Avshalom must have planned his escape; he knew that he couldn’t just murder his brohter and get away with it. And here we have Yonadav reassuring David that the rumors were false, (שמואל ב יג:לב) אל יאמר אדני את כל הנערים בני המלך המיתו כי אמנון לבדו מת. Last shiur we said that Yondav knew what happened because he was (שמואל ב יג:ג) איש חכם מאד, and (תמיד לב:א) איזהו חכם הרואה את הנולד. But here we have the possibility that Yonadav was a plant, that Avshalom was the רואה את הנולד. Yonadav puts enough doubt in David’s mind as to Avshalom’s motives, so David won’t go chasing after him and he has a chance to escape.
Why does Avshalom run to the king of Geshur? It’s his grampa:
We’ve talked about the fact that David married מעכה בת תלמי מלך גשור, and how that might have been a political marriage, to cement an alliance, or an אשת יפת תואר captured in battle. The fact that Avshalom runs there for sanctuary is evidence of the latter, as is the fact that the only other time Geshur is mentioned, David is committing genocide:
Now this Geshur is בואך שורה, in the wilderness between Israel and Egypt, but the land of Geshur most often mentioned in תנ״ך is in the north:
I would assume that it’s the same nation, with two branches north and south. And David is not friendly with either of them. Avshalom initialy goes to his grandfather, but eventually spends three years in Geshur itself. The Malbim says that was because he was being extra careful:
But I would read it as the other way around. Initially he is hiding with the king, but moves out into the entire land. He is an important person, and he is plotting how to return to Israel to become king himself. I don’t think he necessarily wants to kill his father at this point, but he is about 30, and his father is about 60 and obsessed with his בית המקדש. He would be happy to return, be named Crown Prince (Shlomo is only 5 years old; he can’t be taken seriously) and assume the duties of monarchy while his father retires to his blueprints.
And David is describes as ותכל דויד המלך לצאת אל אבשלום. What does that mean? כלה often means “decide”:
And לצאת often means “to go out to war”:
So David decided to go to war against Avshalom? But the problem is that ותכל is feminine. So Rashi says we’re missing a word:
David longed to go back to Avshalom. He misses his son, and forgives him כי ניחם על אמנון כי מת. Malbam has a clever understanding:
I think (as I always do) that the ambiguity is intentional. David loves Avshalom and wants to kill him. it’s a feeling that should be familiar to any parent. But he is held back (מלשון כלא) and so we ahve a three year standoff.
So Yoav, David’s nephew and chief of staff, has a plan:
What is Yoav thinking?
Yoav has always been fiercely loyal to David but often acts against David’s own interests (we have seen him kill Avner in פרק ג). Yoav will eventually side with Adoniyahu as successor to David as opposed to Shlomo, but again, that was not a rebellion againt David; that was Yoav’s idea of fighting David for his own good. חז״ל saw something similar in Yoav’s approach to Avshalom:
So Yoav invites this wise woman of Tekoa to talk to David, and we have what I think is the longest conversation in תנ״ך:
She defends her son by saying that the rest of the family, the גואלי הדם, are only after the money:
And David reassures her. Radak says he will protect her family:
But it seems more likely that he is only promising to look into it:
And then she continues to press her case, and begs David to take a formal oath to protect her son:
And then, she reveals the truth:
And David pries the further truth out of her:
Again, this is a very long conversation: 15 back-and-forths by my count. It must be important. Why? None of the classical מפורשים address this, so I’m going to speculate wildly.
Part of this is her lecture about the nature of justice: לא יישא אלוקים נפש. Our job is to do our best, and that means following the laws, even if it means that our justice is not perfect. We can rely on ה׳ for the final justice.
The other side is this emphasis on her origin. She is from Tekoa. So what? There are two Tekoas in Israel; one is in Gush Etzion (just south of Bethlehem) and the other is in the Galil, in the territory of Asher. חז״ל identified this תקוע with the northern one, which makes sense; I imagine that David would have heard of a scandal of one brother killing another in his own tribe.
Why would the text emphasize that she is from Tekoa? חז״ל say that is why Yoav picked her:
How does olive oil make you wise? One could make physiological arguments:
But I’m skeptical of that. I would go with something more metaphoric: the “wisdom” of Tekoa is the ability to bring peace:
And calling her a תקועית could be read as “one who is תוקע, who blows the tekia”:
The teruah is an alarm, a call to war. A tekia is the “all-clear”, a call to bring people together. That is the role of this אישה חכמה.
