Introduction: King David's Psalm of Repentance
Psalm 51 is King David's psalm of confession, uttered "when Natan the prophet came to him after he had gone to Bat-sheva." David seeks atonement, delineates the nature of his sin, and teaches how a person should stand before his Creator after stumbling. In this lesson, we will examine two central verses - "For I know my transgressions" and "Against You alone have I sinned" - and discover within them a complete path of repentance, as elucidated by the Rishonim, the Malbim, the Zohar, and the Midrashim.
"And My Sin Is Before Me Constantly" - The Sin That Never Leaves One's Sight
כִּי פְשָׁעַי אֲנִי אֵדָע וְחַטָּאתִי נֶגְדִּי תָמִיד׃ - For I know my transgressions, and my sin is before me constantly.
Rashi explains: What is the meaning of "my sin is before me constantly"? Because I constantly regret it and worry over it, it seems to me as though it stands before me always. The sin is continually in front of my eyes because I repent for it unceasingly. Based on this verse, the holy books write that sins one confessed on this Yom Kippur should be confessed again on the following Yom Kippur. By continually remembering one's sin, the laundering and cleansing are magnified.
This is easily understood from human relationships: if someone hurts us, says a quick "sorry," and considers the matter closed, it is difficult for us to forgive. We feel that the apology was merely lip service, offered only because he felt pressured. But when we see that the matter continuously bothers him, that he remembers it and genuinely feels remorseful about what he did - the heart opens, compassion is aroused, and we are willing to let go and forgive. The same applies toward Heaven: one must remember his sin year after year.
And let a person not say: "I have not desecrated Shabbat in years; why should I confess to desecrating Shabbat?" First of all, Baruch Hashem, fortunate are you to have merited that - yet whenever you confess, you must still mention "we have desecrated Shabbat." Furthermore: can a Shabbat-observant person truly claim he has never desecrated Shabbat? The Ya'arot Devash writes that if a person has not studied the laws of Shabbat thoroughly and is not well-versed in them, it is impossible for a single Shabbat to pass without his desecrating it - he will inevitably violate it. The only difference is that his state is so dire that he is not even aware of it. These are sins that a person tramples underfoot: he selects (performs borer) every Shabbat without realizing it falls under the prohibition of borer, thinking, "What is the problem? Both items are food" - not knowing that borer applies even when separating food from food, and being ignorant of the precise definitions of the melachah. And so on; examples abound, and one might even violate prohibitions carrying the penalty of karet without realizing it. Therefore, David says: a person must always have his sin before him, and through this, he will merit complete forgiveness.
Ibn Ezra distinguishes between the terms: "My sin" (chatati) refers to matters of thought, failing to guard the commandments of Hashem. "My transgressions" (pesha'ai) refers to the transgression against Uriah the Hittite, by taking his wife and having him killed by the sword of the Ammonites. Thus, there are two facets here: a sin toward the Omnipresent and a sin toward another person (and we will soon see opinions that disagree with this).
Radak explains: "For my transgressions" - many transgressions; "I know" - I recognize and acknowledge them, and I do not deny the sin. "I know" means that I admit it, unlike Cain who said, "I do not know." I do not claim, "I do not know what this is about" - rather, I know full well, and the matter is constantly before me, in continuous remorse for what I have done.
"Against You Alone Have I Sinned" - Against Whom the Sin Was Committed
לְךָ לְבַדְּךָ חָטָאתִי וְהָרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ עָשִׂיתִי לְמַעַן תִּצְדַּק בְּדׇבְרֶךָ תִּזְכֶּה בְשׇׁפְטֶךָ׃ - Against You alone have I sinned, and done what is evil in Your eyes, so that You are just in Your sentence and clear in Your judgment.
Rashi explains: "Against You alone have I sinned" - and therefore it is in Your power to forgive, for the sin was solely in relation to You. And if you might ask: is there not also an interpersonal violation here (bein adam lachavero), for which the Holy One, blessed be He, does not forgive unless one seeks forgiveness from the wronged party? Rashi answers: even regarding how I sinned against Uriah, I sinned only against You, for You were the One Who warned against it. The transgression was strictly toward You, and not in relation to Uriah.
Rashi does not explain why there was no sin here toward Uriah, but Radak elaborates further. Citing his father, he says: Had Uriah been alive, the sin would have been against You and against him; but now that Uriah is dead, the sin is against You alone. The explanation of the matter: Regarding Uriah himself - he was liable to death as a rebel against the monarchy (mored bemalchut). And regarding the taking of Batsheva - anyone who went out to a war of the House of David would write a bill of divorce (get keritut) for his wife, and once he did, she was no longer his wife, but rather considered divorced. It turns out, therefore, that the sin was solely against the Holy One, blessed be He. This is especially true if we say that Batsheva was destined for David from the Six Days of Creation - and as we will see below in the words of the Alshich, in doing so he even reclaimed what was rightfully his, for she had been wrongfully held by Uriah. Even so, regarding the act involving Uriah, there was still a sin toward the Holy One, blessed be He: The killing itself was justified, as he deserved death as a rebel against the monarchy; however, having him killed "with the sword of the Ammonites" was not fitting, and this was addressed when studying the narrative in the Prophets.
"Whoever says David sinned is nothing other than mistaken" - How so?
Here it is important to emphasize: King David confesses and says, "I have sinned," yet on the other hand, Chazal state, "Whoever says David sinned is nothing other than mistaken." Are Chazal arguing with David? Or is David confessing to something he did not do? As already explained when studying the chapters in Shmuel: David certainly sinned, and there is no dispute about this. After all, a prophet was sent to rebuke him, and a prophet is not sent to rebuke a person for mitzvot he performed - if a prophet came to rebuke him, it is a clear sign that a transgression took place. David himself says, "I have sinned." Furthermore, David was punished - "Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own house" - and a person is not punished for something that is not a transgression.
Rather, Chazal's intent is: Whoever says David sinned with a married woman (eshet ish) is nothing other than mistaken, for a soldier would write a bill of divorce for his wife, and she was considered divorced at that time, as proven from the verses. And whoever says David sinned by committing murder is nothing other than mistaken, for Uriah was liable to death as a rebel against the monarchy, as stated in the Gemara. There was no murder here, nor was there adultery with a married woman. Yet the deed as a whole was certainly not proper - for a prophet was sent to rebuke him, and David paid a heavy price, his face and teeth blackened from fasts. A sin certainly took place here. However, regarding what appears on the surface to be illicit relations and murder - these two severe transgressions - Chazal came to clear David. Yet a failing certainly existed, rebuke certainly existed, and punishment certainly existed.
"So that You may be justified in Your words" - To teach the path of teshuvah
Rashi explains "You may be justified in Your words (be-dovrekha)" as related to Your leadership or governance, from the expression "dabar echad lador" - one leader for a generation. That is to say: You will be proven righteous in Your judgment, whereby all the wicked will see that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgives those who repent. But if You do not forgive me, the wicked will say: Behold, King David repented and it did not help him, so what benefit will it be for us if we repent? And this is what Chazal meant when they said that David stumbled in that sin only to teach the path of teshuvah to the individual - for David on his own level was not fit to commit such a sin, so why did he stumble? So that they could say to an individual who sinned: Learn an a fortiori argument (kal vachomer) from David. King David sinned, repented, and was forgiven; you too, repent and you will be forgiven.
These words should not be understood literally, for it is certainly unthinkable that King David deliberately went and stumbled into sin just so that Hashem would be vindicated - that is impossible. Rav Dessler elaborates on this, and this concept was already explained in the lessons on Michtav Me-Eliyahu as well as on the Prophets: what David's prior sin was, and why the Holy One, blessed be He, caused him to stumble in this sin so that he could rectify that earlier flaw. That is too large a departure from our chapter, and whoever wishes may hear there the Rav's wonderful explanation of the entire progression. Here, we focus solely on "so that You may be justified in Your words," with the understanding that matters are not to be taken at face value.
A sin in secret - and worthy of atonement
Radak explains "Against You alone have I sinned" in another way: David argues, Master of the Universe, had my sins been public, they would not have been worthy of atonement, for a desecration of Hashem's Name (Chillul Hashem) is not easily atoned for - "Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you until you die." It is a very severe iniquity. But I ask You for pardon and atonement because the sin was only between me and You; my sins were in secret, and no one knows except You.
Now, you might ask: is it not written that he sent his servants to summon Batsheva? Radak answers: They did not know why I summoned her. They saw that he said, "Go call so-and-so," and assumed he had a legal matter with her or some instruction the king wished to give her - they did not know what took place. And regarding the matter of Uriah as well, David says: No man knows why I orchestrated his death. Even though he wrote a letter to Yoav, and Chazal relate that Yoav showed the letter to the men with him, the people understood that there was a valid reason - that Uriah had rebelled against the king and therefore the king commanded to bring about his death; they did not know that the original reason stemmed from concealing the matter of Batsheva. And You, Master of the Universe, know both things - and I do not deny them, but confess: "Against You alone have I sinned, and done what is evil in Your eyes." Therefore, I ask You for pardon, for it is fitting to forgive an act whose sin was not publicized and contains no Chillul Hashem.
"To You alone do I confess" - Not to publicize one's sins
Radak brings another interpretation in the name of Rav Saadiah Gaon: "Against You alone have I sinned" - to You alone do I confess and say, "I have sinned and done what is evil in Your eyes." That is, I do not go and recount my sins to others. Support for this comes from the Gemara in Yoma 86b: It is written, "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy," yet it is also written, "Praiseworthy is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered." This seems contradictory: should one cover or not cover? The Gemara resolves: Regarding sins between man and his fellow man, "He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper" - on the contrary, make your sin known, ask his forgiveness, do not conceal it. But regarding sins between man and the Omnipresent, such as one who violates forbidden relations, desecrates Shabbat, and the like, "whose sin is covered" applies, and a person is forbidden to publicize his sins.
Furthermore, the Sages said in Berachot 34b: "Insolent is one who spells out his sins" - it is insolence for a person to publicize his transgressions. Why? It is comparable to a person who says: "Do you see this king? I spat on him so-and-so many times! Granted, I have repented since, but why are you recounting this?" The very telling is a disgrace. So too, with one who recounts his sins - the very telling is a disgrace. Unless his intention is to inspire others to repent, telling them, "I stumbled in this and that, and behold, since then I have done teshuva," thereby bringing about spiritual strengthening - then it is permitted. Therefore, regarding people who share their past to inspire others to repent, it is written that this is permissible. But in ordinary circumstances - what honor is there for the King in telling that you disgraced Him? And this is what David says: "Against You alone have I sinned" - before You alone do I confess and say "I have sinned," and I do not confess before human beings.
"You are just in Your words" - That What You Promised May Be Fulfilled
And what is the meaning of "You are just in Your words" according to the Radak? Just as You said to Cain, "Surely, if you do well, there is uplifting," and just as You said to Moshe Rabbeinu, "Forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin." If You now accept my repentance, You will be just in Your words, for people will say: Behold, Hashem spoke and said that He forgives iniquity, and He indeed forgave the iniquity of David. But if You do not pardon me, You will not be vindicated in Your words, for people will say: Behold, He said that He forgives iniquity, yet He did not forgive the iniquity of David. Therefore, on the contrary, pardon me, and through this You will be justified in Your words. "Vindicated when You judge" - so that no one can say of You that You said one thing and did the opposite: You said that You bear the sin of the penitent, yet You did not bear my sin. Therefore, David pleads: Bear my sin.
The Alshich: The Difference Between Foreknowledge and Speech
The holy Alshich offers a wondrous explanation here. He refers to his discourse on divine foreknowledge, explaining that there is a fundamental difference between knowledge and speech: what Hashem knows you will do in the future does not compel you to do it. However, if the Holy One, blessed be He, uttered it in speech, saying "thus you shall do," you have no possibility of acting otherwise, for the word of Hashem will not return empty. There are proofs for this: in Yeshayahu 55 it says, "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty" - whatever has issued from Hashem's mouth cannot be nullified. Likewise, Chazal said that the Holy One, blessed be He, decrees over the drop what it will become - strong or weak, handsome or ugly - "yet whether righteous or wicked He does not declare," for had He uttered it from His mouth, it could not be otherwise; divine speech seals reality. Similarly, in Eichah 3:37: "Who is it that spoke and it came to pass, when the Lord commanded it not? From the mouth of the Most High do not proceed both evil and good" - once it has gone forth from His mouth, it must inevitably come to pass.
Based on this, David comes and says: Master of the Universe, cleanse me from sin and iniquity in all that concerns this matter, that I killed Uriah and took his wife - do not lay sin upon me. Regarding Uriah's wife - "Against You alone have I sinned," and not against him, for every soldier wrote a bill of divorce to his wife and she was already divorced. And regarding the sin toward You - I had already spoken before You, saying "Examine me and test me," and You told me that I would not withstand that test, and by doing so You sealed my destiny. For as long as it was in Your thought alone, knowing that I would not withstand it, there was no compulsion; but once You, as it were, uttered it from Your mouth and said that I would not withstand the test, I was, as it were, compelled to do the deed. And this is "and done what is evil in Your eyes": had it been only evil in Your eyes, not yet uttered by mouth, I would not have done the evil. But what could I do once You said that I would not withstand it? Thus, what I did was "so that You are just in Your words" - since the matter issued from You in speech, it was impossible for me to act otherwise, and Your word necessarily had to be justified and ultimately fulfilled. Therefore, "vindicated when You judge" - acquit me in judgment, for Your speech compelled my actions.
The Alshich further explains: "You are just in Your words" - You declared forty days before the formation of the fetus, "The daughter of so-and-so is destined for so-and-so," and from the moment You said it, she was mine, she was my soulmate. If so, not only should You exempt me from judgment, but You should even consider it a merit for me - and this is "vindicated when You judge," acquit me in judgment, for I rescued the oppressed from the hand of her oppressor: Uriah held her wrongfully, and I saved her from his hand, as she belonged to another man who was not her intended spouse. Thus, I even fulfilled Your word that went forth in speech forty days before the formation of the fetus. However, it is somewhat difficult to accept this interpretation, since according to it, David is seeking credit for what he did, which is contrary to the plain meaning of the text, where David approaches apologetically, pleading for forgiveness.
The Malbim: A Sin Involving No Chilul Hashem
The Malbim explains along the lines of the Radak: I did not sin against Uriah - regarding his death, for he was a rebel against the monarchy; nor against Bat Sheva - for she was divorced. Toward whom, then, was the sin? "Against You alone." And furthermore, regarding "Against You alone": had the sin been committed publicly, there would have been a grave problem because it would have created a desecration of God's Name (chilul Hashem); but here, since the sin was done in secret, it contains no chilul Hashem - it is before You alone. And this is "and done what is evil in Your eyes" - this evil was seen only by Your eyes, and not by the eyes of anyone else. Therefore, David says, "Thoroughly cleanse me of my iniquity," so that "You may be just" in Your word and in Your conduct; for if You do not do so, people will say that You do not act with righteousness and justice, since You promised that You are "gracious, abundant in forgiveness," and if You do not pardon - Heaven forbid, as it were - You are not just in Your word and in Your judgment.
The Zohar: The Sword of the Children of Ammon
The holy Zohar in Parashat Mishpatim states that Bat Sheva was certainly David's wife and destined spouse from the day the world was created. If so, asks the Zohar, what was the sin he committed against the Holy One, blessed be He, alone, and not against another? What was the primary claim against him? That he killed Uriah by the sword of the children of Ammon. Why did you not execute him yourself when he said, "and my master Yoav" - in which his rebellion against the monarchy lay? (And some say his rebellion was when David told him to go down to his house and he did not go down, but remained sleeping with the servants of his master.) In any case, he had the status of a rebel against the king, and you should have executed him yourself. Therefore it is said, "except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite" - this was the sin found in David: "and him you killed with the sword of the children of Ammon." Death was deserved by him, but through the sword of the children of Ammon - no.
And why does it matter to us that he was killed specifically by the sword of the children of Ammon, since he would have died either way? The Zohar explains: because David thereby caused the abomination of the children of Ammon to prevail over the camp of God - which was the camp of David - and additional men of Israel were killed alongside Uriah by the sword of the children of Ammon. And David's camp was truly fashioned after the supernal form, paralleling the spiritual camps on high. When David caused a blemish in this camp - as the forces of impurity and idol worship of the children of Ammon prevailed over his camp here below - the supernal camp was also blemished, corresponding directly to it. Concerning this, David said, "Against You alone have I sinned": the sin was that I killed him by the sword of the children of Ammon, causing a defect in the supernal camp - and this was only toward You. For regarding Uriah, he deserved death; but by having him killed with the sword of the children of Ammon, holiness was subjugated before the forces of impurity, and a blemish was wrought in the Heavenly camp.
The Parable of the Physician and the Wound
The Midrash, cited by the Me'am Lo'ez, expounds on "Against You alone have I sinned... so that You are justified in Your sentence, vindicated when You judge": A parable of a physician who saw a wound and said, "How severe this wound is!" - meaning, it is exceedingly complicated to treat this case. The patient replied to him, "Was I not afflicted with this wound precisely to make Your healing power renowned to all? Why was I given such a wound? So that You might gain renown and praise, that such-and-such physician succeeded in curing such a wound." This is what David is saying: "So that You are justified in Your sentence, vindicated when You judge" - who gains a good name through this? The Holy One, blessed be He. "You are justified in Your sentence" - that He emerges vindicated, as it were; "vindicated when You judge" - that people will say: see what a severe wound David had, yet the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave him and remitted his sin. Through this, the physician's expertise is made famous, and the Holy One, blessed be He, is glorified, as it were, in His abundant goodness, as a gracious One who pardons abundantly. Indeed, David only sinned in order to show the path of teshuvah to the individual, so that people would know that Hashem pardons and forgives even the severe sins of an individual.
"In Your Eyes" - With the Eyes You Gave Me
The Me'am Lo'ez also cites in the name of the Beis Aharon: What is the meaning of "and done what is evil in Your eyes"? The eyes You gave me for good - with them I did evil. The eyes are not mine; they are Yours, and I used Your eyes to commit evil. This corresponds precisely to the beginning of David's sin: "and he walked on the roof of the king's house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing, and the woman was very beautiful to look upon" - where did it all begin? From the seeing ("and he saw").
This is why Chazal said that the heart and the eyes are the two brokers of sin, and if the eyes do not see, the heart does not desire; when does the heart desire? When the eyes see. If so, why does the Torah state, "do not follow after your heart and after your eyes"? It should have said, "after your eyes and after your heart," since first one sees and then one covets, and seeing with the eyes is what triggers desire! Rather, the answer is: the eyes do not see what the heart does not want. What the eyes see is what the heart desires. "Do not follow after your heart" - in your heart you desire to see, and then the eyes look; but if in your heart you do not want to see, the eyes will not look. It turns out that even though the sin begins through the eyes, everything depends on the will of the heart: if there is desire in the heart, the eyes look; if there is no desire in the heart, it will not come to forbidden sight.
Tehilos Hashem: The Sin That Did Not Cause Others to Sin
In the sefer Tehilos Hashem, which the Me'am Lo'ez also cites, a wonderful explanation is offered. As is well known, when a person commits a sin between man and God, it is relatively easy to rectify. But when the sin has ramifications for others - when someone else stumbled on your account - it is exceedingly complicated to rectify. How can you rectify the one who stumbled? After all, Chazal said that even if you become a completely righteous person, you would be placed in Gehinnom so that he does not suffer in Gehinnom while you enjoy Gan Eden - for you caused him to sin, and he would protest: "The one who caused me to stumble sits in Gan Eden, while I was placed in Gehinnom?" Therefore, he must be with his disciples in Gehinnom. How grave it is to cause others to sin! This is why it is written that a person must take every care not to bring about a situation where someone else stumbles because of him.
Today, just as bringing merit to the public (zikui harabbim) is easy and accessible - through a recording device or a camera, one can merit thousands of people in an instant - so too one must know that God made one corresponding to the other, and causing the public to sin is equally accessible, and magnified a thousandfold. If in the past, to cause the public to stumble, a woman had to walk through the city streets, and how many could she ensnare through immodesty? A thousand people saw her; whereas today, if she posts a picture to social media - and as is known, many fall into the net - she can cause millions to stumble. And if it goes viral, with each person sending it to another, there is no end to the sin. Especially since even if she wishes to stop tomorrow, she can no longer do so: even if she removes what she uploaded, it has already been passed to others, and they pass it along to others, and so on. Who can fathom the snowball a person sets in motion with a single sin? It is terrifying to contemplate: causing others to sin can become a reality that a person can never halt.
Now observe: King David comes and says, "Master of the Universe, my sin did not cause anyone else to sin; my sin was only between You and me - 'Against You alone have I sinned.'" Therefore, he asks, "and I shall be whiter than snow." For it says, "Though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Note the precision: it does not say, "though they are red like crimson," but rather "though they redden" (ya'adimu) - an active verb form, meaning they make others red, causing others to sin. If the sins are yours alone, the cleansing can be absolute, white as snow. But if they make others red, "they shall be as wool" - which is not the same degree of purity as snow. This is what David asks: Master of the Universe, since against You alone have I sinned and done what is evil in Your eyes, without causing any person to sin, it is fitting that You pardon me for this.
In Summary:
In these verses, King David teaches us the fundamentals of teshuvah: "and my sin is ever before me" - to remember the sin constantly, for constant remembrance specifically brings about greater cleansing and forgiveness, and to confess the same sins year after year. "I know" - to acknowledge and not to deny. "Against You alone have I sinned" - that the sin was in secret and involved no desecration of God's Name, that it was not directed against Uriah nor against Batsheva, but toward Heaven alone, and that he did not cause others to sin through it; and from here is also derived the lesson that one does not publicize his sins, but rather confesses before his Creator alone. "So that You are justified in Your sentence" - that the acceptance of David's repentance is itself the glorification of the Holy One, blessed be He, as a gracious One who pardons abundantly, like the parable of the physician and the wound, thereby opening the path of teshuvah for every single individual.