Yevamot 79a (עט.) — the Talmud in English

However, as for what was done to the

Netinim

, we are able to rectify it. Therefore,

let us call them and appease them

[let us summon the Netinim and appease them].

Immediately — “

And the Lord said to Saul and to his house, because he slew the Gibeonites.

And the king called the Gibeonites and said to them:

What shall I do for you, and with what shall I make atonement?

And bless the inheritance of the Lord!”

And the Gibeonites said to him: We have no claim of silver or gold against Saul or against his household

but only against persons!”

He sought to appease them with money, but they were unwilling. He said: Perhaps they are embarrassed in one another’s presence? He went and appeased each one individually, but they were not appeased.

Therefore, it is written: not “I have no silver or gold,” [Rashi, in Samuel, in the name of the Jerusalem Talmud].

“And we have no man

to put to death in Israel.”

We have no man to put to death from among all the other Israelites, who did not sin against us. “

And David [said to the Gibeonites]: What do you say I should do for you?” “And they said to the king: The man who consumed us

shall give us seven men from his sons

[from the offspring of Saul],

and we shall hang them before the Lord!”

We shall hang them for the sake of the Omnipresent, to make His judgment known, Rashi, in Samuel]” .

David appeased them

but

they were not appeased

[the reading of Ein Yaakov: David appeased them and asked them to forgive, but the Gibeonites were not willing].

Therefore, David decreed that they should not intermarry with them, because

David said:

David

said: There are three distinguishing signs of this nation

[Israel]:

a.

Merciful.

b.

Modest.

c.

Performers of acts of kindness.

And from where is all this derived?

Merciful —

as

it is

written: “And He will grant you compassion

[that is, He will grant you the trait of compassion, so that you will have compassion on His creatures, Maharsha]

and will have compassion upon you and multiply you.”

Modest —

as

it is

written: “That His fear may be before you

upon your faces,”

as it is explained in Nedarim [20a], that this refers to shame, because the fear recognizable on one’s face is shame, and it is accordingly called “shamefacedness,” [Maharsha].

Performers of acts of kindness —

as

it is

written:

“For I have known him [Abraham]

to the end that he may command his children and his household after him

and they shall keep the way of the Lord” to perform charity and justice.

Anyone who possesses these signs is fit to cleave to this nation,

and anyone who does not possess them is not fit to cleave to it. “

The man who consumed us shall give us seven men from his sons, and the king said: I shall give them. But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul.

And the king took the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth, and the five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.”

What is different about these

[Why did David choose these for death] rather than the rest of Saul’s offspring?

Rav Huna said: They passed them

before the offspring of Saul

before

the

Ark. Anyone whom

the

Ark spared

would go

to his death,

while

anyone whom

the

Ark did not spare

was separated

for life.

Rav Hana bar Ketina raised an objection

to Rav Huna’s statement:

But it is written:

“But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul,”

and it might have entered our minds that they passed him before the Ark and it did not spare him. If so, what compassion was involved?!

And we answer:

David did not pass

Mephibosheth before the Ark.

And we question this:

But

is that to say that

there is partiality in the matter? That is, was David permitted to show partiality in capital cases? He should have passed them all before the Ark?!

meaning: Is it so that David was to show partiality in capital cases? He should have passed them all before it?!

Rather, he passed

Mephibosheth

and it spared him, and David sought

David

mercy for him and it released him.

But still, there is partiality in the matter,

for once the Ark had spared him, David should not have put another in his place [Rashi]?!

Rather, David sought

David

mercy

for Mephibosheth

that the Ark should not spare him.

Here the Gemara returns to the fundamental punishment imposed upon the offspring of Saul because of Saul’s sin; and the Gemara asks:

But it is written: “Fathers shall not be put to death for children

and children shall not be put to death for fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin,” and how could the Divine Presence agree—when the Ark spared them—to kill the offspring of Saul because of their father’s sin, thereby uprooting this mitzva [Ritva]?!

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

They died because

it is better that one letter

of the Torah be uprooted than that the Name of Heaven be profaned publicly,

for the nations were saying: This nation is not worthy of having people cleave to it, since they abused converts by taking their provisions and did not exact retribution from them.

It is written:

“And Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, took sackcloth and spread it for herself upon the rock

[she spread and laid out the sackcloth for herself to sit upon, near the mountain where they had been hanged, Metzudot] ,

from the beginning of the barley harvest

[which was the time when they were hanged]

until water was poured upon them from heaven

[that is, until the rainy season, Rashi]

and she did not allow the birds of the sky to rest upon them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night”—

And we ask: How could they leave them on the tree from the beginning of the barley harvest until the rain fell?

But it is written: “You shall not leave his corpse upon the tree”?!

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

It is better that one letter [“

his corpse shall not remain overnight upon the tree”]

of the Torah be uprooted, and that the Name of Heaven be sanctified publicly

through their remaining hanging—

for

as a result,

passersby would say:

What is the nature of these people?

And they would answer them:

These are the sons of kings.

And what did they do?

And they would answer them, saying:

They abused helpless converts.

After the passersby saw and heard all this,

the passersby

said:

There is no nation

fit to have people cleave to it as is

a nation

this one

[Israel], for:

If

the

sons of kings

did

this,

then to

the sons of commoners—

if they were to act as the sons of kings did—

all the more so

would they do this to them.

And if,

for an offense committed against

helpless converts,

they did this to the sons of kings,

so,

for an offense committed against

Israel, all the more so.

Immediately, one hundred and fifty thousand

converts

were added to Israel, as it is stated: “And Solomon had seventy thousand bearers of burdens and eighty thousand hewers in the mountain,”

and these were the converts, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

And we explain:

But perhaps

those one hundred and fifty thousand slaves

were Israelites

and not converts?!

This cannot enter your mind, as

it is

written: “But of the Children of Israel Solomon did not make a slave,”

and necessarily these slaves were converts.

And

we still question this:

Perhaps

they were Israelites nevertheless, and indeed they were not slaves but merely

laborers

[hired workers]

in general.

Rather,

from this question the Gemara proves that those one hundred and fifty thousand were indeed converts and not Israelites:

from here: “And Solomon counted all the men who were converts in the land of Israel, and so on, and they numbered one hundred and fifty thousand, and so on,”

“and he made of them seventy thousand bearers of burdens and eighty thousand hewers in the mountain.”

Here the Gemara returns to the main point of the statement of Rav Hana bar Adda, who said: David decreed concerning the Netinim; and the Gemara asks:

But

did

David decree concerning the Netinim?!

But

Moses

had already

decreed concerning them, as it is written: “From the hewer of your wood to the drawer of your water.”

And we answer:

Moses decreed for that generation

[for that generation], whereas

David decreed for all generations

[for all generations].

But still,

we ask: Yet

Joshua

was the one who

decreed concerning them

! For it is written: “And Joshua made them on that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord.”

Joshua, then, decreed for future generations, as it is further stated: “And now you are cursed, and none of you shall be freed from being slaves.”

And we answer:

Joshua decreed

that they would be slaves only

while the Temple is standing,

as it is stated: “For the altar of the Lord” [Rashi].

Whereas

David decreed

that they would be slaves even

when the Temple is not standing.