Q&A: David and His Sin – Question
David and His Sin – Question
Question
Good week, Rabbi Michael,
I wanted to ask a question related to reconciling the interpretations of David’s sin—in the Talmud (Sabbath 56a) versus the commentators on the biblical text (Rashi, Radak).
In the Talmud, a picture emerges in which David did not sin in the area of forbidden sexual relations; that is, he did not have relations with Bathsheba while she was a married woman. Rather, all the soldiers (including Uriah) would secretly give their wives a bill of divorce, and David knew this, so he did not sin in that respect. They also infer that Uriah was rebelling against the monarchy, and therefore was liable to death, and David’s sin was that he did not judge him so that he would receive his punishment in a Sanhedrin religious court, but instead sent him to be killed at the battlefront.
In the biblical commentaries on II Samuel 11:
Rashi and Radak say that David sinned בכך by having relations with a married woman.
How should all these interpretations be understood?
Should the interpretation from the Talmud and the interpretations from the biblical text be treated on the same level, or is one interpretation more important?
Or are the words of Rashi and Radak the plain meaning of the text, while the words of the Sages are homiletical interpretation? And if so, what does that mean?
My simple understanding was that David sinned in some way. But the gap between the Talmud and the other commentators is very large.
Sorry if I’m bothering you,
Good week,
Answer
It can be understood that the commentators are speaking about the plain meaning, while the Sages are interpreting homiletically. But in my opinion that is not the correct resolution. When the Sages say that David did not sin, they mean that there was no formal halakhic / of Jewish law sin here, because there was a bill of divorce and she was therefore not a married woman. And indeed, Nathan the prophet, in the parable of the poor man’s ewe lamb, relates to this as theft and not as adultery. But morally it is clear that he sinned, and in practice he did commit the wrong of taking a married woman—not formally, but morally—since he schemed and took another man’s wife for himself. Therefore it is correct to speak of the sin involving a married woman, but on the moral plane, not the halakhic one.
Many thanks, Rabbi Michi,
something along these lines is how the Maharal explains it: that David sinned potentially, meaning on the moral plane, and not in actual practice, meaning on the formal-halakhic plane.