Difference between revisions of "David and Batsheva/2"
m |
|||
(4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
<point><b>Uriah's death</b> – These sources absolve David of guilt in Uriah's death in various ways:<br/> | <point><b>Uriah's death</b> – These sources absolve David of guilt in Uriah's death in various ways:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Rebellious</b> – According to the Bavli, Uriah was considered a rebel against the king due to his referring to Yoav as "my master".<fn>See his words in verse 11, "הָאָרוֹן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה יֹשְׁבִים בַּסֻּכּוֹת <b>וַאדֹנִי</b> <b>יוֹאָב</b> וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חֹנִים וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אֶל בֵּיתִי".  Since the title "my master" should have been reserved for David, calling Yoav by such a name was disrespectful.  It is also possible that the tone of the entire sentence was problematic, as Uriah's words implied that David should be criticized for relaxing in the palace and not joining the  battle.</fn> Malbim instead claims that the rebellion lay in Uriah's refusal to return home after David told him, "רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ וּרְחַץ רַגְלֶיךָ".‎<fn>Malbim reads David's words as a command to go home and not return to the war, rather than a friendly suggestion to take a short respite before returning to the front.</fn> | + | <li><b>Rebellious</b> – According to the Bavli, Uriah was considered a rebel against the king due to his referring to Yoav as "my master".<fn>See his words in verse 11, "הָאָרוֹן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה יֹשְׁבִים בַּסֻּכּוֹת <b>וַאדֹנִי</b> <b>יוֹאָב</b> וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חֹנִים וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אֶל בֵּיתִי".  Since the title "my master" should have been reserved for David, calling Yoav by such a name was disrespectful.  It is also possible that the tone of the entire sentence was problematic, as Uriah's words implied that David should be criticized for relaxing in the palace and not joining the  battle.</fn> Malbim instead claims that the rebellion lay in Uriah's refusal to return home after David told him, "רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ וּרְחַץ רַגְלֶיךָ".‎<fn>Malbim reads David's words as a command to go home and not return to the war, rather than a friendly suggestion to take a short respite before returning to the front.<br/>R' Yaakov Medan suggests, regarding these words, that were Uriah to return home and seclude himself with his wife, the child Batsheva would eventually bear would be assumed to be Uriah's. Since this did not occur, there would be speculation as to the father, David's acts would become known, and David's position would be endangered. See "מגילת בתשבע," Megadim 18-19 (1993): 92-93</fn> According to either reading, Uriah was deserving of death for his disrespect/disobedience.  David's sin lay not in killing him, but only in doing so outside of proper judicial procedure.</li> |
<li><b>Legitimate casualty of war</b>– The Rid asserts that a king has a right to endanger his men in the front line, and can not be held accountable if they die there.  This, though, ignores the fact that David did not simply send Uriah to war but told Yoav to abandon him with the intention that he be killed.</li> | <li><b>Legitimate casualty of war</b>– The Rid asserts that a king has a right to endanger his men in the front line, and can not be held accountable if they die there.  This, though, ignores the fact that David did not simply send Uriah to war but told Yoav to abandon him with the intention that he be killed.</li> | ||
<li><b>No messenger for transgressions</b> – It is also possible to suggest that David was not held accountable since he did not directly harm Uriah; it was Yoav who put Uriah in position to be killed in battle (אין שליח לדבר עבירה).<fn>See below, however, that Radak argues that even if in general one maintains that "אין שליח לדבר עבירה" David's position as king made it difficult for anyone to defy him, so his acting via a messenger did not absolve him of guilt.  The repeated use of the verb "שלח" throughout the story (eleven times in Chapter 11 alone) might come to reinforce this point.</fn></li> | <li><b>No messenger for transgressions</b> – It is also possible to suggest that David was not held accountable since he did not directly harm Uriah; it was Yoav who put Uriah in position to be killed in battle (אין שליח לדבר עבירה).<fn>See below, however, that Radak argues that even if in general one maintains that "אין שליח לדבר עבירה" David's position as king made it difficult for anyone to defy him, so his acting via a messenger did not absolve him of guilt.  The repeated use of the verb "שלח" throughout the story (eleven times in Chapter 11 alone) might come to reinforce this point.</fn></li> | ||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
<category>Guilty of Adultery and Murder | <category>Guilty of Adultery and Murder | ||
<p>David sinned egregiously, committing both adultery and murder.</p> | <p>David sinned egregiously, committing both adultery and murder.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="BavliYoma22b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma22b" data-aht="source">Yoma 22b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII12" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII11-3" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:1-15</a><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII12" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:8-11</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RadakShemuelII11-2-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakShemuelII11-2-4" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:2-4</a><a href="RadakShemuelII12-9-13" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:9-13</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RidTehillim51-1" data-aht="source">Rid</a><a href="RidTehillim51-1" data-aht="source">Tehillim 51:1</a><a href="R. Yeshayah of Trani (Rid)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yeshayah of Trani</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII11-6" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII11-6" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:6</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII12-9-14" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:9-14</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <a href="AbarbanelShemuelII11" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a></mekorot> | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="BavliYoma22b" data-aht="source">Bavli Yoma</a><a href="BavliYoma22b" data-aht="source">Yoma 22b</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII12" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Kara</a><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII11-3" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:1-15</a><a href="RYosefKaraShemuelII12" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:8-11</a><a href="R. Yosef Kara" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Kara</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RadakShemuelII11-2-4" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakShemuelII11-2-4" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:2-4</a><a href="RadakShemuelII12-9-13" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:9-13</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RidTehillim51-1" data-aht="source">Rid</a><a href="RidTehillim51-1" data-aht="source">Tehillim 51:1</a><a href="R. Yeshayah of Trani (Rid)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yeshayah of Trani</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII11-6" data-aht="source">R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII11-6" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 11:6</a><a href="RYosefibnKaspiShemuelII12-9-14" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 12:9-14</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi</a></multilink>, <a href="AbarbanelShemuelII11" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a>,</mekorot> |
<point><b>Uriah's death:"אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב"</b> – This position reads Natan's accusation simply to mean that David was responsible for Uriah's death.  Radak points out that even though elsewhere the rule "אין שליח לדבר עבירה" (there is no messenger for transgressions) applies, David's position as king made it impossible for others to defy his orders, putting the responsibility for the death fully on his shoulders.</point> | <point><b>Uriah's death:"אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב"</b> – This position reads Natan's accusation simply to mean that David was responsible for Uriah's death.  Radak points out that even though elsewhere the rule "אין שליח לדבר עבירה" (there is no messenger for transgressions) applies, David's position as king made it impossible for others to defy his orders, putting the responsibility for the death fully on his shoulders.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן"</b> – Radak and Abarbanel read into Natan's repetition of the fact of murder further censure of David.  In killing Uriah via the enemies of Israel, David had his loyal servant die an ignoble death. Moreover, orchestrating his death in the war required that many others in Israel died alongside him.<fn>See Midrash Shemuel 25.</fn>  As such, their deaths, too, were David's fault.<fn>One might argue that David actually tells Yoav to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, precisely so as to prevent others from being killed. It is Yoav who veers from the plan, thereby causing other deaths.  However, one might respond that David's plan was not realistic.  Yoav could never tell his men to simply abandon an elite soldier in battle; his men would lose all faith in their general and never agree.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן"</b> – Radak and Abarbanel read into Natan's repetition of the fact of murder further censure of David.  In killing Uriah via the enemies of Israel, David had his loyal servant die an ignoble death. Moreover, orchestrating his death in the war required that many others in Israel died alongside him.<fn>See Midrash Shemuel 25.</fn>  As such, their deaths, too, were David's fault.<fn>One might argue that David actually tells Yoav to abandon Uriah on the battlefield, precisely so as to prevent others from being killed. It is Yoav who veers from the plan, thereby causing other deaths.  However, one might respond that David's plan was not realistic.  Yoav could never tell his men to simply abandon an elite soldier in battle; his men would lose all faith in their general and never agree.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה"</b> – Abarbanel claims that this rebuke of Natan refers both to the initial adulterous action, and the fact that David married Batsheva so soon after her husband died.</point> | <point><b>"וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה"</b> – Abarbanel claims that this rebuke of Natan refers both to the initial adulterous action, and the fact that David married Batsheva so soon after her husband died.</point> | ||
<point><b>Batsheva's role</b> – It is unclear from the verses whether Batsheva was taken against her will, or whether the act was consensual.<fn>The verses clearly speak of David "taking" Batsheva, and his position as king would make it impossible for her to decline, absolving her of any guilt.  On the other hand, the words "וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו" in verse 4 are superfluous and might be included to hint that she willingly came to David and played a part as well.  In addition, if the words "מֵעַל הַגָּג" in 11:2 refer to Batsheva bathing on top of the roof (rather than David standing there), this would suggest that she displayed a lack of modesty which might implicate her to an extent as well.</fn> In other words, it is possible that David's sins included not only adultery but rape as well.</point> | <point><b>Batsheva's role</b> – It is unclear from the verses whether Batsheva was taken against her will, or whether the act was consensual.<fn>The verses clearly speak of David "taking" Batsheva, and his position as king would make it impossible for her to decline, absolving her of any guilt.  On the other hand, the words "וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו" in verse 4 are superfluous and might be included to hint that she willingly came to David and played a part as well.  In addition, if the words "מֵעַל הַגָּג" in 11:2 refer to Batsheva bathing on top of the roof (rather than David standing there), this would suggest that she displayed a lack of modesty which might implicate her to an extent as well.</fn> In other words, it is possible that David's sins included not only adultery but rape as well.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְדָוִד יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם"</b> – The verses might introduce the story in this manner to cast David in a negative light from the very beginning.  Why is David in Jerusalem while the rest of the nation is at war? The description of David rising from an afternoon nap to stroll on his rooftop while others are risking their lives is further unsettling.<fn>These verses, however, need not be critical of David. There are many legitimate reasons why the king might have decided not to join the war and David's afternoon nap might be normal for the era, or perhaps the result of having been up all night dealing with the nation's affairs.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>"וְדָוִד יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם"</b> – The verses might introduce the story in this manner to cast David in a negative light from the very beginning.  Why is David in Jerusalem while the rest of the nation is at war? The description of David rising from an afternoon nap to stroll on his rooftop while others are risking their lives is further unsettling.<fn>R' Yaakov Medan compares the image of David walking on the roof to Daniel 4:26-29, where King Nebuchadnezzar walks on his palace roof speaking arrogantly, inviting a Divine curse which drives him from his palace.<br/><br/>These verses, however, need not be critical of David. There are many legitimate reasons why the king might have decided not to join the war and David's afternoon nap might be normal for the era, or perhaps the result of having been up all night dealing with the nation's affairs.</fn></point> |
<point><b>"וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ"</b> – According to this approach, this verse is not coming to absolve David of the guilt of sleeping with an impure woman (which would be meaningless given that he was committing adultery), but, as R. Yosef Kara explains, to clarify that Uriah could not have been the father of the baby.</point> | <point><b>"וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ"</b> – According to this approach, this verse is not coming to absolve David of the guilt of sleeping with an impure woman (which would be meaningless given that he was committing adultery), but, as R. Yosef Kara explains, to clarify that Uriah could not have been the father of the baby.</point> | ||
<point><b>"אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי"</b> – The text refers to Batsheva as the wife of Uriah, because the two were fully married when David had relations with her.  The verse thus highlights for the reader that this was in fact adultery.</point> | <point><b>"אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי"</b> – The text refers to Batsheva as the wife of Uriah, because the two were fully married when David had relations with her.  The verse thus highlights for the reader that this was in fact adultery.</point> | ||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
<point><b>Natan's parable</b> – This approach might suggest that Natan chose to rebuke David via a parable rather than confronting him directly since he wanted David to decree his own sentence. A self imposed verdict is a much more powerful way to prove to someone their guilt.</point> | <point><b>Natan's parable</b> – This approach might suggest that Natan chose to rebuke David via a parable rather than confronting him directly since he wanted David to decree his own sentence. A self imposed verdict is a much more powerful way to prove to someone their guilt.</point> | ||
<point><b>Punishment</b> – David receives a severe, measure for measure, punishment in line with the severity of his actions.  Just as he took another's wife, his own wives were taken, and just as he killed Uriah via sword, his own family was plagued by violence and death.  David's own life was spared only because of his repentance.</point> | <point><b>Punishment</b> – David receives a severe, measure for measure, punishment in line with the severity of his actions.  Just as he took another's wife, his own wives were taken, and just as he killed Uriah via sword, his own family was plagued by violence and death.  David's own life was spared only because of his repentance.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"חָטָאתִי לַי"י"</b> – David confesses because he is guilty | + | <point><b>"חָטָאתִי לַי"י"</b> – David confesses because he is guilty. <fn>David's words in Tehillim 51, "לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי" are more difficult.  This position could explain, as does Radak, that since the sin was done in secret only Hashem was aware of it.  R. Saadia alternatively explains that David is saying. " to you alone [I am saying] I have sinned."</fn></point> |
+ | <point><b>"לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי"</b> – David's words in Tehillim 51, "לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי" are difficult for this approach as they insinuate that David did not sin against his fellow man:<br/> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li>This position could explain, as does Radak, that since the sin was done in secret only Hashem was aware of it.<fn>R. Saadia alternatively explains that David is saying. " to you alone [I am saying] I have sinned."</fn></li> | ||
+ | <li><multilink><a href="ShadalTehillim51-6" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalTehillim51-1-2" data-aht="source">Tehillim 51:1-2</a><a href="ShadalTehillim51-6" data-aht="source">Tehillim 51:6</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, instead, claims that in reality David did only sin against Hashem. Since the act with Batsheva was consensual, and she was happy to marry the king, there was no evil done to her.<fn>One could easily counter that even if David did not sin against Batsheva, he sinned against Uriah by taking his wife. Shadal responds that David's actions did not really hurt him either since Uriah was not burning with desire for his wife ("כי אוריה הראה לכל שלא היה לבו בוער באש אהבתה"),  [Shadal presumably comes to this conclusion from the fact that Uriah did not go home to be with her.] However, even if Shadal is correct, regardless of Uriah's feelings for his wife, he presumably did not want another man to sleep with her! </fn>  Similarly, since a king is allowed to send his men into battle, despite the danger of death, and Uriah was happy to risk his life, David did not act against him either.<fn>Here, too, one might question Shadal's reading, since David did not simply send Uriah into battle but also sent a missive that he should be deserted so as to be killed by enemy hands.  Shadal defends David by pointing out that David acted only to ensure that others did not get killed, and moreover, that Yoav did not abide by this directive regardless. As such, though David was clearly guilty for his wicked intentions, this was a crime against Hashem and not his fellow man.</fn>  His impure motives, however, made this a sin against Hashem.</li> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>How can David stay married to Batsheva?</b> This position could posit, as does <a href="BavliKetubot9a-9b" data-aht="source">Bavli Ketubot</a>, that Batsheva had been forced into relations, in which case she would be permitted to David.<fn>Cf. <a href="BavliSanhedrin69b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin 69b</a> which posits that Batsheva was a minor during the episode.</fn></point> | <point><b>How can David stay married to Batsheva?</b> This position could posit, as does <a href="BavliKetubot9a-9b" data-aht="source">Bavli Ketubot</a>, that Batsheva had been forced into relations, in which case she would be permitted to David.<fn>Cf. <a href="BavliSanhedrin69b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin 69b</a> which posits that Batsheva was a minor during the episode.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Why did David merit dynastic rule?</b> According to this approach, though David sinned greatly he fully repented of his sins.  The power of repentance is such that even if one has committed the most heinous of crimes, one can move beyond them.  In choosing Shelomo as the heir to the throne, Hashem shows that one's origins are much less important than what one makes of one's self.</point> | <point><b>Why did David merit dynastic rule?</b> According to this approach, though David sinned greatly he fully repented of his sins.  The power of repentance is such that even if one has committed the most heinous of crimes, one can move beyond them.  In choosing Shelomo as the heir to the throne, Hashem shows that one's origins are much less important than what one makes of one's self.</point> |
Latest revision as of 05:48, 27 May 2018
David and Batsheva
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
In evaluating David's actions with Batsheva, commentators find themselves in a quandary. On one hand, a simple reading of the text suggests that David committed two of the most severe of crimes: adultery and murder. On the other hand, since David is understood to be a righteous figure, chosen to head the monarchic dynasty, it seems unfathomable that he would act in such a manner. How can one be true to both the text and the idealized portrait of David?
R. Yonatan in Bavli Shabbat opts to exonerate David, claiming that he transgressed neither prohibition. To do so, though, he needs to make certain assumptions which are not explicit in the text and reinterpret other passages. Abarbanel, in contrast, maintains that one cannot ignore the simple understanding of the chapter. He prefers to say that David sinned egregiously, but also repented sincerely, and therein lay his greatness. 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.
Not Guilty of Adultery or Murder
Though David's actions deserved censure, he did not violate the Biblical prohibitions of adultery or murder.
- Rebellious – According to the Bavli, Uriah was considered a rebel against the king due to his referring to Yoav as "my master".2 Malbim instead claims that the rebellion lay in Uriah's refusal to return home after David told him, "רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ וּרְחַץ רַגְלֶיךָ".3 According to either reading, Uriah was deserving of death for his disrespect/disobedience. David's sin lay not in killing him, but only in doing so outside of proper judicial procedure.
- Legitimate casualty of war– The Rid asserts that a king has a right to endanger his men in the front line, and can not be held accountable if they die there. This, though, ignores the fact that David did not simply send Uriah to war but told Yoav to abandon him with the intention that he be killed.
- No messenger for transgressions – It is also possible to suggest that David was not held accountable since he did not directly harm Uriah; it was Yoav who put Uriah in position to be killed in battle (אין שליח לדבר עבירה).4
- Divorced – R. Yonatan in the Bavli (followed by many sources) asserts that in David's era those who went to battle divorced their wives so as to prevent them from becoming "chained women" (עגונות)5 if the soldier were not to return from war.6 The sources disagree regarding the nature of the divorce:
- Full divorce – According to R. Tam,7 marriages were fully dissolved before the husband left to war. If so, when David approached Batsheva she was no longer a married woman and there was no possible issue of adultery. The sin lay in the fact that David knew that the divorce was given only for technical reasons and that under other circumstances the couple would have stayed married.8
- Conditional – According to Rashi and the Rid, in contrast, the divorces were conditional on the husband not returning home. As such, when David slept with Batsheva her status was unknown, and it was only after Uriah's death that she was retroactively considered divorced. This understanding absolves David of technical guilt, but leaves his actions as still very problematic from a moral perspective.
- Illegitimate marriage – Alternatively, this approach could posit that Uriah was a Gentile as his title "the Hittite" implies.9 If so, Batsheva was never legally married to him and David was not committing adultery when he had relations with her.
Guilty of Adultery and Murder
David sinned egregiously, committing both adultery and murder.
- This position could explain, as does Radak, that since the sin was done in secret only Hashem was aware of it.21
- Shadal, instead, claims that in reality David did only sin against Hashem. Since the act with Batsheva was consensual, and she was happy to marry the king, there was no evil done to her.22 Similarly, since a king is allowed to send his men into battle, despite the danger of death, and Uriah was happy to risk his life, David did not act against him either.23 His impure motives, however, made this a sin against Hashem.
Guilty of Murder but not Adultery
David did not technically transgress the prohibition against adultery, but he was fully culpable of murdering Uriah.