The Kingdom of David in Jerusalem (I)
Jerusalem in the Bible
Yeshivat Har Etzion
THe
Kingdom of David in Jerusalem (I)
THe
conquest of Jerusalem
rav
Yitzchak Levi
Last year, we saw that conquering Jerusalem was the first thing that
David did after being crowned as king in Hebron over all of Israel.[1] As
background to the topic, we discussed at length the various reasons for David's
choosing this city for his capital, the most important of which was his desire
to unify all the tribes, especially Yehuda and Binyamin. We also noted that the
conquest of Jerusalem completed Israel's conquest of the central mountain
massif, Yevus being the last heathen city remaining in the region (see note
2).
In this shiur we shall deal with the details of the conquest of
Jerusalem. The conquest is described in the books of Shemuel and
Divrei Ha-yamim, and we shall discuss here the differences between the
two depictions and try to see how they complement each other. We shall divide up
our study according to the main topics described in the chapters dealing with
the issue.
A.
GENERAL COMPARISON BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTIONS FOUND IN SHEMUEL AND DIVREI
HA-YAMIM
And
the king and his men went to Jerusalem to the Yevusi, the inhabitants of the
land. And they spoke to David, saying, You shall not come in here, unless you
remove the blind and the lame: thinking, David will not come in here.
Nevertheless David took the stronghold [metzuda] of Zion: that is the
City of David. And David said on that day, Whoever smites the Yevusi, and gets
up to the aqueduct [tzinor], and smites the lame and the blind (that are
hated of David's soul) therefore, the saying, The blind and the lame shall not
come into the house. So David dwelt in the stronghold and called it the City of
David. And David built round about from the Milo and inward. And David went on,
and grew great, and the Lord God of hosts was with him. (II Shemuel
5:6-10)
And
David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Yevus; where the Yevusi were,
the inhabitants of the land. And the inhabitants of Yevus said to David, You
shall not come here. Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion, which is
the City of David. And David said, Whoever smites the Yevusi first shall be
chief and captain. So Yoav the son of Tzeruya went first up, and became the
chief. And David dwelt in the stronghold; therefore they called it the City of
David. And he built the city round about, even from the Milo round about; and
Yoav repaired the rest of the city. So David grew greater and greater; for the
Lord of hosts was with him. (I Divrei Ha-yamim
11:4-9)
Scripture allows for the possibility that there were two stages to the
conquest: first the capture of the stronghold of Zion (the metzad or
metzuda) by David, and afterwards the smiting of the Yevusi, the
aqueduct, the blind and the lame by Yoav.
Each source emphasizes certain points, but we can see how the two
complement each other. The common elements include:
- The
refusal on the part of the Yevusi, the inhabitants of the city, to allow David
to enter.
- The
conquest of the stronghold of Zion and turning it into the City of
David.
- The
promise of a prize to whomever smites the Yevusi.
- The
renewed building of the city.
And
the differences:
- In
Shemuel, "The king and his men," whereas in Divrei Ha-yamim,
"David and all Israel."
- The
aqueduct, the blind and the lame are mentioned only in
Shemuel.
-
Yoav's role in the conquest of the city and not killing the local
population is mentioned only in Divrei Ha-yamim.
B. WHO
ARE THE CONQUERORS?
As
mentioned above, Shemuel speaks about "the king and his men," whereas in
Divrei Ha-yamim "all of Israel" came to the city.
The
Radak reconciles the matter as follows:
"And
the king and his men went." And in Divrei Ha-yamim it says: "And David
and all Israel went," because all Israel were now his men. Since he reigned over
all of Israel, he went to Jerusalem to capture the stronghold of Zion, because
they had a tradition that Zion would be the beginning of the kingdom of Israel,
and it would only be captured by someone who was king over all of Israel. And
until that day there was no sustained kingdom in Israel, for Shaul's kingdom was
not sustained. (Radak, II Shemuel 5:6)[2]
According to this explanation, Jerusalem was captured by all of Israel,
for once David became king over them, they were all called his men (as opposed
to the plain sense of the words in Shemuel, that we are dealing
exclusively with David's men).
It might perhaps be argued that the two descriptions taken together give
expression to two sides of the conquest of Jerusalem, and especially to David's
transition from being king over his men the men of Yehuda to being
king over all of Israel.[3]
C. THE
BLIND AND THE LAME
The
Yevusi are not interested in David's arrival, and their response to him gives
rise to one of the most complicated exegetical questions in the book of
Shemuel:
They
spoke to David, saying, You shall not come in here, unless you remove the blind
and the lame: thinking, David will not come in here.
Later David himself mentions the blind and the
lame:
And
David said on that day, Whoever smites the Yevusi, and gets up to the aqueduct,
and smites the lame and the blind (that are hated of David's soul) therefore,
the saying, The blind and the lame shall not come into the
house.
This is an excellent example of how Shemuel and Divrei
Ha-yamim complement each other. In Shemuel, only the condition is
mentioned, whereas that which is made conditional upon it is explicitly stated
only in Divrei Ha-yamim: "And David said, Whoever smites the Yevusi first
shall be chief and captain." A combination of the two sources provides us with
the complete picture of Scripture, as follows: "Whoever smites the Yevusi first, and
gets up to the aqueduct, and smites the lame and the blind (that are hated of
David's soul) shall be chief and captain. So Yoav the son of Tzeruya went first
up, and became the chief."
In any event, these verses raise difficult questions: Who are the blind
and the lame? Why are they "the hated of David's soul"? What is the meaning of,
"Therefore, the saying, The blind and the lame shall not come into the
house"?
Later we shall present several understandings of the matter, but already
now we can say that with all the resolutions that have been offered, the unknown
is still far greater than the known. As a rule, there is room to distinguish
between explanations following the plain sense of the text and homiletic
explanations offered by Chazal.
Rashi explains: "'The blind and the lame' these are their
idols."
The Radak cites the position of the Ibn Ezra, that the metzsuda
was so strong that the Yevusi taunted David saying that even the blind and
the lame could defend it: "Even if it is [only] the blind and the lame that turn
to fight against you, they will prevent you from entering, for the
metzuda is exceedingly strong, and we do not fear fighting
you."[4]
Josephus offered a similar explanation:
However,
the inhabitants of the city, the Yevusi, who descended from the Canaanites,
closed the gates before him, and stationed on the wall people with defective
eyes and legs and other deformities, in order to mock the king, saying that
people with deformities would prevent him from entering the city. They did this
because of their trust in the strength of their walls.[5]
The Radak explained the other expressions in the verses as
follows:
"That
are hated of David's soul" Because they humiliated him with them, saying that
they would prevent him from capturing the stronghold
"Therefore, the saying"
Because from that day on no blind or lame person would enter that house, namely
the stronghold of Zion, to shame those blind and lame people, and as a memorial
for [future] generations how David had captured it.
Amos Chakham explains: "We will all fight you to the last man; even if
only the blind and the lame will remain in the city, they too will rise up to
fight against David" (cited in the Da'at Mikra commentary to
Shemuel). Another explanation is cited in the Da'at Mikra
commentary: "You will not be able to defeat us, unless you can cure the lame and
the blind. Just as that is impossible, so too will it be impossible for you to
enter the city."
Yigal Yadin (Sukenik) argues [6] that the Yevusi's stratagem with the
blind was meant to cast guilt upon David and his army. He relies on a Hittite
document that describes a ceremony in which the Hittite army swears allegiance
to its king. There it is stated that anyone who thinks badly of the king, will
himself become blind or lame. The Yevusi, who understood that they would not be
able to stand up against David, brought the blind and the lame up on the wall,
and threatened David with a staged ceremony featuring an oath at the end of
which the punishment of blindness and lameness was promised to anyone who
touches the blind or the lame or any of the Yevusi. The Yevusi thought that the
oath and the magic might prevent David from going up to the stronghold, and the
courageous step that David asked of his warriors was to go up first and smite
the Yevusi, the blind, and the lame.
Prof. Benzion Dinur [7] suggests that the reference is to the blind and
the lame in David's army. According to this, the verse means as
follows: "If you remove the blind and the lame from your army, you will be able
to come here, for you can not get here if those who are coming are blind and do
not see the road, or lame and unable to walk on it." According to Dinur, the
reference is to the circumstances described in verse 8: In order to reach the
metzuda, one must see the aqueduct and proceed through a winding tunnel
that leads to it.[8] According to this explanation, verse 8 means as follows:
"Therefore, the saying" of the Yevusi "The blind and the lame shall not come
into the house," i.e., into the stronghold.
Like
Dinur, Targum Yonatan's translation of the words "the blind and the lame"
(v. 6) "chata'aya ve-chayavaya" (sinners and those liable) also
assumes that the blind and the lame are in David's camp. According to the
Targum, the Yevusi are saying to David that in order to enter Jerusalem,
he must first repair and remove the weak links in the Jewish people.[9] A similar idea is found in a
Midrash cited by the Radak, though there the deficiencies noted by the
Yevusi are in the patriarchs:
They
further said that there were two idols at the top of the tower called
tzinor; one was blind like Yitzchak and one was lame like Yaakov, and in
their mouths the oath that Avraham swore to Avimelekh.[10]
The Yevusi, in mockery of David and his army, turn his attention to the
fact that Jerusalem expresses perfect reality even in the physical realm. Thus,
the conquest of the city is conditional upon bodily and inner perfection and
removal of defects and deficiencies, for only the perfect can capture the
perfect.
The primary thrust of the explanations offered by many Rishonim is
based on a Midrash in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (chap. 36), which speaks of
Avraham's oath to the Yevusi:[11]
And
[Avraham] ran to fetch a calf, and the calf ran away from him and went in to the
Makhpela cave, and he went in after it. There he found Adam and Chava
lying on their biers sleeping, with candles burning around them, and a sweet
smell above them. He therefore desired the Makhpela cave as a burial plot. He
told the Yevusi that he wished to buy the Makhpela cave at a good price, for
gold, and with a perpetual deed, as a burial plot. Were they Yevusi? Surely they
were Hittites? Rather, on account of the name of the city, Yevus, they are
called Yevusi. The people did not accept [the deal]. [Avraham] began to kneel
and bow down before them, as it is stated: "And Avraham bowed himself down
before the people of the land" (Bereishit 23:12). They said to him: We
know that the Holy One, blessed be He, will eventually give you and your
descendants all of these lands. Swear to us that Israel will not take possession
of the city of Yevus without the consent of the Yevusi. Afterwards he purchased
the Makhpela cave for gold and with an eternal deed for everlasting
possession.
What
did the Yevusi people do? They fashioned copper idols and set them up in the
city square, and wrote Avraham's oath on them. When Israel came to the land,
they wanted to enter the Yevusi city, but they could not enter because of the
covenant established by Avraham's oath. As it is stated: "As for the Yevusi, the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, [the children of Yehuda could not drive them out]"
(Yehoshua 15:63). When David became king and wanted to enter the city,
they did not allow him. As it is stated: "They spoke to David, saying, You shall
not come in here" (II Shemuel 5:6). But surely Israel was like the sand
at the sea! Rather, because of the covenant of Avraham's oath
And afterwards
[David] acquired the Yevusi city for Israel with an eternal deed as an
everlasting possession.
According to the Midrash, the blind and the lame appear to David in the
form of copper idols that the Yevusi had set up in the city square. On them was
written Avraham's oath that Israel would not take possession of the city of
Yevus without the consent of the Yevusi. Here the Midrash exposes Avraham's
weakness in his relationship to Eretz Yisrael in general[12] and
to Jerusalem in particular,[13] a weakness that allowed him to enter into a
covenant with the Yevusi, the overcoming of which is a condition for the
conquest of Jerusalem.
Prof. Shemuel Vargon[14] proposes an entirely different understanding of
the matter. Which house were the blind and the lame forbidden to enter? We
already saw that some maintain that we are dealing with the metzuda of
Zion. The problem with this understanding is that nowhere does Scripture refer
to that stronghold as a "house." Others explain that the reference is to the
Temple, but this too is difficult, for the blind and the lame are not forbidden
entry into the Temple.[15] Thus, Vargon argues that it is the house of David
that they are forbidden to enter. This also fits in to the context of the
verses. According to this explanation, David recoiled from the blind and the
lame and from people with deformities in general. The Yevusi use of the blind
and the lame whatever the precise meaning of what they did - caused David
embarrassment and annoyance, and even intensified this basic weakness. David's
aversion to the deformed becomes manifest in the story of David and Mefiboshet:
bringing Mefiboshet to David's house and inviting him to be a regular visitor at
his table was a special act of lovingkindness performed by David, relating to
Mefiboshet as one of the king's sons. According to this understanding, we also
have David's overcoming of his weakness. During Avshalom's rebellion, however,
David failed with Mefiboshet, saying to Tziba, "Behold, all that belongs to
Mefiboshet is yours" (II Shemuel 16:4). According to this proposal, the
matter of the blind and the lame is mentioned in connection with the conquest of
Jerusalem, in order to emphasize the special trial that David underwent in
connection with the lame Mefiboshet, son of Yehonatan.
D. THE
TZINOR
There are many proposed identifications of the tzinor; we shall
limit ourselves to a few of them:
The Septuagint translates the term as pigyon, dagger. Sukenik[16]
is also of the opinion that it is a weapon, sort of a three-pronged pitchfork,
based on Onkelos's translation of the word mazleg (see, for example,
Onkelos's translation of u-mizlegotav (Shemot 27:3) as
ve-tzinoritei).
According to Tur-Sinai,[17] Yevus is the god of the city, the god of
storms and tempests, and the tzinor thunder, lightning, and a
tremendous stream of water is his weapon. According to him, the beginning of
verse 8, "And David said on that day," is a later addition, and the words,
"Whoever smites the Yevusi, and gets up to the aqueduct," are the words of the
Yevusi, meaning: "Whoever comes to smite the Yevusi city, will be smitten by the
god of the city, Yevus, and he will strike him with blindness by way of the
tzinor."
Another suggestion: The tzinor is the bolt with which the city
gate is closed.
Rashi explains that the tzinor is "the top of the tower, for it
was there that their idols were placed." We have already seen that the Radak
also maintains that we are dealing with "the top of the
tower."
According to Vincent (who excavated the City of David with Parker),
tzinor refers to the water project known as Warren's Shaft, which allowed
for water to be drawn from inside the city by way of an aqueduct that brought
water from the spring to the bottom of the shaft. According to this opinion,
Yoav succeeded in climbing up the shaft, surprising the enemy at the top, and
penetrating thereby into the city.
Excavations that have been carried out over the last five years at the
Gichon spring have uncovered a huge tower from the patriarchal period (Middle
Bronze Age II) that protects the spring, and also a tunnel leading from the city
to the pool adjacent to the spring, which is also protected by fortifications.
This project allowed the inhabitants of the city, during a period of siege, to
go down, draw water from the pool and return to the city. Perhaps, then, the
tzinor should be identified with this water project in its entirety,
especially based on the sole scriptural mention of the word tzinor in
connection with water: "Deep calls to deep at the noise of Your cataracts
[tzinorekha]: all Your waves and Your billows are gone over me"
(Tehillim 42:8). If this is correct, Yoav's courageous achievement was to
expose the tower protecting the spring, penetrate through it and the tunnel into
the city, and thus surprise the Yevusi and conquer the city from
within.
E.
"THE STRONGHOLD OF ZION: THAT IS THE CITY OF
DAVID"
Nevertheless
David took the stronghold of Zion: that is the City of David
So David
dwelt in the stronghold and called it the City of David. (II Shemuel
5:7-9)
Nevertheless
David took the stronghold of Zion, which is the City of David
And David
dwelt in the stronghold; therefore they called it the City of David. (I
Divrei Ha-yamim 11:5-7)
The City of David is called here "the stronghold of Zion" the first
time that the word Zion is mentioned in Scripture. Are we dealing here only with
a stronghold (metzuda or metzad), or perhaps the entire city is
called "Metzudat Zion"?[18] It is difficult to reach a conclusive answer
to this question.
What we want to emphasize is the change in the place-name immediately
after the conquest from "Metzudat Zion" to "Ir David" the City
of David, and in a slightly wider sense the city of the kingdom of the House
of David. We have already mentioned that the conquest belonged to all of
Israel, and therefore it is difficult to assume that the king related to the
city as his personal property. It is more reasonable to assume that the name
comes to say that he sees the city as the city of the kingdom of the House of
David for all generations. One of the interesting proofs for this assertion is
the designation of a place within the city as the royal burial site for the
kings of the House of David, where indeed the kings of the Davidic House were
buried from David until Chizkiyahu. This place has been identified at the
southern side of the city (based on Nechemya 3:16: "As far as a point
opposite the tombs of the House of David"). Setting aside royal burial grounds
in the small area of the City of David was apparently meant to give expression
to the eternal connection between the kingdom of the House of David and the City
of David.[19]
F.
THE ORDER OF THE TOPICS AND THE CHAPTERS AND ITS
MEANING
1. the order of the topics in
shemuel and divrei ha-yamim
The
order of the topics in II Shemuel is as follows:
5:1-3 |
Installing
David as king over all of Israel |
4-5 |
Chronological
introduction to the kingdom of David |
6-8 |
The
conquest of Jerusalem |
9-12 |
Turning
Jerusalem into the capital city, building of Jerusalem and the house of
David |
13-16 |
The
expansion of David's family in Jerusalem |
17-25 |
The
battles against the Philistines in Emek Refaim |
6:1 |
Enlargement
of David's army |
2-23 |
Bringing
up the Ark from Kiryat Ye'arim to
Jerusalem |
In I
Divrei Ha-yamim 11-16, the order of the events is
different:
11:1-3 |
Installing
David as king over all of Israel |
4-9 |
The
conquest of Jerusalem |
10-47 |
List
of David's warriors |
12:1-23 |
Those
who joined up with David after he became king |
24-41 |
The
army that comes to David in Hebron and the description of the coronation
ceremony |
13 |
The
first attempt to bring up the Ark to Jerusalem |
14:1-2 |
The
building of the house of David |
3-7 |
David's
wives and children in Jerusalem |
8-16 |
The
battles waged against the Philistines |
17 |
David's
renown |
15:1 |
David
makes houses for himself |
2-29 |
The
second attempt to bring up the Ark: from the house of Oved-Edom to the
city of David |
16:1-7 |
Bringing
the Ark into the city and placing attendants before
it |
2. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
INTERNAL ORDER IN SHEMUEL
The
idea that connects all the various elements found in the chapter is that David
has become the king over all of Israel. By virtue of his kingship, David
conquers Jerusalem and turns it into the capital of the Kingdom of Israel. He
builds his house and the city of Jerusalem with the cooperation of Chiram, King
of Tyre (cooperation that will continue in the days of Shelomo with respect to
the building of the Temple). When he finishes building his house, it is stated:
"And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and
that He had exalted his kingdom for His people Israel's sake" (II Shemuel
5:12). Scripture proceeds by describing the expansion of David's family in
Jerusalem, including the birth of Shelomo.
Following
the establishment of David's kingdom in Jerusalem and the expansion of his
family, Scripture describes the military victory over the Philistines, the
enlargement of the army, and the bringing up of the Ark from Kiryat Ye'arim to
Jerusalem. The fact that the Philistines arrive in Jerusalem immediately after
David establishes himself in the city testifies to certain connections between
the Yevusi and the Philistines. In any event, this teaches that the Philistines
viewed David's arrival in Jerusalem as a significant change. David lived first
in Tziklag, in the shadow of Akhish king of Gat; then he ruled as king in Hebron
over the Tribe of Yehuda; and, apparently, he did not threaten the Philistines
in any significant manner. His arrival in Jerusalem and installment as king over
all of Israel was another matter; a major force was now settled on the central
mountain massif, uniting the northern and southern tribes, and against this the
Philistines went out to war.
It is
important to remember that King David was the first to defeat the Philistines in
the battle at Emek ha-Ela, as Avner said: "Now then do it: for the Lord has
spoken concerning David, saying, It shall be in the hand of My servant David to
save My people Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and out of the hand of
all their enemies" (II Shemuel 3:18). The bringing of Goliath's head to
Jerusalem (I Shemuel 17:54) symbolized that David's victory over Goliath
and the Philistines opened the road to Jerusalem.
Thus,
the Philistines' arrival in Jerusalem after David established himself in his
royal city is not by chance. They come to fight and struggle over sovereignty
over Eretz Yisrael. David's two triumphs awarded him victory over
them, and by virtue of that victory David could bring up the Ark from Kiryat
Ye'arim to Jerusalem.
3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
INTERNAL ORDER IN DIVREI HA-YAMIM
There
are several points to be emphasized:
-
The conquest of Jerusalem appears immediately after David's being
installed as king over all of Israel (without the interruption of the count of
his years as king, as in Shemuel).
-
The purpose of the list of warriors is to point to the wide support for
David, for they are those "who held fast to him in his kingdom, together with
all Israel, to make him king, according to the word of the Lord concerning
Israel" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 11:10)
-
This is followed by a list of those who joined David, including the army,
and a more detailed description of the coronation, performed out of the unity of
all the tribes of Israel and with the establishment of a covenant. We have here
a general description followed by a more detailed account that completes the
depiction of the coronation.
-
Immediately following the description of the coronation, there is a
description of the first stage of bringing up the Ark to Jerusalem. Thus
Scripture emphasizes David's immediate desire, as soon as he is installed as
king over all of Israel, to turn his capital city into a place that is bound to
the Temple through the bringing up of the Ark.
-
A description of the building of the king's house, the expansion of his
family, and the battles with the Philistines are brought in the intermediate
chapters, between the beginning of the bringing up of the Ark from Kiryat
Ye'arim to the house of Oved-Edom of Gat and the completion of the bringing up
of the Ark from the house of Oved-Edom to Jerusalem.[20]
Summary
In
this shiur we have tried to understand the various meanings latent in the
conquest of Jerusalem: the struggle against the Yevusi and the Philistines who
come to the city at the time of its conquest, on the one hand, and David's
internal struggle with the spiritual weaknesses that prevented him, according to
Chazal, from conquering the city, on the other.
In the
next shiur, we will deal with the bringing up of the Ark from Kiryat
Ye'arim.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]
Some scholars have argued that David already conquered Jerusalem when he was
installed as king over the Tribe of Yehuda in Hebron, and already then he
established Jerusalem as a capital and built royal buildings. It seems to us,
however, that Scripture intentionally emphasizes that the conquest of Jerusalem
came in the wake of David's becoming king over all of
Israel.
M.D.
Cassuto argued that it is not by chance that the Yevusi are mentioned last in
many verses that list the seven Canaanite nations (e.g., Bereishit 15:21;
Shemot 3:8,17; 13:5; 23:23; 33:2; 34:11). This fits in well with the fact
that the conquest of the mountain massif was completed with the conquest of
Jerusalem, the city of the Yevusi, by David (M.D. Cassuto, "Yerushalayim
be-Sifrei ha-Torah," Eretz Yisrael III (5714),
15-17.
[2] In
the shiurim delivered last year, we dealt with the spiritual significance
of this explanation that kingship is a condition for the conquest of the city.
[3] It
has been suggested that a careful reading of the Yevusi's response, "They spoke
to David, saying, You shall not come in here," implies that David and his men
had first approached the Yevusi with an offering of peace, that is to say, they
had proposed that the Yevusi accept David's sovereignty, as is commanded by the
Torah (Devarim 20:10-11). According to this, the very turning to the
Yevusi stemmed from David's new kingship.
