We now return to Jerusalem. We last left Avshalom on his way with his followers, and Chushai heading back to Jerusalem to act as a double agent on David’s behalf:
So the text picks up there:
The קרי, the way the text is read, is לו אהיה, ”I will belong to him [the one chosen to be king, Avshalom]“, but the כתיב, the text as written, is לא אהיה, ”I will not be his“. In modern Hebrew, לו and לא are homophones, but the א is actually a consonant, a glottal stop (per Wikipedia, it’s the sound between the vowel sounds in “uh-oh!”). This particular קרי/כתיב pair occurs multiple times in תנ״ך, and is generally interpreted as meaningful, even though they have opposite meanings. It is the typological indication of a dialectic. The “real” meaning is לו, the subtext is לא. The statement is true, but not really.
Here, we have the sense that Chushai is openly proclaiming his loyalty to Avshalom, but under his breath he is saying “לא”. He remains loyal to David.
Avshalom then turns as well to his other advisor (note that he addresses “לכם”, both of you):
At one level, this is a fulfillment of Nathan’s prophecy:
But I don’t think Avshalom is trying to fulfill a prophecy (though the existence of the prophecy doesn’t hurt his case). He is trying to send a message.
(Note that בלהה is never called a פילגש anywhere else. She was a full-fledged wife. The text is emphasizing what Reuven was trying to accomplish)
Taking פלגשי אביו is a way of publicly declaring, “I am the king”.
But why are David’s concubines in Jerusalem?
Why does he leave them behind? The Vilna Gaon says, effectively, that he sacrificed them.
But the Abarbanel has the opposite understanding. They were left לשמר הבית.
David wanted to buy time, so he left a skeleton crew at the palace to keep up the appearance that he was still there. His staff was all family, and I imagine that David anticipated that Avshalom would kill them all (remember what happened to Amnon). Concubines would never be mothers of the king, so they and their children would not be rivals to Avshalom, and so ought to be safe. I would argue (against the Vilna Gaon) that David was not trying to fulfill the prophecy.
Now Avshalom offers another suggestion. The context (as we will see) implies that Chushai is no longer present.
I would interpret כשוב הכל האיש אשר אתה מבקש like Abarbanel:
We’ve said before that Avshalom had no intention of killing his father.
Remember Chushai’s role:
And Chushai wins the argument, by divine fiat:
We have now come full circle. The last time we have seen ה׳ as a character in this story, actively intervening in history, was back in פרק יב, describing ה׳'s reaction to the sin of Bat Sheva, and the birth of Shlomo. We have been reading all these chapters as the story of David’s תשובה, and now we explicitly see that ה׳ is accepted that תשובה and is acting on David’s behalf.
We’ve seen this story before:
We know about Rachav who saved Joshua’s spies. Who was this woman from בית איש בבחורים? The only person we know in בחורים is שמעי בן גרא, who at this same time is stoning and cursing David. The midrash makes the connection:
מגילת אסתר lists part of Mordechai’s genealogy; he is מרדכי בן יאיר but the rest is presumably a list of his יחוס, not his actual grandfather and great-grandfather (why list those?). בן קיש means he is from the family of שאול בן קיש (and there are many midrashim making that connection, mostly between Saul and Esther). Our midrash explains the בן שמעי part.
And so David escapes:
The suicide of Achitophel is a horrifying twist, a tragic end for someone David called (תהילים נה:יד) אַלּוּפִי וּמְיֻדָּעִית, and of whom the נביא says (שמואל ב טז:כג) כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשְׁאַל בִּדְבַר הָאֱלֹקִים, כֵּן כָּל עֲצַת אֲחִיתֹפֶל. Being intelligent doesn’t make you wise.
And there is a מוסר השכל here:
The contrast between David and Achitophel teaches us the power of תשובה.