The mercy killing of King Shaul {Saul} and David's Reaction

[edu]

The following is Chabad's online translation of the first part of II Shmuel/Samuel chapter 1

1 And it was, after Saul's death, and David had returned from beating the Amalekites, that David dwelt in Ziklag two days.
2 And it was on the third day, and behold, a man came from the camp, from Saul, and his clothes were rent, and there was earth on his head. And it was, when he came to David, that he fell to the ground and prostrated himself.
3 And David said to him, "Where are you coming from?" And he said to him, "From the camp of Israel, I have escaped.
4 And David said to him, "What was the situation? Tell me now." And he said, "That the people fled from the battle, and also many of the people fell and died, and also Saul and his son Jonathan died."
5 And David said to the youth who told him, "How did you know that Saul and his son Jonathan died?"
6 And the youth who told him said, "I chanced to be on Mt. Gilboa, and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear, and behold, the chariots and the leaders of the cavalry had overtaken him.
7 "And he turned around behind him, and he saw me and called to me, and I said, 'Here I am'.
8 "And he said to me, 'Whoare you?' And I said to him, 'I am an Amalekite.'   
9 "And he said to me, 'Stand over me now, and put me to death, for a shudder has seized me, for as long as my life is within me..'
10 "And I stood over him and put him to death, for I knew that he would not live after his fall, and I took the crown which was on his head and the armlet which was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord."
11 And David took hold of his clothes and rent them, and likewise all the men who were with him.
12 And they lamented and wept and fasted until evening, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the House of Israel for they had fallen by the sword.
13 And David said to the youth who told him, "From where are you?" And he said, "I am the son of an Amalekite stranger."
14 And David said to him, "How did you not fear to stretch forth your hand to destroy the Lord's anointed?"
15 And David called one of the youths and said, "Go near, fall upon him," and he struck him and he died.
16 And David said to him, "Your blood be upon your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, "I have slain the Lord's anointed."

The question that has to be asked why was David so displeased with this Amalekite stranger?
The question becomes stronger in light of another mercy killing that the Talmud reports which I intend to post later on.

[edu]

From the Soncino translation of Talmud, Avoda Zara 18a

Our Rabbis taught: When R. Jose b. Kisma was ill, R. Hanina b. Teradion went to visit him. He
said to him: ‘Brother Hanina, knowest thou not that it is Heaven10 that has ordained this [Roman]
nation to reign? For though she laid waste His House, burnt His Temple, slew His pious ones and
caused His best ones to perish, still is she firmly established! Yet, I have heard about thee that thou
sittest and occupiest thyself with the Torah, dost publicly gather assemblies, and keepest a scroll [of
the Law] in thy bosom!’11 He replied, ‘Heaven will show mercy.’ — ‘I,’ he remonstrated, ‘am
telling thee plain facts, and thou sayest "Heaven will show mercy"! It will surprise me if they do not
burn both thee and the scroll of the Law with fire.’ ‘Rabbi,’ said the other, ‘How do I stand with
regard to the world to come?’ — ‘Is there any particular act that thou hast done?’ he enquired. He
replied: ‘I once mistook Purim-money for ordinary charity-money, and I distributed [of my own] to
the poor.’12 ‘Well then,’ said he, ‘would that thy portion were my portion and thy lot my lot.’
It was said that within but few days R. Jose b. Kisma died and all the great men of Rome13 went to
his burial and made great lamentation for him. On their return, they found R. Hanina b. Teradion
sitting and occupying himself with the Torah, publicly gathering assemblies, and keeping a scroll of
the Law in his bosom. Straightaway they took hold of him, wrapt him in the Scroll of the Law,
placed bundles of branches round him and set them on fire. They then brought tufts of wool, which
they had soaked in water, and placed them over his heart, so that he should not expire quickly. His
daughter exclaimed, ‘Father, that I should see you in this state!’ He replied, ‘If it were I alone being
burnt it would have been a thing hard to bear; but now that l am burning together with the Scroll of
the Law, He who will have regard for the plight of the Torah will also have regard for my plight.’
His disciples called out, ‘Rabbi, what seest thou?’ He answered them, ‘The parchments are being
burnt but the letters are soaring on high.’14 ‘Open then thy mouth’ [said they] ‘so that the fire enter
into thee.’15 He replied, ‘Let Him who gave me [my soul] take it away, but no one should injure
oneself.’ The Executioner16 then said to him, ‘Rabbi, if I raise the flame and take away the tufts of
wool from over thy heart, will thou cause me to enter into the life to come?’ ‘Yes,’ he replied. ‘Then
swear unto me’ [he urged]. He swore unto him. He thereupon raised the flame and removed the tufts
of wool from over his heart, and his soul departed speedily. The Executioner then jumped and threw
himself into the fire. And a bathkol17 exclaimed: R. Hanina b. Teradion and the Executioner have
been assigned to the world to come. When Rabbi heard it he wept and said: One may acquire eternal
life in a single hour, another after many years.18

Footnotes
(10) Synonym for G-d.
(11) Contrary to the Roman decree.
(12) V. supra 17a.
(13) [The Roman officials in Caesarea where he lived and died.]
(14) Scrolls of the Torah may be destroyed, but its spirit is immortal and indestructible.
(15) And put an end to his agony.
(16)  Torturer, executioner.
(17) V. Glos.
(18) His favourite aphorism. V. supra 10b, 17a.

[edu]

Some commentaries try to avoid the question by stating that David did not believe that this person who informed him about King Shaul's death, had a legitimate conversion to Judaism or was a Ger Toshav (righteous Gentile status).
He killed him therefore because he was an Amalekite.
Having mercy on Amalek is what caused Shaul to lose his monarchy and now David was being as strict as possible with Amalek.
Two questions that have to be answered by this viewpoint are:
1) Was the testimony of the man really sufficient proof to prove he was an Amalekite?
2) Why didn't David explain that he killed the guy because he was an Amalekite? Instead his official explanation uses a different justification.

[edu]

Rambam Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6 gives his opinion of why David killed the Amalekite
translation copied from: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1172741/jewish/Sanhedrin-vehaOnashin-haMesurin-lahem-Chapter-18.htm

It is a Scriptural decree that the court does not execute a person or have him lashed because of his own admission. Instead, the punishments are given on the basis of the testimony of two witnesses. Joshua's execution of Achan and David's execution of the Amalekite convert because of their own statements was a directive of immediate relevance only or was by royal fiat. The Sanhedrin, however, may not execute or lash a person who admits committing a transgression, lest he become crazed concerning this matter. Perhaps he is one of those embittered people who are anxious to die and pierce their reins with swords or throw themselves from the rooftops. Similarly, we fear that such a person may come and admit committing an act that he did not perform, so that he will be executed. The general principle is the disqualification of a person's own testimony is a decree of the king.

I have at least 2 questions concerning Rambam's explanation.
1 The justification that David offered for killing the Amalekite wasn't "This is a royal fiat". Rather it was because the Amalekite testified against himself that he slayed G-d's annointed.
2 In the Talmud Megilla page 14, it was taught that David thought at the beginning to execute Naval {Nabal} see the Biblical book of I Shmuel {Samuel} Chapter 25 but Avigail {Abigail} convinced David that he didn't have the authority to do this.
Her claim was (Soncino translation)

She replied; Saul is still alive, and your fame is not yet spread abroad in the world. Then he said to her: Blessed be thy discretion and blessed be thou, that hast kept me this day from bloodguiltiness.

Implying that David although he was selected by the prophet, still did not yet have the authority to kill by royal fiat during the time when the story took place.
Afterwards I found Divrei Chen to Hilchot Melachim 9:1 also makes this same point.

[edu]

The same  Divrei Chen to Hilchot Melachim 9:1 I quoted earlier seeks to answer the question of David's killing the Amalekite (who claimed he was some type of convert) in the following way.
He said, that it is true that David at the time still did not have the authority to kill people on the crime of rebelling against his royal authority.
However, he already did have the separate power of making judgments of criminals by the concept called Horaat Shaa in Hebrew.
Horaat Shaa allows certain high level Judges or Kings who need to fix some major societal problem (and it is hard for me to currently give an exact definition, what situations justify the use of Horaat Shaa and what don't) to relax the usual super difficult standards needed to to convict criminals and to rely on more flimsy or circumstantial evidence.
David used his Horaat Shaa power to punish the Amalekite, because he felt it would fulfill a great societal need to let it be known that he was firmly against the killing of G-d's anointed King and he did not want anyone to repeat such activity.
The explanation what exactly was the motivation for the Horaat Shaa was not explicitly stated by Divrei Chen. I assumed it was so, based on David's statement in the Biblical text.

[edu]

Rabbeinu Bachayei to Dvarim/Deuteronomy 13:6 extends the concept of Horaat Shaa even further.
He said that Eliyahu / Elijah sacrificing an animal on Mount Carmel outside the Temple Mount also falls into the category of Horaat Shaa.
This type of Horaat Shaa does not seem to be connected to punishing criminals based on weaker standards than usual for conviction.

[muman613]

I've always found the issue of David ordering the execution of Yoav just before David passed away very intriguing.

The following PDF file discusses some of the reasons for this...

http://www.marbitz.com/royal/royal_yoav.pdf

.
.
.
Yoav As Jew

What is the halachic relationship between a king and his people?  May anyone challenge orders that he finds objectionable?  Are royal officers given more room than others? 

On the one hand, we read in the Torah:

“You shall surely appoint upon yourself a king that the Lord your G-d shall choose.” (Devarim 17;15)

“Rabbi Yehuda taught:  these words were only written to terrify (the Jews) as it says ‘you shall surely appoint [the doubling of the hebrew תשים intensifies the verse’s tone] on yourself a king’ - so that his fear should be upon you.”19

To create this fear, the temporal power of a Jewish king must be nearly absolute.  At the same time, however, we’re aware of the Talmudic dictum which can be loosely translated as “where the threat of disgrace to the Torah or to G-d exists, the honor usually due leaders is overruled.” 20

We have, therefore, three principles:

* A king isn’t quite an absolute ruler. 
* Fidelity to Torah values is an absolute value. 
* Every Jew is obligated to take his share of responsibility for his brothers. 21

From these it would seem obvious that were a Jew to find fault in his king’s actions, he would be required to speak up and raise his concerns. 22

 If circumstances came to that, he might even be expected to forcefully oppose his king’s rule.  The prophet Shmuel did it to King Saul and he was certainly not alone in history.  The author of Chovos Halevavos (a famous medieval work of ethics and Jewish philosophy) attaches great significance and value to the ability to rebuke people in authority (when necessary) and to disregard their power and influence.

[muman613]

This section of Kings I is read as the Haftarah for parsha Vayechi...

http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/haftorah/archives/vayechi62.htm


King David's Last Will & Testament

Read by both Sephardim and Ashkenazim, from the Book of Melachim Aleph/Kings One. Chapter 2:Verses1-12.

The Summary of This Week's Haftorah: On his deathbed Kind David who was 70 years old at the time, commanded his son Shlomo who was 12 years old, to keep the Torah. Then King David orders Shlomo to kill Yoav, David's commander in chief of the army and confidant. David ordered Solomon to kill Yoav because, Yoav betrayed King David by backing David's oldest surviving son Adoniyahu to become the next king of Israel. Afterwards David commands his son to support the sons of Barzilai, who was a supporter of King David. Next, David orders Shlomo to execute Shimi ben Gaira, who cursed David after Avshalom, David's son forced him to abandon Jerusalem. King David then passes away and Shlomo succeeds him as King of Israel. Shlomo goes on to fulfill his father's last wishes.

Background: Shlomo reigned over Israel when some would say it was at its zenith. The Nation of Israel lived in the land of Israel. Its capital city was Jerusalem. On top of Mount Zion The Bait Hamikdash/ Holy Temple was standing. Kings ruled us. Our nation was said to have over 600,000 people who had acquired the ability to experience prophecies, which meant they could predict the future with absolute certainty. All 613 mitzvoth could have been observed at that time. The Kohen Gadol presided of the services in the Kadosh Hakodeshim/ Holy of Holies on The holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur. Jews from all over the Land of Israel would observe the Shalosh Regalim, Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkoth by migrating to Jerusalem 3 times a year.

The Haftorah's Connection between the Parasha and Haftorah: In the beginning of Parashat VaYechi, Yaakov Avinu called his sons to his deathbed to give them his last instructions. Similarly the Haftorah talks about the advice King David gave to his son Shlomo/Solomon before he died.

Haftorahman's Lesson of the week: Ezekiel placed two pieces of wood together that symbolically showed that the once divided nation of Israel would one day be unified again. We too must take the initiative to unite our world together. Whether it be with our spouses, siblings, workmates, friends whomever. We must go out of our way to create "achdus", or harmony in our circle of friends and family. If we show a desire for oneness, we hope that Hashem will bless us with peace and unity.

The Biography of Shlomo ben David, King Solomon: The meaning of his name is "peace" or "prosperity", which sounds like SHALOM. He had seven names, Shlomo, Yedidyah, Kohelet, Agur, Yakeh, Lemuel, and Ithiel. His father was King David. It is said that he was the smartest man to ever lived. Shlomo was made king at the age of 12. He ruled for 40 years and passed away at the age of 52. As king he led the building of the Bait Hamikdash, starting at 16 years of age, which lasted for 7 years. There were 3 books written by him 1) Kohelet or Ecclesiastes 2) Mishlay or Proverbs, which concludes with the song Aishet Chayil sung on Erev Shabbat. 3) Shir Hashirim or The Song of Songs. Solomon presided over the court where the two women who were fighting for custody over the surviving infant. As we all know he was able to reveal the true mother by asking his guards to bring a sword so that he could "split the baby in half". He was extremely wealthy. By some estimations his wealth increased by $250 million dollars a year. Solomon was famous for his stables which housed 40,000 horses and 12,000 horseman. Shlomo was able to give 3000 explanations to every Passuk in the Torah. He knew all 70 languages spoken in the world at that time as well as he was able to communicate with all the living creatures in the animal kingdom. He was the builder of 3 cities; Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer in the north of Israel. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Once the Queen of Sheba traveled 7 years by caravan just to meet him and quiz him with regards to his wisdom. After their first meeting the Queen of Sheba remarked that King Solomon was much wiser than his reputation had suggested. Two of the mitzvoth that King Solomon instituted were the Eiruv and Nitelat Yadyim. The Eiruv, a string surrounding an outer perimeter of an area designating it as that you can carry things on Shabbat. He also made it customary for people to wash their hands before eating bread.

[edu]

Since you brought up the subject Muman613 there was mixed results as far as David's deathbed request that his son Shlomo {Solomon} put Yoav and Shimi to death.
On the one hand the kingdom had less civil war and internal strife in Shlomo's time.
On the other hand, as far as Yoav was concerned the Bible in I Kings 11:21 reports that the death of Yoav was one of the factors that led one of Israel's external enemies Hadad of Edom to start harassing Israel. Also one of the few sins of David was counting the people of Israel. Yoav tried to stop David from this sin.
Given the spiritual decline of Shlomo as he grew older, who violated the Torah when he married the daughter of Pharaoh (according to Malbim) and later did not protest when his foreign wives introduced idolatry into the country maybe it would have been to Shlomo's spiritual benefit, not to have everyone in his society a simple "yes man". Maybe it would have been to his spiritual benefit to keep the rebellious Yoav around, at least under "House Arrest". But I am not sure about this.
In the case of Shimi, the pragmatic results of his execution were even worse.
The sages teach us that Shimi was one of the rabbis of Shlomo. As long as Shimi was alive, Shlomo was too afraid to start his departures from simple obedience to halacha.
Once Shimi was gone, he started to go off the proper path coming up with "reasons" why the halacha didn't apply to him, when in fact it did apply to him.
If Shlomo had been a better more halachicly obedient king it is possible that the 10 tribes would not have rebelled and split off from the Davidic Kingdom during the time of his son.
A split that led to the eventual exile and spiritual destruction of most of the 10 tribes of Israel.

[edu]

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16542
I Divrei Hayamim/Chronicles Chapter 22 as translated by Chabad

7 And David said to Solomon, "My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a House in the name of the Lord my God.
8 But the word of the Lord was upon me, saying: 'You have shed much blood, and you have waged great wars; you shall not build a House in My Name because you have shed much blood to the ground before Me.

It would be incorrect to say that the wars that David waged that prevented him from building the Temple, were wars that we are obligated to wage by the Torah. After all, Moshe and Yehoshua waged wars and built the Mishkan in the desert and the Mishkan of Shilo.
Rather, I contend he was criticized for waging wars that were not necessary or that could have been prevented.
It could be that at the end of his life David felt that G-d was telling him you had the means to prevent a war or wars where Israel suffered many casualties by coming down hard on the trouble makers early on (such as Avshalom). Because David, you did not, and let things develop into a war, G-d told David, you will be penalized by not being allowed to build the Temple.
If this is true maybe you could say David was trying to do Teshuva/Repentance over this point by commanding Shlomo to get rid of the trouble makers. And since Shlomo in his youth was strongly obedient to Halacha, maybe it is unfair to have expected of David to take into account the spiritual side effects of getting rid of Yoav and Shimi.
In the end I will leave this as an open question, was it the proper move for David to remove the threat of a civil war in the immediate future by asking for the execution of Yoav and Shimi? Or was he obligated to be worried about negative side effects of these actions?

[edu]

Getting back to the original question - Why was David so displeased with this Amalekite stranger?
In contrast with the view of Rambam, some of the commentaries hold that David knew this guy was not Jewish, because no legitimate court would convert an Amalekite to Judaism.
Once we know that the guy is not a Jew, some commentaries hold that a non-Jew is liable to the death penalty for mercy killing and that a confession is sufficient evidence to convict the non-Jew.
This viewpoint will have to explain, why David stressed the fact that Shaul was "Mashiach Hashem", when the halacha in theory would apply even to the mercy killing of a simple Jew.
It will also have to explain, why R. Hanina b. Teradion seems to give his approval to his executioner to "raise the flame and take away the tufts of wool from over his heart".