עוד אישה בוגדת
את רעיון הנבואה הקדומה למדתי ממחקרו הגדול של יחזקאל קויפמן*, אולם ההוכחות המכריעות שלו נמצאות כולן בפרק ב'. הוא סבר, שפרקים א'-ג' כולם שייכים לנביא קדום, ולכן נאלץ 'לתקן' בפרק א' ('בית יהורם', במקום "בית יֵהוא"), אבל לא הסביר את הצורך באשה "המנאפת השנייה" שבפרק ג', ואת משמעות שתי הנשים כשתי תקופות.
'אשת הזנונים' ("אִמְכֶם... לא אשתי") היא שומרון של איזבל, ואילו האישה (שבפרק ג') היא שומרון של ימי הנביא - "כאַהֲבַת ה' את בני ישראל, והם פֹּנים אל אלהים אחרים..." (ג', א).
במחזה הנבואי** השני כבר שורר עצב עמוק, כי נביאי 'המִדבר' לא יושיעו עוד - רק הזמן הארוך שהנביא 'קונה' בכסף ובשעורים כדי שתשב לבדה, יחולל תשובה (ג', ג-ה):
"...ימים רבים תֵשְבי לי, לא תִזְני ולא תִהְיי לאיש (אחר),
וגם אני אֵלָיִךְ (=אשאר נאמן);
כי ימים רבים ישבו בני ישראל (=בארץ!),
אין מלך ואין שָׂר (=בשומרון),
ואין זבח ומַצֵבה, ואין אֵפוד וּתְרָפים (=בבית אֵל ובדָן);
אחר יָשֻבוּ בני ישראל
ובִקְשוּ את ה' א-לֹהיהם ואת דוד מַלכָּם (=חזקיהו; יאשיהו),
וּפָחֲדוּ אל ה' ואל טוּבוֹ, באחרית הימים" (=בדורות הבאים).
________________________________
*תולדות האמונה הישראלית, כרך ג' (תשל"ב), עמ' 107-93.
**הרמב"ם (מורה-נבוכים ב, מז) קבע בתוקף, ש"אשת זנונים" הוא רק משל שנאמר להושע ב'מַראֶה הנבואה', וה' לא עשה את נביאיו שוטים ופושעים; אבל הרמב"ם לא הסביר איך נבואת 'מַראֶה' כזאת תשפיע על שומעיו של הנביא, וגם החולקים על הרמב"ם לא הסבירו זאת; ההסבר הגאוני של קויפמן - 'מחזה נבואי', בו אשת הנביא מופיעה בשתי ההצגות בתפקיד 'אשת הזנונים', וה"מנאפת" השנייה, מסביר הכל בפשטות, בלי לתת דופי בנביא ובנבואה.
באדיבות אתר 929
ריב עם יושבי הארץ
פרק ד' פותח את החטיבה השניה בספר הושע (פרקים ד'-י"ד), העוסקת בעיקר בחטאיו המוסריים של העם ומנהיגיו ששורשם בשכחת א-להים – 'ואין דעת א-להים בארץ'. בראש הפרק מופיע זימון למשפט של יושבי הארץ, והוא כולל פירוט של 'כתב האישום' המתאר את המצב המוסרי הקשה בארץ. הנביא זועק על חטאי העם, ומצביע על מצבה הירוד של ההנהגה הרוחנית בראשות הכהנים והנביאים (ד-י), על אווירת ההוללות והשכרות ששררה בחברה הישראלית, ועל 'רוח הזנות' המתעה את העם לפולחן אלילי (יא-יט).
א. '...כִּי רִיב לַה' עִם-יוֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ' (א) עקבו אחרי הקשריה השונים של המילה ה'ארץ', הנזכרת שלוש פעמים בפסקה הראשונה, ועמדו על חשיבותה בתיאור החטא ועונשו. תוכלו להיעזר בדברי הרד"ק: "יושבי ארץ ישראל דין לי עמהם, כי בתנאי נתתי להם את הארץ - שיעשו בו צדקה ומשפט, ובזה התנתי להם שיהיו עיני בה מראשית השנה ועד אחרית שנה, וכיון שהם עושים בהפך 'אלה וכחש' וגו', אף אני אעשה עמהם בהפך מה שהבטחתי והסתרתי פני מהם 'ותאבל הארץ ואמלל כל יושב בה כי אין אמת'."
ב. פסוק א' מציג ערכים שאינם מצויים בארץ, וביניהם "אין דעת א-להים בארץ". לעומתם מופיעים בפס' ב' חטאים הנפוצים בארץ, הקשורים קשר הדוק לחלק מן המצוות בעשרת הדברות. חשבו מה מאפיין את החטאים הללו, ומה היחס ביניהם לבין הערכים בפס' א ובראשם "דעת א-להים". עיינו גם בתיאור האירוסין האידאליים לעיל ב',כא-כב.
ג. בפסוקים ד-י מפנה הנביא אצבע מאשימה כלפי ההנהגה הרוחנית. עמדו על שני תפקידי הכהן, בהם הוא מועל (ד-ו; ח). נסו לבאר את חטאם של הכוהנים בעזרת הסיפור על בני עלי בשמואל א' ב',יב-יז, העומד ברקע הנבואה. השוו את פסוק ו לפסוק א וחשבו - כיצד גורמת ההנהגה למצבו הקשה של העם?
למעבר לדף הלימוד המלא מתוך התכנית "מתן על הפרק"
הכל תלוי בבקשה
"אַחַר יָשֻׁבוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִקְשׁוּ אֶת ה' אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְאֵת דָּוִיד מַלְכָּם וּפָחֲדוּ אֶל ה' וְאֶל טוּבוֹ בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים" (הושע ג', ה)
אחר ישובו בני ישראל - זה יהיה באחרית הימים קרוב לעת הישועה שישובו בני ישראל בתשובה.
ובדברי רז"ל, רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר: בשלשה דברים מאסו ישראל בימי רחבעם: במלכות שמים ובמלכות בית דוד ובבית המקדש, הדא הוא דכתיב [=זהו שכתוב] (מלכים א י"ב, טז): "(אין) [מה] לנו חלק בדוד" כמשמעו, "לאהליך ישראל" אל תקרי לאהליך אלא לאלהיך, "ראה ביתך דוד" זה בית המקדש.
אמר ר' שמעון בן מנסי': אין מראין סימן גאולה לישראל עד שיחזרו ויבקשו שלשתן, הדא הוא דכתיב [=זהו שכתוב] (הושע ג', ה): "אחר ישובו בני ישראל ובקשו את ה'" מלכות שמים, "ואת דוד מלכם" כמשמעו, "ופחדו אל ה' ואל טובו" זה בית המקדש.
רד"ק - ר' דוד בן יוסף קמחי, חי בדרום צרפת בין השנים 1160-1235. התפרסם כדקדקן על ידי ספרו "מכלול", הרבה לעיין בפילוסופיה ובמדעים. כתב פירוש לתנ"ך לספרי בראשית, נביאים ראשונים, נביאים אחרונים, תהלים ודברי הימים. פירושו עוסק הרבה בענייני לשון, ניקוד, מסורה, ופירוש המילים. הוא עוסק גם בשאלת חיבור הספרים וזמנם של הנביאים, שאלות היסטוריות וגיאוגרפיות, ובויכוחים עם הפרשנות הנוצרית לכתוב.
Avraham's Eshel and the Central Beam of the Temple
Many years after Parashat Vayera, Benei Yisrael constructed a mishkan (Tabernacle) in the wilderness. One specific feature of this edifice was the "bri'ach hatikhon" - the central beam that ran across the entire structure, from one end to the other. Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel (Shemot 36:33) writes that Benei Yisrael made this central beam from the tree that Avraham Avinu planted in Be'er Sheva, where he "called out in the Name of God." Targum Yonatan undoubtedly referred to the mysterious "eshel" spoke of in Parashat Vayera (Bereishit 21:33): "He planted an 'eshel' in Be'er Sheva, and he called there in the Name of God, the Lord of the universe." Rashi cites a dispute from the Midrash whether "eshel" means an orchard from which he fed guests fruits or a motel to offer hospitality to wayfarers; Targum Yonatan seems to understand the word to mean a single tree.
In any event, the question of course arises, wherein lies the relationship between the tree planted by Avraham in Be'er Sheva and the mishkan in the wilderness? Why is it significant that they specifically used wood from this tree to fashion the central beam?
The answer would seem to lie in Rashi's comments to the second half of the aforementioned verse: "He called there in the Name of God." Rashi explains that through his hospitality, Avraham glorified the Name of God. He would take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the arrival of guests to spread the truth of monotheism. He would explain to his visitors that the single God takes the credit for the delicacies they enjoyed in Avraham's tent, thus prompting them to thank and acknowledge the source of all blessing in the universe.
The connection between the "eshel" and the mishkan, then, may relate to the universal aspect of the Temple. In his famous prayer at the dedication ceremony of the Bet Hamikdash, King Shelomo (Melakhim I 8:41-43) speaks of the gentiles coming to the Temple to worship the Almighty. Likewise, the prophets Yeshayahu (2:1-3) and Mikha (4:1-2) foretell of the many nations who will descend upon the Temple in Jerusalem to study the word of God. Although in one sense God's representative presence among Benei Yisrael marked an intense personal relationship between Him and His people, ultimately the concept of a "mikdash" means universalizing the awareness of God, the dissemination of the moral and ethical standards that Benei Yisrael have taken upon themselves to represent.
This function constitutes the "central beam" that holds the mishkan together. The different accessories in the Temple symbolize different aspects of religious service. But the single theme that runs throughout the ideal of the Mikdash is Avraham Avinu's "eshel," his successful campaign to teach the world the ways of God.
Not always will people gladly enter Benei Yisrael's "eshel." Avraham Avinu was a wealthy, prominent and influential personality in Eretz Canaan; the same could be said many years later about King Shelomo. Commoners and dignitaries alike naturally visited their houses of worship and came under their sphere influence. Unfortunately, however, throughout our exile and most notably during recent weeks, the world looks to criticize the Jewish people rather than learn therefrom. Am Yisrael has often earned the scorn and contempt of the surrounding nations, rather than their respect. The question of whom to blame is of far less importance than the reinforcement of our commitment to this "central beam" of our spiritual mission. At such times we must galvanize our efforts to ensure that our communities more firmly ground themselves on the ideals of "tzedaka u'mishpat," such that we can properly represent God's wisdom to all mankind.
Vayera and Vayigash: Avraham's Approach to Sodom
Parashat Vayera includes Avraham's valiant effort to annul the divine decree of annihilation against the wicked city of Sedom. The Torah describes Avraham's intervention with the word, "vayigash," literally, "he approached" (18:23). Rashi there notes the various connotations of this word. One usage of the word appears in the parasha that opens with, and derives its name from, this word - Parashat Vayigash. There, as Rashi observes, "vayigash" implies an attempt at appeasement, as it depicts Yehuda's attempt to save Binyamin from Egyptian captivity. Interestingly, however, in his commentary to that portion in Parashat Vayigash, Rashi describes Yehuda as fiercely threatening the Egyptian viceroy; the "appeasement" in this instance took the form of bitter confrontation. This image relates, appropriately enough, to a second usage of the word, in Shemuel II 10, where the word refers to warfare. This apparent association of the term "vayigash" with aggressiveness calls upon us to take a closer look at its usage in our context. How may we uphold this understanding of the word in the context of Avraham's appeal on behalf of Sedom? Additionally, Rashi notes yet a third meaning of "vayigash": prayer. Rashi concludes that Avraham here engages in all three definitions of the word "vayigash": appeasement, war, and prayer. How does this word accommodate both "prayer" and an aggressive, militant operation?
One explanation given focuses upon the delicate balance Avraham must find in his effort to spare Sedom. On the one hand, he works now as their defender, trying to find some basis for an acquittal, or at least a pardon. On the other hand, as the leading champion of the ideals of loving kindness and compassion, he can only look upon the corrupt society of Sedom with utter contempt and disdain. The values of Sedom directly oppose Avraham's entire campaign in Canaan, which sought to steer the population in the direction of proper conduct among people. As he attempts to invoke divine mercy on behalf of the sinners, Avraham does two things: he sincerely begs for a pardon, seeking a presence of righteous residents in the city on whose account God may spare the city, and, secondly, he "wages war" against the corrupt society. In other words, even as Avraham pleads on Sedom's behalf, he retains his relentless commitment to fight against everything the city represents. His petition to God did not undermine for a moment Avraham's fierce campaign to destroy the culture that Sedom had introduced and come to embody.
This explanation may help us find the proper approach towards those who seek to undermine Torah values. Like Avraham, we must genuinely concern ourselves with their welfare and pray on their behalf. However, this benevolent attitude towards the perpetrators of evil must never translate into benevolence towards evil itself. Although we must extend good-will towards our ideological opponents, we must also continue to fight on behalf of the ideology they seek to destroy.
The Sodom Consultation and God's Love for Avraham
Before destroying Sedom, God "consults," as it were, with Avraham. The Torah lets us in on God's "thought process" when deciding to divulge this information to Avraham: "For I know him, that he will instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of God by doing what is just and right…" (18:19). Rashi explains the expression "yedativ" ("I know him") in this context as affection. Meaning, God professes His special love for Avraham specifically on account of his commitment to teaching the ways of God to his offspring.
One explanation for this basis of God's love for Avraham likens his instruction to his children to that of a skilled worker. A practitioner who works only for his wages will not necessarily encourage his children to pursue the same occupation. He will rather advise them to seek other professions that make a better profit for less work. One who truly loves what he does and views it as bearing paramount significance will strongly urge his children to follow his example is career selection.
God's love for Avraham thus resulted from Avraham's love for God, as reflected by his commitment to disseminating the ideals of Godliness throughout the world. As the Chatam Sofer notes, others before Avraham - most notably, Chanokh - had also achieved exalted spiritual heights. However, true devotion to the word of God entails more; it results in a relentless effort to share it with others, to teach, assist, guide, and inspire. Avraham was chosen to father God's nation, then, because he possessed the spark necessary to ignite the eternal transmission of the "mesora" (tradition). Only one with such an inflamed devotion to the way of God can implant these ideals within the hearts of his progeny.
Vayera and its Haftara: Creditors and Sodom, Avraham and the Shunamite
As we know, Chazal instituted the weekly reading of the "haftara," a selected reading from the Prophets that corresponds to the week's Torah reading. Generally, the relationship between the Torah reading and the haftara is obvious, though in some instances it is less clear or somewhat tenuous. The haftara for Parashat Vayera (taken from Melakhim II 4:1-37) appears to fall into the first category of haftarot, those with a self-evident connection to the corresponding Torah portion. The birth of a son by the heretofore infertile Shunamite woman quite clearly parallels the highlight of Parashat Vayera, the miraculous birth of Yitzchak to his elderly parents. However, the common practice we follow is to begin this lengthy haftara with the briefer, preceding story about the destitute woman whose creditor prepares to take her sons as slaves since she cannot make her payments. The prophet Elisha miraculously has her tiny oil stock multiply, allowing her to sell the oil and pay her debts. Of what relevance is this story to Parashat Vayera?
It has been suggested that our reading of this story this Shabbat focuses not on the miracle per se, but rather on the insensitive, heartless creditor who has no compassion for the poor widow. He knows that she has no husband - which in ancient times usually meant no means of support - and has only her sons. Losing them would mean losing everything she had in the world. Yet, he refuses to bend and forego - even temporarily - on the money owed to him. He follows the strict letter of the law, rather than exercising a degree of compassion and flexibility towards an impoverished widow.
This conduct directly corresponds to another prominent feature of Parashat Vayera: the destruction of Sedom. Many commentators ask why specifically this city deserved annihilation, while many other societies were also plagued by corruption. The Maharal explains that Sedom's sin lay in their unwavering adherence to strict legality and refusal to bend. The mishna in Pirkei Avot attribute to Sedom the ideology of, "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours." They exhibited absolute heartlessness towards the needy, adamantly advocating the rights of each individual to his own money, to the point where sharing was seen as inappropriate and worthy of condemnation. Therefore, God, too, acted towards them with similar inflexibility, denying them access to the divine attribute of mercy. Rabbeinu Bechayei explains along similar lines, noting that no other nation in the world frowns upon charitable causes, sharing one's wealth with others. The story of the poor woman thus brings to mind the sad story of Sedom, the corrosive effects of overly exacting application of the law, such that it leaves no room for mercy and compassion.
Just as the story of Sedom appears in contradistinction to the hospitality and kindness of Avraham Avinu, so does the first half of the haftara stand in contrast with the second story - the Shunamite woman. She and her husband provide lodging and hospitality for the prophet Elisha, on account of which they earned the miraculous birth of their son. Both the parasha and the haftara, then, underscore the stark contrast between the value of "chesed," sensitivity and loving kindness to others, and the quality of Sedom, whereby strict law overrides basic human compassion and consideration.
(Based in part on an article by Rav Amnon Bazak of Yeshivat Har Etzion)
The Akeida: Midrash as the Mind of Avraham
The story of akeidat Yitzchak, the "binding" of Yitzchak, is often seen as the quintessential "nisayon," or test, that God brings upon man. In this sense, Avraham's experiences as he makes his way to what he thought was the slaughtering of his son serve as an example of absolute obedience and unwavering faith in God despite the enormous difficulties and challenges involved. Chazal filled in many details to the somewhat scant description in the text itself. These details are meant to shed light on the "nisayon" experience and provide us with guidance for confronting our own "nisyonot" in life.
In a famous passage, the Midrash Tanchuma describes the efforts of the Satan, or the tempter, to dissuade Avraham from obeying God's command to kill his only son. First, the tempter appeared to Avraham as an old man and asked him where he was headed.
"To pray," Avraham replied. The tempter noted that Avraham carried with him a knife and instruments to light a fire - not exactly the equipment necessary for prayer. He then told Avraham that he knew of God's command that he kill Yitzchak.
"An old man like you will go and destroy his son who was given to him at one hundred years old?!" the Satan exclaimed.
Clearly, this "dialogue" reflects the thoughts that, Chazal inform us, haunted Avraham during his three-day journey to Mount Moriah. Is this how one worships God? What sense is there in killing the son granted to him miraculously at old age? Yet, as the Midrash records, these tormenting thoughts did not dissuade Avraham; he pressed onward, fully devoted to the divine command.
The next stage of the confrontation described by the Midrash is less clear. The tempter appeared to Avraham in the form of a large river that obstructed Avraham's path. Avraham nevertheless proceeded until the river came to his neck, at which point he cried to the Almighty, who immediately dried the river and allowed Avraham to continue.
What message is conveyed through the image of the river?
Nechama Leibowitz (Studies, Parashat Vayera 6) identifies the river as a symbol for "the objective difficulties that block a person's path." Very often, our pursuit of truth is obstructed by seemingly insurmountable logistical considerations. "I can't afford the money"; "I don't have the time"; "It just won't work out," etc. While Avraham certainly had no intention of drowning in the river as he made his way to Moriah, he made a point of extending himself as far as he could. The less obvious nisyonot in life come in the form of a "river" - practical inconveniences that deter us from doing what's right by providing an opportune excuse not to. The road to piety is not always smoothly paved; nor is it necessarily a road at all. At times we must cross rivers and climb mountains as we proceed towards our own Mount Moriah, fulfilling the word of God no matter how difficult the challenges involved.