King David and the Building of the Temple
Parsha Pages | August 28, 2024
Print This Article
View Original PDF

King David and the Building of the Temple

Parsha Pages | June 25, 2025

And knowing the Jews would sin in the future, G-d, so to speak, wanted to keep that option open.

Whether or not that was the reason David was disqualified, the taking of a life is an anathema to the Beit Hamikdash. The Mishnah (Middot 3:4; cf. Mechilta and Rashi to Shemot 20:22) explains the Biblical law (Shemot 20:22 and Devarim 27:5-6; Rambam, Hilchot Beit Habechirah 1:15) that iron may not be used in the preparation of the stones of the altar “because iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.”

Killing may also disqualify a person from certain Temple-related rituals. The Gemara (Berachot 32b), seemingly based on a verse (Yeshayahu 1:15), rules that a kohen who killed is prohibited from duchening in shul (Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah/Nesiat Kapayim 15:3; Shulchan Aruch, OC 128:35). Tosafot (Yevamot 7a, s.v. she’ne’emar) explains that this is actually either a chumrah or unique to duchening, but actual Temple service performed by a kohen convicted of murder is not disqualified. In addition, a majority of posekim treat it as obvious that a kohen who killed in the course of a legitimate war, such as an IDF soldier, may or must continue duchening (Tzitz Eliezer 14:60; Iggerot Moshe, YD 2:158; Yechaveh Da’at 2:14).

It is interesting to note that the Levi’im were selected to replace the firstborns to serve G-d specifically on account of having killed those responsible for the Eigel (Shemot 32:27-29; Devarim 33:9; Rashi, Shemot 32:29), and Pinchas was elevated to kohen status as a reward for killing Zimri (Bamidbar 25:13; Rashi, ibid.; Zevachim 101b).

Despite being barred from doing the actual construction, King David put his heart, soul and financial resources into making preparations for the building of the Temple.

The first issue was the location of the future Temple.

The Sifrei (Devarim 12:5 [62]) says that the Divine intention was for man to search for the location and the conclusion would then be certified by a navi (to whom G-d would reveal it in response to the human initiative [Malbim, Devarim 12:5]). The Talmud (Zevachim 54b) portrays David and Shmuel as analyzing sources to find the location, David then discovering the site (Divrei Hayamim I 22:1), Natan confirming it (Shmuel II 24:18) and Shlomo building it there (Divrei Hayamim II 3:1).

King David subdivided the priestly and Levitical families into working groups (Divrei Hayamim I 23-26; Divrei Hayamim II 8:14). King David also announced to the nation (Divrei Hayamim I 29:2-3): “I have prepared with all my might for the house of my G-d, gold for the golden objects, and silver for the silver objects. . . . I have a personal treasure of gold and silver that I have given to the house of G-d. . . .” Yet, when all the work was completed, all of David’s materials were still extant and were deposited in the Temple’s treasury, seemingly unused (Melachim I 7:51; Divrei Hayamim II 5:1). Rashi (Divrei Hayamim II 5:1) says that only the copper (based on Divrei Hayamim I 18:8), which is not fitting for a Divine treasury, was used, but none of the precious metals was used.

The Talmud (Sukkah 53a, Makkot 11a) also portrays David as digging the foundations or subterranean channels of the Temple.

David transmitted to Shlomo the architectural plans for the Temple structure and utensils, all of which are described in Divrei Hayamim I 28:11-19 as being written down as G-d had transmitted it to him—“hakol bichtav miYad Hashem alai hiskil, all this [do I give you] in writing, as the L-rd has made me wise by His hand upon me” (verse 19)—and are thus immutable (see Zevachim 33a; Rambam, introduction to Mishnah about Middot). King David’s intention and preparations for the Temple building were such that what is usually referred to as Solomon’s Temple is sometimes attributed to his father. For example, some Rishonim (e.g., Rashi’s contemporary, Rabbi Joseph Kara, known as Mahari Kara) identify the “sukkat David” of Amos 9:11 and in the Harachaman of Sukkot bentching as the Beit Hamikdash.

Given the enormous significance of building a House for G-d—the building of the Mishkan plays a prominent place in the Torah—it seems strange that it was not until King David that there was even an attempt at building a permanent Mikdash and that ultimately the Mikdash was not inaugurated until 440 years (!) after the Jews entered the Land (Melachim I 6:1). Indeed, Ramban (Bamidbar 16:21) says the Jews sinned by not initiating the building sooner and it angered G-d (Shmuel II 24:1; see Shmuel II 7:1-2) and that is why He revealed its intended location via a plague. Ramban believes that if the Jews had shown a desire for the Mikdash, it would have been built even in the days of the Shoftim, Shaul or David.

