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?

Warrior

David and Golyat

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

• Hashem's aid – David's words to Golyat, "אַתָּה בָּא אֵלַי בְּחֶרֶב וּבַחֲנִית וּבְכִידוֹן וְאָנֹכִי בָא אֵלֶיךָ בְּשֵׁם י״י" suggest that David was simply trusting in Hashem's aid, recognizing that wars are not won by might but by God.¹
• Military strategy – It is possible that David was not merely relying on a miracle but had a strategy in mind as well. Recognizing that he could not win in hand to hand combat, David fought from afar with an unexpected sling², before Golyat even knew what was coming. Golyat's girth and massive amount of armor made him slow, while David had speed on his side, allowing him to kill Golyat while he was still down.
• Natural weaknesses of Golyat – It is also possible that Golyat was terrifying, but not particularly adept at fighting.  If his height was due to the disorder known as acromelagy (gigantism), it was likely accompanied by weakness of muscle, poor peripheral vision, and swollen joints, all of which would be major disadvantages in battle.
• Combination – Likely, David's success was a mixture of the above factors.  He did as much as he could and then left the rest to Hashem who might have allowed natural means to ensure David's victory.

Conquest of Yerushalayim

What was David's strategy in conquering the strongly fortified and walled Yerushalayim? The answer apparently lies in David's words, "כׇּל מַכֵּה יְבֻסִי וְיִגַּע בַּצִּנּוֹר", but what is the "‎צנור"‎³ and what was David hoping his men would do?

• Weapon – The Septuagint understands the word צנור  to refer to a dagger-like weapon, presenting David as simply telling his men to kill of the blind and lame mentioned by the Jebusites.
• Tower – Rashi and Radak, instead, assume that it refers to a tower and that David was telling his men to capture the city's fortifications.
• Water tunnel –  Modern scholars suggest that the word refers to a water tunnel⁴ via which David hoped his men would enter the city and conquer it from within (thereby circumventing the problem of the city's walls). Recent excavations in Ir David have uncovered a massive tower dating to the Middle Bronze Period which served to protect the Gichon Spring and a protected tunnel nearby leading connecting the city and water sources.⁵ Yoav's task was to penetrate the city via the tower and tunnel.⁶

Battles of Conquest

Politician

Consolidating the Kingdom

Choice of Yerushalayim

What made David choose Yerushalayim as his capital? Was David's selection of the city due to political considerations, military concerns, or economic needs? To what extent did the city's religious significance play into his decision?

• Religious significance – Yerushalayim was picked as David's capital for its religious significance. The city was considered holy and Divinely chosen already from Creation
• Security considerations – David chose Jerusalem as his capital due to a combination of strategic factors, including its defensibility, central location, and availability of water resources.
• Political needs – David's choice was for predominantly political reasons, as part of his effort to unite the various tribes, and especially Yehuda and Binyamin, into one centralized nation.

Treatment of Opponents

David continuously shows clemency to his opponents. For example, despite Shaul's continuous attempts on his life, he refuses to kill him.Though Avner had backed Ishboshet and even served as his chief general, David willingly made peace with him. Though Amasa served as Avshalom's general-in-chief, David not only forgave him, but even appointed him as his own general in place of Yoav. Finally, despite Shimi's curses, David swears not to kill him.  How should David's actions be understood and evaluated?

• Altruism – Hoil Moshe suggests that David's merciful attitude was purely altruistic and to be commended. In fact, he suggests that when David, on his deathbed, asks Shelomo to seek revenge, this represents a change of heart and is a stain on David's reputation. [See
• Political agenda – One could argue the exact opposite, that David was not altruistic but selfish. He felt that a policy of co-opting his enemies by rewarding them served him better than punishing them would have.⁷ 
• Some would argue that this was the correct route, following the dictum "איזו גבור... מי שעושה שונאו אוהבו"‎.⁸ 
• Others, though, might agree with Yoav,⁹ that it is not always right to reward one's enemies and that perhaps a harsher, more punitive policy would have been proper and even more successful.

Unique Traits

Recognition of Hashem

One of the traits that distinguishes David is his constant recognition of Hashem. He demonstrates time and again that he understands that Hashem, not the king, is the ultimate authority, and that all success is due to Him and not man:¹⁰

• David and Golyat - David's ability to fight Golyat without weapon or armor stemmed from his knowledge that wars are won by God, not man.
• Battle in Emek Refaim - The commentary attributed to R. Yosef Kara suggests that Hashem tested David in his battle with the Philistines, telling him to wait to fight until he heard rustling in the trees despite a potential counter-attack in the interim, to see whether David would fear man more than God. David passed the test, remembering that victory is not dependent on human might and strategy.
• David and Michal – See Michal and David's Argument and the discussion below that the argument between the two might have stemmed form their differing perceptions of kingship, with David emphasizing that his position as king did not elevate him above the nation, for all are equal before God, the true King.

"לאהבה את שונאך"

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.¹¹
• 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 24¹² 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.

"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? [For more, see Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash.]

• Innocent blood – Radak asserts 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),¹³ the death of the priests in Nov (Shemuel I 22),¹⁴ 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 – Rashi, R. Yosef Kara, and Ibn Kaspi, in contrast,
  suggest that David did nothing wrong. The verse is referring to David's killing of enemies, testifying to the fact that the nation was not yet at peace. Since rest from enemies is prerequisite for building the Beit HaMikdash, David was not allowed to build it.

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 – Malbim suggests that the dispute stemmed from differing attitudes towards kingship. Michal felt that a king must  be above the people, viewing David's mingling and dancing with the nation as unbefitting the dignity of the office. David, in contrast, felt that before God, the true King, he really was no different from anyone else in the nation and that to truly honor God, he needed to put himself on par with them.
• Dispute over marital relations – Several modern scholars,¹⁵ in contrast, maintain that Michal's outburst related to her personal, family life with David. Seeing him dance with the maidservants highlighted the problematic nature of in their relationship. While Michal had hoped the marriage would be built on love, David viewed it as a tool for political gain. For elaboration, see Michal and David's Argument.

¹ See also his initial words to Shaul, "י״י אֲשֶׁר הִצִּלַנִי מִיַּד הָאֲרִי וּמִיַּד הַדֹּב הוּא יַצִּילֵנִי מִיַּד הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי הַזֶּה".

² The advantage of this weapon was two-fold. David, who was not experienced in regular warfare, was both comfortable and an expert in its use.  Moreover, it was unexpected and distracted Golyat.

³ The word is difficult to define as it appears in only one other place in Tanakh, Tehillim 42:8.

⁴ This might be supported by the word's only other appearance in Tanakh, Tehllim 42:8, "תְּהוֹם אֶל תְּהוֹם קוֹרֵא לְקוֹל צִנּוֹרֶיךָ כׇּל מִשְׁבָּרֶיךָ וְגַלֶּיךָ עָלַי עָבָרוּ".

⁵ This water system was intended to enable the city's inhabitants to access water form the spring and pool in times of siege.

⁶ This is similar to the theory that Yoav entered the city via what is now known as Warren's Shaft.

⁷ With regards to Shaul, David might have wanted to set a precedent for his own reign.

⁸ See Avot DeRabbi Natan 23.

⁹ See his argument to David after he mourns for Avshalom, "הֹבַשְׁתָּ הַיּוֹם אֶת פְּנֵי כׇל עֲבָדֶיךָ הַמְמַלְּטִים אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ... לְאַהֲבָה אֶת שֹׂנְאֶיךָ וְלִשְׂנֹא אֶת אֹהֲבֶיךָ".

¹⁰ See Shaul's Sin in Gilgal and Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek that Shaul might have been rejected for forgetting this very fact.

¹¹ 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.

¹² See also its parallel in Divrei HaYamim I 21.

¹³ Even though our story precedes the death of Uriah, Hashem might have rejected David based on knowledge of his future actions.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ See for example, R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981): 113-127, and R"A Bazak, "העלאת הארון וצחוקה של מיכל".