Explanation #1: Since it is a time of Tza'ar (pain), there is no concern of 'Hirhur' (lewd thoughts).

Explanation #2: There is actually a dispute in the Yerushalmi as to whether they go in front of the stretcher, due to the fact that they brought death to the world; or whether they go behind it (and the men go in front), since it is degrading for B'nos Yisrael for the men to look at them.

Implied Question: But does the Midrash (Rabah in Vayishlach), commenting on the Pasuk "u'Melachim Mimcha Yetzei'u" not Darshen 'This refers to Sha'ul and Ish-Boshes (implying that two kings from the tribe of Binyamin would reign?

Answer: Nevertheless, this could have occurred at some other time, and Avner should not have delayed the advent of Malchus Beis David, seeing as David had already been crowned by a Navi (Shmuel).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that Malchus Yisrael was annulled for five years between the death of Shaul and the crowning of Ish-Boshes, and two and a half years - comprising the two years that Ish-Boshes reigned, and the half-year between his death and the coronation of David.

Refutation #1: This is not correct however, firstly, because, seeing as before the death of Ish-Boshes, Avner made efforts to crown David, as the Pasuk describes in Shmuel 2, 3 - "And Avner sent messengers to David ... " - why was he then punished for the half-year between Ish-Boshes' death and David's coronation?

Refutation #2: And secondly, since five years passed during which time they had no king, and they failed to crown David, why was Avner punished for then taking the initiative to crown Ish-Boshes?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems to be the reverse - the half-year refers to the period between the death of Shaul and the crowning of Ish-Boshes, during which time Avner made great efforts to crown Ish-Boshes, until his efforts were crowned with success. Then, after the death of Ish-Boshes, Malchus Yisrael was annulled for five years, until David ascended the throne. It therefore transpires that David reigned in Chevron for seven and a half years, as the Pasuk in Shmuel specifically writes.

Implied Question: Why, in another Pasuk, does it mention only seven years?

Answer: Because David was stricken with Tzara'as for half a year, as we will learn in 'Cheilek' (later, Daf 107a).

Implied Question: ... and the reason that the Gemara in 'Cheilek' does not count the half year in the seven and a half-year period of Bitul Malchus Yisrael is ...

Answer: ... because it did not coincide with the seven years, but independently, as we explained.

Question #1: Why was Achav punished for killing Navos, seeing as the latter refused to sell him his field?

Question #2: Furthermore, why did David see fit to ask whether he was permitted to 'exchange' barley-stacks belonging to Yisre'eilim to feed his animal, as we learned in Perek ha'Koneis (Bava Kama, 60a)?

Answer #1: The Pasuk in Shmuel writes that the king "will take ... and give it to his servants", implying - but not for himself (and Navos took the vineyard for himself).

Answer #2: Had Achav so wished, he could have indeed taken the vineyard without asking, but now that he asked him to sell it to him, Navos (justifiably) thought that the king was giving him the choice to refuse.

Answer #3: Achav was punished, because he wanted the vineyard for idolatrous purposes, as he is recorded as saying (in Melachim 1, 21:2) "And I shall turn it into a vegetable garden", which has connotations of idolatry, just like the Pasuk in Yeshayah, 66:17 (in connection with idol-worship) "Those who prepare and purify themselves to go to the gardens".

Answer #4: 'The Nakdan' answers that the concession for a king to take a subject's field is restricted to one that is far from the town, which is not so valuable; whereas the field of Navos was situated beside Achav's palace, in the town of Shomron.

Answer #5: Alternatively, the concession is restricted to a field that the current owner purchased, but not to one that he inherited from his father, as is inherent in Navos' reply to Achav "Far be it from me from giving you the inheritance of my fathers!"

Answer #6: And finally, the Parshah of the king (in Shmuel) applies exclusively to a king who rules over the whole of Yisrael and Yehudah, and to one who was Divinely appointed; whereas Achav ruled only over Yehudah, nor was he appointed by Hash-m..