Chapter 14 of Shmuel B revolves entirely around Yoav ben Tzeruyah's stratagem to bring Avshalom back from his exile in Geshur. Yoav does not approach David with a direct request, but instead sends a wise woman from Tekoa to lay before him a complete parable in the guise of a real case, in order to bring the king to rule for himself the very verdict that Yoav wishes to hear. We will proceed through the pesukim in order, mainly according to the explanations of the Malbim, alongside the words of Rashi, the Radak and the Metzudat David.
וַיֵּדַע יוֹאָב בֶּן־צְרֻיָה כִּי־לֵב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל־אַבְשָׁלוֹם׃ - And Yoav ben Tzeruyah knew that the heart of the king was toward Avshalom.
As in the previous chapter, where it says "and David the king longed to go out to Avshalom, for he was consoled over Amnon that he was dead," and the commentators disagreed whether he longed to go out to him in order to bring him back or in order to take revenge on him, so too here there are two interpretations. The Metzudat David explains "the heart of the king was toward Avshalom" - that his heart was well disposed toward him, meaning there was now fertile ground to speak with David and bring his son back. The Malbim explains the opposite: Yoav knew that even though David was not pursuing Avshalom, his heart was still full against him and he bore him enmity. For this reason Yoav said to himself: I must do something here, in order to bring David to the point where he will agree to return Avshalom.
וַיִּשְׁלַח יוֹאָב תְּקוֹעָה וַיִּקַּח מִשָּׁם אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ הִתְאַבְּלִי־נָא וְלִבְשִׁי־נָא בִגְדֵי־אֵבֶל וְאַל־תָּסוּכִי שֶׁמֶן וְהָיִית כְּאִשָּׁה זֶה יָמִים רַבִּים מִתְאַבֶּלֶת עַל־מֵת׃ - And Yoav sent to Tekoa and took from there a wise woman, and said to her: Please mourn, and please put on garments of mourning, and do not anoint yourself with oil, and be like a woman who has for many days been mourning for a dead one.
Yoav sends to the city of Tekoa. Tekoa sat at the top of a mountain, and there they would sound the shofar, since its sound carries far. The people of the mountain, say Chazal, are generally mighty, wise and stout of heart. Moreover, from Tekoa they would bring olive oil, and olive oil, as is known, is a sign of wisdom. Therefore it was specifically there that Yoav found a wise woman.
And what did he ask of her? "Please mourn" - begin at once to give the impression of a mourning woman: with weeping, with lamentation, with wearing mourning garments and with refraining from anointing with oil. And the reason for this: "and be like a woman who has for many days been mourning for a dead one." Yoav does not want it to appear as though she is putting on a performance at this very moment, but rather as though she has been in mourning for a long time. A person who anointed himself with oil today and yesterday, it is evident in his face, his hands and his legs that his flesh is smooth; but one who has not anointed himself for several days and whose flesh has dried out looks like someone who has been mourning for a long time. Therefore he told her to begin already now with all the signs of mourning, for the sake of the setting.
וּבָאת אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדִבַּרְתְּ אֵלָיו כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה וַיָּשֶׂם יוֹאָב אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים בְּפִיהָ׃ - And you shall come to the king and speak to him according to this matter; and Yoav put the words in her mouth.
Note the wording: not "this matter" but "according to this matter" - more or less along these lines. Yoav deliberately chose a wise woman, for the king is sharp and will ask questions, and she will need to answer. A woman who is not wise would stumble in her speech and would not know how to fit each answer to its question, whereas this one would know how to stand up to any situation and draw out a fitting answer to every argument.
Yet even so he was not satisfied with that, but rather "and Yoav put the words in her mouth." The Malbim explains: he also put into her mouth the details of the matter - if he asks you this, answer thus; and if he argues this, say thus; and if he presses, why not such and such, answer thus. In short, he prepared for her answers for every possibility, and for the rest he relied on her wisdom that she would know how to draw out convincing words on the spot. What exactly he said to her, the prophet does not tell, since the matters will be revealed right away in practice.
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַתְּקֹעִית אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ וַתִּפֹּל עַל־אַפֶּיהָ אַרְצָה וַתִּשְׁתָּחוּ וַתֹּאמֶר הוֹשִׁעָה הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - And the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king, and she fell on her face to the ground and prostrated herself, and she said: Save me, O king.
The pasuk is difficult: "And the woman of Tekoa spoke to the king" - and what did she say? Only afterward is it written, "And she said: Save me, O king." If so, what was the first "Vatomer"? The Radak explains in the name of his father that the first "Vatomer" refers to the men at the gate. When she came to the king's palace, guards stood at the entrance, inspecting and asking whoever came what he wanted. She said to them: I have a claim, I wish to enter and appeal before the king. They answered her that the king would not listen to her, for many stand before him and his affairs are many. And indeed she says so explicitly later, "for the people frightened me" - the people scared me and told me that you would not heed my words. And after she pressed and entered, then "she fell on her face to the ground and prostrated herself, and she said: Save me, O king" - and here she was already speaking to the king himself, whereas before she had spoken with the guards at the entrance.
וַיֹּאמֶר־לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ מַה־לָּךְ וַתֹּאמֶר אֲבָל אִשָּׁה־אַלְמָנָה אָנִי וַיָּמׇת אִישִׁי׃ - And the king said to her: What troubles you? And she said: But I am a widowed woman, and my husband died.
The king asks "What troubles you" - what is your claim and what is your request. And she answers: "Aval" - meaning, in truth, "I am a widowed woman, and my husband died." This seems to be a doubling of expression: a widow is precisely one whose husband died, so what did she add with "and my husband died"? The Metzudat David explains according to the plain sense that it is the way of a widow to lament and to double the words of her wailing in various versions, in order to show the magnitude of her situation and to emphasize her hardship.
The Malbim explains that within the question "What troubles you" there was a deeper, inner question: What are you doing here? For it is the way of the world, when a person has a matter with the king, that the husband comes, or the son, or a relative - a man comes to the king. What brings you specifically to me? To this she replies: My husband cannot come, for I am a widow; my son cannot come, for he has fled and is in flight; and my family cannot come, for my entire claim and case are against my family.
And what is the meaning of "and my husband died" the second time? The Malbim explains: she was widowed from one husband, married a second time, and her second husband also died. Her whole intent in this is to preempt a future argument: when she tells that she had two sons, and one killed his brother and they wish to kill the remaining one, they will say to her - marry again and bear another son. Therefore she states in advance that two husbands have already died on her, and such a woman is called a katlanit and cannot marry again (and the poskim dispute whether this applies after two times or three). It follows that she has no possibility of bearing sons in the future, and all that remains to her is her single son.
The Radak explains differently: she is telling the king that she has long been a widow, but because of the trouble that befell her today she feels as though her husband died anew today. For a widow feels the difficulty of her widowhood precisely at the moment she needs her husband - when she recalls that had he been alive, he would have done this and dealt with that, and she would never have fallen into such trouble at all. And this is what she said: now, in this trouble of my two sons, where one murdered his brother and they wish to kill the remaining one, I feel as though my husband died anew, and that is why it is so hard for me.
וּלְשִׁפְחָתְךָ שְׁנֵי בָנִים וַיִּנָּצוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּשָּׂדֶה וְאֵין מַצִּיל בֵּינֵיהֶם וַיַּכּוֹ הָאֶחָד אֶת־הָאֶחָד וַיָּמֶת אֹתוֹ׃ - And your handmaid had two sons, and the two of them quarreled in the field, and there was none to separate between them, and one struck the other and killed him.
The plain meaning of the verse: her two sons struck one another, and one overpowered his fellow and killed him. Yet within this pasuk are contained three arguments that come to acquit her son under the law of the blood avenger.
The first argument: "the two of them fought together in the field" - in the field, where there were no witnesses and no warning. And without witnesses and warning, how can one be put to death? The second argument: "and there was none to part them" - the matter is close to accidental, for had there been someone to intervene, the mishap could have been prevented; and since there was no one to separate them, he killed in the height of his fury and anger, which is a factor for leniency. The third argument: seemingly all these details are superfluous, for it would have sufficed to say "and your maidservant had two sons, and the one struck the other and killed him." But the Malbim explains that she meant to say that the killer was only defending himself: there was a stage in which they overpowered one another and came to injure each other, and it turns out that the killer was like one saving his own life, for had he not defended himself he would have been killed. His law is like the law of "if someone comes to kill you, rise early to kill him first" - his brother was in the category of a pursuer, and he saved himself from the pursuer. If so, there is no reason now to kill the son who remained.
These three arguments stand also in the parallel meaning, says the Malbim. First, Avshalom killed Amnon without witnesses and warning. Second, "there was none to part them" - you, my lord the king, had you intervened, had you carried out justice, matters would not have reached this point. But you did not champion Tamar's disgrace and did not judge Amnon for his wicked deed, and since there was no one to intervene, the brother rose and did what he did. Third, Amnon was guilty, for he had violated Tamar, so Avshalom turns out to be like one who killed a pursuer. And all of this is still hidden from David, who does not understand at all that it concerns him; we are only anticipating what comes later, in order to show how Yoav wove a complete parable that would persuade the king.
וְהִנֵּה קָמָה כׇל־הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה עַל־שִׁפְחָתֶךָ וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנִי אֶת־מַכֵּה אָחִיו וּנְמִתֵהוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ אָחִיו אֲשֶׁר הָרָג וְנַשְׁמִידָה גַּם אֶת־הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְכִבּוּ אֶת־גַּחַלְתִּי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁאָרָה לְבִלְתִּי שִׂים־לְאִישִׁי שֵׁם וּשְׁאֵרִית עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃ - And behold, the whole family has risen against your maidservant, and they said: Hand over the one who struck his brother, that we may put him to death for the life of his brother whom he killed, and we will destroy the heir as well. Thus they will quench my remaining coal, leaving my husband neither name nor remnant upon the face of the earth.
It was not enough that one son murdered the other, but now the entire family has risen to take the blood avenger's vengeance and to kill the remaining son as well, and about this she comes to lodge her complaint before the king. And here is her fourth argument: her murderous son fled, and the whole family comes to force her, as his mother, to reveal where he is and to hand him over into their hands. And she argues that even if the blood avenger has the right to kill one who is liable for death, he has no power to force the mother to reveal where her son is and to surrender him.
She further argues that the request "hand over the one who struck his brother" is not an innocent request for blood vengeance, but contains an interest: "and we will destroy the heir as well." For if the second son too dies, all the property passes to the father's brothers, since a woman does not inherit her husband as long as there is a male heir. Now it is understood why they are so eager to destroy the heir. And the Radak adds: the Torah said "when his heart is hot" - only when the pursuit of the murderer comes from the heat of the heart, from the pain over a life that was taken, is it permitted; but when the pain is over the loss of property, this is not "his heart is hot" but "his purse is hot," and who permitted such a thing? It turns out that they have no status of blood avenger at all.
And what would the result be? A terrible tragedy: "thus they will quench my remaining coal." After the two stars of her twilight were extinguished, her husband who died and her son who died, she was left with one small coal illuminating the remainder of her life - her remaining son, and even that they seek to quench. And with this her husband's name would be erased from the earth, for he would have no continuity, and his property too would be inherited by strangers.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה לְכִי לְבֵיתֵךְ וַאֲנִי אֲצַוֶּה עָלָיִךְ׃ - And the king said to the woman: Go to your house, and I will give orders concerning you.
She had made two requests: the first, that the blood avengers not put her son to death even if they catch him, since they are not the classic blood avengers of whom the Torah spoke; and the second, that they not compel her to reveal where he is. To the second request the king responds that indeed he can compel them, for the law is clearly with her and they have no right to force her to reveal. But regarding the first request - the Torah granted the blood avenger the right to pursue and kill (and there is a dispute whether it is a right or a commandment), so how can the king erase the law of the Torah?
Therefore he was precise in his wording: "I will give orders concerning you" - and not "concerning your son." To save your son I cannot command, for there is a law of the blood avenger; but concerning you I can command, for they have no right to obligate you to hand him over. And as for her actual argument that their intent is for the property, the king says this is a matter requiring investigation. That is: concerning compelling her to reveal there is nothing to investigate, in this she is one hundred percent correct and there is no permission whatsoever to compel her; but whether her son indeed deserves death, and whether they are permitted to kill him, and whether their intent is for the property or not - that I must examine. The Radak explains "I will give orders concerning you" - I will command the members of your family regarding you, and in his view this includes both the exemption from revealing and the saving of her son.
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה הַתְּקוֹעִית אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ עָלַי אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ הֶעָוֺן וְעַל־בֵּית אָבִי וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְכִסְאוֹ נָקִי׃ - And the woman of Tekoa said to the king: Upon me, my lord the king, be the guilt, and upon my father's house, and let the king and his throne be blameless.
At first glance these words are difficult to understand, and several explanations have been offered. According to the Malbim, she is telling the king: why should you enter into judging this as a matter of royal law, whether they are permitted to kill by the law of the blood avenger or not? For here we do not have a man who killed a stranger; rather, the sons of one killed the sons of the other. The murderer has rolled the burden of guilt onto his father's house, onto us, and we are the ones who must avenge the brother's blood. It turns out that the whole matter is internal to us: if we do not kill him, we will be the guilty ones, and we bear this sin upon ourselves. Had he killed a stranger, there would be room to say that there is an obligation toward him and that the blood avenger should go and pursue; but here everything remains within the family, and we waive the pursuit of the blood avenger. If so, why should you investigate? "And the king and his throne shall be innocent" - you have no problem in this matter, and no harm will come to you if you do not examine everything that happened here.
Rashi explains the opposite: she is saying that the sin is upon him, upon the king - that if he does not investigate what is happening here and they kill her son, he will bear the sin. But it is not respectful to tell a king that the matter hangs upon his neck, so she spoke in the manner of understatement: "Upon me, my lord the king, be the sin, and upon my father's house, and the king and his throne be innocent," and her intent was: take into account that if my son dies when he did not deserve it, the sin rests upon you.
And the Metzudat David explains that she is telling him: believe me that my words are true, and in truth my son does not deserve death. And if you say that you wish first to investigate, I am ready: command now that they not kill him, and if after the investigation it turns out that he indeed deserves death, blame me and punish me. I take the sin upon myself if, God forbid, it turns out that I deceived you. That is, you can believe me one hundred percent that there is not a trace here of anything untrue. This is her way of persuading David.
וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ הַמְדַבֵּר אֵלַיִךְ וַהֲבֵאתוֹ אֵלַי וְלֹא־יֹסִיף עוֹד לָגַעַת בָּךְ׃ - And the king said: Whoever speaks to you, bring him to me, and he shall not touch you again.
The king yields to her request and says: anyone who comes to you and demands "Hand over the child, I wish to kill him by the law of the blood avenger" - send him to me, and I will take up your cause. But one must note precisely: he only exempted her from the obligation to hand over her son to the blood avengers, which was the harsh demand they made of her. But concerning the actual harming of the son he gave no command: if they were to encounter the child by chance on a street corner and kill him, the law of the blood avenger remains in force. As if the king were saying: to this I cannot object, it is not up to me, this is a halachic ruling of the Torah that the blood avenger is permitted to kill him.
Yoav, who knew that David's heart was still full against Avshalom, chose a wise woman from Tekoa, dressed her in the appearance of a long time mourner, and placed in her mouth carefully crafted arguments: a family rising up against a widow to kill her remaining son, and within it four arguments in the son's favor: there were no witnesses and no warning, there was no one to save, the killer defended his life against a pursuer, and the family's intent was for money and inheritance and not because "his heart was heated." The king responded in stages: first "And I will give a command concerning you," and then "Whoever speaks to you, bring him to me" - but he still did not save him from the law of the blood avenger itself. And all that while David does not understand that the parable is directed at him and at his son Avshalom, and this was precisely Yoav's scheme: to bring the king to rule for himself the very judgment that would compel him to bring back his banished one.