Pensiero Ebraico su I Re 3:16

The objective yardsticks of ethics and morality are the laws given by G-d. When David prayed "Grant, O Lord, to Solomon Your justice, to the king Your righteousness," it is as if David had prayed for Solomon to be granted that objective yardstick of justice which is reserved for the Lord Himself. Proof that this prayer was granted is found in Chronicles I 29,23, "Solomon sat on the throne of G-d as king, replacing his father David.” The first example of Solomon having been granted this Divine yardstick of justice, is the story of the two mothers who accused each other of having switched babies (Kings I Chapter 3). If human yardsticks were to be applied, the mother in possession of the surviving baby should have been awarded custody, since the other mother had no proof to offer. Solomon's initial decision to cut the living baby in half, and divide it between the two claimants, runs counter to Talmudic law, i.e. the example of two people each holding on to part of a garment, since in this case possession had not been shared. Obviously then, Solomon only used this to demonstrate that the ultimate decision was inspired by a superior logic, i.e. G-d’s. The idea of dividing the baby was so abhorrent to Rabbi Yehudah bar lla-i, that he says only a minor could have come up with a decision like that (Solomon at the time had not yet reached his thirteenth birthday). Rabbi Yehudah applied the verse in Kohelet 10,16, "Woe to the country that is ruled by a child." The same people who were aghast at a decision that would have resulted in the death of the surviving baby, hailed Solomon's eventual decision. This reflects the verse in Kohelet 10,17, "Hail to the country whose ruler is truly free." The Midrash stating that the words "she is his mother" were spoken by a Heavenly voice teaches that Solomon's decision was indeed the correct one. Solomon's initial verdict did not even correspond to the Talmudic principle of gud o agud (Baba Batra 13), which stipulates that in cases where physical division of disputed property would result in irreparable loss to either litigant, division of the disputed property is to be arranged in kind. It is clear that suspension of the Divine system of justice would result in perversion of justice, since our yardsticks of comparison would vanish. When only a small section of mankind indulges in false morality, the result, while damaging, might help to restore true morality elsewhere. To the Jew, Abraham's query "Shall the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" (Genesis 18,25) is not a question of "if," but a question of “how.” The fact that G-d’s morality is objectively true morality is axiomatic; our concern is only with attempting to comprehend some of its aspects. The premise is "the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32,4). Similar statements can be found throughout the Bible. If we become too perturbed when enquiring into apparently unjust occurrences and one forgets this premise, then the danger of heresy is very real, and one can no longer claim to be a searcher for truth, but becomes a doubter of truth. This is the lesson the prophet Chabakuk (2,4) teaches, "The righteous lives by his faith." We proclaim the truth of G-d both by day and by night immediately following the shema yisrael, "hear O Israel," prayer.

63. The Rabbi: The compiler of the Holy Writ did not pay so much attention to hidden matters as to those generally known. He, therefore, mentions nothing of the wisdom Joshua had received from God and from Moses, but only the days when he stood at the Jordan, the day when the sun stood still, and the day of the circumcision, since these matters concerned the whole people. The tales of Samson, Deborah, Gideon, Samuel, David and Solomon contain nothing about their own learning and religious practices. In the history of Solomon we find an account of his luxurious table, great wealth, but of his great wisdom nothing except the case of the two women (1 Kings iii. 16), because this took place in public. The wisdom he displayed in his intercourse with the Queen of Sheba and elsewhere is not mentioned, because it was not the author's intention to relate anything that did not concern or interest the whole people. Special records referring to special individuals only, are lost with the exception of a few, besides the magnificent prophetic speeches which everyone took a delight in learning by heart on account of their lofty contents and noble language. Even of the history of Ezra and Nehemiah nothing is related except that which concerned the whole people. The day of the building of the tabernacles was a public affair, because on that day the people set out to ascend the mountains and gather olive, myrtle and palm branches. The words: 'they found written,' mean that the whole people gave attention to them and commenced to build their tabernacles. The erudite were not unacquainted with the details of the law, and still less with the general tenor of it. The author's intention was to single out this day, as well as the other one on which the Ammonite and Moabite wives were divorced. This was a remarkable day, when men had to divorce their wives and the mothers of their children, a grave and painful matter. I do not believe that any other people than the chosen would give a similar proof of their obedience to their Lord. It is on account of this public affair that the words: 'they found written,' were said. It means that, when the public Reader read the words: 'An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter . . .' the people was moved, and a great perturbation arose on that day.