If one says that Bnei Shmuel sinned, why does he err?

Rashi: It is if he says that they took bribes and perverted judgment.

In what way did they not go in Shmuel's ways?

Maharsha: They did not go around cities to judge. Rather, they stayed in their cities and judged, in order to benefit their attendants and scribes. Had their attendants and scribes traveled with them, perhaps their expenses would have exceeded their income. Also in their cities, perhaps they requested more than their wages, claiming that they have no time, for city affairs are incumbent on them. Via this, their attendants and scribes came to take bribes, i.e. much more wages from one litigant than from the other. They tilted judgment, and it is attributed to Bnei Shmuel.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): What was the question from "v'Lo Halchu Vanav bi'Drachav"? This teaches that they stayed in their cities and judged. "Va'Yitu Acharei ha'Batza..." shows that they sinned! Rather, since they did not go around Yisrael, they increased wages for their attendants, who needed to go far to summons litigants. They stayed in their cities amidst desire for money - they did not want to neglect their work to go around Yisrael, like their father did.

Iyun Yakov: The proof that they did not truly sin is "Vanav". It is extra - the verses were discussing them! Rather, it teaches that they were Shmuel's sons (not great sinners), just they did not go in his ways; their attendants and scribes pursued unjust gain.

How did staying in their cities benefit their attendants and scribes?

Rashi: They hire their attendants to summons people to judgment; the scribes write documents of Birur (the claims; alternatively, each litigant chooses one judge).

Rav Elyashiv: Why is this a sin, not to follow the Chasidus of their father? Their attendants and scribes deserve the money! Me'iri says that everyone must fulfill Torah in an average way. One need not be extreme with fasts. However, some great people were very extreme, e.g. Shmuel, who went around to judge Yisrael. Presumably, he trained his sons that it is proper to do so, so they are expected to follow their father's conduct. Since they did not, it is considered leaning towards Batza. The Rambam implies that all judges should do so. Drishah brings from Chulin (105a), several Amora'im say 'I am like vinegar, the son of wine' - I do not conduct as virtuously as my father. The Me'iri discusses children, and not Talmidim.

Why do we say that Tana'im argue about this? No Tana says like R. Shmuel (that their sin was staying in their cities)!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Three of the Tana'im agree that they did not tilt judgment. However, R. Akiva says, they took an extra box of Ma'aser by force - this is tilting straight Mishpat!

Why is overtly requesting their portion called "ha'Batza"?

Rashi: Since they were Gedolei ha'Dor and judges, people would not refuse [to give Ma'aser Rishon to] them. This hurt other poor Leviyim.

Maharal: They requested what is proper to give to them to finance them. It is normal to finance judges, like it says (Kesuvos 105a) that judges of decrees received wages from Terumas ha'Lishkah.

Maharal: R. Yehudah holds that this is (NOTE: it seems that the text should say 'not' - PF) called veering after ha'Batza. However, giving merchandise to people for business, and Bnei Shmuel did not give to them anything [from the profit], is called veering after ha'Batza. R. Akiva holds that it is taking more than others took. R. Yosi holds that they did not take more than is proper, just they took Matanos [Kehunah] by force. This is called Batza, for one may not take at all by force. It seems that it says Matanos, for any Ma'aser taken by force is more than is proper, for [the Ba'al ha'Bayis] can divide and give to two people. However, Matanos are given to one person (Chulin 132b). There was nothing wrong with taking the entire gift, only that they took by force. (NOTE: They were Leviyim, and not Kohanim! It is theft to take them! - PF)

Maharsha: A judge may take only Sechar Vatalah (compensation for what he could have earned in the time that he judged) that is Muchach (it is clear what he could have earned). They took even what is not Muchach.

What is wrong if they gave merchandise to people for business, and the latter would return the profit?

Rashi: Bnei Shmuel would favor these people in judgment.

Etz Yosef citing Nezer ha'Kodesh: This is like R. Berachiyah in Bereishis Rabah 85. A caravan passed through Be'er Sheva [where Bnei Eli judged], and they abandoned needs of the Tzibur and engaged in their own needs. The verse considers this like taking bribes. Those who engage in Tzarchei Tzibur faithfully, the Tzibur must support them (CM 9). This did not apply to Bnei Shmuel. When judges who ask merchants to do business for them became rampant, bribery and tilting of judgment increased (Sotah 47b).

What is the meaning of 'they took an extra box of Ma'aser by force'?

Rashi: They took more Ma'aser than they were entitled to.

Maharsha: This is difficult. If so, they ate Tevel, for which one is Chayav Misah [bi'Ydei Shamayim]! (NOTE: Ma'aser Rishon must be exactly 10%. If they took more, the excess is not considered Ma'aser Rishon; it is Tevel, for Ma'aser Sheni or Ma'aser Oni must be separated from it! Also, the Levi must separate a 10th of his Ma'aser for Terumas Ma'aser. If he separated part from the excess (it cannot become Terumas Ma'aser), and less than 10% from the real Ma'aser], also the real Ma'aser Rishon is Tevel! - PF) This is not included in "va'Yitu Acharei ha'Batza"!

Maharsha: Ma'aser that a Ba'al ha'Bayis separated, they took by force. The Ba'al ha'Bayis has Tovas Hana'ah (the right to decide to whom to give it)!

What Matanos did they take by force?

Rashi #1: They were the foreleg, jaw and stomach of Chulin animals, which should be given to a Kohen].

Maharsha: These Matanos are taken "me'Es ha'Am." It is a Safek whether or not Leviyim are included in "ha'Am". Therefore, we do not make them give, but they may not take them. A certain Levi used to seize Matanos (Chulin 131a). So Bnei Shmuel did.

Rashi #2: They were Matanos proper for Leviyim, e.g. Ma'aser Rishon. "V'Nasan la'Kohen" teaches that the Yisrael gives to the Kohen [and similarly for Matanos given to a Levi]; he may not take by himself.

How can we learn from "va'Yhi David l'Chol Derachav Maskil va'Shem Imo" that David did not sin? That verse was in the days of Sha'ul. The episode with Bas Sheva was later!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Also, he became a Metzora and the Sanhedrin separated from him. "Yashuvu Li Yere'echa" teaches that the Shechinah separated from him! Also, we should have answered that in David's wars, soldiers gave Gitin! Also, we should say that "Bazisa Es Devar Hash-m" is due to Chilul Hash-m, but the Bi'ah was permitted! Here we learn from "l'Chol Derachav Maskil" - it should have said b'Chol Derachav! Also, "va'Shem Imo" is primary. It should have said so before "va'Yhi David l'Chol Derachav Maskil", and not after! Rather, the verse comes to teach that he put Yir'as Hash-m to his heart, and he will never falter, like "Shivisi Hash-m l'Negdi Tamid." She received a Get beforehand, so he did not sin with Ervah. However, wives were faithful, waiting to return to their husbands. For this, the Shechinah and Sanhedrin departed from him until he repented.

Iyun Yakov #1, Anaf Yosef citing Ir Binyamin Sheni: Wherever we find Kedushah, there is a fence from Ervah. The Shechinah departs due to Zenus. Sotah 21a brings a parable [of a man walking at night... when dawn comes...] When he gets to the crossroads, he is saved from all his concerns. This is a Chacham whose words are accepted to be the Halachah. This applied to David, for "l'Chol Derachav Maskil va'Shem Imo."

Iyun Yakov #2: Had David sinned, the Shechinah would not be with him. He himself said "Tzadik Atah Hash-m Lo Yagur bi'Mgurcha Ra." A Midrash (Reish Ekev) says, David said, I do not fear severe sins, for they are severe. Hash-m does not bring a great fiasco via a Tzadik!

Iyun Yakov citing Chen Tov (Shofetim): It says in Yoma (26a) that a Chacham who rules like the Halachah must be from Levi or Yisachar. How could the Torah command to appoint judges in all your gates? You will not find people from Levi or Yisachar everywhere! (NOTE: Why is this difficult? It says about Shimon and Levi "Achalkem b'Yakov va'Afitzem b'Yisrael"! - PF) He answered that any judge who intends to judge Emes l'Amito, Hash-m is with him to judge k'Halachah. Maharsha asked how David (from Yehudah) could reach the correct Halachah, and answered that a king is different. This is difficult - Do'eg said about David "va'Shem Imo" when he went to fight Galyus, before he was king!

Rav Elyashiv: Since Hash-m designated His name on David (NOTE: perhaps he considers "va'Shem Imo" to be designating His name on him), surely He knew that David will not sin. Even though there is choice, if he was at such a high level for Hash-m to put his name, choice is not needed for such an ugly sin. One cannot descend from such a high level to such lowliness. (NOTE: This is like Kuntres ha'Bechirah in Michtav me'Eliyahu. People holding at a high level are not tempted to do severe sins. - PF)

How did David seek to sin?

Rashi: He sought to have Bi'ah with be Bas-Sheva before she received a Get that her husband sent from the war.

Maharsha: Even though 'everyone who went to war... wrote a Get' implies before he went, "v'Es Arubasam Tikach" implies that they often sent from the war, e.g. if he sees that there is danger.

Maharsha: Normally, he gave a Get before going to war. David's brothers were exceptions; Yishai sent to tell them to send Gitin from the war. David sought to sin, i.e. to have Bi'ah before knowing whether Uriyah will die in the war, which would make the Get valid. In the end, it was clarified that the Get was valid, so he did not sin. According to R. Tam, that men divorced unconditionally, covertly, David was not sure that she is divorced.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): When he saw her on the roof, he sent for her, and intended to lie with her, even if she would be an Eshes Ish. He did not sin, for he found that she was divorced before he had Bi'ah with her. It says "Bazisa Es Devar Hash-m" due to Chilul Hash-m, or what I said (he intended to lie with her, even if she would be married), or because he increased intimacy [with his wives, intending to satiate his Ever; he forgot that this makes it desire Bi'ah even more].

Why does it say 'he is Mehafech and expounds to defend David'?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): He reverses verses that imply that David sinned, and explains oppositely, e.g. "Ishto Lakachta", "v'Oso Haragta b'Cherev Bnei Amon."

How is this Ra'ah is unlike every Ra'ah in the Torah?

Rashi: It is different in how it is written and in the Lashon.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #1: It is written differently - here it says La'asos. The Lashon is different - it says "Es Uriyah ha'Chiti Hikisa va'Cherev", interrupts with "v'Es Ishto Lakachta", and returns to say "v'Oso Haragta b'Cherev Bnei Amon."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov) #2: We pronounce "ha'Ra b'Einav", but it is written ha'Ra b'Eino - one eye, i.e. the left eye, which is Midas ha'Din. Midas ha'Rachamim did not agree, for he sought to sin, but did not sin. Had he sinned, it should have been bad also in the eye of Midas ha'Rachamim.

The Gemara implies that it says "La'asos ha'Ra" only regarding David. It says so also regarding Achav!

Maharsha: It says about Achav "Hismaker La'asos ha'Ra", but also "va'Ya'as ha'Ra." The former teaches that he was Moser (dedicated) himself to do evil. It says both also about Menasheh; there, it says that he made Yisrael stray "La'asos ha'Ra."

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): It says about the Egel "Al Kol Chataschem Asher Chatasem La'asos" - we cannot answer like here! Rather, "Al Kol Chataschem" is the Egel; it says "La'asos", for they desired many gods, but did not make them.

How did David seek to sin?

Rashi: He sought to have relations with her before she was divorced.

Rav Elyashiv: i.e. he had Bi'ah with her when the Get was in Safek.

Why could David have been Mekadesh her?

Rashi: She was not married; she was divorced, like Shmuel teaches below.

Tosfos: Even had David sinned [with Eshes Ish], he could marry her, for she was Anus (enticement of a minor is considered Ones)! However, 'Likuchin Yesh Lecha Bah' implies that there was no sin.

Maharsha: 'Likuchin Yesh Lecha Bah' implies even before Uriyah died, i.e. for she was divorced.

How should David have judged Uriyah through the Sanhedrin?

Rashi: He was Mored b'Malchus, like we say below.

Tosfos: In Megilah (14b), we say that Naval was Mored b'Malchus and he did not need to be judged. If so, also Uriyah did not need to be judged! I answer that surely they need to judge to know whether he is Mored b'Malchus. However, they need not investigate the judgment and delay overnight before giving the verdict. Sanhedrin 36a learns from "va'Yachgeru Ish Charbo" that David judged Naval with a Sanhedrin.

Maharsha: David did not want to judge him via the Sanhedrin, for then the condition of the Get would not be fulfilled, and it would turn out that he sinned. According to R. Tam, that men divorced unconditionally, David did not judge him via the Sanhedrin, lest people say that David found a pretext to kill him in order to take his wife.

Why did everyone who went to war in David's army write a Get to his wife?

Rashi: If he will die, his widow should not need to do [Chalitzah or] Yibum. Or, if he will be killed without witnesses or be captured, his wife will be unable to remarry. The Get is on condition that if he will die in war, she was divorced from when the Get was given.

Tosfos: Uriyah returned from the war! The condition was, if he will not return at the end of the war, it will be a Get (retroactively). However, in Gitin (73a), Tana'im argue about the status of one who received such a Get. R. Yehudah holds that she is fully married! According to him, the Get did not help! R. Tam says, soldiers divorced without any condition. She is called a Safek Eshes Ish (Bava Metzi'a 59a) because men divorced covertly; people thought that she is married.

What is the support from "v'Es Arubasam Tikach"? That discusses Sha'ul's war, and not David's!

Maharsha: It shows that Bnei Yishai used to do so; presumably, David advised to conduct so in his wars.

What is Me'uravim between a man and his wife?

Rashi: It is Kidushin; Yishai told David to take Gitin from his brothers at war, to nullify the Kidushin.

What is the source to expound 'just as you will not be punished for the sword of Amon, you will not be punished for Uriyah'?

Maharsha: The verse already said "Es Uriyah ha'Chiti Hikisa va'Cherev." Therefore, "Haragta b'Cherev Bnei Amon" is extra, to teach that you will not be punished for Uriyah, even a small punishment for causing his death. We need not expound that he is not liable like a murderer, for we hold that if Reuven told Shimon to kill someone, and he did, Shimon is liable and Reuven is exempt.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Since David is not liable for Uriyah, and his Bi'ah with Bas Sheva was permitted, why was he punished "Lo Sasur Cherev mi'Beisecha"? It was Chilul Hash-m to take Uriyah's wife, for she was faithful to return to him. Also, he had Bi'ah with her before it was clarified that she is divorced.

How does "vAdoni Yo'av..." teach that he was Mored b'Malchus?

Rashi: It is improper to accept another's authority in front of the king.

Tosfos: This is not rebellion! He did not intend to make Yo'av king or call him king!

Maharsha: In any case, equating Yo'av to David (he called both of them Adonim in front of David) is rebellion.

Tosfos: David told him to return home, and he did not obey - "va'Ani Avo El Beisi...?"

What is "Rak bi'Dvar Uriyah"?

Rashi: David caused him to be killed. He did not sin with Bas Sheva.

Tosfos: David sinned also via counting Yisrael (Yoma 22b)! That is not counted, for it was not a great sin, and it was Shogeg.

Can we resolve the contradiction in Rav (if David accepted Leshon ha'Ra, he had another sin)!

Anaf Yosef citing Ir Binyamin Sheni: The one who said this (his only sin was with Uriyah) did not say this (that he accepted Leshon ha'Ra). Terumas ha'Deshen (233) says that the Gematriya of David and Do'eg are both 14. David prayed "Ase Imi Os l'Tovah"; Hash-m added a Yud to his name in Divrei ha'Yamim, lest a Tzadik be like a sinner. One who accepts Leshon ha'Ra is like one who speaks it. Had David accepted Leshon ha'Ra, Hash-m would not have added to his name to distinguish him from Do'eg! (NOTE: The one who disagrees can explain like Chomas Anach (Shmuel II 1:26) brings from Get Pashut 129:121, that a Yud was added to David's name, and a Hei to Yonason's name, to hint that Hash-m's name Yud-Kei was between them, like Chazal say (Sotah 17b, Rashi there) about a man and his wife; "Nifle'asah Ahavascha Li me'Ahavas Nashim" (ibid.) - PF)

The proof that David accepted Leshon ha'Ra is from "Amarti Atah v'Tziva Tachleku Es ha'Sadeh." Why did Rav bring "va'Yomer Lo ha'Melech Eifo Hu..."?

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Rav comes to teach unlike Shmuel, who says that David saw indications that it was true. Since previously David saw that Tziva lied, he should not have accepted his words later, even when he saw indications. Rather, he accepted Leshon ha'Ra.

What is the meaning of "b'Lo Davar"?

Rashi: Tziva said that [his master Mefivoshes] is not a Chacham in Torah.

Maharsha: In all texts, "b'Lo [Davar]" and "Milo [Davar]" are written with a Vav! (If they meant 'without' and 'full', they should be written with an Aleph!)

Maharsha: He has matters (gripes) against you. David saw that he was mi'Lo Davar - clean from this accusation. A support is, it says that Tziva was Malshin (slandered) again. According to Rashi, this is difficult! (NOTE: Even if it was Leshon ha'Ra to say that he is not a Chacham, it is not Malshinus (informing). - PF)

Was it Leshon ha'Ra to say that Mefivoshes is in Yerushalayim?

Rashi: He said that Mefivoshes was hoping that [David will die, and] he (Sha'ul's grandson) will become king.

Etz Yosef citing Kli Yakar (Landiano), Malbim (Shmuel II, 16:3): If David will die, Avshalom will become king! Tziva said that Mefivoshes hopes that David will die, Yisrael will judge Avshalom like a Ben Sorer u'Moreh and kill him, and say 'we have no share in David, who died, and no Nachalah in Avshalom's sons. Let us return to our first king, Sha'ul, and make Mefivoshes king. (NOTE: "Hayah Lev Ish Yisrael Acharei Avshalom" - why would they judge him like Ben Sorer u'Moreh? Perhaps Tziva said that Mefivoshes will convince the Sanhedrin to do so. Achitofel, the Rosh Sanhedrin, counseled Avshalom to kill David, with intent to later execute Avshalom for raping his father's wives, and make himself king (Yalkut Shimoni 151). - PF)

If David did not believe the Lashon ha'Ra, why did he give Mefivoshes' property to Tziva?

Rashi: In any case the gift would not take effect until David returns. The gift was on condition that his words will be found to be true.

Maharsha: A support is, Tziva replied 'I will find grace in your eyes', and not 'I found.' However, why did Shmuel say that David did not believe the Lashon ha'Ra, rather, he saw indications? The indications came later! (NOTE: Shmuel should have said that David did not rely on it, until he saw indications later! - PF) It seems that also Rav learns that David accepted it from his ruling below that they will split the field.

What indications did David see that the Leshon ha'Ra was true?

Rashi: David thought that Mefivoshes was saddened by David's return, so he did not adorn himself. Also, Mefivoshes thought that when he will become king, he will adorn himself and cut his hair.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Why did David judge him unfavorably? Perhaps he was pained that David was exiled from his kingship! We can say that even after David returned, he did not adorn himself.

Iyun Yakov: The verse calls Mefivoshes "ben Sha'ul", even though he was ben Yehonason, to teach that David saw indications that he hates David, like Sha'ul did, and does not love him, like Yehonason did.

Maharal: David asked, why did you not come with me? (NOTE: Mefivoshes answered! Maharal does not explain why David did not accept his answer.)

Maharsha: Since the Gemara brings the dialogue between them, it seems that it was the indication. David was unsure if Mefivoshes did not fix his appearance amidst pain over David's return, like Tziva said, or amidst pain that David was exiled from his kingship.

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): Mefivoshes said, 'you are a Chacham; do as is good in your eyes.' It seemed that he recognized that David knew his evil intent. This is why David said 'why talk more?' I intended to judge you favorably, but your words dissuaded me! Silence would have been better for you - perhaps I would have totally retracted from giving the field to Tziva!

How did Tziva trick Mefivoshes?

Maharsha: The verse did not explain this. I say that "va'Yragel" is not an expression of Rechilus, rather, going by foot. I asked Tziva to saddle a donkey for me to ride on it and follow the king. I am lame, and cannot walk. Tziva took the donkeys, like it says "ha'Chamorim l'Veis ha'Melech Lirkov."

Why did David say "Amarti Atah v'Tziva Tachleku Es ha'Sadeh"?

Maharshal: This is like I initially said, that all Mefivoshes' property will [also] be Tziva's, i.e. they will be partners.

Maharsha: He was unsure, so he said to split the field - when there is a Safek, we divide. Mefivoshes should have requested more. Why did he say 'Tziva should take everything'? We expound that he was upset with Hash-m. In Sefer Shmuel, we find that Yehonason had a son Mefivoshes, and in Divrei ha'Yamim we find only Meriv Ba'al, we say that he is called Meriv Ba'al because he made a Merivah with his Master.

How does "Gam Es ha'Kol Yikach Acharei Asher Ba Adoni ha'Melech b'Shalom" show that Mefivoshes was upset? Perhaps he was so happy that David returned, that he did not care about the field!

Rif (on the Ein Yakov): If so, he should have said first "Acharei Asher Ba... b'Shalom." Rather, he first said "Gam Es ha'Kol Yikach", to show resentment, i.e. that David returned to anger him. Also, he said that the king returned "b'Shalom" - his own Shalom, but not l'Shalom - others' Shalom.

Iyun Yakov: Is it proper to reject the king's gift? Also, the verse implies that had David not returned, Mefivoshes would have taken half! Tanchuma brings that in the days of David, youths without sin knew to expound the Torah in 49 facets of Taharah and 49 of Tum'ah. Even so, they fell in war due to people who speak Leshon ha'Ra. Here it says that half of David's kingship was taken because he accepted Leshon ha'Ra. Had he taken all of Mefivoshes' field away, all his kingship would have been removed. Since you returned b'Shalom, you must get the other punishment! David said about this "Ani Shalom v'Chi Adaber Hemah la'Milchamah" - even when my enemies (e.g. Mefivoshes) speak Shalom - when will he come in Shalom, they intend for war - that my kingship should be torn.

Why did Sha'ul quarrel about things done in a Nachal?

Rashi: He said, murder of an innocent person is so severe that it requires a special atonement (Eglah Arufah, in a Nachal). Why should we kill children that did not sin?

Rav Elyashiv: This supports Minchas Chinuch (530), who says that we bring Eglah Arufah even for a murdered child or newborn baby. (Perhaps this is only if we know that it was a viable baby.)

What is the connection of Tziva splitting the field with Mefivoshes, and Rechavam and Yaravam splitting the kingdom of Yisrael?

Maharsha: This was Midah k'Neged Midah. Just like David said that Mefivoshes will split his field with his slave, David's grandson Rechavam will split his kingship with his slave Yaravam.

Anaf Yosef: Seemingly, he should say that because David caused Mefivoshes tolose half his inheritance, David lost half his kingship! Maharsha answers this; the primary Midah k'Neged Midah is to equate those who will divide what used to belong to one of them.

Why did accepting the Lashon ha'Ra cause the kingship to be split?

Maharal: There are three reasons for kingship. (a) The king will force the nation to serve Hash-m, to do Mishpat. This is Heavenly matters. (b) It is for the benefit of Yisrael, to save them from their haters, like it says regarding Sha'ul - the king will go in front of them to do war. (c) It is for his own benefit and importance - Hash-m wanted to aggrandize the king, for he is proper. Had David not accepted the Lashon ha'Ra, the kingship would not be divided, for there would be no lowliness in the kingship. The kingship is perfection of the king.

Had he not accepted the Lashon ha'Ra, how would this have avoided serving idolatry?

Maharal: The king was able to force people not to serve idolatry. Now, many virtuous kings were not able to do so. Even though Malchei Yisrael served idolatry, this did not exist before the split. Most Malchei Yisrael were Resha'im who served idolatry. Yehoram "va'Yelech b'Darchei Malchei Yisrael... va'Ya'as ha'Ra b'Einei Hash-m." All Malchei Yehudah were Kesherim. Those who served idolatry, this was because from the beginning the king was unable to protest, lest people rebel against him, and afterwards the king learned from them. "U'Rechavam...; va'Ya'as Yehudah ha'Ra b'Einei Hash-m" implies that only Yehudah sinned, but not Rechavam. It says also "va'Yhi k'Hachin Malchus Rechavam uch'Chezkaso Azav Es Toras Hash-m v'Chol Yisrael Imo"! Rather, initially all Yisrael abandoned Hash-m, and afterwards he heeded them. This was only because the kingship was weakened.

Had he not accepted the Lashon ha'Ra, how would this have avoided Galus?

Maharal: The king could have saved them from their enemies. All this was because David accepted Leshon ha'Ra. The primary sin of Leshon ha'Ra divides, Chazal expounded "v'Zos Toras ha'Metzora" - ha'Motzi [Shem] Ra. Via Leshon ha'Ra he divided between man and his friend, between man and his wife, therefore he will dwell alone. Therefore, David's kingship was divided. Anything that is one and complete, it is not Nishchas (destroyed). If it is divided, in the end it is Nishchas. Hashchasah is idolatry - "Pen Tashchisun va'Asisem Lachem Pesel." After Hashchasah is Ibud (perishing), i.e. exile from the land. "Pen Tashchisun...; ... Avod Tovedun Maher me'Al ha'Aretz."

Did Shlomo not sin?

Rashi: He did not serve idolatry.

Maharsha: owever, he did sin via not protesting against his wives, or via marrying Nochriyos. Even though we say that (Yevamos 76b) that he did not marry them, rather, he had Bi'as Zenus with them, the verse considers it as if he married them. (NOTE: We said so only about Bas Paro, for the Torah forbids a Mitzri convert. "Shlomo had 700 wives, and 300 Pilagshim" (Melachim I, 11:3)! - PF)

Rav Elyashiv: Surely he did not sin via marrying Nochriyos. The Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 13:!4) says that surely, Shimshon who saved Yisrael and Shlomo, who was called Yedidyah, married Nochriyos only after conversion. In the days of Shlomo, we did not accept converts, lest it is not l'Shem Shamayim; the great Beis Din did not accept them, only a Beis Din of commoners. Shlomo should have stopped his wives from serving idolatry, and if they did not cease, divorce them. Since they did not cease, this shows that their conversion was invalid.

Iyun Yakov: His kingship was not split [in the days of his son] due to his sin, rather, due to David. This is why this Agadah is brought after the previous one, which tells why David's kingship was split.

What was the answer 'he sought to build, but did not'? For idolatry, intent is forbidden (Kidushin 40a)!

Daf Al ha'Daf citing R. M. Mandelbaum: Building a Bamah is not idolatry itself, so intent for it is not forbidden.

How could we learn from "Az Yivneh Yehoshua"? In Sanhedrin (91b), this teaches Techiyas ha'Mesim from the Torah!

Tosfos: Even so, since it does not say about Shlomo 'Bikesh Livnos', rather, "Yivneh", this implies that he truly built, like Yehoshua built.

What is "Har ha'Mashchis"?

Rashi: It is Har ha'Mishchah, i.e. Har ha'Zeisim.

Maharsha: It is Har ha'Mishchah; the verse calls it Har ha'Mashchis for disgrace, due to building of idolatry there, like Rashi on the verse (Melachim II, 23:13) explained. Minchas Shai (ibid.) - the text in our Gemaros cites Har ha'Mishchah; this is a printing mistake.

What is the meaning of 'just like Acharonim are praised for something that they did not do, Rishonim are blamed something that they did not do'?

Rashi: It says that Yoshiyahu eradicated ancient Bamos for idolatry, even though he did not (for Asa and Yehoshafat previously destroyed all the idolatry in Yisrael). Just like he is credited for something that he did not do, Shlomo is blamed for something that he did not do (building the Bamos).

Why do we assume that Asa and Yehoshafat would have destroyed these Bamos? Chizkiyah destroyed the copper serpent that Moshe had made [because Yisrael were serving it as idolatry]. His ancestors (Asa and Yehoshafat, did not destroy it; they) left room for him to aggrandize himself. Perhaps the same applies to Shlomo's Bamos!

Tosfos: There, there was a reason why they did not destroy the snake - they feared to do so, for Moshe made it. Here, there was no reason to refrain.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Sho'el u'Meshiv (3:1:391) wrote, there was no need to destroy the snake, for one cannot forbid another's property. However, since people strayed due to it, he destroyed it. Bamos are actual idolatry - they must be burned.

Why did we ask from "Az Yivneh Shlomo" before "va'Ya'as Shlomo ha'Ra"? The latter verse is written earlier!

Maharsha: We asked first from "Az Yivneh Shlomo", for it specifies that he sinned with idolatry.

What was the question from "va'Ya'as Shlomo ha'Ra"? Perhaps it refers to marrying Nochriyos!

Maharsha: "B'Einei Hash-m" implies that it was idolatry. We answer that he did not protest against his wives, which pertains to idolatry.

Daf Al ha'Daf: Kovetz Derushim (4:3) brings from the Gaon of Lask, that there are three conducts - (a) of himself, (b) of his household , (c) of his generation. If one could protest, but does not, he is punished for the sins of his household and generation. Everyone must benefit himself and others. There were Tzadikim before Avraham, but he was the first to benefit others. If a convert accepts the yoke of Mitzvos and begins to straighten himself, his sins are pardoned. One who marries, he accepts to oversee his household , so his sins are pardoned. One who rises to grandeur, he accepts to oversee his generation, so it is proper that his sins are pardoned. His body changed and his law changed. Since Shlomo did not protest against Bas Pharaoh, all the more so he will not protest against his generation. Therefore, the fall of his kingship sprouted. Romi was built, which will destroy Tziyon, take its kingship and cut off Yisrael's horn via Churban ha'Mikdash.

How is one a servant for idolatry?

Rashi: He cuts wood and draws water for it, for wages.

Rav Elyashiv: Heaven forbid to serve it for free! Yonason ben Gershom erred about this. [Based on a tradition from Moshe that it is better to hire himself out and do Avodah Zarah, than to be supported by others,] he hired himself to Pesel Michah. (Avodah Zarah did not mean idolatry, rather, work that is foreign to him, e.g. flaying a carcass in the market). One may not hire himself to idolatry - one must destroy it! Even so, it is lighter than Shlomo not protesting against his wives.

What is the connection of Shlomo marrying Bas Par'o, and the start of the great city of Romi?

Etz Yosef: This was the beginning of idolatry in Yerushalayim. She brought 1000 instruments and told him which are played for various idolatries, and he did not protest. "Pen Yiften Levavchem... va'Avadtem Meherah." This was the start of Tzur, for Tzur was filled only from the Churban of Yerushalayim. It was via Gavriel, for the fiery coals to burn Yerushalayim were in his hand. Therefore, also the start of Romi, which grew from Yerushalayim's Churban, was via him. Just like he had mercy and cooled off the coals, so he inserted a mere reed. Later, it grew by itself, via earth deposited on it. "Ga'ar Chayas Kaneh" hints to this - its Chiyus (life) is where Gavriel inserted the Kaneh.

Rav Elyashiv: We infer that one may not hear songs of idolatry (YD 142:15). Birkei Yosef (OC 560:6) brings that Sefardi Chachamim heard songs from mosques, and used them for Tefilos. This is astounding! Perhaps they changed them. (NOTE: The Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 11:7) says that Yishmaelim do not serve idolatry! Divrei Yatziv (OC 90) says that even so, their creed is idolatrous, for it denies Elokei Yisrael Emes. Tzitz Eliezer (14:91) brings from the Ran (Sanhedrin 61b) that they bow to their false Navi; this is idolatry. Yabi'a Omer (10 OC 16) brings from the Rambam that they worship only Hash-m; perhaps the Ran would have retracted had he seen Teshuvas ha'Rambam. Teshuvos v'Hanhagos (6:179) brings that the Tur citing Ge'onim, Rashba and Rema (YD 146) are like the Rambam. - PF)

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Ramban (Bereishis 49:31) and R. Bechayei (ibid. 50:9) bring from Yosifun and other early historians that Tzefo ben Elifaz ben Esav warred with Yosef and did not want to let him bury Yakov in Ma'aras ha'Machpelah. Yosef overpowered him, and seized him and his choice Giborim and brought them to Egypt. He escaped when Yosef died, and became king over all of Italya. He was the first king of Romi. It seems that this was from Yitzchak's Berachah "mi'Shmanei ha'Aretz Yihyeh Moshavecha" - this is Italya of Yavan (Rashi Bereishis 27:39). Here it says that Italya of Yavan began only in the days of Shlomo! Kovetz Shlomo (3 p.58) answers that when Yisrael do Hash-m's will, Esav's sovereignty falls. After Yakov and Yosef died, Shibud Yisrael began, and Yisrael declined, so Esav ascended. Tzefo ruled over all of Italya. When Yisrael received the Torah and entered Eretz Yisrael, Italya was destroyed, and no remnant remained. When Shlomo married Bas Pharaoh, the king's sin is as if the entire nation sinned, and Italya was rebuilt. Chizkiyah was straight in Hash-m's eyes - He wanted to make him Mashi'ach. In his merit, Italya was destroyed again. When Menasheh set up a Pesel in the Heichal, it was built again.

Rashi (Bereishis 27:39, from Bereishis Rabah 67) says that Yitzchak's Berachah to Esav "mi'Shmanei ha'Aretz Yihyeh Moshavecha" is Italya of Yavan. What is his source?

Daf Al ha'Daf citing Chanukas ha'Torah: Yitzchak already blessed Yakov with everything (including "umi'Shmanei ha'Aretz" - 27:28) and did not leave anything for Esav. How was Yitzchak able to bless Esav? Since nothing remained in the world, he blessed him with what will come only later - Italya of Yavan.

