Hello Everyone,
Yesterday we studied one of the most controversial lines in the Gemarah:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף נו עמוד א
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה
What does Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani mean? The story of David and Batsheva was certainly known to him. Nothing can be more clear than the words of Natan to David:
שמואל ב פרק יב
(ט) מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת דְּבַר ה’ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינַי אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:
In Israel תנ”ך is taught in the schools and there is a debate about how it should be taught. Some people say that תנ”ך needs to be taught “honestly” ( or as it is expressed in Hebrew, it should be taught “בגובה העיניים” ). This means that the flaws of the heroes and heroines of the תנ”ך need to be discussed in the class. The people who endorse תנ”ך בגובה העיניים say that the Gemarah simply covers up with tendentious apologetics the sins committed by our ancestors.
This is not a new accusation against the Gemarah. In the 16th century the Maharal wrote a book titled “.באר הגולה” The book is a defense of the Rabbinic thought and literature in general and of the Talmud in particular. The chapters of the book are each called a “.באר” The fifth chapter is devoted to defending Aggadot which are attacked as being nonsensical. Among the Aggadic passages which the Maharal defends is our suggyah in masechet Shabbat.
The Maharal explains the suggyah as follows. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani juxtaposes two pesukim. On the one hand there is the pasuk in which Natan condemns David’s behavior. But there is a second pasuk:
שמואל א פרק יח
(יד) וַיְהִי דָוִד לְכָל דְּרָכָו מַשְׂכִּיל וַה’ עִמּו:
This pasuk says that “Hashem is with David.” This is not a statement about Hashem’s relationship with David at the time that David served in the army of Sha’ul. On the contrary, Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani sees this pasuk as telling us about something permanent; Hashem was always with David. If this is so, it is impossible to say that David was an adulterer or murderer. If David had really committed these terrible crimes Hashem would have been with him. Therefore Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani needed to reconcile these two conflicting verses. His resolution of the apparent contradiction was:
שביקש לעשות ולא עשה…
This seems like a lame interpretation of the תנ”ך. The words of Natan are so accusatory how can Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani seriously maintain that “he didn’t really do it?”
The Maharal explains this passage as follows. The Maharal says that it is a mistake to focus on one pasuk and ignore the other. We cannot pay attention only to the words of Natan. The two words “וה’ עמו” are crucial to understand the entire narrative. David was chosen by Hashem. There was a Divine plan in which David figured prominently. Therefore Hashem could not and would not allow David to sin. The verses which indicate that David sinned are referring to his intentions. David was indeed infatuated with Batsheva and would willingly have committed adultery with her. However, Hashem could not allow David to commit such a sin. The technicality of Uriah’s having written a conditional divorce for Batsheva was Hashem’s device to save David from his worst instincts in order to preserve him to fulfil his role in history.
Rav Kook presents a different perspective on David and this suggyah.[1] Rav Kook’s vision of a king is a person who has “larger than life” ambition. This is a necessity. A king needs to lead his people to glory, he needs to broaden both the physical and spiritual boundaries of his nation. Similar to Maharal , Rav Kook says that the words “וה’ עמו” tell us the truth about David’s spiritual state. The test of a king is his ability to channel his energies to positive goals. It was wrong of David to allow himself to desire Batsheva. The prophet Natan condemns David for the appearances of his behaviour. Hashem saved him from sinning, because Hashem does save special צדיקים:
משלי פרק ג
(כו) כִּי ה’ יִהְיֶה בְכִסְלֶךָ וְשָׁמַר רַגְלְךָ מִלָּכֶד:
We live in a period in which cynicism about our leaders seems to be the only way to appraise our political elites. The story of David and Batsheva does not seem to allow any interpretation which does not portray David in the darkest shades. Hashem’s own prophet doesn’t spare any words in attacking David for his actions. So how should we understand Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani’s justification for David’s behaviour? Is Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani serving as a publicity agent polishing the reputation of David for a gullible public? This is indeed how the תנ”ך בגובה עיניים school sees the Gemara, and they see themselves as rescuing us from ignorance.
The Maharal and Rav Kook present the Gemarah in another light. Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani is teaching us that it is wrong to accentuate the negative and ignore the positive. In certain circles Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani’s explanation is understood to be a complete exoneration of David. The תנ”ך בגובה עיניים supporters attack those circles and it may be that their critique possesses a degree of validity.
It is important to note that neither Rav Kook nor Maharal say that David was blameless. Their interpretations of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani are not defences of David ( which is accomplished by the Gemarah itself) as much as they are defences of the integrity of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the shiur.
Stuart Fischman
[1] I wish to emphasize that I find Rav Kook’s explanation difficult and I may not be presenting it accurately.