Matos Masei: The Shiloach Waters
One of the most intriguing passages of the Creation narrative in Genesis states that a river exits from Eden and splits into four tributaries, with the second of those being the Gichon River — said to circumscribe the entire Land of Kush (Gen. 2:13). Over the generations, that Gichon River has been variously identified by scholars as either the Ganges, the Nile, the Amu Darya, or the Orontes river. Another river named Gichon is mentioned thrice in the Bible in connection with King Solomon’s coronation (I Kgs. 1:33, 1:38, 1:45). Furthermore, the Gichon River appears twice more in the Bible, when Hezekiah blocked and rediverted the waters of the Gichon River (II Chron. 32:30), and when Hezekiah's son Manasseh fortified the outer walls of Jerusalem, just beyond the Gichon River (II Chron. 33:14). This second river is clearly located in Jerusalem, and in some sources, its name is actually given as Shiloach (Shiloah). In this essay, we take a close look at the names of this river and explore their possible etymologies and meanings.
When the Mishnah records the story of Hezekiah blocking the Gichon, it uses the word Gichon just like the Bible does (Pesachim 4:9). Yet, the Mishnah elsewhere (Sukkah 4:10) refers to the Shiloach as stream/spring near the Holy Temple in Jerusalem (see Rashi to Sukkah 48a). In fact, the term “Waters of the Shiloah” (Mei Shiloach) already appears in Isaiah (8:6), and that is the only time it is mentioned in the Bible. Although, we should mention that a similar name — the Shelach pool — is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible (Neh. 3:15). Either way, Rashi (to I Kgs. 1:33, Isa. 8:6) explicitly writes that the Gichon and was also called Shiloach, as does Radak (to I Kgs. 1:33).
The Talmud (Kerisus 5b) rules that Jewish kings must be coronated at a well-spring, as this symbolizes the ever-lasting continuity of their kingship which should continue to flow like the current of a well-spring. To support this ruling, the Talmud cites the aforementioned verses concerning King Solomon’s coronation which occurred at the Gichon. In explaining this passage, Rashi (toKerisus 5b) comments that the Gichon was a small well-spring near Jerusalem that was not the same thing as the Great Gichon River which was said to flow from Eden. In the context of Hezekiah stopping the Gichon’s waters, Rashi (to Brachot 10b) once again stresses that the Gichon in question was near Jerusalem and was not identical to the Gichon mentioned in Genesis. This time, Rashi adduces support for his assertion by citing Targum (to I Kgs. 1:33) who renders the Hebrew name Gichon in Aramaic as Shilucha.
While Ibn Ezra (to Ex. 2:11) follows Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882–942) in identifying the Gichon of Genesis with the same Gichon near Jerusalem, Maimonides' son Rabbi Avraham Maimuni disagrees with Ibn Ezra and sides with Rashi that they are two discrete bodies of water. He explains that in some way that we are no longer privy to, the spring just outside of Jerusalem resembled the Great Gichon River mentioned in Genesis, so it was given the same name as it. [Rabbi Meir Abulafia (1170–1244), also known as Ramah, is cited by HaKosev (to Ein Yaakov Horayot 12a), as saying the same thing as Ibn Ezra.]
In their respective Sefer HaShorashim, Ibn Janach and Radak see the primary meaning of the root GIMMEL-VAV-CHET to be “exiting,” as tributaries of this root refer to the act of “birthing” (Job 38:8, Mic. 4:10, and Ps. 22:10), when a baby exits her mother’s womb, as well as “flowing from,” when a river or spring’s current leaves its source to flow downstream. Based on this, Radak explains that the Gichon river referenced in Genesis as one of the Four Rivers got its name from the fact that it “goes forth” from its fount and continues to flow around the entire Kush area. In his commentary to Genesis, Radak (to Gen. 2:13) adds that the Gichon River splits into many tributaries that “exit” from the main parent river.
Radak also cites his father, Rabbi Yosef Kimchi (1105–1170) who explaining that Gichon in Genesis refers to the Nile River, whose waters “go out” from the riverbank to water the surrounding lands. Based on this, Radak notes that the Shiloach wellspring in Jerusalem — which is clearly smaller than the Gichon River mentioned in Genesis — is also called Gichon (I Kgs. 1:33) because its waters likewise “go out” into various waterways to irrigate the surrounding gardens. Indeed, Targum (to I Kgs. 1:33) translated Gichon into Aramaic as Shilucha, a variation of Shiloach, to possibly denote this very notion (see also Targum to Isa. 8:6,who translates Mei Shiloach as Mei Shilucha).
When Hashem cursed the serpent that enticed Eve to sin, He said, “you shall go on your belly [gachon]” (Gen. 3:14–15). As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (there) explains, the word gachon is related to the concept of “crawling,” which is a form of non-linear ambulation by which one makes progress by squirming about in a twisted path. Based on this, Rabbi Hirsch suggests that perhaps this notion of a “twisted path” is the basis of the name of the Gichon River. Rabbi Pappenheim offers a similar explanation, tying both the word gachon and the name Gichon to the biliteral root GIMMEL-CHET. Both Rabbi Hirsch and Rabbi Pappenheim also relate this idea to the aforementioned verb that denotes a child exiting its mother’s womb; after all, the act of squeezing through a narrow entrance or exit requires bending and crawling, just like a snake crawls. Thus, this word can refer to childbirth as the baby emerges from the womb by navigating and wiggling through tight spaces.
