בְּנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל חָטְאוּ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי (כִּי זָקֵן שְׁמוּאֵל וּבָנָיו לֹא הָלְכוּ) בִּדְרָכָיו״ — בִּדְרָכָיו הוּא דְּלֹא הָלְכוּ, מִיחְטָא נָמֵי לָא חָטְאוּ.

that the sons of Samuel sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel…And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice” (I Samuel 8:1–3). By inference: In his ways they did not walk, however, they did not sin either. They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.

אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע״ — שֶׁלֹּא עָשׂוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֲבִיהֶם, שֶׁהָיָה שְׁמוּאֵל הַצַּדִּיק מְחַזֵּר בְּכָל מְקוֹמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְדָן אוֹתָם בְּעָרֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָלַךְ מִדֵּי שָׁנָה בְּשָׁנָה וְסָבַב בֵּית אֵל וְהַגִּלְגָּל וְהַמִּצְפָּה וְשָׁפַט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְהֵם לֹא עָשׂוּ כֵּן, אֶלָּא יָשְׁבוּ בְּעָרֵיהֶם כְּדֵי לְהַרְבּוֹת שָׂכָר לְחַזָּנֵיהֶן וּלְסוֹפְרֵיהֶן.

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “And they sought after unjust gain,” indicating that they were sinners? It means that they did not conduct themselves in accordance with the actions of their father. As Samuel the righteous would travel to all places where the people of Israel were located and sit in judgment in their towns, as it is stated: “And he went from year to year in circuit from Beth-El, and Gilgal, and Mitzpa, and judged Israel in all those places” (I Samuel 7:16). And, however, they did not do so and travel from place to place. Rather, they sat in their own cities in order to enhance the fees collected by their attendants and scribes. Therefore, the verse ascribes to them liability as if they sinned by seeking ill-gotten gains and bribes.

כְּתַנָּאֵי. ״וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר חֶלְקָם שָׁאֲלוּ בְּפִיהֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מְלַאי הִטִּילוּ עַל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: קוּפָּה יְתֵירָה שֶׁל מַעֲשֵׂר נָטְלוּ בִּזְרוֹעַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: מַתָּנוֹת נָטְלוּ בִּזְרוֹעַ.

The Gemara notes that this matter is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And they sought after unjust gain.” Rabbi Meir says: This means that they vocally demanded their portions of the tithe due them as Levites, abusing their position to the detriment of other Levites. Rabbi Yehuda says: They imposed upon local homeowners to sell their merchandise and support them. Rabbi Akiva says: They took an extra basket of tithes, beyond that which was their due, by force. Rabbi Yosei says: They took only the gifts due them; however, they took them by force. They acted improperly, as a Levite is required to wait until he is given his gifts and may not take them.

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּוִד חָטָא אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא טוֹעֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי דָּוִד לְכׇל דְּרָכָיו מַשְׂכִּיל וַה׳ עִמּוֹ וְגוֹ׳״. אֶפְשָׁר חֵטְא בָּא לְיָדוֹ וּשְׁכִינָה עִמּוֹ?!

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that David sinned with Bathsheba is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And David succeeded in all his ways; and the Lord was with him” (I Samuel 18:14). Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Divine Presence was with him?

אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת דְּבַר ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע״ — שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְלֹא עָשָׂה.

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the prophet Nathan: “Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword, and his wife you have taken to be your wife, and him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon” (II Samuel 12:9), indicating that David sinned? The Gemara answers: David sought to do evil and have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah but did not do so.

אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי דְּאָתֵי מִדָּוִד מְהַפֵּךְ וְדָרֵישׁ בִּזְכוּתֵיהּ דְּדָוִד. ״מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת דְּבַר ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע״ — רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מְשׁוּנָּה רָעָה זוֹ מִכׇּל רָעוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁכָּל רָעוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״וַיַּעַשׂ״, וְכָאן כְּתִיב ״לַעֲשׂוֹת״ — שֶׁבִּיקֵּשׁ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְלֹא עָשָׂה.

Rav said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who descends from the house of David, seeks to teach the verse in favor of David. With regard to that which is written: “Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil,” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: This evil mentioned with regard to David is different from all other evils in the Torah; as with regard to all other evils in the Torah, it is written: And he did evil, and here it is written: To do evil. This unique phrase indicates that David sought to do evil but did not actually do so. His intentions were improper; however, his actions were proper.

״אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַחֶרֶב״ — שֶׁהָיָה לְךָ לְדוּנוֹ בְּסַנְהֶדְרִין וְלֹא דַּנְתָּ. ״וְאֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה״ — לִיקּוּחִין יֵשׁ לְךָ בָּהּ.

That which is written: “Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword,” means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin as one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated from the generally accepted principles of judgment. With regard to that which is written: “And his wife you have taken to be your wife”; it means that you have rights of marriage with her, as by law Bathsheba was already divorced from Uriah.

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל הַיּוֹצֵא לְמִלְחֶמֶת בֵּית דָּוִד, כּוֹתֵב גֵּט כְּרִיתוּת לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת חֲרִיצֵי הֶחָלָב הָאֵלֶּה תָּבִיא לְשַׂר הָאָלֶף וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד לְשָׁלוֹם וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח״.

As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. That was done to prevent a situation in which the soldier’s wife would be unable to remarry because the soldier did not return from battle and there were no witnesses to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded her the status of a divorcee and freed her to remarry. As it is stated: “And carry these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand, and to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]” (I Samuel 17:18).

מַאי ״עֲרֻבָּתָם״? — תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּבָרִים הַמְעוֹרָבִים בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.

What is the meaning of arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It refers to matters that are shared [hame’oravim] between him, the husband, and her, the wife, i.e., marriage. The verse should be read: Take the bill of divorce that determines the status of the relationship between husband and wife. As, apparently, it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, since Uriah later died, Bathsheba retroactively assumed divorced status from the time that he set out to war. She was not forbidden to David.

״וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן״ — מַה חֶרֶב בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן אִי אַתָּה נֶעֱנָשׁ עָלָיו, אַף אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי אִי אַתָּה נֶעֱנָשׁ עָלָיו.

With regard to that which is written: “And him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon,” it means: Just as you are not punished for soldiers killed by the sword of the children of Ammon in the course of the war, so too you are not punished for the death of Uriah the Hittite.

מַאי טַעְמָא — מוֹרֵד בַּמַּלְכוּת הֲוָה. דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וַאדֹנִי יוֹאָב וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנִי עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה חֹנִים״.

What is the reason that David was not liable for the death of Uriah? Because Uriah was a traitor against the throne. As he said to David: “And my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields” (II Samuel 11:11). In the presence of the king, one may not refer to another as his lord. Doing so is treason.

אָמַר רַב: כִּי מְעַיְּינַתְּ בֵּיהּ בְּדָוִד לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ בֵּיהּ בַּר מִדְּאוּרִיָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״רַק בִּדְבַר אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי״.

Rav said: When you analyze the matter of David, no sin that he committed is found in his lifetime, except for that involving Uriah. As it is written: “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (I Kings 15:5).

אַבָּיֵי קַשִּׁישָׁא רָמֵי דְּרַב אַדְּרַב: מִי אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב: קִיבֵּל דָּוִד לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. קַשְׁיָא.

Abaye the Elder raised a contradiction between one statement of Rav and another statement of Rav: Did Rav actually say this? Didn’t Rav say: David accepted a slanderous report? Just as it is prohibited to relate a slanderous report, it is similarly prohibited to accept it. This contradiction remains unresolved, and it is difficult.

גּוּפָא. רַב אָמַר: קִיבֵּל דָּוִד לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵיפוֹא הוּא וַיֹּאמֶר צִיבָא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ הִנֵּה הוּא בֵּית מָכִיר בֶּן עַמִּיאֵל בְּלֹא דְבָר״. וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּקָּחֵהוּ מִבֵּית מָכִיר בֶּן עַמִּיאֵל מִלֹּא דְבָר״.

The Gemara now examines the matter itself with regard to Rav’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. Rav said: David accepted a slanderous report, as it is written with regard to David’s search for a surviving son of Jonathan: “And the king said to him, to Ziba, Saul’s slave: Where is he? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is in the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, in Lo-Devar [belo devar]” (II Samuel 9:4). Ziba indicated to David that Jonathan’s son was inconsequential, lacking any matter [lo devar] of Torah. And it is written: “Then King David sent, and fetched him out of the house of Machir, the son of Ammiel, from Lo-Devar [milo devar]” (II Samuel 9:5). That verse can be read that after sending for him, David found him filled with matters [melo devar] of Torah.

מִכְּדִי חַזְיֵיהּ דְּשַׁקָּרָא הוּא, כִּי הֲדַר אַלְשֵׁין עִילָּוֵיהּ מַאי טַעְמָא קַבֵּיל מִינֵּיהּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל צִיבָא אַיֵּה בֶּן אֲדוֹנֶיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר צִיבָא אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ הִנֵּה הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וְגוֹ׳״. וּמְנָא לַן דְּקַבֵּיל מִינֵּיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ הִנֵּה לְךָ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר לִמְפִיבוֹשֶׁת וַיֹּאמֶר צִיבָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוֵיתִי אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ״.

Now, after David saw that Ziba was a liar, when Ziba once again slandered Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, why did David accept his report? As it is written that when David fled from Absalom, he met Ziba: “And the king said: And where is your master’s son? And Ziba said to the king: Behold, he is staying in Jerusalem, as he said: Today shall the house of Israel restore to me the kingdom of my father” (II Samuel 16:3). And from where do we derive that David accepted Ziba’s slanderous report? As it is written: “Then said the king to Ziba: Behold, all that belongs to Mephibosheth is yours. And Ziba said: I humbly beseech you that I may find favor in your sight, my lord, O king” (II Samuel 16:4).