English translation — חיי שרה ג

Sicha 3<pg>97</pg>

A.

In the haftarah of our parshah

(at the beginning of the book of Kings)

it is told¹

about the chain of events that led to David's oath to Bathsheba: "For as I swore to you by the Lord, the God of Israel, saying, 'Surely Solomon your son will reign after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place,' so I will certainly do this day."²

And in the continuation of the verses³

it is told that David commanded Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet and Benaiah son of Jehoiada to mount "Solomon my son on the mule which is mine"

("a sign for him that he will reign and the beginning of greatness that a commoner does not ride on the king's horse"),

"and let Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him there as king over Israel etc. and you shall say, 'Long live King Solomon'"⁴,

and so they did in practice during David's lifetime,

and as it is written in the continuation of the verses⁵,

until Jonathan son of Abiathar the priest told my lord how Solomon had become king,

"and also Solomon sat on the throne of the kingdom",

"and also thus said the king, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who has given today one to sit on my throne while my eyes see it'"⁶,

and my lord feared King Solomon and grasped the horns of the altar so that Solomon would not kill him for rebelling against his kingdom⁷.

And from this it appears,

that what David said "for so I will do this day" means

(not only a promise that Solomon would reign after David's passing,

but)

that Solomon was crowned king during David's lifetime⁸.

And it requires explanation: a)

Behold, Hashem said to David<sup>9</sup>

"Already the kingship of Solomon your son has arrived, and one kingdom does not touch another even as much as a hair's breadth,"

which implies from this that the kingship of Solomon did not begin until after the passing of David.

b)

And in general, behold, it is impossible for two kings to use one crown<sup>10</sup>

(and as the saying<sup>11</sup>

one thing for a generation, etc.),

and as above that "one kingdom does not touch another even as much as a hair's breadth"<sup>12</sup>?

We find indeed several who reigned during the lifetimes of their fathers

(like Jehoshaphat who crowned Jehoram in his lifetime for two years<sup>13</sup>,

Ahaziah who reigned during the lifetime of Jehoram his father<sup>14</sup>,

Uzziah in the days of his father Amaziah<sup>15</sup>,

and others similar to this),

but there the kingship passed from the father to the son,

and the kingship of the father was nullified<pg>98</pg>

(since he was not fit to reign due to illness and the like),

and as explained in the commentaries¹⁶,

that it is in the manner of what is said in the Responsa of the Rashba¹⁷

(and brought in the Rema¹⁸)

regarding a shaliach tzibbur who aged and wants to appoint his son to assist him occasionally..

that if he fills his place in other matters, his son precedes any person",

and similarly regarding the inheritance of the monarchy,

that when the father cannot reign for some reason, the son merits the monarchy by way of inheritance

(during the father's lifetime)

; but not in our case,

even though this was at the time that "King David was old"¹⁹,

it is explicit in Chronicles²⁰

that David reigned in practice also after Solomon was anointed king²¹.

And this is not comparable to the time when David fled from Absalom his son

(in the middle of his reign),

and it is stated in the Yerushalmi²²

that "those six months that David fled from Absalom, he was atoned for as a commoner through a goat",

for this was against his will

(due to his flight from Absalom),

but it is not reasonable that he would transfer the monarchy from his hand willingly in his lifetime.

And in particular that there are those who say²³,

that even during those six months he had the status of a king²⁴,

except that regarding Seir there is a special law that applies only to one "over whom there is none but Hashem his God"²⁵,

and since David was then pursued and feared Avshalom, he is not actually called "over whom there is none but Hashem his God".

And it is obvious that this is not at all comparable to what we find of kings of the House of David and kings of Israel at the same time,

and according to the Rambam²⁶

"A prophet who appointed a king from the other tribes of Israel etc. — this one is a king, and all the laws of kingship apply to him" — because there the two kings are in two different places,

this one in Yehudah and this one in Israel

[in addition to the distinction in the type of kingship, that this one is from the kings of the House of David and this one from the kings of Israel,

which differ in their essence,

as will be explained at length below].

2.

At first glance, it would be possible to explain this,

based on the words of the Gemara²⁷

"In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will establish for them another David, as it is said²⁸

and they shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them,

it is not said 'I raised up' but 'I will raise up.' Said R. Papa to Abaye: But is it not written²⁹

and My servant David shall be a prince to them forever? Like Caesar and the vice-Caesar,"

"A king and a second to him. So the new David is king, as it is written 'David their king whom I will raise up,' and King David is second to him, as it is written 'a prince to them' and not written 'king'"

(Rashi)³⁰.

From this it is understood,

that also in the monarchy of the House of David itself,

there is a possibility of two categories in the monarchy,

<pg>99</pg>

Caesar and the vice-Caesar,

and accordingly it is possible to say something similar also at the beginning of the monarchy of the House of David,

in the monarchy of Solomon and David,

that both of them were kings,

except that they are in the manner of Caesar and the vice-Caesar.

But this is also forced,

for it is simple that these two "kings" are not equal in the strength of their kingship,

and like the language of the Gemara "and half a Caesar"

(half a Caesar),

"and second to him",

and we do not find that at that time there was one of the two

(David or Solomon)

in a manner of "second to him".

3.

And one may say regarding this,

with an introduction of the explanation of the words of the Rambam concerning the inheritance of the kingship,

and this is his language³¹

: "Since they anoint the king, behold this one merits it for himself and for his sons forever, for the kingship is an inheritance, as it is said³²

so that he may prolong his days over his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel..

And not only the kingship, but all the offices and all the appointments in Israel are an inheritance for his son and his son's son forever,

provided that the son fills the place of his fathers in wisdom and in fear of Heaven",

and afterwards the Rambam continues regarding the kingship of the House of David "Since David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship, and behold the kingship is for him and for his male sons forever, as it is said³³

Your throne shall be established forever, and he merited only for the worthy etc. Even though he merited only for the worthy, the monarchy will never be cut off from the seed of David,

the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him thus etc.".

And superficially, the words of the Rambam require explanation: what does the Rambam teach us in the length of his words about the kingship of David,

"Since David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship, and behold the kingship is his and his sons' the males forever etc., and only the worthy merited etc." — these are precisely the things he wrote above regarding every king

(and not only kingship but every authority and appointment in Israel),

and what is the novelty in King David compared to the other kings?

Superficially, one could say,

that even though "kingship is an inheritance,"

nevertheless it is possible that the kingship will cease from his seed because he will not have a son fit to fill the place of his fathers in wisdom and fear [of Heaven],

and this is the novelty in the kingship of the House of David,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that "the monarchy will never be cut off from the seed of David,"

unlike other kings

(and likewise in other authorities),

that even though it is an inheritance,

there is no necessity and promise that it will not cease from his seed.

But it is difficult to say that this alone is the intent of the Rambam — for the content of this matter the Rambam writes later in the chapter³⁴,

and his language is: "The kings of the house of David are those who stand forever, as it is said, 'Your throne shall be established forever'; but if a king from the rest of Israel stands, the monarchy will cease from his house",

and why did he repeat his words explicitly regarding this promise to David,

that his kingdom will be established forever?

And furthermore: from the fact that the Rambam included this matter that "the monarchy will never be cut off from the seed of David forever" with the details of the laws of inheritance of the monarchy,

it implies,

that this is not a tangential matter

(that the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that in practice his kingdom will be established forever),

but rather this pertains to the very definition of the inheritance of the monarchy regarding the kings of the house of David.

And this means that there is a fundamental difference between the inheritance of the monarchy of the house of David and the inheritance of the monarchy regarding other kings

(and other matters of authority and appointments in Israel).

And it was explained elsewhere³⁵

According to the precise wording of the Rambam: "Since David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship, and behold the kingship is his and his male descendants forever,"

That is, David merited not only<pg>100</pg>

to "kingship" but to "the crown of kingship,"

that "the crown of kingship" is found only in the kings of the house of David alone.

