Daf Ditty Shekalim 17: Gate of Yoachin

The Sages (Gittin 88a) explain why God's providence decreed that the finest
sons of Judah be exiled first.
On the verse in Daniel 9:14: ' And God hastened the evil and brought it about
— because He is righteous',
they ask why it is deemed righteous to hasten evil.
The answer is given: 'God acted charitably with Israel, in that Zidkiyahu's
exile came about while Yehoyachin's exile was still in existence'
the ultimate destruction of the Holy Temple was pushed forward by two years
so that Zidkiyahu's exile would find an established Torah community in
Babylon

1
2
3
Halakha 3 · MISHNA This mishna details the exact location and purpose of the thirteen tables in
the Temple. There were thirteen tables in the Temple. Eight of them were made of marble and
were located in the slaughtering area, north of the altar, where the priests would slaughter the
offerings of the most sacred order. Upon these tables they would wash the innards of the
offerings, as the marble was cool and preserved the freshness of the meat.

And there were two more tables on the western side of the ramp, south of the altar, one of
marble and one of silver. On the table of marble, they would place the limbs before they were
sacrificed, and from there the priests would bring them up to the altar. On the table made of silver

4
they would place the ninety-three sacred vessels brought out from the Chamber of Vessels each
morning for the services of that day.

And there were two tables in the Entrance Hall to the Sanctuary, on the inside of the Entrance
Hall, near the opening to the Temple, one of marble and one of gold. On the table of marble,
they would put the shewbread before its entrance to the Sanctuary after it was baked on the eve
of Shabbat. And they would place the old shewbread on the table of gold upon its exit from the
Sanctuary, to be divided among the priests.

The reason the shewbread was placed on a marble table before being brought into the Sanctuary
and on a golden one upon when removed from there is that one elevates to a higher level in
matters of sanctity, and one does not downgrade. Since it had been placed on the golden
Shewbread table all week inside the Sanctuary, upon its removal it could not be derogated to a
marble table and so was placed on a different golden table in the Entrance Hall.

5
6
Finally, there was one table of gold inside the Sanctuary, i.e., the Shewbread table, upon which
the shewbread was placed always.

GEMARA: The mishna stated that the shewbread was placed on a marble table when it was
brought into the Sanctuary. The Gemara cites a different opinion: As it was taught in a baraita:
When the shewbread was brought into the sanctuary it was placed on a table of silver. In
accordance with the opinion stated in the mishna, that the bread was placed on a marble table,
Rabbi Yosei said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak, who said that Rabbi Ḥananya
cites this tradition in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: There was no table of silver here, as it boils,
i.e., it heats articles placed upon it, which could cause the shewbread to grow moldy.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita as follows: This was one of the
miracles that were performed in the Temple, that just as they would place the shewbread hot
as it came out of the oven, so too they would remove it hot, as it is stated:

‫ָהָיה‬-‫ ִכּי ל ֹא‬:‫ ֹקֶדשׁ‬,‫לוֹ ַהֹכֵּהן‬-‫ז ַו ִיֶּתּן‬ 7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no
‫ֶלֶחם ַהָפּ ִנים ַהמּוָּס ִרים‬-‫ִאם‬-‫ ִכּי‬,‫ָשׁם ֶלֶחם‬ bread there but the showbread, that was taken from
‫ ְבּיוֹם‬,‫ ָלשׂוּם ֶלֶחם ֹחם‬,‫ִמִלְּפֵני ְיהָוה‬ before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it
.‫ִהָלְּקחוֹ‬ was taken away.--
I Sam 21:7

“To put hot bread in the day when it was taken away”

7
When they removed the shewbread after seven days on the golden table, it was as hot as it was
when they originally placed it there. Why, then, were they concerned about placing the shewbread
on a silver table, if it would remain warm in any event?

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One does not mention miraculous
events. Despite the fact that miracles occur, one should not rely on them, but rather act according
to the laws of nature. Therefore, the priests did not place the bread on a silver table that could have
spoiled the shewbread through natural causes.

The Gemara cites a baraita that discusses the shewbread table: Solomon built ten tables for the
Temple, modeled after the shewbread table. As it is written:

,‫ ַוַיַּנּח ַבֵּהיָכל‬,‫שׂ ָרה‬

ָ ‫ ֲﬠ‬,‫שְׁלָחנוֹת‬ ֻ ‫ח ַוַיַּﬠשׂ‬
‫שּׁה ִמְשּׂמ ֹאול; ַוַיַּﬠשׂ‬ ָ ‫שּׁה ִמָיִּמין ַוֲחִמ‬
ָ ‫ֲחִמ‬
{‫ }ס‬.‫ ֵמָאה‬,‫ִמְז ְרֵקי ָזָהב‬
8 He made also ten tables, and placed them in the
temple, five on the right side, and five on the left.
And he made a hundred basins of gold. {S}
II Chron 4:8

“He made also ten tables, and placed them in the Temple, five on the right side and five on
the left”

Rabbi Ethan Linden writes:1

Those who have studied Daf Yomi for a while know that the Temple is a very persistent
theme in the Talmud. But Tractate Shekalim presents the most sustained and detailed
descriptions of the ins and outs of Temple life of anything we have encountered thus far.
Everything from the complexities of funding this giant operation, to myriad job
descriptions of Temple functionaries, to the layout of the Temple precincts have been
under discussion in the course of this tractate.

A specter haunts all of these: by the time both Talmuds were written (the Jerusalem
Talmud in the late 4th century and the Babylonian Talmud some 200 years later) the
Temple itself lay firmly and stubbornly in the past. Destroyed in the year 70 C.E., the

1
Myjewishlearning.com

8
crushing defeat of the Bar Kochba Revolt some 60 years later made clear that a return to
Jerusalem with any sort of Jewish sovereignty, let alone to rebuild the Temple, was far
more a dream expressed in prayer than a near-term reality. But that reality rarely intrudes
into Tractate Shekalim.

Except today. Suggested, perhaps, by the mishnah’s mention of the Gate of Yechonya
(named for the king of Judea who was taken into exile by the Babylonians), the Talmud
tells a story about the final days of the First Temple. (Note: This is not the Second Temple,
destroyed in 70 C.E., but the first Temple, built by King Solomon, destroyed some five
centuries earlier.) According to the rabbis, the destruction was no surprise:

You find that when Nebuchadnezzar (Babylonian king who destroyed the first
Temple) came up here… the Sanhedrin(Jewish leadership) came out to greet
him and asked him: Has the time come for this house (the Temple) to be
destroyed?

This somewhat odd greeting matches, of course, the biblical view of what happened to
the First Temple, a view echoing through the prophets of that period,
like Jeremiah and First Isaiah: the people sinned, turned away from God, and were
punished with destruction and exile. Indeed, driving this point home, the narrative
switches to King Yehoyachin (another named for Yechonya) as he confronts the
inevitable:

He took the keys to the Holy Temple and went up on the roof. He said before
God: Master of the Universe! In the past we were faithful to you and your keys
were given to us. Now that we are not faithful, your keys are returned to you.

The Talmud notes that either he threw the keys up and they disappeared, or a hand
came from heaven to receive them. Either way, the message is clear: God’s protection of
the Temple and its people has been withdrawn — disaster cannot be averted.

This devastating narrative is about the First Temple, but of course the rebuilt Temple that
would eventually have a gate named for the final Judean king also lay in ruins by the
time the Mishnah was written down, and had been that way for even longer when the
sages of the Talmud began their work. If the presence of the second and even grander
Temple was evidence that God’s favor had returned to Israel, the destruction of that
Temple meant that God’s protection had seemingly been lost once again. The sages of
our Talmud toiled with text before them in that broken world.

But they learned it still. They worried endlessly over the details of that lost place,
concerning themselves with the curtains, the priests, the clothes, the money, the spaces
holy and profane inside its gates. Perhaps they did this to ensure that someday, in the
future, a new Temple could rise with the look, feel and funding of the old.

9
The sages of our tradition understood that in the absence of that central heartbeat of
ancient Jewish religion, the learning itself would become the center, the force that pulled
the people inward, rather than allowing the world to cast them further and further from
each other. And we, learning Talmud today, find ourselves engaging with the incredible
artifice of their remarkable achievement — an achievement that now, like the Temple of
yesteryear, unites Jews and draws them closer to one another in the present day.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:2

Our daf begins with a Mishna (Shekalim 6:3) and it specifies the location by each of the
gates of the Beit HaMikdash (Temple) where a visitor would perform each of their 13
prostrations. And it then offers an alternative explanation of the Rabbis where the 13
prostrations took place by each of the 13 breaches made by the Greeks in the soreg
fence, which were later to be repaired, surrounding the Beit HaMikdash.

In terms of the gates mentioned in the Mishna, one of those was the ‫ – שער המים‬the
Water Gate – where, according to Rabbi Eliezer Ben Yaakov, will be the location where
much water will emerge in the future, and this then inspires the Gemara to explores the
meaning of Zechariah 14:8 (“and it will be on that day that spring water will issue from
Jerusalem”), how water will flow from the Beit HaMikdash in the End of Days, and how
this will affect the fish in the sea and growth of grain.

And in terms of the soreg fence which evokes memories of danger and destruction, the
Gemara refers not to the Greeks but the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, and it describes
the feelings of loss and despair upon the destruction of the First Beit HaMikdash.

At the same time, we are also told why, according to the Rabbis, the prostrations were
performed by each of the 13 repaired breaches in the soreg fence – which was in response
to a decree by the Hasmoneans in commemoration of their miraculous defeat of the
Greeks. As the Rambam explains in his commentary on the Mishna, when a visitor would
arrive to one of the 13 locations where the soreg had been breached, they would
prostrate themselves as a form of thanksgiving.

Reflecting on all this, I believe that today’s daf is providing us with snapshots of the
history of Yerushalayim and that it reflects our many different emotions towards
Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash.

The gates remind us of the purpose of the Beit HaMikdash as a place of pilgrimage, and
also of the words of Yaakov that this location is a ‫ – שער השמים‬a gateway to heaven.

2
www.johnnysolomon.com

10
The story of Nebuchadnezzar reminds us of the loss of the Beit Hamidkash, and the
ensuing heartache and despair.

The story about the repaired locations in the soreg fence remind us of how our ancestors
fought to defend the Beit HaMikdash, how they were successful, and how the breaches
in the fence were able to be repaired.

And the teachings about the End of Days remind us that while we still mourn, there will
be a time when water – both physically and also representing the Torah - will flow from
the Beit HaMikdash.

The Type of Tables in the Beis Hamikdosh

Rav Avraham Adler writes:3

The Mishna states: There were thirteen tables in the Temple. Eight of them, which were made of
marble, were in the slaughterhouse, on which they used to wash the intestines. Two of them were
situated on the west of the ramp; one was of marble and the other of silver. On the marble one they
used to put the limbs (of private offerings), and on the silver one they put the (ninety-three) service
vessels (after they were taken out each morning from the Chamber of Vessels). Two tables stood
inside the Antechamber at the entrance of the Temple - one was made of silver and the other of
gold. On the Table of silver they placed the lechem hapanim when it was brought in (before
arranging it on the Table in the Sanctuary), and on the Table of gold, they placed the lechem
hapanim when it was brought out (until the levonah was burned on the Altar). It was done in this
manner (first silver, and then gold) since that which is sanctified, we must ascend, but not descend.
And within the Sanctuary was a Table of gold where upon it the lechem hapanim rested
continuously.

There is a dispute amongst the Tannaim in a beraisa if the first table was made of marble or of
silver. One opinion states that it was made of silver, since must be no sign of poverty in the place
of wealth (the Temple), and therefore it isn't befitting to include a marble table. The other opinion
maintains that here silver is inappropriate, since the meat of the animals will be warmer on the
silver table and could spoil easier.

The Gemora asks from a braisa which states: A great miracle happened with the lechem hapanim
(Showbread), viz., when it was removed it was as hot as when it was put on, as it was written: To
put hot bread in the day it was taken away. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi answered: We do not bring
a proof from a miraculous occurrence. They inquired of Rabbi Ila: If there was no fresh bread
available, would they leave the bread from the previous week on the Table for the following
Shabbos?

He replied: It is derived from a verse that bread, and even unfit bread should continuously be on
the Table.

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shekalim_17.pdf

11
The Gemora cites a braisa that King Shlomo made ten Tables and ten Menoros (besides for
Moshe’s). The Tables were all on the north side of the Sanctuary: Moshe’s was in the middle, and
five were on its right and five were on its left. The Menoros were all on the south side of the
Sanctuary: Moshe’s was in the middle, and five were on its right and five were on its left. The
braisa continues: They arranged the lechem hapanim only on the Table made by Moshe. Rabbi
Yosi ben Yehudah said: On all the Tables they arranged the lechem hapanim, as it is written: And
the Tables, and upon them was the lechem hapanim. The Gemora cites a braisa: Rebbe holds that
the Tables were placed from east to west. This, he derives, from the Menorah. Rabbi Elozar the
son of Rabbi Shimon maintains that the Tables were placed from north to south. He derives it from
the Ark. The Gemora challenges the latter opinion, for it would emerge that the Tables are in the
South (and they are only valid when situated in the North). This question is left unanswered.

One of the reasons given why the table was made of marble (in the mishna) or silver (in the beraisa)
is that we want to follow the halacha of “maalin b'kodesh v'lo moridin” (we increase kedusha, but
don't decrease) – therefore, the lechom haponim starts on a silver (or marble) table and continues
with a golden table. Rashi in Menachos explains that the bread was only placed on that table
momentarily, to show everyone that we're following this halacha. However, the Bartenura explains
that it was quite necessary to have the table be made of marble (following the second reason of
spoilage,) since the bread was left there from Erev Shabbos until its conclusion on Shabbos.

Rav Elyashiv - Maintaining the Lechem Hapanim

The lechem hapanim must be on the Shulchan, “tamid” - always. What does always mean? The
Mishna says that the Chachamim hold that the new bread must be held up against the old bread
and in one motion the old bread was removed as the new bread took its place. This way there was
never even a split second that where the Shulchan was empty. Rabbi Yosi says you my remove the
old bread and then set down the new bread, and this is also called tamid.

The Gemora brings a braisa that says that according to Rabbi Yosi you may even remove the old
bread in the morning and bring then new bread in the afternoon. From here Rabbi Ammi learns
that if you learn one perek in the morning and one perek in the evening you have fulfilled the
mitzvah of: this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth. We see that it is also
considered tamid if you are consistent and never miss your scheduled learning. Rav Elyashiv points
out that according to the Chachamim who we hold like, regarding lechem hapanim, we can make
the same inference.

From the Chachamim we learn that it is not considered tamid unless your learning is unabated
even for a moment, just like the careful and meticulous process of maintaining a constant presence
of the lechem hapanim.

12
 AGADAH: THE THIRTEEN BREACHES

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Mishnah at the beginning of the chapter (15b) states that "thirteen prostrations" were
performed in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Whenever the Kohanim would pass by one of thirteen specific
places in the Beis ha'Mikdash, they would bow down.

The Mishnah (16b) describes exactly where these prostrations took place. It says that they were
done at the thirteen gates in the wall of the Beis ha'Mikdash (four in the north, four on the south,
three in the east, and two in the west).
The Gemara says that the Mishnah follows the opinion of Aba Yosi ben Yochanan, who maintains
that there were thirteen gates in the wall of the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Rabanan, however, maintain
that there were only seven gates.

According to the Rabanan, where were the thirteen prostrations performed? The Gemara answers
that they were performed at the thirteen places where the Soreg was breached. The Mishnah in
Midos (2:3) teaches that inside the wall of Har ha'Bayis stood the Soreg, a fence ten Tefachim
high, which the kings of Yavan (Greece) breached in thirteen places during their war against the
Jews in the times of the Chashmona'im.

The Jews repaired the breaches and established an enactment that the Kohanim bow when they
pass these thirteen places. The BARTENURA (Midos 2:3) adds that the prostrations at these
places were instituted as a sign of gratitude to Hash-m for the victory over the Greeks.

The thirteen breaches the Greeks made in the Soreg, and the thirteen repairs that the Chashmona'im
made, reflect the true essence of the battle between the Greeks and the Jews at that time.

The Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 2:4) interprets the word "darkness" in the verse, "The world was
chaos and void, with darkness over the face of the deep" (Bereishis 1:2), as an allusion "to the exile
imposed by the Greeks, who darkened the eyes of Yisrael with their decrees."

Why is the Greek persecution of the Jews represented by the word "darkness"?

4
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/shekalim/insites/sk-dt-017.htm

13
TUR (OC 580) teaches that on the day that the Egyptian ruler, Ptolemy, commissioned his
translation of the Torah (the Septuagint), "A three-day long period of darkness descended upon
the world." The translation of the Torah is the "darkness" of the Greek exile.

What was the great tragedy of the Torah being translated into another language, and why should
it cause the world to become dark?

The Midrash relates that Ptolemy gathered 72 of the Jewish elders and placed them in 72 separate
rooms. He did not inform any of them of the purpose of their summons. He approached each elder
privately and said, "Translate [into Greek] the Torah of your teacher Moshe for me." Hash-m
arranged that the same thoughts occurred to all of them, and they all made the same thirteen
modifications in their translations (Sofrim 1:7-8, Megilah 9a).

When the Torah was translated into a foreign language, it lost all of the nuances of meaning. The
countless allusions, exegetical derivations, and implicit insinuations in the words of the Torah,
Gematriyas, acrostics, and other word-based analyses cannot be carried over from Lashon
ha'Kodesh to another language. The entire body of the Oral Torah that lies beneath the surface of
the written text was severed from the translation. That was the tragedy.

The Oral Torah is compared to a light that illuminates the darkness (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach
#3). The Midrash says, "The Oral Torah is difficult to learn and its mastery involves great hardship.
The verse therefore compares it to darkness: 'The people who walked in darkness saw a great light'
(Yeshayah 9:1). The 'great light' is a reference to the great light that is seen by the Sages of the
Gemara (they understand matters with great clarity), for Hash-m enlightens their eyes in matters
of ritual law and laws of purity. In the future it is said of them, 'Those who love Him will shine as
bright as the sun when it rises with its full intensity' (Shoftim 5:31).... Reward for the study of the
Oral Torah will be received in the World to Come, as it says, 'The people who walk in darkness
saw a great light.' 'Great light' is a reference to the primeval light that was hidden away by Hash-
m during Creation as a reward for those who toil over the Oral Torah day and night."

Those who "shed a great light" on the Oral Torah are rewarded with the pleasure of the "great
light" of Creation.

It is now clear why the translation of the Torah into Greek caused darkness to descend upon the
world. The darkness was caused by the obstruction of the "great light" of the Oral Torah that
resulted from the translation of the Torah into a foreign language. The Chashmona'im, who
defeated the Greeks and the culture they espoused, restored to some degree the glory of the Torah

14
to its place, and the Chanukah candles that are lit each year in commemoration of that miracle
represent the "great light" of the Oral Torah.

This understanding shed light on the significance of the thirteen breaches the Greeks made in the
Soreg, and the thirteen repairs that the Chashmona'im made.
The foundation of the Oral Torah is the thirteen Midos sheha'Torah Nidreshes ba'Hen -- the thirteen
exegetical principles of expounding Torah law, as enumerated in the introduction to Toras
Kohanim. These principles are the basis for deriving the Oral Torah from the written text of the
Torah. (This is why the Midrash ha'Zohar on Bereishis teaches that the number thirteen is a
metaphor for the Oral Torah.)

The Elders made thirteen modifications in the text of the Torah when they translated it into Greek.
This number represents the fact that inherent in the translation is the loss of the Oral Torah, which
is derived through the thirteen exegetical principles.

The thirteen breaches made by the Greeks and repaired by the Chashmona'im represent the essence
of the focus of the war of the Chashmona'im against the Greeks. The Greeks sought to eliminate
the thirteen principles through their literal translation of the Torah into Greek, with its resultant
loss of the Oral component of the Torah. The Chashmona'im succeeded in restoring the tools of
Torah interpretation.

In order to commemorate and give thanks for the victory of authentic Torah ideology over the
shallow, incomplete misrepresentation of Torah, thirteen prostrations were instituted at the sites
of the repaired breaches.

It is interesting to note that according to Rashi (Devarim 33:11), there were thirteen men (twelve
Chashmona'im and Elazar) who commanded the Jewish army that overthrew the Greeks.

These thirteen men enabled the Jewish people to preserve the Oral Torah and its thirteen principles.
5

5
Based on the explanation of RAV DAVID COHEN in "BIRKAS YA'AVETZ," p. 147) (See also Insights to Midos 35:1.

15
Daily Miracles
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

The Mishna on our daf describes the thirteen tables that were in the Temple. Eight of them, made
of marble, were used, in effect, to butcher the animals in preparation for their sacrifice on
the mizbe’ah. There were also tables made of gold for the lehem ha-panim, the shewbread.
The Gemara comments that silver tables were not used for the lehem ha-panim because the heat
of the tables might cause the bread – which was left on the shulhan (table) for an entire week – to
become moldy. Even though the freshness of the bread was one of the daily miracles of the Temple,
the Gemara argues that we do not rely on miracles.

Issues having to do with the presence of the meat and bread in the Temple are among the ten daily
miracles that are recorded by the Mishna in Massekhet Avot (2:5). They include:

• No women ever miscarried from smelling the meat of the sacrifices

• The meat of the sacrifices never spoiled
• No fly was ever seen in the Temple
• The High Priest never became impure before Yom Kippur
• There was never a problem with the Omer that was cut, nor with the shtei ha-lehem, nor
with the lehem ha-panim
• The people would be crowded together, and yet would have room to bow down
• Neither snake nor scorpion ever injured someone in Jerusalem
• No one ever complained that there was no room for him in Jerusalem.

Although these are all described as miracles, in his commentary on Aggada, Shem-Tov ibn
Shaprut argues that they can all be explained rationally, and that the “miracle” was not in an
unnatural event, rather in the care and concern engendered by the holiness of the Mikdash that kept
these things from taking place.

For example, the kohanim were so careful and committed to their work that they made sure that
the sacrifices were brought in a timely fashion so that the meat never spoiled nor attracted flies,
the communal sacrifices never were found to have problems and the kohen gadol never became
impure. Jerusalem was such a popular and busy place that snakes and scorpions never found ruins
or abandoned areas to breed. Finally, thanks to the high level of friendliness and concern for one
another, the people looked out for each other and made sure that there was always room for
everyone.

6
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/shekalim17/

16
The Sifsei Tzaddik, zt”l, asks the obvious question: The Beis HaMikdash stood for four hundred
years before Yechonya ruled—did this gate have a different name all that time? If so, what was it?
And if not, what could it have meant that it was called by his name even before his time? In heaven,
it was decreed that Yechonya would die childless, but through sincere repentance, the decree was
rescinded.

His “gate” alludes to the heavenly gate that opens even to the undeserving, through which sincere
teshuvah is accepted. The actual gate was always known as a gate specifically for ba’alei teshuvah,
but it was graced with Yechonya’s name forever on the day that he went out to exile. He left the
Beis HaMikdash with tremendous yearning for holiness, carrying on his shoulders the stones to
rebuild a Beis Midrash where the Shechinah could rest among the Jewish people in Bavel. Since
that time, many tzaddikim have built many shuls, but none with the yearning and the resolve to do
anything to get close to Hashem that filled Yechonya. His willingness to go to any lengths to
achieve closeness to Hashem is what rescinded the decree against him, and it is this sincere
repentance we can all attain when we feel how much we are missing by being so far from Hashem.

One time a chossid of the Karliner Rebbi, zt”l, complained bitterly to his Rebbe: “All my fellow
chassidim seem to be making great progress, while I feel as though I’m not really getting
anywhere!” The Rebbe responded, “Sadly enough, I can’t find the right key to open your heart.”
The chossid, besides himself, cried out, “What need is there for a key? Break it open with an axe
if that’s what it takes!” “There is no longer any need even to find a key,” the Rebbe smiled. “Your
heart is already open!”

17
 The Gate of Yechonya

Rabbi Aryeh Citron writes:7

The Mishnah (Middot 2:6) says that the gate on the northern side of the Azarah (courtyard of the
Beit HaMikdash), towards the western side, was called the Gate of Yechonya. This is because King
Yechonya (son of Yehoyakim) departed to exile through that gate.
Who was this Yechonya, and why did he go to exile via this particular gate? In addition, why was
this even so significant as to name the gate after it?

A Brief Biography of Yehoyakim

7
https://yeshivahcollege.org/the-gate-of-yechonya-history-of-the-second-to-the-last-king-of-judea/

18
Yechonya (also known as Yehoyachin) was the son of Yehoyakim who was, in turn, the son of
Yoshiyahu. Yehoyakim was extremely wicked and committed many sins just to anger G-d.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 103b and Mo’ed Katan 26a) and Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 19:6) mention
the following sins:

• He tattooed the name of an idol (or of the Almighty) on his genitals. The verse (Divrei
HaYamim II 36:8) alludes to this when it says about his sins “and that which was found
upon him.”
• He wore a garment of sha’atnez (made of wool and linen).
• He had relations with his mother, his daughter in law, and his father’s wife.
• He would kill men, rape their wives, and confiscate their property, as the verse says (Kings
II 24:4), “And… the innocent blood that he had shed, and he filled Jerusalem with innocent
blood.”
• He burned the book of Eicha foretelling the destruction and exile, including the name of G-
d (see Yirmiyahu 36). Some say he cut out and burned, only the names of G-d.

After three years of serving Nevuchanetzar, king of Babylonia, Yehoyakim rebelled against him.8

Nevuchanetzar sent various armies to Jerusalem who overcame Yehoyakim (Kings II 24). The
king of Egypt did not come to Yehoyakim’s aid.
There are differing opinions as to how Yehoyakim died, but it appears that he died in the process
of being taken into captivity by the Babylonians.
Yirmiyahu, the prophet, had foretold about Yehoyakim that “a donkey’s burial shall he be buried,
dragged and tossed past the gates of Jerusalem (Yirmiyah 22:19).” Nevuchadnetzar fulfilled this
by burying him inside a donkey’s carcass or, as others say, by feeding his body to the dogs
(Vayikra Rabbah 19:6).
Nevchadnetzar then appointed his son Yechonya to be the ruler of Judea.

A Brief Biography of Yechonya

• Age of Ascension

‫ ְיהוָֹיִכין‬,‫ְשֹׁמֶנה ֶﬠְשֵׂרה ָשָׁנה‬-‫ח ֶבּן‬ 8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign;
;‫ ָמַל‹ ִבּירוָּשָׁל ִם‬,‫ וְּשׁ…ָשׁה ֳחָדִשׁים‬,‫ְבָּמְלכוֹ‬ and he reigned in Jerusalem three months; and his mother's
.‫ֶאְלָנָתן ִמירוָּשָׁל ִם‬-‫ ְנֻחְשָׁתּא ַבת‬,‫ְוֵשׁם ִאמּוֹ‬ name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

II Kings 24:8

One verse (Kings II 24:8) says that Yechonya was 8 years old when he became king while another
verse (Divrei HaYamim II 36:9) says he was 18.

8
Rabbi Yehudah Landy in his book Uncovering Sefer Yirmiyahu surmises that Yehoyakim showed allegiance to the king of Egypt
rather than to Nevuchadnetzar by not paying his annual tribute to the Babylonian king. He had greater loyalty to the king of Egypt
since he was the one who had appointed him king.

19
The Malbim reasons that he was appointed as crown prince when his father was installed as the ruler
by the king of Egypt at which time he was 8 years old. When he was 18, his father died, and he
began to rule as king.

• A Short yet Evil Reign

He was king for only 3 months and 10 days, but during that time the verse (Kings II 24:9) records,
“He did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord like all that his father had done.”

• Deposed

When Nevuchadnetzar informed his advisors that he had appointed Yechonya as the king, they
protested, saying that he was a bad pup born of a bad dog, as his father had rebelled. So
Nevuchadnetzar came to Jerusalem to depose him.

• The Advice of the Sages

According to the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 19:6), the sages of the Sanhedrin came to greet
Nevuchadnetzar and asked him if the time had come to destroy the Beit HaMikdash (as Yirmiyahu
had prophesied). Nevuchadnetzar replied he had not come for that purpose, but rather to remove
Yechonya from the throne. They then went and informed Yechonya that the Babylonian king was
seeking him (and that he should surrender to the Babylonians).

• Returned the Keys

Yechonya took the keys of the Temple, went up to the Temple roof and proclaimed to G-d, “Until
now You entrusted me with these keys. Now I am returning them to You.” He threw them up, and
they did not fall back down. Some say that a fiery hand from Heaven descended and received them.
(It is not clear why he threw the keys up considering that the Beit HaMikdash would stand for another
11 years before it was destroyed by the Babylonians. Perhaps Yechonya thought that its destruction
was imminent. It is also unclear why he deserved such a miracle despite being a wicked man. Perhaps
it was the merit of the fact that he surrendered to Nevuchadnetzar rather than battling him as his
successor Tzidkiyahu would do (which led to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash). It is considered
a merit for Yechonya because had he gone to battle to avoid being captured, many Jewish lives
would have been lost.)

• Departed through the Northwest Gate

Yechonya and the members of the royal family left the Beit HaMikdash through the gate on the
northwest of the azarah (courtyard), as the verse says, “And Yehoyachin, the king of Yehudah, came
out to the king of Babylonia, he and his mother and his servants and his officers and his mighty
warriors, and the king of Babylonia took him in the eighth year of his reign.” It has been postulated
that the Babylonian army was camped to the north of Jerusalem and going through the gate on the
north side would have been the shortest route.

20
In addition, according to the Talmud (Yoma 19a,) this gate was close to the Lishkat HaGazit (the
chamber of Hewn Stone) which is where the Sanhedrin sat. So, after receiving instruction to
surrender from the Sanhedrin (see above based on Vayikra Rabbah 19:6), he left through the nearby
gate.

• A Cramped Conception

According to the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 19:6), while Yechonya was in captivity, the sages
prevailed upon Nevuchadnetzar (through influencing his wife) to allow Yechonya to cohabit with
his wife. Since he was in a narrow cell, the Babylonians lowered her into his cell with chains. She
then informed him that she had seen a red rose (a euphemism for menstrual blood), and so he
refrained from having relations with her–this, despite his earlier sinful lifestyle. So, she was lifted
out and returned to him after she had gone to the Mikvah. She conceived and bore a son who was
named Assir as well as She’altiel.

• Names of his Oldest Son

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 37b) says that he was called Assir because he was conceived in captivity.
(Assir means a captive.) His other name was She’altiel because he was planted by G-d. (See Tehillim
92:14 where ‫ ְשׁתוִּלים‬means “planted.”) This alludes to the fact that his mother conceived him from a
relationship that would not normally result in conception as the quarters in the dungeon were very
cramped. The name She’altiel also means that G-d “asked” for His vow to be nullified. The vow,
uttered by Yirmiyahu, (Yirmiyahu 22:30) was, “Thus said the L-rd: Record this man (Yechonya) as
being childless, one who shall never be found acceptable…”

But because of Yechonya’s teshuva, the decree was changed, and he bore many children. (The verse
in Divrei HaYamim I, 3:18, records another six children besides Assir/She’altiel.) She’altiel’s son
was none other than Zerubavel, leader of the Jews who ascended to Israel to rebuild the Beit
HaMikdash in the time of Koresh, king of Persia.

• Archeology of Nevuchadnetzar’s Palace

It is noteworthy that the palace of Nevuchadnetzar has been explored by archeologists who found
underground rooms made of stone. This is the only underground structure found in the ancient city
of Bavel. In it, a system of chains was discovered that could have been used to lower prisoners into
the dungeon. This matches the descriptions of the above Midrash (Uncovering Sefer Daniel, pag.
169).

• Freed from the Dungeon

After spending 37 years in jail, Yechonya was let out of the dungeon upon the death of
Nevuchadnetzar. Evyl-Merodach (Nevuchadnetzar’s son and heir) not only released him but invited

21
him to eat regularly at his royal table. He was also given appropriate clothing and seated in a higher
position than the other captive kings, as the verse says (Kings II 25:28-30),

‫ ְלָגלוּת‬,‫כז ַו ְיִהי ִבְשׁ…ִשׁים ָוֶשַׁבע ָשָׁנה‬
,‫ ִבְּשֵׁנים ָﬠָשׂר ֹחֶדשׁ‬,‫ ְיהוָּדה‬-‹‫ְיהוָֹיִכין ֶמֶל‬
‹‫ְבֶּﬠְשׂ ִרים ְוִשְׁבָﬠה ַלֹחֶדשׁ; ָנָשׂא ֱא ִויל ְמֹרַד‬
‫ר ֹאשׁ ְיהוָֹיִכין‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ֶמֶל‹ ָבֶּבל ִבְּשַׁנת ָמְלכוֹ‬
.‫ִמֵבּית ֶכֶּלא‬--‫ ְיהוָּדה‬-‹‫ֶמֶל‬
27 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the
captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month,
on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-
merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign,
did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison.

,‫ִכְּסאוֹ‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ ֹטבוֹת; ַו ִיֵּתּן‬,‫ כח ַו ְיַדֵבּר ִאתּוֹ‬28 And he spoke kindly to him, and set his throne above the
.‫ ְבָּבֶבל‬,‫ֵמַﬠל ִכֵּסּא ַהְמָּלִכים ֲאֶשׁר ִאתּוֹ‬ throne of the kings that were with him in Babylon.

‫ ֵאת ִבּ ְגֵדי ִכְלאוֹ; ְוָאַכל ֶלֶחם‬,‫ כט ְוִשָׁנּא‬29 And he changed his prison garments, and did eat bread
.‫ ְיֵמי ַחָיּיו‬-‫ ָכּל‬,‫ָתִּמיד ְלָפָניו‬ before him continually all the days of his life.

‫לּוֹ ֵמֵאת‬-‫ ֲאֻרַחת ָתִּמיד ִנְתָּנה‬,‫ ל ַוֲאֻרָחתוֹ‬30 And for his allowance, there was a continual allowance
‫ ְיֵמי‬,‫ֹכּל‬ :‫יוֹם ְבּיוֹמוֹ‬-‫ְדַּבר‬--‹‫ ַהֶמֶּל‬given him of the king, every day a portion, all the days of his
{‫ }ש‬.‫ַחָיּו‬ life
II Kings 25:28-30

“And it was in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Yehoyachin, king of Judah… Evil-Merodach,
king of Babylonia… lifted up the head of Yehoyachin, king of Judah and released him from prison.
And he spoke with him kindly and placed his throne above the throne of the kings who were with
him in Babylon. And he changed his prison garb, and he ate meals before him regularly all the days
of his life. And his meals, regular meals, were given him from the king, each day’s need in its day,
all the days of his life.”

There are several theories as to why Evil-Merodach treated Yechonya so kindly:

• Advised his Father’s Dismemberment

The Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 18:2) recounts that during the seven years that Nevuchadnetzar was
acting like a wild animal (see chapter 4 of the book of Daniel), his son Evil Merodach assumed the
throne. When Nevuchadnetzar recovered, he had Evyl Merodah thrown into the dungeon. After
Nevuchadnetzar died, Evyl Merodach was freed and the people wanted to coronate him as king. He
hesitated as he was concerned that Nevuchadnetzar was not truly dead and that, if he assumed the
throne, his father might reappear and have him killed. So the people dug Nevuchadnetzar from his
grave and threw him in front of his son.

All of Nevuchadnetzar’s enemies came and stuck their swords into his body. The Abarbanel suggests
that it was Yechonya who advised Evyl Merodach to do this and that they actually dismembered his
body. And that in appreciation for this advice, Evil Merodach freed and elevated Yechonyah.

22
In truth, Yechonya gave this advice so that the prophecy of Yeshayahu be fulfilled, as it says
concerning Nevuchadnetzar (Yeshayahu 14:19), “While you were thrown from your grave, like
loathsome carrion.”

• Cellmates

Based on the above Midrash, the Rambam writes (in a commentary on Megillat Esther that is
attributed to him) that Evyl Merodach was imprisoned together with Yechonya. In prison they
befriended each other, and when Evyl Merodach was elevated and became the new king, he released
his friend. (Cited in Uncovering Sefer Yirmiyahu pg. 170.)

• Influence of Daniel

According to the Targum Sheini (on the beginning of Megillat Esther), it was Daniel, the advisor of
many Babylonian kings, who prevailed upon Evyl Merodach to free Yechonya.

Archeological Support

Here is a quote from Wikipedia (see Uncovering Sefer Yirmiyahu pg. 374 for more precise sources).
“During his excavation of Babylon in 1899–1917, Robert Koldewey discovered a royal archive room
of King Nebuchadnezzar near the Ishtar Gate. It contained tablets dating to 595–570 BCE. The
tablets were translated in the 1930’s by the German Assyriologist, Ernst Weidner. Four of these
tablets list rations of oil and barley given to various individuals—including the deposed King
Yehoyachin — by Nebuchadnezzar from the royal storehouses, dated five years after Yehoyachin
was taken captive.

One tablet reads:

10 (sila of oil) to the king of Judah, Yaukin (this seems to be the Babylonian version of the name
Yehoyachin ), 2 1/2 sila (oil) to the offspring of Judah’s king, 4 sila to eight men from Judea…

• Back to Yechonya’s Gate

It would seem that the northwest gate of the Beit HaMidash was named after Yechonya in
appreciation for the fact that he left willingly rather than resisting Nevuchadnetzar and causing death
and destruction to the Jewish people as explained above.

• Other Function

Some say that this gate was also known as the Sha’ar Nitzotz – the Gate of the Spark (Tiferet Yisrael
on Middot, ibid), so-called because of the room built above it which was called Beit HaNitzotz –
Room of the Spark. Some say it got this name as the sun shone into it since it only had three walls
(Rosh on Tamid 25b).

23
Others say that it was called thusly because there was always a fire burning there which could be
used to rekindle the fire of the altar should it go out (Be’er Sheva on ibid).

24
25
 The Last Kings of Judah
Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan writes;9

In the final classes of this course, I would like to examine an extended sippur darshani, or
midrashic story, which appears in Vayikra Rabba 19:6. The story deals with the reigns of two of
the last Jewish kings in Jerusalem preceding the Babylonian Exile.

On the one hand, the story is an act of biblical interpretation. It seeks to reconstruct the events of
the reigns of Yehoyakim and Yechonya on the basis of the various biblical sources. Yet, it is also
a moral tale with an ideological message about sin, repentance and leadership that has little basis
in the biblical texts. Finally, it is work of art in its own right, a carefully crafted story meant to
bring pleasure to its readers.

Before engaging the text of the midrash, I would like to review the various biblical sources which
discuss the lives of Yehoyakim and Yechonya (also known as Yehoyachin). This will help us to
better understand the interpretive aspects of our midrash.

The history of the later Judean Kings is documented in numerous biblical books. First and foremost
is the Book of Kings, which presents a comprehensive account of all of the kings of Judah and
Israel. Also important are the various later prophets who were active during this period and often
make reference to contemporary events. Finally, there is the Book of Chronicles (Divrei Ha-
yamim) which retells much of the material from Kings, often providing an alternate view of events.
In our case, these sources present significantly different versions of events, which must be
reconciled into a single account by the midrash.

We will begin with the sources from II Kings:

Yehoyakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in
Jerusalem; his mother’s name was Zevuda daughter of Pedaya of Ruma. He did what was
displeasing in the eyes of the Lord, just as his ancestors had done. In his days Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylonia came up, and Yehoyakim became his vassal for three years. Then he turned and rebelled
against him. The Lord let loose against him the raiding bands of the Chaldeans, Arameans,
Moabites, and Amonites; He let them loose against Judah to destroy it, in accordance with the
word that the Lord has spoken through His servants the prophets. All this befell Judah at the
command of the Lord, who banished [them] from his presence because of all the sins that Menashe
had committed and also because of the blood of the innocent that he shed. For he filled Jerusalem
with the blood of the innocent, and the Lord would not forgive. The other events of Yehoyakim’s
reign, and all of his actions, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Judah. Yehoyakim slept
with his fathers and his son Yehoyachin succeeded him as king (II Kings 23:36-24:6).

This is the Book of Kings’ entire account of the reign of Yehoyakim. Yehoyakim was first and
foremost a bad king. It was during his time that Nebuchadnezzar first took control of Judah, making
Yehoyakim his vassal. After a few years, Yehoyakim rebelled against

9
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-27-last-kings-judah

26
Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar, unwittingly following the Divine plan, unleashed a fearsome
army against Judah, made up of Babylonian soldiers as well as troops from the surrounding area.
The text does not explicitly tell us the outcome of this invasion. It seems that much damage was
done but Yehoyakim remained in power as king of Judah. Finally, the phrase “slept with his
fathers” would seem to suggest that Yehoyakim died peacefully in Jerusalem.

A few verses later the prophet continues with an account of the reign of Yehoyachin (AKA
Yechonya):

Yehoyachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned three months in
Jerusalem; his mother’s name was Nechushta daughter of Elnatan of Jerusalem. He did what was
displeasing in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father has done. At that time, the troops of King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon marched against Jerusalem, and the city came under siege. King
Nebuchanezzar of Babylon advanced against the city while his troops were besieging it. Thereupon
King Yehoyachin of Judah, along with his mother, and his courtiers and commanders, and officers,
surrendered to the king of Babylon. The king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his
reign. He carried off from there all the treasures of the House of the Lord and the treasures of the
royal palace; he stripped off all the decorations of the Temple of the Lord – which King Solomon
of Israel had made – as the Lord had warned. He exiled all of Jerusalem: all of the commanders
and all the warriors – ten thousand exiles – as well as all the craftsmen and smiths; only the poorest
people in the land were left. He deported Yehoyachin to Babylon; all the king’s wives and officers
and the notables of the land were brought as exiles from Jerusalem to Babylon. All the able men,
to the number of seven thousand – all of them warriors, trained for battle – and a thousand
craftsmen and smiths were brought to Babylon as exiles by the king of Babylon. And the King of
Babylon appointed Mattaniah, Yehoyachin’s uncle, king in his place, changing his name to
Tzidkiya (II Kings 24:8-17).

Like his father, Yechonya (for the sake of consistency, we will refer to him as Yechonya and not
Yehoyachin, following the preference of the Midrash) is portrayed as a wicked king. During his
reign Nebuchadnezzar once again comes to Jerusalem, besieging the city. Yechonya surrenders
and Nebuchadnezzar deports him to Babylon, along with the elite of the city, and the warrior and
craftsmen classes. Nebuchadnezzer places a new king, Tzidkiya, on the throne. This would appear
to be the end of the story of Yechonya. However, at the very end of the Book of Kings, the author
presents an epilogue to Yechonya’s story:

In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Yehoyachin of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of
the twelfth month, King Evil-Merodach of Babylon, in the year he became king, raised the head
of King Yehoyachin of Judah and released him from prison. He spoke kindly to him and gave him
a throne above those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. His prison garments were
removed, and he received regular rations by his favor for the rest of his life. A regular allotment
of food was given him at the insistence of the king – an allotment each day – all the days of his
life (II Kings 25:27-30).

The first thing we learn from this passage is that upon being taken to Babylon, Yechonya is put in
prison for thirty-seven years. It is only with the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the ascendancy of

27
Evil-Merodach as king of Babylon that Yechonya is released from prison. Yechonya lives out the
rest of his days as a respected member of the Babylonian court, with a pension guaranteed for life.

This concludes the account of Yehoyakim and Yechonya’s reigns as found in the Book of Kings.
We now turn to the prophet Jeremiah, who lived through this tumultuous period. In chapter twenty-
two of the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet prophesies about both Yehoyakim and Yechonya. First,
Jeremiah discusses the circumstances of the death of Yehoyakim:

But your eyes and your mind are only on ill-gotten gains, on shedding blood of the innocent, on
committing fraud and violence. Assuredly, thus said the Lord concerning Yehoyakim son of
Yoshiyahu, King of Judah: They shall not mourn for him, “Ah brother!” “Ah sister!” They shall
not mourn for him, “Ah Lord, Ah his majesty!” He shall have the burial of an ass, dragged out and
left dying outside the gates of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 22:17-19).

Jeremiah declares that Yehoyakim will suffer an undignified death, without a proper funeral or
mourning rites. Instead, he will be left for dead outside of the gates of Jerusalem. The Book of
Kings does not make any mention of such a death. Quite to the contrary, as we have seen, the
passage in Kings appears to suggest that Yehoyakim died an unremarkable death in Jerusalem.

Jeremiah then goes on to talk about Yechonya, whom he refers to as Conyahu.

As I live - declares the Lord - if you O Conyahu, son of Yehoyakim of Judah, were a signet on My
right hand, I would tear you off even from there. I will deliver you into the hands of those who
seek your life, into the hands of those you dread, into the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylon and into the hands of the Chaldeans. I will hurl you and the mother who bore you into
another land, where you were not born; there you shall both die. They shall not return to the land
they yearn to come back to. Is this man Conyahu a wretched broken pot, a vessel no one wants?
Why are he and his offspring hurled out, and cast away in a land they knew not? O land, land, land,
Hear the words of the Lord! Thus said the Lord: Record this man as without succession, one who
will never be found acceptable; For no man of his offspring shall be accepted to sit on the throne
of David and to rule again in Judah (Jeremiah 22:24-30).

This passage prophesies that Yechonya will be captured by Nebuchadnezzar and sent into exile in
Babylon for the rest of his life. This is essentially in line with the account found in Kings. However,
Jeremiah goes even further. He cites an oath taken by God that Yechonya’s line will be cut off and
that none of his descendants will ever rule in Judah again. As we shall see, this prophecy is only
partially fulfilled.

Jeremiah’s younger contemporary Ezekiel also discusses some of the last kings of Judah, but in a
less direct manner:

And you are to intone a dirge over the princes of Israel and say: What a lioness was your mother
among the lions! Crouching among the great beasts, she reared her cubs. She raised up one of her
cubs. He became a great beast; he learned to hunt prey- he devoured men. Nations heeded the call
against him; he was caught in their snare. They dragged him off with hooks to the land of Egypt.
When she saw herself frustrated, her hope defeated, she took another of her cubs and set him up

28
as a great beast. He stalked among the lions; he was a great beast. He learned to hunt prey- he
devoured men. He ravished their widows, laid waste to their cities. The land and all in it were
appalled at the sound of his roaring. Nations from the country’s roundabout arrayed themselves
against him. They spread their net over him, He was caught in their snare. With hooks he was put
in a cage, they carried him off to the king of Babylon and confined him in a fortress, so that never
again should his roar be heard on the hills of Israel (Ezekiel 19:1-9).

The parable in this passage presents two successive kings of Judah as if they were lions. To which
kings does the prophet refer? Based on the account of the first “lion” being trapped and dragged
down to Egypt, it seems pretty clear that this lion is meant to represent Yeho’achaz, Yehoyakim’s
half brother and immediate predecessor on the throne. II Kings, in its account of his reign (23:31-
37), describes how he is imprisoned by Pharaoh Necho and eventually brought down to Egypt,
where he remains until his death. If Yeho’achaz is the first lion, then it follows that Yehoyakim
is the second. However, Ezekiel describes a very different fate for Yehoyakim than that described
either in Kings or in Jeremiah. These earlier texts describe Yehoyakim as dying in or near
Jerusalem, though under different circumstances. Ezekiel, on the other hand, tells us of a king who
is seized and brought back to Babylon, where he is imprisoned. This sounds more like Yechonya
than Yehoyakim. If we read these verses as referring to Yehoyakim, they reflect a very different
version of his life than we have seen previously in other sources.

Finally, we come to the sources in Chronicles. There are two relevant passages. In I Chronicles
3:17-19, we find a genealogy of Yechonya, with a surprising revelation:

.‫ ְשַׁאְלִתּיֵאל ְבּנוֹ‬,‫יז וְּבֵני ְיָכ ְנָיה ַאִסּר‬ 17 And the sons of Jeconiah--the same is Assir--Shealtiel his
son;

‫ ְיַקְמָיה‬,‫ ְוֶשׁ ְנַאַצּר‬,‫ יח וַּמְלִכיָרם וְּפָדָיה‬18 and Malchiram, and Pedaiah, and Shenazzar, Jekamiah,
.‫ וּ ְנַדְבָיה‬,‫הוָֹשָׁמע‬ Hoshama, and Nedabiah.

-‫ ְזֻרָבֶּבל ְוִשְׁמִﬠי; וֶּבן‬,‫ יט וְּבֵני ְפָדָיה‬19 And the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel, and Shimei. And the
‫ וְּשׁ…ִמית‬,‫ ְזֻרָבֶּבל ְמֻשָׁלּם ַוֲחַנ ְנָיה‬sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, and Hananiah; and Shelomith
.‫ֲאחוָֹתם‬ was their sister;
I Chron 3:17-19

The sons of Yechonya, the captive: She’altiel his son, Malkhiram, Pedaya, Shenatzar, Yekamya,
Hoshama and Nedavya. The sons of Pedaya Zerubbavel and Shim’i.

From this we learn that Zerubbavel, the governor of Judah in the early Persian period, is a
descendant of Yechonya. According to the book of Ezra, Zerubbavel is the son of She’altiel,
whereas Chronicles identifies him as Pedaya’s son. One way or another, the member of the house
of David to hold political power in Jerusalem is the grandson of Yechonya. This would appear to
violate the spirit, if not the letter, of God’s curse against Yechonya reported in Jeremiah. There
God swears that Yechonya’s line will be cut off, “For no man of his offspring shall be accepted to
sit on the throne of David and to rule again in Judah.” Literally, this oath may be seen as precluding
a descendant of Yechonya only from becoming king, and not an imperially appointed

29
governor. Nevertheless, the fact that Yechonya merits to have Zerubbavel as a descendant would
seem to suggest that God did not enforce His oath to the fullest extent possible.

The second passage comes at the very end of Chronicles:

Yehoyakim was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in
Jerusalem. He did what was displeasing to the Lord his God. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
marched against him. He bound him in fetters to convey him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also
brought some vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and set them in his palace in Babylon.
The other events of Yehoyakim’s reign and the abominable things he did, and what was found
against him, are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah. His son Yehoyachin
succeeded him as king. Yehoyachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned three
months and ten days in Jerusalem. He did what was displeasing in the eyes of the Lord. At the turn
of the year, King Nebuchadnezzar sent to have him brought to Babylon with the precious vessels
of the house of the Lord, and he made his kinsman Tzidkiya king over Judah and Jerusalem

II Chronicles 36:5-10

This account of our two kings basically conforms to the one found in Kings. There is however one
crucial difference. Of Yehoyakim we read that Nebuchadnezzar “bound him in fetters to convey
him to Babylon.” This would seem to agree with Ezekiel’s account of “the second lion” being
bound and taken to Babylon. This would then contradict the accounts in Kings and Jeremiah which
make no mention of deportation and speak of Yehoyakim dying in Jerusalem. However, the verses
in Chronicles never explicitly state that Yehoyakim was taken to Babylon. This opens the
possibility that he was never actually taken to Babylon, despite Nebuchadnezzar’s intentions.

The different biblical books thus present differing accounts of the reigns of Yehoyakim and
Yechonya. With regard to Yehoyakim, the main issue of contention is his ultimate fate. Kings
portrays him dying peacefully in Jerusalem, having survived a devastating Babylonian attack.
Jeremiah foretells a violent and undignified death in which Yehoyakim’s body is left as carrion at
the gates of Jerusalem. Ezekiel and Chronicles both seem to suggest that Yehoyakim, like his son,
is deported to Babylon, where he presumably remains until his death.

In contrast, the sources seem to agree that Yechonya is an evil king who is exiled to Babylon along
with the middle and upper classes of Jerusalem. Jeremiah records that God curses Yechonya,
declaring that neither he nor his descendants would ever rule again. Nevertheless, some sources
seem to suggest that Yechonya merits a certain degree of rehabilitation, either at the end of his life
or posthumously. According to the concluding passage in Kings (and its parallel at the end of
Jeremiah), Yechonya is released from prison after many decades and lives out the rest of his live
comfortably as a member of the Babylonian royal court. Chronicles also reports that Yechonya
merits to have a grandson who is the most prominent leader of his generation, Zerubbavel, the
governor of Judea.

The curse of Yechonya (or Yehoyachin) was revoked and his wife had two sons while he was
in prison. This is rebuilding of the Davidic line through Zerubavel. Note that this means that

30
since Yehoyachin was the last king who had children that survived (all of Tzidkiyahus
children were killed at the destruction of the first temple) Mashiach would therefore
continue in a direct line from King David through every king of the House of David through
Yechonya to Zerubavel. If anyone is a descendant outside of that direct line, then he would
not be eligible to become the Mashiach.

R. Zeira said,
I heard something with regard to this which R. Shmuel b. R. Yitzchak expounded, but I forgot
what it was.
R. Acha Aricha said to him,
Perhaps this is (the verse he expounded)
“Thus says the Lord: Write you this man childless,
A man who shall not succeed in his days.”
(R. Zeira) said, yes (that is the verse he said) “in his days” he shall not succeed, in the days of
his son he shall succeed.
R. Acha and R. Avin b. Binyamin in the name of R. Abba:
Great is the power of repentance, for it cancels out both the (evil) decree and the oath.
The oath, as it says, “As I live - declares the Lord - if you O Conyahu, son of Yehoyakim of
Judah were a signet ring on my right hand, I would tear you off even there” (Jer. 22:24).
And cancels the decree:
“Thus says the Lord: Write you this man childless.”
Yet latter it is written: “And the sons of Yechonya, Asir his son, She’altiel his son” (I Chron.
3:17)
‘Asir his son’
because he was in prison (beit ha-asurim);
‘She’altiel his son’
Because from him the Davidic line was replanted.
R. Tanchum b. R. Yirmiyah said,
‘Asir’ –
This is the Holy One Blessed Be He,
Who bound (asar) himself with an oath.]
‘She’altiel’ -
That He asked (sh’aal) the court in Heaven
(to release Him from) His oath.

Vayikra Rabba 19:6

Coup d’Etat Vayikra Rabba 19:6 Part II

31
Dr. Moshe Simon-Shoshan writes:10

Having surveyed the biblical sources on which it is based, we are now ready to begin our study of
the midrashic account of the careers of King Yehoyakim and King Yechonya. This story comes at
the end of parasha 19 of Vayikra Rabba, which concludes the Midrash’s treatment of Parashat
Metzora. Parasha 19 deals with the laws of the zava, a woman who has an irregular menstrual
flow, rendering her ritually impure. The story opens:

‫ָיזוּב זוֹב ָדָּמהּ ָיִמים‬-‫כה ְוִאָשּׁה ִכּי‬ 25 And if a woman has an issue of her blood many days not in
,‫ָתזוּב‬-‫ אוֹ ִכי‬,‫ ִנָדָּתהּ‬-‫ ְבּל ֹא ֶﬠת‬,‫ַרִבּים‬ the time of her impurity, or if she has an issue beyond the time
‫ ִכּיֵמי‬,‫ ְיֵמי זוֹב ֻטְמָאָתהּ‬-‫ ָכּל‬:‫ ִנָדָּתהּ‬-‫ַﬠל‬ of her impurity; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness she
.‫ְטֵמָאה ִהוא‬--‫ִנָדָּתהּ ִתְּהֶיה‬ shall be as in the days of her impurity: she is unclean.

Lev 15:25

AND IF A WOMAN HAVE AN ISSUE OF HER BLOOD MANY DAYS... ALL THE DAYS OF THE
ISSUE OF HER UNCLEANNESS SHE SHALL BE AS IN THE DAYS OF HER IMPURITY: SHE
IS UNCLEAN

Who observed the precept relating to menstruation?

Yechonya, the son of Yehoyakim.

This opening sets up a type of narrative suspense, similar to that found in petichta’ot. The
introduction to the story declares that Yechonya observed the laws of zava. Yet, Yechonya does
not enter the stage until halfway through the story and we do not find out how he fulfilled this
commandment until the very end. The reader thus reads the story in expectation, wondering how
the plot will lead to its inevitable conclusion.

The story proper now begins:

10
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-28-coup-d%E2%80%99etat-vayikra-rabba-196-part-ii

32
They say that when Nebuchadnezzar went up to destroy Jerusalem,

and came up and took up his abode in Daphne of Antioch,

the Great Sanhedrin went down to meet him, and said to him:

'Has the time come for this House to be destroyed?’

Said he to them:

'No. It is only that Yehoyakim has rebelled against me; deliver him up to me, and I shall go
away.’

In this first scene, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, marches on Jerusalem. Along the way he
encamps at the city of Daphne in Syria. There the Sanhedrin comes to meet him and find out his
intentions. The Sanhedrin here appears as a powerful body which represents the nation in high
affairs of state. As the story progresses, we learn that the Sanhedrin acts on its own accord, not on
behalf of the King. Indeed, as we shall see, the Sanhedrin is so powerful that it even has the power
to depose the king.

The reader will no doubt recall that in the biblical accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s invasions and
relations with the kings of Judah, no mention is made of the Sanhedrin or a similar such body of
elders. Indeed, the Bible makes little mention of anything resembling a Sanhedrin at any point in
the era of the monarchy and the First Temple. This was a period that was dominated by kings and
prophets, not by scholars or jurists. It was only in the Second Temple period, with the
disappearance of prophecy, that the Oral Law and its expositors came to dominate Jewish life. The
insertion of the Sanhedrin into a central role in the story, is a prime example of the way in which
the midrash “rabbinizes” the biblical world, imbuing it with the values and institutions of the Oral
Law.

When the Sanhedrin arrives at Nebuchadnezzar’s camp, they ask the king if the time has come for
the Temple to be destroyed. The rabbis seem to take for granted that the destruction of the Temple
by Nebuchadnezzar is inevitable. The only question is, when will the great king choose to fulfill
his destiny. This is reminiscent of the stories about R. Yochanan b. Zakkai, who, at the time of the

33
Roman siege of Jerusalem, took for granted that Jerusalem would be destroyed by Vespasian. In
both cases the destruction of the Temple is only an external manifestation of a state of exile that
has already come into effect. Nevertheless, the Sanhedrin seeks to delay the inevitable as long as
possible. The elders are probably relieved when Nebuchadnezzar tells them that he has no intention
of destroying Jerusalem just yet. Rather, all he seeks is custody of King Yehoyakim.

They approached Yehoyakim, and said to him:

'Nebuchadnezzar demands you.’

Said he: ‘Is this the right thing to do, namely to disregard one human life in favor of another;

to disregard my life so as to preserve your lives?

Why, it is written,

“You shall not deliver a slave unto his master”, etc. (Deut. 23:16).’

When the Sanhedrin relays this message to Yehoyakim, with the implicit demand that that he turn
himself over to Nebuchadnezzar, he refuses. The dispute between the Sanhedrin and the king is a
fundamental one. The choice is between handing over the king or risking the almost certain
destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. From the rabbis’ perspective, the job of the king is to
defend Jerusalem and the Temple and he must be ready to forfeit his life to do so. Yehoyakim
takes a more egotistical view, seeing no reason why he should give up his life for others.

Yehoyakim makes a further argument. At first it seems as if this is a principled moral argument -
one cannot weigh the value of human life. Hence, one cannot kill one person to save another. This
is indeed a sound halakhic principle. However, as we shall see, it does not apply in this case.

Yehoyakim goes on to transform this moral argument into an attack against the Sanhedrin. He
accuses them of seeking to sacrifice his life in order to save their own. According to him, the rabbis
act not out of principle but out of naked self-interest. This accusation perhaps reflects Yehoyakim’s
own preoccupation with self-preservation at all costs.

34
Finally, Yehoyakim cites the verse from Devarim: “You shall not deliver a slave unto his master.”
Now Yehoyakim makes a technical halakhic argument. He seeks protection under the law
prohibiting the return of escaped slaves, as he is a vassal on the run from his
overlord. Yehoyakim’s citation of this verse is ironic. In doing so, he compares himself, a King
of Israel, to a common slave. In making his case, he degrades his own stature.

The Sanhedrin counters the king’s primary argument by citing a precedent from the court of none
other than King David.

Said they to him:

‘Did not your grandfather do so to Sheva the son of Bichri?’

The story of Sheva ben Bichri and his revolt against King David is told in II Samuel 20. David’s
general Yoav chases Sheva ben Bichri to Beit Ma’acha, and lays siege to the city. Just as Yoav is
ready to breach the walls, a wise woman from the city calls down to Yoav and demands to know
why Yoav seeks to destroy her city. Yoav responds that he seeks only the life of Sheva ben Bichri.
The woman then instructs the people of the city to behead Sheva ben Bichri and to throw his head
over the wall to Yoav, thereby saving the city from destruction.

The legal significance of this story is spelled out in the Tosefta, Terumot 7:23.

If a group of people is approached by Gentiles and told:

“Hand over one of you so that we can kill him,

otherwise, we will kill all of you,”

they should all let themselves be killed

rather than hand over a single Jewish life.

However, if they specified a particular person,

they should hand him over

35
and not give up their lives,

as in the case of Sheva ben Bichri.

The rabbis learn from the story of Sheva ben Bichri that, though it is prohibited to turn over a Jew,
even in order to save many other lives, if the enemy demands a particular individual, it is permitted
to turn him over. Hence, Yehoyakim’s claim that it would be immoral to hand him over to
Nebuchadnezzar even for the purpose of saving lives, is not halakhically defensible

This discussion about handing over individuals to the authorities may have had contemporary
resonance. In Bereishit Rabba (94:9) right after the midrash retells the story of Sheva ben Bichri
and cites the Tosefta regarding its halakhic implications, it tells the following story: R. Yehoshua
b. Levi once took in a certain Ulla ben Kishor, a fugitive from Roman justice. The Romans sent
messengers, demanding that R. Yehoshua hand over Ulla and R. Yehoshua did so. After this
incident Elijah the prophet ceases to visit R. Yehoshua. After R. Yehoshua fasts for thirty days,
Elijah returns to him. Elijah calls him a moser, noting that even though the Halakha permitted his
actions, this was not appropriate behavior for the truly righteous.

This story would seem to suggest that the rabbis were ambivalent about this law permitting the
turning over of fugitives and were not comfortable with those who, relying on this law, turned over
fellow Jews to the Romans. Along similar lines we might see our story as presenting a covert
rebuke against leaders who claim that it is immoral to turn them over to the authorities simply
because it will save lives.

The Sanhedrin loses no time in responding to Yehoyakim’s intransigence.

Seeing that he did not hearken to them, they arose and seized him and bound him.

Now, how did they let him down?

R. Eliezer and R. Shimon differed on the point.

R. Eliezer b. R. Natan said they bound him alive, as it is said,

36
“And they put him in a cage with hooks (ba-chachim) and brought him to the king of
Babylon” (Ezek. 19:9);

it [viz. the word for ‘with hooks’] is written ba-chayim, i.e. ‘alive’.

R. Shimon said:

They bound him dead, as it is said,

“So that his voice should no more be heard” (ib.).

R. Yehoshua b. Levi said:

I confirm the words of both of them: they bound him alive, but being delicate he died under
their hands.

The notion that Yehoyakim was bound in chains is found in Chronicles and in the passage from
Ezekiel, which is cited as a proof text in the continuation. Both of these sources would appear to
state that Yehoyakim was then brought to Babylon as a prisoner. This assumption would appear
to underlie R. Eliezer’s position that Yehoyakim was bound alive. Indeed, why would one bind a
dead person? Though R. Eliezer proposes a midrash on the word ba-chachim “hooks” in Ezekiel,
reading it as ba-chayim “alive," in fact he was most likely motivated by the simple reading of the
verse.

What then is the basis of the second two opinions, that Yehoyakim was bound already dead, or
died soon after? First, we should note that neither Ezekiel nor Chronicles states explicitly that
Yehoyakim was taken back to Babylon. Ezekiel states that he was brought to the king of Babylon.
However, according to the midrash’s account, Nebuchadnezzar was already on his way to
Jerusalem at that time, so it is possible that Yehoyakim was delivered to Nebuchadnezzar without
his actually leaving Jerusalem. Similarly, Chronicles merely states that “Nebuchadnezzar sent to
have him brought to Babylon.” It never states that he was actually brought to Babylon. This leaves
open the possibility that Chronicles and Ezekiel can be reconciled with the other biblical sources
that state that Yehoyakim dies in Jerusalem and is never taken to Babylon. In particular, as we

37
shall see, the midrash would like to follow Jeremiah, who states that Yehoyakim dies an ignoble
death at the gates of Jerusalem.

The translation and interpretation of these lines presented thus far are based on the assumption that
the word shilshelu used by the midrash means “to bind”. However, this word also has another
meaning - “to lower down” on a rope. Given the text as it appears in most of the manuscripts, it
makes most sense to translate the word as “bound” as we have. However, the printed edition and
one manuscript from the Vatican library (known as “Vat Ebraco 32”) have one extra word: they
read shilshelu lo. With the addition of this indirect object “to him," it makes more sense to render
the phrase as, “they lowered him down to him.” Namely the Sanhedrin lowered Yehoyakim over
the walls of Jerusalem to Nebbuchadnezzar.

Why would the storyteller add this detail? There is certainly no hint of such an event in the Biblical
accounts. The answer to this appears at the end of the story, where the term shilshelu appears once
again, this time describing how Yechonya’s wife is lowered down to him in prison. Regardless of
which version we choose the appearance of the word at the beginning and the end of the story
creates a literary framework. According to most of the manuscripts in which shilshelu means
different things at the beginning and the end of the story, this framework exists purely on the
linguistic level. The word is repeated but not the meaning. However, according to the printed
editions and the Vatican manuscript, someone is lowered by rope at both the beginning and the
end of the story. At the beginning this lowering signals Yehoyakim’s demise, while at the end it
signal’s Yehoyachin’s redemption. We thus have the sophisticated use of a narrative motif to create
a sense of closure within the story.

This is an excellent example of how studying manuscripts can enrich our understanding of a
midrashic text. The variant readings are minor differences resulting from careless copyists. But in
this case, one reading seeks to further the midrash’s agenda of biblical interpretation, while the
other seeks to further the midrash’s aesthetic agenda by making a more well-crafted story.

The midrash now continues the story on the basis of R. Eliezer’s position that Yehoyakim is
handed over alive. However, even in this version it turns out, he does not make it back to Babylon
but is soon executed by Nebuchadnezzer, in line with Jeremiah’s prophecy:

What did Nebuchadnezzar do to him?

38
R. Judah and R. Nechemya differed in their accounts.

R. Judah said:

He took him and carried him round through all the cities of Judah, and sat over him [in
judgment] in the public place of trial, and put him to death;

he also tore open an ass and placed him [i.e. Jehoiakim]

within it [i.e. the carcass of the ass],

as it is said,

“He shall be buried the burial of an ass” (Jer. 22:19).

R. Nechemya said:

They took him around all the cities of Israel and put him to death, and cut from him pieces the
size of an olive and cast them to the dogs,

which is indicated in what is written,

“He shall be buried the burial of an ass” (ibid.).

Where is the burial of an ass, if not in the belly of a dog?

Once again, the midrash presents two versions of the events, this time of Yehoyakim’s ignoble
death as described by Jeremiah. The dispute is based on two different readings of the term kevurat
chamor, which might be literally translated as “a donkey burial.” Previously, we understood this
phrase as meaning “a donkey’s burial,” namely, being left unburied to be eaten by scavengers. R.
Yehuda takes what we might call a hyper-literal meaning of the term, understanding it to mean “a
burial in donkey.” That is, Yehoyakim’s body was placed inside of a ripped open donkey. This
certainly fits the words. It also provides for a most grisly burial, in line with Jeremiah’s general
intent. R. Nechemya, on the other hand, adopts our suggested reading of “a donkey’s burial.”
However, he suggests an even more gruesome fate than simply being left for carrion. According

39
to him, Yehoyakim’s body was cut up and actively fed to the dogs. This reading has the further
advantage of portraying an actual burial - inside the dogs - as opposed to our reading which does
not present a burial at all.

40