Difference between revisions of "David and Batsheva/2"
m |
|||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<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> |
Version as of 10:06, 9 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.
- 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.