Some thoughts about teshuva, then and now
Sometimes I wonder why we read through David's sins in smooth fashion, accepting and moving on, while when certain rabbis - or even non-rabbis - nowadays sin in similar ways, their lives are basically over. Is it because the media causes great hype? Is it because of (somewhat radical) movements such as MeToo? Many believe there was hype over the David and Bat Sheva story way back when it happened, too. But it seemed that people managed to move past that. And there were other sins as well - but ultimately, David came out alright, for the most part.
By the way, I'm reminded of a story I heard from one of the rabbis in my yeshiva: One of his sons once went out on a date with a girl from a certain "kavnik" midrasha and somehow they got to talking about this particular story. The girl announced that of course there was no way that David sinned. That's a very popular view that appears in the gemara, but it's actually the minority view in the gemara. The guy pointed out to her that there were several well-known commentators (such as Abarbanel) who thought that David did, in fact, sin. The girl turned to him and said: "Well, if you think that way, then I don't think we should continue going out..."
Back to the main issue: In our minds, David was a giant in all aspects (except maybe for height?). I don't disagree with this. But why is it that nowadays public teshuva doesn't seem to carry the same weight as it used to? Are we so cynical that we don't believe anyone means anything they say?
First of all, how is this the "minority view" in the Gemara? In Shabbos 56a you have R. Shmuel bar Nachmani (in the name of R. Yonasan), Rebbi, and Rav all saying (in various ways) that David didn't commit adultery. Only in Kesubos 9a does the Gemara raise the opposite possibility (and, after first offering an answer that in fact it was, immediately cites R. Shmuel bar Nachmani to the contrary).
ReplyDeleteSecond, a quite logical reason to distinguish between David's and later figures' teshuvah is simply that we have Hashem Himself in effect vouching for David. Consider how he's the exemplar of all later kings (most of them are measured by how much they were "like David" or not), and that his book of Tehillim is part of Tanach. So even the opinions that say that he did commit actual adultery would have to agree that we have a guarantee that his teshuvah was sincere and was accepted, in a way that we can't be 100% sure of with later figures.
In fact, further about my second point, King David is in fact not the only person whose sins we "accept and move on" because we have unimpeachable evidence that their teshuvah was sincere. Consider (R.) Eliezer ben Durdaya (Avodah Zarah 17a), who was unquestionably guilty of sexual sins. Consider Yosef of Shisa (Bereishis Rabbah 65), who stole the menorah of the Beis Hamikdash and handed it over to the Greeks, and Yakim Ish Tzeroros (ibid). Consider Reish Lakish, the former bandit. And so forth.
DeleteHi Alex. I'm sorry that only now do I have some time to reply. I finally have a little spare time between studying (plus I got my license last week, so I no longer need to spend Sundays going back to the vicinity of my yeshiva for driving lessons). I would like to point out that I am not above posting half-baked thoughts here on my blog and do not always take the time to make sure I've researched every side of every issue...at the time I had recalled that the popularized view was actually the minority view. I seem to be wrong. With that said, I think we should also take into account that Rav was a student of Rebbi, so that which was said in the gemara about Rebbi being biased on this issue may also extend to Rav.
DeleteOn your point about other people - like I said, half-baked thought. But also because King David is the only Tanachic character I was able to think of at the time. The main subject of the blog *is* Tanach, in the end.