David and Batsheva

Chayalle

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:11 am

etky wrote:

Yes, but again, everything you've written is parshanut, not pshat, including the part about Tehillim.
We know nothing about Uriah and Batsheva's marriage from the pshat. And the part about the get is also chazalic commentary.
I think it's important to distinguish between pshat and parshanut.
The text is the text and parshanut is parshanut.

OK there's Torah Shebaal Peh on all of the Torah. Do you use an esrog and lulav on Succos?

etky

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:14 am

chayalas wrote:

chazal don't make stuff up, they are explaining the text (and the pshat) according to a mesorah.

Did I say that?
Still, the text is the authoritative document, and as such retains its autonomy.
It is not respectful of the text to interpolate commentary - whatever its source - without distinguishing between the two.

etky

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:16 am

Chayalle wrote:

OK there's Torah Shebaal Peh on all of the Torah. Do you use an esrog and lulav on Succos?

Hardly the same thing.
We're not talking halacha le Moshe Mi'Sinai here.

Chayalle

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:23 am

etky wrote:

Hardly the same thing.
We're not talking halacha le Moshe Mi'Sinai here.

There's the concept of Ein HaMikrah Yotzei Midei Pshuto...but at the same time, Chazal provide a context to help us understand. It is as much a part of our Mesorah as using an Esrog is.

Ihatepotatoes

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:25 am

etky wrote:

the torah shbaaal peh IS tora shbeksav. the commentary has the same legitimacy as the text, since it is the same. it is the same thing as lulav. we know to take a lulav because the gemara says that kapos temarim is a lulav. we know dovid did not sin because the gemara explains it that way. there is no reason to give primacy to the torah shbksav over torah shbaal peh , as you want to somehow seperate the two. they were both given by hashem, and both have the same legitamacy

etky

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:30 am

Chayalle wrote:

There's the concept of Ein HaMikrah Yotzei Midei Pshuto...but at the same time, Chazal provide a context to help us understand. It is as much a part of our Mesorah as using an Esrog is.

No - it's part of our mesorah but not something unequivocal as tefillin and etrog, which are halachot.
Even in chazal there is a plethora of opinions on the David and Batsheva episode and there are many chachamim in gemara that refuse to accept R' Yehuda Hanassi and R' Shmuel Bar Nachmani's determination that David did not sin. Not to mention the dispute among the rishonim.
There's no one, correct way of understanding tanach that trumps all other approaches.

Chayalle

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:36 am

etky wrote:

My point is, if a class is being taught about David and Batsheva, or if OP is discussing with her daughter....then teaching only the text without the explanation by Chazal would be a very one-sided class. I'm fine with presenting both sides of the dispute, however leaving out the opinion that David did not sin would be omitting a major opinion of Chazal. Like not teaching that a Pri Etz Hadar is an Esrog.

etky

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:47 am

Chayalle wrote:

I agree.

Ema of 5

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:54 am

chavs wrote:

Anyone have any insight into batshevas age? According to the article she was only around 7 when dovid took her.

What?!?! And if this is really the case, why is it such a big deal if Rivka was 3?

trixx

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 12:46 pm

Chayalle wrote:

This is not correct.

It was forbidden to fight both Amon and Moav - "Al Tatzar Es Moav" and it says something similar by Amon, but with Amon there is an added warning "V'al Tisgar Bam" - the Jews were not even allowed to frighten them into thinking there might be a war. This was the reward of Amon for the tznius of the daughter of Lot who gave him a name that only hinted at his parentage.

However it is permitted to marry daughters of both Amon and Moav, as it says in the Gemarah "Amoni V'lo Amonis, Moavi V'lo Moavis" I.e. it is forbidden to marry a male Amoni or Moabi, but it is not forbidden to marry the female.

Thanks!

Chayalle

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 1:05 pm

eema of 3 wrote:

What?!?! And if this is really the case, why is it such a big deal if Rivka was 3?

I think it's so important to bring different opinions when teaching. For example, I was taught so many times that Rivka was 3....hardly anyone mentions the opposing views, for example those that say she was around 13-14, which makes much more sense IMVHO.....I always tell this to my girls, and they all say they were taught Rivka was 3.

That being said....You can't see a difference between Rivka being 3 and Tamar being 7 (according to whatever opinions.....)....a 3 year old is like almost a baby. If she was 3, what was she doing out with the camels? Whilst a 7 year old is much more mature in some societies.

I remember reading an article in my doctor's waiting room (I think in National Geographic) about the age of marriage for girls in Yemen. They still do 7 year olds in some areas Sad

....

Ema of 5

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 1:26 pm

Chayalle wrote:

....

Of course I see the difference, but I don't see the HUGE deal that people make about Rivka if batsheva was 6.

Ruchel

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 3:22 pm

He married Batsheva, after sending her ex husband (soldiers gave get) to a very perilous mission.

FTR, even in our century, marriage at _______ didn't mean consummation at _______. I know that from a familiar of a gadol, whose wife was very young, and I didn't manage to not say I was upset, so I was told, that it became a real marriage only when she was (16?).

dancingqueen

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 4:17 pm

Chayalle wrote:

....

certainly neither age is old enough for marriage. I never understood what these medrashim where the woman getting married is super young are supposed to be teaching us :/

busymom

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 4:40 pm

Chayalle wrote:

....

I think this was etky's point above. That when teaching midrashim, there is often more than one opinion. While a halachic mesorah (like luvav) is binding, there is often several opinions about how to interpret passukim in Tanach, and as you point out, I think it's so important to help children understand that.

tichellady

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 5:06 pm

chayalas wrote:

Navi is not Torah. Yes it is holy but not the same status as Torah. Chazal say shmuel wrote the book of shmuel and if wrote the pshat in a certain way there's a reason. Of course there is room for drash and commentary but the pshat is written in a certain way for a reason. It is not a text that is normally very scarce with words like the Torah can be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the hermeneutics ( like kal v chomer) for interpreting the Torah apply to the scriptures and prophets.

Ihatepotatoes

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:00 pm

tichellady wrote:

the gemara is saying that the correct way of reading it as pshat is that he did not sin. meaning, that even in the way shmuel wrote it that is the pshat.

yogabird

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:10 pm

tichellady wrote:

You are correct.

yogabird

Tue, Feb 16 2016, 10:12 pm

chayalas wrote:

the gemara is saying that the correct way of reading it as pshat is that he did not sin. meaning, that even in the way shmuel wrote it that is the pshat.

Where does the gemara say this?

How can you say it's pshat if it doesn't fit with the most literal, basic understanding of the text?

Also, didn't someone (etky?) upthread say that there are other opinions in the gemara that refute it? So who gets to decide which one is closer to pshat?