[4]
According to the simple reading of the text, this is the most understandable and
reasonable position. We already noted last year that the recent excavations
above the Gichon spring prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Yevusi had
constructed massive fortifications: a wall, towers, and a water
project.
[5]
Antiquities of the Jews, VII, 3, 1.
[6]
Yigal Sukenik (Yadin), "Ha-Ivrim ve-ha-Pischim ve-Kibbush Yerushalayim al
Yedei David," Fourth World Conference of Jewish Studies, Summer,
1947.
[7]
Benzion Dinur, "Ha-Sippur al Kibbusha shel Yerushalayim be-Yemei David
u-Mashma'uto ha-Historit," in Be-Mikra U-bedorotav, Jerusalem, 1977,
pp. 110-129.
[8]
This explanation is based on the understanding that the word "tzinor"
refers to an underground water project intended to supply water to the city
during a period of siege, to which we shall relate below. It is also clear that
this explanation assumes that the Yevusi were fully confident in their
fortifications.
[9]
Proof that blindness and lameness are expressions of weakness may be brought
from Iyyov 29:15: "I was eyes to the blind, and feet was I to the
lame."
[10]
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 45:19) attributes Yitzchak's blindness to
the tears of the ministering angels at the time of the Akeida. Concerning
Avraham's oath to Avimelekh, see below, note 12.
[11]
We cited this source in one of last year's shiurim to explain Hebron's
precedence over Jerusalem, and the refraining from conquering the city until the
days of David on account of Avraham's oath. There we dealt with other aspects of
this amazing Midrash, especially Avraham's connection to Adam, who was buried in
the Makhpela cave, and his desire to continue that practice.
[12] A
weakness that was manifest in his oath to Avimelekh. See last year's shiur
no. 22, second section, and appendix.
[13]
Rav Yigal Ariel, Oz Melekh, Iyyunim be-Sefer Shemuel, p. 158, sees
a continuation of this weakness in the very leaving of Aravna the Yevusi on
Mount Moriah, in keeping with Chazal's criticism: "If you haven't taken
possession of [the area] next to your palace, how then do you go to conquer Aram
Naharayyim and Aram Tzova?" (Sifrei, Devarim, 51). This hold on
Mount Moriah continued, according to the Yerushalmi (Pesachim
9:1), until the days of Chizkiyahu: "Ornan the Yevusi's skull was found under
the altar." This is not the forum to discuss the matter at greater length.
[14]
S. Vargon, "Motiv ha-Ivrim ve-ha-Pischim be-Sefer Shemuel," in: Hagut
be-Mikra, V (from Iyyunim be-Chug le-Tanakh le-Zekher Yishai Ron,
z"l).
[15]
Those with deformities are barred only from the altar (Vayikra
21:17,21).
[16]
E. L. Sukenik, "The Account of David's Capture of Jerusalem," GPOS XIII
(1928), 14-16.
[17]
N. H. Tur-Sinai, "Ve-Yiga ba-Tzinor," Leshonenu XIII (5704-5705),
98-105.
[18]
The two stages in the conquest alluded to in Scripture might represent two
topographical stages: conquest of the city and conquest of the metzuda.
In ancient times, it was common to construct, in addition to the fortifications
of the city itself, a central stronghold (acropolis, in Greek): a stronghold for
the king and his officers, to which they could retreat should the city be
captured. Remains of the foundations of such a stronghold, dating to the Yevusi
period, have been found in section G in the City of David, and it is very likely
that this is the foundation of the metzuda captured by David. It is
difficult, however, to reconcile this with the biblical text, for the capture of
the metzuda took place in the first stage of the conquest.
[19]
The tombs of the House of David raise many questions: Who is buried where; how
can they be reconciled with Chazal's position that graves must be removed
from the city at least fifty cubits (Bava Batra 2:9); identification of
the place known as "David's tomb"; and others. We cannot discuss these issues
here at length; they require a separate shiur.
[20]
Since this issue is critical for understanding the bringing up of the Ark to
Jerusalem, we shall deal with it in the next shiur, in which we shall
discuss the bringing up of the Ark to Jerusalem.
(Translated
by David Strauss)
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!