Welcome to KOE's project, dt@koe. Thank you to Alan Gersch for writing this week's dvar torah. If you want to participate in this project by writing or receiving divrei torah, please contact us Jason Herman at dt@koe.org. Shabbat shalom.

Over the course of this week in shul we read the entire history of our conflict with Amalek. This shabbat we read Parshat Zachor and its haftorah about Saul’s war against Amalek. On Purim, the Torah reading tells of the original encounter when Amalek ambushed us on our way out of Egypt and Megillat Esther deals with the end of the last known scion of Amalek, Haman. I would like to examine the least familiar of these stories, the one which (defying the rules of chiastic structure) is chronologically central, but seems thematically least important, that of Saul.

Saul apparently lost his kingship due to his failure to eradicate Amalek. After Samuel the Prophet transmitted G-d’s command to him, Saul gathered the people and fought a war against Amalek. They killed everyone, as commanded by G-d (and the Torah portion we read this shabbat) except for Agag, the Amalekite king, and the best of the Amalekites’ flocks. Seems like a rather severe punishment, doesn’t it? After all, Samuel just killed Agag the next day; it was hardly an “uncorrectable sin!” True, Saul had already “messed up” once before (Samuel ch. 13), but that too would seem to us only a minor infraction. If we take a closer look, perhaps we will find that these “sins” are only symptomatic of some greater flaw in Saul’s character.

What could this terrible flaw be? In fact, Chazal tell us that Saul was in fact a better man than David, his successor. Furthermore, “Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel [the amora, not the prophet] Why did the dynasty of Saul not last? Because it had no reproach. [or ‘taint’] As Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak Never place a leader over the people unless he has a ‘box of unclean/crawling creatures (“shratzim”) hanging behind him.’” (Yoma 22b) This colorful metaphor would indicate that it is best to pick leaders from among people who know shame and humility, and will not try to rule haughtily over the people. On the other hand, a couple of lines later on the same page “Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Why was Saul punished? Because he passed up his honor, as it says ‘Some base fellows said: How shall this [one] save us? And they despised him and did not bring him a gift. But he kept silent.’(“Vayehi ka-macharish” Samuel I 10:27)” Yet the firs! t statement seems to be saying at Saul’s fault was that he was too good to be true! (Though technically speaking, this can be taken as specifically referring to his lineage.) How can this be?

What happens after the war against Amalek can shed some light on this question. First, notice one of Saul’s first actions after the war is “Saul came to Carmel and behold he set up a monument.” (Samuel I 15:12) When Samuel confronts Saul after the war their conversation can give us some insights into Saul’s character. Samuel begins his rebuke with an odd question: “Though you were little in your own eyes, were you not made the head of the tribes of Israel?” (15:17) It would seem that Samuel is answering Saul’s response, or excuse, before he even says it. Saul blames it on the people. Samuel’s statement has already said that Saul is the leader, he must set the example for the rest of the nation, not give in to their baser desires. Part two of Saul’s answer is to say that they weren’t actually “baser desires” but lofty ones: they wanted to sacrifice the best of the Amalekites’ flock to G-d. What religious fervor! How spiritually motivated! But, nevertheless, wrong! As Samuel the! n replies, G-d prefers that people actually obey His commandments than offer sacrifices of this (rebellious) nature. After this, it seems that Saul confesses: “I have sinned… because I feared the people and obeyed their voice.” (15:24) After further rebuke, and having “the kingdom ripped from him” Saul again confesses: “I have sinned; now honor me please before the elders of my people and before Israel…”(15:30) Saul seems quite contrite. But is he really? A careful look at those verses seems to indicate that Saul’s contrition may have been only for its PR value. He wants to be honored by Samuel before the nation’s eyes.

Is this the same Saul we have seen up until this point? The modest lad who hid among the baggage when Samuel wanted to anoint him? (10:23) The one who kept silent when insulted and mocked right after being anointed? (10:27, above) Where did all his modesty and humility disappear to? Sadly, it is the same person. (Saul’s “ruach ra’ah personality disorder” only begins after this point in his story.) Even when he was being modest and humble it was “for show.” When he hid among the baggage, he knew that Samuel and the people would find him there. His “resisting anointing” was just to show all the people how “humble” he was, again for PR purposes. (Notice how in 10:22 there is a pause in the middle of the verse, of annoyance perhaps, before G-d tells them he is hiding by the baggage.) Notice that unlike Moses, Jeremiah and others who protested against their being chosen by G-d, Saul’s “protest” is in public view of the nation, not just in a discussion one-on-one with G-d. Saul’s si! lence when the “base fellows” mocked him shortly after his anointing is also a bit false. First, recall the halacha that a king, unlike a parent or teacher, is forbidden to forego his honor, hence Rav’s statement above. Furthermore, notice the word used “vayehi KAMACHARISH” literally “and he was LIKE silent.” Meaning, he kept silent, as if it did not bother him, but did not really feel that way. Contrast this with David who’s “heart was hollow within him”(Psalms 109:22) and who was truly kind to Saul even though he tried to kill him.

Now, back to the story in our haftorah. When someone sets up a monument for himself, it can hardly be modesty or humility motivating him. Ego would be the more likely explanation. When confronted with his failure to utterly wipe out Amalek, he denies his own responsibility, saying he just “went along” with the people’s desire; “peer pressure,” as it were. But a king is not supposed to have peers, and so no peer pressure! He was showing himself to be a weak willed ruler lacking in self-confidence; someone who was overly concerned with being “popular” at the expense of being right. Not a good characteristic for anyone, let alone the leader of G-d’s nation.

It seems in light of all this that Saul’s fatal flaw was, like so many figures from classical tragedies, hubris, or pride. But the manifestations of his ego are more subtle than most; at a cursory glance, one might think him humble, and I believe he truly wanted to be humble and strove to be. The story of Saul is one of a man who is constantly faced with a difficult challenge; trying to balance the highly prized trait of humility and his honor-demanding position as king of Israel, all the while struggling with the ego’s need for approval and praise. Psychologically speaking, a person with an “ego problem” often really is suffering from low self-esteem as with Saul’s being “little in his own eyes.” People who put others down for their own self-aggrandizement really do so because they feel their own unworthiness. In contrast, one who has true inner self-confidence greets others with favor and feels no threat from them. From a religious point of view, true self-confidence can onl! y come from true faith in G-d, since human beings are inherently mortal and never fully in control of their lives or deaths. Saul seems to suffer from a similar self-esteem problem, which comes to the fore as false modesty, a need for approval and praise and a lack of true self-confidence.

I believe that in the end, Saul overcame this challenge, albeit on the day he died. Saul met his death with equanimity, having been told the day before that he would die. He tried to die with the dignity befitting his rank, even though there was nobody else watching to impress.

Much has been said about Amalek representing doubt. The gematria of “Amalek” is equal to “safek” – “doubt”. The emphasis on “asher korcha baderech” – “that they encountered you on the road”, seemingly by chance, as a denial of divine providence. This is a common theme in Jewish thought on Amalek and Purim. The story of Saul from our haftorah then is not thematically divorced from the other Amalek stories we read this week at all. It seems fitting that the man who almost wiped out Amalek, but failed, was flawed only by his own self-doubting.

Shabbat shalom and Purim Sameach!

For more information, please contact us at dt@koe.org.