II Samuel 2:7-3:20

Sugya Map

The provided sugya from II Samuel 2:7-3:20 presents a complex interplay of political maneuvering, divine anointing, personal loyalty, and violent retribution, centering on the nascent Davidic monarchy.

• Core Issue: The legitimacy of David's kingship amidst the lingering civil war with the House of Saul, particularly the role of Abner ben Ner in both prolonging and ultimately attempting to resolve this conflict.
• Nafqa Minas:
  • The tension between divine decree (David's anointing) and human agency (political negotiation, military conflict).
  • The parameters of din rodef (law of the pursuer) and vengeance (go'el hadam) in a pre-judicial state.
  • The ethical complexities of changing allegiances and the trustworthiness of political rivals.
  • The King's authority (or lack thereof) over powerful military figures.
• Primary Sources: II Samuel 2:7-3:20; I Samuel 18:27 (Michal's dowry); I Samuel 25:44 (Michal given to Paltiel); I Samuel 26:15-16 (David sparing Saul, confronting Abner).

Text Snapshot

We focus on key phrases that encapsulate the interpretive challenges and narrative thrust.

• II Samuel 2:7: "ועתה תחזקנה ידיכם והיו לבני חיל כי מת אדניכם שאול וגם אתי משחו בית יהודה למלך עליהם."¹

  • Dikduk/Leshon: "ועתה" (And now) — This conjunction often signals a logical consequence or a turning point, urging immediate action. Here, it pivots from mourning Saul to embracing a new reality. "תחזקנה ידיכם והיו לבני חיל" (Let your hands be strong and be men of valor) — A direct imperative, a call to internal fortitude and active resistance, not just passive acceptance. "גם אתי משחו" (They also anointed me) — The "גם" (also) is critical. David doesn't say "only I" or "instead of him," but implies his anointing complements, or at least follows, the vacuum left by Saul's death, suggesting a continuity of leadership and protection.

• II Samuel 3:9-10: "כה יעשה אלהים לאבנר וכה יוסף לו כי כאשר נשבע ה' לדוד כן אעשה לו. להעביר המלוכה מבית שאול ולהקים את כסא דוד על ישראל ועל יהודה מדן ועד באר שבע."²

  • Dikduk/Leshon: "כה יעשה אלהים לאבנר וכה יוסף לו" (Thus may God do to Abner and thus may He add to him) — A formulaic, powerful oath, binding Abner to his words under divine sanction. "כי כאשר נשבע ה' לדוד" (For as the Lord swore to David) — Abner grounds his political volte-face in theological necessity, presenting himself as an instrument of divine will, not mere opportunism. "על ישראל ועל יהודה מדן ועד באר שבע" (over Israel and over Judah from Dan to Beer-sheba) — This precise geographical scope underscores the vision of a unified kingdom, a goal Abner now ostensibly adopts.

• II Samuel 3:27: "ויטהו יואב אל תוך השער לדבר אתו בשלי ויהרגו שם בבטן ומת על דם עשהאל אחיו."³

  • Dikduk/Leshon: "ויטהו... בשלי" (And he turned him aside... privately/in secret) — The term "בשלי" implies a deceptive maneuver, under the guise of private conversation, betraying the trust of a diplomatic envoy. "בבטן" (in the belly) — A brutal, visceral detail, contrasting with a clean, honorable death. "על דם עשהאל אחיו" (for the blood of Asahel his brother) — Explicitly states the motive as go'el hadam, but the context (diplomatic truce, deceptive murder) challenges its halachic or ethical justification.

Readings

The commentaries on II Samuel 2:7 reveal diverse perspectives on David's message to Jabesh-Gilead, highlighting the political and emotional landscape of the period.

Malbim on II Samuel 2:7

Malbim (R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Weiser, 19th c.) interprets David's words as a pragmatic assurance of protection rather than merely a statement of fact. He writes: "ועתה רצה לומר עתה כי מת אדוניכם שאול ואין מי שילחם בעדכם צריכים אתם להתחזק בעצמכם, ובכ"ז בל תתיאשו לחשוב שאין מגן בעדכם, כי גם אותי משחו בית יהודה ואהיה לכם למשגב בצר."⁴

• Chiddush: Malbim posits that "ועתה" marks a critical juncture: Saul's death leaves Jabesh-Gilead vulnerable. David's call to "תחזקנה ידיכם" is not just for self-reliance but also to alleviate despair, as David himself, though anointed only by Judah, offers himself as a "משגב בצר" (stronghold in distress). He transforms his anointing from a regional claim into an immediate offer of protective leadership for a distressed people.

Metzudat David on II Samuel 2:7

Metzudat David (R. David Altschuler, 18th c.) offers a more direct, almost comparative, reading of David's assertion. He parses the verse into components:

1. "תחזקנה ידיכם. רצה לומר: התחזקו בעצמכם והיו לבני חיל ללחום מלחמתכם."⁵ (Let your hands be strong. Meaning: strengthen yourselves and be men of valor to fight your war.)
2. "כי מת אדוניכם שאול. שהיה לכם מאז לעזר ללחום בעבורכם."⁶ (For your lord Saul is dead. Who was your help from then to fight for you.)
3. "גם אותי משחו. כאומר לא נופל אנכי ממנו, ואהיה גם אני לכם לעזר."⁷ (They also anointed me. As if to say, 'I am not inferior to him, and I will also be an aid to you.')

• Chiddush: Metzudat David emphasizes David's direct assertion of his fitness to replace Saul as a military and political aid. The "גם" (also) implies a qualitative comparison: David is presenting himself as no less capable, perhaps even more so, to provide the protection Saul once offered. This is a claim of functional equivalence, if not superiority.

Alshich on II Samuel 2:7

Alshich (R. Moshe Alshich, 16th c.) delves into the psychological state of Jabesh-Gilead and David's nuanced reassurance. He writes: "ועתה תחזקנה ידכם ואל תרפו ידיכם מחמת שתי סבות א' כי מת אדניכם והשנית כי אותי משחו בית יהודה למלך עליהם ולא על ישראל והיה אפשר על שתי אלה שירפו ידיכם על כן אני מצוה אתכם תחזקנה ידיכם כי גם שאדוניכם היה שונאי ואיני מולך עליכם אשימה עיני עליכם לטובה."⁸

• Chiddush: Alshich identifies two potential causes for despair in Jabesh-Gilead: Saul's death and the fact that David was anointed only over Judah, not all Israel. David's message, according to Alshich, is a powerful reassurance that despite their past loyalty to his adversary and his current limited kingship, he will still look favorably upon them ("אשימה עיני עליכם לטובה"). This highlights David's chesed and his political acumen in transcending historical animosities.

Abarbanel on II Samuel 2:7

Abarbanel (R. Isaac Abravanel, 15th c.) places David's message within the broader context of Israel's post-Saul weakness. He notes: "ואחרי הברכה הזאת צום ועתה תחזקנה ידיכם והיו לבני חיל כי מת אדניכם, ר"ל אל תעשו כשאר בני ישראל שעזבו הערים אחרי מות שאול בחולשתם, אבל אתם תחזקנה ידיכם ותהיו לבני חיל עם היות שמת שאול אדוניכם, וזה בשתלחמו עם אויבי השם כראוי לבני חיל. ואמרו וגם אותי משחו בני יהודה, ר"ל אתם תחזקנה ידיכם גם עתה שמת המלך שאול, כ"ש שכבר הקימו אותי בני יהודה למלך ואני אהיה לכם מעיר לעזור להחזיק בידכם כאשר יבא העת, ומלבד שהחזיק ידיהם בזה הנה הודיעם המלכתו כדי שיהיו אחריו."⁹

• Chiddush: Abarbanel connects "תחזקנה ידיכם" to the general collapse of Israelite morale and the abandonment of cities after Saul's death. David commands Jabesh-Gilead not to follow this trend but to remain strong and fight God's enemies. The "גם אותי משחו" then serves as a secondary, reinforcing argument: not only should they be strong intrinsically, but David's anointing by Judah offers them future external support. David's disclosure of his kingship is thus a strategic move to secure their loyalty and prevent further weakening of the Israelite position.

Friction

The most striking kushya in this sugya revolves around the assassination of Abner by Joab (II Samuel 3:27), juxtaposed with David's vehement condemnation and mourning (II Samuel 3:28-39).

The Kushya

Abner, a pivotal figure, was transitioning from a foe to a crucial ally. He had sworn an oath to God to transfer the kingdom to David (II Samuel 3:9-10) and was actively rallying all Israel, including Benjamin, to David's cause (II Samuel 3:17-19). His diplomatic mission to David in Hebron had just concluded with a pact and a feast (II Samuel 3:20-21). Joab's ambush and murder of Abner under the pretense of a private conversation ("לדבר אתו בשלי")¹⁰ is a clear act of treachery. David's reaction is forceful: he publicly curses Joab and his house (II Samuel 3:28-29), declares his own innocence, and mourns Abner as "נשיא וגדול נפל בישראל" (a prince and a great man has fallen in Israel).¹¹ The friction lies in the apparent contradiction: If Joab's act was justified revenge for Asahel's death (II Samuel 3:27), why does David condemn it so severely, even to the point of a public curse? Was Abner's death a necessary evil, a justifiable act of go'el hadam, or a political blunder and moral failing? The narrative presents David as powerless to punish Joab, stating "אני רך היום ממשח מלך והאנשים האלה בני צרויה קשים ממני" (I am weak this day, though anointed king; and these men, the sons of Zeruiah, are too savage for me).¹² This suggests Joab acted outside royal authority, yet seemingly with impunity.

The Terutzim

Terutz A: Abner as a Continuing Threat (Machshavat Joab)

Some mefarshim suggest that Joab's actions, while perhaps extreme, stemmed from a deeper understanding of Abner's character and the political realities. Abner was an opportunist. His "oath" to God (II Samuel 3:9-10) came only after he had alienated Ish-bosheth by lying with Rizpah (II Samuel 3:7-8). He had fought fiercely against David for years, and his sudden change of allegiance might have been viewed as a tactical shift, not a genuine repentance. Joab, as David's loyal military commander, might have genuinely believed Abner was coming "רק לרמותך ולדעת צאתך ובואך ולדעת את כל אשר אתה עשה" (only to deceive you, to learn your comings and goings, and to find out all that you are planning).¹³ From this perspective, Joab saw Abner as an ongoing threat to David's throne and the stability of the kingdom. While the go'el hadam motive for Asahel was present, it might have been secondary to a calculated political elimination. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 49a, while condemning Joab's method, acknowledges that "אבנר לא נהרג אלא על דם עשהאל"¹⁴ (Abner was killed only for the blood of Asahel), implying a specific, albeit problematic, justification.

Terutz B: David's Condemnation as Halachic and Political Imperative

Other mefarshim emphasize David's condemnation as genuinely reflecting the injustice and detrimental impact of Abner's murder. Abner, at the moment of his death, was under a diplomatic truce, essentially a guest of the king, having just made a covenant. Murdering a person under such circumstances is a severe violation, irrespective of past grievances or even the din rodef. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 49a itself states that "עשהאל רודף היה, ואבנר אנוס היה"¹⁵ (Asahel was a pursuer, and Abner was compelled), meaning Asahel was pursuing Abner to kill him, and Abner killed him in self-defense after repeated warnings (II Samuel 2:22-23). Therefore, Abner was not a chayyav mitah (one liable for death) for Asahel's death in the eyes of halacha. David's public mourning and curse were essential not only to distance himself from the act and preserve his moral authority but also to assert the rule of law over private vengeance. The murder of Abner, a key figure in uniting the tribes, undoubtedly prolonged the civil strife and complicated the peaceful transition of power, serving as a political setback for David. David's lament that "האנשים האלה בני צרויה קשים ממני"¹⁶ underscores his frustration at his inability to enforce justice against powerful subordinates, highlighting the tension between ideal justice and political reality.

Intertext

Intertext 1: David's Mourning for Saul and Jonathan (II Samuel 1:1-27)

David's reaction to Abner's death finds a powerful parallel in his earlier lament for Saul and Jonathan (II Samuel 1:1-27). After receiving news of their deaths, David rends his clothes, fasts, and intones a moving dirge (Qinah). Crucially, he executes the Amalekite who claims to have killed Saul, declaring, "איך לא יראת לשלח ידך לשחת את משיח ה'?"¹⁷ (How were you not afraid to lay your hand on the Lord's anointed?). This establishes a consistent pattern: David condemns those who kill anointed leaders, even his personal enemies (Saul), and expresses profound sorrow for their loss. His mourning for Abner, "נשיא וגדול נפל בישראל"¹⁸, aligns with this established character trait, reinforcing the sincerity of his grief and condemnation of Joab's act. It demonstrates David's consistent moral compass and his understanding of leadership's sanctity, regardless of personal rivalry.

Intertext 2: The Law of the Go'el Hadam and Arei Miklat (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13)

The narrative of Abner's death, justified by Joab as go'el hadam (blood avenger) for Asahel, directly engages with the biblical laws concerning unintentional killing and the cities of refuge (arei miklat). Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13 delineate strict conditions for the go'el hadam to take revenge, primarily when the killing was intentional. For unintentional killing, the slayer could flee to a city of refuge. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 49a, as mentioned, states that Asahel was a rodef (pursuer) and Abner was anus (compelled/acted under duress) in self-defense. This implies Abner's killing of Asahel was unintentional or justified. If so, Joab's act, carried out deceptively and outside the proper judicial process, would not be a legitimate act of go'el hadam according to biblical law. This intertext highlights the profound legal and ethical breach committed by Joab, further validating David's strong condemnation and underscoring the chaotic breakdown of justice when personal vengeance overrides established legal frameworks.

Psak/Practice

The sugya offers a powerful meta-psak heuristic regarding the exercise of power, justice, and the sanctity of life, particularly in times of political transition. David's public denunciation, his curse upon Joab's house (II Samuel 3:28-29), and his public act of mourning, despite his acknowledged "weakness" (II Samuel 3:39), serve as a critical precedent. It demonstrates that even when a king cannot physically enforce justice due to political constraints, he must verbally and symbolically uphold the moral and halachic standard. This reinforces the principle that din (law) and mishpat (justice) are paramount, and that vigilantism, even when cloaked in the guise of vengeance, undermines the very fabric of national unity and legitimate authority. The narrative underscores that the ends (uniting Israel) do not justify illicit means (murdering a peace envoy), and that a leader's moral integrity is crucial, even when his political power is constrained.

Takeaway

Leadership during transition is a crucible where personal loyalties and political necessity clash with divine mandate and ethical imperatives, often with tragic consequences. The narrative powerfully illustrates the enduring tension between the pursuit of justice and the realities of power, highlighting how unchecked private vengeance can undermine the public good and stain even a divinely chosen reign.

---

¹ II Samuel 2:7. ² II Samuel 3:9-10. ³ II Samuel 3:27. ⁴ Malbim on II Samuel 2:7:1. ⁵ Metzudat David on II Samuel 2:7:1. ⁶ Metzudat David on II Samuel 2:7:2. ⁷ Metzudat David on II Samuel 2:7:3. ⁸ Alshich on Marot HaTzoveot on II Samuel 2:7:1. ⁹ Abarbanel on II Samuel 2:7:1. ¹⁰ II Samuel 3:27. ¹¹ II Samuel 3:38. ¹² II Samuel 3:39. ¹³ II Samuel 3:25. ¹⁴ Sanhedrin 49a. ¹⁵ Sanhedrin 49a. ¹⁶ II Samuel 3:39. ¹⁷ II Samuel 1:14. ¹⁸ II Samuel 3:38.