We begin one of the most complex chapters in Sefer Shmuel, and perhaps in all of Nevi'im. Not complex in terms of the narrative itself, which is straightforward and clear, but in terms of understanding: the incident of David and Batsheva. How can we comprehend that King David could come to such an act, and how can we understand that afterwards we explicitly see that the Holy One, Blessed is He, forgives him? All of these matters require explanation. Therefore, we will study this narrative through the commentary of the Malbim, whose method is to scrutinize the nuances of the verses and draw out the true picture from them.
Someone once said that a person who studies the Abarbanel on Erev Shabbat could come to heresy. Why? Because the Abarbanel's approach is to raise twenty or thirty questions on the narrative, and only then offer a single resolution that answers them all. A person starts on Erev Shabbat, reaches the twentieth question, and falls asleep. The following Shabbat he reaches the fifteenth question and falls asleep. After six months, his entire Torah is full of difficulties and he has never managed to reach the answers. Therefore, while we will examine the difficulties in this narrative, we will follow through to the very end to see the resolution: how things align and how Chazal view the entire matter. And let it be noted from the outset: even what we explain as we proceed through the verses is still only a partial explanation, for the comprehensive explanation - as Rav Dessler explains and as understood according to the Zohar - will only be understood at the conclusion of the narrative.
וַיְהִי לִתְשׁוּבַת הַשָּׁנָה לְעֵת צֵאת הַמְּלָאכִים וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת־יוֹאָב וְאֶת־עֲבָדָיו עִמּוֹ וְאֶת־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּשְׁחִתוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וַיָּצֻרוּ עַל־רַבָּה וְדָוִד יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם׃ - And it came to pass, at the turn of the year, at the time when kings go forth, that David sent Yoav, and his servants with him, and all Israel; and they ravaged the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbah; but David remained in Jerusalem.
The Malbim explains: all of this introduction, which seemingly has no bearing on the matter, comes to tell us the root cause of the entire story. The cause was that King David stayed at home and did not go out to wage the wars of Hashem, and that is what brought all this misfortune upon him. The text anticipates and answers every possible excuse. Would you say David was exhausted from the previous war? The verse states, "at the turn of the year" - an entire year had passed since. Would you say the weather did not allow it, due to rain and cold? The verse states, "at the time when kings go forth," and Chazal say this was in the month of Sivan, the season when kings go to battle. In winter it is difficult for kings to wage war; as is well known, what broke Germany in its attempt to conquer Russia was "General Winter," and likewise Napoleon. Here, that problem did not exist.
Would you say it was a minor skirmish, and a king does not go out for every local conflict? The text emphasizes that David sent Yoav the commander of the army, "and his servants with him" - all the military officers and mighty warriors - "and all Israel." In such circumstances, it is proper for their king to lead them into battle. And would you say it lasted only a short time? The verse states, "and they ravaged the Ammonites, and besieged Rabbah," a prolonged period: from the 7th of Sivan until the 24th of Elul, months on end they were engaged in battle. David saw that the conflict was not quickly resolved, and he should have gone out to join them. After all, David was the one who had always gone forth and fought the battles of Israel. The words "but David remained in Jerusalem" are the crux of the matter and the prelude to everything that follows.
וַיְהִי לְעֵת הָעֶרֶב וַיָּקָם דָּוִד מֵעַל מִשְׁכָּבוֹ וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ עַל־גַּג בֵּית־הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיַּרְא אִשָּׁה רֹחֶצֶת מֵעַל הַגָּג וְהָאִשָּׁה טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה מְאֹד׃ - And it came to pass toward evening, that David arose from off his bed and walked upon the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful to behold.
This was still during the day, towards evening, not at night. And what is the meaning of "a woman bathing from upon the roof" - did the woman go up onto the roof to bathe? Radak explains that the words "from upon the roof" refer back to "and he saw": David was standing upon the roof, and from there he saw a woman bathing. It was not that the woman was bathing on the roof, but rather that the observer was on the roof.
