King Shlomo-- "I told you so"

"When you come into the land tht the Lord your God gives you and you inherit it and dwell in it, and say 'I will place a king over me like all the nations around me.'  You shall place a king over you that the Lord your God chooses. . . Only that he should not have many horses . . . and he shall not have many wives in order that his heart not be turned aside, and silver and gold he shall not have much of."   Devarim 17:14-17

The Torah says that a Jewish king:
1. shouldn't have many horses
2. shouldn't have many wives so they don't lead him astray
and
3. shouldn't have much silver and gold.

Shlomo Hamelech is a cautionary tale.   He asked God only for understanding, and God richly rewarded him not just with understanding, but with a long life and wealth as well.  He builds the Beit HaMikdash, he makes Israel into a marvel of the ancient world--- a big kiddush Hashem.

But then, the Queen of Sheva comes and visits and is awed by Shlomo's wisdom and wealth.
We learn:
1. That he has 1,400 chariots (Melachim I 10:26) (chariots are pulled by horses--see above)
2. All of his drinking utensils were gold; silver was considered worthless in the days of Shlomo (because of its abundance)  (Melachim I 10: 21)

And finally:

3. Shlomo loved foreign women and took many of them as wives, and they led him into idolatry. (See chapter 11).

The plain meaning of the book of Melachim I is a cautionary tale-- Shlomo Hamelech may have thought the Torah's proscriptions (and prescriptions) were not for someone as wise as he was.   He may have thought he could avoid the pitfalls.   But he was wrong.


*****
Side point:  There is an issue as to whether Shlomo actually engaged in idolatry, or just didn't prevent his wives from doing so.   This ties into a bigger question of how the Torah and the prophets describe the sins of our forefathers, and whether those descriptions are exaggerated.  I meant to post on this with regard to David and Batsheva.

 Side point:  God seems so displeased with Shlomo, especially contrasted with David.  But David clearly sinned (specifically with Batsheva and Uriah).    Why is David the model king, with all his imperfections?  I think it is because he is a ba'al teshuvah.  When he does wrong, he admits it.  He confesses.  He repents.  As opposed to Shaul who preceded him, who had difficulty admitting his sin, and also opposed to Shlomo his son, who started off righteous, and then went downhill.
The message is simultaneously scary and inspiring:  No matter how great, anyone can crash and burn like Shlomo;  no matter how low one has fallen, anyone can redeem himself with teshuvah like David.

The séance for Shaul---Shmuel I, Chapter 28

Shaul’s searching for a necromancer to raise up Shmuel from the dead so he could take advice from him is certainly a striking one.   One of the larger tangential  (meaning it is not the point of the text) issues that arises from this passage is that it seems clear that Shmuel was indeed raised from the dead.

Does this mean that magic and necromancy are real? 

The argument is certainly strong, and not just from this passage.   Why would the Torah itself prohibit the practice of magic if there were no such thing?  (See Shemot Chapter 22, and Devarim Chapter 18).

There is a famous disagreement between the Rambam and the Ramban.   The Rambam held that in reality, there was no such thing as magic.   The Torah prohibited it precisely because it was a useless endeavor, perhaps to deceive the masses, when people should be instead focused on devotion to God.   Imagine, in a modern context, the plethora of  “New Age” philosophies that have led Jews away from the Torah in their search for spirituality.

The Ramban understands differently, holding that indeed there is such a thing as magic, which is what the Torah prohibits.  It is not so difficult to understand the Ramban in light of the various earlier sources.

But what about the Rambam?    The price he pays for his rationalism is in textual analysis.   The Rambam has a tendency to try to understand biblical passages as being understandable from a rationalist viewpoint.    Thus, if I recall correctly, on our passage he interprets the whole apparition of Shmuel as a vision of Shaul, not as the actual raising of Shmuel from the dead.   Similarly, Bilaam’s donkey didn’t actually talk—the whole incident was a prophetic vision.

Thus, the Rambam would argue that Shaul’s séance to raise up Shmuel didn’t really succeed to raise Shmuel from the dead.   Instead, he had a vision.  Presumably, in order to make the message Shmuel gives to Shaul cogent from a “why is this in the book of Shmuel” point of view, the Rambam would have to understand that God guided this vision in order to give Shaul the message.

Shaul’s failure to defeat Amalek (Shmuel I, Chapter 15)

 This is not so timely, as we have started Sefer Melachim in our cycle.  But I wrote it while recently in Israel, and we read Shmuel I, Chapter 15 it for last week's Haftarah, so here it is.  I will endeavor to catch up.

“God sent me to anoint you as king over his nation, over Israel.  So listen now to the voice of the words of God.”

So does Shmuel introduce his command to King Shaul to wage war and destroy Amalek, including every human being therein, as well as all their livestock.  

The story is very clear that Shaul failed, and it is because of this failure that the kingship is torn from him.  He failed because he spared some of the animals, and spared Agag, the king of Amalek.

Why is this sin so horrible that God decides that it merits the removal of Shaul from his position as king?

After all, we are told that Shaul and the nation “had compassion” on Agag and the best of the animals, and that Shaul intended to sacrifice the animals to God!   Furthermore, Shaul does not even seem to be aware that he failed—he tells Shmuel upon first meeting him “I have fulfilled the word of God”.

Here are 3 answers:

1) The plain meaning of the text is that Shaul disobeyed God and substituted his own judgment for God’s clear will which had been communicated to him by a prophet. 

2) Additionally, there seems to be a clear indication that Shaul lacked the leadership qualities necessary to be king.   Thus, he lays the blame at the feet of the people (they wanted the animals”.    Shmuel rebukes him that even though Shaul doesn’t think much of himself, he is the king and must lead.  And finally, Shaul admits that he was afraid of the people.    Thus, his sin was not mere disobedience to God, but also disobedience that was motivated by fear and an inability to lead the people.  And if the king cannot lead the people to serve God, then he is not worthy to be king.

3) Finally, the destruction of Amalek is an unusual commandment, because the actions involved are normally considered the most heinous of sins—murder.   Thus, a failure—by sparing Agag and the animals--- to fulfill the commandment completely means that the commandment was not followed—Amalek was not wiped out.    And if this is the case, then when Shaul killed the thousands of Amaleki people, his actions essentially became murder.

On a different note, I wonder about the following:   Could Shaul have beseeched God on behalf of Amalek, as Avraham did for the people of Sedom?  Would such an entreaty have been Abrahamic in its merit, or impermissible in this particular case?