Midrasz do Samuela II 12:9

R. Samuel b. Nachmeini in the name of R. Jonathan said again: "Whoever says that David committed a sin, errs, because it is said (I Sam. 18, 14.) And David was successful in all his ways; and the Lord was with him. Is it possible that he committed a crime, and the Schechina should rest with him? But how should the passage (II Sam. 12, 9.) Wherefore hast thou despised the words of the Lord to do what is evil in His eyes be explained? He wanted to, but did not do it." Bab said: "Rabbi, who is a descendant of David, endeavors to interpret the passage in favor of David: Wherefore hast thou despised the words of the Lord to do what is evil in His eyes. Rabbi says: 'This evil is different [in spelling and meaning] from all other evil mentioned in Scriptures. In all other instances it says Vaya'as (and he has done), while here it says La'asoth (to do). This implies that he only wanted to, but did not do it.' " Uriah the Hittite. hast thou smitten with the sword, (Ib.) i.e., You should have had him tried by Sanhedrin, which you did not; And his wife hast thou taken unto thee, (Ib.) i.e., Thou hadst a right to her; for R. Samuel b. Nachmeini, in the name of R. Jonathan, said: "Whoever went to war with David's army first divorced his wife, as it is said (I Sam. 17, 18.) And these ten cheeses shalt thou bring unto the captain of the thousand, and inquire of thy brothers how they fare, and take away their pledge. What is meant by And take away their pledge? R. Joseph explained: It means that their marriage vows to one another [shalt thou take away — through a divorce].'" And him (Uriah) hast thou slain with the sword of Amon, i.e., just as you will not be punished on account of Amon, so also will you not be punished for the death of Uriah. Why? Because he was a rebel, for he said (Ib.) And my Lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field. Rab said: "After examining carefully the conduct of David, thou wilt find no fault in his conduct except that of Uriah, as it is written (I Kings 15, 5.) Save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. Abaye, the senior, offered the following contradiction: "Did Rab indeed say this? Behold Rab said that 'David listened to slander.' " The contradiction is sustained. This is the substance of that which is mentioned above: Rab said: "David lent an ear to slander, for it is written (II Sam. 9, 4.) And the King said unto him, Where is He? And Ziba said unto the King, Behold, he is in the house of Machir. the son of Ammi'el, from Lo-debar, and immediately following this, it is written And the King David sent and had him taken out of this house of Machir, the son of Ammi'el, from Lo-debar. Thus, when David found that Ziba was lying, regarding his statement, why then did David give heed to Ziba's second accusation? For it is written (Ib. 16, 3.) And the King said (unto Ziba) And where is thy master's son? And Ziba said to the King, Behold he remained at Jerusalem, etc. And whence do we know that David lent an ear to this slander? From this passage (Ib.) Then said the King to Ziba, Behold, thine shall be all that belongeth unto Mephibosheth. And Ziba said, I prostrate myself; let me but find grace in thy eyes, my Lord, O King." But Samuel said: "David did not lend an ear to slander. He himself noticed that about the conduct of Mephibosheth which corroborated and affirmed Ziba's accusation; as it is written (Ib. 19, 25.) And Mephibosheth, the grandson of Saul came down to meet the King, and he had not dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, etc., and further in the same chapter is written, And it came to pass, when he was come to Jerusalem to meet the King, that the King said unto him, Wherefore didst thou not go with me, Mephibosheth? And he answered, My Lord, O King, my servant deceives me, for thy servant said, 'I will saddle for me the ass. that I may ride thereon, and o with the King; because thy servant is lame.' (Ib. b) And he slandered thy servant unto my Lord, the King, but my lord, the King is like an angel of God; do then what is good in thy eyes, etc. And the King said unto him, for what purpose speakest thou yet thy words? I have said Thou and Ziba shall divide the field. And Mephibosheth said unto the King, Yea, let him take the whole, since that my Lord, the King, is come (back) in peace unto his own house. He (Mephibosheth) thus said to him, I have anticipated your safe arrival home with anxiety, and since thou acteth toward me in such a (strange) manner, I have nothing to complain of to you, but to Him who brought you safely back." And thus it corresponds to what is written (I Chr. 8, 34.) And the son of Jonathan was Merib-ba'al. Was then his name Merib-ba'al? Behold, it was Mephibosheth? But it is intended to mean that just because he had a strife with his master (David), a Bath-Kol (heavenly voice) went forth saying, "Thou quarreler, the son of a quarreler. 'Quarreler' as we mentioned above, 'The son of a quarreler,' as it is written (I Sam 15, 5.) And Saul came to the city of Amalek, and he quarrelled in the valley; R. Mani explains this to mean that he had a quarrel concerning the valley. R. Juda, in the name of Rab, said: "At the moment when David said unto Mephibosheth: Thou and Ziba shall divide the field, a Bath-Kol went forth saying, Rechaban and Jerobom will divide thy kingdom." R. Juda in the name of Rab said: "Had not David listened to slander, the Kingdom of the house of David would never have been divided, neither would Israel have practiced idolatry, nor would we have been exiled from our land.