2S11-4: The Shocking Talmudic Defense Of David’s Actions

I wanna share an excerpt from the Talmud concerning David’s affair with Bathsheba.

This comes from the tractate titled Shabbos 56a:

“What is the meaning of arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It refers to matters that are shared [hame’oravim] between him, the husband, and her, the wife, i.e., marriage. The verse should be read: Take the bill of divorce that determines the status of the relationship between husband and wife. As, apparently, it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, since Uriah later died, Bathsheba retroactively assumed divorced status from the time that he set out to war. She was not forbidden to David.”

So let me tell you what this means in plain and simple English.

The old-time Rabbis claim that Israelite soldiers, before heading off to war, would issue their wives a paper of divorce just in case they were killed in battle.

That way, if they never came back, their wives were free to remarry.

Rashi, the famous medieval Jewish scholar, said the divorce only counted if the soldier died or was captured.

If he made it home, the marriage was still valid.

So, by this logic, Bathsheba wasn’t really married to Uriyah when David took her—because Uriyah later died.

Another group called the Tosafos take it even further.

They said soldiers actually divorced their wives before leaving, then remarried them when they returned.

That means Bathsheba was technically single while Uriyah was away.

So their interpretation is the same.

No adultery happened at all.

But wait.

It gets even worse, homies.

They’ll go on to say Uriyah’s death wasn’t murder.

It was justice for his disobedience in going out to war when David ordered him to stay home.

But the real kicker comes when they try to explain away the last verse of chapter 11, which says:

“When the mourning was over, David sent and took her home to his palace, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But ADONAI saw what David had done as evil.”-2 Samuel 11:27

Let’s take a look at exactly what’s written in the Talmud:

“Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: ‘And David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was with him” (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?’

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the prophet Nathan: ‘Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword, and his wife you have taken to be your wife, and him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon’ (II Samuel 12:9), indicating that David sinned? The Gemara answers: David sought to do evil and have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah but did not do so.

Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who descends from the house of David, seeks to teach the verse in favor of David. With regard to that which is written: ‘Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil,” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This evil mentioned with regard to David is different from all other evils in the Torah; as with regard to all other evils in the Torah, it is written: And he did evil, and here it is written: To do evil. This unique phrase indicates that David sought to do evil but did not actually do so. His intentions were improper; however, his actions were proper.

That which is written: ‘Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword,’ means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin as one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated from the generally accepted principles of judgment. With regard to that which is written: ‘And his wife you have taken to be your wife’; it means that you have rights of marriage with her, as by law Bathsheba was already divorced from Uriah.”

Alrighty, I know that’s a mouthful.

Also, I wanted to make sure you had the original text so you didn’t think I was pulling this out of my back pocket.

Here’s a link to the source where I got my info:

https://www.chabad.org/torah-texts/5442965/The-Talmud/Shabbat/Chapter-5/56a

So lemme break it down for you in easy-to-understand terms.

In this section of the Talmud (Shabbos 56a), the take on this verse is that it’s not saying David committed evil.

What it really means is that even though David might’ve intended to do something wrong…

His actions weren’t seen as evil because God planned it that way from the start

Now I know this is laughable and probably one of the most ridiculous things you’ve ever heard.

But folks this is what happens when we let our allegorizing of Scripture get hog wild out of control.

You know what “to allegorize” means, don’t you?

It means you interpret what the author is saying as being completely different from what’s actually written.

Ya feel me?

As we have just seen, Rabbinic Judaism has been guilty of this.

But make no mistake, I’d say Christianity is the king when it comes to allegorizing the plain meaning of Scripture, especially when it comes to its interpretations of the Torah portions.

I’d say most of what you’ll hear from the pulpit in a Christian church will be a pile of allegorical nonsense that has fueled anti-Semitism with their replacement theology rhetoric.

So what’s the takeaway for all of this?

Simple, homies.

Take Scripture for what it says at face value.

If Scripture says “ADONAI saw what David had done as evil“…

Then what David did was evil…

Not that he intended to do evil, but he didn’t really do evil, because the outcome of what happened wasn’t evil, blah, blah, blah.

You know what I mean?

See ya all next time.