-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Adulterers stoned?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
If women were doing the school shootings things would be a little different.
Ask the Muslims who call themselves "Palestinians" how that's working out for them...
Hey brother sorry I spaced this out. I was reading tractate Ketuboth tonight and came across part of the reference and remembered you.
Here is part of the reference (not to the actual story but to the tradition of soldiers giving their wives a writing of divorce before going to war in King David's time):
Ketuboth 9B (first part are last few words on 9A)
So the commentary which accompanies the first part from Rabbi Steinsaltz mixed with the mishnah passage (in bold)...
"Rabbi Yonatan: Whoever goes out to war of the House of David writes a bill of divorce for his wife, so that if he does not return from battle, his wife will be permitted to remarry. The Biblical source for writing a bill of divorce before going off to war is to be found in the story of David's brothers. After they joined Saul's army, their father, Jesse, sent David to find them and bring back bills of divorce for their wives, as the verse says (1 Samuel 17:18) in describing Jesse's instructions to David. "And inquire about the welfare of your brothers, and take their pledge."
What [is meant by] "and take their pledge [ʿªrubātām ]" Rav Yosef taught: What Jesse meant to say was this: "Remove the things that are pledged [ ham'ʿōābīn ] i.e., things that connect husband and wife - their marital status - by receiving bills of divorce from your brothers on behalf of their wives." Thus the statement by Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rabbi Yonatan informs us that it was customary for a soldier to write a bill of divorce for his wife before going to war. This point was made in order to assert that Bathsheba, too, must have received a bill of divorce from her husband Uriah before her relationship with David began. Thus she was not guilty of adultery and was permitted to marry David after her husband's death in battle.
Commentary is from Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz. If anyone interested in Talmud has loot to blow, this is the edition of talmud to get.
Rabbi Steinsaltz is sometimes criticized by ultra-orthodox types due to his secular (mathematics, physics, chemistry) education and his willingness to lean on modern linguistic methods for interpretation. Even so, he is a giant of our time; sorry to quote Time magazine but they refer to him (per Wikipedia) as a "once-in-a-millennium scholar".
Is there any indication in any of these commentaries about how many (if any) women went and married another man once their husbands set foot outside the city and went away to war? Were the men required to be MIA or dead?
Might this have been an example of letter being administered but few who enacted based in spirit of that custom?
Would the prophet be condemning David just as much for "love thy neighbor" and implying that he was a scoundrel for following the exact letter of the law (sex with an unmarried woman) but ignoring its spirit by taking a wean based on a technicality when her husband could very easily have determined to be very much alive and well?
Might this have been an example of letter being administered but few who enacted based in spirit of that custom?
Would the prophet be condemning David just as much for "love thy neighbor" and implying that he was a scoundrel for following the exact letter of the law (sex with an unmarried woman) but ignoring its spirit by taking a wean based on a technicality when her husband could very easily have determined to be very much alive and well?
I think a strong argument can be made for this as "letter of the law vs spirit of the law".
The midrash about Uriah deserving the death penalty complicates things...if the midrash is true (still gonna dig it up @Verifyveritas76
)If we assume the midrash is false, but the custom (of giving divorces before going off to war) is true, then David's escaping the death penalty and being allowed to marry Bathsheba makes sense.
One thing I don't get is why did the child have to die? Anyone have any idea how this fits in the whole "the children shall not be put to death for the sins of the fathers?"
There is a tradition in Judaism that if you violate a vow to the L-rd, your children may die.
The only thing that comes to mind is that the instruction regarding capital punishment are for human judges, not heavenly ones, so if Hashem / His Divine Council wish to execute a human for any reason it's just.
Well there is this...
There is also this practical matter: David was the King. Is he held to the same standard? Who would judge the King but God alone? Is not God able to judge according to His own will regardless the law? Did not God warn the children of Israel these things would happen? Do you cast a king aside over one transgression; especially when He has a greater heart for God than any King before, and probably since? Especially when you know he'll repent? During a time of war no less?
Just some thoughts. Much like the woman and Jesus, I wouldn't try and make theology out of a story like this with exceptional circumstances. Its not like it went unpunished.
There is also this practical matter: David was the King. Is he held to the same standard? Who would judge the King but God alone? Is not God able to judge according to His own will regardless the law? Did not God warn the children of Israel these things would happen? Do you cast a king aside over one transgression; especially when He has a greater heart for God than any King before, and probably since? Especially when you know he'll repent? During a time of war no less?
Just some thoughts. Much like the woman and Jesus, I wouldn't try and make theology out of a story like this with exceptional circumstances. Its not like it went unpunished.
I read a Midrash about the child being ill gotten gain. I'll find it.
Here's the one about David
In contrast with the prevalent view that perceives David as sinning with Bathsheba, a contrary approach maintains that David was blameless and that whoever claims that he sinned is in error. The Talmud relates that Rabbi, who was descended from the Davidic line, sought to defend David: he argued that when Nathan the prophet reproached David, telling him (II Sam. 12:9): “Why then have you flouted the command of the L-rd and done what displeases Him?”, he chastised him about something that he wanted to do, but did not commit. (David might have intended to sin, but his actions did not exceed the bounds of the halakhah). David did not engage in adultery, because it was customary during the monarchy of the Davidic line for a man to write a conditional writ of divorce for his wife when he set out for war, which stipulated that, if he were to die in battle, his wife would be retroactively divorced from the time of his departure for the battlefield. This practice was meant to prevent women from becoming agunot (“chained” women barred from remarrying). Since Uriah had prepared such a writ of divorce for Bathsheba and he was killed in the fighting, Bathsheba was no longer a married woman when David had sexual relations with her. Furthermore, since Bathsheba was then unmarried, this act of intercourse constituted an act of marriage. Despite its unseemly nature, the act did not formally constitute a transgression. Nor did David commit any crime in the death of Uriah, since the latter was rebellious. He did not obey David when the king ordered him to go down to his house, but rather refused, arguing (II Sam. 11:11): “My master Joab and Your Majesty’s men are camped in the open,” and the mastery of another is not to be mentioned before the king. Uriah was deemed to be rebellious against David, a crime punishable by death, even without being tried before the Sanhedrin, as was the accepted procedhawkishShabbat 56a). The Talmud presents this attempt to exonerate David as tendentious, and seemingly criticizes the attempt to find him completely blameless, just as it shows that this advocacy comes from the circles of David’s descendants, who occupy the position of Nasi(Patriarch).
In contrast with the prevalent view that perceives David as sinning with Bathsheba, a contrary approach maintains that David was blameless and that whoever claims that he sinned is in error. The Talmud relates that Rabbi, who was descended from the Davidic line, sought to defend David: he argued that when Nathan the prophet reproached David, telling him (II Sam. 12:9): “Why then have you flouted the command of the L-rd and done what displeases Him?”, he chastised him about something that he wanted to do, but did not commit. (David might have intended to sin, but his actions did not exceed the bounds of the halakhah). David did not engage in adultery, because it was customary during the monarchy of the Davidic line for a man to write a conditional writ of divorce for his wife when he set out for war, which stipulated that, if he were to die in battle, his wife would be retroactively divorced from the time of his departure for the battlefield. This practice was meant to prevent women from becoming agunot (“chained” women barred from remarrying). Since Uriah had prepared such a writ of divorce for Bathsheba and he was killed in the fighting, Bathsheba was no longer a married woman when David had sexual relations with her. Furthermore, since Bathsheba was then unmarried, this act of intercourse constituted an act of marriage. Despite its unseemly nature, the act did not formally constitute a transgression. Nor did David commit any crime in the death of Uriah, since the latter was rebellious. He did not obey David when the king ordered him to go down to his house, but rather refused, arguing (II Sam. 11:11): “My master Joab and Your Majesty’s men are camped in the open,” and the mastery of another is not to be mentioned before the king. Uriah was deemed to be rebellious against David, a crime punishable by death, even without being tried before the Sanhedrin, as was the accepted procedhawkishShabbat 56a). The Talmud presents this attempt to exonerate David as tendentious, and seemingly criticizes the attempt to find him completely blameless, just as it shows that this advocacy comes from the circles of David’s descendants, who occupy the position of Nasi(Patriarch).
Thanks, I couldn't remember what was the kingly decree that Uriah had supposedly transgressed.
Have you seen where the story about how Uriah was the one who tied the knot in Goliat's sword (the midrash of how David unwittingly gave up his besheret, Bathsheba, to Uriah who was unworthy)?
Well the Deuteronomy passage has something you left off there ... the final word is l'son'ʾāy לשנאי "to those who hate me";
granted the Exodus verse leaves off that important qualifier but since the language is identical to Deuteronomy, I think we can safely apply the "to those who hate me" qualifier here.
Even so, what exactly does "visit" (pokēd) mean any way?
It certainly doesn't sound like "death before you are old enough to talk".
The translation you provided for the Leviticus passage is controversial:
וְהַנִּשְׁאָרִ֣ים בָּכֶ֗ם יִמַּ֙קּוּ֙ בַּֽעֲוֺנָ֔ם בְּאַרְצֹ֖ת אֹיְבֵיכֶ֑ם וְאַ֛ף בַּעֲוֺנֹ֥ת אֲבֹתָ֖ם אִתָּ֥ם יִמָּֽקּוּ׃
(Le 26:39)
I challenge the "they will rot" and the "like them" of your translation. "Like them" is nowhere in the Hebrew.
May I suggest:
"The survivors among you all will be heartsick on account of their iniquities in the lands of your enemies,
and also on account of the iniquities of their fathers [who are] with them, they will pine away."
***justification**
For yimmākkū I accept HALOT Lexicon's recommendation to go with the 2nd, metaphorical meaning:
2. (metaph.) to melt, dissolve:
• hills Is 344;
• people, as a penalty (Hempel Heilg. 3041) Lv 2639 Ezk 417 2423 3310, cj. Ps 10643 (rd. וַיִּמַּקּוּ). †
Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 629). Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Also note DCH (8 Volume Classical Hebrew Dictionary) chooses pine away for this verse:
3. pine away, <SUBJ> אִישׁ man Ezk 4:17 (+ שׁמם ni. be appalled), אָח brother Ezk 4:17, שׁאר ni. ptc. one who remains Lv 26:39, 39, בַּיִת house of Israel Ezk 24:23; 33:10. <PREP> בְּ of place, in, + אֶרֶץ land Lv 26:39; of cause, on account of, + צָוֹן iniquity Lv 26:39, 39; Ezk 4:17; 24:23, חַטָּאת sin Ezk 33:10, פָּשָׁע transgression Ezk 33:10.
Clines, D. J. A. (Ed.). (1993–2011). The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Vol. 5, p. 470). Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press; Sheffield Phoenix Press.
JPS commentary suggests "heartsick" for the condition in this context:
shall be heartsick Hebrew yimmakku means literally “they will waste away, melt.” One’s eyes may “melt” in their sockets (Zech. 14:12), as we find with the noun mak, “rot,” in Isaiah 3:24 and 5:24. The root m-k-k may be related to m-g-g, which also connotes dread in Exodus 15:14 and Ezekiel 21:20. In Ezekiel 4:17 and 24:23 there is the unusual idiom “to waste away because of transgression (ʿavon),” which conveys the meaning that the people will experience severe remorse.
Levine, B. A. (1989). Leviticus (p. 190). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 27B also has a treatment of this verse in the way I have described:
That is in accord with what has been taught on Tannaite authority:
“And also in the iniquities of their parents shall they pine away with them” (Lev. 26:39). That passage speaks of those who adhere to the pattern of deeds of their fathers.
Neusner, J. (2011). The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Vol. 16, p. 131). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Last edited:
IDK, but I think it might have had something to do with being the “Son of David” as a picture of the Messiah to come. This is just off the top of my head, so ?
Very interesting take, the innocent child is literally dying for the sins of others. I hadn't thought of that.
It could have also been to remove the possibility of the Messiah being from the lineage of one born from adultery or to keep the accusation from being leveled that the child could have possibly been Uriah’s. As it stands now, I don’t think anyone could say that Solomon and Nathan were anyone’s but David’s children.
I want to make sure I'm following, are you suggesting it wasn't an act of G-d to kill the child, but that G-d via Nathan was only foretelling what was going to happen anyway?
In other words, had David behaved righteously in this instance G-d may have given him a miracle and healed the child but since David did not behave rightly there would be no miracle on his behalf?
Just clarifying so I understand the idea.
I'm not going to die on this hill, but I do think it's an interesting parallel to the propitiation of Christ. I won't write a book or sermon on it, but if Abraham and Isaac have their moment of foreshadow, I would think David and his son could too. It's all the more plausible given the association of Messiah with King David (meshiach ben David). There are bigger fish to fry, so no biggie.
Not at all, I am saying that He took the child’s life, but in a way that did not cause it to feel the brunt of the punishment.
I don’t see this as a child suffering for the sins of the father.
I agree that there is a bit of a parallel.
The Law had been broken and the penalty was death. YHWH chose to substitute the child, coming (for me) uncomfortably close to child sacrifice to appease the gods.
I think there is a completely different approach to ancestors in Christianity and Judaism, and this illustrates it.
Judaism is focussed on legal perfection. As a result, Jews naturally feel that their ancestors must have been chosen by God because they were exceptionally perfect. Based on this presupposition, they then go to great lengths to explain away the negative aspects of their ancestors lives to show how they were, contrary to what it may seem on the surface, as near-perfect as plausible. Here David's descendents attempt to justify his actions, but that's no different from how all Jews will go to similar lengths to defend Jacob from any criticism (a debate we have had here before!). They have a deep need to see these people as very good.
Christians on the other hand are focussed on grace. We are quite happy to look at anyone in the past, whether related to us or not, and say "they might have screwed up but God loved them anyway and chose to use them regardless".
I think this is a helpful difference to bear in mind. It makes no sense to me why someone would see a need to go to great lengths to figure out a set of circumstances that show David or anyone else as being less sinful than the account reads at first glance, because his sinfulness or lack therof makes no difference to my appreciation of him or my understanding of God. It's simply an interesting coffee-table discussion topic. But to a Jew it is foundational and can evoke deep emotions. It all comes back to our understanding of grace.