Navot's Vineyard and Achav's Punishment/2

Navot's Vineyard and Achav's Punishment

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Commentators disagree regarding both Acahv's role in the framing of Navot and the reason for his harsh punishment. Abarbanel claims that he was an accomplice to the crime, fully aware of Izevel's scheme and, thus, just as guilty. Others maintain that Achav was actually ignorant of the proceedings but, nonetheless, responsible for Izevel's actions. His cowering before her will, and allowing her to act as she pleased, caused immeasurable damage which could not be forgiven. Finally, Malbim posits that Achav was being punished for multiple sins, both for the murder of Navot and for his idolatrous actions.  Though Achav played no role in the judicial farce, it was actually his (and Izevel's) zeal for idolatry that led to Navot's death.

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:AbarbanelMelakhim I 21:7Melakhim I 21:20About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Metzudot,Metzudat David Melakhim I 21:19-20About R. David Altschuler modern scholars¹

"אֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת": How much did Achav know?

• Full knowledge – According to Abarbanel and Metzudot, Izevel did not just tell her husband that she was going to obtain Navot's vineyard for him, but shared exactly how she planned to go about it as well.²  Achav, nonetheless, did not stop her, sealing his guilt.
• Intentional ignorance – R"E Samet,³ in contrast, asserts that Achav and Izevel intentionally excluded Achav from the plot, keeping him in the dark, so that nothing could be traced back to him.⁴  Achav, however, was fully aware and supportive of the fact that a plot was being hatched,⁵ and thus no less guilty.

Achav's recounting of the incident – Y. Bar-Maoz⁶ places even more blame on Achav's head.  She suggests that Achav's account of his interaction with Navot was an intentional effort to misrepresent the episode so as to increase the ire of Izevel and push her into action against Navot:⁷

• 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.⁸  Achav did not want Izevel to feel the slightest sympathy for Navot's predicament.
• Change of order: vine or money – Achav does not share that he had begun negotiations with the high offer of a superior vineyard (rather than the less valuable money), recognizing that since it was an extremely high opening bid,⁹  it would have raised Izevel's suspicions that Achav must have anticipated Navot's refusal and thought it reasonable.¹⁰ As Achav wanted to portray Navot as an uncooperative and difficult person, he changed the story.

According to this reading, Achav not only backed Izevel, but actively prodded his wife into action, leading her to believe that Navot was rebellious to the king and therefore deserving of punishment.¹¹ Whether or not he was privy to the rest of her plot afterwards becomes irrelevant, as he was the one to instigate it regardless.

"יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י" – Abarbanel understands the phrase "יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ" to be equivalent to: "יען התנכרך‎."¹² Eliyahu told Achav that he was to be punished because "he acted as if he did not know".  Achav's desire to not only sin, but to also remove himself from all responsibility, made him all the more blame-worthy.

"הַמְצָאתַנִי אֹיְבִי וַיֹּאמֶר מָצָאתִי" – These sources differ in how they read this conversation, though all agree that it related to Achav's attempts to pretend that he played no role:

• Protestation of innocence – Abarbanel reads Achav's words as an attempt to clear himself of blame by claiming that he could not be found guilty ("הַמְצָאתַנִי") as he was ignorant of the plot.¹³ Eliyahu responds that Achav has been found out ("מָצָאתִי)", since, despite his efforts to hide his role, Hashem knew that the king was aware of and condoned Izevel's plot. 
• Admission of guilt – R"E Samet, in contrast, suggests that Achav's words are an admission of defeat, and his honest recognition that he had indeed been found out.

"הֲרָצַחְתָּ וְגַם יָרָשְׁתָּ" – Hashem tells Achav that he as good as killed Navot, since his condoning of Izevel's plot (or, according to Bar-Maoz, his misleading of her) allowed the murder to take place.

Hashem vs. Eliyahu's rebuke – Abarbanel claims that, despite the silence in the text, Eliyahu relayed Hashem's rebuke regarding Achav's role in the murder of Navot. The chastisements of verses 25-26 are simply a summary of Achav's crimes throughout his reign, perhaps mentioned here because he is being told that his dynasty is soon to end.¹⁴

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:MalbimMelakhim I 21:2-25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser¹⁵

"אֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת": How much did Achav know? According to this approach, Achav was not aware of Izevel's plot.  When she told him that she was going to acquire the vineyard, he paid no attention to the means she would use to do so.  This itself, however, was part of the problem.  Knowing his wife, Achav should have suspected that something foul was afoot. Moreover, in his role as king, he was responsible for all that took place in the royal household, whether he played a role or not.

"וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב וַתַּחְתֹּם בְּחֹתָמוֹ" – The fact that Izevel herself signs the missives in Achav's name supports the idea that he was unaware of her actions.  Otherwise, what would have been lost if he signed them himself?  Regardless, his signature would implicate him were anyone to question the matter!

Did Achav wish Navot dead? Achav himself appears to have never even raised the possibility of executing Navot in order to obtain his land.  He returned home from the encounter sulky and upset, but apparently without any intentions of harming Navot, or even of obtaining the field by other means.  This, too, suggests that he was ignorant of his wife's plans to have Navot killed.

"יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י" – Malbim understands this to mean that Achav's crime was that he "had sold himself to Izevel."  In all his actions he simply followed her, never asserting himself, or preventing her from acting as she pleased.  As a result, even when she acted on her own, and against his inclinations, he was held responsible for her deeds.

Achav's recounting of the incident – The changes made by Achav when telling Izevel of his meeting with Navot betray how intimidated he was by his wife:

• "וִיהִי לִי לְגַן יָרָק כִּי הוּא קָרוֹב אֵצֶל בֵּיתִי" – When negotiating with Navot, Achav explained why he desired the vineyard, rather than simply demanding it as his kingly right. However, knowing that Izevel would view this as an exhibition of weakness, he omitted these points in his retelling.
• "נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי" –  Achav recognized that keeping land within the family was an Israelite value which Izevel would never understand, and therefore he did not bother to share it.
• Money or vineyard – As Achav realized that an astute businessman would have first offered Navot money and only afterwards upped the offer to a valuable vineyard, he was loathe to share with Izevel that he had done the opposite, lest she criticize his actions (and generosity).

It turns out that Achav's main crime was this fear of his wife, for it allowed Izevel to act as she pleased.  As she had no regard for Hashem or his Torah, her actions often harmed both individual Israelites (such as Navot) and the nation as a whole.

Hashem vs. Eliyahu's rebuke – According to this position, Eliyahu added a summary to Hashem's specific rebuke regarding Navot, in which he explained the root of the issue: "לֹא הָיָה כְאַחְאָב אֲשֶׁר הִתְמַכֵּר לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י אֲשֶׁר הֵסַתָּה אֹתוֹ אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ".  Achav's problem in both our story and throughout his reign was the influence Izevel held over him.

Biblical parallels – This approach's understanding of Achav's sin and punishment is similar to those who say that Shelomo was punished not for his own idolatry, but for the idolatry of his wives.¹⁶ Even though Shelomo himself did not worship foreign gods, he was held responsible for what his wives did. So, too, even if Achav was completely ignorant of the plot to kill Navot, he was nonetheless culpable.

Apt punishment – The fact that Achav was to lose his kingship and dynasty was an apt punishment considering that it was really Izevel, and not he, who ruled.  Izevel's words ring true: "?!אַתָּה עַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלוּכָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל".

Punished for Multiple Crimes

Achav was not being punished solely for the murder of Navot, but for his general sins of idolatry, and the role these played in Navot's death.

Sources:MalbimMelakhim I 21:2-25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser¹⁷

"וַיַּתְעֵב מְאֹד לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הַגִּלֻּלִים" – When Eliyahu rebukes the king, he never once mentions the murder, and instead focuses on Achav's worship of foreign gods, suggesting that though Achav's role in the murder of Navot was worthy of censure, without the accompanying sins of idolatry, he might not have been punished as severely. Eliyahu's focus on idolatry is evident in the following verses:

• "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.¹⁸  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" – TanchumaVaetchanan Appendix 2About the 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 in an explicitly idolatrous context.

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.¹⁹  He points to Yeshayahu 1:29 and Yeshayahu 66:17 as evidence that gardens were often homes to idol worship.²⁰ If so, Achav's idolatry played a significant role in the story itself, and it becomes clear why it is specifically now that he is punished for it.

Navot's refusal: "חָלִילָה לִּי מֵי"י מִתִּתִּי אֶת נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי לָךְ" – Malbim further 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 reaction²¹ was a response to Navot's rebuke (עַל הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו) and not simply his failure to buy the vineyard  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.²²

Willingness of collaborators – Malbim suggests that the nation was not so corrupt that it would 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,²³ 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. This paved the way for Izevel, in her idolatrous zeal, to accuse Navot of blasphemy.

Variation of this approach – Even if one does not agree with Malbim that Achav and Izevel were motivated throughout the story by their idolatrous worship, one might still posit that Achav's severe punishment related to his worship of foreign gods.  It was his cumulative sins which Hashem was punishing.  Thus, even if his role in the death of Navot was minor, his actions here, together with his consistent Baal worship, merited the cutting off of his dynasty.

¹ See, for example,  Yonah Bar-Maoz, "אחאב ונבות - עיונים בדרכי הצדק האלקי", Shema'atin 69 (1982): 15-19, R"E Samet, "עיונים בפרשת נבות - " מלכ"א כ"א", Megadim 10 (1990): 55-91.

² Thus, Achav was fully aware that Izevel sent the missives to the elders signed with his name, and that in so doing she was sentencing Navot to death.  His agreement made him a full accomplice, as if he had signed the letters himself.

³ See article cited above.

⁴ If this was the goal, however, it is unclear why Izevel would put Achav's signature on the missive sent to the elders, as that would directly implicate him.  R. Samet assumes that the elders were aware of what was going on and could be trusted not to reveal anything.  They understood that, despite Achavs approval of the plan, for the public's eye he needed to be absent from the trial, and unconnected to the judicial charade in any way.

⁵ R. Samet points out that it is important to recognize that originally Achav himself had no plans of murder.  When he returned home to lie on his bed, he was frustrated and upset, but harbored no thoughts of revenge, let alone murder.  Only after speaking to Izevel did he allow his desires to overcome his morals.  When he went to inherit the vineyard he was under no illusions that Navot had died a natural death, and knew full well that it  was a result of Izevel's machinations.

⁶ See article cited above.

⁷ At first glance, this reading does not appear to match the picture drawn in the chapter of a disgruntled king who sits on his bed, at a loss of what to do about the failed transaction.  It is possible, however, that Achav did not isolate himself so as to mope in his room, but rather to plan how he could persuade Izevel to act on his behalf. 

⁸ No one wants to see the fruits of their labors destroyed and then replaced by an inferior product.

⁹ As it is illogical to start with your higher bid and then make a lower offer, Yonah Bar Maoz suggests that Achav's offer "אתנה לך כסף מחיר זה" was not an alternative to the vineyard, but rather an addition to it. Thus, his original offer included both a vineyard and extra money, and was even more exorbitant an opening bid than just a vineyard.

¹⁰ This would have led her to question whether there was more to the story than Achav had shared, leading to the discovery of the true reason for Navot's refusal to sell.

¹¹ In fact, it suggests that Izevel actually had some morals, and might not have punished Navot if she had known that he was not arbitrarily refusing his king.  Achav, in contrast, was not only immoral but too cowardly to act himself, preferring to have his wife do his dirty work.

¹² See also R"Y KaraMelakhim I 21:20About R. Yosef Kara.

¹³ He presents Achav as asking: "have you [really] found me guilty, my enemy? [After all, there is no proof that I played a role; it is just the fact that you are my enemy which has led to your suspicions.]"

¹⁴ Alternatively, Eliyahu is suggesting that the immorality displayed by Achav in this episode stemmed from his idolatrous practices and the culture in which they emanated.

¹⁵ Malbim combines this approach with the one below, which suggests that Achav was also punished for other crimes.

¹⁶ See, for example, Bavli Shabbat 56b, Rashi Melakhim I 11:7 and Radak Melakhim I 11:1.

¹⁷ Malbim combines this approach with the one above which holds him responsible for the actions of his wife.

¹⁸ In most cases they reference Yerovam's sins, and likely refer to the calves he set up for worship. See, for example, Melakhim I 15:30, 16:2, 16:13, and Melakhim II 10:29.

¹⁹ See also Y. Eisenberg, "כיצד הפקיע אחאב את כרם נבות?" who develops this idea as well.

²⁰ See also Yeshayahu 65:3.

²¹ Interestingly, he has the same reaction when he is chastised by the prophet for setting Ben Hadad free in Melakhim I 20:43.  These are the only two place in Tanakh where the phrase "סַר וְזָעֵף"appear.

²² In this, one sees the perversion of Izevel's actions, where she purports to follow Israelite law, but replaces Hashem with her gods.

²³ According to Malbim the phrase "וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב" does not mean that Izevel signed Achav's name on a missive in which she asked them to frame Navot, but rather that in the letter, she presented Navot's actions "in Achav's name" i.e. via Achav's testimony, telling the people that he had witnessed Navot's blasphemy.