02: Chapter 1 - the Character of Chana (part 2)
The Book of Shmuel
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Lecture
2: Chapter 1 - the
Character of Chana (part
2)
Rav
Amnon Bazak
Chana's
moving prayer was not only a turning point, but another test of her virtuous
personality and qualities. Even before we reach the prayer itself, Scripture
prepares us with the information that another person is observing the scene from
the sidelines:
Now
Eli the Priest sat upon a seat by the gatepost of the temple of the Lord.
(9)
The continuation of the story, however, is quite surprising. As we saw in
the previous lesson, Chana's prayer stemmed from a broken heart and deep faith.
But Eli, the presiding priest and judge, regarded the manner in which she was
praying as inappropriate:
Now
Chana spoke in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard;
therefore, Eli thought she was drunk. And Eli said to her, How long will you be
drunk?! put away your wine from you. (13-14)
It is clear from this description that prayers were ordinarily offered
out loud – "It was not the common practice to pray silently" (Rashi) – and that
this was the root of Eli's error. Nevertheless, Eli's severe conclusion, that
Chana's conduct stemmed from drunkenness, set Chana before another test. Two
possible responses were available to her. On the one hand, Chana could have
lashed out in anger against Eli, who instead of being sensitive to her feelings,
scolded her and accused her falsely; on the other hand, Chana could have
concluded from Eli's reaction that God too does not accept her prayer. Chana's
greatness lies in the fact that she did not choose either one of these radical
possibilities. While she related to Eli with modesty and humility, she did not
retract her prayer, but rather she patiently explained her behavior to
him:
And
Chana answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit:
I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before
the Lord. Take not your handmaid for a worthless woman; for out of the
greatness of my complaint and grief have I been speaking.
(15-16)
Chana uses the same expressions in her answer to Eli as she had used in
her prayer to God – "my lord" and "your handmaid" – and thus she expresses her
humility before the important priest standing before her. The modesty that had
characterized her thus far, as she stood before Penina and Elkana without
complaining, continues to be an inseparable element of her personality at this
time as well.
In contrast to Chana's greatness, Eli's weakness of character is
striking. Eli failed to understand what was happening before him, and he wrongly
attacked Chana. Eli's severe reproach stands out, in particular, in light of
what we will read regarding his relationship with own sons, that despite their
serious offences, "he restrained them not" (3:13). It seems that it is not by
chance that Scripture puts into Chana's mouth: "Take not your handmaiden for
a worthless (beliya'al) woman," which alludes to the play
on words that we will encounter in the next chapter – "the sons of Eli were
worthless (beliya'al) men" (2:12). The entire scene stirs up disturbing
thoughts about Eli: his own sons, worthless men, he fails to rebuke for their
serious offenses, but Chana, who pours out her heart in prayer, he wrongly
reproaches!
Eli will accompany us in the upcoming chapters, and our first impression
of him will only be strengthened. Eli is the first in a series of tragic
characters in the book of Shmuel: a character who is basically moral, but
whose errors exact an exceedingly heavy price.
In any
event, among Eli's vices, we also find his virtue, for after hearing Chana out,
his attitude toward her radically changes:
Then
Eli answered and said, Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant you your
petition which you have asked of Him.[1]
(17)
And indeed, after hearing Eli's consoling words, Chana goes home with a
good feeling and with the hope of deliverance:
And
she said, Let your handmaid find favor in your sight. So the woman went her way,
and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad. (18)
VII.
"And SHe called His name Shmuel, because I have asked him of the
Lord"
After
being remembered by God, Chana names her son Shmuel. This name is somewhat
surprising, for from the verse cited in the heading to this section one might
have expected that the child would be named Shaul. This impression is reinforced
by the fact that the root shin-alef-lamed appears seven times in this
chapter, mostly in direct connection to Shmuel himself:
Then
Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant you your
petition (shelatekh) which you have asked (sha'alta) of
him… (17)
And in
the course, Chana conceived and bore a son, and she called him Shmuel, Because
I have asked him (she'iltiv) of the Lord….
(20)
For
this child I prayed: and the Lord has given me my petition
(she'elati) which I asked (sha'alti) of Him. Therefore
also I have presented him (hish'iltihu) to the Lord; as long as he
lives he shall be devoted (sha'ul) to the Lord. And he bowed down
to the Lord there. (27-28)
What then is the meaning of the name "Shmuel"? It seems that there is no
fundamental connection between the name and the root shin-alef-lamed.
Rather, the name should be interpreted in a different direction, one that was
proposed by Ibn Ezra in his commentary to the Torah (Shemot
18:3):
What
seems right to me is that the shuruk comes in place of a cholam…
Thus, Shmuel is derived from Shemo-El ["His name is God"]. His mother
called him by the name of God, because God gave him to her as she had asked. Do
not ask how can a person be given the name of God, for it is like Tzurishadai
(Bamidbar 7:36), and many others like it.
