ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 20
(a) When one of the king's relations dies - he is not even permitted to
leave the palace gates.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah proves otherwise from David Hamelech - who walked behind
the coffin of Avner.
(c) The Chachamim counter Rebbi Yehudah's proof - by confining David's
actions to that specific occasion, where he acted the way to demonstrate
that he had no hand in Avner's murder.
(d) At the Se'udas Havra'ah of
the king - it is the people who sit on the floor whilst the king sits on a
Dargesh (a kind of bed which will be explained later).
(a) Rebbi Yehudah proves from the same episode with Avner, that women should
walk in front of the coffin, because it is inconceivable that David, who
walked behind Avner's coffin, should walk among the women.
(b) According to the Tana Kama - the women may walk behind the coffin or in
front of it, as they please.
(c) David nevertheless insisted of walking behind the coffin to demonstrate
his innocence as we just explained. So he walked from the men to the women
and from the women to the men, so that everyone should see how distraught he
(d) We know that King David succeeded in his efforts - because the Pasuk
goes on to state that all the people were convinced that David was not
responsible for the assassination.
(a) Rava explains the Pasuk "Va'yavo Kol ha'Am Le'havros es David", which is
written "Le'hachros es David" (in the form of a 'K'ri K'siv') - to teach us
that although the people originally came to kill David (whom they thought
had ordered the assassination of Avner), upon seeing David's behavior at the
funeral, they realized that he was innocent, and they arranged for him a
Se'udas Havra'ah instead.
(b) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, Avner was punished for not objecting
at what Shaul did - namely, killing the inhabitants of Nov, the town of
Kohanim (see Agados Maharsha).
(c) According to Rebbi Yitzchak - he did object, but Shaul refused to listen
(d) They both learn their opinions from the Pasuk in Shmuel "ki'Nefol Lifnei
B'nei Avlah Nafalta, Yadecha Lo Asuros, ve'Ragl'cha Lo li'Nechushtayim
Hugashu", which means, according to ...
1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Rav - that he deserved to fall in such a disgusting
way, because when Shaul ordered Do'eg to kill the inhabitants of Nov, he
Avner) was not tied up or in fetters, and could easily have objected.
2. ... Rebbi Yitzchak - that the Navi actually asks in surprise why he died
in that way, with his hands and feet free, seeing as he had objected to
(a) According to Rebbi Yitzchak, says Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, Avner was
punished - because (by backing Shaul's son Ish Boshes, he postponed David's
ascent to the throne by two and a half years).
(b) Five years elapsed between the death of Shaul and the attempt of Ish
Boshes to seize the throne.
(c) During those seven and a half years - David ruled over Chevron.
(a) We initially interpret a Dargesh (the bed on which the king sits during
his Se'udas Havra'ah) as Arsa de'Gada - which is a bed for Mazel (but not to
(b) Rava overrules the objection to this explanation on the grounds that
seeing as the Aveil has not sat on it until now, why would we now make him
sit on it now - because it is no worse than giving him food and drink, even
though this has never happened to him until now.
(c) Rava nevertheless objects to the explanation, based on the Beraisa that
obligates an Aveil to overturn all the beds in his house - which seems to
incorporate a Dargesh too/
(d) We overrule this objection however, on the basis of another Beraisa -
which precludes beds that are designated for vessels from the previous
ruling (since they are not made for sleeping). That being the case, a
Dargesh too, is precluded for the same reason.
(a) The problem with the current interpretation of a Dargesh from the
Beraisa of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel 'Dargesh, Matir Karbitin, ve'Hu Nofel
Me'eilehah' is - that an Arsa de'Gada does not have loops to untie.
(b) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rav Tachlifa, who citing
the leather merchants, interpreted Dargesh as Arsa de'Tzala - which is a
leather bed with straps and loops, which one uses to put it up.
(c) The Chachamim exempted it from being overturned - because the leather
top would then get spoiled.
(d) Initially, Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains the difference
between a Dargesh and a bed as being - that the string that ties the former
passes through a hole in the middle of it, whereas that of a bed is wound
(a) We refute this interpretation of Dargesh however, from the Beraisa
'K'lei Eitz Me'eimasai Mekablin Tum'ah? ha'Mitah ... mi'she'Yeshufem be'Or
ha'Dag' - because if the string were to pass over the top, then why would
the bed-post, which would not be visible anyway, require smoothening?
(b) We therefore conclude that in both cases, the strings pass through the
bed-posts, and not over the top, and the difference between them is that
whereas the strings of the bed pass through a hole in the actual bed-posts,
those of the Dargesh pass through loops that hang from the posts.
(c) Rebbi Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules like Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel in the previous Beraisa. Rebbi Ya'akov bar Ami rules that a
two-poster bed in the house of an Aveil (which cannot be overturned) - only
needs to be up-ended.
(a) To lead Yisrael into a Milchemes ha'Reshus - the king needs the consent
of the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol.
(b) The Tana repeats this Halachah, despite the fact that we have already
learned it at the beginning of the first Perek - because it fits into the
list of Halachos pertainng to a king.
(c) Our Mishnah gives a king the right - to break a passage through someone
else's property to get to his own.
(d) 'Derech ha'Melech Ein Lo Shiur' means - that the king's road does not
have a fixed measure, and that consequently, the passage that he is
permitted to breach may be as wide as he needs.
(a) The Tana obligates the army to place all war spoils at the disposal of
the king, giving him the first choice to take half.
1. With regard to the list of warnings that Shmuel Hanavi issued to he
people, such as taking their children to drive his charriots - Shmuel says
that the king had the authority to carry them out.
(c) This point is already a Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi (Shmuel) and Rebbi
Yehudah (Rav) in a Beraisa. The three Mitzvos that Rebbi Yehudah there
listed, following Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael are - to appoint a
king, to destroy Amalek and to build the Beis-Hamikdash.
2. According to Rav - the Navi only said this to frighten the people, but
not to permit the king to act on it.
(d) We know that all three Mitzvos were in fact, connected with their entry
into Eretz Yisrael - because the Torah writes 'Yerushah and Yeshivah' in
connection with each of them.
(a) Rebbi Nehora'i disagrees with - the first of the above three Mitzvos
which, in his opinion, is not a Mitzvah, but Hashem's response to their
(b) Rebbi Elazar in another Beraisa make a compromise. According to him -
the elders asked correctly for a king (to judge them and to punish the
evil-doers), and it was the rest of the people who sinned, by asking for a
king to fight their battles (a task that Hashem would otherwise have handled
(c) Rebbi Yossi in a third Beraisa, learns from the juxtaposition of the two
1. ... "Ki Yad al Keis Kah" and "Milchamah la'Hashem Milchamah ba'Amalek" -
that appointing a king takes precedence over fighting against Amalek. And we
know that this Pasuk refers to a king, because of another Pasuk in Divrei
Hayamim "Va'yeishev Shlomoh al Kisei Hashem".
(d) David Hamelech actually fulfilled this sequence - because after he had
defeated his enemies and established peace in the land, he asked Nasan
ha'Navi about building the Beis-Hamikdash.
2. ... "ve'Heini'ach Lachem mi'Kol Oyveichem mi'Saviv ... Ve'hayah ha'Makom
Asher Yivchar Hashem" - that destroying Amalek takes precedence over
building the Beis-Hamikdash.
(a) The Pasuk in Divrei Ha'yamim teaches us that Shlomoh ruled from Tifsah
to Azah. From the Pasuk in Melachim "Va'yeishev Shlomoh al Kisei Hashem", we
learn - that first (before he married foreign women) he ruled over the
heavenly bodies as well, and afterwads, he ruled only over the earth.
(b) Rav and Shmuel argue over Tifsah and Azah. According to one of them,
they were on oposite sides of the globe, according to the other - they were
next to each other.
(c) According to the latter opinion, the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that
just as he ruled over Tifsah and Azah, so too, did he rule over the whole
(d) They also learn from the sequence of the Pesukim starting with this
Pasuk, followed by "Ani Koheles Hayisi Melech al Yisrael", "Divrei Koheles
ben David Melech bi'Yerushalayim", Hinei Mitaso she'li'Shelomoh ... " and
"Zeh Hayah Chelki mi'Kol Amali" - that first he ruled over the whole world,
then over Yisrael, then over Yerhushalayim, and finally, only over his
(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over the last item. One of them interprets it as
'Maklo' (as we explained). The other, as 'Gundo' - which means a cloak.
(b) And according to Rav Hai Gaon, this ought to read 'Makeidah' which is
an earthenware vessel.
(c) They also argue as to whether Shlomoh returned to the throne. One
describes him 'Melech ve'Hedyot' - the other - as 'Melech ve'Hedyot
(d) He was dethroned (and replaced) - by Ashmodai, king of the demons.
(a) We learned earlier that the war spoils are divided (equally) among the
king and the people. Whatever was taaken from the king's treasury went
entirely to him?
(b) Rav Dimi (or Rav Acha) learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Va'yimshechu la'Hashem le'Nagid u'Tzadok Ale'Kohen" - that just as
Tzadok (the Kohen Gadol) divided the Korbanos equally together with the rest
of the Kohanim, so too did the king (as we just explained).
2. ... "Ve'haysah le'Aharon u'le'Vanav" - that the Kohen Gadol shares the
Korbanos equally with the other Kohanim.