The Repentance of Nineveh/2

The Repentance of Nineveh

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Full

The repentance of the people of Nineveh was sincere and worthy of emulation.

Sources:Bavli TaanitTaanit 16aAbout the Bavli, RadakYonah 3:5-10About R. David Kimchi, Ibn EzraYonah First Commentary 1:2Yonah First Commentary 3:6Yonah First Commentary 3:10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Eliezer of BeaugencyYonah 4About R. Eliezer of Beaugency, Hoil Moshe

"...וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים... כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה וַיִּנָּחֶם עַל הָרָעָה" – This verse is perhaps the best evidence that the repentance of the people was sincere and complete. The narrator says explicitly that they returned from their evil ways, and implies that it is for this reason that Hashem overturned the decree.

"וַיַּאֲמִינוּ אַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה בֵּאלֹהִים" – This approach might suggest that this verse attests to the people's returning to God and forsaking of idolatry.¹  They repented of sins related to both God and man.

Sackcloth and fasting for animals – The Ninevites' inviting of their animals to join in their acts of penitence is meant to express the totality of their submission to God.² Several classical texts similarly portray animals as joining in displays of mourning and prayer.  See Judith 4:12-13 where man and animal alike oppress themselves and don sackcloth and Herodotus 9:24 where horses and pack animals participate in the the mourning of the Persians.

"וְיָשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ מִדַּרְכּוֹ הָרָעָה וּמִן הֶחָמָס אֲשֶׁר בְּכַפֵּיהֶם" – Shemuel in Bavli Taanit explains that the verse adds "אֲשֶׁר בְּכַפֵּיהֶם" to teach that the people went beyond the law to return all lost property (and not just its monetary equivalent), even breaking down the walls of their homes to return the original beams to their owners.

"וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם" – Bavli Taanit points to the people of Nineveh as a model to emulate since they did not suffice with outwards signs of submission (sackcloth and fasting) but actively changed their deeds, as attested to by this verse.

Shem Hashem vs. Elokim – According to this position, the shift in names does not signify anything about the quality of the Ninevites' cry or their connection to God. It, instead, relates to the circumstances in which the characters of the book find themselves. T he name Elokim is associated with God's attributes of justice and is, thus, appropriately used when speaking of Nineveh who stands at the brink of destruction. The name Hashem, which is associated with Hashem's attribute of kindness, on the other hand, is fitting when speaking of the sailor's turning to God after beings saved at sea and by Yonah in his prayer of thanksgiving.³

What led the people to listen to Yonah?

• Radak⁴ suggests that the boatmen had reached Nineveh and testified to the wonders that had happened to Yonah in the sea,⁵ leading the people to believe in him as a true prophet.
• Ibn Ezra, in contrast, learns from the description of Nineveh as an "עִיר גְּדוֹלָה לֵאלֹהִים", that the people of Nineveh had been monotheists all along.⁶  As such, when a prophet of Hashem came to speak to them, they believed in him.

Repentance from fear? It is possible that fear of destruction was the main catalyst for the people's change of ways, but as their penitence was sincere and accompanied by a real improvement in behavior, this is not viewed negatively. The motive is inconsequential in face of the positive results.

Why was Yonah upset? If Nineveh was a model of repentance and truly bettered themselves, it is not clear why Yonah should be upset after the success of his mission.  This approach might   suggest any of the following explanations: (See Why Did Yonah Disobey Hashem for discussion.)

• Concerns about Israel – According to Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak, Yonah was concerned lest the immediate repentance of Nineveh cast Israel in a negative light, as the Children of Israel had refused to change their ways despite numerous prophetic rebukes.
• Mistaken assumption – R. Eliezer of Beaugency suggests that Yonah had actually not known that the people of Nineveh had repented, having left the city immediately after delivering his prophecy.⁷  He, in fact, assumed that they did not change⁸ and was thus upset when he saw that Hashem had saved them regardless.
• Theological issues – Several modern scholars suggest that Yonah's misgivings had nothing to do with the quality of Nineveh's repentance, but with Hashem's system of justice as a whole. Yonah felt that repentance should not remove the need for retribution since justice requires that everyone receive their due. Atoning for or regretting one's actions should not change that

"וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה" – This approach suggests that this is only Hashem's secondary reason for saving the city, emphasized only to teach Yonah a lesson about mercy.

