David cuts off the edge of Shaul's coat, and then immediately feels bad about the lack of respect he has shown Shaul. He restrains his men from harming the king, saying that it is impermissible for him (or his men) to touch God's anointed.

When Shaul leaves the cave, David gives him time to get a little distance, and then comes out after him and calls to him. When Shaul turns, David bows and gives a remarkable speech. He upbraids Shaul for having believed that David wished to kill him, as could be shown by his just having refrained from so doing. He says that God will certianly judge Shaul and take David's vengeance from him, but he, David, will not be the one to do it. Finally, he questions Shaul's deciding, as king of Israel, to go chasing after a nothing like David, and calls for God to judge between the two of them.

When David finishes, Shaul calls out "Is that you, my son David?" He cries, admits David's right and he has been wrong, says that he knows David will rule one day, and elicits an oath from David that he will not destroy those members of his family who survive him. David does, and they each go their own way.

GOD GIVES SHAUL INTO DAVID'S HANDS

Faced with Shaul being in the same cave as him, clearly indisposed (he does not even realize when David cuts off the edge of his cloak), David has the opportunity to kill his enemy. His men all apparently know of a prophecy that said that God would one day give David's enemies into his hands. Radak is unsure as to whether it was Shmuel, Gad, or Natan who offered this prophecy to David, a question that raises a broader issue we will not investigate now, the role each of these different nevi'im played in David's life. Whoever it was, we can wonder how the men found out about it. Did David tell them? If so, why? Was it necessary for him to convince them to follow him? Was it a way of encouraging them when times were difficult?

Or, could it have been somebody else? Could it have been the prophet, deciding that the entire people needed to know David's future? We have no way of knowing, but I like pondering the ramifications of either view. For the first, it might mean that becoming king, even if God has decided you are going to rule, involves doing some things that are against your nature, but necessary for the people who are supposed to serve you. Even though David could have let God take care of it, he (in this view) did his best to keep his men with him, by offering them the kind of encouragement that would make them happy to be on his side.

If the prophet announced it just to David's men, it would be similar to what we just said. If, however, it was common knowledge, it might mean that God wanted all of the people to know what was going to happen; if so, it might mean that there were supposed to be more people coming to join David (which would show their belief in the navi's predictions), or at least to stop Shaul from chasing David.

SHAUL A RODEF?

Moving on to another issue ripe for consideration, we need to wonder why David did not, in fact, heed his men's advice. To answer that question, we need to answer a prior, fascinating question-- was David allowed by halakhah to kill Shaul? One side would say yes, since Shaul was a rodef, somebody pursuing someone else with intent to kill. If so, David's not killing Shaul was an act of hasidut, of extreme and not obligatory piety.

To assume that Shaul was a rodef, however, we have to assume one of two things: either that anyone who tries to kill anyone else is a rodef (even if that potential killer is the properly appointed government, acting within its governmental rights), or that it was only because Shaul was wrongly killing David that he could be considered a rodef.

The stakes here are not minimal (at least in theory). I recently had the opportunity to review some of these issues, and came across this one, that I did not see specifically discussed-- could a person who had been tried and convicted of a capital crime kill the person about to execute him? One side would be to say no, that since the executioner is acting as the representative of the properly appointed court, and is executing their properly arrived at judgement, the right to consider him a rodef is suspended.

If so, the only reason Shaul would be considered a rodef would be that his chasing of David was wrong. Had he been right to try to kill David, for whatever reason, David would have had a responsibility to submit, which means that he could not also have the right to defend himself. Of course, that creates many extremely murky moral situations. If, for example, the government decides to try to kill me, and I think they are wrong, does that mean I can try to kill my potential executioner with no moral liability? What if I know they are factually wrong (I didn't do the crime) but procedurally correct (they have the kind of evidence that justifies their decision)? Does that mean that only criminals who admit they were wrong cannot resist their death sentences?

The case of Zimri complicates our lives even more, since the Talmud notes that Pinhas' right to kill Zimri was not based on court decisions, but is an extraordinary example where zealots (in the good sense) are allowed to take the law into their own hands. As a result, though, Zimri's rights of self-defense are not suspended; had he managed to kill Pinhas first, he would not have been liable. Apparently only institutionally sanctioned punishments remove one's right to self-defense. If so, it could be that this view would have allowed David to kill Shaul even if Shaul was exercising a kingly extrajudicial right (such as if David were actually rebelling and Shaul was hunting him down to quell the rebellion).

The other possibility, one that I personally prefer, is to deny that David had the right to kill Shaul (certainly he seems to think he does not have that right, as he questions his men as to how they could think that he should dare harm meshiah Hashem, the anointed one of God). Radak, too, thinks that David was required to hold Shaul in awe, as part of our responsibilities towards a king. This exception would be only for the person of the king (not, I assume, for his representatives); if the king himself tries to kill someone, that person might have the right to flee, but not the right to resist forcefully.

Malbim suggests that David was not sure what his rights were, so he cut off Shaul's cloak to test himself. When he found himself feeling guilty for having done so, he realized-- since righteous people's instinctive reactions to their own actions are good guides as to the propriety of those actions-- that he was not supposed to kill Shaul. This view assumes that the emotions of a righteous person are so intertwined with his general goodness that those emotions are accurate guides of how the person should act. Many nowadays trust their emotions to that extent, but the claim here is that David's emotions were so attuned to right and wrong, that they immediately sensed that cutting off the cloak was wrong, even though David intellectually did not know how he viewed the matter.

DAVID AND SHAUL'S CONVERSATION

David's role in the conversation seems fairly banal, except for the heat of his comments. For all that he has refused to harm Shaul himself, he seems more than ready to predict Shaul's future punishment forthrightly and somewhat bitterly. David knows he has been wronged, and he wants Shaul to know it. Finally, he wants to appeal to Shaul's sense of self-worth; Shaul should recognize that it is beneath him to chase David.

We might wonder as to what led David to initiate this conversation-- Shaul had walked away, he had succeeded in holding back from killing his nemesis, what more did he want? I believe he wanted to convince Shaul to stop chasing him. Not, I suspect, because he was afraid for his life-- he had a prophecy and the experience of several rescues to bolster him in the belief that he would, somehow, always escape Shaul.

I believe David was trying to help Shaul leave the self-destructive path he had embarked upon. David might be safe, but every time Shaul chases David, he adds to the list of wrongs for which God would eventually exact punishment. David was trying to help a man succumbing to an obsession pull back from so doing.

And, at least in this episode, he seems to succeed. Shaul cries at David's talk, and speaks to him as if he were a long-lost son. Remember, to understand this reaction, that David was the one who was able to soothe Shaul's evil moods with his harp playing. Even caught by his mad desire to kill David, some part of Shaul remembers the boy from whom he gained such relief and such joy.

With Shaul's sane side successfully brought to the fore, Shaul has a moment of clarity. He admits that he is wronging David and not the other way around. He admits that David will rule, and simply hopes that David will not try to turn the tables on him. And so they part.