Myśl Żydowska do Kapłańska 20:6

The second premise is, that granted that kessem, enchantment is as far from real prophecy as right is from left, it still shares a common denominator with prophecy in that it is an attempt to divine events in the future. It had served such men as Bileam as a stepping stone towards reading the future. (Numbers 22,7, and other examples) The Torah testifies that after Bileam had employed these devices a number of times, he eventually dispensed with them, being confident that he was already on the right wave length without having to employ these gadgets as "tuning dials." At any rate, by means of nechashim and kessamim, he would be able to tune in to "G'ds transmission" This proves that these devices serve a useful function, are not entirely fraudulent. When we keep these two premises in mind, we will find that all the difficulties mentioned earlier are resolved quite easily. Accordingly, I feel that Saul's iniquity consisted in that though he knew that not having killed all the Amalekites, he had estranged himself from G'd, he had failed to humble himself and to do teshuvah, repentance. This is so especially, since he faced a hostile Philistine army of large dimensions. He should have prayed, fasted and repented until the gates of repentance would have been opened to him. No doubt, he would have succeeded. If even such hardened sinners as Achav (Kings 121) and Menashe king of Israel (Chronicles II,33,19) were given a reprieve and the latter was even restored to his throne, surely Saul's repentance would have been accepted. However, Saul, confident of his good standing, went to consult the urim vetumim. Failing to obtain a response, he expected word from a prophet. At least, he thought, he would receive a communication in a dream. He received neither, because he did not yet qualify for good news. His doom however, had not yet been decreed. Therefore, he did not receive any bad news either. It was still hoped in heaven that he would be penitent. In desperation then, and because he had run out of time, he resorted to the use of the kessem, in order to achieve contact with a prophetic message. Saul hoped that Samuel's spirit would have pity on his plight, and would communicate with him in a manner described in our first premise. When he said to his companions "seek me out a woman who communicates with ghosts, I will go to her and I will enquire through her," he deliberately refrained from saying that she would enquire on his behalf, but stated that he himself would enquire. The text in Chronicles I 10,13, confirms that the "asking of the ghost to enquire," refers to two different activities. The "asking" was for the purpose of facilitating the "enquiry." This explains why initially the woman felt she had been asked to commit a crime, whereas Saul knew she was not going to have a chance to commit a sin. He was therefore able to reassure her. The prophet never spoke to her, nor did she ask him anything. Saul had not said "ask the ghost on my behalf," but only "enchant" ' for me, which is merely a preliminary stage before actual necromancy. Since Saul knew that if he requested the appearance of the prophet Samuel, she would ridicule his request, he asked for "Samuel," without title. The name Samuel must have been borne by other men, not only the prophet. By prefacing his request simply by saying "make the person that I will tell you arise," he wanted to make her think that the person in question was of no particular significance. When he then asked for Samuel, it did not occur to the woman that he was referring to the prophet. The latter had been commonly referred to as "the Seer," "the Judge," or "the Prophet." She had assumed that some other Samuel was meant. This was so especially, since the woman was not aware that it was king Saul who made the request. Due to the woman's psychological readiness to see an apparition, she saw Samuel before Saul did. We find that even Bileam's ass saw the angel before Bileam himself did. (Numbers 22,23) The woman's consternation was due both to the unexpected appearance of the prophet Samuel, and to her sudden realisation that it had been the king in disguise who had commanded her to establish this contact. Who else could have had the nerve to request the prophet Samuel's presence in such a fashion? She now felt that the whole encounter had simply been designed to trap her. When she replied to Saul's question as to what she had seen, and said "G'd has arisen," she emphasized that what had occurred was not the usual type of necromancy. As stated previously, in necromancy the ghost does not arise, but only deep voices are heard from the earth. In order to eliminate any doubt, Saul questioned her about the appearance of the vision, and when she described Samuel's mode of attire, Saul knew that Samuel had indeed complied with his request. Under no circumstances is his appearance to be credited to the woman's activities. Saul explains that he had no other alternative anymore than to call on Samuel to guide him. Samuel's reply "what good is asking me, when G'd has departed from you and become your adversary," means "how can you expect good tidings under such circumstances?" Samuel proceeds to explain to Saul once more why G'd had turned away from him, namely because of his failure to take G'ds revenge on Amalek. He did not accuse him concerning the sin of consulting ov, since he assured Saul immediately afterwards of immediate entry into the world to come, on a footing comparable to his own. (Berachot 12) It is inconceivable that someone who knowingly resorts to consulting ov would rank equal to the prophet Samuel in the hereafter. The language used in the Torah to castigate people who consult and turn to ov is too unmistakable to allow for such sins to be forgiven. (Leviticus 20,6) The criticism of Saul expressed in Chronicles I 10,13, refers to the method Saul had chosen to establish communication with Samuel, not to the act of consulting ghosts. The reference in verse fourteen about his failure to seek out G'd, is to be understood as similar to the sin of King Assa, (Chronicles II 16,12) who is scored for not seeking out G'd, but relying on his doctors to heal him. The sin did not consist in calling in medical aid in the form of doctors, as pointed out in chapter twenty six. Samuel is quite correct when he says that Saul's fate was sealed on that day because of his sin with Amalek, even if it is true that if Saul had repented, his repentance would have been accepted. When a sick person dies, not having partaken of medication prescribed for him, we do not ascribe his death to the failure to take the medication, but we consider his illness the cause of his death. Here too, failure to seek out G'd is not the cause of death, but this merely failed to reverse the decree for the prior sin committed. Our Parshah decrees death for those who harbour ov and yidoni amongst them. (Leviticus 20,27.) The wording clearly absolves Saul and the woman from culpability, since all they had been involved in was the attempt to procure a departed prophet in the manner used to procure information from the dead. The woman had reportedly been the mother of Avner and Amassa, who had been leading Torah scholars and thoroughly familiar with what was forbidden and what was not. Saul could reassure the woman since he was accompanied by the senior members of the Supreme Court, Sanhedrin. (5) By means of its many injunctions, the Parshah points out that the way to holiness which leads from the many tum-ot, impurities and defilements one can become enmeshed in, is indeed lengthy; ergo the reminder in the beginning, in the middle, and again at the end, that our goal is holiness comparable to that of the Almighty. (2) Vayikra Rabbah 24, illuminates our Parshah by the following parable. A king who owned a wine cellar, appointed guards to protect same against theft. Some of these guards were notorious drunkards. Others were known to be total abstainers. When it came to paying these guards their wages, the king paid the drunkards twice as much as he paid the abstainers. To the latter's complaint that surely they had performed the same service as the drunkards and should therefore receive equal pay, the king pointed out that the drunkards had to fight twice as much temptation as had the abstainers when they were exposed to so much opportunity to drink. Therefore, when describing Heavenly beings, the expression kedushah holiness is used sparingly. Human beings, however, being comprised of both matter and spirit require a double dose of "holiness." We are therefore like the drunkards in the parable, steeped in our primal desires, pursued by the intoxicating wine of our passions. Concerning denial of intoxicating wine, the Torah enjoins us to sanctify ourselves. The second step is the one that leads to "you will become holy," i.e. to apply ourselves to guard the treasure, having practiced abstinence.

I have been induced to accept this theory by the circumstance that I have not met in any of the prophetical books with a description of God’s Providence otherwise than in relation to human beings. The prophets even express their surprise that God should take notice of man, who is too little and too unimportant to be worthy of the attention of the Creator: how, then, should other living creatures be considered as proper objects for Divine Providence! Comp. “What is man, that thou takest knowledge of him?” (Ps. 144:3); “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” (ibid. 8:8). It is clearly expressed in many Scriptural passages that God provides for all men, and controls all their deeds—e.g., “He fashioneth their hearts alike, he considereth all their works” (ibid. 33:15); “For thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men, to give every one according to his ways” (Jer. 32:19). Again: “For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings” (Job 32:21). In the Law there occur instances of the fact that men are governed by God, and that their actions are examined by him. Comp. “In the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them” (Exod. 32:34) “I will even appoint over you terror” (Lev. 26:16); “Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book” (Exod. 32:33); “The same soul will I destroy” (Lev. 23:30); “I will even set my face against that soul” (ibid. 20:6). There are many instances of this kind. All that is mentioned of the history of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a perfect proof that Divine Providence extends. to every man individually. But the condition of the individual beings of other living creatures is undoubtedly the same as has been stated by Aristotle. On that account it is allowed, even commanded, to kill animals; we are permitted to use them according to our pleasure. The view that other living beings are only governed by Divine Providence in the way described by Aristotle, is supported by the words of the Prophet Habakkuk. When he perceived the victories of Nebuchadnezzar, and saw the multitude of those slain by him, he said, “O God, it is as if men were abandoned, neglected, and unprotected like fish and like worms of the earth.” He thus shows that these classes are abandoned. This is expressed in the following passage: “And makest men as the fishes of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them. They take up all of them with the angle,” etc. (Hab. 1:14, 15). The prophet then declares that such is not the case; for the events referred to are not the result of abandonment, forsaking, and absence of Providence, but are intended as a punishment for the people, who well deserved all that befell them. He therefore says: “O Lord, Thou hast ordained them for judgment, and O mighty God, Thou hast established them for correction” (ibid. ver. 12).

Although blood was very unclean in the eyes of the Sabeans, they nevertheless partook of it, because they thought it was the food of the spirits; by eating it man has something in common with the spirits, which join him and tell him future events, according to the notion which people generally have of spirits. There were, however, people who objected to eating blood, as a thing naturally disliked by man; they killed a beast, received the blood in a vessel or in a pot, and ate of the flesh of that beast, whilst sitting round the blood. They imagined that in this manner the spirits would come to partake of the blood which was their food, whilst the idolaters were eating the flesh: that love, brotherhood, and friendship with the spirits were established, because they dined with the latter at one place and at the same time; that the spirits would appear to them in dreams, inform them of coming events, and be favourable to them. Such ideas people liked and accepted in those days; they were general, and their correctness was not doubted by any one of the common people. The Law, which is perfect in the eyes of those who know it, and seeks to cure mankind of these lasting diseases, forbade the eating of blood, and emphasized the prohibition exactly in the same terms as it emphasizes idolatry: “I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood” (Lev. 17:10). The same language is employed in reference to him “who giveth of his seed unto Molech”; “then I will set my face against that man” (ibid. 20:5). There is, besides idolatry and eating blood, no other sin in reference to which these words are used. For the eating of blood leads to a kind of idolatry, to the worship of spirits. Our Law declared the blood as pure, and made it the means of purifying other objects by its touch. “And thou shalt take of the blood . . . and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him. And he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons,” etc. (Exod. 29:21). Furthermore, the blood was sprinkled upon the altar, and in the whole service it was insisted upon pouring it out, and not upon collecting it. Comp. “And he shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar” (Lev. 4:18); “And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar of the Lord thy God” (Deut. 12:27). Also the blood of those beasts that were killed for common use, and not for sacrifices, must be poured out, “Thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water” (ibid. ver. 24). We are not allowed to gather and have a meal round the blood, “You shall not eat round the blood” (Lev. 19:26). As the Israelites were inclined to continue their rebellious conduct, to follow the doctrines in which they had been brought up, and which were then general, and to assemble round the blood in order to eat there and to meet the spirits, God forbade the Israelites to eat ordinary meat during their stay in the wilderness: they could only partake of the meat of peace-offerings. The reason of this precept is distinctly stated, viz., that the blood shall be poured out upon the altar, and the people do not assemble round about. Comp. “To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the Lord. . . . And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar, . . . and they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto the spirits” (Lev. 17:5-7).