Chapter 3 of Shmuel B is a pivotal chapter in the course of David's kingship: the long war between the house of Shaul and the house of David, Avner ben Ner's approach to reconcile with David and to bring all of Israel over to him, and finally his murder at the hands of Yoav ben Tzeruyah. Here we will focus on the final part of the chapter, from the moment Yoav returns from the raiding party until David's lament and the people's recognition that this deed did not come from the king, based on the commentary of the Malbim and the words of Chazal.
וְהִנֵּה עַבְדֵי דָוִד וְיוֹאָב בָּא מֵהַגְּדוּד וְשָׁלָל רָב עִמָּם הֵבִיאוּ וְאַבְנֵר אֵינֶנּוּ עִם־דָּוִד בְּחֶבְרוֹן כִּי שִׁלְּחוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּשָׁלוֹם׃ - And behold, David's servants and Yoav came from the raiding party and brought with them much spoil, and Avner was not with David in Chevron, for he had sent him away and he had gone in peace.
David's servants and Yoav return from the raiding party with much spoil, and they had not been invited to the feast that David made for Avner and his men. David knew very well why he did not invite Yoav: because he had brought Avner as a replacement for him. Yoav was a man David did not trust, and what ultimately kept him in his position was what David himself would say at the end of the chapter: "The sons of Tzeruyah are too hard for me." In truth David would have preferred that Avner, not Yoav, command his army. Once this was so, Yoav understood that a new player had entered the arena who posed a threat to him, and he decided to solve the problem that had arisen here.
In this verse and the one following, the Malbim lists three reasons that brought Yoav to his deed. The first: "and brought with them much spoil" - a man who brings spoil, his heart grows haughty, he feels on top and thinks he can do as he pleases. The second: "and Avner was not with David in Chevron" - had Avner still been sitting before David, David would have protested and not allowed him to kill him; but Avner had already gone on his way, and so Yoav was able to strike him.
וְיוֹאָב וְכָל־הַצָּבָא אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ בָּאוּ וַיַּגִּדוּ לְיוֹאָב לֵאמֹר בָּא־אַבְנֵר בֶּן־נֵר אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ וַיֵּלֶךְ בְּשָׁלוֹם׃ - And Yoav and all the army that was with him came, and they told Yoav, saying, Avner ben Ner came to the king, and he sent him away, and he went in peace.
And this is the third reason: "and Yoav and all the army that was with him came" - he returned with the entire army, meaning not a single man fell in the battle from which they now returned. Such complete success gives him even greater boldness of heart, a feeling that his strength is in his loins and that he succeeds in everything he undertakes, and therefore he could strike Avner as well.
וַיָּבֹא יוֹאָב אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר מֶה עָשִׂיתָה הִנֵּה־בָא אַבְנֵר אֵלֶיךָ לָמָּה־זֶּה שִׁלַּחְתּוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ׃ - And Yoav came to the king and said, What have you done? Behold, Avner came to you, why is it that you sent him away and he has gone off?
Yoav comes to the king with an argument: How could you do such a thing? Your enemy came here and you send him away in peace? In essence he is claiming to David: Do you really think Avner came with innocent intentions? He has hidden motives, he came to see what you are doing, he came to follow you like a spy, and how did you agree to send him away in peace? What you did was a mistake.
יָדַעְתָּ אֶת־אַבְנֵר בֶּן־נֵר כִּי לְפַתֹּתְךָ בָּא וְלָדַעַת אֶת־מוֹצָאֲךָ וְאֶת־מוֹבָאֶךָ וְלָדַעַת אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עֹשֶׂה׃ - You know Avner ben Ner, that he came to deceive you, and to know your going out and your coming in, and to know all that you are doing.
There are three levels to his argument: first, "he came to deceive you" - that you should go out to him and fall into his net. Second, if he does not succeed in that, then he came "to know your going out and your coming in" - he will see exactly your ways of conduct and thereby know when it is worthwhile to attack you. And if even this does not succeed for him, at least he will know "all that you are doing" - he will follow you and search for the weak points.
וַיֵּצֵא יוֹאָב מֵעִם דָּוִד וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אַחֲרֵי אַבְנֵר וַיָּשִׁבוּ אֹתוֹ מִבּוֹר הַסִּרָה וְדָוִד לֹא יָדָע׃ - Yoav went out from David and sent messengers after Avner, and they brought him back from the pit of Sirah, and David did not know.
Yoav leaves David's presence and decides: if the king will not act, I will. He sends messengers after Avner and they bring him back from the "pit of Sirah" - a pit that stood in a place of thorns, that is, brambles. And Shlomo already said, "the sound of the fool is like the sound of thorns": the fool makes a great deal of noise like thorns rustling in the wind, whereas trees laden with fruit make no noise. So too at the time of a fire: a tree burns silently, while thorns burn with a loud crackle.
The emphasis "and David did not know" comes to teach that there was no hidden plot by David here. David was not a party to this improper deed; David trusted Avner, and Yoav alone was the one who acted. Later we will see how hard David labored to make clear to all the people that he had no part in the treachery.
Yet Chazal in Sanhedrin expounded this name: Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, a pit (bor) and a thorn (sirah) caused Avner to be killed. How so? Twice Shaul fell into David's hands and David did not harm him, and both times it was Avner who nullified the proof. On one occasion David took the water flask from beside Shaul's head and said to him: see how close I was to you, had I wished I could have killed you. Avner said to Shaul: do not be alarmed, the lads went to bring you water and left the flask beside the pit, and David found it there. And on the second occasion, in the cave, David cut off the corner of Shaul's robe and said to him: I was so close, I could have killed you. Avner said to him: do not be alarmed, the thorns caught the corner of your robe along the way and you did not notice, and David found it. It turns out that the one who fanned the quarrel and the ongoing pursuit was Avner: David demonstrated that he sought no harm to Shaul, and Avner argued that all his proofs had no substance. This is "the pit of Sirah" - a pit and a thorn caused Avner to be killed.
וַיָּשָׁב אַבְנֵר חֶבְרוֹן וַיַּטֵּהוּ יוֹאָב אֶל־תּוֹךְ הַשַּׁעַר לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ בַּשֶּׁלִי וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם הַחֹמֶשׁ וַיָּמָת בְּדַם עֲשָׂהאֵל אָחִיו׃ - When Avner returned to Chevron, Yoav drew him aside within the gate to speak with him privately, and there he struck him in the belly so that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.
Yoav brings him back from the pit of Sirah, waits for him, and kills him with a blow to the belly. On the words "to speak with him in peace" there are several interpretations in Chazal. Some explain it from the language of tranquility and peace, like "tents are at ease": he made, as it were, a peaceable conversation with him, lulled his mind, and struck him all at once without his being prepared. Some explain it from the language of error and deception - he misled him into thinking that he was at peace with him. And some interpret it from the language of suddenness, as the Targum renders "suddenly, all at once" - abruptly, without his taking notice. What they all share in common is surprise and the lulling of the senses.
Chazal expounded that he came to him with cunning. Avner and Yoav were both great Torah scholars, and Yoav came and asked him a point of law: how does a woman without hands perform chalitzah? For a woman whose husband died and whose brother-in-law does not wish to marry her performs chalitzah, and the woman removes his shoe with her hand. Through the removal of the shoe, that spirit which the dead husband left within her is released, and his soul is able to ascend and reach its place in the world of truth through the rectification. He asked him: if she has no hands, with what does she perform the chalitzah? He said to him: she performs it with her mouth. He said to him: show me how. Avner bent down to demonstrate, and Yoav seized the moment and stabbed him. And from where did they learn this? From the word "bashli," like the phrase "remove (shal) your shoe from your foot." And why did he need cunning? Because he feared him, for he was a mighty warrior, as we will yet see from his strength. Avner himself had said to him: I could kill you, but what would I gain by killing you.
And another interpretation: "bashli" is a term of dropping or leaving off, like "if your olive drops" and "the iron slips off the wood," that is, something was left out. He brought him back and told him that something was omitted from David, that he had forgotten to tell you something and requested that I come and tell it to you.
Chazal also expounded "and Yoav drew him aside within the gate." The gate is the place of judgment, where the judges and the Sanhedrin would sit. So too "and Lot was sitting in the gate" - Chazal said that on that very day they had appointed him a judge over them, and likewise Mordechai in the king's gate. Rabbi Yochanan said: that he judged him by the law of the Sanhedrin. This does not mean that he actually brought him before the Sanhedrin, but rather that he killed him on the basis of a halachic ruling, as it were.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin describes it this way: Yoav said to him, why did you kill Asael? Avner replied, Asael was a pursuer, he chased after me in order to kill me. Yoav said to him, you should have saved yourself by wounding one of his limbs. Avner answered, I was not able to do so. The halacha is that if a person cannot save himself by wounding one of the pursuer's limbs, he is permitted even to kill him; but if he could have saved himself by striking the hand or the leg, and nevertheless killed him, he is a murderer. Yoav answered him, but when you killed Asael you struck him in the fifth rib, the place where the liver and gall bladder hang, a spot where a blow kills instantly. If you aimed precisely at the place that would bring death, could you not have aimed at his hand? Could you not have aimed at his leg? We see that you were precise and that it was no accident. This is what Yoav argued to him. And of Yoav himself it is likewise said here, "and struck him in the fifth rib" - that same fifth rib.
"And he died for the blood of Asael his brother." Of Yoav it is said, "and Hashem will return his blood upon his own head, because he struck down two men more righteous and better than he, and killed them with the sword." David commanded Shlomo that after his death he should put Yoav to death, for these two murders: for Avner, and later also for Amasa ben Yeter, whom Yoav would also kill for that very same reason, because David wished to appoint him commander of his army.
And why were Avner and Amasa called "more righteous and better than he"? The Gemara says: "better" - because they expounded the words "but" and "only" while he did not expound them. In Sefer Yehoshua the people are commanded to obey all that the king says, and it is stated there, "only be strong and courageous to observe and do according to all the Torah." The Sages expounded: if he tells you to desecrate Shabbat, will you listen to him? If he tells you to murder, will you listen to him? Transgress the words of Torah, will you listen to him? The verse teaches "only" - the word "only" comes to limit. Avner and Amasa expounded this limitation: when Doeg the Edomite came and told Shaul that Achimelech and Nov, the city of the priests, had aided David and had, as it were, rebelled against the kingship, Shaul said to his attendants "fall upon them" - he said this to them, and they were not willing to do it. They said to him, if you wish, do it yourself; we are not murderers.
Yoav, by contrast, did not expound the words "but" and "only." In the case of Uriah the Hittite, David commanded him to station Uriah at the fiercest point of the battle so that he would die, and so he did. Therefore they were better and more righteous than he. And why were they called "righteous"? The Gemara says: because they were commanded by word of mouth and did not act, while he was commanded by letter and did act. To Shaul and to Amasa the king said explicitly, by mouth, to kill Nov the city of the priests, and they did not comply; but to Yoav there was no direct command by mouth, only a letter sent to him, and nevertheless he obeyed. It emerges that they stood at a higher level than that of Yoav.
And here lies a great principle: "I refuse the order" is not permitted in every matter, but with three transgressions - idolatry, forbidden relations, and bloodshed - one must be killed rather than transgress. If someone says to a person, either you kill so and so or we will kill you, he should say, kill me, and I will not kill so and so. But if they say to him, eat pork or we will kill you, he should transgress rather than be killed. And even when the king commands, Yoav should have said to the king, kill me, I will not do this. In truth, few act this way, for every person prefers the position, the office, and the car over giving them up, and he will find for himself all sorts of justifications and arguments for why he should indeed do it, because he cannot bear to lose his standing. But a real person returns the keys and says, this I will not do. And it is better for a person to be ashamed in this world and not be ashamed for all eternity.
וַיִּשְׁמַע דָּוִד מֵאַחֲרֵי כֵן וַיֹּאמֶר נָקִי אָנֹכִי וּמַמְלַכְתִּי מֵעִם ה' עַד־עוֹלָם מִדְּמֵי אַבְנֵר בֶּן־נֵר׃ - And David heard afterward and said: I and my kingdom are innocent before Hashem forever of the blood of Avner ben Ner.
Why does the verse emphasize "afterward"? So that you should not think that David heard beforehand. David heard only after the deed; had he heard before it, he would have sent a force to save Avner and to stop Yoav. Therefore he says "I and my kingdom are innocent" - I had no hand in this killing, I am no partner to the matter, for I did not hear of it.
יָחֻלוּ עַל־רֹאשׁ יוֹאָב וְאֶל כָּל־בֵּית אָבִיו וְאַל־יִכָּרֵת מִבֵּית יוֹאָב זָב וּמְצֹרָע וּמַחֲזִיק בַּפֶּלֶךְ וְנֹפֵל בַּחֶרֶב וַחֲסַר־לָחֶם׃ - Let it fall upon the head of Yoav and upon all his father's house, and let there never cease from the house of Yoav one who has a discharge, or is stricken with tzaraat, or leans on a staff, or falls by the sword, or lacks bread.
David gives him a string of curses. And he was precise to say "upon all his father's house" and not his mother's house, for Yoav's mother was Tzeruyah, David's sister, and it was not fitting that the curse should descend upon his mother's house.
