Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. The halachic ruling[1] is that the haftorah for a parsha must be “related to the subject of the parsha,” and even more so — it should be “of the same kind” as the conclusion of the parsha[2].
The connection between our parsha — Chayei Sarah — and its haftorah is, simply[3], that the content of the haftorah is the events and actions of David when he was “old, advanced in years”[4] — similar to the parsha, which speaks mostly about the time when “And Avraham was old, advanced in years”[5].
And the similarity is not only in the parallel of the time and the events — which occurred when Avraham and David were “old, advanced in years” — but also in the content of the matters themselves:
In the haftorah, it is told about two sons of David, Adoniyahu and Shlomo, and how Adoniyahu “exalted himself, saying, ‘I will reign,’”[6] and the sequence of events that led David to swear to Batsheva that his earlier oath — “that Shlomo your son will reign after me, and he will sit on my throne in my place” — would indeed be fulfilled — “so will I do this very day”[7].
This parallels the story in the parsha, that between the two sons of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yishmael — where Yishmael claimed[8], “I am greater (more beloved) than Yitzchak,” nevertheless Avraham made Yitzchak his heir; and likewise, he took care to arrange a marriage for Yitzchak[9], until “Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzchak”[10], whereas to the sons of the concubines, “Avraham gave gifts and sent them away from Yitzchak his son while he was still alive”[11]. And also regarding the sons of Yishmael (similar to what happened with Yishmael himself — ‘send away, etc.’), it is told at the end of the parsha, “And these are their names, by their settlements and by their encampments, twelve princes according to their nations”[12], without any connection to Avraham.
In slightly different terms: the connection consists in the fact that just as David chose[13] his younger son instead of the older one, so that the younger would be the successor to the Davidic dynasty, so too Avraham’s younger son, Yitzchak, was chosen as the successor to the house of Avraham. And the other children were excluded, including the family of the older son — Yishmael, who settled “in their settlements and in their encampments, twelve princes according to their nations.” They dwelled from Chavilah to Shur, etc., without any connection to Avraham.
However, there still remains a lack of complete clarity:
In this parsha, it is also recounted what happened after the passing of Avraham: “And it was after the death of Avraham that G‑d blessed Yitzchak his son…”[14] — why, then, are the subsequent verses, which tell how Shlomo was anointed and “Shlomo also sat on the throne of the kingdom”[15], not included and read in the haftorah?
2. At first glance, one might say that the reason the continuation of the verses about the anointing of Shlomo is not read in the haftorah is in accordance with the Rambam’s view regarding the nature of anointing a king who is the son of a king, including the anointing of Shlomo:
The Gemara[16] says: “We do not anoint the son of a king [as king]. And if you ask, why then was Shlomo anointed?” “Because of the dispute with Adoniyahu.” The Gemara further asks: “From where do we know that when there is a dispute, anointing is required, and not every king can simply pass on the kingship to his son? Rav Pappa said: The verse states, ‘He and his sons among Israel’ — when there is peace in Israel.” Rashi[17] explains: “When there is peace in Israel, the kingship is an inheritance and does not require anointing, but when there is a dispute, it is not an inheritance and requires anointing at the outset.”
However, the Rambam[18] rules: “We do not anoint the son of a king, for the kingship is an everlasting inheritance for the king… If there is a dispute, he is anointed in order to remove the dispute and to make known to all that he alone is king, as Shlomo was anointed because of the dispute with Adoniyahu…” And as later authorities explain[19], the dispute between Rashi and the Rambam is as follows: According to Rashi, the kingship ceases to be an inheritance, and therefore the anointing is like establishing a new king[20]; whereas according to the Rambam, the inheritance of the kingship is not nullified, and not even changed[21], and the anointing is only “to remove the dispute,” to resolve a particular situation that has arisen.
According to this, it can be said — and this clarifies the Rambam’s custom[22] to conclude the haftorah with the verse “May my master, King David, live forever”[23] and not to mention the anointing of Shlomo — that according to his view, the anointing of the son of a king is not to effect the kingship itself, but only “to remove the dispute.” Therefore, the story of Shlomo’s anointing is not included, because the oath of David, “And the king swore… ‘As I swore to you by the L‑rd, G‑d of Israel, saying: Your son Shlomo will reign after me and he will sit on my throne after me, so will I do this day,’” is what definitively establishes the continuation of the kingship[24].
By contrast, according to the other customs[25], the reading of the haftorah continues further, including the command of David to anoint Shlomo, up until after the actual anointing[26]. And according to the plain meaning of the Avudraham[27], the reading extends until after the death of David: “And Shlomo[28] sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established”[29]. These customs are in line with, and correspond to, the view of Rashi, that when there is a dispute, the kingship is not an inheritance and requires an anointing at the outset; that is, through the anointing, a new king is established and appointed. Therefore, the appointment of Shlomo was effected through his anointing.
However, a difficulty remains: After all, since in the Torah portion it is recounted (not only how Avraham sent away the sons of the concubines, etc., and chose Yitzchak, but also) what was the status and greatness of Yitzchak after Avraham’s passing—“And it was after the death of Avraham that G‑d blessed Yitzchak, etc.” From this, Rashi[30] says that the one who bestows blessings—specifically the Holy One, blessed be He—came and blessed him. Therefore, in the haftorah as well, it would have been appropriate to read about how the appointment of Shlomo was completed (through his anointing) and how he actually became king[31] in practice[32].
3. This will be understood by first adding further explanation regarding the nature of Shlomo’s anointing:
The Gemara[33] says regarding the prophecy of Chana, “My horn is exalted through him”[34]—“My horn is exalted, but not my flask. David and Shlomo, who were anointed with a horn, their kingship endured; Shaul and Yehu, who were anointed with a flask, their kingship did not endure”[35].
This is seemingly difficult to understand: The Rambam rules[36], “Once David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship, and the kingship belongs to him and to his male descendants forever, as it is said[37], ‘Your throne shall be established forever.’” That is, the kingship of Shlomo is a continuation (“his kingship was drawn forth”) from the kingship of David—so why do we say “David and Shlomo, who were anointed with a horn, their kingship endured,” as if each of them is a separate kingship, and that the beginning of the kingship (also) applies to Shlomo[38] (similar to Shaul and Yehu—where each of them was a king from the outset, not a king the son of a king)? In truth, the kingship of Shlomo was established “since David was anointed,” at which point “he merited the crown of kingship… forever,” and Shlomo’s anointing was only in order to remove dispute[39] and to make known to all that he alone is king.
One must also understand: the law that “we do not anoint a king the son of a king” is brought by the Rambam both in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash and in Hilchos Melachim[40]. In Hilchos Klei HaMikdash he states the wording cited above: “in order to remove the dispute and to make known to all that he alone is king, as they anointed Shlomo because of the dispute of Adoniyahu, and Yoash because of Asalyah, and Yehoachaz because of Yehoyakim his brother”[41]; whereas in Hilchos Melachim, the Rambam says only: “in order to remove dispute,” and does not add “and to make known to all that he alone is king, etc.”
At first glance, the Rambam’s approach is indeed to rely on what he stated earlier[42], and in this case—Hilchos Klei HaMikdash comes before Hilchos Melachim, so he does not need to repeat himself in Hilchos Melachim.
However, the question here is: the proper place for this matter regarding kings, where he explains in detail the laws of kings, including their anointing, is fundamentally in Hilchos Melachim, and not among the laws of (Klei HaMikdash, which include the laws of) the anointing oil, where only incidentally the laws of anointing a king with the anointing oil are mentioned. According to this, the reason for the law, and especially the additional reason “to make known to all that he alone is king,” belongs only in Hilchos Melachim.
4. The point of explanation here is: The matter of “to make known to all that he alone is king” is relevant primarily to the kings of the House of David (as will be explained), and therefore: in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash, where the details of the laws regarding anointing a king are presented as a detail in the laws of the anointing oil—since anointing with the anointing oil applies only to “the kings of the House of David alone”[43]—he states there that the anointing of a king, the son of a king, is also in order “to make known to all that he alone is king.”
Whereas in Hilchos Melachim—“Hilchos Melachim” (in general)—where he speaks about “once David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship and the kingship belongs to him and to his sons,” and—when “a prophet”[44] appoints a king from the other tribes of Israel and that king follows the path of Torah and mitzvos and fights the wars of G‑d, he is a king and all the laws of kingship apply to him, etc., as Achiyah HaShiloni appointed Yeravam and said to him[45] “And it shall be, if you will listen[46] to all that I command you, I will build you a faithful house as I built for David, etc.” [He only adds that “the kings of Israel are not anointed with the anointing oil except with the oil of afarsimon”[47*]]. Therefore, when he states there the law that “a king, the son of a king, is not anointed unless there is a dispute or war, then he is anointed,” he gives only the reason “to remove dispute,” which is also relevant to the kings of Israel, as will be explained.
5. The explanation of this[*47]:
Although according to the Rambam, even after David merited the crown of kingship, “a prophet who appoints a king from the other tribes of Israel, he is a king,” as above—nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference, as the Rambam continues[48]: “The kings of the House of David are established forever, as it is said, ‘Your throne will be established forever.’ But if a king arises from the other tribes of Israel, the kingship will be cut off from his house,” and even when there is a king from the other tribes of Israel, “the primary kingship belongs to David”[49],
To the point that, as the Rambam says in Sefer HaMitzvos (negative commandment 362)[50]: “But[51] the kingship alone — you already know from the language of the books of prophecy that David merited it. And they said explicitly: David merited the crown of kingship, and so too his descendants after him until the end of all generations. 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[52], and anyone who is not from this noble lineage, regarding kingship he is called a foreigner, just as anyone who is not from the seed of Aharon regarding the service is called a foreigner.
According to this, it turns out that the difference between the kingship of the House of David and the kings of Israel is not only a matter of time—that the kings of the House of David stand forever, whereas the kings of Israel do not—but it is a difference in the very definition of kingship: David merited the crown of kingship. The very essence of kingship is always only in David and his sons; it is only that “by the command of G‑d”[53] there can be a particular king from the other tribes of Israel[54], but this is not the “primary kingship.”[55]
To the extent that regarding the kingship of David, “he is called a foreigner,”[56] and as it says in the Mechilta[57], “Once David was chosen, all Israel were excluded.”[58]
6. It can be said that this is the reason why only the kings of the House of David are anointed with the anointing oil, and as is understood from the plain language of the Rambam: “Once David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship, and the kingship is his and his male descendants’ forever, as it is said, etc.”—that the matter of anointing with the anointing oil for David is not merely a detail in his appointment as king, but it effected[59] the establishment and eternity of the kingship of David, “forever.”
And the reason can be said to be: The anointing oil is the oil that Moshe made in such a way that “this shall be for Me for your generations,”[60] and “it will all remain for the future to come.”[61]
And as the Rambam says in the laws of the vessels of the Sanctuary, “they left it in a vessel for all generations,”[62] “and no other oil was ever made except for what Moshe made.”[63]
Therefore, the anointing with the anointing oil also effects the “for your generations”—the establishment and eternity of the kingship[64]—that “the kings of the House of David are those who stand forever.”
On this the Rambam says: “A king, the son of a king, is not anointed, for kingship is an inheritance for the king forever… But if there was a dispute, he is anointed in order to remove the dispute and to make known to all that he alone is king.” When there is no dispute, a king who is the son of a king does not require anointing, because “the anointing with which his father was anointed also affects them, and they are like their father.”[65] However, when “there was a dispute”—when, at that time, the matter of establishment and eternity—the effect of the anointing with the anointing oil—is not openly and recognizably present with regard to the son, then he is anointed for two reasons: (a) to remove the dispute (which applies not only to the kings of the House of David [with the anointing oil] but also to a king from the other tribes of Israel [with balsam oil]); (b) “and to make known to all that he alone is king”—and this is the unique aspect that applies only to the kings of the House of David.[66]
This is also the precision and addition in the Rambam’s language, “to make known to all that he alone is king”—for, at first glance, what does “alone” come to teach us?[67] Rather, the Rambam means not only that he is the king and not the other who led the dispute, but “that he alone is king” always—not only as it was in the days of David and Shlomo[68], but also when there is a king from the other tribes of Israel, he is “king alone”—the “crown of kingship” is merited specifically by David and his descendants after him[69], forever.
And therefore, the Rambam says this in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash[70]—because this is a detail (not in the laws of a king—which can also apply to one who is not “alone,” but) in the laws of the anointing oil—revealing that also with regard to a king who is the son of a king (about whom there was a dispute), the matter of “the king alone” that exists with the kings of the House of David is present, that also with him there is the aspect of their eternity[71], that they stand forever[72].
7. According to this, we can explain why the Gemara explicitly enumerates “David and Shlomo” as those who “were anointed with a horn and their kingship endured”[73], even though Shlomo was a king the son of a king, and was anointed only “to remove the dispute,” as explained above:
Even though “once David was anointed, he merited the crown of kingship,” nevertheless, since the continuation of the essential matter of kingship is specifically through Shlomo—up to the point that the Rambam says in Sefer HaMitzvos, as mentioned above, “There is no king for those who believe in the Torah of Moshe except from the seed of David and specifically from the seed of Shlomo,” and the Rambam counts this as part (of the twelfth principle) of the Thirteen Principles of Faith[74], and from this foundation (of the days of Mashiach) … “that there is no king for Israel except from the House of David and from the seed of Shlomo alone,”
It therefore comes out that the kingship of Shlomo and his anointing is not merely a continuation[75] of the kingship of David because he was, in practice, the one who inherited the kingship of David, but rather, the very definition of the kingship of the House of David—a kingship “forever”—came (after David) specifically through the kingship of Shlomo.
This is why we find that the kingship of Shlomo was distinguished from all the other kings of the House of David, in that he was “the king alone” in actuality and openly, just like his father David—not like the other kings of the House of David, who were not the sole king over all Israel, since, by the word of a prophet, there was a king from the other tribes of Israel over the ten tribes.
The reason for this is that regarding the kingship of Shlomo, there was an explicit prophecy to David from the outset about the eternity of Shlomo’s kingship: “Behold,[76] a son will be born to you; he will be a man of peace… Shlomo will be his name… he will build a house for My Name… and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.”
