Sanhedrin 19b — the Talmud in English

He turned away,

Shimon ben Shetah turned his head

to his right,

to know whether his colleagues would say like him, that the king must stand.

They lowered

the Sages

their faces to the ground.

They looked downward and thereby acted as though they did not understand that Shimon ben Shetah was demanding that they agree with his words, that King Yannai must stand. And they did so because they were afraid of the king. And likewise

he turned to his left, and they lowered their faces to the ground.

He said to them

Shimon ben Shetah said to the Sages:

You are men of thoughts!

May there come

the Holy One, blessed be He, who is

the Master of thoughts,

who knows the thoughts of your hearts,

and exact retribution from you,

and demand from you an account for the insult to the Torah.

The Gemara relates:

Immediately

when Shimon ben Shetah said this,

there came

an angel,

Gabriel, and struck them against the ground,

and threw them to the ground [as punishment for lowering their faces to the ground],

and they died.

At that time they said

the Sages: Since, through fear of the king, such a great stumbling block resulted, therefore:

A king neither judges nor is he judged. He does not testify

and they do not

testify against him.

We learned in our Mishna: The king

does not perform halitza, and they do not perform halitza

with his wife. He does not perform yibbum, and they do not perform yibbum with his wife. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he wishes to perform halitza or yibbum, he is remembered for good. They said to him: We do not listen to him.

And the Gemara now raises an objection against Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that it is permitted for a king to relinquish his honor and to perform halitza or yibbum.

Is that so!?

But the matter is not so.

For Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that a nasi who relinquishes his honor—

his honor is relinquished,

nevertheless he holds that

a king who relinquishes his honor—

his honor is not relinquished.

Because

it is stated [Deuteronomy 17]:

[Deuteronomy 17]:

“You shall surely set a king over yourself,”

and by this Israel was warned concerning the honor of the king, that he should “set” him over himself, that he should “place” many [restrictions upon himself],

so that the fear

of the king

shall be upon you,

upon the people of Israel. Therefore his honor is not relinquished. And how does Rabbi Yehuda hold that he can relinquish his honor!?

And the Gemara answers:

A mitzva is different.

Since the king wishes to relinquish his honor in order to fulfill a mitzva, the law is different, and he can relinquish his honor.

We learned in our Mishna:

And they do not marry

his widow [the king’s]. Rabbi Yehuda says: A king marries the widow of a king, for so we find with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it is stated: “And I shall give you the house of your master and the wives of your master into your bosom.”

In the Mishna we learned Rabbi Yehuda’s proof, whereas the beraita teaches the claim of the Sages.

It was taught: They said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Yehuda:

What the prophet said to him, “the wives of your master,” does not mean the wives of King Saul; rather,

women who are fit,

who are permitted,

to him from the king’s household.

And the Gemara explains:

And who are they?

Who are they?

Merav and Mikhal,

the daughters of Saul.

It is related in the Book of Samuel [I 17], concerning the war of the Philistines with Israel in the Valley of Elah, that Goliath the Philistine blasphemed the ranks of Israel, and the Israelites were afraid and greatly terrified. And David left his father’s flock and came to the battlefront, and heard the Israelite man saying: “Have you seen this man who is coming up? For he is coming to blaspheme Israel, and it shall be that the man who strikes him—the king shall enrich him with great wealth, and he shall give him his daughter.” And David killed Goliath, and the Israelites won the war.

And the women of Israel answered: “Saul has struck his thousands, and David his tens of thousands,” and Saul became very angry, and Saul became hostile toward David.

And it is written there: “And Saul said to David: Behold, my elder daughter Merav; I shall give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant son for me, and wage the wars of the Lord.” And Saul said in his heart: “Let not my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him.”

And when the time came to fulfill his promise, it was said: “And it came to pass at the time of giving Merav, Saul’s daughter, to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife.”

And his second daughter, Mikhal, loved David, and Saul sent word to David: “The king desires no bride-price, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king’s enemies,” while in his heart he thought: “To cause David to fall by the hand of the Philistines.”

And David brought him two hundred foreskins, “and Saul gave Mikhal his daughter to him as a wife.”

And the remaining verses will be brought later.

We learned in a beraita:

His students asked Rabbi Yose: How did David marry two sisters,

Merav and Mikhal,

during their lifetimes,

when this matter is the prohibition of the nakedness of a wife’s sister? And the students thought that David betrothed Merav and ultimately married Mikhal, and the two sisters became rivals to one another.

He said to them

Rabbi Yose said to his students:

Mikhal—

he married her after Merav’s death,

and a wife’s sister after the death of the first is permitted.

Rabbi Joshua ben Karha says:

Mikhal was permitted to David even during Merav’s lifetime, because

the betrothal

was mistaken for him

to David

with Merav.

And before explaining the mistaken betrothal with Merav, he brings proof from the verse that David himself also held so. For in the Book of Samuel I [19:11] it is related there that Saul sent messengers to David’s house to guard it all around so that he would not flee, and to kill him the following morning. And Mikhal, David’s wife, saved David from the hands of her father Saul, and caused him to escape from the house through the window. And it is further related there afterward [chapter 25, verse 44]: “And Saul gave Mikhal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti son of Laish.” And after Saul’s death David wanted to return her [and in the note it will be explained how it was permitted to return her], and as

it is stated (Samuel II 3): David sent to Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, after Saul’s death, saying:

David sent to Ish-bosheth, Saul’s son, after Saul’s death, saying:

“Give me my wife, Mikhal, whom I betrothed to myself with a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is the proof!?

What is the proof?

Rav Pappa said:

From the fact that David was precise

and said, “Mikhal my wife,” and not, “Merav my wife,”

it follows that David too acknowledged that Merav had not been betrothed to him at all.

And now the Gemara explains what mistaken betrothal David had with Merav, which David too acknowledged.

What is the mistaken betrothal?

As it is written: “And it shall be that the man who strikes him

Goliath,

the king shall enrich him with great wealth, and so forth.”

David went

and

killed him,

killed Goliath.

Saul said to him

Saul said to David:

You have a loan with me.

The great wealth that I obligated myself toward you is only a debt [“loan”] that I owe you, and you did not give me betrothal money for the betrothal of my daughter Merav; rather, you betrothed her as a wife with this debt. But the law is that

one who betroths with a loan

which the woman or her father [in the case of a minor] owes the betrother

is not betrothed,

because one must betroth through giving the betrothal money, whereas now, at the time of the betrothal, David gave her nothing.

And since Merav had not been betrothed to David,

Saul went

Saul went,

he gave her

he betrothed Merav

to Adriel.

As it is written: “And it came to pass at the time of giving Merav, Saul’s daughter, to David,

that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife.”

And David himself acknowledged that indeed his betrothal of Merav was a mistaken betrothal, because he betrothed her not through giving money but through a loan alone.

And now the Gemara explains the dispute between Saul and David concerning Mikhal’s betrothal to David:

He said to him

Saul said to David:

If you wish,

if you desire

that I give you

her,

Mikhal, go,

go

bring me

bring me

a hundred foreskins of Philistines,

and I shall betroth my daughter to you in exchange for the foreskins that you bring me.

David went

David went,

he brought him

he brought him the requested foreskins of the Philistines, and betrothed Mikhal as a wife with them and with the debt that Saul owed him.

He said to him

Saul said to David: Also

a loan,

the great wealth that I obligated myself to you for killing Goliath, and also

a peruta,

the small value of the Philistine foreskins,

you have a loan with me,

you have grounds in your hand to demand from me.

Saul held:

A person who betroths a woman

with a loan

and a peruta, his mind is on the loan.

His intention is to betroth her with the loan, since the loan is more important than a peruta; therefore she is not betrothed, according to the law of one who betroths with a loan, that she is not betrothed. And in his view, Mikhal’s betrothal, which was with a loan and a peruta, was a mistaken betrothal and did not take effect; therefore he gave her to Palti son of Laish.

Whereas

David held:

One who betroths a woman with a

loan and a peruta, his mind is on the peruta,

for one who betroths a woman with a loan and a peruta intends to betroth with the peruta and not with the loan. And in his view Mikhal was betrothed to him with the hundred foreskins that he brought to Saul. Therefore David said to Ish-bosheth: “Give me my wife, Mikhal, whom I betrothed to myself with a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.”

And the Gemara explains another possibility concerning which Saul and David disagreed.

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone—

both Saul and David—holds that one who betroths a woman with a

loan and a peruta, his mind is on the peruta.

Rather, they disagreed concerning the value of the foreskins:

Saul held:

Philistine foreskins

are not fit for anything whatsoever,

they are fit for nothing and are not worth even a peruta; therefore Mikhal was not betrothed to David.

But

whereas

David held,

they have the value of a peruta,

for they are fit

for my dogs and cats,

for owners of dogs or cats are willing to pay a peruta for them in order to feed them to a dog or a cat. Therefore she is betrothed.

This exposition is according to Rabbi Joshua ben Karha, who infers from the wording of the verse, “Give me my wife, Mikhal,” that David acknowledged that Merav’s betrothal was mistaken. Whereas Rabbi Yose, who holds that David married Mikhal only after Merav’s death, does not expound this exposition.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi Yose, this

inference,

“my wife, Mikhal”—what does he expound from it?

How does he expound this verse?

