More Discussions for this daf
1. Kesuvas Anusah 2. Sfek Sfeika she'Einah Mis'hapech 3. "Rov" being applied to time
4. Aimas ha'Melech 5. Safek Safek l'Chatzi Mamon 6. Conditional Gittin
7. Sotah 8. Why was David permitted 9. אשה נאמנת לטעון שפתחה פתוח באופן המותר
10. קינוי וסתירה 11. פתח פתוח וטענת דמים

Avrumi Hersh asks:

9a bottom

Gemoro says that dovid was not forbidden to bassheva cos he did it beones.

But even if he was not forbidden min hatorah cos she was nisposoh, why wasnt he forbidden midrabonon because of the klal of hanitan Al eshes ish, that we find in yevamos 24b?

Bifrat if we consider rashis translation of nitan: people speaking about the 2 of them, everybody in the beis hamedrash spoke about dovid hamelech

Avrumi Hersh, London england

The Kollel replies:

The Torah (Devarim 22:28-29) discusses Ones and states that the assaulter must marry her because he has afflicted her, and he is never allowed to divorce her. Rashi (last line of Kesuvos 9a) writes that there were many witnesses who knew what happened with David and Bas Sheva. Therefore, it is not similar to the case of Nitan in Yevamos 24b, where Rashi (DH ha'Nitan) writes that there was only a suspicion.

Avrumi Hersh asks:

But the case in the torah is talking about a permitted woman who is unmarried. There is no nitan on a penuyah, and there is no chiyuv of "vlo sihyeh leisha" to marry an eshes ish. but there is a nitan on an eshes ish?

The Kollel replies:

1) See Gemara and Rashi, beginning of 9b, that Uriyah had already written her a Get.

2) There is a different answer given to this question by the Sefer Chasidim (#1190). He writes that it was not yet known to the world what had happened. It only became known after Bas Sheva had entered David's house and, possibly, by the time it became public knowlege Bas Sheva had already had a baby so she should not be divorced.

However, this Pshat is not like Rashi and Tosfos.

3) In addition to the above answer that Uriyah gave Bas Sheva a Get, see Tosfos to Shabbos 56a (DH Get) who writes that even though the Gemara in Bava Metzia 59a states that David called Bas Sheva a Safek Eshes Ish, in fact she was not really an Eshes Ish, but the Gemara there calls her a Safek Eshes Ish because the husband used to divorce his wife secretly before he went to war, and, as a result, people thought that she was an Eshes Ish.

sb asks:

Actually learning the gemoroh carefully it is two opinions in the gemoroh bottom 9a. According to the first opinion, they did not write gittin. It is rabbi yochanan who is mechadesh they wrote a get. The first opinion implies clearly dovid was meanes an eishes ish. No ifs no buts and no explanation.

The Kollel replies:

(a) The Gemara in Sanhedrin 69b tells us that Bas Sheva was well under the age of Bas Mitzvah when this happened. See also Parshas Derachim (Derech ha'Melech, Drush 12, DH v'Ra'isi l'Maharash, cited in Chidushei Chasam Sofer here, 9b, DH uv'Zeh Neicha Li) who quotes a Midrash that says that Uriyah had never consummated the marriage.

This is hinted at in Sefer Shmuel II (12:3), "But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb," which suggests that Bas Sheva was very young. The verse also states, "and she was to him as a daughter," which is a hint that they had not lived as man and wife.

(b) Looking at this again, I saw that there is support for your argument from the fact that it was Rav Shmuel bar Nachman who said in the name of Rebbi Yonasan, in Shabbos 56a, that "whoever says that David did an Aveirah is merely making a mistake," and it is the very same Rav Shmuel bar Nachman who said in the name of Rebbi Yonasan, in Kesuvos 9a, in the second answer that they wrote a Get. Therefore, there is a case to be made that it is only because Rebbi Yonasan said in Kesuvos 9a that they wrote a Get that he was also able to say in Shabbos 56a that it is a mistake to say David did an Aveirah. It follows that according to the first answer in Kesubos 9a, which does not mention that they wrote a Get, it is possible to say that David did an Aveirah.

I am not attempting, in this present forum, to decide an issue which occupied scholars for thousands of years -- whether or not David did an Aveirah -- but I am merely pointing out that it may be possible to argue, as you have done, that there is a dispuite about this in the Gemara.

(c) We have been assuming up to now that according to the first opinion in the Gemara they did not write a Get. However, there is a Ba'al ha'Turim in Bamidbar 32:21 who writes that when Moshe Rabeinu directed in advance the war when entering Eretz Yisrael, he told the sons of Gad and Reuven to divorce their wives beforehand. The Ba'al ha'Turim writes that David learned from Moshe Rabeinu when he instructed all his fighters to write a Get to their wives. Even though Rashi (Kesuvos 9b, DH di'Chsiv) writes that David learned from his father Yishai, one can say according to the Ba'al ha'Turim that Yishai in turn learned from Moshe Rabeinu. In short, it was an ancient practice to write a Get before going to war.

According to this, one does not have to say that the first opinion holds that they did not write a Get. It was an old established directive to write a Get. The first opinion says that there was another reason why Bas Sheva was permitted to David -- because it was Ones, while the second answer of the Gemara states that there is no question at all why she was permitted, since he points out that a Get was always written.

sb asks:

Thank you.

I am not entirely clear why you write it is 'possible to argue'. It is clearly two opinions.

The Kollel replies:

The problem is that the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin, second chapter, on third Mishnah) states that a king is not allowed to marry a woman who has been previously married to an ordinary citizen. So how could Dovid remain married to Bas Sheva, who had already been Uriyah's wife? The answer is that Uriyah never consummated the marriage. If we bear in mind that the Gemara (Sanhedrin 69b) tells us that Bas Sheva was well under 12 years old when she later gave birth to Shlomo, this means that she was a small girl when her marriage with Uriyah was effected. In these circumstances we can say that she was not considered an Eshes Ish, so, even according to the first opinion in the Gemara, David was not Me'anes an Eshes Ish.

Your understanding is the simple one:-

I must concede that the Pashut Pshat is on your side. The Or Same'ach, on the Rambam, Hilchos Sotah 2:12, cites the Mishneh l'Melech there who discusses the Halachah in a case of Mr. A who raped Mrs. B (who is not married to a Kohen and therefore remains permitted to her husband Mr. B), and afterwards Mr. B divorces Mrs. B or Mr. B dies. If Mr. A and Mrs. B now want to marry each other, is this permitted?

According to the first opinion in our Gemara, we learn that she is permitted to him since Mr. A was Me'anes.

The Or Same'ach writes that the second opinion does not disagree with this Halachah. The argument between the first and second opinion is that the second opinion believes that it is difficult to say that David did this against her will. The second opinion states that there was a Get and they both consented.

The simple reading is that according to the first opinion David was Me'anes an Eshes Ish.

(We will have to say that when Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in Shabbos 56a, in the name of Rebbi Yonasan, that anyone who says that David committed a sin is simply making a mistake, this is because Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani is consistent with what he said in Kesuvos 9a, in the name of Rebbi Yonasan, that Uriyah wrote her a Get. In other words, Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani is the second opinion in our Gemara.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom