Psalm 51 is King David's psalm of repentance, uttered when Natan the prophet came to him. In this part, we examine the verses where David explains, as it were according to the strict line of justice, why the Holy One, blessed be He, should show him mercy: "So that You may be justified in Your words, vindicated in Your judgment." And the reasoning: the very formation of man primes him for sin and iniquity.
הֵן־בְּעָווֹן חוֹלָלְתִּי וּבְחֵטְא יֶחֱמַתְנִי אִמִּי׃ - Behold, in iniquity I was brought forth, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Interpretations here abound. Rashi explains: "Behold, in iniquity I was brought forth" - how could I not sin, when the primary means of my creation was through physical intimacy, through which so many sins occur? This is similar to what Radak cites in the name of his father, that David says this to mitigate his fault: I was formed through the very manner of the transgression I committed. What was the transgression? Carnal union. And was I not created from carnal union, from the droplet of seed from which "my mother conceived me"? Like a person who sows bitter seeds, what will sprout if not bitter produce? Everything follows its origins, and since man was formed from a drop of seed through the act of physical intimacy, his nature is naturally drawn in that direction.
And even if one might argue: There is a forbidden realm and a permitted realm; you performed the forbidden act, whereas you yourself were formed in the permitted manner, which possesses an element of holiness alongside its element of flaw. In any event, the commentators explain, since this drive is man's nature and the origin of his physical being, do not wonder that his inclination should overpower him in this realm. Radak's father notes that man does not harbor a physical attraction toward theft and murder in the way he is drawn toward illicit relations (arayot). The Gemara states that the soul of man covets both theft and illicit relations, yet there is no comparison between them: the lust for arayot is far more intense than the craving for theft. Theft and murder are not inherent to human nature, for man was not created from them; but the realm of physical passion is inherent to his nature, since he was formed through physical union. Therefore, the righteous person who masters his desires in the realm of intimacy when his inclination assaults him achieves something greater than one who restrains his spirit from stealing or committing another transgression: one who overcomes the inclination for illicit relations is greater than one who overcomes the inclination to steal, because one is embedded in his nature while the other is not.
Radak brings another explanation in the name of Ibn Ezra: there is an allusion here to Eve, who bore children only after she had sinned. Thus, "in sin did my mother conceive me" indicates that Eve gave birth only after the sin, so from the very outset every descendant was born flawed and impaired by sin. "Yechamatni" (יחמתני) denotes warmth and arousal, as Radak explains: the passion and heating of the female with the male, from which emerges the droplet of seed that produces the offspring. And why did David attribute this specifically to his mother? Radak explains that the mother is the primary cause of conceiving a male child more than the father, as it is written, "If a woman conceives seed and bears a male child" - when a woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male. Thus, I was born primarily through the force of my mother's arousal.
Our Sages note a precise textual detail: the word "iniquity" (בעוון) is written here in a very rare full spelling with two vavs, whereas throughout the Torah and Tanach it is almost always written with a single vav; such a full spelling calls for exposition. Thus Chazal expounded: even the most pious of men cannot be entirely free of some trace of iniquity in this matter - in the act of marital intimacy.
Consider this wondrous Midrash: David said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Master of the Universe, did my father Yishai intend to bring me into the world? Did he not intend solely for his own gratification?" We speak of the most pious among the pious, who commanded vast multitudes and of whom it is said that he died only because of the instigation of the primordial serpent - yet King David says he intended only for his own gratification. And what was his proof? "Know that it is so, for once they satisfy their needs, one turns their face this way and the other turns their face that way, yet You orchestrate every single drop within me." That is to say, after marital intimacy, each turns in their own direction; the person fulfilled his desire, and it is done. This is what David meant by: "Though my father and my mother have forsaken me, the Lord will gather me in" - after they did what they did and each turned aside to their own pleasure, the One who gathered me, built me, and formed every drop of my being was Hashem.
The Malbim explains how, as it were, justice itself dictates that the Holy One, blessed be He, should remove the iniquity (*avon*), as it says, "So that You may be justified in Your words and clear when You judge." The answer is that man is inherently predisposed by nature both to *avon* (iniquity) and to *chet* (sin). *Avon*, as the Malbim explains on several occasions, is a distortion of the intellect: not merely a stumble, but the construction of an ideology around the sin. A *chet* is a failure - I stumbled, my desire overcame me. An *avon* is when afterward one justifies what he did and says it was the right thing, and here the intellect becomes distorted. And beyond distortions of the intellect relating to idolatry and the like, which certainly fall into the category of *avon*, the Malbim explains that simply by virtue of being enclosed in a corporeal body, it is easy for man to err in intellectual matters: in matters of contemplation, thought, and reason, man is drawn after the physical and goes astray in them.
This is the meaning of "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity (*avon*)": the very nature of my creation almost inevitably implies a distortion of intellect, for I was created within a corporeal body, and in such a reality the intellect easily becomes distorted. On the other hand, I am also predisposed to sin (*chet*), for *chet* represents inadvertence and physical passion. We refer to passion as inadvertence because, as the Sages put it, "his evil inclination compelled him"; therefore, lust is viewed in the framework of unintentional error rather than brazen malice. The exception is like what we find with Amnon, where Chazal describe a mindset of "What pleasure do you have? I act only to anger my Creator," which is an entirely different matter. Generally, however, when dealing with a sin born of passion, a person is considered as if coerced by his inclination. This does not permit the act, but it reduces it from intentional rebellion (*meizid*) to the category of unintentional error (*shogeg*). This is "and in sin did my mother conceive me": from the very start I was born predisposed to sin through passion, because having been conceived through heat - that is, through passion - the drive of desire was embedded within me. Consequently, "You will be clear when You judge": by the strict rules of justice, You ought to judge me with grace and mercy, for both the *avon* stemming from my bodily existence, and the *chet* stemming from my having been formed through heat and passion, are what led me to stumble.
The Chida, in *Chomat Anach*, cites the well-known episode from *Yalkut HaMachiri*. Yishai wished to be with his Canaanite maidservant, and his intention was to purify his lineage. Yishai was perpetually concerned about the prohibition, "An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of the Lord." The Gemara explains that mamzerim can purify their lineage through a method that was more common in their times: a man takes a Canaanite maidservant - who has the status of a semi-Israelite, having undergone a partial conversion process and being obligated in mitzvot - and lies with her, and when she becomes pregnant, he frees her. A freed Canaanite slave becomes a full Israelite, and the child born to her is likewise a full Israelite. Although conception took place while she still held the status of a non-Jew, since the child is born to a freed Israelite mother, he is considered a full Israelite, with no lingering taint from the father's lineage. In this way, Yishai sought to father at least one son who would unquestionably be an Israelite, unlike his other children whose status was under doubt due to their descent from Ruth the Moabitess. Although the Halachah was later clarified and established that the prohibition applies to "an Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; a Moabite, but not a Moabitess" - since men were distanced and not women, based on "because they did not meet you with bread and water," and it is the way of men to greet wayfarers, not women - at that time the Halachah was still not firmly settled, as seen in several Talmudic passages. Therefore, Yishai sought to purify his lineage.
When Yishai's maidservant was told to prepare for that evening, it seemed improper to her, and she went and informed her mistress, Yishai's wife, Nitzevet bat Adael. Her mistress said to her, "Say nothing; I will come in your place and he will not know." And so it was: that evening they switched places, and the one who conceived was Nitzevet bat Adael, while Yishai never had relations with the maidservant. Nine months later, Nitzevet gave birth. Yishai was astounded, for he had kept away from her for many years so as not to father more children under the suspected Moabite taint. Suddenly he saw her pregnant, and the suspicion immediately arose that she had conceived through infidelity. He had no idea about the switch, because his wife had promised the maidservant never to reveal it, so the maidservant would not be disgraced before Yishai: "I share a secret matter with you, and you go and disclose it to my wife?" To prevent any grievance on Yishai's part, Nitzevet concealed the matter. Thus David grew up there, with Yishai keeping him at a distance and sending him out to tend the sheep. Through this account, several verses are illuminated: "I have become a stranger to my brothers" - *muzar* (stranger) being related to *mamzer* - "and an alien to my mother's children." This is also why, when Shmuel asks whether there are any other sons and Yishai replies that one remains tending the flock, Chazal explain that Yishai thought: "He has come to uncover my iniquity" - that is, to publicize that we have a flawed son in the family. Then came the command, "Arise, anoint him, for this is he," and the rest is history.
Based on this episode, the Metzudat David writes that King David was akin to a *ben temurah* (a child of substitution). What is the definition of a *ben temurah*? It is a very grave matter. Chazal teach: a man must not be with one woman while thinking of another, or believe he is with one woman while he is actually with another without knowing it, even if both are his lawful wives. This is termed a *ben temurah*, and it is one of the nine categories of children regarding whom it is said, "And I will purge from among you the rebels and those who transgress against Me," Heaven spare us. Accordingly, since Yishai was thinking of the maidservant and did not realize she was his wife, David was in the category of a *ben temurah*, and regarding this he said, "and in sin did my mother conceive me."
On the other hand, the Chida cites the Rama of Fano in his work *Asarah Ma'amarot* ("V'Echad Kadosh Medaber"), who asserts that David was not a *ben temurah*, God forbid, just as Reuven was not a *ben temurah*, even though Yaakov thought he was with Rachel and it turned out to be Leah. Seemingly, that would be the classic case of a *ben temurah*, where a man thinks he is with one woman and is actually with another. Why was he not? The Rama of Fano explains that the decisive factor depends upon the mother's intention. Therefore, both Reuven and David were completely untainted, for the mother knew that a substitution had taken place. This is what David meant by "Behold, in iniquity" - on my father's part there was an *avon*, for he erred and thought she was his maidservant, "and in sin did my mother conceive me" - on my mother's part it was a minor sin (*chet*), for she misled my father. Nevertheless, this does not have the legal status of a *ben temurah*, because the primary factor depends on the mother's mindset, and the mother's intention was pure.
