Chapter 3 of Sefer Melachim A is the chapter in which the figure of Shlomo HaMelech is revealed in its full power: from the political consolidation of the kingdom, through the revelation at Givon and the request for wisdom, up to the famous judgment in which the wisdom of God within him is displayed. We will proceed according to the order of the pesukim, mainly following the approach of the Malbim, and we will add the words of the commentators and the Midrashim.
וַיִּתְחַתֵּן שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם וַיִּקַּח אֶת־בַּת־פַּרְעֹה וַיְבִיאֶהָ אֶל־עִיר דָּוִד עַד כַּלֹּתוֹ לִבְנוֹת אֶת־בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהֹוָה וְאֶת־חוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלִַם סָבִיב׃ - And Shlomo made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter and brought her to the City of David, until he finished building his own house and the House of Hashem and the wall of Yerushalayim all around.
After we saw in the previous chapter that Shlomo takes care to eliminate all the opponents at home, here he begins to forge ties abroad as well. He marries the mightiest and strongest king of that time, Pharaoh king of Egypt. However, this marriage is not according to the Torah: even though Chazal say that Shlomo converted her, regarding an Egyptian it says "the third generation" - until the third generation it is forbidden to marry into that family, and even after conversion three generations are still forbidden. Yet Shlomo converted her and married her immediately. Therefore, according to the definition of the Ralbag, there is here a slight departure from the ways of the Torah, the beginning of an act not in accordance with the ways of the Torah.
And do not say: Chazal expounded "an Ammonite but not an Ammonite woman," and perhaps here too we should say "an Egyptian man but not an Egyptian woman." That derashah was said only concerning an Ammonite and a Moavite, and not concerning an Egyptian man and an Egyptian woman, and likewise not concerning a mamzer and a mamzeret. The reason, as the Gemara explains, is that specifically there it says "because of the matter that they did not greet you with bread and water," and it is the way of the man to greet and not the woman. But in all other places where the Torah writes in the masculine form, the intent includes both male and female.
רַק הָעָם מְזַבְּחִים בַּבָּמוֹת כִּי לֹא־נִבְנָה בַיִת לְשֵׁם יְהֹוָה עַד הַיָּמִים הָהֵם׃ - Only the people were sacrificing on the high places, because no House had been built for the Name of Hashem until those days.
The verse comes to say: know that the kingdom of Shlomo was firmly established both at home and abroad. At home - as we saw in the crushing of enemies; abroad - as we saw in the forging of ties with a mighty kingdom like Egypt. But there was one shortcoming, that they were still sacrificing on the high places.
One must know that this problem of sacrificing and burning offerings on the high places accompanied Israel for many years, and even in the days of righteous kings it was very difficult to abolish it. After the entry into the Land, during the time when the Mishkan was in Nov and in Givon, it was permitted to sacrifice and burn offerings on the high places. But the Torah warns that once the Beit HaMikdash is built there is an absolute prohibition to sacrifice on the high places, and likewise when the Mishkan was built in Shiloh there was a prohibition to sacrifice on the high places. And what is sacrificing on the high places? A person would build himself an altar in the courtyard of his house, and offer on it peace offerings, vow offerings and freewill offerings.
And since all of this was done for the sake of Hashem, it was very difficult to dissuade the people from it: a person did not feel that he was committing a sin, he was sacrificing for the sake of Hashem. And especially since in the past the matter had been permitted, it was hard for the people to grasp that something which had been beloved to Hashem in the days of the Avot had become hated by Him. Therefore it seems that even when there were righteous kings who uprooted idolatry and the people repented, this verse always accompanies them: "only the people were sacrificing and burning offerings on the high places."
וַיֶּאֱהַב שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־יְהֹוָה לָלֶכֶת בְּחֻקּוֹת דָּוִד אָבִיו רַק בַּבָּמוֹת הוּא מְזַבֵּחַ וּמַקְטִיר׃ - And Shlomo loved Hashem, walking in the statutes of David his father; only on the high places he was sacrificing and burning offerings.
Shlomo loved Hashem and wished to walk in the statutes of David his father in all matters, except for one single matter in which he did not walk in the statutes of his father: David used to sacrifice on the great high place in Nov, whereas Shlomo used to sacrifice on the high places.
וַיֵּלֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ גִּבְעֹנָה לִזְבֹּחַ שָׁם כִּי־הִיא הַבָּמָה הַגְּדוֹלָה אֶלֶף עֹלוֹת יַעֲלֶה שְׁלֹמֹה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ הַהוּא׃ - And the king went to Givon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place; a thousand burnt offerings did Shlomo offer upon that altar.
בְּגִבְעוֹן נִרְאָה יְהֹוָה אֶל־שְׁלֹמֹה בַּחֲלוֹם הַלָּיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים שְׁאַל מָה אֶתֶּן־לָךְ׃ - In Givon Hashem appeared to Shlomo in a dream by night, and God said: Ask what I shall give you.
At this point Shlomo merits the supreme and immense wisdom that no other person in the world possessed. Hashem appears to him in a dream and says to him, "Ask what I shall give you."
Concerning this revelation there is a dispute: was it actual prophecy, or was it a true dream, one of the genuine dreams. As is known, prophecy too comes in a dream, and so the Rambam brings that nearly all the prophets who prophesied did so in a dream. There were situations where it happened even while awake, but then the prophet would divest himself of all his physical faculties and would be like one gone mad, lying on the ground, like a person who received a high voltage shock. That is why they would call the prophet "the madman" or "the fool," for that is how he appeared at the moment of prophecy.
The principle behind this is that a person can receive a spiritual connection only when the physical faculties are nullified. Therefore, in autistic individuals, whose physical faculties are impaired, there is a nullification of the physical faculties, and so they have greater capacity to cling to the spiritual forces. This does not mean that they are prophets, but that it is the same principle: when the prophet cleaves to the spiritual forces, the faculties of the body, which are the screens separating us from Hashem, must be weakened.
Some say that here there was actual prophecy that Shlomo received from Hashem. And others say no, that Shlomo did not reach the level of a prophet, but rather he had true dreams, that is, a genuine dream, as we shall see further on that Shlomo awakens and discovers that the dream is truly being fulfilled, and from this he understands that the dream is true, but it is not prophecy. So writes the Rambam, that this was not prophecy. In contrast, the Abarbanel holds that here there was prophecy.
וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁלֹמֹה אַתָּה עָשִׂיתָ עִם־עַבְדְּךָ דָוִד אָבִי חֶסֶד גָּדוֹל כַּאֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ לְפָנֶיךָ בֶּאֱמֶת וּבִצְדָקָה וּבְיִשְׁרַת לֵבָב עִמָּךְ וַתִּשְׁמׇר־לוֹ אֶת־הַחֶסֶד הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה וַתִּתֶּן־לוֹ בֵן יֹשֵׁב עַל־כִּסְאוֹ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - And Shlomo said: You have shown to Your servant David my father great kindness, according as he walked before You in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with You; and You have kept for him this great kindness, that You have given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.
Hashem says to him, "Ask what I shall give you," and this offer included the possibility of asking for wealth, length of days, or wisdom. Shlomo preferred and asked for wisdom, as we shall see further on that Hashem praises him for this. But before that, Shlomo begins by recalling Hashem's kindnesses toward his father.
The Malbim says: David's throne is founded upon two things, kindness and faithfulness. Kindness is a free gift, and faithfulness (emunah) is from the language of truth (emet), from the expression "his words are confirmed." And what is the difference between them? Kindness is without limit: if I give you something out of kindness, I can give you a far greater amount than what is due to you, for in any case it is kindness. In contrast, what I give you according to truth, because it is justly due to you, I will not give you more than what is due to you.
On the other hand, faithfulness has an advantage over kindness: what comes to you through faithfulness will not be taken from you, for it is yours, due to you by truth. In contrast, what you received through kindness, it is quite possible that another person will come who is also deserving of kindness, and Hashem will take it from you and give it to him, for in any case kindness is a free gift, and if a more worthy person comes, it will be given to him.
And here Shlomo says: You gave to my father both with kindness and with faithfulness. The great kindness is that You promised him a continuation of sons sitting on his throne for generations, that the dynasty of David would forever be the royal dynasty. On the other hand there is also faithfulness here, for David my father was righteous and upright and did good deeds, and this is what he mentions: "as he walked before You in truth and in righteousness and in uprightness of heart with You." And from this comes "and You kept for him this great kindness" - what guarantees that the kindness will be preserved? After all, a kindness can be taken away. But here it also included faithfulness, and truth, and it was according to justice, and this guarantees that the kindness will endure.
It turns out that David gained both advantages: from the side of kindness he receives far more than he deserves, and from the side of truth it will not be taken from him. Even though according to truth perhaps a little less is due, the kindness guarantees that he will receive more; and even though according to kindness perhaps it would be fitting for it to be taken from him at some point, the truth guarantees that it will remain forever, since that is what is due according to truth.
And let us be precise in the wording: "in truth and in righteousness" - righteousness means good deeds between man and the Almighty. "In uprightness of heart with You" - this includes all the good traits, walking in the ways of Hashem, just as He is gracious so too you be gracious, just as He is merciful so too you be merciful. And likewise that all the judgments Hashem brought upon him he accepted with love, and this is "in uprightness of heart with You": everything You did to him he accepted with love, he felt that he was in the hands of the Holy One blessed be He, and he had no complaint whatsoever against the Creator of the world. And if so, "and You gave him a son sitting on his throne" - a promise that this son will remain forever, that the dynasty will remain forever, for this is the fruit of his good deeds.
וְעַתָּה יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי אַתָּה הִמְלַכְתָּ אֶת־עַבְדְּךָ תַּחַת דָּוִד אָבִי וְאָנֹכִי נַעַר קָטֹן לֹא אֵדַע צֵאת וָבֹא׃ - And now, Hashem my God, You have made Your servant king in place of David my father, and I am a small youth; I do not know how to go out or come in.
Since my kingship flows from the faithful kindnesses of David that Hashem promised, I am not like every other person. Every person can request according to the preparation he has made - according to the vessels you prepared, so you can receive. But Shlomo says: with me it is not so, for I depend on kindness, and with kindness Hashem gives far above and beyond what is due. And therefore, since I am a continuation of the kindnesses of David my father, I ask of You, Master of the world, something that naturally I would not have asked, far more than by the power of the preparation I have, far more than what is due to me according to the preparation I have made of myself. You made me king in place of David my father, so pour out upon me kindness as You promised David my father, for I have a difficulty managing the kingdom: I am still a small youth. How old was Shlomo when he was made king? Twelve years old. A small youth is supposed to manage a great kingdom.
וְעַבְדְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרְתָּ עַם־רָב אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִמָּנֶה וְלֹא יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב׃ - And Your servant is in the midst of Your people whom You have chosen, a great people that cannot be numbered nor counted for multitude.
And it is not only I who need Your kindness, but also this people needs a fitting leader. First, they are a great people, and great means in terms of the greatness and spiritual power that it has; and second, they are numerous in quantity, and someone is needed who is able to lead them. So I do not ask only for myself, but also: Master of the world, act for the sake of Your flock, that they may have someone fit to lead them.
וְנָתַתָּ לְעַבְדְּךָ לֵב שֹׁמֵעַ לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת־עַמְּךָ לְהָבִין בֵּין־טוֹב לְרָע כִּי מִי יוּכַל לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת־עַמְּךָ הַכָּבֵד הַזֶּה׃ - And give to Your servant a listening heart to judge Your people, to discern between good and evil, for who is able to judge this weighty people of Yours?
What is meant by "who is able to judge this weighty people of Yours"? Rashi says: since they are numerous, they have many affairs and come to judgment, and I have no leisure to deliberate in their cases. And I have to judge - and if in every case I begin to deliberate two or three days, there will be a delay of justice and people will wait in line for long months.
And another matter: the judgment of Israel is weighty. For if two gentiles came before me for judgment and I judged them, and in my haste and by mistake I ruled not according to the law, I am not held accountable for them, since that is how it came out for me according to the law by which I judged. But if I judge two Jews, and I pervert their judgment through lack of contemplation and lack of attention, I am held accountable for them. And not only am I held accountable for them in money, but "and He robs the life of those who rob them" - kevaa means robbery, and Hashem robs the life of one who robs the people of Israel, God forbid. And therefore Shlomo says: Master of the world, who is able to judge this weighty people of Yours? Their judgment is very weighty, and to be able to judge them and not err in the ruling - this is a very weighty judgment.
And what does he ask for? A "listening heart." The question arises on its own: hearing is done with the ear, and a person weighs a case with his mind, so why does he say "heart"? The answer is that the heart knows how to discern. Many times people ask a wise man his opinion about a certain situation, and we find written in the books that he says: according to reason it appears this way, but my heart tells me otherwise. The heart is often the compass, and many times a person can sense things through the feelings of the heart, certainly if his heart is pure and clean; and if not, the heart too misleads us. But when it comes to a great man in Torah, this is already "my heart tells me."
There is a famous Rashi in which it says "and my heart tells me," and it is on the ephod. Rashi says: I do not know what this ephod is, but my heart tells me that it is like the sort of apron worn by noblewomen who ride on horses. And how did Rashi arrive at this? A famous story is told, that once Rashi left the study hall and encountered such a noblewoman riding on a horse. Rashi was greatly, greatly distressed that he happened to see a sight he had no wish to see, a flawed sight of a woman riding on a horse, and he had great pain from this, for Rashi fasted six hundred and thirteen fasts before he wrote his commentary, Rashi was a supreme holy man, and he did not understand why he was allowed to see such a sight, why Heaven did not spare it from him. And when he reached the subject of the ephod, he suddenly recalled that sight he had seen, and therefore he said "and my heart tells me": my heart tells me that Heaven did not cause me to stumble, but rather showed me this sight so that I would know how to explain what is written here.
And this is "and give Your servant a listening heart": if I am supposed to judge by intellect, then according to intellect one needs evidence, proofs and arguments, and every trial can take a long time. But I do not ask for intellect, I ask for a heart, so that through the heart Shlomo would know immediately: a person walks in and he knows this one is innocent and that one is guilty. His heart was the compass that told him what is true and what is just.
וַיִּיטַב הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנָי כִּי שָׁאַל שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה׃ - And the matter was good in the eyes of the Lord, that Shlomo had asked this thing.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֵלָיו יַעַן אֲשֶׁר שָׁאַלְתָּ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְלֹא־שָׁאַלְתָּ לְּךָ יָמִים רַבִּים וְלֹא־שָׁאַלְתָּ לְּךָ עֹשֶׁר וְלֹא שָׁאַלְתָּ נֶפֶשׁ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְשָׁאַלְתָּ לְּךָ הָבִין לִשְׁמֹעַ מִשְׁפָּט׃ - And God said to him: Since you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, and have not asked for yourself riches, and have not asked for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice.
The Malbim asks a tremendous question: seemingly, what is so special about this request? A parable to what this is like: they come to a person and ask him: what do you want, that we give you a pearl worth a hundred million dollars, or that we give you a Torah scroll that costs only three thousand or ten thousand dollars, except that in this Torah scroll is set a pearl worth a hundred million dollars? Surely he will ask for the Torah scroll. And because of this shall we say, "Wow, fortunate is he and fortunate is his lot, look how much love of Torah is in him, he wants the Torah"? No one would say such a thing.
So too here: a person who has tremendous wisdom like Shlomo's, "the one who has this has everything" - whoever has this wisdom essentially has everything. With this tremendous wisdom he can defeat his enemies, for he thinks not five or ten moves but a hundred moves ahead against his enemies; with this wisdom he knows the entire Torah; and with this wisdom he has wealth, for he can do things far beyond what everyone else can and is able to do. Apart from long life, wisdom essentially contains everything. If so, why does the Creator of the world praise him so greatly for this request?
The Malbim says: let us be precise in the wording, "and the matter was good in the eyes of the Lord, that Shlomo had asked this thing." Only Hashem, who examines heart and conscience, can know from what the request stems. Naturally, if we were to make this request, we would say in our hearts: I ask for wisdom, because the one who has this has everything, if I have wisdom I have everything. And Hashem knows that although you say you want wisdom, behind this is hidden that you want wealth, and want to impress all the people around you, and want to defeat all your enemies. In essence the request is not a request for wisdom alone, but a request for wisdom together with the basket of benefits bundled within it.
But with Shlomo it says "that Shlomo had asked this thing" - Shlomo asked only for this thing. And this is what comes to exclude: "this" and not other things. When Shlomo asked for wisdom, it was purely for the wisdom, not for the benefits accompanying it. And therefore Hashem repeats and emphasizes: "Since you have asked this thing, and have not asked for yourself long life, and have not asked for yourself riches, and have not asked for the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern justice" - meaning, I know that in the request you made you did not ask for the other things, this is not a request that includes the other things, but rather you intended only this alone.
הִנֵּה עָשִׂיתִי כִּדְבָרֶיךָ הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ לֵב חָכָם וְנָבוֹן אֲשֶׁר כָּמוֹךָ לֹא־הָיָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לֹא־יָקוּם כָּמוֹךָ׃ - Behold, I have done according to your words: behold, I have given you a wise and understanding heart, so that there was none like you before you, nor after you shall any arise like you.
What does "wise and understanding" mean? Chazal say: a wise person is one who retains his learning, meaning that what he learned stays with him and he remembers it. And an understanding person is someone who knows beyond what he learned. How is it possible to know beyond what one learned? By deriving one matter from another: they taught me A, and since I derive one thing from another, I conclude B as well. This is called understanding, and this is always the meaning of "wise and understanding": the understanding one is he who sees a single thing and draws further conclusions from it.
And what does "the likes of which there was none before you" mean? The Radak says: even Moshe Rabbeinu was not his equal in natural wisdom, but in divine wisdom Moshe was wiser than he. Or an additional explanation: "there was none like you" does not refer back to Moshe but to the kings - there was no king as wise as Shlomo, but as for Moshe Rabbeinu it is possible that he was wiser than Shlomo. These are the two explanations the Radak offers.
And the Malbim says: the Holy One, blessed be He, told him "I have done according to your words," meaning that He placed in his heart wisdom to hear judgment, which was the original request. And now He adds that he will attain wisdom not only as he requested but far beyond his request. For Shlomo did not ask for natural wisdom at all; what did he ask? Wisdom to know judgment and to understand judgment. Hashem says to him: when I give to you, I give you wisdom in abundant measure - that you will have natural wisdom, political wisdom, and divine wisdom as well.
וְגַם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־שָׁאַלְתָּ נָתַתִּי לָךְ גַּם־עֹשֶׁר גַּם־כָּבוֹד אֲשֶׁר לֹא־הָיָה כָמוֹךָ אִישׁ בַּמְּלָכִים כׇּל־יָמֶיךָ׃ - And also that which you did not ask I have given you, both wealth and honor, so that there has been no one like you among the kings all your days.
Beyond wisdom, Hashem adds to him wealth and honor, such that there was none like him among the kings - meaning there was no one who had, together with immense wisdom, both wealth and honor.
וְאִם תֵּלֵךְ בִּדְרָכַי לִשְׁמֹר חֻקַּי וּמִצְוֺתַי כַּאֲשֶׁר הָלַךְ דָּוִיד אָבִיךָ וְהַאֲרַכְתִּי אֶת־יָמֶיךָ׃ - And if you walk in My ways, to keep My statutes and My commandments, as David your father walked, then I will lengthen your days.
There is one thing that wisdom does not guarantee, and that is length of days. You can be the greatest sage, the wealthiest of men, and the most honored - but who guaranteed you that you will live more than fifty two years? And how long did Shlomo live? Fifty two years, like Shmuel. Therefore, for this matter, a separate promise is needed. And let us note that this promise is already dependent on a condition: wealth, honor, and wisdom are given without conditions, but length of days - which includes kingship over the generations, as Rashi explains - was already made conditional in the Torah. As it says, "so as not to turn from the commandment, in order that he may lengthen his days over his kingdom." Hashem says to him: in the Torah there is already a condition, and as it were I cannot grant you a promise beyond what is written in the Torah. Who guaranteed that you will lengthen your days? Perhaps you will turn from the commandment. Therefore only if you walk in My ways to keep My statutes and My commandments will I guarantee you the additional matter as well, which is length of days.
And indeed we see that at the end of Shlomo's life his wives turned his heart, meaning that they were sacrificing and offering incense on high places to idolatry and he did not protest against them; and because of this he did not merit the blessing of length of days. And because of this he also did not merit the earlier blessings that were spoken to him, that he would have no oppressor or man to disturb his kingdom, and we saw Rezon ben Elyada and other adversaries whom Hashem raised up against Shlomo, who came to chastise him for not persisting in walking in the ways of Hashem according to the level that was demanded of him.
וַיִּקַץ שְׁלֹמֹה וְהִנֵּה חֲלוֹם וַיָּבוֹא יְרוּשָׁלִַם וַיַּעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן בְּרִית־אֲדֹנָי וַיַּעַל עֹלוֹת וַיַּעַשׂ שְׁלָמִים וַיַּעַשׂ מִשְׁתֶּה לְכׇל־עֲבָדָיו׃ - And Shlomo awoke, and behold, it was a dream; and he came to Yerushalayim and stood before the Ark of the covenant of Hashem, and he offered up burnt offerings and made peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants.
"And behold, it was a dream" - Shlomo understands that the dream is true. And how did he know? Chazal say: he hears a bird chirping and understands its language, a dog barking and understands its language. And out of the great joy of his heart, seeing that the dream was truly being fulfilled, he made over this a feast and rejoicing for all his servants.
And the Malbim says: until now it had seemed to him that all of this had taken place while he was awake, and only when he woke did he suddenly see that it had been a dream. It is known that the more a dream conveys sensations of truth, the more it inclines toward truth; if we experience it as though it were tangible, that is a sign that the dream is true. Therefore the verse comes to tell us that only when he awoke did it become clear to him that it had been a dream, but during the dream itself he believed he was actually speaking with Hashem. That is why he stands before the Ark of the Covenant of Hashem, offering burnt offerings and making peace offerings to thank Hashem for the great kindness He had done with him.
אָז תָּבֹאנָה שְׁתַּיִם נָשִׁים זֹנוֹת אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לְפָנָיו׃ - Then two women who were harlots came to the king and stood before him.
From verse 16 we enter what is called the judgment of Shlomo, in which we will see how Shlomo merits to apply the tremendous wisdom that Hashem gave him. "Then" means: after Shlomo received wisdom, when he returned from Givon and came to Yerushalayim, he merited to see in practice how the divine wisdom that Hashem gave him is a wisdom that can be applied to render law and judgment.
And what is "women who were harlots"? There are two explanations among Chazal. When the word zonah is written it includes two interpretations: one from the word mazon (food), and one from the word zenut (harlotry). And zenut means to stray from the path; that is always the meaning of zenut. Likewise regarding idolatry you will see many times "your harlotries," and often "Yehudah played the harlot" - meaning it strayed from the path and went after the baalim and after idolatry. And with Rachav too we saw two interpretations in this, both a meaning of harlotry and a meaning of food.
And note the odd expression: "two women came." Ordinarily it should have said "shtei nashim" (two women), so what is "shtayim nashim"? We will return to this at the end of the chapter.
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הָאַחַת בִּי אֲדֹנִי אֲנִי וְהָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת יֹשְׁבֹת בְּבַיִת אֶחָד וָאֵלֵד עִמָּהּ בַּבָּיִת׃ - And the one woman said, "Please, my lord, this woman and I dwell in one house, and I gave birth while with her in the house."
"Please, my lord" - a form of entreaty, as if to say, do me a favor and listen to my words. This other woman and I dwell in one house, and I gave birth while with her in the house.
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְלִדְתִּי וַתֵּלֶד גַּם־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת וַאֲנַחְנוּ יַחְדָּו אֵין־זָר אִתָּנוּ בַּבַּיִת זוּלָתִי שְׁתַּיִם־אֲנַחְנוּ בַּבָּיִת׃ - And it happened on the third day after I gave birth that this woman also gave birth, and we were together; there was no stranger with us in the house, only the two of us in the house.
She is precise in her claim: "and we were together" - so that you should not think that each of us was in a separate room, but rather we were in the same room. "There was no stranger with us in the house" - so that you should not think that perhaps someone else came in and switched the child; in the very room where we were, no one was with us. "Only the two of us in the house" - and what does she add with this? So that you should not think that we were alone only in that particular room, but that in the other rooms there were other people; no, in the entire house only the two of us were there.
