Taking a Parting Shot
With you is Shimi the son of Gera of the tribe of Binyamin from Bachurim. He cursed me with a terrible curse on the day I traveled from Machanayim. He went to greet me at the Jordan. I swore to him by Hashem not to kill him by the sword. You should not hold him innocent. For you are a wise person. You know what to do to him. Bring him, in his old-age, in blood to the grave. (Sefer Melachim I 2:8-9)
I. David instructs Shlomo
Parshat VaYeche includes Yaakov’s final address to his sons. He blesses each son. His address includes prophetic visions of the futures awaiting his sons. He also critiques the behaviors or personalities of some sons.
The haftarah – the portion from Prophets read with the parasha – describes King David’s final instructions to his son Shlomo. Shlomo will succeed him as king. David’s comments focus on how Shlomo must conduct himself. He also provides specific guidance or directions. The above passage is one of those specific directions. To understand David’s message, its context must be explained.
II. Avshalom’s rebellion and Shimi curses David
One of the most painful episodes of David’s life was the rebellion of his son Avshalom. Avshalom seized the kingship from his father and forced David and his loyal followers to flee Yerushalayim for the territory east of the Jordan River. As David fled, he was accosted by Shimi. Shimi cursed David. He declared that David was an evil murderer and responsible for the fall of Shaul’s dynasty. He declared that the rebellion of Avshalom and his seizure of the kingship was David’s just punishment. Shimi followed David and his followers, insulting them and hurling stones at them.
Avshalom assembled an army and pursued David to the east of the Jordan. David and his followers faced their pursuers. In the ensuing battle, David’s forces triumphed and Avshalom was killed.
David led his forces back to Yerushalayim. His intention was to reestablish his sovereignty over the nation. Shimi assembled a large group. Leading them, he greeted David at the Jordan. He acknowledged that he had sinned against David and asked that he overlook his behavior. He asked that David consider that he and his entourage were among the first to welcome David and to accept the restoration of his sovereignty. David responded by promising Shimi he would not kill him.
III. Shlomo is to punish Shimi
This is the context in which David instructs Shlomo. He tells Shlomo that he should beware of Shimi. He should be sure that Shimi is executed for his actions. Radak and others explain that David promised Shimi that he would not execute him for his rebellion. David expected Shlomo to respect that promise. Yet, he directed him to not allow Shimi to escape unpunished. Shlomo should be attentive to Shimi’s behaviors and seek an opportunity to punish him for some new act of rebellion. If necessary, he should entrap Shimi in an act of rebellion. Once Shimi committed this additional crime, he should execute him.[1] Shlomo followed his father’s instructions. He devised a plan to deal with Shimi. Shimi eventually rebelled and was executed by Shlomo.
The incident raises a question. David wanted to punish Shimi without violating his promise to him. He instructed Shlomo to accomplish this though entrapping Shimi in a further act of rebellion. Why did David not employ the same strategy to punish Shimi during his own lifetime?
IV. David’s treatment of Shimi
To answer this question, we must begin with an even more basic problem. From his instructions to Shlomo it is clear David had not forgiven Shimi. Why did David promise Shimi that he would not kill him? Rashi and others address this question. Shimi engaged in his rebellion along with much of the nation. With the defeat of Avshalom and David’s reassertion of his authority, an intense fear arose among the people. Who would David punish for this rebellion? Would he forgive the disloyalty of his subjects or would he take vengeance? Shimi was very aware of the people’s anxiety and used it to manipulate David.[2]
Shimi hastened to greet David publicly and surrounded by his large entourage. He anticipated that all present would be scrutinizing David’s response to his entreaty. They would assume that David’s treatment of the repentant Shimi would be a compelling indictor of David’s attitude and future behavior toward his wayward subjects. David’s punishment of Shimi would be a harbinger of vengeance upon the people. David forgiveness of Shimi would signal that he was prepared to forgive the rest of his subjects.[3]
David understood the situation in which Shimi had placed him. If he punished Shimi, he would struggle to restore his kingship. Forgiving Shimi would assure the people that they could return to David and not fear retribution. David realized that Shimi had out-maneuvered him. He accepted Shimi’s entreaty and promised to not kill him. He had not forgiven Shimi but recognized he could not act against him.
In summary, David believed that Shimi deserved to be punished – even executed – for his behavior. However, Shimi understood David’s difficult political situation and used it to maneuver him into forgoing the opportunity to punish him.
Now, let us return to our question. David did succeed in reestablishing his authority. He earned the love and trust of the people. Why did he not implement the strategy he advised to Shlomo? Why did he not entrap Shimi instead of leaving the task to his son?
V. The king’s authority to punish
There are various possible responses. An interesting explanation is provided by Rav Naftali Amsterdam Zt”l (1832-1916).[4] His insight is based upon a curious law. The king has the right to punish and even execute those who rebel against his authority. However, he not required to implement a consequence. The king must determine the appropriate punishment and implement it.[5] How does a king decide when and how to implement consequences? He must make his decision based upon the welfare of the people. Their welfare requires a viable leadership and government. The king is responsible to uphold his authority and to encourage and maintain the nation’s respect for his government. His authority to punish is not to be used for personal vengeance.
VI. David’s uncertainty
Shimi’s behavior precipitated in David a personal quandary. He was responsible to determine Shimi’s punishment. Yet, he must conduct his analysis free from personal bias against Shimi. He must determine whether Shimi should be executed to preserve and uphold the authority of the king. He may not be swayed by a personal desire for vengeance.
During his lifetime, David was uncertain of his own objectivity. This uncertainty prevented him from plotting against Shimi. As David’s death approached, he became detached from worldly matters and considerations. Personal slights and even curses directed against him were no longer painful. As he gazed over the horizon upon the World-to-Come, such mundane personal issues became insignificant. From this new perspective, he reconsidered Shimi’s behavior. He concluded – now, without fear of bias – that Shimi must die.[6]
[You have] the restlessness of water; [therefore,] you shall not have superiority, for you ascended upon your father's couch; then you profaned [Him Who] ascended upon my bed. (Sefer Beresheit 49:4)
VII. Yaakov’s rebuke
Every haftarah is related to the content of the week’s Torah reading. The obvious connection between this week’s portion and its haftarah is that both discuss a father’s final address to his son or children. David addresses Shlomo in the haftarah; Yaakov addresses his sons in the Torah reading.
The above insight suggests another connection between the parasha and its haftarah. In the above passage, Yaakov addresses Reuven. He rebukes him for interfering in his relationship with his wives. Yaakov also speaks harshly to Shimon and Leyve. He condemns them for their actions against the people of Shechem. Yaakov did not deliver these rebukes until the end of his life. Why did he wait? He could have rebuked them earlier. This would have provided them an earlier opportunity to consider his criticism and repent.
Reuven’s actions were a personal attack upon Yaakov. Also, Shimon and Leyve’s behavior had a personal element. They rejected their father’s authority and executed the citizens of Shechem against his wishes. Perhaps, like David, Yaakov wanted to act without personal bias. He did not want his rebuke to be influenced by personal hurt his sons had caused him. He waited until the end of his life. Like David, he was then liberated from the mundane concerns that plague us during life. Only after achieving this freedom did he feel he could rebuke his sons.
VIII. Judging others
These incidents communicate a very important lesson. If David and Yaakov questioned their objectivity in judging those who had hurt them, should we not be cautious in our assessment of those who have hurt us. Personal hurt can blind us. We see only the evil in those who have harmed us. Their better qualities are obscured by our anger and indignation. Maybe, like David and Yaakov, we should question our capacity to objectively judge those who have harmed us and, like them, forego such assessments.
[1] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Melachim I 2:9.
[2] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Shmuel II 19:21.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Shmuel II 19:21.
[4] Rav Naftali Amsterdam was a student of Rav Yisroel Salanter. He served in rabbinic posts in Helsinki and Novogrod before settling in Kovno and devoting himself entirely to Torah study. Financial consideration required Rav Amsterdam to return to the rabbinate. He served in Yaswerin and Elskost before emigrating to the Land of Israel in 1906. There, he resumed his devotion of Torah study until the end of his life.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 3:8.
[6] Institute for the Publication of Books and Manuscripts (Jerusalem), Asher Yitzaveh, p 443.