David and Batsheva/2

David and Batsheva

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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.

Sources:Bavli ShabbatShabbat 56a-56bAbout the Bavli, RidShemuel II 12:4About R. Yeshayah of Trani,¹ MalbimShemuel II 11Shemuel II 12About R. Meir Leibush Weiser,

Uriah's death – These sources absolve David of guilt in Uriah's death in various ways:

• 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

Relations with Batsheva – According to this position, David did not commit adultery since Batsheva did not have marital status when he slept with her.  There are two variations of the approach:

• 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 Shemuel II 11:15Shemuel II 12:6Ketubot 9bAbout R. Shelomo Yitzchakiand 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.

How can David stay married to Batsheva? This question is one of the main motivations behind this position's reading of the story.  Had David committed adultery, Batsheva should have been prohibited to him and it would have been meaningless for him to repent while staying married to her.  Moreover, it would mean that Shelomo, the next king, was illegitimate. Thus, their continuous marriage is one of the strongest proofs that Batsheva had not been forbidden to David.

"וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד וַיִּדְרֹשׁ לָאִשָּׁה" – Malbim suggests that the phrase "וַיִּדְרֹשׁ לָאִשָּׁה" means that David was seeking to know not the identity of Batsheva, but her marital status (whether she was someone who had been given a divorce from her husband).¹⁰

"וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ" – Malbim asserts that the text shares that Batsheva was purifying herself to teach that David did not transgress the prohibition of sleeping with a woman while impure.  He claims that had David committed adultery it would be senseless to point this out as the king would have been transgressing a far more severe prohibition.  Thus, mention of the fact further supports the notion that David must not have committed adultery.¹¹

Rebuke via parable – The Rid suggests that Natan's use of a parable to chastise David further supports this position.  If the sin was one of adultery, Natan would have simply accused the king of sleeping with another's wife. The method of rebuke chosen proves that the crime was not self-evident.

"וַיִּקַּח אֶת כִּבְשַׂת הָאִישׁ הָרָאשׁ" – R. Medan¹²  asserts that Natan's parable does not contain a direct parallel to the sin of adultery, focusing instead on the taking advantage of a poor man by stealing his lamb.  He points to this as further evidence that David's sin lay in taking advantage of another, rather than in sleeping with a married woman.

"וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן" – According to the Bavli, Natan is not chastising David for the killing itself,¹³ but the fact that he did so via "the sword of Amon" rather than via the Sanhedrin.

"וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה" – R. Yaakov Fidanque points out that when Natan speaks of "taking Batsheva as a wife" he does so only after mentioning the death of Uriah, suggesting that he is not referring to the initial relations (which were permitted) but only of David's marrying her afterwards (which was improper).

"וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאוּרִיָּה רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ" – This approach must explain why David attempted to have Uriah sleep with his wife. If Batsheva had no married status, then David should not have felt the need to cover anything up.  On the other hand, if her status was in doubt due to the conditional nature of the divorce, then would not inviting Uriah to sleep with his wife ensure that she was in fact married retroactively?¹⁴

"חָטָאתִי לַי"י" – David confesses because even though he had not transgressed the Torah's laws of adultery and murder, his actions were still problematic.  He words his confession as "I have sinned to Hashem"¹⁵ because his biggest sin was not an interpersonal one, but rather the desecration of Hashem's name that his actions caused.

"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה דָוִד בְּעֵינֵי י"י" – Even though David did not technically transgress Torah laws, more was expected of him and thus Hashem was disappointed in his behavior.

Punishment – This approach must explain why David's punishment is so severe if he was not actually guilty.  The sources could explain that despite technically being innocent, David was still morally wrong to act as he did.  In addition, Hashem often acts stringently with the righteous.

Why do the verses present David as guilty? Malbim, following Bavli Avodah Zarah, suggests that Hashem wanted to teach people about the power of repentance through David. If readers view him as having sinned greatly, but also as having repented sincerely, and see how his repentance was accepted, they will learn to similarly repent of their own misdeeds.

Why doesn't David lose his kingship? Since this approach mitigates David's sin, it is not surprising that he does not lose his kingship in its aftermath.

Guilty of Adultery and Murder

David sinned egregiously, committing both adultery and murder.

Sources:Bavli YomaYoma 22bAbout the Bavli, R. Yosef KaraShemuel II 11:1-15Shemuel II 12:8-11About R. Yosef Kara, RadakShemuel II 11:2-4Shemuel II 12:9-13About R. David Kimchi, RidTehillim 51:1About R. Yeshayah of Trani, R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemuel II 11:6Shemuel II 12:9-14About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Abarbanel,

Uriah's death:"אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב" – 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.

"וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן" – 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.¹⁶  As such, their deaths, too, were David's fault.¹⁷

"וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה" – 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.

Batsheva's role – It is unclear from the verses whether Batsheva was taken against her will, or whether the act was consensual.¹⁸ In other words, it is possible that David's sins included not only adultery but rape as well.

"וְדָוִד יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלִָם" – 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.¹⁹

"וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ" – 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.

"אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי" – 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.

"וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאוּרִיָּה רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ" – According to this position, David's words betray his desire to cover up his misdeed by passing Uriah off as the father.  Abarbanel further criticizes him for thinking to cut off his son from his family and for potentially creating a problem of unknown ancestry which could lead to illegitimate marriages.

Uriah's response to David – This position does not read any rebellion in Uriah's response to David. Uriah's referring to Yoav as his master is not problematic since Yoav was indeed of higher rank.  In addition, his refusal to return home is seen as a noble statement of solidarity with his fellow soldiers, not as an act of defiance against David.

"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה דָוִד בְּעֵינֵי י"י" – Hashem's anger at David's deed is further evidence of his sin.

Natan's parable – 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.

Punishment – 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.

"חָטָאתִי לַי"י" – David confesses because he is guilty. ²⁰

"לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי" – 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:

• This position could explain, as does Radak, that since the sin was done in secret only Hashem was aware of it.²¹
• ShadalTehillim 51:1-2Tehillim 51:6About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, 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.

How can David stay married to Batsheva? This position could posit, as does Bavli Ketubot, that Batsheva had been forced into relations, in which case she would be permitted to David.²⁴

Why did David merit dynastic rule? 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.

David versus Shaul – R. Yosef AlboSefer HaIkkarim 4:26 explains that though David  sinned severely, he was not punished by losing his kingship because his sins did not relate to his role as king, but to him as an individual. Shaul on the other hand, sinned in the art of kingship and thus lost it.²⁵ Abarbanel adds that Shaul's sin betrayed a lack of faith in and love of Hashem,²⁶ while David erred on an interpersonal level, with a momentary lapse due to physical desire. Abarbanel claims that the former is more problematic as it strikes at the root of adherence to all commandments.

Guilty of Murder but not Adultery

David did not technically transgress the prohibition against adultery, but he was fully culpable of murdering Uriah.

Sources:RalbagShemuel II 12:7Shemuel II 12:25Shemuel II Toalot 11Shemuel II Toalot 12:5About R. Levi b. Gershom

No adultery – Ralbag follows R. Yonatan in the Bavli²⁷ in suggesting that, retroactively, David did not commit adultery since Uriah had divorced Batsheva on condition that he not return from battle.  Ralbag, however, does not think that this exonerates David, only that technically there was no transgression of the prohibition of sleeping with a married woman.

Murder – Ralbag does not attempt to exonerate David for killing Uriah and sees in David's murder an attempt to cover up his sin. David hoped to marry Batsheva and present the baby as if conceived after their marriage.²⁸

How can David stay married to Batsheva? The fact that David was not commanded to separate from Batsheva is what motivates Ralbag to assert that legally she was retroactively divorced when the two had relations. He similarly points out that it if they were prohibited one to another, how is it that Hashem would favor their son and choose him to be the next king.

" וְלֹא סָר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ... רַק בִּדְבַר אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי" – The prophet's evaluation of David as one who was righteous in all he did "except  for the matter of Uriah" might support this position that technically David could only be held accountable for murder, not adultery.  Otherwise, the prophet should have mentioned Batsheva as well.²⁹

Punishment – David is punished severely for both taking Batsheva and killing Uriah because even though David did not transgress the Biblical prohibition of adultery, the act itself was still despicable.

¹ This is how the Rid explains the story in his comments on Sefer Shemuel, where he follows the Bavli's reading of the event. However, in his comments on Tehillim 51, he says that according to the simple sense of the text David did in fact sin.

² See his words in verse 11, "הָאָרוֹן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה יֹשְׁבִים בַּסֻּכּוֹת וַאדֹנִי יוֹאָב 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.

³ 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.
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

⁴ 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.

⁵ An עגונה would not be allowed to remarry since her marital status is unknown.  Though her husband might have died in battle, it is also possible that he was taken captive and might return later.

⁶ This is learned from the verse "וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד לְשָׁלוֹם וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח" (Shemuel I 17:18), where the word "עֲרֻבָּתָם" is understood to refer to "דברים המעורבים בינו לבינה", matters which involve man and his wife.  The proof text is fairly weak as its context has nothing to do with divorce and the verse appears by the wars of Shaul rather than David.

⁷ See also R. Yaakov Fidanque who develops the position.  [He was a Portuguese rabbi of Hamburg whose commentary on the Prophets was printed together with that of Abarbanel in the 1687 Hamburg edition of Abarbanel's commentary.]

⁸ As such David's actions were more comparable to theft than to adultery.

⁹ Cf. Bavli Kiddushin 76b which raises the possibility that Uriah was a Hittite convert but not that he was a Gentile.  See also R. Medan's comprehensive analysis of the story , "מגילת בתשבע," Megadim 18-19 (1993): 82-83, where he discusses the option that Uriah was not Jewish.

¹⁰ He suggests that the messengers respond that she is "the wife of Uriah" to let David know that her husband had gone to war and thus she had unmarried status.

¹¹ See, though, R. Yosef Kara below who explains that that the fact is mentioned only to clarify that the fetus could not be from relations with Uriah, and must have come from Batsheva's relations with David.

¹² See his article, "מגילת בתשבע," Megadim 18-19 (1993): 80.

¹³ See above that the Bavli claims that Uriah was guilty of rebelling against the king and therefore deserving of death.

¹⁴ Malbim suggests that when David discovered that Batsheva was pregnant, he realized that despite his not having technically done anything wrong, his actions would be viewed negatively and might even cause rebellion in the nation. To prevent this he invited Uriah home to hide the deed, knowing that this would be at the expense of his transgressing the prohibition of adultery.

¹⁵ See the similar formulation in Tehillim 51, "לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי".

¹⁶ See Midrash Shemuel 25.

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ 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.

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.

²⁰ 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."

²¹ R. Saadia alternatively explains that David is saying. " to you alone [I am saying] I have sinned."

²² 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! 

²³ 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.

²⁴ Cf. Bavli Sanhedrin 69b which posits that Batsheva was a minor during the episode.

²⁵ He explains that in the war with Amalek Shaul betrayed a lack of leadership, as he was guided by the nation rather than guiding them.  See Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek for elaboration.

²⁶ See Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek.

²⁷ See discussion above.

²⁸ He assumes that Batsheva knew somewhat immediately that she was pregnant, so it would be plausible to pass the baby off as simply premature.

²⁹ The other sources would likely explain that in his words "the matter of Uriah" the prophet meant the entire affair, and not specifically the murder of Uriah.