Watchman - Tzofeh

Found 4 Search results

1. Yehezkel’s Prophetic Mission

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   Yehezkel is told at the outset that he is being sent to the nation to convey God’s word, for them to know that a prophet was among them before the Destruction. But the people dwelling in Jerusalem – like those in Babylon – will not change their ways. The role of the prophet is not to bring about repentance but rather to convey God’s word and thereby justify the imminent punishment. Therefore when he is commanded to eat the scroll, he is ambivalent. Just as the scroll contains lamentations, with no hint of redemption, so too Yehezkel’s prophecy includes, initially, only the coming of the Destruction.

   Nonetheless, there is a message that the prophet addresses to each individual in his generation: the Temple is going to be destroyed, and the nation will be exiled from its land, but every person bears personal responsibility for his own fate, because even at this most bitter time there will be those who will die and those who will be saved. Every individual is responsible for his own actions. Yehezkel must therefore carry out his mission even if the nation’s fate is already sealed.

2. 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.

3. Yehezkel 3-4

   Matan Al Haperek

   Rabbi David Sabato

   With the completion of his dedicative prophecy, Yehezkel remains among the people of the captivity for seven days - "Then I came to those of the captivity who dwelled in Tel-Abib on the river Chebar...and I remained among them seven dreary days" (3:15). After seven days, Yehezkel receives a new prophecy that concerns the prophet's role as a watchman (16-21). The prophecy of the watchman in our perek parallels the prophecy in perek 33, and both belong to the series of prophecies dealing with the theory of reward and punishment. As the perek continues (22-27), Yehezkel is commanded to leave the captivity for the plain. There, for a second time, the vision of the Glory of God is revealed to him. He is commanded to shut himself in his house and remain silent.

   A series of prophetic acts symbolizing the predicted fate of the nation appear in perek 4 and the beginning of perek 5. The first act- tracing on a tile (1-3) - symbolizes the siege of Jerusalem. The second act - lying on his side for many days (4-8) - symbolizes the sin of the city and its punishment. The third act - eating food by weight and drinking water by measure (9-17) - symbolizes the severe famine that will prevail in Jerusalem during the siege and the suffering of the exiles. 

4. Psalm 127: The Difference Between “In Vain” and “Tranquility”

   Part 2

   Rabbi Elchanan Samet

   It is not possible that it is the intention of the first two stanzas to nullify the value of man’s efforts to build his house and to protect the security of his city. It would be an offense both to common sense and to the prevailing biblical view that a person must exert effort for the sake of securing his own existence. Rather, man’s own efforts are a necessary but insufficient condition, and in the absence of God’s hidden involvement, man’s efforts will not attain their objective.

   The negative formulation utilized to teach this lesson indicates that the psalm is meant to serve as rebuke to people who act improperly and who believe that only through their own strength and might can they build themselves houses and cities, and ensure their own security and livelihood.