Difference between revisions of "Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 21: Line 21:
 
<point><b>Melakhim I 5: "מִפְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה"</b> – Radak suggests that when Shelomo tells Chiram that his father could not build the Temple due to the many wars which surrounded him, he was not telling the full truth.&#160; He made up a plausible excuse since it would not be respectful to say that Hashem had prohibited David from building or that his father "had blood on his hands".</point>
 
<point><b>Melakhim I 5: "מִפְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה"</b> – Radak suggests that when Shelomo tells Chiram that his father could not build the Temple due to the many wars which surrounded him, he was not telling the full truth.&#160; He made up a plausible excuse since it would not be respectful to say that Hashem had prohibited David from building or that his father "had blood on his hands".</point>
 
<point><b>"וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ/ כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת אַתָּה"</b> – David himself also speaks of war as one of the reasons given by Hashem to explain his inability to build the Mikdash.&#160; These sources might explain that the phrases "אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת" and "וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ" should be understood in light of the accompanying "דָּמִים רַבִּים שָׁפַכְתָּ".&#160; They are not neutral statements but derogatory assessments of David's character and priorities.</point>
 
<point><b>"וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ/ כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת אַתָּה"</b> – David himself also speaks of war as one of the reasons given by Hashem to explain his inability to build the Mikdash.&#160; These sources might explain that the phrases "אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת" and "וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ" should be understood in light of the accompanying "דָּמִים רַבִּים שָׁפַכְתָּ".&#160; They are not neutral statements but derogatory assessments of David's character and priorities.</point>
<point><b>Peace as condition for Building the Mikdash?</b> Radak agrees that the commandment to build the Beit HaMikdash only falls in an era of peace, but suggests that the opening verse of our chapter (וַי"י הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב מִכׇּל אֹיְבָיו) proves that this condition had been met.&#160; At this point in his reign, David had already been victorious over all attacking enemies.&#160; The wars described in later chapters refer not to wars of defense, but wars of conquest that David fought voluntarily.</point>
+
<point><b>Era of peace?</b> Radak agrees that the commandment to build the Beit HaMikdash only falls in an era of peace, but suggests that the opening verse of our chapter (וַי"י הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב מִכׇּל אֹיְבָיו) proves that this condition had been met.&#160; At this point in his reign, David had already been victorious over all attacking enemies.&#160; The wars described in later chapters refer not to wars of defense, but wars of conquest that David fought voluntarily.</point>
 
<point><b>Why doesn't Natan give a reason?</b> These sources do not discuss why Natan does not explain Hashem's rejection of David's request.&#160; However, if Radak is correct in relating it to David's killing of Uriah, it is obvious why his future actions could not as yet have been revealed..&#160;</point>
 
<point><b>Why doesn't Natan give a reason?</b> These sources do not discuss why Natan does not explain Hashem's rejection of David's request.&#160; However, if Radak is correct in relating it to David's killing of Uriah, it is obvious why his future actions could not as yet have been revealed..&#160;</point>
<point><b>Hashem's promises to David</b> – If David was prohibited from building the Mikdash due to his faults in his character, one would expect the tone of Hashem's refusal to be negative, when it is the opposite.&#160; If Hashem is, in effect, punishing David through the refusal, why reward him with an everlasting dynasty at the same time?</point>
+
<point><b>Hashem's promises to David</b> – If David was prohibited from building the Mikdash due to faults in his character, one would expect the tone of Hashem's refusal to be negative, when it is the opposite.&#160; If Hashem is, in effect, punishing David through the refusal, why reward him with an everlasting dynasty at the same time?</point>
 
<point><b>Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash</b></point>
 
<point><b>Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash</b></point>
 
</category>
 
</category>

Version as of 10:58, 12 June 2017

Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Lack of Stability and Peace

Defect in David

"דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ" – Most of these sources point to this verse as evidence that David could not build the Beit HaMikdash due to his spilling of blood.  They differ regarding which blood is being spoken about and why it was problematic:
  • Death of the deserving – Rambam claims that even though David was merciful to his fellow Israelites and only spilled the blood of non Jews and heretics, this nonetheless betrays a certain "cruelty" in his character.1
  • Spilling of innocent blood – Radak, in contrast, blames David for the killing of innocents, suggesting that David was being held held accountable either for the death of Uriah (Shemuel II 11),2 the death of  the priests in Nov (Shemuel I 22),3 or the deaths of righteous non-Jews whom he killed in battle.4 Prof. KiI adds that it might also refer to the many deaths that occurred during the civil war between David and Ishboshet.
  • Blood of Israelite soldiers – Hoil Moshe points to David's general desire to embark on wars of conquest.5  David's willingness to endanger lives when not necessary for purposes of defense was problematic.6
Melakhim I 5: "מִפְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה" – Radak suggests that when Shelomo tells Chiram that his father could not build the Temple due to the many wars which surrounded him, he was not telling the full truth.  He made up a plausible excuse since it would not be respectful to say that Hashem had prohibited David from building or that his father "had blood on his hands".
"וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ/ כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת אַתָּה" – David himself also speaks of war as one of the reasons given by Hashem to explain his inability to build the Mikdash.  These sources might explain that the phrases "אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת" and "וּמִלְחָמוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת עָשִׂיתָ" should be understood in light of the accompanying "דָּמִים רַבִּים שָׁפַכְתָּ".  They are not neutral statements but derogatory assessments of David's character and priorities.
Era of peace? Radak agrees that the commandment to build the Beit HaMikdash only falls in an era of peace, but suggests that the opening verse of our chapter (וַי"י הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב מִכׇּל אֹיְבָיו) proves that this condition had been met.  At this point in his reign, David had already been victorious over all attacking enemies.  The wars described in later chapters refer not to wars of defense, but wars of conquest that David fought voluntarily.
Why doesn't Natan give a reason? These sources do not discuss why Natan does not explain Hashem's rejection of David's request.  However, if Radak is correct in relating it to David's killing of Uriah, it is obvious why his future actions could not as yet have been revealed.. 
Hashem's promises to David – If David was prohibited from building the Mikdash due to faults in his character, one would expect the tone of Hashem's refusal to be negative, when it is the opposite.  If Hashem is, in effect, punishing David through the refusal, why reward him with an everlasting dynasty at the same time?
Purpose of the Beit HaMikdash

Too Much Good