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
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.
Punished for Other Crimes
Achav was not being punished solely for his role in the 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 foreign worship:
- "וַיַּתְעֵב... לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הַגִּלֻּלִים" – These words contain an explicit reference to idolatry.
- "אֶל הַכַּעַס אֲשֶׁר הִכְעַסְתָּ וַתַּחֲטִא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל" – Throughout Sefer Melakhim, phrases such as this 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. The same words are used in Melakhim II 17:17 where 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.
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 idolatry 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.2 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 recounts 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 rebuke, Izevel discovered that Navot had denigrated Achav for his idolatrous tendencies. As such, she framed him for 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 only necessary due to lack of witnesses.
Willingness of collaborators – Malbim suggests that the townspeople were willing to collaborate because Izevel had told them that Achav had witnessed the blasphemies, but that it would be degrading for him to have to testify about it in court. [The phrase "וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב" means that she wrote what Navot had done in Achav's name, i.e. that he had testified to the blasphemy.] As such, the witnesses could trust that the blasphemy had truly occurred and they would only be lying in acting as if they were eyewitnesses. The truth of the accusation, though, would not be in dispute.
[The phrase "" means that she wrote what Navot had done in Achav's name, i.e. that he had testified to the blasphemy.]
Achav's role in the trial – According to this position, Achav had no knowledge of Izevel's staging
