שמואל א, פרק א׳, פסוק כ״ד

I Samuel 1:24Sefaria

וַתַּעֲלֵ֨הוּ עִמָּ֜הּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר גְּמָלַ֗תּוּ בְּפָרִ֤ים שְׁלֹשָׁה֙ וְאֵיפָ֨ה אַחַ֥ת קֶ֙מַח֙ וְנֵ֣בֶל יַ֔יִן וַתְּבִאֵ֥הוּ בֵית־יְהֹוָ֖ה שִׁל֑וֹ וְהַנַּ֖עַר נָֽעַר׃

The arrival of the long-awaited child at the Tabernacle in Shiloh marks a peak of devotion and the fulfillment of a profound vow. After years of prayer and anticipation, a mother brings her toddler to the sanctuary with immense joy, accompanied by generous offerings. She had nursed him herself for about two to three years. As soon as he was weaned, she did not delay or wait for him to grow physically stronger. Even though he was her only child and still very tender, she brought him immediately to fulfill her promise [רד״ק, אברבנאל, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

To mark the occasion, the family arrived with three bulls, brought with tremendous joy as peace offerings [רלב״ג]. Alongside the animals, they brought an ephah of flour, an ancient measure equal to three se'ahs, and a jug of wine held in an earthenware vessel or a leather pouch [מצודת ציון, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. The amount of flour and wine seems relatively small compared to the three bulls. Some explain that the flour and wine were strictly intended for the meal offerings and libations poured on the altar alongside the sacrifices [מצודת דוד, רלב״ג]. Others note that the specific measure of flour was exactly enough for the needs of a single bull [רש״י]. A third perspective suggests that the offerings were divided: one bull, along with the flour and wine, was used for a family feast in Shiloh, while the remaining two bulls were dedicated as sacrifices, one for the mother's safe delivery and the other on behalf of the child [רד״ק, אברבנאל].

The description of the boy upon his arrival highlights a deep contrast. The primary approach among commentators is that his extreme youth is being emphasized; he was still a small, playful toddler whose presence stood out starkly among the adults of the Tabernacle, yet his mother did not hesitate to leave him there [מצודת דוד, רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Conversely, others understand his description as a reflection of intellectual and moral maturity. According to this view, the child's mental faculties were already awakening, and he was fully capable of distinguishing between good and evil [מלבי״ם, רד״ק]. Another interpretation views his description as a formal title, designating him as a student or servant in the study hall, hinting at a slightly later period when he grew and began his holy service [אלשיך].

This remarkable intellectual sharpness is illustrated by a tradition regarding his early days at the sanctuary. Despite his young age, the boy displayed vast knowledge and issued a legal ruling in the presence of Eli the priest, declaring that a non-priest is permitted to slaughter a sacrifice. Because he instructed the law in front of his teacher, he made himself liable for a severe penalty. Eli sought to punish him and offered to pray that the mother be granted a different son in his place. In response, she cried out, reminding Eli that she had prayed specifically for this very child. She declared that he belongs to God and is merely lent to Him, meaning Eli had no right to harm him [צאינה וראינה, אלשיך]. She further argued that because she was the one who stood and prayed for him, his birth was entirely through her merit, granting her the exclusive authority to dedicate him to God's service [אברבנאל].

נעזרתם בפירוש שלנו ומצאתם בו ערך?

עזרו לנו להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה. תחזוקת האתר והשבחת התוכן כרוכות בהוצאות מרובות. תרומה קטנה שלכם תסייע לנו להחזיק את הפלטפורמה ותהפוך אתכם לשותפים מלאים בהנגשת חוכמת המקרא.

תרמו עכשיו

מה דעתכם על הפירוש?

התחברתם? יש לכם חידוש או הארה על הפסוק שלמדתם כאן? נשמח לשמוע!

ההערות שלכם חשובות לנו ועוזרות לשפר את הפירוש.