David's Counting of the Nation/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.

"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
Choice of punishment
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. 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 nature.9
  • 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,10 and only mistakenly counted the nation without using shekels.
Language of counting

Unnecessary Census

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

Half shekel obligation – These commentators differ in their understanding of the obligation to count via a half shekels (or another redemptive object):
  • No Obligation – Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Shadal and the Hoil Moshe all maintain that
  • Ongoing obligation – Ramban maintains that there is an ongoing obligation to give a half shekel whenever a census was taken.  David, in fact, did so but erred i

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