Pt2 Counting Jews and Evaluating Kings: Saul, David, and Leadership in the Book of Samuel (Yoma 22b)
This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.
Part 2
Rav Nehilai bar Idi citing Shmuel - Once someone is appointed communal leader, he becomes wealthy
אמר רב נהילאי בר אידי, אמר שמואל:
כיון שנתמנה אדם פרנס על הציבור —
מתעשר.
Rav Nehilai bar Idi said that Shmuel said:
Once a man is appointed as a leader (פרנס) of the community --
he becomes wealthy.
Prooftext from Saul moving from “shards” to “sheep” as counting tokens - I Sam 11:8; 15:4
מעיקרא כתיב:
״ויפקדם בבזק״,
ולבסוף כתיב:
״ויפקדם בטלאים״.
[...]
This is derived from the verses cited above:1
Initially, it is written with regard to Saul:
“And he numbered them with bezek,”
meaning pottery shards,
and in the end it is written:
“And he numbered them with sheep,”
indicating that he was able to provide enough of his own sheep to use them in counting the people.
[...]
R’ Mani - “Saul strove in the valley” = he argued with God over the valley/heifer logic: if 1 death triggers eglah arufah, mass killing is harder to justify - I Sam 15:3-5
״וירב בנחל״,
אמר רבי מני:
על עסקי נחל.
בשעה שאמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לשאול:
״לך והכית את עמלק״,
אמר:
ומה נפש אחת
אמרה תורה הבא עגלה ערופה —
כל הנפשות הללו,
על אחת כמה וכמה
§ Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Talmud proceeds to interpret more of that passage: “And Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley” (I Samuel 15:5).
R’ Mani said:
This means that Saul strove with God concerning the matter of the valley.
At the time when God said to Saul:
“Now go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike” (I Samuel 15:3),
Saul countered and said:
Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person’s body is found and the murderer is unknown,
the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1–9,
all these Amalekite lives
all the more so must I have pity and not kill them
… Saul also rhetorically asked: Amalek’s animals and children didn’t sin, so why should they be killed?
ואם אדם חטא,
בהמה מה חטאה?
ואם גדולים חטאו,
קטנים מה חטאו?
And he further reasoned:
If the men (אדם) have sinned,
in what way have the animals sinned?
Why, then, should the Amalekites’ livestock be destroyed?
And if the adults (גדולים) have sinned,
in what way have the children2 sinned?
Bat kol rebukes Saul’s misplaced mercy: “Do not be overly righteous”; later, when he orders killing the priests, “Do not be overly wicked” - Ecclesiastes 7:16–17; I Sam 22:18–19
יצאה בת קול ואמרה לו:
״אל תהי צדיק הרבה״.
ובשעה שאמר לו שאול לדואג:
״סוב אתה ופגע בכהנים״,
יצאה בת קול ואמרה לו:
״אל תרשע הרבה״.
A bat kol then came forth and said to him:
“Do not be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16).
That is to say: Do not be more merciful than God Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness.
At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg:
“Turn around and strike down the priests,
and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day 85 men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword” (I Samuel 22:18–19),
a bat kol came forth and said to him:
“Do not be overly wicked” (Ecclesiastes 7:17).
Rav Huna - Contrasts divine “support”: Saul loses kingship after a single failure; David retains it despite 2 failures
אמר רב הונא:
כמה לא חלי ולא מרגיש גברא דמריה סייעיה,
שאול באחת —
ועלתה לו.
דוד בשתים —
ולא עלתה לו.
Apropos Saul’s contravention of God’s command to obliterate Amalek, the Talmud observes that Rav Huna said:
How little does a person who has the support of his Master3 have to worry or be concerned.
The proof for this assertion is a comparison between Saul and David.
Saul failed with one single sin
and it was counted against him,
costing him the throne.
David, however, failed with two sins
and they were not counted against him,
as he retained his position.
Clarifying Saul’s single failure = sparing Agag (not Nob); God’s rejection already stated after Agag episode - I Sam 15:11
שאול באחת מאי היא?
מעשה דאגג.
והא איכא מעשה דנוב עיר הכהנים!
אמעשה דאגג כתיב:
״נחמתי כי המלכתי את שאול למלך״.
The Talmud asks: What was Saul’s one sin?
The incident with Agag,
king of Amalek, whom Saul spared in defiance of God’s command (see I Samuel 15:9).
But was this his sole sin?
There is also the incident of Nob, the city of priests, in which Saul later slew many innocent people, as cited above.
The Talmud answers: It was after the incident with Agag, and even before the incident at Nob, that God said:
“I regret that I have crowned Saul to be king” (I Samuel 15:11).
David’s two failures: Uriah and the census incitement - II Sam 24:1
דוד בשתים מאי נינהו —
דאוריה,
ודהסתה.
Rav Huna stated above that David failed with two sins.
What were they?
One was the incident in which he had Uriah killed.
The other was the matter of the incitement4
Bathsheba episode is excluded from the “two” because punishment was already exacted “fourfold” via his children--child, Amnon, Tamar, Absalom - II Sam 12:6; II Sam 12–18
והא איכא נמי מעשה דבת שבע!
התם אפרעו מיניה,
דכתיב: ״ואת הכבשה ישלם ארבעתים״,
ילד,
אמנון,
תמר,
ואבשלום.
[...]
The Talmud asks: But were these his only two sins?
There is also the incident of Bathsheba, in which he took another man’s wife as his own.
The Talmud answers: There, in that case, punishment was exacted from him separately, so the matter is no longer listed among his sins,
as it is written with regard to this incident: “And he shall restore the lamb fourfold” (II Samuel 12:6).
The lamb was a metaphor for Bathsheba, and ultimately David was indeed given a fourfold punishment for taking Bathsheba:
The first child born to Bathsheba and David died (see II Samuel 12:13–23);
David’s son Amnon was killed;
Tamar, his daughter, was raped by Amnon (see II Samuel 13);
and his son Avshalom rebelled against him and was ultimately killed (see II Samuel 15–18).
[...]
Rav Yehuda citing Rav - Bat kol predicts kingdom split (Rehoboam/Jeroboam) - II Sam 19:30
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב:
בשעה שאמר לו דוד למפיבושת:
״אמרתי אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה״,
יצאה בת קול ואמרה לו:
״רחבעם וירבעם יחלקו את המלכות״.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:
At the time when David said to Mephibosheth:
“I say that you and Ziba should divide the field” (II Samuel 19:30),
a bat kol came forth and said to him:
Rehoboam and Jeroboam will divide the kingship.
Because David believed Ziba’s slanderous report and awarded him half of Mephibosheth’s field, David was punished by having his kingdom divided into two. Following King Solomon’s death the Jewish people split into two kingdoms, Israel to the north and Judea to the south (see I Kings 12).
Rav Huna - “Saul was 1 year old when he began to reign” = like a 1-year-old without sin - I Sam 13:1
״בן שנה שאול במלכו״,
אמר רב הונא:
כבן שנה,
שלא טעם טעם חטא.
§ The Talmud continues its discussion of Saul and David.
It is written: “Saul was one year old when he began to reign” (I Samuel 13:1), which cannot be understood literally, as Saul was appointed king when he was a young man.
Rav Huna said:
The verse means that when he began to reign he was like a one-year–old,
in that he had never tasted the taste of sin but was wholly innocent and upright.
Anecdote - Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects with a crass alternative reading (“filthy like a child”); punished via nightmares; he apologizes to “bones of Saul… king of Israel”
(See footnote.)5
מתקיף לה רב נחמן בר יצחק:
ואימא ״כבן שנה״,
שמלוכלך בטיט ובצואה
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse, saying:
You could just as well say that he was like a one-year-old
in that he was always filthy with mud and excrement.6
אחויאו ליה לרב נחמן סיוטא בחלמיה.
אמר:
נעניתי לכם
עצמות שאול בן קיש.
Rav Naḥman was shown (אחויאו) a frightful7 dream that night, and he understood it as a punishment for having disparaged Saul.
He said:
I humbly submit myself8 to you,
O bones of Saul, son of Kish, and beg your forgiveness.
הדר חזא סיוטא בחלמיה.
אמר:
נעניתי לכם עצמות שאול בן קיש מלך ישראל.
But once again he was shown a frightful dream,
and he understood that he had not shown enough deference in his first apology.
He therefore said this time: I humbly submit myself to you,
O bones of Saul, son of Kish, king of Israel, and beg your forgiveness.
Subsequently, the nightmares ceased.
Rav Yehuda citing Shmuel - Saul’s dynasty didn’t endure because he had no ancestral flaw
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל:
מפני מה לא נמשכה מלכות בית שאול?
מפני שלא היה בו שום דופי,
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:
Why did the kingship of the house of Saul not continue on to succeeding generations?
It is because there was no flaw (דופי) in his ancestry; he was of impeccable lineage.
R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak - One appoints a leader only if he has compromised ancestry (“box of creeping animals”) so he can be humbled if arrogant
דאמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק:
אין מעמידין פרנס על הציבור
אלא אם כן קופה של שרצים תלויה לו מאחוריו.
שאם תזוח דעתו עליו
אומרין לו:
חזור לאחוריך.
As R’ Yoḥanan said in the name of R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak:
One appoints a leader (פרנס) over the community
only if he has a box full of creeping animals (שרצים) hanging behind him, i.e., he has something inappropriate in his ancestry that preceded him.
Why is that? It is so that if he exhibits a haughty attitude (תזוח דעתו) toward the community,
one can say to him:
Turn and look behind you and be reminded of your humble roots.
This is why David’s kingdom lasted while Saul’s did not, as David descended from a family with problematic ancestry, namely Tamar (see Genesis, chapter 38) and Ruth the Moabite (see Ruth 4:18–22).
Rav Yehuda citing Rav - Saul was punished because he waived royal honor
אמר רב יהודה, אמר רב:
מפני מה נענש שאול?
מפני שמחל על כבודו,
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:
Why was Saul punished in that he was ultimately led to commit the sins described above?
Because at the very outset of his reign he inappropriately forwent9 his royal honor,
Prooftext - I Sam 10:27; 11:1 (subsequent crisis of Nahash)
שנאמר:
״ובני בליעל אמרו:
מה יושיענו זה?
ויבזוהו
ולא הביאו לו מנחה
ויהי כמחריש״,
וכתיב:
״ויעל נחש העמוני ויחן על יבש גלעד וגו׳״.
as it is stated with regard to Saul’s inauguration:
“And some base fellows said:
How can this man save us?
So they disparaged him
and brought him no present.
But he made himself as if he did not hear” (I Samuel 10:27).
And it is stated immediately afterward:
“And Nahash the Ammonite marched up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead” (I Samuel 11:1).
The implication is that if Saul had forcefully assumed his throne, Nahash would not have dared to attack the people of Jabesh-gilead. In this way, his humility led to the crisis.
R’ Yoḥanan citing R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak - A Torah scholar who doesn’t “avenge/hold a grudge like a snake” (when insulted) isn’t a Torah scholar
ואמר רבי יוחנן, משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק:
כל תלמיד חכם שאינו נוקם ונוטר כנחש —
אינו תלמיד חכם.
And R’ Yoḥanan said in the name of R’ Shimon ben Yehotzadak:
Any Torah scholar who does not avenge (נוקם) himself and bear a grudge (נוטר) like a snake when insulted --
is not considered a Torah scholar at all,
as it is important to uphold the honor of Torah and its students by reacting harshly to insults.
Appendix - Verses interpreted in the sugya, by verse
Judges
Judges 1:5 — “And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek”
Interpretive role: Used polemically by Rav Ashi.
Interpretation: Demonstrates that Bezek can be a place-name, undermining R. Yitzḥak’s reading of “in bezek” (I Sam 11:8) as “with shards.”
Function in sugya: Challenges the linguistic derivation that indirect counting is proven from Saul’s census.
I Samuel
I Samuel 10:27 — “But he made himself as if he did not hear”
Interpretation (Rav): Saul’s initial forbearance of insult (“he kept silent”) is read negatively as waiving royal honor.
Theological claim: A king who forgoes honor invites political instability and divine punishment.
I Samuel 11:1 - “And Nahash the Ammonite marched up and encamped against Jabesh-gilead”
Interpretive linkage: Read in causal sequence with 10:27.
Interpretation: Nahash’s attack is a direct consequence of Saul’s failure to assert kingship forcefully.
I Samuel 11:8 — “And he numbered them with bezek”
Interpretation (R. Yitzḥak): Saul counted Israel indirectly, using shards/tokens, establishing a norm that Jews may not be counted directly.
Legal principle: Counting Israel directly is prohibited even for a mitzvah.
Counter-reading (Rav Ashi): “Bezek” may simply be a location, not a counting method.
I Samuel 13:1 — “Saul was one year old when he began to reign”
Interpretation (Rav Huna): Metaphorical — Saul was like a one-year-old without sin, morally pristine at accession.
Rejected reading (Rav Naḥman b. Yitzḥak): Crude literalism (“filthy like a child”), punished via nightmares.
Meta-point: Disparaging biblical kings is itself sanctionable.
I Samuel 15:3–5 — “Now go and attack Amalek ... and he strove in the valley”
Interpretation (R. Mani): Saul “argued in the valley” — a moral-theological dispute with God.
Reasoning attributed to Saul:
From eglah arufah: if one death demands atonement, mass killing is morally problematic.
Innocents (children, animals) should not suffer for sinners.
Portrayal: Saul applies humanitarian logic against divine command.
I Samuel 15:4 — “And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them by sheep”
Interpretation: Clear proof of indirect counting, now via sheep.
Supplementary claim (Shmuel): Shift from shards to sheep indicates Saul’s increased wealth after kingship.
I Samuel 15:11 — “I regret that I have crowned Saul to be king”
Interpretation: God’s rejection of Saul is already sealed after sparing Agag, prior to Nob.
Function: Fixes Saul’s defining sin as one failure, not cumulative.
I Samuel 22:18–19
Interpretation: Saul’s massacre of the priests is framed as the inverse error of Amalek — cruelty replacing misplaced mercy.
Paired with Ecclesiastes 7:17 (“אל תרשע הרבה”) via bat kol.
II Samuel
II Samuel 11 (Uriah)
Interpretation: One of David’s two retained sins.
Contrast logic: Unlike Saul, David’s standing survives despite failure.
II Samuel 12:6; 12–18 (Bathsheba narrative)
Interpretation: Bathsheba episode excluded from David’s “two sins” because punishment was already fully exacted fourfold (child, Amnon, Tamar, Absalom).
Exegetical move: Moral accounting closes once punishment is paid.
II Samuel 19:30 — “I say that you and Ziba should divide the field”
Interpretation (Rav): David’s credulity toward Ziba is morally flawed judgment.
Consequence via bat kol: Foreshadows division of the kingdom (Rehoboam/Jeroboam).
II Samuel 24:1 (Census)
Interpretation: David’s census constitutes one of his two sins.
Link to sugya’s opening: Reinforces danger of counting Israel.
Hosea
Hosea 2:1 — “And the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured”
Multiple layered interpretations:
R. Elazar:
Counting Israel violates a negative prohibition.
“לא ימד” is read normatively: may not be measured.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:
Two prohibitions: measuring and counting.
R. Yonatan (via R. Shmuel bar Naḥmani):
Apparent contradiction: numbered like sand vs uncountable.
Resolution A:
Merit-based:
Doing God’s will → innumerable.
Not doing God’s will → countable.
Resolution B (R. Yehuda HaNasi / Abba Yosei ben Dostai):
Agent-based:
Human counting fails.
Divine counting succeeds.
Ecclesiastes
Ecclesiastes 7:16 — “Do not be overly righteous”
Interpretation: Rebuke of Saul’s misplaced mercy toward Amalek.
Principle: Moral overreach against divine command is not righteousness.
Ecclesiastes 7:17 — “Do not be overly wicked”
Interpretation: Rebuke of Saul’s excessive cruelty at Nob.
Literary function: Paired antithesis — Saul fails on both extremes.
In Part 1, sections “R’ Yitzḥak - It is prohibited to count Jews directly, even for a mitzva (thus the lottery counts fingers instead of people) - I Samuel 11:8“ and “Alternative proof that Saul counted indirectly: he counted them “by sheep” - I Samuel 15:4“.
קטנים - literally: “minors”.
מריה - i.e. God.
הסתה - “incitement”.
Ed. Steinsaltz explains:
the matter of the incitement of David to conduct a census of the Jewish people (see II Samuel 24:1), which led to many deaths in a plague.
See II Samuel 24:1-4:
ויסף אף יהוה לחרות בישראל
ויסת את דוד בהם לאמר:
לך מנה את ישראל ואת יהודה
YHWH’s anger again flared up against Israel;
and [God] incited (ויסת) David against them, saying:
“Go and number (מנה) Israel and Judah.”
ויאמר המלך אל יואב שר החיל אשר אתו:
שוט נא בכל שבטי ישראל
מדן ועד באר שבע
ופקדו את העם
וידעתי את מספר העם
The king said to Joab, his army commander:
“Make the rounds (שוט) of all the tribes of Israel,
from Dan to Beer-sheba,
and take a census (פקדו) of the people,
so that I may know the size of the population.”
ויאמר יואב אל המלך:
ויוסף יהוה אלהיך אל העם כהם וכהם מאה פעמים
ועיני אדני המלך ראות
ואדני המלך למה חפץ בדבר הזה?!
Joab answered the king:
“May YHWH your God increase the number of the people a hundredfold,
while your own eyes see it!
But why should my lord king want this?!”
ויחזק דבר המלך אל יואב
ועל שרי החיל
ויצא יואב ושרי החיל לפני המלך
לפקד את העם את ישראל
However, the king’s command to Joab and to the officers of the army remained firm;
and Joab and the officers of the army set out, at the king’s behest,
to take a census of the people of Israel.
And see Wikipedia, “2 Samuel 24“, section “David’s military census (24:1–9)“:
Verse 1 suggests that David’s census was incited so that God could punish Israel for a sin committed previously—from a theological perspective, whereas the Chronicler states that it was Satan who incited David to count the people (1 Chronicles 21:1) from a human perspective.
Joab possibly sensed the danger of moving from ‘a charismatic levy to a human organization’ (verse 3) as there was a ‘religious taboo’ on counting people (cf. Exodus 30:11–16).
The reference to those ‘able to draw the sword’ (verse 9, cf. Numbers 1:2–3) indicates an enrollment for military service, which may neglect rules of purity (cf. Joshua 3:5; Deuteronomy 23:9–14).
And see ibid., section “Judgment for David’s sin (24:10–17)“:
After David realized that he sinned against God, he was given choice through the prophet Gad (verse 11–14) between three possible punishments, varying in length of time from three years to three days, but on a reverse scale of intensity.
David left the choice to God’s mercy, which came down to pestillence (verse 15).
Compare the somewhat similar story elsewhere in the Talmud, in my “Rebuking the Kings: Two Tales of Respect, Condemnation, and the Temptation of Idolatry in Amoraic Reflections on Biblical Monarchs With No Share in the World-To-Come (Sanhedrin 102a-b)“, section “Rav Ashi’s Dream Encounter with the biblical King Manasseh: A Lesson in Humility and the Earlier Powerful Temptation for Idolatry“, where I summarize:
Rav Ashi concluded a lecture, announcing he would discuss the three biblical kings listed in the Mishnah (same as in the previous section) the next day, casually referring to them as “friends” (חברין).
That night, Manasseh (one of the three wicked biblical kings listed in the Mishnah) appeared to him in a dream, offended by Rav Ashi’s casual reference to them as “friends”.
מלוכלך בטיט ובצואה.
Compare the usage of this same idiom being used elsewhere, in my “The Legitimacy of Learning from Flawed Teachers: The Dilemma of R’ Meir Learning from Aḥer (Chagigah 15b)“, section “Justifications for Learning from a Teacher Despite His Flaws“, sub-section “Rava (Song of Songs 6:11)“, where I summarize:
The Talmud questions how R’ Meir could have learned Torah from Aḥer, given the principle that Torah should be sought only from a teacher who resembles an “angel of YHWH of hosts” (Malachi 2:7) […]
Rava metaphorically compares Torah scholars to nuts (אגוז), based on the verse in Song of Songs 6:11:
Even if their shell is dirty “with mud (טיט) and excrement (צואה)”, the kernel remains pure, so too a scholar’s sins do not taint their Torah teachings.
See Jastrow (modernized):
(see סוּט, Itpeel)
fright.
Bava Kamma 37b:10 - הך שופר קמא סיוטא בעלמא וכ׳ - “that first goring when the animal heard the sound of a trumpet, was merely due to the fright which seized it”.
Yoma 22b:18 - חזא סיוטא בחלמיה - “saw a panic in his dream” (frightening demons, Rashi);
מחל - literally: “forgave”.
See Jastrow (modernized):
(compare מָחָה)
[to blot out, annul,] to remit (a debt); to forgive, pardon, to forego, renounce.
Ketubot 85b:9 המוכר … וחזר ומְחָלוֹ מָחוּל if one sells a note of indebtedness to a neighbor, and then remits the debt, it stands remitted (and the buyer of the note must settle with the creditor).
Ketubot 85b מְחָלַתּוּ - “she remitted it”.
Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 6, end, 11a - שמָחֲלוּ להם מוכסין - “to whom custom officers remitted the fine”.
Yoma 2a לשם פלוני מָחַלְנוּ - “we remitted (the fine) for this man’s sake (individually).
Berakhot 12b:9 - מוֹחֲלִין לו על כל וכ׳ - “all his sins are forgiven to him”.
Berakhot 32a:9-16 - איני … עד שתִּמְחוֹל ותסלח להם וכ׳ - “I will not leave you until you forgive and pardon etc.”
Shabbat 30a:6 מְחוֹל לי על וכ׳ - “forgive me that particular sin (=the seduction of Bathsheba)”;
מָחוּל לך - “you are forgiven”;
and very frequently.
מחל על כבודו - to forego the honor due to one’s self.
Kiddushin 32a:15 - האב שמחל … כבודו מָחוּל - “if a father allows a son to omit the acts of reverence due to him, his honor is remitted” (the son may avail himself of the permission);
הרב שמחל וכ׳ - “but if a teacher gives permission etc.”;
and frequently.
Bamidbar Rabbah 19:23 - שאין המוֹחֵל נעשה וכ׳ - “for he who is asked to forgive, must not be relentless” (see Mishnah Bava Kamma 8:7).
Compare Ketubot.17a.10:
אמר רב אשי:
אפילו למאן דאמר נשיא שמחל על כבודו —
כבודו מחול,
מלך שמחל על כבודו —
אין כבודו מחול
Rav Ashi says:
Even according to the one who said with regard to a nasi who relinquishes (מחל) the honor due him
that his honor is relinquished (מחול), i.e., he may do so,
with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him,
his honor is not relinquished.
דאמר מר:
״שום תשים עליך מלך״,
שתהא אימתו עליך
As the Master said that
the meaning of the verse “You shall place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
is that his awe (אימתו - “fear”) shall be upon you.
The Torah established that the subjects’ awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it.