ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: Mind the Gap

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

We discussed the fact that David, after his one-night stand with Bat Sheva, realized he made a mistake, as reflected in ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ื™ื–:โ€Ž ื‘ึธึผื—ึทื ึฐืชึธึผ ืœึดื‘ึดึผื™ ืคึธึผืงึทื“ึฐืชึธึผ ืœึทึผื™ึฐืœึธื” ืฆึฐืจึทืคึฐืชึทึผื ึดื™ ื‘ึทืœ ืชึดึผืžึฐืฆึธื. But he doesnโ€™t realize that this sin will not go away that easily:

ื“ ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื“ื•ื“ ืžืœืื›ื™ื ื•ื™ืงื—ื” ื•ืชื‘ื•ื ืืœื™ื• ื•ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ืขืžื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ืžื˜ืžืืชื”; ื•ืชืฉื‘ ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื”ืƒ ื” ื•ืชื”ืจ ื”ืืฉื”; ื•ืชืฉืœื— ื•ืชื’ื“ ืœื“ื•ื“ ื•ืชืืžืจ ื”ืจื” ืื ื›ื™ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

The fact that she is pregnant changes everything. It is no longer a casual tryst. The text adds the detail, now, that ื”ื™ื ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ืžื˜ืžืืชื”, rather than two psukim before when Bat Sheva is described as ืืฉื” ืจื—ืฆืช. We now know that she wasnโ€™t simply bathing; she was going to the mikvah after her niddah. The implications of this are obvious: she was not pregnant before, she was in her fertile period when she had relations with David, and this infant must be Davidโ€™s, not Uriahโ€™s. The halachic background is implied, but necessary: the story makes no sense without knowing the rules that governed the society described.

We inhabit a nomosโ€”a normative universeโ€ฆFor every constitution there is an epic, for each decalogue a scriptureโ€ฆevery narrative is insistent in its demand for its prescriptive point, its moral. History and literature cannot escape their location in a normative universeโ€ฆ

Robert M. Cover (1983), The Supreme Court, 1982 Termโ€”Foreword: Nomos and Narrative, pp. 4-5 passim

We may not notice this because we live in the same normative universe. And whatโ€™s more, the written Torah does not explicitly require that a niddah go to the mikvah:

ื™ื˜ ื•ืืฉื” ื›ื™ ืชื”ื™ื” ื–ื‘ื” ื“ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื–ื‘ื” ื‘ื‘ืฉืจื” ืฉื‘ืขืช ื™ืžื™ื ืชื”ื™ื” ื‘ื ื“ืชื” ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื’ืข ื‘ื” ื™ื˜ืžื ืขื“ ื”ืขืจื‘ืƒโ€ฆื›ื‘ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ื ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื›ืœื™ ืืฉืจ ืชืฉื‘ ืขืœื™ื•; ื™ื›ื‘ืก ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื—ืฅ ื‘ืžื™ื ื•ื˜ืžื ืขื“ ื”ืขืจื‘ืƒ

ื•ื™ืงืจื ืคืจืง ื˜ื•

The laws of a niddah going to the mikvah are part of ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขืœ ืคื”. The nomos of ืชื ืดืš is the Torah, not just the ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื‘ื›ืชื‘ but ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื‘ืขืœ ืคื” as well. As we said last time, reading the story through halachic glasses means that we have to understand the fact that David marries Bat Sheva in the end (and ื”ืณ approves). This is why ื—ื–ืดืœ try so hard to argue that what happens here is not, technically, adultery. It does not mean that it is morally right.

ืืดืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจืณ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ: ื›ืœ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ื—ื˜ื ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื˜ื•ืขื” ืฉื ืืžืจ (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื™ื—:ื™ื“) ื•ึทื™ึฐื”ึดื™ ื“ึธื•ึดื“ ืœึฐื›ึธืœ ื“ึฐึผืจึธื›ึธื• ืžึทืฉึฐื‚ื›ึดึผื™ืœ ื•ึทื”ืณ ืขึดืžึผื•ึน. ืืคืฉืจ ื—ื˜ื ื‘ื ืœื™ื“ื• ื•ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืขืžื•?โ€ฆ(ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื™ื‘:ื˜) ืึตืช ืื•ึผืจึดื™ึธึผื” ื”ึทื—ึดืชึดึผื™ ื”ึดื›ึดึผื™ืชึธ ื‘ึทื—ึถืจึถื‘โ€ฆื•ึฐืึถืช ืึดืฉึฐืืชึผื•ึน ืœึธืงึทื—ึฐืชึธึผ ืœึฐึผืšึธ ืœึฐืึดืฉึธึผืื”. ืœื™ืงื•ื—ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืœืš ื‘ื”. ื“ืืดืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืดืจ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ: ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ืฆื ืœืžืœื—ืžืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื•ื“ ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื’ื˜ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืœืืฉืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื™ื–:ื™ื—) ื•ึฐืึตืช ืขึฒืฉึถื‚ืจึถืช ื—ึฒืจึดืฆึตื™ ื”ึถื—ึธืœึธื‘ ื”ึธืึตืœึถึผื” ืชึธึผื‘ึดื™ื ืœึฐืฉึทื‚ืจ ื”ึธืึธืœึถืฃ ื•ึฐืึถืช ืึทื—ึถื™ืšึธ ืชึดึผืคึฐืงึนื“ ืœึฐืฉึธืืœื•ึนื ื•ึฐืึถืช ืขึฒืจึปื‘ึธึผืชึธื ืชึดึผืงึธึผื—. ืžืื™ ืขืจื•ื‘ืชื? ืชื ื™ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ: ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืžืขื•ืจื‘ื™ื ื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื”.

ืฉื‘ืช ื ื•,ื

I have cited Rabbi Shalom Carmy before:

I call my own derekh ha-limmud a literary-theological approach. Both terms carry a double meaning. By theological, we assert the conviction that Bible is to be encountered as the word of God, rather than primarily as the object of academic investigation; we also refer to the authoritative presence of the interpretive tradition. The adjective literary comes to stress that understanding the word of God is not only a matter of apprehending propositions, but also of hearing them in their literary and historical context; secondarily, we are reminded that the language we use to articulate our insight is also an integral aspect of our study.

Shalom Carmy, A Room With a View, but a Room of Our Own

The father of the โ€œliteraryโ€ side of this approach is Dr. Meir Sternberg:

Meir Sternberg is an Israeli literary critic and biblical scholar. He is Artzt Professor of Poetics and Comparative Literature at Tel Aviv University. Along with Robert Alter and Adele Berlin, Sternberg is one of the most prominent practitioners of a literary approach to the Bible.

Wikipedia, Meir Sternberg

In 1968, Sternberg (with Menakhem Perry) published an article (in Hasifrut 1, pp. 262-291), โ€œื”ืžืœืš ื‘ืžื‘ื˜ ืื™ืจื•ื ื™โ€ (The King Through Ironic Eyes) that was incorporated into his 1985 book, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. It introduced the idea that the โ€œDocumentary Hypothesisโ€, concerned with the historical origin of Bible stories, was nearly irrelevant to understanding the Bible as a literary text. We have to read the text that we have, not the text that we think we ought to have had. We ought to read the narrative of the Bible in the same way we read any work of literature, and the toolsโ€”and the vocabularyโ€”we use are the same. His is not a religious approach, but he acknowledges the interpretations of ื—ื–ืดืœ as reflecting this view.

An important part of his approach to literature is the idea of โ€œgap-fillingโ€, โ€œืžื™ืœื•ื™ ื”ืคืขืจื™ืโ€. The text is meant to represent some sort of reality, but only very limited details can be provided. The reader has to fill in the gaps, but in ways that are validated by the text.

The David and Bathsheba story, for example, confronted the rabbis with what was to them a formidable problem: How is it possible that a king of Israel, and the author of Psalms at that, should be guilty of adultery? The most prevalent of the solutions devisedโ€ฆis that David did not commit adultery, because Uriah has divorced Bathsheba before leaving for the front lineโ€ฆ

As often, the questions troubling the rabbis here are certainly legitimate and indeed point to a central gap in the tale. But their answers, as hypotheses, stand or fall on their congruity with the textโ€™s own terms. Thus judged, the presentation of David as an offender against decorum rather than morality shows up as tendentious and idealizing. Such a reading, designed to reconcile Davidโ€™s conduct in the Bathsheba affair with the favorable (and ideologically vital) impression he produces in other parts of Samuel, betrays the typical marks of an arbitrary hypothesis. It imposes on the world represented in the tale a socioreligious law consonant with culture and world view of the reader; it has no anchorage in the textual details, and even clashes with some givens.

Meir Sternberg, Gaps, Ambiguity and the Reading Process, in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 188-189

I obviously disagree; โ€œreconcil[ing] Davidโ€™s conduct in the Bathsheba affair with the favorable (and ideologically vital) impression he produces in other parts of Samuelโ€ is exactly how to read the ืกืคืจ as a whole. Sternberg does violence to the text by pulling out these two chapters and reading them in isolation. And he in fact assumes the same halachic normative universe that we do, though I donโ€™t think he realizes the implications of that:

[Referring to the incongruous ื•ื”ื™ื ืžืชืงื“ืฉืช ืžื˜ืžืืชื”] Only in retrospect, when verse 5 comes to Bathshebaโ€™s pregnancy, does the relevance of โ€œand she was purifying herself from her uncleanlinessโ€ emerge. This detail, ostensibly so pointless in context, enables the reader to infer and nail down Davidโ€™s paternity. Even though the omniscient narratorโ€ฆdoes not say this in so many words, there is surely no possibility of Uriahโ€™s being the fatherโ€ฆEven more ironic, the very detail that might at first have been interpreted as the sole meritorious feature of Davidโ€™s act (โ€œand he did not transgress the laws of menstrual purityโ€) twists around to condemn him.

Meir Sternberg, Gaps, Ambiguity and the Reading Process, in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, p. 199

After David gets the news, Bat Sheva leaves the story, emphasizing again how passive she is throughout. David ignores her and has to decide what to do with Uriah:

ื• ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื“ื•ื“ ืืœ ื™ื•ืื‘ ืฉืœื— ืืœื™ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื—ืชื™; ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื™ื•ืื‘ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœ ื“ื•ื“ืƒ ื– ื•ื™ื‘ื ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœื™ื•; ื•ื™ืฉืืœ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืฉืœื•ื ื™ื•ืื‘ ื•ืœืฉืœื•ื ื”ืขื ื•ืœืฉืœื•ื ื”ืžืœื—ืžื”ืƒ ื— ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืื•ืจื™ื” ืจื“ ืœื‘ื™ืชืš ื•ืจื—ืฅ ืจื’ืœื™ืš; ื•ื™ืฆื ืื•ืจื™ื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืœืš ื•ืชืฆื ืื—ืจื™ื• ืžืฉืืช ื”ืžืœืšืƒ ื˜ ื•ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ืื•ืจื™ื” ืคืชื— ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืœืš ืืช ื›ืœ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื•; ื•ืœื ื™ืจื“ ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื•ืƒ ื™ ื•ื™ื’ื“ื• ืœื“ื•ื“ ืœืืžืจ ืœื ื™ืจื“ ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื•; ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืืœ ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ืœื•ื ืžื“ืจืš ืืชื” ื‘ื ืžื“ื•ืข ืœื ื™ืจื“ืช ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชืšืƒ ื™ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœ ื“ื•ื“ ื”ืืจื•ืŸ ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื™ืฉื‘ื™ื ื‘ืกื›ื•ืช ื•ืื“ื ื™ ื™ื•ืื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื™ ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื—ื ื™ื ื•ืื ื™ ืื‘ื•ื ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื™ ืœืื›ืœ ื•ืœืฉืชื•ืช ื•ืœืฉื›ื‘ ืขื ืืฉืชื™; ื—ื™ืš ื•ื—ื™ ื ืคืฉืš ืื ืืขืฉื” ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื–ื”ืƒ ื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืืœ ืื•ืจื™ื” ืฉื‘ ื‘ื–ื” ื’ื ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืžื—ืจ ืืฉืœื—ืš; ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ืื•ืจื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ื•ืžืžื—ืจืชืƒ ื™ื’ ื•ื™ืงืจื ืœื• ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื™ืื›ืœ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ื™ืฉืช ื•ื™ืฉื›ืจื”ื•; ื•ื™ืฆื ื‘ืขืจื‘ ืœืฉื›ื‘ ื‘ืžืฉื›ื‘ื• ืขื ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื™ื• ื•ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื• ืœื ื™ืจื“ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

Why does David tell Uriah to go home? It seems obvious: he wants Uriah to have relations with Bat Sheva, so the pregnancy can be attributed to Uriah (itโ€™s presumably about 2 months later, but still plausible). Uriah refuses, out of loyalty to his fellow soldiers who are not home on leave. Sternberg, however, brings up a major gap in our understanding: does Uriah know about the David and Bat Sheva affair? Is he really that innocent and idealistic, or is he fighting a subtle battle against his king? The text intentionally doesnโ€™t tell us; there are hints both ways. If he doesnโ€™t know, why doesnโ€™t he go home? The excuse he gives seems like a caricature of the perfect soldier. And his response to David is shockingly chutzpadik:

ืžื•ืจื“ ื‘ืžืœื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื™ื:ื™ื) ื•ืื“ื•ื ื™ ื™ื•ืื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืื“ื•ื ื™ ืขืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืฉื“ื” ื—ื•ื ื™ื.

ืฉื‘ืช ื ื•,ื

ื•ืื“ื•ื ื™ ื™ื•ืื‘: ืœืื• ืื•ืจื— ืืจืขื ืœืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืจื•ืช ืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ ื”ืžืœืš.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืฉื

But if he does know, why doesnโ€™t he say anything? If he is afraid of the king, why does he innocently bring the order for his own murder back to Uriah?

For us to interpret [Uriahโ€™s] words as those of a heroic idealist, he must not know of his wifeโ€™s infidelity; while for us to see his words as the outcry of a deceived husband, his idealistic reason for refusing to go home must be a smokescreen. But the narrator, who settles for nothing less than the best of these two worlds, still yokes them together for maximum effect.He builds up a multiple and hence multifunctional character. because of the readerโ€™s inability to decide between the two mutually exclusive portraits, the figure of Uriah comes to operate in both directions at onceโ€ฆ

For two contrasting versions of reality are being projected at one and the same time by a single order of words. So the constant and unresolved vacillation between the possibilities achieves what every literary work strives for: again and again it brings the reader back to the concrete texture of the details, making each one prominent and interesting.

Meir Sternberg, Gaps, Ambiguity and the Reading Process, in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 208-209

When Uriah will not return home, David changes the plan: he arranges to have Uriah killed:

ื™ื“ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื™ื›ืชื‘ ื“ื•ื“ ืกืคืจ ืืœ ื™ื•ืื‘; ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื‘ื™ื“ ืื•ืจื™ื”ืƒ ื˜ื• ื•ื™ื›ืชื‘ ื‘ืกืคืจ ืœืืžืจ; ื”ื‘ื• ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœ ืžื•ืœ ืคื ื™ ื”ืžืœื—ืžื” ื”ื—ื–ืงื” ื•ืฉื‘ืชื ืžืื—ืจื™ื• ื•ื ื›ื” ื•ืžืชืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

But that doesnโ€™t make sense. If his goal was to hide the affair from public knowledge, then having Uriah killed will only make the rumors spread faster. Too many of the Israelite soldiers would have to be aware of what happens to him. Sternberg doesnโ€™t have an answer, beyond the idea that David just lost it:

His reputation at stake, his desperate gamble foiled again and again, his pride smarting under Uriahโ€™s mockery, David loses his head and overlooks (or dismisses) the possibility that Uriah may open his letter to Joabโ€ฆ[T]here is no escape from the inference that the the king has indeed lost something of his balanceโ€ฆIf if is to come to light anyway, why then not have Uriah killed in Jerusalem? David, the brilliant general and the veteran of a hundred battles, cannot have been in his right mind when he issued such an order.

Meir Sternberg, Gaps, Ambiguity and the Reading Process, in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 211-212

The gemara faults David for his scheme. He is the king; he can justify putting anyone to death if he deems it necessary for state security:

(ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื™ื‘:ื˜) ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื—ืชื™ ื”ื›ื™ืช ื‘ื—ืจื‘: ืฉื”ื™ื” ืœืš ืœื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื“ื ืช.

ืฉื‘ืช ื ื•,ื

Rav Medan says we are thinking about the whole affair wrong. Itโ€™s not about hiding the affair; itโ€™s about protecting the child:

ื›ื™ ื™ืžืœืื• ื™ืžื™ืš ื•ืฉื›ื‘ืช ืืช ืื‘ืชื™ืš ื•ื”ืงื™ืžืชื™ ืืช ื–ืจืขืš ืื—ืจื™ืš ืืฉืจ ื™ืฆื ืžืžืขื™ืš; ื•ื”ื›ื™ื ืชื™ ืืช ืžืžืœื›ืชื•ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื–:ื™ื‘

ืืฉืจ ื™ืฆื ืžืžืขื™ืš: ืžื›ืืŸ ืฉืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ื•ืื“ื ื™ื”ื• ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื›ื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ื ื•ืœื“ื• ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื•ืžืืฉืจ ื ื•ืœื“ื• ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉื™ื”ื™ื” ืžืœืš ื•ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื“ื•ื“ ืžื™ ื”ื•ื ืขื“ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืฉืœืžื” ื•ืฉืœื— ืœื• ื‘ื™ื“ ื ืชืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ื ืฉื™ืงืจื ืฉืžื• ื™ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืื– ื™ื“ืข ื“ื•ื“ ื›ื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื™ืžืœื•ืš ื•ื–ื”ื• ืฉืืžืจ ืœื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข ื›ื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ื ืš ื™ืžืœื•ืš ืื—ืจื™.

ืจื“ืดืง, ืฉื

Itโ€™s been over 10 years since this prophecy, and David has no new progeny. Once David finds out that Bat Sheva is pregnant, he realizes that it all was really a sign from G-d. This is the promised child. He wants Uriah to go back to Bat Sheva, not to avoid the shame of his affair, but to protect the unborn child. If Uriah, one of his original ืžืจื™ ื ืคืฉ finds out that his wife was unfaithful, he will likely kill her first and ask questions later, like Yehudah (ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื—:ื›ื“)โ€Ž ื•ื™ื’ื“ ืœื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืืžืจ ื–ื ืชื” ืชืžืจ ื›ืœืชืšโ€ฆื•ื™ืืžืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”, ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื•ื” ื•ืชืฉืจืฃ. And if David canโ€™t convince Uriah that the child is his, then he needs to eliminate the risk.

ื”ืงื• ื”ืžื ื—ื” ื‘ืฉืจืฉืจืช ื—ื˜ืื™ื• ืฉืœ ื“ื•ื“ ื”ื•ื ื’ื•ืจืœื• ืฉืœ ื”ื‘ืŸ. ืœื”ื‘ื ื” ื–ื•, ืžืฉื ื•ื“ืข ืœื“ื•ื“, ืฉื–ืจืขื• ื ื‘ื˜ ื‘ืจื—ืžื” ืฉืœ ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข, ื ื—ืœืฅ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืคืขื•ืœื” ืžื”ื™ืจื” ืœื ืจืง ืžื—ืžืช ื”ื‘ื•ืฉื”, ืืœื, ื•ืื•ืœื™ ื‘ืขื™ืงืจ, ืžื—ืฉืฉ ืคืŸ ื™ื‘ื•ืœืข ืœืขื•ึผื‘ึผืจ , ืœื–ืจืขื•. ืื ื™ื‘ื•ื ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื‘ื™ืชื”, ื•ื™ื™ื•ื•ื“ืข ืœื• ึดืฉืืฉืชื• ื”ืจื” ืœื–ื ื•ื ื™ืโ€”ื™ื™ืชื›ืŸ ืฉื“ื•ื“ ื”ืžืœืš ื™ืฆืœื™ื— ืœื”ื™ืžืœื˜ ืžื–ืขืžื• ื‘ืืžืฆืขื•ืช ื”ื•ืจืืช ื”ื”ื™ืชืจ ื”ืคื•ืจืžืืœื™ ืฉื”ื™ื™ืชื”; ื™ื™ืชื›ืŸ ืืฃ ืฉื™ืฆืœื™ื— ืœืฉื›ื ืข ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืœื”ืฉืชื™ืง ืืช ื”ืคืจืฉื”. ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืจื•ืจโ€”ืื•ืจื™ื” ื™ื ืกื” ืœื”ื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ึผื‘ึผืจ ื”โ€ืžืžื–ืจโ€œ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžื—ื™ืจ ืขื•ื“ ืœืคื ื™ ืฉื™ึตืฆึตื ื–ื” ืœืื•ื•ื™ืจ ื”ืขื•ืœื, ืื• ืœืคื—ื•ืช ืจื’ืข ืื—ื“ ืื—ืจ-ื›ืšโ€ฆ

ื“ืื’ืชื• ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื” ืฉืื•ืจื™ื” ืœื ื™ื ืกื” ืœื”ื™ืคื˜ืจ ืžืžื ื•. ื”ื•ื ื”ื™ื” ืžื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืื•ืจื™ื” ื™ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ื ื•, ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื™ื—ื™ื”. ื“ื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืื•ืชื” ืฉืขื” ึดืœืืžื• ื”ืืžืชื™ืช ืฉืœ ื‘ืŸ ื”ื–ื ื•ื ื™ื ืฉื™ืขืžื•ื“ ืœืžืฉืคื˜ ืœืคื ื™ ื‘ื ื•, ืฉืœืžื” (ืžืœื›ื™ื ื ื’:ื›ื•): ื•ืชึนึผืืžึถืจ ื”ึธืึดืฉึธึผืื” ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ื‘ึฐึผื ึธื”ึผ ื”ึทื—ึทื™ ืึถืœ ื”ึทืžึถึผืœึถืšึฐ ื›ึดึผื™ ื ึดื›ึฐืžึฐืจื•ึผ ืจึทื—ึฒืžึถื™ื”ึธ ืขึทืœ ื‘ึฐึผื ึธื”ึผ ื•ึทืชึนึผืืžึถืจ ื‘ึดึผื™ ืึฒื“ึนื ึดื™ ืชึฐึผื ื•ึผ ืœึธื”ึผ ืึถืช ื”ึทื™ึธึผืœื•ึผื“ ื”ึทื—ึทื™ ื•ึฐื”ึธืžึตืช ืึทืœ ืชึฐึผืžึดื™ืชึปื”ื•ึผ.

[ื”ืขืจื” 195: ื•ืฉืžื ืžืชืงื“ื™ื ื–ื” ื ื˜ืœ ืฉืœืžื” ืืช ื—ื›ืžืชื• ื‘ืžืฉืคื˜.]

