Chapter 12 of Shmuel B is the chapter of rebuke. The prophet Natan is sent to King David and delivers to him a brief parable about a rich man and a poor man, a parable that ends with the terrible words, "You are the man." In this chapter we will learn why the rebuke had to come specifically through a parable, what precisely the claim against David was, and what the punishments decreed upon him mean, measure for measure.
The Malbim explains that the rebuke came because David, in the end, emerged clean from the whole affair. Bat Sheva was already with him; Uriah the Hittite, the stumbling stone, was gone, and he had been killed by law, as one who rebels against the monarchy. The problem of a married woman was also resolved, since everyone who went out to fight in the wars of the house of David would write his wife a bill of divorce, and since Uriah did not return from the war, the divorce took effect and she was divorced. We said that a situation could have arisen in which Uriah would have been alone with his wife and then there would have been a prohibition, and David acted so that there would be no destruction to the monarchy, but even this concern did not materialize, for Uriah was not alone with his wife. Thus David, as it were, washed his hands in innocence and said: everything came about permissibly, it could not be better than this. Precisely for this reason Natan the prophet had to come and rebuke him.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהֹוָה אֶת־נָתָן אֶל־דָּוִד וַיָּבֹא אֵלָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים הָיוּ בְּעִיר אֶחָת אֶחָד עָשִׁיר וְאֶחָד רָאשׁ׃ - And Hashem sent Natan to David, and he came to him and said to him: There were two men in one city, one rich and one poor.
At first glance this is puzzling: why come to the king of Israel by way of a parable? We would expect the prophet to say simply: I have received a prophecy from Hashem, your deeds did not find favor in the eyes of the Creator of the world. What need is there for a children's story, for a dialogue, for David to render judgment himself on the parable and only afterward be told, "You are the one meant"? All this length seems superfluous between a prophet and a king.
Rather, this is what the masters of mussar say: a person has defense mechanisms. When you present a person with his own deeds and ask him about them, he will find a thousand and one excuses to explain himself. The only way to bypass the defense mechanisms is to detach him from the story and attach the story to another person. When I detach you from the deed, your judgment is just. There are no interests, no attempt to cover for my own deeds, no perpetual desire to judge myself favorably. I once said that it is not correct to say that people do not judge favorably; most people always judge favorably, themselves. How many merits we find in ourselves, how many explanations, how many excuses, without end.
And King David had excuses in abundance, especially according to what we saw: Bat Sheva was fit for him from the six days of creation by virtue of his reincarnation, she was the extra twin destined for him; "David was not fit for that deed, except to teach the way of repentance"; the Holy One, blessed be He, enlarged his inclination in a manner beyond nature, as we explained in the previous lesson. Had they approached him directly and said, "David, tsk tsk tsk," he would have answered: what do you want? From such a deed I came out clean. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He detached the deed from him: come, let me tell you a different story, tell me your opinion of it. And the moment David pronounced his judgment and was told, "You are the man," he did not add a word of argument: "And David said to Natan: I have sinned against Hashem." It is over. There are no arguments.
A parable by its nature exaggerates, and so it is here: on one side a rich man, and on the other a poor man, a great pauper. And note that the word is written "רָאשׁ" with an aleph (and the aleph is silent), to hint that this poor man was indeed poor in a certain respect, that he had only one wife, and he is Uriah, but at the same time he was also among the foremost (rosh) of David's warriors. Therefore it is read "rash" but written with an aleph, from the word rosh, head.
לְעָשִׁיר הָיָה צֹאן וּבָקָר הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד׃ וְלָרָשׁ אֵין־כֹּל כִּי אִם־כִּבְשָׂה אַחַת קְטַנָּה אֲשֶׁר קָנָה וַיְחַיֶּהָ וַתִּגְדַּל עִמּוֹ וְעִם־בָּנָיו יַחְדָּו מִפִּתּוֹ תֹאכַל וּמִכֹּסוֹ תִשְׁתֶּה וּבְחֵיקוֹ תִשְׁכָּב וַתְּהִי־לוֹ כְּבַת׃ - The rich man had very many flocks and herds. But the poor man had nothing except one small ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared, and it grew up together with him and with his children; it would eat from his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him.
"Very many flocks and herds" hints at David, who had many wives. And in contrast, the poor man who had only one small ewe, this is Bat Sheva, and Uriah the Hittite who had only one wife. "Which he had bought" is a term of marriage, for "bought" means "took," that he married her as a wife. "And it grew up together with him and with his children" - and from where did children come here? Our Sages say that Uriah had been married before and had children from his previous wife, and those children were now growing up in the house together with Bat Sheva. From her he had no children, as the holy Zohar testifies that he did not approach her; and therefore it says "his children" and not "their children," his own children alone. And the entire description, "it would eat from his morsel and drink from his cup and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him," is meant to magnify the sin: to describe the affection and closeness between them, and how a man came and violated this idyll. And incidentally, "and it was like a daughter to him" also hints that he did not come upon her.
וַיָּבֹא הֵלֶךְ לְאִישׁ הֶעָשִׁיר וַיַּחְמֹל לָקַחַת מִצֹּאנוֹ וּמִבְּקָרוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת לָאֹרֵחַ הַבָּא־לוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת־כִּבְשַׂת הָאִישׁ הָרָאשׁ וַיַּעֲשֶׂהָ לָאִישׁ הַבָּא אֵלָיו׃ - A traveler came to the rich man, and he was too sparing to take from his own flock and herd to prepare for the guest who had come to him, so he took the poor man's ewe and prepared it for the man who had come to him.
A guest arrived at the rich man, and it pained his heart to slaughter from his own flock and herd: my neighbor has a ewe, I will go and take his. There are two aspects here that magnify the sin. The first aspect: you have so much, take from your own. And the second aspect: who even arrived here? Did the king come to visit him? A government minister? "וַיָּבֹא הֵלֶךְ" - just a traveler, an unimportant person, for whom there is no need to do so much. And since you said, "I have a free ewe right here," you turned the traveler into a guest, and from the guest into a man, until he became, as it were, the master of the house.
Here Chazal come and say that there is a hint to the evil inclination. If a person does not shut the door in its face completely but instead gives it a small foothold, at first it is a "traveler" - a passerby who only drops in for a visit; afterward it is a "guest" - already lodging in your house on a regular basis; and finally "the man who came to him" - it is the master of the house, it rules over you and leads you by the nose, and whatever it demands you will do. Therefore a person must know: while it is still a traveler, shut the door, do not give it a foothold, for if you do, in the end it will become the master over you.
This hint is also directed at David himself: at first he only saw her - a traveler; afterward he desired her - the inclination had already become a guest; and finally he took her for himself as a wife - and it had already become the master of the house.
וַיִּחַר־אַף דָּוִד בָּאִישׁ מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־נָתָן חַי־יְהֹוָה כִּי בֶן־מָוֶת הָאִישׁ הָעֹשֶׂה זֹאת׃ וְאֶת־הַכִּבְשָׂה יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבַּעְתָּיִם עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְעַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־חָמָל׃ - David's anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Natan, "As the Lord lives, the man who did this deserves to die. And he shall pay for the ewe fourfold, because he did this thing and because he had no pity."
David swore in the name of the Lord that such a man deserves death, and his mind was not settled until he added that he must pay for the ewe fourfold. And how much is fourfold? Some say four times over, and some say that "four" means four times over while "fourfold" means twice four, that is, eight times over.
But here two weighty difficulties arise. First, is there a case where a person is put to death and also pays? After all, we have the principle "he is subject to the greater penalty" - he is judged by the greater of the two punishments. And second, is there a case where a person steals and becomes liable for his life? True, in the laws of Heaven it is said, "and He will rob the life of those who rob them," that from one who robs Israel the Lord takes his life; but in the earthly punishments, when the case comes before the king to judge, is a death sentence ever given for robbery? However severe the robbery, it does not carry the death penalty.
The Malbim says: there is a difference between the law of the king and the law of the judges, and he has already mentioned this principle earlier. A judge who renders a verdict must rule according to all the rules of law and justice set down by the Torah: he requires two witnesses, examination and cross-examination, that the testimony not contradict itself in any detail, and he cannot impose a punishment greater than what is written - Shabbat desecration by stoning, murder by the sword, and so on, each matter according to its law. But the king is not bound by all this. The king is given the power to stand in the breach and set up a fence even in matters that are not according to protocol and not according to the book; he is not required to examine witnesses if he sees with his own eyes that the matter is true, and he can decree a far more severe punishment in order to set up a fence.
As we find in Chazal: once a man rode a horse on Shabbat. What prohibition is there here? Driving an animal. If the animal is his own, there is a Torah prohibition on the grounds of "so that it may rest," and if it is not his own, there is only a rabbinic prohibition, lest he cut off a branch. And nevertheless they took him out on Sunday to the place of stoning and stoned him. The Gemara says: not because the law is so, but because that generation needed it. If the sages did this, all the more so a king.
This is what David said: indeed, according to the laws of the Torah such a man does not carry this sentence, but when I see an act of cruelty so terrible, I see a need to stand in the breach and judge him by the law of the king and not by the law of the judges - to sentence him to death, and furthermore to have him pay fourfold. And therefore he concluded: "עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה" - this refers to the restitution, for stealing and slaughtering; "וְעַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־חָמָל" - for this he receives the death penalty. That is, by law it is not due to him, but because of the terrible lack of mercy in the deed, I decree upon him this sentence by the power of the monarchy.
Where was David punished fourfold? The Sages say that this was exactly the punishment he received: the child born to him from Bat Sheva died - that is one; Amnon was murdered by Avshalom - that is two; Tamar was violated by Amnon - that is three; Avshalom was killed by Yoav - that is four. And some remove Tamar and put Adoniyahu in her place, for a death sentence was decreed upon him too, and thus it fits that all four died - David's four sons. He pronounced his own sentence.
וַיֹּאמֶר נָתָן אֶל־דָּוִד אַתָּה הָאִישׁ כֹּה־אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָנֹכִי מְשַׁחְתִּיךָ לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָנֹכִי הִצַּלְתִּיךָ מִיַּד שָׁאוּל׃ - And Natan said to David: You are the man. Thus says Hashem, the God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I saved you from the hand of Shaul.
For the act itself alone he cannot be punished, neither under the law of a murderer nor under the law of an adulterer: he is no murderer, since Uriya was liable to death; he is no adulterer, since he gave her a bill of divorce. Under what clause, then, can he be charged? Under theft. Here was a man who had a ewe, who had a wife, and you stole her from under his hand. You may claim that she was not a married woman and that he was liable to death - all well and good, but what will you answer for the theft?
And from here on the prophet shows him that his situation is very grave. First, "אָנֹכִי מְשַׁחְתִּיךָ לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל" - you are not an ordinary man. A private individual who sins and stumbles, his sin makes no waves; but a king who sins, his deeds are a proof and a sign to the entire nation of how to conduct themselves, and people will learn and act as you do. And second, "וְאָנֹכִי הִצַּלְתִּיךָ מִיַּד שָׁאוּל" - is this the gratitude for all My kindnesses and for the wondrous personal providence that accompanied you, as we saw in the earlier chapters, when several times you stood a step away from death and Hashem saved you? Is this the fitting deed after such providence clung to you?
וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת־בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה וְאִם־מְעָט וְאֹסִפָה לְּךָ כָּהֵנָּה וְכָהֵנָּה׃ - And I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your bosom, and I gave you the house of Israel and Yehuda, and if that were too little, I would add for you as much again and again.
"Your master's house" - that you would rule over all of Shaul's house. "And your master's wives" - here there are two views: some say the reference is not to Shaul's wives but to a woman from the house of Shaul, namely Michal, whom David married; and there is a further explanation, as brought in the Yerushalmi and the Midrash, that David also married Ritzpa bat Aya, who was Shaul's concubine, and she is the one called "your master's wives." "וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה" - at first he reigned in Chevron seven years, and afterward Hashem arranged that all Israel would come as one man to accept his kingship in absolute fashion.
"וְאִם־מְעָט" - if the wives you have are too few for you, "וְאֹסִפָה לְּךָ כָּהֵנָּה וְכָהֵנָּה." How many wives did David have at that time? Six. And when Hashem says to him "as much again" - another six, "and again" - another six, that comes to eighteen. For a king may not marry more than eighteen wives. And it is the king who is limited: any man may marry wives without limit, if he wants a hundred he may marry a hundred, a thousand a thousand; only the king is limited. And the reason is that with the king there is greater concern that his wives may lead his heart astray, as happened with Shlomo HaMelech. This is the source for the king marrying only eighteen wives, and indeed so it was with David in the end.
מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת־דְּבַר יְהֹוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינַי אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן׃ - Why have you despised the word of Hashem, to do what is evil in My eyes? Uriya the Chittite you struck by the sword, and his wife you took for yourself as a wife, and him you killed by the sword of the children of Ammon.
He says to him: even if under the laws of flesh and blood you can justify yourself, under the laws of the Creator of the world you have no justification, for "you have despised the word of Hashem." And here there are three charges. The first: "אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב" - by way of the fact that "אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה." And here there is a tremendous observation. You claim that Uriya was liable to death, because he spoke without honor to the king and said "my lord Yoav," and because he did not heed the king's command to go down to his house. But think for a moment: had you not taken Bat Sheva in the first place, would Uriya have come to death at all? Not in the least. Everything revolves around taking her: it was because of this that you needed to cover up the deed, and for that you sent to Yoav to send you Uriya so that he would go down to his wife, and when he refused, he became liable to death. Had you not taken Bat Sheva, Uriya would have continued in the field of battle, they would have defeated the children of Ammon, and he would have returned to his wife and lived to a hundred and twenty. It emerges that you are right that he became liable to death, but the chain leading to that liability came from you, and therefore it is considered as though you killed him.
The second charge: "וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה" - the matter of the theft we mentioned. And the third charge: "וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן." We explained in the previous lesson that being killed by the sword of the children of Ammon was a harsh death, a death by the kina demesaavuta, by the serpent that was engraved on the sword of the children of Ammon. If he deserves death, kill him according to the law of those executed by the court, that he die at the hand of Israel in a dignified manner; why did you send him to die at the hand of the uncircumcised? This is a transgression in its own right.
One could ask: did David actually kill him? Why is it attributed to him? For if I say to Reuven, "Go and kill Shimon," and Reuven goes and kills, who is considered the murderer? Reuven. For we have a rule: "there is no agency for a matter of transgression." And what will you say, "He told me to"? When the words of the master and the words of the student conflict, whose words do we heed? The Holy One, blessed be He, says to you: I told you not to murder, and you listen to him?
The Radak explains: with any ordinary person this argument holds, but when it concerns a king, whoever does not obey his command, the king will put him to death. Since that is so, the fear of the king rests upon his subjects, and the act is attributed to the king. Let us understand this well: by strict law a person is obligated to refuse even a king, and even if they tell him the king will kill him, he must say, "I am ready to die and not to kill," for there are three transgressions - idolatry, forbidden relations, and bloodshed - regarding which one must be killed rather than transgress. So too it was said to Yehoshua, "Any man who rebels against your word shall be put to death," and the Sages expounded: could this include even a matter of transgression? Scripture teaches, "only be strong and courageous" - "only" comes to limit: if the king commands something that goes against the laws of the Torah, one may not obey him.
Even so, the fear of the king naturally rested upon his subjects, and it is hard to come to them with a complaint as to why they carried out the king's word; therefore the sin is charged to the king: you killed, David, for the subject is afraid to disobey your command. So too we find with Shaul, who was held accountable for Nov, the city of priests, even though it was Doeg the Edomite who did the killing - since he was the king, the matter was charged to him. So too here: Yoav killed, but the sin is charged to David. True, Yoav should have refused, and indeed we have seen some who refused, and they were superior in that they did not obey the king's word when he commanded something improper.
וְעַתָּה לֹא־תָסוּר חֶרֶב מִבֵּיתְךָ עַד־עוֹלָם עֵקֶב כִּי בְזִתָנִי וַתִּקַּח אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה׃ - And now the sword shall never depart from your house, forever, because you have despised Me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.
Now the prophet decrees upon him the two punishments that David himself had pronounced upon the rich man. Corresponding to "the man deserves to die" comes a punishment of death, "the sword shall never depart from your house," and this punishment was to fall upon his sons. And why? "Because you have despised Me" - for the act contained a contempt for the honor of Heaven; when people see such a thing, there is in it a desecration of God's name.
כֹּה אָמַר יְהֹוָה הִנְנִי מֵקִים עָלֶיךָ רָעָה מִבֵּיתֶךָ וְלָקַחְתִּי אֶת־נָשֶׁיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ וְנָתַתִּי לְרֵעֶיךָ וְשָׁכַב עִם־נָשֶׁיךָ לְעֵינֵי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ הַזֹּאת׃ - Thus says Hashem: Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your fellow, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun.
כִּי אַתָּה עָשִׂיתָ בַסָּתֶר וַאֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה נֶגֶד כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃ - For you did it in secret, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.
Corresponding to your taking the wife of Uriah - measure for measure, someone from your own house will arise and take your wives. You took one woman, and he will take all ten concubines; and this fits the decree of restitution that he himself pronounced - just as one who steals pays several times over, so too you will pay several times over. And there is a further difference: you did it in secret, and he will do it openly, "in the sight of this sun," in public. And why in public? So that all will know that King David was punished for his deed, and that no one should take legitimacy from the act to behave as he did.
We have said in the past and we repeat it: there is no way to say that King David did not sin at all. These are explicit verses that David sinned. And all that we spoke about "whoever says David sinned is simply mistaken" - Rashi there explains that the meaning is: whoever says David sinned with a married woman, or that he sinned through murder. There was no adultery and no murder here, and both of these matters were done in a permitted manner, as we explained. Rather, the whole way in which the matter unfolded was improper, and the matter of the robbery was an improper thing. And even though everything is permitted to a king, there was in this a desecration of God's name, and according to David's level the demand upon him is far more severe. We never said that the act was entirely proper - for a proper act one does not send a prophet, there is no rebuke and there are no punishments. See this from the punishments themselves.
Natan the prophet was sent to rebuke David specifically by means of a parable, in order to bypass the defense mechanisms and excuses that David might have raised, and so that he himself would pronounce his own verdict. The parable magnifies the sin from two sides: that the rich man did not take from his own, and that the traveler was not worthy of it at all. In its hint it also teaches about the way of the evil inclination, which starts as a passerby, becomes a guest, and then becomes the master of the house. David decreed death and fourfold payment by the power of the law of the king, which is not bound by the ordinary procedures of the judges, and in that very fourfold he himself was punished through four of his sons. The claim against him was for the theft, for bringing about the death of Uriah, and for the fact that he was killed specifically by the sword of the children of Ammon, and because he was king, the deed was reckoned to his account. And when he was told "You are the man," he did not argue but said "I have sinned against Hashem," and this is his greatness.