Eliyahu at Chorev/2

Eliyahu at Chorev

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Reward

The revelation at Chorev was a reward for Eliyahu's sanctification of Hashem on Mt. Carmel and his returning the Children of Israel to worship of Hashem.

Sources:RadakMelakhim I 19:7-21About R. David Kimchi

Why Sinai? Radak claims that Hashem revealed Himself to Eliyahu in exactly the same place that He had revealed Himself to Moshe, identifying Eliyahu's cave with the "crevice in the rock" from which Moshe saw Hashem.¹  The choice serves to heighten the honor bestowed upon Eliyahu as it equates him with Moshe, the greatest of prophets.²

Miraculous journey – The miraculous sustenance was also part of Eliyahu's reward. In this, too, there is a comparison to Moshe who survived for forty days and nights without food.³

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" – Radak suggests that this question is simply a way of entering into conversation with Eliyahu.

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" – Radak reads Eliyahu's response not as a cry against the Children of Israel, but as a tirade against Izevel and her Ba'al prophets who caused Israel to go astray, destroyed God's altars, and killed the prophets of Hashem.⁴

Wind, earthquake and fire – Radak does not explain the individual significance of each of the natural phenomena, nor of the contrast to the "small, still voice," suggesting only that together they were a show of honor to the prophet.⁵  It is possible that the strong forces of nature served to herald Hashem's approach, as a trumpet might announce the arrival of a king.  The emphasis on the absence of Hashem's presence in these forces might simply be a precautionary measure, informing Eliyahu when it was necessary to cover his face.

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" take two – This position could explain that when rewarding Eliyahu, Hashem did not suffice with a revelation, but asked the prophet to request something of Him.  The question "מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" is not accusatory in tone, but a straightforward question meaning "what is it that you would like".⁶

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" take two – In response to Hashem's question, Eliyahu responds that he would like vengeance.

Appointments: "הַנִּמְלָט מֵחֶרֶב חֲזָאֵל יָמִית יֵהוּא" – Hashem's directives to appoint Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha represent His acquiescence to Eliyahu's request.  Through them, there was to be vengeance on all who worshiped the Baal.⁷

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – This position does not see Elisha's appointment as a sign that Eliyahu's tenure as prophet had ended,⁸ but rather as a preparation for the future. Hashem recognized that Eliyahu was tiring, and suggested that he train someone to eventually take his place.

Biblical parallels – Our story is not the only one in which Hashem reveals Himself to man as a show of honor.  Ramban suggests that Hashem's appearance to Avraham after being circumcised, and to Israel after consecrating the Mishkan, serve the same purpose.

Rebuke

Hashem's revelation constituted a rebuke of Eliyahu and termination of his tenure as prophet.  This position divides regarding the reason for the rebuke:

Overly Zealous

Hashem chastised Eliyahu for his overly harsh and accusatory attitude towards the nation.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot12About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, Shir HaShirim Rabbah1:6About Shir HaShirim Rabbah, Seder EliyahuZuta 8About Seder Eliyahu, RashiMelakhim I 19:9-16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RalbagMelakhim I 19:3-17Melakhim I Toalot 19:11About R. Levi b. Gershom, R. Moshe AlshikhMelakhim I 19About R. Moshe AlshikhMelakhim I 19About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel MetzudotMetzudat David Melakhim I 19:13-18About R. David Altschuler, MalbimMelakhim I 19:3Melakhim I 19:9-16About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, modern scholars⁹

Eliyahu's flight and request to die – Malbim maintains that Eliyahu's flight was prompted not just by his fear of Izevel, but by his failure to bring the nation to a lasting recognition of Hashem and rejection of idolatry.¹⁰ It represented an abandonment of the nation whom he had despaired of ever changing.¹¹

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ"

• Malbim views the question as a critique of the prophet and his forsaking of the nation.  Hashem asks why Eliyahu is in the Wilderness ("פֹה") rather than among the people; he should be teaching and chastising them, not wandering off alone.
• R"M Alshikh adds that, in the word "פֹה", Hashem alludes to the fact that in this very place, Mt. Sinai, Moshe had asked that Hashem display compassion to the people, and Hashem had revealed to him the 13 attributes of mercy.  Hashem, thus, questions Eliyahu: if your intention is to ask for vengeance, then what are you doing specifically here, in a place marked by mercy? Hashem hints to Eliyahu that he should be praying on behalf of the nation, asking that they be saved not destroyed.¹²

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" – Eliyahu responds to Hashem that he is not prepared to ask for mercy; the people deserve vengeance, not compassion. ¹³

Hashem's revelation – According to these sources, through the revelation Hashem tells Eliyahu that He is not found in the destructive forces of wind, earthquake and fire, but in the soft still voice, symbolic of love and compassion.¹⁴ He, thus, tries to teach Eliyahu that the role of the prophet should not be solely to prosecute, but also to defend. He should not wish for the nation's destruction, but for their repentance and salvation.

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" take two – After Hashem's rebuke, He asks Eliyahu whether his position has changed.

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" take two – Eliyahu repeats his request for vengeance, expressing that Hashem''s demonstration had not changed his stance.¹⁵

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – These sources view the appointment in one of two ways:

• Acceptance of resignation – Ralbag¹⁶ and Malbim understand the appointment of Elisha as Hashem's acceptance of Eliyahu's resignation. Since he had asked to die and stop prophesying, Hashem replaced him with a new prophet.
• Termination of prophecy – The Mekhilta, Seder Eliyahu, and Rashi present Hashem as acting more harshly, and suggest that Hashem actively "fired" Eliyahu from his job, telling him that if prosecuting the nation was his goal, then Hashem no longer wanted him to prophesy: אֵי אֶפְשִׁי בִנְבוּאָתָךְ.

Other appointments: "הַנִּמְלָט מֵחֶרֶב חֲזָאֵל יָמִית יֵהוּא" – The fact that Hashem tells Eliyahu to appoint Chazael, Yehu, and Elisha,  who are to decimate Israel and its Baal worshipers, is difficult for this position.  If Hashem has been promoting bringing the nation back to God through love and compassion rather than through fiery wrath, why does He now seem to adopt Eliyahu's position and the use of destructive forces? R. Samet¹⁷ suggests that this was actually a test and punishment for Eliyahu.¹⁸ Hashem agrees to Eliyahu's demand for vengeance, but tells him that he must be the one to execute the order of destruction by appointing kings to destroy Israel. Hashem Himself, in contrast, is the one who is to have mercy and preserve a remnant of the righteous.¹⁹

Fulfilling the mission – Despite Hashem's directive, Eliyahu does not anoint Yehu or Chazael as king, leaving these tasks to his successor. R"E Samet suggests that this is an expression of the prophet's repentance and change of heart.²⁰ When actually faced with being the direct cause of Israel's destruction, Eliyahu could not carry through with the command, passing Hashem's test. It is for this reason that though he ordains Elisha, he does not yet stop prophesying.²¹

Biblical parallel – According to this position the parallels to the revelation to Moshe at Chorev serve to heighten the contrast between the two prophets.  Moshe comes to the crevice in Sinai to ask for forgiveness, while Eliyahu comes to seek vengeance..

Overstepped Authority

Hashem was angry at Eliyahu for independently declaring drought, reviving the boy, and enacting the ceremony on Mt. Carmel.  These actions were performed without Divine sanction and against Hashem's will.

Sources:AbarbanelMelakhim I 19About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Flight to Sinai – According to Abarbanel, Hashem had not appeared to Eliyahu both during and after the demonstration on Mt. Carmel.  Thus, in the hopes of receiving prophecy, he heads to Sinai, a place where God's spirit is abundant.

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" – Abarbanel mantains Hashem was angry at Eliyahu for entering the very cave in which Moshe had received revelation.  The spot was holy from Moshe's presence there, and it was not fitting for any other prophet to enter it thereafter. He, thus, accuses him "what are you doing here?"

"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י" – Eliyahu responded that he had come to the cave since his life was in danger (due to his zeal for God) and he had hoped that Moshe's merit and the holiness of the place would serve to protect him.²² [Abarbanel points out that this was not in fact totally true, and that Eliyahu did not mention his primary goal of desiring prophecy.]

The revelation: wind, earthquake, fire – The revelation served to rebuke Eliyahu for three actions which he had undertaken without Divine command:²³ the calling of drought, reviving of the boy from Tzarfat and the ceremony at Mt. Carmel. 

• The wind represented the spirit (רוח) of anger which led Eliyahu to declare drought.  It is described as strong enough to break rocks, because the drought brought much destruction to the world.²⁴
• The "רעש" symbolized the resurrection of the boy.  Abarbanel points to Yechezkel's vision of resurrection which also mention רַעַשׁ, as he describes, "וְהִנֵּה רַעַשׁ וַתִּקְרְבוּ עֲצָמוֹת עֶצֶם אֶל עַצְמוֹ" (Yechezkel 37:7).
• Finally, the fire stood for the fire which Eliyahu called down to the altar on Mt. Carmel. 

Hashem announces that He was not present in any of these phenomena, for He had not commanded Eliyahu to perform any of these actions.

":קוֹל דְּמָמָה דַקָּה" – This phrase represents Eliyahu's punishment:  silence, the lack of prophecy and God's voice.²⁵

"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י" take two – Abarbanel claims that Eliyahu's second response has a totally different meaning than the first, as it is a direct response to the revelation just received. The prophet apologizes, explaining to Hashem that none of his actions were done for his own glory, but only for the glory of Hashem.²⁶

The appointments – Hashem tells Eliyahu to appoint messengers to decimate Israel since He agrees that they are deserving of punishment.  Hashem was not upset at Eliyahu for accusing Israel, only for acting on his own initiative.

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – This position could suggest that Eliyahu is told to anoint Elisha as his replacement, as part of his punishment²⁷ and loss of prophecy.²⁸

Prophetic autonomy – This reading raises the question of why Hashem simply did not fulfill those declarations of Eliyahu which were not to his liking. Abarbanel responds that Hashem acquiesced to Eliyahu since his intention were pure and aimed at sanctifying Hashem. One might question, however, whether it would be just for Hashem to bring drought just because Eliyahu requested it, if Hashem would otherwise not have done so. Can a prophet really force Hashem against His will? See Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction for a full discussion.

Encouragement

Through the revelation, Hashem renewed the appointment of Eliyahu, encouraging him to continue in his mission.

Sources:Prof. U. Simon

Flight and desire for death – Eliyahu's flight is prompted by Izevel's call to kill him, but his desire to die stems from a feeling of having failed in his prophetic mission.

Miraculous journey – Hashem gives Eliyau miraculous sustenance to encourage him and prove to him that, contrary to Eliyahu's claim, he is actually "better than his fathers", and, thus, merits a miracle previously merited only by Moshe.²⁹

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" – In this short speech, Eliyahu explains the reason for his despair: the people have broken Hashem's covenant, ruined His altars and killed His prophets.  The initial success of the demonstration at Mt. Carmel was apparently short-lived.  Izevel's dismissal of Achav's report regarding the event, and the ease with which she resumes her chase after the prophet, suggests that she was able to reverse any impression left on the king by Eliyahu.  Eliyahu knew that it would not take long for the people, too, to resume their old idolatrous ways.

"צֵא וְעָמַדְתָּ בָהָר לִפְנֵי י"י" – throughout his career, eliyahu referred to his position as prophet as "one who stands before God"

¹ He points to OnkelosAbout Targum Onkelos BereshitAbout Shemuel Iwho translates "נִקְרַת הַצּוּר" as "מְעָרַת טִנָּרָא".

² The two stories have a number of similarities including the locale, revelation, forty day period without food, and covering of the face.  For a fuller comparison of the stories, see Moshe and Eliyahu at Sinai.

³ Radak notes one difference: while Eliyahu was given miraculous food that then sustained him for the duration of his trek, Moshe simply survives without any food or drink at all.

⁴ Cf. the opinion below which presents him as accusing the nation.

⁵ He writes, "וצריך להתבונן ברוח וברעש ובאש ובקול דממה דקה".

⁶ It parallels Achashverosh's words to Esther, "מַה לָּךְ אֶסְתֵּר" which are explained in the continuation of the verse, as: "וּמַה בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ".

⁷ Melakhim 10 explicitly describes Yehu's killing of the Baal prophets, priests and worshipers. Chazael, too, is described as fighting against the nation.  Elisha, however, is never said to have killed or even punished any idolaters.  Radak explains that since Elisha rebuked the people and they refused to listen, they were punished more severely than they would have been had they never been chastised.  As such, Elisha indirectly caused more people to be punished.  Alternatively, Radak suggests that the verse means that with Elisha's death, Aram and Moav began to attack the land.

⁸ This is supported by the fact that Eliyahu does not stop prophesying with this story, and displays an active role in the next few chapters of the book.

⁹ See R" E Samet, "אליהו בהר חורב" in Megadim 21 ():61-120, and the expanded version in his book, פרקי אליהו (Tel Aviv, 2009): 254-355.

¹⁰ Though the verse themselves do not share that the people had reverted to idolatry, Eliyahu's words "כִּי עָזְבוּ בְרִיתְךָ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" would suggest that Eliyahu's demonstration on Mt. Carmel produced only a short-lived recognition of God, and that soon afterwards the people once again left the covenant.

¹¹ R. Samet compares this to Yirmeyahu's similar desire to go off to the wilderness and leave his people who have sinned: "וְאֶעֶזְבָה אֶת עַמִּי וְאֵלְכָה מֵאִתָּם כִּי כֻלָּם מְנָאֲפִים עֲצֶרֶת בֹּגְדִים"(Yirmeyahu 9:1). He suggests that Eliyahu's request to die stemmed from this same despair.

¹² This idea is alluded to in Seder Eliyahu Zuta as well, "עמד הקב״ה ודחפו לאליהו למקום שבקשו אבותיהם של ישראל רחמים על בניהם."

¹³ According to Ralbag, Eliyahu's words are actually a request that Hashem punish the people. Malbim, instead, reads them as a desire to resign from his mission; in his zealousness, he no longer sees himself as fit to chastise them.

¹⁴ One could add that Hashem was further teaching Eliyahu that his methods were problematic. Change does not come as a result of dramatic or sensational events, but through soft chastisement.

¹⁵ Ralbag suggests that in his anger over the people's sins, Eliyahu had not been prepared to hear the lesson of Hashem's vision.

¹⁶ This is what emerges from Ralbags comments on the verse, but in his תועלות, it sounds as if he thinks that Hashem is more actively terminating Eliyahu's position as prophet.

¹⁷ See citation above.

¹⁸ Malbim agrees that, despite the rebuke, Hashem nonetheless decided to acquiesce to Eliyahu's desire for vengeance, but suggests that this is because He saw that the request stemmed from Eliyahu's zealousness to uphold Hashem's honor. He thus tells Eliyahu "שׁוּב לְדַרְכְּךָ": if you insist, go back to your old ways [see Abarbanel].
According to Malbim, the three appointees now parallel the destructive forces of the vision, and come to punish the nation for the three sins mentioned by Eliyahu, measure for measure. Chazael , who is not an ally (בן-ברית), attacks those who have forsaken Hashem's ברית, Yehu destroys the altar of the Baal as vengeance on those who destroyed Hashem's altars, and Elisha the prophet is to kill those who killed Hashem's prophets.

¹⁹ Thus Hashem is not one of three destructive forces, but rather the still small voice.  This solution, though, does not really solve the problem, considering that Hashem is still the one inviting Chazael, Yehu and Elisha to bring ruin on Israel.  If Hashem opposes the harshness of Eliyahu, he should not desire that anyone act to punish them.  And even if Hashem had hoped that Eliyahu would be unwilling to carry through on the directive, since He later has Elisha do it in his stead, apparently Hashem's desire is that this destruction be wrought.

²⁰ Ralbag instead suggests that Hashem's directive was indirectly fulfilled through Eliyahu, as he anointed Elisha who was to complete the tasks.  He suggests that though Eliyahu had set out towards Aram, he happened upon Elisha en route and understood from the coincidence that Elisha, not he, was meant to be the one to anoint Chazael and Yehu. 
Malbim, following Abarbanel, instead suggests that due to Achav's repentance in the aftermath of the story of Navot's vineyard, Hashem pushed off the people's punishment, and hence the appointments.

²¹ Looking at Eliyahu's later actions, though, it is difficult to see that Eliyahu has mellowed in his attitude in the aftermath of this incident.  Sending down fire on the officers of fifties in Melakhim II 1 is hardly evidence of a change of heart; Eliyahu seems just as harsh as he always was.  R. Samet might respond that there is a difference between punishing officers of a king intent on seeking out idolatry and punishing the nation as a whole.

²² According to Abarbanel, the first part of Eliyahu's words (קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י) only serve to introduce the last sentence, "וַיְבַקְשׁוּ אֶת נַפְשִׁי לְקַחְתָּהּ" which is the focus of his argument.

²³ He suggests that the phrase, "וְהִנֵּה י"י עֹבֵר" means "And Hashem reviewed his transgressions".

²⁴ It is also possible that the wind is meant to recall a storm, but since only wind and no water is mentioned, it represents drought.

²⁵ He points out that most of the other commentators assume that the verse is making a contrast between the forces of nature in which God is not found and the still voice in which He is found. However, the verse itself does not say that Hashem is in the voice; it simply mentions that quiet came after the fire.  Thus, Abarbanel suggests that it, too, is simply a metaphor and does not connote Hashem's presence at all.

²⁶ He called drought since the people had abandoned Hashem's covenant. He brought fire on the altar and killed the Baal prophets because they had destroyed Hashem's altars and killed Hashem's prophets. Finally, it was because his life was in danger that he stayed by the woman from Tzarfat, so he could not repay her kindness by allowing her son to die

²⁷ If so, though, it is not clear why Eliyahu does not immediately cease to function as prophet.  This position could respond that a training period was necessary before Elisha would be fit to lead. However, if Elisha's appointment was prompted by Hashem's desire for a less independent prophet, who would act according to Hashem's directives rather than decreeing miracles on his own, Elisha would seem to be a poor choice.  He, like his mentor before him, appears to act autonomously throughout his career.  According to some, he himself needs to chastised for overstepping his authority.  See Elisha and the Son of the Shunamite.

²⁸ Abarbanel himself does not say this and he might maintain that Eliyahu was only unable to receive prophecy from the time of the demonstration on Mt. Carmel until the revelation at Chorev, but that afterwards he once again received God's word as before.

²⁹ He further suggests that the "עֻגַת רְצָפִים וְצַפַּחַת מָיִם" recalls the "עֻגָה קְטַנָּה" and "צַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן" in the story of the woman from Tzarfat.  Eliyahu has switched from a performer of miracles, into a figure on the verge of despair, in desperate need of them.