-
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
rosends
Well-Known Member
The death was as punishment for all the sins David committed [assuming you are of the opinion that he sinned] (his confession and repentance was enough to commute any death penalty against him, but not against his child).
I found this while looking through Sefaria
----------------
Rashi on Deuteronomy 24:16:2
EVERY MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH FOR HIS OWN SIN This suggests: but one who is not yet an איש, a man, does sometimes die on account of his father’s sins: little children sometimes die at the hands of Heaven because of their parents’ sins (Siphre).
---------------
Though there are other sources which call this into question. I'd love to read more discussion of this if anyone has any ideas.
I found this while looking through Sefaria
----------------
Rashi on Deuteronomy 24:16:2
EVERY MAN SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH FOR HIS OWN SIN This suggests: but one who is not yet an איש, a man, does sometimes die on account of his father’s sins: little children sometimes die at the hands of Heaven because of their parents’ sins (Siphre).
---------------
Though there are other sources which call this into question. I'd love to read more discussion of this if anyone has any ideas.
Good question.
Keep in mind, the punishment against adultery was death. Both were deserving of death...so the child would’ve died, anyways.
More later...I gotta go!
Keep in mind, the punishment against adultery was death. Both were deserving of death...so the child would’ve died, anyways.
More later...I gotta go!
Wow --- just......wow!
Sorry.
Last edited:
Tumah
Veteran Member
Many commentaries explain that the child died because it's existence was still a desecration of G-d's Name. If this is what the king of Israel, personally chosen by G-d does, then we can too. So even if king David was personally in the clear (as according to some opinions, David didn't actually sin), people need to see retribution to understand that this is not allowed.
The Abarbanel adds to this a bit more of an esoteric approach and explains that the child died because it was "unripe fruit", born from [yet another example of] a union that occurred before it's proper time.
The Abarbanel adds to this a bit more of an esoteric approach and explains that the child died because it was "unripe fruit", born from [yet another example of] a union that occurred before it's proper time.
Makes even more sense when you consider who was the second child that came out of that union (Shlomo, the next king).
Tumah
Veteran Member
He mentions that as well.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
@Rival: to follow on with this idea: There's a comment in Da'ath Sofrim about the Ammonite swords. It says they had a picture of one of their gods engraved on it. ( pg. 587 english translation, moznaim )
The implication is: Sending Uriah to be run-thru on the edge of any old blade would be pretty bad. But sending Uriah to be run thru with an Ammonite blade carrying the image of their false god on it? Well... in theory, that rose to the level of desecrating G-d's name. Further, the significance of the sword is apparent in the story.
According to Nathan, it's because of the sword and how it encouraged the enemy? I've looked at a couple different translations, and looking at verses 9 and 10, it's all about encouraging the enemy as a desecration of G-d's name.
Tumah
Veteran Member
I'm not sure that's the particular direction the commentaries I was speaking about were going. Although it's an interesting idea. The commentaries I was paraphrasing were talking about the relationship between king David and Bathsheba, not Uriah. I don't think that sending Uriah to the front lines is normally considered problematic, since that's something within the jurisdiction of the king. Sleeping with someone else's wife - or at least, appearing to, is not.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK. Thanks.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Starting at 12:10...
12:10 - the sword never leaves because you scorned me ( aka desecrating G-d's name ) **and** you took Uriah's wife.
12:11 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:12 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:13 - is also related to Uriah's wife? If so David is forgiven for this.
12:14 - change of subject to the "scorn"?
12:15 - boy becomes ill
Because of this, it seems like the desecration is a separate issue ( according to Nathan ). But, this is just my first look a this..
12:10 - the sword never leaves because you scorned me ( aka desecrating G-d's name ) **and** you took Uriah's wife.
12:11 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:12 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:13 - is also related to Uriah's wife? If so David is forgiven for this.
12:14 - change of subject to the "scorn"?
12:15 - boy becomes ill
Because of this, it seems like the desecration is a separate issue ( according to Nathan ). But, this is just my first look a this..
I recall hearing sometime ago that Uriah was a general in David's army (he's in the list of giborim) and therefore normally wouldn't have been near the front lines. Meaning that David was basically sending him on a suicide mission for refusing to go home to his wife while he was on leave (=he transgressed the king's orders).
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The situation with Bathsheba? Was it public?
12:12 says it happened secretly? Can desecration happen in secret? Especially if it's conduct unbecoming a King?
And if the word is intended as secret... then this verse can't be talking about Uriah, because that wasn't secret.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
So, now I can update the list... Updates are in blue.
12:10 - the sword never leaves because you scorned me ( aka desecrating G-d's name ? ) **and** you took Uriah's wife.
12:11 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:12 - is related to Uriah's wife. ( Period. It's a fact. This verse can't be talking about Uriah )
12:13 - is also related to Uriah's wife. David is forgiven for this. ( Period. It's a fact. This verse is connected to the previous one. Va'yomer... )
12:14 - change of subject to the "scorn". ( Period. It's a fact. The subject changed in this verse. The first word of the verse: Hephes ( However ).
12:15 - **and** boy becomes ill. ( actually there's 2 ands in this verse )
That's got to be it. I'm super confident. Any objections? ( This is from Nathan's perspective )
12:10 - the sword never leaves because you scorned me ( aka desecrating G-d's name ? ) **and** you took Uriah's wife.
12:11 - is related to Uriah's wife?
12:12 - is related to Uriah's wife. ( Period. It's a fact. This verse can't be talking about Uriah )
12:13 - is also related to Uriah's wife. David is forgiven for this. ( Period. It's a fact. This verse is connected to the previous one. Va'yomer... )
12:14 - change of subject to the "scorn". ( Period. It's a fact. The subject changed in this verse. The first word of the verse: Hephes ( However ).
12:15 - **and** boy becomes ill. ( actually there's 2 ands in this verse )
That's got to be it. I'm super confident. Any objections? ( This is from Nathan's perspective )
Last edited:
Good questions, but what do they have to do with what I wrote?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
You were talking about why Uriah's position in battle was important and represented a significant desecration because of Uriah's status...
And that reminded me... th incident happened in public. and desecration of G-d's name happens in public, intimate matters don't. Unless they are in the public because David was who he was. And BathSheba was the most beautiful, maybe she was a super star, and these two were actually a power couple. In a manner of speaking.
I honestly don't know the story, so I didn't want to assume.
Do you see what I mean?
The difference between the issue between David and BathSheba and the issue between David and Uriah is that one of them happened in public in front of the soldiers at the front line in battle. And the other, in theory, happened behind closed doors.
Except... I don't really know this story very well. So I don't honestly know if the people found out about David BathSheba thing. Maybe they did. Maybe there's a Midrash or something about it... Or something in the Talmud? I honestly don't know. Maybe it was common knowledge that David and BethSheba were becoming an item. I don't know.
That's why I asked. "was it private?"
Sorry if it seemed random.
On the one hand, God through Natan tells David that what he did may have been in intimacy but his punishment shall be in public, but on the other hand, you just read the story and it sounds suspicious: a. Really? No one saw Batsheva going to the palace? b. No one noticed that after the spectacle that Uriah made about not going home, shortly after - Batsheva was pregnant? c. Why on earth would the king marry the wife of his ex-general, especially if she's apparently pregnant?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
To be clear, I'm not really suspicious. I'm just being critical of myself. I wanted to be sure.
And thank you, that answers my question
Last edited: