Male Virility and Biblical Power Dynamics

In three different instances, the Babylonian Talmud interprets biblical stories involving sexual encounters as though they were multi-coital (i.e., multi-orgasmic) encounters. The couples involved in these talmudic passages were King David and Bathsheba, Zimri and Cozbi, and Sisera and Jael. In none of these cases does the Bible even clearly say that there was a sexual encounter, yet in each of these three cases, the Talmud not only asserts that there was, but that multiple acts of coitus were accomplished in a single incident. These uncharacteristic and seemingly ribald statements in the Talmud are stated as a matter-of-fact, without clarifying how the introduction of the multi-coital aspect contributes to our overall understanding of the biblical narratives in question.

While bracketing the discussion of the physiological question as to how these men were able to perform such abnormal feats,¹ this article identifies a common theme across all three episodes in question to help shed light on the Talmud’s unusual assertions. Specifically, this article argues that the dynamic behind the three examples in discussion relies on the motif of “sex as power” to show how these male biblical characters used sexual prowess — especially their multi-coital abilities — to demonstrate their power and ability to dominate others. This not only allowed them to avoid physiological constraints (i.e., the typical refraction period that post-coital men ordinarily experience), but served as a metaphorical way of showcasing their power and dominance over others.

The motif of sex as a power display refers to the portrayal of sexual activity as a means of asserting dominance, control, or influence over others. Individuals may leverage their sexual allure, prowess, or appeal to achieve specific goals, whether it is gaining control over a partner, asserting dominance in a social hierarchy, or manipulating others for personal objectives. Under such a paradigm, acts of sex can be viewed as extreme examples of non-verbal gestures described as “cues symbolic of power . . . to display for observers . . . used overall to maintain the power relations of a society, but in individual situations may help establish such relations, as when people in a competitive situation begin to seek dominance over each other.”² In all three cases discussed, the women involved were not even the recipients of this power display message; rather they served merely as passive pawns in its implementation and performance.

This article will show how, in the three cases under discussion, the male characters leveraged their capacity for multi-coital encounters as a strategic display of their own personal status and dominance. This argument is made by contextualizing the three episodes within their broader biblical context and within the larger rabbinic discourse on those pericopes. For each case, it explores the background of the episode, introduces the Talmudic assertion of multiple acts of coition (and possible dissenting opinions), and then discusses how this interpretation aligns with the broader narrative in light of the motif of “sex as power.” The article concludes with a treatment of the inflated nature of the numbers of coituses asserted by the Talmud in light of the literary convention of “stock” numbers.

King David: Background

As King David aged, he became physically frail and struggled to keep warm. His servants suggested finding a beautiful young virgin to be his companion and lie beside him to keep him warm. After a search, they discovered Abishag, a Shunammite girl known for her beauty. Abishag was brought to King David’s palace and appointed as his attendant and companion. However, the relationship between Abishag and David was purely for the purposes of providing him warmth, and the king did not have sexual relations³ with her (I Kgs. 1:1–4).

In the meantime, as David’s health continued to decline, his son Adonijah attempted to seize the throne. Bathsheba — David’s wife and Solomon’s mother — acted under the guidance of the prophet Nathan to ensure that Solomon would become the next king. To do so, she gained entry to the king’s chambers and reminded the king of his earlier commitment to make Solomon his successor. As Bathsheba finished presenting her plea, Nathan himself entered and affirmed that the question of succession had become acute because of Adonijah’s actions. The matter was then conclusively resolved with King David reaffirming his commitment to name Solomon as his sole successor (I Kgs. 1:11–31).

Before presenting Bathsheba’s speech that reminded King David of his earlier oath, the Bible states: And Bathsheba went in unto the king into the chamber, and the king was very old; and Abishag the Shunammite ministered unto the king (I Kgs. 1:15). Commenting on this verse, TB Sanhedrin 22a states that “at that juncture, Bathsheba wiped herself with thirteen napkins.” Rashi explains that this means that during that encounter, King David engaged in thirteen acts of coition⁴ with Bathsheba,⁵ wiping herself clean with a napkin between each coitus.

Rashi further explains that the basis for this exegesis lies in the fact that the verse quoted contains exactly thirteen words.⁶ An unknown Medieval scholar who lived after Rashi explains it slightly differently, arguing that the fact that inflections of the biblical Hebrew verb ba (“enter,” “come,” but also euphemistically “cohabit”) appear thirteen times in I Kings 1 led the Talmud to assert that the number of sexual acts in question was thirteen.⁷

It should be noted that R. Meir Abulafia (1170–1244) cites Rashi’s explanation but finds it more reasonable to explain that King David did not actually cohabit with Bathsheba at that juncture, and that Bathsheba’s own elevated state of arousal produced lubricant which she then “wiped with thirteen napkins.”⁸

King David: Discussion

TB Sanhedrin 22a explicitly situates its assertion of thirteen acts of coitus within a broader discussion of King David’s virility in his old age. As the Talmud tells the story, after being appointed as King David’s attendant, Abishag proposed that the king marry her, but he declined for legal reasons, arguing that a king is limited by the number of wives he may take (see Deut. 17:17). Abishag responded by insinuating that David did not want to marry her because he lacked the physiological wherewithal to engage in sexual relations in his old age. In response, King David called in his wife Bathsheba and proceeded to engage in thirteen coituses with her to disprove Abishag’s charge.

Modern scholars tend to read the opening chapter of Kings as though there were an indictment against King David’s right to the throne squarely because he had grown old and sexually impotent.⁹ The Talmud’s assertion that there were thirteen acts of coitus between David and Bathsheba upends precisely that way of looking at the episode, as it confirms that King David was not actually impotent, but was rather barred from intimacy with Abishag on legal, as opposed to physiological, grounds.

Either way, the Talmud’s assertion of a multi-coital encounter plays into the motif of “sex as power” by presuming that King David used these multiple coituses to demonstrate that he still retained the vigor and stamina needed to serve as a king, even in his old age — especially if he wanted to be the one to dictate which of his sons would succeed him.

Zimri: Background

When the Israelites were encamped at the plains of Moab towards the end of their forty-year sojourn in the wilderness, they began to indulge in sexual immorality and idolatry with the local Midianite/Moabite women, who enticed the Israelite men to participate in the cult of Baal Peor. At that time, Zimri, an Israelite prince from the tribe of Simon, publicly flaunted his illicit sexual relationship with Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite tribal chief, engaging in an act of fornication in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel (Num. 25:6).

In a zealous response, Phineas (a grandson of Aaron) killed Zimri and Cozbi while they were in coitus by piercing a spear through their genitalia. The Bible presents Phineas’ act as noble, and God promises him the priesthood as reward (Num. 25:1–15).

TB Sanhedrin 82b explains that on that day, Zimri engaged in four-hundred and twenty-four acts of coition with Cozbi before he was killed by Phineas, who had waited until Zimri had tired himself out so that he would be unable to resist. Rashi explains that there is an allusion to this assertion in the Hebrew word zarzir (Prov. 30:31) — “starling bird” or “greyhound” — whose numeric value equals 424.

Zimri: Discussion

The Talmud relates that when Zimri first propositioned Cozbi, she rebuffed his advances, explaining that her father had instructed her to only accede to the sexual propositions of the greatest of the Israelites (i.e., Moses). Zimri responded by touting his own credentials as tribal prince, noting that his tribe — descended from Jacob’s second-born son — was more esteemed than Moses’ tribe of Levi, Jacob’s third-born son. This competition between Zimri and Moses may be alluded to in the verse’s specification that Zimri fornicated with Cozbi in the sight of Moses (Num. 25:6).

This exchange alludes to a power dynamic whereby Zimri felt the need to show that he was more important and dominant than any ordinary Israelite, even Moses himself. In light of this context, Zimri used his sexual prowess and stamina to show that he was on par with what would otherwise be expected of a king — another instance of “sex as power,” as Zimri used his capacity for multi-coital engagement to assert his dominant position in the Israelite social hierarchy.

Sisera: Background

During the period of the Judges, the Israelites were oppressed by Jabin, king of Canaan, and his military general Sisera. Deborah, a prophetess and judge, arose to lead the Israelites, and under her guidance Barak gathered an army to confront Sisera. In the ensuing battle, God caused confusion among the Canaanite army; Sisera fled the battlefield and sought refuge in the tent of a Kenite woman named Jael. Jael welcomed Sisera into her tent, giving him milk to drink and covering him with a blanket; then, taking advantage of his fatigue, she drove a tent peg through his temple with a hammer, killing him (Jud. 4:1–23).

Deborah’s poetic retelling of the victory reads: Blessed above women shall Jael be . . . At her feet he sank, lay outstretched, at her feet he sank, lay still; where he sank, there he lay — destroyed (Jud. 5:24–27). R. Yohanan is quoted in three places in the Talmud as explaining that on that day, Sisera engaged in coitus with Jael seven times.¹⁰ Rashi explains that the seven verbs in this verse indicate seven acts of coition.¹¹

It should be noted that an alternate rabbinic tradition contends that Sisera and Jael did not engage in sex at all, understanding the hapax legomenon semikha (“blanket”) as a portmanteau of shemi koh (“My name is here”), by which God’s name testifies that Sisera did not even touch Jael.¹²

Sisera: Discussion

As the Bible tells it, Sisera was retreating after a humiliating military defeat. Instead of taking captive young Israelite virgins as his mother had fantasized (Jud. 5:30), Sisera was actually seeking refuge in the tent of a married woman — already, in the eyes of some scholars, a “feminizing act.”¹³ Under these circumstances, it is understandable that from Sisera’s perspective, he needed to show that he was in fact manly, worthy of the military position which he held. To do so, he sought to prove his manhood by ravishing Jael in a multi-coital encounter, which would — in his mind — re-establish him as a force to be reckoned with. Hence, the Talmud’s assertion of seven acts of coitus follows the motif of “sex as power”: Sisera using this unusual form of sexual encounter (even rape) to reassert his dominance despite his cowardly flight.

Exaggerated Numbers of Coitions

The hyperbolic nature of these three talmudic claims is self-evident. The Spanish-Jewish apostate Gerónimo de Santa Fe (1400–1430) pointed to the assertion about Zimri and Cozbi as a prime example of rabbinic absurdity, arguing that it is impossible for Zimri to have literally cohabited 424 times with Cozbi in such a short time.¹⁴ Jewish tradition offers two basic approaches to these inflated numbers.

Kabbalists tend to take the precise numbers very seriously, attaching numerological significance to them. R. Yitzhak Luria and R. Menahem Azariah of Fano, for instance, connect the thirteen acts of David and Bathsheba to God’s Thirteen Attributes of Mercy.¹⁵ Hassidic masters have pointed out that the numeric value of Mashiah ben David equals 424, alluding to Zimri’s Messianic aspirations in fornicating with Cozbi exactly 424 times.¹⁶

On the other hand, many traditional sources presume that these exact figures are exaggerations. Even under this skeptical approach, the point that there was a multi-coital encounter is not contradicted by denying the literal count. The Maharal of Prague, for example, admits that the figure given for Zimri reflects rabbinic hyperbole, meant simply to illustrate how deeply Zimri had fallen into sin.¹⁷ In fact, the numbers involved — seven, thirteen, four-hundred and twenty-four — broadly line up with stock numbers that rabbinic literature typically uses in hyperbolic contexts, a convention that can arguably be traced to the Bible’s own frequent non-quantitative use of the number seven.

Conclusion

Our examination of the Babylonian Talmud’s interpretations concerning multi-coital encounters within these three biblical narratives has provided new insight into the Talmudic approach to these stories. Throughout this exploration, the motif of “sex as power” emerges as a central theme, shedding light on the Talmud’s unusual assertions. The portrayal of sexual prowess, especially multi-coital abilities, serves as a symbolic demonstration of power and dominance by the male biblical characters in question — whether or not the exact number of coituses mentioned was meant to be taken literally. Each of the three male characters used this power demonstration to assert or reassert their social position: David as king, Zimri as the would-be king, and Sisera as the feared army general.

While there are superficial differences among the three cases — licit versus illicit intercourse, public versus private settings, and differing degrees of rabbinic consensus — the underlying thematic unity remains: the consistent thread of leveraging sexual prowess for dominance and control across these varied biblical and rabbinic contexts.

Footnotes

1. For scientific studies regarding multi-orgasmic men, see B. Whipple, B. R. Myers & B. R. Komisaruk, “Male Multiple Ejaculatory Orgasms: A Case Study,” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy vol. 23:2 (1998), pp. 157–162; E. Wibowo & R. J. Wassersug, “Multiple orgasms in men – what we know so far,” Sexual Medicine Reviews vol. 4:2 (2016), pp. 136–148; and G. Griffin-Mathieu, et al., “Exploring Male Multiple Orgasm in a Large Online Sample,” The Journal of Sexual Medicine vol. 18 (2021), pp. 1652-1661. ↩

2. N. H. Henley, “Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology vol. 18 (1973-74), p. 5. ↩

3. Baal ha-Turim (to Gen. 24:16) clarifies that King David did not know her, neither vaginally nor anally; Maimonides (Laws of Kings 2:1) similarly understood Abishag as simply David’s servant. ↩

4. The word Rashi uses in this case is biah, which implies a full coitus. ↩

5. As M. Orfali relates, Gerónimo pointed to this Talmudic passage to ridicule the Talmud, but R. Samson b. Zemah Duran corrects the misquotation in Magen Avot (Jerusalem: Haktav Institute, 2007), p. 660. ↩

6. If one counts the words in I Kgs. 1:15, there are actually fourteen, not thirteen — Rashi’s explanation presumes that “Bathsheba” is counted as one word rather than two. ↩

7. This explanation comes from a North African manuscript described by R. Shmuel David Luzzatto in Kerem Hemed vol. 7 (1843), p. 220. ↩

8. Y. Zilber (ed.), Hiddushei ha-Ramah – Sanhedrin (Jerusalem, 2000), p. 99. ↩

9. C. Smith, “Biblical Perspectives on Power,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament vol. 93 (2001), pp. 108-109; I. W. Provan, New International Biblical Commentary – 1 and 2 Kings (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), pp. 23–24. ↩

10. TB Yevamot 103a, Nazir 23b, and Horayot 10b. ↩

11. Rashi to Yevamot 103a. ↩

12. This tradition appears in Vayikra Rabbah §23:10, cited in the name of Reish Lakish. ↩

13. R. Graybill, “Day of the Woman: Judges 4–5 as Slasher and Rape Revenge Narrative,” The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture vol. 30:3 (2018), p. 197. ↩

14. M. Orfali, “Hieronymus de Sancta Fide and His Use of Sanhedrin,” in A. Fidora & G. K. Hasselhoff (eds.), The Talmud in Dispute During the High Middle Ages (Barcelona: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 2019), pp. 260–261. ↩

15. C. Vital, Likkutei ha-Shas (Jerusalem, 1984), p. 42; Pelah ha-Rimmon (Korets, 1786), p. 26b. ↩

16. Y. Meir Weisz of Spinka, Imrei Yosef: Vayikra—Bamidbar (Sighet, 1913), fol. 65b-66a. ↩

17. Maharal, Hiddushei Aggadot (to TB Sanhedrin 82b). ↩