In the book of Shemuel I (I Samuel) (Ch. 15), after Israel's war against Amalek, and King Shaul's failure to carry out HaShem's (G-d's) directive to obliterate that nation, Shaul is informed by Shemuel that HaShem has rejected him as king over Israel and will choose another to lead Israel as king. In
"How can I go (איך אלך)? Shaul will hear (that I am anointing another) and will kill me!"
Hashem's reply (v. 2-3): "Take a calf in your hand and say, 'I have come to offer sacrifice to HaShem!' Then you shall invite Yishay to the feast (וקראת לישי בזבח), and I will inform you of what to do, and you shall anoint for me the one whom I tell you."
In other words, Shemuel is afraid to carry out HaShem's command, so HaShem offers him a strategy to avoid exposure. He should go incognito, disguising his intent to anoint a king, pretending instead as though his intent is merely to bring a sacrifice. Meanwhile, he would find the one whom HaShem intended him to anoint (David, son of Yishay).
This raises a number of questions:
1. Why was Shemuel afraid to carry out HaShem's command? Where was his faith?
2. Why does HaShem need to offer Shemuel a strategy for survival? Why doesn't HaShem just bolster Shemuel's faith by saying, "Don't worry, Sam ol' boy, I've got you covered!" Can't HaShem protect Shemuel? Why the need for subterfuge?
3. Doesn't this plan seem a bit dishonest? Is HaShem instructing his prophet to engage in deceit in order to carry out His will? Are we not commanded to distance ourselves from falsehood (Shemoth 23:7)?
Let us examine the commentary of Rav David Kimchi (RaDaK) on this passage:
"We find that even when the Holy One issues a guarantee to the prophet or tzadik, he is careful not to enter a dangerous situation, as we saw regarding our forefather Yaakov, whom HaShem promised, when he traveled to Aram Naharayim, 'I shall return you to this land' (B'Reshith 28:15), and to whom an angel also appeared there and promised him, 'Return to the land of your fathers and to your birthplace and I will be with you,' (ibid 31:3) yet when he heard that Esav (Esau) came toward him, 'Yaakov greatly feared and was troubled' (ibid 32:8). David, too, who was anointed king by HaShem, fled from Shaul . . . In matters of war as well, they would devise strategies, even after a Divine guarantee [of success], as did Gidon with the pitchers and torches (Shophetim 7). Sometimes they would even design the strategies by Divine command as it is written in Yehoshua (Joshua), regarding the conquest of Yericho (
"The reason for this is that even though the Holy One enacts miracles and wonders for those who fear Him, these [miracles] are mostly according to the natural order. Therefore, according to the natural order, Yaakov should have feared Esav, and Shemuel [should have feared] Shaul if he would anoint a king in [Shaul]'s lifetime. It was therefore appropriate to seek a strategy with which to proceed. This was Shaul's question, "How shall I proceed?" [NOTE: In Hebrew, the phrase, "איך אלך?" literally means, "How (איך) I go (אלך)?" and can be translated, "How can I go?" as above, or, "How shall I proceed?" Our translation above implied a rhetorical question, "How can I go?" i.e. "It is impossible!" The Radak's translation, however, is inquisitive, "How shall I proceed?" Shemuel was not refusing HaShem's command; he was acknowledging it and requesting further instructions.]
"Our Sages learned from this verse that it is a mitzvah to lie for matters of peace. [NOTE: Although the typical understanding of this concept is that one may lie to avoid strife with another, this does not seem to be Radak's meaning here. In context of Radak's next words, he seems to refer to peace here not as peaceful relations per se, but as well-being. In other words, to preserve one's well-being, as here, when Shemuel's life was in danger, he was enjoined to lie.] For the Holy One told Shemuel, 'Take a calf in your hand,' showing him that it is not fitting for a man to enter a dangerous situation and rely on a miracle, as it states, 'Do not test (לא תנסון) HaShem your G-d' (Devarim 6:16). [NOTE: The Hebrew for "Do not test," is "לא תנסו;" the Hebrew words "test" (נסיון) and "miracle" (נס) share the same root. Therefore, the injunction, "Do not test HaShem your G-d," is understood as a prohibition against relying on a miracle, i.e. testing G-d to see if He will come through in a tight squeeze via some kind of open Divine intervention rather than making efforts through natural means to succeed.]"
Radak now offers an alternative explanation of this verse:
"There are those that explain that this is what HaShem answered [Shemuel, in response to his challenge of 'How can I go?']: 'I told you to go secretly [to anoint a new king], and you [of little faith] said, 'Shaul will hear and kill me!' Now I am telling you to go openly! Take a calf to sacrifice as a peace-offering on the day you anoint him king! (I.e. Make a public spectacle of the event!)' This is the meaning of that which He said, 'you shall call out to Yishay at the feast' [NOTE: The Hebrew, "וקראת לישי בזבח" can be translated as we did above, "you shall invite Yishay to the feast," but alternatively can be translated, "you shall call out to Yishay at the feast." This second translation is consistent with this new explanation that Shemuel was commanded to make a spectacle of the choosing of the new king.]: 'Go openly, and let us see who will kill you! (I.e. You will see that you have nothing to fear by obeying My command!)'"
Question to ponder: Is this second explanation a contradiction to the first? I mean, certainly it is a different explanation of the verse itself, but what of the philosophy underlying Radak's original explanation? Radak went to lengths to tell us that even in the fulfillment of HaShem's command, one is enjoined not to rely on miracles but to utilize natural means to achieve one's ends. Why is Shemuel suddenly criticized for not wanting to rely on a miracle and instead is himself enjoined to orchestrate a situation in which he will be in danger? According to this explanation, is one expected to rely on miracles in the fulfillment of HaShem's command? How can we reconcile such a contradiction?
You may take your time pondering this question. When you are satisfied, you may proceed to read my proposed solution and comment thereon.
Suggestion:
I believe there is no contradiction at all. The alternative explanations of the give-and-take between HaShem and Shemuel are determined by the aforementioned alternative translations of the words "איך אלך." If one translates the phrase as did the Radak, that Shemuel asked, "How shall I proceed?" then he showed no lack of faith in HaShem; he merely asked in what way HaShem wished that he would carry out His will. However, if one translates, "How can I go?" Shemuel was suggesting that what HaShem had commanded was impossible to fulfill. For this he is reprimanded, for nothing is beyond the abilities of HaShem! In fact, this explanation stressed that HaShem never initially commanded anything that was impossible even by natural means, and that the command was for Shemuel to go secretly, in order not to bring Shaul's attention to what he was doing, but after Shemuel is reticent to carry out HaShem's will even in this way, because of a seeming lack of faith, he is reprimanded. HaShem then tells Shemuel that he must carry out his mission in a way that will reverse his apparent lack of trust in HaShem. His orders now are to be as conspicuous as possible, and nevertheless to witness HaShem's protective hand, driving home the lesson that nothing is beyond HaShem's abilities. Even while this is generally not HaShem's way of doing things, here it was necessitated and justified in order to correct this shortcoming in Shemuel.
No comments:
Post a Comment