Midrasch zu Divrej Hajamim I 11:78
Ruth Rabbah
“He was with David at Pas Dammim” (I Chronicles 11:13) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A red field. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: At Pas Dammim, because the bloodshed stopped there.171The war between David and the Philistines. The Hebrew word for blood is dam, and in plural it is dammim.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ruth Rabbah
“He was with David at Pas Dammim” (I Chronicles 11:13) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A red field. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: At Pas Dammim, because the bloodshed stopped there.171The war between David and the Philistines. The Hebrew word for blood is dam, and in plural it is dammim.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ruth Rabbah
“He was with David at Pas Dammim” (I Chronicles 11:13) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A red field. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: At Pas Dammim, because the bloodshed stopped there.171The war between David and the Philistines. The Hebrew word for blood is dam, and in plural it is dammim.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ruth Rabbah
“He was with David at Pas Dammim” (I Chronicles 11:13) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A red field. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: At Pas Dammim, because the bloodshed stopped there.171The war between David and the Philistines. The Hebrew word for blood is dam, and in plural it is dammim.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
“The Philistines gathered there to wage war; there was a portion of a field full of barley” (I Chronicles 11:13). One verse says barley and one verse says: “lentils” (II Samuel 23:11). Rabbi Yaakov said: They were lentils, but their kernels were like barley. Rabbi Levi said: The Philistines who came were as tall as barley, and they left as lowly as lentils.172They came full of arrogant confidence, but their defeat left them lowly and humbled (Midrash HaMevoar).
“They stood in the midst of the portion and they rescued it” (I Chronicles 11:14), but another verse says: “He rescued it” (II Samuel 23:12). This teaches that they returned it to its owner, to whom it was as dear as a field filled with saffron. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It was the same year, but they were two fields.173One of barley and one of lentils. It was clear to him [that it was permitted] to destroy and to pay money; why is it necessary [to ask]?174It was clear to David that it was permitted for him to destroy the field in order to battle the Philistines, who had taken cover there, and then to compensate the owner of the field. If you say [it was permitted for him] to destroy and not to pay money,175As that is the right of a king. the question remains which of them to destroy, the lentils or the barley? The lentils are food for people, the barley is food for animals. The Omer is not sacrificed from lentils, but it is sacrificed from barley. From lentils, one does not separate ḥalla, from barley, one separates ḥalla. The Rabbis say: It was one field and they were [incidents that occurred in] two [different] years. Could they not learn from the previous year? One does not learn from an incident.176One cannot draw a legal conclusion from an incident whose details differ from the case in question.
“David desired, and said: Who will give me water to drink?” (I Chronicles 11:17). Rabbi Ḥiyya said: He needed a halakhic ruling. “The three breached” (I Chronicles 11:18). Why three? It is because halakha is clarified only with three. “They drew water from the well of Bethlehem that was near the gate, and took it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, [and he poured it out [vayenasekh] to the Lord]” (I Chronicles 11:18). He did not want the halakha to be determined in their names; he stated it unattributed [masekhta] and established a halakha for the generations: A king breaches to make a road for himself and no one objects.177Thus, it was permitted for David to burn the field without paying compensation. Nonetheless, they did not burn the field, and in that way it was saved. Bar Kappara said: It was the festival of Sukkot, it was the libation of water, and it was the time when improvised altars were permitted.178David asked for water in order to perform the special water libation that is offered on Sukkot. “The three breached,” why were they three? There was one to kill, one to clear away the dead, and one to bring in the flask [of water] in ritual purity.179Without touching the dead. Rabbi Ḥonya said in the name of Rabbi Yosef: He needed a ruling regarding a woman captive. Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi said: He demanded the construction of the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition)
All the Amoraim mentioned above differ with R. Abba b. Cahana who said: "If not for Joab, David would not have been able to occupy himself with the Law; and if not for David, Joab would not have been able to wage the war, as it is written (II. Sam. 8, 16) And David did what is just and right unto all his people. And Joab the son of Zeruyah was over the army; i.e., why was David able to do what is just and right? Because Joab was commander of the army. And why was Joab successful with the army? Because David did what is just and right." (Ib. 3, 26) And Joab went out from David and he sent messengers after Abner who brought him back from the well of Sirah. What does well of Sirah mean? R. Abba b. Cahana said: "The well refers to the pitcher of water which David took from under the head of saul (I Sam 26, 12); and Sirah (thorn), refers to the piece of cloth which David cut off from the garment of Saul (Ib. 24, 27), which were good reasons for Abner to reconcile Saul with David, if he should have cared. (Ib., ib. 27) Joab took him aside in the gate, to speak with him in private. R. Jochanan said: "He was convicted after a real trial as if before the Sanhedrin. Abner was asked: "Why have you killed Asahel?" "Because he was a Rodeph." "But you could have saved yourself by having struck him merely in one of his limbs [warded him off you]?" Joab asked Abner. Whereupon he answered: "I could not have done so." "But if you were able to determine to strike him exactly in the fifth rib how could you not have done so to any other member?" "To speak with him privately." R. Juda said in the name of Rab that he spake with him concerning the shoe [of a Yebama]. And he smote him in the fifth rib. R. Jochanan said: "In the fifth rib where the bile and the liver are attached." (I Kings 2, 32) And may the Lord bring back his blood guiltiness upon his own head, because he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he. More righteous? Because they were commanded verbally [to kill the priests of Nob] and did not listen, and Joab was commanded in a letted to kill Uriah, and he listened. (Ib., ib. 34) And he was buried in his own house in the wilderness. Was then his house in the wilderness? R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "Like a wilderness it was ownerless, and everyone who wishes can derive a benefit from it, so was the house of Joab." According to others: As a desert is free of robbery and adultery, so was the house of Joab. (I Chr. 11, 8) And Joab repaired the rest of the city. Said R. Juda in the name of Rab: "Even brine and hashed fish he used to taste and give it to the poor."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer
Rabbi Jehudah said: Three forefathers made covenants with the people of the land. (With reference to) Abraham (the circumstances were as follows). When the angels were revealed unto him, he thought that they were travellers (from among) the people of the land, and he ran to meet them, and he wished to prepare for them a great banquet, and he told Sarah to prepare cakes for them. When Sarah was kneading, she perceived that the manner of women was upon her, therefore he did not hand them any of the cakes. He ran to fetch a calf. But the calf fled from before him, and went into the Cave of Machpelah, and he went in there after it, and he found Adam and his help-meet lying there upon their beds, and they slept, and lights were kindled above them, and a sweet scent was upon them like a sweet savour, therefore he desired to have the Cave of Machpelah as a burial possession. He spoke to the sons of Jebus, in order to purchase from them the Cave of || Machpelah by a purchase with gold, and by a perpetual deed for a possession of a burying-place. Were they Jebusites? Were they not Hittites? But they were called Jebusites according to the name of the city of Jebus. The men did not accept (this request). He began to bow down and prostrate himself unto them, as it is said, "And Abraham bowed himself down before the people of the land" (Gen. 23:12).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer
What did the men of Jebus do? They made images of copper, and set them up in the street of the city, and wrote upon them the covenant of the oath of Abraham. When the Israelites came to the land (of Canaan), they wished to enter the city of the Jebusites, but they were not able (to enter), because of the sign of the covenant of Abraham's oath, as it is said, "And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem" (Judg. 1:21). || When David reigned he desired to enter the city of the Jebusites, (but) they did not allow him, as it is said, "And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land; which spake unto David, saying, Thou shalt not come in hither" (2 Sam. 5:6).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer
What did the men of Jebus do? They made images of copper, and set them up in the street of the city, and wrote upon them the covenant of the oath of Abraham. When the Israelites came to the land (of Canaan), they wished to enter the city of the Jebusites, but they were not able (to enter), because of the sign of the covenant of Abraham's oath, as it is said, "And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem" (Judg. 1:21). || When David reigned he desired to enter the city of the Jebusites, (but) they did not allow him, as it is said, "And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land; which spake unto David, saying, Thou shalt not come in hither" (2 Sam. 5:6).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer
David said to his men: Whoever will go up first, and remove those images upon which the sign of the covenant of Abraham's oath is written, he shall be the chief. And Joab, the son of Zeruiah, went up, and he became the chief, as it is said, "And Joab the son of Zeruiah went up first, || and was made chief" (1 Chron. 11:6). Afterwards he bought the city of the Jebusites for Israel by a purchase with gold and with a perpetual deed for a perpetual possession. What did David do? He took from each tribe fifty shekels; verily all of them amounted to six hundred shekels, as it is said, "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight" (1 Chron. 21:25).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bereishit Rabbah
... David is the shepherd of Israel, as it says “You shall shepherd My people Israel…” (Divre HaYamim I 11:2) And who shepherded David? The Holy One, as it says “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.” (Tehillim 23:1) Jerusalem is the light of the world, as it says “And nations shall go by your light…” (Yeshayahu 60:3) And who is the light of Jerusalem? The Holy One, as it is written “…but the Lord shall be to you for an everlasting light…” (Yeshayahu 60:19)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 27:17) "who will go out before them and who will come in before them": Not as others, who send others in the vanguard and who bring up the rear. But as Moses did, viz. (Bamidbar 21:34) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Do not fear him (Og, [to confront him in the vanguard]) for I have delivered him into your hand." And as Joshua did, viz. (Joshua 5:13) "And Joshua went up to him, and said: 'Are you for us or for our foes?'" And as Pinchas did, viz. (Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, to the war, them and Pinchas (in the vanguard) etc." (Ibid. 27:17) "who will go out before them" — at the head, viz. (I Chronicles 11:6) "And Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first, and he was at the head." "who will go out before them" — in a troop. "and who will come in before them" — in a troop. "who will go out before them" — on the way. "and who will come in before them" — on the way. "and who will take them out" — in his merits. "and who will bring them back" — in his merits. "and who will take them out" — with a count. "and who will bring them back" — with a count (i.e., none missing), as it is written (Bamidbar 31:44) "And they said to Moses: Your servants have counted the men of war who were under our charge, and not one of us is missing." And why did they need atonement (viz. Ibid. 50)? For they had "feasted their eyes" on nakedness (i.e., on the Midianite women [viz. Ibid. 16]). (Ibid. 27:17) "And let the congregation of the L-rd not be as sheep without a shepherd": On this the tradition comments (Song of Songs 1:7) "Tell me (Moses), O You, whom my soul loves, etc. for why should I be covered up," as in (Jeremiah 43:12) "And he (Nevuchadnezzar) will cover up the land of Egypt, as the shepherd covers up his cloak." (Song of Songs, Ibid.) "by the flocks of Your companions" — Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Go out and see how the Holy One answers him (Song of Songs, Ibid. 8): "If you do not know, you fairest among the women (i.e., most exalted of the prophets), go out in the footsteps of the flock." (See) what I am destined to do for them in the end (of their "footsteps"), "and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherd" — whence it is derived that the L-rd showed Moses all the leaders who were destined to serve Israel from the day they left the desert until the resurrection. Thus, "Go out in the footsteps of the flock."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy