[Avodah] ein shaliach lidvar aveirah

[Arie Folger]

RZS wrote:
> But Yoav had no choice but to obey that order; he was *obligated* al pi
> din to obey it.  So in this matter he was no more than an automaton, and
> David was the real actor.
>
> In any case, the whole case is different, because al pi din David was in
> the right.  He *wasn't* a murderer -- his real crime was chilul hashem.
> As is often the case, the problem was in the coverup rather than the
> original incident.  By acting in this sneaky way instead of openly trying
> Uriah for insubordination, he made it appear to be murder, and made people
> suspect his motives.  That's very different from a godfather who tells
> people to do things that are actually wrong, and that they know to be wrong,
> and that they have the choice to refrain from.

The problem, you see, is that no one*, AFAIK no one suggests that
David was "only" guilty of a coverup, for chillul haShem. What the
meforshim understand under kol haomer David 'hata eino ella to'eh is,
that he wasn't guilty of doing that actual action, but nonetheless,
the navi is very clear about those David still being guilty of those
sins. IOW, technically, David avoided transgressing the actual issurim
of eishet ish and retziha, but it seems that HQBH wasn't impressed.
Azoi steit shwartz oif weiss, that is what the navi teaches
unambiguously.

Of course, all that is according to those who take the Talmud's
statement "kol haomer David 'hata eino ella to'eh" literally. There
are, however, other meforshim, who do not take that statement as
literally true, but rather as a reflection of what great trepidation
we must feel before approaching this subject, because we should be
very wary of attributing sins to David, even when possibly true. In
that spirit, let me add that navi is replete with allusions that show
rather convincingly that the story of David and Batsheva was not, I
repeat, not a crime of passion, but rather something he believed he
was supposed to do. But remember that the navi nonetheless seriously
rebuked him.

*: OK, perhaps there is some Acharon who does claim what you do,
though I am not aware of any. But the overwhelming thrust among the
commentaries is that David was guilty, just not of the technical
aveirah, but he was morally culpable, which is exactly the opposite of
what RZS suggested should be our attitude toward a crime boss.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Meditating on the Tragedy in Japan
* Ode an das Pessachfest und den Frühling
* Denkmal an den deportierten lörracher Juden
* Holiday Art
* Will the Judge of the Entire World Not Do Justice?
* When Theodicy Is No Theodicy