Sanhedrin 20a — the Talmud in English

Boaz’s greatness –

Paltiel ben Laish’s humility.

Paltiel ben Laish’s suppression of his inclination was greater than Boaz’s,

as we said,

for Boaz suppressed his inclination for one night, whereas Paltiel ben Laish suppressed his inclination for many years.

Furthermore,

Rabbi Yohanan said: What,

how should one expound

that which is written: “Many daughters have done valiantly, but you surpass them all”? –

“Many daughters have done valiantly” –

this is Joseph and Boaz. “But you surpass them all” –

this is Paltiel ben Laish,

who surpassed them in suppressing his inclination.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: What,

with regard to whom should one expound the words of the verse

“Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain,

but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised”?

“Grace is deceitful” –

this is Joseph,

for the grace of Potiphar’s wife was deceitful in his eyes.

“And beauty is vain” –

this is Boaz,

who regarded beauty as vanity.

“But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” –

this is Paltiel ben Laish.

For because of his great fear of the Lord, he suppressed his inclination, and the verse praises and commends him.

Alternatively,

another interpretation:

“Grace is deceitful” –

this is the generation of Moses,

for the grace of worldly pursuits was deceitful in their eyes, and they devoted themselves to Torah.

“And beauty is vain” –

this is the generation of Joshua,

for they too devoted themselves to Torah and regarded the beauty of this world as vanity.

“But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” –

this is the generation of Hezekiah

the king, who devoted themselves to Torah even more than the generations of Moses and Joshua. A lamp burned at night in the batei midrash, until they searched throughout the land and found no ignoramus.

Alternatively,

another interpretation:

“Grace is deceitful” –

this is the generation of Moses and Joshua.

“And beauty is vain” –

this is the generation of Hezekiah.

“But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised” –

this is the generation of Rabbi Judah, son of Rabbi Ila’i,

who studied Torah amid hardship.

The Sages said

about him,

about Rabbi Judah, son of Rabbi Ila’i, that six students

of his

would cover themselves with a single talit

because of their extreme poverty,

and engage in Torah study.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues explaining the laws concerning the honor of the king.

If a dead person dies for him,

one of his relatives [or a Torah scholar among the Sages of Israel],

he may not leave the entrance of his palace

the royal residence

.

Rabbi Judah says: If he wishes

to forgo his honor

and go out after the bier,

then he

goes out.

For we find that David went out after the bier of Abner

son of Ner,

as it is stated: “And King David went after the bier.”

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Judah: One may not bring proof from David’s walking after Abner’s bier, because

the matter was not

in order to fulfill the mitzva of escorting the dead,

but rather to appease the people,

who thought that Joab had killed Abner at David’s command. But that was not the case; rather, he killed him because Abner had killed his brother Asahel. Therefore David went out to accompany him and eulogized him. Indeed, the people were appeased, as it is stated: “And all the people and all Israel knew on that day that it was not from the king to kill Abner son of Ner.”

And when they comfort him,

when they comfort the king with the meal of consolation,

all the people

who come to comfort him

sit on the ground

in his honor,

while he reclines on the dargesh,

a type of bed, as the Gemara will explain.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: In a place where the women customarily go out after the bier –

they go out

after the bier. And in a place where they customarily go out

before the bier –

they go out

before the bier.

Rabbi Judah says:

The matter does not depend on custom. Rather,

women always go out before the bier.

For we find that David went out after Abner’s bier. As it is stated: “And King David went after the bier.”

And certainly he did not go with the women. Therefore, it follows that their custom was for the women to go out before the bier.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Judah: There is no proof from there, since

the matter was only to appease the people, and

indeed they

were appeased.

And how did he do this?

David would emerge from among the men,

who were in front of the bier,

and enter among the women,

who were behind the bier.

Then he would emerge from among the women and enter among the men,

so that everyone would know that Abner had not been killed at his command, and indeed the people were appeased, as

it is stated: “And all the people and all Israel knew that it was not from the king to kill Abner son of Ner.”

Therefore, the Sages maintain that no proof may be brought from there.

