Re "They key point here is that King David himself was very much a soldier. He simply took on a different role later in life."
The Biblical verse in fact gives the exact point where this happened, 13 chapters later than that one quoted in Sanhedrin 49a (Shmuel II, 8:15–16). It was after David was almost killed by a giant Philistine in battle, and was saved by Avishai son of Zeruyah (Yoav's brother):
Meaning, he was explicitly prohibited by his men to go into combat anymore, since he was too important to risk. Since he was king ("Ner Yisrael"), and his loss would be devastating
How does Yeshivalnd understand the converse? What does the gemoroh mean 'Were it not for Yoav, Dovid could not be involved in tzedoko u'mishpot' (lose translation)? Why not? Torah protects, no? Shouldn't need Yoav at all?
Advance learners will always look at the words of the gemoroh, the actual text and all the possibilities of what it could mean, then look at Rashi. In many many cases, several times an omud, Rashi explains the gemoroh different to the plain meaning of the text, and an advance learner will pick up on this and discuss it.
I am NOT talking about when the gemroh uses a phrase like 'bitul b'almah' sagi, and the rishonim have a fundemental discussion about the meaning of the concept 'bitul' or how rashi learns 'yi'ush'. I am talking about when Rashi adds words, ignores words or changes the meaning of words from what the text of the gemoroh does say. Sometime with a 'klomer', the skill is noting when rashi does it without a clomer.
Thus Natan is perfectly in order in giving an interpretation closer to the plain meaning of the words. The next stage is trying to understand why rashi does not do that. If all else fails, put it down to the 'the mesorah'.
David was 1 heck of a yeshiva bochur (or rebbe)! Despite having plenty of wives, he threw his weight around when he saw a cute little chickadee, even 1 married to his loyalest soldier. He later gave a pass to his rapist son and scorned his wife cause she scolded him for dancing half-clothed with the Torah.
I respect Chazal's nationalistic interpretation as only 1 of MANY "reasonable" interpretations. Personally, I go with a more "pshat" reading of the Scriptures.
Great piece, as usual.
Re "They key point here is that King David himself was very much a soldier. He simply took on a different role later in life."
The Biblical verse in fact gives the exact point where this happened, 13 chapters later than that one quoted in Sanhedrin 49a (Shmuel II, 8:15–16). It was after David was almost killed by a giant Philistine in battle, and was saved by Avishai son of Zeruyah (Yoav's brother):
https://www.sefaria.org.il/II_Samuel.21.17:
אז נשבעו אנשי־דוד לו לאמר לא־תצא עוד אתנו למלחמה ולא תכבה את־נר ישראל
"It was then that David’s men declared to him on oath, “You shall not go with us into battle any more, lest you extinguish the lamp of Israel!”"
(The Talmud in Sanhedrin 95a greatly expands on that short Biblical story, see my discussion here:
https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/one-day-david-went-falcon-hunting)
Meaning, he was explicitly prohibited by his men to go into combat anymore, since he was too important to risk. Since he was king ("Ner Yisrael"), and his loss would be devastating
Great insight! I will add it in.
How does Yeshivalnd understand the converse? What does the gemoroh mean 'Were it not for Yoav, Dovid could not be involved in tzedoko u'mishpot' (lose translation)? Why not? Torah protects, no? Shouldn't need Yoav at all?
"Let us first note that the Gemara does not necessarily mean that Yoav was victorious due to David’s Torah. .......
.....
Still, Rashi and others do understand it to mean that Yoav was victorious in the merit of David’s Torah."
So first Natan gives his Pshat and then concedes that רשי גדול הפרשנים says otherwise.
This is bizarre behaviour.
I disagree.
Advance learners will always look at the words of the gemoroh, the actual text and all the possibilities of what it could mean, then look at Rashi. In many many cases, several times an omud, Rashi explains the gemoroh different to the plain meaning of the text, and an advance learner will pick up on this and discuss it.
I am NOT talking about when the gemroh uses a phrase like 'bitul b'almah' sagi, and the rishonim have a fundemental discussion about the meaning of the concept 'bitul' or how rashi learns 'yi'ush'. I am talking about when Rashi adds words, ignores words or changes the meaning of words from what the text of the gemoroh does say. Sometime with a 'klomer', the skill is noting when rashi does it without a clomer.
Thus Natan is perfectly in order in giving an interpretation closer to the plain meaning of the words. The next stage is trying to understand why rashi does not do that. If all else fails, put it down to the 'the mesorah'.
Yoav and David didn't stay as friends/allies forever. We just heard two weeks ago how the relationship ended, in the haftarah for Vayechi. :(
Or perhaps Yoav's flaws were always there, but David and Chazal still managed to see his merits nonetheless...
Who really knows what David was like?
I certainly don't
Excellent post! I’m glad I can finally give you a compliment!
David was 1 heck of a yeshiva bochur (or rebbe)! Despite having plenty of wives, he threw his weight around when he saw a cute little chickadee, even 1 married to his loyalest soldier. He later gave a pass to his rapist son and scorned his wife cause she scolded him for dancing half-clothed with the Torah.
U want David, u Haredim? Well, be my guest!
In the words of the Gemara, you are a טועה
I respect Chazal's nationalistic interpretation as only 1 of MANY "reasonable" interpretations. Personally, I go with a more "pshat" reading of the Scriptures.