“The king answered, ‘If anyone says anything to you, bring him to me; and he won’t bother you anymore.’ ‘Please,’ she said, ‘let the king swear by Adonai your God that the blood avengers won’t do any more destroying, so they won’t destroy my son.’ He said, ‘As Adonai lives, not one of your son’s hairs will fall to the ground.’”-2 Samuel 14:10-11
The make-believe story the woman of Tekoa tells David is an opportunity to test our Torah knowledge.
Why?
Because it’s a catch-22 situation if you think about it.
The Torah is clear that a murderer is to be put to death.
It doesn’t matter if the murderer is a family member or not.
The family of the victim is obligated to kill the murderer.
This was to be done by the designated family blood avenger or the GO’EL HADAM in Hebrew.
Ya feeling me here?
This is a clear Torah command.
So why is this a catch-22?
Because of the unfortunate result that will occur if Torah justice is done in this case.
That is…
First, the woman will become poverty-stricken in her old age…
Second, her deceased husband’s spiritual life force would be terminated (per the pagan beliefs of the day).
Now, you probably don’t realize this, but the purpose of the woman’s story was to bring to mind another common Biblical tale often told around the campfire in ancient Israel.
I’m talking about the story of Cain and Abel.
The details are similar.
One brother goes off and slaughters another.
However, Cain wasn’t executed in this case.
He was just banished from the land with a mark on his head warning others not to touch him.
The woman wanted to draw a parallel between Cain and Abel and her two sons, even though it was a make-believe story.
So, how did David rule in this case?
He promised the woman…
“As Adonai lives, not one of your son’s hairs will fall to the ground.”
In other words, David concludes that the son will live and that he will stop the blood avengers from taking vengeance.
So, for today, instead of a takeaway, let’s close with a question.
Per the Torah, was King David’s ruling just?
Was he, as the Christians love to say, following the “spirit” of the law instead of coldly adhering to the “letter” of the law?
Was this similar to Yeshua healing on the sabbath when he really shouldn’t have, per the Pharisees’ accusations?
Should blood vengeance have been averted for this poor widow’s sake?
What do you think?
Was this a case of the king properly showing righteous mercy even if it conflicted with Torah?
Lemme know your answer in the comments, and we’ll explore the answer to these questions the next time we meet.
Shavua Tov!
How do we know that this fictional killing was murder and rather than unintentional? That what David was commuting was not the death sentence but the sentece of exile to a city of refuge?
Because that’s how the woman presented the story to David. She made it clear that it was NOT involuntary manslaughter.
How do you figure? She doesn’t seem to ascribe intention to the act. People accidentally kill one another during struggles all the time. Is there some subtext i can’t see?
Hi Joel,
You’re not necessarily missing any subtext.
It’s more about picking up on the core message being conveyed here.
Take a look at these verses:
But the woman from Tekoa said to him, “Let my lord the king pardon me and my family, and let the king and his throne be without guilt.”
10 The king replied, “If anyone says anything to you, bring them to me, and they will not bother you again.”
11 She said, “Then let the king invoke the Lord his God to prevent the avenger of blood from adding to the destruction, so that my son will not be destroyed.”
Her request for David to stop the blood avenger from seeking revenge is a strong indication that her son is guilty.
If it had been an accidental killing, she wouldn’t have made such a plea.
Hope that helps clarify things.
I’ll go one more round and disagree and leave it at that. It doesn’t seem to be a make or break it thing. But it is my understanding that one of the reasons for a need for a city of refuge was that the blood avenger would often take vengeance before a judge could rule. Preventions of blood feuds which would spring up as a result. If however, this lady’s fictional son fled to a city of refuge, the consequences to her could — on a practical level — be tantamount to death, might they not? Either way. I know David was no “saint” so I’m not insistent on this.
Hi Joel,
Thanks for your comment. I’m enjoying this little exchange.
Just to clarify, the cities of refuge were only meant to protect those who had committed involuntary manslaughter.
Anyone guilty of intentional murder was not eligible to take refuge. Even if they tried, the authorities had the right to turn them away.
So again, and I realize we may not see this the same way, the woman’s story hinges on the assumption that the killing was a deliberate, intentional act.
Without that foundational premise, I believe the context of the story doesn’t hold up.
Blessings,
Rich