Difference between revisions of "The Prophet from Beit El/2"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
m
Line 15: Line 15:
 
<point><b>Yerovam's invitation</b> – R. Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the prophet acquiesced to eat by him, it would be taken as a sign that, despite the devastating prophecy, the Man of God did not view the city of Beit El and its king as reprehensible.&#160; A public, positive response from the prophet<fn>R. Samet is assuming that a large crowd had come to Beit El for the holiday so the prohet's response would have made an impact on the masses.</fn> would have provided much needed legitimacy to Yerovam's religious upheaval.</point>
 
<point><b>Yerovam's invitation</b> – R. Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the prophet acquiesced to eat by him, it would be taken as a sign that, despite the devastating prophecy, the Man of God did not view the city of Beit El and its king as reprehensible.&#160; A public, positive response from the prophet<fn>R. Samet is assuming that a large crowd had come to Beit El for the holiday so the prohet's response would have made an impact on the masses.</fn> would have provided much needed legitimacy to Yerovam's religious upheaval.</point>
 
<point><b>Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El</b> – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the Man of God from eating or drinking in Beit El.&#160; The refusal to partake in a meal in Beit El symbolized the total rejection of the city, and moreover, that such rejection began already in the present (even if the full prophecy was only to be fulfilled in the future).<fn>R. Samet compares the city to an עיר נדחת, a city of idolators which is designated to destruction and from which it is prohibited to benefit. See&#160;<multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-21</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> who similarly explains that due to the idolatrous nature of the city, it was prohibited to enter it except to rebuke the people.&#160; See also&#160;<multilink><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-18</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot13-16" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 13:16</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> who claims that the prohibition to benefit from the city signified that it was to be totally destroyed.&#160; Prof. Simon compares this to the symbolic acts done by Yirmeyahu (not to marry, or enter a house of parties etc) which represented the doomed nature of Yerushalayim.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El</b> – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the Man of God from eating or drinking in Beit El.&#160; The refusal to partake in a meal in Beit El symbolized the total rejection of the city, and moreover, that such rejection began already in the present (even if the full prophecy was only to be fulfilled in the future).<fn>R. Samet compares the city to an עיר נדחת, a city of idolators which is designated to destruction and from which it is prohibited to benefit. See&#160;<multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-21</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink> who similarly explains that due to the idolatrous nature of the city, it was prohibited to enter it except to rebuke the people.&#160; See also&#160;<multilink><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-18</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot13-16" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 13:16</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> who claims that the prohibition to benefit from the city signified that it was to be totally destroyed.&#160; Prof. Simon compares this to the symbolic acts done by Yirmeyahu (not to marry, or enter a house of parties etc) which represented the doomed nature of Yerushalayim.</fn></point>
<point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of the journey.<fn>He compares it to the command not to return to Egypt to buy horses, where Hashem says, "לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד".&#160; Willingly returning to Egypt is considered a lack of recognition of the Exodus, a undoing of sorts of the original miracle.</fn>&#160; Had the prophet returned the way he had come it could be viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.<fn>Cf. Ralbag, "<b></b>וצוהו שלא ישוב בדרך אשר בא בה אל בית אל כאילו יעיר כי דרכו אשר דרך בה ללכת לבית אל לאמר אלו הדברים אשר אמר שם אין בה תועלת".</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Prohibition of returning via the same path</b> – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of the journey.<fn>He compares it to the command not to return to Egypt to buy horses, where Hashem says, "לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד".&#160; Willingly returning to Egypt is considered a lack of recognition of the Exodus, a undoing of sorts of the original miracle.</fn>&#160; Thus, had the prophet returned the way he had come it would have been viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.<fn>Cf. Ralbag, "וצוהו שלא ישוב בדרך אשר בא בה אל בית אל כאילו יעיר כי דרכו אשר דרך בה ללכת לבית אל לאמר אלו הדברים אשר אמר שם אין בה תועלת".&#160;</fn> R. Samet adds that going via a new path signifies the opposite, that "דבר ה' אחור לא ישוב ריקם".&#8206;<fn>He and Prof. Simon mainly disagree only in whether they view the prohibitions as prophetic signs, or reactive measure. Prof. Simon asserts that they are signs meant to buttress the original message of the Man of God, while R. Samet suggests that they do not have independent value and serve only to negate the invitations of Yerovam and the Prophet from Beit El.&#160; He views them as Hashem's preempting of potential problems to come (הקדים רפואה למכה).</fn>&#160;</point>
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false&#160; prophet?</b></point>
+
<point><b>הנביא מבית אל: True or false&#160; prophet?</b> According to this approach, the prophet from Beit El was a false prophet.<fn>See&#160;<multilink><a href="BavliSanhedrin104a" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin</a><a href="BavliSanhedrin104a" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 104a</a><a href="Talmud Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TargumYonatanMelakhimI13-11" data-aht="source">Targum Yonatan</a><a href="TargumYonatanMelakhimI13-11" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:11</a><a href="Targum Pseudo-Jonathan" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiMelakhimI13-11-20" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiMelakhimI13-11-20" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:11-20</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Radak</a><a href="RadakMelakhimI13-9-21" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-21</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimI13-9-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim I 13:9-18</a><a href="RalbagMelakhimIToalot13-16" data-aht="source">Melakhim I Toalot 13:16</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> who all agree.</fn>&#160; R. Samet suggests, moreover, that he was closely connected to Yerovam's new religious enterprise and gave it a prophetic stamp of approval.<fn>Just as the priests of Beit El were not true priests, but replacements, the prophets were similarly false, but nonetheless provided legitimacy for the masses.&#160; Later in Melakhim II 23:18, the&#160; is described as the prophet</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony?</b></point>
 
<point><b>Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony?</b></point>
 
<point><b>How was the man of God convinced?</b></point>
 
<point><b>How was the man of God convinced?</b></point>

Version as of 02:22, 6 December 2017

The Prophet from Beit El

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Reversal of Prophecy

The Prophet from Beit El hoped that by having the Man of God disobey his own words and prophetic sign, he could undo the prophecy against Beit El (and restore legitimacy to the worship taking place there.)

Sources:modern scholars1
Timing of the incident – R"E Samet suggests that our chapter is a direct continuation of Chapter 12 and takes place towards the beginning of Yerovam's reign, on the new holiday he had declared, when he stood before the assembled crowd to bring incense on the altar.2
Miracles of the Man of God
Yerovam's invitation – R. Samet suggests that Yerovam was hoping that if the prophet acquiesced to eat by him, it would be taken as a sign that, despite the devastating prophecy, the Man of God did not view the city of Beit El and its king as reprehensible.  A public, positive response from the prophet3 would have provided much needed legitimacy to Yerovam's religious upheaval.
Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El – It was for this very reason that Hashem prohibited the Man of God from eating or drinking in Beit El.  The refusal to partake in a meal in Beit El symbolized the total rejection of the city, and moreover, that such rejection began already in the present (even if the full prophecy was only to be fulfilled in the future).4
Prohibition of returning via the same path – Prof. Simon suggests that returning to one's point of departure and retracing one's footsteps signify a cancelling of the journey.5  Thus, had the prophet returned the way he had come it would have been viewed as a reversal of his mission and decree.6 R. Samet adds that going via a new path signifies the opposite, that "דבר ה' אחור לא ישוב ריקם".‎7 
הנביא מבית אל: True or false  prophet? According to this approach, the prophet from Beit El was a false prophet.8  R. Samet suggests, moreover, that he was closely connected to Yerovam's new religious enterprise and gave it a prophetic stamp of approval.9
Why wasn't the נביא at the ceremony?
How was the man of God convinced?
Harsh punishment
Why does the navi get the prophecy?
חוטא נשכר?

Test of Prophet

The Prophet from Beit El did not know if the Man of God was a legitimate prophet or an emissary sent by Rechovam to attack Beit El for political reasons. His invitation was intended to discover whether or not he truly spoke the word of Hashem.

Sources:modern scholars10
Prohibition of eating and drinking in Beit El
הנביא מבית אל: True or false prophet? According to these sources, the prophet from Beit El was atrue prophet

Act of Altruism

The prophet's motives were misguided, but altruistic. He simply wanted to prevent the Man of God from going home hungry.

Sources:Abarbanel

Personal Gain

The prophet from Beit El aimed to protect his prophetic business and standing with the king / hoped to sway the Man of God to defect to Beit El and work with him in his prophetic business.

Sources:Josephus, modern scholars