Jüdisches Denken zu Schemuel I 15:28

David's encounter with Goliath stemmed from the purest of motives, i.e. to silence the blasphemer. When we read David's comment in Samuel I 17,26, "what shall be done for the man who shall slay this Philistine?", the word ye-asseh needs to be understood as "what needs to be done for the man who...? " David expresses incredulity that it should be necessary to promise a reward for the person willing to engage Goliath in combat. As David says in Psalms 139,2, "O Lord I hate those who hate You." David was not satisfied to have ousted Goliath according to the terms of combat set by Goliath. (17,9) It seems that having felled Goliath would have sufficed. But David insisted on killing Goliath, even though he did not even have a sword on him. He used Goliath's own sword to kill him with. In a similar manner, David did not wait to be commanded when he wanted to build a temple for G-d, but he volunteered to do so and prepared everything he could for that undertaking. In the end, though the temple was actually built by his son Solomon, it bore David's name also. Psalm 30 is introduced as a hymn on the occasion of dedicating David’s Temple. Even in Kings I, 12, when the ten tribes secede from the dynasty of David, they refer to the Temple as "Your house David." All this despite the fact that none of the building had been commenced in David's lifetime. Midrash Shocher Tov on Psalms 23, relates that when the angels remonstrated with G-d for removing the kingship from Saul and anointing David, G-d explained it to them in the following manner. When Saul, who was about to consult the Urim Vetumim if he should pursue the Philistines, observed the eagerness of the people, he aborted his original intention. (14,20) David, on the other hand, (Samuel II 5,23 ) consulted the Urim Vetumim when set upon by the Philistines. When he was told not to counterattack until he would hear steps in the tops of the trees, he waited. David consulted again, although he had already been given a general O.K. from G-d previously, and had been assured of success, (verse 19) He had already achieved a measure of success, as we read in verse 20. According to the Midrash, the Philistines, unbeknown to David, were in an excellent tactical position, and had David not heeded G-d’s command to wait until the tops of the trees revealed movement, his men would have become victims of the Philistines. It was David's obedience to G-d’s detailed instructions that saved his victory, whereas giving in to popular request for immediate attack would have resulted in disaster. Saul excelled in personal good traits, may be even more than David, but the test of a king lies in his preparedness to submit to Divine guidance and not to rely on human perceptions. This principle applies when Divine guidance is available through consultation of the Urim Vetumim located within the folds of the breastplate of the High Priest. Pity, normally a noble emotion, is misplaced when applied to Agag the king of Amalek. The meaning of a statement by Rabbi Hunna in Yoma 22, "how extremely careful must a person be who has G-d on his side," is applicable here. As Rabbi Hunna continues, "Saul erred once with fateful consequences, whereas David erred twice and no fateful consequences ensued." Saul, whose failing consisted in not accepting G-d’s discipline, was told by G-d through Samuel "I regret having made him king." Yet David, who had erred both in respect of Uriah and the national census, was not deprived of his kingdom. His failing was of a personal nature, it was not a failing in the essential leadership qualities that a king must possess. When Moses blessed the tribe of Yehudah (Deut.33,7) saying "this for Yehudah, the Lord will hearken to the voice of Yehudah," he refers to Yehudah's role as king. Providence will be with him, because he is the people's leader who relies on G-d’s guidance. Of him it is said "that he not depart from the Lord's way, right or left." (Deut 17,11) "By the Lord's command he will go to war or return home." (Numbers 27,17) The king himself determines by his own actions if Providence will be with or against his people. The sin of following one's own reasoning or instincts is a king's cardinal error, not even given to repentance, since it represents a fundamental belief. Saul, though as innocent personally as a one year old baby (Yuma 22) when he ascended the throne, erred in his capacity as king. (Samuel I 13,1) If Rabbi Nachman was troubled and had nightmares for having dared suggest a negative interpretation of this verse,why then was Saul's rule not the beginning of a dynasty? The answer clearly is because he was personally so infallible. From this the Talmud derives the maxim that in order for authority never to become dictatorial, the monarch or whoever is responsible for the affairs of his community, should possess some publicly known demerit. Otherwise, he might become overbearing. As long a he can be reminded of his own shortcomings, his conduct will be more restrained, and he will be more amenable to the common people's problems. In support of our theory we draw attention to the way Samuel describes the relative merits of Saul and David on two separate occasions. When Saul consulted Samuel via the witch of Endor, Samuel says to him "G-d took the kingdom from you and gave it to your companion David." (Samuel I 28,18) At the time of the debacle with Agag however, the same Samuel had said "G-d has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and given it to your companion who is better than you." (Samuel I 15,28) This indicates that David may have been better than Saul in his capacity as king, but that Saul was second to none as a person. Also, David having committed the error of counting the people, repented of his own accord without any ifs and buts. Saul, however, even when he did repent having been urged to do so by Samuel, did so only with reservations. He tried to blame others for his own shortcomings, claiming that he had had to compromise with the wishes of his people. When Samuel states (Samuel I 15,29) that G-d in fact had not reneged, he explains that the expression nacham, changing plans is only applicable when conditions have not changed, but the one in charge changes his stance. When the prevailing conditions had changed however, any adjustments G-d makes to His plans are not in the nature of reneging, (compare chapter 11 re Noach) The subject in verse thirty "for he is not a changeable man" is David, not G-d. It is David who is being described as remaining constant by virtue of his character, and therefore a superior choice as king over Israel.

If we reflect on the phenomenon that when sunlight is concentrated in one spot through the use of a convex lens, it intensifies to the point where enough heat is generated in a small area to start a fire, Balak's intention may become clear. He hoped that the power of Bileam's evil eye when applied to a concentrated area rather than when diffused over the entire mass of the people, would be that much more effective. When, later on, Bileam views the whole nation, and he no longer bothers with magic formulas, he is called "the one of the seeing eye." 12) This is because the spirit of G'd had come to rest on him, and he no longer attempts to oppose the will of G'd. At that moment Bileam's undistorted eyesight both physically and spiritually becomes operative. The references in 23,19, to the steadfastness of G'd in honouring promises once made are not a repetition, but rather explain the nature of broken promises. 13) There are basically two reasons for not honouring promises. These can be subdivided into four sub categories. 1) A change of mind in the heart of the person who has made the promise. 2) A lack of sincerity already at the time the promise had been made, one had never intended to keep it. Bileam says "the Lord is not like a man who deceives, i.e. G'd makes no phony promises. Concerning the other reason he says "nor is He human to have regrets." G'd does not change His mind in midstream. The other reasons for not honouring promises have to do with the inability of the one who has made the promise to honour it. This may be due to a change in the circumstances of the "donor" by the time the promise had to be made good. Alternately, outside pressure may be applied to the "donor" to prevent him from making good on his promise. Concerning the inability to make good on a promise, Bileam says of G'd "will He say something He cannot do?" Concerning the last possibility, Bileam says "would He say something that He could be prevented from making good on?" Bileam goes on to say "I have undertaken to bless, and I will not renege on the blessing." Concerning the other side of the coin, i.e. the recipient s fitness to receive the blessing, which could cause eventual non performance, Bileam says "I have not seen any injustice among Jacob i.e. there is no reason to renege on a promise made to this people, their conduct does not give rise to this. Bileam now hastens to confess that Israel's departure from Egypt had in fact been G'ds doing, not as he had previously tried to misrepresent it, Israel's own accomplishment. "The Lord took them out of Egypt," not as previously "the people who came out of Egypt." This nation does not require artificial and unreliable means such as kessamim and nechashim, various kinds of enchantments to aid them in realising their destiny, but rather, it is serene in its confidence of G'ds achievements. 11) Bileam now has to confess his third error, that of describing the Jewish nation as a disorderly herd, comparable to animals on the march. He extols the civilisation and morality of the Jewish people, exclaiming "how goodly are your tents, O Jacob!" Their progress in the world will be growing constantly, just as "little brooks turn into streams." Their dwelling places will be like gardens on river banks, but sufficiently elevated to be safe from flooding. 14) The reference to the kingdom of Israel being greater than that of the kingdom of Agag, refers to the kingdom of David. The idea is that the kingdom of David, representing as it does the concept of the Messiah, will commence immediately upon the death of the former. As soon as Saul had defeated the Amalekites, Samuel had been dispatched to anoint David as G'ds chosen king. Only after the formal defeat of the kingdom of Amalek, could the Messiah begin his career on earth. After all the wrangling between the forces of anti-G'd and Israel will have ended, Israel and its messianic king will emerge as mightier than the forces of the anti-G'd. The letters in the name David, when added to the letters in the name Agag, produce the holy number seven. If, say you have a gambling cube, you will observe that the numbers are arranged in such a fashion that opposite sides always total seven. For instance, the digit three will be opposite the digit four, the digit five opposite the digit two etc. If you were to arrange the cube with the letters in the names of David and Agag instead of using numbers, the same result would be achieved, seeing that the numerical values in the two names correspond to the digits 4-6-4, and 1-3-3. When suitably arranged, with the letters of David's name on top, the letters of the name of "Agag" will all be at the bottom. When Bileam extols the future feats of Israel in 24,8-9, he is in fact confessing that all the feats of grandeur he had once thought himself as capable of, will in fact be performed by Israel. In refusing to be ousted by Balak, he states "I will walk back to my people." 15) However, he offers Balak a free piece of advice concerning what Israel would do to Moab in the not so immediate future. (Thus he reassures Moab regarding its own future for some time to come) Concerning his own well being, Bileam says that he will be quite comfortable among his own people; however, in view of what he foresees about the future of Moab, he tries to convince Balak that to wage war against Israel would be futile. He does not, -as Rashi suggests,- advise the seduction of Israel to commit immoral acts, but expresses continuous thoughts all of which are summarised by the idea that opposing Israel would be an exercise in futility. All this, is of course, the exact opposite of what Balak had invited him for, and therefore completes Bileams' utter humiliation. When, finally, he announces the advent of the Messiah, he completes his repentance concerning his fourth sin, namely having denied the Jewish people their status as human beings. By allowing that it is Israel who will produce the redeemer of mankind in the person of the Messiah, he admits that Israel is more qualified than anyone to lead mankind to its ultimate goals. Contrasting the eventual fates of the Amalekites and the Kenites, he emphasizes that those who choose true values will survive, whereas those who choose to continue living by the values of Edom will ultimately perish. If the Torah describes Balak as "Balak went on his way this shows that he accepted Bileam's advice. If later, the punitive expedition is sent by Moses only against the Midianites, this supports the view that the Moabites had abstained from hostile action against Israel. Our commentary follows the tradition of our sages as recorded in Vayikra Rabbah 81, namely that Bileam's prophecies were aimed at benefitting Israel. This is also the meaning of the verse in Micah 6,5, "O My people, remember what Balak the king of Moab devised, but what Bileam the son of Peor answered him." Forcing Israel's enemy to bless her instead of cursing her, was the ultimate honour that could have been bestowed upon this nation. Just as Esau at the time had had to acknowledge that Jacob was entitled to his father's blessing, this was he highest accolade that could have been received.

When a miracle does not find its appropriate echo in actual deeds, a lofty vision dissipates and ‎is ‎squandered, whereupon Divine Justice indicts the ungrateful recipient of the miracle. “The ‎Holy ‎One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah and Sennacherib, Gog of Armageddon. ‎However, ‎God’s Justice said to Him … ‘Hezekiah, for whom You wrought all these miracles, did not ‎sing in ‎praise before You. Shall You make him Messiah?”.⁵ Then comes distress, the hour of ‎misery. ‎Suffering is the final warning given by Providence to the man, who is devoid of gratitude ‎for the ‎good God has done for him. To the final proclamation that issues forth from suffering, one ‎must ‎react quickly and answer the call of the Almighty, who cries out to him, “Where are you?” ‎‎(Genesis ‎‎3:9). Judaism has been very careful about not missing the appointed hour. It has a very ‎sensitive ‎time awareness; any delay is considered sinful. Man may sometimes lose his entire world ‎for but ‎one sin — that of tarrying. “But he lingered” (Genesis 19:16). What is the sin of leaving over ‎a ‎sacrifice, if not missing the appointed hour (Leviticus 19:5–8)? What is the desecration of ‎the ‎Sabbath, if not the performing of prohibited actions one second after the setting of the sun —‎‎ ‎work that just one second before was permitted? How does the loss of the ability to perform ‎a ‎‎mitzvah occur if not for the tarrying of a few moments, such as reciting the passages of ‎the ‎‎ Shema after its appointed hour or the taking of the Lulav and Etrog ‎after ‎sunset, and the like? Two kings of Israel, both equally the anointed of the Lord and heroes of ‎the ‎nation, sinned, repented fully, and confessed. One God did not absolve; the other ‎was ‎immediately forgiven upon his confession. With regard to Saul, God acted in accordance with ‎the ‎demands of strict justice and tore the kingdom from him. With respect to David, He ‎tempered ‎justice with mercy and his dynasty was not wrested from his children. Why was the Holy ‎One so ‎strict with Saul and compassionate with David? The question does not require special ‎analysis. The ‎answer is quite simple. David did not miss the opportunity and immediately ‎confessed his sin; Saul ‎tarried a bit, and for this delay kingship was wrested from him. When ‎Nathan the prophet came to ‎David and uttered his cry, “You are the man!” (II Samuel 12:7), David, ‎in the blinking of an eye, ‎began his confession. “And David said to Nathan, I have sinned against ‎the Lord” (II Samuel ‎‎12:13). After he heard Samuel’s reprimand, Saul wasted one precious second, ‎a second “more ‎precious than gold and pearls” (Proverbs 20:15). “And why did you not listen to the ‎command of ‎God but instead went after the booty?” (I Samuel 15:19). Saul began to argue with ‎the prophet and ‎only later confessed: “And Saul [initially] said to Samuel: ‘Indeed I have done what ‎God has ‎commanded me to do, and I have gone along the path in which the Lord has sent me’" (I ‎Samuel ‎‎15:20). Indeed, in that confrontation, [after a moment’s reflection] he also confessed his ‎sins out ‎of a broken heart and a tempest-tossed spirit. “And Saul said … ‘I have sinned, for I ‎transgressed ‎God’s command and your instructions’" (I Samuel 15:24). But this confession was not ‎timely, and a ‎momentary lag such as this caused Saul to lose his kingdom. By the time Saul ‎confessed, the ‎decree was already sealed and the opportunity was lost. “The Lord has rent the ‎kingdom of Israel ‎from you” (I Samuel 15:28). If Saul had not missed the proper moment, and had ‎he not been ‎among the laggards, his dynasty would have continued.‎⁶