וַיָּמׇת בֶּן־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָיְלָה אֲשֶׁר שָׁכְבָה עָלָיו׃ - And the son of this woman died in the night, because she lay upon him.
The son of the woman opposite me died in the night, because she lay on top of him. And what is she emphasizing with "who she lay upon"? That had the child been ill from an earlier cause, running a fever for several days or showing signs of sickness, the matter would have been known, for it was customary in those days that when a child was ill wise women would come to visit him, to offer advice and folk remedies, and so it would become known that there was a sick child here. Rather, she comes and says: no, the child was completely healthy, and the reason he died is that she lay upon him and smothered him.
וַתָּקׇם בְּתוֹךְ הַלַּיְלָה וַתִּקַּח אֶת־בְּנִי מֵאֶצְלִי וַאֲמָתְךָ יְשֵׁנָה וַתַּשְׁכִּיבֵהוּ בְּחֵיקָהּ וְאֶת־בְּנָהּ הַמֵּת הִשְׁכִּיבָה בְחֵיקִי׃ - And she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while your maidservant slept, and she laid him in her bosom, and her dead son she laid in my bosom.
There is a precise change of wording here: "she took my son from beside me" - and not from my bosom; and afterward "her dead son she laid in my bosom" - and not beside me. What is the difference? She tells it thus: her son was in her bosom, and the bosom means truly pressed close, and as a result she lay upon him and he died. But I did not act as she did. I placed my son beside me, and not in my bosom; I was careful not to place him in my bosom. And what did she do? She took my son who was beside me and therefore was alive, and her dead son she laid in my bosom, so that she could claim: there, you see, she lay upon him and as a result killed the child. But I took care to place my son beside me, and I got up and I see that she placed her son in my bosom.
וָאָקֻם בַּבֹּקֶר לְהֵינִיק אֶת־בְּנִי וְהִנֵּה־מֵת וָאֶתְבּוֹנֵן אֵלָיו בַּבֹּקֶר וְהִנֵּה לֹא־הָיָה בְנִי אֲשֶׁר יָלָדְתִּי׃ - And I arose in the morning to nurse my son, and behold, he was dead, and I looked closely at him in the morning, and behold, he was not my son whom I had borne.
"And I looked closely at him in the morning" - I looked with extra scrutiny in order to discern, and I saw that this was not my son. And lest you say that perhaps because of death his features had changed and she could not tell, therefore she says that the moment she saw him, immediately upon seeing him, she said: this is not my son whom I bore. First, I recognize my son whom I bore and know how he looks, and this is not the one I bore. And second, "whom I bore" - for her son had been born three days earlier, as she told that there is a difference of three days between them, and I can tell that there is a difference between this dead child and the child born three days ago.
And notice that the core of her claim is "I recognize that this is not my son." She does not say "I recognize that the living child is mine," because concerning that they might say that perhaps a mistake is still possible; but that this is not her son, on that she has no argument, it is entirely clear. And it cannot be that someone else made the switch, for she has already proven that no stranger was with them in the house.
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הָאַחֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנִי הַחַי וּבְנֵךְ הַמֵּת וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנֵךְ הַמֵּת וּבְנִי הֶחָי וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - And the other woman said: No, but my son is the living one and your son is the dead one; and this one says: No, but your son is the dead one and my son is the living one; and they spoke before the king.
Notice the change of wording. The second woman, who is the defendant, says: "my son is the living one and your son is the dead one." And the plaintiff answers: "No, but your son is the dead one and my son is the living one" - she puts "your son is the dead one" before "my son is the living one." What causes this change, and what does it attest to?
The Malbim explains: a person always mentions the main thing first and the secondary thing afterward. This is a person's way in every exchange. We would not find someone who says: I won five hundred shekel in the lottery, and I also won a million dollars in the lottery. A person tells first about the million dollars, and afterward mentions that there were also times he won small money. A person always tells the main thing first and afterward the secondary things.
Therefore, when we scrutinize their words we see what each one regards as the main thing. The defendant says "my son is the living one and your son is the dead one" - she puts "my son is the living one" first, that is the main thing for her, and "your son is the dead one" is a consequence. And the second one says "No, but your son is the dead one" - the core of her claim is that your son is the one who died. From here Shlomo immediately grasped the ruling: the one who says "this is my living son" - her main aim is that her son should live, and "your son is the dead one" is an additional detail. In contrast, with the second one, whom we already sense is the liar, the main thing is not that her son should be the living one, but that the dead child should be yours, so that consequently I will receive the living child. What she wants to say is: the child died on you, not on me. And the second one says: I have no interest in whose child died, my concern is that my child is alive, and this I know.
And according to the Malbim's line of reasoning it turns out that the first speaker is in fact the liar: she is the one who woke up in the morning, saw her child dead because she lay upon him, and constructed a story that this child is not hers but the other's, and that she made a switch and placed the dead child beside her. The first one is the one who invented the whole story, and the defendant is the one telling the truth, she is the one who made the just claims.
The Malbim adds: do not think this was said only once. That is why the verse says "and they spoke before the king" - they repeated and rehearsed their claims again and again, and each time the one heard that this woman emphasizes that the living son is hers, and the other emphasizes that the dead son is yours. What matters to each one? That is what she argues. The one who claims "the living son is mine" - what matters to her is that her son should live. And the one who claims "the dead son is yours" - what matters to her is that the other woman should have a dead son, while whether the living son is hers is a less important point to her.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ זֹאת אֹמֶרֶת זֶה־בְּנִי הַחַי וּבְנֵךְ הַמֵּת וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת לֹא כִי בְּנֵךְ הַמֵּת וּבְנִי הֶחָי׃ - And the king said, This one says, This is my living son and your dead son, and this one says, No, but your son is the dead one and my son is the living one.
Shlomo repeats the claims, and this repetition is a rule in the laws of judgment: the judge must repeat the claims of the parties, saying to this one "you claim such and such" and to that one "and you claim such and such," because through the repetition he understands the matter better. And here, the moment he repeated the claims, Shlomo already understood the case.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ קְחוּ לִי־חָרֶב וַיָּבִאוּ הַחֶרֶב לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - And the king said, Bring me a sword, and they brought the sword before the king.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ גִּזְרוּ אֶת־הַיֶּלֶד הַחַי לִשְׁנָיִם וּתְנוּ אֶת־הַחֲצִי לְאַחַת וְאֶת־הַחֲצִי לְאֶחָת׃ - And the king said, Cut the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר־בְּנָהּ הַחַי אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי־נִכְמְרוּ רַחֲמֶיהָ עַל־בְּנָהּ וַתֹּאמֶר בִּי אֲדֹנִי תְּנוּ־לָהּ אֶת־הַיָּלוּד הַחַי וְהָמֵת אַל־תְּמִיתֻהוּ וְזֹאת אֹמֶרֶת גַּם־לִי גַם־לָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה גְּזֹרוּ׃ - And the woman whose son was the living one spoke to the king, for her compassion was stirred over her son, and she said, Please, my lord, give her the living child and do not put him to death; and the other said, He shall be neither mine nor yours, cut him.
The one says "give her the living child and do not put him to death," because since he is her son, it is better for her that he live in the hands of another woman than that he die. And the other, whose entire pain was that her son had died while the other was left with a living son - it pained her more that the other was left with a living son and her own son was dead - therefore she asks "cut him," so long as he will be neither mine nor yours. As if to say, how can it be that I alone was harmed and nothing happened to you? This is the nature of a jealous person: put out my eye so that you will not put out two of yours.
The Malbim asks: what if they had not said this? What if both had said "of course not, give her the child, do not kill him"? That is the logical thing, that both should say so, for who would say "yes, kill him"? Only a complete fool would. Reason and logic say: give her the child, so long as he does not die, and moreover by this I prove that he is my son. If so, how can anything be proven from such a thing?
Rather, says the Malbim, if you have understood what we said earlier, you understand that Shlomo did not prove anything from this at all. From where did Shlomo prove it? From the claims. Only that had Shlomo said to them "this one claims such and so, and from this I learn that her son is the living one, and this one claims such and so, and from this I learn that her son is the dead one" - there would have been those who doubted his conclusions. Shlomo said: I will perform an act by which everyone will say that I am right. Therefore the whole display of "cut him" was only so that everyone would understand, not for Shlomo's own sake. Shlomo had already ruled and already grasped the case from the moment he said "this one says, This is my living son and your dead son, and this one says, No, your son is the dead one and my son is the living one." What he did with the "cut him" was so that everyone would agree that his judgment was true and just.
וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר תְּנוּ־לָהּ אֶת־הַיָּלוּד הַחַי וְהָמֵת לֹא תְמִיתֻהוּ הִיא אִמּוֹ׃ - And the king answered and said, Give her the living child and do not put him to death; she is his mother.
The ruling itself came from the conclusions drawn out of the manner of phrasing, only that now everyone already conceded: here is the mother who is willing to hand over her son to another mother, so long as he is not put to death - she is the mother. And the one who says "kill him" - there is no mother willing to kill her own son.
וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ כׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר שָׁפַט הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּרְאוּ מִפְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי רָאוּ כִּי־חׇכְמַת אֱלֹהִים בְּקִרְבּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט׃ - And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had rendered, and they stood in awe of the king, for they saw that the wisdom of God was within him to administer justice.
Everyone saw that he possessed such tremendous and unique wisdom, and the matter was clear to all, and through this they would be afraid to commit any wrong, for they said: behold, the king can immediately detect any injustice that is done.
The story is told that once a matchmaker sent a groom to a town, and two women were waiting at the wagon station. The matchmaker said to them: a groom is due to arrive, meet with him and speak with him and see whether he is suitable for your daughter. And each of them had spoken with a different matchmaker, and they did not know who was being referred to. The groom arrived, and they began to quarrel: this one says "this groom was sent for my daughter," and that one says "not at all, for my daughter." They went to the rabbi. The rabbi heard the case and said: bring me a sharp sword. They brought him a sword. The rabbi said: cut him in two. One says: not at all, Heaven forbid, let her take him for her daughter, just do not cut him. And the other says: no, my master, cut him. The rabbi said: the one who says cut him, this is the groom of her daughter, she is the true shviger, she is the true mother in law.
We asked why it says "then there came two [shtayim] women" and not "two [shtei] women." The "Shlomo Chadasha" explains: there is a difference between "shtei" and "shtayim," and between "shnei" and "shnayim." Wherever it is written "shnayim" or "shtayim," the meaning is that they differ from one another; and when it is written "shnei," they are equal.
And there are several examples of this. "By the mouth of two [shnayim] witnesses shall a matter be established" - shnayim, meaning different. For if they came and testified in exactly the same language and with the same statement, reciting the very same thing, what would be clear to us? That this is false testimony and someone had prepared them. Therefore there must be two, different, and not identical. "Two [shnayim] cherubim" - and why not "shnei cherubim"? Because one had the form of a male and one had the form of a female, they were not identical. "And Yehoshua sent two [shnayim] men to spy secretly, saying" - why shnayim? Because we saw that they were truly different: one of them was a man, this was Kalev, and the other was an angel, this was Pinchas. And therefore we learned there "and she hid him" regarding only one of them, for Pinchas did not need to be hidden, he was an angel and could hide himself. And therefore it is written "shnayim men," who were different and not identical to one another.
By contrast, "shnei" means equal. "The two [shnei] great luminaries," and afterwards "the great luminary to rule the day and the small luminary to rule the night." The Sages come and expound: know that at first they were created equal, and only as a result of the moon coming and saying "it is impossible for two kings to make use of one crown," did God say to her "go and diminish yourself." And from where do the Sages know this? For it is written "the two [shnei] great luminaries" - that they were equal at first. For if not, it would have written "shnayim great luminaries." And especially since at first it calls them "great," and only afterwards "the great luminary and the small luminary" - to teach you that at first two equal ones were created and both were great, and only afterwards did God diminish the moon. And likewise on Yom Kippur it is written "and Aharon shall place lots upon the two [shnei] goats," and the Sages say that the two goats were required, the one that goes to the sanctuary and the one that goes to Azazel, to be equal in height, equal in age, and equal in appearance. And from where is this learned? From "shnei goats," that it is not written "shnayim goats."
And here, regarding the women who came to Shlomo, it is written "shtayim women" and not "shtei women." Had it written "shtei," we would have said that they were identical. "Shtayim" says that they were different. And in what were they different? The "Shlomo Chadasha" says: know that one was a daughter in law and the other was her mother in law. The daughter in law's child died, and the mother in law's child was alive.
And now the daughter in law was in a very serious predicament. For her husband had passed away, and the moment her child died she fell to yibum - because if she had a living child she would not require yibum - and now she must wait for yibum from the child born to her mother in law, and she must wait for him until he reaches the age of thirteen, for only then can he perform yibum. It turns out that this woman is destined to be an agunah for thirteen years. So beyond the grief that her child died, and consequently she falls to yibum, her mother in law also has a child, who is the one causing there to be someone before her to perform yibum. For the moment there is a child here, she must wait for him until he grows up and then undergo yibum.
And therefore she says: I am willing that indeed I have no child, but let her also have no child. And this is what she says "no, your son is the dead one and my son is the living one" - the entire emphasis is on "your son is the dead one," for if you have a living son, that places me in a predicament. And she places no emphasis on her own son being alive. And why? Because the "Shlomo Chadasha" says: understand, a woman naturally does not want to raise a child that is not her own - I will marry again and bear another child who will be my own child. Naturally she has no interest in a child that is not hers. And therefore she says this with her lips: I do not want my son to be the living one, that is not what I am seeking; I am seeking that your son be the dead one, for the moment your son is the dead one I have solved for myself the predicament I face, the predicament of yibum.
And therefore it is written "and there came two [shtayim] harlot women" - "shtayim" to tell you that these women were not identical but different, one a daughter in law and one a mother in law, and in fact the entire claim of the one was utterly different from the claim of the other: this one came to argue with the aim of winning the child, and that one came to argue with the aim that the other would lose the child, and through this she would not need to fall to yibum.
The chapter opens by establishing the kingdom both internally and externally, with the flaw of sacrificing at the high places that accompanied Israel for generations. At Givon, Hashem appeared to Shlomo, and Shlomo, recognizing that his kingdom rested on the kindness and faithfulness promised to David, asked for one thing alone: "a listening heart to judge." The matter was good in the eyes of Hashem precisely because he asked for this one thing on its own, without the accompanying basket of benefits that come with wisdom, and therefore he received wisdom in overflowing measure, and with it wealth and honor unconditionally, and length of days conditioned on walking in the ways of Hashem, a condition that in the end he did not uphold. And the application came immediately: the case of the two women, in which Shlomo ruled not by the sword but by carefully analyzing the order of the claims, and brought the sword only so that all of Israel would see and recognize that the wisdom of God was within him to render judgment.