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

"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.

"וַיָּסֶת אֶת דָּוִד" – Ralbag explains that the verse does not mean to suggest that Hashem forced David to sin,⁵ as then he should not have been culpable.  Rather, the phrase is an abbreviated way of saying, "וַיָּסֶת [לבו] אֶת דָּוִד".‎⁶ Alternatively, he suggests that the action is attributed to Hashem since he is the first cause from which all stems.⁷

Yoav's reluctance – Yoav's reluctance to count the nation and his question, "לָמָּה יִהְיֶה לְאַשְׁמָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל" supports the idea that the action was prohibited and would likely result in a catastrophe for the nation.  It is unclear, 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.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".‎¹¹  Ramban faults them for their laxness in building the Mikdash.¹²  He might explain that David himself was spared since his personal sin was due to a mistake,¹³ and he played no part in the larger sin of the nation.¹⁴
• 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 – It is not clear why the prophet uniquely gives David his own choice of punishment.

Discrepancy between Shemuel and  Divrei HaYamim

Problematic Census

It was not the manner in which David counted the nation that was problematic, but the census itself.

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,¹⁵ RalbagShemuel II 24:1Shemot Beur HaMilot 30:12Shemot Toalot 30:1-2About R. Levi b. Gershom,¹⁶ 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

Counting via half shekels – These commentators differ in their understanding of the obligation to count via half shekels.  [For a full discussion, see Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?]

• No ongoing obligation – Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Shadal and the Hoil Moshe all maintain that the obligation to donate half shekels only existed in the first year in the Wilderness and did not apply to future generations.¹⁷  Thus, it was not the method of counting, but the census itself which was problematic.
  
• Ongoing obligation – Ramban, in contrast, maintains that there is an ongoing obligation to give a half shekel whenever a census was taken, but claims that David in fact did so.¹⁸ Thus, he too agrees that the sin lay not in the mode of counting.

What was problematic about taking a census?

• Unnecessary – Most of these sources focus on the fact that the census was unnecessary. The Rid, following R. Eliezer in the Midrash, explains that any census taken without a good cause is prohibited, even if one uses a redemptive object to count.¹⁹ Ramban and Shadal elaborate that as David was not going to war²⁰ he had no need to count the nation, and must have been doing so only for his own personal honor.²¹ As such, his sin was mainly one of pride. Ralbag and Abarbanel further maintain that in taking a census David betrayed that he was trusting in the might of his own numbers rather than in Hashem's aid.²²
• Problematic Cause – Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that David counted the people specifically because he wanted to embark on more wars of conquest.²³ He was punished for thinking of endangering the nation when there was no need as they were finally in an era of peace.
• The entire nation is not meant to be counted – Ramban²⁴ also raises the possibility that David erred in counting not only men from aged 20 who were fit for fighting, but even those from 13 and on,²⁵ as he wanted to know the number of the entire nation.²⁶ As Hashem promised that the nation would be as plentiful as the stars in the sky, impossible to count, such a census angered Hashem.

"וַיָּסֶת אֶת דָּוִד" – Abarbanel suggests that though David himself thought to count the nation, the action is attributed to outside incitement, since it was so foreign to David's character.²⁷  David normally put his trust in Hashem, so now that he was trusting in himself, it was as if he was incited by outsiders.²⁸

"לִמְנוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל" – Abarbanel points out that the verse emphasizes that David's sin was in counting the nation specifically.  Had the problem been that he did not use shekels, the verse would have said that he was incited to count without the use of a redemptive object.

Yoav's reluctance – When Yoav attempts to dissuade David, he makes no mention of an obligation to use shekels, instead saying "יוֹסֵף י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶל הָעָם כָּהֵם וְכָהֵם... וַאדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ לָמָּה חָפֵץ בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה"  These words imply that Yoav realized that there was no need to count the nation, and that therefore, David's actions might bring catastrophe. Ramban²⁹ points out that had the only problem been use of a redemptive object, Yoav need not have argued with the king, and could have simply mandated that people bring one.

Why are the people punished while David is spared? Radak, Ramban, Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe all assume that the people were punished for their own individual sins, be they hidden sins that were not mentioned,³⁰ laxity in building the Mikdash,³¹ or their role in the rebellion of Sheva ben Bichri.³² They point to the verse "וַיֹּסֶף אַף י"י לַחֲרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל" as evidence.³³

Choice of punishment – Abarbanel suggests that David is given the choice since it was his right to punish the people, since they had sinned against him in rebelling.

Jerusalem spared – Abarbanel explains that since those in Jerusalem were mainly from the tribe of Yehuda who had backed David during Sheva b. Bichri's rebellion, they did not deserve punishment and were spared.

No Sin of David

David did not sin at all.  The plague came to punish the people for joining Avshalom's rebellion.

Sources:R. Saadia

Counting via half shekels – According to R. Saadia there is no obligation to count via half shekels so David did not transgress any prohibition in directly counting the nation.³⁴

Why is David spared? As proof of David's innocence, R. Saadia points to the fact that David was spared the punishment that plagued the nation.  If he had been the culpable party, this would be unfair.

Why were the people plagued? The nation was punished for its own sin, their participation in the rebellion of Avshalom.

"וַיֹּסֶף אַף י"י לַחֲרוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל" – The fact that the story opens by sharing that Hashem was angry at the nation³⁵ supports the possibility that it is their sin around which the narrative revolves.

"וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל י"י חָטָאתִי מְאֹד" – R. Saadia explains that David says "I sinned" despite his innocence, because he mistakenly believed that he had erred.  This could work with the version of the story in Divrei HaYamim in which David's words follow the statement, "וַיַּךְ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל".  If David saw that some harm had befallen Israel right after the census he had reason to assume that he might have sinned.  However, according to the version in Shemuel, it is not clear why David would have had such thoughts if no punishment had yet arrived and he had not transgressed any commandments.

Yoav's reluctance – R. Saadia does not explain why Yoav would have been reluctant to count the nation if doing so was not problematic.  Perhaps Yoav misunderstood the commandment regarding half shekels and assumed that there is always an obligation to count via a redemptive object.  Alternatively, he was concerned not about a legal transgression, but simply regarding the effects of the evil eye that might result from counting individuals.

"וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינֵי הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה" – R. Saadia claims that "הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה" refers not to David's sin, but that of the people.  However, the placement of the verse right after David's census, when no sin of the people has been mentioned, makes this a somewhat difficult read.

David's choice of punishment – R. Saadia could explain, as does Abarbanel above, that David is given the option to choose the punishment since it was his right to punish those who rebelled against him.³⁶

"וְאֵלֶּה הַצֹּאן מֶה עָשׂוּ" – R. Saadia suggests that these words demonstrate that David himself finally recognized that the people must have sinned and thus, he asks Hashem what was their crime that caused them to suffer.  The surrounding words "אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי וְאָנֹכִי הֶעֱוֵיתִי" and "תְּהִי נָא יָדְךָ בִּי וּבְבֵית אָבִי", however, suggest that David still viewed himself as culpable.

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 all agree that one need donate a half shekel specifically.  For elaboration on the various opinions, see Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?

⁴ According to this, however, It is not clear what prompted him to suddenly 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 smote 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".

⁵ For a discussion of other instances where God appears to take away people's free will and force them into misdeeds, see Hardened Hearts.

⁶ 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".

⁷ 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.

⁸ See Ramban on Bemidbar 2 who raises this point as he brings an alternative explanation of the story. Cf. Abarbanel who adds that if the problem was not counting via shekels it should have been Yoav who was at fault since he was the one who actually did the counting in the wrong manner.

⁹ However, the fact that David is allowed to choose 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 Even before David acts, we are told that Hashem was angry at the nation.

¹² He points out that it is for this reason that the site of the Mikdash became known through their punishment and atonement.

¹³ See above that he maintains that David did not realize that the obligation to count via shekels is ongoing.

¹⁴ David actively desired to build the Mikdash and only did not because Hashem preferred that his son build it instead. See Shemuel II 7 and Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash?.

¹⁵ This is how Ramban explains the episode in his commentary to Bemidbar 1:2.

¹⁶ See above that Ralbag combines this position with the first approach above.

¹⁷ Except for Shadal, they all assume that even in the first year it was not necessary for the purpose of the census itself. According to Abarbanel, however, the Torah does suggest that it is advisable (but not obligatory) to give a redemptive object when taking a census that is not commanded for in such a case the "evil eye" might befall the people.

¹⁸ He points to the use of the verb "פקד" as evidence that a פקדון or ransom, was taken.

¹⁹ In such a scenario use of a redemptive object is not enough to prevent plague.

²⁰ This position would set the story towards the end of David's life after he had finished all his battles.

²¹ See also Akeidat Yitzchak who explains similarly.

²² According to Abarbanel even if David had a good reason to count (an upcoming war or the like) it would have still been problematic.  If so, however, it would seem that any census that is not commanded should have had similar results, so it is not clear why Shaul, for instance, was not similarly punished when he counted the people.

²³ The description of the people as "אִישׁ חַיִל שֹׁלֵף חֶרֶב" supports the idea that he was looking to count potential soldiers specifically.

²⁴ See also Malbim.

²⁵ The description of those counted as being "אִישׁ חַיִל שֹׁלֵף חֶרֶב" is difficult for this position.  Ramban attempts to explain that the verse means that they were physically fit to fight, not that they were of age.

²⁶ As evidence he points to Divrei HaYamim II 27, "וְלֹא נָשָׂא דָוִיד מִסְפָּרָם לְמִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וּלְמָטָּה כִּי אָמַר י"י לְהַרְבּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם" and the following verse, "יוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה הֵחֵל לִמְנוֹת וְלֹא כִלָּה וַיְהִי בָזֹאת קֶצֶף עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל" which suggests that David had wanted to count those younger than 20 and when Yoav began to do so, anger came upon Israel  As further evidence one might point to David's words, "וְיָדַעְתִּי אֵת מִסְפַּר הָעָם" which suggest that he wanted to know the number of the nation as a whole and not just the soldiers.

²⁷ Ralbag and Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggest that David's action is attributed to Hashem not because Hashem incited david, but simply because He is the First Cause of all, and in reality everything can be traced back to Him.  However, they still have to explain why only certain actions are so attributed.  Thus, they might agree with Abarbanel that it is only deeds that are otherwise inexplicable which are so identified.  See Shadal similarly on the term " וַיְחַזֵּק י"י אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה" in Hardened Hearts

²⁸ Abarbanel also raises the possibility that Hashem incited David to sin so that through him specifically the people would be punished.  See below that Abarbanel assumes that the people deserve punishment for having rebelled against David in the Rebellion of Sheva b. Bichri.  As such, it was just that their punishment be brought about via David.

²⁹ See also Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel.

³⁰ See Radak and Hoil Moshe.

³¹ See Ramban.

³² See Abarbanel.

³³ The commentators differ in how they understand the idea that Hashem was angry "again" (וַיֹּסֶף) with Radak and Abarbanel suggesting that this is in addition to his wrath over the rebellion of Avshalom, and Ralbag assuming that it refers to Hashem's anger in the episode of the Givonim.

³⁴ He maintains that the annual obligation to give half shekels is needed for maintenance of the Mishkan.  A by product of the collection is that one can use it to tally the numbers of the nation, but it is not necessary any time one wants to count the people.  See Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle for elaboration.

³⁵ R. Saadia explains that when the verse says that Hashem continued to be angry ("וַיֹּסֶף"), it refers to His wrath in the previous story regarding the famine and the Givonites. According to the simple chronology of the verses, however, the rebellion of Avshalom preceded the famine, which would make this language difficult.  R. Saadia might suggest that though the sin of the rebellion preceded the famine, the anger = punishment came only afterwards.  Alternatively, the story of the famine is not in its chronological place.  Since it occured as a rsult of Shaul's actions, it is even possible that it might have taken place at the beginning of David's reign. Since the text nonetheless records it close to this story, the narrative opens with "And Hashem continued to be angry".

³⁶ Though one might assume that the punishment of fleeing from an enemy [שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים נֻסְךָ לִפְנֵי צָרֶיךָ] refers to David alone, and as such could not be viewed as potential punishment for the nation, R. Saadia explains that this must refer to enemy nations attacking Israel as a whole, perhaps in the context of war.  According to the other approaches as well, it is likely that "צָרֶיךָ" is understood as a national enemy, for if it were aimed at David alone, it would seem that David should definitely have opted for this punishment as it affected him alone.  Otherwise his later words, "אָנֹכִי חָטָאתִי וְאָנֹכִי הֶעֱוֵיתִי וְאֵלֶּה הַצֹּאן מֶה עָשׂוּ" would be hypocritical.