David's Counting of the Nation/2

David's Counting of the Nation

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Counted Heads

David sinned in directly counting the nation rather than using a redemptive object.

Sources:JosephusAntiquities of the Jews 7:13About Josephus, Bavli BerakhotBerakhot 62bAbout the Bavli, RashiShemot 30:12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, ChizkuniShemot 30:12Shemot 30:16About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, RambanShemot 30:12Bemidbar 16:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman,¹ RalbagShemuel II 24:1Shemot Beur HaMilot 30:12Shemot Toalot 30:1-2About R. Levi b. Gershom,² Gr"a,  MalbimShemot 30:12Shemuel II 24:1-2About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

"כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ" – According to all these sources, a direct headcount is prohibited by the Torah.  The directive to count via a redemptive object (כופר נפש) is an ongoing one, relevant for all generations and not just during the first census in the Wilderness.³  David's direct count therefore constituted a sin and led to plague.

How could David err?

• Ramban suggests that since the Torah is not explicit regarding the scope of the obligation to count via shekels, David mistakenly assumed that the command applied only to Moshe's initial census and not to all future generations.⁴
• According to Chizkuni, the original half shekel donations to the Tabernacle afforded protection from plague not just during the act of giving but for the entire period in which the silver lasted. By the time of David's census, however, the silver was no longer around and new donations were needed.  Since censuses had not required new shekels in centuries, it is not surprising that David might have erred.

Yoav's reluctance – Yoav's reluctance to count the nation and his question, "לָמָּה יִהְיֶה לְאַשְׁמָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל" stemmed from his realization that David was transgressing a prohibition which might result in a catastrophe for the nation.  It is unclear, according to this approach, however, why Yoav himself did not simply collect half shekels from the nation as a redemption so as to avert the sin and its consequence.⁵

"וַיָּסֶת אֶת דָּוִד" – Ralbag explains that the verse does not mean to suggest that Hashem forced David to sin,⁶ as then he should not have been culpable.  Rather, the phrase is an abbreviated way of saying, "וַיָּסֶת [לבו] אֶת דָּוִד".‎⁷ Alternatively, he suggests that the action is attributed to Hashem since he is the first cause from which all stems.⁸

Why is the nation punished and David spared?

• Natural consequence – Rashi and Ralbag suggest that plague is simply a natural consequence of a direct headcount as it invites the evil eye.⁹ Ralbag explains that the evil eye affects individuals differently depending on their constitutions.  Thus, it is possible that David was spared while others were plagued due to their natural differences.¹⁰
• Guilty of a different crime – Ramban, in contrast, suggests that the nation was punished for their own individual sins, as evidenced by the opening of the story, "וַיֹּסֶף אַף י"י לַחֲרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  Even before David acts, we are told that Hashem was angry at the nation.  Ramban faults them for their laxness in building the Mikdash. He points out that is for this reason that through their punishment the site of the Mikdash became known. He might explain that David himself was spared since he was not part of that sin,¹¹ and only mistakenly counted the nation without using shekels.
• Same crime – Ramban also raises the possibility that the nation was culpable for not giving half shekels on their own when being counted.

Choice of punishment

Language of counting

Unnecessary Census

The plague resulted from the fact that the census was unnecessary.

Sources:Bemidbar Rabbah2:17About Bemidbar Rabbah, TanchumaKi Tisa 9About the Tanchuma, RadakShemuel II 24:1About R. David Kimchi, RidShemuel II 24:10About R. Yeshayah of Trani, RambanBemidbar 1:2About R. Moshe b. Nachman,¹² RalbagShemuel II 24:1Shemot Beur HaMilot 30:12Shemot Toalot 30:1-2About R. Levi b. Gershom, Akeidat Yitzchakשמות שער נ"ב שאלות א'-ד'About R. Yitzchak Arama, Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 30:12Shemot 30:12About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, Hoil MosheBemidbar 1:2About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

Half shekel obligation – These commentators differ in their understanding of the obligation to count via half shekels:

• No ongoing obligation – Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Shadal and the Hoil Moshe all maintain that the obligation to donate half shekel only existed in the first year in the Wilderness and did not apply to future generations.  Thus, it was not the method of counting, but the census itself which was problematic.
  
• Ongoing obligation – Ramban maintains that there is an ongoing obligation to give a half shekel whenever a census was taken, and that David in fact did so. The error was not

No Sin of David

David did not sin in counting the nation.  The plague resulted from the sins of the people, to punish them for their role in joining Avshalom's rebellion.

Sources:R. Saadia

¹ This is Ramban's opinion as expressed in his comments to Shemot 32.  See below that he raises an alternative understanding of the event in his comments to Bemidbar 1.

² Ralbag combines this with the next approach suggesting that David both did not count via a ransom and that the census itself betrayed a lack of trust in Hashem.

³ They do not, however, all agree that one need donate a half shekel specifically.  For elaboration on the various opinions, see Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?

⁴ It is not clear, however, what prompted him to realize that he had sinned once the census was taken.  According to the account in Divrei HaYamim, it is possible that immediately after the census Hashem smites the nation, and it was this that clued  David in to his wrongdoing.  There (in contrast to the account in Shemuel), the verse states, "וַיַּךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל" before David's confession, "חָטָאתִי מְאֹד אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה".  However, if the nation was already punished then,  it is not clear why they would be punished again afterwards leading to the alternative possibility that the phrase "וַיַּךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל" is simply a heading referring to what follows.

⁵ See Ramban on Bemidbar 2 who raises this point as he brings an alternative explanation of the story.

⁶ For a discussion of other instances where God appears to take away people's free will and force them into misdeeds, see Hardened Hearts.

⁷ He points to the same phenomenon in the verse, "וַתְּכַל דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ לָצֵאת אֶל אַבְשָׁלוֹם".  This, too, is an abbreviated form, and really means "וַתְּכַל [נפש] דָּוִד".

⁸ Ralbag points to other similar attributions, such as Yosef's words to the brothers, "לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים" (Bereshit 45:8).  He also raises the possibility that Hashem did play a role in David's sin, by not interfering with David's inclination.  Had the nation not been deserving of sin, Divine Providence might have guarded David, removing the desire to count from him.

⁹ However, the fact that David is allowed to chooses the punishment would argue against this possibility.

¹⁰ See his similar understanding of the sparing of Akhan, while 36 soldiers died for his sin in Collective Punishment for Akhan's Sin.

¹¹ David actively desired to build the Mikdash and only did not because Hashem preferred that he not and that his son build it instead. See Shemuel II 7 and Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash?.

¹² This is how Ramban explains the episode in his commentary to Bemidbar 1:2.