Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 1, 2020 | 讝壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 56

Today’s shiur is sponsored in Rabbi Fredda Cohen for her courageous and compassionate work as a Chaplain and director of Pastoral Care at White Plains Hospital in Westchester, New York, during this pandemic by Rabbi Julie Danan.聽

Today’s daf continues to mention others who are mentioned in the Torah as having sinned and Rabbi Yonatan says that they didn’t really sin according to what it says in the verse, however they did something wrong on account of which the sin is attrubuted to them. People mentioned are the sons of Shmuel, David, Solomon and Yoshiayahu (Josiah).

讘谞讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讟讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 (讻讬 讝拽谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讘谞讬讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜) 讘讚专讻讬讜 讘讚专讻讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛诇讻讜 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗讜

that the sons of Samuel sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel鈥And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice鈥 (I Samuel 8:1鈥3). By inference: In his ways they did not walk, however, they did not sin either. They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬讟讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘爪注 砖诇讗 注砖讜 讻诪注砖讛 讗讘讬讛诐 砖讛讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚讬拽 诪讞讝专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讚谉 讗讜转诐 讘注专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讱 诪讚讬 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讜住讘讘 讘讬转 讗诇 讜讛讙诇讙诇 讜讛诪爪驻讛 讜砖驻讟 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讻谉 讗诇讗 讬砖讘讜 讘注专讬讛诐 讻讚讬 诇讛专讘讜转 砖讻专 诇讞讝谞讬讛谉 讜诇住讜驻专讬讛谉

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd they sought after unjust gain,鈥 indicating that they were sinners? It means that they did not conduct themselves in accordance with the actions of their father. As Samuel the righteous would travel to all places where the people of Israel were located and sit in judgment in their towns, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he went from year to year in circuit from Beth-El, and Gilgal, and Mitzpa, and judged Israel in all those places鈥 (I Samuel 7:16). And, however, they did not do so and travel from place to place. Rather, they sat in their own cities in order to enhance the fees collected by their attendants and scribes. Therefore, the verse ascribes to them liability as if they sinned by seeking ill-gotten gains and bribes.

讻转谞讗讬 讜讬讟讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘爪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讞诇拽诐 砖讗诇讜 讘驻讬讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗讬 讛讟讬诇讜 注诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻讛 讬转讬专讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 谞讟诇讜 讘讝专讜注 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讜转 谞讟诇讜 讘讝专讜注:

The Gemara notes that this matter is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sought after unjust gain.鈥 Rabbi Meir says: This means that they vocally demanded their portions of the tithe due them as Levites, abusing their position to the detriment of other Levites. Rabbi Yehuda says: They imposed upon local homeowners to sell their merchandise and support them. Rabbi Akiva says: They took an extra basket of tithes, beyond that which was their due, by force. Rabbi Yosei says: They took only the gifts due them; however, they took them by force. They acted improperly, as a Levite is required to wait until he is given his gifts and may not take them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讚讜讚 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讜讚 诇讻诇 讚专讻讬讜 诪砖讻讬诇 讜讛壮 注诪讜 讜讙讜壮 讗驻砖专 讞讟讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讜砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讜

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was with him鈥 (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讚讜注 讘讝讬转 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 砖讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讗 注砖讛

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the prophet Nathan: 鈥淲hy have you despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword, and his wife you have taken to be your wife, and him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon鈥 (II Samuel 12:9), indicating that David sinned? The Gemara answers: David sought to do evil and have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah but did not do so.

讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 讚讗转讬 诪讚讜讚 诪讛驻讱 讜讚专讬砖 讘讝讻讜转讬讛 讚讚讜讚 诪讚讜注 讘讝讬转 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 专注讛 讝讜 诪讻诇 专注讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 砖讻诇 专注讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讬注砖 讜讻讗谉 讻转讬讘 诇注砖讜转 砖讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讗 注砖讛

Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who descends from the house of David, seeks to teach the verse in favor of David. With regard to that which is written: 鈥淲hy have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil,鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This evil mentioned with regard to David is different from all other evils in the Torah; as with regard to all other evils in the Torah, it is written: And he did evil, and here it is written: To do evil. This unique phrase indicates that David sought to do evil but did not actually do so. His intentions were improper; however, his actions were proper.

讗转 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬 讛讻讬转 讘讞专讘 砖讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讚讜谞讜 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜诇讗 讚谞转 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讞转 诇讱 诇讗砖讛 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讬砖 诇讱 讘讛

That which is written: 鈥淯riah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword,鈥 means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin as one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated from the generally accepted principles of judgment. With regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd his wife you have taken to be your wife鈥; it means that you have rights of marriage with her, as by law Bathsheba was already divorced from Uriah.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇诪诇讞诪转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讻讜转讘 讙讟 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 注砖专转 讞专讬爪讬 讛讞诇讘 讛讗诇讛 转讘讬讗 诇砖专 讛讗诇祝 讜讗转 讗讞讬讱 转驻拽讚 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. That was done to prevent a situation in which the soldier鈥檚 wife would be unable to remarry because the soldier did not return from battle and there were no witnesses to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded her the status of a divorcee and freed her to remarry. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd carry these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]鈥 (I Samuel 17:18).

诪讗讬 注专讘转诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬诐 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

What is the meaning of arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It refers to matters that are shared [hame鈥檕ravim] between him, the husband, and her, the wife, i.e., marriage. The verse should be read: Take the bill of divorce that determines the status of the relationship between husband and wife. As, apparently, it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, since Uriah later died, Bathsheba retroactively assumed divorced status from the time that he set out to war. She was not forbidden to David.

