Neriah Klein: Sefer Melachim as a reconstruction of biblical history.

Transcript: Sefer Melachim – Numbers, Sfirot, and Biblical Analogies

[Technical setup and introductory conversation]

Speaker: Okay, so I’ll try my best in English. If there’s something I don’t remember how to say, I’ll just switch to Hebrew for a second and go back to English. I think you will understand.

I hope most of you have the accessible *psukim* [verses] in front of you—if you have a smartphone or whatever. But if not, and you know *sefer melachim* [Book of Kings] or the other *sipurim* [stories], the other material by heart, that’s also okay.

Introduction: Topic and Scope

Our topic today is about numbers and *sfirot* [mystical numbers]. At the last minute, I thought that the third part of a series I gave about numbers and *sfirot* would be the best subject for today.

This is, as you can see, *sefer melachim*—השחזור ההיסטורי המקראי מבראשית ועד שופטים [the biblical historical reconstruction from Genesis to Judges]. What I mean is that *sefer melachim* is a retelling of all that happened before—specifically, from Yosef [Joseph] to Shimshon [Samson]. What do I mean by that? We’ll get to that.

But first, I want to make two introductions: first, about analogies in general, which is what we’re going to talk about; and second, about *sefer melachim* in general—the structure, what it meant, and things like that.

Part 1: Understanding Biblical Analogies

I don’t know if when I say the word “analogy,” you know what I’m talking about. Usually—and I’ll even say most stories in the *Tanakh* [Hebrew Bible] have some counterparts, some stories that they hint at.

Examples of Biblical Analogies

For example, we already know the *Ramban* [Nachmanides] said that we have almost the same wording in *pilegesh begivah* [the concubine at Gibeah] and in *Sdom* [Sodom]. We know that the story of *pilegesh begivah* uses the story of *Sdom*.

We also have so many analogies between *megillat Esther* [the Book of Esther] and Yosef. There’s even a phrase like “כי כן ימלאו ימי מרוקיהן” [for so were the days of their anointing fulfilled]—which is a hint at what? “כי כן ימלאו ימי החנוטים” [for so are fulfilled the days of embalming], referring to when they did *chanita* [embalming] to Yaakov [Jacob].

This is an interesting analogy. Why does the *megillah* use “כי כן ימלאו ימי,” which is supposed to be about preparing the *betulot* [maidens] for the king, with hints to the *chanita*? It’s interesting to think about. Maybe they’re using the same thing.

[Brief exchange about whether it’s the same practice]

Speaker: Yeah, maybe. Again, the question is: what does it hint to? What is it conveying? Is it supposed to be a critique on what’s happening, or what?

Methodology: How Do We Identify Analogies?

Question from audience: Who makes the rules of analogies? How do you know there are analogies? Just if you decide you see a word repeated?

Speaker: Basically, we’re more or less convinced when you see something. If you see something that seems like something else, it could be a coincidence, it could be deliberate. If, for example, the only two cases in the entire *Tanakh* have this wording, it makes it more probable that it’s deliberate.

But again, in most cases you always have people who are convinced by it and people who aren’t convinced by it. It depends. What I think is that most normal people will be convinced by what I’m going to show—and what scholars usually show—in connection between stories. The problem is: what is the line, or where do you pass the test of “this is a real analogy” versus when it’s not? That’s the issue.

I’m going to assume that what I’m going to show you—the analogies in general—are, I don’t know, convincing enough. They move around the cutoff of what we call convincing.

That’s the first thing I wanted to say: that analogies are always everywhere in the *Tanakh*, and we have some kind of rules as to how to decide if they’re deliberate or not. We can use the examples from what we’re going to discuss to see how we decide if it’s a real analogy or not. We’ll find some examples that are not so convincing, some that are more convincing, and in several cases the less convincing examples will become more convincing because they add to the others.

Part 2: The Structure of Sefer Melachim

The second introduction is about *sefer melachim* in general. As you can see in the structure of *sefer melachim* here, we don’t have the colors [visible], but believe me that the darker ones are blue and the lighter ones are orange. Besides that, you have *Eliyahu* [Elijah] and *Elisha* [Elisha], which I just put aside for today. So we’re talking only about the stories of the kings themselves.

One thing I have to say: the length of each unit is according to the number of verses, the number of *psukim*. So it’s actually the *megillah* [scroll] of *sefer melachim* in front of you—that’s exactly the portion of *sefer melachim* that *Shlomo* [Solomon] gets, for example.

The Framework: Beginning and End

We have *Shlomo* at the beginning, and later at the end of the book, you have *Chizkiyahu* [Hezekiah] and others, which are all the kings after the fall of Samaria, the fall of *mamlechet Yisrael* [the Kingdom of Israel].

So at the beginning and at the end, we have kings of *beit David* [the House of David] only—only *beit David*, without *mamlechet Yisrael*.

The Middle Section: The Divided Kingdom

More inside, you have *pilug hamelucha* [the division of the kingdom] and *churban mamlechet Yisrael* [the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel]—which is the beginning and end of *mamlechet Yisrael*. At the beginning, we have the story of *Yerovam* [Jeroboam], who made the *eglei zahav* [golden calves]. This is what caused, at the end, the fall of *mamlechet Yisrael*, the *churban* [destruction]. I can’t open it now, but we have several connections, links between the two.

The Pattern of Coverage

After *Yerovam*, and a little before *Eliyahu*—it’s supposed to be *Achav* [Ahab]; I don’t have enough space to write it—but between *Yerovam* and *Achav*, we have many kings in a row. The text just runs through all of them very shortly, and then we get to *Achav*, where it elaborates again.

The same thing happens after *Yehu*—after the house of *Yehu*. When you see, actually, after *beit Achav* [the House of Ahab], you have many kings who just pass through in three or four verses.

[Brief exchange about the colors representing Israel and Judah]

Speaker: Yeah, the colors are Israel-Judah, Israel-Judah, Israel-Judah, until the end of *mamlechet Yisrael*.

Statistical Analysis

We have most of the *melachim* [kings]—I think 26 of them, 26 out of 40—26 out of 40 of the kings of *sefer melachim* are in these two spaces [the transitional sections]. So we just say very fast, very quickly, what we can say about them, and then finish.

This is what we see between *Yerovam* and *Achav*, and after *beit Achav*. Which means that most of what we can say about *mamlechet Yisrael* is about *beit Achav*.

Why Focus on the House of Ahab?

This is interesting, because *beit Achav* is also 50 years, give or take, and *beit Achav* is something that we’re supposed to be surprised to see taking so much of the book. Why?

Because let’s think for a second: what’s the purpose of *sefer melachim*? It was written by *Yirmiyahu* [Jeremiah] after the *churban* of *mamlechet Yehuda* [the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah]. And it was meant to show how we got to the *churban*. This is part of the idea of *sefer melachim*.

Why Does Beit Achav Dominate Sefer Melachim?

We’ll move quickly through what we can say about the period between Yerovam and Achav, and after Beit Achav. Most of what we can say about Mamlachat Yisrael (the Northern Kingdom) concerns Beit Achav, which is interesting because Beit Achav lasted only about 50 years.

We should be surprised to see Beit Achav taking up so much of the book. Why? Let’s think about the purpose of Sefer Melachim. It was written by Yirmiyahu after the churban of Mamlachat Yehuda (the destruction of the Southern Kingdom), and it was meant to show how we got to the churban. How did we get there? We got to the churban because of the sins of Yerovam, who caused Mamlachat Yisrael to fall, and the sins of Menashe at the end, who caused Mamlachat Yehuda to fall. The deterioration started from the beginning, from Shlomo himself, who brought the bamot (high places) for avodah zarah (idolatry). So we have Shlomo, then the pilug hamelucha (division of the kingdom), then Yerovam, and the sins of Yerovam led to the churban of Mamlachat Yisrael and ultimately the churban of Mamlachat Yehuda.

But Beit Achav, although they had far worse sins, were cut off. Yehu came, killed everyone, stopped the Baal worship, and that was it—cut off. We have no continuation of Beit Achav. So why put so much effort—about a third of the book—into Beit Achav? It seems surprising. Any ideas? Any thoughts about that? Why Beit Achav?

