YINR 929: Tanach Yomi

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 genitals (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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

David and his troops return to Ziklag, but someone else got there first. Amalek attacked the city while David was out to battle with the Philistines. They destroyed the city and kidnapped the inhabitants (וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־צִקְלַג וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָהּ בָּאֵשׁ. וַיִּשְׁבּוּ אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ מִקָּטֹן וְעַד־גָּדוֹל) (I Samuel 30:1–2). It was certainly a blunder to leave the city unprotected. But David made the political choice to go to battle with Achish as a way to keep his position with the Philistines secured. Had he not gone, or left some soldiers behind, he may have raised further suspicion with the Philistine king. In any event, David does something curious after the troops voice their displeasure: “David was in great danger, for the troops threatened to stone him; for all the troops were embittered on account of their sons and daughters. But David sought strength in the LORD his God” (וַתֵּצֶר לְדָוִד מְאֹד כִּי־אָמְרוּ הָעָם לְסׇקְלוֹ כִּי־מָרָה נֶפֶשׁ כׇּל־הָעָם אִישׁ עַל־בָּנָיו וְעַל־בְּנֹתָיו וַיִּתְחַזֵּק דָּוִד בַּה׳ אֱלֹהָיו) (verse 6). Why did David need to ask God if he should go to rescue the people? It seems obvious that the best course of action would be to go try to save his wives and his troops’ families. Perhaps the attack on Ziklag was punishment from God for joining with the Philistines to potentially attack the Israelites. David would therefore be concerned that going to attack Amalek may lead to further disaster. It is also possible that David knew that he needed to save the people, but he was concerned that his troops were distraught. He asks God if he should go (וַיִּשְׁאַל דָּוִד בַּה׳ לֵאמֹר הַאֶרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵי הַגְּדוּד הַזֶּה הַאַשִּׂגֶנּוּ) (I Samuel 30:8), knowing full well God would say yes. The yes was not for David, but for the troops. Hearing God support the counterattack helps rally the troops and secure the victory. Indeed, God responds unequivocally: רְדֹף כִּי־הַשֵּׂג תַּשִּׂיג וְהַצֵּל תַּצִּיל (“Pursue, for you shall surely overtake them and shall surely rescue [the captives]”) (I Samuel 30:8). This also is in contrast with Shaul from chapter 28 who was unable to converse with God and instead needed to resort to searching for a necromancer.

Chapter 29 is a very short chapter with a view of the final battle between Shaul and the Philistines from the viewpoint of the Philistines. We get a little insight into the inner working of Philistine society. David has been a guest of Achish, the king of the Philistines. Although David has been secretly attacking Israel’s enemies, Achish believes that he has been supporting the Philistines. He trusts David so much, that he strongly suggests that David join the Philistines in battle. But Achish’s generals and other Philistine lords are not convinced. “But the Philistine officers were angry with him; and the Philistine officers said to him, ‘Send the man back; let him go back to the place you assigned him. He shall not march down with us to the battle, or else he may become our adversary in battle. For with what could that fellow appease his master if not with the heads of these men?’” (וַיִּקְצְפוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שָׂרֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים הָשֵׁב אֶת־הָאִישׁ וְיָשֹׁב אֶל־מְקוֹמוֹ אֲשֶׁר הִפְקַדְתּוֹ שָׁם וְלֹא־יֵרֵד עִמָּנוּ בַּמִּלְחָמָה וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה־לָּנוּ לְשָׂטָן בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּבַמֶּה יִתְרַצֶּה זֶה אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו הֲלוֹא בְּרָאשֵׁי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם) (verse 4). Achish has to listen to his lords and dismiss David (וַיִּקְרָא אָכִישׁ אֶל־דָּוִד וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו... וְעַתָּה שׁוּב וְלֵךְ בְּשָׁלוֹם) (verses 6–7). Achish protests but ultimately acquiesces to their demands. Why does he do that? Achish is the king, everyone should listen to whatever he says! Achish may have made the strategic decision to let David go in order to avoid discord in the rank and file of the army. A distracted army would not be unified in battle and could cause casualties or defeat. Another possibility is that Achish needed the lords’ and officers’ support. In this interpretation, Achish is more of a great lord of the people, but one whose power is not absolute. The Philistine king may have relied on the financial support of these officers in addition to their military prowess. Losing that support could have cost him more than the battle. A rebellion in the ranks of the lords and officers would mean a loss of his kingship. History provides many examples of kings whose authority depended on the support of powerful nobles. In the ancient Hittite Empire, kings often governed in consultation with leading nobles and military commanders, whose backing was essential for maintaining stability and waging war. Likewise, in 1215 King John of England was forced to accept the Magna Carta when his barons refused to continue supporting him without limits on royal power, and Achish may have similarly concluded that preserving the loyalty of the Philistine lords was more important than insisting on David's participation in the battle.

Shaul is at the end of the line. The Philistines prepare for battle and Shaul is cut off from God. He tries in vain to speak with God to ask God whether the Israelites should go out to battle. Desperate, he has his servants search for a witch who can raise spirits for him. In an ironic twist, the servants have difficulty locating a witch because of Shaul’s own decree that outlawed all types of necromancy (וְשָׁאוּל הֵסִיר אֶת־הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶת־הַיִּדְּעֹנִים מֵהָאָרֶץ) (I Samuel 28:3). Shaul did the righteous thing by removing this form of idol worship from the land, but his station has fallen so that he must transgress his own ruling. This also tracks with his earlier decree to massacre the city of Nov going against another major tenant of the Torah against murder. The servants locate a witch in the town of Endor. Not realizing she is talking to Shaul, she says she cannot perform magic because Shaul outlawed it (הִנֵּה אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה שָׁאוּל אֲשֶׁר הִכְרִית אֶת־הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶת־הַיִּדְּעֹנִי מִן־הָאָרֶץ) (I Samuel 28:9). Shaul assures her she will be unharmed (חַי־ה׳ אִם־יִקְרֵךְ עָוֺן בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה) (I Samuel 28:10), again emphasizing the fact that he must go against his own decree. The woman begins her incantations and Shaul says he wants her to resurrect the spirit of Shmuel. “Then the woman recognized Samuel, and she shrieked loudly, and said to Saul, ‘Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!’” (וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־שְׁמוּאֵל וַתִּזְעַק בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־שָׁאוּל לָמָּה רִמִּיתָנִי וְאַתָּה שָׁאוּל) (verse 12).Why does the witch scream when she sees Shmuel? Why does seeing Shmuel lead to her figuring out that Shaul is Shaul. It cannot be because he asked her to resurrect Shmuel, then she would have protested immediately. Rashi explains that she shrieked because the spirit of Shmuel was not appearing in the regular way of a resurrected spirit. Normally a spirit appears upside down, but Shmuel appeared right side up. Rashi explains that she interpreted this as a sign of respect toward Shaul. This was the telltale sign that he was the king. Radak agrees with Rashi’s reasoning about how she knew it was Shaul, but he says she screamed because she was afraid of Shaul once she figured it out. In both of these interpretations, the witch’s magic is real. Another interpretation is that she screamed because her magic worked for the first time. She may have been a charlatan witch who claimed to speak to the dead, but instead conjured up a ruse. She fully intended to do that here, but instead she actually saw someone. When Shmuel appeared, recognizable in his official cloak (אִישׁ זָקֵן עֹלֶה וְהוּא עֹטֶה מְעִיל) (I Samuel 28:14), she was frightened that there was actually a spirit in her room. Only the king could have been responsible for such a miracle, and that is why she knew it was Shaul. Shaul also recognized Shmuel from his cloak. Perhaps he was wearing the very cloak that Shaul ripped (וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף־מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע) (I Samuel 15:27). In this way Shaul was able to come to terms with the fact that this upcoming battle will really be his last (וּמָחָר אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ עִמִּי) (I Samuel 28:19). Throughout the book, Shaul has tried to resist that decree by chasing David, fighting fate, and attempting to preserve his throne by force. Now, standing before Shmuel once again, there is no more running and no more uncertainty. The torn cloak that once symbolized the loss of his kingdom has returned as a final reminder that God's judgment has been carried out. Shaul's visit to Endor is therefore not merely an attempt to learn the future; it is his final confrontation with a past he has spent years trying to escape.

Finally realizing that Shaul will never end his quest to kill him, David resigns himself to returning to Achish and living among the Philistines. David at first lives in the capital before making a request for a territory of his own. This is similar to the request that Yosef made to Pharaoh. In response to his request, “at that time Achish granted him Ziklag; that is how Ziklag came to belong to the kings of Judah, as is still the case” (וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ אָכִישׁ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת־צִקְלָג לָכֵן הָיְתָה צִקְלָג לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) (verse 6).There are two problems with this verse. The first is that Ziklag is already mentioned as part of the territory of the tribe of Judah in Joshua (וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 15:31) and again in the territory of Shimon (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן... וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 19:5). The simple answer is that Ziklag was under Judean control until Achish and the Philistines conquered the city. Now that Achish gives it to David, it will remain his possession. The other possibility is that there were multiple towns named Ziklag. The two times it is mentioned in Joshua, the town is listed as part of two different tribes. In chapter 15, it belongs to Judah and in chapter 19, it belongs to Shimon. In chapter 15, the city is grouped with two others, Madmannah and Sansannah (וּמַדְמַנָּה וְסַנְסַנָּה וּלְבָאוֹת וְשִׁלְחִים וְעַיִן וְרִמּוֹן) (Joshua 15:31–32). In chapter 19, it is listed with Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susah (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן) (Joshua 19:5–6). This could mean that there were two cities, each close to two different neighboring cities. It is possible then that this Ziklag is a third city.The second problem is the end of the verse. Many times in Tanach, the narrator will jump in to explain that a certain city name exists “until this day” (עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה). That phrase is somewhat ambiguous, as it does not explain until which day. But verse 6 is different. It specifically says “the kings of Judah” (לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה). What makes this problematic is that the kings of Judah were not a thing until a couple of centuries later under the reign of David’s grandson. This could mean that a later author, possibly Chizkiyahu, who is traditionally associated with preserving and editing certain biblical books, added this explanatory note to the verse. Another possibility is that the phrase “kings of Judah” may simply refer to the leadership of the territory of Judah. It would be strange, though, that the tribe of Judah would be referred to as the kings of Judah. It is possible that the note refers to the period when David was solely king of Judah, before he unified the nation under his rule (וַיִּמְשְׁחוּ שָׁם אֶת־דָּוִד לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־בֵּית יְהוּדָה) (II Samuel 2:4). The problem there is that the verse refers to kings in the plural, and David was the only king of Judah until his grandson. The city itself plays a vital role in the remainder of the Dovid story as his de facto pre-royal capital, so perhaps the narrator is explaining that this city stays with the Judah line as a symbolic way that this possession by Dovid begins the Judaic king line.

Chapter 26 plays out almost the same way aschapter 24. Shaul and his forces close in on David. In the middle of the night,David sneaks into Shaul’s camp. David has the opportunity to kill Shaul, butinstead steals his spear and his water jug (וַיִּקַּח דָּוִד אֶת־הַחֲנִיתוְאֶת־צַפַּחַת הַמַּיִם מֵרַאֲשֹׁתֵי שָׁאוּל) (I Samuel 26:12). Just as hedid in chapter 24, David goes up the nearest hill and calls out to Shaul andshows him once again that he had a chance to kill Shaul, but did not. (He alsotakes a moment to get a dig in against Avner, Shaul’s general, for notprotecting the king.) Shaul’s cloak was symbolic in chapter 24, and Shaul’sspear is symbolic here.The spear appears a few times in I Samuel. Thefirst is in chapter 13. “Thus on the day of the battle, no sword or spear wasto be found in the possession of any of the troops with Saul and Jonathan; onlySaul and Jonathan had them” (וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם מִלְחֶמֶת וְלֹא נִמְצָא חֶרֶבוַחֲנִית בְּיַד כׇּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אֶת־שָׁאוּל וְאֶת־יוֹנָתָן וַתִּמָּצֵאלְשָׁאוּל וּלְיוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ) (13:22). Here the spear is symbolic of thepower of kingship. Only Shaul and his son are given the power denied toeveryone else.The spear next appears in the story of Goliath.The text takes time to explain that Goliath’s spear was the length of a weavingbeam (וְעֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ כִּמְנוֹר אֹרְגִים) (I Samuel 17:7). The spear onceagain is a symbol of strength, this time the enemy’s strength. Yet David isable to defeat Goliath despite his powerful spear.In chapters 18, 19, and 20, Shaul tries in vainto kill David by pinning him to the wall with his spear. “And Saul hurled thespear, for he thought, ‘I will pin David to the wall’” (וַיָּטֶל שָׁאוּלאֶת־הַחֲנִית וַיֹּאמֶר אַכֶּה בְדָוִד וּבַקִּיר) (I Samuel 18:11). Shaulclings to the spear. In chapter 22 he holds the spear with him while he holdscourt under the tamarisk tree (וְשָׁאוּל יֹשֵׁב בַּגִּבְעָה תַּחַת־הָאֶשֶׁלבָּרָמָה וַחֲנִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ) (I Samuel 22:6), and in chapter 26, he sleepswith the spear right at his side (וְשָׁאוּל שֹׁכֵב בַּמַּעְגָּל וַחֲנִיתוֹמְעוּכָה בָאָרֶץ מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו) (I Samuel 26:7).Shaul believes that the spear makes himpowerful. By capturing the spear, David shows him that the spear holds no real power. In the throne room, he was the only one with a spear, but it was not enough to defeat David. In chapter 24, when David takes part of Shaul’s cloak, he takes a symbol of his kingship, and in chapter 26, when he takes his spear, he takes a symbol of Shaul’s power. Shaul does not learn the lesson of Goliath, that mere symbolic power is not enough. A spear cannot defeat the other anointed of God (מְשִׁיחַ ה׳). In fact, David explicitly declares that he would not raise his hand against Shaul because he is “the LORD’s anointed” (חָלִילָהלִּי מֵה׳ אֶשְׁלַח יָדִי בִּמְשִׁיחַ ה׳) (I Samuel 26:11).

Chapter 25 tells the sidebar story of Avigail and Nabal. David’s band of warriors protects the wealthy Nabal and his shepherds from danger. At the time of shearing, David sends messengers to Nabal asking for food and wool as repayment for David’s protection. Nabal refuses, and David plans to massacre everyone in Nabal’s household (וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד חִגְרוּ־אִישׁ אֶת־חַרְבּוֹ וַיַּחְגְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶת־חַרְבּוֹ...) (I Samuel 25:13). The identical reaction of David to Nabal and Saul to Achimelech and Nov cannot be missed. But this time, the story has a somewhat happy ending. Avigail, Nabal’s wife, intervenes and explains that her husband is a curmudgeon who does not speak for everyone else in the household (כִּי כִשְׁמוֹ כֶּן־הוּא נָבָל שְׁמוֹ וּנְבָלָה עִמּוֹ) (I Samuel 25:25). Avigail is eternally grateful to David for all he did for her household.She blesses him with a phrase that is used on many Jewish gravestones and said at all Jewish funerals: “the life of my master will be bound up in the bundle of life in the care of the LORD” (וְהָיְתָה נֶפֶשׁ אֲדֹנִי צְרוּרָה בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ) (verse 29). Her blessing of gratitude is that David’s soul will be bound together with God’s for eternal protection.Avigail returns home to a drunk Nabal and “the next morning, when Nabal had slept off the wine, his wife told him everything that had happened; and his heart died within him, and he became like a stone” (וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וַיֵּצֵא הַיַּיִן מִנָּבָל וַתַּגֶּד־לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיָּמׇת לִבּוֹ בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְהוּא הָיָה לְאָבֶן) (verse 37). What does “his heart died within him and he became like a stone” mean?There are two camps. Rashi believes that Nabal was upset that his wife had presented David with a gift. Radak adds that he was so upset that he basically went silent like a dead person. In the other camp, Malbim believes that Nabal’s heart sank because he was fearful of David. Ralbag fuses the two and explains that Nabal was upset about the gift, but he was also upset and fearful of David.The Rashi camp focuses on Nabal as the miser until the very end. Nabal’s eventual death is caused by his extreme sadness over his wife’s expensive gift to David. The Malbim camp perhaps affords Nabal a bit of remorse. Once he hears how close he was to being overrun by David and his forces, he realizes that his miserly ways almost cost him everything. This fear and guilt is too much to carry, and in the end it kills him anyway. Nabal’s death also allows for God to mete out punishment directly to the individual responsible for David’s hardship without David’s burn-it-to-the-ground strategy. Indeed, David later acknowledges that God Himself acted on his behalf: “Blessed be the LORD, who championed my cause against the insults of Nabal and held back His servant from wrongdoing” (בָּרוּךְ ה׳ אֲשֶׁר רָב אֶת־רִיב חֶרְפָּתִי מִיַּד נָבָל וְאֶת־עַבְדּוֹ חָשַׂךְ מֵרָעָה) (I Samuel 25:39).

Faced with his pursuer, David has a very tough choice to make in chapter 24. Shaul is lying in the cave fast asleep. David enters the cave with sword in hand and has the chance to kill Shaul. It is unclear what Shaul would have done in this same situation, but based on his actions to date, he would not have hesitated to kill David. David decides against ending his troubles, and instead cuts off a corner of Shaul’s cloak (וַיָּקָם דָּוִד וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת־כְּנַף הַמְּעִיל אֲשֶׁר לְשָׁאוּל בַּלָּט) (I Samuel 24:5). He runs outside the cave and from a safe distance he lifts up the cut corner and calls out to Shaul. Shaul sees that David could have killed him but did not, and asks David for forgiveness. He also admits for the first time that: “I know now that you will become king, and that the kingship over Israel will remain in your hands” (וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־מָלֹךְ תִּמְלוֹךְ וְקָמָה בְּיָדְךָ מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל) (verse 21).Why does this act of David cause Shaul to say this? Robes are extremely symbolic in the book of Samuel. Samuel’s mother makes him a cloak to wear in the temple when she drops him off (וּמְעִיל קָטֹן תַּעֲשֶׂה־לּוֹ אִמּוֹ) (I Samuel 2:19). When Shaul fails to kill Agag, he tears Shmuel’s cloak as the prophet walks away (וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף־מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע) (I Samuel 15:27). Shaul places his royal armor on David before his battle with Goliath (וַיַּלְבֵּשׁ שָׁאוּל אֶת־דָּוִד מַדָּיו) (I Samuel 17:38), and then David removes them. Yonatan pledges his loyalty to David by removing his cloak and giving it to David (וַיִּתְפַּשֵּׁט יְהוֹנָתָן אֶת־הַמְּעִיל אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ לְדָוִד) (I Samuel 18:4). When Shaul tries to capture David near the young prophets, he removes his cloak while crying out in prophetic ecstasy (וַיִּתְפַּשֵּׁט גַּם־הוּא בְּגָדָיו) (I Samuel 19:24).David cut off Shaul’s cloak as a way to show the king that David was close enough to kill him, but he did not. David’s reason is that he would not want to kill the man anointed by God (מְשִׁיחַ ה׳). The irony, of course, is that David too is an anointed of God. Shaul may have finally realized this message when he saw the ripped cloak. He must have had a flashback to the ripped cloak of Shmuel and the prophecy that accompanied it: “The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours who is better than you” (קָרַע ה׳ אֶת־מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ) (I Samuel 15:28). This devastating memory may have shaken him awake from his rage to remember that this transition was from God.But David does not walk away unscathed from this encounter. According to the Midrash, because David ripped the cloak of the anointed of God, later in life he would not be warmed by the cloaks placed upon him. As the verse says at the beginning of Kings: “King David was old, advanced in years; they covered him with clothes, but he could not get warm” (וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים וַיְכַסֻּהוּ בַּבְּגָדִים וְלֹא יִחַם לוֹ) (I Kings 1:1).

The dance between Shaul and David continues. David runs away, and Shaul chases him. The chapter ends with a very intense scene. David is hiding on one side of the mountain and Shaul and his forces are approaching on the other side. David is trapped. When the end seems near, God sends a lifeline. “A messenger came and told Saul, ‘Come quickly, for the Philistines have invaded the land’” (וּמַלְאָךְ בָּא אֶל־שָׁאוּל לֵאמֹר מַהֲרָה וְלֵכָה כִּי־פָשְׁטוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים עַל־הָאָרֶץ) (verse 27). The word used for messenger is the same word for angel. Some commentators explain that this was indeed a miraculous event where God sent an angel to stop Shaul in his tracks. Others hold that this was perfect timing and that the Philistine army was attacking at the time. This exact event will happen again to the house of David centuries later. King Hezkiyahu and the people are holed up in Jerusalem up on the mountain. The Assyrian army that just exiled the northern tribes is surrounding the city. All hope seems lost. Hezkiyahu beseeches the prophet Yishayahu to pray on the people’s behalf. God responds that the king of Assyria will be sent away. “I will delude him; he will hear a rumor and return to his land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his land” (הִנְנִי נֹתֵן בּוֹ רוּחַ וְשָׁמַע שְׁמוּעָה וְשָׁב אֶל־אַרְצוֹ וְהִפַּלְתִּיו בַּחֶרֶב בְּאַרְצוֹ) (II Kings 19:7 (and in Isaiah 37)). Just as the Assyrians are set to attack, a messenger arrives to tell the waiting army that the Cush army is attacking. Distracted, the Assyrian king leaves the siege of Jerusalem, and is ultimately killed back in Assyria. The Book of Samuel was written by Samuel, with the two prophets who followed him, Natan and Gad, completing the work. According to the Talmud in Bava Batra 15a, the Book of Kings was written by Yirmiyahu. Because Yirmiyahu lived long after the events described, he must have relied on earlier sources when compiling the book. The biblical accounts in Yishayahu and II Kings overlap in their description of the Assyrian siege, raising the possibility that Yirmiyahu used an earlier version of the story preserved in the book of Yishayahu. Perhaps Chizkiyahu himself preserved this account to emphasize the parallel between his salvation and the salvation of his ancestor David. Just as God protected David from Shaul through the sudden arrival of the Philistines, God protected Chizkiyahu from the Assyrians through the sudden arrival of another invading army.

Chapter 22 is a difficult read. David has to jump from location to location to save himself and his family. He only finds refuge in foreign lands. The Israelites want nothing to do with him. Meanwhile, Doeg informs on Achimelech and Shaul brings the high priest and his family to answer for their actions. Unsatisfied with Achimelech’s protestations of innocence, Shaul instructs his soldiers to massacre the priests. When none of them agree to do so, Doeg himself takes on the task and not only kills 85 priests, but he also massacres the entire city of Nov. This chapter brings back bad memories of the age of Judges when the nation turned on itself and innocent people were killed. Once again, the Navi drops a few references to Judges. This time, the most overt ones are to the story of Avimelech. Avimelech was the bastard son of Gideon. He had seventy brothers, who he considered his rivals. “When he went to his father’s house in Ophrah and killed his brothers, the sons of Jerubbaal, seventy men on one stone. Only Jotham, the youngest son of Jerubbaal, survived, because he went into hiding” (וַיָּבֹא בֵּית־אָבִיו עׇפְרָתָה וַיַּהֲרֹג אֶת־אֶחָיו בְּנֵי־יְרֻבַּעַל שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ עַל־אֶבֶן אַחַת וַיִּוָּתֵר יוֹתָם בֶּן־יְרֻבַּעַל הַקָּטֹן כִּי נֶחְבָּא) (Judges 9:5). Doeg massacres the entire family of Achimelech, except “one son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub escaped—his name was Abiathar—and he fled to David” (וַיִּמָּלֵט בֶּן־אֶחָד לַאֲחִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן־אֲחִטוּב וּשְׁמוֹ אֶבְיָתָר וַיִּבְרַח אַחֲרֵי דָוִד) (verse 20). Doeg also massacres the entire city of Nov, just like Avimelech massacres the entire city of Schem. Avimelech is considered the first of the bad judges. He comes right after Gideon, who was offered the crown but declined. Through the massacre of Nov, Shaul has finally turned from a good king to an evil one. Like the line of Judges until Avimelech, Shaul may not have been perfect, but he never crossed the line to evil. With his actions in this chapter, much like Avimelech, Shaul turns away from righteousness and threatens to sink the entire nation. But there is also a connection with Dovid to Avimelech in the chapter. In Judges 9:4, Avimelech gathers together a crew of “some worthless and reckless fellows” (וַיִּתְנוּ־לוֹ שִׁבְעִים כֶּסֶף מִבֵּית בַּעַל בְּרִית וַיִּשְׂכֹּר בָּהֶם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֲנָשִׁים רֵיקִים וּפֹחֲזִים וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרָיו). At the beginning of chapter 22, David attracts a similar group of misfits and people down on their luck. Why would the Navi also connect David to the story of Avimelech? David’s connection is not about the similarities, but for what he does differently. At the end of the chapter, when Aviathar runs to David, David takes full responsibility. “David said to Abiathar… I am to blame for all the deaths in your father’s house” (וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לְאֶבְיָתָר יָדַעְתִּי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּי־שָׁם דּוֹאֵג הָאֲדֹמִי כִּי־הַגֵּד אַגִּיד לְשָׁאוּל אָנֹכִי סַבֹּתִי בְּכׇל־נֶפֶשׁ בֵּית אָבִיךָ) (verse 22). Avimelech may have signaled the turning point in the era of Judges from good to evil, David will not let that happen. Faced with the tragedy of the chapter, David takes full responsibility. The Navi connects him to Avimelech to show how different he is.

David escapes from Shaul and runs to Nov, a city of priests. There, David asks Achimelech for bread and a weapon. Achimelech replies that the only bread available is the holy bread and that the only sword available is Goliath’s sword, which has been kept in the sanctuary. This interaction is difficult. Why did David run to Nov if he needed ordinary provisions and weapons? David must have known that a city of priests would be unlikely to have non-sacred bread readily available. He also would have been unlikely to find an ordinary weapon there, particularly in light of God’s command regarding the altar: “And if you make for Me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn stones; for by wielding your sword upon them you have profaned them” (וְאִם־מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה־לִּי לֹא־תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ) (Exodus 20:22). Presumably, the problem mentioned in chapter 13, that the Philistines had outlawed weapon production in Israel, had already been resolved. Perhaps David went to Nov because he expected the priests to serve as neutral arbiters. As religious leaders, they might have offered him protection or at least a way to explain his sudden flight from the king. Yet this possibility is undermined by the fact that David lies to Achimelech about his mission. If David truly viewed Nov as a sanctuary where he could safely reveal what happened, why conceal the truth? Perhaps the request for the sword was precipitated by David seeing Doeg. The text introduces Doeg immediately before David asks for a weapon: “Now one of Saul’s officials was there that day, detained before the LORD; his name was Doeg the Edomite, Saul’s chief herdsman” (וְשָׁם אִישׁ מֵעַבְדֵי שָׁאוּל בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא נֶעְצָר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וּשְׁמוֹ דֹּאֵג הָאֲדֹמִי אַבִּיר הָרֹעִים אֲשֶׁר לְשָׁאוּל). “David said to Ahimelech, ‘Haven’t you got a spear or sword on hand? I didn’t take my sword or any of my weapons with me, because the king’s mission was urgent’” (וְעַתָּה יֵשׁ תַּחַת־יָדְךָ חֲנִית אוֹ־חָרֶב כִּי גַם־חַרְבִּי וְכֵלַי לֹא־לָקַחְתִּי בְיָדִי כִּי־הָיָה דְבַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ נָחוּץ) (verses 8–9). David may have been speaking calmly to Achimelech when he suddenly noticed Doeg. David may have remained outwardly composed; inside David may have been panicking. David quickly asks for a weapon so that David would not be defenseless if Doeg attempted to capture or kill him. In this reading, however, David’s conduct is deeply troubling. David should have realized that if Doeg returned to Shaul, Achimelech and the entire city of Nov would be placed in danger. Instead of quietly allowing Doeg to leave as a witness against the priests, David might have confronted Doeg immediately, even if that required violence. Perhaps, however, David’s original goal was never simply to obtain food. David may have gone to Nov specifically to retrieve Goliath’s sword. The request for bread would then have been a way to test Achimelech and create a justification for approaching the sacred objects. After receiving the bread, David could ask innocently whether any weapon was available, knowing that Goliath’s sword was the only suitable weapon in the sanctuary. Unfortunately, David does not notice Doeg until it is too late. Doeg has already seen David, and David’s attempt to obtain food and a weapon has unintentionally placed Achimelech and the entire priestly city in mortal danger. The scene therefore marks a painful change in David’s character. The hero who once trusted God’s protection against Goliath now survives through deception, and those around David suffer the consequences of David’s decisions

No one knows for sure why the Haftorah is read every week. The practice appears in the Talmud, but no reason is given. The popular opinion is that during persecution at the hands of the Romans, when the reading of the Torah was forbidden, the Rabbis established the practice of reading a part of the book of Neviim that related to that week’s portion. The problem is that this theory only appears in commentary hundreds of years after the Roman period. The Gemara does talk about special haftorot that were read if a holiday falls out on Shabbat. When Rosh Chodesh falls out on a Sunday, the day after Shabbat, the Haftorah is chapter 20 of Samuel. The Haftorah acts as acalendar reminder with David and Jonathan’s discussion that “tomorrow is RoshChodesh.” The chapter is the first reference to a Rosh Chodesh ceremony sinceMoshe commanded the people to observe the new moon as the first mitzvah. Whatis the significance of the story taking place on the day before Rosh Chodesh? Itcould simply be that this seminal story took place on Rosh Chodesh. It was atime that David was expected to be at the king’s side for a feast. It is clearfrom this chapter that the date had strong significance in Israel at the timethat the king would have an official feast on that day. Based on David andJonathan’s alibi for David, it also seems that it was a date that familieswould get together for their own feasts. But there must have been otheroccasions for David to go missing. He was Shaul’s court musician and one of hiswarriors, so this answer does not seem fulfilling. The new moon is also the best time for a secret meeting to take place in a field. During a full moon, the sky is bright and someone could not as easily slip away into the shadows. On Rosh Chodesh, the moon is just a sliver, filling the land in darkness. Another possibility is that Rosh Chodesh and its sliver of a moon had a dual symbolism for the shift that was happening in the leadership of Israel. The new moon wasat the same time symbolic of the new kingship of David that was just forming and also symbolic of Shaul’s reign coming to an end with the light of the first king the darkest it has ever been. 

In the 1986 teen comedy Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, Ferris, played by Matthew Broderick, is a wise cracking high school kid. Ferris has a grand idea of playing hooky from school with his girlfriend and his best friend. First, though, he needs to convince his parents that he is sick. To do this, he builds an elaborate ruse. He rigs his door with a string. When someone opens the door to his room, the string activates a contraption that turns on a tape recording of him snoring. It also manipulates a mannequin that he placed in his bed. The person opening the door will think the person inside is snoring away. It tricks his mother, but later in the film (spoiler alert), his sister comes crashing into his room and pulls the strings revealing the mannequin under the bed. Perhaps John Hughes, the director of the film, got this idea from chapter 19. Shaul’s son Jonathan is infatuated with David, but so is his sister, Michal. David was originally slated to marry Shaul’s eldest daughter, but Shaul gives her away before David can actually marry her. Instead, Shaul sends his officers to encourage David to marry Michal, Shaul’s other daughter. Shaul thinks Michal will help spy on David, but instead, like her brother, she supports her husband. In a scene reminiscent of Rachav and the two spies in the book of Joshua, Shaul’s soldiers race to David and Michal’s house to kill David. Michal warns David and lowers him out the window. To trick the officers, she places the house terafim under the sheets with goatskin. Like Ferris’ mother, Shaul’s guards are tricked into thinking David is sick in the bed. What are these terafim? The word is usually translated as an idol. Rachel stole her father’s terafim back in Genesis. Metzudat Zion is troubled by the idea that David and Michal would have idols in their house. Instead, he explains that the word could be used as idol, but also that women would have statues of their husbands so they could think about them while they were away. These were not idols, but Michal’s David mannequins. Me’am Loez believes that these were certain devices that one used to read the constellations, something that was not considered idol worship. Radak also brings this answer but rejects it as such devices would not be in a human shape. A simple answer is that terafim is simply a term used to mean statue, not necessary one that is for idol worship. Whatever the terafim were, the ruse worked, and David was able to play hooky with his friends.

After the excitement of chapter 17, things begin to shift for Shaul and David. Why did it shift for Shaul? The chapter begins with three reasons: 1) Jonathan and David. The chapter begins with Jonathan professing his love for David. As a symbol for this elevated relationship, Jonathan gives David his cloak: “Jonathan took off the cloak and tunic he was wearing and gave them to David, together with his sword, bow, and belt” (וַיִּתְפַּשֵּׁט יְהוֹנָתָן אֶת־הַמְּעִיל אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ לְדָוִד וּמַדָּיו וְעַד־חַרְבּוֹ וְעַד־קַשְׁתּוֹ וְעַד־חֲגֹרוֹ) (verse 4). Earlier in chapter 15, Shaul ripped Shmuel’s cloak after Shmuel decreed that Shaul would no longer be king. The cloak is symbolic of the kingship, and Jonathan presenting David with the cloak of the next in line would be equally symbolic. Jonathan’s loyalty to David over his father certainly irked him. 2) The Women of Israel. Shaul places David in charge of a division of the army. Not surprisingly, David is extremely successful. When David and Shaul would return from battle, the woman would sing victory songs: “Saul has slain his thousands; David, his tens of thousands!” (הִכָּה שָׁאוּל בַּאֲלָפָיו וְדָוִד בְּרִבְבֹתָיו) (verse 7). This time, the text reveals that Shaul was “greatly distressed and vexed” and that “from that day on Saul kept a jealous eye on David” (וַיִּחַר לְשָׁאוּל מְאֹד וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינָיו הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה ... וַיְהִי שָׁאוּל עוֹיֵן אֶת־דָּוִד מֵהַיּוֹם הַהוּא וָהָלְאָה) (verse 9). Shaul was at the tipping point, but it took divine intervention to push him over the edge. 3) God. In Exodus, God wanted to teach Pharoah a lesson, so he hardened Pharoah’s heart. God intervenes here as well. “The next day an evil spirit of God gripped Saul and he began to nabeh in the house…” (וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַתִּצְלַח רוּחַ־אֱלֹהִים רָעָה אֶל־שָׁאוּל וַיִּתְנַבֵּא בְּתוֹךְ הַבָּיִת) (verse 10). The Hebrew word nabeh is a little uncertain. The literal translation is that he prophesied, but some comment that he began to rave wildly. Rashi explains that a madman and a prophet often can sound the same. The use of the word serves a dual purpose. The first is to emphasize that Shaul’s reaction was from God. The second, perhaps, references Shaul right after Shmuel anoints him. Shaul returns home, but on the way encounters a group of prophets. “Thereupon the spirit of God gripped him, and he spoke in ecstasy among them” (וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים וַיִּתְנַבֵּא בְּתוֹכָם) (10:10). Shaul started his career with God, tapping him into the divine spirit. He was a changed man. Now, God is flipping that, and he switches over from the ramblings of a prophet to the ramblings of a madman. So why does the Navi use these three reasons? Each of them shows a loss on the pillars of Shaul’s kingship. The first is the loss of his family with Jonathan defecting to David. The second is the loss of the people with the women chanting for David. And the third is the loss of God with God shifting from the divine spirit to a spirit of a madman.

David defeats Goliath. The weak defeats the strong. The upstart team that defeats the number one seed. The ragtag army that defeats a superpower. The story of chapter 17 is one of the most retold, repackaged, repurposed stories in Tanach. It is no surprise that this encounter has been depicted many times in famous works of art. The upstart Goliath is often depicted as a giant man, with heavy armor, and a large spear or sword. David is a young child with only a tunic or fabric cloths on him. An example of artwork that depicts the scene later in the story is Caravaggio’s David and Goliath. Caravaggio depicts the aftermath of the battle. This painting shows a youthful David leaning over the defeated Goliath. Goliath is missing his helmet, and has the mark of the stone wound on his forehead. David seems to be using his slingshot to sever Goliath’s head. Notice how Caravaggio flips the script on size. Goliath, the menacing giant is laying on the ground with most of his body hidden by shadow. David looms large over him, kneeling on his back. David is also almost entirely bathed in light symbolic of God shining his light on David. Goliath is disappearing into the dark shadows whence he came. David also is using the string from his slingshot to sever Goliath’s head. This is different from the text. “David ran up and stood over the Philistine, grasped his sword and pulled it from its sheath; and with it he dispatched him and cut off his head” (verse 51). Why would Caravaggio change this fact of the story? Perhaps he was trying to emphasize the victory of David over Goliath with a simple string. Other painting depict David in a strong stance standing over Goliath holding Goliath’s sword. Those images make David look menacing and strong. Caravaggio’s David is still the simple shepherd’s boy who has to work with a rope to cut off Goliath’s head. We do not get to see David’s expression. It looks like he is focused on the task. Goliath’s face is frozen in surprise. These expressions match the battle before. David unafraid and focused on defending God, and Goliath in shock that a shepherd’s boy could defeat him.

God instructs Shmuel to move on from Shaul and anoint someone else as king. Shmuel's response is surprising: “Samuel replied, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears of it, he will kill me.’” (וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֵיךְ אֵלֵךְ וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל וַהֲרָגָנִי) (verse 2). Shmuel's reaction is fear. Yet the fear seems irrational. Shmuel is the honored prophet and former judge of Israel. He anointed Shaul and has already informed him twice that his kingdom will not endure. Neither time did Shaul threaten him or even lash out against him. Nevertheless, Shmuel imagines the worst. Shmuel is not the only person gripped by fear at the beginning of the chapter. When he arrives in Bethlehem, “the elders of the city went out in alarm to meet him and said, ‘Do you come on a peaceful errand?’” (וַיֶּחֶרְדוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ הֲשָׁלֹם בּוֹאֶךָ) (verse 4). Here too, the fear seems puzzling. Shmuel regularly traveled throughout the country. Why would the elders panic at the sight of the nation's leading prophet? Abarbanel explains that they saw Shmuel approaching with a calf and assumed he had come to perform the ceremony of the eglah arufah. They feared that a murdered body had been discovered nearby and that their city might be implicated. In this reading, the calf provided Shmuel with the perfect cover for his journey while simultaneously explaining the townspeople's unease. The common thread connecting both episodes becomes clear later in the chapter. At the sacrificial feast, Shmuel sees Eliav, Yishai's eldest son. Eliav is tall, impressive, and kingly in appearance, much like Shaul. Immediately Shmuel assumes he has found God's chosen successor. God rebukes him: “Pay no attention to his appearance or his stature, for I have rejected him. For not as man sees does the LORD see; man sees only what is visible, but the LORD sees into the heart” (אַל־תַּבֵּט אֶל־מַרְאֵהוּ וְאֶל־גְּבֹהַּ קוֹמָתוֹ כִּי מְאַסְתִּיהוּ... כִּי הָאָדָם יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם וַה׳ יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב) (verse 7).This statement is not merely about Eliav. It is the interpretive key to the entire chapter. Human beings see with their eyes and then fill in the gaps with assumptions. Shmuel sees the possibility of danger and assumes Shaul will kill him. The elders of Bethlehem see a prophet carrying a calf and assume disaster has struck their town. Shmuel sees a tall, handsome firstborn and assumes he must be the future king. In every case, appearances lead to mistaken conclusions.God, however, sees what human beings cannot. God sees into the heart. He knows that Shaul is not plotting against Shmuel. He knows that Bethlehem has nothing to fear. Most importantly, He knows that the future king is not the son who looks like a king, but the son whose character makes him one. Israel's first king was chosen largely because he appeared kingly. This time God chooses differently. David may not look like a king on the outside, but he is already a king on the inside.

Chapter 15 is full of drama. Shmuel tasks Shaul with a clear charge: wipe out Amalek- men, women, children, cattle. Shmuel invokes God’s longstanding promise from Exodus setting the chapter’s tone. Shaul destroys everything except Agag and the choicest cattle. The next morning Shaul runs to Shmuel and excitedly proclaims that he upheld God’s word. But Shaul does not know that Shmuel spent the night entreating God to overturn a decree against Shaul. Shmuel angrily confronts Shaul over the sound of bleating animals. Shaul earnestly responds that these are sacrifices. STOP! Shmuel yells at him like a teacher who has had it with their student’s excuses. Shmuel raises the heat: Shaul thought he was a simple man, but God made him king. Shaul doubles down: “But I did obey the LORD! I performed the mission on which the LORD sent me” (וָאֶשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ וָאֵלֵךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־שְׁלָחַנִי ה׳) (verse 21). Shaul just cannot see what he did wrong. Shmuel lashes out in a dramatic verse that the later prophets will borrow. Does God care about sacrifices? God desires obedience. The verse ends with the first of three turns of phrases in the chapter- “because you have rejected God, God has rejected you!” (יַעַן מָאַסְתָּ אֶת־דְּבַר ה׳ וַיִּמְאָסְךָ מִמֶּלֶךְ) (verse 23). Imagine how Shaul feels here. He was not trying to hide the anything. Based on his protestations, he honestly felt that he had done the right thing. He responds that the people wanted to give sacrifices. One could argue that Shaul is trying to throw the people under the bus, but that interpretation does not match the text. Shaul is being truthful and earnest. Shaul’s problem from the start was his weakness in the face of the people. Even last chapter he went against two oaths because the people pushed to save Yonatan. The drama reaches its zenith. Shaul begs Shmuel to give him the curtesy of accompanying him back to camp. Shmuel angerly turns to storm away and Shaul grabs the hem of Shamuel’s high-quality robe, tearing it. Such a cloak would only tear if Shaul pulled as hard as Shmuel tried to walk away. Shmuel turns to Shaul with a second biting pronouncement: “The LORD has this day torn the kingship over Israel away from you and has given it to another who is worthier than you.” (קָרַע ה׳ אֶת־מַמְלְכוּת יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ הַיּוֹם וּנְתָנָהּ לְרֵעֲךָ הַטּוֹב מִמֶּךָּ) (verse 28). Shmuel finally relents without adding one more bit of drama. He summons Agag, who knows that death is near. He turns to Agag with his final biting turn of phrase: “As your sword bereaved mothers, so too with your mother be bereaved.” (כַּאֲשֶׁר שִׁכְּלָה נָשִׁים חַרְבֶּךָ כֵּן־תִּשְׁכַּל מִנָּשִׁים אִמֶּךָ) Then Shmuel kills Aagag. This is the only time Shmuel kills someone in the whole book. The chapter ends with the dramatic statement: “Samuel never saw Saul again to the day of his death. But Samuel grieved over Saul, because the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel.” (וְלֹא־יָסַף שְׁמוּאֵל לִרְאוֹת אֶת־שָׁאוּל עַד־יוֹם מוֹתוֹ כִּי־הִתְאַבֵּל שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל־שָׁאוּל וַה׳ נִחָם כִּי־הִמְלִיךְ אֶת־שָׁאוּל עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל) (verse 35). This last verse reveals Shmuel’s inner turmoil. The stone faced servant of God depicted in this chapter, was crying inside for his protégée.

This very long chapter details the attack against the Philistines Once again the text references the book of judges. Here, the three references are to Yiftach, Shimshon, and Gideon. In Judges, Shimson travels to Philistine to meet the parents of his new bride. Along the way he encounters and kills a lion. When he returns, the lion has a full beehive growing inside. Hungry from his trip, Shimshon grabs some honey and eats it. He then uses the honey in the lion to create a parable to try to trick the Philistines. In the end, they coerce his bride to reveal the answer to the riddle. In revenge, Shimshon lets loose 250 foxes with fire on their tails. The second story is Yiftach’s pronouncement that if he is victorious in battle, he will sacrifice the first thing that walks through his door. When he returns form battle, his daughter is the first thing to walk to greet him. The text is ambiguous, but there is a possibility that he sacrifices his daughter. In chapter 14, Yonatan, Shaul’s son sets out on a black ops mission to the Philistine camp with his arms bearer. They startle the Philistine camp and kill a group of soldiers. The attack leads to confusion in the Philistine camp. Like in the story of Gideon, the Philistines attack each other in the confusion. Shaul rallies the Israelite army and sets a vow that no one eat any food until the battle is over. This nonsensical message mirror’s Yiftach’s unnecessary vow. Meanwhile, Yonatan does not know about the vow, and on the way back to the camp, he eats some honey- like Shimshon. The vow broken, Shaul seeks guidance from lots as to who broke the vow. He doubles down on the threat by declaring that even his son would not be immune. When the lots fall on Yonatan, Shaul pledges to follow through with the threat. The people rally to save Yonatan who was responsible for their great victory. The ending is a little bit sweeter than the Yiftach and Shimshon stories, for now. But why does the Navi again look to the book of Judges for symbolic messages? Yiftach was a great warrior and leader of the people until he ended his reign as a judge making a tragic error in judgment. Shaul follows the same path. He began his career as the reluctant leader who scored great victories against the Israelite foes. His reign ends tragically, though, with one unnecessary decision after another. Yonatan, on the other hand, is compared to two other leaders, but for different reasons. Yonatan’s references will foreshadow his tragic end. Like Gideon, Yonatan, was a great warrior, who very likely would have been a great king. But Yonatan turns down that opportunity in favor of David, just like Gideon turns down the kingship. Like Shimshon, Yonatan will have a tragic ending to his story. Falling on his own sword in battle with the enemy.

A leader who says he will return at a certain time, but is delayed. A worried nation that is anxious. A second leader that gives into the crowd going against the wishes of the delayed leader. A punishment. This could describe the events of the Golden Calf in Exodus. Moshe tarried. The people panicked. Aaron builds a golden calf. The people misinterpret and when Moshe comes down, the people are punished. But this actually describes the events of chapter 13. The Philistines are circling, and the people are getting anxious. Shmuel instructed Shaul to wait for him. But Shaul listened to the people. He went ahead with the sacrificial ceremony. Shmuel returns and is furious. Shaul did not wait for him. His punishment is that the monarchy will not endure in his family. This is not as dramatic as the punishment he will receive later, but it's the first nail in the coffin of his monarchy. But the stories do not line up entirely. In the Golden Calf story, Aaron builds a golden calf statue as a replacement or symbol for God. Here, Shaul simply goes through with the ceremony that Shmuel set up. In Exodus, the people ended up worshiping an idol, but here they simply sacrifice to God. There, Aaron was not punished at the scene, the people were punished. Here, Shaul is punished, but not the people. Why does the Navi set up this parallel only for it to fall short? What exactly was Shaul’s sin that it warranted such a harsh response? There could be two forces at play here. The first is the desire of Shmuel to paint the monarchy as something bad. By referencing the Golden Calf, Shmuel sets up a stark image in the mind of the reader, even if the facts do not entirely play out. In fact, one could maybe go as far as to question whether Shmuel deliberately tarried in order to put Shaul in an impossible situation. The second motivation is linking Shaul’s quick desire to appease the people to Aaron. Aaron thought he was helping out, but instead, his actions were responsible for one of the greatest sins in Israelite history. All because he listened to the people and not God or Moshe. Shaul’s big weakness is exactly the same thing. Shaul is too quick to appease the people. As a leader he needs to be strong willed and put the word of God over the fickle crowd. Shaul cares deeply about the people, but it clouds his duty to the people as their leader. Later on, Shaul will make the same mistake again. This could be what Shmuel is trying to avoid. By “overreacting” here, Shmuel may be hoping to stave off Shaul’s next big error. Unfortunately, Shaul will not heed the prophet’s warning.

