Sanhedrin 20b

סֵירוּגוֹ מִתּוֹכוֹ, מִטָּה – סֵירוּגָהּ מֵעַל גַּבָּהּ.

has its weaving on its inside, in that the straps woven to hold the bedding are tied in holes inside the bed posts, while a bed has its weaving on its outside, in that its straps are tied around the posts.

מֵיתִיבִי: כְּלֵי עֵץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טוּמְאָה? הַמִּטָּה וְהָעֲרִיסָה – מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֵם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. וְאִי מִטָּה מְסוֹרֶגֶת הִיא מֵעַל גַּבָּהּ, לְמָה לִי שִׁיפַת עוֹר הַדָּג? אֶלָּא, הָא וְהָא מִתּוֹכוֹ: מִטָּה – אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּבִזְיוֹנֵי, דַּרְגֵּשׁ – אַעוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי בְּאַבְקָתָא.

The Gemara raises an objection from the mishna ( Kelim 16:1): From when are wooden vessels considered complete and susceptible to impurity? In the case of a bed or a crib, this happens once they are rubbed with fish skin, which smoothens the wood. The Gemara asks: And if a bed is woven on its back side, as Rabbi Yoḥanan claimed, why do I need rubbing with fish skin? Doesn’t the weaving cover the smooth part of the bed? Rather, instead of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation, say that the weaving of both this and that, a dargash and a bed, is on its inside, and the difference between them is that on a bed, the straps go in and out of holes on the posts, whereas on a dargash , they go in and out of loops.

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַמֵּי: מִטָּה שֶׁנַּקְלִיטֶיהָ יוֹצְאִין – זוֹקְפָהּ, וְדַיּוֹ.

Rabbi Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a mourner is not required to overturn a dargash , but only to untie the straps around its posts to let it fall on its own. In connection with this matter Rabbi Ya’akov bar Ami says: In the case of a bed whose posts [ naklitim ] on which the canopy is spread extend, meaning that they are very long, so that the bed will remain high off the ground even if it is overturned, the mourner stands it up in the time of mourning and that is sufficient.

מַתְנִי׳ וּמוֹצִיא לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּפוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מְמַחֶה בְּיָדוֹ. דֶּרֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לוֹ שִׁיעוּר, וְכׇל הָעָם בּוֹזְזִין וְנוֹתְנִין לוֹ, וְהוּא נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ.

MISHNA: And the king brings out people for conscription in an optional war, i.e., a war that is not mandated by the Torah and is not a war of defense, on the basis of a court of seventy-one, and breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself for his various needs, and no one can protest his power. The pathway of the king has no measure, neither lengthwise nor widthwise, and one cannot protest that this pathway is wider than necessary. And all the people take spoils in war and give them to him, and he takes the first portion of the spoils.

גְּמָ׳ תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא כֹּל מִילֵּי דְּמֶלֶךְ, תְּנָא נָמֵי מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת.

GEMARA: We already learn this on another occasion in the mishna (2a): And the king may bring out the nation to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges. Why did the mishna need to repeat it here? The Gemara explains: Since in the mishna here the tanna taught all matters pertaining to the king, he also taught the halakha of bringing out the nation to an optional war, although this halakha was taught at the beginning of the tractate in the context of the halakhot of the court of seventy-one judges.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַב אָמַר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

With regard to the king’s rights, the Sages engaged in a dispute: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king (see I Samuel 8:11–17), it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rav says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, so that they would accept the king’s sovereignty with reverence, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you. But the king is not actually permitted to perform the actions stated there.

כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

The Gemara comments that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im , as it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yosei says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king, it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rabbi Yehuda says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you.

וְכֵן הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ – לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וּלְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה.

The baraita continues: And so would Rabbi Yehuda say: Three mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people upon their entrance into Eretz Yisrael, which apply only in Eretz Yisrael: They were commanded to establish a king for themselves (see Deuteronomy 17:14–15), and to cut off the seed of Amalek in war (see Deuteronomy 25:17–19), and to build the Chosen House, i.e., the Temple, in Jerusalem (see Deuteronomy 12:10–12).

רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד תַּרְעוֹמְתָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ וְגוֹ׳״.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Nehorai says: This biblical passage about appointing a king was stated only in response to the Jewish people’s complaint, as it is stated: “When you come unto the land that the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein, and shall say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me” (Deuteronomy 17:14). The verse indicates that appointing a king is not a mitzva and that when Samuel spoke to them, he intended to frighten them so that they might regret their complaint and retract their request for a king.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְקֵנִים שֶׁבַּדּוֹר כַּהוֹגֶן שָׁאֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּנָה לָנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ״. אֲבָל עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּהֶן קִלְקְלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיִינוּ גַם אֲנַחְנוּ כְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם וּשְׁפָטָנוּ מַלְכֵּנוּ וְיָצָא לְפָנֵינוּ״.

It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Eliezer says: The elders of Samuel’s generation asked appropriately, as it is stated: “Give us a king to judge us” (I Samuel 8:6), since they wanted a steady leader in place of Samuel. But the ignoramuses among them ruined it, as it is stated: “But the people refused to heed the voice of Samuel; and they said: No, but there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and emerge before us, and fight our battles” (I Samuel 8:19–20).

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּכְנִיסָתָן לָאָרֶץ – לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, וּלְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק, וְלִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה. וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן תְּחִילָּה.

It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yosei says: Three mitzvot were commanded to the Jewish people upon their entrance into Eretz Yisrael: To establish a king for themselves, and to cut off the seed of Amalek in war, and to build for themselves the Chosen House in Jerusalem. But I do not know which one they are obligated to do first.

כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ מִלְחָמָה לַה׳ בַּעֲמָלֵק״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ תְּחִילָּה. וְאֵין ״כִּסֵּא״ אֶלָּא מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא ה׳ לְמֶלֶךְ״.

When the verse states: “The hand upon the throne [ kes ] of the Lord: The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16), you must say that this means they are obligated to establish a king for themselves first, before waging war with Amalek, and the verse is interpreted as follows: “Throne of the Lord” is nothing other than a symbolic name for a king, as it is stated: “Then Solomon sat on the throne [ kisei ] of the Lord as king” (I Chronicles 29:23), indicating that a king sits on “the throne of the Lord.”

וַעֲדַיִין אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם לִבְנוֹת לָהֶם בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה תְּחִלָּה, אוֹ לְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק תְּחִלָּה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אוֹיְבֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳ וְהָיָה הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: לְהַכְרִית זַרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק תְּחִלָּה.

The baraita continues: And still I do not know whether building them the Chosen House is first, or cutting off the seed of Amalek is first, i.e., after the appointing of the king. When the verse states: “And He will give you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that the place that the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, there shall you bring all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:10–11), you must say that the Jewish people were to cut off the seed of Amalek first.

וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְהִי כִּי יָשַׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד בְּבֵיתוֹ וַה׳ הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל נָתָן הַנָּבִיא רְאֵה נָא אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּבֵית אֲרָזִים וְגוֹ׳״.

The baraita continues: And so the verse states concerning David: “And it came to pass, when King David dwelled in his house and the Lord had given him rest round about from all his enemies” (II Samuel 7:1). And it is written immediately afterward: “That the king said to Nathan the prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedar but the Ark of God dwells within curtains” (II Samuel 7:2), and King David then began seeking a site to build the Temple.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: בַּתְּחִילָּה מָלַךְ שְׁלֹמֹה עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב שְׁלֹמֹה עַל כִּסֵּא ה׳״, וּלְבַסּוֹף מָלַךְ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הוּא רֹדֶה בְּכׇל עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר מִתִּפְסַח וְעַד עַזָּה״.

§ The Gemara cites another tradition about Solomon’s kingdom. Reish Lakish says: Initially, Solomon ruled even over the supernal worlds, as it is stated: “Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23), indicating that his kingdom was like the Lord’s kingdom, reigning over all worlds. But ultimately, after he married foreign wives, he ruled over only the lower worlds, as it is stated: “For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4).

רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר, ״תִּפְסַח בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַזָּה בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם״, וְחַד אָמַר, ״תִּפְסַח וְעַזָּה בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי״, וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁמָּלַךְ עַל תִּפְסַח וְעַל עַזָּה כָּךְ מָלַךְ עַל כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this verse: One says that Tiphsah is a name of a place at the end of the world, at one end of Solomon’s kingdom, and Gaza is at the other end of the world. And one says that Tiphsah and Gaza sat next to each other, and the verse serves to teach that just as he ruled over Tiphsah and over Gaza, so he ruled over the whole world.

וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲנִי קֹהֶלֶת הָיִיתִי מֶלֶךְ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳״. וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״דִּבְרֵי קֹהֶלֶת בֶּן דָּוִד מֶלֶךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָים״. וּלְבַסּוֹף, לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל מִטָּתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה מִטָּתוֹ שֶׁלִּשְׁלֹמֹה וְגוֹ׳״.

Reish Lakish continues: And ultimately, Solomon declined further still in that he ruled only over Israel, as it is stated: “I, Koheleth, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). And ultimately, he ruled over only Jerusalem, as it is stated: “The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:1). And ultimately, he ruled over only his bed, as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; threescore mighty men are about it, of the mighty men of Israel” (Song of Songs 3:7).

וּלְבַסּוֹף לֹא מָלַךְ אֶלָּא עַל מַקְלוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֶה הָיָה חֶלְקִי מִכׇּל עֲמָלִי״. רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר מַקְלוֹ, וְחַד אָמַר גּוּנְדּוֹ.

And ultimately, he declined so much that he ruled over only his staff, as it is stated: “And this was my portion from all of my labor” (Ecclesiastes 2:10). Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to the meaning of this latter verse as well. One says that the term “this” is a reference to his staff, and one says that it is a reference to his cloak.

הֲדַר אוֹ לָא הֲדַר? רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל: חַד אָמַר הֲדַר, וְחַד אָמַר לָא הֲדַר. מַאן דְּאָמַר לָא הֲדַר – מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר הֲדַר – מֶלֶךְ וְהֶדְיוֹט וָמֶלֶךְ.

The Gemara asks: Did he return to reign over the whole world, or did he ultimately not return? Rav and Shmuel disagreed about this: One says that he returned, and one says that he did not return. The one who says that he did not return reasons that Solomon was first a king and then an ordinary person [ hedyot ] and did not return to his reign; and the one who says that he returned reasons that Solomon was first a king and then an ordinary person and ultimately returned to be a king.

פּוֹרֵץ לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אוֹצְרוֹת מְלָכִים – לַמֶּלֶךְ, וּשְׁאָר בִּיזָּה שֶׁבּוֹזְזִין – מֶחֱצָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וּמֶחֱצָה לָעָם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב דִּימִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ לְרַב אַחָא: בִּשְׁלָמָא אוֹצְרוֹת מְלָכִים לַמֶּלֶךְ – אוֹרְחָא דְמִלְּתָא, אֶלָּא שְׁאָר בִּיזָּה שֶׁבּוֹזְזִין מֶחֱצָה לַמֶּלֶךְ וּמֶחֱצָה לָעָם – מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב:

§ The mishna teaches that the king breaches fences of anyone in his way to create a pathway for himself. The Sages taught in a baraita : Treasures of kings taken as spoils in war belong to the king, and as for the rest of the spoils that are taken in a war, half is for the king and half is for the people. Abaye said to Rav Dimi, and some say that he said this to Rav Aḥa: Granted, treasures of kings belong to the king. This is the typical manner of kings, as it is fitting that the king should use the treasures of the kings he conquers; but with regard to the rest of the spoils that are taken in a war, where half is for the king and half is for the people, from where do we derive this halakha ? He answered Abaye: The source is as it is written: