Shlomo asked the Sanhedrin two questions upon hearing of the death of his illustrious father: "My father's corpse is baking in the sun - and the his dogs are hungry."
Isn't the association strange - what do you think is the connection between the two queries? Was Shlomo afraid that the dogs would eat the human corpse?
Yehudah Wells, Yerushalayim
(a) A simple reading of the Gemara is that theses two questions were indeed unrelated. It is to the credit of King Shlomo that even at this most difficult of moments, he did not forget the needs of the most lowly creature.
(b) However, since the Torah testifies to Shlomo's unmatched depth of reasoning, it would not be out of place to suggest that the words of the young king carried a deeper meaning as well. So here we go:
There was no lack of slanderers who tirelessly attempted to discredit King David - especially with regard to the Batsheva fiasco (Rashi 30a DH Son'ei David, see also Bava Metzia 59a ). Perhaps Shlomo was referring to these slanderers when he said "My father's body is exposed to the sun (i.e. he is now exposed to unrestricted slander, since the slanderers no longer fear him) and (i.e. since) the dogs of his house are hungry (i.e. slanderers, who are compared to dogs that damage with their mouths in Pesachim 118a, are eager to ruin his reputation)".
The Chachamim replied, "Cut a carcass and feed it to the dogs" - i.e., change the focus of the slanderous talk by dealing justice to a true enemy of the state, making him the new victim of their slander until David's virtue is proven beyond doubt. Shlomo indeed punished Adoniyahu, Evyasar and Yoav immediately upon becoming ruler (Melachim I:2:25-29).
The end of the Chachamim's instructions were, "Regarding David - place a loaf or child upon him and move him." They meant by this, let King David's virtue to become known through the 'loaf of bread' or the 'child'.
The loaf means the way King David saw that the entire nation would have proper livelihoods during his reign (see Berachos 3b). We find that an adulterer loses his livelihood (Sotah 4b, "b'Ad Kikar Lechem b'Ad Ishah Zonah..."). If Israel had what to eat, the king could not possibly be an adulterer.
The child refers to King Shlomo himself, who was only 12 years old at the time. Through his fair and admirable reign, King David's innocence would be proven beyond doubt. The child of an adulterer is of faulty character by nature (Kidushin 70b, see Rashi here 30b DH u'me'Azus), and if King Shlomo earned the people's respect, he obviously was not a product of a dubious relationship.
This would explain the connection between the two questions, as well as the order of the answers.
Best regards, Mordecai Kornfeld