שמואל ב, פרק ג׳, פסוק ז׳

II Samuel 3:7Sefaria

וּלְשָׁא֣וּל פִּלֶ֔גֶשׁ וּשְׁמָ֖הּ רִצְפָּ֣ה בַת־אַיָּ֑ה וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־אַבְנֵ֔ר מַדּ֥וּעַ בָּ֖אתָה אֶל־פִּילֶ֥גֶשׁ אָבִֽי׃

An internal crisis threatens to tear apart the royal house of Saul, triggered by a fierce dispute over the late king's concubine. For the tribe of Benjamin, this echoes a painful history of tragedies tied to concubines, dating back to the infamous incident in Gibeah. Now, history repeats itself as a similar scandal brings fresh turmoil to Ish-bosheth and Abner [חומת אנך].

The narrative presents a sharp accusation against Abner, the army commander, confronting him about having intimate relations with the woman [מצודת ציון]. Although the speaker is not explicitly named, commentators agree it is Ish-bosheth. This is clear because the accuser refers to Saul as his father, and Ish-bosheth is the central figure upon whom the surviving royal house currently depends [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Suspecting that Abner has taken his father's concubine, Ish-bosheth feels compelled to rebuke him to defend his father's honor [רד״ק].

The primary approach among commentators is that Abner's alleged action is deeply severe for two distinct reasons: social status and political ambition. In terms of status, a king's widow is strictly forbidden to a commoner. Even though Rizpah the daughter of Aiah was a concubine rather than a regular wife, her unique designation for the king means she is treated exactly like a royal widow. The guiding principle is that a king's personal belongings and property must never be used by others, out of respect for the monarchy [רד״ק, מצודת דוד, מלבי״ם].

On a political level, the implications are even more dangerous. Even though Rizpah was unmarried at the time, taking a former king's concubine goes far beyond a breach of royal etiquette. It serves as a bold declaration of intent and a direct claim to inherit the throne. Abner, who served as the main pillar of the kingdom, acted as though royal privileges rightfully belonged to him. Ish-bosheth viewed this behavior as an outright rebellion against his own rule, prompting his fierce confrontation with the powerful commander [מלבי״ם, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

נעזרתם בפירוש שלנו ומצאתם בו ערך?

עזרו לנו להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה. תחזוקת האתר והשבחת התוכן כרוכות בהוצאות מרובות. תרומה קטנה שלכם תסייע לנו להחזיק את הפלטפורמה ותהפוך אתכם לשותפים מלאים בהנגשת חוכמת המקרא.

תרמו עכשיו

מה דעתכם על הפירוש?

התחברתם? יש לכם חידוש או הארה על הפסוק שלמדתם כאן? נשמח לשמוע!

ההערות שלכם חשובות לנו ועוזרות לשפר את הפירוש.