YINR 929: Tanach Yomi

Josh Blechner
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Judaism
  • Updated Daily

A short thought for each chapter/perek in Tanach for Tanach yomi/daily Bible study by Josh Blechner

  1. 13h ago

    II Shmuel 11: A Millstone around your neck and a Millstone one your head

    David and Batsheva is one of the more controversial stories in Tanach. Did David sin with Batsheva? Was Batsheva really divorced so it was not an affair? Did David really have Uriah killed for no reason or did Uriah deserve to be killed because he refused an order from the king? There are strong allegiances to each side of the debate. Chapter 11, and the absence of the full story from the book of Chronicles, does seem to indicate that whatever happened it was quite untoward. Adding to the debate is a non-sequitur that appears in the middle of the story. David sends a message to Yoav to send Uriah to the front lines on a suicide mission attacking a walled city head on with archers shooting down (הָבוּ אֶת־אוּרִיָּה אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַחֲזָקָה וְשַׁבְתֶּם מֵאַחֲרָיו וְנִכָּה וָמֵת) (II Samuel 11:15). Yoav complies and Uriah is killed. Yoav sends a message back to David to let him know the plan was a success. Instead of just relaying the message, Yoav adds a reference to the book of Judges. He tells the messenger that David may be upset by the attack on the wall because back in Judges Abimelech was killed by a woman dropping a millstone on his head as he attacked a tower. “Who struck down Abimelech son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who dropped an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died at Thebez? Why did you approach the wall?” (מִי־הִכָּה אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן־יְרֻבֶּשֶׁת הֲלוֹא־אִשָּׁה הִשְׁלִיכָה עָלָיו פֶּלַח רֶכֶב מֵעַל הַחוֹמָה וַיָּמׇת בְּתֵבֵץ לָמָּה נִגַּשְׁתֶּם אֶל־הַחוֹמָה) (II Samuel 11:21; cf. Judges 9:53). What does Abimelech getting killed have to do with the story? Yoav knew that David gave the direct order to send Uriah to the front, so why would he be upset? Yoav may be trying to send a subtle message to David. Abimelech represented the first of the “bad judges.” He went around doing whatever he wanted and instead of leading the people, he held them hostage. The message to David could be to be careful about what you are doing. Sending Uriah to his death would have been something Abimelech would have done. Yoav does not want to see David corrupting his power by treating his subjects without respect. Another possible message could be the way Abimelech died. The text makes a big deal that Abimelech was killed by a woman (וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ אִשָּׁה אַחַת פֶּלַח רֶכֶב עַל־רֹאשׁ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַתָּרֶץ אֶת־גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ) (Judges 9:53). Perhaps the message is that David needs to be careful. He is risking everything for Batsheva. It is not that Batsheva will kill him, but what he is willing to do to have her could result in the downfall of his monarchy.

  2. 1d ago

    II Shmuel 10: Spy Games

    When a ruler dies, his offspring have an opportunity to change course. Other rulers who want to keep things the same will try to appease the new leader, sometimes by reminding him of treaties and friendships. David tries to do the same here with Nachash’s son, Hanun. He sends a delegation to the new king to wish him well, bring gifts, and solidify the friendship between David and the ruler of Ammon. Hanun has other plans. The delegation arrives and his advisors warn him: “Do you think David is really honoring your father just because he sent you men with condolences? Why, David has sent his courtiers to you to explore and spy out the city, and to overthrow it” (הַמְכַבֵּד דָּוִד אֶת־אָבִיךָ בְּעֵינֶיךָ כִּי־שָׁלַח לְךָ מְנַחֲמִים הֲלוֹא בַּעֲבוּר חֲקֹר אֶת־הָעִיר וּלְרַגְּלָהּ וּלְהׇפְכָהּ שָׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת־עֲבָדָיו אֵלֶיךָ) (II Samuel 10:3). Hanun listens to his advisors and instead of welcoming the delegation, he cuts off their beards and the bottoms of their clothes, exposing their g******s (וַיִּקַּח חָנוּן אֶת־עַבְדֵי דָוִד וַיְגַלַּח אֶת־חֲצִי זְקָנָם וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת־מַדְוֵיהֶם בַּחֲצִי עַד שְׁתוֹתֵיהֶם וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם) (II Samuel 10:4). Not only was this embarrassing for the ministers themselves, but it was also religiously humiliating for the Israelites who did not shave and who had tzitzit on the corners of their garments. Think of the horrific pictures of Nazis shaving the peot off of Jews. The act was a major miscalculation by Hanun that ends in disaster. Perhaps, however, the episode echoes an earlier incident in Jewish history. During the famine, Yaakov sent his sons to Egypt to purchase food. When they arrived before Yosef, who had risen to become Egypt’s viceroy, he did not welcome them. Instead, he accused them of espionage: “You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land” (מְרַגְּלִים אַתֶּם לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם) (Genesis 42:9). The brothers protested, insisting that they were honest men and not spies (כֻּלָּנוּ בְּנֵי־אִישׁ אֶחָד נָחְנוּ כֵּנִים אֲנַחְנוּ לֹא־הָיוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִים) (Genesis 42:11), but Yosef repeated the accusation: “No, you have come to see the nakedness of the land” (לֹא כִּי עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם לִרְאוֹת) (Genesis 42:12). Hanun’s advisors make the same accusation against David’s delegation that Yosef made against his brothers: they are not diplomats but spies. Moreover, just as Yosef repeatedly spoke of uncovering the “nakedness” of the land, Hanun responds by literally exposing the nakedness of David’s servants. Yosef was able to conceal his identity behind the beard and royal garments of an Egyptian ruler. Perhaps David’s servants suffer the humiliation of having their beards removed and their clothing cut away as a measure-for-measure reminder of Yosef’s treatment of his brothers centuries earlier

  3. 2d ago

    II Shmuel 9: The Curious Case of the Dead Dog Metaphor

    David made a promise to Jonathan that he would watch over his descendants (וְלֹא־תַכְרִית אֶת־חַסְדְּךָ מֵעִם־בֵּיתִי עַד־עוֹלָם) (I Samuel 20:15). He searches the land for any remaining descendants and is told there is only a young, handicapped boy who is left. Earlier in the book, in an aside, the Navi explained that Mephiboshet’s legs were broken when his maidservant dropped him in shock after hearing about the death of Shaul and Jonathan (וַתִּשָּׂאֵהוּ אֹמַנְתּוֹ וַתָּנֹס וַיְהִי בְּחׇפְזָהּ לָנוּס וַיִּפֹּל וַיִּפָּסֵחַ) (II Samuel 4:4). Although Mephiboshet could have been in line after Ish Boshet was killed, it seems like his handicap kept him out of the spotlight. David summons Mephiboshet to elevate him to David’s table and to give him all the lands of his grandfather Shaul. During the audience, “[Mephibosheth] prostrated himself again, and said, ‘What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog like me?’” (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיֹּאמֶר מֶה עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי פָנִיתָ אֶל־הַכֶּלֶב הַמֵּת אֲשֶׁר כָּמוֹנִי) (verse 8). Mephiboshet’s choice of words is interesting here. He uses the exact same phrase that David used back in I Samuel 24 after he cut Shaul’s cloak. “Against whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog? A single flea?” (אַחֲרֵי מִי יָצָא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי מִי אַתָּה רֹדֵף אַחֲרֵי כֶּלֶב מֵת אַחֲרֵי פַּרְעֹשׁ אֶחָד) (I Samuel 24:15). Why would Mephiboshet use this same phrase? It is possible that this was simply a turn of phrase that one used at the time to mean someone low and insignificant. Indeed, Avner uses a similar phrase for the opposite effect when Ish Boshet accuses him of sleeping with Shaul’s concubine (הֲרֹאשׁ כֶּלֶב אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה) (II Samuel 3:8). Later, the phrase will be used by Avishai to describe Shimi when Shimi curses David as he flees Jerusalem from his son (לָמָּה יְקַלֵּל הַכֶּלֶב הַמֵּת הַזֶּה אֶת־אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ) (II Samuel 16:9). But there may be another reason Mephiboshet uses this phrase. After David uses it to describe himself, Shaul suddenly snaps out of his rage and begins to cry. He recognized David and proclaimed that he knows David is more righteous than he and that David will surely be king (וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־מָלֹךְ תִּמְלוֹךְ וְקָמָה בְּיָדְךָ מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל) (I Samuel 24:21). He then charges David: “So swear to me by the LORD that you will not destroy my descendants or wipe out my name from my father’s house” (וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי בַּה׳ אִם־תַּכְרִית אֶת־זַרְעִי אַחֲרָי וְאִם־תַּשְׁמִיד אֶת־שְׁמִי מִבֵּית אָבִי) (I Samuel 24:22). Jonathan and David’s promise was made in secret, but Shaul’s was made out in public, in front of his ministers. It is possible that one of them relayed this story to Mephiboshet, and now Mephiboshet uses this exact phrase when speaking to David to remind him of the promise he made Shaul.

  4. 3d ago

    II Shmuel 8: Eye of the Tiger

    The average movie is around 2 hours, however the timeframe of the movie usually takes place over longer periods of time. To solve for this, films employ the classic film-making tool called a montage. In a montage, several scenes are depicted in quick succession showing events that take place over a longer period of time, typically accompanied by music. A classic example of this is the training scene in Rocky with “Eye of the Tiger” playing in the background. Chapter 8 of II Samuel is the biblical version of the montage. After David solidifies his kingdom, and his request to build the Temple is denied, he goes on several quests to expand Israel’s territory and subdue the enemies around him. Chapter 8 hits nations in the north, south, and west. David expands the borders to the lines that God promised Abraham. All of this happens in 12 short verses. The chapter rapidly moves from one victory to another: over the Philistines (וַיַּךְ דָּוִד אֶת־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּכְנִיעֵם) (II Samuel 8:1), Moab (וַיַּךְ אֶת־מוֹאָב) (II Samuel 8:2), Aram and Hadadezer (וַיַּךְ דָּוִד אֶת־הֲדַדְעֶזֶר בֶּן־רְחֹב מֶלֶךְ צוֹבָה) (II Samuel 8:3), and Edom (וַיָּשֶׂם בֶּאֱדוֹם נְצִבִים) (II Samuel 8:14), while repeatedly emphasizing that וַה׳ הוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת־דָּוִד בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הָלָךְ (“the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went”) (II Samuel 8:6, 14). “David gained fame (made a name for himself) when he returned from defeating Edom in the Valley of Salt, 18,000 in all” (וַיַּעַשׂ דָּוִד שֵׁם בְּשֻׁבוֹ מֵהַכּוֹתוֹ אֶת־אֲרָם בְּגֵיא־מֶלַח שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר אָלֶף) (verse 13). David’s reputation as a leader and warrior is now known across the Middle East. The Tanach of the Land of Israel, book of Samuel, explains that “David made a name for himself” may mean that he erected a stone stele as was the custom of contemporary leaders. These stone monuments told of great victories by the monarch. The fact that David may have built one or more of these monuments is testament to the extent of his power. David felt secure enough as leader of the Israelites to announce his victories in the same manner of the kings he had just defeated.

  5. Sep 10

    II Shmuel 7: A House or a Temple

    David is in a palace and the Ark sits under a tent. Irked by this imbalance, David wishes to build a Temple for God. Initially, Natan the prophet is all in, but then God appears to Natan and tells him to reverse course. Why did God not want David to build the Temple? The conventional wisdom is that David fought wars, but that is not mentioned here. Instead, that answer appears later in the book of Chronicles. The Mishkan was nomadic, so it matched the people at the time. David thought that now that the people were established, God would want an established house. But God is not on the same page. Reading the chapter, it sounds like God does not want a physical house. God promises to establish David’s house forever, not a physical one, but a generational and reputational one (וַהֲגִיד לְךָ ה׳ כִּי־בַיִת יַעֲשֶׂה־לְּךָ ה׳) (II Samuel 7:11). God also explains that David’s son will “build a house for My name, and I will establish his royal throne forever” (הוּא יִבְנֶה־בַּיִת לִשְׁמִי וְכֹנַנְתִּי אֶת־כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ עַד־עוֹלָם) (verse 13). This is very different from David’s request to build a house for God to abide in. God never rebuked the people for failure to build a Temple all of these years. It was never God’s request for a Temple. In fact, God says explicitly: כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת לְמִיּוֹם הַעֲלֹתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּאֹהֶל וּבְמִשְׁכָּן (“I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up from Egypt until this day, but have moved about in tent and tabernacle”) (II Samuel 7:6). God then asks rhetorically: הֲדָבָר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... לֵאמֹר לָמָּה לֹא־בְנִיתֶם לִי בֵּית אֲרָזִים (“Did I ever say to any of the tribes of Israel... ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”) (II Samuel 7:7). To add a Midrashic spin, the word “house” (בַּיִת) appears twelve times in the chapter after David proposes to build the Temple. Perhaps this number 12 is a symbolic way for the Navi to show that God does not need a physical house. God’s true home is within the twelve tribes of Israel.

  6. Sep 9

    II Shmuel 6: Dancing in the Street

    After conquering his capital city, David now turns his attention to the Ark of the Covenant. Since the Philistines returned the Ark on two wandering cattle, it had been situated in the house of Obed-Edom. The procession is festive with musical instruments and dancing. Along the way, however, the Ark slips, and Uzzah reaches out to protect it. God is angry that Uzzah thought the Ark needed protection from man. Uzzah dies on the spot (וַיִּשְׁלַח עֻזָּה אֶל־אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאחֶז בּוֹ כִּי שָׁמְטוּ הַבָּקָר. וַיִּחַר־אַף ה׳ בְּעֻזָּה וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל־הַשַּׁל) (II Samuel 6:6-7). David stops the procession for a period of time following the tragic death, but then continues the procession up to the City of David. While the people gather around in the procession playing music, David dances and flips in front of the Ark wearing an ephod (וְדָוִד מְכַרְכֵּר בְּכׇל־עֹז לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְדָוִד חָגוּר אֵפוֹד בָּד) (II Samuel 6:14). As the procession passes David’s palace, Michal, his wife, looks out the window “and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him for it” (וּמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל נִשְׁקְפָה בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן וַתֵּרֶא אֶת־הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד מְפַזֵּז וּמְכַרְכֵּר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַתִּבֶז לוֹ בְּלִבָּהּ) (verse 16). Later, when David returns home, Michal expresses the source of her displeasure: “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today, exposing himself today in the sight of the slavegirls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself” (מַה־נִּכְבַּד הַיּוֹם מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר נִגְלָה הַיּוֹם לְעֵינֵי אַמְהוֹת עֲבָדָיו כְּהִגָּלוֹת נִגְלוֹת אַחַד הָרֵקִים) (verse 20). David is furious with her response and raises the temperature by attacking Michal’s father Shaul (לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר־בִּי מֵאָבִיךְ וּמִכׇּל־בֵּיתוֹ) (verse 21). Was Michal right to criticize David? Michal’s point is that the king needs to have some level of respectability no matter the circumstance. Her concern seems to read as a classist response focusing only on the high status that a king should have. But this is out of character for Michal. She does not act like a highborn snobby person anywhere else in the text. Furthermore, “respect for the king” seems to be what David himself espoused while on the run from Shaul. Twice he had the chance to kill Shaul but instead chose not to. Each time he ordered his guards not to kill the anointed of God (חָלִילָה לִּי מֵה׳ אֶשְׁלַח יָדִי בִּמְשִׁיחַ ה׳) (I Samuel 24:7; 26:11). Similarly, he killed the Amalekite and Ish Boshet’s guards for disrespecting the office of the king even when they killed his sworn enemy. So it also seems out of character for David to be upset at her protestations. Perhaps the Navi gives a hint as to Michal’s motivation in verse 16. The Navi makes the point to add that Michal looked out the window (וּמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל נִשְׁקְפָה בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן) (verse 16). The last time David and Michal were together with a window was back in I Samuel 19. Shaul sends officers to kill David, and Michal lowers David out the window to safety (וַתּוֹרֶד מִיכַל אֶת־דָּוִד בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן) (I Samuel 19:12). The two do not meet again until after Shaul dies. Michal saw firsthand what happens when a king debases his position by acting irrationally. She had to lower her husband out the window to save him from her raving father. Now, looking out a window again, she fears she sees her husband forgetting the lessons of Shaul. Unfortunately, David does not understand, and instead impulsively curses her. The shock of seeing her husband exhibiting similar dangerous characteristics as her father may have led to Michal swearing off further royal offspring. Indeed, the chapter closes: וּלְמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל לֹא־הָיָה לָהּ יָלֶד עַד יוֹם מוֹתָהּ (“And Michal daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death”) (II Samuel 6:23).