A Counter-Narrative Theory?

Student: Is it possible that there was another narrative at the time where Achav was considered this great hero, and if not for Yehu killing him, there would have been no churban? That this was a competing narrative he was writing against?

Speaker: You mean that Achav is supposed to be the hero that prevents the churban?

Student: Right. Meaning if not for Achav being killed, we would have had a strong king with the protection of the Baal. But now that we killed Achav and Yehu took over, the Baal is not protecting us.

Speaker: It’s an obvious counter-narrative—instead of Hashem, we have the Baal who will protect us, and then we kill the main person.

The question is, first of all, that would be a narrative about Mamlachat Yisrael and what they thought. But here we are, long after, with Mamlachat Yehuda, telling about Mamlachat Yisrael and then Mamlachat Yehuda. The obvious assumption is that Hashem is the real God, which means we don’t need much to say that Baal is not the real God. The fact that Beit Achav was ultimately cut off is part of the proof of that.

Also consider what happened in Yehuda: when Beit Achav was cut off, Atalyah, the daughter of Achav, killed everyone in Beit David and ruled in Yehuda for seven years. The Baal was worshiped there too. After that, they killed Atalyah, stopped the Baal worship, and returned to avodat Hashem. Then everything was better for Yehuda as well. So I’m not sure about that theory.

Marvin Sweeney’s Insight: The Hidden Continuation

But one thing that a scholar named Marvin Sweeney, in a commentary on Melachim, said is that actually we *do* have a continuation to Beit Achav. Beit Achav, of course, is from Yisrael, but as we said, it was connected to Yehuda by marriage, because Atalyah was the wife of Yehoram, the son of Yehoshafat.

I assume you know this, but if not: Atalyah was the wife of Yehoram, son of Yehoshafat, and then Achazyah, the king after Yehoram, was the son of Atalyah and the grandson of Achav. So we already have a king of Beit David who was the grandson of Achav. Achazyah himself was killed by Yehu because of that—Yehu killed all of Beit Achav, and he thought he needed to kill the Beit David descendants from Achav through Atalyah as well.

What happened after that? He killed all of Beit Achav, and then Atalyah killed all of Beit David and ruled in Yehuda. But when she was killed and the next ruler was Yoash—the tiny baby who was hidden in the Beit HaMikdash—the grandson of Achav became king. This means that from Achazyah to the end, to the churban of the Beit HaMikdash, the kings of Beit David are also kings of Beit Achav.

So what do we do when we have both? According to the fact that they are Beit David, they have an eternal kingship—they need to be kings forever. But because of Beit Achav, they deserve destruction. So what do we do? That’s the problem. That, I think, is the problem of Sefer Melachim.

The Menashe-Achav Connection

When you open the story of Menashe, you see that it’s the first time the name of Achav resurfaces. We find that Menashe made an asherah, “ויעש אשרה כאשר עשה אחאב מלך ישראל”—he did the same as Achav. Because of that, at the end of the story of Menashe, we get the nevuah (prophecy) of destruction. The nevuah of destruction says that the destruction will be “ונטיתי על ירושלים את קו שומרון”—the same as what Shomron got—”ואת משקולת בית אחאב”—the same as Beit Achav got. So the destruction of Beit Achav, because the sins of Beit Achav resurface, means the destruction of Beit Achav resurfaces as well. The destruction that Yirmiyahu is talking about is somehow connected to Beit Achav.

Numerical Patterns

What I actually showed—we talked about the conference I attended this week in Boston—is that the numbers in the story of Menashe are also connected to Beit Achav. Menashe ruled for 55 years, which is the longest rule in the Tanach. We have a problem with that because according to extra-biblical data, it’s supposed to be 10 years less. From the masa Sanheriv (Sennacherib’s campaign) in the 14th year of Chizkiyahu until the churban in 586, it’s supposed to be 115 years. But according to the numbers here, if you just add up the numbers from the 14th year of Chizkiyahu to the end, you have 125 years—10 years more. So we have problems with the 55 years of Menashe.

But what I found is two things. First, 55 years is exactly the number of years that Beit Achav lasted. As you can see, Beit Achav consists of Omri, Achav, Achazyah, and Yoram. Omri was 12 years, Achav 22, Achazyah 2, and Yoram 12, which totals 48. But the reason Menashe is connected to Beit Achav is that after Beit Achav was cut off in Israel, they had another ruler—actually a queen—in Yehuda for 7 years. So that’s 55. Beit Achav had five rulers—four kings and a queen—for 55 years.

When you check all the numbers in the story of Menashe and Amon, his son who also did the same as his father, you find three numbers: the age when Menashe got to the throne (12), the age when Amon got to the throne (22), and the number of years of Amon’s rule (2). So: 12, 22, 2.

Go back to the numbers in Beit Achav: Omri, Achav, Achazyah—12, 22, 2, and then 12 again. It’s the same numbers. So we have links between Menashe and Beit Achav in several ways. That’s what I’m trying to convey.

The Structure of Sefer Melachim

Back to the idea I’m discussing—this is how I see the book of Melachim. Let me conclude what I’ve done until now. We have about seven kings that really matter. If you read through Melachim, of course you have 40 kings and a queen, but still, you have Shlomo, then Yerovam, and then we fast forward to Achav. After Beit Achav, you fast forward to the end: we have Yehu, then the end, then Chizkiyahu, Menashe, Yoshiyahu, and the end. That’s basically Sefer Melachim.

What I’m trying to do is show you that when we see the analogies that Sefer Melachim makes to previous stories, first we find analogies, and second, the analogies are sequenced in the same sequence as the stories…

Shlomo and Yosef: Textual Parallels

We have *Yehu*, and then the end, and then *Hizkiyahu, Menashe, Yoshiyahu*, and the end. That’s basically *Sefer Melachim*. What I’m trying to show you is that when we see the analogies that *Sefer Melachim* makes to previous stories, first, we find analogies, and second, the analogies are sequenced in the same order as the stories before. And that’s what I’m going to show you right now. So we’ll start with *Shlomo*, of course.

Wisdom and Dreams

What do I mean by analogies? When we read the stories of *Shlomo*, we find several hints, several analogies, several allusions to the story of *Yosef*. Let’s start, for example, with the most obvious one, number three:

הנה נתתי לך לב חכם ונבון אשר כמוך לא היה לפניך ואחריך לא יקום כמוך. אשר לא היה כמוך איש במלכים כל ימיך.

It’s the same idea that we find with *Yosef*:

אחרי הודיע אלהים אותך את כל זאת אין נבון וחכם כמוך.

There are only two people—maybe *Daniel* after that—who are said to be the smartest in the room or ever. *Lev chacham ve’navon asher kamocha lo haya*—*navon ve’chacham*. The same words.

But then, after the *chalom* of *Shlomo*, we go back to *Yerushalayim*. After וייקץ שלמה והנה חלום, *vayavo Yerushalayim*, and then ויעש משתה לכל עבדיו. So וייקץ שלמה והנה חלום is obviously וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום—again the same phrase. ויעש משתה לכל עבדיו—the same phrase exactly with *Pharaoh*. *Yom huledet et Par’oh*, ויעש משתה לכל עבדיו.

The Judgment of Shlomo

And then, in the case of *Shlomo*, we find the *mishpat Shlomo* with these two women. And in what the women say, we have several links to, again, things from the story of *Yosef*:

ותאמר האשה האחת בי אדני. ותאמר האשה אשר בנה החי אל המלך כי נכמרו רחמיה על בנה.

*Va’tomer bi adoni*. So *bi adoni, bi adoni*—I think everyone can remember the beginning of *Vayigash*, but it’s not the only place that we have in the *sipurim* of *Yosef*: *bi adoni*. *Va’yomer bi adoni, va’yomru bi adoni*. This is how you talk to *Yosef* in the story of *Yosef*. And when he sees *Binyamin*, he goes to the other room because כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו, *va’yevakesh livkot*. So again, the same phrase.

So the story of *Shlomo* uses phrases from the story of *Yosef*, not necessarily to compare *Shlomo* and *Yosef*. Sometimes it is compared to *Pharaoh* of *Yosef*. So I think it’s not connecting *Yosef* and a specific character, but *Yosef* and the story, and *Shlomo* and a specific character, but the stories of *Shlomo* and *Yosef*.

And again, when one of the women talks, she says ויהי ביום השלישי ללדתי ותלד גם האשה הזאת. I’m supposed to bold also the *le’lidti* because ויהי ביום השלישי יום הולדת את פרעה. Again, the same idea.

You can add also numbers one and two. The idea of *kise gadol* is only here and there: ויגדל את כסאו מכסא אדני המלך דוד, ויגדל את כסאו מכסאך, ורק הכסא אגדל ממך. Maybe this is the reason why in the story of *Shlomo* later, we find that *Shlomo* makes *kise gadol*, *kise shen gadol*. He makes a *kise gadol*. This is what ויגדל את כסאו מכסא אדני המלך דוד means—so he makes *kise gadol*.

And also in the story of the *chalom Shlomo*, וייטב הדבר בעיני השם אשר שאל שלמה את הדבר הזה—the same with the story of *Yosef*: וייטב הדבר בעיני פרעה ובעיני כל עבדיו, when *Yosef* suggests the smart idea of the answer to *chalom shel Par’oh*. Okay, I think that’s it for the beginning of *Shlomo*.

From Yosef to Pharaoh: The Critical Turn

When we get later to the *mamlacha* of *Shlomo*, we start to see some critique. What do I mean by critique? Mainly, at the beginning, with the *nitzavim*. We have a story about the *nitzavim* of *Shlomo*. He has twelve *nitzavim*. Every *nitzav* is in charge of one area in the *mamlacha*. And in each month, one of the *nitzavim* needs to bring food to the table of *Shlomo*:

ולשלמה שנים עשר נצבים על כל ישראל וכלכלו את המלך ואת ביתו, חודש בשנה יהיה על האחד לכלכל. וכלכלו הנצבים האלה את המלך שלמה ואת כל הקרב על שולחן המלך שלמה איש חודשו.

I go to nine: וכלכלו הנצבים האלה את המלך שלמה, לא יעדרו דבר. והשעורים והתבן לסוסים ולרכש יביאו אל המקום אשר יהיה שם איש כמשפטו.

So again, we find not regular words—*ve’chilkelu*, *lechalkel*. It’s a root that’s not normally in *Tanach*. And we know another case of *lechalkel* in *Yosef*: ויכלכל יוסף את אביו ואת אחיו. But here we find some kind of diversion. In the case of *Yosef*, he is not a king, but the *mishneh lamelech*, who *mechalkel* all of *Yisrael*. But then in the case of *Shlomo*, *Yisrael* are *mechalkelim leshulchan Shlomo*. So it’s the opposite.

And also, in nine, the phrases לא יעדרו דבר and the occurrence of *teven* could hint to what we find later in the beginning of *Shmot*: אתם לכו קחו לכם תבן מאשר תמצאו כי אין נגרע מעבודתכם דבר. *Lo ye’adru davar*. So this starts to seem like a *shi’abud*. Not like איש תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו. So we start to see some kind of *shi’abud* in the time of *Shlomo*, but this is still not so clear.

Further Hints of Oppression

Then we get all the *prakim* of *Beit Hamikdash*. And later, after *Beit Hamikdash*, all the other stuff about *Shlomo* is even more critical. In ten, we find that *Shlomo*—here we are already after the *Beit Hamikdash*—we see that he built *arei miskenot*: ואת כל ערי המסכנות אשר היו לשלמה. *Ve’arei miskenot* of course is immediately hinting at the *shi’abud*: ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה.

Maybe also 11—I’m not sure about that—but ומאכל שולחנו ומושב עבדיו. This is what *Malkat Shva* sees in *Shlomo’s*, what he showed her: ומאכל שולחנו ומושב עבדיו ומעמד משרתיו ומלבושיהם ומשקיו. The word *moshav*, exactly, appears only one time in the entire *Tanach*: ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים. And then they have been *avadim*, *avadim* in *Mitzrayim*. So *u’moshav avadav* could be a hint to that too.

And also, when again, we think it’s so good that *vechol ha’aretz*, in 12, מבקשים את פני שלמה לשמוע את חכמתו אשר נתן אלהים בליבו. והם המביאים איש מנחתו, כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות. It seems a good thing, but again, it’s a hint at the story of *shi’abud Mitzrayim*, *yetziat Mitzrayim*: וישאלו ממצרים כלי כסף וכלי זהב ושמלות. Of course, there is a slightly different *smalot* and *slamot*.

Do you have any reason to think why to change it from *smalot* to *slamot*?

Student: *Salma* and *Shlomo*?

Teacher: What? Yeah, *salma*. Because of *Shlomo*. Because *salma, Shlomo*. And why I know that *Sefer Melachim* plays with that? Because later, later when *Achiyah Hashiloni*…

Student: Probably just a tour of sight. It’s like you wrote *Shlomo* a million times, you wrote *slami* a million times.

Teacher: No, no, I think it’s deliberate. Why? Because in the next case, it’s clearly deliberate. Because when *Achiyah Hashiloni* shows *Yerovam* that he’s supposed to be the next king, what does he do? He takes the שלמה חדשה אשר עליו ויקרעה שנים עשר קרעים. And then he gives him ten *kra’im* of the *salma*. Why *salma*? Why is this the *mashal* that he uses? Because he will tear down the kingdom of *Shlomo*, and gives him ten parts. So I think they play with the name *Shlomo* in this case.

Again, the *rechev ve’parashim* of *Shlomo*, we have the number *shesh me’ot*, which is also—we find the same with שש מאות רכב בחור in the case of *Mitzrayim*. And that’s it about *Shlomo* himself.

Conclusion: The Transformation of Shlomo

If you’re convinced that there is some kind of deliberate linking to *Yosef*, and later to the *shi’abud*, so we see *Shlomo* at the beginning like *Yosef*, and then becoming more and more like the *Pharaoh* of the *shi’abud*. If that’s so, then what happens next? The one who goes after, the one who is supposed to be…

The Moshe-Yerovam Parallel: From Liberation to the Golden Calf

Hadad HaEdomi: A Proto-Moshe Figure

If we’re convinced that there is some kind of deliberate linking to Yosef and later to the *shiabud* (Egyptian bondage), we see Shlomo at the beginning like Yosef and then becoming more and more like the Pharaoh of the *shiabud*. If that’s so, then what happens next? The one who comes after Shlomo is supposed to be the continuation after *yetziat Mitzrayim* (the Exodus from Egypt)—Moshe Rabbeinu.

It’s very interesting that not only Yerovam, but even Hadad HaEdomi, one of the *satanim* (adversaries) of Shlomo, takes on the same characteristics of Moshe Rabbeinu. When Moshe runs from Egypt to Midian, he finds a wife there, and then he wants to go back when he hears that the one who wanted to kill him is dead. The same happens with Hadad:

*Vayivrach Hadad* (And Hadad fled)—”הוא ואנשים אדומים מעבדי אביו עמו לבוא מצרים” (he and Edomite men from his father’s servants with him to come to Egypt). Of course, if he runs from David or Shlomo, he runs TO Egypt, not FROM Egypt. *Vahadad na’ar katan* (And Hadad was a young boy). “ויקומו ממדין ויבאו פארן” (And they arose from Midian and came to Paran).

The text could have just skipped the mention of Midian, since there is no prior reference to it—it was included just to establish another link to Moshe Rabbeinu. “ויבאו מצרים אל פרעה מלך מצרים ויתן לו בית ולחם אמר לו וארץ נתן לו” (And they came to Egypt to Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he gave him a house and food and land). “וימצא הדד חן בעיני פרעה מאד ויתן לו אשה את אחות אשתו אחות תחפניס הגבירה” (And Hadad found great favor in Pharaoh’s eyes, and he gave him a wife, the sister of his own wife, the sister of Tachpenes the queen).

That’s also a link to Yosef, not only to Moshe. This is an interesting pattern that recurs throughout *Sefer Melachim*: because we started with Yosef, the analogies follow the same sequence I mentioned before. But sometimes the one who supposedly tries to fix what happened before also takes on some characteristics of Yosef—they try to go back to Yosef, to the good times we started with. So Hadad is both Moshe and Yosef: *vayimtza chen b’einei Pharaoh* (and he found favor in Pharaoh’s eyes), just as *vayimtza Yosef chen b’einav* (and Yosef found favor in his eyes). And Pharaoh gives him an Egyptian wife, just as *vayiten lo et Asnat bat Poti Fera kohen On l’isha* (and he gave him Asnat daughter of Poti-phera priest of On as a wife).

Perhaps the name of Hadad’s son also hints at Yosef: “ותלד לו אחות תחפניס את גנבת בנו” (And the sister of Tachpenes bore him Genuvat his son)—maybe a hint to *ki ganav gunavti me’eretz ha’Ivrim* (for I was stolen from the land of the Hebrews).

Yerovam as Moshe: The Flight and Return

But that’s Hadad HaEdomi—we don’t care about him too much, right? We care more about Yerovam.

Yerovam ben Nevat, *eved leShlomo* (servant of Shlomo), *vayarem yad bamelech* (and he raised his hand against the king). Again, it’s a hint of a link to Yosef: *vayarem yad* (and he raised his hand), echoing *lo yarim ish et yado* (no man shall raise his hand). And perhaps there’s even a connection to *eshet Potiphar* (Potiphar’s wife)—*vatitpesehu b’vigdo* (and she grabbed him by his garment)—with Achiya Hashiloni, who does the same: “ויתפש אחיה בשלמה החדשה אשר עליו ויקרעה שנים עשר קרעים” (And Achiya grabbed the new garment that was on him and tore it into twelve pieces). So the same phrase again.

But the clearest connection is in verse 19: “ויבקש שלמה להמית את ירבעם ויקם ירבעם ויברח מצרים” (And Shlomo sought to kill Yerovam, and Yerovam arose and fled to Egypt). Compare this to: “וישמע פרעה את הדבר הזה ויבקש להרג את משה ויברח משה מפני פרעה” (And Pharaoh heard this matter and sought to kill Moshe, and Moshe fled from before Pharaoh).

The Exodus Reenactment: Rechavam as Pharaoh

Now let’s see what happened to Yerovam. If Yerovam is Moshe Rabbeinu, he ran from Shlomo to Egypt—which is again the opposite of running FROM Egypt; he runs TO Egypt. And then what happens when Shlomo dies? He hears that Shlomo is dead and goes back.

What did Moshe do? When Moshe goes back from Midian, he heard that *vayamat melech Mitzrayim* (and the king of Egypt died). “וימת מלך מצרים ויאנחו בני ישראל מן העבדה” (And the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned from the labor). And then: *ki meitu kol ha’anashim hamvakshim et nafshecha* (for all the men who sought your life have died). So he goes back and asks the second Pharaoh—after the first Pharaoh died—*derech shloshet yamim nelech bamidbar v’nizb’cha la’Hashem Elokeinu* (a journey of three days we will go in the wilderness and sacrifice to Hashem our God).

Here, Yerovam goes back with all Israel, “וידברו אל רחבעם לאמר, אביך הקשה את עלנו ואתה עתה הקל מעבדת אביך הקשה ומעלו הכבד אשר נתן עלינו ונעבדך” (And they spoke to Rechavam saying: Your father made our yoke hard, and now you lighten the hard labor of your father and his heavy yoke that he placed upon us, and we will serve you). The same language as Egypt: *avodah kashah* (hard labor), just as *vayitnu aleinu avodah kashah* (and they placed upon us hard labor).

What does Rechavam answer? *Vayomer aleihem, lechu od shlosha yamim v’shuvu elai* (And he said to them: Go for another three days and return to me). The same as what Moshe Rabbeinu asked: *nelcha na derech shloshet yamim bamidbar v’nizb’cha la’Hashem Elokeinu* (Let us go a journey of three days in the wilderness and sacrifice to Hashem our God). And of course, they go back.

So again, it seems like they’re asking for the same idea of reducing the *avodah kashah*. But then, of course, it doesn’t go as they wanted.

First of all, we have a slight linguistic hint in what the elders say to Rechavam: “וידברו אליו לאמור אם היום תהיה עבד לעם הזה ועבדתם ועניתם” (And they spoke to him saying: If today you will be a servant to this people and serve them and answer them)—this could be a hint to *va’avadum v’inu otam* (and they will enslave them and afflict them), even though it’s *v’anitam* (and you will answer them), not *v’initam* (and afflict them).

But the clearest idea is the fact that Rechavam does the same as Pharaoh: “ולא שמע המלך אל העם כי היתה סיבה מעם ה’ למען הקים את דברו אשר דבר ה'” (And the king did not listen to the people, for it was a turn of events from Hashem in order to establish His word which Hashem had spoken). Compare: *vayechezak lev Rechavam* (and Rechavam’s heart was hardened), *v’lo shama aleihem* (and he did not listen to them), with *vayechezak lev Pharaoh v’lo shama aleihem ka’asher diber Hashem* (and Pharaoh’s heart was hardened and he did not listen to them, as Hashem had spoken). And: *v’lo shama hamelech el ha’am* (and the king did not listen to the people). “ויאמר ה’ אל משה לא ישמע עליכם פרעה למען רבות מופתי בארץ מצרים” (And Hashem said to Moshe: Pharaoh will not listen to you, so that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt). *V’lo shama hamelech el ha’am lemaan hakim et d’varo asher diber Hashem* (And the king did not listen to the people, in order to establish His word which Hashem had spoken). Again, the same idea.

So Rechavam is the Pharaoh of *yetziat Mitzrayim*.

The Pursuit: 180,000 Warriors

After Israel says, “אין לנו חלק בדוד ולא נחלה בבן ישי” (We have no portion in David nor inheritance in the son of Yishai), and they go and establish *mamlechet Yisrael* (the kingdom of Israel), Rechavam goes back to Jerusalem: “ויקהל את כל בית יהודה ואת שבט בנימין, מאה ושמונים אלף בחור, עשה מלחמה, להילחם בבית ישראל, להשיב את המלוכה לרחבעם בן שלמה” (And he assembled all the house of Yehuda and the tribe of Binyamin, 180,000 chosen warriors, to make war, to fight against the house of Israel, to restore the kingdom to Rechavam son of Shlomo).

So they go back and pursue Israel to bring them back to the *shiabud*. The same with *bachur* (chosen warriors) in the case of Pharaoh: “ויאסור את רכבו ואת עמו לקח עמו ויקח שש מאות רכב בחור וכל רכב מצרים ושלישים על כולו” (And he harnessed his chariot and took his people with him, and he took six hundred chosen chariots and all the chariots of Egypt with officers over all of them).

Interestingly, in the case of Rechavam, we find the number 180,000 *bachur*. In a parenthesis I must say: the number 180,000 *bachur* could be just the sum of all the numbers we have in the kingdom of Shlomo of the *avadim* (laborers) taken from Israel: 30,000 for the Lebanon work, 70,000 *nosei saval* (burden-bearers), and 80,000 *chotzev bahar* (stone-cutters in the mountains)—again, 180,000. So he pursued Israel with the same number of *avadim* that he wanted to get back. Literally speaking, it’s connected.

So this is the *yetziat Mitzrayim* of *mamlechet Yisrael*.

Yerovam’s Transformation: From Moshe to Aharon

What happened later? Yerovam—Moshe Rabbeinu—brings Israel back from the *shiabud* and establishes *mamlechet Yisrael*. But then he does *chet ha’egel* (the sin of the golden calf). And the *chet ha’egel* that he does, he does twice—*shnei agalim* (two calves). And not only calves, but also an altar and *chag la’Hashem* (a festival to Hashem)—*chag asher bada milibo* (a festival he invented from his own heart). So again, like Aharon.

Just as Shlomo went from Yosef (or Pharaoh in the time of Yosef) to Pharaoh of the *shiabud*, Yerovam comes from being Moshe to being Aharon—but the worst case of Aharon, the *chet egel* of Aharon.

And if some of you are not convinced that this is deliberate, think about this fact: Yerovam has two sons who died. The first one was sick and then died, and the other one is the next king who was killed by Ba’sha. The first one is called Aviyah, the second one is called Nadav. Nadav v’Avihu! So he is the second Aharon right now.

The Man of God from Judah: The New Moshe

Now when Yerovam is Aharon in *chet ha’egel*, the one who comes to criticize him is Moshe Rabbeinu, who comes back from the mountain to say, “What have you done?” So the *ish ha’Elokim* (man of God) from Yehuda comes to rebuke Yerovam. And if you remember, Yerovam says, “*Tifsuhu*” (Seize him!), and his hand dried up. So he asks the *ish ha’Elokim* from Yehuda to pray that his hand will return to what it was. And then it says: “ויחל איש האלהים את פני ה'” (And the man of God entreated the face of Hashem).

So the *ish ha’Elokim* from Yehuda takes the role of Moshe Rabbeinu, because Yerovam left it to him and became Aharon in the analogy.

The Pattern of Progressive Deterioration

One thing we can already establish right now—and it will be the same in the continuation—is that in each case of the analogy, we see a worsening of the situation. Like in the case of the analogy to Yosef: Yosef sustained his father and brothers (*Yosef mechalkel et aviv v’et echav*), but Israel sustains Shlomo (*Yisrael mechalkelim et Shlomo*). In the case of the *shiabud*, it could be a worsening—I’m not sure about that—but the fact that…

The Pattern of Worsening in Biblical Analogies

And every time we see a worsening of the situation. Like in the case of the analogy to *Yosef*, it’s *Yosef mekhalkel et aviv ve’et echav* (Yosef supported his father and brothers), but *Yisrael mekhalkelim et Shlomo* (Israel supports Shlomo). In the case of the *shiabud*, it could be worsening—I’m not sure about that—but the fact that there is a *shiabud* of *Bnei Yisrael* by *Shlomo* and not by *Melech Mitzrayim* could be worsening. And then again, from one *cheit ha’egel* you get two, and it’s a little worse.

The Ish Elohim-Moshe Parallel: Punishment for Disobedience

Anyway, if *Ish Elohim* is again *Moshe Rabbeinu*, it’s interesting that the fact that he sinned and ate when he shouldn’t have in *Beit El* is the reason that he couldn’t go back to *Yehuda*. In verse 25: *Ko amar Hashem ya’an ki marita pi Hashem ve’lo shamarta et hamitzvah asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha* (Thus says Hashem: Because you rebelled against the word of Hashem and did not keep the commandment that Hashem your God commanded you)—that he said to him, *Lo tochal lechem ve’lo tishteh mayim ba’makom hazeh* (You shall not eat bread nor drink water in this place). *Ya’an ki marita et pi Hashem lo tavo nivlatcha el kever avotecha* (Because you rebelled against the word of Hashem, your corpse shall not come to the grave of your fathers).

The same as the punishment of *Moshe* and *Aharon*: *Ya’an lo he’emantem bi lehakdisheni le’einei Bnei Yisrael lachen lo tavi’u et hakahal hazeh el ha’aretz asher natati lahem* (Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them). So this is why you won’t get to the land. So that could be also a deliberate connection between the two.

From Yerovam to Achav: The Wilderness Period

Okay, so far—the next page is the end of *Melachim*. We are not there yet. But so far we established that we have *Yosef*, and then the *shiabud Mitzrayim*, *yetziat Mitzrayim*, and *cheit ha’egel*. Okay, so what’s next? What’s supposed to be now? *Knisa la’aretz* (entering the land). And this is what we hoped for in *Moshe’s* time, and we got 40 years.

The Missing Wilderness Period

So I don’t find any links between the next chapters and the *midbar*, the *arba’im shanah ba’midbar* (40 years in the wilderness). I don’t find any. But later, when we get to the next dominant king, *Achav*, we from the beginning find links to *Yehoshua*, from the *knisa la’aretz*.

The 40-Year Chronology

First of all, if we talk about the *midbar*, just look at something interesting. If we skipped from *Yerovam* to *Achav*—if *Yerovam* is *cheit ha’egel*, is the *yetziat Mitzrayim*, and *Achav* is *kibush ha’aretz* (conquest of the land)—so all the kings in between, *Nadav* to *Omri*, should be the time of the *midbar*. And if you sum up all the numbers: 2, 24, 2—well, 7 days you can put aside—2, 24, and 2 and 12, you get 40 years exactly. So this is what I wanted it to be if it goes well with my theory, and this is what happened. So we have 40 years between *yetziat Mitzrayim* and *kibush ha’aretz*, but again, the opposite of *kibush ha’aretz*—when instead of getting rid of the *Kena’anim* and the *Ba’al*, you bring the *Ba’al* here and reestablish *Yericho* and all the stuff. So we have some link to the 40 years of the *midbar*.

The Establishment of True Monarchy

Another thing that we need to say is that basically when we get to the time of *Achav*, it’s the first time that we really have *mamlechet Yisrael* (the kingdom of Israel). Because until then, we had *Yerovam*, of course, but then *Nadav* reigned for two years—which could be two weeks, it depends on when in the year he was reigning—and then he died. And we have *Ba’asha*, 24 years, and *Elah*, two years, and he died. He was killed, of course. *Zimri*, seven days. And then *Omri* was 12 years, and he has a son, *Achav*—it’s the first time that we have an established *beit meluchah* (royal house) in the kingdom of Israel. So it’s the first time that we came to *el hamenuchah ve’el hanachalah* (to the rest and the inheritance). So it seems like a good place to put *kibush ha’aretz*, that Israel go to—skip the wilderness and go to *el hamenuchah ve’el hanachalah* in the time of *Achav*. But again, it’s the opposite, because *Achav* ruined everything and brought *Ba’al* in here, etc.

Achav as Anti-Yehoshua: Conquest in Reverse

The first thing that we find about *Achav*, instead of just the introductions—how much did he reign and he did evil in the eyes of *Hashem*, all that—and then, of course, he took *Izevel* as wife, which is not a good thing, and then we find the verse: *Beyamav banah Chiel Beit HaEli et Yericho. Ba’aviram bechoro yesadah u’viSeguv tze’iro hitziv delateha, kidvar Hashem Elokei Yisrael asher diber beyad Yehoshua bin Nun* (In his days, Chiel of Beit El built Yericho. With Aviram his firstborn he laid its foundation, and with Seguv his youngest he set up its gates, according to the word of Hashem God of Israel which He spoke through Yehoshua bin Nun). So again, we have an explicit mentioning of *Yehoshua bin Nun*. And it’s exactly what *Yehoshua bin Nun* did in the *knisa la’aretz*, but the opposite. He erased *Yericho* and said that the one who will build it is cursed. And in the time of *Achav*, this is the first thing that he does, building *Yericho*.

The “Ocher Yisrael” Connection

But it’s not the only case. If you want to open, if you have somewhere, *Perek Kaf* (Chapter 20) in *Melachim Aleph*. We actually just skipped the *prakim* about *Eliyahu*, who also has some links linking *Achav* to the time of *Yehoshua*, because one of the most well-known conversations between them is when they meet each other and *Achav* says, *Ha’atah zeh ocher Yisrael?* (Are you the one who troubles Israel?) And *Eliyahu* says, *Lo acharti et Yisrael ki im atah u’veit avicha* (I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house). This is a hint to *ocher Yisrael*, *Achor*—it’s to *Achan* and the *cherem*. *Ocher Yisrael*. In *Divrei Hayamim*, we have *Achan*, *Achar*—it’s called *Achar* and not *Achan*, but *Achar ocher Yisrael*. So the phrase *ocher Yisrael* is mentioned explicitly about *Achan*. Anyway, so *Achav* is not *Yehoshua*, but *Achan*—so that’s the opposite.

The Battle of Afek: The Falling Wall

Anyway, in *Perek Kaf*, we have a story about *Achav* without *Eliyahu*, and at the beginning we have a war in *Shomron* between *Ben-Hadad* and *Achav*, and he wins, and then, *litshuvat hashanah* (at the turn of the year), later we have another war in *Afek*. In *Perek Kaf*, *pasuk kaf-vav* (verse 26), we can just skip to the war itself. *Pasuk kaf-tet* (verse 29): *Vayachanu eleh nochach eleh shiv’at yamim* (And they encamped opposite one another seven days). For seven days they just look at each other, say hello, stuff like this. *Vayehi bayom hashevi’i vatikrav hamilchamah vayaku Bnei Yisrael et Aram me’ah elef ragli beyom echad* (And it was on the seventh day that the battle was joined, and the Children of Israel struck down one hundred thousand Aramean foot soldiers in one day). *Vayanusu hanotarim Afekah el ha’ir vatipol hachomah al esrim veshiv’ah elef ish hanotarim u’ven Hadad nas vayavo el ha’ir cheder becheder* (And the rest fled to Afek, into the city, and the wall fell upon twenty-seven thousand men who were left, and Ben-Hadad fled and came into the city, into an inner chamber).

So we have, again, we have seven days, and on the seventh day, the wall falls. It’s the only place in the *Tanakh* that has a falling wall. So I think it’s very clear that it’s connected. And it also may hint to the reason why after that, one of the *Bnei Nevi’im* says to *Achav* that he should have killed *Ben-Hadad*, and he says to him, *Vayomer elav ko amar Hashem ya’an shilachta et ish chermi miyad vehayetah nafshecha tachat nafsho ve’amcha tachat amo* (And he said to him: Thus says Hashem: Because you have let go out of your hand the man whom I devoted to destruction, therefore your life shall go for his life, and your people for his people). Why shouldn’t he kill—who said to him that he should kill *Ben-Hadad*? But the analogy to *milchemet Yericho* and the *cherem* is also hinted here with *ish chermi*, where they need to kill everyone. It doesn’t explain why in the reality he should have killed *Ben-Hadad*, but the analogy seems to connect all the stuff together.

Okay, so we can go on and go on, and then all the book will be like this. I don’t want to take too much for *beit Achav* because I think these links that we saw establish the analogy to *Yehoshua*. But now I want to ask two things. First of all, what do we do with the chapters before, where we supposedly have the 40 years of the *midbar*? And secondly, what came after?

Yehu’s Rebellion and the Shoftim Period

So that’s about *Achav*. When we get to *mered Yehu* (the rebellion of Yehu), who tried to get rid of *beit Achav*, we found several connections to *Sefer Shoftim*. Because we don’t have too much time, I don’t want to go through all of them—I’ll give you two main examples.

The 70 Sons

First of all, if you go to *Melachim Bet*, *yud* (Chapter 10). That’s the beginning—not the beginning, the middle of *mered Yehu*. *U’le’Achav shiv’im banim beShomron* (And Achav had seventy sons in Shomron). Seventy sons, which is crazy. Seventy. Do you know any other character in the *Tanakh* that had seventy? *Yaakov* didn’t have seventy, he had twelve—eleven in our *parashah* and another one. Seventy descendants. Seventy descendants—who had seventy sons? I’m assuming, what’s his name, the *shofet*…

The Pattern of 70 Sons: Achav, Gidon, and Avimelech

Achav had 70 sons, which is extraordinary. “ולאחאב שבעים בנים בשומרון” (And Achav had seventy sons in Shomron). Do you know any other character in the Tanakh that had 70?

Yaakov. Well, Yaakov didn’t have 70 sons—there are 12 sons, 11 in our parashah and another one in the next one. But he had 70 descendants. Who had 70 sons? A shofet (judge).

In Sefer Shoftim, at the end of perek chet (chapter 8)—you don’t have to open it—after Gidon won against Midyan, it’s interesting because it’s connected to the 70 descendants of Yaakov through the phrase “yotzei yerecho” (those who came from his loins). This phrase appears only with Yaakov and with Gidon, and I think it’s deliberate. It’s not just “yotzei yerecho”—Gidon’s descendants “yotzei yerecho” is connected to Yaakov because of the story about the yerech (thigh).

There’s also a pun on words: in the same story, after the angel struck Yaakov in the “gid hanasheh” (sciatic nerve), he asked him “hagida na shemecha” (tell me your name). It’s the only place in the Tanakh, I think, where you have all these syllables one after the other—and it’s twice: “gid hanasheh” and “hagida na shemecha.” So I think it’s deliberate. Do with it whatever you want. You have a dvar Torah for next time. Let’s talk about “gid hanasheh.”

I have to say that to Rabbi Yoni Grossman, who was the one who showed me that, because that’s interesting.

So in this case it’s sons, not grandchildren. In both cases—the brothers of Avimelech—Avimelech killed them. Seventy sons on one stone. So we have seventy sons who were all killed in one day, in one place, because someone wanted to be king instead of them—Avimelech.

The Yehu Parallel: Achav’s 70 Sons

And again with Yehu, this is the story: He sends sefarim (letters) to the elders of Israel in Sefer Melachim Bet, perek yud (2 Kings 10): “ועתה כבוא הספר הזה אליכם ואתכם בני אדניכם ואתכם הרכב והסוסים ועיר מבצר והנשק. וראיתם הטוב והישר מבני אדניכם ושמתם על כסא אביו והלחמו על בית אדניכם” (And now when this letter comes to you, seeing your master’s sons are with you, and you have chariots and horses, a fortified city and weapons—choose the best and most worthy of your master’s sons, set him on his father’s throne, and fight for your master’s house).

Put whichever son of Achav you want and go fight me. And then they decided to kill all of them and put the heads in baskets and sent them to Yehu. So it’s the same as with Avimelech.

Avimelech, at the beginning, goes to the ba’alei Shechem (lords of Shechem) and says to them, “Remember, I’m your brother.” So that’s the same idea of choosing who they want from the 70 to rule. And then he kills all of them in one day, and it’s the same as here.

The Baal Worship Connection

Also, when you think about stories in the entire Tanakh with the worship of Baal in the background, I think these are the only two: Beit Achav and Gidon. Gidon with Midyan and Baal, and Yerubaal—”yarev ba’baal” (let Baal contend)—and then Avimelech brings the Baal worship back. So these are the only two cases. So this is one of the interesting links.

The Shimshon Connection

And then you have another link to Shimshon, because when Yehu kills all the Baal worshippers, he calls all of them to Beit haBaal at the end of perek yud. What I want is pasuk kaf-alef (verse 21). We have this only in the case of Shimshon at the end, where he takes down the pillars of the “beit maleh” (full house) and kills everyone inside. So the same here: a “beit maleh peh lepeh” (house full from end to end), and he kills everyone inside.

You have also other links, but I don’t want to be too precise because we need to get to the end. How long do we have? Okay.

The Yehoyada Rebellion

So the time when we get rid of Beit Achav is the beginning of Sefer Shoftim. But then I’ll skip “mered Yehoyada” (Yehoyada’s rebellion) against Atalya, even though that’s, again, connected to Gidon. I won’t read too much about that. You have several links—he divides the men into three groups. There are many other connections, but not yet.

There is one pun, probably, at the end—where is it? Oh yeah: “ויבואו כל עם הארץ בית הבעל ויתצוהו את מזבחותיו ואת צלמיו שברו היטב” (And all the people of the land came to the house of Baal and tore it down; his altars and his images they broke in pieces thoroughly). “Mizbechot” (altars) and “tzlamim” (images) together—I think we don’t have this anywhere else in the Tanakh, but we have “Zevach veTzalmona” with Gidon. So maybe that’s another pun.

Anyway, the analogy between this and Gidon is more elaborated in Divrei Hayamim (Chronicles). In Divrei Hayamim we have a very clear analogy between this and Gidon, and the same idea of seven years of Baal and then 40 years of Gidon, and seven years of Atalya with Baal, and then 40 years of Yoash. It’s connected, but I don’t want to elaborate about that too much.

The House of Yehu: The Shoftim Formula Returns

I want to go with the house of Yehu, because the next king in perek yud-gimel (chapter 13), the son of Yehu—I think we’ll all agree that we are in the “tkufat hashoftim” (period of the judges). Perek yud-gimel. Okay, let me know when you are convinced.

But he sent them a judge. This is a phrase from Sefer Shoftim: “ויחר אף ה’ בישראל” (And the anger of Hashem burned against Israel)—four times in Sefer Shoftim. “ויתנם ביד חזאל מלך ארם וביד בן הדד בן חזאל” (And He gave them into the hand of Chazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad son of Chazael).

