Spiritual and
Ethical Issues in the Historical Books of Tanach;
JOSHUA, JUDGES, SAMUEL, KINGS (Nevi’im Rishonim) These four books ostensibly are merely the history of Israel from the entry into the Promised Land until the destruction of the Temple and the temporary loss of independent statehood. In fact they are actually, in a specifically Jewish sense, the most deeply religious and spiritual books of the Bible. One does not have to be specifically Jewish to see or feel the religion and spirituality in the revelations of the prophetic writings or in the words of the Tehillim. They speak to all people, as evidenced by the fact that the Bible is still the world's bestseller and there are millions of non-Jews who regularly recite the Psalms. However, it is specifically and intrinsically Jewish to understand that G-d is revealed in the prosaic material, in the political, social and military events in the lives of ordinary men and women, kings and leaders that are described in the Nevim Rishonim. Here are described the ideology and religious thoughts in Judaism, while in Chronicles we have the purely historical. Political Leadership and Kingship (M'lachim
Alef 21:1-29) Navot had a vineyard in Jezreel, [near present day Afula] and his neighbor Ahab, king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel lusted to posses it. The king offered to buy the vineyard at market price or exchange it for a different one but Navot refused. Both Ahab and his non-Jewish wife Jezebel knew that the people of Israel, despite the widespread idolatry, would never tolerate the forcible sale of his property or, still less, its theft. Instead, Jezebel hired two false witnesses to swear that Navot had blasphemed both god and the king, making him liable to death and his property to be forfeited to the crown. The fact that the text calls the witnesses ‘bnei beli'al, evil men, shows that Jezebel could not find ordinary citizens to agree to this subterfuge to assist the royal corruption and theft. Irrespective of the royal corruption, Chazal felt that Navot must nevertheless be guilty of something to deserve punishment by death. One source tells that Navot, a Levite, would "oleh regel" every year to the Beit HaMikdash to sing, as he was blessed with a beautiful voice. That year he did not go. Because he did not serve HaShem with the gift that G-d had granted him, that showed that in the past his singing had merely been for his own pleasure and pride; therefore he deserved death. Furthermore, he feared to go to the Temple in case Ahab would confiscate the vineyard in his absence, despite the promise in the Torah (Sh'mot 34:23), “No man shall covet your land when you go”; for that lack of faith he deserved to die (Yalkut Shimoni). It is easy to see the conflict between Ahab and Navot as one between the rich and powerful king and the poor individual. Jewish sources, however, stressed that Navot was a wealthy man and a member of the Sanhedrin, so that what was involved was a challenge to the corruption and abuse of power. Chazal queried the legal justification for Navot’s action in the light of the halakhic ruling that all that Shmuel HaNavi told Israel (Shmuel Alef 8:11-17) in the law of the king, a king could do. All our authorities agree that the state, king or communal officials may not utilize their rights for their own personal gain, however that may be measured. Some held that the king had the right to gifts but that Ahab had asked for a sale and that was dependent on the owner’s acceptance; therefore the death and expropriation were illegal. Others explain that Ahab said he wanted it for a ‘gan yarak’, literally a herb garden but seen as a euphemism for a temple to idolatry, so Navot was obliged to refuse. Yet others said that the verse in the Torah, “he shall not multiply to himself gold and silver” (D'varim 17:17), allowed the king only to tax that which was needed for his troops and officials but not for himself, which Ahab had in mind. Also Navot was justifiedin not selling the vineyard that was “an inheritance from my fathers” (21:3), in accordance with the verse, “The Nasi shall not take of the inheritances of the people by oppression, to defraud them of their possessions” (Yechezkeil 46: 18) (Tosafot, Sanhedrin 20b). Abarbanel points out that Ahab wanted the vineyard for a garden in the town of Jezreel, while the capital of his Northern Kingdom was the city of Shomrom [near present-day Nablus], where the appropriation of private ground for a public garden would be legitimate since it served a public purpose, namely enhancing the capital city. In Jezreel, however, the king was a private citizen and as such the purchase served no public purpose whatsoever. Navot objected to this misuse of the royal rights, solely for the king’s personal benefit. After Navot’s death, the king and queen went down to the vineyard that had now become a royal property, in accordance with the law of assets of rebels who are liable to the death penalty. Eliyahu HaNavi’s greeting to them has in various forms thundered through Western civilization wherever there has been corruption, public sector theft and political exploitation: “Have you murdered and also come to take possession?” This is the tenth installment in Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times” [The
Parshat B'reishit Homepage]
|
