I Samuel 26:25-28:23

Here is an analysis of I Samuel 26:25-28:23, presented in the requested format and with the specified rigor.

Sugya Map

• Issue: David's continued evasion of Saul, culminating in his seeking refuge with the Philistines, and Saul's desperate spiritual consultation prior to his final battle.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The nature of Saul's ongoing pursuit of David despite moments of apparent reconciliation.
  • The theological implications of divine silence and the permissibility of necromancy for a desperate king.
  • David's strategy for survival and maintaining his integrity while operating in enemy territory.
  • The contrast between David's principled restraint and Saul's existential dread.
• Primary Sources:
  • I Samuel 26:25-28:23
  • Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (prohibition of necromancy)
  • I Samuel 15:3 (Saul's prior decree against necromancy)
  • Amos 5:21 (potential allusion in David's plea)

Text Snapshot

I Samuel 26:25: "וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל אֶל־דָּוִד בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּנִי דָּוִד גַּם־עָשֹׂה תַעֲשֶׂה גַּם־יָכֹל תּוּכָל׃"

• Leshon Nuance: The phrase "גַּם־עָשֹׂה תַעֲשֶׂה גַּם־יָכֹל תּוּכָל" (gam asoh ta'aseh gam yachol tuchal) is noteworthy. The repetition of the verb in the first part ("asoh ta'aseh") suggests an emphatic future action, while the second part ("yachol tuchal") emphasizes capability and success. This encapsulates Saul's acknowledgment of David's inherent ability and destiny.

I Samuel 28:6: "וַיִּשְׁאַל שָׁאוּל בַּיהוָה וְלֹא־עָנָהוּ יְהוָה גַּם־בַּחֲלֹמֹת גַּם־בָּאוּרִים גַּם־בַּנְּבִאִים׃"

• Dikduk Nuance: The triple negation "גַּם־בַּחֲלֹמֹת גַּם־בָּאוּרִים גַּם־בַּנְּבִאִים" (gam bachalomot gam ba'urim gam banevi'im) highlights the totality of God's silence. The use of the conjunction "gam" (also, even) with each method of divine communication underscores the completeness of the void. The mention of "Urim" (בָּאוּרִים) specifically points to the lack of prophetic guidance through the priestly oracle.

Readings

Metzudat David & Metzudat Zion on I Samuel 26:25

The Metzudat David on this verse (26:25) states: "רואה אנכי שאתה ברוך, וגם עשה תעשה מעשים נפלאים, וגם תצליח בהם" (Ro'eh anochi she'atah baruch, vegam asoh ta'aseh ma'asim nifla'im, vegam tatzliach bahem) – "I see that you are blessed, and you will also perform wondrous deeds, and you will also succeed in them." This commentary unpacks Saul's acknowledgment of David's inherent blessing and his future greatness.

The Metzudat Zion on the phrase "יכול תוכל" (yachol tuchal) clarifies its meaning as "מלשון יכולת" (milashon yecholeth) – "from the root of ability/power." This reinforces the idea that Saul recognizes David's inherent strength and capacity to achieve his destiny.

These commentaries highlight Saul's recognition of David's divinely-ordained success, a stark contrast to his own precarious position.

Steinsaltz on I Samuel 26:25

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, in his commentary on I Samuel 26:25, notes the enigmatic nature of the encounter: "Saul said to David: Blessed are you, my son David; you will both act and succeed. I know that you will do great things and that you will be successful. David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place. On this occasion as well, the encounter between the two ends quietly and without a confrontation. However, the situation remains unresolved. Although Saul once again expressed regret and admitted his mistake, David knows that he cannot rely on such declarations. Nevertheless, for the time being, the king stops chasing him and returns home with his men."

Steinsaltz's insight focuses on the temporary nature of the resolution. He points out that David's decision to flee to the Philistines (in the subsequent verses) is a direct consequence of his understanding that Saul's words, while conciliatory, do not guarantee his safety. David's pragmatism, born from experience, trumps Saul's transient remorse. This highlights a crucial aspect of David's leadership: survival and strategic thinking in the face of persistent existential threat.

Friction

The most significant friction arises between Saul's profound spiritual crisis and his prior legal and theological pronouncements. In I Samuel 28:3, we read: "וְשָׁאוּל הֵסִיר הַמְּאֹבְרִים וְהַיִּדְּעֹנִים מִן־הָאָרֶץ" (VeSha'ul hesi'r ha'me'ovrim veha'yidde'onim min ha'aretz) – "And Saul had removed the mediums and the spiritists from the land." This action is directly commanded in Deuteronomy 18:10-12, which states: "לֹא־יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבְנוֹתָיו בָּאֵשׁ קוֹסֵם קְסָמִים מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף׃ וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וּמְשַׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים׃ כִּי־תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְגָרֵשׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ׃" (Lo yimmatze becha ma'avir b'no u'vanotav ba'esh, koses kesamim, me'onen u'menachesh u'mechashef. Vechover chaver u'mesh'al ov veyidde'oni ve'doresh el hametim. Ki to'evat Adonai kol oseh eleh, u'viglal hat'oevot ha'eleh Adonai Elohecha megares otam mipanecha) – "There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination, or is a cloud-reader, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a necromancer, or one who consults the dead. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you."

Saul, the king who was commanded to eradicate these practices, now resorts to them in his hour of deepest despair. This represents a profound hypocrisy and a desperate abandonment of divine will for personal salvation.

The Terutz: The explanation lies in the absolute nature of Saul's crisis. God has ceased responding to him. His usual channels of divine communication – dreams, the Urim, and prophets – are silent. He is facing an existential threat from the Philistines, and his own life, and thus his kingdom, hangs in the balance. His desperate act is not a casual transgression but a last-ditch effort born from utter abandonment. The Sfat Emet (Rabbi Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter of Ger) in his Sefat Emet on I Samuel 28 notes that Saul's actions are a result of his spiritual void: "כאשר נופל אדם מן העולם, ואין לו תורה ומצוות, אז הוא נמשך לדברים כאלו" (Ka'asher nofel adam min ha'olam, ve'ein lo Torah u'mitzvos, az hu nimshach le'dvarim eiluh) – "When a person falls from the world, and has no Torah and Mitzvot, then he is drawn to such things." This suggests that Saul's spiritual desolation made him susceptible to forbidden avenues. Furthermore, the text itself provides a mitigating factor: Saul disguises himself and swears the woman by God that she will not be punished. This indicates he is aware of the prohibition and attempts to shield her, even as he transgresses himself. He is not embracing the practice but desperately seeking an answer.

Intertext

I Samuel 15:3 - Saul's Prior Decree

The explicit prohibition of necromancy by Saul in I Samuel 28:3 directly contradicts his earlier actions and decrees in I Samuel 15. In chapter 15, following his disobedience in the war against Amalek, Saul is commanded by Samuel to utterly destroy the Amalekites, including their livestock and people. Saul's failure to do so leads to God rejecting him as king. It is in this context that Saul's prior zeal in expelling mediums and spiritists can be seen as an attempt to demonstrate his piety and adherence to divine law, ironically after he himself had fallen from grace. The contrast between his earlier righteous (and divinely mandated) action and his later desperate recourse to the very practices he outlawed underscores his tragic downfall.

Amos 5:21 - David's Plea for Appeasement

David's plea to Saul, "If God has incited you against me, let an offering provide appeasement" (I Sam 26:21), echoes the sentiment of Amos 5:21: "שָׂנֵאתִי מָאַסְתִּי חַגֵּיכֶם וְלֹא־אַרִיחַ בְּעֶצְרֹתֵיכֶם׃" (Saneiti ma'asti chageichem, velo ariach be'etzreoteichem) – "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Though you offer me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and though you look for peace offerings of your fatted beasts, I will not heed them." While Amos is a denunciation of hollow worship, David's reference suggests that if Saul's actions are divinely inspired, then perhaps a proper offering could appease God. However, David immediately pivots to the alternative: "but if it was other people, may they be accursed of God!" This highlights David's understanding that Saul's actions are likely the result of human malice or delusion, not divine decree. The implicit contrast between genuine worship and divinely-sanctioned wrath is a recurring theme.

Psak/Practice

The narrative of Saul's consultation with the witch of Endor presents a significant challenge for halachic practice. The Torah unequivocally forbids engaging with mediums and spiritists (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 179:1) codifies this prohibition, stating that one who practices such arts is liable to lashes. However, the case of Saul is often discussed in the context of pikuach nefesh (saving a life) and extreme duress.

While the psak remains that such practices are forbidden, the narrative allows for a deeper meta-halachic discussion about the limits of prohibition in the face of absolute existential threat and divine silence. The Rabbis often grapple with situations where a person might be forced to transgress one mitzvah to uphold a more fundamental principle, or where the absence of divine communication creates a unique dilemma. In David's case, his refusal to harm Saul, even when given the opportunity, demonstrates his adherence to divine law and respect for God's anointed, even a flawed one. This stands in stark contrast to Saul's desperate, albeit divinely-rejected, attempt to regain control. The nafka mina for contemporary practice is to reinforce the importance of adhering to halacha, even in difficult times, and to understand that seeking forbidden means to resolve a crisis is ultimately futile and counterproductive.

Takeaway

David's consistent adherence to divine law, even in the face of mortal peril, sets him apart, while Saul's desperate deviation from it highlights the tragic consequences of spiritual abandonment. The text underscores that true kingship and divine favor are not secured through forbidden means but through righteous action and unwavering faith.