My Tanach is quite clear that the reason for the problem was that one of the oxen stumbled (Sh'mu'el Bet) 2 Samuel 6:7.
So is mine, I included that in my post. However that was the breach of law as I stated, being on the cart in the first place.
I see no reason to reject G_d's law on this issue, and search for something else.
Which law is being rejected? as I said I see that as Samuel's view, it is not a speaking of the Holy Spirit or a 'Thus saith the L-RD'.
It shows, that Uzzah was struck down for his offence, an offence so serious that G_d's anger burned against him.
But that is again, Samuel's view point, he saw that was the law broken, but it wouldn't have happened if the law regarding the transport of the ark was being followed.
The alternative view makes G_d to be vindictive, brutal, irrational and temperamental.
Au contraire, mon frère, he gave the command not to touch it and only by those wearing certain clothing for their own protection as many of the laws are given out of love.
While it is not written that if you touch the ark you will be electrocuted the specifics of the clothing including the shanetz that Aaron wore and the poles, rather prove that there was more to it than just a tribal thing.
The electrical pulse idea would, logically, have killed them either when they put the ark on the cart or when they took the ark off the cart, unless they knew how to ground the power!
It shouldn't have been on the cart in the first place! That is the law broken here and it falls on David because he should have known better, as well as Samuel who was a priest as well as prophet.
So they in actuality were responsible for Uzzah's death.
Of course if this is the real reason, why did it only happen here?
I would guess that after that happened David was so distraught that he made sure it was handled properly afterwards, up until it disappeared.
I think we need to be careful that we are not, in searching for G_d's reasoning, where scripture provides the reason, falling into the trap of eisegesis.
I have no dog in this fight
I of late have been appreciating all the layers of the creation. Sure when you read the bible only seeing creation on the surface, the way we grew up seeing it then it seems far fetched. Add to that what we've been taught in schooling at a young age and your mind is already predisposed to read it a certain way. But there is a lot more than 'meets the eye' and that is why commentarys go on to this day as there is always more to discover at the sod level.
In fact I did a quick search and found that our sages have something to say on this which actually agrees with what I posted before.
Rabbi Nathan seems to agree.......................
“David became distressed (vayihar l’David) because God had inflicted a breach against Uzzah.” (6:8)
What, in particular, caused David’s anxiety? Certain sages took a clue from the expression “vayehar l’David” which seems to have indicated to them that David assumed that this tragic event was caused by something that he had done: “Rabbi Nathan said: David had forgotten that
the Ark was to have been carried on the shoulders of Levites and not in a wagon, as it says: ‘They loaded the Ark of God onto a new cart’ (6:3); ‘And God became angry at Uzzah and God struck him down for his indiscretion and he died there beside the Ark of God’ (6:7); ‘And David became distressed because God had inflicted a breach against Uzzah’ (6:8). Ahitophel said to David: Shouldn’t you have learned from Moses, your teacher, that the Levites carried the Ark on their shoulders and not in a wagon? (adapted from Sifrei Bemidbar Piska 46, Kahana ed. pp. 132-3)
I see this as David was the one who wanted all this pomp and circumstance to glorify the L-RD when in reality he acted as a heathen. Remember the Philistines stole the ark and after G-ds punishment of cancer on them all they sent it back.......................on a cart.
David was repeating this same 'sacrilege' to the throne of HaShem.
I see this akin to Davids baby dying for what he did to Bet sheva's husband.
Anyway, best not derail the thread.
No derail, we're talking about the ark and that example to support my theory regarding Uzzah was pertinent.
