This Week's Parsha | Previous issues | Welcome
- Please Read!
Elijah traveled a day's journey (from Beer Sheba) into the desert, and he came to a juniper tree. He sat down under it, and he prayed to die… Suddenly he felt an angel touching him, who told him: "Come and eat!" (Kings I 19:4-5)
This Haftara focuses on the Prophet Elijah. Elijah, and his disciple, Elisha were active in the Northern Kingdom approximately a century after it had broken off with the Southern Kingdom, following the death of King Solomon. They both brought the word of G-d to His people during a period where the Ten Tribes were generally physically barred from traveling to the First Temple in Jerusalem.
Elijah worked alone - often as a one-man campaign - to establish His Will in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. That was a very difficult thing to do, as the Kingdom of Israel was under the House of Omri, in the person of Ahab, Omri's son. Ahab not only followed in the evil steps of his predecessor kings, but also married the Phoenician Princess, Jezebel, and imposed her idolatrous Baal worship on the people of his kingdom.
Elijah's spectacular demonstration of G-d's power over Baal on Mount Carmel, his massacre of the priests of Baal, and his placing Israel back into G-d favor bringing an end to the drought, all gave his lonely campaign short-term success. But when Jezebel heard of the slaughter of the priests of her cult, Baal, she vowed to have Elijah put to death the very next day. The story of the Haftara is set in this very tense atmosphere of the struggle between a very determined and single-minded prophet of G-d, and the idolatrous foreign queen of the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Elijah fled. He crossed the border into the Southern Kingdom of Judea - out of Jezebel's reach - and arrived at Beer Sheba. Not feeling entirely comfortable there, he moved deeper into the desert, rested under a juniper tree and, considering his work a failure, asked G-d to take his life. G-d sends an angel who supplied him with food, and whose consumption gives him the strength to continue the long journey to Mount Sinai - referred here as Mount Horeb. Settling down in a cave on Mount Sinai, G-d calls to him: 'What are you doing here, Elijah?'
Elijah answers G-d: 'I have acted zealously for G-d… 'for the Israelites have abandoned Your covenant, destroyed Your altars, and put Your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to kill me as well' (19:10; also 19:14).
G-d then teaches Elijah a lesson. He tells him to stand on a mountain before Him. Elijah experienced a hurricane, and earthquake, and a fire, but G-d was in neither of these dramatic phenomena. Only afterwards, did he actually experience G-d - in the form of the kol demama daka - the 'still small voice'. The lesson may be seen to teach that a zealous messenger of G-d does not bring His word in wrath and fury, but quietly, diplomatically, meaningfully, having created the right atmosphere.
G-d's instructions to Elijah continued in that spirit. There were to be no more fireworks on Mount Carmel, but he had to carry on his zeal for his Creator's cause in a much more subtle, if no less effective manner. He was to effect spiritual reform in the Northern Kingdom by quiet diplomatic action behind the scenes. He would put the mechanism in action whereby Baal worship would be removed from the Israelites through not only religious power (in his anointing Elisha as his successor), but also through the secular power - by anointing Jehu as the future king who would, in the future, eventually launch a coup that would bring him to power, destroy the ruling House of Omri, and bring Baal-worship to an end (Kings II 10).
Elisha carried on the work of Elijah after his death. Like Elijah, he fought against the paganism of the rulers of the Northern Kingdom. But unlike him, he did not operate alone. He created an organized following - a college of prophets - and he worked with the secular establishment (King Ahab the son of Omri and those after him in that Northern Kingdom dynasty of Omri) to obtain the religious reforms that Elijah had demanded. These failed to be long lasting, and theAir persistence in adhering to the pagan culture led to the overthrow of the entire House of Omri. Jehu massacred King Ahab's royal house, 'and all his great men, and his kinsfolk, and his priests, until he left him none remaining.' (Kings II 10:11) Thus Ahab's seventy sons were decapitated and all the priests of Baal - the contemporary form of paganism - were assembled and slaughtered. As king, Jehu indeed temporarily restored the worship of G-d to the Northern Kingdom, but he soon found himself behaving in as arbitrary a manner as the House of Omri - and indeed virtually all the kings of Israel broke off with the worship of the Almighty sooner or later, right up to the capture and enforced exile of the Northern Kingdom under King Shalmanezzer V of the Assyrian Empire (720 BCE).
The Haftara tells the story of how Elijah fled from the murderous Jezebel's reach into the Southern Kingdom of Judah, and beyond, to Mount Horeb (Sinai). He went alone and rested under the 'rotem' (juniper?) tree, and asked for G-d to take his life. He then fell asleep under the tress and an angel came to feed him with baked cakes and a jar of water (19:6), which gave him the strength to continue for forty days to the 'mountain of G-d at Horeb' (19:8).
The first part of this story parallels Jonah's going away from the city of Nineveh, after the people of that city had repented. As the text states:
G-d placed a 'kikayon' (gourd?) plant, which grew over Jonah to shade… and alleviate his suffering… but the next day… G-d placed a worm, which attacked the gourd, which then withered up. The sun beat down on Jonah's head, and he became faint. He wished that he would die, saying: "I would rather die than go on living" (Jonah 4:6-8).
Both had displayed zeal. Elijah had openly rebelled against the idolatrous Ahab and Jezebel, proving his point by sending forces to execute the priests of Baal on the banks of the Kishon River as soon as the conditions were right (18:40). Whereupon Jezebel made it clear that she issued a warrant on Elijah himself, for arrest and execution (19:2).
Jonah had also been zealous, but in a different way. He finally carried out G-d's command to preach to the people of Nineveh, but he seemed to have been rather disappointed by his own success (Jonah 4:1). The reason for his discontent is not clear in the text. The Malbim explains that Jonah (in his zeal) did felt let down - the people of Nineveh had repented, but not to the degree of renouncing idolatry. As a prophet, Jonah felt aggrieved that the people of Nineveh - the capital of the Assyrian Empire - would, in the future, grow into a force large enough to impose its will on the entire region, carrying the Northern Kingdom into exile in the process. Though the Israelites would have deserved it, Jonah's zeal was offended that G-d should be lenient on Nineveh and make that idolatrous culture His means of exiling the Ten Tribes.
Both then showed zeal. Both then suffered the sun beating down on them in their travels, and both wished to die. But G-d treated them differently. He sent relief to Elijah - in the form of an angel, who supplied him with food, giving him the strength to continue for forty days to Mount Sinai. In contrast, Jonah seems to have been treated less generously. His conditions did not improve; they became worse. G-d not only did not send him an angel with food, but He had taken his shade away from him, and instead taught him a lesson, illustrating His concern for all humanity - including even those who 'did not know their right hand from their left' - meaning, according to the Malbim, people who could not distinguish between service of G-d and the idolatrous beliefs of the forces of astrology and nature.
Why, therefore, does G-d seem to have responded more generously to Elijah's sincere display of zeal than to Jonah's zeal?
This issue may be responded to in the following way. Elijah's zeal was based on his distress in King Ahab having espoused Jezebel and allowed her to inculcate paganism into the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel - in the form of idolatrous Baal-worship. Elijah's zeal was a legitimate, praiseworthy form of zeal. Elijah had displayed G-d's power in the presence of the priests of Baal by a few words of prayer and bringing down the fire from Heaven. Yet Elijah, in his utter sincerity, had little to be pleased about. As he is recorded to have said later on, in the text of the Haftara (19:10, also 19:14), 'for the Israelites have abandoned Your covenant, destroyed Your altars, and put Your prophets to the sword. I alone am left, and they seek to kill me as well'. As the Radak explains, Elijah was left alone in his mission to influence the Northern Kingdom to repent. The other Prophets of G-d were still in hiding from the lethal Jezebel, and they could not help him.
Thus G-d indicated His approval for Elijah's enthusiasm by initially receiving him with His hospitality - in the form of food - at once, and of such a nature as to sustain him for forty days in the wilderness. However, although Elijah's zeal was appropriate, there was another way of looking at the situation that G-d, later, pointed out to him in the form of the 'still small voice' at Mount Sinai (19:12).
My favorite explanation of the 'still small voice' that God communicated to Elijah comes from Jonathan Sacks ('Celebrating Life' p.74). He suggests that G-d was teaching Elijah the following vital principle in how to G-d to the people:
'The still, small voice - a sound you can only hear if you are listening - means that your trial (with the fire from Heaven) was based on error… You showed the prophets of Baal that I, G-d, am a greater power. Perhaps so, but that is not what I am. The idea that G-d is power is pagan. G-d does not impose Himself on His image, mankind. On the contrary, G-d - like a true parent - creates space for His children to grow. He is always there, but only if we seek Him. His word is ever present, but only if we listen. Otherwise we do not hear it at all.'
By contrast, Jonah's distress at G-d's acceptance of Nineveh's 'half measured' (Malbim) repentance was a less praiseworthy form of zeal. His prophetic revelation (Radak) that G-d accepted their repentance and did not carry out His decree against them (3:10) should have been the end of the matter. But Jonah went one step further than Elijah, and it was the wrong step. That was his wanting to impose his standards of required repentance, rather than G-d's, on the people of Nineveh. In doing so, his zeal and G-d's requirements from Nineveh were not the same. Jonah's passion took him outside of G-d's plan and expectations for Nineveh. And G-d's 'inhospitality' towards him was a strong hint of His disapproval… and a prelude to His final message conveying His satisfaction at the spiritual progress of the people of Nineveh even though it did not come up to the standard that He would have expected of the Israelites…
This distinction conveys an important value. Before rebuking, we must first consider what G-d expects of that person or society - in their respective situations. And then the form of rebuke should be directed at the root of the problem, even if it is not likely to bring spectacular results in the short term.
QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT AND COMMENTARIES OF PARASHAT PINCHAS
1. In recognition of Pinchas having killed Zimri, G-d extended him His 'Covenant of Peace'. What does this expression mean (a) according to Rashi, and (b) according to Ibn Ezra?
2. Following the sin of Baal Peor, G-d gave to command to 'harass the Midianites' (25:17). What does that actually mean, (a) according to Rashi and (b) according to the Ohr Hachayim?
3. 'To these (tribes and families) the Land shall be divided' (26:53). How was the Holy Land divided up amongst the tribes and individual families, according to (a) Rashi and (b) the Ramban?
4. Following the successful application of the daughters of Zelophchad, as sole survivors, to inherit what would have gone to their deceased father in the Holy Land, the Torah brings the laws of inheritance. These laws are described as 'chukat mishpat' (27:11) - a 'decree of justice'. What is the force of that expression according to Rabbeinu Bachya?
5. In selecting Joshua as Moses' successor, G-d told Moses to place 'some of your majesty upon him' (27:20). What does that expression mean, according to Rashi?
6. What lesson in relationships with other people may be learnt from the day to day reduction of the number of bulls brought for the communal offering on Sukkot, according to Rashi?
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT AND COMMENTARIES OF PARASHAT PINCHAS
1. G-d's 'Covenant of Peace' in recognition of Pinchas for having killed Zimri is not his elevation to the priesthood - that is stated in the next verse. According to (a) Rashi, it is an expression of G-d's gratitude and good will towards Pinchas. According to (b) Ibn Ezra, it was a pledge that Pinchas would be protected from the vengeance of Zimri's supporters.
2. G-d's command to 'harass the Midianites', who enticed the Israelites into the sin of Baal Peor (24:6,18), means that they should regard the Midianites as enemies - as an ongoing state of mind, as well as an object of harassment. The Ohr Hachayim explains that the deeper purpose of this commandment was not simply revenge. For under the leadership of Midian, a lust for immoral pleasure and idol worship began to inculcate itself into the Israelites. Such desires, once there, are very hard to eradicate. Thus this commandment was to impress on the Israelites that what looked like a tempting pleasure was in fact a destructive spiritual enemy. That could only be fought by a constant feeling of enmity towards the Midianites.
3. The Torah states that the Holy Land was to be divided up by lottery according to the tribes: but the meaning of 'for the numerous one you shall increase its inheritance, and for the fewer one you shall reduce its inheritance' (26:54) is disputed between Rashi and the Ramban. Both base themselves on their respective derivations of these verses in the Torah. According to Rashi, the lottery was Divinely-guided to ensure that those tribes with larger populations got more value in land, and those with smaller populations got less value in land, and the land was to be divided so that all eligible - no matter what tribe - got equal shares in value of real estate. The Ramban holds that each tribe received equal portions of land, which were then subdivided among its members. Large and small tribes had equal shares, but the individual member of a large tribe would receive less than an individual member of a small tribe.
4. According to Rabbeinu Bachya, the expression 'chukat mishpat' - a 'decree of justice' means that a father may not alter the Torah's procedure of inheritance. Although he may make gifts of property in his lifetime, he may not arrange his will so that property in his name at the time of his death will be distributed in any way other to that stipulated by the Torah.
5. Rashi notes that the Moses was to place 'some' but not 'all' his majesty on Joshua. That implies that Joshua was to be a reflection of Moses' qualities, but not an equal to him. Moses is compared to the sun; Joshua is compared to sun's (Moses') reflection - the moon.
6. The reduction in the number of bulls brought for the communal offering on Sukkot, according to Rashi, is to teach that in general a guest should not overburden his host by outstaying his welcome. The reduced number of bulls brought as the festival progresses symbolizes that, as Rashi quotes from the Tanhuma, 'on the first day he may given the guest fattened meat, the next, fish, the next meat, the next beans and pulses, and the next, vegetables'. (As I understand it, it is not teaching inhospitality, but it means that the host has the right to give such a hint to a guest who is obviously using and taking advantage of him.)
ADDITIONAL ISSUE TO CONSIDER FOR PARASHAT PINCHAS
The public korbanot (offerings) for Succot appear to be out of rhythm with the korbanot for the other Festivals. All Festivals including Rosh Chodesh feature bulls, rams, and lambs. However the numbers are much fewer - a maximum of two bulls, one ram, and seven lambs. The first day of Sukkot, by contrast, involves seven times as many bulls, and twice the number of rams and lambs. In addition, unlike Pesach, the number of bulls does not remain the same, but goes down by one for each day of the Festival, until the last day of Sukkot where the number of bulls has been reduced to only seven. Why therefore do the korbanot for Sukkot differ from the others in these two ways?
The Talmud (Sukkah 55b) answers that these bulls (which total seventy) were offered to solicit G-d's protection for the seventy gentile nations (enumerated in Gen. 10). As the R. Yochanan puts it:
Woe to the Nations who lost and did not know what they lost! While the Temple was standing, the altar atoned for them. Now, who will atone for them?
Indeed a well-known Midrash (would a kind reader help me to locate the reference?) states that if the Nations had realized how much they benefited from those offerings, they would have sent legions to surround Jerusalem and guard it from attack.
This explanation raises several points of interest:
1. What is special about Sukkot that it should be the occasion in the year that involves advancing the welfare of the Gentile nations?
2. Why is it of importance that the Nations should join with the Israelites at all? Yet the Prophet Zechariah states that even after they have fought against us in the days preceding the Redemption, their survivors will have to make an annual Sukkot pilgrimage to Jerusalem - with drastic consequences if they fail to attend…
*Please note - My own attempts to deal with the above may be found in the archives of Shema Yisrael - on Parashat Pinchas for 5761
Written by Jacob Solomon. Tel 02 673 7998. E-mail: email@example.com for any points you wish to raise and/or to join those that receive this Parasha sheet every week.
This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
For information on subscriptions, archives, and