What do you think is the strongest pieces of evidence supporting Rav Samet's theory? Why?
What do you think is the weakest piece of evidence? Why?
Respond to both question and/or to previous comments.
I believe the strongest evidence Rav Samet brings is that the valley that Eliyahu was sent to by Hashem was dried up after Hashem made it filled with water solely in order to provide Eliyahu with water to drink and that this drying up of the valley (due to its random lack of rain) is in full support of the idea that Hashem wanted Eliyahu to recieve HIS message that the people are suffering and that Hashem wasn't getting through to Eliyahu so Hashem dried up the valley so Eliyahu would move on so that Hashem could try to relay HIS message to Eliyahu is some other way. I think that all of Rav Samet's pieces of evidence are very very strong and that there are no true weak parts to his evidence.
I think that, while all of Rav Samet's ideas are equally valid, they all stem from the most important point, that while HaShem told Eliyahu to HIDE in the valley, Eliyahu made himself comfortable and SETTLED there. So HaShem only dried up the river once He saw that Eliyahu SETTLED and did not listen to God's word, which was to recognize that all of Bnei Yisrael were suffering from Eliyahu's decree.
I agree with Ben, the main point seems to be way Eliyahu is oblivious to the true meaning and intent of the of the subtle commands of Hashem. Hashem tells him to go away, not get settled, see the suffering of the people, not fix it with miracles. He doesn't get the point of what Hashem was saying. Additionally the way Eliyahu solves things with miracles as opposed to practical, real methods makes the whole aspect of the it the obviousness of the Man of God over the practical helping of the Nation (similar to perek 13).
I think that the strongest point of Rav Samet's chidush is that Hashem was displeased with Eliyahu Hanavi's actions. Hashem says "turn to the east", just as he said to Adam Harishon. Furthermore, Eliyahu had the luxurious meat before the necessary water, unlike what Hashem told him, showing that he wasn't focusing enough on the people's situation. Similarly, some mepharshim say that Adam ate from the Eitz Hada'at knowingly. He wanted the chance to get more reward and knew that he could live up to the challenges. He was, however, not focusing on the future generations, who would not be able to conquer every test presented to them. -- Shimmy Liebling
I think that R' Samat's strongest point is his suggestion of contrasting Hashem's command with Eliahu's fulfillment of that command. This contrast highlights the exact issues that face Eliahu, as we see the discrepancy between "VeNisterah" and "VaYeishev," which show his obliviousness to Bnei Yisrael's plight, as well as the message Hashem is trying to communicate. While the double language of "VaYeilech" and its parallels are also valid proofs, I feel that the contrast between Hashem's command and fulfillment are stronger, as it is *clearly* manifested in the Pesukim, whereas "VeYeilech" is via a somewhat indirect parallel to Adam's eating from the Eitz HaDaat.
I believe the strongest evidence Rav Samet brings is that the valley that Eliyahu was sent to by Hashem was dried up after Hashem made it filled with water solely in order to provide Eliyahu with water to drink and that this drying up of the valley (due to its random lack of rain) is in full support of the idea that Hashem wanted Eliyahu to recieve HIS message that the people are suffering and that Hashem wasn't getting through to Eliyahu so Hashem dried up the valley so Eliyahu would move on so that Hashem could try to relay HIS message to Eliyahu is some other way.
ReplyDeleteI think that all of Rav Samet's pieces of evidence are very very strong and that there are no true weak parts to his evidence.
I think that, while all of Rav Samet's ideas are equally valid, they all stem from the most important point, that while HaShem told Eliyahu to HIDE in the valley, Eliyahu made himself comfortable and SETTLED there. So HaShem only dried up the river once He saw that Eliyahu SETTLED and did not listen to God's word, which was to recognize that all of Bnei Yisrael were suffering from Eliyahu's decree.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben, the main point seems to be way Eliyahu is oblivious to the true meaning and intent of the of the subtle commands of Hashem. Hashem tells him to go away, not get settled, see the suffering of the people, not fix it with miracles. He doesn't get the point of what Hashem was saying. Additionally the way Eliyahu solves things with miracles as opposed to practical, real methods makes the whole aspect of the it the obviousness of the Man of God over the practical helping of the Nation (similar to perek 13).
ReplyDeleteI think that the strongest point of Rav Samet's chidush is that Hashem was displeased with Eliyahu Hanavi's actions. Hashem says "turn to the east", just as he said to Adam Harishon. Furthermore, Eliyahu had the luxurious meat before the necessary water, unlike what Hashem told him, showing that he wasn't focusing enough on the people's situation. Similarly, some mepharshim say that Adam ate from the Eitz Hada'at knowingly. He wanted the chance to get more reward and knew that he could live up to the challenges. He was, however, not focusing on the future generations, who would not be able to conquer every test presented to them.
ReplyDelete-- Shimmy Liebling
I think that R' Samat's strongest point is his suggestion of contrasting Hashem's command with Eliahu's fulfillment of that command. This contrast highlights the exact issues that face Eliahu, as we see the discrepancy between "VeNisterah" and "VaYeishev," which show his obliviousness to Bnei Yisrael's plight, as well as the message Hashem is trying to communicate. While the double language of "VaYeilech" and its parallels are also valid proofs, I feel that the contrast between Hashem's command and fulfillment are stronger, as it is *clearly* manifested in the Pesukim, whereas "VeYeilech" is via a somewhat indirect parallel to Adam's eating from the Eitz HaDaat.
ReplyDelete--Joel Krim