When they go into the camp, to where Shaul was sleeping, Avishai urges David to allow him to kill Shaul, saying that God had given over David’s enemy into his hands. David refuses, noting that one cannot kill the anointed of God, and swears that God will have to take care of killing Shaul, either by disease or in war, but he, David, refuses to kill meshiah Hashem. Instead, they take the bowl of water that was by Shaul’s head and his spear, and they leave the camp, undetected.

Once they have gained some distance from the camp, David calls out to Avner and, by extension, the people, berating him (and them) for neglecting their responsibility to protect the king. He points out the theft of the king’s water and spear, to prove that indeed they had failed to protect their monarch.

Shaul recognizes David’s voice, and call s out to him, calling him "my son, David." David now speaks to him, questioning why he is chasing him, and cursing those who may have incited the king against him. He begs the king not to try to kill him, stressing that Shaul is demeaning himself by chasing a (relative) insect. Shaul agrees that David is right, and invites him to return with him, since he will not try to hurt him anymore. David only allows that he will return the spear, and prays that God will repay his good deeds, and they each go on their way.

THE TROUBLING ZIFIM

Once again, as in chapter 23, the Zifim tell Shaul that David is hiding in their midst, and he comes to chase David. The proverb "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me," raises two questions. First, why were the Zifim consistently willing to turn David over to Shaul? In our earlier discussion of the Zifim, I suggested that they knew that Shaul would not be successful, and simply wanted to curry favor with him, while sure that David would survive nonetheless.

I would point out here two sources that indicate I was too lenient in my impression of them. First, there is a debate in Sotah 48b as to why they were called Zifim. R. Eliezer takes what we would identify as the more literal approach, that they were from a place called Zif. R. Yohanan, however, asserts that the word zif here has its roots in ziyuf, forgery, and that they were called Zifim because they spoke deceitfully with people. In that view, then, their willingness to turn David over to Shaul fits with the rest of their character.

R. Yonah, in Shaarei Teshuvah 3:200, uses the people of Zif as prime examples of the power of lashon hara. He assumes that people would not tell such lashon hara unless they stood to benefit from it, such as here where they clearly intended to get Shaul’s goodwill and possibly reward. Nonetheless, he also thinks that descending to that level shows that the people of Zif had lost contact with their need to worship God, had surrendered to their evil inclination. In both views, whether the people of Zif were generally tricksters or were here seeking benefit by handing David over, the traditional sources blame them for what is seen as an evil act.

MEANINGLESS ACTS—ARE WE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM?

The discussion of Zif reminds me of my vote in the last presidential election. When I realized that I live in New York, whose electors would go Democratic regardless of what I did, I immediately decided to vote for Bush (I was, at the time, unsure of which candidate I thought was better). It would not affect the outcome of the election and therefore would be worth, in my mind, showing that I thought he had at least some good qualities. In other elections, where I was disenchanted with either candidate, I voted for third-party candidates, sometimes without knowing for what they stood.

Our analysis of the Zifim, however, suggests that it is wrong to take an action knowing it to be futile, unless I was comfortable with the action for itself. Only if I could face with equanimity a Bush presidency would it be appropriate for me to take an action that, at least in theory, would help Bush get elected. So, too, the Zifim’s knowing that David would be saved does not allow them to offer aid to Shaul in his immoral program.

That question becomes more complicated if we try to apply the same lens to Shaul’s soldiers and generals. Were they obligated to object to Shaul’s chasing David, even if they knew that he would not actually capture him? From our perspective here, it would seem that they would have been, although there is one more complicating factor there, as we will discuss.

David suspects that Shaul is coming after him, and sends meraglim, spies, to verify the hunch. I note it only because it seems to represent a further institutionalization of David’s power. He not only has a band of followers now, with close advisers (see Avishai, in a moment), but he has developed some kind of an intelligence network as well. In subtle ways, the time that David is spending fleeing Shaul is growing him into a functioning king as well.

MEETING AVISHAI

When David decides to go into Shaul’s camp, he offers two of his advisers the opportunity to go with him, and Avishai volunteers. I would first note the importance of grabbing opportunities, since Avishai becomes one of David’s closest confidants, appearing at his side regularly throughout the rest of his career, while the other guy, Ahimelekh the Hitti, disappears from Tanakh and from Jewish history.

Second, Avishai is one of Yoav’s brothers (the other, Asahe-l, will also play a significant role in David’s life), and provides both interesting contrast as well as supplemental information on the Yoav family. At this juncture, I would only note that David seems to have a more personal relationship with Avishai than with Yoav, although Yoav will end up as David’s general. Those who deserve the highest position are not always those we like the best or feel most comfortable with.

One of the characteristics of the family seems to be a taste for blood, as you can tell by simply following their later exploits in I and II Samuel. Here, Avishai not only encourages David to kill Shaul, he asks for permission to perform the deed himself. Notably, Avishai envisions the incident as the expression of God giving over David’s enemies into his hands, an image that we saw the last time that David had this kind of position with Shaul as well. It strikes me that David has ingrained in his men the idea of God’s presence in what happens to them, an important aspect of the king’s role in the Jewish people.

In any case, David again demurs (as he had before), and for the same reasons. Without wishing to contradict the sources I cited earlier about the right of David to view Shaul as a rodef, I would stress again that David himself seems to see the matter differently. While rodef status allows the intended victim, or a bystander, to kill the rodef, David refuses to believe that that applies to meshiah Hashem, to God’s anointed representative.

HOW MUCH DO WE LEAVE TO GOD?

David makes it clear, however, that he would prefer that Shaul die (since, of course, that would mean a threat to his own life would have been removed). He insists that God will have to take care of that, but that he himself refuses to do so, raising another interesting question. David seems sure, but I wonder how he knew. Perhaps God had sent Shaul as a rodef because He wanted David to kill him. If so, David’s refraining would have been a personal failure.

In David’s case, he might have expected a more direct message to tell him of his responsibilities. For us, however, the issue is much less clear. Opportunities that present themselves to us come in three main varieties, positive, neutral, and negative. The negative ones we are to avoid, the positive ones to embrace, and the neutral ones is largely our choice. Deciding among them, however, is not so simple—as is shown here by David.

Once he has decided not to kill Shaul, however, David does wish to make a point, so he takes the spear and water. Note that he then first addresses Avner, not Shaul. He has apparently despaired of making sense of Shaul, or bringing sense to him, as will be clear later in this chapter as well. David accuses Avner of dereliction of duty, in that he failed to properly protect the king. Before they can pursue that provocative conversation—David seems to be requiring Avner to help Shaul to the best of his abilities, despite that putting himself in greater danger—Shaul steps in.

Again, his first words suggest a tragically mentally ill man. He again says, "Is that your voice, my son David?" as if he were not in the middle of chasing him to kill him. David’s answers here most clearly demonstrate the divided position he is taking with Shaul. He remonstrates with him as king, and calls out to God for support and salvation, but says nothing personal to the man who is, after all, his father in law.

David has apparently given up on Shaul the person, as is also shown by his completely ignoring Shaul’s invitation to return with him, covered by a promise not to harm him. Indeed, David, at the beginning of the next chapter, assumes that Shaul will continue to chase him in the future. David’s respect for the institution of the kingship remains strong, although his willingness to deal with Shaul as a person seems to have gone.