Shmuel then is "Shemo El," that is to say, he is called by the name of
God.[2]
This name has great symbolic meaning: Shmuel was only born after Chana had
prayed intensely to God and vowed to give him to God all the days of his life.
Moreover, Shmuel's most important achievement in life was anointing the first
two kings of
Thus, it may be suggested that the interpretation given to Shmuel's name,
"Because I have asked him of the Lord," is only a secondary interpretation, as
in many other cases in Scripture.[3]
After a name is given to a child, it is open to interpretation; additional
meanings may be attached to the name which do not substitute for its original
meaning, but add to it.
VIII. THE HIDDEN CONFRONTATION WITH ELKANA
And
the man Elkana, and all his house, went up to offer to the Lord his yearly
sacrifice, and vow. But Chana did not go up; for she said to her husband, I will
not go up until the child is weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may
appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever. And Elkana her husband said to
her. Do what seems good in your eyes; tarry until you have weaned him; only may
the Lord establish His word. So the woman remained and nursed her son until she
weaned him. (21-23)
Following the first confrontation between Elkana, who tried to persuade
Chana to accept her situation, and Chana, who refused to give up, which we
discussed in the previous lesson, we now face another confrontation between the
two. Here again we are not dealing with a frontal struggle, and certainly not
with a violent clash, but the echoes of a disagreement between Elkana and Chana
are clearly audible in these verses as well. Elkana's words imply that he does
not want to confront Chana directly about her not going up to Shilo with her
son, but he is nevertheless concerned about suffering harm on account of what he
regards as her failure to fulfill her vow. Surely Chana had vowed: "I will give
him to the Lord all the days of his life"; why then does she not hasten to
fulfill her vow? Is she not concerned that this violation of her vow will cost
her son his life?[4]
Why indeed did Chana behave as she did? The answer to this question is
very simple. Chana's vow, like many other vows, has both a formal dimension and
a substantive dimension. Formally Elkana was right, for Chana had vowed to give
Shmuel to God all the days of his life. On the practical level, however, what
value would there be in giving Shmuel to God prior to his weaning? What benefit
could such a young child bring to the Mishkan of God, when he still needs
his mother? Chana is not trying to avoid fulfilling her vow, but she insists on
fulfilling it in a meaningful, rather than a formal
manner.
There is an interesting parallel between the two confrontations between
Elkana and Chana in the chapter. In both of them Elkana sees only the formal,
routine dimension that is not amenable to change, whereas Chana represents the
belief in seeing the more profound meaning of things, beyond the formal
framework. This hidden confrontation is but another dimension of the differences
between the two characters.
IX.
the Hidden confrontation with ELi
Just as we find a hidden confrontation between Chana and Elkana in the
second half of the chapter, so too we find such a confrontation also with Eli.
After Chana brings Shmuel up to Shilo, we read about her words to
Eli:
And
they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli. And she said, O my lord, as
your soul lives, my lord, I am the woman that stood by you here, praying to the
Lord. For this child I prayed; and the Lord has given me my petition which I
asked of Him. Therefore also I have presented him to the Lord; so long as he
lives he shall be devoted to the Lord. And he bowed down to the Lord there.
(25-28)
These verses imply that Chana had to beg Eli – "O my lord, as your soul
lives, my lord" – to accept her son. Chazal were attentive to this note,
and picturesquely described the second confrontation between the
two:
Rabbi Elazar said:
Shmuel was guilty of giving a decision in the presence of his teacher; for it
says: "And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli" (I Shmuel
1:25). Because the bullock was slain, did they bring the child to Eli?
What it means is this. Eli said to them: Call a priest and let him come and kill
[the animal]. When Shmuel saw them looking for a priest to kill it, he said to
them: Why do you go looking for a priest to kill it? The slaughter may be
performed by a layman! They brought him to Eli, who asked him: How do you know
this? He replied: Is it written: "The priest shall kill"? It is written: "The
priests shall present [the blood]" (Vayikra 1:5): the office of the
priest begins with the receiving of the blood, which shows that the slaughter
may be performed by a layman. He said to him: You have spoken very well, but all
the same you are guilty of giving a decision in the presence of your teacher,
and whoever gives a decision in the presence of his teacher is liable to the
death penalty. Thereupon Chana came and cried before him: I am the woman that
stood by you here, etc. He said to her: Let me punish him and I will pray to God
and He will give you a better one than this. She then said to him: "For this
child I prayed." (Berakhot 31b)
The Midrash relates that Shmuel proved from Scripture that ritual
slaughter is valid even when performed by a non-priest. Eli agreed with Shmuel
but he maintained that Shmuel was liable for the death penalty for issuing a
halakhic ruling in the presence of his teacher, and he consented to waive the
death penalty only in response to Chana's supplications. It seems that the
conceptual kernel of the Midrash emerges directly from the plain sense of the
text. It stands to reason that Eli did not view with favor Shmuel's being
brought to serve in the sanctuary, because formally there is no room for a
layman to serve there. But Chana asked Eli to relate to Shmuel in a special way,
owing to the special circumstances surrounding his birth. In this confrontation
as well Chana faces formal inflexibility, while she tries to create a new
framework and an exceptional path in the service of God. In the end, Eli accepts
the child, and thus confirms the legitimacy of paving within the formalistic
framework new paths of turning to God and consecrating a child to the service of
God.
X.
"AND HE BOWED DOWN TO THE LORD THERE"
With
these words (v. 28) the chapter comes to an end, but Scripture does not clarify
to whom they refer. We are faced with three possible interpretations, each of
them constituting a different end to the story:
1)
Rashi in his first explanation writes that the reference is to Shmuel. According
to this understanding, Shmuel was listening on the side to the debate between
Eli and Chana, and when he heard Eli's readiness to accept him for Divine
service in the Temple, he bowed down before God, thanking Him for the privilege:
"He bowed down in order to thank God for allowing him to be included among those
who serve God" (Metzudat David).[5]
2) In his second
explanation, Rashi writes that the reference is to Elkana. According to this
understanding, in the end Elkana participated in Chana's plan and rejoiced when
he saw that she had succeeded in convincing Eli to accept the child.[6]
3) Ralbag explains in
what appears to be the simplest manner that the reference is to Eli: "Now Eli
bowed down to God in order to thank Him when he saw that God had given her what
she had asked for, as Eli had promised her." In her words to Eli, Chana says,
"And the Lord has given me my petition which I asked of Him," and thus in effect
she repeats the blessing that Eli had given her after having been convinced of
the sincerity of her prayer: "The God of Israel grant you your petition which
you have asked of Him." Thus, there is reason to assume that Eli was moved to
see that his blessing had been actualized.
Nevertheless, it is
difficult to decide between the various interpretations. Perhaps, Scripture
means to say that they all bowed down to God.
In any event, bowing
down before God is a fitting way to end this story, the entire message of which
is to believe in God even in the most difficult moments, based on the
recognition that God's deliverance can arrive in the blink of an
eye.
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] Is this a promise, or perhaps only a
blessing and prayer? It is difficult to decide the matter from the verse itself,
and the commentators raise both suggestions.
An important discussion of this issue is
found in the commentary of Rabbi Yosef Kra to the verse. Counted among the
disciples of Rashi, R"Y Kra was one of the most important biblical commentators
following the plain sense of the text during the period of the Rishonim.
Incidental to his discussion of our question, R"Y Kra presents his credo
regarding the study of the plain sense of Scripture, and his words here should
serve as a guide to all students of Scripture in our day as well: "Know, that
when prophecy was committed to writing, it was written in full with whatever is
necessary [for understanding], so that later generations should not stumble, and
nothing is missing in its place. There is no need to bring proof from other
places or from the Midrash, for the Torah was given in perfect form and written
in perfect fashion, with nothing at all missing. The Midrash of our Sages comes
to enhance the Torah and glorify it. But one who does not understand the plain
sense of Scripture and inclines after a midrashic interpretation, may be likened
to one who had been washed away by the current of a river and inundated by the
depths of the waters, and he seizes onto anything that comes into his hand in
order to save himself. Had he paid attention to the word of God, he would have
investigated the plain meaning of the matter, and he would have found it, in
fulfillment of what is stated: 'If you seek her like silver, and search for her
as for hidden treasures; then shall you understand the fear of the Lord, and
find the knowledge of God' (Mishlei 2:4-5)." According to R"Y Kra, all
the information needed to understand a biblical passage is found in Scripture
itself, and the Midrash should not be consulted to resolve problems on the level
of the plain sense of the biblical text.
[2] It is also possible that "Shemo-El"
should be understood as "Shem-El," and that the vav at the end of
"Shemo" is merely an element of florid style, as in "beno be'or"
(Bamidbar 24:3, 15), "lema'ayano mayyim" (Tehillim 114:8),
and elsewhere.
[3] Thus, for example, Rachel gives two
meanings to the name Yosef. First she says: "God has taken away
[asaf] my reproach" (Bereishit 30:23), but afterwards she
explains: "The Lord shall add [yosef] to me another son" (ibid. v. 24).
For this issue, see at length M. Garciel, Midreshei Shemot ba-Mikra,
[4] According to this, the words, "Only may
the Lord establish His word," mean "May He keep His promise." It seems from here
that Elkana understood Eli's words as a promise, and not only a blessing and
prayer (see above, note 1). In any event, this is the meaning of the expression
in other places in Scripture; see I Melakhim 2:3-4; 6:12.
[5] In contrast, there are those who
understood that at the time Shmuel was only two years old, and thus it is
difficult to understand his bowing down as a meaningful act, but at most: "Even
though he was only two years old, he had been taught to bow down to
God."
[6] Or more simply: "As one who asks
permission to leave the house of God" (Radak).