The Midrash (Midrash Shmuel 31:4 [cited by Radak to Shmuel II 24:25]; Midrash Tehillim–Shocher Tov, 17) attributes the mass casualties of the plague in David’s time to the fact that the people themselves did not demand a Mikdash. And then it learns a kal vachomer that if they, who had never had a Mikdash, were held accountable, we, who have historically had a Mikdash, should certainly demand it and that is why the Sages instituted a thrice-daily prayer requesting that G-d return His presence to Zion.

Building the Mikdash is a commandment and a privilege that we as a people have not fulfilled for many centuries. Its construction requires that there be peace from without and harmony within. We can “demand” it by creating the necessary conditions of peace and tranquility. May they be met and may it be speedily rebuilt.

Notes

  1. Based on this verse, Pesikta Rabbati (6 [23b in 1880 ed.]) is critical of David. It contrasts him with Shlomo who built the Mikdash before, and with greater zeal than his own palace, while David turned his attention to the Mikdash only after completing his personal house.
  2. Rashi (Shmuel II 7:4) cites a midrash [see Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel II 7, remez 143, p. 311 in 1999 ed.] that offers two reasons why G-d had to rush to stop David that very night.
  3. It is interesting that Natan initially responded on his own without waiting for a Divine message. This may reveal something of the monarch-prophet dynamics—the king solicited the prophet’s personal judgment in addition to the prophet serving as a conduit for Divine revelations. It is curious that G-d permitted Natan to err and then “corrected” him, rather than immediately revealing the Divine will to him. See Chatam Sofer (Nedarim 89b, s.v. v’insiv) for a possible explanation.
  4. The Meshech Chochmah (Bamidbar 25:5) reads into Shmuel II 7:8 that G-d was concerned that people would (mis)interpret David’s building of the Beit Hamikdash as a means to consolidate his rule and enhance his name rather than it being for G-d’s glory; this is similar, he says, to why the Levi’im could defend G-d’s honor after the cheit ha’eigel but once they were invested as functionaries they could not do the same after the sin of ba’al pe’or lest it be viewed as self-serving. Devarim Rabbah 5:10 suggests an entirely different reason why the Mikdash could not be built by David: not because of him, but because the generation was full of gossipers and talebearers and the Shechinah cannot coexist with lashon hara.
  5. The rabbis (Sifrei, Re’eh:18 [67:10] [to Devarim12:10]; Sanhedrin 20b; Devarim Rabbah 5:10; Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 1:1-2) understood that the nation of Israel had three communal mitzvot to accomplish upon entering the Land of Israel, and they were to be completed in the following order: anoint a king, annihilate Amalek, and, with peace in the Land, build the Mikdash. It is from this verse that it is derived that the destruction of Amalek precedes the building of the Mikdash. Chazal assumed that the conditions had been met in David’s time.
  6. Rashi in both Devarim (12:10-11) and Shmuel II (7:1-2) considers the situation that David describes as a fulfillment of the Biblical condition.
  7. Radak (Melachim I 5:17) thinks that Shlomo was covering up the real reason in order to protect his father’s honor.
  8. A dynasty, which seems to be a precondition for building the Mikdash, is a minimum of two kings. The promise of a dynasty also appears to be a reward for David’s desire to build the Mikdash. The word used for dynasty in Shmuel II 7 is bayit, house, the same word King David used for the Mikdash. “Bayit,” meaning either mikdash (palace) or dynasty appears fifteen times in that chapter. Note that in Psalm 132 G-d also promises a Davidic dynasty after David promises to build a mikdash.
  9. King David does not explain what bloodshed is referred to. According to the simple reading, it refers to the many legitimate wars. Radak (Divrei Hayamim I 22:8) raises the possibility that it may refer to the blood of Uriah the Hitti (but cf. Kiddushin 43a) or of the kohanim of Nov. He then suggests (similar to Metzudat David) that it may refer to collateral casualties during wars against the enemies. Radak notes that David was not punished for the civilian deaths as he did not do anything wrong, but nonetheless it is not compatible with building the Mikdash. (On the application of this to the question of civilian casualties in modern warfare, see Minchat Asher, Devarim 32:6.) Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Meishiv Milchamah 1 (1983), pp. 23-25) suggests a creative explanation based on Sifre Debei Rav, Eikev: 51. He says it was the deaths of the (12,000) Jewish soldiers killed in the “private,” non-halachic war that David initiated to capture Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova before capturing the seat of the Mikdash in Yerushalayim. This loss of life was considered an affront to the Mikdash.
  10. Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel II 7, remez 145, pp. 312-3 in 1999 ed.; Pesikta Rabbati 2, 7a-b in 1880 ed.; Midrash Tehillim-Shocher Tov, 62:4 on verse 62:13.
  11. Indeed, the gates (either of the city [Rashi] or of the Temple [Maharsha]), which were made by David, never fell into enemy hands (Sotah 9a).
  12. Seforno (Shemot 38:21) suggests that the reason the Mishkan built by Moshe and Betzalel never fell into enemy hands, as happened to both Temples, was because the Mishkan was built by Jewish labor, while the Temples used foreign workers.
  13. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik seems to be a lone dissenting voice on this issue (Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Nefesh HaRav (1994), p. 132). He would quote Divrei Hayamim I 22:8 about King David as support for his position.
  14. It is not because of a story about brotherly love that the site was selected (see “What’s the Truth about . . . the Legend of Two Brothers and the Temple Mount?” Jewish Action, 74:1 (fall 2013), jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-the-legend-of-two-brothers-and-the-temple-mount/).
  15. Pesikta Rabbati (end of 6 [25b-26a in 1880 ed.], quoted by Rashi to Divrei Hayamim II 5:1) gives two reasons, one in praise and one a sharp criticism, as to why David’s materials were ultimately not used by Shlomo. Either David prayed that the materials not be used because he foresaw the destruction of the Temple and was afraid the idolaters would take materials from the Temple as spoils in war and claim the Temple’s destruction was their god’s revenge; or G-d was upset because during a devastating three-year famine, David hoarded the cache of precious metals for a future Mikdash rather than use it to save lives. (Me’am Loaz [Shemot 25:1-2] says this is the “bloodshed” by David and the reason he was not permitted to build the Beit Hamikdash. In either case, his material was not needed and not used. Ralbag (Melachim I 7:51) suggests that Shlomo did not commence construction until the fourth year of his reign so that he could assemble the raw materials on his own during a period of peace. Just as G-d did not desire David, the man of war, to build the Temple, He did not want Shlomo to use the materials that David had collected from the spoils of war.

Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky is a professor of neuroscience at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

And knowing the Jews would sin in the future, G-d, so to speak, wanted to keep that option open.

Whether or not that was the reason David was disqualified, the taking of a life is an anathema to the Beit Hamikdash. The Mishnah (Middot 3:4; cf. Mechilta and Rashi to Shemot 20:22) explains the Biblical law (Shemot 20:22 and Devarim 27:5-6; Rambam, Hilchot Beit Habechirah 1:15) that iron may not be used in the preparation of the stones of the altar “because iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, and it is not right therefore that that which shortens should be lifted against that which prolongs.”

Killing may also disqualify a person from certain Temple-related rituals. The Gemara (Berachot 32b), seemingly based on a verse (Yeshayahu 1:15), rules that a kohen who killed is prohibited from duchening in shul (Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah/Nesiat Kapayim 15:3; Shulchan Aruch, OC 128:35). Tosafot (Yevamot 7a, s.v. she’ne’emar) explains that this is actually either a chumrah or unique to duchening, but actual Temple service performed by a kohen convicted of murder is not disqualified. In addition, a majority of posekim treat it as obvious that a kohen who killed in the course of a legitimate war, such as an IDF soldier, may or must continue duchening (Tzitz Eliezer 14:60; Iggerot Moshe, YD 2:158; Yechaveh Da’at 2:14).

It is interesting to note that the Levi’im were selected to replace the firstborns to serve G-d specifically on account of having killed those responsible for the Eigel (Shemot 32:27-29; Devarim 33:9; Rashi, Shemot 32:29), and Pinchas was elevated to kohen status as a reward for killing Zimri (Bamidbar 25:13; Rashi, ibid.; Zevachim 101b).

Despite being barred from doing the actual construction, King David put his heart, soul and financial resources into making preparations for the building of the Temple.

The first issue was the location of the future Temple.

The Sifrei (Devarim 12:5 [62]) says that the Divine intention was for man to search for the location and the conclusion would then be certified by a navi (to whom G-d would reveal it in response to the human initiative [Malbim, Devarim 12:5]). The Talmud (Zevachim 54b) portrays David and Shmuel as analyzing sources to find the location, David then discovering the site (Divrei Hayamim I 22:1), Natan confirming it (Shmuel II 24:18) and Shlomo building it there (Divrei Hayamim II 3:1).

King David subdivided the priestly and Levitical families into working groups (Divrei Hayamim I 23-26; Divrei Hayamim II 8:14). King David also announced to the nation (Divrei Hayamim I 29:2-3): “I have prepared with all my might for the house of my G-d, gold for the golden objects, and silver for the silver objects. . . . I have a personal treasure of gold and silver that I have given to the house of G-d. . . .” Yet, when all the work was completed, all of David’s materials were still extant and were deposited in the Temple’s treasury, seemingly unused (Melachim I 7:51; Divrei Hayamim II 5:1). Rashi (Divrei Hayamim II 5:1) says that only the copper (based on Divrei Hayamim I 18:8), which is not fitting for a Divine treasury, was used, but none of the precious metals was used.

The Talmud (Sukkah 53a, Makkot 11a) also portrays David as digging the foundations or subterranean channels of the Temple.

David transmitted to Shlomo the architectural plans for the Temple structure and utensils, all of which are described in Divrei Hayamim I 28:11-19 as being written down as G-d had transmitted it to him—“hakol bichtav miYad Hashem alai hiskil, all this [do I give you] in writing, as the L-rd has made me wise by His hand upon me” (verse 19)—and are thus immutable (see Zevachim 33a; Rambam, introduction to Mishnah about Middot). King David’s intention and preparations for the Temple building were such that what is usually referred to as Solomon’s Temple is sometimes attributed to his father. For example, some Rishonim (e.g., Rashi’s contemporary, Rabbi Joseph Kara, known as Mahari Kara) identify the “sukkat David” of Amos 9:11 and in the Harachaman of Sukkot bentching as the Beit Hamikdash.

Given the enormous significance of building a House for G-d—the building of the Mishkan plays a prominent place in the Torah—it seems strange that it was not until King David that there was even an attempt at building a permanent Mikdash and that ultimately the Mikdash was not inaugurated until 440 years (!) after the Jews entered the Land (Melachim I 6:1). Indeed, Ramban (Bamidbar 16:21) says the Jews sinned by not initiating the building sooner and it angered G-d (Shmuel II 24:1; see Shmuel II 7:1-2) and that is why He revealed its intended location via a plague. Ramban believes that if the Jews had shown a desire for the Mikdash, it would have been built even in the days of the Shoftim, Shaul or David.

The Midrash (Midrash Shmuel 31:4 [cited by Radak to Shmuel II 24:25]; Midrash Tehillim–Shocher Tov, 17) attributes the mass casualties of the plague in David’s time to the fact that the people themselves did not demand a Mikdash. And then it learns a kal vachomer that if they, who had never had a Mikdash, were held accountable, we, who have historically had a Mikdash, should certainly demand it and that is why the Sages instituted a thrice-daily prayer requesting that G-d return His presence to Zion.

Building the Mikdash is a commandment and a privilege that we as a people have not fulfilled for many centuries. Its construction requires that there be peace from without and harmony within. We can “demand” it by creating the necessary conditions of peace and tranquility. May they be met and may it be speedily rebuilt.

Notes

  1. Based on this verse, Pesikta Rabbati (6 [23b in 1880 ed.]) is critical of David. It contrasts him with Shlomo who built the Mikdash before, and with greater zeal than his own palace, while David turned his attention to the Mikdash only after completing his personal house.
  2. Rashi (Shmuel II 7:4) cites a midrash [see Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel II 7, remez 143, p. 311 in 1999 ed.] that offers two reasons why G-d had to rush to stop David that very night.
  3. It is interesting that Natan initially responded on his own without waiting for a Divine message. This may reveal something of the monarch-prophet dynamics—the king solicited the prophet’s personal judgment in addition to the prophet serving as a conduit for Divine revelations. It is curious that G-d permitted Natan to err and then “corrected” him, rather than immediately revealing the Divine will to him. See Chatam Sofer (Nedarim 89b, s.v. v’insiv) for a possible explanation.
  4. The Meshech Chochmah (Bamidbar 25:5) reads into Shmuel II 7:8 that G-d was concerned that people would (mis)interpret David’s building of the Beit Hamikdash as a means to consolidate his rule and enhance his name rather than it being for G-d’s glory; this is similar, he says, to why the Levi’im could defend G-d’s honor after the cheit ha’eigel but once they were invested as functionaries they could not do the same after the sin of ba’al pe’or lest it be viewed as self-serving. Devarim Rabbah 5:10 suggests an entirely different reason why the Mikdash could not be built by David: not because of him, but because the generation was full of gossipers and talebearers and the Shechinah cannot coexist with lashon hara.
  5. The rabbis (Sifrei, Re’eh:18 [67:10] [to Devarim12:10]; Sanhedrin 20b; Devarim Rabbah 5:10; Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 1:1-2) understood that the nation of Israel had three communal mitzvot to accomplish upon entering the Land of Israel, and they were to be completed in the following order: anoint a king, annihilate Amalek, and, with peace in the Land, build the Mikdash. It is from this verse that it is derived that the destruction of Amalek precedes the building of the Mikdash. Chazal assumed that the conditions had been met in David’s time.
  6. Rashi in both Devarim (12:10-11) and Shmuel II (7:1-2) considers the situation that David describes as a fulfillment of the Biblical condition.
  7. Radak (Melachim I 5:17) thinks that Shlomo was covering up the real reason in order to protect his father’s honor.
  8. A dynasty, which seems to be a precondition for building the Mikdash, is a minimum of two kings. The promise of a dynasty also appears to be a reward for David’s desire to build the Mikdash. The word used for dynasty in Shmuel II 7 is bayit, house, the same word King David used for the Mikdash. “Bayit,” meaning either mikdash (palace) or dynasty appears fifteen times in that chapter. Note that in Psalm 132 G-d also promises a Davidic dynasty after David promises to build a mikdash.
  9. King David does not explain what bloodshed is referred to. According to the simple reading, it refers to the many legitimate wars. Radak (Divrei Hayamim I 22:8) raises the possibility that it may refer to the blood of Uriah the Hitti (but cf. Kiddushin 43a) or of the kohanim of Nov. He then suggests (similar to Metzudat David) that it may refer to collateral casualties during wars against the enemies. Radak notes that David was not punished for the civilian deaths as he did not do anything wrong, but nonetheless it is not compatible with building the Mikdash. (On the application of this to the question of civilian casualties in modern warfare, see Minchat Asher, Devarim 32:6.) Rabbi Shlomo Goren (Meishiv Milchamah 1 (1983), pp. 23-25) suggests a creative explanation based on Sifre Debei Rav, Eikev: 51. He says it was the deaths of the (12,000) Jewish soldiers killed in the “private,” non-halachic war that David initiated to capture Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzova before capturing the seat of the Mikdash in Yerushalayim. This loss of life was considered an affront to the Mikdash.
  10. Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel II 7, remez 145, pp. 312-3 in 1999 ed.; Pesikta Rabbati 2, 7a-b in 1880 ed.; Midrash Tehillim-Shocher Tov, 62:4 on verse 62:13.
  11. Indeed, the gates (either of the city [Rashi] or of the Temple [Maharsha]), which were made by David, never fell into enemy hands (Sotah 9a).
  12. Seforno (Shemot 38:21) suggests that the reason the Mishkan built by Moshe and Betzalel never fell into enemy hands, as happened to both Temples, was because the Mishkan was built by Jewish labor, while the Temples used foreign workers.
  13. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik seems to be a lone dissenting voice on this issue (Rabbi Hershel Schachter, Nefesh HaRav (1994), p. 132). He would quote Divrei Hayamim I 22:8 about King David as support for his position.
  14. It is not because of a story about brotherly love that the site was selected (see “What’s the Truth about . . . the Legend of Two Brothers and the Temple Mount?” Jewish Action, 74:1 (fall 2013), jewishaction.com/religion/jewish-law/whats-the-truth-about-the-legend-of-two-brothers-and-the-temple-mount/).
  15. Pesikta Rabbati (end of 6 [25b-26a in 1880 ed.], quoted by Rashi to Divrei Hayamim II 5:1) gives two reasons, one in praise and one a sharp criticism, as to why David’s materials were ultimately not used by Shlomo. Either David prayed that the materials not be used because he foresaw the destruction of the Temple and was afraid the idolaters would take materials from the Temple as spoils in war and claim the Temple’s destruction was their god’s revenge; or G-d was upset because during a devastating three-year famine, David hoarded the cache of precious metals for a future Mikdash rather than use it to save lives. (Me’am Loaz [Shemot 25:1-2] says this is the “bloodshed” by David and the reason he was not permitted to build the Beit Hamikdash. In either case, his material was not needed and not used. Ralbag (Melachim I 7:51) suggests that Shlomo did not commence construction until the fourth year of his reign so that he could assemble the raw materials on his own during a period of peace. Just as G-d did not desire David, the man of war, to build the Temple, He did not want Shlomo to use the materials that David had collected from the spoils of war.

Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky is a professor of neuroscience at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Parsha Pages | August 28, 2024