Sanhedrin 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

He turned

Shimon ben Shetah turned his head

to his right

to see whether his colleagues would say as he had said, that the king must stand.

They lowered

the Sages

their faces to the ground.

They looked downward and thereby pretended that they did not understand that Shimon ben Shetah was demanding that they agree with his statement, that King Yannai must stand. 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

the Holy One, blessed be He, who is

the Knower of thoughts,

who knows the thoughts of your hearts,

punish you

and demand retribution from you for the affront to the Torah.

The Gemara relates:

Immediately

after Shimon ben Shetah said this,

there came

an angel,

Gabriel, and struck them to the ground,

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

and they died.

At that moment, they said

the Sages: Since such a great mishap resulted from fear of the king, therefore:

A king neither judges nor is judged. He neither testifies

nor

is testified against.

We learned in our Mishna: A king

does not perform halitza, nor is halitza performed

for his wife. He does not perform yibbum, nor is yibbum performed for 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 heed him.

The Gemara now raises a difficulty against Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that it is permitted for a king to relinquish his honor and perform halitza or yibbum.

Is that so?!

Is the matter not otherwise?

But Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that when a Nasi relinquishes his honor—

his honor is relinquished,

he nevertheless maintains that

when a king relinquishes his honor,

his honor is not relinquished.

This is because

it is stated

[Deuteronomy 17]:

“You shall surely set a king over yourself,”

and through this the Jewish people were commanded concerning the honor of the king: that they should “set” him over themselves, making him “set” many times over them,

so that the fear

of the king

shall be upon you,

upon the Jewish people. Therefore, his honor is not relinquished. How, then, does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that he can relinquish his honor?

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 may relinquish his honor.

We learned in our Mishna:

And one may not marry

his widow [the widow of a king]. Rabbi Yehuda says: A king may marry the widow of a king, as we find with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it is stated: “And I have given 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 presents 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, it means

women who are fit,

who are permitted

to him from the royal household.

And the Gemara explains:

And who are they?

Who were they?

Merav and Mikhal,

the daughters of Saul.

It is related in the Book of Samuel [I Samuel 17] that, during the war of the Philistines against Israel in the Valley of Elah, Goliath the Philistine blasphemed the ranks of Israel, and the Israelites were very frightened and dismayed. David left his father’s flock and came to the battlefield, and heard the Israelite saying: “Have you seen this man who is coming up? He is coming to blaspheme Israel. The man who kills him—the king will enrich him with great wealth, and he will give him his daughter.” David killed Goliath, and the Israelites won the war.

And the women of Israel sang: “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.” Saul became exceedingly angry, and Saul was hostile toward David.

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

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

And his second daughter, Mikhal, loved David. Saul sent word to David: “The king desires no dowry, except one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the enemies of the king.” In his heart he thought: “To cause David to fall into the hands of the Philistines.”

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

The remaining verses will be brought later.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei’s students asked him: How did David marry two sisters,

Merav and Mikhal,

during their lifetimes,

when this is prohibited as the nakedness of one’s wife’s sister? The students assumed that David had betrothed Merav and ultimately married Mikhal, and the two sisters thereby became co-wives to one another.

He said to them

Rabbi Yosei said to his students:

Mikhal—

he married her after Merav’s death,

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

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says:

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

the betrothal

that he performed was mistaken

for David

with regard to Merav.

Before explaining the mistaken betrothal concerning Merav, he brings proof from the verse that David himself also held this view. For it is related in I Samuel [19:11] 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. Mikhal, David’s wife, saved David from Saul her father, and helped him escape from the house through the window. It is further related there [chapter 25, verse 44]: “And Saul gave Mikhal his daughter, David’s wife, to Paltiel son of Laish.” After Saul’s death, David wished to take her back it will be explained in the note how he was permitted to take her back], as

it is stated

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

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

And the Gemara explains:

What is the textual 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.

The Gemara now explains what the mistaken betrothal David performed with Merav was, which David himself also acknowledged.

What was the mistaken betrothal?

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

him,”

“the king will enrich him with great wealth, etc.”

David went

and

killed him,

killing Goliath.

Saul said to him

Saul said to David:

“You have a loan with me.”

The great wealth that I promised you is merely a debt [a “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 halakha is that

one who betroths with a loan

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

has not betrothed her,

because betrothal must be performed by giving betrothal money, whereas at the time of the betrothal David gave her nothing.

And since Merav had not been betrothed to David,

Saul went

Saul went and

gave her

betrothing Merav

to Adriel.

As it is written: “And it came to pass, when the time came to give Merav, the daughter of Saul, to David,

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

David himself acknowledged that his betrothal of Merav had been a mistaken betrothal, because he had betrothed her not by giving money but solely with a loan.

The Gemara now explains the dispute between Saul and David concerning David’s betrothal of Mikhal:

Saul 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

one hundred foreskins of the Philistines,

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

David went

David went,

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:

“Both the loan,

the great wealth that I promised you for killing Goliath, and

the peruta,

the minimal value of the Philistine foreskins,

you have with me,

you possess grounds to demand from me.

Saul held

that when a person betroths a woman

with a loan

and a peruta, his mind is on the loan.

He intends to betroth her with the loan, since the loan is more significant than the peruta. Therefore, she is not betrothed, in accordance with the law that one who betroths with a loan has not betrothed her. In his view, Mikhal’s betrothal, which involved a loan and a peruta, was a mistaken betrothal and did not take effect, and therefore he gave her to Paltiel son of Laish.

But

David held:

When one 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 her with the peruta and not with the loan. In his view, Mikhal had been betrothed to him with the one hundred foreskins that he brought to Saul. Therefore David said to Ish-bosheth: “Give me my wife, Mikhal, whom I betrothed to myself for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines.”

The Gemara explains another possibility concerning the matter over which Saul and David disagreed.

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone—

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

loan and a peruta has his mind on the peruta.

Rather, they disagreed about the value of the foreskins:

Saul held that the

foreskins of the Philistines

were fit for nothing and had no value;

they were not worth even a peruta, and therefore Mikhal was not betrothed to David.

But

David

held that they had the value of a peruta,

as they were worth something

for dogs and cats,

since dog or cat owners would be willing to pay a peruta for them in order to feed them to a dog or cat. Therefore, she was betrothed.

as a dog or cat owner would be willing to pay a peruta for them in order to feed them to a dog or cat. Therefore, she was betrothed.

This exposition follows the view of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha, who derives from the wording of the verse, “Give me my wife, Mikhal,” that David acknowledged that Merav’s betrothal had been mistaken. Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that David married Mikhal only after Merav’s death, does not expound the verse in this manner.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And Rabbi Yosei, this

inference,

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

How does he expound this verse?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Yosei follows his own reasoning.

He expounds this verse in accordance with what he derived from another verse: It was clear to David that Mikhal was betrothed to him, and therefore he emphasized, “Give me my wife, Mikhal.” [He did not say this because of the inference from “Mikhal, my wife,” and not “Merav, my wife.”]

As it was taught,

as we learned there in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei would expound intermingled verses,

verses that apparently contain a confusion. This is how he expounded the following verse.

It is written in the Book of Samuel (II Samuel 21) that there was a famine in the Land of Israel for three years during David’s reign. The Lord told David that the famine was punishment because Saul had killed the Gibeonites. When David wished to appease the Gibeonites, they, in their great cruelty, demanded vengeance against the Israelites and refused to be appeased until seven men from among the Israelites were given to them to be killed. 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.”

This verse is intermingled, for apparently there is a difficulty:

Was Mikhal given

to Adriel as a wife?

Was she not given to Paltiel son of Laish,

Mikhal,

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

Rather,

from here Rabbi Yosei derives that Merav was given to Adriel, and Mikhal was given to Paltiel son of Laish. Why, then, did Scripture say that Mikhal was given to Adriel?

The verse juxtaposes

the verse

the betrothal of Merav to Adriel with the betrothal of Mikhal to Paltiel,

to teach that

just as

the

betrothal of Mikhal to Paltiel

was

transgressive,

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

so too the betrothal of Merav to Adriel—

was transgressive.

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

Since Rabbi Yosei expounded the verse, “And the king took, etc.,” as juxtaposing the betrothal of Merav to Adriel with the betrothal of Mikhal to Paltiel son of Laish, both of which were transgressive, the Gemara now explains this verse according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha, too,

has a difficulty:

it is written

“the five sons of Mikhal daughter of Saul,”

so how does he expound the intermingled verse?

Rabbi Yehoshua can say to you: Did Mikhal bear

the five sons to Adriel?

Did Merav not bear

them?

Rather, Merav bore them, and Mikhal raised them

after Merav’s death.

Therefore, they were called by her name,

as though Mikhal were the one who bore them to Adriel. Scripture referred to raising the children using the language of birth in order

to teach you that whoever raises an orphan in his home

Scripture considers him as though he had fathered him.

And in connection with this matter, the Gemara cites several teachings of the Sages that whoever raises an orphan or another person’s child and teaches him Torah is credited with having fathered him. The Gemara gives a mnemonic for the names of the Sages and their teachings:

(Hanina derived, Yohanan and his wife, Elazar and deliverance, and Shmuel in his studies, mnemonic)

Rabbi Hanina says: From here,

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

and the neighboring women gave him a name, saying: A son has been born

to Naomi.”

And this is difficult:

Did Naomi bear him? Did Ruth not bear him? Rather, Ruth bore him and Naomi raised him. Therefore, he was called

the son

by her name.

Rabbi Yohanan says: From here,

this is derived from the following verse: The Book of Chronicles I [chapter 4] lists the genealogy of the descendants of Judah, and it says concerning the descendants of Caleb son of Jephunneh:

“And his Jewish wife bore Jered the father of Gedor,

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

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

And the Sages derived from this:

“This Mered was Caleb; and why was he called Mered?

Because

he rebelled against the counsel of the spies.”

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

Did Bithiah bear

Moses our teacher?

Did Yocheved not bear

him?

Rather, Yocheved bore him, and Bithiah raised him. Therefore, he was called

Moses

by her name,

by Bithiah’s name, 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 strength, the children of Jacob and Joseph, Selah,”

and this is difficult:

But was Joseph the one who fathered

the children of Israel who were redeemed from Egypt?

Was it not Jacob who fathered

them

? Rather, Jacob fathered them, and Joseph sustained

them,

and therefore they were called by his name.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Whoever teaches

his

fellow’s son Torah—

the verse ascribes it to him as though he had fathered him.

As

it is stated

concerning the appointment of the Levites (Numbers 3):

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

Moses’ sons were not listed there. Rather,

it is written: “And these are the names of the sons of Aaron.” This serves to say to you: Aaron fathered them, and Moses taught them; therefore they were called by his name.

The Gemara expounds a similar interpretation: It is written in Isaiah (29):

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

And this is difficult:

But where do we find that Jacob redeemed Abraham?

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

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

And this is what is written

there in Isaiah, later in the verse:

“Jacob shall no longer be ashamed,

and his face shall no longer grow pale.” And the Sages expounded from this:

“Jacob shall no longer be ashamed”—

before his father,

Isaac.

“And his face shall no longer grow pale”—

before his father’s father,

Abraham, whom he redeemed from the burden of raising children.

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

In one verse,

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

Palti

son of Laish,”

while

in

another verse

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

Paltiel

son of Laish.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Palti was his name,

and therefore he was initially called Palti;

and why

was he later

after returning her to David

called Paltiel?

Because

God extricated him from the transgression,

and he did not have relations with her.

What did

Palti

do? He thrust 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,

shall 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 Michal to David:

“And her husband went with her,

walking and weeping after her as far as Bechorim. 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.

And the Gemara answers: The intention of the verse is that

he became for her like

a

husband,

as he raised her and cherished her. The Gemara raises an objection:

But

what about the fact that

it is written

in that same verse: “

Walking and weeping

after her,” which indicates that he had relations with her!?

And the Gemara answers: Paltiel son of Laish wept

over the mitzva that was departing from him,

as he was losing the mitzva of standing firm in the test.

And the Gemara expounds the continuation of the verse: “

As far as Bechorim,”

[which according to its plain meaning is the name of a place,]

that the two of them

Paltiel and Michal

became like youths—

who had never tasted the taste of intercourse,

as Rabbi Yoḥanan stated.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The force

of the great and formidable deed that he performed there,

of Joseph

when he fled from Potiphar’s wife—this

is the humility of Boaz,

a minor matter, with no reputation attached to it, which a person does innocently; that is, Boaz’s standing firm in the test was greater than Joseph’s, as will be explained. And likewise,

the force of Boaz—

is the humility of Paltiel son of Laish.

For Paltiel son of Laish’s standing firm in the test was greater than Boaz’s.

And the Gemara explains:

The force of Joseph—

is the humility of Boaz, as it is written

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

, “And it came to pass at midnight, and the man was startled, and he turned over.”

And it is written there that he deferred her until the following day, in case So-and-so, the unnamed redeemer, would not redeem her. And the Gemara expounds:

What is the meaning of “and he turned over”?

[Which according to its plain meaning is an expression of alarm.]

Rav said: His flesh became

hard

like the heads of turnips

[a type of vegetable]; nevertheless, he subdued his inclination. This was so even though she was unmarried and was with him in the bed; therefore, his restraint of his inclination was greater than Joseph’s, for Potiphar’s wife was a married woman and she was not with him in bed.