Vayechi | David’s Testament

 

The time of David's death was drawing near, and he gave instructions to his son Shlomo. "I am going the way of all the earth," he said. "You must be strong and prove yourself a man. You must keep the charge of the Lord your God, following His ways and keeping His laws and commandments, His rulings and decrees, as written in the teaching of Moshe. For then you will succeed in whatever you do, wherever you turn. For then, the Lord will fulfill the promise He made to me, saying: If your sons keep to their path and walk before Me truly, with all their heart and all their soul, then no one of your lineage will be cut off from the throne of Israel. Now you know what Yoav son of Tzeruya did to me – how he dealt with the two commanders of Israel’s forces, Avner son of Ner and Amasa son of Yeter. By killing them, he shed the blood of war in peacetime and tainted the belt around his waist and the shoes upon his feet with the blood of war. Use your wisdom – do not let his gray-haired head go down to Sheol in peace. As for the sons of Barzilai the Gileadite, show them loyalty and let them dine at your table, for they befriended me when I was fleeing from Avshalom your brother. Now, look – though Shimi son of Gera the Benjaminite from Bachurim is with you, he cursed me with a vehement curse on the day I left Machanayim. When he came down to meet me by the Jordan, I swore to him by the Lord that I would not put him to death by sword – but now, do not let him go free. You are a wise man, and you will know how to deal with him – bring his gray-haired head down in blood to Sheol." And David slept with his ancestors and was buried in the City of David. The length of time that David had reigned over Israel was forty years; he reigned in Chevron for seven years, and he reigned in Jerusalem for thirty-three years. Now Shlomo sat on his father David's throne, and his kingdom was firmly established. (II Melakhim 2:1-12)

I. The Connection Between the Parasha and the Haftara

When we study the haftara of Parashat Shemot, we will see that it is related to the parasha only by a formal verbal connection, without any real related content. Our haftara also has a verbal connection: it begins with the words, "The time of David's death was drawing near," and Parashat Vayechi begins, "The time of Israel's death was drawing near." In the case of the haftara for Parashat Vayechi, however, there is also a substantive connection: David's testament to Shlomo on the eve of his death corresponds to Yaakov's testament to his sons on the eve of his death. Both testaments include a mention of God's name over the son who will be inheriting: in the parasha, over Efrayim and Menashe, the sons of Yosef, and in the haftara, over Shlomo – with a stipulation that he keep God's commandments. They also include favorable and less favorable consequences for different people: reward for Yehuda and Yosef for their good actions ("from the prey, my son, you have risen," "but his bow stopped steady") in Yaakov's testament, and reward for the sons of Barzilai the Gileadite in David's; and in contrast, the recompense for Reuven, Shimon, and Levi in Yaakov's testament, and the recompense for Yoav and Shimi ben Gera in David's. The haftara ends with the death of David and the total number of years of his reign, just as the parasha speaks of Yaakov's death and the years of his life.

II. Does the dynasty of David depend on good behavior from its kings?

The Navi mentions many times that David taught his son Shlomo to fear God and to observe His commandments so he would be worthy to build God's Temple (as discussed in our study of the haftara for Parashat Chayei-Sara). For example:  

As for you, my son Shlomo, know the God of your father and serve Him with a full heart and a willing soul, for the Lord searches all hearts and understands the design of all thoughts. If you search for Him, He will be there for you, but if you forsake Him, He will abandon you forever. Look now, for the Lord has chosen you to build a House for the Sanctuary – be strong and take action. (I Divrei Ha-yamim 28:9-10)

However, our chapter implies that God’s promise of the continued kingdom of the house of David also depends on keeping His commandments. If Shlomo strays from the path of God, the monarchy is liable to be removed from the seed of David. This, however, seems to contradict the prophecy of Natan:

For when your days are done and you lie with your ancestors, I will raise up your own seed after you – the issue of your own loins – and I will establish his kingdom. He will build a house in My name, and I will firmly establish his royal throne forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to Me; and should he do wrong, I will berate him with the rod of mortals and with human afflictions. But My loyalties shall not move from him, as I removed them from Shaul, whom I removed before you. And your house and your kingdom will be ever steadfast before you, and your throne will be secure forever. (II Shmuel 7:12-16)

Natan's prophecy implies that the continuation of the kingdom of the house of David is not conditional on the actions of the kings, even though they will certainly be punished for their evil actions. This is also evident from the prophecy of Yirmeyahu and from the song of Eitan ha-Ezrachi in Tehillim:

This is what the Lord said: If you are able to break My covenant with the day and My covenant with the night, causing day and night not to occur in their designated times, only then can My covenant with My servant David, that his son will reign upon his throne, be broken, and similarly for the Levitical priests, My ministrants… This is what the Lord said: Only if I had no covenant with day and night, and if I had not established the laws of heaven and earth, would I reject the offspring of Yaakov and of David My servant, and not select any of his offspring as rulers over the offspring of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov. (Yirmeyahu 33:20-27)

I have found David, My servant, and with My holy oil anointed him… I will ever keep My loyalty for him, My covenant ever faithful to him; I will appoint his seed forever, his throne as lasting as the heavens. But if his children forsake My teaching and do not follow in My laws, if they violate My statutes and do not keep My commandments, I will punish their transgressions with the rod, their offenses with wounds, but I will never withdraw from him My loyalty, nor betray My faithfulness; I will not violate My covenant, nor alter what My lips have uttered. I have sworn by My holiness once and for all – I will never be false to David. His seed will continue forever, His throne before Me like the sun, established forever like the moon, that faithful witness in the sky – Selah. (Tehillim 89:20-38)

However, other places seem to imply, as does our haftara, that this promise is conditional on the deeds of David's descendants:

Now, O Lord, God of Israel, keep the promise You made to Your servant David, my father, saying, “No one of your lineage shall be cut off from sitting on the throne of Israel before Me, but only if your sons keep to their path before Me as you walked before Me.” (I Melakhim 8:25)

If you walk before Me as your father David did, wholeheartedly and sincerely fulfilling all I have commanded you, and if you keep My laws and My rulings, then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David.... (I Melakhim 9:4-5)

The Lord swore to David… “If your children keep My covenant and My decrees that I teach them, then their children, too, for evermore shall sit upon your throne." (Tehillim 132:11-12)

How can we resolve this contradiction? We will explore two solutions that have been suggested.

1. The Rambam’s Solution

However, under no circumstance should a person who lacks the fear of God be appointed to any position in Israel, even though he possesses much knowledge. Once David was anointed, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendants forever, as it is stated (II Shmuel 7:16): "Your throne shall be established forever." Nevertheless, his acquisition of the monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendants, as it is stated (Tehillim 132:12): "If your children will keep My covenant… their children shall also sit on your throne forever." Despite this condition, God assured David that the monarchy would never be taken from his descendants forever, as it is stated (Tehillim 89:31-38): "If his children will forsake My Torah and cease walking in My statutes… I will punish their transgressions with the rod and their sins with plagues. Nevertheless, I will not utterly remove My grace from him… His throne shall be… established forever." (Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim u-Milchamot 1:7)

The Rambam distinguishes between the continuity of the kingdom and its distant future. God did not unconditionally guarantee the kingdom would be ruled continuously by son after son; David acquired the monarchy only for the righteous among his descendants. If his descendants are not worthy, God forbid, the kingdom may pass to another dynasty, or even to non-Jewish kings who will rule over Israel. But God promised David that his kingdom would not cease forever: even if it is interrupted, it will one day return to its former glory –  unlike the kingdom of Shaul, which has ceased forever. This is also how we see the redemption of the people of Israel in their land: grave sins may prevent the fulfillment of God's promise to the Patriarchs to give the land to their descendants, and the land has even passed into the possession of non-Jews, but the people of Israel will ultimately return to their land.

2. Solution from a Third Text

A second solution emerges from the words of the prophet Achiya the Shilonite, who was commanded to tear the kingdom apart following Shlomo’s reign and his attachment to foreign wives. This solution brings to mind the hermeneutical rule of Rabbi Yishmael: "When two Biblical texts contradict each other, they can be reconciled only by a third text":

"Take ten of the pieces," he said to Yoravam, "for thus says the Lord, God of Israel: I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Shlomo, and I will give ten tribes over to you. A single tribe will be his for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, the city I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. For they have abandoned Me and bowed down to Ashtoret, god of the Sidonians, and to Kemosh, god of Moav, and to Milkom, god of the Amonites; they have failed to follow in My path, doing what is right in My eyes, keeping My laws and My rulings like David, his father. But I will not take the whole kingdom from his hands; I will let him remain as ruler for as long as he lives, for the sake of My servant David, whom I chose – he kept My commandments and laws. I will take the kingship from the hand of his son and give it to you – over the ten tribes. I will give a single tribe to his son, so there will always be a lamp for My servant David's sake before Me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to establish My name. (I Melakhim 11:31-36)

Achiya's prophecy suggests God will preserve the continuity of kingship that He promised David, but through as small a kingdom as possible: in Jerusalem and its surroundings, in the tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin. In this kingdom, David's seed will only be a "nasi" (ruler, prince), and this will a "lamp" for David. The kingdom in all its power, between the river of Egypt and the river Euphrates, will be transferred from the seed of David because of their sins.

What is more, according to Achiya, God's promise to Natan will be fulfilled in that David's actual son will reign until the end of his life, for this is what was explicitly told to David in Natan's prophecy. Natan did not explicitly speak about the next generation, when the kingdom will already be diminished. With this reading, the contradictory Biblical texts can be reconciled (albeit in a forced manner).

III. Yoav’s Punishment

Yoav's punishment in David's testament raises three questions:

a. Yoav was the commander of David's army during his most difficult times: when he fled from Shaul, after the Philistines defeated Shaul's army in the Gilboa and took control of large sections of land, when Avner divided the kingdom and appointed Ish Boshet son of Shaul as king, and when the Amonites hired all the armies of the east to fight him. Yoav also restored the kingship to David during Avshalom's rebellion. Will he now be remembered exclusively for his two solitary crimes, killing Avner and Amasa, even though he had good reasons for killing them?!

b. If it was necessary to kill Yoav for these transgressions, why didn't David do it himself, instead of casting the task on Shlomo?

c. What brought David, on the eve of his death, to give such attention to matters of revenge, almost more than any other subject?

Regarding the first question, it may be answered that indeed, David and the entire people of Israel, including ourselves, owe a great debt of gratitude to Yoav for his contributions to the conquest of Jerusalem and the rise of the kingdom of Israel under King David’s rule. Many midrashim describe Yoav in a positive light. However, Yechezkel prophesied about a similar matter:

And the righteous one who turns from his righteousness and does wrong similar to all the abominable acts the wicked one committed, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds he has done will be remembered; his betrayal and the sins that he has sinned – because of these he will die. (Yechezkel 18:24)[1]

Yoav the righteous risked his life for the salvation of Israel, and his merits will stand for him to receive his reward for them in this world and in the next. But for his sins, he will stand in judgment like any other person.

The prophet (II Shmuel 3:22-11) leaves us, the readers, in doubt: Was the killing of Avner a crime, carried out because Yoav wanted to maintain his position as the commander of David's army and prevent transfer of the position to Avner as part of a political agreement between him and David? Or was it legitimate blood vengeance for the killing of his brother Asael in an unnecessary war?[2]

We are left with similar doubt regarding the killing of Amasa (II Shmuel 20:1-13), although there the prophet seems more inclined against Yoav: Did Yoav kill Amasa (who had just been his bitter rival, as commander of Avshalom's rebellious army) because he suspected Amasa of indirectly supporting the rebellion of Sheva ben Bikhri? Or was it perhaps because Amasa replaced him as commander of David's army (apparently after Yoav killed Avshalom against David's explicit order), and Yoav thought Amasa’s death would restore Yoav to his former position (as indeed happened)?

Invoking the principle of Occam's razor[3] leads to the conclusion that in both cases, Yoav's considerations included his personal desire to continue to head the army. Yoav was therefore guilty of shedding blood in both cases, as David said in his testament.

As for the second question – Why did David wait until close to his death rather than punish Yoav immediately? – we dealt with this issue in our study of the haftara for Chayei-Sara, and will review the main points here. Already after Yoav and Avishai killed Avner, David wanted to punish them, but he explained that he was unable to do so because the sons of Tzeruya were stronger than him:

Then the king announced to his subjects, "You certainly know that a noble man, a great man, has fallen this day in Israel. And I am mild and only just anointed king, while these men – the sons of Tzeruya – are harsher than me; may the Lord repay the evildoer according to his evil." (II Shmuel 3:38-39)

At the battle against Avshalom's army in the forest of Efrayim, David warned his men not to hurt Avshalom, but Yoav killed him anyway. His reasons seem to have been correct, but he could not have avoided including in his considerations revenge for the fact that Avshalom's servants had wickedly set his field on fire (II Shmuel 14:30). When David mourned over his dead son Avshalom, Yoav said to him:

Today, you have humiliated your own supporters, who saved your life – and the lives of your sons and daughters, and the lives of your wives, and the lives of your concubines – by showing love for those who hate you and hatred for those who love you. Today, you have made it clear that your officers and subjects are nothing to you. Today, I realize that were Avshalom alive and all of us dead right now – why, then, you would be pleased. Now get up, and go out, and make a heartfelt speech to your servants. For by the Lord, I swear that if you do not go out, not a single man will be on your side by tonight, and that would be a worse evil for you than all the evil that has befallen you from your youth until now. (II Shmuel 19:6-8)

In such a situation, David could not punish Yoav for his actions, though he succeeded in removing him (if only temporarily!) from the leadership of the army.

