The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 12

Natan the Prophet visits King David and presents him with a message from Hashem for his consideration. There were two neighbors, a rich man and a poor man. The rich man had many flocks of sheep and herds of cattle. The poor man, on the other hand, had only one lamb, which he treated like a “pet” or member of the family that would eat, drink and even sleep with him at night.

One day, a visitor happened to arrive at the wealthy man’s home; however, rather than slaughtering one of his own animals to provide a meal for his guest, the host took and slaughtered and prepared his destitute neighbor’s little lamb. Upon hearing the story, David becomes angry and declares that the perpetrator is worthy of death and should be required to pay four times the value of the stolen sheep “because he did this action and because he had no pity”.
Natan confronts David and states that the whole vignette was a mere metaphor – in fact, King David himself is the one who committed this crime in taking Batsheva from Uriyah and having the latter killed. Hashem has decreed that David will be punished in two ways: the sword (i.e., violent conflict) will never depart from his household, and his wives will be publically taken from him by his adversary.
David immediately acknowledges his guilt in having sinned against Hashem, and Natan assures him that he will not pay with his life for this transgression. However, the baby that Batsheva bore to him will not survive. The baby becomes ill and David fasts and prays, lying on the ground and refusing to be distracted from his supplications. On the seventh day, the child dies, and David’s attendants are anxious about informing him because they are afraid that he will have difficulty accepting the news.

When he notices them whispering, David realizes that the child has passed away; when he asks, his servants confirm that this is true. David immediately rises up from his place on the ground, washes and anoints himself, changes his clothes, visits the House of God to worship, and sits down to eat. The attendants of David are perplexed and question his behavior: when the child was sick David was profoundly emotional about the situation, fasting and praying continually; now, with the child dead, shouldn’t his reaction be even more intense and extreme?

David explains that, as long as the baby was alive, there was a possibility that fasting, repentance and prayer could elicit mercy from the Almighty; however, now that he has departed from the world, there is no more purpose in praying for him. There are fascinating lessons to be learned regarding the philosophy of repentance, prayer and acceptance of reality from this incident, but they are beyond the scope of our summaries.

David comforts Batsheva and they have another child together, whom they name Shelomo; Natan the prophet visits and calls him “Yedidya”, “beloved of God”, on behalf of Hashem. This is a sign that, one way or another, David’s sin has been forgiven and his dynasty will be established. Shelomo, as we know, will eventually be heir to the throne.

Yoav is close to capturing the city of Rabbat and sends word to David to join him on the battlefield so that the victory will be attributed to David and not to his general alone. David gathers soldiers together and arrives at Rabbat in time to finish off the attack. He takes the defeated king’s bejeweled crown, places it upon his own head and confiscates the plentiful spoils of war. After subjecting the surviving citizens of Ammon to harsh punishments, David and the people return to Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note that David does not dedicate the spoils of this battle to Hashem; this could be a further indication of his losing perspective on his role in Hashem’s plan, or could reflect his feeling of distance from Hashem in the aftermath of his transgression. One of the trends in David we will observe from now on is his tendency to be passive and almost fatalistic in his attitudes and responses. The harsh message from Natan has long term “traumatic” effects.

There is so much to comment upon in this chapter but brevity demands that we limit ourselves to one key issue. One of the most difficult challenges that faces the student of Sefer Shemuel is the relatively “light” sentence pronounced upon David for his heinous crime. He will suffer but his position as king remains secure. Shaul, by contrast, lost his kingdom merely because he failed to carry out the complete destruction of Amaleq, a seemingly minor transgression compared to David’s. How do we explain the disparity in God’s judgment and treatment of the two rulers?

Rav Yosef Albo, in Sefer HaIqqarim, resolves this problem by distinguishing between the nature of the two violations. Shaul failed to fulfill a mitzvah that applied to him as king of Israel, the commandment to exterminate Amaleq. Since his error was one of kingly governance, the consequence was loss of the kingdom. David, on the other hand, sinned as an ordinary human being – adultery and murder are sins that apply to all people in all places at all times. Because his transgression was not specifically “royal” in character, he was not deposed from his position as a result of it.

I find this classic solution a bit problematic. After all, the story of David is, in fact, depicting his failure as king of Israel – David abused his power and violated the sacred trust placed in him in order to gratify his own personal whims. This should certainly disqualify him from the kingship at least as much as Shaul’s transgressions would have. Therefore, I would like to suggest an alternative answer to this question.

Shaul failed because of a deeply-rooted character flaw; his mistakes formed a clear and consistent pattern. Shaul regularly succumbed to social and political pressure and sought the approval of others rather than heeding the voice of Hashem. He allowed his insecurity and need for love to dominate his decision-making processes and behavior, and was therefore not capable of governing in an effective and principled manner. Obviously, he could have addressed and corrected this personality defect; however, rather than confront its pernicious and damaging influence and overcome it, he chose to ignore it and make excuses for it. He let this weakness define him and was therefore unworthy of serving as King of Israel.

David, on the other hand, was a fundamentally principled person who constantly weighed his decisions and actions in light of the will of God. Needing the approval of no one but the Almighty, David rarely if ever allowed himself to be influenced by the expectations or demands of other human beings, and therefore remained a steadfast source of true Torah-based guidance and leadership. As opposed to the sins of Shaul that were consistent with and further deepened his underlying imperfections, for David the situation with Batsheva was the exception, rather than the rule. What makes the story so shocking is precisely the fact that it is totally out of character for David – this is not the way we are accustomed to seeing him behave.

This is why it is easy for David, with some prompting from Natan, to perceive the error of his ways and acknowledge his mistake – it is not a part of who he is in the same way that Shaul’s transgressions were part of who he was. David was not acting out of inner psychological compulsion; he was overwhelmed by external temptation in a moment of weakness and failed to subdue his instinctual drives. David is allowed to remain king of Israel because of his core character, and although he erred grievously in this circumstance, his general approach to governance and the basic makeup of his personality made him a worthy and capable ruler overall. Dismissing him would have amounted to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.