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. 1d ago

    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.

  2. 2d ago

    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).

  3. 3d ago

    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.

  4. 4d ago

    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.

  5. 5d ago

    II Shmuel 3: Did He or Didn't He?

    Avner returns to Ish Boshet following the debacle at the pool in chapter 2, only to be greeted with a shocking accusation. Ish Boshet charges his general with sleeping with Shaul’s concubine, unfortunately named Ritzpah. Avner reacts with outrage, but it is not immediately clear whether his anger stems from the accusation being false or from Ish Boshet’s audacity in confronting him. Metzudat Tzion believes that Avner did in fact sleep with Ritzpah. Since only the king could take possession of a royal concubine, Avner’s actions reflected an inflated sense of his own importance. Having installed Ish Boshet on the throne, Avner may have begun to view himself as the true power behind the kingdom. Under this reading, Avner is offended not because the accusation is false, but because he feels Ish Boshet is ungrateful for everything he has done on his behalf. In effect, Avner's response becomes: after all I have done for you, this is what you choose to challenge me about? The alternative is that Avner never touched Ritzpah at all. In that case, his reaction reflects genuine shock. The house of Shaul came from the tribe of Binyamin, a tribe still haunted by the memory of the concubine of Givah and the near destruction that followed. Avner may have been appalled that Ish Boshet would accuse him of a transgression so closely associated with one of the darkest moments in Benjaminite history. If Avner was innocent, why would Ish Boshet make such a charge? Perhaps the answer lies in the aftermath of chapter 2. Following the inconclusive battle between the forces of David and Ish Boshet, Ish Boshet may have sensed weakness in his powerful general. Seeing an opportunity to assert his own authority, he attempted to sideline Avner by floating a damaging accusation. It was a serious miscalculation. Instead of weakening Avner, Ish Boshet drove him into David’s camp. Ish Boshet’s response in verse 11 underscores just how much power Avner wielded. "He could not answer Avner another word, because he feared him." In the first interpretation, Ish Boshet fears the reaction of a general he has just publicly accused of misconduct. He understands that Avner may now turn against him. In the second interpretation, the verse reveals a deeper truth: Ish Boshet had always been afraid of Avner. That fear led him to strike when he thought Avner was vulnerable, but when the plan failed, he still lacked the courage to confront him. Faced with Avner’s open defection, Ish Boshet could do nothing but remain silent.

  6. Sep 3

    II Shmuel 2: Did Han Fire First?

    In the original Star Wars there is a scene where Han Solo meets with Greedo, a green colored galactic bounty hunter, at a bar in Tatooine. After a tense conversation, Han Solo shoots Greedo under the table to save himself. In the original version, Han Solo fires first, but in the later “director’s cut,” George Lucas has Greedo pull his gun, so it looks like Han Solo shot in self-defense. This change created a huge controversy among Star Wars fanatics. Who shot first- Han or Greedo? Became a major debate in Star Wars fan forums. Chapter 2 sets up a similar question. The text is a little ambiguous as to the status of the rift between Ish Boshet as king over Israel except for the tribe of David, and David as king over the tribe of Judah. The two seem to co-exist without any major battle. Ish Boshet is fearful of David, and David most likely is continuing his reticence to rock the boat too much and make the first move. The cold war between the two is highlighted by the opening scene in chapter 2. Avner- Ish Boshet’s general and Yoav, David’s general meet at a pool with a unit of soldiers. Then the peace ends. But who is responsible? Avenr is the one who suggests that the troops “play.” The meaning of the word is ambiguous. Did he mean that they should merely spar, or was this some sort of champions battle - similar to David verses Goliath. The result is tragic- each set of sparring soldiers simultaneously kills the other. Was Yoav responsible? Perhaps he agrees with Avner because he has an ulterior motive. Maybe Avner meant for this to merely be a sparring practice, but Yoav instructed his troops to kill. The true Greedo/Han Solo moment is matched by Asael and Avner. During the battle that comes after the “play”, David’s troops defeat Ish Boshet’s. At this point, everyone could have gone home to lick their wounds and lament the tragic start of the day. But that does not happen. Asael, Yoav’s swift brother starts chasing Avner. Is Asael to blame? Until this point, the battle seems to be focused on the soldiers. Perhaps the generals were not directly involved. Asael raises the bar by relentlessly chasing Ish Boshet’s general. Asael also does not head Avner’s warning to let him be. Instead Avner is forced into a defensive move. He stops short with his spear facing backwards and Asael runs directly into the base of the spear. Had Asael given up pursuit or not run at all, his death could be avoided and with it, the eventual desire for revenge by Yoav. Or perhaps it all circles back to Avner. As noted above, Avner started the bloodshed by suggesting war games. The text does not say that Asael had a weapon, so perhaps he meant to capture Avner or force Avner to end the battle. Avner could have harmed Asael without killing him. Perhaps Avner meant to harm Asael with the back of his spear, but not kill him. So, who shot first? Perhaps the text is ambiguous to make all the parties culpable. The two kings wanted a cold war, but their generals made it burning hot.

  7. Sep 2

    II Shmuel 1: And I Will Always Love You

    David and Jonathan have had a very close relationship. From the moment Jonathan set eyes on David, “When [David]finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David; Jonathan loved David as himself” (וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּראֶל־שָׁאוּל וְנֶפֶשׁ יְהוֹנָתָן נִקְשְׁרָה בְּנֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד וַיֶּאֱהָבֵהוּיְהוֹנָתָן כְּנַפְשׁוֹ) (I Samuel 18:1). Jonathan saved David’s life multiple times, he snuck out in the middle of the night to visit David in his camp, and the two make a pact together that David would protect Jonathan’s offspring (וְלֹא־תַכְרִית אֶת־חַסְדְּךָ מֵעִם־בֵּיתִי עַד־עוֹלָם) (I Samuel 20:15). Jonathan knew his house was doomed, but he embraced the factthat David would be the one to carry on as king of Israel.In the first chapter of II Samuel (really thecontinuation of the unified book of Samuel), David sings a dirge in honor ofthe slain Saul and Jonathan. As to Shaul he laments: “Daughters of Israel, Weepover Saul, Who clothed you in crimson and finery, Who decked your robes withjewels of gold” (בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה הַמַּלְבִּשְׁכֶםשָׁנִי עִם־עֲדָנִים הַמַּעֲלֶה עֲדִי־זָהָב עַל־לְבוּשְׁכֶן) (verse 24). Asto Jonathan: “Your love was wonderful to me More than the love of women” (צַר־לִיעָלֶיךָ אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן נָעַמְתָּ לִּי מְאֹד נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִימֵאַהֲבַת נָשִׁים) (verse 26).Modern readings of the text suggest that Davidand Jonathan may have had a romantic relationship. That may be, but strongexpressions of love between friends is also not out of the ordinary.Commentators also offer different explanations for David’s choice of phrasehere. Radak explains that the love of a woman here refers to a love that isstronger than the two women who were David’s wives. This reading points toDavid referring to specific women. Radak has a second explanation that is moregeneral. The love between the two was stronger than the love a mother has forher husband and children. This second reading also explains the love here asnon-sexual in nature.The Malbim takes the reference in context ofthe dirge itself. The love is more than the love of the women weeping for Shaulin the previous verse. That is the weeping of the maidens for the king theynever met but who provided protection for them. The weeping of David forJonathan is authentic.Pirkei Avot also interprets the love as one ofdeep intimacy, but not of deep physical attraction per se. “All love thatdepends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [alllove] that does not depend on anything, will never cease. What is an example oflove that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. Andwhat is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the loveof David and Jonathan” (כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר בָּטֵל דָּבָרבְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם...זוֹ אַהֲבַת דָּוִד וִיהוֹנָתָן) (Pirkei Avot 5:16). Amnon has a sexualobsession with Tamar that leads him to rape his sister. That is strong lovebased on something. When that something is gone, the love dissipates as willhappen after Amnon rapes his sister. The love of David and Jonathan was pureand absolute. Their love was the kind of deep love that was not based onanything physical. Even after death, David laments his soulmate.

  8. Sep 1

    I Shmuel 31: A Tragic End to a Tragic Story

    Shaul knew that this battle would be his last. He knew his troops would be decimated and his children killed. But he had to try to defend his people from the Philistines. It was fitting that Shaul’s end comes in a no-win situation. Shaul seems to have been doomed as king from the start. Shmuel did not want a king. God was insulted that the people wanted a king. Shaul was a regular guy who did not really want to be king. There was no model for national leadership for him to model himself after. He was the first one. Every step of the way Shmuel or God found fault in what he did. After the kingship was taken from him, Shaul was forced to watch as his God-appointed usurper lived in his house and won the plaudits of the people and his children. But Shaul is given a fitting farewell. On the battlefield he falls on his sword to avoid being tortured by the Philistines (וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו שְׁלֹף חַרְבְּךָ וְדׇקְרֵנִי בָהּ פֶּן־יָבֹאוּ הָעֲרֵלִים הָאֵלֶּה וְדִקְּרֻנִי וְהִתְעַלְּלוּ־בִי ... וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת־הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ) (I Samuel 31:4). The Philistines find his body (and Jonathan’s body), cut off their heads, and hang their bodies on the wall of one of their cities (וַיִּכְרְתוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ ... וְאֵת גְּוִיָּתוֹ תָּקְעוּ בְּחוֹמַת בֵּית־שָׁן) (I Samuel 31:9–10). The people of Jabesh-Gilead hear about this injustice and they go on a secret mission to retrieve the bodies. “Then they took the bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and they fasted for seven days” (וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־עַצְמֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּקְבְּרוּ תַחַת־הָאֶשֶׁל בְּיָבֵשָׁה וַיָּצֻמוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים) (verse 13). Why do the people of Jabesh-Gilead rescue Shaul’s body? Why do they bury him under the tamarisk tree? The answer to these questions can be found in chapter 11 and chapter 22. Chapter 11 was the first major act of Shaul after he was anointed king. Nachash threatens the city of Jabesh-Gilead and Shaul rallies the people to save the city (וַיַּךְ שָׁאוּל אֶת־עַמּוֹן וַיּוֹשַׁע אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי יָבֵשׁ גִּלְעָד) (see I Samuel 11). This is why the people of Jabesh-Gilead feel the need to retrieve the bodies. In chapter 22, Shaul is sitting under the tamarisk tree when Doeg tells him that David went to Nov (וְשָׁאוּל יֹשֵׁב בַּגִּבְעָה תַּחַת־הָאֶשֶׁל בָּרָמָה וַחֲנִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ) (I Samuel 22:6). Right after that he orders the massacre of the priests and the city in the darkest day of his kingship and when he crosses the point of no return. This final ending then pays homage to the first part of his reign before things went bad.

See All (272)

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
    272
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Josh Blechner
  • Show Website
    YINR 929: Tanach Yomi

You Might Also Like