Q&A: Was King David Moral?
Was King David Moral?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the story of David and Bathsheba, in II Samuel (11–12), from my point of view it seems that David committed several immoral sins, for example: taking Bathsheba as his wife even though she was married, adultery while Uriah was on the battlefield, trying to cover up that he had slept with Bathsheba in front of Uriah, sending Uriah to his death, abusing his power as king, and more…
Later in the story, Nathan the prophet rebukes David for his sins, and David acknowledges his sins and regrets them: (verse 13) "And David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David, 'The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.'"
But in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 56a, it says that anyone who says David sinned is mistaken: "Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says David sinned is nothing but mistaken, as it is said (I Samuel 18:14), 'And David prospered in all his ways, and the Lord was with him.' Is it possible that sin came into his hand and the Divine Presence was with him?"
-David explicitly says that he sinned, and he presumably knows best, and Nathan the prophet says that David sinned—and he is a prophet!
So are they both wrong???
How can anyone say about such a story that David did not sin???
I would not expect any other person to behave this way, certainly not King David, who is presented in Judaism as one of the greatest moral figures!
Answer
You are asking two different questions: 1. How does such a great person sin? It turns out that we are all human beings, especially when we have power in our hands. 2. Why does the Talmud say that he did not sin if in the plain sense of the verses it is clear that he did? The Talmud says that he did not sin in the halakhic sense, even if he sinned morally. It also explains that there was a retroactive bill of divorce there. Nathan the prophet too, in the parable of the poor man’s ewe lamb, speaks about a moral sin, not halakhic adultery.
If it interests you, Rabbi Medan wrote an entire book about this.
Discussion on Answer
David sinned. But usually, in discussing him, people stop at the sin and not at the astonishing path of repair that he underwent. So as not to be too lenient, I’ll mention only in abbreviations: his son was murdered, another son sexually and royally humiliated him. Dust was thrown on him. His second son was murdered despite his pleading that they not harm him. He accepted all the blows with humility. Scripture explicitly notes that he did not touch Abishag, just as Maimonides writes about a penitent.
What humility? True, during his lifetime David decided to forbear and verbally justified the judgment against himself, but in his instruction to Solomon he commanded him to settle accounts with Joab (who killed Absalom even though David pleaded that they not harm him) and with Shimei son of Gera (who threw dust on him). So it is reasonable to assume that this was not a path of repair but a calculated decision that, after he had already won and was holding power, it would help his standing more if he showed mercy to those who had wronged him. But when the kingdom changes hands and passes to Solomon, then on the contrary, perhaps the dormant rebellious elements might awaken again and take advantage of the weakening of the regime, and therefore it was necessary to strike them first. When Amnon was murdered, David was certainly angry at Absalom, and only after (three) years did his longing for Absalom overcome him and he was comforted over Amnon, who had died. As for Abishag—how could he have touched her? He was old, advanced in years, shivering from the cold, apparently ill, and impotent.
I’d be happy to add that you can see a certain pattern with David, beginning with Merab: "And it came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as a wife."
It continues with Abigail, the wife of Nabal the Carmelite; she and David got to know each other while she was married to Nabal and he came to collect protection money from Nabal, they spoke about establishing a lasting house, and David married her immediately after the mourning period for her husband, who died under strange circumstances.
After that he takes Michal away from her husband Paltiel son of Laish, and when her husband follows after her weeping, he is sent away under threats from Abner, the commander of the army.
And the peak (or the low point) comes in the story of Bathsheba.
I understand that from a halakhic point of view, with enough inferences, one can acquit him legally, but it can plainly be seen that he sinned morally, and we are talking about a person considered one of the greatest moral figures in Judaism…
Even if halakhically he is in the clear, it is obvious as the sun that morally he is not…