Eliyahu at Chorev/2

Eliyahu at Chorev

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

The revelation to Eliyahu at Chorev has been viewed in diametrically opposed manners by commentators.  Many exegetes maintain that it comprises a condemnation of the prophet, who acted contrary to Hashem's wishes.  Thus, the Mekhilta suggests that Hashem rebuked Eliyahu for his overly zealous and harsh attitude towards the Children of Israel, teaching him that his job was to defend rather than prosecute the people.  Abarbanel, instead, has Hashem chastise Eliyahu for acting independently and not seeking Divine sanction for his deeds, thereby overstepping his authority as prophet.

In contrast to the above, a minority of sources view the revelation as an expression of Hashem's approval of the prophet. Radak claims that the revelation served to honor Eliyahu, and was a reward for his deeds on Mt. Carmel, when he brought the nation back to belief in Hashem. Prof. Simon, instead, views it as a second annunciation of the prophet. When the people reverted back to idolatry, Eliyahu despaired of ever changing them, leading him to tender his resignation. Hashem, though, was unwilling to accept the resignation and instead offers Eliyahu encouragement and assistance, renewing his prophetic mission.

Condemnation

Hashem's revelation constituted a rebuke of Eliyahu and the 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 Children of Israel.

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 Alshikh, MetzudotMetzudat David Melakhim I 19:13-18About R. David Altschuler, MalbimMelakhim I 19:3Melakhim I 19:9-16About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Eliyahu's flight and request to die – Malbim maintains that Eliyahu's flight was prompted, not just by his fear of Izevel, but by a desire to abandon the nation whom he had failed to bring to a lasting recognition of Hashem. Though the verses themselves do not state that the people had reverted to idolatry, Eliyahu's words "כִּי עָזְבוּ בְרִיתְךָ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" might suggest that Eliyahu's demonstration on Mt. Carmel produced only a short-lived recognition of God, and that soon afterwards the people once again abandoned the Covenant. Eliyahu's trek and self imposed isolation, thus, resulted from his giving up hope of ever changing the people.¹

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ"

• Malbim views the question as a critique of the prophet and his forsaking of the nation.  Hashem asks Eliyahu why he is in the Wilderness ("פֹה") rather than among the people, as he should be teaching and chastising them, not wandering off alone.²
• R"M Alshikh adds that, through the word "פֹה", Hashem alludes to the fact that in this very place, Mt. Sinai, Moshe had requested that Hashem display compassion to the people, and Hashem had then 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.³

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" – Eliyahu responds to Hashem that he is not prepared to ask for mercy, since the people deserve vengeance, not compassion.  According to Ralbag, Eliyahu's words are a request that Hashem punish the people.  Alternatively, Malbim reads them as a desire to resign from his mission; in his zealousness, he no longer sees himself as fit to chastise them.

Hashem's revelation – According to these sources, through the revelation, Hashem 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 rather for their repentance and salvation. Thus, He 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.⁴

"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.⁵

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

• Acceptance of resignation – Malbim⁶ views the appointment of Elisha as Hashem's acceptance of Eliyahu's resignation. Since Eliyahu had asked to die and cease 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" – Hashem's instructing of 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 turn to agents of destruction?
R"E Samet⁷ suggests that this was actually a test and punishment for Eliyahu.⁸ Hashem agrees to Eliyahu's demand for vengeance, but tells him that he must be the one to execute the destruction by appointing kings to destroy Israel. Hashem Himself, in contrast, is the One who will continue to have mercy and preserve a remnant of the righteous.⁹

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.¹⁰ 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.¹¹

Biblical parallels: Moshe at Sinai – According to this position, the parallels to the revelation to Moshe at Chorev serve to heighten the contrast between the two prophets.¹²  Moshe came to the crevice in Sinai to ask for forgiveness, while Eliyahu came to seek vengeance.

Overstepped Authority

Hashem was angry at Eliyahu for going rogue and not seeking Divine sanction for his deeds or miracles.

Sources:AbarbanelMelakhim I 19:3Melakhim I 19:9-13Melakhim I 19:14-15About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

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

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" – Abarbanel maintains that 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, scolds Eliyahu: "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. According to Abarbanel, the first part of Eliyahu's words ("קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י") only serves to introduce the last sentence, "וַיְבַקְשׁוּ אֶת נַפְשִׁי לְקַחְתָּהּ" which is the real focus of his plea. Abarbanel also notes that Eliyahu omitted his primary reason for coming which was to achieve prophecy.

The revelation: wind, earthquake, fire – The revelation served to explain to Eliyahu why he was no longer receiving prophecy.¹³ Hashem rebuked him for acting without Divine sanction when he called the drought, revived the boy from Tzarefat, and set up the ceremony at Mt. Carmel. 

• The wind recalled 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.¹⁴
• The noise ("רַעַשׁ") symbolized the revival of the boy.  Abarbanel points to Yechezkel's vision of resurrection which also mentions רַעַשׁ, as he describes, "וְהִנֵּה רַעַשׁ וַתִּקְרְבוּ עֲצָמוֹת עֶצֶם אֶל עַצְמוֹ" (Yechezkel 37:7).
• Finally, the fire represented the fire which Eliyahu called down to the altar on Mt. Carmel. 

Hashem announced 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 silence represents Eliyahu's punishment, namely, the absence of God's voice and inability to prophesy.¹⁵

Prophetic autonomy – This reading raises the question of why Hashem did not simply refuse to 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 Himself would not otherwise have done so. In other words, can a prophet really compel Hashem to act against His will, especially when others are to suffer as a result? See Prophetic Actions Without Explicit Divine Sanction for a full discussion.

"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י" take two – Abarbanel claims that Eliyahu's second speech has a totally different meaning than the first, as it is a direct response to the revelation just received. Here, Eliyahu is apologizing and explaining to Hashem that none of his actions were performed for his own honor, but rather only for the glory of Hashem.¹⁶

The appointments – Hashem tells Eliyahu to appoint messengers who will decimate Israel in the future, as He agrees that the nation is deserving of punishment.  Hashem was not upset at Eliyahu for accusing Israel, only for acting on his own initiative. In other words, though Hashem might not have used the tactics chosen by Eliyahu, He was not fundamentally bothered by the concept that sinners need to be treated harshly.

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – This position¹⁷ could suggest that Eliyahu is told to anoint Elisha as his replacement as part of his punishment and loss of prophecy.¹⁸

Fulfilling the mission – Abarbanel explains that Eliyahu did not appoint Yehu and Chazael since Achav had repented after the story of Navot's vineyard, leading to a postponement of the punishment, and hence of the appointments.

Did Eliyahu internalize the lesson? Though there are several instances in the rest of the Eliyahu narrative where it is explicit that Eliyahu is acting on Hashem's orders, He still appears to act on his own, most noticeably in bringing the fire down on the officers of fifties in Melakhim I 1.

Approval

Through Hashem's revelation, He expressed His approval of Eliyahu's deeds.  Commentators divide regarding the specific motive of the demonstration.

Reward: Display of Honor

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

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.¹⁹  The choice serves to heighten the honor bestowed upon Eliyahu as it equates him with Moshe, the greatest of prophets.²⁰

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.²¹

"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 idolatrous prophets who had caused Israel to go astray, destroyed God's altars, and killed the prophets of Hashem.²²

"וְהִנֵּה י"י עֹבֵר" – Radak compares this language to the similar terminology used when Hashem reveals himself to Moshe at Sinai: "וַיַּעֲבֹר י״י עַל פָּנָיו".  The parallel once again serves to honor Eliyahu, as he is equated with Moshe.

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.²³  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 be practical rather than symbolic, a way of informing Eliyahu when it was, or was not, necessary to cover his face.

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" take two – 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".²⁴

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" take two – In response to Hashem's question, Eliyahu responds that he desires 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.²⁵

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – This position does not see Elisha's appointment as a sign that Eliyahu's tenure as prophet had ended,²⁶ 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.

Fulfillment of mission – Radak suggests that the mission was indirectly fulfilled through the appointment of Elisha, who later completed the tasks.

Biblical parallels – Our story is not the only one in which Hashem reveals Himself to man as a show of honor.  RambanBereshit 18About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that Hashem's appearance to Avraham after being circumcised, and to the Children of Israel after consecrating the Mishkan, serve a similar purpose.

Encouragement: Second Annunciation

Through the revelation, Hashem renewed Eliyahu's appointment and encouraged him to continue in his mission.

Sources:Prof. U. Simon²⁷

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 Eliyahu 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 experienced only by Moshe.²⁸

'"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַה" – In this short speech, Eliyahu explains the reason for his despair and desire to quit: 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, and thus, he tenders his resignation.

"צֵא וְעָמַדְתָּ בָהָר לִפְנֵי י"י" – Throughout his career, Eliyahu referred to his prophetic duties as "standing before God."²⁹  Thus, now, when Eliyahu no longer wishes to prophesy, Hashem tells him, "צֵא וְעָמַדְתָּ... לִפְנֵי י"י", i.e. come back and once again stand before God and resume your job.

Revelation: wind, earthquake and fire – Prof. Simon suggests that the revelation serves as a second annunciation of the prophet.  Hashem refuses to accept Eliyahu's resignation, and instead renews his appointment.  The forces of nature precede the appearance of Hashem, like runners before a king's chariot. They appear in full strength before the exposed Eliyahu, serving to simultaneously shock and encourage him with the awesome power of God. Hashem Himself appears as a soft rustle, the aftermath of the storm. Prof. Simon does not explain the significance of this choice, but one could suggest that Hashem promises Eliyahu that, despite the need for displays of power, peace and quiet will finally ensue.

Similar revelations – Prof. Simon compares the two stages of the revelation here to that described by Eliphaz in Iyyov 4: "וְרוּחַ עַל פָּנַי יַחֲלֹ ... יַעֲמֹד וְלֹא אַכִּיר מַרְאֵהוּ... דְּמָמָה וָקוֹל אֶשְׁמָע". The revelation also bears a strong resemblance to that received by Yechezkel when he was consecrated to prophesy.  He, too, saw a stormy wind and burning fire, from which emanated a bright light (non-destructive in nature, like the voice here).  The parallel lends support to the notion that this revelation was a second annunciation.

Other cases of renewal of prophecy – Prof Simon points to Yeshayahu 49:1-6 and Yirmeyahu 15:10-21 as other examples of a "renewal of prophecy".  Each of these units contains the same basic components:

• Despair of the prophet and request to die
• Declaration of failure in fulfilling his mission
• Blaming of the nation
• Renewal of prophecy, via encouragement to the prophet³⁰

Eliyahu's case stands out only in the dramatic nature of the re-annunciation.

"מַה לְּךָ פֹה אֵלִיָּהוּ" take two – Hashem's question is an invitation to the prophet to re-accept his mission.

"קַנֹּא קִנֵּאתִי לַי"י" take two – Eliyahu responds that Hashem's revelation has not changed his feelings nor his failure in his war against the Baal.

"לֵךְ שׁוּב לְדַרְכְּךָ" – Prof. Simon reads this as Hashem's encouragement to Eliyahu to, nonetheless, resume his position. Hashem follows this statement with a promise of assistance,³¹ providing Eliyahu with the means to return to his old path.

The appointments – Hashem's response to Eliyahu represents Hashem's total agreement with Eliyahu's position. Hashem, too, thinks that the nation deserves punishment, and issues directives to bring it.  However, recognizing that Eliyahu is not up to the task himself, Hashem tells him to appoint assistants to help, much like Hashem had Moshe anoint seventy elders when he reached his breaking point.³²

"וְאֶת אֱלִישָׁע... תִּמְשַׁח לְנָבִיא תַּחְתֶּיךָ" – Prof. Simon suggests that the verse does not mean that Eliyahu is to appoint Elisha in his stead, but rather as his successor.³³  After all, the goal of Hashem's revelation was not to fire Eliyahu, but to re-anoint him.

¹ R"E Samet, in his article, "אליהו בהר חורב", Megadim 21 (1994): 61-120, and the expanded version in his book, פרקי אליהו (Tel Aviv, 2009): 254-355,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).

² According to this reading, it is Eliyahu himself who decided to head into the Wilderness, though it is possible that he had not originally intended to reach Sinai specifically.

