Sanhedrin 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At that time they decreed

concerning seclusion and concerning an unmarried woman.

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

The Gemara raises an objection: Is the prohibition of

seclusion

a rabbinic decree?! Is the prohibition not

from the Torah!

For

it was

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of

the

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

prohibition of

seclusion in the Torah? As it is stated

in the passage concerning an inciter and one who leads others astray:

“If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you,”

and this is apparently difficult:

Is it only the son of a mother who entices,

whereas

the son of a father does not entice?

Rather,

the verse

comes to tell you

that the prohibition is because the son is frequently found with his mother. From here we learn that only

a son may be secluded with his mother,

because the evil inclination does not incite him in this matter,

but no

man

may be secluded

with

any of the forbidden relationships in the Torah. Thus, the prohibition of seclusion is hinted at in the Torah.

The Gemara answers:

Rather,

say

this: At that

time they decreed concerning seclusion with an unmarried woman.

The hint in the Torah concerns forbidden relationships, including the forbidden relationship with a married woman, analogous to his mother, who is forbidden to him; and since Tamar was unmarried, they also decreed concerning an unmarried woman.

The Gemara now cites additional interpretations of Rav Yehuda, who said them in the name of Rav, concerning David’s descendants.

At the beginning of the First Book of Kings, in the description of the end of King David’s days, it is stated:

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This teaches that he sought to fit it.

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

For inside the hollow of the crown there was a golden scepter extending from one side to the other, and it would fit only someone who had a groove in his head. This groove was a sign of the kings of the house of David. For anyone fit for kingship, the crown fit him; but Adonijah, who was not fit for kingship, was not suited to it.

It is further stated there concerning Adonijah:

“And he prepared for himself a chariot and horsemen, and fifty men running before him.”

The Gemara asks:

What greatness is there in this?!

What distinction is this for a king’s son?

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: All of them,

all fifty,

had 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 and prevents him from running; 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 prowess, and the greatness of Adonijah.

Mishna:

It is stated in the Torah, in the passage concerning the king: “Only he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor return the people to Egypt in order to multiply horses. For the Lord has said to you: You shall not return again by this route.”

The Mishna explains:

He may not multiply horses for himself except as many as are needed for his chariot

and horsemen. But he may not multiply horses in order to indulge himself and increase his honor.

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

The Mishna explains:

“And he shall not greatly multiply silver and gold for himself,” but only enough to provide for the aspanya,

the annual salary of his troops, who entered and departed with him throughout the 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 scroll.”

The Mishna explains:

And he writes a Torah scroll for himself.

That is, in addition to the Torah scroll that every Jewish man 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 [

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 from it all the days of his life.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is stated in the Torah:

“He shall not multiply horses for himself.” It might have been thought

that he is prohibited from multiplying horses under any circumstances,

even

horses that he needs

for his chariot and horsemen?

The verse states: “for himself,”

teaching you: Only

for himself,

to indulge himself and increase his honor,

may he not multiply them. But he may multiply them as many as are needed for his chariot and horsemen.

How, then, do I fulfill

“He shall not multiply for himself

horses”?

In what manner did the Torah prohibit it? With

idle horses,

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

From where

do we learn

that even

if he multiplied

one horse, and it was idle, he

transgresses

the

prohibition of

“He shall not multiply”? The verse states:

“Nor return the people to Egypt

in order to multiply a horse,”

the Torah wrote “horse” in the singular, to teach us that he transgresses even by multiplying a single horse .

The Gemara asks: If the beraita cited a verse indicating that it is prohibited to multiply even a single horse, then it is obvious by a kal va-homer that it is prohibited to multiply more than one horse. Why, then, did the Torah say “horses”?

And since you say that even

with regard to

one horse that is idle, he stands

as one who is

in

violation of

“He shall not multiply,” why do I need

“horses,”

the plural expression used by the verse,

at all?!

The Gemara answers:

To transgress a negative commandment for each and every horse.

If only “horses” and not “horse” had been written, we would have said that he does not transgress for a single horse. And if only “horse” and not “horses” had been written, we would have said that although he transgresses even for a single horse, if he multiplied horses beyond one, he transgresses only one negative commandment. Therefore, the verse states both “horses” and “horse,” to say that he transgresses a negative commandment for each and every horse.

The Gemara raises another objection: It is apparent from the beraita that the word “for himself” excludes horses that are permitted for his chariot and horsemen. But why is an exclusion necessary for this? Would we have thought that he is prohibited from multiplying horses for his chariot and horsemen?

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

without the Torah’s exclusion,

I would have said: Even horses for his chariot and horsemen as well are prohibited?!

How could there be kingship without a chariot and horsemen?

The Gemara answers: Indeed, we would have known this even without the verse. Rather, we would have thought that even the number of horses for his chariot and horsemen must be kept to a minimum. Therefore, the divine decree comes to say that for his chariot and horsemen he may multiply them without restriction.

It is not necessary—

the verse’s exposition is not needed to establish the fundamental permission to have horses for his chariot and horsemen;

rather,

the verse comes to say that he is permitted

to increase,

to multiply horses for his chariot and horsemen generously. [

Another version:

to make them more spacious,

meaning that he is permitted to multiply extra horses, so that they can alternate, using one at one time and another at another time, in order that they may rest ].

We learned in our Mishna:

“And he shall not greatly multiply silver and gold for himself, but only enough to provide the aspanya.”

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“And he shall not multiply silver and gold for himself.” It might have been thought

that it is prohibited to multiply

even enough to provide the aspanya.

Therefore,

the verse states: “for himself,”

and we expound:

For himself

for his personal needs

he may not multiply it, but he may multiply it enough to provide the aspanya,

the wages of his troops.

The Gemara raises an objection to the beraita:

The reason

that the reason it is permitted to multiply it for the aspanya is

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

that is, if

not so,

if the Torah had not excluded it, would we have said

that even enough to provide the aspanya is prohibited?!

And who would support his troops?

The Gemara answers: Indeed,

it is not necessary

to derive from the verse that it is permitted to multiply silver and gold in order to provide the aspanya; we would have known this logically. Rather, we would have said that he is permitted to multiply it only sparingly. The verse comes to teach that even

for expansion,

without needing to restrict himself, he may multiply it generously, so that he will have funds readily available to hire additional troops.

The Gemara asks:

Now that you have said

that both beraitot expound

“for himself” as an exposition,

it is also stated:

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

It is obvious that one cannot expound that the Torah excludes wives in order to teach that he may multiply them for the needs of his kingdom, since it is not applicable to multiply wives for the sake of his work.

The Gemara answers: It comes to expound

to exclude commoners,

teaching us that only a king is prohibited from multiplying wives, whereas a commoner is permitted to multiply wives.

The Gemara expounds the verses concerning King Solomon, with regard to the multiplication of horses.

Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction

between two apparently contradictory verses:

It is written

in the First Book of Kings [chapter 4]:

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

in the Second Book of Chronicles [chapter 9]

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

This is difficult:

How can this be?!

The Gemara answers: One verse is speaking of itztablaot, which are large buildings for housing horses. The other verse is speaking of “stalls,” which are the partitions between one row and another within the itztablaot.

There are two ways to explain this:

If there were forty thousand itztablaot,

each and every one contained four thousand stalls for horses. And if there were four thousand itztablaot,

each and every one contained forty thousand stalls for horses .

The Gemara now answers another contradiction between the verses concerning the reign of King Solomon.

Rav Yitzḥak raises a contradiction

between two apparently contradictory verses.

It is written

in the Book of Chronicles:

“Silver was not accounted for anything in the days of Solomon,”

indicating that silver had no value whatsoever because of the great abundance.

And

in the Book of Kings

it is written: “And the king

Solomon

placed silver in Jerusalem like stones.”

This indicates that silver did have some value, at least that of stones?

The Gemara answers:

It is not difficult;

there is no contradiction between the verses.

Here,

the verse stating that silver had no value whatsoever is speaking

before Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter.

Whereas the verse stating that silver had some value is speaking

after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter,

when he declined somewhat from his greatness.

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

the angel

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

to which sand, sediment, and mud adhered, as the sea heaped them upon it, and it continued to grow larger;

and upon it,

upon the sandbank,

a great city was built that is in Rome,

which oppresses Israel.

And

further

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Why were the reasons for the

mitzvot of the

Torah

not revealed, such as why wearing sha’atnez and eating pork are prohibited?

For two verses,

the verses of the Torah’s mitzvot,

had their reasons revealed, and Solomon stumbled because of them,

although he was

the greatest man in the world.

