Talk:Solomon's shamir

Arabic and Islamic sources
This is also known in Arabic and Islamic lore as the Samur. A worm said to be able to split rocks. The location of this object was known by the jinni Sakhr, the very same jinni who stole the ring from the Prophet Sulaiman, which in Jewish tradition is called Ashmedai aka Asmodeus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.184.59 (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The shamir was lost after the destruction of the Second Temple, not the first
The Ritva in Kiddushin 31a (ד״ה פעם אחת, link here) writes that the Talmud was referring to to the Second Temple, not the first, when it stated that the shamir was lost following the temple's destruction.

The reason the Ritva explains the talmudic statement this way is that otherwise there would be a major inconsistency in a different story brought in the Talmud (in Kiddushin 31a): that of Dama ben Nesina, a gentile lauded for his commitment to honoring his father, and did not disturb his father's sleep to get a key under his pillow to a safe or vault when he was offered a very high price for his precious gemstones, which were necessary for the ephod. As a result of his commitment to not disturb his father's sleep even to get a key to his merchandise, Dama ben Nesina lost out on a lot of money. God therefore rewarded him a red heifer, which was also very valuable, and Dama ben Nesina sold it for an even greater sum.

The Ritva points out an inconsistency in the story: if this incident took place during the first temple, there was no point in buying an additional red heifer, as the red heifer of Moses sufficed throughout the duration of the first temple, and consequently his valuable reward is actually not valuable at all. However, neither this incident could have taken place during the Second Temple period, since the precious gemstones were of no value then either, as the Talmud elsewhere says that the shamir was forever lost following the destruction of the First Temple, and consequently there was no possible way to cut the gemstones to fit on on the ephod. The Ritva resolves this inconsistency by explaining that the Talmud was referring to the Second Temple when it said the shamir was lost forever following the destruction of the temple, even though the Talmud appeared to be referring to the first.

In conclusion, this article is ignoring the whole truth when it says that the shamir was lost or lost its potency following the destruction of the first temple, as at least one major rabbinical figure held that it was lost following the destruction of the Second Temple. The Ritva's viewpoint (without the background, just his explanation of the Talmud's statement) should be mentioned in the article (and attributed to him).

There are other rabbis who indeed hold it was lost following the First Temple's destruction (e.g. Shitta Lo Noda LeMi on Kiddushin 31a), but my point was that this viewpoint was not universally shared among everyone, and what Temple the Talmud was referring to is subject to a dispute among the commentators. Kalimi (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)