(Fol. 71) Our Rabbis were taught: During the entire forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, there was not a single day in which the northern wind did not blow at midnight, as it is said (Ex. 12, 29) And it came to pass at midnight, that the Lord smote every first-born. What does this teach? He teaches us that there is something in the idea of a propitious time [for prayer.]
(Fol. 76b) MISHNAH: Converted male Ammonites and Moabites are prohibited [from intermarrying with Israelites, and their prohibition is everlasting; but their females are permitted immediately [after their conversion.]
GEMARA: Whence do we learn that (that females are permitted)? R. Jochanan said: From the following passage (I Sam. 17, 55) And when Saul saw David going forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the army; 'Abner, whose son is this lad?' And Abner said: 'As thy soul liveth, O king, I know it not.' Was it then the fact that he (Saul) did not know him? Behold it is written (Ib. 16, 21) And he (Saul) loved him greatly, and he became his armour-bearer. Shall we assume that his question was regarding David's father? Then our question is: Was he then not known to Saul? Behold it is written (Ib. 17, 12) And the man was old in the days of Saul, belonging to the persons [of high esteem,] whereupon Rab, and according to others R. Abba said: This refers to Jesse, David's father, who came in with the army and went out with the army." [Hence Jesse was well known to Saul.] We must therefore say that Saul thus said unto Abner: "Go and ask whether David is the descendant of Perez or of Zerach. If he is the offspring of Perez, then he is destined to royalty, and a king may break through fences [to cut a way through for his army,] against which no one has the right to protest; but if he is of the progeny of Zerach, then he will merely rise to eminence." But what caused Saul bid Abner to ask of David's origin? Because of his garments, concerning which it is written (Ib., ib., 38) And Saul clothed David with his garments (madav). Why is madav used here? This means that his (Saul's) garments were such as fitted David's stature, although it is written (Ib. 10, 23) And he (Saul) was higher than any of the people from his shoulder and upward. [Saul then said to himself:] "What does this fact that my garments fit him signify? Surely he is destined to become the king." To which Doeg the Adamian remarked: "Before you begin an inquiry as to his fitness to the royalty or not, inquire rather whether he is fit to enter the congregation (to inter-marry with Israelites), because he is of the seed of Ruth the Moabite." Thereupon Abner said to him: "We are taught in a Mishnah: A converted male-Ammouite [is excluded from intermarrying] with Judaeans, but not a female; a converted male-Mo'abite, but not a female." According to your interpretation," remarked Saul, "then in the case of a Mamzer also say that a male is prohibited from entering the congregation but not a female?" "The passage says Mamzer, [which means] anything repulsive, including both sexes." Concerning the Egyptians, let us say also that only male Egyptians are mentioned but not females!" "Here [concerning the Ammonites and Mo'abites] it is different, because the reason [of the restriction] is given in the Torah (Deut. 23, 5) For the reason, that they met you not with bread and with water. The custom is for men to meet with bread and wine, but not for women to meet." Nevertheless the men should have met the Israelites and the women the Israelitish woman [hence the reason is for both]. Thereupon Abner remained silent [and was not able to answer this refutation.] Soon after this (I Sam. 17, 56) And the king said: Ask thou whose son this youth is. Why in the first place call David Na'ar (lad), and then call him elem (youth)? Thus did Saul say to Abner: "This law is concealed from thee, go therefore and inquire in the academy." He finally made inquiry, and they told him: "An Ammonite but not an Ammonitish woman, a Moabite, but not a Moamitish woman." (Fol. 77) Doeg raised all the above objections, which silenced them, [causing them to reverse their decisions,] and they were about to announce that he (David) was not fit to be in the congregation of Israel. Immediately after this [the passage says] (II Sam. 17, 25) And Amassa was the son of a man, whose name was Yithra the Israelite, who had gone into Abigail the daughter of Nachash, etc. And it is written (I Chr. 2, 17) And the father of Amassa was Jether the Ishmaelite, whereupon Raba said: Infer from this that Jether tied a sword around him like an Ishmaelite and said: 'Whoever will not obey this decision shall be stabbed with a sword, for thus have I a tradition from the court of Samuel of Ramathaim: An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitish woman; a Moabite, but not a Moabitish woman.' " But how can such evidence be relied upon? Has not R. Abba said in the name of Rab: "A scholar that renders a decision [concerning a disputed question,] if he rendered the decision prior to the incident he is to be heeded, but not otherwise." Here it is different, because Samuel [the prophet] and his court were then still in existence [and could thus be easily verified.] However, what about the above objection? Here (in Babylon) it was explained because (Ps. 45, 14) All gloriously attired awaited the king's daughter in the inner chamber, [hence the women are exempt from outside duty.] In the Land of Israel, it was inferred, and according to some, R. Isaac said: From the following passage (Gen. 18, 9) And they said unto him where is Sarah thy wife? etc. [Hence the women were exempt from the duty of meeting Israel.]
Raba lectured: "What does the passage (Ps. 116, 16) Thou hadst loosened my fetters, mean? Thus said David before the Holy One, praised be He! — 'Sovereign of the Universe! Thou hast absolved two restrictions which were against me, they are Ruth the Moabite and Na'amah the Ammonite.'" Raba lectured: "What is the meaning of the passage (Ib. 40, 6) Many things hast Thou done, O Lord my God! Thy wonderful deeds and Thy thoughts toward us? It does not say toward me, but toward us. From this it may be inferred that Rehobo'am was sitting in David's lap, and the latter said that concerning you and me refer the two [above quoted] passages." Raba lectured: "What does the passage (Ib., ib., 8) Then said I: 'Lo, I come in the scroll of the book it is written down for me,' mean? David said: 'I thought that I came [to my royalty] just now by a mere incident, and I was not aware of the fact that, in the roll of the book [dating from Abraham,] it is written down concerning me; for it is written there (Gen. 19, 15) Hanimtza'oth (that are here), and here it is written (Ps. 89, 21) Matzathi (I have found), David My servant: with My holy oil," etc.
R. Chana b. Adda said: "The decree concerning the Gibeonites was issued by David, as it is said (II Sam. 21, 2) And the king called for the Gibeonites and said unto them: now the Gibeonites are not of the children of Israel." Why did David make such a decree against them? Because, as it is written And then was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year. During the first year of the famine, David said to Israel: "Perhaps there are odilaters amongst ye, concerning which it is written (Deut. 11, 16) And ye turn aside and serve other gods, and worship them. Then the Lord's wrath will be kindled against you, and He will shut up the heavens that there be no rain." They investigated and found nothing of the kind. During the second year [of the famine] ( he again said to them: "Perhaps there are amongst you adulterers, concerning whom it is written (Jer. 3, 3) And [though] the early showers were with-holden, and the later rain came not, yet hadst thou a forehead of incestuous wife." Thereupon they investigated, but again found nothing of the kind. Upon the third year of the famine, David said to Israel: "Perhaps there are amongst you such that subscribed to charity in public and refused to pay, concerning which it is written (Pr. 25, 14) Like clouds and wind without rain, so is man that vaunteth falsely of a gift." They investigated and again did not find any trace of it. David then said: "The cause hangs upon none else but myself." Immediately (II Sam. 21, 1) and David besought the presence of the Lord. What does this mean? Resh Lakish said: "He asked information through the Urim and the Tummim." What is the intimation for it? Said R. Elazar: "We infer through the [analogy of expression] of the word R'nei, P'nei. It is written here (Ib.) And David besought the presence (P'nei) of the Lord, and it is written there (Num 27, 21) and he shall ask of him after the Judgment of the Urim before (Li-phnei) the Lord." (II Sam. 21, 1) And the Lord said, On account of Saul, and on account of the house of blood is this; because he hath slain the Gibeonites; i.e., on account of Saul, that he was not eulogized properly; and on account of the house of blood, because he hath slain the Gibeonites. Where do we find that Saul had slain the Gibeonites? We must therefore say that because he had slain the inhabitants of Nob, the city of the priests, who supported the Gibeonites with water and food [thus cutting off their support,] Scripture considers it as if he had actually slain them." Because Saul was not eulogized properly [Saul's honor,] and at the same time He demands because he had slain the Gibeonites [hence Saul's destruction?] Indeed so; for Resh Lakish said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Zeph. 2, 3) Seek ye the Lord, all ye meek of the earth, who have fulfilled His ordinances; i.e., in the same place where one is judged for his [bad actions,] also his [good deeds] are recorded. David then said: "As to Saul's grievances twelve months have already elapsed (Fol. 69) and it is not customary to make a funeral address any longer. But concerning the Gibeonites, let us call them and try to appease them." (II Sam. 21, 2-6) And the king called for the Gibeonite, and said unto them, etc. What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord? And the Gibeonites said unto him: We have no concern of silver or gold with Saul and with his house, nor do we wish, etc. Let there be delivered unto us seven men of his sons, and we will hang them up unto the Lord. David tried to appease them [with any other thing but that:] however, they were not conciliated. David then said: "This nation (Israel) is recognized by three characteristic features, they are merciful, chaste and charitable. Merciful, as it is written (Deut. 13, 18) and grant thee mercy, and have mercy upon them and multiply thee; chaste, as it is written (Ex. 20, 20) and in order that His fear may be before your faces; charitable, as it is written (Gen. 18, 19) that he will command his children and his household, etc., with whomsoever possesses these characteristic features it is befitting to be associated, but with whomsoever posseses not these characteristic features it is not fitting to be associated."
(II Sam. 21, 8) And the king took the two sons of Riz-Pah the daughter of Ayah, whom she had born unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Mecholatithe. Why just these? R. Huna said: "They were passed by the Holy ark. Whomever the holy ark received was to die, and whomever the holy ark did not receive was to live." R. Huna b. Ketina raised the following objection (Ib., ib., 7) But the king had pity on Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan the son of Saul. [Hence it was decided by David and not by the Holy ark?] This means that David did not pass him by [before the Holy ark.] Can there then be favoritism used in such a case? We must therefore explain the above that Mephibosheth was led by the Holy ark and was also receieved, but David prayed and he was relieved. But again the question remained: Can there then be favoritism used in such a case? You must therefore explain it that David prayed that the ark should not receive him [and thus he had mercy.]
But behold it is written (Deut. 24, 26) Fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall children be put to death for the fathers? R. Chiya b. Abba said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Rather let one word of the Torah become impotent, than have the Heavenly name publicly profaned." (II Sam. 21, 10) And Rizpah the daughter of Ayah took sack cloth, and spread it out for herself upon the rock, from the beginning of the harvest until water dropped down upon them out of heaven, and she suffered neither the birds of heaven to rest on them by day, nor the beasts of the field by night. Behold it is written (Deut. 21, 23) Then shall his body not remain all night on the tree. R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jehozadak said: "It is worth while that one letter of the Torah become impotent, if only the Heavenly name should [through it] be sanctified publicly: [for, whoever passed by the corpse] asked: 'What is the nature of these? Are they not princes, and what [crime] have they committed?' Because they had raised their hands against self-made converts (not formally admitted),' [the reasons were given.] The inquirers then would remark: 'There is no other nation that is more fitting to be associated with than this (Israel); for, if to princes they gave such punishment how much more so to an ordinary man; and if they so protect self-made converts, how much more so will they protect real Israelites (duly admitted proselytes)?' The result therefrom was that Israel was increased by one hundred and fifty thousand [proselytes], as it is said (I King 5, 29) And there belonged to Solomon seventy thousand bearers of burdens, and eighty thousand stone cutters in the mountains." But perhaps these were Israelties? You cannot possibly think so, for it is written (Ib. 9, 22) Yet of the children of Israel did Solomon make no one a servant. But perhaps the above were merely salaried employees? We must therefore say that the above is inferred from here (II Chr. 2, 16) And Solomon numbered all the gerim (proselytes) that were in the land of Israel, etc., and they were found to be one hundred and fifty thousand. And he made of them seventy thousand bearers of burdens, etc. And was then the decree against the Gibeonites issued by David? Behold! Moses issued the decree, as it is written (Deut. 29, 10) from the hewer of the wood, etc. Moses merely decreed it for that generation, but David decreed it for all generations. Again has not Joshua decreed concerning them? For it is written (Josh. 9, 27) And Joshua appointed them only that day hewers of the wood, etc. Joshua's decree was only for the period during which the Temple existed, but David's decree was issued for the period beyond the destruction of the Temple.