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

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

Solomon said: I shall multiply

a thousand wives

and I will not turn aside

from the ways of the Lord

! And it is written,

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

“And it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart

after other gods.”

second,

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

and the Torah revealed the reason: “so that he will not return the people to Egypt in order to accumulate horses.”

And

therefore

, he said

Solomon: I will accumulate

tens of thousands of horses

and I will not return

the people to Egypt. But ultimately he stumbled,

as it is written: “And the source of the horses that belonged to Solomon was from Egypt

...

and a chariot would emerge from Egypt for six

hundred shekels of silver.”

And therefore the Torah did not reveal the reasons for the mitzvot, so that people would not rely on themselves, saying, “I will not stumble because of this reason,” and ultimately 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 pride 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 both the mitzva incumbent upon every Jew to write a Torah scroll for himself, as the Torah commanded: “And now, write for yourselves this song,” and the special mitzva incumbent upon the king.

Rabba

(Rava) said: 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.”

Abaye raises an objection from a beraita, which implies that a commoner does not have a mitzva to write a scroll of his own, and that he can fulfill his obligation with a scroll that his fathers bequeathed to him.

Abaye challenged him:

we learned in a beraita:

“And he shall write

the king

for himself a Torah scroll, for its sake, so that he will not pride himself with that of his fathers.”

And it implies:

“The king—yes!”

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

“a commoner—not”

must write one for its sake. This is difficult for Rabba, who said that a commoner, too, must write one for himself?

Rabba answers: The king nevertheless differs from a commoner: A commoner is satisfied with one scroll, and this scroll must be written by him for himself, whereas the king must write an additional scroll, besides the scroll that he possessed before his kingship.

No, it is necessary:

It is not necessary to say that the reference is to the scroll that he possessed before his kingship; rather, the beraita is speaking

of two Torah scrolls

, which he must possess. And concerning the second scroll the beraita states that he may not pride himself with that of his fathers.

And

from where is it derived that the king must possess two Torah scrolls?

As it is 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 interpret “a copy” as referring to 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 in his treasury.

That

scroll

which goes out and comes in with him

(he makes

it

small and in fine writing

like an amulet

, so that it is easy to carry,

and hangs it on his arm, as it is stated

by King David:

“I have set the Lord before me always, for from my right hand

the Torah that is located 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 passage concerning the king,

“And it shall be with him, and he shall read from it

,” and we interpret “and he shall read from it”

as referring to a place suitable for reading it.

We learned a beraita that interpreted “a copy of the Torah” as referring to “two,” for the verse comes to teach us that the king writes two Torah scrolls. The Gemara now cites the view of Rabbi Yosei, who interprets “a copy” as referring to “a change”; that is, Moses our teacher alludes to the fact that the script used in his time was destined to change from Ivrit to Ashurit, as will be explained.

First, the Gemara cites a statement of the amoraim.

Mar Zutra said, and some say

that it was

Mar Ukva who said: Initially, the Torah was given to Israel in Ivrit script

of the descendants of Ever, and its language was

the sacred tongue.

It was given to them again in the days of Ezra

the scribe, when they ascended from the Babylonian exile,

in Ashurit script

of the land of Assyria,

and in the Aramaic language.

They selected for Israel [

according to the reading of Rabbeinu Ḥananel:

Israel]

Ashurit script and the sacred tongue, and left the commoners Ivrit script and the Aramaic language.

Who

are these

commoner

s?

Rav Ḥisda said: The Kutim

—the Samaritans.

What

is the

Ivrit script?

Rav Ḥisda said: Libona'a script

large letters, resembling those written in amulets and mezuzot.

The Gemara cites a beraita in support of the view that the script changed in the days of Ezra.

It is taught: Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was worthy of having the Torah given through him—

had it not been that

Moses preceded him.

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

With regard to Moses, it says: “And Moses ascended to God.”

And similarly, with regard to Ezra, it says: “He is Ezra, who ascended from Babylon.”

And the comparison is:

Just as the ascent mentioned here

with regard to Moses was for the purpose of receiving

the Torah, so too, the ascent mentioned there

with regard to Ezra was for the purpose of transmitting

the Torah.

They were likewise equal in that they taught the people statutes and laws:

With regard to Moses, it says: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and laws,”

and similarly

with regard to Ezra, it says: “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord, and to perform it, and to teach in Israel statute and law.”

And although the Torah was not given through him

—Ezra—nevertheless

the script was changed through him. As it is stated

in the Book of Ezra: