I Samuel 28:24-30:24

Sugya Map: The Witch of Endor and the Spoils of Ziklag

• Issue: Saul's desperate consultation of a sorceress (ba'alat ov) and the subsequent revelation of his downfall.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The nature of necromancy (ovel ov) and its permissibility/efficacy.
  • The extent of divine providence and pre-ordained destiny.
  • David's leadership and his handling of the Ziklag spoil dispute.
  • The definition of "spoils" and their distribution among soldiers.
• Primary Sources: I Samuel 28:24-30:24; Tanakh (various parallels).

Text Snapshot: A King's Desperation and a Prophet's Rebuke

I Samuel 28:15-16:

“And Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me and brought me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly troubled. The Philistines are attacking me and God has turned away from me—and no longer answers me, either by dreams or by Urim or by prophets. So I have called you to tell me what I am to do.” Samuel said, “Why do you ask me, seeing that God has turned away from you and has become your adversary?”

The linguistic nuance here is potent. Saul's plea, "לְהַגִּיד לִי מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה" (to tell me what I shall do), reveals a king seeking practical guidance, not merely divine affirmation. Samuel's response, "וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל שָׁאוּל מַדּוּעַ אֹתִי לְהָקִיץ מִשְּׁכָבְתִּי" (and Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me from my resting place?"), highlights the unnaturalness of the act, while his subsequent question, "וְה' סָר מִמְּךָ וַיְהִי לְצָר" (and the Lord has turned from you and become your adversary?), directly confronts Saul with the theological cause of his predicament. The term "צָר" (adversary) is significant, indicating a direct antagonism from God, stemming from Saul's prior transgressions.

I Samuel 30:22-24:

“But all the mean and churlish ones among the men who had accompanied David spoke up, “Since they did not accompany us, we will not give them any of the spoil that we seized—except that each may take his wife and children and go.” David, however, spoke up, “You must not do that, my brothers, in view of what God has granted us, guarding us and delivering into our hands the band that attacked us. How could anyone agree with you in this matter? The share of those who remain with the baggage shall be the same as the share of those who go down to battle; they shall share alike.”

Here, the contrast between "רָעִים וּפְרוּעִים" (wicked/mean and unruly) and David's appeal to brotherhood ("אַחַי") is stark. David's argument is rooted in divine grace ("אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' לָנוּ") and equitable sharing, framing the victory as a collective gift from God. The phrase "חֵלֶק הַיֹּרְדִים עִם הַכֵּלִים" (the share of those who go down with the baggage/equipment) establishes a precedent for shared spoils, regardless of direct participation in the combat.

Readings: Echoes of the Grave and the Law of Spoils

Rashi and Radak on the Witch's Hospitality

The depiction of the woman's swift preparation of food for Saul is noteworthy. Rashi (on I Sam. 28:24 s.v. עגל מרבק) explains "עגל מרבק" as a fattened calf. The Metzudat David (on I Sam. 28:24:1) clarifies the haste: "לבל יתעכב עד החימוץ" (lest it be delayed until it becomes leavened), indicating unleavened bread. Metzudat Zion (on I Sam. 28:24:2-3) points out the linguistic roots for "kneaded" (לש) and "baked" (אפה). Radak (on I Sam. 28:24:1) further elaborates on "מרבק" as the place where calves are fattened, citing Amos 6:4.

The chiddush here lies not just in the culinary details, but in the implicit understanding of the urgency. Saul is in a state of extreme distress, physically weakened by fasting and mentally shattered. The woman's immediate provision of sustenance, using unleavened cakes (which require no leavening time, thus faster), underscores her attempt to stabilize him and perhaps manipulate the situation, or at least to maintain the facade of a helpful host.

Radak's Exposition on Necromancy

Radak's extensive commentary on the nature of the ovel ov (spirit medium) in I Samuel 28:24 is particularly illuminating. He contrasts various interpretations of necromancy, from speaking from between the joints of the body, to using a specific skull (galgalet), to the Rambam's explanation involving incantations and gestures. Radak notes the Gemara's discussion (Sanhedrin 65b) regarding what the medium sees and what the inquirer hears, and how this applies to Samuel's appearance. He quotes the rule: the one who summons sees but does not hear, the one who needs the spirit hears but does not see, and the one who doesn't need it neither hears nor sees. In Saul's case, the woman (who summoned) saw Samuel, while Saul (who needed) heard him but did not see him.

Radak's chiddush is his rigorous attempt to reconcile the textual account with rabbinic discussions, acknowledging the debate among the Geonim. Crucially, he presents the view that the entire phenomenon might be an illusion or trickery ("הבל ותוהו ודברי כזב"), but then grapples with the possibility that God did allow Samuel to appear for Saul's specific downfall. He highlights the problematic nature of this: if God wanted to communicate, why not through dreams, Urim, or prophets, rather than a forbidden medium? This points to the divine judgment being executed through Saul's forbidden act, rather than sanctioning it.

Friction: Divine Will vs. Human Agency and the Efficacy of Forbidden Arts

The core tension in the Endor episode revolves around the apparent contradiction between God's complete control and the possibility of obtaining forbidden knowledge. Saul, having been rejected by God's direct channels, resorts to the ovel ov.

The Kushya: The Paradox of the Forbidden Oracle

If God has indeed turned away from Saul, and His will is pre-determined, what is the purpose of consulting a sorceress, even a forbidden one? Furthermore, if Samuel's appearance is orchestrated by God to deliver a prophecy of doom, does this validate the ovel ov in some limited, albeit divinely sanctioned, capacity? This raises a profound kushya: How can a prohibited act yield divinely ordained information? Is the efficacy of the ovel ov real, or is it merely a psychological manifestation exploited by divine will?

The text itself presents a challenge. Samuel, the prophet, directly communicates God's judgment. If this communication is real, then the ovel ov has a functional, albeit illicit, channel to the divine. However, the Torah explicitly forbids such practices (Leviticus 19:31, Deuteronomy 18:10-12). This creates a machloket not only between Saul and Samuel, but within the very fabric of divine law and human interaction with the supernatural.

The Terutz: Divine Judgment Through Forbidden Means

A compelling terutz lies in understanding this not as divine endorsement of necromancy, but as a demonstration of God's absolute sovereignty. God, in His judgment, can use any means, even those forbidden to man, to enact His will. Saul's pursuit of the ovel ov is itself a manifestation of his sin and downfall. God allows Samuel to appear, not because the ovel ov is legitimate, but because it is the very path Saul has chosen, and through this forbidden path, God delivers the final, damning pronouncement of Saul's fate.

As Radak suggests, God might have revived Samuel specifically for this purpose. This is not to say the woman successfully raised Samuel through her own power, but rather that God used the situation. The woman's fear and distress ("ותזעק בקול גדול") suggest she too was surprised by the magnitude of what occurred, perhaps indicating an event beyond her control or understanding. This aligns with the concept of hashgacha pratit (divine providence) operating even through seemingly chaotic or forbidden events. The punishment fits the crime; Saul sought forbidden counsel, and through forbidden means, received God's final word of condemnation.

Intertext: Echoes of Divine Judgment and Spoils Distribution

The Spoils of War: From Balaam to David

The dispute over the spoils of Ziklag (I Sam. 30:22-24) resonates with earlier instances of divinely ordained distribution of spoils and the consequences of disobedience. The most striking parallel is the episode of Balaam and the Midianites. In Numbers 31, after Israel defeats Midian, Moses establishes strict rules for the division of spoil. Those who fought received a larger share, while those who remained with the baggage received a smaller, but equal, share. This precedent is precisely what David invokes: "חֵלֶק הַיֹּרְדִים עִם הַכֵּלִים" (the share of those who go down with the baggage) is to be equal to "חֵלֶק הַיּוֹרְדִים בַּמִּלְחָמָה" (the share of those who go down to battle). David's ruling, established as a "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל" (a statute and ordinance for Israel), codifies this equitable principle, ensuring unity and preventing internal strife.

The Oracle of the Damned: Saul and the Rejection of the Prophets

Saul's inability to receive answers from God through dreams, Urim, or prophets (I Sam. 28:6) is a direct consequence of his repeated disobedience, particularly his failure to utterly destroy Amalek (I Sam. 15). This echoes the prophetic denunciations of King Jehoiakim, who similarly rejected divine messengers. Jeremiah 22:24-25 states: "As I live—declares the Lord—though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on My right hand, I would tear it off. I would give you into the hand of those who seek your life, into the hand of those whom you dread, even into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans." The pattern of rejection leading to divine abandonment is a recurring theme, highlighting the gravity of ignoring God's word. Saul's final oracle comes through the very means he was forbidden, a testament to his utter spiritual bankruptcy.

Psak/Practice: The Prohibition of Necromancy and the Principle of Equitable Spoils

The Unassailable Prohibition of Necromancy

The Halakha is unequivocal regarding the prohibition of consulting spirits or engaging in sorcery. Leviticus 19:31 states, "Do not turn to mediums or sorcerers; do not seek them out, and so become defiled by them." Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is even more explicit, listing these practices as an abomination to God. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 65b) debates the reality of these phenomena, but the halakhic conclusion is clear: even if such practices could yield information, they are strictly forbidden due to their association with idolatry and illicit spiritual contact. Therefore, any attempt to replicate Saul's actions would be a grave violation.

The Principle of Equitable Distribution of Spoils

David's ruling regarding the distribution of spoils from Ziklag is foundational. It establishes the principle that all who are part of the community, even those who remain behind guarding equipment or the camp, are entitled to a share of the spoils of war. This principle is codified as a lasting law in Israel. This heuristic serves to foster unity and prevent internecine conflict among warriors, emphasizing that the success of the expedition is a collective effort, blessed by God.

Takeaway: Judgment's Shadow and Leadership's Equity

God's justice can manifest through the very forbidden paths men choose, turning their illicit quests into instruments of their downfall. David's leadership, in contrast, is defined by his adherence to divine principles, even in the face of internal dissent, ensuring equitable distribution and communal cohesion.