1)EXPOUNDING THE PASUK IN MISHLEI
אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב רבות בנות עשו חיל ואת עלית על כולנה רבות בנות עשו חיל זה יוסף ובועז ואת עלית על כולנה זה פלטי בן ליש אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמן אמר רבי יונתן מאי דכתיב שקר החן והבל היופי שקר החן זה יוסף והבל היופי זה בועז יראת ה' היא תתהלל זה פלטי בן ליש דבר אחר שקר החן זה דורו של משה והבל היופי זה דורו של יהושע יראת ה' היא תתהלל זה דורו של חזקיה דבר אחר שקר החן זה דורו של משה ויהושע והבל היופי זה דורו של חזקיה יראת ה' היא תתהלל זה דורו של ר' יהודה ברבי אילעאי אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אילעאי שהיו ששה תלמידים מתכסין בטלית אחת ועוסקין בתורה
Translation: R. Yochanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: "Many daughters have done valiantly, but you excel above them all" (Mishlei 31:29)?"Many daughters have done valiantly" refers to Yosef and Boaz. "But you excel above them all" refers to Palti (who excelled in restraint). R. Shmuel bar Nachman says that R. Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: "Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears Hash-m, she shall be praised" (Mishlei 31:30)? "Grace is deceitful" refers to Yosef, "beauty is vain" to Boaz, and "she who fears Hash-m" to Palti (who resisted sin with Michal). "Who fears Hash-m, she shall be praised"; this is a reference to Palti, son of Laish, who did not sin with Michal. Alternatively: "Grace is deceitful"; this is a reference to the generation of Moshe. (Moshe's generation was virtuous, but it was surpassed by later generations.) And beauty is vain"; this is a reference to the generation of Yehoshua. (Yehoshua's generation also had virtue, but was surpassed by others.) "Who fears Hash-m, she shall be praised"; this is a reference to the generation of Chezkiyah (who studied Torah despite hardship). Alternatively: "Grace is deceitful"; this is a reference to the generation of Moshe and Yehoshua. (Moshe's and Yehoshua's generations were praiseworthy, but surpassed by others.) "And beauty is vain"; this is a reference to the generation of Chezkiyah (who were superior in their Torah study). "Who fears Hash-m, she shall be praised"; this is a reference to the generation of R. Yehuda b'R. Ilai, (who lived after the decrees of Hadrian, when the people were impoverished and oppressed). It was said about R. Yehuda b'R. Ilai, that six of his students would cover themselves with one garment, (due to their poverty), and nevertheless they would engage in Torah study.
(a)What was unusual about the Pasuk (Mishlei 31:29) that prompted R. Yochanan to ask as to its deeper meaning?
1.Rif (Rav Yoshiyahu Pinto): If the Perek refers to 'the woman of valor', why does the Pasuk use the phrase 'Bnos', which means daughters, rather than women? Why does it refer to 'many' of them? And why does the Pasuk not use a parallel description of her, compared to them - for example, it should refer to her with the word 'Asis' in parallel to description of them as 'Asu Chayil'.
(b)In what way were the later generations more virtuous than the earlier ones in the study of Torah?
1.Iyun Yaakov: Moshe's generation had their physical needs completely provided, so it was not hard for them devote themselves to learning. Yehoshua's generation entered the Land, so they were more involved in the physical, but Hash-m had promised that they would be successful in their conquest and they could devote themselves to learning. The generation of Chezkiyah were already somewhat controlled by the gentiles. They limited their food intake and studied Torah, despite the challenges. Finally, the most virtuous were those of the generation of R. Yehuda b'R. Elai, who were completely impoverished, but they still studied Torah with great diligence.
(c)How exactly would six students cover themselves with one garment?
1.Maharsha: The Gemara (Bava Basra 57b) tells us that the garment of a Talmid Chacham is larger than others. They would take it and make six small garments from it.
2.Rav Chaim Shmuelvitz: Each student cared about other and rather than pull the garment towards themselves, they tried to cover others.
3.Ein Eliyahu: Each student would use it on a different day of the working week to go out into the marketplace.
2)KING DAVID AND THE BURIAL OF AVNER
גמ' תנו רבנן מקום שנהגו נשים לצאת אחר המיטה יוצאות לפני המיטה יוצאות ר' יהודה אומר לעולם נשים לפני המיטה יוצאות שכן מצינו בדוד שיצא אחר מיטתו של אבנר שנאמר והמלך דוד הולך אחר המיטה אמרו לו לא היה הדבר אלא לפייס את העם ונתפייסו שהיה דוד יוצא מבין האנשים ונכנס לבין הנשים ויצא מבין הנשים ונכנס לבין האנשים שנאמר וידעו כל העם וכל ישראל כי לא היתה מהמלך להמית את אבנר דרש רבא מאי דכתיב ויבא כל העם להברות את דוד כתיב להכרות וקרינן להברות בתחלה להכרותו ולבסוף להברותו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מפני מה נענש אבנר מפני שהיה לו למחות בשאול ולא מיחה ר' יצחק אמר מיחה ולא נענה ושניהן מקרא אחד דרשו ויקונן המלך אל אבנר ויאמר הכמות נבל ימות אבנר ידיך לא אסורות ורגליך לא לנחשתים הוגשו מאן דאמר לא מיחה הכי קאמר ידיך לא אסורות ורגליך לא לנחשתים הוגשו מאי טעמא לא מחית כנפול לפני בני עולה נפלת ומ"ד מיחה ולא נענה איתמהויי מתמה הכמות נבל ימות ידיך לא אסורות ורגליך לא לנחשתים מכדי מחויי מחית מ"ט כנפול לפני בני עולה נפלת למאן דאמר מיחה מ"ט איענש א"ר נחמן (ברבי) יצחק ששהא מלכות בית דוד שתי שנים ומחצה
Translation: The Rabbis taught in a Baraisa: In a place where it is customary for women to go behind the bier, they go behind it; to go in front of the bier, they go (in front of it). R. Yehuda says - Women must always go in front of the bier, as we find that David followed the bier of Avner. As it is written (Shmuel II 3:3), "And King David followed the bier" (and it is unlikely that David would have walked with the women). The Mishnah stated 'They said to (R. Yehuda) - "That was only to pacify the people; and they were appeased, as David went out from among the men and went in among the women; and went out from among the women and went back in among the men. As the Pasuk states (Shmuel II 3:37), 'And all the people and all of Yisrael knew that day that it was not by the order of the king to kill Avner.'" Rava expounded - What is the meaning of what is written, "And all the people came to feed ('lehabros') David"? It is written "lehachros" ('to cut') but we read it, "lehabros"? At first, they intended to cut him down (as they suspected that he was responsible for Avner's death) but afterwards (when they were appeased), they fed him the mourner's meal. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Why was Avner punished? Because he should have protested to Shaul (for killing out the Kohanim of Nov) and he did not protest. R. Yitzchak said that he protested but he was not answered (i.e. listened to). And they both expound the same Pasuk (Shmuel II 3:33): "Should Avner have died as a worthless person dies, your hands were not bound nor were your feet put into shackles". According to the one who said that he did not protest, this is what David said, "Your hands were not bound nor were your feet put into shackles, why then did you not protest?!". Therefore (Pasuk 34), "As a man falls before the sinful you have fallen". And according to the one who said that Avner protested but he was not answered, David expressed his surprise, "(Should Avner have died as) a worthless person dies? Your hands were not bound nor were your feet put into shackles. Let us see - you did indeed protest. Why then did you fall as a man falls before the sinful?". And according to the one who said that he protested, why was he punished? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said that he delayed the start of David's kingdom by two and a half years (by coronating Shaul's son Ishboshes).
(a)What is the reason for the custom that women walk in front of the bier?
1.Tosfos citing Yerushalmi: As the first woman caused death to the world (when she ate from the Etz haDa'as and gave it to Adam).
(b)And what is the reason for the custom that they walk behind?
1.Yerushalmi (ibid): It is not respectful to the women for them to be in such a visible place.
2.Ben Yehoyada: We are not concerned for the sin of Chava, since at the time of Matan Torah, they punishment of death was removed from the world. Then, the sin of the Golden Calf, done by the men, brought back death to the world. It is therefore the men, rather than the women, who are ultimately responsible and should lead a body to burial.
