Why does Avshalom rebel? The text is unclear. Avshalom was next in line to be king. David had not yet announced any intention for succession, so Avshalom’s rebellion could not have been a reaction to being passed over. Some commentaries look at the end of the previous chapter for the answer. Chapter 14 ends with a few verses describing Avshalom’s beauty. The thought is that he became so infatuated with himself that he believed he could be king. The problem is that he was always handsome. It does not really answer why he rebelled now. Looking at the story until this point there are three possibilities- the first is a lingering anger towards David for not acting after Amnon raped Tamar, the second is for expelling him after he killed Amnon, and the third is for banishing him when he returns. The problem with each of these possibilities is that Avshalom never mentions them. One would think that if Avshalom was motivated by these that he would declare it at the reason for his rebellion. Surely this would garner sympathy from the people. Instead, Avshalom’s actions at the start of the rebellion may reveal the fourth possibility- that he felt David was out of touch as a leader. Avshalom’s initial act is to set himself up as a man of the people. He ingratiates himself with the people seeking judgment from the King. After seeing how David stayed back while everyone else went to war, how he treated Uriah, how he treated Tamar, and how he treated Avshalom himself, Avshalom knew that David had lost the people. The swiftness with which the people rally around Avshalom shows how he correctly read the mood. David’s immediate flight from Jerusalem without stand also shows that he knew he had lost the people. In his escape only a few stalwarts approach him to join him on his journey. Had David been secure in his position, he would have easily dismissed the nascent rebellion.

Yoav once again intervenes in David’s story. This time, he senses that David wants a reunion with Avshalom, but does not want to make the first move. Yoav borrows from Natan the prophet and devises a plan for a woman to bring a parable before David in order to trick him into admitting he would like to bring Avshalom back. To accomplish this, Yoav brings a “wise woman from Tekoa” (אִשָּׁה חֲכָמָה מִתְּקוֹעַ). Why Tekoa? According to the Talmud in Menachos 85b, Tekoa was a city that was rich in olive oil. This oil was the source of all oil for Temple offerings. “The people were accustomed to use olive oil, wisdom is prevalent there” (מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁרְגִילִין בְּשֶׁמֶן זַיִת חָכְמָה מְצוּיָה בָּהֶן). The city was in the tribe of Asher who was blessed with living in oil rich lands. The Talmud is silent as to what the connection is between olive oil and wisdom. One possibility is that olive oil has health benefits to assist in brain function. In fact, modern studies have shown an increase in memory functionality in diets rich in olive oil. Another possibility is that because olive oil for the Temple service came from Tekoa, its inhabitants needed to be very well versed in the various laws pertaining to the Temple, or in this case Tabernacle, service. Another possibility is that the fact that she was from Tekoa was not the reason she was wise. Yoav selected Tekoa not because of the wise people, but because it was in the territory of Asher. If Yoav wanted to trick David, he needed to make sure the woman would not be familiar to David or anyone in court in Jerusalem. The tribe of Asher is practically absent from the books of the prophets, so its people were most likely to be unknown in the royal court. Because Tekoa was rich in olive oil, Yoav has to make a special request to the woman not to anoint herself with olive oil: “Pretend you are in mourning; put on mourning clothes and don’t anoint yourself with oil; and act like a woman who has grieved a long time over a departed one” (וְהִתְאַבְּלִי נָא וְלִבְשִׁי נָא בִגְדֵי אֵבֶל וְאַל תָּסוּכִי שֶׁמֶן וְהָיִית כְּאִשָּׁה זֶה יָמִים רַבִּים מִתְאַבֶּלֶת עַל מֵת). (verse 2) The Mishnah Torah: Laws of Mourning derives two laws of Mourning from this verse: 1) a mourner may not wear new clothes 2) a mourner may not wash themselves or use oils on their body. Yoav’s plan works initially as David agrees to bring Avshalom back, but the happy reunion never materializes as Avshalom is banished from seeing David in person. Perhaps Yoav should have asked the wise woman from Tekoa if his intuition was right in the first place.

Chapter 13 is another difficult read. Amnon’s rape of Tamar is an idea of his brilliant friend and seems to be condoned by David. Like Yaacov’s failure to act after Dinah is raped, David hears about the incident and stays silent. Avshalom, like Levi and Shimon, is the lone family member who sees the torment of his sister and seeks revenge. On a visit to Paris, I visited the Muse d’ Orsay. Hanging in the museum is the above painting by Alexandre Cabanel from 1875 simply titled “Tamar”. The name of the painting alone refocuses chapter 13 on the victim who gets lost in the story. Tamar takes center stage in the painting as well. She is half naked having been expelled from the rooms of her perpetrator and collapses into the lap of her brother. Her jewelry is strewn on the floor. Avshalom seems to be calling out with one hand, perhaps for medical assistance or perhaps for revenge. His other hand on the pillow is clenched in rage. As part of the Orientalist romanticism at the time, Tamar is depicted as the pale white victim while all the other characters in the painting are given a North African complexion. The servant in the back right of the painting is a reference to a similar figure in another painting titled “the Women of Algiers” by Eugène Delacroix that depicts a group of women in a Harem in Algeria. Cabanel’s Tamar takes that romanticized version of a harem and shows the dark side of the violated woman. The absence of anyone else in the painting points to the isolation of the characters. Tamar the victim and Avshalom the lone family member willing to protect her.

The chapter begins with Natan’s brilliant parable and trap for David. David himself grew up as a shepherd, so he would have been particularly sensitive to the plight of a poor shepherd at the mercy of a wealthy one. After Natan reveals the truth behind his story, he tells David that God is furious with what he did:

“Why then have you flouted the command of the LORD and done what displeases Him? You have put Uriah the Hittite to the sword; you took his wife and made her your wife and had him killed by the sword of the Ammonites” (מַדּוּעַ בָּזִיתָ אֶת־דְּבַר ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינָו אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי הִכִּיתָ בַּחֶרֶב וְאֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ לָקַחְתָּ לְּךָ לְאִשָּׁה וְאֹתוֹ הָרַגְתָּ בְּחֶרֶב בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן) (II Samuel 12:9).

Why does the verse mention Uriah’s death twice? Metzudat David explains that Natan is describing two parts of the same sin: David first ordered Uriah’s death and then Uriah was actually killed. Radak takes a slightly different approach. The first mention refers to David’s command to Yoav to place Uriah in mortal danger. The second refers to the fact that Uriah was ultimately killed by the Ammonites. David’s sin, according to Radak, was therefore not just the death of Uriah but also strengthening Israel’s enemies by having them carry out the deed.

Perhaps the answer lies in the precise wording of the verse. The first clause says “הִכִּיתָ”, “you struck down,” while the second says “הָרַגְתָּ”, “you killed.” The Navi may be drawing a distinction between David’s symbolic responsibility and the physical act itself.

A similar distinction appears earlier in David’s life. When David arrives in Nov and asks Achimelech for a weapon, the priest responds that the only sword available is “חֶרֶב גָּלְיָת הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי אֲשֶׁר־הִכִּיתָ בְּעֵמֶק הָאֵלָה”, “the sword of Goliath the Philistine whom you struck down in the Valley of Elah” (I Samuel 21:10). Yet David did not actually kill Goliath with a sword. He felled him with a stone from his sling and only afterward took Goliath’s own sword and killed him. In other words, "striking down" and "killing" are not identical acts.

Natan may therefore be making a subtle point. The Ammonites physically killed Uriah, but David had already “struck him down” the moment he sent the fatal order to Yoav. Uriah died at the hands of Ammon, but the responsibility for his death began with David. By using both verbs, Natan emphasizes that David bears guilt not only for the outcome but for setting the entire chain of events into motion.

David and Batsheva is one of the more controversial stories in Tanach. Did David sin with Batsheva? Was Batsheva really divorced so it was not an affair? Did David really have Uriah killed for no reason or did Uriah deserve to be killed because he refused an order from the king? There are strong allegiances to each side of the debate. Chapter 11, and the absence of the full story from the book of Chronicles, does seem to indicate that whatever happened it was quite untoward.

