The Design of the ‘Dual Causality’ Principle 565 seen as the referent of ‘his cursing’, since God is the one who is mentioned beforehand (the Lord will look / the Lord will return), and Shimei, on the other hand, is not mentioned at all in the verse. In other words, David’s words can also be interpreted as a request that the Lord will return him good, instead of the curse that he (the Lord) had cursed him with (32). At first sight, such a reading is indeed surprising (33), but, actually, it is the heart of David’s claim throughout his speech to Joab: “And the king said: What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? So let him curse, because the LORD had said to him, Curse David. Who shall then say: Why hast thou done so? ... Let him alone and let him curse; for the LORD has bidden him.” (10-11). David deciphers Shimei’s curse as God’s curse and he emphasizes that he sees in Shimei a sort of Divine messenger, to point at his punishment in his son’s rebellion. And, as Robinson wrote: “It was believed in Israel that Yahweh was the source of all authentic cursing and blessing. Once the words of cursing or blessing had proceeded from the mouth of the person appointed by God, those words could never be recalled” (34). In any case, the double subject in David’s words — “for his cursing” — matches the message David wants to convey to Joab and all his other servants. Shimei is indeed cursing because of the rivalry between the tribe of Benjamin (the tribe of Saul) and David; however, on a higher level, Shimei’s curse of David integrates into the total Divine course. The suggested double reading fits into another ambiguous expression that is hidden in David’s words. I mean the subject that is implied in verse 10: “And the king said, what have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? So let him curse, because the Lord had said to him, curse David. Who shall then say, wherefore hast thou done so?” Does “thou” refer to the cursing Shimei or maybe to God who had “told” Shimei to curse (35)? Here also, the two readings are supported by the context of the sentence and it seems that the narrator wants us to adopt both readings together. David emphasizes that Shimei’s deed cannot be doubted (“Wherefore hast thou done so — Shimei”), precisely because it is the hidden deed of God (“Wherefore hast thou done so — God!”). Occasionally, there is a tendency to believe that when a sentence is capable of being read with several differing meanings, it is an expression of composition that is unfocused, almost lazy; while writing that clearly (32) There are some who try to by-pass the problem and do not refer at all to the cursing person: “in place of the course laid on me this day” (P.R. ACKROYD, The Second Book of Samuel [CBC; Cambridge 1977] 150), or “and repay me with good for this cursing of me today” (POLZIN, David and the Deuteronomist, 161). (33) Especially in light of the fact that God cannot be found cursing a human being in the Bible. It should be noted that here as well, I raise this as a reading which is secondary to the main reading according to which Shimei is the cursing person implied by this expression. (34) ROBINSON, Let Us Be, 237. See also POLAK, Biblical Narrative, 297; Z. ADAR, The Biblical Narrative (Jerusalem 1959), 127. The design of the inference from minor to major which David does is especially emphasized in the verse because of the lack of reference to people by their names so that “my son” (ynb) stands against “this Benjaminite” (ynymyh ˆb) (FOKKELMAN, Narrative Art in Samuel, 200). (35) See about this question: KIL, Samuel, 459; BAR-EFRAT, Samuel, 174.