10

We see throughout the Navi that David does not want people killed on his behalf (Saul, Ish Boshet...) yet he does not get to build the Temple and the most common reason that David is told no by Hashem is that he has blood on his hands. Shlomo also has the same type of blood on his hands and he also tells others to kill people on his behalf. How do we understand this explanation of David not being allowed to build the Temple?

12

The relevant verse is I Chron. 22:8, where David quotes G-d as having told him: "You have spilled much blood, and waged great wars."

Radak there explains that "much blood" refers to people whose deaths David caused indirectly but who didn't deserve this - such as Uriah, the kohanim of Nov, and non-Jewish civilians caught in the crossfire during his raids and wars. So none of this applies to Shlomo: the people whom he ordered executed were all indeed deserving of the death penalty.

Malbim takes both clauses as speaking of David's wars: he "spilled much blood" in optional wars (milchemes reshus), and "waged great wars" of necessity (milchemes mitzvah). According to this approach, too, neither of these applies to Shlomo, since the land was at peace in his times (v. 9).

  • Also, the context of the n'vu'a David receives there implies that the time was not appropriate for building it, in addition to the personal issue with David. – WAF Nov 20 '11 at 2:23
  • Schlomo murdered many people for mere political opinions on laws not explicitly stated and vague. If that's justified, so will genocides against liberals, atheists, etc.... – user4951 Dec 11 '12 at 2:45
  • @JimThio Are you talking about Shlomo (Solomon) or Shaul (Saul)? The former is the one discussed here. – Isaac Moses Dec 11 '12 at 21:54
  • Shlomo. Shlomo, for example, murder his own brother simply for asking a girl as a wife. While they may be some political motives, it's not acrime. – user4951 Sep 23 '13 at 2:50
  • @user4951: it wasn't just "asking a girl as a wife," but a girl who had been a personal attendant of David. That amounts to asking to use the king's personal effects, which implies that the asker considers himself the legitimate king. That is treasonous conduct. – Meir Feb 28 at 18:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .