1) TOSFOS DH NASHIM LATZEIS LIFNEI HAMITAH

תוס' ד"ה נשים לצאת לפני המטה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why we are not afraid of Hirhur, and then cites the Yerushalmi, which in turns, cites two opinions as to whether the women should go specifically in front of the stretcher or whether they should not).

דכיון דשעת צער הוא, ליכא למיחש להרהור.

(a) Explanation #1: Since it is a time of Tza'ar (pain), there is no fear of 'Hirhur' (lewd thoughts).

ובירושלמי פליגי - איכא למאן דאמר לפני המטה, לפי שגרמו מיתה לעולם; ואית דנהגו לאחר המטה ואנשים לפני המטה, לפי שגנאי לבנות ישראל שיסתכלו בהן אנשים.

(b) Explanation #2: There is actually a dispute in the Yerushalmi, as to whether they go in front of the stretcher, due to the fact that they brought death to the world; or whether they go behind it (and the men go in front), since it degrading for B'nos Yisrael, to be looked at by them.

2) TOSFOS DH SHESHAHA ...

תוס' ד"ה ששהא מלכות וכו'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Avner was punished for delaying the advent of Malchus Beis David, in spite of the Pasuk that foretold that Shaul and Ish-Boshes [i.e. two kings from Binyamin] would reign).

אף על גב דדרשינן (מדרש רבה פרשת וישלח) "ומלכים ממך יצאו" 'זה שאול ואיש בושת'?

(a) Implied Question: But does the Medrash, commenting on the Pasuk "u'Melachim Mimcha Yetzei'u" not Darshen 'This refers to Sha'ul and Ish-Boshes (implying that two kings from the tribe of Binyamin would reign?

מ"מ, היה יכול להתקיים במקום אחר, ולא היה לו לשהות מלכות בית דוד שנמשח כבר על פי נביא.

(b) Answer: Nevertheless, this could have occurred at some other time, and Avner should not have delayed the advent of Malchus Beis David, seeing as David had already been crowned by a Navi (Shmuel).

3) TOSFOS DH SH'TEI SHANIM U'MECHTZA

תוס' ד"ה שתי שנים ומחצה

(SUMMARY: Tosfos refutes [on two scores] Rashi's explanation of the seven and a half year period during which there was no Malchus Yisrael, and offers an alternative explanation). Finally, they explain why a. a Pasuk and b. the Gemara in Cheilek, refer to only seven years, and not seven and a half)

פי' בקונטרס - שמלכות ישראל היתה בטלה חמש שנה בין מיתת שאול למלכות איש בושת, ב' שנים ומחצה, היינו שתי שנים ממלכות איש בושת ומחצה בין מיתת איש בושת למלכות דוד.

(a) Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Malchus Yisrael was annulled for five years between the death of Shaul and the crowning of Ish-Boshes, and two and a half years - consists of the two years that Ish-Boshes reigned, and the half-year between his death and the coronation of David.

ולא נהירא - חדא דלמה נענש על אותה חצי שנה דבין מיתת איש בושת למלכות דוד, הלא קודם מיתתו חזר אבנר ונתאמץ להמליך את דוד כדכתיב (שמואל ב ג) "וישלח אבנר מלאכים אל דוד ... "?

(b) Refutation #1: This is not correct however, firstly, because, seeing as before the death of Ish-Boshes, Avner made efforts to crown David, as the Pasuk describes in Shmuel, why was he then punished for the half-year between Ish-Boshes' death and David's coronation?

ועוד - דכיון דחמש שנים עמדו בלא מלך ולא המליכו את דוד, א"כ למה נענש אבנר במה שנתחזק אחרי כן להמליך איש בושת?

(c) Refutation #2: And secondly, since five years passed during which time they had no king, and they failed to crown David, why was Avner punished for then taking the initiative to crown Ish-Boshes?

ונראה לי איפכא - דאותה חצי שנה היתה בין מיתת שאול למלכות איש בושת, ובאותם הימים נתחזק אבנר ודבר לכל ישראל להמליך איש בושת עד שהמליכו לסוף אותה חצי שנה; ומשמת איש בושת, היתה מלכות ישראל בטלה חמש שנים עד שמלך דוד. נמצאו ז' שנים ומחצה שמלך דוד בחברון, כדכתיב בהדיא.

(d) Explanation #2: It therefore seems to be the reverse - the half-year refers to period between the death of Shaul and the crowning of Ish-Boshes, during which time Avner made great efforts to crown Ish-Boshes, until his efforts were crowned with success. Then, after the death of Ish-Boshes, Malchus Yisrael was annulled for five years, until David ascended the throne. It therefore transpires that David reigned in Chevron for seven and a half years, as the Pasuk in Shmuel specifically writes.

אע"ג דבאידך קרא לא חשיב רק ז' שנים?

(e) Implied Question: Why, in another Pasuk, does it mention only seven years?

היינו לפי שנצטרע, כדאמרינן בחלק (לקמן דף קז.).

(f) Answer: Because David was stricken with Tzara'as for half a year, as we will learn in 'Cheilek'.

והא דלא חשיב חצי שנה זאת בחשבון בטול מלכות ישראל (בחלק)?

1. Implied Question: Why does the Gemara in 'Cheilek' not count the half year in the seven and a half-year period of Bitul Malchus Yisrael?

היינו לפי שלא היתה סמוך לה' שנים ולא היה הבטול יחד.

2. Answer: Because it did not coincide with the seven years, but independently, as we explained.

4) TOSFOS DH MELECH MUTAR

תוס' ד"ה מלך מותר וכו'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives six answers to explain a. Why Achav was punished for killing Navos, seeing as the latter refused to sell him his vineyard, and b. Why David found it necessary to ask whether he was permitted to exchange barley-stacks belonging to Yisre'eilim to feed his animal).

תימה - למה נענש אחאב על נבות, כיון שלא רצה למכור לו כרמו?

(a) Question #1: Why was Achav punished for killing Navos, seeing as the latter refused to sell him his field?

ועוד - דבפרק הכונס צאן לדיר (ב"ק דף ס.) קאמר דדוד שאל אם היה יכול להחליף גדישין של שעורין מישראל לתת בפני בהמתו?

(b) Question #2: Furthermore, why did David see fit to ask whether he was permitted to 'exchange' barley-stacks belonging to Yisre'eilim to feed his animal, as we learned in Perek ha'Koneis?

וי"ל, דבפרשת המלך כתיב (שמואל א ח) "יקח ונתן לעבדיו", ולא לעצמו.

(c) Answer #1: The Pasuk in Shmuel writes that the king "will take ... and give it to his servants", implying, but not for himself.

ועוד י"ל - דבחנם היה יכול ליקח אם היה רוצה; אבל כשהיה שואל אחאב שימכרו לו, חשב נבות שרשות בידו לומר 'לא אמכור!'

(d) Answer #2: Had Achav so wished, he could have indeed taken the vineyard without asking, but now that he asked, Navos thought that the king was giving him the choice to refuse.

ועי"ל - דנענש לפי ששאל הכרם לעשות ע"ז, דכתיב (מלכים א כא) "והיה לי לגן ירק", כמו "המתקדשים והמטהרים אל הגנות" (ישעיה סו).

(e) Answer #3: Achav was punished, because he wanted the vineyard for idolatrous purposes, as he is recorded as saying "And I shall turn it into a vegetable *garden*", which has connotations of idolatry, just like the Pasuk in Yeshayah (in connection with idol-worship) "Those who prepare and purify themselves to go to the *gardens*".

והנקדן תירץ - דאינו מותר רק בשדות הרחוקים מן העיר, דלא מעלי כל כך; אבל כרם נבות היה אצל היכל אחאב בשומרון.

(f) Answer #4: 'The Nakdan' answers that the concession for a king to take a subject's field is restricted to one that is far from the town, which are not so valuable; whereas the field of Navos was situated beside Achav's palace, in the town of Shomron.

ועי"ל - דדוקא בשדה מקנה, אבל שדה אחוזה שירש מאבותיו לא, כמו שהשיב נבות "חלילה לי מתתי נחלת אבותי לך!"

(g) Answer #5: Alternatively, the concession is restricted to a field that the current owner purchased, but not to one that he inherited from his father, as is inherent in Navos' reply to Achav "Far be it from me from giving you the inheritance of my fathers.

אי נמי - דפרשת המלך לא נאמרה רק על המלך שנמלך על כל ישראל ויהודה, ומאת המקום; ואחאב לא מלך על יהודה, וגם לא מלך מאת המקום.

(h) Answer #6: And finally, the Parshah of the king (in Shmuel) applies exclusively to a king who rules over the whole of Yisrael and Yehudah, and to one who was Divinely appointed; whereas Achav fulfilled neither of these condition.