|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
The Eliyahu Narratives Yeshivat Har Etzion
Eliyahu – Shiur #67 – Navot: Part 5: “Have You
Found Me, My Enemy?!”
(20)
By Rav Elchanan
Samet
Achav reacts twice
to Eliyahu’s words – the first time following the first part of Eliyahu’s
speech, and then again after the end of the speech. Both reactions demand some
clarification, as does the obvious development between the two reactions. In
this shiur we shall focus on Achav’s first reaction, which follows God’s
double message to him as conveyed by Eliyahu:
(19) So says God:
Have you then murdered and also taken
possession?!...
So says God: In
the place where the dogs licked the blood of Navot, the dogs shall lick your
blood, too.
(20) And Achav
said to Eliyahu: “Have you found me, my enemy?!”
And he said: “I
have found [you].”
What is the
meaning of Achav’s question, and what does it tell us about his spiritual stance
in the face of Eliyahu’s rebuke?
The literal
meaning of Achav’s question may lead us to view it as an affront to the prophet
– suggesting that he is a persona non grata – that the king has no desire to
encounter him. It gives the impression that the king regularly evades such
encounters, but is now suddenly forced to confront Eliyahu face to face. But
this simplistic interpretation disregards the context of this tense dialogue. It
fails to clarify how the dialogue arises from what preceded it, and how it
contributes to a significant deepening of our understanding of the situation as
a whole.
Abarbanel (and
Metzudot and Malbim, who adopt his approach) interprets Achav’s words as an
attempt to evade responsibility for Navot’s murder:
“'Have you found
me, my enemy?' – Have you found me guilty as a murderer in this regard, my
enemy? Claiming, as it were, that he was not been present at Navot’s murder, and
that he knows nothing about it; rather, it was Izevel who was responsible. He
[Eliyahu], as [Achav’s] enemy, is suspecting him of something that he did not
do. Therefore Eliyahu says, 'I have found [you]' – I know that truth – that she
committed the act at your instigation and with your
knowledge.”
The Ba’al
ha-Metzudot briefly cites Abarbanel’s view, and then adds an extra sentence
describing Achav’s stance:
“And he thought of
denying what the prophet said – as though it had not been committed at his
initiative.”
But this
interpretation cannot be regarded as the plain meaning of the text. Firstly,
linguistically: these commentators project onto Achav’s two words, and Eliyahu’s
single word of response, a notion that appears nowhere in the verse. Achav does
not say, “Have you found me guilty”; nor does Eliyahu respond, “I have found you
guilty.” The debate that these commentators seek to create between Achav and
Eliyahu – as to whether the murder of Navot was Izevel’s act or one that could
be attributed to Achav – is not even hinted at.
Secondly, the
nature of the situation described in this dialogue is full of dramatic tension;
it is not suited to legal debate, whether explicit or implicit. Hence it is
clear that Achav’s question, “Have you found me, my enemy,” must be understood
as a rhetorical question; Eliyahu’s response is likewise to be understood in
that context, and the dialogue can therefore not be a legal debate, as the above
commentators suggest.
Many
shiurim ago, in the appendix to part 8 on the drought, we compared the
encounter between the king and the prophet in our chapter and that recorded at
the beginning of chapter 18, when Achav and Ovadya go off together in search of
some feed for the animals. We noted that there, Achav felt that Eliyahu was
guilty for the difficult situation of Am Yisrael, and therefore when he
meets Eliyuahu he assumes – with some degree of justification – the role of
accuser, addressing Eliyahu with the rhetorical question: “Is that you, o
troubler of Israel?!” The title that Achav uses shows that he regards himself as
a king who cares about his nation, and his view of Eliyahu as the enemy of all
of Am Yisrael because of the drought that he has
decreed.
In our chapter,
the roles are reversed. Here it is Eliyahu who accuses Achav, who understands
that he has been caught in his disgrace. Achav’s response here is not an
expression of accusation, as in chapter 18. His rhetorical question, “Have you
found me, my enemy,” means: “Have you finally managed to catch me in my disgrace
– you, the prophet who has lied in wait for me, awaiting my downfall?!”
Eliyahu’s unequivocal answer, “I have found you,” is to be understood
accordingly: “Indeed, you have been discovered in your disgrace, at the peak of
your crime – and at the very site of the crime!” There is no attempt at evasion,
here. On the contrary: Achav recognizes that he has been caught in the most
compromising of situations, and expresses an implied admission to the
accusation: “Have you then murdered and taken
possession.”
On the other hand,
we should obviously not get carried away in interpreting Achav’s words here as a
manifestation of teshuva and regret. His words are uttered in anger, as
someone who is pained at having his crime exposed. We may say that there is an
“acknowledgment of sin” here, but the next stage of teshuva – regret – is
absent, and without it there can be no process of repentance. This situation is
preferable, in some ways, to the usual scenario in which the accused tends to
deny his sin outright (sometimes even claiming that what he did was a worthy
deed), or to claim that he is in no way responsible for the sin. In dealing with
a sinner of this more common type, the prophet must first and foremost disprove
his claims and bring him to recognition of the truth and an admission, before
specifying his punishment. (Compare the lengthy, stage-by-stage dialogue between
Shemuel and Shaul following the war against Amalek, I Shemuel 16:13-31).
In our chapter, in contrast, Achav’s position – which is at least honest –
facilitates a jump over the wearing legal argument that may have been required,
and moving right on to his punishment.
It appears, then,
that Achav’s response here may be a first stage leading to his submission, which
we shall discuss in the following shiurim.
Translated by
Kaeren Fish
|