dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I didn't really read the whole story. I was focused on Rival's question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
David's Child
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm wrestling with this... Did David sin or not... that's where I'm stuck. I keep finding more and more sources that say there was no sin. But, 2 Shmuel 12:13 says there was.
Did you look at Zohar 2:107 yet that Tumah found in the other thread?
rosends
Well-Known Member
I read the Zohar quote -- kudos to Tumah for tracking it down. As to the sin, the talmud has much to say on whether David sinned.
Then there's the question of how one reconciles, e.g., Yoma 22b Shabbat 56a.
Truth be told, I struggle with Torah, and I'm OK with that, but sometimes I think that Talmud is simply beyond me. It's frustrating.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If in 2nd Shmuel 12:13, HeEvir, is translated as "passed", do you think that it ( the verse 12:13 ) agrees with the Zohar in this.
David passed the orders for Uriah thru Joab? ( that's what I'm seeing in the Zohar )
The sin was passed on, and the boy became ill? ( This is 2 Shmuel 12:13 paraphrased roughly with 'passed' instead of 'remitted' )
Note: I looked up HeEvir on sefaria's dictionary. It looks like it's often translated as "passed".
rosends
Well-Known Member
I don't see the use of he'evir as referring to the passing on of the orders. My Zoharic knowledge is effectively non-existent, but the discussion of Yoav, to my eyes, is more a discussion of culpability in transmitting the message. David was the ultimate authority and people were said to be his, so to send a message through a subordinate who was just passing it along should not cause the subordinate to be punished.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK, thank you.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm not trying to argue. but, the boy became ill. So that means David was punished ,not the subordinate?
rosends
Well-Known Member
No - but Yoav was not punished when the order to Uriah was transmitted through him.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'm not seeing where we disagree.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I don't see any parallel to the son's dying.
Tumah
Veteran Member
Reconciling Talmud passages is a big part of Talmud study. Noting the discrepancies isn't something to be frustrated about, that's where all the joy in learning Talmud comes from.Then there's the question of how one reconciles, e.g., Yoma 22b Shabbat 56a.
Truth be told, I struggle with Torah, and I'm OK with that, but sometimes I think that Talmud is simply beyond me. It's frustrating.
In this case, you can either take the position that those two passages are two different opinions, or you can apply the Talmudic dictum that for righteous people, G-d sees the tiniest of their sins as very severe and describes it to us in those terms. (This is not my own opinion, I found this among commentaries, possibly including Maimoindes.) For someone like David, what he did was as severe as performing adultery and we relate to that. But in actuality, what he did wasn't actually adultery, and we relate to that too.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It's in the english translation of Mikraoth Gidoloth. The source they cite is Rabeinnu Nissim. It's also attached to 12:9.
In the english the disctintion ( apparently ) is being made between a "transgression" and a "sin". And that is confusing to me. That's what led me back to HeEvir. Which may be a total dead-end, admittedly.
Edit: OH: The comment begins the logic with introducing an eccentric spelling ...
It's also a big part of the most senseless and extreme dogmatism.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Tumah
Veteran Member
Do they give a source where he wrote this? I don't know of any commentary on Tanach by that Rabbi. Maybe in his sermons?
In which verse? By which commentary?
Well, at least I don't know anyone who gives that interpretation. You can also find the word used with this meaning in Micah 7:18 and Job 7:21
Tumah
Veteran Member
In what way does that play a part?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Here's the book I'm looking at ( in a spoiler because the image is large )
It's on page 325.
Maybe what you're looking for is Drashot Ha-Ran, Drasha 6? That's at the end of the comments attributed to Rabeinnu Nissim that's atached to "La'Ahsos" in Sefer Shmuel Beis 12:9.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Yeah, I think it's ( the approach of looking at HeEvir ) is bunk... It doesn't fit
Only G-d knows. That was easy -