Pensiero Ebraico su Salmi 30:1

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.