Sanhedrin 20
תּוֹקְפּוֹ שֶׁל בּוֹעַז – עִנְוְותָנוּתוֹ שֶׁל פַּלְטִי בֶּן לַיִשׁ, כְּדַאֲמַרַן.
Boaz’s power is the humility of Palti, son of Laish, as we said, for he conquered his desire not only for one night, as Boaz did, but for many nights
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חָיִל וְאַתְּ עָלִית עַל כֻּלָּנָה״? ״רַבּוֹת בָּנוֹת עָשׂוּ חָיִל״ – זֶה יוֹסֵף וּבוֹעַז. ״וְאַתְּ עָלִית עַל כֻּלָּנָה״ – זֶה פַּלְטִי בֶּן לַיִשׁ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you excel above them all” (Proverbs 31:29)? “Many daughters have done valiantly”; this is a reference to Joseph and Boaz. “But you excel above them all”; this is a reference to Palti, son of Laish, who exceeded Joseph and Boaz in restraint, as discussed above.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי״? ״שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן״ – זֶה יוֹסֵף, ״וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי״ – זֶה בּוֹעַז. ״יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא תִתְהַלָּל״ – זֶה פַּלְטִי בֶּן לַיִשׁ.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). “Grace is deceitful”; this is a reference to Joseph. “And beauty is vain”; this is a reference to Boaz. “Who fears the Lord, she shall be praised”; this is a reference to Palti, son of Laish, who did not sin with Michal. Although the behavior of Joseph and Boaz is commendable, it is “deceitful” and “vain” relative to that of Palti ben Laish.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה, ״וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, ״יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא תִתְהַלָּל״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חִזְקִיָּה.
Alternatively: “Grace is deceitful”; this is a reference to the generation of Moses. “And beauty is vain”; this is a reference to the generation of Joshua. “Who fears the Lord, she shall be praised”; this is a reference to the generation of Hezekiah. Although the studying of Torah during the generations of Moses and Joshua was commendable, it was “deceitful” and “vain” relative to that of the generation of Hezekiah, during which the people studied Torah assiduously, despite the suffering caused by war and foreign rule.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ. ״וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל חִזְקִיָּה. ״יִרְאַת ה׳ הִיא תִתְהַלָּל״ – זֶה דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי אִילְעַאי, שֶׁהָיוּ שִׁשָּׁה תַּלְמִידִים מִתְכַּסִּין בְּטַלִּית אַחַת וְעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה.
Alternatively: “Grace is deceitful”; this is a reference to the generation of Moses and Joshua. “And beauty is vain”; this is a reference to the generation of Hezekiah. “Who fears the Lord, she shall be praised”; this is a reference to the generation of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, who lived after the decrees of Hadrian, when the people were impoverished and oppressed. It was said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, that six of his students would cover themselves with one garment, due to their poverty, and nevertheless they would engage in Torah study. Although the studying of Torah during the generations of Moses, Joshua, and Hezekiah was commendable, it was “deceitful” and “vain” relative to that of the people in the generation of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ilai, who studied Torah despite their hardships.
מַתְנִי׳ מֵת לוֹ מֵת – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִפֶּתַח פַּלְטֵרִין שֶׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם רוֹצֶה לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּיטָּה – יוֹצֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּדָוִד שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר מִיטָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְנֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמִּטָּה״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּיס אֶת הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ – כׇּל הֶעָם מְסוּבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ, וְהוּא מֵיסֵב עַל הַדַּרְגֵּשׁ.
MISHNA: If a relative of the king dies, he does not emerge from the entrance of his palace [palterin], as it does not befit one of his stature to accompany the deceased. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes to follow the bier, he follows it, as that is what we found with regard to King David, who followed the bier of Abner. As it is stated: “And King David followed the bier” (II Samuel 3:31). The Sages said to Rabbi Yehuda: The matter was only to appease the people, so that they should not suspect David of ordering Abner’s death. And when the people comfort the king with the meal of comfort, all the people recline on the ground, and he reclines on the dargash.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ נָשִׁים לָצֵאת אַחַר הַמִּיטָּה – יוֹצְאוֹת, לִפְנֵי הַמִּיטָּה – יוֹצְאוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם נָשִׁים לִפְנֵי הַמִּיטָּה יוֹצְאוֹת, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּדָוִד שֶׁיָּצָא אַחַר מִיטָּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְנֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַמִּטָּה״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: In a place where women were accustomed to follow the bier, they would follow it, and the men would walk in front of the bier, and if the women were accustomed to walk in front of the bier, they would go in front of it. Rabbi Yehuda says: Women always go in front of the bier, as that is what we found with regard to King David, who followed the bier of Abner, as it is stated: “And King David followed the bier,” and presumably David did not go among the women.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: לֹא הָיָה הַדָּבָר אֶלָּא לְפַיֵּיס אֶת הָעָם, וְנִתְפַּיְּיסוּ. שֶׁהָיָה דָּוִד יוֹצֵא מִבֵּין הָאֲנָשִׁים וְנִכְנָס לְבֵין הַנָּשִׁים, וְיוֹצֵא מִבֵּין הַנָּשִׁים וְנִכְנָס לְבֵין הָאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּדְעוּ כׇל הָעָם וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי לֹא הָיְתָה מֵהַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָמִית אֶת אַבְנֵר״.
The Sages said to him: The matter was only to appease the people, and they were appeased. As David would go out from among the men and go in among the women, and went out from among the women and went in among the men, as it is stated: “So all the people and all Israel understood that day that it was not from the king to slay Abner, son of Ner” (II Samuel 3:37).
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא כׇל הָעָם לְהַבְרוֹת אֶת דָּוִד״? כְּתִיב ״לְהַכְרוֹת״, וְקָרֵינַן ״לְהַבְרוֹת״. בַּתְּחִלָּה לְהַכְרוֹתוֹ, וּלְבַסּוֹף לְהַבְרוֹתוֹ.
Rava interpreted a verse homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And all the people came to comfort David” (II Samuel 3:35)? It is written: “To destroy [lehakhrot],” and we read: “To comfort [lehavrot],” meaning, in the beginning they wanted to destroy him, as they suspected him of ordering Abner’s assassination, and ultimately, when they saw that he was truly mourning, they decided to comfort him.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶעֱנַשׁ אַבְנֵר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְמַחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל וְלֹא מִיחָה. רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִיחָה וְלֹא נַעֲנָה. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ: ״וַיְקֹנֵן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל אַבְנֵר וַיֹּאמַר הַכְּמוֹת נָבָל יָמוּת אַבְנֵר יָדֶיךָ לֹא אֲסֻרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הֻגָּשׁוּ״.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: For what reason was Abner punished by being killed? It is because he should have protested to Saul about the killing of the priests of Nob (see I Samuel 22:17–19), but he did not protest. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: He did protest, so that is not the reason for his death, but he was not answered. And both of these Sages interpreted one verse: “And the king lamented for Abner, and said: Should Abner die as a churl dies? Your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters; as a man falls before the children of iniquity, so did you fall” (II Samuel 3:33–34).
מַאן דְּאָמַר לָא מִיחָה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״יָדֶיךָ לֹא אֲסֻרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הוּגָּשׁוּ״, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא מַחֵית? ״כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי עַוְלָה נָפָלְתָּ״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִיחָה וְלֹא נַעֲנָה, אַתְמוֹהֵי מַתְמַהּ: ״הַכְּמוֹת נָבָל יָמוּת״? ״יָדֶיךָ לֹא אֲסוּרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם״, מִכְּדֵי מַחוֹיֵי מַחֵית, מַאי טַעְמָא ״כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי עַוְלָה נָפָלְתָּ״?
The Gemara explains how each Sage understands the verse: The one who says he did not protest explains that this is what the verse is saying: As “your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters,” what is the reason you did not protest against Saul? Therefore, since you could have protested but did not, then “as a man falls before the children of iniquity, so did you fall.” And the one who says he protested and was not answered explains that this is what the verse is saying: David wondered: “Should Abner die as a churl dies? Your hands were not bound, nor your feet put into fetters,” since you protested at the right time. Since that is the case, what is the reason that “as a man falls before the children of iniquity, so did you fall”?
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִיחָה, מַאי טַעְמָא אִיעֲנַשׁ? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק: שֶׁשִּׁהָא מַלְכוּת בֵּית דָּוִד שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה.
The Gemara asks: According to the one who says that Abner protested, what is the reason he was punished with this death? Rav Naḥman, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak, says: It is because he delayed the kingdom of the house of David two and a half years, by supporting the kingdom of Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul, for this period of time.
וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ כּוּ׳. מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ? אָמַר עוּלָּא: עַרְסָא דְּגַדָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְעוּלָּא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא לָא אוֹתְבִינֵּיהּ, וְהַשְׁתָּא מוֹתְבִינַן לֵיהּ?
§ The mishna teaches: And when they comfort the king with the meal of comfort, he reclines on the dargash. The Gemara asks: What is a dargash? Ulla says: A bed of fortune, which would be designated in houses for decoration and for good fortune, and no one would sit on it. The Sages said to Ulla: Is there anything which until now we did not authorize one to sit on, but now, in his time of mourning, we seat him on it?
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַאֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא לָא אֹכְילִנֵּיהּ וְלָא אַשְׁקִינֵּיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא קָא מוֹכְלִינַן לֵיהּ וְקָא מַשְׁקִינַן לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, הָא קַשְׁיָא: דַּרְגֵּשׁ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתוֹ, אֶלָּא זוֹקְפוֹ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַרְסָא דְּגַדָּא, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתוֹ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכּוֹפֶה אֶת מִטָּתוֹ, לֹא מִטָּתוֹ בִּלְבַד הוּא כּוֹפֶה, אֶלָּא כׇּל מִטּוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ הוּא כּוֹפֶה.
Rava objects to this question: What is the difficulty in this? Perhaps sitting on the dargash is just as it is with eating and drinking. As until now, we did not feed him nor give him drink, but now, in his time of mourning, we feed him and give him drink, in the meal of comfort. Rather, if it is difficult, this is what is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita: Concerning a dargash, the mourner is not required to overturn it during mourning. Rather, he stands it up on its side. And if it enters your mind to say that this is a bed of fortune, why is he not required to overturn it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to one who overturns his bed during mourning, not only does he overturn his own bed, but rather he overturns all the beds he has in his house?
מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַמִּטָּה מְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים, דְּקָתָנֵי: אִם הָיְתָה מְיוּחֶדֶת לְכֵלִים – אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִכְפּוֹתָהּ. אֶלָּא, אִי קַשְׁיָא – הָא קַשְׁיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: דַּרְגֵּשׁ – מַתִּיר קַרְבִּיטִין וְהוּא נוֹפֵל מֵאֵילָיו. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עַרְסָא דְגַדָּא, קַרְבִּיטִין מִי אִית לֵיהּ?
The Gemara responds: What is the difficulty in this? Perhaps the lack of requirement to overturn the dargash is just as it is with a bed that is designated for the storage of garments, and not for sleeping, as it is taught in a baraita: If it was designated for the storage of garments and not for people to lie down on, he is not required to overturn it. Rather, if it is difficult, this is what is difficult, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One is not required to overturn a dargash. Rather, the mourner loosens the straps [karvitin] and it falls on its own. And if it enters your mind to say that this is a bed of fortune, does such a bed have straps?
אֶלָּא, כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אֲמַר: אֲמַר לִי הַהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן, וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא שְׁמֵיהּ, דַּהֲוָה שְׁכִיחַ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּגִילְדָּאֵי, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי דַּרְגֵּשׁ? עַרְסָא דְּצַלָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דַּרְגֵּשׁ —
Rather, when Ravin came he said: One of the Sages said to me, and Rav Taḥlifa is his name, that he was often in the market of the leather workers, and he said to him: What is the meaning of dargash? A leather bed. Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The difference between a bed and a dargash is this: A dargash
סֵירוּגוֹ מִתּוֹכוֹ, מִטָּה – סֵירוּגָהּ מֵעַל גַּבָּהּ.
has its weaving on its inside, in that the straps woven to hold the bedding are tied in holes inside the bed posts, while a bed has its weaving on its outside, in that its straps are tied around the posts.
מֵיתִיבִי: כְּלֵי עֵץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? הַמִּטָּה וְהָעֲרִיסָה – מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֵם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. וְאִי מִטָּה מְסוֹרֶגֶת הִיא מֵעַל גַּבָּהּ, לְמָה לִי שִׁיפַת עוֹר הַדָּג? אֶלָּא, הָא וְהָא מִתּוֹכוֹ: מִטָּה – אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּבִזְיוֹנֵי, דַּרְגֵּשׁ – אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּאַבְקָתָא.
The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna (Kelim 16:1): From when are wooden vessels considered complete and susceptible to impurity? In the case of a bed or a crib, this happens once they are rubbed with fish skin, which smoothens the wood. The Gemara asks: And if a bed is woven on its back side, as Rabbi Yoḥanan claimed, why do I need rubbing with fish skin? Doesn’t the weaving cover the smooth part of the bed? Rather, instead of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation, say that the weaving of both this and that, a dargash and a bed, is on its inside, and the difference between them is that on a bed, the straps go in and out of holes on the posts, whereas on a dargash, they go in and out of loops.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַמֵּי: מִטָּה שֶׁנַּקְלִיטֶיהָ יוֹצְאִין – זוֹקְפָהּ, וְדַיּוֹ.
Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a mourner is not required to overturn a dargash, but only to untie the straps around its posts to let it fall on its own. In connection with this matter Rabbi Ya’akov bar Ami says: In the case of a bed whose posts [naklitim] on which the canopy is spread extend, meaning that they are very long, so that the bed will remain high off the ground even if it is overturned, the mourner stands it up in the time of mourning and that is sufficient.
מַתְנִי׳ וּמוֹצִיא לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּפוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מְמַחֶה בְּיָדוֹ. דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר, וְכׇל הָעָם בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ, וְהוּא נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ.
MISHNA: And the king brings out people for conscription in an optional war, i.e., a war that is not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, on the basis of a court of seventy-one, and breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself for his various needs, and no one can protest his power. The pathway of the king has no measure, neither lengthwise nor widthwise, and one cannot protest that this pathway is wider than necessary. And all the people take spoils in war and give them to him, and he takes the first portion of the spoils.
גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמֶלֶךְ, תְּנָא נָמֵי מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת.
GEMARA: We already learn this on another occasion in the mishna (2a): And the king may bring out the nation to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. Why did the mishna need to repeat it here? The Gemara explains: Since in the mishna here the tanna taught all matters pertaining to the king, he also taught the halakha of bringing out the nation to an optional war, although this halakha was taught at the beginning of the tractate in the context of the halakhot of the court of seventy-one judges.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַב אָמַר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.
With regard to the king’s rights, the Sages engaged in a dispute: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king (see I Samuel 8:11–17), it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rav says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, so that they would accept the king’s sovereignty with reverence, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you. But the king is not actually permitted to perform the actions stated there.
כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.
The Gemara comments that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king, it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rabbi Yehuda says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you.
וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ – לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וּלְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה.
The baraita continues: And so would Rabbi Yehuda say: Three mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people upon their entrance into Eretz Yisrael, which apply only in Eretz Yisrael: They were commanded to establish a king for themselves (see Deuteronomy 17:14–15), and to cut off the seed of Amalek in war (see Deuteronomy 25:17–19), and to build the Chosen House, i.e., the Temple, in Jerusalem (see Deuteronomy 12:10–12).
רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד תַּרְעוֹמְתָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Nehorai says: This biblical passage about appointing a king was stated only in response to the Jewish people’s complaint, as it is stated: “When you come unto the land that the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein, and shall say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me” (Deuteronomy 17:14). The verse indicates that appointing a king is not a mitzva and that when Samuel spoke to them, he intended to frighten them so that they might regret their complaint and retract their request for a king.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְקֵנִים שֶׁבַּדּוֹר כַּהוֹגֶן שָׁאֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּנָה לָנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ״. אֲבָל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּהֶן קִלְקְלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיִינוּ גַם אֲנַחְנוּ כְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם וּשְׁפָטָנוּ מַלְכֵּנוּ וְיָצָא לְפָנֵינוּ״.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The elders of Samuel’s generation asked appropriately, as it is stated: “Give us a king to judge us” (I Samuel 8:6), since they wanted a steady leader in place of Samuel. But the ignoramuses among them ruined it, as it is stated: “But the people refused to heed the voice of Samuel; and they said: No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and emerge before us, and fight our battles” (I Samuel 8:19–20).
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ – לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וּלְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה. וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן תְּחִילָּה.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Three mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people upon their entrance into Eretz Yisrael: To establish a king for themselves, and to cut off the seed of Amalek in war, and to build for themselves the Chosen House in Jerusalem. But I do not know which one they are obligated to do first.
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ מִלְחָמָה לַה׳ בַּעֲמָלֵק״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ תְּחִילָּה. וְאֵין ״כִּסֵּא״ אֶלָּא מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא ה׳ לְמֶלֶךְ״.
When the verse states: “The hand upon the throne [kes] of the Lord: The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16), you must say that this means they are obligated to establish a king for themselves first, before waging war with Amalek, and the verse is interpreted as follows: “Throne of the Lord” is nothing other than a symbolic name for a king, as it is stated: “Then Solomon sat on the throne [kisei] of the Lord as king” (I Chronicles 29:23), indicating that a king sits on “the throne of the Lord.”
וַעֲדַיִין אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה תְּחִלָּה, אוֹ לְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק תְּחִלָּה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אוֹיְבֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳ וְהָיָה הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק תְּחִלָּה.
The baraita continues: And still I do not know whether building them the Chosen House is first, or cutting off the seed of Amalek is first, i.e., after the appointing of the king. When the verse states: “And He will give you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that the place that the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, there shall you bring all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:10–11), you must say that the Jewish people were to cut off the seed of Amalek first.
וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְהִי כִּי יָשַׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד בְּבֵיתוֹ וַה׳ הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל נָתָן הַנָּבִיא רְאֵה נָא אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית אֲרָזִים וְגוֹ׳״.
The baraita continues: And so the verse states concerning David: “And it came to pass, when King David dwelled in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies” (II Samuel 7:1). And it is written immediately afterward: “That the king said to Nathan the prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedar but the Ark of God dwells within curtains” (II Samuel 7:2), and King David then began seeking a site to build the Temple.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בַּתְּחִילָּה מָלַךְ שְׁלֹמֹה עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא ה׳״, וּלְבַסּוֹף מָלַךְ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הוּא רֹדֶה בְּכׇל עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר מִתִּפְסַח וְעַד עַזָּה״.
§ The Gemara cites another tradition about Solomon’s kingdom. Reish Lakish says: Initially, Solomon ruled even over the supernal worlds, as it is stated: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23), indicating that his kingdom was like the Lord’s kingdom, reigning over all worlds. But ultimately, after he married foreign wives, he ruled over only the lower worlds, as it is stated: “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4).
רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר, ״תִּפְסַח בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַזָּה בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם״, וְחַד אָמַר, ״תִּפְסַח וְעַזָּה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי״, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלַךְ עַל תִּפְסַח וְעַל עַזָּה כָּךְ מָלַךְ עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.
Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse: One says that Tiphsah is a name of a place at the end of the world, at one end of Solomon’s kingdom, and Gaza is at the other end of the world. And one says that Tiphsah and Gaza sat next to each other, and the verse serves to teach that just as he ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the whole world.
וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲנִי קֹהֶלֶת הָיִיתִי מֶלֶךְ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דִּבְרֵי קֹהֶלֶת בֶּן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָים״. וּלְבַסּוֹף, לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל מִטָּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה וְגוֹ׳״.
Reish Lakish continues: And ultimately, Solomon declined further still in that he ruled only over Israel, as it is stated: “I, Koheleth, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). And ultimately, he ruled over only Jerusalem, as it is stated: “The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:1). And ultimately, he ruled over only his bed, as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; threescore mighty men are about it, of the mighty men of Israel” (Song of Songs 3:7).
וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל מַקְלוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֶה הָיָה חֶלְקִי מִכׇּל עֲמָלִי״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר מַקְלוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר גּוּנְדּוֹ.
And ultimately, he declined so much that he ruled over only his staff, as it is stated: “And this was my portion from all of my labor” (Ecclesiastes 2:10). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this latter verse as well. One says that the term “this” is a reference to his staff, and one says that it is a reference to his cloak.
הֲדַר אוֹ לָא הֲדַר? רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר הֲדַר, וְחַד אָמַר לָא הֲדַר. מַאן דְּאָמַר לָא הֲדַר – מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר הֲדַר – מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט וָמֶלֶךְ.
The Gemara asks: Did he return to reign over the whole world, or did he ultimately not return? Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One says that he returned, and one says that he did not return. The one who says that he did not return reasons that Solomon was first a king and then an ordinary person [hedyot] and did not return to his reign; and the one who says that he returned reasons that Solomon was first a king and then an ordinary person and ultimately returned to be a king.
פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹצְרוֹת מְלָכִים – לַמֶּלֶךְ, וּשְׁאָר בִּיזָּה שֶׁבּוֹזְזִין – מֶחֱצָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וּמֶחֱצָה לָעָם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְרַב אַחָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא אוֹצְרוֹת מְלָכִים לַמֶּלֶךְ – אוֹרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא, אֶלָּא שְׁאָר בִּיזָּה שֶׁבּוֹזְזִין מֶחֱצָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וּמֶחֱצָה לָעָם – מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב:
§ The mishna teaches that the king breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself. The Sages taught in a baraita: Treasures of kings taken as spoils in war belong to the king, and as for the rest of the spoils that are taken in a war, half is for the king and half is for the people. Abaye said to Rav Dimi, and some say that he said this to Rav Aḥa: Granted, treasures of kings belong to the king. This is the typical manner of kings, as it is fitting that the king should use the treasures of the kings he conquers; but with regard to the rest of the spoils that are taken in a war, where half is for the king and half is for the people, from where do we derive this halakha? He answered Abaye: The source is as it is written:
