Difference between revisions of "David and Batsheva/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
| 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> | ||
Version as of 13:15, 8 January 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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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.20
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.21
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 Albo 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.22 Abarbanel adds that Shaul's sin betrayed a lack of faith in and love of Hashem,23 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:Ralbag
No adultery – Ralbag follows R. Yonatan in the Bavli24 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.25
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.26
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.
