-
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
(VBM)
*********************************************************
THE ELIYAHU NARRATIVES
Shiur #1: Introduction By Rav Elchanan Samet Translated by
Kaeren Fish
a. The uniqueness of the stories of Eliyahu and Elisha
From the moment of Eliyahu's appearance in Sefer Melakhim (I
17:1), the text devotes several chapters to a description of the
personality and actions of this great prophet and, later on, to the
personality and actions of his disciple and successor Elisha. This
extended focus on the activities of the two prophets even when they
do not directly affect the history of the Kingdom of Israel within
which they operate is a phenomenon unparalleled in Tanakh. (Moshe
and Shmuel are also at the center of the respective Books
describing their activities, but both of them are in addition to
being prophets also leaders of the nation, while Eliyahu and Elisha
serve only as prophets.)
The stories of Eliyahu and Elisha have a number of other special
characteristics:
a. A great multiplicity of miracles which these prophets
perform. This is particularly noticeable in comparison with the
paucity of miracles described in the Books of Shemuel and Melakhim
up until the appearance of Eliyahu, and their rare appearance in
the continuation of Sefer Melakhim, after Elisha leaves the scene.
In general these miracles seem to have been performed on the
initiative of Eliyahu and/or Elisha alone; only very rarely do they
perform a miracle based on an explicit Divine command. (There are
even miracles when no mention whatsoever is made of God's Name.)
Some of the miracles are performed for the prophets' own benefit or
for the benefit of a single individual, not for any national
need.
b. Continuity between the two prophets: Elisha, the disciple and
attendant of Eliyahu, is also his inheritor and successor as a
prophet of Israel. This phenomenon has no equivalent in all the
history of prophecy. We are reminded, admittedly, of the
relationship between Moshe and Yehoshua, but Yehoshua serves as
Moshe's successor in the sphere of national leadership, not as a
prophet in Moshe's place. This unique relationship between Eliyahu
and Elisha demands that we pay close attention to the link between
the two sets of narratives i.e., to those stories in which the two
prophets are described together.
-
c. A literary framework comprised of individual narratives, at
the center of all of which stands the prophet, with these
narratives together forming a collection. From the collection as a
whole we glean some understanding of the prophet's character and of
his special approach as a prophet.
The unique nature of the stories of Eliyahu and Elisha gives
rise to several questions, which we shall address later on.
b. Eliyahu's appearance in the generation of Ahav
Few prophets are mentioned in Sefer Melakhim prior to the
arrival of Eliyahu. What is it, then, that causes Eliyahu to appear
in the Kingdom of Israel at this specific time, leading to
intensified prophetic activity from this time forward?
From the founding of the Kingdom of Israel as an independent
entity under the rulership of Yeravam ben Nevat, it has
deteriorated steadily. No great prophetic effort is required in
order to point out how the religious sins that have accompanied the
Kingdom of Israel since its establishment go hand in hand with the
internal political disintegration of the kingdom and its outwardly
apparent decline. Rapid atrophy and degeneration have characterized
the kingdom, especially during the period prior to the rise of
Omri, as described in chapter 16 of Sefer Melakhim I.
A significant change occurs with the rise of the House of Omri
to power. With the stabilization of the kingdom, the political
assassinations that had been frequent occurrences until then
ceased, and the internal regime in Israel became secure. Omri and
his son, Ahav, also made efforts to strengthen their kingdom and
fortify it by means of vast construction, reinforcement of the
army, and a foreign policy based upon treaties with neighboring
countries. The relations between the Kingdom of Israel and the
Kingdom of Yehuda changed completely; they became allies - to the
extent that bonds of marriage were forged between the two royal
houses. The treaty with the Kingdom of Tzor and Tzidon was renewed,
and here too, marriage bonds were formed between the two royal
houses, with Ahav marrying Izevel, the daughter of Etba'al, king of
Tzidon. The picture that emerges from this period is one of great
political ascendancy for the Kingdom of Israel. These processes did
not happen spontaneously; it was the vision and efforts of Omri and
of his son Ahav that brought about this progress, and this merit is
attributed to them explicitly both in the biblical text and by
Chazal.
However, alongside this process of political revival and not
disconnected from it the kingdom of Israel underwent an opposite
process of religious decline. The contradiction between these two
developments is described already during the reign of Omri, founder
of the dynasty:
(Melakhim I 16:24) (24) "He bought the Shomron mountain from
Shemer for two talents of silver, and he built up the mountain and
called the name of the city which he built after Shemer, the owner
of the Shomron mountain.
(25) But Omri did evil in the eyes of God, and he did worse than
all those who had preceded him.
(26) He walked in all the ways of Yeravam to anger God, the Lord
of Israel
(27) The rest of the things that Omri did, and the valor that he
performed, are they not written."
-
On the one hand, Omri builds up a new capital city, thereby
symbolizing like David before him his intention to introduce a new
national era. But on the other hand he "does evil in the eyes of
God worse than all those who had preceded him." On the one hand he
angers God, on the other hand he performs mighty acts of valor in
Israel's wars against their enemies.
This contradiction is only heightened in the days of Ahav, his
son. Here we discover that there is a connection between the two
processes:
(Melakhim I 16:30) "Ahav, the son of Omri, did worse in God's
eyes than all those who preceded him.
(31) It was an easy thing for him to walk in the sins of Yeravam
ben Nevat: HE TOOK AS A WIFE IZEVEL THE DAUGHTER OF ETBA'AL, KING
OF THE TZIDONIM, AND HE WENT AND SERVED BA'AL AND BOWED DOWN TO
HIM.
(32) He established an altar to Ba'al in the house of Ba'al
which he had built in the Shomron.
(33) And Ahav made an ashera, and Ahav did more to anger God,
the Lord of Israel, than all the kings of Israel who had preceded
him."
Within the framework of the political covenant with the Kingdom
of Tzidon (a covenant dating back to the days of David and
Shelomo), Omri marries his son to Izevel, daughter of the king of
Tzidon. Thus, for the first time, the stage is set for
institutionalized, "state" idolatry in Israel, supported by the
royal family (Yeravam's calves were not considered idolatry).
From the following chapters describing the house of Ahav, it
becomes apparent that Izevel was a forceful woman both in relation
to Ahav, her husband, and in relation to the kingdom which she had
entered. She did not suffice with what the wives of Shelomo had
done exploiting his old age in order to build altars to their gods,
apparently for the purposes of personal worship. Izevel tried to
import idolatrous worship into Israel on a grand scale: she brought
with her, from her birthplace, hundreds of prophets of Ba'al, and
it seems that it was on her initiative that the altar to Ba'al was
established in the city of Shomron. These steps aroused the
opposition of the prophets of God, and therefore Izevel instituted
a campaign of suppression in order to eliminate them from the
kingdom; it is possible that this campaign even included
destruction of God's altars. Such deeds had not been witnessed in
Israel before.
Izevel also interferes in other aspects of the administration of
the kingdom; the story of the vineyard of Navot illustrates the
corrupt norms that she introduced to the regime.
Despite all of this, Ahav was a great king promoting the beof
his nation as he understood it, 's wars selflessly when necessary,
doing much to build up the kingdom and its army, and implementing a
foreign policy of great scope and vision.
Such a generation and such a king require a prophet of great
stature, who will not fear persecution and not hesitate to make his
voice heard, to berate and rebuke the nation and its king and even
to punish when necessary. The success of the House of Omri in those
public spheres in which he was active contrasts starkly with the
very grave actions of the kings of this royal house in the
religious sphere. This contradiction demands the appearance of a
prophet who is able to warn about the results of these sins. This
is the background to the appearance of Eliyahu as a prophet who
confronts Ahav, the greatest king of Israel. The moment of his
appearance was not only a time of emergency, a time of severe
religious decline, endangering the continued existence of the
covenant between God and His people, but also a time of national
ascendancy, expansion, and strengthening. In these historical
circumstances, there was a need for a prophet with sufficient
personality to draw both king and nation after him.
-
c. "How did these prophets [Eliyahu and Elisha] merit to perform
the miracles without Divine command?"
It is clear that miracles are the principle "work tools" that
Eliyahu and Elisha employ, and by means of which they fulfill their
prophetic mission. A miraculous act as performed by them may be
compared to a prophetic monologue as delivered by prophets of later
generations (Hoshea, etc.). But while the speeches of the prophets
generally emphasize that they are conveying God's word (and even
when this is not stated explicitly, it is implicit in what they
say), the miracles performed by Eliyahu and Elisha are not, for the
most part, commanded by God; in most cases the prophet does not
even offer a prayer to God. It appears, therefore, that these
prophets operated on their own initiative and according to their
own discretion, while God answers them and fulfills their wishes.
Indeed, this is the situation as Rambam describes it in his
Introduction to the Mishna (R. Shilat edition, p. 29):
"All that Eliyahu and Elisha and the other prophets did in the
realm of wonders was done not in order to establish their prophecy
since their prophecy had already been confirmed previously. Rather,
they performed these wonders because they needed them, and because
of their closeness to God He fulfilled their wishes, as it is
written concerning the righteous (Iyov 22:28), 'You shall speak a
decree and it shall be fulfilled for you'."
R. Yosef Albo, in the fourth article of his Sefer ha-Ikarim,
condenses this idea into a principle of faith:
"A great principle of the Torah, and a root of faith that the
blessed God bends nature under the feet of the believers and
certainly by the word of the prophets, who could perform whatever
miracle they chose to utter. Eliyahu said (Melakhim I 17:1), "As
God lives if there will be dew and rain for these years, except by
my word"; he also said (Melakhim II 1:10), "If I am a man of God,
let fire descend from heaven and consume you and your fifty men"
and it was so. Likewise, Elisha said (Melakhim II 7:1), "At this
time tomorrow, a se'a of fine flour will be sold for a shekel," and
it was so; also (ibid. 6;6), "the iron floated," and the rest of
the miracles that he performed without any preceding prophecy or
Divine command."
But not all the commentators agree. Some assume the existence of
a Divine command or a prayer offered by the prophet concerning each
individual miracle. R. Yitzchak Arama, for instance, differs
sharply with R. Albo; in the eighth chapter of his book he
writes:
"I guarantee, concerning all of the prophets and righteous men
that [R. Albo] mentions, that if there was no Divine command
concerning each instance, they would not have performed [the
wonders] on their own accord."
Other commentators deliberate on this question in other places
in their commentaries (see, for example, below "Drought II").
The literal text would seem to support the view of Rambam and R.
Albo. If we examine the exceptional cases in which there IS a
Divine command or a prayer offered by the prophet to God prior to
the performance of the miracle, we see that these instances show
themselves to be exceptional, implying that where no command or
prayer is mentioned, the miracle took place without them, on the
initiative and by decree of the prophet alone.
One of the commentators who adopts the opinion of Rambam and R.
Albo is Abarbanel, and he raises the following question (in his
commentary on Melakhim II 8:1-6):
"As to the stature of [Elisha] as a prophet, there is no doubt
that the text attests to it, and to that of Eliyahu It appears from
their actions that most of what they performed in wondrous ways was
done on their own initiative: they made decrees concerning natural
phenomena, and their word was fulfilled. We must then ask: HOW
-
DID THESE PROPHETS MERIT TO PERFORM THE MIRACLES WITHOUT A
DIVINE COMMAND?"
The answer that we propose to this question represents, in our
view, the necessary background for an understanding of the status
of Eliyahu and Elisha in Tanakh and for an understanding of their
activity in general. It is also the key to the exegetical study of
their actions, as the end of this Introduction will show.
d. The prophet's part in the Divine mission
Is the prophet merely a vehicle to convey God's word to his
listeners (a sort of recording and broadcasting device which
receives a frequency that is inaudible and "translates" it into
audible speech), or is he an active partner in the effort to
achieve the aims of his prophetic mission? It would seem that the
second option is more accurate: the prophet is required to place
all his talents and ability, his very personality, and even his
personal lifestyle at the disposal of his mission.
In Massekhet Sanhedrin (89a) we read: "No two prophets prophesy
in the same style." God's word, then, appears in a verbal garb
suited to the "style" the personality and traits of the prophet who
will declare it. The prophet must couch God's word in the most
suitable terms and concepts he can find in his vocabulary, using
the literary and rhetorical devices that will best succeed in
conveying the content of the message to the listener. The prophet's
unique style is what creates the literary form in which the
prophetic substance manifests itself. This substance is like a soul
that gives life to the body, but it is also dependent on it. A
change in style, a change in the form in which God's word appears,
will necessarily affect the image of the inner substance. With
different garb, it looks like an unfamiliar face. This intimate
relationship between substance and form makes the prophet a
partner, in the full sense of the word, in the prophetic
mission.
This is true of prophetic SPEECH. But the early prophets, who
preceded the oratory prophets, are characterized by the ACTS that
they perform in the various spheres of their prophetic activity.
What is the nature of the partnership between the prophet and his
Sender in these acts? Does any such partnership exist here?
Sometimes the prophet is commanded by God, "Go and do
such-and-such." Even then, the fulfillment of God's command within
the conditions of a dynamic and changing reality requires that the
prophet perform his mission in a way that is conducive to the
conditions in which he is operating. For this purpose, he must
contribute his own initiative and originality to the mission; he
must act in accordance with the prevailing conditions as he
perceives them.
But sometimes the Divine command indicates to the prophet only
the final, distant aim of his mission. Then the prophet must bridge
the chasm between the present situation and the situation in which
the purpose of his mission will have been achieved. He must create
all the intermediate stages himself, with no explicit instructions.
How is he to do this? Obviously, by enlisting all of his human
resources: by placing all of his abilities the disposal of his
mission and by exerting maximal physical and spiritual effort.
Clearly,the of strategy to achieve the aim of his mission is left
to the prophet's discretion. This discretion, and the way in which
his chosen strategy is implemented, will depend on his personality,
on his personal "style." This individual style of operating
corresponds to the verbal style of the oratory prophet. We may
paraphrase the Gemara and add that "No two prophets OPERATE in the
same style."
All of the above is equally applicable to an agent representing
a human dispatcher: to the extent that the agent is true to the
person who appoints him, so he will exert more effort to ensure
that the mission entrusted to him will be fulfilled successfully,
even when he lacks precise instructions for every stage of the
mission and every possible situation that may arise. There are some
situations that may help him and he should take advantage of them,
while
-
others are likely to harm his mission and he should overcome
them. We learn what is expected of a loyal emissary from "the
conversations of the servants of our forefathers:" from the
detailed and repeated description in the Torah of the way in which
Avraham's servant went about fulfilling the mission entrusted to
him by his master in very few words (Bereishit 24). In Sefer
Mishlei, too, we find some insightful adages concerning loyal
agents (see, for example, 13:17 and 25:13). If all of this is true
concerning a mission on behalf of a mortal, how much more so
concerning a mission that God entrusts to His prophets.
e. The prophet's actions are performed by God's word even when
there is no explicit command
What is the prophet's part in the actions that he performs as a
prophet, within that partnership with God in the prophetic mission?
We have already stated that his part changes in accordance with the
nature of his mission and the command that he is given. We may add
that the greater the prophet the greater his part the human part in
the fulfillment of his mission as a prophet. To clarify this point,
let us return to our metaphor of a mortal dispatcher.
A person who sends his emissary on a complex and very
responsible mission will formulate his instructions in accordance
with the agent's personality and level. If the agent is
inexperienced and his loyalty has not yet been proven, or if he is
not very intelligent, the dispatcher will take care to make his
instructions as detailed as possible. He will enumerate several
possible situations that the agent may encounter, and will guide
him as to how to respond in each instance. If possible, he will ask
that the agent maintain continuous contact with him, in order to
receive ongoing guidance as he progresses. In this scenario, where
the dispatcher has little confidence in his agent, the latter is
left with little room for independent action. He is certainly a
loyal emissary he does nothing of his own accord but ultimately, he
is not a very effective one.
The picture is quite different if the agent is experienced, he
is a wise and intelligent person, and completely loyal to his
master. In such a case, the master can entrust him with the mission
with just the briefest mention of the final aim, and he will be
quite confident that the agent will achieve the aim in the best
possible way, using his own initiative and drawing on his rich
experience, altogether focused on the wishes of his dispatcher to
whom he is so close and whom he understands so well.
Let us now return to the prophet participating in the
fulfillment of his mission, and ask: how are we to relate to and
evaluate those actions which he performs on his own initiative? Are
they actions that are performed "by God's word," to be considered
as though they had been explicitly commanded? On one hand, it is
difficult to adopt this position, since God did not in fact command
them; these actions are based on the prophet's own discretion, on
his "style," and hence their source is mortal. On the other hand,
the prophet is apparently required to perform these acts: they are
required by virtue of the Divine command that indicated only the
final aim. These acts express the partnership discussed above,
between God and His prophet. For this reason we frequently find
clear expressions either by the prophet or in the text indicating
that these actions are performed "by God's word." The prophet's
actions bear the sign of the Divine sign of approval, for his
intention is directed towards his dispatcher; he aims to fulfill
his wishes and achieve his aims.
f. The prophetic mission of Eliyahu and Elisha
Let us now return to agents of mortal dispatchers. In days gone
by, it was quite common for wealthy landowners to leave the
administration and operation of their estate in the hands of a
representative whom they would appoint. This steward would be left
alone to operate as he pleased, the general aim being to run the
estate in the best possible way for the benefit of its
-
owner. Only once in a long while would the steward present
himself before the landowner at his distant dwelling place and
report on his actions and his plans.
It was rare for a landowner to find a steward so loyal, so close
to him, and so capable in his job that it was possible to leave the
running of the estate in his hands such that he would operate in
place of the owner, with almost total freedom.
A superficial observation would mislead one into identifying the
steward the agent (who would usually reside in the landowner's
castle) as the landowner himself. Only someone who knew the steward
as being less well-to-do than his surroundings would suggest, or
who saw him performing all kinds of labors on the estate that were
not appropriate to someone of the owner's apparent means, would
realize that he was operating as the agent of the wealthy
landowner.
The same relationship can exist in the realm of prophecy. To the
extent that the prophet appears to act independently within the
framework of his prophetic mission, not requiring explicit commands
from God telling him what to do, we may conclude that he is a great
and responsible prophet, loyal to God. A proper perception of his
actions shows them to be undertaken with their Despatcher's
approval and with the intention of fulfilling His will; thus these,
too, are performed "by God's word."
This is the key to understanding most of the acts performed by
Eliyahu and Elisha of their own accord and at their own discretion,
as part of their mission to serve as prophets for their generation.
They are entrusted with the general task of guiding Israel God's
inheritance. They are loyal stewards to the "Landowner;" God hands
them the keys, as it were, and relies on their judgment to do all
that is necessary, in order that God's "estate" will flourish and
produce worthy fruit.
We can now understand the multiplicity of miracles that we find
among the acts of these two prophets. They performed them, in
general, at their own discretion and without any command, in order
to negate the mistaken impression that all that they do is simply
human action not inspired by God's word. The miracle is proof that
their actions are performed by God's word, for no mortal could
generate such wonders without God acceding to the prophet's will in
initiating them. The miracle, then, serves as a frequently renewed
Divine stamp of approval, certifying that the "Landowner" approves
of what His prophet-agent is doing.
g. Three levels in the story of the prophet's actions
We have mentioned that the prophet, within the framework of his
prophetic mission, may act based on his own judgment and his human
understanding as part of his partnership in the prophetic mission.
We must then ask, is it possible that the prophet may be mistaken
in his judgment and desire to perform some act that is not suited
to or will not have any value in terms of the aim of his mission,
to the extent that his actions will be undesirable in God's
eyes?
When God gives the prophet explicit instructions as to what he
must do, it would seem that there is no room for the prophet to
make mistakes. Our quesconcerns those actions performed by the
prophet without any explicit Divine command, although they are
performed as part of his mission.
Our answer that it is indeed possible for mistakes to happen,
for the source of the prophet's action is within himself. Since he
is mortal, he is not exempt from making mistakes and from other
human weaknesses. Therefore, when it comes to actions that are
undertaken based on human judgment, it is possible for the prophet
to be mistaken, or for there to be some deviation from the Divine
will.
-
We may mention here three examples of prophets who tried to act
in a certain way, as part of their prophetic mission, without any
Divine command and were mistaken:
a. Shmuel is sent by God to anoint one of Yishai's sons as the
future King of Israel in place of Shaul. Upon setting eyes on
Eliav, the eldest, he is certain that this is the chosen son; he
proclaims; "Surely God's anointed one is before Him!" (Shmuel I
16:6) But God rebukes him for his mistake: "Do not pay attention to
his outward appearance for it is not as man sees it: man sees
[only] with his eyes, but God looks into the heart" (ibid. 7).
b. David approaches Natan, the prophet, expressing a desire to
build an edifice to house the Ark of the Covenant. Natan tells him,
"All that is in your heart go and do, for God is with you" (Shmuel
II 7:3). But the same night Natan receives a prophetic message
telling him that God does not want David to build the Temple.
c. Elisha responds to the Shunamite woman whose son has died: he
sends his attendant, Geichazi, armed with the prophet's staff and
with instructions as to how to revive the boy. But the attempt as
resuscitation fails (Shmuel II 4:29-31). It is only when Elisha
himself comes to the home of the Shunamite woman and prays to God,
and following a series of actions, that the boy opens his eyes.
Obviously, we must seek the reason for the prophet's mistake in
every such instance. But whatever the reason may turn out to have
been, it is clear that the prophet's word, based on his own
judgment, does not become God's word except where God's view
accords with his.
In the above examples God does not respond to the prophets'
word, and He even reveals Himself to Shmuel and Natan, ordering
them to correct their mistake. Here we must ask: is it possible
that a prophet may act in a way that is not desirable in God's
eyes, but that God will still allow his actions and fulfill his
word? There may be different reasons for such a situation perhaps
because Divine opposition to what the prophet is doing is not
absolute, or because the prophet is acting in public (unlike the
three examples above), and a lack of response on God's part will
harm the prophet's status in the eyes of the nation as well as the
ideal of prophecy in general. In situations such as these, once
again, it is difficult to say that the prophet's actions are
performed "by God's word." God admittedly responds to him, even
realizing the miracle that he wishes to perform, but this is no
proof that God in fact agrees with the prophet's view.
It seems, then, that those actions of the prophets as part of
their prophetic mission that are undertaken based upon their own
human judgment may be divided into three levels: the lowest is when
his action is defined as a mistake (either explicitly, in the text,
or by inference), and the prophet is required to cancel his act or
to correct it. Such instances are extremely rare, but they are not
difficult to identify, for the text attests to the mistake. We must
explore the reason for the mistake and what we may learn from
it.
The next level is where the prophet's action is not in
accordance with God's will, but God nevertheless fulfills his word
for some reason. Such instances are more complicated to recognize,
since the prophet's action appears to be rewarded with success why
should we then think that God did not desire it? A very sensitive
reading is required for this purpose, with
-
attention paid to the WAY in which God fulfills his word, as
well as to what transpires afterwards both in the actual situation
and in the relationship between God and the prophet. All of this
should expose the criticism of the act and lead the prophet himself
to recognize it.
The highest level, fundamentally removed from the others, is
when the prophet's action reflects the Divine will and achieves the
objective of his mission. Such an act is performed "by God's word"
even where there is no explicit command. There is no doubt that the
great majority of the actions by all the prophets in Tanakh fall
into this category.
The chapters concerning Eliyahu and Elisha in the Book of
Melakhimtell us about two great prophets, most of whose actions as
prophets were not performed by Divine command but rather on the
basis of their own judgment. This fact alone speaks in praise of
these prophets and teaches us something about their greatness and
their loyalty to God. We need not necessarily conclude from this
that every one of the stories about what they did is meant to
praise the prophet. A reading of these chapters requires a degree
of sensitivity with constant questioning as to whether the
narrative before us includes criticism of the prophet or whether it
describes his actions as bearing a resounding Divine stamp of
approval.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
(VBM)
*********************************************************
THE ELIYAHU NARRATIVES
Shiur #2: The Drought part 1: Eliyahu's Appearance
By Rav Elchanan Samet
Translated by Kaeren Fish
(17:1) "Eliyahu the Tishbi, one of the residents of Gilad, said
to Ahav: As the Lord God of Israel lives, before Whom I stand,
There shall be no dew or rain during these years, except by my
word."
With no background, with no introduction as we would expect to
find in the text when an important character is about to appear for
the first time Eliyahu bursts onto the scene, right into the midst
of the action. A reading of the above verse would certainly not
give the impression that we have reached the beginning of a new and
great narrative, the introduction to a series of chapters; rather,
we feel that we are in the middle of a plot where the characters
are already familiar. But the reader has no such prior information.
Who is this Eliyahu? And why does he make such a terrible oath?
1. Eliyahu novice or experienced prophet?
This surprising verse nevertheless shows us some consideration
and tries to compensate for the lack of introduction. In between
the opening words, "Eliyahu said" and the concluding, "to Ahav" we
find three words (in the Hebrew) that describe Eliyahu, the subject
of the sentence, and are meant to satisfy our curiosity: Eliyahu is
a "Tishbi, one of the residents of Gilad." These words have given
rise to extensive speculation and much commentary, which we shall
not discuss here; suffice it to say that Eliyahu arrives at the
center of the kingdom having hailed from Gilad, on the eastern side
of the Jordan river. Is his visit to Ahav
-
(apparently in Shomron) his first appearance as a prophet, or is
he an established prophet whose words and actions are being
recorded for the first time in Tanakh?
It is difficult to arrive at an unequivocal answer to this
question, but the reader's impression is that Eliyahu is not a
prophet whose career and role are just beginning. What is it that
creates this impression? Firstly, the power of his appearance, in
which he swears that the rainfall will depend on his word.
Secondly, the formulation of his declaration, which would seem to
bear out his veteran status: "As the Lord God of Israel lives,
BEFORE WHOM I STAND (lit: "before Whom I have stood")."
What is the significance of these words? Radak interprets the
"standing before God" here as standing in PRAYER. Abarbanel, on the
other hand, maintains that this expression indicates that Eliyahu
is a prophet who stands ready to SERVE GOD at all times:
"He says, 'Before Whom I have stood' meaning, before Whom he
prophesies and from Whom he receives the spirit of prophecy. This
may be compared with what Yirmiyahu says (23:18), "For who has
STOOD in God's counsel, and seen and heard His word."
It would seem that Abarbanel's interpretation is a better one,
since the first part of his oath "As God lives before Whom I have
stood" appears to represent the support and justification for the
second part "there will be no dew or rain except by my word." This
support makes sense only if we assume that Eliyahu's "standing"
before God expresses a special relationship on God's part TOWARDS
HIM i.e., his selection as a prophet, and not a relationship on
Eliyahu's part towards God (i.e., the fact that he stands in prayer
before Him).
In addition, the wording of his oath "As God lives before Whom I
have stood" appears another three times in the Book of Melakhim(and
in the whole of Tanakh). An examination of these three sources
reveals that all three are uttered in the context of the prophets'
prophetic activity, and so it is reasonable to assume that the
expression "before Whom I have stood" here is uttered in the same
context.
Moreover, a review of the expression "standing before" (amida
lifnei) in Tanakh reveals that it refers to a slave or servant
standing before his master with a view to serving him.
It seems that Radak's interpretation suggesting that Eliyahu
stands before God in prayer arises from the fact that we have no
recognition of Eliyahu as a prophet prior to his appearance here.
Radak therefore chooses to interpret the expression in a more
limited way. But the wording of the oath, as well as its content,
may specifically be meant to testify that Eliyahu is not a novice.
Only by virtue of being a prophet who is always standing before God
and who is ready to serve Him at all times, can he have the
audacity to swear as he does.
2. The background to Eliyahu's oath
WHY does Eliyahu utter such a severe oath? And we must ask
further: does his appearance before Ahav begin and end with this
oath, or does this verse represent the conclusion of a longer
speech or dialogue that is not recorded in Tanakh?
The reason for Eliyahu's oath becomes clear in the context that
precedes his appearance, in the description of Ahav's kingdom at
the end of chapter 16:
(16:30) "Ahav, son of Omri, did more evil in God's eyes than all
those who preceded him.
-
(31) It was an easy thing in his eyes to walk in the sins of
Yeravam ben Nevat: he took as a wife Izevel, daughter of Etba'al,
king of the Tzidonim, and he went and served Ba'al and bowed to
it.
(32) And he established an altar for Ba'al in the house of Ba'al
which he built in Shomron.
(33) And Ahav made an ashera, and Ahav did more to anger God,
the Lord of Israel, than all the kings of Israel who had preceded
him."
Later on, in the story of the drought itself, we hear a belated
justification for the decree of drought in the words of Eliyahu to
Ahav. When Ahav accuses the prophet of being a "troubler of
Israel," since he has brought famine upon them, Eliyahu
answers:
(18:18) "He said: I have not troubled Israel, but [rather] you
and your father's house, in abandoning the commandments of God and
walking after the Be'alim."
This accusation against Ahav, King of Israel, for having
officially introduced worship of idolatry in a city of his kingdom
(inspired by the gentile wife whom he has taken) appears here for
the first time inTanakh and in the history of Israel. Concerning
such actions the Torah warns: "Guard yourselves lest your hearts
tempt you, and you turn aside and worship other gods and bow down
to them. Then God's anger will burn against you and He will shut up
the heavens, and there will be no rain, nor will the ground give
its produce" (Devarim 11:16-17).
Thus, Eliyahu's oath is simply the realization of the Torah's
warning. But did Eliyahu make this clear when he spoke to Ahav, or
did he rely on his listeners' understanding of the background to
his oath? In the Midrash, Eliyahu's oath is depicted as the
climactic conclusion of a heated and dramatic dialogue between
Eliyahu and Ahav (Eliyahu Zuta chapter 8):
"Ahav, King of Israel, questioned Eliyahu the Tishbi; he said to
him: 'It is written in the Torah, 'Guard yourselves lest your
hearts tempt you,' 'God's anger will burn against you and He will
shut up the heavens.' Here I am, worshiping all the idolatry in the
world and see what good is coming about in my time.' Eliyahu was
immediately filled with great anger against him. He said:
'Worthless man! You have despised He Who created all the world for
His glory; He Who gave the words of Torah for His glory. By your
life, I judge you only on the basis of your own words.' As it is
written, 'Eliyahu the Tishbi, one of the residents of Gilad,
answered Ahav: As God lives there will be no dew or rain during
these years except by my word.' Eliyahu took the keys of rainfall
and left, and there was great famine throughout the whole
world."
According to this midrash, there is no doubt that Eliyahu's oath
followed a preceding dispute that took place between the prophet
and Ahav, the king.
This conclusion is also borne out by the literal text. Even if
no verbal dialogue took place, as described in the midrash, the
midrash still reflects our impression that the verse recorded in
the text is not an introduction to the events, but rather a vehicle
to bring us into the midst of the action, so as to start
thenarrative concerning Eliyahu.
From the discuabove it turns out that Eliyahu, who appears in
Tanakhfor the first time in our verse, is an experienced, veteran
prophet, but the Tanakh has told us nothing about him until now.
From the present discussion we see that even his first appearance
as a prophet is a somewhat fragmented one, since the text fails to
record its introduction.
3. The reason for the fragmented introduction
-
If we assume that Eliyahu is an experienced prophet, our
question concerning the fragmented nature of his introduction is
highlighted, since we are faced with an exceptional literary
phenomenon: with none of the "background" that would usually be
presented in Tanakh, a central character enters the scene in Sefer
Melakhim a character who will stand at center-stage for the next
several chapters and who will be the focus of all the reader's
attention from this point onwards. Not only do we sense a lack of
some general introduction as to the identity of Eliyahu as a
prophetic personality, the text even fails to provide background as
to the specific incident that begins the text's to recounting of
Eliyahu's oath.
It seems that Eliyahu's surprising, sudden, and mysterious
appearance at the beginning of his role mirrors his disappearance
at the end, which is even more surprising and mysterious, although
in a different sense. What is common to both is the unexpectedness
of his presence and his absence. In Midrash Devarim Rabba the verse
from Sefer Nachum (1:3),
"God's way is in the tempest and in the storm; the clouds are
the dust of His feet" is interpreted as follows: "'in the storm'
this refers to Eliyahu, as it is written, 'Eliyahu ascended in a
storm to the heavens.'"
Indeed, this may be said to characterize Eliyahu's path in
general it proceeds in a storm. He appears in a storm, he acts in a
storm, and he leaves the scene in a storm, leaving behind a "cloud
of dust." The mystery surrounding him is one of his most
distinctive characteristics, both as described in the text itself
and as perceived by the people of his generation (to the extent
that this is expressed in the Tanakh).
This, then, is the answer to our question: Eliyahu's sudden
appearance at the beginning of chapter 17, without our knowing who
he is or what circumstances preceded his adamant oath and all of
this added to our sense that he is an accomplished and respected
prophet - is an intentional literary device calculated to create
within us an attitude towards him that will match the attitude
amongst the nation of Israel at the time.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #3: The Drought part 2
Eliyahu's Oath: Commanded by God or on the Initiative of the
Prophet?
By Rav Elchanan Samet
(Sefer Melakhim I 17:1) "Eliyahu the Tishbi, one of the
residents of Gilad, said to Achav: As the Lord God of Israel lives,
before Whom I stand,
There shall be no dew or rain during these years, except by my
word."
Does Eliyahu make this decree, halting the dew and rain, because
God has commanded him to appear before Achav and speak in this way,
or does he act on his own initiative? This question, as we shall
see in future shiurim, is of critical importance for an
understanding of the rest of his story.
In the midrashim of Chazal and in most of the commentaries we
find the unequivocal position that Eliyahu acted on his own
initiative. Let us examine, in this regard, two midrashim and the
opinions of two commentators:
-
"Achav, King of Israel, asked Eliyahu the Tishbi Immediately
Eliyahu was filled with great anger. He said to him: By your life,
I JUDGE YOU only by your own words ELIYAHU TOOK THE KEYS OF
RAINFALL AND LEFT" (Eliyahu Zuta, chapter 8)
"God created winter such that it would be winter, and summer
such that it would be summer. ELIYAHU CAME ALONG AND MADE the
winter into summer, as it is written, 'As God lives there shall not
be dew or rain during these years except by my word' What is the
meaning of the verse, 'a righteous man rules in the fear of God'
(Shmuel II 23:3)? The righteous rule, as it were, by that with
which God rules. How? Everything that God does, the righteous do.
How God halts the rain, AND ELIYAHU HALTED THE RAIN" (Devarim Rabba
10:2)
Radak comments on our verse as follows:
"Here ELIYAHU MADE A DECREE CONCERNING THE RAINFALL IN HIS
ZEALOUSNESS FOR GOD because of the idolaters. As it is written in
the Torah (Devarim 11:16-17), 'Lest you turn aside and worship
other gods and bow down to them, then God's anger will burn against
you and He will shut up the heavens and there will be no rain.' HE
TRUSTS GOD TO KEEP HIS WORD. And concerning him and others like him
it is written (Iyov 22:28), 'You shall say a decree and it shall be
fulfilled for you,' as Shmuel the prophet said (Shmuel I 12:17), 'I
will call out to God and He will give thunder and rain.' And since
[Achav] did more evil than anyone who had preceded him, Eliyahu
decreed and announced to him that there would not be dew or rain,
[so that] perhaps he would change his ways. And God, Who is slow to
anger, demonstrated patience with him as He did to those who
preceded him.
And the words 'except by my word' mean: until he would see that
everyone or at least some had returned from the path of
idolatry."
Abarbanel (commenting on verse 3) writes:
"Eliyahu did this without a Divine command and without
permission, but rather by his own will and choice, to pursue his
zealousness for God."
Among the earlier commentators, a clear exception is Ralbag, who
expresses his dissenting opinion only incidentally:
"Eliyahu exaggerated, BY GOD'S COMMAND, in withholding dew and
rain from them altogether for all those years, except at the time
that Eliyahu would order it, BY GOD'S COMMAND."
Ralbag is preceded in this view by a great many years, by Yosef
ben-Matityahu in his "Kadmoni'ut ha-Yehudim":
"There was one prophet to the Great God from the city of Teshev
in the land of Gilad; he came to Achav and told him THAT GOD HAD
NOTIFIED HIM that He would not give rain in those years, nor would
dew descend upon the earth, except for when he [the prophet] would
appear [before the king]."
Are these two exegetical views of equal weight, or can we bring
proof from the verse to support one of them over the other?
The fact that there is no description of a Divine revelation to
Eliyahu preceding his appearance before Achav is no proof: it is
quite common for prophets to be described as fulfilling a mission
from God without any previous mention of a Divine revelation to
them. From the mission itself the reader deduces, in such
instances, that the prophet's actions are performed as a Divine
mission. A record of the actual command would create unnecessary
repetition.
-
More significant is the fact that Eliyahu himself makes no
mention of the Divine source of his mission. He does not introduce
his declaration with the words, "So says God," nor does he
formulate his oath in such a way that we may understand that it is
God's words that he is speaking. A formulation clarifying in some
way that Eliyahu's declaration is indeed God's word is particularly
important in a case such as ours, where there is no preceding
description of a Divine revelation to him. The lack of any
description of a revelation, coupled with a formulation of an oath
that makes no reference to its Divine source, are enough to attest
to the prophet's independence of action.
But it is not only that which is not said when Eliyahu appears
before Achav that strengthens this view; more importantly, we reach
the same conclusion from Eliyahu's words: the very need to swear,
together with the personal formulation of the oath, demonstrate
that it is an independent initiative on the part of the prophet to
withhold rainfall. A regular prophetic mission, in which the
prophet foretells, in God's name, the punishment that will come
upon Israel, requires no oath. But when the prophet decrees of his
own will, and his listeners understand his words correctly, then
his oath comes to strengthen their faith in the fulfillment of his
decree; it states: Even though I am the one who is making this
decree, it should not be taken lightly. I am certain that my decree
will be fulfilled, and I am ready to swear thus by God's Name.
When we come to the conclusion of Eliyahu's oath, there would
seem to be no further room for doubt as to what we have said
above:
"Except by MY WORD."
This conclusion comes to limit the decree: the cessation of the
dew and rainfall during "these years" is not irreversible; it
depends on the discretion of the prophet, "until he would see that
everyone or at least some had returned from the path of idolatry"
(Radak). It is specifically this limitation that amplifies the
power of human action in Eliyahu's oath: it leaves the prophet the
option of changing his decree in accordance with changing
circumstances. Chazal present us with an incisive "paraphrase" of
this oath: "Eliyahu took THE KEYS OF RAINFALL, and went on his way"
(Eliyahu Zuta chapter 8). The keeper of the keys will sometimes
lock the door and at other times open it, in accordance with the
circumstances and at his discretion.
Our discussion thus far has led us to agree with Chazal's
conclusion - and that of most of the commentators - that Eliyahu is
not commanded to announce the halting of the rain; he makes this
oath of his own volition. As an experienced prophet, accustomed to
standing before God and serving Him, Eliyahu sees that what his
generation and his prophetic mission require is a grandiose act, an
act that will halt the situation in which Achav, serving idols all
over the country, persists in this practice and even stubbornly
upholds it, in light of the plentiful rainfall that blesses the
land.
God, Who includes His prophets in His counsel and entrusts to
the greatest among them the role of leading the generation in
accordance with their discretion and the needs of the hour,
performs the will of those who fear Him, such that "there was no
rain in the land" (verse 7).
Translated by Kaeren Fish
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #4: The Drought part 3: Eliyahu's Experiences During the
Drought
For What Purpose Are They Recorded?
-
By Rav Elchanan Samet
(18:1) "MANY DAYS passed and God's word came to Eliyahu IN THE
THIRD YEAR, saying:
Go and appear before Achav, and I will give rain upon the
earth."
What has happened in the meantime, in the course of these "many
days" that have lasted more than two years, while severe drought
has prevailed throughout the country?
As regards Eliyahu, although he has been out of Achav's sight,
he has not disappeared from the reader's consciousness. A chain of
three literary units describes what he has been doing during these
years, thereby filling in the void between his first appearance
before Achav (17:1) and God's command that he appear before him a
second time (18:1).
As regards the events in Shomron during this time, we learn
about what has happened only incidentally, in retrospect, from what
we are told in the first half of chapter 18 (up until verse 18).
Let us gather the details that are available to us from those
verses and try to organize them more or less chronologically:
i. Achav undertakes intensive measures to try and discover
Eliyahu's hideout; he even goes so far as to send messengers to
neighboring nations and kingdoms to seek him, making them swear
that Eliyahu has not been offered asylum within their borders
(18:10).
ii. As a result of the failure of these search missions,
Eliyahu's disappearance is perceived as miraculous: It is God's
spirit that has suddenly carried him off to an unknown place,
thereby leading Achav and his men astray (based on 17:12).
iii. Izevel has attempted to destroy the prophets of God, and
Ovadyahu, who is in charge of the royal household, has saved one
hundred of them (18:4). Although this is not stated explicitly, it
seems that Izevel's act is meant as a vengeful response to
Eliyahu's oath and his disappearance.
iv. In "the third year" of Eliyahu's oath, "the famine was
severe in Shomron" (18:1-2).
v. Achav and Ovadyahu divide between them the land (around
Shomron) at the end of this period in search of a little fodder for
their livestock, so that they will not starve to death (18:5-6).
This is a graphic description of the situation in the land
following two years of drought.
vi. Eliyahu is perceived by Achav, in light of the severe
national crisis, as a "troubler of Israel" (18:17). But inwardly
Achav is planning to cooperate with Eliyahu to change the religious
situation (18:20 and onwards).
Let us now return to the chain of units describing Eliyahu. They
parallel, chronologically, the period described above in the
Shomron. The continuation of our chapter may be divided as follows
(chapter 17):
(2-7) Eliyahu at Wadi Kerit
(8-16) Eliyahu's meeting with the widow at the gates of Tzarfat,
and his stay in her home
(17-24) Eliyahu's miraculous revival of the widow's son
-
What is the thread that binds these events into a single unit if
such a unit exists and how do all three connect to the story that
serves as their framework i.e., Eliyahu's two meetings with Achav,
one to announce the imminent drought and the other to end it?
At first glance it would seem that no special effort is required
to answer these questions. These three sections are connected to
each other as well as to the literary framework surrounding them on
several different levels.
A. Timeframe:
The dimension of time in the story as a whole is what unites all
that we read in chapter 17 and the beginning of chapter 18. The
three brief events, as noted, fill in the time between Eliyahu's
two appearances before Achav, thereby updating us as to what
Eliyahu has been up to during this time. This significance of the
events, in terms of time, features prominently in the description
of the events themselves, in the emphasis placed on when they took
place or on their duration:
(17:7) "It was, AFTER SOME TIME, that the wadi dried up, for
there was no rain in the land."
This indicates the conclusion of the period of a year during
which Eliyahu resided at Wadi Kerit.
At the end of the second unit, we read:
(17:15) "He and she and her house ate FOR SOME TIME."
The third unit begins:
(17:17) "It was, after these things"
In other words, it is only after "some time" that Eliyahu spends
at Wadi Kerit and "some time" that he spends in the home of the
widow that we find a more specific indication of time:
(18:1) "MUCH TIME passed, and God's word came to Eliyahu IN THE
THIRD YEAR, saying:
Go and appear before Achav, for I shall give rain upon the
land."
B. Plot:
All the events narrated in chapter 17 are units that lead from
one to the other from the point of view of the plot: after Eliyahu
swears before Achav that the rain will cease and will return only
by his word, it is reasonable to expect that Achav and Izevel will
plot against him in some way. For this reason God commands him to
go to Wadi Kerit. But about a year later the wadi dries up because
of the drought, and so Eliyahu is forced to wander to some place of
habitation outside of the boundaries of the kingdom of Israel to
the home of the widow in "Tzarfat of Tzidon." This widow's son
takes ill and dies, and by means of a most wondrous miracle Eliyahu
restores him to life.
But this perception of the narration in our chapter, as a
continuous plot whose only purpose is to describe Eliyahu's
activities, fails to provide a satisfying answer to the questions
posed above. We are left with the following difficulties:
i. The concept of circumstantial development of the story from
one unit to the next does not apply to the connection between the
collection of three units describing Eliyahu's activities
-
and the Divine command that follows them. The group of three
units is connected properly to its framework at the beginning, but
not at the end.
ii. Even where the circumstantial connection between links in
the story is clear and logical, this does not answer the question
of WHY the text tells us about all these things that happen to
Eliyahu during this time. In what way does the description of these
events contribute to the principal narrative, which begins with
Eliyahu's oath as to the cessation of rain and continues in chapter
18 with his second encounter with Achav?
If the story intends simply to fill us in as to what took place
during the period between Eliyahu's two appearances before Achav,
would it not be better for the text to describe what was taking
place in Shomron at the time? The events there are directly related
to the central plot, for they relate to the influence of the
drought on the Shomron and its king, both materially and
psychologically. Eliyahu's doings could be summarized in a single
verse, indicating that he hid for two years. But instead the text
adopts the opposite approach: We hear about what is happening in
Shomron only incidentally, while Eliyahu's activities are described
at great length, covering twenty-three verses whose contribution to
the main subject of the story is not clear.
iii. The third unit is entirely unrelated to the subject of
Eliyahu's HIDING. Even in the first two units, this is not the main
subject in terms of both subject and style. Although in the first
command to Eliyahu, in verse 3, he is told, "YOU SHALL HIDE
YOURSELF at Wadi Kerit which faces the Jordan," we find that in the
description of his fulfillment of this command we read something
else: "He went and did according to God's word; he went and
SOJOURNED at Wadi Kerit which faces the Jordan" (5). In the second
unit, the concept of "hiding" vanishes even from God's command:
"Arise, go to Tzarfat of Tzidon, and SOJOURN there" (9). Anyone
reading this verse in isolation from its context would never
imagine that the situation involves someone hiding from someone
else.
We may say, then, that the central subject of these two units is
the problem of Eliyahu's physical survival during the drought,
rather than the matter of his hiding. An examination of the
worcommonthese two sections confirms this view: the expression "I
have commanded to sustain you" appears in both sections, as does
the word "bread," the verb "to drink" and the word "rain."
We may say, in summary, that neither the dimension of time
binding together the narrative in our chapter with the beginning of
chapter 18 nor the narrative that connects some events with causal
links, can provide sufficient explanation for the need for these
three sections to be written let alone answer our questions.
This approach to explaining the significance of the three units
does answer some of the questions we raised, and obviates the need
to deal with others, but this is also its weakness: it assumes that
there is no direct connection between the three units and their
framework and that their contribution to the main plot is
secondary. Hence we cannot adopt this approach as the resolution to
our main question.
We conclude this chapter, then, with a question mark. To the
question posed at the outset we have attempted to suggest three
answers, and none of them has proven satisfactory. A more
preferable answer will occupy the next three shiurim, each of which
will be devoted to one of the units. As a result, we will arrive at
the answer to our question here.
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #5: The Drought Part 4: Wadi Kerit
-
By Rav Elchanan Samet
The brief unit describing Eliyahu's stay at Wadi Kerit (17:2-7)
is composed of three parts:
(2-4) God's command to Eliyahu
(5-6) Eliyahu's fulfillment of the command
(7) the wadi dries up
In this shiur we shall devote a detailed discussion to each of
the three parts of the unit, seeking at each stage the answer to
one of the questions posed in last week's shiur.
1. God's command to Eliyahu
(2) "God's word came to him, saying:
(3) Go from here; take yourself eastwards, and hide at Wadi
Kerit, which faces the Jordan.
(4) And it will be that you will drink from the wadi, and I have
commanded the ravens to feed you there."
What is the meaning of this Divine command to Eliyahu, and for
what purpose do we need this precise specification of the place to
which Eliyahu must go? If the main reason for Eliyahu leaving the
place where he made his oath is in order to hide from Achav and
Izevel (as Abarbanel and other commentators maintain), isn't it
obvious that he must go? And if so, what is the point of God's
command? On the other hand, if the essence of God's command is the
promise of sustenance for Eliyahu in his hiding place, then the
second part of the speech would be sufficient; why do we need an
indication of the exact place where he must stay?
R. Shmuel Laniado, in his commentary Keli Yakar on Nevi'im
Rishonim prophets, explains that this command came to him from God
because Eliyahu's oath was undertaken on his own initiative:
"Although Eliyahu meant [his oath] for the sake of heaven, for
the glory of God and His service, nevertheless it was cruel to
withhold from them even the dew, which does not cease AND IN
RESPONSE TO THIS God says to him, "Go from here" THAT HE DROVE HIM
AWAY FROM THERE, or possibly, "Go from this (mi-zeh)" in other
words, [separate yourself] from this cruelty that you have achieved
in withholding dew from the blessing."
THESE WORDS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY ATTITUDE IN THE PERCEPTION OF
ELIYAHU'S OATH: ELIYAHU'S DECREE AROUSES GOD'S CRITICISM OF HIM,
EVEN THOUGH IT IS GOD HIMSELF WHO ACTUALLY FULFILLS IT. THE REST OF
THE STORY HERE IS MEANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS CRITICISM.
The Keli Yakar detects a note of rebuke in the command, "Go from
here." It is a sort of expulsion order to Eliyahu, aiming to "drive
him away from there," from the center of the kingdom, from the
company of his people. Eliyahu is banished from his people, and
therefore he is not told, "Go eastwards (lekh lekha kedma)," but
rather "go FROM HERE (lekh mi-zeh)."
The Keli Yakar's daring interpretation continues:
"Go WANDERING AND ROAMING and head eastwards, and hide yourself
there at Wadi Kerit, for that is the [appropriate] place of your
dwelling. [Your dwelling place]
-
must be cut off, like the name of the place where you will
dwell. 'Wadi Kerit' derived from the word 'kerita' (cutting
off)."
It is not only the command to "go from here" that hints at
rebuke of Eliyahu. The Kli Yakar also detects a rebuke in the
direction in which God points him: "Go, wandering and roaming,
heading eastwards." The indication of his intended destination,
Wadi Kerit, likewise hints through its name at a criticism of
Eliyahu whose words would cause the water of that wadi to be cut
off as indeed happened later on and would cause food to be cut off
from his people.
He continues:
"Thus we can understand why his sustenance came by means of the
cruel ravens, rather than any other animal, because he acted in a
cruel way."
Thus, even in what seems to be a gesture of concern for the
prophet's well-being, as a miracle to keep him alive in a place
where he was to spend a whole year, far from any human company,
this commentator senses a reproach of Eliyahu. And indeed, why is
it specifically the ravens that are commanded to supply his food?
Based on the literal text we could answer that these birds will
grab and eat anything, and hence they are suited to the task of
obtaining meat and bread for Eliyahu. But considering that the
raven is a highly symbolic creature, it is reasonable to seek some
additional, symbolic significance to their selection as the agents
to keep Eliyahu alive.
On what does the Keli Yakar base his description of the ravens
as cruel birds? The source for this image is to be found in the
teachings of Chazal in several places, deducing from two verses in
Tanakh that the raven is cruel towards its offspring:
(Tehillim 147:9) "He gives the beast its bread; and to the
ravens that cry out";
(Iyov 38:41) "Who prepares provisions for the raven, while its
young cry out to God, wandering for lack of food?"
In light of these verses, we find the following teaching (Eruvin
21b-22a):
"'Black as a raven' (Shir ha-Shirim 5:11) In whom do we find
this borne out? Rava said: In someone who treats his children and
the members of his household with cruelty, like a raven."
The fact that the birds chosen to be sent to Eliyahu are
symbolic of cruelty (towards their own young) may be interpreted in
different ways: The Keli Yakar perceives the ravens as symbolic of
Eliyahu himself. Eliyahu demonstrates cruelty towards his people,
like the ravens towards their young, and therefore it is they that
are chosen to bring him sustenance.
Malbim offers a similar interpretation:
"[God] arranged for his sustenance by means of ravens, which are
cruel by nature, in order that [Eliyahu] would remember that he
acted in a similarly cruel way towards the nation, to have them die
of starvation."
The author of the Metzudot, on the other hand, sees the lesson
intended for Eliyahu in the fact that the ravens changed their
nature in relation to him:
"'I have commanded the ravens' in order to make him conscious
that HE SHOULD NOT BE CRUEL towards Israel; when he would see that
the cruel ravens had mercy on him and sustained him, how could he
then not have mercy on Israel?"
-
Perhaps the symbolic significance of the ravens can be
understood in a third way: the ravens, which withhold food from
their young, bring that food to Eliyahu, who is then nourished, as
it were, from the food of the young ravens that cry out to God. Is
the prophet prepared to survive miraculously at the expense of
others? This food, which Eliyahu receives by means of the ravens,
has been snatched from his people, who are desperate over the
absence of rain. Will Eliyahu be prepared to eat "bread and meat in
the morning, and bread and meat in the evening," when the food in
question is in fact the bread and meat of his suffering
brethren?
2. Eliyahu's fulfillment of the command
(5) "So he went and did as God had said; he went and sojourned
at Wadi Kerit which faces the Jordan.
(6) And the ravens would bring him bread and meat in the morning
and bread and meat in the evening, and he would drink from the
wadi."
There is an overall parallel between God's command in the
preceding verses (2-3) and its fulfillment by Eliyahu in these
following verses, as we see from the following comparison:
God's command:
(2) "GOD'S WORD came to him, saying:
(3) GO FROM HERE and head eastward, hide yourself at WADI KERIT
WHICH FACES THE JORDAN
(4) And it shall be that YOU WILL DRINK FROM THE WADI
and I have commanded THE RAVENS to sustain you there."
Eliyahu's actions:
(5) "So he went and did ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD;
HE WENT
And sojourned at WADI KERIT, WHICH FACES THE JORDAN.
(6) And THE RAVENS would bring him
AND HE WOULD DRINK FROM THE WADI."
Attention should be paid to the three differences between these
corresponding elements:
i. As opposed to God's command, "HIDE YOURSELF at Wadi Kerit,"
what we are told about Eliyahu is that "he SOJOURNED at Wadi
Kerit." This slight difference suggests that the hiding was not the
main purpose of his actions.
ii. The order of food and drink is exchanged: in God's command
the water is mentioned first, while the description of Eliyahu's
actions mentions the food first. The reason for this is simple: God
mentions water first, for this is a more fundamental need even than
food. When it comes to Eliyahu's actions, the text postpones the
water in order to juxtapose his drinking from the wadi with the
crisis that concludes this episode: the drinking arrangement cannot
continue "It happened, after some time, that the wadi dried
up."
-
iii. God's offhand mention of His "command to the ravens to
sustain him" turns into a reality that is quite different from what
we would have expected, and this is perhaps the biggest surprise of
the story: twice a day, morning and evening (the ancient custom was
to eat two meals a day), the ravens bring Eliyahu bread AND MEAT.
Eliyahu is thus living a life of luxury at Wadi Kerit.
Does Eliyahu's situation justify such a lifestyle?
(Devarim 12:20) "When the Lord your God expands your borders as
He told you, and you say, "I shall eat meat" because your soul
desires to eat meat, then you shall eat meat to your heart's
content."
From this verse Chazal deduce that it is proper to eat meat only
in conditions of plenty and with appetite, not at times of distress
or famine. To this we may add the words of theMishna in Massekhet
Ta'anit (1:4-7), describing the communal lifestyle that is
appropriate during a dry winter like the one experienced that year
characterized by fasting and curtailment of celebration.
Thus, while Am Yisrael is engaged in fasting over the harsh
drought, Eliyahu the cause of the drought is served regular, daily
meals of "bread and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the
evening"!
What is the nature of the criticism hinted at here?
Eliyahu has to separate himself from his people and from the
suffering that he has brought upon them. His isolation facilitates
a test to see whether he is capable of living alone for a year and
experiencing, twice a day every day, his "differentness" - his
separation from them and their fate. This year-long stay at Wadi
Kerit conceals a rebuke aimed at the prophet: in his decision to
withhold rain he has brought suffering on his people; he fails to
sense their distress. The Divine command therefore forces him to
leave them, to go and try to live a lifestyle of stubborn disregard
for their suffering, a lifestyle that expresses his lack of
involvement in their fate. Perhaps this lifestyle at Wadi Kerit
will lead him to want to return to his people, to feel their pain,
and to share their fate. Such a step were he to take it would be a
first step towards the cancellation of his oath.
Eliyahu appears to respond to this veiled criticism. In the
description of his sustenance, the lack of symmetry between his
food and drink stands out prominently:
"The ravens brought him bread and meat in the morning and bread
and meat in the evening
and from the wadi he would drink."
We are not told that Eliyahu ate of the food that the ravens
brought; the verse describes him only drinking from the wadi.
Perhaps this is meant to hint at his anguish over the meat that is
delivered to him twice a day. But has the covert criticism achieved
anything beyond this?
3. The Wadi dries up
(7) "And it was, after some time, that the wadi dried up, for
there was no rain in the land."
A whole year, with its entire cycle of seasons, passes by while
Eliyahu lives at Wadi Kerit. He does not experience the results of
his oath the drying up of the wadi all at once. Following the dry
winter, the water is less abundant, and during the summer
-
months the supply steadily decreases. The wadi that was a green
ribbon of life in the heart of the parched wilderness, slowly
withers. As the supply and force of the water diminish, the green
banks of the wadi begin to dry up and the vegetation yellows. As
the wadi withdraws, the surrounding desert takes over. And Eliyahu,
who lives off this wadi, feels himself slowly perishing; he senses
how his stubborn maintenance of his oath is cutting off life and
giving reign to the blazing heat of the summer and the desolation
of the desert. Until the logical conclusion of the process: "the
wadi dried up." And why? "Because there was no rain in the
land."
Eliyahu remains steadfast in his views and in his oath; he is
not prepared to retract, to restore with a word the rainfall.
Hence, God's "dispute" with him continues. But it will not take
place here, at Wadi Kerit, nor will it continue through these
means, these "pressure tactics" ravens full of symbolic meaning,
feeding the prophet who dwells in isolation at Wadi Kerit (a name
that is also symbolic), bread and meat morning and evening. This
strategy has not brought results. The prophet must be moved to
somewhere else and a new strategy of persuasion must be adopted: a
new experiential test will be presented to the prophet; perhaps
this will soften him and change his stance.
It is for this purpose that the year-long stay at Wadi Kerit
ends in crisis: the desiccation of the wadi, the inevitable result
of Eliyahu's oath, forces the prophet to seek a different place to
live out this difficult time. God's command will lead him to his
new home and to a new mode of existence there, in order to continue
the argument.
Attention should be paid to the fact that although God takes
care of Eliyahu's sustenance through miraculous means, only his
food is provided in this manner, while his water supply is natural
(both at Wadi Kerit and in the next section, in Tzarfat). When the
water in the wadi is gone, God does not help Eliyahu to find water
through some miraculous procedure neither in the wadi nor
elsewhere. The Malbim explains this as follows:
"'It shall be that you will drink from the wadi' The outpouring
of Divine Providence descends upon a person according to the
measure of his preparation. Since Eliyahu prepared himself, through
this act [his oath], to stop the Supreme blessing from descending,
it was also prevented from descending to him as well. Therefore it
was impossible for him to subsist through the water that he drank
to be blessed, for this would be counter to his own preparation
[God] showed him that it was impossible for him to draw a new
outpouring from the Source of life; he would therefore drink from
the wadi that already contained water, and which would ultimately
dry up just as he had stopped up [the blessing of rain] from the
nation, such that they would have to live only from the food and
water that was in existence prior to his curse."
Rashi likewise states explicitly that the drying up of the wadi
represents an element in the "argument" between God and Eliyahu,
but to his view it is not the drying up itself that represents the
"claim" but rather its result: the fact that Eliyahu must move to a
new place in order for the argument to continue:
"'The wadi dried up' so that he would recognize the need for
rain and WOULD HAVE THE TROUBLE OF UPROOTING HIMSELF FROM HIS
PLACE. For it was harsh, in God's eyes, that Israel was
experiencing famine."
Rashi is already hinting here at the direction that becomes
characteristic of the argument with Eliyahu during his stay in
Tzarfat, and it is the opposite of what we have demonstrated in the
description of his stay at Wadi Kerit. Now Eliyahu's stance will be
tested through an unmediated encounter with the suffering that his
oath has brought about. He will experience first hand the exertion
that people must undergo
-
during a time of famine: the need to uproot themselves from
their place and to seek somewhere else where it will be possible to
exist. Then he will be forced to go among the famine-struck people
and witness their hardship.
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #6: The Drought - Part 5: The Widow in Tzarfat
(17:8-16)
By Rav Elchanan Samet
1. Comparison with the previous section
This section has two parts, corresponding to the first two parts
of the previous section: verses 8-9 contain God's command to
Eliyahu (corresponding to verses 2-4); verses 10-16 describe its
fulfillment (parallel to verses 5-7). The third part of the
previous section - the drying up of the wadi (verse 7),
representing the crisis that concludes the stay at Wadi Kerit and
the preparation for God's new directive - has no parallel in the
episode of Tzarfat. This section would appear to conclude on a
positive, symbiotic note: the widow and her son are saved from
death by starvation thanks to Eliyahu, while Eliyahu finds in her
home a safe haven where his sustenance is provided for; only Am
Yisrael continues to suffer from the increasingly oppressive
drought. But at the end of this episode the text hints that this
situation, too, will end in crisis, and the solution that has been
found will not last indefinitely:
(15) "So he [to be read she'] and she [to be read he'] ate, as
well as her household, FOR SOME TIME."
As in the previous section, here too the expression "for some
time" (yamim) refers to a year. This being so, we are to understand
that Eliyahu's stay in the widow's home lasted a year, like his
stay in Wadi Kerit. The reader asks himself, why only a year? What
happened at the end of that year that prevented the continuation of
this seemingly ideal situation? What is the parallel, in our
section, to the words, "It was, after SOME TIME, that the wadi
dried up..." in the previous section? The answers to these
questions are to be found in the third section. There we find the
crisis that brings Eliyahu's stay in the widow's house to an end,
with the death of her son. But this "crisis" deserves a section all
on its own, and the solution leads us, and the entire story, in a
new direction. (This will be discussed at greater length in the
next chapter, which will be devoted to this third section.)
There is a striking similarity between the previous episode (at
Wadi Kerit) and our episode. Both share the same subject: the
possibility of Eliyahu's continued existence during a drought, far
away from his people. In both cases God commands Eliyahu where he
should go, and in both He informs him how his sustenance will come
to him in the place where he has been commanded to go. Let us
compare these two Divine commands:
First Command:
(2) "GOD'S WORD CAME TO HIM, SAYING:
(3) GO from here and head eastwards. Hide yourself at WADI KERIT
WHICH FACES THE JORDAN.
(4) And it shall be that you shall drink from the wadi and I
HAVE COMMANDED the ravens TO SUSTAIN YOU THERE."
Second Command:
-
(8) GOD'S WORD CAME TO HIM, SAYING:
(9) Arise, GO TO TZARFAT WHICH IS PART OF TZIDON, and sojourn
there, And behold, I HAVE COMMANDED THERE a widowed woman TO
SUSTAIN YOU."
There is also some similarity in what transpires following God's
command: in both cases Eliyahu obeys God's command, and God
fulfills that which He has promised.
The general similarity between the descriptions of the two
events finds expression in a series of key words that appear in
both. These phrases serve to sketch the outline of each of the two
events, with the problems that each contains:
i. "God's word" - appears twice in each section (verses 2, 5
with regard to Wadi Kerit, and verses 8, 16 with regard to
Tzarfat.)
ii. The verb "to go" (h-l-kh) appears three times in the first
section (3, 5) and four times in the second section: twice with
regard to Eliyahu (9, 10) and twice with regard to the widow (11,
15).
iii. The verb "to drink" (sh-t-h) appears in both cases (4, 6;
10).
iv. The word "bread" (food) appears twice in the first section
(6) and once in the second (11), but further on we find also "baked
goods" (ma'og) (12) and "a small cake" (13).
v. The expression, "I have commanded... to sustain you there"
appears in both sections: first concerning the ravens (4), and then
concerning the widow (9).
vi. Eliyahu's stay in each case lasts "some time" (yamim) -
i.e., a year (7; 15).
vii. The word "rain" appears once in each section (7; 14).
To all of the above we may add that in both sections Eliyahu
drinks water in a natural way, while his food comes to him
miraculously, by means of an agent sent by God's command.
Aside from all of these parallels, we must also examine the
differences between the two sections, for it is that which is
unique to each that defines its specific subject.
2. The lengthy description of Eliyahu's doings in Tzarfat - and
its significance
The reader is struck by the lack of symmetry in length between
the two sections describing Eliyahu's activities in each of the
locations: at Wadi Kerit the description covers only TWO VERSES
(5-6), while his actions in Tzarfat occupy SEVEN VERSES (10-16).
What is the reason for this discrepancy?
It arises from the difference between the agents appointed to
feed Eliyahu in each case. At Wadi Kerit it is the ravens who are
commanded to feed him, and the text reports them as doing so,
without any discussion. This mission embodies the miracle presented
in the first section, for it is not natural for ravens to forego
the food that they have stolen, all the more so to do it with such
regularity - twice every day. Eliyahu is not involved in the
miracle; he simply enjoys its benefits.
The situation in the second section is different: here it a
widow who is commanded to take care of Eliyahu's sustenance, and
with regard to her things are not so simple. First of all, Eliyahu
must identify the woman whom God has appointed for this purpose.
After he ascertains who she is, it turns out that she does not have
enough food even for herself.
-
Eliyahu encounters this difficulty in understanding God's
command to the woman immediately upon asking for some bread:
(12) "She said: By the life of the Lord your God, I have nothing
baked but a handful of flour in a jar and a little oil in the
bottle; and behold, I am gathering two sticks that I may come and
prepare it for myself and for my son, that we may eat it and
die."
How is God's promise with regard to this woman - "Behold, I have
commanded there a widowed woman to sustain you" - to be fulfilled?
Radak explains as follows: "When Eliyahu saw that the widow lacked
food even to sustain herself - how much more so to sustain him - he
knew that what God had told him, 'I have commanded there...,' was
meant to be fulfilled miraculously. For He promised that HIS
COMMANDING WORD AND HIS BLESSING would be upon the widow's house,
that she would be able to sustain him. Therefore he tells her (14),
'SO SAYS THE LORD God of Israel: the jar of flour will not be
finished, and the bottle of oil will not be lacking...'"
Thus, much elaboration concerning Eliyahu's actions in Tzarfat
(about five verses out of the total of seven) are related to the
need to identify, first of all, the human agent - the widow - and
to become familiar with the problem that prevents her from being
able to fulfill her mission. Thereafter Eliyahu must solve this
problem both on the subjective level (to lead the widow to accede
to Eliyahu's request) and on the objective level (by means of the
actual miracle).
This difference between the two types of agents - the ravens and
the widow - affects not only the length of the description of
Eliyahu's actions, but also the nature of the miracle: what
transpires in the widow's home is very different from the miracle
that is recounted in the previous section. In both cases the
miracle concerns Eliyahu's sustenance, but there is still great
difference between them. In the first section, THE MIRACLE IS THE
ACTUAL AGENT - i.e., the fact that ravens bring Eliyahu's food. The
food itself, on the other hand, is in no way miraculous. It is
snatched by the ravens, in their usual manner, from whichever table
they happen to along the way. As we have said above, Eliyahu is not
party to the miracle of the ravens. In the second section, in
contrast, the mission is carried out in a natural way, with the
destitute widow agreeing to share the little bread that she has
with the stranger. In order to allow the widow to agree to this,
and in order that her readiness will have some practical
expression, Eliyahu is forced to call upon A MIRACLE WITH REGARD TO
THE FOOD that is destined to sustain him, the widow, and her
son.
Another difference between the two miracles: in the first
section Eliyahu is provided with plentiful food, "bread and meat in
the morning and bread and meat in the evening." In the second
section a "small cake" (made from a spoonful of flour and a little
oil) that hardly suffices as a meal for two, is meant to represent
- once a day - the miserly meal for three throughout that year.
What is the meaning of these differences, in terms of what the
story is teaching us? In what way do they contribute to its special
meaning?
In order to answer these questions we must first ask a different
one: is it imperative that the Divine plan concerning Eliyahu's
stay in Tzarfat be fulfilled in this particular way? Are the
difficulties that arise in Tzarfat an indispensable function of the
transition that Eliyahu makes from Wadi Kerit with the ravens to
sustain him there, to an inhabited place like Tzarfat and the
widow? Not necessarily. If the main subject of our story is the way
in which a solution is found for Eliyahu's sustenance, in order
that he will be able to dwell far from the center of the kingdom
and still survive during the drought, we would expect a different
chain of events in our section; a simpler arrangement: God sends
Eliyahu to Tzarfat and informs him that He has appointed a widow to
take care of his provisions (as we are told in verses 8-9). Upon
reaching Tzarfat he could be welcomed by a WEALTHY WIDOW who would
invite him to dine with her at her home. Eliyahu would accept the
invitation and remain in her home for a whole year; she would take
care of his meals. Such a description would be much shorter and
would parallel almost perfectly what happened at Wadi Kerit. The
lack of an apparent miracle in this
-
scenario could be compensated for by having Eliyahu bless the
widow that she would not lack anything even during the drought, and
the widow would indeed remain wealthy, with the expansive
hospitality that she extends to Eliyahu not affecting her property
in any way.
Thus the problems that Eliyahu addresses in our section - the
need to identify the widow and to persuade her to fulfill her
mission - are not a direct consequence of the transition from
reliance on birds who bring food to reliance on a human source of
sustenance. They arise, rather, from the fact that the agent sent
to Eliyahu appears unsuited to the task, and therefore there is a
need to act in different ways in order to adapt the agent's
conditions to the task at hand.
The meaning of the story would seem to hinge on the following
question: why is it specifically this poverty-stricken widow who is
sent to fulfill the mission of feeding Eliyahu? It seems as though
Divine Providence has selected the wrong person solely in order
that the story will be longer and more complicated. We must
therefore invest some effort in defining precisely the subject of
the section describing Eliyahu's stay in Tzarfat.
3. Continuation of the argument with Eliyahu
In our discussion of the previous section - Eliyahu's stay at
Wadi Kerit - we saw how the commentators view the events recounted
there as a dispute concerning Eliyahu's oath, with the purpose of
causing the prophet to take back his promise. The most important
among these is Rashi, who sees the drying up of Wadi Kerit and
God's command to Eliyahu to move to Tzarfat, as a lesson to
him:
"In order that he would recognize the need for rain and would be
forced to move himself, for it was troublesome in God's eyes that
Israel was suffering from drought."
Rashi regards the very fact that Eliyahu is forced to move from
Wadi Kerit to Tzarfat, part of Tzidon, as an effort for him; it is
a banishment to distant, foreign place, and hence an expression of
God's dissatisfaction and an attempt to make Eliyahu take back his
vow. Does the continuation of the story - the events in Tzarfat
itself - also present support for this exegetical approach,
suggesting that God is conducting an "argument" with Eliyahu, and
all that happens to him is meant only to express the "claims" that
God makes against him?
In this sense, too, our section resembles the previous one: the
commentators who understand Eliyahu's experiences in the previous
section as an argument between God and His prophet, regard our
section as a continuation of the same argument. But this time the
claims are different and God's tactic in dealing with Eliyahu is
also changed.
A commentator who was a contemporary of the Kli Yakar, R. Moshe
Alshikh, in his commentary "Mar'ot ha-Tzov'ot," writes concerning
the previous section that through the details of the story "God
hints to Eliyahu... claims that he [Eliyahu] had, that he should be
patient, for his intention was to sanctify the Name of God."
Concerning the conclusion of the stay at Wadi Kerit he
writes:
"Here God wanted to uphold the word of His servant and not to
give rain except by his word, but God wanted Eliyahu not to wait
any longer in asking God for rain, and He hinted to him... the
hints given to him through his sustenance by the ravens at Wadi
Kerit. But out of zeal for the honor of God, Eliyahu did not ask
this. Therefore God hinted to him further in the drying up of the
wadi, such that he had no water to drink and was forced to move, IN
ORDER THAT HE WOULD NOTICE THAT MANY DESTITUTE PEOPLE WERE SEEKING
WATER AND THERE WAS NONE."
R. Alshikh views the crisis that concludes the previous section
as teaching Eliyahu a lesson about the poor and destitute who, like
him, were forced to uproot themselves and wander in their search
for water. He hints at the words of the prophet (Yishayhu
41:17-18):
-
"The poor and the destitute seek water and there is none; their
tongue is parched for thirst. I, God, shall answer them; [I,] the
God of Israel, shall not abandon them. I shall open rivers on high
places and fountains amidst the valleys; I shall make the
wilderness into a pool of water and parched land into springs of
water."
Will the prophet identify with the view of his Creator, and
agree to "turn the parched land into springs of water?"
"Despite all this, HE DOES NOT ABANDON HIS ZEALOUSNESS, for his
zealousness for God is great. Therefore our merciful God commands
him to go to Tzarfat, which is part of Tzidon. By this He means to
hint to him that Israel has already been PURIFIED (nitzrefu) in the
matter of the FOOD (tzeida) that they have lacked thus far, but the
essence of th