Rabbi Pappenheim further connects Gichon to the concept of negichah (“goring”) in that both are derived from the same biliteral root, with the connection being that horned animals cannot gore with their horns unless they bend their bodies and necks like a snake, thus enabling their horns to reach their targets. In fact, Rashi (to Gen. 2:13) already connects the name Gichon to the word negicha as though the flowing movement of the river resembles the outward jabbing motion of a goring ox.
According to Halacha, when one writes a gett (“bill of divorce”), one must identify the city in which the document was written by naming the closest river. The prevailing custom is that for gittin written in Jerusalem, the name of the Shiloach is explicitly used. Rabbi Moshe Ibn Chaviv (1654–1696) in Gett Pashut (Even HaEzer §128:37) explains that even though in the Bible that spring is more often called Gichon, not Shiloach, we use the name Shiloach so that there will be no confusion over whether the river in question refers to the Gichon near Jerusalem or the Great Gichon that flows from Eden (per Rashi that they are two different rivers).
Nevertheless, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar (1887–1979)notes in his responsa Divrei Yoel (Even HaEzer §125) that this answer is not enough, because according to Halacha if a river has two names, then one has to write both names in a gett (see Rama to Even HaEzer §128:3). If so, then why is the custom not to write both Gichon and Shiloach? Instead of Rabbi Ibn Chaviv’s answer, Rabbi Teitelbaum prefers to answer that since nowadays nobody calls the body of water in Jerusalem by its Biblical name “Gichon,” that name has been Halachically “uprooted,” so its only name is “Shiloach.”
Fascinatingly, Rabbi Avraham Maimuni writes about Gichon/Shiloach that in his time, the spring was called Brachah. I wish I had more information about this alternate name for the spring, but alas I was only able to find this single reference. It’s also not clear to me whether he means the river was called Brachah (literally, “blessing”) or Breichah (literally, “pool,” perhaps what they call Hezekiah’s Pool nowadays). It should be noted that the esteemed editor Rabbi Moshe Maimon of Jackson, NJ — in his glosses to Rabbi Avraham Maimuni’s commentary — presumes the former.
Although we have cited various rabbinic sages who understood Gichon and Shiloach to mean the same thing, later linguists and philologists have argued that the names Shiloach and Gichon do not refer to the exact same place. For example, the German linguist Wilhelm Gesenius (1786–1842) sees Gichon as referring to the fountain that supplies the water, while Shiloach — explained as a cognate of the root SHIN-LAMMED-CHET, “sending” — refers to the aqueduct that channels those waters. Similarly, linguist Avraham Even-Shoshan (1906–1984) in his concordance of Biblical Hebrew writes that Shiloah was a channel or pool into which the waters of the Gichon spring flowed, thus assuming that Shiloah and Gichon are not actually coterminous. More recently, Professor Carol A. Dray (from the University of Cambridge) argued that the Gichon was outside the walls of Jerusalem, while the Shiloach was within the Holy City's walls. [Nowadays, the Gihon Company is the public waterworks utility provider for the City of Jerusalem and its environs.]
The Septuagint, which was a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek, uses the term Siloam for the Shiloach. Obviously, when proper names are transliterated from one language to another, adjustments are made to accommodate the sounds of the target language. The final m-sound added to the name of the river is possibly related to the concept of mimation in Semitics. A famous inscription was found in what is believed to be the site of the Shiloach, and this inscription is known in English as the Siloam Inscription. It seems that the Greek name Siloam was later borrowed in Arabic, where the m-sound morphed into an n-sound to yield the name Silwan (now used as the name of an Arab neighborhood right outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem).
When Hezekiah blocked the waters of the Gichon/Shiloach and diverted its flow elsewhere, his reasoning was he did not want the Assyrian army besieging Jerusalem to have easy access to water (II Chron. 32:4). According to the Mishnah (Pesachim 4:9), the sages in Hezekiah’s time did not agree with this decision, presumably because they felt it showed a lack of trust in Hashem who already said through the prophet Isaiah that He will save Jerusalem from the Assyrians. [An alternate tradition in rabbinic thought sees Hezekiah's actions as noble, see Radak (to II Chron. 32:30) and Radal (to Pirkei De'Rabbi Eliezer §9:30).]
One time, an Arab sheik named Abu Sayef demanded of Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543–1620) that he utter special names of Hashem in order to miraculously reopen the Gichon/Shiloach River. And if he would refuse to comply, the sheik threatened to kill him.
Instead of acceding to the request, Rabbi Chaim Vital used a special name of Hashem to miraculously travel to Damascus and avoid Abu Sayef.
When Rabbi Chaim Vital got to Damascus, his teacher the famous Kabbalist Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (1534–1572) — known as the Arizal — appeared to him in a dream and criticized him for not reopening the waters of the Gichon, as that would have rectified Hezekiah’s sin and ushered in the Final Redemption (in line with the prophecy of Zech. 14:8).
Rabbi Vital replied that he refused to do what the sheik requested because he did not want to use Holy Names for such purposes.
However, the Arizal retorted that this only would have been a valid argument had he not instead used Holy Names to escape to Damascus, but now that he did, he should have used those Names for reopening the Gichon River.
At that point, Rabbi Vital offered to return to Jerusalem and reopen the spring, but the Arizal told him that alas it was too late and his opportunity to bring about the Final Redemption had already expired.