And the Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yose follows his own reasoning;

he expounds this verse according to what he expounded from another verse: It was clear to David that Mikhal was betrothed to him, and therefore he said with particular emphasis, “Give me my wife, Mikhal.” [And he did not say this because of the inference, “Mikhal my wife,” and not “Merav my wife.”]

As it was taught,

as we learned there in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose would expound confused verses,

verses that seemingly contain confusion. And this is how he would expound the following verse.

It is written in the Book of Samuel (II 21) that there was a famine in the Land of Israel for three years during David’s reign. And the Lord said to David that the famine was punishment for Saul having killed the Gibeonites. And when David wished to appease the Gibeonites, the Gibeonites, in their great cruelty, requested vengeance against the Israelites, and did not agree to be appeased until they were given seven men from the Israelites to kill. And it is written there:

“And the king took the two sons of Rizpah daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul: Armoni and Mephibosheth. And the five sons of Mikhal daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel

son of Barzillai

the Meholathite.”

And this verse is confused, for seemingly it is difficult—

Was Mikhal given

as a wife to Adriel?

But was she given to Palti son of Laish,

Mikhal,

as it is written, “And Saul gave Mikhal his daughter, David’s wife, to Palti son of Laish”!?

Rather,

from here Rabbi Yose expounds that Merav was given to Adriel, and Mikhal was given to Palti son of Laish. And why did Scripture say that Mikhal was given to Adriel?

The verse compares

the verse

the betrothal of Merav to Adriel to the betrothal of Mikhal to Palti,

to say:

Just as,

in the same way that

the betrothal of Mikhal to Palti

was

transgressive,

for one who betroths a woman with a loan and a peruta has his mind on the peruta, and David’s betrothal of Mikhal took effect, and it was forbidden for Palti son of Laish to take Mikhal,

so too the betrothal of Merav to Adriel—

was transgressive.

For Merav’s betrothal to David also took effect, and Mikhal was forbidden to David during Merav’s lifetime, according to the law of a wife’s sister, and David married her as a wife only after Merav’s death.

And since Rabbi Yose expounded the verse “And the king took, and so forth,” to compare the betrothal of Merav to Adriel with the betrothal of Mikhal to Palti son of Laish, that both were transgressive, the Gemara now explains this verse according to Rabbi Joshua ben Karha.

And Rabbi Joshua ben Karha, too,

has a difficulty:

it is written

“the five sons of Mikhal daughter of Saul,”

and how does he expound the confused verse?

Rabbi Joshua can say to you: Did Mikhal give birth

to the five sons for Adriel?

But Merav gave birth

to them,

rather, Merav gave birth, and Mikhal raised them

after Merav’s death.

Therefore they were called by her name,

as though Mikhal were the one who gave birth to them for Adriel. And the raising of the sons was written in the language of “giving birth” in order

to teach you that whoever raises an orphan within his house—

Scripture credits him as though he gave birth to him.

And from one matter to another, the Gemara brings several expositions of the Sages, that whoever raises an orphan or his fellow’s son and teaches him Torah is called by his name; and the Gemara states a mnemonic for the names of the Sages and their teachings

(Hanina expounds, Yohanan and his wife, Elazar and redemption, and Shmuel in studies—mnemonic).

Rabbi Hanina says: From here,

from this verse it is derived: It is written in the Book of Ruth (chapter 4) that Ruth gave birth to a son: “And Naomi took the child and placed him in her bosom, and she became his nurse,

and the neighboring women called his name, saying: A son has been born

to Naomi.”

And it is difficult:

Did Naomi give birth? But Ruth gave birth! Rather, Ruth gave birth and Naomi raised him. Therefore he was called

the son

by her name.

Rabbi Yohanan said: From here,

from this verse it is derived: It is written in the Book of Chronicles I [chapter 4], concerning the genealogy of the sons of Judah, and it is said there concerning the sons of Caleb son of Jephunneh

, “And his Jewish wife gave birth to Jered, father of Gedor,

and Heber, father of Soco, and Jekuthiel, father of Zanoah.

And these were the sons of Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took.”

And the Sages expounded from this:

This Mered is Caleb; and why was his name called Mered?

Because

he rebelled against the counsel of the spies.

And it was further expounded in tractate Megilla (13a) that his Jewish wife is Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh, and why was her name called “Jewish”? Because she converted and repudiated idolatry. And it was further expounded there that what is stated, “Jered, father of Gedor, and Heber, father of Soco, and Jekuthiel, father of Zanoah,” refers to Moses our teacher, who was designated by these names. Therefore it is difficult:

Did Bithiah give birth

to Moses our teacher?

