77: Chapter 10 (Part I) David and the Delegation of Comforters Sent to Amon
The Book of II Shmuel
Rav Amnon Bazak
LECTURE 77: CHAPTER 10 (PART I)
DAVID AND THE DELEGATION OF COMFORTERS SENT TO AMON
I. AS
HIS FATHER SHOWED KINDNESS TO ME
The chapter opens on a surprising note:
(1)
And it came to pass after this that the king of the children of Amon died, and
Chanun his son reigned in his stead. (2) And David said, I will show
kindness unto Chanun the son of Nachash, as his father showed kindness unto me.
So David sent by the hand of his servants to comfort him concerning his father.
And David's servants came into the land of the children of Amon.
These verses raise
two difficulties. First, it is not clear to which kindness of Nachash David is
referring; we do not find such a kindness in Scripture. But the primary
difficulty is David's very desire to perform a kindness to the son of Nachash
the Amonite. Nachash was a cruel and bitter enemy of Israel, as may be recalled
from the story relating to the people of Yavesh-Gil'ad:
Then
Nachash the Amonite came up and encamped against Yavesh-Gil'ad; and all the men
of Yavesh said unto Nachash, Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you.
And Nachash the Amonite said unto them, On this condition will I make it with
you that all your right eyes be put out; and I will lay it for a reproach upon
all Israel." (I Shmuel 11:1-2)
Is it appropriate to
repay a kindness to such a person?
Most commentators cite Chazal's regarding the kindness that
Nachash performed for David:
For when
David ran away from Shaul, he brought his father and mother to the king of Moav,
because he feared Shaul, but he trusted them, as he descended from Ruth the
Moavitess. This is what it says: "And David went thence to Mitzpeh of Moav; and
he said unto the king of Moav, Let my father and my mother, I pray you, come
forth, and be with you, till I know what God will do for me" (I Shmuel
22:3). And it says: "And he brought them before the king of Moav; and they dwelt
with him all the while that David was in the stronghold" (ibid. v. 4)
The king
of Moav killed them and none of them survived, save one brother of David, who
ran away to Nachash the king of the people of Amon. The king of Moav sent for
him, but he did not want to hand him over. This was the kindness that Nachash
performed for David. (Bamidbar Rabba 14:3)
This midrash[1]
is interesting. Chazal may be alluding here that David was punished for
his part in the killing of the priests of Nov. David's lack of vigilance brought
about the destruction of the family of Achimelekh the priest, save for one
member, Evyatar. David, in fact, admitted to his sin: "And David said unto
Evyatar, I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would
surely tell Shaul; I have brought about the death of all the persons of your
father's house" (I Shmuel 22:22). According to the midrash,
David was punished measure for measure, and so his entire family was also
destroyed, save for one member.[2]
Nevertheless, the entire story is missing from Scripture, and hence it is
difficult to use it to explain the plain sense of our chapter.
It therefore seems that the matter should be understood differently. We
have already noted on several occasions that when a person is forced to run away
from his own king, he is likely to find a safe haven by an enemy. We saw that
David acted in this manner in two instances when he ran away to Akhish king of
Gat (I Shmuel 21:11) and when he brought his parents to the king of Moav
(ibid. 22:3). Thus, there is certainly room to surmise that at some point David
found refuge by Nachash the Amonite, who was Shaul's enemy especially since
Nachash suffered a resounding defeat at Shauls hands.[3]
For this reason, David wanted to perform a kindness for his son and comfort him
for the loss of his father.
II. THE
RESULT
The mission, however, yielded results that were different from those that
David had expected:
(3)
But the princes of the children of Amon said unto Chanun their lord, Do you
think that David honors your father, that he has sent comforters unto you? Has
not David sent his servants unto you to search the city, and to spy it out, and
to overthrow it? (4) So Chanun took David's servants and shaved off the
one half of their beards,[4]
and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks,[5]
and sent them away. (5) When they told it unto David, he sent to meet
them; for the men were greatly ashamed. And the king said, Tarry at Jericho[6]
until your beards be grown, and then return.
The princes of Amon questioned David's intentions, their arguments
reflecting simple logic: What are the agents of an enemy king doing in their
land, if not spying? It is reasonable to assume that the princes would have
preferred to execute the agents, the usual punishment of spies. But Chanun
contents himself with humiliating the agents; he shaves off half their beards,
cuts off half their garments,[7]
and expels them from his land. It seems that Chanun was in doubt about the
mission's motives, and therefore chose an intermediate path, shaving off only
half their beards.
Why did David's good intentions elicit the opposite response? Chazal
saw in these results criticism of David's actions:
"And
David said, I will show kindness unto Chanun the son of Nachash." The Holy
One, blessed be He, said to him: Do you transgress My words? I wrote: "You shall
not seek their peace nor their prosperity" (Devarim 23:7), and you
perform kindness for them! "Be not righteous overmuch" (Kohelet 7:16) - a
person should not add to the Torah, and this one sends to comfort the children
of Amon and perform a kindness for them! In the end, it led to disgrace: "So
Chanun took David's servants and shaved off the one half of their beards, and
cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them
away." And it led to war with Aram-Naharayyim, and the kings of Tzova, and the
kings of Ma'akha, and with the children of Amon - four nations. As it is
written: "Now when Yoav saw that the battle was set against him" (II Shmuel
10:9). What caused this to David? For he wished to perform a kindness for one
about whom the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "You shall not seek their peace."
It is therefore written: "Harass [the Midyanites, and smite them]" (Bamidbar
25:17). (Bamidbar Rabba 21:5)
According to
Chazal's approach, the criticism was for the very maintenance of connections
with Amon and Moav. We, however, raised a more specific problem earlier: David
wanted to perform a kindness for someone who was not at all worthy of it.
Nachash the Amonite helped David not because he wished to realize God's prophecy
to Shmuel that David would rule as king over Israel, but rather because he
wished to create unrest and instability in Israel. David is no longer a private
citizen, but rather the king of Israel, and in his actions he represents the
people of Israel as a whole. It was, therefore, unfitting to send agents to
comfort Chanun the son of Nachash, whose father was such a bitter enemy of
Israel.
What led David to make this mistake? It seems that we come back here to
one of the central characteristics of David's kingdom: the performance of acts
of kindness. In the previous shiur, we mentioned the value of acts of
kindness in David's kingdom, and we already discussed this point at length in
our comments on the words that he directed to the people of Yavesh-Gil'ad (chap.
2, shiur 60). It stands to reason that David's feeling of obligation to
Nachash the Amonite was so strong, and his sense of gratitude was so deeply
ingrained in his personality, that they blurred the national considerations.
Special
attention should be paid to the similarities between our chapter and the
previous chapter. In both chapters David wishes to perform a kindness for a
person by virtue of the kindness performed for David by the father of that
person (who died in the meantime). But it is precisely this similarity that
highlights the difference between the two fathers. Yehonatan's actions were
indeed good, but this was not the case regarding the acts of Nachash the
Amonite.[8]
David's mistake which stemmed from traits that were good themselves
was that he focused on the personal connection between him and Nachash and
ignored the fundamental relationship between the king of Israel and the king of
the people of Amon. Scripture gives this idea literary expression in the
striking difference between the terms used to describe David in the account of
his kindness in our chapter and the terms used in the account of his kindness in
the previous chapter:
9:2-5 |
10:2-5 |
Now there was of the
house of Shaul a servant whose name was Tziva, and they called him unto David;
and the king said unto him, Are you Tziva? And he said, Your servant
is he. And the king said, Is there not yet any of the house of Shaul, that I
may show the kindness of God unto him? And Tziva said unto the king,
Yehonatan has yet a son, who is lame on his feet. And the king said
unto him, Where is he? And Tziva said unto the king, Behold, he is in
the house of Makhir the son of Amiel, in Lo-Devar. Then king David sent
and fetched him out of the house of Makhir the son of Amiel, from Lo-Devar. |
And David said,
I will show kindness unto Chanun the son of Nachash, as his father showed
kindness unto me. So David sent by the hand of his servants to comfort
him concerning his father. And David's servants came into the land of the
children of Amon. But the princes of the children of Amon said unto Chanun their
lord, Do you think that David honors your father, that he has sent
comforters unto you? Has not David sent his servants unto you to search
the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it? So Chanun took David's
servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their
garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. When they
told it unto David, he sent to meet them; for the men were greatly
ashamed. |
In chapter 9, where David acted in a commendable manner, he is referred
to over and over as "the king." In contrast, in the opening verses in our
chapter, he is repeatedly referred to as David, and in this way Scripture
alludes to the fact that David acted in accordance with his emotions as a
private citizen, while ignoring his standing as king of Israel, who must
represent the entire nation.
Even
though, as stated, David acted out of good intentions, his mistake nevertheless
had very tragic consequences. Had David not sent comforters to Chanun the son of
Nachash, the Amonites would not have humiliated them, and Israel would not have
gone out to war against them, and Yoav the son of Tzeruya and Uriya the Chitite
would not have left Jerusalem, and
III. IN
THE DAY WHEN I PUNISH I WILL PUNISH
The negative results of this story may have yet further significance. For
the people of Amon claimed that David had sent the messengers "to search the
city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it." This is not the first time that
such a claim was made during the period of David's rule regarding a
peace-seeking mission. It was not so long before that Yoav the son of Tzeruya
made such a claim regarding Avner the son of Ner, who tried to bring all of
Israel into David's kingdom after he had a fall-out with Ish-Boshet the son of
Shaul. As may be recalled, David was happy about this turn of events, and sent
Avner off in peace (3:21). But when Yoav, who had not been present at that
meeting, returned to David, he forcefully argued:
What have
you done? Behold, Avner came unto you; why is it that you have sent him away,
and he is quite gone? You know Avner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive
you, and to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you do.
(ibid. vv. 24-25)
David did not
respond to Yoav's words, and we already noted in that context (shiur no.
65) the problematic nature of this silence, which could have been interpreted by
Yoav as tacit agreement to what he was planning - Avner's murder.[9]
David was immediately punished for his silence. He was initially perceived as
the one who had instigated the murder, and he had to work very hard to convince
the people that he had nothing to do with Avner's death (see shiur no.
64).
The
similarity to our story raises the possibility that since David was being
punished for the mission itself, he was also punished at this point in the
manner of "in the day when I punish, I will punish" for his thunderous silence
in the Avner affair. David did not respond to Yoav's false accusations that
Avner's eyes were not directed at peace, but at spying, and he was punished
measure for measure - his messengers, who came in peace, were perceived as
having come to spy against Amon and humiliated.
Toward the end of this short incident, the term used to describe David
suddenly changes, and he is called the king for the first time: "And the
king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return."
It seems that David recognized his mistake, and the instructions that he sent to
his agents were already part of his preparations for the retaliatory measure to
be taken against Amon. Indeed, the next verse opens with the words: "And when
the children of Amon saw that they were become odious to David
" (v. 6). The
Amonites understood that their interpretation of David's intentions was wrong,
and that they had needlessly offended him and raised his wrath against them. War
was now inevitable.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] In shiur no. 74
(chap. 8), we noted the connection between this midrash and David's harsh
attitude toward the Moavites.
[2] I heard this idea from my
revered teacher R. Dr. Mordechai Sabbato. David's responsibility for the Nov
incident was discussed at length in shiur no. 43 on I Shmuel
(chap. 22).
[3] It would appear that after
this period, the connections between David and the royal house in Amon were
strengthened. Among those who came to David's assistance during Avshalom's
rebellion were "Shovi the son of Nachash of Rabba of the children of Amon" (II
Shmuel 17:27), who was apparently another son of Nachash the Amonite. (It
is interesting, in fact, that he helped David despite the war described in our
chapter. It is possible that David appointed him king in the aftermath of his
victory over Chanun.) Furthermore, already in David's lifetime, Shelomo married
Na'ama the Amonitess, the mother of Rechav'am (see I Melakhim 14:21).
(Rechav'am began to rule as king when he was forty-one years old [ibid.], and
his father Shelomo ruled for forty years [ibid. 11:42], so Rechav'am was born in
David's lifetime). The Da'at Mikra commentary (II Shmuel 17:27,
note 42) notes that the Septuagint implies that Na'ama was the granddaughter of
Nachash the Amonite.
[4] It stands to reason that
not only was half the length of their beards removed, but also half their width,
and this is an even greater humiliation. There is a certain similarity between
shaving half the beards and cutting off half the garments, on the
one hand, and the removal of "every right eye" that Nachash the Amonite
suggested to the people of Yavesh-Gil'ad.
[5] "Madveihem" =
garments; "shetoteihem" = the pubic region or the buttocks, as in: "So
shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt, and the exiles of
Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks (shet)
uncovered, to the shame of Egypt" (Yeshayahu
20:4). In the parallel verse in Divrei
Ha-Yamim, we find: "So Chanun took David's servants, and shaved them, and
cut off their garments in the middle, even to their hips, and sent them away" (I
Divrei Ha-Yamim 19:4).
[6] Even though Jericho had
been totally destroyed and its rebuilding forbidden (see Yehoshua
6:24-26; I Melakhim 16:34), it seems that an unwalled settlement
nevertheless remained. This is apparently the city mentioned in the book of
Shofetim by the name of "city of dates" (Shofetim 3:13), which is the
name of Jericho (see Devarim 34:3). Nevertheless, it seems that this was
a distant and isolated settlement, and it is for this reason that David sent the
humiliated messengers specifically there.
[7] The Radak makes an
interesting comment here: "He did not say to shave the other half, for it was
not their custom to shave their beards, even with scissors, but only the
mustache
and shaving the beard is a disgrace, only that this is the custom
in these lands in which we live."
[8] The connection between the
chapters is also evident in the opening words of our chapter: "And it came to
pass after this
"
[9] Even though it is clear
that David was not interested in such a step, for it greatly complicated matters
for him. See shiur no. 64.