This lecture is an important stage in this part of ספר שמואל, which might be called The Education of King David. It’s part of his transition from a focus on his own role, even it is all לשם שמים , but it led to the sin of בת שבע and אוריה. His תשובה is about coming to a point where it is not about him, but about כנסת ישראל as a whole. His job is נועדו אליך כל העדה. He needs to become a תקועית himself.
We started the story of Amnon with יונדב, איש חכם מאד whose “wisdom” just made everything worse. We end it with אשה חכמה…האשה התקעית who tries to bring everything together.
There’s another אישה חכמה in תנ״ך, a few chapters from now:
This help define the role of the אישה חכמה. Both of them bring peace, and do it by appealing to the emotions rather than the intellect. It is part of the meaning of חכמה.
As I understand it, חכמה is wholistic and intuitive, where בינה is analytic. חכמה is “right-brained” where בינה is “left-brained”. In terms of the kabbalistic ספירות, ה׳'s חכמה is part of the מדת הרחמים, the undifferentiated Divine Intellect. בינה is part of the מדת הדין, that makes the distinctions that we see in creation:
And this אישה חכמה teaches David חכמה, bringing peace and being part of the whole. He needs this to achieve true מלכות.
And we’re going to get even more kabbalistic to connect this to ספר תהילים. We haven’t spent much time talking about the various forms of תהילים:
But I want to start looking at that now, and especially how the the Zohar looks at them. The תיקוני זהר notes a parallel of ten forms of praise and the ten ספירות, the classification of ה׳‘s מידות in this world. Each מאמר של שבח represents a way of appreciating a different aspect of how we experience the Divine. Again, I don’t think David had such a rigid structure in mind, but I think the kabbalists looked at the vocabulary that David used, and the themes of each chapter, and applied it to their analytic structure. In the terms we used above, David’s understanding of theology was חכמה, wholistic and intuitive. Lurianic Kabbalah is בינה, analytic and reductionist. And in that structure, the מאמר של שבח that corresponds to חכמה is שיר. As Rav Hutner points out that there are two broad categories of how we relate to the world outside ourselves: we are part of a larger whole, or we are unique and separate. In terms of our relationship with הקב״ה, these are called אהבת ה׳ and יראת שמים. In terms of our experience of ה׳’s relationship with us, these are called מדת הרחמים and מדת הדין, immanence and trancendance. In terms of our understanding of G-d’s wisdom, these are חכמה and בינה. In terms of the poetry of ספר תהילים, these are שיר and מזמור (from the root זמר, ”to prune“):
And the Zohar notes there is a specific שיר for the king:
The list of thirty that Rashi mentions are privileges of royalty, but the assumption is that they correspond to thirty “מעלות”, steps to achieving royalty. In the words of the Zohar, the תְּלָתִין דַּרְגִּין that go from בְּרַתָּא (מלכות; see Ramban to בראשית כד:א, ואכמ״ל) to אַבָּא (חכמה; see Chabadpedia and זהר ויקרא כו,א and Pardes Rimonim 23;8).
There are 14 תהילים that are “שיר המעלות”, and one that is “שיר למעלות”: as it were, the song [of חכמה], of the thirty steps. It is, in the reading of the בני יששכר, the song of wisdom of what it means to be a king. It is paean to humility.
There are several ways of reading “מאין יבוא עזרי”. Artscroll reads it as a question: “from where will my help come?” Hirsch reads the entire line as a question: “Shall I lift my eyes to hills to see from where my help will come?”, but in his commentary allows that אין my mean “not”, effectively “I lift my eyes to the hills, from where my help does not come”. He cites יחזקאל:
But the בני יששכר reads it as “my help comes from אין, from nothing”:
The conclusion remains the same: our salvation comes not from our own power, but from ה׳:
Hirsch empasizes that עֹשֵׂה is in the present tense:
The reason we need to rely on ה׳ is that any mortal ally is fallible. We need a שומר who will never sleep.
Hirsch has a unique perspective on ה׳ צלך. We don’t just need protection from the bad that may befall us; we need to protected from our good fortune as well. That is the symbolism of the sun and moon here.
And as we said above, צאתך ובואך has a special meaning for the king:
This perek, I would argue, is the underlying message of the wise woman of Tekoa. Even as king, David does not have absolute power. (שמואל ב יד:יד) כי מות נמות וכמים הניגרים ארצה אשר לא ייאספו; ולא יישא אלוקים נפש וחשב מחשבות. It is this humility that will allow David to survive the coming storm in his kingdom.