The Zera Shimshon opens his discussion with a verse from Tehillim (56), raising two questions upon it. This is the wording of the verse:
כִּי הִצַּלְתָּ נַפְשִׁי מִמָּוֶת, הֲלֹא רַגְלַי מִדֶּחִי, לְהִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵי אֱלֹהִים בְּאוֹר הַחַיִּים. (תהילים נ"ו) - "For You have delivered my soul from death, indeed my feet from stumbling, to walk before God in the light of the living" (Tehillim 56:14).
The first question concerns the connection between the parts of the verse: "to walk before God in the light of the living" sounds like a reality that belongs specifically after death, for a person during his earthly lifetime does not walk directly before God. Although the Radak explains that the meaning is: so long as I am in exile and banished, I have no leisure to engage in the ways of Hashem; and when You return me from my exile to the Land of Israel, I will return to serve You properly, being among the sages of Israel and in a place of Torah, and then I will merit that my soul walk before God in the light of the living. Yet the connection within the verse still requires scrutiny. The second question: why did he single out the feet - "indeed my feet from stumbling"? Why did he not say that You delivered my entire body from stumbling?
To open up the verse, we recall the well-known idea that in the view of David's contemporaries, he had no recovery, as it is written: "Many say of my soul: 'There is no salvation for him in God, Selah.'" People said: David sinned, David will stumble, he has no recovery. Their reasoning was based on the verse, "He who consorts with harlots squanders his wealth," which Chazal explain means that he squanders the "wealth" of Torah. That is, on account of David's sin in the incident of Bat Sheva - alluded to in "consorting with harlots" - the wealth of Torah would be lost to him, and he would no longer succeed in his study; and if so, there is no salvation for him.
Furthermore, they brought against him the words of the Gemara in the ninth chapter of Berachot: Whoever counts out money from his hand into her hand - that is, transferring money from his hand to a woman's hand with the primary intention of gazing at her, an improper intention rather than merely making payment - even if he received Torah like Moshe, of whom it is written, "From His right hand went a fiery law for them," he will not be cleansed of the judgment of Gehinnom, as it says, "Hand to hand, evil will not go unpunished." And what is "hand to hand"? Even if he received the Torah from the hand of Hashem into his hand like Moshe, the evil will not be cleansed from him, nor will he be saved from the judgment of Gehinnom. Based on this, they argued: David will certainly have to pay the price in Gehinnom, and the Torah will be forgotten from him.
As has been explained elsewhere, when Chazal state, "Whoever says David sinned is merely mistaken," it does not mean there was no wrongdoing whatsoever. After all, the prophet came to rebuke him, David confessed, "I have sinned," and the prophet told him, "Hashem also has remitted your sin." Rather, the meaning is: anyone who says David sinned in the literal sense - of adultery with a married woman and the murder of Uriah the Hittite - is mistaken. There was no adultery here, for anyone who went out to battle in the army of the House of David wrote a conditional bill of divorce to his wife, so she was legally divorced at that time; and as for the killing, Uriah had the status of a rebel against the monarchy whose death was warranted. Nevertheless, the entire affair from its inception was certainly far from pristine and proper, that a king of Israel should take a woman who was known as married to another man. For this reason, David's teeth blackened from fasts and afflictions - "Every night I drench my bed; I melt my couch with my tears" - yet sin in its literal, simple sense of murder and adultery did not occur here.
The Zera Shimshon observes that these teachings require explanation. First, what is the "wealth of Torah"? What kind of punishment is it that one who consorts with harlots loses the wealth of Torah? Second, why did they formulate it as, "Even if he received Torah like Moshe," rather than, "Even if he learned Torah"? After all, merely receiving the Torah is not what saves a person from Gehinnom - a person could receive the Torah and the very next day make a golden calf! The primary thing is learning it and immersing in it, so the text should have said, "Even if he learned Torah, even if he labored in Torah, he will not be cleansed of the judgment of Gehinnom."
We may explain that it is well known that every Jew has an individual portion in the Torah through which to generate novel insights (chiddushim). Each person received their portion from Sinai, just as Moshe received the Torah from there. This is why we pray, "And grant our portion in Your Torah" - every individual received a portion from Sinai, and we pray that this portion be actualized in our hands. One who merits his portion merits aligning his teaching with the halachic truth (lekhaven shemateta aliba dehilkheta) - to align his interpretation, his distinction, and his halachic ruling with the genuine truth of Halachah. This is "the wealth of Torah," the true riches found in Torah.
To illustrate the stature of one who possesses the wealth of Torah, consider a story recounted about Rabbi Nissim Karelitz. A lawyer once appeared before him in a beit din for a Din Torah and lost the case. Displeased with the verdict, the lawyer actually sued Rabbi Nissim Karelitz in secular court. Rabbi Nissim Karelitz had to appear in court - imagine the profound disgrace to the Torah when a leading Torah giant of the generation is forced to stand before a secular judge and plead his case! It was a terrible humiliation. The judge asked questions, and the Rav answered. The judge immediately recognized the stature of the holy man standing before him; he ruled entirely against the lawyer, assessed court costs against him, and completely exonerated Rabbi Nissim Karelitz.
Two years later, that same lawyer was riding a motorcycle, collided with a truck at high speed, and was killed so gruesomely that bystanders could not even identify him. Rabbi Nissim Karelitz went to console the family. When he arrived, the lawyer's father told him: "I warned him! One does not mess with the Gedolei Yisrael. I told him not to do such a thing, that no one emerges unscathed from this. How much I spoke to him, how hard I tried to convince him, but he would not listen." The father then added: "What surprises me, though, is that it took so long." In other words, one who harms a Torah giant pays a heavy price, and the father had assumed a week would not pass before tragedy struck; yet the Holy One, Blessed be He, in His patience, waited two years to give him a chance to repent. Heaven forbid that the father was unhappy his son was not taken sooner; rather, it was a complete acceptance of Divine justice, accompanied by astonishment at the patience of Heaven.
This brings us back to our theme: the supreme privilege is "And grant our portion in Your Torah," and one who merits aligning his learning with the true Halachah is the one who possesses the wealth of Torah. Regarding King David, the Sages state that the Halachah always follows his view everywhere - showing that he possessed the wealth of Torah, having merited to direct his teachings precisely in accordance with the Halachah.
A Rosh Kollel once posed the following question: What is the difference between a Dayan (rabbinic judge) and a Rosh Yeshiva? Both deliver shiurim. The Rosh Yeshiva gives a shiur and presents a conceptual framework, a mahalach; the Dayan sits in judgment in a Din Torah, faces a complex and intricate dispute, analyzes it in depth, reaches a halachic conclusion, and issues a practical ruling. Where does the difference between them emerge? When both discover that they arrived at the truth. The Rosh Yeshiva opens an early authority (a Rishon) and finds that the very framework he proposed is written there explicitly; the Dayan opens a book and finds that the ruling he issued was already formulated by earlier authorities. The Dayan rejoices: "I have merited to hit upon the true Halachah! I arrived at it on my own, and it turns out earlier giants already ruled this way, proving that I judged with truthful justice." The Rosh Yeshiva, however, feels dejected: "I thought I had innovated a novel approach, and it turns out it was already in the books - what novelty did I contribute?" Thus, one who merits aligning his learning with the true Halachah possesses the wealth of Torah - the spiritual richness granted to him from Heaven, his portion from Sinai, to direct his words in accordance with the truth.
Regarding this, the Sages said in the third chapter of Sotah (21a): This can be compared to a person traveling along a road who does not know where to go - he wanders, lost, exposed to the danger of wild beasts and bandits. He is on the road without guidance, not knowing what he is doing, stumbling in peril. But once he arrives at a crossroads where he recognizes the way - having clear signposts pointing right and left - he is saved from them all. The Gemara explains that reaching the crossroads corresponds to when a person aligns his learning with the true Halachah (mekhaven shemateta aliba dehilkheta): he reaches a point of clarity where matters are clearly resolved - this authority holds this way, that authority holds that way, and the practical Halachah is decided in this manner. He achieves absolute clarity in the sugya, and through this he is saved from sin, from suffering, and from the evil inclination drawing him back to sin, ensuring that his study proceeds on the proper and true path.
According to this, the precise wording of Chazal becomes clear. When they stated, "Even if he received the Torah like Moshe," their intent was that one who sins with a married woman will no longer be worthy of innovating in Torah that portion he received from Sinai, in the manner Moshe received it. And even if he does innovate, his words will not align with the truth, for he has squandered the wealth of Torah. "A companion of harlots squanders wealth" - he squanders his portion in the Torah, the spiritual wealth that the Torah endowed as his share.
Now, David certainly hit upon the truth initially, as Chazal said regarding the verse, "And David was successful in all his ways, and Hashem was with him" - what is meant by "and Hashem was with him"? That the halachah followed his opinion everywhere. However, after he sinned, his enemies would not incline an ear to listen to his teachings, meaning they did not attend his shiurim, arguing that it was no longer possible for his Torah to align with the truth, for "one who associates with harlots destroys wealth."
We find that Tosafot write in the second chapter of Eruvin (folio 18b), under the heading beginning "Hand to hand the evil one shall not go unpunished," that the verse expounded in Berachot regarding one who counts out coins from his hand into her hand is the verse concluding, "and the seed of the righteous shall escape" (Mishlei 11:21), and not the verse expounded in the first chapter of Sotah regarding arrogance - "Every proud-hearted person is an abomination to Hashem; hand to hand, he shall not go unpunished" (Mishlei 16:5). The reason is simple: the second verse does not deal with forbidden relations, but with arrogance. Therefore, our verse is the one that ends with "and the seed of the righteous shall escape."
The Rivad explained their words, writing that when Scripture concludes "and the seed of the righteous shall escape," it means that if that sinner possesses ancestral merit, he will escape in the merit of his righteous forebears. If so, David certainly possessed ancestral merit as well: he was the son of Yishai, who was completely righteous, as cited in Shabbat (55b) that he was one of four who died solely through the counsel of the primordial serpent. Thus, David falls under "and the seed of the righteous shall escape," escaping punishment and being cleansed from the judgment of Gehinnom - once he repented, as David indeed did, being the foremost of penitents.
All the more so, since we say in Yevamot that regarding one who engaged in forbidden relations and fathered a mamzer, and subsequently repented, we apply to him the status of "one who acts as your people." Come and see: a person committed the grave sin of an adulterous relationship, and not only that, but he left behind a lasting negative consequence in the world that serves as a reminder of iniquity by fathering a mamzer - and yet, once he repented, one is forbidden to humiliate him, and he is deemed "one who acts as your people." Here we see the power of teshuvah. All the more so with David, who was delivered through the merit of his repentance and by virtue of being the seed of the righteous.
And now, explains the Rav: if David is cleansed from the judgment of Gehinnom and "hand to hand the evil one shall not go unpunished" will not be fulfilled in him - because he repented and because he is the seed of the righteous - neither does he fall under "and one who associates with harlots destroys wealth," for chada mechada atya, one follows directly from the other. For if his father's merit stands by him so that his repentance is accepted and he is rectified for the World to Come, not needing to descend to Gehinnom, it is impossible to say that he nonetheless suffered the loss of the wealth of Torah! After all, there is no greater blemish or ruin than failing to innovate his rightful portion in Torah, or failing to arrive at the truth, Heaven forbid. Inevitably, if you clear him from Gehinnom and declare him purified, he has also been purified of this, and he will not lose the wealth of Torah.
There is an additional reason for this: Granted, when one is destined to inherit Gehinnom, Heaven forbid, he is like someone ostracized by the Omnipresent and holiness departs from him, and therefore he loses the wealth of Torah - this is the reason for the loss. But when his end is to inherit Gan Eden and enter the presence of the righteous, seeing that he repented and his father was righteous, holiness draws close to hold and support him; consequently, he does not lose the wealth of Torah, but rather merits the portion that Hashem granted him. Furthermore, once his repentance was accepted through the merit of his forebears, it is as though he never sinned at all, pure and cleansed of all transgression. According to this, even if we were to depict matters strictly and view David's act as an actual adulterous union, he would still be delivered from all punishments through his father's merit and through his repentance - both from losing the wealth of Torah and from the judgment of Gehinnom.
It is true that David was still in danger of death - on account of the verdict he pronounced upon himself. For when Natan the prophet came to rebuke him, David replied, "The man deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold," thereby sealing a death sentence upon himself. We expanded upon this in the lessons on the Prophets according to the Malbim, in II Samuel, chapters 11-12, where it is explained how the holy Zohar itself addresses this question, since David pronounced his own sentence with his mouth. Therefore, it was necessary for the prophet to deliver the message, "Hashem also has remitted your sin; you shall not die" - since he had already uttered "the man deserves to die," the prophet's statement "you shall not die" was required to nullify that initial pronouncement. Thus, the decree of death that stemmed from the verdict of David's own lips was also annulled.
Therefore, the verse states, "For You have delivered my soul from death" - from that very death in which I would have been trapped by the utterance of my own mouth, "the man deserves to die"; "have You not delivered my feet from stumbling?" - my feet were already spared from being thrust into Gehinnom, which I had incurred for the sin of an adulterous woman, because I am the son of Yishai, the offspring of the righteous. Now the duplication in the verse is understood: "from death" - from the decree of his own mouth; "my feet from stumbling" - from Gehinnom. And if he was saved from Gehinnom, of necessity his merit to innovate his portion in Torah according to the truth also returns to him, one derived directly from the other. And this is the conclusion of the verse: "to walk before God in the light of the living" - for the holy Torah is called the Tree of Life and the light of life, and I will merit to direct toward the truth of Torah, toward the Torah of truth. A most wonderful explanation to resolve the duplication and threefold phrasing in David's words.
The Zera Shimshon further explains along another path, close to the matter above. David's enemies would say of him that there was no recovery for him, as it is written: "Many say of my soul, 'There is no salvation for him in God, Selah'" (Tehillim 3:3), and likewise: "My enemies speak evil of me: When will he die and his name perish?" (Tehillim 41:6) - when will David finally die and his name be lost in Gehinnom? And even though he was engaged in Torah, they believed that his Torah could not protect him, for "one who associates with harlots destroys wealth" - he has lost the wealth of Torah, and such Torah does not protect.
And in the second chapter of Shabbat (30a), the Sages recounted that David requested before the Holy One, blessed is He: let me die on Friday (Erev Shabbat). David had asked when he would depart from this world, and the Holy One, blessed is He, replied that this is a secret not revealed to man. He asked on which day of the week, and was told he would die on Shabbat. David asked not to die on Shabbat, since they would not be able to bury him, and requested to die on Sunday. The Holy One, blessed is He, said to him: It is impossible to postpone, for the reign of your son Shlomo has already arrived, and one reign does not infringe upon another even by a hairsbreadth. He said: If so, let it be on Friday; I am willing to forfeit one day of my life, provided I do not die on Shabbat. The Holy One, blessed is He, told him: "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand" (Tehillim 84:11) - better to Me is one day that you sit and engage in Torah than the thousand burnt-offerings that your son Shlomo is destined to offer before Me upon the altar, for on the day of the dedication of the Beit HaMikdash, Shlomo offered a thousand burnt-offerings.
Incidentally, many err regarding this verse. Some read, "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand I have chosen, to stand at the threshold of the house of my God rather than dwell in the tents of wickedness" - and then the words make no sense at all. Rather, the punctuation is: "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand" - pause here; "I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God than dwell in the tents of wickedness" - I choose to stand at the threshold of the House of Hashem rather than dwell in the tents of wickedness. And not "than a thousand I have chosen."
It turns out that the Holy One, blessed is He, does not wish to take David even a single day earlier, because his Torah study is more beloved before Him than the sacrifices of Shlomo. And this is what David said: "For (ki) You have delivered my soul from death" - where ki here is in the sense of "if", in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish in Rosh Hashanah (3a): ki serves four functions: if (ee), perhaps (dilma), rather (ela), or because (deha). That is to say: Master of the Universe, if You have delivered my soul from death and do not wish to hasten my passing, of necessity my Torah is precious in Your eyes; whereas if the truth were that I had sinned, You would not be pleased with my Torah, for one who associates with harlots destroys the wealth of Torah. Rather, surely my "feet are also kept from stumbling" - spared from Gehinnom, and I did not sin with a married woman. If my Torah is precious in Your eyes, it is a sign that I have not lost the wealth of Torah; and if I have not lost the wealth of Torah, it is a sign that my feet are also spared from stumbling.
And this serves as a sign and a wonder for him "to walk before God in the light of the living." As we learn in Perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 103b): Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, what is the meaning of that which is written: "And from the wicked their light is withheld, and the high arm is broken" (Iyov 38:15)? Why is the letter ayin of resha'im ("the wicked") suspended - written above the line? Because once a person becomes poor (rash) below, he becomes poor above. That is to say, if one reads the word without the suspended ayin, it reads rashim ("poor ones"), an expression of impoverished and needy, as in "the hands of the poor are weakened": one who becomes poor and despised below becomes poor above as well, and light from heaven is withheld from him. The Gemara then asks: Then let the ayin not be written at all? And it answers: It was written on account of the honor of David. And Rashbam explains that this applies only to the wicked, and not to the righteous.
The explanation is: had it been written, "And from the poor (rashim) their light is withheld," you might have included David in this as well, for he had many enemies - "Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head" (Tehillim 69:5) - and you might have said that he too is poor above. Therefore, the ayin was written to teach you that this applies specifically to the wicked (resha'im); but as for a righteous person who is hated on account of his righteousness, one certainly does not say of him that he has become poor above, or that Heaven treats him as an inferior person in the manner of "whoever does not please his fellow beings does not please the Omnipresent." For this reason, contrary to the intentions of the people of his generation, David said: "to walk before God in the light of the living" - that the light should not be withheld from me.
Thus, according to this explanation, the intention is not that he would merit to arrive at the precise truth of Torah, as in the previous explanation, but rather that although he is despised and persecuted here below, he is not included among those wicked who are despised above as well. Thus David says: If I were truly abhorrent below as you claim, I ought to be abhorrent above as well; yet I am not so, but rather I will merit to walk before Hashem in the lands of the living and will not be abhorrent above. And the reason, as we said, is because Hashem values my Torah - "For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand." And if my Torah is valued, it is a sign that I still direct toward the truth of Torah, and a sign that I have been cleared of that sin.
The verse, "For You have delivered my soul from death, have You not delivered my feet from stumbling, to walk before God in the light of the living?" is expounded here as David's reply to his enemies who said, "There is no salvation for him in God." Their claim was that "one who associates with harlots destroys wealth" - the wealth of Torah, which is man's merit in his portion from Sinai and the power to align the teaching according to the accepted halachah - and that even if one "received Torah like Moshe," he would not be cleared from the judgment of Gehinnom. David answers: You have delivered my soul from the death that I decreed with my own mouth, "the man deserves to die"; my feet are saved from being thrust into Gehinnom by virtue of my repentance and by virtue of my being the offspring of the righteous, the seed of Yishai, concerning whom it is said, "and the seed of the righteous shall escape"; and if I have been saved from Gehinnom, it follows directly that I have not lost the wealth of Torah - and therefore I will merit to walk before God in the light of the living, to arrive at the truth of Torah, and the light will not be withheld from me in the manner of the wicked. From here emerges a profound lesson regarding the power of repentance, the merit of the forefathers, and the virtue of one who merits to align with the truth - which is the true wealth of the Torah.