| 2-Samuel-11 [2-Samuel 11:1] AND IT CAME TO PASS, AFTER THE YEAR WAS EXPIRED, AT THE TIME WHEN KINGS GO FORTH TO BATTLE, THAT DAVID SENT JOAB, AND HIS SERVANTS WITH HIM, AND ALL ISRAEL; AND THEY DESTROYED THE CHILDREN OF AMMON, AND BESIEGED RABBAH. BUT DAVID TARRIED STILL AT JERUSALEM. <<WHEN KINGS GO FORTH TO BATTLE>>: This is how everyone seems to interpret it. In the Hebrew however it is not written "kings" (though pronounced as such, "malacim") but rather "angels". The two words are spelt almost the same in Hebrew with only an almost unsounded "a" between them and most have assumed that the intention was to "kings" only with a slight spelling variance. Nevertheless who knows? Mayber the angels went forth, there was a reason for what was about to take place. David acts in an uncharacteristic manner as if a temporary madness had overtaken him. Shakespeare could have written a variant on "A Midsummer Night's Dream" about this whole episode. From what is about to take place David commits the greatest offence of his life and brings tragedy upon himself and others. Nevertheless the ultimate result is the lasting union between David and Bath-Sheba, the birth of Solomon, the Solomonic dynasty and ultimately the Messiah. [2-Samuel 11:2] AND IT CAME TO PASS IN AN EVENINGTIDE, THAT DAVID AROSE FROM OFF HIS BED, AND WALKED UPON THE ROOF OF THE KING'S HOUSE: AND FROM THE ROOF HE SAW A WOMAN WASHING HERSELF; AND THE WOMAN WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL TO LOOK UPON. David apparently practised the afternoon siesta which had also been the habit of his predecessor, Ish-Boshet the son of Saul who was assassinated in "THE HEAT OF THE DAY" as he "LAY ON A BED AT NOON" (2-Samuel 4:5). Here we begin a very difficult subject upon which a great deal has been written. In this Brit-Am commentary we are looking first and foremost for points of direct Brit-Am concern. Beyond that we aim to give a brief overview and indicate points of interest and possible fields of deeper study and not much more than that. We will be emphasizing points of view that we consider valid but it should always be remembered that other opinions exist. <<FROM THE ROOF>>: The Hebrew can also be understood that he saw the woman on another roof. In those days women washed themselves to be purified. Natural rain water that collected in a prepared pool on a roof top would have had the status of a mikveh or ritual bath of purification. The Hebrew says "rochetset" for "washing" which implies simply washing for the sake of cleanliness but later it says (2-Samuel 11:4) that she was purifying herself from uncleanliness which requires complete physical immersion in ritually-acceptable water. It could have been that it was in a private place with only the roof of David overlooking it and David was not expected to be where he was at that time. Major Sources: Regular Classical Commentaries; Daat Mikra; Yaakov Medan, "David ve Bat-Sheva", Alon Shvut 5762; [2-Samuel 11:3] AND DAVID SENT AND ENQUIRED AFTER THE WOMAN. AND ONE SAID, IS NOT THIS BATHSHEBA, THE DAUGHTER OF ELIAM, THE WIFE OF URIAH THE HITTITE? <<URIAH THE HITTITE>>: He was one of the chief warriors of the nation (2-Samuel 23:39 1-Chronicles 11:41). Previously we find AHIMELECH THE HITTITE [1-Samuel 26:6] as one of the only two soldiers whom David requested of that they accompany him to penetrate the Camp of Saul while Saul and his men were sleeping after pursuing David in the Wilderness. AHIMELECH THE HITTITE did indeed accompany David on that occasion while Abishai the brother of Joab who had also been requested apparently declined. Ahimelech is not heard of again. Daat Mikra suggests that he died before being able to be included amongst THE MIGHTY MEN WHOM DAVID HAD [2-Samuel 23:8]. "Uriah the Hittite" is however listed amongst the select circle and an alternate explanation would be to identify "Ahimelech the Hittite" with "Uriah the Hittite". It happens frequently in Scripture that the one person was known by more than one name. Uriah the Hittite may have been an Israelite who was named "THE HITTITE" due to some event in his life or his place of dwelling (Daat Mikra); or he may have been a Hittite convert (Midrashim); it would seem that he could have been a Hittite Gentile (Joseph Kara ca. 1100 CE) who served in the Army and that Bath-Sheba was his "woman", i.e. a commen-law wife. In those days it was customary for women to marry early. Sometimes a woman could be acquired even before puberty in which case intercourse would usually be delayed until after maturity. In this case she would have immersed herself for the first time having just completed her first period. Uriah may have been a Gentile who had acquired Bath-Sheba but had not yet had intercourse with her or he had had once. On the other hand we saw that THE WOMAN WAS VERY BEAUTIFUL TO LOOK UPON (2-Samuel 11:2) and this would usually suggest someone who was more than just fully grown. [2-Samuel 11:4] AND DAVID SENT MESSENGERS, AND TOOK HER; AND SHE CAME IN UNTO HIM, AND HE LAY WITH HER; FOR SHE WAS PURIFIED FROM HER UNCLEANNESS: AND SHE RETURNED UNTO HER HOUSE. There is an opinion held by the Sages or some of them (Talmud Shabat 56:a) that in those days when a warrior went out to war he would divorce his wife but it was understood that the Divorce was conditional and would really only take effect if he failed to return. According to the Law a woman cannot marry another if her husband is still alive. If the husband went missing in action the woman could not remarry even though even might well know for sure that her husband was dead. Very strong proof was required to enable the woman to marry someone else. Even today this requirement of the Law remains a major problem. Even if death of the husband was known for sure, there exists another reason (Levirate marriage) why a woman could be better off to be a legal divorcee before the demise of her husband. According to this opinion David technically did not commit adultery but he sinned in the eyes of the Almighty and therefore he was punished. One could also say that he caused the death of Uriah the Hittite and therefore was culpable of indirect homicide. This second claim is answered by the opinion that Joab was in open revolt against David and Uriah was backing Joab and therefore Uriah was not such an innocent party. Another point is that before a person sins he persuades himself that the sin is permissible or thaty if it is usually forbidden his own case is an exception. David was a great man, almost a super-being by our standards. He therefore had the strength of will and intellectual ability to make the object of his desire appear (at least temporarily) permissible in his own eyes and allow him to commit an act most ordinary men would not dream of doing. The thing is that it does happen and exceptions do occur and in Biblical times matters were more fluid than they are now. It was forbidden for instance to marry a non-Israelite woman but it would seem in the case of Samson that an exception was made (Judges 14:4). There is a saying that "Whover is greater than his fellow so too, is his capacity for evil", i.e. when David fell down he went all the way. See the Brit-Am Commentary to Judges http://britam.org/judges/judges14.html THEN HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER SAID UNTO HIM, IS THERE NEVER A WOMAN AMONG THE DAUGHTERS OF THY BRETHREN, OR AMONG ALL MY PEOPLE, THAT THOU GOEST TO TAKE A WIFE OF THE UNCIRCUMCISED PHILISTINES? AND SAMSON SAID UNTO HIS FATHER, GET HER FOR ME; FOR SHE PLEASETH ME WELL [Judges 14:3]. BUT HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER KNEW NOT THAT IT WAS OF THE LORD, THAT HE SOUGHT AN OCCASION AGAINST THE PHILISTINES: FOR AT THAT TIME THE PHILISTINES HAD DOMINION OVER ISRAEL [Judges 14:4]. <<THAT IT WAS OF THE LORD>>: <<Rav said in the name of Rabbi Reuben son Astrobili: A woman is given to a man by the Almighty according to the Torah (Pentateuch), Prophets, and Writings. From the Torah, "THEN LABAN AND BETHUEL ANSWERED AND SAID, THE THING PROCEEDETH FROM THE LORD" [Genesis 24:50]. From the Prophets, as it is written [in the case of Samson], "BUT HIS FATHER AND HIS MOTHER KNEW NOT THAT IT WAS OF THE LORD" [Judges 14:4]; and from the Writings, as it is written, "HOUSE AND RICHES ARE THE INHERITANCE OF FATHERS: AND [but] A PRUDENT WIFE IS FROM THE LORD" [Proverbs 19:14].