Happy Friday! This unfortunately will be quite a short one — I’ve had a busy week!

Context

When Sha’ul was initially anointed as king, not all of the people fully accepted him. Then, Nachash the Ammonite leads an army against Yavesh Gilad, and Sha’ul successfully rallies the people to defeat them. Shmuel then decides to anoint him again to put down any objecters.

Overview

[11:14-15] Shmuel calls the people to Gilgal for a second anointment of Sha’ul.

[12:1-5] Shmuel demands that the people confirm that he has not acted corruptly.

[12:6-15] Shmuel recounts how G-d has saved Israel since slavery in Egypt, and claims that the people have acted wickedly by requesting a king, seemingly to replace G-d.

[12:16-22] Shmuel calls for a thunderstorm (rare in the summer) as a sign of G-d’s disapproval. The people are frightened, but Shmuel tells them that they should just obey G-d and all will be well.

My sons — here they are with you

The entire section in which Shmuel insists that anyone who he has wronged comes forward comes across as very indignant. It seems like Shmuel is taking the people’s request for a king as an insult to his personal integrity. But if you look earlier in the navi, when they request the king in Chapter 8, their concerns are well-founded!

א וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר זָקֵן שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת-בָּנָיו שֹׁפְטִים, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. ב וַיְהִי שֶׁם-בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר יוֹאֵל, וְשֵׁם מִשְׁנֵהוּ אֲבִיָּה–שֹׁפְטִים, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע. ג וְלֹא-הָלְכוּ בָנָיו בִּדְרָכָו, וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע; וַיִּקְחוּ-שֹׁחַד–וַיַּטּוּ, מִשְׁפָּט. {פ}

ד וַיִּתְקַבְּצוּ, כֹּל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, הָרָמָתָה. ה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה אַתָּה זָקַנְתָּ, וּבָנֶיךָ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בִּדְרָכֶיךָ; עַתָּה, שִׂימָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ–כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם. ו וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר, בְּעֵינֵי שְׁמוּאֵל, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ; וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוּאֵל, אֶל-יְהוָה. {פ}

1 And it came to pass, when Shmuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his first-born was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beer-sheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after profit, and took bribes, and perverted justice. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Shmuel to Ramah. 5 And they said to him: ‘Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.’ 6 But the thing displeased Shmuel, when they said: ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Shmuel prayed to Hashem.

No one had ever accused Shmuel of wrongdoing; they had only accused his sons. This is in stark contrast with Moshe’s speech in the parsha which is motivated by accusations against Moshe’s character. And by the account of the navi, the accusation against Shmuel was based on the facts! So why did Shmuel go into this length speech about his own personal integrity, when no one had challenged it?

It’s true that the elders came to Shmuel based on the delinquency of his sons. But their call to action could have been decidedly different. “Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now… please fire your sons, and appoint judges who will act righteously after your custom.” Why did they not take this relatively minor step instead of the drastic step of requesting a king?

Perhaps Shmuel thinks that the elders mistrust him: “if Shmuel’s sons have gone to the dark side, Shmuel is not far off himself. Or maybe Shmuel would be willing to turn a blind eye for his beloved sons.” If that’s the case, why did they think that asking for a king would go better than asking for different judges? Maybe they thought that this was a way for Shmuel to save face. If a king is being appointed, it’s not that the family of Shmuel is being disgraced due to the actions of his sons. Instead, the people are merely transitioning to a new form of leadership as they were commanded to do in the Torah.

This is a bit of a mind-reading game: we’re trying to infer what Shmuel thought that the elders thought that he thought. But I think this nicely explains everyone’s actions.

Shmuel says in verse 2:

ב וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הַמֶּלֶךְ מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם, וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי וָשַׂבְתִּי, וּבָנַי, הִנָּם אִתְּכֶם; וַאֲנִי הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם, מִנְּעֻרַי עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

2 And now behold, the king walks before you, and I have aged and become old, and my sons — behold they are with you; and I have walked before you from my youth until this day.

What is the reference to Shmuel’s sons there for? Perhaps in Shmuel’s speech here he is separating himself from his sons. “I am giving you the king you asked for, but it is not because I fear exposure. I have not offended anyone. Even though you removed me from power, the corruption that you noted in my sons is still in your midst, and it must be dealt with. There’s no sweeping it under the table.”

“For the Lord undertook to make you his people…”

The haftarah ends in an interesting place: the speech of Shmuel continues for three more verses after the end of the haftarah. The three omitted verses are:

כג גַּם אָנֹכִי, חָלִילָה לִּי מֵחֲטֹא לַיהוָה–מֵחֲדֹל, לְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְכֶם; וְהוֹרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם, בְּדֶרֶךְ הַטּוֹבָה וְהַיְשָׁרָה. כד אַךְ יְראוּ אֶת-יְהוָה, וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בֶּאֱמֶת–בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם: כִּי רְאוּ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-הִגְדִּל עִמָּכֶם. כהוְאִם-הָרֵעַ, תָּרֵעוּ–גַּם-אַתֶּם גַּם-מַלְכְּכֶם, תִּסָּפוּ. {פ}

23 Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you; but I will instruct you in the good and the right way. 24 Only fear the LORD, and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider how great are the things He has done for you. 25 But if you shall still act wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king.’

Why does the haftarah leave out these three verses? A typical answer to this type of question is that the final verse is not a positive thought to end the haftarah on. This is true here (nobody likes being swept away), but verse 24 is quite positive as well. So why end specifically on verse 22?

Perhaps verse 23 was viewed as wrong to include in the haftarah. The speech of Shmuel closely parallels the speech of Moshe in Parashat Korach. In the story of the haftarah, Shmuel is able to forgive the people and pray for G-d to protect them in the future. In the parashah, on the other hand, no reconciliation is possible (for any number of reasons). Maybe when Chazal were choosing the haftarot, they thought that this contrast of Shmuel and Moshe might unfairly reflect on Moshe. So the ended while Shmuel was being stern but fair, and omitted the warm fuzzies.

Shabbat shalom! May this shabbat bring only friendly gatherings!