א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל האומר דוד חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (שמואל א יח, יד) ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל וה' עמו וגו' אפשר חטא בא לידו ושכינה עמו אלא מה אני מקיים (שמואל ב יב, ט) מדוע בזית את דבר ה' לעשות הרע שביקש לעשות ולא עשה אמר רב רבי דאתי מדוד מהפך ודריש בזכותיה דדוד מדוע בזית את דבר ה' לעשות הרע רבי אומר משונה רעה זו מכל רעות שבתורה שכל רעות שבתורה כתיב בהו ויעש וכאן כתיב לעשות שביקש לעשות ולא עשה
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? 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. 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.
אמר רב הונא כמה לא חלי ולא מרגיש גברא דמריה סייעיה. שאול באחת ועלתה לו. דוד בשתים ולא עלתה לו. שאול באחת מאי היא? מעשה דאגג. והא איכא מעשה דנוב עיר הכהנים? אמעשה דאגג כתיב, (שמואל א טו, יא) נחמתי כי המלכתי את שאול למלך.
דוד בשתים מאי נינהו? דאוריה ודהסתה .
והא איכא נמי מעשה דבת שבע! התם אפרעו מיניה דכתיב (שמואל ב יב, ו) ואת הכבשה ישלם ארבעתים: ילד אמנון תמר ואבשלום
Rav Huna said: How little does a person who has the support of his Lord have to worry or be concerned. Saul failed with one single sin and it was counted against him. David failed with two and they were not counted against him. The Gemara asks: What was Saul’s one sin? The incident with Agag, king of Amalek (see I Samuel 15:9). But was this his sole sin? There is also the incident of Nob, the city of priests. The Gemara answers: It was after the incident with Agag, and before the incident at Nob, that God said: “I regret that I have crowned Saul to be king” (I Samuel 15:11).
David failed with two. What were they? Uriah and the matter of the incitement of David to conduct a census of the Jewish people (see II Samuel 24:1), which led to many deaths in a plague.
The Gemara asks: But were these his only two sins? There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man’s wife as his own. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins, as it is written with regard to this incident: “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold” (II Samuel 12:6). The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13–23); David’s son Amnon was killed; Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13); and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was killed (see II Samuel 15–18).
האומר פתח פתוח מצאתי נאמן לאוסרה עליו ואמאי ספק ספיקא הוא ספק תחתיו ספק אין תחתיו ואם תמצא לומר תחתיו ספק באונס ספק ברצון לא צריכא באשת כהן ואיבעית אימא באשת ישראל וכגון דקביל בה אבוה קידושין פחותה מבת ג' שנים ויום אחד מאי קמ"ל תנינא האומר לאשה קדשתיך והיא אומרת לא קדשתני היא מותרת בקרוביו והוא אסור בקרובותיה מהו דתימא התם דודאי קים ליה אבל הכא מיקם הוא דלא קים ליה קמ"ל ומי אמר רבי אלעזר הכי והאמר רבי אלעזר אין האשה נאסרת על בעלה אלא על עסקי קינוי וסתירה וכמעשה שהיה ותסברא מעשה שהיה בקינוי וסתירה הוה ועוד מי אסרוה הא לא קשיא הכי קאמר אין האשה נאסרת על בעלה אלא על עסקי קינוי וסתירה ממעשה שהיה דלא הוה קינוי וסתירה ולא איתסרא מכל מקום קשיא קינוי וסתירה אין פתח פתוח לא ולטעמיך קינוי וסתירה אין עדים לא אלא הכי קאמר אין האשה נאסרת על בעלה בעד אחד אלא בשני עדים וקינוי וסתירה אפילו בעד אחד נמי ופתח פתוח כשני עדים דמי וכי תימא מעשה שהיה מפני מה לא אסרוה התם אונס הוה ואיבעית אימא כי הא דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן
A groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that his bride was not a virgin, is credible to render her forbidden to himself. Although it is not always possible to corroborate his claim with testimony that his wife committed adultery after betrothal, he is credible to render her forbidden to him as though she had in fact committed adultery. The Gemara asks: But why is she forbidden to him? It is a case of compound uncertainty. It is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, after betrothal, in which case she would be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while not under his jurisdiction, in which case she would not be forbidden to him. And if you say that she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse by coercion, in which case she would not be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse willingly, in which case she would be forbidden to him. In cases of compound uncertainty, the ruling is lenient. Why, then, is his claim deemed credible? No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in the case of the wife of a priest, who is rendered forbidden to her husband even if she engaged in intercourse by coercion. In that case, there is a single uncertainty. And if you wish, say instead that this ruling is relevant even to the wife of an Israelite, and it is in a case where her father accepted her betrothal when she was less than three years and one day old. Intercourse with a girl less than three years old does not permanently rupture the hymen, and therefore there is no uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse before or after betrothal. Clearly, it took place after betrothal, and there is only one uncertainty: Did she engage in intercourse by coercion or willingly? The Gemara asks: If this is a case where there is only one uncertainty, what is it teaching us? We already learned this explicitly: With regard to a man who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, and there are no witnesses to corroborate either claim, she is permitted to marry any of his relatives, e.g., his brother, because based on her claim they are not related. And it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives, as based on his claim she is his betrothed. Apparently, one is capable of creating a prohibition for himself without corroborating witnesses. The Gemara says that it was necessary to teach the case of the claim of virginity, lest you say: There, where certainly it is clear to him that he betrothed her, it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives. However, here, perhaps it is not clear to him that she was not a virgin, as he is not experienced in these matters and is mistaken. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that his claim is nevertheless credible and she is forbidden to him. And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery, only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion, and as it was in the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba? A wife is forbidden to her husband only in a case where he warns her not to seclude herself with a certain man and witnesses testify that she subsequently entered into seclusion with him. And how can you understand it in that manner? Was the incident that transpired with jealous warning and seclusion? Furthermore, did the Sages render Bathsheba forbidden to her husband? Had she been forbidden to her husband, she would have also been forbidden to David, based on the following principle: Just as an adulteress is forbidden to her husband, she is also forbidden to her paramour. That is not difficult, as this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: The fact that a woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion is derived from the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba, as there was no jealous warning and seclusion, and therefore she was not forbidden to her husband. In any case, it is difficult, as the statements of Rabbi Elazar are contradictory. It may be inferred: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the claim that he encountered an unobstructed orifice, no, he does not render her forbidden. The Gemara rejects that inference: And according to your reasoning, that the statement of Rabbi Elazar restricts to jealous warning and seclusion the manner in which a husband can render his wife forbidden, infer: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adulterous relations, no, he does not render her forbidden. That cannot be so, as clearly two witnesses establish her as one who committed adultery and render her forbidden to her husband. The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: A woman is not rendered forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness. Rather, she is rendered forbidden only by means of the testimony of two witnesses who testify that she engaged in adulterous relations. And if there was jealous warning and seclusion, she is rendered forbidden even by means of the testimony of one witness as well, if he comes after the husband warned his wife and testifies that she engaged in adulterous relations. And the legal status of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is like that of two witnesses, and it renders her forbidden even without jealous warning and seclusion. And if you would say with regard to the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba: For what reason did the Sages not deem her forbidden, when clearly David committed adultery with a married woman? The Gemara answers: There it was rape, and she did not engage in intercourse willingly. And if you wish, say instead that the Sages did not deem her forbidden, as that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: