Can a self hating Jew ever become righteous?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

1) Idolatry {Worshiping a strange diety, making images, etc.}

Someone already violated the first law, thats for sure. (hint: "bbbbbbb....black wwwww...white aaaa....nnn and NNNNNN.....Ni@@@@s)

So muman613 your responds is correct, but my question was about: 
you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three..
So if someone comes to me, threatening me with gun and forcing me to eat non-Kosher or violate Shabbat, i am  not doing chillul hashem. Accepted and understood.
Next is steal.
Well if object A threating object B and forcing him to steal, thats means object A is a thief not object B. Now i am asking, where it was written mr Kahane-Was-Right BT? Where? Do someone else also have language barrier or something like that?
Now is this: "smack your friend because they are not societal pillars".
So its ok to smack your friend just because he is not a societal pillar? Who told you that the g-d laws are "societal pillars". Who told you that? The "ownage" master maybe. 

Kahane-Was-Right BT (me) is not muman613.    Stop conflating every JTF person you speak with as the same person.

What are you trying to ask me here?   Or are you asking Muman something?   Or are you simply spewing gibberish?

[muman613]

Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.

Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.

It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.

http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48936837.html

David and Bathsheba

The story of David's relationship with Bathsheba (II Samuel Chap. 11) is one of the most misread stories in the Bible, and we have to be careful in reading it as if it were some kind of soap opera. In summary, however, this is what happens.

Restless one night, David is pacing the roof of his palace from where he has a view of the homes and gardens in the city below(3). And there he spies a beautiful woman bathing. She is the wife of one of his generals, Uriah, the Hittite, who is away at war.

David sends for Bathsheba and spends the night with her. When she becomes pregnant, he commands that Uriah be placed on the front lines, where he dies in battle. David then marries Bathsheba.

At this point, the prophet Nathan is sent by G-d to reprove David. (See 2 Samuel 12.) He says that he has come to inform the king of a great injustice in the land. A rich man with many sheep, stole the one beloved sheep of a poor man, and had it slaughtered for a feast.

Furious at what he hears, King David, declares, "As G-d lives, the one who has done this deserves death."

Responds the prophet, "You are that man!"

David is humbled. "I have sinned before G-d," he says.

This is an enormously complex story and there is much more here than meets the eye. Technically, Bathsheba was not a married woman since David's troops always gave their wives conditional divorces, lest a soldier be missing in action leaving his wife unable to remarry.(4) However, the Bible states clearly that David acted improperly, and the Sages explain that while David did not commit adultery in the literal sense, he violated the spirit of the law(5).

As noted in earlier installments, the Bible takes a hyper-critical position of Jewish leaders. It never whitewashes anyone's past, and in that it stands alone among the records of ancient peoples which usually describe kings as descendants of gods without faults.

David's greatness shines in both his ability to take responsibility for his actions and the humility of his admission and the repentance that follows. This is part of the reason that the ultimate redeemer of the Jewish people and the world will descend from David's line ― he will be "Messiah son of David."

Shortly thereafter, Bathsheba gives birth, but the child becomes deathly ill as the prophet Nathan had predicted. David goes into a period of prayer and fasting, but the child dies nevertheless. David realizes that the death of the baby and later the revolt of his beloved son, Absalom (II Samuel 15-19), were divine punishment and also served as atonement for his actions. David "pays his dues," repents for many years and is ultimately forgiven by G-d.

Before long Bathsheba is pregnant again. And this time, she bears a healthy child ― who is named Solomon, and who will be the golden child, gifted with unusual wisdom.

I learned something new last Shabbat. We all know that Essau was a rudy baby, he had the Reddish hue to his skin. I did not know that King David was also born a Reddish baby. There is a comparison between Essau and King David in this respect. While Essau was a murderer who became a hunter, he was unable to control his violent side... While King David was also killing enemies, his violence was properly channeled.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.

Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.

It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.

Ah, not so fast, Muman.

The sages agree he did not commit adultery.

But they do not agree that he did not sin.   Look at Kethuboth 9b.

[muman613]

Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.

Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.

It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.

Ah, not so fast, Muman.

The sages agree he did not commit adultery.

But they do not agree that he did not sin.   Look at Kethuboth 9b.

You are correct. I was imprecise in my words. He did SIN but it was not adultery.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.

Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.

It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.

Ah, not so fast, Muman.

The sages agree he did not commit adultery.

But they do not agree that he did not sin.   Look at Kethuboth 9b.

You are correct. I was imprecise in my words. He did SIN but it was not adultery.

Yeah, I think it's a machloketh whether he sinned there, but I tend to go with the interpretation that he did, given the description of the verses in Nach.   "David did evil in the eyes of Hashem." 

[muman613]

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html

Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?

[Ed. note: With any study there are two approaches: the easy way, and the academic way. The easy way is to take a quick glance, automatically factor in your personal life experiences and preconceived notions, and draw quick conclusions based on how you would relate to that situation. The academic way is to examine and reexamine the subject matter. To do that is it necessary to take yourself, and your own biases, out of the picture. You must view the subject matter through the life experiences of the subjects involved, and open your mind to new ideas.

This is all the more true when it comes to understanding concepts in the Torah, a Divine book intentionally written enigmatically and euphemistically. Following is a deeper academic look into this Biblical personality and story. Pause, clear your mind, and take it from the top.]

David

Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."

Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!

Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."

Bathsheba

There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.

Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman."4 If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.

Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?

Uriah

The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offence. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse:5 Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse6 "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud7 notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.

This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.

Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.

Truth Be Told

Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:

A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).

At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.

Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.

The Mistake

Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?

The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.

King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.

The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".

The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon"10. David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."

Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.

Back To The Future

We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!

When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html

Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?

[Ed. note: With any study there are two approaches: the easy way, and the academic way. The easy way is to take a quick glance, automatically factor in your personal life experiences and preconceived notions, and draw quick conclusions based on how you would relate to that situation. The academic way is to examine and reexamine the subject matter. To do that is it necessary to take yourself, and your own biases, out of the picture. You must view the subject matter through the life experiences of the subjects involved, and open your mind to new ideas.

This is all the more true when it comes to understanding concepts in the Torah, a Divine book intentionally written enigmatically and euphemistically. Following is a deeper academic look into this Biblical personality and story. Pause, clear your mind, and take it from the top.]

David

Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."

Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!

Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."

Bathsheba

There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.

Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman."4 If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.

Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?

Uriah

The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offence. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse:5 Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse6 "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud7 notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.

This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.

Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.

Truth Be Told

Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:

A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).

At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.

Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.

The Mistake

Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?

The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.

King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.

The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".

The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon"10. David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."

Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.

Back To The Future

We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!

When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.

You know, it's things like this that really bother me.   They practically distort the Torah.   This is a dishonest presentation.  They take one view, the one they like, and present it as if it is the only view!   But that is not so.

The gemara (it's not 9b, I see now it's the last line on 9a), says more than one answer!   The first answer is that David RAPED BatSheva.    The second answer is an alternative whereby the reason it was not adultery was because she was not forbidden to him given she was divorced.    According to the first alternative presented by the gemara, David certainly did sin with her.      The question was how was it not adultery for Bat Sheva.   If she was raped, she's certainly not guilty of adultery because it was forced upon her (but David is guilty of raping her).    Or in the second scenario, the reason it wasn't adultery is because she was divorced.

[muman613]

<snip>


You know, it's things like this that really bother me.   They practically distort the Torah.   This is a dishonest presentation.  They take one view, the one they like, and present it as if it is the only view!   But that is not so.

The gemara (it's not 9b, I see now it's the last line on 9a), says more than one answer!   The first answer is that David RAPED BatSheva.    The second answer is an alternative whereby the reason it was not adultery was because she was not forbidden to him given she was divorced.    According to the first alternative presented by the gemara, David certainly did sin with her.      The question was how was it not adultery for Bat Sheva.   If she was raped, she's certainly not guilty of adultery because it was forced upon her (but David is guilty of raping her).    Or in the second scenario, the reason it wasn't adultery is because she was divorced.

