Yaakov Avinu rebukes Revuen: "Reuven, you are my firstborn, my strength and my initial vigor, foremost in rank and foremost in power. Water-like impetuosity - you cannot be the foremost, because you mounted your father's bed; then you desecrated Him Who ascended my couch" (Bereishit 49:3-4). His father's bed refers to the incident involving Reuven and Bilhah "Reuven went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine" (Bereishit 35:22). Although Yaakov appears to be criticizing Reuven's behavior in this incident, Chazal tell us: "whoever claims that Reuven sinned is simply mistaken" (Shabbat 55b). How are we to understand Chazal's statement in light of Yaakov's rebuke? Clearly Yaakov felt there was some wrongdoing involved here. What the Gemara must mean is that Reuven's behavior was not beyond reproach, however he was not guilty of having slept with his father's wife, G-d forbid, as the simple rendition of the pasuk would lead us to believe.

Firstly, it is possible that even if we were to assume a literal interpretation of the text, Reuven was not guilty of cohabiting with his father's wife. The Rishonim dispute regarding the status of a concubine - is there "kiddushin", formal marriage, or not (see Rashi and Ramban Bereishit 25:6)? If we were to rule in accordance with the opinion that there is no legal "kiddushin" here, then Bilha would not be considered married at all, let alone to Reuven's father. In that case we cannot hold Reuven guilty of having slept with his father's wife. R' Yehuda, however (Mishna Yevamot 97a) is of the opinion that a man is forbidden to live with a woman who had any sort of relations with his father, even if she was raped or seduced. In that case, Bilha would be forbidden to Reuven even if her relationship with Yaakov did not involve "kiddushin".

Secondly, are we to take the text literally - was Reuven in fact guilty of any sort of cohabitation with Bilha (see Shabbat 55b)? One opinion in the Gemara claims that he had planned to do so, but never carried out his plans. Another opinion states that all he did wrong was to "mount his father's bed" (note: when Rachel died, Yaakov moved his bed to Bilha's tent, Reuven felt that his mother was being slighted and he therefore moved it to Leah's tent). The "Ktav veKabala" actually proves from the pasuk itself that there was no act of cohabitation involved here. His proof is based on the fact that the Torah describes the incident in terms of "Reuven went" "vayelech Reuven". In general the Torah uses the term "lech" to imply going out from inside somewhere, whereas "bo" - to come, implies entering from the outside. When Moshe was told to meet Pharaoh by the river, he was told "Go to Pharaoh" (Shmot 7:15), for he was not entering anywhere. When Moshe was instructed to meet Pharaoh in his palace, however, he was told "come to Pharaoh" (Shmot 7:26, 9:1, 10:1). By the same token, when speaking of marital relations we use the term "biah". In relating the incident involving Reuven, however, the Torah does not use that term. The implication here is that all he did was to remove Bilha from his father's domain, but did not bring her into his own domain.

Reuven acted in this way of our of "kibud em", because he felt there was an injustice to his mother. He was willing to tolerate Yaakov's living with Rachel, for at least she was one of the holy matriarchs, but Rachel's maidservant? Does she too take precedence over his mother Leah? Reuven's intentions may have been noble but he was severely mistaken in the way he acted. Reuven should have given more credit and respect to his father who was his also his rebbe, as well as the gadol hador, and a prophet. Had he simply asked Yaakov to explain his actions, Yaakov would have answered appropriately (see Rashi Shabbat 55b - "achat shel Shchina").

Perhaps partial blame for Reuven's improper behavior can be placed on Lavan.   Yaakov thought he was marrying Rachel, yet Lavan surreptitiously substituted Leah. Even on their wedding night Yaakov assumed he was with Rachel. Chazal teach us that when a man is with one woman and thinking of another woman, it negatively affects the children. Perhaps Lavan was partially to blame for Reuven not properly respecting his father.

In any event, Reuven's sin was not as severe as appears from the psukim. When Chazal write: "whoever says Reuven sinned is simply mistaken" it does not mean Reuven did not sin at all but rather it is not as severe as appears from the psukim. I would like to add another point - whoever thinks Reuven sinned is simply mistaken not only in his understanding of the case involving Reuven, but in his understanding of the entire Torah.

The entire Torah serves to teach us the vast difference between holiness and impurity. Whoever thinks that Reuven can be guilty of such terrible sins and yet have his name written on the choshen and ephod "as a remembrance before Hashem", does not understand how far these two points are from each other. He is mistaken not only in his understanding of this case but in his understanding of the entire Torah - kedusha and tumah do not go hand in hand.

In any event, by the time Yaakov came to bless his children, Reuven had already repented. This is clear from Chazal: When Yoseph was sold, we are told "Reuven returned to the pit, and behold! Yoseph was not in the pit!" (Bereishit 37:29). Where did Reuven return from, why was he not present when Yoseph was sold? Chazal tell us "he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fast in penitence for having disturbed his father's couch" (Rashi on Bereishit 37:29). Reuven not only repented for his actions, but publicly declared that he was the guilty party, all in order to protect his brothers from being suspected (see Sotah 7b). Furthermore, the Torah is testimony to Reuven's attempt to save Yoseph from the conspiracy of the brothers' to kill him (see Bereishit 37:18-22). Chazal point out that Reuven saved Yoseph, despite Yoseph's having been given the birthright over Reuven as Leah proclaimed: "See the difference between my son (Reuven) and the son of my father-in-law (Esav), for regarding Esav, the son of my father-in-law, even though he voluntarily sold his right of the firstborn, as it is written 'and he sold his birthright to Yaakov' (Bereishit 25:33), see what is written about Esav 'and Esav harbored hatred towards Yaakov' (Bereishit 27:41), however, in regard to my son, Reuven, even though Yoseph took the right of the firstborn from Reuven against his will, as it is written 'and when he defiled his father's bed his right of the firstborn was given to the sons of Yoseph' (Divrei Hayamim I 5:1), even so Reuven was not jealous of Yoseph, as it is written 'Reuven heard, and he rescued him from their hand' (Bereishit 37:21) (Brachot 7b). Not only was Reuven not jealous of Yoseph, he even tried to save him. We thus see that Reuven achieved an incredibly high level of tshuva.

Why then was Yaakov so harsh with Reuven, are we not commanded "each of you shall not aggrieve his fellow" (Vayikra 25:17) which as Rashi explains refers to aggravating a person with words. Included in this is the prohibition of saying to a baal tshuva "remember your actions of before" (Mishna Baba Metzia 58b). How are we then to understand Yaakov's critical statements to Reuven, and Yaakov's having removed the Kehuna and kingdom from him (see Onkelos and Rashi Bereishit 49:3-4)?

One approach we can take is that Yaakov, with his tremendous level of Torah wisdom and "ruach hakodesh" saw that as high a level of tshuva as Reuven attained, it was not sufficient. Regarding tshuva, although the Torah does tell us "rather the matter is very near to you" (Devarim 30:14, see also Ramban and Sforno Devarim 30:11), yet achieving a complete and perfect level of tshuva is very difficult. Tshuva can be described as "a ladder set earthward and its top reached heavenward" (Bereishit 28:12). Ascending to the first rung of a ladder is easy, what is difficult is moving onwards up to the top. Chazal tell us: "Adam HaRishon was an exceedingly pious man, when he saw that the world had been penalized with death because of him (note: for his sin of eating from the tree of knowledge), he fasted for one hundred and thirty years, and abstained from marital relations for one hundred and thirty years, and wore belts of fig branches on his skin for those one hundred and thirty years" (Eruvin 18b). Adam's tshuva certainly had some effect, but it was not sufficient to rescind the decrees of "for you are dust, and to dust shall you return" (Bereishit 3:19) and" "by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread" (ibid.).

We can explain the incident involving Yeshayahu in a similar manner. He was guilty of a seemingly minor infraction by saying of the Jewish people: "I dwell among a people with impure lips" (Yeshayahu 6:5). The very next pasuk states: "One of the Seraphim flew to me and in his hand was a coal; he had taken it with tongs from atop the altar" (ibid. 6). My Rebbe HaRav Dessler zt"l explains that this coal that was so hot that even an angel required tongs to transport it. This, he explains, refers to the high degree of devotion to Hashem he had achieved - one that even an angel was unable to reach.

We are then told: "he touched it to my mouth and said: 'Behold, this has touched your lips; your iniquity has gone away and your sin shall be atoned for'" (ibid. 7).   The burning coal having touched his lips served to atone for his sin.   Hashem immediately asked: "whom shall I send" (ibid. 8) - who will be the one to go and rebuke the Jewish nation. The job for the prophet rebuking the Jewish people, involves more than being accorded the honors of Shlishi or Shishi each Shabbat, it involves suffering and persecution. Yeshayahu himself described the task thus: "I submitted my body to those who smite me and my cheeks to those who pluck" (Yeshayahu 50:6). In contrast to other prophets who tried to avoid such a task (e.g. Moshe Rabenu, Yirmiyahu, and Yechezkel), Yeshayahu immediately volunteered for the position: "here I am send me" (Yeshayahu 6:8). Yeshayahu is willing to endure incredible hardships in order to fulfill the task he was assigned, in fact, he worked at this job for eighty years.

The Beit Hamikdash was standing during that entire eighty year period, in each of those years (with the exception of the reign of the wicked Achaz), the "Seir HaMishtale-ach" was offered on Yom Kippur. The "Seir HaMishtaleiach" atones for what is termed "averot kalot" even if one does not repent (see Rambam Hilchot Tshuva 1:2) and we can certainly assume that Yeshayahu repented. In spite of all this, Yeshayahu was killed by being hit in the mouth by the wicked king Menashe, all because of this minor infraction of having described the Jewish nation as "a people with impure lips" (see Yevamot 49b). All the Yom Kippurs that had passed, with all the "seirim" that were offered, and all the hardship and suffering that Yeshayahu had endured were not enough to totally eradicate the sin from his record. We all think tshuva is easy - all one need do is recite "viduy" a few times, perhaps even some "slichot", "piyutim", and to sing a few nice songs and automatically we are forgiven. Hashem in fact does forgive us, but the forgiveness is obviously not complete as Moshiach has not yet come.

The same thing may be said regarding David HaMelech, of whom Chazal say too: "whoever has said David has sinned is simply mistaken" (Shabbat 56a). To be "simply mistaken" here as well means to misunderstand the entire Torah. It does not stand to reason that David can be guilty of all the terrible sins the Tanach attributes to him - illicit relations, murder - and at the same time be "the anointed one of the G-d of Yaakov, and the pleasing composer of the songs of Israel" (Shmuel II 23:1), whose descendant we eagerly await to redeem us. David did in fact repent for his actions, yet as we have explained, attaining the highest level of tshuva is very difficult. One who thinks that it is possible to descend to the depths of sin and impurity at night and to awaken in the morning and simply declare "I have sinned to Hashem" (Shmuel I 24:13) and once again be "the anointed one of the G-d of Yaakov, and the pleasing composer of the songs of Israel", has no understanding of THE ENTIRE TORAH! The vast distance that separates sanctity and impurity does not permit these things to go hand in hand.

The Rambam after all writes "prophecy only takes effect on ... one who is strong in his character that his inclination will not overpower him with anything in this world, rather he in his mind can always overpower his inclination" (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1). David HaMelech was a prophet (see Moed Katan 16b and Rashi there "miklal deika rishonim"). If prophecy can only come to one whose yetzer hara does not overpower him in any area, then his stumbling in any area can only be due to a miscalculation and not to his yetzer hara getting the better of him.

What did David have in mind (erroneously) when he acted as he did? David saw through Ruach Hakodesh that "Batsheva the daughter of Eliam was suited since the Six Days of Creation to David" (Sanhedrin 107a), and that the Moshiach was destined to descend from her and from himself. The logical conclusion, therefore, was to have her bear his children. What about the fact that she had a husband? Uriah was liable with the death penalty for having rebelled against the kingdom (see Shabbat 56a and see Rashi and Tosafot there who differ regarding precisely in what way he rebelled. In my humble opinion this is alluded to by the fact that Uriah said to David "by your life and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing" (Shmuel II 11:11:). The word "chayecha", your life, is generally written with two "yuds" following the "chet". In this pasuk only one "yud" is used, the word is therefore "chaser" - lacking. This lack implies that he does not sufficiently value the life of the king). David sends Uriah "directly in front of the fierce fighting" (Shmuel II 11:15), and this lead to his death. In this way David carried out the punishment Uriah deserved and retroactively allowed his wife to live with him ("whoever goes out to fight a war of the House of David writes a bill of divorce for his wife" (Shabbat 56a)).

Where then was the sin? It caused a great chillul Hashem! "However, because you have thoroughly blasphemed the enemies of Hashem in this matter" (Shmuel II 12:14) - the enemies of Israel can now accuse you of having killed Uriah in order to take his wife, they do not understand that he deserved death for having rebelled against the kingdom - "you should have had him judged via the Sanhedrin" (Shabbat 56a). A public trial would have shown everyone what he was guilty of. The way to carry out justice was not to send him to the front lines in the war against Ammon. Our enemies can now claim that "the anointed one of the G-d of Yaakov, and the pleasing composer of the songs of Israel" is a murderer and is guilty of illicit relations! There is no greater chillul Hashem than this. To this very day our enemies speak this way of David HaMelech (not to even mention one of our contemporaries who considers himself to be very learned who adds that David was guilty of attributing his many successes to "my strength and the might of my hands" (Devarim 8:17)).

In David's psalm of repentance he declares: "against YOU ALONE did I sin" (Tehillim 51:6) - he did not need to repent for transgressions "bein adam lachavero", for having had Uriah killed and taking his wife. David repented only for the "bein adam laMakom" aspect of his act - the terrible Chillul Hashem that took place (see Zohar Shmot 106:2). We can see this from the rebuke given him by the prophet Nathan: "while him you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon" (Shmuel II 12:9). Chazal explain (see Zohar Shmot 107:1) that the prophet is informing us that David's wrongdoing was not for having killed Uriah, Uriah had it coming to him for having rebelled against the kingdom. David's error was in the way he carried it out (see Zohar Shmot 107:1). The Ammonites custom was to inscribe the symbol of their Avoda Zara on their swords and to attribute their victories to the Avoda Zara. I do not know if they literally inscribed these symbols on the swords, but what is certain is that even if there was no inscription when other nations are victorious over the Jewish people they proclaim: "our hand was raised in triumph and it was not Hashem Who accomplished this!" (Devarim 32:27). Here was a great chillul Hashem.

The Rambam cites an interesting midrash regarding who Uriah was. Goliath had a young man who was charged with caring for his armor. When Dovid battle Goliath, Dovid convinced the young man to persuade Goliath to put down the armor and not fight and Dovid would reward him with a nice Jewish girl. Hashem was not happy with that promise, this was not the way to treat Jewish girls. The woman given to this young man was therefore Dovid's own preordained wife - Batsheva. The young man we are speaking of was Uriah. We see already that Batsheva was destined to become Dovid's wife, Dovid simply went about things in the wrong fashion.

As we mentioned, Dovid and Reuven may have sinned but not in accordance with the literal meaning of the psukim. If Reuven's sin, for example, was not as implied by the Torah, why did the Torah use such harsh words? The explanation is that the Torah wished to tell us that for one on the level of Reuven, his actions were as severe as if an ordinary person had been found guilty of immorality: "Hashem, deals strictly with those round about Him even to a hair's breadth" (Yevamot 121b). When we speak of the value of scrap metal, we are concerned with the number of tons. Diamonds, on the other hand, the most minute scratch can lower its value significantly. The righteous people are diamonds, therefore even a minor fault has more effect than a loss of several kilograms of scrap metal. The Torah is not telling us that Reuven was guilty of this infraction, rather what he did is as severe as had another committed incest.

The author of "Daat Sofrim", HaRav Rabinowitz zt"l, explains that a proud mother has a right to boast that her eight month old child can speak. If he can say the word "Abba" then he is brilliant. If he can also say "Imma" then he must be a tremendous genius. If he can say the words "shalom chaver" then he is fit to become the next Prime Minister. If she were to say that her thirty year old son knows how to say "Abba", "Imma", and "sholom chaver" she would not be boasting. She would run to the Kotel, to the grave of R' Shimon bar Yochai, and many doctors and psychiatrists. She certainly would not describe this child as knowing how to speak. When we say that a thirty year old knows how to speak we mean that he is a good orator and knows how to give shiurim. Therefore, when we hear that someone knows how to speak we must realize whom we are speaking of, we cannot just take the statement as it may appear on the surface.

The same may be said regarding Tanach. The same phrase may mean one thing when speaking of an ordinary person, and another when speaking of Reuven or David. What then did Chazal mean when they told us "A verse never departs from its plain meaning" (Shabbat 63a)? The simple meaning, "pshat" does not mean an word for word translation. I remember my grandfather z"l describing a non-Jewish German's plan to translate the Gemara. He began with Massechet Brachot. The Gemara immediately following the Mishna begins: "tanna heicha kai?", which means "to what is the Tanna of our Mishna referring?". He looked up each word in the dictionary individually and concluded that it meant "where is our Tanna standing?". The Gemara's response is "Tanna akra kai", meaning the Tanna is referring to the pasuk. He found that the word "kara" means a gourd, so the Gemara must be telling us that the Tanna is standing on a gourd. One can well surmise that the continuation of the Gemara did not flow with this translation. We did not merit seeing this man's worked published. Perhaps the Gemara has since been published in German but certainly this man was not the author. An explanation of a phrase or pasuk must be taken in context. "Pshat" is not a simple word for word translation. When we speak of the context we are not only speaking of the surrounding psukim but how it fits into the entire Tanach. One who studies the Tanach cannot possibly believe that the literal translation of what Reuven did really took place. There must be a deeper meaning, for it has to fit in with the rest of the Tanach and with our general outlook of Mitzvot and Aveirot, of holiness and impurity, otherwise it is not "pshat"!

From a Jewish perspective, people killed by non-Jews during the Holocaust and other tragic periods are considered as having died sanctifying Hashem's Name. From the perspective of the non-Jews, however, this is a tremendous chillul Hashem! They see that the Jewish people are given over to plunder and it is their belief that is superior. There is no question that those who died at the hands of the Crusaders died "al Kiddush Hashem", yet the non-Jews proclaim their religion as superior. They say "let us cut them off from nationhood, so Israel's name will not be remembered any longer" (Tehillim 83:5). They do not see the Kiddush Hashem.

To this very day, the nations of the world ask: "where was G-d in Auschwitz?" Further study will reveal just how much Kiddush Hashem there was. There are countless stories of how the Jewish people sanctified Hashem's Name. From the days of Akeidat Yitzchak we do not find as much Kiddush Hashem as took place during the German occupation. The same may be said during the Communist regime of the Soviet Union. In the eyes of the world, however, this was a chillul Hashem - so many Jews were killed in Auschwitz and other infamous places. We can say the same thing regarding the many Jews killed in our Holy Land in terrorist acts and wars, we refer to them as having died sanctifying Hashem's Name, but from the perspective of the Ishmaelites a chillul Hashem has taken place. This was where David erred, he did not sufficiently take into account how the other nations would react to the way Uriah was killed.

After all that we have said, we must keep in mind that although David and Reuven may have erred, they have remained pure and wholesome. Reuven's name is worthy of being carried by the Kohen Gadol upon his Choshen and Ephod stones, so that his merit along with that of the other tribes will serve to protect us. Regarding David HaMelech, he too was unblemished and the Moshiach is destined to descend from him, speedily our day - and it will be through Batsheva that he will appear. All that we have said is only within the limitation of what our minds can grasp, we can never uncover the depths of the thought process of Reuven, David, or any other giants of Israel - we are not fit to judge their actions. If only their merit will stand for us and the entire nation of Israel and we will merit seeing the Moshiach descend from David speedily in our day. Amen.