Berit Avot and Jewish Leadership (4): The King and Spirituality (Value #4)

The previous shiur ended with a description of the unique relationship that the Davidic kings share with the Temple and Yerushalayim. This shiur looks past the Temple to consider the king’s spiritual role more generally.

The King and Spirituality

While the king’s dedication to the Temple is paramount, he understands as well as anyone that the Divine Presence, as we have previously discussed (shiur #22), inhabits a building, but even more so dwells among a people. The Temple and its rites are only meaningful as the highest expression of a deep and vibrant love relationship between God and the entire Jewish people. As “[the king’s] heart is the heart of the entire congregation of Israel” (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:6), the king must embody this transcendent spiritual quest and cultivate it among his subjects. The king is not a spiritual leader, but he is charged, I would contend, with leading the people in the broad pursuit of the spiritual life.

Responsibility for Sinaitic law, and for instructing and rebuking the people, lie with their sages and prophets, respectively. But the king, as layperson-in-chief, is responsible for promoting spirituality as an overarching value and desiderata for the nation. Certainly, this begins with fidelity to the law and its keepers. The king must write a Torah scroll, keep one with him at all times (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 3:1), and engage with its contents constantly (ibid., 5-6). He must show honor to Torah scholars (ibid., 2:5) and is tasked with reading from the Torah at Hakhel, a reenactment of Har Sinai held every seven years (Rambam, Hilkhot Chagiga 3:3-6).[1]

But in the spirit of berit Avot, the king’s dedication to spirituality must transcend these roles. Whether religion is a priority or an afterthought in society, whether its representatives are celebrated or marginalized, and whether God’s presence is welcome and sought after or is declined or ignored – are all heavily influenced by political leadership and depend on much more than mere compliance with the law. Again, in berit Avot fashion, the mandate is ambiguous and fluid, yet fundamental to the king’s mission of leading the Jewish people toward their multifaceted destiny.

Fittingly, Tanakh’s expectations and praises of King David and his descendants frequently echo the language of berit Avot spirituality that we previously documented in shiur #62 – of love of God, purity of heart, temimut, and walking before God – just as they invoke the berit Avot terminology of tzedaka u-mishpat (see shiur #39). David’s devotion and purity of heart are recurrent themes in the Biblical text,[2] as is his temimut.[3] Like our Avot, David “walks before” God,[4] and the Sages note their bilateral love (Midrash Tehillim on 63:2),[5] as well as David’s attachment to the mitzva of circumcision (Menachot 43b).[6] Accordingly, King David can be seen as embodying and perpetuating Avraham’s spirituality (in contrast to Doeg and Achitofel, who forsake it), as shiurim #62-63 explored.

Furthermore, David is intensely committed to passing on the values of his monarchy to his son and successor, Shlomo. Just as David instructs Shlomo to maintain the path of tzedaka u-mishpat (see shiur #39), so too does he bid him to stay faithful to the spiritual tradition of berit Avot. Of course, compliance with berit Sinai is an absolute prerequisite for success, and so David commands Shlomo “to observe [God’s] statutes, commandments, laws, and testimonies, as is written in the Torah of Moshe” (I Melakhim 2:3). But that is not enough. David also exhorts Shlomo, “Know the God of your father,[7] and worship Him with a full heart and with an eager soul, for God investigates all hearts and discerns every impulse” (I Divrei Ha-yamim 28:9); and of God, David asks, “And to Shlomo, my son, give a full heart, to observe Your commandments, testimonies, and statutes, and to do everything, and to build ]God’s] palace for which I have prepared” (ibid., 29:19).[8]

King Shlomo, in turn, perpetuates his father’s messages about temimut[9] and purity of heart,[10] as the Sages observe (Midrash Mishlei 11:20). In prayer, Shlomo reflects keen understanding of his father’s spiritual legacy:

Shlomo said, “You performed great kindness with Your servant, my father David, insofar as he walked before You with truth and with tzedaka, and with integrity of the heart with You.” (I Melakhim 3:6)[11]

Strikingly, Tanakh declares that “God loved [Shlomo]” (II Shmuel 12:24) and that “Shlomo loved God” (I Melakhim 3:3).[12] Shlomo, apparently, is more than just another Biblical hero. Like Avraham, he shares a special covenant of love with God.  

Avraham and Shlomo

The Sages take note of the unusual language regarding King Shlomo and highlight parallels between God’s affection for Shlomo and His affection for the Avot. The Sifrei draws a straight line between Shlomo and Avraham in suggesting that God’s love for the Avot, though it carries over to all of their progeny, is particularly manifest in the figure of King Shlomo and the Temple that he builds:

Six are called yedidim (adored):

The Holy One, blessed be He, is called a yadid, as it says, “I will sing to my Yadid” (Yeshayahu 5:1).

Avraham is called a yadid, as it says, “What for My yadid in My house?” (Yirmiyahu 11:15).

Binyamin is called a yadid, as it says, “To Binyamin, [Moshe] said: Yadid of God” (Devarim 33:12).

Shlomo is called a yadid, as it says, “He sent through Natan the Prophet; and he called ]Shlomo’s] name Yedidya (=adored of God)” (II Shmuel 12:25).

The Jewish people are called yedidim, as it says, “I handed over the yedidut (love) of My soul” (Yirmiyahu 12:7).

The Temple is called yedid, as it says, “How yedidot (adored) are Your sanctuaries” (Tehillim 84:2). (Sifrei, Devarim, 352)

The Sifrei concludes:

Let a yadid ben yadid [Shlomo ben (descendant of) Avraham] come and build a yedid house for the Yadid.

Let the Jewish people, who are called yedidim, children of Avraham, who is called a yadid, come and build the Temple, which is called yedid, in the portion of Binyamin, who is called a yadid, for the Holy One, blessed be He, who is called Yadid.[13]

Shlomo is not merely another righteous figure but is dubbed “yadid ben yadid” – the direct, spiritual heir to Avraham and leader of a nation of yedidim. Together, they erect the Temple, the ultimate testament to God’s intimacy with the children of Avraham.

This passage from the Sifrei also appears in Avot de-Rabbi Natan, which goes on to note a similar set of textual parallels:

These five are called “beloved” (ahuvim):

Avraham is called beloved, as it says, “The progeny of Avraham, My adorer (ohavi)” (Yeshayahu 41:8).

Yaakov is called beloved, as it says, “I loved Yaakov” (Malakhi 1:2).[14]

The Jewish people are called beloved, as it says, “I loved you, said God” (ibid.).

Shlomo is called beloved, as it says, “And he was beloved to his God” (Nechemya 13:26).

The gates of Yerushalayim are called beloved, as it says, “God loves the gates of Zion” (Tehillim 87:2). (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, 43)

Here, Shlomo is grouped with the Avot as uniquely “beloved,” singled out from among all of their beloved children (the Jewish people), with Yerushalayim identified as the epicenter of God’s covenant of love.

Were David and Shlomo alone associated with the themes of berit Avot spirituality, one could have suggested that this reflects only their personal righteousness and not the office that they each held. However, Tanakh frequently revisits the familiar language of berit Avot in setting the expectations for all Jewish kings.

In David’s final command to Shlomo, David recounts how God told him that his dynasty will be everlasting only if “your children will maintain their path to walk before Me in truth, with all of their heart and all of their soul” (I Melakhim 2:4). Shlomo later quotes this stipulation, acknowledging God’s covenant with David – “if your children maintain their path to walk before Me as you walked before Me” (I Melakhim 8:25; compare to II Divrei Ha-yamim 6:16). Finally, God repeats this message back, telling Shlomo that his dynasty will flourish only “if you walk before Me as your father, David, walked with wholeness of heart (tom-leivav) and with integrity, to do as everything I have commanded you, [and] you observe My statutes and laws” (I Melakhim 9:4; compare to II Divrei Ha-yamim 7:17).

Thereafter, Tanakh repeatedly sizes up the ways and hearts of kings, noting which, like those of David and his righteous descendants, were fully devoted to God, and which were less so.[15] Of particular note, King Chizkiyahu appeals to God to recall “how I walked before You in truth and with a full heart” (II Melakhim 20:3; Yeshayahu 38:3) – I would say, in the footsteps of his ancestors David and Avraham.[16] All Jews, of course, are expected to embrace the spiritual vision of berit Avot, but it seems that the king is singled out to play the role of Avraham as head of the tribe and thus to lead both his own household as well as all of his subjects in this mission.   

Monarchy as a Balancing Act

The last several shiurim argued that the king, while of course bound by berit Sinai, is charged specifically with acting as the protagonist of berit Avot. On the one hand, he champions the values of berit Avot in ways that are not directly related to observance of berit Sinai, such as in fighting voluntary wars and ensuring economic wellbeing for the nation. On the other hand, he pursues the values of berit Avot as a complement to berit Sinai, in two senses: 1) The king must support the institutions that underlie the flourishing of berit Sinai, such as the court system and the Temple; 2) The king must continually push his people to rise aboveberit Sinai, to not suffice with mere legal compliance but to aspire to perform tzedaka u-mishpat and to walk before God more generally.

As an agent of berit Avot, the king has considerable latitude in pursuing its transcendent, amorphous values. But for that very reason, it is crucial that he remains rooted in berit Sinai and maintains respect for its rigid boundaries. Shiur #38 quoted the Ran’s observation that only the king, in contrast to judges, must wear a Torah scroll at all times, for his broad, open-ended mandate could easily distract him from concern for the law and its meticulous observance. For good reason, Tanakh warns that the success of the monarchy will be a function of its allegiance to the law.[17] Thus, as much as the king is emboldened by the sweeping vision of berit Avot, he must simultaneously submit before the regimen of berit Sinai.

If only this balancing act were so simple. Later kings, for instance, failed miserably at this task; they were flagrant violators of berit Sinai in every respect, and they are held to account. But even the great King Shlomo, the celebrated yadid and ahuv who arguably brought berit Avot to its pinnacle, stumbled. The Sages note that Shlomo violated the berit Sinai clauses regarding the monarchy to not amass wives or horses or money (see Devarim 17:16-17), and how that ultimately compromised him.[18] How could God’s yadid and ahuv so brazenly thumb his nose at God’s laws?

Certainly, one could attribute Shlomo’s missteps to hubris. Blessed with superhuman insight (I Melakhim 3:12), perhaps Shlomo believed that these laws are only relevant for lesser beings, who would be susceptible to corruption (see Sanhedrin 21b). Additionally, though, I would suggest that perhaps Shlomo’s audacity resulted from his understanding of his role. One so closely associated with Avraham – a yadid ben yadid – might inherit, together with the Avot’s soaring spirit and ambition, an impulse for a mode of worship that was, in its time, unfettered by nearly any constraints.

In this context, I think the following Rabbinic teaching might be instructive:

“Kohelet sought to find words of chefetz (delight)” (Kohelet 12:10) – Kohelet [=Shlomo] sought to issue judgments from his heart, without witnesses and without forewarning. A Heavenly voice came out and declared, “And yosher (uprightness) is written” (ibid.) – “By two witnesses, etc.”[19] (Rosh Hashana 21b)

What exactly does Shlomo seek? According to a parallel midrash (in which David makes the requests on Shlomo’s behalf), his aspiration is to be God-like:

“[To] Shlomo[20] – God, give Your mishpat to a king, and Your tzedaka to the son of a king” (Tehillim 72:1). It does not say “my mishpat,” rather, “Your mishpat.”

David said: Master of the universe, give Your mishpat to the son of a king. Just as You judge without witnesses and without forewarning, so should Shlomo judge without witnesses and without forewarning. (Midrash Tehillim on 72:1)

In other words, Shlomo wants to emulate the ultimate mishpat and tzedaka of God (see shiur #46), who operates by pure wisdom alone. Ostensibly, this is what Avraham was privileged to experience, as his mission of tzedaka u-mishpat was guided solely by personal intuition, without objective demands. It is not freedom for its own sake that David and Shlomo are after, but the ability to similarly pursue transcendent values without having to answer to the restrictive rules of berit Sinai, such as the need for two witnesses.

Perhaps, like many Jews after him, Shlomo wants to worship God just like the Avot did. For the Avot, R. Chayim of Volozhin explains, the law was provisional and could be overridden when warranted by their judgment (see shiur #5). If he who was prophetically named Yedidya is a figurative reincarnation of the original yadid, then perhaps he ought to similarly be able to employ his discretion as to when the law should be suspended in pursuit of higher goals. 

In the continuation of the midrash above, God grants Shlomo temporary autonomy in his judgment regarding a disputed baby (I Melakhim 3:16-28), which indeed illustrates the elevation of pure intuition over traditional methods of jurisprudence.[21] But God’s overall stance is clear: Shlomo must stay tethered to the laws of berit Sinai, whether in seeking justice or in advancing other aims.[22] Even history’s “Yedidya” is subject to the principle later articulated by R. Chayim: “This [flexible] kind of Divine service applied only before the giving of the Torah. But ever since Moshe came and brought it down to earth, ‘It is not in Heaven’ (Devarim 30:12)” (Nefesh Ha-chayim, Preamble to Section 4, ch. 7) – adherence to the law is nonnegotiable.

Shlomo, though, does not absorb this message, and he indeed ends up corrupted. If, at the beginning of his reign, Sefer Melakhim declares that “Shlomo loved God, to follow the rules of his father David” (I Melakhim 3:3), by the end it laments, “And King Shlomo loved many foreign women” (ibid., 11:1). The heart that once swelled with religious devotion is led astray: “When Shlomo grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was no longer whole with Hashem, his God, like the heart of his father David” (I Melakhim 11:4).

Regulation of the Heart

But there is a further, piercing irony embedded in Shlomo’s story. I conjecture that Shlomo, in his dogged pursuit of the pure, transcendent values of berit Avot, including worship with a full and whole heart, did not want to let minor details of berit Sinai slow him down. If only he had heeded berit Sinai’s warning against excess wives for the king “so that his heart does not deviate” (Devarim 17:17)! In other words, berit Sinai doesn’t get in the way of a pulsating, bursting heart. To the contrary, the law keeps it on track. Moreover, it is precisely those who most deeply internalize and identify with berit Avot and its language of values who need to realize that most. 

The story of Shlomo’s tragic downfall speaks first and foremost to kings and other political leaders, whose latitude to run after grandiose visions could easily turn into neglect of the rules that are meant to ground them. But it also speaks to anyone who is tasked with balancing ambition with obedience, independence with servitude, passion with discipline, berit Avot with berit Sinai – in other words, all of us. Furthermore, the lessons to be learned are not only about the inviolability of the law, but also about the dangers of undervaluing it. Shlomo’s troubles began not with deciding to override some laws, I would say, but with ever doubting their necessity.

On the one hand, we do not deny the real possibility of surface-level conflict between the different modes listed above, as well as the need to sometimes surrender unconditionally before the rigidity of the law. On the other hand, we do not want to be so preoccupied with the tensions that can emerge from a multiplicity of orientations that we miss what they lend each other, as well as their composite beauty. The law is not a hindrance to political achievement, or spiritual aspiration, or supreme justice, as Shlomo might have suspected. Rather, it is ultimately a pathway to them, the perfect complement to transcendent values.  

Every Jew, if not every person created be-tzelem Elokim, is charged with discovering and cultivating the remarkable symbiosis between values and laws. And who better to model that than the king?

For Further Thought:

1. “To Elevate the True Religion”

In a summary statement about the king’s mission, the Rambam writes:

In everything, his activities should be directed for the sake of Heaven. His aim and intent should be to elevate the true religion, and to fill the world with tzedek (justice), and to break the arm of the wicked (see Tehillim 10:15), and to fight God’s wars. (Hilkhot Melakhim 4:10)  

On the one hand, the goals the Rambam specifies – “to elevate the true religion” and “to fill the world with tzedek” – certainly overlap with the values of spirituality and of tzedaka u-mishpat, respectively, discussed in this and the previous shiur. However, it is ambiguous whether these are primarily internal goals for the sake of the Jewish people or external goals directed toward other nations (or both), especially in light of the juxtaposition with “God’s wars.” See Prof. Blidstein, Ekronot, 105-110, 230-245 and mori ve-rabbi Harav Yehuda Amital, Resisei Tal 1:32.

If the king is charged with “elevating the true religion” within the Jewish people, this would underscore his overarching yet informal role in promoting religious worship and conduct. As Prof. Blidstein notes, the king has no formal religious authority; nonetheless: 

It would seem that the king is responsible for generating conditions that foster Torah study and mitzva observance. He concerns himself with fortifying the institutions that are responsible for teaching, interpreting, and enforcing the Torah, and even himself should “compel the Jewish people” to follow the path of Torah (see Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 11:4). (Ibid., 107)

Notably, the king is at the center of the hakhel ceremony, which the Rambam describes twice as strengthening “the true religion” (Hilkhot Chagiga 3:1, 6).[23] In reading from the Torah before the entire nation, the king is reenacting Sinai and standing in for God (ibid.). Admittedly, this is an anomalous role for the king, who otherwise does not carry sacral responsibilities. However one explains it, though, hakhel certainly illustrates the king’s hand in reinforcing commitment to berit Sinai.[24]

On the other hand, if the king “elevates the true religion” by waging “God’s wars” against pagan nations, then spreading monotheism might be part of his mandate. Interestingly, this was a focus of Avraham’s activities (though not by coercion; see shiur #49) that receives little attention in berit Sinai. Could the king be perpetuating Avraham’s mission in this capacity?    

2. David and the Avot

This shiur highlighted the ways in which King David perpetuates the Avot’s spiritual legacy. In that context, I note the following request that a Rabbinic aggada (legend) attributes to David:

[David] said before [God]: Master of the universe, why do [the Jewish people] say, “God of Avraham, God of Yitzchak, and God of Yaakov,” but they do not say “God of David”?

[God] said: They were tested for Me; you were not tested for Me.

[David] said before Him: “Master of the universe, evaluate me and test me!” As it says, “Evaluate me, God, and test me; [verify the purity of my kidneys and my heart]” (Tehillim 26:2). (Sanhedrin 107a)

David apparently seeks to join, in some sense, the exclusive ranks of the Avot. God replies that what set the Avot apart was their endurance of “tests” (nisyonot, such as the akeida) and their willingness to sacrifice for the sake of God – arguably a function of their “purity of heart,” as explained in shiur #62. David then asks for his own nissayon so that the purity of his heart can be similarly demonstrated.

The aggadic request to have the Jewish people pray to the “God of David” sounds audacious, but it has a basis in the Biblical text. God never identifies Himself as “God of Moshe” or “God of Yona” in Tanakh, as some medieval commentators observe.[25] But twice He introduces Himself as “Hashem, God of David, your forefather” (II Melakhim 20:5; Yeshayahu 38:5; II Divrei Ha-yamim 21:12),[26] just as He is called “God of Avraham” (and of Yitzchak and Yaakov), and that parallel is likely what this aggada is reflecting.

According to the Bavli, David ultimately falls short of the Avot and is denied his request.[27] However, this doesn’t mean that his grouping with the Avot is wholly rejected.

First, the Yerushalmi nonetheless formulates a blessing of “God of David and Builder of Jerusalem,” as noted in the previous shiur. Similarly, Midrash Shmuel (26:3), commenting upon the verse, “And I made you a great name, like the name of the great ones” (II Shmuel 7:9), remarks: “From here the Sages established ‘God of David and Builder of Jerusalem,’ parallel to ‘God of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov.’”

According to the Tosafot Rid (Ta’anit 13b), the Bavli and the Yerushalmi disagree about the fate of David’s request. The thirteenth-century R. Moshe of London, however, suggests a resolution between the Bavli and Yerushalmi (Tosafot Chokhmei Angliya, Pesachim 117b): David’s request was that “God of David” should be said together with “God of Avraham, God of Yitzchak, etc.” in the blessing of Avot, so that he will be mentioned even on Shabbat and holidays. This request, according to the Bavli, is rejected, but the phrase “God of David and Builder of Yerushalayim” can still be said in the weekday prayer, as the Yerushalmi advises; indeed, it was recited by R. Moshe himself, as attested by his son, R. Eliyahu.[28]

Second, even though the phrase “God of David” is not incorporated into our prayers according to mainstream practice, the verse “I made you a great name, like the name of the great ones” comes to fruition, according to the Bavli, through the post-haftara blessing that ends, “Magen (Defender) of David” (Pesachim 117b). This closing parallels the closing to the first blessing of the Amida, “Magen Avraham”; thus, the Bavli also recognizes that David is given distinction alongside “the great ones.”

To the extent that David is at all grouped with the Avot, we can ask: Is this merely a reflection of his personal stature, or might it speak to a particular spiritual orientation and legacy that he uniquely shares with them?

3. More on “Purity of the Heart” and “Walking Before God”

This shiur continued our analysis of these concepts, which began in shiurim #62-63. I add here some final observations:

A. Though the previous shiur contrasted the respective spiritual orientations of kings and priests, “purity of the heart” and “walking before God,” which we have highlighted with regard to kings, occasionally appear in the context of priests as well – see I Shmuel 2:30 and Ezra 7:10.

B. Similarly, God praises both kings and priests for acting in accordance with His “heart” – see I Shmuel 2:35 and II Melakhim 10:30.[29]

C. Regarding God’s heart, see also Yirmeyahu 32:41, as well as Tosefta Avoda Zara4:5.

4. Chizkiyahu and the Sages

Though many Jewish kings had little regard for the law, King Chizkiyahu was a shining exception.[30] Nevertheless, he tested the law’s limits when it came to gathering the people for the Pesach offering and then asked for God’s forgiveness and understanding (II Divrei Ha-yamim 30:15-20; see Rambam, Hilkhot Biat Ha-mikdash 4:17-18). The Sages of his time did not agree with his decisions (Pesachim 56a). How might this episode illustrate friction between the champion of berit Avot and the keepers of berit Sinai? Also consider Chizkiyahu’s audacious, direct appeal to God, in defiance of a prophecy of his impending death by Yeshayahu (II Melakhim 20:1-3; Yeshayahu 38:1-3), as well as the conversation between them recorded in Berakhot 10a (and discussed in shiur #5).

5. Shlomo’s Prayer

The Temple is typically thought of, first and foremost, as a place of sacrificial worship (see, for instance, the opening to the Rambam’s Hilkhot Beit Ha-bekhira). Yet when Shlomo dedicates it, he focuses instead on the Temple as a locus of prayer (I Melakhim 8:22-53), perhaps in keeping with Yaakov’s description of a “sha’ar ha-shamayim” (gateway to Heaven; Bereishit 28:17). Might prayer represent a more natural, intuitive engagement with the Divine Presence, in contrast to the formal rites assigned to the priests? Might these two modes align with berit Avot and berit Sinai approaches to the Temple, respectively?

6. The Messiah

The Messiah, a descendant of King David who will reestablish the monarchy, is anticipated to play many roles, summarized by the Rambam in the closing to his Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Melakhim, Chapters 11-12; see also Hilkhot Teshuva 9:2). To what degree is the Messiah a wholly unique figure, both in terms of personality and functions, and to what degree does his mission both echo and model that of all kings under Jewish law? See Prof. Blidstein, ibid., 117-123, 245-253.

[1] See For Further Thought #1.

[2] I Melakhim 11:4, 14:8, and 15:3; Tehillim 9:2, 17:3, 26:2, 27:8, 51:12, 57:8, 86:11-12, 108:2, 111:1, 119:7, 10 (with Midrash Tehillim), 34, 58, 69, 80, 145, 138:1, and 139:23; and I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:9-19 (and Bereishit Rabba 70:1-2). Contrast with I Shmuel 17:28, in which David’s brother Eliav doubts his heart!

[3] II Shmuel 22:24, 26, and 33; and Tehillim 7:9, 15:2, 18:24, 26, 33 (and Midrash Tehillim), 19:14, 25:21, 26:1, 11, 37:18, 37, 41:13, 64:5 (and Radak), 84:12 (and Midrash Tehillim on 1:1), 101:2, 6, and 119:1 (and Midrash Tehillim). See also Sifrei on Devarim 18:13 and Sota 10b.

[4] See, for instance, Tehillim 56:14 and 116:9, as well as Rashi on II Divrei Ha-yamim 6:14.

[5] See also Midrash Tehillim on 119:113; Tanna De-vei Eliyahu Rabba, 3; and Rambam, Hilkhot Lulav 8:15.

[6] See also Rabbeinu Bechaye on Bereishit 17:24:

The Jewish people were privileged to have this mitzva [of circumcision], which is entrenched among them, and through it they were promised three gifts: 1) regarding the Davidic monarchy, that it will not end; 2) regarding the gift of the Land [of Israel], that it will be an everlasting inheritance for them; and 3) regarding the Divine Presence, that it will dwell among the Jewish people.

[7] See also shiur #48.

[8] See Rashi, who compares this verse to Shlomo’s own prayer in I Melakhim 8:57-61.

[9] See Mishlei 2:7 (and Tanchuma, Lekh Lekha, 11), 2:21, 10:9, 29, 11:3, 5, 20 (and Rabbeinu Yona), 13:6, 20:7 (and Shemot Rabba 25:5 and 30:20); 28:10, 18 (and Midrash Tehillim on 55:1); and Rabbeinu Bechaye on Bereishit 17:1.

[10] See, for instance, Mishlei 20:9 with Midrash Mishlei.

[11] See also Malbim.

[12] See also II Shmuel 7:14.

[13] See also Menachot 53a and Midrash Tehillim on 84:2. Additionally, Midrash Tehillim on 137:2 applies the term “yadid” to all three Avot.

Notably, “yadid” appears twice in the third blessing over circumcision (see shiur #53). As to whom it refers, see Rashi and Tosafot on Shabbat 137b; Tosafot on Menachot, ad loc; and Sefer He-arukh, “yadid,” in the name of R. Sherira Gaon. 

[14] Regarding Yitzchak, see Rashi on Shabbat 137b.

[15] I Melakhim 11:2-9, 33, 38, 14:8, 15:3, 11-14, and 22:43; II Melakhim 10:31, 22:2, 23:3, and 23:25; and II Divrei Ha-yamim 12:14, 15:12-17, 16:9, 17:3 with Rashi, 6 (see also Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim, 1), 19:3, 20:32-33, 21:12, 22:9, 25:2, 30:19 (see Radak and Yerushalmi Pesachim 9:1), 31:21, and 34:2, 31. See also I Divrei Ha-yamim 22:19 and II Divrei Ha-yamim 11:16-17, 19:9, 26:16, and 32:25-26.

[16] The parallel to Avraham is noted by Radak (Bereishit 17:1).

[17] See, for instance, Devarim 17:19-20 with Sifrei and Rashi. See also Mekhilta on Shemot 18:27: “Three things were given on condition: the Land of Israel, the Temple, and the Davidic monarchy.”

[18] See, for instance, Sanhedrin 21b and Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:6.

[19] The reference is likely to Devarim 19:15; see Dikdukei Soferim.

[20] Regarding the text, see shiur #39, note #4.

[21] According to the midrash, this is hinted in the verse, “Shlomo sat on the throne of God” (I Divrei Ha-yamim 29:23). Shir Ha-shirim Rabba (1:10) explains: “Just as ‘the throne of God’ judges without witnesses or forewarning, so does the throne of Shlomo judge without witnesses or forewarning.” I speculate that the midrash is referring to verses that speak of God’s throne as resting upon mishpat and tzedek/tzedaka (Tehillim 9:5-8, 89:15, and 97:2). Similarly, Midrash Lekach Tov (Kohelet, ad loc.) explains that the link between “matters of chefetz” and God-like judgment is found in Yirmeyahu 9:23: “For I am God, who performs chesed, mishpat, and tzedaka in the land, for these I desire (chafatzti).”

[22] See Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, 8: “[Shlomo] requested to judge this way all his days, but the Holy One, blessed be He, did not let him.”

[23] Regarding the Sanhedrin’s role in “strengthening religion,” see Hilkhot Mamrim 1:2 and 2:4.

[24] See also R. Rechnitz, Medina Ke-halakha, 41-42, 47.

[25] See the kabbalistic sources in footnote #28 below. However, compare to Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, 8 and Midrash Ha-gadol, Bereishit 9:26.

[26] See also I Melakhim 1:36 (as noted by Meshekh Chokhma, Haftara to Parashat Chayei Sara) and II Divrei Ha-yamim 34:3.

[27] See Sanhedrin ad loc., as well as Yerushalmi Berakhot 9:5 and Midrash Tehillim on 18:31 and 26:2. Compare to Bava Batra 17a.

[28] Peirushei Rabbeinu Eliyahu Mi-Londrish U-fsakav, p. 105. There is also a medieval kabbalistic tradition that, while David does not belong to the triad of Avot, he is the fourth “leg” of God’s merkava (chariot; see, for instance, Sefer Ha-Emuna Ve-habitachon, Chapter 15). Thus, R. Yitzchak the Blind, a twelfth-century kabbalist, would say the Yerushalmi’s formulation “in order to mention the merkava in its entirety, with four Avot, in his prayer” (Rabbeinu Bechaye, Bereishit 32:10; see also Magen Avraham, O.C. 188:4). See further in R. Shmuel Ashkenazi, “E-lohei David U-voneh Yerushalayim,” Kovetz Beit Aharon Ve-Yisrael 7:2 (Vol. 38; 5752 [1992]), 134-138.

[29] See also I Shmuel 13:14 and Yirmeyahu 3:15. Compare to II Shmuel 7:21 and I Divrei Ha-yamim 17:19.

[30] See, for instance, shiur #39, note #11.