David and Bathsheba as proof of the separation of morality from law
The case of David and Bathsheba from the perspective of David’s sin is complex and perspectives on it vary.
It can be argued that the story demonstrates the separation between morality and law, as expressed in the text.
David did not express remorse or acknowledge his sin until the arrival of the prophet Nathan. Nathan did not address David with a direct halakhic argument, but chose to present him with a parable. David, who served as judge in the parable, strongly condemned the act as immoral and sentenced himself to severe punishment.
This behavior shows that even in the Bible, morality and law are not necessarily the same. David responded to a moral argument, not a legal argument, and on this basis he accepted the punishment.
Do you agree with the move?
I don’t see a move here. It is true that the capture of Hersh and the rebuke of Nathan the prophet indicate that he was speaking of a moral sin and not of shame. This is probably the intention of Chazal, “Whoever says David sinned is only mistaken.” I think this is the conclusion of Rabbi Midan’s argument in his book on this parsha.
More precisely, according to Rabbi Medan, the Peshat is that he actually sinned in a man's wife, and the Harrash is that he sinned in a moral sin "only". He adds that in his opinion what really happened is as Harrash said, and the Peshat was written this way by the prophet to present his sin in the most serious way possible (unlike conservative circles who try to do exactly the opposite and cover up for David).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
