(28) When the news reached Joab, he fled to the Tent of the LORD and grasped the horns of the altar—for Joab had sided with Adonijah, though he had not sided with Absalom. (29) King Solomon was told that Joab had fled to the Tent of the LORD and that he was there by the altar; so Solomon sent Benaiah son of Jehoiada, saying, “Go and strike him down.” (30) Benaiah went to the Tent of the LORD and said to him, “Thus said the king: Come out!” “No!” he replied; “I will die here.” Benaiah reported back to the king that Joab had answered thus and thus, (31) and the king said, “Do just as he said; strike him down and bury him, and remove guilt from me and my father’s house for the blood of the innocent that Joab has shed. (32) Thus the LORD will bring his blood guilt down upon his own head, because, unbeknown to my father, he struck down with the sword two men more righteous and honorable than he—Abner son of Ner, the army commander of Israel, and Amasa son of Jether, the army commander of Judah. (33) May the guilt for their blood come down upon the head of Joab and his descendants forever, and may good fortune from the LORD be granted forever to David and his descendants, his house and his throne.” (34) So Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck him down. And he was buried at his home in the wilderness. (35) In his place, the king appointed Benaiah son of Jehoiada over the army, and in place of Abiathar, the king appointed the priest Zadok.

(12) He who fatally strikes a man shall be put to death. (13) If he did not do it by design, but it came about by an act of God, I will assign you a place to which he can flee. (14) When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you shall take him from My very altar to be put to death.

מעם מזבחי תקחנו, “from My altar shall you take him (to die).” The Torah implies that there is no need to tell us that a city of refuge does not offer protection to an intentional killer, and that he will have to be surrendered to the court to stand trial; here the Torah adds that even if the murderer sought refuge in sacred grounds, clinging to the altar, this is no protection for him and the authorities are instructed to remove him from there to stand trial. We find proof of this having been done in Kings I 2,28 where it is described that Yoav, David’s commander-in-chief who had sided with Adoniah in the latter’s abortive attempt to become king instead of Solomon, took refuge in the Tabernacle and held on to the corners of the altar to escape being executed for treason. Solomon commanded Benayahu to extradite him from there. When Yoav refused to leave the holy precincts, Benayahu executed him inside the sacred grounds, carrying out the instructions in our verse. The message contained in the legislation is that even someone who thinks he can call on G’d to save him from prosecution by a human tribunal does so in vain if the sin he was guilty of was murder, (as David had explained to Solomon about Yoav prior to his death). Display of “mercy or pity” in such instances is tantamount to displaying cruelty as failure to execute a murderer deprives him of atonement in this life and he will face the whole burden of his sin after death when he comes up to be tried by a celestial tribunal.

(18) Any man who flouts your commands and does not obey every order you give him shall be put to death. Only be strong and resolute!”

The king has the right to execute anyone who rebels against a king. One is liable to the death penalty even if the king decreed that he is to go to a particular place and he did not go there or that he not leave his house and left. If he so wishes, he may execute him it says, “any man who disagrees with your words” (Joshua 1:18). Similarly, the king has permission to execute anyone who disgraces²⁴Or, embarrasses. him or insults him, as was the case with Shimi ben Gera. The king has permission to execute only by the sword. He may imprison and beat someone with a whip for the sake of his honor. However, he may not declare their money ownerless, for it would be robbery were he to do so.

Anyone who fails to obey the king’s orders because he is engaged in the performance of Commandments, even of one simple Commandment, is exempt. This is so since whenever a dictate of the Master (G-d) conflicts with a dictate of the servant (the king), the dictate of the Master takes precedence. Needless to say, the king is not heeded if he decrees something which cancels a Commandment.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to those executed by a Jewish king for crimes that they committed against him, their property belongs to the king. As for those executed by the court for a capital transgression, their property belongs to their heirs. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even with regard to those executed by a Jewish king, their property belongs to their heirs. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But isn’t it already stated: “Arise, go down to meet Ahab, king of Israel, who is in Samaria; behold he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he is gone down there to inherit it” (I Kings 21:18)? The wording of the verse indicates that Ahab went down there by right, proving that the property of those executed by the king legally belongs to the king. Rabbi Yehuda said to them: Ahab was Naboth’s cousin, the son of his paternal uncle, and therefore he was fit to inherit from him. Accordingly, he took possession of the property in his capacity as an heir, and not as the king. They said to him: But Naboth had many sons. Why, then, did they not inherit from him? Rabbi Yehuda said to them: Ahab executed Naboth and also his sons, as it is stated: “I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth and the blood of his sons” (II Kings 9:26). The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis counter this claim? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, that verse is referring to the sons who would have issued from him had Naboth not been executed. Ahab was held accountable for the blood of Naboth and for the blood of his unborn children. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king, that is the reason that it is written that Jezebel arranged for witnesses to falsely testify that “Naboth cursed God and the king” (I Kings 21:13). Since Naboth cursed the king, Ahab could execute him and seize his property. But according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to their heirs, why do I need the testimony that Naboth cursed the king? It would have sufficed for the witnesses to testify that he cursed God, in which case he would have been executed by the court, and Ahab would have taken possession of the vineyard as his heir. The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, that the witnesses testified that Naboth cursed the king so that Ahab could execute him and seize his property, why do I need the additional testimony that Naboth cursed God? Rather, you must say that the witnesses were instructed to testify that Naboth cursed both God and the king in order to increase the anger of the judges by accusing him of a second offense. So too, it can be argued that according to Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, the witnesses testified that Naboth also cursed the king in order to increase the anger of the judges. No proof can be brought from here that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king. The Gemara raises another difficulty: Granted, according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to the king, that is the reason that it is written: “And Joab fled to the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar” (I Kings 2:28), describing Joab’s actions after it became known that he supported Adonijah, and furthermore it is written: “And he said, I will not leave, for here I will die” (I Kings 2:30). Joab did not want to be put to death by the king because he did not want his property to pass into the king’s possession. But according to the one who says that the property of those executed by the king belongs to their heirs, what difference did taking refuge in the Sanctuary make to him? The Gemara answers: Joab fled to the sanctuary in order to live a short while longer. Consequently, there is no proof from here to either side of the dispute. § The Gemara continues to discuss the incident involving Joab. After Joab took refuge in the Sanctuary and King Solomon sent Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, to fall upon him, Benaiah ordered Joab to leave the sanctuary, whereupon Joab refused. The verse then states: “And Benaiah brought the king word back, saying: So said Joab, and so he answered me” (I Kings 2:30). The Gemara explains: Joab said to him: Go and say to Solomon: You cannot perform two actions to this man, i.e., to me, Joab. If you kill him, i.e., me, you and your descendants will receive the curses with which your father cursed me. And if you do not wish to receive those curses, let him go so that he may receive the curses with which your father cursed him. And the next verse states: “And the king said to him: Do as he has said, and fall upon him, and bury him.” Solomon thereby accepted his father’s curses upon himself and his descendants. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: All the curses with which David cursed Joab were ultimately fulfilled in David’s descendants, due to the curse that Solomon accepted upon himself. David cursed Joab: “Let the house of Joab never lack such as are afflicted with a discharge, or a leper, or that hold onto a staff, or fall by the sword, or lack bread” (II Samuel 3:29). The Gemara clarifies: The curse of being afflicted “with a discharge,” i.e., a zav, was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Rehoboam, as it is written: “And King Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot [bamerkava] to flee to Jerusalem” (I Kings 12:18), and it is written: “And whatever saddle [hamerkav] he that has a discharge rides upon shall be unclean” (Leviticus 15:9). The similarity between the words merkava and merkav indicates that Rehoboam was a zav. The curse of “a leper” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Uzziah, as it is written: “But when he was strong, his heart was lifted up to his destruction; for he transgressed against the Lord his God, and went into the Temple of the Lord to burn incense upon the altar of incense” (II Chronicles 26:16). And it is also written: “And leprosy broke out on his forehead” (II Chronicles 26:19). The curse of those who “hold onto a staff” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Asa, as it is written concerning him: “But in the time of his old age, he was diseased in his feet” (I Kings 15:23). And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This means that he was seized with gout [podagra]. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Naḥman: What are the circumstances and symptoms of this disease? Rav Naḥman said to him: The pain is similar to the pain of a needle piercing live flesh. The Gemara asks: How did Rav Naḥman know what gout is like? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that he himself suffered from the disease. And if you wish, say that he learned it as a tradition from his teacher. And if you wish, say that he knew this through divine inspiration, as the verse states: “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show to them His covenant” (Psalms 25:14). The curse of those who “fall by the sword” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Josiah, as it is written: “And the archers shot at King Josiah” (II Chronicles 35:23), and Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They shot him with so many arrows that they turned his whole body into a sieve. The curse of those who “lack bread” was fulfilled among Solomon’s descendants in Jeconiah, as it is written concerning him: “And as for his food allowance, there was a continual food allowance given him by the king, a daily portion for every day, all the days of his life” (II Kings 25:30). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This explains the adage that people say:

Be the one who is cursed and not the one who curses, as a curse eventually returns to the one who curses. The Gemara returns to discuss the incident of Joab: They brought Joab before Solomon, who judged him. Solomon said to Joab: What is the reason that you killed Abner? Joab said to him: I was the blood redeemer of the blood of Asahel; when Abner murdered my brother Asahel I killed him, in fulfillment of my duty as his blood redeemer. Solomon said to him: But Asahel was pursuing Abner with the intention of killing him, and therefore he had the status of a pursuer. Since Abner killed Asahel in an act of self-defense, you had no right to kill him as a redeemer of Asahel’s blood. Joab said to Solomon: Abner could have saved himself by wounding Asahel in one of his limbs. Having failed to do so, he was guilty of murder, and I was therefore entitled to kill him. Solomon said to him: Abner was not able to injure Asahel, because he was running and could not aim with precision. Joab said to Solomon: Now Abner was able to aim and hit him precisely in the fifth rib, as it is written: “And Abner smote him with the butt end of the spear in the ḥomesh” (II Samuel 2:23), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this means that he hit him in the fifth rib, the place where the gallbladder and liver hang. If Abner could aim with precision at the fifth rib, could he not have successfully aimed at one of Asahel’s limbs? Solomon said to Joab: Set aside Abner, as you have presented a convincing argument that you are not liable for his death. But what is the reason you killed Amasa? Abner said to him: I killed Amasa in punishment for his having rebelled against the king, as it is written: “And the king said to Amasa: Muster to me the men of Judah within three days, and be you here present. And Amasa went to call the men of Judah, but he was later than the set time that he had assigned to him” (II Samuel 20:4–5). Solomon said to him: Amasa was not guilty of rebelling against the king because he interpreted the words akh and rak in a restrictive manner, and in that way he limited the king’s authority. How so? Amasa found the men of Judah starting to study a new tractate. He said to himself: It is written: “Any man who rebels against your commandment, and will not listen to your words in all that you command him, he shall be put to death” (Joshua 1:18), indicating that the king of Israel has unlimited power. Based on these words alone, one might have thought that the king must be obeyed even when that would lead to abstention from the study of the words of Torah. Therefore, that same verse states: “Only [rak] be strong and of a good courage.” The word “rak” is a restrictive term that serves to limit the king’s authority in a situation where obeying his command will minimalize the study of Torah. Consequently, Amasa was justified when he did not muster the men of Judah at the appointed time, and you had no right to kill him. Solomon continued: Rather, the opposite is true. That man, you, Joab, rebelled against the king, as it is written: “Then tidings came to Joab, for Joab had followed after Adonijah, though he had not followed after Absalom. And Joab fled to the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar” (I Kings 2:28). Joab followed Adonijah, thereby rebelling against Solomon, the lawful king. The Gemara asks: What does the verse mean to teach when it says that Joab did not follow Absalom? Rav Yehuda says: It serves to teach that Joab wanted to follow Absalom, but in practice he did not follow him. The Gemara asks: If he wanted to do so, what is the reason that Joab did not follow Absalom? Rabbi Elazar says: When Absalom rebelled against his father, David was still in full possession of his vitality, meaning he was still strong, and Joab feared him. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: David’s stars [itztagninei], the planetary influences that determined his fortune, still stood for him. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: David had four hundred children in his army, and all of them were sons of beautiful women taken captive from their gentile homes during war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14), and they grew their hair in a gentile hair style, and they would go at the head of the troops, and they were the strong-arm enforcers of the house of David, on whose loyalty David’s monarchy relied. As long as David was supported by this force, Joab was afraid to challenge him. The Gemara notes: And those who view Joab in a negative light disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: Were it not for David, who studied Torah, Joab would not have been able to wage war successfully, and were it not for the military acumen of Joab, David would not have been able to study Torah. As it is written: “And David executed judgment and justice to all his people, and Joab, son of Zeruiah, was over the army” (II Samuel 8:15–16). What is the reason that David “executed judgment and justice to all his people”? He was able to do so because “Joab, son of Zeruiah, was over the army,” assisting him and fighting his battles. And what is the reason that “Joab, son of Zeruiah, was over the army”? He was able to do so because “David executed judgment and justice to all his people.” § The verse states: “And Joab went out from David, and sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back from Bor Sirah” (II Samuel 3:26). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the name Bor Sirah? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: A well [bor] and a thorn [vesira] caused Abner to be killed. Abner became liable to be killed when he failed to take advantage of two opportunities to bring about a reconciliation between King Saul and David. First, when David cut off a corner of Saul’s robe after he entered a cave in order to relieve himself, and second, when David found Saul sleeping and took the jug of water and the spear from next to his head. Rather than tell Saul that David could have killed him and refrained from doing so, Abner suggested to Saul that his robe may have been torn by a thornbush and that his jug of water may have been taken by one of his own men. These two incidents are alluded to by the words bor, well, i.e., jug of water, and sira, thornbush. The verse states: “And Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly” (II Samuel 3:27). Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Joab judged Abner according to the halakha of the Sanhedrin, which would sit in judgment by the gate of the city. How so? Joab said to Abner: What is the reason that you killed Asahel? Abner said to him: Asahel was pursuing me with the intention to kill me, and therefore he had the status of a pursuer, whom I had the right to kill in self-defense. Joab said to Abner: Even so, you could have saved yourself by wounding one of his limbs. Abner replied: I was not able to do so as I was running and could not aim with precision. Joab said to him: Now seeing that you were able to aim and hit him precisely in the fifth rib, could you not have successfully aimed at one of his limbs? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “to speak with him quietly [basheli]”? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: He took him aside to speak to him by way of deception [shalu]. As for what is stated: “And Abner smote him with the butt end of the spear in the ḥomesh” (II Samuel 2:23), Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He hit him in the fifth [ḥamishit] rib, the place where the gallbladder and liver hang. § The verse states that Solomon said to Benaiah, son of Jehoiada, concerning Joab: “And the Lord shall return the blood upon his own head, for he fell upon two men more righteous and better than he” (I Kings 2:32). The Gemara explains: Amasa and Abner were “better” that Joab, as they interpreted the words akh and rak in a restrictive manner that limited the king’s authority, while he did not interpret them in that way, demonstrating that they were greater than him in Torah. Amasa and Abner were also “more righteous” than Joab, as they both received oral instructions directly from Saul to slay the priests of Nov and they did not do so, whereas Joab was instructed by David in a letter to kill Uriah and he did so. The verse states: “But Amasa took no heed of the sword in Joab’s hand” (II Samuel 20:10). Rav says: Amasa took no heed of the sword because he did not suspect that Joab was capable of murdering him. The verse states with regard to Joab: “And he was buried in his own house, in the wilderness” (I Kings 2:34). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Joab’s house was a wilderness? Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Joab’s house was like the wilderness; just as the wilderness is freely open to all, so too, Joab’s house was freely open to all, as he generously opened his house to the poor and made them feel like members of the household. Alternatively, Joab’s house was like the wilderness; just as the wilderness is clean of theft and sexual immorality, as it is uninhabited, so too, Joab’s house was clean of theft and sexual immorality, owing to his righteousness. As for the verse: “And Joab kept alive the rest of the city” (I Chronicles 11:8), Rav Yehuda says: Not only would Joab feed the poor, but he would even give them treats of types of small fish so they would lack for nothing.

(Numb. 35:11:) “Where a killer may flee who has taken a life by mistake.” “By mistake,” and not on purpose. If someone goes and kills on purpose, then says, “It was by mistake that I killed,” and flees to [one of the] cities of refuge, the Holy One, blessed be He, says, “Even if he comes in and flees to My altar, kill him, according to what is stated (in Exod. 21:14), ‘[But when someone plots against his companion and kills him treacherously], you shall take him away [even] from My altar [for execution].’” Who was this person who fled to the altar and was killed? This was Joab, of whom it is stated (in I Kings 2:28), “When the news came to Joab,… [Joab fled unto the tent of the Lord and seized the horns of the altar].” You find that Joab was a great sage and the head of the Sanhedrin,³³Gk.: Synehedrion. as stated (in II Sam. 23:8), “one who sits in the seat of wisdom.”³⁴These words are commonly understood as the proper name, JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH, A TAHCHEMONITE, but this and other citations of the verse in rabbinic literature tend to understand the verse as translated here. See Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 4:12, and the note there; also below, Tanh. (Buber), Deut. 1:3. Cf. MQ 26b, for an interpretation that identifies this sage with David himself. [So] when he went and seized the horns of the altar, did he not know what is written in the Torah (in Exod. 21:14), “But when someone plots against his companion [and kills him treacherously, you shall take him away (even) from my altar for execution]?”³⁵yMakk. 2:7 [6] (31d); Sanh. 48b; see Makk. 12b. It is simply that [Joab] had said, “Those killed by a court of law are not buried in the graves of their ancestors but by themselves. It is better to die here, so that I may be buried with my ancestors.” (I Kings 2:30–31:) “Then Benaiah brought back word unto the king.... So the king said to him, ‘Do as he has spoken, strike him down and bury him.’” Why was he killed? Because his (Solomon's) father, David, had ordered him [to do] so (in I Kings 2:5), “Moreover, you also know what Joab ben Zeruiah did to me.” What did he do to him? You find that, when David wrote to Joab (in II Sam. 11:15), “Set Uriah in the front line [where the fighting is the fiercest]...,” he did so, and he was killed. All the army leaders assembled against Joab, as [Uriah] was the head of the warriors, as stated of him (in II Sam. 23:39), “Uriah the Hittite, [was one of all] thirty-seven [leaders].” He showed them the document. It is therefore stated (in I Kings 2:5), “What Joab ben Zeruiah] did to me.” (I Kings 2:5, cont.:) “And what he did to the two commanders of Israel's forces, to Abner ben Ner and to Amasa ben Jether, he killed them.” All of Israel had been of the opinion that David had ordered him to kill [Abner] because Abner was Saul's cousin. And for that reason David arose and cursed Joab, when he said (in II Sam. 3:29), “may the house of Joab never lack [one with a discharge, a leper, one who grasps the crutch,³⁶Modern translations commonly understand these words to mean, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, but the midrash understands them in the sense given here. one who falls by the sword, and one lacking bread].” Then all Israel was appeased,³⁷Rt.: PYS. Cf. Gk.: peisai (“to have persuaded”). when they knew that there was no [authorization] from David. So David ordered his son, Solomon, to kill him, because Joab was the son of David's sister, and he sought to approach him to the world to come.³⁸If he received punishment in this world, his deed would no longer bar him from doing so. When Solomon sought to kill him, Joab said to Benaiah, “Go and tell Solomon, ‘Do not sentence me with two judgments. If you are killing me, take off from me the curses with which your father, David, cursed me; and if not, leave me with his curses.’” Immediately (in I Kings 2:31), “So the king said to him, ‘Do as he has spoken, strike him down and bury him.” R. Judah has said, “All curses with which David cursed Joab were all fulfilled in David's seed.”³⁹yQid. 1:7 (61a); cf. above, Gen. 7:7; ‘Arakh. 16a. One with a discharge [was fulfilled in] Rehoboam ben Solomon (according to I Kings 12:18 = II Chron. 10:18), “then King Rehoboam succeeded in mounting his chariot (merkavah).” It also says concerning one with a discharge (in Lev. 15:9), “And any saddle (merkav) on which the one with a discharge rides [shall be unclean].” A leper [was fulfilled in] Uzziah, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 15:5), “and he was a leper until the day of his death.” One who grasps the crutch [was fulfilled in] Asa, of whom it is written (in I Kings 15:23), “however in his old age he became diseased in his feet,” where (he became like a woman, as) gout⁴⁰Gk.: podagra; Lat.: podagra. had seized him. One who falls by the sword [was fulfilled in] Josiah, of whom it is written (in II Chron. 35:23), “Then the archers shot King Josiah.” Moreover, Rav Judah has said that his whole body was like a sieve. And Rav said, “They thrust iron lances⁴¹Gk.: longchai. into him, until they had perforated him like a sieve.” And one lacking bread [was fulfilled in] Jehoiachin, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 25:30 = Jer. 52:34), “And for his food allowance a regular food allowance was given to him from the king, from the table of Evil-Merodach.” You also find that as long as Jehoiada lived, Joash did the will of his Creator, as stated (in II Kings 12:3 // II Chron. 24:2), “And Jehoash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all his days as the priest Jehoiada instructed him.” (II Chron. 24:17:) “Now after the death of Jehoiada, the princes of Judah came and bowed low to the king, and the king hearkened unto them,” in that he took it upon himself to make an idol. Therefore (according to vs. 24), “they inflicted judgments on Joash.” Now for what was Abner punished? It was because he had made light and an amusement (rt.: shq), the blood of the young men, as stated (in II Sam. 2:14), “Then Abner said unto Joab, ‘Please let the young men arise and play (rt.: shq) before us.’”⁴²The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. And there are also those who say it was because he put his name before the name of David, as stated (in II Sam. 3:12), “Then Abner sent messengers unto David where he was, saying, ‘To whom does the land belong?’” But the sages say, “It was because he did not let Saul be reconciled with David.” And our masters say, “He had the power to protest [the massacre] at Nob, the city of priests, and did not protest.”