Yehezkel's Silence

Found 6 Search results

1. Yehezkel's Silence: Symbolic Actions and Their Meaning

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   Among the many symbolic actions that God commands Yehezkel to perform as part of his prophecy, one is to bind himself up with cords and remain silent. Up until now the prophet has been commanded to go and prophesy to the people.  Now it seems that before he has a chance to say anything, he receives another prophecy that contradicts everything that has come before: he must shut himself in his house and refrain from reproving the nation, until he is instructed otherwise.

   For how long was Yehezkel shut inside his house? If he was silent until the survivor came to inform him of the destruction of Jerusalem, to who were the many prophecies he received conveyed throughout these years?

   Many possibilities are suggested, but all of them give rise to the same message: despite the skepticism of the exiles dwelling with Yehezkel, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem is imminent, and the prophet’s message will have no effect on the people.

2. Yehezkel's Symbolic Actions and their Meaning

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   Generally speaking, the Latter Prophets, unlike the Earlier Prophets, do not perform miracles. Therefore, in order to convey their messages effectively, they must employ both elevated speech and symbolic acts. Perhaps for this reason Yehezkel only conveys his prophecies after a series of symbolic actions performed at the beginning of his prophetic career. Indeed, the difficulty of convincing the nation of the authenticity and reliability of God’s prophets is clearly demonstrated in Yirmiyahu’s struggle against the false prophets. In Sefer Yehezkel too – even in the prophecies that follow the Destruction – the prophet’s audience treats his words as mere poetry and they continue sinning.

   Yehezkel’s symbolic acts are a step-by-step demonstration of what is yet to happen due to the sins of the nation: first the siege with no response from God; the unbearable hunger and thirst; and finally – annihilation of most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, only a few of whom will escape and be saved.

3. The Destruction of the City

   Dr. Tova Ganzel

   The prophecy concerning the imminent fate of the city resembles the destruction that Yehezkel had prophesied in the past, but he no longer reacts with cries of surprise or distress, as he had earlier; now he is apathetic. From now on, his pre-destruction prophetic mission is limited to describing the situation in the city.

   The description begins presenting a city that is full of bloodshed. Yehezkel’s accusation is against all of Jerusalem’s inhabitants – all classes and positions. Throughout the book Yehezkel avoids using the name Jerusalem altogether. Perhaps this is that the actions of the nation have not only led to the defiling of the name, but have also caused a rupture in God’s attitude towards the eternity of the city.

   Chapter 24 contains two accounts of loss: the loss of Yehezkel’s wife, and the loss of the Temple. The connection between Yehezkel’s private loss and the nation’s loss of the Temple indicates that the profaning of the Temple is irreversible: in other words, the Temples that will be built after the destruction of the First Temple represent a new creation, not a recreation of the Temple that existed.

   Yehezkel is commanded not to mourn for his wife as a sign to the people. Why, then, is Am Yisrael commanded not to mourn over the Temple?

   The withholding of mourning may represent a sort of Divine punishment – or, alternatively, an act of acceptance of God’s will. Perhaps mourning is only significant for the comfort that others give to the mourner and the commandment not to mourn signifies that there are none to comfort.

   This prophecy concludes Yehezkel’s prophecies of rebuke uttered before the destruction and ends his term of silence.

4. 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.

5. 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. 

6. From Silence to Speech

   Rav Aviya HaCohen