Pensamiento judío sobre I Samuel 15:2

Man's deeds can serve as ends in themselves, or be a means towards an end. The former are different from the latter in three ways. A) Their essence. B) The degree and dedication involved in executing the deeds in question. C) The name given to the deeds in question. If someone engages in an adulterous relationship for the sake of financial gain, he is not a true adulterer. When such a relationship is pursued because of the physical and mental gratification it affords the parties indulging in them, this is true adultery. The ben sorer umoreh, stubborn and rebellious gluttonous son described in Deuteronomy 21,18-21, though a thief by halachic definition, since he has stolen a small amount of meat and wine from his father, is punished as a glutton, not as a thief. His thievery had merely been a means to achieve his objective that of gratifying his appetites. When Rabbi Meir says in Avot 6, that "he who preoccupies himself with Torah for its own sake, will merit many things, he means that even his incidental activities will be considered "preoccupation with Torah," since those incidental activities serve to further the achievement of the ultimate goal i.e. Torah, (compare chapter 72) Another aspect of this matter is that anyone who employs certain means only as a method to attain a certain objective, will not be too fussy about the quality or legitimacy of the means employed. If someone is concerned with keeping the rain out of his house, his prime concern will be to use boards that are waterproof. The colour, dimensions, thickness and general appearance of such boards will not concern him greatly. It is similar with the fulfilment of a mitzvah. If fulfilment of the mitzvah is merely meant to escape punishment at the hands of G-d, the person performing such a mitzvah will not be concerned with performing it in the most beautiful manner possible. Sukkah 51, describes the participants of the mitzvahoi simchat beyt ha-sho- eyvah, the joyful occasion of drawing water for the sacrifices on the altar, as "anshey ma-asseh,” men of true deeds. Berachot 8, teaches that "he who enjoys the fruit of his own labour is greater than the one who fears heaven." The Talmud supports this statement with verses from scripture. The point is that he who labours to serve G-d out of a feeling of love, as demonstrated by the labour of his hands, is superior to the person who serves Him out of fear of punishment. A third distinction between deeds that serve as an end in themselves and those that are not, is the fact that unsavoury, offensive means towards achieving such objectives are employed only when absolutely unavoidable. Example: if sexual gratification can be obtained only by means of paying for the services of a prostitute, stealing the funds in order to pay the prostitute ceases as soon as gratification is obtained, or as soon as the person concerned has found legal means to pay the price for his gratification. Alternately, if performance of mitzvot is due to fear of impending punishment, say a wife who is terminally ill, and the giving of charity is seen as a way of saving her life,- then either her death or her recovery will lead to cessation of such charitable activity by her husband. In this vein Hoseah describes the reaction of the sinful Jewish people. (Hoseah 13,13-15) They believe that because the danger of giving birth has passed, all is well and the danger of death has been banished forever. Israel as a nation had achieved a closeness to G-d which involved performance of His commandments as due to one's innermost desires. This is what G-d said in Deuteronomy 5,26, "would that they should always be of a mind to revere Me and observe My commandments for all times!" Satan's argument against Job was that he claimed that Job's piety was based on self interest. Since his prestigious lifestyle had been provided by G-d, what could have been more natural than that Job should abide by G-d’s rules? Only when man's most cherished possessions are about to be taken from him, can he prove his love for G-d, and his obediences are sincere, not means to an end. This is why G-d said to Abraham after the binding of Isaac "now I know that you are indeed G-d fearing," (in the sense that "your reverence for Me is sincere.") There are then three aspects to what is called "fear" of G-d. A) Fear of the consequences if he transgresses G-d’s will. B) Reverence expressed by the performance of positive commandments which are not subject to punishments if not performed. C) Performing all of these commandments on a regular basis, not only when on a temporary emotional "high." When we look at the behaviour of Amalek as described in Parshat Ki Teytze, Deut 25, it is clear that Amalek was dedicated, fanatical in what he undertook. He attacked the Jewish people lishmah, for its own sake, not because of any ulterior designs. It was wickedness of the utmost dedication. Normally, nations go to war in order to gain territory, prisoners, loot, or for their generals to make a name for themselves and for the country to gain glory. None of these motivations applied to Amalek when it attacked Israel. "He chanced on you on the way," i.e. he had no chance to rob you of territory since you yourself were wandering nomads. He did not attack frontally, only the stragglers that had trailed behind the main body (25,18) There was no glory to be gained from that! It was an act of cowardice, since Israel was tired as the Torah testifies. "He did not fear the Lord." The only motivation was to attack something precious to G-d. People who behave in this fashion are never candidates for rehabilitation, teshuvah Therefore, the Torah stipulates that when the time and the circumstances will be right, the people of Amalek must be totally eliminated, otherwise the kingdom of G-d on this earth will never come to pass. The words "and he did not fear the Lord," may apply equally well to the conduct of Israel on the occasion of massah u-merivah, when Israel had accused Moses of leading them out of Egypt in order to let them perish by thirst in the desert. This would explain why it was that G-d permitted the attack and the very sequence of these events. Since Israel had asked the frivolous question "is then the Lord in our midst?" they had to be shown what their fate would be if the Lord were not in their midst. Amalek's conduct was even worse than that of Ammon and Moab who are banned forever from joining the Jewish nation because they had failed to extend a helping hand to Israel when that had been called for. If Mordechai and Esther in their time refused to loot the belongings of their enemies though they had express permission to do so, as has been pointed out no less than three times in the book of Esther, it was to show that their only interest was to fulfil belatedly the commandment to wipe out Amalek, something which their ancestor King Saul had been instructed to do. King Saul's error in not completely destroying Amalek, produced tragic consequences not only for himself and his family, but for Jews throughout the ages. Saul's error -which deserves to be discussed at length,- stemmed from an attitude that performs the word of G-d only to the extent that it appears to one's limited human wisdom to be beneficial. This error is quite similar to the one discussed at the outset. When Samuel said to Saul on that occasion "obedience is better than good sacrificial offerings," he only explained that the sacrifice per se is neither of benefit to G-d nor to man. It is only a means by which man can demonstrate his obedience to G-d. rayach nichau-ach, the "sweet smell," satisfaction that G-d derives from such an offering, is because it expresses the preparedness of the person who offers it to execute G-d’s will. The prophet asked the pointed question "does the Lord need total offerings or meal offerings?" The letter mem in the word mi-zevach needs to be understood not as a comparative, but as "from." What does G-d get from it? Therefore, Samuel meant tov, i.e. the good to be derived from the sacrifice is the shamo-a, the obedience expressed by having listened to G-d’s instructions. The same construction is to be placed on the other half of that verse, le-hakshiv mi-chelev eylim, the careful attention that is expressed by offering the fat of rams, (compare Samuel I chapter 15 for the whole episode) Since Samuel criticised Saul on two counts, he added the third dimension discussed at the beginning of this chapter. 1) Saul had picked from G-d’s commandment to totally destroy Amalek, only the parts that suited him. He did not act as he did because he hated the nation that G-d hated, but because he was interested in the loot. 2) He had arrogated to himself the right to decide how to act, as if he had been the prophet, claiming he had carried out G-d’s wishes. 3) He had "failed" to carry out orders, not as he claimed. G-d retaliated by despising him, taking away his kingdom and terminating what would have been his dynasty. In the end, Saul acknowledged his error. The manner in which he acknowledged his error showed that he believed that not carrying out G-d’s word or not carrying out the prophet's precise instructions, were not the same thing at all. When Saul claimed first that he had indeed fulfilled G-d’s command, Samuel calls this the chatat kessem, which is in fact mered, rebellion. What is except kessem the illusion that one can manipulate the deity, impose one's own desire on G-d, in fact rebellion. When Saul finally realised his error, Samuel already tells him that he will be replaced. In fact, David, who selflessly risked his life on G-d’s behalf against Goliath, is superior to Saul in exactly the three areas that we have outlined.

The Midrash quoted by Rashi on the verse is well known. (3) When the Torah admonishes in Ki Teytze "remember what Amalek did to you," that warning is a reminder of the conditions under which an Amalek feels encouraged to pounce upon Israel. Israel's own conduct is a provocation . When Joshua is told to choose anashim, i.e. tzaddikim, this is to serve as evidence that there are people amongst Israel who by dint of their lifestyle can face an Amalek without fear, secure in the knowledge that they can count on G-d’s support. Moses assured Joshua that on the morrow he would add the power of prayer to that of the courage of the tzaddikim (5) The visible evidence of Moses’s hands raised in prayer was a psychological prop to the warriors engaged in battle. When Moses’s hands were resting, due to fatigue, this prop was absent inducing fear amongst the Israelites, thus giving Amalek the advantage. Moses’s own physical strength was affected by the knowledge of the weakness of Israel's moral case, as demonstrated by their most recent behaviour. (4+6) Therefore Moses was in need of a physical prop to convey the illusion of superhuman strength and endurance. Viewing Moses’s posture, the Israelites realised that only Moses’s prayer ensured their ascendancy at that particular moment in history. The Talmud Rosh Hashanah 29, compares this happening to the incident with the copper snake, which had the power to heal when the Israelites looked at it. (Numbers 21,6-10) That look also symbolised one's faith in G-d and did not mean that the snake had any power at all. (7+8) For the reasons cited, Israel could not achieve more at that time than to weaken Amalek, not destroy it. This campaign could not be compared to the conquest of the Canaanite nations, since here the warriors had to rely on their own strength, though G-d assisted indirectly in order not to ignore Moses’s prayer. On the one hand G-d wanted to prove to Israel that they had been wrong in questioning His Presence; on the other hand, G-d wanted Israel to know that He was still angry at them. For that reason He commanded Moses to "write this in a book and tell Joshua." Only the latter was deemed worthy at that juncture to be told that the ongoing fight against Amalek was indeed G-d’s fight, and that He would not forsake Israel when the latter would come under attack by Amalek. (9) The revelation that Hashem Himself would in future destroy Amalek, warranted that Moses would build an altar which he named "G-d is My banner." This served as proof that G-d had approved the manner in which Moses had acted on his own when Amalek attacked. The very thing that G-d approved of was Moses’s taking the initiative. G-d was aware that if Israel would be left to its own devices, they would not complete the destruction of Amalek, just as they did not complete the destruction of the seven Canaanite nations despite G-d’s warning that leaving any of them alive or in the country, would prove a destabilising influence to Israel's society. (Numbers 33,55) It was Moses who proclaimed "for as long as there is a hand raised against the throne of G-d, He will be at war with Amalek." (Exodus 17,16) It was Moses’s conviction that the importance of wiping out Amalek warranted that G-d personally would continue to take an active part in such endeavours until they would be crowned with total success. This is the reason we read in Samuel I 15,30, after Saul's failure that "Israel's eternity will not be denied." The ultimate success does not depend on any particular leader of Israel who may or may not carry out G-d’s wishes wholeheartedly. (10) Although G-d commands Israel to wage this war of extermination against Amalek, He Himself will complete whatever has not been accomplished by Israel. This is also the meaning of Bileam's statement "Amalek is the first of the nations, therefore its end must be utter destruction." (Numbers 24,20.) When referring to "nations," Bileam means the first nation to rebel against G-d as a nation. Another reason may be that Amalek committed two wrongs 1) They disregarded the agreement made between their respective ancestors Jacob and Esau. 2) They attacked G-d’s chosen people at a particularly sensitive moment. In the words of the Midrash, Amalek put his hands on a scaldingly hot bathtub, meaning right after a clear demonstration of G-d’s power on behalf of Israel. Therefore, both G-d and Israel would share in the task of punishing Amalek. In Parshat Ki Teytze we read about Israel's part, whereas in Parshat Beshalach we read about G-d’s part. These two portions are complementary to one another. This brings us back to our opening Midrash. Once the Messiah will come, Israel will no longer display the usual human inadequacies, i.e. fulfilling G-d’s will only in part. At that time we will be granted G-d’s direct guidance, and will not have to be led by men, who, though G-d’s instruments, are chosen for their relative merit only. In those latter days the salvation will endure eternally, because intermediaries no longer need to be employed by G-d.