• R"E of Beaugency explains that since Yonah was upset about the possibility that Hashem might save the city even if they did not repent, Hashem tells him that even if that were the case (though it was not), Yonah should realize that mitigating circumstances might lead to forgiveness even without repentance.
• According to modern scholars,⁹ Hashem teaches Yonah that love might trump pure justice. Repentance removes the need for punishment because Hashem loves his creations and desires their survival.

Message of the book – According to this approach, one of the main messages of the book is the power of repentance. Everyone has the ability to change and avert punishment, even those whose deeds were so terrible that they otherwise deserved destruction.

Partial

The people of Nineveh did not repent fully.

Sources:Sages in Yerushalmi TaanitTaanit 2:1About the Yerushalmi, Abarbanel,Yonah 3:5-9About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel Malbim

In what ways was the repentance lacking? These sources differ regarding what they find problematic about the city's repentance, finding hints to some deficiency in the people's actions in almost every verse :

• Only partial reparations – R. Yochanan learns from the word "וּמִן הֶחָמָס אֲשֶׁר בְּכַפֵּיהֶם" that the people returned only that which was in their hands, not objects which they had in their fields, treasure troves, or elsewhere.
• No rejection of idolatry – Abarbanel maintains that though the people repented of their deeds (וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם) and fixed their actions in the interpersonal sphere (וְיָשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ מִדַּרְכּוֹ), they did not do so in the realm of belief. They never abandoned their idols to worship Hashem exclusively.
• Lack of submission – R. Shimon b. Chalafta claims that the phrase "וְיִקְרְאוּ אֶל אֱלֹהִים בְּחׇזְקָה" connotes a certain audacity and impertinence, as if the nation was demanding salvation even if undeserved. He similarly views the animal's participation in the city's self-affliction as an attempt to force Hashem's hand. The people caused the animals to suffer,¹⁰ telling Hashem, "if you have no mercy on us, we will have no mercy on them".

Sackcloth and fasting for animals – This position might further suggest that the inclusion of animals in the fasting and donning of sackcloth proves that the people focused on the wrong part of the repentance process.  Such external actions are meant to be only secondary, to serve as a means to the end goals of self-reflection, regret, and change of behavior. As animals are incapable of this internal process of change, the insistence that they join betrays a lack of understanding of what real repentance is.

"וַיַּאֲמִינוּ אַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה בֵּאלֹהִים" – Abarbanel claims this verse does not imply that the people rejected idolatry and began to worship Hashem exclusively (in which case one would have expected a description of destroying idols and altars), only that they also believed in the power of Hashem, and feared His decree.¹¹

Shem Hashem vs. Elokim – The chapter's continuous usage of the name Elohim, rather than Hashem, might support Abarbanel's claim.  While Elohim is a generic name for gods and can refer both to Hashem and to idols, Hashem is a proper name, referring to Hashem alone. The people of Nineveh believed in and cried to Elohim, but not to Hashem, because they viewed Him as one of many, not as a single, personal God.¹²

"...וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים... כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה וַיִּנָּחֶם עַל הָרָעָה" – This verse is somewhat difficult for this approach as it implies that Hashem found nothing amiss about Nineveh's repentance:

• The sages in Yerushalmi Taanit might respond that the verse is saying only that the people's change of behavior (even if only partial) sufficed for Hashem to avert their punishment.
• As noted above, Abarbanel instead asserts that the verse supports hisposition for it speaks only of a change in deeds but not beliefs. Hashem revoked the decree as soon as people repented of their actions against their fellow man, even though they maintained their idolatrous thoughts.

Why was Yonah upset? If the people's repentance was lacking, and Hashem saved them nonetheless, one can understand Yonah's  frustration.

"וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה... אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ" – In these words Hashem explains to Yonah why He had saved the city despite the low quality of their repentance:

• Abarbanel asserts that Hashem explains to Yonah that the people of Nineveh, having never received the Torah, are like animals who do not know the difference between right and left.  They cannot be blamed for their idolatrous beliefs and therefore even though they repented only in the interpersonal sphere, that sufficed to avert the destruction.
• The sages in Yerushlami Taanit might explain similarly. Hashem tells Yonah that people don't know better and cannot be expected to repent fully. Therefore, even incomplete repentance is enough to evoke Hashem's love and lead to forgiveness.

Polemical motivations – Prof. E. Urbach¹³ suggests that the negative evaluation of the Ninevite's repentance by the sages in Yerushalmi Taanit might have a polemical backdrop. Christian leaders held Nineveh up as a model of repentance, noting how it highlights Israel's intransigence¹⁴ and claiming that the contrast accounts for the rejection of Israel. Sages in Eretz Yisrael, thus, looked for clues in the text which might counter this reading of Nineveh.¹⁵

Temporary

Though the people repented sincerely, their penitence was short-lived.

Sources:Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 4343About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Yalkut ShimoniYonah 3About Yalkut Shimoni

¹ See below that  Ibn Ezra maintains that the people of Nineveh had been monotheists even before Yonah appeared to them.  According to him, then, this verse does not speak of newfound faith, but comes only to explain why the people were willing to heed Yonah's call.   He points to the absence of descriptions of abandoning idols as evidence that the people must have already believed exclusively in Hashem. Cf. the approach below which points to this as evidence that the people must held onto their idolatrous ways.

² See Bavli Taanit and Rashi who suggest that the people used the animals as a means of asking mercy from Hashem. They separated the mothers form their children and said to Hashem, "If you do not have mercy on these, we will not have mercy on these". The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that the people were saying: "Just as you have are known to have mercy on all your creations, have mercy on us as well."

³ This is perhaps the simplest way to read Yonah's prayer of Chapter 2, but see Yonah's Prayer for other understandings.

⁴ See also Radak's father who goes further to suggest that the whole purpose of the storm and being thrown into the sea was that it provide a sign to verify his prophecy.

⁵ They told the people that despite their having thrown Yonah overboard to his death, he survived.

⁶ One might have come to the same conclusion from the phrase, "וַיַּאֲמִינוּ אַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה בֵּאלֹהִים" in verse 5.

⁷ According to him the statement "וַיֵּצֵא יוֹנָה מִן הָעִיר" in Chapter 4:5 is out of place and occurred earlier.

⁸ As it is rare for a prophet to successfully lead the people to repentance, the assumption is understandable.

⁹ See R"E Ben-Menachem, Da'at Mikra Commentary to Yonah, (1973): 7-8 and Prof. U. Simon, Mikra LeYisrael, Commentary to Yonah (1992).

¹⁰ He suggests that the people separated the mothers from their young, leading each to cry for the other.

¹¹ Being polytheistic, a belief in Hashem did not reqiure any shift in their theological outlook.  In fact, that might have always believed in Hashem as one of many gods.  Yonah simply convinced them that He was really capable of destroying their city.

¹² See R. Tzvi Romm, "The Failed Teshuvah of Nineveh", in the Benjamin and Rose Berger Torah to Go Series (2015): 10-14, who analyzes the various changes of Hashem's name throughout the book and what these say about the quality of Nineveh's repentance. He suggests that the name Hashem is used when one has created a personal connection with Hashem, something the people of Nineveh failed to do.

¹³ Prof. E. Urbach "תשובת נינוה והויכוח היהודי נוצרית", Tarbiz 20 (1949): 118-122.

¹⁴ Prof. Urbach notes that the Christians made use of Midrashic material (see Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot 12:1) which used similar arguments, but twisted them to their own purposes.

¹⁵ Prof. Urbach notes that the historical backdrop accounts for the differing reads of the story by sages in Babylonia and Israel.  As Christianity was widespread and strong in Israel (but not in the East) at the time, only the Amoraim in Israel were concerned about the Christian claims.