Pt2 ‘Whoever says that [X] sinned is mistaken’: Reinterpretations of Sins In Defense of the Biblical Righteous (Shabbat 55b-56a)

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.

Part 2: Eli’s Sons - Hophni and Pinehas (1 Samuel 1-2)

The plain text accuses them of sleeping with women at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.¹

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - The sons of Eli (עלי) did not have sex with the women - “Hophni and Pinehas were priests to YHWH” (1 Sam 1:3) implies they were righteous

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

כל האומר בני עלי חטאו --

אינו אלא טועה,

שנאמר:

״ושם שני בני עלי עם ארון ברית האלהים:

1. חפני

2. ופנחס

כהנים לה׳״.

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yonatan said:

Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned --

is nothing other than mistaken,

as it is written:

“And the two sons of Eli were there:

1. Hophni

2. and Pinehas,

priests of YHWH” (I Samuel 1:3).

Rav - Pinehas did not sin

סבר לה כרב,

דאמר רב:

פנחס לא חטא.

מקיש חפני לפנחס:

• מה פנחס --

  • לא חטא

• אף חפני --

  • לא חטא.

The Talmud explains: R' Yonatan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav,

as Rav said:

Pinehas did not sin.

And the verse juxtaposes Hophni to Pinehas;

• just as Pinehas —

  • did not sin,

• so too Hophni —

  • did not sin.

...“They lay with the women” (I Samuel 2:22) means they delayed their sacrifices - Delay in offerings led to ritual impurity, likened rhetorically to sexual sin

The Talmud asserts that the sin was procedural: they delayed the women's post-birth sacrifices,² which in turn prevented them from having marital sex. The Bible describes this delay as if they had sinned sexually.

אלא מה אני מקיים ״אשר ישכבן את הנשים״?

מתוך ששהו את קיניהן,

שלא הלכו אצל בעליהן,

מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו שכבום.

The Talmud asks: How, then, do I establish the meaning of the verse: “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting” (I Samuel 2:22), which indicates otherwise?

The Talmud answers: Since the sons of Eli delayed sacrificing the bird-offerings of women who had given birth, a pair of doves brought as part of the purification process,

and this delay caused the women not to go to their husbands in timely fashion,

the verse ascribes to Hophni and Pinehas liability as if they had lain with them. They were guilty of nothing more than negligence and carelessness.

Pinehas’ grandson Ahijah ben Ahitub is called “YHWH’s priest” (1 Sam 14:3), which would not be said if Pinehas had sinned

Proof is drawn from the fact that Pinehas’ grandson, Ahijah ben Ahitub,³ is called a priest of God—something the verse in Malachi claims would not happen if he had truly sinned.

גופא,

אמר רב:

פנחס לא חטא,

שנאמר:

1. ״ואחיה

2. בן אחטוב

   1. אחי אי כבוד

3. בן פנחס

4. בן עלי

כהן ה׳ וגו׳״ —

The Talmud now examines the matter itself of Rav’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion.

Rav said:

Pinehas did not sin,

as it is stated:

1. “And Ahijah,

2. the son of Ahitub,

   1. Ichabod’s brother,

3. the son of Pinehas,

4. the son of Eli,

was YHWH’s priest in Shiloh, wearing an ephod” (I Samuel 14:3).

אפשר חטא בא לידו,

והכתוב מייחסו?!

והלא כבר נאמר:

״יכרת ה׳ לאיש אשר יעשנה ער

וענה מאהלי יעקב

ומגיש מנחה לה׳ צבאות״.

• אם ישראל הוא —

  • לא יהיה לו

    • ער בחכמים

    • ולא עונה בתלמידים.

• ואם כהן הוא —

  • לא יהיה לו בן מגיש מנחה.

אלא לאו שמע מינה: פנחס לא חטא.

Is it possible that sin came to Pinehas’ hand

and, nevertheless, the verse traces the lineage of his grandson, Ahijah, back to him?!

Wasn’t it was already stated with regard to those who engage in promiscuous relations:

“YHWH will cut off from the man that does this,

him that is awake and him that answers from the tents of Jacob,

or any to present an offering (מגיש מנחה) to YHWH of hosts” (Malachi 2:12).

• The rabbis interpreted the verse homiletically: If the sinner is an Israelite --

  • he will not have among his descendants

    • one who is sharp and “awake” (ער) among the rabbis,

    • or even one among their disciples who can answer (עונה) questions.

• And if he is a priest --

  • he will not have a son who will present a meal-offering (מגיש מנחה).

If Pinehas had sons and grandsons serving as priests, conclude from it that Pinehas did not sin.

Only Hophni sinned; Any plural references to both sons sinning are reinterpreted as singular or metaphorical; Pinehas is only faulted for failing to protest Hophni’s behavior (I Samuel 2:12, 24)

The Talmud consistently asserts that only Hophni sinned.

Any plural references to both sons sinning are reinterpreted as singular or metaphorical.

Pinehas is only faulted for failing to protest Hophni’s behavior.⁴

1. 1. אלא הא כתיב ״אשר ישכבן״!

   2. ״ישכבן״ כתיב

2. 1. והכתיב: ״אל בני כי לא טובה השמעה״!

   2. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק: ״בני״ כתיב.

3. והכתיב ״מעברים״!

   • אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: ״מעבירם״ כתיב.

4. והכתיב ״בני בליעל״!

   1. מתוך שהיה לו לפנחס למחות לחפני ולא מיחה, מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו חטא.

The Talmud asks:

1. 1. However, isn’t it written: “And how they lay [yishkevun] with the women.” The verb yishkevun is in the plural, indicating that both sons were guilty.

   2. The Talmud answers: It is written without a vav so that it can be read as yishkeven in the singular, i.e., how he lay, indicating that only one of them sinned.

2. 1. The Talmud asks further: Isn’t it written that Eli said: “No, my sons [banai]; for it is not a good report that I hear; you make YHWH’s people to transgress” (I Samuel 2:24). The fact that Eli referred to his sons in the plural indicates that they both sinned.

   2. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is written in a manner that can be read as my son [beni] in the singular.

3. 1. The Talmud raises another question: Isn’t it written: “You make YHWH’s people to transgress [ma’avirim] in the plural, indicating that both sons were guilty.

   2. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here too, the word is written without a yod so that it can be read as: You cause YHWH’s people to transgress [ma’aviram] in the singular, indicating that only one of them sinned.

4. 1. The Talmud raises one last challenge: Isn’t it written: “Now the sons of Eli were scoundrels; they knew not YHWH” (I Samuel 2:12), indicating that they were both sinners.

   2. The Talmud answers: Since Pinehas should have protested (למחות) Hophni’s conduct, but he did not protest, the verse ascribes to him liability as if he too had sinned.

Part 3: Samuel’s Sons (1 Samuel 8)

While the text says they 'did not walk in his ways' and took bribes,⁵ R' Yonatan reads this as relative, not absolute.

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - Samuel’s sons did not sin - “They did not walk in his ways” (1 Sam 8:3) = they were not like their father, not that they were sinners

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

כל האומר בני שמואל חטאו --

אינו אלא טועה,

שנאמר:

״ויהי (כי זקן שמואל

ובניו לא הלכו) בדרכיו״ —

בדרכיו הוא דלא הלכו,

מיחטא נמי לא חטאו.

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yonatan said:

Anyone who says that the sons of Samuel sinned --

is nothing other than mistaken,

as it is stated:

“And it came to pass, when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel…

And his sons walked not in his ways but sought after unjust gain, and took bribes, and perverted justice” (I Samuel 8:1–3).

By inference: In his ways they did not walk,

however, they did not sin either.

They were not the equals of their father, but they were not sinners.

...They stayed home to increase their staff’s pay - Unlike Samuel, who traveled (1 Sam 7:16), they judged from home, benefiting their scribes financially

They weren’t like their father Samuel, who personally traveled to judge the people, but they did not actively sin. Their misstep was in staying home and indirectly enriching their staff: their attendants (חזניהן) and scribes (סופריהן).

אלא מה אני מקיים

״ויטו אחרי הבצע״?

שלא עשו כמעשה אביהם,

שהיה שמואל הצדיק מחזר בכל מקומות ישראל

ודן אותם בעריהם,

שנאמר:

״והלך מדי שנה בשנה

וסבב

1. בית אל

2. והגלגל

3. והמצפה

ושפט את ישראל״,

והם לא עשו כן,

אלא ישבו בעריהם

כדי להרבות שכר לחזניהן ולסופריהן.

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse:

“And they sought after unjust gain (בצע),” indicating that they were sinners?

It means that they did not conduct themselves in accordance with the actions of their father.

As Samuel the righteous would travel to all places where the people of Israel were located

and sit in judgment in their towns,

as it is stated:

“And he went from year to year

in circuit from

1. Beth-El,

2. and Gilgal,

3. and Mitzpa,

and judged Israel in all those places” (I Samuel 7:16).

And, however, they did not do so and travel from place to place.

Rather, they sat in their own cities

in order to enhance the fees collected by their attendants and scribes.

Therefore, the verse ascribes to them liability as if they sinned by seeking ill-gotten gains and bribes.

Samuel’s Sons’ Financial Sin: Four Tannaitic Opinions

A tannaitic dispute regarding the meaning of the phrase ‘sought unjust financial gain (בצע)’:⁶

1. R' Meir - The sons of Samuel vocally (בפיהם) demanded “their share” (חלקם)

2. R' Yehuda - They pressured homeowners (בעלי בתים) to support them via “imposing merchandise (מלאי)”

3. R' Akiva - They took additional⁷ tithes⁸ by force⁹

4. R' Yosei - They forcibly took “gifts” (מתנות)

כתנאי.

״ויטו אחרי הבצע״,

1. רבי מאיר אומר: חלקם שאלו בפיהם.

2. רבי יהודה אומר: מלאי הטילו על בעלי בתים.

3. רבי עקיבא אומר: קופה יתירה של מעשר נטלו בזרוע.

4. רבי יוסי אומר: מתנות נטלו בזרוע.

The Talmud notes that this matter is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. As it was taught in a baraita that

the verse states: “And they sought after unjust gain.”

1. R' Meir says: This means that they vocally demanded their portions of the tithe due them as Levites, abusing their position to the detriment of other Levites.

2. R' Yehuda says: They imposed upon local homeowners to sell their merchandise and support them.

3. R' Akiva says: They took an extra basket of tithes, beyond that which was their due, by force.

4. R' Yosei says: They took only the gifts due them; however, they took them by force. They acted improperly, as a Levite is required to wait until he is given his gifts and may not take them.

Part 4: David and Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11-12)

The Bible condemns David for taking Bathsheba and arranging Uriah’s death.¹⁰

But R' Yonatan defends David: the verse says ‘to do evil’, not ‘he did evil’—suggesting intent, not action.

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - David did not sin with Bathsheba - “YHWH was with him” (1 Sam 18:14) implies no sin

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

כל האומר דוד חטא --

אינו אלא טועה,

שנאמר:

״ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל

וה׳ עמו וגו׳״.

אפשר חטא בא לידו ושכינה עמו?!

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' 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 YHWH was with him” (I Samuel 18:14).

Is it possible that sin came to his hand and nevertheless the Shekhina was with him?

...David sought to sin (with Bathsheba) but did not do so (II Samuel 12:9)

אלא מה אני מקיים

״מדוע בזית את דבר ה׳

לעשות הרע״?

שביקש לעשות

ולא עשה.

However, how then do I establish the meaning of the rebuke of the prophet Nathan:

“Why have you despised the word of YHWH,

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 Talmud answers: David sought to do evil and have relations with Bathsheba while she was still married to Uriah

but did not do so.

R' Yehuda HaNasi - David only intended to sin, but didn’t - “To do evil” (2 Sam 12:9) is unique phrasing; other sins are described with “he did”

R' Yehuda HaNasi expands this:¹¹ David intended to sin but did not act.

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.

Rav said:

R' 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 YHWH

to do evil,”

R' Yehuda HaNasi said:

This evil mentioned with regard to David is different (משונה) 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.

Uriah was legally liable for sedition; he should have been judged by the Sanhedrin

Uriah was legally liable for sedition; he should have been judged by the Sanhedrin.¹²

• ״את אוריה החתי הכית בחרב״ —

  • שהיה לך לדונו בסנהדרין, ולא דנת.

• ״ואת אשתו לקחת לך לאשה״ —

  • ליקוחין יש לך בה.

• That which is written: “Uriah the Hittite you have smitten with the sword” —

  • means that you could have judged him before the Sanhedrin as one guilty of treason against the throne, and you did not judge him in that manner. Instead, you had him executed in a manner that deviated from the generally accepted principles of judgment.

• With regard to that which is written: “And his wife you have taken to be your wife” —

  • it means that you have rights of marriage¹³ with her, as by law Bathsheba was already divorced from Uriah.

R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani citing R' Yonatan - All soldiers in David's army wrote conditional divorces - “Take their pledge” (‘arubatam’) is interpreted as referring to divorce documents

Bathsheba was already effectively divorced,¹⁴ since David’s soldiers issued conditional bills of divorce before going to war.

דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:

כל היוצא למלחמת בית דוד,

כותב גט כריתות לאשתו.

שנאמר:

״ואת עשרת חריצי החלב האלה תביא לשר האלף

ואת אחיך תפקד לשלום

ואת ערבתם תקח״.

As R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that R' Yonatan said:

Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David

writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife.

That was done to prevent a situation in which the soldier’s wife would be unable to remarry because the soldier did not return from battle and there were no witnesses to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded her the status of a divorcee and freed her to remarry.

As it is stated:

“And carry these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand,

and to your brothers bring greetings

and take their pledge [arubatam]” (I Samuel 17:18).

1. See Wikipedia, “Hophni and Phinehas”:

Hophni [...] and Phinehas [...] were the two sons of Eli.

The first book of Samuel describes them as the officiating priests at the sanctuary of Shiloh at the time of Hannah [...]

In the biblical narrative, Hophni and Phinehas are criticized for engaging in illicit behavior, such as appropriating the best portion of sacrifices for themselves, and having sex with the sanctuary's serving women.

They are described as "sons of Belial" in (1 Samuel 2:12) [...]

Their misdeeds provoked the wrath of YHWH and led to a divine curse being put on the house of Eli, and they subsequently both died on the same day, when Israel was defeated by the Philistines at the Battle of Aphek near Eben-ezer; the news of this defeat then led to Eli's death (1 Samuel 4:17–18).

On hearing of the deaths of Eli and Phinehas, and of the capture of the ark, Phinehas' wife gave birth to a son whom she named Ichabod (expressing 'departed glory') before she herself died (1 Samuel 4:19–22).

Notably, many Babylonian amoraim were claimed to have descended from Eli’s sons, see Wikipedia, “Eli (biblical figure)“, section “In rabbinical literature“, sub-section “Descendants“:

In addition to the individuals whose descent from Eli can be determined from the Biblical text, rabbinical literature cites other individuals as descendants of Eli […]

• Rabbah bar Nahmani, Babylonian Jewish Talmudist (Amora).

• Abaye, Babylonian Jewish Talmudist, nephew of Rabbah bar Nahmani

• Bebai ben Abaye, Babylonian Jewish Talmudist, son of Abaye

Rabbah died at age 40 and his nephew Abaye died at age 60.

The fact that many Babylonian amoraim were (supposedly) descended from Eli’s sons, explains why it was important to defend them from egregious sins. As the Talmud explicitly points out later—in the context of R’ Yehuda Hanasi and Davi—descent from a biblical figure was a motivation for reinterpreting biblical sins as less severe than would appear.

2. קיניהן - literally: “their nests”; the standard Talmudic term for the post-partum sacrifice (קורבן יולדת).

The need for a post-partum woman to bring a sacrifice is explicit in the Torah, see Wikipedia, “Tazria“, section “First reading—Leviticus 12:1–13:5“:

[…] God told Moses to tell the Israelites that when a woman at childbirth bore a boy, she was to be unclean 7 days and then remain in a state of blood purification for 33 days, while if she bore a girl, she was to be unclean 14 days and then remain in a state of blood purification for 66 days.

Upon completing her period of purification, she was to bring a lamb for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtle dove for a sin offering, and the priest was to offer them as sacrifices to make expiation on her behalf.

If she could not afford a sheep, she was to take two turtle doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering

3. אחיה בן אחיטוב.

See Wikipedia, “Ahijah”, person #7:

Son of Ahitub (1 Sam. 14:3, 18), Ichabod's brother; the same probably as Ahimelech, who was High Priest at Nob in the reign of Saul (1 Sam. 22:11) and at Shiloh, where the Tabernacle was set up.

And see Wikipedia, “1 Samuel 14“, section “The Battle of Michmash (14:1–15)“, sub-section “Verse 3“:

“And Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of YHWH in Shiloh, was wearing the ephod. But the people did not know that Jonathan had gone.”

"Ahijah":

could be the same as Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, the priest at Nob, who would later be a victim of Saul's vengeance (1 Samuel 22:9), as the name Ahijah (“brother of YH”) and Ahimelech ("brother of the king") may have been the same person ("melech", meaning "king", could be substituted for the divine name "YH"), but it is also possible that Ahimelech was a brother of Ahijah and his successor in the high priesthood.

As an elder brother of Ichabod (1 Samuel 4:21), Ahitub was probably about the same age as Samuel, so his son could have already been high-priest that fifty years or more must have elapsed since the death of Eli.

4. היה לו לפנחס למחות לחפני, ולא מיחה.

This concept is found a number of times elsewhere in the Talmud. See for example here, in “Appendix 2 - Cosmic Consequences of Social Injustice and Arrogance (Sukkah 29a-b)“, section “Homeowners’ wealth is handed over to ruling powers as punishment for: keeping paid debt notes (to fraudulently collect again), lending with interest, failing to protest wrongdoing despite having the power to do so, publicly pledging charity but not following through“:

ועל שהיה ספק בידם למחות,

ולא מיחו

and on account of those who had the ability (ספק) to reprimand sinners

and did not reprimand them

And see here, in “Appendix 2 - Punishment for Pronouncing the Tetragrammaton (“YHWH”): The Divine Cause for the Martyrdoms of R’ Ḥanina ben Teradyon and His Wife (Avodah Zarah 17b-18a)“:

ועל אשתו להריגה --

דלא (מיחה) [מחתה] ביה.

מכאן אמרו:

כל מי שיש בידו למחות

ואינו מוחה

נענש עליו.

And his wife was condemned to execution by decapitation --

because she did not protest his doing so (i.e. she didn’t protest when her husband R’ Ḥanina ben Teradyon pronounced the Tetragrammaton (“YHWH”)).

From here the rabbis stated:

Anyone who has the capability to protest effectively the sinful conduct of another

and does not protest

is punished for that person’s sin.

5. See Wikipedia, “1 Samuel 8”, section “Samuel's sons (8:1–3)”:

When Samuel was at old age (verse 1), his sons, who were appointed as judges, became corrupt (verse 2).

This draws a parallel to Samuel's mentor, Eli, whose sons became corrupt at Eli's old age (1 Samuel 2:22), leading to prophetic judgments on his family, Israel's defeat and loss of ark to the Philistines (1 Samuel 4).

In the case of Samuel, the corruption of his sons led to the elders of Israel requesting for a king.

6. Notably, the statements in this baraita are formulated in a literary way, and their meanings are especially unclear.

7. קופה יתירה - “extra basket/box”.

8. מעשר =”[first] tithe”.

9. בזרוע - literally: “by arm”, a standard Talmudic idiom for force.

10. See Wikipedia, “Bathsheba”, section “Biblical account”:

Bathsheba was Uriah the Hittite's wife.

David's initial interactions with Bathsheba are described in 2 Samuel 11.

While walking on the roof of his palace, David sees a beautiful woman bathing. He inquires about her, discovering her identity as Uriah's wife. Still desiring her, David later has sex with Bathsheba, impregnating her [...]

While the army was on campaign, David summoned Uriah in the hope that Uriah would have sex with Bathsheba, and in turn be convinced that the child she would eventually bear belonged to him.

However, Uriah was unwilling to disregard rules applying to warriors on campaign, preferring to remain with the palace troops rather than sleep in his own bed.

After repeated efforts to convince Uriah to sleep with his wife failed, David gave an order to his general Joab that Uriah should be placed on the front lines in battle, where he would be in much greater danger.

Additionally, David had Uriah himself carry this message back to the army. Uriah was ultimately killed during the siege of Rabbah, and Bathsheba mourned him. Then, David made her his wife, taking her into his house where she gave birth to his child.

David's actions displeased God, who sent the prophet Nathan to reprove the king.

In relating a parable describing a rich man who took away the lamb of his poor neighbor, he incited the king's righteous anger, and Nathan then analogized the case directly to David's actions regarding Bathsheba.

Nathan declared that God would punish the house of David for Uriah's murder and the taking of his wife.

In turn, he would let someone close to David seize all David's wives, and having him lie with them in broad daylight for everyone to see.

David at once confessed his sins, expressing sincere repentance.

Shortly after Bathsheba's first child by David was born, God struck it with a severe illness.

David pleaded with God to spare his child, fasting and spending the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground, but after seven days the child died.

David accepted this as his punishment, and then went to the house of God to worship him.

And see the outline at the Wikipedia entries on the relevant chapters:

1. David and Bathsheba (11:1–13)

2. David arranged Uriah to be killed (11:14–25)

3. David married Bathsheba (11:26–27)

4. Nathan rebukes David (12:1–15)

5. David’s loss and repentance (12:16–23)

For an extensive discussion of the story, including the later midrashic interpretation, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “דוד ובת שבע“.

11. The Talmud introduces this with a introduction from Rav:

רבי דאתי מדוד --

מהפך ודריש בזכותיה דדוד.

R' Yehuda HaNasi, who descends (אתי - “comes”) from the house of David --

seeks to teach (מהפך ודריש - “overturns/strives and interprets”) the verse in favor of David.

The Talmud giving personal motivations for halachic and midrashic interpretations is found a number of times. For example, see my piece on the sugya of lineages, and my note there: “Pt2 Talmudic Jewish Geography: The Boundaries of Babylonia, Lineage Purity, and the Cities of the Ten Lost Tribes (Kiddushin 71b-72a)“, where the Talmud challenges statements of Rav Pappa and Rav Ika, stating that they had personal motives relating to women that they wanted to marry from specific geographic areas.

12. Compare Kiddushin.43a.12:

ואידך:

הרי לך כחרב בני עמון,

• מה חרב בני עמון –

  • אין אתה נענש עליו,

• אף אוריה החתי –

  • אי אתה נענש עליו.

מאי טעמא?

מורד במלכות הוה,

דקאמר ליה:

״ואדני יואב

ועבדי אדני

על פני השדה חנים״.

And the other opinion, i.e., the first tanna, who holds that the one who appoints the killer is exempt, explains the verse as follows:

Behold this killing is for you like the “sword of Ammon” (II Samuel 12:9):

• Just as for those killed by the sword of Ammon in the course of the war —

  • you are not punished

• so too for the death of Uriah the Hittite —

  • you are not punished not even according to the laws of Heaven.

What is the reason for this?

Uriah was a rebel against the monarchy (מורד במלכות) and was consequently liable to the death penalty,

as he said to King David:

“And my lord Joab,

and the servants of my lord,

are encamped in the open field” (II Samuel 11:11).

By referring to Joab as his lord in front of the king, he indicated that he answered to Joab rather than to the king, which is tantamount to rebellion.

The concept of “rebel against the monarchy” (מורד במלכות - i.e. “sedition”) is used by the Talmud a number of times as a justification for David killing Uriah and Nabal.

And see also “Pt2 Pride, Idolatry, and the Rejection of Repentance: Talmudic Interpretations of the Wicked Biblical King Jeroboam (Sanhedrin 101b-102a)“, section “Jeroboam’s Dilemma: Fear of Disloyalty in the Temple Courtyard“:

ואי יתיבנא,

מורד במלכות הואי

וקטלין לי,

ואזלו בתריה

And if I [=Jeroboam] sit there [=in the Temple courtyard],

I will be considered a traitor against the throne (מורד במלכות - i.e. against Rehoboam, the Judahite king, grandson of David),

and they will kill me

and follow him [=Rehoboam].

13. ליקוחין - a common technical Talmudic term for betrothal, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “תפיסת קידושין“, section “המקור בתורה“.

14. Via a “bill of divorce” - גט כריתות - ‘get’.