Daf Ditty Eruvin 65: Ben Sirah

Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us

Sirach 44:11

Ben Sirach 1860 woodcut by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld

The opening lines of Chariots of Fire, Best Picture at the 1982 Academy Awards

1
Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Anyone whose mind is unsettled should not pray, as
it is stated: When distressed, one should not issue decisions.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥanina, on a day that he was angry, would not pray, as he
said that it is written: When distressed, one should not issue decisions.

The Gemara similarly relates that Mar Ukva, on a day of a south wind, would not venture out
to the court, for this hot and harsh wind would disturb his usual clarity of mind.

Rabbi Chiya bar Ashi ruled in the name of Rav: A person whose mind is not at ease must not pray,
since it is written: He who is in distress shall not render legal decisions. Rabbi Chanina did not
pray on a day when he became angry. He said: It is written: He who is in distress shall not render
legal decisions.

Tosafot on this point. Rashi’s comments are accurate in that this verse actually comes from the
book of Ben Sira (7:10), and it is from there that the Sages quoted this phrase. Although
categorized as one of the apocryphal works that may not be read, the Sages themselves stated that
the worthy aphorisms contained in the book of Ben Sira may be cited in his name and expounded.
It is occasionally cited in the Gemara in the same manner as the books of the Bible.

RASHI

2
Tosafos

‫תוספות ד"ה בצר אל יורה‬

(Tosfos discusses which verse we expound.)

‫פירש בקונטרס בדקתי אחר מקרא זה ואינו בכל הכתובים ושמא בספר בן סירא הוא‬

(Rashi): I checked for this verse, and it is not in any Sefer [of Tanach]. Perhaps it is from Sefer Ben
Sira (a collection of sayings from the son of Yirmeyah ha'Navi).
(:‫ומצינו בכמה מקומות שמביא הש''ס מקראות הכתובים בספר בן סירא כדאשכחן בהחובל )ב''ק צב‬
‫כל עוף למינהו ישכון ובן אדם לדומה לו וכן סלסלה ותרוממך ובנדיבים תושיבך ואמרינן בירושלמי‬
‫דברכות שהוא כתוב בספר בן סירא‬

We find in several places that the Gemara brings "verses" from Sefer Ben Sira, like we find in Bava
Kama (92b) "Kol Ohf l'Minehu Yishkon u'Ven Adam l'Domeh Lo", and "Salselah u'Seromemecha
uv'Nedivim Toshivecha", and we say in the Yerushalmi in Brachos that it is written in Sefer Ben
Sira.

‫ורבינו שמואל פירש שהשיב רבינו קלונימוס שכן דורש בירושלמי כל המיצר אל יורה דכתיב שמעי נא‬
‫זאת ענייה ושכורת ולא מיין‬
(Rashbam): R. Klonimus answered that the Yerushalmi expounds that whoever is afflicted may
not rule, for it says "Shim'i Na Zos Aniyah u'Shechuras v'Lo mi'Yayin."

‫והכי איתא בירושל' בריש פרק אין עומדין הבא מן הדרך אסור להתפלל מזה הטעם דכתיב שמעי נא‬
'‫זאת וכו‬

(Yerushalmi Brachos 5:1): One who comes from the road may not pray for this reason, for it
says "Shim'i Na Zos..."

‫וגם רבי זריקא ורבי יוחנן בשם ר' אליעזר בנו של ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר המיצר אסור להתפלל לא‬
‫מסתברא אלא מן הדין קרא שמעי נא זאת‬

Also R. Zerika and R. Yochanan in the name of R. Eliezer ben R. Yosi ha'Gelili says that whoever is
afflicted may not rule. Presumably, we learn from "Shim'i Na Zos."

3
‫( ומהאי טעמא‬:‫ועתה מדמה צרה לשכרות ובשכרות כתיב להבדיל ולהורות כדדריש בכריתות )דף יג‬
‫אל יתפלל דהוי שכור מתוך שטרוד בצרתו ובכעסו‬

Now, we compare pain to intoxication, and regarding intoxication it says "Lehavdil u'Lehoros",
like we expound in Kerisus (13b). For this reason, he may not pray, for he is drunk amidst
distraction in his affliction and anger.

‫ור''ת מפרש דמהאי קרא קדריש היערוך שועך לא בצר )איוב לו( כלומר בשעת צרה אל תערוך‬
‫תפלתך כשיש טירוד‬
(R. Tam): [Here, we] expound "ha'Ya'aroch Shu'acha Lo b'Tzar." I.e. at the time of affliction, do
not arrange your prayer when there is distraction;

‫ובכמה מקומות רגיל הש''ס לקצר המקרא כגון ונתן הכסף וקם לו‬

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after
drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion,
as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not
again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21). As it were, God acted more
favorably toward His creatures after He was appeased with the smell of the burnt offerings. Smell
can be as potent as drinking or eating itself.

Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Anyone who remains settled of mind after drinking wine, and does not
become intoxicated, has an element of the mind-set of seventy Elders. The allusion is: Wine
[yayin spelled yod, yod, nun] was given in seventy letters, as the numerological value of the letters
comprising the word is seventy, as yod equals ten and nun equals fifty. Similarly, the word secret
[sod spelled samekh, vav, dalet] was given in seventy letters, as samekh equals sixty, vav equals
six, and dalet equals four. Typically, when wine entered the body, a secret emerged. Whoever
does not reveal secrets when he drinks is clearly blessed with a firm mind, like that of seventy
Elders.

Extracurricular Reading/Extra Canonical Prooftexts

4
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:2

One of the key components of the legal discussions of the Talmud is the bringing of proof texts to
support a given position. At times, the proof texts are from the Torah; at times from Nevi’im; and
at times from Ketuvim. At all times, they lend authority to a stated position.

“Rav Chiya the son of Ashi said in the name of Rav: Whosever mind is not settled should not
pray, as it says, ‘in distress one should not give rulings’” (our Daf Eiruvin 65a).

Normally, when one studies Talmud and wants to see the source of a quoted verse, one looks to
the side of the page, to the Torah Ohr. Compiled by the 16th century.3 Italian scholar Rav
Yehoshua Boaz, the Torah Ohr lists the biblical source for every citation of a verse found in the
Talmud4.

Yet the Torah Ohr offers no source regarding our particular “verse”. Rashi, who lived centuries
before (but did not need this tool) notes that, “I checked after this verse and it is not in any of the
writings; perhaps it is in the Book of Ben Sira”.

Tosafot points out that in a number of places, the Talmud quotes from this non-biblical book.

The Book of Ben Sira is a second-century BCE work containing many statements of wisdom,
somewhat akin to the Book of Proverbs. Although it was not included in the biblical canon, it is
worthy of being quoted in support of Jewish law. While (perhaps) unusual, this is further indication
of the openness of our Sages to accepting knowledge from wherever it could be found.

Rabbi Akiva says: Also included in the exceptions are one who reads external literature,

2
https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/eiruvin-65-extracurricular-reading
3
Perhaps a work like this was not compiled earlier because there was no need for it. Talmudic students were expected to have
mastery of the biblical text before they even opened up the Talmud. This system of study underwent major change in medieval
Ashkenaz, with Rabbeinu Tam claiming that study of the Babylonian Talmud exempted one from spending much time in the study
of Tanach (Kiddushin 30a). By the 16th century, the Maharal of Prague was lamenting the abandonment of the Mishnah’s ruling
that one should only begin the study of Talmudic analysis at the age of 15—with early years spent mastering Tanach and the
Mishnah. The level of Tanach knowledge today for many a Talmud student ranges from poor to abysmal.
4
Rav Boaz also authored the Mesoret Hashas, listing all cross-references to parallel Talmudic passages. Doing this with a text as
vast as the Talmud is beyond astounding, and the fact that the references he missed were later added by Rav Isaiah Pik Berlin, 18th
century Rabbi of Breslau, Germany, only proves that he was human. Rav Boaz also authored the Ein Mishpat, Ner Mitzvah,
referencing the relevant passages in Maimonides code and the Shulchan Aruch, a feat only a little less astounding. (It also includes
references to the Sefer Mitzvot HaGadol of Rav Moshe Coucy, which—while obscure today—was a most important work of Jewish
law). All three works—Torah Ohr, Mesorat HaShas and Ein Mishpat, Ner Mitzva—have been reprinted in every subsequent edition
of the Talmud (with the additions of Rav Pik Berlin in square brackets).

5
However, the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 90a) rules that one may not read “outside books”, with Rabbi
Akiva even claiming that one who does so has no share in the World to Come. The Mishnah,
however, does not define what it means by “outside books”.

The Gemara cites the view that these outside works refer to books of heresy such as those written
by the Sadducees, who denied much of the Oral Law.

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: Also one who reads external literature has no share
in the World-to-Come. The Sages taught in a baraita: This is a reference to reading books of
heretics. Rav Yosef says: It is also prohibited to read the book of ben Sira, due to its problematic
content.

The Gemara (ibid, 100b) then cites the view of Rav Yosef that these books refer to none other
than the Book of Ben Sira. Rashi explains that, “it contains words of nothingness, and from them,
one will come to neglect Torah study”.

Yet, interestingly, the Gemara has great difficulty explaining what the issue with this book might
be, finding parallels in biblical texts to even the most “extreme” views of Ben Sira. Rav Yosef
himself says a few lines later that “those uplifting words that are contained in it should be
expounded upon”. Not surprisingly, this ruling of Mishnah forbidding the reading of “outside
books” is not included in the codes.

Tosafot, on our daf in Eiruvin, quotes the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that the Talmud often
“shortens” a verse, and that the verse quoted in the Talmud is referring to a verse from the Book
of Job: “Will you set up your prayer so that no trouble [befall you]?” (36:19). He acknowledges
that this interpretation does not explain why the Talmud would use the word “yoreh”, to rule, as
opposed to “yaroch”,5 to pray.

Whether the proof text is from the Book of Ben Sira or that of Iyov ultimately makes little
difference. If one is to approach G-d in prayer, a clear mind is required.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:6

5
The pasuk in Iyov reads, _‫ ֲהַיֲﬠֹר‬b‫ ;ְבָצר ל ֹא שׁוֲּﬠ‬whereas the quote from Ben Sira is ‫יורה אל בצר‬.
6
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/nidda16/

6
Sefer ben Sira is one of the earliest books composed after the closing of the Biblical canon. It

was possibly written by Yehoshua ben Sira, a native of Jerusalem, who was a younger

contemporary of Shimon HaTzaddik, prior to the Hasmonean era. The book of ben Sira was held

in great esteem, and after its translation into Greek by the author’s grandson (in the year 132

BCE in Alexandria) it became widely known even among those who were not familiar with the

Hebrew language. Sefer ben Sira is included as a canonical work in the Septuagint (and therefore

is considered as such in many other translations of the Bible), and although Sages chose to view

it as one of the sefarim ḥitzoni’im – books outside of the canon – they quote it in a respectful

manner throughout the Talmud, sometimes even referring to it as ketuvim. Still, because of

confusion between this work and another one that was known asAlfa-Beta d’Ben-Sira, which

was a popular – and problematic – work, we find statements in the Gemara forbidding the study

of Sefer ben Sira.

For generations Sefer ben Sira was known only from its translations, but recently parts of it have

been found in the original Hebrew (in Masada and elsewhere). Since it was not part of the official

Biblical canon it appears that the copyists felt more freedom when working with it and we find

several different versions of the same text. When it appears in the Talmud it seems likely that it

is being quoted by heart by the Sages, rather than from a written text.

7
Ben Sira also known as Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira (‫שמעון בן יהושע בן אליעזר בן‬
‫ )סירא‬or Yeshua Ben Sirach (fl. 2nd century BCE), was a Hellenistic Jewish scribe, sage, and
allegorist from Seleucid-controlled Jerusalem of the Second Temple period. He is the author
of Sirach, also known as the "Book of Ecclesiasticus".
He wrote his work in Hebrew, possibly in Alexandria in Egypt in the Ptolemaic Kingdom ca. 180–
175 BCE, where he is thought to have established a school.
While Ben Sira is sometimes claimed to be a contemporary of Simeon the Just, it is more likely
that his contemporary was High Priest Simon II (219–199 BCE) and this is due to confusion with
his father, Yeshua'.
A medieval text, the Alphabet of Sirach, was falsely attributed to him.

8
The Book of Sirach, also called the Wisdom of Sirach or simply Sirach (/ˈsaɪræk/), and also
known as the Book of Ecclesiasticus (/ɪˌkliːziˈæstɪkəs/; abbreviated Ecclus.) or Ben Sira, is a
Jewish work originally in Hebrew of ethical teachings, from approximately 200 to 175 BCE,
written by the Jewish scribe Ben Sira of Jerusalem, on the inspiration of his father Joshua son of
Sirach, sometimes called Jesus son of Sirach or Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira.
In Egypt, it was translated into Greek by the author's unnamed grandson, who added a prologue.
This prologue is generally considered the earliest witness to a canon of the books of the prophets,
and thus the date of the text is the subject of intense scrutiny. The book itself is the largest wisdom
book from antiquity to have survived.

9
Sirach is accepted as part of the Canon by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and most of Oriental
Orthodoxy. Anglican tradition considers Sirach (which was published with other Greek Jewish
books in a separate section of the King James Bible) among the apocryphal or deuterocanonical
books, and read them "for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet [do] not apply them
to establish any doctrine." The Lutheran Churches take a similar position. The Apostolic
Canons (not recognized by the Catholic Church) stated as venerable and sacred the Wisdom of
Sirach. Pope Innocent I officially confirmed the canon of the Bible shortly after the Third Council
of Carthage. The Roman Catholic Church then finally confirmed Sirach and the
other deuterocanonical books in 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.
Sirach is not part of the Jewish canon, once thought to have been established at the
hypothetical Council of Jamnia, perhaps due to its late authorship, although it is not clear that the
canon was completely "closed" at the time of Ben Sira. Others have suggested that Ben Sira's self-
identification as the author precluded it from attaining canonical status, which was reserved for
works that were attributed (or could be attributed) to the prophets, or that it was denied entry to
the canon as a rabbinical counter-reaction to its embrace by the nascent Christian community.
Some Jews in the diaspora considered Sirach scripture. For instance, the Greek translation made
by Ben Sira's grandson was included in the Septuagint, the 2nd-century BCE Greek version of the
Jewish scriptures used by Diaspora Jews, through which it became part of the Greek canon. The
multiplicity of manuscript fragments uncovered in the Cairo Genizah evidence its authoritative
status among Egyptian Jewry until the Middle Ages.
Because it was excluded from the Jewish canon, Sirach was not counted as being canonical in
Churches originating from the Reformation, although they retained the book in the Apocrypha.

Structure

Despite the lack of structure, there are certain themes running through the Book that reappear at
various points. The New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha identifies ten major recurring topics:

1. The Creation (16:24–17:24, 18:1–14; 33:7–15; 39:12–35; and 42:15–43:33);

2. Death (11:26–28; 22:11–12; 38:16–23; and 41:1–13);
3. Friendship (6:5–17; 9:10–16: 19:13–17; 22:19–26: 27:16–21; and 36:23–37:15);
4. Happiness (25:1–11; 30:14–25; and 40:1–30);
5. Honor and shame (4:20–6:4; 10:19–11:6; and 41:14–42:8);
6. Money matters (3:30–4:10; 11:7–28; 13:1–14:19; 29:1–28; and 31:1–11);
7. Sin (7:1–17; 15:11–20; 16:1–17:32; 18:30–19:3; 21:1–10; 22:27–23:27; and 26:28–28:7);

10
 8. Social justice (4:1–10; 34:21–27; and 35:14–26);
9. Speech (5:6,9-15; 18:15–29; 19:4–17; 20:1–31; 23:7–15; 27:4–7; 27:11–15; and 28:8–
26); and
10. Women (9:1–9; 23:22–27; 25:13–26:27; 36:26–31; and 42:9–14).

Dating

Considering the average length of two generations, Sirach's date must fall in the first third of the
2nd century BCE. Furthermore, Sirach contains a eulogy of "Simon the High Priest, the son of
Onias, who in his life repaired the House" (50:1)

Theology7

Although excluded from the Jewish canon, Sirach was read and quoted as authoritative from the
beginning of the rabbinic period. There are numerous citations to Sirach in the Talmud and works
of rabbinic literature (as "‫"ספר בן סירא‬, e.g., Hagigah 13a, Niddah 16b; Ber. 11b).
Some of those (Sanhedrin 100b) record an unresolved debate between R'Joseph and Abaye as to
whether it is forbidden to read the Sirach, wherein Abaye repeatedly draws parallels between
statements in Sirach cited by R'Joseph as objectionable and similar statements appearing in
canonical books.
Sirach may have been used as a basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy. In
the Mahzor (High Holiday prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet may have used Sirach as the basis
for a poem, KeOhel HaNimtah, in the Yom Kippur musaf ("additional") service for the High
Holidays.
Yosef Tabori questioned whether this passage in Sirach is referring at all to Yom Kippur, and thus
argued it cannot form the basis of this poem. Some early 20th-century scholars also argued that
the vocabulary and framework used by Sirach formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish
prayers, the Amidah, but that conclusion is disputed as well.

7
Reif, Stefan C. Prayer in Ben Sira, Qumran and Second Temple Judaism: A Comparative Overview, in Ben Sira's God:
Proceedings of the International Ben Sira Conference, Durham, Renate Egger-Wenzel ed., p. 322 (Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.
2002)

11
Jenny R. Labendz writes:8

The Book of Ben Sira1 is a wisdom composition written in Hebrew toward the beginning of the
second century BCE. It is well preserved in a Greek translation that, according to its prologue, was
done by the author's grandson, and a Syriac translation of a few hundred years later is preserved
in the Peshitta. Between fragments found at Masada and in the Cairo Geniza, some 60 percent of
the book survives in Hebrew. Ben Sira acquired biblical status for many early Christians and was
incorporated into the Septuagint.

Similarly, the work attained a high status in Second Temple Judaism, though later the rabbis would
not afford it canonical status as part of the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, some rabbis definitely
knew of Ben Sira and considered it a legitimate source of Jewish wisdom. In fact, Ben Sira is cited
by name in both the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds, as well as the Palestinian midrashim of
the Talmudic period. This makes Ben Sira unique among apocryphal works, and this paper seeks
to explore Ben Sira's place within rabbinic literary culture.

The topic here in the Tosefta is the holiness of these books, that is, their membership in the group
of books known to the rabbis as "the holy writings," or what we would call the biblical canon. The
rabbis indicate that a book is included in this category by stating that the book renders impure the
hands that touch these scrolls directly. The Book of Ben Sira is separate from the Christian and
heretical books, probably because the rabbis consider it a Jewish book (that is, it was written and
studied by Jews and is a legitimate source of Jewish wisdom), but it is still unequivocally not
canonical.

8
The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature: Jenny R. Labendz , AJS Review , Nov., 2006, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Nov., 2006)

12
1. In Palestine, any time a passage from Ben Sira is cited, it is relatively close to extant versions
of Ben Sira;25 in Babylonia, on the other hand, citations of Ben Sira also include versions that
diverge significantly from or are not found at all in any extant text. The exception is the group of
passages cited by R. Joseph in early-fourth-century Babylonia, which are very close to the extant
versions of Ben Sira and which I will treat specifically below.

2. In Palestine, Ben Sira is sometimes quoted by an early named amora; in Babylonia, Ben Sira is
only cited by the fourth-century R. Joseph and R. Aha b. Jacob; possibly R. Joseph's student,
Abaye; and the anonymous Talmud.

3. In Palestine, all cited passages from Ben Sira are attested with an introductory phrase such as
"Ben Sira said." In Babylonia, on the other hand, Ben Sira is quoted as a book: "It is written in the
book of Ben Sira."

Book of Ben Sira was known as a complete work (probably oral) to the Palestinian rabbis during
the amoraic period (ca. 220-400 CE).26 This is understood both from the internal Talmudic
evidence and external historical evidence. Because Ben Sira was available, at least in Greek, to the
Christians in Palestine at that time, there is no reason to assume that the book would have been
unavailable to the rabbis or that the Hebrew text had already been lost.

Furthermore, because of the closeness of the Palestinian rabbis' citations to extant Hebrew texts,
there is no reason to assume that they did not possess a Hebrew copy of the book. It does not seem
to have been widely studied, and certainly it was not as prevalent as many other biblical books,
but at least some rabbis knew it well enough to quote from it accurately and to cite it by name,
presumably expecting their audience to know which book they were referring to.

The aim of this paper has been to explain what the rabbis consciously possessed in the way of Ben
Sira. The answer is relevant to the larger picture of Babylonian rabbinic activity in the fourth
century, a topic that is dealt with at length by Richard Kalmin in his recent book.

Kalmin9 shows that this period witnessed an influx of Western literature and behavioral models
into Babylonia, and the case of Ben Sira supports his conclusions and adds yet another element to
that picture. The amoraic rabbis of Palestine possessed a broad store of texts, ancient and
contemporary, besides the standard tannaitic corpora, and they often freely incorporated these texts
into their own scholarly activity.

The rabbis of Babylonia, on the other hand, became aware of texts such as Ben Sira in the fourth
century and had to learn and decide whether and how to be open to them. As I have shown, this
was sometimes more complicated than might be assumed, as neither the rabbis nor the texts to
which they were being introduced existed in a vacuum.

9
Richard Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). See

13
Prof. Michael L. Satlow writes:10

“Of all the strange books of the Tanach, none to my mind is stranger than Kohelet (Ecclesiastes),
since Geonic times publically recited on the intermediate Shabbat of Sukkot. Although tradition
would come to identify the author of this short tract with King Solomon, the book is actually
attributed to an anonymous author called “Kohelet, son of David, King in Jerusalem.” The name
Kohelet, which derives from the Hebrew root k-h-l, is not a proper name but instead means

10
https://www.thetorah.com/author/michael-l-satlow

14
something like “the convener or gatherer,” a meaning confirmed in 12:9: “Kohelet was a sage, he
continued to instruct the people (‫) ְו ֹיֵ֕תר ֶשָׁה ָ֥יה ֹקֶ֖הֶלת ָחָ֑כם ֗עוֹד ִלַמּד־ ַ֙דַּﬠ֙ת ֶאת־ָהָ֔ﬠם‬.” According to modern
scholars, this probably refers to his status as a kind of itinerant preacher, who gathered crowds
together (with the connection to David and status as king perhaps a later addition).

Kohelet is a bleak, almost existential book whose theology would hardly pass muster in many
Jewish circles today. Kohelet’s God is an uncaring abstract and universal force. “God will doom
both righteous and wicked,” Kohelet muses, so it is better to think of ourselves as mere animals
(3:17-18). There is thus only one thing to do: “I saw that there is nothing better for man than to
enjoy his possessions” (3:22; NJPS).

Kohelet’s message is so starkly Epicurean and difficult to miss that scholars generally understand
it as a product of the Hellenistic period, probably dating to a bit after 200 BCE. Only several verses,
especially the very end, give it a veneer of piety; they are likely later scribal additions, written to
tone down the book.

The Strange Choice of Ecclesiastes over Ecclesiasticus

Kohelet’s strangeness, and the mystery of how such a book made it into the Tanak at all, deepens
when seen against another book that didn’t, Ecclesiasticus (literally “church book,” a Latin term
to denote its canonical status for Catholics) or Ben Sira. Written in Hebrew around the same time
as Kohelet, Ben Sira is a genuinely pious book. Originally written in Hebrew around the time of
Kohelet, it was translated into Greek by his grandson, and it is through this Greek translation that
it was solely known for centuries, ultimately preserved as one of the books that Catholics call
deuterocanonical (also known as the Apocrypha). Hebrew fragments of the book were found in
Masada and some more complete Hebrew manuscripts were recovered from the Cairo Geniza, thus
confirming the book’s original language.

15
The Canonization of Biblical Books

The entire process of canonization is murky. Scholars are simply unsure how certain books
ultimately became authoritative and others did not. But from the (late) Rabbis’ perspective, Ben
Sira’s had two things potentially going against it. First, it was attributed to an author who clearly
lived after the “time of prophecy” had ceased. That is, according to later rabbinic understandings
Ben Sira was simply written too late to be considered the product of divine inspiration. Thus, it
was excluded from the biblical canon. The second issue was that (in its Greek translation) it was
accepted as authoritative by Christians in the third and fourth centuries CE. If the book was on the
edge, this argument goes, its acceptance by Christians might have pushed the Rabbis in the other
direction.

So, Kohelet became canonical and Ben Sira did not. We might, then, have expected Ben Sira to
fade into oblivion, at least within the Jewish community. We might have expected it to have for
the Rabbis the same status as Homer and other classical literature; just ordinary books that in the
eyes of the Rabbis diverted one’s time from Torah. Or perhaps more analogously, we might expect
it to have been shunted to the side like other originally Hebrew books of the era, such as 2
Maccabees, Tobit, and the Wisdom of Solomon.

The Persistence of Ben Sira’s Influence

Unlike other originally Jewish books now found in the Apocrypha, though, Ben Sira did not
exactly fade away. The book continued to circulate and to be read among Palestinian Jews, even
though some tannaim explicitly put it in the category of non-holy, even heretical, books.
(T. Yadayim 2:13).Yet in practice, Palestinian rabbinic literature shows no discomfort with reading
and citing the book.

16
Talmudic Quotations

The Palestinian Talmud mentions the book once, in a story in which Shimon ben Shetach quotes
from it in order to justify his actions to King Yanai.11 While the Palestinian Talmud never cites
verses from Ben Sira using the traditional terms used to introduce biblical prooftexts
(e.g., kaktuv; dikhtiv), in several places it introduces verses from Ben Sira using a formula like,
“Ben Sira said,” as if he himself was a sage like any other.12

Liturgical Usage

Ben Sira also had a significant liturgical role. The beginning and end of the ancient Yom
Kippur Avodah service were modeled on Ben Sira’s panegyric to the high priest of his time, Simon
(Sirach 44, 50). The earliest extant piyyut in which we see this is attributed to the Palestinian poet
Yose ben Yose, who probably lived in the fifth century CE. It became, however, the subsequent
basis for the Avodah service.13

In the Geniza

Indeed, the fact that Ben Sira continued to play an important role in the lives of Palestinian Jews
can be attested by the very survival of the Hebrew text in the Cairo Genizah. Portions of five
manuscripts were found, all carefully written. We do not know how this community (which had
close ties to the Palestinian Jewish community) used these books, although since they were not
written on parchment, they likely did not use them liturgically.14

11
See above and In general, see Jenny R. Labendz, “The Book of Ben Sira in Rabbinic Literature,” AJS Review 30 (2006): 347-92.

12
See the survey in Moshe Tzvi Segal, Sefer Ben Sirah Hashalem (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1953), 37-40.

13
Cecil Roth, “Ecclesiasticus in the Synagogue Service,” Journal of Biblical Literature 71 (1952): 171-178.
14
See M. Gilbert, “Wisdom Literature,” in Michael E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Assen: Van
Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 290.

17
Quoted as Scripture in the Bavli

Babylonian Jews too continued to read and ascribe some kind of limited authority to Ben Sira. The
Bavli cites Ben Sira often, sometimes more accurately, sometimes less so.[11] In at least one case,
the Babylonian Talmud cites Ben Sira in a halakhic discussion using the formula kedikhtiv,
implying that it has the authority of Scripture.15 In another case (b. Baba Kama 92b), the rabbis
simply quoted the verse as Scripture (‫)כתובים‬, without saying where it was from.[13] Unfamiliar
quotes from Ben Sira caused such consternation among a certain group of readers in the Geonic
period that they wrote a letter to one of the Geonic yeshivot asking about this verse, and received
the reply that it is from Ben Sira, but still legitimate to darshen.16

The Talmudic Scrutiny of Ben Sira

Ben Sira’s place in Israel’s religious life, however, was also contested. The most extensive
collection of verses from Ben Sira found in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b) in fact occurs
in the context of contestation. The Talmud begins a discussion of Rabbi Akiva’s statement that
those who read “external books” are excluded from the world to come. The Talmud first seeks to
define what such books are, saying that they refer to the “books of the tzidokim” (Sadducees?).
Rav Yosef then says: “It is also forbidden to recite from the book of Ben Sira”

This sparks a long discussion about Rav Yosef’s reasoning in which different verses of Ben Sira
are cited in order to test whether they are problematic; in the end, none are found to be definitively
“out of bounds.” Rav Yosef’s comment remains somewhat obscure, but it has been plausibly
suggested that he is only forbidding liturgical recitation of Ben Sira, not ordinary reading and

15
B. Baba Batra 98b.

‫ וקל‬,‫ וקל מחתן – אורח מכניס אורח‬,‫ וקל מסובין – חתן הדר בבית חמיו‬,‫ הכל שקלתי בכף מאזנים ולא מצאתי קל מסובין‬:‫כדכתיב בספר בן סירא‬

‫ משיב דבר בטרם ישמע אולת היא לו וכלמה‬:‫ שנאמר‬,‫מאורח – משיב דבר בטרם ישמע‬
16
See David Cassel, ed., Teshuvot Geonim Kadmonim (Berlin, 1848), 78:

18
study. While the versions of Ben Sira that circulated in rabbinic circles in Babylonia might not
have been identical to those in Palestine, they were clearly seen by many rabbis as containing
ancient Jewish wisdom worth studying.17

17
Benjamin G. Wright III, “B. Sanhedrin 100b and Rabbinic Knowledge of Ben Sira,” in N. Caluduch-Benages and J. Vermeylen,
eds., Treasures of Wisdom: Studies in Ben Sira and the Book of Wisdom (Leuven: Peeters, 1999): 41-50.

19
Sacred Writings and the Jewish Canon
Gil Student writes:18

Based on R' Shnayer Leiman's masterly work The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The
Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. 19

Canon and Inspiration

A simple formulation of a book being either sacred or mundane is demonstrably incorrect. For
example, the Mishna in Eduyot 5:3 says that according to the school of Shammai the book of
Ecclesiastes (Kohelet), as to opposed to other sacred books, does not render hands impure. This
would seem to imply that the school of Shammai did not consider Ecclesiastes to be part of the
Bible.

Yet, in Bava Batra 4a we find Bava ben Buta, a member of the school of Shammai, expounding
on verses from Ecclesiastes. Similarly, the Mishna in Yadayim 3:5 has R' Yossi ruling that
Ecclesiastes does not render hands impure and Megilla 7a has R' Meir saying the same.

Yet we find both R' Meir and R' Yossi expounding on verses from Ecclesiastes in Kohelet Rabbah
(2:13, 2:19, 3:15). The same can be found regarding R' Shimon ben Menasia in Tosefta Yadayim
2:14 and Mishna Chagiga 1:7. In Megilla 7a Shmuel says that the book of Esther does not render
the hands impure because it was divinely inspired to be said but not necessarily to be written.

Yet, Shmuel was a disciple of the students of R' Yehuda Hanasi (the compiler of the Mishna) and
was certainly aware of the Mishna in Megilla that requires the recitation of Esther on the holiday
of Purim. Furthermore, throughout the talmudic tractate of Megilla Shmuel can be found
expounding on verses from Esther (e.g. 11a, 13a). Clearly, the concept of sacred writings require
more than a simple formulation.

In explaining all of these and many more sources, R' Shnayer Leiman differentiated between two
concepts — inspiration and being canonical.

An inspired book is one that was written under prophetic inspiration (ruach hakodesh). "A
canonical book is a book that is accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice and/or
doctrine, and whose authority is binding upon the Jewish people for all generations"

18
https://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_canon.html

19
The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence (Transactions / the Connecticut Academy of

Arts and Sciences)

20
(Canonization, p. 14). A book can be prophetically inspired but not be canonical. For example,
Megilla 14a says that there were thousands of prophets but only those prophecies that were needed
for future generations were written down and included in the canon. An example of a book that is
canonical but uninspired is Megillat Ta'anit. It was a book that was authoritative and binding but
was never claimed to be prophetically inspired. Similarly, the Mishna and Talmud eventually
became part of the Jewish canon and are therefore treated with great respect. Yet the authors were
certainly not prophets.

We can therefore understand that everyone agreed that Esther and Ecclesiastes were sacred books
that were authoritative and binding on the Jewish people. That is why their verses could be used
in halachic arguments. One cannot contradict an uncontested Mishna and, similarly, one cannot
dispute a verse in the canonical book of Esther. However, there was a disagreement whether these
books were also inspired. If they were, they would render the hands impure. If not, they would not
render the hands impure. But even those who claimed that Esther was not prophetically inspired
to be written agreed that the book was not merely an interesting novel. It was a sacred book written
by sages that was both legally and doctrinally binding.

Genizah

In Shabbat 30b we find the following passage that indicates a rabbinic disapproval of the books
Ecclesiastes and Proverbs:

The sages wished to withdraw (lignoz) the book of Ecclesiastes because its words are self-
contradictory; yet why did they not withdraw it? Because it begins and ends with words of Torah...
They also wished to withdraw (lignoz) the book of Proverbs because its words are self-
contradictory. Yet why did they not withdraw it? They said: Did we not examine the book of
Ecclesiastes and find a reconciliation? Here too let us search.

Were the rabbis willing to remove a book from the Bible because they found its contents
objectionable? Quite the opposite. Genizah means withdrawing a book from circulation. When
certain books were deemed to be misleading to the average uneducated person, some rabbis judged
that it would be better to keep these books private rather than let them mislead the masses. For
example, Ecclesiastes 7:3 says "Sorrow is better than laughter" and 2:2 says "I said of laughter,
'It is praiseworthy'". If one were to emphasize the second verse, without mentioning that there is
another verse that qualifies the statement one could advocate a lifestyle of irresponsibility.
Similarly, Ecclestiastes 11:9 says "Rejoice, young man, in your childhood; let your heart cheer
you in the days of your youth." An irresponsible preacher or a careless reader can come away from
reading this with a very incorrect and dangerous perspective on life. (See also Vayikra Rabbah
28:1, Kohelet Rabbah 1:3, and Moreh Nevuchim 2:28)

Because of these types of contradictions, there were those who argued that certain books should
be withdrawn from public circulation. However, this does not mean that these rabbis considered
these works to be either uninspired or non-canonical. As R' Leiman wrote, "This in no way casts
aspersions on the sanctity or canonicity of the books. Indeed, it verifies their sanctity and
canonicity... Only a firmly established biblical book, or a book or item revered on other grounds
could qualify for genizah" (pp. 79-80). That the reason for recommending withdrawing a book

21
from circulation was that the book could lead a simple reader to heresy is demonstrated in Vayikra
Rabbah 28:1.

R' Binyamin ben Levi said: The sages requested withdrawing the book of Ecclesiastes because
they found in it matters that lead towards heresy.

Further proof that genizah did not mean denial of a book's canonicity can be derived from the case
of Ezekiel. Shabbat 13b tells us that the sages wished to withdraw Ezekiel from circulation because
it seemed to contradict accepted halacha. However, Chananiah ben Chizkiah (first century CE)
demonstrated that there were no contradictions and that anyone who challenged the accepted
halacha based on Ezekiel could be answered.

Genizah in that case could not have meant denial of canonicity because by the time Chananiah ben
Chizkiah lived Ezekiel had become an entrenched part of the Jewish canon. Already 200 years
prior Ben Sira had implied that Ezekiel was part of the Jewish canon. Perhaps more significantly,
nowhere do the rabbis debate whether Ezekiel renders the hands impure. Clearly, the rabbis were
unanimous that not only is Ezekiel canonical but it is inspired. Otherwise there would have been a
debate over whether or not the book renders the hands impure. As Yechezkel Kaufman wrote
(Toldot Ha'emunah Hayisraelit, vol. 8 p. 410 n. 1) "They attempted to withdraw Ezekiel because
it troubled them; but they never entertained doubts about its inspired origin."

Similarly, the proposed (but never enacted) withdrawal of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs does not
imply a rejection of those books from the Jewish canon. Rather, it signifies that the rabbis correctly
observed a people divided due to heretical philosophies about life; they wished to temper the
disunity and discourage heresy by withdrawing from circulation books that were being distorted
by heretics in order to mislead the masses.

Ben Sira

With all the preceding, we can now understand the attitude of the sages towards the book Ben Sira.
On the one hand, the book is quoted a number of times in the rabbinic literature — sometimes as
it were a rabbinic statement (e.g. "it is taught", Bava Metzia 112a), sometimes as if it were a
biblical verse (e.g. "it is written in the book of Ben Sira", Bereshit Rabbah 91:3), and sometimes
with no introduction at all (e.g. Avot 4:4). Yet, Tosefta Yadayim 2:13 says that the book of Ben
Sira does not render hands impure, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 100b says that one may not read Ben
Sira because there are some objectionable statements in it, and Kohelet Rabbah 12:12 says that
whoever brings Ben Sira into his house brings in confusion.

The explanation can be found in a manuscript version of Sanhedrin 100b that is recorded in
Dikdukei Sofrim. This version tells us that the sages withdrew (ganzu) the book of Ben Sira. As
we said above, only a canonical or otherwise significant book can be withdrawn from circulation.
Evidently, Ben Sira was considered an authoritative book of Jewish thought, regardless of whether
or not it was divinely inspired. However, it contains some confusing verses that might mislead
people into heresy. Therefore, the rabbis withdrew it from circulation and warned people that it
can lead to confusion.

22
While we understand why rabbis would, on occasion, cite Ben Sira as a proof for a statement since
Ben Sira is a canonical work, how can they quote passages from a work that has been withdrawn?
The answer to this lies in the manuscript version. "Rav Yosef said: Even though the rabbis
withdrew the book of Ben Sira, we expound all the good passages in it." The book itself was
prohibited for intensive study. However, occasional citation of famous sayings that originate in
the book and are not controversial is allowed. This is confirmed in Kohelet Rabbah 12:12 where
it says that Ben Sira was "given for discussion and not for intense study".

23