And then what’s supposed to be? “ויזעקו בני ישראל אל ה'” (And the children of Israel cried out to Hashem). “ויחל יהואחז את פני ה'” (And Yehoachaz entreated Hashem). “וישמע אליו ה'” (And Hashem listened to him). “כי ראה את לחץ ישראל. כי לחץ אותם מלך ארם” (For He saw the oppression of Israel, for the king of Aram oppressed them).

And then he sent them a moshia (savior). “ויתן ה’ לישראל מושיע” (And Hashem gave Israel a savior)—Otniel ben Knaz, for example. And again, pasuk hey (verse 5): “ויתן ה’ לישראל מושיע” (And Hashem gave Israel a savior).

Yehoachaz is the king, but he has a moshia to go and save him. I don’t know who this moshia is, but it’s very odd that we have a moshia in the time of Yehoachaz. “ויתן ה’ לישראל מושיע ויצאו מתחת יד ארם” (And Hashem gave Israel a savior, and they went out from under the hand of Aram). “ותשקוט הארץ ארבעים שנה” (And the land was quiet forty years). “וישבו בני ישראל באהליהם כתמול שלשום” (And the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as before).

So we have the cycle of Sefer Shoftim in Sefer Melachim, in the right time, when we are in the time of the shoftim, according to the sequence that I’m trying to convey. So again, it’s Sefer Shoftim.

Yoash and Meshal Yotam

Later, if you go to the next king, Yoash, we find something that may sound like “meshal Yotam” (Yotam’s parable)—the meshal of the etzim (trees) and the erez Levanon (cedars of Lebanon), all the elements from meshal Yotam. I don’t want to go too deep into that, but you can see in perek yud-dalet (chapter 14), against Amatzyahu, that he says in pasuk tet (verse 9): “meshal,” right?

Again, a meshal with “arzei Levanon” (cedars of Lebanon) about kingdom. Again, that’s something I don’t want to elaborate on right now.

Yerovam ben Yoash: The Yerubaal Connection

What’s left to say? Well, first of all, the next king is Yerovam ben Yoash. And that’s interesting because if you just change the lamed to mem, the mem to lamed, you get not “Yerovam ben Yoash,” you get “Yerubaal ben Yoash,” which is exactly the name of Gidon—Yerubaal ben Yoash. So it’s very odd that this is a way…

The Yaravam-Yerubaal Name Connection

What’s left to say? Well, first of all, the next king is Yaravam ben Yoash. And that’s interesting because if you just change the *lamed* to *mem*, or the *mem* to *laded*, you get not Yaravam ben Yoash, you get Yerubaal ben Yoash, which is exactly the name of Gidon, Yerubaal ben Yoash. So it’s very odd that this is so similar. So we have Yerubaal ben Yoash. Again, we also have there Yotam, which is also a name of a king in this era, this period. And we have who else? We have Yoash, we have Yerubaal. I’m not sure, maybe that’s it. By the way, we are in the time of the *Shoftim* right now.

The End of Melachim Bet: Shimshon-Tzidkiyahu Parallel

Okay, what’s next? We are in the middle of *Melachim Bet*, what about the end of *Melachim Bet*? So the end of course, as you know it, that *mamlechet Yisrael* is done, there’s *churban*, *galut aseret hashevatim*, everything is dead. And then we don’t have any analogies to that. We can find some, but it’s not so clear as the one that we saw before. But then when we go later back to Yehuda—because there is no Yisrael left—first of all we find in the time of Yoshiyahu, that the *Shoftim* are mentioned explicitly, when he says: *”V’lo hayah kaPesach hazeh ki lo hayah kaPesach hazeh mimei haShoftim asher shaftu et Yisrael.”* So we mentioned the *Shoftim*. But that’s okay, maybe connected, maybe not, but he mentions the *Shoftim*. But the most, the clearest connection I think is the end of the *Shoftim* and the end of the *Melachim*.

Because the last *shofet* in *Sefer Shoftim* is, who knows? I need to drink so I need to say. The last *shofet* in *Sefer Shoftim* is Shimshon. The last king in *Sefer Melachim* is—is *churban*, Yirmiyahu, Tzidkiyahu. What happened to Tzidkiyahu? No, I don’t have this. The last king, *perek kaf-hey*, *pasuk zayin*: *”Vayitpesu et hamelech vaya’alu oto el melech Bavel Rivlatah vayedabru ito mishpat. V’et bnei Tzidkiyahu shachatu le’einav.”* And then it says: *”V’einei Tzidkiyahu iver vaya’asrehu vanechushtayim vayevi’ehu Bavel.”*

The same in the case of Shimshon, we find there the same wording even: *”Vayochezu’hu Plishtim,”* they caught him. *”Vayenakru et einav,”* that’s the eyes. *”Vayoridu’hu Azatah,”* they took him to the land of the enemy. *”Vaya’asruhu vanechushtayim.”* *Vaya’asruhu vanechushtayim*, the same wording. *”Vaya’asruhu vanechushtayim vayehi tochen beveit ha’asurim.”* Okay, so the same end for Shimshon and for Tzidkiyahu, the last *shofet* and the last *melech*.

The Two Pillars Motif

But the interesting thing is that after that we have another thing that’s in common: we have the only two stories about two pillars. The two pillars of course in Shimshon that put all the *beit dagon* down, and here in the *churban*, we read about the *churban*, but then we see too much focus on the two pillars. After the general *psukim* about the *churban*, see in *pasuk yud-gimel*. We have a list: *”V’et amudei hanechoshet asher beit Hashem, v’et hamechonot v’et yam hanechoshet asher beit Hashem shivru Kasdim vayis’u et nechushtam Bavelah. V’et hasirot v’et haya’im v’et hamezmarot v’et hakafot v’et kol klei hanechoshet asher yeshartu vam lakchu. V’et hamachtot v’et hamizrakot asher zahav zahav va’asher kesef kesef lakach rav tabachim.”* That’s the list of the instruments that they took.

But then, another list of how much of each, how many of each: *”Ha’amudim shnayim hayam ha’echad vehamechonot asher asah Shlomo leveit Hashem.”* So only three of them has numbers, but again, the first one is the *amudim*. *”Lo hayah mishkal lanechoshet kol hakelim ha’eleh.”* And then, after that, they’re even more focusing on the *amudim*: *”Shmoneh esreh amah komat ha’amud ha’echad v’choteret alav nechoshet v’komat hakoteret shalosh amot usevachah v’rimonim al hakoteret saviv hakol nechoshet. V’cha’eleh la’amud hasheni al hasevachah.”* So we have a list that the *amudim* are the first one of them, and then a shorter list—*amudim* is the first one of them, and then only the *amudim*. *Amudim*, *amudim*, *amudim*.

So in the case of Shimshon, the *amudim*, the pillars that were taken down are of Beit Dagon. But in this case it’s Beit Hamikdash. So again, worsening.

The Purpose of These Parallels: Shmuel’s Historical Review

So what do we do with all that? Okay, we somehow succeeded in getting all *Sefer Melachim* glimpsed. I hope you’re still awake. But now that I hope I convinced you that it’s there somehow.

Student: Yes. I think you did a great job.

Speaker: What?

Student: I think we got convinced.

Speaker: Okay. Yeah. What’s the point? See you next time. What’s the point? Exactly. What’s the point? I’m sure that all the time you said, okay, but what’s the point? What’s the point?

So first of all, that’s a big problem with analogies and with any literary device that we find in the Tanach, or in any case, not in the Tanach, or any literature. Because to find the facts is the easier part, but to find the right interpretation that the author wanted us to understand, that’s a little tricky. Because what does this say? So what do you think? Why *Sefer Melachim* tries to show, for himself, to Shimshon all of the stories?

Student: We have to come up better, but we have to learn from history. How they went in and how they went out.

Speaker: What?

Student: Now, we’re realizing the story, how they went out.

Speaker: In and out of what?

Student: Oh, yeah, okay. So it’s a concentric circle, you know, basic, you know.

Speaker: Oh, it’s concentric?

Student: Probably concentric, the parallel circle.

Speaker: Yeah, because it’s one, it’s not concentric, but it’s the same sequence.

Student: Yes, here we go in, and here we go out.

Speaker: Yeah.

Okay, of course, it has to be connected to the fact that *Sefer Melachim* is a way to the *churban*, because this is the *Sefer Melachim*. We don’t take the analogy and say, okay, the analogy says something different than the book itself. It has to be part of what the book says. But what the book says about how we got to the *churban*.

So I think the key to that is to see what happened when *Am Yisrael* asked for *melucha*. Because then you will find something interesting. All of what we just did, again. *Shmuel Aleph*, *perek yud-bet*. After Shmuel anointed Shaul for the second time, he calls all of Israel to Gilgal. And it’s a *haftara* of Korach. And the *perek yud-bet*, *pasuk vav*, it says to all Israel: *”Vayomer Shmuel el ha’am Hashem asher asah et Moshe v’et Aharon va’asher he’elah et avoteichem me’eretz Mitzrayim. V’atah hityatzvu v’eshaftah etchem lifnei Hashem et kol tzidkot Hashem asher asah itchem v’et avoteichem.”*

And then he starts telling the history: *”Ka’asher ba Yaakov Mitzrayim,”* which is Yosef, right? The time of Yosef. *”Vayiz’aku avoteichem el Hashem,”* this is *shiabud Mitzrayim*. *”Vayishlach Hashem et Moshe v’et Aharon vayotzi’u et avoteichem miMitzrayim,”* this is *yetziat Mitzrayim*. And then he skips the 40 years in the *midbar*. *”Vayoshivum bamakom hazeh.”* So they took him out of Egypt and put him in Israel. *”Vayishkechu et Hashem Eloheichem vayimkor otam beyad Sisera sar tzeva Chatzor,”* this is the time of the *Shoftim*. So he basically goes through all the points in time that we had and for what reason.

*”Vayiz’aku el Hashem vayomru chatanu ki azavnu et Hashem vana’avod et haBa’alim v’et ha’Ashtarot v’atah hatzileinu miyad oyveinu v’na’avdeka. Vayishlach Hashem et Yerubal v’et Bedan v’et Yiftach v’et Shmuel vayatzeil etchem miyad oyveichem misaviv vateshvu betach.”* Okay, so until now he established that when they did wrong, God punished them, and then when they went back to Hashem, they gave but they should be better.

But then, *”Vatir’u ki Nachash melech bnei Amon ba aleichem.”* And you should understand, you should learn from history that the reason for that is because you’re bad. You need to go back to Hashem. What’s the formula to stay away from trouble? Not going back to Hashem, but have a stable kingdom. *”Vatom’ru li lo ki melech yimloch aleinu vaHashem Eloheichem malkchem.”* So it’s not a problem to have a king at all, because Hashem gave them a king. But the problem is…

The True Problem with Kingship: Misplaced Trust

You need to go back to Hashem. ותאמרו לי לא, כי מלך ימלוך עלינו. What’s the formula to stay away from trouble? Not going back to Hashem, but have a stable kingdom. ויאמרו כי מלך ימלוך עלינו, וְהַשֵׁם אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מַלְכְּכֶם. So it’s not a problem to have a king at all because Hashem gave them a king. But the problem is they think that kingdom will be the answer to all the problems and not going back to Hashem.

And this is what Shmuel says to them: ועתה הנה המלך אשר בחרתם אשר שאלתם. Yeah, *asher bechartem* is the obvious one, *asher she’altem* is a pun again on *Shaul*, because they asked for him, they *sha’alu melech*. So the *melech* is *Shaul*. He’s asked.

ועתה הנה נתן השם עליכם מלך. אם תראו את השם ועבדתם אותו ובשמעתם בקולו ולא תמרו את פי השם. If you will be good, והייתם גם אתם וגם המלך אשר מלך עליכם אחר השם אלוהיכם. ואם לא תשמעו בקול השם ומריתם את פי השם, והייתה יד השם בכם ובאבותיכם.

It’s interesting this והייתה יד השם בכם ובאבותיכם. So the punishment will be back in history. *Ba’avoteichem*.

Anyway, the last verse again, *pasuk kaf dalet* and *kaf hei*: אך יראו את השם ועבדתם אותו באמת בכל לבבכם כי ראו את אשר הגדיל עמכם. ואם הרע תרעו גם אתם גם מלככם תספו.

So basically Shmuel says to them that you should learn from history that the real answer to all the problems is going back to Hashem. If you’ll be good, it will be good. And if not, even if you have a king, it won’t be good.

The 430-Year Pattern: Kingship as Bondage

And then *Sefer Melachim* establishes that again when he shows that they wanted the *melucha* to stay away from *shiabud*, stay away from *Mitzrayim*, stay away from enemies. And then they got all of that again and even worsened. So basically *Sefer Melachim* says, this is a problem. If you have *melucha* but you don’t do what is right, you will get *churban*.

And maybe one of the things—that’s actually, how is it called? Anyway, one of the most *koifrim* in the biblical studies, Julius Wellhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis. He’s not the father, but he did a good job of showing it to the world. Anyway, he found an interesting fact that if again you go back to the numbers, I won’t give you to add all the numbers up, but if you go to *Mamlechet Yehuda*, *Beit David*, from *Shlomo* to *Tzidkiyahu*, the sum is 434. 434. But *Beit Hamikdash* was built in the fourth year of *Shlomo*. So *Beit Hamikdash* was basically 430 years. 430 years.

Where else we have this number? *Shiabud Mitzrayim*. מושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו בארץ מצרים.

Egypt as Bookends of Melachim

So basically if we take all *Sefer Melachim*, we start with *Mitzrayim*. The first thing that *Shlomo* did was ויתחתן שלמה את פרעה מלך מצרים. And he is like פרעה מלך מצרים בימי יוסף. And then like the *shiabud*. And later, just to add up, *Rechavam* his son, what happened in his time? *Melech Mitzrayim*, *Shishak* comes and gets all the *otzarot*.

Anyway, we start with *Mitzrayim* in the background. And the last thing at the end of *Sefer Melachim*, after all the *churban* and stuff, when we get to *Gedaliahu* and *Yishmael ben Netanya* kills him, ויקומו כל העם מקטון ועד גדול ושרי החיילים ויבואו מצרים כי יראו מפני כשדים. So the end of *Sefer Melachim* is again *Mitzrayim*. So we finish the story in *Mitzrayim*.

So we have like an idea of 430 years of *Beit Hamikdash*, but again it’s a *shiabud* actually. You thought that *melucha* is a savior, but not. It’s a *shiabud*. That’s one of the ideas.

Yehoyachin as the New Yosef: A Light at the End of the Tunnel

But just to finish the idea with a not so desperate note, the end, the real end of *Sefer Melachim* is with a light at the end of the tunnel.

ויהי בשלושים ושבע שנה לגלות יהויכין בשנים עשר חודש בעשרים ושבעה לחודש, נשא אויל מרודך מלך בבל בשנת מלכו את ראש יהויכין מלך יהודה מבית כלא.

*Yehoyachin*, the last king before *Tzidkiyahu*, is put out of jail.

וידבר איתו טובות ויתן את כסאו מעל כסא המלכים אשר איתו בבבל ושנה את בגדי כלאו ואכל לחם תמיד לפניו כל ימי חייו.

That’s basically, again, Yosef. As you can see in the last page, ויהי בשלושים ושבע שנה, maybe a hint to ויוסף בן שלושים שנה ותעש הארץ בשבע שני השבע לקמצים, which is 30, and then there’s seven good years. And of course, all the *nasa et rosh*, *beit hakela*, ושנה את בגדי כלאו, ויתן את כסאו מעל כסא המלכים אשר איתו. It’s all basically making *Yehoyachin* the next Yosef.

So after all of that, *Sefer Melachim* says, okay, the first tryout wasn’t successful. Let’s try again, but do it correctly.

Did they? I’m not sure. We are Jews. It’s an *am kshe oref*. But still, we can still learn from it and do it better the next time. So try this.

Okay, so if you have questions or you want to wake up. Thank you. Thank you very much, I do think this is, I was wondering. Yeah.