Chapter 11 is the chapter that seals the days of Shlomo HaMelech, and it is a chapter of decline. Scripture opens with the foreign women who turned his heart, and from there everything unravels: burning anger, the decree of the kingdom being torn away, adversaries rising from outside and rebellion from within. We will explain the chapter according to the approach of the Malbim, and along the way we will gather the words of Chazal and the moral lesson that emerges from them. Our starting point, as we explained, is that Shlomo himself did not serve idolatry, but rather that he did not protest against his wives, and Scripture regards it as though he served.
וַיִּתְאַנַּף יְהֹוָה בִּשְׁלֹמֹה כִּי נָטָה לְבָבוֹ מֵעִם יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַנִּרְאָה אֵלָיו פַּעֲמָיִם. - And Hashem became angry with Shlomo, because his heart had turned away from Hashem, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice.
The Holy One, blessed be He, is angry with Shlomo. Why? "Because his heart had turned away from Hashem, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice." What is the meaning of that addition? The Malbim explains: when a person strays from the path there is anger toward him. But when a person strays from the path after Hashem spoke with him explicitly and warned him not to stray, the anger is sevenfold harsher.
With this we understand what we see later regarding that prophet who heard explicitly from Hashem that he should not eat in that city nor return by the way he had come, yet he listened to the voice of the false prophet, ate in that city and returned by that same way, and a lion came and struck him, and on that very day he died. Why is it so severe? Because you heard it from Hashem, I spoke with you personally, I warned you. And this is exactly what is said here about Shlomo: Hashem appeared to him twice and spoke with him, so how could you, after that, stray from the path?
There is a difference between "You were angry with me" and "And He became angry." Both are expressions of anger, but the Malbim teaches us a rule in the grammar of the holy tongue: when the expression comes in the hitpael form - "hit'anaf," "vayit'anaf" - it means that burning anger went forth completely, that is, there is no possibility of changing the decree. This is a verdict accompanied by an oath, which has no remedy. So too said Moshe Rabbenu: "And Hashem became angry with me for your sakes" - there burning anger went forth completely and it could not be changed. And so here: "And Hashem became angry with Shlomo" - the decree is absolute.
וְצִוָּה אֵלָיו עַל־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי־לֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְלֹא שָׁמַר אֵת אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהֹוָה. - And He had commanded him concerning this matter, not to go after other gods; but he did not keep that which Hashem commanded.
Scripture emphasizes: "And He had commanded him" - a direct command, face to face. Shlomo heard this from Hashem Himself: do not go after other gods. And nevertheless he went after other gods - not he himself, as we explained, but that he did not protest against his wives. And since this was so, "And He became angry" - burning anger went forth and the decree is absolute.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹוָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה יַעַן אֲשֶׁר הָיְתָה־זֹּאת עִמָּךְ וְלֹא שָׁמַרְתָּ בְּרִיתִי וְחֻקֹּתַי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי עָלֶיךָ קָרֹעַ אֶקְרַע אֶת־הַמַּמְלָכָה מֵעָלֶיךָ וּנְתַתִּיהָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ. - And Hashem said to Shlomo: Because this was with you, and you did not keep My covenant and My statutes which I commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant.
What is the meaning of "Because this was with you"? After all, Shlomo did not serve idolatry, rather his wives served it. If so, what was his sin? That he maintained idolatry in his city. Therefore it does not say "which you did," but rather "this was with you" - this thing was with you, this idolatry lingered with you. It is not a sin that he committed, but a sin that he left the idolatry standing in its place, and even though he did not serve it, maintaining idolatry is a prohibition in its own right, and a person is forbidden to keep idolatry in his house. And to this is added "and you did not keep My covenant and My statutes which I commanded you" - for there was here a direct command. Therefore: "I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant."
אַךְ־בְּיָמֶיךָ לֹא אֶעֱשֶׂנָּה לְמַעַן דָּוִד אָבִיךָ מִיַּד בִּנְךָ אֶקְרָעֶנָּה. רַק אֶת־כׇּל־הַמַּמְלָכָה לֹא אֶקְרָע שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד אֶתֵּן לִבְנֶךָ לְמַעַן דָּוִד עַבְדִּי וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרְתִּי. - But in your days I will not do it, for the sake of David your father; I will tear it from the hand of your son. Only I will not tear away all the kingdom; one tribe I will give to your son, for the sake of David My servant, and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen.
The Malbim notes a precise distinction: in verse 12 it says "for the sake of David your father," and in verse 13 "for the sake of David My servant." What is the meaning of this change? To understand it we must first present a fundamental point we already saw above, in the contradiction between the verses. On the one hand: "Hashem has sworn to David in truth, He will not turn from it, of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne" - an absolute oath. And on the other hand: "If your children keep My covenant and this testimony that I shall teach them, their children too forever shall sit upon your throne" - a condition. How can both be true?
The answer is that there is a difference between the son and those who come after him. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to David: since you walked before Me with integrity and piety, I swear to you an oath that cannot be revoked, that your son will reign after you - even if he is unworthy, even if he is wicked, he will reign. But the grandsons are not guaranteed; they depend on their own deeds. And this is precise in the verses: "of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne" - the son, without conditions, "in truth, He will not turn from it." And afterward, "if your children keep My covenant" - Shlomo's children, "their children too forever shall sit upon your throne" - the grandsons, on condition.
If so, a question arises: is it really good that the son is guaranteed no matter what? After all, we all understand that when the Holy One, blessed be He, brings a blow, it is not to punish but to set straight. And if a king has insurance, he will say: what do I care, that is my sons' problem, whereas as for me, the kingship is guaranteed on account of my father. Regarding this it says: "and I will chastise him with the rod of men and with the afflictions of the sons of Adam" - though the kingdom will not be taken from him, he will still have troubles and suffering, and the suffering is indeed for his benefit and for his good.
According to this, the change in wording is explained. The fact that Shlomo himself reigned was on account of "David your father," that is, by virtue of the promise to the son. But the fact that one tribe remained for David's grandson was not on account of ancestral merit, nor by virtue of the promise, but rather "for the sake of David My servant": because David was My servant and I wish to do him good. And this is "one tribe" - the tribe of Yehuda, and especially since it is the tribe of the monarchy, "and for the sake of Jerusalem which I have chosen."
וַיָּקֶם יְהֹוָה שָׂטָן לִשְׁלֹמֹה אֵת הֲדַד הָאֲדֹמִי מִזֶּרַע הַמֶּלֶךְ הוּא בֶּאֱדוֹם. - And Hashem raised up an adversary against Shlomo, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal seed in Edom.
"Satan" here means one who accuses him, harms him, distresses him and torments him. And who is he? Hadad the Edomite, who is of the royal house of Edom. And this is in accordance with the promise "when he sins I will chastise him with the rod of men, but My mercy will not depart from him" - the kingship will not be taken away, but there will be chastisement.
And what is the purpose of raising up such an adversary? So that a lamp would remain for David, so that the kingship would not be entirely uprooted. For when Shlomo receives blows, this somehow keeps him on the straight path, and then it is fitting that his descendants should still continue to reign. Although the oath is absolute that the kingdom will no longer continue as it was, what preserves a part of it? Precisely the blow you receive, through which you are set straight a little, and this ensures continuity for the kingdom of the house of David.
וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹת דָּוִד אֶת־אֱדוֹם בַּעֲלוֹת יוֹאָב שַׂר הַצָּבָא לְקַבֵּר אֶת־הַחֲלָלִים וַיַּךְ כׇּל־זָכָר בֶּאֱדוֹם. כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת חֳדָשִׁים יָשַׁב־שָׁם יוֹאָב וְכׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד־הִכְרִית כׇּל־זָכָר בֶּאֱדוֹם. - And it was, when David was with Edom, when Yoav the commander of the army went up to bury the slain, that he struck down every male in Edom. For six months Yoav dwelt there with all Israel, until he had cut off every male in Edom.
Before we continue, we will introduce a preliminary point. The most difficult situation for a king is when someone who was removed from the throne, or a descendant of one who was removed, seeks revenge and gathers people around him to fight him. And in order to prevent this, the well known method of kings in ancient times was to wipe out and leave no offshoot of the previous kingdom - his children, his grandchildren, his wife and anyone connected to him - lest he rise up and rebel. This is what we saw with Mefiboshet son of Shaul, where David did not immediately receive the kingship because Avner son of Ner first joined with him. And thus the special promise David made to Yehonatan is understood: I will not act according to the custom of kings who kill the descendants of the previous king out of fear of rebellion, but rather I will protect your children, shield them, not harm them, and even strive to do good to them.
And what happened in Edom? David waged war against Edom, struck down eighteen thousand of them, and placed garrisons in Edom - officers appointed on his behalf, signaling his rule. Afterward Yoav went up to bury the fallen who had died in the war, and then the men of Edom rebelled against him, despite the garrisons. This led Yoav to decide to eradicate them completely, as is the law for those who rebel against the kingdom, and therefore "he smote every male in Edom." This is also why he remained there six months: burying the fallen did not require six months, but rather the purge that followed - searching out the rebels one by one and killing them.
וַיִּבְרַח אֲדַד הוּא וַאֲנָשִׁים אֲדֹמִיִּים מֵעַבְדֵי אָבִיו אִתּוֹ לָבוֹא מִצְרָיִם וַהֲדַד נַעַר קָטָן. וַיָּקֻמוּ מִמִּדְיָן וַיָּבֹאוּ פָּארָן וַיִּקְחוּ אֲנָשִׁים עִמָּם מִפָּארָן וַיָּבֹאוּ מִצְרַיִם אֶל־פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ בַיִת וְלֶחֶם אָמַר לוֹ וְאֶרֶץ נָתַן לוֹ. - But Hadad fled, he and certain Edomite men of his father's servants with him, to go to Egypt; and Hadad was a young lad. And they arose out of Midian and came to Paran, and they took men with them out of Paran and came to Egypt, to Pharaoh king of Egypt, who gave him a house, appointed him provisions, and gave him land.
Hadad, who was of the royal house, fled with his men, passed through Midian and through Paran, and there more men joined them - they formed militias. In this way he made an impression on Pharaoh as one who had troops and a large army, and Pharaoh agreed to take him under his protection: he gave him a house, "appointed him provisions" - commanded that he be given a livelihood, "and gave him land" - a place to live and also a place over which he would be in charge. What was Pharaoh's interest? It is not entirely clear. Perhaps he had a friendship with the men of Edom, perhaps he remembered kindness to his father, and perhaps he feared him and preferred to give him some position of authority. The verse does not explain.
וַיִּמְצָא הֲדַד חֵן בְּעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה מְאֹד וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ אִשָּׁה אֶת־אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲחוֹת תַּחְפְּנֵיס הַגְּבִירָה. - And Hadad found great favor in the eyes of Pharaoh, so that he gave him as a wife the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tachpenes the queen.
This implies that he had special favor in Pharaoh's eyes, to the point that he gave him his sister-in-law as a wife - the sister of Tachpenes the queen, who was Pharaoh's wife, the queen.
וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֲחוֹת תַּחְפְּנֵיס אֵת גְּנֻבַת בְּנוֹ וַתִּגְמְלֵהוּ תַחְפְּנֵס בְּתוֹךְ בֵּית פַּרְעֹה וַיְהִי גְנֻבַת בֵּית פַּרְעֹה בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי פַרְעֹה. - And the sister of Tachpenes bore him Genuvat his son, and Tachpenes weaned him within Pharaoh's house; and Genuvat was in Pharaoh's house among the sons of Pharaoh.
The sister of Tachpenes nursed her son and weaned him, and afterward raised him within Pharaoh's house. The verse comes to teach us that the son received royal manners and the conduct of kingship, and grew up within Pharaoh's house as one destined to reign. He did not receive a simple upbringing, but an upbringing of kings.
וַהֲדַד שָׁמַע בְּמִצְרַיִם כִּי־שָׁכַב דָּוִד עִם־אֲבֹתָיו וְכִי־מֵת יוֹאָב שַׂר־הַצָּבָא וַיֹּאמֶר הֲדַד אֶל־פַּרְעֹה שַׁלְּחֵנִי וְאֵלֵךְ אֶל־אַרְצִי. - And Hadad heard in Egypt that David slept with his fathers, and that Yoav the captain of the army was dead; and Hadad said to Pharaoh: Let me depart, that I may go to my own land.
When Hadad heard that David had died and Yoav had died - and it was Yoav who had been captain of the army, who had fought all the wars - he said: now I have nothing left to fear, and now I can even go out and take revenge. But the Malbim raises a difficulty: did they die today? Many years had passed. Shlomo died at the age of fifty two, and reigned forty years, meaning he ascended to the throne at the age of twelve - and the deaths of David and Yoav were already at the beginning of his reign. And if Hashem raised up this adversary against him in the last ten years, it turns out that they had been dead at least thirty years. Why does he suddenly remember now to request permission to return?
The Malbim explains: as long as Shlomo walked in the ways of Hashem, Hadad could not raise his head. Only at the moment that Shlomo strayed from the ways of Hashem could he raise his head and go out against him. And from here there is a great moral lesson: sometimes a person thinks there are all sorts of natural causes for events, and the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: you think he simply failed to arise for no reason? I held his head down for thirty years. And who raised his head now? Your own sins.
