929 (Tanakh)
I Samuel 29
In another voice
Sugya Map
The narrative of I Samuel 29 presents a high-stakes political and halakhic crucible. David, fleeing the homicidal jealousy of King Saul, has taken refuge with Achish, the Philistine king of Gath. Now, as the Philistine coalition musters at Aphek to wage a decisive war against Israel, David and his six hundred men find themselves marching in the rear guard of the pagan army. This scenario triggers an acute crisis of dual loyalty, strategic deception, and theological destiny.
[The Dilemma of David at Aphek]
│
┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[Halakhic-Ethical Dimension] [Hermeneutical-Chronological Dimension]
- Pikuach Nefesh vs. Lifnei Iver - Ein Mukdam U'Meuchar (Psachim 6b)
- The limits of Mutar Leshanot - Geographic mapping of Aphek vs. Shunem
- Treason vs. National Duty - Juxtaposition: Saul's collapse vs. David's rescue
The primary issues explored in this analysis are:
- The Chronological Anomaly (Ein Mukdam U'Meuchar): The placement of Chapter 29 after Saul’s desperate consultation with the medium at Endor in Chapter 28. If the Philistines were already at Shunem (in the north) in Chapter 28, how are they still gathering at Aphek (further south) in Chapter 29?
- The Halakhic Status of David’s Equivocation: The moral and halakhic category of David's deceptive rhetoric to Achish. Does David’s ambiguous pledge to fight "the enemies of my lord the king" I Samuel 29:8 constitute a forbidden lie (sheker), or is it a permissible tactical deviation (shinnuy) under life-threatening duress (oness)?
- The Identity of "My Lord's Servants" (Ve-Avdei Adonecha): The political and military categorization of David’s men in I Samuel 29:10. Are they legally viewed as independent mercenaries, renegade Judeans, or still bound under the feudal halakhic jurisdiction of Saul?
Nafka Mina (Practical Halakhic & Conceptual Ramifications)
- The Parameters of Muttar Leshanot: Defining the boundaries of permissible deception when dealing with gentile authorities to protect Jewish lives.
- The Halakha of Strategic Alliance with Idolaters: Whether a Jew may join forces with gentiles in a war that may pit them against other Jews, even with the subjective intent of sabotaging the campaign from within.
- Biblical Chronology and Exegesis: Whether we apply the principle of Ein Mukdam U'Meuchar BaTorah (there is no chronological order in the Torah) to the Prophets (Nevi'im), and the theological impact of disrupting the narrative flow.
Primary Sources
- Biblical Text: I Samuel 29:1-11, I Samuel 28:1-25.
- Talmudic Parallels: Pesachim 6b (Chronology), Yevamot 65b (Permissible deviation for peace), Nedarim 27b (Vows under duress).
- Classical Commentators: Radak, Ralbag, Malbim, Metzudat David, and Metzudat Zion on I Samuel 29.
Listen to this lesson. Ask it questions.
Audio, a chevruta that cites its sources, Hebrew tools, and every daily cycle, in the app.
Text Snapshot
To understand the linguistic and legal mechanics of this crisis, we must look at the syntax of two key verses:
וַיִּקְבְּצוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת־כָּל־מַחֲנֵיהֶם אֲפֵקָה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹנִים בַּעַיִן אֲשֶׁר בְּיִזְרְעֶאל׃
"The Philistines mustered all their forces at Aphek, while Israel was encamping ba-ayin (at the spring) which is in Jezreel." I Samuel 29:1
וְעַתָּה הַשְׁכֵּם בַּבֹּקֶר וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אִתָּךְ וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם בַּבֹּקֶר וְאוֹר לָכֶם וָלֵכוּ׃
"So rise early in the morning, and the servants of your master who came with you; rise early in the morning, and as soon as it is light for you, depart." I Samuel 29:10
Linguistic Nuances
- "בַּעַיִן" (Ba-ayin): Metzudat Zion notes that the prefix bet here is highly specific, meaning "at the spring of water" (be-ein ha-mayim).[^1] Grammatically, the text does not say al ha-ayin (by the spring) but ba-ayin (literally, in the spring), indicating that the Israelite camp was structurally and tactically bound to the water source, rendering them geographically static and highly vulnerable to the mobile Philistine flanking maneuvers.
- "וְעַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֶיךָ" (Ve-avdei adonecha): Achish uses the phrase "the servants of your master" to refer to David’s men. This double-edged construct is highly charged. To the Philistine lords, it reminds them of the men’s primary loyalty to Saul. To David, it is a painful reminder of his exiled status.
- "וְאוֹר לָכֶם וָלֵכוּ" (Ve-or lachem va-lechu): The repetitive use of "rise early" (hashkem) followed by "and it is light for you, and go" contains a syntactic tension. As the Malbim notes, there is a sharp division between the rising (which must occur in the dark of night) and the marching (which must wait for dawn), a distinction with profound security and social implications.^2
Readings
The commentaries on I Samuel 29 split along structural, tactical, and ethical lines. Below, we analyze three main conceptual battlegrounds among the Rishonim and Acharonim.
[Exegetical and Conceptual Approaches]
│
┌───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
[Chronological Mapping] [The Dawn Dismissal] [David's Rhetoric]
- Malbim: Real-time - Malbim: Honor/Shame - Radak: Ambiguity
- Steinsaltz: Flashback - Ralbag: Safety - Abarbanel: Sabotage
1. The Chronological Gridlock: Aphek vs. Shunem
The first major dispute concerns the timeline of the battle. In I Samuel 28:4, the Philistines are already encamped at Shunem, which is far to the north, near the Jezreel Valley. Yet, in I Samuel 29:1, they are gathering at Aphek, which is situated much further south in the Sharon plain.
The Flashback Thesis (Ralbag, Steinsaltz)
The Ralbag and modern commentators like Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz resolve this geographic impossibility by asserting that Chapter 29 is a chronological flashback.[^3]
The events of Chapter 29 actually occurred before the events of Chapter 28. The narrative flow was interrupted to show how David was spared from participating in the battle before describing Saul's tragic demise at the hands of the medium at Endor and the subsequent battle on Mount Gilboa.
The nafka mina of this reading is that the text prioritizes thematic unity over strict linear chronology. The author of Samuel wanted to juxtapose Saul's ultimate spiritual isolation (consulting the dead) with David’s divine protection (being rejected by the Philistine lords) to demonstrate the transition of the divine mandate.
The Continuous Campaign Thesis (Malbim)
The Malbim rejects the flashback theory and attempts to construct a continuous, real-time geographical progression.[^4] He writes:
ויקבצו – אחר שהתקבצו ביום הראשון בשונם (כנ"ל כ"ח ד') התקבצו ביום הב' (אחר שב שאול מבעלת אוב) אפקה, שקרבו יותר אל מחנה שאול:
"They gathered—after they had gathered on the first day at Shunem (as above 28:4), they gathered on the second day (after Saul returned from the medium of Endor) at Aphek, because they drew closer to Saul's camp."[^5]
In the Malbim’s view, the gathering at Aphek in Chapter 29 represents a tactical redeployment. The Philistines had initially assembled at Shunem, but upon realizing the positioning of the Israelite camp at the spring of Jezreel, they adjusted their lines, moving to Aphek to secure a superior tactical position.
This reading maintains chronological continuity. Saul’s visit to Endor and David’s dismissal from the Philistine vanguard occurred almost simultaneously, heightening the dramatic tension: at the very moment Saul was sealing his doom through forbidden sorcery, David was being rescued from sin by the suspicious Philistine lords.
2. The Logic of the Dawn Dismissal
In I Samuel 29:10, Achish commands David: "Rise early in the morning, and the servants of your master who came with you; rise early in the morning, and as soon as it is light for you, depart." The commentators offer sharply divergent readings of this command.
[Achish's Command (v. 10)]
│
┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[The Security Model (Ralbag)] [The Honor Model (Malbim)]
- Danger from Philistine soldiers. - Avoidance of public shame.
- Speed and stealth are paramount. - Dawn light protects prestige.
- Protects David's men from ambush. - Prevents recognition by rank-and-file.
The Security/Safety Model (Ralbag)
The Ralbag argues that the primary concern behind Achish’s command was physical safety.[^6] He writes:
והשכמתם בבקר ואור לכם ולכו. ר"ל תכף שיהיה האור לכם ואמר לו זה שלא יסתכנו על יד אנשי המלחמה:
"'And rise early in the morning, and when there is light for you, go'—meaning immediately when there is light for you. He said this to him so that they would not be endangered by the men of war."[^7]
According to the Ralbag, the Philistine army was highly volatile. The Philistine lords (seranim) harbored deep animosity toward David. If David and his men marched during the broad daylight alongside the main body of the Philistine forces, they risked being ambushed or slaughtered by their own "allies."
Achish’s instructions were a tactical evacuation: rise in the dark, and the moment there is enough light to navigate the terrain safely (or lachem), flee before the rest of the army wakes up and realizes you are vulnerable.
The Social Honor/Shame Model (Malbim)
The Malbim offers a more subtle psychological and sociological interpretation.[^8] He focuses on the distinction between the rising (hashkama) and the marching (halikha):
ולפי זה תשובו כולכם, ולכן אמר שישכם בבקר, כי חרפה להם שילכו מן המחנה לכן ילכו בבקר טרם יכיר איש את רעהו (לא כן תחלה שרצה שישוב רק דוד שעל איש יחידי אין איש שם על לב) ופי' דבריו והשכמתם בבקר ואור לכם ולכו רצה לומר היציאה תהיה בבקר וההליכה תהיה בעת האורה בכי טוב:
"...Therefore he said to rise early in the morning, because it would be a disgrace for them to be seen leaving the camp. Thus, they should go in the morning before one man can recognize his fellow... The exit must be in the early morning, but the actual journeying should take place when there is light, which is good (be-ki tov)."[^9]
For the Malbim, the issue is not physical ambush but social shame (cherpah). To have David—a legendary warrior—and his six hundred elite troops publicly dismissed and marched out of the camp in broad daylight would be a humiliating spectacle. It would expose the internal divisions of the Philistine coalition and publicly degrade David’s honor.
Achish, who genuinely respected David, devised a face-saving exit. They must wake up early while the camp is asleep to pack and prepare. They then slip out of the camp's center in the dim dawn light (boker) before anyone can recognize them (terem yakir ish et re'ehu). Once they are clear of the camp boundaries, they can proceed at a normal pace in the full light of day (or lachem).
The Political Identity Model (Metzudat David)
The Metzudat David addresses why Achish suddenly refers to David's men as "the servants of your master [Saul]" I Samuel 29:10:
ועבדי אדוניך. רצה לומר: אנשיך שהיו מאז עבדי שאול אדוניך, והבאישו בו כמוך, וכאומר: בעבור זה נחשדים גם המה בעיני הסרנים כמוך, ולזה ישובו עמך:
"'And the servants of your master'—meaning: your men, who were formerly the servants of Saul your master, and who became odious to him just as you did. It is as if he is saying: because of this, they too are suspected in the eyes of the lords just like you, and therefore they must return with you."[^10]
In this reading, Achish is not insulting David; rather, he is explaining the cold political reality. The Philistine lords do not merely fear David; they fear the collective identity of his men. Because these six hundred soldiers were originally Saul's elite retainers, their institutional loyalty is suspect.
The Metzudat David highlights a profound halakhic and political truth: a soldier's primary identity is not easily erased by political asylum. In the eyes of the Philistine high command, David's men remain "the servants of Saul," and no amount of loyal mercenary service can erase that fundamental classification.
3. David's Feigned Outrage: Sincerity vs. Stratagem
In I Samuel 29:8, David protests his dismissal with apparent indignation: "But what have I done? ... Why should I not go and fight against the enemies of my lord the king?" How are we to read this protest?
The Dual-Entendre Thesis (Radak, Abarbanel)
The Radak and Abarbanel argue that David’s protest was a masterclass in strategic equivocation (lshon arumiyyut).[^11] When David said "the enemies of my lord the king," Achish assumed he meant Achish (the Philistine king). In truth, David meant Saul (the anointed king of Israel).
David was technically speaking the truth: he wanted to fight the enemies of his true lord, Saul—which meant he intended to turn his weapons against the Philistines mid-battle!
This reading is supported by the historical fears of the Philistine lords: "Is this not the David of whom they sang... Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands?" I Samuel 29:5. The lords possessed a sharp, realistic assessment of David’s national loyalty, whereas Achish was blinded by David's diplomatic flattery.
The Passive-Providential Thesis (Ralbag)
The Ralbag presents a more conservative view of David’s psychological state. David was genuinely trapped. Had he been forced to fight, he would have faced an impossible halakhic choice: either commit treason against his protector Achish (violating basic Noahide ethics of gratitude) or fight against his own brethren (violating the gravest prohibitions of the Torah).
David’s protest was not a deceptive ploy to get back into the battle, but a necessary performance to maintain his cover. Had he accepted the dismissal too eagerly, Achish would have realized that David’s loyalty was a sham all along.
David had to act outraged to preserve his political asylum, while inwardly thanking God for the miraculous intervention of the Philistine lords who forced his dismissal.
Friction
The narrative of I Samuel 29 presents a severe moral and halakhic conflict. This friction can be formulated as a sharp kushya (difficulty) on David’s integrity, followed by two distinct conceptual resolutions (terutzim).
[The Ethical-Halakhic Trap]
│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[The Treason Dilemma] [The Fratricide Dilemma]
- Betraying Achish (Noahide gratitude). - Fighting Israel (Severe Torah prohibition).
- Violating treaty of asylum. - Spilling innocent Jewish blood.
- Hillul Hashem among gentiles. - Undermining the future kingdom.
The Kushya: The Moral-Halakhic Trap of Aphek
How could David, the sweet singer of Israel and the future messianic king, place himself in a position where he actively offered to march to war against the Jewish people?
If David was sincere in his desire to fight alongside Achish I Samuel 29:8, he was prepared to commit mass fratricide and assist in the destruction of God's nation—a violation of the cardinal prohibitions of Shefikhut Damim (bloodshed) and aiding enemies of the covenant.
If David was insincere and planned to betray Achish mid-battle (as the Philistine lords correctly suspected: "He may become our adversary in battle" I Samuel 29:4), he was guilty of treachery against a gentile king who had granted him life-saving asylum.
Such betrayal violates the Noahide prohibition of theft/breach of treaty (gezel/amana) and constitutes a massive Hillul Hashem (desecration of God's name) among the gentiles, who would see the future king of Israel as a treacherous backstabber.
How could David escape this double-bind of either fratricide or treachery?
Terutz A: The Model of Oness Gamur and Providential Rescue (Radak)
The Radak resolves this by categorizing David’s entire situation as a state of Oness Gamur (absolute duress).[^12] David never desired to flee to the Philistines; he was driven there by Saul's relentless, illegal pursuit. Once in Gath, he was forced to play the role of a loyal vassal to survive.
[Terutz A (Radak)]
│
┌───────────────────┴───────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[The Human Element] [The Divine Element]
- David plays the vassal. - God hardens Philistine hearts.
- Maintains diplomatic cover. - Providential rescue from sin.
- Protests to avoid suspicion. - David is saved from the trap.
When Achish summoned him to war, David could not refuse without exposing his cover and being executed on the spot. Therefore, David marched, but he did so with the silent prayer that God would deliver him from this impossible choice.
The rejection by the Philistine lords was not a political coincidence, but a direct divine intervention—an answer to David's prayers. God manipulated the hearts of the Philistine generals to insist on David’s expulsion, thereby rescuing him from both the sin of fighting Israel and the sin of betraying Achish.
David’s protest in verse 8 was merely a necessary diplomatic performance to maintain his cover until the very end.
Terutz B: The Brisker Conceptualization of Pikuach Nefesh vs. Amana (Abarbanel / Minchat Chinuch)
To ground this in rigorous lomdus (conceptual analysis), we must analyze the hierarchy of halakhic obligations. Let us analyze the conflict between:
- The Obligation of Amana (Gratitude/Treaty with a Gentile): A universal moral obligation under Noahide law, which Jews are bound to uphold to prevent Hillul Hashem.[^13]
- The Obligation of Hatzalat Yisrael (Saving Jewish Lives): The overriding commandment of Pikuach Nefesh which applies not only to individuals but to the entire nation (Pikuach Nefesh Klali).
[Terutz B (Lomdus)]
│
┌───────────────────┴───────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[The Obligation of Amana] [Saving Jewish Lives (Klali)]
- Treaties/Gratitude to gentiles. - Overriding duty of Pikuach Nefesh.
- Prevents Hillul Hashem. - National survival is supreme.
- Suspended when lives are at risk. - David must sabotage the enemy.
Under the Brisker conceptual framework of pikuach nefesh, the obligation to save Jewish lives is not merely a heter (permission) to violate other laws; it is a dechuyah (complete suspension) of those laws.[^14]
When the survival of the Jewish nation is at stake (as it was in this battle, which resulted in the death of Saul and the collapse of the northern front), any treaty, political alliance, or personal obligation of gratitude to Achish is completely suspended.
Therefore, had David been forced to enter the battle, he would have been halakhically obligated to turn on the Philistines and slaughter them to save Israel, regardless of the breach of trust with Achish.
To minimize the Hillul Hashem of a direct lie, David utilized highly precise, ambiguous language ("the enemies of my lord the king") which satisfied the formal requirements of truth-telling while ensuring the preservation of the Jewish nation.
Intertext
The themes of strategic deception, chronological displacement, and national survival in I Samuel 29 resonate deeply with parallel passages across the biblical and rabbinic canon.
[Intertextual Matrix]
│
┌───────────────────────┼───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼ ▼
[Joshua 2] [Genesis 12/20] [Pesachim 6b]
(Rahab's Deception) (Abrahamic Equivocation) (Ein Mukdam U'Meuchar)
1. Rahab’s Holy Deception Joshua 2:4-6
The archetype of permissible deception to save Jewish lives is found in Rahab’s rescue of the two spies:
וַתִּקַּח הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים וַתִּצְפְּנוֹ... וַתֹּאמֶר כֵּן בָּאוּ אֵלַי הָאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי מֵאַיִן הֵמָּה׃
"But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them... and she said, 'True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.'" Joshua 2:4
Like David, Rahab was a vassal/subject of a pagan authority (the King of Jericho) who utilized explicit deception to protect the agents of Israel.
The Gemara in Megillah 14b praises Rahab’s actions, demonstrating that when a gentile regime stands in direct opposition to the divine plan for Israel, active subversion and deception are not only permitted but are celebrated as acts of faith.
David’s equivocation to Achish is a direct continuation of this tradition: when the survival of God's anointed is at stake, the conventional rules of diplomatic transparency are suspended.
2. Abrahamic Equivocation Genesis 12:11-13, Genesis 20:2
The use of double entendres to preserve life under pagan duress is pioneered by Abraham, who refers to Sarah as his "sister":
אִמְרִי־נָא אֲחֹתִי אָתְּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב־לִי בַעֲבוּרֵךְ וְחָיְתָה נַפְשִׁי בִּגְלָלֵךְ׃
"Please say you are my sister, that it may go well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you." Genesis 12:13
As the Ramban famously notes, Abraham's action was a source of deep halakhic debate.[^15]
While some criticize Abraham for exposing Sarah to moral hazard, the consensus of the Chazal is that Abraham used a technically true statement (Sarah was his half-sister/niece) to mislead a murderous regime that would have killed him to take his wife.
David uses the exact same linguistic strategy: his phrase "the enemies of my lord the king" is a structural parallel to Abraham's "she is my sister." Both patriarchs used linguistic ambiguity to navigate pagan systems where raw truth would result in death.
3. The Chronological Axis: Ein Mukdam U'Meuchar Pesachim 6b
The structural displacement of Chapter 29 after Chapter 28 is a classic application of the talmudic rule:
אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה
"There is no chronological order in the Torah." Pesachim 6b
While this rule is primarily applied to the Pentateuch, the Radak and the Ralbag demonstrate that it applies equally to the Prophets (Nevi'im).[^16]
The theological reason for the displacement here is profound: the text deliberately places Saul's descent into witchcraft I Samuel 28 adjacent to David's escape from the Philistine camp I Samuel 29 to contrast their spiritual trajectories:
[Saul: Chapter 28] ───► Seeks the dead (Sorcery) ───► Divine Abandonment
[David: Chapter 29] ───► Delivered by enemies ──────► Divine Providence
By disrupting the chronological flow, the text forces the reader to view these two events as a simultaneous spiritual transition: as Saul’s star sets in the darkness of Endor, David’s star rises in the dawn of Aphek.
Psak/Practice
How does the high-stakes narrative of I Samuel 29 land in the practical world of halakha? The complex maneuvers of David and Achish serve as primary source material for major rulings in the Shulchan Aruch.
[Halakhic Applications]
│
┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[Yoreh Deah 157] [Choshen Mishpat 388]
- Deception under threat of death. - The status of a Moser (informer).
- Permissibility of wearing gentile garments. - Protecting Jewish life over property.
- Limits of explicit denial of faith. - Subverting hostile pagan regimes.
1. Deception and Equivocation under Duress (Oness)
The Shulchan Aruch codifies the permissibility of utilizing deceptive language and clothing to escape danger:
מי שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה... ואם הוא בענין שאינו חייב ליהרג, יעבור ואל יהרג.
"One who is coerced by idolaters to violate any of the commandments of the Torah... if it is a situation where he is not obligated to be killed, he should violate the commandment and not be killed."[^17]
The Rama adds a highly specific qualification regarding the use of deceptive speech:
ואסור לאדם לומר שהוא עובד כוכבים כדי שלא יהרגוהו, אבל אם אומר בלשון משתמע לתרי אפין... מותר.
"It is forbidden for a person to say that he is an idolater so that they do not kill him; but if he speaks in a language that is open to two interpretations (double entendre)... it is permitted."[^18]
This ruling is directly derived from the biblical precedents of Abraham and David.
While one may never explicitly deny God or claim to be an idolater, one is halakhically authorized—and indeed obligated—to use strategic equivocation (leshon mishtame'a li-trei apin) to save one’s life from hostile gentile authorities. David's response to Achish is the classic scriptural paradigm for this ruling.
2. The Halakha of the Moser (Informer) and National Security
A major question in Choshen Mishpat is whether David’s potential betrayal of Achish violates the laws of informing or treason.
The Shulchan Aruch rules that the prohibition of delivering a Jew or Jewish property into the hands of gentiles (moser) is so severe that one may use lethal force to prevent it:
המוסר ממון חבירו ביד אנס... מותר להרגו כדי להציל הממון.
"One who informs on the money of his fellow to an oppressor... it is permitted to kill him to save the money."[^19]
By extension, if David had marched with the Philistines and remained silent while they attacked Israel, he would have been classified as a moser on a national scale—delivering the entire Jewish nation into the hands of pagan oppressors.
Therefore, any subjective obligation of gratitude to Achish was completely nullified by the objective halakhic duty to prevent the destruction of Jewish lives.
The preservation of the collective Klal Yisrael overrides all private contracts, oaths, and ethical obligations of gratitude to gentile patrons.
Takeaway
True loyalty to the divine covenant sometimes requires navigating the twilight of strategic deception, where the preservation of Jewish destiny overrides the simplistic demands of diplomatic transparency.
Footnotes
[^1]: Metzudat Zion on I Samuel 29:1, s.v. "בעין". ^2: Malbim on I Samuel 29:10, s.v. "ועתה השכם בבקר". [^3]: Ralbag on I Samuel 29:1, s.v. "ויקבצו פלשתים". See also Adin Steinsaltz, The Steinsaltz Nevi'im, I Samuel 29:1. [^4]: Malbim on I Samuel 29:1, s.v. "ויקבצו". [^5]: Ibid. [^6]: Ralbag on I Samuel 29:10, s.v. "והשכמתם בבקר ואור לכם ולכו". [^7]: Ibid. [^8]: Malbim on I Samuel 29:10, s.v. "ועתה השכם בבקר". [^9]: Ibid. [^10]: Metzudat David on I Samuel 29:10, s.v. "ועבדי אדוניך". [^11]: Radak on I Samuel 29:8, s.v. "כי לא אבוא ונלחמתי". See also Abarbanel on I Samuel 29, ad loc. [^12]: Radak on I Samuel 29:8, s.v. "ויאמר דוד". [^13]: See Sanhedrin 57a regarding the universal scope of Noahide laws and the severity of breach of treaty (gezel akum). [^14]: For a full conceptual analysis of Dechuyah vs. Hutrah in the context of Pikuach Nefesh, see Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 237. [^15]: Ramban on Genesis 12:10, s.v. "ודע כי אברהם אבינו חטא חטא גדול". [^16]: Radak on I Samuel 29:1, s.v. "ויקבצו". [^17]: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 157:1. [^18]: Rama, Yoreh Deah 157:2. [^19]: Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 388:10.
Read this page at another depth
Tomorrow's lesson, already explained.
Today's is done. Tomorrow morning's arrives the same way: one short, source-cited email on the day's page. Every day of the cycle has one.
derekhlearning.com