Avodah Zarah 5

The first several pages of Tractate Avodah Zarah have been entirely aggadic, meaning they do not explore legal questions. Starting with an interpretation of the mishnah’s term eideihen, “their festivals,” as a coded reference to future punishment for the nations of the world, the Gemara has delved into stories about judgment at the end of times, both for the people of Israel and the nations of the world.In connection with this general theme of sin and punishment, yesterday’s daf made a bold claim:

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The Jewish people fashioned the golden calf only to give a claim to penitents, as it is stated after the revelation at Sinai: “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children forever.” (Deuteronomy 5:26)

And this is similar to that which Rabbi Yohanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: David was not fit to act as he did in that incident involving Bathsheba, and the Jewish people were not fit to act as they did in that incident of the golden calf. David was not fit to act as he did in that incident involving Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11), as it is written: “And my heart is wounded within me.” (Psalms 109:22) And likewise the Jewish people were not fit (in accordance with the verse quoted above).

The Israelites’ construction of an idol at the site of receiving God’s commandments and King David’s decision to sleep with another man’s wife and then cover the crime by sending the latter off to be killed are, arguably, the most prominent individual and collective sins found in the Hebrew Bible. The amoraim argue that neither of these actions should be in character. In the verse quoted from Deuteronomy, God praises the Israelites’ spiritual character — their fear and awe of God, their devotion to God’s commandments. And David, the rabbis believe, was also deeply virtuous. Rashi notes that the line from Psalms (traditionally understood to be authored by David), “my heart is wounded within me,” should be understood as meaning that the yetzer hara, the evil inclination, is wounded within him and has no strength over him. If this is the case, the rabbis ask, how could these paragons of virtue and devotion have sinned so severely?

This serves to say to you that if an individual has sinned, one says to him: Go to that famous individual who sinned. And if the community sinned, one says to them: Go to the community that sinned.

While Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi noted that the Israelites’ sin “gives a claim to penitents,” Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai makes it somewhat more explicit. When a person sins, it can be remarkably difficult to believe in the sincere possibility of repair, of teshuvah. Therefore, the Israelites and King David can serve as precedents in cases of both communal and individual sin, that even if one has sinned egregiously, the opportunity for repentance remains.The Gemara goes on to answer an implicit question: Why do we need both these examples? Wouldn’t one famous instance of transgression and teshuvah have been enough?

It is necessary to teach both. The reason is that if we had learned this idea only with regard to an individual, one might have thought that he has the option to repent only because his sin is not publicized. But in the case of a community, whose sin is publicized, one might say that the community cannot repent. And likewise, if we had learned this idea only with regard to a community, one might have said that their repentance is accepted because their prayers are more numerous than those of an individual. But in the case of an individual, whose merit is not as strong, one might say that he is not able to repent. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.

Individual and communal sin are substantively diferent. Individual sins are likely less publicly recognized, leaving seemingly less harm to repair. And when an individual sins, they have only themselves to petition before God, which might make them feel they are too insignificant to be heard. Communal sins, on the other hand, are massive and undeniable, with clearly identifiable harm. By the same token, there’s a greater number of people to work toward forgiveness and reparation. Given these disparities, the Gemara argues, we need the precedents of both David and the Israelites to learn that repentance is always possible.

This passage is a moving testament to the power and centrality of teshuvah. It also exemplifies a certain thread of apologetics common in rabbinic literature. Though the rabbis are often willing to pass judgment on our ancestors, both individually and collectively, in accordance with their faults, they also exhibit a tendency to present those same ancestors as extremely righteous, and to minimize the force of their wrongdoings. In this case, David and the Israelites are presented as righteous, their failures only intended to smooth the path for less righteous descendants, rather than flawed people who sometimes fell prey to their own desires and fears.

Read all of Avodah Zarah 5 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on June 23, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.