Here we must cite the Gemara in Masechet Sanhedrin (107a). Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: A person should never bring himself into a test, for David, king of Israel, brought himself into a test and stumbled. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, why do we say "the God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak, and the God of Yaakov," but do not say "the God of David"? He replied: They withstood tests before Me, but you have not been tested before Me - that is, not with a sufficiently formidable test. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, "Examine me, Hashem, and test me." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: I will test you, and I will do something for you that I did not do for the Patriarchs. To them, I did not announce what their test would be, but to you I am announcing - I inform you that I will test you with a matter of forbidden relations. Immediately, "And it came to pass at eventide that David arose from off his bed." Rav Yehudah said: He turned his night bed into his day bed, and a halachah slipped from his mind - there is a small organ in a person: satiate it and it hungers, starve it and it is satisfied.
Here lies a profound principle. What is the meaning of "he arose from off his bed"? That David had just been engaged in marital relations. Why in the middle of the day? David knew what Hashem had told him, that he would be tested with forbidden relations, and he thought: I will satisfy myself in a permissible manner so that I will not be drawn after the forbidden. On the surface, this seems logical. But Chazal teach us that desire works in the exact opposite way: the more a person feeds his desire, even permissibly, it does not satisfy him; rather, it starves him. "There is a small organ in a person: satiate it and it hungers, starve it and it is satisfied." Simply understood, this refers to the organ of intimacy, but the concept applies to all physical desires. A person who suppresses his desire and overcomes it prevents that desire from continuing to cling to him. Consider someone who has just eaten: shortly afterward, he is hungry again. Conversely, someone who has not eaten for an extended time reaches a point where his hunger subsides. People who undertake a fast of severance (ta'anit hafsakah) - from Motza'ei Shabbat until Friday, six days without food or drink, even at night - say that the main difficulty is in the first two days, after which it becomes much easier. By the very same principle: starve it and it is satisfied.
This is also why today we hear about all kinds of aberrations, May Hashem have mercy, that did not exist in the past. All sorts of abominations crawl out into the open, alongside afflictions we had never heard of before. What happened? Madmen have existed in every generation, so why is the scale so immense today and the madness so extreme? The point is that in the past, in order to commit a sin, a person had to go to great effort. Today, every sin is sitting right on his phone, and all prohibitions are right inside the home through cables and media. For such a person, ordinary temptation no longer moves him; because he is so saturated with immorality, he needs something far more extreme to stimulate him, and so he deteriorates step by step. It is like an addiction: someone who has never smoked has no urge to smoke. But from the first few cigarettes, or the first doses, he craves more. "Just two cigarettes a day" turns into two packs. And so it is with drugs: it starts with "light drugs, nothing serious," followed by another dose and another, moving to harder drugs, until he dies of an overdose. In the past, newspapers would write about this, but today they no longer do, because it has become all too common. And what is an overdose? That is precisely the point: the craving grows and he must feed it more, but the body can no longer bear it.
A talmid chacham once recounted that he boarded a bus where a woman was sitting, and not wanting to sit next to her, he remained standing. A secular man sitting nearby said to him: You religious people, your minds are constantly occupied with these things. What happens if you sit next to her? It does not bother me at all; I even go to the beach and it does nothing to me. The Rav replied: A blind man is not dazzled by the sun, either. The man did not understand. The Rav explained: Let me clarify. The natural way the Creator made man is that if he sees something forbidden, it affects him. Such a person is healthy. One who says, "It does not affect me at all," has a problem, and there are specific doctors who treat this. You are like a blind man: because you are so steeped in licentiousness, it no longer moves you, because you are deep, deep in the mud. I, who am affected, am in a healthy state, which is why I guard myself. You think your situation is better because you are not affected? On the contrary, it shows how far you have deteriorated, how foreign the concept of guarding one's eyes is to you. A blind man looks at the sun and says, "It doesn't bother me" - he is the sick one, not I. And so it is in all matters: a person who reins himself in and sets boundaries will discover within himself the strength to overcome, whereas one who tries to satiate himself will only deteriorate further.
And how did David arrive at this situation? The Gemara explains: Batsheva was washing her hair tutei chalta, beneath a kind of reed screen that served as a partition. Satan came and appeared to David in the guise of a bird. David shot an arrow at the bird, and the arrow tore through that reed mat, revealing Batsheva before him, and he saw her. And it is known that the yetzer hara acts only upon what a person's eyes see. If there is no sight, there is no yetzer hara.
This raises a question: Scripture states, "And you shall not follow after your heart and after your eyes." But do not the eyes see and then the heart covets? If so, should it not have said "after your eyes" first, and then "after your heart"? Rather, we are taught: the eye does not see unless the heart desires. When the heart desires, the eye sees; had the heart not desired, the eye would not have seen either. Indeed, the eye sees and the heart covets, but why did the eye look? Because the heart wanted to.
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד וַיִּדְרֹשׁ לָאִשָּׁה וַיֹּאמֶר הֲלוֹא־זֹאת בַּת־שֶׁבַע בַּת־אֱלִיעָם אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי׃ - And David sent and inquired after the woman, and one said: Is not this Batsheva, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?
David sent to inquire whether the woman was unmarried or a married woman. The Malbim explains: before we clarify this, know that the Abarbanel laid heavy blame upon David, enumerating five sins against him. Let us list them, and then we will see how the Malbim proves the exact opposite from the verses themselves. First sin: adultery with a married woman. Chazal explain that she had received a bill of divorce, but the Abarbanel did not accept this interpretation. Second sin: after Bat Sheva said, "I am pregnant," David went out of his way to send Uriah home to his wife so that he would assume the pregnancy was his, thereby covering up the matter. This would be dreadful, for then David's son would grow up in Uriah's home, with Uriah convinced that this was his own child. Beyond the child being a mamzer, this touches upon what scripture warns: "and the land become full of lewdness" - when paternity is unknown, a brother might unwittingly marry his sister. Third sin: ordering that Uriah be placed at the forefront of the fiercest fighting so that he would be killed, though he had done no wrong. It would have been better to detain Uriah in Jerusalem, ensure that Bat Sheva gave birth in secret, and then return him to his home knowing nothing. Fourth sin: not killing him himself, but by the sword of the children of Ammon, and in doing so causing other heroes of Israel to die as well, for he had to orchestrate a battle in which Uriah would fall, and in such a battle others would fall too, whereas he could have put him to death quietly. Fifth sin: rushing to marry her immediately upon the conclusion of her mourning period, making it appear as though he were still driven by lust. In the Abarbanel's view, David indeed incurred great iniquity and guilt, but Hashem forgave him because he repented completely, accepted his punishment, and was healed.
The Malbim responds: with the proper Torah outlook, the view of our Sages of blessed memory is unavoidable. A married woman who has relations with another man and whose husband subsequently dies becomes forever forbidden to both the husband and the adulterer. If so, how could it be, according to your approach, that David took her as a wife? Furthermore, this marriage continued even after the rebuke of the prophet Nathan, and even the Abarbanel agrees that David repented. Is it possible that a person repents while still holding the creeping creature in his hand - remaining married to a woman who is forbidden to him? Certainly not.
Furthermore: if she was a married woman, the child is a mamzer. And if the child is a mamzer, how could David plead that the child should live? As long as a mamzer lives, there is no atonement for the one who fathered him; he serves as a living reminder of the sin, and atonement is possible only through his death. If so, when the child fell ill, one would expect David to say: blessed be Hashem, let him pass away and let the sin be erased. What room was there to pray that he live, if he were the product of a forbidden union?
Furthermore: how could it be that the leader chosen to lead Israel, Solomon the son of David, was born from Bat Sheva, who according to your approach was forbidden to David? He was even called "Yedidyah" because Hashem loved him - a beloved of Hashem! Could a beloved of Hashem come from a forbidden union with a married woman? Moreover, the royal dynasty continued through him! From all this it is clear that Bat Sheva was not forbidden to David.
And why was she not a married woman? Because anyone who went out to war for the house of David would give a bill of divorce (get keritut) to his wife. The reason for this enactment was that in their days, a soldier who died in battle was not brought back in a casket. Rather, he had the status of a meit mitzvah; he acquired his place and was buried on the spot. Thus, one hundred thousand men might go out to battle and ninety thousand return, while ten thousand lay buried somewhere in the fields. Who were they? Who were the witnesses who saw the burial of each individual? "He went out to fight alongside me, I did not know him, they told me he died, we dug and buried him." His wife would remain an agunah, chained to a dead marriage for the rest of her days, because there were no witnesses to testify that her husband had died.
What did they do? They instituted that anyone who went out to war for the house of David would write a bill of divorce for his wife. In truth, this practice began back in the days of Shaul. Where do we see this? When David's father sent him to inquire after the welfare of his brothers during the war with Goliath, he told him, "and bring back their pledge." Chazal explain: bring back the bill of divorce that they were required to give to their wives. In this way, if the soldier died in war, the woman became a divorcee rather than a widow, achieving two results: first, even if his death was never definitively confirmed, since he did not return from the war, the divorce took effect, and the woman was permitted to remarry immediately upon the conclusion of the war. Second, she did not require yibbum (levirate marriage) if she had no children, since only a widow requires yibbum, not a divorcee. There is a dispute among Chazal as to whether they would write an absolute divorce, or a conditional divorce stating, "If I do not return by the end of the war, you are divorced from now."
Here the Malbim examines the precise wording of the verse: "David sent and inquired about the woman" - his first question was whether she was a married woman or unmarried. And when they answered him, "Is this not Bat Sheva the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" from this very answer he knew that she was unmarried. Uriah was one of David's mighty warriors, as explicitly recorded in Scripture, and had gone out to battle. It was therefore clear that he had left her a bill of divorce, as was the universal custom then. And should you ask, who can guarantee that this was definitely done? She was "the daughter of Eliam," and Eliam was the son of Achitophel the Gilonite, David's counselor. The Malbim explains that Achitophel was the very one who conceived this counsel and enacted the regulation that a wife must receive a get before her husband departs for battle. And if he was the initiator of the enactment, he certainly ensured that it was implemented for his own granddaughter.
And what was David's plan? The rule was that the divorce took effect if the soldier did not return together with all the men of war. If so, David intended to detain Uriah toward the end of the war on some mission, so that all the men of war would return on a certain day and Uriah would return only two weeks later - at which point the divorce would take effect, and the woman would become divorced. When he returned, he would betroth her anew. And how was she divorced? Retroactively, from the moment the get was originally delivered. Why must we say this? Because if we were to say she was divorced only from the moment he failed to return, he might have already died at the end of Sivan, and how can a divorce take effect after a woman is already a widow? It is therefore necessary that the get took effect retroactively from the time it was given, which both freed her from yibbum and established her status as a divorcee. This was David's plan: that she would be unmarried retroactively.
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד מַלְאָכִים וַיִּקָּחֶהָ וַתָּבוֹא אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁכַּב עִמָּהּ וְהִיא מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת מִטֻּמְאָתָהּ וַתָּשָׁב אֶל־בֵּיתָהּ׃ - David sent messengers and took her; she came to him and he lay with her, and she was purifying herself from her impurity; then she returned to her house.
David sent messengers, wanting them to investigate the matter so it would be clear that this woman was indeed divorced. The text adds this so that one would not think David was careless regarding the prohibition of a married woman - for you see that he was careful even regarding the prohibition of niddah. Her husband was on the battlefield and she had no natural reason to immerse (although in their times women would also immerse to eat food in ritual purity), yet at that very time "she purified herself from her uncleanness" - she had immersed from her niddah. Thus, there was neither the transgression of a married woman here nor the transgression of niddah, and this sin, too, did not cling to David.
וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתַּגֵּד לְדָוִד וַתֹּאמֶר הָרָה אָנֹכִי׃ - "And the woman conceived, and she sent and told David, and said: I am with child."
The Zohar states: Uriah departed and left her a get on the 7th of Sivan, and this incident took place on the 24th of Elul. Why is it important to know these dates? Because there must be three months of havchanah (distinction). A woman is forbidden to remarry within three months of separation, so that if she gives birth, there will be no doubt whether the child is a nine-month baby from the first husband or a seven-month baby from the second, since a woman can give birth to viable offspring after incomplete terms, either at seven months or nine months. Here, three full months had passed since Uriah was away from home, and therefore she was able to say to David with certainty, "I am with child," knowing clearly that the pregnancy was from him.
And how did she already know then that she had conceived? The Ralbag explains: She sensed her pregnancy immediately because her menstrual cycles ceased, meaning she stopped experiencing any bleeding, and from this she knew. Otherwise, she would have had to wait another three months until her pregnancy became visibly apparent.
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד אֶל־יוֹאָב שְׁלַח אֵלַי אֶת־אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי וַיִּשְׁלַח יוֹאָב אֶת־אוּרִיָּה אֶל־דָּוִד׃ - "And David sent to Yoav: Send me Uriah the Hittite. And Yoav sent Uriah to David."
Yoav was on the battlefield with Uriah, and David sent word that Uriah should be sent to Jerusalem. Here lies the Abarbanel's second charge: that David wanted Uriah to lie with his wife, thereby obscuring the true paternity of the unborn child so he would be considered Uriah's son - something that should never be done according to the Torah. To this the Malbim replies: David knew that he was the king and had full control over the matter, and he resolved in his heart that at some stage he would ensure the son knew his true status and whose son he was, so there would be no concern of him marrying someone forbidden to him.
וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאוּרִיָּה רֵד לְבֵיתְךָ וּרְחַץ רַגְלֶיךָ וַיֵּצֵא אוּרִיָּה מִבֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתֵּצֵא אַחֲרָיו מַשְׂאַת הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - "And David said to Uriah: Go down to your house and wash your feet. And Uriah departed from the king's house, and a gift from the king followed him."
"Go down to your house and wash your feet" - in simple terms: go home and be with your wife. "A gift from the king" refers to royal refreshments, a generous present, and an honorable meal sent after him.
וַיִּשְׁכַּב אוּרִיָּה פֶּתַח בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵת כָּל־עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנָיו וְלֹא יָרַד אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ׃ - "But Uriah slept at the door of the king's house with all the servants of his lord, and did not go down to his house."
The plan goes awry. And here, the Malbim notes, if we examine the verses carefully we see that Uriah had accumulated three offenses by this point. The first: he disobeyed the king's command. The king told him, "Go down to your house," meaning that he should stay in his home, yet he slept at "the entrance of the king's house" - not literally at the doorway, but in the courtyard where the king's servants slept. Why? Because he wanted to return to the battlefield, and he slept there as if to say: my stay here is temporary; I will immediately take my gear and head back up to battle. But there is no place to show devotion to the king against the king's explicit command. Once the king commands, do not make calculations as to why it might be justifiable to disregard his word - doing so makes you a rebel against the king (mored bemalchut). The second: he disparaged the royal gift. The king showed you honor and sent a generous portion after you, yet you did not go to your house to receive this honor and enjoy the royal feast with your wife.
וַיַּגִּדוּ לְדָוִד לֵאמֹר לֹא־יָרַד אוּרִיָּה אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־אוּרִיָּה הֲלוֹא מִדֶּרֶךְ אַתָּה בָא מַדּוּעַ לֹא־יָרַדְתָּ אֶל־בֵּיתֶךָ׃ - And they told David, saying, "Uriah did not go down to his house." And David said to Uriah, "Have you not come from a journey? Why did you not go down to your house?"
David did not want to show that he was angry, for if he did, Uriah would begin to suspect: Why is the king so insistent that I return to my house? Therefore, he asked him as an innocent question: After all, you have come from a journey, and Chazal taught that a man is obligated to visit his wife upon returning from a journey, so this is your obligation.
וַיֹּאמֶר אוּרִיָּה אֶל־דָּוִד הָאָרוֹן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה יֹשְׁבִים בַּסֻּכּוֹת וַאדֹנִי יוֹאָב וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חֹנִים וַאֲנִי אָבוֹא אֶל־בֵּיתִי לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת וְלִשְׁכַּב עִם־אִשְׁתִּי חַיֶּךָ וְחֵי נַפְשֶׁךָ אִם־אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה׃ - And Uriah said to David, "The Ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths, and my master Joab and the servants of my master are encamped in the open field; shall I then go to my house to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? By your life and by the life of your soul, I will not do this thing!"
In his response, he mentioned three things: the Ark, Israel, and Judah dwell in booths, without proper shelter over their heads; Joab and my master's servants are encamped in the open field, lacking even booths; and in the midst of his words - "and my master Joab." Here lies the third offense: Joab is your master? The king is your master! You have no other master when standing before the king. As we will see later, the wise woman of Tekoa whom Joab sent addressed the king regarding Joab as "your servant Joab," for one never says "my master" in the presence of the king when referring to someone else. This was the third act of rebellion, and because of it, Uriah became liable to the death penalty for rebelling against the monarchy.
וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־אוּרִיָּה שֵׁב בָּזֶה גַּם־הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר אֲשַׁלְּחֶךָּ וַיֵּשֶׁב אוּרִיָּה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא וּמִמָּחֳרָת׃ - And David said to Uriah, "Stay here today also, and tomorrow I will send you away." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next.
David understands that Uriah is uneasy and eager to return to battle, for he was one of the thirty-seven mighty warriors and could not bring himself to sit comfortably at home while his comrades were on the battlefield. Therefore, David told him: Do not worry, stay here today as well, and tomorrow I will send you back to the war. The main thing - go down to your house.
וַיִּקְרָא־לוֹ דָוִד וַיֹּאכַל לְפָנָיו וַיֵּשְׁתְּ וַיְשַׁכְּרֵהוּ וַיֵּצֵא בָעֶרֶב לִשְׁכַּב בְּמִשְׁכָּבוֹ עִם־עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנָיו וְאֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לֹא יָרָד׃ - And David summoned him, and he ate and drank before him, and he made him drunk; and in the evening he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his master, but he did not go down to his house.
David summons him, feeds him, gives him drink, and gets him drunk, reasoning that once intoxicated, he might finally return home. Even this does not work. "On his bed (bemishkavo)" - in the sleeping place where he had slept the previous night, where he already had a bed prepared. Notice the nuance: in verse 9 it says "et all the servants of his master," whereas here it says "im the servants of his master." As we explained based on the Vilna Gaon, "im" implies complete equality and a shared purpose, whereas "et" can denote merely incidental company where each pursues his own separate concerns. Initially, he slept "et" the servants of his master - a temporary, one-time arrangement. But after they bonded and became comrades, on the following night he sleeps "im" the servants of his master; it had already become his second home.
וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וַיִּכְתֹּב דָּוִד סֵפֶר אֶל־יוֹאָב וַיִּשְׁלַח בְּיַד אוּרִיָּה׃ - And it came to pass in the morning that David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah.
In the morning, David realizes that the plan will not succeed, and he pulls out a contingency plan, an emergency measure that is his only option. In Tanach and Chazal, the word sefer refers to a letter, as in "letters were sent by couriers," derived from sippur devarim, recounting matters - whatever a person wanted to tell was written in a letter.
וַיִּכְתֹּב בַּסֵּפֶר לֵאמֹר הָבוּ אֶת־אוּרִיָּה אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַחֲזָקָה וְשַׁבְתֶּם מֵאַחֲרָיו וְנִכָּה וָמֵת׃ - And he wrote in the letter, saying: Place Uriah opposite the fiercest battle, and fall back from behind him, that he may be struck down and die.
When Uriah dies, the whole story will not be revealed: everyone will be certain that since Uriah returned from the battlefield, and since he was here, he surely stopped by his home and that is how his wife became pregnant. Another part of the plan was that David would marry her immediately after his death, and then - while she was in the early stages of her pregnancy - by the time she reached the advanced months of pregnancy, everyone would assume the child was his. And that is indeed what David did later on.
And here David is cleared of the fourth accusation raised by the Abarbanel: that by sending Uriah to the war, he caused the death of many from Israel, since a dangerous battle had to be manufactured where he would perish, and one cannot orchestrate that he alone dies and not other warriors. The Malbim explains: Look closely at the wording of the verse, and this accusation falls away as well. "Place Uriah opposite the fiercest battle" - there was already a spot where the fiercest battle was raging, and only there were they to bring him, "and fall back from behind him." He did not tell him to initiate a battle or needlessly endanger soldiers, but rather to place him where fierce fighting was already taking place, so as not to create a situation that would endanger others. And why cause his death? We have already seen that he had incurred the death penalty for three reasons.
If Uriah deserved death, why did David not execute him through Beis Din? The Malbim explains: Had David executed him, he would have been prevented from marrying Batsheva, for people would have claimed that David killed her husband in order to take his wife.
By way of parenthesis, the commentators cite one reason why a Kohen Gadol is forbidden to marry a widow or a divorcee, "And he shall take a wife in her virginity" - lest on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, inside the Holy of Holies, the Kohen set his eyes upon a married woman and pray, "Master of the Universe, bring her husband close to You," so that his wife may become close to him. Therefore the Torah tells him: no, only "a wife in her virginity." And this itself shows us what human nature is: even a Kohen Gadol, on Yom Kippur, in the Holy of Holies - a person's nature and traits can ultimately sway him toward such thoughts.
וַיְהִי בִּשְׁמוֹר יוֹאָב אֶל־הָעִיר וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־אוּרִיָּה אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָדַע כִּי אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל שָׁם׃ - And it was, when Yoav besieged the city, that he assigned Uriah to the place where he knew that valiant men were.
"When Yoav besieged the city" - during the siege. The Malbim explains that it was customary for the men of a besieged city to make sorties from time to time and strike at the besieging army; therefore, warriors were stationed on the outside directly facing where the warriors on the inside were located. Yoav knew where the enemy's valiant men were, and there he positioned Uriah, who was himself a valiant warrior, one of David's thirty-seven mighty men.
וַיֵּצְאוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר וַיִּלָּחֲמוּ אֶת־יוֹאָב וַיִּפֹּל מִן־הָעָם מֵעַבְדֵי דָוִד וַיָּמָת גַּם אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי׃ - And the men of the city came out and fought with Yoav, and some of the people from David's servants fell, and Uriah the Hittite also died.
Notice: the men of the city came out and fought against Yoav, and soldiers from the people fell naturally as part of the war - not through an orchestrated slaughter, Heaven forbid - and among them, Uriah the Hittite also died.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יוֹאָב וַיַּגֵּד לְדָוִד אֵת כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה׃ וַיְצַו אֶת־הַמַּלְאָךְ לֵאמֹר כְּכַלּוֹתְךָ אֵת כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה לְדַבֵּר אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - Yoav sent and reported to David all the events of the war. And he commanded the messenger, saying, "When you have finished reporting all the matters of the war to the king..."
Yoav sends word to David, in other words telling him: your request has been fulfilled. The word "malach" here simply means the messenger.
וְהָיָה אִם־תַּעֲלֶה חֲמַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאָמַר לְךָ מַדּוּעַ נִגַּשְׁתֶּם אֶל־הָעִיר לְהִלָּחֵם הֲלוֹא יְדַעְתֶּם אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יֹרוּ מֵעַל הַחוֹמָה׃ מִי־הִכָּה אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן־יְרֻבֶּשֶׁת הֲלוֹא־אִשָּׁה הִשְׁלִיכָה עָלָיו פֶּלַח רֶכֶב מֵעַל הַחוֹמָה וַיָּמָת בְּתֵבֵץ לָמָּה נִגַּשְׁתֶּם אֶל־הַחוֹמָה וְאָמַרְתָּ גַּם עַבְדְּךָ אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי מֵת׃ - "And if the king's anger flares up and he says to you, 'Why did you approach so close to the city to fight? Did you not know that they would shoot from atop the wall? Who struck down Avimelech son of Yerubeshes? Did not a woman cast an upper millstone upon him from atop the wall, and he died in Tevetz? Why did you approach the wall?' - then you shall say, 'Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead as well.'"
"The son of Yerubeshes" refers to the son of Yerubaal (Gideon), and "pelach rechev" is part of a grinding millstone - the "rechev" being the upper, extremely heavy stone, which a woman threw onto him and killed him in the city of Tevetz. The Malbim explains that Yoav instructs the messenger: when you finish reporting the events of the battle, the king may become furious and demand why you approached the wall. This criticism comprises two arguments: first, that one must not come within shooting range of the wall at all, since those stationed atop the wall hold the advantage; and second, all the more so one must not stand directly beneath the wall, where even a woman could drop a heavy millstone and kill the greatest warrior, just as happened to Avimelech.
Let us note the precise wording: he anticipated the king asking "lamah" (why, toward what purpose) and not "madua" (why, from what cause). "Madua" addresses the past - what prior cause prompted this; "lamah" addresses the future - toward what purpose and goal. In other words: why did you approach the wall, what were you trying to achieve? And then: "you shall say, 'Your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead as well.'" Yet ostensibly, this is no answer at all - what is the connection between the question of why they approached the wall and the death of Uriah?
Rather, in his wisdom Yoav formulated a statement with a double meaning, as he did not want the messenger to realize that there was a secret understanding between himself and David. The messenger would understand one thing, while David would understand something else entirely. The messenger would understand it to mean: realize that Yoav was not to blame for this blunder; rather, Uriah the Hittite, one of David's mighty warriors, recklessly risked his life and charged toward the wall to attack, and the soldiers followed behind him, which is how he fell - meaning the blame lay with Uriah for initiating the charge, not with Yoav. On the other hand, Yoav's true intention was that once David heard that Uriah was dead as well, he would be mollified knowing his will had been done, and would not direct his anger at them.
וַיֵּלֶךְ הַמַּלְאָךְ וַיָּבֹא וַיַּגֵּד לְדָוִד אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ יוֹאָב׃ - So the messenger went, and he arrived and told David all that Yoav had sent him to report.
Notice the phrase: "all that Yoav had sent him to report." The messenger did not follow the conditional distinction Yoav had drawn - that only if the king became angry should he add this detail - but instead delivered everything at once, in order to preempt the king's anger from the outset.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמַּלְאָךְ אֶל־דָּוִד כִּי־גָבְרוּ עָלֵינוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיֵּצְאוּ אֵלֵינוּ הַשָּׂדֶה וַנִּהְיֶה עֲלֵיהֶם עַד־פֶּתַח הַשָּׁעַר׃ וַיֹּרְאוּ הַמּוֹרִאים אֶל־עֲבָדֶיךָ מֵעַל הַחוֹמָה וַיָּמוּתוּ מֵעַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְגַם עַבְדְּךָ אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי מֵת׃ - And the messenger said to David, "For the men overpowered us and came out against us into the open field, but we pushed back against them as far as the entrance of the gate. Then the archers shot at your servants from atop the wall, and some of the king's servants died; and your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead as well."
He preempts the king with the underlying cause: they came out against us to attack, and when one comes under attack, the best defense is a counterattack. Therefore, we struck back, and as they retreated, they drew us toward the wall; from there the archers shot at us, some of the king's servants fell, and Uriah was among them.
וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־הַמַּלְאָךְ כֹּה־תֹאמַר אֶל־יוֹאָב אַל־יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי־כָזֹה וְכָזֶה תֹּאכַל הֶחָרֶב הַחֲזֵק מִלְחַמְתְּךָ אֶל־הָעִיר וְהָרְסָהּ וְחַזְּקֵהוּ׃ - And David said to the messenger, "Thus shall you say to Yoav: Let this matter not be evil in your eyes, for the sword consumes as such and as such. Intensify your battle against the city and overthrow it; and encourage him."
David tells him: Although you think that approaching the wall was a mistake, know that it was the correct course of action. It is better to close in on the wall and fight desperately until breaching it than to prolong the days of the siege. For if you prolong the siege, the defenders inside will not sit idly by; they will constantly sally forth and attack our flanks, drawing you into a war of attrition. No nation desires a war of attrition. A single swift battle, heavy in casualties but decisive, is far preferable to a war of attrition that ultimately exacts a much higher toll in human life, as casualties mount continuously. This is the meaning of "for the sword consumes as such and as such": had you not moved in for an immediate assault, the sword of the defenders on the wall would have consumed twice as many of your men.
וַתִּשְׁמַע אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה כִּי־מֵת אוּרִיָּה אִישָׁהּ וַתִּסְפֹּד עַל־בַּעְלָהּ׃ וַיַּעֲבֹר הָאֵבֶל וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד וַיַּאַסְפָהּ אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וַתְּהִי־לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ בֵּן וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה דָוִד בְּעֵינֵי ה'׃ - And Uriah's wife heard that Uriah her husband had died, and she mourned for her husband. And when the mourning period was past, David sent and gathered her into his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of Hashem.
The next chapter deals with the rebuke: Hashem sends Nasan the Prophet to rebuke David with the parable of the poor man's ewe lamb. As soon as he is confronted, David repents immediately, declaring, "I have sinned," whereupon the prophet assures him, "Hashem has also set aside your sin."
This chapter opens with three words that lie at the very root of all that transpired: "And David remained in Jerusalem" - the king who did not go out to the battles of Hashem while all of Israel was in the field. From there onward, we learned from the Gemara that one should never invite temptation, and that physical desire operates in direct opposition to human intuition: satisfy it and it hungers, starve it and it is satisfied. We also saw how the Malbim, through his precise reading of the text, dismantles the accusations raised by the Abarbanel one by one: Batsheva was not a married woman, as anyone who went out to the wars of the House of David gave a conditional bill of divorce, and her grandfather Achitophel was the very one who instituted this ordinance; David took care to avoid even the prohibition of niddah; Uriah incurred the death penalty for treason against the monarchy through three distinct acts of defiance; and the directive was to place him where fierce fighting was already underway, so as not to endanger others. Yet despite all this, Scripture concludes, "But the thing that David had done was evil in the eyes of Hashem," teaching us that even when every action strictly conforms to the letter of the law, the King of Israel is not judged by the standard of ordinary men. With God's help, the comprehensive understanding of this entire episode, as illuminated by Rav Dessler and elucidated through the Zohar, will be examined further in the narrative.