tp=92
Reprinted from Conservative Judaism, Vol. 33, No. 3, Spring, 1980, pp.7-21 with the
permission of The Rabbinical Assembly.
KING SAULS FORTUNE AT THE HAND OF THE HOMILISTS
Norbert Weinberg
of historical figures by later generations can be vastly
T h e im a g e c o n c e i v e d
different from the image held by that personage s contemporaries. This can
be said easily of modern political figures, who can be successively praised or
damned; it can be shown to be so of biblical figures in the perspective of later
generations of Jewish commentators as well.
A biblical figure can be turned upside down, as it were. If Enoch
walked with God in the book of Genesis (4:24), in the book of Enoch he is a
divine being, but according to Genesis Rabbah (25:1), He is not recorded in
the lists of the righteous, but of the wicked! On the other hand, a villain the
likes of King Menassah can be sympathized with and called Our Rabbi in
Sanhedrin (102b).
If such is the treatment of blatant saints and sinners, how much more so
in the case of King Saul, a figure at once praiseworthy and pitiable as
described in the Bible. What happens in the writings from the close of the
Bible up until the talmudic period, in the Apocrypha, in Tannaitic and
Amoraic texts, in halakhic and aggadic discussions?
The biblical picture of Saul is favorable. Young and goodly, and there
was none among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he; from his
shoulder and upwards, he was taller than any of the people (I Samuel 9:2).
He is considerate of his father (9:5) and modestly tells no one of his anoint
ment by Samuel (10:16). The spirit of prophecy enters him (10:10) and his
outstanding trait, modesty (9:21), is reflected in his hiding from the populace
on the day of his election (10:22). He is, as well, the successful unifier and
leader of his people at the start of the wars against the Ammonites and the
Philistines (chapters 11-14).
His decline is well delineated. He offers sacrifice without waiting for
Samuel (13:11) and he loses Samuels support, as well as Gods, for sparing
Agag, king of Amalek. He deteriorates rapidly, consumed by jealousy of his
rival, David; he regresses from depression to plotting to attempted murder to
massacre. Nevertheless, there is sympathy for the man throughout the por
trayal: Samuel laments for him; David eulogizes him; and Saul dies nobly by
his own hand rather than falling into Philistine hands to be disgraced.
There are indirect references to Saul, as in Psalms 7 (Cush the Benja-
minite) and Esther 2:3 (the son of Kish, a Benjaminite), which are expounded
upon in later Rabbinic texts. Some Psalms are dedicated to incidents in
The story of the ram, Saul, had been turned completely around; first,
Saul goes mad and kills his own, and only then does Samuel remove him. The
accusation of Saul oppressing his own people is unknown in the Bible.
If Ben Sira writes as a pedagogue, the author of Enoch is an es-
chatologist. The pedagogue seeks an ideal model and therefore exludes Saul.
Enoch is a product of apocalyptic circles, wherein the world is black or white,
saint or sinner; presumably this outlook developed during Antiochene perse
cutions, not much after the time of Ben Sira, and continued to be significant
into the years following the fall of the Second Temple. 4 The book of Enoch is
assumed to have been written at the time of John Hyrcanus; if so, the author
envisions Saul as a prototype of the Hasmonean rulers who turned from
defending against the oppressors to being the oppressors. As they await a
Davidic deliverer, they can have no patience for any contender to the throne
of Israel, before or after David.
suicide, but is killed by the son of Agag. From this young man is Haman
descended. Lest one think that Saul s motive in killing all diviners was noble,
Pseudo-Philo charges him with doing this only to attain glory (Pseudo-Philo
55:58, 59:64).6
During this period, is there no voice favorable to Saul?
In the scroll of Esther, Mordecai is described as the son of Kish, the
(Ben)jaminite,, and Haman as the Agagite. What the first Benjaminite,
Saul, failed, his descendant Mordecai achieves, an early example of a mid-
rashic tit for tat (midah keneged midah). Saul of Tarsus, later to be known as
Paul, addresses his audience (Romans 11:7; Phillipians 3:5) and emphasizes
his descent from the tribe of Benjamin. Presumably, by this time Saul was an
acceptable name, and his intentional choice of the tribe of Benjamin was,
according to Klausner, in order to associate himself with the lineage of King
Saul, just as Jesus was of the lineage of King David. 7
Josephus is the first to attempt an analysis of Saul s personality; he is
perhaps the first Jewish historian to attempt psychohistory. In Antiquities
of the Jews (Book 6 , chapters 4-14) he follows the general outline of the
biblical account, embellishing it with his insights for the Roman readership.
Saul's comprehension and wisdom are described as greater than his beauty,
and his hiding during his election as king was sign of his outstanding modesty
(chapter 4). Even his initial intention in the war with Amalek was good; in
order to show his zeal for God, he speedily made all arrangements for warfare
and set out to totally destroy Amalek (chapter 7).
It is, up to this point, the most favorable description of Saul. It must be
remembered that Josephus, unlike the authors of previously cited works, is
writing for a non-Jewish audience; he wishes to portray his people in as noble
a light as possible to the Romans, who had been in a violent conflict with the
Jews. 8 In describing Sauls downfall, he suggests the following: He also took
Agag, the enemys king, captive; the beauty and tallness of whose body he
admired so much, that he thought him worthy of preservation (Book 6 ,
chapter 7, section 2 ).
Saul s ultimate degeneration, Josephus writes, is common to many lead
ers:
While they are private persons, and in a low condition . . . they are equitable, moder
ate, and pursue nothing but what is just and bend their whole minds and labors that way
. . . but when once they are into power and authority, then they cut o ff all such notions;
and as i f they were actors upon a theater, they lay aside their disguised parts and
manners, and take up boldness, insolence, and a contempt o f both human and divine
laws. (Chapter 12, section 7)9
6 Louis Ginzberg, Legends o f the Jews, vol. VI (Philadelphia), pp. 233-34, n. 62, 66.
7 Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (Boston: 1961), p. 305.
8 J. Heinemann, Darkei Haggadah (Jerusalem: 5714), p. 144. Josephus adopts a style of analysis from the
literary school of Theophrastus.
9 William Whiston, trans., The Genuine Works o f Flavius Josephus, rev. Sam Burder (Boston: 1849).
King Sauls Fortune / Norbert Weinberg 11
10 Translations of Rabbinic texts are by the author. This excerpt is based on the Finklestein edition of
Aboth dR abbi Nathan.
12
inquire o f the Lord (Ibid.) - that refers to Saul telling the priest, Withdraw your
hand (I Samuel 14:19) (5). (Midrash Shmuel 24:7)X1
11 Edited by Shlomoh Buber. Other Rabbinic texts are from the standard edition of the Talmud.
Midrash Rabbah texts taken from the edition printed by Levin-Epstein, Jerusalem, 5727.
12 According to the text of Midrash Shmuel, it should read, Rav Banai in the name of Rav Huna.
King Sauls Fortune I Norbert Weinberg 13
one has its neck broken. This one sinned, what did the other do? A heavenly voice
announced, Be not righteous overmuch! Rav Shimon ben Lakish said, Whoever is
merciful instead o f cruel will in the end be cruel when it is time to be merciful; from
whence do we know that he will be cruel instead o f merciful? It is stated, He struck Nob,
city o f the priests, with the sword from man to woman, child to babe, ox, donkey, and
sheep, by sword (I Samuel 22:18). Let not the fate o f Nob be as that o f the seed o f
Amalek! The Rabbis said, Whoever is merciful instead o f cruel (at the necessary
moment) is struck by the attribute o f law (middat hading as is stated, Saul and his three
sons died (I Samuel 31:6).
The text revolves around several key words. The following verse in
Ecclesiastes chimes in, Why die before your time (verse 17) and Saul is an
appropriate example of someone who died in his prime. The Hebrew for laid
in wait is vayarev, which is lacking the necessary letter aleph for va-
yaarev.13 It is read as meaning riv for quarrel, and hence the question of
the nature of the quarrel. One interpretation reflects the malaise with the
severity of the punishment inflicted upon Amalek but is placed in the mouth
of Saul and thereby discredited. The use of a negative character to phrase
problems of conscience is similarly done in the account of Korach and the
widow s plight as a consequence of Moses taxations in Midrash Tehilim
1:15.14 The other version responds to the reference to valley; if the text in
the Bible is understood as He quarreled about the valley, then the associa
tion of murder, a trait of Amalek, with valley, finds its complement in the law
of the calf whose neck is to be broken in a valley in the case of an unsolved
homicide.
Sauls meeting with the Witch of Ein-dor incorporates a touch of irony:
A man or a woman that has a familiar spirit (Leviticus 20:27). Rav Joshua o f Sichnin
said in the name o f Rav Levi: A man - that is Saul . . . To what can Saul be compared?
To a king who has ordered all the roosters to be slaughtered. He then asks, Bring me a
rooster to crow! They answer, Did you not proclaim, Execute all roosters! Thus Saul
removed diviners and those familiar with spirits from the earth. (Vayikra Rabbah 26:7)
The accusation in Chronicles that Saul did not inquire of the Lord is
dealt with in depth in two other references. The first is a continuation of the
above material from Vayikra Rabbah:
7 am sore distressed . . . and God is departed from me, and answers me no more,
neither by prophets nor by dreams (I Samuel 28:15). Why did he not add Urim and
Thummim? Said Rabbi Isaac b. Hiya: You brought it on yourself. You destroyed Nob,
city o f the priests. Because he sinned against the priests (in charge o f the oracles) so he
was punished with this sin as well. Just as he killed the priests, so he incurred death fo r
this sin o f the oracle and diviner.
The second sheds light on the passage quoted above, from Midrash
Shmuel, in which this sin is associated with I Samuel 14:16-23:
Thy word is a lamp to guide my feet and a light to my path (Psalms 119:105). When did
David recite this verse? When he went to the Valley o f Refaim; even then he did not
proceed to fight until he inquired o f the Urim and Thummim. When Samuel proceeded
to anoint David, the angels contested it before God, saying, Lord o f the World, why
have you taken the kingdom from Saul and given it to David? He answered, 1 will tell
you the difference between Saul and David. Saul began to inquire o f the oracle, but
when he saw the Philistines approach, he ordered the priest hold your hand. But
David, when he saw the Philistines approach at Refaim, immediately inquired o f the
Urim and Thummim, as it says, The Philistines made another attack . . . David inquired
o f the Lord (II Samuel 5:23). (Midrash Tehilim 27:2)
For these critics, Saul s virtue started and stopped at his neck.
Bar Kapara takes the doubt which was attributed to Saul in Kohelet
Rabbah by Rav Huna and moves it to Doeg. He is also attributed with the
King Sauls Fortune / Norbert Weinberg 15
following statement: And Saul and the people had pity on Agag (I Samuel
15:9) that is Doeg, who was equal to all Israel (Midrash Shmuel 18:4).15
The blame is placed upon Doeg for the massacre at Nob as well:
He told Saul (Psalm 52:2, about Ahimelech). What is He told? Thus he said, David
has made himself king in your lifetime, since one does not inquire o f the Urim and
Thummim unless one is king or court or where the public weal depends upon it.
However, David has inquired o f them. . . . (Saul) said to Doeg, You struck them with
your speech, now strike them with the sword. (Midrash Tehilim 52:5)
The biblical text makes it clear that inquiring of the oracle was Doegs
fabrication; the midrash clarifies its impact:
You love evil over good, a lie above a word o f righteousness (Psalm 52:5). David said to
Doeg, You prefer the harm to Saul over his well-being, fo r had he not heard slander
from you, he would not have been punished! (Midrash Tehilim 52:7)
The Rabbis are always eager to teach the power of confession and
repentance. Thus again, in the name of Rav, quoted by Rabbah bar Haninah
Saba:
Whoever transgresses and is then ashamed o f it has his sins forgiven. . . . Samuel said to
Saul, Why have you disturbed me and brought me up? Saul said, I am in great
trouble. The Philistines are pressing upon me and God has turned away from me. He no
longer answers me through dreams or prophets, and I have summoned you to tell me
what I should do (I Samuel 28:15). Why did he not mention the Urim and Thummim?
Because he had killed the people o f the priestly city o f Nob (an act o f which he was
ashamed). Whence do we know he was forgiven in the eyes o f Heaven? Tomorrow you
and your sons are with me (verse 19). Said Rav Yochanan, With me -o n my side. The
Rabbis said it is learned from this verse, We shall put them to death at Gibeah o f Saul,
chosen o f the Lord (II Samuel 21:6). It was a heavenly voice that announced the words,
chosen o f the Lord. (Berakhot 12b)
15 Doeg is head of the court (Midrash Tehilim 3:4) and a great scholar (Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 15:2). In
this period, in Rabbinic retrospect, every child studied halakhah (Vayikra Rabbah 26:7).
Rabbi Shimon bar Lakish adopts a similar theme in regard to Sauls
atonement, which can be contrasted with the criticism recorded in his name
on the theme of merciful instead of cruel mentioned above:
A t that moment, the Holy One, Blessed be He, called to his angels and said: See my
creation. In the normal way o f the world, a man goes to the house o f drink and does not
take his sons with him fo r fear that it would be unseemly. But this one knows that he is to
be killed, takes his three sons with him, and rejoices in accepting the decree that strikes
him. (Midrash Shmuel 24:6 and Vayikra Rabbah 26:7)
is on the prutah. But what if all the world agrees that intent is on the prutah? We can
explain that Saul believed that it had no value, and David believed that it was o f value at
least to dogs and cats.
What would seem, in the biblical text, a case of double-dealing, has been
reduced, in Rabbinic discourse, to a halakhic dispute between two scholars of
great rank.
drashot that idealize said
The same word, Kush, used in Midrash Tehilim to discredit Saul, is used
herein to his glory. Yet the following text, from Midrash Tehilim, also carries
the theme of the contrast between Saul and David, to Sauls credit:
Said the Holy One to David, W hy do you curse my anointed one? You say, All my
enemies will be frustrated and stricken with terror(P salm s 6:11). Do you call Saul an
enemy! As it says, *On the day God saved him from the hand o f his enemies, from the
hand o f Saul (II Samuel 22:1). He said to him, Lord o f the world, intentional sins are
before you as mere errors, as you said, Errors, who can understand? (Psalms 19:13).
(Midrash Tehilim 7:1)
David is forced to ask forgiveness for his arrogance. The theme is then
continued in the text:
16 According to Zunz, much older material is recorded in Vayikra Rabbah under the caption, The
Rabbis taught (tno rabbanan).
17 Rashi comments that shigayon be read shegagah, meaning an error rather than a musical instruction,
thus clarifying the intention of the midrash.
18
Rav Shmuel bar Nachman: You compare yourself to Saul! Saul freed his possessions to
the use o f the wars o f Israel, as it says, He took a pair o f oxen and cut them (1 Samuel
11:3) and you would compare yourself to Saul! Lighter than eagles, stronger than
lions (II Samuel 1:23). Rabbi Levi said: Saul could walk sixty miles in a day.
What are the characteristics that made Saul a leader in the first place.
Many texts emphasize the obvious picture, in the Bible, of his modesty:
Saul did not merit kingship fo r any reason other than his modesty, as we are told, Let
us turn back, or my father will stop worrying about the asses and begin to worry about
us (I Samuel 9:5). But Samuel responded, Your father has stopped being worried
about the asses and is worrying about you, saying, What shall I do about my son?
(Tosefta Berakhot 4:18)
It is implied herein that Saul, in modesty, included in his fathers
concerns his servants as much as himself, an assumption which Samuel
King Sauls Fortune I Norbert Weinberg 19
As mentioned above, the biblical figures were all seen as great talmudic
lights as well. Not only did some Rabbis try to mitigate Sauls failings on the
basis of mistakes in halakhah, but they portrayed him as a devotee of sages as
well. Thus, when the Mishnah (Nedarim 9:10) compares the lamentation
prescribed by David for the women over Saul, Ye daughters of Israel, weep
over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet delicately (II Samuel 1:24), the
discussion in the Yerushalmi to that text is:
Hama said: Banot Yisrael (daughters o f Israel) - Benaot yisrael (the beautiful o f Israel)
- that is the Sanhedrin, fo r when he would see a group o f scholars, he would wine and
dine them. What does the text mean, Who put ornaments o f gold upon your apparel?
That means he would listen to the lessons o f the sage and praise him. The text, in the
names o f Rav Judah and Rav Nehemiah, also compares Saul to Rav Ishmael fo r his
generosity, by feeding the wives o f his soldiers.
The text of Yoma 22b, which contains the extended discussion on Saul
mentioned earlier, provides an exam ple of the Rabbis giving Saul the attri
bute of near perfection:
20
Said Rav Huna, Saul was a year when he became King (I Samuel 13:1). That means
that he never tasted the taste o f sin (like a one year old child). Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak
disagreed: He was like your child, muddied and soiled with excrement. That night he
saw a frightening apparition in his dream, and he declared, 7 have disturbed the bones
o f Saul the son o f Kish/ The apparition returned, until he declared, 7 have disturbed the
bones o f Saul, the son o f Kish, king o f IsraelI18
The ultimate reconciliation is effected; Saul is not only in the same row
with the Messiah, but is seated next to Davids father, Jesse, on one side, and
with Samuel, who had bemoaned Sauls failings, on the other.
concluding thoughts
18 This can be compared to a similar dream attributed to Rav Ashi concerning King Menasseh, recorded
in Sanhdrin 102b.
19 See also Yalkut Shimoni to Micah 5:4 and Bamidbar Rabbah 14:2, under the theme Debates about
the Messiah.
20 Leopold Zunz, Hadrashot Beyisrael, ed. Chanoch Albeck (Jerusalem: 1954), p. 54.
King Saul's Fortune / Norbert Weinberg 21
approach, the text becomes merely the starting point and no longer the
definite authority.
There is only one text that stands out in contrast to the favorable
pronouncements which seem to predominate in later years, and that is in the
Tanna dbei Eliahu. The work is radically different from the literature com
monly found during this period; it reflects, in its style, a return to the
extended discourse upon themes, characteristic of a Ben Sira, for example,
rather than verse by verse explication. It is only here that Saul is villified in
the manner of Enoch or Pseudo-Philo. Saul is included in a discussion of
those to be punished in this world and the next, after Ahitophel, the genera
tions of the flood, the people of Sodom, Sanherib and Pharaoh:
And Saul displayed crass behavior. Therefore, he was killed and the royalty taken from
him. . . . He kept jealousy in his heart and poured out vengeance upon Israel on account
o f David . . . what he was not commanded to do, he did, and what he was commanded to
do, he did it not . . . he spared Agag and slaughtered the priests o f Nob . . . he was
careless in causing adultery, to give Michal, Davids wife, to Paltiel ben Laish, and
inquired o f the spirit, and repeatedly caused abominations in Israel. Therefore, he was
killed and the throne o f Israel taken from him (Tanna dbei Eliahu Rabbah, chapter 31,
Warsaw ed., chapter 21, ish Shalom ed.)21
Only Saul s sins are recorded, and he is ranked in the same list, not with
the eight princes in heaven of the Talmud, but with those who are recorded
in Midrash Sanhdrin 11 as having no place in the world to come and with the
great enemies of Israel, Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, who also have no
share in the world to come (Shabbat 146b); Saul, too, by implication, is in the
nether world.
Which image of Saul became the acceptable one in later generations? I
remember, as* a child, being taught in yeshivah that the only person who
came close to being perfect was Saul. He had committed only one sin. Today,
it would be well to reopen the case of Saul and review the rise and fall of a
national leader. Knowing his strengths and shortcomings, we should reinter
pret the character to fit the intricacies of modern parliamentary politics.