More Parasha-Pages
Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld's
Weekly
Parasha-Page

Ask a
Question

Parshat Zachor 5754

Mercy vs. Mercilessness

"And Shmuel said to Shaul... the Almighty said the following...,'Go now and destroy Amalek, and wipe out all that is his, don't have mercy on him. Kill man to woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey'...And Shaul came to the city of Amalek, and he fought in the brook... and Shaul destroyed Amalek...he captured Agag the king of Amalek alive, and killed the rest of the nation by sword, [but] Shaul and the people had mercy on Agag and on the finest of the sheep and cattle...and he didn't destroy them. And so it was that Hashem said to Shmuel , 'I regret that I crowned Shaul as king, because he has strayed from me and he hasn't upheld my word...' "
(Shmuel II 15:1-11)
"And he fought in the brook"- "Rav Manni said, '[he fought with himself] about the brook. [[What this means is,] when the Almighty told King Shaul, 'Go and destroy Amalek', [Shaul] said to himself, 'If for one dead soul [i.e., a person found killed on the roadside] the Torah tells us to bring an "Egla Arufa" [to behead a calf near a brook, and bring the Elders of the Sanhedrin from their place in Jerusalem to take part in the ceremony, pleading for atonement- see Devorim 21:1-9], all the more so for all these souls [of Amalek]! Even if the men sinned, did the animals sin? And even if the adults sinned, did the children sin? At that point, a heavenly proclamation announced, 'Don't be overly righteous' (Koheleth 7:16). Later, when Shaul told Doag to wipe out the Cohanim [of the city Nov, for helping David escape from him], a heavenly proclamation announced, 'Don't be overly evil' (Ibid, 17)"
(Yoma 22b)
How are we to understand these words of Chazal? Is it truly possible that Shaul attempted to exempt himself from keeping a divine mission which was directly addressed to him, favoring his own logic over the Divine Word?

A number of approaches to this Midrash have been suggested (see Rif and Etz Yosef in the Ein Yakov, Yoma Ibid.)

II

One possible interpretation is provided by Iyun Yakov in Yoma, who was preceded in this approach by Rabbeinu Channanel, ibid.

Why did Shaul emphasize the value of a human life specifically with the verse dealing with Egla Arufa? He could just as well have quoted, "One who kills another man should be put to death" (Shmot 21:12)?

The answer to this may be understood based on an analysis of Shaul's eventual sin. We are told that Shaul didn't kill the animals of Amalek, preferring to use them as sacrifices to Hashem. It may be that he felt some specific *need* to offer sacrifices now- perhaps as an atonement for the total eradication of an entire nation.

We can now suggest, that although Shaul was prepared to keep the word of Hashem and entertained no rebellious thoughts, by his calculation he merely intended to show that something essentially "wrong", something which demanded atonement, was involved in the extermination of Amalek's sheep and children.

(Perhaps, in Shaul's view, it was only necessary to kill the livestock and babies in order to insure that the Jews would actually destroy every living adult in Amalek- had they not concentrated on a complete extermination, they wouldn't have kept even this crucial part of the command properly. Therefore, Shaul saw the deaths of the cattle and children as a symptom of his people's lack of eagerness in the execution of the divine will. This view, however, may have been based on a misrepresentation of the Pasuk in the Torah describing the necessity of destroying Amalek. Shaul may have read the verse as "eradicate every male of Amalek", mispronouncing the vowels of the traditional reading, which would translate, "eradicate every 'trace' of Amalek". It was this very mistake that is attributed to Yoav, the commander-in-chief of the Jewish forces a short while after Shaul's reign (see Bava Batra 21a). According to the traditional reading, it would be clear that the annihilation of the livestock was just as important as the killing of Amalek's men- see Rashi Devorim 25:19. I can find support for this hypothesis in Perkei D'rebbi Eliezer, Ch. 44, which quotes the Midrash we started with, and adds another detail to Shaul's argument; "Even if the men sinned, the *women* didn't sin". This clearly indicates that in Shaul's mind, only the *males* of Amalek ought to have been killed - MK).

If so, it is clear why Shaul quoted only the verse about Egla Arufa, where a "sacrificial" atonement for killing is involved, and not the verse which prescribes the death sentence for a killer. He wanted to justify saving Amalek's livestock, to be used for sacrificial offerings of atonement for the extermination of Amalek!

III

The Koheles Yitzchak (Parashat Shoftim), citing Rav Yakov the Magid of Vilna, offers another approach to this Midrash. In the end of Parshat Shoftim, the Torah discusses various details involving the waging of war according to Hallacha, the laws of which are continued in the beginning of the following Parsha, Ki Tetze. Right in middle of these laws, we find the Parsha of Egla Arufa. The appearance of Egla Arufa here seems totally out of place. (In fact, it would seem that an Egla Arufa isn't even brought during times of war, see Sota 45b.)

Rav Yakov of Vilna explains, that specifically in times of war, it is necessary to remember the laws of Egla Arufa. After participating in the waging of a war, even if the war is necessary for the survival an ,d proteection of the Jewish nation, the warriors undoubtedly become somewhat "accustomed" to seeing death and killing. It is therefore necessary to remind them of the importance of a human life. Otherwise, they may take the lessons of war into their peacetime lives, which would certainly be tragic. This is why the Parsha of Egla Arufa appears here- to remind the soldiers that even one killing demands the attention of all the elders of Israel.

This, then, was clearly Shaul's intention too. Shaul was keenly aware of the section of the Torah that deals with the laws of war (in fact, as R. Sosevski [Rosh Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalyim] pointed out, one major role of a king is to lead his nation in war, and Shaul's appointment as king was specifically for this purpose, see Shmuel I 8:20. If so, Shaul undoubtedly studied this particular Parsha very well!). Shaul was not intending to belittle the command instructing him to eradicate all traces of Amalek. Rather, he found it necessary to teach his troops, while on the way to war, the immortal lesson of the importance of a human life, just as the Torah taught us this lesson in the section dealing with war.

What, then, was Shaul's sin? The Torah only reminds us of Egla Arufa in the section *following* the one dealing with the actual waging of the war. Only after the will of the Almighty has been fulfilled, and the war is over, is it time to remind us to be aghast of a killing. Shaul's mistake was to teach his soldiers (and himself) this lesson *before* the actual war! There is a time for everything, if one gives a talk on the value of human life on the way to a war, it is destined to affect the success of the battle. As we see, Shaul and the nation were so affected, that they "had mercy on Agag and on the finest of the sheep", and didn't carry out the full word of Hashem!

IV

I once heard an original approach to this Midrash, from Rav Shalom Shwadron Z'L, the famed "Magid" of Yerushalayim. Rav Shalom quoted the Rambam in his preface to Avot (Ch. 6 out of 8), who points out an apparent contradiction between the view of the philosophers, and the view of our sages, in service of Hashem. The philosophers believe that one whose very desire is to do good, is on a higher spiritual level than one who desires to do bad, but constantly subdues his innate urge. Pesukim in Mishlei would seem to support this view. Why then, asks the Rambam, do we find in the Midrash, that "one shouldn't say I don't desire to eat milk and meat, or wear Sha'atnez, but rather I desire them, yet I shall refrain from them against my desires, because my father in heaven has decreed upon me such".

The Rambam answers that both views are correct, and supplement each other. An act that logically ought to have been outlawed even had the Torah not been given, such as murder, theft, property damage or disgracing others, or any of the acts which cause damage to society at large, certainly must be considered obnoxious and unsavory, to a person on even a minimal spiritual level. It is these acts that the philosophers referred to. However, an act that doesn't seem to carry any evil ramifications, yet was outlawed by the Torah for reasons beyond our grasp, should be refrained from only "because my master in heaven has decreed upon me such".

Shaul couldn't understand the necessity of killing out the entire nation of Amalek. Nevertheless, he undoubtedly accepted the word of the Almighty, just as he accepted the other decrees of the Torah that don't seem to have a backing in our logic, such as not wearing Sha'atnez. As such, he felt that the best way to perform this Mitzva would be with the attitude that "I shall perform this act against my desires, because my father in heaven has decreed upon me such". To this end, he brought home clearly to himself the importance of a human life- not to doubt the integrity of the word of the Almighty, but rather to the contrary, in order to fulfill his Mitzva in the best possible manner, as the Rambam described.

His mistake was, that putting to death a confirmed murderer is not a cruel act at all. It is, if anything, a logical and merciful act (see Targum Yonatan in Kohellet, on the Pasuk quoted in our introductory Midrash). "One who shows mercy towards the cruel, will eventually show cruelty towards the merciful" (??). Shaul would have done better to convince himself of the necessity and justness involved in the destruction of Amalek. Then he undoubtedly wouldn't have "had mercy on Agag and the finest of the sheep", and would have stuck to the letter of the law, as presented to him by Shmuel the prophet!


Visit the
Dafyomi Advancement Forum

1