I Samuel 26:25-28:23

Sugya Map

• Issue: The Divine and human agency in Saul's pursuit of David, David's magnanimity, and the tragic descent of Saul.
  • Nafka Mina 1: Understanding the nature of Mishpach ha-Shem (God's Anointed) and the prohibition against harming him.
  • Nafka Mina 2: The implications of divine abandonment and the legitimacy of seeking forbidden counsel.
  • Nafka Mina 3: The ethical considerations of David's raids into Philistine territory.
• Primary Sources:
  • I Samuel 26:25-28:23
  • Tanakh: Genesis 27:40, Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Amos 5:21
  • Mishnah: Sanhedrin 6:4
  • Halachic Codes (implicitly): Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah

Text Snapshot

I Samuel 26:25:

"And Saul said to David, “May you be blessed, my son David. You shall achieve, and you shall prevail.” David then went his way, and Saul returned home."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "תעשה" (you shall do/achieve) coupled with "ותצלח" (and you shall prevail/succeed) is a powerful prophetic blessing. The repetition of "David then went his way, and Saul returned home" underscores a temporary cessation of hostilities, a pause in the narrative's relentless pursuit.

I Samuel 28:15:

"Samuel said to Saul, “Why do you ask me, seeing that God has turned away from you and has become your adversary?"

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The rhetorical question "למה תשאלני" (Why do you ask me?) emphasizes the futility of Saul's inquiry. Samuel's statement that God has "הפך עליך" (turned away from you) and "היה לך לצרי" (become your adversary) is a stark pronouncement of divine judgment.

Readings

Rashi on I Samuel 26:25

Rashi, in his inimitable concise style, illuminates Saul's statement. He interprets Saul's words, "May you be blessed, my son David. You shall achieve, and you shall prevail," as a recognition of David's inherent righteousness and future success. He notes that "תעשה" refers to David's future deeds, and "תצלח" to his ultimate triumph. Rashi, citing the Metzudat David, explains: "ברוך אתה. רצה לומר: רואה אנכי שאתה ברוך, וגם עשה תעשה מעשים נפלאים, וגם תצליח בהם" (Blessed are you. Meaning: I see that you are blessed, and you will also do wonderful deeds, and you will also succeed in them). This interpretation highlights Saul's acknowledgment of David's divinely ordained destiny, even as Saul himself is in a precarious position. The simple act of Saul returning home signifies a temporary truce, a moment of reflection forced upon him by David's mercy.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on I Samuel 26:25

Ramban, while not directly commenting on this specific verse in his biblical commentary on Samuel (which is largely lost), offers a broader framework for understanding such interactions. His philosophy, as expressed in his commentaries on other parts of Tanakh and in his Iggerot, emphasizes the interplay of Divine Providence (Hashgacha Pratit) and human free will (Bechira Chofshit). In the context of Saul's encounter with David, Ramban would likely see David's sparing of Saul as an act of profound Hashgacha Pratit, aligning with God's plan for David's kingship. David's decision not to harm Saul, despite having ample opportunity, is not merely a strategic move but a testament to his adherence to divine law and his understanding of the sanctity of Mishpach ha-Shem. Ramban would likely interpret Saul's blessing as a moment where, despite his flaws, Saul grasps a glimmer of truth about David's divinely appointed role. The fact that David then leaves and Saul returns home signifies that the immediate crisis is averted, but the underlying tension, rooted in divine decree, remains.

Metzudat David on I Samuel 26:25

Metzudat David, in his commentary, provides a more detailed unpacking of Saul's blessing. He states: "ברוך אתה. רצה לומר: רואה אנכי שאתה ברוך, וגם עשה תעשה מעשים נפלאים, וגם תצליח בהם" (Blessed are you. Meaning: I see that you are blessed, and you will also do wonderful deeds, and you will also succeed in them). This commentary emphasizes the prophetic nature of Saul's words. He perceives David's inherent blessedness, acknowledging that David is destined for greatness and will achieve remarkable feats. The verb "תעשה" (you will do) points to David's actions, while "תצליח" (you will succeed) signifies his ultimate triumph. This blessing, coming from a desperate and defeated Saul, underscores the inevitable trajectory of David's rise. The return of both figures to their respective places signifies the temporary reprieve from conflict, a moment of quiet after a potentially explosive encounter.

Metzudat Zion on I Samuel 26:25

Metzudat Zion focuses on the linguistic aspect of Saul's statement: "יכול תוכל. מלשון יכולת" (You can succeed. From the root yachol, meaning ability/capacity). This highlights the inherent power and capability that Saul perceives in David. It’s not just a wish for success, but an acknowledgment of David's inherent strength and potential to overcome all obstacles. This linguistic analysis reinforces the idea that Saul, even in his animosity, recognizes David's unique qualities and his divinely granted capacity for leadership and victory. The ensuing departure of David and the return of Saul mark the end of this specific confrontation, but the underlying prophetic declaration of David's future success lingers.

Steinsaltz on I Samuel 26:25

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, in his commentary, offers a nuanced perspective on the interaction between David and Saul. He notes: "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 commentary is crucial for understanding the meta-narrative. He points out that while the immediate conflict subsides, the underlying tension and the unresolved nature of David's fugitive status persist. David's knowledge that he cannot "rely on such declarations" from Saul is a critical insight into the psychological and political realities of the time. This highlights the fragility of peace and the deep-seated animosity that still exists.

Rashi on I Samuel 28:15

Rashi's commentary on the encounter with the witch of Endor is particularly poignant. When Samuel declares, "God has turned away from you and has become your adversary," Rashi emphasizes the finality of this statement. He notes that "הפך עליך" (turned away from you) signifies a complete severance of the divine relationship. The phrase "היה לך לצרי" (become your adversary) underscores that God is now actively working against Saul. Rashi, in his characteristic brevity, conveys the stark reality of Saul's spiritual desolation. This is not merely a withdrawal of divine favor; it is an active opposition, a consequence of Saul's persistent transgressions, most notably his disobedience regarding the Amalekites. The despair that engulfs Saul following this pronouncement is a direct result of understanding the ultimate consequence of his actions – complete abandonment by the Almighty.

Metzudat David on I Samuel 28:15

Metzudat David elaborates on Samuel's pronouncement, dissecting the divine decree. He explains that "הפך עליך" means God has withdrawn His favor and protection, and "היה לך לצרי" signifies that God is now actively working against Saul's interests. This commentary highlights the active nature of God's judgment. It is not a passive abandonment but an active counteraction. Metzudat David further clarifies that Samuel's words are a direct consequence of Saul's actions, particularly his failure to carry out God's command against the Amalekites. The pronouncement of doom extends beyond Saul himself, foretelling the demise of his sons and the defeat of his forces. This detailed analysis emphasizes the gravity of Saul's sins and the inescapable nature of divine retribution.

Metzudat Zion on I Samuel 28:15

Metzudat Zion focuses on the linguistic precision of Samuel's words. Regarding "הפך עליך" (turned away from you), he notes that it implies a complete reversal of the divine relationship, from one of favor to one of estrangement. Similarly, "היה לך לצרי" (become your adversary) signifies an active opposition. This linguistic breakdown underscores the absolute nature of Saul's estrangement from God. There is no ambiguity; God is no longer a protector but an opponent. This precise interpretation of the Hebrew terms amplifies the devastating impact of Samuel's prophecy on the already terrified Saul.

Steinsaltz on I Samuel 28:15

Rabbi Steinsaltz, in his commentary on this passage, captures the profound tragedy of Saul's situation. He writes: "Samuel said, “Why do you ask me, seeing that God has turned away from you and has become your adversary?” This is a direct consequence of Saul's sin. God has not only withdrawn His favor but has become Saul's opponent. This is the ultimate state of spiritual and political despair. Saul has reached the end of the road. There is no longer any recourse, no divine intervention that can save him from the inevitable consequences of his actions." Steinsaltz emphasizes the finality of God's judgment. Saul is no longer in a position to seek divine guidance or intervention. His actions have led to an irreparable breach with the Almighty, rendering him vulnerable and doomed. The encounter with the witch is not a path to salvation but a confirmation of his impending destruction.

Friction

The narrative of I Samuel 26 presents a profound theological and ethical challenge: David's refusal to harm "God's anointed" (Mishpach ha-Shem). On the one hand, David is presented as a righteous figure, deeply aware of the divine prohibition. His assertion, "For no one can lay hands on God's anointed with impunity" (26:9), and his subsequent words to Saul, "As God lives, God will strike him down directly, or his time will come and he will die, or he will go down to battle and perish. But God forbid that I should lay a hand on God's anointed!" (26:10-11), clearly articulate this principle. This aligns with the broader Tanakhic understanding of the sanctity of the divinely appointed king.

However, the subsequent chapter, 28, presents a stark counterpoint. Saul, in his desperation, resorts to forbidden practices, seeking counsel from a medium (ba'alat ov). The narrative explicitly states that Saul had previously "banned [the use of] ghosts and familiar spirits in the land" (28:3). His own decree, now violated, highlights the depth of his desperation. The encounter with the witch of Endor, where Samuel's spirit is summoned, reveals the devastating consequences of Saul's actions. Samuel's pronouncement, "God has done what was foretold through me: God has torn the kingship out of your hands and has given it to your fellow, to David, because you did not obey God and did not execute [God’s] wrath upon the Amalekites. That is why God has done this to you today" (28:17-18), directly links Saul's current plight to his disobedience.

The friction arises from the apparent dissonance between David's adherence to the sanctity of the anointed and Saul's utter disregard for divine law, leading to his spiritual and military ruin. If David's scrupulousness is paramount, why does Saul, the anointed king, face such a dire fate as a direct result of his own disobedience? The text seems to imply that while the person of the anointed king is protected from unwarranted harm by another, the anointed king himself is not immune to divine judgment for his own transgressions.

The Strongest Kushya:

The core tension lies in reconciling the absolute prohibition against harming "God's anointed" with Saul's ultimate demise, which is directly attributed to God's judgment for his disobedience. If David, the future anointed king, is divinely protected from Saul, why is Saul, the current anointed king, not divinely protected from the consequences of his own actions, leading to his prophesied death and the loss of his kingdom? Does the sanctity of Mishpach ha-Shem apply only to external threats, or does it also offer protection from divine retribution for the anointed himself?

The Best Terutz (or two):

Terutz 1: Distinction between Divine Judgment and Human Interference:

The prohibition against harming "God's anointed" is primarily concerned with preventing arbitrary human violence or usurpation of divinely appointed authority. David's refusal to kill Saul stems from his recognition that Saul's reign, however flawed, was divinely ordained, and only God has the right to remove him. This principle does not, however, shield Saul from the consequences of his own sins. God, as the ultimate sovereign and the one who appointed Saul, also has the absolute right to judge and punish him. Saul's downfall is not due to David's action or inaction but is a direct result of his persistent disobedience, particularly his failure to utterly destroy the Amalekites as commanded (I Sam. 15). The summoning of Samuel by the witch is not an external attack that David's principle protects against, but rather a manifestation of God's judgment and abandonment of Saul. David's magnanimity, therefore, is an act of faith in God's ultimate justice, not a belief that Saul is beyond divine reckoning.

• Source: I Samuel 15:3, 28:18-19. Samuel explicitly states that Saul's downfall is due to his failure to execute God's wrath upon the Amalekites. This is a direct divine judgment, not a consequence of David's actions.

Terutz 2: The Shifting Nature of Anointment and Divine Favor:

The concept of Mishpach ha-Shem is not static. While Saul was initially anointed by God, his continuous rebellion and disobedience led to a withdrawal of divine favor and, ultimately, the transfer of the anointment to David. Samuel's pronouncement, "God has torn the kingship out of your hands and has given it to your fellow, to David" (28:17), signifies this shift. Saul, in his actions, had effectively forfeited his divine mandate, even if the physical act of removing him from the throne had not yet occurred. Therefore, while David respected the sanctity of the current anointed king, he also recognized the divine will that was actively moving towards a new anointment. Saul's demise, in this light, is not a violation of the principle of respecting the anointed, but rather the consequence of his having already lost that anointment in the eyes of God due to his transgressions. The prohibition against harming Mishpach ha-Shem would thus apply most forcefully when the anointment is secure and divinely validated. In Saul's case, his anointment was irrevocably compromised by his sin.

• Source: I Samuel 15:23, "For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has also rejected you from being king." This verse clearly indicates that rejection by God is a consequence of rejection of God's word, effectively undermining the status of the anointed.

Intertext

I Samuel 15:3 and the Amalekite Command

The explicit command to Saul in I Samuel 15:3 regarding the Amalekites is crucial for understanding the root of his downfall. "Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul's failure to fully carry out this command, preserving some of the best livestock and sparing King Agag, is directly cited by Samuel as the reason for God's rejection of Saul as king (I Sam. 15:23). This historical precedent forms the bedrock of Saul's current predicament. His disobedience then is the direct cause of his spiritual abandonment and the prophecy of his destruction by Samuel. The narrative in chapter 28 is not an isolated event but the culmination of a long-standing pattern of defiance.

• Source: I Samuel 15:3, 15:23, 28:18.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 and Prohibited Practices

The prohibition against consulting ghosts and familiar spirits is firmly established in the Torah. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 states: "There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, or a soothsayer, or an augur, 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's actions in I Samuel 28 directly violate this fundamental commandment. His desperation leads him to engage in the very practices he himself had outlawed. This underscores his moral and spiritual bankruptcy. The fact that God does not answer him through legitimate means (dreams, Urim, prophets) highlights his severed connection to the divine, forcing him into the forbidden realm.

• Source: Deuteronomy 18:10-12, I Samuel 28:3, 28:6.

Psak/Practice

The halachic implications of David's refusal to harm Saul are profound. The principle that one must not harm Mishpach ha-Shem is a cornerstone of Jewish law, stemming directly from this narrative. While the specific context of kingship has evolved, the underlying concept of respecting the sanctity of divinely appointed leaders or figures of authority, where applicable, can be extrapolated.

More broadly, the narrative of Saul's descent offers a powerful meta-halachic heuristic: the catastrophic consequences of persistent disobedience and the avoidance of forbidden practices. Saul's desperation leads him to violate his own decrees, demonstrating that even a king is bound by divine law. This serves as a stark warning against seeking forbidden shortcuts or succumbing to despair when legitimate avenues of divine guidance are closed. The Jewish legal tradition consistently emphasizes adherence to halacha even in times of crisis. Saul's attempt to bypass divine will through illicit means ultimately seals his doom.

• Source: Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4 discusses the severity of capital offenses and the sanctity of life, indirectly reinforcing the gravity of actions that lead to divine judgment. While not directly on "Mishpach ha-Shem," it speaks to the framework of divine justice.

Takeaway

David's adherence to the sanctity of Mishpach ha-Shem, even towards a hostile Saul, demonstrates faith in divine justice. Saul's tragic end, stemming from his own disobedience and resort to forbidden practices, serves as a timeless cautionary tale about the ultimate consequences of severing one's connection with the Divine.