โ€ฆื‘ื™ื™ืื•ืฉื• ื•ื‘ื—ื•ืกืจ ื”ืื•ื ื™ื ืฉืœื•, ืฉื ื•ืกืคื• ืœืขืœื‘ื•ื ื•ืช ืฉื”ื˜ื™ื— ื‘ื• ืื•ืจื™ื”, ื“ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื”. ืœืœื ื›ืœ ืงืฉืจ ืœื—ืฉืฉื• ืฉืžื ื™ื™ื’ืœื” ื—ื˜ืื•, ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ื™ื“ืขื• ืžืžื ื• ื›ืžื” ืื ืฉื™ื , ืคื•ืจืฉ ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื—ืกื•ืชื• ืขืœ ื‘ืช-ืฉื‘ืขโ€ฆื“ื•ื“ ื—ื•ืฉื‘ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ื“ ื‘ืœื‘ื“: ืขืœ ื‘ื ื• ืฉื™ื™ื•ื•ืœื“ ืœื•, ื•ืขืœ ื”ืฆื•ืจืš ืฉื™ื™ื•ื•ืœื“ ืœืื‘ ื—ื•ืงื™, ืฉื™ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ืื‘ื”ื•ืชื• ืขืœื™ื•.

ื›ืœ ืขืžืœื• ืฉืœ ื“ื•ื“ ืœื”ื’ืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•, ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื™ื’ืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ื•ืœืงื™ื—ืช ื‘ืช-ืฉื‘ืข ืœืื™ืฉื”, ื™ืจื“ ืœื˜ืžื™ื•ืŸ. ืขื•ื ืฉ ื–ื” ืคื•ื’ืข ื‘ื“ื•ื“ ื™ื•ืชืจ ืžื›ืœ ืขื•ื ืฉ ืื—ืจ. ืืช ื›ืœ ื—ืœืงื• ื‘ืขื•ื ืฉ ื”ืžืชืžืฉืš ื ื•ืฉื ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ื’ื‘ื•ืจื”. ื”ื•ื ืžืงื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืืช ืžื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื”ื“ื—ืชื• ืžืžืœื›ื•ืช. ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืชืง ื‘ืขืช ื”ืฉื›ื™ื‘ื” ืขื ื ืฉื™ื• ื•ื‘ืขืช ืฉืžื•ื˜ื—ื™ื ื‘ื• ืขืœื‘ื•ื ื•ืช. ื•ืจืง ืขื ึตื’ื–ืจืช ืžื•ืช ื”ื‘ืŸ ืžื‘ืช-ืฉื‘ืข ืœื ื”ืฉืœื™ื. ื”ื•ื ืžื‘ืงืฉ ืžืŸ ื”ืงื‘ืดื” ื‘ืขื“ ื”ื ืขืจ, ื•ืฆื. ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ื›ื‘ ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ื‘ื•ื›ื”.

ื”ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื“ืŸ, ืžื’ื™ืœืช ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข, ืขืžืณ 126

So David doesnโ€™t care whether Uriah knows about the affair or not. He just needs to make sure Uriah thinks itโ€™s possible the child is his (Uriahโ€™s). That will allow the child to survive, and David can decide later how to โ€œadoptโ€ him or otherwise bring him to his destiny.

But then why have Uriah killed in battle and not just assassinate him in Jerusalem? Rav Medan thinks it was Davidโ€™s way of technically avoiding sinning; if it was Yoav who killed Uriah, then David is innocent. It is the same sort of technicality that absolves David of adultery. He canโ€™t be convicted in an Earthly court. ื”ืณ will still hold him accountable:

ืžึทื“ึผื•ึผืขึท ื‘ึธึผื–ึดื™ืชึธ ืึถืช ื“ึฐึผื‘ึทืจ ื”ืณ ืœึทืขึฒืฉื‚ื•ึนืช ื”ึธืจึทืข ื‘ึฐึผืขึตื™ื ึทื™ ืึตืช ืื•ึผืจึดื™ึธึผื” ื”ึทื—ึดืชึดึผื™ ื”ึดื›ึดึผื™ืชึธ ื‘ึทื—ึถืจึถื‘ ื•ึฐืึถืช ืึดืฉึฐืืชึผื•ึน ืœึธืงึทื—ึฐืชึธึผ ืœึฐึผืšึธ ืœึฐืึดืฉึธึผืื”; ื•ึฐืึนืชื•ึน ื”ึธืจึทื’ึฐืชึธึผ ื‘ึฐึผื—ึถืจึถื‘ ื‘ึฐึผื ึตื™ ืขึทืžึผื•ึนืŸืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื™ื‘:ื˜

ื“ื•ื“ ื ืคื˜ืจ ืžืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ืช ืœื”ืจื™ื’ืช ืื•ืจื™ื”, ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืืฉืœื“ืดืข [ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื™ื— ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื”], ื•ื™ื•ืื‘ ื”ื™ื” ืžื–ื™ื“.ืืžื ื ื•ื“ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ื›ืืŸ ืœืคื•ื˜ืจื• ืœื—ืœื•ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืฉืžื™ื.

ื•ืื›ืŸ, ื”ื’ืžืจื ื‘ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ (ืžื•,ื) ืื•ืžืจืช, ืฉื™ื•ืื‘ ื ืขื ืฉ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ืžื™ืชื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืฉืืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืฉืœื ื“ืจืฉ โ€ืื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืจืงื™ืŸโ€œ, ื›ืœื•ืžืจ, ืฉื”ื™ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืœืกืจื‘ ืœืคืงื•ื“ืชื• ืฉืœ ื“ื•ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื™ืชื” โ€ื‘ืœืชื™ ื—ื•ืงื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื™ืœโ€œ ื•ื ื’ื“ ื“ื™ืŸ ืชื•ืจื”, ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉืžืข ื‘ืงื•ืœ ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื”ืฉืชืชืฃ ื‘ืžื–ื™ืžื” ืœื”ืจื•ื’ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื”.

ื”ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื“ืŸ, ืžื’ื™ืœืช ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข, ืขืžืณ 101-102

The Maharshal emphasizes that Yoav should have realized that something was amiss when he got the order:

ืœืžื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื™ื•ืื‘โ€ฆืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื™ื•ืื‘ ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืข ืœืžื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘? ื”ืœื ืื•ื ืก ืคื˜ืจ ืจื—ืžื ื!โ€ฆืžื•ื›ืจื— ืืชื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื™ื•ืื‘ ื’ืดื› ื”ื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจโ€ฆ.ื•ื›ื™ ืœื ื”ืจื’ื™ืฉ ื™ื•ืื‘ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ื” ื ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื•ืจื™ื” ืžื™ืชืช ื‘ืดื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ, ืฉื”ื™ื” ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืžื™ืช ืขืœื™ื•, ืžื“ื”ืžืฆื™ื ืขืœื™ื• ืชื—ื‘ื•ืœื” ืœื”ืžื™ืชื• ื‘ื—ืฉืื™ ื•ื‘ื”ืกืชืจ.

ื™ื ืฉืœ ืฉืœืžื”, ื‘ื‘ื ืงืžื ื–:ืœื’

โ€œI was just following ordersโ€ is not a defense:

ืกื™ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื›ืจื” ืฉืœ ืคืงื•ื“ื” โ€ื‘ืœืชื™ ื—ื•ืงื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื™ืœโ€œโ€”ืžืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืชื ื•ืกืก ื›ื“ื’ืœ ืฉื—ื•ืจ ืžืขืœ ืœืคืงื•ื“ื” ื”ื ืชื•ื ื”, ื›ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืื–ื”ืจื” ื”ืื•ืžืจืช: โ€ืืกื•ืจ!โ€œ. ืœื ืื™ ื—ื•ืงื™ื•ืช ืคื•ืจืžืœื™ืช, ื ืกืชืจืช ืื• ื ืกืชืจืช ืœืžื—ืฆื”โ€ฆื–ื•ื”ื™ ืžื™ื“ืช ืื™ ื”ื—ื•ืงื™ื•ืช ื”ื“ืจื•ืฉื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ืืช ื—ื•ื‘ืช ื”ืฆึดื™ึผื•ึผืช ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื™ืœ ื•ืœื”ื˜ื™ืœ ืขืœื™ื• ืืช ื”ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื”ืคึผึฐืœึดื™ืœึดื™ืช ืœืžืขืฉื™ื•.

ื”ืฉื•ืคื˜ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืœื•ื™, ื‘ืคืกืง ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืชืŸ ื‘ืฉื ืช 1957 ื‘ืžืฉืคื˜ื ืฉืœ ืžื‘ืฆืขื™ ื˜ื‘ื— ื›ืคืจ ืงืืกื, ืžื•ื‘ื ื‘ึพื•ื™ืงื™ืคื“ื™ื”, ืคืงื•ื“ื” ื‘ืœืชื™ ื—ื•ืงื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื™ืœ

This is codified in the halacha from a pasuk in ืกืคืจ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข :

ื›ึธึผืœ ืึดื™ืฉื ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ื™ึทืžึฐืจึถื” ืึถืช ืคึดึผื™ืšึธ ื•ึฐืœึนื ื™ึดืฉึฐืืžึทืข ืึถืช ื“ึฐึผื‘ึธืจึถื™ืšึธ ืœึฐื›ึนืœ ืึฒืฉึถืืจ ืชึฐึผืฆึทื•ึถึผื ึผื•ึผ ื™ื•ึผืžึธืช ืจึทืง ื—ึฒื–ึทืง ื•ึถืึฑืžึธืฅืƒ

ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื:ื™ื—

ืืžืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื:ื™ื—) โ€ื›ืœ ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ืžืจื” ืืช ืคื™ืš ื•ืœื ื™ืฉืžืข ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ืœื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ืชืฆื•ื ื• ื™ื•ืžืชโ€œ. ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื”? ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ โ€ืจืง ื—ื–ืง ื•ืืžืฅโ€œ.

ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ืžื˜,ื

ืื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืจืงื™ืŸ ื“ืจืฉ:โ€ฆืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืจื“ ื‘ืžืœื›ื•ืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ โ€ืจืง ื—ื–ืง ื•ืืžืฅโ€œ; ืจืงื™ืŸ ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™ืŸ, ืฉืื ื‘ื ื”ืžืœืš ืœื‘ื˜ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ืœื•.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืฉื

The contrast is with Saulโ€™s generals who refused to kill the ื›ื”ื ื™ื of Nov:

ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืžืœืš ืœืจืฆื™ื ื”ื ืฆื‘ื™ื ืขืœื™ื• ืกื‘ื• ื•ื”ืžื™ืชื• ื›ื”ื ื™ ื”ืณ ื›ื™ ื’ื ื™ื“ื ืขื ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ื“ืขื• ื›ื™ ื‘ืจื— ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ื’ืœื• ืืช ืื–ื ื™; ื•ืœื ืื‘ื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ ื”ืžืœืš ืœืฉืœื— ืืช ื™ื“ื ืœืคื’ืข ื‘ื›ื”ื ื™ ื”ืณืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื›ื‘:ื™ื–

ื•ืœื ืื‘ื•: ื“ืจืฉื• ืื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืจืงื™ืŸ (ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื:ื™ื—): ื›ืœ ืื™ืฉ ืืฉืจ ื™ืžืจื” ืืช ืคื™ืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ, ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ โ€ืจืงโ€œ.

ืจืฉืดื™, ืฉื

Yoav gets the message and ostensibly obeys David:

ื˜ื– ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื‘ืฉืžื•ืจ ื™ื•ืื‘ ืืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ; ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืืœ ื”ืžืงื•ื ืืฉืจ ื™ื“ืข ื›ื™ ืื ืฉื™ ื—ื™ืœ ืฉืืƒ ื™ื– ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืื ืฉื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื™ืœื—ืžื• ืืช ื™ื•ืื‘ ื•ื™ืคืœ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื ืžืขื‘ื“ื™ ื“ื•ื“; ื•ื™ืžืช ื’ื ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื—ืชื™ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

But Sternberg points out that Yoav doesnโ€™t do exactly what David had said. He doesnโ€™t abandon Uriah; he sends an entire platoon to attack the city with Uriah among them. And they all fall. Rav Medan thinks that this wasnโ€™t really a change, that the letter to Yoav must have had more than the single order; the plan was to take ืจื‘ืช ืขืžื•ืŸ and Uriahโ€™s death (as part of the attack) was only a โ€œluckyโ€ side effect:

ืื ื• ืžืชืงืฉื™ื ืœืจืื•ืช ืืคืฉืจื•ืช, ืฉื“ื•ื“ ืฆื™ื•ื•ื” ืœื”ืคืงื™ืจ ืืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืœื‘ื“ื• ื‘ืฉืขืจ ื‘ื ื™ ืขืžื•ืŸ; ืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืœื ื”ื™ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœึฐื˜ึดืฉืึฐื˜ึตืฉื ืžื–ื™ืžืช ืจึถืฉืข ืฉื›ื–ื•โ€ฆ

ื ืจืื” ืœื ื•, ืฉื”ืžืœื™ื โ€ื•ืฉื‘ืชื ืžืื—ืจื™ื•โ€œ ืฉื›ึผืชื‘ ื“ื•ื“ ืื™ื ืŸ ืžืชื™ื™ื—ืกื•ืช ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ื, ืืœื ืœื—ื‘ื•ืจืช ื”ืคื™ืงื•ื“ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ืื‘. ื™ื•ืื‘ ื ืฆื˜ื•ื•ื” ืœืฉืœื•ื— ื›ื•ื— ืคืจื™ืฆื” ืœืฉืขืจ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ืคื™ืงื•ื“ื• ืฉืœ ืื•ืจื™ื” ื›ื“ื™ โ€ืœืžืฉื•ืš ืืฉโ€œ ื•ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืœืคืชื™ื—ืช ืฉืขืจ ื”ืขื™ืจโ€ฆ

ื”ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื“ืŸ, ืžื’ื™ืœืช ื‘ืช ืฉื‘ืข, ืขืžืณ 102-103

I think the ืคืฉื˜ is more like Sternberg, that David did intend for Uriah to die, abandoned by his troops. Yoav changed the plan to one that unfortunately led to a greater loss of life but led to the ultimate victory. Uriah dies a hero. The battle of Rabbah was like the battle of Midway:

While the Japanese were focused on attacking Midway, the U.S. carriers launched an attack. The first wave of planes were torpedo bombers. These planes would fly in low and try to drop torpedoes that would strike the side of the ships to sink them. The Japanese were able to fend off the torpedo attacks. Most of the U.S. torpedo attack planes were shot down and none of the torpedoes hit their target.

However, while the Japanese guns were aimed low at the torpedo bombers, American dive bombers dove in and attacked from high up in the sky. These bombs hit their target and three of the four Japanese aircraft carriers were sunk.

World War II for Kids: Battle of Midway

Then we have 8 psukim describing Yoavโ€™s report back to David:

ื™ื— ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื™ื•ืื‘; ื•ื™ื’ื“ ืœื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžืœื—ืžื”ืƒ ื™ื˜ ื•ื™ืฆื• ืืช ื”ืžืœืืš ืœืืžืจ; ื›ื›ืœื•ืชืš ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ืžืœื—ืžื” ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืืœ ื”ืžืœืšืƒ ื› ื•ื”ื™ื” ืื ืชืขืœื” ื—ืžืช ื”ืžืœืš ื•ืืžืจ ืœืš ืžื“ื•ืข ื ื’ืฉืชื ืืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ืœื”ืœื—ื; ื”ืœื•ื ื™ื“ืขืชื ืืช ืืฉืจ ื™ืจื• ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžื”ืƒ ื›ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื” ืืช ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ื‘ืŸ ื™ืจื‘ืฉืช ื”ืœื•ื ืืฉื” ื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื” ืขืœื™ื• ืคืœื— ืจื›ื‘ ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ื™ืžืช ื‘ืชื‘ืฅ ืœืžื” ื ื’ืฉืชื ืืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžื”; ื•ืืžืจืช ื’ื ืขื‘ื“ืš ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื—ืชื™ ืžืชืƒ ื›ื‘ ื•ื™ืœืš ื”ืžืœืืš; ื•ื™ื‘ื ื•ื™ื’ื“ ืœื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื›ืœ ืืฉืจ ืฉืœื—ื• ื™ื•ืื‘ืƒ ื›ื’ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืžืœืืš ืืœ ื“ื•ื“ ื›ื™ ื’ื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื ื• ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ื•ื™ืฆืื• ืืœื™ื ื• ื”ืฉื“ื”; ื•ื ื”ื™ื” ืขืœื™ื”ื ืขื“ ืคืชื— ื”ืฉืขืจืƒ ื›ื“ ื•ื™ืจืื• ื”ืžื•ืจืื™ื ืืœ ืขื‘ื“ื™ืš ืžืขืœ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ื™ืžื•ืชื• ืžืขื‘ื“ื™ ื”ืžืœืš; ื•ื’ื ืขื‘ื“ืš ืื•ืจื™ื” ื”ื—ืชื™ ืžืชืƒ

ื›ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืืœ ื”ืžืœืืš ื›ื” ืชืืžืจ ืืœ ื™ื•ืื‘ ืืœ ื™ืจืข ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื–ื” ื›ื™ ื›ื–ื” ื•ื›ื–ื” ืชืื›ืœ ื”ื—ืจื‘; ื”ื—ื–ืง ืžืœื—ืžืชืš ืืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื”ืจืกื” ื•ื—ื–ืงื”ื•.

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

The story that Yoav tells the messenger is pointedly critical. He implies that David is as evil as Avimelech:

ื ื•ื™ืœืš ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ื‘ืŸ ื™ืจื‘ืขืœ ืฉื›ืžื” ืืœ ืื—ื™ ืืžื•; ื•ื™ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื™ื”ื ื•ืืœ ื›ืœ ืžืฉืคื—ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ ืืžื• ืœืืžืจืƒ โ€ฆื” ื•ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืขืคืจืชื” ื•ื™ื”ืจื’ ืืช ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืจื‘ืขืœ ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืื™ืฉ ืขืœ ืื‘ืŸ ืื—ืช; ื•ื™ื•ืชืจ ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืŸ ื™ืจื‘ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ืŸ ื›ื™ ื ื—ื‘ืืƒ

โ€ฆื• ื•ื™ืืกืคื• ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืฉื›ื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ืžืœื•ื ื•ื™ืœื›ื• ื•ื™ืžืœื™ื›ื• ืืช ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ืœืžืœืš ืขื ืืœื•ืŸ ืžืฆื‘ ืืฉืจ ื‘ืฉื›ืืƒ

โ€ฆื  ื•ื™ืœืš ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ืืœ ืชื‘ืฅ; ื•ื™ื—ืŸ ื‘ืชื‘ืฅ ื•ื™ืœื›ื“ื”ืƒ ื ื ื•ืžื’ื“ืœ ืขื– ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื™ื ืกื• ืฉืžื” ื›ืœ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ื•ื”ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื•ื™ืกื’ืจื• ื‘ืขื“ื; ื•ื™ืขืœื• ืขืœ ื’ื’ ื”ืžื’ื“ืœืƒ ื ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš ืขื“ ื”ืžื’ื“ืœ ื•ื™ืœื—ื ื‘ื•; ื•ื™ื’ืฉ ืขื“ ืคืชื— ื”ืžื’ื“ืœ ืœืฉืจืคื• ื‘ืืฉืƒ ื ื’ ื•ืชืฉืœืš ืืฉื” ืื—ืช ืคืœื— ืจื›ื‘ ืขืœ ืจืืฉ ืื‘ื™ืžืœืš; ื•ืชืจืฅ ืืช ื’ืœื’ืœืชื•ืƒ ื ื“ ื•ื™ืงืจื ืžื”ืจื” ืืœ ื”ื ืขืจ ื ืฉื ื›ืœื™ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœื• ืฉืœืฃ ื—ืจื‘ืš ื•ืžื•ืชืชื ื™ ืคืŸ ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื™ ืืฉื” ื”ืจื’ืชื”ื•; ื•ื™ื“ืงืจื”ื• ื ืขืจื• ื•ื™ืžืชืƒ

ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ื ืคืจืง ื˜

But note that David never hears or mentions this story. The messenger changes everything around, in a way that he (the messenger) thinks will make Yoav look better. As a literary technique, then, the parallel between David and Avimelech is only meant for us, the readers. Itโ€™s the first hint of criticism in the text against David.

These pejorative connotations of Warrior King Laid Low by Woman are shared by the David and Bathsheba and the Abimelech storiesโ€ฆThe very reference Joab now makes to the incident attests that what Abimelech feared most has indeed befallen him: he has become a byword for a kingโ€™s shameful downfall at a womanโ€™s hands. The feature likewise recurs in the David storyโ€ฆDavid too makes desperate efforts to save face, but with so little success that the whole inglorious episode has been perpetuated (in the text before us) as an even more classic memento.

โ€ฆJoab may then be serving either as a conscious agent or merely as an unwitting vehicle of the textโ€™s machinationsโ€ฆThe irony in his words is irony for its own sake.

Meir Sternberg, Gaps, Ambiguity and the Reading Process, in The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, pp. 221-222

And this theme, of โ€œWarrior King Laid Low by Womanโ€, also evokes another Biblical hero, that is not mentioned by any commentator that I have seen, except for Leonard Cohen:

She broke your throne and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Leonard Cohen, Hallelujah

Wow. The line you find so interesting in the song always bothers me. Like he got his Bible stories mixed up. I always want to yell at him, โ€œthat wasnโ€™t Batsheva and David! That was Dalilah and Samson! You should have paid better attention in Hebrew school!โ€

But you must be right, that it was an intentional conflation of the two stories.

Phyllis Shapiro, personal communication

The ื ื‘ื™ื is not absolving David of his sins in any way. ื›ืœ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ื—ื˜ื ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื˜ื•ืขื”, but the ื˜ืขื•ืช is in reading the ื—ื˜ื in a too-simple manner.

Then Bat Sheva returns to the story, but not as herself, but as ืืฉืช ืื•ืจื™ื”:

ื›ื• ื•ืชืฉืžืข ืืฉืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ื›ื™ ืžืช ืื•ืจื™ื” ืื™ืฉื”; ื•ืชืกืคื“ ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœื”ืƒ ื›ื– ื•ื™ืขื‘ืจ ื”ืื‘ืœ ื•ื™ืฉืœื— ื“ื•ื“ ื•ื™ืืกืคื” ืืœ ื‘ื™ืชื• ื•ืชื”ื™ ืœื• ืœืืฉื” ื•ืชืœื“ ืœื• ื‘ืŸ; ื•ื™ืจืข ื”ื“ื‘ืจ ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื” ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื™ื

Only at this point is ื”ืณ explicitly angry, when the child is born. Why? We will have to find out.