Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek/2

Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators disagree regarding which of Shaul's actions during the war with Amalek led to his loss of kingship. Ralbag and others focus on his disobedience in keeping the booty and not killing Agag, seeing in this a religious sin against Hashem. Shaul's deeds portrayed a lack of awareness that despite his role as king, he was still subservient to Hashem.  The Hoil Moshe, in contrast, suggests that Shaul's sinned in the military realm. He paused in the midst o battle, allowing a significant portion of the Amalekites to escape. Thus, he did not even come close to fulfilling the edict to obliterate Amalek in their entirety.  Finally, R. Yosef Albo claims that Shaul's failure was a political one. Throughout the battle he showed a lack of leadership and ability to guide the nation.

Religious Sin

Shaul's failure in the Battle of Amalek was religious in nature.  His actions betrayed a problem in his relationship to Hashem.

Sources:Bavli YomaYoma 22bAbout the Bavli, Yalkut ShimoniShemuel I 121About Yalkut Shimoni, 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

What was problematic? Most of these sources suggest that in taking from the spoils of battle, Shaul demonstrated that he viewed himself as above Hashem, but they vary in the details:

• Shaul thought he knew better 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.¹ 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.²
• No recognition of Hashem's role – 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 animals Shaul intimated that the nation did not need Hashem, and that he was the true victor. He sinned in thinking "כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת הַחַיִל הַזֶּה".‎³‎
• 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 or a few sheep violated the directive.⁴ Kings must realize that they are subservient to a greater King and cannot simply do as they desire.
• No sanctification of Hashem – Finally, Ralbag and Abarbanel claim that by taking of the spoils war, Shaul made it appear that the battle was fought for conquest and gain rather than to avenge Amalek's attack on Israel.  As such, he failed to sanctify Hashem's name.

Severity of the punishment – Shaul betrayed a crucial flaw in his kingship, the lack of recognition that an Israelite king, despite his power, is still subservient to Hashem's will and succeeds only due to Hashem's help  As such, he deserved to lose his position.

"וּמֶה קוֹל הַצֹּאן הַזֶּה בְּאׇזְנָי" – Shemuel's rebuke to Shaul focuses on the animals because that was the most 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".

Other examples of prohibited booty

• Yericho – It is possible that the ban on taking from the spoils of Yericho (Yehoshua 6:17-18) was also meant to show that Hashem was behind the victory.  It is for that reason that Akhan (like Shaul) was punished so severely when he transgressed the command.
• Esther – Ralbag asserts that the people did not take from the spoils of battle in the time of Mordechai and Esther (Esther 9:15-16) because they, too, fought against Amalek, and (unlike Shaul) made sure to declare that the war was not fought for personal gain but out of revenge against Hashem's enemy.

Comparison to David's war with Amalek – One may question this approach from David's behavior during his battle with Amalek (Shemuel I 30).  There, the verses elaborate regarding the many spoils David took from Amalek and divided among his men.  David is not censured for the deed making it puzzling why Shaul deserved to lose the kingship for the very same action.  These sources might reply that at that point David was not yet the official king and, moreover, he had not received an explicit command to consecrate the spoils.

Not killing Agag – Leaving Agag alive was another manifestation of Shaul's problematic attitude. Shaul thought that he, as king, could decide who was to live or die, forgetting that the battle was Hashem's and Shaul was but His servant.

"וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד" – Shaul's decision to set up a victory monument for himself⁵ further demonstrates how Shaul viewed himself, rather than Hashem, as the true winner of the war. This is highlighted when one contrasts this memorial with that in the original battle against Amalek, where Moshe builds an altar to Hashem and declares, "כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ מִלְחָמָה לַיהֹוָה בַּעֲמָלֵק" (Shemot 17).⁶

"כַּבְּדֵנִי נָא נֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי" – This request of Shaul also highlights his desire for personal honor. Even after he has been rebuked by the prophet, Shaul dwells on his own glory.⁷

"הִנֵּה שְׁמֹעַ מִזֶּבַח טוֹב" – In these words Shemuel chides Shaul for not obeying Hashem's command, pointing out that even though he planned to sacrifice the animals, it would have been better to listen to Hashem's initial directive and destroy them all beforehand.⁸  Thus, even though the problem of live cattle could be rectified, the real issue was not the cattle itself but Shaul's lack of obedience.

"כִּי חַטַּאת קֶסֶם מֶרִי" – Radak points out that magic is harmful because it causes people to believe in it rather than Hashem.  Similarly, in Shaul's decision not to listen to Hashem, he demonstrated that he believed more in his own powers than those of Hashem.⁹

Relationship to Shaul's sin of Chapter 13 – According to this approach, Shaul's sin in the two chapters might have been identical. In Gilgal, Shaul had not waited for Shemuel as commanded by Hashem since he feared that he would lose his army.  There, too, he forgot the important lesson of "לֹא בְכֹחַ יִגְבַּר אִישׁ", that war is won by Hashem, not man.  In addition, his non-adherence to Hashem's command betrays his attitude that he need not submit himself to Hashem's authority. See Shaul's Sin in Gilgal for elaboration.

David versus Shaul – As opposed to Shaul who loses the monarchy because he forgets that success is only due to Hashem, David earns his kingship when he fights Golyat and declares his recognition of this very fact.  He tells Golyat, "אַתָּה בָּא אֵלַי בְּחֶרֶב וּבַחֲנִית וּבְכִידוֹן וְאָנֹכִי בָא אֵלֶיךָ בְּשֵׁם י"י צְבָאוֹת".

Military Blunder

Shaul's battle was limited in scope. Instead of obliterating all of the Amalekites, he paused in the midst of battle, allowing much of the enemy to go unharmed.

Sources:Hoil MosheShemuel I 15:3Shemuel I 15:5About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, R"Y Bin-Nun¹⁰

Severity of Shaul's sin – According to this approach, Hashem is angry because a substantial portion of the 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 the Hoil Moshe, Shaul set out to kill the Amalekites within the borders "מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר", but he only attacked the permanent dwellers who lived under the rule of Agag in "עִיר עֲמָלֵק," leaving alive the nomadic majority.¹¹ 
• Yoel Bin-Nun, similarly, assumes that "מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר" describes the borders in which Amalek lived, but not the region which Shaul attacked.¹²  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 evidence that Shaul left over a significant number of Amalekites, and not just Agag.¹³

Why didn't Shaul finish the battle?

• "וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד" – According to the Hoil Moshe, after the initial battle against Agag, Shaul took a break, returning to the Carmel¹⁴ to set up a victory monument.  This is what allowed the rest of the Amalekites to flee.
• "וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – Yoel Bin-Nun asserts that the desire to take from the spoils is what prevented Shaul from finishing the battle.¹⁵

Not destroying the animals – According to this approach, Shaul did not sin in leaving over the animals since he meant to sacrifice them to Hashem.¹⁶ The Hoil Moshe explains that in so doing he was following the laws of חֵרֶם as laid out in Vayikra 27:28, "כׇּל חֵרֶם קֹדֶשׁ קׇדָשִׁים הוּא לַי"י".  As such, Shaul can honestly say of himself "הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת דְּבַר י"י".  The only problem with taking from the spoils was the timing. The people should have waited until the end of the war rather than interrupting and losing the momentum of battle.

"וּמֶה קוֹל הַצֹּאן הַזֶּה בְּאׇזְנָי" – This approach must explain why Shemuel repeatedly suggests that taking the animals was a problem, if that was not the main issue.  Yoel Bin-Nun responds that Hashem had never told Shemuel what Shaul's specific sin was, only that He was disappointed in him.¹⁷ Shemuel merely guessed that it related to the leftover cattle, but was mistaken. Alternatively Shemuel is simply pointing out that the desire for spoils is what prevented them from fulfilling Hashem's command to totally destroy Amalek ("וְנִלְחַמְתָּ בוֹ עַד כַּלּוֹתָם אֹתָם").

Not killing Agag – Hoil Moshe understands that Shaul was planning on killing Agag.  He only initially took him captive so as to brag about him in front of the nation.¹⁸ The fact that Agag says, "אָכֵן סָר מַר הַמָּוֶת" (the bitterness of death has left) upon seeing Shemuel suggests that until that point he himself thought that he was taken captive in order to be killed.¹⁹

Shaul versus David – In contrast to Shaul, when David battled Amalek, he decimates them, allowing only 400 to escape "לֹא נִמְלַט מֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי אִם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת אִישׁ" (Shemuel I 30:17).  It is this action which brings him to kingship.²⁰  [At the exact moment that he fights the Amalekites, Shaul falls at the hands of the Philistines, paving the way for David to take the throne.]

Relationship to Shaul's sin in Chapters 13-14 – According to this position, the sins in the two chapters are unrelated to each other.  Each time Shaul lost his kingship it was for a distinct reason.

"כִּי חַטַּאת קֶסֶם מֶרִי" – This position could explain, as does RalbagShemuel I 15:6-23About R. Levi b. Gershom, that "מֶרִי" refers to partial fulfillment of Hashem's commands.  Such observance is like magic, whose practitioners have some access to the Divine, but are missing full Divine illumination, and as such often cause more harm than good.  So too, partial obedience often damages more than it benefits.

Political Failure

Shaul's handling of the battle portrayed a lack of leadership qualities.  Rather than guiding the nation, he was guided by them.

Sources:R. Yosef Alboר' יוסף אלבו, ספר העיקרים ד':כ"וAbout R. Yosef Albo²¹

"רֹאשׁ שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אָתָּה" – According to this position, Shemuel opens his rebuke of Shaul with these words because they encapsulate Shaul's failure.  He was supposed to act as king, helping the nation along the right path, but he did not.²²

"אֲשֶׁר חָמַל הָעָם" – When Shaul tries to cast blame off himself and onto the nation by saying it was they who desired to keep the animals alive, he demonstrates his lack of leadership.  A true leader takes responsibility not only for his own actions, but those of his followers as well.  He should recognize that if his people are in the wrong, it is his job to correct them, not to give in to them!

"כִּי יָרֵאתִי אֶת הָעָם וָאֶשְׁמַע בְּקוֹלָם" – Here, too, Shaul demonstrates his weakness, acknowledging that he sinned in fearing the nation and listening to them.

"כַּבְּדֵנִי נָא נֶגֶד זִקְנֵי עַמִּי" – These words further manifest how Shaul's actions were guided by how he thought he would be perceived by the nation rather than by conceptions of right and wrong.

Emphasis on booty – Shemuel repeatedly mentions the taking of the booty because this was where the nation erred, and as such, where Shaul failed to prevent their mistake.

Relationship to Shaul's sin in Chapters 13-14 – In Chapter 13, too, Shaul is led by the nation to some extent.  He makes decisions based on their actions and sacrifices before Shemuel arrives because they have dispersed.  However, this is very different from allowing the nation to sin.  In Chapter 14, in contrast to our chapter, when the nation "flies upon the spoils" and eat on the blood, Shaul chastises them and actively corrects their wrongdoing.

Shaul versus David – R. Albo points out that though David also sinned severely, he was not punished by losing his kingship because his sins did not relate to his role as king, but to him as an individual.  Shaul on the other hand, sinned in the art of kingship and thus lost it.

¹ This position might find support from the fact that already in Hashem's directive, He warns, "וְלֹא תַחְמֹל עָלָיו".  Similarly, in describing Shaul's actions, the text uses the same verb, "וַיַּחְמֹל שָׁאוּל וְהָעָם עַל אֲגָג וְעַל מֵיטַב הַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר".

² The verses highlight the contrast between the two stories by using similar language.  Hashem commanded Shaul to utterly destroy Amalek, "וְהֵמַתָּה מֵאִישׁ עַד אִשָּׁה מֵעֹלֵל וְעַד יוֹנֵק מִשּׁוֹר וְעַד שֶׂה מִגָּמָל וְעַד חֲמוֹר". Though he did not listen to that directive out of "mercy", by Nov we are told that he had no issue with such comprehensive slaughter: "וְאֵת נֹב עִיר הַכֹּהֲנִים הִכָּה לְפִי חֶרֶב מֵאִישׁ וְעַד אִשָּׁה מֵעוֹלֵל וְעַד יוֹנֵק וְשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר וָשֶׂה לְפִי חָרֶב."

³ See What is Wrong With a King that this was one of Shemuel's concerns when the people asked him to establish the monarchy.  Shaul proved his fears correct.

⁴ RadakShemuel I 15:3Shemuel I 15:12Shemuel I 15:15Shemuel I 15:17Shemuel I 15:23About R. David Kimchi adds that Hashem had commanded to erase the memory of Amalek and if even only one lamb was left over, a remnant would would persist and the directive would not be fulfilled.

⁵ It should be noted that not all of these sources read this action negatively. Ralbag asserts that Shaul came to give thanks to Hashem for His help in the war. However, the language of "הִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד", suggests that Shaul made the memorial for himself.

⁶ See also Shemuel's setting aside of a stone to mark Hashem's help in the battle against the Philistines: " וַיִּקַּח שְׁמוּאֵל אֶבֶן אַחַת... וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֶבֶן הָעָזֶר וַיֹּאמַר עַד הֵנָּה עֲזָרָנוּ י"י".

⁷ This might also suggest that his admittance of guilt was not sincere.

⁸ See R. Yosef KaraShemuel I 15:22-23About R. Yosef Kara and the Commentary attributed to R. Yosef KaraShemuel I 15:22-23About Attributed to R. Yosef Kara.

⁹ Radak does not make this second point, saying more simply that not obeying Hashem portrays a lack of belief that Hashem will reward or punish those that fulfill or transgress his commands.

¹⁰ See "משא אגג - חטא שאול בעמלק", Megadim 7 (1989): 49-63.

¹¹ The Hoil Moshe 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.

¹² According to him, the verse should read, "וַיַּךְ שָׁאוּל אֶת עֲמָלֵק [אשר גר] מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר".  To prove that this 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 decimated his enemy.

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ Hoil Moshe asserts that this refers to a city in Yehuda and not the Carmel which is up North.

¹⁵ Yoel b. Nun 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. Yonatan there points out, "לוּא אָכֹל אָכַל הַיּוֹם הָעָם מִשְּׁלַל אֹיְבָיו אֲשֶׁר מָצָא כִּי עַתָּה לֹא רָבְתָה מַכָּה בַּפְּלִשְׁתִּים" (Shemuel I 14:30).  Another historical example can be found in Maccabees I 4:16-25 where Yehuda similarly warns the people first to finish the battle and only afterwards to take from the spoils of war.  Finally, Yehoshua's request that the sun stand still in Yehoshua 10 reflects a similar realization that pausing in the midst of battle can ultimately result in not being able to decimate one's enemies.

¹⁶ However, Shemuel's choice of language when describing the people's actions, "וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל," would suggest that their motives were selfish.

¹⁷ See Abarbanel who precedes him on this point.

¹⁸ This is why he can say, "אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל י"י וָאֵלֵךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחַנִי י"י וָאָבִיא אֶת אֲגַג מֶלֶךְ עֲמָלֵק".  He truly did not see a contradiction in saying that he kept Hashem's word while declaring that he took Agag captive, since his intention was to kill him.

¹⁹ However, many commentators (the Hoil Moshe included) assume that Agag recognized that Shemuel was about to kill him and understand his words to mean, "surely the bitterness of death has come upon me."  According to this explanation, it is hard to know if Agag was anticipating his death all along or not.

²⁰ There are several other parallels between the stories.  David, like Shaul, also fights with 600 men. Unlike Shaul, however, despite the pressure, David still asks Hashem via the Efod what to do.  In addition while the nation "flies upon the spoils" in Shaul's battle, after David's battle there is an orderly division of the booty.

²¹ The focus of R. Yosef Albo's discussion is the question of why Shaul deserved to lose his kingship for this sin, while David did not lose his after his sin with Batsheva.  In his analysis he discusses how Shaul portrayed a lack of kingly qualities throughout the battle. However, not all the points in the analysis below follow his reading.

²² See also RadakShemuel I 15:17About R. David Kimchi who explains that Shemuel is pointing out to Shaul, "משחך ה' למלך עליהם להנהיגם על הדרך הישרה ולמנעם מהעביר' ואיך הנחת אותם לעבור על דברי ה' "