The Reading
The Summary
Shemuel Bet Chapter 19
David’s response to the news of Avshalom’s death is heart-wrenching. He is totally consumed by his profound sense of loss. His supporters become aware of the fact that he is in mourning, and the people are uncomfortable approaching him. Yoav confronts David and rebukes him harshly for his reaction. Yoav reminds David that, had they not been victorious on the battlefield, all of them – including David’s entire family – would have been killed.
By reacting to the outcome of the war as if it were a tragedy, David is implying that he would rather that his friends, relatives and associates be dead than his rebellious son. This, Yoav argues, will lead to David’s abandonment even by those who are closest to him. David agrees with Yoav’s assessment, composes himself and seats himself at the gate to receive the people.
The tribes of Israel reflect upon the aftermath of the conflict and decide that the time has come to officially restore David to his position of leadership. However, David himself reaches out to the elders of his own tribe of Yehuda and subtly criticizes them for not being the first to offer to escort him back to the palace. He removes Yoav as general of his army and replaces him with Amasa, Avshalom’s general, who also hailed from the tribe of Yehuda. In both cases, David himself makes reference to the natural familial affiliation he has with these parties.
On his way back to Jerusalem, David is first intercepted by Shimi ben Gera, who has come to apologize for his unseemly conduct in cursing and throwing stones at David and to beg for forgiveness. Shimi has arrived in the company of one thousand men of the tribe of Binyamin, including Tziva, the servant of Mefivoshet, and his fifteen sons and twenty servants. Avishai ben Tzeruyah proposes that Shimi be executed for having disgraced the anointed king; David, however, orders him to desist and promises Shimi that he will not be killed.
Mefivoshet is the next to welcome David back to Jerusalem. He has evidently been in a state of mourning, is unshaven and disheveled. David asks Mefivoshet why he chose not to accompany him into exile. Mefivoshet explains that he indeed wished to come but that his servant, Tziva, fooled him. Rather than preparing a donkey for Mefivoshet to ride upon, Tziva absconded with the donkey and provisions himself and slandered his master to the king.
Mefivoshet emphasizes that he owes an eternal debt of gratitude to David for having spared him and his household and that he will willingly accept whatever judgment David decrees. David responds to Mefivoshet’s lengthy speech somewhat impatiently, chiding him for elaborating so much, and declares that the estate of Shaul should be divided evenly between Mefivoshet and Tziva. Mefivoshet declines the offer and expresses his wish that all of the property remain with Tziva, since the knowledge that David has been restored to the monarchy is sufficient for him and he has no need for material goods.
David next addresses Barzilai HaGiladi and encourages him to come and live in Jerusalem. Barzilai responds that he is too old and his senses are too dulled to benefit from “retirement” in Yerushalayim – his taste buds have lost their capacity to enjoy food and his ears can no longer enjoy music. Barzilai prefers to finish his life in his own city, but sends his son, Kimham, to live with David and receive whatever rewards David wishes to bestow upon Barzilai in his stead.
The chapter concludes with a description of tensions that have erupted between the tribe of Yehuda and the rest of the tribes of Israel. The majority are upset that the tribe of Yehuda has played such a significant role in accompanying the king back to the palace, especially in view of the fact that they were the last to take any initiative on this project.
The tribe of Yehuda points out that it has never been the beneficiary of any special favors or kindnesses from David as a result of his tribal affiliation with them; rather, they got involved out of a sense of obligation to their relative, David. The other tribes respond that, as the vast majority of the nation, they have ten shares in King David and should have been consulted on and included in his “welcome home” party. We are told that the words of the tribe of Yehuda were stronger – either in tone or in persuasiveness – than those of the other tribes.
David displays an unusual amount of partisanship in this chapter by favoring his own tribe of Yehuda. Until now, he has been quite principled in his impartiality. One wonders whether the change we observe here is because of a general lack of trust and sense of wariness that he has now developed – the fact that the nation supported Avshalom’s rebellion made David feel that he could only rely upon “his own”.
Alternatively, from the fact that Avshalom based his camp in Hevron, a bastion of Yehuda, David may have intuited that he failed to ingratiate himself enough to his own base, and he attempted to correct that imbalance. It is noteworthy that in their exchange with the other tribes, the representatives of Yehuda make mention of the fact that they have received no benefits or favoritism from David during his rule.This can be interpreted as a praise of David’s objectivity and fairness or as a veiled complaint that they were never granted the privileges to which they felt they were entitled. Whatever the case may be, we will see that tensions among the tribes spell more trouble for David in the near future.
David’s deposing of Yoav, like his intense mourning for Avshalom, reveals to us a mentality that is now somewhat typical of the “new David” who is more preoccupied with his own fate and personal needs than those of the nation as a whole. Yoav was not fired for killing Avner, for example, even though it was treacherous and unwarranted; yet here, when he killed Avshalom because of his status as a rebel against the crown, he is dismissed from his position.
David may have justified his distinction between the two cases by citing the fact that here, Yoav acted in defiance of a direct order, whereas David never explicitly warned Yoav not to harm Avner. However, our impression that David is acting emotionally rather than rationally is reinforced by his choice to appoint the treasonous and failed general of Avshalom, Amasa, in place of the loyal and accomplished Yoav, on the pretext of the fact that Amasa is a member of his family (actually, Yoav was too!).
Again, David may have defended his decision based upon a desire to reunify and consolidate the kingdom, erasing the divisions that had been created by the rebellion and demonstrating that he had no ill will against those who allied themselves with Avshalom. In retrospect, however, it will become clear that this view was somewhat naïve.
David’s treatment of Mefivoshet is roundly criticized by the Sages, who say that as punishment for David’s order to split the estate between Tziva and Mefivoshet, his kingdom would one day be split as well. On the surface, David’s harshness toward the lame and helpless Mefivoshet is puzzling. However, taken in the context of his general “swing” of preference in favor of his own tribe and family, we can interpret his behavior as a reflection of some feelings of hostility and mistrust toward the house of Shaul, represented by Mefivoshet.
David’s earlier graciousness to Mefivoshet was part of his effort to unite the kingdom and eliminate or mitigate divisions that existed between various tribes or factions within the nation. However, his new program, at least temporarily, seems to be a reversion to the “old fashioned” way of doing things, and he has no patience or sympathy for Mefivoshet. This exacerbation of the divisions between the tribes (particularly, the singling out of the tribe of Yehuda for special treatment) and the sense of “us against them” may have laid the groundwork, as the Sages suggest, for the ultimate bifurcation of the nation into the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingdom of Israel.
It has also been suggested that David was prejudiced against Mefivoshet for historical reasons; Yonatan, Mefivoshet’s father, also made the fateful and tragic decision not to follow David in exile but to remain at the palace by his father Shaul’s side. He did this, neglecting to join David and part ways with Shaul, despite professing a belief that David was destined to be king and a desire to rule as a partner with him. It is possible that David interpreted Mefivoshet’s actions as a replay of this “betrayal” by Yonatan that he could never fully forgive.
Barzilai HaGiladi is also worthy of a few comments. The Sages remark that he was steeped in instinctual pleasures, and this is why his senses were dull. Although he was clearly a kind, generous and loyal friend to David, the Rabbis disparage his moral character. What is their basis for this assessment? I would suggest that the reasons he offers for declining to join David in Jerusalem reveal his value system. If he is not able to partake of fine food and wine and listen to beautiful music, he sees no benefit in residing in the Holy City of Jerusalem.
In other words, his definition of what is worthwhile or meaningful in life is totally materialistic and sensual. A deeper, more spiritual person would yearn to be in Yerushalayim for the opportunities to learn Torah, to serve Hashem, to be inspired. Such an individual would not be focused on the quality of the cuisine or of the musical offerings available to him in the palace.
By contrast, Barzilai, who turns down the chance to live in Jerusalem because his age prevents him from enjoying the “finer things in life”, demonstrates clearly the values and priorities that guide him. He shows us what he thinks makes life worth living – not the inspiration of the soul but the pleasures of the body.