Shabbat 56a — the Talmud in English

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Whoever says ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") Sh

that the sons of Shmuel sinned

through bribery and the perversion of judgment attributed to them,

is only mistaken. As it is stated: “And it was, when Shmuel grew old, that his sons did not walk in his ways.”

It follows

that it was in his ways that they did not walk.

But

they did not sin either.

Rather, how do I uphold

what is stated concerning them,

“And they turned aside after profit

and took bribes and perverted justice”

? — That they did not act as their father acted.

And the Gemara explains in what way they differed from Shmuel:

The righteous Shmuel would go around all the places of Israel and judge them in their cities. As it is stated: “And he would go from year to year, and go around Beit El and Gilgal and Mitzpeh, and judge Israel.”

But

these

—

his sons

—did not do so. Rather, they sat in their cities

and judged the people there. And they did not leave their place,

in order to increase the earnings of their attendants

their servants

and their scribes.

For they would hire attendants to summon those called to judgment, and scribes to write documents and letters. And they wanted the people of their city to profit from this. Therefore it was stated concerning them: “And they turned aside after profit.”

And as for what was said, that the sons of Shmuel did not sin —

as

a dispute

of tannaim

this matter was taught.

For it was taught in a beraita: Concerning that which is written,

“And they turned aside after profit” —

Rabbi Meir says: They asked for their portion with their mouths.

For they requested the first tithe that was fitting for them. For they were Levites. And because they were the great men of the generation and judges, Israel would not withhold from them the tithe that they requested. And the other poor Levites suffered.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They imposed merchandise

trade goods

upon householders

so that they would engage in it, sell it on their behalf, and bring them the profit. And because of this, when those householders came to litigate before them, they would pervert the judgment in their favor.

Rabbi Akiva says: They took by force an extra collection of tithe

by force, more than was fitting for them by law of tithe.

Rabbi Yose says: Gifts

of the priesthood: the foreleg, cheeks, and stomach

they took by force.

Even though they were not priests, and they had no right to this.

It follows that according to Rabbi Meir they did not sin in perverting judgment. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, they sinned. And according to Rabbi Akiva, they sinned through robbery.

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Whoever says that David sinned

with Bathsheba through the sin of a married woman,

is only mistaken. As it is stated: “And David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him.”

And

is it possible that a sin came to his hand, while the Divine Presence was with him?!

Rather, how do I uphold

— how shall we explain the verse in the statement of Natan the prophet to David,

“Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do evil

in His eyes? Uriah the Hittite you killed with the sword, and his wife you took for yourself as a wife, and him you killed with the sword of the children of Ammon”?!

He sought to commit

a sin

but did not commit it!

For he wished to have relations with Bathsheba before she had received a bill of divorce from Uriah. But in actuality he did not have relations with her until after her husband had divorced her. For Uriah sent her a bill of divorce conditional upon the war: if he did not return from the war, then he was divorcing her from now. And he did so so that, if he died, she would not require levirate marriage; or so that she would not remain an abandoned wife if he died and there were no witnesses to his death; or so that she would not remain an abandoned wife if he were taken captive. And as we say below.

Rav said: Rabbi, who came from the seed of the house of David, turns over and expounds in David’s merit.

And so Rabbi expounded the words of Natan the prophet when he rebuked David concerning the act of Bathsheba:

“Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in His eyes?” -

Rabbi says: This evil is different from all the evils in the Torah. For

in

all the evils in the Torah, it is written, “And he did”

evil in the eyes of the Lord.

But

here

it is written, “to do

evil.” This teaches

that he sought

David

to do

evil, but

did not do

it.

And this is what Natan the prophet said to him:

“Uriah the Hittite you killed with the sword” —

he did not accuse David concerning the killing of Uriah, because in truth Uriah was liable to death, since he was a rebel against the monarchy, as will be explained shortly. Rather, the matter is considered as though you killed him, because

you ought to have judged him in the Sanhedrin

for death,

but you did not judge

him. Rather, you caused him to be killed without judgment.

And in saying

“and his wife you took for yourself as a wife” —

he did not accuse David of the prohibition of a married woman, because when David took her for himself as a wife, she was no longer a married woman. For from the wording of the verse, “you took for yourself as a wife,” it implies that

you have acquisition in her.

But with a married woman, betrothal does not take effect.

For Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Whoever went out to the war of the house of David

would

write a bill of severance

on condition

for his wife.

If he did not return from the war, she would be divorced from now. And sometimes he was occupied when departing, and he would send the bill of divorce from the war. And Uriah did so.

And proof that this was their practice is from what

is stated

in the war of Saul: “And Jesse said to David his son:

And you shall bring these ten cheeses of milk to the commander of the thousand, and you shall inquire after the welfare of your brothers, and you shall take their pledge.”

And we raised an inquiry concerning it:

What is

“and you shall take

their pledge

”?

Rav Yosef taught: Things that are joined between him and her.

That is, betrothal and marriage that exist between the man and the woman. And Jesse said to David that he should bring bills of divorce from his brothers who were at war, on behalf of their wives, so that they would not remain abandoned wives.

And as for what is stated later in the verse:

“And him you killed with the sword of the children of Ammon” —

Natan the prophet intended to say:

Just as the sword of the children of Ammon

— that with which the children of Ammon are killed without your knowledge —

you are not punished for, so too, you are not punished for Uriah the Hittite

in that you caused his death.

What is the reason? —

Because Uriah

was a rebel against the monarchy,

and he was liable to death.

And in what was he a rebel against the monarchy? —

For he said to him

Uriah to David:

“And my lord Yoav and the servants of my lord are camped in the open field,”

for he called Yoav “my lord” in David’s presence. And it is not an honor for a king to accept the authority of others in the presence of the king.

Rav said: When you examine David, you do not find

a sin in him,

except

outside

for

sending

Uriah

to be killed by the sword of the children of Ammon.

For it is written: “David did what was upright in the eyes of the Lord, and he did not turn aside from all that He commanded him, all the days of his life,

except

outside of

the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

But concerning Bathsheba he did not sin, as stated.

Abaye the Elder raised

a contradiction

from one statement of Rav against another statement of Rav.

Did Rav say this

that David sinned only concerning Uriah?

But Rav said: David accepted evil speech

as will be explained shortly.

Thus he had another sin in his possession in addition to the sin concerning Uriah.

And we conclude:

It is difficult!

The substance of the matter: Rav said: David accepted evil speech.

After Saul’s death, David sought everyone remaining from the house of Saul. And Ziva, Saul’s servant, came before him and told him that Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, remained.

And it is written: “And the king said to him, Where

is he? And Ziva said to the king, Behold, he is

at

the house of Machir the son of Ammiel in Lo-Devar”!

That is, “without a word,” meaning that he was not learned in words of Torah.

And it is written

afterward:

“The king sent and brought him from the house of Machir son of Ammiel, who was full of words”.

That is, they found Mephibosheth full of words of Torah.

Now, since

David had seen that Ziba

was a liar—

for he had lied to him when he said that Mephibosheth was not a Torah scholar, whereas David realized that this was not so, but that he was a scholar—then

when

Ziba returned and

slandered him,

speaking against Mephibosheth before David [as related below]—

for what reason did

David

accept from him

his words?

But

this:

isn't it written, “The king said, ‘And where is your master's son?’

And Ziba said to the king, ‘Behold,

Mephibosheth

is sitting in Jerusalem, for he said: Today the house of Israel will restore to me the kingdom of my father’”?

And from where do we know that David accepted from him

this slander and believed him that Mephibosheth sought to rule in his place?

But

this:

isn't it written, “The king said

to

“Вот тебе всё, что принадлежит Мефивошету”.

:

‘Behold, everything that belongs to Mephibosheth is yours’. And Ziba said: ‘I bow down; may I find favor in the eyes of my lord

the king’”? David gave Ziba all of Mephibosheth's property as a reward for informing against him. We learn from this that he accepted Ziba's words and believed that Mephibosheth wanted to rebel against him and rule in his place.

And Shmuel said: David did not accept slander

from Ziba concerning Mephibosheth. Rather,

he saw clear indications in him

that Mephibosheth wanted to rebel against him.

But

this was when David returned from his flight after Absalom had been killed:

it is written, “And Mephibosheth son of Saul came down to meet the king. He had not cared for his feet, nor trimmed his mustache, and he had not washed his clothes

from the day the king departed until the day he came home in peace.” David assumed that Mephibosheth had not groomed himself because he was distressed that David had defeated Absalom and returned to his home. This indicated that Ziba's words were true, and that Mephibosheth had indeed been in rebellion.

Although David had already said to Ziba, “Behold, everything that belongs to Mephibosheth is yours,” he had not yet accepted the slander. David knew that as long as he had not returned to his home, the gift was not a finalized gift. He had said this to Ziba only on the condition that it would ultimately be established that the truth was as Ziba had said. Had he not seen this sign [that Mephibosheth had not groomed himself], he would have revoked his confiscation of Mephibosheth's property.

In truth, however, Mephibosheth had not groomed himself for the opposite reason: As long as he had not seen David return to his royal throne, he did not groom himself.

And it is written, “And when he came to Jerusalem to meet the king, the king said

to

: ‘Why did you not go with me, Mephibosheth?’

when I fled from Absalom.”

And

Mephibosheth said:

“My lord, the king.

My servant

Ziba

deceived me.