Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite/2

Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Flaw in Elisha

Elisha was at fault for the death of the Shunamite's son. He overstepped his prophetic authority when he promised the Shunamite a son.

Sources:R"M Sabato,¹ R"Y Ariel,² Prof. Simon,³ Y. Amit,⁴ Dr. Gili Zivan,⁵

Elisha's miracles – Elisha's tenure as prophet is marked by extensive miracle-making, with most of the miracles being initiated by Elisha rather than Hashem.⁶  Thus in our story, he neither asks for, nor receives, any Divine directive to grant the Shunamite a son.

Prophetic autonomy – According to these sources, though a prophet may at times invoke miracles on his own,⁷ there is a certain hubris in thinking that one can bring life at one's own discretion.⁸ Certain capabilities are not meant to be shared by man.⁹

Why allow the baby to be born? If creating life is God's domain alone, why did Hashem fulfill the prophetic decree?

• 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.

Geichazi's suggestion: אֲבָל בֵּן אֵין לָהּ – R. Sabato suggests that the idea to grant the Shunamite a child came from Geichazi rather than from Elisha, because it was he who viewed the prophet as all powerful.¹⁰  Elisha knew of the barren state of his hostess on his own, but did not initially think he could bring forth life. Only after Geichazi suggested it, was he swayed by the idea.

The Shunamite's reaction: אַל תְּכַזֵּב בְּשִׁפְחָתֶךָ – 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 Prof. Simon adds that the Shunamite also questioned her personal merit, recognizing that she was not one of the Matriarchs to deserve a miraculous birth.

Biblical parallels – Dr. Zivan¹² compares the language used in our story to describe the fulfillment of the prophetic promise with that found in the parallel story of Sarah and the birth of Yitzchak.¹³  By Sarah, we are told, "וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה...לַמּוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים". Our story echoes, "וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן לַמּוֹעֵד... אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיהָ אֱלִישָׁע." The near identical wording highlights the one difference: in our story Elisha replaces Hashem.¹⁴  The parallel thus reinforces the problematic nature of Elisha's actions, suggesting that he saw himself as God, rather than Hashem's servant.

Son's death – The son's death was necessary to teach Elisha about the limits of his authority.¹⁵  R. Samet,¹⁶ however, questions whether it is fair to teach Elisha a lesson at the expense of the Shunamite. These sources might respond that since the son was revived there was no lasting harm done to her through the experience.

"וַה' הֶעְלִים מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא הִגִּיד לִי" – 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.¹⁷ Ironically, only when Hashem leaves Elisha does he seem to remember Him.

Geichazi's failure – 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.¹⁸

"וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב" – Dr. Zivan suggests that the narrator's description "וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין קָשֶׁב" recalls the same phrase used to describe the failure of the Baal prophets on Mt. Carmel.¹⁹  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.

"וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֶל י"י" – 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.²⁰

"וַיָּשֶׂם פִּיו עַל פִּיו וְעֵינָיו עַל עֵינָיו וְכַפָּיו עַל כַּפָּו" – 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?

• 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

Flaw in Elisha

Elisha was at fault for the death of the Shunamite's son.  This approach divides regarding the nature of his sin:

Lack of Empathy

Elisha's treatment of the Shunamite and unsolicited promise of a son portrayed a lack of sensitivity to his barren hostess.

Sources:Y. Amit, R"M Lichtenstein

Indirect speech

Flaw in the Shunamite

The Shunamite did not sufficiently appreciate the miracle bestowed upon her, and did not recognize that the supernatural birth of her son brought with it the responsibility of raising him to greatness.

Sources:R"E Samet

The Shunamites' title: אִשָּׁה גְדוֹלָה – R. Samet notes that, unlike other childless women in Tanakh, the Shunamite is not introduced to the reader as barren, but rather as an important woman. He suggests that this implies that the Shunamite's barren status must not have bothered her greatly.²³ She replaced a life of motherhood with one of business, taking care of her estate and involving herself with acts of hospitality.

No request for a son – According to R. Samet, the Shunamite does not ask for her son because it was simply not high on her list of priorities. When told of her upcoming pregnancy, she replies ""אַל תְּכַזֵּב בְּשִׁפְחָתֶךָ", not out of fear of being disappointed, but because she is not in the frame of mind to become a mother.  It is for this very reason that Elisha had not thought on his own of granting her a son.  Had the Shunamite been yearning for a child, he would probably have taken notice of the fact by himself and not needed Geichazi to enlighten him.

Evaluation of the Shunamite – R. Samet views this lack of desire for a child negatively, suggesting that the Shunamite did not sufficiently appreciate the blessing of motherhood.  One, however, might question both R. Samet's assumption regarding the emotional state of the Shunamite²⁴ and his evaluation that one who has managed to come to terms with barrenness need be viewed negatively.²⁵

Biblical parallels – R"E Samet attempts to support his negative view of the Shunamite by contrasting her with other barren women in Tanakh.  While Sarah, Rachel, and Channah all express their joy and thanksgiving on bearing a child,²⁶ and see to it that the child is raised so as to become a leader (thereby meriting their miraculous birth) the Shunamite does neither.²⁷ The text shares no prayer of thanksgiving and no description of her caring for the child in any special way. However, an argument from silence is not necessarily fair.  Moreover, though it is indisputable that Yitzchak, Yaakov, Yosef, Shimshon and Shemuel all become leaders, we know almost nothing about their upbringing and it is not clear that the Shunamite invested less in her son than these mothers.²⁸

"וַיִּגְדַּל הַיָּלֶד... וַיֵּצֵא... אֶל הַקֹּצְרִים" – R. Samet points to this description of the boy's growth as evidence that the Shunamite did not invest properly in the son given to her via miracle. He was not raised to learn Torah or do good deeds, but rather to work in the field.  It should be noted, however, that the description of his maturation, "וַיִּגְדַּל הַיָּלֶד... וַיֵּצֵא... אֶל הַקֹּצְרִים" is really not all that different from that of Yaakov, "וַיִּגְדְּלוּ הַנְּעָרִים... וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם יֹשֵׁב אֹהָלִים".‎  Neither says anything about the boys' spiritual maturation.²⁹

Reaction to death – R. samet claims that it is only with the death of her son, that the Shunamite realizes both what she had been given and what she had lost.  She finally recognizes that if Hashem made a miracle to grant her a son, it could not have been in vain.  Her son could not have been meant to be like all other children.  This realization leads her to correct her earlier attitude.  No longer does she take her son for granted.  No longer is she satisfied with a motherless lot, but instead, she does all in her power to have Elisha bring about a second miracle.

"וַתִּשְׁתַּחוּ אָרְצָה וַתִּשָּׂא אֶת בְּנָהּ" – R. Samet claims that these actions suggest that after the child's "second birth," the Shunamite has learned her lesson.  Her falling and bowing express the thanksgiving earlier omitted, and her "lifting of her son" represents her knowledge that she must bring him up in an exalted manner and raise him to be a leader.

Elisha's role – R. Samet puts some of the blame on the prophet as well, maintaining that he did not properly inform the Shunamite of her responsibilities and that he did not take an active role in correcting the situation after the fact.  Elisha could have had the boy join his band of "בני הנביאים" and trained him to prophecy, yet, Elisha felt no obligation to play a role in the boy's upbringing and made no connection to him.

"וַי"י הֶעְלִים מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא הִגִּיד לִי" – Since Elisha broke ties with the boy, Hashem, measure for measure, kept him in the dark about his fate.

Failure to revive – The initial failure to revive the boy stems from this same issue, Elisha's having distanced himself from the welfare of the family. In sending Geichazi to revive the boy, he demonstrated that he had not as yet learned the necessity of creating a personal connection to the boy.  Thus, it is only when he personally plays a role in the revival that it is successful.

"וַיָּשֶׂם פִּיו עַל פִּיו וְעֵינָיו עַל עֵינָיו וְכַפָּיו עַל כַּפָּו" – R. Samet suggests that the method of revival further symbolizes Elisha's recognition that he should have formed a personal relationship with the child.  His connecting eye to eye, mouth to mouth represents his new connection to the boy and personal intervention in his life.

No Flaw

The death of the son of the Shunamite was not related to any sin, but was rather was the result of natural causes.

¹ R"M Sabato, "סיפור השונמית", Megadim 15 (1992):45-52.

² R"Y Ariel, "האשה השונמית ומבחנו של הנס - 'חיבוק דוב' ספרותי", Megadim 15 (1992):89-93.

³ Prof. U. Simon, "אלישע והשונמית - מחולל הנס נזקק להדרכת בעלת הנס" in קריאה ספרותית במקרא: סיפורי נביאים, (Jerusalem, 1997): 279-316.

⁴ Y. Amit, "אלישע והאישה הגדולה משונם — נביא במבחן," Zmanim: A Historical Quarterly 77 (2002):4-11. Amit combines this approach with the following one which sees  a lack of sensitivity in Elish'a treatment of the Shunamite.

⁵ See her article,  "השיעור שנתנה השונמית לאלישע ו…לנו".

⁶ His miracles are also unique in that most are aimed at assisting individuals rather than the entire nation.

⁷ For different opinions regarding the extent of prophetic autonomy see Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction and Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

⁸ Prof. Simon adds that even though the text suggests that the prophet had the ability to bring life, he nonetheless did not have permission to do so.

⁹ See Devarim Rabbah which claims that only Hashem has the "key" to to open barren wombs.

¹⁰ See Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who presents Elisha as having total faith in his mentor's capabilities.  When asked if anyone besides Hashem could possibly bring forth life, he replies, "״אַף רַבִּי מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה.

¹¹ He contrasts her reaction to the promise of a child with that of Sarah in the same situation.  Where Sarah's laughter casts doubt on Hashem's abilities, and is thus cause for chastisement, the Shunamite only questions the prophet's autonomy, and is thus not criticized.

¹² Cf. Prof. Simon who makes the same comparison, but draws slightly different conclusions.

¹³ The two stories contain many parallels above and beyond the miraculous birth of  a child to a barren woman. Both stories open with a description of the hospitality of the parents, the women are promised a son in nearly identical language: "כָּעֵת חַיָּה [אַתְּ] חֹבֶקֶת בֵּן/ וּלְשָׂרָה בֵן", and each expresses doubt upon hearing the news.

¹⁴ R. Sabato points out that in other stories of barren women, as well, there is a recognition, lacking here, that Hashem is needed to bring life. In response to Rachel's desperate plea for children, Yaakov responds " הֲתַחַת אֱלֹהִים אָנֹכִי אֲשֶׁר מָנַע מִמֵּךְ פְּרִי בָטֶן". Similarly, when Eli blesses Channah, he says, " וֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל יִתֵּן אֶת שֵׁלָתֵךְ."

¹⁵ R. Ariel suggests that when a prophet independently invokes a miracle, such as this, even when Hashem fulfills the prophetic decree He does so only in a reduced fashion, and the miracle might not be long-lasting.

¹⁶ See

¹⁷ This does not include the word "הָאֱלֹהִים" in the designation "אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים" for the prophet.  Dr. Zivan suggests that the whole story revolves around the balance between the "איש" and the "אֱלֹהִים" in the "אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים".  Though, as prophet, he is God-like, he must remember that he is also human.

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ See Melakhim I 18: "וַיִּתְנַבְּאוּ עַד לַעֲלוֹת הַמִּנְחָה וְאֵין קוֹל וְאֵין עֹנֶה וְאֵין קָשֶׁב".

²⁰ 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 Hashem revive the boy, "וַיֹּאמַר י"י אֱלֹהָי תָּשׇׁב נָא נֶפֶשׁ הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה עַל קִרְבּוֹ" does the child come back to life.

²¹ See Radak and Ralbag who suggest that Elisha's pacing to and fro in the house after the initial attempt refers to a second round of prayer that was needed  Prof. Simon, in contrast, suggests that they highlight the great effort needed by Elisha.  he had exerted so much energy that he needed a break to rest..

²² He compares it to Yitzchaks' praying "לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ".

²³ She is not identified by the text as barren, because that is not how she identified herself.

²⁴ The silence of the text need not insinuate a lack of distress on the part of the Shunamite.  After all, more often than not, the emotions of characters in Tanakh are hidden from the reader.  Moreover, the text's presentation of the Shunamite as an "אִשָּׁה גְדוֹלָה" rather than a barren woman might be a literary device.  Her stature is introduced to explain how she was able to so generously host the prophet, while her barren state is hidden so that the reader discovers the fact only when Elisha does. Prof. Simon (see citation above) further suggests that the text delays sharing the fact of the women's childless state lest a reader assume that her motives in hosting the prophet were selfish, stemming from the hope that she be rewarded with a son.

²⁵ See R"Y Ariel, Dr. G. Zivan and R" M Lichtenstein, cited above, who all reject R. Samet's  assertions, pointing out that a woman who is able to come to terms with her distress at her barren status and find other sources of meaning in life should be lauded, not criticized.  If anything, the Shunamite should be held as a model for others to follow.

²⁶ Sarah recognizes the greatness of the miracle in her poetic announcement, "מִי מִלֵּל לְאַבְרָהָם הֵינִיקָה בָנִים שָׂרָה כִּי יָלַדְתִּי בֵן לִזְקֻנָיו", Rachel cries out, " אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת חֶרְפָּתִי" and Channah makes a full song of thanksgiving (Shemuel I 2).

²⁷ R. Sabato, cited above, however, points out that in most stories of barren women, Tanakh does describe the parent's active care in the education and raising of their children. In fact, though it is indisputable that Yitzchak, Yaakov, Yosef, Shimshon and Shemuel all become leaders, we know almost nothing about their upbringing.

²⁸ See R. Sabato, cited above, who makes this argument.

²⁹ Though Chazal suggest that Yaakov's sitting in tents refers to his learning Torah, the simple sense of the verse is that he was a shepherd. [See Rashbam.] R. Sabato  further notes that though today one might expect a "good Jewish child" to immerse themselves in Torah study rather than working in the field, this concept finds no expression in Tanakh.  Moreover, a child's visit to their father's workplace need not suggest that he was not also being raised to Torah and good deeds.