Midrash sur Samuel 1 3:14

(Deut. 16:18:) “[You shall appoint] judges and law officers.” This text is related (to Ps. 147:19), “He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel.” “His words” are the words of Torah; “His statutes” are the expositions (midrsahot); “and His ordinances” are the judgments [to Israel]. The Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah and the judgments to no one but to Israel alone. And where is it shown? You learn that when Israel and a star-worshiping gentile have a dispute with each other, it is forbidden for Israel to say to the gentile, “Go with me to your courts,”¹Arka’ot; cf. Gk.: archai (“authorities”) or [archeia (“town offices”). because he would be transgressing a prohibition, since it is stated (in Ps. 147:20), “He has not done so for any nation (goy); and, as for His ordinances, they have not known them.” But were not the peoples of the world commanded concerning litigations, since that is one of the seven commandments of the Children of Noah? So what is the significance of (ibid.), “and, as for His ordinances, they have not known them?” These are the fine points of the law (din). As so have we taught (in Sanh. 5:2), “There was once a case that Ben Zakkay cross-examined [witnesses] about fig stems.”²The gemara (Sanh. 41a) explains that a capital offense was involved. Now the Children of Noah are put to death on the evidence of a single witness, with a single judge, and without a warning. [Whereas that is] something which does not exist in Israel, since there are three judges in property cases, and there are twenty-three judges in capital cases.³Sanh. 4:1. Moreover, it is written (in Deut. 19:15), “A single witness shall not be valid against a person….” So there must be an investigation and an inquiry. How do they examine the witnesses? They bring them in and solemnly forewarn them. Then they would examine them again with seven inquiries:⁴Sanh. 5:1. 1. In what week?⁵I.e., week of years, Sabbatical year of the Jubilee cycle. 2. In what year? 3. In what month? 4. On what [day] of the month? 5. In what hour? 6. In what place? 7. Did you forewarn him?⁶This last query is one of various supplemental questions listed in Sanh. 5:1. This is as we say in Tractate Sanhedrin. And so you find among the leaders⁷Parnas. Cf. Gk.: pronoi (“prudent ones”, “those who take forethought”). of Israel that they were praised only for their judging.⁸I.e., in various summary statements about Israel’s leaders, e.g., Judges 4:4; 10:2, 3; 12:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14; 15:20; 16:31; I Sam. 4:18; 7:6, 15–17; 8:1, 5–6, 20; I Kings 3:9, it is the fact that they judged Israel that is specifically mentioned. This fact may not always be obvious in modern translations, because they do not always render Shpt as “judge” but by other English verbs, such as “govern” or “rule.” It is written concerning Samuel (in I Sam. 7:6), “And he went on a circuit year by year to Bethel, [Gilgal, and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all those places].” And David also was praised only for his judging, as stated (in I Chron. 18:14 // II Sam. 8:15), “And David reigned over all of Israel and he administered judgment and righteousness to all his people.” And in the case of Jehoshaphat also, when he was installed in the kingship, he did not occupy himself with the business of kingship nor with honor but with the business of judging.⁹Note that Jehoshaphat’s name means, “The LORD has judged.” It is so stated (in II Chron. 17:1), “Then [his son] Jehoshaphat reigned [in his stead,] and he strengthened himself over Israel.” What is the meaning of “and he strengthened himself (rt.: hzq)?” That he strengthened himself, when he appointed judges. It also says (in II Chron. 17:6), “His heart was exalted in the ways of the Lord, and in addition he removed the high places and asherim from Judah.” Was there a haughty spirit within him, in that it says, “his heart was exalted?” It is simply that he had appointed judges over them who knew how to walk in the ways of the Lord, as stated (in Gen. 18:19), “and to keep the way of the Lord, to do what is just and right.” (II Chron. 19:6:) “Then he said unto the judges,” (in Deut. 1:17), “As justice belongs to God.” Now if Moses our master, who was not commanded concerning judges,—rather Jethro told him (in Exod. 18:21), “And you shall seek out [able men] from among all the people…,” — [if he] convened a Sanhedrin;¹⁰Gk.: synedrion. how much more [important is a Sanhedrin] in our case, when it has been commanded here in the Torah (in Deut. 16:18), “You shall appoint judges and law officers for yourselves.” Where is it shown that Moses convened a Sanhedrin? Where it is stated (in Exod. 18:25), “So Moses chose able men from all Israel [and appointed them as heads over the people].” And Jerusalem also was praised only because of the justice system, as stated (in Ezek. 16:14), “And your name shall be spread among the gentiles because of your beauty, [as you were crowned with adornment (rt.: hdr)].” And what adornment (rt.: hdr) is that? This is the justice system, since it is stated (in Exod. 23:3), “Nor shall you favor (rt.: hdr) someone poor in his lawsuit.” And Jerusalem was destroyed only over perversion of justice, since it is stated (in Ezek. 22:5), “you with a besmirched name; you who are full of commotion,” the name for justice that you had at first is besmirched. It is also written (in Is. 1:21), “she (i.e., Jerusalem) was full of justice, there righteousness dwelt; but now murderers.” Because “she was full of justice, there righteousness dwelt.” For this reason, Jeremiah said to them (in Lam. 4:12-13), “The kings of the earth did not believe, [… that foe or enemy would come through the gates of Jerusalem]. It was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests [who shed the blood of the righteous in her midst].” At that time the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that He Himself would exact retribution from the judges, as stated (in Is. 1:24), “Therefore thus says the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the Most Mighty of Israel, [‘Ah, I will exact vengeance from my foes]….’” Now “therefore” can only be a term [related to] an oath, since it is stated (in I Sam. 3:14), “And I therefore swear to the house of Eli.” Moreover, mighty can only be a term for the av bet din (head of the court), since it is stated (in I Sam. 21:8), “the most mighty of the shepherds [that belong to Saul].” [This is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, became an av bet din in order to exact vengeance from them. And where is it shown that the text is speaking about judges? See what is written after it (in Is. 1:26), “And I will restore your judges as in the beginning.” Therefore David has said (in Ps. 147:19), “He declares His words to Jacob, [His statutes and His ordinances to Israel].”

R. Jochanan said: "Repentance, is a great thing, for it tears (cancels) the [evil] decree against man; as it is said (Isa. 6, 10) Obdurate will remain the heart of this people, … nor hear with their ears, nor understand with their hearts, so that they repent and be healed." R. Papa asked Abayi: "Perhaps these last words have reference only to the time before the [evil] decree has been pronounced?" "It is written," replied the latter, "so that they repented and be healed. Which [is the state of a] thing [that] requires healing? I can only say that such on which judgment had already been pronounced." An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: He who repents during the interval [between New Year's Day and the Day of Atonement] is forgiven, but if he does not repent, even though he offered all the rams of Nebayoth (the best), he will not be forgiven. [Hence no judgment is canceled after it had been decreed.] This is not difficult to explain; the latter case refers to [the sins] of an individual, and the former refers to [those of] a community. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: (Deut. 11, 12) The eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it, from the beginning, etc. In some instances the purpose is good, and sometimes it is harmful. How can this be explained? For instance, if Israel on the New Year [when judgment is passed] were found to be grossly wicked, it was decreed as punishment that very little rain fall for them; nevertheless, they later repented. What could be done in such case? The quantity of rain cannot be increased since the decree had already been issued by the Holy One, praised be He! therefore, He causeth the rain to come down at the proper time, whenever it is necessary for the sole benefit of the earth. As for the purpose to do harm. Suppose Israel was found to be perfectly righteous on the New Year; then sufficient rain was decreed them; but if in the end, they sinned, what could be done in such instance? The rain cannot be diminished, since plentiful rain had bean decreed previously. The Holy One, praised be He! however, causeth the rain to come not in the proper season, or on land where rain is not necessary. Now, [according to your opinion that for a community a decree might be changed], then why not annul the former decree, and have the amount of rain increased to its necessary amount? This here case is different, because it is possible to get along with a little amount of rain. Come, listen, from the following (Ps. 107, 23-28) They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters, these saw the works of the Lord … for He commanded, and raised the stormy wind, … they reeled to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, … then they cry unto the Lord in their trouble, and He brought them out of their distresses; oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, etc. The Holy One, praised be He! here inserted words [to intimate limitations] like Achin or Rakin to indicate that if they cried [for mercy] before the decree was pronounced only then would they be answered; but if after [the decree], they are not answered. [Hence this statement contradicts the former?] Nay, for those on a ship are also considered as individuals. Come, listen. The proselyte Beluria asked Rabban Gamaliel: "It is written in your Torah (Deut. 17) The Lord who forgiveth no persons and taketh no bribe; and it is also written (Num. 6, 26) May the Lord forgive thee." R. Jose, the priest, attended her (Beluria) and said: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this [your question] be likened? Unto one [a borrower] who lent money from his neighbor, set a time for its repayment in the presence of the king, and swore by the king's life [to repay it on time]. The time arrived, but he did not pay; and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him: 'I can forgive you only the offence against me, but I cannot forgive you the offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.' So also here; in the one place it refers to sins committed by a man against his associate, but in the other it refers to sins committed by a man against the Lord." But when R. Akiba came he explained (Fol. 18) that one passage refers to the time before judgment is rendered, and the other to the time after. [Hence after judgment is rendered no chance is left for reversal of sentence]. Here also refers to an individual judgment. However, as to the sentence pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ; for we are taught in a Baraitha: "R. Meir used to say, of two men who fall sick of the same illness, or two who enter a tribunal [for judgment] on similar charges, one may recover, the other may not; one may be acquitted, the other may be condemned. Why should one recover and the other not; and why should one be acquitted but the other condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed but was not answered. Why should one be answered while the other is not? The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered." But R. Eliezer said: "Because one prayed before the decree was pronounced and the other after the decree was pronounced." R. Isaac said: "Prayer is helpful to man after, as well as before, the decree has been pronounced." And an evil decree pronounced against a congregation you say, is subject to canceling [through prayer]? Behold, it is written (Jer. 4, 14) O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc.; and it is also written (Ib 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before Me. Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer [to the time] after the decree has been pronounced. There is no contradiction, for in the latter case it refers to a sentence pronounced with an oath, and in the former case it refers to a sentence pronounced without an oath. As R. Samuel b. Ami, and according to others R. Samuel b. Nachmen, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that a sentence, pronounced with an oath, cannot be annulled? From the following (I Sam. 3, 14) Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not he expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever." Raba, however, said: "This means that through sacrifices merely their sin cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law it may be"; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law, and by deeds of loving kindness, it can"; for he and Rabba [his teacher] were both descendants of the house of Eli [who were sentenced, as above; yet] Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis were taught that there was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Jochanan b. Zakkai of their trouble. "Perhaps," said he, "you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said (I Sam. 2, 33) All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age? Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they did live; and they were called after his name, the family if Jochanan.

Come, listen. The proselyte Beluria asked Rabban Gamaliel: "It is written in your Torah (Deut. 17) The Lord who forgiveth no persons and taketh no bribe; and it is also written (Num. 6, 26) May the Lord forgive thee." R. Jose, the priest, attended her (Beluria) and said: "I will tell thee a parable. To what may this [your question] be likened? Unto one [a borrower] who lent money from his neighbor, set a time for its repayment in the presence of the king, and swore by the king's life [to repay it on time]. The time arrived, but he did not pay; and he came to appease the king. Said the king to him: 'I can forgive you only the offence against me, but I cannot forgive you the offence against your neighbor; go and ask him to forgive you.' So also here; in the one place it refers to sins committed by a man against his associate, but in the other it refers to sins committed by a man against the Lord." But when R. Akiba came he explained (Fol. 18) that one passage refers to the time before judgment is rendered, and the other to the time after. [Hence after judgment is rendered no chance is left for reversal of sentence]. Here also refers to an individual judgment. However, as to the sentence pronounced against an individual, the Tanaim differ; for we are taught in a Baraitha: "R. Meir used to say, of two men who fall sick of the same illness, or two who enter a tribunal [for judgment] on similar charges, one may recover, the other may not; one may be acquitted, the other may be condemned. Why should one recover and the other not; and why should one be acquitted but the other condemned? Because the one prayed and was answered, and the other prayed but was not answered. Why should one be answered while the other is not? The one prayed devoutly and was answered, the other did not pray devoutly and therefore was not answered." But R. Eliezer said: "Because one prayed before the decree was pronounced and the other after the decree was pronounced." R. Isaac said: "Prayer is helpful to man after, as well as before, the decree has been pronounced." And an evil decree pronounced against a congregation you say, is subject to canceling [through prayer]? Behold, it is written (Jer. 4, 14) O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, etc.; and it is also written (Ib 2, 22) For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet would the stain of thine iniquity remain before Me. Shall we not say in the one case it means before, and in the other after the sentence has been pronounced? Nay, both refer [to the time] after the decree has been pronounced. There is no contradiction, for in the latter case it refers to a sentence pronounced with an oath, and in the former case it refers to a sentence pronounced without an oath. As R. Samuel b. Ami, and according to others R. Samuel b. Nachmen, said in the name of R. Jochanan: "Whence do we know that a sentence, pronounced with an oath, cannot be annulled? From the following (I Sam. 3, 14) Therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not he expiated with sacrifice nor offering for ever." Raba, however, said: "This means that through sacrifices merely their sin cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law it may be"; and Abayi said: With sacrifice and offering it cannot be expiated, but by [the study of] the Law, and by deeds of loving kindness, it can"; for he and Rabba [his teacher] were both descendants of the house of Eli [who were sentenced, as above; yet] Rabba, who only studied the Law, lived forty years, but Abayi, who both studied the Torah and performed acts of benevolence, lived sixty years. Our Rabbis were taught that there was a certain family in Jerusalem whose members died at eighteen years of age. They came and informed R. Jochanan b. Zakkai of their trouble. "Perhaps," said he, "you are descendants of Eli, of whom it is said (I Sam. 2, 33) All the increase of thy house shall die in the flower of their age? Go, then, study the Law, and live." They went and studied, and they did live; and they were called after his name, the family if Jochanan.