讜讗转讜 讛专讙转 讘讞专讘 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 诪讛 讞专讘 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讗讬 讗转讛 谞注谞砖 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬 讗讬 讗转讛 谞注谞砖 注诇讬讜

With regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon,鈥 it means: Just as you are not punished for soldiers killed by the sword of the children of Ammon in the course of the war, so too you are not punished for the death of Uriah the Hittite.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜专讚 讘诪诇讻讜转 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讚谞讬 讬讜讗讘 讜注讘讚讬 讗讚谞讬 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讞谞讬诐

What is the reason that David was not liable for the death of Uriah? Because Uriah was a traitor against the throne. As he said to David: 鈥淎nd my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields鈥 (II Samuel 11:11). In the presence of the king, one may not refer to another as his lord. Doing so is treason.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞转 讘讬讛 讘讚讜讚 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 讘讬讛 讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 专拽 讘讚讘专 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬

Rav said: When you analyze the matter of David, no sin that he committed is found in his lifetime, except for that involving Uriah. As it is written: 鈥淏ecause David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite鈥 (I Kings 15:5).

讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 拽砖讬讗

Abaye the Elder raised a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report? Just as it is prohibited to relate a slanderous report, it is similarly prohibited to accept it. This contradiction remains unresolved, and it is difficult.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 讗讬驻讜讗 讛讜讗 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讬转 诪讻讬专 讘谉 注诪讬讗诇 (讘诇讗) 讚讘专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讛诪诇讱 讜讬拽讞讛讜 诪讘讬转 诪讻讬专 讘谉 注诪讬讗诇 (诪诇讗) 讚讘专

The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rav said: David accepted a slanderous report, as it is written with regard to David鈥檚 search for a surviving son of Jonathan: 鈥淎nd the king said to him, to Ziba, Saul鈥檚 slave: Where is he? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-Devar [belo devar]鈥 (II Samuel 9:4). Ziba indicated to David that Jonathan鈥檚 son was inconsequential, lacking any matter [lo devar] of Torah. And it is written: 鈥淭hen King David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lo-Devar [milo devar]鈥 (II Samuel 9:5). That verse can be read that after sending for him, David found him filled with matters [melo devar] of Torah.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讚砖拽专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 讛讚专 讗诇砖讬谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 (讗诇 爪讬讘讗 讗讬讛) 讘谉 讗讚讜谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 (讛讜讗) 讬讜砖讘 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚拽讬讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 诇讱 讻诇 讗砖专 诇诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讛砖转讞讜讬转讬 讗诪爪讗 讞谉 (讘注讬谞讬) 讛诪诇讱

Now, after David saw that Ziba was a liar, when Ziba once again slandered Jonathan鈥檚 son, Mephibosheth, why did David accept his report? As it is written that when David fled from Absalom, he met Ziba: 鈥淎nd the king said: And where is your master鈥檚 son? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is staying in Jerusalem, as he said: Today shall the house of Israel restore to me the kingdom of my father鈥 (II Samuel 16:3). And from where do we derive that David accepted Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report? As it is written: 鈥淭hen said the king to Ziba: Behold, all that belongs to Mephibosheth is yours. And Ziba said: I humbly beseech you that I may find favor in your sight, my lord, O king鈥 (II Samuel 16:4).

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞讬讻专讬诐 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讬专讚 (诇驻谞讬) 讛诪诇讱 讜诇讗 注砖讛 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 砖驻诪讜 讜讗转 讘讙讚讬讜 诇讗 讻讘住 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讻讬 讘讗 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇拽专讗转 讛诪诇讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 诇诪讛 诇讗 讛诇讻转 注诪讬 诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讜讬讗诪专 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 注讘讚讬 专诪谞讬 讻讬 讗诪专 注讘讚讱 讗讞讘砖讛 诇讬 讛讞诪讜专 讜讗专讻讘 注诇讬讛 讜讗诇讱 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讻讬 驻住讞

And Shmuel said: David did not accept Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report without substantiation. Rather, he himself saw conspicuous matters in Mephibosheth that indicated that Ziba was right. As it is written: 鈥淎nd Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes from the day the king departed until the day he came back in peace鈥 (II Samuel 19:25). David thought that he was mourning the fact that he had returned in peace. And it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when he came to Jerusalem to meet the king, and the king said to him: Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth? And he answered: My lord, O king, my servant deceived me; for your servant said: I will saddle me a donkey, and I will ride on it, and go to the king; because lame is

注讘讚讱 讜讬专讙诇 讘注讘讚讱 讗诇 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讜讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讻诪诇讗讱 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讜注砖讛 讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 诇诪讛 转讚讘专 注讜讚 讚讘专讬讱 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讬讗诪专 诪驻讬讘砖转 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讙诐 讗转 讛讻诇 讬拽讞 讗讞专讬 讗砖专 讘讗 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 诪转讬 转讘讗 讘砖诇讜诐 讜讗转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讬 讻讱 诇讗 注诇讬讱 讬砖 诇讬 转专注讜诪讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗讱 讘砖诇讜诐

your servant. And he slandered your servant to my lord the king; but my lord the king is like an angel of God: Do therefore what is good in your eyes鈥 (II Samuel 19:26鈥28). 鈥淎nd the king said to him: Why do you speak any more of your matters? I have said: You and Ziba shall divide the estate. And Mephibosheth said to the king: Let him even take all, seeing that my lord the king is come back in peace to his own house鈥 (II Samuel 19:30鈥31). Mephibosheth said to David as follows: I had hoped for your return, saying: When will he come in peace, and yet you do this to me, giving Ziba half of my estate? It is not against you that I have grievances, but against He who brought you back in peace. Mephibosheth鈥檚 own statement substantiates Ziba鈥檚 report about him.

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘谉 讬讛讜谞转谉 诪专讬讘 讘注诇 讜讻讬 诪专讬讘 讘注诇 砖诪讜 讜讛诇讗 诪驻讬讘砖转 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖注砖讛 诪专讬讘讛 注诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞爪讗 讘专 谞爪讗 谞爪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘专 谞爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚 注讬专 注诪诇拽 讜讬专讘 讘谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇

This is what is written: 鈥淎nd the son of Jonathan was Meriv-Baal鈥 (I Chronicles 8:34). The Gemara asks: And was Meriv-Baal his name? Wasn鈥檛 his name Mephibosheth? However, since he entered into a quarrel [meriva] with his Master [ba鈥檃l], i.e., God, and complained about God having saved David, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Quarrelsome one, the son of a quarrelsome one; you are just like your father, Saul. The Gemara explains: Quarrelsome one; that which we just said that Mephibosheth complained to God about His salvation of David. The son of a quarrelsome one; as it is written: 鈥淎nd Saul came to a city of Amalek and quarreled in the valley鈥 (I Samuel 15:5). And Rabbi Mani said: Saul quarreled with God with regard to matters of the valley, saying: For the murder of even a single person, there is a commandment to break the neck of a heifer in a valley to atone for the crime (see Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9); why then must all these Amalekites be killed?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇诪驻讬讘砖转 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讞讘注诐 讜讬专讘注诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛诪诇讜讻讛

To the matter at hand: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When David said to Mephibosheth: You and Ziba shall divide the estate, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬诇诪诇讬 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诇讗 讙诇讬谞讜 诪讗专爪谞讜:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Had David not accepted Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report about Mephibosheth, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided, Israel would not have worshipped idols because of Jeroboam, and we would not have been exiled from our land.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇诪讛 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讘讘讜 砖诇诐 注诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that King Solomon sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David, his father鈥 (I Kings 11:4). By inference: Solomon鈥檚 heart was not equal to the heart of David, his father; however, he also did not sin.

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 讛讛讬讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 诇诇讻转 讗讞专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛诇讱

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淔or it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods鈥 (I Kings 11:4)? That verse is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan; as Rabbi Natan raised a contradiction between the two parts of the verse. On the one hand, it is written: 鈥淔or it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods.鈥 On the other hand, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father,鈥 indicating that Solomon鈥檚 heart was not equal to the heart of David his father; however, he also did not sin? Rather, the verse says as follows: For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart, in an attempt to spur him to go after other gods; however, he did not go after them.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讝 讬讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 讘诪讛 诇讻诪讜砖 砖拽抓 诪讜讗讘 砖讘拽砖 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen did Solomon build [yivne] an altar for Kemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon鈥 (I Kings 11:7), indicating that Solomon did in fact stray after idols? The Gemara answers: This can be understood to mean that Solomon sought to build an altar for idols but did not build it.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讝 讬讘谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 诪讝讘讞 诇讛壮 砖讘拽砖 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讛 讗诇讗 讚讘谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘谞讛

The Gemara objects: But now if that is the way to understand the future tense verb form yivne, what of another instance where the same form is employed: 鈥淭hen did Joshua build [yivne] an altar to the Lord God of Israel in Mount Eival鈥 (Joshua 8:30)? There too, would you say that Joshua sought to build an altar but did not build one? Rather, there, in the case of Joshua, it means that he actually built it. Here too, with regard to Solomon, it means that he actually built the altar.

讗诇讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讛讘诪讜转 讗砖专 注诇 驻谞讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗砖专 诪讬诪讬谉 诇讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 讗砖专 讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 诇注砖转专转 砖拽抓 爪讬讚谞讬诐 讜讙讜壮

Rather, this verse should be understood as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the altars that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the Mount of Olives, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoret the abomination of the Zidonim, and for Kemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milkom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile鈥 (II Kings 23:13). All these were destroyed by Josiah.

讗驻砖专 讘讗 讗住讗 讜诇讗 讘讬注专诐 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讜诇讗 讘讬注专诐 注讚 砖讘讗 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讘讬注专诐 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讗 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘讬注专讜诐 讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讛 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讜转诇讛 讘讛谉 诇砖讘讞 讗祝 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讜转诇讛 讘讛谉 诇讙谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: Is it possible that the righteous king Asa came and did not destroy them, and the righteous king Jehosaphat came and did not destroy them until Josiah came and destroyed them? Didn鈥檛 Asa and Jehosaphat destroy all the idolatry in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, the verse juxtaposes the earlier ones, i.e., Solomon, to the later ones, i.e., Josiah. Just as the later ones, Josiah, did not effect the destruction of the altars, as it was done by his predecessors, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to praise him as if he had destroyed all those altars, so too, the earlier ones, Solomon, did not effect the construction, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to disgrace him as he did not prevent their construction.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 砖诇诪讛 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇诪讞讜转 讘谞砖讬讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 讞讟讗

The Gemara raises another question. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 11:6), clearly indicating that Solomon sinned? Rather, since he should have protested against the conduct of his wives, i.e., their involvement in idolatry, but he did not protest, the verse ascribes to him liability as if he had sinned.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 砖讬讛讗 砖诪砖 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诇 讬讻转讘 讘讜 讜讬注砖 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It would have been preferable for that righteous man, Solomon, to be a servant tasked with drawing water and hewing wood for another matter, i.e., idolatry, and not have the verse write about him: 鈥淎nd he did evil in the sight of the Lord,鈥 even though he did not.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖谞砖讗 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讘转 驻专注讛 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 讗诇祝 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讻讱 注讜砖讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻讱 注讜砖讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讛 讘讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh鈥檚 daughter, she brought to him a thousand musical instruments and said to him: This is the way we do it for this idolatry, and this is the way we do it for that idolatry, and he did not protest that talk.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖谞砖讗 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讘转 驻专注讛 讬专讚 讙讘专讬讗诇 讜谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讜 砖讬专讟讜谉 讜注诇讬讜 谞讘谞讛 讻专讱 讙讚讜诇 [砖诇 专讜诪讬]

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh鈥檚 daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God鈥檚 instrument to punish Israel.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讻谞讬住 讬专讘注诐 砖谞讬 注讙诇讬 讝讛讘 讗讞讚 讘讘讬转 讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讘讚谉 谞讘谞讛 爪专讬祝 讗讞讚 讜讝讛讜 讗讬讟诇讬讗讛 砖诇 讬讜谉:

It was taught in a baraita: On that very day that Jeroboam introduced two golden calves, one in Beth-El and the other in Dan, a single small hut was constructed, which was the first house constructed there. And that was the inauguration of Italy of Greece.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖 讛讬砖专 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讜讬诇讱 讘讻诇 讚专讱 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讻诪讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诇讱 讗砖专 砖讘 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that Josiah sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left鈥 (II Kings 22:2). However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd like him was there no king before him that returned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Torah of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him鈥 (II Kings 23:25)? The verse states: Josiah returned to the Lord. Apparently, in his early days he was a sinner, and later he returned to God.

砖讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讚谉 诪讘谉 砖诪谞讛 注讚 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛 讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讗 转讗诪专 谞讟诇 诪讝讛 讜谞转谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讗讚讜 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 诪砖诇讜

The Gemara answers: The reference here is not to repentance for actual sins that Josiah committed. Rather, in every judgment that he issued from the age of eight, when he was crowned, until the age of eighteen, he returned the money to the parties whom he judged liable, due to concern that in his youth he may not have judged the cases correctly. And lest you say that he took from this one, whom he exonerated, and gave to that one, whom he found culpable, therefore the verse states: Returned to the Lord with all his might [me鈥檕do], i.e., with all his money. It means that he gave those he judged liable in his youth from his own money.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诇讱 讙讚讜诇 讘讘注诇讬 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬讗砖讬讛讜 讘讚讜专讜 讜讗讞讚 讘讚讜专谞讜 讜诪谞讜 讗讘讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讞讗 讗讞讜讛 讚讗讘讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讞讗 讗讞讬 讛讜讜

The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yonatan disagrees with Rav, as Rav said: There is no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation, and there is one in our generation. The Gemara asks: And who is the great penitent in Rav鈥檚 generation? The Gemara answers: He is Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, and some say it is A岣, brother of Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, as the Master said: Rabbi Abba and A岣 were brothers.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜注讜讚 讗讞讚 讘讚讜专谞讜 讜诪谞讜 注讜拽讘谉 讘专 谞讞诪讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 谞转谉 讚爪讜爪讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘驻讬专拽讗 讜讛讜讛 拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜讞讝讗讬 讘讞讬诇诪讗 讚拽讗 驻砖讟 讬讚讬讛 讜拽讘诇讬讛:

Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Ne岣mya the Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita, i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka] and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating that his repentance was accepted.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛

 

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 55-60 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

We will review Daf 55-60 this week. After finishing the 5th chapter, we will start the 6th chapter and discuss...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 56: In the Footsteps of Repentance

On the practice of close reading of the biblical text, and the strong interpretive tradition of Chazal. Understanding biblical personalities...
Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...

Shabbat 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 56

讘谞讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讞讟讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 (讻讬 讝拽谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讘谞讬讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜) 讘讚专讻讬讜 讘讚专讻讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛诇讻讜 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗讜

that the sons of Samuel sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel鈥And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice鈥 (I Samuel 8:1鈥3). By inference: In his ways they did not walk, however, they did not sin either. They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬讟讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘爪注 砖诇讗 注砖讜 讻诪注砖讛 讗讘讬讛诐 砖讛讬讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讛爪讚讬拽 诪讞讝专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讚谉 讗讜转诐 讘注专讬讛诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诇讱 诪讚讬 砖谞讛 讘砖谞讛 讜住讘讘 讘讬转 讗诇 讜讛讙诇讙诇 讜讛诪爪驻讛 讜砖驻讟 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讻谉 讗诇讗 讬砖讘讜 讘注专讬讛诐 讻讚讬 诇讛专讘讜转 砖讻专 诇讞讝谞讬讛谉 讜诇住讜驻专讬讛谉

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd they sought after unjust gain,鈥 indicating that they were sinners? It means that they did not conduct themselves in accordance with the actions of their father. As Samuel the righteous would travel to all places where the people of Israel were located and sit in judgment in their towns, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he went from year to year in circuit from Beth-El, and Gilgal, and Mitzpa, and judged Israel in all those places鈥 (I Samuel 7:16). And, however, they did not do so and travel from place to place. Rather, they sat in their own cities in order to enhance the fees collected by their attendants and scribes. Therefore, the verse ascribes to them liability as if they sinned by seeking ill-gotten gains and bribes.

讻转谞讗讬 讜讬讟讜 讗讞专讬 讛讘爪注 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讞诇拽诐 砖讗诇讜 讘驻讬讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪诇讗讬 讛讟讬诇讜 注诇 讘注诇讬 讘转讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻讛 讬转讬专讛 砖诇 诪注砖专 谞讟诇讜 讘讝专讜注 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讜转 谞讟诇讜 讘讝专讜注:

The Gemara notes that this matter is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd they sought after unjust gain.鈥 Rabbi Meir says: This means that they vocally demanded their portions of the tithe due them as Levites, abusing their position to the detriment of other Levites. Rabbi Yehuda says: They imposed upon local homeowners to sell their merchandise and support them. Rabbi Akiva says: They took an extra basket of tithes, beyond that which was their due, by force. Rabbi Yosei says: They took only the gifts due them; however, they took them by force. They acted improperly, as a Levite is required to wait until he is given his gifts and may not take them.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讚讜讚 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 讚讜讚 诇讻诇 讚专讻讬讜 诪砖讻讬诇 讜讛壮 注诪讜 讜讙讜壮 讗驻砖专 讞讟讗 讘讗 诇讬讚讜 讜砖讻讬谞讛 注诪讜

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was with him鈥 (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 诪讚讜注 讘讝讬转 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 砖讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讗 注砖讛

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the prophet Nathan: 鈥淲hy have you despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword, and his wife you have taken to be your wife, and him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon鈥 (II Samuel 12:9), indicating that David sinned? The Gemara answers: David sought to do evil and have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah but did not do so.

讗诪专 专讘 专讘讬 讚讗转讬 诪讚讜讚 诪讛驻讱 讜讚专讬砖 讘讝讻讜转讬讛 讚讚讜讚 诪讚讜注 讘讝讬转 讗转 讚讘专 讛壮 诇注砖讜转 讛专注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 专注讛 讝讜 诪讻诇 专注讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 砖讻诇 专注讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讬注砖 讜讻讗谉 讻转讬讘 诇注砖讜转 砖讘讬拽砖 诇注砖讜转 讜诇讗 注砖讛

Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who descends from the house of David, seeks to teach the verse in favor of David. With regard to that which is written: 鈥淲hy have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil,鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This evil mentioned with regard to David is different from all other evils in the Torah; as with regard to all other evils in the Torah, it is written: And he did evil, and here it is written: To do evil. This unique phrase indicates that David sought to do evil but did not actually do so. His intentions were improper; however, his actions were proper.

讗转 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬 讛讻讬转 讘讞专讘 砖讛讬讛 诇讱 诇讚讜谞讜 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 讜诇讗 讚谞转 讜讗转 讗砖转讜 诇拽讞转 诇讱 诇讗砖讛 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讬砖 诇讱 讘讛

That which is written: 鈥淯riah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword,鈥 means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin as one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated from the generally accepted principles of judgment. With regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd his wife you have taken to be your wife鈥; it means that you have rights of marriage with her, as by law Bathsheba was already divorced from Uriah.

讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇诪诇讞诪转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讻讜转讘 讙讟 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗砖转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 注砖专转 讞专讬爪讬 讛讞诇讘 讛讗诇讛 转讘讬讗 诇砖专 讛讗诇祝 讜讗转 讗讞讬讱 转驻拽讚 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. That was done to prevent a situation in which the soldier鈥檚 wife would be unable to remarry because the soldier did not return from battle and there were no witnesses to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded her the status of a divorcee and freed her to remarry. As it is stated: 鈥淎nd carry these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]鈥 (I Samuel 17:18).

诪讗讬 注专讘转诐 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬诐 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

What is the meaning of arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It refers to matters that are shared [hame鈥檕ravim] between him, the husband, and her, the wife, i.e., marriage. The verse should be read: Take the bill of divorce that determines the status of the relationship between husband and wife. As, apparently, it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, since Uriah later died, Bathsheba retroactively assumed divorced status from the time that he set out to war. She was not forbidden to David.

讜讗转讜 讛专讙转 讘讞专讘 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 诪讛 讞专讘 讘谞讬 注诪讜谉 讗讬 讗转讛 谞注谞砖 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬 讗讬 讗转讛 谞注谞砖 注诇讬讜

With regard to that which is written: 鈥淎nd him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon,鈥 it means: Just as you are not punished for soldiers killed by the sword of the children of Ammon in the course of the war, so too you are not punished for the death of Uriah the Hittite.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜专讚 讘诪诇讻讜转 讛讜讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗讚谞讬 讬讜讗讘 讜注讘讚讬 讗讚谞讬 注诇 驻谞讬 讛砖讚讛 讞谞讬诐

What is the reason that David was not liable for the death of Uriah? Because Uriah was a traitor against the throne. As he said to David: 鈥淎nd my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields鈥 (II Samuel 11:11). In the presence of the king, one may not refer to another as his lord. Doing so is treason.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讬 诪注讬讬谞转 讘讬讛 讘讚讜讚 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 讘讬讛 讘专 诪讚讗讜专讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 专拽 讘讚讘专 讗讜专讬讛 讛讞转讬

Rav said: When you analyze the matter of David, no sin that he committed is found in his lifetime, except for that involving Uriah. As it is written: 鈥淏ecause David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite鈥 (I Kings 15:5).

讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬砖讗 专诪讬 讚专讘 讗讚专讘 诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 拽砖讬讗

Abaye the Elder raised a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say this? Didn鈥檛 Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report? Just as it is prohibited to relate a slanderous report, it is similarly prohibited to accept it. This contradiction remains unresolved, and it is difficult.

讙讜驻讗 专讘 讗诪专 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 讗讬驻讜讗 讛讜讗 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 讛讜讗 讘讬转 诪讻讬专 讘谉 注诪讬讗诇 (讘诇讗) 讚讘专 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讛诪诇讱 讜讬拽讞讛讜 诪讘讬转 诪讻讬专 讘谉 注诪讬讗诇 (诪诇讗) 讚讘专

The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav鈥檚 statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rav said: David accepted a slanderous report, as it is written with regard to David鈥檚 search for a surviving son of Jonathan: 鈥淎nd the king said to him, to Ziba, Saul鈥檚 slave: Where is he? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-Devar [belo devar]鈥 (II Samuel 9:4). Ziba indicated to David that Jonathan鈥檚 son was inconsequential, lacking any matter [lo devar] of Torah. And it is written: 鈥淭hen King David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lo-Devar [milo devar]鈥 (II Samuel 9:5). That verse can be read that after sending for him, David found him filled with matters [melo devar] of Torah.

诪讻讚讬 讞讝讬讬讛 讚砖拽专讗 讛讜讗 讻讬 讛讚专 讗诇砖讬谉 注讬诇讜讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 (讗诇 爪讬讘讗 讗讬讛) 讘谉 讗讚讜谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 (讛讜讗) 讬讜砖讘 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚拽讬讘诇 诪讬谞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛诪诇讱 讛谞讛 诇讱 讻诇 讗砖专 诇诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讜讬讗诪专 爪讬讘讗 讛砖转讞讜讬转讬 讗诪爪讗 讞谉 (讘注讬谞讬) 讛诪诇讱

Now, after David saw that Ziba was a liar, when Ziba once again slandered Jonathan鈥檚 son, Mephibosheth, why did David accept his report? As it is written that when David fled from Absalom, he met Ziba: 鈥淎nd the king said: And where is your master鈥檚 son? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is staying in Jerusalem, as he said: Today shall the house of Israel restore to me the kingdom of my father鈥 (II Samuel 16:3). And from where do we derive that David accepted Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report? As it is written: 鈥淭hen said the king to Ziba: Behold, all that belongs to Mephibosheth is yours. And Ziba said: I humbly beseech you that I may find favor in your sight, my lord, O king鈥 (II Samuel 16:4).

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 讚讘专讬诐 讛谞讬讻专讬诐 讞讝讗 讘讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讬专讚 (诇驻谞讬) 讛诪诇讱 讜诇讗 注砖讛 专讙诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 砖驻诪讜 讜讗转 讘讙讚讬讜 诇讗 讻讘住 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 讻讬 讘讗 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇拽专讗转 讛诪诇讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 诇诪讛 诇讗 讛诇讻转 注诪讬 诪驻讬讘讜砖转 讜讬讗诪专 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 注讘讚讬 专诪谞讬 讻讬 讗诪专 注讘讚讱 讗讞讘砖讛 诇讬 讛讞诪讜专 讜讗专讻讘 注诇讬讛 讜讗诇讱 讗转 讛诪诇讱 讻讬 驻住讞

And Shmuel said: David did not accept Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report without substantiation. Rather, he himself saw conspicuous matters in Mephibosheth that indicated that Ziba was right. As it is written: 鈥淎nd Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes from the day the king departed until the day he came back in peace鈥 (II Samuel 19:25). David thought that he was mourning the fact that he had returned in peace. And it is written: 鈥淎nd it came to pass, when he came to Jerusalem to meet the king, and the king said to him: Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth? And he answered: My lord, O king, my servant deceived me; for your servant said: I will saddle me a donkey, and I will ride on it, and go to the king; because lame is

注讘讚讱 讜讬专讙诇 讘注讘讚讱 讗诇 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讜讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讻诪诇讗讱 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讜注砖讛 讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬讱 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛诪诇讱 诇诪讛 转讚讘专 注讜讚 讚讘专讬讱 讗诪专转讬 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讜讬讗诪专 诪驻讬讘砖转 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讙诐 讗转 讛讻诇 讬拽讞 讗讞专讬 讗砖专 讘讗 讗讚谞讬 讛诪诇讱 讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 讗诪专转讬 诪转讬 转讘讗 讘砖诇讜诐 讜讗转讛 注讜砖讛 诇讬 讻讱 诇讗 注诇讬讱 讬砖 诇讬 转专注讜诪讜转 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗讱 讘砖诇讜诐

your servant. And he slandered your servant to my lord the king; but my lord the king is like an angel of God: Do therefore what is good in your eyes鈥 (II Samuel 19:26鈥28). 鈥淎nd the king said to him: Why do you speak any more of your matters? I have said: You and Ziba shall divide the estate. And Mephibosheth said to the king: Let him even take all, seeing that my lord the king is come back in peace to his own house鈥 (II Samuel 19:30鈥31). Mephibosheth said to David as follows: I had hoped for your return, saying: When will he come in peace, and yet you do this to me, giving Ziba half of my estate? It is not against you that I have grievances, but against He who brought you back in peace. Mephibosheth鈥檚 own statement substantiates Ziba鈥檚 report about him.

讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘谉 讬讛讜谞转谉 诪专讬讘 讘注诇 讜讻讬 诪专讬讘 讘注诇 砖诪讜 讜讛诇讗 诪驻讬讘砖转 砖诪讜 讗诇讗 诪转讜讱 砖注砖讛 诪专讬讘讛 注诐 讘注诇讬讜 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 谞爪讗 讘专 谞爪讗 谞爪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讘专 谞爪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讘讗 砖讗讜诇 注讚 注讬专 注诪诇拽 讜讬专讘 讘谞讞诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 注诇 注住拽讬 谞讞诇

This is what is written: 鈥淎nd the son of Jonathan was Meriv-Baal鈥 (I Chronicles 8:34). The Gemara asks: And was Meriv-Baal his name? Wasn鈥檛 his name Mephibosheth? However, since he entered into a quarrel [meriva] with his Master [ba鈥檃l], i.e., God, and complained about God having saved David, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Quarrelsome one, the son of a quarrelsome one; you are just like your father, Saul. The Gemara explains: Quarrelsome one; that which we just said that Mephibosheth complained to God about His salvation of David. The son of a quarrelsome one; as it is written: 鈥淎nd Saul came to a city of Amalek and quarreled in the valley鈥 (I Samuel 15:5). And Rabbi Mani said: Saul quarreled with God with regard to matters of the valley, saying: For the murder of even a single person, there is a commandment to break the neck of a heifer in a valley to atone for the crime (see Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9); why then must all these Amalekites be killed?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专 讚讜讚 诇诪驻讬讘砖转 讗转讛 讜爪讬讘讗 转讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛砖讚讛 讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 专讞讘注诐 讜讬专讘注诐 讬讞诇拽讜 讗转 讛诪诇讜讻讛

To the matter at hand: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: When David said to Mephibosheth: You and Ziba shall divide the estate, a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬诇诪诇讬 诇讗 拽讬讘诇 讚讜讚 诇砖讜谉 讛专注 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讛 诪诇讻讜转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜诇讗 讙诇讬谞讜 诪讗专爪谞讜:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Had David not accepted Ziba鈥檚 slanderous report about Mephibosheth, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided, Israel would not have worshipped idols because of Jeroboam, and we would not have been exiled from our land.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 砖诇诪讛 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇讗 讛讬讛 诇讘讘讜 砖诇诐 注诐 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that King Solomon sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David, his father鈥 (I Kings 11:4). By inference: Solomon鈥檚 heart was not equal to the heart of David, his father; however, he also did not sin.

讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 讛讛讬讗 讻专讘讬 谞转谉 讚专讘讬 谞转谉 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讻诇讘讘 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讞讟讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讟讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讬讛讬 诇注转 讝拽谞转 砖诇诪讛 谞砖讬讜 讛讟讜 讗转 诇讘讘讜 诇诇讻转 讗讞专讬 讗诇讛讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讜诇讗 讛诇讱

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淔or it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods鈥 (I Kings 11:4)? That verse is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan; as Rabbi Natan raised a contradiction between the two parts of the verse. On the one hand, it is written: 鈥淔or it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods.鈥 On the other hand, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father,鈥 indicating that Solomon鈥檚 heart was not equal to the heart of David his father; however, he also did not sin? Rather, the verse says as follows: For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart, in an attempt to spur him to go after other gods; however, he did not go after them.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讗讝 讬讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 讘诪讛 诇讻诪讜砖 砖拽抓 诪讜讗讘 砖讘拽砖 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讛

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hen did Solomon build [yivne] an altar for Kemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon鈥 (I Kings 11:7), indicating that Solomon did in fact stray after idols? The Gemara answers: This can be understood to mean that Solomon sought to build an altar for idols but did not build it.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讝 讬讘谞讛 讬讛讜砖注 诪讝讘讞 诇讛壮 砖讘拽砖 诇讘谞讜转 讜诇讗 讘谞讛 讗诇讗 讚讘谞讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讘谞讛

The Gemara objects: But now if that is the way to understand the future tense verb form yivne, what of another instance where the same form is employed: 鈥淭hen did Joshua build [yivne] an altar to the Lord God of Israel in Mount Eival鈥 (Joshua 8:30)? There too, would you say that Joshua sought to build an altar but did not build one? Rather, there, in the case of Joshua, it means that he actually built it. Here too, with regard to Solomon, it means that he actually built the altar.

讗诇讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 讛讘诪讜转 讗砖专 注诇 驻谞讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗砖专 诪讬诪讬谉 诇讛专 讛诪砖讞讛 讗砖专 讘谞讛 砖诇诪讛 诪诇讱 讬砖专讗诇 诇注砖转专转 砖拽抓 爪讬讚谞讬诐 讜讙讜壮

Rather, this verse should be understood as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the altars that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the Mount of Olives, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoret the abomination of the Zidonim, and for Kemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milkom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile鈥 (II Kings 23:13). All these were destroyed by Josiah.

讗驻砖专 讘讗 讗住讗 讜诇讗 讘讬注专诐 讬讛讜砖驻讟 讜诇讗 讘讬注专诐 注讚 砖讘讗 讬讗砖讬讛 讜讘讬注专诐 讜讛诇讗 讻诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗住讗 讜讬讛讜砖驻讟 讘讬注专讜诐 讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诪讛 讗讞专讜谞讬诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讜转诇讛 讘讛谉 诇砖讘讞 讗祝 专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讗 注砖讜 讜转诇讛 讘讛谉 诇讙谞讗讬

The Gemara asks: Is it possible that the righteous king Asa came and did not destroy them, and the righteous king Jehosaphat came and did not destroy them until Josiah came and destroyed them? Didn鈥檛 Asa and Jehosaphat destroy all the idolatry in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, the verse juxtaposes the earlier ones, i.e., Solomon, to the later ones, i.e., Josiah. Just as the later ones, Josiah, did not effect the destruction of the altars, as it was done by his predecessors, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to praise him as if he had destroyed all those altars, so too, the earlier ones, Solomon, did not effect the construction, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to disgrace him as he did not prevent their construction.

讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖 砖诇诪讛 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇诪讞讜转 讘谞砖讬讜 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讛 诪注诇讛 注诇讬讜 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗诇讜 讞讟讗

The Gemara raises another question. Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord鈥 (I Kings 11:6), clearly indicating that Solomon sinned? Rather, since he should have protested against the conduct of his wives, i.e., their involvement in idolatry, but he did not protest, the verse ascribes to him liability as if he had sinned.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讜讞 诇讜 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 砖讬讛讗 砖诪砖 诇讚讘专 讗讞专 讜讗诇 讬讻转讘 讘讜 讜讬注砖 讛专注 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It would have been preferable for that righteous man, Solomon, to be a servant tasked with drawing water and hewing wood for another matter, i.e., idolatry, and not have the verse write about him: 鈥淎nd he did evil in the sight of the Lord,鈥 even though he did not.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖谞砖讗 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讘转 驻专注讛 讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 讗诇祝 诪讬谞讬 讝诪专 讜讗诪专讛 诇讜 讻讱 注讜砖讬谉 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜讻讱 注讜砖讬诐 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讛 讘讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh鈥檚 daughter, she brought to him a thousand musical instruments and said to him: This is the way we do it for this idolatry, and this is the way we do it for that idolatry, and he did not protest that talk.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖注讛 砖谞砖讗 砖诇诪讛 讗转 讘转 驻专注讛 讬专讚 讙讘专讬讗诇 讜谞注抓 拽谞讛 讘讬诐 讜注诇讛 讘讜 砖讬专讟讜谉 讜注诇讬讜 谞讘谞讛 讻专讱 讙讚讜诇 [砖诇 专讜诪讬]

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh鈥檚 daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God鈥檚 instrument to punish Israel.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讗讜转讜 讛讬讜诐 砖讛讻谞讬住 讬专讘注诐 砖谞讬 注讙诇讬 讝讛讘 讗讞讚 讘讘讬转 讗诇 讜讗讞讚 讘讚谉 谞讘谞讛 爪专讬祝 讗讞讚 讜讝讛讜 讗讬讟诇讬讗讛 砖诇 讬讜谉:

It was taught in a baraita: On that very day that Jeroboam introduced two golden calves, one in Beth-El and the other in Dan, a single small hut was constructed, which was the first house constructed there. And that was the inauguration of Italy of Greece.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讻诇 讛讗讜诪专 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讟讜注讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬注砖 讛讬砖专 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮 讜讬诇讱 讘讻诇 讚专讱 讚讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讻诪讛讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诇讱 讗砖专 砖讘 讜讙讜壮

Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that Josiah sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, and walked in all the way of David his father, and turned not aside to the right hand nor to the left鈥 (II Kings 22:2). However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd like him was there no king before him that returned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Torah of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him鈥 (II Kings 23:25)? The verse states: Josiah returned to the Lord. Apparently, in his early days he was a sinner, and later he returned to God.

砖讻诇 讚讬谉 砖讚谉 诪讘谉 砖诪谞讛 注讚 砖诪谞讛 注砖专讛 讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讛谉 砖诪讗 转讗诪专 谞讟诇 诪讝讛 讜谞转谉 诇讝讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 诪讗讚讜 砖谞转谉 诇讛诐 诪砖诇讜

The Gemara answers: The reference here is not to repentance for actual sins that Josiah committed. Rather, in every judgment that he issued from the age of eight, when he was crowned, until the age of eighteen, he returned the money to the parties whom he judged liable, due to concern that in his youth he may not have judged the cases correctly. And lest you say that he took from this one, whom he exonerated, and gave to that one, whom he found culpable, therefore the verse states: Returned to the Lord with all his might [me鈥檕do], i.e., with all his money. It means that he gave those he judged liable in his youth from his own money.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬谉 诇讱 讙讚讜诇 讘讘注诇讬 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜转专 诪讬讗砖讬讛讜 讘讚讜专讜 讜讗讞讚 讘讚讜专谞讜 讜诪谞讜 讗讘讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗讞讗 讗讞讜讛 讚讗讘讗 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜讗讞讗 讗讞讬 讛讜讜

The Gemara notes that Rabbi Yonatan disagrees with Rav, as Rav said: There is no greater penitent than Josiah in his generation, and there is one in our generation. The Gemara asks: And who is the great penitent in Rav鈥檚 generation? The Gemara answers: He is Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, and some say it is A岣, brother of Abba, father of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, as the Master said: Rabbi Abba and A岣 were brothers.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜注讜讚 讗讞讚 讘讚讜专谞讜 讜诪谞讜 注讜拽讘谉 讘专 谞讞诪讬讛 专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讜讛讬讬谞讜 谞转谉 讚爪讜爪讬转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘谞讗 讘驻讬专拽讗 讜讛讜讛 拽讗 诪谞诪谞诐 讜讞讝讗讬 讘讞讬诇诪讗 讚拽讗 驻砖讟 讬讚讬讛 讜拽讘诇讬讛:

Rav Yosef said: And there is another great penitent in our generation. And who is he? He is Okvan, son of Ne岣mya the Exilarch. And that is the one also known as Natan detzutzita, i.e., from whose head sparks emerged. Rav Yosef said: I was once sitting at the lecture delivered on the Festival [pirka] and I was dozing. And I saw in a dream how an angel stretched out his hands and received Natan detzutzita, demonstrating that his repentance was accepted.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讘诪讛 讘讛诪讛

 

Scroll To Top