Let us look at Talmud Kethubot 9 and see what you are referring to. I have read about this many times and I find nothing wrong with what the AskMoses site relayed. Although there may be other interpretations also..

http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_9.html

Folio 9a

He who says. I have found an 'open opening'1  is trusted to make her forbidden for him.2  Why?3  It is a double doubt:4  It is a doubt [whether she had the intercourse with the other man while] under him,5  or,6  [while] not under him.7  And if you say8  that [she had that intercourse while] under him, [there is] the [other] doubt [whether she had that intercourse] by violence or9  by [her free] will! — It was necessary10  [to state this rule] in the case of the wife of a priest.11  And if you wish, you may say [that it speaks of] the wife of an Israelite,12  and for instance when her father received the betrothal for her [when] she was less than three years and one day old.13  What does he14  let us hear by [this since] we have already learnt [it]:15  'If a man says16  to a woman, "I have betrothed thee [to myself]", and she says, "Thou hast not betrothed me [to thyself]," she is allowed [to marry] his relatives, but he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives.'17  — What you might have supposed is that there18  [he causes a prohibition to himself] because it is certain to him,19  but here it is not quite certain to him.20  [Therefore] he21  lets us hear [this rule].22  But did R. Eleazar say so? Did not R. Eleazar say: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of23  warning24  and seclusion,25  and as [we find in] the occurrence that happened?26  But how can you [in any case] understand it?27  Was the occurrence that happened accompanied by warning and seclusion? And again, did they28  declare her29  forbidden?30  — This is no difficulty, [for] thus he31  means to say:32  The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of warning and seclusion, [and this we learn] from the occurrence that happened, because [there] there was no warning and seclusion and [therefore] she33  was not forbidden.34  But [the former question] is nevertheless difficult. In the [case of] warning and seclusion but not [in the case of] 'an open opening'!35  — But according to your argument36  [the question could be asked]: [in the case of] warning and seclusion, yes, [and in the case of] witnesses,37  no! Hence he38  means to say thus: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband through one witness39  but through two witnesses;40  but in the case of warning and seclusion:41  even through one witness,42  and 'an open opening' is like two witnesses.43  And if you will say: [In the case of] the occurrence that happened. why did they not declare her forbidden?44  [The answer is:] There it was compulsion.45  And if you wish you can say as R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said46  [that] R. Jonathan said:

44) For David, seeing that many people knew of the occurrence, and thus there were witnesses.
45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].


Kethuboth 9b

Everyone who goes out into the war of the House of David writes for his wife a deed of divorce,1  for it is written, And to thy brethren shalt thou bring greetings, and take their pledge.2  What [is the meaning of], 'and take their pledge'? R. Joseph learnt: Things which are pledged between him and her.3

Abaye said: We have also learned4  [this]:5  A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY OF THE WEEK. [This implies] only on the fourth day, but not the fifth day.6  What is the reason? [Presumably] on account of the cooling of the temper.7  Now in which respect [could the cooling of the mind have a bad result]? If with regard to giving her the kethubah,8  let him give it to her.9  Consequently10  [we must say only] with regard to making her forbidden for him;11  and [it is a case where] he puts forward a claim.12  Is it not that he puts forward the claim of 'an open opening'?13  — No, [it is a case where] he puts forward the claim of blood.14

Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: If any one says. 'I have found an open opening', he is trusted to cause her to lose her kethubah. Said R. Joseph: What does he15  let us hear? We have [already] learned [this]:16  He who eats17  at his father-in-law's [between the time of betrothal and the time of marriage] in Judaea,18  without witnesses, cannot [after the marriage] raise the claim of [the loss of] virginity, because he is alone with her.19  In Judaea he cannot raise this claim, but in Galilee20  he can raise it. Now in which respect? If to make her forbidden for him, why [should he] not [be able to raise this claim] in Judaea?21  Consequently22  [we must say it is] to cause her to lose her kethubah;23  and [it is in a case] when he raises a claim. Is it not that he raises the claim of 'an open opening'? — No, when he raises the claim of blood.24

1) [So that in case he falls in battle his wife should be free to marry without the necessity of halizah. The Get would in that case take effect retrospectively from the date of its writing (Rashi). Tosaf.: He writes a Get without any conditions to take effect immediately]

The interpretation of this Germara doesn't indicate that it was RAPE, but that it was compulsory... Could you provide a link which explains your interpretation?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.

I learned this gemara.   It says "ones."  That means rape.    That's what 'compulsory' sex is.   Rape.

[muman613]

Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.

I learned this gemara.   It says "ones."  That means rape.    That's what 'compulsory' sex is.   Rape.

I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link?

Here is another discussion of this topic:

http://torahsearch.com/page.cfm/4055

TalmuDigest - Ketubot 9 - 15

-- Ketubot 9 - 15 ------------------------------------------------

 by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/3222

- Suspicion of infidelity and its effect on the marriage - The ketubah of a virgin and that of a widow - The bloodless consummation and its causes - Some etymological explanations and medical advice of Rabbi Chana of Baghdad and other Sages - Conversion of a minor - Which women are entitled to which sum of ketubah - The ketubah of a daughter of a kohen - Monetary dispute between man and wife, lender and borrower - Status of child of woman suspected of illicit relations - If a woman taken captive can marry a kohen after being freed - When the identity of a girl's attacker is not know is she eligible to marry a kohen - When the rule of deciding the status of someone or something based on majority probability applies - Determining the status of a child found in a city populated by Jews and non-Jews

A DIVORCE IN TIME _________________ - Ketubot 9b

A woman who commits adultery is forbidden to both her husband and her partner in sin.

The question then arises as to how King David could marry Batsheva when the simple reading of the text (Shmuel II, 11:2-3) indicates that he had relations with her while she was till the wife of Uriah.

Rabbi Shmuel Nachmeni solves the problem by revealing that everyone who went to battle for King David wrote a get (divorce document) to his wife before leaving home.

Rashi's explanation is that since David's soldiers were afraid that they might not survive the war and thus compel the widow to face yibum, they divorced their wives on the condition that if they did not return from the battlefront the divorce would take effect retroactively to the day the get was given. Since Uriah did not survive the war his marriage had already been dissolved when David took her.

Tosefot challenges this approach and offers the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that the get was not a conditional one but an outright dissolution of the marriage. The problem with this approach is that the gemara (Bava Metzia 59a) refers to David's action as relations with a "dubious married woman". If Batsheva had been properly divorced why should her status be in doubt? The answer given is that such divorces were given in secret so that no one should exploit the opportunity to marry the woman before her ex-husband returned to remarry her. Since the public was not aware of the divorce of Batsheva there was a suspicion that he was guilty of adultery even though this was not the case.

WHAT THE SAGES SAY __________________

Why is a widow call an almanah?

"Because the man who marries her is only obligated to obligate himself to a manah in her ketubah (as opposed to double that amount for a virgin)."

- Rabbi Chana of Baghdad - Ketubot 10b


PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Now I'm going to mine it a little bit and show their mistakes/distortions.

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html

Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?


Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! 

First of all, he's not a "murderer" and no one said he was.   But he did kill many people.   That is the exact reason why Hashem says he cannot build the Beth Hamikdash but his son Solomon must do it instead!   Because David had too much blood on his hands.     And it turns out David did not commit adultery with BathSheva, but if he did does that now make us need to rewrite Judaism and no longer ask for mercy in his name?

Just because a person was not perfect does not mean he was not great!

Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!   

And that's because they were wiser than our generation.   They did not have unrealistic expectations that great men were supposed to be perfect or superhuman!  Woe unto us that so many today view our historical heroes and leaders in such an unrealistic manner which borders on avoda zara.

Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me." 

Even if he does have the ability and the Rambam is correct in the way he defines prophecy (there are of course other opinions about prophecy!), does that mean one having that ability NEVER fails?   Maybe in thousands of other instances David overcame his temptations but didn't on this occasion?

Bathsheba

There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. 

The Talmud rules no such thing.   This is not a halachic matter in the first place.  This is a matter of interpretation and a way to determine the reality behind a certain fact that we know (chazal assumes this is a given) - Bathsheva was not guilty of adultery.   So why/how was she not?   But the Talmud certainly doesn't conclude one way or the other, it presents two mutually exclusive opinions.  These are alternatives.   

My take is that when the Gemara says elsewhere that 'one who thinks David sinned with BathSheva is mistaken,' it's going in the man-daamar which says the second answer that she was divorced and therefore no sin!   But the other view does exist and is valid!  And the other view certainly doesn't view itself to be mistaken.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. 

Where did they get that from?  Prophetic vision?   

But wasn't she really there?

and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. 

Uh, sure.   But Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh says that when that term is used to describe Rahel, it really means that literally Yakov thought she was physically beautiful and romantically fell in love with her.   So not everyone agrees to this.   If you ask me, this reading they are giving is really forced.   And it stems from a common error among our generation.   There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical.   But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!   

The Mistake

Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?

The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.   

Yet later on they insist he didn't sin.   And their explanation makes no sense.

King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. ....His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.

Now contrast this with:

The "sin" ...of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".   

Does that make any sense to you?   Sounds like a bill of goods to me...

We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. 

What's the source of that statement?   They are attributing it to our sages, so shouldn't they cite it?   Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that there is no such quote and they made it up?    The rest of their presentation was not entirely honest IMO.    Why can't a holy person err?   Who invented that notion?

He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson,

Oh, but now we're back again to the fact that he DID stumble.   They are awfully inconsistent!

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.

I learned this gemara.   It says "ones."  That means rape.    That's what 'compulsory' sex is.   Rape.

I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link? 

I really don't understand what you mean.   That is what is in the gemara!  Who will deny that it's in there?

I'll link you directly to the daf.   It's the second to last line.

http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go

PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?

No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva.   Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It answers the kashiya by saying:

Hatham ones haweh.   (it was forced upon Bath Sheva - so she is not culpable).

Then it says "eebayith aima"  Which means an alternative answer if you prefer to say....

And it cites Ribi Shmuel bar Nahmani who cites the get as another answer.

[muman613]

As I said, and the articles which I quoted stated, he did not commit adultery or murder, he did not technically sin... But the problem with King David is that it appears as if he did sin. This is why his repentance was accepted. I have found several sites which explain this, apparently not clearly enough. There are two issues, whether an actually transgression of the Halacha occurred, or whether the appearance of impropriety occurred.

It is clear, according to all, that it appears that he did transgress. But when the facts of the case are examined he did not sin. The fall of David was that he was impatient because he would have had Bathsheba no matter what, whether he sent for, or inquired about, Bathsheba or not.

I have never heard it implied that David actually commited rape against her. I think the idea that she was compelled to have relations with her does not necessarily mean that he forced himself on her, but that she recognized the position he was in and submitted to him. Since she was divorced it was not adultery, and if she was not against the relation, it was not rape.

[muman613]

Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.

I learned this gemara.   It says "ones."  That means rape.    That's what 'compulsory' sex is.   Rape.

I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link? 

I really don't understand what you mean.   That is what is in the gemara!  Who will deny that it's in there?

I'll link you directly to the daf.   It's the second to last line.

http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go

PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?

No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva.   Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.

What I am asking is does any Rabbi clearly state that she was raped? I have never heard this. I do not agree that being forced into a relationship is equal to being raped.

Do you see the footnote on line 45:

45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I have never heard it implied that David actually commited rape against her.

Whether you heard that before or not, It is what our Talmud says as one possibility of what happened!   Clearly the editors of the Shas were not so bothered by that premise.  

think the idea that she was compelled to have relations with her does not necessarily mean that he forced himself on her, but that she recognized the position he was in and submitted to him. Since she was divorced it was not adultery, and if she was not against the relation, it was not rape.

First of all, it's one or the other.   They give two possible reasons why she was innocent.   Either she was forced.  Or it wasn't forced but she was divorced.    

If she "recognized the position he was in and submitted to him" that is a form of rape.   She was compelled (either by physical force or in your words by his stature and intimidating presence) to have sexual relations.   (According to that view anyway).   Compulsion is rape.   I don't understand what distinction you are making.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.

I learned this gemara.   It says "ones."  That means rape.    That's what 'compulsory' sex is.   Rape.

I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link? 

I really don't understand what you mean.   That is what is in the gemara!  Who will deny that it's in there?

I'll link you directly to the daf.   It's the second to last line.

http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go

PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?

No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva.   Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.

What I am asking is does any Rabbi clearly state that she was raped? I have never heard this. I do not agree that being forced into a relationship is equal to being raped.

Do you see the footnote on line 45:

45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].

Not being able to resist the demand of the king is a nicely-worded way of saying she was forced to have relations with him.  What don't you get about that?

[muman613]

The problem I have with your interpretation is the word 'rape'. Rape is not a thing which a King, especially a Jewish king, should do. Jews, and the Torah, give a great deal of respect to our women. Judaism was progressive compared to other religions concerning rights of women and protecting them from sexual predators. I do not believe that the sages were saying that King David raped Bathsheba. I do understand that she was compelled to have a relationship with him. But how do you know whether she entered this relationship willingly or against her will? Is it written that she did not want to have a relationship with the mighty King? If she had a get from Uriah then it was not prohibited for her to enter the relationship with King David.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The problem I have with your interpretation is the word 'rape'. Rape is not a thing which a King, especially a Jewish king, should do. 

  Of course it's not!  I  never said it was, Muman!   It's a sin.

I do not believe that the sages were saying that King David raped Bathsheba. 

  You don't believe what the gemara says?   It's right there in "plain aramaic."

I do understand that she was compelled to have a relationship with him.

  THAT IS WHAT RAPE IS!

But how do you know whether she entered this relationship willingly or against her will? 

  You already know the answer to this question, because you used the word "compelled" - That means against her will.  There is no other way to understand compulsion!

Is it written that she did not want to have a relationship with the mighty King? 

If that was written directly , there would be no question, and the sages would only have to give one answer - that it was rape - and there would be no uncertainty.   The fact is, there is uncertainty, so they give multiple ways of answering the question, one of which is rape, the other of which cites other verses to build up the premise that she was divorced already (it also doesn't say that explicitly).   

If she had a get from Uriah then it was not prohibited for her to enter the relationship with King David.

That's the other answer the gemara gives.   They are two alternatives, and they are mutually exclusive ways to answer why she was not guilty of adultery.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

There is a reason that this story is concluded with the following verse in  2 Shmuel 11:27

וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה דָוִד, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.

But it was evil, the thing which David did, in the eyes of Hashem.

I'm sure that the man daamar which says he forced Bath Sheva is partially based upon this verse!    No one is saying it was ok, if he did that, Muman.

[muman613]

There is a reason that this story is concluded with the following verse in  2 Shmuel 11:27

וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה דָוִד, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.

But it was evil, the thing which David did, in the eyes of Hashem.

I'm sure that the man daamar which says he forced Bath Sheva is partially based upon this verse!    No one is saying it was ok, if he did that, Muman.

Yes, there is no doubt that he did evil in the eyes of Hashem, which is why he needed to do Teshuva.

http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/rabbi-mordechai-elon-and-challenge-teshuva

King David is one of them. His adulterous affair with Batsheva (Shmuel II, chapter 11) should have been enough to remove him from the annals of Jewish history and Jewish tradition. None of us should utter even a word of his Tehilim (Psalms) after what happened. How is it possible to praise God using words written by a man who fell so low? How can we consider him one of the greatest spiritual heroes ever, calling him a prophet and a tzaddik? To this day we sing David melech yisrael chai vekayam; how can our lips even pronounce his name after all that happened? Why was he not dethroned after this affair? How is it possible that Tenach seemingly glosses over King David's grave error? We read (Melachim I, 15:5) that "he did only what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside once from what He commanded him all the days of his life, save for the matter of Uriah Ha-chiti" (Batsheva's husband who was sent by David to the frontlines so that he would be killed) (2).

The answer is this: David openly confessed and did teshuva as very few have ever done. Although he first tried to conceal his guilt, once Nathan the prophet told him in no uncertain terms what he had done, David woke up and radically changed his attitude: "I stand guilty before the Lord" (Shmuel II, 12:13). There was no hypocrisy, no further attempt to hide what had happened, no justifications, only open admission.

Surely David must have had many advisers counseling him to deny it all; to besmear the reputations of Batsheva, her husband Uriah, and the prophet Nathan; and to condemn others for tricking him into it.

Still, David did nothing of the sort. He understood the terrible mistake he had made and realized that only the most intensive form of teshuva could mend his relationship with God. Clearly he went through a crisis the likes of which few of us ever experienced. His ambition to become a real servant of God came crashing down on him. Everything fell apart. Out of this anguish David was compelled to write some of the most personal and revealing words of repentance (3). These have since become a source of great comfort and help to millions of broken people who, like himself, had to cope with the intense pain of failure. Slowly, he rebuilt himself and became an example to so many of us.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

ok, and one opinion is that he needed to do teshuva because he forced her.

Another opinion holds he did not force her but had other reasons to do teshuvah (perhaps the whole episode was not exactly pristine - he did know what he was doing with Uriah)

[muman613]

On the topic of Teshuva and King David, this strikes me as apropos:


http://www.torah.org/learning/tehillim/ch3.html

Tehillim: Rhythm of the Heart
Chapter Three

One thing always comes up when working with those who choose to adopt a Torah lifestyle at a mature age. It isn’t always the first thing said or even the second, and it may not be put into words, but only implied. Yet somewhere along the way, it definitely creeps in: “Rabbi, I feel so low. I lived a life so far from Torah. How can I pretend to be frum after having done the things I’ve done and seen the things I’ve seen?”

Alarm bells start ringing in my head whenever I hear this. This problem doesn’t bother only those who come to Yiddishkeit late in life. Anyone turning away from a path that has not been spiritually fulfilling may find himself expressing such feelings.

You may wonder why such a cheshbon hanefesh sets off alarms in my mind? Listen again to the words, and then you will understand.

“I feel so low....” Notice what’s happening here. The fact that a spiritually empty lifestyle gives a person cause to reflect is something to be grateful for. But I detect depression slipping in here, and that’s a serious danger. The Karliner Rebbe (1740-1792) was wont to say, “Depression is not a sin — but the sins depression brings about are greater than any sin on its own.” When the fog of depression falls over one’s heart, all growth in Torah is in jeopardy.

What can be done to prevent depression? After all, the previous path really was no good.

There isn’t a general prescription for everyone. Each person needs to be approached as an individual. There is, however, one great source of comfort and understanding that can give everyone insight, and that is Tehillim. From its beginning, it tells how King David approached teshuva and how we can learn, in practical terms, the art of repentance from him. As we come to the third kapitel, imagine for a moment King David’s situation. There are tzaros, and there are tzaros. The author of Tehillim can tell us a thing or two about such matters. We see King David being pursued by his own son, who wants to dethrone him. Worse, the majority of the populace supports the coup. Most depressing of all, much of this is due to David’s own mistakes.

Things couldn’t seem any darker. Yet we find him lifting up his voice to Hashem with great poignancy. He starts his prayer with the words, A song by David. A song always expresses joy. With these first words of the psalm, we can begin to understand how he could not only survive such a shock but also grow from it.

The holy Alshich wonders about this opening. How, he asks, it is possible for this particular kapitel to begin like this, considering the circumstances? He answers, in part, that David felt gratitude to Hashem for the anguish. Fleeing from his own son was a tremendously humiliating and aggravating experience, as any parent can imagine. But David hoped that his anguish would be accepted by Hashem as part payment for his sin. A comment by Rabbeinu Yona touches on this same point. He tells us that David’s serene acceptance of the torment and agony at this time made him worthy of Divine protection. His acceptance was the first step in his teshuva, and it set up a feeling of positive spirituality in his heart. No man lives without blemish. When problems strike, the first reaction should be to look within one’s own heart. Yes, David takes immediate action and runs for his life, but not without realizing that he has fallen in his own spirituality through his sin.

Notice, though, that this realization or acceptance does not lead to depression. David’s acts are positive, and he does them all with a sense of hope.

Rav Shlomo Freifeld, zt”l, was an expert in giving encouragement to people in despair. One of his favorite lines was “Don’t be strong. Be great.” When life throws one of its curves at you, you can be strong, biting your tongue and bearing it stoically. That may get you through the hardship, but you haven’t gained anything other than a sore tongue. On the other hand, if you choose to accept what was sent your way and work through it, if you stretch every sinew of your soul to learn from the adversity, you can achieve greatness.

David cries out in pain, How numerous are my tormentors! The great rise up against me! His ache is palpable, and still he sings because his faith in Hashem gives him the courage to turn adversity into a learning experience. “Yes, this painful reality came about through my own folly,” he is saying, “but still I sing. I joyfully accept what is happening and in that state of joy pray for Hashem’s support.”

The Torah is replete with incidents of great people stumbling. As human beings, they are fallible, as are we all. Their stories carry a strong theme, one we should carry with us for life’s rough spots: They were able to climb beyond their mistakes without succumbing to feelings of depression and hopelessness.

The Rebbe Reb Tzaddok HaCohen of Lublin (1823-1900) in his Kedushas Shabbos speaks about the redeeming virtue of sin: “After the terrible sin [when Adam and Chava partook of the Tree of Knowledge] brought darkness on all future generations by causing Hashem’s decree of death on man, Adam nevertheless merited the light of Shabbos. This is the way of creation in the world — first darkness and then light — so that one may appreciate the superiority of light.”

This is a startling statement. The Rav Tzaddok is telling us that when sin begets a reaction such as teshuva, which leaves one in a more exalted state than he was originally, the past misdeeds are seen as the stimulus for man’s spiritual growth. As Rav Tzaddok continues, quoting the Gemara, “‘In the place where baalei teshuva stand, even completely righteous tzaddikim cannot stand’” (Berachos 34b). This Gemara now takes on more than just an encouraging note. It teaches us that, given the right circumstances, when a person decides to overcome past misdeeds, those mistakes become his redeeming virtues.

King David continues this kapitel by saying, I lie down and sleep, awake yet again, for Hashem sustains me. Having turned to Hashem with a positive inclination and repented his sin, David can even sleep securely. He has faith that Hashem will help him awake again — spiritually — as He has done in the past. For it is Hashem’s will that we return to Him, and it is through His support that we survive.

There is no greater strength than accepting one’s past misdeeds and turning away from them onto the path of righteousness. Despair, on the other hand, only leads to failure.

Obviously, this isn’t always apparent at the beginning of one’s trek through life, but that’s what being great is all about. As the kapitel tells us at its end, Deliverance belongs to Hashem. Your blessing be on Your people — selah! Our success is through Hashem’s blessing. We are His people and as long as we revel in that knowledge we can be strengthened even when we make mistakes.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So you are admitting the gemara says what it says?   That's a good step.