And similarly the Rambam writes afterwards³⁶

"A prophet who appointed a king from the rest of the tribes of Israel, etc., behold he is a king, and all the laws of kingship apply to him, even though the essence of kingship is for David, etc." — behold, that although all the laws of the king apply to the king from the rest of the tribes of Israel,

nevertheless, there is not in him "the essence of kingship," which belongs to the seed of David alone.

And therefore the Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvot³⁷

that any king who is not from this honored seed,

regarding the monarchy of a non-Jew we read about him, just as any other seed besides the seed of Aharon regarding the service of a foreign god we read about him" — because the monarchy of the House of David is a different entity in the matter of kingship.

D.

And the explanation of this:

The concept of kingship can be in two manners: a)

The function of monarchy,

which are the actions and conducts of monarchy

(In the language of the verse³⁸

"that which goes out..

and that which comes in before them",

and also the details that Samuel the prophet explained³⁹).

b)

A king in essence⁴⁰,

meaning that he is an elevated person in essence

(and in a manner of automatically he conducts himself as a king).

And this is the concept of "the crown of kingship" that David merited,

"for him and for his sons, the males, forever" — not only that they will reign in actuality,

but that they will be kings in essence.

And it is the "essence of kingship" that belongs to the seed of David alone,

because it is not only the conduct of monarchy,

but the elevation in the soul,

that was given to David and his seed forever.

And based on this, the connection of the matters in the Rambam is understood,

that in continuation of the laws of inheritance of the monarchy

(and other positions of authority and their appointments in Israel),

he writes about the inheritance of the monarchy of the House of David,

and he specifies that it is in a manner that "the monarchy will never be cut off from the seed of David forever" — this is not a side promise,

but a matter that is necessary from the very definition of the monarchy of the House of David:

When the monarchy is only in a manner of an appointment to fulfill a role,

it is something additional to the existence of the person,

and accordingly, cessation is applicable to it; but not so regarding the monarchy of the House of David,

it is that they are kings inherently,

this becomes their essence and core,

that the power of monarchy and elevation is ingrained in their very soul,

and accordingly, cessation is not applicable to it,

and it passes automatically from father to son.

5.

Based on all the above, it is understood,

that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the inheritance of the monarchy between the kings of the House of David and other kings

(and likewise all the offices and appointments)

in Israel:

By other kings, which is only an inheritance of the position, this is similar to any inheritance of an estate,

that the bequeather has "ownership" over a certain position

(in the manner of his other property and possessions over which he is the owner),

that he bequeaths to his children

(and as the Rambam emphasizes here⁴¹

"Whoever comes first to the inheritance precedes to the inheritance of the monarchy")

;

But not so regarding the monarchy of the house of David, this is not like an inheritance of property,

but rather it is a matter that comes in a spontaneous manner,

that by virtue of that "David merited the crown of monarchy",

"behold the monarchy is his and his sons forever",

that in a spontaneous manner the power of monarchy is ingrained in them forever.

[And based on this, one can say,

that what the Rambam⁴¹ wrote

regarding the kings of the house of David "and he merited only the fit" is not related to the condition of the inheritance of the monarchy<pg>101</pg>

that he wrote previously "and it is that the son will fill the place of his forefathers in wisdom and fear" — but they are two different things: the condition of "filling the place of his forefathers in wisdom and fear" pertains to the inheritance of the role of kingship,

for only one who has wisdom and fear can lead the kingship properly; but the intention of the Rambam "and he merited only the fit" is regarding the inheritance of the "crown of kingship",

that the power of kingship unique to the kings of the house of David passes only to his fit descendants,

and not to his descendants who are not fit,

for they do not merit the crown of kingship

("he merited only the fit")].

6.