³ This idea is alluded to in Seder Eliyahu Zuta as well, "עמד הקב״ה ודחפו לאליהו למקום שבקשו אבותיהם של ישראל רחמים על בניהם." According to this, Hashem intentionally sends Eliyahu to Chorev to teach him this very lesson.

⁴ 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.

⁵ Ralbag suggests that in his anger over the people's sins, Eliyahu had not been prepared to hear the lesson of Hashem's vision.

⁶ See also RalbagMelakhim I 19:3-17Melakhim I Toalot 19:11About R. Levi b. Gershom.  He appears to agree with this reading in his 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.

⁷ See his article, "אליהו בהר חורב", Megadim 21 (1994): 61-120, and the expanded version in his book, פרקי אליהו (Tel Aviv, 2009): 254-355.

⁸ 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. [Cf. Abarbanel].
According to Malbim, the three appointees 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 covenant ("ברית"), Yehu destroys the altar of the Baal as vengeance upon those who destroyed Hashem's altars, and Elisha the prophet is to kill those who murdered Hashem's prophets.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ 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.

¹² Cf. Radak below, who, in contrast, suggests that the parallel serves to highlight the similarities between the two prophets.

¹³ He suggests that the phrase, "וְהִנֵּה י"י עֹבֵר" means "And Hashem reviewed his transgressions".

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ 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.

¹⁶ 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 Tzarefat, so he could not repay her kindness by allowing her son to die.  According to this reading, Eliyahu is actually not saying anything about the present sinful nature of the nation, but only what they did in the past to deserve his wrath.  If so, it is possible that the people had not yet reverted to idolatry (though they were to do so in the future),

¹⁷ 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.

¹⁸ 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. Nonetheless, 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.

¹⁹ He points to OnkelosShemot 33:22About Targum Onkelos who translates "נִקְרַת הַצּוּר" as "מְעָרַת טִנָּרָא".

²⁰ According to him, Eliyahu had not headed to Sinai of his own accord, but simply wandered, allowing Hashem to take him where He wanted.

²¹ 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.

²² Cf. the opinion above which presents him as accusing the nation itself.

²³ He writes, "וצריך להתבונן ברוח וברעש ובאש ובקול דממה דקה".

²⁴ It parallels Achashverosh's words to Esther, "מַה לָּךְ אֶסְתֵּר," which are explained in the continuation of the verse, as: "וּמַה בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ".

²⁵ 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.

²⁶ 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.

²⁷ U. Simon,  "מלחמת אליהו בעבודת הבעל - חלקו של הנביא בהשבת ישראל אל אלוהיו" in קריאה ספרותית במקרא: סיפורי נביאים (Jerusalem, 1997): 189-278.

²⁸ He further suggests that the "עֻגַת רְצָפִים וְצַפַּחַת מָיִם" recalls the "עֻגָה קְטַנָּה" and "צַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן" in the story of the woman from Tzarefat.  Eliyahu has switched from a performer of miracles into a figure on the verge of despair, in desperate need of them.

²⁹ See, for example, Melakhim I 17:1 and Melakhim I 18:15.

³⁰ One might suggests that Moshe's despair in Bemidbar 12 is a variation of this type-scene.  It contains the first three components listed, but instead of renewing Moshe's prophetic status, Hashem gives prophecy to others so that they can aid him to continue his mission. See also Yeshayahu's Mission in Chapter 6 for the opinion that the chapter represents not Yeshayahu's original initiation into prophecy but a re-appointment. It, however, does not share the components mentioned here.

³¹ See next point.

³² Prof. Simon points to several parallels between the stories: despair of the prophet in face of outside inciters (the אספסוף/ Izevel), desire for death ("קַח נַפְשִׁי"/ "הׇרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג"), feelings of isolation ("וָאִוָּתֵר אֲנִי לְבַדִּי"/ "לֹא אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי לָשֵׂאת"), and the appointment of assistants.

³³ He points to the parallel language by David.  When referring to his promise to Batsheva that Shelomo would succeed him, he says, "וְהוּא יֵשֵׁב עַל כִּסְאִי תַּחְתָּי".  Here, too, David was not replacing himself, but only promising that Shelomo was to be the next king.