Chapter 20 of Shmuel Bet is a chapter of conclusion: the end of Avshalom's rebellion immediately gives birth to a new revolt, the revolt of Sheva ben Bichri, and in its wake the internal accounts are settled between David and Yoav, and between Yoav and Amasa. The chapter closes with a list of the officers of the renewed kingdom, from which we learn what David's monarchy looked like after the storm. We will proceed according to the order of the pesukim, mainly following the explanation of the Malbim, and along the way we will consider the words of Chazal, the Rishonim, and the moral lessons that emerge from them.
A worthless man - one who bears no yoke
וְשָׁם נִקְרָא אִישׁ בְּלִיַּעַל וּשְׁמוֹ שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי אִישׁ יְמִינִי וַיִּתְקַע בַּשֹּׁפָר וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין־לָנוּ חֵלֶק בְּדָוִד וְלֹא נַחֲלָה־לָנוּ בְּבֶן־יִשַׁי אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And there happened to be a worthless man whose name was Sheva ben Bichri, a Binyaminite, and he blew the shofar and said: We have no portion in David, and no inheritance in the son of Yishai; every man to his tents, O Israel.
"And there happened to be" - as if by chance. At that very scene where the men of Yehuda are arguing with the men of Israel, these claiming "the king is ours" and those claiming "the king is ours," a man suddenly arrives and says: the king is not ours at all. Why are you arguing? If they insist that David is theirs, good luck to them, let them take him. What do we need David for?
And what is the repetition in his words, "We have no portion in David, and no inheritance in the son of Yishai"? There are two claims here. The first: from David himself - we are not of the tribe of Yehuda, we have no portion in him; they are his tribe and they are his portion, and to them he belongs. The second: sometimes a man holds the kingship by virtue of his father, that his father was king and he inherits the kingship automatically. But David - was his father a king? His father was Yishai, an important and great man, but not a king. If so, even from the standpoint of his being the son of Yishai we have no inheritance in him, and we are not obligated to inherit him the way one inherits a king who is the son of the previous king. The conclusion: "every man to his tents, O Israel" - let each one return to his tent.
This is why he is called a "worthless man." "Beliya'al" means "beli ol," without a yoke. When one wishes to say of a man that he has no fear and no yoke upon him, that he is a wild man, he calls him an "ish beliya'al."
וַיַּעַל כָּל־אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַחֲרֵי דָוִד אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי וְאִישׁ יְהוּדָה דָּבְקוּ בְמַלְכָּם מִן־הַיַּרְדֵּן וְעַד־יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם׃ - So all the men of Israel went up from following David to follow Sheva ben Bichri; but the men of Yehuda clung to their king, from the Yarden to Yerushalayim.
The men of Israel see that there is a replacement for David, and they decide to follow Sheva ben Bichri. But the men of Yehuda clung to their king and accompanied him from the Yarden until his arrival in Yerushalayim.
The ten concubines - widows of a living husband
וַיָּבֹא דָוִד אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם וַיִּקַּח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵת עֶשֶׂר־נָשִׁים פִּלַגְשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הִנִּיחַ לִשְׁמֹר הַבַּיִת וַיִּתְּנֵם בֵּית־מִשְׁמֶרֶת וַיְכַלְכְּלֵם וַאֲלֵיהֶם לֹא־בָא וַתִּהְיֶינָה צְרֻרוֹת עַד־יוֹם מֻתָן אַלְמְנוּת חַיּוּת׃ - And David came to his house in Yerushalayim, and the king took the ten women, the concubines whom he had left to keep the house, and placed them in a guarded house, and provided for them, but did not come to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, widows of a living husband.
These are the ten concubines whom Avshalom had come to publicly, when the tent was pitched for him on the roof. David placed them in a guarded house, provided for them, and did not come to them. "Tzeruros" means bound, from the language of "tzar" and "kesher" (constraint and binding).
And why did he treat them this way? There is a dispute among Chazal. One view: they were permitted to him, but he restrained his desire from them, and said: since I have satisfied my desire with what was forbidden to me, I will now also deny my desire that which is permitted to me. A second view: they were forbidden to him, for they said: if a commoner's vessel that the king used may not be used again by a commoner, then a king's vessel that a commoner used - is it not logical that it should be forbidden to the king? Since a commoner used it, the vessel was, as it were, damaged and no longer fit for use, and therefore they were "widows of a living husband."
The Malbim explains that this was the first act David performed upon his return, and it was intentional: he wanted to show that Avshalom never held the status of a king, not even for a single moment. For if Avshalom had held the status of a king, then here we would have a vessel spoiled by a commoner, whereas a king's vessel remains the king's. And with regard to the woman herself there is no prohibition, since this was coercion, and in a case of coercion women return and are permitted to their husbands. It emerges that the whole reason for the prohibition here is only to demonstrate that Avshalom, at the time he rebelled, was a commoner. In this way David sent a message to Sheva ben Bichri: do not imagine that you hold the status of a king, you hold the status of a commoner, and I will prosecute you and judge you as one who rebels against the monarchy.
Amasa is Appointed, and He is Late for the Deadline
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־עֲמָשָׂא הַזְעֶק־לִי אֶת־אִישׁ־יְהוּדָה שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד׃ - And the king said to Amasa, Summon for me the men of Yehuda within three days, and you stand here.
David sees an urgent need to deal with the rebellion, and for that he needs a military man to carry out a general mobilization, a call up for everyone. He chooses Amasa ben Yeter. Yoav was set aside for the time being, because Yoav was the one who organized and took charge, and was in fact the first to strike Avshalom, David's son. David therefore decided that he could not continue with such an army commander. But David's plans were not necessarily Yoav's plans.
וַיֵּלֶךְ עֲמָשָׂא לְהַזְעִיק אֶת־יְהוּדָה וַיּוֹחֶר מִן־הַמּוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר יְעָדוֹ׃ - And Amasa went to summon Yehuda, but he tarried beyond the appointed time that he had set for him.
David gave him three days for the mobilization, and he was late. What happened there? Our Sages say: he found the sages who had just begun a new tractate. It was the start of the term, and as is the way of the yeshivos, they were opening a new tractate. He said: shall I now take them away from their learning? Impossible. And he waited.
And from where did he learn that this is how one should act? Our Sages say: it is stated, "Every man who rebels against your word and does not obey your words in all that you command him shall be put to death." One might think this applies even to matters of Torah, that if the king commands one to abandon words of Torah, then the one who obeys the Torah shall be put to death. Therefore the verse states, "Only be strong and very courageous to observe and to do according to all the Torah." This shows that the Torah is stronger than the king's command. Amasa said: if so, I cannot take them.
The Power of the Beginning
But if so, would he never take them at all? Rather his intention was: I will not take them now. And Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz explains a wonderful thing: from here you learn how great is the power of the beginning. And this connects to the parasha, "from the first of all the fruit of the ground." When the first thing is done properly, the entire continuation is paved and clear; and when the very beginning already has flaws, know that in the continuation the flaws will only grow and spread.
The mashgichim of the yeshiva world compare this to a missile fired at a target: if on the ground there is a deviation of one millimeter, by the time it reaches the target the deviation will be kilometers. So too our Sages compare it to a sapling: when it is planted correctly and straight, it grows into a great tree; and there are trees that you see never developed and remained small, because at the sapling stage they were not watered and not tended enough, and even if you later add fertilizer and supplements, it remains stunted and undeveloped.
And so it is with people. Children who until a certain age ate Bamba instead of proper meals, you see that the child remains short, suffers from anemia, lack of concentration, and a thousand and one problems. Doctors find this in children who at a young age did not eat properly, and there is a very critical stage at age one or two, that if the child does not receive proper nourishment then, flaws form in his brain in terms of perception, a flaw that he can never repair and that stays with him forever. Everything depends on the beginning, and if the start is good, the entire continuation is paved. This is what is called girsa deyankusa, the learning of one's youth.
Therefore Amasa said: they have now opened a tractate and are beginning their learning. If precisely at the start of the learning I take them out, the entire order of study for that period, winter or summer, will dissolve. Therefore I will make sure they are at least established at the beginning, that they learn the first sugya properly, and only afterward will I take them, so as not to damage the power of the beginning.
"Now Sheva ben Bichri will do us more harm than Avshalom"
וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־אֲבִישַׁי עַתָּה יֵרַע לָנוּ שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי מִן־אַבְשָׁלוֹם אַתָּה קַח אֶת־עַבְדֵי אֲדֹנֶיךָ וּרְדֹף אַחֲרָיו פֶּן־מָצָא לוֹ עָרִים בְּצֻרוֹת וְהִצִּיל עֵינֵנוּ׃ - And David said to Avishai: Now Sheva ben Bichri will do us more harm than Avshalom. You take your master's servants and pursue after him, lest he find fortified cities for himself and escape our sight.
There are three reasons for this. First, with Avshalom it is quite possible that there was some feeling of compassion toward his father; Sheva ben Bichri will have no feeling of compassion whatsoever toward David. Second, in Avshalom's rebellion the people had pangs of conscience, as we saw afterward: David saved us and helped us, so is it fitting that we should follow Avshalom? Here there are no pangs of conscience at all; they argued, the men of Yehudah dug in and said: let them take him for themselves, and we will crown another king for ourselves. Third, in Avshalom's rebellion we had a mole in his house, Chushai the Arki, and it was he who managed to thwart the counsel of Achitofel; but now we have no man inside the house of Sheva ben Bichri.
"And escape our sight" means he will save himself from our eyes; the moment he finds fortified cities and hides in them, we will not be able to see him and we will not be able to capture him. And let us note: David's original intention was to go and muster the army because of Amasa's delay, and he had no intention at all of harming Amasa. He truly intended to reestablish the kingdom once more and to overcome the rebellion.
וַיֵּצְאוּ אַחֲרָיו אַנְשֵׁי יוֹאָב וְהַכְּרֵתִי וְהַפְּלֵתִי וְכָל־הַגִּבֹּרִים וַיֵּצְאוּ מִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי׃ - And there went out after him Yoav's men, and the Kereti and the Peleti, and all the mighty men, and they went out from Yerushalayim to pursue after Sheva ben Bichri.
Going out after Avishai are Yoav's men, and the Kereti and the Peleti (Yonatan translates them as archers and slingers), and all the mighty men, to pursue after Sheva ben Bichri.
The attached sword: the killing of Amasa
הֵם עִם־הָאֶבֶן הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר בְּגִבְעוֹן וַעֲמָשָׂא בָּא לִפְנֵיהֶם וְיוֹאָב חָגוּר מִדּוֹ לְבֻשׁוֹ וְעָלָו חֲגוֹר חֶרֶב מְצֻמֶּדֶת עַל־מָתְנָיו בְּתַעְרָהּ וְהוּא יָצָא וַתִּפֹּל׃ - They were near the great stone that is in Givon, and Amasa came before them, and Yoav was girded with his garment as his clothing, and over it a belt with a sword attached upon his loins in its sheath; and as he went out it fell.
Amasa is returning from the general mustering and comes before them. And what does the verse come to tell us in its description of the sword? There are two explanations. The first: Yoav did not leave the sword in its usual manner in the sheath, but attached it to his body across his loins, and this for two reasons: to hide it from Amasa's eyes so that he would not sense the trap being laid for him, and so that with a slight bending the sword would fall, and then it would be accessible to him without Amasa suspecting. Amasa would think he was picking up a fallen sword, and would not be prepared and would not defend himself, and thus Yoav could overpower him.
And a second explanation follows the way of Chazal: Yoav asked him a question in halachah: a man without hands, how does he divorce? For it is written "and he shall write for her a bill of divorce and place it in her hand," and one must write and give, so how can he give if he has no hands? Amasa showed him that they place the get at his loins and he turns his loins toward her and gives the get in this way, and at that very opportunity Yoav stabbed him in his loins. And he used the very same method with Avner as well: he asked him about a yevamah without hands, how does she perform chalitzah? He said to him: with her teeth. He asked: how can she? Avner bent down to show him how she does it with her teeth, and then he killed him. And this Chazal derived from what is written "and he put the blood of war upon his belt that was upon his loins."
וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹאָב לַעֲמָשָׂא הֲשָׁלוֹם אַתָּה אָחִי וַתֹּחֶז יַד־יְמִין יוֹאָב בִּזְקַן עֲמָשָׂא לִנְשָׁק־לוֹ׃ - And Yoav said to Amasa: Are you well, my brother? And Yoav's right hand took hold of Amasa's beard to kiss him.
וַעֲמָשָׂא לֹא־נִשְׁמַר בַּחֶרֶב אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד־יוֹאָב וַיַּכֵּהוּ בָהּ אֶל־הַחֹמֶשׁ וַיִּשְׁפֹּךְ מֵעָיו אַרְצָה וְלֹא־שָׁנָה לוֹ וַיָּמֹת וְיוֹאָב וַאֲבִישַׁי אָחִיו רָדַף אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי׃ - And Amasa was not on guard against the sword that was in Yoav's hand, and he struck him with it in the belly and spilled his innards to the ground, and he did not strike him again, and he died. And Yoav and Avishai his brother pursued after Sheva ben Bichri.
Yoav holds Amasa's beard with his right hand to kiss him, and so Amasa is not on guard against him, for a person normally stabs with the sword in his right hand, and here his right hand is busy holding the beard. "לֹא־שָׁנָה לוֹ" - he did not strike him a second time, for the first blow sufficed. And why did Amasa not guard against the sword? As we saw: he saw that the sword had fallen by itself, and Yoav took it up with his left hand, and thus he was able to stab him without Amasa preparing and without his being on guard, and so he brought about his death.
The corpse in the middle of the road
וְאִישׁ עָמַד עָלָיו מִנַּעֲרֵי יוֹאָב וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֲשֶׁר חָפֵץ בְּיוֹאָב וּמִי אֲשֶׁר־לְדָוִד אַחֲרֵי יוֹאָב׃ - And one of Yoav's young men stood over him and said: Whoever favors Yoav, and whoever is for David, let him follow Yoav.
וַעֲמָשָׂא מִתְגֹּלֵל בַּדָּם בְּתוֹךְ הַמְסִלָּה וַיַּרְא הָאִישׁ כִּי־עָמַד כָּל־הָעָם וַיַּסֵּב אֶת־עֲמָשָׂא מִן־הַמְסִלָּה הַשָּׂדֶה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ עָלָיו בֶּגֶד כַּאֲשֶׁר רָאָה כָּל־הַבָּא עָלָיו וְעָמָד׃ - And Amasa was wallowing in blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway into the field and threw a garment over him, when he saw that everyone who came upon him stood still.
A situation arose in which a corpse lay in the middle of the road, and this held up the rush to the battlefield. Amasa was a well known and distinguished man, and everyone who arrived stopped and was horrified: Amasa the son of Yeter has been murdered, what happened here? The people stop running and stand still. That young man saw that there was no choice, and moved Amasa from the highway into the field, so that he would no longer be in the middle of the main road. And even this did not suffice, for he saw that everyone who came and saw him was horrified and stood still, and therefore he threw a garment over him, so that it would not be recognizable who this was that had died.
And what did he say to them? "מִי אֲשֶׁר חָפֵץ בְּיוֹאָב וּמִי אֲשֶׁר־לְדָוִד אַחֲרֵי יוֹאָב" - do not be shocked by the sight and do not stop running, for we have a goal before us. Whoever favors Yoav, meaning wants to be part of his army, must now do what Yoav's army is going to do, namely crush the rebellion. And whoever does not favor Yoav, and says: Yoav is a man we despise because of his murderousness, you are still right, but do you care about David? Does David's cause pain you? If so, keep running in order to put down the rebellion. If not for Yoav, then for David.
כַּאֲשֶׁר הֹגָה מִן־הַמְסִלָּה עָבַר כָּל־אִישׁ אַחֲרֵי יוֹאָב לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵי שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי׃ - When he was removed from the highway, every man passed on after Yoav to pursue Sheva the son of Bichri.
Indeed, after they moved him from the highway, they no longer stood still, and everyone continued running after Yoav in order to pursue Sheva the son of Bichri.
"And he passed through all the tribes of Israel" - to whom does this refer?
וַיַּעֲבֹר בְּכָל־שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבֵלָה וּבֵית מַעֲכָה וְכָל־הַבֵּרִים וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ וַיָּבֹאוּ אַף־אַחֲרָיו׃ - And he passed through all the tribes of Israel to Avelah and Beit Maachah and all the Berim, and they assembled and also came after him.
Rashi explains that the one who passed through all the tribes of Israel is Sheva the son of Bichri, who passed through in order to entice them to crown him over them and to gather them to himself. So too is the view of the Abarbanel, which the Malbim cites in his name. The Radak writes: One may also interpret "and he passed" as referring to Yoav, that Yoav, in order to pursue Sheva the son of Bichri, passed through all the tribes of Israel, to Avelah and Beit Maachah and all the Berim (and Berim is the name of a place).
And according to each interpretation, "and they assembled and also came after him" is understood differently: if it refers to Sheva the son of Bichri, then just as they were drawn after Avshalom, so now they are drawn after him; and if it refers to Yoav, then they come and are drawn after Yoav in order to crush the rebellion. And in truth one can say that both interpretations are historically correct: Sheva the son of Bichri traveled this route, and Yoav pursues him and takes the very same route, arrives at Avelah, asks where he is, they tell him he went in this direction, and he continues to Beit Maachah and to all the Berim. And therefore both these and those are the words of the living God.
The Siege of Avel
וַיָּבֹאוּ וַיָּצֻרוּ עָלָיו בְּאָבֵלָה בֵּית הַמַּעֲכָה וַיִּשְׁפְּכוּ סֹלְלָה אֶל־הָעִיר וַתַּעֲמֹד בַּחֵל וְכָל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אֶת־יוֹאָב מַשְׁחִיתִם לְהַפִּיל הַחוֹמָה׃ - And they came and besieged him in Avel of Beit Maacha, and they poured up a mound against the city, and it stood against the rampart, and all the people who were with Yoav were battering to bring down the wall.
They besiege Sheva ben Bichri in the city of Avel, in the region of Beit Maacha. "And they poured up a mound" - when they wanted to capture a city, they would build a high mound, a ramp of earth, alongside the city wall, so that the entire army could climb up it and enter the city.
"And it stood against the rampart" - there are two explanations. The first: chel is from the language of wall and fortification; they had brought down the low outer wall, and they are now standing opposite the inner wall. The second, according to the Targum: "and they surrounded it with camps" - they brought forces against them, meaning they besieged the city with many forces, chel being from the language of forces. And by the way, the word chel is familiar to us from the Beit HaMikdash: there was a place there called the Chel, the walls surrounding it.
The Wise Woman - Serach bat Asher
וַתִּקְרָא אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה מִן־הָעִיר שִׁמְעוּ שִׁמְעוּ אִמְרוּ־נָא אֶל־יוֹאָב קְרַב עַד־הֵנָּה וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ׃ - And a wise woman called out from the city: Listen, listen, please say to Yoav, Come near here so that I may speak with you.
A wise woman sees how they are about to capture the city and destroy it entirely, and she understands that there is a most urgent need to save it - and the salvation depends on the head of Sheva ben Bichri. After all, Sheva ben Bichri is not one of us; he came here in order to escape from Yoav, and shall all of us give up our lives on his account? Therefore she calls to Yoav and asks him to come closer, for she has something important to tell him.
וַיִּקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַאַתָּה יוֹאָב וַיֹּאמֶר אָנִי וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ שְׁמַע דִּבְרֵי אֲמָתֶךָ וַיֹּאמֶר שֹׁמֵעַ אָנֹכִי׃ - And he came near to her, and the woman said: Are you Yoav? And he said: I am. And she said to him: Listen to the words of your maidservant. And he said: I am listening.
She asks him to be willing to listen to her words, and he consents.
וַתֹּאמֶר לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר יְדַבְּרוּ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לֵאמֹר שָׁאוֹל יְשָׁאֲלוּ בְּאָבֵל וְכֵן הֵתַמּוּ׃ - And she said: They used to speak in former times, saying, Let them surely inquire at Avel, and so they would settle the matter.
Her language is obscure, and do not be surprised - this is an old woman at least 250 years of age. And who was she? Say Chazal: it was Serach bat Asher, and it was she who saved the city.
Rashi explains: "They used to speak in former times" - first you ought to speak of peace, as the law states, "When you besiege a city... you shall call out to it for peace." Why strike if it is possible to talk? And if they answer you with peace and open up to you, you will not need to strike. "Let them surely inquire at Avel" - did the men of your army inquire about the welfare of this city? Did you inquire about our welfare, perhaps we would make peace with you? "And so they would settle the matter" - and had you done so, we would have made peace at once and the battle would have ended at once. So why did you not do this?
The Malbim explains it differently: she is telling him that in the city people ask and wonder why he has come - "they will surely ask in Avel," everyone is asking. Surely it would be fitting for you to tell them what their sin is; if something is wrong, tell us what you want from us. "They would speak at first" - first one must speak, and this is their question: why do you not speak with them and state your request? "And so they ended" - thus they asked in Avel and thus they finished asking, meaning there is no answer to their question. When people ask and are answered, the question has a continuation; but a question left hanging in the air has ended. They are asking, and you have no answer to give them.
אָנֹכִי שְׁלֻמֵי אֱמוּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתָּה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְהָמִית עִיר וְאֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לָמָּה תְבַלַּע נַחֲלַת יְהֹוָה׃ - I am of the peaceful and faithful of Israel; you seek to destroy a city and a mother in Israel, why would you swallow up the inheritance of Hashem?
The plain meaning: I am one of the daughters of this city, and we are peaceful and faithful to Israel and to the king - we are not rebelling, and there is no reason to kill us.
And Chazal expounded this regarding Serach bat Asher: "I am of the peaceful and faithful of Israel" - I made a faithful one at peace with a faithful one, for through me the coffin of Yosef was revealed to Moshe. Yosef is called faithful before his master, and of Moshe Rabbeinu it is said "in all My house he is faithful," and I made peace between the faithful ones of Israel. Furthermore: I am the one who told Yaakov that Yosef was alive, the one who sang before him "Yosef is still alive, he is ruler in Egypt." The Radak says that according to this her years at that point were at least about 250, and if we are precise, more than 650 years. And what is the practical difference? If only for all of us; we would settle for even half.
And why does she need to tell him all this? Because when an important person speaks, his words are received differently; she is as if saying to him: you are speaking here with Serach bat Asher. And one may say it in another way: did I survive 650 years only to come and die here at the hands of Yoav? Like a person who lived long and in the end crossed the road and died in a car accident. I have lived 650 years, I made a faithful one at peace with a faithful one, I performed sublime deeds - accept, then, my claims: we are faithful people, and why would you swallow up the inheritance of Hashem?
Yoav's answer: a rebel against the kingship
וַיַּעַן יוֹאָב וַיֹּאמַר חָלִילָה חָלִילָה לִי אִם־אֲבַלַּע וְאִם־אַשְׁחִית׃ - And Yoav answered and said: far be it, far be it from me that I should swallow up or that I should destroy.
"Chalilah" is from the language of chullin, profane - it is profane to me, Heaven forbid. "That I should swallow up" - total destruction, "or that I should destroy" - even a little.
לֹא־כֵן הַדָּבָר כִּי אִישׁ מֵהַר אֶפְרַיִם שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי שְׁמוֹ נָשָׂא יָדוֹ בַּמֶּלֶךְ בְּדָוִד תְּנוּ־אֹתוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וְאֵלְכָה מֵעַל הָעִיר וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־יוֹאָב הִנֵּה רֹאשׁוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַד הַחוֹמָה׃ - The matter is not so, but a man from the hill country of Ephraim, Sheva ben Bichri is his name, has raised his hand against the king, against David; give him alone, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said to Yoav: behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall.
The doubling "against the king, against David" teaches: "against the king" - even if he is not David, he is liable to death; "against David" - even if he is not king, he is liable to death; all the more so against a king who is David. Here, then, is a double sin.
And this is his answer to her claim: you say "I am of the peaceful and faithful" - neither peaceful nor faithful. If you are so faithful to the king, how are you hiding among you a man who rebelled against the king? One who conceals in his home a rebel against the kingship, is that proof of his faithfulness? You too are a rebel against the king. You are not the peaceful and faithful of Israel as long as you hide him, for the matter shows that you too raise a hand against the king. And if you hand him over to me, by this I will know that you are indeed at peace with Israel and with the king.
"In her wisdom" - is it permitted to hand over a single soul?
וַתָּבוֹא הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־כָּל־הָעָם בְּחָכְמָתָהּ וַיִּכְרְתוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ שֶׁבַע בֶּן־בִּכְרִי וַיַּשְׁלִכוּ אֶל־יוֹאָב וַיִּתְקַע בַּשּׁוֹפָר וַיָּפֻצוּ מֵעַל־הָעִיר אִישׁ לְאֹהָלָיו וְיוֹאָב שָׁב יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom, and they cut off the head of Sheva ben Bichri and threw it to Yoav. And he blew the shofar, and they dispersed from the city, every man to his tent, and Yoav returned to Jerusalem, to the king.
"In her wisdom" implies that there was a special wisdom at work here. And what was it? Let us first raise a question that Chazal ask: if a group of non-Jews or Jews comes and says, "Hand over one of you and we will kill him, and if not, we will kill all of you" - is it permitted to hand over one person from among us? The answer: it is forbidden. Moreover, even if they single out and specify a particular named individual, all should be killed rather than hand over a single soul. And the same law applies to a group of women who are told, "Hand over one of you and we will defile her."
If so, how was it permitted here to hand over Sheva ben Bichri in order to save the whole nation? This is the language of the Tosefta in Terumot, end of chapter 7: she said to them, since he will be killed and they will be killed, hand him over to them. That is to say, we gain nothing, for we will all die in any case. Had he been able to escape, for example if he were inside and they were outside, and you were in danger while he could flee, then we do not push aside one life for another to kill him in order to save you. But now, when he too will be killed along with you, what do we gain by hiding him? So that he not die? He will die anyway. Since the walls have been breached and there is no ability to escape, it is better that he alone die and that you not die with him. According to this view, and there are Rishonim who rule this way in practice (though not the Rambam), if they come and say hand over one, he should be handed over when there is anyway no benefit in not handing him over. The Rambam does not rule this way, but rather holds that it is forbidden to hand him over, following the second view: Rabbi Shimon says, this is what she said to them - one who rebels against the kingdom of the House of David is liable to death.
The Radak explains the dialogue further: she said to them, behold, the city is close to being captured, and Yoav will consider us all as rebels against the kingdom, and after he captures the city by force and we do not make peace with him he will kill us all, for one who rebels against the kingdom is liable to death, as it says "Any man who defies your word shall be put to death" - which was said to Yehoshua. And likewise they said "Hand over the men and we will put them to death," except that Shaul forgave his honor, and even though his honor is not forgivable, he commanded that they not be put to death. And even in the words of the elders it is so, as it says "Whether for death, or for uprooting, or for the confiscation of property or for imprisonment."
And in the words of our Sages we find: a group of people who were told hand over one of you and we will kill him, and if not we will kill all of you - all should be killed rather than hand over a single soul. But if they singled him out for them, for example if they singled out Sheva ben Bichri - here the Gemara relates precisely to our case - they should hand him over to them and not all be killed. For when you say "Hand over someone," I will respond: why me and not you? Who says that I should decide whom to kill? If you wish, kill whomever you want. But if you specified a name, and said "We want so-and-so," and anyway we will all die, then it is permitted to hand him over.
Rabbi Yehuda said: when? When he is inside and they are outside, as the men of Yehuda did with Shimshon - for Shimshon was able to escape, since he was upon the rock, and therefore they did not hand him over except with his consent. But if he and they are inside, since he will be killed and they will be killed, they should hand him over to them and not all be killed. And so it says "Then the woman went to all the people in her wisdom," she said to them: since he will be killed and they will be killed, hand him over to them and do not all be killed. And the law follows the latter view. And Rabbi Shimon says: this is what she said to them, anyone who rebels against the kingdom of the House of David is liable to death, like Sheva ben Bichri.
The reasoning of the halacha: we do not push aside one life for another
To summarize the halacha: if the person is wicked and liable to death, we hand him over; we are not punished because of your murderousness or your recklessness, you are answerable to them, go and pay the price. But if he is innocent and they demand his life, we do not hand him over. On the face of it, what is the logic? In a moment they will kill us all, so what have we gained?
A lawyer once asked me a question of the kind of ethical questions they are given in their studies: a person is driving a train at 150 kilometers per hour, and sees ahead of him on the track ten people. He will not have time to brake, but there is a fork in the track, and if he turns right only one person will be killed there. What should he do? If he continues straight and closes his eyes, ten will be killed; and if he turns, he has saved nine. And both are not at fault, neither this one nor that one, they do not know there is a track there. And the halachic ruling: he is forbidden to do this.
And why? Because it is better that a hundred people die not through me, than that one person die through me. Are they dying? True, and this is the will of Hashem, and I did no act. But if I performed an act, I took responsibility, and I am considered a murderer. And this is the concept of "we do not push aside one life for another": a person should not say I will kill this one so that that one may live. But that one will die anyway? Do not get involved; let him die, this is His will.
And this is also the reasoning in our case. When they come and say "Hand over to us a person," and we hand him over, we are performing an act, as if I said: take and kill him. Such a thing I do not do. If you wish to kill, kill whomever you want, and if not, kill all of us; but this is your act. That I should be a partner to the crime and hand over a person, this in no way. Unless he is liable to death, like Sheva ben Bichri, who forfeited his life, and it is not possible that we should all bear the punishment for his deed.
And so it is also brought regarding Yehoyakim: they said to him, Nevuchadnezzar wants you, for you rebelled against him. He said to them: do we push aside one life for another? Do you preserve your own lives and kill me? They said to him: did our ancestors not do so with Sheva ben Bichri, "Behold, his head is thrown to you"? And you indeed rebelled against the king, and by right you should be handed over and we should not all fall into the hand of Nevuchadnezzar, for we are not at fault and you sinned against the king - this is coming to you.
The Officers of the Kingdom
וְיוֹאָב אֶל כָּל־הַצָּבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנָיָה בֶּן־יְהוֹיָדָע עַל־הַכְּרֵתִי וְעַל־הַפְּלֵתִי׃ - And Yoav was over all the army of Israel, and Benayahu son of Yehoyada over the Kereti and over the Peleti.
The verse lists the officers of the kingdom of the house of David. Yoav over the entire army, and Benayahu son of Yehoyada over the Kereti and the Peleti, whose plain meaning is the archers and the slingers. And why is this mentioned here? To tell us that in the end Yoav remained over the entire army, even though David had wanted to remove him from his post and give it to Amasa. Since Amasa was killed, there was no choice but to leave Yoav in place. In other words, matters remained just as they had been before.
וַאֲדֹרָם עַל־הַמַּס וִיהוֹשָׁפָט בֶּן־אֲחִילוּד הַמַּזְכִּיר׃ - And Adoram was over the levy, and Yehoshafat son of Achilud was the recorder.
Adoram over the levy - previously no levy was mentioned at all, since there was no need to collect one. But now, since they had rebelled against him following Avshalom's counsel, the Sages say, he began to collect a levy from them, which had not been the case before.
And Yehoshafat son of Achilud the recorder - he was the one responsible for bringing before the king which case was to be heard. And recall what Avshalom's method had been for drawing the people after him: to everyone who came he would say that he had no chance of receiving a just verdict from the king, who was not interested in him and cared only for the men of his own tribe. In this way he won the hearts of the people. Therefore, says the Malbim, David now saw a need to correct and set straight the matter of judgment, so that it would be conducted in a more orderly fashion and there would be no grumbling on the part of the people, and he appointed Yehoshafat son of Achilud as recorder.
וּשְׁוָא סֹפֵר וְצָדוֹק וְאֶבְיָתָר כֹּהֲנִים׃ - And Sheva was scribe, and Tzadok and Evyatar were kohanim.
Earlier, in chapter 8, it says "and Tzadok son of Achituv and Achimelech son of Evyatar were kohanim," and there Evyatar himself was not mentioned, because at that time he was the Kohen Gadol. But by this stage Evyatar had already been removed from the High Priesthood. And why? When David asked him to inquire of the Urim and Tumim and received no answer, he said to him: gather your hands, we have no time, we must flee. And since there was no answer, David understood that his time had come to an end. And why had his end come? Because he was of the sons of Eli, and concerning the sons of Eli it had been decreed that they would not hold high position. And in the end, in the days of Shlomo, he was removed definitively.
וְגַם עִירָא הַיָּאִרִי הָיָה כֹהֵן לְדָוִד׃ - And also Ira the Yairi was a kohen to David.
"A kohen to David" - some explain that he was David's close companion, some interpret it as an officer and judge, and some say that David would give him all of his priestly gifts.
In summary:
Chapter 20 opens with a man of belial, a man without a yoke, who exploits an internal quarrel between Yehuda and Israel and ignites a rebellion; and it closes with the restoration of the order of the kingdom. Along the way we learned of David's wisdom: through his first act with the ten concubines he established that Avshalom had never been king but merely a commoner, and in doing so he also sent a message to Sheva son of Bichri. From Amasa we learned the great power of beginnings: that an orderly start in learning determines all that follows. We saw Yoav's murderousness toward Amasa, and the wisdom of the young man who returned the people to their pursuit for David's sake. And above all, Serach daughter of Asher, the wise woman who saved a city that is a mother in Israel, and from whose words were derived the halachic principles of surrendering a single life: we do not push aside one life for another, and we do not hand over an innocent person even at the cost of everything, unless he is a rebel against the kingdom who is liable to death by law.