SATURDAY PRAYER: BINAH-YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p102

“Now the sons of Jacob were twelve.” This proves to us that they were all
equal (in righteousness); but what does the verse [ibid., ibid.] which states that he did lie with
Bilha, etc., signify? That Reuben deranged his father’s bed, and the Scripture considers this
equal to his having sinned with her. There is another Boraitha: Simeon b. Elazar said: That
righteous man (Reuben) is innocent of the crime. The act with his father’s wife was never
consummated; as, is it possible that a man whose descendants will stand on the Mount Ebol and
proclaim: “Cursed be he who lies with his father’s wife” [Deut. xxvii. 20], would commit such a
crime? But what does the above-cited verse mean? He (Reuben) resented the injustice done his
mother and said: “When my mother’s sister lived and proved a vexation to my mother, it was
bearable; but to have my mother’s servant prove a vexation to her, this is unbearable!” Therefore
he removed the bed of Bilba from his father’s bedroom (which the verse holds tantamount to
lying with her). R. Samuel b. Nahmeni in the name of R. Jonathan said: He who maintains that
the sons of Eli have sinned is nothing but in error, as it is written [I Samuel, i. 3]: ” . . . two
sons . . . priests of the Lord.” (And if they would have sinned, the verse would not elevate them
with such an honor.) [He holds with Rabh’s theory farther on; however, he differs from him
concerning ‘Haphni, for the reason that he is mentioned together with Pinhas in the verse cited.]
Rabh said. Pinhas did not sin, as it is written: “And Ahiya, the son of Ahitub, Ichabad’s brother,
the son of Pinhas, son of Eli, was priest of the Lord at Shilah” [I Samuel, xiv. 3]. Is it possible
that the Scriptures would describe minutely the pedigree of a sinner? Is it not written: “The Lord
will cut off, unto the man that doeth this, son and grandson,” etc. [Mal. ii. 12]. That was
explained to mean, if he be simply an Israelite he shall have here no master among the teachers
and no scholar among disciples, and if he is a descendant of priests, he shall have no son who
may bring the offering. From this we must conclude that Pinhas is innocent of guilt. Is it not
written, however, “sons of Belial” (and thus Pinhas is included)? It was because he should have
protested against it, and did not, the Scripture considers it as if he had also sinned.
The same said again: He who thinks the sons of Samuel sinned, is also in error. It is written:
“And they did not walk in his ways” [I Sam. viii. 3]. True, they did not walk in His
ways, but they sinned not. How, then, is the passage to be upheld: “And they but turned aside
after lucre and took bribes”? [ibid., ibid.]. They did not act as their father; for Samuel the
righteous travelled through all Israel and dispensed justice in every city, as it is written: “And he
went from year to year in circuit to Beth-El and Gilgal and Mizpah, and judged Israel” [ibid. vii.
6]; but they did not act in this way. They dwelt in their respective places in order to increase the
fees of their messengers and scribes.