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

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

Severity of Shaul's sin:

• Shaul thought he was more just than Hashem – Bavli Yoma and Yalkut Shimoni suggest that Shaul thought he could decide who needs to be punished or saved on his own, leading to his extra mercy here but extreme cruelty in Nov.
• Consequences of deed – Bavli Megillah says that had Agag been killed immediately Haman would have never been born,¹ suggesting that that was the problem.  This is a weak explanation since there is no evidence in the text that anyone was born before Agag was killed by Shemuel.
• Shaul simply did not listen to Hashem's commandment. Hashem said to destroy all of Amalek so leaving over even just one person violated the directive.

R"Y Bin-Nun², questions all these opinions why Shaul deserved such a harsh punishment if his misdeed was correctable, as Shemuel subsequently killed Agag.

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – The sin of not killing Agag is missing from the text, as Shemuel rebukes in verses 14, 19, and 22-23 only about the spoils that were left, and does not mention a word about keeping Agag alive.³

"הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אֶת אֲגַג" – Though Shemuel's words do not emphasize that the sin was not killing Agag, the fact that Shemuel only corrects that action and kills Agag supports this read.

"כִּי חַטַּאת קֶסֶם מֶרִי וְאָוֶן וּתְרָפִים הַפְצַר" – This approach can posit, like Targum YonatanShemuel I 15:23About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, that Shemuel is comparing Shaul's disobedience to Hashem's words to a sin of magic, since both promote lack of faith in Hashem.

"אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּקוֹל י"י" – Shaul mentions that he brought Agag alive as a proof that he fulfilled Hashem's words, which would suggest that this was not really a problem.⁴

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 for what they did on the way out of Egypt, so they were commanded not to take spoils. For by taking spoils the war is viewed as personally beneficial and not as a revenge.
• Radak notes that the war was to fulfill "תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק" (Devarim 25:19), and if they leave over even just a horse then people will say "this horse is from Amalek's spoils" and Amalek's name will be continued to be mentioned.

Severity of Shaul's sin:

• Shaul did not accomplish the goal of the war – Ralbag and Abarbanel. Shaul proved by letting the nation take from the spoils that their purpose was to benefit and not to sanctify Hashem's name.
• Shaul thought כוחי ועוצם ידי.  By setting aside the spoils for Hashem one shows that they were only able to win the battle with His help.
• Shaul gave in to the nation.  Shaul proved that he does not know how to stand against the nation's request and do Hashem's will.

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – Shemuel's rebuke to Shaul focuses on the animals that he hears were left over.  Already in verse 9 it says "וְלֹא אָבוּ הַחֲרִימָם" as opposed to the language of the command "וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ".

"הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אֶת אֲגַג" – , and even that can be understood as a demonstration that Hashem won the battle and not Shaul

"כִּי חַטַּאת קֶסֶם מֶרִי וְאָוֶן וּתְרָפִים הַפְצַר"

"וְהִנֵּה מַצִּיב לוֹ יָד" – Radak posits 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 – The story of David's battle with Amalek is bothersome for this approach.  There, in chapter 30:20-31 it is elaborated on all the spoils David took from Amalek and how he split it up between the people.  It seems puzzling why Shaul deserved to lose the kingship for the same action David did later on and there was no problem with.

Shaul vs. David

Did Not Fight All of Amalek

Sources:Hoil MosheShemuel I 15:3Shemuel I 15:5About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

Severity of Shaul's sin: – Hoil Moshe says Shaul was rushing to boast about his victory that he decided to not fight all of Amalek.

"מֵחֲוִילָה בּוֹאֲךָ שׁוּר"

"וַתַּעַט אֶל הַשָּׁלָל" – Hoil Moshe explains that Shaul followed the commandment "וְהַחֲרַמְתֶּם אֶת כׇּל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ" and he left over the animals to sacrifice them to Hashem, as he says "הֲקִימֹתִי אֶת דְּבַר יְהוָה".  However, this is not the sense one gets from the verses, where Shemuel notes many times about all the spoils.

"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.

"כִּי חַטַּאת קֶסֶם מֶרִי וְאָוֶן וּתְרָפִים הַפְצַר"

David's battle with Amalek

Shaul vs. David

¹ The Bavli is based off the description of Haman in Meggilat Esther as "הָמָן בֶּן הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי" ‎(3:1).

² In his article, "משא אגג – חטא שאול בעמלק", Megadim 7 (1989): 49-63.

³ One can suggest like Abarbanel that Shemuel was only told by Hashem that Shaul did something wrong but he did not know further, and was mistaken as to what it was.

⁴ 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.