Jewish audio on Chabad.org. מסכת סנהדרין דף כ״א, we will start six lines from the top of the עמוד, which is from the beginning of the משנה. And here we are still in the middle of the דינים of a מלך, of a king. And the משנה starts by quoting the פסוק in פרשת שופטים, where it says לא ירבה לו נשים, he shouldn't multiply his wives, which means he shouldn't have too many wives. So the משנה says, אלא שמונה עשרה, he's only allowed to have 18 wives, as the גמרא will learn it later on from פסוקים. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, מרבה הוא לו, he is allowed to have more, ובלבד, as long, שלא יהיו מסירות את לבו, as long as they do not turn away his heart. Because the פסוק itself says, ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור לבבו, so it shouldn't turn away his heart. So if he is able to have more wives, and still it won't turn away his heart, he is allowed to have, and that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, אפילו אחת ומסירה את לבו, הרי זה לא ישאנה. Even if he has one, but she will turn his heart away, he can't marry her. So then the question is, אם כן, למה נאמר לא ירבה לו נשים? So why does the תורה say he should not have too many wives? If even one wife, if she will turn away his heart, he's not allowed to marry her, so it doesn't really depend on how many he has. The main thing is he shouldn't turn away his heart, and therefore even one, if she will turn away his heart, he's not allowed to marry her. So what does the תורה mean when it says לא ירבה לו, you shouldn't have too many? That means אפילו כאביגיל, even if he has many like אביגיל, and אביגיל was a צדקת, still, more than the amount he's allowed to have, he is not allowed to marry. And that's the מחלוקת between רבי שמעון and רבי יהודה. רבי יהודה says that there is no amount, he's allowed to marry as much as he wants, the main thing is they shouldn't turn away his heart. And רבי שמעון says that there is an amount how much he's allowed to, even if they won't turn away his heart, even if they're צדקניות like אביגיל, and that is the חשבון of 18. But if they will turn away his heart, so then even one is not allowed. And the גמרא says, למימרא will we say דרבי יהודה דריש טעמא דקרא ורבי שמעון לא דריש טעמא דקרא, it comes out that רבי יהודה דארשנס the טעם, the reason of the פסוק, and רבי שמעון does not דארשן the reason of the פסוק. In other words, רבי יהודה looks into the פסוק, and he says that the reason of this דין, why he's not allowed to have too many wives, is because they could turn away his heart. And on that reason, he bases his דין, that if they will not turn away his heart, then he's allowed to marry many wives. So it comes out that רבי יהודה holds that we have to דארשן the reason of the פסוק, and we base the דין on the reason of the פסוק. And רבי שמעון who says that even if they will not turn away his heart, he is not allowed to marry more than a certain amount, obviously he holds that we do not דארשן the reason of the פסוק. In other words, the reason of the פסוק has no effect on the דין. Even though the reason is because we're afraid that the wives will turn away his heart, but nevertheless, this doesn't change the דין. The דין is not based on the reason of the פסוק. והאיפכא שמעינן להו, but don't we know just the opposite? That רבי שמעון is the one that does דארשן the reason of the פסוק, and he does base the דין on the reason, while רבי יהודה doesn't?

דתניא, as we learn in a ברייתא, and this is a ברייתא concerning the דין which it says in the פסוק in פרשת כי תצא, קפיטל כ״ד, פסוק י״ז, it says ולא תחבול בגד אלמנה, you should not take as collateral, as a משכון, the garment of a widow. So it says in the ברייתא, אלמנה, a widow, בין שהיא עניה בין שהיא עשירה, whether she is poor or she is rich, אין ממשכנין אותה, you cannot take a משכון from her. שנאמר, the פסוק says ולא תחבול בגד אלמנה, you should not take a משכון the garment of an אלמנה, so no matter what, whether she is rich or poor, the דין is you're not allowed to take from her a משכון. דברי רבי יהודה, that's the opinion of רבי יהודה. רבי שמעון אומר, רבי שמעון says, עשירה, if she is rich, ממשכנין אותה, you are allowed to take a משכון from her. עניה, if she is poor, that's when אין ממשכנין אותה, that you're not allowed to take a משכון. The reason? And it continues in the ברייתא, ואתה חייב להחזיר לה, and you are obligated to return the משכון to her, ואתה משיא שם רע בשכנותיה, and you will give her a bad name amongst her neighbors. ואמרינן, and we say, what is the connection between these two things? First רבי שמעון said that a rich woman you are allowed to take a משכון, and from a poor woman not. And then he gives another statement, that you must return it to her and you give her a bad name amongst her neighbors. So what did he mean? הכא קאמר, this is what רבי שמעון meant, that מתוך שאתה ממשכנה, since if you take a משכון, אתה חייב להחזיר לה, you will have to return it, if she is poor and she has no other garment, so you will have to return the garment to her, ואתה משיא שם רע בשכנותיה. and you will give her a bad name amongst her neighbors. In other words, that ר' שמעון was saying that what is the reason of the פסוק, that you are not allowed to take a משכון from a widow, it is because you will have to return it to her every night, so you will give her a bad name when you go to return it to her. And that's what ר' שמעון says, that if this is the reason of the פסוק, so then in a case where she is rich and you do not have to return it to her every night, there is no reason why you should not be allowed to take a משכון from her. So we see here, אלמא we see that רב יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא, that רב יהודה does not דרשן the טעם of the פסוק, and ר' שמעון דריש טעמא דקרא, ר' שמעון does דרשן. We see that רב יהודה says that we don't care what the reason of the פסוק is. The פסוק says לא תחבול בגד אלמנה, you should not take a משכון, a בגד of an אלמנה, so no matter what, even though the reason is because you have to come and take it from her and bring it back, and you will give her a bad name, still we don't care, because the reason of the פסוק has no effect on the דין. While ר' שמעון is just the opposite. He says that we have to look at the reason, and since the reason is because you will give her a bad name amongst her neighbors, so that reason has an effect on the דין and it changes the דין, and because of this reason he says that if she is rich, you are allowed to take a משכון. So this is just the opposite of what we said here. In our משנה, it seems that רב יהודה is the one that דרשנ's the פסוק and therefore he says that if the wives will not turn his heart away, he's allowed to have many wives. While ר' שמעון says, we don't care whether they turn away or not. Since the תורה says that he's not allowed to have many wives, even if they are like אביגיל, still he's not allowed. So ר' שמעון is the one that doesn't דרשן the טעם of the פסוק. And the גמרא answers, בעלמא, other places all over, רב יהודה לא דריש טעמא דקרא, רב יהודה really doesn't דרשן the טעם of the פסוק. ושאני הכא, here it's different, דמפרש טעמא דקרא, that he is just explaining the reason the פסוק itself gives. מאי טעמא לא ירבה לו נשים? What is the reason the תורה says why he should not have too many wives? משום דלא יסור לבבו, because he shouldn't turn away his heart. So here the תורה itself gives the reason. In the other case, where the תורה doesn't give the reason, the תורה just says do not take a בגד אלמנה as a משכון, so even though we understand the reason, still he says that reason has no effect on the דין. But in this case where the תורה itself continues and says לא יסור לבבו, he shouldn't turn away his heart, so the תורה itself is giving the reason why he shouldn't have too many wives. So רב יהודה says in this case the reason does have an effect on the דין. But ר' שמעון אמר לך, ר' שמעון will say, מכדי בעלמא, really all over, דדרשינן טעמא דקרא, we have to דרשן the טעם of the פסוק, and therefore, even where the פסוק does not specifically give the reason, we still have to understand the reason, and base the דין on the reason. But in our case it's different, because אם כן, if in our case the תורה meant that only if they will turn away his heart, that's when it's forbidden, אם כן לכתוב קרא לא ירבה לו נשים ולשתוק, let the תורה just say he shouldn't have too many wives and not give the reason, not say anymore, ואנא אמינא, and I would say myself, מאי טעמא לא ירבה, what is the reason why he shouldn't have too many wives, משום דלא יסור, in order for them not to turn away his heart. Since in every place we ourselves understand the reason, and we base the דין on the reason that we understand ourselves if the תורה doesn't write, so the same thing could have been in this פסוק, too, that the תורה should have just written that he should not have too many wives without giving the reason, and we would have done like we do all over, according to ר' שמעון, that we figure out the reason ourselves, and we base the דין on the reason. So the question is לא יסור למה לי? So why does the תורה have to add the words לא יסור, that they shouldn't turn away his heart? So that comes to teach us אפילו אחת ומסרת לבו, that even if she's one, and she will turn away his heart, הרי זו לא ישא, and he shouldn't marry her. But if so, if the פסוק is telling us that even one that turns away his heart he's not allowed to marry, אלא מה אני מקיים לא ירבה? So what do I do with the פסוק that he shouldn't have too many? If this is like all other cases of the תורה, that the דין depends on the reason, so it would come out that since the reason is in order not to turn away his heart, so even if he has many wives, if they don't turn away his heart, then he's allowed to have them. So what does the תורה mean לא ירבה לו נשים, he shouldn't have too many wives? ממה נפשך, if they will turn away his heart, then even one he can't have, because the פסוק says לא יסור. If they won't turn away his heart, then he can have many, too, because we דרשן the טעם of the פסוק. So therefore we must say that what does the פסוק mean when it says לא ירבה לו נשים, דאפילו כאביגיל, even if they are צדקניות like אביגיל, still you're not allowed to have. So therefore, in this case, it's דווקא just the opposite than always, that here we don't follow the reason behind it, and here we say that the תורה, when It says, he should not who have too many wives, it means even if they will not turn away his heart. Then the

גמרא asks, הני שמונה עשרה מנלן? This חשבון of 18, where do we take it from? And the משנה said that he is not allowed to have more than 18, where do we have the חשבון of 18? גמרא says, דכתיב, because the פסוק says in שמואל ב' קפיטל ג' פסוק ב', concerning דוד it says, ויולדו לדוד בנים בחברון, there were born to דוד children in חברון. ויהי בכורו אמנון, his בכור was אמנון, לאחינעם היזרעאלית, that was born to his wife אחינעם היזרעאלית. ומשנהו, and the second one, was כלאב לאביגיל אשת נבל הכרמלי. The second one was כלאב that was born to אביגיל, the wife of נבל הכרמלי. והשלישי, the third one, was אבשלום בן מעכה בת תלמי מלך גשור. והרביעי, and the fourth one, was אדניה who was בן חגית, the son of חגית. והחמישי, and the fifth son, was שפטיה בן אביטל, the son of אביטל. והששי, and the sixth son, was יתרעם לעגלה אשת דוד, was יתרעם that was born to עגלה, the wife of דוד. אלה ילדו לדוד בחברון, these were the ones that were born to דוד in חברון. So we see from this פסוק that דוד had six wives. וקאמר ליה נביא, and the נביא said to דוד later on, when after the מעשה בת שבע, and the נביא came to give מוסר to דוד, so he said to him that we gave you the house of your master of שאול, and we gave you the wives of your master in your lap, that you took the wives from the household of שאול, and we gave you בית ישראל ויהודה. And then he said, ואם מעט, if it is not enough, ואסיפה לך, I could add to you, כהנה וכהנה, like that and like that. So we דרשנ'ן, since originally he had six wives, and he said to him, I could give you that much and that much, so the first כהנה is שש. When he said I could give you that much, that means six more. Then וכהנה, the second time כהנה, again that much, that is שש, that is another six. So that means that he had six, and he said, I could still give you 12 more, דהוו להו תמני סרי, here you have 18. So from here we know that a מלך is allowed to have 18 wives. מתקיף לה רבינא, רבינא asked a קשיא, אימא, why can't I say כהנה, the first כהנה, טאקע means תרתי סרי, 12? Since already he had six, then he says, I will give you that many, that is six more, so it is 12. וכהנה, עשרין וארבע, but the second כהנה means double of what he said up to then, that means another 12. We just said that the second כהנה means another six, but why can't we say that since after the first כהנה he already said 12, then he says וכהנה it means another 12, which is עשרין וארבע, which is 24? And תניא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn in a ברייתא like that, that when it says in the פסוק, לא ירבה לו נשים, he shouldn't multiply his wives, that means יותר מעשרין וארבע, he is not allowed to have more than 24. ולמאן דדריש ו"ו, and according to the one that דרשנ'ס a ו"ו, that wherever there is an extra ו"ו, he דרשנ'ס that this comes to include the same amount again, so it would come out ארבעין ותמניא הוו, that he was allowed to have up to 48. Since here it says כהנה וכהנה with this extra ו"ו, and there is an opinion that דרשנ'ס the extra ו"ו, as רש"י says that רבי עקיבא later on דף מ' עמוד א' דרשנ'ס the extra ו"ו, so here, since כהנה וכהנה would mean 24, so the ו"ו would come to add another 24, which would add up to 48. And תניא נמי הכי, we טאקע learn in a ברייתא like that, לא ירבה לו נשים, the תורה says he shouldn't have too many wives, that means יותר מארבעים ושמונה, he shouldn't have more than 48. But then the גמרא asks, ותנא דידן, our תנא, who learns that it is only 18, מאי טעמא, what is his reason? Why doesn't he learn that when it says the second כהנה it means to add another 12? Since the first כהנה adds six together with the previous six it is 12, then when it says a second כהנה it should mean another 12, so it should be 24?

אמר רב כהנא, so רב כהנא said, מקיש כהנה בתרא לכהנה קמא, we compare the second כהנה to the first כהנה. מה כהנה קמא שש, just like the first כהנה is six, because he had originally six, so when he says I will give you כהנה the same amount it means six, אף כהנה בתרא שש, so the second כהנה is also another six. And therefore he learns that it is up to 18. Then the גמרא asks, והא הויא מיכל, how can we say that דוד had only six wives, when we know he had another wife which was מיכל, the daughter of שאול, and she is not mentioned among the six? So obviously he had a seventh wife. אמר רב, so רב said, עגלה זו מיכל, the sixth wife that is mentioned, which is עגלה, really that is מיכל. ולמה נקרא שמה עגלה, why was she called עגלה in this פסוק? שחביבה עליו כעגלה, she was beloved to him like a calf. Like a calf is loved by its mother, so she was loved by דוד. וכן הוא אומר, and we טאקע find in another פסוק where it uses the same term to show the love. The פסוק says, לולי חרשתם בעגלתי וגומר. And this is a פסוק that שמשון said, when שמשון asked the riddle, and the people didn't have the answer, and through שמשון's wife, they got the answer out of שמשון. So later when they told him the answer, he said to them, לולי חרשתם בעגלתי, "If you wouldn't have plowed in my עגלה, you wouldn't have known the answer." And when he said בעגלתי, "my עגלה", he meant his wife. So we see that you can refer to your wife with the לשון עגלה. And the reason is, because if you love her like a mother loves its calf, you can use the לשון עגלה. And here too, why why does the פסוק refer to מיכל with the לשון עגלה? Because she was loved by דוד like an עגלה. Then the גמרא asks, how can you say that עגלה is מיכל? The פסוק mentions the child that עגלה had, ומי הוו למיכל בני? Did מיכל have any children? וכתיב, doesn't it say, ולמיכל בת שאול לא היה לה ולד עד יום מותה, that מיכל the daughter of שאול didn't have a child till the day of her death? אמר רב חסדא, so רב חסדא said, עד יום מותה לא היה לה, till the day of her death she didn't have, ביום מותה היה לה, but the day of her death she did have. Which would mean that she died in childbirth. But then the גמרא asks, how can you say that? מכדי דכתיב, בנים היכא דקא חשיב להו, when the פסוק mentions the children of דוד, and includes the child of עגלה, where does the תורה mention it? בחברון, in חברון yet, which was earlier. ואילו מעשה דמיכל בירושלים הוה, the story of מיכל was in ירושלים. When the תורה says that she had no child, this was as a punishment, as the גמרא will explain soon, for something that she did. And that she did in ירושלים, which was after דוד was in חברון. So how can we say that when the פסוק says that she had a child in חברון, that means that she had a child right before her death? דכתיב, the פסוק says, ומיכל בת שאול נשקפה בעד החלון, that מיכל the daughter of שאול looked through the window, ותרא את המלך דוד, and she saw the king דוד, מפזז ומכרכר לפני ה', he was leaping and dancing before ה', ותבז, and she despised him in her heart. ואמר רב יהודה, ואיתימא רב יוסף, and רב יהודה said, and some say it was רב יוסף, דשקלתה מיכל למטרפסה, that מיכל took her punishment. That when the פסוק says there that she didn't have any child, this was as a punishment for what she did when she despised דוד in her heart for what דוד המלך did. So how can we say that she had a child right before she died, which was later? אלא אימא, therefore we should say, עד אותו מעשה היה לה, that up to that מעשה she had, מכאן ואילך לא היה לה, after which she didn't have. So when the פסוק says that she didn't have a child, it doesn't mean that she didn't have a child at all, but after that מעשה she didn't have any children. And that was a punishment for that מעשה. But before that, she could have had a child. So therefore, when it says that before that in חברון, עגלה had a child, and we said עגלה is מיכל, it could be that she did have a child, and it's no contradiction to the פסוק where it says that she had no child, because that refers to a later time. Then the גמרא asks, how can you say that דוד only had 18 wives? וכתיב, doesn't it say, ויקח דוד עוד פילגשים ונשים מירושלים, that דוד took more concubines and wives of ירושלים? So we see he had more. So the גמרא says, no, למלויי שמונה עשר, that when he took these, it was to make up the amount of 18. Then the גמרא asks,

מאי נשים ומאי פילגשים? What are wives and what are concubines? What is the difference in הלכה between an אשה and a פילגש? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה said in the name of רב, נשים בכתובה ובקידושין. Wives mean if you take them with a כתובה and with קידושין. You give her קידושין, so she is your wife, plus you write her a כתובה. A כתובה is a document where you promise to give her a certain amount of money if you divorce her or you die. But פילגשים is בלא כתובה ובלא קידושין. פילגשים are without כתובה and without קידושין. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רב יהודה said in the name of רב, ארבע מאות ילדים היו לו לדוד. דוד had 400 children, וכולם בני יפת תואר היו. They were all children of יפת תואר. The דין of a יפת תואר is, in חומש, פרשת כי תצא, in the beginning of the פרשה where it says, כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך, "When you will go out to war against your enemies," וראית בשביה אשת יפת תואר, "and you will see in captivity a beautiful woman," וחשקת בה, "and you will desire her," ולקחת לך לאשה, "you can take her for a wife." And the תורה goes on saying what he is supposed to do. There are certain conditions that he is supposed to fulfill, and then she becomes his wife. So what it says here is that these 400 children were all from יפת תואר. ומגדלי בלורית היו, they had long hair, וכולם יושבים בקרונות של זהב, they all sat in carriages of gold, which means they drove in golden carriages, ומהלכים בראשי גייסות היו, and they... They all marched at the head of the troops. והם היו בעלי אגרופין של בית דוד, and they were the ones in power of the household of דוד. Then the גמרא says, ואמר דבי רבי שילא, also, which is what we were just

saying in the name of רב, תמר בת יפת תואר היתה. תמר was a daughter of a יפת תואר. תמר, who was the daughter of דוד, and she was a sister of אבשלום, so she was a daughter of a יפת תואר, which means that before her mother was מגייר a hundred percent to become a Jewish woman, that's when she gave birth to דוד, the daughter תמר. And the ראיה is שנאמר, as it says, ועתה דבר נא אל המלך כי לא ימנעני ממך. This was said by תמר to אמנון, when אמנון wanted to have תמר. So תמר said, do not force me, but just speak to the king that you want me as a wife, and he will not hold me back from you, he will allow you to marry me. Now, אמנון, who wanted to marry תמר, was a son of דוד. אי סלקא דעתך בת נשואין הוי, if you're going to think that תמר was a daughter of a married wife to דוד, אחתיה מי הוה שריא ליה, how would he allow him to marry the sister? How could have תמר said to אמנון, speak to דוד, he will allow you to marry me, since אמנון was a son of דוד, and she was also a daughter of דוד, so אמנון and תמר were a brother and a sister, so how would she say that דוד would allow him to marry her? אלא שמע מינה, from here we know that בת יפת תואר היתה, she was a daughter of יפת תואר. And since her mother became pregnant with her and gave birth to her before she was מגייר, and the דין is that if the mother is a non-Jewess and the father is a איד, then the child is a גוי, so in this case too, the child really follows the mother, and therefore she is not considered a daughter of דוד, and therefore she was not really a sister to אמנון. Now, from this גמרא, תוספות asks a קשיא on רש״י. The גמרא here says that we must say that she was a daughter of a יפת תואר, and then we understand how she was allowed to marry אמנון, because she was not really considered a daughter of דוד. So תוספות says, רש״י says in the גמרא קידושין דף כ״ב, when the גמרא דרשנ'ס the פסוק where it says by יפת תואר, והבאתה אל תוך ביתך, you should bring her into your house. So the גמרא says, מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה, that when the פסוק says you should bring her to your house, it teaches us that you cannot pressure her during the war. So רש״י says what does that mean? That during the war you're not allowed to have any relations with her, even not the ביאה ראשונה, a first relation, not even once. Only after you bring her home and you do all the things that the תורה says you should do, that's when you're allowed to have relations with her. Now

according to that, דוד, when he took her mother, תמר's mother מעכה, as an אשת יפת תואר, he wasn't allowed to have relations with her till after he brought her home and he did with her all the things the תורה says. So it comes out that the first relations he had with her was after she was מגייר already. So what kind of תירוץ does the גמרא give here? The גמרא is trying to say that she was not really considered his daughter, and ממילא not a sister to אמנון, because she was born from אשת יפת תואר, but if you are not allowed to have relations with an אשת יפת תואר only after everything is done, which is after she's מגייר, so again, she was דוד's daughter and she was a sister to אמנון. Another קשיא תוספות asks, that the גמרא says that the reason the תורה allowed an אשת יפת תואר because לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע, the תורה spoke against the יצר הרע. In other words, the תורה knew that if they're not going to allow it, the person will do it anyway. So the תורה said, well, you might as well do it בהיתר. So that is משמע that during wartime you're allowed to have at least one ביאה, because if you're not allowed to have even one ביאה, so what do you do here to appease the יצר הרע? So therefore the רבינו תם says a קלארע פשט that when the גמרא says over there, מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה, that teaches us that you're not allowed to pressure her in war, that means that a second ביאה, a second time you're not allowed to have relations with her, but the first ביאה is allowed to be done at the time of war before she goes through the whole process as the תורה prescribes. That means while she is still a גויה. So according to that, we would say that תמר was born from the first ביאה that דוד had with her mother, which was while she was a גויה, and therefore she is not considered דוד's daughter, so therefore she is not considered a sister of אמנון. But then תוספות asks that we find in ירושלמי a clear מחלוקת concerning this דין between רב and שמואל. רב says that during the war you're only allowed to have one ביאה. The second ביאה is forbidden during the war, it is only allowed after you bring her home and do all the things the תורה says. But שמואל says that you cannot even allowed to have the first ביאה. Now according to שמואל, we must say that תמר, even though she was born from יפת תואר, she is considered the daughter of דוד, because דוד was not allowed to have ביאה with her before she was מגייר, only after that she was מגייר. So she is considered the daughter of דוד. So according to שמואל, how are we going to answer this question. How would אמנון be allowed to marry תמר when תמר was the daughter of דוד? So therefore תוספות says we must say that תמר really was not a daughter of דוד, because when דוד had relations with her mother, she was already pregnant when she came to war. So she really is not a daughter of דוד. And even though the פסוק says concerning her, כי כן תלבשנה בנות המלכים מעילים, that the daughters of the king would wear a certain garment and it refers to her, so obviously we call her the daughter of the king, so תוספות says because she was raised in the house of the king she is considered a daughter of the king, but really she wasn't not a daughter of דוד, and therefore she was allowed to marry אמנון according to שמואל. Now the

גמרא continues and quotes many of the פסוקים in the story of אמנון and תמר, and the גמרא דרש's these פסוקים. First the גמרא quotes the פסוק where it says, ולאמנון רע ושמו יונדב בן שמעה אחי דוד, that אמנון had a friend whose name was יונדב בן שמעה the brother of דוד. The פסוק, ויונדב איש חכם מאד, and יונדב was a very smart person. Because in the פסוק it says that אמנון had a desire to תמר. So אמנון had a friend whose name was יונדב, and he was very smart and he advised him what to do. He said to him, why don't you make yourself like you're sick and the king will come and visit you. When the king will come to visit you, you'll ask him he should send תמר to bring you food and then when he will send תמר to you you will already know what to do. So אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה says in the name of רב, when the פסוק says that יונדב was smart it means איש חכם לרשעה, he was smart for evil. He was smart to figure out an evil plan. Then the פסוק continues and says, ויאמר לו, and יונדב said to אמנון, מדוע אתה ככה דל בן המלך, why are you the son of the king so skinny? And אמנון answered him, the גמרא doesn't bring it, but this is what it says in the פסוק, that he answered him that תמר, the sister of אבשלום, I like. ויאמר לו יונדב, so יונדב said to him, שכב על משכבך, lay in your bed, והתחל, and make yourself sick, etc. But your father will come to see you and you will tell him let תמר my sister come and feed me bread. עד, till we continue on the פסוק says, ועשתה לעיני את הבריה, and she should make in front of me the food. And then the פסוק continues, ותקח את המשרת ותצק לפניו, that she took the pan and she poured it out in front of him. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רב יהודה said in the name of רב, שעשתה לו מיני טיגון, so she made for him certain kinds of pancakes. Then it says in the פסוק further, that he didn't want to eat from it, and when she got close to him he grabbed her and he said, lay down with me. And she said please don't force me this is something that shouldn't be done, what will I do? But he didn't want to listen to her and he forced her, and he did the עבירה with her. So the

פסוק continues in פסוק ט״ו and it says, וישנאה אמנון שנאה גדולה מאד, that at that moment אמנון hated her very much. Just like before he loved her, but now after he did the act with her, he hated her very much. מאי טעמא? What is the reason? Why did he all of a sudden start hating her? אמר רבי יצחק, so רבי יצחק says, נימא נקשרה לו, that a hair got tied to him, ועשאתו כרות שפכה, and it turned him into a כרות שפכה. It mutilated him. But then the גמרא asks, וכי נקשרה לו, if it got tied to him, if it happened by itself, היא מאי עבדה? What did she do? Why was she he angry at her? אלא אימא, therefore you must say, קשרה לו נימא, she tied a hair to him, ועשאתו כרות שפכה, and she made him into a כרות שפכה. But the גמרא says איני, it couldn't be. והא דרש רבא, didn't רבא דרש, מאי דכתיב, what is the meaning of the פסוק where it says, ויצא לך שם בגוים ביפיך, that you will get a name amongst the nations with your beauty, שאין להן לבנות ישראל, that means that the Jewish daughters don't have, לא שער בית השחי ולא שער בית הערוה, they don't have underarm hair and they don't have pubic hair. So how can we say that she had a hair tangled around him? The גמרא answers, שאני תמר, תמר is different. She did have hair because דבת יפת תואר הואי, she was a daughter of a יפת תואר. If you're born from a Jewish mother, then you do not have the hair. And this all also was only before they sinned, before the חורבן בית המקדש. But since she was a daughter of a יפת תואר so she she did have hair. Then the פסוק continues and says, ותקח תמר אפר על ראשה, that תמר took ashes on her head, וכתונת הפסים אשר עליה קרעה, and the colored garment that was on her she tore. תנא משמיה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה, we learned in the name of רבי יהושע בן קרחה, גדר גדול גדרה תמר באותה שעה, that at that time תמר made a great fence. In other words, she did find something that would be a fence for other people not to do the עבירה of זנות. Because אמרו, they would say, people said at that time, לבנות מלכים כך, if this could happen to daughters of kings, לבנות הדיוטות על אחת כמה וכמה, certainly it could happen to daughters of ordinary people. So therefore where you have to be very careful. And also they said, אם לצנועות כך, if this could happen to צנועות, לפרוצות על אחת כמה וכמה, certainly to פרוצות. If it happens to women who are modest, certainly to people who are not modest, it certainly could happen. So this caused them to realize what could happen, so it made a big גדר for them. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רב יהודה said in the name of רב, באותה שעה, at that time, גזרו על ייחוד ועל פנויה. At that time the חכמים made a גזירה, a decree, to forbid ייחוד, to forbid private meeting between a man and a married woman, ועל פנויה, also private meeting between a man and an unmarried woman. Then the גמרא

asks, ייחוד דאורייתא הוא, how could you say at that time the חכמים made a גזירה to forbid ייחוד between a man and a married woman? This is מדאורייתא, this is a דין of the תורה, דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק, didn't רבי יוחנן say in the name of רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק, רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין, where do we find in the תורה a hint for ייחוד? שנאמר, because the פסוק says, this is a פסוק in פרשת ראה, קפיטל י״ג פסוק ז׳, it says, כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך, that if your brother, the son of your mother, will try to entice you, and as the פסוק continues, he will try to entice you to worship עבודה זרה. But the question that is asked, וכי בן אם מסית, בן אב אינו מסית? Is it true that only the son of your mother could convince you, could try to entice you to do עבודה זרה, but the son of your father can't? Because the פסוק only mentions בן אמך and doesn't say בן אביך. אלא לומר לך, so this פסוק comes to tell you, בן מתייחד עם אמו, that a son is allowed to have ייחוד with his mother, ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל העריות שבתורה, but no other person is allowed to have ייחוד with any of the relatives which is forbidden to him. Even though a mother is forbidden to a son, but nevertheless there is no איסור of ייחוד between a son and a mother, but any other forbidden relative, there is an איסור of ייחוד. So this פסוק comes to teach us the דין of ייחוד by an ערווה, by a relative, by one that's forbidden. So we understand from here too, that if she's a married woman, that is she is forbidden for you, you're not allowed to have ייחוד with her. So it comes out that ייחוד is learned out from a פסוק in the תורה. So how could you say that at that time they made the decree of ייחוד? The גמרא answers, אלא אימא, therefore you must say, גזרו על ייחוד דפנויה, that at that time they only made the decree for ייחוד of a פנויה, of an unmarried woman, because ייחוד with a married woman was forbidden from the תורה, but when they saw what happened with אמנון and תמר, that's when they made the גזירה that you're not allowed to have ייחוד even with an unmarried woman. Then, continued to דרש the פסוקים there, it says a פסוק in תנ״ך, ואדוניהו בן חגית מתנשא לאמר אני אמלוך, that אדוניה the son of חגית held himself big and he said, I will be the king. אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה said in the name of רב, מלמד, that teaches us, שביקש להולמו ולא הולמתו, that he tried and wanted that the crown should fit him, but it did not fit him. Because as the דין is that only one that is fit to become the king, the crown would fit. So he wanted to have the crown fit, but it didn't fit him. Then it says further, ויעש לו רכב ופרשים, he made himself a chariot and riders, וחמשים איש רצים לפניו, and 50 people were running in front of him. So the גמרא asks, מאי רבותא? What's so special about that? Since he was a son of the king, so what's so special, what's so great about having 50 people run in front of him? אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, so רב יהודה said in the name of רב, that these 50 people were special people. כולם נטולי טחול וחקוקי כפות רגלים היו. They all had their spleens removed, and also the flesh of the soles of their feet were cut off. And this would make him run much faster, because the spleen weighs a lot, and if you're heavier you can't run so fast, so you had all their spleens taken out. And also, if you have that flesh on the sole of your foot, then you cannot run because you could get hurt with thorns, etc., so you had that removed. And that's what the, and that's what the פסוק means that he had 50 people running in front of him, 50 special runners, not ordinary runners. Then we will continue with the משנה. It says in the משנה, the פסוק says, לא ירבה לו סוסים, he should not have too many horses, אלא כדי מרכבתו, he's only allowed to have enough for his chariot. The פסוק also says by the king, וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד, he's not allowed to have too much gold and silver, אלא כדי ליתן אספניא, only enough to support his army. Also the דין by a מלך is, וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו, he's supposed to write a ספר תורה for himself. And יוצא למלחמה מוציאה עמו, when he goes out to war, he takes it out with him, נכנס, when he comes in, ומכניסה עמו, he brings it in with him, יושב בדין, when he sits in judgment, היא עמו, it is with him, מיסב, when he lies down, היא כנגדו, it's in front of him, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, והיתה עמו, it should be with him, וקרא בו כל ימי חייו, he should read in it all the days of his life. So therefore whatever he does, this ספר תורה should always be with him. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, the פסוק says, לא ירבה לו סוסים, that a king should not multiply his horses. יכול, I would think, אפילו כדי מרכבתו ופרשיו, that he shouldn't even have enough for his chariot and his riders? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says לו, it says לא ירבה לו סוסים, he shouldn't multiply for him horses. So we learn, לו אינו מרבה, for himself, for his pleasure, to make it just bigger, he's not allowed. אבל מרבה הוא כדי רכבו ופרשיו, but he's allowed to add enough how much he needs for his chariot and the riders. Then the question is, ומה אני מקיים סוסים, what will we do with the word סוסים? Because normally, horses are connected to the wagon, to the chariot. And since it says here he should not be מרבה סוסים, and it doesn't say he should not be מרבה his horses, which means extra horses. It says he should not be מרבה horses, and regularly horses are connected to a chariot, so it's as if the פסוק is saying that he shouldn't even have enough horses for his chariot. The גמרא answers, סוסים הבטלנים, it means horses who are not working, who are not needed for his chariot. But then the גמרא asks, מניין שאפילו סוס אחד והוא בטל שהוא בלא ירבה, how do we know that even one horse that is extra, that is not needed for a chariot, he's already עובר on this עבירה of לא ירבה? תלמוד לומר, so the פסוק says, למען הרבות סוס. It says he shouldn't have to go to מצרים, because in מצרים, that's where they used to have a lot of horses. So the פסוק says he should not have a lot of horses in order for him not to go to מצרים, למען הרבות סוס, in order to have many horses. So here, the תורה doesn't say סוסים לשון רבים, plural, but it says סוס, and here we know that even one extra horse, he's already עובר on this עבירה. But then the גמרא asks, וכי מאחר דאפילו סוס אחד והוא בטל קאי בלא ירבה, since even if he has one extra horse that is not needed, already he is עובר on this עבירה of לא ירבה, סוסים למה לי, why does the תורה have to say סוסים that he shouldn't have extra horses? Because when it says סוסים לשון רבים, it's משמע more than one, as if the פסוק is saying that by having one horse, he is not עובר, but we just said that even with one extra horse he's עובר. So how come the תורה says סוסים? The גמרא answers, לעבור בלא תעשה על כל סוס וסוס, to teach us that every extra horse he has, he is עובר on another לא תעשה. And as תוספות explains the פשט, that the truth is that we would know that if you have one extra horse you're עובר on the לא תעשה, because the פסוק says למען הרבות סוס, לשון יחיד, in singular, that teaches us that even for one סוס you're עובר. But what we would have thought is that if you have two or more extra horses, you are still עובר only on one לא תעשה. And that's why the פסוק says סוסים, to teach us that for every extra horse that he has, he is עובר on another לא תעשה. Then the גמרא goes back to the דין that we said before: that whatever he needs for his chariot and for his riders he's allowed to have. The גמרא asks, טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו, how do we know that he's allowed to have whatever he needs for his chariot is because the תורה says לא ירבה לו סוסים, he shouldn't multiply for himself horses, which means anything extra, but whatever he needs for his רכבו ופרשיו he's allowed. But how do we know that from this extra word? הא לאו הכי, but if not for that, הוה אמינא I would have thought אפילו כדי רכבו ופרשיו נמי לא, that even what he needs for his chariot and for his riders also he wouldn't have to have? How is it possible? How could we even have an הוה אמינא that a king should not be allowed to have the horses that he needs? What kind of king is he? The גמרא says לא, no, צריכא, it has to tell us לאפושא, to have more. In other words, if not for this פסוק we would think he only has to have the minimum amount that he needs for his chariot, but to have a little bit more, but still using it in his chariot, it wouldn't be allowed, therefore we have the פסוק לו, that as long as it's being used for his chariot and for his riders, he's allowed to have the horses. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, on the פסוק where it says וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו, that silver and gold he should not multiply to himself, אלא כדי ליתן לאספניא, he's only allowed to have enough to give to support his armies. תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, the פסוק says וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו, that silver and gold he should not multiply to him. יכול, I would think, אפילו כדי ליתן לאספניא, that even to support his army he's not allowed to have much gold and silver? תלמוד לומר, that's why the פסוק says לו, to him, לו אינו מרבה, for himself, for his personal use he's not allowed to multiply, אבל מרבה הוא כדי ליתן לאספניא, but he's allowed to have a lot in order to give to his armies. But the גמרא asks, טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו, the only reason we know that he's allowed to have a lot if he needed for his army is because the תורה says לו. הא לאו הכי, but if not for that, הוה

אמינא אפילו כדי ליתן לאספניא נמי לא, that I would think that even the silver and gold that he needs to support his army he's also not allowed to have? How can one even think such a thing? The גמרא says לא, no, צריכא, it has to tell us להרווחה, for extra. In other words, that he doesn't have to have only exactly the minimum that he needs, but even a little bit more, as long as it's used for the army, he's allowed to have. Then the גמרא asks, השתא דאמרת, now that you told me, לו לדרשה, that the word לו comes to teach us, as we did before concerning the פסוק לא ירבה לו סוסים, that it comes to teach us that he is allowed to have as much as he needs for his chariots. The פסוק לו where it says וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו comes to teach us that he is allowed to have as much as he needs for his army. So if the לו is for a דרשה, לא ירבה לו נשים מאי דרשת ביה? What do you דרשן from the word לו that it says by this פסוק that he should not multiply to himself women? גמרא says, למיעוטא הדיוטות. It comes to exclude ordinary people, that ordinary people are allowed to have more wives. And the גמרא says,

רב יהודה רמי. רב יהודה asked a question, a contradiction between two פסוקים. כתיב, one פסוק says, ויהי לשלמה ארבעים אלף אורוות סוסים, that שלמה had 40,000 stables of horses למרכבתו, for his chariots. וכתיב, another פסוק says, ויהי לשלמה ארבעת אלפים אריות סוסים, that he had 4,000 stables for horses. הא כיצד? So how do we reconcile these two פסוקים? So the answer is that one refers to the stables and one refers to the horse stalls within the stables. But it could be either way. אם ארבעים אלף אצטבלאות היו, if we say that 40,000 were the stables, then כל אחד ואחד היו בו ד' אלפים ארוות סוסים. So each one had 4,000 horse stalls. אם ד' אלפים אצטבלאות, if we say that there were 4,000 stables, then כל אחד ואחד היו בו ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים, so that they had 40,000 horse stalls in each one. Then the גמרא continues, רב יצחק רמי. רב יצחק asked a question. כתיב, one פסוק says, אין כסף נחשב בימי שלמה למאומה, that silver was not worth anything in the time of שלמה. There was so much of everything that silver had no value. וכתיב, another פסוק says, ויתן שלמה את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים, that שלמה made that silver in ירושלים should be like stones. Now stones have some value, not much, but some value. So it's a contradiction. In the previous פסוק we said it says that it had no value at all, and in this פסוק it says it had some value. So the גמרא says, לא קשיא, it's not a קשיא. כאן קודם שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה, here where it says that silver had no value at all was before שלמה married the daughter of פרעה. כאן, in this place where it said it had some value, it's לאחר שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה, it's after שלמה married the daughter of פרעה. Because when שלמה married the daughter of פרעה, which was not the right thing to do, so the prosperity of the country went down, and that's when silver got some value. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יצחק, רב יצחק said, בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה, when שלמה married the daughter of פרעה, ירד גבריאל, גבריאל the מלאך went down ונעץ קנה בים, and he stuck a reed in the sea, והעלה שירטון, and it gathered a sandbank around it, ועליו נבנה כרך גדול של רומי. And on top of that sandbank was built the big city of רומי. In other words, this was a result of his עבירה.

ואמר רב יצחק, also did רב יצחק say, מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה? Why weren't the reasons in the תורה given? Why doesn't the תורה give the reasons for all the מצוות? So he says, שהרי שתי מקראות נתגלו טעמן, because we find two פסוקים that their reasons were revealed, ונכשל בהם גדול עולם, and the great man of the world, which was שלמה המלך, stumbled over them. כתיב, one פסוק says, לא ירבה לו נשים, that he should not have too many wives, and the תורה gives the reason, because they shouldn't make his heart turn away. So since the תורה gave the reason, אמר שלמה, so שלמה said, אני ארבה ולא אסור, I will multiply my wives and I will not turn away. And what happened then? וכתיב it says, ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה, it was at the time when שלמה was old, נשיו הטו את לבבו, his wives turned his heart. So we see that what made him stumble? Because the תורה gave the reason, so he felt if this is the reason, so then I don't have to keep it. And the end was that he did stumble over it. וכתיב it also says another פסוק, לא ירבה לו סוסים, he shouldn't have too many horses, and the reason for that is the תורה gives, so the people shouldn't be taken back to מצרים, because מצרים was the place where they had a lot of horses. So the פסוק gives the reason why they shouldn't have too many horses, not to come back to מצרים. So because the תורה gives the reason, אמר שלמה, so שלמה said, אני ארבה ולא אשיב, I will multiply the horses and I will not return to מצרים. וכתיב what does it say? ותצא מרכבה ממצרים בשש וגומר, that a מרכבה, a chariot, went out of מצרים, and this was going to שלמה. So we see that שלמה did go back to מצרים in order to get horses. So we see that these two פסוקים that the תורה gave the reason for the דין, this caused even שלמה המלך to stumble. So certainly if the תורה would have given the reason to all the דינים, then a lot of people would have made mistakes. And that is the reason why the תורה doesn't give the טעמים of the מצוות. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה, וכותב ספר תורה לשמו, he should write a ספר תורה for himself. תנא, we learned, ובלבד שלא יתנאה בשל אבותיו. And as long as he doesn't adorn himself with his fathers. In other words, he cannot get credit for the ספר תורה of his father, he must have his own ספר תורה, he must write one for himself.

אמר רבא, רבא said, or as it says on the side it's supposed to be רבה, רבה said, אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה, that even if a person inherits a ספר תורה from his father, which means his father left him a ספר תורה, מצוה לכתוב משלו, it's a מצוה that he should write his own, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה, that now you should write to yourself the שירה. This is really the פסוק from where we learn out that every single איד must write a ספר תורה. Because the פסוק says you should write to yourself the שירה, and this refers to the שירה of האזינו. And as the רמב״ם says, we are not allowed to write the תורה parts parts, which means we cannot just write the שירה in itself separately, so therefore when the תורה says you should write the שירה to you, what it means is you should write the whole תורה, which also includes the שירה. So from here we learn out that you have to have a ספר תורה. And since the פסוק says כתבו לכם, you should write to you, that tells us that each person must must write his own, and it's not enough if he receives it from his father. איתיביה אביי, אביי asked him a קשיא, it said in our משנה, וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו, that he should write for himself a ספר תורה, and we learned out from that שלא יתנאה בשל אחרים, which means he shouldn't adorn himself with others. That means that if he gets the ספר תורה from somebody else, he is not יוצא the מצוה, but he must have it written himself. Now, since this is a דין in the משנה concerning a king, so it seems to be saying, מלך אין, by a מלך there is such a דין that he must write it himself, הדיוט לא, but an ordinary person not. In other words, an ordinary person, if he gets a ספר תורה some other way, it's okay. And we just said before that even an ordinary person, in order to fulfill the מצוה of having a ספר תורה, must write it. And the גמרא says לא נצרכה אלא לשתי תורות. The truth is, even an ordinary person must write it himself. By a מלך there is a special דין that this applies to both of the תורות, that he must write an extra ספר תורה for himself. וכדתניא, like we learn in a ברייתא, the פסוק says וכתב לו את משנה וגו׳, he should write to himself the repetition of the תורה, what does that mean? כותב לשמו שתי תורות, he has to write for himself two

תורות. אחת, one, שהיא יוצאה ונכנסת עמו, one that goes out and comes in with him, ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו, and one that lays in his treasury. אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו, the one that goes out and comes in with him, עושה אותה כמין קמיע, he should make it like a קמיע, like an amulet. And as רש״י explains, it means he should make a very small one, ותולה בזרועו, he should hang it on his hand, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, שויתי ה׳ לנגדי תמיד, ה׳ is always in front of me, כי מימיני בל אמוט, He will never move away from my right hand. And this is a פסוק in תהלים that דוד המלך said, so he referred to the ספר תורה that's with him. ובכלל, from the words עושה till the word אמוט is in parentheses here because according to the מהרש״ל this doesn't belong here. Then the גמרא continues that this ספר תורה that is supposed to go out and come in with him, אינו נכנס בה לא לבית המרחץ, he's not allowed to enter with it into the בית המרחץ, into the bathhouse, ולא לבית הכסא, and not into the bathroom, שנאמר, because the פסוק says, והיתה עמו, it should be with him, וקרא בו, he should read in it. That means מקום הראוי לקרות בו, he only is supposed to have it in a place that is fit to be read. But in the בית המרחץ or בית הכסא he doesn't have to have it with him. But on this there is an interesting question that the ערוך לנר asks. He says from this גמרא it seems like this: that one thing is for sure that we know without even a פסוק that he's not allowed to read it in the בית המרחץ or the בית הכסא. But we don't know whether he's allowed to take it in or not, maybe he should take it in anyway. So therefore we say, since the פסוק says והיתה עמו וקרא בו, the פסוק compares the having it to the reading it, so we say, since he can't read it in the בית הכסא, and that is פשוט without a פסוק, so too he cannot take it into the בית הכסא, בית המרחץ. So he asked a question, why is the גמרא so sure that he can't read it in the בית הכסא, more sure than he can't take it into the בית הכסא? The reason בפשטות why we are so sure that he can't read it in the בית הכסא is because it's a ביזוי מצוה, it's an embarrassment for the מצוה. And this דין that you're not allowed to embarrass a מצוה is a דין דאורייתא, as we learn it out from the פסוק ושפך וכסה concerning כיסוי הדם, that you're not allowed to cover the דם in a way which is a בזיון. So from there we see that ביזוי מצוה is אסור. And therefore we understand ourselves that he's not allowed to read it in the בית המרחץ or בית הכסא because it's a בזיון for the מצוה. So for the same reason לכאורה should be the דין that he shouldn't be able to take it in to the בית הכסא. So why do we have to come on to the פסוק וקרא בו to tell us that just like he can't read it there, he can't take it in because it's a place where you can't read? Without a פסוק we would know, just like we know he can't read it without a פסוק because of the ביזוי מצוה, so too would we know that he cannot take it into the בית הכסא, בית המרחץ, because cause of ביזוי מצוה. And he answers that no, that concerning taking it in, we would have thought that he would be able to take it in the בית המרחץ and the בית הכסא. And he says, since the פסוק says: והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו, so the פסוק says כל ימי חייו, so we would think that כל ימי חייו means ממש כל ימי חייו, that all his life he's supposed to have it wherever he goes, which includes the בית הכסא also. אי, according to that, why shouldn't he be able to read it in the בית הכסא too, since it says וקרא בו כל ימי חייו? He should read it all his life is משמע wherever he goes he should read it, including the בית הכסא. So he says, there we know for sure that this is not what it means. Why? Because since it is impossible to read it every second, so obviously, when the תורה says: והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו, the words כל ימי חייו cannot go on the words וקרא וקרא בו, because it's impossible he should read it every second of his life. Just like we find concerning the מצוה of זכירת יציאת מצרים, that you have to remember יציאת מצרים, we learn out from the פסוק: כל ימי חייך, that you have to do it once in the morning, once in the evening. Since the תורה says כל ימי חייך, all your life, maybe you should have to do it every second. But we understand that's not what the תורה means. Since it's impossible to do it every second, so the תורה doesn't mean ממש you should do it every second, we just learn it out that it's once in the day and once at night. So the same thing here too, when the תורה says: וקרא בו כל ימי חייו, it's impossible to read it כל ימי חייו, so it doesn't mean כל ימי חייו. So then, what does the words כל ימי חייו mean? So we must say that the words כל ימי חייו refer to the beginning of the פסוק, where it says והיתה עמו. So then we would learn that והיתה עמו כל ימי חייו means it should be with him all his life, means every second of his life. Now, if that's the פשט, the דין would be that even in the בית המרחץ and בית הכסא, he's supposed to have it with him, even though it's a ביזוי מצוה, but we have no choice, because the תורה says a גזירת הכתוב that he must have it with him all his life, means every moment. And this would also explain why isn't there at least a מצוה that he should read in that תורה once in the morning, once in the evening, since it says in פסוק: וקרא בו כל ימי חייו? So just like by יציאת, זכירת יציאת מצרים, we say כל ימי חייך, so we learn out from there that you have to mention it once in the morning, once in the evening, so here too, when it says וקרא בו כל ימי חייו, he should at least have to read it once in the morning, once in the evening. And the answer would be simple, because since we are able to say that the words כל ימי חייו refers to the beginning of the פסוק, so here concerning the וקרא בו, there is no כל ימי חייו, so it's as if the פסוק would have said: והיתה עמו כל ימי חייו וקרא בו. So וקרא בו, whenever he reads it, but there is no חיוב to read it כל ימי חייו. Now if that would be the פשט, then we would think that he is allowed to, and should, take it into the בית המרחץ and בית הכסא, while concerning reading it, we understand ourselves that he cannot read it in the בית המרחץ and בית הכסא because it's a ביזיון for the מצוה. So we would have thought that he should be able to take it in בית הכסא, בית המרחץ. So that's why the גמרא says that we compare והיתה בו to וקרא בו, that it has to be only במקום which is ראוי לקריאה. But in the בית המרחץ and the בית הכסא, where it cannot be read, there he is not מחוייב to take it in, and since he is not מחוייב to take it in, automatically he is not allowed to take it in, because of the ביזוי מצוה.

Another thing which is interesting to note here is, that the גמרא said that it's a מצוה for everybody to write a ספר תורה, as it says: ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה הזאת. And not only that, the גמרא said more, that if he got a ספר תורה for somebody else, it is not enough, he must write it himself. So the question that is known is: why is it that most people do not write a ספר תורה? And the question is not: why don't they write themselves? Because we could say that שלוחו של אדם כמותו, so the ones that do write make a שליח to write, and even though מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, but nevertheless, if a person himself can't write so nice, and he is able to appoint a שליח that writes nicer, so then there is no כלל of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו, as the תבואת שור writes that the whole reason for מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו is because it shows that as if he doesn't want to be מתעסק in a מצוה. But if he does it because the שליח will do it better, then there is no כלל of מצוה בו יותר מבשלוחו. So therefore, it doesn't matter that a שליח writes it. So the question is not why a person himself doesn't write, but has a סופר write it. The question is: why most people don't even do that? They don't appoint a סופר in writing a ספר תורה. The פשט is, the reason is, based on the דעת of the רא״ש. The רא״ש in הלכות קטנות in הלכות ספר תורה, he writes that the חיוב of ספר תורה that everyone should write was בדורות הראשונים, where they used to learn from the ספר תורה. But now, when we write a ספר תורה and we put it away in the שול to read it when we have to have קריאת התורה, so now the מצות עשה is that every person that's able should write חמשה חומשי תורה and משנה and גמרא and all the פשטים in order to learn it, because he says the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה is in order to learn in it, as it says: ולמדה את בני ישראל שימה בפיהם. So now, through the גמרא and the פירושים of the גמרא, people will know the מצוות and the דינים the way they should. Therefore, these are the ספרים that a person is commanded to write. And that's how the מחבר פסקנ'ס in שולחן ערוך, in יורה דעה, that האידנא מצוה לכתוב חמשה חומשי תורה ומשנה וגמרא ופירושיהן. That nowadays, the מצוה is to write the חומש and משנה, and the גמרא, and the מפרשים on the גמרא. And according to many פוסקים, for instance, the דרישה and the פרישה and the ש״ך etc. hold that more than that, that now the מצוה is only in חומשים and משנה and גמרא, and not in ספר תורה. So לכאורה this answers the question why now we don't write a ספר תורה. But the question is, but even concerning these ספרים, the לשון of the רא״ש is that מצוה לכתוב, the מצוה is to write. And we don't find people should be מדקדק to write these ספרים, to write a חומש, or to write a גמרא, or to write a מפרש on the גמרא. In other words, even though most people do buy ספרים, but still we don't find that people should be מדקדק that they should have the ספר written themselves, or at least appoint the printer to be a שליח to write a ספר. And the truth is, sometimes the ספרים are even printed by non-Jews. So how do we fulfill the מצוה of writing ספר תורה nowadays? So the ליובאוויטשער רבי in his ספר לקוטי שיחות חלק כ״ג, the 23rd volume, explains it as follows. He says that לכאורה we have to understand בכלל, how is it possible to be מחדש that a מצות עשה should change? If there's a מצות עשה in our תורה to write a ספר תורה, how could it change that now the מצוה is not to write a תורה, but the מצוה is to write ספרים? And he says, the פשט the פשטות is because there are, as the רא״ש himself says, that the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה is in order to ללמוד בו, as it says, ולמדה את בני ישראל שימה בפיהם, the main reason of the מצוה is to learn. And therefore, the מצוה is not writing a ספר תורה. The מצוה is mainly to have a ספר that you should be able to learn in it. Now, even though the דין is that you must write the ספר תורה, so לכאורה now that we have the מצוה of having other ספרים, the מצוה should still remain in writing those ספרים. So he explains that the מצוה is not writing a ספר תורה, even the way it used to be. The מצוה was having a ספר to learn in. And in those days, they used to learn in the ספר תורה, so the מצוה was to have a ספר תורה to learn in. The only thing is, there is a דין in ספר תורה, a מצוה of כתיבה. So this concept of writing a ספר תורה was dependent not in the דין of having a ספר תורה, but this is a פרט in the דינים of ספר תורה. Since there is a דין of ספר תורה, so you have to write a ספר תורה with all its details, there must be שירטוט and it must have all the other דינים a ספר תורה has. But this is not in order to fulfill the מצוה of having a ספר תורה that the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה. This is all a פרט in the דינים of a ספר תורה. And therefore, when the מצוה is not a ספר תורה, so then there are no גדרים of how to write it and what to write it, so therefore there is no מצוה in כתיבה there either. Just like no one will say that there's a מצוה that when you write the ספרים, the גמרא or the מפרשים, you should have to write it with שירטוט. Just like when there used to be the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה, the way to fulfill that מצוה was by writing it with שירטוט because there is a דין you must have שירטוט, so too when you write the גמרא, it has to have שירטוט. Everyone will understand it's not true. Why? Because the דין of שירטוט has nothing to do with the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה, that is a דין in הלכות ספר תורה. Now, if you are going to write a ספר תורה, you must do it with שירטוט, or whatever the דין of a ספר תורה is. If you write a גמרא, so here there is no דין of שירטוט because שירטוט has nothing to do with the מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה

which we fulfill through having the גמרא. The same is with the general concept of writing. By a ספר תורה there is a דין of כתיבה. And therefore, since there is a מצוה of having a ספר תורה to learn in, and a detail in the מצוה of ספר תורה is כתיבת ספר תורה, so therefore there was a מצוה to write a ספר תורה, or at least to make a שליח. But now when the מצוה is having a גמרא, and by גמרא there is no דין of כתיבה or any other ספרים, so therefore now there is no חיוב to write it, and therefore there is no reason to be מדקדק to write a גמרא or have a שליח write a גמרא or a מפרש for you, but by just buying it and having it, it's enough to fulfill this מצוה of כתיבת ספר תורה האידנא.