20b----------------------------------------20b
3)THE THREE MITZVOS AND THE REQUEST FOR A KING
וכן היה רבי יהודה אומר ג' מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ להעמיד להם מלך ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק ולבנות להם בית הבחירה רבי נהוראי אומר לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא כנגד תרעומתן שנאמר ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך וגו' תניא ר"א אומר זקנים שבדור כהוגן שאלו שנאמר תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו אבל עמי הארץ שבהן קלקלו שנאמר והיינו גם אנחנו ככל הגוים ושפטנו מלכנו ויצא לפנינו תניא רבי יוסי אומר שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ להעמיד להם מלך ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק ולבנות להם בית הבחירה ואיני יודע איזה מהן תחילה כשהוא אומר כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה' בעמלק הוי אומר להעמיד להם מלך תחילה ואין כסא אלא מלך שנאמר וישב שלמה על כסא ה' למלך ועדיין איני יודע אם לבנות להם בית הבחירה תחלה או להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחלה כשהוא אומר והניח לכם מכל אויביכם וגו' והיה המקום אשר יבחר ה' וגו' הוי אומר להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחלה וכן בדוד הוא אומר ויהי כי ישב המלך דוד בביתו וה' הניח לו מסביב וכתיב ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא ראה נא אנכי יושב בבית ארזים וגו'
Translation: And R. Yehuda also says: Three Mitzvos were given to Yisrael when they entered the Land: to appoint a king, to eradicate the offspring of Amalek and to build themselves a Beis haMikdash. R. Nehorai says: This section was spoken only in anticipation of their complaints, as it is written (Devarim 17:14), "And shall say, I will set a king over me etc.". It was taught in a Baraisa: R. Eliezer says: The elders of the generation made a worthy request, as it is written (Shmuel I 8:6),"Give us a king to judge us". But the Amei haAretz (simple folk) acted unworthily, as it is written (Shmuel I 8:20), "That we also may be like all the nations and that our king may judge us and go before us." It was taught in a Baraisa: R. Yosi said: Three commandments were given to Yisrael when they entered the land; a) to appoint a king; b) to cut off the seed of Amalek; c) to build themselves the Beis haMikdash and I do not know which of them must be carried out first. But, when it is said (Shemos 17:16): The hand upon the throne of Hash-m, Hash-m will have war with Amalek from generation to generation", we must infer that they had first to set up a king, as 'throne' implies a king, as it is written (Divrei haYamim I 29:23), "Then Shlomo sat on the throne of Hash-m as king". Yet I still do not know which (of the other two) comes first, the building of the chosen Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek. Hence, when it is written (Devarim 12:10), "And when He gives you rest from all your enemies round about etc.", and then "Then it shall come to pass that the place which Hash-m your G-d shall choose", it is to be inferred that cutting off the seed of Amalek is first. And so it is written about David (Shmuel II 7:1-2), "And it came to pass when the king dwelt in his house, and Hash-m had given him rest from his enemies etc." And it says, "And the king said to Nasan the Prophet: See now, I dwell in a house of cedars etc."
(a)What was unworthy about the request for a king by the Amei haAretz?
1.Rashi, Yad Ramah, others: Rather than ascribing future successes to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, they ascribed them to their own battle prowess being led by the king.
2.Raavad, others: They said that they should be 'like all of the nations'.
3.Maharsha, Ein Eliyahu, R. Yoshiyahu Pinto (Rif): They requested that they should have a king to judge them with his own laws like all other nations.
(b)Why must Amalek be destroyed before the Beis haMikdash can be built?
1.Yaaros Dvash 1:17: Hash-m's Kisei haKavod (Divine throne) is incomplete until Amalek is avenged, and only then can the Beis haMikdash - Hash-m's thsrone of glory in this world - be properly built. Historically, Shaul fought Amalek, and then David and Shlomo built the Beis haMikdash. The same applied to the Second Beis haMikdash, which could not be rebuilt immediately after Koresh's permission because Amalek's descendants had not been fully defeated. It was not until Mordechai and Esther triumphed over Haman, a descendant of Amalek, that the foundation for the Beis haMikdash was laid. King Achashverosh elevated Haman to delay Yisrael's rise, understanding that the Beis haMikdash could not be rebuilt until Amalek (from which Haman was descended) was overcome.
4)KING SHLOMO'S REIGN IS REDUCED
אמר ריש לקיש בתחילה מלך שלמה על העליונים שנאמר וישב שלמה על כסא ה' ולבסוף מלך על התחתונים שנאמר כי הוא רודה בכל עבר הנהר מתפסח ועד עזה רב ושמואל חד אמר תפסח בסוף העולם ועזה בסוף העולם וחד אמר תפסח ועזה בהדי הדדי הוו יתבו וכשם שמלך על תפסח ועל עזה כך מלך על כל העולם כולו ולבסוף לא מלך אלא על ישראל שנאמר אני קהלת הייתי מלך על ישראל וגו' ולבסוף לא מלך אלא על ירושלים שנאמר דברי קהלת בן דוד מלך בירושלים ולבסוף לא מלך אלא על מטתו שנאמר הנה מטתו שלשלמה וגו' ולבסוף לא מלך אלא על מקלו שנאמר זה היה חלקי מכל עמלי רב ושמואל חד אמר מקלו וחד אמר גונדו הדר או לא הדר רב ושמואל חד אמר הדר וחד אמר לא הדר מאן דאמר לא הדר מלך והדיוט ומאן דאמר הדר מלך והדיוט ומלך
Translation: Reish Lakish said: At first, Shlomo reigned over the higher beings, as it is written (Divrei haYamim I 29:23), "Then Shlomo sat on the throne of Hash-m as king. Afterwards, he reigned [only] over the lower, as it is written (Melachim I 5:4), "For he had dominion over all the region on this side the river, from Tifsah even to Gaza." Rav and Shmuel (disagreed): One says, Tifsah was situated at one end of the world and Gaza at the other. The other says: Tifsah and Gaza were near each other, and just as he reigned over these, so did he reign over the whole world. But eventually his reign was restricted to Yisrael, as it is written (Koheles 1:12), "I am Koheles; I was king over Yisrael etc." Later, his reign was confined to Yerushalayim alone, as it is written (Koheles 1:12), "The words of Koheles, son of David, king in Yerushalayim." And even later, he reigned only over his bed (i.e. his household), as it is written (Shir haShirim 3:7), "Behold it is the bed of Shlomo etc." And finally, he reigned only over his staff as it is written (Koheles 2:10), "This was my portion from all of my labor." Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One says: His staff (was all that was left for him); the other says: his 'Gunda' (a cloak or a vessel). Did he regain his original power, or not? Rav and Samuel (disagree): One says that he did; the other, that he did not. The one who says that he did not, agrees with the view that Shlomo was first a king and then a commoner. The other, who says that he did, says that he was first a king, then a commoner and finally a king again.
(a)How did Shlomo lose his power over the kingdom?
1.Bavli Gittin 68: After Shlomo captured Ashmadai, king of the Shedim, Ashmadai served him for a while. Then, Ashmadai tricked him. He asked Shlomo to let him try on his ring and to hold his staff and he swore that he would return them. But when he took them, he swallowed the ring and threw Shlomo 400 Parsah away. Ashmadai then took on the appearance of Shlomo, sitting on the throne and ruling in his place. Now that Shlomo was stripped of his identity, power, and wealth, he wandered from city to city and he would say, "I am Koheles; I was King over Yisrael in Yerushalayim" (Koheles 1:12).
(b)What is the meaning behind being left only with his stick or his Gunda?
1.Chidushei u'Bi'urei haGra: The Gemara (Eiruvin 21b) tells us that Shlomo established the Mitzvos of Eiruv and Netilas Yadayim. This is the meaning of our Gemara. Of all the wealth, splendor and honor that he had, nothing at all remained. The portion that he bequeathed to Am Yisrael was those Mitzvos. These are alluded to with the words 'his stick', as sticks are used to construct an Eiruv; and 'his Gunda' which is a utensil used for washing.
(c)What is the basis of the dispute as to whether Shlomo regained his kingdom or not?
1.Iyun Yaakov (Gitin 68b): It could be directly connected to the dispute in Shir haShirim Rabbah (1:10) about whether Shlomo wrote Shir haShirim in his old age. It states there that he is a king. This indicates that in his old age, he returned to his position as king. The other opinion holds that on the contrary, he wrote Koheles last (where it says that 'I was king over Yisrael'). This indicates that he did not return to the throne.
