Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. In the haftorah of our parsha (at the beginning of the Book of Kings), it is recounted how the events unfolded that led to David’s oath to Batsheva: “As I have sworn to you by the L‑rd, the G‑d of Israel, saying, ‘Indeed, your son Shlomo will reign after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place; so will I do this very day.’”
And in the continuation of the verses, it is told that David commanded Tzadok the Kohen, Nasan the prophet, and Benayahu ben Yehoyada to have “Shlomo my son ride upon my own mule” (“a sign for him that he will reign, and the beginning of greatness, for a commoner does not ride on the king’s horse”), “and there Tzadok the Kohen and Nasan the prophet shall anoint him as king over Israel… and you shall say, ‘Long live King Shlomo!’” And so they did in practice, during David’s lifetime, as the verses continue to describe, until Yonasan ben Evyasar the Kohen reported to Adoniyahu how Shlomo had become king: “And Shlomo has also sat on the royal throne,” “and so too the king said, ‘Blessed is the L‑rd, G‑d of Israel, who has granted today one to sit on my throne and my eyes see it.’” And Adoniyahu feared King Shlomo and grasped the horns of the altar so that Shlomo would not kill him for rebelling against his kingship.
From this it appears that when David said, “so will I do this very day,” he meant (not merely a promise that Shlomo would reign after David’s passing, but) that Shlomo was actually crowned king during David’s lifetime.
However, this requires explanation: (a) For G‑d said to David, “The time has come for the reign of Shlomo your son, and one kingship does not encroach upon another even by a hair’s breadth,” which implies that Shlomo’s reign did not begin until after David’s passing. (b) And in general, it is not possible for two kings to use one crown (as the saying goes, “one leader for a generation, etc.”), and as mentioned above, “one kingship does not encroach upon another even by a hair’s breadth.”
Indeed, we do find several cases where sons reigned during their fathers’ lifetimes (such as Yehoshafat, who appointed Yehoram during his own lifetime for two years; Achazyahu, who reigned during the life of his father Yehoram; Uziyahu in the days of his father Amatziah; and others similarly). But in those cases, the kingship passed from father to son, and the father’s reign was nullified
(because he was no longer fit to reign due to illness or similar reasons), as explained by the commentators. This is similar to what is written in the responsa of the Rashba (and cited by the Rema) regarding a chazzan who has grown old and wishes to appoint his son to assist him from time to time… “if his son fills his place in other matters, he takes precedence over anyone else.” Similarly, regarding inheritance of the kingship: when the father is unable to reign for some reason, the son acquires the kingship as an inheritance (during the father’s lifetime). However, in our case, even though this took place when “King David was old,” it is explicit in Divrei HaYamim that David continued to reign in practice even after Shlomo was anointed king.
And this is not comparable to the time when David fled from Avshalom his son (in the midst of his reign), about which the Yerushalmi says, “Those six months that David fled from Avshalom in Se’irah, he atoned as a commoner,” for that was against his will (because he was fleeing from Avshalom). But it is not reasonable that he would willingly transfer the kingship from his own hand during his lifetime.
Especially since there are those who say that even during those six months he still had the status of king, except that regarding the goat-offering there is a special law that it applies only to one “who has no one above him except the L‑rd his G‑d,” and since David was then pursued and afraid of Avshalom, he was not considered “having no one above him except the L‑rd his G‑d” in practice.
And it is certainly not at all similar to the situation where we find kings of the House of David and kings of Israel at the same time, and according to the Rambam, “A prophet who appoints a king from the other tribes of Israel, etc., he is a king and all the laws of kingship apply to him”—for there, the two kings are in two different places, one in Yehudah and one in Israel [in addition to the difference in the type of kingship, that one is from the kings of the House of David and the other from the kings of Israel, which are essentially different, as will be explained at length below].
2. At first glance, one might seek to explain this based on the words of the Gemara: “In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will appoint for them another David, as it is said, ‘And they shall serve the L‑rd their G‑d and David their king whom I will raise up for them’—it does not say ‘whom I have raised up,’ but ‘whom I will raise up.’ Rav Papa said to Abaye: But it is written, ‘And David My servant shall be prince over them forever.’ [He answered:] Like a Caesar and a vice-Caesar—‘a king and a second to him.’ So too, the new David will be king, as it is written, ‘and David their king whom I will raise up for them,’ and David the king will be second to him, as it is written, ‘a prince over them,’ and it does not say ‘king’” (Rashi’s commentary). From this it is understood that even within the kingship of the House of David itself, there is a possibility of two levels of kingship—Caesar and vice-Caesar. Accordingly, one might say something similar regarding the beginning of the Davidic monarchy, in the kingship of Shlomo and David: that both were kings, but in the manner of Caesar and vice-Caesar.
However, this too is difficult, for it is clear that these two “kings” are not equal in the strength of their kingship, as the Gemara says, “and a vice-Caesar” (half a Caesar), “and a second to him.” And we do not find that at that time either of them (David or Shlomo) was in the status of “second to him.”
3. This can be clarified by first explaining the words of the Rambam regarding the inheritance of kingship. The Rambam writes: “Once a king has been anointed, he acquires [the kingship] for himself and for his descendants forever, for kingship is an inheritance, as it is said, ‘that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the midst of Israel’… And not only kingship, but all positions of authority and appointments in Israel are inherited by his son and his son’s son forever, provided the son fills his father’s place in wisdom and fear [of G‑d].” The Rambam then continues regarding the kingship of the House of David: “Once David was anointed, he acquired the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and his male descendants forever, as it is said, ‘Your throne shall be established forever.’ But he merited this only for those who are fit… Even though he merited it only for those who are fit, the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David forever; the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him this…”
At first glance, the Rambam’s words require explanation: What is the Rambam coming to teach us at length about the kingship of David—“Once David was anointed, he acquired the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and his male descendants forever… but he merited this only for those who are fit…”—are these not the very same things he wrote earlier regarding every king (and not only kingship, but every position of authority and appointment in Israel)? What is the novelty regarding David HaMelech compared to other kings?
One might say that although “kingship is an inheritance,” it is still possible that the kingship would cease from his descendants if he does not have a son worthy to fill his father’s place in wisdom and fear [of G‑d]. This is the novelty in the kingship of the House of David: that the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that “the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David forever”—whereas for other kings (and other positions of authority), although it is an inheritance, there is no necessity or guarantee that it will not cease from his descendants.
But it is difficult to say that this alone is the Rambam’s intent—for the Rambam writes this idea later in the chapter: “The kings of the House of David are established forever, as it is said, ‘Your throne shall be established forever,’ but if a king arises from the rest of Israel, the kingship will cease from his house.” Why, then, does he repeat this matter again regarding the promise to David, that his kingship will be established forever?
Furthermore: From the fact that the Rambam includes the matter that “the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David forever” together with the details of the laws of inheritance of kingship, it is implied that this is not a side matter (that G‑d promised him that in practice his kingship would be established forever), but that it pertains to the very definition of the inheritance of kingship for the kings of the House of David. That is, there is a fundamental difference between the inheritance of kingship in the House of David and the inheritance of kingship for other kings (and other positions of authority and appointments in Israel).
This has been explained elsewhere, based on the precise wording of the Rambam: “Once David was anointed, he acquired the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and his male descendants forever”—that is, David acquired not only “kingship” but the “crown of kingship,” for the “crown of kingship” exists only among the kings of the House of David. Similarly, the Rambam writes further: “A prophet who appoints a king from the other tribes of Israel, etc., he is a king and all the laws of kingship apply to him, even though the essential kingship belongs to David, etc.” This shows that even though all the laws of the king apply to a king from the other tribes of Israel, nevertheless, he does not possess the “essential kingship”—this pertains only to the seed of David.
Therefore, the Rambam writes in Sefer HaMitzvos that any king who is not from “this distinguished seed, regarding kingship, is considered a foreigner, just as any other lineage besides the seed of Aaron, regarding the service, is considered a foreigner.” For the kingship of the House of David is a fundamentally different entity in the matter of kingship.
4. The explanation of this is as follows:
The concept of kingship can exist in two ways: (a) The function of kingship, meaning the actions and conduct of the monarchy (in the words of the verse, “who will go out… and who will come in before them,” as well as the details that Shmuel the prophet explained); (b) A king by essence, meaning that the person is inherently elevated (and as a matter of course he conducts himself as a king).
This is the meaning of the “crown of kingship” that David merited, “for him and his male descendants forever”—not only that they will actually rule, but that they are kings by essence. This is the “essential kingship” that pertains only to the seed of David, for it is not merely the conduct of monarchy, but an inherent exaltedness of the soul, which was given to David and his descendants forever.
Accordingly, we can understand the connection of the Rambam’s statements: that following the laws of the inheritance of kingship (and the other positions of authority and appointments in Israel), he writes about the inheritance of the kingship of the House of David, and is precise that it is in a manner of “the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David forever”—that this is not a side promise, but something that is necessary by the very definition of the kingship of the House of David:
When kingship is only in the form of an appointment to fulfill a function, it is something additional to the person’s being, and therefore it is possible for it to cease; whereas with the kingship of the House of David, since they are kings by essence, this becomes their very being and essence—the power of kingship and exaltedness is embedded in the very soul itself, and therefore it cannot cease, and it passes automatically from father to son.
5. Based on all the above, it is understood that there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the inheritance of kingship between the kings of the House of David and other kings (as well as all other positions of authority and appointments) in Israel:
With other kings, where it is only the inheritance of a function, it is similar to any inheritance of property, where the bequeather has “ownership” over a particular position (just as over his other property and assets, over which he is the owner), which he bequeaths to his children (as the Rambam emphasizes here, “whoever takes precedence in inheritance takes precedence in inheriting the kingship”);
Whereas with the kingship of the House of David, it is not like the inheritance of property, but rather it is something that comes automatically: since “David merited the crown of kingship,” “the kingship is his and his male descendants’ forever,” and thus the power of kingship is naturally embedded in them forever.
[Accordingly, it can be said that what the Rambam writes regarding the kings of the House of David, “and he merited only for the worthy ones,” is not a condition for the inheritance of kingship that he wrote earlier—“provided that the son fills his father’s place in wisdom and fear”—rather, these are two different matters: the condition of “filling his father’s place in wisdom and fear” pertains to the inheritance of the function of kingship, for only one who possesses wisdom and fear can properly conduct the monarchy; but the Rambam’s intent in “and he merited only for the worthy ones” refers to the inheritance of the “crown of kingship,” that the unique power of kingship of the kings of the House of David passes only to his worthy descendants, and not to those who are unworthy—they do not merit the crown of kingship (“he merited only for the worthy ones”).]
6. Now, based on the above, we come to yet another fundamental distinction between the kings of Israel and the kings of the House of David—regarding the status of the son during the lifetime of the father:
With other kings (and all other positions of authority), where the definition of their kingship is only the function of ruling, it is understood that as long as the father is alive and well, it is impossible for any aspect of kingship to apply to the son (so long as his father is still reigning), for the function of kingship can only belong to one person. Even if the son is worthy to fill his father’s place, as long as his father is king, the son has no status whatsoever in the matter of kingship (just as with inheritance of property, as long as the benefactor is alive, the son has no ownership over his father’s assets); he is only considered fit to inherit him.
However, with the kings of the House of David, since they possess the crown of kingship, and the power of kingship is embedded in the very essence of their souls, this is something that exists even during the lifetime of their father.
Accordingly, it can be said that this was the effect of David’s action in appointing Shlomo as king during his own lifetime:
Although Shlomo merited the crown of kingship immediately from birth, being a worthy descendant, and thus possessed the essential power of kingship, nevertheless, as long as David was alive and was actually reigning, Shlomo’s power of kingship existed only “potentially” and not “in actuality,” for it was not necessary that he would actually reign [and not only in Shlomo’s case, where he had other brothers and it was not certain that he would be king, but even if he had been an only son, it is possible that the son might die during the father’s lifetime and never actually reign];
But through David’s selection of his son Shlomo and his command to anoint him, the status of “king” was conferred upon Shlomo—not only that he was destined to inherit the kingship from David, but that he actually bore the title of king in practice (since he merited the “crown of kingship”).
This is not a contradiction to the principle that “two kings cannot use one crown”—for the precise wording is “use one crown,” meaning the actual conduct of the monarchy, which cannot be carried out by two people at once (especially since their opinions may differ, etc.), and one kingship does not infringe upon another even by a hair’s breadth; but the very status of king, which depends on the “crown of kingship” and the power of kingship given to David and his descendants forever, can rest upon two people at the same time.
[On a deeper level, it can be said that the “status of king” that was conferred upon Shlomo is not in contradiction to the status of king of David—for they are one and the same, for the “crown of kingship” of Shlomo is none other than the “crown of kingship” of David (and so it is with all the kings of the House of David, that their “crown of kingship” is the same crown, as hinted by our Sages that the sign of the kings of the House of David is that David’s crown “fits him”), for the crown of kingship of the kings of the House of David is a single essence, and it can be said that it is the very essence of the power of kingship, which is above division.]
Similarly, in our case, the actual conduct of the monarchy was (only) by David (and if we find matters of royal conduct by Shlomo during David’s lifetime, it was only as David his father’s agent, and not as a separate kingship); nevertheless, the status of king rested upon Shlomo during David’s lifetime (after he was anointed), since he possessed the “crown of kingship.”
7. We can further explain why we find such a phenomenon—a king during the lifetime of his father (when the kingship was not removed from the father)—only with David and Shlomo:
It is well known what the Rambam writes: “There is no king for one who believes in the Torah of Moshe our teacher except from the seed of David and the seed of Shlomo specifically” (and this is included in the twelfth of the Thirteen Principles of Faith). This also answers the language of the Gemara: “David and Shlomo, who were anointed with a horn, their kingship endured,” for at first glance, how does it make sense to add “and Shlomo” (as if this is a separate kingship), when the kingship of Shlomo was an inheritance from the kingship of David (and the anointing of Shlomo was only “to remove the dispute” because of Adoniyahu)? Rather, it is because the kingship of Shlomo (and his anointing) also contains the beginning of something new, for the eternity of the kingship of the House of David “forever” is accomplished specifically through David and Shlomo together.
Accordingly, it can be said that for this reason, both of them were kings at the same time, for at that time this aspect of their kingship was expressed—that because of both of them, the kingship is eternal.
(From talks of 12 and 15 Tammuz 5745)