Greetings. Why is the assertion of Rav about Daniel and his friends that they were eunuchs not challenged head on in the gemara? How could this have happened, and surely being a eunuch would have excluded Daniel from receiving visions and ruach hakodesh. Indeed, why is does the word "mamash" refer only to eunuch when the word saris LITERALLY means "official" as well?
Isn't it also true that ruach hakodesh and nevua are not given to unmarried people, especially ones who are "eunuchs"?
I assume this kashe wouldn't apply to Yosef who was unmarried because he was in the time of the avos and was a son of Yaakov Avinu.
Thanks,
David Goldman
NYC
This is not an easy topic (as anything dealing with prophecy is not simple).
The Gemara in Yevamos 62a tells us that one of the things that Moshe Rabeinu did on his own accord, which ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu agreed to, was that he separated from his wife. The Gemara says that Moshe made a Kal va'Chomer: If the people of Israel were told not to approach their wives before the giving of the Torah even though the Shechinah spoke to them for only a short time, then Moshe certainly should leave his wife since Hash-m might speak to him at any time.
One of the explanations of Tosfos there (DH di'Chsiv) is that Moshe gave his wife a Get. So we see that Nevu'ah can be given to unmarried people.
I found a source that appears somewhat to contradict what I wrote above. This is from the Zohar, which says that the reason why Yaakov saw his vision only in a dream and not when awake is that at that time he was not yet married and was only "Plag Gufa," "half a body." So we do have a source that the fact that a person is not married may at least limit his possiblities for Nevu'ah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
where is this Zohar that you quoting regarding Yaakov having a lesser nevuah because he was unmarried?
thank you
It is in Parshas Vayetzei, on the verse "And he dreamed" (Bereshis 28:12). It is cited by the Be'er Mayim Chayim there.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. So how do we understand the case of Daniel? Saris literally means official, which Rav doesn't mention. In any event the visions experienced by Daniel were for all generations, so certainly being a eunuch would be an impediment. In addition how could these people have become eunuchs unless there were circumstances where Jewish boys were kidnapped into the royal service? How did Daniel and the others get into that situation under a king who was sympathetic to the Jews??
1) David, the Maharsha (DH v'Hayu Sarisim) writes as you say, that usually "Saris" means an important official in the king's palace. However, here Rav explained that this cannot be what it means, because Yeshayahu made a prophecy of disaster to King Chizkiyahu, that his descendants would be Sarisim in the king's palace. If Saris would mean a king's servant, this would not be a disaster, because a king's servant is a respectable position (possibly something similar to a government secretary now). Therefore, Rav explained that here "Saris" must be understood literally, that they were castrated.
2) Again, David, this time you have been Mechaven to the Ibn Ezra! This is on Daniel 1:3 where he writes that one cannot say that "Saris" should be understood literally, because if a youth is castrated he will lose his intelligence.
However, the Be'er Sheva, on Sanhedrin 93b, DH Mai v'Chaval, cites the Ibn Ezra and disagrees with him. He writes that a eunuch is not necessarily lacking intelligence. Can we say that the seven Sarisim who attended Achashverosh (Esther 1:10), or Potifar, the "Saris of Pharaoh" (Bereishis 39:1), were not intelligent people?!
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
We could reconcile by stating that the Ibn Ezra didn't mean they lose ALL their intelligence, only some, and therefore the other cases of sarisim involved people who would have been even far MORE intelligent had they not be eunuchs.
Therefore is the Ibn Ezra in any case stating that Rav is wrong in the gemara? What is Rav's source for calling Daniel a eunuch rather than an official??
1) That sounds like a reasonable suggestion how to reconcile the Ibn Ezra.
2) We do find sometimes that Ibn Ezra diverges from the Gemara on matters of Derash but not on matters of Halachah. For example, at the beginning of the book of Ovadyah, the Ibn Ezra writes that Ovadyah the Prophet was not the Ovadyah mentioned in Melachim I 18:3 as being the director of King Achav's house. This is in contrary to the Gemara in Sanhderin 39b.
3) The Maharsha explains that Rav said that Daniel was a eunuch because Yeshayahu ha'Navi had predicted disaster for the desendants of King Chizkiyahu, that they would be Sarisim in the house of the king of Bavel. If "Sarisim" would mean "officials," it would not be a disaster to hold a respectable official position in the king's palace.
Dovid Bloom