If Eyn M'arvin Simcha b'Simcha (and the Gemorah states that we learn it out from Sholomo Hamelech by Hanukas HAbayis); how could Shlomo have married Batya the daughter of Pharaoh on the day of Chanukas Beis HAmikdash; as it says in Rashi In Mishlei 31.1?!
Kol Tuv
alex lebovits, toronto canada
Alex, that is a sharp question.
(a) Rashi indeed mentions that Shlomo's wedding to Bas Par'oh coincided with the day of the Chinuch of the Mikdash (Rashi to Mishlei 31:1, Tehilim 127:1, Yirmeyah 32:31). His source is the Yalkut Shimoni to Mishlei there (2:963), which cites from the Midrash in Vayikra Rabah 12:15 and Bamidbar Rabah 10:14. From the Midrash it is clear that the wedding was the night that preceded the Chinuch. (Bas Par'oh arranged for Shlomo to sleep late the following morning, to Shlomo's great embarrassment, causing the Chinuch to be delayed.)
If so, Shlomo did not have to worry about Me'arvim Simchah b'Simchah, since the wedding did not take place during the Chinuch but prior to it. (Chinuch begins by day, since it is done through performing Avodah in the Mikdash with the various Kelim, see Menachos 50a, and Avodah can only be performed by day.)
(b) Note that the Radak (Shmuel 1:3:1) has the radical opinion that Shlomo never really married Bas Par'oh (he just loved her like a wife).
(c) Of course, Shlomo must have had a very good reason for choosing to marry Bas Par'oh on the very day that he would make the Chinuch of his Great Mikdash. Apparently, the two Simchos were related in his mind. Both were meant to "marry" The World to Hash-m, by joining Yisrael to Hash-m through the Mikdash, and the other nations to Hash-m through their connection to Yisrael. (See Mishnah, end of Taanis "B'Yom Simchas Libo...", and Yoma 54a about the Keruvim, for example - there is much to discuss on this subject.) According to this philosophy, it may be that both were a single Simchah, and there was no "Eruv Simchah b'Simchah"!
Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Dear Rabbi Kornfeld.
Sometimes I feel I'm way off base regarding some of the questions which I think are good yet I am unable to find anyone that asks them. This was a prime example.
Thank you for taking the time to consider it.
Perhaps (c) would also explain Yakov's reasoning when he woke up in the morning 'And behold it was Leah!' and he wanted to marry Rochel as well. And it was Lavan that said 'Maalei Shevua Hazos'.
It always bothered me that we learn out the halachos from Lavan and we pasken like him rather than Yakov. But if we say that Yakov's whole desire was to have 12 shevotim to set up Klal Yisroel then to him it wasn't "Mearvin Simcha B'Simcha!"
I saw in Rabeynu BCHAY Ber 29:21 on the words 'Ve'avoyah Eyleha' that Yakov and even Rachel and Leah 'hayah yodeos B'ruach Hakodesh sh'yud beis shevotim asidin lotzes m'Yakov m'arbah noshim'. So even as far as they are concerned there is no problem of 'Mearvin'.
And perhaps the reason we pasken like Lavan that Eyn M'arvin, is because normal cases of marriage are not similar to this.
Kol Tuv
Alex Lebovits
Alex, Thank you for sharing with me your excellent suggestion.
l'Hitra'ot,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf
On the surface, (without further in-depth research), something seems to be amiss here.
The next day, during the Chanukath HaBaith, Shlomo Hamelech seems to have entered the Azarah, a priori, more than just the Ezrath Nashim.
The question is: He would have been a Tvul Yom.
M Schwimmer
It is possible that on the first day of the Chanukas ha'Bayis, the Beis ha'Mikdash only possessed a Din of a Bamah. If so, there may not be a prohibition for a Tvul Yom to enter there - see Tosfos Chulin 2b DH Shema Yiga, in his final answer, who appears to state that the prohibition on a Tvul Yom entering even the Machaneh Shechinah does not apply for a Bamah. (In contrast, see the Mishnah in Kelim 1:8 that in the Beis ha'Mikdash itself, a Tvul Yom must not even enter the Ezras Nashim).
Since the Mishnah in Shevuos 14a states that one cannot add on to the City of Yerushalayim unless one has a ceremony involving the King, Navi, Urim v'Tumim, and Sanhedrin of 71 etc., it would seem probable that until there was such a ceremony in the Beis ha'Mikdash, it retained the Din of a Bamah. (See Zevachim 112b that before they came to Yerushalayim the Bamos were permitted).
See Pesachim 92a that Rebbi Yochanan said that mid'Oraisa a Tvul Yom is permitted to enter the Machaneh Leviyah and it was only later on that King Yehoshafat made a Gezeirah to prohibit this. Rashi DH v'Amar R. Yochanan writes that the verse (Devarim 23:12) - discussing Ba'al Keri - "and when the sun comes in he may enter the Machaneh", refers to entering the Machaneh Shechinah.
Therefore it may be that in a Bamah there is no Machaneh Shechinah and consequently there is no d'Oraisa prohibition there on Tvul Yom. Shlomo ha'Melech lived before Yehoshafat, so at that time there was no Isur mid'Rabanan for a Tvul Yom to enter the Machaneh Leviyah. The ceremony with the King and the Navi etc. was not carried out on the 1st day of the Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash so even if Shlomo ha'Melech had a Din then of Tvul Yom, there was no prohibition against him going anywhere in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
Kesivah v'Chasimah Tovah,
Dovid Bloom
An alternative answer to these questions is to say that it is probable that even though Rashi writes that Shlomo married her on the day of the Chanukat Beit Hamikdash this does not mean literally on the same day but rather on the day before. This answers both questions: (1) there is no problem of ein mearvim simcha b'simcha (2) Shlomo was not a Tvul Yom because he went to the mikveh on
the day before the Chanukat Beit Hamikdash
Gut Yomtov
Dovid Bloom