CHAPTER SUMMARY

Verses 1-10 record Hannah’s tefillah ( a term whose meaning here is unclear) upon bringing Shmuel to the Mishkan at Shilo. Simply reading the words, Hannah seems to stress God’s powers to reverse fortunes (the poor can become rich and vice verse). At a simpleminded level, we might regard this as her celebration of what God has done for her—most clearly referred to in verse 5, where she speaks of a barren woman having had children, and one with many children becoming childless.

Verses 11-17 discuss Eli’s sons and their abuses of power in their priesthood. Actually, verse 11 itself does not comfortably fit in either group, since it mentions only that Elkanah went home, and Shmuel stayed with Eli. We will suggest below, however, that this verse is really a lead-in to Eli’s troubles with his sons. The central sin of the sons, as mentioned in the verses, was that they or their messengers demanded portions of every sacrifice brought above and beyond the gifts bestowed upon them by the Torah. In addition, they asked for these donations prior to completing the offering of the sacrifice, so that even the relatively uneducated people knew to ask for them to wait until it was appropriate. For reasons we will have to consider, the verse declares that their sin was very great in the eyes of God.

Verses 18-22 shift focus to Shmuel and his parents. Verse 18 mentions his positive growth, verse 19 points out Hannah’s continuing role in his life (she had a small coat that she either brought with her every time she came to visit or that she made anew each year as he grew), verse 20 records Eli’s blessing of Hannah and Elkanah, and verse 21 shows how his blessing came true, that Hannah had five other children, while Shmuel was "growing with God". The central question to consider when reading these verses is why they appear here, since both before and after them we will learn about Eli and his family.

Verses 22-26 record Eli’s ineffectual attempts to reprimand his sons for their wrongdoing. Eli is very old, according to the verse, but has heard what his sons are doing (here described as "lying with the women who come to opening of Ohel Moed (the Mishkan)). Despite his efforts, the verse testifies that they did not listen to their father, because God wanted to kill them (a phrase we need to discuss). Verse 26 again does not seem to fit here, since it just records that Shmuel was growing up well, in the eyes of people and God.

Verse 27 to the end of the chapter records the words of an ish elokim, a man of God, who informs Eli that his family will be punished for their violations. The punishments centrally include having all the males of the family die young, loss of their leadership in the priesthood, and having to watch others occupy those leadership roles.

A CHAPTER ABOUT PARENTING

Perhaps this summary has not made it clear (perhaps intentionally so, on my part), but I see this chapter as presenting two models of parenting, one of which succeeds despite surprising disadvantages, and one that fails despite parallel advantages. To understand why this seems to be the most appropriate framework for the chapter, we need only consider the back-and-forth structure of the chapter.

In rapid succession, we see Hannah’s reaction to God’s having granted her a child, the failings of Eli’s children, Shmuel’s successes (with Eli’s praise of Shmuel’s parents), Eli’s failed attempts to stop his sons (again juxtaposed to a mention of Shmuel’s positive growth), and the word of God coming to Eli telling him of his loss of continuity (the reverse of Hannah’s experience). If we see this chapter as a unit, which is admittedly not a necessity, since the chapter divisions do not originate with Jews, it seems to contrast Hannah’s effective parenting with Eli’s less effective model. Examining each, then, should educate us about the navi’s message as to how to successfully raise a child.

HANNAH’S PRAYER

The text describes Hannah’s words as a prayer, using the verb va-titpalel. To the extent that we see her as simply expressing joy in having received a son, we would have to enunciate a notion of prayer that includes pure thanksgiving in that verb. The commentators on this verse, most notably the Aramaic Targum printed with the text (which generally translates the Hebrew words directly, but here expands on the text) see these words as a prophecy, a description of what will happen in the course of Shmuel’s life and leadership of the Jewish people.

The details of that interpretation interest me less than the notion that Hannah qualifies as a full-fledged prophet, at least on this occasion, a view that enriches our understanding of her relationship with her son, the prophet. It means that Shmuel’s prophecy (at a time, as we will see in the next chapter, when the word of God was rare) did not appear out of nowhere, but sprang up in a family where prophecy was already a known quantity. His mother, who had previously trailblazed in the area of prayer, now continued that growth in the direction of prophecy.

In addition, though, this interpretation assumes a connection between prayer and prophecy that we might not previously have realized, as shown by the use of the verb va-yitpalel. If the navi can describe a prophecy with that verb as well, it suggests that the verb (which comes out of the root "to judge" and appears in Eli’s reproof of his sons) implies more than just judging, more than just praying.

I would suggest that it tells us that the judging involved in palel involves more than the act of settling a dispute. Rather, palel involves understanding the ideal right and wrong of a situation, as well as the way that ideal applies in practice. That description can apply to judgement—deciding which of two disputants is right or wrong, thus enabling them to live in a just society—to prayer—deciding the needs of some person or persons and articulating them to God—and to prophecy—finding out, by connecting with God, what the future of some segment of the population looks like. In each case, although involving significantly different activities, the act is pelilah.

Radak offers another interpretation of the prayer, seeing it as a warning to those who rest comfortably on their laurels, assuming their situation in life can never change. As she notes from her situation—and, at least in Midrash, her co-wife’s having lost her children—the tides of Fortune can shift dramatically and suddenly. In this reading of the text, though, the verb va-yitpalel again shifts meaning, to something more along the lines of articulating understandings of the world; this, again, can affect our view of prayer, although I will leave that to you to elaborate in your own minds.

ELI’S SONS

At the conclusion of Hannah’s prayer, the text notes that Elkanah goes home, leaving Shmuel to serve Eli at the Mishkan. Considering the tale of failure that meets us in the next verse, the mention of Elkanah (and, by extension, Hannah) leaving suggests that it is meant to contrast with Eli's family. Elkanah and, more importantly, Hannah can leave their two year old with a stranger and still have him grow into a leader of the Jewish people; Eli is living at the Mishkan with his sons, raising them in an environment of service to God, and cannot get them to absorb the messages he wants.

The issue, for Eli's sons, seems to be their sense of entitlement. As priests, they indeed have the right to certain parts of a sacrifice, and might reasonably expect some extra part as a gift from the person bringing the sacrifice (a "tip," if we might be so crass). The problem lies in their converting what was supposed to be a freewill gesture of gratitude into an obligatory donation, for which they would hold up the sacrifice process until they received their "due".

Hannah's prayer, if we think about it, warns about God's ability to change people's fortunes, exactly foreshadowing Eli's sons' error. They think that they serve as the heads of the Mishkan by right. They think that the people owe them various gifts, and that they can demand those gifts from them. It is exactly this attitude that assumes that our positions in life result solely from our efforts, when in reality they are a combination of those efforts with the good graces of God. In focusing on themselves, the verse notes, they disgrace minhat Hashem, the offerings to God, converting them from a way of developing closeness to the Creator into a tax on ordinary Jews for the benefit of the priests.

BACK TO SHMUEL

Verse 18 shifts back to Shmuel, showing how his situation contrasted to Elis' sons'. A kid (a na`ar), he does not have that sense of ownership over God. Indeed, he still wears the small coat that his mother brings up to him yearly. On this coat, the commentators' split. I prefer the reading that says that Hannah made him a new one each year. The coat, in that reading, is a symbol of her continuing involvement in his upbringing. Rather than depositing him with God and leaving him there, Hannah, on a yearly basis, provides him with a tangible reminder of her love and presence (who knows-- maybe they communicated via messenger?).

Eli, in fact, recognizes Elkanah and Hannah's (more Hannah's, as far as the navi tells us) success as parents, and blesses them with more; God ratifies Eli's assessment, granting Hannah, the barren woman, five more children. In proving her ability to parent a child she had freely offered to God (without the coercion of Eli's sons), she had rendered herself open to receiving a successful blessing for more children, whom she could raise under more conventional circumstances.

ELI'S UNSUCCESSFUL PARENTING

If Eli can recognize others' successes as parents, could he perhaps actualize those skills in his own life? Apparently not. He remonstrates with his sons, trying to encourage them to the proper way, but ineffectually-- he speaks a language that they do not, he utters words that move them not. And again, in verse 26, Shmuel is trotted forward as the counterexample to Eli's failures.

That failure is fully articulated by the words of the ish haElokim who informs Eli of his punishment. Without going into the issue in detail, readers can see that the points that God stresses to Eli are his family's loss of those positions in life that they had come to take for granted, suggesting that that was the core of their sin.

In summary, then, the chapter contrasts Hannah, who opens by articulating God's Freedom to change human conditions radically, and thanks Him for changing hers. She then solidifies her "right" to maintain her new position by fulfilling her promise to give the child to God, but remaining involved as a parent, showing Shmuel the love and concern needed to foster positive growth.

Eli, in contrast, fails to identify this issue, also central in his family, and therefore watches helplessly while his sons pervert their legacy to the point that it is taken away. A lesson in worship of God thus expands to become a lesson in family dynamics, in parenting, and in the attitudes towards entitlement that will serve us properly. Shabbat Shalom.

SOME OTHER ISSUES TO CONSIDER

1) The gemara in Berakhot says that the 9 mentions of God’s name in Hannah's prayer led to the nine blessings we say in the mussaf prayer of Rosh HaShanah-- can you suggest a connection?

2) While the verse says that Eli's children committed adultery with the women who came to the Temple, Hazal suggest that they did not actually sin in that way, but simply kept women from their husbands by delaying the process of their sacrifice. If keeping a wife from her husband qualifies as adultery (at least enough for Hazal to interpret the verse that way), what does that say about the aspect of adultery that Hazal saw as most problematic (for the ambitious among you, you might connect this issue to the source that the Talmud uses to teach that non-Jews are also prohibited from committing adultery)?