Skip to Content
Nach YomiII Samuel · שמואל ב׳Chapter 12

II Samuel 12

שמואל ב׳ פרק י״ב

Section: נביאים · נביאים ראשונים | Book: II Samuel | Chapter: 12 of 24 | Day: 88 of 742

Date: May 10, 2026

קלאוד על הנ״ך

II Samuel 12 is the moral hinge of the David narrative and one of the most theologically charged chapters in all of Tanakh. After the long descending arc of chapter 11 — the rooftop sighting, the summons, the failed cover-up, and the engineered death of Uriah — chapter 12 opens with three terse Hebrew words that reverse the gravity of the entire book: וישלח ה’ את נתן אל דוד, “and the Lord sent Nathan to David.” The sword that David has wielded against another man’s husband is now turned, in the form of the prophet’s voice, against David himself. What follows is the most famous parable in the Hebrew Bible, the most devastating two-word indictment in scripture (אתה האיש), and a confession of three syllables (חטאתי לה’) whose brevity has been read by the rabbis as the very measure of authentic teshuvah.

The literary architecture of the chapter is precise and audacious. Nathan does not denounce David; he traps him. He tells a small, vivid story about a rich man with vast flocks, a poor man with one beloved ewe-lamb, and a traveler whose arrival provokes the rich man to take what is not his. The parable is so finely calibrated that David, the shepherd-king and lifelong adjudicator of disputes, walks straight into the verdict it requires of him — “the man deserves death, and he must pay fourfold.” Only then does Nathan deliver the blade: “You are the man.” Rashi, drawing on the Tosefta, reads the parable’s three guests — הלך, אורח, איש — as a graded portrait of the yetzer ha-ra, which arrives first as a passing traveler, then settles in as a guest, and finally takes possession as master of the house. The chapter thus performs in narrative form a teaching about how sin captures a soul in stages, and the narrative voice does it without ever lecturing. The fourfold payment David imposes on himself is read by the midrash as fulfilled with exact precision in the ensuing chapters: the unnamed infant of this chapter, then Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom — each death drawn from David’s own house, each a measured installment on the verdict David himself pronounced.

Nathan’s prophecy that follows the indictment establishes the dual-axis punishment that organizes the rest of II Samuel. “The sword shall not depart from your house forever” becomes the structural principle of chapters 13 through 20: the rape of Tamar, the murder of Amnon, Absalom’s revolt, the death of Absalom, the rebellion of Sheva ben Bichri. The second prophecy — “I will take your wives before your eyes” — is fulfilled when Absalom enters the rooftop tent with his father’s concubines in chapter 16, in a deliberate inversion of the rooftop where the chain of sin began. Radak grapples with the theological problem this poses: how can God decree that Absalom will sin? His answer, drawing on Saadia Gaon, is that God did not compel Absalom’s transgression but foresaw it; the decree was that God would not shield David’s wives from a rebellion that Absalom would freely choose. The chapter stages, in compact form, the classical rabbinic balance between divine providence and human agency.

David’s response to Nathan — חטאתי לה’ — has been the subject of immense rabbinic admiration. The two words appear without elaboration, without self-justification, without negotiation. Where Saul, faced with prophetic rebuke a generation earlier, had argued, hedged, and bargained, David simply confesses. Nathan answers immediately: גם ה’ העביר חטאתך, “the Lord has remitted your sin.” The Talmud (Yoma 22b) and Radak both note that the punishment is not lifted but reshaped — the death penalty David himself had pronounced is commuted, but the consequences will play out across his lifetime in the deaths of his own children. The chapter’s theology of teshuvah is therefore neither sentimental nor cheap: repentance reaches the soul, but it does not undo the worldly damage that sin has set in motion. The next seven days are spent on the ground, fasting, in a posture of intercession that is also Israel’s earliest extended portrait of a parent grieving for a dying child.

The closing movement of the chapter pivots in two directions at once. From the death of the unnamed infant emerges the birth of Solomon — וה’ אהבו, “and the Lord loved him” — the only place in scripture where God’s love for a specific individual is announced before that person has done anything at all. Nathan returns, this time bearing a name: Yedidyah, “beloved of the Lord.” The same prophet who pronounced the indictment now pronounces the blessing on the heir. Then, abruptly, the narrative shifts to the Ammonite battlefield, where Joab has captured the water-city of Rabbah and summons David to receive the credit. David takes the city, places the king’s crown on his head, and returns to Jerusalem. The chapter ends with David restored to military glory, but only after the deepest crisis of his reign has been resolved through prophetic confrontation, confession, and the slow consequences of a forgiven sin. The juxtaposition is deliberate: the king who could not be reached by the sword of his enemies has been brought to his knees by a parable about a lamb, and from that brokenness a new heir has emerged who will build the Temple. Few chapters in Tanakh accomplish so much theological work in so little space.

פרק י״ב · Chapter 12

פסוק א׳ · Verse 1

Hebrew:

וַיִּשְׁלַ֧ח יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶת־נָתָ֖ן אֶל־דָּוִ֑ד וַיָּבֹ֣א אֵלָ֗יו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לוֹ֙ שְׁנֵ֣י אֲנָשִׁ֗ים הָיוּ֙ בְּעִ֣יר אֶחָ֔ת אֶחָ֥ד עָשִׁ֖יר וְאֶחָ֥ד רָֽאשׁ׃

English:

and GOD sent Nathan to David. He came to him and said, “There were two men in the same city, one rich and one poor.

The verse opens chapter 12 with God Himself dispatching the prophet -- the Hebrew construction וישלח ה' announces that this is a divine initiative, not Nathan's own moral instinct. Metzudat David explains why Nathan begins with a parable rather than a direct accusation: he wants David to pronounce judgment on himself before he realizes the case is his own, so the king's mouth will not have time to defend or excuse.

פסוק ב׳ · Verse 2

Hebrew:

לְעָשִׁ֗יר הָיָ֛ה צֹ֥אן וּבָקָ֖ר הַרְבֵּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃

English:

The rich one had very large flocks and herds,

פסוק ג׳ · Verse 3

Hebrew:

וְלָרָ֣שׁ אֵֽין־כֹּ֗ל כִּי֩ אִם־כִּבְשָׂ֨ה אַחַ֤ת קְטַנָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר קָנָ֔ה וַיְחַיֶּ֕הָ וַתִּגְדַּ֥ל עִמּ֛וֹ וְעִם־בָּנָ֖יו יַחְדָּ֑ו מִפִּתּ֨וֹ תֹאכַ֜ל וּמִכֹּס֤וֹ תִשְׁתֶּה֙ וּבְחֵיק֣וֹ תִשְׁכָּ֔ב וַתְּהִי־ל֖וֹ כְּבַֽת׃

English:

but the poor one had only one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He tended it and it grew up together with him and his children: it used to share his morsel of bread, drink from his cup, and nestle in his bosom; it was like a daughter to him.

The poor man's lamb is described in language deliberately echoing a beloved daughter -- eating from his plate, drinking from his cup, sleeping in his bosom. Metzudat David notes that the imagery is poetic exaggeration designed to maximize the emotional charge of the parable, ensuring David will react with full moral outrage when the rich man takes her.

פסוק ד׳ · Verse 4

Hebrew:

וַיָּ֣בֹא הֵ֘לֶךְ֮ לְאִ֣ישׁ הֶעָשִׁיר֒ וַיַּחְמֹ֗ל לָקַ֤חַת מִצֹּאנוֹ֙ וּמִבְּקָר֔וֹ לַעֲשׂ֕וֹת לָאֹרֵ֖חַ הַבָּא־ל֑וֹ וַיִּקַּ֗ח אֶת־כִּבְשַׂת֙ הָאִ֣ישׁ הָרָ֔אשׁ וַֽיַּעֲשֶׂ֔הָ לָאִ֖ישׁ הַבָּ֥א אֵלָֽיו׃

English:

One day, a traveler came to the rich man, but he was loath to take anything from his own flocks or herds to prepare a meal for the guest who had come to him; so he took the poor man’s lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.”

The parable's most arresting detail is the rich man's three-stage progression in describing the visitor -- first הלך (a passer-by), then אורח (a guest), and finally איש (a man). Rashi, drawing on the Tosefta, reads this as Nathan's portrait of the yetzer ha-ra: the evil inclination first arrives as a stranger merely passing through, settles in as a lodger, and finally takes possession as the master of the house. The lamb's slaughter for a casual traveler stands in for David's destruction of Uriah's household for a passing impulse.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
וַיָּבֹא הֵלֶךְ. דִּמָּה אֶת יֵצֶר הָרָע תְּחִלָּה לְהֵלֶךְ, שֶׁעוֹבֵר לְדַרְכּוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ לְאוֹרֵחַ, שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה אַכְסְנַאי, וְאַחַר כָּךְ לְאִישׁ, שֶׁהוּא בַּעַל הַבַּיִת:
A traveler came. [Noson] compared the evil inclination at first to a sojourner that is [quickly] going on his way. Afterwords he is compared to a guest that has become a resident and afterwords he is compared to a man who is the owner of the house.1This verse is Noson's parable alluding to the evil inclination. The visiton is first referred to as הֵלֶךְ, then אׂרֵחַ and finally as an אִישׁ, representing the evil inclination's ability to take more and more control over its victim's life.

פסוק ה׳ · Verse 5

Hebrew:

וַיִּחַר־אַ֥ף דָּוִ֛ד בָּאִ֖ישׁ מְאֹ֑ד וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־נָתָ֔ן חַי־יְהֹוָ֕ה כִּ֣י בֶן־מָ֔וֶת הָאִ֖ישׁ הָעֹשֶׂ֥ה זֹֽאת׃

English:

David flew into a rage against the man, and said to Nathan, “As GOD lives, the man who did thisathe man who did this Or “any man who has done this.” deserves to die!

David's outrage is total -- חי ה' is the most solemn oath he can swear, and he immediately pronounces capital judgment on a thief who is not technically liable to death under Torah law. Rashi explains the verdict's severity by citing the principle that one who robs the poor is as if he takes their life (Bava Kamma 119a, drawing on Proverbs 1:19). Metzudat David adds that David genuinely believed the case was real, which is precisely the trap Nathan needed: a king pronouncing sentence on himself in the abstract.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
כִּי בֶן מָוֶת. הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הֶעָנִי, כְּאִלּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי א:יט): ״אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח״:
Is worthy of death. Someone who steals from a poor person is tantamount to taking his life2See Baba Kama 119a. Stealing a pruta from anyone is tantamount to killing him. as it is said, "He has taken it's owner's life."3Mishlei 1:19.

פסוק ו׳ · Verse 6

Hebrew:

וְאֶת־הַכִּבְשָׂ֖ה יְשַׁלֵּ֣ם אַרְבַּעְתָּ֑יִם עֵ֗קֶב אֲשֶׁ֤ר עָשָׂה֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה וְעַ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־חָמָֽל׃ {ס}        

English:

He must pay for the lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and showed no pity.”

David imposes the fourfold restitution mandated in Exodus 21:37 for stealing a sheep, plus capital punishment under royal jurisdiction for the cruelty involved. Rashi reads David's self-imposed penalty as prophetic: it will be exacted from him through four of his own children -- the unnamed infant later in this chapter, then Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom in the chapters that follow. The king has unwittingly written the budget of his own household's suffering.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
יְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבַּעְתָּיִם. כָּךְ אֵרַע לוֹ, שֶׁלָּקָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה בָּנִים, הַיֶּלֶד וְאַמְנוֹן תָּמָר וְאַבְשָׁלוֹם:
Pay fourfold. This is what [eventually] happened, he was punished with [problems concerning] four children the child4Related further on in verse 15. and Amnon Tomor and Avsholom.5The events with Amnon, Tomor and Avsholom start in chapter 13.

פסוק ז׳ · Verse 7

Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֧אמֶר נָתָ֛ן אֶל־דָּוִ֖ד אַתָּ֣ה הָאִ֑ישׁ {ס}        כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אָנֹכִ֞י מְשַׁחְתִּ֤יךָֽ לְמֶ֙לֶךְ֙ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאָנֹכִ֥י הִצַּלְתִּ֖יךָ מִיַּ֥ד שָׁאֽוּל׃

English:

And Nathan said to David, “That man is you! Thus said the ETERNAL, the God of Israel: ‘It was I who anointed you king over Israel and it was I who rescued you from the hand of Saul.

The two-word indictment אתה האיש -- 'You are the man' -- has become the most famous prophetic confrontation in scripture. Nathan immediately pivots into the divine speech, opening with God's prior favors to David: anointing him king over Israel and rescuing him from Saul's pursuit. The structure is a classic covenant lawsuit, where the prosecutor recounts the benefactor's gifts before listing the defendant's betrayals.

פסוק ח׳ · Verse 8

Hebrew:

וָאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית אֲדֹנֶ֗יךָ וְאֶת־נְשֵׁ֤י אֲדֹנֶ֙יךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וָאֶתְּנָ֣ה לְךָ֔ אֶת־בֵּ֥ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וִיהוּדָ֑ה וְאִ֨ם־מְעָ֔ט וְאֹסִ֥פָה לְּךָ֖ כָּהֵ֥נָּה וְכָהֵֽנָּה׃

English:

I gave you your master’s house and possession of your master’s wives; and I gave you the House of Israel and Judah; and if that were not enough, I would give you twice as much more.

God's catalogue of gifts to David sharpens the indictment: 'I gave you your master's house and your master's wives, the kingdom of Israel and Judah -- and had that been too little, I would have added more.' Rashi identifies 'your master's wives' as Michal daughter of Saul, and Metzudat David adds the midrashic tradition that Rizpah was also taken into David's house. The point is that David needed only to ask, and God would have given him more -- the appetite that drove him to Bathsheba was therefore not necessity but contempt.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ. מִיכַל בַּת שָׁאוּל: וְאֹסִפָה. וְהָיִיתִי מוֹסִיף לְךָ:
Your master's woman. Michal, the daughter of Shaul. I will add on. I would add on for you.

פסוק ט׳ · Verse 9

Hebrew:

מַדּ֜וּעַ בָּזִ֣יתָ ׀ אֶת־דְּבַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת הָרַע֮ (בעינו) [בְּעֵינַי֒] אֵ֣ת אוּרִיָּ֤ה הַחִתִּי֙ הִכִּ֣יתָ בַחֶ֔רֶב וְאֶ֨ת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ לָקַ֥חְתָּ לְּךָ֖ לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וְאֹת֣וֹ הָרַ֔גְתָּ בְּחֶ֖רֶב בְּנֵ֥י עַמּֽוֹן׃

English:

Why then have you flouted GOD’s command—and done what displeases Me?bMe So qere; kethib “Him.” You have put Uriah the Hittite to the sword; you took his wife and made her your wife and had him killed by the sword of the Ammonites.

The verse names David's two crimes plainly: he killed Uriah by the sword and took his wife. Radak addresses the legal puzzle that Uriah was technically killed by Ammonite weapons rather than David's hand, observing that the verse calls David the killer because royal command renders the king liable as the principal actor -- a rare exception to the general principle that the agent, not the sender, bears guilt for sin. Saul's command to slaughter the priests of Nov is invoked as a parallel: a king cannot hide behind the soldier who carries out his decree.

פסוק י״ · Verse 10

Hebrew:

וְעַתָּ֗ה לֹא־תָס֥וּר חֶ֛רֶב מִבֵּיתְךָ֖ עַד־עוֹלָ֑ם עֵ֚קֶב כִּ֣י בְזִתָ֔נִי וַתִּקַּ֗ח אֶת־אֵ֙שֶׁת֙ אוּרִיָּ֣ה הַחִתִּ֔י לִהְי֥וֹת לְךָ֖ לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ {ס}        

English:

Therefore the sword shall never depart from your House—because you spurned Me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite and making her your wife.‘

The first axis of punishment is announced: 'the sword shall not depart from your house forever.' This becomes the structural curse organizing chapters 13-20 -- Amnon murdered by Absalom, Absalom killed by Joab, Sheva ben Bichri executed -- and continues into Solomon's reign with the deaths of Adoniyah and Joab. Metzudat David explains the gravity of בזיתני: David's sin caused chillul Hashem, public desecration of the divine name, which always exacts a heavier price than private transgression.

פסוק י״א · Verse 11

Hebrew:

כֹּ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה הִנְנִי֩ מֵקִ֨ים עָלֶ֤יךָ רָעָה֙ מִבֵּיתֶ֔ךָ וְלָקַחְתִּ֤י אֶת־נָשׁ��֙יךָ֙ לְעֵינֶ֔יךָ וְנָתַתִּ֖י לְרֵעֶ֑יךָ וְשָׁכַב֙ עִם־נָשֶׁ֔יךָ לְעֵינֵ֖י הַשֶּׁ֥מֶשׁ הַזֹּֽאת׃

English:

Thus said GOD: ‘I will make a calamity rise against you from within your own house; I will take your wives and give them to another man before your very eyes and he shall sleep with your wives under this very sun.

The second prophecy is more searing: 'I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor.' Radak grapples with the theological problem this creates -- if God decreed that Absalom would sin, how is Absalom's free will preserved? Following Saadia Gaon, he distinguishes two layers in Nathan's prophecy: God's decree concerned the public humiliation of David's house through Absalom's revolt, while Absalom's specific transgression with the concubines was his own free choice that God foresaw but did not compel. The literal fulfillment occurs in 16:22 when Absalom enters the rooftop tent.

פסוק י״ב · Verse 12

Hebrew:

כִּ֥י אַתָּ֖ה עָשִׂ֣יתָ בַסָּ֑תֶר וַאֲנִ֗י אֶֽעֱשֶׂה֙ אֶת־הַדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֔ה נֶ֥גֶד כׇּל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְנֶ֥גֶד הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ׃ {ס}        

English:

You acted in secret, but I will make this happen in the sight of all Israel and in broad daylight.’”

The verse establishes the principle of midah keneged midah -- measure for measure -- as the structure of the punishment. David sinned בסתר, in private, believing his act was hidden; the consequences will unfold נגד השמש, before all Israel and in broad daylight. Metzudat David adds a sharp homiletical point: the world will read the punishment as a public commentary on the hidden sin, so the very concealment David sought will be undone by the visibility of his suffering.

פסוק י״ג · Verse 13

Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר דָּוִד֙ אֶל־נָתָ֔ן חָטָ֖אתִי לַיהֹוָ֑ה {ס}        וַיֹּ֨אמֶר נָתָ֜ן אֶל־דָּוִ֗ד גַּם־יְהֹוָ֛ה הֶעֱבִ֥יר חַטָּאתְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תָמֽוּת׃

English:

David said to Nathan, “I stand guilty before GOD!” And Nathan replied to David, “GOD has remitted your sin; you shall not die.

David's response is the shortest confession in scripture: חטאתי לה' -- 'I have sinned against the Lord.' No defense, no negotiation, no claim that Uriah deserved death for refusing the king's orders. The Talmud (Yoma 22b) holds this brevity up as the model of authentic teshuvah, contrasting it with Saul's long-winded self-justifications a generation earlier. Radak explains that Nathan's reply -- העביר חטאתך -- means David will not die the death of the wicked who descend to Gehinnom, but the worldly consequences of the sin still play out: the sword in his house, the rebellion, and the death of the infant about to be announced.

פסוק י״ד · Verse 14

Hebrew:

אֶ֗פֶס כִּֽי־נִאֵ֤ץ נִאַ֙צְתָּ֙ אֶת־אֹיְבֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה בַּדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה גַּ֗ם הַבֵּ֛ן הַיִּלּ֥וֹד לְךָ֖ מ֥וֹת יָמֽוּת׃

English:

However, since you have spurned the enemies ofcthe enemies of The phrase is intended to avoid saying “spurned GOD”; cf. first note at 1 Sam. 25.22. GOD by this deed, even the child about to be born to you shall die.”

The phrase 'the enemies of the Lord' is a classical scribal euphemism (kinui) -- the verse cannot bring itself to write that David caused contempt for God Himself, so it inserts 'the enemies of' as a buffer. Rashi cites Targum Yonatan's gloss: David gave the enemies of Israel a pretext to mock God's people. The death of the infant is announced here as the immediate fourfold installment, satisfying the principle that chillul Hashem demands a public consequence.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
כִּי נִאֵץ נִאַצְתָּ אֶת אוֹיְבֵי. כִּנּוּי הוּא זֶה, דֶּרֶךְ כָּבוֹד לְמַעְלָה וְיוֹנָתָן תִּרְגֵּם: ״אֲרֵי מֵיפְתַּח פְּתַחְתָּא פּוּמָא דְּסָנְאֵי עַמָּא דַה׳״:
Because you have angered the enemies of Adonoy. This is a euphimism a way [to be] respectable to on High.6Using "enemies of God" to stand in for God in order for the word "angered" not to have to be applied to Him in a direct way. Yonasan translated, Because you have opened up you have opened the mouth of [those] who hate the people of God.

פסוק ט״ו · Verse 15

Hebrew:

וַיֵּ֥לֶךְ נָתָ֖ן אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וַיִּגֹּ֣ף יְהֹוָ֗ה אֶת־הַיֶּ֜לֶד אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָלְדָ֧ה אֵשֶׁת־אוּרִיָּ֛ה לְדָוִ֖ד וַיֵּאָנַֽשׁ׃

English:

Nathan went home, and GOD afflicted the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and it became critically ill.

Nathan returns home immediately after delivering the prophecy -- Radak notes that he does not linger to extend honor to David, signaling the breach in the relationship between prophet and king. The verse describes the infant simply as 'the child whom Uriah's wife bore to David,' a deliberate echo of the original phrasing in chapter 11 that refuses to call Bathsheba David's wife. The word ויאנש denotes a grave illness, marking the immediate onset of the fourfold installment.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
וַיֵּאָנַשׁ. לְשׁוֹן חֹלִי:
[He became sick.] [This word] denotes sickness.

פסוק ט״ז · Verse 16

Hebrew:

וַיְבַקֵּ֥שׁ דָּוִ��ד אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּעַ֣ד הַנָּ֑עַר וַיָּ֤צׇם דָּוִד֙ צ֔וֹם וּבָ֥א וְלָ֖ן וְשָׁכַ֥ב אָֽרְצָה׃

English:

David entreated God for the boy; David fasted, and he went in and spent the night lyingdlying Some Septuagint mss. and 4QSamᵃ add “in sackcloth”; cf. 1 Kings 21.27. on the ground.

Despite Nathan's explicit prophecy that the child will die, David enters seven days of intercessory fasting -- spending the day in the house of God and the night lying on the ground. Radak addresses the apparent contradiction: how can David pray against an explicit divine decree? His answer is that David hopes God may relent, modeling the principle later articulated in verse 22 -- 'who knows? Perhaps the Lord will be gracious.' This is one of the earliest portraits in scripture of a parent's bedside vigil for a dying child, and it complicates the rabbinic picture of David's repentance: confession does not extinguish a parent's instinct to plead.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
וּבָא וְלָן וְשָׁכַב אָרְצָה. וּבָא הַבַּית, וְלָן בַּלַּיְלָה שׁוֹכֵב לָאָרֶץ:
And came to repose and lied on the ground. And came [back] to the house and reposed at night lying on the ground.

פסוק י״ז · Verse 17

Hebrew:

וַיָּקֻ֜מוּ זִקְנֵ֤י בֵיתוֹ֙ עָלָ֔יו לַהֲקִימ֖וֹ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ וְלֹ֣א אָבָ֔ה וְלֹא־בָרָ֥א אִתָּ֖ם לָֽחֶם׃

English:

The senior servants of his household tried to induce him to get up from the ground; but he refused, nor would he partake of food with them.

The senior household servants -- the elders entrusted with the king's well-being -- try and fail to lift David from the ground. Rashi explains the rare verb ברה as denoting even minimal eating; David refuses not just a meal but even the small portion offered to a fasting mourner. The verse establishes that what follows is not standard avelut, since the child has not yet died -- this is the more anguished posture of a father pleading for a life still hanging in the balance.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
וְלֹא בָרָה. לְשׁוֹן אֲכִילָה, כְּמוֹ (שמואל ב יג:ו): ״וְאֶבְרֶה מִיָּדָהּ״:
And he did not eat. [A word] denoting eating like [we find], "I will eat from her hand."7Later, 13:6.

פסוק י״ח · Verse 18

Hebrew:

וַיְהִ֛י בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֖י וַיָּ֣מׇת הַיָּ֑לֶד וַיִּֽרְאוּ֩ עַבְדֵ֨י דָוִ֜ד לְהַגִּ֥יד ל֣וֹ ׀ כִּי־מֵ֣ת הַיֶּ֗לֶד כִּ֤י אָֽמְרוּ֙ הִנֵּה֩ בִֽהְי֨וֹת הַיֶּ֜לֶד חַ֗י דִּבַּ֤רְנוּ אֵלָיו֙ וְלֹא־שָׁמַ֣ע בְּקוֹלֵ֔נוּ וְאֵ֨יךְ נֹאמַ֥ר אֵלָ֛יו מֵ֥ת הַיֶּ֖לֶד וְעָשָׂ֥ה רָעָֽה׃

English:

On the seventh day the child died. David’s servants were afraid to tell David that the child was dead; for they said, “We spoke to him when the child was alive and he wouldn’t listen to us; how can we tell him that the child is dead? He might do something terrible.”

The child dies on the seventh day. The servants are afraid to bring David the news because they fear he will harm himself in his grief -- the verb ועשה רעה carries, per Radak, the specific sense of self-injury. The seven-day timing is significant: Radak suggests the count is from the child's birth rather than from the onset of illness, which would mean the child died before the eighth day on which a circumcision would have publicly named him as David's son.

פסוק י״ט · Verse 19

Hebrew:

וַיַּ֣רְא דָּוִ֗ד כִּ֤י עֲבָדָיו֙ מִֽתְלַחֲשִׁ֔ים וַיָּ֥בֶן דָּוִ֖ד כִּ֣י מֵ֣ת הַיָּ֑לֶד וַיֹּ֨אמֶר דָּוִ֧ד אֶל־עֲבָדָ֛יו הֲמֵ֥ת הַיֶּ֖לֶד וַיֹּ֥אמְרוּ מֵֽת׃

English:

When David saw his servants talking in whispers, David understood that the child was dead; David asked his servants, “Is the child dead?” “Yes,” they replied.

פסוק כ׳ · Verse 20

Hebrew:

וַיָּ֩קׇם֩ דָּוִ֨ד מֵהָאָ֜רֶץ וַיִּרְחַ֣ץ וַיָּ֗סֶךְ וַיְחַלֵּף֙ שִׂמְלֹתָ֔ו וַיָּבֹ֥א בֵית־יְהֹוָ֖ה וַיִּשְׁתָּ֑חוּ וַיָּבֹא֙ אֶל־בֵּית֔וֹ וַיִּשְׁאַ֕ל וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ ל֛וֹ לֶ֖חֶם וַיֹּאכַֽל׃

English:

Thereupon David rose from the ground; he bathed and anointed himself, and he changed his clothes. He went into the House of GOD and prostrated himself. Then he went home and asked for food, which they set before him, and he ate.

David's reaction inverts every cultural expectation. He rises, washes, anoints himself, changes clothes, prostrates in the house of God, and eats. Radak unpacks the halachic puzzle this poses, since washing and anointing are forbidden during avelut: he proposes that David acted before the burial, when biblical mourning had not yet attached, and entered the sanctuary specifically to bless God on the bad as a Jew is required to bless on the good (citing Berachot 60b). Metzudat David adds that the prostration was the formal act of accepting the divine decree.

פסוק כ״א · Verse 21

Hebrew:

וַיֹּאמְר֤וּ עֲבָדָיו֙ אֵלָ֔יו מָה־הַדָּבָ֥ר הַזֶּ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשִׂ֑יתָה בַּעֲב֞וּר הַיֶּ֤לֶד חַי֙ צַ֣מְתָּ וַתֵּ֔בְךְּ וְכַֽאֲשֶׁר֙ מֵ֣ת הַיֶּ֔לֶד קַ֖מְתָּ וַתֹּ֥אכַל לָֽחֶם׃

English:

His courtiers asked him, “Why have you acted in this manner? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept; but now that the child is dead, you rise and take food!”

The servants pose the question that has puzzled every reader of the chapter: why fast and weep while the child was alive but rise and eat the moment he dies? It is the inverse of normal mourning, where grief intensifies after the death. The question creates the literary opening for David's classical articulation of the theology of intercessory prayer and acceptance, which follows in the next two verses.

פסוק כ״ב · Verse 22

Hebrew:

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בְּעוֹד֙ הַיֶּ֣לֶד חַ֔י צַ֖מְתִּי וָאֶבְכֶּ֑ה כִּ֤י אָמַ֙רְתִּי֙ מִ֣י יוֹדֵ֔עַ (יחנני) [וְחַנַּ֥נִי] יְהֹוָ֖ה וְחַ֥י הַיָּֽלֶד׃

English:

He replied, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept because I thought: ‘Who knows? GOD may have pity on me, and the child may live.‘

David's answer articulates one of the foundational doctrines of biblical prayer: 'who knows? Perhaps the Lord will be gracious and the child will live.' The phrase מי יודע recurs at decisive moments of Tanakh -- in Yonah's Nineveh and in Esther's Shushan -- whenever a decree seems fixed but human teshuvah and tefillah may yet move it. Radak draws the broader principle: prayer is meaningful only while the outcome is open; once death has occurred, prayer for restoration has no place.

פסוק כ״ג · Verse 23

Hebrew:

וְעַתָּ֣ה ׀ מֵ֗ת לָ֤מָּה זֶּה֙ אֲנִ֣י צָ֔ם הַאוּכַ֥ל לַהֲשִׁיב֖וֹ ע֑וֹד אֲנִי֙ הֹלֵ֣ךְ אֵלָ֔יו וְה֖וּא לֹא־יָשׁ֥וּב אֵלָֽי׃

English:

But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will never come back to me.”

David's closing line -- 'I shall go to him, but he will not return to me' -- is one of the earliest and most quoted biblical statements of the soul's persistence beyond death and the irreversibility of the grave. Metzudat David offers the simple reading that David refers to his own eventual death and joining of the child in Sheol. The verse has long served as a Jewish source-text for the consolation that the bereaved travels toward the lost rather than backward in vain pleading.

פסוק כ״ד · Verse 24

Hebrew:

וַיְנַחֵ֣ם דָּוִ֗ד אֵ֚ת בַּת־שֶׁ֣בַע אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַיָּבֹ֥א אֵלֶ֖יהָ וַיִּשְׁכַּ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֗ן (ויקרא) [וַתִּקְרָ֤א] אֶת־שְׁמוֹ֙ שְׁלֹמֹ֔ה וַיהֹוָ֖ה אֲהֵבֽוֹ׃

English:

David consoled his wife Bathsheba; he went to her and lay with her. She bore a son and she named him Solomon. GOD favored him,

The verse pivots from death to birth in a single beat. David comforts Bathsheba -- now called for the first time אשתו, his wife, since Uriah has died and the union has been formalized -- and from that consolation comes Solomon. The Hebrew name שלמה evokes shalom, peace, signaling the new era his reign will inaugurate. The line וה' אהבו is one of the rarest formulas in Tanakh: God Himself loved this child. Radak preserves a striking midrashic exchange where Bathsheba, fearing that another son will be cursed for the original sin, is reassured by David that Nathan has prophesied this child will be the heir.

פסוק כ״ה · Verse 25

Hebrew:

וַיִּשְׁלַ֗ח בְּיַד֙ נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֔יא וַיִּקְרָ֥א אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ יְדִ֣ידְיָ֑הּ בַּעֲב֖וּר יְהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}

English:

sending a message through the prophet Nathan; and he was named JedidiaheJedidiah I.e., “Beloved of GOD.” at GOD’s behest.

Nathan returns -- the same prophet who delivered the indictment now delivers a name. Yedidyah, 'beloved of the Lord,' is a divine endorsement on the heir who emerged from David's repentance. Rashi notes the etymology: ידיד (beloved) joined to יה (God). The narrative symmetry is precise: the prophet who pronounced the death sentence on the first child pronounces a name of love on the second, marking the closure of the cycle of sin and confession.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
בַּעֲבוּר ה׳. אֲשֶׁר אֲהֵבוֹ:
Because of God. That loved him [Shlomo].8יֽדִידְיָה is a concatanation of יֽדִיד, beloved one and יָה, God.

פסוק כ״ו · Verse 26

Hebrew:

וַיִּלָּ֣חֶם יוֹאָ֔ב בְּרַבַּ֖ת בְּנֵ֣י עַמּ֑וֹן וַיִּלְכֹּ֖ד אֶת־עִ֥יר הַמְּלוּכָֽה׃

English:

fVv. 26–29 are abridged in 1 Chron. 20.1b. Joab attacked Rabbah of Ammon and captured the royal city.

The narrative abruptly shifts back to the Ammonite campaign at Rabbah, picking up the thread suspended at the end of chapter 11. Rashi explains the geography: Rabbah had two concentric walls, an outer royal city and an inner fortress. Joab has captured the outer ring -- 'the royal city' -- but deliberately leaves the inner stronghold for the king himself to conquer, an act of military deference designed to credit David with the decisive victory.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
אֶת עִיר הַמְּלוּכָה. שְׁנֵי חִזּוּקֵי חוֹמָה הָיוּ בָּהּ, חִיצוֹנָה וּפְנִימִית, עִיר הַחִיצוֹנָה, עִיר מְלוּכָה, וְהַפְּנִימִית, לְמִבְצָר וּלְחוֹזֶק:
The royal city. There were two enforced walls [of cities] in it, an outside one and an inside one. The outside city was [called] the royal city, and the inside [city] was a fortress and stronghold.9Yoav left this one for Dovid to conquer as is stated in verse 29.

פסוק כ״ז · Verse 27

Hebrew:

וַיִּשְׁלַ֥ח יוֹאָ֛ב מַלְאָכִ֖ים אֶל־דָּוִ֑ד וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ נִלְחַ֣מְתִּי בְרַבָּ֔ה גַּם־לָכַ֖דְתִּי אֶת־עִ֥יר הַמָּֽיִם׃

English:

Joab sent messengers to David and said, “I have attacked Rabbah and I have already captured the water city.gthe water city Meaning of Heb. uncertain; perhaps the source of the water supply.

Joab dispatches messengers to David announcing the capture of עיר המים, the water city. Metzudat David identifies this as the same outer royal city, so named because it controlled Rabbah's water supply. In ancient siege warfare, capturing the water source effectively decided the campaign -- Joab is signaling that the strategic outcome is sealed and only the symbolic conquest of the inner citadel remains.

פסוק כ״ח · Verse 28

Hebrew:

וְעַתָּ֗ה אֱסֹף֙ אֶת־יֶ֣תֶר הָעָ֔ם וַחֲנֵ֥ה עַל־הָעִ֖יר וְלׇכְדָ֑הּ פֶּן־אֶלְכֹּ֤ד אֲנִי֙ אֶת־הָעִ֔יר וְנִקְרָ֥א שְׁמִ֖י עָלֶֽיהָ׃

English:

Now muster the rest of the troops and besiege the city and capture it; otherwise I will capture the city myself, and my name will be connected with it.”

Joab's message is a careful piece of court etiquette: 'Come quickly, lest I capture the city myself and my name be called over it.' Metzudat David explains the political delicacy -- Joab is offering David the public honor of the conquest while quietly signaling that the heavy military work is already done. The verse offers a rare glimpse of Joab as a courtier as well as a general, a man who knows how to surrender glory to the king while reserving real power for himself.

פסוק כ״ט · Verse 29

Hebrew:

וַיֶּאֱסֹ֥ף דָּוִ֛ד אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָ֖ם וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רַבָּ֑תָה וַיִּלָּ֥חֶם בָּ֖הּ וַֽיִּלְכְּדָֽהּ׃

English:

David mustered all the troops and marched on Rabbah, and he attacked it and captured it.

פסוק ל׳ · Verse 30

Hebrew:

וַיִּקַּ֣ח אֶת־עֲטֶֽרֶת־��ַלְכָּם֩ מֵעַ֨ל רֹאשׁ֜וֹ וּמִשְׁקָלָ֨הּ כִּכַּ֤ר זָהָב֙ וְאֶ֣בֶן יְקָרָ֔ה וַתְּהִ֖י עַל־רֹ֣אשׁ דָּוִ֑ד וּשְׁלַ֥ל הָעִ֛יר הוֹצִ֖יא הַרְבֵּ֥ה מְאֹֽד׃

English:

hVv. 30–31 are found also in 1 Chron. 20.2–3. The crown was taken from the head of their kingitheir king Heb. malkam, perhaps equivalent to “Milcom,” the Ammonite deity; cf. 1 Kings 11.5. and it was placed on David’s head—it weighed a talent of gold, and [on it]j[on it] So Targum and 1 Chron. 20.2. were precious stones. He also carried off a vast amount of booty from the city.

The crown taken from the head of malkam -- which Rashi identifies not as the Ammonite king but as the Ammonite idol Milkom (a form of Molech) -- weighed a kikar of gold and bore precious stones. Rashi cites the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 44a): since the crown was an instrument of idolatry forbidden to a Jew, Itai the Gittite (a non-Jew at that point) had to perform bittul on it before David could wear it. Metzudat David and Radak address the practical impossibility of supporting a kikar of gold on the head, suggesting it was suspended above David's throne rather than physically worn.
▶Commentaries (2)
רש״יRashi
אֶת עֲטֶרֶת מַלְכָּם. תּוֹעֲבַת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן ׳מִלְכֹּם׳ שְׁמוֹ, לְשׁוֹן מֹלֶךְ: וַתְּהִי עַל רֹאשׁ דָּוִד. אִתַּי הַגִּתִּי בִּטְּלָהּ (עבודה זרה מד א):
The crown of Malkom. The abomination [idol] of the people of Ammon's name was Malkom. Denoting [the word] Moleich.10מוֹלֶךְ is an idol to whom children were sacrificed. It was [hung over] Dovid's head. Itai the Gitite annulled it.11This explanation of the verse is stated in Avodah Zoroh 24. It is prohibited for Jews to derive any pleasure from the idols of gentiles. They must be anulled by a gentile, i.e., taken out of the service of idol worship, after which they are permitted to Jews. Itai the Gitite, a gentile, did this to Malkom for Dovid's sake.
מצודת דודMetzudat David
ואבן יקרה. ובה אבן יקרה: ותהי על ראש דוד. למעלה מראשו היתה תלויה כשהוא יושב על הכסא, כי איך סבל על ראשו משא של ככר:
And a precious stone: and on it was a precious stone. And it was on the head of David: it was hung above his head when he was sitting on his throne, for how would he bear on his head the weight of a kikar.

פסוק ל״א · Verse 31

Hebrew:

וְאֶת־הָעָ֨ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֜הּ הוֹצִ֗יא וַיָּ֣שֶׂם בַּ֠מְּגֵרָ֠ה וּבַחֲרִצֵ֨י הַבַּרְזֶ֜ל וּֽבְמַגְזְרֹ֣ת הַבַּרְזֶ֗ל וְהֶעֱבִ֤יר אוֹתָם֙ (במלכן) [בַּמַּלְבֵּ֔ן] וְכֵ֣ן יַעֲשֶׂ֔ה לְכֹ֖ל עָרֵ֣י בְנֵֽי־עַמּ֑וֹן וַיָּ֧שׇׁב דָּוִ֛ד וְכׇל־הָעָ֖ם יְרֽוּשָׁלָֽ͏ִם׃ {פ}

English:

He led out the people who lived there and set them to work with saws, iron threshing boards, and iron axes, or assigned them to brickmaking; David did this to all the towns of Ammon. Then David and all the troops returned to Jerusalem.

The closing verse describes the imposition of forced labor on the Ammonite population: saws, iron threshing-boards, iron axes, and brick-making. The Hebrew is grammatically ambiguous, and the commentators split. Rashi reads ויעבר אותם במלבן literally as setting them to work in brick kilns, while Radak and Targum Yonatan read it more darkly as a punitive instrument -- 'he made them pass through' the kiln, possibly an inversion of the Ammonite practice of passing children through fire to Molech (cited by Radak: מלכן is read as a variant of המלך). Either way, the chapter that began with prophetic indictment of cruelty closes with David exercising the harsh prerogatives of imperial conquest -- a deliberate juxtaposition that the narrative leaves to the reader to weigh.
▶Commentaries (1)
רש״יRashi
מְגֵרָה וַחֲרִצִים וּמַגְזְרוֹת. כְּמִין פְּצִירָה פִּים שֶׁקּוֹרִין לימ״א, מִינֵי יִסּוּרִים הֵם: מְגֵרָה. סַכִּין פָּגוּם פְּגִימוֹת הַרְבֵּה תְּכוּפוֹת זוֹ לָזוֹ: חֲרִצִים. הוּא מוֹרַג חָרוּץ מָלֵא חֲרִיצִים, כְּמִין פְּצִירָה פִּים שֶׁקּוֹרִין לימ״א: בַּמַּלְבֵּן. בְּטִיט חוּצוֹת, וְכֵן תִּרְגֵּם יוֹנָתָן: ״וּגְרַר יָתְהוֹן בְּשׁוּקַיָּא״:
Saw-like utensils, iron threshing utensils and iron axes. They are types of tortures. Saw-like utensils. A knife serrated with many [sharp] edges bent towards each other. Threshing utensils. This is a hacked saw full of cuts like "many sharp edges"12Shmuel I, 13:21. that is called laime (O.F.). The streets. In the mud of the streets and so Yonason [also] translated: "He dragged them in the streets."

← II Samuel 11 | II Samuel 13 →

Back to II Samuel | Back to Nach Yomi

Last updated on
Chapter 11Chapter 13