Shmuel will ultimately appoint two kings, but he is also one of the most vocal critics of having a king. Chapter 12 is Shmuel’s extended chastisement of the people for asking for a king. Shmuel makes a direct connection between the people’s rejection of him as their leader and the Korach rebellion in Numbers. Shmuel calls out to the people: “Here I am! Testify against me, in the presence of the LORD and in the presence of His anointed one: Whose ox have I taken, or whose ass have I taken? Whom have I defrauded or whom have I robbed? From whom have I taken a bribe to look the other way? I will return it to you.” (הִנְנִי עֲנוּ־בִי נֶגֶד ה׳ וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ אֶת־שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת־מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת־מִי רַצּוֹתִי וּמִיַּד־מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ וְאָשִׁיב לָכֶם) (verse 3). Moshe says something similar to God in Numbers: “Moses was much aggrieved and he said to God: ‘Pay no regard to their oblation. I have not taken the ass of any one of them, nor have I wronged any one of them.’” (וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־ה׳ אַל־תֵּפֶן אֶל־מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי אֶת־אַחַד מֵהֶם) (Numbers 16:15). There is also another subtle connection. At the beginning of chapter 11, Nachash, the king of Amon, threatened to cut out the eye of the inhabitants of Yavesh-Gilad. In Numbers, Datan and Aviram tell Moshe: “You have not even brought us to a land flowing with milk and honey, and given us possession of fields and vineyards, should you gouge out the eyes of those involved? We will not come!” (אַף לֹא אֶל־אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבַשׁ הֲבִיאֹתָנוּ וַתִּתֶּן־לָנוּ נַחֲלַת שָׂדֶה וָכָרֶם הַעֵינֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם תְּנַקֵּר לֹא נַעֲלֶה) (Numbers 16:14). Shmuel links the two stories to show his displeasure with the people’s request for a king. But he also shields himself from criticism. Based on the text, the people came to Shmuel to ask for a king back in chapter 8. The reason they asked for a king was because Shmuel’s two sons were not living up to their father’s leadership and started taking bribes. But in this chapter, Shmuel says that they people approached him to ask for a new king after Nachash attacked. In the text, Nachash’s attack happens after Shaul is anointed, but before his coronation. Why does Shmuel change the story? Abarbanel lays out the timeline as follows: 1) the people asked for a king as explained in chapter 8, 2) Shmuel admonishes the people for their choice, 3) God is angry so he sends Nachash to attack as a punishment, 4) the people do not realize that Nachash’s attack is a punishment, so they double down on the request. Shmuel is referring to this second request. Because they doubled down, Shmuel now goes into the extended attack on the kingship in this chapter.

The references to the Concubine at Giva story in chapter 11 are impossible to miss. The most obvious one is Shaul’s dismemberment of his ox. “He took a yoke of oxen and cut them into pieces, which he sent by messengers throughout the territory of Israel, with the warning, ‘Thus shall be done to the cattle of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel into battle!’” (וַיִּקַּח צֶמֶד־בָּקָר וַיְנַתְּחֵהוּ וַיְשַׁלַּח בְּכׇל־גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיַד הַמַּלְאָכִים לֵאמֹר אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ יֹצֵא אַחֲרֵי שָׁאוּל וְאַחַר שְׁמוּאֵל כֹּה יֵעָשֶׂה לִבְקָרוֹ) (verse 7). Shaul is furious to hear that a city in Israel is being threatened with mutilation. To muster the people, he send a piece of his own ox to each tribe. The man from Levi did the same thing to his concubine in Judges: “when he came home, he picked up a knife, and took hold of his concubine and cut her up limb by limb into twelve parts. He sent them throughout the territory of Israel” (וַיָּבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת־הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּפִילַגְשׁוֹ וַיְנַתְּחֶהָ לַעֲצָמֶיהָ לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר נְתָחִים וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ בְּכֹל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל) (Judges 19:29). The people gather in the same way: “and they came out as one man” (וַיֵּצְאוּ כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד) (verse 7) and “and the community assembled as one man.” (וַתֵּצֵא כׇּל־הָעֵדָה כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד) (Judges 20:1). “As one man” appears several times in Judges 20. The goal of the Navi is to flip the narrative of the Concubine of Giva story. The appointment of Shaul, from Benjamin, as king is one way of symbolically doing so as discussed in chapter 9. The other way is in the retelling of the story of chapter 11 to refresh the narrative. In chapter 11 the people gather as one for a noble cause against an outside enemy. The prophet, Shmuel, and a singular leader, Shaul, are center stage unlike the rabble-rousing man from Levi in Judges. Most importantly, God plays an active role not a passive one as in Judges. Judges was also a story about meting revenge against a fellow tribe. Shaul destroys this revenge narrative in chapter 11 as well. The people come to Shaul with bloodlust for those that rejected his ascension to the throne. Shaul shuts it down immediately. As king from Benjamin, he had the opportunity to exact revenge on those that harmed him, but he chose not to. “But Saul replied, ‘No man shall be put to death this day! For this day the LORD has brought victory to Israel’” (וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לֹא־יוּמַת אִישׁ בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי־הַיּוֹם עָשָׂה ה׳ תְּשׁוּעָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל) (verse 13). The infighting ends today.

Shmuel sets up a very intricate future to do list for Shaul after his initial inauguration. Everything comes to pass and Shaul joins a band of traveling prophets and begins to have visions with them. Shmuel gathers the nation together for a lottery in front of the Urim v’Tumim to “select” the new king. Similar lotteries so far include the lottery to determine who was responsible for the defeat against Ai in the book of Joshua, also in the book of Joshua, multiple lotteries divide the land. This time, the lottery is meant to select the next king. The function of the lottery is to bolster the point that God made the decision. However, Shmuel already knew who the king was going to be and already anointed him! Shmuel also had the respect and gravitas to announce the next king from God. Why would Shmuel need to run a lottery here? The secondary function of the lottery is to provide added drama and suspense to the moment. This lottery is run almost the same as the lottery in Joshua after the defeat at Ai. The drama there is built up to provide a runway for the guilty party to admit their guilt before the final lot is drawn. The problem in our chapter is there is no need for a confession. In fact, the buildup of the drama may have had a negative affect and led to Shaul running away to hide like Jonah centuries later. So building suspense does not seem to fit as the answer. Perhaps because the people knew that Shmuel was not supportive of the idea of a king that if he just came out and announced a choice, that may have been suspect. This is further bolstered by the fact that Shaul is not from the tribe of Yehudah and is instead from the tribe recently condemned to annihilation. Had Shmuel, a royal skeptic, simply announced a king from Binyamin, it may have thrown the whole process for a loop. Therefore, God needed Shmuel to go through the pageantry to select a king. Another possibility is that God is specifically reenacting certain events in the past to send a message. As mentioned earlier, using the lottery evokes the lottery that split the land into multiple tribes. Standing before the Urim v’Tumim also evokes the battle selection in the civil war at the end of Judges. Those two events, in different ways, divided the nation. This lottery and selection of a king by the Urim v’Tumim is meant to unite the nation.

Judges ended on a very sour note. The Sodom redux story ended with eleven tribes almost wiping out the tribe of Benjamin. The country was leaderless, and the text repeated the reason over and over again: “At that time there was no king in Israel. Each person did as they pleased.” Now, there will be a king. But in a twist, the king does not come from the tribe of Yehuda. Instead, the king comes from the tribe of Benjamin. Perhaps God chooses the first king from Benjamin to test the people’s request. Saul was a direct descendant of the families that survived the massacre as he says that he was from one of the youngest families in all of Israel. His family was a symbol of the lowest point in Israelite history in the new land. If the people truly wanted a new king, they would have to accept that their new ruler is a descendant of the tribe they tried to erase. Saul will also be a constant reminder of what happened to the nation when they did not have a king at all. It is also a chance for the tribe of Benjamin to right the wrongs of the Concubine of Giva story. A tribe that acted as evil as the city of Sodom now has a representative who is tasked with righting the ship of the nation. There is a second metaphor in this chapter. One that is directed specifically to Saul. The nation was lost at the time of the Concubine of Giva. They are searching for stability and hope to achieve that in a new king. A king alone is not enough. A king will need something else to help them. The chapter begins with Saul searching for his lost donkeys. Just like the nation, Saul is tasked with locating the lost animals. But he needs help. Ultimately, he must go to Shmuel to seek guidance. Only then, will he find them. The message is clear. For him to help the people, he is also going to need the help of Shmuel. Shmuel now transitions from Judge to prophet and divine counsel to the king. It is up to the king to listen.

Is the idea of a king good or bad? Shmuel certainly seems to think it is a bad idea. He acts almost like a biblical Thomas Jefferson, warning the people about the dangers of concentrating power in a single ruler. A king will control every aspect of national life. He will draft sons into his army, take daughters into his service, seize fields and vineyards, impose taxes, and ultimately do as he pleases without consequence. Shmuel's warning is not really about one particular king. It is about the nature of power itself. Once authority is centralized, it inevitably expands. God also recognizes that Shmuel must feel personally rejected by the people's request. God's response is surprisingly sympathetic: “Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king” (7). God appears to view the request as a spiritual failure. The people are looking for security in political institutions rather than in their relationship with God. Yet this creates a major problem. God had already established a system of laws governing kings in Deuteronomy (17:14-20). If God opposed monarchy, why provide instructions for a king at all? Furthermore, what practical difference existed between a king and what Shmuel was already doing? Shmuel functioned as a national leader. Why, then, did the people suddenly conclude that they needed a king? The answer may lie in the immediate context. The request only comes after Shmuel appoints his sons as judges. The people looked at Shmuel's sons and saw a familiar problem. Every generation depended on God raising up a new leader. When that leader died or his successors failed, the nation entered another period of instability. The people were tired of the cycle. Ironically, their proposed solution should have raised even greater concerns. The failures of Eli's sons and Shmuel's sons were arguments against hereditary leadership, not in favor of it. A king's son would inherit power whether he was worthy or not. Nevertheless, the people preferred the predictability of succession over the uncertainty of waiting for God's next chosen leader. This may explain why Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that they wanted to be “like all the nations.” The issue was not merely that they desired a king. Rather, they desired the same kind of hereditary monarchy enjoyed by their neighbors. They wanted a stable political system that did not depend on prophecy, or divine intervention. A king's son, however, would automatically assume the throne. In the minds of the people, monarchy promised continuity and stability. Their mistake was assuming that political stability was Israel's primary problem. The Book of Shoftim repeatedly teaches the opposite lesson. Israel's downturns did not occur because there was no king. They occurred because the people abandoned God. A monarchy could solve the problem of succession, but it could not solve the problem of faithfulness. Sforno therefore explains that the laws of kingship in Deuteronomy are permissive rather than mandatory. Significantly, the Torah introduces the institution similar to the people's request in Shmuel: “If, after you have entered the land that your God has assigned to you… you decide, ‘I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me’” (Deut 17:14). The Torah does not command Israel to desire a king; it anticipates that they eventually will. In this reading, God understood that the people would one day choose hereditary stability over a direct reliance on divine leadership. Knowing that monarchy would eventually emerge, He established rules to limit its excesses and restrain its power. The existence of those laws does not imply divine enthusiasm for the institution. As in many areas of the Torah, what is allowed is not necessarily what is preferred. The tragedy of the people's request is that they sought security in a throne when their real security had always come from God.

“They assembled at Mizpah, and they drew water and poured it out before the LORD; they fasted that day, and there they confessed that they had sinned against the LORD. And Samuel acted as chieftain of the Israelites at Mizpah” (וַיִּקָּבְצוּ הַמִּצְפָּתָה וַיִּשְׁאֲבוּ־מַיִם וַיִּשְׁפְּכוּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיָּצוּמוּ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא וַיֹּאמְרוּ שָׁם חָטָאנוּ לַה׳ וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּצְפָּה) (verse 6). Why did the people pour out water? The Targum Yonatan explains that the people did not literally pour out water. Instead, they poured out their hearts in prayer. This symbol is used later on by Jeremiah in Lamentations: “Pour out your heart like water/ In the presence of the Lord!” (שִׁפְכִי כַמַּיִם לִבֵּךְ נֹכַח פְּנֵי אֲדֹנָי) (Lamentations 2:20). Radak has the same message, but he believes that the people did pour out water to show that they wanted to pour out their sins before God. Pouring water as a korban would happen during Sukkot as part of the simchat beit hashoeva celebration. It is the time of year where one prays for rains and prosperity during the winter months ahead. The rainy season is when the nation is most reliant on God. By pouring a water libation the people are signaling that they are truly reliant on God and at the same time trust that God will help save them. Water is an essential part of survival in the Near East and the fact is repeated often in the book of Devarim. The people were just trying to go back to basics and show God that they realized that God was the source of their very existence. The rest of the chapter is set up to parallel chapter 4. “And the Philistines heard” (וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים) (4:6) and “and the Israelites heard” (וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל) (verse 7); “the Philistines were afraid” (וַיִּרְאוּ הַפְּלִשְׁתִּים) (4:7) and “They were afraid of the Philistines” (וַיִּירְאוּ מִפְּנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים) (verse 7); “And he will save us from our enemies” (וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ מִיַּד אֹיְבֵינוּ) (4:3) and “He will save us from the Philistines” (וְיֹשִׁעֵנוּ מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים) (verse 8); “And Israel blew a loud blast and the earth shook” (וַיָּרִעוּ כָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּרוּעָה גְדוֹלָה וַתֵּהֹם הָאָרֶץ) (4:5) and “God thundered loudly against the Philistines and he shook them greatly” (וַיַּרְעֵם ה׳ בְּקוֹל־גָּדוֹל בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עַל־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיְהֻמֵּם) (verse 10); “And it was a great defeat” (וַתְּהִי הַמַּכָּה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד) (4:10) and “And he defeated them until Bet Car” (וַיַּכּוּם עַד־מִתַּחַת לְבֵית כָּר) (verse 11). In chapter 4, the Philistines were afraid and the Israelites overconfident. This time the roles reversed. The only difference was this time Shmuel and God were part of the equation. The people had repented and asked Shmuel to pray and their behalf. With God and Shmuel on their side the Philistines were defeated.

The Philistines ended up with more than they bargain for. Thinking they were victorious having captured the Ark, their reward was a plague of hemorrhoids. Shifting the Ark around to different cities was not helping either. The Philistine people approach their priests and mystics and seek a plan for sending the Ark back. The decision is made to send the Ark along with five golden rat statues and five golden hemorrhoid statues (whatever that is). Why did the priests choose this set up? Ancient near eastern cultures often created models of body parts that were afflicted with disease as offerings to gods an in an attempt to heal themselves. It’s also possible that the priests were trying to copy things that they heard of the Israelites. It was also common practice for ancient near eastern cultures to assume some of the gods and practices of defeated peoples. It’s probably why the Philistines originally placed the ark in the temple of Dagon. The Philistines themselves had referenced the exodus a few times in the past few chapters, and in verse 6, so they were aware of the exodus story. In the wilderness, God afflicted the Israelites with venomous snakes. When the people complained to Moshe, God had Moshe craft a copper snake to place on a large pole. The people would look up at the snake and would be healed. Perhaps the Priests knew of this story, and that is why they had the Philistines craft these statues of the sources of the plague. The copper snake did not heal the people. It only healed them when they used it to focus on God and repent for their sins. That could be the message that the Navi has for the Israelites. After they were first routed, the Israelites thought they could win the battle by bringing the Ark to the fight. They wrongly put their faith in a golden object, and not in God. Unlike the Philistine gods, God does not reside in an object. The people do not need the Ark to go into battle with them, they simply need their faith in God to protect them.

Chapters five and six are odd chapters. The main character is not a person. It is the Ark of the Covenant. The Philistines capture the Ark and place it in the temple of Dagon. Maybe this is the same temple that Shimshon destroyed. Each morning, the great statue of Dagon (a fish god- from the Hebrew word dag, or a god of the harvest from the Hebrew word- dagan) is damaged. The Philistines then move the Ark to another town where everyone is inflicted with hemorrhoids or rats or both. The text itself has a written and read mix. The written word is afelim and the read word is trachim. Rashi explains that the word is related to rats. When the Philistines were using the restroom, rats would crawl into their butts and damage their bowels. Radak explains that this was a plague that caused constipation due to inflammation inside the body. Chizkuni explains that these were an internal disease that could not be cured by normal medical means. Why were they punished with hemorrhoids? The only other time this word appears outside this story is in the tochecha in Deuteronomy. “God will strike you with the Egyptian inflammation, with hemorrhoids, boil-scars, and itch, from which you shall never recover” (יַכְּכָה ה׳ בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם וּבַטְּחֹרִים וּבַגָּרָב וּבֶחָרֶס אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא) (Deuteronomy 28:27). The list includes different types of boils and skin inflammation with the most famous the Egyptian kind from the plagues. Hemorrhoids are connected to these boils as they are an internal inflammation. Perhaps this verse offers two explanations for this punishment. The first is that God wanted to inflict the Philistines for something that would match what they were doing. The Philistines took that Ark and tried to keep it inside their holy places away from Israelites in a place that they thought was difficult to get to. In response, God afflicts them inside their bodies in a place that is difficult to get to. The other possibility has to do with a concern the Philistines expressed in chapter 4: “’Woe to us! Who will save us from the power of this mighty God? He is the same God who struck the Egyptians with every kind of plague in the wilderness!’” (אוֹי לָנוּ מִי יַצִּילֵנוּ מִיַּד הָאֱלֹהִים הָאַדִּירִים הָאֵלֶּה אֵלֶּה הֵם הָאֱלֹהִים הַמַּכִּים אֶת־מִצְרַיִם בְּכָל־מַכָּה בַּמִּדְבָּר) (4:8). There, the Philistines feared God when the Ark was brought to battle. Now that they captured it, they thought they had defeated and captured the God of the Israelites. In return, God punished them like the Egyptians. “For that night I will go through the land of Egypt and strike down every [male] first-born in the land of Egypt, both human and beast; and I will mete out punishments to all the gods of Egypt.” (וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה וְהִכֵּיתִי כָל־בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מֵאָדָם וְעַד־בְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים אֲנִי ה׳) (Exodus 12:12). God “attacks” the gods of the Philistines in the beginning of the chapter, and then attacks the Philistines themselves with the internal boils of Egypt referenced in Deuteronomy. The message is clear, God is not an idol that can be “captured”. He can strike down the enemies of Israel no matter the circumstance.

And the LORD continued to appear at Shiloh: the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh with the word of the LORD (וַיֹּסֶף ה׳ לְהֵרָאֹה בְשִׁלֹה כִּי־נִגְלָה ה׳ אֶל־שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשִׁלֹה בִּדְבַר ה׳) / and Samuel’s word went forth to all Israel. Israel marched out to engage the Philistines in battle; they encamped near Eben-ezer, while the Philistines encamped at Aphek (וַיְהִי דְּבַר־שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּצֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל לִקְרַאת פְּלִשְׁתִּים לַמִּלְחָמָה וַיַּחֲנוּ עַל־הָאֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר וּפְלִשְׁתִּים חָנוּ בַאֲפֵק)” (3:21 and 4:1). What is the connection between these two verses? The chapter breaks this after “the word of the Lord,” but should the break be after “all of Israel”? Rashi explains that “and Samuel’s word went forth to all of Israel” means that Samuel’s prophecy about the dark days ahead for the nation and Eli came true throughout Israel. This was accomplished by Israel marching to engage the Philistines. Basically, Shmuel did not instruct them to fight in the battle, instead the battle was the fulfillment of his prophecy. Radak is more direct. Shmuel directed the people to go to battle because this would be the way that the God’s word would come true. This interpretation is dark with the implication that Shmuel sent the nation into a battle that was doomed from the start. Abarbanel disagrees with Radak for this very reason. If Shmuel sent them to this battle they would think he was a false prophet! Abarbanel agrees with Rashi’s interpretation. According to the Ralbag, these two verses are meant to show a contrast. Shmuel’s prophetic prowess was well known in all of Israel, and yet, the nation went to war without asking him. The utter disregard for the word of God is what lead to defeat in battle and the capture of the Ark. Ralbag’s juxtaposition works with the rest of the chapter as well. Shmuel is not mentioned again. The people themselves control the events. They decide on their own to bring the Ark into battle. They collect it from the Mishkan where Eli and Shmuel are located and yet they do not ask if they should. But this begs the question, why didn’t Eli or Shmuel try to stop them from taking the Aron? Perhaps this open question means that Radak’s dark view could also match the text.

Chapter 3 is Shmuel’s first calling from God, and the setup—being called by name and responding “Here I am”—echoes earlier biblical callings, from Adam to Avraham. The Navi is positioning Shmuel as one of the great prophets. But there is also a touch of humor: teenage Shmuel keeps running back to Eli as if to say, “Here I am! You rang?” only for Eli to answer, “It was not me.” It takes three attempts before Eli realizes that God is calling the boy. Yet Shmuel’s first vision is strikingly dark. Why would God begin Shmuel’s prophetic career with a message of doom against the house of Eli? The answer may be that Shmuel is not being trained only to hear God’s word; he is being trained to lead. Shmuel will eventually guide the nation through one of its most delicate transitions—the move from judges to kings—and that requires more than inspiration. It requires the courage to speak painful truths, even to people he loves. Eli has raised Shmuel in the Mishkan and functioned almost like a father to him. So God’s first message tests whether Shmuel can place loyalty to God above personal loyalty to Eli. Shmuel passes that test. When Eli demands to know the vision, “Samuel then told him everything, withholding nothing from him” (verse 18). Before Shmuel can appoint kings, he must first prove that he can tell the truth to power—even when that power is his own teacher and father figure.

Traditionally, there are seven prophetesses: Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chanah, Abigail, Huldah, and Esther. Chanah never speaks directly to God, and she never has a vision. So where is her prophecy? It may be found here, in her prayer: “He raises the poor from the dust, lifts up the needy from the dunghill, setting them with nobles, granting them seats of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s; He has set the world upon them” / מֵקִים מֵעָפָר דָּל מֵאַשְׁפֹּת יָרִים אֶבְיוֹן לְהוֹשִׁיב עִם־נְדִיבִים וְכִסֵּא כָבוֹד יַנְחִלֵם כִּי לַה׳ מְצֻקֵי אֶרֶץ וַיָּשֶׁת עֲלֵיהֶם תֵּבֵל (verse 8). This verse may sound familiar because it reappears in Psalms 113, which is also part of Hallel. Shmuel, Chanah’s son, will eventually anoint Israel’s first two kings—Shaul and David. One might have expected those first kings to come from prominent families, perhaps from the children of previous judges or other established leaders. Instead, both Shaul and David emerge from more modest beginnings. They are lifted from the dust and seated among nobles. When King David later echoes Chanah’s language, he may be acknowledging that her prayer was not only gratitude, but prophecy. The Navi quietly confirms this in the first verse of chapter 3: “Young Samuel was in the service of the LORD under Eli. In those days the word of the LORD was rare; prophecy was not widespread.” / וְהַנַּעַר שְׁמוּאֵל מְשָׁרֵת אֶת־ה׳ לִפְנֵי עֵלִי וּדְבַר־ה׳ הָיָה יָקָר בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין חָזוֹן נִפְרָץ Chanah’s prophecy was remarkable precisely because it appeared in a time when God’s word was scarce and the people’s connection to Him was frayed. Years later, through her son, Chanah’s prayer became the blueprint for Israel’s monarchy.

If Judges was all about chaos, Samuel I is all about a return to normalcy. The book of Shmuel begins in the time period of Eli the Kohen Gadol who was also a judge. Eli was blind to the corrupt actions of his sons (sound familiar?). The era of judges was not over yet, but the pendulum is about to swing back. That pendulum manifests in a young woman named Chana. Every year, Chana and her husband and her sister-wife go up to the Mishkan tobring sacrifices. Chana is barren but is the favored wife (sound familiar?).Her husband tries to calm Chana by professing his love for her, but she really wants a child (sound familiar?). So, she goes to the Mishkan and prays with all her heart for a child. Eli sees here moving her lips and thinks she is a drunkard. She tells him that she was simply praying for a child and if she gets a child, she will give him over to God (sound familiar?) by bringing him to Mishkan to serve God. If this story sounds a little familiar, that is intentional. In the background, we have the story of Eli and his corrupt children. That is the Judges thread. In the middle, there is one piece of the story that overlaps- Chana’s promise to dedicate her unborn child to God. This dedication has hints of Samson as a Nazir, but also Yiftach’s promise to dedicate the first thing that comes through his door. Unlike Yiftach, Chana is much more careful with her words and dedicates her son to the service of God. This dedication also matches Avraham. But, again, Chana does not sacrifice her child. In foreground we have a story that is a throwback to Genesis. The story of Chana sounds very much like the stories of the foremothers- Sarah, Rivka, and Rachel. Barren women who want nothing more than to have a child. Chana’s story is very close to Rachel’s story of being the barren, yet most loved of multiple wives. Chana is not only connected to the foremothers. She is also connected to the forefathers. The Talmud in Brachot explains that theforefathers originated the idea of prayer. Abraham taught us shacharit, Yitzchak mincha, and Yaacov maariv.  Each one had a verse that could be interpreted as a time of prayer. The forefathers taught us when to pray. Chana, however, taught us how to pray. Chana is the paradigm of kavana during prayer. The Navi sets this story up to mimic Genesisto signal that the book of Samuel is a new beginning for the Israelites. 

If one looks at chapter 21 with one eye closed, it seems like a very uplifting chapter. The tribe of Benjamin is nearly wiped out, and the other tribes are crestfallen that their fellow tribe may become extinct. But there is an added roadblock: the tribes had vowed that no daughter would be given over to Benjamin as a wife. So the tribes find the one city that did not participate in the vow and give its young maidens over to the last surviving Benjaminites. But these young maidens are not enough to help repopulate the tribe. The rest of the tribes then turn to a local custom in the town near Shiloh. The holiday of Tu B’Av, a holiday of love, is born. Young maidens dance in the fields on the 15th of Av, and the Benjaminites can select their new brides from among them. Everyone then goes back to their tent happy. The chapter ends with the oft-repeated phrase: there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what they pleased. This sounds beautiful, right? The people have mended their ways and learned to work together without the need for a king! The sad reality is that this chapter is much, much darker than this rosy picture. The reason the tribes are in this dilemma is because they massacred an entire tribe—men, women, and children. Only 400 survivors remain. Yes, the tribes took a vow, but that also means they learned nothing from Yiftach about vow annulment. They discover that Yavesh Gilad did not come to fight and did not take the vow. The reward? Yet another massacre, this time meant to free up the 400 virgin maidens of the town. These young women are still not enough, however. So the people turn toward an innocent local custom and allow the Benjaminites to kidnap more young maidens and take them as wives. Now the last two verses make more sense. Despite the last three chapters, the Israelites once again return to their own lands. They do not use this opportunity to unite under a common cause. Everything just goes back to its own place. The nation is rudderless. Without a king, they have descended into chaos. Even a story that sounds beautiful is full of darkness. The book of Judges tells the story of the dark ages of Israelite history. It is a book of redemption, but also of lessons gone unlearned. It is a book of heroes, but also of broken leadership. It is a book of great miracles, but also of fractured connection to God. It is a book of great stories, but also one of repeated mistakes. It is both a book advocating for a monarchy and one that dreads its very existence.

Judges 20 parallels the story of the battle of Ai. After Jericho, the Israelites were overly confident. They battled Ai with a small force and were routed. They returned to Joshua distraught. God reveled that someone had stolen from the booty of Jericho. As a result, the army was doomed to failure. After the Israelites repented, God told them to go again to fight Ai and they would be victorious. They devise an ambush attack wherein one fighting force will draw out the army, and then a second group will enter the unprotected city. The signal there was a pillar of smoke rising up from the city. In chapter 20, the Israelites prepare to attack Benjamin. They approach God and ask who should go first. God responds that Judah should attack first. The Benjaminites defeat Judah despite having a much smaller fighting force. Licking their wounds, the Israelites return to God and ask, “shall we again attack the children of Benjamin our brother?” God responded yes. Once again, the Israelites are routed. The third time they “wept and sat before God and fasted that day until the evening and gave sacrifices before God.” וַיַּעֲלוּ כָל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל־הָעָם וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵית־אֵל וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַיָּצוּמוּ בַיּוֹם־הַהוּא עַד־הָעָרֶב וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי ה׳ (verse 26). They ask again through Pinchas whether they should continue fighting Benjamin, and this time God says yes. They then use the same basic strategy that Joshua used against Ai: one force draws the enemy out, while another waits in ambush and attacks the exposed city. The plan works, which raises the obvious question: why does the Navi frame this civil war as a replay of Ai?Radak explains that the delay was not because God was uncertain, but because the people did not ask properly. They were not speaking to a prophet who could rebuke them, explain the situation, or give broader guidance. They were asking through the Urim V’Tumim, which answers only the question posed. The first time, they ask only which tribe should go first. The second time, they grasp more of the moral weight and ask whether they should attack “our brother Benjamin.” Only the third time do they fast, weep, bring offerings, and ask the full question: should they continue or stop? Only then do they receive the decisive answer.That is the key difference from Ai. After the first defeat at Ai, Joshua could fall before God, plead on behalf of the people, and receive a full explanation. Here, there is no Joshua. There is no national leader with that direct connection to God. The people are forced to communicate through a narrow, question-and-answer channel, almost like a broken telephone. Even their victory is depressing: they defeat Benjamin, but Benjamin is not Canaan. Benjamin is their brother. The Navi borrows the structure of Ai to show how far Israel has fallen. The same military pattern that once defeated an enemy city is now being used in a civil war, by a people who are victorious but leaderless.

Chapter 19 of Judges mimics Chapter 19 of Genesis and the story of Sodom. Visitors are taken in by someone in a city. In the middle of the night, townsfolk surround the house demanding the visitor be send out for nefarious purposes. Someone inside the house offers up another victim to the crowd. There are countless parallel word choices. For example: “Do not on any account spend the night in the square” (אַל־נָא תָלַן בָּרְחוֹב) (Verse 20) and “But they said, ‘No, we will spend the night in the square’” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹּא כִּי בָרְחוֹב נָלִין) (Genesis 19:2)/ “they bathed their feet and ate and drank” (וַיִּרְחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ) (verse 21) and “and bathe your feet; then you may be on your way early” (וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם לְדַרְכְּכֶם) (Genesis 19:2)/ “the men of the town, a depraved lot, had gathered about the house” (אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי בְנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל נָסַבּוּ אֶת־הַבַּיִת) (verse 22) and “They had not yet lain down, when the town council [and] the militia of Sodom, young and old alike, the whole assembly without exception—gathered about the house” (טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל־הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן כָּל־הָעָם מִקָּצֶה) (Genesis 19:4) / “Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can know him” (הוֹצֵא אֶת־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־בָּא אֶל־בֵּיתְךָ וְנֵדָעֶנּוּ) (verse 22) and “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be know them” (אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם) (Genesis 19:5)/ “The owner of the house went out” (וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת) (verse 23) and “So Lot went out to them to the entrance” (וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵהֶם לוֹט הַפֶּתְחָה) (Genesis 19:6)/ “Please, my friends, do not commit such a wrong” (אַל־אַחַי אַל־תָּרֵעוּ נָא) (verse 23) and “I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong” (אַל־נָא אַחַי תָּרֵעוּ) (Genesis 19:7); “Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. Let me bring them out to you. Have your pleasure of them, do what you like with them; but don’t do that outrageous thing to this man” (הִנֵּה בִתִּי הַבְּתוּלָה וּפִילַגְשֵׁהוּ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אוֹתָם וְעַנּוּ אוֹתָם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וְלָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ דְבַר הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת) (verse 24) and “Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to the others” (הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר) (Genesis 19:8). The Navi intentionally wrote this chapter to reference the evil of Sodom. But there is more. This time, there are no angels to save the family. The man seems completely indifferent to the plight of his concubine. She collapses on the front steps, and he only notices her when he gets up in the morning from a restful sleep and tries to open the door. There is also the added prologue of the aborted stop off in Jerusalem. The man did not want to spend the night in a non-Israelite town. The Navi piles on the messaging here. The man and his concubine would have been safer in the non-Israelite town of Jerusalem. That is how far the Israelites had fallen. On top of that, no one looks good in this story. Both the townsfolk and the man look depraved and indifferent. The message is clear- the nation had fallen so far down that they are evil as Sodom, they are worse then the nations around them.

In a throwback to the end of Joshua, the tribe of Dan is restless. They are not satisfied with their allotment and decide to go on a reconnaissance mission.  Along the way, they encounter Micha and his priest, idol, and ephod. The Danites take everything and bring it to their newfound land. That land is populated by a tribe of Phoenicians that the text emphasizes were not harming or bothering anyone. The Danites massacre the tribe and take over the land and name it after their forefather Dan. The story end with a cryptic phrase: “The Danites set up the sculptured image for themselves; and Jonathan son of Gershom son of Manasseh and his descendants, served as priests to the Danite tribe until the land went into exile” (וַיָּקִימוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי־דָן אֶת־הַפָּסֶל וִיהוֹנָתָן בֶּן־גֵּרְשֹׁםבֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא וּבָנָיו הָיוּ כֹהֲנִים לְשֵׁבֶט הַדָּנִי עַד־יוֹם גְּלוֹתהָאָרֶץ) (verse 30). Which exile? It would make sense that the text is referring to the exile of the ten northern tribes during the Assyrian assault. This is Rashi’s opinion. The problem is that that will not happen for hundreds of years. According to Baba Basra 14b, Samuel the prophet wrote the book of Judges. Samuel died well before David united the tried under one kingdom, which was hundreds of years before the expulsion of the northern tribes. If Samuel wrote the book, then why (or how) would he reference something that happened hundreds of years after his death? Furthermore, how would David and Shlomo have allowed this idol worship center to persist in the north during their reigns? As to the second question, the Malbim explains that David did remove the idol worship and the “priestly” line of Jonathan repented. When Jerobaam became king of the Northern tribes, he installed a new idol in Dan. He reinstalled the family of Jonathan as the priests of this idol. Radak explains that the expulsion here has to be taken in context of Samuel. Samuel would be talking about the expulsion of the Ark when it was stolen during his lifetime. That is why the text says “expulsion of the land” (גְּלוֹת הָאָרֶץ) and not expulsion of the tribe of Dan or the expulsion of the Northern Kingdom.  Ralbag explains that this expulsion wasspecific to this land of the Danites. This took place at the hands of Yavin theking of Canaan. And that is why Devorah referred in her song “Dan why do youtravel by ships?” (וְדָן לָמָּה יָגוּר אֳנִיּוֹת) (5:17). Neither of the Dan territories was near the water. This must refer to the northern Dan tribe fleeing over the Jordan river after they were expelled and would also mean that this story took place before the story of Devorah earlier in the book. 

The last few chapters of Judges have no judges.Instead, they are stories of the utter chaos the existed in Israel. The Navi willrepeat the phrase “at that time there was no king in Israel, every one did whatthey wanted to do” over and over again. The first story involves Micha. Michaadmits to his mother that he stole silver coins from her. She is so over-joyedthat she instructs him to purchase a robe and idol with the money. Micha thensets up a little temple in his house. One day a stranger appears: “There was a young man fromBethlehem of Judah, from the clan seat of Judah; he was a Levite and he was“ger-sham” וַיְהִי נַעַר מִבֵּית לֶחֶם יְהוּדָה מִמִּשְׁפַּחַתיְהוּדָה וְהוּא לֵוִי וְהוּא גָר־שָׁם (Judges 17:7) . This verse is very strange. The man comes fromBethlehem in Judah. That is fine. But then the verse says he is from the tribeof Judah and a Levite. How could he be both? Some commentators say that he wasa Levite who lived in the territory of Judah. The Levite cities were scatteredthroughout the land. Other commentators explain that this individual was reallya member of the tribe of Judah and not a Levite. In this reading, the best casescenario he acted as a teacher, and so he was called a Levite. Worst casescenario, which seems more likely given the context of the story, is that hewas an imposter Levite. The symbolism here is of the ruling class of Judahtaking on the priestly duties of the tribe of Levi. A thousand years later,during the Hashmonaic period, the opposite will happen. The tribe of Levi willtake over the kingship from Judah. This act will anger many members of thetribe of Judah, including Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi who compiled the Mishna and leftout the Hanukah story as a result. The last part of the verse 7 is also odd.What does “gar-sham” mean? The literal translation is that he sojourned there.This means that the man was somewhat of a nomad who happened to be living inYehudah at the time. Some commentators think that the Navi is using a play onwords to protect his real name. Gar-sham really should be Gershom from thetribe of Levi who was Moshe’s son. This is bolstered by the next chapterreferring to the priest as the grandson of “Menashe” but with the “nun”suspended revealing the name of Moshe. But if the Navi wanted to protect Moshe,why tell the story of his wayward descendant at all? Once again, the Navi istrying to send a message against the troubles of a monarchy. Yes, the officialline of these last few chapters is that monarchy can bring stability anduniformity and peace. But, Monarchy can also have a downside. Even the grandsonof the greatest leader of the Israelites can go astray.

Stop me if you heard this story before- boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl’s countrymen want to kill boy, girl’s countrymen try to get girl to get boy in a vulnerable situation. Boy narrowly escapes. The story Shimshon repeats over and over again. But this time, third times the charm for the Philistines. The first wife revealed his riddle, but she ended up being burned, literally, by her countrymen. The prostitute at the beginning of this chapter could not hold Shimshon inside the walls of the city, but Delilah finally gets him to reveal his secret. In the end, Shimshon reveals that he is nazir, and his strength is derived from his long hair. וַיַּגֶּד־לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מוֹרָה לֹא־עָלָה עַל־רֹאשִׁי כִּי־נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי מִבֶּטֶן אִמִּי אִם־גֻּלַּחְתִּי וְסָר מִמֶּנִּי כֹחִי וְחָלִיתִי וְהָיִיתִי כְּכָל־הָאָדָם׃ וַתֵּרֶא דְּלִילָה כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וַתִּשְׁלַח וַתִּקְרָא לְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ הַפַּעַם כִּי־הִגִּיד לָהּ אֶת־כָּל־לִבּוֹ וְעָלוּ אֵלֶיהָ סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּעֲלוּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדָם׃ “and he revealed his heart to her. He said to her, ‘No razor has ever touched my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as weak as an ordinary man/ Sensing that he had revealed his heart to her, Delilah sent for the lords of the Philistines…’” (verse 17-18). The key phrase here is “he revealed his heart”. This is a very revealing moment for Shimshon. This is the first time in the text that Shimshon discusses his Nazirite life. His parents, who set him up for this lifestyle also disappear from the story after his first encounter with the lion and honey. The tough strong powerful Shimshon has a moment of emotional vulnerability and Delilah picks up on this immediately. She realizes that he has finally revealed the truth to her. What makes Shimshon do this? Delilah clearly was trying to trap him! Perhaps Shimshon was tired. Tired of his solitary life as a nazir. Tired of his solitary life as a judge of a wayward nation. Tired of his endless quest for companionship that kept ending in disaster. Tired of the burden placed upon him by his mother. But if he was emotionally vulnerable in the moment, then why does God leave him? The message seems backwards. Is Shimshon really punished for a moment of vulnerability? Perhaps this is yet more commentary on monarchy. Shimshon did not choose to be a judge. He was given this task from birth- like a king. Like a king he must carry this burden his whole life. Monarchy means that rulers are pushed into a lifestyle they may not want. But once crowned king, that choice goes away. As Queen Mary tells Elizabeth in the Netflix series The Crown, “Elizabeth Mountbatten… has now been replaced by another person, Elizabeth Regina… The fact is, the Crown must win. Must always win.” Shimshon’s tragedy is a darker biblical version of that same burden: he was chosen before birth, marked by the Nazirite vow before he could consent, and expected to carry a public mission that left little room for an ordinary private life. God’s people are too important for a king to allow their personal life to distract from their duty. In the end, however God does hear Shimshon’s cry. He helps him not only by restoring his strength to exact revenge, but also by allowing Shimshon’s family to bury him in his father’s tomb. Back with his family.

Last chapter, Shimshon had the assistance of a lion and some bees. This chapter its foxes and a donkey. Foxes: In Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s book- The Torah Encyclopedia of the Animal Kingdom, he discusses the debate as to whether the “shual” in this chapter is a fox or a jackal. Foxes tend to be loner animals who run quickly. Jackals are pack animals that are not as fast. As such, some commentators believe that Shimshon captured jackals because it would have been easier to catch 300 of them. Jackels would also be more comfortable moving in packs. On the other hand, Shimshon has already done quite a few extraordinary things, so the idea of capturing 300 foxes is not out of the realm of possibility. Foxes are more likely to twist and run in circles trying to escape the fire. Other animals would run away from each other pulling the torches to the ground. The circuitous route of the foxes would help create maximum damage. Donkey: Why a jawbone of a donkey? Ralbag explains that this is meant to enhance the miracle of Shimshon’s victory. Against heavily armed fighters he is able to defeat the enemy with a simple jawbone. Animal bones were some of the most primitive weapons. The Abarbanel focuses on the other side of the coin, that this is utter humiliation for the Philistines to be defeated by someone who only uses a jawbone. Malbim credits it to the spontaneity of the moment. Shimshon does not kill a donkey and rip out the jawbone. He simply finds a jawbone on the ground and attacks the Philistines unlike the complex war planning seen earlier in the book. None of these explain why it specifically is a donkey jawbone. If Shimshon spontaneously found the jawbone, this means the donkey must have been dead for quite some time. The last time donkeys appeared in the text was back during Gideon’s time. The hordes of Midyanites and Amalekites would swarm the land during harvest season. וַיַּחֲנוּ עֲלֵיהֶם וַיַּשְׁחִיתוּ אֶת־יְבוּל הָאָרֶץ עַד־בּוֹאֲךָ עַזָּה וְלֹא־יַשְׁאִירוּ מִחְיָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֶׂה וָשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר "They would encamp against them and destroy the produce of the land as far as Gaza, and leave no sustenance in Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor donkey." (Judges 6:4) Notice that these swarms would stretch all the way to Gaza- Philistine territory. It is possible, then, that this jawbone is left over from these swarms. Shimshon’s attack could be further retribution against the Philistines living in the south east of the land. Recall also that Shimshon’s backstory was similar to Gideon’s backstory opening with a visit from an angel. This could be another easter egg dropped by the Navi to connect the two judges.

Chapter 14 foreshadows the story of Delilah in chapter 16. Shimshon has a secret—here it is his riddle, there it is the source of his strength. His love interest is pushed to reveal the secret by the Philistines—here his bride-to-be is threatened by the Philistines at the party, there Delilah is bribed to obtain the information. Both times his love interest pesters him to reveal the secret. Both times he gives in. Why does the Navi repeat such similar stories? If we look at the story of Shimshon as a parallel to the Israelites at the time, then the answer becomes clearer. The book of Judges is all about falling back into bad patterns repeatedly. The Israelites, just like Shimshon, keep making the same mistake over and over again.As to the riddle itself, it should be impossible to answer because it is based on an incident that only he witnessed.וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל וּמֵעַז יָצָא מָתוֹק(Judges 14:14)What is the symbolism behind the lion and honey? A lion is usually connected to the tribe of Yehudah. However, Dan, Shimshon’s tribe, is described as a lion by Moshe—“Dan is a lion’s cub, springing out of Bashan.” (Deuteronomy 33:22).וּלְדָן אָמַר דָּן גּוּר אַרְיֵה יְזַנֵּק מִן־הַבָּשָׁן(Deuteronomy 33:22)Shimshon is the strong lion waiting to attack. The honey could be symbolic of Shimshon’s first wife and later Delilah. Shimshon eating the honey is symbolic of him getting stuck by these two women.It could also reference next chapter, when Shimshon hides out in the tribe of Yehudah as a result of the trouble he causes with the Philistines. Shimshon is the honey in this reading providing a sweet surprise for the Philistines who surround Yehudah.In I Samuel 17, David will tell Saul about defeating a bear and lion to show he has the strength to defeat Goliath.וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־שָׁאוּל רֹעֶה הָיָה עַבְדְּךָ לְאָבִיו בַּצֹּאן וּבָא הָאֲרִי וְאֶת־הַדּוֹב וְנָשָׂא שֶׂה מֵהָעֵדֶר(I Samuel 17:34)Using this analogy, the lion could be symbolic of the Philistines. Instead of running away, Shimshon faces down the lion and defeats it.וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ ה׳ וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי וּמְאוּמָה אֵין בְּיָדוֹ(Judges 14:6)After defeating the lion, sweet honey appears in its place.וַיָּסַר לִרְאוֹת אֵת מַפֶּלֶת הָאַרְיֵה וְהִנֵּה עֲדַת דְּבוֹרִים בִּגְוִיַּת הָאַרְיֵה וּדְבָשׁ(Judges 14:8)If Shimshon can defeat the Philistines, then the Israelites will be able to have a sweet existence in the land once again.

Shimshon is probably the most famous of all the Judges, and yet his story is very different than all others. The story begins in similar fashion to Gideon. An angel of God approaches to set up the leader. But this time it is different. The angel appears to Shimshon’s mother, before Shimshon is even conceived.וַיֵּרָא מַלְאַךְ ה׳ אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ הִנֵּה־נָא אַתְּ עֲקָרָה וְלֹא יָלַדְתְּ וְהָרִית וְיָלַדְתְּ בֵּן(Judges 13:3)The angel also appears to Shimshon’s mother twice. His father does not seem to believe her, yet God will only appear to his mother.וַיָּבֹא מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים עוֹד אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה וְהִיא יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּשָּׂדֶה וּמָנוֹחַ אִישָׁהּ אֵין עִמָּהּ(Judges 13:9)Shimshon’s mother is also told that he must be a Nazir, and she must follow Nazir rules in pregnancy. Yet, these rules are different than a regular Nazir.וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁמְרִי־נָא וְאַל־תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר וְאַל־תֹּאכְלִי כָּל־טָמֵא׃ כִּי הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וּמוֹרָה לֹא־יַעֲלֶה עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ כִּי־נְזִיר אֱלֹהִים יִהְיֶה הַנַּעַר מִן־הַבָּטֶן(Judges 13:4–5)Shimshon is not forbidden from being near a dead body. He also cannot stop being a Nazir. Shimshon acts as a loner. He does not assemble tribal armies. He does not even have a small band of soldiers working with him. The only interaction with people of Israel in the story is when members of the tribe of Yehudah want to turn him over to the Philistines.וַיֵּרְדוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים אִישׁ מִיהוּדָה אֶל־סְעִיף סֶלַע עֵיטָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשִׁמְשׁוֹן הֲלֹא יָדַעְתָּ כִּי־מֹשְׁלִים בָּנוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים(Judges 15:11)Shimshon also possesses super strength. This “superpower” is unique in the book of Judges, and in the Torah as a whole (putting midrashim aside).וַתִּצְלַח עָלָיו רוּחַ ה׳ וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי(Judges 14:6)The Shimshon story also contains lots of riddles.מֵהָאֹכֵל יָצָא מַאֲכָל וּמֵעַז יָצָא מָתוֹק(Judges 14:14)Shimshon’s mother names him, but without any reason.וַתֵּלֶד הָאִשָּׁה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ שִׁמְשׁוֹן(Judges 13:24)If someone is named in Tanach, there usually is a reason or God tells the individual to name them. Commentators give the following reasons for his name—Abarbanel explains that he would work for God his whole life (from the Hebrew shamash), the midrash explains that he was a source of light (from shemesh), Malbim explains that he would be an annoyance for the Philistines (from the Hebrew shimama), Radak says he was like the sun which stands alone in its brightness without any assistance (Shemesh). Why does the Shimshon story contain all of these unique attributes? Shimshon was the last of the named Judges in the book. The broken story, with half connections, is once again indicative of the time of Judges. Nothing seems to be going exactly right anymore. Even the great heroes do not fit the mold of the rest of Tanach.