Remnant in Jerusalem vs. Exile in Babylon

Found 7 Search results

1. The Good Figs and the Bad Figs

   Rabbi David Sabato

   The prevalent mood among those who remained in the Land of Israel after the exile of Yehoyakhin was that their brothers had been exiled from the land and they viewed themselves as heirs to the land. Yirmiyahu struggled against this perception, arguing that it is precisely the exiles, who are likened here to good figs, who will return to the land and inherit it, while those who remained in the land, who are likened to bad figs, will become diminished in numbers and disappear.

   There are several lines of similarity between the vision concerning the figs in Yirmiyahu's prophecy and the dreams of Pharaoh that were interpreted by Yosef. Yosef interprets Pharaoh's dream and reveals to him that a great calamity is about to fall upon Egypt. However, Yosef, who was sold as a slave to Egypt, succeeds in saving his family in the years of famine and sustaining them in the exile of Egypt. 

   In the same way, Yirmiyahu, the prophet of destruction and exile, stands before a great calamity that is threatening to befall the people. In this vision, Yirmiyahu reveals that it is precisely in the depths of the calamity that we find a bright spot in the form of the good figs, the exile of Yehoyakhin, who were "picked" at an earlier stage, before they became ruined, in order to constitute a base for the renewal of the people after the destruction and after the exile in Babylon.

2. The Book of Yehezkel

   Introduction

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   The Book of Yehezkel covers a fateful period of some 22 years in the history of the Jewish People: beginning with year five of the exile of King Yehoyakhin and ending fifteen years after the Destruction of the First Temple. As opposed to other prophets, Yehezkel's prophecies are conveyed in Babylon and grapple with the contemporaneous crisis from a Diaspora vantage point.

   The purpose of Yehezkel's prophecies – in the years preceding the Destruction – was to inform the people that God had departed from His Temple in Jerusalem. He therefore describes in detail the Divine chariot and the journeys of God's glory outside the Temple.

   Yehezkel presents the view of the "inhabitants of Jerusalem," who say that the exiles have distanced themselves from God and from His Land, and that they are not counted among the inheritors of the land and those close to God. God's response, however, conveyed through the prophet, is that while those taken in captivity are currently in exile, God is with them there, as a "miniature Temple". For the first time, the prophet affirms the Jewish identity of the exiles: they remain part of God’s nation, even though the Jews still living in their homeland have a different view, and maintain that God's place is still in the Temple in their midst.

   Both groups, the inhabitants in the land and those exiled to Babylonia, despite their differences, have this in common: neither changed its behavior during these years. Thus, Yehezkel's prophetic mission during these years was not to call upon the people to mend their ways and repent, but rather to explain the significance of the events in Jerusalem, and thereby to prepare the ground for the prophecies of rebuilding which came after the Destruction, as well as the vision of the future Temple.

3. The End is Near

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   The prophetic message of Yehezkel and Yirmiyahu is that the end of Jerusalem is imminent. The common belief in Jerusalem and in Babylonia is that somehow God will save the inhabitants of Jerusalem, allowing them to survive this crisis. The exiles themselves, though, might – in a best case scenario – return to the land; but will otherwise assimilate and disappear among the nations.

   Yirmiyahu prophesies that in his own days Yehoyakhin is “a man who shall not prosper” and in those years that Yehuda is desolate, none of his progeny will prosper as king or ruler. But in the long term, the exile of Yehoyakhin will settle and prosper in Babylonia for a long period of time and they will serve as the salvation of the people. It would be these exiles who would return one day to rebuild the land which was about to be destroyed. Yehekzel prophesies that those who remained in Jerusalem will die by pestilence, by the sword or by famine.

   But even after these prophecies, neither the inhabitants of Jerusalem nor the exiles in Babylonia were convinced. The Temple was still standing; the inhabitants of Jerusalem remained steadfast despite the crises they had faced since the time of Shlomo. These facts made a stronger impression than the prophecies of Yirmiyahu and Yehezkel.

   To convey his messages, Yehezkel enlists all possible means: the use of symbolic acts and the borrowing of expressions familiar from the Tokhaha in Vayikra. Now, another means is adopted: a key word, aimed at emphasizing the subject of the prophecy as a whole. We see here the repeated use of the word “ketz” (end), alluding to the story of the Flood.

4. The Departure of God’s Glory from the Temple

   Part 2

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   The people of the city concede that difficult times are on their way. But the people nevertheless maintain that even if they “cook” in the fire of the troubles that await them, they will be saved from annihilation, just as meat in a cauldron is saved from burning. Thus the people prepare themselves for the siege, certain however that they will prevail.

   God’s response emphasizes that despite their claim, they are destined to be brought out of Jerusalem and be judged on the border of Israel.

   After these prophecies of destruction, Yehezkel transmits the promise that the exiles are destined to return to their land. God will bring back His people to the land in the future, but without the people having repented. So God Himself will have to give them a new heart of flesh that will ensure that henceforth they will follow God’s laws. While superficially this appears to be a prophecy of consolation, in fact it actually offers little comfort.

   The chapter concludes with God’s glory departing not only from the Temple, but also from the city of Jerusalem. Any hope of the people finally internalizing the message of Yehezkel’s prophecy is shattered by God’s statement depicting the people as rebellious.

5. Tzidkiyahu

   Part 2

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   Yehezkel continues his criticism of Tzidkiyahu by means of a parable. By relying on the king of Egypt to aid him and rebelling against Nevukhadnetzar, Tzidkiyahu decreed his own death in Babylonia. This violation was a grave breach of trust.  Yehezkel goes further by comparing the violation of the covenant with Nevukhadnetzar to violation of the covenant with God.

   This conclusion to the prophecy indicates that the potential for renewal of the monarchy in Israel rests with Yehoyakhin, who is in exile. This conclusion once again emphasizes the unique status of Yehoyakhin in Sefer Yehezkel; and, indeed, it is Zerubavel – the grandson of Yehoyakhin – who will eventually lead the nation at the start of the Second Temple period.

    

6. The People, the Prophet, and God in Response to the Destruction

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   Yehezkel and the Jews in Babylon receive the news of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Yehezkel must contend with the claim of the remnant left in the land that they are the ones who will eventually inherit it despite their small numbers. And indeed, size or number is not the decisive factor. The argument of the remnant is erroneous: not because of their small number, but rather their due to the multitude of their sins.

   The claim of the remnant seems to belong to the period preceding the murder of Gedalya. The claim of the remnant in the land indicates that they assumed that exile was a matter pertaining only to those now in Babylonia, while they themselves were continuing the national survival of Am Yisrael, and were therefore deserving of possession of the land. The murder of Gedalya brought this claim to an end. They ceased to view themselves as a distinct group that was separate from their brethren in Babylonia.

   An understanding of the prophecy from which its historical context raises two exegetical possibilities: If Gedalya was murdered in the Tishrei immediately after the destruction of the Mikdash, then Yehezkel’s prophecy – taking place in the month of Tevet – which seem polemical is no longer relevant. The other, seemingly more likely possibility is that this prophecy describes the situation in the land at a slightly later stage – not during the weeks immediately following the Destruction. At this time there were still a good number of Jewish inhabitants in the land, and they still viewed their group as an alternative to the Babylonian exiles. This perspective rests upon the assumption that Gedalya was assassinated not in the month of Tishrei immediately after the Destruction, but rather a year or more later.

   The prophet does not focus on the Destruction itself; he looks to the past and to the future. The reason for this is that the exiles in Babylonian have not experienced the direct crisis, and they have already begun to internalize the new reality. These prophecies contain nothing in the way of consolation, sorrow, reconciliation or compassion over what has happened in Jerusalem. This is especially conspicuous if we compare these chapters with Yirmiyahu, who laments at length over the Destruction.

7. Visions of Disaster and Solutions: Yirmiyahu's Figs and Pharaoh's dreams

   Rabbi David Sabato