Spiritual and
Ethical Issues in the Historical Books of Tanach;
JOSHUA, JUDGES, SAMUEL, KINGS (Nevi’im Rishonim) These four
books ostensibly are merely the history of Israel from the entry into the
Promised Land until the destruction of the Temple and the temporary loss
of independent statehood. In fact they are actually, in a specifically
Jewish sense, the most deeply religious and spiritual books of the Bible.
One does not have to be specifically Jewish to see or feel the religion
and spirituality in the revelations of the prophetic writings or in the
words of the Tehillim. They speak to all people, as evidenced by the fact
that the Bible is still the world's bestseller and there are millions of
non-Jews who regularly recite the Psalms. However, it is specifically and
intrinsically Jewish to understand that G-d is revealed in the prosaic
material, in the political, social and military events in the lives of
ordinary men and women, kings and leaders that are described in the Nevim
Rishonim. Here are described the ideology and religious thoughts in
Judaism, while in Chronicles we have the purely historical. The full significance of this relationship between the spiritual behavior of the king and his reign, is vividly demonstrated in the repetition of David's last words to Solomon, as described in greater detail in Divrei HaYamim Alef (28:1-29:28). There, the will is made with great fanfare and publicly before the gathered leaders of Israel. Solomon is directed to walk in G-d's ways and keep his Torah, but he is also told that he has been chosen as being worthy of building the house of G-d. David gives the plans of the Beit HaMikdash as Divinely revealed to him. David also gives the treasures he has accumulated for this purpose, after being told that, because of the many wars he has fought, he himself may not build the Temple. The heads of the tribes are exhorted by David to contribute their share of the building together with all the members of their tribes. After all the contributions are gathered, David creates a prayer that has been included in our daily liturgy, one which expresses the power and greatness of G-d in all His works (ibid. 29:10-13). At the conclusion of that prayer, David repeats the need for Solomon's observance of Torah. Now Solomon is once again appointed king. Previously, there had been only a limited number of witnesses to his appointment, but a king needs to be accepted by his subjects and anointed with the consecrating oil. So here the tribes accepted Solomon and the Kohen Gadol anointed him before G-d. Such a repeated election had been done both in the case of Saul (Shmuel alef 11:14-15), and of David (Shmuel bet 5:1-6). Even though halakhically, the son of a king does not need to be anointed, nevertheless this was done here in order to prevent discord and strife. The injunctions of David regarding Yoav and Shimi ben Gerah in our chapter must be seen within the context of the above ideas. Not to do so cannot be reconciled either with Psalms and the text of the Tanach or with the words of our Sages. This is not a question of covering up any shortcomings or of camouflage but rather as viewing these instructions within their textual and conceptual context. Here I have in the main followed the comments of Don Yitzchak Abarbanel, adviser to kings and princes in Portugal, Spain and Italy of the 15th and 16th centuries. He points out that the text shows clearly that David in no way broke his oath to Shim'ior told Solomon to kill either of these leaders, because of any actions against David. Rather the emphasis is on the need for Solomon to use his chokhma to meet any of their future actions in a just manner. Regarding Yoav, David says, "You shall act according to your chokhma and do not let his gray hair go down to the grave in peace." It was important that Yoav not find the normal death of old age. His past record showed that he had killed in a period of peace for his own personal gain or revenge. This is evident in the story of his murders of the two generals, Avner ben Ner and Amasah ben Yeter (Shuel bet 3:6, 19:14.). The former had been a general of King Saul and his son Ish Boshet but later had made a covenant with David. Amasah had been a general of Absalom in his revolt against David, but after that failed revolt, David had sworn an oath to appoint him as general instead of Yoav. The 'blood on his weapon belt and on his shoes' was meant to show his pride in the murder. Such a person constituted a perpetual danger to the rule of Solomon. Even then, nothing was done to Yoav until Yoav, on hearing of the ascent of Solomon to the throne, fled to the sanctuary to grasp the horns of the altar; a refuge meant only for those guilty of causing accidental death. Murderers were to be taken by force even from the sanctuary (Shmot 21:14). Yoav by his actions showed his guilt and rebellion against Solomon, thus incurring the death penalty. 'Behold, Shimi ben Gera is with you' as a constant teacher and friend and even an ally against Adoniyahu. David cautions Solomon against trusting Shimi, bearing in mind his enmity towards David in his flight from Absalom that put in doubt his subsequent peace efforts towards David. This hypocrisy could mislead Solomon, being at the very start of his political career, so his father cautioned him to use his wisdom. Indeed, it was only when Shimi broke the conditions imposed on him by Solomon, that he was killed. It would be easy to see all David's
political testament as mere cunning statecraft or Machiavellian political
plotting. That is indeed the non-Jewish and the secular view but our
commentators saw therein moral and ethical perspectives of relevance even
in the present day political and social world. So there has to be punishment alongside Mercy. Yoav was guilty of murder, of destroying the Divine image of G-d, and the Torah had said, "You shall not corrupt the land" by letting the murderer of this Divinity live. The Malbim (19th century Hungary) faults Yoav with killing the two generals despite their having made their peace with David; this behavior is contrary to justice and undermines the basis of moral and stable government. S. R. Hirsch introduces an idea with which we are all too familiar in our modern democratic societies. David was legally obligated to kill Yoav, at the time of Avner, both for murder and for rebellion at the time the acts were perpetrated. However, at that time he had only just taken the throne and many of the tribes were by no means ready to accept this. So because of his weak political position he did not carry out the deserved death sentence. Had David ordered the death of Yoav at that time, the people of Israel would have believed that he was only acting on orders from David, who now killed him in order to cover up his own crimes. Hirsch notes that the text (verse 5) reads ' did to me' rather than ' did to them', thus showing that it was Joav's implication that David had ordered the murders despite his promise to them. Even later when David's rule was secure, there was still place for concern. Any action by David against Yoav, would be seen by the public, as an excuse for his revenge for the killing of Absalom, who actually was liable to such punishment for his rebellion. Alternatively, the rabbis taught that David was concerned that any action of his against Yoav, would not be seen as punishment for murder but rather for making public the letter David had sent to Yoav, telling him to place Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Batsheva, in the front lines. Perhaps the real message of these political instructions can only become clear when we remember the relevance of the state and of government to Judaism. Judaism is a national- communal orientated religion, whose purpose is to create a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. Torah, the constitution of that kingdom is not revealed to the Patriarchs, but only after the Exodus from Egypt which created the nation. Government therefore, whatever its nature, is not simply a social or political creation but is an integral part of Torah. Modern Torah authorities like Rabbis Avraham HaCohen Kook and Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, rule that governments elected legally by democratic means inherit the rights of the king. The kabbalists taught that the king was the heart of the Jewish people and Maimonidies ruled that respect and obedience to a legitimate and legally appointed king's rule, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are halakhically mandatory. So the sages taught that if a king waivedhis honor, the waiver was meaningless; after all it was not his personal honor that was at stake. Rebellion against the king, of which both Yoav and Shimi were guilty, was in this light, an act that undermined the framework of the visualized Torah social structure. Such rebellion also may endanger the safety of the Jewish communal entity, bringing with it civil war, as it did at the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple, and could have done at the time of David. "If it would not be for the fear of government, people would eat each other alive." (Pirkei Avot, chapter 3, mishnah 2). Yet the picture would be incomplete, if
we neglected the obligations that the system imposed on the government and
the limitations it integrated into the halahkic system. We will describe
these when we deal with the Tanach's vision of what constitute 'Jewish
Kingship'. Here it suffices to bring the comment of Harav Kook
regarding the role of the state. He writes that all national states
and governments face a perpetual struggle against the abuses brought by
arrogance and the lust for power. A Jewish state, without its moral and
ethical bearings will be reduced to the spiritual level of all other
states, and like them, will loose both its
reason and its power to exist. In essence, that is the will and testament
that David bequeaths to Solomon. [The
Parshat Va-eira Homepage]
|
