(a) The Gemara said K. David erred in 2 sins. The Gemara then says "but there was also the incident of Bathsheba! In that case punishment was exacted from him..." and it relates the tragedy of his 4 children. Thus it appears that David was guilty of something re Bathsheba, as he was punished! What was he punished for?
(b) Also, I understand that based on the retroactive get that when we look back in time King David was having relations with a divorced woman. But at the instant he had relations, she was married (as it was not retroactive until he died). How was this not wrong? And you can't say that Uriah was as good as dead since he was on the front lines because he wasn't sent to the front lines until after the incident.
Barry Epstein
Chazal tell us (Shabbos 56a), "anyone who says Dovid sinned, is mistaken." This means, however, only that Dovid was not guilty of committing adultery with a married woman, as Rashi there comments. However, he certainly
committed some infraction, since the prophet reprimanded him strongly for his actions. What exactly it was that he did wrong is subject to debate.
One approach you yourself already have said: Although in the final analysis Batsheva was retroactively divorced from Uriah, since at the time of the act she was still married (and it was impossible to know for certain that she would be retroactively divorced), Dovid was deserving of punishment (Tosfos Shabbos 56a DH Get, cited below, offers another approach).
The commentaries bring various other explanations to what Dovid's sin was.
The Da'as Soferim says that although Dovid committed no sin, since the
public's perception of his action was that it was of a sinful nature,
he was deserving of punishment.
(b) Tosefos in Kesuvos (9b) and Shabbos (56a DH Get) brings the opinion of Rabeinu Tam who says that there was no condition attached to the get. Therefore Batsheva was fully permitted to Dovid. However since the get was given in privacy it looked like Dovid committed adultery.
According to Rashi, who argues, the Get was that later took effect was fully retroactive, because Uri'ah had made given it to his wife on the condition that if he does not return from the war alive, she will be retoractively divorced from the day that the Get was given (i.e. the beginning of the war).
Be well,
D. Schloss and the Kollel
To complete the picture of K.Dovid's "sins":
1. The Abarbanel (on Shmuel-A, chapters 11-12) goes with the simple pshat all the way and doesn't accept the drushim regarding the (retroactive) get,
but rather that it was real adultery.
2. One view in the Gemoro (Ksuboss 9a) is that K.Dovid was oness her (no get at all!) , and the Chelkass Mechokek (on Even Ho'ezer 11:2, seif koton
10) uses this as sort of Hallachic proof of "if not ossur to the ba'al, then not ossur to the bo'el".
3. The other 2 views (conditional get, private get) you mentioned.
The bottom line is that regardless of K.Dovid's sins, Hash-m regarded them as severe, perhaps (my thoughts) because K.Dovid brought them on himself (Sanhedrin 107a)?
Kol Tuv,
Chaim Mateh
Just a quick note:
The Abarbanel is the ONLY opinion who says that (it is in Shmuel II, by the way, not Shmuel I). The Malbim -- who almost always agrees with the approach of the Abarbanel -- here takes strong issue with the Abarbanel and attacks his opinion and says "I do not see why the Abarbanel saw fit to go against the words of Chazal." Even though the Metzudos, Radak, and Rashi all seem to be explaining this Inyan as if David had sinned, they are just explaining the P'shat as it seems, and in addition they subtly include (see end of Metzudas David for example) that "even though she wasn't really an Eshes Ish...."
I have heard that the reason they don't spell out explicitly that David ha'Melech did not sin with an Eshes Ish, is because this was part of his punishment -- whenever this is learned, people are struck with the initial impression that he did sin.
C. Shaw