Vol 30.14 - Chayei Sarah 3 Spanish French Audio Video
The opening of this Haftarah, which describes King David's advanced years, resembles the statement in Parshat Chayei Sarah that Avraham had advanced in years (24:1).
The Haftarah describes King David's last days before his passing (1-4), during which time his son Adoniyahu begins to celebrate his succession to the monarchy (5-10), Bas-Sheva, Shlomo's mother, is thus advised to go to the King and reiterate his promise that Shlomo would become King (11-14). She does so, and Natan joins the audience with the King to confirm the reports Of Adoniyahu's behavior (15-27). King David responds by instructing that Shlomo should be anointed as King immediately, in his own lifetime (28-31). The notion that Shlomo was actually anointed as King in the lifetime of King David is somewhat problematic, as it appears to contradict the Talmud's statement that G-d told King David, "The time of your son Shlomo's monarchy has come, but one monarch will not overlap the other, even by a hairsbreadth" (Shabbos 30a), We also have the rule that "two kings cannot use the same crown" (Chulin 60b).
However, Shlomo's appointment in David's lifetime brings to light the distinctive quality of Davidic sovereignty. In the case of ordinary kings, the monarchy merely represents the prevailing seat of power, which comes with the appointment of a king (and not a naturally endowed quality). Since it is only possible for one person to be the final authority, it follows that there can only be one king at any given time, for the term "king" has no implication other than "authority."
However, a king from the House of David possesses the rights to the monarchy as an inherent, personal quality. Thus, the concept of kingship could be revealed in two (or more) people at any one time, even though only one of them is the practical, final authority.
Consequently, the anointing of Shlomo in his father’s lifetime was a process which catalyzed the fruition of Shlomo's inherent kingly qualities. The anointing accomplished that Shlomo's ingrained nobility should no longer remain a latent talent.
Therefore, he could now be termed a king (despite the fact that he was not an acting ruler empowered with authority), as the anointing successfully brought out his royal attributes from 'potential' to 'actual' (Likkutei Sichot vol. 30, p. 97ff).
1. In the Haftorah of our Parsha (in the beginning of Sefer Melachim) it states the chain of events that led to David’s oath to Bat Sheva:
"As I swore to you by the Lord G-d of Israel saying, 'Surely Shlomo, your son, shall reign after me and he shall sit on my throne in my stead,' surely, so will I swear this day."
In the flow of the verses, it is told that David commanded Tzadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and to Benaiahu ben Yehoyada to:
“cause Shlomo my son to ride on my own mule”
(This will be a positive sign that he will reign and the beginning of his advancement to greatness since a commoner is forbidden to ride on the king’s horse”- Rashi)
It further states:
“And Tzadok the priest and Nathan the prophet shall anoint him there as king over Israel, and blow the horn and say, "(Long) live King Shlomo”.
They actually did this while David was alive, as it states further on in Scripture.
So much so that Yonatan ben Evyatar the Kohen told to Adoniyahu that:
“And also Shlomo was sitting on the throne of the kingdom . . And also this the king said, "Blessed be the Lord, the G-d of Israel, who has given this day one to sit on my throne, and my eyes seeing (it).'"
Subsequently it states that Adoniyahu feared Shlomo and grabbed the horns of the altar, in order that Shlomo not kill him for rebelling against is sovereignty.
From this it appears that with David‘s words “Surely, so will I swear this day“. (In other words not just a promise that Shlomo would rule after David’s passing, but) he meant that Shlomo was crowned as king in David’s lifetime.
One must understand:
However, we find many that ruled in their father’s lifetime like Yehoshaphat who crowned Yoram two years during his lifetime; Achazihu who ruled during the lifetime of his father Yehoram and Uzziah in the days of his father Amatzyahu, and also others)
However, there the kingship passed from the father to the son, and the kingship of the father was nullified (since he was not able to rule, due to illness, and so forth).
As is explained in the commentators, this is like what is written in the Responsa of the Rashba (and it is cited in the Rama) that a “Shliach Tzibbur (one who leads the congregation in prayers) that becomes old and wants to appoint his son to assist him, at times .. that if he fills his father’s duties in other matters, then his son precedes every other person (for the role)” and similarly this pertains to the aspect of inheriting the kingship. For when the father is not able to rule, for whatever reason, the son merits the monarchy, in accordance with the law of inheritance (in the lifetime of the father).
Whereas, in our case, even though this was when “king David was old”, it is explained in Divrei HaYamim that David actually ruled even after Shlomo was anointed as king.
This is not similar to the time that David fled from his son Absalom (in the middle of his kingship).
where it states in the Yerushalmi that “all those six months during which David was fleeing from Absalom his son, he was making atonement offerings with a she-goat, like a commoner”
For this was against his will (because of his fleeing from Absalom). However, it is not logical that the monarchy should pass from his hand, of his own volition, during his lifetime.
Especially since some say that even during those six months, he had the status of king. However, with regard to a she-goat, there is a special law that it only pertains to one “who has no one superior to him in his sovereignty except, G-d, his L-rd”. And since David was then being pursued and was afraid because of Absalom his son, this is not called “no one superior to him in his sovereignty except, G-d, his L-rd“, in actuality.
It is simple that this is not, at all, similar to that which we find with regard to the Davidic kings, and the kings of Yisroel ruling at the same time.
For according to the view of Rambam:
“If a prophet appoints a king from any other tribe of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and Mitzvot and fights the wars of G-d, he is considered as a king, and all the
For there, the two kings were in two different places, this one in Yehuda and the other in Yisroel.
(This is in addition to the difference in the type of the monarchy. For this one was from the kings of the house of David, and that one from the king of Yisroel, which are different in their essence, as will be explained at length).
2. It is seemingly possible to explain this according to the words of the Talmud:
“The Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to establish another David for the Jewish people (as the Messiah), as it is stated: “And they shall serve the Lord their G-d, and David their king, whom I will establish for them” (Jeremiah 30:9). It is not stated: I established, but “I will establish”. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But isn’t it written: “And my servant David shall be their prince forever” (Ezekiel 37:25), (indicating that King David himself will rule over the Jewish people?) Abaye said: (They will rule in tandem) like an emperor and a viceroy (כגון קיסר ופלגי קיסר).”
“A king and his second-in-command, so too will be the new David will be king as it states: “David their king, whom I will establish for them” and the second David will be second to him as it states “shall be their prince” and it does not state “king" (Rashi).
From this, it is understood that even in the Davidic dynasty itself, there is the possibility of two boundaries in its kingship- “an emperor and a viceroy “. According to this, it is possible to say that a semblance of this was also in the beginning of Malchut Beit David (the Davidic dynasty) - in the kingship of Shlomo and David, where both of them were kings. However it was similar to “an emperor and a viceroy“.
However, even this is difficult:
For it is simple that these two “kings” are not equal in their power of their sovereignty And as the Talmud states there “viceroy“ (ופלגי קיסר) (half a king), “and second to him“. We do not find that in that time, one of them (David or Shlomo) was in a manner of “second to him“.
3. One could explain this by prefacing the words of Rambam with regard to the inheritance of the monarchy.
“Once a king is anointed, he and his descendants are granted the monarchy until eternity, for the monarchy is passed down by inheritance, as Deuteronomy 17:20 states 'Thus, he the king and his descendants will prolong their reign in the midst of Israel.’. .
Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel, are transferred to one's children and grandchildren as inheritances forever. The above applies if the knowledge and the fear of G-d of the son is equivalent to that of his ancestors.”
And afterward he continues with regard to Malchut Beit David:
“Once David was anointed king, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendants forever, as II Samuel 7: 16 states: 'Your throne shall be established forever.' Nevertheless, his acquisition of the monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendants, ..Despite the condition that only those proper merited this, G-d assured David that the monarchy would never be taken from his descendants forever”
Rambam’s words seemingly require explanation:
What innovation is Rambam telling us with his lengthy words regarding the monarchy of David:
“Once David was anointed king, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendants forever . . Nevertheless, his acquisition of the monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendants etc. “
These are the very words that were written previously with regard to all kings (and not just regarding kingship but all positions of authority and appointments in Israel). What is the innovation of King David with regard to the other kings?
Seemingly one could say that even though “monarchy is passed down by inheritance”, nevertheless it is possible that the monarchy should cease from his descendants. if he has no son that is fitting to fill the father‘s place in wisdom and fear. This is the innovation of Malchut Beit David, namely that G-d promised that “the monarchy would never be taken from his descendants forever“. Whereas with the other kings (and also the other positions of authority) even though it is an inheritance, there is no guarantee and promise that it will not cease with his descendants.
However, it is difficult to say that this alone is the intent of Rambam. For the essence of this aspect is written by Rambam in the continuation of the chapter.