Adding to the debate is a non-sequitur that appears in the middle of the story. David sends a message to Yoav to send Uriah to the front lines on a suicide mission attacking a walled city head on with archers shooting down (הָבוּ אֶת־אוּרִיָּה אֶל־מוּל פְּנֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה הַחֲזָקָה וְשַׁבְתֶּם מֵאַחֲרָיו וְנִכָּה וָמֵת) (II Samuel 11:15). Yoav complies and Uriah is killed. Yoav sends a message back to David to let him know the plan was a success.

Instead of just relaying the message, Yoav adds a reference to the book of Judges. He tells the messenger that David may be upset by the attack on the wall because back in Judges Abimelech was killed by a woman dropping a millstone on his head as he attacked a tower. “Who struck down Abimelech son of Jerubbesheth? Was it not a woman who dropped an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died at Thebez? Why did you approach the wall?” (מִי־הִכָּה אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן־יְרֻבֶּשֶׁת הֲלוֹא־אִשָּׁה הִשְׁלִיכָה עָלָיו פֶּלַח רֶכֶב מֵעַל הַחוֹמָה וַיָּמׇת בְּתֵבֵץ לָמָּה נִגַּשְׁתֶּם אֶל־הַחוֹמָה) (II Samuel 11:21; cf. Judges 9:53).

What does Abimelech getting killed have to do with the story? Yoav knew that David gave the direct order to send Uriah to the front, so why would he be upset?

Yoav may be trying to send a subtle message to David. Abimelech represented the first of the “bad judges.” He went around doing whatever he wanted and instead of leading the people, he held them hostage. The message to David could be to be careful about what you are doing. Sending Uriah to his death would have been something Abimelech would have done. Yoav does not want to see David corrupting his power by treating his subjects without respect.

Another possible message could be the way Abimelech died. The text makes a big deal that Abimelech was killed by a woman (וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ אִשָּׁה אַחַת פֶּלַח רֶכֶב עַל־רֹאשׁ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ וַתָּרֶץ אֶת־גֻּלְגָּלְתּוֹ) (Judges 9:53). Perhaps the message is that David needs to be careful. He is risking everything for Batsheva. It is not that Batsheva will kill him, but what he is willing to do to have her could result in the downfall of his monarchy.

When a ruler dies, his offspring have an opportunity to change course. Other rulers who want to keep things the same will try to appease the new leader, sometimes by reminding him of treaties and friendships. David tries to do the same here with Nachash’s son, Hanun. He sends a delegation to the new king to wish him well, bring gifts, and solidify the friendship between David and the ruler of Ammon.

Hanun has other plans. The delegation arrives and his advisors warn him: “Do you think David is really honoring your father just because he sent you men with condolences? Why, David has sent his courtiers to you to explore and spy out the city, and to overthrow it” (הַמְכַבֵּד דָּוִד אֶת־אָבִיךָ בְּעֵינֶיךָ כִּי־שָׁלַח לְךָ מְנַחֲמִים הֲלוֹא בַּעֲבוּר חֲקֹר אֶת־הָעִיר וּלְרַגְּלָהּ וּלְהׇפְכָהּ שָׁלַח דָּוִד אֶת־עֲבָדָיו אֵלֶיךָ) (II Samuel 10:3). Hanun listens to his advisors and instead of welcoming the delegation, he cuts off their beards and the bottoms of their clothes, exposing their genitals (וַיִּקַּח חָנוּן אֶת־עַבְדֵי דָוִד וַיְגַלַּח אֶת־חֲצִי זְקָנָם וַיִּכְרֹת אֶת־מַדְוֵיהֶם בַּחֲצִי עַד שְׁתוֹתֵיהֶם וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם) (II Samuel 10:4).

Not only was this embarrassing for the ministers themselves, but it was also religiously humiliating for the Israelites who did not shave and who had tzitzit on the corners of their garments. Think of the horrific pictures of Nazis shaving the peot off of Jews. The act was a major miscalculation by Hanun that ends in disaster.

Perhaps, however, the episode echoes an earlier incident in Jewish history. During the famine, Yaakov sent his sons to Egypt to purchase food. When they arrived before Yosef, who had risen to become Egypt’s viceroy, he did not welcome them. Instead, he accused them of espionage: “You are spies; you have come to see the nakedness of the land” (מְרַגְּלִים אַתֶּם לִרְאוֹת אֶת־עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם) (Genesis 42:9). The brothers protested, insisting that they were honest men and not spies (כֻּלָּנוּ בְּנֵי־אִישׁ אֶחָד נָחְנוּ כֵּנִים אֲנַחְנוּ לֹא־הָיוּ עֲבָדֶיךָ מְרַגְּלִים) (Genesis 42:11), but Yosef repeated the accusation: “No, you have come to see the nakedness of the land” (לֹא כִּי עֶרְוַת הָאָרֶץ בָּאתֶם לִרְאוֹת) (Genesis 42:12).

Hanun’s advisors make the same accusation against David’s delegation that Yosef made against his brothers: they are not diplomats but spies. Moreover, just as Yosef repeatedly spoke of uncovering the “nakedness” of the land, Hanun responds by literally exposing the nakedness of David’s servants. Yosef was able to conceal his identity behind the beard and royal garments of an Egyptian ruler. Perhaps David’s servants suffer the humiliation of having their beards removed and their clothing cut away as a measure-for-measure reminder of Yosef’s treatment of his brothers centuries earlier

David made a promise to Jonathan that he would watch over his descendants (וְלֹא־תַכְרִית אֶת־חַסְדְּךָ מֵעִם־בֵּיתִי עַד־עוֹלָם) (I Samuel 20:15). He searches the land for any remaining descendants and is told there is only a young, handicapped boy who is left. Earlier in the book, in an aside, the Navi explained that Mephiboshet’s legs were broken when his maidservant dropped him in shock after hearing about the death of Shaul and Jonathan (וַתִּשָּׂאֵהוּ אֹמַנְתּוֹ וַתָּנֹס וַיְהִי בְּחׇפְזָהּ לָנוּס וַיִּפֹּל וַיִּפָּסֵחַ) (II Samuel 4:4). Although Mephiboshet could have been in line after Ish Boshet was killed, it seems like his handicap kept him out of the spotlight.

David summons Mephiboshet to elevate him to David’s table and to give him all the lands of his grandfather Shaul. During the audience, “[Mephibosheth] prostrated himself again, and said, ‘What is your servant, that you should show regard for a dead dog like me?’” (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ וַיֹּאמֶר מֶה עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי פָנִיתָ אֶל־הַכֶּלֶב הַמֵּת אֲשֶׁר כָּמוֹנִי) (verse 8).

Mephiboshet’s choice of words is interesting here. He uses the exact same phrase that David used back in I Samuel 24 after he cut Shaul’s cloak. “Against whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog? A single flea?” (אַחֲרֵי מִי יָצָא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי מִי אַתָּה רֹדֵף אַחֲרֵי כֶּלֶב מֵת אַחֲרֵי פַּרְעֹשׁ אֶחָד) (I Samuel 24:15).

Why would Mephiboshet use this same phrase? It is possible that this was simply a turn of phrase that one used at the time to mean someone low and insignificant. Indeed, Avner uses a similar phrase for the opposite effect when Ish Boshet accuses him of sleeping with Shaul’s concubine (הֲרֹאשׁ כֶּלֶב אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר לִיהוּדָה) (II Samuel 3:8). Later, the phrase will be used by Avishai to describe Shimi when Shimi curses David as he flees Jerusalem from his son (לָמָּה יְקַלֵּל הַכֶּלֶב הַמֵּת הַזֶּה אֶת־אֲדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ) (II Samuel 16:9).

But there may be another reason Mephiboshet uses this phrase. After David uses it to describe himself, Shaul suddenly snaps out of his rage and begins to cry. He recognized David and proclaimed that he knows David is more righteous than he and that David will surely be king (וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־מָלֹךְ תִּמְלוֹךְ וְקָמָה בְּיָדְךָ מַמְלֶכֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל) (I Samuel 24:21). He then charges David: “So swear to me by the LORD that you will not destroy my descendants or wipe out my name from my father’s house” (וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי בַּה׳ אִם־תַּכְרִית אֶת־זַרְעִי אַחֲרָי וְאִם־תַּשְׁמִיד אֶת־שְׁמִי מִבֵּית אָבִי) (I Samuel 24:22).

Jonathan and David’s promise was made in secret, but Shaul’s was made out in public, in front of his ministers. It is possible that one of them relayed this story to Mephiboshet, and now Mephiboshet uses this exact phrase when speaking to David to remind him of the promise he made Shaul.

The average movie is around 2 hours, however the timeframe of the movie usually takes place over longer periods of time. To solve for this, films employ the classic film-making tool called a montage. In a montage, several scenes are depicted in quick succession showing events that take place over a longer period of time, typically accompanied by music. A classic example of this is the training scene in Rocky with “Eye of the Tiger” playing in the background.

Chapter 8 of II Samuel is the biblical version of the montage. After David solidifies his kingdom, and his request to build the Temple is denied, he goes on several quests to expand Israel’s territory and subdue the enemies around him. Chapter 8 hits nations in the north, south, and west. David expands the borders to the lines that God promised Abraham. All of this happens in 12 short verses. The chapter rapidly moves from one victory to another: over the Philistines (וַיַּךְ דָּוִד אֶת־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּכְנִיעֵם) (II Samuel 8:1), Moab (וַיַּךְ אֶת־מוֹאָב) (II Samuel 8:2), Aram and Hadadezer (וַיַּךְ דָּוִד אֶת־הֲדַדְעֶזֶר בֶּן־רְחֹב מֶלֶךְ צוֹבָה) (II Samuel 8:3), and Edom (וַיָּשֶׂם בֶּאֱדוֹם נְצִבִים) (II Samuel 8:14), while repeatedly emphasizing that וַה׳ הוֹשִׁיעַ אֶת־דָּוִד בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הָלָךְ (“the LORD gave victory to David wherever he went”) (II Samuel 8:6, 14).

“David gained fame (made a name for himself) when he returned from defeating Edom in the Valley of Salt, 18,000 in all” (וַיַּעַשׂ דָּוִד שֵׁם בְּשֻׁבוֹ מֵהַכּוֹתוֹ אֶת־אֲרָם בְּגֵיא־מֶלַח שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר אָלֶף) (verse 13). David’s reputation as a leader and warrior is now known across the Middle East.

The Tanach of the Land of Israel, book of Samuel, explains that “David made a name for himself” may mean that he erected a stone stele as was the custom of contemporary leaders. These stone monuments told of great victories by the monarch. The fact that David may have built one or more of these monuments is testament to the extent of his power. David felt secure enough as leader of the Israelites to announce his victories in the same manner of the kings he had just defeated.

David is in a palace and the Ark sits under a tent. Irked by this imbalance, David wishes to build a Temple for God. Initially, Natan the prophet is all in, but then God appears to Natan and tells him to reverse course. Why did God not want David to build the Temple? The conventional wisdom is that David fought wars, but that is not mentioned here. Instead, that answer appears later in the book of Chronicles. The Mishkan was nomadic, so it matched the people at the time. David thought that now that the people were established, God would want an established house. But God is not on the same page. Reading the chapter, it sounds like God does not want a physical house. God promises to establish David’s house forever, not a physical one, but a generational and reputational one (וַהֲגִיד לְךָ ה׳ כִּי־בַיִת יַעֲשֶׂה־לְּךָ ה׳) (II Samuel 7:11). God also explains that David’s son will “build a house for My name, and I will establish his royal throne forever” (הוּא יִבְנֶה־בַּיִת לִשְׁמִי וְכֹנַנְתִּי אֶת־כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ עַד־עוֹלָם) (verse 13). This is very different from David’s request to build a house for God to abide in.

God never rebuked the people for failure to build a Temple all of these years. It was never God’s request for a Temple. In fact, God says explicitly: כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת לְמִיּוֹם הַעֲלֹתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם וְעַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּאֹהֶל וּבְמִשְׁכָּן (“I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up from Egypt until this day, but have moved about in tent and tabernacle”) (II Samuel 7:6). God then asks rhetorically: הֲדָבָר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֶת־אַחַד שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... לֵאמֹר לָמָּה לֹא־בְנִיתֶם לִי בֵּית אֲרָזִים (“Did I ever say to any of the tribes of Israel... ‘Why have you not built Me a house of cedar?’”) (II Samuel 7:7).

To add a Midrashic spin, the word “house” (בַּיִת) appears twelve times in the chapter after David proposes to build the Temple. Perhaps this number 12 is a symbolic way for the Navi to show that God does not need a physical house. God’s true home is within the twelve tribes of Israel.

After conquering his capital city, David now turns his attention to the Ark of the Covenant. Since the Philistines returned the Ark on two wandering cattle, it had been situated in the house of Obed-Edom. The procession is festive with musical instruments and dancing. Along the way, however, the Ark slips, and Uzzah reaches out to protect it. God is angry that Uzzah thought the Ark needed protection from man. Uzzah dies on the spot (וַיִּשְׁלַח עֻזָּה אֶל־אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאחֶז בּוֹ כִּי שָׁמְטוּ הַבָּקָר. וַיִּחַר־אַף ה׳ בְּעֻזָּה וַיַּכֵּהוּ שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים עַל־הַשַּׁל) (II Samuel 6:6-7). David stops the procession for a period of time following the tragic death, but then continues the procession up to the City of David.

While the people gather around in the procession playing music, David dances and flips in front of the Ark wearing an ephod (וְדָוִד מְכַרְכֵּר בְּכׇל־עֹז לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְדָוִד חָגוּר אֵפוֹד בָּד) (II Samuel 6:14). As the procession passes David’s palace, Michal, his wife, looks out the window “and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him for it” (וּמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל נִשְׁקְפָה בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן וַתֵּרֶא אֶת־הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד מְפַזֵּז וּמְכַרְכֵּר לִפְנֵי ה׳ וַתִּבֶז לוֹ בְּלִבָּהּ) (verse 16). Later, when David returns home, Michal expresses the source of her displeasure: “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today, exposing himself today in the sight of the slavegirls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself” (מַה־נִּכְבַּד הַיּוֹם מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר נִגְלָה הַיּוֹם לְעֵינֵי אַמְהוֹת עֲבָדָיו כְּהִגָּלוֹת נִגְלוֹת אַחַד הָרֵקִים) (verse 20).

David is furious with her response and raises the temperature by attacking Michal’s father Shaul (לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר־בִּי מֵאָבִיךְ וּמִכׇּל־בֵּיתוֹ) (verse 21). Was Michal right to criticize David? Michal’s point is that the king needs to have some level of respectability no matter the circumstance. Her concern seems to read as a classist response focusing only on the high status that a king should have. But this is out of character for Michal. She does not act like a highborn snobby person anywhere else in the text. Furthermore, “respect for the king” seems to be what David himself espoused while on the run from Shaul. Twice he had the chance to kill Shaul but instead chose not to. Each time he ordered his guards not to kill the anointed of God (חָלִילָה לִּי מֵה׳ אֶשְׁלַח יָדִי בִּמְשִׁיחַ ה׳) (I Samuel 24:7; 26:11). Similarly, he killed the Amalekite and Ish Boshet’s guards for disrespecting the office of the king even when they killed his sworn enemy. So it also seems out of character for David to be upset at her protestations.

Perhaps the Navi gives a hint as to Michal’s motivation in verse 16. The Navi makes the point to add that Michal looked out the window (וּמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל נִשְׁקְפָה בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן) (verse 16). The last time David and Michal were together with a window was back in I Samuel 19. Shaul sends officers to kill David, and Michal lowers David out the window to safety (וַתּוֹרֶד מִיכַל אֶת־דָּוִד בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן) (I Samuel 19:12). The two do not meet again until after Shaul dies.

Michal saw firsthand what happens when a king debases his position by acting irrationally. She had to lower her husband out the window to save him from her raving father. Now, looking out a window again, she fears she sees her husband forgetting the lessons of Shaul. Unfortunately, David does not understand, and instead impulsively curses her. The shock of seeing her husband exhibiting similar dangerous characteristics as her father may have led to Michal swearing off further royal offspring. Indeed, the chapter closes: וּלְמִיכַל בַּת־שָׁאוּל לֹא־הָיָה לָהּ יָלֶד עַד יוֹם מוֹתָהּ (“And Michal daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death”) (II Samuel 6:23).