Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash/2

Why Couldn't David Build the Beit HaMikdash?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Lack of Stability and Peace

A prerequisite for building the Beit HaMikdash was that the nation be settled in the land and at peace from its enemies.  This was not yet accomplished during the reign of David and so the the building was postponed until Shelomo took the throne.

Sources:RashiMelakhim I 5:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Yosef KaraMelakhim I 5:17About R. Yosef Kara, R. Yosef ibn KaspiDivrei HaYamim I 22:8-9About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Abarbanel #2, MalbimShemuel II 7:5-9Melakhim I 5:17-19About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Necessary conditions for Mikdash – According to Devarim 12, the Beit HaMikdash is supposed to be built only after the people have achieved peace and security in Israel (הֵנִיחַ לָכֶם מִכׇּל אֹיְבֵיכֶם מִסָּבִיב וִישַׁבְתֶּם בֶּטַח). Malbim explains that to meet these conditions it was necessary not only to have lasting rest from enemies, but also a continuous monarchy.  It is only with the reign of Shelomo that David's rule became dynastic.¹

"וַי"י הֵנִיחַ לוֹ מִסָּבִיב מִכׇּל אֹיְבָיו" – The opening of the story would seem to suggest that the requirement for peace was indeed met before David asked to build the Mikdash.  Malbim explains that though there was a temporary respite from war (which is what spurred David to make the request), Hashem knew that many more wars were to be fought and that the lull was no different than those periods of quiet during the era of the Shofetim. 

Defect in David

David was prohibited from building the Beit HaMikdash due to flaws in his character, specifically his having spilled much blood.

Sources:Josephus Antiquities of the Jews7 4:4About Josephus Antiquities of the Jews, RambamShemonah PerakimAbout R. Moshe b. Maimon, RadakShemuel II 7Melakhim I 5:17Divrei HaYamim I 22:8About R. David Kimchi, RambanBemidbar 16:21About R. Moshe b. Nachman, Hoil MosheShemuel II 24:1About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

"דָּם לָרֹב שָׁפַכְתָּ" – These sources² 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.³
• 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),⁴ the death of  the priests in Nov (Shemuel I 22),⁵ or the deaths of righteous non-Jews whom he killed in battle.⁶ 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.⁷  David's willingness to endanger lives when not necessary for purposes of defense was problematic.⁸

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, implying that his father simply had no opportunity to do so, he was not telling the full truth.  Shelomo had 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 describing external factors that made the building difficult, but derogatory assessments of David's character and priorities.

Era of peace? Radak agrees that the commandment to build the Beit HaMikdash only applies 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? Radak suggests that despite Natan's silence in Shemuel II, the prophet really had told David why he was not allowed to build Hashem's house, as implied by David's words in Divrei HaYamim.⁹ Alternatively, if Radak is correct in relating the rejection 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 – Hashem's reply to David is somewhat difficult for this approach.  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 – Ramban refers to the Mikdash as a "house of mercy".  Radak similarly claim that it is a place of peace. As such, just as it is prohibited to bring an iron tool to the Mikdash since iron is a vessel of war, so , too, the House could not be built by a spiller of blood.

Too Much Good

Hashem felt that David had received enough honor by rising to kingship and that it would be more proper that someone else get the glory of being the builder of Hashem's house.

Sources:Midrash Tehillim62About Midrash Tehillim, RalbagShemuel II 7:4Shemuel II Toalot 7:8About R. Levi b. Gershom

¹ See SefornoDevarim 17:14About R. Ovadyah Seforno and ShadalDevarim 17:14About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto on Devarim 17:14 who define a king as an individual who rules and bequeaths that rule to his descendants (as opposed to a שופט whose reign lasted only one generation.)  This might be the reason that Sefer Melakhim starts not with David, but with Shelomo.

² Ramban is an exception.  As he speaks about the issue only tangentially, he does not discuss the verse nor even mention David's spilling of blood, sufficing with attributing to him a lack of mercy.

³ Cf. Ramban who does not speak about spilling blood specifically, but says that David was a "man of justice" who lacked the necessary mercy to build the Mikdash, a house of mercy.

⁴ Even though our story precedes the death of Uriah, Hashem might have rejected David based on knowledge of his future actions.

⁵ Though it was Shaul who killed the priests, David viewed himself as responsible since he had knowingly endangered them, as he sought their aid despite knowing that Doeg was present and would inform on them.  Thus, he tells Evyatar, "אָנֹכִי סַבֹּתִי בְּכׇל נֶפֶשׁ בֵּית אָבִיךָ".

⁶ Though David's intentions were to prevent enemies from attacking Israel, his many wars took the lives not only of soldiers, but of innocent civilians as well.

⁷ Cf. Rav Shelomo Goren, Meishiv Milchama, I, pp. 15-25, who similarly blames David for endangering Israellite lives by embarking on the extra-terrestrial conquests of Aram Naharayim and Aram Zova before finishing the conquest of Yerushalayim.  Since David forsook Yerushalayim and the site of the Mikdash for war, he was punished measure for measure that he could not build the Mikdash. [See the Sifre11:24About Sifre Devarim which also critiques David for the war against Aram, but does not connect the sin to David's not being allowed to build the Mikdash.]

⁸ The Hoil Moshe explains that this was also the reason for the plague that ensued after David's census of the nation in Shemuel II 24.  He suggests that that David had counted the people specifically because he wanted to go to war, despite the fact that the nation had finally achieved peace and there was nor reason to do so. [See David's Counting of the Nation for details.]

⁹ In his comments there, however, he also raises the possibility that really no reason was given and that David supplied one for himself.