(link to original page)

What Sin did Saul Commit?

(Religious Commands opposing Moral Obligations
or opposing Appeasing G-d through Sacrifices)

Hanna Kasher

The reservation expressed in Ecclesiastes "Do not be overly righteous"
(Ecclesiastes 9:16) deviates from the philosophy regarding the trait of
righteousness found throughout the Bible. This attribute, often used to
describe many of G-d qualities (see, for example, Deuteronomy 32:4,
Isaiah 45:21, and Psalms 11:7), usually depicts ideal conditions.
However, some commentators relate to the reservation expressed in the
phrase "Do not be overly righteous" by examining its context. They view
the statement as a pessimistic conclusion about reality in what follows
from the previous verse: "I have seen everything in the days of my
vanity; there is the righteous person who perishes through his
righteousness and the wicked person who prolongs his life through his
evil ways" (Ecclesiastes 7:15). It is, then, no surprise that this
utilitarian approach, which views the life of a perfectly righteous
person as useless, is shown by a traditional commentator to be
merely part of the entire text and does not truly reflect the sum total
of the ideas presented in Ecclesiastes (see commentary of M. Zer-Kavod,
Five Scrolls, Daat Mikra Series, Jerusalem, 1973, p. 43). It was for
this reason that the attribute of "righteousness" was apparently not
ascribed such a meaning within our context and that the commentators
would then not view in a negative light those who were excessive in their
righteous behavior. Those supporting the principle of acting according
to the "golden mean" used this verse to support their claim against an
ascetic life style, which means deviating from the "accepted way"
(Even-Ezra in his commentary Al-Atar) and abstain from what the Torah has
not forbidden (Rambam, Hilchot Daot 83:6). In an alternate explanation
the trait of righteousness is limited to the area of relations between
human beings, as when Saul fell short by displaying excessive compassion.

In the Talmud(Yoma 22:72) and Midrashim (Kohelet Rabba, Chapter 7,
Kohelet Zota, Chapter 7, Chapters of Rabbi Eliezer, 43) Saul is presented
as a person who questioned the morality of the commands he was expected
to carry out. "Now go and strike down Amalek and utterly destroy all
that they have; do not spare them, but kill man and woman, child and
infant, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (Samuel I 15:3).

Saul was confronted with the dilemma that "although the men
sinned, what sin did the women commit? How did the children sin? How
did the cattle, ox, and ass sin? (expanded version, Kohelet Rabbah).
These questions are based on the principle that justice does not allow
the innocent to be harmed. A heavenly voice utters to Saul the words
from Ecclesiastes cited above. Saul is censured for not being merciful
in the appropriate manner: in this situation he should have done the
opposite "he became merciful instead of cruel" (Kohelet Rabbah).

According to this assertion the tough collective punishment imposed on
the Amalek people was justified. In other words, mercy should not be
displayed towards those who are undeserving and one should not "become
merciful towards those who are cruel" (Kohelet Zota). This directive
disregards the identity of those deserving of Saul's mercy: women,
children, and animals. The sages prove in all the contexts their claim
regarding the censuring of Saul and his demise, and use the following
verse: "Do not be overly wicked" (Ecclesiastes 7:17). When Doeg the
Edomite was ordered by Saul to strike Nob, he failed to show mercy to the
inhabitants of the city: "He killed with his sword men and women,
children and infants and oxen, asses, and sheep" (Samuel I 22:19).

According to the Midrashim Saul became "the cruel figure instead of
showing mercy" and "the cruel one towards those deserving mercy."
The various Midrashim add to the words of Kohelet the heavenly voice
which pronounce Saul defective with a moral hubris: "Do not be more
righteous than your Creator/ than your Possessor." That is, G-d's
commands represent an expression of actions appropriate for humans to
carry out. Basing one's actions on motives of mercy and natural justice
could pervert the administration of true justice. The importance of this
idea is found in the "Akedat Yitzhak" by Rabbi Isaac Arama. In this
commentary, Saul's character traits were admirable; he was humble, meek,
and refined, and possibly on a higher plane than David. However, Saul
certainly was not careful and lacked the determination to keep the
Torah's and G-d's commandments. In fact, he would nullify and replace
them with what he considered to be more human courses of action" (Akedat
Yitzhak, Be'shalach, Chapter 42). This approach holds that moral
instincts, even for a person with no faults in their character, should
not form the basis for making the right decisions. One, in fact, should
follow the religious commands of G-d which might be in conflict with
one's moral instincts. The Midrashim often portray Saul as a human being
who shows mercy instead of denying the humanity of demonstrate compassion
towards others. Rabbi Isaac Arama accepts this position, but for him,
the outstanding instinctive morality that guided was a negative character
trait. To paraphrase the words of Plato, an act is acceptable if it was
commanded by G-d, although human morality might not sanction the act.

Saul's sin, then, was not that he strayed from obeying G-d command vs.
following his own standards of morality or his refusal to inflict harm on
living creatures that committed no sin. We cannot find any evidence in
the text to support the fact that Saul did not discriminate when he
withheld from destroying the Amalekite people. The written text points
to the following generalization: "He destroyed the entire people with the
edge of a sword" (Samuel I 15:8). Saul was not afraid of destroying the
inferior living creatures and justifies not destroying the best of the
sheep and the cattle to Samuel by the fact that they were to be used for
sacrifices "for the sake of a sacrifice to the Lord your G-d" (Samuel I
15:21). Samuel responds to Saul's choice by urging Saul to change his
ways: "Behold, obedience is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the
fat of rams" (Samuel I 15:22). Rather than focusing on his obligation to
obey G-d's command (Samuel I 12:14-16), in his battles with the
Amalekites and the Philistines (Samuel I 13:13) Saul demonstrated the
principle that a sacrifice to G-d initiated by the king himself can
appease G-d when he fails to obey a religious commandment.

In the ruling that "obedience is better than sacrifice" Samuel originated
the prophetic tradition which strove to change the hierarchy of values
that placed sacrifices on the highest rung of the ladder. Later, the
ruling that G-d favors humans acting morally responsibly in their actions
over appeasing G-d by offering sacrifices. During the Middle Ages the
philosopher Rabbi Abraham Even David (the first Rav"d), who wrote
"Haemunah Harama" (12th c.), based the ranking of the commandments on the
prophet Samuel's criticism of King Saul. In his words, "From the
beginning it was said that parts of the Torah … are not all equal in
value … The fundamental principle in the Torah is the act of faith and
human character and conduct follow in their importance. Without these
principles the world would be spoiled and civilization destroyed. The
significance of those commandments we cannot explain (their reasons are
unknown to us) is very faint, and many of the Bible's writings have
testified to this. For example, Jeremiah called to the people, "this is
what G-d said, 'Add your burnt offering to your sacrifices and eat flesh.
For I did not speak or command your fathers when I brought them out of
Egypt about burnt-offerings or sacrifices'" (Jeremiah 7:21-22). In
Samuel's words to Saul: "G-d does not delight as much in burnt offerings
and sacrifices as in obeying G-d's voice (Samuel I 15:22). And David
said, "For your sacrifices I will not rebuke you" (Psalms 50:8) and the
text continues in the same vein. And Isaiah said, "What is the purpose
of your sacrifices to Me?" (Isaiah 1:11) and the section concludes with
"Wash you, make you clean" (Isaiah 1:16). Isaiah also declared, "If a
man kills an ox, it is as if he killed a man; if a man sacrifices a lamb,
it is as if he broke a dog's neck; whoever offers a meal-offering, it is
as if he has offered the blood of a pig" (Isaiah 66:3). These verses
testify as to the relative weeknessss of this part of the Torah, in opposition to other parts, where one should be more precautious about.
(translation of Shlomo ben Lavie, 3rd article).

The Rabad, concedes, though, that the offering of sacrifices in itself is
of value. The most important reason is that the existence of
commandments that cannot be rationally explained by the human mind
educate the individual regarding the supreme value of obeying G-d's
commands. According to the Rabad, Saul's attempt to appease G-d by
performing sacrifices upon not obeying His command is a meaningless act.
However, the Rabad disagrees with the interpretations of those who deny
the Torah as an eternal binding force. These reservations expressed by
the prophets lead to the idea of annulling
the sacrificial obligation (2nd article, 5th principle, Chapter 2).
To summarize, circles in traditional Judaism views the have felt the need
to blur the prophetic claims against the emphasis on sacrificial rites.
These words from the prophets were used by those from within and without
our fold to disregard the legal authority of mosaic law. Also,
characterizing Saul as faulty for showing mercy inappropriately conflicts
the alternate philosophy based on turning the other cheek. When David
replaced Saul as king, Saul became the father figure of the "same
person". In any event, based on the Bible writings and, in particular,
Samuel, Saul was not rejected as king because he believed that the
innocent should not be punished. Saul's sin was founded on the fact that
he did not comply with G-d command and attempted to cover it up by
performing a ritual act.

Professor Hannah Kasher, Lecturer, Dept. of Philosophy, Bar-Ilan
University

Translated by Evelyn Ophir