In the rebellion of Sheva ben Bikhri (II Shmuel 20), David sends Avishai at the head of the army. But Yoav takes control, and eventually, he conducts negotiations for the extradition of Sheva ben Bikhri at Avel Beit Ma'akha and declares – on his own – the end of the war.

David wanted to punish Yoav, but he lacked the political and military power to do so. Now, however, Yoav's position had weakened because of his advanced age, because of the rise of a new warrior, Benayahu ben Yehoyada, and because of the fall of Adoniyahu (whom Yoav had supported). Shlomo could punish him, and David asked him to do so.

Our third question was why it was so important to David right before his death to deal with revenge, with the need to kill Yoav. The answer to this question lies in Shlomo's words after David's death, when he sent Benayahu ben Yehoyada to kill Yoav:

"Do as he says," the king said to him. "Strike him down and bury him and remove the innocent blood that Yoav spilled from upon me and my father's house. The Lord will bring his bloodguilt back upon his own head for having struck down two men who were more righteous and better than he – he put them to the sword without my father David's knowledge – Avner son of Ner, the army commander of Israel, and Amasa son of Yeter, the army commander of Yehuda. May their bloodguilt be brought back upon Yoav's own head and upon the head of his descendants forever; and may David and his descendants, and his house and his throne, forever have peace from the Lord." (I Melakhim 2:31-33)

These verses imply that as long as David failed to punish Yoav for the bloodshed, the blame was assigned to David himself, and to his house and his family. The same principle is apparent in the halakha of the egla arufa, the calf that is ritually killed after someone has been murdered between two cities by an unknown perpetrator:

Then all the elders of the town nearest the slain person shall wash their hands over the calf whose neck was broken in the valley and declare: "Our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not witness it. Absolve Your people Israel, whom You redeemed, Lord, and do not leave the guilt of innocent blood among Your people Israel." So shall atonement be made for the bloodshed, and so will you purge the guilt of innocent blood from yourselves, by doing what is right in the Lord's eyes. (Devarim 21:6-9)

The elders of the court are certainly not suspected of being the murderers, but they are suspected of turning a blind eye to the murderer and not punishing him, either because he is from their city or because of their weakness. The Torah declares: As long as you do not purge the guilt of innocent blood from yourself, you yourself are guilty, and you cannot rinse your hands in the stream, because they are not clean of the murdered person's blood. David must punish Yoav so that he himself can achieve atonement for the blood that Yoav shed.

Perhaps this is the reason David did not merit to build the House of God, as he himself said.

"My son," David said to Shlomo, "I set my heart upon building a House for the name of the Lord my God. But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and waged mighty wars – you will not build a House for My name, for you have shed too much blood upon the earth before Me.’" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 22:7-8)

The commentators understood simply that David was disqualified from building the Temple because of the blood of Israel's enemies that he shed in his wars, but the prophecy may also refer to the blood of Uriya the Chittite and to the blood of Avner and Amasa, whose killing by Yoav was not punished by David. In his final testament, David tried to achieve atonement for this.

*

There is another point to mention regarding Shlomo's statement to Benayahu about the removal of the gratuitously shed blood of Avner and Amasa from David's head. Shlomo could have killed Yoav for having collaborated with Adoniya, after it was finally made clear that Adoniya was a rebel and he himself was killed. Thus, he could have killed Yoav based on his authority as king, but he preferred to kill him based on his father's testament, as the killer of Avner and Amasa. It should be remembered that Yoav ran away from Benayahu to the tent of God; this might serve as a refuge for one who rebels against the kingdom, but not for a murderer who is liable by Torah law for the death penalty. That is why Benayahu killed Yoav on Shlomo's command based on the laws of murder, and not based on the authority of the king. As Rambam writes:

