Sanhedrin 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

I Chronicles 29

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

and we expound it as follows:

The verse juxtaposes

the verse compares

the ruler,

the king,

with Zadok,

the High Priest.

This teaches you:

just as

in the same manner as

Zadok

the High Priest, with regard to an item that belongs to him, receives

half for himself and half for his brothers

[as will be explained]—

so too the ruler,

the king,

receives half for himself and half for his brothers.

That is, the High Priest does not take half of the spoils, since he has no connection to them; rather, he takes half of an item that belongs to him.

The Gemara asks:

But with regard to Zadok himself, from where do we derive this?

From where do we learn that he took half?

And it explains: From this,

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:

With regard to the division of the leḥem ha-panim—the Showbread—the Torah states:

“And it shall be

for Aaron and for his sons,”

the verse teaches that the Showbread was divided

half for himself,

for Aaron,

and half for his sons.

Mishna:

The Torah states in the passage concerning the king: “He shall not have many wives,” “lest his heart turn away.” The verse teaches that

“he shall not have”

the king may marry

more than eighteen

wives, but no more; as will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He may have many wives

to marry them as he wishes,

provided that they do not

his many wives

turn his heart away

from the Holy One, blessed be He. For he interprets the verse as follows: “He shall not have many wives”—and why? “Lest his heart turn away.” It follows that he is forbidden to increase wives who turn his heart away. But if they do not turn his heart away, they are permitted.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even

one

woman who

would

turn his heart away—

he may not marry her.

For he expounds the reason that the king may not have many wives: the abundance of wives causes them to turn his heart away from God. Therefore, he may not marry even a single woman concerning whom there is reason for concern that she will turn his heart away.

You might say: According to Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the king may not marry even a single woman who would turn his heart away—

if so, why does the verse state, “He shall not have many wives”?

The answer is: It teaches you

that

more than eighteen he may not take

even

if the woman is a proper one,

such as

for example

Avigail

David’s wife.

Gemara:

In several places in the Talmud, the tannaim dispute whether one expounds the reason of a biblical verse. That is, when the Torah commands a mitzva that has a reason, does the mitzva apply only within the limitation imposed by that reason, so that if there is a circumstance in which the reason is inapplicable, the mitzva does not apply [and the Gemara cites an example of this], or does the mitzva apply in every circumstance, even when its reason is absent, so that the mitzva stands without a reason, as a statute?

It appears from our Mishna that Rabbi Yehuda, who permits proper women even beyond eighteen, does expound the reason of the verse. He holds that the reason for the mitzva is lest they turn his heart away; therefore, if they are proper women, they are permitted to him. Rabbi Shimon, who forbids even proper women, does not expound the reason of the verse, and all women are forbidden.

The Gemara asks:

Does this mean

that it was stated

that Rabbi Yehuda does expound the reason of a biblical verse, whereas Rabbi Shimon does not? But

we have

heard the opposite from them,

for their opinions were stated in a beraita in the reverse manner. This is a contradiction both within Rabbi Yehuda’s statements and within Rabbi Shimon’s statements.

As it was taught in a beraita:

The Torah states: “You shall not take a widow’s garment as collateral,” meaning that one may not take collateral from a widow. The Sages derived from here:

“A 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 widow and a wealthy one, as will be explained, one does not expound the reason of a biblical verse. These are

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

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

her daytime garment during the day and her nighttime garment during the night, as the Torah commanded [Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24],

you give her a bad reputation among her neighbors,

for if the widow enters your house to have the collateral returned, morning and evening, her neighbors will speak disparagingly of her. In contrast, in the case of a wealthy widow, you are not obligated to return it to her, and consequently she will not come to your house, and you will not give her a bad reputation.

The Gemara explains the wording of the beraita:

And we said: What is he saying?!

Seemingly, Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the beraita is difficult: “One may not take collateral from her, and you are obligated to return it to her.” If one may not take collateral, what is there to return?

Rather, necessarily,

this is what

Rabbi Shimon

is saying:

Since you take collateral from her,

you are obligated

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

to return it to her. And

it follows that

you give her a bad reputation among her neighbors.

The Gemara proves:

Apparently,

it follows that

Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason of a biblical verse, whereas Rabbi Shimon does expound the reason of a biblical verse.

If so, the difficulty applies both to Rabbi Yehuda and to Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara answers:

Generally,

with regard to the other mitzvot of the Torah, indeed

Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the reason of a biblical verse,

and therefore, concerning collateral taken from a widow, he holds that one may take collateral from neither a poor widow nor a wealthy widow.

But here it is different,

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

the verse explains its reason

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

“But here it is different, since the verse explains its reason”],

as the Torah itself explains the reason:

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

—

Because “his heart will turn away.”

And Rabbi Shimon can say to you: Since

indeed

generally,

with regard to the other mitzvot of the Torah,

we do expound the reason of a biblical verse,

as he expounded in the case of the widow,

if so,

the difficulty is:

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

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

and I would have said

by logical inference:

What is the reason he may not have many wives? Because his heart will turn away.

Why, then, did the Torah add

“lest his heart turn away

his heart,”

what need have I of it?

Rather, it comes to teach us:

Even if there is only one and she turns his heart away—

—

he may not marry her.

Rather,

perhaps you will raise the following difficulty: If even one woman who turns his heart away is forbidden because of “lest his heart turn away,”

what do I establish “he shall not have many wives” to mean?

To which women did the Torah refer as those whom he may not have in excess?

The verse comes to teach that

even

a proper woman

like Avigail,

he may not take more than eighteen of them.

The Gemara asks:

From where do we derive these eighteen?

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

The Gemara explains:

As it is written

at the beginning 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 Avigail

[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 the daughter of

when he married Bathsheba

Sheva: “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.”

The Sages expounded:

“Likewise,”

like the first ones,

six,

another six wives. “

And likewise”

means another

six.

They would be

together

eighteen.

—eighteen.

Ravina raises an objection

to this tradition:

Say

that it is possible to expound as follows: “

Likewise,”

another six, which together with the six previously mentioned make

twelve;

and “

and likewise”

refers to the preceding twelve, making

twenty-four.

The Gemara answers:

It was taught likewise,

indeed, there is a tanna in a beraita who expounds it as Ravina’s objection.

As it was taught in a beraita: The Torah states,

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

The Gemara asks:

But according to the one who expounds the vav,

who derives an additional number from the letter vav, it would be possible to say that

there were forty-eight,

because the vav teaches that one should add to the first “likewise,” making twenty-four, and the second “likewise” teaches that he may have another twenty-four wives.

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

it was taught likewise:

The Torah states,

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the tanna of our Mishna: Granted, the reason he does not hold that the limit is forty-eight is that he does not expound the vav. But it is difficult: Why does he not expound it as the first beraita does, to mean twenty-four?

And the tanna of our Mishna,

the tanna of our Mishna,

what is his reason?

Rav Kahana said: He juxtaposes

and compares

the latter “likewise”

the second one

to the first “likewise,”

the first one.

Just as the first “likewise”

is

six,

six wives,

so too the latter “likewise”

is

six.

The Gemara asks: At the beginning of his reign, David had another wife, Michal daughter of Saul, who had been returned to David earlier [in chapter 3; and the six women listed in chapter 12].

But

surely

there was

a

Michal.

The Gemara answers:

Rav said:

The sixth woman who was called

“Eglah”—

this was Michal. And why was

her name called

by the designation

“Eglah”?—

Because

she was as dear to him as a calf.

And the Gemara proves that “Eglah” is a designation for a dear wife. And so it is:

Samson the mighty

said:

“Had you not plowed with my heifer,

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

The Gemara asks: How could Rav explain that Eglah was Michal? The verse says that Eglah was the mother of Ithream, whereas Michal had no children.

And did

she have

children!? But

it is

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

The Gemara answers:

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

indeed,

she had no

child. But

on the day of her death

she did

have

a child, namely, “Ithream.”

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. Whereas the verse “And Michal daughter of Saul had no child” was stated after he reigned in Jerusalem and brought the Ark. How, then, could Rav Ḥisda say that Ithream was born on the day of her death?

Since

indeed,

the sons—where

in what place

does the verse enumerate them?—

The verse enumerates them

in Hebron. But the incident involving Michal—

took place in Jerusalem.

He went up to Jerusalem only 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, “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 out through the window, and she saw King David leaping and dancing before the Lord, and she despised

him in her heart. “And Michal daughter of Saul went out to meet David and said: How honored today is the king of Israel, who exposed himself today before the eyes of the maidservants of his servants, as one of the vulgar might expose himself.” And it is stated there that David answered her that he had done so for the honor of the Holy One, blessed be He. The conclusion of this passage is: “And Michal daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.” It is clear that this was a punishment for the improper manner in which she spoke to the king.

And Rav Yehuda said, and some say

that it was

Rav Yosef who said: Michal received her punishment,

Michal received her due punishment.

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

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

Rather, say

that this is how Rav’s statement must be explained:

Until that incident she had

a child;

from then onward, she had no

child.

The Gemara asks: How can we learn from David that he had eighteen wives? He had many wives.

And

it is

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

The Gemara answers: These wives were

to complete the eighteen,

in addition to the six [or seven] wives he had in Hebron, he took more, but not more than eighteen.

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

What is the meaning of wives, and what is the meaning of concubines?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Wives—

with a marriage contract and with betrothal.

Whereas

concubines were without a marriage contract and without betrothal.

The Torah states (Deuteronomy 21): “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive. And you see among the captives a woman of beautiful form, and you desire her, and you take her to yourself as a wife.”

The Gemara relates that King David took women captive in his wars, and had sons by them. They were called “sons of a beautiful captive woman,” and their status will be explained below.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: David had four hundred children, and all of them were sons of beautiful captive women

as the language of the Gemara in tractate Kiddushin

(76b): “and all of them shaved their forelocks,”

, and they grew long locks

at the backs of their necks, according to the practices of the gentiles [so that they would appear intimidating and people would fear them].

And all of them would sit in golden carriages, and they would march at the head of the troops; and they were the strong-armed men

of the royal army

of the House of David.

Absalom, David’s son, had a sister named Tamar, who was also David’s daughter. The Gemara says that Maacah, Tamar’s mother and David’s wife, had been a beautiful captive woman, and she bore Tamar to David before she had converted wholeheartedly. Therefore, Tamar was not halakhically considered related to David, as we learned in tractate Yevamot: When an Israelite has intercourse with a gentile woman or a Canaanite maidservant, the daughter born to him from her is not considered related to him for any of the laws governing a father and daughter.

Therefore, Tamar was permitted to Amnon, David’s son, and he was not considered her brother, despite the fact that both were David’s children, since Amnon’s mother was Ahinoam the Jezreelite. Tamar and Amnon did not have the relationship of brother and sister, since they did not share a mother, and they were not considered to share a father, for Tamar was not considered related to David. Rather, Tamar was the maternal sister of Absalom, who was Amnon’s paternal brother.

And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Tamar was the daughter of a beautiful captive woman.

And she was therefore permitted to Amnon.

The proof is

as it is stated,

when Amnon wished to rape her, Tamar said to Amnon: “Please, 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 Tamar was halakhically David’s daughter,

would she have been permitted to him as his sister!?

Would David have permitted Amnon to take Tamar, his sister, as a wife? She was his sister’s nakedness, which is prohibited מן התורה.

Rather, learn from this that

Tamar

was the daughter of a beautiful captive woman.

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

It is stated: “And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was distressed, making himself ill [until he became ill—Rashi] because of Tamar his sister, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible to Amnon to do anything to her [it was concealed from him what pretext he could use to lie with her—Rashi].”

“And Amnon had a companion 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 how to rape Tamar.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The man was “wise”—

for wickedness .

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

O son of the king,

day after day? Will you not tell me?” And Amnon said to him: “I love Tamar, the sister of Absalom my brother.”

And Jonadab said to him: Lie down on your bed, and make yourself ill [

make yourself appear ill—Rashi], and your father will come to see you, and you shall say to him: “Please let Tamar my sister come and prepare me food”

and let her prepare the dish before me [

a fried dish—Rashi].”

Amnon did so, and Tamar came to him, “

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: She prepared various kinds of fried food 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.”

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that he hated her?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A strand

of her hair

became entangled with him, and

this strand cut him

and rendered him one whose penis is severed.

The Gemara challenges this:

But if it became entangled with him

on its own, why did he hate her?

She,

that is,

what

did she do,

what was she guilty of!?

The Gemara explains otherwise: The meaning is not that it became entangled;

rather, say:

Tamar

entangled

a strand of hair around him in that place,

and rendered him one whose penis is severed .

The Gemara challenges this: Is that so!

It is not so.

But

Rava expounded:

What

is the meaning of that

which is written

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

“And your name 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

among 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,

she was different,

for she was the daughter of a beautiful captive woman.

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

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

and she placed her hand on her head, and went away, crying aloud.”

A tanna

taught in a beraita in the name

of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: Tamar established a great fence

through her tears and cries, and through conducting herself as one degraded and disgraced. For as a result, the daughters of Israel established safeguards for themselves not to seclude themselves with men, since Tamar suffered harm as a result of having secluded herself with Amnon.

At that time they said

the daughters of Israel drew a kal va-chomer for themselves: If

the daughters of kings

were subject to

such

corruption,

then with regard to the daughters of ordinary people, all the more so

that they might stumble through men.

If this happened to the modest—

with regard to the promiscuous, all the more so.