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.