  7. Sep 8

    II Shmuel 5: Three Blind Mice

    David’s first act as king is to attempt to conquer Jerusalem. As he approaches the city, the Jebusite inhabitants call out to the approaching army: “You will never get in here! Even the blind and the lame will turn you back” (לֹא תָבוֹא הֵנָּה כִּי אִם־הֱסִירְךָ הַעִוְרִים וְהַפִּסְחִים לֵאמֹר לֹא־יָבוֹא דָוִד הֵנָּה) (verse 6). Later, David tells his troops: “‘Those who attack the Jebusites shall reach the water channel and [strike down] the lame and the blind, who are hateful to David.’” That is why they say: “‘No one who is blind or lame may enter the House.’” (כׇּל־מַכֵּה יְבֻסִי וְיִגַּע בַּצִּנּוֹר וְאֶת־הַפִּסְחִים וְאֶת־הַעִוְרִים שְׂנֻאֵי נֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד ... עַל־כֵּן יֹאמְרוּ עִוֵּר וּפִסֵּחַ לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל־הַבָּיִת) (verse 8). Why do the inhabitants taunt David with these words? What does David mean by striking down the blind and the lame? According to Rashi, the blind and the lame referred to Jebusite idols. They claimed their two gods would protect the city. David was incensed that they would taunt him with idolatry. He told his army that he would reward those who destroy the idols. Rashi’s reading is interesting as up until now, almost all idols had names. These seem to go by a description. It does make sense that the Jebusites would look to their gods and that David would want to destroy them. This is similar to the Assyrian Lamassu (human-headed winged bulls or lions) that guarded the gates of Assyrian cities. Another possibility is that David was making a pun. These statues were lame and blind because all idols have eyes but do not see and feet but do not walk. Ralbag takes a similar approach. His understanding is that these were not idols, but statues. These two statues were guarding the gate by being connected to a mechanism that locked the city walls with iron rods. The statues were controlled by the water cistern that turned the statues and moved the rods. The taunt to David is that he could not enter the city as long as these gatekeepers were in the locked position. This is why later David tells his soldiers that removing the blind and lame statues by reaching the water cistern would be the only way to enter the city. Metzudat David explains that these were not idols but actual people. The Jebusites believed that the inhabitants of the city were so strong that even the blind and lame could defend against the city. David’s charge to his people is to reach the water cistern and then everyone would see that this claim was nothing more than an empty threat. Radak brings a Midrashic interpretation. Avraham had sworn an oath to the Jebusites and Avimelech that none of his descendants would harm the city as long as Avimelech’s descendants controlled it. The Jebusites erected two statues as monuments to this oath. One was blind like Yitzchak and the other was lame like Yaakov. These two descendants of Avraham “stood guard” of the city to repel any attempt by the Israelites to conquer it. David’s charge to the people is to explain that this oath is no longer in effect as the descendants of Avimelech no longer dwelled there.

  8. Sep 7

    II Shmuel 4: Right to Execute?

    Sometimes you read a chapter of Tanach and it immediately clicks that the chapter reminds you of a similar story you just read in Tanach. For example, the two stories of David sneaking up to Shaul in I Samuel, once cutting his robe and once stealing his spear. It is rare, however, to have someone in the actual text notice the similarities between the stories. In chapter 4, two guards of Ish Boshet kill him in his sleep (וַיָּבֹאוּ הֵנָּה עַד־תּוֹךְ הַבַּיִת לֹקְחֵי חִטִּים וַיַּכֻּהוּ אֶל־הַחֹמֶשׁ) (II Samuel 4:6). The two then cut off Ish Boshet’s head and bring it to David hoping for a reward for vanquishing David’s enemy (וַיִּכְרְתוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ אִישׁ־בֹּשֶׁת וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ וַיֵּלְכוּ דֶּרֶךְ הָעֲרָבָה כׇּל־הַלָּיְלָה) (II Samuel 4:7). This story sounds very similar to the one in chapter 1, when the Amalek convert comes to David with Shaul’s crown to tell him he died (וָאֶקַּח הַנֵּזֶר אֲשֶׁר עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וְאֶצְעָדָה אֲשֶׁר עַל־זְרֹעוֹ וָאָבִיאֵם הֵנָּה אֶל־אֲדֹנִי) (II Samuel 1:10). David himself sees the similarities. “The man who told me in Ziklag that Saul was dead thought he was bringing good news. But instead of rewarding him for the news, I seized and killed him. How much more, then, when wicked men have killed a blameless man in bed in his own house! I will certainly avenge his blood on you, and I will rid the earth of you” (כִּי הַמַּגִּיד לִי לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה־מֵת שָׁאוּל וְהוּא הָיָה כִמְבַשֵּׂר בְּעֵינָיו וָאֹחֲזָה בוֹ וָאֶהְרְגֵהוּ בְּצִקְלָג... אַף כִּי אֲנָשִׁים רְשָׁעִים הָרְגוּ אֶת־אִישׁ־צַדִּיק בְּבֵיתוֹ עַל־מִשְׁכָּבוֹ וְעַתָּה הֲלוֹא אֲבַקֵּשׁ אֶת־דָּמוֹ מִיֶּדְכֶם וּבִעַרְתִּי אֶתְכֶם מִן־הָאָרֶץ) (verses 10-11). David did not need to be up on his 929 to remember a story that just happened. But it brings up an interesting question: was David right to kill the Amalek convert and was he right to kill the two king’s guards? One could argue that the guards’ case is straightforward. They actually killed the king in his sleep. David never called for Ish Boshet’s death. He never even attacked Ish Boshet’s forces. Ish Boshet never pursued David like Shaul did. The Amalekite case is different. His account of the story seems to conflict with the Navi’s account in I Samuel 31. Shaul is felled by arrows and he requests that his arms bearer kill him so that the Philistines would not torture him (וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו שְׁלֹף חַרְבְּךָ וְדׇקְרֵנִי בָהּ פֶּן־יָבֹאוּ הָעֲרֵלִים הָאֵלֶּה וְדִקְּרֻנִי וְהִתְעַלְּלוּ־בִי) (I Samuel 31:4). When the arms bearer hesitates, Shaul kills himself (וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת־הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ) (I Samuel 31:4). But in the Amalekite’s retelling, Shaul was still alive when he approached him on the field (וָאֶעֱמֹד עָלָיו וַאֲמֹתְתֵהוּ כִּי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי לֹא יִחְיֶה אַחֲרֵי נִפְלוֹ) (II Samuel 1:10). Perhaps the Amalekite embellished the story hoping that the added fact that he killed Shaul would gain favor with David. David does not investigate the matter, but instead takes the Amalekite at his word and kills him (פִּיךָ עָנָה בְךָ לֵאמֹר אָנֹכִי מֹתַתִּי אֶת־מְשִׁיחַ ה׳) (II Samuel 1:16). Just like Ish Boshet’s guards, the Amalekite disregards everything that David did up until that point. David never tries to kill Shaul. David may have been right to kill these individuals for regicide, but he may have been guilty himself of not making his plans known to all.

See All (276)

About

A short thought for each chapter/perek in Tanach for Tanach yomi/daily Bible study by Josh Blechner

Information

  • Creator
    Josh Blechner
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    276
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Josh Blechner
  • Show Website
    YINR 929: Tanach Yomi

You Might Also Like