Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 1, scan section 48

slander? This difficulty remains. What was it ? That which is written [II Samuel, ix. 4]: "And the king said unto him. Where is he ? And Ziba said unto the king, Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of 'Ammiel, in {F) Lo-debar"; farther on it is written [ibid. 5]: "And David the king sent, and had him taken out of the house of Machir, the son of 'Am- miel, from {in) Lo-debar."* Thus, when David found him " doing something (good)," whereas Ziba informed the King that he was " doing nothing (good)," hence David was con- vinced that Ziba was a liar; why, then, did David give heed to his slander afterwards, for it is written [ibid. xvi. 3]: " And the king said. And where is thy master's son ? And Ziba said unto the king. Behold, he remaineth at Jerusalem; for he said, To-day will the house of Israel restore unto me the kingdom of my father." But whence the adduction that David accepted slander? From what is written further [ibid. 4]: "Then said the king to Ziba, Behold, thine shall be all that pertaineth to Mephibosheth. And Ziba said," etc. Samuel said : David did not accept slander. He (himself) saw in Mephibosheth's conduct that which corroborated Ziba's calumny, as it is written [ibid. xix. 25]: "And Mephibosheth the (grand-)son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had not dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes." (This was considered disrespect); further, it is writ- ten [ibid. 28]: "And he slandered thy servant unto my lord the king," etc.; and further [ibid. 31]: "And Mephibosheth said unto the king. Yea, let him take the whole, since that my lord the king is come (back) in peace unto his own house." Now, this last verse (read between the lines) really means: " I have anticipated your safe arrival home with anxiety, and since you act toward me in such a manner, I have nothing to com- plain of to you but to Him who brought you safely back." R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: " Had David not given heed to slander, the kingdom of the house of David would never have been divided, neither would Israel have worshipped idols, nor would we have been exiled from our land." The same rabbi said : He who believes Solomon guilty of * The literal translation of the Hebrew word Blo-debar is : he does nothing (good) ; of Mlo-debar : he is very busy (doing something good). Upon the differ- ence in the two literal meanings of the two words Rabh bases the untruth of Ziba's statement. TRACT SABBATH. 105 idolatry is in error. This theory agrees with R. Nathan, who points to a contradiction between the two following passages in the very same verse [I Kings, xi. 4] : " And it came to pass, at the time when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart," etc.; and farther on [ibid., ibid.] it says: "Like the heart of David his father." While his heart was not as perfect as that of his father David, still he did not sin. Therefore it must be said that it means, his wives turned away his heart toward idolatry, but still he did not practise it. This is sup- ported by the following Boraitha: R. Jossi said: It is written [II Kings, iii. 13]: "And the high places that were before Jerusalem, which were to the right of the mount of destruction, which Solomon the King of Israel had built for Ashthoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians," etc. Is it possible that neither Assa nor Jehosophath had cleared them out before Josiah ? Did not Assa and Jehosophath abolish idolatry in Judea ? It follows, then, that as Josiah is given credit by the verse in the Scripture for having abolished the worship of Ashthoreth, the abomination of the Zidonians, although at his time it had been out of existence for a long time, this was done merely because he (Josiah) had abolished other later forms of idolatry; the same rule is followed in the case of Solomon ; while he himself did not build the Ashthoreth of the Zidonians, the fact that he did not prevent his wives from doing so makes him responsible in the same measure as if he had committed the deed himself. But is it not written [I Kings, xi. 6] : " And Solomon did what is evil in the eyes of the Lord " ? This is also written merely because it was in his power to prevent the actions of his wives, and he did not do so; hence the Scripture ascribes the deed to him, as if he himself had committed it. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: It would have been better for him (Solomon) to have been an actual hireling to idol- atry than to be accused of doing what is evil in the eyes of the Lord. Again R. Jehudah said in Samuel's name: At the time Solo- mon took in wedlock the daughter of Pharaoh, she brought to him about a thousand different musical instruments. Each of these was used for separate idols, which she named to him, and still he did not protest against it. The same said again in the name of the same authority: At the time Solomon took in wedlock Pharaoh's daughter (the angel) Gabriel came down and planted a cane in the sea; on the lo6 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. sand that accumulated around the cane a great city was after- ward built ; but in a Boraitha we were taught that the miracle occurred on the day that Jeroboam introduced the two golden calves, one each in Beth-El and Dan, and that great city was Italia of Greece.^ R. Samuel said: Whoever says Josiah sinned is also in error. It is written [II Kings, xxii. 2] : " And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord and walked in the ways of David his father and turned not aside to the right or to the left." Is this not contradictory to the verse [II Kings, xxiii. 25], " that returned to the Lord with all his heart." How is the " returned " to be understood ? He must have sinned in order to return ? Nay; from this it must be inferred that after Josiah attained the age of eighteen, he refunded from his private purse all amounts paid by such as he had declared guilty (bound to pay) from the time he was eight years old (when he became king). This is the interpretation of " returned to the Lord." However, this differs from Rabh's following statement: " None is greater among penitents than Josiah in his time and one in our own time. And who is he? Aba, the father of Jeremiah b. Aba. Others say Aha, the brother of Aba, father of Jeremiah b. Aba, for the aforesaid teacher said Aba and Aha were brothers. Said R. Joseph : There is yet another in our own time, and he is Ukban b. Ne'hemiah, the Exilarch.f " Once while studying," said R. Joseph, " I dozed off and saw in a dream an angel stretching out his hands and accepting his (Ukban's) repentance." * Rashi added to this that the Romans took away this city from the Greeks, and therefore the Roman kingdom is called Italy ; we, however, deem it an error, as we