Avner returns to Ish Boshet following the debacle at the pool in chapter 2, only to be greeted with a shocking accusation. Ish Boshet charges his general with sleeping with Shaul’s concubine, unfortunately named Ritzpah. Avner reacts with outrage, but it is not immediately clear whether his anger stems from the accusation being false or from Ish Boshet’s audacity in confronting him.

Metzudat Tzion believes that Avner did in fact sleep with Ritzpah. Since only the king could take possession of a royal concubine, Avner’s actions reflected an inflated sense of his own importance. Having installed Ish Boshet on the throne, Avner may have begun to view himself as the true power behind the kingdom. Under this reading, Avner is offended not because the accusation is false, but because he feels Ish Boshet is ungrateful for everything he has done on his behalf. In effect, Avner's response becomes: after all I have done for you, this is what you choose to challenge me about?

The alternative is that Avner never touched Ritzpah at all. In that case, his reaction reflects genuine shock. The house of Shaul came from the tribe of Binyamin, a tribe still haunted by the memory of the concubine of Givah and the near destruction that followed. Avner may have been appalled that Ish Boshet would accuse him of a transgression so closely associated with one of the darkest moments in Benjaminite history.

If Avner was innocent, why would Ish Boshet make such a charge? Perhaps the answer lies in the aftermath of chapter 2. Following the inconclusive battle between the forces of David and Ish Boshet, Ish Boshet may have sensed weakness in his powerful general. Seeing an opportunity to assert his own authority, he attempted to sideline Avner by floating a damaging accusation. It was a serious miscalculation. Instead of weakening Avner, Ish Boshet drove him into David’s camp.

Ish Boshet’s response in verse 11 underscores just how much power Avner wielded. "He could not answer Avner another word, because he feared him." In the first interpretation, Ish Boshet fears the reaction of a general he has just publicly accused of misconduct. He understands that Avner may now turn against him. In the second interpretation, the verse reveals a deeper truth: Ish Boshet had always been afraid of Avner. That fear led him to strike when he thought Avner was vulnerable, but when the plan failed, he still lacked the courage to confront him. Faced with Avner’s open defection, Ish Boshet could do nothing but remain silent.

In the original Star Wars there is a scene where Han Solo meets with Greedo, a green colored galactic bounty hunter, at a bar in Tatooine. After a tense conversation, Han Solo shoots Greedo under the table to save himself. In the original version, Han Solo fires first, but in the later “director’s cut,” George Lucas has Greedo pull his gun, so it looks like Han Solo shot in self-defense. This change created a huge controversy among Star Wars fanatics. Who shot first- Han or Greedo? Became a major debate in Star Wars fan forums. Chapter 2 sets up a similar question. The text is a little ambiguous as to the status of the rift between Ish Boshet as king over Israel except for the tribe of David, and David as king over the tribe of Judah. The two seem to co-exist without any major battle. Ish Boshet is fearful of David, and David most likely is continuing his reticence to rock the boat too much and make the first move. The cold war between the two is highlighted by the opening scene in chapter 2. Avner- Ish Boshet’s general and Yoav, David’s general meet at a pool with a unit of soldiers. Then the peace ends. But who is responsible? Avenr is the one who suggests that the troops “play.” The meaning of the word is ambiguous. Did he mean that they should merely spar, or was this some sort of champions battle - similar to David verses Goliath. The result is tragic- each set of sparring soldiers simultaneously kills the other. Was Yoav responsible? Perhaps he agrees with Avner because he has an ulterior motive. Maybe Avner meant for this to merely be a sparring practice, but Yoav instructed his troops to kill. The true Greedo/Han Solo moment is matched by Asael and Avner. During the battle that comes after the “play”, David’s troops defeat Ish Boshet’s. At this point, everyone could have gone home to lick their wounds and lament the tragic start of the day. But that does not happen. Asael, Yoav’s swift brother starts chasing Avner. Is Asael to blame? Until this point, the battle seems to be focused on the soldiers. Perhaps the generals were not directly involved. Asael raises the bar by relentlessly chasing Ish Boshet’s general. Asael also does not head Avner’s warning to let him be. Instead Avner is forced into a defensive move. He stops short with his spear facing backwards and Asael runs directly into the base of the spear. Had Asael given up pursuit or not run at all, his death could be avoided and with it, the eventual desire for revenge by Yoav. Or perhaps it all circles back to Avner. As noted above, Avner started the bloodshed by suggesting war games. The text does not say that Asael had a weapon, so perhaps he meant to capture Avner or force Avner to end the battle. Avner could have harmed Asael without killing him. Perhaps Avner meant to harm Asael with the back of his spear, but not kill him. So, who shot first? Perhaps the text is ambiguous to make all the parties culpable. The two kings wanted a cold war, but their generals made it burning hot.

David and Jonathan have had a very close relationship. From the moment Jonathan set eyes on David, “When [David]finished speaking with Saul, Jonathan’s soul became bound up with the soul of David; Jonathan loved David as himself” (וַיְהִי כְּכַלֹּתוֹ לְדַבֵּראֶל־שָׁאוּל וְנֶפֶשׁ יְהוֹנָתָן נִקְשְׁרָה בְּנֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד וַיֶּאֱהָבֵהוּיְהוֹנָתָן כְּנַפְשׁוֹ) (I Samuel 18:1). Jonathan saved David’s life multiple times, he snuck out in the middle of the night to visit David in his camp, and the two make a pact together that David would protect Jonathan’s offspring (וְלֹא־תַכְרִית אֶת־חַסְדְּךָ מֵעִם־בֵּיתִי עַד־עוֹלָם) (I Samuel 20:15). Jonathan knew his house was doomed, but he embraced the factthat David would be the one to carry on as king of Israel.In the first chapter of II Samuel (really thecontinuation of the unified book of Samuel), David sings a dirge in honor ofthe slain Saul and Jonathan. As to Shaul he laments: “Daughters of Israel, Weepover Saul, Who clothed you in crimson and finery, Who decked your robes withjewels of gold” (בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה הַמַּלְבִּשְׁכֶםשָׁנִי עִם־עֲדָנִים הַמַּעֲלֶה עֲדִי־זָהָב עַל־לְבוּשְׁכֶן) (verse 24). Asto Jonathan: “Your love was wonderful to me More than the love of women” (צַר־לִיעָלֶיךָ אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן נָעַמְתָּ לִּי מְאֹד נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִימֵאַהֲבַת נָשִׁים) (verse 26).Modern readings of the text suggest that Davidand Jonathan may have had a romantic relationship. That may be, but strongexpressions of love between friends is also not out of the ordinary.Commentators also offer different explanations for David’s choice of phrasehere. Radak explains that the love of a woman here refers to a love that isstronger than the two women who were David’s wives. This reading points toDavid referring to specific women. Radak has a second explanation that is moregeneral. The love between the two was stronger than the love a mother has forher husband and children. This second reading also explains the love here asnon-sexual in nature.The Malbim takes the reference in context ofthe dirge itself. The love is more than the love of the women weeping for Shaulin the previous verse. That is the weeping of the maidens for the king theynever met but who provided protection for them. The weeping of David forJonathan is authentic.Pirkei Avot also interprets the love as one ofdeep intimacy, but not of deep physical attraction per se. “All love thatdepends on a something, [when the] thing ceases, [the] love ceases; and [alllove] that does not depend on anything, will never cease. What is an example oflove that depended on a something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. Andwhat is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the loveof David and Jonathan” (כָּל אַהֲבָה שֶׁהִיא תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר בָּטֵל דָּבָרבְּטֵלָה אַהֲבָה, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ תְלוּיָה בְדָבָר אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה לְעוֹלָם...זוֹ אַהֲבַת דָּוִד וִיהוֹנָתָן) (Pirkei Avot 5:16). Amnon has a sexualobsession with Tamar that leads him to rape his sister. That is strong lovebased on something. When that something is gone, the love dissipates as willhappen after Amnon rapes his sister. The love of David and Jonathan was pureand absolute. Their love was the kind of deep love that was not based onanything physical. Even after death, David laments his soulmate. 

Shaul knew that this battle would be his last. He knew his troops would be decimated and his children killed. But he had to try to defend his people from the Philistines. It was fitting that Shaul’s end comes in a no-win situation. Shaul seems to have been doomed as king from the start. Shmuel did not want a king. God was insulted that the people wanted a king. Shaul was a regular guy who did not really want to be king. There was no model for national leadership for him to model himself after. He was the first one. Every step of the way Shmuel or God found fault in what he did. After the kingship was taken from him, Shaul was forced to watch as his God-appointed usurper lived in his house and won the plaudits of the people and his children.

But Shaul is given a fitting farewell. On the battlefield he falls on his sword to avoid being tortured by the Philistines (וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל לְנֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו שְׁלֹף חַרְבְּךָ וְדׇקְרֵנִי בָהּ פֶּן־יָבֹאוּ הָעֲרֵלִים הָאֵלֶּה וְדִקְּרֻנִי וְהִתְעַלְּלוּ־בִי ... וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת־הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ) (I Samuel 31:4). The Philistines find his body (and Jonathan’s body), cut off their heads, and hang their bodies on the wall of one of their cities (וַיִּכְרְתוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ ... וְאֵת גְּוִיָּתוֹ תָּקְעוּ בְּחוֹמַת בֵּית־שָׁן) (I Samuel 31:9–10).

The people of Jabesh-Gilead hear about this injustice and they go on a secret mission to retrieve the bodies. “Then they took the bones and buried them under the tamarisk tree in Jabesh, and they fasted for seven days” (וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־עַצְמֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּקְבְּרוּ תַחַת־הָאֶשֶׁל בְּיָבֵשָׁה וַיָּצֻמוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים) (verse 13). Why do the people of Jabesh-Gilead rescue Shaul’s body? Why do they bury him under the tamarisk tree? The answer to these questions can be found in chapter 11 and chapter 22. Chapter 11 was the first major act of Shaul after he was anointed king. Nachash threatens the city of Jabesh-Gilead and Shaul rallies the people to save the city (וַיַּךְ שָׁאוּל אֶת־עַמּוֹן וַיּוֹשַׁע אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי יָבֵשׁ גִּלְעָד) (see I Samuel 11). This is why the people of Jabesh-Gilead feel the need to retrieve the bodies. In chapter 22, Shaul is sitting under the tamarisk tree when Doeg tells him that David went to Nov (וְשָׁאוּל יֹשֵׁב בַּגִּבְעָה תַּחַת־הָאֶשֶׁל בָּרָמָה וַחֲנִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ) (I Samuel 22:6). Right after that he orders the massacre of the priests and the city in the darkest day of his kingship and when he crosses the point of no return. This final ending then pays homage to the first part of his reign before things went bad.

David and his troops return to Ziklag, but someone else got there first. Amalek attacked the city while David was out to battle with the Philistines. They destroyed the city and kidnapped the inhabitants (וַיַּכּוּ אֶת־צִקְלַג וַיִּשְׂרְפוּ אֹתָהּ בָּאֵשׁ. וַיִּשְׁבּוּ אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ מִקָּטֹן וְעַד־גָּדוֹל) (I Samuel 30:1–2). It was certainly a blunder to leave the city unprotected. But David made the political choice to go to battle with Achish as a way to keep his position with the Philistines secured. Had he not gone, or left some soldiers behind, he may have raised further suspicion with the Philistine king. In any event, David does something curious after the troops voice their displeasure: “David was in great danger, for the troops threatened to stone him; for all the troops were embittered on account of their sons and daughters. But David sought strength in the LORD his God” (וַתֵּצֶר לְדָוִד מְאֹד כִּי־אָמְרוּ הָעָם לְסׇקְלוֹ כִּי־מָרָה נֶפֶשׁ כׇּל־הָעָם אִישׁ עַל־בָּנָיו וְעַל־בְּנֹתָיו וַיִּתְחַזֵּק דָּוִד בַּה׳ אֱלֹהָיו) (verse 6). Why did David need to ask God if he should go to rescue the people? It seems obvious that the best course of action would be to go try to save his wives and his troops’ families. Perhaps the attack on Ziklag was punishment from God for joining with the Philistines to potentially attack the Israelites. David would therefore be concerned that going to attack Amalek may lead to further disaster. It is also possible that David knew that he needed to save the people, but he was concerned that his troops were distraught. He asks God if he should go (וַיִּשְׁאַל דָּוִד בַּה׳ לֵאמֹר הַאֶרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵי הַגְּדוּד הַזֶּה הַאַשִּׂגֶנּוּ) (I Samuel 30:8), knowing full well God would say yes. The yes was not for David, but for the troops. Hearing God support the counterattack helps rally the troops and secure the victory. Indeed, God responds unequivocally: רְדֹף כִּי־הַשֵּׂג תַּשִּׂיג וְהַצֵּל תַּצִּיל (“Pursue, for you shall surely overtake them and shall surely rescue [the captives]”) (I Samuel 30:8). This also is in contrast with Shaul from chapter 28 who was unable to converse with God and instead needed to resort to searching for a necromancer.

Chapter 29 is a very short chapter with a view of the final battle between Shaul and the Philistines from the viewpoint of the Philistines. We get a little insight into the inner working of Philistine society. David has been a guest of Achish, the king of the Philistines. Although David has been secretly attacking Israel’s enemies, Achish believes that he has been supporting the Philistines. He trusts David so much, that he strongly suggests that David join the Philistines in battle. But Achish’s generals and other Philistine lords are not convinced. “But the Philistine officers were angry with him; and the Philistine officers said to him, ‘Send the man back; let him go back to the place you assigned him. He shall not march down with us to the battle, or else he may become our adversary in battle. For with what could that fellow appease his master if not with the heads of these men?’” (וַיִּקְצְפוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ שָׂרֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים הָשֵׁב אֶת־הָאִישׁ וְיָשֹׁב אֶל־מְקוֹמוֹ אֲשֶׁר הִפְקַדְתּוֹ שָׁם וְלֹא־יֵרֵד עִמָּנוּ בַּמִּלְחָמָה וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה־לָּנוּ לְשָׂטָן בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּבַמֶּה יִתְרַצֶּה זֶה אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו הֲלוֹא בְּרָאשֵׁי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָהֵם) (verse 4). Achish has to listen to his lords and dismiss David (וַיִּקְרָא אָכִישׁ אֶל־דָּוִד וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו... וְעַתָּה שׁוּב וְלֵךְ בְּשָׁלוֹם) (verses 6–7). Achish protests but ultimately acquiesces to their demands. Why does he do that? Achish is the king, everyone should listen to whatever he says! Achish may have made the strategic decision to let David go in order to avoid discord in the rank and file of the army. A distracted army would not be unified in battle and could cause casualties or defeat. Another possibility is that Achish needed the lords’ and officers’ support. In this interpretation, Achish is more of a great lord of the people, but one whose power is not absolute. The Philistine king may have relied on the financial support of these officers in addition to their military prowess. Losing that support could have cost him more than the battle. A rebellion in the ranks of the lords and officers would mean a loss of his kingship. History provides many examples of kings whose authority depended on the support of powerful nobles. In the ancient Hittite Empire, kings often governed in consultation with leading nobles and military commanders, whose backing was essential for maintaining stability and waging war. Likewise, in 1215 King John of England was forced to accept the Magna Carta when his barons refused to continue supporting him without limits on royal power, and Achish may have similarly concluded that preserving the loyalty of the Philistine lords was more important than insisting on David's participation in the battle.

Shaul is at the end of the line. The Philistines prepare for battle and Shaul is cut off from God. He tries in vain to speak with God to ask God whether the Israelites should go out to battle. Desperate, he has his servants search for a witch who can raise spirits for him. In an ironic twist, the servants have difficulty locating a witch because of Shaul’s own decree that outlawed all types of necromancy (וְשָׁאוּל הֵסִיר אֶת־הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶת־הַיִּדְּעֹנִים מֵהָאָרֶץ) (I Samuel 28:3). Shaul did the righteous thing by removing this form of idol worship from the land, but his station has fallen so that he must transgress his own ruling. This also tracks with his earlier decree to massacre the city of Nov going against another major tenant of the Torah against murder. The servants locate a witch in the town of Endor. Not realizing she is talking to Shaul, she says she cannot perform magic because Shaul outlawed it (הִנֵּה אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה שָׁאוּל אֲשֶׁר הִכְרִית אֶת־הָאֹבוֹת וְאֶת־הַיִּדְּעֹנִי מִן־הָאָרֶץ) (I Samuel 28:9). Shaul assures her she will be unharmed (חַי־ה׳ אִם־יִקְרֵךְ עָוֺן בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה) (I Samuel 28:10), again emphasizing the fact that he must go against his own decree. The woman begins her incantations and Shaul says he wants her to resurrect the spirit of Shmuel. “Then the woman recognized Samuel, and she shrieked loudly, and said to Saul, ‘Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!’” (וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־שְׁמוּאֵל וַתִּזְעַק בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־שָׁאוּל לָמָּה רִמִּיתָנִי וְאַתָּה שָׁאוּל) (verse 12).

Why does the witch scream when she sees Shmuel? Why does seeing Shmuel lead to her figuring out that Shaul is Shaul. It cannot be because he asked her to resurrect Shmuel, then she would have protested immediately. Rashi explains that she shrieked because the spirit of Shmuel was not appearing in the regular way of a resurrected spirit. Normally a spirit appears upside down, but Shmuel appeared right side up. Rashi explains that she interpreted this as a sign of respect toward Shaul. This was the telltale sign that he was the king. Radak agrees with Rashi’s reasoning about how she knew it was Shaul, but he says she screamed because she was afraid of Shaul once she figured it out. In both of these interpretations, the witch’s magic is real. Another interpretation is that she screamed because her magic worked for the first time. She may have been a charlatan witch who claimed to speak to the dead, but instead conjured up a ruse. She fully intended to do that here, but instead she actually saw someone. When Shmuel appeared, recognizable in his official cloak (אִישׁ זָקֵן עֹלֶה וְהוּא עֹטֶה מְעִיל) (I Samuel 28:14), she was frightened that there was actually a spirit in her room. Only the king could have been responsible for such a miracle, and that is why she knew it was Shaul. Shaul also recognized Shmuel from his cloak. Perhaps he was wearing the very cloak that Shaul ripped (וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּכְנַף־מְעִילוֹ וַיִּקָּרַע) (I Samuel 15:27). In this way Shaul was able to come to terms with the fact that this upcoming battle will really be his last (וּמָחָר אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ עִמִּי) (I Samuel 28:19). Throughout the book, Shaul has tried to resist that decree by chasing David, fighting fate, and attempting to preserve his throne by force. Now, standing before Shmuel once again, there is no more running and no more uncertainty. The torn cloak that once symbolized the loss of his kingdom has returned as a final reminder that God's judgment has been carried out. Shaul's visit to Endor is therefore not merely an attempt to learn the future; it is his final confrontation with a past he has spent years trying to escape.

Finally realizing that Shaul will never end his quest to kill him, David resigns himself to returning to Achish and living among the Philistines. David at first lives in the capital before making a request for a territory of his own. This is similar to the request that Yosef made to Pharaoh. In response to his request, “at that time Achish granted him Ziklag; that is how Ziklag came to belong to the kings of Judah, as is still the case” (וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ אָכִישׁ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אֶת־צִקְלָג לָכֵן הָיְתָה צִקְלָג לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה) (verse 6).

There are two problems with this verse. The first is that Ziklag is already mentioned as part of the territory of the tribe of Judah in Joshua (וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 15:31) and again in the territory of Shimon (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן... וְצִקְלַג) (Joshua 19:5). The simple answer is that Ziklag was under Judean control until Achish and the Philistines conquered the city. Now that Achish gives it to David, it will remain his possession. The other possibility is that there were multiple towns named Ziklag. The two times it is mentioned in Joshua, the town is listed as part of two different tribes. In chapter 15, it belongs to Judah and in chapter 19, it belongs to Shimon. In chapter 15, the city is grouped with two others, Madmannah and Sansannah (וּמַדְמַנָּה וְסַנְסַנָּה וּלְבָאוֹת וְשִׁלְחִים וְעַיִן וְרִמּוֹן) (Joshua 15:31–32). In chapter 19, it is listed with Beth-marcaboth and Hazar-susah (וּבֵית הַמַּרְכָּבוֹת וַחֲצַר סוּסָה וּבֵית לְבָאוֹת וְשָׁרוּחֶן) (Joshua 19:5–6). This could mean that there were two cities, each close to two different neighboring cities. It is possible then that this Ziklag is a third city.

The second problem is the end of the verse. Many times in Tanach, the narrator will jump in to explain that a certain city name exists “until this day” (עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה). That phrase is somewhat ambiguous, as it does not explain until which day. But verse 6 is different. It specifically says “the kings of Judah” (לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה). What makes this problematic is that the kings of Judah were not a thing until a couple of centuries later under the reign of David’s grandson. This could mean that a later author, possibly Chizkiyahu, who is traditionally associated with preserving and editing certain biblical books, added this explanatory note to the verse. Another possibility is that the phrase “kings of Judah” may simply refer to the leadership of the territory of Judah. It would be strange, though, that the tribe of Judah would be referred to as the kings of Judah. It is possible that the note refers to the period when David was solely king of Judah, before he unified the nation under his rule (וַיִּמְשְׁחוּ שָׁם אֶת־דָּוִד לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־בֵּית יְהוּדָה) (II Samuel 2:4). The problem there is that the verse refers to kings in the plural, and David was the only king of Judah until his grandson. The city itself plays a vital role in the remainder of the Dovid story as his de facto pre-royal capital, so perhaps the narrator is explaining that this city stays with the Judah line as a symbolic way that this possession by Dovid begins the Judaic king line.

Chapter 26 plays out almost the same way aschapter 24. Shaul and his forces close in on David. In the middle of the night,David sneaks into Shaul’s camp. David has the opportunity to kill Shaul, butinstead steals his spear and his water jug (וַיִּקַּח דָּוִד אֶת־הַחֲנִיתוְאֶת־צַפַּחַת הַמַּיִם מֵרַאֲשֹׁתֵי שָׁאוּל) (I Samuel 26:12). Just as hedid in chapter 24, David goes up the nearest hill and calls out to Shaul andshows him once again that he had a chance to kill Shaul, but did not. (He alsotakes a moment to get a dig in against Avner, Shaul’s general, for notprotecting the king.) Shaul’s cloak was symbolic in chapter 24, and Shaul’sspear is symbolic here.The spear appears a few times in I Samuel. Thefirst is in chapter 13. “Thus on the day of the battle, no sword or spear wasto be found in the possession of any of the troops with Saul and Jonathan; onlySaul and Jonathan had them” (וְהָיָה בְּיוֹם מִלְחֶמֶת וְלֹא נִמְצָא חֶרֶבוַחֲנִית בְּיַד כׇּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אֶת־שָׁאוּל וְאֶת־יוֹנָתָן וַתִּמָּצֵאלְשָׁאוּל וּלְיוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ) (13:22). Here the spear is symbolic of thepower of kingship. Only Shaul and his son are given the power denied toeveryone else.The spear next appears in the story of Goliath.The text takes time to explain that Goliath’s spear was the length of a weavingbeam (וְעֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ כִּמְנוֹר אֹרְגִים) (I Samuel 17:7). The spear onceagain is a symbol of strength, this time the enemy’s strength. Yet David isable to defeat Goliath despite his powerful spear.In chapters 18, 19, and 20, Shaul tries in vainto kill David by pinning him to the wall with his spear. “And Saul hurled thespear, for he thought, ‘I will pin David to the wall’” (וַיָּטֶל שָׁאוּלאֶת־הַחֲנִית וַיֹּאמֶר אַכֶּה בְדָוִד וּבַקִּיר) (I Samuel 18:11). Shaulclings to the spear. In chapter 22 he holds the spear with him while he holdscourt under the tamarisk tree (וְשָׁאוּל יֹשֵׁב בַּגִּבְעָה תַּחַת־הָאֶשֶׁלבָּרָמָה וַחֲנִיתוֹ בְיָדוֹ) (I Samuel 22:6), and in chapter 26, he sleepswith the spear right at his side (וְשָׁאוּל שֹׁכֵב בַּמַּעְגָּל וַחֲנִיתוֹמְעוּכָה בָאָרֶץ מְרַאֲשֹׁתָיו) (I Samuel 26:7).Shaul believes that the spear makes himpowerful. By capturing the spear, David shows him that the spear holds no real power. In the throne room, he was the only one with a spear, but it was not enough to defeat David. In chapter 24, when David takes part of Shaul’s cloak, he takes a symbol of his kingship, and in chapter 26, when he takes his spear, he takes a symbol of Shaul’s power. Shaul does not learn the lesson of Goliath, that mere symbolic power is not enough. A spear cannot defeat the other anointed of God (מְשִׁיחַ ה׳). In fact, David explicitly declares that he would not raise his hand against Shaul because he is “the LORD’s anointed” (חָלִילָהלִּי מֵה׳ אֶשְׁלַח יָדִי בִּמְשִׁיחַ ה׳) (I Samuel 26:11).

Chapter 25 tells the sidebar story of Avigail and Nabal. David’s band of warriors protects the wealthy Nabal and his shepherds from danger. At the time of shearing, David sends messengers to Nabal asking for food and wool as repayment for David’s protection. Nabal refuses, and David plans to massacre everyone in Nabal’s household (וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד חִגְרוּ־אִישׁ אֶת־חַרְבּוֹ וַיַּחְגְּרוּ אִישׁ אֶת־חַרְבּוֹ...) (I Samuel 25:13). The identical reaction of David to Nabal and Saul to Achimelech and Nov cannot be missed. But this time, the story has a somewhat happy ending. Avigail, Nabal’s wife, intervenes and explains that her husband is a curmudgeon who does not speak for everyone else in the household (כִּי כִשְׁמוֹ כֶּן־הוּא נָבָל שְׁמוֹ וּנְבָלָה עִמּוֹ) (I Samuel 25:25). Avigail is eternally grateful to David for all he did for her household.

She blesses him with a phrase that is used on many Jewish gravestones and said at all Jewish funerals: “the life of my master will be bound up in the bundle of life in the care of the LORD” (וְהָיְתָה נֶפֶשׁ אֲדֹנִי צְרוּרָה בִּצְרוֹר הַחַיִּים אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ) (verse 29). Her blessing of gratitude is that David’s soul will be bound together with God’s for eternal protection.

Avigail returns home to a drunk Nabal and “the next morning, when Nabal had slept off the wine, his wife told him everything that had happened; and his heart died within him, and he became like a stone” (וַיְהִי בַבֹּקֶר וַיֵּצֵא הַיַּיִן מִנָּבָל וַתַּגֶּד־לוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיָּמׇת לִבּוֹ בְּקִרְבּוֹ וְהוּא הָיָה לְאָבֶן) (verse 37). What does “his heart died within him and he became like a stone” mean?

There are two camps. Rashi believes that Nabal was upset that his wife had presented David with a gift. Radak adds that he was so upset that he basically went silent like a dead person. In the other camp, Malbim believes that Nabal’s heart sank because he was fearful of David. Ralbag fuses the two and explains that Nabal was upset about the gift, but he was also upset and fearful of David.

The Rashi camp focuses on Nabal as the miser until the very end. Nabal’s eventual death is caused by his extreme sadness over his wife’s expensive gift to David. The Malbim camp perhaps affords Nabal a bit of remorse. Once he hears how close he was to being overrun by David and his forces, he realizes that his miserly ways almost cost him everything. This fear and guilt is too much to carry, and in the end it kills him anyway. Nabal’s death also allows for God to mete out punishment directly to the individual responsible for David’s hardship without David’s burn-it-to-the-ground strategy. Indeed, David later acknowledges that God Himself acted on his behalf: “Blessed be the LORD, who championed my cause against the insults of Nabal and held back His servant from wrongdoing” (בָּרוּךְ ה׳ אֲשֶׁר רָב אֶת־רִיב חֶרְפָּתִי מִיַּד נָבָל וְאֶת־עַבְדּוֹ חָשַׂךְ מֵרָעָה) (I Samuel 25:39).