We are beginning several lines from the bottom of the page. A king is permitted to break through a fence in order to make a shortcut to reach his fields, even if the shortcut passes through someone else’s fields.
We then discuss the spoils of war. When the Jewish people go out to war and capture spoils from the king’s palace, those spoils belong to the king, because they are the king’s personal share of the spoils. The rest of the spoils are divided equally. The king is allowed to choose his half first; he may select whatever he wants, and the remaining half is given to Israel.
It is understandable that the treasures captured from the king’s palace should go to the king. The king should receive the king’s spoils. But how do we know that the general spoils are divided fifty-fifty?
The prophet says that they anointed Solomon as a ruler, and they also anointed Zadok as the High Priest. The law of the king is compared to the law of the High Priest. Just as, when the priests divided the showbread on Shabbat, the High Priest received six loaves and all the other priests received the other six, so the High Priest received half. Likewise, the ruler—the king—receives half of the spoils.
How do we know that the High Priest receives half of the showbread? The verse says that it shall be for Aaron and his sons: half for Aaron and half for his sons.
We now come to the famous law: a king may not have an excessive number of wives. The first opinion says that he may have only eighteen. We will examine both opinions.
The question is: How do we derive the number eighteen? There is a dispute about this. Rabbi Yehuda says that the king may have as many wives as he wants, provided that they do not sway his heart. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse says, “He shall not have many wives,” followed by, “so that his heart will not turn away.” The first phrase refers to a particular number—eighteen. More than eighteen is considered excessive because it is likely to sway his heart. But if he wants to marry women who will not sway his heart, he may have an unlimited number.
According to this understanding, the number eighteen applies to ordinary women and immodest women. However, with regard to righteous women such as Abigail, there is no limit. Rabbi Yehuda says that he could marry a thousand Abigails; there is no limit to that category.
Rabbi Shimon says that even one woman who could sway his heart is forbidden. Nevertheless, eighteen is the maximum number of otherwise suitable wives. According to Rabbi Shimon, the first opinion in the Mishnah is saying that eighteen is the limit, while Rabbi Shimon explains that the verse is referring to two different laws: one law prohibits more than eighteen wives, and another law prohibits even one wife who will turn his heart away.
Thus, Rabbi Yehuda follows the reasoning of the verse, while Rabbi Shimon does not. But elsewhere we find the opposite. Regarding the prohibition against lending money to a widow and taking collateral from her, the first opinion says that one may not take collateral from a widow, whether she is rich or poor. It does not matter whether she is needy; one may not take collateral from a widow at all.
Rabbi Shimon says that one may take collateral from a rich widow. Since she does not need the collateral, the lender will not have to return to her home repeatedly. With a poor widow, however, he must return the collateral when she needs it, and this could give her neighbors a bad impression.
For example, if he takes her pillow or blanket as collateral, she needs it at night in order to sleep. He must return it to her at night, and then come back in the morning to collect it again. At night he returns, and in the morning he comes back once more. People will ask what is going on between this man and the widow, since they see him entering her house every morning and every night.
The first opinion follows the plain rule and does not expound the reason behind the verse. Rabbi Shimon, however, derives the reason from the verse. Why is collateral not taken from a widow? Because, in the case of a poor widow, the lender must return it to her repeatedly, and this could damage her reputation among her neighbors.
We therefore see the apparent opposite of what we said earlier: Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason, while Rabbi Shimon does. The answer is that, ordinarily, Rabbi Yehuda reads verses without deriving a reason from them. He follows the stated law as it stands. In the case of the king’s wives, however, the Torah itself gives a reason: “so that his heart will not turn away.” Since the verse gives a reason, Rabbi Yehuda does expound the reason there.
Rabbi Shimon says that, in general, we do expound the reason behind a verse. If so, the Torah could have written only, “He shall not have many wives,” and stopped there. We would understand the reason ourselves: too many wives could cause the king’s heart to turn away.
Why, then, does the verse add, “so that his heart will not turn away”? It teaches that even one woman who could cause him to turn away from God is forbidden. What, then, does “he shall not have many wives” teach? It teaches that he may not marry even a righteous woman such as Abigail.
Rabbi Shimon therefore says that, generally, we do expound the reason behind a verse. Since the Torah nevertheless states the reason here, the additional phrase comes to teach that even one unsuitable wife is forbidden. The phrase about not having many wives refers to the general limit of eighteen, while the phrase about the heart turning away teaches that even one wife who could have that effect may not be taken.
Now, how do we know the number eighteen? David had six wives. The prophet then told him that if he did not have enough wives, he would be given more like these and more like those—six and six. Six, plus six, plus six, gives eighteen. Michal is not included in that list, because she was counted separately.
There is also a teaching that the king may not have more than forty-eight wives. The difference depends on how the phrase “like these and like those” is understood. One opinion reads it as six and six, while another reads the connecting word as doubling the number, arriving at forty-eight.
The Gemara asks whether Michal should be counted. David had six wives, and the verse lists them, but Michal is absent. Rabbi explains that the woman called Eglah was Michal. Why was she called Eglah? Because she was beloved to him like a calf. We find a similar expression when Samson said to the Philistines, “Had you not plowed with my heifer,” referring to his wife. Thus, Eglah was Michal, and she is included among the six.
The verse says that Eglah bore David a son, Ithream. The Gemara asks: Did Michal have children? We learned that she did not have a child until the day she died. How, then, can the verse say that she bore Ithream?
One answer is that she had a child and died in childbirth. Another answer is that the list of David’s sons refers to the period when he was still in Hebron, during the early years of his reign. Michal’s punishment occurred later, after David moved to Jerusalem.
When David brought the Ark back to Jerusalem, he danced before it. Michal rebuked him for behaving foolishly before the maidservants. Because she criticized David for honoring the Ark and referred to the mothers of Israel as maidservants, God punished her by preventing her from having children. That occurred only later, after David had come to Jerusalem.
When Michal looked out the window and saw David dancing before God, she disparaged him. Her punishment was that she would have no children from that point onward. Therefore, the verse about Ithream must refer to an earlier period. Until that point, she could have had children; from that point forward, she had none.
The Gemara then asks: You are telling me that David had only six wives, but another verse says that David took additional wives and concubines in Jerusalem. The answer is that the six are not being presented as his total number. The discussion concerns the limit of eighteen. David took additional wives in order to reach that number.
What is the difference between a wife and a concubine? A wife is taken through betrothal and requires a marriage contract. A concubine does not require betrothal or a marriage contract. She is designated as the king’s companion, and he is responsible for supporting her. According to some authorities, only a king is permitted to take a concubine. Many early authorities understand that only a king may do so.
Rabbi Yehuda says that David had four hundred sons. When David went out to war, he took women who had been captured. These women were non-Jewish women, and some of them were beautiful captives. From them he had four hundred children. Since their mothers were not Jewish, the children were not Jewish either.
These children grew their hair in the style of non-Jews, with ponytails or curls. They lived very comfortably, traveled in golden carriages, and went out to war as the leading legions. They served as the front lines and as the strength of David’s army.
Ben Ish Hai explains that some say they dressed in this manner because they were genuinely non-Jewish, so there was no prohibition in their appearance. Others say that even if they converted, David preserved their non-Jewish appearance so that it would intimidate the enemy. When the enemy saw these children, who were products of the women David had captured, they would remember their previous defeats and understand that they were about to lose again. David therefore kept them in that appearance as a reminder that they were the captives he had taken from them.
David’s daughter Tamar was also one of these girls. This is connected with the story of Tamar and Amnon, which the Gemara now discusses.
Amnon, another son of David, had improper feelings toward his sister Tamar. Tamar told him to speak with David, who would not prevent them from marrying. How could she suggest that the king would allow her to marry Amnon, since they were brother and sister?
The answer is that Tamar was born from one of the captured women who had not converted. She therefore had a different legal status, while Amnon was the son of David from another mother. Tamar was saying that the king would not prevent the marriage. If she had been considered an ordinary sister, such a marriage would have been impossible. The fact that she could make this suggestion indicates that she was regarded as a convert and was therefore not legally related to David’s other children in the same way.
Amnon had a friend named Yonadav, who was actually David’s brother and therefore Amnon’s uncle. Yonadav was a wise man. He saw that Amnon was depressed and asked him why the king’s son was so troubled. Amnon told him that he wanted Tamar but did not know how to approach her.
Yonadav gave him an idea: Amnon should pretend to be sick. Tamar would come to check on him, and he could then ask her to prepare food for him. Once they were alone in the house, he could do whatever he wanted.
Tamar prepared the food and served it to him. Rabbi Yehuda says that she made a particular type of fried food. Amnon then assaulted her. Afterward, he hated her intensely. The simple explanation is that his behavior had been motivated entirely by lust. Once his desire had been satisfied, he no longer wanted her and hated her.
This is also the basis of the verse concerning a man who takes a woman, marries her, and later rejects her. His initial attraction disappears, and he no longer loves her. He therefore sends her away. Similarly, once Amnon’s passion had passed, he hated Tamar.
The Gemara offers a deeper explanation. Why did Amnon hate her? A hair from Tamar’s private area became caught in Amnon’s flesh and tore it. Tamar was not responsible for this; the hair became caught accidentally. Another possibility is that she did it intentionally in order to protect herself from him. She tied the hair around him and pulled it.
How could Tamar have hair there if Jewish women were known for not growing such hair? The answer is that Tamar was not going out in public, and therefore she had not removed it. Ordinary Jewish girls did not have abundant hair of that kind, although this did not mean that they had no hair at all. They had only a small amount, unlike non-Jewish women, who in those days had much more.
Tamar then placed ashes on her head and tore the garment she was wearing. She did this publicly in order to create a fence and demonstrate how dangerous it is for a woman to be secluded with a man. She wanted everyone to see that if something like this could happen to the king’s daughter, it could certainly happen to other modest women as well.
At that time, the rabbis instituted a decree concerning seclusion with an unmarried woman. The Torah prohibition of seclusion applies to a man being alone with a woman who is forbidden to him, such as his mother, sister, aunt, or another forbidden relation. The rabbis added that a man may not be secluded even with an unmarried woman who is otherwise permitted to him.
The Gemara challenges this: What do you mean that seclusion with an unmarried woman was a rabbinic decree? Seclusion with forbidden relations is already derived from the Torah. How do we know from the Torah that a man may not be secluded with a woman forbidden to him?
The verse concerning a person who incites another to idolatry speaks of a maternal brother who attempts to lead his relative astray. The Gemara asks why the verse specifically mentions a maternal brother. It could have mentioned a paternal brother as well.
The answer is that a son is normally found near his mother. The relationship between a son and his mother is therefore treated differently with regard to seclusion. Although they are forbidden to each other, a son may be alone with his mother. Other forbidden relations, however, may not be secluded with one another.
The Gemara returns to the question. If seclusion with forbidden relations is already prohibited by the Torah, what new decree did the rabbis institute? The answer is that they decreed specifically against seclusion with an unmarried woman. Before that decree, a man was permitted to be secluded with an unmarried woman who was not otherwise forbidden to him. The rabbis later prohibited that as well.
Adoniyah son of Hagit, another son of David, wanted to become king. He sought to overthrow his father and take the throne. He took the royal crown and tried to place it on his head, but it did not fit. The heads of the Davidic dynasty had a distinctive shape, and the crown would fit only a person who was suited to be king.
Rashi explains that a bar of gold extended across the interior of the crown. It would not fit on an ordinary head, but David had a slight indentation in his head into which the bar fit. This feature was unique to David and was passed down through the Davidic kings. If the crown fit someone’s head, it was a sign that he was suited to be king. Rashi adds that a person with a natural furrow in his head could also cause the crown to fit, and that would testify that he descended from David.
Adoniyah made chariots and horsemen for himself, along with fifty runners who ran before him. The Gemara asks what is novel about the number fifty. The runners were not ordinary servants. All fifty had undergone a procedure involving the removal or disabling of their spleens. When a person runs quickly, the spleen begins to hurt and forces him to slow down. They were given a certain medication that rendered the spleen inoperative, so it would not limit their speed.
They also shaved the bottoms of their feet down to the bone. They could therefore run over thorns and other rough surfaces without being injured. Apparently, they did not wear shoes, because shoes would have slowed them down. These were therefore specially prepared runners—fifty runners without functioning spleens and with the bottoms of their feet shaved.
We now continue with the laws concerning a king. The Torah says that he may not have an excessive number of horses, because an abundance of horses can lead to arrogance and cause him to stray from the proper path. He may have enough horses for his chariots and army, but not more than that for personal reasons.
He may not have an excessive amount of silver and gold in his treasury. He may, however, have enough revenue to pay his soldiers. Rashi explains that this means enough to pay the army’s wages for one year, since soldiers enter and leave the army each year.
The king must write a Torah scroll for himself, as the verse says. He takes the scroll with him when he goes out to war, and when he returns from war, he brings it back to his house. When he sits in judgment, the Torah scroll is with him. When he eats, it is with him. When he sleeps, it is placed in the designated location. It must remain with him throughout his life.
Obviously, this must be a small Torah scroll that he can carry. The Gemara will discuss the details of this requirement.
The king may not have an excessive number of horses, even if he needs cavalry. The verse says that he may not increase horses for himself. What type of horses does the verse prohibit? It refers to horses that remain in the stable and do not serve in the army. Their purpose is merely to increase the king’s prestige and arrogance. Horses needed for chariots and the army are permitted in whatever number is necessary.
It is taught that even one horse that is idle, remaining in the stable and doing nothing, is included in the prohibition. The verse says, “to increase horses,” even though one horse is also included. Why, then, does the verse use the plural? It teaches that the king violates the prohibition for every additional horse beyond the number he is permitted to maintain.
The Gemara asks how we know that a king may purchase horses for the needs of his army. The word “for himself” teaches that the prohibition applies to his personal horses, but not to horses required by the army. Without that word, one might think that even horses for the army were prohibited, despite the fact that an army requires horses.
The word therefore teaches that the king may maintain a surplus for the army. If he needs two hundred horses, he may have three hundred, provided that they are intended for military use. He may keep them available in case they are needed; they do not have to be in active service at every moment.
Similarly, with regard to money in the treasury, the king may have enough to pay the army. The word “for himself” teaches that the prohibition does not prevent him from maintaining the funds necessary for military wages. The Gemara further explains that he may even maintain an additional surplus in case he must recruit and pay new soldiers.
The Gemara then returns to the word “for himself” in the law of wives. It teaches that the prohibition against having many wives applies specifically to a king. An ordinary person may marry as many wives as he is permitted to marry; the limitation applies to the king.
A contradiction is raised concerning Solomon’s horses. One verse says that Solomon had forty thousand horse stalls, while another says that he had four thousand stalls for horses. How can the verses be reconciled?
One way to understand the verses is that there were forty thousand divisions or rows, and each contained four thousand horse stalls. Another way is that there were four thousand stalls, containing a total of forty thousand rows of horses. In either case, the same figures are being described from different perspectives.
Another contradiction is raised concerning Solomon’s wealth. One verse says that silver was not considered valuable in Solomon’s time, while another says that he made silver as common as stones. The first verse means that silver had become so abundant that it was practically worthless. The second means that it still had some value, like a stone, even though it was no longer considered precious.
The answer is that these verses refer to different periods. Before Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, he possessed so much wealth that silver was considered almost worthless. After he married Pharaoh’s daughter, his wealth began to diminish, and silver regained some value.
When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, she brought a thousand musical instruments that had been used for idolatry. Solomon did not rebuke her. From that day, the roots of the idolatry that eventually reached Jerusalem began to develop. Ultimately, the Temple was destroyed by the Roman king. The destruction occurred many years later, but its roots began on the day Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter.
The Gemara says that when Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel placed a reed in the Mediterranean Sea. Sand began to gather around it, forming a sandbank or island. Rome was eventually built on that island. Thus, Rome was built as a consequence of Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter.
Why does God not reveal the reasons for the commandments of the Torah? Why do we not know why we may not eat pork, why we may not wear a mixture of wool and linen, and why the other commandments have their particular restrictions?
The reason is that when the Torah did reveal reasons, even the wisest of all men thought he understood them, followed those reasons, and ultimately failed. The Torah prohibited a king from having many wives because they might turn his heart away from God. Solomon thought that this reason did not apply to him, yet the women did turn his heart away.
The Torah also prohibited a king from having an excessive number of horses because he might return the people to Egypt, where horses were abundant. Solomon thought he would not return the people to Egypt merely because of horses. Nevertheless, the chariots of Solomon did eventually go back to Egypt, and he maintained horse traders there to bring horses from other places. The very thing the Torah warned against occurred despite his confidence that he understood the reason.
The king must write a Torah scroll for himself. This means that even if his father left him a Torah scroll, he still has an obligation to write his own. He may not simply use the scroll he inherited. The verse says that he must write it for himself and in his own name.
The teachers of moral instruction draw an idea from this: each person must serve God according to his own strengths and talents. There is no mitzvah to be merely a copy of someone else. Abraham served God through kindness, Isaac through strength, and Jacob through harmony. Each of the patriarchs had his own path.
Even if a father leaves his son a legacy, the son must accept what his father gave him and then continue in his own direction. Abraham left Isaac the quality of kindness, and Isaac was certainly a person of kindness, but Isaac also had to write his own Torah scroll. His own scroll represented his particular quality of strength. A person must serve God in his own way.
The king must write a Torah scroll for himself so that he will not use someone else’s scroll. The wording appears to imply that this requirement applies specifically to a king, whereas an ordinary person might be able to rely on a Torah scroll inherited from his father.
The Gemara answers that two Torah scrolls are required. Everyone must write one Torah scroll for himself, and the king must write a second one as well. The novelty is that even the second scroll, which is unique to the king, must be written by the king himself. He may not use a scroll left to him by his father.
For an ordinary person, one Torah scroll is sufficient. The king requires two: one that he carries with him and one that remains in his treasury or storage. The portable scroll is made small, like an amulet, and is attached to his arm. This is the scroll referred to by the verse, “It shall be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life.”
He carries that scroll with him wherever he goes, but only in places where it is appropriate to carry it. He cannot take it into places where a Torah scroll may not be taken.
The Gemara then discusses the script in which the Torah was written. Originally, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in an ancient script called the Hebrew script. Later, when the Jewish people returned from exile to the Land of Israel, they received another script, the Assyrian script, which is the script used today. They also received it in an Aramaic form.
The Jewish people chose to write their Torah scrolls in the Assyrian script, the sacred script. Ordinary people, however, wrote their documents in the ancient Hebrew script, which was considered an everyday or foreign script.
Who are the ordinary people referred to in this teaching? Rav Hisda says that they are the Samaritans. What is the ancient Hebrew script? It consists of large letters, like the script used for amulets. Rashi explains that examples of letters in different sizes have been found.
These Samaritans, also called the Shomronim, still write in that script and in Aramaic. These are the different scripts in which the Torah was written and the different practices associated with them.
May the Lord be blessed forever. Amen.