Chapter 30 - David and the Amaleki Troop
The
Book of Shmuel
Lecture
56: Chapter 30
DAVID
and the amaleki troop
Rav
Amnon Bazak
I.
THE PUNISHMENT
With
the return of David and his men from the Pelishti camp to Tziklag, after the
Pelishti officers rejected Akhish's request to allow them to go out with him to
war against Israel, a difficult scene unfolds before them:
(1)
And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Tziklag on the third
day, that the Amalekites had made a raid upon the south and upon Tziklag, and
had smitten Tziklag and burned it with fire; (2) and had taken captive the women
and all that were therein, both small and great; they slew not any, but carried
them off, and went on their way.[1]
(3) And when David and his men came to the city, behold, it was burned with
fire; and their wives and their sons and their daughters were taken captives.
(4) Then David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and wept,
until they had no more power to weep. (5) And David's two wives were taken
captives, Achinoam the Yizraelitess, and Avigayil the wife of Naval the
Karmelite.
David's difficult situation gives rise to the question: Why? Why was the
city in which David and his men resided burned to the ground, and why were women
and children taken captive? There is a simple answer in light of the approach
that we adopted in the previous chapters, where we dealt with the problematic
aspects of David's joining forces with Akhish when he went out to war against
Scripture describes the price that David paid for his going off with
Akhish and the fact that it was precisely the officers' rejection of him that
helped David and his men in the end, enabling them to pursue the Amelike troop.
It is reasonable to assume that the Amalekites knew very well that David had
gone off to war and that they exploited the situation to take the women and
children as captives.
It is easy to imagine the state of David's men when they saw the burnt
city. Fully familiar with the Amalekites and their nature, they were justified
in their grave concern about the welfare of their family members. The great
weeping reflected their despair, and an accusatory finger was pointed at
David:
(6)
And David was greatly distressed; for the people spoke of stoning him, because
the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his
daughters
David's men, who, as may be recalled, were "embittered souls" (see 22:2
and what we wrote there [lecture no. 42]), wanted to strike out at David. Not
only did David have to handle the difficult situation itself, but he was forced
to deal with his own men, who charged him with being responsible for what had
happened owing to his failed attempt to go out to war with Akhish.[2]
There is a certain similarity between David's situation in this chapter
and Shaul's troubles at the time of the incident involving the medium in
Ein-Dor. Corresponding to Shaul's words, "I am sore distressed" (28:15), it is
now stated: "And David was greatly distressed." About Shaul it was stated: "and
there was no strength in him" (28:20), and about David and his men it is stated:
"until they had no more power to weep." But it is precisely at this point that
the difference between these two characters finds expression. David is not
helpless, but rather immediately:
(6)
David strengthened himself in the Lord his God. (7) And David said to Evyatar
the priest, the son of Achimelekh, "I pray you, bring me the efod." And Evyatar
brought the efod to David. (8) And David inquired of the Lord, saying, "Shall I
pursue after[3]
this troop? Shall I overtake them?" And He answered him, "Pursue; for you shall
surely overtake them, and shall without fail recover all."
As opposed to Shaul, who did not receive an answer from God, David merits
a positive response, which promises him deliverance from the troubles into which
he had fallen. We noted in the past the problematic aspects of Shaul's conduct,
the fact that he did not always inquire of God,[4]
and worse than that, that he had killed the priests of Nov. It is possible that
this is also the reason that Achimelekh is mentioned in verse 7; this emphasizes
not only why God answered David, but also why He did not answer Shaul. As
opposed to Shaul, David immediately inquired of God, as was his usual practice
(which we noted in the past; see lecture no. 44 on chapter 23), and he was
therefore answered in a positive manner.
II.
"FOR TWO HUNDRED STAYED BEHIND WHO WERE SO FAINT THAT THEY COULD NOT GO
OVER THE BROOK BESOR"
After
receiving an answer from God, David sets out in pursuit of the Amaleki troop.
From this point on, the story is constructed in an interesting manner. In the
outer framework (verses 9-10; 21-25), we are told about the internal struggle
unfolding in his camp; within this framework, an account is given of the war
against the Amaleki troop and the finding of the Egyptian lad (verses 11-20).
The connection between these two stories, which brought to the creation of this
framework, will be discussed below. I wish, however, to first discuss verses
9-10, which constitute an exposition in anticipation of the main event described
in the continuation of the chapter:
(9)
So David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him, and came to the
brook Besor, where those that were left behind stayed. (10) But David pursued,
he and four hundred men; for two hundred stayed behind, who were so faint that
they could not go over the brook Besor.
It seems that the division of David's men into two groups one group of
four hundred men who joined David in the pursuit and a second group of two
hundred men who remained behind is not by chance. Already when David's men
gathered behind him, it was possible to distinguish between two groups: the
original core of four hundred men "And
every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one
that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became captain over
them; and there were with him about four hundred men"
(22:2) - and the two hundred who were added later "Then
David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed out of
Ke'ila, and went whithersoever they could go"
(23:13). This division is also found in the story involving Naval the Karmelite:
"And
David said unto his men, 'Gird you on every man his sword.' And they girded on
every man his sword, and David also girded on his sword; and there went up after
David about four hundred men, and two hundred abode by the
baggage"
(25:13). We already suggested (lecture no. 42, note 3) that the four hundred men
who went up with David were the four hundred men who comprised the original
group, whereas the two hundred who remained behind with the baggage were those
who joined up later and failed to blend in with the core group. Thus, it may be
argued that the four hundred men who went with David in our chapter were the
four hundred members of the original group, whereas the additional two hundred
were those who remained with the baggage in the campaign against Naval as
well.[5]
In light of this, we can understand the tension that develops between the
two groups in the continuation of the story: This was not a one-time incident,
but rather part of the ongoing tension between the two groups in David's camp, a
tension the meaning of which will be discussed below.
III. "AND
MY MASTER LEFT ME, BECAUSE THREE DAYS AGO I FELL SICK"
David's
deliverance arrives with the help of a particular
incident:
(11)
And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave him
bread, and he did eat; and they gave him water to drink; (12) and they gave him
a piece of a cake of figs and two clusters of raisins; and when he had eaten,
his spirit came back to him; for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water,
three days and three nights. (13) And David said unto him, "To whom do you
belong? And from where are you?" And he said: "I am a young Egyptian, servant to
an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick. (14) We
made a raid upon the south of the Keretites, and upon that which belongs to
Yehuda, and upon the south of Kalev; and we burned Tziklag with
fire."
These verses describe, first and foremost, the deep moral abyss that
separates the Amalekites from David's camp. David's men meet the Egyptian lad on
the verge of death and rescue him without even knowing who he is, despite their
own difficult psychological state and despite the fact that they are engaged in
a pursuit. The lad's Egyptian origins sharpen two points. First, had he been an
Amalekite, there might have been room to assume that David's men saved him only
for their own benefit, on the assumption that he would be able to provide them
with information about the troop that had attacked Tziklag. The fact that he
belonged to a different people proves that the assistance that they extended to
him stemmed solely from a moral obligation. Second, the fact that the lad was
Egyptian was liable to negatively effect their attitude toward him, after
hundreds of years of enslavement during which "an Egyptian man hitting a Hebrew
man" (Shemot 2:11)[6]
must have been a common sight. Nevertheless, David and his men fulfilled the
Torah's command, "You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger
in his land" (Devarim 23:8), and saved the lad from
death.
All this stands out, of course, against the cruelty of the Amalekites.
The Egyptian lad's sickness bothered his Amaleki master, who cast him off
without food or water to die a certain death. This is slightly reminiscent of
Amalek's attitude toward
Indeed, by virtue of this act of kindness, David and his men merit to
receive important information about the whereabouts of the Amaleki
troop:
(13)
And David said unto him, "To whom do you belong? And from where are you?" And he
said: "I am a young Egyptian, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me,
because three days ago I fell sick. (14) We made a raid upon the south of the
Keretites, and upon that which belongs to Yehuda, and upon the south of Kalev;
and we burned Tziklag with fire. (15) And David said to him, "Will you bring me
down to this troop?" And he said, "Swear unto me by God, that you will neither
kill me, nor deliver me up into the hands of my master,[7]
and I will bring you down to this troop."[8]
(16) And when he had brought him down,[9]
behold, they were spread abroad over all the ground, eating and drinking and
feasting, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of
the Pelishtim and out of the
We see, then, that the immoral act performed by the Amalekites against
the slave sealed their fate, and the act of kindness performed by David and his
men ensured the restoration of the situation to its previous
state.
IV. THE
STATUTE
The
story of the war is not yet finished, and its continuation highlights even
further the gap between David and Amalek:
(20)
And David took all the flocks and the herds, which they drove before those other
cattle, and said, "This is David's spoil." (21) And David came to the two
hundred men, who were so faint that they could not follow David, whom also they
had made to abide at the brook Besor; and they went forth to meet David and to
meet the people that were with him; and when David came near to the people, he
saluted them. (22) Then answered all the wicked men and base fellows of those
that went with David, and said, "Because they went not with us, we will not give
them any of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his
children, that they may lead them away and depart." (23) Then said David, "You
shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the Lord has given unto us, who
has preserved us and delivered the troop that came against us into our hand.
(24) And who will hearken unto you in this matter? For as is the share of he who
goes down to the battle, so shall be the share of he who tarries by the baggage;
they shall share alike. (25) And it was so from that day forward that he made it
a statute and an ordinance for
The mood of David's men undergoes a dramatic change, and now they laud
and praise David: "This is David's spoil." This perception, however, is
problematic, and it leads to the confrontation alluded to above. David relates
to the people who stayed behind in a respectful manner. He inquires about their
welfare and insists on their right to receive their share of the spoil. He does
not view them as people who "could not go over the brook," but rather as those
"who tarry by the baggage," that is to say, as guards who are needed in every
military campaign. His primary argument is that the spoil is not "the spoil of
David," as his men had declared, but rather "that which the Lord has given us,"
and it therefore must be dealt with in a proper and upright manner. David's
greatness lies also in his ability to impose peace upon his camp; he rebukes the
"base fellows" who wish to deny the others their share, but at the same time he
addresses them as "my brethren." Thus, he gives them a sense of belonging, which
neutralizes their feeling of haughtiness.
At this point, the connection is made between the story told in the outer
frame and the inner story of the battle against the Amalekites. Amalek is noted
as relating in an immoral manner towards the weak and behind. David displays an
entirely different ethical norm: concern for the welfare and dignity of the
weak, based on the clear knowledge that fitting ethical norms are what underlie
his success: "That which the Lord has given unto us, who has preserved us, and
delivered the troop that came against us into our hand."[12]
V.
EPILOGUE
At
the end of the chapter, we find a list of cities to which David sent the spoil
taken from Israel's enemies,[13]
thus fulfilling the Torah's command to divide the spoil between those who go out
to war and the rest of the people (see Bamidbar 31:27). According to the
masoretic tradition, this list is written in poetic form, in the manner of other
victory poems:[14]
(26)
And when David came to Tziklag, he sent of the spoil unto the elders of Yehuda,
even to his friends, saying, "Behold a present for you of the spoil of the
enemies of the Lord." (27) To those that were in Bet-El,[15]
and to those that were in Ramot of the south, and to those that were in Yatir;
(28) and to those that were in Aro'er, and to those that were in Sifmot, and to
those that were in Eshtemo'a; (29) and to those that were in Rakhal, and to
those that were in the cities of the Yerachme'elites, and to those that were in
the cities of the Kenites; (30) and to those that were in Chorma, and to those
that were in Bor-Ashan, and to those that were in Atakh; (31) and to those that
were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont
to haunt.
Attention should be paid to the end of the list:
(Translated
by David Strauss)
[1] According to the Radak, the Amalekites raided Tziklag because they had
learned that it was from there that the invading forces set out (chapter 27).
Even though David did not leave anyone alive in his attacks (ibid. 9:11),
nevertheless, "they searched out the matter among the neighboring peoples until
they found it out." From the continuation of the chapter, however, it seems that
the raid against Tziklag was part of a larger series of raids that was not
directed specifically at Tziklag. We read below in v. 14: "We made a raid upon
the south of the Keretites, and upon that which belongs to Yehuda, and upon
the south of Kalev; and we burned Tziklag with fire;" and in v. 16 it says:
"Eating and drinking, and feasting, because of all the great spoil that they had
taken out of the land of the Pelishtim and out of the land of Yehuda." It
appears from these verses that the Amalekites exploited the war between the
Pelishtim and
According to the Radak, there is also the difficulty why the Amalekites
did not kill anyone, for this was a punitive raid, the natural reaction would be
to kill all the inhabitants, just as David had done. The Radak suggests in a
forced manner: "And for reasons known to the Creator and because He protected
those who love Him, he did not kill man or woman, even though David had killed
many of them." But if this was a regular raid undertaken for the spoil, this is
entirely understandable: The captives were kept alive in order to sell them as
slaves.
[2] As was noted by Metzudat David: "Besides the trouble that his
wives had been taken captive, the people also talked about stoning him because
he had tried to go out to war with Akhish, and this was the reason that Amalek
came and did what it did."
[3] Here, "erdof" is used in the sense of "ha-erdof," the
interrogative heh being swallowed up in the letter alef, as was
noted by the Radak and the Metzudat Zion, who bring other Scriptural
examples of this phenomenon.
[4] We saw this especially in chapter 14 (lecture no. 24), and we discussed
this in chapter 28 (lecture no. 53).
[5] It is, of course, possible that there is no connection between the
groups, and each time we are dealing with different people. But if we are not
dealing with two distinct groups, it is difficult to understand why Scripture
mentions this division.
[6] The combination "Egyptian man" is found in a negative context in other
places in Scripture as well: "And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father
was an Egyptian man, went out among the children of Israel; and this son
of the Israelite man and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; and the
Israelite woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed." (Vayikra
24:10-11); "And Benayahu the son of Yehoyada
slew an Egyptian man, a
fine looking man; and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to
him with a staff, and plucked the spear out of the hand of the Egyptian, and
slew him with his own spear" (II Shmuel
23:20-21).
[7] The slave's fear of being handed over to his master stemmed from the
social obligation in the ancient world to hand over runaway slaves to their
masters, an obligation that ancient near-eastern law anchored with a financial
penalty (and, in the Code of Hammurabi, even with the death penalty) that was
cast upon one who failed to fill this duty (see Encyclopedia Mikra'it,
s.v. eved). An example of informing on runaway slaves is found also in
Scripture; see I Melakhim 2:39-40. This, of course, runs counter to an
explicit Torah prohibition: "You shall not deliver to his master the servant who
is escaped from his master to you; he shall dwell with you, among you, in that
place which he shall choose in one of your gates, where it likes him best; you
shall not oppress him" (Devarim 23:16-17).
[8] It stands to reason that the lad knew where the troop usually camped.
[9] Scripture does not say that David actually swore to the Egyptian lad
apparently because David never had any intention of handing him over to his
master, and Scripture preferred not to mention an unnecessary oath taken by
David.
[10] Rashi sees in this word an allusion to the Torah section dealing with
Amalek: "The Amalekites were accustomed to be beaten on the next day, as it
says: 'Tomorrow I will stand' (Shemot 17:9)." The Radak explains that the
word "neshef" means "evening," and "le-macharatam" means "the day
after two evenings." He also cites the understanding of Chazal that
"neshef" can also mean the end of the night, in which case the reference
is to the time between sunrise and sunset. Indeed, the word "neshef" has
two meanings: the beginning of the night (see, for example, Yeshayahu
5:11; Mishlei 7:9) and the end of the night (see Tehillim 119:147;
Iyov 7:4). The Radak raises an objection against Chazal; according
to their understanding, the word "le-macharatam" is difficult. The
mem, however, might be like the mem in yomam,
shilshom, tzaharayim, reikam, and the like, in which case
it does not denote the plural.
[11] We noted in the past (chapter 27, lecture no. 52) that the expression
"unto this day" expresses, according to the plain sense of Scripture, the fact
that the verse was written well after the events under discussion. Metzudat
David offers a very surprising comment: "That is to say: Until the time that
[12] The Ralbag offers an interesting explanation: it was precisely the two
hundred men who stayed behind who found the Egyptian lad and brought him to
David. Even though his explanation is difficult from a practical perspective, he
emphasizes from a conceptual perspective the contribution of those who stayed
behind to the war effort.
[13] As opposed to Shaul in chapter 15, David is not punished for taking
spoil from Amalek. The taking of spoil was only forbidden in a war fought to
wipe out the memory of Amalek, as was explained at length in lecture 28. This
stands in contrast to the war in our chapter, which is not an official war
between
[14] See Yehoshua 12:9-24; I Shmuel 6:17; Ester
9:7-9.
[15] Bet-El, which is included in this list of cities located in the southern
part of Yehuda, is clearly not the well-known Bet-El in the
[16] See, for example, the list of the children of Nachor, which ends with
Rivka (Bereishit 22:20-23; and Rashi, v.
23).
, full_html, full_html
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!