When it’s time to change, you’ve got to rearrange
The Brady Bunch
Mistakes happen. How do they happen? And when they do, what are the dynamics of change?
This Post analyzes these questions in the context of a divine mistake. A massive error threatening the Israelite’s newly enacted political reconfiguration. This miscue required change at the highest societal level imaginable. There are abundant practical takeaways from this extraordinary mistake. The tale of error comes from Tetzaveh’s Haftarah Portion.
In the Haftarah, the Israelite Nation’s very first monarch- Saul- became a problem. Thus, the analysis delves into how and why his choice as king became a mistake. Also, it looks at how was the problem was remedied.
To be appreciate the concepts of mistakes and change, a discussion of their nature is warranted.
Mistakes and Change
Mistakes don’t just happen in the moment; they can be realized over time.
While the initial action looked sound, it is possible that it can evolve into a mistake.
Correcting mistakes involves a process. Initially, there is the realization of the mistake is key. This can take time and much observation. For the person who made the mistake, the realization can be a blow one’s ego and confidence.
After appreciating the error, there is the decision to change and the eventual implementation of the corrective action.
With this process in mind, the background story to the Saul’s monarchy is necessary to comprehend the termination decision.
Tetzaveh’s Haftarah Background
With the Prophet Samuel’s sons being ill fitted for the Judge role, all of the elders of Israel gathered.
They rejected Samuel’s sons as his successor. They told the Prophet, “give us a king to judge us.” 1 Samuel 8: 4-6. [Note: The Judge role was that of being the nation’s leader.]
While Samuel was concerned over the elders’ request, the Lord approved it. This change in political structure came with a warning; there were protocols to be followed. 1 Samuel 8: 9-21.
With this, the Children of Israel’s Covenant with the Lord was essentially amended to include a Monarchy. Constitutional changes were tantamount made within the accord.
The nation was now to have provisions addressing matters of conscription, taxation and eminent domain. 1 Samuel 8:20. In exchange, the populace received someone who would fight their wars. Supra.
What were the elders’ true concerns: a protective and reliable military? A viable future leadership succession plan? The stark reality was that the nation- a loose confederation of tribes – needed stability. The structure was needed to meet the threats from its surrounding adversaries.
At the time, democracy in the region was not yet realized as an option. A monarchy was their alternative. Their decision to choose that direction was made unanimously.
They essentially walked away from the Judge-Deity arrangement. They preferred a political institution which would establish a professional military.
With this process, the leaders elected a new form of government. They did not, however, elect the candidate who would assume the position of king. That choice- of king – and the mistake- would be God’s.
The Fall of the Tall
Saul apparently met the divine’s criteria for a king. He was described as exceptional and goodly. He was both handsome and taller than anybody else. 1 Samuel 8:1-2.
During his reign, Saul enjoyed some success before his eventual fall from grace. This falling out is detailed in the Tetzaveh Haftarah.
In this instance, King Saul failed to follow divine instructions. In essence, rather than destroying the Amalekite nation, he acted in a manner to create wealth for himself. He did not kill the Amalekite King and he took for himself the Amalekite wealth. See 1 Samuel 15. [Note: What was the Lord’s ultimate strategy in attacking the Amalekites? Was the acquisition of wealth by the monarch problematic? Why was the Amalekite King’s life problematic?]
As a result of this failure to follow divine instructions, Samuel advises Saul: “…For rebelliousness is like the sin of sorcery, the verbosity is like the iniquity of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of God, He has rejected you as king!” 1 Samuel 15:23. [Note: does the alluding to idolatry connect to the Decalogue’s provisions? Was the action perceived as breaking the covenant?]
[Note: At Mt. Sinai, after the Golden Calf incident, God decided to eliminate the Children of Israel and to start anew. Moses, however, convinced the Lord that this was in error due to the events that had transpired. See Exodus 32. How can the Mt. Sinai decision be reconciled with the decision with respect to Saul?]
Why was such a draconian response required in response to Saul’s act of obedience?
The Decision-Making Process
When addressing relationships, roles are important. Every person plays a certain role, i.e. mother, father and child. Roles, over time, can change. For instance, with elderly parents, children become the caregivers.
Sometimes, however, an individual playing one role can impose themselves onto another role. Unwanted role changes can disrupt organizations.
The role matter was arguably in the decision-making process.
Analysis
In this situation, the Israelite nation’s ultimate authority came from the Lord. The King, in failing to follow instructions, positioned himself into the higher role- of the ultimate authority. Further, by having taken captive a foreign king, he was now the King among kings. Likewise, the wealth acquisition from the war created less reliance of the King for national support. He did not need as much support from his people. Since he did not need their support, this arguably weakened his commitment to them.
In essence, the disobedience was perceived as a rejection of authority. Arguably, Saul placed himself at the top of the totem pole.
When this happens, leadership appreciates that a mistake has occurred. There was a need for change.
With the error, a correction was needed. The fascinating part of the error correction was that Saul was merely placed on notice. A successor had not yet been named. Even more interesting, the eventual successor was brought into Saul’s Monarchy to serve. There, the young man, who knew he would be king, received valuable experience and became a man of valor.
Conclusion
Mistakes are not always instantaneous events. Rather, choices over time evolve into problems. In this matter, the power dynamic- a role shift- threaten the nation’s organizational chart. Role shifts, even in modernity, can disrupt businesses, organization and families. These events- once deemed a mistake- can lead to the necessity for corrective action.
In the Tetzaveh tale, while Saul was deemed qualified to be monarch, his emerging agenda was not aligned with upper management.
Arguably, his objectives disrupted the chain of command. His disobedience removed the Lord as an authority. It also gave Saul wealth which could impact his fealty towards the Israelite tribes.
With that, a change needed to be made. Surprisingly, the intent on terminating the agreement came with no immediacy. The next monarch would be brought along. He would be taken into the monarchy where he would gain both military skills and a reputation. His name was David.
The mistake’s correction would ultimately lead to King David’s ascension. During his reign, he created the professional military that the Israelite elders’ desired when they elected to have a monarchy.
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share
The Ten Commandments Project 
Understanding the k’vanna to remember\t’shuva Amalek as the key to remove avoda zara tuma within our Yatzir Ha-Ra prior to Chag Pesach
The mitzva to remember Amalek a complex wisdom commandment. דברים כה:יח – ולא ירא אלהים falsely understood as referring to Amalek. חסדי אומות העולם quoted out of context religious rhetoric. Bring a Primary source sealed masoret which defines this quote from 105a. To start with how does this Gemara interpret the language of the Mishna it comments upon? Rambam’s statute law introduces a religious post Shas halacha rather than obeys the intent of the Shas framers for the Talmud to serve as the model for Torah common law courts when the Jewish people reconquer and rule our homelands once again. Statute law – like Rambam’s code – not T’NaCH\Talmudic common law. Religious halachic decrees do not compare to courtroom judicial rulings based upon prior judicial precedents.
זוהר חלק ג׳, רס״ב–רס״ג — הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם הזוהר מתאר שהערב רב לא היו בתוך ענני הכבוד, ולכן הם היו הראשונים שעמלק פגע בהם
מדרש תנחומא, כי תצא, סימן ט’: המדרש אומר שעמלק פגע ב“מי שהיו מחוץ לענני הכבוד מפרשים רבים (בעיקר מקובלים) מסבירים שהערב רב היו מחוץ לעננים
The issue not that the חסידי אומות have a portion in the world to come. Rather Amalek has no portion in the world to come. Therefore, the language: לא יראת אלהים cannot refer to Amalek but only to the ערב רב. Because the key word “אתה” … ולא ירא אלהים”. Totally disagree with the common תיפש פשט reading. Torah commands mussar. Mussar does not apply to Amalek because Amalek by definition “has no shame”. Therefore ולא יראת אלהים follows the instruction of the Zohar and Midrash.
Amalek rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For the Torah to say אין להם יראת אלהים – utterly pointless and vain. The blessing/curse-life\death brit defines the intent of the first 2 Sinai commandments. What defines ערב רב? The T’NaCH sources of Kings and Ezra affix the tuma Yatzir as 1. clinging to the customs of Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – like Amalek. 2. Intermarriage with Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sina. Like as told in the Pinchas killing of the Head of the Tribe of Shimon. The Book of Ezra supports this interpretation which defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Isaiah mocks the absolute stupidity of using wood to heat ones’ home cook ones’ food and carve an idol.
The Xtian 30 Year War reads the 2nd Sinai commandment limited to physical idols – the central dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Both sects of Xtianity an utter Torah abomination. The 2nd Sinai commandment not a simple טיפש פשט literal reading any more than the Creation story of בראשית. Debates over how the Universe created the Mishna explicitly denounces; those who contemplate that which is above, below, or behind them – better that they were never born. The Creation story instructs prophetic mussar; Torah teach by way of משל\נמשל. The Creation story introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandment as the Av commandment of the Torah! The toldot commandment introduced in שמות ויקרא ובמדבר – positive and negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. דברים also named משנה תורה because unlike the Rambam code misnamed משנה תורה, the 6 Orders of Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna – court Common law judicial ruling, NOT legislative/cult of personality religious decrees. The Rambam statute law code therefore does NOT define the מילה משנה תורה but rather the Mishna defines this 2nd Name for the Book of דברים.
Just as rabbi Akiva instruct: the wilderness generation has no portion in the world to come, so too the ערב רב curse of “antisemitism plague” consequent to Jewish assimilation and intermarriage – has no portion in the world to come. Prophetic mussar does not apply to Goyim. Despite both Moshe and later Yona sent to foreign lands, both commanded mussar to Israel and not Goyim because Goyim have no portion in the world to come. This brings us back to righteous gentiles as an except to this general statement. Righteous gentiles not gere toshav. The Rambam erroneous posok which teaches that bnai noach = all Goyim — false. The Torah defines “goyim” as גר תושב ונכריים. Sanhedrin refers to ger toshav while Baba Kama refers to Goyim who converted from fear of lions. Talmud never goes out of the parameters established by the Torah – based upon the first commandment. Torah judicial law courts only have jurisdiction within the boundaries of conquered Canaan. G’lut Jews remain in “Egypt”. Clearly the word “Egypt” לא דוקא.
The phrase “חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא” explicitly stated in Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2, which serves as a foundational source often referenced in Gemara discussions. The Tosefta reads: חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. Balaam by contrast equated with figures like Cushan-Rishathaim and Laban, symbolizing persistent evil against Israel.
A central dispute arises between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua on Tehillim (Psalms) 9:18: “לשאולה רשעים ישובו כל גוים שכחי אלהים” … Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse implies only wicked Goyim (“those who forget God”) – excluded; meaning righteous Goyim—who fear God and act justly—do have a share. This aligns with the Tosefta’s explicit statement, inferring that Balaam, has no share, but “other Goyim” do.
Amalek, as a force of tumah, exploits this vulnerability, attacking “the hindmost” (Devarim 25:18)—interpreted as those spiritually “cooling off” from Torah commitment. The Zohar frames this as a cosmic battle: Amalek represents the sitra achra, preying on those not enveloped in divine chesed. עיין ravkooktorah.org
Rabbi Levi opens with Tehillim 9:6, it compares Amalek’s assault to jumping into a boiling tub: No nation dared attack Israel post-Exodus due to divine awe, but Amalek “cooled” that fear by striking first, targeting the weak stragglers. Therefore the mitzva to ‘remember Amalek’ commands the mussar of the Torah curse labeled today as “antisemitism”.
Amalek as Torah curse: Blessing or Curse defines the first two Sinai commandments. Goyim do not accept the revelation of the Torah; not Amalek, nor any other Goyim outside of ger tzeddik. The Torah, for example, does not apply the phrase ולא ירא אלהים to either Par’o or Sodom.
The ברכה/קללה system – directed at ישראל alone – not at nations outside the Sinai brit. Therefore, the mitzva to make war upon Amalek from generation to generation the Rambam ruling – utterly false this mitzva not dependent upon Amalek ceasing to be Amalek. This mitzva a Torah obligation and a רשות. King Shaul failed to kill the king of Amalek and lost the anointment of Moshiach! Amalek stands upon the Torah commandment to remember Egypt. The 10 plagues judged the Gods of Egypt. Amalek a recurring “plague” upon the Jewish people – akin to the 10 plagues which forced Par’o to release Israel from slavery.
What triggers Torah curses? Jewish assimilation and intermarriage – these two pre-conditions – they define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. Avraham validated in בראשית כ:יא that יראת אלהים does not exist with Goyim comparable to both Sodomites and Amalekites examples. This verse further supports that the prophetic mussar of the Torah – touching Amalek – a mitzva applicable to Jews only. For Jews to accept the blessing/curse Sinai brit they must develop יראת שמים as the יסוד of faith.
The verse ותיראן המילדת את האלהים – שמות א:יז supports the Torah which validates that certain Goyim have a portion in the world to come. The three stories of Adam, Noach, and Avram introduce the curse concept of g’lut, along with the Egyptian story of slavery and the Wilderness generation and later prophetic visions of g’lut. Both T’NaCH & Talmud do not teach history. Rather both command mussar. Noacide law according to Rambam false, because violation of the 7 mitzvot qualifies as a Capital Crime which requires a Sanhedrin court to judge that case.
The jurisdiction of Sanhedrin courts together with their prophets police Sanhedrin enforcers – restricted only to the conquered lands of Canaan. Prophets such as Moshe and Yona sent to g’lut exiles. Proof both Par’o and the king of Assyria – there “repentance” not the same as t’shuva, which requires that the bnai brit “remember” the oath sworn by the Avot. Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur emphasize t’shuva as remembering this “forgotten” Torah, like as do the lights of Hanukkah.
The Torah brit of blessing/curse defines the k’vanna of the first and second Sinai commandments. Therefore, impossible to learn the פרט mitzva – to war against Amalek – as outside these כלל commandments. Prior to the Sin of the Golden Calf Israel only accepted these first two Torah commandments – before they demanded that Moshe rise up and receive the rest of the Torah, lest they die. Bottom line: Oral Torah interprets Written Torah as the basis of judicial common law throughout the generations.
The concept of 7 mitzvot applies only to ger toshav persons because the Torah only designates two types of Goyim living in the oath lands: Ger Toshav and NaCreem\Shomronim. A ger toshav who violates the 7 mitzvot does not face Divine judgment from Heaven but Sanhedrin judgment on this earth. Post Sinai revelation of the Name HaShem, תורה לא בשמים היא. Amelak immediately attacked after Israel left Egypt due to the curse of the ערב רב. This Torah curse defines the k’vanna of the Sinai 2nd commandment.
The blessing/curse brit in the משנה תורה makes a “legislative review” based upon the opening first two commandment revelation. Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the סוד language of “mountain hanging by a hair” as a reference to the first two Commandments encompassing all other Torah commandments. The Sages teach that their does not exist in Torah common law any valid deductive fixation of Torah verses. פרדס Oral Torah inductive\dynamic rather than foreign Greek deductive\static logic. The sin of the Golden Calf falls within the כלל of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; it learns this Torah revelation as viewed through the lenses of its opposite דיוק Torah revelation.
Torah logic stands upon making דיוקים/inferences. The Golden Calf לאו דוקא no different from Egypt as the Av case of g’lut. The concept of “providence” lies outside; Torah courts only judge Cases based upon the evidence presented to the court. “Providence” exists as speculation on par with the Mishnaic command for a Man not to think about matters above, below, or behind him. Ger Toshav a term introduced in the משנה תורה-דברים.
The phrase “הרי הן כהררים התלויים בשערה”, commonly used to illustrate concepts in halacha. While this metaphor often appears in discussions about Shabbat and Yom Tov, clearly not exclusive to only these topics. A recurring Torah theme: do the toldot follow the Avot asked by both mesechtot Shabbat and Baba Kama – based upon the introduction of Av wisdom commandments introduced in the Book of בראשית as opposed to toldot commandments introduced in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. The closing Book of the Torah משנה תורה-דברים defines the Torah revelation of “law” as common law as distinct from statute law. Rabbi Yechuda HaNassi based his Mishna upon the name of the Book of דברים\משנה תורה.
Torah commands in the language of Man: it instructs through משל\נמשל. Devarim 28 Life/Death brit does not exclude Goyim from life in the world to come. The aggadah of mesechta Sanhedrin refers directly with Goyim populations who volunteer or choose to live within the borders of the lands of Canaan together with the bnai brit chosen people. Obviously, Goyim living outside of the borders of Canaan have the freedom to choose to pursue justice and live moral lives. Just as the Torah does not deny Goyim belief in their Gods. So too Torah does not deny that righteous Goyim have a portion in the world to come. But the mitzva of Amalek does not address this issue. Amalek “hates” the revelation of the Torah. Amalek loves oppression, theft, incest, and judicial bribery of justices.
The Av commandment of Shabbat, (Av meaning great) a wisdom commandment/time-oriented mitzva. It’s mussar instructs the concept of “domains”. The 6 Mishnaic Orders learn from the four Shabbat “domains” which function as precedents to understand the intent of Rabbi Yechuda’s Shas. The precedent of shaking the 4 species in 6 directions, another precedent – which refers to domains. The four species on sukkot, they compare to the four arch types of children on Pesach night. Etrog/wise; Lulav/child who does not know to ask. (The Talmud instructs: train your lips to say: I do not know.); Hadas/Simple child and Arov/Evil child. The concept of “domains” and “personality types” remembers how the so called 10 commandments serve as precedent to remember the slavery of Egypt.