In passing, it is worth noting what is written on this topic in *Mishnat HaGilgulim* regarding Reuven and the substitution: there is an opinion that Reuven did indeed retain an exceedingly subtle trace of a *ben temurah* due to this flaw. For this reason, it is taught that Reuven did not inherit within the Land of Israel proper, but on the other side of the Jordan, as though he was not permitted entry into the Land of Israel, and his tribe was consequently the first to go into exile. According to this view, there was, as it were, a subtle deficiency in him, which is why he lost all his birthright privileges: as the firstborn, he should have received the monarchy, the priesthood, and a double portion; yet we see that the kingship was given to Yehudah, the priesthood to Levi, and the double portion to Yosef. Some explain that this stemmed from that very deficiency, because Yaakov's thoughts were directed toward Rachel rather than Leah, leaving a subtle flaw at the very foundation. Through this, commentators also explain why Reuven later stumbled in a similar vein by rearranging his father's couch - which mirrored the very circumstance of his conception, where Yaakov's couch had been switched and Leah brought in place of Rachel. So too, Reuven acted, regarding which Scripture states, "and Reuven went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine," which Chazal interpret as having rearranged his father's couch.
After the act, a person feels remorse, for what is passion? It is a force that compels one to sin, and therefore immediately afterward, remorse sets in. When a person sins out of outright rebellion, however, he does not feel immediate remorse; on the contrary, his desire was to rebel and cast off restraint. But when an act stems from overwhelming passion, the moment that compelling force subsides, the person instantly realizes that he erred and went astray. The Radak explains that the very presence of remorse serves as proof that the entire episode occurred solely under the sway of passion.
הֵן־אֱמֶת חָפַצְתָּ בַטֻּחוֹת וּבְסָתֻם חׇכְמָה תוֹדִיעֵנִי׃ - Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts, and in the hidden realm You teach me wisdom.
The Radak explains: And You will make known to me the path of truth, and in hidden matters You will teach me wisdom. That is to say: I desire to fulfill Your will and I regret what I did; therefore, I ask that You show me the truth and the upright path, and in obscure matters guide me in the path of truth, so that my heart may be directed purely toward Your service, for I am deeply grieved that I strayed from Your path and acted against Your will.
Rashi explains differently, and his explanation resolves a difficulty: If you say that Hashem desires inwardness, what is the meaning of asking that He teach you wisdom? Rashi explains: "And in the hidden realm You teach me wisdom" - in the heart, which is concealed, You taught me wisdom to confess. Now the pieces fall into place: David says, "Behold, You desire truth in the inward parts," and I confess and regret what occurred, and even this comes from You, for into this hidden heart You granted me the wisdom and understanding to confess before You, to regret, and immediately say, "I have sinned."
This was David's great virtue: even what could be attributed to himself - after all, I repented, I felt remorse - he also attributes to the Holy One, blessed be He, knowing that He was the One who placed it in his heart. This strongly characterizes David's way, for he did not take a single step without the Master of the Universe: in everything he consulted the Holy One, blessed be He - "Shall I go up?", "Will You deliver them into my hand?", shall I go up to Jerusalem, has the time of my kingship arrived? At every single stage he clung to and consulted the Holy One, blessed be He. And here too: even the teshuvah I did is not from me but from You, Master of the Universe. So too, when Shimei ben Gera cursed him, David said that he was not the one cursing, but rather the Holy One, blessed be He, told him to curse. In each and every thing, he saw the Master of the Universe.
The holy Alshich explains "Behold, I was formed in iniquity" in a marvelous way. We have seen in the verse "You have examined my heart, You have visited me by night" that David says: When I asked, "Examine me, Hashem, and test me," You know that my mouth and my heart were not at odds, Heaven forbid; my true intention was to serve You, to withstand the trial, and to overcome. You examined my heart and saw that the request was genuine and sincere, not mere lip service, but the outcome was unsuccessful and ultimately I did not withstand it. This is why Chazal say: David was not fitting for that deed, but it occurred only in order to teach repentance to an individual - so that if an individual sins, etc. In other words, my deed did not materialize properly, and this is "so that You may be justified in Your words," so that the Holy One, blessed be He, would be shown to be just. This concept requires explanation, and we have explained it on another occasion.
To this David responds and says: Master of the Universe, "Behold, I was formed in iniquity" - from the very outset I was conceived through a path of iniquity. Where did I come from? From the daughters of Lot, who lay with their father. My entire formation stems from the power of iniquity, from the sin of illicit relations, and from there David was born. And Chazal say: "I have found David My servant" - and where did I find him? In Sodom. There, in that act, the root of the House of David was planted. Says David: If in the root itself there is such an iniquity of illicit relations, is it any wonder that it later bursts forth in the branches and fruit?