Sanhedrin 19
וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה. אֶלָּא מִן הָאֵירוּסִין אַמַּאי? יָבֹא עֲשֵׂה וְיִדְחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה!
and there is a principle that a positive mitzva by itself does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva. But as for the ruling that he does not consummate levirate marriage with a widow from betrothal, why not? The positive mitzva to consummate levirate marriage should come and override the prohibition.
גְּזֵירָה בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, אַטּוּ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה.
The Gemara answers: The first act of intercourse is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the likelihood of a second act of intercourse. Although the first act of intercourse would fulfill the positive mitzva of consummating levirate marriage, which would override the prohibition against a High Priest’s engaging in intercourse with a widow, any further intercourse would not be in fulfillment of a mitzva, and would not override the prohibition. Therefore, due to the possibility that the High Priest and the yevama would engage in intercourse a second time, the Sages decreed that even the first act is forbidden.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אִם קָדְמוּ וּבָעֲלוּ בִּיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – קָנוּ, וְאָסוּר לְקַיְּימָן בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה.
The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If the High Priest or one whose yevama is forbidden to him went ahead and engaged in a first act of intercourse with her, he acquired her as a wife, but it is prohibited to retain that woman as a wife for a second act of intercourse.
מֵת לוֹ מֵת כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא״ – לֹא יֵצֵא עִמָּהֶן, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא הוּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן. כֵּיצַד? הֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, הֵן נִיגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to the High Priest that if a relative of his died, he does not follow the bier carrying the corpse. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse concerning the High Priest, which states: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge” (Leviticus 21:12), means: He shall not emerge with them as they escort the bier, but he emerges after them. How so? Once they are concealed from sight by turning onto another street, he is revealed on the street they departed, and when they are revealed, then he is concealed.
וְיוֹצֵא עַד פֶּתַח כּוּ׳. שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The mishna teaches Rabbi Meir’s opinion, that in the manner just described to escort the deceased, the High Priest emerges with them until the entrance of the gate of the city, which is contrasted with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion that he does not leave the Temple at all. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda is saying well, and his statement is consistent with the straightforward meaning of the verse: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge” (Leviticus 21:12).
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִי הָכִי, לְבֵיתוֹ נָמֵי לָא! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא״ – מִקְּדוּשָּׁתוֹ לֹא יֵצֵא. וְכֵיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ הֶכֵּירָא, לָא אָתֵי לְמִינְגַּע.
The Gemara responds: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If so, that you understand the verse so narrowly, he should not go out to his house as well but should be required to stay in the Temple. Rather, this is what it is saying: “And from the Temple [hamikdash] he shall not emerge” means: From his sanctity [mikedushato] he shall not emerge by contracting ritual impurity, and since he has a distinctive indicator in that he does not walk together with those accompanying the bier, he will not come to touch the bier and contract impurity.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אַגַּב מְרָרֵיהּ, דִּילְמָא מִקְּרֵי וְאָתֵי וְנָגַע.
The Gemara asks: And how would Rabbi Yehuda respond? The Gemara explains: There is still cause for concern that on account of his bitterness due to the death of his loved one, perhaps it will happen that he comes and touches the bier. Therefore, a more restrictive regimen of separation is necessary.
כְּשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּשֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵר בַּשּׁוּרָה לְנַחֵם אֶת אֲחֵרִים – סְגָן וּמָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר בִּימִינוֹ, וְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב וַאֲבֵלִים וְכׇל הָעָם מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בַּשּׁוּרָה וּמִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים – סְגָן מִימִינוֹ, וְרֹאשׁ בֵּית אָב וְכׇל הָעָם מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ.
The mishna teaches: And when he consoles others in their mourning when they return from burial, the way of all the people is that they pass by one after another and the mourners stand in a line and are consoled, and the appointed person stands in the middle, between him and the people. The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:1) in a more detailed manner: When the High Priest passes by in the line to console others, the deputy High Priest and the former anointed High Priest, who had served temporarily and then stepped down, are on his right. And the head of the patrilineal family appointed over the priestly watch performing the sacrificial rites that day in the Temple; and the mourners; and all the people are on his left. And when he is standing in the line among the other mourners and is consoled by others, the deputy High Priest is on his right, and the head of the patrilineal family and all the people are on his left.
אֲבָל מָשׁוּחַ שֶׁעָבַר לָא אָתֵי גַּבֵּיהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? חָלְשָׁא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. סָבַר: קָא חָדֵי בִּי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא תְּלָת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַיְינוּ סְגַן הַיְינוּ מְמוּנֶּה, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֲבֵלִים עוֹמְדִין וְכׇל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֲבֵלִים לִשְׂמֹאל הַמְנַחֲמִין הֵן עוֹמְדִין.
The Gemara infers: But the previously anointed one does not come before him. What is the reason? The High Priest will become distraught. He will think: He is happy about me in my bereaved state. Rav Pappa said: Learn from it, from this baraita, three matters. Learn from it that the deputy High Priest is the same as the appointed person, as the baraita is referring to the deputy High Priest in the same function described by the mishna as the appointed one. And learn from it that the way of consoling in a line is that the mourners stand and all the people pass by and console them. And learn from it that the custom is that the mourners stand to the left of the consolers.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אֲבֵלִים עוֹמְדִין, וְכׇל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין. וְהָיוּ שְׁתֵּי מִשְׁפָּחוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מִתְגָּרוֹת זוֹ בָּזוֹ, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: ״אֲנִי עוֹבֶרֶת תְּחִלָּה״, וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: ״אֲנִי עוֹבֶרֶת תְּחִלָּה״. הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא הָעָם עוֹמְדִין וַאֲבֵלִים עוֹבְרִין.
The Sages taught in a baraita: Initially the mourners would stand, and all the people would pass by one after another and console them. And there were two families in Jerusalem who would fight with each other, as this one would say: We pass by first because we are more distinguished and important, and that one would say: We pass by first. Consequently, they decreed that the people should stand and the mourners pass by, and disputes would be avoided.
(חָזַר, וְהָלַךְ, וְסִיפֵּר. סִימָן).
The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the following discussion: Returned; and walk; and converse.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: הֶחְזִיר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת הַדָּבָר לְיוֹשְׁנוֹ בְּצִיפּוֹרִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ אֲבֵלִים עוֹמְדִין וְכׇל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין. וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: הִתְקִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּצִיפּוֹרִי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אִשָּׁה מְהַלֶּכֶת בַּשּׁוּק וּבְנָהּ אַחֲרֶיהָ, מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה. וְאָמַר רָמֵי בַּר אַבָּא: הִתְקִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּצִיפּוֹרִי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ נָשִׁים מְסַפְּרוֹת בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, מִשּׁוּם יִיחוּד.
Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei returned the matter to its former custom in Tzippori his city, that the mourners would stand and all the people would pass. And Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei instituted an ordinance in Tzippori that a woman should not walk in the market and have her son following behind her; rather, he should walk in front of her, because of an incident that happened in which bandits abducted a child and assaulted the mother when she came searching for him in his place of captivity. And Rami bar Abba says: Rabbi Yosei instituted an ordinance in Tzippori that women should converse in the bathroom, because of the restrictions on women being secluded with men. Since the public bathrooms there were outside the city a man might enter to take advantage of a woman, but he would be warded off by the women’s conversation.
אָמַר רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר עוּת: שְׁאֵילִית אֶת רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה רַבָּה בְּבֵית עָלְמִין דְּהוּצָל, וְאָמַר לִי: אֵין שׁוּרָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם, וְאֵין אֲבֵלִים מִן הַמִּנְיָן. בֵּין שֶׁאֲבֵלִים עוֹמְדִין וְכׇל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין, בֵּין שֶׁאֲבֵלִים עוֹבְרִין וְכׇל הָעָם עוֹמְדִין.
Rav Menashya bar Ute says: I asked a question of Rabbi Yoshiya the Great in the cemetery of Huzal, and he said this halakha to me: There is no line for consoling mourners with fewer than ten people, and the mourners are not included in the count. This minimum number of consolers applies whether the mourners stand and all the people pass by, or the mourners pass by and all the people stand.
כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם כּוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּי מְנַחֵם הוּא אַחֲרִינֵי, הֵיכִי אָמַר לְהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: וְהוּא אוֹמֵר תִּתְנַחֲמוּ. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא כִּי מְנַחֲמִי אַחֲרִינֵי לְדִידֵיהּ, אָמַר לְהוּ אִיהוּ תִּתְנַחֲמוּ? נְחָשָׁא קָא רָמֵי לְהוּ! אֶלָּא, כִּי מְנַחֵם לְאַחֲרִינֵי אֲמַר לְהוּ תִּתְנַחֲמוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
§ The mishna teaches: And when he is consoled by others in his mourning, all the people say to him: We are your atonement. And he says to them: May you be blessed from Heaven. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When the High Priest consoles others, what should he say to them? Come and hear an answer from a baraita: And he says: May you be consoled. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which he says this? If we say that when others console him in his mourning he says to them: May you be consoled, this does not make sense, because he would be throwing a curse at them by saying that they too will need to be consoled. Rather, it must mean: When he consoles others, he says to them: May you be consoled. Learn from the baraita that this is what he says to console others.
מֶלֶךְ לֹא דָּן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתָן, דִּכְתִיב: ״בֵּית דָּוִד כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ דִּינוּ לַבֹּקֶר מִשְׁפָּט״. וְאִי לָא דָּיְינִינַן לֵיהּ, אִינְהוּ הֵיכִי דָּיְינִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״הִתְקוֹשְׁשׁוּ וָקוֹשּׁוּ״, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: קְשֹׁט עַצְמְךָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קְשֹׁט אֲחֵרִים.
§ The mishna teaches: A king does not judge and is not judged. Rav Yosef says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the kings of Israel, who were violent and disobedient of Torah laws, but with regard to the kings of the house of David, the king judges and is judged, as it is written: “O house of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning” (Jeremiah 21:12). If they do not judge him, how can he judge? But isn’t it written: “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together [hitkosheshu vakoshu]” (Zephaniah 2:1), and Reish Lakish says: This verse teaches a moral principle: Adorn [kashet] yourself first, and then adorn others, i.e., one who is not subject to judgment may not judge others. Since it is understood from the verse in Jeremiah that kings from the Davidic dynasty can judge others, it is implicit that they can also be judged.
אֶלָּא מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, דְּעַבְדֵּיהּ דְּיַנַּאי מַלְכָּא קְטַל נַפְשָׁא. אֲמַר לְהוּ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח לַחֲכָמִים: תְּנוּ עֵינֵיכֶם בּוֹ וּנְדוּנֶנּוּ. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: עַבְדָּךְ קְטַל נַפְשָׁא. שַׁדְּרֵיהּ לְהוּ. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: תָּא אַנְתְּ נָמֵי לְהָכָא, ״וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו״ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה – יָבֹא בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר וְיַעֲמוֹד עַל שׁוֹרוֹ.
The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that others do not judge the kings of Israel? It is because of an incident that happened, as the slave of Yannai the king killed a person. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to the Sages: Put your eyes on him and let us judge him. They sent word to Yannai: Your slave killed a person. Yannai sent the slave to them. They sent word to Yannai: You also come here, as the verse states with regard to an ox that gored a person to death: “He should be testified against with his owner” (Exodus 21:29). The Torah stated: The owner of the ox should come and stand over his ox.
אֲתָא וִיתֵיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח: יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ, עֲמוֹד עַל רַגְלֶיךָ וְיָעִידוּ בָּךְ. וְלֹא לְפָנֵינוּ אַתָּה עוֹמֵד, אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם אַתָּה עוֹמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם הָרִיב וְגוֹ״. אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא כְּשֶׁתֹּאמַר אַתָּה, אֶלָּא כְּמָה שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ חֲבֵרֶיךָ.
The Gemara continues to narrate the incident: Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: Yannai the king, stand on your feet and witnesses will testify against you. And it is not before us that you are standing, to give us honor, but it is before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that you are standing, as it is stated: “Then both the people, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days” (Deuteronomy 19:17). Yannai the king said to him: I will not stand when you alone say this to me, but according to what your colleagues say, and if the whole court tells me, I will stand.
נִפְנָה לִימִינוֹ – כָּבְשׁוּ פְּנֵיהֶם בַּקַּרְקַע. נִפְנָה לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ – וְכָבְשׁוּ פְּנֵיהֶם בַּקַּרְקַע. אָמַר לָהֶן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח: בַּעֲלֵי מַחְשָׁבוֹת אַתֶּם, יָבֹא בַּעַל מַחְשָׁבוֹת וְיִפָּרַע מִכֶּם! מִיָּד בָּא גַּבְרִיאֵל וַחֲבָטָן בַּקַּרְקַע, וּמֵתוּ. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמְרוּ: מֶלֶךְ לֹא דָּן וְלֹא דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ.
Shimon ben Shataḥ turned to his right. The judges forced their faces to the ground out of fear and said nothing. He turned to his left, and they forced their faces to the ground and said nothing. Shimon ben Shataḥ said to them: You are masters of thoughts, enjoying your private thoughts, and not speaking. May the Master of thoughts, God, come and punish you. Immediately, the angel Gabriel came and struck those judges to the ground, and they died. At that moment, when they saw that the Sanhedrin does not have power to force the king to heed its instructions, the Sages said: A king does not judge others and others do not judge him, and he does not testify and others do not testify concerning him, due to the danger of the matter.
לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין וְכוּ׳. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ! מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.
The mishna teaches that the king does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and Rabbi Yehuda says that he may do so if he wishes. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says that with regard to a Nasi who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is relinquished, nevertheless, with regard to a king who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning that his fear should be upon you. The preservation of a king’s honor is mandated by the Torah. How could Rabbi Yehuda allow him to waive it? The Gemara answers: A mitzva is different; a king is not disgraced if he relinquishes his honor to perform a mitzva.
וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נָשִׁים הָרְאוּיוֹת לוֹ מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. וּמַאי נִינְהוּ? מֵירַב וּמִיכַל.
The mishna teaches: And no one may marry the king’s widow, and Rabbi Yehuda says that a king may marry another king’s widow, as proven by King David, who was promised with regard to King Saul after his death: “And I have given you the house of your master and the wives of your master” (II Samuel 12:8). It is taught in a baraita: The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The meaning of the verse is not that David married Saul’s widows, but that he married women appropriate for him from the house of the king. And who are they? Merab and Michal, the daughters of Saul.
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הֵיאַךְ נָשָׂא דָּוִד שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת בְּחַיֵּיהֶן? אָמַר לָהֶן: מִיכַל אַחַר מִיתַת מֵירַב נְשָׂאָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת הָיוּ לוֹ בְּמֵירַב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּנָה אֶת אִשְׁתִּי אֶת מִיכַל אֲשֶׁר אֵרַסְתִּי לִי בְּמֵאָה עׇרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים״.
The Gemara relates a discussion about David’s marriage to Merab and Michal from a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 11:9): Rabbi Yosei’s students asked him: How did David marry two sisters while they were both alive? Rabbi Yosei said to them: He married Michal only after the death of Merab, which is permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says a different explanation: His betrothal to Merab was in error and therefore void from the outset, and so Michal was permitted to him. This is as it is stated in the words of King David to Saul’s son Ish-bosheth: “Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to me for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines” (II Samuel 3:14).
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״מִיכַל אִשְׁתִּי״, וְלֹא מֵירַב אִשְׁתִּי.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? How does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa learn from this verse that King David’s betrothal to Merab was in error? Rav Pappa says: In the verse, David indicates: Michal is my wife but Merab is not my wife.
מַאי קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּנּוּ יַעְשְׁרֶנּוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ עֹשֶׁר גָּדוֹל וְגוֹ׳״. אֲזַל קַטְלֵיהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִלְוָה אִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי, וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.
The Gemara asks: What caused the betrothal between David and Merab to be a mistaken betrothal? The Gemara responds: As it is written about Israel’s war against the Philistines and Goliath: “And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel” (I Samuel 17:25). David went and killed Goliath. King Saul said to him: You have a loan in my possession, as I owe you the great wealth that I promised, though David had not given him an actual monetary loan. And the halakha is that with regard to one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan, she is not betrothed, and therefore David’s betrothal of Merab did not take effect.
אֲזַל יַהֲבַהּ לְעַדְרִיאֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בְּעֵת תֵּת אֶת מֵירַב בַּת שָׁאוּל לְדָוִד וְגוֹ׳״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בָּעֵית דְּאֶתֵּן לָךְ מִיכַל, זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי מֵאָה עׇרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה אִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי.
Saul went and gave Merab to Adriel, as it is written: “But it came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife” (I Samuel 18:19). Saul said to David: If you want me to give you Michal, go bring me one hundred foreskins of the Philistines (see I Samuel 18:25–27). David went and brought Saul two hundred foreskins. Saul said to him: Even though you brought the foreskins, the betrothal is not valid, as you, David, have a loan and one peruta in my possession, i.e., the wealth Saul owed him for slaying Goliath as well as the item of lesser monetary value, the foreskins of the Philistines.
שָׁאוּל סְבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַמִּלְוָה, וְדָוִד סְבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַפְּרוּטָה.
Saul and David had a halakhic dispute on this point: Saul reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the loan and not on the additional peruta, and therefore the betrothal is not valid. And David reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta and therefore the betrothal is valid.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַפְּרוּטָה. שָׁאוּל סְבַר: לָא חֲזוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְדָוִד סְבַר: חֲזוֹ לְכַלְבֵי וְשׁוּנָּרֵי.
And if you wish, say instead: Everyone reasons that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta. Saul reasoned that foreskins of Philistines are not fit for any purpose and as such are worth not even one peruta, and that consequently the betrothal did not take effect. And David reasoned that they are fit for dogs and cats as food and as such are worth at least one peruta, and therefore the betrothal takes effect.
וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, הַאי ״תְּנָה אֶת אִשְׁתִּי אֶת מִיכַל״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִקְרָאוֹת מְעוֹרָבִין.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yosei, who explains that David married Michal after the death of Merab, with regard to this verse: “Deliver me my wife Michal” (II Samuel 3:14), what does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 11:8): Rabbi Yosei would derive meaning from mixed verses that seem contradictory.
כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי רִצְפָּה בַת אַיָּה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְשָׁאוּל אֶת אַרְמֹנִי וְאֶת מְפִיבֹשֶׁת וְאֶת חֲמֵשֶׁת בְּנֵי מִיכַל אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְעַדְרִיאֵל הַמְּחֹלָתִי וְגוֹ׳״. וְכִי לְעַדְרִיאֵל נִתְּנָה? וַהֲלֹא לְפַלְטִי בֶּן לַיִשׁ נִתְּנָה! דִּכְתִיב: ״וְשָׁאוּל נָתַן אֶת מִיכַל בִּתּוֹ אֵשֶׁת דָּוִד לְפַלְטִי בֶן לַיִשׁ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Tosefta continues. It is written: “But the king took the two sons of Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, whom she bore unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel, son of Barzillai the Meholathite” (II Samuel 21:8). But did Saul give Michal to Adriel? But didn’t he give her to Palti, son of Laish, as it is written: “Now Saul had given Michal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti, son of Laish” (I Samuel 25:44)?
אֶלָּא מַקִּישׁ קִידּוּשֵׁי מֵירַב לְעַדְרִיאֵל לְקִידּוּשֵׁי מִיכַל לְפַלְטִי: מָה קִידּוּשֵׁי מִיכַל לְפַלְטִי – בַּעֲבֵירָה, אַף קִידּוּשֵׁי מֵירַב לְעַדְרִיאֵל – בַּעֲבֵירָה.
The Tosefta continues: The first verse does not mean, then, that Michal married Adriel. Rather, the verse compares Merab’s betrothal to Adriel to Michal’s betrothal to Palti: Just as Michal’s betrothal to Palti was effected in transgression, according to all opinions, since she was already married to David, so, too, Merab’s betrothal to Adriel was effected in transgression, since according to halakha she was betrothed to David.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״אֶת חֲמֵשֶׁת בְּנֵי מִיכַל בַּת שָׁאוּל״? אָמַר לְךָ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: וְכִי מִיכַל יָלְדָה? וַהֲלֹא מֵירַב יָלְדָה! מֵירַב יָלְדָה וּמִיכַל גִּידְּלָה, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמָהּ. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכׇּל הַמְגַדֵּל יָתוֹם בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa as well, isn’t it written: “And the five sons of Michal, daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel” (II Samuel 21:8). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa could have said to you to understand it this way: And did Michal give birth to these children? But didn’t Merab give birth to them for Adriel? Rather, Merab gave birth to them and died, and Michal raised them in her house. Therefore, the children were called by her name, to teach you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him.
(חֲנִינָא קָרָא יוֹחָנָן וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלְעָזָר וּגְאוּלָּה וּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּלִימּוּדוֹ סִימָן.) רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר, מֵהָכָא: ״וַתִּקְרֶאנָה לוֹ הַשְּׁכֵנוֹת שֵׁם לֵאמֹר יוּלַּד בֵּן לְנׇעֳמִי״. וְכִי נָעֳמִי יָלְדָה? וַהֲלֹא רוּת יָלְדָה! אֶלָּא רוּת יָלְדָה וְנׇעֳמִי גִּידְּלָה, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרָא עַל שְׁמָהּ.
The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the following discussion: Ḥanina called; Yoḥanan and his wife; Elazar and redemption; and Shmuel in my studies. Rabbi Ḥanina says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “And the neighbors gave him a name, saying: There is a son born to Naomi” (Ruth 4:17). And did Naomi give birth to the son? But didn’t Ruth give birth to him? Rather, Ruth gave birth and Naomi raised him. Therefore, he was called by her name: “A son born to Naomi.”
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִשְׁתּוֹ הַיְהֻדִיָּה יָלְדָה אֶת יֶרֶד אֲבִי גְדוֹר וְגוֹ׳ וְאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי בִּתְיָה בַת פַּרְעֹה אֲשֶׁר לָקַח (לוֹ) מָרֶד״. מָרֶד זֶה כָּלֵב, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מֶרֶד? שֶׁמָּרַד בַּעֲצַת מְרַגְּלִים. וְכִי בִּתְיָה יָלְדָה? וַהֲלֹא יוֹכֶבֶד יָלְדָה! אֶלָּא יוֹכֶבֶד יָלְדָה וּבִתְיָה גִּידְּלָה, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרָא עַל שְׁמָהּ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “And his wife Hajehudijah gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithiah, daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18). Mered is Caleb, and why was his name called Mered? Because he rebelled [marad] against the counsel of the spies. And according to the midrash, Jered, Heber, and Jekuthiel all refer to Moses our teacher. And did Bithiah give birth to Moses? But didn’t Jochebed give birth to him? Rather, Jochebed gave birth to him and Bithiah raised him. Therefore, he was called by her name as though she had given birth to him.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״גָּאַלְתָּ בִּזְרוֹעַ עַמֶּךָ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב וְיוֹסֵף סֶלָה״. וְכִי יוֹסֵף יָלַד? וַהֲלֹא יַעֲקֹב יָלַד! אֶלָּא, יַעֲקֹב יָלַד וְיוֹסֵף כִּילְכֵּל, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ.
Rabbi Elazar says: Proof for the aforementioned statement can be derived from here: “You have with Your arm redeemed your people, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah” (Psalms 77:16). And did Joseph sire all of the children of Israel? But didn’t Jacob sire them? Rather, Jacob sired them and Joseph sustained them financially. Therefore, they were called by his name; all of Israel were called the children of Joseph.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַמְלַמֵּד בֶּן חֲבֵירוֹ תּוֹרָה, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ יְלָדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן״. לוֹמַר לָךְ: אַהֲרֹן יָלַד וּמֹשֶׁה לִימֵּד, לְפִיכָךְ נִקְרְאוּ עַל שְׁמוֹ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches another person’s son Torah, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sired him, as it is stated: “Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses” (Numbers 3:1), and it is written immediately afterward: “And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadav the firstborn and Avihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar” (Numbers 3:2), but it does not mention the names of Moses’ children. This serves to say to you that Aaron sired his children, but Moses taught them Torah. Therefore, the children were also called by his name.
״לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֶל בֵּית יַעֲקֹב אֲשֶׁר פָּדָה אֶת אַבְרָהָם״, וְכִי הֵיכָן מָצִינוּ בְּיַעֲקֹב שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ לְאַבְרָהָם? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ מִצַּעַר גִּידּוּל בָּנִים. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא עַתָּה יֵבוֹשׁ יַעֲקֹב וְגוֹ׳״, ״לֹא עַתָּה יֵבוֹשׁ יַעֲקֹב״ – מֵאָבִיו, ״וְלֹא עַתָּה פָּנָיו יֶחֱוָרוּ״ – מֵאֲבִי אָבִיו.
The Gemara cites another derivation connected to child-rearing: “Therefore, so says the Lord to the house of Jacob, who redeemed Abraham; Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale” (Isaiah 29:22). But where have we found any indication about Jacob that he redeemed Abraham? Rav Yehuda says: It means that he redeemed him from the suffering of raising children, in that Abraham did not have twelve tribes and the resultant hardships involved in raising them, as Jacob did, as Jacob assumed the burden of raising the tribes of Israel. And this is as it is written: “Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale,” meaning: “Jacob shall not now be ashamed” before his father, and “neither shall his face now wax pale” before his father’s father, since he took upon himself the role that they bore as well.
כְּתִיב ״פַּלְטִי״ וּכְתִיב ״פַּלְטִיאֵל״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פַּלְטִי שְׁמוֹ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פַּלְטִיאֵל? שֶׁפִּלְּטוֹ אֵל מִן הָעֲבֵירָה. מָה עָשָׂה? נָעַץ חֶרֶב בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּדָבָר זֶה יִדָּקֵר בֶּחָרֶב (זֶה).
The Gemara cites a tradition with regard to Palti, son of Laish: It is written in one place “Palti” (I Samuel 25:44), and it is written in another place “Paltiel” (II Samuel 3:15). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Palti was his real name, and why was his name called Paltiel? To teach that God [El ] saved [pelato] him from the sin, by giving him the insight that he may not touch Michal, understanding that she was still David’s wife and therefore forbidden to him. What did he do? He embedded a sword in the bed between him and her, and said: Anyone who engages in this matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, should be stabbed by this sword.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּלֶךְ אִתָּהּ אִישָׁהּ״? שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה לָהּ כְּאִישָׁהּ. וְהָכְתִיב: ״הָלוֹךְ וּבָכֹה״? עַל מִצְוָה דַּאֲזַיל מִינֵּיהּ. ״עַד בַּחֻרִים״, שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּבַחוּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם בִּיאָה.
The Gemara challenges this: But isn’t it written: “And her husband went with her, weeping as he went, and followed her to Bahurim” (II Samuel 3:16), referring to Palti as Michal’s husband? The Gemara responds: This means that he became like a husband for her through his affection and concern for her. The Gemara counters: But isn’t it written in that very verse: “weeping as he went”? If from the outset he thought that she was David’s wife, why was he crying? The Gemara responds: He was weeping about the mitzva that left him, as from now on, he would receive no reward for restraining his desire. The end of the verse says that they went “to Bahurim,” meaning that they both became like young men [baḥurim] in that they did not taste sexual intercourse at all.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תּוֹקְפּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף – עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז, תּוֹקְפּוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז – עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל פַּלְטִי בֶּן לַיִשׁ. תּוֹקְפּוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף – עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיֶּחֱרַד הָאִישׁ וַיִּלָּפֵת״. מַאי ״וַיִּלָּפֵת״? אָמַר רַב: שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בְּשָׂרוֹ כְּרָאשֵׁי לְפָתוֹת.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as Joseph is praised for showing strength with regard to an accomplishment that was insignificant for Boaz (see Genesis, chapter 39). Likewise, Boaz’s power is the humility of Palti, son of Laish, as Palti’s capacity for restraint was greater still. Joseph’s power is the humility of Boaz, as it is written about Boaz: “And it came to pass at midnight that the man was startled and turned himself, and behold, a woman lay at his feet” (Ruth 3:8). What is the meaning of “and turned himself [vayyilafet]”? Rav says: The meaning is that his flesh became like the heads of turnips [lefatot], his sexual organ hardening out of arousal, but even though Ruth was not married he refrained from engaging in intercourse with her; while Joseph had to exert more effort, despite the fact that Potiphar’s wife was married.
