Question (Ri): In Megilah (14b), we say about Naval that one who rebels against the king, [the king] need not judge him, and Uriyah rebelled against the king, like it says below!

Answer: Surely one must judge him and know if he rebelled against the king. However, to investigate his judgment and spend the night [thinking it over] and wait until the next day [before convicting], there is no need.

Support: It connotes like this in Sanhedrin (36a). It says that David judged Naval in a Sanhedrin, from "va'Yachgeru Ish Charbo..."

Implied question: Even if he sinned (had Bi'ah with her while she was married), he could marry her (after Uriyah died), for she was coerced, therefore she was permitted to her husband, and similarly to the Bo'el! (Even if she consented, since she was a minor, it is considered that she was coerced.)

Answer: "You may marry her" connotes that you did not sin with her.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The Get is on condition that if he dies during the war, she is divorced from now.

Consequence: According to this, we must say that even though Uriyah came [back] from the war, the stipulation was that if he will not return from the war, it is a [valid] Get.

Question: A Mishnah in Gitin (73a) says [about one who received a Get 'from today if I die'] what is her status in the interim? R. Yehudah says, she is fully married...

If so, according to R. Yehudah, [Bas Sheva] was a full Eshes Ish!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): [A soldier] would divorce absolutely without any Tenai.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (59a) it is better to have Bi'ah with a Safek Eshes Ish than to publicly shame someone. What is the source? We learn from David. (According to R. Tam, she was Vadai divorced!)

Answer: She is called a Safek Eshes Ish because they used to divorce covertly, and everyone thinks that she is an Eshes Ish.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He rebelled against the king because he said "my master Yo'av."

Objection: This is not rebellion, for he did not intend to make [Yo'av] king and call him king!

Explanation #2: Rather, it is like Rabbeinu Meir explained. He rebelled because the end of the verse says [incredulously] "will I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife?!" David told him to do so, and he did not want to do so.

Question: There was [also] the episode of enticement, in Yoma (22b. David counted Bnei Yisrael!)

Answer: That is not counted, for it was not such a big Aveirah. Also, he was Shogeg.

Question (R. Elchanan): In Sanhedrin (91b) we learn from "Az Yivneh Yehoshua", since it did not write 'Az Banah', this is a source for Techiyas ha'Mesim from the Torah!

If so, it comes for a Drashah. Likewise, [this verse about Shlomo] comes for the Drashah of here (he sought to build, but he did not)!

Answer (Ri): In any case he asks, since it did not write "to build", rather, "he will build", this shows that [the verse] wants to say that he built, like the case of Yehoshua, who surely built! (Be'eros ha'Mayim - we find in Torah that future tense can denote the past. The verse keeps its simple meaning. Therefore, even if a Drashah explains the future tense, we should say that also the simple meaning (he built) is true, like regarding Yehoshua. If Shlomo did not build, the verse should have made this clear!)

Implied question: Why can't we say that his ancestors left for him room to aggrandize himself, like it says in Chulin (7a) about the copper snake (that Moshe made) that Chizkiyah eradicated?

Answer: There, his ancestors did not eradicate it, for they feared to do so, since Moshe made it based on Hash-m's command;

However, here, why would [Asa and Yehoshafat] refrain from destroying [Bamos for idolatry]?

Explanation (R. Tam): It says in the Midrash that there was a lamp burning on his head.