Sanhedrin 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A dergesh

is woven from within,

there are holes in the wooden frame [the lengthwise rails of the bed], and the leather straps are inserted into the holes, the leather is stretched and tied on the outer side, and the leather is not placed over the wood.

A bed—

is woven over its back,

their beds were made from a wooden frame [a rectangle], consisting of two lengthwise rails along the bed and two shorter rails across it. Ropes were woven from one lengthwise rail to the other, from one side to the other; the ropes encircled the wood and covered it, and they slept on the ropes [or on a garment or mattress placed on the ropes].

And the Gemara cites a Mishna to prove that the ropes did not encircle the wood, and this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan. "

Unfinished wooden vessels" are flat wooden vessels that have no receptacle and therefore are not susceptible to ritual impurity. But if they are made to be used in this manner, they become susceptible to impurity when their construction is completed, or from the time a person decides to use them in this manner. In the Mishna cited in the Gemara, it is explained what constitutes completion of the construction of the wooden frame of a bed, which is categorized as “unfinished wooden vessels.”

The Gemara raises an objection

from what we learned in a Mishna:

With regard to wooden vessels, from when do they become susceptible to ritual impurity? A bed and a cradle

for a baby girl—

from when one polishes them,

when one rubs them

with the skin of a fish

to smooth them and improve their appearance.

And if a bed

is

woven over its back,

and the ropes cover the wood,

why do I need the polishing of the wood with the skin of a fish?

The wood is not visible and does not need to be improved?!

The Gemara retracts what Rabbi Yoḥanan said, that the bed is woven over its back.

Rather, both this and that,

both the dergesh and the bed, are woven

from within,

and the difference between them is that

with regard to a bed, one inserts and removes

the ropes

through the bizyonin,

through holes that pass through the wood from one side to the other, and in this manner he weaves its ropes; whereas

a dergesh—

one inserts and removes them through loops,

loops tied to the wood, and through these loops he inserts the straps that extend from the leather,

as

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said, that one may loosen its straps.

Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is

as

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

That one may loosen its straps.

The Gemara adds another halakha concerning the laws of overturning a bed.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Ami said: A bed

that one cannot overturn

because its canopy poles project,

as on both sides of the bed—a wooden pole projects at its head, and likewise at its foot, and the two are connected by a third wooden pole, over which a canopy is spread, for privacy or protection from flies—

one should set it upright

by raising it onto its side, toward the head or toward the foot,

and that is sufficient,

and this suffices.

That is to say: Although the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel with regard to a dergesh, he agrees with the first tanna that if it is impossible either to loosen the straps or to overturn the bed, setting it upright is sufficient.

And he should sleep in another bed.

Mishna:

The Mishna continues to explain the laws of the king and the king’s prerogatives.

And he takes out

the people

for a discretionary war on the authority of a court of seventy-one.

And he breaches

the fences of others

to make for himself

[and for his population ]

a path

that is shorter, in order to reach his field or vineyard from his house,

and no one may protest against him.

The king’s road—

has no fixed measure.

And

when they go out to war,

all the people plunder

from the spoils of the enemy

and give them to him, and he

the king

takes the first portion,

taking half the spoils and selecting the finest portion for himself.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: This is already

taught once

in our Mishna [2a]:

The people may be taken out to a discretionary war only on the authority of a court of seventy-one.

The Gemara answers: There this law was taught among all the matters that require a court of seventy-one, whereas here,

since

once

it taught all the matters of the king,

his prerogatives and laws,

it also taught

that the king

takes the people out to a discretionary war

only on the authority of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one.

It is written in the book of I Samuel (chapter 8) that the Israelites asked Samuel to appoint a king over them, and Samuel specified all the king’s prerogatives: “

And this will be the manner of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them over his chariot and among his horsemen, and they will run before his chariot. He will appoint them as commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties. He will plow his plowing and reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers. He will take your fields, your vineyards, and your best olive groves and give them to his servants. He will tithe your seed and your vineyards and give them to his eunuchs and servants. He will take your servants, your maidservants, your finest young men, and your donkeys and use them for his work. He will tithe your flocks, and you will be his servants.”

The amoraim and tannaim disagreed about this matter. Some hold that these are “the prerogatives of the king,” while others hold that the king does not have so many prerogatives; rather, the prophet Samuel said this “so that the people would fear the king.”

[And according to one version: “In order to frighten and terrify them,” that is, so that they would regret their request to appoint a king over them, as the prophet Samuel said there: “And you will cry out on that day because of your king whom you chose for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you on that day.”]

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Everything stated in the passage concerning the king—

the king is permitted to do,

and these are “his prerogatives.”

Rav said: This passage was not stated

in order to permit the king all these things;

rather,

the prophet Samuel said this to them only in order

to threaten them,

so that they would accept upon themselves the fear of the monarchy, as

it is stated: “You shall surely set a king over yourself,”

and we expound:

so that his fear will be upon you.

This dispute between the amoraim is

like

the dispute between

tannaim.

And as we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei says: Everything stated in the passage concerning the king—

the king is permitted to do.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This passage was stated only in order to threaten them, as it is stated: “You shall surely set a king over yourself”—

so that his fear will be upon you.

Since the Gemara brought Rabbi Yehuda’s statement concerning the king’s prerogatives, it continues by bringing proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that it is a mitzva to appoint a king . [And the beraita will be explained below.]

And Rabbi Yehuda would likewise say: Israel was commanded three mitzvot

to fulfill

when they entered the Land of Israel.

The first:

to appoint a king over them .

And

the second:

to destroy the offspring of Amalek.

And

the third:

to build for themselves the Chosen House,

which the Lord will choose in order to cause His Name to dwell there .

Rabbi Nehorai says: This passage was not stated

as a mitzva,

but in response to their complaint,

as it is stated: “And you will say, ‘I will set a king over me.’”

That is, Rabbi Nehorai holds that there is no mitzva to appoint a king. And what the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17): “When you come to the land that the Lord your God gives you, inherit it and settle in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations around me,’ you shall surely set a king over yourself, whom the Lord your God will choose,” [and the Torah writes there the laws of the king], is only because it was manifest and known before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that in the end they would request a king and would come with a complaint to the prophet to make this request. Therefore, the Torah wrote that if they request one, the king must be “whom the Lord your God will choose,” together with the other laws of the king.

It is written in the book of Samuel (there): “And all the elders of Israel gathered and came to Samuel at Ramah, and they said to him: ‘Behold, you have grown old, and your sons have not followed in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us, like all the nations.’” And it is written there that the matter was evil in Samuel’s eyes, and he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to him: “They have not rejected you!” “And now, heed their voice; but you shall solemnly warn them and tell them the manner of the king.”

And Samuel told them the manner of the king as above: “But the people refused to heed Samuel’s voice, and they said: ‘No! For there shall be a king over us, and we too shall be like all the nations, and our king shall judge us, go out before us, and wage our wars’” [and they did not trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He—the Yad Ramah].

This implies that the elders requested a king to judge and discipline those who refused to obey the law, while the people requested a king to go out to war.

It was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer

son of Rabbi Yosei

says: The elders of that generation asked appropriately,

they requested

, as it is stated: “Give us a king to judge us.” But the common people among them—

corrupted their request, as it is stated: “And we too shall be like all the nations, and our king shall judge us and go out before us.”

Three mitzvot are stated in the Torah that one is commanded to fulfill only after entering the Land of Israel. They are:

A. To appoint a king [according to the opinion that this is a mitzva], as the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17): “When you come to the land that the Lord your God gives you, inherit it and settle in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me.’”

B. To destroy the offspring of Amalek, as the Torah says (there, chapter 25): “And it shall be, when the Lord your God grants you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek.”

C. Building the Temple, as the Torah says (there, chapter 12): “You shall cross the Jordan and settle in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and He will grant you rest from all your enemies around you, and you shall dwell securely. And it shall be the place that the Lord your God will choose to cause His Name to dwell there; there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices.”

It was taught in a beraita

[another beraita]:

We learned in

a beraita:

Rabbi Yosei

[Rabbi Yehuda] says: Israel was commanded three mitzvot upon entering the Land: to appoint a king over them, to destroy the offspring of Amalek, and to build for themselves the Chosen House.

This beraita continues and says:

And I do not know which of them comes first.

When it says

in the context of the war against Amalek,

“For a hand is upon the throne of the Lord; the Lord has a war with Amalek,”

from the fact that “throne” is mentioned first,

you must say that to appoint a king over them—

they were commanded

first.

And

the proof is that

“throne” means nothing other than a king.

As it is stated: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord as king.”

Thus, “the throne of the Lord” and likewise “the throne of the Lord,” refer to the throne of monarchy. And this is what the verse says: “For a hand is upon the throne of the Lord”; once the king has sat upon the throne of the monarchy of the people of Israel, there will be “a war with Amalek.”

And I still do not know whether to build the Chosen House first or to destroy the offspring of Amalek first. When it says

in the passage concerning the building of the Chosen House,

“And He will grant you rest from all your enemies, etc., and it shall be the place that the Lord will choose, etc.,” you must say: To destroy the offspring of Amalek—

first.

The beraita continues:

And likewise concerning David it says: “And it came to pass, when King David sat in his house, and the Lord had granted him rest all around,” and

afterward

it is written: “And the king said to Nathan the prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedar,

while the Ark of God dwells within the curtain.” That is, David requested permission to build the Chosen House after he had gained respite from his enemies, and the prophet told him that his son Solomon would build it.

And since the Gemara cited the verse “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord,” it also cites the exposition of Reish Lakish concerning Solomon.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: At first

of Solomon's reign—

King Solomon ruled over the supernal beings

the demons [ in the Gemara of Megilla

and over the terrestrial beings].

And the proof that he ruled over the supernal beings is:

as it is stated: “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord.”

And ultimately

afterward,

he ruled

only

over the terrestrial beings

over the entire world.

As it is stated: “For he ruled over all the region beyond the River, from Tiphsah to Gaza.”

And how is it inferred from this verse that he ruled over the entire world?

They disagree about this:

Rav and Shmuel.

One

of them

said: Tiphsah

is

at the end of the world

at one extremity,

and Gaza

is

at the end of the world

at the other extremity.

And one said: Tiphsah and Gaza—

were situated alongside one another

close to each other.

And just as he ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world,

and the meaning of the verse is: For he ruled over the entire region beyond the River, just as he ruled from Tiphsah to Gaza.

And ultimately

afterward,

he did not rule

over the entire world,

but

a designation for Solomon

over Israel, as it is stated: “I, Kohelet, was king over Israel, etc.”

And ultimately

afterward,

he did not rule

over all Israel,

but over Jerusalem.

As it is stated: “The words of Kohelet, son of David, king in Jerusalem.”

And ultimately

afterward,

he did not rule

even over Jerusalem,

but over his bed, as it is stated: “Behold, his bed, which is Solomon’s; sixty warriors are around it.”

And ultimately

afterward,

he did not rule

even over his bed,

but over his staff.

As it is stated: “I undertook great works; I built houses for myself, etc., and whatever my eyes asked I did not withhold from them; I did not deny my heart any joy, etc.,

and this was my portion from all my toil.” “

and this was my portion from all my labor.”

This is my portion”—this is the staff that remained in his hand, because Ashmedai, chief of the demons, cast him from his throne.

Rav and Shmuel

disagree about this.

One

of them

said

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that “this is my portion” refers to

his staff. And one said: his gundo

his garment [or an earthenware vessel from which one drinks water].

The Gemara asks: Did

he return

did Solomon, at the end of his life, return to his kingship,

or did he not return?

They also disagree about this:

Rav and Shmuel.

One

of them

said: He returned, and one said: He did not return.

The one who says that he did not return

this was the sequence of his reign:

king, and commoner.

At first he was a king, and ultimately a commoner

. And the one who says that he returned

the sequence was as follows:

king, commoner, and king.

We learned in our Mishna:

He may break through to make a road for himself

and no one may protest against him; the king’s road has no measure. And all the people plunder and give to him, and he takes the first portion.

The Gemara explains how the spoils of the enemy are divided, and from where this matter is derived.

The Sages taught: The treasuries of kings

that were taken as spoils

are all

theirs

for the king, and of the rest of the spoils that they plunder, half is for the king and half is for the people.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi—and some say

there were members of the academy who transmitted that Abaye said this

to Rav Aḥa: Granted, the treasuries of kings

are

for the king,

because

it is the customary practice,

as it is the proper arrangement that the royal treasuries belong to the king.

But the rest of the spoils that they plunder—

which

are half for the king and half for the people, from where do we derive this,

from where is this matter learned?

Rav Dimi said to him: From this

verse,

which is written in the Book of Chronicles (I 29) concerning King Solomon: