The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 14

Yoav, David’s general, realizes that David is still pining for his son Avshalom who remains in exile in Geshur. Unwilling to confront or advise him directly, Yoav devises a roundabout strategy to bring the issue to the attention of David and force him to address the problem. Yoav approaches a wise woman from Teqoa and asks her to present a fictitious legal case to the king that will serve as a kind of parable or metaphor that will help him to reflect on his own situation in a different light..

The woman disguises herself as a mourner and explains to David that she is a widow with two sons. The children got involved in a dispute and one of her sons killed his brother. The family now wants to put the murderer to death. This would leave the mother bereft not only of her husband but both of her children; this would be cause her to experience unimaginable suffering and would erase any vestige of her late husband’s memory by eliminating his only surviving heir.

At first, David recommends that the woman return home and promises that he will deal with her case. This vague assurance does not satisfy her; unwilling to settle for platitudes, she requests some more immediate and concrete action from the king. David then suggests that she bring anyone who attempts to harm her to court and he will punish the offending party; this, too, is not a reasonable solution for the helpless widow. Finally, David swears that he will not permit any harm to come to her surviving son, despite the fact that he committed murder.

At this point, the woman draws an analogy between her circumstances and those of the king himself. Like the widow, David has lost one son, Amnon, to murder by Avshalom; nevertheless, punishing the killer would mean tremendous suffering for David who would now have lost two sons. And condemning Avshalom to a permanent state of exile, banishing him from the kingdom and cutting all ties with him, is the psychological equivalent of executing him. David now realizes that the woman had a hidden agenda with her story and demands to know whether Yoav was behind the whole production. She confirms his suspicions and acknowledges that Yoav did, indeed, instruct her to convey the message that she shared.

David accepts the advice of Yoav and orders him to return Avshalom from Geshur to Jerusalem. However, David refuses to meet with Avshalom face to face. The text interjects that Avshalom was an exceptionally handsome man with three sons and one daughter. It goes on to tell us that Avshalom’s beautiful, long, thick hair would be cut only once a year. The relevance of the detailed description of Avshalom’s appearance to our chapter is unclear, and there are several possible explanations for its inclusion here.

One possibility is that we are being offered a reason why David was so attached to Avshalom and why he resisted banishing him for good; Avshalom’s ravishing good looks made him an ideal heir to the throne. Another interpretation might be that it accounts for some of Avshalom’s rash and immature behavior; like Yosef, another Biblical character who is handsome, successful and “spoiled”, Avshalom has an exaggerated sense of self from a young age and this can lead him to act in ways that are inappropriate. A third possibility, endorsed by Radaq, is that the text is telling us what it was about Avshalom that attracted so many people to his campaign to overthrow David; however, this doesn’t quite explain why it is mentioned in this chapter rather than the next chapter.

Avshalom repeatedly summons Yoav to arrange an audience for him with his father, but Yoav ignores his invitations. Eventually, Avshalom directs his servants to set fire to Yoav’s barley field and this prompts Yoav to arrive at Avshalom’s house quickly and angrily. Avshalom demands that Yoav tell David that he would have been better off remaining in Geshur; if the king wants Avshalom to be in Jerusalem, he should at least be willing to see him, and if he deserves to die, then the king should kill him. Leaving him in a state of limbo is unfair. Yoav convinces David to allow Avshalom to visit him at the palace. Avshalom appears before David and bows down; David kisses his son, indicating a kind of “official pardon” for the crime that Avshalom committed.

On an emotional level, reading this chapter leaves us confused and conflicted; I believe this effect is deliberate. On one hand, we can sympathize with the argument of the woman from Teqoa and the sentiments of David, and we can understand his desire to reconcile with his son. On the other hand, we are worried about the propriety of welcoming a cold blooded, calculated killer back home with open arms; this concern is supported by the evidence we see of Avshalom’s immature and aggressive behavior toward Yoav and his eventual rebellion against and plot to kill his own father. It is clear that Avshalom is capable of some pretty dastardly deeds when he feels they are justified.

From a purely religious perspective, we see here the further downfall of David Hamelekh. His constant consultation with Hashem – whether via the prophets or Urim Vetummim – was the signature of his Torah-based approach to governance. In our chapter, David seems to have totally abandoned that methodology. Now, he is allowing his emotions to be swayed by Yoav and is reaching decisions that are inconsistent with his core values.

The David of yesteryear would not have hesitated to reject, spurn and even execute Avshalom for the premeditated murder of his brother; in the past, David had no compunction about holding others accountable for their misdeeds, even when the outcomes of those deeds were of potential benefit to him. Here, we witness David capitulating to his sentimental side, listening to his heart and showing preferential treatment to his own child in a way that contravenes the principles of justice that should have been guiding him. From David’s conduct we can already sense that he, too, was aware of the inner conflict that plagued him and was struggling with it; first he consigned Avshalom to exile and merely pined for him, then he brought him back to Jerusalem but declined to meet with him, then finally he reunited with him but in a cordial, almost purely formal manner.

We cannot avoid comparing the errors of David here to the earlier mistakes of his predecessor Shaul; indeed, one of Shaul’s first missteps was in sparing the life of his own son because of the pressure exerted upon him by the people, and here we find David following a similar path. Undoubtedly, the text is suggesting to us that David has lost a substantial amount of the clarity and religious focus that once defined his leadership. As we will see in chapters to come, this reintroduction of Avshalom into the picture will ultimately bring much suffering and punishment in its wake, and our fingers can only be pointed at David, who should not have allowed himself to be taken in by the rhetoric of Yoav when it was against his better judgment. As is often the case in Tanakh, the hardship David will experience is trouble that he brought upon himself due to his poor judgment.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 13

This chapter details the troubling incident of “Amnon and Tamar”. Amnon is the firstborn son of David and has fallen madly in love with Tamar, who is apparently his very beautiful half-sister from another mother (we will address this issue at the conclusion of the summary). He does not feel comfortable approaching her romantically but is paralyzed with sorrow over his obsession with her. His friend and cousin, Yonadav, advises him to feign being ill and request that Tamar personally tend to him, preparing and serving him food. This will give him the opportunity to interact with her privately and perhaps develop some connection.

This suggestion meets with Amnon’s approval; he pretends to be sick and asks for Tamar to come and prepare pancakes for him and feed him on his sickbed. King David sends Tamar to fulfill the request of Amnon. She arrives, kneads the dough and prepares the cakes in Amnon’s presence. When they are ready, Amnon refuses to eat until everyone else has left the area. He then asks for Tamar to bring the food into his bedroom and feed him there. When she draws close to him to offer him the pancakes, he grabs hold of her and attempts to force himself on her. She resists, urging him to speak to the king about marrying her and not to sexually assault her and bring shame upon both of them. Amnon does not listen to her and rapes her.

As soon as the act is completed, Amnon’s emotions undergo a total reversal – he feels nothing but hatred and revulsion for Tamar, and – over her tearful objections – casts her out of his chamber, referring to her derisively as “that woman”. Tamar was wearing the multicolored garment that the maiden daughters of the king typically wore; she tore her garment, placed ashes on her head, and went on her way, weeping. Avshalom, her brother, immediately surmises what has happened; when she confirms his suspicions, he cautions her to keep it a secret to protect the honor of the family. However, Avshalom never again speaks to Amnon. King David hears of all that has transpired but is powerless to take any action against his son.

Two years later, Avshalom is planning a shearing party for his flocks near the land of Ephraim and he invites the entire royal family to attend. David declines repeated invitations to the celebration, not wanting to leave the palace unoccupied for the outing. Avshalom therefore asks if Amnon may join the party instead of the king; although David is surprised by this unusual request, he grants it.

Meanwhile, Avshalom prepares his servants to ambush Amnon when he arrives; they kill him in retribution for his dishonoring of Tamar. Word initially comes to David that all of the king’s sons were killed, and he responds by beginning to mourn their losses. Eventually, a messenger clarifies that only Amnon has been killed. Avshalom flees to Geshur to live with his grandparents for three years (his mother was the daughter of the king of Geshur). As time passes, David is comforted for the loss of Amnon, but pines for Avshalom who has escaped and forsaken him.

These deeply troubling developments are clearly the beginning of the punishments that Natan foretold would plague David and his household – namely, “the sword will never leave your house”. A careful reader may notice strong similarities and parallels between this narrative and the story of Yosef told in the Book of Beresheet.

Most obviously, the coat of many colors worn by Tamar is strikingly reminiscent of the one worn by Yosef and is called “ketonet passim”, exactly the same term that the Torah uses to describe Yosef’s garment. In our story we have a “stalker” who creates a situation where he is alone with the object of his affections so he can take advantage of her; this is similar to the wife of Potifar’s efforts to get Yosef alone so she could seduce him.

The stories of Amnon and Tamar and of Yosef both involve family drama of a very serious nature; in one case, brother murders brother, in the other, brothers contemplate and ALMOST murder brother. In both stories, a son is estranged or separate from his father for a significant period of time and they eventually reunite. In both stories, a father sends his child or children right into the clutches of one who wishes to harm them; David sends Tamar to Amnon and Amnon to Avshalom, and Yaaqov sends Yosef to his brothers.

Moreover, there are two phrases that appear in the story of Amnon and Tamar and that are strikingly evocative of the story of Yosef. One is Amnon’s command “take every man out of my presence”, which are the exact words that Yosef uses before revealing his identity to his brothers; the other is “he mourned over his son all the days” to characterize David’s reaction to the loss of either Amnon or Avshalom (it is not clear which one), which is itself reminiscent of the description of Yaaqov who, in his belief that Yosef had died “mourned over his son many days.” We cannot escape the conclusion that these parallels are deliberate – what do they mean and what are they intended to teach us?

I believe the text means to highlight thematic commonalities between the narratives of Amnon-Tamar and Yosef that can help us read between the lines and grasp a deeper message in the story. Although he does not point to these specific clues in the text, Ralbag identifies one of the main ideas that explain the parallels. We learned several chapters ago that David placed his sons in positions of power even from a young age; the Ralbag comments that this was an error on David’s part. He groomed them, as it were, to follow in his footsteps and continue his legacy, and he granted them too much influence when they were not yet prepared to handle it.

We can apply this insight of Ralbag and advance it a few steps further to explain the link between this story and the story of Yosef. We can imagine – and we indeed observe – that, after receiving the devastating rebuke from Natan for his sin with Batsheva, David preferred to recede to the background and play a more passive and peripheral role in the kingdom. He was no longer as motivated or ambitious as he once had been and he was constantly wary of the impending consequences he knew would be visited upon him.David’s removal of himself from the scene enabled his children to play an even more active role in the affairs of state and in palace politics, and led to the intrigue we read about in this chapter and in chapters to come to carry on unchecked.

The story of Yaaqov and Yosef exemplifies the same problem. The first verse of Parashat Vayeshev tells us that Yaaqov settled in the land of Canaan, implying that he figured that his struggles, trials and tribulations were over, that he could retire and focus on passing the baton of leadership to the next generation, specifically to Yosef. The Rabbis say that it was precisely this decision on Yaaqov’s part that created and exacerbated the internal strife in the family and that nearly caused the death of Yosef at the hands of his brothers.

Yaaqov trusted too much in the wisdom and maturity of his sons, unwittingly feeding the ego of Yosef with special treatment and relying on the prudence and good judgment of the brothers who he assumed would not harm Yosef. In taking a back seat, Yaaqov allowed Yosef to provoke his brothers and also enabled the brothers to take it upon themselves to determine his fate, since they perceived Yaaqov as no longer an active player in the governance of the family.

One of the messages here is that it is incumbent upon a leader not to recede from the scene prematurely. As critical as it is for elders to “let go” and allow the younger generation to play a part in shaping their future, this can only be done gradually and when it is clear that the youth are prepared for the task. Leaders should step out of the picture when they see that the groundwork has been laid for a solid process of succession and not simply because they are too tired, too depressed or would prefer to enjoy a longer retirement.

Such personal motives may blind them to reality and persuade them that the individuals who will be taking over are more qualified for the task than is actually the case.
Yaaqov and David both abdicated their positions of influence too soon and caused tremendous damage as a result; both of them were forced to endure the estrangement from and “loss” of the very children they believed would be their saviors and would carry the torch forward on their behalf.

One final note about Tamar. In her words to Amnon, she implies that, were the king to be petitioned, she and Amnon could actually be legally wed. This is perplexing if we take the text at face value, since Tamar is Amnon’s half-sister and would be Biblically forbidden from marrying him. The Sages of the Talmud, quoted by many traditional commentaries, state that Maakha, Tamar’s mother, was a captive woman that David had relations with before she converted to Judaism, and that she was conceived while her mother was still a gentile. This meant that, according to the technical halakha, Tamar was not actually related to David or to Avshalom (although Avshalom and Tamar shared both a mother and a father, Avshalom was conceived and born after his mother became a Jewess.)

The Abarbanel rejects this interpretation as far-fetched and argues that Tamar’s claim to Amnon was simply a ruse to convince him not to assault her; they could not have actually gotten married. In fact, the Abarbanel takes issue with the halakhic principle invoked by the commentaries, which is remarkable but goes beyond the scope of our discussion.

I would like to suggest an alternative possibility. Tamar may have been the daughter of Maakha from a previous husband, and therefore not blood related to Amnon or David. She would have been a biological half-brother of Avshalom (which explains why the text refers to her several times as the sister of Avshalom) and would have been the stepdaughter of David, which would account for the fact that she is occasionally called Amnon’s sister as well.

If this is the case, then Amnon and Tamar could have been legally married if David had permitted it; although they lived in the same home and were part of the same family socially speaking, they were not related by blood. Consider the Brady Bunch as an instance of this kind of “blended family” where the boys and girls grow up as brothers and sisters but don’t actually share a biological parent. After proposing this hypothesis, it came to my attention that the commentary of Tosafot in Masekhet Sanhedrin offer the same explanation.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 12

Natan the Prophet visits King David and presents him with a message from Hashem for his consideration. There were two neighbors, a rich man and a poor man. The rich man had many flocks of sheep and herds of cattle. The poor man, on the other hand, had only one lamb, which he treated like a “pet” or member of the family that would eat, drink and even sleep with him at night.

One day, a visitor happened to arrive at the wealthy man’s home; however, rather than slaughtering one of his own animals to provide a meal for his guest, the host took and slaughtered and prepared his destitute neighbor’s little lamb. Upon hearing the story, David becomes angry and declares that the perpetrator is worthy of death and should be required to pay four times the value of the stolen sheep “because he did this action and because he had no pity”.
Natan confronts David and states that the whole vignette was a mere metaphor – in fact, King David himself is the one who committed this crime in taking Batsheva from Uriyah and having the latter killed. Hashem has decreed that David will be punished in two ways: the sword (i.e., violent conflict) will never depart from his household, and his wives will be publically taken from him by his adversary.
David immediately acknowledges his guilt in having sinned against Hashem, and Natan assures him that he will not pay with his life for this transgression. However, the baby that Batsheva bore to him will not survive. The baby becomes ill and David fasts and prays, lying on the ground and refusing to be distracted from his supplications. On the seventh day, the child dies, and David’s attendants are anxious about informing him because they are afraid that he will have difficulty accepting the news.

When he notices them whispering, David realizes that the child has passed away; when he asks, his servants confirm that this is true. David immediately rises up from his place on the ground, washes and anoints himself, changes his clothes, visits the House of God to worship, and sits down to eat. The attendants of David are perplexed and question his behavior: when the child was sick David was profoundly emotional about the situation, fasting and praying continually; now, with the child dead, shouldn’t his reaction be even more intense and extreme?

David explains that, as long as the baby was alive, there was a possibility that fasting, repentance and prayer could elicit mercy from the Almighty; however, now that he has departed from the world, there is no more purpose in praying for him. There are fascinating lessons to be learned regarding the philosophy of repentance, prayer and acceptance of reality from this incident, but they are beyond the scope of our summaries.

David comforts Batsheva and they have another child together, whom they name Shelomo; Natan the prophet visits and calls him “Yedidya”, “beloved of God”, on behalf of Hashem. This is a sign that, one way or another, David’s sin has been forgiven and his dynasty will be established. Shelomo, as we know, will eventually be heir to the throne.

Yoav is close to capturing the city of Rabbat and sends word to David to join him on the battlefield so that the victory will be attributed to David and not to his general alone. David gathers soldiers together and arrives at Rabbat in time to finish off the attack. He takes the defeated king’s bejeweled crown, places it upon his own head and confiscates the plentiful spoils of war. After subjecting the surviving citizens of Ammon to harsh punishments, David and the people return to Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note that David does not dedicate the spoils of this battle to Hashem; this could be a further indication of his losing perspective on his role in Hashem’s plan, or could reflect his feeling of distance from Hashem in the aftermath of his transgression. One of the trends in David we will observe from now on is his tendency to be passive and almost fatalistic in his attitudes and responses. The harsh message from Natan has long term “traumatic” effects.

There is so much to comment upon in this chapter but brevity demands that we limit ourselves to one key issue. One of the most difficult challenges that faces the student of Sefer Shemuel is the relatively “light” sentence pronounced upon David for his heinous crime. He will suffer but his position as king remains secure. Shaul, by contrast, lost his kingdom merely because he failed to carry out the complete destruction of Amaleq, a seemingly minor transgression compared to David’s. How do we explain the disparity in God’s judgment and treatment of the two rulers?

Rav Yosef Albo, in Sefer HaIqqarim, resolves this problem by distinguishing between the nature of the two violations. Shaul failed to fulfill a mitzvah that applied to him as king of Israel, the commandment to exterminate Amaleq. Since his error was one of kingly governance, the consequence was loss of the kingdom. David, on the other hand, sinned as an ordinary human being – adultery and murder are sins that apply to all people in all places at all times. Because his transgression was not specifically “royal” in character, he was not deposed from his position as a result of it.

I find this classic solution a bit problematic. After all, the story of David is, in fact, depicting his failure as king of Israel – David abused his power and violated the sacred trust placed in him in order to gratify his own personal whims. This should certainly disqualify him from the kingship at least as much as Shaul’s transgressions would have. Therefore, I would like to suggest an alternative answer to this question.

Shaul failed because of a deeply-rooted character flaw; his mistakes formed a clear and consistent pattern. Shaul regularly succumbed to social and political pressure and sought the approval of others rather than heeding the voice of Hashem. He allowed his insecurity and need for love to dominate his decision-making processes and behavior, and was therefore not capable of governing in an effective and principled manner. Obviously, he could have addressed and corrected this personality defect; however, rather than confront its pernicious and damaging influence and overcome it, he chose to ignore it and make excuses for it. He let this weakness define him and was therefore unworthy of serving as King of Israel.

David, on the other hand, was a fundamentally principled person who constantly weighed his decisions and actions in light of the will of God. Needing the approval of no one but the Almighty, David rarely if ever allowed himself to be influenced by the expectations or demands of other human beings, and therefore remained a steadfast source of true Torah-based guidance and leadership. As opposed to the sins of Shaul that were consistent with and further deepened his underlying imperfections, for David the situation with Batsheva was the exception, rather than the rule. What makes the story so shocking is precisely the fact that it is totally out of character for David – this is not the way we are accustomed to seeing him behave.

This is why it is easy for David, with some prompting from Natan, to perceive the error of his ways and acknowledge his mistake – it is not a part of who he is in the same way that Shaul’s transgressions were part of who he was. David was not acting out of inner psychological compulsion; he was overwhelmed by external temptation in a moment of weakness and failed to subdue his instinctual drives. David is allowed to remain king of Israel because of his core character, and although he erred grievously in this circumstance, his general approach to governance and the basic makeup of his personality made him a worthy and capable ruler overall. Dismissing him would have amounted to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 11
This chapter represents the turning point of the entire story of King David. For the first time, we find David remaining behind in the palace while he sends Yoav, his general, and the army of Israel to lay siege to Rabbat, the capital of Ammon. One evening, following an afternoon nap, David is strolling on the palace roof and observes a beautiful woman bathing. He investigates and discovers that she is Batsheva, wife of one of his finest officers, Uriah the Hittite. He sends for her and they have relations together; she subsequently informs him that she has become pregnant from the encounter.

Hoping to keep his indiscretion a secret, David summons Uriah from the battlefield, meets with him briefly, and sends him home to his wife. Much to David’s chagrin, Uriah does not spend the night with Batsheva; instead, he sleeps in the company of his fellow soldiers.
David calls Uriah for another meeting the following day and asks him why he did not go home the previous night. Uriah responds that it would be inappropriate for him to be eating, drinking and sleeping with his wife while the Ark of the Covenant accompanies the army of Israel and Jewish troops are encamped on the battlefield.

David shares a meal with Uriah and manages to get him intoxicated; however, he again spends the night with the soldiers and does not visit Batsheva. His options exhausted, David composes a letter to Yoav instructing him to place Uriah on the front lines of the next military operation and to ensure that he is killed in battle; not knowing the contents of the missive, Uriah himself delivers this “top secret” communication to Yoav. Yoav carries out the instructions of David and sends back a message to David with a report on the progress of the siege. He tells the messenger that after David responds to the debriefing, he should also be informed that Uriah has died.

Once David has been informed of the latest developments, he sends back word to Yoav, encouraging him not to dwell too much on the loss of Uriah since casualties at war are inevitable. After she has finished mourning the death of her husband, David quickly marries Batsheva, so that the birth of their first child will not be suspect. It goes without saying that this incident did not find favor in the eyes of Hashem.

This story disturbs the reader on many levels and has been the subject of volumes worth of commentary. There are several questions here that demand our attention. Most importantly, how can we explain the egregious moral lapses of David, whom we have come to know as a religiously devout and consummately ethical human being? How did he rationalize this behavior?

Second, how is David allowed to remain married to Batsheva and for Shelomo, the son they have together, to become heir to the throne? Jewish law dictates that participants in an extra-marital affair are forbidden from marrying, even if their spouses die or divorce them. Third, how is David placed on such a pedestal as the ideal Jewish king and forefather of the Messiah when he committed such terrible transgressions? Shaul, his adversary, lost his kingdom for lesser offenses!

These last two questions will be addressed in greater detail in the next chapter; for now, we will focus on the first.

The Sages of the Talmud record two opinions on the matter of David’s sin; one that takes the description of his behavior literally as written, and one that “rationalizes” it. The second approach, which is the most famous among traditionalists, is that legally speaking David did not commit any transgression. This view maintains that all Jewish soldiers who went out to war gave bills of divorce to their wives in case they were lost in battle, so that they would not leave their spouses unable to marry if their whereabouts were unknown. If so, Batsheva was not technically married to Uriah at the time she had the tryst with David, and would have been able to marry him after Uriah’s death.

This school of thought also claims that Uriah defied David’s orders to return to his home, referred to Yoav as his master in the presence of the King, and even disrespected David by insinuating that his directions were inappropriate under the circumstances. This gave the king the legal right to have him executed. According to this, David did not violate any actual laws of the Torah here. However, even these rabbis would agree that David sinned – he says so, the prophet says so, and Hashem says so. The only point they are making is that the sin was not a legal one, it was moral and ethical in nature.

The main issue to bear in mind is that whether David was in legal violation of the 613 commandments is not the essential theme of the Book of Shemuel. The Rabbis and traditional commentaries, by claiming “one who says that David sinned is mistaken”, are trying to convey the idea that his sins were not legal transgressions but failings of character. We are not supposed to focus on the halakhic intricacies of his conduct, and to do so is to be blind to the prophetic message here.

Up until this point, David has never used his power or influence for personal gratification or self-promotion. He has never manipulated or abused his position as king. In fact, this has been the quality of David that consistently amazes and impresses us. So it is shocking to witness him casting aside the values that have convinced the reader to love and admire him so much!

The text gives us a sense of how this failure of David came to be. In the opening sentences of the chapter, we are told that David sent his men out to battle while he stayed back at the palace. He even enjoyed the luxury of afternoon naps while his troops fought and died on his behalf. Uriah’s speech to David implicitly takes him to task for this very failing – he has begun to enjoy the luxury of being the king, and to fancy himself “above” the menial job of defending and supporting his nation. This attitude was what led him to take another man’s wife and then play games to cover up his misdeed, ultimately orchestrating Uriah’s untimely death.

Halakhically justifiable or not – and we must assume David rationalized it some way or another – the text reveals to us David’s true motive and the nature of his sin. He had resisted amassing horses and wealth when he was still on the battlefield with his troops. However, after a while, partaking of the high life in the palace went to his head and he could not resist taking Batsheva and then doing whatever was necessary to hide his indiscretion.

On a textual level, Sefer Shemuel highlights the “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” transformation of David – his reversal from the ideal King of the previous chapter who meticulously follows the Torah’s laws prohibiting the king from acquiring too many horses or too much wealth, but who now takes women that he is not supposed to have, precisely one of the areas of the king’s behavior that the Torah regulates. Moreover, our chapter describes David writing a “book”; namely, the death warrant of Uriah that is sent to Yoav. There is deliberate irony here, because the Torah also commands the king to write a “book” – the Sefer Torah! David’s actions have fallen short of and even contradict the instructions of the Torah at this moment in his carreer.

One interesting point for further study and reflection is the role of Yoav and Uriah in the drama. Did they know that something was afoot? One gets the sense that Uriah may have gathered that David was “up to something” with his seemingly unnecessary meetings and questions about Uriah’s personal life; this may account for his harsher tone in his second encounter with the king. Yoav must also have suspected that David had a clandestine reason for wanting Uriah to be “eliminated” while preserving the appearance that it was a casualty of war. We may never know exactly who knew or suspected what, but it is fascinating to try to read between the lines with these questions in mind.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 9

True to form, David wishes to honor the oath he made to both Yonatan and Shaul to preserve and protect their descendants. He seeks out any surviving member of the house of Shaul. Toward this end, he summons Tziva, who was a servant who had been given the responsibility of overseeing and managing the estate of Shaul after his death. David inquires whether there is any descendant of Shaul still living; Tziva responds that Mefivoshet, who is lame and incapable of walking, is the son of Yonatan and the sole heir of the household. Rather than living at home, Mefivoshet has been residing with another wealthy family that has been taking care of him; David summons him from there and they meet.

We can assume this was a tense encounter, since ostensibly Mefivoshet had no idea why he was being called to the palace and may have suspected that his life was in danger; in those days, a new king would often exterminate the family of his predecessor to remove any possibility of a threat to his power. However, David wishes to inform Mefivoshet that he is entitled to all of the property that belonged to his grandfather, and that he is invited to live in the palace and dine at the table of David permanently.

David instructs Tziva that he and his family should maintain the estate of Shaul, tilling the land and harvesting the produce, on behalf of Mefivoshet, but that Mefivoshet would reside with David. Tziva, whom we are told had fifteen sons and twenty servants of his own, accepts this command and departs.

This brief chapter is another example of David’s principled and selfless behavior. He fulfills his promise to Shaul and Yonatan even though he has nothing to gain, politically or personally, from these actions; if anything, they may have been seen as controversial and problematic by his advisers who were worried about fueling any resurgence of Shaul’s supporters in opposition to David. Nevertheless, David is true to his word.

The audience is somewhat wary of the character of Tziva, servant and executor of Shaul, and for good reason. When we read between the proverbial lines of the story, we gather that Tziva was given almost total control of the properties of Shaul and that he was not especially deferential to Mefivoshet, who – despite being legally entitled to much wealth – was currently dependent upon another family for room and board. Apparently, Mefivoshet was not able to stand up for himself (literally or figuratively) and protest, so Tziva took advantage of his weakness and treated the estate of Shaul as if it was his own. A typical servant does not have fifteen sons and twenty slaves; Tziva fancied himself a king and was living the lifestyle of the rich and famous at Shaul’s (or, really, Mefivoshet’s) expense.

From Tziva’s initial response to David we sense a lack of respect for and even resentment of Mefivoshet, whom he describes to David as “lame in his feet” – in other words, unworthy of your concern or favor. We can assume that David’s declaration that the estate of Shaul belongs to his rightful heir and his order to Tziva to work the land on behalf of Mefivoshet were not well received but that Tziva had no choice but to obey the voice of the king.

For Tziva, this meant relinquishing his claim to power and influence and discontinuing his comfortable life in order to support the grandson of his master whom he regarded as a pathetic inferior undeserving of such service. It will become apparent in future chapters that Tziva never quite gives up hope of an eventual return to glory; he bides his time and, when Mefivoshet is again vulnerable, will disingenuously attempt to regain his unjust foothold in Shaul’s home.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 8
This chapter returns to a description of David’s military activities as king of Israel. He goes to war against Moav and subdues them, killing two-thirds of the population and retaining the rest of the citizens as servants and tributaries. David also smites Hadadezer ben Rehov, the King of Sobah, and captures many officers, riders and horses from him; he hamstrings all of the horses except what he needed for one hundred chariots of his own.

When the Arameans come to assist the armies of Sobah, David defeats them as well, killing twenty-two thousand soldiers. David takes gold and brass from the cities of Sobah and from Aram and brings it to Jerusalem to consecrate to Hashem. Toi, King of Hamath, sends his son as a messenger to David to salute and bless him for defeating their common enemy, Haddadezer. David is presented with vessels of silver, gold and brass, which he likewise dedicates to Hashem.

Throughout all of David’s military campaigns and endeavors, Hashem protected and assisted him. David was able to acquire an international reputation for his remarkable successes, conquering much territory and establishing a governing presence in the land of Edom. He consistently dedicated all of the spoils of war that he plundered to Hashem.

The chapter concludes by mentioning that David ruled justly and charitably over all of Israel. A description is provided of the various cabinet members that he appointed and that constituted his court or government; an infrastructure is in place that can provide support and stability to the nation as a whole.

There are many details here that would warrant more lengthy discussion, such as the reason for targeting Moav or occupying the territory of Edom. For brevity’s sake, I will confine my remarks to some general observations.

This chapter represents a dramatic shift from the spiritual preoccupations of the previous chapter back to the messy details of military operations. This juxtaposition is surely deliberate. David was told in Chapter 7 that he would not be the person to build the Temple; his job was to invest his energies in subduing the enemies of Israel and consolidating his government so that his successor could construct the permanent home for the Divine Presence.

Therefore, David immediately throws himself into this important project, eliminating enemies, securing borders, and fine-tuning the particulars of his administration. The Temple can only rest upon the foundation of a peaceful and just society; when injustice and violence prevail, it cannot abide. David is working hard to create the ideal environment for the Divine Presence to dwell in Israel.

We see that even at the pinnacle of military and political success, David remains a humble and devoted servant of Hashem. He observes the Torah’s commandment that the king not accumulate excess horses, by disposing of all but what he needs for one hundred chariots. Similarly, he refrains from amassing wealth in his treasure houses, opting instead to consecrate the spoils of war to the service of God or for the sake of the future Temple. He utilizes his fame and fortune only to glorify the Almighty and serves as the agent of Hashem in establishing justice and equity in his kingdom, in fulfillment of the tradition of Abraham “that he will command his children and his household after him, to guard the way of Hashem, to do charity and justice.”

David understands that these are the principles that will ensure the continued existence of the Jewish people in the Holy Land and he governs accordingly. The fact that other “relatives” of the nation of Israel – Moav (from Lot) and Edom (from Esav) – known for their corruption and injustice, are conquered by David accentuates the point that he embodies the legacy of Avraham and is therefore entitled to the blessings that are guaranteed by it.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 7

David’s kingdom has been consolidated and achieved a considerable level of stability. Reflecting upon this development, David comments to Natan the Prophet that it is inappropriate for him to be sitting in a majestic palace of cedar while the Ark of Hashem resides in a mere tent. Understanding that David intends to build a permanent structure to house the Ark, Natan initially advises David to do as he wishes; however, that night, Natan receives a prophecy from Hashem in which he is told that David is not supposed to build a sanctuary for God.

In the lengthy Divine message, Hashem refers back to the long march of Jewish history that began with the Exodus from Egypt through the period of the Judges and finally culminated in the selection and establishment of David’s monarchy. At no time thus far has Hashem indicated a desire for a Bet Hamiqdash or Holy Temple to be constructed. Indeed, David’s son and successor on the throne will be charged with this task, but David himself has not been chosen for the project. First, Hashem will build a “house” – that is, a dynasty – for David, by providing him with an heir. Only then will the Temple be built.

The chapter concludes with David approaching Hashem (seemingly in the presence of the Ark) and offers a lengthy prayer, expressing his wonderment and gratitude at the manifold blessings with which he has been favored. Not only has David been elevated from obscurity to a position of great leadership, but he has been promised that his monarchy will endure through his descendants forever. David places his own career in the context of Hashem’s providence for His people – the unique God’s relationship with His unique nation, a people called to sanctify His name on Earth – and David prays that Hashem’s promises to him should indeed be fulfilled.

There are a couple of points to highlight in this chapter. David’s plan to build a Bet Hamiqdash is undoubtedly rooted in the Torah’s statement that, once the Jewish people have achieved security and stability in their land, a single, exclusive and permanent location would be selected for the Holy Temple forever. A temporary, mobile sanctuary is representative of a relationship with the Divine Presence that is still tentative and conditional; a full-fledged Temple edifice would symbolize that the Jewish people’s relationship with Hashem was now secure and unshakeable, once and for all.

The transition from temporary to permanent was destined to be made, but only after the political circumstances of Israel and its infrastructure had reached a level of maturity and dependability that allowed Hashem’s presence to reside among them uninterruptedly.
David legitimately assumed that the mandate of facilitating this transition fell upon his shoulders, and was enthusiastic about fulfilling it because of his abiding sense that his political power was nothing more than an instrument for the service of Hashem and the sanctification of His name. David was not alone in his assumption here; Natan the Prophet apparently shared the view that the “time had arrived” for the Temple to finally be built.

Natan, however, was quickly corrected by Hashem: David’s role would not extend to the construction of the Temple, but would be limited to the establishment of the monarchy on a secure footing. David had already been through many ups and downs, trials and tribulations to reach this point in his own development, and even more groundwork remained to be laid before it would be clear that the “House of David” was a force to be reckoned with. After all, Shaul also ruled Israel for a time, but his authority and influence essentially died with him. The proof of the reality of the Davidic dynasty would be its passage from one generation to another – its successful transfer to David’s heir. Once the stability of the regime is made clear and David’s descendant occupies his throne, the construction of the Temple will be the first action item on the royal agenda.

In Sefer Divrei Hayamim, David famously declares that he was forbidden from building the Temple because he had shed much blood during his military career. This would be consistent with the Torah’s teaching that metal tools, associated with warfare, may not be used in the fashioning of the altar. On the surface, however, this explanation seems to contradict our chapter, in which it sounds like it is the fact that David’s kingdom is still new, and not the fact that he was involved in battle, that disqualified him from constructing the sanctuary.

However, in reality, David’s reference to his military career may have been another way of conveying the same idea that Natan expressed to him in this chapter. The bottom line is that David’s primary struggle and the main focus of his energy was on confronting and destroying the enemies of Israel. His essential task has been the establishment of the Jewish government through the “dirty work” of battling those who stood in its way. This is precisely the message of our chapter: David is the warrior, the fighter and the dynasty-founder, he is not the well-established, securely positioned monarch who would be chosen to take the political and spiritual development of the nation to the next level.

The chapter ends with David reiterating the proper Torah view toward his “rejection”; Hashem is the One who assigns us our roles and our mission in life, our job is to understand what the Almighty expects of us and to devote our energies to the realization of His plan. Had the building of the Temple been about David’s own ego or glory, he might have been disappointed or disheartened by the revelation that he was banned from participating in it. However, as a true servant of Hashem (this is how the Almighty refers to him in his communication to Natan) David responds to the Divine message by expressing humble gratitude for his blessings, wholeheartedly embracing his destiny, and committing himself to taking the steps necessary to fulfill it.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 4

Two officers of Ish Boshet (called merely “the son of Shaul”) named Rekhav and Baanah plot to assassinate him. They manage to gain entry into his house, either disguised as wheat merchants or together with some wheat merchants who had come to call. While he is enjoying his afternoon nap, Rekhav and Baanah kill Ish Boshet, decapitate him and escape undetected.

They bring his severed head to David and present it to him, declaring that his rival has been eliminated once and for all. David swears by God that he will deal with this news in what he deems to be the appropriate manner. He compares this situation to the circumstances recounted in Chapter One wherein the Amaleqite boy brought him tidings of Shaul’s demise, hoping to receive reward. There, David ordered the lad executed for confessing to the crime of having killed the anointed one of Hashem.

How much more so, David reasoned, when two men have clearly murdered an innocent man on his bed in the middle of the day – hoping, ostensibly, to be rewarded – should they be deserving of death. David instructs his officers to kill Rekhav and Baanah; he has their hands and feet cut off and hung by the pool in Hevron, while Ish Boshet’s head is buried in the grave of Avner ben Ner.

No explicit motive is ascribed to the act of Rekhav and Baanah. In context, it seems reasonable to assume that they were disenchanted with the ineffective leadership of Ish Boshet and that the last straw was the defection and subsequent death of Avner ben Ner. Realizing their only hope for a bright future was through an affiliation with David’s regime and hoping to accelerate the process of his ascension to power, Rekhav and Baanah probably felt that they were doing a great act of heroism and national service (as well as securing themselves employment) in assassinating Ish Boshet.

Nevertheless, David remains true to form, having only words of condemnation and punishment for those who commit unjust actions on his behalf. Without hesitation, he has the perpetrators of the crime killed. This once again emphasizes his commitment to justice and fairness and his rejection of the kind of partisan politics and cronyism that tainted Shaul’s government. Hanging the hands and feet of the criminals for display sends a message of zero tolerance for violent and unethical behavior, particularly when it appears to serve political ends and can therefore be misinterpreted as a form of state-sponsored terrorism. The measures taken by David clarified the fact that he neither ordered nor endorsed the murder of his rival to advance his own agenda, and that he considers such behavior morally reprehensible and a contradiction to all he stands for.

Burying Ish Boshet’s head in the grave of Avner was an unusual course of action and requires some explanation. While Avner’s final wish was indeed to be associated with the kingdom of David that was based in Hevron, one might have expected that Ish Boshet would want his remains to be laid to rest in Mahanayim or somewhere else within the boundaries of Binyamin. Perhaps David felt that, in his heart of hearts – or in his brain! – Ish Boshet acknowledged David’s right to the monarchy and knew that the future was with the Davidic dynasty. Ish Boshet’s willingness to allow David to take Mikhal back suggested that he was himself conflicted about the role he had been chosen to play, a role that forced him to stand in inevitably failing opposition to David. Here we find evidence of the great sensitivity of David and his giving credit to Ish Boshet for good intentions even though they remained unspoken.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 3

This chapter opens by describing the continued strengthening of the monarchy of David. In Hevron, his new capital, David’s wives bear him six sons. Meanwhile, trouble is brewing in the house of Ish-Boshet. Avner ben Ner is involved in a relationship with King Shaul’s former concubine, Ritzpah bat Ayah, and Ish Boshet confronts him about the impropriety of this behavior.

Avner reacts angrily, recounting the kindnesses he has performed for the house of Shaul and complaining that after all he has done to preserve the dynasty of Shaul, Ish Boshet still has the nerve to criticize him for his interest in Ritzpah bat Ayah. Avner vows to defect from the kingdom of Ish Boshet and join David’s court. He is now determined to help David to become the undisputed ruler over all twelve tribes of Israel.

Avner sends messengers to David announcing his intentions. David agrees to welcome Avner’s assistance and support but only on one condition: David wants his wife, Mikhal, returned to him, after Shaul had given her in marriage to another man. David sends a message to Ish Boshet requesting that Mikhal, whom he rightfully wed, be restored to him, and Ish Boshet complies, allowing Avner to escort her to Hevron. Mikhal’s new husband, Paltiel ben Layish, is profoundly distraught about this; he follows her, weeping, all the way to Bahurim. Eventually, Avner instructs Paltiel to give up and go back home.

Avner reaches out to the elders of Israel including the tribe of Binyamin, and is able to persuade them to accept David as their new king. He emphasizes the service that David rendered to the nation even during the reign of Shaul and his evident fitness for the monarchy. Through his political networking and diplomatic efforts, Avner lays the groundwork for the unification of the kingdom of Israel.

After meeting with David and enjoying a meal with him, Avner prepares to organize an official, national coronation of David as King of Israel and departs peacefully. Meanwhile, Yoav and his men return to the palace and are incensed to discover that Avner has been there and was allowed to leave without incident. Yoav accuses Avner of duplicitous conduct and claims that his apparent “conversion” to David’s cause is a ruse to enable him to collect secret intelligence on behalf of Ish Boshet.

Yoav sends messengers to Avner to call him back to Hevron on the pretext that the two generals had to have some kind of a conference together. When he comes back, Yoav leads him into a private area, ostensibly so they can speak about confidential matters; catching him by surprise, Yoav and Avishai kill Avner in cold blood to avenge the blood of their brother, Asahel.
David dissociates himself from this act of violence immediately, cursing the house of Yoav who perpetrated it. He organizes a state funeral for Avner and arranges for him to be buried in Hevron. David laments the death of Avner, and when his subjects offer him food, he refuses to partake, emphasizing how deeply and sincerely he mourns the loss of Avner.
The nation was convinced that David did not have any part in the slaying of Avner; indeed, even when speaking privately with his servants and attendants, David emphasized the greatness of Avner and the enormity of the tragedy of his demise.

Although David was upset with the criminal activity carried out by Yoav, he felt that his monarchy was as yet too unstable and delicate for him to take a stand against such a powerful and popular figure. He trusted that Hashem would one day judge Yoav and Avishai and punish them for their transgressions.

There are several points worth highlighting in this chapter. First, David is described as having children in Hevron and thereby establishing a line of succession for his kingdom; this suggests that his dynasty has a future that is bright and secure. By contrast, Ish Boshet seems to hardly be in control of his current regime, let alone getting married and having children to secure its future; Avner’s copulating with Shaul’s concubine indicates that he fancies himself the real leader of the nation and that he relates to Ish Boshet as a mere puppet king whose days are numbered. In the court of Ish Boshet, unlike the court of David, it is the general Avner’s marital life that is the primary concern, not the king’s.

Our impression of Ish Boshet’s weakness and ineffectiveness is reinforced not only by the text’s emphasis upon Avner’s increasing power, but also by the fact that Ish Boshet is rarely mentioned by name. Ish Boshet is too intimidated by Avner to respond to his threats and even agrees to restore Mikhal to David, despite the fact that this basically amounted to acknowledging David’s claim to be a legitimate successor of his father-in-law, King Shaul – exactly what David hoped to gain.

Yoav’s murder of Avner is another example of the complexity of his character. Although the text assures us that Avner was sincere in his defection to David’s kingdom – it mentions three times that Avner left in peace – Yoav had no way to know this, and may have genuinely believed that Avner was attempting to take advantage of David and undermine the whole regime. There is no doubt that he harbored ill feelings toward Avner for killing Asahel, and it is this motive that the text ascribes to Yoav’s act. But his official defense is not unreasonable; as is often the case with Yoav, he took action that can be justified convincingly but may also reflect motives and intentions that are selfish or self-serving.

David wisely recognizes the potential damage he may incur as a result of Yoav’s vigilante behavior. If people assume that David signed off on the murder, it will seem as if he manipulated Avner for his own political purposes and then executed him. This kind of behavior would clearly be incommensurate with the principles of justice by which David governs himself and his kingdom.

Moreover, it would have tarnished David’s reputation, causing him to be perceived as a partisan politician who viewed supporters and officers of Shaul as his enemies and saw no problem with murdering them to further his own agenda.For David to suddenly come across as a divisive or vindictive character would likely have reversed any progress that had been made in “reaching across the aisle” to unify the kingdom of Israel. Therefore, David did everything in his power to demonstrate his condemnation of this act of Yoav and his sincere sense of loss at the death of Avner ben Ner.

One question that is commonly asked about this chapter is how David could have remarried Mikhal after she had been living with another man. According to halakha, once a married woman has had relations with a man other than her husband, she is forbidden to return to her spouse as well as to continue any involvement with her paramour. Since David and Mikhal never divorced, and Mikhal was simply “given” to Paltiel, we can legitimately ask what the halakhic basis was for David’s choice.

The Sages of the Talmud explain that, although Mikhal lived with Paltiel ben Layish, he was acutely aware of her marital status and therefore never touched her. Paltiel is described in Rabbinic literature as the ultimate tzaddiq, or righteous man; he was able to share the same roof with a woman for years but never gave into his natural inclination to have relations with her. They say that his weeping and following Mikhal was motivated not by any romantic love on his part – after all, they were prohibited from consummating their relationship in any way – but because he was losing the opportunity to do the mitzvah of resisting temptation in her presence. Since there was no adultery committed, there was no problem with Mikhal returning to David. Some commentaries offer alternative interpretations of the situation, all of which aim to reconcile the Tanakh’s description with normative Jewish law.

I would like to make an unconventional suggestion that perhaps, in Biblical times, the king of Israel had the power to annul qiddushin. Since ultimately the king can seize the property of his citizens, draft them into the army, etc., their marital agreements and commitments were likewise subject to the will and whim of the crown. If this is correct, then Shaul could simply have voided the betrothal and marriage between David and Mikhal, canceling it retroactively.

Since David and Mikhal were therefore “never married” from a halakhic perspective, there was no problem with her returning to live with him after having cohabited with another man; moreover, either Ish Boshet or David would have had the authority to cancel the marriage of Paltiel and Mikhal so that, despite his objections, Mikhal could be taken away from him. This theory is admittedly not entirely consistent with our current understanding of Jewish law but I believe that it has the ability to resolve many problems in Biblical narratives that can otherwise only be explained with very complicated and seemingly forced interpretations.

The Reading

The Summary

Shemuel Bet Chapter 2

David inquires of Hashem and is told to settle in Hevron. There, he is officially appointed king over his own tribe of Yehuda. He is informed of the act of kindness that the men of Yavesh Gilead performed in retrieving Shaul’s body from the Pelishtim and giving him funeral rites and a proper burial. David sends a message to Yavesh Gilead acknowledging and praising their conduct but also making them aware of the fact that he has been chosen as king of Yehuda and subtly suggesting that they lend their support to his new regime.In the meantime, the general of Shaul’s army, Avner Ben-Ner, brings Shaul’s surviving son, Ish-Boshet to Mahanayim and declares him the king of Israel. This marginalizes David and prevents him from immediately establishing a unified monarchy.

One day, the armies of Ish-Boshet and David find themselves encamped on opposite sides of a pool at Giveon. Avner Ben-Ner suggests that the men fight one another for sport, and Yoav ben Tzeruyah, David’s general, agrees. Each side appoints twelve men who face off on the battlefield, quickly killing one another. This provokes an all-out war between the two armies that continues for the rest of the day.

At one point, Asahel, brother of Yoav, is in pursuit of Avner Ben-Ner. Avner repeatedly asks Asahel to stop chasing him so that he is not forced to take drastic action to preserve his life. Despite their differences, Avner apparently values his relationship with Yoav and so is hesitant to harm his brother. Asahel refuses to heed the warnings of Avner, so Avner has no choice but to drive the back of his spear straight through the ribs of Asahel, killing him.

Eventually, the armies disengage and Avner calls for the battle to be concluded. Yoav blames Avner for having started the bloodshed but agrees to the ceasefire. Yoav and his men have inflicted serious casualties on the forces of Avner, killing 360 soldiers while themselves losing only 20. This reflected the trend of decline of the house of Shaul as David and his kingdom continued to gain in strength.

This chapter highlights the difficulties that stand in the way of David’s campaign to unify the kingdom of Israel under his leadership. David once again displays his substantial political acumen in reaching out to the men of Yavesh Gilead. We can imagine that the inhabitants of Yavesh Gilead were wary of David and probably assumed that their heroic actions on behalf of Shaul would be perceived negatively by David.

David’s message to them emphasizes that he shares their reverence for Shaul and does not perceive them as the “opposition” because they had a deep affection for his predecessor. On the contrary, he considers them worthy of great reward and would be honored to have them join his kingdom. Neglecting the people of Yavesh Gilead would have been politically dangerous for David, since their abiding sympathy for the house of Shaul could have translated into aggression against the new monarch.

On the other hand, recruiting the core fan base of your former adversary would be a monumental political achievement for David, and he attempts to do so by emphasizing his own admiration for Shaul and his wish to perpetuate the positive elements of Shaul’s legacy. The wisdom of David’s strategic approach here cannot be overstated. There is much to be learned from him in terms of bridging gaps and easing tensions between individuals or groups that differ from one another on ideological, religious, or political grounds.

Avner is the key figure who thwarts this otherwise ingenious effort of David. Although Ish-Boshet was not previously considered a potential successor of Shaul – he was not even present on the battlefield during the war against the Pelishtim – he is propped up as a figurehead around which the supporters of Shaul can be rallied. The language of the chapter suggests that Avner somewhat artificially places Ish-Boshet in this role, despite the fact that he was not especially qualified to be king.

The symbolic gesture of having Shaul’s son occupy his throne and extend his reign was sufficient to hold onto the loyalty of his die-hard advocates, at least for the time being. And keeping the regime intact, even on a precarious foundation, was enough to keep Avner in a position of power and influence as well. Had David succeeded in uniting the nation, Avner feared that he would, at the very least, be out of a job.

The choices of capital for the respective kingdoms are noteworthy. David chooses Hevron, a city well known to us as the burial place of the Avot as well as the location Kalev visited when the twelve spies first visited Israel in the times of Moshe and which he inherits once Canaan is conquered by the Jews. This conveys the idea that the Davidic monarchy is rooted in and embodies the legacy of Jewish history from the period of the Patriarchs through the conquest of the land. David’s kingdom is, as it were, the culmination of this multi-generational process of establishing the nation of Israel in the Holy Land.

Ish Boshet chooses Mahanayim. Mahanayim was the place in Israel to which Yaaqov returned after his lengthy sojourn with his uncle Lavan; he encountered angels there, reminding him that even while in Exile and while struggling he was being guided by Divine providence and was destined to eventually make his way back home. In the same way, Ish Boshet may have wanted to emphasize that despite the recent setbacks, losses and downturns in Israel, he would strengthen the Jewish presence in the land and restore the people to their previous state of blessing and prosperity.

Yoav’s appearance at Giveon was likely an intentional provocation, since it was a city located within the territory of Binyamin, the home base of Shaul’s court. It was also the center of national religious life during this period – the Tabernacle had been moved there after the destruction of the city of Nov. Yoav’s assignment of troops to the area may have indicated his desire to establish a military presence in Giveon, subtly declaring it under the jurisdiction of King David and not Ish Boshet. The selection of twelve men from each side to begin the military engagement was obviously symbolic; the question here was which monarch would be chosen to lead the twelve tribes of Israel, and that question would be settled by the sword.

Avner and Yoav both treat the skirmish between their troops more lightly than it should have been treated; both are brilliant and highly skilled military men (Avner can apparently drive the handle of a spear through a man’s ribs and out his back!) but extremely complicated personalities, as we will see in upcoming chapters. Regrettably, their callous and flippant attitude toward the horrors of battle led to the needless loss of many lives, and the Rabbis criticize both of them for their complicity in this unnecessary tragedy. At the same time, the outcome of this clash further reinforces the impression that the dynasty of David is on the rise and that the house of Shaul is declining rapidly.