“The kings of the Davidic dynasty will prevail forever (II Samuel 7:16): 'Your throne shall be established forever.' In contrast, should a king arise from other Israelites, the monarchy will eventually cease from his descendants.”
Why does Rambam repeat his previous words again concerning this promise to David, namely that his kingship will last forever?
From this that Rambam includes this aspect of “the monarchy would never be taken from his descendants forever “ with the specific details of the laws of inheritance of kingship, it appears that this is not just a secondary aspect (ענין צדדי). (Namely, that G-d promised him that, in actuality, his kingship would last forever). Rather, this relates to the essence of the scope of the inheriting the monarchy with regard to the Davidic kings. In other words, there is a critical difference between the inheritance of Malchut Beit David versus that of the inheritance of the monarchy of the other kings (and the other aspects of authority and appointments in Yisroel).
This is explained in another place, regarding the precise wording of Rambam:
“Once David was anointed king, he acquired the crown of kingship (Keter Malchut). Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendants forever“.
In other words, David merited not just the kingship/ Malchut but also the “crown of kingship (Keter Malchut)”. For “Keter Malchut” is not found except by the Davidic kings, solely.
Similarly, Rambam writes afterward:
“If a prophet appoints a king from any other tribe of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and Mitzvot and fights the wars of G-d, he is considered as a king, and all the commandments associated with the monarchy apply to him. Although the kingship was primarily given to David” (עיקר המלכות).
In other words even though all laws of a king, apply to a king from the other tribes of Yisroel, nevertheless, he does not possess the “primary kingship” (עיקר המלכות). For this applies only to David’s descendants alone.
Therefore Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvot that any king that is not from:
“This distinguished lineage is considered a "foreigner" (as far as kingship is concerned), just as any Jew who does not descend from Aaron is considered a "foreigner" as far as serving in the Holy Temple. “
For Malchut Beit David is a completely different object with regard to monarchy.
4. The explanation of this is:
The aspect of kingship can occur in two manners:
This is the aspect of “Keter Malchut” that David merited “to him and to his male descendants forever“. Not just they should actually rule, but that they are kings, in their essence. This is the aspect of “primary kingship” that applies only to David’s descendants. For it is not just the conduct of the kingship, but it is the loftiness in the soul (ההתנשאות שבנפש), that was given to David and his descendants forever.
According to this, one can understand the connections of the words in Rambam. Namely, that in the continuation to the laws of the inheritance of the monarchy (and the all other positions of authority and appointments in Israel) he precisely writes concerning the inheritance of Malchut Beit David, that it is in a manner of “it will never be taken from his descendants forever”. For this is not a secondary promise (הבטחה צדדית), but an aspect that is necessary from the perspective of the essential scope of Malchut Beit David.
When the kingship is just in a manner of appointment in order to fill a role, this is an additional thing to the being of the person. Therefore, cessation is possible.
However, regarding Malchut Beit David, they are kings in essence. This makes their being and their root, that the power of the kingship and the loftiness is rooted in the essence of their souls. Therefore, cessation in this is not applicable. It passes automatically from father to his son.
5. According to all this, it is understood that there is a foundational difference in the scope of the inheritance of the monarchy between Malchut Beit David and the other kings (and all other positions of authority and appointments in Yisroel).
With other kings, where it is just the inheritance of the role, this is similar to all inheritances. Namely, that the inheritor has “ownership” on a specific role (similar to his other wealth and property of which he is the owner) that he bequeaths to his son (like the emphasis of Rambam here that “The order of inheritance of the monarchy is the same as that governing the inheritance of property. An older son is given precedence over a younger one”.
Whereas regarding Malchut Beit David, this is not like the inheritance of property, but it is an aspect that comes automatically. For since “he merited the crown of kingship“, “the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendants forever“. This means that automatically, the power of the kingship is imbued in them forever.
(According to this, one could say that the reason that Rambam writes, with regard to Malchut Beit David that
“The monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendants“
is that it is not an aspect of condition for the inheritance of the monarchy, that he writes of before this:
“if the knowledge and the fear of G-d of the son is equivalent to that of his ancestors “,
but that they are two different things
The condition of “fulfilling the place of his father in wisdom and fear“ relates to the inheritance of the role of the kingship. For only one who has wisdom and fear is able to conduct the kingship properly
Whereas the intent of Rambam’s statement that it is “conditional, applying only to the righteous“ relates to the aspect of the inheritance of “Keter Malchut”. For the power of kingship that is unique to Malchut Beit David, does not pass except to his proper descendants (כשרים), and not to his descendants that are not fitting. They do not merit the “Keter Malchut” (“it was not merited except to the proper ones“)
6. According to the aforementioned, we find (נחתינן) another foundational difference between the Israelite kings and Malchut Beit David – with regard to the condition of the father in the lifetime of the son.
With other kings (and all the authority and appointments in Israel), where the scope of the monarchy is just a role of the kingship, it is understood that as long as the father lives and functions (as long as his father still reigns), for the role of the kingship only applies to one person. And even if he is a son that is fitting to fill the place of his father- as long as his G-d rules, the son has no claim on the monarchy (like the inheritance of property, that as long as the inheritor is alive, the son has no claim of ownership on the father ‘s possessions) . He is just in the realm of being fit to inherit.
Whereas, with the Malchut Beit David, since they possess the “Keter Malchut”, namely that the power of kingship, is embedded in the essence of their souls, this is something that exists even during the lifetime of his father.
According to this, one could say that this was the act of David in crowning Shlomo, in his lifetime.
Even though Shlomo merited the “Keter Malchut” immediately when he was born, since he was a legitimate descendent, and he possessed the power of kingship, in essence. Nevertheless, as long as David was alive and actually reigned, the power of kingship of Shlomo was just in “in potential” and not “actual”. For there was no certainty that he would actually reign.
(This not only applies to Shlomo, who had other brothers and therefore, there was no certainty that he would be king, but even with regard to an only son, it is possible that he would die in his father’s lifetime and would never actually reign.)
However, through David’s choosing of his son Shlomo and commanding that he be anointed, this caused the name ‘king” (שם מלך) to apply to Shlomo.in other words, not just that in the future he would inherit the kingship from David, but that he actually possesses the name of king (since he merited the “Keter Malchut”).
This is not a contradiction to the maxim that:
“Two kings cannot use the same crown“(אין שני מלכים משתמשים בכתר אחד).
For the precise meaning of this is that they cannot both “utilize” one crown. In other words, actually conduct the kingship. For it is not possible to be shared by two people at the same time. (Moreover, especially since people’s thoughts are not the same etc.)
or “one reign may not overlap another even by a hairbreadth “.
However the essential name of king, which is dependent of “Keter Malchut” and the power of the monarchy that was given to David and his descendants forever is possible ”to be in force (לחול) on two people at the same time.
(On a deeper level, one could say that the name “king” that falls on Shlomo, does not contradict the name “king” of David. for they are the same thing. For the “Keter Malchut” of Shlomo is the same “Keter Malchut” of David (and the same is with all the Malchut Beit David, that their “Keter Malchut” is the same crown. This is alluded to by the sages’ statement that the sign of (a proper) Davidic king is that the crown of David “fits him perfectly”. For the royal crown of Malchut Beit David is one essence. Moreover, one could say that this is the essential power of the kingship, which is above division.)
The same is in our case. The conduct of the monarchy was actually (just through David,
(And if we find aspects of the monarchy, with regard to Shlomo, during David’s lifetime, this is just in the service of David his father, and not as a separate monarchy).
However nevertheless the name “king” applied to Shlomo in David’s lifetime (after he was anointed) since he possessed the “Keter Malchut”.
7. One could add an explanation in this matter. For we find an aspect like this, namely a king in the lifetime of his father (where the monarchy was not usurped from the father) – only regarding David and Shlomo:
Rambam’s words are well-known namely that:
“There is no king, for those who believe in the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu, except one from the descendants of David and from the descendants of Shlomo“ (and this is in the twelfth principle of the thirteen Articles of Faith).
With this it answers the words of the Talmud : “David and Shlomo, who were anointed with oil from a horn, their kingship continued “.For seemingly how does it fit to add “and Shlomo” (as if this was a separate monarchy). Shlomo’s monarchy was an inheritance of David’s monarchy (and the anointing of Shlomo was just “to remove the dispute” of Adoniyahu)?
However, since Shlomo’s monarchy (and his anointing) contains also the beginning of a new aspect, for the eternality of Malchut Beit David, that it is “forever”, was effected specifically through David and Shlomo together.
According to this, one could say that, because of this reason both of them were kings at the same time. For in this time, this aspect of their monarchy came to expression. Namely that because of both of them it is an eternal kingship.
MSichas Yud-Beis and Tes-Vav Tammuz 5745
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|