And it is stated there that David lamented Abner, and all the people continued to weep for him: “And all the people came to provide David with bread,” in accordance with the custom of mourners.

Rava expounded: What,

what is the interpretation of

that which is written: “And all the people came to provide David with bread”?

And Rava had a tradition concerning a kri u-ketiv, and therefore he expounds it as follows:

It is written “to cut him off,” but we read it “to provide him with food.” At first

they came

to cut him off,

because they thought that Abner’s killing had been carried out at David’s command.

But ultimately,

after they saw that David was lamenting and mourning his death, they came

to provide him with food.

Rav Judah said that Rav said: For what reason was Abner punished? Because he should have protested to Saul

when he killed the inhabitants of Nob, the city of the priests, because they had given David food and the sword of Goliath the Philistine. Abner should have protested and said to Saul that the priests of Nob did not know that David was fleeing from Saul and were compelled by circumstances,

but he did not protest.

Rabbi Isaac said:

Indeed,

he did protest

Abner to Saul,

but he was not heeded;

Saul believed Doeg the Edomite, who told him that the priests of Nob had given David the bread and the sword and had consulted the Urim VeTummim for him, as was customary for a king. [The Gemara will explain, according to Rabbi Isaac, why Abner was punished.]

The Gemara explains the two opinions: whether Abner should have protested, or whether he protested but was not heeded.

It is written there: “And the king lamented over Abner and said: Should Abner die as a senseless man dies? Your hands were not bound, and your feet were not brought into copper fetters [that is, you were not taken captive, like a prisoner whose hands are bound and whose feet are fastened with copper chains]. As one falls before worthless men, so you have fallen [that is, before the sons of Zeruiah, whom he regarded as worthless men].”

And both of them,

Rav Judah and Rabbi Isaac,

expounded the same biblical verse.

It is stated:

“And the king lamented over Abner and said: Should Abner die as a senseless man dies? Your hands were not bound, and your feet were not brought into copper fetters.”

The one who says that he did not protest

explains that

this is what

David meant:

“Your hands were not bound, and your feet were not brought into copper fetters.”

You were the commander of Saul’s army; you were neither bound nor prevented from protesting. If so,

why did you not protest?

Therefore,

you fell like the sons of worthlessness.

And the one who says that he protested but was not heeded

explains:

He was expressing astonishment.

King David lamented in a language of astonishment: How could this have happened?

“Should Abner die

as a senseless man dies?” After all,

“your hands were not bound and your feet were not brought into copper fetters.”

You did not behave like a shackled man. For

since

you had

certainly protested,

you had made your position known and protested with all your strength; if so, the astonishment is all the greater:

“For what reason,

why

did you fall like the sons of worthlessness?”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

According to the one who says that he protested, for what reason was he punished,

why was death decreed upon him?

Rav Naḥman bar Isaac said:

Because

he delayed

the reign of the house of David by two and a half years.

After Saul was killed on Mount Gilboa, David reigned in Hebron over Judah for seven years and six months (II Samuel 2). During this period, five years after Saul’s death, Abner appointed Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king over Israel [while the people of Judah followed David]. After two years, Abner abandoned Ish-bosheth and made a pact with David, and only six months later did all Israel accept David as king. It follows that because Abner appointed Ish-bosheth, David’s reign was delayed by two and a half years, and therefore he was punished.

We learned in our Mishna:

And when they comfort him –

all the people sit on the ground, while he reclines on the dargesh.

The amoraim discuss what type of bed the dargesh is, which we learned in our Mishna that the king reclines upon.

A mourner is obligated to overturn his bed, to lie and recline on an overturned bed [the term for overturning derives from the expression “he overturns the vessel upon him,” in which the hollow of the vessel is below and its bottom is above. The same applies to their beds, which had a wooden frame surrounding them above, and therefore the term “overturning” applies to them], so that the bed is close to the ground. This is derived from what is stated concerning David (II Samuel 13): “And the king arose and tore his garments and lay on the ground.”

The meaning of the Mishna is that the king, because of his honor, need not overturn his beds when they come to provide him with the meal of consolation. Rather, he must observe some practice of mourning and recline on a bed other than the one he normally uses.

What is a “dargesh”?

Ulla said: It is an arsa degada.

They would customarily set up a bed and a table in the house and would not use them at all, but did so for the sake of the household’s fortune, as a form of divination [and gada is related to the word for fortune].

But the Gemara raises a difficulty with this interpretation: If this bed is not intended for reclining, but he now reclines upon it because of his mourning, it is difficult, for the Mishna sought to teach us that he does not observe the practices of mourning in the presence of the people.

The Sages said to Ulla

the members of the academy

: Is there such a thing,

is it possible that

until

now,

until the time of his mourning,

we did not seat him upon it,

we did not seat him on this “fortune” bed,

and now we seat him upon it,

and this is considered a practice of mourning?!

Rava answers that there is no difficulty, since we did not say that he does not observe the practices of mourning at all. Rather, just as they provide him with the meal of consolation, so too he sits on this bed, which is not intended for reclining, as a practice of mourning.

Rava strongly challenged

the members of the academy:

What is the difficulty?! Perhaps

it may be said that this is

analogous

to

eating and drinking, for until now,

until the time of his mourning,

we did not feed him or give him drink,

his neighbors and friends did not bring him food and drink; but

now we feed him and give him drink,

they bring him the meal of consolation.

And in conclusion, the king reclines on the dargesh, even though this entails some practice of mourning.

However, the Gemara discusses the possibility that a dargesh is not an arsa degada, but another bed upon which the king sits.

Rather, if there is a difficulty

with Ulla’s opinion,

this is the difficulty:

For we learned in a beraita [and the beraita is not speaking about a king but about any other person]:

A dargesh need not be overturned

from top to bottom;

rather, it is set upright,

placed on its side, and the mourner does not sit upon it.

And

this is difficult:

If it enters your mind

that it is

an arsa degada –

why need it not be overturned,

how does its law differ from that of an ordinary bed?!

And if you wish to answer that it is because it is not made for sitting, that cannot be so,

and

is it not

taught

in another beraita:

One who overturns his bed –

it is not only his bed that he overturns; rather, he overturns every bed that he has in his house.

The Gemara answers:

And what is the difficulty? Perhaps

it may be

analogous

to

a bed designated for

placing

utensils upon it, as it is taught

in a beraita:

If it was designated for utensils, it need not be overturned.

Therefore, the dargesh need not be overturned; and in fact it is an arsa degada, and since people do not sleep upon it, it need not be overturned.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Rather, if there is a difficulty,

if there is something difficult,

this is the difficulty:

We learned in a beraita: A dargesh need not be overturned; this is the opinion of the first tanna.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to a dargesh, one loosens

during his mourning

the karbitin,

he opens the loops with which the bed surface is fastened to its frame,

and it falls on its own.

And if it enters your mind

that a dargesh is

an arsa degada –

does it have karbitin?

Does it have loops to open and close?! After all, an arsa degada is like an ordinary bed, whose surface is fixed to the frame.

The Gemara retracts Ulla’s opinion and says that a dargesh is not an arsa degada.

Rather, when Ravin came

when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael,

he said: A certain one of the Sages, whose name was Rav Taḥlifa, told me

his name,

who was frequently present

who was found

in the market of the leather workers,

in the market of makers of straps and leather utensils,

and he said to me: What is a dargesh?

What bed was called a dargesh in Eretz Yisrael, where the language of the Mishna was spoken?

It is an arsa detzala.

A leather bed, whose surface is made of leather and fastened with straps to the bed frame. It is made so that the straps can be fastened and loosened [and therefore the king sits upon it, as it is not such an important bed]. It has no upper frame surrounding it, and if it were overturned, it would be damaged by the moisture of the ground; therefore, it need not be overturned. The first tanna maintains that it is turned onto its side, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that its loops are loosened and the leather falls.

The Gemara continues describing the dargesh, which is a leather bed fastened to a frame.