The Av\\toldot Torah concept not literally a technical legal taxonomy limited to 39 melachot and Avot nezikin! Rather, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai introduces Av commandments in בראשית and toldot commandment in the next three Books of the Written Torah. משנה תורה\דברים as a common law judicial system stands upon בניני אבות/precedents. Herein defines the role of secondary Torah commandments which in and of themselves do not require k’vanna.
However, by weaving secondary Torah commandments as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of other Torah commandments … both this and that become Av Torah commandments. The Rambam code in no way shape or form affixes halachot as precedents to interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna. This expunges his halachic opinions as valid. Halacha does not stand upon its own two feet any more that post sealing of the Shas Reshonim commentaries. Quoting a Reshon comment divorced from the Gemara/Mishna common law precedent relationship – false. מלאכה – a wisdom. עבודה – does not require wisdom. Hence Shabbat forbids doing “wisdom” on that day in order to dedicate to do wisdom throughout the week.
The mitzva of Shabbat therefore inclusive of the entire week rather than a separated single day. Shabbat serves as an Av precedent; while its domains limited to four: Private, Public, Karmelit, Makom patur – domains as a concept לאו דאקא, not limited only to legal geography טיפש פשט. The purpose of aggadah to make a drosh to interpret prophetic mussar k’vaana. The loom: warp\weft weaves prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of doing halachic ritual commandments.
Why? To raise these secondary Torah & rabbinic commandment to Av wisdom time-oriented mitzvot from the Torah. Herein defines how the B’HaG interprets the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Why the commandment to תמחה את זכר עמלק? Assimilation and intermarriage define the “kapo” Jewish ערב רב. Just as the ערב רב worshipped the Golden Calf so too the ערב רב – Jewish assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim causes the plague of antisemitism throughout the Ages. The Torah refers to this curse by introducing the story of Amalek.
The Mishna code: constructs a Case/Din judicial common law system. The Rambam code “baptizes” pursuit of justice as Torah faith unto belief in a Universal God; hence both Xtianity and Islam exist as “sister religions”. His code further changes judicial common law – restricted to the lands of Canaan unto religions statute dogmatism applicable to all lands as well as Canaan. This violates the first two Torah commandments. Only Israel accepts the Torah at Sinai. Therefore, HaShem a local tribal god and not a Universal Monotheistic God. The Rambam code therefore qualifies as “false prophet” theology which seeks to seduce Israel to worship other Gods. Halacha in g’lut adapts to meet the crisis of the times.
During the Dark Ages where international trade and communication died, g’lut Jewry needed a simple fix to maintain a distinct Cohen/Jewish identity. Cursed to endure among Goyim cultures and hostile lands, Jews existed as stateless refugee populations scattered like leaves blown in a wind-storm. But the common law B’HaG and Rif and still later Rosh codes radically differ from the Rambam perversion. They do not divorce Gemara halachic precedents from their home Mishna! The Rambam code obliterated Talmudic common law precedent interpretations of witnesses into Roman statute law rigid decrees. Just as did Rome obliterated the 2nd Jewish Republic of Judea and slaughtered perhaps half of all Jews living in Judea!
The distinction of מלאכה from עבודה, NT Greek does not discern between skilled “work” from unskilled “work”. This fact has nothing to do with Greek philosophy. The super-commentaries written on the Rambam code fail to link his halachic rulings to a B’hag, Rif, Rosh identical halachic ruling affixed to a specific Mishna. Hence all the commentaries written to correct the central flaw of the Rambam code failed to learn halacha as common law precedents to interpret the language of a specific Mishna as viewed from different perspectives!
If antisemitism caused by assimilation and intermarriage, periods of extreme persecution when ghetto Jewish communities highly observant and endogamous? G’lut by Torah definition a curse. Amalek by Torah definition a curse. The floods of Noach mesechta Sanhedrin interprets as the curse of swearing false oaths. This interpretation fits well with the Blessing/Curse direct connection made to the opening first to Sinai commandments.
The דיוק of mesechta Baba Kama 4 avot nezikim separates Tam from Muad damagers. The latter like Amalek inflicted damages with k’vanna. The רמז – words within words בראשית — אש ברית. The fire of the brit – false oaths. Hence not 4 avot nezikim but rather 8 avot nezikim. ערב רב Jews damage Israel with k’vaana; their choice to abandon Jewish cultural practices and customs, to embrace foreign identities and intermarriage results in avoda zara like as happened to king Shlomo. שמות יב:לח ושמות רבה יח:ד explicitly the curse of the ערב רב.
LikeLike