Difference between revisions of "David and Batsheva/2"
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<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>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 | + | <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> | ||
<point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאוּרִיָּה רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ"</b> – According to this position, David's words betray his desire to cover up his misdeed by passing Uriah off as the father.  Abarbanel 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.</point> | <point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאוּרִיָּה רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ"</b> – According to this position, David's words betray his desire to cover up his misdeed by passing Uriah off as the father.  Abarbanel 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.</point> | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
<point><b>"חָטָאתִי לַי"י"</b> – David confesses because he is guilty.  This approach does not read significance into the fact that he speaks of sinning against Hashem rather than man, as all crimes are against Hashem as well.<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>"חָטָאתִי לַי"י"</b> – David confesses because he is guilty.  This approach does not read significance into the fact that he speaks of sinning against Hashem rather than man, as all crimes are against Hashem as well.<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>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 | + | <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>David versus Shaul</b> – <multilink><a href="RavYosefAlboSeferHaIkkarim4-26" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Albo</a><a href="RavYosefAlboSeferHaIkkarim4-26" data-aht="source">Sefer HaIkkarim 4:26</a></multilink> 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.<fn>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 <a href="Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</a> for elaboration.</fn> Abarbanel adds that Shaul's sin betrayed a lack of faith in and love of Hashem,<fn>See <a href="Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</a>.</fn> 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.</point> | <point><b>David versus Shaul</b> – <multilink><a href="RavYosefAlboSeferHaIkkarim4-26" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Albo</a><a href="RavYosefAlboSeferHaIkkarim4-26" data-aht="source">Sefer HaIkkarim 4:26</a></multilink> 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.<fn>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 <a href="Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</a> for elaboration.</fn> Abarbanel adds that Shaul's sin betrayed a lack of faith in and love of Hashem,<fn>See <a href="Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</a>.</fn> 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.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Version as of 12:14, 29 April 2017
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.
Guilty of Murder but not Adultery
David did not technically transgress the prohibition against adultery, but he was fully culpable of murdering Uriah.