David Betrothing with a Loan

There’s a great sugya in Sanhedrin 19b which deserves more attention than it gets in daf yomi. It is towards the end of a really long daf, has little Rashi / Tosafot on it, and really requires going back to the original Tanach texts and reading them on a peshat level to get the overview of what is happened. I feel like not all relevant pesukim have been cited in the gemara. For instance, this verse in I Shmuel 18:21 seems pivotal:

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר שָׁא֜וּל אֶתְּנֶ֤נָּה לּוֹ֙ וּתְהִי־ל֣וֹ לְמוֹקֵ֔שׁ וּתְהִי־ב֖וֹ יַד־פְּלִשְׁתִּ֑ים וַיֹּ֤אמֶר שָׁאוּל֙ אֶל־דָּוִ֔ד בִּשְׁתַּ֛יִם תִּתְחַתֵּ֥ן בִּ֖י הַיּֽוֹם׃

Saul thought: “I will give her to him, and she can serve as a snare for him, so that the Philistines may kill him.” So Saul said to David, “You can become my son-in-law even now through the second one.”

This was about Michal, after he didn’t give the promised Meirav. If you say David married both, “you are becoming my son-in-law bishtayim” could mean that. If David didn’t actually marry Meirav, the first, then it means the second one.

We can wonder how much of the narrative on a peshat level matches up to the each of the midrashic interpretations. Thus, just looking at perek 17 and 18, and assuming these aren’t somehow overlapping accounts, the order seems to be:

1. David arrives by the battlefield involving Goliath. The people (rather than Shaul himself) says that Shaul promised to the one who defeats Goliath three things:

   1. riches

   2. the hand of Shaul’s daughter in marriage

   3. freedom of his extended family from the king’s service.

2. David defeats Goliath but we don’t see any follow through in those granted rewards.

3. But David is brought before Shaul, Yonatan likes him, and David is taken into the king’s service, not being allowed to return home.

4. David is successful on missions, women praise Shaul and David but David more, and Shaul grows jealous.

5. An incident in which Shaul, crazed by paranoia and depression, tries to kill David while David played the lyre.

6. Pasuk 18:17. Shaul having already appointed David a commander, now says that David should marry Meirav. אַ֚ךְ, however, you should be a warrior and fight in battles. The hope being that this would lead to David’s death.
   
   The phrase אַ֚ךְ הֱיֵה־לִ֣י לְבֶן־חַ֔יִל וְהִלָּחֵ֖ם can be taken (and is by JPS) as “in return”, casting this as a conditional. If so, this is the way that David earns the princess’ hand in marriage? As opposed to Shaul finally giving in but still requiring further service of him.

7. David humbly demurs. Who am I that I should marry into the king’s family?

8. When the time came for him to marry her, instead Meirav was given to another, Adriel the Mecholathite.
   
   We could interpret this as a betrayal by Shaul, for he didn’t make good on his promise. Or we could interpret this as a follow-through. Meirav was going to get married. But David refused, so he didn’t marry her!

9. Michal fell in love with David. (Maybe the feeling was mutual.) And this was reported to Shaul, who was pleased.

10. Again, this is something devious by Shaul, as a snare so that David will be killed in battle.

11. Now David is approached, and he reveals that a reason for demurring was that he feels poor.
    
    This might be translated in that David feels obligated to give a dowry, which he lacks. I suppose that he did not get the earlier promised riches.
    

12. At Shaul’s instruction, the king’s servants tell David that all the king wants as a dowry is עׇרְל֣וֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים לְהִנָּקֵ֖ם בְּאֹיְבֵ֣י הַמֶּ֑לֶךְ, one hundred Philistine foreskins.
    
    This is not because Shaul is interested in the foreskins themselves. He is interested in the deaths of this enemies of the kingdom. David could not set himself up as a mohel to accomplish this. Rather, he’s waging war, and taking the foreskins as evidence of a Philistine death. Israeites are already circumcised.
    
    Again, this was Shaul’s plot to cause David’s death.
    

13. David killed twice as many Philistines and brought their foreskins as evidence.

14. Shaul came forth with Michal and gave her to David in marriage.
    

15. Much later, after David fled from before Shaul, in I Shmuel 25, we see that Shaul gave Michal to Palti. Is this as a wife? In trust? Is he trying to undo the marriage?

Looking at our daf, according to either midrashic interpretation, we get a very different picture of both marriages, and what was being given as the kesef kiddushin. However, we need to distinguish between Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yossi, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha themselves and what the Talmudic Narrator proffers in their defense, putting into their mouths. And with what Rav Pappa says, vs. the lengthy midrashic exposition that follows.

Consider that the core of the Tannaitic and Amoraic sugya is just this:

שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: הֵיאַךְ נָשָׂא דָּוִד שְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת בְּחַיֵּיהֶן? אָמַר לָהֶן: מִיכַל אַחַר מִיתַת מֵירַב נְשָׂאָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת הָיוּ לוֹ בְּמֵירַב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּנָה אֶת אִשְׁתִּי אֶת מִיכַל אֲשֶׁר אֵרַסְתִּי לִי בְּמֵאָה עׇרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים״.

The Gemara relates a discussion about David’s marriage to Merab and Michal from a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 11:9): Rabbi Yosei’s students asked him: How did David marry two sisters while they were both alive? Rabbi Yosei said to them: He married Michal only after the death of Merab, which is permitted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says a different explanation: His betrothal to Merab was in error and therefore void from the outset, and so Michal was permitted to him. This is as it is stated in the words of King David to Saul’s son Ish-bosheth: “Deliver me my wife Michal, whom I betrothed to me for one hundred foreskins of the Philistines” (II Samuel 3:14).

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״מִיכַל אִשְׁתִּי״, וְלֹא מֵירַב אִשְׁתִּי.

The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation here? How does Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa learn from this verse that King David’s betrothal to Merab was in error? Rav Pappa says: In the verse, David indicates: Michal is my wife but Merab is not my wife.

Now, kiddushei ta’ut could mean something extremely technically, that there was some basic error in calculation, or some error in the meeting of the minds, that led to it not being a valid betrothal. And, that is what the Talmudic Narrator spells out anonymously, in Aramaic, at length.

Within that elaboration, what is explored, both for the first marriage to Meirav and for the second marriage to Michal, was what sides of halachic arguments were taken by David and Shaul respectively, so that one of them was right in their reading and one was wrong. These halachic arguments, such as the validity of betrothal via cancellation of a loan, are typically ones enunciated by Amoraim (though used to suggest explanations of earlier pragmatic Tannaitic arguments, so these may go back that far). These not only explain the divergence between whether there was one marriage or two, but to explain how a righteous man like Shaul could turn around and give each of his daughters to another man than David, namely Paltiel or Adriel.

If we don’t take מקדש במלוה as the basis of the argument, then on a more peshat level, the dispute can be as follows:

• In (1), as a reward for an action of killing Goliath, David was promised three rewards, one of which was the hand of the princess in marriage. Forget about the riches and excusing his family from the king’s service. Need there be an additional peruta paid to betroth, if what is being given is instead a service which benefits the recipient. (In all our halachic analyses in the plain meaning of the sugya, Meirav was assumed to be a ketana such that Shaul is the recipient to accept the kiddushin.)
  
  See Kiddushin 63a, where the Mishnah talks about הָאוֹמֵר לָאִשָּׁה ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת לִי עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֲדַבֵּר עָלַיִךְ לַשִּׁלְטוֹן״, a betrothal on condition that he speak to the ruler on her behalf, or that I work like a poel for you, thus, a service. The words al menat, on condition, are taken to mean that it is a condition rather than the payment itself, so Resh Lakish says he must give her an additional peruta. But braytot are brought where the service will be provided in the future, and that has value, it works.
  
  Also feeding into the question is whether יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, that service is continually accrues an obligation such that eventually, there is a debt owed for it; vs. אֵינָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף, that the obligation to pay is only incurred at the very end of the service, at one instance, in which case somehow that lump sum being forgiven is the kesef kiddushin.
  
  So here, say that the instant of killing Goliath was not a continuous action, but a specific service, which can serve as the kesef kiddushin (rather than any promised dowry being forgiven).
  

• However, if David refused Meirav in (7), is this because he never intended to marry into the king’s family? Because he didn’t love Meirav, only Michal. Did he expect Michal at first? Or, was it just humility after the fact of killing Goliath — he turned down nisuin with Meirav only at that point of following through on marriage?
  
  That can be understood as kiddushei ta’ut vs. real kiddushin.

Meanwhile, in terms of marrying Michal, the second sister, we still don’t need to discuss the riches promised in (1) as a debt being forgiven and the physical foreskins being used as an extra peruta. Rather, what was being requested in (12) was also a service, in this case killing 100 Philistine enemy warriors, with evidence in the form of the foreskins. We could again have the question of יֶשְׁנָהּ vs. אֵינָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף in terms of this act of service. But assuming it is the service that accomplishes it, and / or that this was a mere condition but of course they performed a halachically valid betrothal with a separate peruta, then all Tannaim are in agreement that the marriage to Michal was valid.

---

Still, in terms of midrashically explaining the basis for the Shaul vs. David halachic disagreement, the gemara taps two ideas, found in Kiddushin and in Bava Kamma 99.

So, here is how Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha’s betrothal in error is expanded:

מַאי קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּנּוּ יַעְשְׁרֶנּוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ עֹשֶׁר גָּדוֹל וְגוֹ׳״. אֲזַל קַטְלֵיהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִלְוָה אִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי, וְהַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

The Gemara asks: What caused the betrothal between David and Merab to be a mistaken betrothal? The Gemara responds: As it is written about Israel’s war against the Philistines and Goliath: “And it shall be that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches and will give him his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel” (I Samuel 17:25). David went and killed Goliath. King Saul said to him: You have a loan in my possession, as I owe you the great wealth that I promised, though David had not given him an actual monetary loan. And the halakha is that with regard to one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan, she is not betrothed, and therefore David’s betrothal of Merab did not take effect.

Money owed due to that promised reward is considered equivalent to a loan. (This is something to think about — מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה, so the money isn’t on hand until demanded. Are these promised riches equivalent?)

We see this idea that betrothing with the canceling of a loan (rather than promising to give a loan to someone) doesn’t work in Kiddushin 47a.

אָמַר רַב: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה. נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוֶה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּמָר סָבַר מִלְוָה לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה, וּמָר סָבַר מִלְוָה לָאו לְהוֹצָאָה נִיתְּנָה?

§ Rav says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since a loan is given to be spent. Consequently, from the moment the money is lent it no longer belongs to the lender, and he cannot betroth a woman with it. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, and some say she is betrothed. What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that a loan is given to be spent, and one Sage holds that a loan is not given to be spent?

and in the surrounding sugyot, many of the ideas are in play — let us say that this is what they are arguing about. For instance, uman koneh bishvach kli, yeshna lischirut mitchila ve’ad sof, daato apruta. It seems like we don’t necessarily have to subscribe to one particular answer.

In terms of Michal, the dispute was:

אֲזַל יַהֲבַהּ לְעַדְרִיאֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בְּעֵת תֵּת אֶת מֵירַב בַּת שָׁאוּל לְדָוִד וְגוֹ׳״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי בָּעֵית דְּאֶתֵּן לָךְ מִיכַל, זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי מֵאָה עׇרְלוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה אִית לָךְ גַּבַּאי.

Saul went and gave Merab to Adriel, as it is written: “But it came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife” (I Samuel 18:19). Saul said to David: If you want me to give you Michal, go bring me one hundred foreskins of the Philistines (see I Samuel 18:25–27). David went and brought Saul two hundred foreskins. Saul said to him: Even though you brought the foreskins, the betrothal is not valid, as you, David, have a loan and one peruta in my possession, i.e., the wealth Saul owed him for slaying Goliath as well as the item of lesser monetary value, the foreskins of the Philistines.

שָׁאוּל סְבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַמִּלְוָה, וְדָוִד סְבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַפְּרוּטָה.

Saul and David had a halakhic dispute on this point: Saul reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the loan and not on the additional peruta, and therefore the betrothal is not valid. And David reasoned that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta and therefore the betrothal is valid.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתֵּיהּ אַפְּרוּטָה. שָׁאוּל סְבַר: לָא חֲזוּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וְדָוִד סְבַר: חֲזוֹ לְכַלְבֵי וְשׁוּנָּרֵי.

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone reasons that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, his mind is focused on the peruta. Saul reasoned that foreskins of Philistines are not fit for any purpose and as such are worth not even one peruta, and that consequently the betrothal did not take effect. And David reasoned that they are fit for dogs and cats as food and as such are worth at least one peruta, and therefore the betrothal takes effect.

Compare Kiddushin 46:

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי תְּלָת. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה, דַּעְתַּהּ אַפְּרוּטָה,

Rava says: Conclude three conclusions from this statement of Rabbi Ami: Conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed, since she is not betrothed with a date that she has already eaten. And conclude from it that in the case of one who betroths a woman by forgiving a loan and giving her one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta although the debt is far larger, and she will be betrothed. In the latter case, although the value of the dates she ate was more than the value of the last date, which was merely worth one peruta, she is nevertheless betrothed.

Also compare with Bava Kamma 99, where different explanations are offered to account for a Rabbi Meir / Rabbanan dispute.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי; אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּיֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף קָא מִיפַּלְגִי –

The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute: No, it is possible that everyone agrees that a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel, but here they disagree with regard to the issue of whether the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵין לִשְׂכִירוּת אֶלָּא לְבַסּוֹף, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף.

Rabbi Meir holds that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred only at the end of the period for which he was hired, i.e., the owner is obligated to pay only when the work is complete, and therefore the goldsmith’s wages do not have the status of a loan, but of a sum of money that she becomes obligated to give him at that time. If he gives her the jewelry without asking for that money, it is as though he gave the money from his wages to her, and she may be betrothed with it. And the Rabbis hold that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, and therefore his wages have the status of a loan, and she cannot be betrothed with them and must be given additional money.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וְהָכָא בִּמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period he was hired to its end, and here they disagree with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan. As Rabbi Meir holds that with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is betrothed. And the Rabbis hold that with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed.

99b

רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יֶשְׁנָהּ לִשְׂכִירוּת מִתְּחִילָּה וְעַד סוֹף, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וּדְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין אוּמָּן קוֹנֶה בִּשְׁבַח כְּלִי;

Rava said another interpretation: Everyone agrees that the obligation to pay a wage is incurred continuously from the beginning of the period a craftsman is hired to its end; and everyone agrees that with regard to one who betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed; and everyone agrees that a craftsman does not acquire ownership rights through the enhancement of the vessel.

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהוֹסִיף לָהּ נוֹפֶךְ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתַּהּ אַפְּרוּטָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִלְוָה וּפְרוּטָה – דַּעְתַּהּ אַמִּלְוָה.

But with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where he added a jewel [nofekh] of his own for her. Rabbi Meir holds that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta, her mind is focused on the peruta. Therefore, in this case the jewel serves as the betrothal money. And the Rabbis hold that if a man betroths a woman with a loan and one peruta her mind is focused on the loan, so the loan serves as the betrothal money, and if one betroths a woman with a loan, she is not betrothed.