What harms a person is his own sins. "The iniquity of my heels surrounds me" - the one who ensnares a person in his net is his sins. "Your evil will chastise you" - who chastises a person? The evils he has done. And regarding this it is said: "A man's folly perverts his way, and his heart rages against Hashem": a person perverts his way through his own folly, and afterward suddenly: Master of the Universe, why has this come upon me? What did I do? What happened? He has complaints against the Creator of the world. Unfortunately we see this mainly among people who are far from the mitzvot, who transgress everything written in the Torah, and when Hashem exacts from them one in a thousand of what they deserve - they have complaints and objections. And here we see thirty years of quiet, and why? Because you walked in the ways of Hashem and Hashem held him down. And if today you see Hezbollah, and Ahmadinejad, and all the others who trouble us - it is because of us, it is because of our sins. And if there was quiet until now, it is by the kindness of Hashem upon us.
Chazal ask: why does it say of David "for David lay down with his fathers," and in the very same passage "and that Yoav had died"? Seemingly these mean the same thing. Rather, David, who died in his bed, is described with lying down, while Yoav, who was killed, as we recall, by Benayahu ben Yehoyada, is described with death. Another explanation: David, whose sons inherited his place, is described with lying down; Yoav, whose sons did not inherit his place, is described with death. Death signifies cessation, no continuity. Lying down is like sleep: a person goes to lie down and rises again. So David "lay down with his fathers," for he has continuity, whereas Yoav "died": an ending.
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ פַרְעֹה כִּי מָה־אַתָּה חָסֵר עִמִּי וְהִנְּךָ מְבַקֵּשׁ לָלֶכֶת אֶל־אַרְצֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלְּחֵנִי. - And Pharaoh said to him: What do you lack with me, that you seek to go to your land? And he said: Nothing, but you must surely send me away.
Seemingly, why does Hadad need to leave at all? He has a house, he has a land, he has men. Let him send militias from Egypt and go out to war against Shlomo. But Pharaoh was Shlomo's father in law, for Shlomo had married Pharaoh's daughter, and Hadad knew that Pharaoh would never agree to let troops leave Egypt to fight his son in law. Therefore he asked "send me away and let me go to my land," and notice that he does not say at all that he wishes to take revenge on Israel. And when Pharaoh asks "what do you lack with me," he gives a vague answer: "Nothing, but you must surely send me away": private reasons, do not ask too many questions. He is afraid to say that he has an open account to settle with Shlomo, because his father in law would not accept it. I want to return to my land, I want to be independent, but the revenge against Shlomo he does not mention, for it is something that cannot be said.
וַיָּקֶם אֱלֹהִים לוֹ שָׂטָן אֶת־רְזוֹן בֶּן־אֶלְיָדָע אֲשֶׁר בָּרַח מֵאֵת הֲדַדְעֶזֶר מֶלֶךְ־צוֹבָה אֲדֹנָיו. וַיִּקְבֹּץ עָלָיו אֲנָשִׁים וַיְהִי שַׂר־גְּדוּד בַּהֲרֹג דָּוִד אֹתָם וַיֵּלְכוּ דַמֶּשֶׂק וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בָהּ וַיִּמְלְכוּ בְּדַמָּשֶׂק. - And God raised up against him an adversary, Rezon ben Elyada, who had fled from Hadadezer king of Tzova his master. And he gathered men to himself and became captain of a band, when David slew them, and they went to Damascus and dwelt in it and reigned in Damascus.
Hashem raised up for Shlomo an additional adversary, joining the first adversary. Hadadezer was king of Tzova, and Rezon ben Elyada was his servant, and he fled from him and rose to reign. How? "When David slew them": David killed Hadadezer's army, and through this Rezon found the strength to gather men and become a captain of a band. For had David not killed his master, Rezon would have been afraid to rise and reign, since his master was present and would strike him down. But since David killed Hadadezer king of Tzova, the servant was able to rise, gather men, form bands, and reign in Damascus.
And from here you learn how far ingratitude can reach. Rezon ben Elyada received a benefit from David: it was thanks to David killing his master that he was able to rebel, raise himself an army, and reign in Damascus. Thanks to David he still exists, for otherwise his master would have crushed the rebellion and killed him. And nevertheless he held no gratitude toward David, and he rose and rebelled and joined Hadad in order to rebel against Shlomo.
וַיְהִי שָׂטָן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כׇּל־יְמֵי שְׁלֹמֹה וְאֶת־הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר הֲדָד וַיָּקׇץ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּמְלֹךְ עַל־אֲרָם. - And he was an adversary to Israel all the days of Shlomo, along with the evil that Hadad did, and he loathed Israel and reigned over Aram.
"All the days of Shlomo": that is, all that remained of Shlomo's days, his old age, for most of his days were peaceful. "Along with the evil that Hadad did": "et" here means "with": although Rezon himself had no earlier private hatred toward Israel, he joined with Hadad's evil to afflict Israel. "And he loathed Israel and reigned over Aram": and as we recall, Aram used to bring tribute to David and to Shlomo, and now their deeds caused Aram to rebel against Shlomo, a quarrel arose between them, and he reigned over Aram. And when he reigned over Aram, Aram too began to rebel against Shlomo, ceased bringing him tribute, stopped maintaining their ties with him, and no longer feared him. Such is the way of the world: when a person sees someone rise and rebel against a king and the rebellion holds firm, he too gains courage and strength. As long as everyone kept their heads down, no one dared; once these men rose and dared, Aram already accepted them as king against the reign of Shlomo.
וְיָרׇבְעָם בֶּן־נְבָט אֶפְרָתִי מִן־הַצְּרֵדָה וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ צְרוּעָה אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה עֶבֶד לִשְׁלֹמֹה וַיָּרֶם יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ. - And Yeravam the son of Nevat, an Efrati from Tzereda, and his mother's name was Tzerua, a widow, a servant of Shlomo, and he raised a hand against the king.
Here we are introduced for the first time to a man named Yeravam ben Nevat. And at this stage one could still call him "Rav Yeravam ben Nevat," "the righteous genius Yeravam ben Nevat": it is written of him that he was a great God fearing man, and it is written of him that all the sages of Israel were like the grasses of the field before him, meaning small in their Torah indeed compared to his greatness. "An Efrati" - some explain it as an expression of prominence, as we saw in Megillat Rut, and some explain that he was from the tribe of Efraim. "From Tzereda" - the name of his place. "And his mother's name was Tzerua, a widow" - he was the son of a widow, and also a servant of Shlomo, and even so he rose up and conspired against King Shlomo. It was not enough for Shlomo to have adversaries from without, and now Hashem raised up against him an adversary from within.
וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־הֵרִים יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בָּנָה אֶת־הַמִּלּוֹא סָגַר אֶת־פֶּרֶץ עִיר דָּוִד אָבִיו. - And this is the matter over which he raised a hand against the king: Shlomo built the Millo, he closed up the breach of the City of David his father.
What was his claim? Two things. The first - "he built the Millo": there was an empty place in Yerushalayim, and Shlomo went and built upon it a house for the daughter of Pharaoh. And this angered Yeravam, who said to him: David your father left the place empty for the pilgrims coming up for the festivals, so that they would have somewhere to gather when they arrived, and you went and built upon it for the sake of the daughter of Pharaoh? It was not enough that you married a woman it is forbidden to marry, but you also took a large area that was for the benefit of the pilgrims and built her a palace there within Yerushalayim?
And the second - "he closed up the breach of the City of David his father": there was an open place in the wall, so that Israel could come to the king whenever they wished to present their claims and be judged before him, and through that breach they would come. And Shlomo went and closed it up, and this contains, as it were, a separation from the people and a distancing, that he did not want connection with the people. And some explain that the breach was an open place through which the king could flee if they rebelled against him, and the verse comes to say that Shlomo closed it up - and closing it teaches: I do not fear rebels, I am so strong that no one would dare rebel against me. And this too was a thorn in their eyes.
As for the substance of the matter itself, Chazal say: the rebukes were correct. If so, why was Yeravam judged, and why did he ultimately deteriorate to the point of the golden calves? Because he should not have raised a hand against the king. "To raise a hand" means to do so before him in a manner of disgrace, and this was forbidden to him. And from here Chazal learn: had Yeravam rebuked Shlomo respectfully, privately between the two of them, not in a manner of disgrace - he would not have reached all that deterioration. And how did he reach it? Because he did it in a manner of disgrace, in an improper way. Come and see how thin is the line between a great mitzvah and a great sin - like a hair's breadth.
And Chazal further said that he removed his tefillin in his presence. As is known, when there is a Torah scroll present a person may not remove the head tefillin facing the Torah scroll, for this is a manner of disgrace; rather, if he needs to remove them, he should cover his head with a tallit and then take them off, so that he does not stand bareheaded facing the scroll. And this is when he has a necessity to remove them, for otherwise he would surely wait until the end of the prayers. And there is an opinion that he should turn his face to the other side, away from the direction of the Torah scroll. From here we see that removing tefillin before the king is like rebellion against the kingship, as though you are casting off the yoke from upon yourself before him and baring your head in his presence. And this too was one of his sins.
And let us also note the wording of the verse: "over which he raised a hand against the king, Shlomo built the Millo." Is that a fitting way to speak? He should have said "King Shlomo built the Millo." Rather, this itself is the raising of the hand: he calls him plainly "Shlomo," as if he were his friend. And not only that, but "he closed up the breach of the City of David his father" - and not "King David his father," he called him by his name and did not title him with the title of king. On this the Ralbag says: this too was part of Yeravam's sin. It indicates pride, and we shall see further on that this pride was his downfall, and it is what ultimately brought him down.
וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא וְיָרׇבְעָם יָצָא מִירוּשָׁלָ͏ִם וַיִּמְצָא אֹתוֹ אֲחִיָּה הַשִּׁילֹנִי הַנָּבִיא בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְהוּא מִתְכַּסֶּה בְּשַׂלְמָה חֲדָשָׁה וּשְׁנֵיהֶם לְבַדָּם בַּשָּׂדֶה. - And it was at that time, when Yeravam went out of Yerushalayim, that Achiya HaShiloni the prophet found him on the way, and he was covered in a new garment, and the two of them were alone in the field.
Why did Yeravam go out of Yerushalayim? Because at that time, as we shall see further on, Shlomo saw that there was here a rebel against the kingship and pursued him, and therefore Yeravam had to flee. And on the way Achiya HaShiloni the prophet met him, and in his hand was a prophecy and a message for him.
"And he was covered in a new garment" - who was covered? Whatever you say will be correct. Chazal, Rav and Levi, disagreed: one said it was Achiya's garment, and one said it was Yeravam's garment, and there is no decisive proof from the verses. Rav Shmuel said: it stands to reason like the one who says it was Achiya's, for it is the way of the righteous to be the ones who tear apart in the dispute of the House of David. And where do we see this? With Shmuel, who, when Shaul tore the corner of his robe, said to him: "Hashem has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and given it to your fellow who is better than you."
The Malbim adds a point: here another reason emerges for the boldness of heart that led Yeravam to rise up and lift a hand against Shlomo, namely the prophecy of Achiya the Shiloni, who came and told him that he was destined to receive the kingship.
וַיִּתְפֹּשׂ אֲחִיָּה בַּשַּׂלְמָה הַחֲדָשָׁה אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וַיִּקְרָעֶהָ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר קְרָעִים. וַיֹּאמֶר לְיָרׇבְעָם קַח־לְךָ עֲשָׂרָה קְרָעִים כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִנְנִי קֹרֵעַ אֶת־הַמַּמְלָכָה מִיַּד שְׁלֹמֹה וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ אֵת עֲשָׂרָה הַשְּׁבָטִים. - And Achiya seized the new garment that was upon him and tore it into twelve pieces. And he said to Yeravam: Take for yourself ten pieces, for so says Hashem the God of Israel, Behold I am tearing the kingdom from the hand of Shlomo, and I will give you the ten tribes.
"That was upon him" - upon whom? Either the one or the other, and here too there is no clear indication, but it is clear that one of the two was wearing it. He tears the garment into twelve pieces, and says to him: the garment that I tore comes to hint that you are receiving ten pieces out of the kingdom, and the remainder will be received by Rechavam, whom we will see further on.
וְהַשֵּׁבֶט הָאֶחָד יִהְיֶה־לּוֹ לְמַעַן עַבְדִּי דָוִד וּלְמַעַן יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתִּי בָהּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. - And the one tribe shall remain his, for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city that I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel.
Why does it say "the one tribe" when in the end he received two, Yehuda and Binyamin? And indeed, throughout the continuation the text does not call the kingdom "Binyamin" but "Yehuda." The reason: when there are two things, one important and one lesser than it, the text counts by the name of the primary one, and the lesser is included within it automatically. Therefore it is called "one tribe," the tribe of Yehuda, especially since Yehuda is the tribe of kingship, the one tribe, the distinguished one.
And what is the meaning of "for the sake of My servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem"? Since he is a descendant and part of the dynasty of David and Shlomo, who built Jerusalem and built the City of David, who built Zion, because he is their descendant, it is fitting through the strength of their merits that Jerusalem should continue with them, and they will receive the portion of Jerusalem. "The city that I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel," especially since his forefathers built it, and through this they have a greater interest in guarding it, protecting it and maintaining it. And again let us note the wording: "for the sake of My servant David," and not "for the sake of David his father" - as we explained, that the survival of the tribe is not from the merit of the fathers and the promise of continuity, but from the fact that David was My servant and I desire to do good for him. Shlomo's kingship was because David was his father; the kingship of David's grandson is because David was My servant.
יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עֲזָבוּנִי וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְעַשְׁתֹּרֶת אֱלֹהֵי צִדֹנִין לִכְמוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֵי מוֹאָב וּלְמִלְכֹּם אֱלֹהֵי בְנֵי־עַמּוֹן וְלֹא־הָלְכוּ בִדְרָכַי לַעֲשׂוֹת הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינַי וְחֻקֹּתַי וּמִשְׁפָּטַי כְּדָוִד אָבִיו. - Because they have forsaken Me and bowed down to Ashtoret the god of the Sidonians, to Kemosh the god of Moav, and to Milkom the god of the children of Ammon, and they have not walked in My ways to do what is right in My eyes, and My statutes and My laws, like David his father.
"Because they have forsaken Me" in the plural - this refers to all of Shlomo's household, for his wives are his household. They forsook and bowed down to all those idols, and did not walk in the ways of Hashem.
וְלֹא־אֶקַּח אֶת־כׇּל־הַמַּמְלָכָה מִיָּדוֹ כִּי נָשִׂיא אֲשִׁתֶנּוּ כֹּל יְמֵי חַיָּיו לְמַעַן דָּוִד עַבְדִּי אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתִּי אֹתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַר מִצְוֺתַי וְחֻקֹּתָי. - And I will not take the whole kingdom from his hand, for I will make him a prince all the days of his life, for the sake of David My servant whom I chose, who kept My commandments and My statutes.
One interpretation: even though I have torn the kingdom from him, I will not take all of it from his hand, but I will leave him part of the kingdom. And another possibility: the text is speaking of Shlomo himself, and says of him that from Shlomo I will take nothing - all the days of his life I will not take the whole kingdom, I will leave all of it to him, and only after his death will I take a part and leave a part.
And what is meant by "I will make him a prince" - is he not a king? Says the Malbim: the difference between a king and a prince is that a king bequeaths his greatness to his sons, and a prince does not bequeath his greatness to his sons. Therefore "I will make him a prince" - Shlomo from here on is in the status of a prince, meaning his sons will not inherit his kingship.
וְלָקַחְתִּי הַמְּלוּכָה מִיַּד בְּנוֹ וּנְתַתִּיהָ לְּךָ אֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים. וְלִבְנוֹ אֶתֵּן שֵׁבֶט־אֶחָד לְמַעַן הֱיוֹת־נִיר לְדָוִיד־עַבְדִּי כׇּל־הַיָּמִים לְפָנַי בִּירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר בָּחַרְתִּי לִי לָשׂוּם שְׁמִי שָׁם. - I will take the kingdom out of his son's hand and give it to you, the ten tribes. And to his son I will give one tribe, so that David My servant may always have a lamp before Me in Jerusalem, the city I chose for Myself to place My name there.
From Shlomo himself I will not take the kingdom at all, but from his son I will take it in practice, and only two tribes will remain to the son, "one tribe" that includes two within it. And what is "a lamp for David My servant"? The Radak explains "nir" as "ner," a lamp, from the phrase "I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one" - a burning lamp will remain for him. Some explain "nir" as an expression of kingship and rule, like "venirom," which Onkelos translated as their kingdom; and the Metzudat David explains why kingship is called a lamp - because the king bestows and illuminates for all his servants and his entire kingdom. And some explain "nir" as an expression of plowing, that a furrow will remain for him, a place of plowing for his kingdom. And all this is "always before Me in Jerusalem" - in this special place something will still remain for him.
וְאֹתְךָ אֶקַּח וּמָלַכְתָּ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ וְהָיִיתָ מֶּלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל. - And you I will take, and you shall reign over all that your soul desires, and you shall be king over Israel.
On the face of it this is puzzling: if I reign over all that my soul desires, it is obvious that I will be king over Israel. But the Malbim offers a wonderful explanation. One of the conditions of kingship is that the king first rule over himself. If the king rules over his powers, his desires and his cravings, then he will naturally be able to rule over others. And this is "Who are kings? The Sages": since the sages rule over their desires, they naturally rule over others as well. And this is what he said to him: "and you shall reign over all that your soul desires" - if you are able to reign over your cravings and your desires, then "you shall be king over Israel," you will be able to rule over the people of Israel as well.
וְהָיָה אִם־תִּשְׁמַע אֶת־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ בִדְרָכַי וְעָשִׂיתָ הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינַי לִשְׁמוֹר חֻקּוֹתַי וּמִצְוֺתַי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה דָּוִד עַבְדִּי וְהָיִיתִי עִמָּךְ וּבָנִיתִי לְךָ בַיִת־נֶאֱמָן כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּנִיתִי לְדָוִד וְנָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל. - And it shall be, if you heed all that I command you and walk in My ways and do what is right in My eyes, keeping My statutes and My commandments as David My servant did, then I will be with you and build you a lasting house as I built for David, and I will give you Israel.
If you heed all that I command you and do not act cleverly according to your own reasoning, and are not like Shlomo who acted cleverly according to his own wisdom, but do exactly as I command and according to the laws of the Torah, as David My servant did, who did not follow his own understanding but the command of God - "then I will be with you and build you a lasting house," your kingdom will endure.
וַאעַנֶּה אֶת־זֶרַע דָּוִד לְמַעַן זֹאת אַךְ לֹא כׇל־הַיָּמִים. - And I will afflict the seed of David because of this, but not for all time.
"And I will afflict the seed of David" - that they will be humbled before you, and you will reign over all of Israel. But know that this will not be for all time: in the days of the Mashiach the kingship will return to the house of David. And do not delude yourself into thinking that I have abandoned David entirely and now the dynasty continues through you. Such a thing I did only once, from Shaul to David; but David has a promise that some continuity will always remain for him, and at the end of days the kingship will return to him.
וַיְבַקֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה לְהָמִית אֶת־יָרׇבְעָם וַיָּקׇם יָרׇבְעָם וַיִּבְרַח מִצְרַיִם אֶל־שִׁישַׁק מֶלֶךְ־מִצְרַיִם וַיְהִי בְמִצְרַיִם עַד־מוֹת שְׁלֹמֹה. - And Shlomo sought to kill Yaravam, and Yaravam arose and fled to Egypt, to Shishak king of Egypt, and he remained in Egypt until the death of Shlomo.
After he raised his hand against the king, Shlomo saw that there was a rebel here and sought to kill him, and Yaravam fled to Shishak king of Egypt. And you might ask: how could he flee to Shlomo's father-in-law? But his father-in-law had already died, and a new king arose - Shishak, who was not the same Pharaoh as before. This king was an enemy of Shlomo's house and was not related to him by marriage, and therefore Yaravam found in him a city of refuge.
וְיֶתֶר דִּבְרֵי שְׁלֹמֹה וְכׇל־אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וְחׇכְמָתוֹ הֲלוֹא־הֵם כְּתֻבִים עַל־סֵפֶר דִּבְרֵי שְׁלֹמֹה. - And the rest of the acts of Shlomo, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Shlomo.
"The book of the acts of Shlomo" is one of those books that were written and contained all the deeds of Shlomo, and which are not in our possession.
וְהַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עַל־כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה. וַיִּשְׁכַּב שְׁלֹמֹה עִם־אֲבֹתָיו וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּעִיר דָּוִד אָבִיו וַיִּמְלֹךְ רְחַבְעָם בְּנוֹ תַּחְתָּיו. - And the days that Shlomo reigned in Yerushalayim over all Yisrael were forty years. And Shlomo slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father, and Rechavam his son reigned in his place.
Why does the verse stress "that Shlomo reigned in Yerushalayim over all Yisrael"? To distinguish him from David his father. David first reigned seven years in Chevron, where his kingship was partial, not in Yerushalayim and not over all of Yisrael, and only afterward did he reign in Yerushalayim. Shlomo, however, reigned from the outset in Yerushalayim and over all of Yisrael, and his reign lasted forty years: he began to reign at the age of twelve, and passed away at the age of fifty two, a full forty years over all of Yisrael.
Chapter 11 teaches us how a decline unfolds. Shlomo, to whom Hashem appeared twice and whom He explicitly warned, failed in that he allowed idolatry to exist in his city and did not protest against his wives, and therefore "vayitanaf," an absolute burning of wrath and a decree from which there is no return. Yet even within the decree there is kindness: the kingship of the house of David is not uprooted, but a "nir" is preserved for it, by virtue of "David My servant," and even the adversaries who arose, Hadad, Rezon and Yeravam, their purpose was to set straight and not merely to punish. And from here two great lessons emerge: thirty years of quiet teach that when a person walks in the ways of Hashem, his enemies do not raise their heads, and when his sins increase, they arise; and Yeravam, whose words were entirely correct, fell because he rebuked with contempt and with arrogance, teaching us that between a great mitzvah and a great transgression there is only a hair's breadth. And the true condition for kingship is stated explicitly: "and you shall reign over all that your soul desires" - one who rules over himself is the one fit to rule over others.