And why specifically these five curses? The Malbim explains: the Sages said that in five things a father merits blessings for his children through his own merit - in beauty, in wisdom, in wealth, in strength, and in length of days. Certainly these matters are complex, part from the father and part from the mother: if both are wise, the chance that the children will turn out wise is greater; and if the father is wise and the mother is not, sometimes the child turns out like the mother. They said to Einstein that he should marry a famous actress of his time, and they would have children as wise as him and as beautiful as her. He said to them, well and good if it goes that way, but imagine if the children turn out beautiful like me and wise like her, then we would have a serious problem.
In each of the five parameters David cursed Yoav that his descendants should not merit it. In place of strength - "a zav" (one with a discharge), for a zav is always lacking strength. In place of beauty - "a leper." In place of wisdom - "one who holds a spindle," for the spindle is a weaving tool, and they said "a woman has no wisdom except at the spindle"; and when the halachic authorities wish to say that a matter of halacha stated by a woman is not to be given weight, they write this. That is, his descendants should not merit wisdom. In place of length of days - "one who falls by the sword." And in place of wealth - "one lacking bread." The Radak explains "one who holds a spindle" as one who will suffer from a leg ailment and will need to walk with a cane and will be unable to walk properly.
Chazal said that all these curses were fulfilled in David's own offspring, because he cursed unlawfully: since it was his intention to command that Yoav be killed, one may not judge a person and punish him twofold. If you take from him the most precious thing of all, his life, how can you add to him curses for generations? And so indeed it was: when Shlomo sent Benayahu to kill him, Yoav said he was willing on the condition that he take the curses upon himself, so that he would not be punished both with death and with the curses - and Shlomo told him that he accepted the curses upon himself. And indeed they were all fulfilled in David's offspring: Rechavam son of Shlomo, of whom it is written that he barely managed to mount his chariot, Chazal said he was a zav; Uziyahu had leprosy break out on his forehead; Asa "became diseased in his feet" - one who holds a spindle; Yoshiyahu fell by the sword, and of him it is said "the anointed of Hashem was taken in their pits"; and Yehoyachin lacked bread, for his meal was a perpetual meal at the table of the king of Bavel, meaning that of himself he had no bread. From here we see how difficult and dangerous it is to curse, for the one who curses is liable to be harmed himself.
וְיוֹאָב וַאֲבִישַׁי אָחִיו הָרְגוּ לְאַבְנֵר עַל אֲשֶׁר הֵמִית אֶת־עֲשָׂהאֵל אֲחִיהֶם בְּגִבְעוֹן בַּמִּלְחָמָה׃ - And Yoav and Avishai his brother killed Avner because he had put to death Asahel their brother at Givon in the battle.
Why did David curse all of Yoav's house and not Yoav alone? Because Avishai was among those who assisted in the deed - "Yoav and Avishai his brother killed Avner." And lest you say they were blood avengers, the verse therefore concludes "at Givon in the battle": it was a deed that occurred in battle, and the law of the blood avenger does not apply to it. The Malbim already explained in the previous chapter that if we examine the verses carefully, Avner has no status of a killer or murderer at all: he pursued Asahel, told him to turn to the right or to the left, and struck him from behind - and since he struck him from behind, it is a sign that he was unable to aim. It emerges that Avner was correct in his claim that it was not intentional. Consequently the deed of Yoav and Avishai is considered murder, and therefore David judged Yoav as a murderer.
וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד אֶל־יוֹאָב וְאֶל־כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ קִרְעוּ בִגְדֵיכֶם וְחִגְרוּ שַׂקִּים וְסִפְדוּ לִפְנֵי אַבְנֵר וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד הֹלֵךְ אַחֲרֵי הַמִּטָּה׃ - And David said to Yoav and to all the people who were with him: Rend your garments and gird yourselves with sackcloth and mourn before Avner. And King David walked behind the bier.
The king wanted there to be complete remorse here over the murder, and for all to know that Avner was killed unlawfully. But the main thing that was important to him was that all should know that this did not stem from him. Understand how the matter appears at face value: Avner came to make peace with David and was willing to turn the heart of all Israel toward him, and David sent his army commander to kill him. The inevitable conclusion: whoever was not until now with David, it is better for him not to be with him, for David takes revenge and bears a grudge and eliminates whoever was not with him. Consequently all the army commanders and all who had until this day gone with Shaul and with Ish Boshet would say: what benefit is there for us in making peace with David and accepting his kingship? Let us appoint someone else for ourselves, for if we return to David he will watch our steps and kill us. It emerges that Yoav's deed was among the things most harmful to David's kingship, and David could not allow this. He had to prove to everyone that his hand was not in the wrongdoing, and therefore he made a great mourning over the bier of Avner, of whom it is said that he was a great man: "rend your garments and gird yourselves with sackcloth and mourn" - make a great lamentation. And the severe curse with which he cursed Yoav also came so that it would be clear to all: had Yoav been his agent, would he have cursed him? It is impossible.
