Sanhedrin 21b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: At that time they decreed ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") the Sages of the generation

concerning seclusion, and concerning an unmarried woman.

That is, it is forbidden to be secluded with a married woman, and even with an unmarried woman.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is the prohibition of

seclusion

a decree of the Sages!? Is the prohibition not

from the Torah!

For

it is

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of

in the name of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where is there a hint of the

prohibition of

seclusion from the Torah? As it is stated

in the section concerning one who incites and leads astray:

“For your brother, the son of your mother, will incite you,”

and this is apparently difficult:

Does only the son of a mother incite,

whereas

the son of a father does not incite?

Rather,

the verse comes

to tell you

that the prohibition is because the son is commonly found with his mother. And from here we learn that only

a son may be secluded with his mother,

because the evil inclination is not aroused in him by this,

but no

man

may be secluded

with

any of the forbidden relations in the Torah.

It follows that the prohibition of seclusion is hinted at in the Torah.

The Gemara answers:

Rather, say

say this: At that

time they decreed concerning the seclusion of an unmarried woman,

for the hint in the Torah concerns forbidden relations, and the forbidden relation of a married woman, similar to his mother, who is forbidden to him; and since Tamar was unmarried, they therefore decreed also concerning an unmarried woman.

Now the Gemara cites further expositions of Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav concerning the sons of David.

It is stated at the beginning of the Book of Kings I, in the description of the end of King David’s days:

“And Adonijah son of Haggith exalted himself, saying: I shall reign.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: This teaches that he sought to fit it.

For the royal crown sat upon his head, but it did not fit him.

For inside the hollow of the crown there was a golden rod extending from side to side, and it fit only one who had a groove in his head. This groove was a sign of the kings of the House of David. For whoever was fit for kingship—the crown fit him; but Adonijah, who was not fit for kingship, it did not fit him.

It is further stated there concerning Adonijah:

“And he made for himself chariots and horsemen and fifty men running before him.”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What was his distinction!?

What greatness was there in this for the son of a king?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: All of them,

all fifty,

had their spleens removed and the soles of their feet engraved.

That is, their spleens were removed by means of a drug, because the spleen weighs a person down so that he cannot run; and the flesh of the soles of their feet was removed so that they could run over thorns and thistles without being injured. This was their strength, and the greatness of Adonijah.

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah, in the section concerning the king: “Only he shall not greatly increase horses for himself, and he shall not return the people to Egypt in order to increase horses. And the Lord said to you: You shall not return again by this route any more.”

And the Mishna explains:

He shall not increase horses for himself except as many as are needed for his chariot

and his horsemen. But it is forbidden for him to increase horses in order to broaden his mind and increase his honor.

It is further stated in the Torah: “And silver and gold he shall not greatly increase for himself.”

And the Mishna explains:

And silver and gold he shall not greatly increase for himself, but only enough to provide aspanya,

the yearly wage for his armies, those who enter and leave with him throughout the entire year.

It is further stated in the Torah: “And it shall be, when he sits upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write for himself this repetition of the Torah in a book.”

And the Mishna explains:

And he writes a Torah scroll for himself.

That is, in addition to the Torah scroll that every Israelite is commanded to write for himself, the king writes another scroll for himself.

When he

goes out to war—

he takes it out,

the Torah,

with him [the text should read: “with him,” masculine].

It should read: “with him,” referring to the king].

When he enters,

when he returns from the war,

he brings it in with him.

When he sits in judgment ,—

the Torah is with him.

When he reclines—

the Torah

is opposite him.

And from where do we learn that the Torah accompanies him at all times?

As it is stated: “And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is stated in the Torah

“He shall not increase horses for himself.” It could

be understood that it is forbidden for him to increase horses in every circumstance,

even

horses that he needs

for his chariot and his horsemen?

The verse states “for himself,”

to teach you: only

for himself,

to broaden his mind and increase his honor,

he shall not increase; but he may increase them for his chariot and his horsemen.

How then do I establish

“he shall not increase for himself

horses”?

In what manner did the Torah prohibit it? With

idle horses,

which are not needed for his chariot and his horsemen, but for honor.

From where

do we learn

even

if he increased

one horse, and it was idle, that he

transgresses

the

negative commandment of

“he shall not increase”? The verse states

“and he shall not return the people to Egypt

in order to increase a horse,”

the Torah wrote “horse” in the singular, to teach us that he transgresses even through the increase of one horse.

And the Gemara raises an objection: If the beraita brought a verse teaching that it is forbidden to increase even one horse, then all the more so is it forbidden to increase more than one horse; why did the Torah say “horses”?

Since even

with regard to

one horse, and it is idle, he stands

he is standing

in

violation of

“he shall not increase”—

“horses,”

the plural in which the verse spoke,

why do I need it!?

The Gemara answers:

To transgress a prohibition for each and every horse.

Had it been written only “horses” and not “horse,” we would have said that he does not transgress with one horse. And had it been written only “horse” and not “horses,” we would have said that although he transgresses even with one horse, if he increased more than one horse, he transgresses only one prohibition. Therefore the verse stated both “horses” and “horse,” to say that he transgresses a prohibition for each and every horse.

And the Gemara raises an objection: It follows from the beraita that from the word “for himself” they exclude that it is permitted to increase horses for his chariot and horsemen. This is difficult: Why is an exclusion needed for this? Would we think that it is forbidden for him to increase horses for his chariot and horsemen?

The reason is that it wrote “for himself”; otherwise,

without the Torah excluding it,

we would have said: even for his chariot and horsemen as well, no!?

How could there be a kingship without a chariot and horsemen?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, even without the verse we would know this, but we would think that he must also limit the number of horses for his chariot and horsemen. Therefore the scriptural decree comes to say that for his chariot and horsemen he may increase them expansively.

It is not necessary—

the exposition of the verse was not needed for the basic permission for horses for his chariot and horsemen,

but

the verse comes to say that he is permitted

to increase,

to increase horses for his chariot and horsemen generously. [Another version:

Another version:

to enlarge,

that he is permitted to increase extra horses, which can alternate, one time this one and one time that one, so that they may rest. ]

We learned in our Mishna:

And silver and gold he shall not greatly increase for himself, but only enough to provide aspanya.

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“And silver and gold he shall not increase for himself”; it could

be understood that he is forbidden to increase

even enough to provide aspanya.

Therefore

the verse states: “for himself,”

and we expound:

for himself

for his personal needs

he shall not increase, but he may increase enough to provide aspanya,

the wages of his armies.

And the Gemara raises an objection to the beraita:

The reason

the reason it is permitted to increase for aspanya is

because the Merciful One wrote “for himself”; otherwise,

it follows that if

not so,

if the Torah had not excluded it, would we say

that even enough to provide aspanya as well, no!?

And who would support his armies?

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

it is not necessary—

the exposition of the verse was not needed to teach us that it is permitted to increase silver and gold in order to provide aspanya, for we would know this by reasoning; rather, we would say that it is permitted to increase only with restriction. The Torah therefore comes to say that even

for expansion,

so that he need not restrict himself, but may increase generously, in order that additional armies be available for him to hire.

The Gemara asks:

Now that you have said

that both beraitot expounded

“for himself” as an exposition,

it is also stated:

“He shall not increase wives for himself”; and what do you expound from it?

It is obvious that one should not expound that the Torah excludes something in order to teach us that he may increase for the needs of his kingdom, for increasing wives for the sake of his work is not applicable.

The Gemara answers: It comes to expound

to exclude ordinary people,

to teach us that only a king is forbidden to increase wives, but an ordinary person is permitted to increase wives.

The Gemara expounds the verses concerning King Solomon, regarding the increase of horses.

Rav Yehuda raised a contradiction,

he raised an apparent contradiction between two verses:

It is written

in the Book of Kings I [chapter 4]:

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariot.” And

in the Book of Chronicles II [chapter 9]

it is written: “And Solomon had four thousand stalls of horses.”

And this is difficult:

How is this possible!?

And he answers: One verse speaks of large stables, which were large buildings for housing the horses. And the other verse speaks of “stalls,” which were the partitions between one row and another within the large stables.

And it can be explained in two ways:

If there were forty thousand large stables,—

each and every one of them contained four thousand horse stalls. And if there were four thousand large stables,—

each and every one of them contained forty thousand horse stalls .

And the Gemara now answers another contradiction between the verses concerning the history of King Solomon.

Rav Yitzhak raised a contradiction,

he raised an apparent contradiction between two verses.

It is written

in the Book of Chronicles:

“Silver was not reckoned as anything in the days of Solomon,”

so there was no importance at all to silver because of the abundance.

And

in the Book of Kings

it is written: “And the king made

Solomon

silver in Jerusalem like stones.”

It follows that silver had some importance, at least like stones?

And he answers:

It is not difficult;

there is no contradiction between the verses.

Here,

the verse in which it is stated that silver had no importance at all speaks

before Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter.

But the verse in which it is stated that silver had some importance speaks

after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter,

when he had declined somewhat from his greatness.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: When he married Pharaoh’s daughter,

the angel

Gabriel descended and drove a reed into the sea, and raised a sandbank,

and sand, mire, and mud adhered to it, which the sea deposited and which accumulated upon it, and it continued growing larger,

and upon it,

upon the sandbank,

a great city was built in Rome,

which oppresses Israel.

And

further

Rabbi Yitzhak said: Why were the reasons for the

mitzvot of the

Torah

not revealed, such as why the wearing of shaatnez and the eating of pork are forbidden?

For behold, two verses,

verses concerning the mitzvot of the Torah,

had their reasons revealed, and he stumbled through them,

King Solomon, who was

the greatest of the world .

The first: It is written, “He shall not increase wives for himself,”

and the Torah reveals the reason: “so that he not turn his heart aside.” Therefore,

Solomon said: I shall increase

a thousand wives

and I shall not turn aside

from the ways of the Lord

! And it is written,

that in the end he stumbled through them, as it is stated:

“And it was at the time of Solomon’s old age that his wives turned his heart

after other gods.”

second,

it is written, “He shall not multiply horses for himself,”

and the Torah revealed the reason: “and he shall not return the people to Egypt in order to multiply horses.”

And

therefore

, he said

Solomon: I shall multiply

tens of thousands of horses

and I shall not return

the people to Egypt. And in the end he stumbled,

and it is written “

And the source of the horses that belonged to Solomon was from Egypt...

and a chariot came out from Egypt for six

hundred silver.”

And therefore the Torah did not reveal the reasons for the mitzvot, so that people would not rely upon themselves, saying, “I will not stumble over this reason,” and in the end they would stumble.

We learned in our Mishna:

And he writes a Torah scroll for its sake.

The tanna,

we learned in a beraita:

provided that he does not adorn himself with that of his fathers.

He does not fulfill this mitzva with the scroll that he inherited from his fathers; rather, he must write a scroll for its sake—for the sake of the honor of his kingship. For the Torah wrote, “And he shall write for himself”; “for himself” means for its sake.

The Gemara explains the mitzva incumbent upon every Israelite to write a Torah scroll for himself, for the Torah commanded: “And now, write for yourselves this song,” and the special mitzva incumbent upon the king.

Rabba

(Rava): Even though his fathers left him a Torah scroll, it is a mitzva

for every person

to write

a Torah scroll

of his own.

As it is stated: “And now, write for yourselves this song” .

And Abaye raises an objection from a beraita, from which it appears that a commoner has no mitzva to write one of his own, and he can fulfill his obligation with a scroll that his fathers bequeathed to him.

Abaye raised an objection to him:

we learned in a beraita:

And he writes

the king

a Torah scroll for himself, for its sake, so that he does not adorn himself with that of his fathers.

And it appears:

a king—yes!

It is the king who must write a Torah scroll for its sake, whereas

a commoner—not

he does not need to write one for its sake. And this is difficult for Rabba, who said that a commoner, too, must write one for himself?

And Rabba answers: A king still differs from a commoner: a commoner is satisfied with one scroll, and this scroll he must write for himself, whereas the king must write another scroll for himself, in addition to the scroll that he had before his kingship.

No, it is necessary:

it is not necessary to say that it refers to the scroll that he had before his kingship; rather, the beraita is speaking

of two Torah scrolls,

which he must have. And concerning the second scroll the beraita stated that he does not adorn himself with that of his fathers.

And

from where is it known that the king must have two Torah scrolls?

As it was taught

as we learned in another beraita:

It is stated in the Torah: “

And he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah” -

And we expound “a copy” in the sense of two.

Therefore

he writes for himself two Torah scrolls. One, which goes out and comes in with him

to war, and when he sits in judgment, and when he reclines.

And one that is placed for him in his treasury.

That

Torah

which goes out and comes in with him

(makes

it

small and in fine writing

like an amulet

which is easy to carry,

and he hangs it on his arm, as it is stated

which King David said: “

I have set the Lord before me always, for He is at my right hand

the Torah that is found on his right arm, and therefore

I shall not falter [

I shall not collapse]), and with this scroll

he does not enter either the bathhouse or the lavatory, as it is stated

there, in the section concerning the king:

“And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it”

and we expound “and he shall read in it,”

in a place fit for reading in it.

We learned a beraita that expounded “a copy of the Torah” in the sense of “two,” for the verse came to teach us that the king writes two Torah scrolls. And now the Gemara brings the view of Rabbi Yosei, who expounds “a copy” in the sense of “change”—that is, Moses our teacher alludes that the script that existed in his days was destined to change from Hebrew to Assyrian, as will be explained.

And beforehand the Gemara brings a statement of the amoraim.

Mar Zutra said, and some say

or it was Mar Ukva who said so:

At first, the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script

of the people of the region beyond the river, and its language was

the holy tongue.

It was given back to them in the days of Ezra

the scribe, when they went up from the Babylonian exile,

in Assyrian script

of the land of Assyria,

and in Aramaic language.

They selected for Israel [

the version of Rabbeinu Hananel is:

Israel]

Assyrian script and the holy tongue, and they left Hebrew script and the Aramaic language for the commoners.

Who

who are these

commoner

s?

Rav Hisda said: the Kutim

the Samaritans.

What

what script is

Hebrew script?

Rav Hisda said: Libona’ah script

large letters, resembling those that they write in amulets and mezuzot.

The Gemara brings a beraita as support that in the days of Ezra the script changed.

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given through him—

had it not been that

Moses preceded him.

Rabbi Yosei finds parallels between Moses our teacher and Ezra the scribe.

Concerning Moses it says, “And Moses ascended to God.”

And likewise concerning Ezra it says, “He is Ezra; he ascended from Babylon.”

And the comparison is:

Just as the ascent mentioned here

concerning Moses was for the purpose of receiving

the Torah, so the ascent mentioned there

concerning Ezra was for the purpose of transmitting

the Torah.

And they were likewise equal in that they taught the people statutes and judgments:

Concerning Moses it says, “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments,”

and likewise

concerning Ezra it says, “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord, and to do and to teach in Israel statute and judgment.”

And even though the Torah was not given through him

of Ezra, nevertheless

the script was changed through him. As it is stated

in the Book of Ezra: