QUOTE FROM ARYEH
"As for the statements it is an error to state that David did not sin or the brothers did not sin selling david in the gemara, it can be interpeted that it is an error to teach it. One does not describe bad things about our ancestors unless it is needed for halachic proofs. It is a statement of haskapha, do we teach the peshat, the actual meaning of the text, or we are teaching to make better Jews. "

Quote from R. Kacev
RESPONSE:
This is an obvious distortion of the words of Chazal. Altho twisting or misrepresenting the words of Chazal do not make one an Apikorus, it will cause one to be transgress the serious prohibition of "MOTZEE SHEM RAH" against one of our great ancestors "Dovid Hamelech".

Dear Rav Kacev,

In my veiw R. Yehuda Henkin is a qualified posek whose four books of shutim are widely quoted in the religious community. He is certainly a talmud chacham of the first degree and you should address accusations of motzee sham rah to diagreements with points in his article rather than say something which is inappropriate for a Rav to say about another Rav.

Some points from Rav Henkin essay in bnei banim IV p. 115, may of interest. He is of course not responsible for my phrasing of his remarks.

Rabbi shmuel bar nachmani was not concerned with historical accuracy. He did not bring any kabala or tradition but is based on his own midrash. The statement therefore does not exclude other interpetation like the seventy faces of the torah ... therefore when he says the person errs not that it is epikorsus or evil to think otherwise. (Compare with the statement any one says that the queen of sheba was a woman is in error bb 15)
Rebbe Shmuel does not say what the error is. He does not claim it is an error in understanding the text as he does not bring any tradition.
It is best to interpret that for teaching purposes there is no point in bringing up the scandals of david and reuvain....

However even rabbi shmuel admits that when there is something useful to be learn, one should interpret the text literally, in the warning to the sotah we mention david and reuvain as who did tshuva and she should do tsuvah like them. There rebbe shmuel makes a drash that reuvain did do teshuva (which is not in text) as the rambam says they remind her of the reuvain's sin with the concubine of his father as the literal meaning...

It is therefore better from a pedagological method to emphasize that hashem punishes great leaders for minor infractions and even great leaders can sin, even if they only thought about it rather than describe the abuse of power of kings which is not very relevant.
In any event, the insightful rav or the teacher should discern which approach is best and relevant to his environment, but not to argue pointless arguments with anyone as the veracity of the text.

Aryeh Shore

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The Gemarah in Shabbos 56a implies straight out that there was NO sin. It Darshen P'sukim that Dovid didn't sin, said that all who went to Milchumas BAis Dovid gave a Get Krisus, so how is possible to explain the Gemarrah differently that it means to err to teach it and not that he erred with P'shat?

The usual argument is that all of the mepharshim take the text as it is.
If David didn't do anything wrong, how is his teshuva a sign to serious sinners that they can do teshuva.
Midrashic material is not to be taken literally and certainly not for poskining. There are several opinions in the midrash. None of the rishonim or the Shulchan Aruch make any mention of reading the tanach and taking the sins of our forefathers as written is somehow lashon harah. Lets not make up new issurim.

Quote from the shut
The words of rabbi Shemuel ben nachmani are not subject to the controversy of criticlsim towards people in the tanach. He deals in places were it is written specifically that people sin, and explains that they did not sin with a serious sins. He does not claim they didn't sin at all. In regards to David "he saught to do and seeking to do a sin is a sin in itself and needs kapparah (Kiddushim פא ). Similarly, the are opinions in the gemara that David sinned accepted lashon harah about miposhet.
The question remains in places where is not clearly spelt out, it is permitted point out faults.
We have the example of the Klei Yakar (בראשית לד כה where he strongly criticises Yaakov Avinu about over concern with material things so that he was left alone looking for "פכים קטנים "

Aryeh Shore

Of coure he sinned somewhat (see Machlokes RAshi Tosfos what it was) but the point was not at the level of Pushet Pshat in Pasuk. My point, which wasn't dealt with, was to say that RSBN is interpreted to mean it's an error to teach it is a corruption of the reading of the Gemarah. The Gemarah says Mifairush that there was no AIshes ISh problem here. The err is to say that there is.

On the question of whether King David sinned, one needs to start with the Tanakh (Bible), then move to the Talmud, and then the views of later meforshim (commentators.

According to the Tanakh, King David was so taken with BatSheva, that he arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle. King David did this so she would be available for him to. The Tanakh states that David then arranged for Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife, so that the pregnancy could be attributed to Uriah, rather than to the product of David.

However, David eventually confesses to the prophet Nathan: "I have sinned before the Lord."

However, some people come to the opposite conclusion. Talmud Shabbat 56a says "Kol ha'omer Dovid (Hamelech) chata, eino ela to'eh ", "He who says that King David sinned is mistaken".

So how can the Talmud contradict Samuel II:11? Well, it can't. King David's confession stands on its own. So how to understand the Talmud. We can learn from Abrabanel. He writes: "These sayings of Chazal [in Shabbat 56a] are midrashic, and one does not have to reconcile midrashic statements [to the facts].

This is based on the rule "Ein meshivin al ha'drash" - One is not required to reconcile any midrashic story with historical facts.

This issue is addressed by Professor Yehudah Elitzur in the article "David Ben Yishai - an example of perfect repentance" He says:

"People who study the story of king David superficially - and
this is a common mistake in the study of Davidic legends - try
to clear David of his sin, and to proof that he did not sin.
Anybody who will learn with depth the legends about King David
will find that there is no attempt on the part of our sages
to clear him of his sin. Apparently there is one saying of our
sages in Shabbat 56a which says "He who says that David sinned
is mistaken", and this is the most frequently used quote. But
the truth is that this quote has to be put in the context of
praise and exoneration of all the heroes in the Bible, from
Reuven to Yoshiahu for polemic purposes with the Minim [sectarians]

HAGUT III, Teshuvah ve'Shavim, Jerusalem 1980


See the letter on this subject by Aryeh Frimer at:

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v20/mj_v20i25.html#CGK

You misunderstand what the Gemarah meant by that he didn’t sin. It’s obvious that he sin. It meant that he didn’t sin the great sin with a married woman. This is deduced from another verse that implies that all who went out to war wrote a get for his wife so not to leave her to be an Agunah if he’s killed and they never find him. If so, Bat Sheva must have been divorced at the time. Conclusion: David sinned with a non-married woman which is much less severe. Thus there is no contradiction to the Tanach, but rather the logical reconciliation between the conflicting verses.

This is true from all those that didn’t sin was that they didn’t sin as it would seem from a layman’s reading of the verse, but rather a lesser sin, in which also there are verses which forces such conclusions.

Shalom,

Hashem tells us what Dovid's sin was in 2Shmuel (Samuel) 12:12 - "He acted in private..."

There was no sin against Uriah who forfeited his life by being defiant to his king as a very high ranking officer in the king's army. Bathsheva had a proper gett, which was verified by Dovid's messengers, and went through the mikvah in her preparation for the king. Divorcing for a Jew has stiff requirements, but marrying is very easy, and intimacy is one of the means by which this can be accomplished.

Dovid and Bathsheva had a grand and public chasunah (wedding) later, to assuage the king's accusers, but it was too late. Great damage had been done by not proclaiming to the world what was happening.

When you are God's closest emmisary on Earth, you cannot allow even the "allusion" of wrongdoing, for the enemies of God will run with the allusion and perpetrate all kinds of harm for the next 3,000 years.

When Nasan spoke to Dovid, he did not tell of any violations of Jewish law. Nasan told Dovid what some or many people were saying about him (blasphemy), and what people would now be saying for thousands of years, and that it was Dovid's fault, because, "He acted in private."

Privacy is a luxury available to you and me, but not to a Jewish king.

Dovid wanted there to be no mistake about this, and tells us he himself that he never committed any sin against Uriah or Bathsheva. You will see this in Dovid's lamentation about the incident in Tehilla (Psalm) 51, Verse 6, where Dovid says that his sin was against God, and God alone.

Hashem also seems to want us to be clear about this, which is likely one of the reasons Dovid is called "righteous," in 1Melachim (Kings) 3:6, and a "Man of God," in Nechemya (Nehemia) 12:24,36.

In ALL of God's Scriptures, only 2 persons are accorded both the titles of "righteous," and "man of God," and those are Moshe and Dovid.

L'shana Tova Tikaseivu V'seichaseimu, L'altar L'chaim Tovim Ulshalom (For a good year may you be inscribed and sealed, immediately, for a good life, and for peace.)

Eliahu

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Mitterhoff,

Shalom,

I also see that Reuven is being mentioned in this thread. Reuven only did one this, he moved his father's bed from Bilhah's tent to Leah's tent. That is all.

If you or I had done this, it wouldn't mean very much, but for someone on the level of Reuven, it is so serious an affront, that both Malchus and the Kehuna was taken away from him.

If you need this explained to you, let me know.

Eliahu

[quote]There was no sin against Uriah who forfeited his life by being defiant to his king as a very high ranking officer in the king's army. Bathsheva had a proper gett, which was verified by Dovid's messengers, and went through the mikvah in her preparation for the king."


Huh? This is absolute nonsense, and totally un-Jewish. What you write goes against the Tanakh (Bible) itself. Where did you learn such mishegos? Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself? The creative story you just gave us flatly accuses the Bible of lying, and replaces it with a totally new story.

In any case, it is a violation of halakha to demand that one accept midrashic stories as literally true when they violate historical fact and common sense. Did you read my above post on the apologetics made for King David? King David himself admitted that he was a sinner, and it shocks me that you call him a liar in order to save his honor.

RobNE

Shalom Rob,

You picked a really poor time to say things which could place a person in severe jeapardy with G-d. Boy oh boy, just a day after Rosh Hashana.

I recommend some serious introspection, and quick.

"Whoever states that David sinned is in error..." (Talking about any violations of the Taryag Mitzvos). Tana Rebi, Tractate Shabbos 56a.

L'shava Tovah, Eliahu

Quote from RobNe “Huh? This is absolute nonsense, and totally un-Jewish. What you write goes against the Tanakh (Bible) itself. Where did you learn such mishegos? Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself? The creative story you just gave us flatly accuses the Bible of lying, and replaces it with a totally new story”

First of all, nobody disagrees he sinned, the only question was to what level did he sin at. (Which is a Machlokes betweeen Rashi and tosfos if it was a complete Get and it was just not Mifursum so it was Maaras Ayin or it was on condition)

You sound like some fundamentalist Xian reading the Bible. Maybe you also gouge out an eye of someone who knocks out an eye. After all, the Bible says “an eye for an eye” and saying otherwise would be going against the Bible. The Rabbis of the Talmud made a creative way of saying it meant money, but it changes the Bible. (Hey, you can always become an evangelist preacher!)

[quote]First of all, nobody disagrees he sinned, the only question was to what level did he sin at. (Which is a Machlokes betweeen Rashi and tosfos if it was a complete Get and it was just not Mifursum so it was Maaras Ayin or it was on condition)

Rav Chaim, I believe that you may have misread some of the previous letters. Some people here DO claim that David did not sin at all. That is what I was disagreeing with.

Ravi Chaim writes: "You sound like some fundamentalist Xian reading the Bible. Maybe you also gouge out an eye of someone who knocks out an eye. After all, the Bible says “an eye for an eye” and saying otherwise would be going against the Bible. The Rabbis of the Talmud made a creative way of saying it meant money, but it changes the Bible. (Hey, you can always become an evangelist preacher!)"

Why are you making personal attacks? In the Jewish community, it is considered a grevious insult to attack a fellow Jew as having evangelical Chrisitian beliefs, and I find it hard to believe that you actually hold such a view. It seems more likely to me that you are writing out of anger, and not out of logical analysis of the issue. I think you were brought up with only teaching on this issue, the view popularized by Rashi, and were thus incorrectly taught that his was the only Jewish viewpoint. But Rashi, while one of the greatest meforshim, is just one of many classical meforshim. I submit we follow Judaism, based on the collective teachings of our rabbis, and not Rashi-ism.

On this one issue, it seems to me that you are reading one verse in the Talmud out of its historical context. In regards to this aspect of David's life, and the Talmud's denial of a sin, Abrabanel writes: "These sayings of Chazal [in Shabbat 56a] are midrashic, and one does not have to reconcile midrashic statements [to the facts]."

Arbarbanel is hardly an evangelical Christian, and hardly a fundamentalist. In fact, he is using a very non-fundamentalist reading of the Bible, a view that some other meforshim (classical rabbinic commentators) agree with.

Your reading of David's story neutralizes the entire point of the book: David sinned greviously, and the Bible states that God punished him drastically for this. Nathan the prophet rebukes David, God allows his son to die...and in an act that no other king in the middle-east could dream of, David accepted this rebuke and admitted his sin. In fact, that is one of the reasons why he was the greatest of all kings. How many kings before or since could do teshuvah?

The entire point of this book is teshuvah, and David would not have to do great teshuva if he did not first commit a great sin. Minimizing his sin (or as others here have done, denying it altogether) destroys the entire purpose of this book.

In defense of this view, I submit the essay of Orthodox Rabbu Aryeh Frimer:

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v20/index.html#VFM


Eliahu writes "You picked a really poor time to say things which could place a person in severe jeapardy with G-d. Boy oh boy, just a day after Rosh Hashana."

I fail to understand your belief system. Do you really believe that I have the power to fool God into thinking that some other person posting here was lying, and that God will punish this person on my say so? Heaven forbid that anyone on this forum has such a view of God. Isn't it really the other way around? God knows what is true and what is not, and God helps those that need help, even if you and I are right or wrong!


Shalom,

RobNE

Eliahu writes:
"I recommend some serious introspection, and quick."

Why? Because I stated a mainstream Orthodox Jewish view that you happen to be unfamiliar with? This is an educational forum, and it is unfitting to respond to new facts and points of views with anger.

"Whoever states that David sinned is in error..." (Talking about any violations of the Taryag Mitzvos). Tana Rebi, Tractate Shabbos 56a.

Apparently you failed to read the words of Arbarbanel on this issue. You rely on the opinion of one sentence alone, which does a disservice to the totality of rabbinic Judaism.

Please consider the views of these Orthodox rabbis:


In the Haftarah, and immediately preceding it, David is punished (at the end of Shmuel II) for counting the Jewish People not at the command of HaShem. In the Haftarah, he is punished for his sin with Bat-Sheva, and he is unable to find warmth no matter how he tries and how his surrounding court tries for him by finding the beautiful and righteous Avishag HaShunamit to be his nurse and companion.

Rabbi Pinchas Frankel, Educational Coordinator at the Union of Orthodox Congregations (The OU)

-----

The reality is, however, different; always there is the significant and meaningful balance between the physical and the spiritual that lies at the essence of Torah living. In our story, the text tells us regarding Avishag the virgin brought to keep David warm, "the girl was exceedingly beautiful, and she became his attendant and she served him but the king knew her not [the biblical term for sexual relationships]." Our rabbis taught that at this very period David and Batsheva had full and normal sexual relations, so that his behavior with Avishag cannot be construed as the result of any physical weakness (Sanhedrin 22a). Rabbi Yonatan Eibshitz explained that this was his penance for the sin with Batsheva, in accordance with the concept that authentic Teshuva is achieved only when the penitent is faced with the same challenge and is able to overcome it (Ahavat Yonatan).

From "Spiritual and Ethical Issues in the Historical Books of Tanach" Dr. Meir Tamari, on the OU website


RobNE



-----

quote:

"Whoever states that David sinned is in error..." (Talking about any violations of the Taryag Mitzvos). Tana Rebi, Tractate Shabbos 56a.

Apparently you failed to read the words of Arbarbanel on this issue. You rely on the opinion of one sentence alone, which does a disservice to the totality of rabbinic Judaism.

Please consider the views of these Orthodox rabbis:


In the Haftarah, and immediately preceding it, David is punished (at the end of Shmuel II) for counting the Jewish People not at the command of HaShem. In the Haftarah, he is punished for his sin with Bat-Sheva, and he is unable to find warmth no matter how he tries and how his surrounding court tries for him by finding the beautiful and righteous Avishag HaShunamit to be his nurse and companion.

Tana Rebi is only speaking about the incident with Bathsheva and Uriah. The counting is what Dovid calls his cheit m'od, and is a separate subject.

Dovid is not punished for violation of any of the Taryag Mitzvos, and Nasan does not rebuke Dovid for anything he did. Nasan's conversations are about what some or many people THINK Dovid did. It is a story about perceptions, not about reality.

Hashem tells us exactly what Dovid did in 2Shmuel 12:12..."He acted in secret," which allowed his enemies to devise stories which people such as yourself would continue to spew 3,000 years later.

Avishag was part of Dovid's teshuva process. No one would be able to accuse Dovid this time, for Dovid avoided any possible compromising situations.

One does not speak loshon hora (and in this case motzi shem ra) about a tzaddik, who is required to be given the utmost benefit of the doubt. No ordinary tzaddik is Dovid either, Hashem's favorite, and I would not like to be any of his attackers at judgment time...right now as a matter of fact.

Kol tuv, Eliahu

Quote “Why are you making personal attacks?”

I was just imitating your style of writing as I quoted you from an earlier post “Huh? This is absolute nonsense, and totally un-Jewish. What you write goes against the Tanakh (Bible) itself. Where did you learn such mishegos? Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself?”

You don’t sound like Mr. Nice guy yourself. Be nice to others and others will treat you the same. (I can’t stand when people abuse others and then cry when it’s done in kind to them.)

Quote “In the Jewish community, it is considered a grevious insult to attack a fellow Jew as having evangelical Chrisitian beliefs, and I find it hard to believe that you actually hold such a view. It seems more likely to me that you are writing out of anger, and not out of logical analysis of the issue”

My arguments are all based on logic. Your argument is that Chazal doesn’t fit into your simple reading of the Bible. Isn’t it? Well it is not a Jewish belief that the Bible to be read so literal and is need of Talmudic explanation. Those who push off Talmudic explanation because of their simple reading are basically Xians, Reform or Kaarites. I don’t think this is too far off of an evaluation, is it?

Quote “. I think you were brought up with only teaching on this issue, the view popularized by Rashi, and were thus incorrectly taught that his was the only Jewish viewpoint.”

I never said he’s the only viewpoint. But to throw off Chazal so easily because it doesn’t fit into your simple reading is very immature on your part. Are you so Naive to think that Rashi (or Chazal) didn’t read the passage, and thought that nobody else would? Of course they knew the simple reading, just like they knew the simple reading “an eye for an eye.” There were compelling reasons, as the Dikdukin of the Drashos, for both Drashos, and just for it doesn’t fit into your simple reading, it’s not a reason to dismiss it out of hand.

In the last post, you bring another reason besides your simplistic reading, to reject Chazal.
And I quote “Your reading of David's story neutralizes the entire point of the book: David sinned greviously, and the Bible states that God punished him drastically for this. Nathan the prophet rebukes David, God allows his son to die..”

Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that Dovid could only have sinned with an Aishes Ish, for a lesser sin, Hashem wouldn’t have punished him with his son dying. This, I feel, is a simplistic understanding of Hashem’s judgement. How can you know the yardstick of Hashem’s judgement? Do you agree with Hashem not to let Moshe to live because he hit the rock? Are there not a lot of tragedies that happen to people that did not commit such acts as defiling an Aishes Ish? Are there not of fine people who’s children die young? You don’t know of any fine people who’s children died? Obviously you don’t have an idea of what Hashem’s system of punisment (your ideas are not my ideas – today’s Haftorah) so you can’t bring any proof of the severity of the sin to the severity of the punishment. Especially, as Chazal states (even though you don’t accept Chazals) that Hashem is very meticulous with meeting punishment with the righteous like a hairbreadth.

To sum up your objections
1)It doesn’t fit into the simplistic reading of the Tanach (as I stated before is not a Frum Jewish concept)

2) It doesn’t fit your simplistic view of punishment to fit the crime.

These are hardly reasons to push Chazal off .

Instead of that I suffer from Rashiism, as you call it, I think your problem is that your trying too hard to critique Chazal so you can sound more “scholarly,” like some of the fringe left of Orthodoxy.

You quote one of the most liberal quotes “Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself?”

At first glance it may look like intellectual honesty, that you shouldn’t accept from someone, think it through yourself. But in reality, it’s the most intellectually bankrupt idea ever. If you would really think that, you would probably be dead (No reason to talk to a doctor, think for yourself.) Your car wouldn’t work (why get a mechanic, think it out yourself.) Your house would be flooded (Why get a plumber, think it out yourself)

We always go to the experts in the field for advice. How many really stupid things would be avoided if people would listen to experts and wouldn’t think for themselves. Most peoples thinking for themselves are very dangerous and sometimes ruin their lives.

The problem by Torah, is if you “think for yourself” regardless of what the experts say (Chazal) so the results might not be seen right away (like in the case that your house is flooded.) So you can go away with a smugness that you had “outsmarted” them. But by ignoring them is really not being smart or scholarly. We must ask ourselves, why did they, who are much greater than us , why did they feel so strongly that way? By studying them, without backhandedly dismissing them, can one really become a scholar. Then you get to understand how to think like an expert, rather then to think like the mediocre self .

Chaim writes:
"You don’t sound like Mr. Nice guy yourself. Be nice to others and others will treat you the same. (I can’t stand when people abuse others and then cry when it’s done in kind to them.)"

I can't believe that I am being subjected to this attack by a rabbi right before Yom Kippur. If you truly felt that one of my previous letters was not derekh eretz, then just say so. Instead, you attack me in order to teach me a lesson. Is that your understanding of Torah ethics?



"My arguments are all based on logic. Your argument is that Chazal doesn’t fit into your simple reading of the Bible."

Your claim is totally incorrect. I never once rejected Chazal (the sages of the Mishna and the two Talmuds.) Rather, I pointed out that there were many views. Your problem is that you seem to be rejecting everything in Judaism with the exception of one paragraph from the Talmud that you agree with. Come on, what about the examples I gave? Those were not written by me, and they were from mainstream sources.

More importantly, there are many sages in the Mishna and Talmud, and we cannot always interpret every verse in the Talmud literally, as you are doing here. What is so hard to understand about us pointing out that this discussion of David's sin falls into this category?

And if you absolutely cannot accept this, then please quote from the people I quoted, and discuss their views, not mine. Let's not make this personal.


I keep bringing forth quotes and sources, yet your only response is to falsely accuse me of rejecting all of Chazal. That us a personal attack, not a logical debate, and I don't know how to respond to that. I shall not respond with ad homenim remarks.


"Isn’t it? Well it is not a Jewish belief that the Bible to be read so literal and is need of Talmudic explanation. Those who push off Talmudic explanation because of their simple reading are basically Xians, Reform or Kaarites. I don’t think this is too far off of an evaluation, is it? "

Yes, I do think your attacks are far off the mark. More importantly you are attacking the Arbarabel and other Orthodox rabbis that I quoted; yuo are publicly labeling them as Christians, Reform and Karaite. Such public and false attacks are not acceptable.

Please stop pretending that I am creating my own personal view on this subject; as you well know from the sources I gave, I am not! The view I am describing is a mainstream Jewish view, even within Orthodox Judaism. Apparently the form of Orthodoxy you grew up with had a somewhat narrow set of teachings that did not encompass the width of Jewish thought on this particular subject. But that is no reason to attack everyone who thinks differently than you.



Chaim writes "I never said he’s the only viewpoint. But to throw off Chazal so easily because it doesn’t fit into your simple reading is very immature on your part."

Again, I beg you to please stop criticising the Arbarbaenl and other Orthodox rabbis I quoted as "immature" and wrong. Also, please stop claiming that I am "throwing off" all of Chazal. Rather, the Arbarbanel and other Orthodox rabbis did read the passage you suggested, but they also read other passages as well!

Chaim writes "Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that Dovid could only have sinned with an Aishes Ish, for a lesser sin, Hashem wouldn’t have punished him with his son dying. This, I feel, is a simplistic understanding of Hashem’s judgement."

Really? Because this is what many of the meforshim (classical rabbinic commentators) wrote. This is what many Orthodox rabbis write. Why do you keep attacking mainstream Orthodox points of view in this way?


"How can you know the yardstick of Hashem’s judgement? Do you agree with Hashem not to let Moshe to live because he hit the rock? Are there not a lot of tragedies that happen to people that did not commit such acts as defiling an Aishes Ish? Are there not of fine people who’s children die young? You don’t know of any fine people who’s children died? Obviously you don’t have an idea of what Hashem’s system of punisment (your ideas are not my ideas – today’s Haftorah) so you can’t bring any proof of the severity of the sin to the severity of the punishment."

Come now, you are reading all sorts of implications into my statement that were never intended, and that I do not believe. Please do not criticise me for beliefs that I do not have! In any case, the statement I made about God punishing David by taking his son is in the Bible, and is agreed with by many classical and Orthodox rabbis. Your unfamiliarity with this issue should be a cause for learning more, not anger at me.

Even if I were to change my mind, that wouldn't change the views of the many other Orthodox Jews out there who disagree with you. Please stop making this personal and accusing me of totally misunderstanding Judaism. This isn't about me.


Shalom,

RobNE

I'm afraid you laid yourself open to attack by the following comment:

quote:

Huh? This is absolute nonsense, and totally un-Jewish. What you write goes against the Tanakh (Bible) itself. Where did you learn such mishegos? Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself?

That's not, with respect, how we discuss Torah.

If we are to take the gemara that says Whoever says Dovid sinned is in error literally and one sidedly one might wonder why the gemara doesn't say he is sinning or talking loshon hara instead of "in error." As was mentioned - it's an error to point out Dovid's sins. Who amongst us is as great as Dovid Hamelech and who amongst us should criticize him? Instead we are supposed to learn something from the navi. That's why the Rashi, Abarbenel, Metzudos the Malbim & others wrote their peirushim, to give us insight to the story.

The Tanach does strongly give the opinion that Dovid Hamelech did do a sin on his level even if it wasn't really znus or retzach. If he didn't do anything wrong why would the Navi have spent so much time giving the impression that he did? We are supposed to learn something from the stories in Tanach. Enough people have quoted the Abarbenel and others that we can accept other views of the gemara without rejecting it or calling people names.

SamK

Quote

“"My arguments are all based on logic. Your argument is that Chazal doesn’t fit into your simple reading of the Bible."
Your claim is absolutely falsel. I never once rejected the views of Chazal (the sages of the Mishna and the two Talmuds.) Rather, I pointed out that there were many views”

I think your changing your tune. Before you wrote in essence that you’re not Halachically required to accept Chazal that you feel doesn’t make sense and against common sense. (I erased from my computer those old posts, and since I prepare these posts offline, I cannot quote them verbatim, but if I could, when I post on-line, I’ll quote them at the end of the piece.)

I also want to disprove the notion that one is Halachically allowed to dismiss Agadata. The Gemarah Bava Basra 75a states that a Talmud scoffed at R’ Yochanan’s Agadic remark. When he eventually experienced it, he remarked to R’ Yochanun that he was correct, since he saw it. R’ Yochanun replied, empty one, if you hadn’t seen it you wouldn’t believe it, your a scoffer on the words of the Rabbis. He looked at him and he turned into a pile of bones (See Mahrasha that uses the title of Rasha for this Talmud.) This is hardly titles and punishments for someone who is acting within the frameworks of Halacha.

Further more, the Chazon Ish (in Iggeres Chazon Ish 15) writes that anyone who denies the words of Chazal, whether in halacha or in Agadata, denies the words of Chazal and his Shcita is unfit and he’s unfit to say witness (Shcitaso P’sula U’Pasul L’Aidus)

quote:

Huh? This is absolute nonsense, and totally un-Jewish. What you write goes against the Tanakh (Bible) itself. Where did you learn such mishegos? Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself? The creative story you just gave us flatly accuses the Bible of lying, and replaces it with a totally new story.

In any case, it is a violation of halakha to demand that one accept midrashic stories as literally true when they violate historical fact and common sense. Did you read my above post on the apologetics made for King David?

quote:

"David Ben Yishai - an example of perfect repentance" He says:

"People who study the story of king David superficially - and
this is a common mistake in the study of Davidic legends - try
to clear David of his sin, and to proof that he did not sin.
Anybody who will learn with depth the legends about King David
will find that there is no attempt on the part of our sages
to clear him of his sin. Apparently there is one saying of our
sages in Shabbat 56a which says "He who says that David sinned
is mistaken", and this is the most frequently used quote. But
the truth is that this quote has to be put in the context of
praise and exoneration of all the heroes in the Bible, from
Reuven to Yoshiahu for polemic purposes with the Minim [sectarians]

(BTW most of your quotes (besides Abarbenel) is not coming from what is considered considered "mainstreem Orthodoxy" more likefrom the left side of Orthodoxy (no Mahrsha or Maharl, only from OU and lefter. This is why I wrote in my above post "I think your problem is that your trying too hard to critique Chazal so you can sound more “scholarly,” like some of the fringe left of Orthodoxy. You quote one of the most liberal quotes “Aren't you capable of thinking for yourself?”) The Abarbenel, I don't have it available to me at the moment to see how accurate the quotes from him is and what was bothering him)

I had the opportunity to check out the Abarbanel on Shabbos and Lo and behold he writes the Chazal and writes that all Mifarshim agree with this (That Batsheva wasn’t an Aishes Ish.) Not once did he reject Chazal’s words or say it wasn’t literal.

Frimer’s assumption that the Gemarah in Kesuvos are two Shitos is not simple at all. The Gemarah there doesn’t give two Amaraim that argue. The Gemarah was answering the questioner’s assumption that she was married and Assur. Thus the Gemarah says on the assumption that she was married, it was an Onus, but the truth be told, she wasn’t even married.