And now, based on the above we descend to another fundamental difference between the kings of Israel and the kings of the house of David — regarding the status of the son during the lifetime of the father:

By other kings

(and all authorities)

whose kingship is only the function of monarchy,

it is understood,

that as long as the father is alive and well,

it is impossible for any aspect of kingship to take effect upon the son

(as long as his father still reigns),

because the function of monarchy is possible only for one.

And even if he is a son worthy to fill the place of his fathers — nevertheless, as long as his father reigns, the son has nothing in the matter of kingship

(like in the inheritance of assets,

that as long as the testator is alive, the son has no ownership over the father's assets),

and he is only in the category of one fit to inherit him⁴².

But not so by the kings of the house of David,

since there is with them a crown of kingship,

that the power of kingship is ingrained in their very essence,

so this is a matter that exists even during his father's lifetime⁴³.

And based on this, one can say that this was the action of David in crowning Solomon during his lifetime:

Even though Solomon merited the crown of kingship immediately from when he was born,

being a worthy seed,

and he had the power of kingship inherently,

Nevertheless,

as long as David was alive and reigned in actuality,

the power of kingship of Solomon is only "in potential" and not "in actuality",

for there is no necessity that he will reign in actuality

[Not only regarding Solomon, who had other brothers and there is no certainty that he would be the king,

but even if it were a case of an only son,

it is possible that the son might die during the father's lifetime and never reign in actuality]

;

But through David's choice of Solomon his son and his command to anoint him,

there was thereby placed upon Solomon the name of king,

meaning not only that he is destined to inherit the kingship from David,

but rather there is upon him the name of king in actuality

(because he merited the "crown of kingship").

And this is not a contradiction to the rule that two kings do not use one crown — for the precision in this is "use one crown",

i.e., the actual conduct of kingship,

which cannot be done by two at once

(and especially since their opinions are not equal etc.⁴⁴),

and one kingdom does not touch another even as much as a hair's breadth; but the essence of the name of king,

which depends on the "crown of kingship" and the power of kingship given to David and his seed forever,

can apply to two at one time.

[And on a deeper level one could say,

that the "name of king" that applies to Shlomo is not in contradiction to the name of king of David — because they are identical,

that the "crown of royalty" of Shlomo is nothing other than the "crown of royalty" of David

(and so too with all the kings of the house of David,

that the "crown of royalty"&lt;pg&gt;102&lt;/pg&gt;

of theirs is that same crown,

and as hinted in Chazal&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

that the sign for the kings of the house of David is that the crown of David "fits him"),

for the crown of royalty of the kings of the house of David is one essence,

and one could say that it is the very essence of the power of kingship,

which is above division].

And so in our matter,

that the conduct of the monarchy was in practice

(only)

by David⁴⁶

(And if we find matters of the conduct of the monarchy by Solomon during David's lifetime,

this is only by the agency of his father David⁴⁷,

and not as a separate monarchy)^*47

; but nevertheless the title king applied to Solomon during David's lifetime

(after he was anointed⁴⁸),

since there is with him a "crown of kingship".

7.

And one may add explanation in this that we find such a matter — a king during the father's lifetime

(when the kingship is not removed from the father)

— only by David and Solomon:

Known are the words of the Rambam

"There is no king for one who believes the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu except from the seed of David and from the seed of Shlomo specifically"

(And this is included in the twelfth principle of the thirteen principles).

And with this is resolved the language of the Gemara

"David and Shlomo who were anointed with a horn, their kingdom continued",

for superficially, how does it fit to add "and Shlomo"

(as if this is a separate kingdom),

and behold the kingdom of Shlomo was an inheritance of the kingdom of David

(and the anointing of Shlomo was only "to settle the dispute" because of my master)?

Rather, because the kingdom of Shlomo

(and his anointing)

has in it also the beginning of a new matter,

for the eternity of the kingdom of the house of David "forever" is effected specifically through David and Shlomo together.

And based on this, it can be said,

that for this reason they were both kings at the same time,

for in this time was expressed this matter in their kingdom,

that because of both of them it is an eternal kingdom.

(From sichos of 12 and 15 Tammuz 5745)