What is the significance of when Yaravam set up calves in Beis Kel and Dan?

Maharal: This began the Churban; the power of the nations was increased. Even though [Yisrael] served idolatry before this, it was not a Churban. Yaravam intended to make multiple powers of idolatry, like Hash-m, who has many powers. Therefore, he put one in Beis Kel, corresponding to Hash-m's name Kel, and one in Dan, corresponding to Shem Elokim (Midas ha'Din); its Gematriya is (86), like that of Zeh Dayan. The idolatry was opposite right and left. Right [alone] is a part, and left is a part; together, they are a whole. (NOTE: Dan is in the north, and Beis Kel is in the south. The south of Eretz Yisrael is called right, and the north is called left (Pesikta Zutresa and Ibn Ezra on Bereishis 13:9). - PF) In the Midbar, which is Midas ha'Din, they made only one calf [corresponding to Shem Elokim]. When the two calves were set up, Italya of Yavan began. It is the opposite of Eretz Yisrael ha'Kedoshah. "Mi'Shmanei ha'Aretz Yihyeh Moshavecha" is Italya of Yavan; rain of Berachah never ceases from it.

Maharsha: This began [idolatry, which caused] the Churban - "va'Avadtem Elohim Acherim... va'Avadtem Meherah me'Al ha'Aretz." Tzur was filled only from the Churban of Yerushalayim. (NOTE: Rashi says that Italya was of Yavan; when Edom seized power, it became theirs. It says in Megilas Ta'anis 'Tzur is Kisari Bas Edom... Yisrael could not conquer it in the days of Yavan... Bnei Chashmona'i overpowered and dispossessed them. - PF)

Why does Rav disagree with R. Shmuel bar Nachmani?

Anaf Yosef: Rav expounds "va'Ya'as ha'Yashar b'Einei Hash-m va'Yelech b'Chol Derech David Aviv" - just like David sinned and repented, also Yoshiyah. R. Shmuel explains, "va'Ya'as ha'Yashar" - always. He was stringent to return what he judged in his youth. This is like David - also David was Shav, even though 'anyone who says that David sinned, he errs!'

Which judgments did he overturn?

Maharsha: An opinion brought in Tur CM 7 says that a Katan should not judge before 18 years. This is difficult. A verse says that he became king at the age of eight, but no verse says until the age of 18. It says here until 18, i.e. when they found the Sefer Torah in his 18th year of kingship; he was 26 at the time. It was a stringency to return his previous judgments, like the Tur says.

Rav Elyashiv: Mid'Oraisa, even a minor may judge, if he knows enough; mid'Rabanan it is forbidden. Yoshiyah was qualified. The Tumim (CM 7) says that in his time, one became an adult at the age of eight. It seems that this is only to be a Chacham to judge; a tradition from Sinai teaches that Bar Mitzvah is only from 13 years old. Yoshiyah was exceedingly stringent. Even if he erred, he was exempt. And even if he was liable, b'Di'eved he need not pay, for a king may uproot a debt.

Daf Al ha'Daf: The opinion that forbids judging before 18 years old because his intellect is not developed until 18 - 18 is the age to marry (Avos 5:21). Bach (CM 7) says that at 18, he reached a quarter of his years, and can reach the depth of judgment.

What is the source that "b'Chol Me'odo" is from his own money? Perhaps it refers to "Asher Shav", like "b'Chol Levavo uv'Chol Nafsho"!

Maharsha: It says above "va'YIchros Es ha'Bris... b'Chol Lev uv'Chol Nefesh." Here it adds "b'Chol Me'odo", to teach that he returned from his money. Rav disagrees, and says that Yoshiyahu was the greatest penitent; he holds that "b'Chol Me'odo" refers to "Asher Shav."

Maharsha: Rashi said that he was merely stringent to return the money, lest he erred. What was the Havah Amina that he would take from the party that he vindicated?!

Daf Al ha'Daf: The Rema (OC 343) says that one need not repent from sins of his youth, but it is good to accept a matter of Teshuvah after he matures. The Vilna Gaon says that he learns from here. A minor's sin is a sin (Sanhedrin 55b), just he is not punished for it.

Why is he called Nasan d'Tzutzisa?

Rashi #1: It is due to Nitzutzin (sparks) of fire - an angel stretched out his hand and accepted his Teshuvah.

Maharsha citing the Aruch: He had a cloak of goats' hair that scratched his skin to atone for him; he was a Ba'al Teshuvah.

Rav Elyashiv: If sparks of fire came from him, why did Rav Yosef need to see in a dream that his Teshuvah was accepted? Perhaps he saw when it was accepted, and afterwards everyone saw.

Rashi #2: An angel held him via Tzitzis (the locks of) his head.

Tosfos: A Midrash says that a lamp burned on his head. This is like it says in Menachos (29b), Hei has a crown because Hash-m will tie a crown to one who does Teshuvah.