Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek/2

Shaul Loses the Kingship

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Kept Agag Alive

Shaul sinned in leaving Agag, the king of Amalek, alive.

Sources:Bavli YomaYoma 22bAbout the Bavli, Bavli MegillahMegillah 12b-13aAbout the Bavli, Yalkut ShimoniShemuel I 121About Yalkut Shimoni

Why leave Agag alive?

What was wrong with sparing Agag? R"Y Bin-Nun¹ questions why Shaul should deserve such a harsh punishment if this misdeed was easily corrected, especially in light of the fact that Shemuel does subsequently kill Agag.  These sources offer several possibilities:

• Shaul thought he was more just than Hashem – Bavli Yoma and Yalkut Shimoni blame Shaul for thinking that he could decide who needs to be punished or saved on his own, as if he were more merciful than Hashem. They contrast his mercy on his enemies here, with his extreme cruelty to the priests of Nov, demonstrating that Shaul's personal morals were not up to par.
• Consequences of deed – Bavli Megillah says that had Agag been killed immediately, Haman would have never been born,² suggesting that this was the problem.  However, there is no evidence in the text that anyone was conceived before Agag was killed by Shemuel.
• Not heeding Hashem's command – Alternatively, Shaul's sin was simply the fact that he did not heed Hashem's command. As Hashem had said to destroy all of Amalek, sparing even just one person violated the directive.  Kings must realize that they are subservient to a greater King and cannot simply do as they desire.

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – The text never says that the sparing of Agag was sinful, nor does Shemuel rebuke Shaul regarding this.  Instead, he repeatedly emphasizes the spoils that were taken (see vs. 14, 19, and 22-23). These sources could posit, as does Abarbanel, that Shemuel was actually unaware of the specifics of Shaul's sin and his harping on the sheep was simply a mistake. However, one would think that the text would correct the misconception.

"הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אֶת אֲגַג" – Though Shemuel's words do not emphasize that the sin was not killing Agag, the fact that Shemuel acts to correct that alone might support that he found it problematic.

"אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל י"י" – Shaul mentions that he brought Agag alive as a proof that he fulfilled Hashem's words, which would suggest he was not aware that this was a problem.³

Shaul vs. David

Did Not Consecrate the Spoils

Sources:RadakShemuel I 15:3Shemuel I 15:12Shemuel I 15:15Shemuel I 15:17Shemuel I 15:23About R. David Kimchi, RalbagShemuel I 15:6-23About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemuel I 14, Questions 2-4Shemuel I 15:1Shemuel I 15:14-15Shemuel I 15:23Shemuel I 15:26About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, BiurShemuel I 15:23About the Biur (Netivot HaShalom), MalbimShemuel I 15:4-5About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Purpose of the command:

• Ralbag and Abarbanel suggest this battle with Amalek was to take revenge on them for their attack on the way out of Egypt.  As such, they were commanded not to take spoils which would make it appear that the war was fought for personal gain and not as a revenge.
• Radak notes that the goal of the war was to eradicate the memory of Amalek ("תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק" - Devarim 25:19).  Thus, leaving over even just a horse would defeat the purpose since people would say, "this horse is from Amalek's spoils" thereby perpetuating Amalek's name.

Severity of Shaul's sin:

• Shaul did not accomplish the goal of the war – Ralbag and Abarbanel assert that by letting the nation take from the spoils Shaul proved that their purpose was to benefit and not to sanctify Hashem's name.
• Pride – Setting aside the spoils for Hashem would have proclaimed that the nation won the battle only due to Hashem's help.  By taking of the spoils Shaul intimated that they did not need Hashem.
• Lack of kingly qualities – Shaul should have stood up against the nation's request to save the sheep, telling them that it was against Hashem's will.  His inability to do so points to a weakness in leadership.

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – Shemuel's rebuke to Shaul focuses on the animals that he hears were left over, suggesting that this was the problematic aspect of Shaul's behavior. The text highlights this by using the same language when describing this action, "וְלֹא אָבוּ הַחֲרִימָם" as when presenting the original command: "וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ".

"הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אֶת אֲגַג" – Leaving over Agag was not particularly problematic since Shemuel was able to kill him easily.  In fact the prophet's (rather than Shaul's) killing of him might have even served as a further demonstration that the battle was ultimately won by Hashem and not Shaul.

"וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד" – Radak posits that Shaul was splitting up the spoils from the war at Carmel where Shemuel came to meet him.  Alternatively, Ralbag views Shaul more positively that he set a place to thank Hashem, and he moved to Gilgal because there the Children of Israel always gathered.