>> Even though what Samson did was to end in disaster and was not a good thing it would seem that Samson did not actually sin in taking the non-Israelite woman. The Almighty had made an exception in his case. David may have half-convinced himself that so too in the case of Bath-Sheba an exception was being made. A similar theme is found in popular literature and love songs in which the enamored parties claim that the usual prohibitions against forbidden loves should not apply in their cases. All these and more opinions are there for the taking of leaving. We are not going to go into all the details here but the Hebrew text does support quite a lot of varied possibilities many of which may reveal some aspect of what really did take place. At the least it seems quite certain that that the elements involved in this affair were quite involved. It was not as simple as it may seem. The Sages (Talmud Sanhedrin 107;a) also said that Bath-Sheba was the soul-mate of David and would have been given to David but that David ate his fig before it was ripe, i.e. he took it to soon before it was permitted to him as it somehow would have been. <<AND SHE RETURNED UNTO HER HOUSE>>: David sent her back to her home hoping that for the world (and the husband of Bath-Sheba amongst them) knew nothing had happened. This shows an admission of guilt and also arouses all the suggested explanations of extenuating circumstances. David had sent messenger to inquire after her and had sent messengers to bring her unto him. More than two people knew about it and all those involved were prominent personages in the Israelite community. How long can secrets be kept? 2-Samuel 11-2 [2-Samuel 11:5] AND THE WOMAN CONCEIVED, AND SENT AND TOLD DAVID, AND SAID, I AM WITH CHILD. [2-Samuel 11:6] AND DAVID SENT TO JOAB, SAYING, SEND ME URIAH THE HITTITE. AND JOAB SENT URIAH TO DAVID. [2-Samuel 11:7] AND WHEN URIAH WAS COME UNTO HIM, DAVID DEMANDED OF HIM HOW JOAB DID, AND HOW THE PEOPLE DID, AND HOW THE WAR PROSPERED. [2-Samuel 11:8] AND DAVID SAID TO URIAH, GO DOWN TO THY HOUSE, AND WASH THY FEET. AND URIAH DEPARTED OUT OF THE KING'S HOUSE, AND THERE FOLLOWED HIM A MESS OF MEAT FROM THE KING. The house of Uriah was close to that of David. Uriah was amongst the Thirty-seven Chief warriors of David (2-Samuel 23:39 1-Chronicles 11:41) who apparently comprised the GUARD of the king (2-Samuel 23:23) and were all quartered with their families around the residence of the monarch or within it. That was how David had chanced to see Beth-Sheva in the first place. [2-Samuel 11:9] BUT URIAH SLEPT AT THE DOOR OF THE KING'S HOUSE WITH ALL THE SERVANTS OF HIS LORD, AND WENT NOT DOWN TO HIS HOUSE. [2-Samuel 11:10] AND WHEN THEY HAD TOLD DAVID, SAYING, URIAH WENT NOT DOWN UNTO HIS HOUSE, DAVID SAID UNTO URIAH, CAMEST THOU NOT FROM THY JOURNEY? WHY THEN DIDST THOU NOT GO DOWN UNTO THINE HOUSE? [2-Samuel 11:11] AND URIAH SAID UNTO DAVID, THE ARK, AND ISRAEL, AND JUDAH, ABIDE IN TENTS; AND MY LORD JOAB, AND THE SERVANTS OF MY LORD, ARE ENCAMPED IN THE OPEN FIELDS; SHALL I THEN GO INTO MINE HOUSE, TO EAT AND TO DRINK, AND TO LIE WITH MY WIFE? AS THOU LIVEST, AND AS THY SOUL LIVETH, I WILL NOT DO THIS THING. <<TENTS>>: Hebrew "Soocot" ("Succoth") which can mean "booths" or temporary shelters or it can refer to the place named "Succoth" east of the Jordan where the armies of Israel may have been centered in their campaign against Amon. We see here Israel and Judah again spoken of separately. Uriah also placed Joab on an equal footing with David or above him. David tells him to do something and he does not. <<TO LIE WITH MY WIFE?>> There are those who have suggested that Uriah had heard or suspected something but this does not seem to have been the case. If he did not know maybe subconsciously he was aware of it as sometimes happens and he was thus without knowing it reproving David? If such is not the case this style of expression could be considered somewhat impertinent and even insulting. It is as if he is saying, 'Unlike you, I and all the others are doing your work in your place and going without our animal needs whilst you indulge yourself'. If he did not suspect, why did he not go to his house? Why make a public exhibition of his refusal? Many Commentators tried to find exonerating circumstances for the actions of David. The simple meaning of the text however at least at the superficial level presents David in a very bad light. Shimeon ben-Ephrat ("Mikra le-Yisrael") emphasizes the negative aspects concerning David (freely translated): "Against the treachery of David who gives into his lusts there stands out the extreme loyalty and self-control of Uriah the Hittite. While David busies himself with his private affairs Uriah is motivated by a feeling of identification with his companions in the field. He is not like David who takes advantage of his position to arrogate to himself extra privileges going as far as having sexual relations with the wife of another Uriah refuses to take additional privileges than those enjoyed by the other servants of the king and he is not prepared to lodge in his house and to have relations with his own wife. The nobility of spirit of this man of foreign origin illuminates all the more so the turpitude of the king of Israel." Shimeon ben-Ephrat continues in the same vein showing how at every step of the way Uriah is positive and David just the opposite. This sin of David as we shall see was to lead indirectly to the revolt of his own son Absalom which in turn presaged the revolt of the whole northern (ten tribes) section of the kingdom under Jeroboam. Even in our days the sin of David still has significance. Shimeon Peres in the Knesset once made derogatory comments concerning David over this matter and nearly caused a major political crisis. Time Magazine Archive http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,982296,00.html <<--Israel -- Knesset: During a December debate, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres expressed mild disapproval of the biblical King David's ethics (he slept with Bathsheba, a married woman, and arranged to have her husband killed). Peres' comments outraged members of religious parties. One shouted, "Shut up! You will not give out grades to King David!" and physically menaced Peres; another was so upset he had to be treated for high blood pressure. (A year earlier a Labor Party member had set off a similar fracas by suggesting King David was bisexual.)>> Resentment of Peres because of his statements against David were one of the major factors that later prevented him being elected as President of Israel and a relatively unknown candidate being chosen in his stead. The people could not take it. Loyalty to David still exists. So too, let us read the text and not make judgements until we have a clearer picture. [2-Samuel 11:1 AND DAVID SAID TO URIAH, TARRY HERE TO DAY ALSO, AND TO MORROW I WILL LET THEE DEPART. SO URIAH ABODE IN JERUSALEM THAT DAY, AND THE MORROW. [2-Samuel 11:13] AND WHEN DAVID HAD CALLED HIM, HE DID EAT AND DRINK BEFORE HIM; AND HE MADE HIM DRUNK: AND AT EVEN HE WENT OUT TO LIE ON HIS BED WITH THE SERVANTS OF HIS LORD, BUT WENT NOT DOWN TO HIS HOUSE. [2-Samuel 11:14] AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MORNING, THAT DAVID WROTE A LETTER TO JOAB, AND SENT IT BY THE HAND OF URIAH. This is also seen as denigration to David by ben-Ephrat. It is not enough that David steals the wife of a loyal and dedicated soldier in his service but he has the man killed and makes him bear the edict of his execution in his own person without knowing the contents. Uriah however was an important warrior and Joab was not the type to blindly obey an order that was not proper or harmful. There still remain questions that are unanswered and that is apparently the way Scripture wants it. [2-Samuel 11:15] AND HE WROTE IN THE LETTER, SAYING, SET YE URIAH IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE HOTTEST BATTLE, AND RETIRE YE FROM HIM, THAT HE MAY BE SMITTEN, AND DIE. [2-Samuel 11:16] AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN JOAB OBSERVED THE CITY, THAT HE ASSIGNED URIAH UNTO A PLACE WHERE HE KNEW THAT VALIANT MEN WERE. [2-Samuel 11:17] AND THE MEN OF THE CITY WENT OUT, AND FOUGHT WITH JOAB: AND THERE FELL SOME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE SERVANTS OF DAVID; AND URIAH THE HITTITE DIED ALSO. Uriah was not killed in the way that David had commanded. It may be that the enemy attacked prematurely before Joab had a chance to pull back the companions of Uriah. Uriah was killed but so too were other of the servants of the king who were probably all important personages in their own right. The king would have felt their loss. [2-Samuel 11:18] THEN JOAB SENT AND TOLD DAVID ALL THE THINGS CONCERNING THE WAR; [2-Samuel 11:19] AND CHARGED THE MESSENGER, SAYING, WHEN THOU HAST MADE AN END OF TELLING THE MATTERS OF THE WAR UNTO THE KING, [2-Samuel 11:20] AND IF SO BE THAT THE KING'S WRATH ARISE, AND HE SAY UNTO THEE, WHEREFORE APPROACHED YE SO NIGH UNTO THE CITY WHEN YE DID FIGHT? KNEW YE NOT THAT THEY WOULD SHOOT FROM THE WALL? [2-Samuel 11:21] WHO SMOTE ABIMELECH THE SON OF JERUBBESHETH? DID NOT A WOMAN CAST A PIECE OF A MILLSTONE UPON HIM FROM THE WALL, THAT HE DIED IN THEBEZ? WHY WENT YE NIGH THE WALL? THEN SAY THOU, THY SERVANT URIAH THE HITTITE IS DEAD ALSO. <<JERUBBESHETH>> This is Jerubaal (Judges 6:32). "Jerubaal" means quarrel with baal". "JERUBBESHETH" means "quarrel with shame". We find elsewhere that "baal" as part of a name is switched with "boshet" (shame). The word "bosh" means "shame" but it can also be pronounced as "bash" and connote "bashful". This is probably were the English word "bashful" comes from. "Boshet" in the Book of Samuel interchanges for "baal" as we have noticed. See what wrote on 2-Samuel 2:8 << "ISHBOSHETH" i.e. Ish-Boshet" literally "Man of Shame" . he is also known as "ESHBAAL" (1-Chronicles 8:33 9: 39) meaning "Man of Baal". Commentators suggest the Eshbaal was his real name. "Baal" literally means "master" and at that time could have been a term applied to God Later when the appellation became associated exclusively with idol worship it is thought that the word "boshet" (shame) was inserted by the Narrator in place of "baal""Boshet" (from the root "BUSH" meaning "shame") becomes a sense of shame in its positive sense of modesty and diffidence". It may be that "boshet" was another form of the word "baal" and could have implied "he to whom diffidence is due". Iben Ezra and Nachmanides point out that in Scripture the names can change as long as the approximate meaning remains. [2-Samuel 11:2 SO THE MESSENGER WENT, AND CAME AND SHEWED DAVID ALL THAT JOAB HAD SENT HIM FOR. [2-Samuel 11:23] AND THE MESSENGER SAID UNTO DAVID, SURELY THE MEN PREVAILED AGAINST US, AND CAME OUT UNTO US INTO THE FIELD, AND WE WERE UPON THEM EVEN UNTO THE ENTERING OF THE GATE. [2-Samuel 11:24] AND THE SHOOTERS SHOT FROM OFF THE WALL UPON THY SERVANTS; AND SOME OF THE KING'S SERVANTS BE DEAD, AND THY SERVANT URIAH THE HITTITE IS DEAD ALSO. [2-Samuel 11:25] THEN DAVID SAID UNTO THE MESSENGER, THUS SHALT THOU SAY UNTO JOAB, LET NOT THIS THING DISPLEASE THEE, FOR THE SWORD DEVOURETH ONE AS WELL AS ANOTHER: MAKE THY BATTLE MORE STRONG AGAINST THE CITY, AND OVERTHROW IT: AND ENCOURAGE THOU HIM. [2-Samuel 11:26] AND WHEN THE WIFE OF URIAH HEARD THAT URIAH HER HUSBAND WAS DEAD, SHE MOURNED FOR HER HUSBAND. [2-Samuel 11:27] AND WHEN THE MOURNING WAS PAST, DAVID SENT AND FETCHED HER TO HIS HOUSE, AND SHE BECAME HIS WIFE, AND BARE HIM A SON. BUT THE THING THAT DAVID HAD DONE DISPLEASED THE LORD. God was angry as we will see. David had wanted the woman and he may have found for himself all kinds of excuses to act as he did. The child was destined to die but Bath-Sheba would bear David another son who would be named Solomon. He would rule over all Israel and from his seed is destined to emerge the future Messiah son of David. BACK TO SAMUEL INDEX HOME |