Tu b'Av and the Joy of National Cognitive Dissonance

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: [Title Unknown], by Maciej Kuciara

Tu b'Av and the Joy of National Cognitive Dissonance

Tomorrow is Tu b'Av. When I first heard about Tu b'Av (the 15th day of the month of Av), I thought it was a modern innovation - like the recent incarnation of Tu bi'Shvat as a day of environmental activism, or the secularized Yom ha'Shoah which is detached from its proper place in the framework of halacha. As it so happens, the celebration of Tu b'Av does have an authoritative source in none other than the Mishnah itself. The mishnah in Taanis 4:8 states:

Rabban Simeon hen Gamliel said: "There are no days more joyous in Israel than the 15th of Av and Yom ha’Kippurim, for on them the maidens of Jerusalem used to go out dressed in white garments — borrowed ones, in order not to cause shame to those who had them not of their own, and these clothes were also to be previously immersed – and thus they went out and danced in the vineyards, saying, ‘Young men, look and observe well whom you are about to choose [as a spouse]; regard not beauty [alone], but rather look to a virtuous family, [for it is stated:] “Grace is deceitful and beauty is futile, but a woman who fears Hashem – she should be praised” (Mishlei 31:3); and it is also said: “Give her the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates” (Mishlei 31:31).’ And thus is it said [in allusion to this custom], ‘Go out, maidens of Jerusalem, and look on King Solomon, and on the crown with which his mother has encircled [his head] on his wedding day, and on the day of the gladness of his heart’ (Shir ha’Shirim 3:11) – ‘his wedding day’ alludes to the giving of the Torah, and ‘the day of the gladness of his heart’ alludes to when the building of the Temple was completed. May it soon be rebuilt in our days. Amen!”

The Gemara (Talmud Bavli: Taanis 30b) asks what is so special about Tu b'Av:

It is reasonable [to make this statement] about Yom ha’Kippurim, which has forgiveness and pardon, and is the day on which the second tablets were given. But the 15th of Av – what is it?

The Gemara answers by listing six joyous events associated with Tu b'Av. Here is a summary:

1. the shvatim (twelve tribes) were permitted to intermarry with one another
2. the temporary ban against the tribe of Binyamin was lifted, thereby permitting Benjaminites to marry into the rest of Israel once again
3. the Dor ha'Midbar (Generation of the Wilderness) stopped dying on Tishah b'Av, indicating the end of the punishment for the Cheit ha'Meraglim (Sin of the Spies)
4. the sentries set up by Yeravam ben Navat blocking access to Jerusalem were removed
5. the massacred Jews of Beitar were permitted to be buried
6. the annual wood-chopping for the Mizbeach (Altar) was completed

Of these six reasons, the one that caught my attention this year was #4. The Gemara says:

Ulla said: This is the day on which Hoshea ben Elah abolished the sentries that were set up by Yeravam ben Navat on the roads [to Yerushalayim], so that [the citizens of the Northern Kingdom of] Israel couldn’t make their aliyah l'regel (festival pilgrimage); [Hoshe ben Elah] said [to the people]: "Go wherever you please." 

These sentries were set up by Yeravan ben Navat way back in 797 B.C.E. (according to the timeline on chabad.org), when Shlomo ha'Melech's unified kingdom was split and Yeravam became Melech Yisrael (king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel):

Yeravam built up Shechem in the Mountain of Ephraim and dwelled in it; then he left there and built up Penuel. Yeravam then thought, “Now the kingship may revert to the House of David. If this people will go up to bring offerings in the Temple of Hashem in Yerushalayim, the heart of this people will revert to their lord, to Rechavam, king of Yehudah, and they will kill me and return to Yeravam, king of Yehudah.” Then the king took counsel, and he made two golden calves; and he said to the people, “It is too far for you to go up to Yerushalayim. These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!” He placed the one in Beis-El and the other one in Dan. This matter became a sin, and the people traveled all the way to Dan to worship before one of them. (I Melachim 12:25-30)

Although the pesukim do not explicitly mention the sentries set up by Yeravam to block access to Yerushalayim, these obstacles are alluded to in the pesukim about Hoshea ben Elah - the very last Melech Yisrael, who assumed power in 574 B.C.E. (according to chabad.org), over 200 years later. Unlike all of the other Malchei Yisrael, about whom it is said that they "did what was evil in the eyes of Hashem," the pesukim report about Hoshea ben Elah that "he did what was evil in the eyes of Hashem, but not like the kings of Israel who were before him" (II Melachim 17:2). The Gemara (Gittin 88a) explains this qualification:

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: “It is written of Hoshea ben Elah: ‘He did what was evil in the eyes of Hashem – but not like the Kings of Israel’ and it is written: ‘Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, went up against him; and Hoshea became his vassal and sent him a tribute’ (ibid. 17:3)”! [This would seem to imply a wrongdoing on his part!]

[Rav] replied to them: “Yeravam had stationed sentries on the roads so that Israel wouldn’t go up [to Yerushalayim to make pilgrimage] on the festivals, and Hoshea abolished [these sentries]. Nevertheless, Israel didn’t make pilgrimage on the festival. Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu [therefore] said: “[Corresponding to] those years during which Israel didn’t make pilgrimage, they should go into captivity.”

The reason why Ulla's explanation of Tu b'Av caught my attention is because it didn't lead to a good outcome! I'd understand if Hoshea removed the sentries and the citizens of the Northern Kingdom flocked to the Mikdash (Temple) in Yerushalayim once the sentries were removed - but as our Gemara says, that didn't happen! I'd also understand if Hoshea's decision as king was an entirely praiseworthy act - but according to Chazal, it wasn't! The Talmud Yerushalmi's (Taanis 4:6) version of the aforementioned Gemara in Gittin includes an explanation of Hoshea's misstep:

R’ Chiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: “It was on that day that Hoshea ben Elah removed the sentries that Yeravam ben Navat set up on the roads.” Kahana asked Rav: “He did all this good, and yet it is written concerning him: ‘Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; [and Hoshea became his vassal and paid him tribute]’?” 

[Rav] replied to him: “It was because he took the chain from around his own neck and put it around the neck of the community. He did not say, ‘Everyone go up [to Yerushalayim for the pilgrimage festival]!’ but rather ‘Whoever wants to go up may go up [for the pilgrimage].’”

In other words, removing the sentries was good, but it wasn't good enough. As king, he should have been more proactive in guiding his people on the proper path. Apparently, his proto-progressive "freedom of religion" policy was not enough in Hashem's eyes to spare Hoshea.

So if Hoshea's removal of Yeravam's stumbling block did not, in actuality, lead to a national teshuvah in the Northern Kingdom, why is this identified as a cause for celebration on Tu b'Av?

The simple answer is that the removal of ra (evil) is, in and of itself, a cause for celebration, even if it doesn't ultimately bear fruit. In this case, the removal of Yeravam's roadblocks was a joyous event, since it left Israel with no impediments to doing the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel.

I would like to suggest a modern day example of this type of opportunity-turned-tragedy: the recapturing and subsequent relinquishment of Har ha'Bayis (the Temple Mount) by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967. Mere hours after the victorious proclamation, "Har ha'Bayis is in our hands!" Moshe Dayan returned it to the control of the Muslim Wakf, and, in a Hoshea-esque justification, said: "We did not come to conquer the sacred sites of others or to restrict their religious rights, but rather to ensure the integrity of the city and to live in it with others in fraternity." Like the removal of Yeravam's sentries, the restoration of Har ha'Bayis to Jewish sovereignty was an occasion worthy of joyous celebration, even though the opportunity was squandered almost immediately thereafter.

I thought of a second possibility for why Hoshea's removal of Yeravam's sentries might be an occasion of joy, even though it didn't lead to any good. I will acknowledge at the outset that this explanation is a bit of a stretch. 

Perhaps the joyous occasion was not the opportunity for the nation to do the mitzvah of aliyah l'regel, but rather, the opportunity for the nation to do teshuvah by making a bechirah (free will) decision. 

My answer is based on the explanation in the Yerushalmi, that Hoshea "took the chain from around his own neck and put it around the neck of the community" by telling them, "Whoever wants to go may go!" instead of commanding them to go. The Gemara identifies this as a failing on Hoshea's part. This may be true, but at the same time, Hoshea's decision granted the people of Israel a unique opportunity for teshuvah. If he had commanded them to go to Yerushalayim, they might have done it simply because it was mandated by their king. But by giving them the choice, it forced each person to exercise his or her own bechirah by choosing whether or not to do the mitzvah. In the past, it would be easy to rationalize not making aliyah l'regel by placing the blame on Yeravam or on the regnant king, but thanks to Hoshea's "religious freedom" edict, the people could no longer blame anyone but themselves. If they didn't go to Yerushalayim, it was undeniably their choice.

This hearkens back to an earlier event in the history of Malchus Yisrael: Eliyahu ha'Navi's speech to Bnei Yisrael on Har ha'Carmel:

Achav [the evil king of Israel] sent among all the Children of Israel and he gathered the prophets [of Baal] to Mount Carmel. Eliyahu approached all the people and said, "How long will you dance between two opinions? If Hashem is the God, follow Him! And if Baal [is the god], go after him!" - but the people did not answer him at all.

By calling them out with such a direct and provocative challenge, Eliyahu was, in effect, forcing each Israelite to make a decision about what he or she believed. Had he not done this, Bnei Yisrael could have conveniently avoided confronting their cognitive dissonance. They could have gone along with the prophets of Baal when the latter were ascendant, and switched teams when Eliyahu’s side was winning – all without having to take a stand and make a decision. Eliyahu's statement forced each Jew to ask himself: "What do I believe?"

Similarly, Yeravam's sentries prevented Bnei Yisrael from making a real decision - and if Hoshea had commanded them to make aliyah l'regel, they still wouldn't have had to make a decision. But by "placing the chain on their neck," giving them the choice, he was providing them with a unique opportunity to do teshuvah gemurah (complete teshuvah) by confronting their own resistance to aliyah l'regel, and everything that aliyah l'regel entailed. This opportunity – the situation in which a nation is forced to confront its own cognitive dissonance – that is something to be celebrated, even if it didn't lead to teshuvah, and even if Hoshea wasn't motivated by good intentions.

Do I think that this is actually the reason why we celebrate on Tu b'Av? No. My second answer is far more speculative than the simpler explanation mentioned above. Nevertheless, even if this isn't the real reason that Chazal had in mind, I think it's still a valuable insight to think about on Tu b'Av. 

Parashas Korach: Clinton, Trump, and Korach's Followers

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Parashas Korach: Clinton, Trump, and Korach's Followers

Clinton and Trump are both liars, but in different ways. Clinton lies like a duplicitous and conniving rasha (evildoer). Trump lies like an eveel (fool), or a petulant toddler. Both are willing to lie in the face of the evidence, but whereas Clinton uses cunning and smokescreens in an attempt to mask her corruption, Trump openly denies his lies by crafting and pushing audacious alternative narrative. 

As we witness these politicians repeatedly lie and get caught again and again, the question arises: "How did they possibly think they would get away with this?" It is for this question that we turn to our parashah for an answer.

Moshe Rabbeinu responds to Korach's rebellion by proposing a test:

He spoke to Korach and to his entire assembly, saying, "In the morning Hashem will make known to the one who is His own and the holy one, and He will draw him close to Himself, and whomever He will choose, He will draw close to Himself. Do this: Take for yourselves fire-pans - Korach and his entire assembly - and put fire in them and place incense upon them before Hashem tomorrow. Then the man whom Hashem will choose - he is the holy one" (Bamidbar 16:5-7).

The men do as they are told. And guess what happens? "A flame came forth from Hashem and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense" (ibid. 16:36). Aharon ha'Kohen is proven to be the chosen one.

The Abravanel [1] raises a glaring question:

How did Korach and his assembly agree to the test of the incense? Did they not remember the wonders that they had seen? Didn't they know that Nadav and Avihu were burned when they brought incense (Vayikra 10:2)? How did [these men] not fear for their lives? 

He then provides the following answer:

Without a doubt, if Moshe had explained to them the reality of this test, and how it would be - namely, that the chosen one would live and the incense would be accepted from him, and the others would die and be burned - perhaps they wouldn't have agreed to the matter. But he didn't explain to them the outcome of being chosen or not being chosen. Also, they - in their foolishness - didn't ask him about it. They thought that the fire would come down from the heavens onto the chosen incense, and they would all stand very close together, so that each one of them could say that the fire descended upon his [offering]. 

This is similar to what happened to the priests of Baal with Eliyahu. When Eliyahu proclaimed to them the test of the fire, they responded: "The proposal is good!" (Melachim I 18:24) because they thought that they would make their altars and their sacrifices together with the altar of Eliyahu. [They reasoned that] inevitably, either the fire would neither descend upon his nor upon theirs, and they would all be equal, or else the fire would descend, and they would say, "The fire descended for us!" and Eliyahu would say, "It descended for me!" and the matter would remain in doubt [in the eyes of the people] and Eliyahu's words would not be verified. 

Eliyahu saw that this was their plan. After they had agreed and accepted upon themselves this test, he said to them, "Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are the many" (ibid. 18:25). In other words, [he told them] that they would not be doing all of their offerings together, but the prophets of Baal would do it first. Through this, their evil was exposed, for the fire did not descend upon their offering. And that is what happened. Afterwards, Eliyahu did [his offering] and the fire descended upon his altar. 

The same exact thing happened to Moshe Rabbeinu with Korach and his assembly.

The Abravanel answers his question by explaining that the men of Korach's assembly knew that Hashem would not accept their incense, just as the prophets of Baal knew that their offerings would not be miraculously consumed. So why did both parties agree to the test? Because they relied on the prospect of manipulating the results of the test in their favor. 

But as Shlomo ha'Melech said, "Pride goeth before the fall" (cf. Mishlei 16:18). They were so confident in their ability to trick the populace that they walked right into the trap of letting their "opponents" (i.e. Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu ha'Navi) set up the terms and conditions of the test, thereby precluding the possibility of their devious schemes. 

One of the more amusing examples of this mistake is The Amazing Randi's debunking of famous "psychics" and practitioners of the occult. Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge promises $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers under predetermined scientific criteria.

According to Wikipedia, over a thousand people have applied for this challenge, but no one has succeeded. Some of the applicants have gone so far as to be "tested" by Randi on live TV. For example, James Hydrick claimed to be able to move everyday objects (e.g. a pencil, and the pages of a telephone book) using only the power of his mind. Here is the clip of him demonstrating his "powers" without Randi's conditions, followed by a second attempt under Randi's conditions. Note that this is back when the challenge was only worth $10,000:

For those who skipped the video: Randi theorized that Hydrick was moving the objects by clandestinely blowing on them. To test this theory, Randi sprinkled foam packaging peanuts around the telephone book and asked Hydrick to repeat the demonstration of his powers. Under these conditions, Hydrick would be unable to move the objects without also revealing that he was blowing the peanuts.

Surprise surprise, Hydrick couldn't do it. In fact, he tried for an hour and a half (!) but didn't succeed. At the time, he blamed his failure on static electricity generated by the foam and the lights. But this excuse didn't fool anyone. He was exposed as a fraud, and his career as a psychic came to an abrupt end. Randi similarly debunked the even more famous psychic Uri Geller on The Today Show in 1973.

To the clear-thinking observer, it seems like a ludicrous move for Hydrick and Geller to submit themselves to a test with the conditions set by a professional skeptic. And yet, they agreed, and put their careers on the line. Why? Because they were seduced by their pride into believing that they could hoodwink the observers with their trickery, and they believed they were immune to failure.

The same is true of Korach's followers and the prophets of Baal. They knew that their claims were bogus, and they knew that Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu ha'Navi were the real deal. But they still managed to delude themselves into believing that they could pull a fast one, and spin the test results in their favor.

It appears that the same is true for Clinton and Trump. The only difference is that they haven't yet gotten themselves into a big enough "test" situation. But if Shlomo ha'Melech's profiles of the rasha and the fool are correct, then it is only a matter of time before they do this, and destroy themselves with their lies.

Let us hope that this happens at a time when the damage done to America is minimal, and there is someone who is better qualified to take the place of the fallen Queen or King.

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 18:6

Haftaras Parashas Pinchas: How Eliyahu ha’Navi Lost His Job

I initially intended to write this week's dvar Torah blog post on the haftarah of Parashas Pinchas. Since Parashas Pinchas falls out after the 17th of Tammuz this year, the regular haftarah is replaced with the first chapter of Sefer Yirmiyahu. Unfortunately, I am writing this on a plane, and I only have access to meforshim on the regular haftarah of Parashas Pinchas. For this reason, I decided to write about that haftarah instead.

Artwork: Gideon, Champion of Justice
(This is what I imagine a young Eliyahu ha'Navi looked like)

Haftaras Parashas Pinchas: How Eliyahu ha’Navi Lost His Job

In the seventh perek of Shemoneh Perakim, the Rambam writes that ethical perfection (a.k.a. “perfection of middos”) is a prerequisite for nevuah. However, he notes that it is not necessary for the navi to have reached total perfection in all of his or her middos. The Rambam cites several examples of neviim who were still able to receive nevuah, in spite of their ethical imperfections: Shlomo ha’Melech still struggled with his taavah for women; David ha’Melech had problems with cruelty; both Shmuel ha’Navi and Yaakov Avinu were unduly afraid of those who posed a threat to them (i.e. Shaul and Eisav, respectively); and Eliyahu ha’Navi had issues with anger.

In this dvar Torah we will examine an instance of Eliyahu’s anger and its repercussions.

The Haftarah: According to Ralbag

In the perek which precedes our haftarah, Eliyahu manages to convince Bnei Yisrael that “Hashem – He is the God! Hashem – He is the God” (I Melachim 18:39) at the climax of his miraculous demonstration before the priests of Baal. Unfortunately, the success doesn’t last. Bnei Yisrael remain attached to avodah zarah, and regress to their old ways. Moreover, Achav and Eezevel – the evil king and queen of Israel – proceed with their plan to exterminate all neviim. Our haftarah begins with Eliyahu fleeing for his life.

Eliyahu retreats to the desert to minimize his chances of getting caught. After nearly starving to death and begging Hashem to take his life, he is saved by an angel of Hashem who provides him with food and lodging in the wilderness. The angel encourages Eliyahu to continue on his journey. Finally, after 40 days and 40 nights of traveling, Eliyahu arrives at Har Sinai, where he crawls into a cave and goes to sleep.

That night Eliyahu receives a prophetic dream. At the beginning of the dream he is asked, “Why are you here, Eliyahu?” (ibid. 19:9). Although this is clearly a rhetorical question – since Hashem is Omniscient, and knows why Eliyahu is here – it is still a peculiar question to ask, since it doesn’t seem as though Eliyahu initially planned to journey to Har Sinai. Eliyahu answers:

“I have acted with great zeal for Hashem, God of Legions, for the Children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant; they have razed Your altars and have killed Your prophets by the sword, so [that] I alone have remained, and they now seek to take my life” (ibid. 19:10).

According to the Ralbag, Eliyahu was angry at the sin of Israel. In his response to Hashem, Eliyahu was implicitly asking Him to exact vengeance from them. Hashem responds to this request in a cryptic manner:

[The word of God] then said, “Go out [of the cave] and stand on the mountain before Hashem.” And behold, Hashem was passing, and a great, powerful wind, smashing mountains and breaking rocks, went before Hashem. “Hashem is not in the wind!” [Eliyahu was told]. After the wind came an earthquake. “Hashem is not in the earthquake!” After the earthquake came a fire. “Hashem is not in the fire!” After the fire came a still, thin sound (ibid. 19:11-12).

The basic question is: What was the meaning of this prophetic vision? We know that all neviim (except Moshe Rabbeinu) received their prophecies in the form of images, which they must interpret as allegories. In some cases, the pesukim relate both the images and their meaning; in other cases, only the meaning is conveyed, and imagery is omitted; and in other cases – such as this one – only the images are recorded in the pesukim, and the meaning is left for us to decipher.

Ralbag proposes the following theory about the meaning of this vision, and its relationship to the events which preceded and followed it: 

It would seem that Hashem [showed Eliyahu this vision] to prompt him to ask for mercy on behalf of Israel – not to pray for them to be destroyed for their evil ways – for Hashem desires to delay His anger so that they will do teshuvah [and return] to Him. 

Accordingly, Hashem showed him destructive phenomena, such as “a great and powerful wind, smashing mountains and breaking rocks,” and told him that “Hashem is not in the wind” – for the derech of Hashem is to bring harm upon someone only as a means of bringing about good. Since it was clear to Hashem that Israel would not accept His rebuke, He didn’t want to punish them for their sins in the full measure that they deserved, but instead, He waited for them to see whether they would do teshuvah from their evil ways. 

“And after the wind came an earthquake,” which is more harmful than the wind, insofar as it is capable of overturning the earth. And it also mentioned, “Hashem is not in the earthquake!” as it mentioned about the wind. “And after the earthquake came a fire,” which is even more harmful. And it also mentioned, “Hashem is not in the fire!” for the same reason we mentioned. 

It is as though He was explaining through this that such harmful phenomena are not directly intended by Hashem, but rather, He concealed His countenance (i.e. He withdrew His hashgachah pratis) from Israel and abandoned them to the rain of the arrows [of chance] which were ready to befall them. The reason for this is that the [hashgachic] harms which are intended to deliver mussar (rebuke) would not benefit Israel [in this case] … 

But “After the fire came a still, thin sound” – in other words, a very low sound from Hashem, as if it were a composite of sound and silence. Through this [Hashem intended] to convey [the message] that since Israel fell into these evils, and did not sense that it was their own sins which caused them to be abandoned to the vicissitudes of chance, therefore, a special type of mussar would come from Hashem, but it would not be as complete as the manner in which Hashem brought mussar to Bnei Yisrael in the Wilderness during the days of Moshe, which they immediately perceived as [being brought about] on account of their sins; rather, this mussar would be like a composite of sound and silence. 

Such was the meaning of Hashem’s prophecy to Eliyahu. To summarize: Hashem sought to show him that Israel did not deserve the full measure of Hashem’s mussar – namely, the type of miraculous “fire and brimstone” hashgachic punishments which Eliyahu, in his anger, requested. Hashem reminded him that He only brings such punishments upon those who would benefit from them, and Israel was already beyond the point where they would benefit from this type of punishment.  

What happens next is interesting: 

It happened that when Eliyahu heard [this], he wrapped his face in his mantle, and he went out and stood by the cave’s entrance; and behold, a voice [spoke] unto him, and said, “Why are you here, Eliyahu?”

Hashem asks Eliyahu the very same question he asked him at the outset of his prophecy. And how does Eliyahu answer?

[Eliyahu] said, “I have acted with great zeal for Hashem, God of legions, for the Children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant; they have razed Your altars and have killed Your prophets by the sword, so [that] I alone have remained, and they now seek to take my life (ibid. 19:14).

Eliyahu responded in exactly the same manner that he the first time! What does this indicate? Why did Hashem ask him the same question twice, and why did Eliyahu give the same answer? Moreover, what are we supposed to learn from the fact that Eliyahu repeated his original answer to Hashem’s question? Ralbag writes:

It would seem that Eliyahu was so angry about the sin of the Jews that he didn’t pay enough attention to comprehend the meaning of Hashem’s prophecy. For this reason, Hashem responded [to Eliyahu’s response] differently than He did the first time.

What was Hashem’s response to Eliyahu the second time around?

Then Hashem said to him, “Go, return on your way, and go to the Wilderness of Damascus. When you arrive, you shall anoint Chazael as king over Aram. And you shell anoint Yehu ben Nimshi as a king over Israel. And you shall anoint Elisha ben Shaphat as a navi in your stead” (ibid. 19:15-16).

That’s right: Eliyahu failed the single-question exam that Hashem set up for him, and lost his job as the navi of Israel, and was instructed to appoint Elisha as his successor. At the end of the section, the Ralbag reiterates and expands upon his theory:

[This incident with Eliyahu was recorded] to teach us that the purpose of the navi’s existence is to supervise the people in whose midst he prophesies. Thus, when the navi utilizes his prophecy for some other purpose, the Divine Wisdom will no longer consent to his being a prophet for that nation. 

For this reason we find it related that when Hashem saw that Eliyahu requested for harm to befall Israel, Hashem [attempted] to guide him to understand that He doesn’t desire to bring harm. It is for this reason that [Eliyahu] saw a prophetic vision of a wind, an earthquake, and a fire [and was told] that Hashem was not in them. Afterwards he was shown Hashem’s glory and was asked a second time, “Why are you here, Eliyahu?” It would seem that because of Eliyahu’s anger over the sin of Israel, he was incapable of deciphering the divine intent of this prophecy that Hashem had shown him. It is for this reason that he answered Hashem again in the same way that he did the first time. 

And when Hashem saw that he was utilizing his prophecy [in an attempt] to bring harm to Israel – which was the opposite of what [Hashem] intended – then He informed him that he was to appoint Elisha as a navi in his place …

In other words, when Hashem rhetorically asked, “Why are you here?” He wasn’t asking about why Eliyahu was here, in this physical location of Har Sinai. Rather, he was asking him, “What is your role here?” He was prompting Eliyahu to recall why he was appointed as navi in the first place, and to examine whether his present request was consistent with that role. Hashem even gave him a hint in the form of the vision about the destructive phenomena and the still, thin sound. But when Hashem asked Eliyahu the same question again, and Eliyahu repeated his wrong answer, that was it. He had missed his one opportunity for teshuvah, and the divine plan had to change.

A Take-away Lesson for Non-neviim

In Hilchos Deos 6:7, the Rambam presents the mitzvah upon every Jew to rebuke his fellow Jew. He walks us through the proper procedure for delivering and accepting rebuke, and cautions us not to violate the Torah-prohibition against embarrassing a fellow Jew – especially in public. However, he adds a qualification to this prohibition:

In which cases does this prohibition apply? In matters between man and man. But in matters of heaven, if a person doesn't return [in teshuvah] in private, we shame him in public, publicize his sin, insult him to his face, and degrade him and curse him until he returns to the good - just as all of the neviim of Israel did.*

There are many of us (myself included) who sometimes find ourselves feeling anger at our fellow Jews for their words, their actions, and their beliefs which we consider to be wrong or evil. We are sometimes prone to shaming, bad-mouthing, insulting, degrading, and cursing those whom we feel “have forsaken the covenant of Hashem,” believing ourselves to be “acting with great zeal for Hashem, God of Legions” – just like Eliyahu ha’Navi.

At times like these, when we feel ourselves in the grip of such righteous zeal, it would behoove us to remember what happened to Eliyahu. He was acting for the sake of Hashem, and he did have Israel’s interests in mind. Nevertheless, his anger affected his role as the guide and shepherd of Israel. Because he allowed his anger to cloud his mind, Hashem removed him from his leadership position.

If this was Hashem’s will in the case of Eliyahu ha’Navi, kal va’chomer for lowly individuals such as ourselves, whose religious zeal is almost entirely a psychological byproduct of our ignorance and our numerous ethical imperfections. If Eliyahu ha’Navi lacked sufficient anger-management skills to prevent his personal feelings from affecting his efforts to better the lot of his Jewish brethren, then certainly we – at least, the vast majority of us – are in no position to express our righteous indignation at those we deem to be wrong.

And if we are compelled to attempt to correct our fellow Jews, we would benefit by remembering that Hashem is not in the wind, nor in the earthquake, nor in the fire – but in the still, thin sound.

* It should be noted that this halacha may or may not apply nowadays. I have heard chachamim say things to the effect of, “Bizman ha’zeh, we don’t know how to give rebuke” and I have likewise been told that bizman ha’zeh, we no longer utilize the method of “public shaming and shunning” as a catalyst for teshuvah, since it is likely to backfire. Although I hope that a person would draw this conclusion from the blog post itself, I nevertheless felt that this point deserved its own footnote.