Chapter 21 in Melachim A is one of the hardest and most formative chapters in the story of Achav: the affair of Navot's vineyard. Here we see how a king's private craving, combined with the incitement of a wicked woman, gives birth to a sophisticated judicial blood libel that ends in the murder of an upright man who was entirely innocent. And yet, precisely at the end of the chapter we learn one of the greatest lessons in the matters of teshuvah: what power there is in submission, even partial and flawed submission, before the Holy One, blessed be He.
וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כֶּרֶם הָיָה לְנָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי אֲשֶׁר בְּיִזְרְעֶאל אֵצֶל הֵיכַל אַחְאָב מֶלֶךְ שֹׁמְרוֹן׃ - And it came to pass after these things, that Navot the Yizreeli had a vineyard, which was in Yizreel, beside the palace of Achav king of Shomron.
Rashi explains: "After these things" - yet another matter to hasten his death. In the previous chapter we saw that Achav's death drew closer because he did not kill Ben Hadad, and he was told "your life shall be for his life." Now the verse comes to tell of another dreadful wrong that Achav committed, which was also a reason to hasten his death.
וַיְדַבֵּר אַחְאָב אֶל־נָבוֹת לֵאמֹר תְּנָה־לִּי אֶת־כַּרְמְךָ וִיהִי־לִי לְגַן־יָרָק כִּי הוּא קָרוֹב אֵצֶל בֵּיתִי וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ תַּחְתָּיו כֶּרֶם טוֹב מִמֶּנּוּ אִם טוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֶתְּנָה־לְךָ כֶּסֶף מְחִיר זֶה׃ - And Achav spoke to Navot, saying: Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near, beside my house; and I will give you for it a better vineyard than it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its worth in money.
The Malbim raises a difficulty: a king may break through fences and none may protest against him, and a king does as his spirit desires. The Torah itself granted him this power in the law of kingship, as Shmuel said to the people: "and your sons and your daughters he will take, your fields and your vineyards he will take and give to his servants." If so, why does Achav ask, enter into negotiations, meet a refusal, fall into depression, and in the end have to obtain the vineyard in the most vile way? Let him go and take what he wants!
The Malbim answers: indeed a king is permitted to expropriate property and take money, but all this is only for the needs of the kingship. He may enter an orchard, pick all its fruits, and give them to his soldiers; he may enter with his armies into a field and destroy everything in order to draw near to the battlefield, and he gives no accounting to anyone and pays nothing. But all of this is among the laws of kingship: for the needs of the kingship, and not for his private, personal needs.
Now Achav's kingdom was in Shomron, while the vineyard was in Yizreel. Had the king wished to expand the royal palace in Shomron, he would have taken the vineyard by force and there would have been no problem, since the expansion of the royal palace is part of the honor of the people and the honor of the kingship. But the vineyard was near "Achav's palace" in Yizreel - his private estate. A private estate you have no right to enlarge, and for its sake to take the lands surrounding it.
Beyond this, there are further opinions among Chazal that everything a king may take is not even for his own needs, but rather "and he shall take and give to his servants" - but the moment you take for yourself, it does not look good, since suspicion always arises that you took it for your own personal benefit. It emerges that here there were two problems: first, this was not for his servants but for himself; and second, it was for himself in an entirely private manner, not even as a king, for it was beside his palace in Yizreel and not in Shomron. And note the language of the verse: "because it is near, beside my house" - and not "beside my palace." My private house.
The Malbim further infers: Achav wants the vineyard in order to make it into a vegetable garden. That is, what does he intend to do with all the vines in the vineyard? To tear them out and destroy them. And already in this there is a problem, on account of the prohibition of destroying fruit trees.
And worse still: Navot understood that Achav intended to turn it into a garden for idol worship. For it was their practice to make gardens for idolatry, as it is written "and you shall be ashamed of the gardens that you have chosen", and likewise "those who sanctify and purify themselves toward the gardens". Shall the inheritance of my fathers serve you as a special place for idol worship? To such a thing there is no possibility of agreeing.
וַיֹּאמֶר נָבוֹת אֶל־אַחְאָב חָלִילָה לִּי מֵה' מִתִּתִּי אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי לָךְ׃ - And Navot said to Achav: Far be it from me, from Hashem, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you.
"Chalilah" is from the root chullin, profane: it would be a profanity to me. And two things were going on here. First, I do not sell the inheritance of my fathers: this is an inheritance from my father, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, from the time that Yehoshua divided the land. A person does not sell the inheritance of his fathers. And incidentally, according to the opinion of the Tosafot in Sanhedrin, since there was here a matter of ancestral inheritance, Navot was not obligated by law to give it, and even though the king asks, one is not bound to comply. And beyond this the Tosafot add a further reason: idol worship, for Navot understood that there was here an aim to turn the place into a place of idolatry.
But the Malbim reveals here an additional layer: Navot needled him. "Far be it from me, from Hashem, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers to you": you, Achav, went and abandoned the inheritance of your fathers. You sought out other gods for yourself, you went after the god Kemosh, the god of Tzidon, the Baal. I do not behave as you do; I have an ancestral inheritance, and the inheritance of my fathers is more precious to me than an inheritance of field and vineyard. The inheritance of my fathers is the service of Hashem and closeness to God, and that I will not sell for gain of money. But you: you sold the inheritance of your fathers, and for what? For Izevel.
וַיָּבֹא אַחְאָב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ סַר וְזָעֵף עַל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר אֵלָיו נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבוֹתָי וַיִּשְׁכַּב עַל־מִטָּתוֹ וַיַּסֵּב אֶת־פָּנָיו וְלֹא־אָכַל לָחֶם׃ - And Achav came to his house sullen and angry over the matter that Navot the Yizre'eli had spoken to him, saying: I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers. And he lay down on his bed and turned away his face and would not eat bread.
The main wound was not from the refusal itself, nor from his saying "I will not give you", but from his saying "I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers". Achav, as we said, was balanced, and this means that certain feelings toward the service of Hashem still remained in him. And when someone comes and gives him such a resounding slap in the face: you abandoned the inheritance of your fathers, I do not sell the inheritance of my fathers for gain of money, Achav was wounded to the depths of his soul.
Therefore Scripture did not suffice with "And Achav came to his house sullen and angry and turned away his face and would not eat bread", but repeated and specified "over the matter that Navot the Yizre'eli had spoken to him, saying: I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers", so that you should understand exactly what wounded him. Chazal say: the wicked are full of regrets. And therefore he was sullen and angry not only because he did not receive the vineyard, which in itself is enough to be angry over, but chiefly over the very statement, and he did not eat bread out of the depth of his grief.
וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֵלָיו מַה־זֶּה רוּחֲךָ סָרָה וְאֵינְךָ אֹכֵל לָחֶם׃ - And Izevel his wife came to him and spoke to him: Why is your spirit so sullen that you eat no bread?
וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ כִּי־אֲדַבֵּר אֶל־נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי וָאֹמַר לוֹ תְּנָה־לִּי אֶת־כַּרְמְךָ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ אִם־חָפֵץ אַתָּה אֶתְּנָה־לְךָ כֶּרֶם תַּחְתָּיו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת־כַּרְמִי׃ - And he spoke to her: Because I spoke to Navot the Yizre'eli and said to him, Give me your vineyard for money, or if you prefer, I will give you a vineyard in its place, and he said, I will not give you my vineyard.
Notice what disappeared here: "the inheritance of my fathers." Achav does not tell her this. He does not want to be ashamed before Izevel. For if he were to tell her that Navot had said "you have forsaken your God," she would ask him: and why are you so upset about it? And in truth he would be wounded again, because from this Izevel would understand that if he was hurt, it is a sign that he still has feelings for the God of Israel. For if the God of Israel meant nothing to me at all, then when someone tells me "you have forsaken your God," I would reply: true, I have forsaken Him, so what? But if I was hurt, that is proof that there is still feeling in my heart for the God of Israel and that I regret my deeds, and this is the depth of the wound. And this he could not allow himself to display before Izevel, since she was the driving force behind all his evil deeds.
Nevertheless, the text proves that he did tell her to some extent. For two expressions are written here: "and he spoke to her" and afterward "and I said to him." The additional speech hints at something else that was said but is not stated explicitly, because Achav presented it as marginal. He pushed the personal wound to the sidelines and marked the main point as: "and he said I will not give you my vineyard" - that is what eats at me, I want the vineyard very much.
וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אַתָּה עַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלוּכָה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל קוּם אֱכׇל־לֶחֶם וְיִטַב לִבֶּךָ אֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת־כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי׃ - And Izevel his wife said to him: Do you now exercise kingship over Israel? Arise, eat bread, and let your heart be glad; I will give you the vineyard of Navot the Yizre'eli.
