Vayetze, Hoshea 11:7 – 14:10

Context

The book of Hoshea is 14 chapters long. The first three chapters describe Hoshea’s marriage to a prostitute named Gomer bat Divlayim, which G-d orchestrated as an extended metaphor for the relationship between G-d and the nation of Israel. The remaining eleven chapters are prophecies directed mainly at the Northern Kingdom of Israel, also called “Ephraim” or “Shomron.” These chapters are pretty obscure, both in terms of the language and the organization of ideas. The Sephardic custom is to read Hoshea 11:7 – 12:12 with Parshat Vayetze, while the Ashkenazic custom is to read 12:13 – 14:10 (the end of the book).

Overview

Because the two choices of haftarah are adjacent, we will summarize both of them. The speaker’s voice, the topics, and the themes change frequently, so this is the best breakdown I could manage!

[11:7-11] Israel sins, but G-d decides not to destroy them, and instead to gather the exiles.

[12:1-2] Ephraim is sinning, particularly by trying to appease Egypt and Assyria.

[12:3-5] Yaakov’s fight with Esav and the angel, and his meeting G-d in Beit El is recounted.

[12:6-9] G-d says: Repent and act justly, rather than sinning as you do now.

[12:10-11] G-d says: I settled you in tents leaving Egypt and spoke to prophets.

[12:12] The worship of Gil’ad and Gilgal is considered empty.

[12:13-14] Analogy: Yaakov worked to marry Rachel, and G-d redeemed Israel from Egypt.

[12:15-13:3] Ephraim is sinning, and they will be punished.

[13:4-14:1] G-d says: I will punish Ephraim for their sins, though I was their savior.

[14:2-4] Prophet calls to repentance, and Israel repents.

[14:5-10] G-d rewards Israel for their repentance.

“In the womb, he tried to supplant his brother”

Verses 12:3-5 from the Sephardic haftarah have an unusual discussion of Jacob’s story.

ג וְרִיב לַיהוָה, עִם-יְהוּדָה; וְלִפְקֹד עַל-יַעֲקֹב כִּדְרָכָיו, כְּמַעֲלָלָיו יָשִׁיב לוֹ.

ד בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו; וּבְאוֹנוֹ, שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים.

ה וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל, בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ; בֵּית-אֵל, יִמְצָאֶנּוּ, וְשָׁם, יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ.

3 Hashem has a controversy with Yehudah, and will punish Yaakov according to his ways, according to his doings will He return to him.

4 In the womb he tried to supplant his brother, and by his strength he strove with a godlike being;

5 So he strove with an angel, and prevailed; the angel wept, and made supplication unto him; at Beth-el he found him, and there he spoke with us.

The story is prefaced by the assertion that G-d has a claim against Yehudah and plans to repay Yaakov; the JPS translates “ולפקד” as “punish”, but that’s difficult to understand at first. It seems like verse 3 introduces Yaakov’s actions that would demand punishment, but we only hear about (a) fighting Esav in the womb, (b) fighting the angel, (c) speaking with G-d at Bet El. Why should these be worthy of punishment?

I think the prophet is using the story of Ya’akov’s life to foreshadow or contrast with future sins in his descendants. This actually works very nicely in the verses:

1. Verse 4 – בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו. “In the womb he tried to supplant his brother;”
   Verse 8 — כְּנַעַן, בְּיָדוֹ מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה–לַעֲשֹׁק אָהֵב.. “A trader who uses false balances, Who loves to overreach”
   The word used for “trying to supplant the brother” is the same word “akav” that Esav used to describe how Yaakov tricked him in Bereishit 27:36. So, the tricking of Esav is compared to the trickery being carried out by the merchants of Hoshea’s time.
2. Verse 4-5 — וּבְאוֹנוֹ, שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל, בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ. “Grown to manhood, he strove with a divine being, He strove with an angel and prevailed— The other had to weep and implore him. ”
   Verse 9 — וַיֹּאמֶר אֶפְרַיִם–אַךְ עָשַׁרְתִּי, מָצָאתִי אוֹן לִי; כָּל-יְגִיעַי, לֹא יִמְצְאוּ-לִי עָו‍ֹן אֲשֶׁר-חֵטְא. “Ephraim thinks, “Ah, I have become rich; I have gotten power! All my gains do not amount To an offense which is real guilt.”
   The word “און” meaning “strength” appears in both of these strengths. In Yaakov’s life, he fights an angel; this is an expression of his bravery and determination. But the photo-negative side of that is the audacity, chutzpah, and lack of humility that it takes to challenge the Divine. This quality leads his descendants to trust in their wealth and strength and believe that no guilt can condemn them.
3. Verse 5 — בֵּית-אֵל, יִמְצָאֶנּוּ “At Beth-El [Yaakov] would meet him”
   Verse 12 — אִם-גִּלְעָד אָוֶן אַךְ-שָׁוְא הָיוּ, בַּגִּלְגָּל שְׁוָרִים זִבֵּחוּ; גַּם מִזְבְּחוֹתָם כְּגַלִּים, עַל תַּלְמֵי שָׂדָי. “As for Gilead, it is worthless; And to no purpose have they Been sacrificing oxen in Gilgal: The altars of these are also Like stone heaps upon a plowed field.”
   The prophet mentions Beth-El where Yaakov dreamed about the ladder; when he woke up, Yaakov erected a stone marker. This service was deemed meaningful because it was symbolic of a deeper covenant being formed between Yaakov and G-d. In contrast to this, the altars of Gilgal and Gil’ad are pointless since the underlying relationship is bankrupt.
4. Verse 5 — וְשָׁם, יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ “There to commune with Him.”
   Verse 11 — וְדִבַּרְתִּי, עַל-הַנְּבִיאִים, וְאָנֹכִי, חָזוֹן הִרְבֵּיתִי; וּבְיַד הַנְּבִיאִים, אֲדַמֶּה. “And I spoke to the prophets; For I granted many visions, And spoke parables through the prophets.”
   Ya’akov is described as speaking to G-d. Then G-d says that He spoke through the prophets. Perhaps the indictment here is that unlike with Ya’akov, the Israelites of Hoshea’s time do not listen to the prophets.

This interpretation also allows us to understand why the story of Yaakov is broken up between verses 3-5 and verse 13. What comes in the middle is the contemporary analogies for that part of the Yaakov story.

“There Israel served for a wife”

This strategy of comparing Ya’akov to his descendants continues in verses 13 and 14.

יג וַיִּבְרַח יַעֲקֹב, שְׂדֵה אֲרָם; וַיַּעֲבֹד יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאִשָּׁה, וּבְאִשָּׁה שָׁמָר.

יד וּבְנָבִיא, הֶעֱלָה יְהוָה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם; וּבְנָבִיא, נִשְׁמָר.

13 And Jacob fled into the field of Aram, and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife he kept sheep.

14 And by a prophet the LORD brought Israel up out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he kept.

Clearly, the language in these two verses are meant to be parallel. Each verse repeats a phrase: “for a wife” or “by a prophet”. However, in terms of the content of the two verses, the analogy is muddier. The wife is compared to the prophet, and Yaakov’s labor for Rachel is compared to G-d bringing Israel out of Egypt. But to what end?

Let’s look again at verse 3 from earlier. After saying that G-d “will punish Yaakov according to his ways”, the verse says that “according to his doings will He return to him.” Perhaps this second verse is a positive measure. Whatever Yaakov did right, G-d will reward him and his descendants. Perhaps the devotion, patience and love that Yaakov demonstrated by waiting for Rachel and working for her hand in marriage was repaid by G-d appointing a prophet to guide Israel out of Egypt.

“The righteous can walk on them, While sinners stumble on them”

When we looked at some of the verses describing Yaakov, we saw how positive qualities of Yaakov could be twisted into negative qualities of the Israelites. This idea comes up at least two more times in the haftarah.

The first is in comparing verse 13:2 to verse 14:3. First:

ב וְעַתָּה יוֹסִפוּ לַחֲטֹא, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם מַסֵּכָה… זֹבְחֵי אָדָם, עֲגָלִים יִשָּׁקוּן.

2 And now they sin more and more … They that sacrifice men kiss calves.

Here, Hoshea refers to the people’s Baal worship: they engage in human sacrifice and kiss idols shaped like calves. This is in contrast to normal religious conduct of sacrificing cows and kissing or embracing human beings. In other words, these people are depraved and backwards.

In verse 14:3, they go to the opposite extreme:

ג קְחוּ עִמָּכֶם דְּבָרִים, וְשׁוּבוּ אֶל-יְהוָה; אִמְרוּ אֵלָיו… וּנְשַׁלְּמָה פָרִים, שְׂפָתֵינוּ.

