I. Detailed Talmudic Overview

A. The Miracle Done for Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah (last line on previous Amud)

• 1. R. Yochanan – Tzadikim Greater than Angels
     • The Talmud references Daniel 3:25: Nebuchadnezzar sees “four men walking in the fire … and the fourth looks like a divine being.”
     • R. Yochanan observes that the angel is mentioned after Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, implying tzadikim are listed first – “Revi’a’ah dame l’Var Elahin” (the angel is “the fourth”), showing how the righteous are “greater” than the angel, or at least are mentioned first in that verse.
  2. Aftermath: Nations’ Reaction (R. Tanchum bar Chanilai)
     • When they emerged from the furnace unharmed, other nations slapped the faces of those Israelites who had bowed to the statue, exclaiming: “You have such a G-d, yet you bowed to an idol?!”
     • The Jews responded: “Lecha Hashem hatzedakah vlanu boshet hapanim – to You, G-d, is righteousness, and to us is shame.”
  3. Only One Branch Achieved Greatness (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani)
     • Cites Shir HaShirim 7:9: “Amarti e’eleh batamar…” – G-d said He intended for the entire Jewish people to be lofty like a date tree, but in practice only had “one branch,” i.e., Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who reached such a miraculous level.
  4. R. Yochanan – G-d’s Plan to Destroy the World
     • The Talmud references Zechariah 1:8, where Hashem sees red horses. R. Yochanan says that initially Hashem wanted to turn the whole world into night or into blood because the Jews had bowed to the statue. But after beholding the righteousness of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, G-d was appeased.
     • This midrashic reading sees the “Hadasim” in the verse as Tzadikim (like Esther called Hadassah). They are in “metzulah” (Babylonia), and G-d’s fury was softened.
  5. Rav Papa: White Horses in a Dream

Because the verses talk about red horses turning calm or bright, Rav Papa deduces that seeing white horses in a dream is a good omen.

• 1. Where Did Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah End Up?

The Talmud cites three opinions:

• 1. Rav: They died through an evil eye (ayin hara).
  2. Shmuel: They drowned in spit from those who disdained them.
  3. R. Yochanan: They went up to Eretz Yisrael, married, and had children.
     This difference is repeated among Tannaim in a Beraita, with an additional verse from Zechariah 3:8 “anshei mofes hem,” identifying them as those for whom a wondrous miracle was done, now in Eretz Yisrael.
  4. What of Daniel?
     • The Talmud wonders where Daniel went during that furnace episode. The opinions:
       • Rav: He left to open a big canal near Tiberias.
       • Shmuel: He went to bring alfalfa fodder.
       • R. Yochanan: He was sent to bring big pigs from Alexandria.
     • The Talmud clarifies that he took small ones to circumvent local laws about exporting livestock.
  5. Why Did Daniel, G-d, and Nebuchadnezzar All Want Daniel Gone?
     • G-d didn’t want it to seem the miracle for Chananyah, Mishael, Azaryah was in Daniel’s merit;
     • Daniel worried that if Nebuchadnezzar idolized him, he might get burned (idolatry should be destroyed by burning).
     • Nebuchadnezzar didn’t want people to think he burned his own “god” if Daniel was inside the furnace with them.
  6. Nebuchadnezzar Worshipped Daniel. A verse from Daniel 2:46 implies “Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face before Daniel.” The Talmud calls that worship, which Daniel wanted to avoid.

B. False Nevi’im Burned in the Fire

Achav ben Kolayah and Tzidkiyahu ben Maaseyah

• • • They are false prophets who were eventually burned by the King of Babylon. The Talmud interprets “kalam” to mean they were roasted like parched grain.
    • They engaged in immorality: each told the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar that G-d commands her to cohabit with the other. She asked about Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who said it’s forbidden. They insisted they themselves were also prophets.
    • Nebuchadnezzar tested them by a similar furnace scenario. They were burned, while Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol, who was with them, was only partially singed.
  • Why Did Yehoshua’s Garments Burn?

He had some deficiency: not rebuking his sons who married women unfit for a Kohen. Thus, unlike Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, he faced partial harm.

C. Why Sefer Ezra Is Not Called Nechemyah

• 1. Many parts of Sefer Ezra are from Nechemyah. Talmud wonders: why name it “Ezra,” not “Nechemyah.”
     • R. Yirmeyah bar Aba: Because Nechemyah took credit for himself, “Zechrah li Elokai l’tovah.”
     • The Talmud notes David also prayed “Zachreini Hashem,” but David’s was purely a request for mercy, not credit.
     • Rav Yosef: Because he belittled earlier leaders – “the previous governors burdened the people.” He even slighted Daniel who was greater than he.
  2. Greater-ness of Daniel vs. Nechemyah
     • The Talmud says Daniel was recognized as superior in certain ways. Indeed, Daniel was among those singled out for direct prophecy or wonders.

II. SWOT Analysis

A. Halakhic SWOT

Strengths (S)	Weaknesses (W)
Clarifies how Tannaim interpret miraculous deliverance (furnace miracle) and the interplay of multiple opinions on the fate of Chananyah, Mishael, Azaryah.	The references to mythical-sounding punishments (like drowning in spit) can appear strange if not taught with full context.
Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
Demonstrates Talmudic approach to textual details, e.g. “kalam” means they were roasted.	If taught superficially, one might misconstrue these as purely legend, missing the moral/spiritual dimension.

B. Conceptual / Aggadic SWOT

Strengths (S)	Weaknesses (W)
The story of Achav & Tzidkiyahu shows moral consequences for false prophecy. Nechemyah’s modesty issue or credit-taking is also instructive.	Critiquing revered figures might appear unsettling – e.g. partial condemnation of Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol or Nechemyah.
Opportunities (O)	Threats (T)
Reinforces that even pious figures can have flaws or partial wrongdoing (e.g. Yehoshua’s sons, Nechemyah’s credit-taking).	Without nuance, negative examples about leadership might overshadow the Talmud’s positive leadership messages.

III. NVC (OFNR) + SMART Goals

A. Halakhic / Theological Points

• 1. Miracles and Tzaddikim – The Furnace

Observation (O): The Talmud says that angels are listed after the tzadikim; G-d saved them by a series of wonders, yet they later parted ways or died in various fashions.

Feelings (F): Awe at their devotion. Some pity that they faced uncertain ends – highlights that even after miracles, their spiritual journey continues.

Needs (N): Clarify how the Talmud’s multiple opinions reflect layered traditions, not contradiction.

Request (R): Would you be willing to present these different fates of Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah to advanced learners, emphasizing that the Talmud preserves a range of possible outcomes and lessons?
SMART Goals

Community: Within 2 months, schedule a deep-dive session on Daniel’s era, analyzing how Talmudic narratives handle incomplete resolution or multiple lines of tradition.

Individual: I plan to consult each Rishon’s commentary on the furnace story, finishing a short summary for my personal archives in 3 weeks.

• 1. Nechemyah vs. Daniel

Observation (O): The Talmud wonders why the work is named “Ezra” not “Nechemyah,” and we see that Nechemyah belittled earlier leaders or took credit. Daniel was considered greater.

Feelings (F): Reflects moral caution about praising oneself or demeaning others. Even a righteous figure can forfeit a certain textual honor.

Needs (N): Emphasize that moral humility is required for textual immortality – ironically Nechemyah lost that naming.

Request (R): Would you like to incorporate this piece about Nechemyah’s self-credit into a lesson on “anava (humility) and historical memory,” so participants see how small statements can affect legacy?
SMART Goals

Community: Start a short series on “Biblical Books and Their Names,” including the Nechemyah-Ezra question, within 6 weeks.

Individual: I intend to do a personal textual comparison of the phrases “Zechrah li Elokai” in Nechemyah vs. “Zechreini Hashem” of David, completing within 10 days to see the subtle difference in context.

B. Aggadic / Conceptual Points

• 1. False Prophets Achav & Tzidkiyahu
     • The Talmud shows they tried to exploit the trust in prophecy for personal gain (immorality with the king’s daughter). They ended up being “roasted like grain.”
     • Lesson: Deception using G-d’s name – especially regarding sexual or moral claims – leads to dire consequences.
  2. Chananyah, Mishael, Azaryah vs. Yehoshua
     • The Talmud highlights that Yehoshua had partial guilt for not stopping his sons from improper marriages, hence his garments alone singed.
     • This underscores the Talmudic principle that even minor complicity yields partial negative outcome.

IV. PEST Analysis

• 1. Political

The furnace story or referencing Nebuchadnezzar shows Talmud’s lens on Jewish life under foreign rule. The text fosters Jewish identity in diaspora with these narratives.

• 1. Economic

Minimal direct mention, though we see references to bringing fodder or pigs from other regions.

• 1. Social

The events shape communal memory. The story of open miracles becomes a moral anchor – e.g. how the community sees self-justifications or partial compliance.

• 1. Technological

The Talmud’s references to gleaning agricultural or livestock resources from far away. No direct modern technology aspect.

V. Porter’s Five Forces

• 1. Competitive Rivalry

Minimal – the Talmudic approach is well established. Variation among Tannaim is restricted to details of outcomes or methods.

• 1. Supplier Power

Rabbinic teachers interpret these texts to keep them relevant. The narratives remain classical foundation stories.

• 1. Buyer Power

The community typically accepts them. Possibly, modern rational-minded adherents might ask for more allegorical interpretations.

• 1. Threat of New Entrants

Alternative religious narratives (e.g. outside the Jewish tradition) do not overshadow the Talmud for those within it.

• 1. Threat of Substitutes

Another approach to moral/spiritual identity might be a “substitute,”
but for halakhically committed communities, Talmudic stories remain canonical.

VI. Sociological Analyses

A. Conflict Analysis

The Talmud’s stories about partial successes or moral flaws in righteous figures can create conflict for those expecting perfect heroes. But it fosters a nuanced view of spiritual greatness balanced with human frailties.

B. Functional Analysis

The text instructs how partial moral or spiritual lapses (like Yehoshua’s inaction) can have real consequences. The furnace story cements faith under oppression.

C. Symbolic Interactionism

The watchers see in these stories how righteous exemplars, false prophets, regal idolatrous kings all interact, shaping how Jewish communal identity is formed through narrative.

D. Intersectional Analysis

• 1. Gender: We note the presence of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter in questioning immorality. Typically male-dominated roles.
  2. Social Class: Even a high figure like Yehoshua can be partially blamed. The Talmud is equal in bestowing or removing honor as it sees fit.

VII. Six Thinking Hats

• 1. White Hat (Facts & Information)

The text presents: Tzadikim > angels, the aftermath of the furnace miracle, Achav & Tzidkiyahu’s wrongdoing, Yehoshua’s partial singeing. Also, the question: Why is the Book named “Ezra,” not “Nechemyah.”

• 1. Red Hat (Feelings & Emotions)

Emotions: Awe at the miracle, sadness that many Jews had bowed, empathy for Yehoshua, and curiosity about textual naming conventions.

• 1. Black Hat (Caution & Critique)

Potential confusion about how Talmud merges epic narratives with moral lessons. Some might see contradictory angles on Daniel’s whereabouts or the final fate of the furnace trio.

• 1. Yellow Hat (Optimism & Benefits)

Emphasizes that devoted faith can yield tremendous miracles. The Talmudic approach fosters humility – even Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol had partial blame.

• 1. Green Hat (Creativity & Alternatives)

We can apply these stories as moral allegories in modern contexts: e.g., the cost of partial silence (Yehoshua), the danger of false prophecy, or the significance of communal identity.

• 1. Blue Hat (Process Control)

The Talmud systematically includes multiple opinions (Rav, Shmuel, R. Yochanan) on the same event. This preserves a wide tradition, creating a full mosaic of possible outcomes or details.

Conclusion

Sanhedrin 93 addresses:

• 1. Furnace Miracle aftermath: R. Yochanan teaches Tzadikim can even be enumerated before angels, and the broader nations rebuke Jews who had bowed.
  2. Chananyah, Mishael, Azaryah: Debates whether they died, drowned in spit, or reached Eretz Yisrael. The Talmud also explains that Daniel avoided the furnace scenario for distinct reasons.
  3. False Nevi’im Achav ben Kolayah & Tzidkiyahu ben Maaseyah burned in the furnace, contrasting with Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol, partially affected.
  4. Nechemyah vs. Daniel: Why Sefer is called “Ezra,” not “Nechemyah.” The Talmud sees moral disclaimers: Nechemyah took credit, belittled others, including Daniel who was actually greater.

In sum, we glean moral, halakhic, and spiritual lessons about teaching Torah, partial or full miracles, the synergy of body-soul accountability (from previous context), and how the Talmud merges epic narratives with a moral dimension. The lens of SWOT, NVC with requests, PEST, Porter’s forces, Sociological commentary, and Six Thinking Hats reveals how these stories buttress the Talmudic worldview of unwavering devotion, moral nuance, and historical memory.