I Samuel 28:24-30:24

This is a fascinating intersection of historical narrative, theological commentary, and halakhic implication. Let's dive into the text.

Sugya Map

• Issue: The theological and practical ramifications of Saul's consultation with the "woman who consults ghosts" (ba'alat ov) in En-Dor, particularly concerning the prohibition against such practices and the nature of the entity summoned.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Nature of the "Ov": Is it a genuine apparition of the deceased, a demonic manifestation, or a clever deception? This impacts our understanding of the afterlife and spiritualism.
  • Saul's Status: Does this act of consulting a forbidden medium further disqualify him from divine favor, or is it a desperate, albeit illicit, attempt to seek guidance?
  • Prohibition of "Ov": The Torah's prohibition (Deut. 18:11) is absolute. How does the case of Saul, a king and prophet, being answered, affect the understanding of this prohibition?
  • David's Actions: David's reliance on the Ephod in his own crisis contrasts sharply with Saul's desperate measures. How does this illuminate David's character and leadership?
  • Spoils Distribution: The dispute over dividing the spoils of war among those who fought and those who guarded the baggage presents a unique halakhic precedent.
• Primary Sources:
  • I Samuel 28:3-14 (Saul's consultation with the woman in En-Dor)
  • I Samuel 28:15-19 (Samuel's pronouncements to Saul)
  • I Samuel 29 (David's dismissal by the Philistines)
  • I Samuel 30 (David's pursuit and recovery of Ziklag)
  • Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 20:27 (Prohibitions against sorcery and consulting the dead)
  • Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (List of forbidden divinatory practices)
  • Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 65b-66a (Discussion on "Ov" and "Yidde'oni," and the case of Saul)
  • Rishonim and Acharonim commenting on I Samuel and the relevant Talmudic passages.

Text Snapshot

I Samuel 28:24:

וְלָאִשָּׁה עֵגֶל מְרִיב, וַתַּחְפֵּז וַתִּקַּח אֶת הַבָּקָר הַטּוֹבִים מִבְּקָרֶיהָ, וַתִּתֵּן לִפְנֵי שָׁאוּל וְלִפְנֵי עֲבָדָיו וַיֹּאכֵלוּ; וַיָּקֻמוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא.

• Nuance: The phrase "עֵגֶל מְרִיב" (egeil merib) is noteworthy. The Masoretic Text indicates a potential textual issue ("חצי הספר" - half the book, as noted by Minchat Shai), suggesting a variant reading or a scribal emendation. Metzudat Zion explains "מרבק" (merubak) as a place for fattening calves, derived from the root related to bringing up or raising. Radak agrees, linking it to "עגל פטים" (egeil pitim - fattened calf) and similar rabbinic expressions. The haste ("ותחפז") and the quick preparation of unleavened cakes ("ותפהו מצות" - ve'tafehu matzot) by the woman, as explained by Metzudat Zion and Metzudat David, underscores the urgency to feed Saul, who was weak from fasting and fear. The lack of leavening ("מצות" - matzot) emphasizes speed, as leavening takes time.

I Samuel 28:16:

וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל, עַל מָה הִתְפַּלַּלְתָּ לִי לְהָעִיד אֹתִי הַיּוֹם? וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל, צַר לִי מְאֹד, וְהַפְּלִשְׁתִּים נֹגְשִׂים בִּי, וֵאלֹהִים סָר מֵעִמִּי וְלֹא יַעֲנֵנִי עוֹד, גַּם בַּחֲלוֹם גַּם בַּאוּרִים גַּם בַּנְּבִיאִם; עַל כֵּן קְרָאתִיךָ וַתַּרְאֵנִי מַה אֶעֱשֶׂה.

• Nuance: Samuel's opening question, "עַל מָה הִתְפַּלַּלְתָּ לִי לְהָעִיד אֹתִי הַיּוֹם?" (al mah hitpalalta li leha'id oti hayom? - "Why have you prayed before me to bring me up today?"), is striking. The verb "התפלל" (hitpalel) usually implies prayer to God. Here, it seems to mean "to invoke me" or "to seek me out." The description of God's turning away is comprehensive: "לֹא יַעֲנֵנִי עוֹד, גַּם בַּחֲלוֹם גַּם בַּאוּרִים גַּם בַּנְּבִיאִם" (lo ya'aneni od, gam ba'chalom gam ba'urim gam ba'nevi'im - "He no longer answers me, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets"). This highlights the complete severance of divine communication, driving Saul to the forbidden path.

I Samuel 30:6:

וַיְהִי דָוִד בְּצִקְלַג וַיִּשְׂרַף אֹתוֹ, וְנָשָׁיו וּבָנָיו וּבְנֹתָיו נִשְׁבּוּ. וַיִּצְעַק דָּוִד אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו וַיֹּאמֶר, אִם אֶרְדֹּף אַחַר הַמַּחֲנֶה הַזֶּה הַאַשִּׂיגֶנּוּ? וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ, רְדֹף כִּי תַשִּׂיג וְהִצֹּל תַּצִּיל.

• Nuance: The contrast is stark. David, facing the destruction of his home and the capture of his family, "וַיִּשְׂרַף אֹתוֹ" (vayisaref oto - "it burned it down," referring to Ziklag, but also implying the devastation), immediately turns to God: "וַיִּצְעַק דָּוִד אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו" (vayitz'ak David el Adonai Elohav - "And David cried out to the Eternal his God"). He utilizes the proper channels ("הָאֵפוֹד" - ha'ephod, the ephod), and receives a direct, encouraging answer: "רְדֹף כִּי תַשִּׂיג וְהִצֹּל תַּצִּיל" (redof ki tasig vehitzol tatzil - "Pursue, for you shall overtake and you shall rescue"). This is the prescribed method of divine inquiry for a king.

Readings

The narrative surrounding the woman of En-Dor and Saul’s illicit consultation is a nexus of theological debate, primarily revolving around the nature of the summoned spirit and the validity of the encounter.

Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 12th-13th Century)

Radak, in his commentary on I Samuel, grapples extensively with the nature of the ov and yidde'oni (familiar spirit), and the event in En-Dor. He offers a detailed explanation of the practice, drawing from rabbinic sources. He acknowledges the textual variants concerning the calf, as noted above.

Regarding the core issue, Radak presents the rabbinic understanding of ba'alei ov and yidde'oni, as found in Sanhedrin 65b. He explains that ba'al ov is one who speaks from between the ribs ("מדבר מבין הפרקים") or from beneath his armpit, making a low sound. Yidde'oni is one who places a bone of a certain animal in his mouth and speaks words of prophecy. He further elaborates on the varied interpretations of how these spirits operate: some making a low voice from under the earth, like the voice Saul heard from Samuel, others using a smooth stone or glass to produce a low sound.

Crucially, Radak addresses the question of whether Samuel truly appeared. He cites the view of Rav Shemuel ben Hofni Gaon, who argues that the entire event was a deception by the woman. According to this view, the woman recognized Saul immediately, knowing his decree against such practices. She then employed her craft—making a low, disembodied voice—to mimic the appearance of a spirit. The "prophecies" she uttered were not supernatural revelations but deductions based on her knowledge of Saul's situation: his desperation, his past transgressions (the Amalekite incident), and David's anointment as king. The prediction of Saul and his sons dying the next day was a plausible guess given the impending battle and Saul's dire circumstances. Radak mentions that this interpretation aims to reconcile the narrative with rationalist thought, avoiding the concept of necromancy.

However, Radak also presents the view of Rav Saadia Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon, who, while acknowledging the difficulty of the woman possessing such powers, suggest that God Himself resurrected Samuel to deliver this message to Saul. This divine intervention, they propose, was necessary because God had withdrawn direct communication from Saul. The woman, in this scenario, was merely the instrument or conduit, unaware of the divine act. Radak notes the apparent contradiction: if God could resurrect Samuel, why not communicate through dreams, Urim, or prophets as before? He also questions how Saul, a wise king, could be so easily deceived if the practice was merely mimicry. He concludes that the most coherent explanation is the one that aligns with rational understanding, implying that the rabbinic interpretations of mimicry and deduction are preferred.

Radak's overall approach is to navigate between the literal interpretation of the text and the philosophical challenges it presents, leaning towards explanations that minimize supernatural intervention by the woman herself.

Metzudat David (Rabbi David Altschuler, 18th Century)

Metzudat David, known for his concise and insightful commentary on Tanakh, focuses on the practical and immediate implications of the text. In his commentary on I Samuel 28:24, he explains the haste in preparing the unleavened bread: "לבל יתעכב עד החימוץ" (bil'bal yit'atev ad ha'chumetz) - "lest it be delayed until it becomes leavened." This emphasizes the woman's desire to quickly provide sustenance to Saul, who was extremely weak and panicked ("נבהל מאד").

On I Samuel 28:16, Metzudat David clarifies the meaning of Samuel's words. He explains that Samuel's question, "Why have you prayed before me to bring me up today?" is a rhetorical question underscoring the impropriety of Saul's action. He then interprets Saul's response not as a prayer for guidance but as a lament and explanation for his desperate act. Saul is essentially saying, "I am in dire straits; God has abandoned me, so I had no other recourse than to seek you."

Metzudat David’s strength lies in his ability to distill the emotional and situational context. He highlights the woman's practical concern for Saul's physical well-being amidst his spiritual crisis. He also clarifies the nature of Saul's interaction with Samuel as a desperate plea born of absolute abandonment by divine providence. His commentary doesn't delve deeply into the theological debates about the ov itself but rather focuses on the human drama and the immediate circumstances driving the characters' actions.

Friction

The most significant friction point in this sugya lies in the apparent contradiction between God's absolute prohibition of consulting the dead and the fact that Saul, the anointed king of Israel, seemingly receives a genuine, albeit dire, prophecy from the spirit of Samuel. This raises several acute questions:

1. The Validity of the Prohibition: If God permits, or even orchestrates, an encounter with a medium to deliver a divine message, does this not undermine the severity of the prohibition in Deuteronomy 18:11 ("לא ימצא בך... מכשף... קסם... דורש אל המתים" - "There shall not be found among you... a sorcerer... a diviner... one who consults the dead")? Is the prohibition absolute, or are there exceptional circumstances?
2. The Nature of the "Resurrection": If Samuel did indeed appear and speak, how did this occur? Did God miraculously revive Samuel's soul from the grave, or was it a spiritual manifestation? If it was a miracle, why was it mediated through a forbidden practice? If it was a manifestation, what was its true nature? Was it Samuel's essence, a demonic imitation, or something else entirely?
3. The Problem of Divine Communication: Saul had exhausted all legitimate means of divine communication (dreams, Urim, prophets). Why would God then choose the forbidden path of the ba'alat ov to communicate further judgment and pronouncements? Was this a final, damning indictment of Saul's kingship?

The strongest terutz (resolution) to this friction comes from the very sources that grapple with these questions, particularly the Talmud and its commentators. The dominant approach, as seen in Radak's presentation of Rav Shemuel ben Hofni, leans towards explaining the event as a sophisticated deception by the woman, with no genuine supernatural communion.

The Terutz: Sophisticated Deception and Deductive Prophecy

This terutz argues that the "spirit" of Samuel was not Samuel at all, but a clever performance by the ba'alat ov.

• Recognition and Deception: The woman, upon seeing the apparition, immediately recognizes Saul. She shrieked, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!" (I Sam. 28:12). This initial shock and recognition suggest she was not expecting Saul, and the apparition itself was beyond her control or understanding. However, the subsequent dialogue reveals her adaptability.
• Deductive "Prophecy": The woman's "prophecies" are interpreted as astute deductions based on her knowledge and Saul's palpable fear.
  • "I see a divine being coming up from the earth." (I Sam. 28:13). This could be a general description of a spiritual manifestation, without specific identification.
  • "It is an old man coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." (I Sam. 28:14). This is a generic description of Samuel, who was an elder prophet known for his robe.
  • The content of Samuel's "message" (I Sam. 28:16-19) is also explainable through deduction:
    • "Why have you disturbed me and brought me up?" (I Sam. 28:15). A standard opening for a disturbed spirit.
    • Saul's own words about his plight ("The Philistines are attacking me and God has turned away from me...") provide the context.
    • Samuel's pronouncements: "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." (I Sam. 28:16-17). This is precisely what Samuel had told Saul years earlier after the Amalekite incident (I Sam. 15:23, 26-28). The revelation of David's kingship was also a known fact throughout Israel.
    • "Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me; and God will also deliver the Israelite forces into the hands of the Philistines." (I Sam. 28:19). This prediction of death in battle is a highly probable outcome given the circumstances. The phrase "tomorrow you and your sons will be with me" is interpreted by some as a reference to the underworld or Sheol, not a literal reunion in the afterlife, and a likely consequence of defeat.

This terutz posits that the ba'alat ov was a skilled ventriloquist and psychologist. She used a hidden device or technique to create a low, disembodied voice, and her "prophetic" pronouncements were based on information Saul himself provided or on widely known facts about his past and present situation. The "divine being" was a skillfully crafted illusion.

Why is this the "best" terutz?

• Upholds the Prohibition: It maintains the absolute nature of the Torah's prohibition. Saul's interaction, while seemingly answered, was with a fraudulent medium, and any "message" was a product of human cunning, not divine revelation through forbidden means. This preserves the sanctity of the divine word and the integrity of the halakha.
• Explains Saul's Desperation: Saul's desperate act, even if met with a seemingly accurate pronouncement, was still a transgression. The fact that he had exhausted legitimate avenues highlights his spiritual decline and the depth of his fear, leading him to seek answers from any source, even a forbidden one, rather than accepting God's judgment.
• Reconciles Rabbinic Views: While acknowledging the miraculous interpretation (Rav Saadia and Rav Hai), the mimetic explanation is often favored because it avoids a direct contradiction with the Torah's clear stance against necromancy. The Talmud itself contains differing opinions, but the emphasis on the prohibition remains paramount.

Therefore, the terutz is that the ba'alat ov was a charlatan, and the "spirit" of Samuel was an illusion, with the pronouncements being deductions rather than divine revelations. This preserves the integrity of the Torah's prohibition while accounting for the narrative's dramatic content.

Intertext

The theme of divinely sanctioned versus forbidden methods of seeking guidance, and the consequences of transgression, resonates throughout Tanakh and later halakhic literature.

1. Deuteronomy 18:10-12 & Leviticus 19:31, 20:6:

   "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices divination, or a cloud-reader, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD. And because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out before you." (Deut. 18:10-12) "Do not turn to mediums or consult spiritists; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the LORD your God." (Lev. 19:31) "If a person turns to mediums and familiar spirits, playing the harlot after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people." (Lev. 20:6)

   These verses form the direct textual basis for the prohibition Saul violated. The severity of the language ("abomination," "cut him off from among his people") underscores the gravity of these practices. The narrative in I Samuel 28 serves as a dramatic illustration of the consequences of defying these laws, even for a king. The contrast between Saul's prohibited act and David's reliance on the Ephod (I Sam. 30:7-8) highlights the divinely sanctioned path versus the forbidden one. David, facing a personal catastrophe, "sought strength in the Eternal his God" and brought up the ephod to inquire, receiving a clear directive. This reinforces the idea that legitimate channels of divine communication were available to those who adhered to God's will.

2. Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 65b:

   "The Gemara asks: Where is the proof that the Torah prohibits consulting the dead? Rabbi Yochanan said: [It is] from [the verse]: 'There shall not be found among you one who consults the dead' (Deuteronomy 18:11)." The Gemara then discusses the nature of ov and yidde'oni, with various interpretations regarding their methods. Crucially, it states: "Rabbi Yochanan said: Saul did not consult a ghost, nor did a ghost speak to him. Rather, the woman conjured up an image and spoke from beneath her armpit." This Talmudic passage directly addresses the En-Dor incident. Rabbi Yochanan’s view aligns with the terutz presented earlier, interpreting the event as a deception. He explicitly states that Saul did not consult a ghost, nor did a ghost speak to him, implying the entire encounter was a fraudulent performance. This serves as a foundational rabbinic interpretation that shapes the understanding of the sugya. The Talmud’s discussion of ov and yidde'oni further informs the debate about the nature of the entities involved.

These intertexts demonstrate that the issue of forbidden consultations and the integrity of divine communication were central concerns within Jewish tradition. The En-Dor narrative is not an isolated incident but part of a broader theological and legal framework that delineates acceptable and unacceptable pathways to understanding God's will.

Psak/Practice

The psak (legal ruling) regarding the prohibition of consulting mediums and the dead is clear and unequivocal: it is absolutely forbidden. The Torah's commands are stringent, and the Talmudic interpretation of Rabbi Yochanan in Sanhedrin 65b reinforces this by explaining the En-Dor incident as a deception.

Heuristics and Meta-Psak Considerations:

1. The Primacy of Halakha: The halakha is that one must not engage in ov or yidde'oni. This is not a matter of personal choice but a direct Torah commandment.
2. The "Terutz" as Explanatory, Not Permissive: The rabbinic explanations that the En-Dor event was a deception are not intended to permit the practice under certain conditions. Instead, they serve to explain how the narrative could occur without violating the Torah's absolute prohibition. The terutz is about understanding the text within the framework of halakha, not about finding loopholes.
3. David vs. Saul as a Model: The contrast between David's use of the Ephod and Saul's resort to the ba'alat ov serves as a meta-halakhic heuristic. It demonstrates the ideal: when seeking guidance, one must turn to divinely sanctioned methods, even in times of extreme distress. David's actions exemplify faith and adherence to halakha, while Saul's exemplify desperation leading to transgression.
4. The Nature of Divine Intervention: While the Talmud acknowledges differing opinions on the literal appearance of Samuel, the prevailing understanding leans towards the impossibility of true necromancy. Any perceived divine communication through forbidden means is either a rational deduction by the practitioner or, in rare and exceptional cases (like the En-Dor narrative, if interpreted as divine intervention via a medium), orchestrated by God for His own inscrutable purposes, but not something that the seeker initiated or is permitted to replicate.
5. Modern Application: In contemporary times, the prohibition extends to all forms of spiritism, séances, fortune-telling, and other practices that fall under the categories of ov and yidde'oni. The underlying principle remains the same: seeking knowledge of the future or hidden matters through illegitimate channels is forbidden.

In essence, the psak is absolute: do not consult the dead or engage in sorcery. The En-Dor narrative, while dramatic, is interpreted in a way that upholds this prohibition, serving as a cautionary tale rather than a precedent for permitted practice.

Takeaway

Saul's desperate descent into forbidden practices highlights the dire consequences of straying from God's path, even when faced with overwhelming fear and abandonment.

True guidance is found not in the shadows of illicit arts, but in clinging to the divinely appointed channels of faith and adherence to His commandments, as exemplified by David.