Myśl Żydowska do Samuela I 16:2

Human achievement may me due to G-d’s personal intervention on our behalf known as hashgachah pertatit; it can also be due to favorable horoscopic constellations or environmental factors, commonly called hashgachah klallit; finally, it can be due to personal endurance, intelligence, energy, and skill. It is reasonable to assume that none of the factors listed account exclusively for the success or failure of our endeavors. Allowing that the Almighty's omnipotence allows Him to determine the outcome of all our endeavors, human intelligence and willpower would be utterly meaningless were they not to play a significant part in determining the success or failure of our endeavors. This statement is not, of course, intended to minimize the value of G-d’s contribution to the result of such endeavors. Although theologians claim that the Almighty can mislead the wise and impair their judgment to the point that they will act contrary to their original intentions, the same theologians do not deny that man possesses freedom of choice, without which the whole concept of reward or punishment for compliance or non compliance with G-d’s wishes would be meaningless. There are numerous instances when the Torah legislates an action designed to protect the life or property of a third party. Consider the example of the law to erect a protective fence around one's roof. The reason stated is that unless such a fence is erected, a fatal fall from such a roof would be considered as an act of bloodshed committed by the owner of the house in question. Obviously, mentioning the latter possibility assumes that there is a free choice of whether to comply with the legislation or not. If there were no choice, how could there be negative results for the owner or the victim if the owner had failed to erect the fence? But not every one walking around an unfenced roof will fall off it with fatal consequences. The ultimate result of the fate of such an individual then is the result of more than one of the factors we have listed (Deut. 22,8). Consider also that the Talmud when discussing the digging of a hole that an animal might fall into, does not hold the digger responsible if a human being had come to harm by reason of that hole. The reason is that human beings are expected to have their wits about them, are meant to use the intelligence they have been granted. We see clearly that human behavior is at least one of the criterion determining his ultimate fate. The nature of the legislation to erect a fence, then, is more of the "good advice" variety that the Talmud often refers to when citing Rabbinic strictures. On the other hand, we know from experience that even the most diligent endeavors of man to attain certain objectives, are often doomed to failure. The attempt by Joseph's brothers to thwart realization of his dreams by selling him to a caravan of Midianites travelling to Egypt, is just one such example. The Talmud (Niddah 60) elaborates on our theme, explaining that even if one follows all the advice concerning the acquisition of wisdom meticulously, the desired result may not be achieved unless such efforts are accompanied by an appeal to the One who grants wisdom, and by G-d’s positive response to such an appeal. Nevertheless, history is full of examples of brilliant men who were successful without turning to G-d for help; also, what point would there be in the selection of brilliant advisors to heads of states, if their advice would not have positive results? In Proverbs 22,29, Solomon tells us, "Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand in front of kings! (10,4) he will become poor who deals with a sick hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich." We must conclude then that success of human efforts is assured if the individual in question is also favored by astrological influences, mazzal and if due to his own merit he receives Divine guidance at the personal level. Philosophers agree that one must not base one's lifestyle on hope for success due to fortuitous circumstances. Lucky breaks cannot be depended on. The interplay of the four causes for success in worldly matters may be understood in the following manner. A person born under favorable conditions who also lives the life of the righteous, qualifies for hashgachah peratit and will therefore require relatively little personal exertion to achieve his objectives. "Man's steps are guided by the Lord, when the latter approves of his path" (Psalms 37,23). Conversely, should such a person lead the wrong kind of life, even the favorable conditions he was born under, will not altogether protect him, as G-d’s hand will prove more powerful than his natural good fortune and will thwart him despite his best efforts. See the example of Achitofel (Samuel II Chapter 7). To quote Isaiah 44,25, "He turns wise men backwards and makes their knowledge foolish." The same holds true, of course, if one's natural mazzal is only average or worse. If, however, one is endowed with average skills and intelligence, and one's actions are the outgrowth of one's own free will, such a person does not qualify for Divine intervention in his affairs. His successes in wordly matters are due in overwhelming measure to his own efforts or lack thereof. Any slackening of his efforts is apt to put his success in jeopardy. If such a person had been born under unfavorable conditions, his chances to succeed would be minimal indeed. If a person born under negative environmental, hereditary, and horoscopic influences lives a life of piety, then his efforts combined with the merit he has accumulated will qualify him for Divine intervention on his behalf, and enable him to neutralize the negative factors under which he had been born. Abraham overcame the negative mazzal of sterility (Psalm 33,18). "The eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him and wait patiently for His kindness to save them from death and to keep them alive during times of famine." In all these instances, personal effort and perseverance contribute the major part to eventual success. In fact, any negligence or laziness is rated as sinful when circumstances seem to have called for exertion of self (Deuteronomy 16,10, promising success in return for kind and generous behaviour towards the poor, does so on the assumption that one's efforts will be crowned with success). The Torah does not promise windfalls. Since the majority of people are of average or below average endowments, the need for them to exert themselves on their own behalf is beyond question, since their merit or natural mazzal cannot be depended upon. The advice given by the Torah is addressed precisely to this large group of people, who by following it can hope to battle adverse conditions successfully. Man's lack of success is called nefilah when it occurs independent of G-d’s intervention; it is called happalah when due to G-d’s active intervention in the affairs of that individual. Psalm 37,24 tells us, "Even though a man may fall, he shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholds his hand." When someone walks on a roof protected by a railing, this railing will prove a protection if the Lord had not intended for that person to fall off that roof. However, if the Lord had intended for that person to fall off that roof, the best railing in the world cannot save him. Sometimes, two people born under identical circumstances can have a widely different range of success due to their different merits (The Talmud Moed Katan 28 discusses this problem in connection with Rav Chisdah and Rabbah). Many fine distinctions apply in ascertaining the relative success of individuals in apparently similar circumstances. Suffice it to say that it behooves a person to view himself at all times as average in deeds (merits) and as below average in natural endowments. This will give him the incentive to acquire merits and to strive to overcome handicaps. In all matters of "worldly affairs," we have to make the first move, and the Lord has to assist us to assure us of success in carrying out our designs. Our prayers must be directed towards obtaining His help to overcome our respective handicaps. Should one fail to succeed in spite of having complied with all the above, the cause may be heavenly judgment acting as punishment. It could be trials to test our faith in Him. It could also be an affliction designed to enhance the ultimate achievement of our aims in our own eyes when it does finally occur. If one gives up prematurely in the face of obstacles, and does not strive mightily to overcome such impediments, the chances are that one is the architect of one's own misfortune and that such failure had not been decreed by G-d at all. Suppose we had been given the choice between immediate execution or life imprisonment, without time off for good behavior, we would certainly refuse to acquiesce in either alternative. We would make strenuous efforts to escape either of these two calamities. We would leave no stone unturned as long as the efforts to improve our own situation would not be at the expense of some innocent third party. Similarly, our own efforts to escape misfortune must be pursued up to the point where continued insistence would constitute rebellion against G-d. If pestilence rages in a city, one does not stay around, but one isolates oneself (Baba Kama 60). One employs every known medication to ward off infection. Should all efforts have failed and one appears doomed, one must declare one's faith in the justice of the Lord, reconcile oneself to His superior wisdom, and prepare to meet one's judgment. Although Ramban disagrees with the approach we have outlined in the case of the need to call a doctor, he would not disagree with the approach outlined in other areas of life (Ramban holds that whereas a doctor may treat the sick, the sick must not ask to be treated, as this would indicate lack of faith in G-d as the ultimate Healer). When G-d sent Samuel to anoint David, who had a price on his head, Samuel had to expose himself to danger, in order to perform this mission. G-d did not expect Samuel to rely on miracles, but told him to use subterfuge in the shape of a calf, so that if intercepted, he could claim to be on the way to Bethlehem to offer the calf as a sacrifice. G-d instructs, "During the meal, you will proceed according to My instructions" (Samuel I 15,1 -6). King Assa's reliance on a doctor is criticized only because it had not been preceded by prayer, not because the patient had no right to consult doctors (Chronicles II 16,12). One of the best examples of the extent to which one has to go to ensure one's survival, is found in Samuel I 21,14, when David, while at the court of Achish, deliberately acts like a demented halfwit to mollify those of Achish's advisors who did not trust his loyalty. When David recalls that episode in Psalm 34, he credits G-d with helping him, though when reading the account of this event it seems wholly due to David's own initiative. His problem had been that he had to choose between actively fighting against his own people to prove his loyalty to the Philistines and to qualify for refuge from Saul in Cat, or to forfeit his life by refusing to join an attack against his own people. In this unusual situation, a course of inaction coupled with an appeal to G-d seemed the only way out. The classic example for proper conduct is found in the account of the encounter between Jacob and Esau. Since Jacob's delegation to Esau had been prompted by fear, and some of our sages even castigate Jacob for having "taken hold of the dog's ear" (Bereshit Rabbah 75), we must ask why G-d did not take Jacob aside and say to him "do not be afraid, I will be your shield," as He had done for Abraham after the latter had returned from defeating Kedorleomer and liberating Lot (Genesis Chapter 15). Similarly, G-d had told Isaac not to go to Egypt, to rely on Him. Even Jacob himself, before setting out on his last journey to Egypt, had been personally reassured by G-d. No doubt, the impending encounter with Esau called for more reassurance than any of the other examples mentioned. So why was this reassurance not forthcoming?

(1) All the Jews in Egypt at that time were descended from only twelve ancestors; at the time they arrived in Egypt they numbered seventy. Now that Joseph and his brothers had died, they started multiplying at such a rate that they posed a physical problem for the Egyptians due to their prowess. (2) To prevent the Jews from also outnumbering the Egyptians, called for the combined wisdom and talents of the whole nation. They hoped to compensate for their numerical inferiority, or at least for their physical inferiority at that stage, by superior intelligence. The original intent of the Egyptians may have been to enslave the Jews permanently and sell them on the slave markets to foreign countries. It seems that Egypt was exporting horses in this manner (at least female horses). (3) They were afraid that if war broke out, the additional burden of keeping a hostile population under control inside the country would prove to be too much for them. To fight invaders at the same time might be more than they could handle. As a result, the Jews might take advantage of that situation to escape their owners by emigrating. They might even join the enemy by acting as a fifth column inside the country and revolt. Therefore, they planned to assign demeaning work to the Jews, and to aquire them as physical slaves only gradually. The cities to be built by Jewish labor were well fortified border towns positioned at opposite ends of the country to ward off invaders. However, the Jews, loyal by nature, far from feeling humiliated, reinforced their efforts to procreate and provide manpower against possible enemies of Egypt. The Egyptians now felt so frustrated that the Jews appeared a thorn in their sides wherever they turned, i.e. vayakutzu (1,12). They proceeded to re-evaluate their policy and employed the Jews both for building and for work in the fields. They made sure that all work performed was under constantly tense conditions. After that they decided to reduce the male Jewish population by "accidentally" killing boys, but at the same time making sure that a good supply of female slaves would be raised from them. They did not fear that female slaves would revolt or join potential enemies. (5) They were again frustrated in their efforts when the midwives turned out to be G-d-fearing, shunning participation in child murder. These midwives, though G-d-fearing, did not want to contravene the king's order either, a perfectly legitimate desire, as demonstrated by the prophet Samuel when the latter questioned G-d’s orders which endangered his life (Samuel I 16,2). The midwives ignored the part of the orders dealing with murder, but concentrated on giving post natal care, something that did not contradict the instructions they hade received. The Torah therefore first describes what the midwives did not do, and subsequently tells us what they did do. The king, unaware of the technical innocence of the midwives, accused them of helping the babies to be born alive. The widwives in their defence made the point that the Jewish women usually had already given birth by the time a midwife arrived on the scene, and that therefore they had not had a chance to carry out the king's instructions. As a result, the only thing left for them to do once they had arrived at the home of a Jewish mother without arousing suspicion, was to administer post-natal care. Of course, this was something the king did not want. "G-d was good to the midwives," i.e. Pharaoh accepted their defense, and the people kept on increasing, again thwarting the plans of the Egyptians. Even normal baby mortality or deformity did not occur, in order that it could not be blamed on the activities of the midwives. "He made houses for them," may well refer to Pharaoh. (1,21.) He made sure the midwives would live in places whence their coming and going could be observed, so that if a newborn baby boy was found by those trailing the midwives, it could be drowned. In other words, instead of unobtrusive killing at birth, things had now reached a stage where open murder was the Egyptians' only recourse. (6) The anonymity implied in the formation of the decree "every son," was to create the fiction that not only Jewish babies were to be drowned but all baby boys. This would keep the Jews from thinking that the law was discriminatory. By this stratagem, Jews would not be encouraged to practice continence and thereby deprive the Egyptians of a supply of female slaves. (7) It is normal for any man who wants to get married to choose a partner who is socially his equal or his inferior. In this case, a distant descendant of Levi married a direct descendant of Levi, i.e. the husband's social position would be inferior to that of his wife. The unusual nature of this match deserved mentioning. Since Amram had not attained the position of leadership until his children had reached the status of being prophets, he is not yet mentioned by name. This view is supported by the fact that when his wife was engaged by the daughter of Pharaoh to nurse the baby Moses, she is also treated as an anonymous lady, her status not yet having become public knowledge amongst the Egyptians. (8) The fact that the Torah states that Yocheved described Moses as "good," proves that he was born prematurely. Other Jewish mothers giving birth to babies after full pregnancies would consider such babies as "doomed" rather than as "good." It is the very fact that Moses seemed perfectly normal and healthy, in spite of being premature, that gave rise to the plan to hide him, something that could be done with relative safety until the end of the ninth month of Yocheved's pregnancy. During those three months, Yocheved dressed as if she were still pregnant, thus allaying any suspicions. After that, either because of suspicious neighbors or the increasingly loud voice of the baby, such stratagems could no longer be applied successfully. Yocheved hid Moses in exactly the place where Egyptian child murderers would normally cast out the babies they had murdered. Perhaps Yocheved felt that if a special fate was in store for her baby, this exposure might trigger the events leading to such a special fate. This is the reason Moses’ss sister stood nearby waiting to see what would happen. The Midrash suggests that placing the potential savior of Israel in the Nile, would mislead Egyptian astrologers into concluding that the dreaded danger to Egypt had already passed, and that therefore the decree concerning indiscriminate child murder could be revoked (Midrash Rabbah). (9) The fact that the princess's attendants walked elsewhere along the river, explains why the princess herself who was accompanied only by a single attendant sworn to loyalty, did not need to fear that her act of mercy would be reported. It was this fact that enabled Moses’ss sister to approach and suggest that the princess might wish to employ a Jewish nurse to tend the baby. Because of the decree, and the probable search if she would be seen bringing home a baby, the princess agreed to have the baby raised amongst his own people, initially. (4) When the child was eventually brought to Pharaoh's palace, the decree against baby boys had already been lifted. Moreover, we see the marvellous ways of the Lord, who arranges for the arch enemy of the Jewish people to raise their savior in his very own palace. (10) The Egyptian whom Moses slew was one who used to strike his Jewish victim habitually, and Moses had awaited an opportunity to find him when no other witnesses were present. That is why he looked in all directions. The fact that unbeknown to him someone did see his deed, was what caused his surprise on the following day. Moses’s deed was one of the qualifications that fitted him for a role of leadership amongst his people. The second such qualification was his urge to see that social justice should prevail. This is why he involved himself in the quarrel between Jews on the morrow of his having slain the Egyptian thug. (11) Permission to kill a pursuer in self defense is contingent upon such pursuer not having killed his intended victim as yet. Once an act of murder had already been committed, the regular procedure involving a trial of the murderer has to be followed. The rasha, wicked person, believed that Moses’s use of the words "Why are you going to kill your fellowman?" was designed to give Moses the pretext to kill him as a rodeph, pursuer. He therefore said, "Are you saying this in order to establish a right to kill me?" (2,14). The reason for Moses’s fear was either that he had been unaware that the killing of the Egyptian had been witnessed, or that his real identity of being a Jew rather than an Egyptian prince had become known. Either way the "so the matter has indeed become known," does not need aggadic interpretation. (12) The daughters of Yitro may have been in the habit of watering their flocks before the arrival of the male shepherds for reasons of modesty, so as not to have to spend long hours in the company of the male shepherds. The latter misinterpreted the motivation of those girls, thinking they wanted to demonstrate their superior social position as daughters of the presiding priest and claim special privileges. Therefore, on that particular day, the male shepherds decided not to acknowledge such privileged status of Yitro's daughters. They did this by using water drawn by the girls to water their own flocks, rather than the flock of Yitro. Moses assisted the girls on that day, and explained to the male shepherds the true motivation of the girls, thus restoring a harmonious relationship. This was evidence of a third qualification of Moses as a leader. He stepped into the breach when he observed injustice being perpetrated on the weak and downtrodden. (13) The first son was not called "Eliezer," signifying that G-d had saved him from his pursuers, since at the time his pursuers were still very much alive and had not abandoned their efforts to apprehend Moses. On the contrary, Moses wanted to indicate that the fact that he lived in a country other than his birthplace was quite involuntary. The letters in the name "Gershom" when re-arranged spell megurash, expelled. Before Moses’s return to Egypt, when G-d had told him that all those who had wanted to kill him had died (4,19), he called his second son, born around that time, Eliezer, to acknowledge gratefully that events had taken such a favorable turn.

This is why you will find Shmuel say (to G-d) "And Shmuel said, "How shall I go? For, if Saul hears, he will kill me." And the L-ord said, "You shall take a heifer with you, and you shall say, 'I have come to slaughter (a sacrifice) to the L-ord.'" (Shmuel I 16:2). And this was not considered a lack of trust in the Al-mighty, and the answer from G-d to him shows that his zeal in this was appropriate (since G-d does not do public miracles without great necessity - TL), and He answered him "You shall take a heifer with you, and you shall say, 'I have come to bring an offering to the L-ord.'" (Shmuel I 16:2), and if this were considered a lack of trust G-d would have answered him "I cause death and grant life. I strike, and I heal" (Devarim 32:39), or something similar, as He answered Moshe when Moshe claimed "But I am slow of speech and slow of tongue" (Shmos 4:10), answering him "Who has made a man's mouth? Who makes a man mute or deaf, seeing or blind". And if Shmuel, with his perfect righteousness did not find it a light matter to put himself to a slight risk of danger, and even though he would be doing so by the command of G-d, as He commanded him "Fill your horn with oil, and go, I shall send you to Jesse, the Bethlehemite, for I have seen for Myself a king among his sons" (Shmuel I 16:1), all the more so for someone not commanded by G-d, that this would be considered reprehensible.