Navot's Vineyard and Achav's Punishment/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Exegetical Approaches
A Partner in Crime
Despite being absent from the actual proceedings, Achav completely supported Izevel's plot and was a full (though silent) partner in the crime.
Sources:Abarbanel, Metzudot, modern scholars
אֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת
- According to Abarbanel and Metzudot, Izevel did not just tell her husband that she was to settle the matter of Navot's vineyard for him, but shared exactly how she planned to go about it as well. Achav nonetheless did not stop her, sealing his guilt.
- R"E Samet, in contrast, asserts that Achav and Izevel together agreed not to include Achav in any plans. Izevel was to intentionally keep him in the dark so that nothing could be traced back to him. Achav, however, was fully aware and supportive of the fact that a plot was being hatched, and thus no less guilty.
וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב וַתַּחְתֹּם בְּחֹתָמוֹ – According to Abarbanel, Izevel signed Achav's name with his full knowledge. According to R"Samet she did so knowing that he would approve, but without his awareness.
Achav's recounting of the incident – Y. bar Maoz suggests that many of the differences between the narrator's account of Navot and Achav's interactions and Achav's account when relaying of the episode to Izevel should be understood as an intentional effort to misrepresent the episode so as to increase the ire of Izevel, with the hopes of pushing her into action against Navot:
- Omission of reason for refusal – Achav does not share that Navot refused to sell his land because it was a "נחלת אבות", thereby making it appear to Izevel that Navot was simply being unreasonable.
- וִיהִי לִי לְגַן יָרָק - Achav omits that he told Navot that he planned to destroy his vineyard so as to grow a vegetable garden, recognizing that outsiders might understand a farmer's reluctance to sell under such conditions.1 Achav dd not want Izevel to feel the slightest sympathy for Navot's predicament.
- Change of order: vine or money – Achav varies the details so that it sounds as if he first offered Navot money, and only afterwards the superior vineyard. In fact, though, he had begun negotiations with the higher offer (the vineyard).2 As this was an extremely high starting bid, it would have raised Izevel's suspicions that Achav found Navot's refusal reasonable (as otherwise he would have offered less). Since Achav wanted to portray Navot as an uncooperative and difficult person he changed the story.
Achav's absence
Punished for Other Crimes
Achav was not being punished solely for the framing and murder of Navot, but for his other sins as well, most notably his idolatry.
"וַיַּתְעֵב מְאֹד לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הַגִּלֻּלִים" – Though Hashem's chastisement of Achav does indeed refer to the murder of Navot ("הֲרָצַחְתָּ וְגַם יָרָשְׁתָּ"), when Eliyahu rebukes the king, he never once mentions the murder and instead focuses on Achav's worship of foreign gods:
- "וַיַּתְעֵב... לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הַגִּלֻּלִים" – These words contain an explicit reference to idolatry.
- "אֶל הַכַּעַס אֲשֶׁר הִכְעַסְתָּ וַתַּחֲטִא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל" – Throughout Sefer Melakhim, this and similar phrases consistently refer to a king causing the nation to sin in idolatry. Thus, here, too, Eliyahu is likely rebuking Achav, not for his leading the nation astray with regards to Navot, but for his swaying them to sin in Baal worship.
- "יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י" – Tanchuma understands this to mean that Achav sold himself to idolatry. Support for this reading can be found in Melakhim II 17:17 where the same words are used and the idolatrous context is explicit.
Achav's desire for the vineyard: "וִיהִי לִי לְגַן יָרָק" – Malbim suggests that the verse shares that Achav wanted to make the vineyard into a "גַן יָרָק" to teach that his real desire was to use it as a place to worship idolatry. He points to Yeshayahu 1:29 and Yeshayahu 66:17 as evidence that gardens were often homes to idol worship. [As such, Achav's idolatry played a significant role in the story itself, explaining why specifically now he would be punished for it.]
Navot's refusal:" חָלִילָה לִּי מֵי"י מִתִּתִּי אֶת נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי לָךְ" – Malbim posits that Navot recognized Achav's intentions and thus subtly chastised him, hinting that while he himself was unwilling to abandon "נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי," Achav had no qualms about leaving the "inheritance of his fathers," i.e. Hashem and Torah. In invoking Hashem's name (חָלִילָה לִּי מֵי"י), Navot expresses that selling a plot so that it could be used for idol worship would be a sin against Hashem.
"סַר וְזָעֵף עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו" – According to Malbim, Achav's sullen reaction was a response to Navot's rebuke (עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו) and not simply his failure to buy the vineyard.4 Since he knew in his heart that Navot was right, and his worship of the Baal was wrong, the rebuke hit home.
Achav's recounting of the incident – According to Malbim, when Achav recounted the incident to Izevel, he omitted Navot's words: "חָלִילָה לִּי מֵי"י מִתִּתִּי אֶת נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי לָךְ", and the allusion to his forsaking of Hashem, since he was embarrassed to let Izevel know that such a rebuke bothered him.
The accusations: blaspheming god and king – Malbim maintains that despite Achav's reluctance to share Navot's chiding, Izevel discovered that Navot had denigrated Achav for his idolatrous tendencies. As such, she accused him of cursing both god (her idolatry) and the king. In her eyes, Navot truly had rebelled against both the king (when he chastised him) and her gods (since he believed in Hashem and not the Baal). The mock trial was necessary only due to lack of witnesses.
Willingness of collaborators – Malbim suggests that the nation was not so corrupt that it would allow / participate in a total judicial farce, even if orchestrated by the king. The townspeople were willing to collaborate only because they believed that Navot had truly sinned. Izevel had told them that Achav had witnessed Navot's two-fold blasphemy,5 but that it would be degrading for him, in his position as king, to have to testify about it in court. As such, she asked that they testify in his stead. The witnesses would only be lying in acting as if they (rather than Achav) were eyewitnesses; the truth of the accusation, though, was not in dispute.
Achav's role in the trial – According to this position, Achav did not participate at all in the trial and was totally unaware of it. His crime was in his condoning and following Izevel's idolatrous practices, which were both in and of themselves worthy of punishment, and also the ultimate cause of Navot's death. After all, it was Achav' desire to worship idols which led to Navot's censure and refusal to sell his vineyard, and paved the way for Izevel, in her idolatrous zeal, to accuse Navot of blasphemy.
Responsible for Izevel
Though Achav played no role in the framing and death of Navot, in his dual role as king and husband, he was responsible for the actions of Izevel.
Sources:Malbim
יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י.
אֲשֶׁר הֵסַתָּה אֹתוֹ אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ
