Eliyahu Narratives

340
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.

description

Eliyahu Narratives from The Yeshiva Har Etzion

Transcript of Eliyahu Narratives

  • 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