Melakhim B 6-7: Siege and Salvation in Shomron
SEFER MELAKHIM BET: THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS
By Rav Alex
Israel
Shiur #09: Chapter
6:24- 7:20
Siege and Salvation in Shomron
Previous chapters have revealed a belligerent Aram engaging in regular border
attacks against Israelite villages and towns. In this episode, the Aramean
threat escalates further, as Aram besieges the capital Shomron, subjecting the
city to terrible starvation. However, events unexpectedly turn in the depths of
the siege and hunger, as God induces the enemy to flee and the city is saved! It
is a group of four lepers, societal outcasts, who discover that the Arameans
have deserted their positions. They return to the city and announce the good
news.
THE SIEGE
And so it was, after this, Ben-Haddad King of Aram mustered his entire
army and marched upon Shomron and besieged it. There was a great famine in
Shomron, and the siege continued until a donkey's head sold for eighty [shekels]
of silver, and a quarter of a kav of pigeons' dung for five shekels.
Once, when the king of Israel was walking on the city wall, a woman cried out to
him: Help me, your majesty! Don't [ask me], he replied. "Let the Lord help
you! Where could I get help for you, from the threshing floor or from the
winepress? But what troubles you?" the king asked her. The woman answered,
"That woman said to me, 'Give me your son and we shall eat him today; and
tomorrow we'll eat my son.' So we cooked my son and we ate him. The next day I
said to her, 'Give up your son and let's eat him; but she hid her son." When
the king heard what the woman had said, he tore his clothes; and as he walked
along the wall, the people could see that he was wearing sackcloth underneath.
He said: "Thus and more may God do to me if the head of Elisha ben Shafat
remains on his shoulders today." (6:24-31)
The verses use a variety of images to depict the severity of
the devastation inflicted by the siege. First, the portrayal of the available
food a donkey's head and pigeons' droppings sold at exorbitant prices
illustrates the dire situation. The donkey meat is for food purposes, but what
of the bird droppings? The Radak suggests that it was used for heating and fuel,
but the Ralbag suggests a more creative option:
Due to the attack of the enemy, the countryside was filled
with grain (because the people couldn't leave the city to harvest it). The doves
would feast upon the grains, and they ate so much, they could not digest it, and
so much of the grain remained in their droppings.
The thought of
eating the head of a donkey or picking through bird droppings for food remains
gives ample insight into the dire straits of the people of Shomron.
ON THE WALL
A second image of the desperate hunger is the woman's appeal
to the king while he tours the city walls, most likely supervising his
fortifications and military positions upon the city perimeter, ensuring that the
city is resistant to attack. The woman's approach appears to reflect a classic
court scene; her initial cry,
Help me, your majesty!
is used elsewhere as the initiation of a royal judicial
hearing (II Shmuel 14:4). The case she presents is a squabble between
another woman and her. This woman that has approached the king demands, in the
name of justice, that she has rights to the other's child. The direct appeal to
the king, the two women, the lack of evidence, and the wrangling over a dead
child evoke the judgment of King Shlomo in I Melakhim ch.3. And
yet the comparison merely underscores the vast difference between the cases: the
justice this woman seeks is grotesquely perverted, as she demands that her
counterpart honor her word and give over her son so that they may devour him.
This horrific scene echoes the worst predictions of the tokhacha, the
rebuke: "You
shall eat the fruit of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your
daughters
in the siege."[1]
This scene is also depicted in the vivid ordeals of the destruction of the
Temple.[2]
The depiction of women, who naturally bear, nurse, and nurture their children,
cannibalizing their sons, a most fundamental violation of human nature, is a
direct sign that the people have been forced to compromise the most fundamental
aspects of their humanity. In this case, the woman seems oblivious to her
self-incrimination, as she professes to the king that she consumed her own son.
The siege has brought the city to its knees.
THE KING
Possibly, the extreme situation, so desperate and hopeless, furnishes an
explanation for the vacillating response of the king. At first, he reacts with
frustrated despair:
Don't [ask me], he replied.
Let the Lord help you! Where could I get help for you, from the threshing floor
or from the winepress?" But he quickly regains his composure, understanding
that the woman is not requesting that he procure food, but merely that he
resolve a dispute. " But what troubles you?" he responds. After listening
carefully to the woman's twisted predicament, he immediately rips his royal
robes, a sign of mourning, shock, and horror. With his robes torn, he reveals
that he is wearing sackcloth underneath, a clear sign that the king is engaged
in penitence and prayer.[3]
And yet, he immediately accuses Elisha, insinuating that Elisha is to blame for
the national ruin, and he threatens the prophet's life.[4]
The king's threats, however, strike us as hyperbolic,[5]
for in the very next scene, the messenger arrives from the king saying, " this
calamity is from the Lord; what more can I hope for from the Lord?" (6:33)
How might we assess
this king, who simultaneously expresses earnest penitence and yet threatens the
life of the prophet?
[6] The Midrash
Ha-gadol articulates the king's ambivalence in a fascinating way:
"I am black but
comely" (Shir Ha-shirim 5:1): The people of Israel said before God: Even
though I am black, I am also comely
There was no king more evil than Yehoram
son (of Achav). About him, the verse states: And the
people looked, and behold he had sackcloth beneath upon his flesh." When he
witnessed the distress of Israel, he could not contain himself
evil on the outside, but integrity within." (Midrash Ha-gadol, Shemot)
SALVATION
Elisha responds to the king by predicting a swift
end to the siege and a return to normality. Just as the hunger is expressed
using the pricing and choice of foodstuffs, similarly the relief of the
starvation: "Tomorrow
at this time, a seah of fine flour shall be sold for a shekel, and two
seah of barley for a shekel, at the gate of Shomron (7:1).
At this point, the story shifts focus to four lepers.
Initially we do not identify any connection between the lepers who sit at the
"entrance to the gate"[7] of Shomron and
the terrible siege, but they soon become the vehicle of salvation. Lepers must
sit outside the community.[8] These outcasts are not restricted in
their movement by the city walls, and hence they have opportunities that the
inhabitants of Shomron cannot entertain. They can approach the Aramean army
camp:
"Why should we sit here waiting for death?
If we decide to get into the town, we shall die,
and if we sit here, we shall die.
Come! Let us desert to the Aramean camp;
If they let us live, we shall live,
and if they put us to death, we shall die." (7:3-4)
The chances look slim, but they seize the only
possible opportunity for survival and approach the enemy forces. They discover
to their surprise that the siege camp is absolutely deserted. God had intervened
supernaturally:
God caused the Aramean army to hear a sound of chariots, a
sound of horses[9], a din of a huge
army. They said to one another: The king of Israel must have hired the kings of
the Hittites and the kings of Mitzrayim to attack us!" (7:7-8)
Aram
panicked and abandoned their positions. Initially, the lepers eat and drink and
bury whatever loot they had managed to take with them.[10] But though they are societal outcasts,
their communal conscience irks them:
"We do not well: this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace" (II
Melakhim 7:9). They announce the good news to the city, and the king sends
scouts to verify that the troops of Aram have indeed fled; the siege is lifted,
and supplies are restored to the city. Elisha's prediction is proven true.
A LEPROUS REDEMPTION
The astounding miracle is told from an oblique
angle. Rather than an omniscient narrator objectively reporting the story of the
Aramean attack, the hunger in the city, and God's miraculous salvation, the
siege is told through the prism of morally obscure individuals. We learn about
this story via characters who are ethically compromised: the cruel child-eating
mothers and the selfish leprous outcasts. Moreover, God's salvation is
discovered almost by accident. One wonders: why is the story
told in this arcane manner?
The modern Hebrew poet, Rachel, wrote a poem based upon this
chapter. It is a bold statement of refusal to accept a tainted miracle. She
writes:
For a long while the dreadful enemy
Brought Shomron to siege;
Our lepers to her brought tidings.
To her brought the tidings of freedom.
A Shomron under siege - the entire land,
The famine is unbearable.
But I do not want to receive news of redemption
From the lips of a leper.
The pure will bring news and the pure will redeem,
And if his hand wont be there to redeem,
Then I will choose to die from the suffering of the siege,
On the eve of the day of the great tidings.
Rachel is a perfectionist. She would prefer to choose to die
in suffering rather than accept the tidings of redemption from one who is not
worthy to deliver them.
Does Rachel's poem express a classic Jewish
perspective? Fascinatingly, the Gemara in one aggadic passage depicts the
Messiah himself as a leper sitting at the gates of the city:[11]
R. Joshua b. Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R. Simeon b. Yochai's
tomb
He then asked him, When will the Messiah come? Go and ask him, was his
reply. Where is he sitting? At the entrance to the city. And by what sign
may I recognize him? He is sitting among the poor lepers; all of them untie
[their bandages] all at once, and reapply them together, whereas he unties and
reapplies each [bandage] separately, thinking, should I be called, [if it is
time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to
reapply all the bandages].(Sanhedrin 98a)
On this basis, we would be forced to say that Judaism does not
always present redemption as flawless. For the Talmud, there is redemption even
by means of a leper!
But what does our chapter seek to tell us? There
is no doubt that this story reflects themes of dissonance between the internal
and the external. We witness the king's outer robes and his inner sackcloth. Who
is the real king? Is he righteous or evil? Are the lepers who are ejected from
the city good or bad? As the story progresses, they undergo a transformation. At
first, they are only looking out for themselves; they eat and drink. Suddenly
they turn and begin to think about the starving masses in the city, and they
recognize their sin. Are the lepers worthy?
The notion of a flawed redemption lies at the
heart of this story. At this point in history, Israel is suffering attack and
invasion from Aram. This national weakness is a punishment for the sins of the
generation of Achav. To this end, the entire nation is subjected to a state of
prolonged suffering. Elisha's miracles are more of an inspiration than a
salvation. Aram might have fled, but they will be back for another round of
fighting. However spectacular the miracle, these chapters depict an Israel at
the mercy of Aram. And so the moral ambiguity and uncertainty of the chapter is
reflective of the infirmity and temporary nature of the victory.
CONTEMPORARY REFLECTIONS: THE STATE OF ISRAEL AND INCOMPLETE
REDEMPTION.
Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, Rav Joseph B.
Soloveitchiks brother, referred to this chapter in an article entitled
"Israel's Independence Day: Reflections in Halachah and Hashkafa." Here, he
reads our chapter along the same lines that we have presented:
We thus see that the miracle of the deliverance of all the
inhabitants of Shomron was carried out through the medium of four lepers:
physical lepers, yes, but above all, spiritual lepers. (According to our Sages,
these four outcasts were none other than Geichazi and his three sons, who were
afflicted with leprosy as a penalty for their spiritual heresy. The Rambam in
his Commentary to the Mishnah in the last chapter of Sanhedrin
describes them as cynics and scoffers.)
The first argument, as to how any relief for the Jewish people
could be realized through the medium of apikorsim (non-believers), can
easily be rebutted by the precedent of the deliverance accorded the people of
Shomron through the medium of the four lepers. This episode shows that no Jew
can be excluded from the grace of God, that Yisrael af al pi she-chata,
Yisrael hu (a Jew, even though he has sinned, remains a Jew), and that
there is an innate tendency towards altruism even in the heart of spiritual
lepers.
It also shows that God does not exclude any Jew from salvation
and He may therefore designate even spiritual outcasts as the messengers of
relief and deliverance for the people of Israel. Consequently, we cannot ignore
the significance of the establishment of the State of Israel simply because Jews
who stand a substantial distance from any form of observance of mitzvos were at
the forefront of founding the State. Perhaps the fact that nonobservant Jews are
in the forefront today is a penalty for Orthodox Jewry's failure to play the
most important part in the formation of the state.
A flawed redemption fits a flawed reality. Rav
Yehuda Amital once said that after the Holocaust we are prepared to accept even
a redemption that is not a complete redemption, as long as the exile
indeed comes to an end! As a Holocaust survivor, he understood the desperation
that is described in this chapter, as well as its relief.
[1]
Devarim 28:53
[2]
Eikha 2:20, 4:10
[3] I
Melakhim 21:27, II Melakhim 19:1-2, Yona
3:5.
[4]
Why does the king blame Elisha? Possibly, the king felt that Elisha had not exercised
his ability to beseech God (Rashi, Radak), or alternatively, because he had
explicitly decreed a seven-year famine in the land (Abarbanel). Possibly, the
king blamed him for releasing the forces of Aram (6:22-23), thereby allowing
them to regroup and attack a second time (Olam Ha-Tanakh).
[5]
The scene is difficult, as initially the king threatens Elisha, with Elisha
responding by instructing his men to "shut the door and hold the door fast
against him (6:32). However, then the messenger arrives and merely expresses
his despair, rather than assaulting Elisha. Moreover, Elisha announces that the
king will follow the messenger (see 6:32 and this is verified in 7:17), and yet
the king's arrival is not explicit. The commentaries all attempt to resolve
these textual difficulties. See Rav Elchanan Samets Pirkei Elisha pp.
505-510 for a summary of the opinions and a possible reconstruction of the
scene.
[6] The Talmud (Taanit
14b and Rashis comments there) rereads 6:33 as
suggesting that the king now turns to God in prayer: "This calamity is from the Lord. Now
I must implore the Lord?" (6:33) In response, Elisha delivers a prophecy of
consolation and relief! (7:1)
[7] The gate of the city (shaar)
plays a prominent role in the chapter (7:1,3,10, 11, 17, 18, 20). The words "se'or"
(barley) and the measure of a "se'ah" are all alliterations of this word.
[8] Vayikra 13:45-46
[9]
The flight of Aram seems unrelated to Elisha; however, we cant help but wonder
regarding the possibility of a connection between this episode and Elisha's
horses and chariots in 6:15.
[10]
Chazal identify the four lepers with Geichazi and his sons
(see Rashi 7:3). The connection point might be the taking of the treasures, both
here and in II Kings 5:23-24.
[11]
The Talmud (Berakhot 54a-b) relates a story in which
lepers, precisely because of their vantage point, outside of society, perceive
God's salvation, which would otherwise have been missed by the nation.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!