David/0

David

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

David HaMelekh is probably one of the most beloved, but also one of most complex, of all Biblical figures. He is simultaneously poet and politician, savior and killer, devoted father and adulterous husband.  He can be harsh and exacting with loyal followers, yet he is often merciful and forgiving of opponents. David unites the nation into one kingdom and is promised a continuous dynasty, yet his reign is marked by rebellion after rebellion.  He makes Yerushalayim both his political and spiritual capital, demonstrates great faith in and love for Hashem, but he is forbidden from building the Mikdash.

How are we to understand this composite of opposites?

Unique Traits

Faith in Hashem

"לאהבה את שונאך"

Warrior

David and Golyat

How did the inexperienced, unarmored and unarmed David manage to overcome Golyat the giant?

• Trust in Hashem – David's words to Golyat, ""
• Military strategy
• Natural weaknesses of Golyat

Conquest of Yerushalayim

Defensive Battles

Battles of Conquest

Politician

Choice of Yerushalayim

Consolidating the Kingdom

Treatment of Opponents

Musician and Poet

Shaul's Harpist

Psalmist

Possible Sins / Flaws

David and Batsheva

Shemuel II 11 recounts the story of David's sin with Batsheva without any attempt to obscure the king's objectionable behavior. According to a simple reading of the verses, David commits adultery with Batsheva and then has her husband, Uriah, killed in battle so as to marry her and cover up the sin. Given that David is reputed to be an upright figure, how are we to understand his actions?  Moreover, if he really committed such heinous crimes, how is it that David did not lose his kingship? [For discussion, see David and Batsheva.]

• Mitigate David's guilt – R. Yonatan in Bavli Shabbat opts to exonerate David, claiming that he did not violate the Biblical prohibitions of adultery or murder.¹
• Maintain David's guilt - Abarbanel, in contrast, prefers to say that David sinned egregiously as per the simple reading of the text, but also repented sincerely, and therein lay his greatness.  
• Middle position - Ralbag takes a middle position, claiming that David was guilty of murder but technically innocent of adultery. He nonetheless chastises David's behavior as immoral.

Counting the Nation

Shemuel II 24² tells of David's decision to count the nation and the consequent plague that killed 70,000 people. Though the narrative implies that the census was the cause of the catastrophe, it is not clear what sin was transgressed that led to such a severe punishment. How was David's census different from the many others in Tanakh which were conducted without disastrous consequences?

• Direct head count – According to Bavli Berakhot, Rashi, and Chizkuni, David sinned in directly counting the nation rather than using a redemptive object.
• Unnecessary census – 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. Ramban and Shadal elaborate that as David was not going to war, he had no need to count the nation, and must have been doing so only for his own personal honor.  As such, his sin was mainly one of pride
• No sin of David – R. Saadia maintains that David himself did not sin at all; the plague came to punish the people for joining Avshalom's rebellion.

Abuse of Power

"דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ"

In relaying why he was refused permission to build the Beit HaMikdash, David says, "וְהָאֱלֹהִים אָמַר לִי לֹא תִבְנֶה בַיִת לִשְׁמִי כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת אַתָּה וְדָמִים שָׁפָכְתָּ", attributing the refusal to the "blood spilled" by David.  What blood is referred to and why was it problematic?

• Innocent blood – Radak suggests that the phrase refers to the killing of innocents, suggesting that David was being held accountable either for the death of Uriah (Shemuel II 11),³ the death of the priests in Nov (Shemuel I 22),⁴ or the deaths of righteous non-Jews whom he killed in battle.
• Blood of Israelite soldiers – Hoil Moshe claims that the phrase refers to the blood of Israelites who died in David's wars of conquest. David's willingness to endanger lives when not necessary for purposes of defense was problematic.
• Blood of enemy soldiers – Others suggest that David's spilling of blood was not

Family Life

David and Michal

David and Michal's relationship has an auspicious beginning, with the text twice sharing Michal's love for David. Somewhere in the middle though, things sour and the two squabble.  When David dances in front of the ark, Michal watches from the window and is filled with scorn. A heated exchange follows in which both put down the other, with David rubbing in how he was picked as king in place of Michal's father, Shaul.  How did love morph into mockery? What lies at the heart of this spat and what does it betray about David and Michal's relationship?

• Dispute over monarchic behavior
• Dispute over marital relations

¹ The Bavli suggests that Uriah was considered a rebel against the king, a capital crime, and that Batsheva did not have marital status when David slept with her. As such, though David's actions might still be deserving of censure, technically he was not guilty of any Biblical prohibitions.

² See also its parallel in Divrei HaYamim I 21.

³ Even though our story precedes the death of Uriah, Hashem might have rejected David based on knowledge of his future actions.

⁴ Though it was Shaul who killed the priests, David might have been held responsible since he had knowingly endangered them, as he sought their aid despite knowing that Doeg was present and would inform on them.