Sanhedrin 21a — the Talmud in English

I Chronicles 29

“And they anointed him for the Lord as ruler and Zadok as priest,”

and we will expound it as follows:

It juxtaposes,

the Scripture equates

a ruler,

a king,

with Zadok,

the High Priest.

To teach you:

just as

like

Zadok

the High Priest—in a matter belonging to him, he takes in it

half for himself and half for his brothers

[as will be explained]—

so too the ruler,

the king,

, half for himself and half for his brothers.

That is to say, the High Priest does not take half of the spoils, because he has no share in them; rather, he takes half of a matter that belongs to him.

And the Gemara asks:

But as for Zadok himself, from where do we know this,

from where do we learn that he took half?

And it explains: From this

as it was taught: Rabbi says,

the Torah said concerning the division of the showbread

“And it shall be

for Aaron and for his sons,”

the Scripture teaches that the showbread was divided

half for him,

for Aaron,

and half for his sons.

Mishna:

The Torah says in the section concerning the king [Deuteronomy 17]: “He shall not have many wives,” “and his heart shall not turn away.” The Scripture teaches that

“he shall not have many”

the king take

wives, but eighteen

wives only, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Judah says: He may have many

wives to marry them according to his desire,

provided that they not be

his numerous wives

causing his heart to turn away

from the Almighty. For he interprets the verse as follows: “He shall not have many wives”—and why? “So that his heart shall not turn away.” It follows that he may not increase the number of wives who cause his heart to turn away. But if they do not cause his heart to turn away, he may marry them.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

one

woman and

she

causes his heart to turn away

—he shall not marry her.

He interprets the reason that the king may not have many wives as follows: a large number of wives may cause his heart to turn away from God. Therefore, he may not marry even one woman whom there is reason to fear will cause his heart to turn away.

Lest you say: According to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that it is forbidden for the king to marry even one woman who causes his heart to turn away—

if so, why is it stated, “He shall not have many wives”?—

The answer is, to teach you

that

more than eighteen it is forbidden for him to take

even

if the woman is worthy,

such

as

Abigail

David’s wife.

Gemara:

In several places in the Talmud, the tannaim disagree whether the reason of the verse is expounded. That is, when the Torah commands a mitzva that has a reason, is this mitzva in force only within the limitation of the reason, so that if there is a situation in which the reason does not apply, the mitzva is not in force [and an example of this is brought in the Gemara], or perhaps the mitzva is in force in every situation, even when the reason for the mitzva does not apply to it, and the mitzva is without a reason, like a statute.

In our Mishna it appears that Rabbi Judah, who permits worthy women even beyond eighteen, expounds the reason of the verse. For he holds that the reason for the mitzva is that they should not cause his heart to turn away; therefore, if they are worthy, they are permitted to him. And Rabbi Shimon, who forbids even worthy women, does not expound the reason of the verse, and all women are forbidden.

And the Gemara asks:

Is this to say

that

Rabbi Judah expounds the reason of the verse, whereas Rabbi Shimon does not expound the reason of the verse!? But

behold,

we have heard the opposite from them,

we heard their opinions in a beraita in the opposite manner. And this is a contradiction both in the words of Rabbi Judah and in the words of Rabbi Shimon.

As it was taught,

the Torah says: “You shall not take a widow’s garment as collateral,” meaning that it is forbidden to take collateral from a widow; and the Sages expounded from here: “

Widow,” whether she is poor or whether she is wealthy, one may not take collateral from her, as it is stated: “You shall not take a widow’s garment as collateral.”

Although there is a reason to distinguish between a poor woman and a wealthy woman, as will be explained, the reason of the verse is not expounded. These are

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Shimon says:

A

wealthy widow, one may take collateral from her. A poor widow, one may not take collateral from her,

because if she is poor

and you are obligated to return to her

a day garment by day and a night garment by night, as the Torah commanded [Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24],

and you give her a bad name among her neighbors,

for if the widow enters his house to return the collateral, morning and evening, her neighbors will slander her. But in the case of a wealthy widow, he is not obligated to return it to her, and consequently she will not come to his house, and he will not give her a bad name.

And the Gemara explains the wording of the beraita:

And we say: What is he saying!?

Apparently, what Rabbi Shimon said in the beraita is difficult: “And one may not take collateral from her, and you are obligated to return it”—for if one may not take collateral, there is nothing to return.

Rather, necessarily,

this is what

Rabbi Shimon is saying:

Since you take collateral from her,

for if you take collateral from her,

you are obligated

to come every day to her house with the collateral in order

to return it to her. And

it turns out that

you give her a bad name among her neighbors.

And the Gemara proves:

Apparently,

it is evident that

Rabbi Judah does not expound the reason of the verse, whereas Rabbi Shimon expounds the reason of the verse.

If so, the difficulty applies both to Rabbi Judah and to Rabbi Shimon?

And the Gemara answers:

In general,

with regard to the other mitzvot of the Torah, indeed

Rabbi Judah does not expound the reason of the verse,

and therefore he holds concerning collateral of a widow that whether she is poor or wealthy, one may not take collateral from her.

But here it is different,

here, in the section concerning the king, the law is different, since

the reason of the verse is explained

[the wording of the Gemara in tractate Bava Metzia is:

but here it is different, for the verse explains

], for the Torah itself explains the reason:

What is the reason for “He shall not have many wives”?

—

Because “he shall not turn his heart away.”

And Rabbi Shimon could say to you: Since

behold,

in general,

concerning the other mitzvot of the Torah,

we expound the reason of the verse

as he expounded concerning the widow,

if so,

it is difficult:

let the verse write “He shall not have many wives,” and be silent.

Behold, the verse could have concluded the mitzva without adding any reason,

and I would say

by reasoning:

What is the reason he shall not have many? Because he shall not turn away.

And [therefore] what need is there for the Torah to add

“He shall not turn

his heart away”?

Why do I need it?

Rather, it is in order to teach us:

even one who causes his heart to turn away

—

—he shall not marry her.

Rather,

perhaps you will raise a difficulty: If even one woman who causes his heart to turn away is forbidden, because of “he shall not turn away,”

how do I understand “He shall not have many,”

for which women did the Torah mean that it is forbidden for him to have many?

The verse comes to teach that

even

a worthy woman

like Abigail,

it is forbidden for him to take more than eighteen.

The Gemara asks:

These eighteen, from where do we know them?

From where do we learn that up to eighteen is not included in “having many wives”?

And the Gemara explains:

As it is written

at the beginning of the days of David’s reign:

“And sons were born to David in Hebron, and his firstborn was Amnon of Ahinoam the Jezreelite, and his second was Chileab of Abigail

[who was]

the wife of Nabal the Carmelite, and the third was Absalom son of Maacah

daughter of Talmai king of Geshur,

and the fourth was Adonijah son of Haggith, and the fifth was Shephatiah son of Abital, and the sixth was Ithream of Eglah, David’s wife

3, these were born to David in Hebron.”

Thus, he had six wives,

, and a prophet said to him

[when he married]

when he married Bathsheba

“Bathsheba: ‘And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your bosom, etc.; and if that were too little, then I would add to you likewise and likewise.’”

And the Sages expounded:

“Likewise,”

like the first ones,

six,

another six wives.

“And likewise”

another

six.

They were

together

eighteen.

eighteen.

Ravina raises an objection

against this tradition:

Say

that it is possible to expound as follows:

“Likewise,”

another six, which together with the previous six are

twelve,

twelve. “And

likewise”

refers to the previous twelve, and together they are

twenty-four.

And the Gemara answers:

It was also taught so,

indeed there is a tanna in a beraita who expounds as Ravina’s difficulty.

For it was taught: The Torah says

“He shall not have many wives,” more than twenty-four.

And the Gemara asks:

And according to the one who expounds the vav,

that from the letter vav one expounds an addition, according to him it is possible to say that

there were forty-eight,

for we will expound from the letter vav an addition to the first “likewise,” and they are twenty-four, and the second “likewise” comes to say another twenty-four wives.

And the Gemara answers: Indeed, the tanna of the other beraita [which was taught according to the one who expounds the vav] expounds in this manner. For

it was also taught so:

the Torah says

“He shall not have many wives,” more than forty-eight.

And the Gemara asks concerning the tanna of our Mishna: Granted, the reason he does not hold forty-eight is that he does not expound the vav. But it is difficult: Why does he not expound like the first beraita, to twenty-four?

And the tanna of our [Mishna],

—the tanna of our Mishna—

what is his reason?

Rav Kahana said: He juxtaposes

he equates

the latter “likewise”

the second

with the first “likewise,”

the first.

Just as the first “likewise”

is

six,

six wives,

so too the latter “likewise”

is

six.

And the Gemara asks: Behold, David had another wife at the beginning of his reign, Michal daughter of Saul, who had been returned to David earlier [in chapter 3; and the six wives enumerated in chapter 12].

But

behold,

there was

a

Michal.

And the Gemara answers:

Rav said:

The sixth woman who was called

“Eglah”

—this is Michal. And why was

her

name called

“Eglah”?

Because

she was beloved to him like a calf.

And the Gemara proves that “Eglah” is an appellation for a beloved wife. And so it is:

Samson the mighty

says,

“Had you not plowed with my heifer,

you would not have found my riddle,” etc. And his intention was concerning his wife, whom the Philistines pressured.

And the Gemara asks: How did Rav answer that Eglah was Michal? Behold, the verse says that Eglah was the mother of Ithream, whereas Michal had no children.

And did

Michal

have sons!? And

behold,

it is written: “And Michal daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.”

And the Gemara answers:

Rav Ḥisda said: “Until the day of her death,”

indeed

she did not have

a child. But

on the day of her death

she did

have

a child, and he was “Ithream.”

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda’s answer: The sons were enumerated [in chapter 12] during David’s reign in Hebron, before he went up to Jerusalem. But the verse “And Michal daughter of Saul had no child” was stated after he reigned in Jerusalem and brought the Ark; how then did Rav Ḥisda say that Ithream was born on the day of her death?

Since

behold,

the sons, where

in what place

does it count them,

does the verse enumerate them?

In Hebron. But the incident of Michal

was in Jerusalem.

And he went up to Jerusalem after his stay in Hebron.

As it is written,

it is stated there that when they brought the Ark of the Lord from the house of Obed-edom the Gittite: “And David danced with all his might before the Lord, etc., and the Ark of the Lord came into the City of David [Jerusalem],

and Michal daughter of Saul looked through the window, and she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, and she despised

him in her heart. And Michal, the daughter of Saul, went out to meet David and said: ‘How honored was the king of Israel today, who exposed himself today before the eyes of the maidservants of his servants, as one of the worthless fellows would expose himself.’” It is stated there that David answered her that he had done so in honor of the Almighty. The conclusion of this passage is: “And Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child until the day of her death.” It is therefore clear that this was a punishment for speaking improperly to the king.

And Rav Judah said, and some say

that it was

Rav Yosef: Michal received her punishment.

Michal received her punishment.

Thus, she had no son from that day onward until the day of her death. But Ithream was born earlier, in Hebron; how then did Rav Ḥisda say that Ithream was born on the day of her death?

Therefore, the Gemara retracts Rav Ḥisda’s words [which explain Rav’s statement that Eglah was Michal]. Rather, Ithream was born in Hebron. And what is meant by what was stated, “She had no child until the day of her death”? It means that from the incident in which she spoke improperly to the king until the day of her death, she had no son.

Rather, say,

this is how Rav’s words must be answered:

Until that incident she had

a child;

from then onward, she did not have

a child.

And the Gemara asks: How do we learn from David that he had eighteen wives? Behold, he had many wives.

And

behold,

it is written: “And David took still more concubines and wives from Jerusalem.”

And the Gemara answers: These women were

to complete eighteen,

in addition to the six [seven] wives whom he had in Hebron, he took more, but no more than eighteen.

.Now, since the Gemara brought the verse, “And David took still more concubines and wives,” the Gemara explains the halakhic difference between wives and concubines.

What are wives, and what are concubines?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Wives—

with a ketuba and with betrothal.

whereas

concubines are without a ketuba and without betrothal.

It is stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 21): “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers him into your hand, and you take his captivity; and you see among the captives a woman of beautiful form, and you desire her, and you take her for yourself as a wife.”

The Gemara relates that King David captured women in his wars, and he had sons from them. They were called “sons of a woman of beautiful form,” and their law will be explained below.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: David had four hundred boys, and all of them were sons of women of beautiful form

the wording of the Gemara in tractate Kiddushin

(76b): and all of them cut their hair in the komi style,

, and they grew a lock of hair

behind their necks according to the practices of the gentiles [so that they would appear fearsome and people would fear them]].

And all of them sat in golden carriages, and they would march at the head of the armies, and they were men of the fist

of the royal army

of the house of David.

Absalom, the son of David, had a sister, whose name was Tamar, and she too was David’s daughter. The Gemara says that Maacah, Tamar’s mother, David’s wife, was a woman of beautiful form, and she bore Tamar to David before she had converted wholeheartedly. Therefore, Tamar had no halakhic affiliation of kinship to David, as we learned in tractate Yevamot: an Israelite who marries a gentile woman or a Canaanite slave woman—the daughter born to him from her is not affiliated with him for any of the laws of father and daughter.

Therefore, Tamar was permitted to Amnon, the son of David, and he was not considered her brother, despite the fact that both were children of David, since Amnon’s mother was Ahinoam the Jezreelite. Tamar and Amnon did not have the relationship of brother and sister, since they were not children of the same mother, and they were not considered children of the same father, since Tamar was not affiliated with David. Rather, Tamar was Absalom’s sister [through the mother], and he was Amnon’s brother [through the father].

And Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Tamar was the daughter of a woman of beautiful form.

And she was permitted to Amnon.

And the proof is:

as it is stated,

when Amnon wanted to rape her, Tamar said to Amnon: “No, my brother! Do not violate me

; and now, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”

And if it enters your mind that she was the daughter of a marriage,

that her mother Maacah had married David, and she was halakhically David’s daughter,

would his sister have been permitted to him!?

Would David have permitted Amnon to take Tamar, his sister, as a wife? Surely she was the nakedness of his sister, who is prohibited by the Torah.

Rather, conclude from it,

Tamar

was the daughter of a woman of beautiful form.

The Gemara expounds the verses in the account of Amnon and Tamar.

It is stated: “And it was after this, and Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her, and it was distressing for Amnon to become sick [until he became sick—Rashi] because of Tamar his sister, for she was a virgin, and it was wondrous in the eyes of Amnon to do anything to her [it was hidden from him what pretext he could seek in order to lie with her—Rashi].”

“And Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab the son of Shimeah,

David’s brother.

And Jonadab was a very wise man.”

And it is stated there that he advised Amnon with counsel on how to rape Tamar.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A “wise” man—

for wickedness .

It is stated there: “And he said to him: Why are you so thin

—son of the king,

every morning! Surely you should tell me! And Amnon said to him: I love Tamar, the sister of Absalom my brother.

And Jonadab said to him: Lie on your bed and pretend to be ill

, [make yourself as though you are ill—Rashi], ובא אביך לראותך, ואמרת אליו: תבא נא תמר אחותי ותברני [ותאכילני - רד"ק] לחםand your father will come to see you, and you shall say to him: Let Tamar my sister please come and prepare food for me [and feed me—Radak],

and let her make the dish before me

a fried dish—Rashi].”

And so Amnon did, and Tamar came to him, “

and she took the pan, and poured it out before him.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: She made various kinds of fried foods for him.

And after he raped her, it is stated:

“And Amnon hated her with a very great hatred,

for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her.”

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason,

why did he hate her?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A hair

a hair

became entangled with him, and

this hair severed him

and made him a “severed organ.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

And did it become entangled with him

by itself? Why did he hate her?

She,

she,

what

did she do,

what was her guilt!?

And the Gemara explains differently: the intention is not that it became entangled,

rather, say,

say: Tamar

entangled for him

a hair in that place,

and made him a “severed organ” .

And the Gemara raises an objection: Is that so!

It is not so.

But surely

and behold

Rava expounded: What

what is the explanation of this

that is written

in the Book of Ezekiel, when the prophet Ezekiel informs the people of Jerusalem of their abominations and describes to them their greatness in ancient times, before they sinned, and it is stated there:

“And your fame went forth among the nations because of your beauty.”

And we expound: the verse teaches

that they did not have,

that they did not have

for the daughters of Israel

before they sinned,

neither underarm hair nor pubic hair.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the daughters of Israel did not have [such hair], but

Tamar is different,

different

for Tamar was the daughter of a woman of beautiful form.

It is further stated there, after she was raped: “

And Tamar took ashes upon her head, and she tore the striped garment that was upon her,

and she placed her hand upon her head, and she went, going and crying out.”

A tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita in the name of

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha: Tamar made a great fence

through her tears and her cries, and through the way she conducted herself as one humiliated in disgrace. For because of this, the daughters of Israel fenced themselves off from secluding themselves with men, since Tamar stumbled because she secluded herself with Amnon.

At that time they said,

the daughters of Israel said a kal va-chomer concerning themselves: If

with the daughters of kings

there occurred

such a thing,

such corruption,

with the daughters of ordinary people, all the more so

that they are liable to stumble through men.

If this is so with the modest,

with the promiscuous, all the more so.