5 min read

Og Feasted Unnamed While Jobs Friends Were Saved

Og ate at Abraham's table and left no name in the joy. Jobs three friends came to a house of ash, kept their names, and Gehinnom (afterlife of judgment) lost.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. The Feast That Forgot Its Giant
  2. From the Place Prepared in Gehinnom
  3. Put Who Almost Vanished from the Page
  4. Solomon Counting What the Eye Misses

Og the giant sat at Abraham's feast and tore meat with hands the size of shields. The wine went around. Laughter rose under the trees. When the story of that joy was later told, Og's name slipped out of the telling like a guest who never paid the host and never asked the sick man's name.

Og Feasted Unnamed While Jobs Friends Were Saved Click for full size

Names stick harder in houses of ash than in houses of song.

The Feast That Forgot Its Giant

Rabbi Simon noticed the pattern and would not let it go. At celebrations, names often blur into a general brightness. At mourning, names are carved clear so the living know who came. Og dines and fades. Elifaz, Bildad, and Zofar walk toward Job across a ruined plain and keep every syllable of their names in the book.

It is not that joy is cursed or that every feast is empty. It is that presence without mercy leaves a thin mark on the world. The giant who only eats does not earn the ink that the friends who sit in silence seven days will earn with sore backs and dust in their beards.

Abraham's table was holy hospitality. Og took the food and left the holiness on the plate.

From the Place Prepared in Gehinnom

Rabbi Yissakhar of Kefar Mandi went further than memory. The wicked are struck down toward the lowest depths of Gehinnom, that place of purification the tradition will not soften into a joke. Job's friends, he taught, were pulled from the very place reserved for them in that dark when they rose to comfort. "Each man came from his place" (Job 2:11) is not only geography of Teman and Shuah and Naamah. It is rescue from a seat already set with their names on it in the pit.

Compassion moved them off that seat. The Divine Spirit rested on their answering speech when they finally opened their mouths. Words spoken as true answer came in the sacred tongue with breath that was not only their own. They would argue badly later, as friends sometimes do when pain is too large for speech. The first mercy still counted. They came. They sat. Gehinnom (the realm of judgment after death) lost three reservations because three men chose ash over banquet.

Og had strength enough to lift a city gate in other tales. They had strength enough to show up when the music had stopped.

Put Who Almost Vanished from the Page

Other names thin out for different reasons, and the midrash tracks the silence like a hunter. Ham's sons are listed in order: Kush, Mitzrayim, Put, Canaan (Genesis 10:6). Egypt and Canaan fill chapters and wars and promises. Put falls quiet until Ezekiel names him again among those who fall by the sword (Ezekiel 30:5), still a people, still on the map of judgment.

Silence in Torah is not always erasure. Sometimes a nation walks offstage and waits for a prophet to call the roll centuries later. Nimrod rises from Kush as a mighty hunter before the Lord, and later teachers hear in "like Nimrod" the shape of other hunters who trap with words, including the deeds of Esau's line that wear the same cruelty in a different cloak.

Giants, lost tribes, and hunters share this: the scroll decides who is remembered for mercy and who for appetite, who returns when called and who only returns as a warning.

Solomon Counting What the Eye Misses

Kohelet's midrash also loves hidden counts. Solomon spoke of trees from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop on the wall, of beasts and birds and creeping things held in wise speech (1 Kings 5:13). The same tradition that measures Solomon's knowledge measures moral weight in smaller scenes. Who is named at a feast. Who is named at a grave. Who returns from a destined pit because he sat in dust with a friend and refused the easy road of looking away.

Og will meet Israel later as an enemy king with a bedstead of iron, a war story that fills the mouth of children. That future fame is war fame. It does not rewrite the blank where his name should have stood at Abraham's table when the meat was hot and the need was small.

Job's friends argued until heaven interrupted them. The first mercy still stood. They came when the house fell. Og ate when the house was full. Only one of those acts pulls a name out of Gehinnom's ledger and writes it into the book of the living with a steady hand.

