(11) The Ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and his whole household. (12) It was reported to King David: “The LORD has blessed Obed-edom’s house and all that belongs to him because of the Ark of God.” Thereupon David went and brought up the Ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the City of David, amid rejoicing. (13) When the bearers of the Ark of the LORD had moved forward six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling.-j (14) David whirled with all his might before the LORD; David was girt with a linen ephod. (15) Thus David and all the House of Israel brought up the Ark of the LORD with shouts and with blasts of the horn. (16) As the Ark of the LORD entered the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window and saw King David leaping and whirling before the LORD; and she despised him for it.
(יד) מכרכר בכל עוז - מרקד בכל כחו וכוונתו וי"ת משבח:
(1) "And David danced before HaShem with all his might" - Danced with all his strength and concentration. And Yontatan translated it as "praised."
And she despised him in her heart - When she saw him from the window, she despised him in her heart because she thought it was not honorable for the king to behave in the manner of the common people, even before the ark, and afterwards, when he went to his house, she said directly, "What was honored today..."
"Michal, King Saul's younger daughter, achieves a rare distinction. The Bible says, 'Now Michal daughter of Saul had fallen in love with David.' This is the only time the Bible notes that a woman has fallen in love. The wording 'Michal daughter of Saul' suggests that her feelings influence the choice of her husband because of her privileged position as princess, whereas with most marriages at that time, the woman's personal feelings were rarely taken into account. The Bible is mute, however, about David's feelings for Michal—either because he had not chosen to express them or because a commoner's feelings were not important. We are left with a vague impression that something is off balance in this relationship."
(20) David went home to greet his household. And Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet David and said, “Didn’t the king of Israel do himself honor today—exposing himself today in the sight of the slavegirls of his subjects, as one of the riffraff might expose himself!”
ומי הוו למיכל בני והכתיב (שמואל ב ו, כג) ולמיכל בת שאול לא היה לה ולד עד יום מותה... דכתיב (שמואל ב ו, טז) ומיכל בת שאול נשקפה בעד החלון ותרא את המלך דוד מפזז ומכרכר לפני ה' ותבז ואמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב יוסף שקלתה מיכל למיטרפסה.
And did Michal ever have children? And it is written, "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, did not have a child until the day of her death." [...] as it is written, "And Michal, the daughter of Saul, looked out through the window, and she saw King David leaping and dancing before Hashem, and she despised..." And Rav Yehuda said (and some say it was Rav Yosef) that Michal received her due [for despising David].
...the verse itself is not pejorative. It does not say that Michal is being punished. It merely makes a statement of fact—Michal never had children. How we choose to view her childlessness is up to us.... One of the significant characteristics of Michal is that the text regularly seeks to place her in a definable role based on who she is in relationship to the men in her life. Michal’s name occurs eighteen times in the Bible: Ten times she is described as “the daughter of Saul,” twice as “David’s wife,” and once as both. There are only five instances in which one of these phrases is not appended to her name, yet in each of those cases it is clear which relationship role she plays. Despite all this, the text fails to decisively connect her to either man. The most telling example is found in I Samuel 25:44 where we read that Saul has given “his daughter Michal, David’s wife” to another man. Michal is both “Saul’s daughter” and “David’s wife.” She cannot be neatly placed into either category.
(ח) וַיִּקַּ֣ח הַמֶּ֡לֶךְ אֶת־שְׁ֠נֵ֠י בְּנֵ֨י רִצְפָּ֤ה בַת־אַיָּה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יָלְדָ֣ה לְשָׁא֔וּל אֶת־אַרְמֹנִ֖י וְאֶת־מְפִבֹ֑שֶׁת וְאֶת־חֲמֵ֗שֶׁת בְּנֵי֙ מִיכַ֣ל בַּת־שָׁא֔וּל אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָלְדָ֛ה לְעַדְרִיאֵ֥ל בֶּן־בַּרְזִלַּ֖י הַמְּחֹלָתִֽי׃
(8) Instead, the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons that Rizpah daughter of Aiah bore to Saul, and the five sons that Meirav (Michal's sister) daughter of Saul bore to Adriel son of Barzillai the Meholathite,
Anyone who is obliged to study Torah is obliged for tefillin, and women who are not obliged to study Torah are not obliged for tefillin. They objected, but did not Michal, the daughter of Saul, wear tefillin, and did not the wife of Jonah make the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the Sages did not object?
it was taught in a baraita: Michal, daughter of Kushi, King Saul, would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her behavior, as she was permitted to do so...
When we look at the wider context of Michal’s life, it does not seem a tragedy at all. We see a woman who is not confined by people’s expectations but rather self-defined. She loves the man she marries even as the text makes it clear that her father would have preferred anyone other than David. She saves David’s life through lies and trickery at the expense of her relationship with her father. Although given to a second man in marriage, she returns to David, apparently untouched. She has a vision of how a king should act and she stands by her belief, even though it means the end of her marriage. Rather than living the barren life implied by the words she “had no child until her dying day,” she has a life filled with family and productivity. Should we pity Michal? It is easy to look back on our lives and say what we should have done. It is more difficult to say the right thing, or make the right move at the moment. Michal does a remarkable job dealing with the circumstances life hands her. She does not become bitter about roles that do not fit her. Instead, she moves forward, and creates herself anew as an adoptive mother and a teacher to future generations. She is not constrained by a tradition that does not allow women to use tefillin. She makes the choice to wear them, and the texts support her choice.
