Difference between revisions of "David and Batsheva/2"
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
<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> | ||
− | <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 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.</point> |
<point><b>Uriah's response to David</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Uriah's response to David</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה דָוִד בְּעֵינֵי י"י"</b> – Hashem's anger at David's deed is further evidence of his sin.</point> | <point><b>"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה דָוִד בְּעֵינֵי י"י"</b> – Hashem's anger at David's deed is further evidence of his sin.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Natan's parable</b> – This approach might suggest that Natan | + | <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.  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> |
Version as of 22:11, 9 August 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.