Chapter 4 Shmuel: Fixing with Father back to Adam
Shmuel the Prophet, or Samuel in English, presents himself on the Israelite scene after the culmination of the period of Judges of which Shimshon was considered the last. After Shimshon, Eli the Kohen as High Priest led the Jewish people and his leadership was immediately followed by that of Shmuel. In the words of the Talmud,” Eli’s sun did not set before the sun of Shmuel of Ramah arose.”53
Although the Bible and Rabbinical tradition do not hesitate at times to cast a critical eye on even the greats of the world, Shmuel interestingly, is portrayed in a nearly purely positive light. The Talmud54 counts him as one of the eight princes among men. Further, according to one opinion in the Talmud,55 besides being a Levite he was also a Nazir. A Nazir was the archetype of supreme holiness that was available to all Jewish men and women regardless of what tribe of Israel they emanated from. Blessed with wealth by God,56 he was also head of the Sanhedrin which compromised the elite Torah scholars of the time. According to one Midrash57 Shmuel is considered the equal of Moshe while in the Talmud58 he is considered praised in one respect even beyond that of Moshe.
Besides writing most of the book of Shmuel, he also was entrusted by God to write the Book of Judges and Ruth.59 He was an inventor of various Musical instruments used for the Levitical choir.60 His words at times were also incorporated into the Hallel prayer which is said on special religious occasions.61
Shmuel like Moshe is the archetype of the Public servant. This is manifested both in his prayers on behalf of the Jewish people62 and in his administration of justice. In the latter, he not only did not take anything for his services as a Judge but did not utilize even public resources so as to preserve them for the community and stay impartial in his judgment.63 More than that, he traveled every year on a judicial circuit to the people’s villages in contrast to making the people travel to him.64
With such an outstanding and praised leader and soul we are somewhat startled to read in the Book of Shmuel,” And it was when Shmuel grew old and he placed his sons as Judges in Israel. And the name of his firstborn son was Yoel and the name of his second son was Eliav and they were Judges in Be’er Sheva. And his sons did not walk in his ways; they were swayed by material gain, took bribes and perverted justice. And all the elders of the Children of Israel gathered and they came to Shmuel of Ramah. And they said to him, ’Behold you are aging and your sons did not go in your ways. Now make for us a king to judge us like all the nations.’”65
The classical commentaries focus their attention on what was behind the intent of the elders of Israel asking for a king so as to be “Judged like all the Nations” as this drew a negative reaction on the part of Shmuel and even more so God.66 In addition, the classical commentaries seek to largely revision the literalness of the indictments made on Shmuel’s sons. This re-reading is based on un-unanimous opinions found in the Talmud.67
The Talmud in tractate Shabbat68 offers new ways of understanding actions taken on the part of important Biblical figures that appear disconcertingly sinful and are made to be seen according to some opinions in a less problematic light. The actions of Shmuel’s sons are like much in the Talmud a matter of reconstruction, interpretation and dispute. For Rabbi Yonatan, Yoel and Eliav were simply not as righteous as their father. This in that they were not willing to travel to the people as their father had, instead making the people come to them in Beer Sheva, a rather distant part of the land of Israel. The harsh criticisms of bribery and wealth seeking made in scripture are thus exaggerations that seek to convey how wrong their actions were seen in the eyes of God. Here, the essential criticism is that part of upright justice is to make justice accessible to all. When people have to travel long distance and undergo hardship to obtain justice then justice is often not realized.
While everyone agrees that this was one component of their error some are of the opinion that it went well beyond this. According to Rebbe Meir their mistake was that they as Levites were entitled to a specific tithe, they however, as influential leaders, asked outright for the tithe. This had the result of impoverishing other less influential Levites.
According to Rabbi Yehudah, however, they entered into business arrangements with Israelites and, when it came time to judging them in cases that arose, they exercised a partiality on behalf of their business partners. This understanding, indeed follows the scripture, which accuses them outright of bribery and the perversion of justice.
According to Rabbi Akiva, they took more of the Levitical tithe than was their due this constituting stealing. While according to Rebbe Yossi they either stole Priestly gifts or took the Levitical tithe by force.
What we see from this is that clearly they did not follow in their revered father’s ways. The bulk of opinion and scripture itself saying that there were elements of outright sinfulness involved, what degree and kind is a matter of opinion.
What interests us at this point are the following questions: Why did the righteous Shmuel have two sons who strayed from his pathway of completely selfless justice and were thus not found worthy of replacing him? Why did he have to undergo the public humiliation of having the elders of Israel tell him to his face that this was indeed the case?
At first it appears that the Talmud69 offers us an explanation elsewhere. We are informed that if a great sage makes a curse upon an individual, even if that curse is conditional and the person upon whom the curse is placed acts in a way that makes the curse non- applicable, nevertheless, the curse will still happen. The example proffered by the Talmud is none other then that of Eli and Shmuel.
Shmuel’s first prophecy, as a young and initiate prophet, was the message from God that Eli’s two sons would die and further men of his lineage would die young and his lineage would not carry on the High priesthood.70 This was all to befall Eli because he failed to effectively censure and take action towards the errant and disturbing behavior of his sons, which was public knowledge and a desecration of God’s name.71
Like with Shmuel’s sons, there is disagreement as to what the actual reality of their behavior was. According to Rav, Eli’s son Chofni was guilty of adultery and Pinchas his second son was guilty of failing to rebuke him. Thus for Rav, scripture72 is literal in regards to Chofni when it describes violations of forbidden sexual relations but merely ascribes guilt to Pinchas for the sin of not rebuking his brother. For Rabbi Yonatan, neither Chofni nor Pinchas were guilty of adultery but because they failed to offer sacrifices in a timely manner for women who had just given birth, thus keeping them from having relations from their husbands, scripture attributes them this dreadful sin.73 Whatever their behavior was, it was enough to have them both deemed worthy of death by God as they died carrying the ark of God in a war with the Philistines slain, according to tradition, by the giant Goliath of Gath.74
How Shmuel came to be cursed was that, understandably, he was a bit hesitant to reveal his first prophecy to his mentor Eli. Either we can imagine this was out of respect for his teacher or fear as to what his teacher might make of such a “first prophecy on the job”. Eli in response to Shmuel’s hesitancy told him,” Please do not withhold from me! Such shall God do to you and such shall he do further if you withhold from me anything from the word he spoke to you!”75 Shmuel in the end confided to him the fullness of his prophecy and Eli accepted it with equanimity. Nevertheless, the curse appears to have manifested in Shmuel’s sons veering from their father’s way as Eli’s sons strayed from his. While we have managed to find a case in support of the Talmudic teaching regarding curses, all may not be so simple with regards to the dynamic between Eli and Shmuel. We appear then to have a resolution as to why the righteous Shmuel had two sons who strayed from his way and did not fill his place in Israel. There are some questions to be asked however: how did the young and initiate prophet Shmuel come to deserve such a curse? On what basis would not his lifelong righteousness and that of his Torah study and the initial piety76 and Torah study of his sons not prevent such a misfortune to occur? While Eli was a holy man and great sage, he was not without significant failing. Given his own son’s pattern of behavior and his lack of response to it, would not the power of his conditional curse be weakened, especially when Shmuel met the conditions to remove the curse? We are forced to ask: was there anything in Shmuel’s background or rather soul-ground that made him vulnerable to such a curse or rather “destined” for such a curse?
Moreover, we can detect in Eli’s attitude toward Shmuel a harshness that seems not in congruence with whom we see Shmuel to be both presently and in the future. Here is another bewildering anecdote between Eli and Shmuel. In the Talmud77 we are told that once Eli sent some individuals to seek out a priest to slaughter an animal for sacrifice. Shmuel, who knew sacrificial law well, knew correctly that this was not necessary and stated that an Israelite or a Levite could do the slaughter. While he was indeed right, we may say he was dead right. He was judged as rendering a legal decision in the proximity of his teacher, a capital crime, whose punishment was meted out by God. Eli would have allowed for this without stepping in to pray on Shmuel’s behalf. We are told that it was only intervention from his righteous mother Chanah that spared him. Eli was ready to pray that she have even a greater son and seemed fine to be rid of Shmuel. Now it would be wise to remember that Eli was the High Priest of Israel. He had to enter annually, with great purity of heart and intention into the Holy of Holies or else not make it out alive. We can rest assured that he was not a person with disregard for human life nor did he harbor some cruel grudge against Shmuel that he would be obligated by Torah law to resolve. We have no reason to believe that Shmuel did anything else wrong in his apprenticeship with Eli and yet we see that Eli is ready to allow for his premature death for what may have been a careless error that could be chalked off to the naive arrogance of youth. To put it simply, giving Eli the benefit of the doubt here, “What was he tuning into?”
It is here that we will make known the teaching of the Arizal regarding Shmuel’s soul. I believe this teaching will reconcile how it is that Eli was willing to allow for Shmuel’s premature death for his rendering of a legal decision in his proximity. In addition, it will explain with greater synergy and without contradicting the Talmud how it was that Shmuel came to have two sons who veered from his path and that he had to be witness to this disappointment.
In Sha’ar Hagilgulim78 it is explained to us that Kayin (Cain) and Hevel (Abel) the first two sons of Adam, are not mere historical figures that are the basis of various morality lessons. Rather, Kayin and Hevel are super souls that recur in ever new forms throughout history, seeking to evolve and rectify themselves. Kayin’s soul is seen as largely rooted in evil, while the goodness which it is comprised of is extremely refined. In contrast, Hevel is seen as largely good with an admixture of evil. So we see that the source souls of Kayin and Hevel reincarnate through various extensions of their souls in every generation. According to the Arizal’s revelation, Nadav and Avihu, the two sons of Aaron the High Priest were incarnations of the good which was in Kayin. We know from the Torah79 that Nadav and Avihu died in the lifetime of their father for an erroneous action based on misguided intentions, and there is a wealth of opinion as to what was at its root. Nadav and Avihu, also according to the Arizal, had numerous reincarnations themselves, eventually landing themselves in the soul of our very own”Shmuel the Prophet”. This is where the puzzle starts to take shape.
According to Rebbe Eliezer, Nadav and Avihu died because they rendered a legal decision before Moshe their teacher.80 As the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu, Shmuel manifested this tendency from an early age. Eli the High Priest may have understood that there was more contained in this action than the action itself. Eli’s may have sensed the violation of Shmuel’s very life’s purpose- to help further the evolution of the souls he carried- and thus Eli would have allowed for his premature death. To manifest the same sin that led to the death of Nadav and Avihu was not the intention of their reincarnation in Shmuel, given that it would be better that they reincarnate in a soul that, in the words of Eli, ”Is even greater then he.”
Understanding Shmuel as the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu also helps one understand why the conditional curse of Eli became manifest in Shmuel and why Shmuel was both vulnerable and, possibly, destined to such a curse. For the Arizal,81 Nadav and Avihu even though well intentioned in their own minds, erred and caused their father not only grief but humiliation. Ultimately, a parent feels responsible for the actions of their child and this is, more often then not, to some degree warranted. How must Aaron have felt to have his two eldest sons, destined for the next generation of priestly leadership, die publicly in an instant? While Aaron was inspiringly able to be silent in the face of the decree of God this says nothing about the internal feelings that such an experience leads to. Shmuel, as the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu, had to experience the rectifying pain of seeing his sons not following in his ways and this pain and humiliation had to be public. The curse of Eli may have been unbending to begin with but it as well was destined for a soul or rather souls that had its name on it.
More profound than this, Nadav and Avihu, themselves a reincarnation of the good in the soul of Kayin, also lent themselves to the need for such a fixing. Kayin was responsible for Adam suffering grief, humiliation and loss of two sons. Kayin’s killing of Hevel caused Adam the loss of the life of Hevel and the banishment of the second son Kayin. Shmuel as the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu which were themselves a reincarnation of Kayin, by suffering the fate of his two sons was fixing a blemish that went back to Adam.
Understanding Shmuel as the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu explains one more facet of Shmuel’s leadership and life. While Shmuel had the privilege of anointing both King Shaul and King David,82 he also had the sorry task of informing Eli the High priest that his sons would not carry on in his place. In addition, he informed King Shaul that he would lose his seat on the throne and his progeny would not carry on the kingship.83 Why did Shmuel have these specific missions? Why was he made a witness to both Eli and Shaul having to accept these losses of leadership continuity? While, one can look at this from the perspective of historical coincidence, that would be far from what the Talmud and teachings of the Arizal are pointing to.
In the Talmud84 we are told that Nadav and Avihu were a bit impatient as to when they would rise and fill the sandals of their Uncle Moshe and Father Aaron. They went so far as for one to mutter to the other, while walking behind them, ”When will these two old men die and you and I lead the generation?” God apparently had a different idea in mind and that is what played itself out in history. Shmuel as the reincarnation of Nadav and Avihu had to bear the message twice, once for Nadav and once for Avihu, that the sons of the current leader would not carry on. With King Shaul it went even further - that he himself would lose the throne. In relaying this message, Shmuel a.k.a Nadav and Avihu had to witness the reactions on the part of Eli and King Shaul. While they no doubt did their best to take it in stride, obviously there was a significant sadness to the events. This sadness that Shmuel as an empathic and refined person and Prophet must have felt on a heart level fixed the insensitive impetuousness that Nadav and Avihu manifested in relation to Moshe and Aaron.
The Talmud85 quotes Rabbi Ami to the effect,” There is no death without transgression and no suffering without sin.” The life of Shmuel the Prophet teaches us that sometimes the suffering we experience is part of a healing and atonement for the souls we carry and that the meaning of our individual lives needs to be understood on the canvas of a cosmological family tree going as far back as Adam.
