David asked Shelomo to deal with his opponents even though he himself had not done so because he realized that with the change of monarch, there was to be an accompanying change in the strength of the kingdom. This approach subdivides regarding the direction of this change 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.
Early reign: וְאָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם רַךְ וּמָשׁוּחַ מֶלֶךְ – David's words after the killing of Avner express how inadequate he felt to deal with the threat posed by Yoav at that early point in his reign. As Yoav had killed Avner right when David was attempting to unite Israel under his leadership, it was a politically charged period. David had not yet had a chance to prove himself to the nation and to surround himself with enough loyal supporters to act as he pleased.
Middle of reign: wars and sins – The middle of David's reign was marked by both defensive and offensive wars, and thus not an opportune time to eliminate one's chief general. After David's sin with Batsheva he was plagued with family troubles
Late reign: rebellions – The end of David's reign, like the beginning, was turbulent and filled with attempted coups. After Avshalom's rebellion, when Shimi hinted that if David forgave him for his curse he would ensure that the tribes of Yosef return and pledge their allegiance him, David did not feel like he had any other choice but to agree not to kill him. Similarly, after Sheva. b. Bichri's coup, David was in no position to eliminate Yoav since he needed him.
1 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.
"שְׁלֹמֹה בְנִי נַעַר וָרָךְ"
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.
Why didn't David kill Yoav and Shimi? David's lenient attitude was part of a larger policy of forgiving or being merciful to his enemies. For example, despite Shaul's continuous attempts on his life, David refused to allow his men to kill Shaul. Though Avner had backed Ishboshet, David willingly made peace with him. Similarly, though Amasa served as Avshalom's general-in-chief, David not only forgave him, but even appointed him as his own general. Thus, the fact that he did not originally desire the deaths of Yoav and Shimi was not out of character.
"וְאָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם רַךְ וּמָשׁוּחַ מֶלֶךְ" – Hoil Moshe claims that in these words David is not suggesting that he was too young or inexperienced to kill Yoav, since after all he was already 37. Rather, David was saying that he was too soft-hearted [רַךְ] to do so.
What changed? Hoil Moshe suggests that the stresses that David faced at the end of his life changed and hardened him. He does not specify which hardships affected David but is likely referring to the continuous rebellions that plagued the kingdom in its final years.
2 Why not deal with Yoav and Shimi himself? It is possible that David's change of heart came when he was already on his death-bed, and no longer capable.
"שְׁלֹמֹה בְנִי נַעַר וָרָךְ" – Hoil Moshe assumes that Shelomo was relatively young, but no longer a teenager, and thus no incapable of punishing. Moreover, his authority did not come from age but rather from his position as king. David, thus, had no reason to think that Shelomo would not be up to the job.
Evaluating David's Command – The Hoil Moshe views David's change of heart and directive negatively, even suggesting that David's decision and its record in Tanakh is evidence that Tanakh does not hide the foibles of Biblical heroes from its readers. One might, however, suggest the exact opposite. Perhaps the new, harsh policy was the better one, and from the beginning David should not have had mercy on his opponents but rather punished them immediately.
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.
Why didn't David kill Yoav and Shimi? Though David had wanted to kill both Yoav and Shimi, circumstances did not allow him to do so:
- Yoav not legally culpable – Since Yoav killed Avner without witnesses and warning, he did not meet the criteria for capital punishment. Even though David could have exercised his unique rights as king and killed him regardless, being newly anointed and relatively weak,3 he did not feel that it was an opportune time to do so, especially considering the power held by Yoav and his brother, Avishai.4
- Shimi blackmailed David into forgiveness – When Shimi returned as "the first of the house of Yosef" after Avshalom's rebellion, he was ostensibly expressing his remorse for his earlier curse. In reality, though, he was blackmailing David, intimating that if David did not forgive him, he would ensure that Israel not resume their allegiance. Thus, it was only from lack of choice that David swore not to harm him.
No double standards – Abarbanel brings two arguments to prove that David could not have been asking Shelomo to kill his old opponents for their crimes against him:
- Shelomo's inexperience – He points that since Shelomo was still an inexperienced king,5 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 a reneging on his oath. The fact that the death would be by proxy would not absolve David of guilt.
"...וְגַם אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה" – David tells Shelomo to be wary of Yoav's past deeds, not so that he can punish them, but so that he should recognize the type of person he is. Thus, if he does similar acts during Shelomo's reign, Shelomo should know to respond appropriately.
"וְלֹא תוֹרֵד שֵׂיבָתוֹ בְּשָׁלֹם שְׁאֹל" – Abarbanel reinterprets this phrase, claiming that it does not mean that Shelomo should kill Yoav but that the two should not sit in peace with each other, or, in other words, that Shelomo should make sure to exile Yoav, and thus eliminate any threat he might represent.
"אַל תְּנַקֵּהוּ.. וְהוֹרַדְתָּ אֶת שֵׂיבָתוֹ בְּדָם שְׁאוֹל" – These words are even more difficult for this approach as they imply that David was, in fact, requesting that Shelomo kill Shimi for his previous treason. Abarbanel and Malbim, thus, explain that David is not speaking of the past, but only warning Shelomo that if Shimi acts similarly under Shelomo's reign, then "do not hold him guiltless..." but kill him if necessary.
6 Shelomo's motives – When killing both Yoav and Shimi, Shelomo alludes to their crimes against David,
7 suggesting that he was, in fact, punishing them for those deeds and not for their actions against him personally.
- 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 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 opponents8 and declare that he was punishing them not only for their disloyalty to him but also for their prior deeds.