3 Take with you words, and return unto the LORD; say unto Him: … “we render for bullocks the offering of our lips.”

Here, they are not kissing calves in worship, they are using the sincere prayers from their lips to substitute for calves in their worship of G-d. They take the same ingredients of calves and lips, and change it from a vile heresy into an act of loving devotion.

The second instance I wanted to mention is in the final verse of the haftarah. There it states explicitly (as in the title of this section),

י מִי חָכָם וְיָבֵן אֵלֶּה, נָבוֹן וְיֵדָעֵם: כִּי-יְשָׁרִים דַּרְכֵי יְהוָה, וְצַדִּקִים יֵלְכוּ בָם, וּפֹשְׁעִים, יִכָּשְׁלוּ בָם.

10 Who is wise, let him understand these things, who is prudent, let him know them. For the ways of the LORD are right, and the just do walk in them; but transgressors do stumble therein.

This is the principle exactly. With righteous intent, the qualities and materials G-d gives us can be turned to His worship. But for transgressors, the same qualities and raw materials provided by G-d can lead them to stumble.

After a difficult haftarah like this one (two!), I can’t say I feel “wise”, but hopefully I “understand” a bit more than before. Shabbat Shalom!

 

Toldot, Machar Chodesh Kislev, I Samuel 20:18-42

Less than two months in, and we’ve already hit Shabbat Rosh Chodesh and Shabbat Machar Chodesh! This special haftarah is read when Rosh Chodesh falls on Sunday (or Sunday & Monday). This year, Cheshvan is 29 days long, so Rosh Chodesh Kislev is only one day: Sunday. That means we read the special haftarah for “Machar Chodesh.”

Context

After Sha’ul disobeyed G-d by sparing Agag the king of Amalek, Shmu’el secretly anoints David as the next king. Meanwhile, David gets a position in Sha’ul’s household playing the lyre to soothe the king whose mental health is deteriorating. David also becomes a hero by slaying Goliath, and people begin singing about his military might, saying it is superior to Sha’ul’s. This sets off a series of indirect and direct attempts by Sha’ul to kill David. Yonatan son of Sha’ul, who is a loving friend of David, intervenes once successfully on David’s behalf.

After yet another assassination attempt, David appeals to Yonatan; Yonatan does not believe that Sha’ul is still planning to kill him. David suggests that if Sha’ul asks why David is missing from the next day’s Rosh Chodesh meal, Yonatan should say that he sent David to his family to celebrate with them. Yonatan should gauge Sha’ul’s response, and then send a message to David regarding whether Sha’ul seems like he truly plans to kill him.

Overview

[18-23] Yonatan describes the arrow code that he will use to alert David.

[24-29] Sha’ul asks about David’s absence, and Yonatan provides the planned response.

[30-34] Sha’ul raves about how David is marked for death; when Yonatan questions this, Sha’ul throws a spear at him.

[35-39] Yonatan goes in the morning to communicate the arrow message to David.

[40-42] Yonatan sends the boy back home, and meets David in the field, where they renew their pact.

“Tomorrow will be the new moon”

The official connection to the day before Rosh Chodesh appears in the first verse. It has obvious consequences for the story, since David knows he will be missed at the Rosh Chodesh feast. However, it’s also a fundamental part of the story thematically. This is observed by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein in his book on the haftarot.

It’s not only the day before Rosh Chodesh. It’s the end of the era of Sha’ul, and all the characters are looking nervously into the future. Will David fulfill his anointment and become king? Or will destinies change, and Yonatan take up the crown of his father? “Machar chodesh” is a period of anticipation and uncertainty. Uncertainty is a part of all of our lives, but especially so at periods of transition. The message of machar chodesh is to hold on to friendships as a way of coping with difficult transitions.

“Now I will shoot three arrows”

Let’s talk for a minute about what a terrible plan the whole arrow plot is. First to review: David is supposed to hide somewhere near the Ezel stone the day after Rosh Chodesh. Yonatan will shoot three arrows in that general direction. Then he will send his servant to collect the arrows, and call out to him “הִנֵּה הַחִצִּים מִמְּךָ וָהֵנָּה”, “the arrows are this way’, or “הִנֵּה הַחִצִּים מִמְּךָ וָהָלְאָה”, “the arrows are further out.” If he says “henah”, David should know that he is safe; if he says “hal’ah”, he should know that Sha’ul plans to kill him, and he should escape. That’s the plan.

1. Why does the plan involve shooting arrows in the general direction of David? Hasn’t he had enough spears thrown at him recently? We can say David will stay close to the Ezel stone, and Yonatan will aim away from the stone. Still, I would be at least mildly concerned that David stepped away from the stone for some reason.
2. The next part of the plan involves sending a servant, presumably one unaware of the alliance between David and Yonatan, to collect the arrows close to the place where David is hiding. Why risk exposure?
3. Then, David is supposed to hear Yonatan calling from a distance, and distinguish between two phrases that are identical except for two similar words “henah” and “hal’ah”. Couldn’t he have used more readily-discernible codewords?

That’s only in terms of the plan itself — we haven’t touched the execution of the plan yet. It goes even worse than when he plans it.

1. In the original plan, Yonatan would shoot the arrows, then send the boy to collect them. Instead, he tells the boy to run out ahead and collect the arrows that he is going to shoot! Not enough that he risks shooting David, now he wants to shoot the child as well?
2. Presumably, the secret code was used so that David and Yonatan would not be seen speaking together. But then, Yonatan sends the boy home, and David steps into the open where they embrace! If there was no one around, why did he need to use the code? If there were people around, why did they risk being seen?

Some of these questions can be answered simply. It’s mentioned in David’s eulogy in Shmuel Bet chapter 1 that “קֶשֶׁת יְהוֹנָתָן, לֹא נָשׂוֹג אָחוֹר” “the bow of Yonatan did not turn back”; seemingly, Yonatan had a reputation as a skilled archer. This would explain why he wasn’t worried about hitting anyone. As for the “halah” and “henah”, perhaps he also planned to motion with his hands in a way that was visible. In terms of why Yonatan changed the plan and sent the servant out before he shot; this might be because he knew he would have to tell the servant to keep running (he did not know this for certain when forming the plan).

Still we are left with the question of why risk exposure by the servant, and why David stepped into the open afterward.

“We two have sworn to each other”

The key that helps me understand this story is the dueling loyalties of Yonatan. On the one hand, he is bound by pact to David; on the other, he is the son of Sha’ul. David wants to trust him, but he doesn’t seem totally at ease. In the section before our Haftarah, David says:

וְעָשִׂיתָ חֶסֶד, עַל-עַבְדֶּךָ, כִּי בִּבְרִית יְהוָה, הֵבֵאתָ אֶת-עַבְדְּךָ עִמָּךְ; וְאִם-יֶשׁ-בִּי עָו‍ֹן הֲמִיתֵנִי אַתָּה, וְעַד-אָבִיךָ לָמָּה-זֶּה תְבִיאֵנִי. (כ:ח)

Therefore deal kindly with your servant; for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Hashem with you; but if I am guilty, slay me yourself; for why should you bring me to your father? (20:8)

Even though he has a pact with Yonatan, David tries to persuade Yonatan not to bring him to Sha’ul. Clearly he is unsure of where Yonatan’s loyalty truly lies. He might worry that Yonatan will ask Sha’ul about David, and Sha’ul will command him to kill David (this actually happens) and then Yonatan will obey his father.

In this light, the secret of the arrow code isn’t to protect David from onlookers. The plan is to protect David from Yonatan. Yonatan senses David’s mistrust, so he builds a plan that will help him communicate with David without David needing to be vulnerable. David will position himself where he will be able to observe the archery, but without risking being seen (by the servant or by Yonatan). Then after the charade of the archery, David can act upon the advice.

When Yonatan sends the servant home so that David sees, he is making an invitation. “I acknowledge the truth of my father’s treachery, but I am loyal to you, David. Trust me if you can.” David accepts this offer and steps out to embrace Yonatan, making himself completely vulnerable. Under such circumstances, it’s quite understandable that they would weep.

Shabbat shalom to friends new and old! And avoid any sharp projectiles!

Chayei Sarah, I Kings 1:1-31

First off, happy early birthday to my amazing sister Miriam Rosen!

This week is another narrative haftarah. I’ve noticed that the way I process narrative haftarot is very different from how I read the poetic/prophetic haftarot. Narrative haftarot call out for interpretation of the twists and turns of the plot, and comparisons to other stories in the Bible. On the other hand, poetic haftarot seem to require a finer magnifying glass on the language. I’m going to follow this instinct, but if you feel I’m missing out, let me know!

Context

The Haftarah is the first part of the first chapter of the first book of Melachim. The book of Shmuel covered the selection of Sha’ul, then David to be kings over all Israel. By the end of Shmuel Bet, David’s kingship has survived the rebellion of his son Avshalom. The last chapter involves David’s sin of taking a (prohibited) census, the plague that came as punishment, and David’s appeal to G-d which brought the plague to an end. The new book opens on an aged and ailing King David.

A question struck me as I was looking into the context here: Why are Shmuel and Melachim separate books? The story of King David seems to flow directly from one into the other! I’m not the first person to think that these books seem to be part of a continuous narrative. In the Septuagint and the Vulgate, Shmuel and Melachim were packaged together as the book Βασιλειῶν, or “Reigns”, and the book was split into four parts.

However, in the Jewish tradition, it’s clear that while the books of Shmuel Alef and Bet were one book, and the books of Melachim Alef and Bet were one book, they were always treated as separate works. This can be seen in Talmud Bavli Bava Batra 14b, where they are listed separately in the list of books (unlike Shmuel Alef and Bet, for example). It’s also evident from the assignment of authorship of Shmuel to the prophets Shmuel, Gad and Natan, whereas the book of Melachim is said to be written by the prophet Yirmiyah (Bava Batra 14b-15a).

In terms of the content of these books, though, is this division apparent? Jamie Conway, at CBI this shabbat, cited Rabbi Eric Levy, who pointed out that the book of Shmuel is all about selection of a king, whereas the book of Melachim is all about succession. This resonates with me, since David’s role in the book of Melachim is almost exclusively designating his heir and overseeing the transition.

Overview

The Haftarah can be broken into two stories:

[1-4] King David is perpetually cold, so Avishag the Shunamite is brought to keep him warm; she becomes his attendant.
[5-31] Adoniyah starts making moves to grab the kingship; the prophet Natan recruits Bat-Sheva to persuade David to intervene and declare Shlomo as his successor.

The second, longer story can be broken down further:

[5-10] Adoniyah makes symbolic moves to declare himself king.
[11-14] Natan tells Bat-Sheva what has happened, and directs her to go to David.
[15-20] Bat-Sheva tells David what has happened, and pleads with him to designate Shlomo.
[21-27] Natan arrives and corroborates Bat-Sheva’s story, asking the king if he has designated Adoniyah.
[28-31] King David designates Shlomo as his successor.

“And King David was old, coming along in years”

The first words of the haftarah already bring our attention to a parallel story in the Torah.

---

(וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַיְכַסֻּהוּ, בַּבְּגָדִים, וְלֹא יִחַם, לוֹ. (א:א

“And King David was old, coming along in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he would not be made warm.” (I Kings 1:1)

(וְאַבְרָהָם זָקֵן, בָּא בַּיָּמִים; וַה’ בֵּרַךְ אֶת-אַבְרָהָם, בַּכֹּל. (בראשית כד:א

“And Avraham was old, coming along in years; and G-d blessed Avraham with everything.” (Bereishit 24:1)

---

The phrase “בא בימים” or “coming along in years” only shows up in two other places in the Bible — interestingly, both in reference to Yehoshua (Yehoshua 13:1 and 23:1). [EDIT: Jamie points out that it’s used another time in Genesis 18:11 in the plural with reference to Avraham and Sarah. Still pretty rare!] But the parallel to Avraham helps explain why this was chosen as the haftarah for Chayei Sarah; it also draws comparisons to other aspects of their story.

For example, both stories feature an oath. Avraham demands an oath from his servant that he will faithfully execute his mission, and David swears an oath to stand by his prior oath that Solomon would reign after him. Both stories focus on succession: by making sure that Yitzchak has a wife, Avraham attends to the continuity of his family; similarly, by choosing a worthy heir, David solidifies his dynasty. Finally, Avraham (later on, in verse 25:6) sends away all his other sons so as not to leave competitors for his legacy; similarly, David denies the kingship to Adoniyah, granting it instead to Shlomo.

These comparisons make the differences stand out. Avraham is incredibly proactive even in his old age. He knows what needs to be done, and he forces people to swear they’ll help him do it. David, on the other hand, is passive; he only acts when reminded of his oath, which other people pleaded with him to make.

This contrast may be due to their different life experiences: Avraham came close to losing Yitzchak during the binding, but he was saved from killing him at the last moment. This makes him even more appreciative of how blessed he is to have Yitzchak, and more motivated to secure his future. The defining experience of David’s later years was the rebellion and ultimate death of Avshalom. Perhaps this grief and trauma are what cause him to withdraw from thoughts of the future. “How can I choose the next king when my beloved Avshalom should have been king?” His grief makes it difficult for him to act without the intervention of Natan and Bat-Sheva.

“Let a young virgin be sought”

Another striking parallel begins to show itself from the very beginning of the Haftarah. The search for a virgin for the king immediately brings to my mind the book of Esther. The contours of the following story also mirror Esther; just as Mordechai whispers into Esther’s ear to go to King Achashverosh, Natan the prophet whispers to Bat-Sheva to go to King David. This analogy is confirmed by comparing verses:

---

(וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲבָדָיו, יְבַקְשׁוּ לַאדֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ נַעֲרָה בְתוּלָה (א:ב

“And his servants said to him: let a young virgin be sought for my master the king” (I Kings 1:2)

(וַיֹּאמְרוּ נַעֲרֵי-הַמֶּלֶךְ, מְשָׁרְתָיו: יְבַקְשׁוּ לַמֶּלֶךְ נְעָרוֹת בְּתוּלוֹת, טוֹבוֹת מַרְאֶה. (ב:ב

“And the young men of the king, his servants said to him: let young beautiful virgins be sought out.” (Esther 2:2)

---

(וְעַתָּה, לְכִי אִיעָצֵךְ נָא עֵצָה: וּמַלְּטִי, אֶת-נַפְשֵׁךְ, וְאֶת-נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֵךְ, שְׁלֹמֹה. (א:יב

Now take my advice so that you may save your life and the life of your son Shlomo. (I Kings 1:12)

(וַיֹּאמֶר מָרְדֳּכַי, לְהָשִׁיב אֶל-אֶסְתֵּר: אַל-תְּדַמִּי בְנַפְשֵׁךְ, לְהִמָּלֵט בֵּית-הַמֶּלֶךְ מִכָּל-הַיְּהוּדִים (ד:יג

Mordechai had this message delivered to Esther: Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will have your life saved by being in the king’s palace. (Esther 4:13)

---

(וַתִּקֹּד בַּת-שֶׁבַע, וַתִּשְׁתַּחוּ לַמֶּלֶךְ; וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ, מַה-לָּךְ. (א:טו

Bat-Sheva bowed low in homage to the king, and the king asked, “what troubles you?” (I Kings 1:15)

(וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ, מַה-לָּךְ אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה (ה:ג

The king said to her, “what troubles you, Queen Esther” (Esther 5:3)

---

These quotes should convince you that the comparison of these two incidents is not accidental. However, based on the chronology, this does not explain the story in our haftarah; instead, the juxtaposition is a strategy of the author of the Megilah.

In my opinion, the comparison is meant to paint Achashverosh (the king of Persia in Megilat Esther) in a negative light. In Melachim, the servants of David seek out a virgin in hopes of warming up the infirm king. Natan and Bat-Sheva must take action, because David is too old and sick to know what’s going on outside the palace walls. Achashverosh, on the other hand, did not have these excuses. It’s not his sickness, but his foolishness and lasciviousness, that bring about the comparison to King David.

“Adoniyah has become king!”

An interesting redundancy pops up in the haftarah. The same incident describing Adoniyah’s feast is reported first in verses 9-10, then repeated by Bat-Sheva in verse 18-19, then again by Natan in verses 25-26. This brings to mind a famous midrash often cited in the context of Parashat Chayei Sarah:

---

א”ר אחא יפה שיחתן של עבדי בתי אבות מתורתן של בנים, פרשתו של אליעזר שנים ושלושה דפים הוא אומרה ושונה, ושרץ מגופי תורה ואין דמו מטמא כבשרו אלא מריבוי המקרא — בראשית רבה פרשה ס, ח

Rabbi Acha said: The conversations of the slaves of the forefathers’ houses were deemed better than the Torah of the descendants. The chapter of Eliezer takes up two or three columns — he tells it over and repeats it. Meanwhile, “crawling creatures” are a fundamental area of Halacha, but its blood brings impurity like its flesh, only because of an extra letter in the verse (Bereishit Rabbah 60:8)

---

It’s true that Adoniyah is not a “servant of the forefathers”, but we find a similar phenomenon in terms of the three-fold repetition of the same story. Why would this be?

Thematically speaking, both stories (as we discussed above) are involved in the transfer of power and the chain of tradition. By their very nature, these are personal conversations that alter the fate of nations; a slight error in one direction or another, like the proverbial flap of a butterfly’s wings, can have huge sway over the future. For this reason, painstaking detail goes into writing down each retelling of the story.

“She became the king’s attendant”

We often ask: what is the connection between the parshah and the haftarah?

So far, we have seen two parallels:

1. The various parallels between the stories of Avraham and David.
2. The repetition ad nauseum of conversations in the tale of transfer of power.

There’s one more parallel which is alluded to in the haftarah, but does not make an explicit appearance. Two of the main characters are Avishag and Adoniyah; later on, in chapter 2, Adoniyah seeks to marry Avishag. Shlomo interprets this as an act of rebellion, since Adoniyah is trying to establish himself as an heir of David; so he has Adoniyah executed.

The underlying assertion here is that the person one marries (if one chooses to marry) can determine the course of their future. Avraham knew this, which is why he insisted that his servant look for a wife in Aram-Naharayim among his family. He knew that a woman from his family would have qualities that would help Yitzchak continue Avraham’s legacy. Adoniyah and Shlomo knew this as well: marrying a former servant of the king means a path towards royalty.

I also know this; I am incredibly lucky to be married to someone who is tremendously supportive of my every endeavor, and particularly this blog. Shabbat shalom!

Vayera, II Kings 4:1-37

I got a new book this week! It is called “נתיבי נבואה: מבט אל ההפטרות” and it was written by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein shlit”a. I’ll discuss some of his ideas on this week’s haftarah below.

Context

The book of Melachim Bet continues the story of the divided kingdoms of Yehudah and Israel. In Chapter 2, Eliyahu, the main prophet of Israel, appoints Elisha as his successor. Elisha then starts traveling around performing miracles — sweetening poisonous water, and then calling bears out of the forest to maul some bullying kids (yes, that’s actually in the book). Chapter 3 details Elisha’s interaction with the allied kings of Yehudah, Israel, and Edom in their battle against Moav, and Chapter 4 brings us back to the smaller-scale miracles of Elisha.

Overview

There are two main stories in the Haftarah:

[1-7] A poor indebted widow is blessed by Elisha with a bottomless flask of oil.

[8-37] Elisha blesses a Shunamite woman with a son. He dies and Elisha resurrects him.

 

The two stories don’t seem to have much to do with each other. Why are they in the same haftarah? Rav Lichtenstein gives two frameworks to read the haftarah, and each one gives a different perspective on the pairing of these two stories. Afterwards, I’ll give an additional take.

“It is a holy man of G-d”

First off, Rav Lichtenstein cites the interpretation of Rav Mordechai Sabato. In Rav Sabato’s opinion, the haftarah is an Icarus story — the prophet flies too close to the sun, and is taught to recognize his limits. This is based in part on a midrash from Taanit 2a:

Rabbi Yochanan said: there are three keys in G-d’s hand that are never given to messengers, and these are they — the key of rain, the key of childbirth, and the key of resurrection.

The Shunamite woman sees that Elisha is a holy man, and so she offers him charity. Elisha, in an act of arrogance, decides to grant her a child to show his appreciation. With this action, Elisha usurps one of the keys that belongs exclusively to Hashem.

This is especially clear when you compare the story of the Shunamite to the story of Sarah. There are multiple parallel pesukim, but one in particular sends a message:

Bereshit 21:2 said —

וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה לְאַבְרָהָם בֵּן, לִזְקֻנָיו, לַמּוֹעֵד, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים.

“And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.”

II Kings 4:17 says —

וַתַּהַר הָאִשָּׁה, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, לַמּוֹעֵד הַזֶּה כָּעֵת חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיהָ אֱלִישָׁע.

“And the woman conceived, and bore a son at that season, when the time came round, as Elisha had said unto her.”

The verses are perfectly parallel, but in the end, where G-d was for Sarah, Elisha has taken his place.

The rest of the story is Elisha’s reprimand. It’s true that his miracle worked, but then the child died, showing him the power of his miracles. He thinks that he can send Gechazi with a magic recipe to do his will, but that doesn’t work. Only when he goes and “prays to G-d” (verse 33), does he recognize G-d’s ultimate authority, and then G-d uses the key of resurrection to return the child.

With this interpretation, the story of the widow and the oil also has a role. In that story, Elisha knew his role as a prophet. There are certain things you can do, and certain things you can’t (note that he doesn’t resurrect the widow’s husband). This sharpens the contrast to the next story, where Elisha oversteps his bounds, trying to be not only “the man of G-d” but G-d himself.

“Mouth upon his mouth”

Rav Lichtenstein brings a different interpretation to the whole story. Elisha’s actions weren’t wrong because he acted like G-d; they were wrong because he failed to act as a person.

The Shunamite woman enters our story because of her capacity for empathy. She sees this holy man, and does not think about what miracles she can extract from him. Instead, she sees him as a person, who might need a place to stay, so she sets up a cozy apartment for him. His response isn’t to thank and praise the woman, rather it’s to turn the whole thing into an exchange. She has done me a favor, so I should do one for her. When he decides to do a favor, he doesn’t take her hint that she doesn’t need anything. Instead, he inserts himself into her most private, sensitive affair — her childlessness — and then promises her a child. Then, satsified, he goes on his way.

When the child dies, the woman panics and goes to Elisha. He sees her at a distance, but he doesn’t go to attend to her. Instead he sends Gechazi to deal with her. She won’t have any of it; she insists on talking to Elisha himself. When she gets to him and tells her story, he should realize how he needs to personally involve himself, but he still tells Gechazi to go and put his staff on the child’s face. He still thinks this impersonal secondhand gesture can fix the situation, and he is immediately proven wrong. Finally, he goes himself to the child, and lies on top of him, aligning their bodies, getting as close as he possibly can. Then, when he finally enters the situation as a fellow human being, he is able to bring the child back to life.

In this interpretation, the widow story also serves a purpose. She is one of the (probably numerous) people who wants Elisha for his miracles. The Shunamite woman, on the other hand, sees him as an individual with needs and dignity, and Elisha must learn to see her the same way.

“Your maidservant has nothing.”

I wanted to offer one more reading of the haftarah, which also connects us to our parsha. We already spoke about the connection between the Shunamite woman and Sarah. The prophet/angel promising them a child are perfect analogues.

But there is more than one woman featured in our parsha. Shortly after the birth of Yitzchak in Genesis 21, we read the story of Hagar and Yishmael in the desert. This story is the analogue to the widow of the oil. Both stories feature an oppressed woman in need of sustenance. Both women are described as slaves, either with the word “שפחה” or “אמה”. Both stories describe her filling a vessel — the widow filling the jars of oil, and Hagar filling her flask with water.

What is the significance of including both of these stories in the haftarah? Sarah, with her concerns for the future of the nation, takes up the majority of our attention. So, we might be inclined to read only the analogous story (Shunamite) for the haftarah. By including the story of the widow, the haftarah reminds us of how vital empathy is even when people are occupied with physical survival concerns and not just lofty spiritual concerns.

“Peace.”

One final bit! In one of the strangest editorial choices I remember seeing, certain groups have different verses for the haftarah. They read the story of the widow and the oil, then they read about the Shunamite woman, the birth of her son, and his death. The Shunamite woman saddles the donkey to go to Elisha, her husband asks her what’s wrong, and she says “Peace.” Then, immediately: “Sephardim, the community of Frankfurt am Main, and Chabad Chassidim conclude the Haftarah here. Others continue:”

WHAT? How could you end the story there with the child dead, and everything broken and wrong?

My theory is that this breakpoint is based on the following midrash:

When Abraham returned from Mount Moriah, Satan became infuriated. He had not gotten what he desired, which was to thwart the sacrifice of Abraham. What did he do? He went to Sarah and asked: “Did you hear what happened in the world?” She answered, “No.” He said, “Abraham took Isaac his son and slaughtered him, offering him up on the altar as a sacrifice.” Sarah began to cry, and moan the sound of three wails which correspond to the three blasts of the shofar, and her soul burst forth from her and she died. Abraham came only to find that she had died. From where had he come? From Mount Moriah.
— Midrash Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 31. (Translation found at myjewishlearning.com)

Things worked out okay for the Shunamite in our story. At the end of the day, her son was alive and the world was intact. But, if we follow this midrash, Sarah died thinking that Yitzchak was gone. Perhaps, in honor of Sarah, the Sephardim et al end the haftarah with the same unease.

Shabbat shalom — may it bring you peace, health, and exactly as much oil as you need.