Myśl Żydowska do Samuela I 13:14

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.

Bereshit Rabbah 29 states that Rabbi Shimon said, "G-d made three finds in this world. One is Abraham, ‘You have found his heart true before You’ (Nechemyah 9,8). The second one is David, ‘I have found My servant David.’ (Psalms 89,21). The third one is Israel, ‘Like grapes in the desert, I have found Israel’ (Hoseah 9,10).” Rabbi Shimon was questioned by his colleagues who asked, “Does not the Torah also mention Noach as having been a find of G-d, seeing it says "Noach found favor in the eyes of G-d?" (Genesis 6,8). Rabbi Shimon answered "Noach found, G-d did not find." Upon examination, you will find that the three finds represented three profound principles. Abraham primarily expounded the existence of G-d. David propounded the truth of the reward and punishment principle, composing many hymns on the subject. Israel propounded the Power of G-d, be it in Egypt or many subsequent historic events involving Israel. When the prophet describes the finding of Israel as like the finding of grapes in the desert, he draws attention to the unexpected nature of the find. The emergence of Israel was almost as if it had already been despaired of ever coming about. When it did finally happen, it was unexpected. Not so David, who emerged as the result of a diligent search for just such a person (Samuel I chapter 13). Abraham, on the other hand, was like the result one obtains after refining an orebody waiting for the precious metal to distil and crystallize in the crucible. The objection of Rabbi Shimon's colleagues was, "Did not Noach also demonstrate the Power and glory of G-d through the deluge and his being saved?" The answer was that this had not been G-d’s purpose when He saved Noach; in fact, there had been no one left to prove G-d’s Power to who had not already been aware of it though personal experience. When Israel appeared on the stage of history, however, G-d proclaims that He will demonstrate His Power by punishing Egypt for its treatment of Israel (Exodus chapters 7,9,10 and 14). All these quotes prove that Israel could have been saved by many other means, but that it served as a tool for G-d to demonstrate His Power through them. Since Abraham had become the founding father of this nation, it is only proper that he should be no less vis a vis Israel than Noach had been vis a vis the human race. Since G-d had made a covenant with Noach, promising to keep the human race going forever, G-d had to make a covenant with Abraham, promising to keep Israel going forever, and for Abraham to maintain his distinctive lifestyle and to transmit it to his descendants. G-d has granted man three faculties with which to achieve the level of perfection he is capable of achieving. 1) Willingness to listen to and absorb words of wisdom by those who teach him. 2) A basic intelligence characterized by his ability to communicate his thoughts by speech. 3) The ability to reason speculatively and to arrive at ideas not presented to him by outsiders in a finalized form. Unless man possesses all these three faculties, he cannot attain his purpose. When he does possess them, he is well equipped to advance towards his perfect state. Since man is inclined towards evil from his early youth, "for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth on" (Genesis 8,21), and this is an impediment to his achieving his goal, G-d in His great kindness equipped Abraham/Israel with a tool to counteract this impediment by legislating circumcision of the male on the eighth day of his life. Vayikra Rabbah 25 writes, “It says ‘at eight days old.’ Where does he have to be circumcised? If at the ear, he does not hear properly yet; if at the mouth, he does not speak yet; if at the heart, he cannot think yet. So where shall he be circiumcised? Clearly it must be from part of his body. Rabbi Tanchum remarked that since there is no foreskin which is exclusive to the female of the species, the foreskin referred to must be that of the male organ.” When viewed objectively, these questions posed in the Midrash can hardly be taken at face value, since all the other areas mentioned could have been subjected to a surgical procedure. However, since a surgical procedure of the mouth for instance, would also affect the ear's ability to hear and the heart's ability to understand, the effect of such surgery would have been self-defeating. The three organs are needed to be fully operative to help man achieve his goals. Moreover, unless the organ circumcised does itself benefit through that procedure, how can it hope to improve the function of the remaining organs? This is the reason that the Midrash which describes Abraham as a High Priest, could not conceive of the same person becoming a baal mum, physically defective. Such a defect would nullify his priestly status. All of this is true despite the fact that we have scriptural proof for also the other above mentioned organs being described as arel, uncircumcised. Since the male organ is also described as "the body's summit," the point at which all the body's forces coalesce, whoever touches that area is as if he had touched the whole body, the whole person. Whoever reduces its power is as if he had weakened the whole body. We observe that surgery in the face results in a loss of hairgrowth; frequently one's voice is affected also. Similarly, surgery on the male organ leaves its mark on the whole person. When the Talmud (Baba Batra 16) states, "Woe to the person whose children are female," the meaning is that it is shameful to have children who allow the physical to dominate them like women. Surgery on the male organ then inhibits the owner from being too preoccupied with his body, makes it easier for him to concentrate on the development of mind and soul. It is clear then why this mitzvah had to be given to Abraham prior to Isaac having been conceived.