II Samuel 19:40-21:6

Sugya Map

• Issue: The aftermath of Absalom's rebellion – the king's emotional state, the political maneuvering for power, the reconciliation (or lack thereof) with past antagonists, and the lingering threat of instability.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Understanding the proper expression of grief and its political ramifications.
  • The delicate balance between mercy and justice in restoring order.
  • The dynamics of tribal loyalties and their potential to fracture the nascent kingdom.
  • The nature of expiation for past sins and its impact on the land.
  • The king's personal vulnerability and the need for loyal protectors.
• Primary Sources: II Samuel 19:40-21:6; Sanhedrin 19b; Pesachim 54b.

Text Snapshot

David's Grief and Joab's Rebuke

"The king was shaken. He went up to the upper chamber of the gateway and wept, moaning these words as he went, 'My son Absalom! O my son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you! O Absalom, my son, my son!'

Joab was told that the king was weeping and mourning over Absalom. And the victory that day was turned into mourning for all the troops, for that day the troops heard that the king was grieving over his son. The troops stole into town that day like troops ashamed after running away in battle. The king covered his face and the king kept crying aloud, “O my son Absalom! O Absalom, my son, my son!”

Joab came to the king in his quarters and said, “Today you have humiliated all your followers, who this day saved your life, and the lives of your sons and daughters, and the lives of your wives and concubines, by showing love for those who hate you and hate for those who love you. For you have made clear today that the officers and servicemen mean nothing to you. I am sure that if Absalom were alive today and the rest of us dead, you would have preferred it. Now arise, come out and placate your followers! For I swear by GOD that if you do not come out, not a single man will remain with you overnight; and that would be a greater disaster for you than any disaster that has befallen you from your youth until now.”" (II Samuel 19:2-8)

Leshon Nuance: The repetition of "my son, my son" (בְּנִי בְּנִי) emphasizes the depth of David's anguish. Joab's words are stark and confrontational, highlighting the king's misplaced affections and the potential for political collapse. The phrase "humiliated all your followers" (הֵבַשְׁתָּ הַיּוֹם אֶת פְּנֵי כָּל עֲבָדֶיךָ) underscores the public nature of David's grief and its demoralizing effect. The oath sworn by God ("אִם לֹא תֵצֵא") carries immense weight, signaling the gravity of the situation.

Readings

Barzillai's Farewell and Chimham's Ascent

The passage begins with the king's return and the parting from the venerable Barzillai. This section is rich with the dynamics of gratitude, loyalty, and the passage of time.

Malbim on II Samuel 19:40 (translated from Hebrew):

"And he passed. After this incident, which occurred in the presence of everyone, he passed with Judah first, and the king (with Barzilai) passed after them. Then, 'And the king kissed, etc.'" Malbim here emphasizes the sequencing of events: the crossing of Judah, then the king, indicating a formal procession. The king's personal interaction with Barzilai is a culminating moment of appreciation after his crucial support. The phrase "after this incident" suggests that the emotional weight of Absalom's death and the subsequent political maneuvering still hung in the air, making the king's personal gestures all the more significant.

Minchat Shai on II Samuel 19:40 (translated from Hebrew):

"'And he blessed him.' The resh (ר) with a shva (shva) alone, as is our custom." This is a philological observation regarding the pronunciation of the verb "blessed" (וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ). The Minchat Shai is concerned with the precise vocalization and its adherence to masoretic tradition. While seemingly minor, it points to the meticulous textual scholarship applied to these verses, ensuring the accurate transmission of the biblical text. The focus on "our custom" (מנהגנו) suggests a community of scholars or readers who share a specific approach to textual interpretation.

Steinsaltz on II Samuel 19:40 (English):

"All the people crossed the Jordan, and the king crossed too. The king kissed Barzilai as they parted, expressing his love and respect for him, blessed him, and he returned to his place." Rabbi Steinsaltz highlights the emotional and relational aspect of the encounter. The king's kiss and blessing are not merely perfunctory gestures but expressions of deep affection and respect. The contrast between Barzilai returning to his own place and the king continuing to Jerusalem underscores the differing paths and responsibilities of the elder statesman and the reigning monarch. The king's actions here are a public display of valuing loyal service.

Abarbanel on II Samuel 19:40 (translated from Hebrew):

"Then the king kissed Barzilai and blessed him, and he returned to his home, and the king and the people crossed the Jordan, and all the people of Judah, as will be explained." Abarbanel situates the farewell to Barzilai within the broader narrative of the return journey. He notes the sequence: the king's personal farewell, followed by the crossing of the Jordan with the Judahites. This indicates that Barzilai's departure is a distinct, significant event before the main body of the army and the king proceed. The mention of "all the people of Judah" points to the specific tribal loyalties and the king's reliance on them in this phase of his return.

Amasa's Appointment and Joab's Treachery

The appointment of Amasa as commander in place of Joab, and Joab's subsequent brutal act, form a stark contrast.

"Then the king said to Amasa, “Call up Judah’s force to my standard, and report here three days from now.” Amasa went to call up Judah, but he took longer than the time set for him. And David said to Abishai, “Now Sheba son of Bichri will cause us more trouble than Absalom. So take your lord’s servants and pursue him, before he finds fortified towns and eludes us.” Joab’s men, the Cherethites and Pelethites, and all the warriors marched out behind him. They left Jerusalem in pursuit of Sheba son of Bichri. They were near the great stone in Gibeon when Amasa appeared before them. Joab was wearing his military dress, with his sword girded over it and fastened around his waist in its sheath; and, as he stepped forward, it fell out. Joab said to Amasa, “How are you, brother?” and with his right hand Joab took hold of Amasa’s beard as if to kiss him. Amasa was not on his guard against the sword in Joab’s [left] hand, and [Joab] drove it into his belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground and he died; he did not need to strike him a second time." (II Samuel 20:4-10)

Leshon Nuance: Joab's greeting, "How are you, brother?" (מַה־שְּׁלוֹמְךָ אָחִי), is dripping with irony and deception, given his intent. The detail of the sword falling out of its sheath (וַיִּפֹּל מִשְּׁלַחְיָהּ) could be interpreted as a divinely orchestrated opportunity, or merely a moment of awkwardness that Joab masterfully exploits. The graphic description of Amasa's death ("his entrails poured out on the ground" - וַתִּזַּל זְווֹתָיו אָרְצָה) underscores the brutality and finality of the act.

Friction

The Gibeonite Curse and the Problem of Collective Punishment

The famine and its resolution through the handing over of Saul's descendants to the Gibeonites present a profound ethical challenge. The text states:

"There was a famine during the reign of David, year after year for three years. David inquired of GOD, and GOD replied, 'It is because of the bloodguilt of Saul and [his] house, for he put some Gibeonites to death.' ... Thereupon they said to the king, 'The man who massacred us and planned to exterminate us, so that we should not survive in all the territory of Israel—let seven of his male issue be handed over to us, and we will impale them before GOD in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of GOD.' And the king replied, 'I will do so.' The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan son of Saul, because of the oath before GOD between the two, between David and Jonathan son of Saul. Instead, the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons that Rizpah daughter of Aiah bore to Saul, and the five sons that Merab daughter of Saul bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite, and he handed them over to the Gibeonites. They impaled them on the mountain before GOD; all seven of them perished at the same time." (II Samuel 21:1, 5-7, 14)

The Strongest Kushya: How can King David, who is generally portrayed as righteous and seeking God's favor, sanction the execution of seven innocent individuals to atone for the sins of Saul? This appears to violate fundamental principles of individual responsibility and justice. The Torah explicitly states, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; each shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16).

The Best Terutz (or two):

1. The Nature of the "Bloodguilt" (אֲשֶׁמֶת דָּמִים): The divine response is not necessarily a direct indictment of David's moral judgment but a statement of cosmic consequence. God reveals the cause of the famine – the blood spilled by Saul. The Gibeonites, as victims, have a right to seek redress. David, as king, is obligated to address the affliction upon the land. The selection of Saul's descendants is presented as the mechanism for appeasing the wronged and lifting the curse, rather than a judgment that these individuals personally deserved death. The emphasis on "seven of his male issue" and the sparing of Mephibosheth suggests a targeted, albeit harsh, resolution rather than a blanket punishment. The phrase "before God" (לִפְנֵי יְהוָה) implies a ritualistic act of expiation, aimed at restoring divine favor, which is seen as tied to the land's prosperity. This can be understood through the lens of communal responsibility, where certain families or lineages bear a historical burden.

2. The Gibeonites' Unique Status and Covenant: The Gibeonites were not Israelites but were granted a covenant of protection by Joshua (Joshua 9). Saul's violation of this covenant by attempting to destroy them was a grave transgression against both human law and divine oath (the oath of the people of Israel). David's actions, therefore, could be seen as upholding the sanctity of these ancient covenants and rectifying a historical injustice that had disrupted the divine order. The Gibeonites' request is specific to the lineage that committed the offense, and David, while perhaps uncomfortable, acts to restore the balance. The sparing of Mephibosheth highlights that David is not acting solely on a principle of collective punishment, but rather on a specific divine directive tied to the historical transgression of Saul's house against the Gibeonites.

Intertext

Sheba son of Bichri and the Seeds of Division

Sheba son of Bichri's rebellion, arising from inter-tribal tensions, echoes earlier instances of dissent and foreshadows future divisions.

"Then Israel’s entire contingent left David and followed Sheba son of Bichri; but Judah’s contingent accompanied their king from the Jordan to Jerusalem. ... A scoundrel named Sheba son of Bichri, a Benjaminite, happened to be there. He sounded the horn and proclaimed: 'We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son! Back to your homes, O Israel!'" (II Samuel 20:2, 14-15)

Parallel 1: Korach's Rebellion (Numbers 16): The rebellion of Korach, Dathan, and Aviram against Moses and Aaron also stemmed from claims of equal status and resentment against appointed leadership. Korach declared, "The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you set yourselves above the Lord’s assembly?" (Numbers 16:3). Sheba's rallying cry, "We have no portion in David, No share in Jesse’s son!" is remarkably similar, framing the grievance as a lack of recognition and equitable distribution of power. Both instances highlight the fragility of centralized authority when tribal or factional interests are perceived to be neglected.

Parallel 2: The Division of the Kingdom (I Kings 12): The speech of Sheba son of Bichri is a potent precursor to the eventual schism of the kingdom. His declaration effectively severs the loyalty of the northern tribes from David. This mirrors the sentiment that will lead to Jeroboam's secession after Solomon's death: "What share do we have in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel!" (I Kings 12:16). The narrative in II Samuel 20 serves as a crucial case study in the underlying tensions that would ultimately tear the united monarchy apart.

Psak/Practice

The King's Authority and the Handling of Treason

The events surrounding Sheba son of Bichri's rebellion and Joab's decisive, albeit brutal, action offer insights into the meta-heuristics of leadership and the practical application of power.

1. Primacy of Royal Authority: Despite the initial political maneuvering and the perceived slights by the northern tribes, David asserts his authority by swiftly moving to quell the rebellion. His instruction to Abishai to pursue Sheba, and the subsequent actions of Joab, demonstrate that immediate threats to the throne must be dealt with decisively. The text prioritizes the stability of the kingdom over the potential for further internecine conflict.

2. The Role of Force in Maintaining Order: Joab's swift and brutal assassination of Amasa, though morally reprehensible, serves a practical purpose: it clears the path for Joab to regain command and effectively neutralize the rebellion. The narrative implicitly suggests that in times of crisis, the king's appointed military leader may need to employ harsh measures to prevent greater disaster. The ensuing pursuit and the clever resolution in Abel of Beth-maacah, orchestrated by a wise woman, demonstrate a blend of force and diplomacy, but the underlying threat of military might is ever-present.

3. The King's Implicit Endorsement of Joab's Methods: While David may not have explicitly commanded Amasa's murder, his immediate reliance on Joab after Amasa's delay, and his subsequent acceptance of Joab's return to command, suggest a tacit acceptance of Joab's effectiveness. This raises questions about the moral compromise inherent in maintaining power, where expediency can sometimes override absolute adherence to justice. The halakhic principle of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) might be invoked to understand the extreme measures taken to prevent the complete dissolution of the kingdom, but it doesn't fully resolve the ethical discomfort.

Takeaway

The return of a king is not merely a physical journey but a complex negotiation of power, loyalty, and divine will, where personal grief can become a political liability. Ultimately, the maintenance of order, even through brutal means, often takes precedence in the fraught landscape of kingdom building.