated: I admit, however, that where a karpaf has a gap across its entire width towards
a courtyard [the movement of objects within it] is forbidden. What is the reason? Because the space
of the courtyard increases its extent.

8
The Gemara cites a related incident: A certain orchard [bustana] was adjacent to the wall of a
mansion [apadna].

Jastrow

9
The orchard was larger than two beit se’a and was enclosed for the purpose of residence by a
wall, part of which was the wall of the mansion.

One day the outer wall of the mansion, which also served as a wall for the orchard, collapsed.
Rav Beivai thought to say that we can rely upon one of the mansion’s inner walls to serve as
a partition for the orchard and thereby permit one to carry there in the future as well.

adjoined the orchard, was built with this intention, and a door was included in it to give access to
the orchard. His wall completed the enclosure of the orchard and it therefore served to enclose
the orchard for its residential use.

RASHI

Jastrow

Rav Pappi said to him: Because you come from truncated [mula’ei] people, as Rav Beivai’s
family traced their lineage to the house of Eli, all of whose descendants were destined to be
short-lived (see below for citation), you speak truncated [mulayata] matters, as the inner wall
cannot be relied upon at all.

10
That is because these walls were made for the inside of the mansion, and they were not made
for the outside; that is, they were not designed from the outset to serve as partitions for the
orchard.

RASHI

A certain orchard adjoined the wall of a mansion.

When the outer wall of the mansion collapsed it was Rav Bibi's intention to rule that one might
rely upon the inner walls, but Rav Pappi said to him, ‘Because they descend from short-lived
people, you speak frail words. Those walls were made for the interior [of the mansion]; they
were not made for [the orchard] outside’.
This remarkable statement needs further exploration, suggesting a predetermined lifespan.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

The Gemara relates the case of a bustana – an orchard (the source of the word is in the Persian
bostan which literally mean "the place of the wind," but was used even in the original to mean an
orchard) – that bordered on the wall of an apadna (in ancient Persian an appadana meant "the
king's palace."

The term was borrowed by the Aramaic language, where it appears in the book of Daniel to mean
a palace or a fancy dwelling). The orchard was thus considered akarpef she-mukaf ledira, since it
shared one wall with the palace. In this case, the outer wall between the orchard and the palace
collapsed.

Rav Beivai suggested that carrying could still be permitted in the orchard, relying on the inner wall
of the palace. Rav Pappi rejects that logic, arguing that although the original wall was built to

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/eiruvin25/

11
service both the palace and the orchard, the remaining wall was built only for the palace, and not
for the orchard.

Therefore, he rules that the orchard has lost its status as a karpef she-mukaf ledira and carrying in
it will now be forbidden. In rejecting Rav Beivai's argument, Rav Pappi gently mocks him by
saying "because you come from mula'ei people you speak mulayata matters.”

Rashi interprets this expression as referring to Rav Beivai's family history. Rav Beivai was Abaye's
son, and Abaye was from the family of Eli ha-Kohen (see Rosh ha-Shana 18a), whose family had
a tradition of dying at a young age, because of the curse invoked against them:

‫ְבַּפַﬠם‬-‫ ַו ִיְּקָרא ְכַפַﬠם‬,‫ַוָיּב ֹא ְיהָוה ַו ִיְּתַיַצּב‬ 10 And the LORD came, and stood, and called as at other
‫ ִכּי‬,‫ְשׁמוֵּאל ְשׁמוֵּאל; ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְשׁמוֵּאל ַדֵּבּר‬ times: 'Samuel, Samuel.' Then Samuel said: 'Speak; for
{‫ }פ‬.•‫ֹשֵׁמַﬠ ַﬠְבֶדּ‬ Thy servant heareth.'

‫ ִהֵנּה ָא ֹנִכי‬,‫ְשׁמוֵּאל‬-‫יא ַויּ ֹאֶמר ְיהָוה ֶאל‬ 11 And the LORD said to Samuel: 'Behold, I will do a
--‫ֹשְׁמעוֹ‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫ ֲאֶשׁר‬:‫ֹעֶשׂה ָדָבר ְבּ ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬ thing in Israel, at which both the ears of everyone that
.‫ ְשֵׁתּי ָאְזָניו‬,‫ְתִּצֶלּיָנה‬ heareth it shall tingle.

‫ֲאֶשׁר‬-‫ ֵאת ָכּל‬,‫ֵﬠִלי‬-‫יב ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא ָאִקים ֶאל‬ 12 In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have
.‫ ְוַכֵלּה‬,‫ָהֵחל‬--‫ֵבּיתוֹ‬-‫ִדַּבּ ְרִתּי ֶאל‬ spoken concerning his house, from the beginning even
unto the end.

-‫ֵבּיתוֹ ַﬠד‬-‫ֹשֵׁפט ֲא ִני ֶאת‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫יג ְוִהַגְּדִתּי לוֹ‬ 13 For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever,
‫ְמַקְלִלים ָלֶהם‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ָיַדע‬-‫ַבֲּﬠון ֲאֶשׁר‬--‫עוָֹלם‬ for the iniquity, in that he knew that his sons did bring a
.‫ ָבּם‬,‫ ְול ֹא ִכָהה‬,‫ָבָּניו‬ curse upon themselves, and he rebuked them not.

‫ ִיְתַכֵּפּר‬-‫ ִאם‬:‫ ְלֵבית ֵﬠִלי‬,‫יד ְוָלֵכן ִנְשַׁבְּﬠִתּי‬ 14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that
.‫עוָֹלם‬-‫ַﬠד‬--‫ ְבֶּזַבח וְּבִמ ְנָחה‬,‫ֵﬠִלי‬-‫ֲﬠון ֵבּית‬ the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with
sacrifice nor offering forever.'
I Sam 3:10-14

The term is understood to mean "truncated" and in this case means "because you come from a
family that is truncated (cut off) before they reach old age, you offer suggestions that are truncated"
– i.e. have no support to them.

The Rashbam accepts that the expression stems from Rav Beivai's family tree, but argues that
Mula'ei is the name of the place that Eli ha-Kohen's sons lived.

According to the Ge'onim this is simply an expression that was used when responding to an
important person whose suggestion appears to be rash.

12
The Genetic Curse that stemmed from Eli

Steinzaltz (OBM) pointed us to the gemoro Rosh Hashana 18a:

This is like what Rav Shmuel bar Ami said, as Rav Shmuel bar Ami said, and some say that
it was Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani who said that Rabbi Yonatan said: From where is it
derived that a sentence accompanied by God’s oath not to cancel it cannot be torn up or
canceled? As it is stated:

-‫ ִאם‬:‫ ְלֵבית ֵﬠִלי‬,‫יד ְוָלֵכן ִנְשַׁבְּﬠִתּי‬ 14 And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that
-‫ ְבֶּזַבח וְּבִמ ְנָחה‬,‫ֵﬠִלי‬-‫ִיְתַכֵּפּר ֲﬠ ֹון ֵבּית‬ the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated with
.‫עוָֹלם‬-‫ַﬠד‬- sacrifice nor offering for ever.'
I Sam 3:14

“And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house will not be
purged with sacrifice nor offering forever”

13
With regard to this verse Rava said: With sacrifice or offering the sin of Eli’s house is not
atoned, but it can be atoned through Torah study. Abaye said: With sacrifice or offering the
sin of Eli’s house is not atoned, but it is atoned through Torah study and the performance of
acts of kindness. It is related that Rabba and Abaye came from the house of Eli, which was
subject to the curse that most of its members would die young. Rabba, who engaged almost
exclusively in Torah study, lived for forty years, whereas Abaye, who engaged in both Torah
study and in the performance of acts of kindness lived for sixty years.

The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members
used to die at the age of eighteen, and they did not know why. They came and told Rabban
Yoḥanan ben Zakkai about their situation. He said to them: Perhaps you are descended from
the family of Eli, as it is written about them:

,‫ַאְכ ִרית ְל‚ ֵמִﬠם ִמְזְבִּחי‬-‫ ל ֹא‬,‫לג ְוִאישׁ‬ 33 Yet will I not cut off every man of thine from Mine
;‚‫ַנְפֶשׁ‬-‫ ְוַלֲאִדיב ֶאת‬,‚‫ֵﬠיֶני‬-‫ְלַכלּוֹת ֶאת‬ altar, to make thine eyes to fail, and thy heart to
.‫ ָימוּתוּ ֲאָנִשׁים‬,‚‫ַמ ְרִבּית ֵבּיְת‬-‫ְוָכל‬ languish; and all the increase of thy house shall die
young men.
I Sam 2:33

“And all the increase of your house shall die young men” If indeed this is so, the remedy is as
follows: Go and engage in Torah study, in the merit of which you will live. They went and

14
engaged in Torah study and lived. And people would call that family afterward by the name
of Rabbi Yoḥanan in his honor.

Let us trace the genetic flaw from Eli to Abaye

1 Abbaye’s Family Origins4 – Aaron Demsky writes:

A Study in Rabbinic Genealogy

Abbaye is one of the most prominent of the Babylonian Amora’im.5 He and his colleague Rava
(R. Abba b. Joseph b. Hama, Eruvin 54a) of Mehoza were instrumental in shaping the Talmud
Bavli.

Their discussions are summarized in the phrase: havayot diAbbaye vaRava (Sukkah 28a).

4
https://www.iijg.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WUJS_Aaron_Demsky.pdf
5
A. Haiman, Toldot Tannaim veAmoraim (Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 74-87 (Hebrew); M. Margolioth, Encyclopedia of Talmudic and
Geonic Literature vol 1 (Tel Aviv, 1960), cols 33-37 (Hebrew); E.E. Urbach, “Abbaye”, Encyclopedia Judaica vol 1 cols. 44-45.

15
For those of us interested in genealogy and family history, Abbaye’s family is of particular interest
for there are biographical details about them scattered throughout rabbinic literature. His father’s
name was ‫כייליל‬, with the possible meaning “small crown” or “wholeness”.
He died young while his wife was pregnant. Abbaye’s mother passed away in childbirth (Zevachim
118b; Kidd 31b).

Abbaye was raised by his paternal uncle and mentor Rabbah who was the Rosh Yeshivah of
Pumbeditha, and by a wise foster – mother whom he called ‘Em and whom he often quotes with
much respect (Ber 33b; esp. Shabb 134a, etc).

His real name was Nahmani named for his grandfather and was given the nickname Abbaye,
probably meaning something like ‘My (little) father’, by his uncle in order not to disrespectfully
invoke the name of the senior namesake. While the name is borne by other Babylonian scholars,
in this case, the name was explained in a late midrashic acronym based on Hosea 14, 4:
,‫סוּס ל ֹא ִנ ְרָכּב‬-‫ ַﬠל‬,‫ד ַאשּׁוּר ל ֹא יוִֹשׁיֵﬠנוּ‬ 4 Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses;
--‫ ְלַמֲﬠֵשׂה ָיֵדינוּ‬,‫ֵהינוּ‬¢‫נ ֹאַמר עוֹד ֱא‬-‫ְול ֹא‬ neither will we call any more the work of our hands our
.‫ ְיֻרַחם ָיתוֹם‬,•‫ְבּ‬-‫ֲאֶשׁר‬ gods; for in Thee the fatherless findeth mercy.'
Hos 14:4
‫יתום ירוחם בך אשר‬. Abbaye was married at least twice; his second marriage was to the beautiful
6

Homa – who was probably much younger – for she was the great granddaughter of his mentor Rav
Yosef. Even so, this was her third marriage (Yebamot 64b; Ketubot 65a). He had children from
his first marriage (Berakhot 56a; Nedarim 23a). The best known was Rav Bebai.7

There are a number of different opinions about the length of time that Abayei was the head of the
academy in Pumbeditha. Some say that is was only five years and others say that it was twelve or
thirteen. Towards the end of Abayei’s life bad news began to be heard from Palestine. The Jews
were being terribly oppressed by Emperor Constantius. Many refugees from Palestine arrived in
Pumbeditha, bringing with them the learning of Rabbi Jochanan, and they aided in the further
development of the law in Babylon.

These people told Abayei, citing Rabbi Jochanan as their authority, that a woman whose two first
husbands had died was allowed to wed a third time, for Rabbi Jochanan held that it could not be
declared that such a woman was one whose husbands died because of her sins. Abayei accepted
Rabbi Jochanan’s opinion and immediately married the beautiful woman Huma, a grandchild of
Rav Judah bar Ezekiel, who had already been twice a widow. And after she married Abayei, he
soon died at the age of fifty-eight.

His name was Abayei bar Chyailil the priest, and as the “Chronicle of Rav Sherira Gaon” relates,
this Chyailil was the brother of Rabah bar Nachmani. Neither the meaning of the name “Chyailil”
nor that of “Abayei” is known. Some say about this that the name Abayei is an anagram of the

6
See S. Lieberman, Mehkarim betorat Eretz-Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1991), p. 558. (Hebrew)
7
Haiman, Toldot, pp. 265-266. A name found among the Returnees to Zion, Ezra 2:11; 8:11; 10:28; Neh 10:16, see T. Ilan,
Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity pt 1 (Tubingen, 2002), p.80.

16
verse ‫״אשר בך ירוחם יתום״‬. Others say that the name “Abayei” is a Syrian name, meaning solace,
which is almost equivalent to Nachmani as others called him.) .‫ נדרים נ״ד ב׳‬,‫שבת ל״ג א׳‬

At the time when Abayei was born his uncle Rabah bar Nachmani was still a young man, not more
than 17 years old. He was a student under Rav Judah bar Ezekiel in Pumbeditha. When Abayei
had grown up somewhat his uncle immediately sent him to study in the academy of his own
teacher. And even though the work there was beyond Abayei’s comprehension at the time, his
uncle wished him to hear it anyway.

When Abayei was mature enough to grasp what he was being taught, his teachers were Rabah bar
Nachmani and Rav Joseph bar Chiya, who had become the leaders of the academy in Pumbeditha.
Abayei acted towards his uncle like a pupil towards his teacher, with deep respect mixed with a
certain childlike love.

Rabah bar Nachmani also was always trying to fill up his young nephew with every variety of
wisdom, and to sharpen his mind in every possible way .‫ברכות ל״ג א׳‬

For Rav Joseph bar Chiya, Abayei felt nothing but respect. It is related that when Abayei saw the
ears of Rav Joseph’s ass, as a sign that his teacher was approaching, he would stand up in respect.
‫קדושין ל״ג א‬

Even when Abayei was still young he was famous for the depth of his learning. He had his own
academy even when his teacher Rav Joseph bar Chiya was still alive. .‫ בבא בתרא כ״ב א׳‬As we have
said Rav Joseph once forgot his learning in his illness. Abayei would often remind him of his own
laws. But even before this, Rav Joseph would discuss various problems with Abayei, treating him
like a colleague and not like a student.

It is noteworthy that Abbaye was very receptive of Torat Eretz-Israel as these traditions were
conveyed to Babylon by emissaries like Rav Dimi and Rabin (Nehoutei dema`arava). The
comparison that “One of them (from Eretz-Israel) is equal to two of us” is also attributed to
Abbaye5 (TB Ketubot 75a).

He deferred to the western tradition in halakhic matters and in customs (Pesahim 51a). It is
interesting, that he permitted the speaking of Hebrew even for secular conversation (Shab 40b).
Even from afar, he displays knowledge and interest in Israel’s geography as seen from his
determining that the Spring of Eitam was 23 amot higher than its destination in Jerusalem (Yoma
31a), a number close to the present day difference of 30 meters in altitude of the lower aqueduct
beginning at the Pools of Solomon (Tel `Eitam 765 meters) and ending on the Temple Mount (735
meters).8

This pronounced tendency in Abbaye’s teachings seems to have been bolstered by identification
with the Palestinian tradition. In this light, it is of interest to note that Abbaye’s uncle and mentor

8
See A. Mazar, “A Survey of the Aqueducts Leading to Jerusalem” in D. Amit, Y. Hirschfeld and J. Patrich eds. The Aqueducts
of Ancient Palestine (Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 169-195; esp. pp 174f (Hebrew).

17
Rabbah was influenced by Rabbi Yohanan and may even have spent some time in the latter’s
yeshivah in Tiberias (Nedarim 59a).

From Ketubot 111a we see that Rabbah’s brothers indeed lived in Eretz-Israel, probably in Tiberias
where they were shoemakers in the local marketplace (Pesahim 113b). They tried to encourage
him to join them and make `aliyah (see Rashi).

Who were these brothers? It seems reasonable to identify them with Rabbi Hanina and Rabbi
(H)Oshaia the sons of Nahmani, the disciples of Rabbi Yohanan (Sanhedrin 14a).9 A recurrent
theme that binds the members of this family is their priestly lineage descended from the line of
Ithamar, particularly that of the family of Eli (Rosh Hashanah 18a).

Abayei was afflicted with illness a long time. He suffered from so-called “watery stomach” which
did not permit regular digestion of food so that he was simply starved.) .‫שבת ל״ג א׳‬

He was unable to perform the priest’s duties in the synagogue because of his ailment.) ‫חולין קל״ג‬
He suffered a great deal also from bad teeth. .‫ יומא פ״ד א׳‬His mouth was full of dangerous sores
around his teeth, for which he used various remedies which did him no good, until a travelling
merchant came to Pumbeditha, and gave him the right remedy.).‫עבודה זרה כ״ח א׳‬

Because of Abayei’s descent from Eli the High Priest, he should have lived forty years like his
uncle Rabah bar Nachmani. But he spent much time in study and charitable works and therefore
an exception was made for him out of his whole family and he lived sixty years.).‫ראש השנה י״ח א׳‬

9
Haiman, Toldot, p. 116; See S.Y. Friedman, “The Spelling of the Names Rabbah and Rava in the Babylonian Talmud”, Sinai
110 (1992), pp 156-158 (Hebrew).

18
The Connection back to Eli

Immediate descendants of the Eliides were the priesthood at Nob (I Sam 21-22); including David’s
fellow traveler Ebiathar, the son of Ahimelech. This branch of the family took up residence in
Anatot (I Kings 2:26-27).

More than likely, the prophet Jeremiah from among the priests of Anatoth and his family were
descendants of Ithamar as well. Note Jeremiah’s lament over Shiloh (Jer 7:12; also 26:6 ff; 41:5),
which he probably visited early in his career on a mission to the remnant of the Northern tribes
(3:11ff).

In Ezra’s time there were also members of the priesthood who could say they were descendants of
Ithamar as distinguished from the line of Eleazar/Pinhas. (Ez 8:2).

19
This tradition was associated with the unfortunate fact that many male family members were short
lived. At least two or three of Abbaye’s closest male relatives died young: his father Kaylel, his
uncle Rabbah who, according to one tradition, died at the age of forty, and probably his grandfather
Nahmani as well, though it does not seem to be the case for Abbaye who lived to the age of sixty.

This genetic characteristic of a short life span was attributed to the curse on the House of Eli and
their descendants (I Sam 2, 31-33).10

‫ אביי דעסק בתורה ובגמילות חסדים‬,‫ רבה דעסק בתורה חיה ארבעין שנין‬,‫ רבה ואביי מדבית עלי קאתו‬- ‫חיה‬
‫)ר"ה יח ע“א‬.‫)שיתין שנין‬.

10
There were other Amora’im of the priestly class who also had traditions that they were descendants of the family of Eli, to wit
one of the several Amora’im called Rav Kahana, TP Rosh Hashanah 2:7 ,58b; TP Sanhedrin 1:2, 18c.

20
Rabbah and Abbaye stemmed from the House of Eli. Rabbah who studied Torah lived to the age
of forty; Abbaye studied Torah and did good deeds lived to sixty

Rosh Hashanah 18

Further to the genetic curse on the house of Eli:

Rav Yitzchak Levy writes:11

ELI AND HIS DYNASTY

Pinchas lived a very long life and served in the priesthood for a lengthy period during the days of
the Shoftim. At the end of the period of the Shoftim, at the beginning of the book of Shmuel, the
priesthood passes from the dynasty of Elazar the priest to the house of Eli, descendants of Elazar's
brother Itamar.

Following the death of Eli, the priesthood remains in his family, and passes through Chofni and
Pinchas, I-Khavod, Achimelekh the son of Achitov, and Evyatar, and only then does it return to
Tzadok the priest, a descendant of Elazar. The genealogy of the priests is outlined in the book
of Divrei Ha-yamim, which records the generations from the days of Elazar and Itamar to the days
of David:

Elazar begot Pinchas, Pinchas begot Avishua, and Avishua begot Bukki, and Bukki begot
Uzzi. And Uzzi begot Zerachya, and Zerachya begot Merayot. Merayot begot Amarya, and
Amarya begot Achituv, and Achituv begot Tzadok, and Tzadok begot Achima'atz.

I Chron 5:30-34

Regarding the dynasty of Itamar, we read:

But Nadav and Avihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore, Elazar and
Itamar executed the priests' office. And David and Tzadok of the sons of Elazar, and
Achimelekh of the sons of Itamar, divided them up according to their offices in their
service.

I Chron 24:2-3

From these verses, we learn that Achimelekh was a descendent of Itamar, and from another
source we know that Achimelekh was the son of Achituv (I Sam 22:11), who in other places is
called Avimelekh the son of Evyatar.

I Chron 18:16

11
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/lecture-56-history-high-priesthood-after-death-aharon-and-until-building-first-temple

21
In addition, Evyatar was one of the descendants of Eli ( I Sam 22:20) : "And one of the sons of
Achimelekh the son of Achituv, named Evyatar, escaped and fled after David".

Thus, we learn indirectly from the verses that Eli was a descendant of Itamar.

In summary, from the days of Aharon the priest, the priesthood continues through Elazar
and Pinchas, who is last mentioned in the story of the concubine in Giv'a, and at the end of the
period of the Shoftim and the beginning of the book of Shmuel, it passes to the house of Eli, who
traces his lineage back to Itamar the son of Aharon and not to Elazar.

WHY DOES THE PRIESTHOOD PASS FROM THE DESCENDANTS OF ELAZAR TO

THE DESCENDANTS OF ITAMAR - FROM PINCHAS TO ELI?

Why didn't the dynasty of Elazar continue through the descendants of Pinchas? When did
Pinchas cease to serve in the office of the priesthood? Scripture does not say a word about this, but
what is not explicit in the biblical text is clarified in the words of Chazal in several places. Thus,
we read in the midrash in connection with Yiftach's vow:

Surely, Pinchas the son of Elazar lived in those days! Rather, Pinchas said: I am a High
Priest, son of a High Priest; how then can I go before an am ha-aretz? And Yiftach said: I
am the head of the judges of Israel, the chief officer; shall I humiliate myself and go before
an ordinary person? Between the two of them, that wretched girl passed from the world.
Woe to greatness that buries its possessors, woe to greatness that never leads to good!

Tanchuma Bechukotai 5

The midrash adds:

The holy spirit departed from Pinchas. This is what is stated: "And Pinchas the son of Elazar was
the ruler over them in time past, and the Lord was with him" (I Chron 9:20).
Lev Rabba

We see, then, that the midrash links the transfer of the priesthood from Pinchas to Eli on
Pinchas's conduct in the story of Yiftach's vow. The midrash points an accusatory finger at Pinchas
and Yiftach, both of whom credited themselves with greatness and thus led to the death of Yiftach's
daughter.

What happens later after the transfer of the priesthood to the house of Eli? In the wake
of the sins of the sons of Eli in the Mishkan, who profane God's offering with their actions, a man
of God appears to Eli and informs him that his seed will be cut off. God's word is executed in
stages:

First, Eli's sons, Chofni and Pinchas, are killed in the battle of Even Ha-Ezer (I Sam 4:11)
Eli himself dies when he hears that the ark of God was captured (I Sam 4:18) his daughter-in-
law, the wife of Pinchas, dies as she gives birth to I-Khavod (ibid. v. 20); Achimelekh and eighty

22
five wearers of a linen efod are killed by Shaul when he destroyed Nov, the city of priests;12 and
to completely fulfill the prophecy, Evyatar is sent away by Shlomo: "And to Evyatar the priest the
king said, 'Get you to Anatot, to your own fields…' So Shlomo thrust out Evyatar from being priest
to the Lord, that he might fulfill the word of the Lord, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli
in Shilo"). (I Kings 2:26)

With the banishment of Evyatar, the priesthood returns to Tzadok the priest, and thus to the house
of Elazar the son of Aharon the priest. From this we learn that the continuation of service in the
office of the High Priest is conditioned on the actions of the priests. As soon as they are unfit, the
priesthood passes from the house of Elazar to the house of Itamar; later, in the wake of the
unseemly actions of the priests, it returns from the house of Itamar to the house of Elazar.

THE RETURN OF THE PRIESTHOOD FROM THE DESCENDANTS OF ITAMAR TO

THE DESCENDANTS OF ELAZAR - FROM EVYATAR TO TZADOK

How is the Mishkan moved to Nov following the destruction of the Mishkan in Shilo? Why
was Nov, the city of priests, selected? Grintz argues that Nov was chosen owing to its proximity
to Kiryat-Ye'arim, where the ark was watched over by priests, descendants of Aharon. It is possible
that members of the house of Eli - perhaps Eli's grandchildren, headed by Achimelekh the son of
Achituv – moved the Mishkan to Nov.

Logic dictates that the move to Giv'on took place after the destruction of Nov. It is
reasonable to assume that it was Shaul who selected the site of the great bama in Giv'on, as Shaul's
family came from Giv'on (I Chron 8:29; 9:35). Accordingly, the Mishkan was erected by Shaul
in the city of Shaul.13

In this context, Grintz proposes that since Shaul was at great odds with the house of Eli
because of the assistance that Achimelekh had provided David when he was fleeing from Shaul (I
Sam 20), it was Shaul who initiated the search for a different priestly family, from the branch of
the descendants of Elazar, who would serve in the priestly office in place of the descendants of
Eli. Following in this direction, it is reasonable to assume that Shaul would choose Tzadok, a priest
from the house of Elazar, to serve at the great bama in Giv'on. Indeed, the fact that Tzadok was a
priest of the house of Elazar is stated explicitly in Divrei Ha-yamim:

And Tzadok the priest and his brethren the priests before the Tabernacle of the Lord in the
high place that was at Giv'on, to offer burnt offerings to the Lord upon the altar of the

12
It is clear that neither Shaul nor Shlomo adopted a policy to fulfill the prophecy regarding the house of Eli, but rather each of
them acted out of his own considerations – Shaul's actions were based on the desire to punish those who supported David, and
Shlomo based his on the desire to punish Evyatar for his support of Adoniyahu. God manages the world in such a way that human
choices coincide with the word of God. This is a very broad topic, relating to God's omniscience versus free choice, and this is not
the forum in which to expand on the matter.

13
What is interesting and meaningful here is the connection between Giv'on and Shaul. In this case, however, we have related
primarily to the selection and foundation of the place, as most of the time that the great bama was in Giv'on corresponds to the 40
years of David's rule and the first 4 years of Shlomo's reign.

23
 burnt offering continually morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written
in the Torah of the Lord, which He commanded Israel. (I Chron 16:39)

THE TRANSFER OF THE PRIESTHOOD FROM EVYATAR TO TZADOK

As stated, the priesthood passed from the house of Elazar to the house of Eli and remained
there until the time of Evyatar, when it passed to Tzadok the priest, a descendant of Elazar. How
did this transfer take place? Let us trace this transfer in the verses.

Regarding the kingdom of David, we read:

And Tzadok the son of Achituv and Achimelekh the son of Evyatar, were the priests. (II
Sam 8:17)

At the time of Avshalom's revolt, however, Tzadok is mentioned before Evyatar:

And lo, Tzadok also came, and all the Levites with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of
God, and they set down the ark of God, and Evyatar went up, until all the people had
finished passing out of the city. (II Sam 15:24)

Chazal in Seder Olam Rabba (chapter 14) comment:

When David was fleeing from his son Avshalom, Evyatar remained until he went up by the
ascent of the Mount of Olives, and he inquired of the urim and tumim, and then Evyatar
was removed from the High Priesthood and Tzadok entered in his place.

This is also stated in the gemara in Yoma (73b)

Any priest who does not speak with the holy spirit and the Shekhina rests upon him, we do
not inquire through him. For Tzadok inquired and he succeeded, [whereas] Evyatar
[inquired] but he did not succeed. As it is stated: "And Evyatar went up, until all the people
had finished."

We see from here that the transition from Evyatar, of the house of Eli from the descendants
of Itamar, to Tzadok, the priest from the descendants of Elazar, took place during Avshalom's
rebellion.

One question that lacks a clear answer is what the relationship between the end of
the Mishkan's stay in Nov and the end of the kingdom of Shaul is. To put it differently, on the
assumption that it was Shaul who selected Giv'on and Tzadok, to what extent did his reign
correspond to the continued existence of the great bama at Giv'on? Did he merely select the place
and the priestly house, and with that his rule came to an end? We have no tools with which to
decide this issue.

In any event, as we have already noted, the main period of Giv'on was during the days of
David, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that the main period of Tzadok parallels the rule of
David.

24
 On the assumption, as was noted earlier, that the choicest priestly family is the family of
Elazar, there is good reason to see Tzadok's service as priest as paralleling the days of David.

The service of the descendants of the family of Itamar began after the days of Yiftach,
toward the end of the period of the Shoftim. Eli the priest and his descendants served in the
priesthood in the wake of Pinchas's conduct in connection with Yiftach's vow and until the
destruction of Nov.

This intermediate period corresponds to the end of the period of the Mishkan's stay in
Shilo, when the great corruption of Eli's sons leads directly to the destruction of the Mishkan,
which was followed by the period of Nov which mainly parallels the rule of Shmuel and Shaul.

Corresponding to the transfer of the kingdom from Shaul to David, the priesthood also
passed from the house of Itamar to the house of Elazar, from Evyatar, a descendant of the house
of Eli, to Tzadok who belonged to the house of Elazar, and this itself took place during the days
of David himself, as we demonstrated through the verses.

Even if Shaul initiated the transfer of the priesthood from the house of Itamar to the house
of Elazar, as we proposed, the main period of Tzadok parallels the days of David. The fact that the
priesthood was removed from the house of Itamar precisely at the same time that the kingdom was
removed from Binyamin and passed to Yehuda is a very interesting point.

25