But Jochebed gave birth

to him

! Rather, Jochebed gave birth, and Bithiah raised him. Therefore he was called

Moses

by her name

of Bithiah, as though she had given birth to him.

Rabbi Elazar said: From here:

from this verse, it is derived [Psalms 77]:

“You redeemed Your people with the strength of Your arm, the children of Jacob and Joseph forever.”

This is difficult:

Did Joseph give birth to

the Children of Israel who were redeemed from Egypt?

But surely Jacob gave birth to

them.

Rather, Jacob gave birth to them, and Joseph sustained them

them;

therefore they were called by his name.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who teaches

a

fellow’s son Torah—

the verse considers it as though he gave birth to him.

As

it is stated concerning the appointment of the Levites [Numbers 3]:

concerning the appointment of the Levites (Numbers 3):

“And these are the descendants of Aaron and Moses,” but

Moses’ sons were not listed there. Rather,

it is written: “And these are the names of the sons of Aaron.” This teaches you that Aaron gave birth to them, while Moses taught them; therefore they were called by his name.

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, presents a similar exposition: It is written in the Book of Isaiah (29):

“Therefore, so said the Lord to the house of Jacob, who redeemed Abraham.”

This is difficult:

Where do we find that Jacob redeemed Abraham?

Rav Yehuda said: He redeemed him from the anguish of raising children.

For the burden of raising the tribes had been destined for Abraham, as the Holy One, blessed be He, had promised him, “I will greatly increase your offspring”; Jacob redeemed him from this, and the burden fell upon Jacob.

And this is what is written

there, in Isaiah, later in the verse:

“Now Jacob will not be ashamed,

and now his face will not grow pale.” The Sages expounded this as follows:

“Now Jacob will not be ashamed”—

before his father,

Isaac.

“And now his face will not grow pale”—

before his father’s father,

Abraham, who redeemed them from the burden of raising children.

The Gemara now returns to expounding the verses concerning David and Saul’s daughter.

In one verse

it is written (I Samuel 25): “And Saul gave his daughter Michal, David’s wife, to

Palti

Palt[i]

son of Laish,”

whereas

in another verse

it is written (II Samuel 3): “And Ish-bosheth sent and took her from the man, from

Paltiel

Paltiel

son of Laish.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Palt[i] was his name,

and therefore he was initially called Palt[i].

And why

after he returned her to David

was his name called Paltiel?

Because

God rescued him from transgression,

and he did not have relations with her.

What did

Palt[i] do?

He placed a sword between himself and her,

between himself and Michal, and

said

to himself:

Anyone who engages in this matter,

that is, intimacy with Michal,

will be stabbed with this sword.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But

what about the fact that

it is written

there (II Samuel 3), after Paltiel returned her to David:

“And her husband went with her,

he went, weeping behind her as far as Bahurim. And Abner said to him: Go, return! And he returned.” Thus, the verse calls him Michal’s “husband,” which is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that he did not have relations with her.

The Gemara answers: The verse refers to the fact

that he became to her like

as

a husband,

because he raised her and cherished her. The Gemara raises another objection:

But

what about the fact that

it is written

in that same verse: “

walking and weeping

after her”—which seems to indicate that he had relations with her!?

The Gemara answers: Palt[i] son of Laish wept

over the mitzva that was departing from him,

because he was losing the mitzva of withstanding the test.

The Gemara expounds the continuation of the verse: “

as far as Bahurim,”

which according to its plain meaning is a place-name,

that the two of them became,

Paltiel and Michal,

like young unmarried people—

who had never experienced sexual relations,

as Rabbi Yoḥanan said.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The strength

the great and powerful act he performed,

of Joseph

when he fled from Potiphar’s wife—

is the modest, seemingly minor act of Boaz,

a small act that is not renowned, which a person does without giving it special thought. That is, Boaz’s standing firm in the test was greater than Joseph’s, as will be explained. And similarly,

Boaz’s strength—

is the modest act of Palt[i] son of Laish.

For Palt[i] son of Laish’s standing firm in the test was greater than Boaz’s.

The Gemara explains:

Joseph’s strength—

is Boaz’s modest act, as it is written [Ruth 3], when Ruth lay at Boaz’s feet:

[Ruth 3] when Ruth lay at Boaz’s feet:

“And it was at midnight, and the man was startled, and he grasped.”

It is written there that he postponed the matter until the next day, in case so-and-so would not redeem her. And the Gemara expounds:

What is the meaning of “and he grasped”?

According to its plain meaning, it expresses fright.

Rav said: His flesh became

stiff

like the heads of turnips

a type of vegetable; nevertheless, he restrained his inclination. This was even though she was unmarried and was with him in the bed. Therefore, his restraint was greater than Joseph’s, since Potiphar’s wife was a married woman and she was not with him in bed.