Difference between revisions of "David's Deathbed Instructions to Shelomo/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
<category>No Change | <category>No Change | ||
<p>David's instructions to Shelomo were not a request to exterminate his enemies, and did not reflect a reversal of the policies of his own reign. He was simply warning his son to be wary of potential political opponents.</p> | <p>David's instructions to Shelomo were not a request to exterminate his enemies, and did not reflect a reversal of the policies of his own reign. He was simply warning his son to be wary of potential political opponents.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI2" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI2" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-5-6" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-5-6" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:5-6</a><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-8-8" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:8-8</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink></mekorot> | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI2" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI2" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:5-7</a><a href="AbarbanelMelakhimI2-8-9" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:8-9</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-5-6" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-5-6" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:5-6</a><a href="MalbimMelakhimI2-8-8" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 2:8-8</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>No double standards</b> – Abarbanel brings two arguments to prove that David could not have been asking Shelomo to kill his old opponents for their crimes against him:<br/> | <point><b>No double standards</b> – Abarbanel brings two arguments to prove that David could not have been asking Shelomo to kill his old opponents for their crimes against him:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> |
Version as of 09:52, 12 June 2018
David's Deathbed Instructions to Shelomo
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators struggle to explain why David directed Shelomo to kill his enemies, when he himself had not done so. According to one position, David's inaction stemmed from a lack of ability. Due to the turmoil which marked his reign, he never found the right opportunity to eliminate his foes, and therefore left the task to be completed during the more stable reign of his son. A second approach suggests the exact opposite. David, being a powerful king, had no need to actively kill his enemies in order to keep them from undermining his rule. Shelomo, in contrast, who began his reign as a young boy, did not have this luxury and would be forced to exterminate his foes if he wished to rule unopposed.
Hoil Moshe suggests a third possibility, that David simply had a change of heart. Though he initially felt that a policy of clemency towards enemies was the proper path, the stresses of the end of his life hardened him, leading him to advise Shelomo to act differently. Finally, Abarbanel maintains that really David's words did not constitute a new policy at all. He was not asking his son to kill anyone, only warning him to be cautious around political opponents.
Changing Circumstances
David asked Shelomo to deal with his opponents because he realized that with the change of monarch, there was to be an accompanying change in the strength of the kingdom which would necessitate different policies towards internal foes. This approach subdivides regarding the direction of this change in power and whether it views David or Shelomo as the stronger king:
From Weakness to Strength
As much of David's reign was marked by turmoil and attempted rebellions, he never found himself in the position of strength needed to assassinate his opponents. Shelomo, in contrast, was a powerful monarch whose reign was marked by stability, allowing him to easily eliminate enemies.
- Civil war – Yoav killed Avner right as David was attempting to unite Israel under his leadership after the civil war with Ishboshet. David had not yet consolidated his power or proven himself to the nation, making him hesitant to retaliate, as he says: "וְאָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם רַךְ וּמָשׁוּחַ מֶלֶךְ וְהָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי צְרוּיָה קָשִׁים מִמֶּנִּי".1
- Internationals wars – The middle of David's reign was marked by both defensive and offensive wars,2 and thus also not an opportune time in which to eliminate a general-in-chief.
- Sin and punishment – After David's sin with Batsheva, and Yoav's role in the cover-up, it became increasingly difficult to kill Yoav. The family troubles that plagued David in the aftermath of the sin likely distracted David from thoughts of revenge, as had more pressing issues to deal with.
- Rebellions – The end of David's reign was filled with attempted coups. As such, after Avshalom's rebellion, when Shimi hinted that if David forgave him for his curse he would ensure that the tribes of Yosef re-pledge their allegiance to him, David did not feel like he had any other choice but to agree not to kill him.3 Similarly, after Sheva. b. Bichri's coup, David was again in no position to eliminate Yoav.4
- Regarding Shimi, David knew that due to his oath, Shelomo would not be able to simply kill Shimi for his cursing of David since that would constitute a reneging on the oath. Thus, David told Shelomo to act with wile and convict him of a different capital crime. Similarly, once David had ignored Yoav's crimes for so long it would not be possible to suddenly punish him for them, so David advised his son to use his cunning to accomplish the goal.
- Alternatively, it is possible that David recognized that even if Shelomo's kingdom was stable and powerful, these opponents were nonetheless formidable threats and would require Shelomo's wisdom and guile to overpower.
- It is possible that David was not expecting Shelomo to act immediately, but rather to wait until he was established on the throne.5 David likely felt that he had ushered in an era of stability on the international front, so that within a few years Shelomo would be a powerful monarch capable of overcoming any internal enemies.
- David might have also recognized his son's extraordinary wisdom,6 and assumed that it would compensate for lack of experience or power.
From Strength to Weakness
As David was a strong king, he had no need to kill his opponents and could keep them in check without bloodshed. Shelomo, though, was a young boy who would need to rid himself of any threats to his kingdom.
- "וַיָּשֶׂם דְּמֵי מִלְחָמָה בְּשָׁלֹם" – Yoav allowed Avner and Amasa to think that he was at peace with them, so they were not wary around him.
- "בַּחֲגֹרָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר בְּמׇתְנָיו" – When killing Amasa, Yoav placed his sword in his belt in a manner which would allow it to fall so he could pick it up and use it without arousing suspicion.10
- "וּבְנַעֲלוֹ אֲשֶׁר בְּרַגְלָיו" – Yoav pretended to ask Avner a halakhic question regarding "חליצת הנעל" so that when Avner demonstrated the process, Yoav could easily attack.
- Regarding Shimi, David was hampered by his oath, which precluded him from killing him.
- Regarding Yoav, David likely felt that after Yoav's backing of Adoniyahu, it would have been impossible to punish Yoav with death while still sparing Adoniyahu.12 As he was not ready to kill Adoniyahu, he needed to spare Yoav as well.
Change of Heart
During most of his reign, David intentionally maintained a policy of clemency towards his enemies, refusing to kill them. The stresses of the end of his life, however, hardened him, making him rethink this policy and instruct Shelomo to act differently.
No Change
David's instructions to Shelomo were not a request to exterminate his enemies, and did not reflect a reversal of the policies of his own reign. He was simply warning his son to be wary of potential political opponents.
- Shelomo's inexperience – He points out that since Shelomo was still an inexperienced king,15 in the same position that David himself had been when Yoav killed Avner, it does not make sense that David would have instructed him to do what he himself had been loathe to do under the same circumstances.
- Oath to Shimi still binding – He further points out that asking Shelomo to kill Shimi would be reneging on his oath. The fact that the death would be by proxy would not absolve David of guilt.
- "וַיָּשֶׂם דְּמֵי מִלְחָמָה בְּשָׁלֹם" – Yoav is a trickster who pretends to be at peace, when his intention is really to kill. The phrase "וַיָּשֶׂם דְּמֵי מִלְחָמָה בְּשָׁלֹם" means that Yoav's spilling of blood was an action worthy of doing only in wartime, against an enemy, yet he did so against those with whom he was supposedly at peace. David, thus, warns Shelomo to be careful in his interactions with Yoav, and to be fully cognizant of his potential for deceit .
- "וַיִּתֵּן דְּמֵי מִלְחָמָה בַּחֲגֹרָתוֹ" – David shares that Yoav had put the blood of Avner and Amasa on his belt and shoe for all to see to teach Shelomo that Yoav is someone who gloats over his evil deeds, as if they were worthy of emulation.16
- Excuse for Benayahu – Abarbanel addresses the issue only by Yoav and suggests that Shelomo's words were addressed specifically to Benayahu who was uncomfortable killing Yoav by the altar. Shelomo, thus, comforted him pointing out that Yoav was culpable on multiple fronts, not just for backing Adoniyahu, but also for having intentionally killed innocents regarding which the Torah itself states "וְכִי יָזִד אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ לְהׇרְגוֹ בְעׇרְמָה מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת" (Shemot 24:14).
- Shelomo deviated from David's will – This position could also respond that despite David not requesting their deaths, Shelomo, on his own, felt a need to avenge his father's honor. Thus, he went beyond his father's exhortations and when the opportunity arose, he made sure to kill his opponents19 and declare that he was punishing them not only for their disloyalty to him but also for their prior deeds.