ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע
(Religious Commands opposing Moral Obligations or opposing Appeasing G-d through Sacrifices)
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
|
|
|
| |
| Home |
The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help! |
What's New Activities and Current Events |
Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel |
|
|
|
|
Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English) |
Search Our Site | Links To Peace Movements |
Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
©
Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.