Rav and Shmuel argue whether King Solomon was as knowledgeable as Moses. Acc. to the one that says he was; he goes on to explain the Posuk "Bikesh Koheles limtzo divrei Chefetz" as follows:
Shlomo Hamelech asked Hash-m to be able to judge judgements using his own wisdom rather than the Torah process of basing judgements on two witnesses etc... A Bas Kol said to him that according to the Torah the answer is 'NO!' (witnesses etc. must be used)!
Now, everybody knows the famous story in (1 Melachim 3:12)that at the age of 12 Hash-m promised Shlomo great wisdom -he was to be the wisest man ever to live. (And i now quote from Rabbi kornfeld's "Torah from the Internet" from Parashas Ki Setzei. This Dvar Torah continues so to amaze me even after many years that it remains my original and lasting attachment to your Kollel.)
As an illustration of the fulfillment of this blessing of this immesurable wisdom, the Tanach relates the following account of a case that was brought before Shlomo, and his wise judgement of the case.
Rabbi Kornfeld then quotes the whole case of the two women who both claimed that the live child was hers. The verdict was as follows. So the King said,"Get me a sword!" and they brought a sword before the King. The King said, "Cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other." The woman whose son was the live one turned to the King, because her compassion was aroused for her son and she said, "Please, my lord, give her the living baby and do not kill it". But the other one said, "Neither mine nor yours shall he be. Cut!" The King spoke up and said, "Give her [the first one] the living baby and do not kill it; she is his mother!" 1 Melachim 3:16-27).
Then Rabbi Kornfeld asked the following question. Obviously the woman who was lying had wanted the baby. Yet when the real mother offered to let her keep the child to spare its life, she refused, saying, "Neither mine nor yours shall he be. Cut!" What made her change her mind?
And Rabbi Kornfeld asks a second question. How could Shlomo Hamelech possibly have predicted that the other woman would react the way she did-by insisting on complying with the grotesque "compromise?". Surely it was more likely the second woman would respond, "Yes, I am glad you have finally admitted that the child is mine. I see that although you are cruel enough to steal my child you are not ruhless enough to see him killed for your lie!"
Then what would he have done?
Rabbi Kornfeld then goes on to quote "A brilliant and original answer to these questions by two 13th century commentators: Rav Yehoshua Ibn Shu'b in his Drasha for Parshas Mishpatim, and Rav Menachem haMeiri in his commentary to Yevamos 17a."
Rabbi Kornfeld then proceeds for the next two pages to explain their unique and original brilliant answer and shows that it was actuall more benefecial for the false mother to have the baby killed. So when she saw that Shlomo was ready to cut the child in half; "Cut!" she insisted.
And now I quote Rabbi Kornfelds last paragraph: "Shlomo had guessed that this would be the woman's reaction. By tricking her into making such a seemingly ludicrous statement, he revealed her true motives. In this manner, Shlomo demonstrated beyond doubt that the daughter-in-law was indeed lying!
Now I would like to ask you the following: isn't this type of reasoning exactly what Sholomo Hamelech asked from the Ribonoh Shel Olam to be able to use;to determine, through his great wisdom without the backing of witnesses' testimony.(Maharsha 'Kefi Cheftzo vdath libo belo edim'?; and the answer was "NO!"; you are not permitted to do that.
How could Sholomo Hamelech rely on his ingenuity and wisdom to pasken who gets the child?
Thank you for your patience,
alex lebovits, toronto, canada
P.S. Please excuse the length of this question. Rav Landy explained "Aydi d'chavivah leh akdemah" as since its dear to them they elaborated on them.
Thank you for your questions and compliments.
I have not seen Rabbi Kornfeld's essay, nor the Rishonim that he quotes, however, I would suggest that Shlomo ha'Melech relied on the admission of the woman. When she said to cut the baby she was saying that she did not want to bring him up, whereas the lady who said that the baby should not be cut wanted to bring him up, but said she preferred a live baby than a dead one.
Dov Freedman
Dear R' Dov,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond.
I understand that you are answering that Shlomo Hamelech judged correctly, because he relied on her admission and therefore witnesses were not necessary to determine who the real mother was.
And the pesukim in Melachim say also that the people were "in awe of the king, for they saw that the wisdom of G-d was within him, to do justice." And the people unanimously accepted his reign. I think that it is generally accepted that this episode shows the wisdom and greatness of Solomon.
(a) Yet, you write that "When she said to cut the baby she was saying that she did not want to bring him up".The words ''she was saying that' indicates to me that although those were not her actual words; Shlomo figured out that those are the thoughts that lay behind her words. That is not an admission by her, it is rather a deduction by Shlomo Hamelech.
(b) Secondly "not wanting to bring him up" does not mean that she didn't give birth to him.
(c) But more important than the 2 above questions is what the Maharitz Chiyos says on this Gem.
From the way I understand him, he says that from this episode with the two mothers we see that when Sholomo Hamelech judged this case "lo hayah holech al pi hadin shel Torah, rak al pi umdene levad."! And its at this time that the Bas Kol went out and said 'Don't ever do this again!' From this I would like to conclude that although Shlomo Hamelech had judged with wisdom; he had judged incorrectly! And I remain with a question of why the Posuk says that the people were "in awe of the king, for they saw that the wisdom of G-d was within him, to do justice." Didn't they hear the admonishing Bas Kol?
Do you agree?
Be well!
Alex Lebovits
(a) The MAHARATZ CHIYUS that you mentioned cites a TESHUVOS HA'ROSH (#107, brought by the BEIS YOSEF in CM 15 and the SHULCHAN ARUCH ibid. 15:4), who relates to your question.
The Rosh proves from BAVA BASRA 58b that a judge is permitted, and even bidden, to pass rulings regarding monetary quarrels based on circumstantial evidence and his "gut feelings" - at least in certain cases. (See the story in Bava Basra there in which Rebbi Bena'ah reveals who the "true and kosher child" is by asking the alleged children to beat the grave of their father.) The Rosh says that Rebbi Bena'ah's source was the story of King Solomon. He explains that King Solomon based his judgment on a clear "Umdena" (overwhelming circumstantial evidence), and that this is permitted by Jewish law when no witnesses are available. (See BAVA KAMA 55b, "Why do we need a verse? Logic dictates that we must rule ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Ra'ayah!"). Since there was an Umdena, he did not rule based on "Dinim sheb'Lev."
(b) This answers your second question as well. No admission was needed, as long as Shlomo was able to make it overwhelmingly evident that he had reached the correct conclusion.
(c) You have a good question on the Maharatz Chiyus. Perhaps he means to say that Shlomo's judgment looked to others as though it was Dinim sheb'Lev, since the ingenious manner in which he reached his conclusion did not become evident until he explained it. (The woman, after all, did think she would get away with saying "cut the baby" even though she didn't want to make an admission.) The Bas Kol told him to stop using such ingenious methods of determining the truth, lest others try to imitate him and base their rulings on evidence that is not an Umdena, or lest others use the approach of Umdena in the face of witnesses.
(This would be similar to what the Gemara tells us in SANHEDRIN 5b about Rav. Rav was such a great expert in Mumei Bechor, that his mentors did not allow him to pass rulings regarding Mumim. They reasoned that observers might try to follow Rav's lead without realizing that Rav was aware of very fine differences between Mumim that can make the difference between whether a Bechor is permitted or not.)
I hope this clears things up. Best wishes,
Mordecai Kornfeld