David's battle with Amalek – One may question this approach from David's action during his subsequent battle with Amalek.  There (chapter 30:20-31) the verses elaborate regarding the many spoils David took from Amalek and divided amongst his men.  David is not censured for the deed making it puzzling why Shaul deserved to lose the kingship for the very same action.⁴

Shaul vs. David

Did Not Fight All of Amalek

Shaul's battle was actually limited in scope and he only killed one group of Amalekites, leaving behind many whom he did not attack at all.

Sources:Hoil MosheShemuel I 15:3Shemuel I 15:5About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, R"Y Bin-Nun⁵

Severity of Shaul's sin: – According to this approach, Hashem is angry because a substantial portion of Amalekites were not killed. Shaul did not even come close to fulfilling Hashem's command.

"מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר" – This approach must reinterpret verse 7, from which it sounds as if Shaul fought Amalek in a comprehensive manner:

• According to Hoil Moshe, Shaul killed Amalek within the borders "מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר", but he only attacked the permanent dwellers who lived under the rule of Agag, leaving alive the nomadic majority.⁶ 
• Yoel Bin-Nun, in contrast, assumes that "מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר" describes the borders in which Amalek lived but not the area which Shaul attacked.⁷  Shaul fought in a much more limited area.

Evidence of surviving Amalakites – The fact that David fights against Amalekites in Shemuel I 30 serves as a proof that Shaul left over a significant number of Amalekites, and not just Agag.⁸

"וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד" – According to Hoil Moshe, after the initial battle against Agag, Shaul took a break, returning to Israel and the Carmel⁹ to set up a victory monument.  This is what allowed the rest of the Amalekites to flee.

"וּמֶה קוֹל הַצֹּאן הַזֶּה בְּאׇזְנָי"

• Hoil Moshe explains that Shaul did not sin in leaving over the animals, as he says "הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת דְּבַר יְהוָה".  He followed the commandment "וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" by leaving over the animals to sacrifice them to Hashem.¹⁰  However, this is not the sense one gets from the verses, where Shemuel repeatedly hints that this is a problem. 
• Yoel b.Nun suggests that Shemuel himself did not know what the specific sin was, only that Hashem was disappointed in Shaul, and he merely guessed that it related to the leftover cattle.

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל"

• Yoel b. Nun asserts that the desire to take from the spoils is what prevented Shaul from finishing the battle.¹¹

"הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אֶת אֲגַג" – Hoil Moshe understands that Shaul was planning on killing Agag.  He just brought him alive to brag about him in front of the nation.

Shaul vs. David

Comparison to battle of Yehoshua

¹ See his article, "משא אגג – חטא שאול בעמלק", Megadim 7 (1989): 49-63.

² The Bavli is based off the description of Haman in Meggilat Esther as "הָמָן בֶּן הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי" ‎(3:1).  The assumption is that Agag had relations in between his capture and being killed.

³ If not killing Agag was really the main sin, it would be the ultimate insolence to point to it as fulfilling Hashem's words.  On the other hand, one can explain that Shaul was simply ignorant of Hashem's intent.

⁴ One could answer that David was not yet the king officially, and did not get an explicit command to consecrate the spoils.

⁵ See article cited above.

⁶ He assumes that the Amalekites were composed of many individual groups, some of which were under the leadership of Agag, but many of whom were under the rule of others.  Shaul attacked the city-state of Agag, but left the others in peace.

⁷ According to him, the verse should read, "וַיַּךְ שָׁאוּל אֶת עֲמָלֵק [אשר גר] מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר".  To prove that his is where they lived, he quotes the parallel verse by David's battle with Amalek, "כִּי הֵנָּה יֹשְׁבוֹת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּרָה וְעַד אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" (Shemuel I 27:8) and notes that David, too, did not fight in that whole area, but he at least defeated them.

⁸ Others might explain that Amalek is simply a term used to denote nomadic tribes and not all were related to the Amalekites who attacked the Israelites in the Wilderness. As such, it is possible that the Amalekites whom David fought had not been included in the command.

⁹ Hoil Moshe asserts that this refers to a city in Yehuda and not the Carmel which is up North.

¹⁰ In Vayikra 27:28 it says "כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים הוּא לַי"י", and that it exactly what Shaul did.

¹¹ He contrasts Shaul here with his actions during the battle of Michmas where he had warned the people not to take from the booty so that they could finish the war..