Difference between revisions of "Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite/2"
m |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
<point><b>Geichazi's failure</b><ul> | <point><b>Geichazi's failure</b><ul> | ||
<li>Rashi, following Tanchuma, places the blame for the failed attempt at revival on Geichazi, suggesting that en route to the Shunamite he repeatedly gloated about the miracle he was to perform, thereby diminishing the wonder of the action. He was punished measure for measure, in not being able to perform the act he prided himself on.</li> | <li>Rashi, following Tanchuma, places the blame for the failed attempt at revival on Geichazi, suggesting that en route to the Shunamite he repeatedly gloated about the miracle he was to perform, thereby diminishing the wonder of the action. He was punished measure for measure, in not being able to perform the act he prided himself on.</li> | ||
− | <li>Malbim, instead, suggests that Elisha had not realized that the boy had actually died, assuming that he had simply fainted.  As such, he thought that Geichazi's powers would suffice to revive him. However, since the tragedy was much greater, they did not.<fn>Abarbanel opines that from the beginning Elisha had not meant for Geichazi to revive the boy, but only to run ahead so as to stop the corpse from rotting. Geichazi had not understood Elisha's intent and therefore returns to say "לֹא הֵקִיץ הַנָּעַר".  However, if Geichazi was not meant to resuscitate the boy,  it is not clear why, in response to his actions, the | + | <li>Malbim, instead, suggests that Elisha had not realized that the boy had actually died, assuming that he had simply fainted.  As such, he thought that Geichazi's powers would suffice to revive him. However, since the tragedy was much greater, they did not.<fn>Abarbanel opines that from the beginning Elisha had not meant for Geichazi to revive the boy, but only to run ahead so as to stop the corpse from rotting. Geichazi had not understood Elisha's intent and therefore returns to say "לֹא הֵקִיץ הַנָּעַר".  However, if Geichazi was not meant to resuscitate the boy,  it is not clear why, in response to his actions, the text reports: "וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב".</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – This approach might view the linguistic parallels to the story of the annunciation of the birth of Yitzchak as a means to further highlight the power of the prophet. Our story might purposefully echo the declaration "וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה...לַמּוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ<b> אֱ-לֹהִים</b>"; changing only the name of the actor, "וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן לַמּוֹעֵד... אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיהָ <b>אֱלִישָׁע"</b> to teach the reader how high a level Elisha had reached: He could imitate Hashem.</point> | <point><b>Biblical parallels</b> – This approach might view the linguistic parallels to the story of the annunciation of the birth of Yitzchak as a means to further highlight the power of the prophet. Our story might purposefully echo the declaration "וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה...לַמּוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ<b> אֱ-לֹהִים</b>"; changing only the name of the actor, "וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן לַמּוֹעֵד... אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיהָ <b>אֱלִישָׁע"</b> to teach the reader how high a level Elisha had reached: He could imitate Hashem.</point> | ||
Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
<point><b>"וַה' הֶעְלִים מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא הִגִּיד לִי"</b> – Hashem hides the reason for the Shunamite's distress from Elisha to teach him that he, too, is dependent on God. This is the first time in the story that the name of Hashem is mentioned.<fn>This does not include the word "הָאֱ-לֹהִים" in the designation "אִישׁ הָאֱ-לֹהִים" for the prophet.  Dr. Zivan suggests that the whole story revolves around the balance between the "איש" and the "אֱ-לֹהִים" in the "אִישׁ הָאֱ-לֹהִים".  As a prophet, Elisha is God-like, but he must remember that he is nonetheless human.</fn> Ironically, only when Hashem leaves Elisha does he seem to remember Him.</point> | <point><b>"וַה' הֶעְלִים מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא הִגִּיד לִי"</b> – Hashem hides the reason for the Shunamite's distress from Elisha to teach him that he, too, is dependent on God. This is the first time in the story that the name of Hashem is mentioned.<fn>This does not include the word "הָאֱ-לֹהִים" in the designation "אִישׁ הָאֱ-לֹהִים" for the prophet.  Dr. Zivan suggests that the whole story revolves around the balance between the "איש" and the "אֱ-לֹהִים" in the "אִישׁ הָאֱ-לֹהִים".  As a prophet, Elisha is God-like, but he must remember that he is nonetheless human.</fn> Ironically, only when Hashem leaves Elisha does he seem to remember Him.</point> | ||
<point><b>Geichazi's failure</b> – In sending Geichazi, Elisha proved that he had not yet internalized the lesson and still thought that human effort would be enough to revive the boy.  The failure taught him that any action done by mortals alone would not suffice.<fn>Geichazi, too, needed to learn that his mentor was fallible and not all capable.  It is perhaps for this reason that he, rather than Elisha, is the instrument of the initial failure.</fn></point> | <point><b>Geichazi's failure</b> – In sending Geichazi, Elisha proved that he had not yet internalized the lesson and still thought that human effort would be enough to revive the boy.  The failure taught him that any action done by mortals alone would not suffice.<fn>Geichazi, too, needed to learn that his mentor was fallible and not all capable.  It is perhaps for this reason that he, rather than Elisha, is the instrument of the initial failure.</fn></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב"</b> – Dr. Zivan suggests that the | + | <point><b>"וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב"</b> – Dr. Zivan suggests that the description "וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב" recalls the same phrase used to describe the failure of the Baal prophets on Mt. Carmel.<fn>See <a href="MelakhimI18-25-29" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 18</a>: "וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ עַד לַעֲלוֹת הַמִּנְחָה וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין עֹנֶה וְאֵין קָשֶׁב".</fn>  The allusion sends the message that belief in the omnipotence of a prophet leads one to view him as a god, and borders on idolatry.</point> |
<point><b>"וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל י"י"</b> – The boy is only revived when Elisha prays to Hashem, thereby demonstrating his realization that life and death are in Hashem's hands alone and that his human abilities are, in fact, limited.<fn>R. Sabato suggests that a similar process took place when Eliyahu tried to revive the son of the Tzarfatit.  He too was successful only after recognizing that God is needed to bring life.  [In his case, his initial failed human attempt is, in fact, preceded by a turning to God, but to challenge Him rather than to request help.  Thus, it is only after he explicitly prays that <b>Hashem</b> revive the boy, "וַיֹּאמַר י"י אֱ-לֹהָי תָּשׇׁב נָא נֶפֶשׁ הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה עַל קִרְבּוֹ" that the child comes back to life.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל י"י"</b> – The boy is only revived when Elisha prays to Hashem, thereby demonstrating his realization that life and death are in Hashem's hands alone and that his human abilities are, in fact, limited.<fn>R. Sabato suggests that a similar process took place when Eliyahu tried to revive the son of the Tzarfatit.  He too was successful only after recognizing that God is needed to bring life.  [In his case, his initial failed human attempt is, in fact, preceded by a turning to God, but to challenge Him rather than to request help.  Thus, it is only after he explicitly prays that <b>Hashem</b> revive the boy, "וַיֹּאמַר י"י אֱ-לֹהָי תָּשׇׁב נָא נֶפֶשׁ הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה עַל קִרְבּוֹ" that the child comes back to life.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיָּשֶׂם פִּיו עַל פִּיו וְעֵינָיו עַל עֵינָיו וְכַפָּיו עַל כַּפָּו"</b> – R. Samet questions that if the prayer was so central to the boy's revival, why is it mentioned only in passing, while the description of the human efforts are detailed?<br/> | <point><b>"וַיָּשֶׂם פִּיו עַל פִּיו וְעֵינָיו עַל עֵינָיו וְכַפָּיו עַל כַּפָּו"</b> – R. Samet questions that if the prayer was so central to the boy's revival, why is it mentioned only in passing, while the description of the human efforts are detailed?<br/> |
Latest revision as of 06:12, 19 June 2024
Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators debate whether our story casts Elisha in a positive or negative light. On one side, many modern scholars suggest that the chapter contains a subtle critique of the prophet. His unilateral promise of a son betrayed a certain amount of hubris, both in thinking that he was like God to grant life on his own, and in not including the Shunamite (whose life he was to change) in the decision. Most medieval commentators, in contrast, find no fault with Elisha in any part of the chapter, neither in the way he relates to Hashem nor in his interactions with the Shunamite. He emerges as an all powerful prophet, capable of granting life and resurrecting the dead.
Praise of Elisha
The story revolves around the greatness of the prophet who both brings life and revives the dead.
- Rashi, following Tanchuma, places the blame for the failed attempt at revival on Geichazi, suggesting that en route to the Shunamite he repeatedly gloated about the miracle he was to perform, thereby diminishing the wonder of the action. He was punished measure for measure, in not being able to perform the act he prided himself on.
- Malbim, instead, suggests that Elisha had not realized that the boy had actually died, assuming that he had simply fainted. As such, he thought that Geichazi's powers would suffice to revive him. However, since the tragedy was much greater, they did not.3
Critique of Elisha
The story is filled with implicit criticism of Elisha who overstepped his prophetic authority when he promised the Shunamite a son.
- Recognition of prophetic limits – R. Sabato claims that in these words, the Shunamite expresses doubt not in Hashem's omnipotence, but in the abilities of a flesh and blood prophet to grant life.11 Though Elisha was oblivious to the problematic nature of his actions, she was properly wary of a prophet who exceeded his authority.
- Fear of disappointment – R. Lichtenstein, following many commentators,12 instead suggests that the words reflect the Shunamite's natural fear that the baby not survive. After numerous years of wishing for a son, hoping and then being disappointed each month, she cannot bear the thought of another shattered dream.13 In light of this, R. Lichtenstein criticizes Elisha for not consulting with the Shunamite before declaring his miracle. The prophet should have been sensitive to her fragile state and not made such a unilateral decision regarding her life.
- R. Sabato suggests that had the boy not been born, Elisha might have learned his own limits, but would not have appreciated his dependence on God. Only through the later death of the child, and Elisha's need to pray to Hashem to revive him, could he learn this lesson.
- It is also possible that Hashem fulfilled the word of Elisha because not doing so would cast doubt on the prophet's abilities, leading people to question his status as a true prophet.14
- Dr. Zivan responds that the text wants to show how even after the prayer, Elisha had to work hard to resuscitate the boy. Mere speech was not to be enough. He needed to be active, use his full body, give of his own warmth, and even that did not suffice.21 Only after a second round does the boy begin to revive.
- Radak suggests that these actions were actually a means for Elisha to focus his prayer on the one for whom he was praying.22