Shabbat 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who says

that

Samuel’s sons sinned

through bribery and perversion of justice attributed to them,

is only mistaken. As it is stated: “And it came to pass when Samuel grew old, and his sons did not walk in his ways.”

This implies that

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

But

they did not sin either.

Rather, how do I understand

what is stated about them:

“And they turned aside after gain

, and took bribes and perverted justice”? —

They did not act as their father had acted.

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

For Samuel the righteous would travel through all the places of Israel and judge them in their cities, as it is stated: “And he went from year to year, and he went around to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah, and judged Israel.”

But

those

sons

[his sons]

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

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

in order to increase the wages of their attendants

and

scribes.

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

As for the statement that Samuel’s sons did not sin—

as a

dispute

of tannaim

this matter was taught.

As it was taught in a beraita: With regard to that which is written,

“And they turned aside after gain”—

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

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

Rabbi Yehuda says: They imposed merchandise

on the householders

to sell

on their behalf and bring them the profits. Consequently, when those householders came to litigate before them, they would pervert the judgment in their favor.

Rabbi Akiva says: They forcibly took an extra collection of tithe

—by force—more than was fitting for them by virtue of the tithe.

Rabbi Yosei says: They forcibly took

the gifts of the priesthood: the foreleg, cheeks, and maw.

They took them by force.

Although they were not priests and had no right to them.

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

Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: Anyone who 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 sin could have come to his hand while the Divine Presence was with him?!

Rather, how do I understand

how to explain the verse in the statement of the prophet Nathan to David:

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

in His eyes? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and taken his wife for yourself as a wife, and him you have 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 received a divorce from Uriah. But in practice he did not have relations with her until after her husband had divorced her. Uriah sent her a conditional divorce from the battlefield: If he did not return from the war, he was divorcing her retroactively from that moment. He did so so that, if he died, she would not require yibbum; or so that she would not remain an aguna if he died and there were no witnesses to his death; or so that she would not remain an aguna if he were taken captive. As we will say below.

Rav said: Rabbi, who descended from the house of David, turns matters over and expounds in David’s defense.

And this is how Rabbi expounded the words of the prophet Nathan when he rebuked David for the incident 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 other evils in the Torah. For

in

all other 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 the prophet Nathan said to him:

“You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword”—

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

you should have judged him in the Sanhedrin

for death

and did not judge

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

And when he said:

“And taken his wife for yourself as a wife”—

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

you have an act of 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: Anyone who went out to the war of the house of David

would

write a bill of divorce

conditionally

for his wife.

If he did not return from the war, she would be divorced retroactively from that moment. Sometimes he was busy when departing and would send the bill from the battlefield. Uriah did the same.

And proof that this was their practice is brought by 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 a thousand, and you shall visit your brothers to see how they fare, and you shall take their pledge.’”

And we raise the question:

What is meant by “

and you shall take

their pledge

”?

Rav Yosef taught: Things joined between him and her.

That is, the betrothal and marital bond between the man and the woman. Jesse told David to bring bills of divorce from his brothers who were at war, on behalf of their wives, so that the women would not remain agunot.

And regarding what is stated later in the verse:

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

the prophet Nathan intended to say:

Just as the sword of the children of Ammon

—the sword with which the children of Ammon kill without your knowledge—

does not render you liable, so too, you are not liable for Uriah the Hittite

by having caused his death.

What is the reason?—

Because Uriah

was a rebel against the monarchy

and was liable to death.

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

For

Uriah said to David:

“And my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open field,”

for he called Joab “my lord” in David’s presence. It is not respectful for a king to accept another’s authority in the king’s presence.

Rav said: When you examine David, you find no

sin in him

except

for

that he

sent

Uriah

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

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

except

for

the matter of Uriah the Hittite.”

But he did not sin with Bathsheba, as stated.

Abaye the elder raised

a contradiction

between one statement of Rav and another.

Did Rav say this

—that David sinned only concerning Uriah?

But Rav said: David accepted slander

—as will be explained shortly.

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

And we conclude:

Difficult!

The essential matter: Rav said: David accepted slander.

After Saul’s death, David sought everyone who remained of the house of Saul. Ziba, 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 Ziba said to the king, ‘Behold, he is

in the

house of Machir, son of Ammiel, in Lo-Debar.’”

That is, “without a word,” meaning that he was not learned in 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?

: