diff --git "a/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/From David to Destruction/English/merged.txt" "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/From David to Destruction/English/merged.txt" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/txt/Tanakh/Modern Commentary on Tanakh/From David to Destruction/English/merged.txt" @@ -0,0 +1,2301 @@ +From David to Destruction +מדוד ועד לחורבן +merged +https://www.sefaria.org/From_David_to_Destruction +This file contains merged sections from the following text versions: +-From David to Destruction, Teaneck, NJ, 2019 +-http://beta.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH990052947000205171/NLI + +From David to Destruction + +Editor's Foreword + +A King Over Israel +Devarim 17:14-20 establishes the Halachic framework for the kingship in Eretz Yisrael. Much has been discussed in regard to the nature of these verses. Are they to be treated as an obligation, or do they offer a Halachic structure for a voluntary institution? Is the existence of a corporeal kingship over Israel a fulfillment of an ideal, or a failure? Regardless, these verses were actualized when Shemuel anointed Sha’ul as king over Israel (Shemuel I 9-10). +“Mishneh Torah” in Sefer Devarim +A Jewish king has both restrictions and responsibilities. He cannot have too many horses, marry too many wives, or amass too much wealth. In terms of obligations, Devarim 17:18 tasks the king with the writing of a “Mishneh Torah”: +“VeHaya KeShivto Al Kisei Memelacheto VeKatav Lo Et Mishneh HaTorah HaZot Al Sefer MiLifnei HaKohanim HaLevi’im,” “And it shall be when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a Mishneh Torah in a book, from before the Kohanim and Levi’im.” +The term “Mishneh” can be rendered in a variety of ways, and is most frequently translated as “second.” According to this interpretation, the king is required to write two Sifrei Torah. While there is a broader national obligation to write a Sefer Torah (Devarim 31:19), a king is obligated to write an additional Sefer Torah. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 21b) elaborates that one Torah is to be held in the king’s treasury, and the other must be kept on his person at all times. The purpose of this constant exposure is explicated by the Pesukim (Devarim 17:19-20): +It shall be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life, so that he will learn to fear Hashem, his God, to observe all the words of the Torah and these decrees, to perform them; so that his heart does not become haughty over his brethren and not turn from the commandment right or left, so that he will prolong years over his kingdom, he and his sons amid Israel. +“Mishneh Torah” in Sefer Yehoshua +The only other time the term Mishneh Torah is used in Tanach is after the battle of Ai when Yehoshua inscribes the “Mishneh Torat Moshe” on stones (Yehoshua 8:32). Radak explains that the basis for the word Mishneh is the phrase “VeShinantam LeVanecha,” “and you shall teach them [the words of the Torah] to your sons” (Devarim 6:7). While the roots of “VeShinantam” and “Mishneh” are different, Radak submits that they both refer to clarification and teaching. Radak cites R. Saadia Gaon, who says that Yehoshua only inscribed a list of Mitzvot on the stones and not the entire Torah. Yehoshua’s inscription served to clarify and summarize the words of the Torah. +Likewise, Rashash believes that the king’s “Mishneh Torah” is also a bullet point summary of the Mitzvot. He bases his interpretation on Targum Onkelos, which renders “Mishneh Torah” as “Patshegen Oraiyta,” meaning the essence or summary of the Torah.1This interpretation of “Patshegen” is based on an understanding of Esther 4:8, in which Mordechai gives Hatach the “Patshegen Ketav HaDat,” “written text of the law” that proclaims the destruction of the Jews. Presumably, this “written text of the law” is a summary of the full legislation. See the Malbim’s commentary on Esther 4:8. +The Failures of the Malchut +Regardless of interpretation, the purpose of the king’s obligation to write a “Mishneh Torah” is clear. The king must be continuously cognizant of the fact that there is a King above him, and that he answers to Him. Unfortunately, time and time again, many of the kings of Sefer Melachim fail to take this message to heart. They fail to heed the words of the various Nevi’im and fail to rid the land of the Bamot and Avodah Zarah. And, as Rambam writes (Hilchot Melachim 3:6), “SheLibo Hu Leiv Kol Kahal Yisrael,” “for his heart in the heart of the congregation of Israel,” the kings’ spiritually deficient behaviors are reflected in the nation’s attitude towards Torah and each other. Eventually, the sins accumulate, the Beit HaMikdash is destroyed, and the nation is exiled. The message of the “Mishneh Torah” is ignored— such is the story of Sefer Melachim. +From David to Destruction +Throughout the 2018-19 school year, Rabbi Jachter taught Sefer Melachim to 102 students at the Torah Academy of Bergen County (TABC). Every class, Rabbi Jachter would supply the students with textual material to be studied BeChavruta, in pairs. Towards the end of the period, Rabbi Jachter would assemble the class to discuss the lesson. From David to Destruction is a collection of those discussions. +If the king “shall write for himself” a “Patshegen Oraiyta,” then From David to Destruction, in a similar vein, is an expression of that charge on an institutional level, in which we have recorded and compiled some of the Torah taught at TABC. As the Gemara (Chagigah 3a) boldly posits, “Ee Efshar LeBeit HaMidrash BeLo Chiddush,” “there cannot be a study hall without novelty.” Rabbi Jachter’s class at TABC has produced incredibly innovative insights into Sefer Melachim, and this work aims to share those insights with the broader community. +Rabbi Jachter has fostered a tradition of student involvement in the publication of his books, going back to the year 2000, with (now Rabbi) Ezra Frazer’s (‘96) involvement in the publication of Gray Matter. I began working on From David to Destruction in May 2019, as a part of my senior work-study project. +Throughout my time at TABC, I had the opportunity to work closely with Rabbi Jachter on Kol Torah, the weekly Torah bulletin published under his guidance. I am incredibly grateful for the time I have been able to spend with him, and I look forward to continuing our close relationship in the future. +It is my hope, Be’Ezrat Hashem, that From David to Destruction will inspire others in their study of Sefer Melachim, and that it will encourage further student contribution to the community’s Torah discourse. +Nachum Krasnopolsky +Fair Lawn, New Jersey +Tammuz 5779 + +Introduction + +The Abarbanel’s Question +The Abarbanel raises a very straightforward and compelling question. The story of the life of David HaMelech is recounted in Sefer Shemuel. Why then, is the story of the end of David HaMelech’s life not included in Sefer Shemuel? Why does it make its way to Sefer Melachim,2A simple answer might be that at least a part of David HaMelech’s life is included in Sefer Melachim since David HaMelech serves as the gauge for the evaluation of the kings of Sefer Melachim. Kings in Sefer Melachim are rated as either as good, worse or, rarely, even possibly better than David HaMelech. which recounts the story of Shlomo HaMelech? +The Abarbanel and Malbim’s Answer +The Abarbanel and Malbim answer3The Abarbanel and Malbim differ in their respective explanations as to why the Avishag HaShunamit episode is included in Sefer Melachim. that David HaMelech’s infirmity explains the reason why Adoniyahu takes the initiative to take the kingship. Adoniyahu, in the Malbim’s view, perceives David HaMelech to be irrelevant and decides that the time to appoint his replacement has arrived. Therefore, Adoniyahu grabs onto what he perceived as his opportunity to become the king. This story is included in Sefer Melachim since Shlomo HaMelech, about whom the beginning of Sefer Melachim focuses, rises to the throne in the wake of Adoniyahu’s misguided attempt to seize power. +The Prophetic Agenda of a Sefer in Tanach +We suggest that we can answer the Abarbanel’s question by identifying the respective agendas of Sefer Melachim and Sefer Shemuel. How might one detect and identify the prophetic agenda of a Sefer of Tanach? In some Sefarim, one might be able to do so by noticing the shift from the beginning of the Sefer to the end of the Sefer. Three examples illustrate this principle: +1. Sefer Shemot begins with the Bnei Yisrael as slaves in Mitzrayim with Hashem in His mode of “Hester Panim,” where He conceals His involvement in the world. Yet at its conclusion, Hashem’s pronounced presence in the Mishkan serves as the centerpiece of the encampment of a nation freed from the bondage of slavery. Thus, Sefer Shemot may be summarized as the Bnei Yisrael’s transition from a condition of slavery and alienation from Hashem, to a situation of both spiritual and physical freedom. +2. Sefer Shemuel begins with a sorely fragmented nation in the problematic waning days of the Mishkan in Shilo. It concludes with David HaMelech laying the groundwork for the building of the Beit HaMikdash. Sefer Shemuel, accordingly, may be defined as the dramatic ascent of Am Yisrael from a splintered people with a problematic spiritual center to a people with a great leader, ushering in the dawn of the era of the Beit HaMikdash. +3. Sefer Yechezkeil begins with the Navi Yechezkeil prophesying on the banks of the river Kevar, deep in the Babylonian exile, and concludes with a grand vision of the third Beit HaMikdash. It would seem, then, that the agenda of Sefer Yechezeil is a spiritual roadmap as to how to extract ourselves from the mire of the exile, and arrive at the exalted redemption in Jerusalem. +We suggest the application of this model to Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim. Sefer Melachim begins with David HaMelech on the throne and concludes with an episode relevant to our exile in Babylon. Thus, we may presume that the agenda of Sefer Melachim is to explain the Bnei Yisrael’s deterioration from the pinnacle of having a great king sitting on the throne in Yerushalayim, to a people ensconced in the Babylonian exile. In other words, we may call Sefer Melachim, “Sefer HaChurban,” “the Book of the Destruction,” since it provides a prophetic explanation for the Churban. +This perspective fits perfectly with Chazal’s assertion (Bava Batra 14b-15a) that Yirmiyahu HaNavi authored Sefer Melachim. It is most fitting that the Navi of the Churban authored the Sefer of the Churban. Even the Abarbanel, who sometimes questions Chazal’s identification of the authors of the various Sefarim of Tanach, subscribes to Chazal’s view that Yirmiyahu HaNavi authored Sefer Melachim. It is indeed a compelling assertion. +Divrei HaYamim, on the other hand, concludes with a much more optimistic event— Cyrus’s permission to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash. Divrei HaYamim essentially is a new presentation of the events of Sefer Shemuel and Sefer Melachim, written in the time of Bayit Sheini.4See Bava Batra 15a. The Abarbanel assumes Ezra composed all of Divrei HaYamim. However, its agenda in retelling these stories in a somewhat of a new fashion is to teach us “Shiru LaHashem Shir Chadash,” to “sing a new song to Hashem” (Tehillim 96:1). +In other words, Divrei HaYamim presents the stories of Sefer Melachim5Perhaps this is why the more optimistic Sefer Shemuel narrative is merged with the Sefer Melachim narrative in Divrei HaYamim to constitute one Sefer. in a more optimistic style to encourage and inspire the Jews at the dawn of the era of Bayit Sheini in their quest to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash, Eretz Yisrael, and themselves. Thus, it is not surprising that Divrei HaYamim begins by outlining the beginning of humanity— “Adam, Sheit, Enosh” (Divrei HaYamim I 1:1). Divrei HaYamim represents a new beginning and a fresh start. No longer are the Bnei Yisrael encumbered by the sins of the past. It is a new beginning and, so to speak, a second creation of humanity. +Our New Answer +Based on this approach, we suggest that Sefer Shemuel does not end with David HaMelech’s death, since Sefer Shemuel’s agenda is not to present the biography of David HaMelech. Rather, it concludes with the story of David HaMelech’s acquisition of Aravnah the Yevusi’s granary as the future site of the Beit HaMikdash and his construction of a Mizbei’ach on the site, since the agenda of Sefer Shemuel is, as we said, to describe the dramatic ascent of Am Yisrael from a splintered people with a problematic spiritual center to a people with a great leader, ushering in the dawn of the era of the Beit HaMikdash. +Sefer Melachim, in turn, begins with the story of David HaMelech’s death since it sketches the Bnei Yisrael’s deterioration from the pinnacle of his sitting on the throne in Yerushalayim, to a people ensconced in the Babylonian exile. +We may add that the Adoniyahu debacle and our narrow escape from it illustrates a major theme of Sefer Melachim and Sefer Yirmiyahu. Adoniyahu nearly emerges as a king, due to the ill-advised neglect of the prophetic message of Natan HaNavi, whom Melachim I 1:8 specifically notes is not included in the effort to coronate Adoniyahu. A disastrous reign of Adoniyahu, in turn, is narrowly averted due to David HaMelech and Batsheva heeding the advice and intervention of Natan HaNavi. +Failure on the part of the last Judean kings to heed Yirmiyahu’s repeated calls to submit to Babylon directly led to the Churban. These less than excellent kings thought they knew better than the Navi, similar to Adoniyahu. Thus, the story of the Adoniyahu rebellion very much belongs in Sefer Melachim,6Achav in Melachim I 22 similarly falls in battle due in part to his spurning the wise advice of the Navi, and listening instead to the false prophets who predict his victory. Yarav’am ben Nevat in Melachim I 14 also suffers a staggering loss due to his failure to internalize the message of Achiyah HaShiloni. which highlights the failures that emerge from disregard for prophetic message and intervention. +On the other hand, the Adoniyahu story is not included in Divrei HaYamim since its sobering lesson does not fit with the prophetic agenda of this Sefer— to uplift the spirit of the Jews rebuilding their lives at the outset of Bayit Sheini. +Conclusion +One of the earliest and wisest pieces of advice this author received when he began designing community Eruvin is that sometimes taking the bigger picture into account resolves smaller scale issues. The same applies to Tanach learning, as we have seen in this discussion. Perhaps by considering the overall agenda of Sefer Shemuel and Sefer Melachim, we best solved the mystery of the inclusion of the last days of David HaMelech in Sefer Melachim. Instead of focusing on the more narrow local issues of the opening chapters of Sefer Melachim, the utilization of a wider perspective might present a more convincing solution. +Postscript +The differences between the respective agendas of the various Sefarim of Tanach are most worthy of bearing in mind when delving into Sefer Melachim. Differences between Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim abound, and keeping in mind the different agendas of both Sefarim will play a very significant role in resolving these difficulties. + +The Rise and Fall of Shlomo HaMelech + +David HaMelech's Last Instructions + +The Abarbanel’s Question +The Abarbanel’s question regarding David HaMelech’s instruction to Shlomo HaMelech to kill Yoav ben Tzeruyah looms large whenever one encounters Melachim I 2. This story is read relatively frequently, as it serves as the Haftarah for Parashat VaYechi. +The question is as follows: If Yoav is such a terrible villain, as David HaMelech portrays him to be on his deathbed, why does David HaMelech delegate Yoav’s execution to Shlomo HaMelech? Why does David HaMelech not kill Yoav himself? +The Malbim and Abarbanel +The Abarbanel answers that while Yoav poses a nuisance to David HaMelech during his reign, he does not pose a mortal threat to David HaMelech’s well-established and well-accepted rule. Shlomo HaMelech, who is installed on the throne, and avoids death at the hands of his rivals by the proverbial skin of his teeth, is far more vulnerable. Thus, since Yoav presents a potentially mortal threat to Shlomo HaMelech and his reign, David HaMelech gives Shlomo HaMelech the order to eliminate Yoav if the latter deems it necessary.7The Abarbanel understands David’s command to kill Yoav not as punishment for his past heinous actions (as Radak believes), but rather as a warning to not follow his example, and eliminate Yoav if he perceives him as a danger. +The Malbim answers that David HaMelech tolerates Yoav since he is needed for his exceptional military capabilities.8See Makkot 2:7, which describes Yoav ben Tzeruyah as an exceptionally talented military leader. Presumably, by the time Shlomo HaMelech assumes the throne, Yoav is considerably past his prime and is no longer needed to the extent he was needed during David HaMelech’s reign. +In addition, Shlomo HaMelech’s reign is a time of military stability, during which military needs are not as urgent as they were during David HaMelech’s reign. For example, in Melachim I 4, Shlomo HaMelech’s minister of defense is listed as fourth in rank of his top advisors, while in Shemuel II 20:23-26, David HaMelech’s minister of defense is listed first. +Moreover, the long list of top warriors who serve under David HaMelech that appears in Shemuel II 23 has no parallel in Sefer Melachim in regard to Shlomo HaMelech. While Shlomo HaMelech does establish a permanent army, it seems that there is not a pressing need for one outstanding person such as Yoav to be deemed indispensable to the extent that his major sins need to be overlooked. +Make a New Plan, Shlomo HaMelech +The overarching message that David HaMelech imparts to Shlomo HaMelech is not to remain mired in the past. Shlomo HaMelech will face new challenges and he must adjust and not simply (to use sports terminology) run “plays” from his father’s “playbook.” He will have to “be a man,” as David HaMelech instructs him (Melachim I 2:2), and chart new paths to confront the brave new world that he will face. +The mistake of failing to adjust to a new reality is a common one, both within and outside of the Torah world. During World War I, casualty rates were astronomically high due, to a great extent, to the fact that the strategies did not keep pace with the technological advancement of the employed weaponry. Thus, charging at a front line defended by soldiers equipped with machine guns was a nineteenth-century strategy facing twentieth-century technology that led to exceptionally lethal results. +A spiritual example is a Mohel with whom this author is familiar, who was trained during the 1960s to perform Brit Milah using a Bronstein Magen.9For a discussion of this topic see Jachter, Rabbi Chaim. “Modern Issues in Brit Milah – Part Two.” Kol Torah, Torah Academy of Bergen County, 2001, www.koltorah.org/halachah/modern-issues-in-brit-milah-part-two-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter. While at the time this may have been prevalent practice in the Orthodox Jewish community, by the 1990s, the Bronstein Magen was no longer used on a widespread basis. The Mohel did not adjust to the new reality and found his services, to a great extent, no longer in demand by the community. +Making a New Plan in Sefer Melachim +The willingness and ability to adjust to new realities is a sine qua non for successful leadership. The failure to adjust to a new reality is a recurring theme in Sefer Melachim and serves as a significant contributing factor to the Churban. +Rechav’am, when faced with a demand to lower taxes, instead threatens to raise taxes (Melachim I 12). Rechav’am, who assumes the throne at age forty-one, is accustomed to his father Shlomo HaMelech wielding a strong hand to those who challenge him.10Shlomo HaMelech’s response to Yarav'am ben Nevat’s threat in Melachim I 11 is a prime example. Rechav’am, when faced with a challenge at his inauguration, takes a page from his father’s playbook to address the issue. +This strategy fails miserably due to Rechav’am’s failure to adjust to the new reality. First, the people have completely run out of patience with the heavy labor and financial tax burden imposed on them by Shlomo HaMelech, and are no longer willing or able to tolerate it. Second, Rechav’am (to paraphrase Ronald Reagan) is no Shlomo HaMelech, and his threats of violent enforcement of his taxation policies are, at best, not taken seriously. +Other examples of leaders who fail to adjust are the kings of the Northern Kingdom. Despite repeated failures and dynasties that do not stand the test of time, king after northern king maintain Yarav'am ben Nevat’s failed religious reforms. Most disappointing is Yeihu, who, on the one hand, courageously carries out his prophetic mandate to eliminate Avodah Zarah, and on the other hand, fails to change course and eliminate Yarav'am’s failed new Judaism. +The final kings of Yehudah also fail to adjust to the new reality and Yirmiyahu’s bold prophetic message to capitulate to Babylonian rule. False prophets and other misguided leaders prop up the last Judean kings’ wishes to misguidedly attempt to preserve the status quo of Jewish rule in Eretz Yisrael. All they have to do is adjust to the reality of a temporary seventy-year Babylonian occupation of Eretz Yisrael and perform Teshuvah. Yirmiyahu prophesies (Yirmiyahu 25) that Jewish sovereignty will be restored after the seventy years. Sadly, Yirmiyahu’s message to adjust is spurned, and, ultimately, the Beit HaMikdash is destroyed. Had the final Judean kings only heeded Yirmiyahu’s advice, unnecessary bloodshed and exile could have been avoided. +Shlomo’s Early Success and Later Failure +At first, Shlomo HaMelech achieves a resounding approval as king, as he heeds his father’s advice to adjust to the new challenges of his new reign. However, as time passes, Shlomo HaMelech does not adjust to the growing discontent that emerges both among his wives and among his constituents. Shlomo HaMelech carries on his plan without adjustment, even after Yarav'am ben Nevat brazenly rebukes him. +While Shlomo HaMelech, for the most part, manages to escape unscathed to the end of his life due to his power and talent, his reign over all of Israel collapses due to his and his son’s failure to adjust to the new reality. +Radak (Melachim I 11:25) explains that Hashem sends Shlomo HaMelech trouble after he strays from His path to signal a call for a course correction. Radak explains that Hashem wants Shlomo HaMelech to compare his worry-free reign before his sins with the troubles he encounters after his sins, and realize that his sins are the cause of his troubles. Tragically, Shlomo HaMelech fails to perceive the reason behind the new troubling reality and does not adjust. +As we listen to the Haftarah of Parashar VaYechi, we are reminded to follow in the example of Shlomo HaMelech at the start of his rule, and avoid his later mistakes. From the beginning of life to its end, we must always read the signals and ever-changing realities, and make the necessary adjustments to fulfill our life’s mission to serve as the most effective servants of Hashem to the very best of our abilities. + +Shlomo HaMelech Marries Bat Paroh + +A Contradiction of Character +Shlomo HaMelech is regarded as one of the all-time greats, and as the author of three books of Tanach: Shir HaShirim, Mishlei, and Kohelet. He is regarded as the wisest man that ever lived. How, then, can we possibly reconcile his character with his decision to marry Bat Paroh in Melachim I 3? +Political Meaning +Before we begin discussing the religious ramifications, let us first place this marriage into its political perspective. Da’at Mikra notes that this is the lone example of an ancient Egyptian princess leaving Egypt to marry a king of another country. This singular event points to the fact that Shlomo HaMelech is the regional superpower, to the extent that the king of Egypt wishes to send his daughter to marry Shlomo HaMelech. The marriage to Bat Paroh highlights the esteem in which the neighboring nations hold Shlomo HaMelech. +Religious Justification +Of course, social, military, and political triumph hardly justifies the violation of one of the Torah’s gravest sins. The majority of the Mefarshim (commentaries) seek to find a justification for this marriage. The Metzudat David, following in the footsteps of Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14), asserts that Bat Paroh converts before the marriage. Da’at Mikra supports this assertion from Tehillim 51, which describes a princess’s conversion to Judaism before marrying the king of Israel. It likely refers to Bat Paroh’s conversion. +In regard to the prohibition of marrying an Egyptian even after conversion, as outlined in Devarim 23, the Abarbanel explains that this prohibition is limited to Egyptian males. He compares this leniency to the permissibility of Shlomo HaMelech’s ancestor Boaz’s marriage to Rut the Moabite. The prohibition to marry a Moabite refers only to a male Moabite. +Questioning the Religious Justifications +However, these justifications seem to ring hollow. After all, this conversion seems not at all to be motivated by a desire to find shelter beneath the wings of the Shechinah, as are Ruth’s motivations (as stated in Ruth 2). This marriage is described in Melachim I 3:1 as a means to forge an alliance between Paroh and Shlomo HaMelech, and not as an expression of Bat Paroh’s wish to draw close to God. Indeed, Rambam mentions that Bat Paroh’s conversion was administered by Hedyodot, meaning a less than stellar Beit Din (rabbinic court). +Moreover, the restriction of the prohibition to marry a Moabite to a female is rooted in the Pasuk. After all, the Torah mentions the reason for the prohibition: the failure of the Moabites to provide for the Bnei Yisrael with bread and water when passing through their land during the journey from Egypt to Israel. Women in the ancient world would not bring food to strangers. Thus, the reason for the prohibition does not apply to females, paving the way to permit the marriage of Rut to Boaz. +By contrast, the Torah does not state a reason to prohibit marriage to an Egyptian. Therefore, there seems hardly a basis in the Torah text to limit the prohibition to marry an Egyptian to male Egyptians. One could defend this restriction by assuming that the reason for the prohibition to marry the first two generations of Egyptian converts is their oppression of the Bnei Yisrael in Mitzrayim. Presumably, the oppression was executed by male and not female oppressors, making room for the female exception to the Egyptian restriction.11For further discussion and debate about the permissibility of marrying a female Egyptian, see Mishnah Yevamot 8:3. The problem with this assertion is that this reason is not stated in the Torah text, leading us to conclude that this justification, along with the offered justifications for the marriage to Bat Paroh, seem shaky at best. +Shlomo HaMelech’s Motivation +The consensus view is that Shlomo HaMelech does not technically violate the Halachah in marrying Bat Paroh. He does, however, bend the Halachah, to the point where (to paraphrase the language of the Mishnayot in the last chapter of Masechet Shevi’it), “[Ein] Ru’ach Chachamim Nochah Mimenu,” the sages are not pleased with his behavior. +Why does someone as righteous as Shlomo HaMelech bend the Halachah? Melachim I 3:3, a scant two Pesukim away from the recording of Shlomo HaMelech’s marriage to Bat Paroh, provides an answer. Melachim I 3:3 states that “VaYe’ehav Shlomo Et Hashem,” “Shlomo loved Hashem.” Da’at Mikra notes that Shlomo HaMelech is the only individual described as one who loves Hashem! The juxtaposition of Sefer Melachim recording the marriage of Shlomo HaMelech to Bat Paroh, and the mention of the deep love Shlomo HaMelech had for Hashem, seems to provide ample support for the opinion of R. Yosi (Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 2:6) that Shlomo HaMelech’s intentions in marrying Bat Paro were noble. In the words of R. Yosi, “he [Shlomo HaMelech] sought to attract them [his many wives] with words of Torah, and draw them close to the Divine Presence.” +The Abarbanel and Malbim argue that Shlomo HaMelech is motivated by the security needs of Am Yisrael. Forging a strong alliance with the Egyptian Paroh is a sure way to create a stable peace along Israel’s southern border. R. Yosi sees a far more ambitious goal— the desire to bring the world to recognize Hashem. +We posit that Shlomo HaMelech believes that he can motivate Bat Paroh to sincerely recognize Hashem. Indeed, this is the justification of those who permit conversion of less than committed gentiles— that they will eventually come to recognize the truth of the Torah. Such is the motivation of many great figures ranging from Shlomo HaMelech in the time of the Tanach, Hillel in the time of the Mishnah, and Rav Ben Zion Hai Uzziel in the twentieth century. +Moreover, if Bat Paroh will recognize Hashem, she can then motivate her father to recognize Hashem. Paroh’s recognition of Hashem as the only God can, in turn, lead to global recognition of the Creator. Shlomo HaMelech’s stated goal “LeMa’an Da’at Kol Amei Ha’Aretz Ki Hashem Hu HaElokim, Ein Od,” “that all the peoples of the earth may know that Hashem alone is God, there is no other” (Melachim I 8:60), will then be realized. This is nothing less than a Messianic vision of the entire world’s recognition of Hashem, as prophesied by Yeshayahu, Michah, and Zecharyah. +Go Big or Go Home +To grasp Shlomo HaMelech’s motivation, it is also critical to understand a central aspect of his personality. On the Mizbei’ach in Givon (as recorded in Melachim I 3) he offers no less than one thousand Korbanot. Moreover, during the Chanukat Beit HaMikdash (dedication ceremony for the Temple), he offers an astounding twenty thousand cattle and one hundred twenty thousand sheep as sacrifices to Hashem. +Shlomo HaMelech knows only how to think in very large proportions and ambitions. Anything less does not appear on his radar. Thus, his ambitions are no less than Messianic, as his goals are so large. He seems to not be capable of thinking in lesser terms. +The Long-term Result +Not surprisingly, the long-term result of Shlomo HaMelech’s marriage to Bat Paroh is an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions. At the end of Shlomo HaMelech’s life, as recorded in Melachim I 11, he is not as strong as he is in his youth, and Bat Paroh, along with the other converted wives, introduce Avodah Zarah into Eretz Yisrael (in a later chapter we will explain why Shlomo HaMelech has no choice but to tolerate this horrific behavior). +Moreover, when Paroh is overthrown by Shishak, the Jews of Eretz Yisrael are now faced with a formidable enemy. Shlomo HaMelech is regarded as an ally of Shishak’s foe, thus placing Shlomo HaMelech and Am Yisrael in Shishak’s crosshairs. Although he does not attack Shlomo HaMelech, he does attack his son Rechav’am and despoils Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash of its great wealth. +Why Does Shlomo Make Such a Grievous Error? +How can Shlomo HaMelech commit such a grievous error? Rashi to Melachim I 3:1, citing the Gemara (Berachot 8a), notes the juxtaposition of Shimi ben Geira’s death and Shlomo HaMelech’s marriage to Bat Paroh. Chazal posit that Shimi was Shlomo HaMelech’s teacher. After his teacher’s death, Shlomo HaMelech has no one left to rebuke him when he errs. +This teaches a lesson of profound importance. An individual can be wise as Shlomo HaMelech, and yet commit the most grievous of errors if they do not have a teacher to rebuke him. It is told that the Vilna Gaon used to invite the Dubner Maggid to give him Mussar. It is similarly related that Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky was overjoyed in his later years when someone was critical of an action he took. “Ein Adam Ro’eh Nigei Atzmo,” “an individual does not recognize their shortcomings.” Even the wisest of men require an outside consultant to alert them of any forthcoming errors. +Chazal note that unlike Sha’ul HaMelech who has Shemuel HaNavi to offer him rebuke, David HaMelech who has Natan HaNavi to chastise him when needed, Chizkiyahu HaMelech who has Yeshayahu to reprimand him, and Yoshiyahu HaMelech who has Yirmiyahu HaNavi to scold him, nowhere in Tanach is it recorded that Shlomo HaMelech has a Navi on hand to offer him criticism. This is a most unfortunate phenomenon, which eventually leads to the destruction of much of that which Shlomo HaMelech achieves throughout his lifetime. +Shlomo HaMelech’s Vidui (Confession) +David HaMelech confesses his sins with Batsheva and Uri’ah HaChiti. Does Shlomo HaMelech ever confess his sins? Chazal attribute the authorship of Kohelet to Shlomo HaMelech in his old age. We suggest that Shlomo HaMelech confesses in the penultimate verse of Kohelet, where he writes, “Sof Davar HaKol Nishma, Et Ha’Elokim Yera Ve’Et Mitzvotav Shemor, Ki Zeh Kol Ha’Adam,” “The sum of the matter, when all is considered: Fear Hashem and observe His commandments, for that is man’s whole duty” (Kohelet 12:13). +Shlomo HaMelech’s great love for Hashem, and concomitant lack of Yirat Hashem (fear of God), leads him to bend Hashem’s rules. He mistakenly believes that this will advance Hashem's cause. At the end of his life, Shlomo HaMelech cautions us to temper our love of Hashem with a corresponding Yirat Hashem, and to abide and honor His rules without trying to work our way around them. Failure to observe Hashem’s laws and seeking to dodge them will only lead to failure, as Moshe Rabbeinu warns the Ma’apilim, “Lamah Zeh Atem Overim Et Pi Hashem, Lo Titzlach,” “why do you violate God’s word, for it will not succeed” (BeMidbar 14:41). +Conclusion +Shlomo HaMelech believes he is justified in bending Hashem’s rules by marrying Bat Paroh to facilitate the global recognition of Hashem. However, this marriage leads to catastrophic results. We are left with respect for Shlomo HaMelech’s noble intentions and chastened by how even a person renowned for his unparalleled wisdom falters when he does not honor Hashem’s word in the most straightforward of manners. + +Bad Bamot + +Sefer Melachim’s Criticism of Shlomo HaMelech +Imagine being criticized for doing something permissible. Sefer Melachim seems to do this to Shlomo HaMelech. Melachim I 3:3 records that Shlomo HaMelech loves Hashem, an accolade unique to Shlomo HaMelech among all the kings described in Sefer Melachim (Da’at Mikra). It concludes, though, by noting an exception in that he offered Korbanot on Bamot, altars outside the Beit HaMikdash. +Untimely Criticism? +The problem with this criticism is that at this time of Shlomo HaMelech’s reign, before the Beit HaMikdash is built, Bamot are permitted. The Mishnah (Zevachim 14:4-8) outlines when Bamot were forbidden and when they were permitted, and specifically notes that Bamot were permitted during the period after the Mishkan at Shiloh was destroyed and before the Beit HaMikdash was built. Thus, why does Sefer Melachim criticize Shlomo HaMelech for offering Korbanot on Bamot at a time when it was permissible to do so? +Rashi’s Solution +Rashi explains that Sefer Melachim is critical of Shlomo HaMelech for having delayed the building of the Beit HaMikdash until the fourth year of his reign. In other words, Shlomo HaMelech is criticized for offering Korbanot on Bamot at a time when he should have been building the Beit HaMikdash. +Indeed, Divrei HaYamim records at length how David HaMelech thoroughly prepares for the building of the Beit HaMikdash. He raises the money, gathers the building materials, and even composes a Mizmor dedicated for the Chanukat HaBayit, the dedication of the Beit HaMikdash, “Mizmor Shir Chanukat HaBayit LeDavid” (Mizmor 30). David HaMelech also prepares Shlomo HaMelech for the task of building the Beit HaMikdash, so that it will be accomplished as soon as possible. Therefore, it would seem that Shlomo HaMelech’s delay of four years to begin to place David HaMelech’s dream into action is inexcusable. +However, even a brief familiarity with the first two chapters of Sefer Melachim makes the four year delay very understandable. The first few years of Shlomo HaMelech’s reign are quite unstable and chaotic. David HaMelech’s son Adoniyahu vies and angles for the kingdom, even after David HaMelech explicitly designates Shlomo as his successor. Adoniyahu is supported by very powerful forces: Yoav ben Tzeruyah (the head of the army) and Evyatar the Kohein Gadol. Shimi ben Geira, a remnant of supporters of Sha’ul HaMelech, still poses a threat. +The initial years of Shlomo HaMelech’s kingship are devoted to the stabilization of his reign. This is hardly a time to begin the enormous task of building the Beit HaMikdash. This is especially true, since the Beit HaMikdash may be built only at a time of stability (as stated explicitly in Devarim 12). +Radak and the Metzudat David +Radak and the Metzudat David explain that Shlomo HaMelech is criticized for offering Korbanot on a wide variety of Bamot instead of exclusively bringing them on the Bamah Gedolah (primary Bamah) located in Givon. This approach assumes that permission to offer on Bamot is not granted wholeheartedly. It is reminiscent of the Halachah (Shulchan Aruch O.C. 287:1 and Mishnah Berurah 287:1) which states Chazal reluctantly permit the offering of condolences to mourners on Shabbat. This indicates that when such condolence is offered, it should be done sparingly. So too, Korbanot offered on Bamot should be offered sparingly, since the practice is permitted only with reluctance. +A possible problem with this approach is its paucity of evidence. It is difficult to identify a source for Radak and the Metzudat David’s presumption that Bamot were permitted with great reluctance and reservation. Perhaps their source is Melachim I 3:3, which criticizes Shlomo HaMelech for offering Korbanot on Bamot, using the plural form of Bamah. Radak and the Metzudat David might draw their conclusion from the fact that the Pasuk condemns Shlomo HaMelech for offering Korbanot on multiple Bamot, as opposed to criticizing him for offering Kobanot on a Bamah or the Bamah Gedolah. It appears that the excessive amount of Bamot on which Shlomo HaMelech offered Korbanot is cause for criticism. +A New Suggestion +In light of the lingering questions regarding the classic explanations of Melachim I 3:3, we offer a new suggestion. Perhaps Shlomo HaMelech is criticized for not preparing Am Yisrael for the coming time when Bamot would be forbidden. + Bamot are a persistent problem in Sefer Melachim. Even many good kings, such as Asa and Yehoshafat, do not eliminate Bamot because the practice is so entrenched in the national culture. The people even perceive the two great kings who do attempt to rid the land from Bamot, Chikkiyahu HaMelech and Yoshiyahu HaMelech, as having sinned to Hashem for eliminating these altars (as is evident from Ravshakeh’s speech that is recorded in Melachim II 18). +Bamot were permitted for decades– through the reigns of Shemuel HaNavi, Sha’ul HaMelech, and David HaMelech. It is difficult to convince people that something that was permissible to their parents, grandparents, and even great grandparents is now forbidden to them. This is especially true regarding the Bamot, since it was difficult for most of the country to travel to the Beit HaMikdash to offer Korbanot. Offering a Korban in one’s backyard is infinitely easier than having to travel to Jerusalem. +Thus, even though it is technically permissible during his time, Shlomo HaMelech errs in offering Korbanot on Bamot. Shlomo HaMelech should instead think ahead and prepare the nation for when Bamot will be forbidden. Shlomo HaMelech makes quite an impression when he offers one thousand Korbanot on the Bamah Gedolah in Givon. +In doing so, Shlomo HaMelech makes it even more difficult to convince the people as to the illegality of Bamot after the Beit HaMikdash is built. Offenders could now use Shlomo HaMelech, the individual responsible for the construction of the Beit HaMikdash, as precedent for offering Korbanot on Bamot. Since Shlomo HaMelech will be indelibly associated and connected with the Beit HaMikdash, he should refrain from offering Korbanot on Bamot even when the institution is not technically prohibited. +Conclusion +Whenever a period of transition is soon to begin, ample preparation is critical to help people make the necessary adjustments. Moshe Rabbeinu devoted the entire Sefer Devarim to preparing the Bnei Yisrael transition from life in the desert under his leadership to life in Eretz Yisrael under Yehoshua’s leadership. +The prohibition of Bamot is a difficult transition for Am Yisrael. Regrettably, Shlomo HaMelech’s failure to prepare us for this transition leads to long-standing problems that persist throughout the following centuries. + +Shlomo HaMelech's Great Choice + +Shlomo HaMelech’s Request for Wisdom + It is one of Shlomo HaMelech’s greatest moments. When asked by Hashem during his dream at Givon as to his desired wish, Shlomo HaMelech responds (Melachim I 3:5-10) that he wishes for the wisdom to properly lead and judge (see Da’at Mikra) the nation. Hashem, in turn, is exceedingly pleased with Shlomo HaMelech’s request. +To place this remarkable exchange into perspective, it is worth viewing the worthwhile talk delivered by business leader Bob Davids, titled “The rarest commodity is leadership without ego.”12Davids, Bob. “The rarest commodity is leadership without ego.” TEDx Talks, 10 Apr. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQrPVmcgJJk. In this talk, Mr. Davids emphatically communicates that effective leadership can only be accomplished when the leader is wholly devoted to his or her people. The ineffective leader is one who is self-serving, and whose goal is to advance his or her interests. +Hashem’s Offer as a Nisayon +Shlomo HaMelech is the only king to whom Hashem offers a choice of wish. Why is he of all people given this choice? Da’at Mikra asserts that Hashem presents a Nisayon (character test) to Shlomo HaMelech. The Pesukim certainly seem to support Da’at Mikra. Hashem’s gushing praise of Shlomo making the appropriate choice and not selecting more enticing options, and the consequent reward He presents to Shlomo HaMelech, are clear indications that a Nisayon has ensued. However, Da’at Mikra does not explain why Shlomo HaMelech is presented with this Nisayon. + We suggest that the unprecedented and bold actions of Shlomo HaMelech’s marriage to Bat Paroh and offering of one thousand Korbanot at the Bamah Gedolah at Givon leaves one wondering about Shlomo HaMelech’s motivations. Are these grand actions expressions of self-aggrandizement, or does Shlomo HaMelech harbor a noble motivation to serve Hashem and His people? This unprecedented Nisayon helps reveal Shlomo HaMelech’s true motivations for these unprecedented actions. + Of course, Hashem does not need this Nisayon. A Nisayon, as Ramban explains (BeReishit 22:1), is for the benefit of the one being tested. It activates and actualizes the latent potential within the one to whom the Nisayon is administered. In the case of Shlomo HaMelech, the young king is afforded the opportunity to realize his potential for being a great leader. Indeed, Shlomo HaMelech, in his dream, describes himself to Hashem as being “BeToch Ami,” “within my people.” He is not above the people, he is with the people. His is a government for the people, and he, therefore, chooses to advance his ability to properly lead and judge the people. + In his talk, Mr. Davids describes an incident which he regards as a paradigmatic example of proper leadership: +I went to China, lived there for 13 years. I built a company, started with a handful of people and we ended up with 8,000 people. We had to build a factory to house 8000 people. On occasion I would go to Guangzhou and walk around and inspect the site. I have a technical background, so I felt I had a little bit of expertise in construction. And one monsoon rainy afternoon we’re walking along by the foundation and I look down in the ditch and I see five or six men working and they’re installing a sewer pipe. And they had a level and I’m looking down and I see that they’re making the pipes level, while I have enough technical background to know that a level pipe’s not going to flow. And it’s going to get buried under the foundation, so we’re going to have lifetime problems, because we’ll never get to this to fix it. +So I thought about telling them how to fix it and then I realized I didn’t speak Chinese. So I took off my shoes and I jumped into the trench. I know that a one-inch pebble underneath one end of the level will be just about 2% grade, that’s what we needed. So without saying a word, I grabbed the level, I took a rock and I held it and went back to pipes and I raised it up and I signaled for them to put some sand under the pipe when we got it just right. +And then I went to the next pipe, then I did it again and on the third pipe I handed it to the men in the trench and I had them hold a pebble under the level until they got it just right. Then I asked them to do one more and they did. And then I got out of the trench, took my shoes and went back to the hotel. +That incident went viral in the company. I had no idea what was going to happen. But inside I was realizing what Bob Townsend had told me, if I had pushed them and I had yelled at them and told them what to do, I probably wouldn’t know where they’d go. But by grabbing the level and pulling them, showing them exactly what to do without saying a single word in a totally different culture, they listened. That incident went through the whole company and they realized that it was – it’s a symbol that I would jump in the trenches with them. The big boss would jump in the trench in the mud and pull them. I had no idea it was going to be so powerful. But it really paid off. +The Case of the Two Harlots +Mr. Davids’s incident sheds light on the narrative of Shlomo HaMelech’s famous resolution of the dispute between two harlots as to the identity of the true mother of the child, which is recounted in Melachim I 3, immediately after the conclusion of Shlomo HaMelech’s great dream. More important than the clever means of generating evidence in a case where there is no evidence for a judge to decide the case, is the very fact that Shlomo HaMelech is willing to devote time to resolve the case. His willingness to take from his precious time and focus his talents on representatives from the least prestigious segment of society is the equivalent of Shlomo HaMelech taking off his shoes and jumping in the mud to properly install a pipe. It is a concrete expression of what he gains from the Nisayon that Hashem administers during his dream at Givon. +Shlomo HaMelech is a king who is truly dedicated to the service of his people. He ensures that justice and fairness prevail at all levels of society. + We will return later to the theme of the servant leader, regarding the failure of Rechav’am. In that incident, Rechav’am is advised by Shlomo HaMelech’s wise advisors that “Im HaYom Tiheyeh Eved La’Am HaZeh Ve’Avadetam… VeHayu Lecha Avadim Kol HaYamim,” “if today you become a servant to this people and serve them... they will be servants all the days” (Melachim I 12:7). As Bob Davids points out, +Power comes when the people that you are leading give you their support. When that support comes to you, I call that like power. They offer you the power and then they watch you. If you take that power and you deflect all of it back to them, then they give you more. And then if you give more back to them in the second wave they’d give you even more. But if you start to take some of that power, they start giving you less. And those leaders that accept the power make a critical mistake, because now the power that’s going to come and give them more and more and more power, falters and goes away. And I can point out many leaders around the world even today that are falling, because they took the power. They didn’t give it back to the people they were leading. +Likewise, Rechav’am fails to follow in the footsteps of his father and fails miserably. +Conclusion +A final word from Bob Davids: +Herb Keleher was the CEO and Founder of Southwest Airlines. He would go out and work one day a month handling baggage in the company. Bob Townsend used to spend one day a week renting out cars at the counter. You need to be in touch with the people you lead and you need to be in their shoes. + There is no better example of this than Shlomo HaMelech judging the custody dispute between the prostitutes. In the ancient world, such a king was unheard of. The kings were in it for themselves and themselves alone. It was the Jewish people, and Shlomo HaMelech in particular, who introduced the groundbreaking idea of the servant leader to a world with a great need for proper leadership. + +Variations in Sephardic and Ashkenazic Practice after the Mashi'ach + +Shlomo HaMelech’s Divisive Failure +Melachim I 4 presents the demarcation of the twelve administrative regions with which Shlomo HaMelech finances the country. The number twelve recalls the classic tribal division of Am Yisrael. But if we examine the list closely, we discern that only five regions (Har Efrayim, Naftali, Asher, Yissachar, and Binyamin) correspond to tribal identities. It appears that Shlomo HaMelech remodels the tribal borders, and draws new regional boundaries (as noted by Radak to Melachim I 4:8). +Why does Shlomo HaMelech shake up the ancient tribal divisions? It has been suggested that this is Shlomo HaMelech’s attempt to do away with the system of tribal division. Shlomo HaMelech views his era as the prelude to the Messianic era, and feels that the Bnei Yisrael have outgrown their need for tribal boundaries. +But the rezoning plan backfires, and the tribes’ independent identities remain intact even after Shlomo HaMelech’s attempt to consolidate them. The attempt to undo the tribal divisions is an abysmal failure. After all, soon after Shlomo HaMelech’s passing, Am Yisrael divides into two rival kingdoms, which at times descend into fierce warfare. +A Torah Source for Variations in Halachic Practice +Before we delve into the question of whether the Sephardic and Ashkenazic divisions will remain after the arrival of Mashi’ach, it is important to deal with the question as to whether there is a source in the Torah for the variations in Halachic practice between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews. +This author heard none other than Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik share that he had been bothered by this question for many years. He said, though, that an answer may be found in Ramban’s commentary to Devarim 16:18, where he indicates that each Sheivet (tribe) requires its own supreme Beit Din. Ramban explains that each supreme Beit Din of each Sheivet is authorized to issue Takanot (enactments) for its Sheivet accordance with its specific needs.13See Sanhedrin 16b, where R. Shimon b. Gamliel comments that “Mitzvah BeSheivet LaDun Et Shivto,” “there is a commandment upon the tribe to judge itself.” Also, see Sifrei Piska 144 for a parallel formulation. It should be noted that in contrast to Ramban, Rambam may not believe in the requirement for a tribal Beit Din. See Kesef Mishneh to Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:1, s.v. “Mitzvat Aseh Shel Torah Limnot Shofetim VeShoterim.” +It would emerge then that some practices would vary amongst the Shevatim. The Rav explains that the Torah allows for a bit of variety in practice amongst the different groups of Jews. Rav Soloveitchik concluded that just as there were small differences in practice among the different Shevatim, so too there are small differences in practice amongst the different communities, such as the significant gap between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews. +Sephardic and Ashkenazic Variations +Will the differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews remain in Messianic times? This is quite a challenging question. On the one hand, the Navi Yechezkeil (Yechezkeil 37, the Haftarah for Parashat VaYigash) envisions a time of a united Am Yisrael, unified under one king. However, this may refer only to political unity as Yechezkeil specifically speaks of having one king for all Jews (Yechezkeil 37:22). +However, at the very end of Sefer Yechezkeil, the Navi describes a vision of Yerushalayim at a time of the rebuilt third Beit HaMikdash, in which Jerusalem will be blessed with twelve gates. Each of these twelve gates is designated as corresponding to one of the twelve Shevatim. +In other words, the division into twelve tribes will persist into the age of Mashi’ach. If the division into Shevatim persists, following Rabbi Soloveitchik’s reasoning, it emerges that the divisions of the various groups within our people, which correspond to the different Shevatim, will also persist into the Messianic era. +Of course, during the times of Mashi’ach, Ahavat Chinam, brotherhood and love, will prevail amongst our people. The different divisions of our nation will live in harmony and respect with one another. However, this need not be a source of tension, if each group harbors respect and affection for the other groups. +Am Yisrael is at its healthiest when the different tribes retain their independent identities. Trying to impose a uniform style of Torah observance on all Jews, even during the Messianic period, does not serve the best needs of our people. +Therefore, the Navi Yechezkeil teaches us that even during times of Mashi’ach, the tribal divisions will endure. It is healthiest for Am Yisrael to maintain a degree of variety of practice. Thus, while some may view the merging of Sephardic and Ashkenazic identities as an ideal, Shlomo HaMelech’s failed attempt to unite Am Yisrael into one set of Halachic practice shows that the Bnei Yisrael’s diversity is its greatest strength. +Conclusion +Our division into Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jewry should not be seen as an unwanted relic and legacy of the many years of the Exile. Rather, it is a healthy expression of the legitimate variety within our nation. As long as Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews maintain a commitment of reverence and esteem for each other, and a commitment to the Torah and the Mesorah14The differences in Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices emerge from the accentuation of different Halachic authorities, and the development of different Minhagim (customs) over time. For example, while Ashkenazi Jews will generally follow the Rama over the Shulchan Aruch when the two reach opposing Halachic conclusions, this in no way detracts from the reverence the Ashkenazic tradition grants to R. Yosef Caro. It should also be noted that the majority of general Halachic practice is consistent throughout the Ashkenazic and Sephardic traditions. While the details may sometimes differ, the overall structure and nature of the Halachah remain unchanged. (tradition), the diversity will not serve as a source of tension, but rather as a fulfillment of the Messianic vision for our people. + +Land for Peace; Not Every Precedent is a Precedent! + +The Contemporary Relevance of Tanach + Torah lovers are rightfully and correctly enamoured with applying the situations described in the Tanach to contemporary life. Indeed, the Gemara (Megillah 14a) famously states that anything recorded in Tanach is presented because it has lessons for every generation (“Nitzrecha LeDorot”). We revel in the fact that our God-given Torah is not merely a collection of ancient texts, but lessons Hashem communicates to every Jew in every time and situation. +That being said, one must exercise caution when seeking to apply a situation in Tanach to contemporary concerns. In Melachim I 9:11, Shlomo HaMelech gifts Chiram the king of Tzor (Phoenicia) twenty Galilean cities after the latter supplies him with construction materials. One must be careful in applying this transaction to the ongoing debate about exchanging Israeli land for peace.15For a summary of the debate both from both Hashkafic and Halachic perspectives, see Gray Matter I pp. 135-144, available in PDF format at www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Gray_Matter.pdf. +Misapplying Shlomo HaMelech’s Actions — Amos Oz +The famous Israeli author and peace advocate Amos Oz is quoted as citing Shlomo HaMelech’s ceding of twenty cities to Chiram as a precedent for ceding portions of Eretz Yisrael to the people who currently identify themselves as Palestinians: +[Amos Oz] pointed out that his position was not all that different from King Solomon’s. Did he not make a gift of 20 Galilean cities to King Hiram of Tyre for his help in building the first Temple in Jerusalem?16It is far from clear that the gift of twenty cities is an expression of gratitude for Hiram’s help with the construction of the Beit HaMikdash. In fact, the gifting of the cities is recorded in Melachim I 9, which does not at all discuss the building of the Beit HaMikdash. Oz was clear about the fact that the Palestinians hadn’t helped the Jewish people build the State of Israel, with an aside about that being an understatement if there ever was one, but the principle of giving up part of the biblical Land of Israel for a reason was there.17Chernick, Michael. “Losing Amos Oz ... but Savoring His Insights.” The Times of Israel, 31 Jan. 2019, www.blogs.timesofisrael.com/losing-amos-oz-but-savoring-his-insights. +This application is seriously flawed in that it does not consider the extensive commentary to this Pasuk. As noted by Oz himself, +Judaism and Israel have always cultivated a culture of doubt and argument, an open-ended game18Torah students would hardly refer to the holy endeavor of Torah interpretation as a “game.” As we recite as part of the evening Birkot Keriat Shemah, “Ki Heim Chayeinu Ve’Orech Yameinu,” “for they are our life and the length of our days,” the study of Torah is the lifeblood of the Jewish people. of interpretations, counter-interpretations, reinterpretations, opposing interpretations. From the beginning of the existence of Jewish civilization, it was recognized by its argumentativeness.19Quoted in Dan Senor and Saul Singer, Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle (Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 2011), 51. +Mr. Oz does not consider the extensive layers of classic interpretation of the Pasuk that describes Shlomo HaMelech ceding the Galilean cities to Chiram. Most important, in the complementary version of the story in Divrei HaYamim II 8:2, Chiram is described as having given Shlomo HaMelech twenty cities. This leads Ralbag to understand the situation as a land exchange between the two monarchs. In fact, Ralbag even comments “Lo Yitachein LaMelech LaMa’eit Eretz Yisrael,” “it cannot be that a Jewish king would diminish Eretz Yisrael.” +The Malbim, in turn, endorses the Abarbanel’s interpretation that Shlomo HaMelech merely provides the income generated by these cities to Chiram, and not that he relinquishes sovereign control over the area. Thus, three classic interpreters of Tanach understand Melachim I 9:11 in a manner that is inconsistent with the way that Amos Oz seeks to apply it. In fact, this author is unaware of any major classic Tanach commentary that understands the Pasuk in the simplistic manner in which Mr. Oz understood it.20See Da’at Mikra for further discussion of Melachim I 9:11. +Moreover, the context of the transaction is one of a failed diplomatic interaction with Chiram, as Melachim I 9:12 records Chiram expressing dissatisfaction with these cities. In fact, Melachim I 9 of Sefer Melachim may be seen in the broader context of Shlomo HaMelech’s downfall.21Shabbat 54a supports the understanding that this transaction between Shlomo HaMelech and Chiram reflects a failure of Shlomo HaMelech’s policies. The Gemara describes how the people of Israel had become so bogged down with gold and silver that they neglected to develop the land. Thus, this transaction highlights a downside to the great prosperity Shlomo HaMelech brought to the Bnei Yisrael. Thus, the story of Shlomo and the twenty Galilean cities may hardly be seen as a viable model for the diplomacy of the State of Israel in modern times. +Is Ralbag a Categorical Opponent to the Exchange of Land for Peace? +The striking words of Ralbag “Lo Yitachein LaMelech LaMa’eit Eretz Yisrael,” “it cannot be that a Jewish king would diminish Eretz Yisrael,” do not preclude the possibility of a responsible Jewish sovereign exchanging land for peace if such an agreement is determined to be in the best interest of the Jewish people. A classic example is Menachem Begin’s ceding the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt as part of the peace treaty signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979.22It seems that in hindsight, the peace treaty with Egypt was a wise decision. In the twenty-five years between 1948 and 1973, Israel fought five bloody wars with terribly high casualty rates (including this author’s cousin, Noach Rotem, who fell during the Six-Day War). In dramatic contrast, from 1973 to 2019, no wars have, Baruch Hashem, been fought between Egypt and Israel. Although the peace has not always been the warmest, no wars have been fought, and the border with Egypt has remained reasonably stable. The dramatic increase in American aid since the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978 has also greatly benefited the State of Israel. Thus, it seems difficult to assume that Ralbag would necessarily have condemned Menachem Begin for signing a peace treaty with Egypt that involved the relinquishment of Jewish control over some of Eretz Yisrael. The fact that the treaty has brought considerable benefit to the Jewish people indicates that it was a proper course of action. +One can hardly compare the stable nature of Shlomo HaMelech’s control of Eretz Yisrael to the contemporary state of affairs in the Land of Israel. Medinat Yisrael today, with its many tenacious enemies, is in a far more precarious situation compared to the idyllic days of Shlomo HaMelech. By contrast, in Melachim I 9, Shlomo HaMelech has no compelling security motivation to cede land. +Thus, Ralbag can and should be understood as saying that it is inconceivable that a Jewish king would gratuitously relinquish Jewish sovereignty over a portion of Eretz Yisrael. However, the words of Ralbag hardly apply to a situation when sober and careful Israel defense and governmental leaders conclude that it is in the best interest of Israel to exchange land for peace. +Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (see MiPeninei HaRav p. 200), when asked about the Torah view on exchanging Israeli land for peace, famously commented that the matter depends on the analysis of Israeli security experts. He compared the situation to the Mishnah (Yomah 8:5), which delegates the decision as to whether an individual’s life is sufficiently in danger to necessitate eating on Yom Kippur to experts, i.e. physicians. Similarly, regarding Israeli land for peace, national security experts determine what serves the best interest of Jewish life in Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Soloveitchik did not understand there to be a categorical prohibition of ceding Israeli land for peace in all circumstances. This author believes that Ralbag would agree. +Conclusion +Every aspect of Tanach is meant to be applied at all times to all generations. However, one must first thoroughly analyze all of the major commentaries and then determine if current events are truly analogous to the seemingly applicable portion of Tanach. When fully understood in context and commentary, it seems difficult to apply Shlomo HaMelech’s gift of twenty cities to the Phoenician king Chiram to the current state of affairs in Medinat Yisrael. + +Shlomo HaMelech and the Messianic Ideal + +The Visit of Malkat Sheva +On the surface, it appears to be the fulfillment of Shlomo HaMelech’s dream and the high watermark of his reign. The visit of Malkat Sheva (Melachim I 10) fulfills Shlomo HaMelech’s ultimate dream and goal that (Melachim I 8:60) “all the nations recognize Hashem is the true God and there is none other than He.” Indeed, Malkat Sheva (Melachim I 10:9) blesses “Hashem your God,” who made Shlomo king to spread justice and righteousness. +A Lack of Spiritual and Global Impact +However, upon closer scrutiny, there seem to be some troubling aspects of this visit. Malkat Sheva is impressed by the elegant clothes, food, drink and servants of Shlomo HaMelech’s kingdom. She is also overwhelmed by Shlomo HaMelech’s wisdom. No explicit mention is made of her being impressed by the beauty of the Torah and its laws. This leads us to wonder whether she is impressed merely by Shlomo HaMelech’s style and not as much by the substance of Shlomo HaMelech’s Jewish spirituality.23TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) comments: While her compliments start only after she sees the Korban Olah being brought, the compliments seem to point only towards Shlomo HaMelech’s wisdom and wealth. While technically that is also a praise of Hashem uplifting His nation, I do not think that Malkat Sheva is thinking in that way. She praises Hashem only for putting Shlomo in charge of the Bnei Yisrael; a praise more toward Shlomo than Hashem. +In addition, Malkat Sheva’s visit stands out as the only visit by a foreign dignitary who expresses such positive feelings about Hashem (perhaps except for Phoenician king Chiram). Where are the other kings who visit and are motivated to praise Hashem? It seems that this never happened. Thus, Shlomo HaMelech’s dream to positively impact the leaders and peoples of the world to recognize Hashem hardly materializes. Moreover, Melachim I 10:13 records Malkat Sheva’s return to her land, but does not mention an attempt made on her part to inspire her subjects in the belief in Hashem as the one and only God. +What Goes Wrong? +Accordingly, what goes wrong with Shlomo HaMelech’s dream to realize the Messianic hope that “on that day Hashem will be recognized as one and His name will be recognized as one”? We suggest perhaps something is amiss with Shlomo HaMelech’s emphasis on wealth and even non-Torah areas of wisdom (Melachim I 5:9-14). +Shlomo HaMelech believes that his wealth and power will impress the world and make the message of the Torah easier to accept. He views wealth as conveying a sense of power, authority, and even authenticity, and will help the world recognize Hashem. +We suggest, however, that Shlomo HaMelech errs in this regard. Indeed, wealth does not play a role within the Messianic ideal portrayed by Yeshayahu 2:2-4, 11:9, and Michah 4:1-5. In addition, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 94a) describes Chizkiyahu HaMelech as a very viable candidate for Mashi’ach even though he was not exceptionally wealthy. Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11 describes the Mashi’ach based on the model of Chizkiyahu HaMelech. No mention is made by Rambam of the Mashi’ach being wealthy. Nor is mention made of Mashi’ach being proficient in worldly knowledge as Shlomo HaMelech is described as having. +It seems that Yeshayahu and Michah present an alternative to Shlomo HaMelech’s vision of universal outreach. The Mashi’ach, these prophets teach, will inspire the world with Torah and Torah alone. Wealth and non-Torah knowledge will not play a role in drawing the nations of the world to Jerusalem to seek guidance from Melech HaMashi’ach.24Binyamin Jachter notes that Shlomo HaMelech in Kohelet (especially the second chapter) no longer treats great wealth and wisdom as his top priorities. In fact, Binyamin makes a bold suggestion that Shlomo’s wisdom is compared to the wisdom of the gentile wise-men of the time in Melachim I 15. This creates the impression that Shlomo HaMelech’s wisdom does not account for holy disciplines (Limmudei Kodesh) and instead is based in more worldly studies. +Shlomo HaMelech’s great wealth causes a negative backlash— the people tire of the massive tax burden that he puts in place to maintain his extraordinarily high standard of living. Shlomo’s high living, although done for the sake of heaven– to impress others to recognize Hashem– is simply not sustainable.25Binyamin Jachter adds that the “Beit Ya’ar Levanon” (house of the Lebanon forest) described at the beginning of Melachim I 7, in particular, is an unnecessary expression of wealth. Its function is not at all clear and seems to be an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. +Conclusion +The Torah is truth and represents true authenticity. When the nations of the world come to recognize this purely due to their recognition of the majesty of Torah, that will truly be a Messianic event that will inaugurate the Messianic era in an authentic and sustainable manner.26Binyamin Jachter boldly suggests that the wisdom Shlomo HaMelech conveys to Malkat Sheva seems to be more of a spectacle than Kiruv, spiritual outreach. It seems to be, at least in part, a means to spread his fame. What could have made a viable alternative? Possibly, Shlomo HaMelech’s multifaceted wisdom could have been used to draw people to Jerusalem, and he would then share Godly/Torah wisdom once visitors came to hear him speak and watch the happenings of the Beit HaMikdash. + +The Conversion of Shlomo HaMelech's Wives + +Shlomo HaMelech’s Many Marriages +Shlomo HaMelech is regarded by Chazal as one of our spiritual heroes. Yet, he is described in the opening section of Melachim I 11 as one who has committed heinous spiritual crimes, including intermarriage. Still, we celebrate Shlomo HaMelech despite his marrying massive numbers27TABC alumnus Aharon Goldstein (‘19) puts forth a bold suggestion that the number of wives recorded in Sefer Melachim, seven hundred full-fledged wives and three hundred Pilagshim, may be viewed as an exaggeration, Guzma. The Gemara (Chullin 90b and Tamid 29a) specifically notes that hyperbole is a literary technique occasionally employed by the Tanach. Aharon’s suggestion, accordingly, need not be summarily dismissed. However, the massive amount of wives is typical of the enormously ambitious thought process and actions of Shlomo HaMelech. Thus, it is not unreasonable to say that he marries one thousand women. The same man who offers well over one hundred thousand Korbanot at the Chanukat Beit HaMikdash may very actually marry one thousand women. of non-Jewish women.28Da’at Mikra observes that the Tanach records only three children of Shlomo HaMelech. This leaves room to speculate as to whether Shlomo HaMelech maintains any form of conjugal relations with his massive amount of wives. How do we digest and process this information? +Rambam’s Approach +Rambam, in his presentation of Hilchot Geirut (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 13), grapples with our question.29He includes Shimshon’s marriage to non-Jewish women as well. Rambam writes that it is inconceivable that Shlomo HaMelech, who is referred to as Yedidyah, “friend of Hashem” (see Shemuel II 12:25), outright marries non-Jewish women. +Yedidyah refers to not only friend of Hashem, but to something much more fundamental. It refers to Shlomo HaMelech’s self-perception and self-definition. He does not view himself merely as a servant of Hashem. Rather, he sees himself as Hashem’s partner. +This is a most appropriate self-definition, as is clear from the teachings of Chazal, that one should strive to be a partner of Hashem (see, for example, Shabbat 10a). A partner of Hashem does not merely wish to obey His laws, but fully internalizes and shares Hashem’s goals and objectives. Shlomo HaMelech, as a partner of Hashem, wishes to achieve worldwide recognition of Hashem, as he famously expresses in Melachim I 8:60: “LeMa’an Da’at Kol Amei Ha’Aretz Ki Hashem Hu HaElokim, Ein Od,” “that all the peoples of the earth may know that Hashem alone is God, there is no other.” +As we explained in another chapter, Shlomo HaMelech marries women from highly influential families30See the earlier chapter, “Shlomo HaMelech Marries Bat Paroh.” TABC students countered that there is no evidence that the women he marries are from influential families, other than Bat Paroh. However, if Bat Paroh wishes to marry Shlomo HaMelech, one may reasonably surmise that other prominent families will be eager to do so as well. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine that someone with such enormous ambition as Shlomo HaMelech would marry women who were not from extraordinarily prominent families. The specific mention of Bat Paroh in Melachim I 11:1-2 might be understood as a Binyan Av, paradigm, for the other wives— just as Bat Paroh is from a very prominent family, so too are all the other wives as well. with the dream of influencing these women to recognize Hashem. Once they recognize Hashem, they will share their newfound God with their families, who in turn will influence their various communities to accept Hashem and His basic moral code, the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach (the Seven Noahide Laws). The Messianic vision of “VeHayah Hashem LeMelech Al Kol Ha’Aretz, BaYom HaHu Yiheyeh Hashem Echad Ushmo Echad, “and God will be king over the whole Earth, on that day there will be one Hashem and His name will be one,” (Zecharyah 14:9) will thereby be realized! Thus, Shlomo HaMelech’s marriages to these many foreign women are an expression of his being Yedidyah, friend or partner of Hashem. +Rambam explains that these women underwent a conversion process, and were, technically speaking, Jewish at the time of their respective marriages to Shlomo HaMelech. Thus, we have cleared Shlomo HaMelech of the terrible sin of intermarriage. Rambam’s position is accepted as mainstream Jewish thought, as it is presented as the normative understanding in the Shulchan Aruch in its discussion of Hilchot Geirut (Yoreh De’ah 268), and is cited by Pashtanim including the Metzudat David (Melachim I 3:1), Ralbag, Malbim, and Da’at Mikra. +Of course, the question that emerges is why Melachim I 11:1-2 condemns Shlomo HaMelech for marrying non-Jewish women. Here, Rambam utilizes the interpretive technique of Ma’aleh Alav HaKatuv,31As do Chazal regarding Melachim I 11’s condemnation of Shlomo HaMelech for worshipping Avodah Zarah, as we discuss in the later chapter “Shlomo HaMelech’s Fall.” that Sefer Melachim regards his marriage to these women as the equivalent of his marrying non-Jewish women. This is due to the sub-par conversion undergone by his wives. +Support for Rambam +Da’at Mikra supports Rambam’s assertion from Tehillim 45 (especially 45:11), which describes a foreign princess accepting Hashem as her God upon her marriage to the Jewish king. We suggest that a comparison of Divrei HaYamim and Melachim also may have led Rambam to his conclusion. While Sefer Melachim condemns Shlomo HaMelech as guilty of marrying non-Jewish wives, this sin is not at all recorded in Divrei HaYamim. In this later Sefer, Shlomo HaMelech is presented blemish-free.32As we develop in the chapter, “A Pristine Version of Shlomo HaMelech in Divrei HaYamim.” While his marriage to Bat Paroh is recorded in this Sefer, it is not condemned at all. +Rambam’s approach to Shlomo HaMelech’s marriages might stem from a reconciliation of these two dramatically different presentations of Shlomo HaMelech. Both of these presentations are true. On the one hand, these marriages emerge from noble intent and do not, technically speaking, violate Halachah. On the other hand, these marriages are in fact highly problematic, and therefore should be seen as the equivalent of intermarriage. +Subpar Conversions +Rambam records that the mainstream Batei Din, what he refers to as the Beit Din HaGadol, refused to administer these conversions. Instead, Shlomo HaMelech assembled what Rambam refers to as Hedyotot (ordinary individuals) to convert his wives. We should note that it is to Shlomo HaMelech’s credit that he does not attempt to bully the Beit Din HaGadol into acting in accordance with his agenda. This positive stance stands in stark contrast with other Jewish kings such as Hordus (Bava Batra 3b-4a) and Yannai (Berachot 48a, Kiddushin 66a, and Sanhedrin 19a), who try to bully leading rabbis to buy into their Halachically deviant agendas. One may wonder, though, why the Beit Din HaGadol tolerates the actions of the inferior Hedyot courts. Perhaps they refrain from protesting since, technically speaking, the Hedyotot do not outright facilitate blatant Halachic violations. +The Beit Din HaGadol does not buy into Shlomo HaMelech’s spiritual plan for his wives. They likely regard it (rightfully so, as time eventually painfully reveals) as overly ambitious and unrealistic. Shlomo HaMelech, undeterred by this rejection, locates scholars of lesser stature, who are willing to conduct such conversions. For better or worse, as is well-known, such a situation prevails today as well in the Orthodox world. There are Batei Din that maintain rigorous and high standards for the conversions they administer, and there is also no shortage of Orthodox rabbinic courts that set a much lower bar of admission for converts. +The Hedyotot who convert Shlomo HaMelech’s wives are not equivalent to today’s conservative rabbis. Following the rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Ovadia Yosef, conversions conducted under the auspices of Conservative rabbis enjoy no Halachic validity. The test case that demonstrates this stance of the mainstream Orthodox rabbinate is that if a woman who was married to a man who underwent a Conservative conversion is unable to receive a Get, mainstream Orthodox rabbinic courts will permit her to marry without one.33Ordinarily, a Get is conducted by mainstream Orthodox rabbis even if the conversion was conducted by a non-Orthodox conversion board (as long as the woman immersed in a Mikvah) to avoid the impression that we may permit women to remarry without a Get (“SheLo Yomeru Megarshim Neshoteihem BeLo Klum”). In case of great need, such as the recalcitrance of the divorcing husband, we dispense with this concern. This author heard this explanation from Rav Gedaliah Anemer zt”l of Silver Spring, Maryland in the name of Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky. +Rather, we should Shlomo HaMelech’s wives’ conversions as parallel to the conversions conducted by Orthodox rabbinic courts who do not maintain high standards for their conversions. It is not a simple matter to dismiss such conversions as invalid. For example, if a Jewish woman married a man who was converted by such a Beit Din, and the man refused to give a Get, mainstream rabbinic courts will not readily dismiss the conversion as invalid.34A classic example is Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv’s vehement rejection of Rav Shlomo Goren relieving the Mamzeirut status in the famous “Ach Ve’Achot” case, on the basis of invalidating the weak Orthodox conversion of the mother’s first husband. Also see Rav Moshe Feinstein on this issue (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Even HaEzer 3:4). +Despite the possible technical Halachic admissibility of Shlomo HaMelech’s wives’ conversions, Sefer Melachim makes it clear that such conversions constitute very bad Halachic policy. Unlike Rut, who converts to “seek refuge under Hashem’s wings” (Rut 2:11-12), when someone converts with an alternative motive, the long-term results are likely to be disastrous. This is certainly the case with Shlomo HaMelech’s wives. While they refrain from idolatry for a while, once Shlomo HaMelech ages, Bat Paroh and her co-wives take advantage of his weakness and revert to the idolatry of their youth. +High conversion standards serve the best long-term interest of both the Jewish community and the converts themselves. High conversion standards help pave the way for a life-long embrace of Judaism. When a convert decides after a number of years to revert to the ways of his past, it most often causes a severe disruption in the lives of their spouses and children, not unlike the severe problems that emerge after Shlomo HaMelech’s wives turn their backs on Hashem. While high conversion standards do not guarantee positive future results, they afford the best chances for the creation of a life-long commitment to Torah. In addition, while there have been some cases of spiritual success with those who converted under weak Halachic standards, overwhelming anecdotal evidence demonstrates that the percentage of success is exponentially higher among those who have surpassed more rigorous conversion standards. +Giyur LeChumrah +On occasion, those who have undergone a conversion under weaker Halachic standards (and in the case of female converts, their children), may wish to upgrade their conversions to meet higher standards. This is referred to as Giyur LeChumrah, or a conversion due to stringency. This author was privileged in the summer of 2017 to convene a Beit Din under the auspices of the Beth Din of Elizabeth (with the approval of the Av Beth Din, Rav Elazar Mayer Teitz) to conduct such a ceremony for a mother and her children. +One may surmise that Shlomo HaMelech hopes that the women he converts under the auspices of less than stellar rabbinic courts will grow spiritually, and eventually qualify for Giyur LeChumrah with the Beit Din HaGadol. Alas, this dream is not realized. +Qualification of Teshuvot Dvar Avraham +In an early twentieth century ruling, Rav Avraham Duber Kahana Shapiro (Teshuvot Dvar Avraham 3:28) noted that in the changing circumstances of the East European Jewish community after World War I, when large numbers of Jews tragically began to stray from Torah observance, there was an even greater reason to cast doubt on agenda-driven conversions. In the time of Shlomo HaMelech, when the community’s level of observance was de rigueur, even agenda-driven converts resolved to observe Mitzvot, since this was an expected part of Jewish life. However, one can hardly assume that those who convert to marry a non-observant Jew will observe Mitzvot. If so, the conversion is missing Kabbalat Mitzvot, commitment to observe Mitzvot. This consideration adds yet another reason to adopt high standards for conversion in modern times. +We should note that even in those Batei Din who adopt high standards for conversion, converts who have or intend to have Jewish spouses are not necessarily disqualified. However, they must succeed in convincing the Beit Din that their commitment to Judaism exceeds that of Shlomo HaMelech’s wives and that their level of observance will remain intact even if their romantic relationship with a born Jew falls apart. +Conclusion +Taken at face value, Shlomo HaMelech in Sefer Melachim seems guilty of serial intermarriage. However, we have noted that the matter is far more nuanced and complex. Though his wives technically convert to Judaism, nonetheless, these conversions do not emerge from a spiritually healthy place, never improve, and even deeply deteriorate after their inauspicious start. An honest appraisal of these conversions leads us to conclude that rigorous conversion standards are in everyone’s long-term best interests. + +Shlomo HaMelech's Fall + +A Steep Descent +It is undoubtedly one of the most disappointing passages in the Tanach. Shlomo HaMelech’s dramatic fall in Melachim I 11 is terribly disheartening. How can the author of Shir HaShirim, Mishlei, and Kohelet commit such heinous crimes? Even though Chazal (Shabbat 56b) soften Shlomo HaMelech’s sin from building and serving a dizzying assortment of idols to his merely tolerating his many wives rampant idolatry on mountains on the outlying hills of Jerusalem, one is still left with many questions. +Peshat Support for Chazal’s Approach +To be sure, no less than a deeply devoted Pashtan such as Ralbag (Melachim I 11:4) demonstrates that Chazal’s understanding of Shlomo HaMelech’s sin is firmly rooted in the Peshat of the text. For example, twice (Melachim I 11:4 and 11:6) the Navi records that Shlomo was not fully devoted to Hashem as was his father David HaMelech. If Shlomo HaMelech actually worshipped all these deities, describing him as not fully devoted to Hashem is woefully inaccurate. If Shlomo HaMelech truly did worship Avodah Zarah, then the Navi would use the same derogatory terms he uses in his description of the evil king Menashe in Melachim I 21. +In addition, Melachim I 11:8 seems to assign the idolatrous activity to Shlomo HaMelech’s wives, and not to Shlomo HaMelech himself. The fact that the Pasuk describes Shlomo as building the altars to foreign gods is also not a problem, explains Ralbag, since even when the Navi describes Shlomo HaMelech building the Beit HaMikdash, he does not mean that Shlomo HaMelech actually builds the Mikdash. Rather, he refers to the fact that the construction occurs under Shlomo HaMelech’s auspices. Regarding the Avodah Zarah as well, Sefer Melachim does not refer to Shlomo HaMelech actually building these forbidden items, but rather that the construction occurs on his watch within his capital city. +Other commentaries devoted to Peshat, such as the Abarbanel, the Malbim, and Da’at Mikra agree with this approach and concur with Ralbag that Chazal’s approach to Shlomo HaMelech and Avodah Zarah fits with the straightforward reading of Melachim I 11. This approach also fits with Divrei HaYamim’s omission of Shlomo HaMelech building Avodah Zarah. Divrei HaYamim omits this point because Shlomo HaMelech does not literally build the Avodah Zarah. +Shlomo HaMelech’s Failure to Adjust to a New Reality +Given these circumstances, what should have Shlomo HaMelech done? The Metzudat David writes that Shlomo HaMelech should have simply not permitted his wives to build the Avodah Zarah. The Malbim adds that he should have divorced the wives that wished to worship idolatry. +The looming question, though, is why Shlomo HaMelech does not take these steps. First, we note that the wives wait until Shlomo HaMelech becomes old to build their Avodah Zarah. At an advanced age, Shlomo HaMelech is vulnerable and no longer possesses the physical and psychological strength to rise above his wives. Moreover, we may surmise that Bat Paroh acts as the ringleader (thereby accounting for the specific mention of her name in Melachim I 11:1) and leads the coalition of Shlomo HaMelech’s wives in their demand that they be permitted to build altars to their false gods. +Moreover, Shlomo HaMelech cannot come to grips with the failure of his life’s plan to influence his many wives from illustrious families, who would subsequently influence their families, who would influence the entire world, to recognize Hashem. Shlomo HaMelech fails to adjust to the new reality that his grand scheme was a colossal failure. The grand visit of Malkat Sheva (Melachim I 10) makes Shlomo HaMelech hope and dream of many more such encounters, in which all the world leaders will see the glory of Jerusalem, and be inspired to recognize Hashem. +Alas, no more such glorious events transpire. Shlomo HaMelech does not cut his losses, even after it becomes most appropriate for him to do so. Shlomo HaMelech, apparently, does not want to confront his wives, lest they abandon him and leave his master plan in shambles. At this point, he should realize that they are already in shambles. +The Threat of War +Finally, Shlomo HaMelech likely fears that if he disappoints his wives, the disgruntled and well-connected women will contact their families in their original homelands, and encourage them to wage war on Am Yisrael. Shlomo HaMelech digs himself into a hole by marrying these hundreds of well-connected women.35In the words of TABC alumnus Seth Maza (‘19). Shlomo HaMelech feels that he is faced with the unenviable choice of tolerating his wives’ Avodah Zarah, or having a war waged against his kingdom by all of the neighboring countries, including the mighty Egyptians. Shlomo HaMelech views the acceptance of his wives’ Avodah Zarah as the better of the two options. +The National Consequences of Shlomo HaMelech’s Failure +Nonetheless, had Shlomo HaMelech had the full devotion to Hashem as did his father David HaMelech, he would have mustered the strength to stand up to his wives. Tragically, Shlomo HaMelech does not rise to the occasion. Yerushalayim was thus the location of the remarkable Beit HaMikdash, and also contained a wide variety of Avodah Zarah on its outlying hills. Imagine the confusion a visitor to Yerushalayim would experience upon seeing these contradictory images.36Israel, Rabbi Alex. “Shiur #9: Chapters 9-11 - Shlomo's Sins.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Yeshivat Har Etzion, 19 Jan. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-9-chapters-9-11-shlomo%D3%B3-sins. +Indeed, Radak explains that Hashem motivates Hadad Ha’Edomi and Rezon ben Eliyada to rise up against Shlomo HaMelech (Melachim I 11:14-25) to make him realize that his misguided decision to tolerate his wives’ idolatry has brought ruin to the nation. +The war that he fears will emerge through refusing his wives’ requests specifically materializes because he tolerates his wives’ Avodah Zarah. The very same Paroh, the father of the Bat Paroh, whom Shlomo HaMelech fears confronting, apparently permits his Edomite brother-in-law Hadad to leave Mitzrayim and attack Shlomo HaMelech (see Radak and Da’at Mikra to 11:25). +Unfortunately, Shlomo HaMelech does not face the hard and cold facts. In the words of the TABC students, he is not “real” with himself, and fails to make the desperately needed adjustment to his life and nation. +Conclusion — Shlomo HaMelech’s Teshuvah +Does Shlomo HaMelech ever repent for his sins of omission? We have put forward the idea that in Sefer Kohelet (which Chazal say Shlomo HaMelech composed towards the end of his life) may be seen as a Vidui (confession) for the mistakes he makes as a result of his grand plan to marry huge numbers of wives in order to bring about the universal recognition of Hashem. In Kohelet 7:28, Shlomo HaMelech writes, “Asher Od Bikeshah Nafshi, VeLo Matzati; Adam Echad Mei’Elef Matzati, Ve’Ishah BeChol Eileh Lo Matzati,” “which yet my soul seeks but I have not found; one man in a thousand I have found, but one woman among them I have not found” (Kohelet 7:28). Thus, we suggest that Shlomo HaMelech expresses regret for having violated the Torah and marrying his thousand wives. +Perhaps this accounts for Ezra’s portrayal of an unblemished Shlomo HaMelech in Divrei HaYamim. Far from being a “whitewashed” or “airbrushed” version of Shlomo HaMelech, Divrei HaYamim II 1-9 represents the Shlomo HaMelech that could have been, who he actually becomes through his Vidui and Teshuvah expressed in Sefer Kohelet. + +A Pristine Version of Shlomo HaMelech in Divrei HaYamim + +An Intelligent Joke +TABC alumnus Eli Reichner is fond of joking that it emerges from a close examination of Sefer Melachim that Shlomo HaMelech is a Rasha (evildoer) and that Achav is a Tzaddik (righteous man). Although a joke, there is some truth to this statement. As we will discuss in a later chapter, Achav does indeed perform some good deeds. We learn that one can be classified as a Rasha even though he has accomplished some good.37TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) notes that a core idea of the Tanya is that a person that has any kind of temptation but always acts appropriately is classified as a Beinoni (average person). On the other hand, one who lives in a constant state of doing bad and then good is a Rasha, with different levels existing within that title. +The same is true with regard to Shlomo HaMelech. Shlomo HaMelech is rightfully regarded as a Tzaddik in our tradition. However, even individuals classified as Tzaddikim can sin. Indeed, it is Shlomo himself who teaches that “there is not one righteous man on earth who does what is best and does not err” (Kohelet 7:20).38Binyamin Jachter suggests that assuming, as does the predominant view in Chazal, that Shlomo HaMelech composed Kohelet in his later years, Shlomo HaMelech in this Pasuk may be reflecting upon himself. He is someone who is a Tzaddik, he means well and is totally dedicated to Hashem. Yet despite his intentions and frame of mind, he nevertheless commits some serious errors of which Shlomo HaMelech is implicitly admitting in our Pasuk. +Poor Decisions with Pure Intentions +There is no doubt that Shlomo HaMelech makes some poor decisions that result in catastrophe for Am Yisrael. Indeed, the Gemara (Shabbat 56b) teaches: +When Shlomo HaMelech married Paroh’s daughter, the angel Gavriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God’s instrument to punish Israel. +However, we must never lose sight of the fact that Shlomo HaMelech’s intentions are pure. His stated goal, which animates all his actions, is (Melachim I 8:60) for all of the nations of the world to recognize Hashem as the true God and that there is none other than He. While Shlomo HaMelech certainly errs in certain matters, his heart is always in the right place. He is the only king who is described as loving Hashem, and indeed, his love for Hashem is unparalleled. +Thus, we should maintain two views of Shlomo HaMelech. One view is of a well-meaning leader who makes some serious errors. A second equally legitimate perspective is a pristine and pure-hearted leader whose actions remain unsullied. +Sefer Melachim vs. Divrei HaYamim + This is precisely why the Tanach presents two very different portrayals of Shlomo HaMelech. On the one hand, we must bear in mind the Sefer Melachim version of Shlomo HaMelech with all of his flaws and faults. At the same time, we must remember the Divrei HaYamim version which presents a flawless Shlomo HaMelech. +As we have noted earlier, the Torah rejected binary thinking millennia before the western world caught up. The Torah teaches that life does not always consist of black or white choices.39An interesting example is the dual nature of the Jewish calendar. Whereas the Western world hews to a purely solar calendar and Moslems follow a purely lunar calendar, we follow a dual calendar that is both lunar and solar. Sometimes, the Torah teaches that multiple perspectives can be true, even if the multiplicity of ideas generates a paradox. +For example, Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 5) accepts both the existence of divine foreknowledge and human free will, despite the resultant paradox.40Rav David Nachbar (‘96) of TABC is fond of sharing an apt analogy to resolve this difficulty. An individual who watches a film for a second time, despite knowing how it concludes, does not in any way affect the ending. Likewise, Hashem, who is not bound by time, and has already seen us make our choices, in no way affects our ability to make free-willed decisions. Similarly, in the twentieth century, physicists discovered that both Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics were both equally true, despite the resultant paradox. + Likewise, the Torah presents two views of Shlomo HaMelech, and they are both true. On the one hand, we dare not ignore the pure-hearted and crystal clean Shlomo HaMelech that shines forth in Divrei HaYamim. On the other hand, the implicit and explicit criticisms of Shlomo HaMelech in Sefer Melachim must not be ignored. Both versions of Shlomo HaMelech are true and we must draw conclusions from both of them. We must hold Shlomo HaMelech in great esteem, while simultaneously not forgetting about (and learning from) his shortcomings. +Conclusion +Shlomo HaMelech is a Tzaddik who makes some well-intentioned mistakes. Achav, on the other hand, is a Rasha who occasionally acts in harmony with Torah values, as we will detail in a later chapter. Despite his well-meaning intentions, Shlomo HaMelech’s mistakes cause the splitting of his kingdom, and the subsequent proliferation of Avodah Zarah throughout the land. + +Yarav'am ben Nevat and the Splitting of the Kingdom + +Saving Sheivet Binyamin + +10 Plus 1 Does Not Equal 12 +One need not earn a doctorate in mathematics to realize that ten plus one does not equal twelve. Yet, after Achiyah HaShiloni (Melachim I 11:30-32) tears Yarav'am ben Nevat’s41It is a matter of debate as to whether Achiyah tears his own garment or that of Yarav'am (see Radak to Melachim I 11:29). garment into twelve pieces, he tells Yarav'am to take only ten pieces. Achiyah explains that the ten pieces represent the ten Shevatim (tribes) Yarav'am will rule over and that one Sheivet, presumably represented by a remaining piece of the garment, will remain in the control of Shlomo HaMelech’s descendants. What about the twelfth piece? Moreover, two Shevatim come under the rule of Shlomo’s son Rechav’am, Yehudah and Binyamin (Melachim I 12:21). Why is Sheveit Binyamin not addressed in Achiyah’s Nevu’ah? +Radak +Radak resolves both problems in one fell swoop. He explains that Sheivet Yehudah and Sheivet Binyamin are viewed as one Sheivet, since they share the territory of Yerushalayim. Thus, when Achiyah states that one Sheveit will remain in the control of the Davidic dynasty, he means two Shevatim, Yehudah and Binyamin, which are seen as the equivalent of one Sheveit. +Rabbi Nissan Alpert’s Explanation of Radak +Rabbi Nissan Alpert42Brander, Rabbi Asher. “Vayigash: Responsibility - Jewish Style.” Orthodox Union, 30 Oct. 2015, www.ou.org/life/torah/reflections_vayigash_5768_responsibility_jewish_style/. (Limudei Nissan, Parashat VaYigash) qualifies Radak’s unification of Yehudah and Binyamin. In BeReishit 43:9, Yehudah takes responsibility (“Anochi E’ervenu,” “I will personally guarantee him”) for Binyamin. This guarantee transcends the notion of responsibility and also results in the merging of the two brothers’ identities. Thus, Sheivet Yehudah and Sheivet Binyamin can be treated as one cohesive entity. +Areivut, mutual responsibility, in its Halachic depth, bespeaks the notion that the Bnei Yisrael form one entity. This shared identity enables one to fulfill a Mitzvah on someone else’s behalf. For example, I can bless for you, because I am really blessing for me. +The root “Areiv” is used for the first time in Tanach by Yehudah when he offers to become responsible for Binyamin. Yehudah and Binyamin are forged into one unit, a merged spiritual persona with an intertwined destiny. Yaakov’s fears are now allayed because even though Binyamin may not be safe on the road on his own, the new Yehudah-Binyamin composite precludes that possibility. Yehudah stakes his own destiny for Binyamin. Now and forever, they remain together. +Some 750 years later, when the kingdom of Yehudah has torn asunder, the lone tribe that does not defect to the Northern Kingdom is Binyamin. Is it not counterintuitive that only the tribe that lost its monarchy to the Davidic line should be the tribe to remain loyal? Further, consider Sha’ul’s bitter opposition to David’s kingship. Something transcendent must be keeping them together. Rabbi Alpert explains that this continuous connection is a direct result of the Areivut created many years earlier. +Thus, when Achiyah HaShiloni tells Yarav'am that “I have given you ten tribes, and him (Rechav’am, son of Shlomo HaMelech) only one,” he treats Yehudah-Binyamin as a single tribe.43With this notion, Rav Avigdor Neventzahl explains why even though R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish debate whether a city of Israel can be divided between two tribes (Sanhedrin 111b), neither brings as proof the example of Jerusalem, which is divided between Binyamin and Yehudah (Yehoshua 8:16 and 15:8). Note also that the area of the outer altar was on the joint land of Yehudah and Binyamin, even though the actual altar was solely in Binyamin’s territory. We may add that this idea of the merged identity of Sheivet Yehudah and Sheivet Binyamin might be expressed in Megillat Esther’s introduction of Mordechai as both an Ish Yehudi and Ish Yemini, a man of Yehudah and Binyamin (Esther 2:5). +An Alternative Approach to Radak +Together with TABC students, we developed the idea that Nevu’ah (prophecy) is somewhat flexible.44This is expressed by Ashkenazic Jews on the Yamim Nora’im (High Holidays) when they declare that “UTeshuvah, UTefillah UTzedakah Ma’avarin Et Ro’a HaGezeirah,” “repentance, prayer, and charity can overturn an evil decree.” We see that a divine decree is not ironclad, but may be altered by our actions. For example, Yonah informs Nineveh that it will be destroyed in forty days (Yonah 3:4). Yet, it is not destroyed! We do not, of course, assume that Yonah is a false prophet. Rather, Rashi explains, Yonah deliberately uses the term “Nehepachet,” which can either mean “destroyed” or “turned around.” +According to Rashi, Yonah conveys a choice to the people of Nineveh: they can either repent or be destroyed. Hashem leaves it to the people of Nineveh to write their destiny. +Based on the idea of the flexibility of Nevu’ah, we suggest that Achiyah HaShiloni implies to Yarav'am ben Nevat that the twelfth Sheivet is a “swing” Sheivet. Sheivet Binyamin, depending on Yarav'am and Rechav’am’s actions, has the potential to become part of either kingdom. Achiyah deliberately leaves the fate of the twelfth Sheveit vague, since its fate is yet to be determined. In the end, Yarav'am ben Nevat’s poor decision to introduce reforms to Torat Yisrael, and Rechav’am’s righteous adherence to the Navi Shemayah’s instruction to refrain from entering a civil war with Yarav'am, causes Sheivet Binyamin to become part of the Southern Kingdom.45Divrei HaYamim II 11:13-17 records that the Kohanim and Levi’im defected from the Northern Kingdom to the Southern Kingdom in the wake of Yarav'am’s reforms. These Pesukim also record that the members of Am Yisrael who were loyal to traditional Torah values also joined the defecting Levi’im who resettled in the Southern Kingdom. Achiyah’s vague formulation, understood broadly, may communicate that the extent of Yarav'am’s rule depends a great deal on his behavior and that of Rechav’am. Thus, even though Yarav'am ben Nevat believes his religious reforms will preserve his kingdom, they eventually significantly weaken it, as Achiyah HaShiloni forewarns. +Conclusion – Saving Sheivet Binyamin +Sheivet Binyamin survives until this day46The fact that Sheivet Binyamin is one of the very few Shevatim that survives is quite ironic, considering that Sheivet Binyamin very narrowly avoids utter destruction in the terrible civil war instigated by the Pilegesh BeGivah incident (Shofetim 19). (as is evident from Megillat Esther and Sefer Ezra) because Sheivet Yehudah incorporated Sheivet Binyamin into its kingdom. Just as in Sefer BeReishit, Yehudah saves Binyamin, in Sefer Melachim, Sheivet Yehudah continues the pattern and saves Sheivet Binyamin. And, in Megillat Esther, Sheivet Binyamin returns the favor. Mordechai, an Ish Yemini (meaning from Sheivet Binyamin) saves the Yehudim from destruction. After all, the Mishnah (Sotah 1:7 and 1:9) teaches that the way a person treats others is the way they are treated in return. + +Is Rechav'am a Dunce? + +First Impressions +A cursory reading of Melachim I 12 leaves one with the impression that Rechav'am is a fool. While this certainly holds regarding how he handles his inauguration, a more careful examination reveals some exceptionally intelligent decisions and moves made by Rechav'am. +Rechav'am’s Failed Handling of the Inauguration +One need not be a trained political scientist to discern the awful mistakes Rechav'am makes during his inauguration. From his decision to convene the inauguration in the Yosef tribes’ stronghold of Shechem, to expressing a need to wait three days to make what should have been a simple decision to lower taxes, following the foolish advice of his friends to threaten to raise taxes, and finally his inexplicably poor decision to send the head of tax collection to quell the rebellion, every move he makes demonstrates his complete lack of political savvy. As a result, the northern tribes secede, and Rechav'am’s kingdom shrinks. +Rechav'am's Three Intelligent Decisions +Nonetheless, it is overly simplistic to regard Rechav'am as a fool. Rechav'am makes at least three wise decisions that decisively repudiate his status as a dunce. +First, Melachim I 12:20-22 records that Rechav'am assembles a large army to preserve the union of the twelve Shevatim, much as Abraham Lincoln did when he faced the secession of southern states in 1861. However, when Shemayah the Navi instructs him to cease and desist from this effort, Rechav'am immediately complies without hesitation or dissent. Consider the great losses avoided by Rechav'am by this wise decision! More soldiers died, for instance, in the American Civil war than in the rest of all the other American military engagements combined! Rechav'am avoids untold loss of life and devastation by not pursuing a futile effort to reunite the Shevatim. Who knows how many of us Jews today would not have been born had our ancestors perished in such a terrible war. Rechav'am deserves great credit for listening to the Navi and acting in the best interest of Am Yisrael, instead of succumbing to unnecessary and foolish pride. +Second, in Melachim I 14, Rechav'am is faced with an invasion by the Egyptian king Shishak. Once again, Rechav'am heeds the instruction of Shemayah the Navi (as noted in the parallel narrative recorded in Divrei HaYamim II 12) and avoids a military confrontation with the powerful Shishak. Rechav'am's restraint avoids the premature destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. As a result of his capitulation to Shishak, Rechav'am has to endure Shishak's humiliating pillage of the riches of the Beit HaMikdash and royal palace. Once again, Rechav'am places the needs of Am Yisrael ahead of his pride. Rechav'am's restraint is no small matter, especially in light of the contrasting examples in Sefer Melachim. Yoshiyahu, Yehoyakim, and Tzidkiyahu are much later Judean kings who bring about personal and national ruin due to their refusal to heed prophetic warnings to avoid a military confrontation. +Finally, Divrei HaYamim II 11 describes Rechav'am's successful efforts to build and fortify the cities of Yehudah. He even manages to oversee two Shevatim defecting from the northern secession and rejoining his kingdom, Binyamin and Levi. All in all, it seems that Rechav'am is not at all a fool. Indeed, it would be utterly shocking to find the son of Shlomo Hamelech to be a complete fool. Kohelet 2:18-19, which speaks of the author’s son as a fool, speaks hypothetically and does not describe reality, as noted by Da’at Mikra ad. loc. +Explaining Rechav'am's Foolish Behavior at the Inauguration +So how do we explain Rechav'am's extraordinarily foolish behavior at his inauguration? The answer seems quite straightforward and obvious from Melachim I 12:15, “VeLo Shama HaMelech El Ha’Am Ki Hayetah Sibah Mei’Im Hashem LeMa’an Hakim Et Devaro Asher Dibeir Hashem BeYad Achiyah HaShiloni El Yarav’am ben Nevat,” “The king [Rechav'am] did not listen to the people for it was a design from Hashem, in order to fulfill His word that Hashem had spoken through the hand of Achiyah the Shilonite to Yarav’am the son of Nevat [to split the kingdom as a punishment to Shlomo HaMelech].” +The idea that Hashem manipulates the actions of a king is hardly unique to Rechav'am. Hashem manipulates the heart of Paroh, Sichon, and even Shlomo HaMelech (to bring about the punishment accorded to the descendants of Eili the Kohein, see Melachim I 2:27). Hashem clearly manipulates the heart of Haman and Achashveirosh in Megillat Esther. Indeed, Mishlei 21:1 states “Lev Melech BeYad Hashem,” “the king’s heart is in the hands of Hashem.” +Modern Day Examples +There are numerous examples, even in the modern-day, of Hashem manipulating otherwise highly intelligent leaders. There have been numerous instances when foolish Arab intransigence has benefitted the Jewish State. Examples that stand out are Yasser Arafat’s rejection of Ehud Barak’s extremely generous peace offer at Camp David in 2000, and President Clinton’s even more generous proposal in December 2000, as well as Hafez al-Assad’s rejection of Barak’s offer of 99% of the Golan Heights in 1999. These proposals and the Arab rejections are documented at length with pictures of the original maps in The Missing Peace by Dennis Ross. The ceding of the Golan Heights specifically would have created a grave danger to Israel during the instability in Syria fifteen years after Assad’s rejection. Had the Mufti of Jerusalem accepted the 1937 Peel Partition Plan, Arabs would have controlled more than three-quarters of Eretz Yisrael. Finally, had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the very large Arab population in the Jewish State which comprised of very large families easily would have outnumbered the Jews, and the Arabs would have assumed control of Israel by democratic means in a decade or less. +Another example is noted by historian Paul Johnson (Commentary Magazine, May 1998): +Another paradoxical aspect of the Zionist miracle, which we certainly did not grasp at the time and which is insufficiently understood even now, is that among the founding fathers of Israel was Joseph Stalin. Stalin had no love for Jews; quite the contrary, he murdered them whenever it suited his purposes. In his last phase, indeed, he was becoming increasingly paranoid; had he lived, he might well have carried out an extermination program rivaling Hitler’s. Moreover, like Lenin before him, Stalin had always opposed Zionism. He did so not only as a Great Russian imperialist but as a Marxist, and he was consistent on the matter up to the end of World War II and again from 1950 to his death in 1953. But during the crucial years 1947-48, he was guided by temporary considerations of Realpolitik, and specifically by what he saw as the threat of British imperialism. +Stalin ignorantly supposed that the way to undermine Britain’s position in the Middle East was to support the Jews, not the Arabs, and he backed Zionism in order to break the “British stranglehold.” Not only did he extend diplomatic recognition to Israel but, in order to intensify the fighting and the consequent chaos, he instructed the Czech government to sell it arms. The Czechs turned over an entire military airfield to shuttle weaponry to Tel Aviv; the Messerschmitt aircraft they supplied were of particular importance. Then, in mid-August 1948, Stalin decided he had made a huge error in judgment, and the obedient Czech government ordered a halt to the airlift within 48 hours. But by then the war had effectively been won. +Finally, King Hussein of Jordan was a wise leader who ruled Jordan from 1953 until his death in 1999. Hussein shrewdly overcame many existential threats to Jordan, as well as numerous assassination attempts. Israelis are fond of saying that King Hussein of Jordan made only two mistakes: attacking Israel in 1967, and refraining from invading Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Israel barely survived a two-front attack by Egypt and Syria. Israel, which was woefully unprepared for the 1973 war, likely would not have survived if it was also attacked by Jordan. +This behavior is eerily reminiscent of the behavior of Nachash, the king of Ammon (note that the Jordanian capital is the ancient city of Amman), who attacks the Bnei Yisrael and is defeated during Sha’ul’s rise to power (Shemuel I 11). Nachash, however, fails to attack when Sha’ul’s forces are utterly destroyed in Shemuel I 28. +Conclusion +Unfortunately, unlike his grandfather David HaMelech, Rechav'am does not distinguish himself as a Tzadik. However, it is woefully inaccurate and superficial to characterize Rechav'am as a fool. He is a wise king, who consistently makes difficult and wise decisions, from which the Bnei Yisrael greatly benefit. His stunningly foolish decisions at his inauguration represent an aberration that emerges solely as a result of divine intervention. Indeed, a telltale sign of Hashem’s subtle hand intervening in human affairs is when an otherwise wise leader acts in an extraordinarily foolish manner. Regarding Rechav'am we may apply the words of Yeshayahu HaNavi: “Meishiv Chachamim Achor VeDa’atam Yisakeil,” “He [Hashem] makes wise people act foolishly” (Yeshayahu 44:25). + +Yarav'am's Religious Reforms + +The Worst Jew +The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:2) makes a stunning assertion: only three Jewish kings do not have a portion in Olam HaBa (the World to Come) — Yarav'am ben Nevat, Achav, and Menashe. Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 5:12) takes the Mishnah a step further and depicts Yarav'am ben Nevat as a paradigm of the worst Jew ever. What dastardly deeds does Yarav'am ben Nevat do to deserve such severe condemnation? +The Secession +Most people would answer that Chazal adopt such a harsh view of Yarav'am because he leads the secession of ten Shevatim from the Malchut Beit David, Davidic dynasty. However, this is a very erroneous presumption. In fact, Yarav'am is fully justified, and even divinely mandated, to foment dissension and lead the formation of a rival kingdom in the north. As stated clearly in Melachim I 11, the Navi Achiyah HaShiloni directs Yarav'am to lead the secession. Achiyah presents the secession to Yarav'am as a non-negotiable fait accompli. +Interestingly, the Malbim writes that Achiyah does not merely pronounce the secession, but also dramatizes it by tearing the garment to demonstrate the inevitability of the breakoff (Melachim I 11:30). The Malbim asserts that any Nevu’ah accompanied by an action will always actualize and is not subject to negotiation or change. +Yarav'am’s Reforms +Rather, the profoundly wicked characterization of Yarav'am stems from the deviant enactments he establishes after he becomes king over the Northern Kingdom, as described in Melachim I 12:26-33. Yarav'am creates two forbidden alternatives to the Beit HaMikdash— one in Beit El and one in Dan.47Yarav'am’s altar in Dan has been excavated and is available for viewing. Moreover, he permits everyone, even non-Kohanim, to serve on these illicit altars. Yarav'am also makes two golden calves at the Beit El and Dan sites, and orders that Sukkot be observed on the fifteenth of Marcheshvan. According to Chazal, Yarav'am even erects barriers to prevent the northern Bnei Yisrael from visiting Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash. +Yarav'am’s Motivations +Melachim I 12:26-27 states that Yarav'am fears that he will be perceived as an illegitimate ruler if the northern Bnei Yisrael will visit the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim, the capital of the Southern Kingdom. Rashi notes that only Davidic royalty was permitted to sit in the Azarah (Temple courtyard). Rashi also notes that only kings from the Davidic line would read the Torah during the once in seven-year Hakheil ceremony. Thus, Yarav'am is unable to sit in the Azarah and will be perceived as an illegitimate king. This leads Yarav'am to create alternatives to the Beit HaMikdash, in order for his alternative kingdom to remain viable and survive. +From a purely secular and pragmatic perspective, Yarav'am’s assessment is perceptive and astute. However, from a religious-spiritual perspective, it is completely off-base. After all, Achiyah HaShiloni promises that Yarav'am’s rule is divinely mandated and guaranteed (Melachim I 11:37). Thus, Yarav'am’s alternative altars are completely unnecessary. Furthermore, it is quite likely that Hashem orders Achiyah HaShiloni to reveal His plan to Yarav'am so that the latter does not deem it necessary to create alternative temples to protect the legitimacy of his reign. Unfortunately, Yarav'am does not get the message. We make similar potentially disastrous mistakes when we fail to balance our pragmatic calculations with the values expressed in the Torah. +Tragically, Yarav'am is so obsessed with his honor and prestige of position, that he is unable to refrain from creating these alternative centers. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 102a) presents Yarav'am’s calculations most dramatically: +The Pasuk states: “And after this matter, Yarav'am did not return from his evil way” (Melachim I 13:33). To what event is the verse alluding, when it states: “After this matter”? R. Abba says: It is after the Holy One, Blessed be He, grabbed Yarav'am by his garment, and said to him: Repent, and you and I and the son of Yishai (i.e. Rechav’am ben Shlomo) will stroll together in the Garden of Eden. Yarav'am said to Him: Who will walk in the lead? Hashem said to Yarav'am: The son of Yishai will walk in the lead. Yarav'am said: If so, I do not wish to repent.48Translation adapted from The William Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.102a.17. +Chazal’s stunning anecdote portrays Yarav'am as an individual who places his honor above all and is ready and willing to destroy himself and everyone around him in pursuit of preserving his honor. Yarav'am is promised by Achiyah that his kingdom will last forever if he honors the words of the Torah. Granted, he would have played a secondary role in the Beit HaMikdash, but his rule would have been preserved. We could and should have remained one people with one Torah, with one religious center in Yerushalayim, under two political entities. Tragically, as a result of his pursuit of honor, every male in Yarav'am’s line is eventually eliminated by Ba’asha, and the Northern Kingdom is led down a spiritually ruinous path. +Convincing the Northern Bnei Yisrael +Ralbag (Melachim I 12:28) wonders how Yarav'am manages to convince the northern Bnei Yisrael to accept these dramatic changes. We suggest that he follows the pattern set by Paroh, as explained by Ramban (Shemot 1:10), who did not immediately introduce the full oppression of our ancestors. +Rather, Paroh gradually introduced the changes, so that the Egyptian populace would accept them. Hitler, may his evil name be blotted out, used the same strategy. He did not introduce the murderous concentration camps upon his election in 1933. Rather, he slowly habituated the German populace to degrading and oppressing the Jewish nation. It is reasonable to assume that Yarav'am also gradually introduces his reforms slowly and steadily, to the point when the Bnei Yisrael eventually accept them. As shocking as it is to learn that a large portion of the Bnei Yisrael actually accept Yarav'am’s radical moves, such is the potential power of a charismatic leader who leads his followers down a path of self-destruction. +The Spiritual Impact of Yarav'am’s Reforms +As Melachim I 12:30 notes, “VeYehi HaDavar HaZeh LeChatat,” “and this matter became a sin.” In other words, Yarav’am’s reforms lead to spiritual catastrophe. According to the Metzudat David (ad. loc.),49The matter is subject to an intense debate among the Rishonim. Yarav'am first directs the aberrant service to Hashem; however, the service eventually (presumably during the time of Achav) devolves into outright Avodah Zarah. As noted in Melachim I 19, during Achav’s reign, barely seven thousand of the northern Bnei Yisrael are not devoted to Avodah Zarah. +Eventually, the northern Jews were exiled from Eretz Yisrael by the Assyrians, and they subsequently assimilated into the surrounding culture. The Gemara (Megillah 14b) relates that Yirmiyahu HaNavi went to retrieve them after the fall of the Assyrian empire, during the reign of Yoshiyahu.50See the later chapter, “Why Chuldah?” Unfortunately, he only succeeded in retrieving a small number of them. +By contrast, although Avodah Zarah was also a problem in the southern kingdom of Yehudah, it was far less pervasive. Thus, many Yehudim retained their Jewish identity in Exile since they had not been thoroughly immersed in idolatry while living in Eretz Yisrael. +Conclusion +Tragically, Chazal (Avot 5:18) characterize Yarav'am ben Nevat as the paradigmatic Chotei UMachati, one who sins and causes others to sin. Yarav'am entirely unnecessary reforms lead to the loss of the northern Bnei Yisrael’s Jewish identity. In other words, Yarav'am ben Nevat initiates the process that leads to the loss of the Jewish identity of approximately half of Am Yisrael. It is difficult to think of someone who inflicted as much spiritual damage as Yarav'am ben Nevat did to Am Yisrael. Chazal teach that Yarav'am began as a Torah scholar (Sanhedrin 102a). Unfortunately, due to his desire to preserve his honor, he led so many astray from the Torah. Thus, we understand why Rambam classifies Yarav'am as “the worst Rasha ever.” +Postscript +Israeli Orthodox Bible scholar Dr. Y.M. Grintz refers to Yarav'am as the first religious reformer amongst Am Yisrael. Tragically, he is not the last. The Sadducees, Karaites, Reform and Conservative movements followed in Yarav'am’s inglorious footsteps. Each of these movements enjoyed great success for a while, but eventually succumbed or is deep into the process of succumbing to the dustbin of history. It is proven time and time again that only profound reverence for and thorough commitment to the traditions of Am Yisrael preserves the Jewish identity for the long term. For example, it is well known that in 1988, when the Reform movement’s flagship Temple Emanuel of New York celebrated its one-hundredth birthday, it sought to identify and invite the descendants of its founders. To their surprise and chagrin, they discovered that not a single descendant of the original members continued to identify as Jewish. +Wise individuals who are committed to Jewish continuity should soberly reflect on this well-established pattern. As Mishlei 1:5 teaches, “Yishma Chacham, VeYosef Lekach,” let the wise reflect and learn a profoundly important lesson. + +Yarav'am Encounters the Ish Elokim and the Old "Navi" + +A Perplexing Perek +Melachim I 13 is one of the most unusual and perplexing of Perakim in all of Tanach. We will try to disentangle some of the perplexities, and arrive at an understanding of the big picture as well as some of the details. +Six Open Miracles +Ramban, in his celebrated comments at the conclusion to his commentary to Parashat Bo, makes the obvious observation that Hashem does not make open miracles before every Rasha (evildoer) in each generation. The question then emerges as to why Hashem orchestrates no less than six open miracles (Nissim Geluyim; violations of the laws of nature) in what appears to be an effort to dissuade Yarav'am ben Nevat from his path of serious deviation from the Torah way. Why does Yarav'am, more than almost any other Rasha, deserve such special treatment, and “merit” such an effort from Hashem? +One answer might be that Yarav'am is a Rasha poised to cause damage on an unprecedented scale. His “reforms,” as we explained earlier, set the Northern Kingdom on a path that will cut them off from Jewish eternity. This is especially true because Yarav'am is the first king of Malchut Yisrael; the first always sets the tone for those who follow. Eight tribes are eventually lead astray and lost to Am Yisrael primarily due to the policies and projects of the misguided Yarav'am. It is a juncture of enormous import, and through His unprecedented intervention, Hashem offers incontrovertible evidence and motivation for Yarav'am to change his path. Alas, as Melachim I 13 concludes, despite all of these extraordinary measures, Yarav'am is not moved and stubbornly clings to his destructive path. +Another explanation is that Yarav'am, as Da’at Mikra notes, is the first reformer to hold a major leadership position in Israel.51Korach is also a reformer, but he does not hold a significant position of influence. Perhaps the lessons taught to Yarav'am are also directed to the many destructive reformers who will misguidedly follow his path throughout the generations.52TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) offers an answer based on the fact that Hashem explicitly grants Yarav'am his kingship (see Melachim I 11:29-39). This divine communication is how Yarav'am knows to assume power and is also why the people of northern Israel support him. Given its divine mandate, Malchut Yisrael should not start off with an evildoer as its head. Malchut Yehudah is firmly rooted in the Davidic line— a line that bespeaks the righteous nature of the kingdom. How could Malchut Yisrael ever be a righteous kingdom if it does not have a pure source from which to draw? +Melachim I 13:9 — No Eating! +Why does Hashem forbid the Ish Elokim from Yehudah to eat with Yarav'am ben Nevat and anyone from the Northern Kingdom? This is a peculiar prohibition that does not seem to fit with any Torah prohibition. Moreover, why does its violation result in a gruesome death for the Ish Elokim? Why does eating with the Navi Sheker entail such a dramatic and severe punishment? +Radak explains that one who visits a city of deviationist worship of Hashem is permitted to deliver his message and then leave. Ralbag adds that by not eating, the Ish Elokim from Yehudah communicates that there is no benefit to be derived from the Northern Kingdom since they and their institutions will all eventually perish and face utter destruction. In other words, the Ish Elokim sends a message by refraining from eating: if the Northern Kingdom maintains its current path, it is destined to become an Ir HaNidachat (wayward city, see Devarim 13). The Ish Elokim, in turn, treats Yarav'am’s kingdom as if it is already an Ir HaNidachat. +One may add another layer to these classic explanations by asking why Yarav'am ben Nevat and later the Navi Sheker (false prophet) are so eager for the Ish Elokim to eat with them. The Navi Sheker is aware of his fraudulence and seeks validation from the Ish Elokim. Indeed, the false prophet tells the Ish Elokim “Gam Ani Navi Kamocha,” “I am also a prophet like you” (Melachim I 13:18). Similarly, once Yarav'am realizes that he is unable to eradicate the Ish Elokim, he tries to receive validation from him by inviting him to dine with him as an equal.53Similarly, in the mid-1980s, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein permitted me to attend a non-observant relative’s Bar Mitzvah held in a Conservative congregation, provided that I would not participate in the services. +Now we might be able to more fully grasp the import and severity of the divine command to refrain from eating with anyone from the Northern Kingdom. The Ish Elokim is on a mission to offer Mussar. He dares not communicate a contradictory message which would undermine and reverse his intended message. The stakes, as we explained, are extraordinarily high, and thus the prohibition and its subsequent violation are both treated severely. +The Severe Punishment of the Ish Elokim from Yehudah +Perhaps one of the most difficult questions that arise from Melachim I 13 is why Hashem severely punishes the Ish Elokim, and not the old “Navi.”54The old “Navi” is described as a Navi despite his being, as noted by all of the commentaries led by Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel and Rashi, a Navi Sheker, because he presents himself as a Navi. In addition, he does actually receive a Nevu’ah during this episode. This was necessary because, as noted by theMalbim (Melachim I 13:20), someone needs to tell over the real reason for the unusual death of the Ish Elokim. Ralbag (Melachim I 13:18) explains that it is necessary for the Ish Elokim to hear the Mussar (rebuke) from the Navi Sheker. Ralbag compares Hashem’s communication with the false Navi to His placing of His spirit upon Bila’am to present an important message that requires Bila’am’s conveyance (BeMidbar 22). After all, the true “villain” of the story is the false Navi who misleads the Ish Elokim.55Binyamin Jachter notes that is possible that the Navi is an actual Navi that has not received Nevu’ah for years. By bringing the Ish Elokim near him, the old Navi hopes to regain his Nevu’ah, as seen by Sha’ul (Shemuel I 9:10-11). Proximity to a Navi can trigger Nevu’ah. As the old Navi has only positive intentions, he does not deserve a gruesome punishment. The Ish Elokim might not exercise the best judgment by allowing himself to be duped by the wiles of the false Navi,56Ralbag (Melachim I 13:18) explains that the Ish Elokim compares this situation to Akeidat Yitzchak, where Hashem sends a Malach to communicate a change in plan. However, Ralbag notes that the comparison is erroneous since, at the Akeidah, the Malach merely explains the original communication from Hashem. The Malach explains that “VeHa’aleihu,” “and offer him” (part of the initial instruction, see BeReishit 22:2) refers to only placing Yitzchak on the Mizbei’ach, but not to actually slaughter and offer him as a Korban. In Melachim I 13, however, the Navi Sheker “communicates” a complete reversal of Hashem’s directive, something that Hashem would never do. “Lo Yachalif HaKeil VeLo Yamir Dato,” “Hashem will never amend nor exchange His law for any other”— one of the thirteen principles of faith is that Hashem does not change His Mitzvot. but why does he deserve to meet such a horrible death? +Ralbag answers that the false Navi and the rest of northern Israel are so bad that Hashem completely disengages from them and does not even bother punishing them. Only those on a higher level deserve the attention from Hashem to be punished. This is comparable to when two children who act poorly and the parents punish only the child who they think has some hope for improvement. +We may add that although the Ish Elokim does not succeed in changing the direction of the Northern Kingdom, he does have a great impact on the Jews of the Southern Kingdom. The message of his gruesome death is an exceedingly crucial message for the Jews of the south. It communicates the severe consequences for those who deviate from Hashem’s Mitzvot. +Three thousand years of Jewish history make it crystal clear that deviationist groups do not withstand the test of time. Only the Jews that retain complete fidelity to Hashem’s Mitzvot survive as Jews in the long term. The eventual spiritual demise of the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom is the first example of this phenomenon in our history. Many of the Jews of the Southern Kingdom remain as Jews even after their exile from Eretz Yisrael. This is not at all the case regarding the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom. The difference lies in the fact that the northern Bnei Yisrael at first deviate from Mitzvot and then eventually slide into idolatry in later generations. Although Avodah Zarah is also a problem in the Southern Kingdom, to the extent that the Exile is warranted, many remain faithful, especially since an alternative Judaism is never established. +The horrific death of the Ish Elokim from Yehudah, we submit, serves as a sobering and stern warning of the consequences for those who believe that Hashem has changed His mind. It was a warning heeded by pious Jews throughout the centuries and millennia. For example, it served as a reminder to Am Yisrael to withstand the pressure of those members of the Christian community who struggled mightily and in vain to convince Am Yisrael that Hashem had, Chas VeShalom, changed His mind and presented a “New Testament.” During the early and mid-twentieth century in North America, the story served as succor and support for those who clung to Orthodox Judaism even at a time when Reform and Conservative Judaism were on the rise, and the demise of Orthodox Judaism loomed large. However, by the end of the twentieth century, the faithful were vindicated, as the deviationist groups begin to collapse, and the Orthodox community had made considerable progress to be restored to its former greatness. + Many feel that Judaism will only continue to prosper if we accept changes to our tradition. On the contrary, the only hope for Jewish survival is by remaining completely faithful to the values and traditions of our ancestors. That which is borne out by our story and centuries of Jewish history is once again corroborated by a Nishma Research study,57“The Nishma Research Profile of American Modern Orthodox Jews.” Nishma Research, 28 Sept. 2017, www.nishmaresearch.com. especially the portion of the study that demonstrates that children of the more liberal or open strands of the Modern Orthodox denomination are becoming less observant. There is abundant anecdotal evidence to strongly support the findings of the Nishma study. +The Stunning Scene of the Lion and the Donkey +Both Ralbag (Melachim I 13:24) and the Malbim (Melachim I 13:26, s.v. VaYedabru Ba’Ir and VaYineihu) explain the stunning scene of the lion and the donkey at the end of Melachim I 13 as a means to clarify beyond any reasonable doubt that the Ish Elokim’s death is not happenstance, but rather conveys a message of profound importance from Hashem. Ralbag explains that Hashem hopes that Yarav'am will derive a lesson and change his ways. We suggest that Hashem has little hope for Yarav'am, as noted by Ralbag (Melachim I 13:9). Rather, the message is primarily directed to the Jews of the south to hold firm, and not follow the example of their brethren in the Northern Kingdom. The terrible outcome of the Ish Elokim from Yehudah serves as a potent warning to Am Yisrael to not follow in the deviationist manner of the Northern Kingdom. +Conclusion +The famous author Leo Tolstoy is reported to have remarked about the Jews: “He is the one who for so long had guarded the prophetic message and transmitted it to all mankind.” A people such as this can never disappear. The Jew is eternal. He is the embodiment of eternity." Tolstoy is completely correct in his evaluation of our people. Our survival as a people is a miracle that occurs because we are bearers of the prophetic tradition. Therefore, only those who faithfully bear the prophetic tradition merit to be included in this miraculous survival in the long term. Melachim I 13 makes this point abundantly clear in the starkest terms possible. +Melachim I 13 concludes that Yarav'am stubbornly resists the messages conveyed throughout the entire chapter. May we have the wisdom and intellectual/emotional fortitude and honesty to not follow in the footsteps of Yarav'am ben Nevat. + +Shishak Attacks Yarav'am; Tanach and Archaeology + +The Inscription +On the southern wall of the impressive temple of Amon in Karnak, Egypt, is an inscription about the military campaigns of King Shishak, a Pharaoh of Libyan origin who ruled between 935-914 BCE. The inscription describes a heavy military blow dealt to tens of cities both in the Southern and Northern Kingdoms of Israel, ruled at that point by Rechav'am ben Shlomo and Yarav’am ben Nevat, respectively. +Archeologists have been puzzled as to why Shishak would attack his friend Yarav’am, as Sefer Melachim records that Shishak shelters Yarav’am during his years of exile (Melachim I 11:40). Moreover, why does Tanach record only Shishak’s attack on the Southern Kingdom (Melachim I 14:25-28), and not his attacks on the Northern Kingdom? +Rejection of Potential Solutions +Contradictions between Tanach and archaeological evidence can sometimes be resolved by questioning the validity of the archaeological evidence. Ancient kings recorded their own version of their achievements and were hardly objective historians. They were loath to record their failings, and sometimes exaggerated their victories. Thus, one could in theory argue that Shishak inflated his exploits in Eretz Yisrael, and recorded that he invaded northern Israel when in fact he did not. This, however, is not a viable approach, since part of a stele (monument) celebrating Shishak’s victory in northern Israel was discovered in Megiddo, a strategically-located fortress in Israel’s Yizre’el Valley. +Another approach can be based on the fact that Tanach, simply put, is not a history book. Sefer Melachim, for example, often refers to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah or the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel58These lost sources should not be confused with Divrei HaYamim in Tanach, which was written during the Second Temple period. for a full description of the lives of the various kings it discusses. Thus, one could argue that Tanach does not record Shishak’s invasion of northern Israel simply because it does not seek to present a full description of all the events that occurred during Yarav’am ben Nevat’s reign. +This approach is also unsound because our problem is not simply Tanach’s omission of Shishak’s invasion of northern Israel. Our fundamental problem is that Tanach presents Shishak as a friend of Yarav’am ben Nevat, but the inscription on the Karnak temple presents Shishak as his enemy. +The Solution of Professor Yehuda Elitzur +Professor Yehuda Elitzur, a highly-respected Orthodox Jewish Bible scholar, presents an interesting theory to resolve this problem.59Dr. Elitzur’s Hebrew language essay on this topic appears on the website of Israel’s Herzog College; we include part of Rabbi Alex Israel’s presentation of Dr. Elitzur’s approach in an English language essay that appears on the website of Yeshivat Har Etzion. He suggests that Shishak anticipates that Yarav’am will ally with him in his attack of Rechav'am’s Yehudah region, after Yarav’am leads the secession of the northern ten Shevatim from Rechav'am’s kingdom (Melachim I 12). The plan is orchestrated as a joint military campaign. +However, Rechav'am (on prophetic advice from Shemayah the Navi; see Melachim I 12 and Divrei HaYamim II 12) resists avenging Yarav’am's rebellion and acquiesces to the split of his kingdom (see Melachim I 12:22-24). After Rechav'am's lack of hostility, Yarav’am can hardly muster popular support for an attack on Yehudah. He has no reason or motive to attack; he is ironically beholden to Rechav’am for his kingdom. +Moreover, Yarav’am understands that he dare not force his subjects to fight an unpopular war. Yarav’am knows that the northern tribes’ secession derived from Shlomo HaMelech overburdening the people with unpopular building projects. Thus, he cannot afford to ignore public sentiment, as public sentiment is what put him in a position of power in the first place. In general, new regimes, as opposed to well-established dynasties, must be particularly sensitive to public sentiment.60As noted by TABC alumnus Jeremy Doberman (‘06). +Hence, Professor Elitzur suggests that Yarav’am lets Shishak down by abandoning their collective plan to decimate Yehudah. Yarav’am refuses to go to war against Yehudah. As a response, Shishak unleashes his fury against Yehudah (and plunders the wealth accumulated by Shlomo HaMelech, as recorded both in Sefer Melachim and the inscription at Karnak), but fails to strike a knockout blow to the Southern Kingdom. He harms them, but does not destroy them. His real fury is channeled against Yarav’am’s kingdom, who betrays him by backtracking on their previous agreement. +This explains some of the politics. Still, it leaves us with a further question: Why is the attack on Yarav’am’s kingdom not even mentioned in Tanach? +The depiction of the conflict in Sefer Melachim is ahistorical, as if it deliberately omits the great military events, and puts the entire emphasis upon the Beit HaMikdash. The most reasonable explanation to solve this problem is that the purpose of the transmission of the story is not to report historical events, however important they may be, but to teach spiritual lessons.61Professor Avraham Grossman of Hebrew University is a proponent of this theory. It appears that the Tanach understands historical events within the context of its conception of reward and punishment. Shishak's attack on Yerushalayim is described because it punishes the people of Yehudah for their idolatry (see Melachim I 14:22-26). +A variation of this approach is that Tanach records Shishak’s attack on Yerushalayim not only to record the punishment for Yehudah’s idolatry, but also to celebrate Rechav'am’s wise and righteous decisions in heeding the advice of Shemayah the Navi, avoiding a civil war with Yarav’am ben Nevat, and yielding to the power of Shishak. By doing so, Rechav'am avoids the premature destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. This contrasts sharply with later kings of Yehudah, such as Yoshiyahu, Yehoyakim, and Tzidkiyahu, who eventually end up losing the Beit HaMikdash for their failure to obey the directives of Yirmiyahu HaNavi to avoid confrontation with a superpower (as recorded in Sefer Melachim and Sefer Yirmiyahu). +Moreover, it teaches that Shlomo HaMelech’s ill-advised alliance with Paroh leads to the near destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, and the loss of much of his accumulated wealth. Shishak, the founder of a new Egyptian dynasty (see Radak and Da’at Mikra to Melachim I 11:40), views Shlomo as an enemy, since Shlomo was a friend of his enemy, the previous Paroh. +However, Shishak’s invasion of the Northern Kingdom only damages, rather than destroys, Yarav’am’s kingdom. Since Yarav’am is portrayed as a wicked man of the highest order, perhaps Sefer Melachim does not mention Shishak’s damage to northern Israel because it does not represent adequate punishment for Yarav’am’s misdeeds, whereas Shishak’s damage of Yehudah is recorded since it represents adequate punishment for their idolatry. Sefer Melachim does record the destruction of all of the males of Yarav’am’s family, since this is a just consequence of his evil actions.62TABC alumnus Jared Mayer (‘13) notes that this phenomenon is somewhat similar to the Halachic principle of Kam Lei BiDeRabah Mineih; meaning, if one performed two sins simultaneously, Beit Din administers only the harsher punishment. Similarly, Tanach only records the harsher punishment meted out by Hashem to Yarav’am. +It is possible, though, that Sefer Melachim alludes to the conflict between Yarav’am and Shishak. In its concluding statement about Yarav’am (Melachim I 14:18), it refers to the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel that describes the events and the battles fought by Yarav’am. The parallel concluding statement about Rechav’am (Melachim I 14:29) refers to a full recounting of Rechav’am’s life events in the Chronicles of the Kings of Yehudah, but not to the battles he fought. The difference might emerge from the fact that Yarav’am confronted Shishak, whereas Rechav’am was passive and did not fight back. +An Alternative to Professor Elitzur’s Approach +We suggest an alternative to Professor Elitzur’s reconstruction of the relationship between Shishak and Yarav’am ben Nevat. One should hardly be shocked at a king attacking a former ally. Many have observed that “nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests.” Adolf Hitler’s (Yemach Shemo, may his name be erased) alliance with Joseph Stalin (Yemach Shemo) to jointly invade Poland in 1939, and the Nazis’ subsequent invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 is one well-known illustration of this behavior. Hitler allied with Stalin when he felt it was in his interest to do so, and then attacked him when he felt it was in his best interest to do so. +Shishak wishes to plunder the wealth Shlomo HaMelech accumulates in Yerushalayim. Shishak, however, fears attacking a united (and therefore mighty) Israel. Shishak determines that his only hope to take the gold is to weaken Israel by supporting Yarav’am ben Nevat, who is determined to split Israel into two kingdoms. Thus, Shishak shelters Yarav’am when the latter escapes from Shlomo HaMelech, since Yarav’am’s revolt will facilitate the achievement of his goals in the south. +However, once Shishak plunders the Southern Kingdom’s gold, his alliance with Yarav’am becomes entirely unnecessary. Instead, Shishak sets his sights on the Yizre’el Valley, which runs through Yarav’am’s kingdom, since the international trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia runs through this valley. One who controls the trade route has the ability to increase his wealth, and this seems to be Shishak’s goal. Shishak is easily able to defeat Yarav’am’s kingdom and assume control of the international trade route, since the once united and mighty Israelite nation is now split and weakened. Indeed, the inscription on the Karnak temple mentions many key Yizre’el Valley locations attacked by Shishak, such as Megiddo and Beit She’an. +Conclusion +Understood properly, the archaeological record regarding Shishak hardly undermines the Tanach. Instead, it specifically augments our understanding of the events described and alluded to by Sefer Melachim, and enriches our appreciation of the goals of Sefer Melachim when we learn of the events the divinely inspired Navi chose not to include in Sefer Melachim. + +Underappreciated Asa + +Introduction +We do not accord sufficient credit to Asa Melech Yehudah (Melachim I 15). His reign consists of forty-one years of solid leadership, marked by complete fidelity to Hashem. Sefer Melachim even accords Asa its greatest accolade— a favorable comparison to his great-great-grandfather David HaMelech! +Ridding Yehudah of Avodah Zarah +Asa is likely responsible for the survival of Torah life. For the first time in three generations, Yehudah is led by a king who does not tolerate Avodah Zarah. Asa even destroys the Avodah Zarah of his mother or grandmother (see Radak to Melachim I 15:10), and removes her from her position as the queen mother. +‘Asa’ means healer or physician in Aramaic. Had he not removed the cancerous Avodah Zarah, Torah likely would not have lasted more than a few more generations, and Yehudah would have headed in the same disastrous direction as Malchut Yisrael. In other words, Asa should be credited with the continuation of Am Yisrael’s Torah identity. +Failure to Remove the Bamot +With all these wonderful accolades, one gnawing question persists. If Asa is such a great king, why does he fail to remove the Bamot? Moreover, although Bamot are the bane of Sefer Melachim, the Navi does not even hint at any form of criticism towards Asa for his failure to remove them. Two other great kings of Sefer Melachim, Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu, eliminate Bamot and merit a positive comparison to David HaMelech. Why does Asa not do the same? +It appears that none of the classic commentaries address this issue, and we must, therefore, search for an answer on our own. One may suggest that Asa chooses his battles wisely. He determines that he can successfully rid Yehudah of Avodah Zarah since the people fundamentally recognize that it is a severe Torah violation. However, the elimination of Bamot is a far more ambitious and difficult “sell.”63As we explained in an earlier chapter, “Bad Bamot.” Thus, Asa concedes that while he can successfully eliminate the Avodah Zarah from Yehudah, the elimination of the Bamot is too drastic of an action, and will likely result in a negative backlash. +Comparison to Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu +Most interestingly, Asa successfully transmits his commitment to Hashem to his son Yehoshafat. Throughout his twenty-five year reign, Yehoshafat remains devoted to Hashem. +This stands in sharp contrast to Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu, whose sons do not follow in the path of their illustrious fathers. In fact, Chizkiyahu’s son is none other than the miserable Rasha, Menashe. Perhaps the tenacious position Chizkiyahu assumes in eliminating both Avodah Zarah and Bamot unleashes a terrible backlash in the form of Menashe’s reign of idolatrous terror. Yoshiyahu’s son Yehoyakim, while not as terrible as Menashe, is also a leading Rasha64As described at length in Sefer Yirmiyahu. who continues along Menashe’s ruinous path to the Churban (Melachim II 23:34-36). +The contrast with Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu serves to vindicate Asa HaMelech. On the other hand, we must note that Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu set a high standard that is fully honored in the time of Bayit Sheini. Had these two great kings adopted Asa’s moderate path, the proper standard of observance never would have been set. +This dilemma of tolerating lesser Aveirot persists until this day. For example, every congregational rabbi would love, in theory, to take a tough stand and eliminate all idle conversation during Tefillah. However, adopting too harsh a stance may trigger very negative reactions. On the other hand, when a rabbi tolerates a degree of improper talking in a Beit Kenesset, he fails to communicate an important Torah value to the community. +Comparison to Yehoshafat +Yehoshafat ben Asa, who also follows in his father’s footsteps, does not eliminate the Bamot, as recorded at the end of Melachim I 22. He does remove the remnants of Avodah Zarah in Yehudah but does not eliminate the Bamot. Interestingly, there is a subtle difference in the manner in which Sefer Melachim records Asa and Yehoshafat’s failures to remove the Bamot: + +Regarding Asa, the text does not use the fact that he does not remove the Bamot to detract from his status as a righteous king. Melachim I 15:11 compares Asa to David HaMelech. Then, Melachim I 15:14 mentions Asa’s failure to remove the Bamot. Nevertheless, Sefer Melachim’s summary of Asa’s reign concludes that “Asa’s heart was whole with Hashem all his days.” Thus, Sefer Melachim overall characterizes Asa as a righteous ruler. +However, in its summary of Yehoshafat’s reign, after it praises him for “doing that which was proper in the eyes of Hashem” (Melachim I 22:43), Sefer Melachim criticizes Yehoshafat for his failure to remove the Bamot (Melachim I 22:44). Unlike its treatment of Asa’s reign, Sefer Melachim does not close its summary of Yehoshafat’s reign with a positive spiritual evaluation.65While Melachim I 22:45 does mention that “Yehoshafat made peace with the king of Israel (Achav),” this cannot be interpreted as praise. As is clear from the rest of Sefer Melachim, Yehoshafat’s alliance with Achav is a dismal failure, as it results in the greater influence of Avodah Zarah in the Yehudah region. The alliance with Achav is formed via the marriage of Yehoshafat’s son Yehoram to Achav’s daughter Ataliah. Yehoram Melech Yehudah is negatively influenced by his wife Ataliah and breaks a streak of sixty-six years of righteous kings. See the later chapter, “Two Tales of Yehoshafat,” for a larger discussion of the outcome of this marriage. Additionally, while the rest of Melachim I 22 does relate more of Yehoshafat’s interactions, it does not explicitly evaluate any of them in spiritual terms. This difference in structure serves to subtly critique Yehoshafat for his failure to remove the Bamot from Yehudah. Additionally, the Navi’s usage of the word “Ach,” “but,” in his description of Yehoshafat’s failure comes to limit the previous accolade’s reach. No such coordinating conjunction is used in the Sefer’s summary of Asa’s reign. +We suggest that the Navi hints at some criticism of Yehoshafat since it was ripe in his time to remove the Bamot from Yehudah. In other words, Asa correctly assesses that his reign is not the proper time to eliminate the Bamot. Yehoshafat, though, misses out on a golden opportunity to finally rid his jurisdiction of Bamot without engendering a negative backlash. The people of Yehudah are ready to take their spirituality to the next level. Unfortunately, Yehoshafat fails to capitalize on the moment. +Unfortunately, Yehoshafat’s son Yehoram does not follow in his father and grandfather’s path of devotion to Hashem. While Yehoram’s marriage to Izevel, the daughter of evil northern king Acahav, plays a major role in his spiritual deterioration, perhaps his father’s failure to eliminate the Bamot also plays a role. As the Ba’alei Mussar teach, one must aspire to ascend in one’s service of Hashem. If an individual does not make an effort to spiritually advance, he will inevitably regress. Yehoshafat’s failure to advance in his devotion to Hashem leads to a serious regression in the next generation, as demonstrated by Yehoram’s dismal reign. +Conclusion +Asa, although not sufficiently recognized as such, is one of the all-time great Jews who are responsible for the preservation of Torah fidelity and observance. He makes the wise move for his time to not launch a campaign to rid Yehudah of Bamot, and instead restricts and focuses his efforts on the elimination of idolatry. His son Yehoshafat, though devout in his observance, pays a steep price for failing to advance his father’s cause when he does not remove the Bamot during his reign. “Ma’alin BaKodesh VeLo Moridim,” “one rises in holiness and does not descend.” We must always grow in our commitment to Hashem and His Torah, and never be satisfied with merely maintaining the spiritual status quo. + +Eliyahu HaNavi and the Drought of Faith + +Eliyahu HaNavi is Fed by Ravens + +Introduction +At the beginning of Melachim I 17, Eliyahu HaNavi swears that no rain or dew will fall throughout northern Israel. After this proclamation, Hashem tells him to go hide in the Nachal Kerit, near the Yarden, and that He has commanded the ravens to bring him food (Melachim I 17:2-6). +Ravens appear on the list of twenty-four non-kosher species of birds. Moreover, Tehillim 147:9 states “Notein LiVeheima Lachmah, LiVnei Oreiv Asher Yikera’u,” “He gives to an animal its food, to young ravens that cry out.” Ravens are characterized as cruel creatures that do not even sustain their own young, leaving them crying for food. Why, then, out of all the means to sustain Eliyahu HaNavi, does Hashem choose to send ravens to feed him? +Radak’s Approach +Radak cites the opinions of those who understand the Hebrew word Oreivim, not as ravens, but as people from the town known as Oreiv. This seems to be a bit of a stretch. Indeed, the mainstream opinion is that it refers to ravens. +Rashi and the Alshich’s Approach +Rashi and the Alshich view this incident as Hashem’s indication to Eliyahu HaNavi that the latter acts too harshly in stopping the rain. Eliyahu HaNavi, in bringing about the terrible drought, demands from Hashem that He hew closer to Middat HaDin, strict judgment. After all, the Northern Kingdom has quickly become entrapped in a web of Avodah Zarah and requires extraction. Eliyahu HaNavi feels that the cessation of rain will hold the northern Bnei Yisrael accountable for their Avodah Zarah, and in turn, bring them back to the proper path. +Hashem, in essence, exiles Eliyahu HaNavi to Nachal Kerit and places him in solitary confinement. The only contact he has with any living creature is his twice a day interaction with the ravens. By sending the non-kosher and cruel ravens, Hashem communicates to Eliyahu HaNavi that he is acting like a raven. +A New Suggested Approach +One may suggest a variation on the approach of Rashi and the Alshich. One may argue that the Oreiv does not represent Eliyahu HaNavi, but rather Achav. By leading (or permitting his wife to lead) the northern Bnei Yisrael to the clutches of Avodah Zarah, Achav acts in a non-kosher and cruel manner. Hashem communicates to Eliyahu HaNavi, that even a raven, a non-kosher and cruel bird, can be a source of positivity. If a raven can bring about something positive, so too, if properly engaged, Achav can bring about something positive. Hashem, according to this approach, tries to nudge Eliyahu HaNavi away from the extremely tough posture he has adopted towards Achav (i.e. stopping the rain). A softer and more effective approach might bring forth better spiritual results from Achav. This approach may be supported by the Gemara (Sanhedrin 113a, cited by Radak), which states that the meat and bread brought by the ravens originated from Achav’s kitchen. This underscores the message that something positive may emerge from Achav. +Moreover, these are presumably kosher provisions. If Achav’s kitchen is the source of the meat and bread, then, according to this opinion in the Midrash, Achav maintains a kosher kitchen!66The dissenting opinion apparently finds this unfathomable. The dissenting view argues that the food came from Yehoshafat, the righteous king of Malchut Yehudah. Achav is seen as completely alienated from Torah and not someone who maintains a kosher kitchen. Both opinions agree that meat was to be found only at a royal table during the time of extreme drought. This would imply that Achav is not completely alienated from Torah and that if properly engaged, he can find his way back to Torah. +Tzimtzum - Why Hashem Does Not End the Drought +If Hashem objects to the famine, why does He not simply put an end to the famine? Why does He merely nudge Eliyahu to end it? With or without Eliyahu HaNavi’s consent, Hashem can end the drought! +On a simple level, one could argue that this would severely compromise and even undermine Eliyahu HaNavi’s mission. Eliyahu HaNavi announces that the famine will only end by his proclamation after the Northern Kingdom refrains from Avodah Zarah. If Hashem ends the famine early, Eliyahu HaNavi will be labeled a Navi Sheker. Even worse, since Eliyahu HaNavi calls everyone to task for idolatry, if the famine ends without an end to idolatry (or at least by Eliyahu HaNavi’s proclamation), then the drought will not be attributed to the Bnei Yisrael’s rampant Avodah Zarah. This, in turn, will fuel a resurgence in the Bnei Yisrael’s adoption of Izevel’s idolatrous ways. +A second and more fundamental answer emerges from the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum, divine self-contraction. The masters of Kabbalah teach that Hashem contracted, limited, and condensed Himself to enable the existence of the world. Hashem is infinite and must contract Himself to enable the existence of any other entity. He must also engage in Tzimtzum to grant human beings free will.67The Meshech Chochmah (BeReishit 1:26) uses the idea of Tzimtzum to resolve the classic paradox of human free will and divine foreknowledge. Thus, Hashem will often send us signals to nudge us to better behavior; but, if we engage in counterproductive action, He will not necessarily prevent us from doing so. +Thus, we find that Hashem allows Eliyahu to exercise his free will. He nudges Eliyahu HaNavi to change course but chooses to limit Himself and not override Eliyahu HaNavi. This as an expression of the Gemara’s teaching, that “BaDerech SheAdam Rotzheh Leileich Bah, Molichin Oto,” “along the path a person wishes to proceed, one leads and assists him” (Makkot 10b).68As noted by TABC alumnus Avi Baer ('19). Hashem will help a person attain his goal whatever his path may be, whether it leads to good or bad. +This also helps us understand the famed episode of the Tannur Shel Achanai (Bava Metzia 59b), in which the rabbis reject a divine ruling about a Halachic matter, saying that Hashem has ceded this power to the Torah sages. Hashem is indeed an empowering God. It should be noted that the Gemara records that Eliyahu HaNavi reports that Hashem has joyously embraced this point, even bringing a metaphorical grin to Hashem’s metaphorical face, out of satisfaction that “My children have defeated Me.” Hashem does not wish to control us or bully us into submission. He empowers us by granting free will. He especially empowers the sages to create definitive Halachah. +Similarly, Hashem empowers Eliyahu HaNavi. As expressed by Chazal (Sanhedrin 113a), Hashem has given Eliyahu HaNavi the keys to the rain. Hashem will not take the keys back until Eliyahu HaNavi agrees to relinquish them. + +Eliyahu HaNavi and the Almanah + +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Outrageous Behavior? +Eliyahu HaNavi’s behavior in Melachim I 17:8-16 seems utterly outrageous and inexplicable! How can he demand food from the extremely desperate Almanah (widow)? Not only does he demand food, but he also demands that he be fed before the Almanah feeds herself and her son. +Rashi’s Approach +Rashi explains that Eliyahu HaNavi does not know which woman has been designated by Hashem to feed him in Tzorfat.69TABC alumnus Avi Baer (‘19) asks why Eliyahu HaNavi does not simply access the information through Nevu’ah. It should be noted that only Moshe Rabbeinu had constant and instant access to Hashem. Other Nevi’im’s communications with Hashem were only (national) need-based and exceedingly rare. For example, it appears from the Chumash that Hashem speaks with Avraham Avinu only a handful of times. Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi has to discover the identity of the woman through more natural means. Eliyahu HaNavi follows in the footsteps of Eliezer, Avraham Avinu’s servant, who also is sent to unfamiliar territory in search of a woman and does not know how to identify her (BeReishit 24). Just as Eliezer discovers the correct woman by asking to be fed, so too Eliyahu discovers which woman is supposed to feed him by asking to be fed. +Rashi’s approach is supported by Chazal’s important principle that “Megalgelim Zechut Al Yedei Zakkai,” “merit is engendered by means of the innocent” (Shabbat 32a). Hashem brings about good things through good people. If this woman, Eliyahu HaNavi reasons, is willing to share food despite her desperate situation, then she is likely the good person that Hashem has chosen to bring about good things and feed him. +Rashi provides a fine explanation for Eliyahu HaNavi’s request for food. However, Rashi does not seem to explain why he demands to be fed before she feeds herself and her son. +The Malbim’s Approach +The Malbim notes that Hashem prefers to conduct the world in a natural manner. He will violate the laws of nature only if there is no alternative. +The following episode recorded by the Gemara (Shabbat 53b) illustrates this important principle: +There was a very poor man whose wife had died after having given birth to a child. The widower became frantic, as he had no financial resources to hire a wet nurse to feed the baby. Hashem, though, made a miracle, and the husband began to lactate. R. Yosef said, “What a great man he must be, that he merited such a great miracle.” Abaye said that he must be on a low spiritual level, as he needed Hashem to disrupt the natural order instead of providing him with resources in a natural manner. +The fact that the Gemara awards the last word to Abaye indicates that this is the accepted opinion. Our challenge is to discover Hashem hiding behind the natural processes of life. +Accordingly, the Malbim explains that before the miracle can take place, all of the pre-existing food has to be consumed. Hashem will make a miracle only to create more food when there is no food left. Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi is eager to consume all of the Almanah’s remaining food to enable the miracle of the never-ending supply of flour and oil. The Malbim, similar to Rashi, does not seem to explain why Eliyahu HaNavi insists on eating first. +Ralbag’s Approach +Ralbag presents a profound solution to our problem. A bit of introduction is needed, though, to fully grasp his explanation. The Kabbalah teaches that order for there to be an “Itaruta DeLi’eilah,” “awakening from above,” there must also be an “Itaruta DeLetata,” “awakening from below.” In other words, Hashem cedes control (Tzimtzum, as discussed in the previous chapter) to us, to the effect that He allows us to trigger His responses. +This idea is ubiquitous in Torah and Torah life. For example, the Gemara (Sotah 37a) famously describes that the Yam Suf did not split until Nachshon ben Aminadav first jumped into the sea. In daily life, we are familiar with the Shulchan Aruch’s recommendation to give Tzedakah in the context of our Tefillah (Y.D. 249:14). Our exhibition of kindness by giving Tzedakah during Tefillah inspires Hashem to act kindly towards us. + The Gemara (Bava Kama 92a) encourages praying for others before our needs and posits that doing so will result in an answered prayer. When we show kindness to others, it creates a climate in which Hashem is more inclined to exhibit kindness to us. In fact, one may view the enterprise of Tefillah as one of “Itaruta DeLetata.” We often wonder why we pray if Hashem will do whatever He wishes. The response is that Hashem chooses to wait for us to trigger His actions. +Ralbag explains that to merit the miracle of the unceasing flour and oil, the Almanah has to first share her food with Eliyahu HaNavi. Eliyahu HaNavi, accordingly, teaches the Almanah the aforementioned concept. To trigger the incredible miracle, the Almanah must first perform a great act of kindness. +Ralbag may draw support from Melachim I 17:9, in which Hashem tells Eliyahu HaNavi that the Almanah will sustain him. This statement is difficult in light of the fact that she has hardly anything to eat, and when Eliyahu HaNavi does come, she and Eliyahu HaNavi eat only due to the miracle of the unending flour and oil. How could this be understood as the Almanah supporting Eliyahu HaNavi? +Based on Ralbag’s explanation, we may answer that the Almanah triggers the oil and flour miracle by feeding Eliyahu HaNavi during their initial encounter. Thus, the Almanah sustains Eliyahu HaNavi. After all, she is the one who triggers the miracle, not Eliyahu HaNavi. +The Almanah Trusting Eliyahu HaNavi +TABC students asked why the Almanah trusts Eliyahu HaNavi to the extent that she shares some of her very precious food in time of famine. After all, Melachim II 1 describes Eliyahu HaNavi as having an unusual and quite frightening appearance. Moreover, it is likely, the students argued, that someone who has lived in a dry river bed for a year is likely to have a highly unruly and even frightening appearance. +One may not answer that the Almanah is intimidated by Eliyahu HaNavi, and gives in to his demand as a result. It is entirely unreasonable to view Eliyahu HaNavi as bullying the Almanah. One does not receive this impression at all from the text. +The answer appears to emerge from the principle that “Nikarim Divrei Emet,” one can intuitively discern the truth (Sotah 9b). It seems that the Almanah intuits that Eliyahu HaNavi is an authentic Ish Elokim, even though she has no objective means of knowing the veracity of her intuition. +Moreover, Chazal (Niddah 45b) teach that women are blessed with “Binah Yeteirah,” an extra measure of wisdom. This is especially so regarding a woman’s ability to discern and assess a personality. Chazal (Berachot 10b) articulate that a woman discerns and assesses the personality of a guest more keenly than does a man. Thus, the Almanah can properly assess Eliyahu HaNavi’s character. She knows that he is the right person to trust. +Conclusion +Although Eliyahu HaNavi is destined to meet the Ishah Almanah from Tzorfat, he must use his judgment and discernment to determine if she is truly the destined hostess. The Almanah, in turn, must use her intuition to ensure that the connection is a proper one. Hashem limits His role to make the meeting. Hashem creates an opportunity for the two destined parties to meet. He leaves it to the parties to seize the day and realize their destined roles. + +Eliyahu HaNavi and the Issur Yichud + +An Unaddressed Question +It is a bold question that is most definitely not addressed by the classic Mefarshim. For a year, Eliyahu HaNavi lives in the widow's attic mentioned in Melachim I 17:19. The question, accordingly, is that this seems to constitute a forbidden living arrangement, as it violates Yichud, the prohibition of seclusion. +The prohibition of Yichud has its origins in the Torah and was expanded, according to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 21b), by David HaMelech after the ugly incident of Amnon and Tamar (Shemuel II 13) to include an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. How, then, is Eliyahu HaNavi’s stay justified? +The Presence of the Almanah’s Son +The presence of the Almanah’s son does not seem to resolve this problem. It appears that the boy is young. Young children go to sleep before adults. The prohibition of Yichud reemerges after the boy goes to sleep.70Although there is a Minhag that a young child stays with a Chatan and Kallah in case of a Chuppat Niddah to obviate concern for Yichud (see Rama Y.D. 192:5, one may be more lenient in such a case since, as the Chazon Ish notes, Y.D. 91:3) the prohibition of Yichud in such a situation is only rabbinic in nature. +The Attic as a Distinct Residence +Eliyahu HaNavi’s residence in the attic above the Almanah’s residence does not seem to solve the problem either. After all, Chazal (Bava Metzia 71 and Shulchan Aruch E.H. 22:17) frown upon a Talmid Chacham who resides in the same Chatzer (a cluster of homes surrounding a common courtyard) as an Almanah, lest it creates Chashad, a reason to suspect the Talmid Chacham. +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Wife +TABC students suggested that perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi hides from Achav in the attic with his wife. However, it is not clear that Eliyahu HaNavi ever marries, since his wife is never mentioned in Tanach. Additionally, there is no evidence that his wife goes into hiding with him.71R. Shimon bar Yochai’s wife did not join him in hiding from the Romans (Shabbat 30b). See, however, Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim Uketavim 102) who discusses the permissibility of Eliyahu HaNavi’s wife remarrying after his ascent to heaven (Melachim II 2).72This Terumat HaDeshen has received quite a bit of attention since it is discussed by the Minchat Chinuch (203) and Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer (10:25:26) in the context of transgender surgery. +Some TABC students suggested that Eliyahu HaNavi marries the Almanah to obviate the Yichud problem.73Interestingly, the legendary Nechama Leibowitz married her elderly uncle when there was a need for her to take care of him towards the end of his life. They married to avoid violating Yichud. While it is certainly a fascinating suggestion, it does not appear to be supported by any evidence. +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Attendant +Towards the end of Melachim I 18, and the beginning of Melachim I 19, we find Eliyahu HaNavi accompanied by a Na’ar, a male attendant (see Melachim I 18:43). Perhaps the attendant accompanies Eliyahu HaNavi at the widow’s residence.74As noted by TABC student Josh Miller (‘20). This, in turn, would solve our Yichud question. +While this is a clever answer, it is not conclusive. It is possible that Eliyahu HaNavi does not want his assistant to accompany him in hiding from Achav, to avoid placing his attendant in danger. Indeed, we find in Melachim I 19 that Eliyahu HaNavi refuses to allow his attendant to join him in his journey to the desert. The apparent reason is that Eliyahu does not want to place his assistant in danger. +However, perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi does not want the attendant to accompany him to Choreiv because the intense experience of encountering and confronting Hashem is way beyond the attendant’s spiritual capacity.75As suggested by TABC alumnus Benjy Schwartz (‘19). This would be similar to Avraham Avinu when he instructs his attendants to stay put while he and Yitzchak Avinu ascend Har HaMoriyah (BeReishit 22:5). In a less spiritually intense situation, it is entirely possible that the attendant would accompany him. Thus, it is possible that the attendant resides with Eliyahu HaNavi in the Almanah’s attic, thereby eliminating the problem of Yichud. +Menachem Begin Hiding from the British +One may suggest an answer based on Menachem Begin’s successful strategy to avoid capture by the British Mandatory forces when he headed the Irgun before the establishment in the State of Israel. Begin lived in the worst part of Tel Aviv, near a highly malodorous animal slaughterhouse, and dressed as a Chareidi Jew. The disguise was so effective, that even Irgun members with whom Begin prayed did not realize it was their leader whom they would often encounter in the synagogue. Begin lived in a manner that masked his true identity. +Similarly, by dwelling with an unmarried woman, Eliyahu HaNavi can elude Achav’s searches, as it is something that Achav and his soldiers would never suspect of him. This is why the hideout is so effective. Thus, Pikuach Nefesh (danger to life, lit. “saving a life”) justifies Eliyahu HaNavi’s bending of the laws of Yichud.76One could say that Eliyahu HaNavi simply follows Hashem’s directive to reside in the Almanah’s home. One may respond that Hashem only tells Eliyahu HaNavi that she will sustain him. Eliyahu could live nearby and be fed by the Almanah without running afoul of the Yichud prohibition. +Other Bending of the Halachot +Of course, there is an alternative. Eliyahu HaNavi could end the drought, and cease to be a wanted person in danger of capture by Achav. However, Eliyahu HaNavi maintains the drought to motivate the Northern Kingdom's return to Hashem. +Yichud is not the only instance when Eliyahu HaNavi bends the Halachah with the aim of returning the Bnei Yisrael to Hashem. As noted by Chazal (Yevamot 90b), Eliyahu HaNavi offers a Korban outside the Beit HaMikdash at Har HaCarmel at a time when it is forbidden to do so, after the construction of the Beit HaMikdash. We may add, as TABC students have noted, that at Har HaCarmel, Eliyahu HaNavi goads the prophets of Ba’al to engage in their idolatrous practices. This is a violation of “Lifnei Iveir Lo Titein Michshol,” “do not place a stumbling block before the blind” (VaYikra 19:14), the facilitation of a Torah violation. In the case of Avodah Zarah, this is arguably a situation of “Yeiharag VeAl Ya’avor,” in which the Halachah requires one to martyr themselves rather than violate a prohibition.77The Ba’al HaMaor (Sanhedrin 18a in the pages of the Rif) and Ramban (op. cit.) debate as to whether “Lifnei Iveir” of Avodah Zarah demands the sacrifice of one’s life. Moreover, Eliyahu Hanavi even seems to go beyond “Lifnei Iveir” in this instance. One who goads someone to violate the Torah transgresses a severe prohibition and is labeled a Meisit, an inciter (see Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot, Lo Ta’Aseh 16). +Conclusion +Eliyahu HaNavi feels that it is worth bending the Torah to create an opportunity for the northern Bnei Yisrael to return to Hashem. He calculates that it is well worth compromising some Halachot to achieve this lofty goal. Similarly, as aforementioned, Shlomo HaMelech feels justified in bending the Halachah in terms of the women he marries, because he believes that it will lead to a universal recognition of Hashem. +However, we have already learned from Shlomo HaMelech that compromising the Halachah to achieve a Kiddush Hashem on a grand scale is a colossal mistake. Similarly, we can already predict the ultimate failure of Har HaCarmel by the fact that the Halachah is compromised in the creation and execution of the event. This, tragically, proves the truth of Moshe Rabbeinu’s warning “Lamah Zeh Atem Ovrim Et Pi Hashem VeHi Lo Titzlach,” “why do you violate God’s command; it will not succeed” (BeMidbar 14:41). +There is always a price to be paid for compromising the Halachah. To achieve a clean result, the process must be clean as well. If the compromise of the Halachah is necessary to achieve a desired goal, it is most likely that the goal is not truly desirable. + +Eliyahu HaNavi Performs Techiyat HaMeitim + +Introduction – Identifying the Central Question +One of the most important skills one should learn in a Yeshivah is how to identify a crucial question. Very often, the identification of the central question regarding a specific topic is the key to unlocking its deeper meaning. Questions of mere curiosity, while of some interest, rarely serve to deepen one’s understanding of the issue at hand. +The story of Eliyahu HaNavi reviving the Almanah’s son (Melachim I 17:18-24) serves as an excellent test case. While it is certainly interesting to ponder how Eliyahu revives the child (does he perform CPR? – see Radak for a discussion), this is what seasoned Yeshivah students dismiss as a “Kashya Afen Mayseh,” Yiddish for, “a question regarding how something occurred,” which does not yield much insight. +The core question regarding the Techiyat HaMeitim episode centers on the conclusion to the story, when the Almanah proclaims, “Atah Zeh Yada’ti Ki Ish Elokim Atah, UDvar Hashem BePicha Emet,” “now I know you are truly a man of God, and that the word of Hashem in your mouth is true” (Melachim I 17:24). This proclamation is problematic for a variety of reasons. +First, she already bears witness to Eliyahu HaNavi’s authenticity when she experiences the miracle of the unending oil and flour for a year. Second, even before the oil and flour miracle, she intuits that Eliyahu Hanavi is a true prophet. Why else does she share with him a morsel from her little remaining flour and oil? Finally, she harbors Eliyahu HaNavi in her attic for a year, at a time when it is extraordinarily dangerous for her to do so. Achav searches high and low for Eliyahu HaNavi throughout the world (as Ovadiah reports at the beginning of Melachim I 18) and is poised to kill him and those who shelter him. If the Almanah is not thoroughly convinced of Eliyahu HaNavi’s authenticity, why does she place herself and her child at such great risk? +Two Classic Answers – The Malbim and Metzudat David +The Malbim answers that the Almanah harbors significant doubts before Eliyahu revives her son. She is concerned that Eliyahu HaNavi generates the unending oil and flour through Kishuf, witchcraft. The Metzudat David, in turn, avers that the Almanah believes that Eliyahu HaNavi himself does did not communicate with Hashem. Rather, he merely hears from another Navi that the flour and oil will be interminable. +One could question these two answers, in that they do not completely resolve the many issues we raised. If she harbors doubts, why does she take such a great risk in harboring Eliyahu HaNavi? Thus, there is room for new approaches to understanding the Almanah’s shocking statement. +Emunah is Dynamic +One answer is, as we see elsewhere in the Torah, that Emunah can be dynamic. For example, we find that after Keri’at Yam Suf, the Torah records that “VaYa’aminu BaHashem UBeMoshe Avdo,” “and they [the Bnei Yisrael] had faith in Hashem and Moshe, His servant” (Shemot 14:31). This is most puzzling in light of the fact that Shemot 4:31 already records that “VaYa’amen HaAm,” “the nation [of Israel] believed” in Hashem and Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, we understand that although the Bnei Yisrael believe in Hashem and Moshe before Keri’at Yam Suf, their level of belief intensifies significantly after the splitting of the sea.78Perhaps this is the reason we recite these words each day at Shacharit. +A modern-day example is the reaction of a prominent American Modern Orthodox rabbi, Rabbi Norman Lamm, to the remarkable events of the Six-Day War: +Even observant religious people usually possess an element of doubt within their faith. We use this doubt to excuse many of our transgressions, and we excuse the existence of this doubt by saying that had we lived in the age of the prophets or the age of miracles or the age of revelation, we would be sufficiently persuaded and convinced to be able to live according to the highest precepts of our faith, but that the absence of any such evidence justifies this seed of doubt. Were we exposed to the same wonders as was Israel of old, “and Israel saw the Egyptians dead at the shore of the sea,” then we too would react as they did: ��and they believed in the Lord and in His servant Moses” (Shemot 14:31). +Such was the justification we offered ourselves for our doubt and our laxity heretofore. Now, we can no longer avail ourselves of that luxury. For we have seen, as did Jews in very special moments of history, ha-yad ha-gedolah, the “great Hand of the Almighty.” Through electronic eyes and ears, each of us has been a personal witness to the great miracle, the great revelation of 1967.79Excerpted from Rabbi Norman Lamm, “O Jerusalem!,” a lecture delivered at The Jewish Center on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on June 15, 1967 (the second day of Shavuot), www.archives.yu.edu/gsdl/collect/lammserm/index/assoc/HASH012a.dir/doc.pdf +In the case of the Almanah, we may say that she is entirely convinced of the veracity of Eliyahu HaNavi’s Nevu’ah before he revives her child. However, after the Techiyat HaMeitim, her level of belief deepens. +Adding Light +Another approach is to once again agree that the Almanah is thoroughly convinced of Eliyahu HaNavi before the Techiat HaMeitim incident. However, the Almanah proclaims that for the first time, she witnesses Eliyahu HaNavi positively acting as a Navi by reviving her son, instead of acting negatively by imposing a three year-long famine on Israel. +Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohein Kook famously taught, “the pure righteous do not complain of the dark, but increase the light; they do not complain of evil, but increase justice; they do not complain of heresy, but increase faith; they do not complain of ignorance, but increase wisdom” (Arpilei Tohar, p. 2). +The Almanah may be understood as saying that she has previously seen Eliyahu HaNavi only focus on the negative. Following the revival of her son, the Almanah remarks that Eliyahu HaNavi finally acts as a true Ish Elokim by adding the light, instead of merely railing against the dark. +Conclusion – The Almanah Moves Eliyahu HaNavi in the Right Direction +It seems that Eliyahu takes heed to the rebuke delivered by the Almanah, and changes direction. Perhaps this is the reason why in Melachim I 18:1, Hashem instructs Eliyahu HaNavi to bring rain. After hearing the Almanah’s rebuke, he is finally ready to move in a positive direction, and orchestrate the enlightening episode of Har HaCarmel to add light and make the Bnei Yisrael worthy of receiving rain. + +Dancing Between Two Opinions + +Introduction – Eliyahu HaNavi’s Challenge +The great day finally arrives. Achav gathers all of the Bnei Yisrael (presumably those living in the Northern Kingdom) to see the spiritual faceoff between Eliyahu HaNavi and the four hundred Nevi’ei HaBa’al. Eliyahu HaNavi begins the proceedings with a dramatic query: “Ad Matai Atem Posechim Al Shenei HaSe’ifim,” “for how long will you dance between two opinions?” (Melachim I 18:21). Da’at Mikra explains that Eliyahu HaNavi refers to what was a popular folk saying “until when will you be like a bird fluttering between two different branches of a tree” (instead of deciding to perch on one specific branch). +As noted by Ralbag, Am Yisrael is torn between Hashem and the Nevi’ei HaBa’al and Asheirah. On the one hand, Eliyahu HaNavi’s pronouncement of drought (which lasts for three years) establishes Hashem’s validity. On the other hand, Am Yisrael is heavily influenced by the hundreds of false prophets who operate freely under the aegis of Izevel and Achav. The nation does not respond to Eliyahu HaNavi’s challenge. One could argue that they are embarrassed, or as Rashi and other Mefarshim explain, they are genuinely confused as to the identity of the true God. Once Eliyahu HaNavi presents his fire test to clarify who is the true God, the nation readily accepts Hashem (Melachim I 18:24). +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Stunning Statement +Eliyahu HaNavi’s follow up to his question is shocking. He boldly states (18:21) “Im Hashem HaElokim Lechu Acharav , Ve’Im HaBa’al Lechu Acharav,” “if Hashem is the God, go after Him, and if the Ba’al, go after it” (Melachim I 18:21). An immediate question that emerges is that Eliyahu HaNavi seems to present the worship of Ba’al as a valid choice. Many TABC students were troubled as to how Eliyahu HaNavi could have invited the northern Bnei Yisrael to worship Ba’al.80As posed by TABC alumnus Lior Saada (‘19), and many others. +We answer81As suggested by TABC alumnus Asher Powers (‘19). that Eliyahu HaNavi’s bluster was merely stirring the Bnei Yisrael to agree and “buy into” to the faceoff between himself and the Nevi’ei HaBa’al. He does not intend to present Avodah Zarah as a viable option (similar to Yehoshua during his farewell address, where he rhetorically asks whether we wish to serve Hashem or, LeHavdil, Avodah Zarah). +However, what is far more troubling is the fact that Eliyahu HaNavi is teaching that serving Hashem only partially is comparable to not serving Hashem at all. This appears quite shocking and even runs counter to a basic assumption that most Jews make, that Torah living is not “all or nothing.” A recurring theme often articulated by Kiruv organizations such as Chabad and Aish HaTorah, is that Torah observance is not all or nothing.82One could simply answer that Eliyahu HaNavi is merely using provocative language to induce Bnei Yisrael to “buy into” his confrontation with the Nevi’ei HaBa’al. +Newfound Association vs. Decline83As developed by TABC alumnus Seth Maza (‘19). +Kiruv organizations primarily address individuals who are generations removed from full Torah observance. It is far more acceptable to attempt to raise people from a complete lack of observance to some level of Torah adherence. Eliyahu HaNavi, by contrast, addresses a generation that is shifting from a singular relationship with Hashem (albeit with the tragic deviations introduced by Yarav’am ben Nevat) to a dual allegiance to Hashem and Ba’al. Eliyahu HaNavi likens this audience’s partial allegiance to Hashem to a complete abandonment of Hashem. +This approach fits with the approach articulated by Rav Avraham Pam. Rav Pam compares this mixed allegiance to Hashem at the time of Eliyahu HaNavi to the Conservative Jewish movement in the 1960s and 1970s. Rav Pam notes that the Conservative movement in a way was more of a threat than a Christian Church. The generation of American Jews who grew up in nominally Orthodox homes would never dream of intermarrying or affiliating with a Christian group. However, they would affiliate with a movement whose observance consisted of a mixture of traditional Jewish worship with contemporary American values and mores (such as mixed-gender seating). With studies of American Jews showing a higher than seventy percent intermarriage rate among those raised in the non-Orthodox movements, it is clear that the non-Orthodox movements for most American Jews are a step in the direction of an eventual complete abandonment of Jewish belief. Thus, in the long run, for a certain demographic, the Conservative movement was more dangerous than institutions that reflect a complete abandonment of Hashem. +The Jews of Eliyahu HaNavi’s generation abhor a service of complete Ba’al and Asheirah. However, a mixed service of Hashem and Ba’al is palatable to them. Thus, a mixture of Hashem and Ba’al represents a far greater threat than pure Ba’al worship. It is for this reason that Eliyahu HaNavi compares mixed service of Ba’al and Hashem to the complete abandonment of Hashem in favor of Ba’al. +Total Commitment84As developed by TABC alumnus Gabe Gerzberg (‘19). +An alternative approach is that Eliyahu HaNavi is communicating to every generation that they must be fully committed to Hashem. We question Eliyahu HaNavi’s “all or nothing” statement based on the presumption that some allegiance to Hashem is preferable to no allegiance to Hashem. To use a business analogy, someone who loans his friend one hundred dollars would prefer to receive fifty dollars in payment than nothing at all. +However, our relationship with Hashem is not based on mere compliance and obedience. A relationship, as opposed to compliance with a loan payment agreement, is meaningless without full commitment. Our commitment to Hashem is compared in Shir HaShirim (and elsewhere in Tanach) to a relationship between spouses. Any reasonable spouse finds it completely unacceptable for his or her partner to be less than completely devoted to their marriage. Partial spousal devotion is equivalent to a complete lack of spousal devotion. Eliyahu HaNavi teaches that a mixture of devotion to Hashem and Ba’al is equivalent to having no commitment to Hashem at all.85Similarly, a conversion candidate who is willing to accept the Torah except for one detail is not accepted as a convert (Bechorot 30b). Also, one who wishes to be designated as a Chaveir (fully observant Jew) must be completely devoted without exception to Hashem’s laws (ibid). Haran is the quintessential example of one who is half-hearted in his devotion to Hashem. Haran (BeReishit Rabbah 38:13) witnesses Avraham Avinu’s confrontation with Nimrod and is unsure of whom to support– his brother or Nimrod. He decides that if Avraham emerges unscathed, he will tell Nimrod that he supports Avraham. If Avraham dies, he will support Nimrod. Avraham is thrown into the furnace and emerges unscathed. When Nimrod demands that Haran pledge his allegiance, he says that he supports his brother. They throw Haran into the furnace, and he burns to death. Why does Hashem not save Haran, as He saves Avraham minutes before from Nimrod’s fire? After all, Haran does express his support for Avraham. The answer is that Haran hardly deserves a miracle due to the shallow nature of his commitment, which is immediately preceded by an expression of agnosticism. Hashem expects unwavering commitment, just as a spouse demands and deserves unconditional loyalty, not one born simply of crass opportunism. +Conclusion – All In for Hashem! +Any serious endeavor in life demands full devotion. An employer does not tolerate the partial devotion of an employee. One who is not fully devoted to his business will soon find his business failing. Even a sports coach will dismiss a talented player who is not fully devoted to his team. The lesson that emerges from Eliyahu HaNavi’s sharp rebuke to the Bnei Yisrael gathered at Har HaCarmel is for all Jews to energize their devotion to Hashem to at least the same level of commitment one shows towards a business enterprise. If we cannot show the same level of dignity to our Avodat Hashem as we do to a sports team, it is unlikely that our Torah observance will stand the test of time. + +Eliyahu HaNavi and the Talking Bull + +A Contradiction +On Har HaCarmel, Eliyahu HaNavi challenges the Nevi’ei Ha’Ba’al to prove the authenticity of their god. Eliyahu HaNavi will offer one bull and call out to Hashem, and the Nevi’ei HaBa’al will offer the other and call out to their god. Whichever god responds with fire will be deemed the true God (Melachim I 18:24). There is, however, an apparent contradiction in the Pesukim that describe the Nevi’ei HaBa’al’s execution of Eliyahu HaNavi’s directive. + +Melachim I 18:26 states that the prophets of Ba’al at Har HaCarmel accept the bull that is given to them. This is problematic since Eliyahu HaNavi instructs them to take the bull of their choosing, as stated in Melachim I 18:25. Yet it seems that the Ba’al prophets take the bull given to them by Eliyahu HaNavi! +Two Peshat Explanations - Radak +Radak offers two Peshat approaches. One is that “Asher Natan Lahem,” “that he gave them” refers to the terms that Eliyahu HaNavi sets for their faceoff. In other words, they take a bull of their choosing per the rules set forth by Eliyahu HaNavi. +Radak’s second approach is that the “giver” in Melachim I 18:26 does not refer to Eliyahu HaNavi, but rather to Achav who, according to this approach, serves as the referee or master of ceremonies at Har HaCarmel. +The Fantastic Midrash Cited by Rashi +Rashi, however, cites the Midrash (BeMidbar Rabbah 23:9), as is his wont, to solve the problem in the text. The Midrash states that the word “he” in the phrase “that he gave them” actually refers to Eliyahu HaNavi, and that Eliyahu actually hands them the bull. Indeed, the last person mentioned in Melachim I 18:25 is Eliyahu HaNavi, leading us to conclude that he is the antecedent to the pronoun “he” in Melachim I 18:26. +The Midrash then tells quite a story. It explains that the bull is first chosen by the Nevi’ei HaBa’al, but then runs away to Eliyahu HaNavi, crying that it refuses to be sacrificed for Avodah Zarah. Eliyahu HaNavi then comforts the bull by telling it that it should allow itself to be slaughtered by the Ba’al prophets since by doing so it will also be involved in the Kiddush Hashem created at Har HaCarmel. Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi returns the bull to the prophets of Ba’al after it ran away from them. +Radak’s Evaluation of this Midrash +Radak shockingly comments that this Midrash is “Rachok Min HaSeichel,” “far from the intellect” (i.e. unreasonable). What is even more shocking, however, is that after Radak makes this comment, he proceeds to cite the Midrash in full (in contrast to Rashi who presents only an abbreviated form of the Midrash). If Radak believes this Midrash is unreasonable, why does he quote it at length? +Understanding Midrash – Rambam +Midrash, Rambam teaches in his celebrated introduction to the tenth chapter of Sanhedrin, is not necessarily taken literally. Often, Rambam insists it should be taken seriously, but not literally. We suggest that Radak believes that if one takes the Midrash regarding the conversation that took place between Eliyahu HaNavi and the bull in a literal sense, then it is “Rachok Min HaSeichel.” However, if one takes it seriously, as teaching a vitally important lesson, then it is quite deep and profound. +The Lesson of the Midrash +What might be the profound lesson one may derive from what otherwise appears to be a fantastic tale? We suggest it may be understood in light of the Midrash, which states, “HaKol Mevakshin Tafkidan,” “every being seeks to fulfill its divinely assigned mission” (Eichah Rabbah 1:30). The Midrash states that even animals and trees deeply yearn for, and go to extraordinary lengths to fulfill their assigned tasks. The Midrash even goes as far to say as roads also seek to fulfill their role, and therefore the roads of Zion were upset when travelers no longer traversed them following the Churban.86This author is never upset when caught in traffic when visiting Jerusalem. Empty roads of Zion are a sign of mourning, while jammed roads are a symbol of the blessed revitalization and rejuvenation of Eretz Yisrael in general, and Yerushalayim specifically. +Similarly, the Midrash expresses that the Ba’al bull deeply yearns to fulfill its mission, and experiences profound pain when it is not enabled to do so. Although animals, trees, and roads may not actually experience deep anxiety when not fulfilling their missions, we Jews (and all human beings) should, nay must have a sense of mission and a deep zeal to fulfill our missions. The satisfaction of those who manage to discipline themselves to accomplish their divine assignment in this world is immense and incomparable. +This message is most appropriate for Har HaCarmel since, in this context, Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to restore the northern Bnei Yisrael to their original destiny and mission. +Conclusion +Although the Midrash of the talking bull may at first glance seem wild, and even “Rachok Min HaSeichel,” upon deeper reflection, one realizes that it teaches the vitally important message to discover one’s divine mission, and to subsequently fulfill it with great zeal and joy. + +"Hashem Hu Ha'Elokim" During the Yom Kippur Service + +Conclusion of Yom Kippur +It is the climax of an incredible day, which reenacts the climax of an incredible event. Both Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews end Yom Kippur with a recital of “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim” multiple times, following the precedent set by the northern Bnei Yisrael at Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18:39). Although this practice is not mentioned in the Gemara, it is mentioned by Tosafot (Berachot 34a s.v. Psuka). +Explanation of the Practice +The parallel between the culmination of Yom Kippur and the event at Har HaCarmel seems at first to be most appropriate. At Har HaCarmel, the Bnei Yisrael initially are “Posechim Al Shnei HaSe’ifim,” “dancing between two opinions,” (Melachim I 18:21) unsure and tottering between commitment to Hashem and devotion to idolatry. However, at the conclusion of this event, Am Yisrael is fully convinced of Hashem, and expresses full Emunah by twice proclaiming “Hashem Hu HaElokim,” “Hashem is the God” (Melachim I 18:39). +Hopefully, the intense twenty-five hour deep spiritual immersion of Yom Kippur brings about a similar transformation. We may have entered the holy day struggling with dual spiritual loyalties, but emerge at its conclusion fully committed to Hashem! +Moreover, the parallel is enhanced if one assumes, as does the Malbim (Melachim I 18:41), that the Bnei Yisrael at Har HaCarmel fast as a plea for rain. Eliyahu HaNavi then instructs them to eat and drink. We, similarly, shortly after proclaiming “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim,” proceed to break fast. +Noting a Problem with the Practice +However, there is a problem with invoking and reenacting the emotional culmination of the Har HaCarmel experience. As is evident from the opening of Melachim I 19, the impact of the events at Har HaCarmel on Am Yisrael is shockingly fleeting. If so, why would we wish to invoke this admittedly extraordinary, yet, in terms of long-term impact, exceedingly limited event? +Tikkun of Mistakes of Prior Generations +Our suggested answer is based on a Kabbalistic idea that finds expression quite a number of times throughout the Tanach— the concept of Tikkun, a later generation’s ability to correct the mistakes of an earlier generation. We find this, for example, in Megillat Esther. Esther 9 states no less than three times that the Jews do not take from the spoils after attacking Haman’s supporters. +One is left wondering why this fact is so strongly emphasized by Megillat Esther. An answer that is often given is based on the fact that the Jewish leaders of this war, Esther and Mordechai, are descendants of Sha’ul HaMelech (Esther 2:5, Megillah 13b and 16a). The fact that the army, under the auspices of Mordechai and Esther, does not take from the spoils of war serves to rectify Sha’ul HaMelech’s sin of taking from the spoils of war after his attack on Amaleik (Shemuel I 15:9). +Reparative Reenactment +We suggest that part of the reason why we reenact Har HaCarmel and repeat “Hashem Hu HaElokim” at the culmination of Yom Kippur, is to repair Am Yisrael’s past mistake. At Har HaCarmel, the Bnei Yisrael’s transformation hardly lasts, because little investment is put into the event. When one makes little investment in an activity, it will almost invariably lead to poor results. As the Gemara teaches “HaOmer Lo Yagati U’Matzati Al Ta'amin,” “If someone says, 'I have not toiled and I have nonetheless succeeded,' do not believe him’” (Megillah 6b). +However, one who makes a considerable investment is much more likely to succeed. “HaOmer Yagati U’Matzati, Ta'amin,” “If someone says, 'I have toiled and I have succeeded,' believe him” (ibid.). For example, the first Luchot HaBrit, fashioned by Hashem, are destroyed shortly after Matan Torah. In contrast, the second set of Luchot, fashioned by Moshe Rabbeinu, withstand the test of time. +At Har HaCarmel, the Bnei Yisrael are passive observers; thus, the long-term impact of the event is minimal. By contrast, we invest tremendously into Yom Kippur, considering our preparation during the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah and Chodesh Elul (and even more so for Sephardic Jews who recite Selichot the forty days before Yom Kippur). + Thus, our recitation of “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim” at the end of Yom Kippur has the potential to repair the shortcomings of the “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim” of Har HaCarmel. Our declaration, on the heels of significant and intense spiritual investment, has the potential to serve as the harbinger for genuine spiritual growth that will last a lifetime. +Conclusion +Our Tefillot are jam-packed with references to Tanach. Once we fully understand the Tanach we reference, our Tefillot can be exponentially enhanced. It is, to say the least, well worth making the effort to investigate these references. + +Why Not Also Kill Achav and Izevel? + +The Problem +Eliyahu HaNavi scores a great victory for Hashem at Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18). He capitalizes on this great victory by encouraging and leading the nation (see Melachim I 18:40 with Radak) to execute the four hundred Ba’al missionaries who are imported by Izevel to attract the Bnei Yisrael to Ba’al worship. TABC students, though, wondered why Eliyahu HaNavi does not also kill the prime instigators of Avodah Zarah in Malchut Yisrael, Achav and Izevel. +Kevod Malchut +A possible answer is that Kevod Malchut, showing respect for the government, is a value that courses its way through much of Tanach and Chazal. In fact, Rashi at the beginning of his commentary to Parashat VaYechi, notes three occasions in Tanach where we find surprising exhibitions of Kevod Malchut. The first is Yaakov Avinu bowing to Yosef on the former’s death bed, despite Yaakov’s parental status and advanced age. The second is Moshe Rabbeinu showing a modicum of respect to Paroh, despite the latter’s evil character. Lastly, he notes that Eliyahu HaNavi exhibits Kavod to Achav by running before his chariot at the end of Melachim I 18. +Indeed, Chazal (Avot 3:2) teach that we should pray for the welfare of government for, without its discipline, people would devour each other alive. The Tanach and Chazal understand the stabilizing value of even less than excellent rulers. Destabilizing a government, even a less than excellent one, has enormous potential to create anarchy and sheer chaos that breaks apart the entire society. Thus, we must pray even for the benefit of spiritually deficient leaders, for even they are likely a better alternative to a leadership vacuum (as noted by Sefer HaChinuch Mitzvah 71). Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi refrains from killing Achav and Izevel for fear of destabilizing the entire society and disrupting the broader community. +Additionally, the kings of the Northern Kingdom have so far been rather dismal. The chances that Achav and Izevel’s replacements will be any better are not great. +Too Much of a Risk +The Gemara (Gittin 56b) relates that during the siege of Jerusalem in the Great Jewish Revolt, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai argued in favor of peace; according to the Talmud, when he found the anger of the besieged populace to be intolerable, he arranged a secret escape from the city inside a coffin, so that he could negotiate with Vespasian (who, at this time, was still a Roman military commander). R. Yochanan ben Zakkai correctly predicted that Vespasian would become the Roman Emperor and that the Beit HaMikdash would soon be destroyed; in return, Vespasian granted R. Yochanan three wishes. He chose the salvation of Yavneh and its sages, the protection of R. Gamliel’s descendants, who was of the Davidic dynasty, and a physician to treat R. Tzadok, who had fasted for forty years to stave off the destruction of Jerusalem. +R. Yochanan ben Zakkai was criticized by some (either R. Akiva or R. Yosef) for not requesting the salvation of Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash. The Gemara, however, defends R. Yochanan, and notes that he sought to achieve a Hatzalah Purta, a small achievement, for if he sought the far more ambitious goal, he would have achieved nothing. +In Melachim I 18, Eliyahu HaNavi might deem it far too risky to try to overcome the royal guards and goad the people to also kill Achav and Izevel. Eliminating the four hundred Nevi’ei HaBa’al is within reasonable reach. Killing Achav and Izevel is not. +Also, the crowd at Har HaCarmel is in a spiritual “place,” where they can accept and even support the eradication of the “prophets” of Ba’al. However, they are not ready to support the elimination of Achav and Izevel, the royal couple who brought the financial bounty and military alliance of the Phoenicians to the Northern Kingdom. +Achav Does Teshuvah +Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi deems it unnecessary to kill Achav, as it appears that the latter does Teshuvah after the events at Har HaCarmel. In fact, we can discern four distinct stages in Achav’s development in Melachim I 18. At first, Achav is described by the righteous Ovadiah as seeking to kill every legitimate Navi, especially Eliyahu HaNavi. Next, Achav advances to a point where he agrees to meet with Eliyahu HaNavi. Achav’s then transitions from insulting Eliyahu HaNavi as an “Ocheir Yisrael,” “destroyer of Israel” (Melachim I 18:17) to following Eliyahu’s instructions to assemble all of Israel and the “prophets” of Ba’al at Har HaCarmel for an “Emunah showdown.” After the fire descends from heaven only upon Eliyahu HaNavi’s Korban, it seems that Achav joins the nation in proclaiming “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim, Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim,” “Hashem is the [true] God, Hashem is the [true] God” (Melachim I 18:39). Achav might even participate in the eradication of the four hundred “prophets” of Ba’al. At the very least, Achav does not object. The fact that Eliyahu HaNavi runs before Achav’s chariot as he drives to his winter palace in Yizra’el seems to indicate Achav’s improved spiritual state. + If this line of thought is correct, Achav emerges at the end of the Har HaCarmel event as a supporter of Hashem. Thus, it does not make sense for Eliyahu to kill Achav. Eliyahu HaNavi, in turn, does not kill Izevel because he hopes that either Achav will influence her for the better, or in his improved spiritual state, jettison her altogether after seeing that her religious policies led to a ruinous three-year famine in his kingdom. +Conclusion +We need not see these varied explanations of Eliyahu HaNavi refraining from killing Achav and Izevel as mutually exclusive. Perhaps a combination of all these approaches accounts for what otherwise appears to be a surprising and even uncharacteristic act of restraint on the part of Eliyahu HaNavi. + +Achav Tells Izevel About the Events at Har HaCarmel + +Introduction +Melachim I 19 is one of the most magnificent, yet quite enigmatic, chapters in all of Tanach. We begin with some trepidation as we embark on our efforts to decipher its meaning. The chapter begins by recording Achav telling Izevel about the events at Har HaCarmel. +Achav Tells Izevel +When we read Melachim I 19:1, we are left wondering about Achav’s intentions. Does he try to incite Izevel to take revenge on Eliyahu HaNavi? Perhaps he is afraid to do so himself, and therefore lets Izevel do the “dirty work” for him, as he does in Melachim I 21, in the context of the story with Navot HaYizraeili. +On the other hand, it is possible that Achav intends to inspire Izevel to recognize Hashem, as he himself apparently does during the Har HaCarmel episode. The Malbim seems to adopt this second approach. TABC students, however, were skeptical, noting that there is no mention of Hashem in Melachim I 19:1, leading one to question as to whether there is an intention for Kiruv. +In any event, the Pesukim do not elucidate Achav’s intentions. This is not atypical for Achav, as in many cases his spiritual status is ambiguous, as documented at length by Rav Hayyim Angel (Vision from the Prophet and Counsel from the Elders, pp. 94-102). +Does Izevel Witness the Har HaCarmel Incident? +It seems that Izevel does not attend the events Har HaCarmel. Why else does Achav relate what happened to her?87TABC student Eitan Akiva Teigman (‘20) suggests that she leaves after witnessing the fire descend on Eliyahu HaNavi’s Korban. Achav merely informs her of Eliyahu’s subsequent killing of the Nevi’ei HaBa’al. TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) argues that Eliyahu HaNavi calls for all of the Bnei Yisrael, as well as Izevel’s prophets, to attend the great Har HaCarmel showdown. Izevel is not invited or, at least, feels that she is not welcome. Binyamin assumes that Izevel primarily perceives herself as a Phoenician princess, and not as an Israelite queen. It is thus reasonable to assume that she regards the Har HaCarmel event as irrelevant to her. Moreover, the prophets are described as “eating at Izevel’s table,” meaning that she controls the entire Ba’al and Asheirah enterprise in Israel. Accordingly, she has no motivation to attend an event that could possibly compromise her power. Achav, by contrast, does not seem to be invested in these prophets. Achav attends Har HaCarmel because he does not have much to lose, and is eager for the famine to end. +The question then, is why Izevel does not bother to witness one of the most spectacular events in all of human history? We suggest that Izevel is fully aware that her gods are false.88As noted by TABC alumnus Asher Powers (‘19). She does not wish to witness the irrefutable demonstration of this fact since it makes her uncomfortable. +This is reminiscent of what, sadly, what some people say when they hear accurate information with which they are uncomfortable— “don’t confuse me with the facts.” Regrettably, it is not uncommon for people to ardently cling to patently false beliefs, and resist all efforts of those who try to dissuade them from their erroneous thoughts. Izevel chooses to live a lie and attempts to coerce an entire kingdom to accept her beliefs which she herself recognizes as thoroughly false. +Izevel the “Booldozerit” +A friend relates that his Israeli grandmother warned him to not marry an overly aggressive woman. She coined a colorful phrase to describe such a feminine personality— a Booldozerit, the feminine version of the word “bulldozer” in modern Hebrew. +Izevel certainly fits the bill of a Booldozerit. In Melachim I 19:2, she, in full Booldozerit form, issues a death threat to Eliyahu HaNavi, without so much as even consulting Achav. Nor does she issue the proclamation in his name. She assumes full control and meets no resistance at any level of the government and populace.89Binyamin Jachter adds that the Bnei Yisrael comply with Izevel, likely because they recognize that she will murder anyone who tries to seize her power, including any government officials, let alone general civilians, by preventing her threat to Eliyahu HaNavi from being carried out. +Whatever Achav’s intentions are in relating the incident of Har HaCarmel to Izevel, he is held responsible for what occurs as a result of his actions, or lack thereof. At the end of the day, Achav is king and has the power to reject Izevel’s plan. Whatever his motivation, Achav fails to interfere with Izevel’s threat. Thus, Achav is the great enabler of Izevel’s evil actions. +It is possible that Achav fears Izevel because she descends from Phoenician royalty. He fears antagonizing the Phoenicians, due to a concern that they might invade and overwhelm his kingdom. As the survival of his people is at stake, Achav might not really have a choice in the matter. Similar to Shlomo HaMelech’s marriage to Bat Paroh, we see that marrying the daughter of a powerful king may eventually lead to horrific consequences. Popular wisdom teaches “not to hire someone one cannot fire.” One who violates this wise advice may be forced to engage in activities in which they may have otherwise never had to participate. +Tomorrow +Curiously, Izevel warns (Melachim I 19:2) Eliyahu HaNavi that “tomorrow he will be dead.” The Malbim poses the obvious question – why does she not kill Eliyahu Hanavi immediately? TABC students suggested that perhaps Izevel wishes to give Eliyahu HaNavi lead time to escape. Her goal, on the one hand, is for Eliyahu HaNavi to leave the kingdom so she can restore her influence. On the other hand, she does not want to turn Eliyahu HaNavi into a martyr by killing him. Izevel attains her goal by warning Eliyahu HaNavi that she will kill him the following day. +The Malbim offers a most insightful answer. He argues that Achav is inspired by what transpires at Har HaCarmel. However, Izevel cynically predicts that her husband’s inspiration will wane by the next day. Therefore, she is willing to wait a day for Achav to return to “normal” so she will be able to eliminate her hated foe Eliyahu HaNavi without resistance from her husband.90This could explain as to why Izevel does not use Achav’s name in her threat to Eliyahu HaNavi, unlike by Navot (as recorded in Melachim I 19) when she uses Achav’s name and seal to do her dirty work. In this case, Achav, in his heightened spiritual state, would not agree to threaten Eliyahu HaNavi, so Izevel feels that she has to do it all on her own. +The Malbim provides a most important insight on inspiration. This is also apparent from Keriat Yam Suf when the Bnei Yisrael were inspired to sing the magnificent Shirat HaYam, but three days later complained bitterly about water at Marah. According to Chazal (Bava Kama 82a), Moshe Rabbeinu at that juncture introduced the Torah reading of Monday and Thursday morning so that the Bnei Yisrael would not let three days go by without Torah learning. +Moshe Rabbeinu recognizes that, if it is to be sustained, inspiration must be regularly reinforced. Otherwise, the impact of even the pinnacle of inspirational events quickly dissipates and vanishes. +Sadly, this author recalls when a slightly older neighbor studied in an Israeli Yeshiva for a year. When he returned to the United States, he had developed into a Ben Torah who never missed Minyan and always carried a Chumash and Mishnah Berurah. This created quite a buzz amongst his old friends, who were somewhat disappointed and uncomfortable with his improved spirituality. However, one of his friends cynically observed that this is what happens to everyone upon their return from learning at an Israeli yeshiva. However, the friend observed, they all return to their old selves about a month after their return. He said, “watch, this will happen here as well.” +Unfortunately, this prescient prediction emerged as an accurate one. While still observant, the young man never returned to his “Ben Torah upgrade.” Decades later, he remains the same. He was briefly inspired but did not take the necessary steps that would sustain the gain. +Conclusion +The first two Pesukim of Melachim I 19 yield a plethora of precious insights. Indeed, Melachim I 19 is one of the richest chapters in Tanach. In the next chapter, we will proceed to the next portion of this magnificent Perek, and discuss Eliyahu HaNavi’s reaction to Izevel’s decree. + +Eliyahu Flees to Har Choreiv + + Izevel Issues a Threat +Following the events of Har HaCarmel, Achav tells Izevel everything that Eliyahu HaNavi has done (Melachim I 19:1). At this point, Izevel issues a threat against Eliyahu HaNavi. In response, Eliyahu HaNavi runs away to Har Choreiv, otherwise known as Har Sinai. It would be understandable if Eliyahu HaNavi flees in his time of crisis to the Beit HaMikdash or perhaps to the Me’arat HaMachpeilah, as does Kaleiv ben Yefuneh, according to Chazal (Sotah 34b; cited by Rashi to BeMidbar 13:22). Why does Eliyahu HaNavi, out of all places, run to Har Choreiv? +Radak — Hashem’s Choice +Radak (Melachim I 19:7 s.v. Ki Rav Mimcha HaDarech) writes that Eliyahu HaNavi does not intend to visit Sinai. Rather, Eliyahu HaNavi wanders for forty days, and Hashem leads him to Har Choreiv to communicate a vital message. +However, the fact that Hashem twice asks Eliyahu HaNavi “Mah Lecha Poh,” “why are you here,” (Melachim I 19:9 and 19:13) seems to suggest that Hashem does not direct him to Har Choreiv. Moreover, Radak does not explain why Hashem wants Eliyahu HaNavi to travel specifically to Choreiv. +The Metzudat David - Eliyahu HaNavi’s Choice +The Metzudat David (Melachim I 19:10 s.v. VaYevakshu), on the other hand, believes that Eliyahu HaNavi deliberately decides to visit Har Sinai. Eliyahu HaNavi is infuriated at the Bnei Yisrael for reverting to Izevel’s ways after their resounding acceptance of Hashem as the true God at Har HaCarmel. Eliyahu is so infuriated, that he runs away to the desert, where he asks Hashem to die. However, Hashem rejects his plea and sends a Malach to feed Eliyahu HaNavi twice. +Eliyahu HaNavi goes to sleep twice in the desert, hoping he will not wake up. However, twice the Malach insists that he eat, informing him that “Rav Mimecha HaDarech,” “there is a long way ahead of you.” We suggest the Malach tells Eliyahu that his life’s mission is far from complete. Therefore, his request to die is denied. +At this point, Eliyahu HaNavi flees to Har Choreiv. We suggest that he selects this site because it is where the Cheit HaEigel occurred. We suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to invoke the memory of the Cheit HaEigel to spur Hashem to punish the Bnei Yisrael. Indeed, the Metzudat David understands Eliyahu HaNavi’s proclamation that Am Yisrael has abandoned the Brit, destroyed altars, killed prophets, and that he is the lone faithful individual left, as a plea to Hashem to punish the Bnei Yisrael. +Evidence to this thesis is the fact that Eliyahu HaNavi goes to a cave identified by Rashi as the area where Hashem appears to Moshe Rabbeinu in the wake of the Cheit HaEigel. Moreover, Eliyahu HaNavi’s going without food and water for forty days certainly evokes the memory of Moshe Rabbeinu at Har Sinai, and to a great extent, to the recovery from the Cheit HaEigel. +The Cheit HaEigel is seen by Chazal as a Kateigor, a prosecuting attorney. It is for this reason, Chazal teach, that the Kohein Gadol does not enter the Kodesh Kodashim on Yom Kippur wearing Bigdei Zahav, the golden high priestly vestments. Gold invokes the memory of the Cheit HaEigel, something we wish to avoid. +At the Cheit HaEigel, Hashem tells Moshe Rabbeinu that “UveYom Pokdi, UPakaditi Aleihem Chata’tam,” “on the day that I make My account, I shall bring their sin to account against them.” He will not at this point punish the Bnei Yisrael for the Cheit HaEigel; but, if they repeat the sin they will be punished for both the new sin and the old sin of Cheit HaEigel (Shemot 32:34). In Melachim I 19, Eliyahu HaNavi seems to say that since the Bnei Yisrael have returned to idolatry, and have remained devoted to it even after the events at Har HaCarmel, they deserve to be punished both for the current Avodah Zarah and for the Cheit HaEigel as well. +The Consequence for Eliyahu HaNavi’s Harsh Plea +Rashi (Melachim I 19:16) explains that at this time, Hashem chooses Elisha to replace Eliyahu HaNavi. Hashem plans to strip Eliyahu HaNavi of role as Navi since he engages in Katigoria, scathing criticism, of the Bnei Yisrael. In a later chapter, we will discuss the other consequences that result from Eliyahu HaNavi’s criticism of the Bnei Yisrael. +Conclusion +One should never become as frustrated as Eliyahu HaNavi does in Melachim I 19. One should follow the example set by the legendary Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev, and always find good things to say about the Jewish people.91A famous (and highly characteristic) anecdote relates when Rav Levi Yitzchak spotted a Jew greasing the wheels of his buggy while wearing Tallit and Tefillin, in the middle of prayer. Instead of rebuking the Jew, Rav Levi Yitzchak turned to God and cried out, “God, look at how holy Your nation is. They even grease the wheels of their buggies with Tallit and Tefillin on...” In the words of the Aruch HaShulchan (O.C. 345:18, in his defense of the use of city-wide Eruvin), “there is a Mitzvah and obligation to defend the practices of the Jewish people.” + +A Fed Up Man of Faith + +Eliyahu HaNavi Backs Down? +At the beginning of Melachim I 19, Eliyahu HaNavi shockingly backs down from a confrontation with Izevel. This does not sound at all like the fearless Eliyahu HaNavi who stands up to Achav and Izevel in Melachim I 18. Why does he back down? +Ralbag’s Approach +Ralbag understands that Eliyahu HaNavi acts in a natural manner, and does not rely upon a miracle to save himself from Izevel’s death threat. TABC students wondered why Eliyahu HaNavi remains within Achav’s jurisdiction and reach in Melachim I 17. We suggest that Melachim I 17 is an exception since Hashem specifically commands him to hide in certain places. +Eliyahu HaNavi flees to Be’eir Sheva, the southern tip of the Southern Kingdom.92The Tanach is replete with descriptions of the range of Eretz Yisrael from Dan to Be’eir Sheva. The Southern Kingdom is ruled by the righteous king Yehoshafat, where Eliyahu HaNavi can presumably take refuge. Why then, does Eliyahu HaNavi continue to flee from Be’eir Sheva to the desert? Ralbag and Radak both explain that Eliyahu HaNavi fears that Izevel can still catch him in Be’eir Sheva. TABC students explain that even though Be’eir Sheva is under Yehoshafat’s rule, Eliyahu HaNavi may fear that Izevel will send a “hit squad” outside her jurisdiction to kill him, as has happened not infrequently in the modern world (such as Leon Trotsky’s assassination by Joseph Stalin’s “hit men” while in exile in Mexico). +It would seem counterintuitive to flee to the desert for safety, considering that a desert is a very dangerous place to be alone without provisions. TABC students surmised that Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to escape a torturous death at the hands of Izevel’s forces in retaliation for eliminating the prophets of Ba’al. In addition, by falling into Izevel’s hands, Eliyahu would create a serious Chillul Hashem. +Finally, Ralbag explains that Eliyahu HaNavi wishes to die due to his suffering from severe hunger in the desert. One could ask, why Eliyahu heads to the desert without realizing that he will soon be in such a precarious situation. The answer is, as we suggested earlier, that Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to avoid death at the hands of Izevel. +Ralbag and Radak explain Eliyahu’s difficult explanation for his death “Ki Lo Tov Ani Mei’Avotai,” “for I am no better than my forefathers” (Melachim I 19:4), in light of those opinions in Chazal that identify Eliyahu HaNavi with Pinechas of the Chumash. According to this approach, Eliyahu is extraordinarily aged and is not superior to his forefathers in deserving or needing to live so long. +The Malbim’s Approach +The Malbim takes an entirely different approach. According to the Malbim, Eliyahu HaNavi does not flee due to a concern for his safety. Rather, Eliyahu HaNavi prefers, according to the Malbim, a life of Hitbodedut (isolation). This refers to the isolation of oneself in an attempt to draw closer to Hashem and to perfect one’s Neshamah. +Hitbodedut today is most often associated with Breslover Chassidut, which is renowned for its adherents’ isolation in the forest in an effort to draw closer to Hashem. Interestingly, the Seforno (Shemot 3:1) explains that Moshe Rabbeinu retreats to the desert to graze his sheep to isolate himself and draw closer to Hashem. Thus, from a certain perspective, Breslover Chassidim act like both Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu HaNavi! +The Malbim explains that Eliyahu HaNavi interacts with people only when necessary. Therefore, once he realizes that he cannot accomplish any more with Am Yisrael in the Northern Kingdom, it becomes time for him to return to isolation. The Malbim also explains that this is why Eliyahu HaNavi leaves Be’eir Sheva and travels to the desert. The Malbim notes that during his time in the desert, Eliyahu HaNavi completely repairs his Neshamah, and draws as close to Hashem as humanly possible, which is why he wishes to die. Once he completes his mission on Earth, he feels that it is time to leave. +The Malbim explains the phrase “Ki Lo Tov Ani Mei’Avotai,” as saying that even though Eliyahu HaNavi rectifies his Neshamah to be on the level of the Adam HaRishon’s Neshamah prior to eating from the Eitz HaDa’at, and therefore, in theory, deserves to live forever, Eliyahu HaNavi argues that it is not right for this to happen since he should not be perceived as greater than his ancestors, who all eventually died. +Our Suggested Approach +Ralbag and the Malbim’s respective approaches, while explaining each of the steps recorded in Melachim I 19:3-4, do not seem to fit with the actions and complaints sounded by Eliyahu HaNavi later in the rest of Melachim I 19. In turn, we suggest that indeed Eliyahu HaNavi feels that he has accomplished all he could do with Am Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom, as set forth by the Malbim. However, rather than understanding Eliyahu HaNavi’s retreat as done with a dispassionate calm, we suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi leaves in a fury. +According to our approach, Eliyahu HaNavi is deeply frustrated, upset, and disappointed with the northern Bnei Yisrael. After three years of punishing drought to incontrovertibly prove to the northern Bnei Yisrael that “Hashem Hu HaElokim,” “Hashem is the [true] God” (Melachim I 18:39), Eliyahu HaNavi has done everything possible, and then some. What more can he or anyone else do? Even after the miraculous events at Har HaCarmel, the northern Bnei Yisrael fail to rise in protest against Izevel when she issues a death threat against Eliyahu HaNavi. +In other words, Eliyahu HaNavi’s flight from the north is not due to safety or spiritual retreat. Rather, he is, simply put, a fed-up man of faith! He is so upset, that he runs away— first to Be’eir Sheva, and then to the desert, where he expresses a wish to die. After being revived and nourished by the Malach, Eliyahu HaNavi proceeds to retreat even further to Har Choreiv. When Hashem twice asks him “Mah Lecha Po Eliyahu,” “why are you here Eliyahu?” (Melachim I 19:9, 19:13), Eliyahu launches into a severe criticism of Am Yisrael for having abandoned their commitment to Hashem. Eliyahu HaNavi very much acts and sounds like a fed-up man of faith! +A Parallel to Moshe Rabbeinu +We may draw a parallel to Moshe Rabbeinu in BeMidbar 11. In BeMidbar 10, Moshe Rabbeinu confidently proclaims to his father-in-law Yitro that they will soon travel to Eretz Yisrael. Moshe Rabbeinu is under the impression that he has succeeded in effecting a complete recovery for Am Yisrael from the depths of the Cheit HaEigel. He believes that he has successfully raised their spiritual level to the point where they deserve to enter Eretz Yisrael. +However, Moshe Rabbeinu fails to read the cues and does not realize that the Bnei Yisrael’s compliance is only skin deep. For example, Moshe Rabbeinu interprets the Bnei Yisrael’s great enthusiasm in leaving Choreiv as excitement to enter Eretz Yisrael. However, little does he realize that Bnei Yisrael are more interested in fleeing Har Sinai lest Hashem burdens them with more Mitzvot (see Ramban to the end of BeMidbar 10). +In BeMidbar 10:29, Moshe invites Yitro to join the nation on its journey to Eretz Yisrael. Yitro rejects Moshe’s offer, and instead goes back to his land and family. By not joining the Bnei Yisrael on the remainder of their journey to Eretz Yisrael, Yitro signals to Moshe Rabbeinu that he has misread the situation. Unfortunately, Moshe Rabbeinu does not grasp his father-in-law’s message. Consequently, just when they are on the brink of entering Eretz Yisrael, the Bnei Yisrael make their hysterical demand for meat, and Moshe Rabbeinu is overcome by the realization that the Bnei Yisrael are indeed not ready to enter Eretz Yisrael (BeMidbar 11:1-6). The efforts of more than a year to raise the Bnei Yisrael’s spiritual level had been for naught. +This realization, in turn, brings Moshe Rabbeinu to a dreadful depression. In his despair, he asks Hashem to die: “Ve’Im Kachah At Oseh Li Haregeini Na Harag Im Matzati Chein Be’Einecha Ve’Al Er’eh BeRa’ati,” “If this is the way You treat me, please kill me if I have found favor in Your eyes, so that I do not see my misfortune” (BeMidbar 11:15). +Eliyahu HaNavi’s behavior, who in Melachim I 19 is obviously compared to Moshe Rabbeinu with his forty-day journey to Choreiv having consumed no food and no water, can be best explained by this parallel. Eliyahu HaNavi ecstatically runs for many miles before the chariot of Achav in the pouring rain (Melachim I 18:36) as the latter travels from Har HaCarmel to his winter palace in Yizra’eil. Eliyahu HaNavi’s triumphant “victory run” expresses the great adrenalin rush he experiences in thinking that he has returned the Bnei Yisrael to Hashem. After all, everyone proclaims “Hashem Hu HaElokim” not once, but twice. Even Achav (according to the Malbim), seems to be convinced. +Hashem tries to hint to Eliyahu HaNavi that this change of heart might be a mile wide but is in truth only an inch deep. Hashem does not immediately send the rain Eliyahu HaNavi requests, nay demands, at the end of Melachim I 18. Indeed, Eliyahu’s assistant has to search no less than seven times to see if the rain has come, despite Eliyahu’s lying on the ground and demanding, Choni HaMa’ageil style, that he will not rise until it rains (see Ralbag 18:42). We suggest that Hashem signals to Eliyahu HaNavi that all is not well in the Northern Kingdom. Unfortunately, like Moshe Rabbeinu, Eliyahu HaNavi does not read the cue and does not realize the true nature of the northern Bnei Yisrael’s reaction to the events on Har HaCarmel. +Tragically, the sobering reality unexpectedly and entirely comes crashing down on Eliyahu HaNavi when no community protest follows Izevel’s brazenly issued death threat. It is as if Eliyahu has done absolutely nothing to impact the northern Bnei Yisrael. All of Eliyahu HaNavi’s extraordinary actions seem to amount to nothing. For this reason, Eliyahu HaNavi runs and bitterly expresses his scathing criticism not once, but twice, of the Bnei Yisrael’s complete abandonment of the Brit, and their warranted punishment (see Ralbag to Melachim I 19:8 and the Metzudat David to Melachim I 19:10, s.v. VaYevakshu). He even goes as far as to ask Hashem to die! +When Eliyahu HaNavi proclaims that he “is not greater than his ancestors,” he might mean that, up until this point, he has harbored an ambition that with his unique methodology, he could surpass his ancestors (assuming in accordance with the opinions in Chazal that Eliyahu HaNavi is not Pinechas) in impacting the northern Bnei Yisrael to return to Hashem. Where his ancestors failed, Eliyahu HaNavi thought his innovative and more aggressive approach would succeed. The sobering reality of Melachim I 19 makes Eliyahu HaNavi realize that he is no more successful than his ancestors, and has failed just as they did, despite his new style.93TABC student Akiva Prager (‘20) thought this answer was so compelling that he wondered why the traditional Mefarshim did not offer this approach. We suggest that they wished to avoid portraying Eliyahu HaNavi as creating an impassioned ideology for a death wish. Rather, they offered much more tame explanations for Eliyahu HaNavi’s desire to die. +Conclusion - Lessons to be Learned +At least one powerful lesson may be gleaned from this intense episode. Both Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu HaNavi find themselves at a peak emotional high, and then very quickly cascade downwards to a very deep depression. Rambam’s lesson in Hilchot Dei’ot 1-3, to avoid extremes, looms very large in this context. One should avoid even extreme happiness (see Berachot 31a), for in its wake the pendulum will often swing and come crashing downwards, leading one to a very painful emotional state. +In addition, almost instantaneously, the supremely confident Eliyahu HaNavi of Melachim I 17-18 suddenly transforms into an exceedingly humble soul, proclaiming “Lo Tov Ani Mei’Avotai.” A healthier approach would have been to avoid the extremes at both ends of the pendulum. +In the rest of Melachim I 19, Hashem seeks to restore Eliyahu HaNavi’s equilibrium. Eliyahu HaNavi’s response to Hashem’s efforts remains to be scrutinized and mined for deep meaning. + +Eliyahu HaNavi at the Seder + +Introduction94A large acknowledgment to TABC alumnus Nachum Krasnopolsky (‘19) for his major contribution to the content of this essay. Nachum delivered a Shiur on this topic at TABC on our last Shiur before Pesach 5779. +Ashkenazic and some Sephardic Jews set aside a special Kos (goblet) at the Pesach Seder for Eliyahu HaNavi. Although this Minhag (custom) is of relatively recent vintage,95The first to mention this Minhag is the Maharaz Binga, a student of the Maharil (a late Rishon). it has taken hold in the hearts and minds of most of our people. It is so well-entrenched that most are shocked to discover that it is not mentioned in the Gemara, Rambam, or Shulchan Aruch. This Minhag, though, clearly resonates deeply with our people, and thus we must endeavor to discover the underlying logic of this most enchanting practice. +The Mishnah Berurah and Aruch HaShulchan +The Mishnah Berurah (480:10) and Aruch HaShulchan (Orach Chaim 450:1) explain that setting the Kos for Eliyahu HaNavi serves to reaffirm our belief that just as Hashem redeemed us from Mitzrayim, so too He will redeem us once again from our current less than ideal state. +Tishbi Yetareitz Kushyot Ve’Abayot +Another explanation offered is that there is an issue as to whether there is a fifth Kos to be used at the Seder. Rashi and Rashbam to Pesachim 118a reject the idea of a fifth Kos, while both Rabbeinu Chananel (to Pesachim 118a) and Rambam (Hilchot Chameitz UMatzah 8:10) embrace it. Since this is an unresolved debate, we invoke the presence of Eliyahu HaNavi who will resolve any Halachic issues that have not been decided (in accordance with the view of R. Shimon bar Yochai, presented in Mishnah Eiduyot 8:7). +Zohar – Punishment +The Zohar (to Parashat Lech Lecha) makes a striking assertion. It states that Eliyahu HaNavi is punished with having to attend every Brit Milah, since, as recorded in Melachim I 19, he twice accuses the Bnei Yisrael of having abandoned the Brit (covenant) with Hashem.96Sephardic Jews recite this passage from the Zohar at the Brit Yitzhak, the evening of learning held at a house of a baby boy the night before his Brit Milah. Indeed, the very well-accepted custom is to set aside a chair for Eliyahu HaNavi at a Brit Milah (Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 265:11). +Extending the Zohar from Brit Milah to Brit Bein HaBetarim +A very reasonable extension of the Zohar is that Eliyahu HaNavi also attends every Seder. The Seder is fundamentally an expression of fidelity and commitment to the Brit Bein HaBetarim (the covenant between the pieces, where Hashem set forth the recurring pattern of Jewish history of suffering and redemption, see BeReishit 15). Thus, it makes eminent sense to extend the Zohar, and assert that Eliyahu HaNavi is assigned by Hashem to attend our Sedarim to witness that Am Yisrael, contrary to Eliyahu HaNavi’s assertion, has not abandoned its deep connection to the Brit with Hashem, as expressed in the Brit Bein HaBetarim. +The extension from Brit Milah to the Brit Bein HaBetarim takes on even more significance when one considers the deep connection between the Korban Pesach, the quintessential expression of the Brit Bein HaBetarim and Brit Milah. According to Pirkei DeRabi Eliezer (29), it was these two Mitzvot which Hashem assigned to us on the eve of Yetzi’at Mitzrayim. The merit of our observance of these two Mitzvot, states Pirkei DeRabi Eliezer, earned our redemption from the Egyptian bondage. +In fact, Pirkei DeRabi Eliezer explains that the twice repeated phrase in the Haggadah (taken from Yechezkeil 16) “BeDamayich Chai,” “live with your blood,” refers to the blood of the Korban Pesach and the blood of the Brit Milah. +Brit Milah and Korban Pesach may be seen as “twin Mitzvot.” They are, for example, the only positive commandments for which there is a punishment of Karet for one who fails to fulfill them. Karet, excision from the nation, is a most appropriate punishment for not performing these two Mitzvot, in which we pledge, more than any other Mitzvah, our allegiance to our covenant with Hashem. Similarly, in the Haftarah for the first day of Pesach, we read of Yehoshua’s coupling of the Mitzvot of Brit Milah and Korban Pesach after the Bnei Yisrael’s entry into Eretz Yisrael. +VeHeiveiti — The Conditional Fifth Promise +We suggest a new reason for why Eliyahu HaNavi attends our Sedarim specifically at the point when the fifth cup is poured. The most well-known explanation for the rabbinic enactment to have four Kosot at the Seder is that the four Kosot correspond to the four stages of Ge’ulah presented at the beginning of Parashat Va’eira (Yerushalmi Pesachim 10:1, cited by Rashi and Rashbam to Pesachim 99b). +The Seforno explains that these four stages refer to the end of the suffering during the Ten Makkot (when the Egyptians were too preoccupied with their suffering to afflict us), the end of our subjugation as slaves when we left Egypt, our redemption with the great miracles of the splitting of the Yam Suf, and our adoption as a nation by Hashem at Har Sinai. +There is, however, a fifth stage of Geulah referred to as “VeHeiveiti,” “I will bring you [to the land of Israel].” The Seforno notes that the fifth stage fundamentally differs from the first four stages.97Likewise, Rambam (Hilchot Chameitz UMatzah 8:10) distinguishes between the first four cups and the fifth cup. The first four stages of Geulah, explains the Seforno, are promised unconditionally to Am Yisrael. The fifth stage, though, is preceded by the statement that we will internalize the message that Hashem is our God. The Seforno explains that we will be entitled to enter the land only if we succeed in internalizing this message. The generation that exits Mitzrayim does not enter Eretz Yisrael precisely due to its failure to take to heart the message that Hashem is our God. The paralyzing fear that results from Meraglim’s report is a telltale sign that the people have not fully recognized Hashem as their God, and they, therefore, do not deserve to enter Eretz Yisrael. +Eliyahu HaNavi as a Summons to Fully Recognize Hashem +As we read in the Haftarah of Shabbat HaGadol (Malachi 3:4-24), Eliyahu HaNavi will rally us to a Teshuvah that will trigger the arrival of Mashi’ach, our final redemption. In line with this mission, Eliyahu HaNavi arrives at our Seder precisely at the moment at which we allude to VeHeiveiti, the conditional fifth step of redemption. Eliyahu HaNavi’s presence awakens us to his mission to lead us to full and unadulterated commitment to Hashem, as he tries to do at Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18).98A thank you to TABC student Ezra Seplowitz (‘20) for the Har HaCarmel observation. Eliyahu HaNavi reminds us that the vision of the full return to Eretz Yisrael will be realized and triggered only by our unreserved and uncompromised commitment to Hashem. +Conclusion +An immersion in Sefer Melachim brings the fiery and uncompromising personality of Eliyahu HaNavi to life. A most vivid and compelling image of Eliyahu HaNavi emerges for those who have had the privilege of devoting much time to delving into his life as it is recorded in Sefer Melachim. This image is precisely what we should conjure up in our minds at the moment of the Seder when we invite him into our homes. For those who succeed in this visualization, the impact of Eliyahu HaNavi can be most appreciated and impactful. +May we all merit to fully grasp the essence of Eliyahu HaNavi, and may his visit to our homes at the Seder stir us to complete commitment to Hashem and His holy Torah. May we thereby fulfill the conditions necessary to trigger the fulfillment of “VeHeiveiti” and the ultimate redemption speedily in our days. + +The Appointments of Chaza'eil, Yeihu, and Elisha + +Four Questions +Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim I 19:14) stubbornly clings to his demand that Hashem punish those who served Ba’al. In response, Hashem tells Eliyahu HaNavi to anoint Chaza’eil as king over Aram, Yeihu as king over the northern Israel, and Elisha as his replacement. These three leaders will eliminate all but the 7,000 of the Bnei Yisrael who have never worshipped Ba’al (Melachim I 19:15-17). However, four major questions emerge: +1. Eliyahu HaNavi never anoints Chaza’eil and Yeihu; instead, Elisha anoints Chaza’eil (Melachim II 8:13) and Elisha’s student (whom Chazal identify as none other than Yonah ben Amitai) anoints Yeihu (Melachim II 9:1-4). +2. While Chaza’eil eventually inflicts considerable damage on the North, Yeihu kills a considerable number of Ba’al worshippers, and Elisha does seem to cause death of forty-two boys who taunt him (and possibly eventually brings about a seven-year-long famine), the prophecy of the near elimination of Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom by a combination of Chaza’eil, Yeihu, and Elisha does not materialize. +3. If Elisha replaces Eliyahu HaNavi, why does Eliyahu HaNavi remain alive until Melachim II 2? +4. If Eliyahu HaNavi is so scared of Izevel, why does he return to the Northern Kingdom, and seems for the rest of his time in this world to circulate fearlessly in northern Israel (for example, to anoint Elisha)? +Solutions of Radak and the Malbim +Radak (Melachim I 19:15 s.v. Shuv LeDarkecha) and the Malbim (Melachim I 19:15-16) offer various solutions to these questions. +The fourth question is the easiest to resolve, as noted by Radak. Once Hashem informs Eliyahu that he is to return to the Northern Kingdom, Eliyahu HaNavi is assured of Hashem’s protection. We may add that Eliyahu HaNavi is never scared of Izevel, as we suggested in an earlier chapter, but that he is exasperated by the lack of commitment to Hashem amongst Bnei Yisrael of the north. However, once Eliyahu is told by Hashem to return and effectuate punishment, Eliyahu is eager to return in the hope that this will lead the northern Bnei Yisrael to Teshuvah. +The third question is also fairly easy to resolve. Radak understands that Hashem tells Eliyahu not only to appoint Elisha but also to tutor him and train him to be his replacement. The overlap between Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha is the period in which Elisha studies with Eliyahu HaNavi. +The first question is a far more challenging issue. The Malbim solves the problem by arguing that Achav’s Teshuvah (recorded in Melachim I 21:27-29) alters the calculus. Teshuvah can overturn a negative decree as is clearly evidenced by Sefer Yonah. Once Achav performs Teshuvah, the anointment of Chaza’eil and Yeihu is delayed. The Malbim seems to adequately explain why Achav deserves to avoid punishment, and thus Yeihu is not appointed as his replacement. However, what do the rest of the northern Bnei Yisrael do to merit the delay of Chaza’eil’s appointment?99As noted by TABC student Ezra Baron (‘20). +Radak solves the problem by utilizing the principle of Shelichut. The Halachah teaches that the actions of one’s Shali’ach (messenger) are the equivalent of one’s own actions (“Shelucho Shel Adam Kemoto”). Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi fulfills his mandate by passing the baton to Elisha to anoint Yeihu and Chaza’eil. While Elisha does anoint Chaza’eil, Elisha, in turn, passes his obligation to appoint Chaza’eil to one of his students (whom Chazal identify as Yonah ben Amittai). +Radak explains that the fact that Eliyahu encounters Elisha on the road before meeting Chaza’eil and Yeihu, signals to Eliyahu HaNavi that Hashem wants these latter two anointments to be carried out by Elisha. However, TABC students were left with the feeling that this alone is insufficient evidence to deviate from Hashem’s command. +We will now attempt to answer our second question. The destruction of all but 7,000 of the Bnei Yisrael never materializes. Achav’s minimal Teshuvah hardly suffices to overturn this severe decree.100TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) suggests a straightforward answer. Perhaps Eliyahu HaNavi does not intend to refrain from anointing the other two. He starts with the first of the three that he encounters. His goal is to complete his mission one by one. Until Elisha is trained, this part of his mission is not finished, and he is not ready to move to his next step. Eliyahu HaNavi assumes that he is going to complete the next portion of his mission, but Hashem abruptly takes him out of the picture. Following Eliyahu HaNavi’s fiery ascension, Elisha is tasked with the appointment of Chaza’eil and Yeihu. +Introduction to Resolving the Remaining Questions - The Great First Meeting of Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha +Perhaps a key to resolving the remaining issues emerges from the dramatic first encounter between Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha (described in Melachim I 19:19-21). In a previous chapter, we carefully “read between the lines” of this great interaction, and drew some conclusions regarding Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s relationship. +The essential point that emerges from that discussion is that Elisha makes it very clear that while he is completely devoted to Eliyahu HaNavi, his style will be different. Elisha is a more grounded, down to earth person who interacts and nurtures the people of Israel. He is gentler than Eliyahu HaNavi. +Resolving our Remaining Questions +Eliyahu HaNavi intuits Elisha’s personality. He realizes that Hashem chose the gentler and more down to earth Elisha to replace him. This decision indicates that Hashem wishes for a gentler approach that will soften the prophesied blows of Chaza’eil and Yeihu. +Let us see how this is applied in practice.101The following section is greatly influenced by Rav Elchanan Samet’s analysis that appears in his Pirkei Eliyahu. A major difference is that Rav Samet assumes that Eliyahu HaNavi moderates his tone and style somewhat after he returns from Choreiv. This author and TABC students over the years have found this unconvincing, and thus we have presented an alternative explanation as to why Eliyahu HaNavi outsources the appointments of Chaza’eil and Yeihu to Elisha. In Melachim II 8:13, Elisha informs Chaza’eil that he will be the new king, and predicts that he will inflict extremely harsh punishment upon Am Yisrael. However, while Chaza’eil does attack northern Israel102Chaza’eil’s attack is partially documented in the famous Tel Dan Stele, on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. as recorded in Melachim II 12-13, the damage is dramatically less severe than predicted by Elisha. What is the reason for this change? +It seems that Elisha’s crying when appointing Chaza’eil (Melachim II 8:11) significantly impacts the king. Apparently, Elisha’s tears soften Chaza’eil and manage to influence him to lighten the blow on northern Israel. +The choice of a Navi makes a dramatic difference. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 89a) states that “two prophets do not prophesy in the identical style.”103The difference is style applies not only to Nevi’im but also to Posekim, rabbinic leaders, and Torah commentaries. Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Satmar Rebbe, and Ramban and Ibn Ezra are examples of contemporaneous pairs with considerably different styles. Furthermore, the Gemara (Megillah 14b) records:104Translation adapted from The William Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Megillah.14b. +How could Yoshiyahu ignore Yirmiyahu and send emissaries to Chuldah [to discover the meaning of the discovered Torah scrolls]? The Sages of the school of R. Sheila say: Because women are more compassionate, and he hoped that what she would tell them would not be overly harsh. +Clearly, we see that the Navi who delivers a prophecy makes a major difference in its fulfillment. Therefore, we suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi recognizes that if Hashem instructs him to appoint Elisha, a dramatically softer personality than he, then Hashem clearly wants the prophecy regarding Chaza’eil and Yeihu to be brought about in a compassionate manner by a gentler and more compassionate Navi. Therefore, Eliyahu HaNavi decides to outsource the anointing of Chaza’eil and Yeihu to Elisha. +Finally, now we understand why the prophecy of only 7,000 faithful Bnei Yisrael remaining never comes to fruition. The softer style of Elisha blunts the severity of the actions of Chaza’eil and Yeihu.105Elisha waits quite a long time before ordering his student to appoint Yeihu. Elisha is exceedingly generous with the time he extends to Yehoram ben Achav to perform Teshuvah in the hope that the Teshuvah will override the decree to appoint Yeihu to eliminate the house of Achav. However, when it is time to appoint Yeihu, Elisha designates an anonymous student, identified by Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 9:1) as Yonah ben Amitai to do the job. The elimination of Beit Achav and the idolatry of northern Israel was a bloody one. Yonah, a great advocate of strict justice (as is quite apparent from Sefer Yonah), was a far more appropriate Navi to execute the appointment of Yeihu than the softer-hearted Elisha. +Conclusion +Eliyahu HaNavi demands punishment of northern Israel for their misdeeds. While Hashem accedes to this demand, Eliyahu HaNavi accedes to Hashem that in practice the punishment will be implemented in a much softer manner by Elisha, Eliyahu HaNavi’s replacement. Like in any healthy relationship, there is a give and take between Hashem and Eliyahu HaNavi in regards to the punishment of the northern Bnei Yisrael. +In the coming chapters, we will see the sun set on Eliyahu HaNavi as Elisha takes on a more prominent role. + +The Great First Meeting of Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha + +Unpacking Terse Verse +The dramatic first encounter between Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha is briefly described at the conclusion of Melachim I 19 (19:19-21). This event is exceptionally rich in meaning and could be made into a full-length motion picture. Of course, the Tanach characteristically compresses this exceptionally meaningful exchange in a few brief sentences. We will try to carefully “read between the lines” of this great interaction, and try to draw some very important conclusions regarding the relationship between Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha, which may help us uncover deeper meanings of many of the narratives that involve Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha. +Eliyahu HaNavi Throws His Mantle onto Elisha +In reading between the lines of the Pesukim describing the introductory meeting between Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha, we find an emerging tension. On the one hand, Elisha grasps the message Eliyahu HaNavi communicates when he places part of his mantel on him. As explained by Radak and Ralbag, the mantel is a symbol of Nevu’ah, as is evident from Zechariah 13:4. By sharing the mantel with Elisha, Eliyahu HaNavi communicates that he is ready to bring Elisha under his wing, and train him to develop into a Navi. +Eliyahu HaNavi does not communicate this message directly, but rather symbolically. One may surmise that Eliyahu HaNavi does this to develop Elisha’s skills as a Navi. Hashem communicates with Nevi’im other than Moshe Rabbeinu with an “Aspaklaria Sheinah Me’irah,” "through an opaque lens” (Yevamot 49b). Thus, to be able to decipher the divine message, one must first be able to decode symbolic messages.106TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) notes that it is especially important today to learn how to discern the subtle divine voice, since in our times Hashem (using a metaphor from Shir HaShirim 2:9), “stands behind the wall and peers through the latticework.” +Elisha Runs to Eliyahu HaNavi +Elisha readily grasps the message and responds with alacrity by running to Eliyahu HaNavi. Elisha is clearly fully and instantaneously drawn and committed to Eliyahu HaNavi. The fact that he is at the head of a team of twelve pairs of oxen indicates, as noted by Ralbag, that he is quite wealthy. Nonetheless, Elisha unflinchingly displays his unconditional willingness to leave it all to come under the wings of Eliyahu HaNavi. +Elisha does not prepare for his meeting with Eliyahu HaNavi.107As observed by TABC student Akiva Teigman (‘20). His response of unconditional and unlimited commitment is instantaneous. Sometimes, the best decisions are made in an instant as documented by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestselling book Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 2005). This also serves as an effective response to those who criticize Am Yisrael’s instant consent to observe the Torah, when we spontaneously responded “Na’aseh VeNishma,” “we will do and we will listen,” (Shemot 24:7) at Har Sinai (see Shabbat 88a). +Elisha Kisses His Parents +On the other hand, Elisha makes it very clear at the outset that he will act differently than Eliyahu HaNavi.108One could hardly imagine Eliyahu HaNavi plowing or embracing his parents, for example. His warm request to kiss his parents before he leaves reflects a dramatic shift in style from that of Eliyahu HaNavi.109TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) observes that Sefer Melachim does not record Eliyahu HaNavi interacting with his family. This serves in contrast to the importance Elisha grants to his family. Eliyahu HaNavi may be understood as a completely self-made individual and may have even departed from a family practice of idol worship (recall that it is far from a unanimous view in Chazal that Eliyahu HaNavi is to be identified as Pinechas). Elisha is built in part from his family’s wealth, and by working for and with his family. Their success is his since they helped him develop into an honorable man. Elisha, therefore, has a different relationship with his family than does Eliyahu HaNavi. Indeed, Eliyahu HaNavi offers an ambivalent response to this request (see Radak to Melachim I 19:19, s.v. VaYashleich Adarto, and contrast it with the Metzudat David’s understanding of the end of Melachim I 19:20 s.v. Leich Shuv Ki Mah Asiti Lach). +Slaughtering the Twelve Pairs of Oxen +Similarly, in Melachim I 19:21, Elisha expresses his complete commitment to Eliyahu HaNavi and simultaneously demonstrates that his style will be different. On the one hand, he slaughters a dozen pairs of oxen and uses the plowing implements (see Radak) as fuel to cook the meat. Elisha permanently and irretrievably burns the bridges to his past life of affluence. There is now no way back— he locks himself into a full commitment to Eliyahu HaNavi. His opening act has to be dramatic and complete, or else he will look at the long road ahead, and quickly turn back. +On the other hand, Elisha uses the opportunity to feed the locals. Elisha’s first action contrasts dramatically with that of Eliyahu HaNavi. Sefer Melachim first mentions Eliyahu HaNavi when he orders the imposition of a severe famine (Melachim I 17:1). Elisha’s first action, though, is feeding the people. Elisha will be devoted to Eliyahu HaNavi, but his style of Nevu’ah will be quite different than that of his teacher. +One may ask why Elisha does not leave himself a source of income generation for himself and his future students. As is clear from later in Melachim II, the students live in dire poverty. A steady income stream from a flourishing farm would alleviate much suffering, and perhaps even attract more students. +We may answer based on a story told about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. It is told he received a valuable piece of land for a wedding gift from a wealthy relative. Rav Shlomo Zalman, in turn, sold the property as soon as possible, instead of developing the property to provide a steady source of revenue. He explained that he wanted to focus his complete and undivided attention on Torah and spiritual growth without any distractions that would emerge from tending to his real estate interests. This personal decision, of course, was a correct one, as Rav Shlomo Zalman emerged as one of the leading Torah scholars of his generation. Similarly, Elisha wishes to focus his attention solely on his spiritual growth without the distraction of having to tend to his business. Of course, this also was a correct choice, as Elisha emerges as a most worthy successor to Eliyahu HaNavi. +Postscript – A Compelling Question and Three Suggested Responses +Why does Elisha not simply donate the invaluable oxen and plowing equipment to poor families?110As asked by TABC alumnus Benji Kooijmans (‘19). After all, the Gemara (Gittin 52a) notes that “the ox is the essence of the field.” +Moreover, slaughtering and feeding the oxen instead of using them for a more long-term benefit seems to violate the prohibition of Bal Tashchit (Devarim 20:19-20), needless destruction of produce, as seems apparent from the narrative recorded in Chullin 7b. These oxen could have sustained twenty-four families from Am Yisrael. Elisha would seemingly be able to achieve his goals of “burning his bridges” while at the same time supporting fellow members of Am Yisrael if he chose to donate the oxen. Why does he choose not to? +Avoiding Machloket +Joel Mizrahi of Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck, answered that Elisha will create more harm than good if he distributes the oxen since those who do not receive the oxen as gifts will become upset. Sowing discord is of utmost concern, because, as Rashi notes to BeReishit 11:9 and BeMidbar 16:27, Hashem detests Machloket. +One could respond that Elisha can liquidate the property and donate the proceeds to the local Tzedakah authorities to evenly distribute them among the poor. However, this is a time-consuming process, and it is important for Elisha to move quickly and decisively in shifting his life role from operating a major business to apprenticing with Eliyahu HaNavi. +Gathering an Assembly +The purpose of the feast is not only important to feed the hungry and poor. Its primary purpose is to provide a venue for an assembly, where Elisha will announce his dramatic new role. If Elisha is to be accepted as the Navi, he needs to begin building his reputation with the inhabitants of his home town. +Dramatic Transition +Another reason for Elisha’s choice to slaughter all of the oxen might be that he needs to solidify his dramatic life change in a most visceral manner. By slaughtering the oxen and burning plowing equipment, Elisha fully embraces his newfound identity and steadfast commitment to Eliyahu HaNavi. +Conclusion +The prohibition of Bal Tashchit applies only to wanton waste, as stated by Tosafot (Bava Metzia 32b s.v. MiDivrei) and Teshuvot Noda BeYehudah (Y.D. 2:10). Since Elisha slaughters the oxen and burns the plowing equipment in the pursuit of very legitimate goals, he does not violate Bal Tashchit. In the end, it was well worth the effort, since Elisha emerges as a result of this action as one of the greatest members of Am Yisrael in all of its glorious history. + +The Failures of Beit Achav + +The Murder of Navot HaYizre'eili; Achav's Fault? + +Have You Both Murdered and Inherited? +Eliyahu HaNavi’s scathing words to Achav “HaRatzachta VeYarashta,” “Have you both murdered and inherited,” burst forth in a powerful and highly memorable fashion, signal the end of Achav’s reign. However, we must ask: Why is Achav held accountable for the evil actions of his wife Izevel? After all, she is the one who orchestrates the death of Navot. Why is Achav held responsible and punished so severely? +The Malbim’s Explanation +Eliyahu HaNavi reproaches Achav (Melachim I 21:20) that he “committed himself to doing what is evil in the eyes of Hashem.” The Malbim (ibid.) explains that this commitment refers to Achav’s arrangement with Izevel, in which he enables her to do whatever she wants. He sells his soul to Izevel and is therefore held responsible for her utterly despicable actions. This is a most poignant explanation, especially as Achav is primarily motivated to marry Izevel for the economic benefits that will result from an alliance with the Phoenicians (recall that Izevel is a Phoenician princess). Achav is the great enabler, as he grants Izevel a free hand, all for the sake of economic advancement. +The Metzudat David’s Answer +According to the Metzudat David, Achav is held responsible since he is aware of the murder. Evidence for this approach may be gleaned from the fact that Izevel uses Achav’s seal to communicate with the local judges. This presumably can occur only with Achav’s approval. +A Peshat Approach +We may also add that the latter half of Eliyahu HaNavi’s condemnation of Achav (“VeGam Yarashta,” “and also have inherited [Navot’s land]”), may play a role in determining Achav’s culpability. It may very well be that Hashem does not find Achav guilty for the murder of Navot, but rather for the fact that he takes control of Navot’s vineyard in the aftermath of the murder. Eliyahu HaNavi adds “VeGam Yarashta” because this is the crux of Achav’s misdeed. Were this not the case, Achav’s collection of Navot’s estate would not be mentioned, and Eliyahu HaNavi would have appeared to Achav immediately after Navot’s death, without any mention of Achav’s financial gain from the ordeal. Achav’s collection of the field confirms and upholds Izevel’s despicable deed. +Achav initially allows Izevel to act, and then accepts and upholds her actions. He subsequently benefits from her despicable act of murder. Instead of recognizing that he has facilitated a murder due to his desire for a field, he utilizes the crime for his gain. Therefore, Achav receives his fully deserved punishment from Hashem.111See Melachim I 20 for a full description of the punishment meted out to Achav, Izevel, and the rest of their family. +Of course, Hashem’s punishment to Achav is meted out in His typical Midah KeNeged Middah style. Achav destroys Navot’s legacy, and in turn, his legacy, namely his family, is also destroyed. +Background for a New Suggestion +One may suggest a new approach based on an understanding of Achashverosh’s relationship with Haman. Many perceive Achashverosh as a character who is manipulated by Haman. This, however, is only one approach. Chazal (Megillah 12a) debate as to whether Achashverosh was shrewd or a fool. A major question that emerges from Megillat Esther is whether Haman manipulates Achashverosh or vice versa. Unlike Esther and Mordechai, who clearly are good, and Haman, who is undoubtedly evil, Achashverosh is an ambiguous character. +The Gemara (Megillah 14a) cites R. Abba’s fascinating analysis of Achashverosh. R. Abba presents a Mashal (parable) that illuminates the Persian ruler’s mentality: +There were two field owners. One had a big mound of dirt in his field, and one had a big ditch in his field.112This Mashal is alluded to in the Ashkenazic version of the Selichot for Ta’anit Esther. The one who had the ditch admired the big mound of dirt, and wished he could purchase it to fill his ditch. The one who had the mound of dirt wished to purchase the ditch in order to dispose of his dirt. One day the two field owners met, and the ditch owner asked if he could purchase the mound of dirt. The individual who owned the mound, in turn, enthusiastically urged the ditch owner to take the mound free of charge. +Haman is analogous to the ditch owner, and Achashverosh can be compared to the individual who owned the mound. Haman wishes to eliminate the Jews, but he lacks the authority to do so. Achashverosh, on the other hand, wishes to do away with the Jews but is unwilling to do so himself. He fears the consequences if his plan backfires. When Haman offers to annihilate the Jews, Achashverosh allows him to execute his plan. If the plan backfires, Haman will take the blame, and Achashverosh can emerge unscathed. According to R. Abba, Achashverosh is an evil individual who brilliantly manipulates Haman. +A New Suggestion - Achav Manipulates Izevel +In a similar vein, we put forth a suggestion that Achav brilliantly manipulates Izevel during the Navot episode.113The thematic and linguistic parallels between our story and the Purim story are obvious and striking. The following are three examples: An all-powerful person reacts with an unreasonable high degree of upset when rebuffed by a minor personality; Izevel sends out messages in the name of the king; Achav appears to have given his signet ring to Izevel. We suggest that Achav feigns his upset with Navot to provoke Izevel into taking action against him. Achav feels that it is safer for Izevel to take action instead of himself. If Izevel’s actions backfire,114Radak to Melachim I 21:10 explains that Izevel’s plan is risky since Am Yisrael is accustomed to, expects, and even demands justice from the king. If Izevel’s plan was leaked to the townspeople by one of the judges, a rebellion would have ensued. Achav shields himself from this potential fallout by having Izevel carry out the plan instead of him, all the while feigning innocence, as he tries to do initially during his conversation with Eliyahu HaNavi. Izevel will be forced to take the blame, and Achav can proclaim innocence. +Conclusion +Achav enters Navot’s field after the murder and relishes the fact that he has, in his mind, accomplished the murder most successfully. However, Hashem sends Eliyahu HaNavi to hold Achav as the primary individual responsible for his heinous crime. Only He is aware that Achav is the true mastermind behind the felony. +Achav is caught red-handed by Eliyahu HaNavi, and proclaims “have you caught me?” Achav’s perfect plan is uncovered by Hashem and neutralized by Eliyahu HaNavi. +As described in the Sephardic Selichot, Hashem is “Goleh Amukot,” the One who reveals deeply held secrets. Achav, according to our approach, conceals his plot. Hashem, though, reveals Achav’s involvement, showing that, in the words of Shlomo HaMelech, “Ein Chochma, Ve’ein Tevuna, Ve’Ein Eitzah Neged Hashem,” “no wisdom, no prudence, and no counsel can prevail against Hashem” (Mishlei 21:30). We are held accountable for all evil actions, even the ones which we delude ourselves into thinking that we can hide from everyone. + +What Does Navot Do Wrong? + +A Period of Divine Intervention? +At the end of Melachim I 21, Hashem instructs Eliyahu HaNavi to intercept Achav as he enters Navot HaYizre’eli’s field after the latter’s unjust execution. Clearly, Achav’s era is not a time of “Hester Panim,” a time during which Hashem does not directly reveal His involvement in the world. After all, in addition to directly telling Eliyahu HaNavi to intercede on His behalf after Navot’s murder, Hashem also openly reveals Himself to a significant portion of the population on Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18). Why does Hashem not instruct Eliyahu HaNavi to intervene earlier, and save the innocent Navot HaYizre’eili from execution? +Da’at Mikra – A Peshat Explanation +Da’at Mikra notes that Navot HaYizre’eili does not exercise prudent caution in his interaction with the unscrupulous Achav. Da’at Mikra notes that Shlomo HaMelech advises to “keep the king's command” (Kohelet 8:2) to “fear both the Hashem and king” (Mishlei 24:21). Accordingly, we begin to see that Navot is not entirely innocent in this situation. +Navot’s response to Achav after the latter requests his vineyard in exchange for a better vineyard or monetary compensation is indeed harsh: “Chalilah Li MeiHashem Mititi Et Nachalat Avotai Lach,” “heaven forfend I should give from my father’s inheritance to you” (Melachim II 21:3). The statement potentially implies that Navot specifically does not want to sell the field to Achav. Even if Navot is trying to uphold the Torah value of maintaining one’s ancestral portion in Eretz Yisrael (see Rashi to VaYikra 25:25 s.v. Ki Yamuch), he could still express his reservations in a more diplomatic manner that is befitting of an audience with the king. +Moreover, if the Malbim is correct that Navot HaYizre’eili is implicitly criticizing Achav for abandoning his father’s legacy by permitting the introduction of Ba’al worship into Eretz Yisrael, then Navot is certainly acting recklessly. Even if Navot does not intend on criticizing Achav, it is certainly possible that Achav can interpret his words in this manner. It is the responsibility of the Navi, and not the commoner, to rebuke the king. +Indeed, the Gemara (Ketubot 30a) teaches: "All is in the hands of Heaven except for Tzinim and Pachim." The meaning of the phrase "Tzinim and Pachim" is based on the verse “Tzinim Pachim BaDerech Ikeish Shomeir Nafsho Yirechak MeiHem,” "thorns (Tzinim) and snares (Pachim) are in the path of the perverse; he who guards his soul will distance himself from them" (Mishlei 22:5). Rashi explains that dangers exist in the world, particularly for those who are "perverse," that is, for those who don't try to avoid them, but the cautious person takes heed not to be harmed by them. + Tzinim and Pachim are dangers that are the individual's responsibility to avoid— one must guard themselves against them, and not believe that they are divinely ordained and thus unpreventable. There is no assurance that God will intervene to save one from such hazards. This seems to adequately explain why Hashem does not intervene and save Navot HaYizre’eili. It is his responsibility to use his judgment, and avoid the Tzinim and Pachim that can potentially emerge from improper dialogue with Achav. +Explaining the Elders of Yizre’eil’s Cooperation + This might explain why the elders of Yizre’eil cooperate with Izevel in her diabolical scheme to murder Navot. After seeing Navot place himself in danger by acting in such a foolish manner towards Achav, the elders are unwilling to endanger their lives to save him. This situation is analogous to a swimmer who ignores posted signs and enters shark-infested waters. Are the lifeguards obligated to risk their lives to save the life of the foolish swimmer? +Of course, the situations are not analogous. It is quite one matter to remain passive and avoid risking one’s life to save someone who acts foolishly and places themselves in danger. It is quite another situation to assist in the murder of someone who acts foolishly by provoking a hooligan. +For example, in a precarious situation where one is told to either kill a person who foolishly provoked a ruffian or be killed by the same ruffian, one is not permitted to kill the person who foolishly picked a fight with the ruffian. Moreover, as Radak (Melachim I 21:10) notes, even the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom do not tolerate any royal perpetration of evil against the populace. Thus, the elders of Yizre’eil could and should have mustered the courage to publicize Izevel’s evil plot, and thereby save Navot without any excessive risk on their part. +Midrashic Explanation +Chazal (cited in Yalkut Shimoni Remez 221) point out that Navot HaYizraeli would make his way to Yerushalayim every Regel (festival), where the crowds would assemble to hear him sing. One time, Navot decided to stay home. He paid the ultimate penalty for that refusal by having his vineyard coveted by King Achav, which eventually cost him his life. When individuals are blessed by Hashem with special abilities, these are tools He wishes us to use to serve Him. +The Midrash does not state the reason why Navot stayed home. It could be due to a fear of violating the Northern Kingdom’s policy of preventing its citizens from visiting the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim. Perhaps Navot did not rely on the Torah’s promise that one’s land would not be confiscated when away in Jerusalem (Shemot 34:24). +Accordingly, since Navot does not rely on Hashem’s promise of protection due to his fear of Achav, Hashem punishes Navot by having Achav confiscate his field. Navot, it turns out, fears Achav when he should not, and does not fear him when he should. In other words, Navot’s needless fear (“BeChiya Shel Chinam;” see Ta’annit 29a) causes him to lose that which he fears losing. +This teaches a lesson of major importance: sometimes our fears are themselves a source of problems. This is a major reason why the Lubavitcher Rebbes dating back to the Tzemach Tzedek all taught the principle of “Tracht Gut Vet Zein Gut," “think good, and it will be good.” If one thinks positively, things will work out positively. +However, while it does account for the reason why Navot deserves to lose his field, the Midrash fails to address the reason for Navot’s death.115As noted by TABC student Akiva Prager (‘20). Why does he deserve to die? The answer may be based on the Peshat explanation that he unnecessarily endangers himself by speaking in an uncouth manner to Achav. +Alternatively, Navot fears that he will be caught and killed by Achav’s forces if he travels to Yerushalayim. According to this approach, Navot loses his life since he unnecessarily fears death instead of relying on Hashem’s guaranteed protection. +Conclusion +We cannot always account for the reasons behind Hashem’s actions. However, on many occasions, the stories within the Tanach provide us with adequate information, such as the story of Navot HaYizre’eili. Melachim I 21 provides us with this information to ensure that we do not repeat Navot’s fatal mistakes. + +Achav vs David HaMelech + +A Powerful Question +Following Navot’s assassination in Melachim I 21, Eliyahu HaNavi confronts Achav with the iconic scathing criticism: “HaRatzachta VeGam Yarashta,” “Have you murdered and also inherited [the property of your victim]?” Eliyahu HaNavi then pronounces Achav’s horrific punishment: dogs will drink blood from his oozing corpse, and all of the males in his family will be put to death. +David HaMelech also murders a man and “inherits” his wife when he arranges the death of Uriah HaChiti and marries his wife Batsheva. Yet, David HaMelech does not face nearly the same consequences as does Achav. Illicit inheritance of a wife is dramatically worse than illicit inheritance of land. How are we to explain the different results for what seems to be the same hideous behavior? +A similar question is often posed regarding the disparate treatment of Sha’ul HaMelech and David HaMelech. This question is dealt with by many commentaries old and new. However, none of them include a discussion comparing the very different consequences for Achav and David HaMelech. +David HaMelech’s Punishment +It is important to note that the sin of Uriah and Batsheva wreaks deep havoc upon David HaMelech’s life. David HaMelech and Batsheva’s first child dies in early infancy. David HaMelech’s sons, Amnon and Avshalom, are killed in horrific circumstances. David HaMelech even suffers the profound indignity of exile as a result of his son Avshalom’s rebellion. As a result of his sin, David HaMelech is transformed from an enormously successful and productive dynamic king to a passive and largely ineffectual ruler until the day of his death. Thus, David HaMelech undoubtedly pays a very steep price for his terrible sins with Uriah and Batsheva. +Achav’s Punishment +For the most part, David HaMelech’s only major sins relate to the incident with Uriah and Batsheva. David HaMelech rules over Israel in a just manner and devotes much of his accumulated wealth to prepare for the building of the Beit HaMikdash. Although the incident involving Batsheva and Uriah HaChiti is hideous, it is clearly an aberrant behavior that deviates from almost all of David HaMelech’s other actions. +Achav, on the other hand, is not punished solely for the murder and theft of land from Navot HaYizre’eili. Achav’s terrible behavior towards Navot merely caps a long list of terrible sins. Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim I 21:20) informs Achav that he is being punished for his addiction (Hitmachrut) to acting in evil ways.116Achav is addicted to sin. His punishment, argues TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17), is similar to the one meted out to the Ben Soreir UMoreh, the wayward son (Devarim 21:18-21), whose track record points to repeated and escalated evil in the future. Better Achav die now than commit serial and grievous offenses in the future. In other words, the murder of Navot and the subsequent theft of his land are merely the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Achav’s life consists of constant stumbles and falls. The incident of Navot is not at all an aberration. Achav merely goes farther than before. Moreover, the Navot incident establishes that Achav would do such acts, and convince others to do them for him again in the future. Therefore, Achav is subject to severe consequences. +Hashem is very patient with Achav. He grants Achav many opportunities to do Teshuvah. The murder of the prophets of Hashem and the introduction of widespread Ba’al worship to the Northern Kingdom top the list of Achav’s prior crimes. David HaMelech’s record, by contrast, is a clean one (for the most part) both before and after the sin with Uriah and Batsheva. Thus, we readily understand the harsher treatment accorded to Achav. +Achav’s Teshuvah vs. David HaMelech’s Teshuvah +Yes, Achav repents after hearing Eliyahu HaNavi pronounce his terrible punishment (Melachim I 21:27). However, a careful examination of the text reveals that Achav never expresses any sort of responsibility for his horrific behavior. He merely mourns his well-deserved stiff punishment, and even that occurs only after an extended dialogue117This is, of course, reminiscent of Sha’ul HaMelech, who admits to his sin only after an extended dialogue with Shemuel HaNavi. with Eliyahu HaNavi. +This is in stark contrast with David HaMelech’s response in Shemuel II 12, where he assumes full responsibility for his actions without offering any excuses. Moreover, David HaMelech spends the rest of his immersed in Teshuvah, as is clear from the Tehillim he composes in the wake of his terrible sin, most notably Mizmor 51: +For the Leader. A Psalm of David; when Natan the prophet came to him, after he had come to Batsheva. Be gracious unto me, Hashem, according to Your mercy; According to the multitude of Your compassions blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, And cleanse me from my sin.118Translation adapted from the JPS Tanakh (1917). +David HaMelech does not revert to sin and remains remorseful until the end of his life. The restraint he exercises to refrain from living with Avishag HaShunamit in Melachim I 1 may even be seen as a Tikkun (reparative measure) for his sin with Batsheva (especially in light of that which Chazal record regarding David HaMelech, Batsheva, and Avishag HaShunamit on Sanhedrin 22a). +Achav, in dramatic contrast, in Melachim I 22, reverts to poor behavior when he harasses an authentic Navi and leads Am Yisrael to an ill-advised battle with Aram. Achav dies on this battlefield as a spiritual failure and is one of the very few people who are denied a place in Olam HaBa. Achav is an innovator of evil both in the social and devotional realms and deserves the highest punishment in both this and the next worlds. +Conclusion +Both Achav and David commit terrible sins that in a certain sense are comparable. However, when viewed in a broader context, one can easily grasp why Hashem was so much tougher on Achav than he was on David HaMelech. One cannot judge an individual merely based on a narrow view of a few select incidents. It is necessary to consider a much broader perspective to appreciate the totality of a life and to gauge its measure of failure and success. + +Achav's Teshuvah in Light of Yonah + +Hashem Rejoices in Achav’s Teshuvah +After Eliyahu HaNavi delivers the curse against Achav and his descendants, Achav tears his clothing, dons sackcloth, and fasts (Melachim I 21:27). Hashem seems, as noted by Da’at Mikra, to revel and rejoice in Achav’s Teshuvah (Melachim I 21:29)! How are we to understand this surprising divine reaction? The question is especially poignant if one believes, as does the Malbim (as opposed to the Abarbanel), that Achav repents only due to fear of punishment, and not out of a desire to forge a proper connection with Hashem. +An Example from Sefer Yonah +Sefer Yonah ends with a dramatic flair. After Nineveh repents from its evil ways, Yonah travels in anger to the outskirts of the city and waits to see what will happen to it. There, Hashem designates a Kikayon (a leafy plant, see Rashi ad loc.) to provide shade for Yonah. The Navi is elated. However, Hashem then sends a worm to destroy the plant. Once again exposed to the elements, Yonah feels faint and asks for death. At this point, Hashem asks Yonah, “HaHeiteiv Charah Lecha Al HaKikayon,” “Are you so deeply grieved over the Kikayon?,” to which Yonah responds, “Heiteiv Charah Li Ad Mavet,” “I am greatly grieved to death” (Yonah 4:9). +Hashem tells Yonah, “Arah Chaseta Al HaKikayon Asher Lo Amaleta Bo VeLo Gidaleto… Ve’Ani Lo Achus At Nineveh Ha’Ir HaGedolah Asher Yesh Bah Har’beih MiShetayim Esireih Ribo Adam,” “You took pity on the Kikayon for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow... and I— shall I not take pity upon Nineveh the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons?” (Yonah 4:10-11). The analogy, though, appears to be entirely inapt. Hashem intrinsically cares about Nineveh, while Yonah does not care about the Kikayon per se, but rather for what it provides and for what it represents. +Explaining the Word “Chas” +The key word to translate properly to unlock the deeper meaning of Hashem’s argument is the word “Chas.” Yonah is “Chas” on the Kikayon, and Hashem, all the more so, is “Chas” on the people of Nineveh. The Metzudat Tzion and Da’at Mikra both translate “Chas” as pity, similar to “Chemol.” While this is a close translation, we suggest a more refined and psychological explanation. +Sports fans are elated when “their” team is victorious, and dejected when “their” team loses. These deep emotional feelings emerge, even though they relate to a matter that is, objectively speaking, trivial. This intensity emerges from the emotional investment the fans make into the game. +We suggest that the word “Chas” should be understood in this manner. “Chas” refers to making an emotional investment. In the Amidah, we ask Hashem “Chus VeRacheim Aleinu,” “have Chus and mercy on us.” Chus is a prerequisite to Racheim, mercy. When one is emotionally invested in someone, they have mercy on them. An example is a caring Rebbe who makes an emotional investment in his students, and therefore grades examinations in a manner that is tilted in favor of the students. We ask Hashem to similarly emotionally invest in our well-being, and as a result, deal with us mercifully. Once Hashem is invested in us and very much wants us to succeed, His compassion flows naturally. +Explaining the Kikayon-Nineveh Analogy +Yonah certainly emotionally invests (“Chas”) in the Kikayon, as evidenced by his elation at its appearance, and utter dejection at its loss. Hashem explains to Yonah that the emotional investment he makes in the Kikayon should help him understand the emotional investment He makes (“Chas”) in Nineveh. +Hashem’s emotional investment in mankind and His desire for us to succeed explains why Hashem judges Nineveh based on its current spiritually improved state, and not based on its future unspeakably cruel actions. As is clear from Melachim II 14:25, Yonah lives a few generations before Assyria emerges as a brutal actor on the world stage. While Yonah might wish for Assyria to be judged for a combination of its current and future actions, Hashem refuses to do so. +This is reminiscent of the Midrash concerning the conflict between the Malachim and Hashem regarding the fate of Yishmael (Rashi to BeReishit 21:17, citing Rosh HaShanah 16b). When the young Yishmael cries out to Hashem to save him from his thirst in the desert, the angels cry out for Hashem to not save him based on the cruelty Yishmael’s descendants would inflict upon the Jewish people. Hashem resoundingly rejects the Malachim and insists on judging Yishmael “BaAsher Hu Sham,” “as he is then” (BeReishit 21:17), based on his current actions and not on the despicable behavior of his progeny. Although one is tempted to sympathize with Yonah and the angels, Hashem’s eager ambition for each person’s spiritual success precludes Him from adopting such a policy. +Hashem places Yonah through the trauma of the loss of the Kikayon so Yonah can get a taste of the emotional investment Hashem makes in all of humanity. Hashem judges in a manner tilted to mercy since He is invested in each human being’s and all of humanity’s success. Sefer Yonah ends with one of the most revelatory episodes in all of Tanach, in which Hashem reveals His “emotional state” and mindset regarding how He judges the world. By vicariously experiencing that which Yonah endures, we can, along with Yonah, better understand how Hashem judges the world. +A Powerful Message for Minchah on Yom Kippur +It is deeply motivating for a student to feel that his Rebbe is invested in his or her success. The knowledge that the Rebbe will even determine the student’s grade with compassion due to the commitment he has for the student is most edifying and even comforting. +Upon hearing this concluding message of Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur, we experience a boost in confidence and motivation for spiritual success. We are ready to pray Minchah and Ne’ilah with added fervor. The Creator of the world wants us to succeed. Hashem, KaVeYachol (as if, by analogy), cheers us on to victory as Yom Kippur reaches its climax. +Conclusion — Understanding Hashem’s Celebration of Achav’s Teshuvah +With this background, we can understand why Hashem is thrilled that Achav does Teshuvah, albeit a limited one. Hashem is, to say the least, not eager to punish even the most wicked evildoers. As the Navi Yechezkeil prophecies, “HeChafotz Echepotz Mot Rasha... HaLo BeShuvo MiDerachav VeChayah,” “Do I desire at all the death of the wicked man… Is it not rather his return from his ways that he might live?” (Yechezkeil 18:23). Hashem deeply desires repentance. +Hashem’s reaction to Achav’s Teshuvah is reminiscent of a proper teacher’s joy when a student who has long detached from the class makes a bit of an effort to join the learning. Hashem is invested in all of us and wants us to succeed. If Hashem rejoices in Achav’s Teshuvah, how much more so does He rejoice in all of our spiritual successes. +Postscript +On Tzom Gedaliah, Ashkenazi Jews recite the Piyut (liturgical poem) “Horeita Derech Teshuvah.” The stanza that celebrates Achav’s Teshuvah is most shocking:119Translation adapted from “Achav's Repentance,” Yogli Roichman. Shabbat-B'Shabbato – Parshat Ki Teitzei, No 1390: 11 Elul 5771 (10 September 2011). See http://www.zomet.org.il/eng/_uploads/1390.doc. +The son of Omri burst forth from the bounds of the world with evil; he desired idols of the trees of the Asheirah and added crimes to his sins. You tore apart his conviction when he repented from his sins; he was given mercy as one who confessed and abandoned his way, and he received Your help. +After all, Achav makes the very short and ignoble list of Resha’im who are denied a share in Olam HaBa! Why do we cite the failed Teshuvah of Achav as a precedent for the power of Teshuvah? We answer that although Achav hardly serves as a precedent for Teshuvah, Hashem’s reaction to his Teshuvah is certainly worth citing as we approach Yom Kippur, as it shows how eager Hashem is for us to succeed. + +Achav's Good Deeds + +A Brief Review120We acknowledge the great influence of Rabbi Hayyim Angel’s discussion of Achav on this chapter. His written evaluation of Achav may be accessed at www.koltorah.org/halachah/hopping-between-two-opinions-understanding-the-biblical-portrait-of-acha-part-one-by-rabbi-hayyim-angel. We do, however, present a somewhat different analysis of Achav. +As we have previously mentioned, Shlomo HaMelech is classified as a Tzaddik despite some of his failings, and Achav is classified as a Rasha even though he does perform some good deeds. We learned that an individual can be classified as a Rasha even though they have done some good.121See the earlier chapter, “A Pristine Version of Shlomo HaMelech in Divrei HaYamim.” +Achav as the Awful Rasha +Achav is rightfully regarded as an awful Rasha. Indeed, he appears on the celebrated very short list of three Jewish kings who are denied a share in the next world (Sanhedrin 10:2). The Mishnah’s assertion is well-founded in the Tanach, where Achav’s reign is summarized in an unequivocally negative manner. Melachim I 16:30-33 introduces Achav as follows: +Achav son of Omri did what was displeasing to the Lord, more than all who preceded him. Not content to follow the sins of Yarav’am son of Nevat, he took as his wife Izevel daughter of King Etba’al of the Phoenicians, and he went and served Ba’al and worshipped him…. Achav did more to vex the Lord, the God of Israel, than all the kings of Israel who preceded him.122The translation is that of Rabbi Hayyim Angel. +Melachim I 21:25-26 sums up Achav’s life with the following assessment: +But there was none like unto Achav, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the eyes of Hashem, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up. And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all that the Amorites did, whom Hashem cast out before the Bnei Yisrael.123Translation adapted from the JPS Tanakh (1917). +Achav’s Six Positive Actions +Despite Achav’s well-deserved reputation as an evildoer, the careful student of Sefer Melachim is surprised to discover that Achav is credited with quite a relatively large number of positive actions. Even more surprising is that some of these are even exceedingly positive. +1. Achav employs the righteous Ovadiah as his chief of staff. Rabbi Angel posits that Achav picks Ovadiah to counterbalance the influence of Izevel. While this may or may not be the case, Ovadiah does hide the Nevi’ei Hashem from Izevel and feeds them while in hiding. It is difficult to imagine, in our view, that Ovadiah can do this without Achav becoming aware of his actions. It is very likely that Achav is aware, and turns a blind eye to Ovadiah’s activities. +2. Radak (Melachim I 17:4) cites an opinion in the Midrash that the meat provided to Eliyahu Hanavi while he hides in Nachal Kerit comes from Achav’s kitchen. This Midrash presumes that Achav maintains a kosher kitchen.124The debate as to the origin of the meat as to whether it is from Achav or Yehoshafat’s kitchen might hinge on whether one believes that Achav maintained a kosher kitchen. +3. Achav clearly orchestrates the event at Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18). This momentous spiritual event undoubtedly cannot occur without Achav’s active support. Otherwise, people might fear repercussions from Izevel. Additionally, the Nevi’ei HaBa’al are unlikely to attend the events at Har HaCarmel unless Achav demands their presence. +4. The Malbim (Melachim I 18:41, 19:1, 19:2) assumes that Achav is positively impacted by the events at Har HaCarmel, and also shouts “Hashem Hu HaElokim, Hashem Hu HaElokim,” “Hashem is the [true] God, Hashem is the [true] God” (Melachim I 18:39) with the rest of the crowd. The Malbim’s assertion is strongly supported by Melachim I 18:46, which describes Eliyahu HaNavi as running before Achav’s chariot all the way from Har HaCarmel to Yizre’eil. Eliyahu seems ecstatic over the fact that Achav has turned to Hashem. Moreover, Eliyahu HaNavi cannot execute the Nevi’ei HaBa’al without Achav’s acquiescence or, at the very least, his turning a blind eye to Eliyahu HaNavi’s actions. +5. According to Chazal (cited in Rashi to Melachim I 20:6), Achav displays extraordinary Kevod HaTorah, reverence accorded to the Torah. Achav, according to Chazal, is willing to forego his family and wealth to stave off an Aramean attack but is unwilling to relinquish a Torah scroll to the Arameans to desecrate (as did the evil Nazis, may their evil names be blotted out). +6. Melachim I 22:34-38 records: “Then a man drew his bow at random and he hit the king of Israel … he said to his charioteer, ‘Turn the horses around and get me behind the lines; I am wounded.’ The battle raged all day long, and the king remained propped up in the chariot facing Aram; the blood from the wound ran down into the hollow of the chariot, and at dusk, he died.” Although he experiences tremendous pain, Achav does not want his troops to become demoralized (Rashi to Melachim I 22:35). Thus, Achav’s career ends with heroic dedication to his nation. +Evaluating Achav’s Positive Actions +The Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 10:2) records the following surprising anecdote: +For six months, R. Levi explained the verse: “Indeed, there was never anyone like Achav, who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord” (Melachim I 21:25), in a manner critical of Achav. Achav came to R. Levi in a dream, and protested: “How have I wronged you? Is there only a first half to this verse? [The second half reads] ‘at the instigation of his wife Izevel!’” R. Levi responded by teaching this verse for six months with a favorable slant toward Achav. +R. Levi devoted no less than a year to analyzing Achav’s character! This, however, should not be surprising, since it is difficult to understand how such an inveterate Rasha such as Achav could actually have committed such a significant array of good deeds. +Simply blaming Achav’s bad deeds on Izevel is an inadequate explanation of his episodes of poor behavior. In Melachim I 22, Achav abuses the authentic Navi Michah without any evidence of having been spurred to do so by Izevel. Additionally, Achav caustically calls Eliyahu HaNavi “a polluter of Israel” (Melachim I 18:17) despite the lack of Izevel’s presence and influence. +We thus readily understand why R. Levi devoted so much time to solving the mystery of Achav’s behavior. It is extremely challenging to discover any rhyme, reason, or pattern to this king’s record. How could the same king who shows so much devotion to Kevod HaTorah, permit the brazen and widespread introduction of Ba’al and Asheirah into northern Israel? +Achav’s Ineligibility for Olam HaBa +The Gemara (Sanhedrin 102b) records a dispute between R. Nachman and R. Yosef regarding Achav’s spiritual status: +R. Nachman said: Achav was equally balanced [in terms of Mitzvot and Aveirot], since it is written, “The Lord asked, ‘Who will entice Achav so that he will march and fall at Ramot-Gil’ad?’ Then one said thus, and another said thus” (Melachim I 22:20). R. Yosef objected: He of whom it is written, “Indeed, there was never anyone like Achav, who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Izevel” (Melachim I 21:25), yet you say that he was equally balanced!125Translation modified from Rabbi Angel. +Achav had many bright moments and thus it is understandable that R. Nachman regards Achav as equally balanced. However, Sefer Melachim’s summary of Achav’s reign seems to clearly support R. Yosef’s assessment of Achav. Moreover, Achav’s exclusion from Olam HaBa supports R. Yosef’s conclusion as well. How can there be evidence for both sides of this argument? +An explanation seems to stem from Rambam in his Hilchot Teshuvah (3:2), where he explains that Hashem bases His judgment of an individual on the majority of their actions.126Rambam codifies that this concept also extends to communal and global levels. Hashem weighs an individual’s merits and sins, both quantitatively and qualitatively,127Some sins outweigh many merits, and some merits outweigh many sins. and reckons His judgment accordingly. However, Rambam adds a critical point: “Only Hashem knows how to weigh and determine the majority of one’s sins and Mitzvot. Only Hashem knows how to weigh and match merits with sins.” +The summary of Achav’s rule presented in Melachim I 16:30-33 and 21:25-26 conveys Hashem’s reckoning of Achav’s actions, from which He concludes Achav’s status as a Rasha. Achav’s tolerance towards Avodah Zarah in northern Israel, his (at minimum) indifference towards the persecution of Hashem’s prophets, and the evil innovation of the incident with Navot HaYizre’eili all clearly nullify any good that he does throughout his lifetime. Thus, while his good and bad actions indeed appear to be equally balanced as R. Nachman states, in Hashem’s eyes, Achav is judged as entirely evil, as R. Yosef concludes. +Yeish Koneh Olamo BeSha’ah Achat +The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 17a) relates the story of Elazar ben Dordaya, a serial violator of severe Torah prohibitions.128See the later chapter “Menashe vs. ‘Rabi’ Elazar ben Dordaya” for a more complete presentation of this Gemara. Yet upon his dramatic life-ending effort at Teshuvah, a heavenly voice announces that Elazar ben Dordaya is granted a place in heaven. R. Yehudah HaNasi proclaims in tears that “Yeish Koneh Olamo BeSha’ah Achat,” “there are those who earn their share in Olam Haba in one hour” (i.e. one episode in their lives). +We see, however, from Achav that not everyone is able to be “Koneh Olamo BeSha’ah Achat.” Achav has many great moments, but they do not earn him a place in Olam HaBa. Once again, we return to Rambam’s dictum that only Hashem can properly gauge the relative impact of one’s merits and sins. +Conclusion +R. Yehudah HaNasi cried when he proclaimed “Yeish Koneh Olamo BeSha’ah Achat” because the reverse is true as well. One can lose his share in Olam HaBa as a result of a single episode. Just because one performs some good deeds, even if they are spectacularly good deeds, one is not guaranteed a place in Olam HaBa. Achav is the paradigm of an individual who accomplishes many good deeds and yet is denied a place in the World to Come. +Yes, Achav is indeed a Rasha. Just because we can identify someone’s many positive actions, this does not necessarily preclude that individual from being classified as a Rasha. The lesson for us is powerful and of paramount importance. One must be vigilant to one’s last breath on this earth to not only perform good deeds in this world but also to avoid any and all negative activity. Achav serves as a sobering reminder that the Mitzvot we perform do not necessarily render us Tzaddikim, or shield us from severe punishment. + +Two Tales of Yehoshafat + +Two Accounts — Sefer Melachim vs. Divrei HaYamim +Yehoshafat is presented in a grand manner at significant length in Divrei HaYamim II 17-20. Yet, Sefer Melachim devotes barely 11 Pesukim (Melachim I 22:41-51) to the description of his reign. The rest of Yehoshafat’s noteworthy royal activities are either omitted by Sefer Melachim or scattered throughout it. While most of the information is identical, the difference in the format of the two accounts is striking. Sefer Melachim’s presentation clearly diminishes the great king portrayed in Divrei HaYamim. In fact, Yehoshafat is presented without a formal introducton in Melachim I 22, and only at the end of the chapter is he presented as a footnote to his earlier mention. What is the reason behind these two dramatically different styles of portrayal? +A Classic Tanach Style +This phenomenon is an example of a classic Tanach style of presenting a nuanced portrayal of a multifaceted personality or event. Two examples stand out. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in Lonely Man of Faith, beautifully explains how the two varying presentations of the creation of man in the first two chapters of Sefer BeReishit represent a dialectical tension inherent within the human personality (designated as Adam I and Adam II). Rabbi Elhanan Samet, in his Iyunim LeParshi’ot HaShavu’a to Parashat Devarim, explains how the different portrayals of the Meraglim (spies) episodes in Sefer BeMidbar 13-14 and Devarim 1 blend two different aspects of the multifaceted event. +Yehoshafat the Great and Yehoshafat the Disaster +Both presentations accurately represent Yehoshafat. To perceive the full picture of his character, one must merge the two presentations. As Chazal teach, “Divrei Torah Aniyim BeMakom Echad Ve’Ashirim BeMakom Acheir,” “the words of Torah are poor in one place and rich in others” (Talmud Yerushalmi Rosh HaShanah 3:5). +On the one hand, Yehoshafat is a grand king, who in many ways is even reminiscent of Shlomo HaMelech in his ambition and his accomplishments.129For an elaboration on the comparison between Yehoshafat and Shlomo HaMelech, see Rabbi Alex Israel’s “Shiur #29: Chapter 22 ֠Yehoshafat, King of Yehudah,” where he brings attention to some similarities between the two kings: +Chapter 17 of Divrei Ha-yamim lists several aspects of Yehoshafat's reign: 17:5 - Wealth; 17:7-9 - Spreading Torah study nationally; 17:10-11 - Regional Power; 17:12 - Building projects; 17:13 - Industry and GNP; 17:14-19 - A huge, organized army. He is a mighty and successful warrior who emphasizes Torah justice. +However, his decision to marry his son Yehoram, the crown prince, to Ataliah, the daughter130This follows the approach of most Mefarshim, such as Ralbag to Melachim II 8:18; Seder Olam (17) asserts that Ataliah is Yehoshafat’s sister. of Achav and Izevel (Melachim II 8:18) results in an unmitigated disaster, as Sefer Melachim alludes (Melachim I 22:45). Yehoram winds up being a wicked king, who follows in the ways of his wife and in-laws. His son Achazyahu follows this terrible example as well. After the latter’s death at the hands of Yeihu, the evil Ataliah seizes control of the government and heads a reign of terror for seven horrifying years, in which she kills all of her opponents, including her grandchildren (with the exclusion of Yeho’ash). + +Forging an Alliance +Yehoshafat is described by Sefer Melachim as a fairly righteous king. This indicates that his motives for marrying off his son to Achav’s daughter are noble. On a simple level, Yehoshafat ascribes tremendous import to the unity of Am Yisrael. He, therefore, dismisses any concerns that may arise from his son marrying an individual raised with entirely foreign values in a home steeped in Avodah Zarah. Yehoshafat feels the overriding importance of seizing the opportunity to end generations-long divisions between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, which even at times result in horrifyingly bloody civil wars.131For example, the war between Asa (Yehoshafat’s father), and Ba’asha, the king of the Northern Kingdom (Melachim I 15:16). +One may even surmise that Yehoshafat believes, similar to Shlomo HaMelech, that he and his family will positively influence Ataliah in spiritual matters. Perhaps Yehoshafat hopes that Ataliah will end up like Rivkah, who was raised in a home far removed from Torah values but was positively molded by the influence of Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu. What Yehoshafat does not realize, though, is that Eliezer (guided by Hashem) chooses Rivkah because he recognizes the spiritual potential latent in her personality, due to the great Chessed she extends to him. Ataliah lacks this quality of character. +Why does Yehoshafat fail to learn from the terrible mistake made by Shlomo HaMelech, when the latter mistakenly believed that he could bring his wives close to the Torah? Shlomo HaMelech’s mistake results in the introduction of Avodah Zarah into Israel and eventually leads to the splitting of his kingdom. +Perhaps Yehoshafat reasons that his situation is different than that of Shlomo HaMelech. Shlomo HaMelech fails due to his being outnumbered by so many women who band together to resist his positive influence. Moreover, Shlomo HaMelech tries to influence non-Jews, while Yehoshafat seeks to influence a member of Am Yisrael to return to the fold. He possibly even hopes that if he will influence Ataliah in the direction of Torah, perhaps she will, in turn, influence her parents,132The fact that Achav, as we detail in the chapter “Achav’s Good Deeds,” has episodes of devotion to Hashem, may motivate Yehoshafat to conclude that there is potential to bring Achav over to complete devotion to Hashem. It is, though, shocking that Yehoshafat does not protest when Achav abuses Michah the Navi as recorded in Melachim I 22. The text indicates that Yehoshafat is aware of this maltreatment. who will help all of the northern Bnei Yisrael, already under the influence of Eliyahu HaNavi, to return completely to Hashem. +Despite his noble intentions, Yehoshafat ends up as a dismal failure. Chazal express the poignant lesson we must derive from the disaster that Yehoshafat brings about with his good intentions in marrying off his son to Ataliah: +Nitai Ha’Arbeli said: Keep far from a bad neighbor, and do not associate with an evil person… (Pirkei Avot 1:7). As we see with Yehoshafat, who joined together with Achav, and they went up [in war] together to Ramot Gilad, rousing God's anger against him.133During this battle, Yehoshafat narrowly avoids death at the hands of the Aramean enemy. Again, he associated with Achazyahu, and they made boats together in Etzion-Gaver, and God disrupted their actions… (Avot DeRabbi Natan 9:4).134Rabbi Alex Israel. “Shiur #29: Chapter 22 ֠Yehoshafat, King of Yehudah.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Yeshivat Har Etzion, 19 Jan. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-29-chapter-22-%D6%A0yehoshafat-king-yehuda. +Yehoshafat in Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim +Contemporary logicians reject Aristotelian logic’s assertion that one item can either be A or B, but not A and B simultaneously. Rabbi Soloveitchik, in his Lonely Man of Faith, notes that Torah also forcefully rejects this type of monochromatic and binary thinking. Thus, to present a rich textured portrayal of Yehoshafat, the Tanach presents him in one manner in Sefer Melachim, and in another in Divrei HaYamim. +Thus, one is unable to binarily label Yehoshafat as a righteous or evil king. Rather, Yehoshafat is described as a blend between a great king on the one hand, and as one who makes a catastrophic error that leads to both short and long-term disaster on the other. The Tanach communicates this message by presenting one side of Yehoshafat in Sefer Melachim, and the other in Divrei HaYamim. +Both versions of Yehoshafat are true. Yehoshafat is certainly the mighty and righteous king portrayed in Divrei HaYamim. However, Sefer Melachim diminishes Yehoshafat, due to the disaster he facilitates through his alliance with the evil Achav and Izevel. +The Difference between Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim +Why does the negative portrayal of Yehoshafat appear in Sefer Melachim, and the grand description in Divrei HaYamim? To provide an adequate explanation, we remind ourselves of what we set forth as the basic agendas of both of these Sefarim in the first chapter of this work. +We noted that Sefer Melachim aims to explain how we deteriorated from the pinnacle of having a great king sitting on the throne in Yerushalayim to our people being ensconced in the Babylonian exile. In other words, we may label Sefer Melachim as the “Sefer HaChurban,” “Book of the Destruction,” since it provides a prophetic explanation as to why the Churban occurred. +We also noted that Divrei HaYamim, authored by Ezra HaSofer, presents the stories of Sefer Melachim in more a optimistic style and emphasis to encourage the Jews at the dawn of the era of the Second Temple in their quest to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash, Eretz Yisrael, and the nation. +Thus, Sefer Melachim presents the more dismal version of Yehoshafat. Yehoshafat’s introduction of Ataliah into Yehudah sets a terrible precedent of blatant Avodah Zarah and murder in the Southern Kingdom. In addition to its horrific short-term consequences, this sets a precedent for the idolatrous and murderous actions of Menashe later in Sefer Melachim. Menashe, more than anyone else, is responsible for setting the stage for the Churban. +Moreover, Yehoshafat’s introduction of Ataliah disrupts sixty-six consecutive years of rule over Judea by righteous kings. In addition, it is important to note that Ataliah’s execution is followed by a reign of relatively righteous kings, for no less than one hundred and thirty-seven years! One may imagine an alternative narrative, where Yehoram does not marry Izevel and Achav’s daughter, and in which therefore there is a succession of two hundred years of righteous rule in Malchut Yehudah! Had this happened, perhaps the subsequent kings Achaz and Menashe never would have dared to introduce their evil ways. +Thus, although Yehoshafat is a mighty and righteous king, his well-intentioned alliance with Achav may be understood as ultimately leading to the Churban. Thus, in the eyes of the Sefer Melachim, Yehoshafat’s stature is diminished. +On the other hand, the Divrei HaYamim version of Yehoshafat focuses on his greatness.135We should note, though, that even Divrei HaYamim does not shy away from criticizing Yehoshafat for his alliance with Achav. This Sefer, however, does not let this failure distract its readers from perceiving his greatness, as is done by Sefer Melachim. We should note that avoiding alliances with people of highly questionable spiritual character is an issue that loomed large during the early days of Bayit Sheini. We paid a steep price (well worth it, of course) to avoid partnering with the locals in the rebuilding of the Beit HaMikdash. The Jews of Bayit Sheini are already familiar with Yehoshafat being cast as a catalyst of the Churban. Divrei HaYamim, though, instead focuses on his many positive achievements, which serve as a role model of nation-building for the new era of the return to Zion of Bayit Sheini. +Contemporary Applications +The lessons for contemporary Orthodox Judaism’s relationships with non-observant and non-Orthodox Jews are many and manifold. To begin, it certainly seems to support the celebrated stance taken by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) regarding Austritt, the establishment of an Orthodox Jewish community recognized as a distinct community apart from its non-Orthodox brethren. However, the analogy is obviously not perfect, which explains why some prominent German Orthodox leaders, such as Rabbi Yitzchak Dov Bamberger (1807-1878), did not subscribe to Rabbi Hirsch’s policy. +The Chareidi community has certainly fully embraced the Rabbi Hirsch model of separation from the non-Orthodox community in almost every sense and venue. For example, the non-Zionism Chareidi stance emerges from, for the most part, an unwillingness to partner with the non-observant Jews in the building of the modern State of Israel.136Most Chareidi leaders, as noted by Rabbi Hershel Schachter in his Be’Ikvei HaTzon, do not subscribe to the Satmar’s Rebbe’s dictum that the State of Israel violates the Gemara’s teaching of not retaking Eretz Yisrael by force. The Steipler Rav serves as a prominent example. The Chareidi community certainly looks to the Yehoshafat episode as a potent lesson that serves as a major beacon for its communal policies. +The Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionist community must also seriously consider the sobering lessons of the catastrophic Ataliah episode. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, in the Chameish Derashot, articulates a model of limited cooperation with non-observant Zionist Jews based on a rabbinic understanding of a portion of the Akeidat Yitzchak story. Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu march with Yishma’eil and Eliezer (see Rashi to BeReishit 22:3) to Har HaMoriyah. However, once father and son are within sight of Har HaMoriyah, they part ways with Yishmael and Eliezer. +Thus, the Religious Zionist community in Israel grapples with dilemmas as to whether they establish a separate religious educational system (which they have done), separate units in the army (which some do and some do not) and separate political parties (a hotly debated issue). In the United States, issues include attending a university under non-Jewish or non-Orthodox auspices. Even when attending such a university, do observant students establish a community distinct from the general Jewish community on campus? +We conclude our discussion by quoting from a new educational model established in some Israeli communities. The following is an example of one such community, Yachad Modi’in, as described by their website: +Yachad Modiin was established in 2000 in Modiin as a non-profit organization ('Amuta'). As of 2018, Yachad Modiin has grown to over 1,500 students and more than 750 families who live in Modiin and its environs. This diverse community includes families with different Jewish identities (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, secular, traditional), and from a range of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds. Yachad Modiin works in close cooperation with the Meitarim Network, dedicated to promoting Jewish dialogue and education in an environment that integrates children from different Jewish backgrounds. +The Israeli education system separates between "religious" and "secular" families, via a system of “state religious” or “state secular” schools. Over the years, each sector has become more entrenched in its beliefs and lifestyles. This has become patently clear with regard to the type, quality and quantity of knowledge acquired in each sector, on the one hand, and families' lifestyles on the other. +Yachad Modiin is challenging this system and its divisive approach from within. Yachad Modiin aims to become a key part of the state system, in the belief that a solution that bridges between world-views and approaches is an important alternative for Israel's education system. Israeli society is heterogeneous and is composed of a mosaic of Jewish lifestyles. Many families want to maintain or develop their lifestyle but do not want the education system to judge them. They also do not want the education system to prevent their children from learning about this mosaic. Yachad Modiin's approach is driven by an integrated educational-social philosophy that contends with and seeks to address this reality.137“About Yachad Modiin.” Yachad Modiin, www.yhd.org.il/english. +Conclusion +This author knows from first-hand experience that the Yachad Modiin model works for some families. This author also fully appreciates the noble desire to unify Am Yisrael and to heal the wounds of division sown over the past decades, such as those caused by the Rabin assassination, fights concerning negotiations with Yassir Arafat, and the withdrawal from Gaza. +That being said, the Yehoshafat and Ataliah story serves as a stark reminder that, despite the great importance of Jewish national unity, it does not rank as the highest of Torah’s priorities. Yehoshafat’s attempt to unify our people after generations of division is certainly well-intentioned. However, our nation continues to pay a very steep price for Yehoshafat’s initiative, and we ignore the lessons its failures teach us at great peril. + +Achav's Insight into the Critics of Traditional Orthodox Judaism + +Achav’s Behavior Before Battle +At times, we encounter in the media strident and shrill criticism of Orthodox Judaism, especially when its leaders hold to a traditional line and do not cave to the trends of contemporary society. One may wonder about the psychological basis for such shrill and uncouth behavior that would otherwise be decried if it targeted any other collective. We believe that an analysis of Achav’s behavior during the lead up to his third battle against Aram yields important insight into those who ferociously battle traditional Orthodox values. +400 False Prophets vs. One Authentic Navi +In Melachim I 22:6, Achav assembles four hundred false prophets to “prophesy” a message for him. In this case, the message is that Achav will defeat Aram in battle. One prophet named Michah dares to speak truth to power and projects the true Nevu’ah: Achav will die in battle.138Yehoshafat suspects that the four hundred prophets are false since they all communicate an identical message. If they are authentic messengers of Hashem, their messages should vary (Sanhedrin 89a, cited by Rashi to Melachim I 22:7). We find similarly in modern times, spokespeople for liberal Judaism and Jews are ever more simply speaking and acting in accordance with the common liberal groupthink. However, the widest variety in style, belief patterns, and practices are among traditional Orthodox Jews. Similar to an authentic Navi, each authentic traditional Orthodox group has its own unique style. +Achav reacts most angrily and abusively to the authentic Navi. He imprisons him and orders him to be oppressed while in jail. Why does Achav react so angrily to Michah’s prophecy? If he does not believe him, he should simply ignore him. +Ralbag’s Insight +Ralbag (22:30) notes that Achav disguises himself to avoid being targeted by the Aramean army. However, he tells Yehoshafat not to be concerned. Therefore, it is clear that Achav recognizes that Michah speaks the truth.139This is quite evident from the exchange between Michah and Achav in Melachim I 22:15-16. When Michah first appears to Achav, Achav asks Michah to tell him if he will succeed in the battle against Aram. Michah responds that he will succeed. To this, Achav amazingly responds “I told you to speak to me only the truth.” He simply believes that he could avert the punishment/prophecy by not dressing like the king. +Explaining Achav’s Overreaction +Now we understand why Achav reacts so strongly to Michah’s prophecy instead of simply ignoring it. Achav recognizes that it represents the true and authentic message of Hashem. This is what makes Achav so angry and reactive. To paraphrase Shakespeare, the king protests too much, and thereby broadcasts his true beliefs. Beneath the surface, Achav recognizes the truth. +Chazal (Sotah 9b) teach that “Nikkarim Divrei Emet,” people can discern the truth. Healthy-minded people accept it. Fighting the truth, on the other hand, is unhealthy and can even wind up being deadly, as in the case of Achav. +Conclusion +Next time one encounters someone who decries traditional Judaism in the most strident manner, one need not be concerned. Instead, realize that beneath the loud protests lies a subconscious recognition of traditional Orthodox Judaism as the true word of Hashem.140We find a similar phenomenon in Melachim II 9:11-13 where less-than committed members of Am Yisrael ridicule a Navi as Meshuga (crazy; see Radak to Melachim I 9:11) and yet proceed to express their devout recognition of the Navi as speaking the authentic word of Hashem. Sadly, many (but hardly all) Ba’alei Teshuvah report that some family members ridicule them for their commitment to Torah observance, but yet later turn to them for spiritual guidance in times of need. + +Achazyahu vs Achav + +Olam HaZeh vs. Olam HaBa +Achazyahu ben Achav seems to be the worst! Hashem extends him no extra time— Hashem’s “Erech Apayim” (slow to anger) approach is in no way granted to him. After only two years of rule,141The Abarbanel (discussing Amon in his comments to Melachim II 21) notes the recurring pattern in Sefer Melachim of the sons of evil kings ruling only two years. These include Nadav ben Yarav’am, Eilah ben Ba’asha, Achazyahu ben Achav, and Amon ben Menashe. This is a typical expression of the “Pokeid Avon Avot Al Banim” theme, which is a central point set forth in Sefer Melachim. a freak accident occurs,142See the Metzudat David to Melachim II 1:2 for an explanation. and Achazyahu dies shortly thereafter. His soldiers also meet a fiery death at the hands of Eliyahu HaNavi in the process. This is a dramatic change, compared to his father Achav, who rules for twenty-two years and is treated with a generous amount of heavenly patience. +On the other hand, Achazyahu apparently receives a share in Olam HaBa. His name does not appear on the Mishnah’s shortlist of three kings who do not have a share in Olam HaBa, which consists of Achav, Menashe, and Yarav’am ben Nevat. Why is Hashem tougher on Achazyahu in this world, yet more lenient with him regarding his eligibility for Olam HaBa? +Achav +Achav is a classic “Posei’ach Al Shenei HaSe’ifim.” At times, he completely tolerates Izevel’s introduction of Avodah Zarah into northern Israel. However, the Malbim argues that Achav is among those who cry out “Hashem Hu HaElokim” at Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18). Moreover, after three years of drought, Achav organizes and facilitates the entire Har HaCarmel event. When Eliyahu HaNavi informs him of the very stiff penalty for his hideous facilitation of the murder of Navot HaYizra’eili, Achav reacts with a Teshuvah that elicits Hashem’s excited approval. +Hashem appears to be patient with Achav since he shows potential for improvement. When in trouble, Achav reaches out to Hashem.143It is reasonable to assume that Hashem causes a life-threatening calamity to Achazyahu to create an opportunity and motivation for him to do some degree of Teshuvah as did his father. The problem is, though, that Achav returns, in the grand Paroh style, to his evil ways once the danger passes. However, the very fact that Achav has his moments of positive spirituality shows he is worthy of being given a chance. +Achazyahu ben Achav +Achazyahu, in contrast, publicly reaches out to Avodah Zarah— Ba’al Zevuv— even when in serious trouble (Melachim II 1:2). In a classic case of Rasha ben Rasha, there seems to be no hope for Achazyahu’s improvement. Therefore, Hashem punishes him, in classic “Pokeid Avon Avot”144“Pokeid Avon Avot” is a recurring theme in Sefer Melachim. This is hardly surprising since the Churban occurred as a result of an accumulation of sins among the generations. The last king of Yehudah, Tzidkiyahu, is far from the worse Judean king. Similarly, Hoshei’a ben Eliah, the last king of northern Israel, is also far from being the worst king in Malchut Yisrael. style, revisiting the parents’ sins when the child continues in the parents’ evil ways. + Achazyahu disrespects Eliyahu HaNavi because growing up, he saw his father Achav turn away from the same Navi and the miracles of Har HaCarmel. For twenty-two years, Achazyahu witnesses his father’s rejection of Hashem and Eliyahu. Eliyahu HaNavi threatens Achav with dogs lapping up his blood, but all young Achazyahu sees is Achav’s full tenure as king, longer and better than many other Malchei Yisrael, and his death not being as bad as other kings’ deaths. Hence, when taking up the mantle, Achazyahu is determined to see through another lengthy twenty-two year term by following the procedures of his father before him. However, Hashem does not let this cycle continue indefinitely. Once Achazyahu defies the Navi like Achav, Hashem puts an end to his short reign. Consequences do exist. +Olam HaBa +Why, then, is Achazyahu granted a share in Olam HaBa? Melachim I 22:53 states that Achazyahu follows the evil ways of his father and mother. Achazyahu is a classic Tinok SheNishbah, an individual compared to a child captured and raised among non-Jews and thus not held responsible for his sins, due to his upbringing (see Rambam Hilchot Mamrim 3:3). In this world, however, Hashem throws the proverbial book at Achazyahu for the terrible example he sets for his subjects. He is removed immediately without leaving progeny. Achav is denied a share in Olam HaBa since he is an innovator in evil, as Rashi notes to Melachim I 21:25. He introduces outright Avodah Zarah into the Northern Kingdom and tries to break the social expectations of justice during the Navot affair (see Radak to Melachim I 21:10). Achav is not in any sense a Tinok SheNishbah. He is a pioneer in evil in both spiritual and social matters. Moreover, he remains entrenched in evil even after Hashem grants him the gift of extra time to repent (see Melachim I 21:29). A person who lives such a life deserves no extension of mercy in the next world. +But why does Achazyahu not lose his Olam HaBa? If he is modeled after Achav, he should be punished like Achav! Not really. As a Tinok SheNishbah, Achazyahu is trained not only to act badly but to also reject the voices of good. It is comparable to a Jewish child who is raised by the Church and eventually becomes a priest. He will never be readily convinced by a rabbi because all he sees is a rival and adversary, and not a light to reach toward, because that is how he was taught. So too, Achazyahu does not make his way back to the light. But he does not deserve the darkness into which he was born. +Achav creates a system in which all morality is turned on its head. But that is exactly the point— he creates that system. When Achav’s father Omri wishes to move the capital to the central of Shomeron, he purchases the land and does not seize it (as recorded in Melachim II 16). Achav’s evil system is not developed by someone else. He does not just build upon an already crooked status quo, unlike Achazyahu, who builds upon his parents’ wrongdoings. +Conclusion +Hashem is tougher with some people in this world and more lenient in regards to others in the next world, and vice versa. Although the ways of Hashem are beyond our complete comprehension, those who delve deeply into Tanach and Chazal are afforded a better understanding of how the ways of Hashem are just and upright. “Tzur Tamim Pa’alo Ki Kol Derachav Mishpat; El Emunah Ve’Ein Avel, Tzaddik VeYashar Hu,” “The Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice; a God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and right is He” (Devarim 32:4). + +Eliyahu HaNavi Ascends + +Eliyahu HaNavi's Model of Tzeni'ut + +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Dissuasion +Why does Eliyahu HaNavi try to dissuade Elisha no less than three times from accompanying him on his last journey before his ascent? Is this not as an excellent opportunity for Elisha to raise himself spiritually by witnessing such an awesome sight? +Rashi — Tzeni’ut +Rashi (Melachim II 2:2) explains that Eliyahu HaNavi’s attempt to dissuade Elisha stems from his modesty. We shall return to this very important comment later. +Ralbag — Preparation +Ralbag (ibid.) explains that Eliyahu HaNavi prepares Elisha for a terrifying sight. In trying to dissuade Elisha three times, Eliyahu HaNavi reminds Elisha that he is about to encounter a sight that is very difficult, and potentially psychologically damaging. +The Gemara (Chagigah 14b) relates that some of the Chachamim who ascended to the mystical garden of “Pardes” suffered irreparable psychological damage from the experience. However, not all of the Chachamim were affected adversely. Some of the Chachamim were better prepared for the intense encounter than others. +Eliyahu HaNavi wants Elisha to affirm no less than three times his readiness to handle such a spiritually edifying, but stressful sight. In the Halachic world, the performance of an action three times signifies a Chazakah, an established pattern. Thus, it is necessary for Elisha to clearly establish that he is adequately prepared for an awesome but shocking scene. +Da’at Mikra — A Nisayon +Da’at Mikra suggests that Eliyahu HaNavi poses a test to Elisha. Elisha is offered the possibility to stay, similar to Na’omi’s offer to Rut and Orpah to remain in Moav. Orpah, with a limited spiritual horizon, declines the offer, whereas Rut, despite three attempts at dissuasion, remains firm and insists on joining Na’omi on her journey home. +Ramban (BeReishit 22:1) sets forth a very important principle: a Nisayon is not imposed for the benefit of its administrator (i.e. Hashem). Rather, it is designed to actualize the latent potential within the individual. This is similar to the rigors imposed in training in the Israeli army. These tests are designed to draw forward the latent potential that otherwise would have remained dormant.145This is the reason why we attempt to dissuade someone who requests to convert (Yevamot 47a). We do not do this because we do not want converts. Rather, we wish to elicit from the conversion candidate latent potential commitment to Torah. Only if the candidate has this level of commitment will the conversion serve both the best interest of the candidate and the Jewish community. It serves no one’s interest if after a few years a convert reverts to his prior path. Testing the convert by attempting to dissuade serves to determine if the convert is resolute about his commitment to Torah and has the requisite level of commitment that will endure for a lifetime. Only then is the conversion truly in everyone’s best interest. +In our situation, Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to elicit three times from Elisha an expression of a deep commitment: “Chai Hashem, VeChei Nafeshecha Im E’ezeveka,” “as Hashem lives and by your life that I shall not leave you” (Melachim II 2:2, 2:4, 2:7). Eliyahu HaNavi hopes that Elisha’s expressions of commitment at this intense parting moment will endure for the rest of Elisha’s lifetime. +We suggest that the Bnei Nevi’im also test Elisha if he reacts properly by telling them to refrain from speaking about Eliyahu HaNavi’s departure. The Bnei HaNevi’im provide Elisha with an opportunity to emerge as their leader and flex some of his leadership muscles. +In a later chapter, we will suggest that this is the reason why Eliyahu HaNavi splits and crosses the Yarden. +Tzeni’ut — A Major Torah Value that Very Much Serves Our Best Interest +The Metzudat David (Melachim II 2:3 s.v. Hecheshu) explains that Elisha reinforces Eliyahu HaNavi’s desire for modesty by demanding that the Bnei HaNevi’im not mention Eliyahu HaNavi’s departure. With this, we return to Rashi’s aforementioned explanation of Eliyahu HaNavi’s attempt to dissuade Elisha from watching the spectacle of his dramatic departure from Earth. +How different is Eliyahu’s attempt to hide his dramatic departure than the ethos of the contemporary world! Today, if someone accomplishes anything of significance it is publicized to the maximum on any and all forms of social media. If Eliyahu HaNavi, heaven forfend, would harbor today’s values, he would have called for a media live feed for his grand departure. However, this is most definitely not the Torah way, and certainly not the way of Eliyahu HaNavi. +Rabbi Efrem Goldberg expresses this point in a most powerful essay.146Goldberg, Rabbi Efrem. Preserving Privacy and Protecting Capacity for Intimacy. 10 Feb. 2016, www.rabbiefremgoldberg.org/contemporary-issues/sharing-not-always-caring/. The following are excerpts from his important words: +We are living in a transparent generation where the trend is towards sharing in the extreme. Over coffee with friends, at the water cooler with co-workers, and increasingly on social media, people are revealing more and more about their personal lives, their innermost thoughts and feelings, and their most private experiences. +In theory, the movement towards greater sharing should yield better relationships, closer connections, and improved capacity for emotional intimacy. After all, being open with a person is a fundamental part of connecting with that person. And yet, more and more research confirms that in fact it is doing the opposite. An obsession with sharing and a proclivity for being revealing actually damages relationships, hurts self-esteem, increases anxiety, lowers self-control, and breeds narcissism. +In Judaism, the more valuable and treasured something is, the more private and protected we keep it. The more it is accessible, revealed, and exposed, the cheaper it becomes. Indeed, the Torah’s perspective is that genuine intimacy is achieved when something is private, exclusive, and inaccessible to others. This is true physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The less we practice privacy and modesty in each of these arenas, the greater the challenge we have achieving authentic intimacy in them. +A New York Times article on privacy and sharing on the Internet quotes research that confirms what the Torah has known all along: +“The problem is that if you reveal everything about yourself or it’s discoverable with a Google search, you may be diminished in your capacity for intimacy. This goes back to social penetration theory, one of the most cited and experimentally validated explanations of human connection. Developed by Irwin Altman and Dalmas A. Taylor in the 1970s, the theory holds that relationships develop through gradual and mutual self-disclosure of increasingly private and sensitive personal information.”147Murphy, Kate. “We Want Privacy, but Can't Stop Sharing.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 4 Oct. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/sunday-review/we-want-privacy-but-cant-stop-sharing.html. +The Torah presents the layout and floor plan of the Mishkan, the holy Tabernacle. The outer courtyard hosted the altar where sacrifices were offered. The Kodesh, or the holy section, housed the menorah and the shulchan. The last section was the Kodesh Ha’Kadashim, the Holy of Holies that housed the Aron and was entered by the Kohen Gadol only on Yom Kippur. Our sacred ark which held our sacred luchot and the original Torah scroll was in the most private and inaccessible part of the Mishkan. +Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik suggested that we model our personal lives after the structure and layout of the Mishkan: +“From the time I was young, I learned to restrain my feelings and not to demonstrate what was happening in my emotional world. My father would say that the holier and more intimate the feeling, the more it should be concealed. There is a hidden curtain that separates between one’s interior and the exterior: ‘and the dividing curtain (Parochet) shall separate for you between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.’ What location is more sanctified than the inner sanctum of one’s emotional life?” +In this world “devoid of doors” we need to be all the more mindful to keep our parochet, our curtain up, and protect the Holy of Holies of our lives. This is not to suggest that one should not share his or her emotions and feelings at all and keep them bottled up; obviously that is unhealthy and potentially dangerous. But the Holy of Holies was seen by a selective audience, only the Kohen Gadol. +Share your strong feelings, innermost thoughts and personal emotions with your spouse, or a family member you trust, or a close friend or confidant. But, not every thought or feeling needs to be made public. Not every personal experience or event merits sharing. Not every moment of frustration or point of pride with your job, with your children, or with your experience at a restaurant needs to be fodder for Facebook or with friends. +Failing to be judicious and thoughtful in what and how we share profanes our lives and makes achieving intimate relationships difficult. Preserving our parochet, maintaining the capacity for privacy and mystery, ultimately protects our Holy of Holies and elevates all the relationships in our lives. +Conclusion +Eliyahu HaNavi, upon his departure from this world, conveys some of the most essential lessons for a Jew. Tzeni’ut, modesty, is a pillar of Torah life and very much in our best interest. It is challenging to resist the path of the surrounding culture, in which Tzeni’ut is at best marginalized, and at worst ridiculed. However, following the example set by Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha is not only the right thing to do as it adheres to Torah values and Torah law, but as social scientists are beginning to understand, Tzeni’ut very much serves our best interests. + +Eliyahu HaNavi's Two Models of Torah Centers + +Introduction — The Bnei HaNevi’im +Despite Eliyahu HaNavi’s continuous attempts to dissuade Elisha from coming with him to witness his ascent to heaven, Elisha continues to travel with his teacher. They first travel to Beit El, and then to Yericho. In both locations “Bnei HaNevi’im,” “the prophets’ children” approach Elisha, and rhetorically ask him, “HaYada’ita Ki HaYom Hashem Lokei’ach Et Adonecha Mei’Al Roshecha,” “Did you know that today Hashem is taking your master from upon your head?” (Melachim II 2:3, 2:5). Who are these Bnei HaNevi’im, and what are they doing in Beit El and Yericho? +The Malbim — Two Torah Centers +The Malbim (Melachim II 2:2) notes that as soon as Izevel’s religious persecution comes to a halt, Eliyahu HaNavi establishes two different Torah centers in Israel: one in Beit El, and one in Yericho. The students of both of these centers are referred to as “Bnei HaNevi’im,” “the prophets’ children.” Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel and Rashi (Devarim 6:7 s.v. LeVanecha) interpret “Bnei HaNevi’im” as “the prophets’ disciples.” +However, Radak (Melachim II 2:3) understands that Bnei HaNevi’im live in many other communities. Radak, though, does not explain why Eliyahu specifically visits the Bnei HaNevi’im in Beit El and Yericho before his ascent to heaven. Immediately after Eliyahu’s death, Elisha also only visits the Bnei HaNevi’im in Yericho and Beit El. Therefore, at the very least, the Torah centers in Beit El and Yericho are of particular significance. +Splitting the Camp +According to the Malbim, why does Eliyahu HaNavi open two different centers, instead of concentrating all of the Nevi’im into one Yeshivah? One might answer that he follows the example set by Ya’akov Avinu in his preparation for his confrontation with Eisav (BeReishit 32:8-9) when he splits his camp. Yaakov reasons that if Eisav attacks and damages one camp, at least the other camp would survive.148Ramban (ibid.) notes that Hashem operates in this manner with the Jewish people during our years of persecution. He scatters us in various lands so that if some are harmed in some places, Jews in other places will still survive. Eliyahu HaNavi perhaps is concerned that Izevel will renew her religious persecution. If she attacks one site, at least the other will survive. +Difference in Purpose +Alternatively, perhaps the Torah center in Beit El serves to influence the Northern Kingdom, while the Torah center in Yericho serves the Southern Kingdom. Yehoshua 18:12 notes that Yericho lies on the border between the portions of Binyamin and Yosef. Accordingly, Yericho is located at the border of the two kingdoms (recall that Binyamin is incorporated into the Southern Kingdom). However, it appears from Melachim I 16:34 and Rashi’s comments thereon, that Yericho is included in the Northern Kingdom’s domain. Moreover, it seems from Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s journey from Beit El to Yericho (and Elisha’s journey back), that both cities are located within the jurisdiction of the Northern Kingdom. +Difference in Style +Our preferred explanation of the two Yeshivot is that they represent two different styles of Torah centers. Beit El is the southern center of the Northern Kingdom’s deviant center of worship. It is, as is evident from Melachim I 13, a center of Yarav’am and his successor’s reformed Torah observance. +Accordingly, the establishment of a Torah center in Beit El is a bold step to counter the reformations and religious deviations of the Northern Kingdom. We compare it to a Chabad center established in downtown San Francisco, a contemporary bastion of secularism, or a Yeshivat Hesder located smack dab in the center of a predominantly secular portion of Israel, such as Haifa. The students of such a Yeshivah impact the surrounding community by adding a traditional or religious element to the environment. +Yericho, on the other hand, is a quiet town located near the Yarden. As it is far from the main population centers, this Yeshivah allows the Bnei HaNevi’im to pursue their spiritual growth in a relatively quiet and undisturbed environment. This Yeshivah is comparable to the Yeshiva of Lakewood, which Rav Aharon Kotler specifically wished to be located away from the big city so that the students could focus on their Torah learning.149Rashi’s comments on Melachim I 16:34 indicate that the people in Yericho are chastened for rebuilding the city. This rebuke, in turn, generates pious behavior, which makes Yericho a more fitting environment for the establishment of a spiritual center. +According to this approach, Eliyahu HaNavi offers his students of different personalities and orientations options of where to learn. Some would prosper at the outreach-oriented Beit El center, while others would do better at the inwardly focused Yericho center. +Conclusion — Variety is the Spice of Torah Life +Sometimes, the Orthodox community is criticized for the wide variety of Torah centers it has established. Would it not be more efficient to consolidate into larger institutions, instead of operating a multitude of smaller Torah centers? The answer is that the Orthodox community follows in the footsteps of Eliyahu HaNavi. Variety is needed because diverse members of Am Yisrael prosper in different environments. One size fits all does not work for clothing or a Torah center. Eliyahu HaNavi knows best— variety is the spice of Torah life. + +Hashem is Taking Your Master + +How Do the Bnei Nevi’im Know? +On the day of Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent, the Bnei HaNevi’im,150As we identify in the previous chapter, the Bnei HaNevi’im in Beit El and Yericho are likely Eliyahu HaNavi’s students. both in Beit El and Yericho, approach Elisha, and ask him “HaYadata Ki HaYom Hashem Lokei’ach Et Adonecha Mei’Al Roshecha,” “Did you know that today Hashem is taking your master from upon your head?” (Melachim II 2:3 and 2:5). How are the Bnei Nevi’im aware of Eliyahu HaNavi’s imminent departure? After all, Eliyahu HaNavi does not seem to announce his departure to them. In fact, it seems that Eliyahu HaNavi does not say a single word to the Bnei HaNevi’im in Beit El and Yericho.151This, of course, raises the question as to the purpose of both visits. +Radak’s Explanation +Radak (Melachim I 2:1) assumes that the Bnei Nevi’im are informed via Nevu’ah, prophetic means. Might there be an alternative explanation? +A New Explanation +We suggest an answer based on Eliyahu HaNavi’s previous history of using indirect communication with his students. For example, when he first encounters Elisha, Eliyahu HaNavi throws his mantle onto his soon-to-be protégé. Often, Eliyahu HaNavi chooses to use a non-verbal, more implicit form of communication. +Perhaps by appearing to the Bnei HaNevi’im and remaining silent, Eliyahu HaNavi expresses that he will soon go completely silent since he will shortly depart from the world. +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Continued Guidance +The Gemara (Sotah 36b) famously relates that Yosef resisted the temptation of Eishet Potifar after the image of his father appeared to him. Accordingly, we suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi silently communicates to the Bnei HaNevi’im that even after he departs, they will still be able to cope with any future challenges, as his image will continue to guide them. Whenever they are faced with a challenge, they should conjure up Eliyahu HaNavi’s image in their minds, and contemplate what he would do in such a situation. Thus, Eliyahu HaNavi’s influence extends past his departure from the world. +The Chafetz Chaim, in relatively recent times, was a very powerful personality who exerted enormous influence on our people, especially after the religiously tumultuous period in the aftermath of the First World War. The Chafetz Chaim’s many speeches and writings kept many Jews on track during those very challenging times. After his death in 1933, the Chafetz Chaim’s ubiquitous iconic photograph has kept many on the Torah path.152Kol HaKavod to the TABC students who showed me the image of the Chafetz Chaim they maintain on their computers and smartphones screens to remind them to adhere to kosher standards when using them. +In his essay The Source of Faith is Faith Itself, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein likewise acknowledges the impact his teachers had on his spiritual character: +What I received from all my mentors, at home or in yeshivot, was the key to confronting life, particularly modern life, in all its complexity: the recognition that it was not so necessary to have all the answers as to learn to live with the questions. Regardless of what issues–moral, theological, textual or historical–vexed me, I was confident that they had been raised by masters far sharper and wiser than myself; and if they had remained impregnably steadfast in their commitment, so should and could I. I intuited that, his categorical formulations and imperial certitude notwithstanding, Rav Hutner had surely confronted whatever questions occurred to me. Later, I felt virtually certain the Rav had, so that the depth and intensity of their avodat Hashem was doubly reassuring.153Lichtenstein, Rabbi Aharon. “The Source of Faith Is Faith Itself.” Jewish Action, 20 Apr. 2015, jewishaction.com/religion/faith/the-source-of-faith-is-faith-itself/. Originally published in the fall 1992 issue of Jewish Action. +Conclusion +Yeshayahu 30:20 teaches “VeHayu Einecha Ro’ot Et Morecha,” “your eyes should see the image of your teacher.” Whether in person, in a picture, or simply a memory, the image of a spiritual giant can maintain and fortify an individual’s Torah integrity. May we always keep the images of our great leaders close to our mind’s eye, so that we continue to ascend the mountain of Hashem. + +Understanding the Bnei HaNevi'im + +“Your Master Eliyahu” +It seems haughty! Rashi (Melachim II 2:3) understands that Eliyahu’s students,154See the chapter “Eliyahu HaNavi's Two Models of Torah Centers,” where we identify the Bnei HaNevi’im as Eliyahu HaNavi’s students. both in Beit El and Yericho, view themselves as Eliyahu HaNavi’s equals, and as superior to Elisha! Rashi arrives at this conclusion from the fact that the students tell Elisha that “Hashem is taking your master Eliyahu” (Melachim II 2:3 and 2:5). They imply that Eliyahu HaNavi is Elisha’s master, but not their master. Is this true? If it is true, then why is Elisha chosen by Hashem to succeed Eliyahu HaNavi instead of one of the students? +Who Are the Students? +Eliyahu HaNavi’s students appear to be the Bnei HaNevi’im, hidden in caves from the persecuting Izevel by Ovadiah, Achav’s righteous chief of staff. Izevel’s religious persecution ceases by the time of Eliyahu’s ascent, as noted by Da’at Mikra. The effect of Har HaCarmel is sufficiently intense that the community no longer tolerates Izevel's mistreatment of the Nevi'im. For this reason, Hashem assures Eliyahu HaNavi at Choreiv that he can safely return to the Northern Kingdom. Eliyahu HaNavi overestimates the threat posed by Izevel when he flees in Melachim I 19. +Persecution Generates Spiritual Greatness +If we are to assume that Eliyahu HaNavi’s students spend much of their time hiding from persecution in caves before Melachim II 2, then the picture changes completely. It brings to mind the story of R. Shimon bar Yochai and his son R. Elazar hiding from Roman persecution in a cave. During the many years in the cave, R. Shimon bar Yochai learned (or developed) many of the mystical secrets for which he is renowned (as stated in the Piyut, “Bar Yochai Nimshachta Ashrecha”). +The generation of spiritual greatness through persecution is not limited to R. Shimon bar Yochai’s experience. Examples abound in the Bnei Yisrael’s long and often troubled history. The Piazetzner Rebbe’s Eish Kodesh was written during his terrible suffering in the Warsaw Ghetto and now serves as a classic source of Torah inspiration. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein wrote some of his most incisive Teshuvot during the period of 1934-1936 when placed under house arrest by the Soviet authorities. The Tosafot were written under the cloud of the anti-Jewish rampages of the Crusaders. The effervescence of Torah life in Tzefat in the sixteenth century emerged in the wake of the Expulsion from Spain. The list goes on and on. +We suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi’s students rise to Eliyahu HaNavi’s level during their years of hiding in the caves. The Jewish way is not to cave in to the pressure of persecution. Rather, we transform persecution into opportunity. This is a fulfillment of the Torah description of life under Egyptian persecution, that “Ka’Asher Ye’anu Kein Yirbeh VeChein Yifrotz,” “the more they were oppressed, the more they increased and spread out” (Shemot 1:12). Eliyahu HaNavi’s students seize the opportunity and fellowship of being secluded in caves for a very extended period of time, to scale the heights of spirituality. The intense synergy of all these spiritual human resources compressed in a tiny area spurs their incredible spiritual growth. The Bnei HaNevi’im thus emerge as equals in spirituality to Eliyahu HaNavi. +Elisha, on the other hand, does not spend time in a cave hiding from Izevel. During Izevel's era of persecution, Elisha develops his flourishing agricultural business. Elisha becomes a Navi only after he meets Eliyahu HaNavi, after the persecution comes to a halt. +Why is Elisha Chosen? +If Eliyahu HaNavi’s students are on such a high spiritual level, then why does Hashem choose Elisha to succeed Eliyahu HaNavi? Again, we look to the incident of R. Shimon bar Yochai and his son R. Elazar in the cave hiding from the Roman forces. R. Shimon bar Yochai and R. Elazar experienced great difficulty in adjusting to life after they emerged from the cave. They were simply on too high a spiritual level to relate effectively to the rest of Am Yisrael. +We suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi's students are, similarly, unable to connect with Am Yisrael. In contrast, Elisha is able to relate to all Jews, as he lived a conventional lifestyle prior to his encounter with Eliyahu HaNavi. Although he is not on the same spiritual level as Eliyahu HaNavi’s students, he does not become disconnected from humanity in a cave. Living in a cave is similar in many ways to living as a Malach, angel, detached from earthly reality. It is wonderful to rise to a level similar to a Malach, but there is a distinct disadvantage as well, in terms of being able to relate to the broader community. +This might also explain why Elisha is eager to receive twice the Nevu’ah of Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim II 2:10). We will discuss Elisha’s request in the next chapter. However, in light of our discussion, we can understand why Elisha is so eager at the time of Eliyahu's ascent to heaven to grow spiritually. He knows that Hashem has chosen him to succeed Eliyahu HaNavi, but he also is aware that he lags behind the Bnei HaNevi’im in spiritual terms. Elisha asks for this boost to propel him to the level at which he will be able to rightfully and authentically assume the leadership of the Bnei HaNevi'im. This is his opportunity to make up for his not spending time in the cave. +Conclusion +Eliyahu HaNavi’s students are far from haughty. They assess themselves quite correctly, and Elisha is keenly aware of their heightened spiritual status. However, by the time Elisha returns to the Bnei HaNevi’im after Eliyahu's departure, Elisha proves that he has caught up with them, and is ready to assume the mantle of spiritual leadership. + +Elisha's Outstanding Request + +What Does “Pi Shenayim” Mean? +Immediately preceding Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent, Eliyahu HaNavi tells Elisha “She’al Mah E’eseh Lach BeTerem Elakach Mei’Imach,” “request what I should do for you before I am taken away from you” (Melachim II 2:9). Elisha’s response, “Pi Shenayim BeRuchacha Eilai,” “may twice as much as your spirit be mine,” is one of the most astounding requests in all of Tanach. +How could one be twice as great as Eliyahu HaNavi? Eliyahu HaNavi is a once in forever personality. He is the one designated by Hashem to announce the arrival of Mashi’ach, as stated at the end of Sefer Malachi. Eliyahu is the special personality who serves as the liaison, so to speak, between Hashem and the Chachamim during the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim (see, for example, Bava Metzia 59b). +As great as Elisha is, he does not fill these two roles. Accordingly, what can he possibly mean by this seemingly audacious (and even outrageous) request to have twice the spirit of Eliyahu HaNavi? +Ralbag +Ralbag (Melachim II 2:9) explains that “Pi Shenayim” in this context should be interpreted in light of its usage in Devarim 21:17, where the double portion of the Bechor (firstborn) is described as “Pi Shenayim.” Elisha wants help and support to emerge as the “Bechor” of the Bnei HaNevi’im— the primary student and clear successor to Eliyahu HaNavi. +This is not a narcissistic request. Eliyahu HaNavi presumably informs Elisha that Hashem has designated him as his successor after the events at Har Choreiv (Melachim I 19:16 and 19:19-21). Thus, before Eliyahu takes leave of Elisha, Elisha asks for his teacher for help to realize his prophesied destiny.155Recall Tosafot’s (Yevamot 50a s.v. Teida) dictum that prophecy does not inform one of what will occur, but rather of the potential that could be realized if one acts responsibly. +Radak +Radak (Melachim II 2:9) presents Chazal’s understanding that Elisha performs twice as many miracles as Eliyahu HaNavi. For example, Eliyahu revives only one person from the dead, whereas Elisha revives two people from the dead. Thus, Elisha does not aspire to the impossible goal of reaching twice the level of Nevu’ah as Eliyahu HaNavi, but rather simply the performance of twice the amount of miracles. We will further explain this approach based on our new suggestion. +A New Suggestion +We suggest an alternative based on the leadership achievements of Rav Ovadia Yosef. Rav Ovadia had a great impact on Yeshivah students, as well as the average Jew. For example, when he led Selichot at the Kotel, all kinds of Jews participated, including many not fully observant Jews. When Rav Ovadia passed away in 2013, moments of silence were observed at Israeli soccer games. This, by contrast, did not occur after the passing of other spiritual greats such as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in 1995, or Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv in 2012.156The Lubavitcher Rebbe also succeeded in commanding respect from highly advanced scholars as well as the broader Jewish community, even beyond the fully observant Orthodox community. +We suggest that in addition to being respected by the Bnei Nevi’im (as was Eliyahu HaNavi), Elisha also seeks to make an impact on the broader community, something Eliyahu HaNavi does not achieve. Elisha clearly achieves this goal. For example, Melachim II 8:4 records that the less than excellent king of northern Israel asks the less than excellent Geichazi to recount stories about Elisha. Clearly, unlike Eliyahu HaNavi, Elisha is able to win the heart of the broader community. +This, of course, does not diminish Eliyahu HaNavi’s stature. Achieving broader recognition and impact is not one of Eliyahu HaNavi’s goals. Nor is this a selfish exercise on the part of Elisha. As we discussed in an earlier chapter, Eliyahu HaNavi delegates Elisha with the role of anointing Chaza’eil. In order to be able to do this, Elisha must first earn and establish an international reputation. However, before doing this, he has to command the respect of the kings of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (which he does in Melachim II 3). And in order to attain the respect of the kings, he must first earn the respect of the nation.157Of course, before he earns the respect of the nation he must establish himself as the recognized leader of his immediate constituency, the Bnei Nevi’im. +Elisha, accordingly, asks from Eliyahu HaNavi that he be given the tools to be able to achieve his prophetically designated destiny. In this way, Elisha’s request is similar to Shlomo HaMelech’s request to be equipped with the tools to best serve Am Yisrael (Melachim I 3, as we discussed in an earlier chapter). +Our suggested interpretation works well with Chazal’s approach. Elisha wishes to perform twice as many miracles in order to make a greater impact on the broader community. It also fits with the Metzudat David’s approach that Elisha requests twice the power of Eliyahu’s prophecy. The Metzudat David may be understood as saying that Elisha requests double of Eliyahu HaNavi’s impact— on the Benei HaNevi’im and the broader populace. +Conclusion +It is enormously important for a Jew to harbor high ambitions. Elisha does not think small. When faced with an impromptu last request for Eliyahu HaNavi, Elisha makes a great appeal. When given the opportunity, Elisha makes an immediate grand request to facilitate his new role as Eliyahu HaNavi’s successor. We should emulate Elisha’s high ambitions and aspire to double our commitment to Judaism, our impact on our communities, and on the broader world. +Postscript +R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s (Gittin 56a-56b) modest requests from Vespasian in the wake of the destruction of Bayit Sheini, when the latter granted him three wishes, serves as an interesting contrast to Elisha’s request. R. Yochanan ben Zakkai requested the protection of Yavneh and its Chachamim, R. Gamliel’s family’s safety, and a doctor for R. Tzadok. The Gemara relates that some in later generations criticized R. Yochanan for not making more ambitious requests. These Chachamim could point to Elisha (and Shlomo HaMelech) as a model for high ambition when offered a wish. However, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai could respond that at the time of the Churban, and when dealing with tyrants like Vespasian, Hatzalah Purta (modest goals) are the order of the day. Regarding spiritual matters, though, all would agree to set high goals and strive to maximize spiritual potential. + +Perceiving the Spirituality + +Eliyahu HaNavi’s Unclear Response to Elisha +After Elisha requests double of his teacher’s spirit (“Pi Shenayim BeRuchacha Eilai,” “may twice as much as your spirit be mine,” as recorded in Melachim II 2:9) Eliyahu HaNavi responds that Elisha will be rewarded with his request if he is able to perceive the former’s ascent to heaven (Melachim II 2:10). What might Eliyahu intend with this oblique response? +Perceiving Spiritual Reality +Melachim II 6:14-17 describes an incredible interaction between Elisha and his assistant and might serve to clarify Eliyahu HaNavi’s response. In Melachim II 6, the Aramean army sets out to capture Elisha. As the soldiers approach, Elisha’s assistant panics, and Elisha reassures him: “Al Tira, Ki Rabim Asher Itanu Mei’Asher Otam,” “do not fear, for there are more with us than with them” (Melachim II 6:16). In an extraordinary moment, Elisha reveals the phalanx of angels that serve to protect them. +During this incredible interaction, Elisha reveals the spiritual world to his student. He teaches his pupil that one must look beyond that which is immediately perceptible. Similarly, before his ascent, Eliyahu HaNavi tells Elisha that he will be able to double the former’s power if he can discern the spiritual world that lurks beneath the secular veneer of the natural world. +Application to our Lives — Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik +In his essay Seeing With Discerning Eyes, Rabbi Aharon Ziegler presents a crucially important lesson from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: +Rav Soloveitchik often said that Halacha demands that we develop our eyes to be discerning and our hearts to be sensitive to what we see in this world. +We see from Moshe Rabbeinu, his first encounter with HaShem was with a “Sneh,” a burning bush. The Torah records that “An angel of HaShem appeared to him in a blaze of fire from amid the bush. He saw and behold! The bush was burning in the fire but the bush was not consumed” (Shemot 3:2). Was Moshe the only person who saw this wondrous event? It could very well be that many saw it but saw nothing unusual about it. Only Moshe had that discerning eye and saw what others did not. +We find likewise by Avraham and Yitzchak. On the third day into their journey toward Har HaMoriah, the Torah states, “Avraham raised his eyes and perceived the place from afar” (BeReishit 4:4). Avraham saw a cloud hovering over the mountain and recognized it as signifying God’s Presence (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, 31). He said, “Yitzchak, my son, do you see what I see?” “Yes,” Yitzchak said, and Avraham understood that Yitzchak had the discerning and spiritual insight that made him worthy of becoming a Korban to HaShem. He then turned to the two attendants and asked,”Do you see what I see?” They did not. +God did not reveal Himself only to the Nevi’im (prophets). He always did, and continually reveals Himself to all mankind. The most wondrous revelation of His presence is evident in creation, and in the processes of nature. This revelation is unending, appearing in sunrise and sunset, the blooming of the flowers and trees, the waves of the sea and the buzzing of insects. God is reflected in every one of nature’s rhythms. When ordinary people, like most of us, witness the wonders of nature, we do not perceive the Master of the universe. It seems to us that nature was self-created and self-refined. We view the mechanical nature of the universe, and consider its process as random and meaningless. However, an individual with an elevated personality, with discerning eyes and a sensitive heart, is able to feel and perceive the presence of the Creator. This is what we all must strive for.158Ziegler, Rabbi Aharon. “Seeing With Discerning Eyes.” Torah Musings, 25 Jan. 2019, www.torahmusings.com/2019/01/seeing-with-discerning-eyes/. +Conclusion +The lesson Eliyahu HaNavi communicates to his student and Elisha to his student, continues to be the most crucial lesson that parents and educators must transmit to the next generation. Committed Jews perceive the cloud hovering Har HaMoriyah in a manner similar to which Elisha perceives Eliyahu HaNavi ascending to the heavens. This perception is difficult to be taught; but, by setting a good example of serious commitment to Torah observance and a relationship with Hashem, the next generation will follow in the footsteps of Yitzchak Avinu and Elisha, see the cloud, and continue in the path of our ancestors. + +Har HaCarmel vs Chariots of Fire + +Inconsistency +We noted in an earlier chapter that Eliyahu HaNavi wishes to limit the publicity and the buzz about his impending ascent to heaven. However, this contrasts dramatically with Eliyahu HaNavi’s actions at Har HaCarmel.159As noted by TABC alumnus Aharon Goldstein (‘19). +At Har HaCarmel, Eliyahu HaNavi is extremely eager to publicize the fire that descends onto the Korban offered to Hashem in order to demonstrate to all that “Hashem Hu HaElokim,” “Hashem is the [true] God.” If so, why does Eliyahu HaNavi not utilize his ascent to Shamayim as an opportunity to publicize the same message? This would be a most incredible event that would “blow everyone away” and reinforce Emunah (faith) in Hashem. Why, then, is Eliyahu HaNavi so eager to avoid attention to this remarkable sight? +Divine Orchestration +Hashem specifically commands Eliyahu HaNavi to orchestrate the events at Har HaCarmel. Indeed, at Har HaCarmel, Eliyahu HaNavi proclaims to Hashem that “UBiDevarecha Asiti Eit Kol HaDevarim Ha’Eileh,” “it is by Your word that I have done all these things” (Melachim I 18:36). +However, Radak (Melachim I 18:21) is not sure if Hashem specifically orders Eliyahu HaNavi to organize this spectacular event. It is possible, Radak explains, that Hashem gives Eliyahu HaNavi a mandate to bring rain in any way he sees fit.160Eliyahu HaNavi feels that Am Yisrael’s proclamation of “Hashem Hu Ha’Elokim” serves as sufficient Teshuvah to merit the return of the rain. Thus, “it is by Your word that I have done all these things” refers not to a specific instruction, but to a broad mandate. +Kol Demama Dakah161As developed by TABC student Josh Miller (‘20). +Alternatively, Eliyahu HaNavi learns his lesson from his frustrating experience in Melachim I 19. Eliyahu HaNavi learns that it is more effective to function as “Kol Demama Dakah,” a soft subtle voice. This stands in contrast to the grand theatrics Eliyahu HaNavi facilitates at Har HaCarmel. Eliyahu HaNavi internalizes this message, as evidenced by his wish to leave the world in a more modest, “Kol Demama Dakah,” style of departure. +Divine vs. Self-promotion +Additionally, we may suggest that at Har HaCarmel, Eliyahu HaNavi seeks to publicize Hashem’s presence. It is appropriate to accomplish that goal in a public manner.162As suggested by TABC alumnus Tzvi Solomon. However, Eliyahu HaNavi is far more reluctant to publicize his own dramatic exit. +Conclusion +We are generous in publicizing Hashem’s role in the world, and we also rightfully publicize Torah institutions in order to maximize the impact of their holy endeavors. While sometimes it is necessary for us to publicize our achievements, it is often best to adopt a more modest approach, as Eliyahu HaNavi does when he exits the world. + +Common Hashkafic Belief & the Mystery of Eliyahu HaNavi's Death + +Popular Halachic Practice +Popular practice amongst our people bears some weight in deciding Halachah. The Gemara (Pesachim 66a) serves as a classic example. Hillel and the Rabbanim were unsure as to whether one may carry the knife to slaughter the Korban Pesach when Erev Pesach falls on Shabbat. The discussion is concluded based on the common practice of our people. The Gemara (ibid.) makes a striking statement in this context: +Leave it to the Jewish people; if they are not prophets to whom God has revealed His secrets, they are the sons of prophets and will certainly do the right thing on their own.163Translation excerpted from The Willam Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Pesachim.66a. +The Gemara elsewhere (Berachot 45a) establishes the concept of “Pook Chazi Mai Ama Dvar,” a Halachic question is resolved based on the common practice. The Talmud Yerushalmi presents a similar idea, “Kol Halachah She’hi Rofefet BeYadecha, Tzei Urei Mah HaTzibur Noheig,” whenever a Halachic matter is not clear, see what the community practices (Pei’ah 7:5). +Halachic authorities from Tosafot, to Rama, to the Aruch HaShulchan, to Rav Ovadia Yosef frequently consider common practice in their Halachic decisions. While this varies from Posek to Posek (the Chazon Ish, for example, did not place that much emphasis on common practice), in general, there is a tendency to consider the prevalent practice amongst observant Jews. There are certainly serious limitations to this rule, but we may safely conclude that common Halachic practice has a Halachic vote but not a Halachic veto. +The Case of Eliyahu HaNavi’s Departure +Does the same principle apply to a Hashkafic matter of debate? An intriguing passing comment of Radak in the context of the debate as to whether Eliyahu HaNavi died may shed light on this fascinating topic. +The Pashtanim debate as to whether Eliyahu HaNavi actually dies at the beginning of Melachim II. Radak (Melachim II 2:1) argues that he does. Indeed, the fact that Eliyahu HaNavi ascends to heaven on a chariot of fire seems to suggest that he does indeed die, as a person cannot survive being enveloped in fire. +The Abarbanel, however, questions Radak: +Nowhere does the text actually mention ‘death’ in connection with Eliyahu, as it does concerning Moshe and all of the other prophets. This indicates that his body was not separated from his soul, in the manner of all people who pass away naturally.164Translation adapted from Samet, Rav Elchanan. “Shiur #94: The Storm Part 7: Eliyahu Lives On.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, 22 Feb. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-94-storm-part-7-eliyahu-lives. +Indeed, the word “Alah,” “ascent,” is used to describe Eliyahu HaNavi’s departure. Melachim II 2 seems to go considerably out of its way to avoid applying the term "death” to Eliyahu HaNavi. +Ralbag (Melachim II 2:1) agrees that Eliyahu HaNavi does not die. This approach may be anchored in the Seforno’s understanding of the “Brit Shalom” that Hashem bestows upon Pinechas (BeMidbar 25:12), whom much of Chazal consider to be Eliyahu HaNavi. Seforno raises the possibility that “Brit Shalom” refers to a covenant of peace and protection from the Malach HaMavet (angel of death). Thus, Pinechas/Eliyahu HaNavi lives forever. +The fact that the end of Sefer Malachi records that Eliyahu HaNavi will announce the arrival of the Mashi’ach also fits with this assumption. After all, why should Eliyahu be chosen for this task, as opposed to other prophets such as Moshe Rabbeinu and Aharon HaKohein? Apparently, the difference is that Eliyahu HaNavi, who will never die, will be available to herald the Mashi’ach’s arrival. +Finally, Divrei HaYamim II 21 records that Eliyahu HaNavi sends a letter of rebuke to the less than excellent Judean king Yehoram ben Achav. This would appear to be sent after Eliyahu’s ascent to heaven since Elisha interacts with Yehoshafat, Yehoram’s father (Melachim II 3).165For further discussion of this point, see Samet, Rav Elchanan. “Shiur #95: The Storm Part 7: Eliyahu Lives On (Continued).” +Common Hashkafic Belief +Most interestingly, after Radak presents his Peshat approach, he notes that the opinion of the Jewish masses and of our sages is that Eliyahu HaNavi does not die. Indeed, the Gemara often presents stories of Eliyahu HaNavi appearing to various Talmudic sages. +It is most intriguing that Radak considers the voice of the Jewish masses in regard to this major debate. There are considerable important ramifications of this passing comment by Radak. +Although there is considerable debate about the principles of Jewish faith, popular sentiment seems to have accepted Rambam’s thirteen principles of faith as the Hashkafic standard. Similarly, the Chatam Sofer (Teshuvot Y.D. 356) has famously asserted that just as there are Halachic determinations over the generations where some opinions are excluded from normative practice, so too there are Hashkafic matters regarding which there are accepted opinions and those which are rejected. His classic example is Hillel’s (not the famous Hillel HaZakein) assertion (Sanhedrin 99a) that there will be a Messianic age but not an individual Mashi’ach. +Conclusion +The discussion of the impact of common Hashkafic thought on the shaping of mainstream and normative Jewish thought is a most intriguing one. Clearly, Radak considered the beliefs of the devoted Jewish masses to enjoy a vote, although not a veto. + +Israel's Chariot and Horsemen + +An Unfitting Description +Upon Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent to Shamayim, Elisha famously screams, “Avi, Avi Rechev Yisrael UFarashav,” “my father, my father, Israel’s chariot and horsemen” (Melachim II 2:12). It is readily understood why Elisha refers to Eliyahu HaNavi as a father figure. Chazal (cited by Rashi to Devarim 6:7 s.v. LeVanecha) cite this Pasuk as an example of how the Rebbe-student relationship is compared to a father-child relationship. Indeed, the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 2:11) describes a father as bringing one into this world and the Rebbe as one who brings his student into Olam HaBa.166See Jachter, Rabbi Chaim. “Hespeid for Mori VeRabi HaRav Aharon Lichtenstein Zt‘l – Part Two.” Kol Torah, Torah Academy of Bergen County, 2015, www.koltorah.org/halachah/hespeid-for-mori-verabi-harav-aharon-lichtenstein-ztl-part-two-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter, where we eulogize Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein as a powerful father figure for his students. +However, it does not seem apt to describe Eliyahu HaNavi with the military epithet of “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav,” “the chariot of Israel and its horsemen.” Indeed, Eliyahu HaNavi is never involved in a battle or even discusses war throughout Tanach. Moreover, Nevi’im other than Eliyahu HaNavi are contemporaneously involved in Achav’s wars with Aram, as recorded in Melachim I 20 and 22. Why does Elisha describe Eliyahu HaNavi in this seemingly unfitting manner? +Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel +While Da’at Mikra presents a variety of explanations for the phrase “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav,” we shall focus our discussion on the approach set forth by Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel, whose explanation is cited as authoritative by Rashi, Radak, and the Metzudat David. At first, we must recall that Targum Yonatan is not merely a translation, but a highly significant commentary as well. Indeed, every translation, almost by definition, is also a commentary. +Targum Yonatan interprets “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav” to mean “who benefitted Yisrael with his prayer, more than chariots and horsemen.” In other words, Elisha reveals the secret as to why Am Yisrael emerges victorious (or at least not defeated) in its war against the vastly superior forces of Aram. Elisha reveals that Eliyahu HaNavi’s Tefillah is the real cause of the nation’s victory. +In public, Eliyahu HaNavi battles the evil of the regime of Achav and Izevel. However, Elisha adds that Eliyahu prayed in private for the victory of Achav’s army against Aram. +This is reminiscent of a story recounted to this author’s family by a relative of the late Satmar Rebbe, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum. While the Satmar Rebbe famously railed against the mostly secular Israeli government in public ever since (and even before) the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, during the Six-Day War, he fasted each day and devoted the entire time to Tefillah on behalf of Tzahal. Immediately after the hostilities had ended, the Satmar Rebbe emerged to once again vociferously criticize the Israeli leadership. To clarify, we unequivocally reject and do not endorse the Satmar Rebbe’s views on Zionism. Nonetheless, he is a respected Torah figure, whose ideas are an important component of the Torah of Am Yisrael in its totality. +We see that although a Torah figure publicly adopts a harsh stance against those members of Am Yisrael who do not uphold Torah values, they nonetheless are profoundly concerned about the welfare of their compatriots. Thus, Elisha, upon seeing Eliyahu HaNavi ascend to Shamayim, cries out with worry and concern, “who now will enable Am Yisrael to succeed in battle, now that Eliyahu HaNavi is no longer with us!” +Comparison to David HaMelech +An explanation of David HaMelech’s unlikely victory over Golyat (Shemuel I 17) sheds further light on why it is most appropriate and deeply insightful to refer to Eliyahu HaNavi as “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav.” David HaMelech, in this epic encounter, repeatedly mentions Hashem as his partner in the battle against Golyat (e.g. Shemuel I 17:37, 17:45-47). Once David makes Hashem his partner in this holy endeavor to protect Am Yisrael for terrible harm, Hashem in turn partners with David HaMelech and facilitates his surprising victory.167As is clear from Sefer Tehillim, David partners with Hashem throughout his life. This is what enables David to overcome many seemingly insurmountable challenges time and time again. David HaMelech certainly uses strategy and skill in his fight with Golyat; however, he is unable to defeat Golyat without Hashem’s help. Hashem ensures that the rock David throws lands directly in the eye slits of Golyat’s armor. +Returning to our discussion of Eliyahu HaNavi, Ralbag presents a slight variation to the Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel. Ralbag writes that Eliyahu HaNavi provides Am Yisrael with its strength throughout its wars. Significantly, Ralbag makes no mention of Eliyahu HaNavi’s Tefillah. Rather, Eliyahu HaNavi, in his totality, enables Am Yisrael to prevail in the war against the powerful Aram. +In order for Am Yisrael to emerge victorious against all odds, we must take Hashem as our partner. Achav and his army fail to follow the example of David HaMelech. However, since Aram fights the totality of Am Yisrael, they fight not only against Achav and his army but also against Eliyahu HaNavi. +Thus, Ralbag may be understood as saying that the combination of Eliyahu HaNavi and all for which he stands, in combination with Achav’s army, triggers Hashem’s intervention on behalf of Am Yisrael during its battles with Aram. David HaMelech has in his possession the ideal blend of military skill and faith in Hashem, and he is, therefore, able to trigger Hashem’s help to overcome Golyat. While the combination of Achav, his army, and Eliyahu HaNavi consists of different personalities, the net result is the same. Their combined efforts are able to prompt divine intervention on behalf of the Bnei Yisrael. +A Contemporary Application – The State of Israel’s Extraordinary Success +A thoughtful person should ponder the reason behind the extraordinary success of Medinat Yisrael. In its early years, Israel had to ration its food. Now, it is the fourth country in the world to send a rocket to the Moon. Israel, as is well known, has more companies listed on the NASDAQ exchange than any other country, except for the United States and China.168Williams, Steven M. “How Israel Became The Startup Nation Having The 3rd Most Companies On The Nasdaq.” Seeking Alpha, 27 Feb. 2018, www.seekingalpha.com/article/4151094-israel-became-startup-nation-3rd-companies-nasdaq. +Many books and articles, such as Dan Senor and Paul Singer’s well-known work Start-Up Nation (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2009), have been written to explain Israel’s extraordinary success. While these types of works explain the skills and strategies that enable Israel’s unprecedented and continuous success, they are unable to completely explain this extraordinary phenomenon. For example, many other nations such as South Korea work very hard to emulate the Israeli models but do not achieve anywhere near the success of the Israeli people. To the Jewish ear and eye (see Rashi to the beginning of Parashat VaYechi), there seems to be something missing in these conventional explanations of Israel’s success. +We dare say that what we are witnessing is subtle divine intervention on behalf of the State of Israel, not only on the battlefield,169As we document at length in Reason to Believe: Rational Explanations of Orthodox Jewish Faith (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2017). but also in the worlds of business, technology, and science. Why might the Jewish people merit such intervention? We set forth the proposition that both the David HaMelech and the Eliyahu HaNavi model trigger Hashem’s involvement. +Many in Israel follow the model of David HaMelech and combine devotion and faith in Hashem with practical involvement in worldly endeavors. Others follow in the footsteps of Eliyahu Hanavi of zealous advocacy for the upholding of Hashem’s Torah and all its values. Whatever approach is taken, we believe that both are responsible for triggering Hashem’s intervention on behalf of Israel, subsequently facilitating its extraordinary (and in our view, supernatural) success.170The author’s experience during his visit to the beautiful Torah communities of the Religious-Zionist Nof Ayalon/Shaalvim and Chareidi Ramat Beit Shemesh in January 2019 reinforced his view on this matter. +Conclusion +Elisha, upon Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent, reveals a secret of great importance. The supernatural success of our people depends on the combination of our spiritual and practical efforts. May we all be inspired by the models of David HaMelech and Eliyahu HaNavi, and make every effort to ensure both spiritual and material excellence on the individual and communal levels in Am Yisrael. May the stunning success of Medinat Yisrael continue and flourish, and may we all have the wisdom to discern the true reason behind its incredible success. + +The Splitting of the Yarden; Was This Miracle Necessary? + +The Narrow Jordan River +Anyone who has seen the Yarden is surprised to discover that it is a very narrow river. Interestingly, when American Secretary of State George Shultz was shown the Jordan River on a state trip to Israel, he was shocked by its small size to the extent that he did not believe that what he was shown was the actual Jordan River! +Indeed, readers of Tanach receive the impression that the Jordan is a wide and mighty river.171However, careful readers of Melachim II 5 should be able to discern that the Yarden is far from a mighty river. In Melachim II 2, one wonders why Eliyahu HaNavi deems it necessary to make a miracle to cross the Jordan River. Given the river’s small width, Eliyahu HaNavi can easily walk across it. Why is this miracle necessary? +Answer Based on Da’at Mikra +Da’at Mikra (Yehoshua 3:15) grapples with this issue in the context of Yehoshua splitting the Yarden. Da’at Mikra notes that while the Yarden is narrow most of the year, during the rainy season and after the melting of the snow on Mount Hermon, it does widen. In fact, Yehoshua 3:15 specifically mentions that the Yarden is full on its banks during the harvest (spring) season. +Accordingly, it is possible that Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha cross the Yarden at a time of the year when the Yarden widens. However, unlike Yehoshua 3:15, which notes that the Yarden is full at the time of the Bnei Yisrael’s crossing, Melachim II 2 makes no such mention in regards to Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s crossing. This might leave room to suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi splits the Jordan even though it is not necessary to do so. +Why Does Eliyahu HaNavi Go to Jordan? +In order to present a new answer to our question, we must first pose a related question: Why does Eliyahu HaNavi cross the Jordan to ascend to heaven? He can just as easily ascend from Eretz Yisrael. +Radak (Melachim II 2:1) answers that Eliyahu complies with a prophecy that instructs him to go to Jordan to ascend. Radak suggests a reason for this might be due to the many parallels between Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu HaNavi. Just as Moshe Rabbeinu dies on the east side of the Jordan River, Hashem likewise decides that Eliyahu HaNavi should die on the east side of the Jordan. +We suggest an alternative approach that submits that Eliyahu HaNavi creates a situation where Elisha can fulfill his divine mandate to emerge as his teacher’s uncontested successor. We suggest that Eliyahu deliberately decides to cross the Jordan in order for Elisha to make a grand reentrance into Eretz Yisrael, which will earn him the respect of the Bnei HaNevi’im. +Why Eliyahu HaNavi Splits the Yarden +We similarly suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi creates a scenario where Elisha can replicate his miracle of splitting the Yarden in front of the Bnei HaNevi’im, and consequently earn their respect. Thus, we concede that the splitting of the river is not needed to enable the crossing of the Yarden, but rather to provide Elisha with an opportunity for growth. +Elisha Splits the Yarden +Elisha is not immediately able to split the Yarden (Melachim II 2:13-14).172This follows the understanding of Radak that Elisha hits the water twice, unlike Ralbag who believes that Elisha hits the Yarden only once. This creates an opportunity for the Bnei HaNevi’im to see how Elisha reacts to a crisis. Elisha is able to see Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent to heaven and is thus assured of having twice the power of Eliyahu HaNavi (as he requests in Melachim II 2:9). Elisha must be frustrated when he initially is unable to cross the Yarden as did his teacher. +Yet, Elisha does not give up. While the first time, he merely copies Eliyahu HaNavi and hits the Yarden with his teacher’s mantle, in his second attempt, he engages in Tefillah. At this point, the Yarden splits. +This teaches Elisha an invaluable lesson at the outset of his assuming the mantle of leadership. He learns that cannot merely reuse Eliyahu HaNavi’s methods. He will have to follow in Eliyahu HaNavi’s path, and simultaneously develop his own style as a Navi and leader. +Many of the Bnei Nevi’im witness this event and are duly impressed by Elisha’s handling of the situation. They subsequently bow out of respect, and thereby express their acceptance of Elisha as their leader (Melachim II 2:15). We suggest that Eliyahu HaNavi deliberately sets up this situation as a test for his protégé. Elisha passes with flying colors. +Conclusion +During the Israeli army’s officer training course, trainees are deliberately set up with crisis situations on the way to their missions. The intention is to test how the trainees will handle unexpected challenges. When trainees overcome the obstacles and challenges, they are ready to emerge as military leaders. +We contend that Eliyahu HaNavi does the same for Elisha. Elisha grows from his experience at the Yarden, and it helps him emerge as Eliyahu HaNavi’s successor. +Similarly, Hashem sets us up with all sorts of challenges in life to provide us with opportunities for growth. There is no growth without struggle. Just as Eliyahu HaNavi sets up Elisha for success, so too does Hashem set us up for success in life. + +Searching for Eliyahu HaNavi + +An Unnecessary Search +Following Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent, the Bnei HaNevi’im173See the earlier chapter, “Eliyahu HaNavi's Two Models of Torah Centers,” where we attempt to identify these “Bnei HaNevi’im.” insist that Elisha send a search party for his teacher. The Bnei HaNevi’im discern when Eliyahu HaNavi will depart the world, as they ask Elisha, “HaYadata Ki HaYom Hashem Lokei’ach Et Adonecha Mei’Al Roshecha,” “do you know that Hashem is taking your master away from you today?” (Melachim II 2:3 and 2:5). These are great men, and, as Rashi notes (Melachim II 2:2), perhaps they are even equal in stature to Eliyahu HaNavi. Why, then, do they insist on sending a search party for Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim II 2:16-18) when they know that he has left the world? Why do they think that Eliyahu HaNavi is lost somewhere in a mountain or valley (Melachim II 2:16) and insist on conducting a three-day manhunt for him? +Rashi’s Approach +Rashi answers that the Bnei HaNevi’im no longer possess Ru’ach HaKodesh after Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent. This comment is reminiscent of Rashi’s famous comment to BeReishit 28:10: the departure of a Tzaddik from an area makes an impact.174The Torah records that Ya’akov “left from Be’eir Sheva,” in addition to noting that he “set out for Charan.” Rashi explains that the Torah emphasizes Ya’akov’s departure from Be’eir Sheva to teach the above principle. +A problem with this approach, though, is that it portrays the Bnei HaNevi’im as transforming from intelligent and discerning people to simpletons, which is difficult to accept. In a variation to Rashi’s approach, we suggest that the Bnei HaNevi’im’s are “off their game” as a result of their grief, and they, therefore, make an emotionally laden, albeit misguided, choice to insist that Elisha order a search party for Eliyahu HaNavi. +Radak and Ralbag’s Approach +Radak and Ralbag solve the problem by noting that Eliyahu HaNavi would only appear erratically. He would most often seclude himself in Chassidic style “Hitbodedut” to focus on his spirituality. The Bnei HaNevi’im believe that Eliyahu HaNavi has departed only temporarily, as has happened in the past, and that a search will successfully locate him. Indeed, the righteous Ovadiah in Melachim I 18:12 comments that Eliyahu HaNavi’s precise location can never be determined, since “the spirit of Hashem could spirit [him] off to the unknown” at any time. +The Metzudat David and Malbim +The Metzudat David and Malbim (following the Abarbanel, as is their wont) simply explain that the Bnei HaNevi’im are aware that Eliyahu HaNavi has left the world. However, they believe that his body was cast somewhere, and is in dire need of burial. Hence, their intense desire to search for Eliyahu HaNavi is justified. +Rabbi Elchanan Samet +Rabbi Elchanan Samet, in his monumental work Pirkei Eliyahu (Jerusalem: Ma’aliyot Press, 2003), develops an approach based on the many episodes recorded in the Gemara that recount that Eliyahu HaNavi would appear from time to time, based on the assumption that he did not truly die. The Bnei HaNevi’im reason that since Eliyahu HaNavi did not die, and that he will return from time to time, they will be able to encounter him if they make an extraordinary effort to do so (i.e. sending a fifty man search party to look for him). The Bnei HaNevi’im subsequently learn that they will not, and cannot, encounter Eliyahu HaNavi on demand, but that his appearances will be entirely unpredictable. +A New Suggestion +We suggest a new approach based on the techniques of the Israeli army’s Koorse Ketzinim, officers’ training course. During this rigorous training period, the potential officers are deliberately placed in challenging situations designed to test and develop their leadership skills. This is what develops them as competent leaders in highly stressful and critically important situations. Successful soldiers who successfully complete Koorse Ketzinim emerge brimming with confidence from their passing this very rigorous and challenging program, ready to lead their charges in any circumstances. +We suggest that the Bnei HaNevi’im are highly intelligent and deliberately create a crisis to provide Elisha with an opportunity to flex his leadership muscles. They are looking to see how Elisha will handle fifty hysterical Bnei HaNevi’im. Will he be inflexible and not budge, or will he yield when appropriate to do so? How will he handle the Nevi’im when they return from a failed mission? +Elisha handles the situation with intelligence, both before and after the search. Elisha is given an opportunity to gain confidence as a leader of the Nevi’im, even though objectively speaking the Bnei Nevi’im are on a higher spiritual level than he.175As we present in the chapter “Understanding the Bnei HaNevi’im.” Elisha’s confident declaration upon the Bnei HaNevi’im’s return from their search “I told you not to go,” gives him the confidence to lead with authority going forward. He yields when it is appropriate to do so and exerts strong leadership when necessary. +Conclusion – Unsung Heroes +We do not know the names of these Bnei Nevi’im, who, with their wisdom and subtlety, provide Elisha with the opportunity to emerge as their leader. Although they are superior in Nevu’ah to Elisha, they humbly and graciously accept his leadership. These men, having placed the needs of the Bnei Yisrael ahead of their own advancement, are true heroes deserving of our recognition and admiration. + +Elisha and the Northern Kingdom + +Elisha and the Bears + +A Shocking Incident +It is one of the most shocking incidents in Tanach. The end of Melachim II 2 records that Elisha reacts angrily when a group of “Ne’arim Ketanim,” young lads, taunt him by calling him a “Keirei’ach,” “baldhead.” Elisha reacts angrily and curses them, which in turn leads to the gruesome death of these forty-two youngsters at the hands of fearsome bears (Melachim II 2:24). This seems a severe overreaction on the part of Elisha. Why does he react in this extreme manner to a petty insult? Why does Elisha not simply take the “high road” and ignore the taunt? +Moreover, we have presented Elisha as adopting a much softer approach in comparison to Eliyahu HaNavi. For example, in the incident preceding the confrontation with the taunting youngsters, Elisha cures the water of Yericho. Elisha’s first communal act as the successor to Eliyahu HaNavi is to provide water, whereas Eliyahu’s first act is to withhold water. The people of Yericho never approach Eliyahu HaNavi about the problem with the water in their area, because they find it too intimidating to do so. They do, by contrast, feel comfortable approaching Elisha. +Accordingly, how does the story of Elisha and the bears fit with his image of a much softer and more approachable Navi? +Elisha in Error +Da’at Mikra endorses the opinion (recorded in Sotah 47a) that Elisha’s overreaction is the result of a poor decision, for which he eventually suffers a considerable consequence. +This seems to be an inadequate explanation, for Elisha remains unrepentant to the end for this act. There is also hardly a hint in the text that Elisha errs in this incident. Moreover, if we say Elisha errs, then it is a grievous sin that should overshadow the many great things he accomplished during his eventful life. Causing the death of forty-two small children simply for their poking fun of his being bald? If this is understood as a sinful act, it renders Elisha as a terrible sinner. We are strongly inclined to discover an alternative approach. +Sotah 46b +Sotah 46b (cited by Rashi and Radak) offers four criticisms of the people who taunted Elisha:176Translation adapted from The William Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Sotah.46b.20. +1. They had previously earned their living by providing the city of Yericho with water. Elisha sweetened the city’s own water (Melachim II 2:22), rendering their services unnecessary. +The taunters are, accordingly, not hurling a personal insult but rather express an abhorrent and self-centered attitude. +2. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: ‘Young lads [Ne’arim Ketanim]’? One would have expected the verse to state either “young” or “lads,” but not both. R. Elazar says: The word “lads [Ne’arim]” means that they were shaken empty [Meno’arim] of the Mitzvot; the word “young [Ketanim]” means that they were of little faith [Ketanei Amanah], as they had no trust that they would be able to earn their livelihood by any other means. The Sages taught: They were lads, that is, already of age, but they disgraced themselves like young children. +This further softens Elisha’s actions. He does not curse small children. Rather, he curses adults who are, spiritually speaking, immature. +3. He saw their essential nature, that all their mothers became pregnant with them on Yom Kippur, when conjugal relations are forbidden. +According to this approach, these people never should have been born. Their conception was improper and thus they apparently do not enjoy a right to live. +4. He saw that Mitzvot would be found neither in them nor in their descendants, through all generations. +This final criticism, of course, reminds us of a similar highly controversial action that occurs in the early stages of Moshe Rabbeinu’s career, when he kills the Egyptian for abusing a Hebrew slave. In both cases, Chazal partially justify the actions by noting that not an iota of goodness may be associated with the person killed (see Rashi to Shemot 12:2 s.v. VaYar Ki Ein Ish). +Understanding Elisha +As uncomfortable as we may be with this, the fact is that Elisha is destined to be involved in some violent activity. Hashem at Har Choreiv tells Eliyahu HaNavi that Elisha, along with Chaza’eil and Yeihu, will eliminate the sinners in Israel (Melachim I 19:17). Rashi (ibid.) notes that this is fulfilled when the bears devour the forty-two taunters.177It should be noted that the Pesukim relate only that forty-two of the taunters were killed by the bears. It is possible that there were more than forty-two instigators. It is most reasonable to assume that Eliyahu HaNavi informs Elisha about this Nevu’ah. Presumably, given the severity of the insults, Elisha feels that this is the appropriate situation in which to fulfill this mission. +Moreover, even if we may assume that these are young children, as a Peshat approach to the term “Ne’arim Ketanim” seems to indicate, it is reasonable to suggest that the forty-two children only express the oft-repeated sentiments originally vocalized by their parents. Indeed, the Gemara (Sukkah 56b) states that a child’s statements in public reflect what they heard either from their father or mother. These children mirror the anti-Elisha sentiment prevalent in Beit El. Such intense negativity is intolerable to Elisha, and thus he feels that he must respond harshly. +Finally, Elisha does not kill these boys. He curses them. Hashem decides as to whether He will summon one of His agents to punish the taunters. This is similar to Moshe Rabbeinu who “kills” the abusive Egyptian man by uttering the Shem HaMeforash (Hashem’s ineffable name), as noted by Rashi (to Shemot 2:14 s.v. Halhargeini Ata Omeir). Had Hashem felt it unjust for the abusive Egyptian man to die or the taunters to die, they would not have died.178Although there is a traditional saying that “Tzaddik Gozer VeHashem Mekayeim,” “a Tzaddik decrees and Hashem fulfills,” it is inconceivable that Hashem would fulfill an immoral request simply because the person requesting it is otherwise a Tzaddik. TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (’17), however, counters that he finds this approach to be untenable. This is because, as Chazal express, Eliyahu HaNavi holds the keys to water. Of course, Hashem allows everything to happen, but He chooses to base His actions on human action. The connection between the Navi’s actions and Hashem’s reaction is more pronounced in regards to Eliyahu HaNavi, but it is still in effect during Elisha’s tenure as the spiritual leader. Elisha essentially puts a death warrant on the youngsters’ heads, and Hashem accepts Elisha’s terms. To say that Hashem reacts to mystical triggers only in a manner consistent with Avodat Hashem is disingenuous. Bala’am, Balak, the magicians in Mitzrayim, and possibly even Yeishu (according to Sanhedrin 107b), manipulated Hashem’s mystics for non-Godly means. Human choice is necessary and mistakes are inevitable, even for an authentic Navi. +Conclusion +In comparison to Eliyahu HaNavi, Elisha certainly adopts a softer and gentler approach in his mission to return Am Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom to Hashem. However, if he is to be taken seriously, Elisha must establish his authority and his intolerance towards abuse. The incident with the bears, which occurs at the beginning of his role as leader of the Nevi’im, firmly establishes much-needed respect for Elisha. +Thus, as uncomfortable as this story may appear at first glance, when delving into the incident, one may discern why Elisha’s reaction is reasonable and appropriate. +Postscript — Elisha’s Grief 179The following section was developed by Binyamin Jachter. +Alternatively, we may understand the bear incident as a presentation of Elisha’s grief. In order to understand Elisha’s emotional state, let us break down his story into the relevant parts. Elisha cuts himself off completely from everyone and everything that he knows to follow Eliyahu HaNavi. His mission is to be Eliyahu HaNavi’s successor and to serve Hashem to the best of his ability. His only guide through all of this, Eliyahu HaNavi, whom Elisha treats as a father, is ripped away from him suddenly, with only a day’s notice. He then is pressured during his period of mourning to accept people who deny Eliyahu HaNavi’s death/ascension (see Melachim II 2:15-17). Elisha then helps these deniers by restoring their water. The people of Yericho do not celebrate Elisha’s investiture, and they fail to acknowledge Hashem and Elisha’s role in their salvation. +At this point, Elisha is alone. No one gives him or Hashem the warranted gratitude. In this emotional context, a group of youngsters comes to taunt and berate Elisha. Thus, with a very large number of people taunting and screaming at him, about something so trivial as his appearance no less, our emotionally ragged Navi curses them with his newly received power from Eliyahu HaNavi. This outburst of anger may have influenced Elisha’s actions for the rest of his life. As a result of this incident, Elisha never turns his back on the Bnei Yisrael (unlike Eliyahu HaNavi, who runs away to Choreiv following the events at Har HaCarmel, see Melachim I 19). Elisha learns a powerful lesson when he directly witnesses his anger destroy forty-two children. +According to this approach, if we assume Elisha sins during this incident, Elisha does in a way repent for his egregious error. As recorded in Melachim II 3, Elisha is deeply disappointed with Yehoram ben Achav but still does as the king requests— he gives him Hashem’s Nevu’ah of victory. Elisha already, only a short while after the incident with the bears, is able to control his emotions and practice tolerance to the highest degree.180Similarly, the Gemara’s assertion that the “youngsters” are actually adults may be understood in a psychological sense. Elisha perceives them as adults due to his overwrought emotional state. We see that Elisha’s temperament has changed. + +Moav's Rebellion and the Mesha Stele + +Moav’s Rebellion +Sometimes an archaeological find can shed light on an episode in Tanach that appears mysterious without the artifact. The Mesha Stele is an example of this. +Melachim II 3 relates that in response to Moav’s rebellion against the Northern Kingdom, the Israelite king Yehoram, the son of Achav, forms a coalition with the Southern Kingdom (led by the righteous king Yehoshafat) and the king of Edom. En route to the battle, this triple alliance runs out of water. Yehoram calls upon Elisha, who joins the troops going to the battle, to miraculously provide water and rescue the three armies. Elisha speaks harshly to Yehoram, but kindly about his partner Yehoshafat. After miraculously providing water, Elisha instructs the alliance to smite Moav and engage in General Sherman-like warfare against Moav, destroying all in their path, including the fruit trees. After the army successfully executes Elisha’s plan and wreaks havoc upon Moav, the war ends inconclusively, with the alliance dissolving in a last-minute debacle.181See Ralbag (Melachim II 3:27) and the Malbim (ibid.) for an explanation of the obscure final verse of Melachim II 3, which presents the reason for the dissolution of the alliance. Moav is left in shambles, though Yehoram’s goal of restoring his control over Moav remains unachieved. +Questions +The thoughtful reader is left with many questions regarding this episode. First, why does the righteous king Yehoshafat join this battle? Perhaps it is because his son marries Achav’s daughter Ataliah (sister of Yehoram). Indeed, Yehoshafat allies himself with Achav in his war against Aram (Melachim I 22). However, Yehoshafat narrowly escapes death in that war and thus refuses to ally himself with Achav’s son Achaziah in his quest for gold, as recorded in Melachim I 22:49-50. Why, then, does Yehoshafat join Yehoram ben Achav in his quest to regain control over Moav? Moreover, why is Elisha clearly pleased with Yehoshafat’s participation in this war? 182Similarly, Chazal (Avot DeRabbi Natan 9:4) strongly criticize Yehoshafat for partnering with Achav but do not criticize Yehoshafat for joining Yehoram’s war against Moav. +The second question is: Why does Elisha call for such an aggressive campaign against Moav? Furthermore, what is the justification of his order to cut down fruit trees, which violates an explicit Torah prohibition (Devarim 20:19-20)? In his introduction to the Mishnah, Rambam explains that this was a Hora’at Sha’ah, a temporary suspension of a Torah law, which an established prophet is permitted to do in case of great need.183A classic Hora’at Sha’ah is Eliyahu HaNavi offering a sacrifice on Har HaCarmel, as recorded in Melachim I 18. Eliyahu HaNavi does this despite the prohibition against offering a sacrifice outside the Beit HaMikdash (VaYikra 17:1-4), due to the extraordinary need to draw the Jews of the Northern Kingdom back to the Torah (Yevamot 90b). Rambam does not clarify, however, the great need that called for a suspension of the Torah prohibition to cut down fruit trees. +A third question is why Elisha, a prolific miracle worker, performs a miracle to save the “triple entente” from dying of thirst but does not perform a miracle to ensure a complete victory over Moav. Shouldn’t Elisha’s presence ensure an unadulterated defeat of Moav? We are left wondering why Hashem apparently does not want the coalition to achieve such a triumph. +One could answer that since Yehoram ben Achav is wicked, he is undeserving of a miracle. If so, then why does the coalition merit obtaining water in a miraculous fashion? Why are the allied armies so successful in their effort to wreak havoc upon Moav? Melachim II 3 and its traditional commentaries do not provide clear answers to these three major problems. +The Mesha Stele – A Source for the Answers +With the discovery of the Mesha Stele in the late nineteenth century, the answers to these questions became apparent. Rav Amnon Bazak of Yeshivat Har Etzion writes:184Bazak, Rav Amnon. “Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh— Shiur #6b: Tanakh and Archaeology.” Translated by Kaeren Fish, The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Yeshivat Har Etzion, 21 Sept. 2014, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-6b-tanakh-and-archaeology. +In Sefer Melakhim we read: +‘And Mesha, king of Moav, was a sheepmaster, and he delivered to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and a hundred thousand rams, with the wool. But it was, when Achav died, that the king of Moav rebelled against the king of Israel…’ (Melachim II 3:4-5) +In 1868, a stele (inscribed stone) dating to the 9th century B.C.E. was discovered in what is now Jordan. Its inscription shows that it was established by this same Mesha, king of Moav. It opens with the words, “I am Mesha, son of Kemosh,185Kemosh is well known in the Tanach as the god of Moav. For example, "Woe to you, Moav! You are done for, O people of Kemosh!" (BeMidbar 21:29); "Then Shlomo built a high place for Kemosh, the abomination of Moav" (Melachim I 11:7). king of Moav.” Mesha records that the people of Moav were subservient to Omri, king of Israel, for a long time ["Omri, king of Israel, and they afflicted Moav for many days"] and describes at length how he prevailed against Omri's son, until Israel was annihilated. The Mesha Stele, then, is the earliest external evidence of Moav's battle against Israel, as recorded in the text, and of the existence of the House of Omri. +Mesha ascribes his defeat of the Melech Yisrael as a victory of his god Kemosh as stated in the Stele, “Omri was king of Israel, and oppressed Moav during many days, and Kemosh was angry with his aggressions.” Mesha even presents his success as the subservience of Hashem to Kemosh (heaven forfend) by stating, “I took from it the vessels of J-h-v-h, and offered them before Kemosh.” + After his successful rebellion against Yehoram, Mesha erects the Mesha Stele to celebrate his victory to elevate the Moavite god Kemosh and denigrate Hashem in the most public manner possible. One may hypothesize that Mesha erected numerous such steles in his territory. +The Mesha Stele undoubtedly describes the initial Moavite rebellion against Yehoram and not the battle between Moav and the “triple entente” described in Melachim II 3. The stele mentions only that Mesha fought against a descendant of Omri (i.e. Yehoram); it makes no mention of Yehoshafat and Edom. + +The Mesha Stele, on display at the Louvre186Photograph by Mbzt 2012, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22090379 +Armed with this information, we may proceed to answer our three questions. Our answers are a variation of Rav Elchanan Samet’s approach presented in his monumental work Pirkei Elisha.187Rav Elchanan Samet, Pirkei Elisha (Jerusalem: Ma’aliyot Press, 2007) pp. 85-118. The modifications emerge from the sharp questioning of many groups of TABC students, to whom I presented Rav Samet’s approach. +Based on the Mesha Stele, it is readily understood why the righteous Yehoshafat joins the battle against Moav. Yehoshafat comes to correct the terrible Chillul Hashem (desecration of the Divine Name) created by the Moavite king Mesha, and Elisha wholeheartedly supports Yehoshafat’s decision. Despite his previous near-disastrous alliance with the Northern Kingdom, Yehoshafat is willing to take the risk in order to counter the terrible disgrace of Hashem’s name. +Similarly, Elisha orders the utter devastation of Moav to demonstrate the sheer impotence of the Moavites’ false god Kemosh, and to reverse the awful Chillul Hashem created by the Mesha Stele.188TABC student Dovi Lederer (‘20) notes the similarity to the all-out war waged against Amaleik (Shemuel I 15:3). This goal clearly justifies the temporary suspension of the prohibition against cutting down fruit trees. Elisha remains hostile to Yehoram due to the latter’s indifference to the Chillul HaShem created by the Mesha Stele. Yehoram ben Achav assembles a coalition and wages war against Moav simply to regain control of Moav, but his ambitions are thwarted by a shocking and successful move made in desperation by the Moavite king at the end of the battle. Therefore, although the Chillul HaShem is corrected, Yehoram’s goals remain unmet.189The Mesha Stele also explains why Edom allies itself with the Jewish kings, a singular event in all of Tanach. The stele records that Moav had captured territory from the Edomites. The Edomites are clearly motivated by a desire to recover territory. Both the reversal of the Chillul HaShem190The earlier comparison to the tactics of General Sherman’s utter destruction of huge swaths of the South during the American Civil War is most appropriate. As Jean Edward Smith explains in his biography of Ulysses Grant, the Union’s goal was to demotivate the South from ever considering repeating the insurrection. The devastation had to be so vast that the South would not consider repeating the rebellion in the future. TABC student Ving Levy (’20) notes the similarity to the war against Moav. Moav has to be pummeled so that they will never consider insulting Hashem again. and Yehoram’s failure to accomplish his objective are most appropriate and consistent with Torah values. +Why Sefer Melachim Does Not Mention the Mesha Stele +TABC students asked why Sefer Melachim does not present the information contained in the Mesha Stele. In response, we cite Ramban’s assertion that the Torah does not present the story of Avraham Avinu’s miraculous survival of Nimrod’s fiery furnace so as not to publicize the idolatrous beliefs of Nimrod (BeReishit 11:28). Similarly, the Tanach chooses not to publicize the Chillul HaShem created by the Mesha Stele. +This is analogous to the approach adopted by the authors of the Da’at Mikra Tanach commentary. The authors, Orthodox Tanach scholars who are thoroughly familiar with both the Orthodox and secular approaches to Tanach, do not mention Bible critics’ interpretations of various Tanach passages. However, the commentary does include an Orthodox response to the criticism.191TABC alumnus Nachum Krasnopolsky (‘19) notes that R. Saadia Gaon (882-942) adopts a similar approach in his poetic response to two hundred heretical questions posed by Hiwi al-Balkhi, a Jewish iconoclast deeply influenced by Zoroastrianism. A fragment of R. Saadia Gaon’s responses was found in the Cairo Genizah in the Ben Ezra Shul in Fustat (Old Cairo), Egypt. R. Saadia Gaon presents his answers but does not record Hiwi al-Balkhi’s original questions. For more information on this topic, see Adina Hoffman and Peter Cole’s Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Genizah pp. 144-148 (New York: Schocken Books, 2011). Thus, for those familiar with the arguments of the Bible critics, reading the Da’at Mikra commentary provides a response, while those who are unaware of the secular critics’ claims will also find the Da’at Mikra meaningful and enriching even though they will not grasp the full extent of the goals of the commentary. The authors of the Da’at Mikra series thus achieve their goals of writing a significant commentary to Tanach and responding to biblical criticism, without needlessly publicizing anti-religious views. 192Rav Amnon Bazak, authoring Ad HaYom HaZeh more than a decade after the completion of the Da’at Mikra commentary, presents a frontal response to Biblical criticism. He fully presents the views of Bible critics and offers highly persuasive responses to their views. We live in an age of great access to information (the Mesha Stele, for example, is prominently displayed in the Louvre in Paris), and it is therefore important for Rav Bazak to demonstrate the inadequacies of Biblical criticism. +Similarly, one who is not familiar with the Mesha Stele will find Melachim II 3 meaningful, but cannot fully appreciate its significance. Far from contradicting Tanach, the Mesha Stele actually enriches our understanding of Tanach. +A Final Thought About the Mesha Stele +The ultimate response to the Mesha’s bold declaration that Israel is crushed forever is the fact that Moav and Kemosh have vanished and the Jewish people continue to live on. Rav Bazak notes “the considerable historical irony in the fact that the two most ancient archaeological proofs concerning the existence of Am Yisrael—the Merneptah Stele and the Mesha Stele— both describe the annihilation of Israel: ‘Israel is laid waste and his seed is not,’ says the former, while the latter asserts, ‘Israel has perished; it has perished forever!’”193Ibid. In fact, the only people with widespread knowledge of Moav and Kemosh are the Jews whom Mesha so brashly proclaimed were defeated forever. Israel’s survival is the greatest testament to God’s continued management of the world. As stated in the Gemara (Yoma 69b), “if not for the fear of the Almighty, how could one nation survive among so many [hostile] nations?” The continued existence and vibrancy of our people indeed constitutes a great Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the Name).194It is most interesting that the Mesha Stele has been transformed from a Chillul Hashem in its time, to a Kiddush Hashem in modern times. In the time of Mesha Melech Moav, the Mesha Stele was intended to degrade Hashem. In modern times it serves, in a dramatic ironic twist, to bolster faith in Tanach! + +Moav's Rebellion Independent of the Mesha Stele + +An Alternative Approach +The previous chapter, following in the footsteps of Da’at Mikra and Rabbi Elchanan Samet, views the Mesha Stele as the primary prism through which to understand Melachim II 3. However, there is an alternative approach. +The alternative focuses on the introductory Pesukim of the chapter, which summarize the reign of Yehoram ben Achav, the royal successor to his brother Achazyahu ben Achav. Whereas the older brother Achazyahu is completely divorced from Torah and is completely influenced by his mother and father’s deviant ways, Yehoram ben Achav Melech Yisrael is a far more nuanced personality. The younger brother Yehoram is a significant spiritual improvement over Achazyahu. +Yehoram’s Spiritual Successes and Failures +Melachim II 3 records that Yehoram actually removes the Ba’al idolatry introduced by his terrible parents Achav and Izevel. As noted by Da’at Mikra, Yehoram is the first king of northern Israel to remove state-sponsored Avodah Zarah. He is the first Melech Yisrael to put a halt to the steep spiritual descent into which the Northern Kingdom had been falling since the time of Yarav'am ben Nevat. +Thus, from one perspective, Yehoram is a significant spiritual success. On the other hand, while he eliminates disastrous spiritual innovations introduced by his parents, he does not “go the distance” to eliminate the deleterious spiritual changes introduced by Yarav'am ben Nevat. +Yehorams’s Half-measures and a Missed Opportunity +It is clear from Melachim II 3 that Yehoram has the opportunity to lead, together with the strong support of the popular Navi Elisha and successful (and friend and royal relative of the north) Yehoshafat Melech Yehudah, a spiritual revolution that will restore the Northern Kingdom to its proper Torah roots. Yehoram can undo all of the negativity introduced by Yarav'am, but he fails to seize the opportunity. A golden opportunity slips away. +Thus, we understand why Yehoshafat is eager to ally with Yehoram. After all, Yehoram makes a significant spiritual advance. Furthermore, we understand why Elisha (and later Chazal) does not chastise Yehoshafat for this alliance. In addition, in light of the background provided at the beginning of Melachim II 3, we understand why Hashem brings the triple alliance to the brink of disaster. Although Yehoram respects Elisha, and his alliance with Yehoshafat is a great spiritual development (see Radak to Melachim II 3:11), a complete spiritual revolution does not occur on a national level. Yehoram’s Teshuvah remains incomplete. +This background also explains why on the one hand Elisha facilitates the great miracles of the sudden appearance of water and the destruction of Moav, while not stopping the debacle at the end of the battle on the other. The half victory and half loss is a result of Yehoram’s half Teshuvah. Hashem and Elisha communicate Eliyahu HaNavi’s message of “Ad Matai Atem Posechim Al Shenei HeSi’ifim,” “until when will you not serve Hashem wholeheartedly.”195TABC alumnus Raanan Kilimnick (’18) brilliantly asks why we condemn Yehoram ben Achav for his half-baked Teshuvah, if we celebrate Asa (see our earlier discussion) for his partial Teshuvah. As previously noted, Asa eliminates Avodah Zarah, but not the Bamot because he feels that it is too much for the community to handle. The difference, though, is that Asa himself does not sin, and the state does not sponsor the Bamot. Asa merely wisely refrains from eliminating private sins. Yehoram, though, himself sins by maintaining and sustaining the illicit alternate state-sponsored Batei Mikdash in Beit El and Dan. Yehoram is rightfully held accountable for failing to eliminate all of the state-sponsored sins. +Too Painful to Record +Finally, this also explains the obscurity of the concluding section of Melachim II 3 (see Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, the Metzudat David, Malbim, and Da’at Mikra for a wide variety of interpretative options). The fact that there are so many ways to interpret these Pesukim leads one to question why Sefer Melachim’s author presented this event in such an unclear manner. +We answer that this episode is one of several extremely painful episodes and turning points that Sefer Melachim records in an obscure manner. We suggest in each of these places that Sefer Melachim deliberately presents these stories in an unclear manner, thereby expressing how painful it is to recount these situations. +As noted by Radak (Melachim II 3:10), the war with Moav presents a great opportunity for Yehoram to rally the Bnei Yisrael of the north to return to the Torah ways advocated and observed by their ally and family member Yehoshafat Melech Yehudah. Devarim 4:30 records that “BaTzar Lecha VeShavta Ad Hashem,” “when we encounter trouble we will return to Hashem.” Yehoram recognizes that Hashem has placed him in a position of great difficulty. However, he fails to return completely. Elisha’s dismay with Yehoram highlights Yehoram’s failure to achieve his and his subjects’ spiritual potential. Yehoram remains unmoved, and the ending debacle of the battle of Moav ensues. +Rashi (Melachim II 3:3) explains that Yehoram does not reverse the policies of Yarav'am ben Nevat because he fears the loss of his kingdom. However, with the friendly and family member Yehoshafat serving as king of Yehudah, a great opportunity arises to end the rivalry, and usher in a new era of complete spiritual unity and renewal for both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. +This episode is exceedingly painful, as it represents perhaps the last great opportunity to bring about this unified spiritual renewal. The squandering of this great prospect seals the eventual destruction of the Northern Kingdom, which subsequently leads to the destruction of the Southern Kingdom. It is a profound loss that is too painful to express directly. +The Absence of the Mesha Stele +Accordingly, we may explain why Sefer Melachim does not refer to the Mesha Stele. Based on our discussion, the core message relevant to the overall goal of Sefer Melachim is independently expressed without the Mesha Stele. While the Mesha Stele adds an important dimension of understanding this chapter, the primary lesson is imparted without it. + +Elisha's Oil Miracle; Assembling the Vessels for Good + +Why Assemble the Vessels? +Elisha orchestrates the oil miracle on behalf of the widowed wife of one of the Bnei HaNevi’m (Melachim II 4:1-7) in a manner that requires her to assemble many vessels, take the bit of oil she has remaining, and pour it into the gathered vessels, which subsequently fill with oil. +However, there seems to be a much more straightforward way to accomplish this task. Why the need to assemble the vessels? Elisha can simply have the bit of oil overflow in a very large quantity into a large vat. One such large container is most likely available for the widow to put to use.196Large vats for winemaking from ancient times have been discovered throughout Eretz Yisrael. Why the need for all of the theatrics? +The Abarbanel, the Metzudat David, and Malbim +The Metzudat David and Malbim adopt the basic approach set forth by the Abarbanel that “the prophets base a miracle on something tangible so that the miracle is not a creation ex nihilo (from nothing).”197The Gemara (Sanhedrin 92a) states that whoever does not leave some bread on the table at the meal’s conclusion will not ever see a sign of Berachah. This idea parallels the Zohar, which teaches that Berachah cannot come from nothing; it must be founded upon something tangible. We find that both Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha cause the oil flask (and the flour jar) to pour forth continuously to sustain the meritorious women— but they do not make it appear out of thin air. (Melachim I 17 and Melachim II 4, respectively). The Berachah has to be founded upon something already in existence. So too, one must leave over some bread at the end of the meal, so the Berachah will have something to “rest” upon. This Halachah is codified by the Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 180:2). However, this does not explain why it is necessary for the widow to assemble the vessels.198TABC student Dovi Lederer (‘20) understands the need to use oil from the widow’s home to generate more oil, based on Chazal’s (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 4:1) identification of her late husband as none other than the righteous Ovadiah. Dovi compares the Almanah’s remaining bit of oil to the one pure jug of oil that is used to light the Menorah for the Chanukah miracle. They could have used impure oil for the Menorah (due to the idea of Tumah Hutrah/Dechuya BeTzibbur, that we may use impure material when pure items or not available) but they specifically used pure oil for the reopening of the Beit HaMikdash. The Chachamim wanted the foundation of the renewed Beit HaMikdash to stem from a pure source. So too with the widow, Elisha wants to start her new lease on life with the foundation of the pure oil that remains from the house in which her righteous husband lived, who is described in Melachim I 18:3 and 18:12 as a great “Yarei Shamayim,” one who fears God, from his youth. This approach works beautifully with the Midrash cited by Radak (to Melachim I 4:1), that the great debt was accumulated to pay for the oil to light the caves where Ovadiah hid the one hundred prophets of Hashem so that they could learn Torah at all times. Accordingly, the remaining oil in Ovadiah’s home certainly comes from a very pure source. +An Itaruta D’litata +We believe the answer is based on two basic mystical concepts. First, is that an Itaruta DeLitata, an awakening from below, precedes and triggers an Itaruta DeLe’eilah, an awakening from above. Hashem has, in His great wisdom and kindness, allowed us to serve as His partners in the operation of the world. This dignifies human efforts and allows us to feel a sense of responsibility and accomplishment. It is a basic element and building block of human dignity. +The Yam Suf, for example, could be split by Hashem, without Moshe Rabbeinu hitting the sea. Nonetheless, Hashem allows mankind to participate in the event and grants us a significant role. In the case of Elisha’s oil miracle, the widow is dignified through her participation in the oil miracle. Along these lines, Elisha instructs her to pour the oil instead of doing it himself. Both she and her family are saved through her involvement in the miracle. +The implications for our lives are manifold. As one example, our Tefillot have the potential and the power to trigger blessings that otherwise may not be bestowed. Hashem may have great Berachot in store for us just waiting to be bestowed, if we instigate their release with our Tefillot and other appropriate activities, such as Tzedakah. +Ready for a Berachah +A second mystical idea relevant to our oil miracle is the idea that one needs to be ready to receive a Berachah. A Berachah may be bestowed, but an individual might not be ready to receive it. For example, it is known that many or even most people who win the lottery are unable to handle the Berachah of wealth, and, as a result, their lives become severely disrupted. Another example is the story of a Rothschild, who, when approached by a pauper for a donation, asked what the pauper would do if he were to give him a million dollars. The poor individual responded that he would hire a driver and a well-appointed carriage and collect his alms in great dignity. The answer demonstrated that the indigent person was not ready to receive the Berachah. +By assembling the vessels, the widow expresses that she is ready to accept the Berachah of the oil.199This seems to be one of the reasons for the Sephardic practice to open one’s hands when reciting the Pasuk “Pote’ach Et Yadecha UMasbi’a LeChol Chai Ratzon,” “You open Your hand, and satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Tehillim 145). One thereby expresses that he is ready to receive the described sustenance from Hashem. It may also prepare her and her family for the forthcoming Berachah. +In our lives as well, we are bestowed with much Berachah. The question is often whether we are in a position to receive it. We might have a wonderful Shul with a wonderful Rav in our neighborhood, but we might not be in a position that permits us to benefit from it. While a teacher in school may be excellent, a student may not be in the right state of mind to learn. +Conclusion - Ready to Receive +I deeply regret the fact that although as a young man I succeeded in forging a close relationship with Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, I never took the time to meet Rav Moshe Feinstein or the Lubavitcher Rebbe, even though both of these giants lived within ten miles of my home. The Berachah was present, but I was not yet ready to receive it. +The story is told of a student’s first day he arrived to learn at a Yeshivah of a famous Kabbalist. The Kabbalist offered him an apple. As the Rebbe held forth the fruit, the student approached and extended his hand to take the apple. The Rebbe stopped him, and told him to not grab the fruit, but rather be ready to accept it. The Rebbe explained this was the meaning of Kabbalah, to receive. To learn Kabbalah, one must learn how to position oneself psychologically. +Thus, Elisha teaches the widow and all generations of Jews the crucial importance of knowing how to trigger Berachot, and how to receive them.200Perhaps this is another connection of this story to Parashat VaYeira. Sarah Imeinu is not in a psychological place to receive the Berachah of a child at an old age. The Malachim help her psychologically position herself as to benefit from this great miracle. + +Elisha's Oil Miracle; Haftarah for Parashat VaYeira + +The Commonly Posed Question +People frequently ask why Elisha’s oil miracle for the widow (Melachim II 4:1-7) is included in the Haftarah of Parashat VaYeira. After all, the major portion of the Haftarah focuses on the story of Elisha’s facilitation of a miracle so that an older childless couple, the Ishah HaShunamit and her husband can finally have a child (Melachim II 4:8-17). +The reasons for the inclusion of the second story in the Haftarah for Parashat VaYeira are striking and obvious. The parallel to Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu finally having a child, and the mortal threat to the child who is saved by the intervention of an angel is quite apparent. Moreover, the story of Elisha and the Ishah HaShunamit often draws linguistically from the message delivered to Avraham and Sarah. +The second story is quite long, and there is no apparent need to include the seemingly unconnected oil story. Why, then, is the story of the oil miracle read as part of the Haftarah for Parashat VaYeira? +Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Answer +Rav Shalom Rosner cites an answer from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Rabbi Soloveitchik explains that in both stories, great Jewish figures are not solely concerned with issues of national interest, but also with the needs of individuals. Avraham Avinu emerges from the war against the four mighty Mesopotamian kings as a figure of international standing. Nonetheless, at the beginning of Parashat VaYeira (BeReishit 18:1-8), he cares for the needs of the three individuals who appeared to him to be simple passersby. Similarly, in the oil story, Elisha is concerned about the plight of the poor widow even though he emerges from the war against Moav as a major figure of national standing. +Parallel to Sarah Imeinu +A suggested parallel is just as Sarah Imeinu does not perceive herself as worthy of the miracle of bearing a child in old age, so too the Almanah (widow) does not perceive herself as worthy of the oil miracle. It is for this reason that she does not amass sufficient vessels in which to pour the oil (Melachim II 4:3-5). 201Suggested by TABC student Daniel Rothstein (‘20). +Parallel to Sedom +At TABC, we developed an additional approach. The oil story reflects the statement that appears in Parashat VaYeira, that Hashem chooses Avraham Avinu since he will teach his children to be engaged and immersed in justice and charity (BeReishit 18:19). Fairness and kindness are indeed the hallmarks of a Jew. Elisha certainly lives up to this ideal in the kindness he shows both to the widow for whom he performs the oil miracle, and in helping the Ishah HaShunamit. +Moreover, the fact that the oil miracle is necessary to prevent a child from being taken as a slave by a creditor is quite a damning reflection on the state of justice in the Northern Kingdom. The fact that Elisha, despite his VIP status, is unable to make a fundamental change in the system (all he can do is facilitate a miracle to prevent a child from falling into the terrible system) reflects even worse on Malchut Yisrael. +Parashat VaYeira sets forth the raison d’etre of the Jewish people— Tzedakah UMishpat, righteousness and justice. If a portion of the nation supports the practice of creditors seizing children as slaves for payment, then that portion of the nation does not deserve to live. Thus, in hearing this horrific story, one concludes that the days of the Northern Kingdom are numbered. +The fact that the story of the destruction of Sedom appears in Parashat VaYeira strengthens this idea.202As noted by TABC student Ephraim Helfgot (‘20). The Northern Kingdom, to paraphrase Yeshayahu 1, has sunk to the level of Sedom and therefore deserves to be destroyed. It is clear that something is very wrong with a society when neighbors stand by and permit a nearby child to be taken as a slave due to his parents’ unpaid debts. Most interestingly, Rambam (Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 9:3) writes that “he has never heard of or seen a Jewish community that does not maintain a charity fund.” If a Jewish community does not have such a fund, Rambam implies that it is not worthy of calling itself a Jewish community. +In Parashat VaYeira, Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu show kindness and concern to passersby, and thereby merit the miraculous continuity of the Jewish people with the birth of Yitzchak. The neighbors of the widow do not look after her and her family, and thus fail to live up to the ideals upon which our people are founded. +Additionally, just as Lot is saved in Sedom by his display of Emunah (faith) and fidelity to Avraham Avinu’s ideals by inviting the Malachim, so too the widow is saved only after she demonstrates her Emunah by gathering the many vessels from her neighbors. The neighbors as well are granted the opportunity to redeem their negligent behavior by helping the widow by lending her their vessels.203As proposed by TABC student Ezra Seplowitz (‘20). +It is interesting that in both cases, a door is closed.204As noted by TABC student Akiva Prager (‘20). Lot closes his door to seal off the evil society of Sedom. Similarly, we may understand Elisha’s instruction to close the door as an expression and separation from the decadent society of northern Israel. +Conclusion +The overall theme of the Haftarah of Parashat VaYeira is the centrality of Tzedakah and Mishpat in Jewish society. The widow and oil miracle, and the relatively subsequent destruction of Malchut Yisrael, bring to life how Tzedakah and Mishpat constitute the very lifeblood of our people. The inclusion of the oil miracle in the Haftarah reminds us that the days are numbered for a Jewish society that, heaven forfend, does not live up to the ideals of Tzedakah UMishpat. + +A Miracle's Modesty + +Behind Closed Doors +When Elisha performs his oil miracle, recorded in Melachim II 4, he instructs that the door to the room where the miracle will occur be closed. Rashi makes a comment that just begs for an explanation. He writes that the Kavod of a miracle emerges when it is performed modestly. +Rashi’s observation hardly fits with the open miracles described in Sefer Shemot and Sefer Yehoshua. These miracles are very much public and are in no way modest. What might Rashi mean by his assertion? +Individual Dignity +Perhaps Rashi’s comment refers only to miracles that are performed for the sake of an individual in distress.205As suggested by TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17). To preserve the dignity of its beneficiary, the miracle would be performed discreetly. It is akin to the paramount value of Matan BaSeiter, giving money to a poor individual secretly to preserve their honor (Rambam Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 10:8). +Kol Demamah Dakah +One could suggest that post-Sefer Yehoshua (or certainly after the events at Har HaCarmel), Hashem no longer performs miracles in a grand style. As Hashem tells Eliyahu HaNavi in Melachim I 19, He prefers to relate to the world in a manner of subtle “Kol Demama Dakah.” If an open miracle is to be done, it is done reluctantly and not in an open manner. +It is far superior for one to find Hashem “standing behind our walls, peering through the latticework,” using the language of Shir HaShirim, than to discover Hashem through an open miracle. Hashem desires a relationship with us, and a relationship is not initiated through coercion. An open miracle is a form of coercion, as Rabbah boldly states on Shabbat 88a.206Indeed, Rashi (Shemot 34:3) comments that the second delivery of the Luchot, done in a far more modest manner, is far more successful than the first delivery. Rashi concludes by stating “Ein Lecha Yaffeh Min HaTzeni’ut,” “there is nothing more appropriate than modesty.” +Preventing Self-aggrandizement +A third explanation is that miracles are not done for the personal aggrandizement of the Navi. Shutting the door and facilitating the miracle privately is a means of demonstrating that one is doing the miracle for the sake of the beneficiary and Hashem, and not to boost one’s standing.207By contrast, on Chanukah, when we make every effort to publicize the miracle, we do so to honor Hashem and not to aggrandize ourselves. On Chanukah, we affirm that Hashem chose us as His special nation, unlike the Syrian-Greeks who sought to eliminate our stature as the Am Segulah (chosen nation). +Geichazi, in his effort to revive the son of the Ishah HaShunamit (Melachim II 4:31), fails to embrace this message. He leaves the door open, and the miracle fails. Geichazi, tragically, does not adopt the modest road and fails miserably as a result. This may constitute an expression of his overall failure. Geichazi is caught up with the celebrity status accorded to Elisha, and it leads to his mighty and tragic spiritual fall. +Conclusion +Modesty is a signature expression of Hashem. Hashem is referred to by no other than Yeshayahu as the “Keil Mistateir,” “God who conceals Himself” (Yeshayahu 45:15). No wonder it is a core Torah value. Even when making a miracle, there are manifold benefits to upholding the sacred value of modesty. + +Elisha and the Ishah HaShunamit; Haftarah for Parashat VaYeira + +Seven Parallels +Each year, the story of Elisha and the Ishah HaShunamit (Shunammite woman) is read as part of the Haftarah of Parashat VaYeira. The connection between the two readings is obvious. Rabbi Alex Israel summarizes208Israel, Rabbi Alex. “Shiur #06: Chapter 4 Part 2: Elisha and the Shunammite Woman.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Yeshivat Har Etzion, 19 Jan. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-06-chapter-4-part-2-elisha-and-shunammite-woman. seven parallels between the two stories: +1. An otherwise childless couple is blessed with a child in response to their enthusiastic and extraordinary hospitality. +2. "And her husband is old" (Melachim II 4:14); "and my husband is old" (BeReishit 18:12). +3. The announcement is formulated as "at this season, next year … a son." (Melachim II 4:16 / BeReishit 18:10). +4. The promise is made as the woman is positioned at the doorway (Melachim II 4:15 / BeReishit 18:10). +5. The woman expresses skepticism at the prediction. +6. A child is born one year later. +7. The son dies or is on the verge of death and is saved at the last moment. +The Substantive Connection +While the parallels are clear, what is far from clear is the message communicated by the reading of this story as part of the Haftarah. Moreover, it is not even clear why the Navi includes this story in the Tanach. The Gemara (Megillah 14a) makes a foundational statement: each story that is recorded in the Tanach is intended to serve as a lesson for each generation. The question, then, is what learned today when we read about Elisha triggering the extraordinary miracle of the birth of the child, and his subsequent act of Techiyat HaMeitim? +An intriguing discussion of Radak (Melachim II 4:16) may shed light on this issue. Radak wonders how Elisha can predict the birth of the child. One possibility, he notes, is that Elisha is informed by Hashem that the child will be born. Elisha merely conveys the divine communication to the Ishah HaShunamit. +A second and far more tantalizing possibility raised by Radak is that Elisha makes the prediction without a divine communication, and anticipates that Hashem will execute the promise.209The two possibilities raised by Radak are reminiscent of the two possibilities he raises (Melachim I 18:21) as to whether the idea of the Har HaCarmel showdown was that of Hashem or Eliyahu HaNavi. Radak cites a Midrash to a Pasuk we recite in the Ashrei prayer thrice daily “Retzon Yerei’av Ya’aseh, Shav’atam Yishma VeYoshi’aim,” “the will of those who fear Him He will do; and their cry He will hear, and save them.” A popular Jewish saying conforms to this idea, “Tzadik Gozeir VeHakadosh Baruch Mekayeim,” “the Tzaddik decrees and Hashem fulfills [his wish].” It also fits with the Mishnah’s (Avot 2:4) assertion that “Aseh Retzono KiRetzoncha Kedei Retzoncha KiRetzono,” “do His will as though it were your will so that He will do your will as though it were His.” +Based on the second possibility one may raise the extraordinary possibility that the story of Elisha and the Ishah HaShunamit teaches that great Tzaddikim can trigger a blessing to send children to who struggle with conceiving a child. Innumerable stories (especially among more mystically inclined Jews such as Chassidim and Sephardim) are told of childless couples bearing children after many years of infertility. For example, Hacham Ben Tzion Abba Sha’ul and his Rabbanit were blessed with children after receiving a special blessing from the Chazon Ish, after years of multiple miscarriages.210One may wonder why great Tzaddikim, such as the Chazon Ish and his Rabbanit, were themselves unable to conceive a child. The answer may lie in the teaching of the Gemara (Berachot 5b) “a prisoner cannot free himself from prison, but depends on others to release him from his shackles.” See also the Gemara (Berachot 34b) which relates that R. Yochanan ben Zakkai asked his student R. Chanina ben Dosa to pray for his son’s recovery from illness instead of relying only on his own Tefillot on behalf of his child. +A Rational Explanation +A mystical explanation for the efficacy of the Berachot is that Hashem awaits the pure and agenda-free blessings offered by genuine Tzaddikim whose purpose in life is only to serve Hashem and other people. Hashem, as we have mentioned many times, chooses to cede some control to us and allows us to trigger (to use Kabbalistic language) an awakening from above with an awakening from below. +However, there may be a rational explanation as well. Dr. Jacob Markovitz, a respected Orthodox gynecologist who practices in New Jersey, shares that the first step he tells patients struggling with conception is to try any and all healthy means of achieving relaxation and relieving anxiety. This is, I have been told, a well known and very widely practiced approach. An article published in March 2018 by the National Center for Biotechnology Information concludes as follows: +A diagnosis of infertility can be a tremendous burden for patients. The pain and suffering of infertility patients is a major problem. Patients must be counseled and supported as they go through treatment. Although neither the American Society for Reproductive Medicine nor the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology have formal requirements for psychological counseling for infertility patients, there is acknowledgement that incorporating psychological interventions into routine practice at ART clinics is beneficial. It has been well documented that infertility causes stress. The impact of stress on ART outcome is still somewhat controversial. However, it is clear that psychological interventions for women with infertility have the potential to decrease anxiety and depression and may well lead to significantly higher pregnancy rates.211Rooney, Kristin L, and Alice D Domar. “The relationship between stress and infertility.” Dialogues in clinical neuroscience vol. 20,1 (2018): 41-47. Emphasis added. +Perhaps the Tzaddik’s blessings serve to calm the couple, which in turn enables the couple to conceive a child. Indeed, the Metzudat David (Melachim II 6:17) explains that a Navi will sometimes intervene merely to relieve others’ anxiety, as the anxiety itself creates a crisis. Perhaps blessings are sometimes effective in resolving a serious problem as a result of a combination of rational and mystical reasons. +Conclusion - Proliferation of Genuinely Felt Blessings +The positive impact of blessings is not restricted to great rabbinical leaders. Parents’ blessings of their children can, as implied by Shemot 5:12, lengthen the lives of their children. Kohanim’s blessings permeate Jewish life, especially in Eretz Yisrael and Sephardic congregations worldwide, where Birkat HaKohanim is practiced daily. Hashem encourages blessing each other about meaningful matters. The Gemara (Berachot 7a) states that even the blessing of an ordinary person should not be taken lightly. +Accordingly, the story of the Ishah HaShunamit teaches us that a Tzaddik might also be able to trigger Hashem’s grace to bestow a child upon a long-suffering childless couple. This potential applies at times to each and every one of us. Our sincere and purely motivated Berachot to each other, and Tefillot on behalf of each other, have the potential to make a great positive impact. +Postscript – The End of the Haftarah +While Ashkenazic Jews read the entire story until its conclusion, Sephardic Jews interestingly end the Haftarah with Melachim II 4:23, when the Shunammite woman tells her husband that all is well. In addition to the inclination for Sephardic Haftarot to usually (though not always) be shorter than the Ashkenazic selections, perhaps the Sephardic tradition seeks to convey that the Ishah HaShunamit’s confidence and Bitachon that Elisha will solve the story itself is a harbinger of success. In other words, positive thinking breeds positive results. Thus, she resolutely presses Elisha to bring about this miracle, since she is confident that once he swings into action, the problem will be solved. +On the other hand, the Ashkenazic tradition believes the story to be incomplete without including Geichazi’s failure. Geichazi’s failure reflects on Elisha’s success, as we have noted. We cannot comprehend Elisha’s accomplishment unless we contrast it with Geichazi’s disappointment. + +Elisha's Impoverished Students + +The Starving Students +Elisha’s students212See the earlier chapter, “Eliyahu HaNavi’s Two Models of Torah Centers.” live in dire material circumstances. They barely have enough food to sustain themselves. In fact, the end of Melachim II 4 records that Elisha performs two miracles to feed the students. Why do they live this way? Elisha is very well connected and is the most respected and powerful individual in Eretz Yisrael. Why cannot Elisha bother to raise sufficient funds for his Yeshivah to sufficiently provide its students with their basic needs? +Reducing Gashmiyut to Increase Ruchaniyut +One basic explanation is that it was a tactic to increase the intensity of Ruchaniyut (spirituality). When done in a healthy-minded manner, reducing Gashmiyut (physicality) can increase Ruchaniyut. An example would be Rav Aharon Shteinman’s lifestyle. +His exceedingly modest lifestyle is described as follows:213Simmons, Shraga. “Rabbi Shteinman, Humble Giant.” Aish HaTorah, 12 Dec. 2017, www.aish.com/jw/s/Rabbi-Shteinman-Humble-Giant.html. +On weekdays, his entire daily food intake was one cucumber, one boiled potato, and few spoons of oatmeal. Rav Shteinman had trained his body to desire food only for pure motives — to keep his body healthy214He lived to the age of 104 and seemed to always have a smile on his face. — without a drop of hedonism. On Shabbat, he ate different foods in honor of the holy day. When he was offered delicacies as a guest, he obliged by eating half a grape. He arrived in Israel in the early 1950s, and for six decades slept on the original plank-board and thin mattress issued by the Jewish Agency. Visiting the small apartment on Chazon Ish Street in Bnei Brak, Israel, one could be excused from failing to identify this as the home of a global leader. Stucco-cement, simple plastered walls, unfinished wood cabinets— and rows of floor-to-ceiling bookshelves filled with Torah commentaries.215Other great Torah leaders lived exceedingly modestly. For example, the Lubavitcher Rebbe refused to direct funds to refurbish the Lubavitch Brooklyn headquarters, insisting instead that the money be directed to developing Chabad centers worldwide. The result was that 770 Eastern Parkway during the latter portion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s lifetime was in a shabby state. +This is rooted in the Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum (contraction). The Kabbalah teaches that Hashem created the world by limiting Himself, thereby making space for us in His world. We, in turn, make space for Hashem in our lives by limiting ourselves. Often the Halachah commends those who adopt a stricter position as holy or generating Berachah. This is because they adopt a mode of more limitation, which in turn creates (when done in a healthy manner) greater space for Hashem in their life. +It is for this reason that the Navi Amos associates Nezirut with Nevi’im— “Ve’Akim MiBeneichem LeNevi’im UMibachureichem LiNazirim,” “I established some of your sons as prophets, and some of your young men as Nazirites” (Amos 2:11). Rambam (at the conclusion of his Hilchot Nezirut) writes that when done properly, Nezirut is equated with Nevu’ah. + In a similar vein, Rashi (BeReishit 2:3 and VaYikra 19:2) defines Kedushah (holiness) as separation. Ramban (VaYikra 19:2) develops this idea, noting that the demand for holiness means that one must refrain from overindulgence and excess even regarding that which is, strictly speaking, not forbidden by the Torah. +Finally, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik notes that Rambam’s section of his Mishneh Torah called “Sefer Kedushah” (book of holiness) includes three topics: the laws of forbidden relations, the laws of forbidden foods, and the laws of ritual slaughter. Rambam thereby communicates that the goal of the Torah’s limitations on the two primary areas of human indulgence is to generate Kedushah. +A Reaction to Geichazi +We suggest that there is another motivation for Elisha to maintain an exceedingly modest lifestyle for his students. We believe that it is not coincidental that the stories that portray the very modest life of Elisha and his students are presented immediately after we hear of the first failures of Geichazi in regard to his interactions with the Ishah HaShunamit. +The severe lifestyle may have been a step to correct the unhealthy self-centered attitude Geichazi exhibits in Melachim II 4. +Accordingly, Elisha makes a deliberate choice to limit the material engagement of his students to light their spiritual fire.216This is far from the only model of living of a great Jewish leader. There were not a few great Torah leaders who were quite wealthy such as Rabbeinu Tam and the Ruzhiner Rebbe. Of course, he does not let his students go hungry, and provides for them sometimes miraculously, as the two concluding stories of Melachim II 4 make clear. +Elisha, we should clarify, does not demand this lifestyle from all of his followers. He also has a more general following of devoted lay people such as the Isha HaShunamit. Elisha addresses and interacts with this righteous group of lay Jews on Shabbat and Yom Tov, as is clear from Melachim II 4:23. +The severe lifestyle may have been a step to correct the unhealthy self-centered attitude Geichazi exhibits in Melachim II 4. There is a specific danger to the international celebrity status enjoyed by Elisha. One who functions on such a level may easily be led to a spiritual nosedive into a morass of self-absorbed and pretentious behavior. Such “masters of the universe” forget Hashem, and become swallowed up by materialism. Indeed, Devarim 8 specifically warns of material success causing one to become arrogant and neglect spirituality. +Geichazi, in Melachim II 4, begins walking down this regrettable road. After this episode, Elisha takes steps to ensure that he and his students remain humble and kind. Indeed, Elisha is focused on healthy-minded giving, as he nurtures his students, cares for the widow, and tends to the needs of the Ishah HaShunamit and her family. Sadly, Geichazi does not change his attitude. +This difference between Elisha and Geichazi is most pronounced in the episode when Elisha cures Na’aman the Aramean general. Elisha steadfastly refuses to take a morsel from the grateful Na’aman. Elisha remains firmly anchored in the world of Hashem and Torah and is not swept away by his new status as a major player on the national scene. +Geichazi, on the other hand, finds it incomprehensible to refrain from benefiting from Na’aman. Geichazi rejects the notion of keeping the students steeped in modesty and haughtily rejects Elisha’s refusal of remuneration from Na’aman. Elisha, in turn, spurns Geichazi, for what he has done runs profoundly counter to all for which he stands. +Conclusion +The Metzudat David (Melachim II 5:26) expresses it best – “it is not appropriate to benefit from a miracle except in a situation of pressing need.” This is the message and education Elisha seeks to transmit to his students. Those not interested in living such a lifestyle need not apply to Elisha’s Yeshivah. +It is a strategy that seems to have worked in the long run for Elisha, the Yeshivah, and the students, as we find the Yeshiva a flourishing success in the episode related at the beginning of Melachim II 6. The students are committed to developing into authentic Torah leaders who are focused on contributing to others, and not on deriving personal benefit from their position of authority. +While living this sort of severe lifestyle is not expected from all Jews at all times, the lessons are critical for all Jews. Be successful, achieve greatness in all appropriate fields, but always remain humble, kind, and loyal to Hashem. Do not let the success and celebrity “lift your heart” and drift away from that which is most important in life. + +Elisha Meets Na'aman; Haftarah for Parashat Tazri'a + +Three Questions +Melachim II 5 records the dramatic interaction between Elisha and the Aramean general, Na’aman. Three questions stand out regarding this major event. First, what is the logic behind Elisha’s instruction to Na’aman to immerse in the Yarden seven times to cure the latter of Tzara’at? Second, why does Elisha adamantly refuse the very generous gifts offered by Na’aman? After all, Elisha’s Yeshivot are exceedingly poor and would very much benefit from Na’aman’s largesse.217The Haftarah for Parashat Tazri’a does not begin with the Elisha and Na’aman story. It starts with the preceding story (recorded at the end of Melachim II 4) which depicts the dire poverty in which Elisha and his Talmidim live. Hearing this story serves as an appropriate backdrop to the Elisha and Na’aman story, as it contributes to our understanding of the story, as we shall discuss. Third, when Geichazi spurns Elisha’s policy of not taking from Na’aman, why does Elisha specifically punish Geichazi with Na’aman’s Tzara’at? How does this punishment match Geichazi’s sin? +The Yarden Cures Na’aman +Na’aman is clearly suffering from an overdose of arrogance. His Tzara’at is a physical manifestation of this spiritual deficit. Na’aman is an extraordinarily successful soldier, and in contemporary terms is the “franchise player” for Aram, the dominant regional superpower of the time. In addition, Melachim II 5:5 makes it abundantly clear that Na’aman is extraordinarily wealthy. The professional and financial success has gone to Na’aman’s head, turning him into the obnoxious, arrogant, and Tzara’at-afflicted person we find at the beginning of our story. +As Na’aman approaches Elisha’s house with his horses and chariots in a show of force, Elisha does not even appear at the door. Instead, he sends a messenger to instruct Na’aman to immerse seven times in the Yarden. Refusing to meet Na’aman in person is the first step in curing Na’aman’s haughtiness. +Na’aman, not surprisingly, is outraged by this instruction and proclaims that he could just have immersed in the far grander rivers located in Aram. Na’aman is talked down from his arrogant stance by his aides, who note that dipping in the Yarden might be the only cure for his Tzara’at, and that there is little downside to simply trying Elisha’s recommendation. Following this humbling instruction is the second step in curing Na’aman’s bloated ego. +The Yarden is a puny river, whose southern terminus is the lowest point on Earth. Melachim II 5:14 contains the alliterative phrase “VaYeired VaYitbol BaYarden,” “and he descended and dipped in the Yarden.” The root of the word Yarden is Yarad, go down. Na’aman goes down to the “go down” river and immerses no less than seven times. The third step to humble Na’aman is to lower his sense of self to a more proportionate and healthier level. Once Na’aman has regained his psychological equilibrium, his Tzara’at is cured.218This is likely the basis for those who have the Minhag is to dip seven times when immersing in the Mikvah. They wish to avail themselves of Elisha’s recipe for inculcating a healthy sense of modesty. +Elisha Refuses Na’aman’s Gifts +The classic Mefarshim offer a variety of explanations for Elisha’s refusal to take any of Na’aman’s gifts. Rashi explains that much of Na’aman’s wealth is generated from Avodah Zarah, and it is Halachically forbidden to benefit from Avodah Zarah. The Malbim points, in part, to the notion of Elisha seeking to create a Kiddush Hashem.219TABC alumnus Nachum Krasnopolsky (‘19) brings attention to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 74b-75a), which uses Elisha’s encounter with Na’aman to determine whether or not the Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of Hashem’s name) applies to non-Jews. The Metzudat David (Melachim II 5:26) understands the refusal as stemming from Elisha’s abhorrence of deriving material benefit from the miracles he performs unless it is absolutely necessary. +We suggest that Elisha’s refusal should be understood in light of the fact that Elisha, in this story, catapults from being merely a figure of national renown to a celebrity on the international stage. More than ever, Elisha is determined to spurn wealth to protect himself from falling into the trap of celebrity arrogance. His is a mission to serve others, as he emphatically expresses in his first act of slaughtering all of his oxen and feeding it to his fellow townspeople. Under no circumstances does Elisha take from Na’aman’s gift, despite the relief it would offer Elisha and his Talmidim from their life of extreme poverty. +Geichazi’s Punishment +Geichazi rejects his master’s strategy. He cannot fathom why Elisha refuses to take from the wealth of Na’aman, a fierce enemy of Israel. Geichazi regards Elisha’s refusal as naïve and detached from reality. He discards Elisha’s strategy to ward off arrogance and audaciously overrides his master’s decision and policy. +Geichazi’s actions prove that he is in dire need of a correction course in his behavior and attitude. As a punishment for his attempt to undermine Elisha’s efforts to avoid becoming intoxicated with his success, as happened to Na’aman, it is most appropriate for Geichazi to become afflicted with the same Tzara’at as Na’aman. +Geichazi lusts for Na’aman’s gift as part of his use of his connection to Elisha to advance himself socially and economically. Geichazi longs to revel in the status of celebrity and the concomitant arrogance that often comes along with great fame. Thus, Geichazi is afflicted with Na’aman’s Tzara’at because he becomes like Na’aman before his immersion— arrogant and obnoxious. In fact, Chazal identify Geichazi as one of the four Metzora’im sitting outside of the gates of Shomeron (Melachim II 7:3-20). +Conclusion +Elisha vehemently disapproves of Geichazi’s actions, as is clear from Melachim II 5:26, when he rhetorically asks Geichazi, “HaEit LaKachat Et HaKesef VeLakachat Begadim VeZeitim UChramim VeTzon UBakar Va’Avadim UShifachot,” “is this a [proper] time to accept money [with which] to buy clothing, olive trees, vineyards, sheep, cattle, slaves, and maidservants?” Elisha is profoundly disappointed that his erstwhile protégé does not realize that Elisha’s ascension to the international stage is a critically important time to adopt a policy that would shield him from the affliction of arrogance. +The ability to recognize the challenge and needs of the moment is a sine qua non of a great spiritual leader. All the hopes for greatness that Elisha had harbored for Geichazi all came cascading down in horrifying rapidity and vanished forever. Elisha was not going to be like Eliyahu HaNavi. He would not have a great man to succeed him. +We, who delve deeply into this story, can choose a different fate than that of Geichazi. As we listen to the Haftarah to Parashat Tazria, we are challenged to become devoted students of Elisha, and always remain humble and kind, especially at the peak moments of triumph and success in our lives. + +The Tragedy of Geichazi + +What Goes Wrong? +Elisha serves as Eliyahu HaNavi’s spectacular successor. Elisha, in turn, seeks to groom a high-quality protégé. At first, Elisha believes that his student Geichazi will be able to take over after his passing. However, things turn sour, and Geichazi emerges as a dismal failure. Unfortunately, when Elisha passes, much unlike Eliyahu HaNavi, he leaves the Bnei HaNevi’im without a capable leader. What precisely goes wrong with Geichazi? +To intensify our query, the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:2) lists Geichazi as one of only four non-royal figures from Tanach who are disqualified from Olam HaBa (the other three are Bilam, Do’eig Ha’Adomi, and Achitofel). What does Geichazi do so terribly wrong to qualify for this very short and ignoble list? +Let us examine the three episodes in which Geichazi appears, in an attempt to gain some understanding as to why Geichazi is viewed as a classic “Tanach villain.” +The Episode of the Ishah HaShunamit and Her Son +In Melachim II 4, we find that Elisha tries to empower Geichazi by treating him as a partner. As they are both being hosted by the gracious Shunamite woman, Elisha asks Geichazi for his opinion as to how they can reciprocate her kindness. Geichazi notes that she needs a child. +It would seem rather obvious that Elisha realizes she lacks a child. We believe that Elisha provides Geichazi with an opportunity to collaborate in the miracle. +Alternatively, Elisha might view the promise of a child to be too ambitious or even possibly beyond the realm of his role as Navi. Geichazi has great ambition and urges his teacher to reach higher. Elisha appreciates this bold and ambitious thinking220After all, Elisha does boldly ask Eliyahu HaNavi for twice his prophetic ability (Melachim II 2). and sees potential greatness in Geichazi. +However, when disaster strikes, Geichazi fails. The promised child arrives; but, a few years later, he dies of what appears to be sunstroke. The hysterical Ishah HaShunamit appears in Elisha’s court only to be rebuffed by Geichazi when she grabs onto his teacher’s feet. Elisha gently chides Geichazi to leave her be, seeing that she is emotionally distraught. +Geichazi, in this interaction, seems to simply lack an element of emotional intelligence in his failure to discern the terrible turmoil experienced by the Shunamite woman. However, perhaps there is something more sinister involved. +The following episode, recorded in the Gemara (Horiyot 10a), may shed light as to the root of Geichazi’s failure: 221Translation adapted from The William Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Horayot.10a.20. +R. Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? R. Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, R. Elazar Chisma and R. Yochanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. R. Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy. +When R. Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them, and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them, and they came. R. Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you? I am granting you servitude, as it is stated: “And they spoke to him saying: If today you become a servant to this people” (Melachim I 12:7). +Elisha fully embraces his role as the servant leader. In fact, his first act as the heir to Eliyahu HaNavi is to slaughter his many oxen and serve their meat to the townspeople. Melachim II 4 makes it clear that despite the celebrity status Elisha acquires during the war with Moav (Melachim II 3), he remains true to his original mission. Elisha in Melachim II 4 is a giver. He rescues the Almanah (widow) from the scourge of poverty, helps a childless couple have a child, and brings that same child back to life. +Geichazi, however, does not inculcate this ideal. Since Geichazi's mindset is not of a giving nature, when the Almanah grabs Elisha's feet, Geichazi looks to protect Elisha's celebrity stature (and by extension his own special status as his apparent heir), instead of recognizing her special needs. Geichazi’s self-centered attitude is reflected in the Gemara (Berachot 10b), which criticizes Geichazi for acting indecently with the Ishah HaShunamit.222It is difficult to imagine that this is meant to be taken literally, as why then would Elisha not admonish and even banish Geichazi for such horrific behavior. Moreover, why then would Elisha have even considered sending Geichazi to act as his representative to revive the child? +Elisha, though, does not give up hope on Geichazi. He even instructs him to take his staff and revive the dead child. Elisha still sees Geichazi as a potential successor to whom he wishes to transmit his ability to even conduct Techiyat HaMeitim! +Unfortunately, once again, Geichazi fails. The fact that Geichazi does not close the door when performing this miracle223This is apparent from a comparison of Melachim II 4:31 with 4:32. indicates he is interested in showing off his ability to revive the dead to others. A concerned Jew may be able to invoke divine intervention to help another only if he purely seeks to benefit his friend. As Geichazi’s actions are tainted with a personal agenda, his efforts fail. +Rashi (Melachim II 4:29) cites a Midrash that supports this idea. The Midrash notes that Elisha specifically orders Geichazi to refrain from informing anyone of his intention to revive the dead. Instead, Geichazi tells anyone who will listen that Elisha has sent him to revive the dead. A Jewish leader who intends to promote himself instead of serving others is destined to fail. +Geichazi and Na’aman the Aramean General +It is not difficult to understand why Geichazi falls into the lure of self-aggrandizement. Elisha is a celebrity of ever-growing national stature, who has easy access to the king and top military officials (see Melachim II 4:13). His reputation will soon spill over to the international scene, where he will gain widespread fame and respect. +Through all this, Elisha remains humble and kind, as is apparent from the Elisha stories recounted in Melachim II.224A prime example is when Elisha alerts the Ishah HaShunamit and her son of the impending severe seven-year famine about to hit Malchut Yisrael (Melachim II 8:1). Elisha advises them to leave the region for greener pastures. He is always ready to help in difficult situations, and it is clear that he does not enrich himself with his popularity.225His gratitude for being housed in a small attic by the Ishah HaShunamit and her husband indicates that Elisha has little or no financial means. He and his students are always struggling to have enough food, despite their teacher’s fame (Melachim II 4:38-43). It seems that Elisha despises the idea of personally benefiting from his reputation as a Navi and miracle-maker. Elisha fervently hopes his pure and untainted giving will inspire the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom to fully recommit themselves to Hashem. +We believe that it is for this reason that Elisha adamantly refuses to accept any gifts from Na’aman, the Aramean military chief of staff. Elisha is a public servant and thus refuses to reap material benefit from his spiritual outreach efforts. He leaves the world of material acquisition far behind when he slaughters his many oxen after his first encounter with Eliyahu HaNavi. +When Elisha hears that Geichazi has requested a gift from Na’aman, he becomes deeply disgusted. For Geichazi to use his spiritual stature to become wealthy (as per Rashi to Melachim II 4:26) is profoundly upsetting to Elisha, to the point that he permanently severs his connections with his former student, and even places a terrible curse on him and his children.226From speaking with contemporary non-observant Jews, it is clear that the unfortunate phenomenon of rabbinic leaders enriching themselves from their spiritual activities remains a major Chillul Hashem. Many non-observant Jews are under the impression that the rabbis themselves do not believe in the Torah, Chas VeShalom. They perceive the rabbis using the Torah as a vehicle to take financial advantage of their followers. +Chazal (Sanhedrin 107b) criticize Elisha far not acting in the mode of “Smol Doche VeYemin Mekareiv,” where one gives rebuke yet leaves room for return. Instead, Elisha completely burns his bridges with Geichazi. However, Elisha’s reaction is understandable. He is shaken to the core by Geichazi’s misdeed, and thus completely rejects his former student. However, it should be noted that Chazal (cited in Rashi to Melachim II 8:7) do say that Elisha later makes a valiant but unsuccessful effort to bring Geichazi back into the fold. Nevertheless, Elisha’s initial reaction serves as his rejection of Geichazi’s attempt to aggrandize himself with his teacher’s reputation. +Geichazi and Yehoram ben Achav +In his last Tanach appearance, we find Geichazi sitting and enjoying a chummy chat with Yehoram ben Achav (Melachim II 8:-4-5). Yehoram asks Geichazi to recount stories of Elisha’s miracles, and he happily complies. Yehoram and Geichazi appear to be “pals.” Geichazi enjoys hobnobbing with the elite and therefore treats Yehoram as an equal, and not as someone in dire need of spiritual improvement. +Geichazi presents the stories of Elisha’s miracles as a form of entertainment with which to regale Yehoram, instead of using the stories properly as a call to Teshuvah. Even after recounting the dramatic miracle with the Ishah HaShunamit and her son’s revival, Geichazi does not use the occasion to inspire himself or Yehoram to do Teshuvah. +This is Geichazi’s same old behavior pattern. He uses his experiences as Elisha’s top assistant as a tool to advance his relationship with the king, and not as a means to inspire. Geichazi is preoccupied with climbing the social ladder and does not attempt to scale the proverbial mountain of Hashem (see Tehillim 24). +Conclusion +The Gemara (Sanhedrin 107b) characterizes Geichazi as a “Chotei UMachati,” a sinner who causes others to sin. Geichazi spends a lot of time with Elisha, and nonetheless remains a self-centered and self-promoting personality.227Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 7:3) identify the four lepers who saved the capital of northern Israel as Geichazi and his three sons. However, this does not indicate that they do proper Teshuvah. The lepers inform the Jewish camp of the abandoned Aramean camp, due to the pragmatic consideration of self-preservation, as is clear from Melachim II 7:9 with Rashi and the Malbim’s commentary. This sets a horrible example for northern Israel. +Geichazi communicates by his example to others that they can witness Elisha’s long string of miracles, and yet remain unaffected by them. If we try to understand why the northern Bnei Yisrael are unaffected by the charismatic and influential Elisha, it is to a great extent due to the terrible example set by Geichazi. +Being in the constant presence of a great spiritual figure should elevate one to significant spiritual heights. One who remains a spiritual opportunist and a self-serving individual even after such exposure to such greatness creates a terrible Chillul Hashem (desecration of God’s name). This is especially poignant for someone such as Geichazi, who has tremendous spiritual potential during his lifetime. +Geichazi sets an awful example for the northern Bnei Yisrael and therefore ranks together with Yarav’am ben Nevat and Achav as one of the primary causes of the spiritual downfall of the northern Bnei Yisrael. Hence, we have no choice other than to conclude, as does the aforementioned Mishnah, that Geichazi is denied a portion in the World to Come. + +The Lost Axe Blade + +A Lost Axe +It is a most unusual story. The story of the miracle Elisha makes to save one of the Bnei HaNevi’im’s lost axe (Melachim II 6:1-7) raises many serious questions. Let us attempt to delve deeply into this episode, and develop an approach to more fully grasp the story.228Rashi’s comment to the beginning of both Melachim II 5 and 6, “Nissim SheNa’asu Lo MeSader VeHolech,” “the miracles performed by Elisha are recorded” should not be misunderstood as implying that these are mere Elisha wonder stories. The Gemara (Megillah 14a) teaches that every event recorded in Tanach is presented to teach lessons of profound importance to each generation. Thus, we must probe intensely for the messages of critical importance communicated by each of these stories. +The Flourishing Yeshivah +The story begins with a pleasant surprise. Elisha’s Yeshivah229See the earlier chapter, “Eliyahu HaNavi's Two Models of Torah Centers.” is growing to the extent that its facility is no longer able to house its growing number of students. Such a problem never emerges during Eliyahu HaNavi’s time. Although not as great as Eliyahu HaNavi, Elisha can attract many more students, to the extent that his Yeshivah requires a new building. The less Torah-hostile environment of Yehoram ben Achav (as opposed to that of Achav) may also contribute to the Yeshiva’s growth, as there is less fear of persecution during his reign. +Rashi and the Malbim’s Explanation for the Move +Rashi quotes Chazal, who say that Geichazi’s departure from the Yeshivah opens the gates to the Yeshivah’s growth. Throughout his time at the Yeshivah, Geichazi maintains a restrictive admissions policy, which is rescinded after Elisha expels him. In a variation on this theme, Ralbag explains that Geichazi’s departure results in the elimination of Geichazi’s negative spiritual energy. When Geichazi leaves, the Yeshivah becomes a far more attractive venue, and students subsequently flock to its hallowed halls.230We similarly find Avraham Avinu scaling spiritual heights once Lot departs from his environment (BeReishit 13:14, see Rashi). Sometimes, to spiritually prosper, we must first eliminate the negative influences in our lives. +The Malbim, in turn, invokes the Gemara (Ketubot 110b) that states that it is difficult to live in a city. This could due to crowding, or due to higher prices that, generally speaking, prevail in an urban environment. Affordability is a major concern for the Bnei HaNevi’im who struggle just to gather sufficient food to sustain themselves (Melachim II 4:38-43). The students wish to move to a more remote area near the Yarden (Melachim II 6:2), where they expect it will be easier to sustain themselves. +New Explanations for the Move +In a variation of the Malbim’s approach, we suggest that the students who wish to leave the area are from the Beit El Yeshivah.231As aforementioned, the Malbim explains (Melachim II 2:2) that Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha maintain two Yeshivot: one in Yericho near the Yarden, and the other in Beit El. The fact that the students ask to move to the Yarden shows that it is the students of the Beit El Yeshivah who wish to move. The students in the Yericho Yeshivah are already located at the Yarden. This branch of the Eliyahu HaNavi-Elisha Yeshivah is established in the nerve center of Malchut Yisrael’s renegade religious reforms, as a bastion of spiritual outreach for Beit El. Earlier, we compared this Yeshivah to the Chabad outreach centers established in the heart of predominantly secular San Francisco. +However, it seems that these Yeshivah students are tired; they have outgrown the Yeshivah’s original mission, and wish to relocate to a location near the Yarden. In such a remote location, the mission of the Yeshivah would change dramatically. No longer a Kiruv center, it would be a place for the students to focus their efforts into developing into spiritual giants. +It seems that the students conclude that their outreach efforts are ineffective; their words fall on deaf ears in Beit El. They feel that it is better to focus their efforts on personal religious growth, rather than dissipating their energies on a futile outreach effort. +Another explanation might be that the move is a reaction to Geichazi’s spiritual downfall. The students may feel that Geichazi’s descent was caused by overexposure to the decadent culture of Beit El. To avoid a repeat of Geichazi’s tragic fall, the students feel that they have to distance themselves from the scene and possible cause of Geichazi’s great fall. +The students’ attitude is reminiscent of the Gemara’s statement (Sotah 2a) “Kol HaRo’eh Sotah BeKilkula Yazir Atzmo Min HaYayin,” “anyone who sees the Sotah in her [moment of] disgrace should restrict himself from wine as a Nazir.” Sometimes, as Rambam teaches in Hilchot Dei’ot, the only remedy for one extreme is to tilt to the other extreme. +Elisha’s Reluctance +We suggest that this is the explanation for why Elisha does not embrace this move with enthusiasm. In Melachim II 6:2, he tells the students that they should move to the new location, implying that he will not join them. Only after the cajoling of a particular student does Elisha reluctantly join in the move. However, the bitterness of having lost buy-in from his students for his outreach efforts in Beit El remains acute in Elisha’s mind. +The Axe Crisis +Once Elisha and his students arrive at the Yarden, the construction of the new building begins with the cutting down of the trees for lumber. While cutting down a tree, one of Elisha’s students drops an axe into the Yarden. He cries out, “Ahah Adoni VeHu Sha’ul,” “Woe is to me, my master, it is borrowed!” (Melachim II 6:5). Losing an axe in the Yarden is a most bizarre occurrence. How clumsy can the Yeshivah students be? In addition, why does the student react in desperation after the axe is lost? Is a lost axe blade such a tragedy?232Perhaps the students fear that they will be taken as slaves by the axe lender if they will not return the axe or its monetary equivalent (recall the dire poverty which Elisha and his students endure), as we saw at the beginning of Melachim II 4. +We have a bold suggestion to solve these problems. We believe that the student or students deliberately orchestrate a crisis by intentionally losing the axe blade in the Yarden. +The students manufacture a crisis to spur Elisha to miraculously rescue the lost axe blade. The students feel that if Elisha participates in the building effort, he will further support their move to the Yarden. If Elisha participates in the building process in his own unique miracle filled manner, he might internally recognize the need to reorient the Yeshivah away from outreach, to the promotion of spiritual growth within. +Conclusion +Eventually, Elisha buys into the Bnei HaNevi’im’s message. After a few more attempts of outreach to the broader community of the Northern Kingdom, he begins to focus exclusively on his Yeshivah and his devoted followers. Indeed, after he orders Yeihu’s anointment, Elisha no longer engages the political leadership until his last days on his deathbed. This shift in focus must be painful for Elisha. However, with the gentle but firm nudging of his students, he finally makes the necessary adjustments and devotes his last decades to those who are ready to hear his message. + +Elisha and the Aramean Army + +A Bizarre Set of Miracles +Of all of the miracles wrought by Elisha, the scenes described in Melachim II 6:8-23 seem the most bizarre. Melech Aram sends an intimidating commando squad to capture Elisha. Elisha brings the soldiers set to capture him to a state of confusion so they do not understand what they see. Elisha proceeds to mislead the soldiers and takes them to Malchut Yisrael’s capital city of Shomeron. In Shomeron, instead of killing or incarcerating the soldiers, Elisha insists they be fed a sumptuous meal, after which they are sent home to Aram. +Elisha, to state the case directly, appears to be acting like a prankster or a wiseguy. What does Elisha seek to accomplish by leading the enemy soldiers to the capital, only to feed them and then send them home? If he simply is trying to defend himself, he should confuse them and lead them across the border back to Aram, where they no longer pose a threat. +Ralbag’s Answer +Ralbag explains that the idea of providing the soldiers with a generous meal was to motivate them to never return to attack us. Rav Elchanan Samet explains the strategy based on Mishlei 25:21-22: “Im Ra’eiv Sona’acha Ha’achileihu Lachem, Ve’Im Tzamei Hashkeihu Mayim; Ki Gechalim Atah Choteh Al Rosho VaHashem Yeshalem Lach,” “if your foe is hungry, feed him bread; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink; for you will be scooping coals [to heap] on his head, and Hashem will reward you.” In other words, one can transform an enemy to a friend by being kind to them. +An Alternative Answer +We suggest an alternative approach that takes into account Elisha’s primary spiritual mission of drawing the Bnei Yisrael in Malchut Yisrael to a complete return to Torah. Elisha seeks to creatively transform the persistent attacks of the Aramean soldiers into a spiritual opportunity for the leadership of Malchut Yisrael.233We presume that the king spoken of throughout all of the Elisha episodes is Yehoram ben Achav. We prefer a Ramban-like minimization of the principle of Ein Mukdam Ume’uchar BaTorah, which submits that the Torah occasionally presents stories out of chronological order to convey an essential message. It seems to us that there is no compelling reason for the Navi to present the Elisha stories out of chronological order. Rather, we assume that Elisha employs a string of creative means to try to cajole Yehoram ben Achav to complete Teshuvah. That is the ultimate goal of the many or varied miracles concerning Elisha recorded in Melachim II 3-8. We believe that Elisha seeks to show that the Aramean soldiers are mere pawns in the hand of Hashem. He wants to demonstrate that if one is fully devoted to Hashem, there is nothing to fear from the Arameans. Hashem uses the Aramean soldiers’ relentless low-level attacks on Malchut Yisrael to spur the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom to do full Teshuvah. +The message Elisha communicates is reminiscent of a story recounted in the Gemara (Berachot 33a) by an Elisha type Talmudic figure named R. Chanina ben Dosa:234The Gemara is replete with miracle stories of the great Tzaddik R. Chanina Ben Dosa, similar to Elisha, about whom more miracle stories are told than almost any other figure in Tanach (other than Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua bin Nun). R. Chanina ben Dosa is deeply impoverished by choice, similar to Elisha. +Our Rabbis taught: In a certain place there was once a snake which used to injure people. They came and told R. Chanina ben Dosa. He said to them: Show me its hole. They showed him its hole, and he put his heel over the hole, and the snake came out and bit him, and it died. He put it on his shoulder and brought it to the Beit Midrash and said to the assembled: See, my sons, it is not the snake that kills, it is sin that kills! On that occasion, they said: Woe to the man whom a snake meets, but woe to the snake which R. Chanina ben Dosa meets. +Yeshayahu 10:5 describes Assyria as “Sheivet Api,” “the rod of My anger,” in whose hand as a staff is My outrage. The ultimate solution to enemy attacks is not simply maintaining competent armed forces. Rather, full devotion to Hashem and kindness towards others is the means to Hashem bringing peace to the land, as promised in VaYikra 26:3-6. Enemy attacks are, in reality, a reminder from Hashem that we are not meeting our spiritual and social Torah goals, and must undertake a significant course correction in order to bring peace and stability to our lives. +Conclusion +We believe that informing Melech Yisrael of where the Arameans plan to attack the Northern Kingdom (Melachim II 6:8-12) is also part of Elisha’s broader strategy. Elisha has already established a reputation in Aram through the Na’aman incident. Therefore, Elisha expects that the Arameans will eventually realize that he is the one who discovered and revealed their military secrets. Elisha thus is baiting the Aramean king to send a military force to capture him. +Elisha is a creative genius, who thinks of every which way to try to perform a miracle that would somehow strike a chord and motivate the Bnei Yisrael to fully return to Hashem. Unfortunately, even the most creative Kiruv expert can be effective only if he has a receptive audience. Elisha will soon come to realize that the Bnei HaNevi’im correctly diagnose the futility of his outreach to the broader community of Malchut Yisrael, since its people, for the most part, are not open to his message. +Postscript – Resolving a Glaring Contradiction +Based on our understanding of Elisha’s highly unconventional interaction with the Aramean soldiers, we suggest a new resolution to a glaring contradiction. Melachim II 6:23 records that bands of Arameans no longer attacked Malchut Yisrael. This suggests a long period of quiet. However, Melachim II 6:24 records that the king of Aram launches a massive attack against Malchut Yisrael. +The classic Mefarshim, such as Radak and Ralbag, suggest a wide variety of resolutions to this glaring problem. We suggest that the statement that “bands of Arameans no longer attacked us” refers to what could have been, had Malchut Yisrael responded properly to the spectacle orchestrated by Elisha. +The phrase “bands of Arameans no longer attacked us” may be understood in two primary directions. Either, that the Northern Kingdom is no longer attacked at all by Arameans, or that only bands do not attack (but a much larger group does). To communicate Malchut Yisrael’s choice, Elisha formulates the statement in a way that can be understood in two dramatically different directions. +If the Northern Kingdom chooses to respond in a spiritually responsible manner, this prediction will materialize in a likewise positive manner— the Arameans will no longer attack. If it fails to react positively, then the harsher option will materialize, and the punishments and wake-up calls of the Aramean attacks will intensify.235This is similar to Rashi’s explanation of Yonah’s famous statement to Nineveh that in forty days Nineveh will “Nehepachet.” Rashi understands “Nehepach” to mean either destroy or turned over in the sense of new and improved lives. According to Rashi, Yonah deliberately uses a term that could mean one of two meanings, to communicate the stark choice faced by the people of Nineveh. We suggest that Yonah learns this communication technique from none other than his mentor Elisha (see Rashi to Melachim II 9:1), who, according to our interpretation, communicates to Malchut Yisrael the stark choice they face by deliberately using a phrase that can have two distinct meanings. +Sadly, Malchut Yisrael does not use this special occasion as a means to make spiritual strides. Therefore, Melachim II 6:24 records that the Arameans assemble all of their troops in an unprecedented attack on northern Israel, which hopefully will spur the Bnei Yisrael to wholeheartedly commit to completely return to the Torah path without reservation. + +The Arba'ah Metzora'im; Haftarah Before Yom Ha'Atzma'ut + +No Coincidence! +There are no coincidences in Jewish life. The fact that the story of the Metzora’im (lepers) who bring about the miraculous rescue of the city of Shomeron from an Aramean siege (Melachim II 7:3-20) is read as the Haftarah on the Shabbat before Yom Ha’Atzama’ut in a non-leap year is most certainly not a coincidence. There are at least three significant parallels that draw us to the conclusion that it is providential that this story is read in most years in close proximity to Yom Ha’Atzma’ut. +Miracle via the Spiritually Deficient +Rav Aharon Soloveichik already comments on the connection between Yom HaAtzma’ut and the Haftarah in a lecture given at Yeshiva University in 1966, on the 18th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel:236Printed in Gesher, Vol. 4 (Yeshiva University, 1966). +Those who do not recognize the importance of the establishment of the State of Israel give several reasons. The first argument raised is that non-observant Jews led the movements which culminated in the establishment of the State. They argue that the results of such leadership cannot be of great historical significance for the Jewish people. These results cannot be considered a step towards redemption, but rather as a step away from redemption. +Chapter seven of Melachim II has a bearing on all these arguments. Samaria (Shomeron), the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, was besieged by the mighty armies of Syria and was in the throes of famine. Ordinary food was unobtainable and articles of food which, under normal circumstances, would have been considered repulsive were obtainable only at fantastic prices. Samaria seemed doomed. +Desperate as the situation of the inhabitants of Samaria was, the condition of the four lepers outside the city (Melachim II 7:3) was infinitely worse. According to our Sages, these four lepers were none other than Gechazi and his three sons who were afflicted with physical leprosy as a penalty for their spiritual leprosy [described by Rambam as heretics]. +Subsequently, they entered the city of Samaria and conveyed the good tidings to the inhabitants. We thus see that the miracle of deliverance of the inhabitants of Samaria was carried out through the medium of four lepers: physical lepers, yes, but above all, spiritual lepers. +The first argument as to how any relief to the Jewish people could be realized through the medium of heretics can easily be rebutted by the precedent of the deliverance accorded to the people of Samaria through the medium of the four lepers. This episode shows that no Jew can be excluded from the grace of God, that, and that there is an innate tendency towards altruism even in the hearts of spiritual lepers; it also shows that God does not exclude any Jew from salvation and He may therefore designate even spiritual lepers as the messengers of relief and deliverance for the people of Israel. Consequently, we cannot ignore the significance of the establishment of the State of Israel simply because Jews who stand a substantial distance from any form of observance of Mitzvot were in the forefront of the movements which established the State and are in the forefront of the State itself. Perhaps the fact that non-observant Jews are in the forefront today is a penalty for Orthodox Jewry’s failure to play the most important part in the formation of the State. +We may add to Rav Aharon Soloveichik’s insight that the four lepers are not the only spiritually deficient beneficiaries and triggers of the miracles. The Israelite leadership is awash with either outright deniers or doubters of Elisha. Even the Israelite king also harbors sharply ambivalent feelings towards Elisha, as is evident from Melachim II 6:31 and 7:12. +Stronger Enemies Flee Due to Loud Noise +After the Metzora’im decide to surrender to the Arameans, Hashem causes the Aramean camp to hear “Kol Rechev, Kol Sus, Kol Chayil,” “the sound of the chariot, the sound of the horse, [and] the sound of a great army” (Melachim II 7:6). The Aramean army misinterprets this noise as an attack by the Egyptian and Hittite armed forces and therefore flees in panic from the hapless Bnei Yisrael of the city of Shomeron. The parallel to Israel’s War of Independence is striking. During this war, as is well known and documented, Israel had (especially at the onset of hostilities) a severe shortage of armaments, especially heavy artillery. However, it did develop the Davidka, a home-made artillery piece that was largely ineffective but made a great amount of noise: +The battles raged for months, until the spring of 1948, several days before Israel was declared a State. In late April, an artillery piece, nicknamed "The Davidka" was delivered to the Jews. They shot it off several times, but the mortars did little damage.....the main effect was the tremendous noise. However, the weather changed, and, unusually for that time of year, it began to rain. The rumor quickly spread through the Arab community that the Jews had acquired the atom bomb, and the entire Arab community left that night. With their exit, morale deteriorated among the Arab troops, and the Haganah was able to secure the city.237“War of Independence in Tzfat.” The City of Tzfat, www.safed.co.il/war-of-independence-in-tzfat.html. +Thus, the connection to the Haftarah is obvious. A very loud noise is grossly misinterpreted by our much stronger enemy, and the enemy flees due to its irrational fear of the noise, leading to our liberation from a mortal threat. There are numerous other stories told of Arab forces fleeing during Israel’s War of Independence due to their leader’s extreme exaggeration of the Jewish forces’ capabilities. +A Siege of the Capital City +Another striking similarity is that in both situations, the capital cities of the area have a fierce siege set upon them with very serious threats of starvation. The Arabs succeeded in setting siege upon Jerusalem in 1948, and as a result, the serious threat of starvation loomed heavily upon the city. It was only the against all odds successful completion of the “Burma Road” to Jerusalem that broke the siege. +Marred Miracles +Another much more uncomfortable and sobering parallel lurks between the Aramean siege and Yom HaAtzma’ut. In Melachim II 7, Elisha intercedes and facilitates a miracle on behalf of the beleaguered Bnei Yisrael of Shomeron. However, it is far from a “neat” or “clean” miracle. Much intense suffering ensues before and after the miraculous rescue of Shomeron. +The people of Shomeron experience bitterly intense starvation to the extent that mothers eat the flesh of their children (Melachim II 6:28-29)! Even after the great redemption from the Aramean forces, crowds who hurriedly race to the food and wealth left by the Aramean army trample a leading official to death. The otherwise joyful celebration is marred by this ugly incident. +The parallel is a most difficult but important one to contemplate. Our victory in Israel’s War of Independence was undoubtedly miraculous. However, the suffering endured in victory was immense. One percent of Israel’s population fell. The damage to property was incalculable. Although the victory in the War of Independence was a cause for great joy, considering the very heavy losses that were sustained, there was hardly jubilation in the air at war’s end. +Shomeron’s miracle rescue is marred by the region’s spiritual deficiencies. While years of outreach by Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha make some improvements, most of the northern Bnei Yisrael are still severely deficient. The same may be said, we believe, about Israel in the wake of its astounding victory in its first war. +Improvement Needed +The suffering endured by the people of Shomeron is intended as a reminder that although Hashem intervenes to save the people of Shomeron, much spiritual improvement is still needed within the Northern Kingdom. Although it is difficult for us to note this, in linking this Haftarah to Yom HaAtzma’ut, Hashem communicates a similar message. +Unfortunately, the northern Bnei Yisrael fail to internalize this message— the Northern Kingdom is destroyed approximately one hundred and fifty years after the miracle at Shomeron. This is a heavy message to consider, but we dare not repeat the behavior of the northern Bnei Yisrael, who ignore the spiritual message inherent in their marred miracle. +Conclusion +It is important to note the Tanach parallels that reassure us that Hashem has brought a great miracle for us by the creation of the State of Israel. However, it is the prudent course of action to also consider the Mussar (rebuke) and warning the contemporary parallels to Tanach communicate to us, even in times of celebration. +May we internalize the message of this Haftarah, and thereby merit seeing the development of Medinat Yisrael into a society worthy of receiving the Melech HaMashi’ach with open arms. + +Chaza'eil and the Tel Dan Stele + +The Religious Significance of the Tel Dan Stele +It was an exciting part of our family’s Israel trip for Binyamin’s Bar Mitzvah in 2012. A relative who serves as a docent at Jerusalem’s venerated Israel Museum generously offered our family a guided tour of the Biblical and Talmudic era artifacts housed at this great museum. +During this magnificent tour, we arrived at the Tel Dan Stele. A stele is an ancient monument; this monument was erected by the Aramean king Chaza’eil, a figure who plays a significant role in Sefer Melachim. This artifact of monumental importance records Chaza’eil’s proclaiming, “I killed Yehoram son of Achav king of Israel and I killed Achazyahu son of Yehoram king of the House of David.” +As noted in the December 2010 issue of National Geographic,238Draper, Robert, and Greg Girard. “Kings of Controversy.” National Geographic, December 2010. until 1993 most academics denied the historicity of David HaMelech due to a lack of archaeological evidence for his existence. However, since the Tel Dan Stele was discovered in 1993, few academics persist in this denial. +The discovery of the Tel Dan Stele had significance beyond proving the historicity of David HaMelech. It demonstrates the fallacy of drawing conclusions from the absence of archaeological evidence.239Philosophers and logicians refer to this fallacious sort of argument as an “argument from ignorance” (argumentum ad ignorantiam). It is the fallacy of asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. As such, the Tel Dan Stele is a significant component in the Orthodox arsenal of fulfilling the mandate set forth in the Mishnah (Avot 2:19) to know how to respond to the heretic. + +The Tel Dan Stele, on display at the Israel Museum240Photograph by Oren Rozen - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47055869 +Contradiction +Our relative, though, quietly said to us that it is not so simple since there is a contradiction between the Tel Dan Stele and Tanach. The Stele indicates that the Aramean king killed both the Israelite king Yehoram son of Achav and the Judean king, Achazyahu son of Ataliah and Yehoram. Melachim II 9:14-27 records that the Aramean king Chaza’eil only wounds Yehoram, and that Yeihu subsequently kills Yehoram and Achazyahu. +Resolving the Contradiction +At the time, we did not know how to respond. However, upon investigation, we discovered that one could reconcile this contradiction. When Chaza’eil wounds Yehoram, he gives Achazyahu the opportunity to visit the Israelite king (Melachim II 8:29). This, in turn, gives Yeihu the opportunity to kill both Yehoram and Achazyahu. Yeihu kills both of them, and Chaza’eil takes the credit.241TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) adds that by wounding Yehoram, the king of Aram weakens Yehoram to the extent where he is unable to carefully analyze and neutralize the situation that leads to his and Achazyahu’s deaths (as described in Melachim II 9). +In the ancient world, it was common for ancient kings to exaggerate their victories and ignore their losses. Napoleon reportedly remarked that “History is always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history books— books which glorify their own cause and disparage the conquered foe.” The Tanach differs fundamentally in many ways from its counterparts in the ancient world, LeHavdil, but especially in this manner. The Tanach records the failings of Am Yisrael and its leaders often at great length, such as in Sefer Yirmiyahu, which spans no less than fifty-two chapters. +Thus, it is most reasonable to resolve the contradiction by attributing historic accuracy to the Tanach, and a moderate dose of exaggeration on the part of Chaza’eil Melech Aram. This is quite a reasonable conclusion, regarding which one does not have to arrive at based on faith alone. +Conclusion +A few years ago, a letter to the editor appeared in a local secular Jewish newspaper, in which the writer made the bold assertion that archaeology proves the Tanach to be historically inaccurate. Our brief discussion of an artifact of monumental importance provides a taste as to the naiveté and ignorance of this secular letter writer.242For a longer introduction to the harmonization of Torah and archaeological sources, see Jachter, Rabbi Chaim. “An Introduction to Archaeology and Tanakh.” OU Life, 10 June 2018, www.ou.org/life/history/an-introduction-to-archaeology-and-tanakh/. + +Yehoram ben Achav vs Yeihu + +Yehoram ben Achav’s Replacement? +In Melachim II 9:1-3, Elisha directs one of the Bnei HaNevi’im (who Chazal identify as Yonah ben Amitai) to anoint Yehu ben Nimshi as king over the Northern Kingdom. Considering the fact that Yehoram ben Achav removes the state-sponsored Avodah Zarah from the land (Melachim II 3:2), why does Elisha consider Yeihu a step forward from Yehoram ben Achav?243Asked by TABC student Ephraim Helfgot (‘20). After all, both of these kings of northern Israel fail to remove the Bamot, the forbidden altars established by Yarav’am ben Nevat in Beit El and Dan (Melachim II 3:3 and 10:29). Accordingly, what does Elisha accomplish by removing Yehoram ben Achav, and replacing him with Yeihu? +A More Thorough Effort +As a first response, we note that while Yehoram ben Achav eliminates state-sponsored Avodah Zarah, he does not compel individuals members of Am Yisrael to abandon this illicit worship, as is clear from Melachim II 10. This Perek records how Yeihu zealously eradicates Ba’al from Malchut Yisrael on a massive level. Thus, Yeihu drastically alters the spiritual landscape, while Yehoram is more passive in his efforts to remove Avodah Zarah. +Hashem’s Mandate +More important, though, is to bear in mind that Hashem mandates Yeihu’s appointment during His encounter with Eliyahu HaNavi at Har Choreiv (Melachim I 19). Eliyahu HaNavi, in turn, hands this mandate to Elisha for a variety of reasons, as we discussed in an earlier chapter. +Elisha’s Mission +Elisha strives mightily to help Yehoram ben Achav return fully to Hashem. He hopes that Yehoram’s complete Teshuvah will prompt Hashem to repeal the decree against his family issued to Achav in Melachim I 21. While Achav’s limited Teshuvah defers the destruction of his family to the next generation, Yehoram and his brother Achazyahu still have an opportunity to perform Teshuvah as well. +Unfortunately, Achazyahu ben Achav is quickly eliminated due to his outrageous sins. The Omri dynasty is given one last opportunity at spiritual recovery, in the personage of Yehoram ben Achav. Yehoram ben Achav is a significant improvement over his father and a dramatic improvement over his brother. His rules for twelve years, a duration that stands in contrast with the relatively short reigns of the other more wayward kings of the Northern Kingdom. However, Hashem’s decree to eviscerate Achav’s family still looms large over the Omri family. +Hashem extends extra time to Yehoram, in the hope that he will utilize the opportunity to fully return to Him. Elisha tries to reach him and the rest of Malchut Yisrael in many different ways. However, time runs out, and Elisha realizes that the window of opportunity has closed.244The Bnei HaNevi’im try to communicate this message to Elisha when they insist on moving to the Yarden (Melachim I 6), as we discussed the earlier chapter, “The Lost Axe Blade.” +Elisha now executes his mandate to anoint Chaza’eil over Aram, who will wreak havoc amongst Am Yisrael,245Elisha successfully limits the damage, as we discussed in the chapter “The Appointments of Chaza’eil, Yeihu, and Elisha.” and orders Yeihu’s anointment, who will eliminate Beit Achav. +Elisha’s Disappointment +A variety of explanations are offered as to why Elisha appoints his student to anoint Yeihu and hand him his mission to destroy the house of Achav. Up until this point, Elisha has been heavily invested in trying to motivate Yehoram ben Achav to completely return to Hashem. Elisha must be profoundly disappointed after he realizes that his efforts have failed. It is far too painful for him to place in motion the order to eliminate Beit Omri, and instead delegates the role to his student. It should be noted that Chazal’s identification of this student as Yonah ben Amitai is rather apt, as it is he who so fully champions the Middat HaDin (Hashem’s Attribute of Strict Justice) in the story of Nineveh’s looming destruction, as recorded in Sefer Yonah. +Elisha’s Retirement +It is for this same reason that Elisha does not engage with the quite imperfect kings of the Yeihu dynasty. In fact, the only time Elisha interacts with a member of the Yeihu family is on his deathbed, with Yeho’ash, Yeihu’s grandson.246Moreover, the deathbed interaction between Elisha and Yo’ash is a difficult one, with Elisha becoming infuriated with Yo’ash. For the combined length of Yeihu and his son Yeho’achaz’s reigns (at least forty-one years), Elisha exclusively focuses on his students and his outreach efforts to the faithful, like the Shunamite woman.247According to Seder Olam, Elisha dies in the tenth year of Yo’ash’s reign. This makes the length of Elisha’s retirement fifty-one years! +Elisha is so disappointed in Yehoram ben Achav’s failure to repent, that he can no longer bear to engage in outreach with the political leadership. Only on his deathbed does he relent and ever so briefly engage Yo’ash ben Yeho’achaz. +Conclusion – Pokeid Avon Avot Al Banim +A recurring theme in Sefer Melachim is the notion of “Pokeid Avon Avot Al Banim” (Shemot 20:5), that Hashem revisits the sins of a parent when a child continues in the parent’s sinful path.248As noted by Targum Onkelos and Rashi to Shemot 20:5. Ramban (ibid.) indicates that this applies even when the child is not as sinful as his or her parent. For example, the last king of the Northern Kingdom, Hoshei’a ben Eilah, is less sinful than his predecessors. Yet, Hashem destroys Malchut Yisrael in Hoshei’a’s day due to the accumulated sins of those who preceded him. +Tzidkiyahu, the last king of Yehudah, has serious shortcomings but sins significantly less than his predecessors Achaz, Menashe, and Yehoyakim. Yet, once again, the Churban occurs in his day due to the sins accumulated through the prior generations. +The same applies to Yehoram ben Achav. He is definitely an improvement over his father and brother. Nevertheless, the accumulated sins of his family, together with his shortcomings, result in the most violent end to his reign and family. +Unfortunately, the Yeihu dynasty also amasses many misdeeds, to the extent that the line ends after four generations (as predicted in Melachim II 10:30). Of course, this is a reflection of the rest of Shemot 20:5, which states that Hashem revisits a parent’s sins for four generations. +Hashem is an “Erech Apayim,” One who is slow to punish, but there are limits to His expressions of mercy. Eventually, some measure of justice must prevail. Thus, both Yehoram ben Achav and Yeihu ben Nimshi are, either personally or through their descendants, eventually held accountable for their spiritual shortcomings. + +Yeho'ash Renovates the Beit HaMikdash; Shabbat Shekalim + +Fundraising +Every year on Shabbat Parashat Shekalim, we read the story of Yeho’ash Melech Yehudah’s rehabilitation of the Beit HaMikdash (Melachim II 11-12). The connection to Shabbat Shekalim appears to most as simply the theme of raising funds to support the Mishkan and the Beit HaMikdash. However, a careful examination of the story yields a much deeper connection to Parashat Shekalim and the heralding of Rosh Chodesh Adar. +A King at Age Seven – The Back Story +Ashkenazi Jews begin the Haftarah with Yeho’ash assuming the throne at age seven. This highly unusual phenomenon should certainly draw our interest. +Yeho’ash’s grandmother, Ataliah, assumes the throne upon the death of her son Achazyahu. Ataliah murders all of her competitors to become the leader. She ruthlessly murders every male in the Davidic line, including her sons and grandsons. During her reign, Ataliah introduces the worship of Ba’al to Yerushalayim. +One grandchild, Yeho’ash, is saved by his father’s sister, Yehosheva, who is married to Yehoyada, the leader of the Kohanim in the Beit HaMikdash. Yeho’ash is hidden in the Beit Hamikdash until he turns seven, at which time Yehoyada organizes a rebellion against the evil Ataliah. Yehoyada organizes a group of prominent leaders to join the rebellion, and even arms the rebels with weapons from none other than David HaMelech, which were stored for generations in the Beit HaMikdash.249TABC student Akiva Prager (‘20) is bothered by how David HaMelech’s weapons could be stored in the Beit HaMikdash, the ultimate symbol of the hope for international peace (see, for example, Yeshayahu 2). A response might be that the Beit HaMikdash seems to also serve as the national repository for priceless national artifacts, such as the Luchot and the Tzintzenet Mahn. Thus, David’s weaponry certainly has a place in the Beit HaMikdash. Alternatively, Shlomo HaMelech’s storage of his father’s weapons marks the beginning of a peaceful era. In any event, it is interesting that David HaMelech’s weaponry is used to ensure the survival of his progeny. Yehoyada succeeds, Yeho’ash is inaugurated as king, and Ataliah is executed. +Extracting Spiritual Victory from Spiritual Oppression +This narrative fits perfectly with Chodesh Adar and Purim, as it thematically emphasizes the extraction of spiritual gain from spiritual oppression. In the Purim story, Haman threatens to destroy the Jews. Nevertheless, the Jews persevere and Haman is ironically hanged on his own gallows. As a result, we celebrate our salvation on the holiday of Purim. The Midrash adds that the money that Haman allocated to bribe Achashverosh to eliminate the Jews was used by Mordechai and Esther to enhance the construction of the Beit HaMikdash. Thus, the Jewish people are able to convert spiritual oppression into spiritual prosperity. +This theme is gloriously expressed both during and after Yeho’ash’s reign. Yeho’ash, under the influence of his adoptive father Yehoyada, leads a monumental effort to refurbish the Beit HaMikdash. As noted by Da’at Mikra, after one hundred and fifty years of wear and tear since its erection, the Beit HaMikdash is sorely in need of considerable restoration. Da’at Mikra also reasonably suggests that Ataliah considerably damages the Beit HaMikdash during her six terrible years of reign. Accordingly, it is specifically Ataliah’s persecution that causes Yeho’ash to be raised by Yehoyada and influences him to repair and restore the Beit HaMikdash. +Additionally, Sefer Melachim250Divrei HaYamim presents the stories of Yeho’ash, Amatziah, and Uzziah with significant variations. See Da’at Mikra for an effort to reconcile the differences. overall characterizes Yeho’ash’s forty-year reign as a spiritual success. Moreover, Yeho’ash’s inauguration ushers in an often overlooked but critically important era— his reign marks the beginning of a string of four consecutive kings who uphold Torah law – Yeho’ash, Amatzya, Uzziah, and Yotam. These kings reign for a consecutive 137 years. +This is an unparalleled positive streak, that has undoubtedly left a positive impact on our people. It is no wonder that the Jews of the Southern Kingdom survived as Jews. The 137 years of royal Torah observance certainly contributed to the spiritual survival of our people. The Northern Kingdom did not survive largely due to the fact that they had never experienced this kind of positive leadership. +Yeho’ash initiates this great streak due to the influence of his step-father Yehoyada, and the fact that he spent his formative years in the hallowed halls of the Beit HaMikdash. In other words, Ataliah, through her acts of oppression, initiates the chain of events that results in the long-term spiritual prosperity of the Bnei Yisrael. “VeNahaphoch Hu”— that which was supposed to (God forbid) cripple the Jews, winds up strengthening them. Thus, this Haftarah serves as a perfect introduction to Chodesh Adar. +Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Reason for the Haftarot +Various explanations are offered for our reading the Haftarot. The Avudraham famously explains that the Haftarah replaced the Torah reading after the Romans banned its public reading. We continue the practice, according to this approach, even though the original reason no longer applies. +Another reason offered for the Haftarah is that the selections are “Mei’ein HaParashah," parallel the Parashah and thus add a layer of depth to the Torah portion of the week. +Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik provides perhaps the most compelling reason for the reading of the Haftarot.251Rabbi Soloveitchik offered this explanation at a Shiur he delivered at Yeshiva University in the spring of 1979. The Rav simply points to the Berachot that are recited upon the reading of the Haftarah. He argues that the central theme of the Berachot, and therefore of the Haftarot in general, is the affirmation of the prophetic promise of redemption. +For example, in the fourth Berachah after the Haftarah, we request that “Samecheinu Hashem Elokeinu Be’Eliyahu HaNavi Avedecha, UVeMalchut Beit David Meshichecha, BiMeheira Yavo, VeYageil Libeino,” “Hashem, our God, gladden us with Eliyahu HaNavi Your servant, and with the kingdom of the House of David, Your anointed, may he come speedily and delight our hearts.” This excerpt alone makes it clear that the belief in our eventual redemption serves as a central theme of the Haftarot. +Yeho’ash and the Restoration of the Davidic Line +The story of Yeho’ash fits perfectly into the Haftaric theme of the prophetic promise of redemption. Ataliah seems to successfully eliminate the Davidic line. However, despite her overwhelming power and force, the Davidic line is restored through Yeho’ash. The reading of this section of Sefer Melachim as the Haftarah foreshadows and reassures us that Malchut Beit David will eventually be restored. Ataliah’s execution and Yeho’ash’s investiture as king serves as a potent precedent for the eventual reconstitution of the Davidic line. This is another reason why this Haftarah serves as a perfect introduction to the month of Adar, the first of the Chodshei HaGeulah, the redemptive months of Adar and Nissan (see Rashi to Ta’anit 29a s.v. MiSheNichnas). +The Sephardic and Ashkenazic Versions of the Haftarah +Typically, Sephardic Haftarah selections are shorter than their Ashkenazic counterparts. The Haftarah for Shabbat Shekalim stands out as an exception, as Sepharadim include the last few Pesukim of Melachim II 11, while Ashkenazim only begin in Melachim II 12, which focuses on the refurbishment of the Beit HaMikdash. +The lengthier Sephardic version fits into the theme discussed throughout this chapter. To successfully relate the future restoration of the Davidic line, one must at the very least refer to Yehoyada’s elimination of Ataliah and the coronation of Yeho’ash. +Why then does the Ashkenazic version not include these critical references? Perhaps the mention of Yeho’ash taking office at the age of seven suffices to remind us of the extraordinary circumstances in which Yeho’ash began his reign. However, why are the references not explicitly mentioned in the Ashkenazic reading? Yeshayahu 2 establishes that the Messianic restoration of the Davidic line will take place peacefully. Perhaps Ashkenazim omit the beginning of Yeho’ash’s rise to power as it involves rebellion and the execution of the previous leader. On the other hand, evildoers in the period leading up to the Mashi’ach will be uprooted, as is clear from Yeshayahu 66, Yechezkeil 37, and Malachi 3:24. Thus, Ataliah’s execution may still be thematically relevant to the restoration of the Davidic line. +Another possibility is the Ashkenazic practice follows Ramban (BeReishit 49:10), who abhors Kohanic involvement in political matters. For this reason, Ashkenazim do not include Birkat Kohanim (BeMidbar 6:24-26) in the Chanukah Torah reading, unlike Sephardic Jews who do. We have written252Jachter, Rabbi Chaim. “Birkat Kohanim and the Chanukah Torah Reading.” The Jewish Link of New Jersey, 13 Dec. 2018, www.jewishlinknj.com/features/28477-birkat-kohanim-and-the-chanukah-torah-reading. that Ashkenazim follow Ramban, who disapproved of the Chasmona’im’s political involvement, and Sephardim follow Rambam, who approved. +The same dispute might be relevant to the question as to whether we mention Yehoyada’s involvement in the coronation of Yeho’ash. For Ashkenazim, this is anathema, and is thus is omitted. For Sephardim, though, Yehoyada’s heroic efforts to restore the Davidic line are most appropriate to mention, especially due to his involvement in the restoration of the Beit HaMikdash. +Conclusion +Year after year, we hear the Haftarot, and most often have only a vague understanding as to why we read any particular selection from the Nevi’im. Our discussion, though, has hopefully communicated that it is well worth delving deeper so that we can mine the messages of vital importance that the beautiful words of the Haftarah convey each Shabbat and Chag. + +The Lost Grave of Elisha + +Kivrei Tzaddikim +Jews traditionally treat the Kever (grave) of a Tzaddik with great reverence, and as a place to visit. The most famous example is Calev���s visit to Me’arat HaMachpeilah, as noted by Chazal (Sotah 34b) and cited by Rashi (BeMidbar 13:22). There are numerous other Kevarim, such as those of Rachel Imeinu, Yosef HaTzaddik, Shemuel HaNavi, and R. Shimon bar Yochai that are treated with great reverence. The locations of ancient sites are preserved through the generations, as enthusiasm for these sites does not wane with time. +Devotees of Jewish mystical thought teach that the grave of a Tzaddik possesses the spiritual energy possessed by the Tzaddik during his lifetime. The visit to the Tzaddik’s grave is intended to not only show respect to the Tzaddik but also to draw from his spiritual energy. +This being the case, why has the site of Elisha’s Kever not been preserved? Why do Jews not possess a tradition as to the location of his grave? +This is an especially poignant question in light of the most remarkable incident, even by the standards of Tanach, recorded in Melachim II 13:20-21. The Navi relates that a dead body is thrown onto Elisha’s gravesite, and returns to life! If so, this incontrovertibly demonstrates the extraordinary spiritual power of Elisha’s Kever. If so, why then was the location of Elisha’s grave not preserved throughout the ages? +Malca Jachter’s Answer +My wife Malca suggests a similarity to the deliberately obscured location of the grave of Moshe Rabbeinu, for fear it would develop into an idolatrous shrine (as explained by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Devarim 34:6). Elisha generates so many miracles, Malca suggests, that there is a concern that if we preserve the site of Elisha’s Kever, it would turn into a site of very inappropriate cultic worship. +A Final Failure of Northern Israel +We suggest that the failure to recognize and appreciate the spiritual power of Kever Elisha represents the final failure of Am Yisrael in northern Israel in regard to Elisha. As explained by Radak, the Mo’avi attacks (Melachim II 13:20) teach that Elisha’s death is followed by suffering and instability. Yeho’ash ben Yeho’achaz correctly notes at Elisha’s deathbed that the Navi is “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav,” “Yisrael’s chariot and horsemen”253This language is also used by Elisha when Eliyahu HaNavi ascends in fire (Melachim II 2:12).— the Tzaddik who protects and shields the nation from military attack. Once he dies, the protection ends. +According to one approach in Chazal (Chullin 7b; cited by Radak to Melachim II 13:21), it is only a temporary revival, as he never returns to his home. The question, of course, emerges as to what is accomplished by this temporary revival. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 47a) notes that a righteous person should not be buried next to a wicked individual; the unrighteous man is therefore resurrected as not to be buried alongside Elisha. +We believe that in addition to this point, the revival demonstrates the great spiritual power of Elisha’s grave. The grave creates an opportunity for the northern Bnei Yisrael to visit the site and derive posthumous inspiration from Elisha. +Elisha is clearly underappreciated during his lifetime by the Bnei Yisrael in the Northern Kingdom. Perhaps when they learn of the painful consequences of Elisha’s absence, the northern Bnei Yisrael will flock to his Kever and derive inspiration, return fully to Hashem and His Torah, and receive concomitant protection. Alas, this dream does not materialize. The Northern Kingdom does not capitalize on Elisha’s final outreach opportunity. +Ignoring Blatant Miracles +The following often-told story illustrates how most of the northern Bnei Yisrael react to Elisha’s miracles:254The story is recounted by Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran and is archived at www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22357. +Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein, the revered mashgiach and Ba’al Mussar was once riding in a cab and the Israeli driver related the following story: “Rebbi, when my friends and I completed our army service, we decided to go on a world tour. We found ourselves in the jungles of Africa one night when suddenly one of my friends woke up screaming. A boa constrictor wrapped around his neck. We tried as much as we could to pull the snake off, but with no success. He was turning blue; close to death. We didn’t know what to do. At that point, one of us shouted to him, ‘Yigal, you’re going to die, at least say Shema.’ Yigal started saying Shema. As soon as he finished the first Pasuk, the snake released himself and slithered away.” The cab driver continued, “Rebbi, do you know that because of that incident my friend Yigal became a Ba’al Teshuva! Today, he is frum with a beautiful religious family. They keep kosher, his wife covers her hair and his kids all go to cheder.” Rav Levenstein responded, “That’s amazing.” He paused for a minute and then suddenly asked, “and what about you?” “Me? Oh no,” said the cab driver, glancing away from the road. “It didn’t happen to me. It happened to him.” +Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran adds: +A man confronts a life-threatening experience. He prays and, wonder of wonders, God hears his prayer and delivers him to safety. The man, to his great credit, recognized the hand of God in his salvation and resolved to change his life. But those who witnessed this miraculous event? They acknowledge the event but not the miracle! As a result, they are left not with lives transformed but merely a gripping story to be told during a random cab ride. +Both in Elisha’s lifetime and death, the Bnei Yisrael of northern Israel witness an astounding variety of miracles intended in every which way to inspire them to fully commit to a Torah lifestyle. However, the people are simply not receptive to change. There is great respect for Elisha, as we see from Yo’ash ben Yeho’achaz weeping at Elisha’s deathbed and describing Elisha as “Rechev Yisrael UFarashav.” However, no significant improvement, with exception to Elisha’s Talmidim and devoted followers, such as the Ishah HaShunamit. +The underlying reason for the failure to respond is the negative impact of the groupthink of both communities. In northern Israel, the legacy of Yarav’am and Achav et. al. creates a large majority of people who are, at best, tepid in their adherence to traditional Torah values and observance. For various reasons, a similar majority exists in Israel until today. +Even great miracles such as those performed by Eliyahu and Elisha (and the Six-Day War) are not sufficient to overcome the overwhelming power of the negative secular groupthink.255See Ramban to BeMidbar 15:22 who sounds a similar theme. It takes great spiritual energy to overcome prevailing cultural and spiritual winds. It takes the courage and spiritual fortitude of an Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu to triumph over the prevailing zeitgeist.256It is for this reason I have heard great Torah leaders argue that for someone to fully adhere to the Torah in our time, it requires the resolve and commitment of a Gadol of prior generations. Kol HaKavod, for example, to the Orthodox Jewish women who dress modestly even in the face of a society that overwhelmingly negates this core Torah value. It is a great honor, in the time of Elisha and in our time, to be among the observant Jewish community who swim against a powerful tide and uphold Torah values with confidence and dignity. +Shalum ben Tikva +Radak, however, cites an alternative explanation. This approach asserts that the revived gentleman is none other than the righteous Shalum ben Tikvah, the husband of Chuldah the prophetess, mentioned in Melachim II 22:14. According to this approach, the gentleman lives for a considerable time after his revival and even fathers children after this incredible event. +How are we to understand this Midrash? Shalum ben Tikvah and Chuldah live approximately one hundred and fifty years after the revival. Moreover, Melachim II records that they live in Yehudah, and the revival presumably occurs in Yisrael! +The Midrash communicates that Elisha’s inspiring influence extends to the Jews of Yehudah. Although he operates in the north, ultimately his true legacy is in the south, from which contemporary Jews originate. Torah Judaism in the Southern Kingdom, as well in the Northern Kingdom, was very near extinction due to the terrible influence of Achav and Izevel in the north, and Ataliah in the south. +It was only through the inspiration of Elisha (and Eliyahu) that Torah Judaism experienced a Techiyat HaMeitim, a revival of the dead. The fact that faithful Jews such as Shalum ben Tikva and Chuldah the prophetess existed in Yehudah, despite the terrible legacy of Menashe, is due to the posthumous inspiration that they receive from Elisha. Elisha is posthumously responsible for creating a sense of complete commitment to Hashem in Yehudah. +Conclusion – No Mesorah for Kever Elisha +To answer the question we posed as to why we are unaware of the location of Kever Elisha, we suggest as follows: +The northern Bnei Yisrael neglect Elisha’s miracles during his lifetime and his gravesite after his death. Thus, the location of the site, tragically, is lost since the northern Bnei Yisrael did not even bother to preserve its location. +However, Elisha’s (and Eliyahu HaNavi’s) legacy is the impact he has on Yehudah. The faithful of Yehudah overcome the powerful evil influence of Ataliah and much later of Menashe (and his successors Amon and the leaders of Yehudah until Yoshiyahu came of age), due to the inspiration they derive from Elisha. Faithful Jews, despite being the minority to adhere to Torah, continue to be inspired by Elisha and his courage to completely and enthusiastically uphold the Torah. We will further discuss Elisha and Eliyahu HaNavi’s long-term accomplishments in the next chapter. + +Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha's Long Term Accomplishments + +The Bigger Picture +Much time is devoted to analyzing the many and varied episodes recorded in Sefer Melachim about Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha. However, it is most worthwhile to step back and consider the bigger picture— in the long run do Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s astounding miracles have any substantial impact upon our people? +Am Yisrael in the Northern Kingdom, even after decades of experiencing astounding miracles orchestrated by Eliyahu and Elisha, remain for the most part entrenched in the ways of idolatry. Eventually, this portion of Am Yisrael is exiled and assimilated in the Exile. Thus, it seems that all of Eliyahu Hanavi and Elisha’s extraordinary efforts are, in the long run, for naught. +The Yeshivot, Nevi’im, Bnei HaNevi’im, and Mesorah +We can, however, point to at least one very concrete accomplishment: the establishment of “Yeshivot” to develop Nevi’im and Bnei HaNevi’im. Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 9:1) teach that Yonah was a student of Elisha. Rambam, in his list of the Masoretic chain extending from the time of the Gemara all the way back to Moshe Rabbeinu, names Yehoyada HaKohein (of Melachim II 11-12) as a student of Elisha. The chain of Nevi’im described by Rambam continues with Hoshei’a, Amos, Yeshayahu, Michah, Yoel, and Nachum. +We see that the Yeshivot established by Eliyahu and Elisha maintained the chain of the Mesorah, which in turn sustained the Torah amongst our people. This is an accomplishment of monumental importance. In addition, a considerable portion of the Tanach consists of the teachings of the chain of Nevi’im begun by Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha. +The Righteous Remnant of the North +Already in Melachim I 19, we find a small group of northerners who do not yield to the pressure to worship Ba’al and/or Asheirah. It seems that Eliyahu and Elisha maintain and encourage this righteous minority to continue to withstand the pressure and remain steadfast in their loyalty to Hashem and Torah. +Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s influence is not confined to the walls of their Yeshivot; it appears that they have some supporters from the broader population as well. We believe that the descendants of this righteous remnant are whom the Gemara (Megillah 14b) records that Yirmiyahu HaNavi manages to return from Assyrian exile and reintegrate them into Am Yisrael. Their descendants seem to remain with Am Yisrael until today.257Megillat Esther and Sefer Ezra describe the remnant of Am Yisrael as Yehudim because the majority of the surviving group is from Yehudah. However, a minority of descendants of other Shevatim remain as well. Were it not for the profound influence of the incredible work of Eliyahu and Elisha, these members of Am Yisrael likely would not have remained loyal to our people. +The Impact on the South +Although it is hardly addressed in Sefer Melachim, Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha leave an indelible impression on the Southern Kingdom. Without their positive influence and impact, the powerful impact of Achav, Izevel, and Ataliah would likely have overwhelmed our people and eliminated our Torah affiliation. Indeed, Melachim II 3 records Yehoshafat’s recognition of the greatness of Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha. +It is not for naught that Rambam describes Yehoyada as a student of Elisha. From where other than Elisha did he derive the strength to muster such enormous courage to confidently overthrow the ruthless and powerful Ataliah? It is unheard of a religious figure to accomplish such an amazing feat. We submit that the survival of Torah in the Southern Kingdom is due to the impact of Eliyahu and Elisha. +Conclusion – We Do and Hashem Accomplishes +A major principle emerges from the discussion between Yeshayahu HaNavi and Eliyahu HaNavi recorded on Berachot 10a. Our responsibility in this world is to do our jobs and fulfill our Torah responsibilities. Accomplishment is left in the hands of Hashem. Sefer Melachim does not place a focus on Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s long-term accomplishments. It emerges from Sefer Melachim that Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha are focused solely on executing their duties. They leave the question of accomplishments in the hands of Hashem. It is comforting, though, to consider that these two great men leave a considerable legacy. +Their true legacy continues today with our continued steadfast and dogged determination to study Torah and live a life fully in accordance with Hashem's will. When we learn of and are inspired by Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha’s activities and their steadfast loyalty to Hashem, we subsequently strengthen and magnify their legacies. + +Malchei Yehudah; Achaz, Chizkiyahu, and Menashe + +Achaz and the Assyrians; Can We Find a Way to Excuse Him? + +Achaz is Not on the List! +Achaz ben Yotam Melech Yehudah is bad. He breaks a streak of four good kings,258At least according to what is presented in Sefer Melachim (as opposed to Divrei HaYamim). who ruled for one hundred thirty-seven consecutive years. As described in Melachim II 16, Achaz reintroduces Avodah Zarah into Malchut Yehudah and makes some significant changes to the Beit HaMikdash. Achaz is depicted in even harsher terms in Divrei HaYamim.259The Alshich resolves the difference between Melachim and Divrei HaYamim by arguing that Sefer Melachim goes easier on Achaz due to the merit of his righteous son Chizkiyahu. We suggest a variation of this idea, that Sefer Melachim goes easier on Achaz due to the enormous pressure of the Assyrian threat, as we develop in this chapter. +It would seem, therefore, that Achaz should be included on the shortlist of Jewish kings who are denied a share in Olam HaBa (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:2). Yarav’am, Achav, and Menashe appear on this infamous list, but Achaz is conspicuously missing. +Chazal’s Explanation +The Gemara (Sanhedrin 104a) explains that Achaz entered Olam HaBa due to his merits of his extraordinarily righteous father Yotam and extraordinarily righteous son Chizkiyahu. The Gemara sets forth the principle of “Bera Mezakeh Avuha,” “a son confers merit upon the father,” which dictates that a son can redeem his father from Geihinom.260Chizkiyahu’s righteousness contrasts the wicked behavior of Amon ben Menashe. Menashe appears on the shortlist and is not rescued due to his righteous father Chizkiyahu or righteous grandson Yoshiyahu. This might be due to Menashe’s influence on his son, which extends his evil behavior into the next reign. Indeed, this is a primary reason why children recite Kaddish for their deceased parents.261For a summary of the sources concerning the recitation of Kaddish, see www.ou.org/torah/tefillah/kaddish/why_do_we_say_kaddish_for_the_deceased. +Background for a Peshat Explanation +We suggest a Peshat explanation based on three words towards the end of Melachim II 16. Melachim II 16:18 states “Ve’Et Mevo HaMelech HaChitzonah Heiseiv Beit Hashem Mipenei Melech Ashur," “[Achaz] routed the king’s outer entrance to go directly to the House of Hashem, out of fear of the king of Assyria.” Simply put, Achaz is rightfully terrified of the emerging Assyrian empire lead by Tiglat Pileser, who is specifically mentioned Melachim II 16. +The Assyrians were extremely competent and extremely cruel warriors. Their terrifying cruelty is displayed on the Lachish reliefs, which depict the Assyrian conquest of the Judean city of Lachish (Melachim II 18:14). The reliefs pictured below are currently on display at the British Museum. They depict the Assyrians flaying the leaders of Lachish. The ferocity of the Assyrians is also evident from the utter decimation of the palace in Lachish, of which nothing but its simple base remains. + +The portion of the Lachish relief that depicts the exile of families from Yehudah and (rightmost) the flaying of the city’s leaders, on display at the British Museum262Photograph by Mike Peel - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lachish_Relief,_British_Museum_5.jpg + +Ruins of Lachish Palace, Tel Lachish, Israel263Photograph by Mark A. Wilson - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15414460 +Pekach ben Remalyahu and the King of Aram +Towards the end of the reign of Yotam (Achaz’s father), Pekach ben Remalyahu (the king of the Northern Kingdom) and the king of Aram form a coalition to fight Assyria (end of Melachim II 15 with Da’at Mikra). They demand that Yotam and later his son Achaz join the coalition to fight the newly emerging Assyrians. +Achaz wisely refuses to join the coalition, since he rightly fears to engage the overwhelmingly powerful and cruel Assyrians. The king of Aram and Pekach ben Remalyahu attack Achaz in an attempt to replace him with a leader named Ben Toval, who would subsequently join the coalition to fight Assyria (Yeshayahu 7:1-6 with Da’at Mikra). +Assyrian Influences — A Peshat Explanation of Achaz +Achaz is now caught between a rock and a hard place. He fears Assyria and the coalition of Pekach and Aram. He fears that his kingdom will be overrun by either foe. The only reasonable practical option in Achaz’s mind is to cave and form an alliance with the Assyrians. +Achaz prepares for the full-fledged alliance by introducing some idolatry and Assyrian cultural influences into the Beit Hamikdash. In doing this, Achaz hopes that Assyria will treat Yehudah as a vassal state and leave them be. Achaz believes that this is the only way the Southern Kingdom can survive the Assyrian challenge. Thus, he bribes Tiglat Pileser who subsequently destroys Aram and exiles much of the Northern Kingdom. Achaz then introduces a Syrian style Mizbei’ach into the Beit HaMikdash, putting the old Mizbei’ach to the side.264Interestingly, the already idolatry-prone Northern Kingdom does not adopt such a pro-Assyrian stance to avoid Assyrian invasion. +Achaz, we posit, therefore, is not denied a place in Olam HaBa. Unlike Achav and Menashe, he is not described by the Navi as worshipping Avodah Zarah to simply to “anger” Hashem. Achaz’s decision to introduce idolatry into the land is not frivolous, but rather the result of a very reasonable fear. +Moreover, Achaz never persecutes Yeshayahu HaNavi, unlike Yarav’am ben Nevat, Achav, and Menashe, who all persecute authentic Nevi’im. Yeshayahu HaNavi publicly criticizes Achaz (Yeshayahu 7 with Da’at Mikra), and even though Achaz ignores the prophet, he does not persecute him. In light of all of these mitigating factors, Achaz is not denied a place in Olam HaBa. +Achaz is Nonetheless a Rasha +Why then do Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim characterize Achaz in such a negative light? What alternative does Achaz have? +The answer is apparent from Yeshayahu 7. Yeshayahu, in his characteristically beautiful Hebrew poetics, instructs Achaz “Hishameir VeHashkeit," “to stand guard and settle down.” Da’at Mikra explains that Yeshayahu advises Achaz to remain vigilant and take all prudent steps to protect Yehudah from the invasion of Pekach and the Aramaean king— “HiShameir.” On the other hand, Yeshayahu advises him “Hashkeit," to remain calm, and not act rashly by capitulating to Assyria. +Yeshayahu reassures Achaz that Pekach and Aram do not pose a mortal threat to his kingdom. Moreover, the Navi warns Achaz that he will bring ruin to Yehudah if he welcomes the Assyrians. In the elegant but stern words of Yeshayahu, “Im Lo Ta’aminu Ki Lo Te’omeinu," “if you do not believe this, it is because you lack faith” (Yeshayahu 7:9). If you will not trust in Hashem, then the Assyrians will bring ruin to the land. +Thus, had he trusted in Hashem, Achaz could have successfully held off the invasion of Pekach and Aram and avoided an alliance with Assyria. Unfortunately, Achaz, to the long-term detriment of our people, fails to heed the wise and prophetic words of Yeshayahu. +Achaz as a Prototype of Future Spiritual Failures +Achaz’s stance constitutes a major spiritual failure, but is not sufficiently egregious to result in the loss of his portion in Olam HaBa. His actions set a precedent for Jews who spiritually cave upon confronting awesome challenges. Future examples include those who argued we must bow to Haman, and the Mityavnim (Hellenizers), who argued that we must capitulate to the Syrian-Greek Antiochus or be utterly destroyed. +Similar stances were taken by those who arrived in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and were faced with the grim reality of a six-day workweek. Employers sternly warned Jewish employees that if they would not work on Shabbat, they should not bother returning to work the following Monday. Many Jews succumbed to the financial pressure. Those who exhibited a strong sense of faith held strong, and their progeny mostly remain within the fold today.265This author stands in awe of his grandfather and namesake, Chaim Adler, for his steadfast refusal to yield to enormous challenges. During a time when the United States government did not offer welfare and social security programs, he never violated Shabbat, despite his financial responsibilities towards his wife and five small children. +Conclusion +Yeshayahu calls to Achaz to transcend the temporal circumstances and plug into eternity. The Assyrian empire rose and fell, and while it blazed a mighty trail for a while, there is barely a remnant of Assyria in the world today. The same goes for the Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, Crusaders, the Spanish Inquisition, Nazis, and Soviets. All these mighty forces sought to eliminate Judaism. And yet, it is they who have been vastly eliminated. +Torah Judaism, despite being the vast underdog in all of these situations, remains strong and vibrant today. The Torah is eternal as it is a reflection of the Eternal. Achaz and his successors adopt what appears to be a “pragmatic” approach, which in the long run leads to self-destruction. Achaz is replaced by his son Chizkiyahu, who adopts a radically different approach, and serves as a model for those who plug into eternity and remain faithful to Torah, no matter how difficult the circumstances. + +Archaeological Artifacts from Chizkiyahu's Reign + +A Treasure Trove of Artifacts266A tremendous thank you to Shaarei Orah congregant Dr. Shimon Steiner for helping in the formulation of the ideas in this chapter. +No other figure in Tanach has nearly as many surviving and discovered artifacts as does Chizkiyahu HaMelech. The tunnels he dug to divert the waters of the Gichon to flow within the city of Jerusalem have survived intact, and are visited by many thousands each year. The inscription at the midway point of the tunnel has been discovered (and is now on display at a museum in Istanbul). +His bulla (royal seal) and the seal of many of his top advisors have been discovered. There is concrete evidence of his campaign to destroy the Bamot. An ancient Assyrian artist’s (commissioned by Sancheirev) depiction of the Assyrian conquest of Lachish is preserved (and now displayed at the British Museum in London). The wide wall he built to protect Yerushalayim from the Assyrian invasion remains in part and is readily viewed by visitors to the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s Old City. Chizkiyahu’s name features prominently in the Sannecherib Prism which has also survived and is on display at Chicago’s Oriental Museum. In Lachish, there is also evidence of broken Bamot from Chizkiyahu’s time. There are squared off alters there, with all of their corners smashed off, unfit for any Korban to be brought upon them. +Just in June 2019, the discovery of a military lookout tower from the time of Chizkiyahu was announced, adding to an already impressive trove of great findings from this great king’s reign. +Coincidence? +One could argue that the discovery of so many artifacts relevant to Chizkiyahu HaMelech is just a random phenomenon, especially since precious little from the ancient world has survived, and precious little of what has survived has been excavated. Moreover, the discoveries of major artifacts, such as the celebrated Tel Dan Stele, have been serendipitous events. +Believing Jews, however, do not believe in coincidences. Might there be a spiritual message to this unusual phenomenon? +The Nachash HaNechoshet +We suggest that these discoveries are a result of Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s destruction of the Nachash HaNechoshet (Melachim II 18), the copper snake built by Moshe Rabbeinu at the behest of Hashem (BeMidbar 21). +Chizkiyahu is never criticized within the Tanach for destroying the Nachash HaNechoshet. The Mishnah (Pesachim 4:9) records that the Chachamim of the time extended their hearty approval of Chizkiyahu’s bold action. Chazal (Chullin 7a) express their strong approval as well. Sefer Melachim explains that over time, the Nachash HaNechoshet degenerated into a shrine for Avodah Zarah. Thus, Chizkiyahu deems it necessary to grind up this priceless relic in his campaign to rid the Southern Kingdom of Avodah Zarah.267TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) notes that the Nachash HaNechoshet was originally intended to remind the nation of Hashem. The Gemara (Rosh HaShanah 29a) records that people would look up to the snake, thinking that it would heal them, but once they looked up to the heavens they would remember Hashem and His sovereignty. Those who lacked recognition of Hashem as the true God (i.e. the idolaters) would look up at the Nachash HaNechoshet and would only see a healing copper snake. They would not realize its original purpose. This is how Rambam describes the origin of Avodah Zarah. Rambam writes (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:1) that Avodah Zarah emerged when people thought that it was fitting to praise and glorify the luminaries, as Hashem honored them by making them His servants. However, as time progressed, people mistakenly thought that they were fulfilling the will of Hashem by directing sacrifices to the luminaries. Thus, as it is a Mitzvah to rid the land of Avodah Zarah (Devarim 7:5), Chizkiyahu HaMelech is justified in his removal of the Nachash HaNechoshet. +Hashem’s signature “fingerprint” is “Middah KeNeged Middah,” rewarding and punishing in a commensurate manner with the deed. We suggest that Hashem has rewarded Chizkiyahu for his bold and probably contemporaneously unpopular move in his zeal to uphold the Torah. Since Chizkiyahu eliminates an incredibly important artifact at the right time for the right reason, Hashem preserves many artifacts relating to Chizkiyahu for future generations. +Chizkiyahu HaMelech has emerged in our generation as almost tangible. We can see and sometimes even touch the remains of his impactful reign. We believe that this is by Hashem’s design as a very special reward to Chizkiyahu for a very special action. +Conclusion +Time will tell if Chizkiyahu will continue to stand out as one whose relics have been preserved more than any other Biblical personality. Time will also tell if our theory will be regarded as a viable one by Shlomei Emunei Yisrael, the faithful of Israel. + +Ravshakeh's Raving Rant + +The Assyrian Spokesman +One of the horrible features of Sancheirev’s siege of Yerushalayim is the Assyrian official Ravshakeh’s terrifying speech to the Jews trapped inside the city’s walls (Melachim II 18:17-35). Ravshakeh outlines the reasons why the Jews stand no chance against the fearsome Assyrian army. Ravshakeh’s blasphemy escalates throughout his speech and leads Chizkiyahu’s three top advisors, who were sent to speak with Ravshakeh, to perform Keriah, the ritual tearing of clothes performed as an act of mourning. Upon hearing the contents of the speech, Chizkiyahu tears his clothes as well. +Da’at Mikra explains that Ravshakeh engages in psychological warfare designed to foment an uprising amongst the Jews against Chizkiyahu. Ravshakeh is a master orator, and is clearly a highly competent component of the well-oiled Assyrian military machine. His mastery of the Judean dialect of Hebrew allows him to impact the masses, as he does not speak in the international diplomatic lingua franca of Aramaic, which only the top echelons of leadership had mastered at that time. +He clearly grasps Jewish life, as he even castigates Chizkiyahu for removing the Bamot. From the perspective of Jewish commoners, the removal of the Bamot is indeed a sinful act, as hundreds of years of habituation to Bamot erroneously made them not only appear permissible, but even virtuous. +Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 18:22) understand that Ravshakeh is an apostate Jew. However, it is possible that he is an Assyrian who has learned much about his Jewish foes, not unlike Adolf Eichmann (Yimach Shemo), who was quite knowledgeable about Jewish life. +No Publicity to Idolaters +Ramban (BeReishit 11:28) asserts that the Torah does not present the story of Avraham Avinu’s miraculous survival of Nimrod’s fiery furnace so as not to publicize the idolatrous beliefs of Nimrod. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand why Sefer Melachim grants a large chunk of space to record Ravshakeh’s missive in all of its gory details. Why is it important to include Ravshakeh’s horrific disparagement of Hashem within the Tanach? +Do Not Answer Him! +One possible answer lies in Chizkiyahu’s strategy of not responding to Ravshakeh (Melachim I 18:36). Chizkiyahu HaMelech teaches that sometimes the wisest strategy to even the most severe of insults is to remain silent. Responding to insults legitimizes the insult, and further escalates the trouble. Remaining silent lets the matter deescalate. +A response from the Jews will only award Ravshakeh more publicity, raising the danger of an eruption of civil war. Of course, silence is not always the proper response, but sometimes it is the wisest approach to adopt.268When we were learning this topic at TABC, an individual who was unjustly attacked on social media asked if the Halachah permitted him to respond. I noted the providential connection of the question to our learning of Chizkiyahu’s order to remain silent. I saw it as a sign from Hashem that the prudent course of action is to follow Chizkiyahu’s model and remain silent and avoid further escalating the situation. +Don’t Debate a Debater If You Are Not One... +Generally speaking, it is unwise for an inexperienced individual to contest an expert in the art of debate. In such a case, the inexperienced individual is likely to be vanquished by the expert even if the former is, objectively speaking, completely in the right. Ravshakeh is a seasoned debater and politician; it is unlikely that anyone in his audience is skilled enough to beat him at his own game. +Ravshakeh is Right! +Another approach may be developed based on the fact that, from a purely secular-pragmatic perspective, Ravshakeh is entirely correct. The Assyrians were masters of war and masters of breaking sieges. Their quality and quantity of soldiers were unmatched. As Ravshakeh notes in Melachim II 18:23-24, the Jewish army cannot compete even with a small subdivision of the Assyrian military. +Accordingly, Chizkiyahu HaMelech has every reason to yield and give up. However, to Chizkiyah HaMelech’s enormous credit, he remains faithful and heeds Yeshayahu HaMelech’s guidance not to yield to the Assyrians. +Ravshakeh’s speech serves as stark testimony to the terror under which the Jews of Jerusalem lived during the Assyrian siege. It is a great testimony to Chizkiyahu’s tremendous Bitachon (trust in Hashem). It is no wonder that Ralbag (Melachim II 18:5) ranks Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s Bitachon above even that of David HaMelech. +Response to Chillul Hashem +Finally, Ravshakeh’s speech, along with Sancheirev’s letter to Chizkiyahu HaMelech (recorded in Melachim II 19), help explain why Hashem performs the extraordinary miracle of the overnight elimination of the Assyrian army, often referred to as “the great smite.” After all, as we will explain further in a later chapter, the Jews of the rest of Yehudah do not deserve to be saved from Sancheirev and his murderous army. Yeshayahu HaNavi explains that while Chizkyahu HaMelech’s religious restoration eliminates Avodah Zarah and increases Torah study and other observance of religious ritual, the people are still deficient in their interpersonal interactions (Yeshayahu 1). +The severe Chillul Hashem inherent in Ravshakeh’s denigrating speech serves as a major reason for Hashem’s dramatic intervention in the form of the great smite of the Assyrian army. Da’at Mikra notes that this is the first time an open miracle of this magnitude occurs since the days of Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua. Ravshakeh’s speech serves as the impetus for this dramatic moment of divine intervention. +Perhaps this also explains why Hashem did not intervene in such a manner to save Am Yisrael from the Babylonians in 586 BCE. Apparently, the Babylonians did not send someone like Ravshakeh to disgrace Hashem and our people. Thus, the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE did not constitute nearly the Chillul Hashem that would have ensued had Yerushalayim fallen to the Assyrians in 701 BCE. +Conclusion +Ravshakeh’s speech reflects a major low point in Sefer Melachim.269It is reminiscent of Golyat’s disgracing Hashem and the Jewish people in Shemuel I 17. By any rational measure or metric, the Jewish people should have fallen to the Assyrians. However, Sefer Melachim reminds us that Hashem is always the final arbiter concerning human affairs, especially Jewish affairs. Hashem intervenes in a time when the very fate of the Jewish future is at stake to ensure that His promise that the Bnei Yisrael will be an eternal people will be fulfilled. + +Menachem Begin and Sefer Melachim + +An Israeli Icon +In a well-deserved honor, Menachem Begin has emerged as an Israeli icon in the past two decades. Especially among observant and traditional Jews, he is regarded as a favorite if not the most beloved and respected of all Israeli leaders past and present. Examining a few of his activities as prime minister in light of Sefer Melachim adds to our perspective on this now-revered personality. +Begin Visits the Rav, Rav Moshe, and the Rebbe +Sefer Melachim’s two greatest kings, Chizkiyahu HaMelech and Yoshiyahu HaMelech, send messengers to a Navi to inquire on their behalf (Melachim II 19:2 and 23:14), but do not visit the Navi themselves. Berachot 10a presents this as a principled policy of even the most righteous of kings who felt that the Navi should be subservient to the king.270Yehoram ben Achav visits Elisha only amidst a severe crisis during the war against Moav (Melachim II 3). +In stark contrast, when Menachem Begin came to the United States in 1977 after his first election as prime minister, he met with Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, and the Lubavitcher Rebbe.271For a touching video presentation of this great meeting, including original recordings of the Rebbe and Mr. Begin speaking at this very special occasion, see “Menachem Begin and the Rebbe,” archived at www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPQuAQH7uKA. Most notably, Mr. Begin did not ask these great rabbis to come to his hotel room. Instead, Prime Minister Begin traveled to each of them at their respective home bases in Washington Heights, the Lower East Side, and Crown Heights. +It is even recounted that when Begin visited the Rebbe, each wanted to extend to the other the respect to be the first to enter the room. Once again, this stands in stark contrast to the struggle between Yeshayahu HaNavi and Chizkiyahu HaMelech as to who should come to whose residence.272We are under the impression that Chuldah (Melachim II 22:15) is annoyed by the fact that Yoshiyahu does not come to her to seek her counsel. +Begin’s visits to these great rabbis made a major impact on the observant Jewish population. Orthodox Judaism in those times was not at all as strong as it is today, and the Israeli leader traveling to the great rabbis served as a great boost to the Orthodox community. +Begin Averts Civil War +Like Rechav’am,273A thank you to TABC alumnus Netanel Vinar (‘19) for noting this comparison. Begin heroically avoided a civil war when he ordered that the Irgun soldiers about the Altalena refrain from returning fire on the Haganah troops. +Much later in life, during his trip to New York, profoundly foolish and misguided Neturei Karta demonstrators outside of Mr. Begin’s hotel yelled on megaphones that Begin is a Nazi. Mr. Begin was deeply hurt, but gritted his teeth and remarked that a Jew does not fight back against another Jew. Begin’s silence and restraint in the face of vicious vitriol is reminiscent somewhat of Chizkiyahu’s silence in the wake of Ravshakeh’s terrible verbal attack on Hashem and Am Yisrael (Melachim II 18:19-25). +The First Lebanon War +One criticism, though, that is pointed in the direction of Mr. Begin was that he was overly ambitious during the First Lebanon War. Had he simply secured the Galil from rocket attacks, he would have enjoyed the backing of a consensus of the community. However, a large segment of Jews disagreed with Tzahal at that time pushing all the way to Beirut. In retrospect, it might be fair to say that Mr. Begin repeated some of Chizkiyahu HaMelech and Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s overly ambitious military campaigns. +Conclusion +Mr. Begin has achieved status as a twentieth-century Jewish icon. While he may not have been perfect, he was and is widely perceived as a fully sincere individual whose pure concern was for the welfare and benefit of Am Yisrael. His visits to Rabbi Soloveitchik, Rav Feinstein, and the Rebbe rank him in Jewish history as surpassing even the greatest of the Sefer Melachim kings in terms of the respect he accorded to the Torah leadership. + +Sennacherib's Prism; Responding to a Misguided Museum Guide + +A Magnificent Exhibit +It was a most magnificent exhibit at New York’s grand Metropolitan Museum of Art in the fall of 2014. Entitled “Assyria to Iberia at the Dawn of the Classical Age,” the exhibit featured many artifacts from the ancient Middle East, assembled from leading museums from around the world, including the British Museum in London, the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and the Louvre in Paris. +On the day I took three of my children to view this once a lifetime assembly of relics of great importance from the ancient world, there was also a field trip from a certain Yeshivah high school led by a professional guide. I happened to be near the group when I overheard the guide talking about the celebrated “Sennacherib Prism,” which records the Assyrian kings Sancheirev’s conquests throughout the Middle East, including most of Yehudah. +Sennacherib Prism vs. Sefer Melachim +Melachim II 19:35 recounts what is often referred to as “the great smite.” After conquering and wreaking terrible havoc upon most of the cities of Judea, including the second most prominent city of Judea, Lachish, the Assyrians set siege on Yerushalayim.274Chizkiyahu built his famous tunnel to provide water for Jerusalem’s residents during the much-anticipated siege. The wide wall Chizkiyahu built to protect Jerusalem from the siege may be viewed in the Old City of Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter. This wall is referred to in Yeshayahu 22:9–10 and Nechemiah 3:8. Despite the bleak circumstances, Yeshayahu HaNavi prophesies salvation. Finally, after Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s intense Tefillah, on the night of Pesach, the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers die overnight.275Ashkenazim recall these events in the post-Seder poem, “VaYehi BaChatzi HaLayla,” “and it was in the middle of the night of the night.” +In the Sennacherib Prism, after describing how he viciously conquered almost all of Yehudah and exiled more than 200,000 Jews, Sancheirev notes that he trapped Chizkiyahu in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage.” No mention is made of the overnight elimination of his vast army. + +The Jerusalem Sennacherib Prism, +on display at the Israel Museum276Photograph by Hana Yariv - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34452536 +The Misguided Resolution +The tour guide, who was wearing a Kippah and seem to present himself as an Orthodox Jew, offered an appalling resolution of the discrepancies. He said that both documents seek to promote their respective deities. Sancheirev promotes his god by describing his siege on Jerusalem in positive terms, as does the Jewish version. +A Rebuttal +Upon hearing this emerge from the guide, I was tempted to engage the guide in a debate, but my three children urged restraint. They wisely felt it would ignite an unhealthy and ineffective confrontation, and that I would be intruding on another institution’s educational setting. I did, however, soon afterward write to a senior faculty member from that school noting my concern that an Orthodox institution would present to their students the notion that the Tanach is distorted to aggrandize our God, without even including a traditional alternative understanding. The faculty member shared my dismay and promised to address the situation with the school’s administration. +The substantial response is as follows: Sancheirev’s record of his military exploits contains, as is typical of ancient royal records, only flattering records of his campaigns. The Tanach is unique in that it records our failings and flaws in a brutally honest fashion. As noted by Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch,277In his commentary to BeReishit 12:10-13. the fact that the Torah records the faults and fiascos of its heroes and people is an expression of its authenticity. +For example, Melachim I 18 records the devastation wreaked upon Yehudah by Sancheirev’s invasion of the region. Each year on Shabbat Chazon, we read Yeshayahu HaNavi’s report of the utter destruction caused by the Assyrian conquest: “Atzechem Shemama, Areichem Serufot Eish,” “your country is desolate; your cities are burned with fire” (Yeshayahu 1:7). Had the Tanach been distorted to glorify Hashem (heaven forfend), why would it record this terrible destruction in addition to the later and greater Babylonian destruction? +Resolving the Contradiction +Da’at Mikra provides a compelling synthesis of Sefer Melachim and the Sennacherib Prism. Sancheirev boasts that he trapped Chizkiyahu like a bird, which clearly fits with the vivid description of the Assyrian siege in Melachim I 18-19. However, while it does specifically state that he conquered forty-six Judean cities, the Sennacherib Prism does not record that Sancheirev actually conquered Yerushalayim. +Sancheirev is loath to record his retreat and great loss in Jerusalem, and his omission of its conquest in his annals speaks volumes. Moreover, he decorated his palace in Nineveh with huge bas reliefs of his conquest of Judah’s second most prominent city, Lachish (as recorded in Melachim I 18:14). These bas reliefs are currently on display at the British Museum in London, and a replica is hung on the walls of the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.278See the earlier chapter “Achaz and the Assyrians — Can We Find a Way to Excuse Him?” for a photograph of a portion of the reliefs. +Why did Sancheirev make such a big deal about his conquest of Lachish? Had he conquered Jerusalem, wouldn’t have he made a big deal of his conquest of the much more prominent city of Jerusalem? Rather, the grandiose display of his conquest of Lachish serves as mighty testimony of his failure to subdue Jerusalem, in agreement with that which is recorded in Melachim II 19. +Conclusion +In the Modern Orthodox community, we believe in exposing our children to not only Torah sources, but also to other worthwhile material. When studying Tanach, it is indeed of value to expose students to external sources that enrich our understanding of its powerful spiritual messages. However, it is quite another thing to hire an authoritative figure who presents the Tanach as “biased” and inaccurate (Chas VeShalom), without even presenting a traditional Torah response. With the aid of tools such as the Da’at Mikra commentary, we can and must do better. + +Chizkiyahu's Missing Song + +The Missing Song +It very much stands out! Hashem had just made an extraordinary miracle for Chizkiyahu, one not seen since the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua, by smiting the 185,000 Assyrian soldiers on the first night of Pesach to save Yerushalayim from the Assyrians’ vicious conquest. Yet where is the outpouring of song and gratitude to Hashem? The silence of the Pesukim is utterly deafening! Chazal (Sanhedrin 94a) were keenly aware of this lacuna: +The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to designate Chizkiyahu HaMelech as the Mashi’ach and to designate Sancheirev and Assyria, respectively, as Gog and Magog, all from the prophecy of Yechezkeil with regard to the end of days (Yechezkeil 38), and the confrontation between them would culminate in the final redemption. However, this idea was dismissed since Chizkiyahu failed to burst out in grateful song after the miraculous rescue from the Assyrian siege.279See, though, Pesachim 117a, which records that Chizkiyahu did recite Hallel upon the fall of Sancheirev’s besieging army. Perhaps the Gemara condemns Chizkiyahu HaMelech for inadequately thanking Hashem for a miracle whose scale had not been seen since the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua bin Nun. +The Reason He Does Not Sing +It is very easy to understand why Chizkiyahu HaMelech does not lead the nation in song. Presumably, it is because of the vast devastation wrought by the Assyrians throughout Yehudah, save for Jerusalem. Following this utter destruction, no one is in the mood to sing. +A visit to the remains of the destroyed palace in Lachish sheds much light on this episode. The Lachish palace was the second biggest palace of the time, after Chizkiyahu’s in Yerushalayim. Looking at the ruins of this governor’s palace in Lachish, one can see an example of the scope of the devastation Sancheirev’s army had caused throughout all of Eretz Yisrael. Although Chizkiyahu’s life is spared, after the Assyrian devastation of Judah, he is not left with much to rule. Chizkiyahu is almost comparable to a king without a kingdom. +In that great moment of salvation, Chizkiyahu could choose to either act in an optimistic or pessimistic manner. He could be thankful for and emphasize the good that had befallen him, or he could focus on the destruction of his people and kingdom. Sadly, he chose the pessimistic option. +However, Chizkiyahu HaMelech is held accountable for this mistake. He could have rallied the nation to make something great out of something terrible. He could have and should have transformed the vast devastation into the prelude to the Messianic redemption. However, Chizkiyahu failed to capitalize on this rare opportunity and thus lost the nomination for Mashi’ach. +Chizkiyahu Preceded Yechezkeil! +TABC students, however, raised a serious difficulty with this Gemara. How could have Chizkiyahu known about the Milchemet Gog UMagog if Yechezkeil lived considerably later than Chizkiyahu HaMelech? +We suggest that while Yechezkeil formally recorded the idea, the notion of great suffering preceding redemption already appears in the Chumash. Of course, we refer to the Brit Bein HaBetarim, described in BeReishit 15, which describes how we will suffer in slavery in a land not our own before we are released and return to our land with great wealth. Chizkiyahu HaMelech was certainly aware of the Brit Bein HaBetarim!280The Brit Bein HaBetarim is not a one-time event. It is, until the arrival of Mashi’ach, an ongoing cycle of suffering and redemption much like the repeating cycles of suffering and redemption in Sefer Shofetim. +We also may say that Chizkiyahu did not have to be aware of the idea of Milchemet Gog UMagog. Hashem knew about it and was ready to define the Assyrian challenge as the Milchemet Gog UMagog had Chizkiyahu done what he should have and reacted positively in a very challenging situation. +Does Yeshayahu Urge Chizkiyahu to Sing? +If Hashem holds Chizkiyahu HaMelech accountable for not singing, we would have expected that Yeshayahu HaNavi would have urged Chizkiyahu to sing. After all, how would have Chizkiyahu known that Hashem expected him to express his joy specifically in song, and not by some other medium? The answer is that Yeshayahu certainly does instruct Chizkiyahu to sing. Yeshayahu 30 describes how the Navi predicted the fall of Sancheirev. Yeshayahu HaNavi proclaims (Yeshayahu 30:29, see Rashi) “HaShir Yihyeh Lachem KeLeil Hitkadesh Chag,” “You will ring out in song like is done the first evening of Pesach.”281Both Rashi (Melachim II 20:1 s.v. Chalah Chizkiyahu) and Radak (Melachim II 19:35) cite Chazal’s assertion that the great miracle of the fall of Sancheirev’s army occurred on the first night of Pesach. +Our Tikkun for the Missing Song +Chizkiyahu’s failure to rally our nation in song after the great smite is surely a mistake of monumental proportions. Nonetheless, we make up for this missed opportunity by singing about it during Hallel in the Beit HaKenesset according to the Sephardic practice282The basis for those who recite Hallel on the night of Pesach is Yeshayahu 30:29 (see Rashi) which states “HaShir Yihyeh Lachem KeLeil Hitkadeish Chag.” and the poem of “VaYehi BaChatzi HaLayla” according to Ashkenazic practice. This poem lists all the miracles that, according to Chazal, occurred on the first night of Pesach, including the destruction of Sancheirev’s army besieging Jerusalem. +Conclusion +The Gemara (Berachot 59b) states that when one hears of his father’s death, he should recite two Berachot if there is an inheritance. He recites Dayan Emet upon the death and Shehechiyanu upon the joy of the inheritance. This Halachah seems callous and unfeeling. How could one possibly recite a Shehechiyahu upon the death of a beloved parent? +The answer is that the Torah demands us to focus on the good even in the midst of a catastrophe. The challenge to focus on the positive even when enveloped in deep sorrow is one which Chizkiyahu HaMelech fails to meet. The true Tikkun for Chizkiyahu’s lapse is to rise out in song and rejoice in the good that Hashem has bestowed even when engulfed in a sea of disappointment. +Postscript +Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky is cited (Emet LeYaakov Y.D. 265:12 footnote 178) as ruling that an Ashkenazic family is entitled to refrain from conducting a Shalom Zachor if the baby boy is afflicted with Down’s Syndrome. He also is quoted as urging refraining from saying Mazal Tov to parents who had a child with Down’s Syndrome. +However, Rav Mordechai Willig wished me a “double Mazal Tov” when my daughter Chaya Zipporah (who has Down’s Syndrome) was born. With all the great respect and reverence we maintain for Rav Yaakov, refraining from rejoicing and pouring out thanks to Hashem upon the birth of a child with this disability seems to be a repeat of Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s mistake.283On the other hand, one may defend Rav Yaakov by arguing that he is seeking to avoid rubbing salt into the family’s wounds. The family may find it hurtful to conduct a Shalom Zachor or be wished a Mazal Tov. On the other hand, Rav Willig explained to me why it is a blessing to have a child like Chaya Zipporah and why the birth of such a child warrants a “double Mazal Tov.” My wife and I derived and continue to derive a great deal of comfort and encouragement from these wise words. +Instead of focusing on the negative, we should focus on the positive. The Lubavitcher Rebbe famously told wounded veterans from the Yom Kippur War that when Hashem takes an ability away, He creates an extra ability to counterbalance the loss. Our daughter Chaya Zipporah has brought great joy and Berachah to our family and community, and the Jachter family continues to ring out in grateful song to Hashem for Chaya Zipporah.284We are also grateful to all the community members who have contributed to the very high quality of life that Chaya Zipporah enjoys. + +Think Good and it Will Be Good; Chizkiyahu and Menashe + +Positive Thinking Yields Positive Results +The Lubavitcher Rebbe is famous for often asserting “Tracht Gut Vet Zein Gut,” “think good and it will be good.” Many will testify to the wisdom of this advice. Positive thinking creates a positive momentum, which itself often generates positive results. Unfortunately, the opposite is true as well. Kohelet 7:14 teaches that “Zeh Le’Umat Zeh Asa Elokim,” “Hashem has made the one as well as the other.” Hashem creates counterparts; the world is balanced. Hence, positive thinking has the potential in itself to generate positive results, and negative thinking, on the other hand, has the potential to yield negative results. +Negative thinking can create its own negative dynamic, which can lead to very negative outcomes. We believe that this is the case in regard to Chizkiyahu HaMelech and his son and successor Menashe. +Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s Refusal to Marry +Chazal (Berachot 10a) teach that Chizkiyahu HaMelech is punished with a deadly illness (recorded in Melachim II 20) for his refusal to marry. Radak (Melachim II 20:1) notes that the Pesukim support Chazal’s assertion. Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s life is extended fifteen years after his Tefillah for recovery is accepted. Menashe, who is presumably Chizkiyahu’s firstborn son (since he is the successor to the crown) ascends the throne at age twelve (Melachim II 21:1).285Radak writes that the words of Chazal are “Emet,” “truth.” Presumably, he means to say that they may be taken literally. Radak writes this since he is a follower of Rambam, who believes that not every Aggadic statement of Chazal is meant to be taken literally. Thus, it appears that Chizkiyahu does not have any children who are eligible for the throne until three years after his recovery. +Chizkiyahu and Ru’ach HaKodesh +The Gemara (ibid.) records Chizkiyahu’s explanation to Yeshayahu as to the reason for his refusal to marry: +I see with Ru’ach HaKodesh (a lower form of Nevu’ah) that I am going to bear sons who will be improper. +One, however, must question Chizkiyahu’s report. Since when is Chizkiyahu a beneficiary of Ru’ach HaKodesh? He needs to send a delegation to Yeshayahu HaNavi to decide as to whether he should surrender or continue to resist the Assyrian siege (Melachim II 19). Nor is he able to foresee that his rebellion against the Assyrians will lead to a colossal disaster. There appears to be no evidence that Chizkiyahu has Ru’ach haKodesh. +We suggest, rather, that Chizkiyahu HaMelech convinces himself that he receives Ru’ach HaKodesh concerning the character of his children.286This interpretation is inspired by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s understanding of Elisha ben Avuyah’s report of a Bat Kol (heavenly voice) saying he was barred from Teshuvah (Chagigah 15a) as a figment of Elisha ben Avuyah’s imagination. In reality, he does not have Ru’ach HaKodesh, and his sons are not destined to be wicked. However, we suggest, Chizkiyahu’s unnecessary fears generate a momentum that creates an environment that leads to Menashe’s development as a wicked individual. +Menashe Emerges as a Rasha +Menashe is born to Chizkiyahu when the latter is forty-two years of age. The former ascends the throne at age twelve. Let us imagine what would have been the result had Chizkiyahu fathered Menashe twenty years earlier, when he was twenty-two. Menashe would have assumed power at the mature age of thirty-two! Instead, he takes control at a very vulnerable age. Moreover, he assumes the throne at an age that has the potential to be fraught with rebelliousness. +Therefore, it is not shocking that Menashe emerges to be the exact opposite of his extremely righteous father. Had Menashe assumed the throne at a mature age not prone to rebellion, he would have likely acted in a dramatically different manner. At the very least, his terrible reign would have been twenty years shorter and made a less negative impact. +In addition, had Menashe been born to Chizkiyahu HaMelech at an earlier age, Menashe would have had more years under the tutelage and influence of his very righteous father. Thus, Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s fear and anxiety about his son are a contributing cause of his son’s rebellion! +Conclusion – Anxiety Creates its Own Problems +The importance of practicing positive thinking and avoiding negative thinking cannot be emphasized sufficiently. While we cannot control the outcome of our endeavors, we do control our thoughts. Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s unnecessary anxiety serves as a potent lesson as to the crucial importance of avoiding negativity. Chizkiyahu is, according to our understanding, the personification of the well-known aphorism, “there is nothing to fear but fear itself.” + +Chizkiyahu Requests a Sign + +A Seemingly Irreverent Request +A righteous king does not seem to be acting so righteously! When Chizkiyahu HaMelech, as recorded in Melachim II 20, is informed by Yeshayahu HaNavi that Hashem has heard his Tefillot and has extended his life by fifteen years, he requests an Ot (sign) to verify the promise. Why does Chizkiyahu HaMelech not take Yeshayahu HaNavi at his word? +Radak’s Approach +Radak explains that Chizkiyahu HaMelech is concerned that Yeshayahu HaNavi is merely trying to calm him, since the former bursts into tears when he is told that he will die.287TABC alumnus Binyamin Jachter (‘17) notes that this approach seems difficult, as it is one thing to lie to preserve someone’s feelings. However, it is quite another to prophesy falsely in the name of Hashem! Thus, it seems very difficult to presume that Chizkiyahu suspects Yeshayahu of speaking falsely in Hashem’s name merely to calm the king. The Ot is intended to demonstrate that Yeshayahu HaNavi is serious, and does not merely aim to soothe Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s feelings through his words. +Ralbag +Ralbag explains that Chizkiyahu HaMelech is keenly aware that a decree from Hashem is negotiable. Indeed, the Gemara (Berachot 10a) relates that Chizkiyahu HaMelech had a tradition from his royal ancestors that even a most difficult decree can be overturned with Tefillah. The converse should apply as well. A positive decree can be overturned with poor behavior (as noted by Tosafot288Although Rambam disagrees, as we discuss elsewhere. to Yevamot 50a). +Chizkiyahu HaMelech also is aware that a divine promise accompanied by an Ot cannot be overturned. For example, Hashem complements His promise to Noach that he will not bring another Mabul (flood), with an Ot of a rainbow to reassure Noach that the promise is ironclad. +Accordingly, Chizkiyahu HaMelech asks for an Ot as a reassurance that the promise of extra life will not be rescinded due to less than excellent compliance with Hashem’s expectations. +The Metzudat David +The Metzudat David offers a different approach to this issue. According to his approach, Chizkiyahu HaMelech never asks for an Ot. Instead, he proclaims “what a great Ot it would be when Hashem will heal me from my terrible illness!”289TABC students remarked that his explanation appears to be a bit of a forced reading of the text. This Pasuk includes the word “Ki,” which reads that the Ot confirms that the Refu’ah (recovery) will arrive, and not that the Refu’ah itself constitutes the Ot. Yeshayahu responds to this by saying that Hashem had already planned to send him a separate Ot that he will be healed. +A New Suggestion – A Tikkun for Achaz +We suggest a new approach based on the concept of Tikkun, that a later generation can rectify an earlier generation’s sins. Achaz, as recorded in Yeshayahu 7, is offered an Ot by Yeshayahu HaNavi to reassure him that he can withstand the invasion of the coalition of Pekach ben Ramalyahu and Melech Aram, as well as the looming threat of Ashur. Achaz, in turn, flippantly and disrespectfully rejects the Ot offer, and stubbornly clings to his destructive plan to submit to Ashur. +When Yeshayahu HaNavi makes him an extraordinary promise, Chizkiyahu HaMelech, we suggest, sees an opportunity to repair his father’s sin. He, unlike his father, will ask for an Ot from Yeshayahu HaNavi to support this seemingly impossible promise. Hardly a means to dishonor or disrespect Yeshayahu HaNavi, Chizkiyahu HaMelech is eager to express, and we suggest that Yeshayahu HaNavi is eager to hear, his willingness to see an Ot support the Navi’s extraordinary claim. +Conclusion – Evidence to Our Suggestion +Our suggestion of Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s rectification of Achaz’s impudence fits with two teachings of Chazal. We cited in an earlier chapter the Gemara (Sanhedrin 104a), which states that Achaz is not denied a place in Olam HaBa due to the merit of his righteous son, Chizkiyahu. Our suggestion certainly goes hand in hand with this notion. +Our suggestion also fits with Chazal’s explanation of Chizkiyahu’s Ot (Sanhedrin 96a, cited by Rashi to Melachim II 20:11). Chazal teach that the sun retreated ten steps to recover from the ten steps it moved forward on the day of Achaz’s funeral. The sun moved forward on that day to prompt the expedient burial of the sinful Achaz without granting him the honor of eulogies. The sun moved backward, on the other hand, to honor the righteous Chizkiyahu. Therefore, it emerges that Chizkiyahu’s Ot is in and of itself an expression of Chizkiyahu’s remediation of Achaz’s wrongdoings. + +Minimizing or Maximizing the Miracle of Chizkiyahu's Recovery + +Peshat vs. Derash Regarding Miracles +Broadly speaking, Mepharshim, commentators on Tanach, can be divided into two camps: Pashtanim, commentators who focus on the straightforward meaning of the text, and Darshanim, commentators who employ the use of Midrash in their interpretations. TABC alumnus Yoni Bierig (‘08) set forth an important principle: Darshanim are inclined to maximize miracles, while Pashtanim tend to minimize them. Of course, while all believing Jews believe in miracles, there are various opinions regarding their extent and scope. +A good example of this phenomenon is the difference in the approaches of Rashi, a Midrash-based commentary, and Ibn Ezra, a classic Pashtan, in regard to their understanding of Makkat Choshech, the plague of darkness (Shemot 10). Rashi expands the scope of this plague, citing the Midrashim which state that the Egyptians were frozen in place for six consecutive days. Ibn Ezra, by contrast, writes that for three days the Egyptians were unable to leave their homes. +An advantage of the approach that maximizes miracles is the magnification Hashem’s grandeur and great impact. On the other hand, the minimization of miracles fits with Hashem’s general agenda to motivate us to find Him, using imagery from Shir HaShirim 2:9, hiding behind the “window and latticework” (i.e. the world’s secular veneer). +Chizkiyahu’s Three Miracles +An example of this Peshat and Derash dichotomy can be found in the context of Chizkiyahu’s miraculous recovery from his deathly illness (Melachim II 20). Rashi and Ralbag’s disagreements about three aspects of this episode perhaps reflect their respective tendencies to magnify or minimize miracles. +Figs on Shechin +One dispute concerns Yeshayahu HaNavi’s placement of figs on Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s Shechin (boils) as part of his recovery. Ralbag writes that figs can treat Shechin. As Hashem prefers to not deviate from the natural functioning of the world, He tells Yeshayahu to use figs. Rashi, by contrast, writes that figs aggravate Shechin and that Chizkiyahu’s recovery can be classified as a Neis BeToch Neis, a miracle within a miracle, or a double miracle. While we are not experts in the efficacy of the fig’s curative powers, we may view these different perspectives as reflective of fundamentally different perspectives towards miracles. +The Retreat of the Sun +The same may be said for the different approaches of Rashi and Ralbag in regard to the retreat of the sundial as a sign to Chizkiyahu HaMelech of his forthcoming recovery. Rashi (Melachim II 20:11-12) comments that the sun retreated for the entire world. The Abarbanel and Ralbag, by contrast, limit the scope of the miracle. Abarbanel believes the sun retreated only at the sundial, and Ralbag understands that the sun only appeared to retreat. +Simultaneous National Rescue +Finally, it seems that the Peshat/Derash dichotomy as applied to miracles lies at the heart of one more dispute between Rashi and Ralbag. Rashi believes that Chizkiyahu’s miraculous recovery occurs simultaneously with the miraculous rescue of Yerushalayim (Melachim II 19:35). This, together with the sun’s global retreat, combines to create a miracle of colossal proportions. +Ralbag, though, believes that Chizkiayhu’s recovery from severe illness occurs after the great smite of the Assyrian army. Although Melachim II 20:6 supports Rashi, as noted by Abarbanel, Ralbag interprets it in a different manner. Melachim II 20:6 records the divine promise to Chizkiyahu HaMelech to extend his life by fifteen years in tandem with the divine promise to save Yerushalayim from the Assyrian emperor. Ralbag, though, suggests that Sancheirev’s successor Aisar Chadon also set his eye on Yerushalayim, and the promise to rescue Yerushalayim does not refer to Sancheirev’s siege described in Melachim II 19.290Da’at Mikra does not adopt this approach presumably because Assyrian records do not support this documentation, as there is no evidence that Aisar Chadon sought to attack Yerushalayim. We may respond on behalf of Ralbag that Chizkiyahu HaMelech might still fear a forthcoming Assyrian attack, and Hashem, therefore, seeks to calm Chizkiyahu with His promise. Ralbag, in any event, seems to shy away from Rashi’s magnification and conflation of the two miracles due to his preference to restrain a miracle’s scope. +Conclusion +Derash and Peshat, in general, can both serve to better our understanding of the Tanach. The Derash and Peshat approaches to the interpretation of miracles emphasize the different modes in which Hashem operates the world. On the one hand, Hashem can perform magnificent miracles that override the natural order. On the other hand, it is critical to recognize Hashem’s hand in the natural functioning of the world. Both approaches come together to praise Hashem’s involvement in our lives and are thus both valuable. + +No Old, Bold Pilots; A Bold Perspective on Chizkiyahu + +Overambition +There is a saying in the British Royal Airforce: “There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” In a similar vein, it is said about investing on Wall Street that “bulls make money, bears make money, [and] pigs get slaughtered.” These sayings, sadly, seem to apply to Chizkiyahu HaMelech. +Both Chizkiyahu HaMelech and Yoshiyahu HaMelech take bold steps that eventually lead to the destruction of the first Beit HaMikdash.291As noted by TABC student Daniel Becker (‘20). It is terribly ironic that these two Tzaddikim of unprecedented stature manage to make such serious mistakes. The common denominator in both cases is that their overambition leads to the nation’s downfall. +Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s two overly bold actions are his rebellion against Assyria (Melachim II 18:7) and his alliance with the Babylonians (Melachim II 20:12-13). Likewise, Yoshiyahu acts too boldly when he seeks to halt the Egyptian army’s travel through Eretz Yisrael (Melachim II 23:29). +This is similar to Shlomo HaMelech, who is overambitious in his quest to bring recognition of Hashem to the entire world, thereby wreaking havoc on the Bnei Yisrael, in both the short and long term. In later generations, R. Akiva would repeat this error by supporting Bar Kochva’s quixotic quest to expel the Romans from Eretz Yisrael. +Tzadik VeRa Lo +Chizkiyahu HaMelech is almost unprecedented in his righteousness. He removes Avodah Zarah, and, in his effort to rid Yehudah of Avodah Zarah, even grinds up the venerated Nechash HaNechoshet, the copper snake made by Moshe Rabbeinu at the behest of Hashem, since it had become an object of misguided worship.292One may speculate that the worship of the Nechash HaNechoshet fits perfectly with Achaz’s agenda to blend Judaism with Assyrian idolatry. Worshipping the Nechash HaNechoshet is a “Jewish” way of worshipping Avodah Zarah in Achaz’s perverse perspective. Chizkiyahu HaMelech grinds up this priceless and hallowed artifact to make a very clear statement that he has no tolerance for any form of Avodah Zarah. +The Mishnah (Pesachim 4:9) adds that Chizkiyahu degrades the bones of his evil father at his funeral to make it absolutely clear that his reign will be dramatically different than that of Achaz. Finally, and most dramatically, he is the first king to remove the Bamot. No wonder Ralbag293Contrast, though, Ralbag’s interpretation with that of Radak and the Malbim. understands Melachim II 18:5 as praising Chizkiyahu as a king whose righteousness exceeds that of David HaMelech. +Yet despite this great level of piety, immense suffering befalls Yehudah during Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s reign. The Sennacherib Prism, supported by the Tanach, describes Assyrian emperor Sancheirev’s utter destruction of forty-six Judean cities, and the taking of more than two hundred thousand Jews as prisoners to Assyria. Jerusalem is saved only by the tremendous miracle of the 185,000 Assyrians soldiers dying overnight (“the great smite”). Why does such misery befall our people during the reign of the righteous Chizkiyahu? +Yeshayahu HaNavi offers an explanation in the opening chapter of the Sefer that bears his name.294Da’at Mikra offers overwhelming evidence that the chapter addresses the time after the Assyrian destruction of most of Yehudah (except for Yerushalayim) during the reign of Chizkiyahu. While Chizkiyahu HaMelech does improve the Beit HaMikdash and other areas of Avodat Hashem, the Bnei Yisrael remain grievously deficient in their interpersonal relationships and exercise of fair judgment (see Yeshayahu 1:11, 1:17, 1:23). +Rebellion Against Assyria – A Mistake? +We add, based on Divrei HaYamim II 32:25-26, that Chizkiyahu is overconfident and overambitious. Divrei HaYamim actually states that Chizkiyahu suffers from overconfidence: “VeLo Kigemul Alav Heishiv Yechizkiyahu Ki Gavah Libo VaYehi Alav Ketzef Ve’Al Yehudah VeYerushalayim,” “Chizkiyahu made no return for what had been bestowed upon him, for he grew arrogant; so wrath was decreed for him and for Yehudah and Yerushalayim” (Divrei HaYamim II 32:25). Indeed, while his reversal of his father Achaz’s policy of caving in to the idolatrous culture of the Assyrians is most necessary, heroic, and even successful, one could question the wisdom of his refusal to continue to pay tribute to the Assyrians. +Da’at Mikra mentions that the death of the Assyrian emperor Sargon on the battlefield in what is today Turkey, and the loss of his body to his enemy, emboldens Chizkiyahu HaMelech to rebel. However, this is a severe miscalculation, and Yehudah suffers tremendously as a result. +Chizkiyahu HaMelech might think that he can overcome the Assyrian powerhouse by virtue of the spiritual success he brings to Yehudah. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 94b) elucidates: +What did he [Chizkiyahu] do? – He planted a sword by the door of the schoolhouse and proclaimed, “He who will not study the Torah will be pierced by the sword.” Search was made from Dan unto Be’eir Sheva, and no ignoramus was found, from Gavat unto Antipatris and no boy or girl, man or woman was found who was not thoroughly versed in the laws of cleanliness and uncleanliness.295Translation adapted from Israel, Rabbi Alex. “Shiur #22: Chapter 18 - The Rise of King Chizkiyahu.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Yeshivat Har Etzion, 19 Jan. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-22-chapter-18-rise-king-chizkiyahu. +Chizkiyahu HaMelech may believe that the merit of all of this Torah study and knowledge will enable him to ward off the Assyrians. Yeshayahu 1 makes it clear that Chizkyahu HaMelech not only miscalculates his military strategy, but also fails to realize the nation’s decrepit spiritual standing. +Melachim II 18:7 states that “Hashem was always with him [Chizkiyahu]; he was successful wherever he turned; he rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him.” Notice that the rebellion is presented separately from the description of Chizkiyahus’s wise and successful actions. This indicates that the rebellion was neither wise nor successful. +The Alliance with Babylon +Chizkiyahu HaMelech falls into a long-standing dysfunctional pattern in Sefer Melachim. Asa bribes Aram to save him from the Ba’asha Melech Yisrael, and Aram remains a prolonged nuisance until the days of Achaz. Achaz then bribes the Assyrians to rid Yehudah of Aram, in turn bringing the Assyrian menace to Yehudah. +Almost inexplicably, Chizkiyahu HaMelech allies with Bavel (Melachim II 20) to rid Eretz Yisrael of the Assyrians. Bavel later grabs control of Eretz Yisrael and destroys the Beit HaMikdash. Why does Chizkiyahu repeat the terrible errors of Asa and Achaz? + +A Cycle of Broken Alliances +Once again, Chizkiyahu, instead of adopting Yeshayahu HaNavi’s “Hishameir VeHashkeit” approach (see Yeshayahu 7), seeks to resist Assyria by allying with Bavel. One would think that the devastation wrought by Sancheirev’s invasion of Yehudah teaches Chizkiyahu a lesson. Unfortunately, Chizkiyahu acts in an overambitious manner, to the long-term detriment of the Bnei Yisrael. +R. Yochanan ben Zakkai Learns the Lesson +Fortunately, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai learned from these mistakes and internalized Yeshayahu HaNavi’s message of “Mei Shilo’ach HoHolechim Le’at,” “the waters of Shilo’ach (Jerusalem’s river) run slowly” (Yeshayahu 8:6). The Bnei Yisrael are an eternal people, attached to the eternal Torah. Eternal people should play the long game, and act with prudence and moderation. +It is for this reason that R. Yochanan ben Zakkai makes modest requests (Hatzalah Purta) from Vespasian, instead of making the bold request to spare Yerushalayim and the Beit HaMikdash (Gittin 56). It is not for naught that the Gemara (Berachot 28b with Rashi) relates that Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s Neshamah (spirit, soul) comes to escort the Neshamah of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai to Gan Eden. Chizkiyahu HaMelech serves as a potent response to the critics of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai, who claimed that he was too cautious with Vespasian.296Chizkiyahu HaMelech, as noted by TABC student Daniel Rothstein (‘20), also may serve as a basis for why R. Yochanan ben Zakkai remained silent when Vespasian challenged him with the claim “if a serpent lurks on a barrel of honey, does not one break the barrel when eliminating the serpent?” Critics such as R. Akiva claimed R. Yochanan ben Zakkai should have responded: “one should take tongs, remove the serpent, and leave the barrel of honey intact.” R. Yochanan ben Zakkai could have responded by invoking the precedent of Chikiyahu HaMelech’s insistence that no one respond to Ravshakeh’s toxic messages (Melachim II 18). Sometimes responding even an effective response to a person in power inflames the situation. In the extremely delicate negotiation with Vespasian, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai used the Chizkiyahu precedent to exercise great caution and diplomacy. R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s goal was not to win the argument. He may he felt it worth allowing Vespasian to feel he won that verbal bout. Instead, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai focused on his goal of achieving Hatzala Purta, a moderate victory, which ultimately ensured the survival of Am Yisrael and Torat Yisrael. +The Maccabee Exception +Why then do we celebrate the Chashmona’im for their bold stand against the Syrian-Greeks? They seemingly acted similar to Chizkiyahu and Bar Kochva in their taking on the world’s superpower of the time. +The answer is that Hashem guarantees that the Torah and the Jewish people will last forever (VaYikra 26:44-45, et al.). The Syrian-Greeks sought to eliminate Torah, and thus the Chashmona’im were divinely assured of victory in their quest to preserve it. This was a most necessary and unavoidable war. By contrast, Torah life was able to function under Assyrian domination and later Roman domination (albeit with considerable difficulty). Thus, the wars waged by Chizkiyahu HaMelech and Bar Kochva against far greater powers were both unnecessary and dismal failures. +However, it should be noted that the Chashmona’im were also guilty of being too ambitious for their own good and grabbing control of the kingship.297Noted by TABC alumnus Alex Ostrin (‘19). As we know, Ramban (BeReishit 49:10) is highly critical of the Chashmona’im for usurping the kingship from the Davidic line. This overambitious stance, as is well known, led to the eventual demise of the Hasmonean family.298Another major contributor to their demise was their ill-advised alliance with Rome, which followed the same unfortunate pattern of many of the kings of Sefer Melachim to import a major world power to resolve a short-term problem which brought, in turn, a colossal long-term problem. +We may add that the same applies to the Assyrian siege on Yerushalayim. Although Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s decision to rebel is a poor one, after he rebels and the Assyrians set siege to Jerusalem, he is unable to surrender to Sancheirev without risking the loss of the Torah and Judaism. For this reason, we suggest, Yeshayahu HaNavi (aside from direct prophecy) advises Chizkiyahu HaMelech to hold out during the siege and await a forthcoming miracle that will deliver the Jews from Assyria. The miracle and the resistance to the siege are both necessary to preserve the Torah and Am Yisrael. +Conclusion – Be Ambitious but Cautious +Why does Sefer Melachim fault Yehoshafat HaMelech for not acting with sufficient spiritual ambition and building on his father Asa’s momentum by eliminating the Bamot?299Asked by TABC student Daniel Rothstein (‘20). See the earlier chapter “Underappreciated Asa,” for a more complete discussion of this issue. The answer is that life is a delicate balance. Yehoshafat is at fault for not being sufficiently bold, and Chizkiyahu is at fault for not being sufficiently cautious. +R. Nachman of Bratzlav famously observed “Kol Ha’Olam Kulo Gesher Tzar Me’od,” “the entire world is a very narrow bridge.” Much of life is a delicate balancing act. May Hashem give us the wisdom of knowing when to act with ambition, and when it is wiser to act with restraint. + +The Tense Relationship Between Two Tzaddikim + +Chikiyahu vs. Yeshayahu +The intensity of the exchange jumps out of the pages of the Tanach (Melachim II 20:14-19). Yeshayahu HaNavi is infuriated at Chizkiyahu HaMelech for allying with the Babylonians. Yeshayahu proclaims that this alliance will cause nothing less than the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash in a future generation. +For his part, Chizkiyahu HaMelech does not back down. He unhesitatingly and confidently responds that Hashem’s word does not disturb him since all will be well during his time (Melachim II 20:19). +What sort of a response is this? We hardly expect such a self-centered focus from an exceptional Tzaddik such as Chizkiyahu HaMelech! +Understanding Chizkiyahu HaMelech +To understand Chizkiyahu’s response, we must consider his perception of the Melech’s role. He understands that a Melech, as opposed to perhaps a Navi, must be concerned with the current situation. Chizkiyahu HaMelech believes that his responsibility is to deal with the extraordinarily dangerous Assyrian menace. If allying with Bavel will bring security to Yehudah during his time, then he has executed his duties responsibly. +Moreover, Chizkiyahu HaMelech is keenly aware that, as many recite on the Yamim Nora’im, “UTeshuvah, UTefillah, UTzedakah Ma’avirin Et Ro’a HaGezeirah,” Hashem’s decrees can be overturned by repentance, prayer, and charity. After all, Chizkiyahu successfully overrides the decree that ordered that he will die from his illness by his heartfelt Tefillah in the first half of Melachim II 20. Thus, he does not fear the newly issued decree’s impact on later generations, since later generations can overturn the decree through Teshuvah, Tefillah, and Tzedakah. And that endeavor, argues Chizkiyahu, will be the responsibility of a later generation’s leadership. +Melech vs. Navi +The Gemara (Berachot 10a) recounts a similar dialogue that reflects the inherent tension that exists between a Melech and Navi. Yeshayahu presents the decree that Chizkyahu will die from his illness in absolute terms. Chizkiyahu in turn, responds with a tradition from his royal ancestors that posits that divine decrees may be overturned: “Even if a sharpened sword is laid upon one’s neck, he should not refrain from Tefillah.” +This inherent tension is also reflected in the debate the Gemara records between Chizkiyahu HaMelech and Yeshayahu HaNavi as to who should visit whom. The conflict concerns whose authority reigns supreme.300A similar debate rages between Yiftach and Pinechas as to who should go to whom to release Yiftach’s daughter from her vow (as recorded in a Midrash cited by Tosafot to Ta'anit 4a s.v. VeHaynu). This also reflects the tension between the spiritual and temporal leaders. See this author’s discussion of a modern day application regarding a conflict between a Rosh Yeshiva and Israeli Prime Minister, archived at www.koltorah.org/halachah/disobeying-orders-in-tzahal-israel-defense-forces-part-one-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter. +A Reversal +Most interestingly, these roles are reversed regarding Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s refusal to marry and bear children. As we have previously noted, the Gemara (Berachot 10a) explains that Chizkiyahu’s refusal stems from his having perceived with Ru’ach HaKodesh (a lower form of prophecy) that his son Menashe will emerge as an evil leader. Yeshayahu, in turn, responds that he should not focus on these heavenly matters. Rather, he should focus solely on his human responsibilities, and leave the rest to Hashem. +In this exchange, Chizkiyahu functions in prophetic mode, whereas Yeshayahu speaks as would a king. Not surprisingly, Chizkiyahu HaMelech relents in this instance, as he realizes that he is adopting a most unkingly approach. +A Compromise +The Gemara concludes that Chizkiyahu and Yeshayahu agree to a means to overcome the forecast of the evil of Chzikiyahu’s son. Chizkiyahu will marry Yeshayahu’s daughter! The Gemara describes this as a compromise between two genuine Tzaddikim. +In describing both Chizkiyahu and Yeshayahu as Tzaddikim, the Gemara validates both the kingly/Chizkiyahu and Navi/Yeshayahu approaches. There is no superior approach; rather, a balance needs to be struck between matters of national and individual concern. +Conclusion +The tension inherent between the Navi and king reflects the tensions that fill so many of our lives: the competing pulls of the temporal and the spiritual, the long term and the short term, and the ideal and the real. With Hashem’s help, in the spirit of Chizkiyahu HaMelech’s marriage to Yeshayahu HaNavi’s daughter, may we all merit to strike an appropriate balance between these competing aspects. + +Understanding, But Not Justifying Menashe + +The Evil Menashe +Menashe is bad. Bad to the bone. Melachim II 21 gives the impression that Menashe is eager to violate the Torah in any manner possible. He even introduces idolatry into the Beit HaMikdash! Moreover, he murders anyone who opposes his aggressive campaign to proliferate idolatry throughout the kingdom (Melachim II 21:16 with Da’at Mikra). The Gemara (Yevamot 49b) records that Menashe even grinds up his own grandfather Yeshayahu HaNavi when the latter rebukes him for his wayward behavior. Why is Menashe so driven to violate the Torah in the extreme?301As asked by TABC student Mendel Aizikovitch (‘20). +Menashe and R. Ashi +The Gemara (Sanhedrin 102b) relates that at the end of Shiur one day, R. Ashi announced to his Talmidim, that “tomorrow we will learn about our ‘friend’ Menashe,” in a derogatory tone. At this point, R. Ashi, based on his learning of Melachim II 21, had nothing but disdain for Menashe. +Menashe then appeared to R. Ashi in a dream and scolded him for degrading him. Menashe demonstrated his spiritual prowess by teaching R. Ashi a Halachah the great redactor of the Talmud did not know. R. Ashi, in turn, asked Menashe that given his advanced spiritual level, why he engaged in such egregious violations of the Torah. Menashe famously responded that “had you lived in my era you would have engaged in even worse behavior!” +R. Ashi, clearly shaken by this experience, changed his tune and began his Shiur about Menashe “let us learn about the great ones who failed.” +The Standard Explanation +The standard explanation for Menashe’s behavior is that he lives in an age before the Anshei Kenesset HaGedolah (Yoma 69a) convinced Hashem to abolish the Yetzer Hara (evil inclination) for Avodah Zarah. Thus, Menashe is consumed with Avodah Zarah due to the raging Yetzer Hara for idolatry that reigns during his lifetime. +However, this explanation is insufficient. After all, so many people and kings lived in the days before the repeal of the Avodah Zarah inclination, and no one is described as having acted as poorly as did Menashe. The fact that he acted in such an extremely negative manner, as compared to almost all others, renders the Yetzer Hara explanation quite inadequate. +Understanding Menashe’s Context +To understand Menashe’s answer to R. Ashi, we must attempt to put ourselves in his shoes. +Menashe’s grandfather Achaz adopts a pro-Assyrian policy on the military, financial, and even religious levels. He understands that if he does not capitulate to the Assyrians, his subjects will all experience the most gruesome of deaths. Thus, he encourages the adoption of some Assyrian practices in the Beit HaMikdash and elsewhere. Under Achaz’s rule, life in Judea reasonably functions as an Assyrian vassal state. Therefore, Menashe likely views Achaz as a successful king. +On the other hand, Menashe’s father, Chizkiyahu, fully upholds the Torah and is ready to engage the Assyrians in war. However, after Chizkiyahu refuses to pay them tribute, the Assyrians decimate many cities in the Yehudah region and take more than two-hundred thousand Jewish men and women as prisoners. In Menashe’s evaluation, Chizkiyahu’s policies were complete failures, as they brought about the destruction of much of the Southern Kingdom. +We suggest that this is what the Gemara means when it records that Menashe told R. Ashi that “had you lived in my era you would have acted worse.” Menashe means that the threat of the Assyrians bore great pressure on the Melech, and his evaluation of the prior two royal reigns’ policies led him to a conclusion to which even R. Ashi would have easily been attracted to had he lived during that period. +Explaining vs. Justifying Menashe +Let us be extremely clear: the Gemara in no way is coming to justify Menashe’s atrocious behavior. Rather, it teaches a profoundly important message for us to accord a modicum of respect to Menashe when we delve into his life. We should respect the fact that he faced formidable challenges, with which he failed to deal successfully. +We seriously err if we view Menashe as someone who sinned gratuitously. He faced serious challenges to which, had we been in his shoes, we may have readily succumbed. +This Gemara most certainly is not intended to justify Menashe’s behavior. He is fully held accountable for his poor decisions. He could have placated the Assyrians by paying the heavy tribute, while at the same time fully maintaining the religious integrity of what should be a Torah society. In this manner, he could have skirted the Assyrian menace while remaining fully loyal to the Torah. Unfortunately, Menashe did not choose this route. +Conclusion +Everyone faces challenges in life. Sometimes, these challenges are particularly tough. No matter how difficult the challenges, we are expected to overcome them and maintain our Torah values and lifestyle. We should not mock Menashe for his spiritual failures. Instead, we should leave with the sober message that if we do not maintain high standards and remain steadfast in our commitment and adherence to the Torah, we too can easily slip down a similar destructive path. + +Ambivalent Feelings Concerning Menashe's Teshuvah + +A Chassidic Story +Chassidim are fond of recounting the following story:302This version of the story is recounted at www.ascentofsafed.com/cgi-bin/ascent.cgi?Name=416-05. +The townsfolk of Nikolsburg were not chasidim, and they disapproved of the seemingly odd behavior of their communal rabbi, Rabbi Shmuel-Shmelke Horowitz, who was a Chassidic rebbe. The most prominent burghers therefore called a meeting, decided to dismiss him, and instructed the synagogue attendant to inform the rabbi of their decision. +This shammes, who was a simple fellow, but honest and upright, asked them why they had suddenly decided to do such a thing. +"It is no business of yours," they told him brusquely. "Your job is to do as you're told." +But since the shammes pressed for an answer to his question, they told him simply that Rabbi Shmelke's odd behavior made him unfit for the post of rabbi. +The shammes was insistent: "I know for a fact that our rabbi is a perfect tzadik." +His employers knew their shammes to be a truthful man, so they asked him: "How do you know that he is a tzadik?" +"Very well," he answered. "As you know, it is the custom in this city for someone to knock on the doors of all the Jewish townsfolk before dawn, to wake everyone up for the morning service of the Creator. And as the synagogue attendant, that task became mine. Every night I go a-knocking on my rounds. When I come to the rabbi's house, I usually drop in, and I always find him sitting up studying Torah; and next to him sits another man, whom I don't know. Well, one day I asked him who it was. He told me that it was Eliyahu the Prophet, of blessed memory.” +“One morning it happened that for some reason I came around later than usual, and saw the rabbi at the door of his house, holding two candlesticks. Two men were with him -- one was the one I see there always, and the other wore a golden crown. The two men left and went their way, and the rabbi went back inside. I asked him who was the visitor with the crown of gold, and he told me that it was Menashe ben Chizkiyahu, king of Judah.” +“When I asked the rabbi what business brought Menashe ben Chizkiyahu to his home, he explained that he was concerned regarding the outcome of a halachic query that a certain rabbi had sent our rabbi that very day.” +“He told me that in the city of that other rabbi there lived a chassid, who had taken it upon himself to smash all of the icons and crucifixes in the local church. He was handed over to the courts, sentenced to death, and hanged. That city has a welfare brotherhood, whose task it is to give financial support to poor widows whose husbands have left them penniless.” +“But when the widow of this poor chassid came to them, and asked them for a little money, they refused, because they claim that their regulations only allow them to support the widows of men who have died a natural death, not the widows of men who have committed suicide -- and they say her husband, by doing what he did, was such a man. Their dispute came up for adjudication by their local rabbi, and he referred the question to the rabbi of Nikolsburg.” +“He said that he was in two minds over the whole business, when all of a sudden along came Menashe ben Chizkiyahu, and told him that he had been reincarnated in that very chasid, in order that he should be able to set right the evil that he had done in his earlier life, when he had set up an image in the Temple. So he had come to ask our rabbi to see that the poor widow of that chasid should get her due.” +Reflections on the Chassidic Story +From a rationalist perspective, the story does not add up. And yet, the very existence of the tale brings attention to a long-standing ambivalence and debate about Menashe and his Teshuvah. The story reflects a strand in Jewish thought that celebrates the Menashe’s Teshuvah and views his return as a testament to Hashem’s eagerness to accept Ba’alei Teshuvah. There is no Jew in Tanach who sins as grievously as Menashe, and yet, he still does Teshuvah. If Hashem accepts Menashe’s Teshuvah, then there is hope for us all. +The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 10:2) records a debate between the Tanna Kama and R. Yehudah as to whether Menashe has a share in Olam HaBa. R. Yochanan (Sanhedrin 103a) supports R. Yehudah’s opinion and asserts that anyone who argues that Menashe is denied a place in Olam HaBa discourages Ba’alei Teshuvah. R. Yochanan even quotes the mystically charged words of R. Shimon bar Yochai, who argues that Hashem created a sort of “tunnel” to “sneak” Menashe past the Middat HaDin (administrator of strict law) to gain entry to Olam HaBa.303The Yerushalmi expresses this idea in a similar vein: The angels in Heaven were furious at the wicked Menashe’s attempt at Teshuvah and closed all the windows to heaven so that Menashe’s prayer could not enter. Hashem pleaded with the angels, but they refused to open the windows, and so Hashem (allowing the angels to have their way) took a saw and sawed out a hole beneath the Heavenly Throne so that Menashe’s prayer could enter Heaven. Menashe’s Teshuvah is so far overshadowed by his terrible deeds that he requires Hashem to tunnel him into Olam HaBa. +The aforementioned Chassidic story claims that Menashe has returned to this world (in the eighteenth century CE, approximately twenty-three hundred years after his death) and has achieved Kaparah (atonement) through his extreme actions in Poland. According to this view, now even the Tanna Kama agrees that Menashe has earned a share in Olam HaBa. +From a rationalist perspective, it is difficult to accept that someone who commits as much evil as Menashe can achieve Kaparah. (We recall that in addition to propagating Avodah Zarah, Menashe also grinds up his venerated grandfather Yeshayahu HaNavi after the latter rebukes him.) Menashe must be held accountable for his outrageous proliferation of idolatry and murder throughout Yehudah, and his role as the leading instigator of Churban Bayit Rishon! How can Menashe not be permanently barred from Olam HaBa along with his evil peers, Yarav’am ben Nevat and Achav? +Sefer Melachim vs. Divrei HaYamim +The intense debate regarding the admissibility of Menashe to Olam HaBa has its roots in a stark difference between the portrayal of Menashe in Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim. Divrei HaYamim II 33:10-19 describes at some length how Menashe is apprehended by Assyrian officials and taken in chains to Babylon, where he reaches out to Hashem in Tefillah and is eventually restored to his kingly position in Jerusalem where he reconstructs portions of the Beit HaMikdash. +Shockingly, Sefer Melachim does not make any mention or even implicit reference to Menashe’s Teshuvah. While there are many discrepancies between the presentations of parallel stories in Divrei HaYamim and Sefer Melachim, this inconsistency very much stands out as particularly striking and stunning. Various Mefarshim attempt to resolve the conflict. +The Malbim, Radak, and the Abarbanel +The Malbim (Melachim II 21:16) explains that Menashe repents only from his sin of Avodah Zarah, but not murder. Thus, the record of Menashe’s Teshuvah in Divrei HaYamim reflects his repentance from idolatry, but its absence from Sefer Melachim reflects his failure to repent from his interpersonal sins. The Malbim’s approach also explains why the account of Menashe’s extensive murders (Melachim II 21:16) and sins relating to Avodah Zarah (Melachim II 21:2-9) are presented separately. +Radak (Melachim II 22:8) writes that Menashe does Teshuvah near the end of his life. Thus, it is too inconsequential and insignificant to record in Sefer Melachim. The Abarbanel writes that since Menashe only performs Teshuvah to be freed from prison, his Teshuvah is insincere, and as a result, is omitted from Sefer Melachim. Divrei HaYamim, though, teaches that even an insincere Teshuvah has meaning. +Comparing the Prophetic Agendas of Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim +We suggest a new approach based on the different prophetic agendas of Sefer Melachim (authored by Yirmiyahu HaNavi post-Churban) and Divrei HaYamim (authored by Ezra soon after the building of the Second Beit HaMikdash). We may compare the first Pasuk and last Pesukim of Sefer Melachim to determine its prophetic agenda. As we noted at the beginning of this work, the first Pasuk of Sefer Melachim describes David HaMelech at the twilight of his reign, and the last Pesukim tell of an episode of our experience in the Babylonian Exile. We noted that the prophetic agenda of Sefer Melachim is to describe how we descend from the height of David HaMelech to the depths of the Churban and Galut. +Likewise, we set forth the prophetic agenda of Divrei HaYamim. To review, Divrei HaYamim begins “Adam, Sheit, Enosh”— with the beginning of mankind. This is because the period of Bayit Sheini was a rebirth for Am Yisrael. Divrei HaYamim ends with the Cyrus proclamation permitting us to return to Eretz Yisrael, to rebuild the second Beit HaMikdash (Divrei HaYamim II 36:23): +“Koh Amar Koresh Melech Paras, Kol Mamlechot Ha’Aretz Natan Li Hashem Elokei HaShamayim, VeHu Pakad Alai LiBenot Lo Bayit, BeYerushalayim Asher BiYehudah, Mi BaChem MiKol Amo Hashem Elokav Imo VeYa’al,” “Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and has charged me with building Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Yehudah. Anyone of you of all His people, the Lord his God be with him and let him go up.” +Divrei HaYamim is brimming with optimism and encouragement as we embark on our journey to rebuild and improve during the Bayit Sheini period. +Menashe’s Teshuvah is omitted from Sefer Melachim since it plays no role in preventing the Churban. In contrast, Menashe’s manifold evil acts are presented since they are the leading cause of the Churban. Menashe’s Teshuvah is insignificant because it occurs too late in his life (Radak) or is insincere (the Abarbanel). Alternatively, even if, as the Gemara (Sanhedrin 103a) asserts, Menashe repented twenty-two years into his reign,304Both Radak and the Abarbanel express serious reservations about this assertion and note that it hardly constitutes a straightforward understanding of the text. it is easier to be impacted negatively than positively. Thus, the evil committed by Menashe is not overcome or undone by his Teshuvah, even if it improves his personality for the last thirty years of his reign. Therefore, since it does not undo his sins’ negative impact on Am Yisrael, Sefer Melachim omits Menashe’s Teshuvah. +The first Lubavitcher Rebbe notes in Tanya that one contracts Tum’ah (ritual impurity) simply by touching something impure (VaYikra 7:19). One the other hand, an item can become Kadosh (ritually pure) only through connecting with a Kadosh item with heat (See VaYikra 6:20 with Rashi). It is much easier to become impure than pure; one requires passion and heat to impart Kedushah. Menashe’s Tum’ah is readily caught. Menashe’s expression of Kedushah (i.e. his Teshuvah) seems to lack passion and conviction, and therefore has little or no positive impact, and is thus omitted from Sefer Melachim. Indeed, even Divrei HaYamim notes that Menashe fails to rid Yehudah of Bamot. This reveals a lack of resolve, passion, and full commitment to his Teshuvah. +On the other hand, Menashe’s journey, as described in Divrei HaYamim, reflects the journey of Am Yisrael during the Bayit Sheini era. We are taken in chains to Bavel, where we reach out to Hashem, who subsequently allows us to return to Jerusalem to rebuild. Divrei HaYamim communicates the power of redemption— if Menashe is redeemed, then certainly we will be redeemed. +Conclusion – Ambivalence about Menashe’s Teshuvah +Secular critics of Tanach express themselves in a binary fashion and view the inconsistencies between Biblical accounts as demonstrative evidence for the human authorship of Tanach (Chas VeShalom). In our context, either Menashe does Teshuvah or he does not do Teshuvah. Believing Jews have a far more sophisticated manner of approaching Tanach and life. Life and Tanach are often too complex to present in a monochromatic manner. +The ambivalent feelings Jewish tradition harbors towards Menashe’s Teshuvah are reflected in the two different portrayals of Menashe in Sefer Melachim and Divrei HaYamim. Both are the correct versions. Sefer Melachim’s omission reflects one perspective which rejects the Teshuvah of someone as negatively impactful as Menashe. Divrei HaYamim mentions the Teshuvah as an expression of the immense power of Teshuvah. If Menashe is capable of Teshuvah, then we most certainly are capable of it as well. Perhaps, if we draw inspiration from Menashe’s Teshuvah, we can be the ones who bring the merit that can finally redeem Menashe’s tortured soul. + +Menashe vs "Rabi" Elazar ben Dordaya + + “Rabi” Elazar ben Dordaya +“Rabi” Elazar b. Dordaya is likely the most famous and celebrated of Ba’alei Teshuvah. His extremely sinful lifestyle, his commensurately extreme Teshuvah, and Hashem’s subsequent acceptance of him in Olam HaBa is recorded by the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 17a): +They said about Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya that he was so promiscuous that he did not leave one harlot in the world with whom he did not engage in relations. Once, he heard that there was one harlot in one of the cities overseas who would take a purse full of dinars as her payment. He took a purse full of dinars and went and crossed seven rivers to reach her. When they were engaged in the matters to which they were accustomed, a euphemism for intercourse, she passed wind and said: Just as this passed wind will not return to its place, so too Elazar ben Dordaya will not be accepted in repentance, even if he were to try to repent. +This statement deeply shocked Elazar ben Dordaya, and he went and sat between two mountains and hills and said: Mountains and hills, pray for mercy on my behalf, so that my repentance will be accepted. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed” (Yeshayahu 54:10). He said: Heaven and earth, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “For the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment” (Yeshayahu 51:6). He said: Sun and moon, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed” (Yeshayahu 24:23). He said: Stars and constellations, pray for mercy on my behalf. They said to him: Before we pray for mercy on your behalf, we must pray for mercy on our own behalf, as it is stated: “And all the hosts of heaven shall molder away” (Yeshayahu 34:4). +Elazar ben Dordaya said: Clearly the matter depends on nothing other than myself. He placed his head between his knees and cried loudly until his soul left his body. A Divine Voice emerged and said: Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya is destined for life in the World to Come. The Gemara explains the difficulty presented by this story: And here Elazar ben Dordaya was guilty of the sin of forbidden sexual intercourse, and yet he died once he repented. The Gemara answers: There too, since he was attached so strongly to the sin, to an extent that transcended the physical temptation he felt, it is similar to heresy, as it had become like a form of idol worship for him. +When R. Yehudah HaNasi heard this story of Elazar ben Dordaya, he wept and said: There is one who acquires his share in the World to Come only after many years of toil, and there is one who acquires his share in the World to Come in one moment. And R. Yehudah HaNasi further says: Not only are penitents accepted, but they are even called “Rabbi,” as the Divine Voice referred to Elazar ben Dordaya as Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya.305Translation adapted from The William Davidson Talmud, www.sefaria.org/Avodah_Zarah.17a.16. +Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya in Comparison to Menashe +Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya and Menashe are both classified as extreme sinners. The Gemara’s record of Elazar ben Dordaya’s transgressions speaks for itself. Similarly, Sefer Melachim implies that Menashe does not miss any opportunity to engage in Avodah Zarah. Melachim II 21:3 states that Menashe “bowed down to the entire host of the heaven and worshipped them.” This may be understood in a literal sense. +Menashe and Elazar both sin with the direct intent of violating the sacred word of Hashem. Elazar ben Dordaya succumbs to the greatest Yetzer HaRa (evil inclination) that remained in full force even after the Anshei Kenesset HaGedolah convinced Hashem to remove the Yetzer HaRa for Avodah Zarah (Sanhedrin 64a). +Menashe and Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya both engage in Teshuvah. In both cases, the Teshuvah is prompted by an encounter with a foreigner far from Eretz Yisrael. But the comparison ends here. Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya’s Teshuvah is embraced and accepted; his acceptance to Olam HaBa is uncontested. Menashe’s Teshuvah, by contrast, is subject to a major debate and ambivalence to this very day, as we discussed in the previous chapter. Why is Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya’s Teshuvah treated differently than Menashe’s Teshuvah? +One could say that Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya does complete Teshuvah, while Menashe fails to fully repent. (As Divrei HaYamim II 34 records, Menashe does not remove the Bamot after he reinstates them at the beginning of his reign.) While other reasonably righteous Judean kings also do not remove the Bamot, it is Menashe’s responsibility to remove them since he is the one who reinstated them after his father Chizkiyahu HaMelech removed them. +The primary distinction between Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya and Menashe is that Menashe is a Chotei UMachati, a sinner who causes many others to sin. Menashe persecutes those who oppose his rampant idolatry. Even after he repents, the evil he does is not, and cannot, be undone. There is no evidence, on the other hand, that Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya causes others to sin. +Perhaps this is the deeper meaning of the Malbim’s teaching that Menashe repents only from the sin of Avodah Zarah, but not from murder. The impact of his Avodah Zarah is reversible; however, Menashe’s many acts of murder cannot be undone. +A Modern Day Example +There was a gentleman who attended a Yeshivah high school, but had completely abandoned Torah observance. As he was blessed with a great deal of charisma and intellect, he also convinced dozens of his Yeshivah high school classmates to abandon Jewish observance. +Years passed, and the young man returned to full-blown Torah observance. Most of those who he influenced negatively, though, remain non-observant until this day. +To whom is this gentleman compared— Menashe or Elazar b. Dordaya? A Chotei UMachati is just about the worst Jew possible. One can always do Teshuvah for a personal offense, as is evident from the dramatic story of Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya. The Gemara gives him the title of “Rabi” because his wholehearted Teshuvah serves as an inspiration. The same cannot be said about the Chotei UMachati’s personal Teshuvah. +A Chotei UMachati who begins the Teshuvah process should zealously reach out to those whom they have negatively impacted, in an attempt to restore their spirituality. Menashe fails to do so, and consequently, a great debate rages as to his admissibility into Olam HaBa. +Conclusion +The message that emerges from our contrast between Menashe and Rabi Elazar ben Dordaya is sobering. At all costs, one must not cause others to sin. It is much more difficult to inspire Torah observance than it is to encourage the abandonment of the Torah. It is a red line that we never dare to cross, for once we cross it, it is unlikely that we will ever find our way back. + +Yoshiyahu and the Churban + +The Discovery of a Special Sefer Torah + +A Sefer Torah is Found +In the eighteenth year of his reign, Yoshiyahu HaMelech orders the renovation of the Beit HaMikdash. During the renovation process, Chilkiyah, the Kohen Gadol, discovers a Sefer Torah in the Beit HaMikdash (Melachim II 22:8). Does the tremendous ensuing commotion imply that there was a lack of Sifrei Torah? Were all other Sifrei Torah lost at some earlier point? +The Sefer Torah also strikes fear into the hearts of all who encounter it, including Yoshiyahu HaMelech. Why do the individuals who discover this Sefer Torah react to their discovery with such consternation? This puzzling reaction amplifies the intrigue, and it seems that Yirmiyahu HaNavi deliberately obscures the full story. +Which Sefer Torah? The Abarbanel, Metzudat David, Malbim, and Da’at Mikra +The parallel account in Divrei HaYamim II 34 sheds light on this episode. Divrei HaYamim II 33:14 states that “Matza Chilkiyahu HaKohein Et Seifer Torat Hashem BeYad Moshe,” “Chilkiyah the Kohen found the book of the Torah of Hashem in the hand of Moshe.” The Abarbanel, Metzudat David, Malbim, and Da’at Mikra all explain that the Sefer Torah that was discovered was the original Sefer Torah that Moshe Rabbeinu commissioned at the end of his life (Devarim 31:25-26) that was stored on the side of the Aron. +Rashi (Melachim II 22:8) adds that the Sefer was hidden during the reign of the wicked Achaz, out of the concern that he would damage it. Radak (ibid.) insists that the Torah was actually concealed during the reign of Menashe. The Kohanim knew that this special Sefer Torah was hidden, but did not know its location. Thus, it was a great event to recover this lost unique and priceless Sefer Torah, especially during the reign of the righteous Yoshiyahu. +The Fear – Rashi +Rashi (Melachim II 22:13) clarifies another mystery. He explains that the special Sefer Torah was opened to the Tochachah (rebuke) of Sefer Devarim (Devarim 28:15-68). In addition, the top of the column was Devarim 28:36, which states that “Hashem will exile you and your king.” This was viewed as a strikingly bad omen, especially since this special Sefer Torah was customarily rolled to BeReishit (Yerushalmi Shekalim 6, p. 49). According to this explanation, Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s reaction to the find makes perfect sense. It certainly is a most unsettling discovery! +Why So Obscure? +The obscure nature of this episode is startling! Why were these very important clarifying details not spelled out in the text of Sefer Melachim, instead of relegating their elucidation to Divrei HaYamim and Chazal? +We suggest that this is an example of a phenomenon in Sefer Melachim where especially heartbreaking incidents are presented in an obscure manner.306See the chapter “Too Painful to Record— Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s Death,” where we present other examples of this phenomenon. Clearly, this is a pivot point in the timeline of Jewish history that leads to the Churban. Yirmiyahu is characterized as the Navi of the Churban and is deeply affected by the events that lead up to it. The omen of the discovery of Moshe Rabbeinu’s special Sefer rolled to the portion discussing exile from the land, is so painful, that Yirmiyahu HaNavi obfuscates its presentation in Sefer Melachim. +Sefer Devarim consists of Moshe’s farewell address to the Bnei Yisrael. He presents the Tochachah as a warning to the nation on the occasion of their upcoming entry into the land of Israel. Thus, it emerges that through his Sefer Torah, years after his death, Moshe once again warns the nation of potential exile if they will not heed Hashem’s word. Time and time again, the nation fails to heed this warning. Time is running out when the Sefer Torah is discovered during Yoshiyahu’s reign. The Bnei Yisrael are given many chances to do Teshuvah, and time and time again, they are warned that their sovereignty over the land depends on their observance of the Torah. Much of Sefer Yirmiyahu is centered around this idea, and Yirmiyahu HaNavi spends much of his life disseminating it. Given this long history of unheeded warnings, dating all the way back to that of Moshe Rabbeinu, Yirmiyahu HaNavi may find the discovery of Moshe Rabbeinu’s warning so painful, that he decides to omit these details from Sefer Melachim. +In contrast, as we have discussed elsewhere, Ezra HaSofer, the author of the often much more optimistic Divrei HaYamim, is tasked with the spiritual rejuvenation of the Bnei Yisrael after their experience in Galut Bavel. He, therefore, presents a more complete picture of the Sefer Torah’s discovery. The fact that the Sefer Torah was written by Moshe Rabbeinu further accomplishes Ezra’s mission. He can better connect the Jews of the Bayit Sheini period to the greatest Navi of all time and the first link in the chain of the Mesorah, Moshe Rabbeinu. +Conclusion +The episode of the discovery of the Sefer Torah has drawn much attention, and much of it quite negative. As we discuss at length in Reason to Believe: Rational Explanations of Orthodox Jewish Faith (Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2017), unreasonable and untenable explanations are offered due to a failure to grasp that this episode is deliberately obscured, and can be revealed only upon careful examination of the parallel account in Divrei HaYamim and the commentaries of the accompanying Oral Law. The consensus of the traditional commentaries and the clarification offered by Divrei HaYamim together yield a most satisfying approach that does not employ the use of agenda-driven explanations that are divorced from the world of traditional Tanach commentary. + +Why Chuldah? + +Crisis in Yehudah +Yoshiyahu HaMelech and the other Jewish leaders are petrified after they discover the lost Sefer Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu rolled to the section of the Torah that warns of exile from Eretz Yisrael (Devarim 28). The leadership, in turn, decides to consult Chuldah the Nevi’ah (Melachim II 22:14). +Chuldah and Not Yirmiyahu HaNavi +The Sefer Torah is discovered in the eighteenth year of Yoshiyahu’s reign. The great Yirmiyahu HaNavi begins his career as a prophet in the thirteenth year of Yoshiyahu’s reign (Yirmiyahu 1). Why do Yoshiyahu and the other Jewish leaders choose to consult the far less prominent Chuldah instead of Yirmiyahu? In fact, the Gemara (Megillah 14b) seemingly criticizes the otherwise righteous Yoshiyahu for consulting Chuldah instead of Yirmiyahu HaNavi. +Seek the Best +The Gemara (Sanhedrin 32b) teaches that repetitive language of “Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof,” “justice, justice you shall pursue” (Devarim 15:20) teaches that one should consult the best Beit Din available, “Halach Achar Beit Din Yafeh.” Certainly, regarding the resolution and outcome of a major national crisis, the premier Navi of the time should be consulted, namely, Yirmiyahu HaNavi. We hear of Chuldah only in this instance in Tanach, and thus seems to be a far less prominent Navi than Yirmiyahu. Thus, the choice to consult Chuldah is not only unwise, but also runs against the Halachic and Hashkafic grain. +Nashim Rachmaniyot and Different Styles of Nevu’ah +One explanation the Gemara (Megillah 14b) offers for Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s choice of Chuldah is that “Nashim Rachmaniyot Hein,” “women are inclined to be more merciful.” We have explained earlier that each Navi has his own style and that the personality of the Navi influences the Nevu’ah (Sanhedrin 89a). We noted, for example, that this is why Eliyahu HaNavi prefers that Elisha carry out the prophecy to anoint Chaza’eil. +Yirmiyahu, indeed, is a harsh Navi. Yirmiyahu 24 serves as a prime example, where he presents a Nevu’ah in which he compares the Jews of Yehudah to exceptionally spoiled figs. Thus, it seems Yoshiyahu HaMelech anticipates a very harsh prophecy from Yirmiyahu and therefore thinks it best to avoid him. +This strategy, however, does not work. Chuldah delivers a scathingly harsh prophecy, in which she exclaims the impending Churban in the severest of terms. Most interestingly, Chuldah uses the term “Ko Amar Hashem,” “thus said Hashem,” no less than three times in her Nevu’ah (Melachim II 22:15, 22:16, 22:18). She repeatedly indicates that she represents the unedited and unadulterated word of Hashem, without a hint of any personal slant. She might also be discouraging Yoshiyahu from seeking a “second opinion.” +Yirmiyahu and the Aseret HaShevatim +The Gemara’s second explanation is that Yirmiyahu was far from Jerusalem on a campaign to return the lost ten Shevatim to Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, Sefer Yirmiyahu is replete with allusions to his outreach efforts to the Aseret HaShevatim. +The unforgettable description in Yirmiyahu 31 of Rachel crying for her exiled children and their return to the land is one such example. The tribe of Ephraim was at the epicenter of the exiled Malchut Yisrael, and thus Rachel is described as crying for her exiled children, which eventually leads to the divine promise of their return. +Melachim II 23 includes descriptions of Yoshiyahu’s elimination of Avodah Zarah and Bamot from Beit El and Shomeron, which implies Yoshiyahu’s sovereign control of these areas. The death of the last mighty Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE, during Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s reign, begins the steep decline of the Assyrian empire. The end of Assyrian control over northern Israel allows Yoshiyahu HaMelech to assume control over the region. It also offers the first opportunity for the Bnei Yisrael exiled by the Assyrians to return to their homeland. +Conclusion +Chazal are exceedingly careful, precise, and well based in their analysis of Tanach. Our examination of the Gemara’s explanations for the choice of Chuldah has hopefully demonstrated this point. Chazal’s interpretations are not fanciful and whimsical. It is our challenge to examine the Tanach carefully to help us reveal the reasonable basis for their assertions. As the Gemara (Megillah 6a) states “one who claims he has made a great effort and has discovered, is to be believed.” + +The Intriguing Connection Between Chuldah and Rachav + +Introduction +Radak (Melachim II 22:14) cites a most intriguing Gemara (Megillah 14b), which records that Chuldah the prophetess is a descendant of Rachav of Sefer Yehoshua. The Gemara would not record this random point as a mere matter of curiosity. There must be a substantive connection between these two feminine Tanach figures that the Gemara seeks to express. Let us explore what some of these connections might be. +The Courage to Differ from an Immoral Society +Both Rachav and Chuldah muster the courage to be the lone voice that embraces the truth spurned by everyone else. Rachav lives in an evil Canaanite town and has the temerity and honesty to recognize Hashem as the authentic God of the universe. Chuldah stands nearly alone in trying to rebuke the women of the generation (as noted by the Gemara cited by our Radak) to leave their evil ways and return to Hashem. Chuldah also has the courage to differ from almost all women, and serve in a very rare capacity, as a female Navi.307The Gemara (Megillah 14a) notes that in all of Jewish history there were only seven Nevi’ot (prophetesses). +Reward to Rachav +Perhaps meriting a prophetess in her lineage is Rachav’s reward for courageously offering to help the Meraglim (spies) sent by Yehoshua to scout out Yericho. Rachav, as taught by the Gemara (Megillah 14b), converted to Judaism and married none other than Yehoshua bin Nun. Indeed, Rachav is presented in Sefer Yehoshua as recognizing Hashem as the only true God (Yehoshua 2:11). The fact that Chuldah is a descendant of Rachav also validates and celebrates the latter’s Teshuvah from her years of serving as a woman of ill repute when she lived in Yericho. +The Reason for the Consult +The fact that Chuldah descends from royalty may be part of the reason Yoshiyahu HaMelech feels comfortable in consulting her for the meaning of the rediscovery of the lost Sefer Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu. In a variation of this theme, perhaps Chuldah, as a descendant of Rachav and Yehoshua, represents the Bnei Yisrael’s conquest and possession of Eretz Yisrael. Perhaps Yoshiyahu and his advisors believe that Chuldah will maintain that which her ancestors represent, and relate the seemingly fitting prophecy that the Jews will remain in Eretz Yisrael, and be spared the punishment of exile. +Her prominent lineage, in turn, may explain why she does not feel restrained and intimidated to speak harshly with the king. She even speaks with some Chutzpah, as she declares “Imru Le’Ish Asher Shalach Etechem Eilai” “tell the man (i.e. Yoshiyahu) that sent you to me,” (Melachim II 22:15) instead of referring to Yoshiyahu as the king. Perhaps Chuldah feels that it is necessary to speak this way because the kingdom of Yehudah is not destined to last very long. The Gemara (Megillah 14b) quotes R. Nachman as being critical of this Chutzpah. Rachav practiced as a woman of ill repute and managed an inn in the corrupt city of Yericho. This required a woman of very strong character and a great deal of Chutzpah. Chuldah exhibits the tough and aggressive character of her ancestor Rachav in her message to Yoshiyahu. +Mirroring Rachav’s Prediction +Perhaps the most compelling message of the connection between Rachav and Chuldah is the latter mirroring the former’s core message. Rachav predicts that the nations of Cana’an will be overwhelmed and overtaken by Am Yisrael due to Hashem’s decision. +Hashem, as noted at the end of Parashat Kedoshim, warns us of our being struck with the same ill fate of the nations of Cana’an if we repeat their poor behavior. Chuldah delivers the message that the fate of the nations of Cana’an, as predicted by her ancestor Rachav, will befall Bnei Yisrael since we mimicked their terrible practices. The very fact that a descendant of Rachav delivers this message highlights that Hashem’s warning has been ignored and the Bnei Yisrael are being held accountable for this failure. +Conclusion — Powerful Messages of Chazal +It is critical to realize that the words of the Torah and Chazal represent only the tip of the iceberg. When Chazal state that Chuldah descends from Yehoshua and Rachav, they intend to express rich ideas of great importance. It is our job to think deeply to reveal them. With Hashem’s help, and reverence for the words of Torah and Chazal, we can often succeed in uncovering these deeper messages. + +Yoshiyahu's Profound Pesach; Haftarah on the 2nd Day of Pesach + +Introduction +Most Jews, even otherwise learned Jews, have at best a vague understanding of how the Haftarah of a particular Shabbat or Yom Tov adds to the Torah reading or character of the day. The Haftarah of the second day of Pesach is a good example of this phenomenon. Most see a story of how Yoshiyahu HaMelech, as part of his massive Teshuvah movement, organizes a magnificent celebration of Pesach and Korban Pesach (Melachim II 23). As the story involves the celebration of Pesach, we read it on Pesach. However, if one delves more deeply, one can perceive a far more profound lesson communicated by Chazal in their selection (Megillah 31a) of this section of the Tanach as the Haftarah for the second day of Pesach. +Farewell to Avodah Zarah +Melachim II 23:1-19 describes Yoshiyahu’s efforts to rid the land of Avodah Zarah. He removes all articles associated with Ba’al and Asheirah from the Beit HaMikdash, defiles the various Avodah Zarah altars found throughout Eretz Yisrael, and, amongst other actions, kills the idolatrous priests. But why does he organize a massive Pesach celebration? How does that help him in his efforts to rid the land of idol worship? The answer seems fairly obvious, based on the focus of the original Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim. Slaughtering a lamb, an Egyptian god, is an expression of our rejection of the Egyptian deity. Yoshiyahu HaMelech taps into this message and organizes a massive Korban Pesach observance to reenact the original national rejection of Avodah Zarah. +Thus, the Haftarah teaches us that in every generation we can tap into the idea of the Korban Pesach as a rejection of Avodah Zarah, or any ideology or belief system that is antithetical and incompatible with the Torah. Yoshiyahu’s Teshuvah from foreign ideology, so encapsulated by his great Korban Pesach observance, serves as a model for all Jews to use Pesach as an opportunity to reaffirm our complete and uncompromised commitment to Torah practice and Torah ideology. +The Second Day of Yom Tov +We suggest that this Haftarah is especially appropriate for the second day of Yom Tov because the second day of Yom Tov, Yom Tov Sheni, is only celebrated outside of Eretz Yisrael. Outside the friendly confines of our homeland, we are our most vulnerable and susceptible to foreign influence, as we were in Mitzrayim. Outside of Eretz Yisrael is where we especially need to stress this message of Pesach as an opportunity to express our full allegiance to Hashem and His Torah, and to rid ourselves of foreign influence. +Reunification of Am Yisrael 308As developed by TABC alumnus Alex Ostrin (‘19). +Yoshiyahu’s special Korban Pesach observance also celebrates the reunification of the Jews of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms. After the death of the last powerful Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE, the Assyrian empire began to crumble. As far as Eretz Yisrael is concerned, this meant the freeing of northern Israel from Assyrian control. Yoshiyahu HaMelech, as is clear from our Perek, steps in and retakes control of northern Israel, as Rashi notes to Melachim II 23:22. This is apparent from his ridding Eretz Yisrael of Avodah Zarah and Bamot in Beit El and the Shomeron areas, which were previously controlled by Malchut Yisrael and then by the Assyrians. +The Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim also represents our solidification as a nation as we prepare to enter Eretz Yisrael. The Korban Pesach of Yoshiyahu similarly celebrates the reunification of the southern Bnei Yisrael with the remnants of Bnei Yisrael in the north. Our reading of this story as the Haftarah on the second day of Pesach can serve to bind Jews outside of Israel together, who otherwise are not naturally bound together as Jews are in Eretz Yisrael by a common land and state. +A Unique Korban Pesach +Our Haftarah records that “Ki Lo Na’aseh KaPesach HaZeh Mimei HaShofetim,” “such a Korban Pesach had not been celebrated since the days of the Shofetim (Judges)” (Melachim II 23:22). Rashi explains that “the days of the Shofetim” refers to the time since Malchut Yehudah and Malchut Yisrael split into two. Thus, “the days of the Shofetim” does not refer specifically to the era of the Shofetim, but even to the time of Shlomo HaMelech. +According to our approach, we suggest that in the period following the Shofetim, up until Yoshiyahu’s Pesach celebration, the Korban Pesach neither symbolizes a rejection of Avodah Zarah nor serves to reunify Am Yisrael. During the cycles of spiritual deterioration and disunity in Sefer Shofetim, it is most appropriate for the Korban Pesach to act as an affirmation of our rejection of Avodah Zarah and an expression of the unification of our people. During Shlomo HaMelech’s reign, the Korban Pesach does not have to fill that role— the kingdom is unified and the national identity is well-established. After the kingdom is split, and Avodah Zarah becomes rampant throughout the land, the Korban Pesach clearly does not reflect a sense of unity or rejection of Avodah Zarah. Thus, Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s Korban Pesach, for the first time since the period of the Shofetim, both rejects Avodah Zarah and serves to unify the nation. +The Haftarah of the First Day of Pesach – A Contrast +The Haftarah of the second day of Pesach contrasts dramatically with the Haftarah of the first day of Pesach. The latter reminds us of the Korban Pesach the Bnei Yisrael offer when they enter Eretz Yisrael under Yehoshua’s leadership. This “Eretz Yisrael-worthy” generation is untainted by the sin of Avodah Zarah. Thus, their Korban Pesach is an expression of national solidification, and not of rejection of Avodah Zarah. +Indeed, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 43b-44a) stresses how our national identity and responsibility for one another was enhanced by our entry into Eretz Yisrael. Thus, upon our entry into the land, the Korban Pesach takes on a special significance. It is no coincidence that the Bnei Yisrael enter the land just in time to offer the Korban Pesach. It is also not a coincidence that this Haftarah is the Haftarah for the first day of Pesach, which is also read in Eretz Yisrael. The message of Yoshiyahu’s Korban Pesach, by contrast, is more relevant for Jews who unfortunately reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, and is thus reserved for the second day of Pesach. +Conclusion +We hope to have demonstrated that profound messages are broadcasted by the Haftarah selection for each Shabbat and Yom Tov. Most of us, however, have not properly delved into the Haftarah’s deeper meaning, and we thus miss many vital messages. May Hashem grant us all the wisdom to properly focus on the Haftarot, and to glean the vital lessons imparted during these precious readings. + +Too Painful to Record; Yoshiyahu HaMelech's Death + +Introduction +Some events in Sefer Melachim are just too painful to fully record. There are at least two tragic pivotal turning points in Sefer Melachim that strike a terrible blow to the Jewish people and play a major role in setting the stage for the Churban. It appears that Yirmiyahu HaNavi, the author of Sefer Melachim, has difficulty in fully expressing these extremely painful realities. +The Tragic Death of Yoshiyahu HaMelech +Thirteen years after he begins his Teshuvah movement, Yoshiyahu HaMelech is killed at the age of thirty-nine by Paroh Necho’s Egyptian army. This traumatic episode is described in one cryptic verse309“In his days Paroh Necho, king of Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates; and king Yoshiyahu went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo, when he had seen him.” (Melachim II 23:29). It is almost as if the Navi does not want to record this event, and therefore presents the story in the shortest and most obscure manner possible. +Yoshiyahu HaMelech, entirely unnecessarily, enters into battle with Paroh Necho. Paroh Necho, according to the account in Divrei HaYamim II 35:21, even communicates to Yoshiyahu HaMelech that he is merely using Eretz Yisrael as a route to fight the Babylonians at the Battle of Carchemish. According to Chazal (Ta’anit 22b), Yirmiyahu Hanavi warns Yoshiyahu HaMelech against intervening. +Against all advice, Yoshiyau enters into battle with Paroh Necho at Megiddo. During the battle, Yoshiyahu HaMelech is caught by an errant arrow and dies shortly afterward. +The results for the Jews are devastating. Yoshiyahu’s Teshuvah movement comes to a screeching halt before it can gain serious momentum and support. The righteous Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s death at a young age also serves to demotivate many who seek to serve Hashem with devotion and dedication. After his death, political control over Eretz Yisrael falls to the Egyptians and then to the Babylonians. Yoshiyahu’s death is a painful blow, from which we have yet to fully recover. +Therefore, we suggest that Yirmiyahu HaNavi writes about Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s unnecessary and tragic death most cryptically. Only with the help of the parallel narrative in Divrei HaYamim and the teachings of Chazal are we able to decipher what occured on that terrible day at Megiddo. Yirmiyahu laments, if only Yoshiyahu had made a better choice that day, Jewish history would have turned out very differently. +Yarav’am ben Nevat’s Public Rebuke of Shlomo HaMelech +In a similar vein, Yirmiyahu writes cryptically about Yarav’am ben Nevat’s public rebuke of Shlomo HaMelech. Melachim I 11:27 records: “VeZeh HaDavar Asher Heirim Yad BaMelech Shlomo; Banah Et HaMilo, Sagar Et Peretz Ir David Aviv,” “and this was the cause that he lifted up his hand against the king; Shlomo built Millo and repaired the breach of the city of David his father.” The commentaries, such as Radak and Ralbag, struggle to explain the meaning of the Pasuk.310For a summary of a variety of approaches, see Israel, Rabbi Alex. “Shiur #11: The Rebellion of Yerovam - Part 1.” The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, 19 Jan. 2016, www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-11-rebellion-yerovam-part-1. +Why is this pivotal event recorded in such an oblique manner? Why does Yirmiyahu HaMelech not set forth this major turning point in a straightforward manner, instead of merely hinting at what transpired? +This is another incident that is too painful for Yirmiyahu to fully record. As Rashi explains, Yarav’am ben Nevat rebukes Shlomo HaMelech in a wrong manner. Rashi states that Yarav’am publicly criticizes Shlomo HaMelech, which the latter finds intolerable. Had only Yarav’am taken the wise path, and privately spoken to Shlomo HaMelech, perhaps Shlomo HaMelech would have changed his ways. This, in turn, could have avoided the terrible secession of northern Israel from southern Israel, which contributed mightily to the downfall of all of Israel. +Moreover, had Shlomo HaMelech taken his own advice (Mishlei 9:8) to “reprove a wise man, and he will love you,” immense tragedy could have been averted. Even though Yarav’am ben Nevat delivers his Mussar poorly, Shlomo HaMelech is sufficiently wise to recognize the truth inherent in Yarav’am’s complaint. If only better choices were made, laments Yirmiyahu HaNavi. +Conclusion +As Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik once commented,311Soloveitchik, Rabbi Joseph B. “Behaalotcha - Leadership.” Yeshiva University. 24 Dec. 1980, New York, www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/751363/rabbi-joseph-b-soloveitchik/behaalotcha-leadership/. one must not only learn the holy Torah text in an intellectual sense but also feel and experience the Tanach in its full and rich pathos. When learning Sefer Melachim, if blessed with a sensitive heart and ear, one can detect Yirmiyahu’s anguish in his recording of some of the most painful episodes. It is most painful that these terrible events could have been avoided. +The wise student of Sefer Melachim takes its lessons to heart and realizes how poor choices can lead to terrible results. How easily tragedy could have been avoided! We must deeply internalize the need to avoid repeating such terrible mistakes. + +Yoshiyahu's "Peaceful" Death and Unfulfilled Prophecy + +A Peaceful Death? +The contradiction is glaring! In Melachim II 22:20, Chuldah HaNevi’ah promises Yoshiyahu HaMelech that he will die a peaceful death. Yet, Yoshiyahu’s death is anything but peaceful. He is prematurely killed at age thirty-nine in a losing battle against the Egyptian forces in Megiddo (Melachim II 23:29). Chuldah is regarded as a legitimate prophetess (Megillah 14a). Why does her promise not materialize? +Classic Answers +Rashi and Radak explain that Yoshiyahu HaMelech dies in peace since he does not see the Churban during his lifetime. The Malbim (Melachim II 23:29) takes this idea even further and argues that Hashem brings about Yoshiyahu’s premature death at Megiddo so that he will not witness the Churban.312TABC alumnus Jonathan Haberman (‘19) notes that this is reminiscent of Chazal’s teaching that Avraham Avinu died five years before his intended time so that he would not witness Eisav’s spiritual decline. The Metzudat David and Malbim (Melachim II 22:20) explain (following, as usual, the Abarbanel) that Yoshiyahu HaMelech is “buried in peace.” Indeed, he is the last of the Malchei Yehudah who are buried in Eretz Yisrael. +Tosafot and Ramban +However, there is a much simpler approach to take. Namely, one’s unwise choices and/or sins can lead to the withdrawal of even positive divine promises. Indeed, Tosafot (Yevamot 50a) state that a Navi prophesies only that which is suitable to happen at the time of the Nevu’ah’s pronouncement. However, if one sins, the promise can be reversed.313Da’at Mikra frequently refers to this Tosafot to resolve many apparent issues in Tanach. +Tosafot present a very compelling proof for this seemingly radical assertion. Tosafot note that Yoshiyahu’s destruction of the Bamah in Beit El is prophesied centuries before his birth (Melachim I 13), during the reign of Yarav’am. Yet, were it not for Chizkiyahu’s intense Tefillah, Chizkiyahu would not have been granted fifteen more years of life during which he fathered Menashe, Yoshiyahu’s grandfather. +Ramban (Shemot 12:40) supports this thesis as well. Ramban argues that the Bnei Yisrael were supposed to leave Mitzrayim four hundred years after Yitzchak Avinu’s birth. However, he explains that thirty years were added as a result of the nation’s sins. Thus, we see that even a positive divine promise may be rescinded. +The Gemara (Berachot 4a) strongly supports this idea. The Gemara explains that Yaakov Avinu feared his encounter with Eisav despite Hashem’s promise he would return home in peace, due to concern that he forfeited his guarantee due to sin. Similarly, the Gemara states that we were destined to return to build Bayit Sheini in a glorious and miracle studded manner, similar to that which occurred to Yehoshua when he led us into Eretz Yisrael. However, due to our sins, the Second Temple era return fell dramatically short of what it was supposed to be. +Likewise, due to his decision to enter into battle with Egypt, Yoshiyahu no longer merits the promise of a peaceful death. Had it not been for this poor decision, Chuldah’s prophecy would have been fulfilled. +Rambam +Rambam, however, asserts that a positive prophecy is unconditional and not subject to revision (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 10). Lechem Mishneh (ibid. 10:4), though, raises some serious questions concerning Rambam’s position in light of the Gemara we cited above. The Lechem Mishneh is just the tip of the iceberg of a torrent of discussion regarding Rambam’s assertion.314The Shabtai Frankel edition of the Mishneh Torah includes a long list of commentaries that address this point. +Rambam’s primary proof is Yirmiyahu 27 and 28. In these Perakim, Yirmiyahu seeks to demonstrate that Chananiah ben Azor is a false Navi. Yimiyahu argues that Chananiah ben Azor’s predicted Jewish victory over Babylon must occur, or he will be proven a fraud. Yirmiyahu argues that authentic positive prophecies must occur, while negative prophecies may be reversed by Teshuvah. +Nevu’ot That Cannot Be Reversed +How might we harmonize the evidence we cited above with the passages in Yirmiyahu? We suggest that in general, even positive prophecies are subject to revision due to sin. However, there are a number of exceptions. One such exception is at the beginning of a Navi’s career when he is being tested as to whether he truly is capable of authentic prophecy. At this stage, the positive prophecies must materialize, or he is presumed to be a Navi Sheker. +Rambam only writes that positive prophecies always materialize in the context of a Navi proving his prophetic ability. We suggest that Rambam applies this principle only to a Navi who must still establish his authenticity. Thus, since Chuldah is a well-established prophetess, her positive Nevu’ot have the potential to be reversed through bad decisions. +Another exception is when a Navi’s authenticity faces a credible challenge. This applies to the Chananiah ben Azor situation, when Yirmiyahu challenges him to establish his credibility. +In addition, in regard to both positive and negative prohibitions, the Malbim states in several places (including to Melachim I 11:30) that a Nevu’ah accompanied by a sign cannot be rescinded. The Nevu’ah Achiyah HaShiloni expresses to Yarav’am ben Nevat is such an example, as the Nevu’ah is accompanied by the tearing of clothing. +Finally, a positive or negative Nevu’ah in which Hashem is quoted as taking an oath (such “Chai Ani Ne’um Hashem”) cannot be rescinded. +Conclusion +Nevu’ah does not call for an abdication of responsibility. Yoshiyahu HaMelech, we suggest, might not fully grasp this point. In fact, in his calculations as to whether to engage the Egyptians in battle, he may believe that he has a guarantee of at least a successful personal outcome, due to Chuldah’s promise that he will die a peaceful death. +The lesson that emerges is a sobering one. Hashem may have magnificent plans in store for our lives. However, if we do not act to realize our latent potential, or worse, act foolishly, all of it might be lost in an instant. The Mishnah teaches that “HaKol Tzafui VeHaReshut Netunah,” “all is foreseen but free will remains” (Avot 3:15). May we all make the right choices to enable us to flourish and accomplish all that Hashem has set for us to do. + +Why is Yoshiyahu HaMelech's Death Still Mourned? + +R. Elazar HaKalir’s Kinah +Every Tishah Be’Av,315Until the arrival of the Mashi’ach. Ashkenazic synagogues recite a Kinah (elegy) written by R. Elazar HaKalir (570-640 CE) that mourns the tragic death of Yoshiyahu in battle at Megiddo. By reciting this Kinah, we honor Yirmiyahu’s establishment of the practice of mourning Yoshiyahu’s death for all generations (see Divrei HaYamim II 35:25, with the commentary of Da’at Mikra). In this chapter, we will seek to explain why the death of Yoshiyahu is so traumatic, to the extent that it is worthy of inclusion in the Tishah Be’Av liturgy, along with the mourning of other major disasters, such as the Churban Beit HaMikdash and the Crusades. +Background – The Prophecy Concerning Yoshiyahu +Before we explore the life of Yoshiyahu, we should note some important pieces of information that help place this great man into his proper historical context. Yoshiyahu stands out as an individual whose actions are foretold approximately three hundred years before his birth. In Melachim I 13:1-2, we read of an anonymous prophet (whom Chazal identify as Iddo, see Sanhedrin 89b) who visits the wicked Yarav’am ben Nevat, after the latter constructs illegitimate altars in Beit El and Dan. The Navi informs the wicked king that a descendant of David HaMelech, named Yoshiyahu, will one day be born, and will kill many priests who will serve on Yarav’am’s illicit altars. +It is quite rare for an event to be foretold so far in advance— it is almost without parallel in Tanach. No other king’s actions and name are so specifically given so far in advance, which testifies to Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s unique stature. Interestingly, though, Yoshiyahu is unaware of this prophecy (see Melachim II 23:17). This expresses Chazal’s dictum, that “everything is foretold, yet the freedom of choice is given” (Avot 3:19), a theme that pervades Yoshiyahu’s life. +Background – Yoshiyahu’s Predecessors and Successors +Yoshiyahu is the seventeenth in the line of descendants of David HaMelech who ruled Judea (omitting Ataliah). Sefer Melachim rates the spiritual performance of each of the kings using David HaMelech as a benchmark. Only Asa (5), Chizkiyahu (14) and Yoshiyahu (17) are labeled as good as David HaMelech, and Asa is assessed less positively in Divrei HaYamim than he is in Sefer Melachim. Of all the other kings, Shlomo (2), Yehoshafat (6), and Yotam (12) are good, though they do not measure up to David; Yeho’ash (9), Amatzyah (10), and Uzziyahu (11) start their reigns as good kings, but take a turn for the worse (at least as presented in Divrei HaYamim); and Rechav’am (3), Aviyam (4), Yehoram (7), Achazyahu (8), Achaz (13), Menashe (15), and Amon (16) are all bad kings. The rulers of the Northern Kingdom are regarded by Sefer Melachim as having ranged from bad to worse. +Am Yisrael did not enjoy the benefit of a stable succession of kings who were dedicated to honoring the Torah in a manner comparable to David HaMelech. This highlights the greatness of those kings who chose to lead our nation in accordance with Torah ideals. We should also note that Yoshiyahu’s four successors are all evaluated by Sefer Melachim as spiritual (as well as political) failures. Thus, of the last seven rulers of Judea, only Yoshiyahu is regarded as a Tzaddik. This stresses his outstanding nature. +Menashe – Yoshiyahu’s Grandfather +We must make note of Yoshiyahu’s grandfather, Menashe. Despite being the son of the righteous Chizkiyahu, Menashe engages in wickedness in the extreme. He is regarded as the worst of the monarchs described in Sefer Melachim. No other king, even among the evil rulers of the Northern Kingdom (such as Ba’asha), is described in such negative terms. He is described (Melachim II 21:2-11) as having done evil in the eyes of Hashem, having imitated the evil practices of the other nations, having exceeded the evil of the Emori, and having sinned with the brazen intention of angering Hashem. +The Navi presents a stunning list of idolatrous practices in which Menashe engages throughout his lifetime: Molech, Ov, Yidoni, Baal, Asheirah, Onein, and Nichush. He even places an idol in the Beit HaMikdash. To top it off, Menashe is described as murdering so many innocent people, that he fills the streets of Yerushalayim with blood from “mouth to mouth.” It is reasonable to assume that he executes these people for their resistance towards his plans to fill Yehudah with idolatry. To make matters worse, Menashe rules for fifty-five years, the longest of any monarch in Sefer Melachim, allowing his lust for idolatry to seep into the hearts and minds of Am Yisrael. Shockingly, nothing bad happens to this unrepentant sinner (at least as recorded in Sefer Melachim). +Yoshiyahu – The Early Years +After Menashe dies, he is succeeded by his son, Amon, who continues his father’s evil practices for only two years before being assassinated. Sefer Melachim describes how Yoshiyahu succeeds his father at the tender age of eight. Even though he is obviously unfit to rule at that age, he is installed as the king because he is next in the Davidic line. The people of Judea, despite their spiritual shortcomings, zealously honor the Davidic line even after they assassinate a disliked king. +Yoshiyahu is described in Sefer Melachim as beginning to take an interest in repairing the Beit HaMikdash at age twenty-six. Divrei HaYamim 34 describes that he begins to take an interest in the proper Torah way at age sixteen, and initiates the process of purifying the Beit HaMikdash at age twenty. Incidentally, this shows that the teenage years are a time that is ripe for individuals to return to their Jewish roots.316Many have noted that Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s Teshuvah coincides with the death of the last mighty Assyrian emperor Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE, and the subsequent crumbling of the Assyrian Empire. The removal of this pressure creates an opportunity to return to the Torah without fear of harassment from the Assyrian authorities. This fact does not detract from the greatness of Yoshiyahu’s choice to return to the Torah. An analogous situation emerged in the late 1980s with the fall of the Soviet Union. Russian Jews were no longer under terrible government pressure to abandon Torah and Mitzvot. However, even when the pressure eased, the terrible toll of seventy years of communist rule persisted, and most Russian Jews did not return to their Torah roots. Those Russian Jews who did return, though, and there are a considerable number of them, deserve an enormous amount of credit. Yoshiyahu’s HaMelech’s Teshuvah, after the long dark decades of Menashe and Amon’s decadent rule and the lifting of the Assyrian siege on Judaism, similarly merits our great admiration. Interestingly, R. Elazar HaKalir’s Kinah for Yoshiyahu states that at age eight Yoshiyahu sought Hashem on his own. +In total, the Bnei Yisrael experience seventy-five years— fifty-five of Menasheh, two of Amon, and eighteen more until Yoshiyahu matures and becomes fully committed to Hashem— of rule under monarchs that are, at the very least, not dedicated to Torah law. Despite this handicap, Yoshiyahu embarks on his program of national reformation (Teshuvah). +The challenge of trying to affect such a sea change amongst Am Yisrael is enormous. Imagine if the United States had been under communist rule from 1900 until 1975, and in 1975, the president sought to restore democracy. Imagine further that America had not enjoyed a stable succession of leaders even before 1900 who were dedicated to the ideals of democracy. The challenge of effecting such a change would require a Herculean effort, and it probably would take two or three generations for the American people to internalize the need to return to the roots upon which the country was founded. Yoshiyahu faces similar formidable odds in his attempt to restore the ideals of David HaMelech’s rule. +Undaunted by the enormity of the challenge, Yoshiyahu sets out on his path to national Teshuvah. However, he encounters a major setback at the early stages of his campaign. In his efforts to purify the Beit HaMikdash, he discovers a Sefer Torah opened to the Tochachah (reprimand) of Sefer Devarim (as explained by Rashi to Melachim II 22:13). As explained by the Midrash HaGadol (Devarim 27) and Radak (Melachim II 22:11), Yoshiyahu correctly interprets this as a bad omen and seeks the interpretation of a Navi. +Chuldah HaNevi’ah presents a crushing message. She prophesies that a result of Am Yisrael’s sins, Hashem has resolved to destroy the Beit HaMikdash. She notes, however, that since Yoshiyahu expresses remorse for the evil committed by his predecessors and his people, he will be spared from experiencing this awful event in his lifetime, and will instead die a peaceful death. +Reaction to Chuldah’s Prophecy +Melachim II 23:1-24 records that Yoshiyahu does not accept this prophecy with equanimity. Instead, he reacts by embarking on a massive campaign of national spiritual renaissance. He gathers all of Am Yisrael and its leaders and demands that the nation make a solemn commitment (Brit) to dedicate itself wholeheartedly to the service of Hashem. He commits himself to the complete elimination of Avodah Zarah from Eretz Yisrael. The Navi records that Yoshiyahu eliminates his grandfather Menashe’s Avodah Zarah, as well as the misdirected places of worship (Bamot) put in place by Yarav’am and Shlomo HaMelech. None of Yoshiyahu’s righteous predecessors, other than Chizkiyahu, remove the Bamot. +It is important to contrast Yoshiyahu’s reaction with that of his great-grandfather, Chizkiyahu. Although Chizkiyahu is a righteous king, when Yeshayahu relates the eventual destruction of the Beit HaMikdash to him, Chizkiyahu responds that “at least there will be peace in my day” (Melachim 2:20:19). Yoshiyahu’s contrastingly selfless reaction again marks him as an unparalleled Tzaddik among the descendants of David HaMelech. Indeed, Rabbi Hayyim Angel notes that Yoshiyahu is the only individual in Tanach who is described (Melachim II 23:25) as having fulfilled the Torah’s mandate to worship Hashem “with all of your heart, soul, and resources” (Devarim 6:5), which also serves to emphasize the greatness of this amazing king. Indeed, R. Elazar HaKalir even goes as far as to compare Yoshiyahu’s righteousness to that of Moshe Rabbeinu! +We must ask, however, why Yoshiyahu even bothers to attempt to undo the decree. After all, the word of the prophetess represents God’s immutable will. How can this possibly change? The answer appears to be (following the approach advocated by the Abarbanel) that an evil decree that can be reversed with Teshuvah. We see that after the Cheit HaEigel, Moshe Rabbeinu, through Teshuvah and Tefillah, is able to reverse Hashem’s decree of national destruction. +Ashkenazi Jews express this idea on Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur when they state that “Teshuvah, Tefillah, and Tzedakah can remove the evil of the decree.” Indeed, on Yom Kippur, we read in Sefer Yonah about how the Teshuvah of the people of Nineveh is able to overturn the decree of the city’s destruction. Yoshiyahu HaMelech follows in Moshe Rabbeinu’s footsteps in trying to rid the Bnei Yisrael of idolatrous practices and leads them back to a path where they will be able to experience Hashem’s presence. +Am Yisrael at the time of Chuldah’s prophecy can be compared to an American football team that is ten points behind with five minutes left in the game and is standing at its own eighteen yard-line. Defeat still can be averted, but it will take a titanic effort to prevail. +Yoshiyahu’s Achievements – Korban Pesach, Justice, and Expanded Borders +For thirteen years, Yoshiyahu enjoys great success as a ruler. He successfully organizes the most widespread observance of the Korban Pesach since the days of the Shofetim (Melachim II 23:22). Yirmiyahu describes Yoshiyahu’s reign as a time when justice prevails in Eretz Yisrael (Yirmiyahu 22:15). +Rav Yoel Bin Nun notes that an archaeological discovery seems to corroborate Yirmiyahu’s evaluation. A shard of pottery dated to Yoshiyahu’s time describes a soldier who called to the attention of the authorities what he deemed to be unfair treatment— his commanding officer destroyed his clothing. Only in a society where justice prevails would a soldier be able to register such a complaint against his commanding officer without the fear of any consequences. +Divrei HaYamim describes Yoshiyahu as impacting all of Eretz Yisrael, not merely Judea (Divrei HaYamim II 34:6-7 and 34:21). This appears astonishing in light of the fact that Yoshiyahu is a Judean king– what is he doing in the north? The answer lies in the historical context of Yoshiyahu’s reign (see Da’at Mikra Divrei HaYamim, p. 933). During that time, the Assyrian Empire that had controlled the northern portion of Eretz Yisrael from the time of Chizkiyahu was collapsing. Yoshiyahu appears to have seized the opportunity to expand the borders of his kingdom to include the former Northern Kingdom. +Sefer Melachim II 23:24, however, indicates the limitations of Yoshiyahu’s Teshuvah campaign. It records that Yoshiyahu succeeds in eliminating the idolatry that “appeared” in Judea. This clearly implies that the nation’s private Avodah Zarah remains. Two Pesukim later, we are told that there was never a king who so sincerely returned to Hashem, either before or after Yoshiyahu. This also seems to imply that only Yoshiyahu had returned and that the people had not wholeheartedly joined him in his efforts. +Indeed, Chazal (Taanit 22b; see R. Elazar HaKalir’s Kinah mourning Yoshiyahu) explain that during Yoshiyahu’s time, many Jews covertly worshipped Avodah Zarah. They describe how people hid Avodah Zarah behind their doors to escape its detection by soldiers enforcing Yoshiyahu’s law. +It seems that the soldiers are not particularly thorough in their searches, as they seem to carry out royal decrees perfunctorily and without much enthusiasm. This also explains how the Bnei Yisrael deserved the Churban not so long after Yoshiyahu’s death. Yoshiyahu’s reformations seem to have little impact on the people’s hearts. They merely cooperate in the removal of public idolatry. Finally, this also explains why Yirmiyahu castigates Am Yisrael even during Yoshiyahu’s period of reformation (see Yirmiyahu 3:6-10 and 25:3). +The Traumatic Death of Yoshiyahu +Thirteen years after the introduction of his reformation movement, Yoshiyahu is killed at the age of thirty-nine by Paroh Necho’s Egyptian army. This episode is so traumatic that Sefer Melachim describes this tragedy in one cryptic Pasuk (Melachim II 23:29). It is almost as if the Navi does not want to record this event, and therefore presents the story in the shortest and most obscure manner possible.317See the earlier chapter, “Too Painful to Record — Yoshiyahu HaMelech’s Death.” The Navi records that, “In his days, Paroh Necho, king of Egypt, marched against the king of Assyria to the Euphrates River; Yoshiyahu HaMelech marched toward him, but when he confronted him at Megiddo, [Paroh Neco] killed him.” The Pasuk does not explain why Paroh travels to the Assyrian King, why Yoshiyahu travels towards Paroh Necho, or why Paroh Necho kills Yoshiyahu. +Divrei HaYamim II 35:20-23 provides us with a few more details, but is also sparing in its presentation of this tragedy. It informs us that Paroh travels to join the King of Assyria at Carchemish on the Euphrates. This well-known battle, also documented by non-Jewish sources, occurred in 609 B.C.E (see also Yirmiyahu 46). The battle pitted the crumbling Assyrian Empire against the emerging Babylonian Empire. It seems that Paroh Necho joined the Assyrian forces in an attempt to prevent the Babylonian takeover of the region and to further Egyptian interests to expand their empire into the areas lost by the Assyrians. +Divrei HaYamim records that Paroh Necho sends Yoshiyahu a non-confrontational message. He does not intend to engage Yoshiyahu in battle. He wishes to merely travel through Eretz Yisrael along the international trade route that cuts through the Jezreel Valley, where Megiddo is located. Yoshiyahu ignores the warnings and confronts the Egyptian forces. Yoshiyahu disguises himself in battle but nevertheless is shot down by the Egyptian arrows. It is of note that an arch-villain of Sefer Melachim, Achav, dies under eerily similar circumstances (see Melachim I 22:30-34 and Midrash VaYikra Rabbah 20:1). +Assessing the Extent of the Tragedy +Yoshiyahu’s death is a multidimensional tragedy. It seems that Yoshiyahu is motivated to wage war to prevent Paroh Necho from expanding his sphere of influence in the Middle East and thereby impinging on the former’s control of northern Israel. Unfortunately, Sefer Melachim records that following Yoshiyahu’s death, the Egyptians seize control of Eretz Yisrael, and the subsequent Judean “kings” merely serve as Egyptian vassals. The Babylonians then overtake the Egyptians (Melachim II 24:7) and gain control over Eretz Yisrael. Thus, the death of Yoshiyahu effectively marks the end of Jewish sovereign control of Eretz Yisrael, which is not regained until centuries later, in the days of the Chashmonaim. +Accordingly, Yoshiyahu’s death essentially marks the beginning of the Churban. In fact, there is a suggestion that Yirmiyahu’s prophecy of seventy years of exile (Yirmiyahu 25:11) refers in part to the seventy years from Yoshiyahu’s death until Koresh’s proclamation permitting the return to Yerushalayim to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash, which according to non-Jewish sources occurs in 539 B.C.E (exactly seventy years after the battle of Carchemish). For further discussion of the fulfillment of the seventy years, see Da’at Mikra to Divrei HaYamim II 36:21, note 56. +However, the most profound aspect of this tragedy is the fact that such an incredibly righteous king could die in battle. To make matters worse, he dies in the same manner as did Achav! In fact, one could argue that it is for this very reason that the Bnei Yisrael ignore the impassioned pleas of Yirmiyahu and Yechezkeil to repent before the Churban. While Menashe serves every sort of Avodah Zarah and reigns peacefully for fifty-five years, Yoshiyahu, who destroys the Avodah Zarah, is killed prematurely in battle at age thirty-nine. People most likely felt that serving Hashem did not pay. +Furthermore, had Yoshiyahu not died, his Teshuvah movement potentially could have remained in effect for a significant amount of time. In that amount of time, a new generation that did not know Menashe could have emerged and possibly been much more committed to Torah life than the previous generation. Such a Teshuvah movement likely could have averted the Churban. Alas, this was not to be.318See Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Reflections on the Tishah BeAv Kinot pp. 285-286 for a similar approach. +Why Doesn’t Yoshiyahu Consult Yirmiyahu? +Why does Yoshiyahu not consult Yirmiyahu as to whether he should confront Paroh Necho? We suggest that Yoshiyahu does not consult with Yirmiyahu because he is afraid that he will receive an unfavorable answer. Yirmiyahu (see Yirmiyahu 2:18) follows in the footsteps of Yeshayahu (Yeshayahu 30:1-5) by disseminating a national policy of neutrality towards foreign superpowers (such as Assyria and Babylon). Instead of becoming entangled in foreign affairs, the Bnei Yisrael should be satisfied, as Yeshayahu metaphorically expresses, with “the waters of the Shilo’ach (a stream outside of Yerushalayim) that moves along slowly” (Yeshayahu 8:6). Despite his mistake of confronting the Egyptians, Chazal (Ta’anit ad. loc.) identify Yoshiyahu’s dying words as “Tzaddik Hu Hashem, Ki Pihu Mariti,” “Hashem is righteous, as I have rebelled against His word” (Eichah 1:18). Thus, Yoshiyahu performs Teshuvah at the end of his life. +Conclusion +Yoshiyahu’s death is an incredibly disappointing event in the history of our people, and it merits our attention today. We must also note, though, that we owe a great debt of gratitude to Yoshiyahu. Without his spiritual initiatives, the Bnei Yisrael would have had to endure living for more than a century under the rule of eight consecutive evil kings. Had that happened, Yehudah might have shared its fate with the ten northern tribes, who were ruled by evil kings for very long periods, and were consequently exiled. Therefore, we must acknowledge Yoshiyahu’s role in the continuity of our nation.319For further explanation for the mourning of Yoshiyahu on Tishah Be’Av, see Rav Soloveitchik’s aforementioned work, pp. 275-286. +TABC alumnus Rav Avi Levinson adds that the righteous Jewish leaders in exile, such as Yechezkeil and Daniel, likely were impacted positively by Yoshiyahu’s Teshuvah movement. Without the thirteen years of Teshuvah, such great spiritual leaders would have been unlikely to emerge. Yoshiyahu must retain a significant place in the collective Jewish psyche since it was he who preserved the legacy of David HaMelech. Our spiritual survival, in the main, can be attributed to him. +The discovery of Moshe Rabbeinu’s Sefer Torah and the Nevu’ah of Chuldah both directed Yoshiyahu to set out on his mission of spiritual renewal. The battle of Carchemish distracts him from this critical endeavor. This terribly misguided diversion cost Yoshiayhu HaMelech his life and completely derailed our nation’s process of religious return. +The lesson for modern times is clear: We must remain focused on our goals and mission. Various fights and intrigues should never distract us from that which is truly important. Distraction can have devastating consequences, as it did for Yoshiyahu HaMelech and Am Yisrael, twenty years before the Churban. + +Why We Fast on Tzom Gedaliah + +Introduction +Most Jews do not know why Tzom Gedaliah was instituted. Some are aware that we fast to mourn the death of Gedaliah ben Achikam, a Tzaddik. However, this is hardly a convincing reason to fast on an annual basis; after all, many Tzaddikim have died on a wide variety of days, and we do not fast for them. Many might respond that Gedaliah was a Tzaddik who was assassinated by another Jew. Sadly, this is also an inadequate response, as the Tanach is bloodied with many civil wars and assassinations. Sefer Shofetim, Sefer Shmuel, and Sefer Melachim each record tragic instances of internecine warfare, where many a Tzaddik was killed by the hand of a fellow Jew. What is so unique about Gedaliah’s death that merits the dedication of a fast day? +Yishmael ben Netaniah’s Motivation +To arrive at a satisfying explanation for Tzom Gedaliah, we must delve into the motivations of the assassin, as outlined in Melachim II 25:22-26, and paralleled in Yirmiyahu 41. The assassin, Yishmael ben Netaniah, is described as a member of the royal family. It is not difficult to discern why Yishmael ben Netaniah is deeply disturbed by Gedaliah ben Achikam’s actions. +Gedaliah is appointed by the Nevuchadnetzar-led Babylonian Empire to govern the few Jews who were permitted to remain in Eretz Yisrael after the Churban Beit HaMikdash. He tells this remnant not to fear the servants of the Chaldeans, settle in the land, and serve the king of Babylonia, and he guarantees that “all will be well” with them (Melachim II 25:24 and Yirmiyahu 41:9). Yishmael ben Netaniah views Gedaliah ben Achikam as a traitor who disgracefully capitulates to the evil Nevuchadnetzar. +Moreover, Gedaliah’s seat of government was in Mitzpah, a few miles north of Jerusalem. The Babylonians likely relocated the Jewish seat of leadership from Jerusalem to Mitzpah to demonstrate their continued control over the region, and that the days of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael had ended. Yishmael ben Netaniah is utterly revolted by Gedaliah’s cooperation in this act of denigration directed towards Jerusalem and Jewish people. +Gedaliah is also not part of the Davidic line. The Jews had preserved the passing of the leadership from son to son for twenty-two successive generations, all the way back to David HaMelech. Unlike the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was under the rule of at least five different dynasties, the Southern Kingdom fervently preserved the Davidic line.320Even after the assassinations of Yeho’ash, Amatziah, and Amon. Yishmael ben Netaniah finds Gedaliah’s rise to power utterly intolerable and therefore decides to assassinate him. +Why Yishmael ben Netaniah was Wrong +After learning all of this background, one might readily be convinced that Yishmael was correct in his decision to assassinate Gedaliah! However, this obviously is not true. If Gedaliah truly disgraced our people by submitting to Babylonian rule, then we should not mourn his assassination by fasting. Indeed, Chazal (Rosh HaShanah 18b) refer to Gedaliah as a Tzaddik. +Rather, Yishmael ben Netaniah was entirely incorrect. None other than Yirmiyahu HaNavi proclaimed (Yirmiyahu 25 and 29) seventy years of Babylonian rule over Eretz Yisrael due to the Bnei Yisrael’s sinful behavior. The Bnei Yisrael were supposed to submit to Babylonian rule. These seventy years would serve as an opportunity for the performance of the Teshuvah needed to merit the future Jewish sovereign control over Eretz Yisrael. +Unfortunately, Yirmiyahu’s message was rejected by many, and he was even derided (see Yirmiyahu 7 and 26) as a false prophet. However, Yirmiyahu had repeatedly proven his authenticity, as his predictions of the failures of the Jewish rebellions against Nevuchadnetzar sadly materialized in full force. The Jewish rebellions ended in ruinous defeat with the exile of Yehoyachin in 597 B.C.E. This was followed by the exile of the Jewish leadership and prime vessels of the Beit HaMikdash, the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, and exile of most of Judea in 586 B.C.E. +By the time Gedaliah assumed the role of governor in 586 B.C.E., it was established beyond a reasonable doubt that Yirmiyahu was indeed communicating the authentic and accurate message of Hashem. Thus, while Yishmael ben Netaniah had noble intentions, his actions were in direct contradiction with the teachings of Yirmiyahu HaNavi. There was no reasonable excuse for Yishmael ben Netaniah’s actions. Although he might have had noble intentions, he is rightfully regarded as a Rasha, an evildoer. +The Fallout from Yishmael ben Netaniah’s Actions +The price we paid for Yishmael ben Netaniah’s evil murder of Gedaliah was steep indeed. In the short term, the remaining Jews felt compelled to leave Eretz Yisrael out of fear for the retributive wrath of Nebuchadnezzar and his forces. Chazal express the resulting utter desolation in Eretz Yisrael: +R. Yosi explained: for fifty-two years a bird was not seen flying in the land of Israel (Yerushalmi Ta'anit 4:5; end of Eichah Rabba Petichta). +However, there was a long term price to be paid as well. The Jews who returned to Eretz Yisrael after the termination of the seventy years of Babylonian rule returned to a desolate land. They had to rebuild the Jewish population from scratch. Moreover, the Jewish settlement of the Second Temple era never truly established a strong and long-lasting hold on Eretz Yisrael. This may be attributed to a great extent due to the fact that the first generation of returnees had to begin from scratch. +If only Yishmael ben Netaniah and his band had heeded the words of Yirmiyahu HaNavi, spared the life of Gedaliah, and followed the latter’s prudent counsel. Jewish history may have turned out dramatically different. The Jews from Bavel would have returned to an Eretz Yisrael already blessed with a significant Jewish population and infrastructure. The Jewish settlement during the time of Bayit Sheini would have been far more viable and stable. Perhaps, the second Beit HaMikdash would not have been destroyed.321Our explanation for Tzom Gedaliah is implied by Rambam (Hilchot Ta’aniot 5:2), who writes that the murder of Gedaliah extinguished the last ember of hope for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael and sealed the result of the Exile. +Lessons to Ponder on Tzom Gedaliah +Thus, the assassination of Gedaliah is most certainly worth commemorating with a fast day. It is most noteworthy that a well-meaning action led to such disastrous large scale consequences. We are reminded to heed the words of the “Yirmiyahus” of our time, the Torah leaders of our people. It is well worth fasting and internalizing this vital message with the hope that the mistake of the assassination not be repeated. +Tzom Gedaliah in Light of the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah +It is especially appropriate to commemorate the assignation of Gedaliah during the Asseret Yemei Teshuvah, the ten days between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur.322Tzom Gedaliah is commemorated the day after Rosh HaShanah. Gedaliah’s assassination is a potent example of the opening Pasuk of the Haftarah read on Shabbat Shuvah, the Shabbat between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur— “Shuvah Yisrael Ad Hashem Ki Chashaleta Ba’Avonecha,” “Return Israel to Hashem, for you have fallen because of your sin” (Hoshea 14:2). The terrible sin of Gedaliah’s assassination led to terrible consequences. Our fasting on Tzom Gedaliah strongly supports this message, which is vital during the Aseret Yemei Teshuvah. +Moreover, focusing on the assassination of Gedaliah and its terrible short and long-term consequences serves to communicate a major recurring theme in Sefer Melachim. The recurring message is that adherence to the words of Hashem communicated by the Navi brings prosperity, and ignoring the divine direction as relayed by a prophet leads only to disaster. +Sefer Melachim and Sefer Yirmiyahu record how the last kings of Yehudah ignore Yirmiyahu’s repeated pleas to refrain from rebelling against Bavel, thereby setting our people on the path of exile, and causing the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Similarly, Yoshiyahu’s defiance of Yirmiyahu’s directive to refrain from confronting the Egyptian army on its way to assist the Assyrian army at the battle of Carchemish leads to his death. Another example is Achav’s fall (recorded in Melachim I 22) in the wake of his refusal to heed the instruction of the Navi Michah to refrain from entering a battle with Aram. +By contrast, Rechav’am twice averts disaster by heeding the words of Shemayah the Navi to refrain from war. By doing so, Rechav’am avoids the terrible consequences of a disastrous civil war (see Melachim I 12) and complete destruction at the hands of the Egyptian Paroh Shishak (at the end of Melachim I 14). Similarly, the army of Yehoshafat fares well after it heeds the direction of the prophet Elisha (Melachim II 3). +The utter destruction wrought by Yishmael ben Netaniah’s brazen disregard for the words of the Navi is a most poignant message during the time of Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur. The vital message of the critical importance of clinging closely to the direction of Hashem is a key theme to strike at this most spiritually intense time of the Jewish year. + +The Haftarah for Shabbat Chazon + +Introduction +Most of us perceive the books of Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu as essentially teaching the following message: You are terrible, so repent, or you will be destroyed. As we examine the choice of Yeshayahu as the prophet we read on Shabbat Chazon, the Shabbat preceding Tishah Be’Av, we shall see that there are great differences between these books that hardly can be described as delivering the same monochromatic message. +The Puzzling Choice of Yeshayahu +Chazal (cited in Tosafot Megillah 31b s.v. Rosh Chodesh Av) ordain that in the three weeks leading up to Tishah Be’Av, we read three Haftarot of distress (Gimmel DePuranuta), beginning with Yirmiyahu 1, followed by Yirmiyahu 2, and climaxing with Yeshayahu 1. The choice of Yirmiyahu is very obvious. Yirmiyahu is the prophet of the Churban. The first Haftarah presents Hashem’s mission statement to Yirmiyahu, which states that his primary mission is to communicate the message of the upcoming destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and Yerushalayim. Indeed, almost the entire book of Yirmiyahu is devoted to themes of destruction. Chazal (Bava Batra 14b) describe Sefer Yirmiyahu as “entirely about destruction.” Indeed, the Sefer describes at length Yirmiyahu’s experiences before, during, and after the Destruction. +The choice of Yeshayahu as the concluding message of the Gimmel DePuranuta is shocking, to say the least. Yeshayahu, as stated in his opening Pasuk, lives during the reigns of Uzziyah through Chizkiyahu. Accordingly, Yeshayahu lives more than one hundred years before the Churban. Indeed, Chizkiyahu’s reign is followed by Menashe (who rules for fifty-five years), Amon, Yoshiyahu, Yehoyakim, and finally Tzidkiyahu, in whose time the Beit HaMikdash is destroyed. Accordingly, Yirmiyahu would have been a far superior choice to read on the Shabbat preceding Tishah Be’Av. +Moreover, in Yeshayahu’s description of the land being destroyed, he describes Yerushalayim as being left as a remaining “hut in a vineyard” (Yeshayahu 1:8). This refers to the land of Israel made desolate by the invading Assyrians, who exiled the residents of the Northern Kingdom, and destroyed almost all of the Southern Kingdom, except for Yerushalayim, which was saved by the great miracle of Hashem smiting the huge Assyrian army one night while they were besieging Yerushalayim (Melachim II 18-19). +This seems highly out of place on Shabbat Chazon, when we commemorate Yerushalayim’s destruction! Yirmiyahu, on the other hand, clearly communicates (Yirmiyahu 1:15 and throughout the Sefer) that Yerushalayim will be destroyed, and not spared as it was during the days of Chizkiyahu. Thus, the choice of Yeshayahu as the Haftarah of Shabbat Chazon is puzzling indeed. We offer three complementary answers to this vexing problem. +Yeshayahu Teaches that Hashem is Fair +One reason to read Yeshayahu 1 on Shabbat Chazon is to demonstrate that Hashem is fair. Yeshayahu promises us that if we improve, we shall “eat the goodness of the land” (Yeshayahu 1:19). On the other hand, he presents Hashem’s warning that if we refuse to improve and continue to rebel, “we shall be consumed by the sword.” Accordingly, we cannot complain to Hashem about the Churban, since He sent prophets to warn us even more than a century before the catastrophe. +In Megillat Eichah, we express anger at Hashem in Pesukim such as “He drew His arrow like an enemy” (Eichah 2:4) and “He ambushes me like a bear, like a lion in waiting” (Eichah 3:4). We clarify in the Haftarah of Shabbat Chazon, however, that upon sober reflection, we realize that “Hashem is righteous in all His ways” (Tehillim 145:17). +Yeshayahu’s Message of Hope +We noted that Chazal characterize the book of Yirmiyahu as “entirely about destruction.” This is because, in Yirmiyahu’s time, the sentence of the Churban has already been pronounced by Chuldah (Melachim II 22:14-20). In fact, in Yirmiyahu 1:13, Hashem presents the image of a boiling pot to show that things have reached their boiling point and that Hashem is poised for the Churban. Hashem also shows Yirmiyahu an almond rod because the Hebrew word for almond, Shakeid, sounds like Shokeid, that Hashem is very much ready to fulfill His word, to destroy due to our great sins, without further delay. The commentators debate as to whether there is any hope of Teshuvah at this point (the Abarbanel argues that Teshuvah was still possible), but even if it were possible, the chance of success is very slim because of the overwhelming difficulty of repenting from the many sins that have accumulated over the generations. +Yeshayahu, on the other hand, lives long before Chuldah issues her harsh prophecy. Yeshayahu is filled with prophecies of Nechamah (comfort), especially in Yeshayahu 40-66, from which we read seven selections as Haftarot in the seven weeks after Tishah Be’Av, the last being read the Shabbat preceding Rosh Hashanah. In Yeshayahu 2 and 11, the Navi presents grand prophecies of the Messianic age. Indeed, Chazal (ad. loc.) describe Yeshayahu as “entirely devoted to consolation.” Even Yeshayahu 1, which contains some very harsh words of rebuke (such as 1:4, 1:9 and 1:15) also presents promise for a better future if we improve ourselves (Yeshayahu 1:19). Yeshayahu even presents specific recommendations for how we can find redemption: “Zion will be redeemed with justice” (Yeshayahu 1:27). +It is vitally important for us to hear the message of Yeshayahu before Tishah Be’Av instead of that of Yirmiyahu because our experience of Tishah Be’Av should not be one exclusively of mourning. Megillat Eichah concludes with the hopeful plea of “Chadeish Yameinu KeKedem,” that Hashem should reinstate His relationship of old with us, and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash. Moreover, R. Yosi ben Chanina teaches (Makkot 24a; as understood by Rav Kook) that the burden of cumulative sins that rested upon the generation of Yirmiyahu had been relieved after the Churban when Yechezkeil delivered the message that Hashem granted us a fresh start (Yirmiyahu 20). Thus, Yeshayahu’s message of hope is far more relevant to us than Yirmiyahu’s message of doom. +Yeshayahu’s Focus on Mitzvot Bein Adam LaChaveiro +There is yet another reason why Yeshayahu’s message is far more relevant to us than that of Yirmiyahu. Yirmiyahu notes that the primary reason for the destruction of the (first) Beit HaMikdash is the proliferation of idolatry amongst our ancestors (Yirmiyahu 1:16, inter alia). Fortunately, the zeal for idolatry has cooled (see Yoma 69b), and idolatry is not a primary concern for us today. +Yeshayahu, however, focuses on justice and honest business dealings (Yeshayahu 1:21-23). In Yeshayahu 1, he makes no mention of idolatry. One may surmise that since this chapter reflects the realities of the time of the very righteous king Chizkiyahu, concern for idolatry is hardly relevant since Chizkiyahu has wiped Eretz Yisrael clean of idolatry and even Bamot (private altars outside the Beit HaMikdash), as recounted in Melachim II 18:4. Chizkiyahu rallies the Jewish people in an effort to rededicate the Beit HaMikdash and offer proper Korbanot (Divrei HaYamim II 29-30). +Thus, the Assyrian onslaught and near destruction of Chizkiyahu’s kingdom leaves people wondering why we deserve such suffering, and why the merit of Chizkiyahu’s great deeds does not spare us from this terrible upheaval and turmoil. Yeshayahu answers these questions by telling us that although we are bringing many sacrifices and are dedicated to the Beit HaMikdash, Hashem is still angry at us due to our failures in our interpersonal relationships. The judicial system is corrupt (Yeshayahu 1:23) and people are dishonest in their business dealings (Yeshayahu 1:22). +Yeshayahu’s message is more relevant to the sins that precipitate the destruction of the second Beit HaMikdash (Yoma 9b, Bava Metzia 30b, and the Netziv’s introduction to Sefer BeReishit), which are failures in interpersonal relationships. Sadly, this remains all too relevant for us today. Although we have seen a resurgence of observance of Mitzvot between man and Hashem during the past few decades, both in Israel and in North America, some would argue that we are lagging in our performance of interpersonal Mitzvot. +It is heartening to visit weekday Minyanim, both in Israel and North America, that are filled to capacity with worshippers. This was hardly the case forty years ago and reflects an overall heightened awareness and level of observance of many aspects of the Halachah. One receives the impression, though, that the issues Yeshayahu complains about are not given the priority that they should be granted. Indeed, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveichik (Reflections of the Rav, pp. 152-153) has remarked that the true test of a truly pious individual is the manner in which he deals in his financial and interpersonal affairs. +Conclusion +The Haftarah for Shabbat Chazon presents our generation with a great challenge. Our generation will be redeemed not only with heightened Shul attendance, higher Kashrut standards, and more Torah study, but also with the aspiration for the highest levels of respect shown to all individuals, and with our checkbooks being as kosher as our kitchens. We will only merit to realize the lofty visions of Yeshayahu if we heed his words that Zion will be redeemed with justice, and not only with the stringent observance of ritual. + +Conclusion; Failure to Accept Rebuke, The Beginning and Ending Theme of Sefer Melachim + +Two Dominant Themes +If asked to identify the two dominant themes of Sefer Melachim, one can respond that the Sefer emphasizes [1] the call for wholehearted devotion and [2] the willingness to hear and implement Mussar (rebuke). +Wholehearted Devotion +Eliyahu HaNavi’s call for wholehearted devotion, “Ad Matai Atem Posechim Al Shenei HaSe’ifim,” “until when will you dance between two opinions” (Melachim I 18:21), looms large and reverberates throughout Sefer Melachim. Time and time again, the kings of the Southern and Northern Kingdoms and their subjects fail to fully accept Hashem and the truthfulness of His Torah. Eventually, the Bnei Yisrael’s interpersonal (see Yeshayahu 1) and spiritual failures result in the destruction of the first Beit HaMikdash and the Babylonian Exile. +Acceptance of Rebuke +In terms of willingness to accept rebuke, this theme not only pervades Sefer Melachim but also serves as its literary “bookends.” The Sefer begins by mentioning that David HaMelech never rebuked Adoniyahu (Melachim I 1:6). We hear this each year during the Haftarah of Parashat Chayei Sarah. +The fact that David HaMelech never offers words of reproof to his son Adoniyah results in the latter’s inability to understand boundaries. As the son of the king, he is able to get anything he wants. He likely never learns the value of moderation. Thus, he is psychologically unbalanced, and is unable to cope with his being denied the kingship. He dies at a young age as a result of this failure, as he cannot reconcile himself with Shlomo’s ascension to the throne (as recorded at length in Melachim I 2). +The story repeats itself at the end of Sefer Melachim. Yehoyakim and Tzidkiyahu, the last two kings of significant reign, distinguish themselves by their disregard of Yirmiyahu’s repeated and incessant warning of impending doom. Their dogged refusal to reconcile with the reality articulated by the Navi is articulated in full in Sefer Yirmiyahu. Had these kings accepted Yirmiyahu’s call to refrain from rebelling for seventy years against the Babylonians, the Churban would have been avoided. +Stiff-necked refusal to accept prophetic Mussar is a recurrent theme throughout Sefer Melachim. Shlomo HaMelech tragically rejects the Achiyah HaShiloni-backed Mussar of Yarav’am ben Nevat, Yarav’am later rejects Achiyah HaShiloni’s Mussar, Achav rejects Eliyahu HaNavi and Michah ben Yimlah’s Mussar, Yehoram ben Achav rejects Elisha’s Mussar, and even Chizkiyahu does not act on the Mussar of Yeshayahu. Time and time again, the rejection of Mussar results in destruction. +David HaMelech as a Model +David HaMelech ranks high on our list of Jewish role models, since he took full responsibility for his actions, and was always willing to accept the Mussar of Natan the Navi. In fact, Shlomo HaMelech is able to rise to the throne due to David HaMelech’s acceptance of the Navi’s direction, as recorded in Melachim I 1. The kingship and Beit HaMikdash are lost to a great extent due to David’s descendants failing to follow in their illustrious ancestor’s path in this regard. +Hopefully, a full immersion in Sefer Melachim should impact a person’s character. One who has truly inculcated the lessons of Sefer Melachim sees Mussar not as a nuisance or hindrance, but rather as an opportunity to improve and emerge in the class of David HaMelech. And in doing so, we will be able to reverse course on our path from David to Destruction, and instead set out on the journey to the renewed Malchut Beit David and Beit HaMikdash. + +Acknowledgments + +A cynic once commented that a commentary to Tanach can either be beautiful or faithful to the text, but not both. While this statement is not entirely true, it does capture the challenge faced by those who deliver Tanach Shiurim. Our listeners, on the one hand, demand authenticity. On the other hand, they expect the Shiurim to be beautiful and inspiring and that they emerge with a message that elevates them and enhances their lives as Jews. The constant struggle and challenge faced by Torah educators is the never-ending pursuit of Shiurim that succeed in being both authentic and beautiful. +There is one more ingredient to a successful Shiur. Chazal teach that “Ee Efshar LeBeit HaMidrash BeLo Chiddush,” true Torah learning always includes novel approaches and ideas (Chagigah 3a). In other words, for a Shiur to be successful, the Maggid Shiur must not simply repeat that which was said by others. He must inject his own personality and insights into the learning. +The recipe for a successful Shiur is, therefore, hours of preparation and deep thought. It does not matter how many years one has delivered Shiur on a particular topic. For compelling learning to emerge, enormous effort must be invested. Only with maximum effort and the support of Hashem can success be achieved, in line with the Gemara’s teaching “Yagata Umatzata Ta’amin,” that effort and success go hand in hand (Megillah 6b). +Since 2009, I have been privileged to teach Sefer Melachim at the Torah Academy of Bergen County. The students’ relentless questioning and high expectations have created a very high bar for which I have invested my all to satisfy. From David to Destruction is the product of thousands of hours of hard work, deep thinking, and intense davening invested to create beautiful and faithful interpretations of Sefer Melachim. I hope it will inspire Jews throughout the world to appreciate the majesty of Sefer Melachim and the treasures that are just waiting to be revealed and discovered. In particular, I hope it will help Rabbanim and Mechanchim in their quest to deliver inspiring and compelling Shiurim on Sefer Melachim to their congregants and Talmidim. +Nachum Krasnopolsky has invested countless hours to make my writings accessible. In the summer of 5778, together with the TABC alumnus Eitan Leff (’18), he tirelessly worked to gather and organize the thousands of articles in the Kol Torah archives to make them available online in an organized and attractive format at www.koltorah.org. The thousands of visitors the site attracts each month is an incredible testimony to the great service rendered by Nachum and Eitan. +In the spring and summer of 5779, Nachum, in his disciplined and dedicated, yet modest and soft-spoken style, strove to elevate my writings on Sefer Melachim into the extraordinarily high-quality work that From David to Destruction has become. The gratitude my family and I have for Nachum’s stellar editorial work is endless. Our expectations have been dramatically exceeded. Nachum is the embodiment of the Gemara’s teaching that one has gained more from his Talmidim than he has from his Rebbeim and colleagues. +I thank my son (and Torah Academy alumnus), Binyamin, who has contributed countless ideas that help create so many deep insights into Sefer Melachim. Binyamin is a fount of creative and out of the box thinking. It is always a pleasure and a deep source of satisfaction to partner with Binyamin in Torah learning. +Dozens of TABC students and alumni are cited in this volume. It is such a pleasure and honor to cite the contributions of so many students from the past many years. I thank all of them for partnering in the noblest pursuit in life – to be able to extract the lessons Hashem is expressing in His holy Torah. +I thank Rav Yosef Adler, Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Academy and Rav of Congregation Rinat Yisrael for his constant encouragement over the past twenty-four years at TABC and specific support for the publication of this work. Torah Academy’s administrators Rav Asher Yablok, Mr. Arthur Poleyeff, and Rav Ezra Wiener are also due an enormous debt of gratitude for their unending kindness and support. +The breakfast table in the Torah Academy faculty lounge is a treasure of our Yeshivah. I can always rely on a significant discussion amongst the Rebbeim concerning the issues in Sefer Melachim which yields invaluable and enriching insights. I thank my wonderful colleagues for providing such a spiritually nourishing environment. +I thank Hashem for the privilege of serving as the Rav of Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck. The formal and informal Torah discussions at Shaarei Orah are among my sweetest memories. May Hashem continue to send us many more years of beautiful weekday Tefillah, Shabbatot, and Yamim Tovim together. A special thank you to Heidi and Jack Varon for serving for so many years as the dedicated pillars of this wonderful Kehillah. +I thank Rav Elazar Meyer Teitz, the Av Beit Din of Elizabeth, for adopting me into his family and allowing me to serve as a Dayan with the Beth Din of Elizabeth. With Rav Teitz’s wise guidance, the Beth Din of Elizabeth has flourished and achieved a stellar international reputation for balancing uncompromised fidelity to Halachah and sensitivity to human needs with its work in the fields of Get and Eruv administration. +I thank my wife Malca for providing a loving and happy environment in our house. She is the source of happiness and joy of our home, where our children, Bracha and Yisroel, Binyamin, Chaya Zipporah, Atara, and Hillel grow and flourish with Hashem’s help. My, Baruch Hashem, many Shiurim and articles, easily flow in abundance due to the joyful environment Malca has created in our home. The accolade R. Akiva bestowed upon his family “Sheli VeShelachem Shelah Hi,” “my learning and your learning is all due to her,” applies at least in equal measure to Malca. +May this work serve Le’ilui Nishmat, to elevate the souls of my parents, Ben and Shirley Jachter A”H. Although they never had the opportunity to know their daughter-in-law Malca and grandchildren, I am certain that they would have been enormously pleased with their complete dedication to Torah and high-quality character. +May this work serve as a merit for my ailing father-in-law, Rav Shmuel Tokayer, and a source of comfort and support to my dedicated mother-in-law Mrs. Chana Tokayer. May Hashem extend them much Berachah, great support, and kindness. +Most of all, I thank Hashem for fulfilling my dreams to be blessed with a loving spouse and children and to spend a life immersed in Kedushah (holy projects). As a young man, I dreamed of teaching Torah to teenagers, leading a friendly and warm Kehillah, contributing to Am Yisrael as a Dayan, and publishing valued works of Torah. Thank You, Hashem, for transforming all of these aspirations into reality. Thank You, Hashem, for facilitating such a large and loyal readership, way beyond any dreams I harbored. “Mah Ashiv LaHashem Kol Tagmulohi Alai,” I am overwhelmed with the enormous gratitude to which I owe our Creator (Tehillim 116:12). May it be His Will to continue bestowing all these blessings for many decades to come. +Chaim Jachter +19 Tammuz 5779 +Teaneck, New Jersey \ No newline at end of file