Even more: just as there is a special choice regarding David—“And He chose David His servant”[77]—about which it is said, “all Israel went out” from the previous kingship, so too, similarly, it is said regarding Shlomo:[78] “And G‑d chose me from all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever… in me He desired to make king over all Israel, and of all my sons—for the L‑rd has given me many sons—He chose Shlomo my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the L‑rd over Israel.” And thus, all the other sons of David were excluded.
Therefore, both are included together: “David and Shlomo, who were anointed with a horn, their kingship endured”—since the eternity of the kingship of David was stated specifically and only with regard to Shlomo, as above: “and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.” This itself was also drawn down through the anointing of Shlomo, “to make known to all that this is the king alone.”
Therefore, the name of the kingship is called after both of them—David and Shlomo.
8. Based on all the above, we can explain the “content of the parsha” of the haftorah, in their inner meaning, and also the connection to the parsha:
The fact that “the kings of the House of David are those who stand forever,” and as the language at the end of the haftorah says—what Batsheva said after David had sworn “so will I do this day” (that Shlomo will be the king)—“May my lord King David live forever,” that “the kingship will never be cut off from the seed of David forever,”[79] even when they do not conduct themselves as they should, G‑d forbid, “the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him this, as it is said:[80] ‘If his children forsake My Torah and do not walk in My judgments, I will punish their transgressions with a rod and their iniquity with plagues, but My kindness I will not remove from him’”—since the crown of kingship of the House of David is bound up with the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, there can be no (true) interruption or change in it.
This is similar to the distinction of the Jewish people by virtue of their being the children of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov: that which the Patriarchs—Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov—drew down to their children after them, to every single member of the Jewish people, endures until the end of all generations.[81]
Because the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He—“Who chose Avram”—admits[82] of no change.
And just as with the kings of the House of David, the matter of “May my lord King David live forever” was realized in actuality through the continuation of the monarchy—through “Shlomo your son will reign after you,” because “He chose Shlomo my son to sit on the throne of the kingship of G‑d over Israel,” as mentioned above—so too in our parsha, the continuation from Avraham (“Who chose Avram”) is expressed in the fulfillment of G‑d’s promise, “for through Yitzchak will your offspring be called,” that[83] Yitzchak actually continues the house of Avraham.
Accordingly, it can be said that this is why, according to the Rambam’s version (and the custom of most Jews today), the verse about the actual kingship of Shlomo is not recited in the haftorah—because also in our parsha, the matter of the Patriarchs, Avraham and Yitzchak (and Yaakov), as the foundation of the entire Jewish people, who drew down to their children after them for all eternity[84], has not yet been completed in its entirety (in our parsha): “for through Yitzchak will your offspring be called, and not all of Yitzchak”[85]—until the birth of Yaakov (in Parshas Toldos); only then was the completeness of the matter of the Patriarchs finished, “we call only three ‘Patriarchs.’”[86]
9. And it may be said that the “connection of the parsha” in this haftorah is not only in the essential relationship between the kingship of the House of David—David and Shlomo—and the Patriarchs, but also in the fact that the completion of the choice in Avraham and Yitzchak—the foundation of the Jewish people—is revealed in the kings of the House of David.
The explanation of this is as follows: The completion and perfection of a nation is specifically when it becomes a single unified people, not when each individual stands alone. And this is accomplished through the king, in the language of the Rambam regarding the mitzvah of appointing a king[87]: “He commanded us to appoint a king over us who will gather together all our nation and lead us.”[88] And through this is expressed the choice of the entirety of the Jewish people as one nation, in that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose a king over Israel forever—the choice of David and Shlomo—“the kings of the House of David… who stand forever,” through whom comes “the kingship of G‑d over Israel.”[78]
Another point in this: As has been discussed many times, the kingship of the House of David is connected with the Beis HaMikdash, as it is written:[89] “I have not chosen a city from all the tribes of Israel to build a house for My Name to be there, but I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.”[90] Therefore, the building of the chosen house was specifically through David (who prepared everything for the building of the house[91]) and Shlomo (who actually built the house for My Name).
Through the choice in the kings of the House of David and the building of the house, the Jews reached “the resting place and the inheritance”[92]—together with the resting place and inheritance of the Divine Presence, the indwelling of the Shechinah: “This is the house of G‑d, the L‑rd…”[93] “This[94] is My resting place forever”[95].
And therefore, the revelation of the choice in Avraham and the Patriarchs after him, as the fathers of the Jewish people, came at the time of the fulfillment of “Long live my master, King David, forever”—the kingship of David and Shlomo, through whom the building of the chosen house took place—the permanent indwelling of the Shechinah among the Jewish people.
(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira and Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5743)