Halakhah sobre II Samuel 24:1
וַיֹּ֙סֶף֙ אַף־יְהוָ֔ה לַחֲר֖וֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיָּ֨סֶת אֶת־דָּוִ֤ד בָּהֶם֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לֵ֛ךְ מְנֵ֥ה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְאֶת־יְהוּדָֽה׃
A ira do SENHOR tornou a acender-se contra Israel, e o SENHOR incitou a Davi contra eles, dizendo: Vai, numera a Israel e a Judá.
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
Particularly perplexing is the fact that King David apparently ignored the prohibition against counting the populace despite the protestations of Joab (II Samuel 24:1-4 and Chronicles 21:1-3) who demanded, "Why does my lord require this thing? Why will he be a cause to trespass to Israel?" (I Chronicles 21:3). Joab was indeed correct in opposing the undertaking of a census as indicated by Scripture: "And God was displeased with this thing; therefore He smote Israel" (I Chronicles 21:7); "So the Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed; and there died of the people from Dan to Beersheba 70,000 men" (II Samuel 24:15). David himself conceded his guilt saying, "I have sinned greatly in what I have done … for I have done very foolishly" (II Samuel 24:10; and, with minor variation, I Chronicles 21:8).14Cf., however, Abarbanel, Exodus 30:12, who maintains that the misfortune which was visited upon the populace following David’s census was a punishment for their treasonous conduct in supporting Sheba ben Bichri. Abarbanel’s interpretation appears to be at variance with both Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22b as well as contrary to the plain meaning of these scriptural verses. See R. Ben-Zion Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi’el, Inyamin Kellaliyim, no. 2. Biblical commentators have advanced a variety of theses explaining the nature of David's error. A number of halakhic ramifications flow from those diverse explanations.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
This is also the position of Tosafot Rid, Yoma 22b; Redak, I Samuel 15:4 and II Samuel 24:1; and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b. It should however be noted that Tosafot Rid and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan speak of indirect counting being permitted for the "purpose of a mizvah" rather than simply for any "purpose." Similarly, R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meromei Sadeh, Berakhot 62a, stipulates that the counting must be for the purpose of a mizvah.19Cf., however, R. Chaim Kanievsky, Naḥal Eitan 6:10, sec. 7, who understands the concept of counting for the purpose of a miẓvah formulated by Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan as permitting even indirect counting only upon specific divine command, rather than for the purpose of enabling the fulfillment of some other commandment. A similar position is advanced by Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b, in the name of R. Menachem Azariah of Panu. On the other hand, R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 30:12, permits the indirect counting of even the entire populace by means of half-shekels despite the absence of a legitimate "purpose."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy