Today’s daf continues the exploration of Jacob’s midnight wrestling match with a verse from Hosea that recounts the incident:
The prophet states: “So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; he wept, and made supplication to him; at Beth El he would find him, and there he would speak with us” (Hosea 12:5). From this verse I do not know who became master over whom. But because another verse states: “And he said: Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with angels and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29), you must say that Jacob became master over the angel.
In the verse from Hosea, the grammar is ambiguous; it’s not clear who is the winner of the wrestling match. However, a verse from the incident in Genesis clarifies: Since God declares that Jacob strove with an angel and prevailed over him, we know he must have prevailed in the fight. Jacob, therefore, is the subject of the verse in Hosea.
At least the first part of the verse. The next part of the verse from Hosea reads, “… he wept, and made supplication to him.” But could this also be Jacob? If Jacob prevailed, it doesn’t make much sense that he then wept and supplicated. The Gemara continues:
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world. With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
The verse in Hosea states: “… he wept, and made supplication to him.” From this verse itself I do not know who cried to whom. But because another verse states: “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen” (Genesis 32:27), you must say that the angel cried to Jacob.
Since Jacob is the subject of our initial clause, one might have guessed from the sentence structure that he’s the subject of the second clause as well. But reading Genesis demonstrates this is incorrect. Since Jacob wins the fight, and the angel is the one who pleads with Jacob to let him go, the angel is the weeper.
This sort of ambiguity, where the subject of a sentence is unclear, appears in a number of places in Tanakh. Another classic example is when Jacob (here he is again!) reunites with Joseph after years of thinking him dead. Genesis 46:29 states: “Joseph ordered his chariot and went to Goshen to meet his father Israel; he presented himself to him and, embracing him around the neck, he wept on his neck a good while.” It’s not clear who wept on whose neck. Commentators make arguments for both Jacob and Joseph, both from the grammar of the sentence and outside reasoning. Some suggest that since Joseph is the subject of the first clause, he must also be the subject of “he wept.” Others point out that if Joseph is the one to embrace Jacob and weep upon his neck, there is no reason for the second clause to state that Joseph presented himself to Jacob. Some point out that Joseph has cried at multiple points during this recent saga with his family, so he’s probably the one who wept and clung to his father’s neck. Others say: Who’s more likely to cry, an aging father who’s thought his son dead for decades, or a young man in power?
The discussion at the top of today’s daf gives us a glimpse of some of the ways the talmudic rabbis, and later commentators, attempt to resolve these textual ambiguities. It also reminds us that while the Talmud is predominantly a legal work, it sometimes gets sidetracked by other concerns — including the project of midrash aggadah, understanding the meaning of Torah and resolving its ambiguities. Today’s daf contains both examples such as the one examined here, where the rabbis are primarily trying to resolve textual difficulties, and the more narrative midrash that we find later on the page when examining possible meanings of the butler’s dream. (Hint: Joseph’s interpretation is not the only one!)
Read all of Chullin 92 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on July 31, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