If, however, a person feared that a king will have him executed as is the king's authority, or that the court will execute him as an immediate directive, and fled to the altar and held on to it, he should be saved. This applies even if he is a commoner. He should not be taken from the altar to die unless he was sentenced to death because of the testimony of witnesses who delivered a warning, as is always required with regard to those executed by the court. (Rambam, Hilkhot Rotzeach u-Shemirat ha-Nefesh 5:14)

IV. Barzilai the Gileadite’s Reward

Barzilai the Gileadite was one of David's three strongest supporters when he was in Machanayim on the east bank of the Jordan, next to the Yabok stream, after having fled from Jerusalem because of his son Avshalom:

When David arrived in Machanayim, Shovi son of Nachash of Raba of the Amonites, Makhir son of Amiel of Lo Devar, and Barzilai the Gileadite of Rogelim had set up couches and basins and earthenware; wheat, barley, meal and toasted grain; beans and roasted lentils and grain. They served honey and curds from the flock and cheese from the herd for David and his troops to eat, for they thought, "The troops must have grown hungry, weary, and thirsty in the wilderness." (II Shmuel 19:5-9)

It is further stated about him:

Barzilai was very old, eighty years old, yet he had provided the king with sustenance upon his return to Machanayim, for he was a very great man. (II Shmuel 19:33)

When the king returned to Jerusalem, Barzilai did not want to join him, because he wanted to ensure his burial in the grave of his father and mother, but he requested that his son Kimham go with the king in his place:

Let your servant stay behind, and I will die in my hometown where my mother and father are buried.[4] But here – your servant Kimham will cross over with my lord the king; treat him as you see fit. (II Shmuel 19:38)

As a result, Kimham received a plot in Beit Lechem, David's hometown and the city of his family. His plot is mentioned later in Scripture, in connection with a difficult event: after the destruction of the Temple, the remaining inhabitants of the land, led by Yochanan ben Kare'ach, decided to flee to Egypt following the murder of Gedalya ben Achikam; their last stop was at the plot received by Kimham, the son of Barzilai the Gileadite: 

Yochanan son of Kare'ach, along with all his army officers, took from Mitzpa all the rest of the people whom he had recovered from Yishmael son of Netanya after he had murdered Gedalya son of Achikam: men, soldiers, women, children, and courtiers whom he, Yochanan, had recovered from Givon. They left and stayed in the dwelling place of Kimham, near Beit Lechem, on their way to go to Egypt. (Yirmeyahu 41:16-17)

V. The Punishment of Shimi ben Gera

Shimi ben Gera is the second person that David instructs Shlomo to kill, as punishment for having cursed David when he fled Jerusalem from Avshalom:

King David had reached Bachurim when a member of the house of Shaul, whose name was Shimi son of Gera, suddenly charged out from there, cursing as he came. He hurled stones at David and at all King David's subjects, and at all the troops and warriors to his right and to his left. And this was the curse Shimi uttered: "Get out, get out, you man of blood, you depraved man! The Lord has brought all the blood of the house of Shaul back upon you for ruling in his place, and the Lord has given the kingship over to Avshalom, your son! Now you languish in your own evil, for you are a man of blood." Avishai son of Tzeruya said to the king, "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me pass, please, and I will cut off his head." "What do I have to do with you, sons of Tzeruya?" said the king. "Let him curse - perhaps the Lord told him to curse David; who is to say, Why did you do so? Look, my own son, the issue of my own loins, seeks my life," David continued to Avishai and all his subjects, "and now the Benjaminite does, all the more so. Let him be and let him curse, as the Lord bid him. Perhaps the Lord will look upon my suffering and the Lord restore my favor in place of his curses on this day." So David and his men went on their way as Shimi walked along the opposite hillside, hurling curses and stones toward them as he went, and flinging dust. (II Shmuel 16:5-13) 

Several questions arise regarding David's testament about this matter as well:

a. What is the meaning of the deep hatred Shimi displayed towards David as David fled from Jerusalem?

b. At the time of the incident, David accepted upon himself the judgment of heaven in the abuse that Shimi heaped upon him. Is it right to take revenge against Shimi years later, when at the time, David saw in his words the just decree of heaven for his sin regarding Bat Sheva and Uriya?

c. Shimi retracted his curse and asked for David's forgiveness when he returned from Machanyim to Jerusalem, and David indeed swore that he would not be punished and was angry at the sons of Tzeruya who wished to exact revenge from him:

Shimi son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bachurim, hurried down to meet David together with the men of Yehuda. A thousand men from Binyamin accompanied him along with Tziva, the servant of the house of Shaul, his fifteen sons, and twenty slaves. They rushed down to the Jordan before the king, crossing back and forth to bring the royal household across, to gain favor in his sight. And Shimi son of Gera flung himself before the king as he was crossing the Jordan. "Let my lord not consider me guilty," he said to the king, "and do not hark back to the crime your servant committed on the day my lord the king left Jerusalem; let the king not take it to heart. For your servant knows that I have sinned, and now I have come down here today, the first of all the House of Yosef, to meet my lord the king." Avishai son of Tzeruya spoke up. "Just for that, will Shimi be pardoned from death?" he asked. "He cursed the Lord's anointed one!" "What have I to do with you, sons of Tzeruya, that you should oppose me today?" said David. "Today, should any man of Israel be put to death? Today, am I not aware that I am king of Israel? You shall not die," the king said to Shimi, and he gave him his oath. (II Shmuel 19:17-24) 

What is the justification for David to change his peace-seeking policy in his testament to Shlomo? Wasn't that a violation of his oath to Shimi?

d. What is the meaning of David's words to Shlomo: "But now, do not let him go free. You are a wise man, and you will know how to deal with him"; what wisdom does the king need to kill Shimi?

e. Once again, we can ask, as we asked in relation to Yoav: What is the meaning of this revenge on the eve of David's death, and why did he not find other things to address and command about?

Our answers:

a. It appears from Mordechai's genealogy in the book of Esther (2:5) that Shimi was from the tribe of Binyamin and the family of Shaul. Due to the fear that overcame him when God's spirit departed from him, Shaul suspected David of undermining him and wanting to destroy him and his family. When David went out with the army of Achish, King of the Philistines, to fight Shaul's army at Gilboa (I Shmuel 29:2), he could have been considered (unjustifiably, since he did it under coercion) as a traitor to his people and his king. When, at the beginning of his reign, David (against his will) handed over the seven sons of Shaul to the Givonites, who left them hanging on trees and did not bury them (II Shmuel 21), and when David removed Michal, Shaul's daughter, from being the matron of his household, one might have suspected that David was exacting uncompromising revenge from the house of Shaul after inheriting his kingdom. David was a righteous man, and these suspicions are not true, but Shimi thought they were, and saw Avshalom's rebellion as a fitting recompense for David, who supposedly rebelled against Shaul.

b. David accepted upon himself heaven's judgment concerning his sin regarding Uriya and Bat Sheva, and saw his humiliation at the hands of Shimi as punishment for that, in keeping with Natan’s prophecy against him. David was permitted to waive his honor at that time, when he was no longer king after having fled from Jerusalem and returning the ark of God to the city. I assume that David could not have waived his honor forever, because his silence could have been interpreted as an admission that he had indeed betrayed Shaul and helped destroy his name from his family and his father's house (as many kings did in relation to their predecessors). This David could not allow himself to do: he fully denied, until his dying day, responsibility for Shaul's painful fall.

c. Shimi retracted his words when David crossed the Jordan and returned to Jerusalem, but his words imply he did so out of fear of the punishment that he was liable to receive. David saw the day of his return to the west bank of the Jordan as a day of reconciliation with the people, and he did not want to ruin that reconciliation. He even swore to Shimi that he would not kill him, and he could not break his oath, so he did not kill Shimi. It seems that David's command to Shlomo to kill Shimi after his death is also a violation of the oath, at least indirectly, and David did not allow himself to do so. But it was important that his silence and forgiveness not be interpreted as an admission that he, David, is indeed to blame for the death of the house of Shaul. He trusted Shlomo's wisdom, and asked him to solve the problem.

Shlomo did not kill Shimi right away. He adjured him not to leave Jerusalem, and Shimi swore to him that he would not leave the city. Three years later, when Shimi violated his own oath and left Jerusalem in search of his servants who had run away,[5] Shlomo saw Shimi's violation of his oath as an opening to violate David's oath to Shimi and kill him.

Was this revenge against Shimi, who had retracted what he had said earlier, so necessary? Chazal, who saw Shimi as Shlomo's teacher,[6] seem to imply a certain criticism about this:

And Rabbi Chiya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A man should always live in the same town as his teacher. For as long as Shimi son of Gera was alive, Shlomo did not marry the daughter of Pharaoh. (Berakhot 8a)

Indeed, I feel that the questions about these actions of David have not been fully resolved, and that they require further effort from myself and the readers to uncover additional answers.

(Translated by David Strauss)