"And King David walked behind the bier" - now the men would walk before the bier and the women behind it, so what was David doing behind the bier? Chazal say that David was walking and passing from the men to the women in order to appease them, to tell them that the matter did not stem from him and that he was extremely strict in his objection to Yoav's deed.
And the Malbim adds a fine point: it is forbidden for a man to enter among the women, so how did David enter? Tosafot wrote that at a time of mourning it is permitted, for at a time of mourning and grief there is no concern that they will come to improper thoughts. At a party, a celebration, and a joyous occasion the mixing of men and women is like fire in flax, but in mourning and grief there is no concern of transgression. And by this very act David proved to the people: know that I am mourning intensely over the bier of Avner, and were it not so I would not have dared to enter among the women. This was the proof that his mourning was genuine and that his grief over Avner's death was real, and that Yoav's entire deed was not on his mind and not with his consent.
וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֶת־אַבְנֵר בְּחֶבְרוֹן וַיִּשָּׂא הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־קוֹלוֹ וַיֵּבְךְּ אֶל־קֶבֶר אַבְנֵר וַיִּבְכּוּ כָּל־הָעָם׃ - And they buried Avner in Chevron, and the king lifted up his voice and wept at the grave of Avner, and all the people wept.
What is the meaning of "and he wept at the grave of Avner"? At first the weeping was over the murder that had been done, but afterward also over the land itself: the land in which the blood of the murdered was spilled requires atonement, as it is said "and for the land there is no atonement for the blood that was shed in it except through the blood of the one who shed it." "And he wept at the grave of Avner" - over the blood that was spilled in the land.
וַיְקֹנֵן הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־אַבְנֵר וַיֹּאמַר הַכְּמוֹת נָבָל יָמוּת אַבְנֵר׃ - And the king lamented over Avner, and said: Should Avner die as a scoundrel dies?
יָדֶךָ לֹא־אֲסֻרוֹת וְרַגְלֶיךָ לֹא־לִנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם הֻגָּשׁוּ כִּנְפוֹל לִפְנֵי בְנֵי־עַוְלָה נָפָלְתָּ וַיֹּסִפוּ כָל־הָעָם לִבְכּוֹת עָלָיו׃ - Your hands were not bound, and your feet were not put into fetters; as one falls before wicked men, you fell. And all the people wept over him again.
David composed a special lament over his death: Could it be that Avner should die like a scoundrel, like a wicked man and a criminal who was pursued and killed? For they did not kill you for a sin and by judgment, since had they brought you to trial they would have bound your hands and put your feet into fetters, a kind of bronze shackle that was placed on the feet. "Your hands were not bound, and your feet were not put into fetters" - you were not killed for a sin nor by judgment, but rather "as one falls before wicked men, you fell," by way of murder and not according to law.
And there is a further explanation: "Your hands were not bound" - your hands were not bound by the chains of the evil inclination from doing charity and justice, and your feet were swift as eagles and were not fettered from doing justice and righteousness; that is to say, you always performed kindness and charity and justice. If so, why did he fall? Either as atonement for the generation, or so that he would not witness the affliction of the generation - this is "as one falls before wicked men, you fell," you were taken before you would see the trouble. And when the people heard the greatness of his stature, they wept over him again.
And if there is no death without sin and no suffering without transgression, why was Avner punished? Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav (Sanhedrin 20): Because he should have protested to Shaul and did not protest. When Shaul killed Nov, the city of priests, he should have protested, and he did not; Doeg is the one who carried out the deed in practice, but you, Avner, why did you not protest? And Rabbi Yitzchak said: He did protest but was not heeded. There are two stages here: there is the stage of refusing to do the wrong that you command me, and there is a second stage of protesting to you so that you not do the wrong yourself and not tell another to do it. And this is a very demanding claim.
And how severe is the matter of "he could have protested and did not protest" - the Holy One, blessed be He, never retracted a good thing He had said, except for one time: "And you shall set a mark on the foreheads of the men." At first it was decreed that a mark be set and the righteous would remain and the rest would die. The attribute of justice came and said: How are these different from those? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: These are completely righteous and those are completely wicked. The attribute of justice said: But they could have protested against the wicked. He said: I know that had they protested, it would not have been accepted from them. The attribute of justice said: You know - but did they know? The righteous man did not know that it would not be accepted from him, and it was his obligation to protest. And the Holy One, blessed be He, accepted the words of the attribute of justice. This is the one and only time in history that a good decree was decreed and the Holy One, blessed be He, retracted it.
And this is a great principle: a person must do his part. The Chafetz Chaim said several times: We are not contractors for successes. They once asked him: Our teacher, who says that we will succeed? He said: We are not contractors for successes, we must act, and God will do what is good in His eyes. The action is in our hands, the success is in His hands, blessed be He. Indeed it is written "until he strikes him," but in our generation there is a different situation regarding protest: when something will not be heeded, sometimes it is better not to say it, for at times it only arouses hatred and additional anger.
And the Sages say that both Tannaim expounded a single verse, the verse before us: "Should Avner die as a scoundrel dies, your hands were not bound and your feet were not put into fetters." According to the view that he did not protest, this is a claim: your hands were not bound, you were not fettered, so why did you not protest? Therefore "as one falls before wicked men, you fell." And according to the view that he protested but was not heeded, this is a question and a difficulty: Should Avner die as a scoundrel dies? For your hands were not bound at the time that Shaul commanded regarding Nov, the city of priests, you did not stand with tied hands but rather protested and acted - if so, why did you fall before wicked men? The very same verse, and the question is whether one reads it with an exclamation point or with a question mark.
And similarly the Gemara brings regarding Shmuel: when he would dream bad dreams he would say in the morning "and dreams speak falsehood" - and he would nullify the dream; and when he would dream a good dream that he wanted to be fulfilled he would say "and dreams speak falsehood?!" - is this dream falsehood, could it possibly be mere falsehood? Surely there is truth in it. Everything depends on the intonation. There was once a teacher who gave collective punishments for the act of a single student, and they asked him: But there is a verse "Shall one man sin and You be angry with the entire congregation?" He said to them: I opened a Torah scroll and did not see a question mark there.
But according to the view that he protested, the question arises: if he protested, for what was he punished? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: For having delayed the kingship of the house of David by two and a half years, for he went and supported Ish Boshet and delayed David's kingship. And in truth, in aggada there are no disputes - these and those are the words of the living God. If so, both are true: he protested but did not protest; he protested, but apparently did not protest properly and sufficiently, he did not protest enough. Both things are true: there was protest, but not sufficient protest. Therefore one view holds him accountable for this, and the second view says that although he did protest, he had another transgression for which he was punished - that he delayed the kingship of the house of David by two and a half years. And likewise the exposition of the pit and the pot adds a further factor.
Chazal often bring several causes for a single matter. Why did Nadav and Avihu die? Because they entered while intoxicated with wine, because they did not marry women, because they ruled on a halachah in the presence of their teacher, and so on: several reasons. And so it is here. The words of Chazal are "poor in one place and rich in another," and the wisdom lies in seeing the entire perspective and not grasping a single pasuk and treating it as the whole picture. Therefore, when one wishes to understand the meaning of a matter, one must ask the sages: you saw an isolated statement in one place, and for you that is the entire Torah, but the sage saw many more statements and knows that the statement in question speaks of a particular situation, while there are other statements that speak differently. From the holy Torah one can prove any ideal a person wishes: some brought proofs from pesukim and from statements of Chazal such as "the best of the gentiles, crush his brains" and "the best of the snakes, crush its brains," and others bring the opposite pesukim and statements: "beloved is man who was created in the image," "an extra love was made known to him," "for in the image of God He made man" - and it was not said there about Israel alone but about every person. What is the truth? On this one must ask great people.
Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschutz in Yaaros Devash explains a wonderful idea here. On the midrash regarding "daughters of Israel, weep over Shaul, who clothed you in scarlet with delights" - which David said in his lament over Shaul - Chazal expounded that when their husbands would go out to war or go out to Torah, to the beit midrash, Shaul would feed and support their wives and daughters. And even though the Holy One said "I regret that I made Shaul king," his kingship did not end there but continued, and Chazal said that in the merit of tzedakah his kingship was prolonged for him.
And learn this from the wicked Nevuchadnetzar. When he dreamed his dream that he would become like a beast of the field for seven years, Daniel said to him "and redeem your sins with tzedakah." Was Daniel coming to care for Nevuchadnetzar that his days be prolonged? Rather, he saw the difficult situation of Israel, among whom there were many poor, and said: with this I will help them. Nevuchadnetzar listened to him and opened a soup kitchen in his palace, and every day hundreds and thousands of poor people would come to be sustained there, and there was in this a great salvation for the poor Jews. Until one day he heard a commotion and noise and asked what it was, and they told him: these are the beggars you brought. He said: how could this be, I am Nevuchadnetzar, if I had scattered all my wealth would I have reached where I have reached? Cancel it all. He closed the soup kitchen, and on that very day his mind became deranged, he was driven from his palace and became like one of the beasts of the field for seven years. So we see that in the merit of tzedakah his punishment was deferred. And if so with an immense wicked man like Nevuchadnetzar, wickedness on a scale unfamiliar to us, how much more so would the merit of tzedakah prolong the kingship of a decent and righteous man like Shaul.
And now, when Avner is asked: why do you prolong the kingship of Shaul, when David ought to reign? His answer is: Shaul has an additional merit, the mitzvah of tzedakah, and this immense mitzvah is worthy of continuing his kingship. True, Hashem told him that his kingship was torn away, but tzedakah defers, and therefore I am with Shaul. But all this is valid only if you yourself, Avner, value what tzedakah is and it is precious in your eyes and you perform it yourself. But a person for whom tzedakah is far from his heart and is not in his eyes a merit and a reason to receive goodness - how can he lean on the claim of "Shaul performs tzedakah"? He is indeed rebelling against the kingship of the house of David by the very continuation of his support for Shaul.
And with this the Yaaros Devash asks an immense question: Naval was judged as a rebel against the kingship, for he rebelled against the kingship of the house of David and said "today there are many servants who break away" - who is David, just some servant - and his punishment was death. But Avner too rebelled against David: David reigns, and Avner goes to make Ish Boshet king. What is the difference between them, that Avner comes to David and David makes him a feast and receives him? Rather, this is the difference: Avner had an excuse for why he continued to accept the kingship of Shaul - because Shaul performed tzedakah; and Avner himself performed tzedakah and believed in tzedakah and this was his way, and therefore his excuse is accepted. But Naval, if they had asked him why he championed the kingship of Shaul when his kingship had ended, and he had answered that he performs tzedakah and this is an important matter - they would have told him: how could you suddenly grasp onto tzedakah, when you do not value tzedakah at all and tzedakah is opposed to your way?
And this is the lament: "should Avner die as a base man dies" - could it be that Avner dies like the death of Naval the Carmelite? It cannot be. And why? Because "your hands were not bound" from doing kindness and tzedakah with others, "and your feet were not brought into fetters" - you did tzedakah with others, and if so there is legitimacy to your claim that the kingship of Shaul continues in the merit of tzedakah. But Naval did not have this claim at all, for he himself did not perform tzedakah. A most wonderful matter that the Yaaros Devash explains in his explanation of the resemblance between Naval and Avner.
וַיָּבֹא כָל־הָעָם לְהַבְרוֹת אֶת־דָּוִד לֶחֶם בְּעוֹד הַיּוֹם וַיִּשָּׁבַע דָּוִד לֵאמֹר כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה־לִּי אֱלֹהִים וְכֹה יֹסִיף כִּי אִם־לִפְנֵי בוֹא־הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ אֶטְעַם־לֶחֶם אוֹ כָל־מְאוּמָה׃ - And all the people came to provide David with a mourner's meal of bread while it was still day, and David swore, saying: so may God do to me and so may He add, if before the setting of the sun I taste bread or anything at all.
"To provide David with a mourner's meal of bread" - like the meal of consolation given to mourners, which is the first meal after the burial, in which they feed lentils and eggs. And Chazal say: it is written "to cut off" and we read "to provide a meal" - so it is brought in the early books, and although in the later books they wrote that we have not found such a keri and ketiv, sometimes there were keri and ketiv in their time that were forgotten in later periods. In any case Chazal expounded: at first they came to cut him off and in the end to provide him a meal. At first the anger of the people was so great that they came to cut off David, and in the end, after David appeased the people, they came to provide him a mourner's meal. And David took care to prove to the people that it was not so.
וְכָל־הָעָם הִכִּירוּ וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ בְּעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם טוֹב׃ - And all the people recognized it, and it was good in their eyes, as everything the king did was good in the eyes of all the people.
One might still argue that David did all of this only in order not to provoke the people: at first he initiated Avner's death, and afterward, out of fear of the reactions, he continued the show and cast the blame onto Yoav. But Scripture testifies that "all the people recognized" - they recognized that there was no deceit here, that his words were sincere, and that the deed was Yoav's own with no connection whatsoever to David.
And how did they know? The Malbim says: a deed done in innocence and uprightness of heart finds favor in everyone's eyes, which is not the case with forgery. Forgery does not speak to the heart, there is always something in it that is not entirely smooth and not entirely true; but the genuine deed finds favor in everyone's eyes. And this is "ככל אשר עשה המלך בעיני כל העם טוב" - everyone accepted the matter. There is a saying: you cannot fool all of the people all of the time; you can fool part of the people part of the time, but all of the people all of the time is impossible. And here everyone agreed and everyone accepted, and surely David's act was an act of truth with no cunning in it, for had there been cunning it would not be possible for everyone to accept his words at face value.
וַיֵּדְעוּ כָל־הָעָם וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּי לֹא הָיְתָה מֵהַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָמִית אֶת־אַבְנֵר בֶּן־נֵר׃ - And all the people and all Israel knew on that day that it was not from the king to put Avner ben Ner to death.
"וידעו" - with clear knowledge. And this is the difference between belief and knowledge: belief is in something that is not clear and definite, and knowledge is something absolute. If I tell you that there is a table in the women's section, I believe there is, because that is what I saw yesterday, but I do not know whether it is there right now; and if I tell you that there is a table in front of me, I cannot say "I believe" but rather "I know," for I see it. And here they reached the level of clear and absolute knowledge that it was not from the king to put Avner ben Ner to death.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־עֲבָדָיו הֲלוֹא תֵדְעוּ כִּי־שַׂר וְגָדוֹל נָפַל הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And the king said to his servants: Do you not know that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel?
וְאָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם רַךְ וּמָשׁוּחַ מֶלֶךְ וְהָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי צְרוּיָה קָשִׁים מִמֶּנִּי יְשַׁלֵּם ה' לְעֹשֵׂה הָרָעָה כְּרָעָתוֹ׃ - And I am this day tender and anointed king, and these men, the sons of Tzeruyah, are too hard for me. May Hashem repay the doer of evil according to his evil.
He said to them: sense with clear knowledge that a prince and a great man has fallen this day in Israel. And how will you know this? From what follows: "and I am this day tender and anointed king" - though I have been anointed king, I am still tender against the sons of Tzeruyah who are harder than I, and I cannot judge the murderers according to the law and deal with them as is fitting. Had Avner been alive, there would have been someone to strengthen my hand against Yoav. And this itself is why Yoav killed him: Yoav knew that the moment Avner entered the picture, he himself would be out, for Avner was a commander of the army, and David would no longer need Yoav. Therefore Yoav went and killed everyone who was meant to inherit his place: Avner, and later Amasa ben Yeter, in order to remain the only one, so that no one could stand against him. David said to them: see, had Avner been alive he would have strengthened my hand and I could have stood before men of wrongdoing; understand how much we lost with his death. But now that he is gone, my hands are bound and I cannot carry out justice.
And since it is not in his power to carry out justice, he says "may Hashem repay the doer of evil according to his evil." But is a person permitted to hand over his case to Heaven and say "let Hashem judge between me and you"? The matter is very grave and forbidden, and one who says so causes judgments to be opened against him and Heavenly scrutiny to fall upon him: they say to him above, do you think you are so righteous? Come, let us examine your own books. And if a person's books are brought up for a sampling, Heaven have mercy, who could survive, for "no living being is righteous before You." Rather, the entire prohibition is when there is justice on earth - for if you have a court, why should you hand over your case to Heaven? Go to the court. But when there is no justice on earth and there is no court that can bring him to trial, to whom will he pass the ball if not to the Creator of the world, who is the Judge of all the earth. And this is what David said here: indeed I am king, but I am tender at the beginning of my kingship and they are harder than I, and who can judge them? The Creator of the world alone. And likewise we saw with David himself against Shaul, that he said "let Hashem judge between me and you," for in what court could he bring the king to trial? When there is no justice on earth, a person is permitted to hand over his case to Heaven.
Yoav, who saw in Avner a threat to his position, exploited the pride of heart that followed the victory and David's absence, brought Avner back from the well of Sirah and killed him with cunning, while hanging his deed on a supposed halachic ruling. Chazal taught us that the well and Sirah caused Avner to be killed, that Avner was punished for not protesting against Shaul as he should have and for delaying the kingship of the house of David for two and a half years, and that Avner and Amasa were righteous and better than Yoav, for they interpreted the words "ach" and "rak" and did not obey the king in a place where the Torah forbids it. David, who did not know of the deed until after the fact, cursed Yoav with five curses corresponding to the five things a father bestows upon his sons (and in the end they were fulfilled in his descendants, since he cursed unjustly), made great mourning and walked behind the bier until all the people recognized with clear knowledge that it was not from the king to put Avner to death. And from the chapter we learn two great principles: that a deed done in innocence and uprightness of heart finds favor in everyone's eyes and forgery never endures, and that when there is no justice on earth a person hands over his case to Heaven - "may Hashem repay the doer of evil according to his evil."