Years later storytellers would still argue whether a giant at a feast deserves a name. The midrash settles the argument without mercy. Ink follows compassion. Silence follows appetite. The bedstead of iron can wait for the war chapters. The empty seat at Abraham's table already delivered its verdict.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

3 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Kohelet Rabbah 2:4Kohelet Rabbah

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022 · CC-BY

Rabbi Simon, in Kohelet Rabbah, a commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, makes a striking observation. He points out a curious pattern: when people attend joyous occasions, their names often go unmentioned. But in times of sorrow, at a house of mourning, names are specifically remembered. Og, the giant, feasts with Abraham, but his name is glossed over. In contrast, Job's three friends – Elifaz, Bildad, and Zofar – who come to comfort him in his suffering, are clearly identified.

It goes deeper than just names. Rabbi Simon takes it a step further: those who attend feasts often aren't spared from Gehenna – often translated as hell, it's more accurately understood as a place of purification. But those who offer solace in mourning are spared. Og, again, serves as an example of the former. Job’s comforters, it's suggested, are examples of the latter.

Rabbi Yissakhar of Kefar Mandi adds another layer. He suggests that the wicked are destined for the lowest depths of Gehenna, referencing (Job 34:26), "He strikes them in the place of the wicked." Job's friends, however, avoid this fate. The verse, "Each man came from his place" (Job 2:11), isn’t just about physical location, according to Rabbi Yissakhar. He interprets the words “from his place” to mean from the very place that had been reserved for them in Gehenna. They were rescued from it by their act of compassion.

Here's where it gets really interesting. The Ruach (spirit) Hakodesh, the Divine Spirit, doesn't rest upon those at the feast, but it does upon those who mourn with Job. This is evidenced by the fact that "Elifaz answered" (Job 4:1) and "Bildad answered" (Job 8:1). Rabbi Meir teaches that whenever you find the words aniya (answering), amira (saying), and ko/kakha (so), it signifies that the words were spoken in Lashon Hakodesh, the sacred tongue, with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit.

So, what does all this mean? Is it simply a condemnation of joy or praise for sorrow? Not necessarily. Perhaps it suggests that true connection, true meaning, is often forged in the crucible of shared suffering. Maybe it’s in those moments of vulnerability, of empathy, that we truly see each other, and in turn, are seen by the Divine.

It seems our tradition suggests it's not about avoiding joy, but about recognizing the profound power of presence, of showing up, especially when life gets hard. It’s about recognizing the sacredness in shared sorrow, and the transformative potential of offering comfort. Are we showing up for the feasts, or for the moments that truly matter?

Full source
Bereshit Rabbah 37:2Bereshit Rabbah

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022 · CC-BY

Consider the sons of Ḥam (חָם), Noah's son: "Kush, and Mitzrayim, and Put, and Canaan" (Genesis 10:6). We see the names that echo through history – Mitzrayim, which is Egypt, and Canaan, the land promised to Abraham's descendants. But what about Put?

The Torah introduces Put and then… silence. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as quoted in Bereshit Rabbah, noticed this. He wondered if the descendants of Put had simply assimilated into other nations, disappearing from the biblical narrative. After all, unlike his brothers, Put isn't mentioned again... or is he?

Then comes Ezekiel, centuries later, with a powerful pronouncement: "Kush, Put and Lud and all the intermingled people… will fall with them by the sword" (Ezekiel 30:5). So, Put is indeed still around in Ezekiel's time, a distinct nation with its own destiny! This is a powerful reminder that the Torah's silences don't necessarily mean non-existence. Sometimes, we need to look to the prophets to fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle.

The story doesn't end there. The Torah continues, "And Kush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth" (Genesis 10:8). Nimrod, the mighty hunter. But what kind of hunter was he, really?

The verse goes on: "He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said: Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord" (Genesis 10:9). This connection between Kush and Nimrod sparks another fascinating interpretation. We find in Psalms (7:1) the line, "A meditation by David, a song that he sang to the Lord concerning the words of Kush Ben Yemini."

Rabbi Yehoshua bar Neḥemya, in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Yitzḥak, suggests that David’s song relates to the harsh justice administered by a "wicked one." But here's where it gets interesting. The Rabbis ask: Was Esau, the ancestor of Edom (and, later, Rome) a Kushite? Of course not! He was a descendant of Abraham.

So why the connection? The explanation, according to Bereshit Rabbah, is that Esau performed deeds like those of Nimrod. The verse doesn't say "Nimrod, a mighty hunter," but "like Nimrod, a mighty hunter." This implies that someone else mirrored Nimrod's actions. Just as Nimrod ensnared people through their words, so too did this other figure – Esau. It says of Esau that "he had [meat from] hunted animals in his mouth" (Genesis 25:28). But the Rabbis take this further. They paint a picture of someone being falsely accused, trapped by cunning words: "You [claim you] did not steal? Who stole with you? You [claim you] did not kill? Who killed with you?" The implication is that the accuser seeks to incriminate the innocent through association and manipulation.

So, what does this all mean? This passage from Bereshit Rabbah isn’t just a dry genealogical record. It's a profound meditation on power, influence, and the dangers of mimicking the actions of those who abuse their strength.

Full source
Kohelet Rabbah 2:5Kohelet Rabbah

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Sefaria Midrash Rabbah, 2022 · CC-BY

Sometimes, the explanations seem… unexpected, even poetic. to a passage from Kohelet Rabbah, a collection of rabbinic interpretations on the Book of Ecclesiastes, where we explore just that.

The passage starts with a verse from I (Kings 5:13), describing King Solomon's wisdom: “He spoke of the trees, from the cedar which is in Lebanon to the hyssop that emerges from the wall; he spoke of the animal, of the bird, of the creeping creatures, and of the fish.” But the rabbis ask, is it really possible to just speak of trees and animals? What does it mean?

The text offers an intriguing interpretation. It suggests that Solomon wasn't just botanizing or zoologizing. Instead, he was using these natural elements to teach profound moral lessons. For instance, why is a leper purified with both a cedar tree – the tallest of trees – and a hyssop – the smallest of plants? Solomon's answer, according to Kohelet Rabbah, is that when someone elevates themselves in pride like a cedar, they risk spiritual affliction, symbolized by leprosy. Only by humbling themselves, like the lowly hyssop, can they find healing. It's a beautiful metaphor for the dangers of arrogance and the power of humility.

Next, we move on to animals and birds. Why, the rabbis ask, does Jewish law require two signs of proper slaughter (penetrating the majority of both the gullet and the windpipe) for animals, but only one for birds (penetrating the majority of either the gullet or the windpipe)? The answer, according to bar Kappara, lies in their creation. Animals originate from the dry land, while birds, he says, were created from mud – a mix of land and water. This intermediate origin places birds between land animals and fish. Fish, of course, don't require ritual slaughter at all. Thus, the rules for their slaughtering are also "in-between." Rabbi Avin even adds, in the name of Rabbi Shmuel Kapodkiya, that a chicken's legs resemble fish scales, further blurring the lines.

Then we get to "creeping creatures." Why are we liable for trapping or wounding specific swarming creatures on Shabbat (the Sabbath), but not others? Because, the text explains, these specific creatures have skins. The implications of this aren't fully elaborated, but it suggests a distinction based on a physical characteristic that carries legal weight.

Finally, the discussion turns to fish. Why don't fish require ritual slaughter, unlike animals and birds? The answer is found in (Numbers 11:22): “Will flocks and herds be slaughtered?” regarding meat, but only “gathering” regarding fish. This implies a fundamental difference in how we relate to these creatures.

But hold on! The story takes an interesting turn. Yaakov, from the village of Nevurya, ruled in Tyre that fish do require slaughter. This didn't sit well with Rabbi Ḥagai, who brought Yaakov before him. Yaakov argued his point from (Genesis 1:20), linking the creation of birds and fish. Rabbi Ḥagai, however, refuted him using the verse from Numbers, emphasizing the distinction between slaughtering livestock and gathering fish. In a rather dramatic conclusion, Rabbi Ḥagai initially orders Yaakov to be flogged! But after further discussion, Yaakov, ever the resilient scholar, tells Rabbi Ḥagai to “flog your floggings, as it is good for internalization.” In other words, reconsider your ruling!

What does it all mean? This passage from Kohelet Rabbah isn't just about obscure rules. It's about finding meaning in the details, about using the natural world as a lens through which to understand ourselves and our relationship with the Divine. It shows us how the rabbis of old wrestled with the text, searching for deeper truths hidden beneath the surface. And perhaps, it invites us to do the same. What hidden meanings might we find in the world around us?

Full source