Sanhedrin 20b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yirmeya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: A dargesh ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

its interlacing is from within,

there are holes in the wooden frame [the long sides of the bed], and the leather straps are inserted into the holes, and the leather is stretched and tied on the outer side, and one does not place the leather over the wood.

A bed—

its interlacing is over its back,

their beds were made of a wooden frame [a rectangle], consisting of two long pieces along the length of the bed and two short pieces across it, and they would interlace ropes from one long piece to the other, from this side to that side, and the ropes would turn around the wood and cover the wood, and on the ropes [or on a garment or mattress placed on the ropes] they would sleep.

And the Gemara cites a Mishna to prove that the ropes did not turn around the wood, and this is difficult against Rabbi Yohanan. "

Flat wooden vessels" are flat wooden vessels that do not have a receptacle, and therefore they do not contract impurity. But if they are made to be used in this manner, they contract impurity upon the completion of their manufacture, or from the time of a person's intention to use them in this manner. And in the Mishna cited in the Gemara, it is explained what is considered the completion of manufacture with regard to the wood of the bed frame, which is "flat wooden vessels ".

The following objection was raised

from what we learned in a Mishna:

Wooden vessels: From when do they contract impurity? A bed and a cradle

of a baby girl—

once one has rubbed them,

once one rubs them

with the skin of a fish

to smooth them and beautify them.

And if a bed

is

interlaced over its back,

and the ropes cover the wood,

why do I need the rubbing with the skin of a fish,

for is the wood not unrecognizable, and is there a need to beautify it?!

And the Gemara retracts what Rabbi Yohanan said, that a bed is interlaced over its back.

Rather, both this and that,

both a dargesh and a bed, their interlacing is

from within,

and the difference between them is:

With regard to a bed, inserting and removing

one inserts and removes the ropes

through its holes,

through the holes inside the wood, from side to side, and thus interlaces its ropes, whereas

a dargesh—

inserting and removing through loops,

loops tied to the wood, and into these loops one inserts straps that emerge from the leather,

as

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said, that one loosens its straps.

Rabbi Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The halakha is

as

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

That one loosens its straps.

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

Rabbi Yaakov bar Ami said: A bed

that one cannot overturn

because its canopies project,

because on both sides of the bed—a piece of wood projects at its head, and likewise at its foot, and they are joined to one another by a third piece of wood, over which one spreads a canopy, for modesty or for protection from flies—

one erects it

raises it onto its side, toward the head or toward the feet,

and that is sufficient

and this suffices.

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

And he sleeps 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 way

a shortcut, in order to reach his field and vineyard from his house,

and no one may protest against him.

The king's way—

has no measure.

And

when they go out to war,

all the people plunder

from the spoils of the enemy

and give it to him, and he

the king

takes the first portion,

he takes half of the spoils and chooses the finest portion for himself.

Gemara:

The Gemara asks: But

we already learned this once,

this law was already taught in our Mishna [above, 20a]:

They do not take people out for a discretionary war except on the authority of a court of seventy-one.

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

since

since

he taught all the matters of the king,

his prerogatives and his laws, therefore

he also taught

that the king

takes people out for a discretionary war

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

It is written in the Book of Samuel I (chapter 8) that the Children of Israel asked Samuel to appoint a king over them, and Samuel detailed to them all the king's prerogatives: "

And this shall be the judgment of the king who will reign over you: He shall take your sons, and place them in his chariot and among his horsemen, and they shall run before his chariot. And he shall appoint for himself officers of thousands and officers of fifties. And to plow his plowing, and to reap his harvest, and to make his weapons of war and his equipment of chariots. And he shall take your daughters for perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And your fields and your vineyards and your good olive trees he shall take and give to his servants. And your seeds and your vineyards he shall tithe and give to his eunuchs and his servants. And your servants and your maidservants and your finest young men and your donkeys he shall take and use for his work. He shall tithe your flocks, and you shall be his servants

”. The amoraim and the tannaim disputed this matter. Some hold that these are “the king's prerogatives,” and some hold that the king has not so many prerogatives; rather, the prophet Samuel said this “so that the fear of the king should be upon the people

”. [ 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 shall cry out on that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you on that day ”].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Everything stated in the passage of 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 intimidate 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 should be upon you.

This dispute between the amoraim is

like

the dispute between

tannaim.

And as we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yose says: Everything stated in the passage of the king—

the king is permitted to do.

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

so that his fear should be upon you.

And once the Gemara has brought the words of Rabbi Yehuda concerning the king's prerogatives, it continues and brings proof that Rabbi Yehuda holds that there is a mitzva to appoint a king . [ And the beraita will be explained below].

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

that they were to fulfill

upon their entering the Land

of Israel. The first:

to appoint a king over them .

And

the second:

to destroy the seed of Amalek.

And

the third:

to build for themselves the Chosen House

which the Lord would 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 grievance .

As it is stated: “And you shall 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 said (Deuteronomy 17): “When you come to the land that the Lord your God gives you, and you inherit it and dwell in it, and you say, I will set a king over me like all the nations that are 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 revealed and known before the Holy One, blessed be He, that in the end they would request a king, and would come with a grievance to the prophet to request one. 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 walked in your ways; now set over us a king to judge us like all the nations.” And it is written there that the matter was bad in Samuel's eyes, and he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to him: “They have not rejected you!” “And now, listen to their voice, but surely warn them, and tell them the judgment of the king ”.

And Samuel told them the judgment of the king as above: “And the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said: No! Rather, a king shall be over us, and we too shall be like all the nations, and our king shall judge us, and he shall go out before us, and he shall wage our wars” [and they did not trust in the Holy One, blessed be He—the Yad Ramah].

And it follows that the elders requested a king to judge and exercise authority over those who refuse judgment, whereas the people requested a king to go out to wars. [

It was taught:]

Rabbi Eliezer [

son of Rabbi Yose]

says: The elders of that generation asked properly,

they requested

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

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

like all the nations; our king shall judge us and go out before us.”

Three mitzvot were stated in the Torah whose fulfillment is commanded only after entering the Land of Israel. And these are:

A. To appoint a king [according to the view that it is a mitzva], as the Torah said (Deuteronomy 17): “When you come to the land that the Lord your God gives you, and you inherit it and dwell in it. And you say, I will set a king over me

”. B. To destroy the seed of Amalek, as the Torah said (there, chapter 25): “And it shall be, when the Lord your God gives you rest from all your enemies around, 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 said (there, chapter 12): “And you shall cross the Jordan and dwell in the land that the Lord your God causes you to inherit, and He will give you rest from all your enemies around, 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 [

another]

we learned in another beraita:

Rabbi Yose [

Yehuda]

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

And this beraita continues and says:

And I do not know which of them comes first.

When it says

in the war against Amalek

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

from the precedence of the “throne,”

you must say: To appoint a king over them

they were commanded

first.

And

proof of the matter is that

there is no “throne” except a king.

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

For “the throne of the Lord” and likewise “the throne of the Lord,” is the throne of kingship. And thus the verse said: “For a hand is upon the throne of the Lord”: after the king has sat upon the throne of the kingship of the People of Israel, then there will be a war of the Lord against Amalek.

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

in the passage concerning the building of the Chosen House

“And He will give 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 seed of Amalek—

first.

And the beraita continues:

And likewise concerning David it says: “And it was, when King David sat in his house, and the Lord had given 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,

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

And incidentally, since the Gemara brought the verse “And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord,” the Gemara also brings the exposition of Reish Lakish concerning Solomon.

Reish Lakish said: At first

of Solomon's kingdom -

King Solomon ruled over the upper beings

the demons [ in the Gemara of Megilla

and over the lower beings].

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

as it is said: "And Solomon sat upon the throne of the Lord."

And in the end

and afterward

he ruled

only

over the lower beings

over the entire world.

As it is said: "For he ruled over all the region beyond the river, from Tiphsah to Gaza."

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

They disagree about this,

Rav and Shmuel.

One

of the two

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 next to one another

close to one another.

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

and the interpretation of the verse is: For he ruled over all the region beyond the river, just as he ruled from Tiphsah to Gaza.

And in the end

and afterward,

he did not rule

over the entire world,

but over Israel, as it is said: "I, Kohelet

a designation for Solomon

was king over Israel, and so on."

And in the end

and afterward,

he did not rule

over all Israel,

but over Jerusalem.

As it is said: "The words of Kohelet the son of David, king in Jerusalem."

And in the end

and afterward,

he did not rule

even over Jerusalem,

but over his bed, as it is said: "Behold, his bed, which is Solomon's; sixty mighty men are around it."

And in the end

and afterward,

he did not rule

even over his bed,

but over his staff.

As it is said "

I made great works; I built houses for myself, and so on, and whatever my eyes asked for I did not withhold from them; I did not deny my heart any joy, and so on'

and this was my portion from all my toil." "

This is my portion": it is the staff that remained in his hand, since Ashmedai, chief of the demons, cast him from his throne.

Rav and Shmuel

disagree about this matter.

One

of them

said

like Reish Lakish, that "this is my portion" means

his staff. And one said: gundo

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

The Gemara asks: Did

he return,

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

or did he not return?

They also disagree about this,

Rav and Shmuel.

One

of the two

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

The one who says that he did not return,

this was the order of his kingship:

king, and commoner.

At first he was a king, and in the end a commoner

. And the one who says that he returned,

the order is as follows:

king, and commoner, and king.

We learned in our Mishna:

He breaks through to make a road for himself

and they do not 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 enemy's spoils are divided, and from where this matter is derived.

The Sages taught: The treasuries of kings

that were taken as spoils - they are all

for the king. And

the rest of

the booty that they plunder is half for the king and half for the people.

Abaye said to Rav Dimi, and some say

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

to Rav Aha: Granted, the treasuries of kings

are

for the king,

because

it is the customary practice,

for this is the proper way: royal treasuries belong to the king.

But the rest of the booty that they plunder -

which is

half for the king and half for the people, from where do we know it,

from where is this matter derived?

Rav Dimi said to him: From this,

as it is written

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