Halakhah su II Samuele 20:28

One has to be careful when he is about to say birkat ha-mazon not to leave the table without any bread on it, as they said in tractate Sanhedrin:¹⁸¹B. Sanhedrin 92a. “Whoever does not leave bread on his table, about him Scripture says, ‘With no remnant for him to eat, his goodness will not take hold.”¹⁸²Job 20:21. The reason for this practice is so that the blessing about which this was said will take hold; for if nothing is left, in what can the blessing take hold, because no blessing takes hold upon nothing, but only upon something? And the table in the sanctuary, which never was without bread, attests to this. And that bread was eaten by the priests who ministered to the sanctuary, and only a little of it was enough to feed many of them, and so our rabbis said, “Every priest who approached it was made doubly happy,”¹⁸³B. Yoma 39a. R. Bahya seems to allude to double portion of manna in the manna miracle as well as to the two loaves offered to the priests in Lev. 23:17. and through this very bread on the table blessing descended and was dispersed in the food of the world, from the showbread, by way of “something from something” and not something from nothing. For even the prophets who were “capable of serving in the royal palace”¹⁸⁴Dan 1:4. were not capable of producing something from nothing, but rather only something from something. Let me call for myself reliable witnesses:¹⁸⁵An allusion to Is 8:2.Elijah and Elisha, the former through “flour in a jar,”¹⁸⁶I Kg 17:12: “kad ha-kemah,” which R. Bahya used as the title for his famous encyclopedic collection of sermons. the latter “a jug of oil” – all was “something from something,” for no one has the power to make something from nothing but the Holy One Blessed be He, Shaper of creation which He created from nothing, and with all due to respect for Him, we find that even He only did it in the six days of the creation of the world. From then on till now, everything is “something from something.” And thus it is written, “which God created and made.”¹⁸⁷Gen 2:3. The explanation: “which God created” – something from nothing; “and made” – from then on, something from something, not something from nothing. So accordingly, it is necessary that a person about to recite birkat ha-mazon, leave a piece of bread on the table, for even a little of it is enough for the blessing to take hold in, and its power will be distributed through an increase of the small amount, just like the hidden miracles that are done for us every day, without us knowing or being aware of them. Just as our rabbis said: “¹⁸⁸B. Nidah 31a.No miracle-worker is aware of his own miracle.” And you should know that the cause behind the blessing that drops down in the food of the world and in the showbread is explained in the verse: “It [the frankincense] shall be a reminder-offering with the bread.”¹⁸⁹Lev 24:7. R. Bahya seems to allude to the miracle of the manna here in the language he uses about the showbread drawing miracles and blessings down to the earth, and of the priests being “doubly happy” See note 183 above . And later he explicitly associates the covering of bread on the table with cloths above and below with the miracle of the manna. As you already knew that they used to place frankincense on top of the bread, which is what is written just before, “With each row you shall place pure frankincense,”¹⁹⁰Ibid. the showbread and the frankincense used to counteract one another, just like the etrog and the lulav,¹⁹¹B. Menahot 27a. and the blue dye and white cloth (when blue dye could still be found). For the Most High has no share in the showbread, while the ordinary mortal has no share in the frankincense, which they would burn upon the fire. Therefore Scripture said, “It shall be a reminder-offering with the bread,” because by burning the frankincense which is on top of the bread, it becomes a reminder to the power above for blessing to drop down on it and from it into the food for the world. And understand this, that it is for this reason that there were twelve hallot arranged on top of the table. And from there the blessing came, which corresponded to the twelve angels¹⁹²Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer 4. surrounding the throne of glory, which are called “four camps of the Shekhinah,” from which the world is blessed to the four winds, and they serve three to each wind, the meaning behind the four banners that were in the desert. Also corresponding to them below were the twelve lions on Solomon’s throne, and they are like these twelve hallot and the twenty-four tenth-measures,¹⁹³Lev 24:5. Each loaf – hallah – was made of two tenth-measures – ‘esronim – of choice flour, i.e., 24 = 2 x 12. and arouse your mind to this!

Birkat ha-mazon consists of three blessings from the Torah, and one blessing from the words of the scribes. The oldest at the table leads the blessing, even if he came after the meal.²⁰⁷So the Tur and Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 201. A mnemonic acronym for the three blessings from the Torah comes from the verses “You shall make a table of acacia wood… and make around it a molding of gold – ZaHa”B:”²⁰⁸Ex 25:23,24. the blessing ha-Zan (“who feeds”), the blessing Ha-aretz (“for the land”) and the blessing Boneh Yerushalayim (“who builds Jerusalem”) – the initials of which are ZH”B, and zahav is numerically equivalent to DaVi”D,²⁰⁹I.e., both = 14. and thus the table hints at malkhut – “kingdom.”²¹⁰According to b. Yoma 72, “there were three rims in the sanctuary, one on the altar, one on the ark, and on the table…David earned the rim on the table, and he took it.” In other words, King David and his kingdom are associated with “the table.” The symbol of kingdom is the house of David son of Jesse, which includes the both the kingdom of the house of David below, and the kingdom above, which is the power of the frankincense: Dovid melekh Yisrael hay ve-kayam(“Long live David King of Israel!”) – this is what is meant by “We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son! Every man to his tent (le–ohalav), O Israel!”²¹¹2 Sam 20:1. not “le-ohalav – to his tent” but rather “le’lohav– to his God.”²¹²In other words, the Torah is using “his tent” (ohalav) as a euphemism for “his God” (elohav), because it is quoting a wicked person, Sheba the son of Bichri, and it would have been disrespectful to God to quote Sheba’s call to rebellion that invoked God. I think what R. Bahya has in mind in all this is that “house of David,” “malkhut,” and “elohim” are all symbolic synonyms for the tenth sefirah – Malkhut, or Shekhinah. For you already knew that the table in the sanctuary corresponds to midat ha-din – God’s attribute of justice – which is the reason why it is located on the north, that is the left side,²¹³That is, if one is standing facing the east. the side of Gevurah – “Might.” And on the table were two cloths, one made of crimson, the other blue.²¹⁴Nu 4:7-8. The crimson one corresponds to midat ha-din above, and the blue one corresponds to midat ha-din below, which is comprised of all the other attributes. And here the showbread was on the table itself, without anything in between, as it is said, “And the regular bread shall rest upon it [the table],”²¹⁵Nu 4:7. and over the bread was spread the blue cloth. And on this cloth were put all the utensils for the table, and over the utensils was spread the crimson cloth; was the highest on top of everything else. The crimson cloth would be on top, and the blue cloth below, that’s just how the upper midat din emanates down into the lower one, and the point of this whole arrangement is that from the table in the sanctuary comes sustenance for the whole world.²¹⁶Zohar 153b: “This table stands inside the Mishkan, and from it goes out food for the whole world.” Corresponding to it is the midat din above that sustains the upper beings, the host on high, even as it does the lower beings, for it is the attribute “that supplies provisions for her household and, the daily fare of her maids.”²¹⁷Prv 31:15. From this you will understand the reason why the height of the table with all of the things arrayed on was ten handbreadths. For even so, the table in the sanctuary with what was on top of it should instruct you about midat ha-din, and understand this! For you need to be awakened to what our sages z”l said about this: “Ten tables King Solomon (peace be upon him) made, as it is explained in Scripture, and likewise ten lampstands, and ten washbasins.²¹⁸2 Chr 4:6-8. Clearly, R. Bahya is alluding to the ten sefirot, for whose array the arrangement of cloths, utensils, and shewbread on the table in the sanctuary is a microcosm.

Rambam's ruling is based upon the explication of the narrative of II Samuel 20:4-22 found in the Palestinian Talmud, Terumot 8:12. Joab, commander of King David's troops, had pursued Sheba the son of Bichri and besieged the town of Abel in which Sheba sought refuge. Thereupon Joab demanded that Sheba be delivered to the king's forces; otherwise, Joab threatened to destroy the entire city. On the basis of the verse, "Sheba the son of Bichri has lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (II Samuel 20:21), Resh Lakish infers that acquiescence with a demand of such nature can be sanctioned only in instances in which the victim's life is lawfully forfeit, as was the case with regard to Sheba the son of Bichri who is described as being guilty of lèse majesté. However, in instances in which the designated victim is guiltless, all must suffer death rather than become accomplices to murder. R. Yoḥanan maintains that the question of guilt is irrelevant; rather, the crucial factor is the singling out of a specific individual by the oppressor. Members of a group have no right to select one of their number and deliver him to death in order to save their own lives. Since the life of each individual is of inestimable value there is no basis for preferring one life over another. However, once a specific person has been marked for death in any event, either alone if surrendered by his companions or together with the entire group if they refuse to comply, those who deliver him are not to be regarded as accessories. Rambam's ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish. Both opinions are cited by Rema, Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 157:1.²In the case of the hijacked airplane the passengers may be regarded as specified because, in the absence of intervention, they would all die. If intervention were sanctioned, sacrificing their lives would save others but there was no possibility of sacrificing others in order to save them. Nevertheless, even if victims are specified, R. Yoḥanan does not sanction actively hastening death in order to save others.

Rambam's ruling is based upon the explication of the narrative of II Samuel 20:4-22 found in the Palestinian Talmud, Terumot 8:12. Joab, commander of King David's troops, had pursued Sheba the son of Bichri and besieged the town of Abel in which Sheba sought refuge. Thereupon Joab demanded that Sheba be delivered to the king's forces; otherwise, Joab threatened to destroy the entire city. On the basis of the verse, "Sheba the son of Bichri has lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (II Samuel 20:21), Resh Lakish infers that acquiescence with a demand of such nature can be sanctioned only in instances in which the victim's life is lawfully forfeit, as was the case with regard to Sheba the son of Bichri who is described as being guilty of lèse majesté. However, in instances in which the designated victim is guiltless, all must suffer death rather than become accomplices to murder. R. Yoḥanan maintains that the question of guilt is irrelevant; rather, the crucial factor is the singling out of a specific individual by the oppressor. Members of a group have no right to select one of their number and deliver him to death in order to save their own lives. Since the life of each individual is of inestimable value there is no basis for preferring one life over another. However, once a specific person has been marked for death in any event, either alone if surrendered by his companions or together with the entire group if they refuse to comply, those who deliver him are not to be regarded as accessories. Rambam's ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish. Both opinions are cited by Rema, Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 157:1.²In the case of the hijacked airplane the passengers may be regarded as specified because, in the absence of intervention, they would all die. If intervention were sanctioned, sacrificing their lives would save others but there was no possibility of sacrificing others in order to save them. Nevertheless, even if victims are specified, R. Yoḥanan does not sanction actively hastening death in order to save others.

One nineteenth-century rabbinic authority does state explicitly that the king may pass judgment on the basis of umdana or circumstantial evidence alone.²⁶Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 208, states cryptically: “But that which is not mentioned in the Torah … the king and Sanhedrin may see in accordance with the place and in accordance with the time and similarly, a fortiori, they may remove the many destructive [persons], the murderers, without witnesses or the like. …” R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Torat Nevi'im, chap. 7,²⁷Published in Kol Sifrei Maharaẓ Ḥayes, I, 49. states that Rambam's source for his ruling that the king may execute a person who commits an act of homicide even in the absence of prior warning, even though biblical law requires prior warning, is a discussion found in Sanhedrin 49a. The discussion seeks to elucidate King Solomon's justificaton for the execution of Joab (I Kings 2:29-34). The Gemara states that Joab was culpable for the murder of Amasa despite the fact that there was no prior warning. R. Chajes argues that the same talmudic discussion serves to establish that the king may administer punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence. R. Chajes endeavors to show that proof of Joab's culpability was entirely circumstantial. Amasa died because he was struck by Joab "on the fifth rib" (II Samuel 20:10). Similarly, Abner, was killed by Joab with a blow "on the fifth rib" (II Samuel 3:27). The blow "on the fifth rib" was fatal, declares R. Joḥanan, because that is "where the bile and the liver are attached." Joab's premeditation to kill, argues R. Chajes, could have been known only circumstantially, i.e., by the unlikelihood that the vulnerable spot near the fifth rib could have been struck other than by direct aim.

Maimonides' ruling is based upon the explication of the narrative of II Samuel 20:4–22 found in the Palestinian Talmud, Terumot 8:12. Joab, commander of King David's troops, had pursued Sheba the son of Bichri and beseiged him in the town of Abel and demanded that he be delivered to the king's forces. Otherwise Joab threatened to destroy the entire city. From the verse "Sheba the son of Bichri hath lifted up his hand against the king, against David" (20:21), Resh Lakish infers that acquiescence with this demand can be sanctioned only in instances where the victim's life is lawfully forfeit, as was the case with regard to Sheba the son of Bichri, who is described as being guilty of lèse majesté; in instances where the victim is innocent, all must suffer death rather than become accomplices to murder. R. Yochanan maintains that the question of guilt is irrelevant, but that the crucial element is rather the singling out of a specific individual. Members of a group have no right to select one of their number arbitrarily and deliver him to death in order to save themselves since the life of each individual is of inestimable value. However, once a specific person has been marked for death in any event, either alone if surrendered by his companions or together with the entire group if they refuse to comply, those who deliver him are not accounted as accessories. Maimonides' ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Resh Lakish.⁶²Rosh and Ran, however, both rule in accordance with the opinion of R. Yochanan; R. Moses Isserles, Yoreh De‘ah 157:1, cites both views without offering a definitive ruling.