Undergoing consideration is an Ask the Rabbi segment from yeshiva.co with Rabbi David Sperling answering, “the position of Mainstream Judaism on the identity of the Nephilim.”
He notes that, “In Berashit the Torah writes…” wait, hold on: I can’t believe some people transliterate the Hebrew word for Genesis like that—oi vey—it’s typically something like Beresheeth or something less four-letter-word looking—capiche?!
In any case, he quotes it as:
“1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. 3 And the LORD said: ‘My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.’ 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”
He then notes, “In Bamidbar,” Numbers, “it writes about the spies report on the land of Israel ‘33 And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.’”
Well, “the spies report on the land” is tragically generic since it wasn’t, “the spies” since there were 12 of them, he’s quoting the 10 unreliable ones whom God rebuked.
It also wasn’t, “report” generically but what’s specifically told to us was a, “bad” or, “evil” report.
Rabbi David Sperling notes:
One of the classic medievil commentators (the Tur) sums up the opinions as follows “ “the Nephilim were on earth at that time.” According to Rashi these creatures had fallen from heaven (in disgrace) and had in turn caused people on earth to fall from their spiritual level to a spiritually still lower level [the hebrew root of nephil means to fall]. The name Nephilim corresponds to the Hebrew word Anakim, “giants” [brackets in original]
FYI: Rashi refers to Rabbi Shlomo Ben Itzaki or Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac.
The one and also indication that, “The name Nephilim corresponds to the Hebrew word Anakim, ‘giants’” is that one single sentence from an evil report—and that’s only from non-LXX versions since Anakim aren’t mentioned in that verse in that version.
There’s literally zero reliable indication Anakim had anything to do with Nephilim nor that they could have since, of course, Nephilim didn’t make it past the flood in any way, shape, or form.
As for, “the Hebrew word Anakim, ‘giants’” well, that begs the questions:
What’s the usage of the vague, generic, subjective, multi-usage and modern English word “giants” in English Bibles?
What’s Rabbi David Sperling’s usage?
Do those two usages agree?
He seems to imply that his usage is something about subjectively unusual height but that’s not the English Bible’s usage since in those versions, “giants” it merely renders (doesn’t even translate) Nephilim in 2 verses or Repha/im in 98% of all others and so never even hints at anything to do with any sort of height whatsoever.
Also, Anakim doesn’t imply what he means by giants but means something like long-necked: and having a subjectively longer neck than average doesn’t necessarily make one subjectively taller.
Rabbi David Sperling continued thusly:
At any rate, ordinary people were frightened of these “giants.” Other commentators simply understand the term Nephilim as representing human beings who, due to their imposing stature, made everyone fall down before them in a state of fear.
Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the word Nephilim as meaning “great men, giants.” He quotes Job 14,18 as a parallel, i.e. that even the most powerful and great phenomena (such a tall mountains) on earth will ultimately fall, collapse.”
Dealing with the vague, generic, subjective, and multi-usage word giants leads to problems such as having to attempt to figure out what an author means when they’re that vague.
So, is it, “ordinary people were frightened of these” subjectively unusually taller than average by some unknown margin personages? Does it mean frightened of Nephilim? Or frightened of Anakim?
Based on the context, I’ll guess he means that the Numbers 13 narrative has it that the evil report by the 10 caused fear since they made up a “don’t go in the woods” style of fear-mongering scare-tactic tall-tale.
Since that one unreliable sentence is the only physical description we have of Nephilim then there’s no such data upon which to even assert, “human beings…imposing stature.” The dirty little secret is that since we’ve no reliable physical description of Nephilim then their height is a non-issue and that alone debunks 99% of un-biblical Nephilology–the modern branch of which is just un-biblical neo-theo sci-fi tall-tales—even if they were written in BC days or the medieval period.
And so, if, “the word Nephilim as meaning ‘great men, giants’” that only begs the question: what does giants mean—or, more to the point, what’s the usage?
Rabbi Sperling also noted:
Another commentator (Shadal – Samuele Davide Luzzatto 1800 – 1865) writes “The giants (ha-nefilim) – We know that the nefilim were tall from Numbers 13:33, “And there we saw the Nefilim, the giant race, of the Nefilim; and we seemed to our own eyes as so many grasshoppers, and so we must have seemed to their eyes”.
Do you see the compounding problems due to vague terminology and accepting the unreliable? Now, “nefilim were” subjectively unusually, “tall” by some unknown margin, “from Numbers 13:33” which is utterly unreliable (see Chapter sample: On the Post Flood Nephilim Proposal) and an odd version that renders Anakim as giants so it reads, “Nefilim, the giant race, of the Nefilim.”
Next, Rabbi Sperling wrote:
This verse also shows that there were nefilim after the Flood, and so, in my opinion, the phrase “and also afterwards” is connected with the preceding phrase. After the Flood, too, when society was reorganizing, there were tall, wild men who kept company with the daughters of society. …
Well, “nefilim after the Flood” has to be explained: just who was it that God failed, He missed a loophole, the flood was much of a waste, etc., etc., etc.
Also, there’s literally zero indication that, “the phrase ‘and also afterwards’” pertains to, “After the Flood”—I’m unsure what he meant by, “is connected with the preceding phrase.”
Firstly, the flood’s not even mentioned for the very first time until a full 13 verses after the one from which he merely quoted three words, which is v. 4.
Secondly, it can’t mean anything about the flood since Gen 6:4 states, “Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.”
The question becomes: when were those days?
Well, Gen 6:1 told us, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose.”
The next question becomes: when was afterward?
Since it was after those days then it was simply after, “When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them…”
Thus, the began doing it then and they continued to do it but that’s all pre-flood.
Rabbi David Sperling adds, “The existence of a few giants or abnormally tall men cannot be denied: Moses mentions Og, [Joshua’s] spies mention Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai; in Samuel we find Goliath and others.”
What of those, “giants or” subjectively, “abnormally tall men”?
Og: we’ve no physical description of him in the Bible but utterly wild folklore from millennia after the Torah tells tall-tales about him—including anachronistically placing his birth in pre-flood days, having him surviving the flood by hanging on to the side of the ark whilst being fed by Noah and other fictional tales.
We’ve also no physical description of Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai at all.
The Masoretic text has Goliath at just shy of 10 ft. Yet, the earlier LXX and the earlier Dead Sea Scrolls and the earlier Flavius Josephus all have him at just shy of 7 ft. (compared to the average Israelite male who was 5.0-5.3 ft. in those days) so that’s the preponderance of the earliest data.
I’ve no idea who the “others,” plural, are but will add THE tallest person in the Bible: an Egyptian was 7.5ft. (2 Sam 23).
Thus, what we got as a reply after an Ask the Rabbi session is vague terminology, an appeal to an unreliable single verse, and arguments from silence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby.
If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out.
Here is my donate/paypal page.
You can comment here and/or on my Twitter/X page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.