The Metzudat David explains it simply, as an expression of wonder: are you preparing to be a king? Are you preparing to lead a people? A king is one who does not wait to see what others will say, but goes and does and acts. Someone said something to you, you were hurt, and you went home? What you cannot achieve by force, apply more force. And we will soon see how much force she herself invested in this.
But the Malbim, as is his way, sees an additional depth here. There is a difference between a king who is only beginning to establish his reign and a king whose reign is well established and comes to him by inheritance from generations. A king who is beginning to establish his reign is dependent upon and subject to the conditions of the people, and must conduct himself exactly according to the law of the monarchy and not deviate from protocol, since his reign is still shaky and he has no unlimited authority from the people. But a king who has already reigned for years and several generations allows himself things that do not exactly fit protocol and would not exactly pass the attorney general and the High Court, and he answers to no one. This is what she said to him: "Do you now exercise kingship?" - are you only now beginning to reign? One who is beginning to reign is afraid, but you have nothing to fear: your father Omri was a king, and you have reigned for many years. Arise, eat bread, and I will see to the vineyard for you. It only needs to be done in a clever way, a scheme, as they say.
וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב וַתַּחְתֹּם בְּחֹתָמוֹ וַתִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים וְאֶל־הַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר בְּעִירוֹ הַיֹּשְׁבִים אֶת־נָבוֹת׃ - And she wrote letters in Achav's name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and to the nobles who were in his city, who dwelt with Navot.
וַתִּכְתֹּב בַּסְּפָרִים לֵאמֹר קִרְאוּ־צוֹם וְהֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת־נָבוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃ - And she wrote in the letters, saying: Proclaim a fast, and set Navot at the head of the people.
וְהוֹשִׁיבוּ שְׁנַיִם אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל נֶגְדּוֹ וִיעִדֻהוּ לֵאמֹר בֵּרַכְתָּ אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וְהוֹצִיאֻהוּ וְסִקְלֻהוּ וְיָמֹת׃ - And seat two men, base fellows, opposite him, and let them testify against him, saying: You have blasphemed God and the king; and then take him out and stone him that he may die.
These verses are very difficult. Why "letters" in the plural and not a single letter ("sefer" here means a written document)? Why both elders and nobles? And why specifically those in his city, "who dwelt with Navot"?
And before this the Malbim asks two fundamental questions. First, how could such an atrocity have been carried out? Even among the corrupt nations we have not heard of such a thing, that a king murders a man in order to take his vineyard. Second, how did Izevel not fear that the elders and the nobles would refuse? They might say: for a vineyard we should risk our lives to kill a man? And more than that, they were liable to publicize the matter, and for far less than this monarchies have fallen. How did she not fear that the monarchy would fall following the exposure of such a terrible act of corruption? For no nation would agree to such a king, where today it is you, tomorrow him, and the day after me. And how did this pass quietly, with all the nobles and elders fulfilling her wishes and killing Navot who had done no wrong, and no one arising to say: gentlemen, this is an injustice, we do not agree?
The Malbim explains: Izevel understood that in his words Navot intended to disgrace idolatry and to disgrace the king, two separate things. "You have abandoned the inheritance of your fathers, taking for yourself broken cisterns that hold no water" - this is a disgracing of idolatry. And the very refusal to the king, and saying these words to his face, is a disgracing of the king. So there are two sins here, and for each one he must be judged before a different body: for disgracing idolatry he is brought to trial before the elders, and for disgracing the king before the officers, who are the "nobles." Therefore she sent letters to the elders and to the nobles: you elders shall judge him for disgracing idolatry, and you nobles, the officers, shall judge him for disgracing the king.
And in those letters it was written: I, Achav, testify that Navot disgraced me and disgraced idolatry. True or false? True. There is nothing here that is untrue. He indeed disgraced idolatry and Achav, and she asks that he be judged for it.
"Proclaim a fast" - simply put, this means a fast. But the Radak brings an explanation in the name of his father, that "tzom" is a time of gathering and assembly, from the expression "tzomet hagidin" - a place where there is a gathering and abundance of sinews. So too "a fast and an assembly" is a place of gathering and assembly of the people. That is: gather everyone together.
And here lies the cunning. According to law, Achav himself should have come to the court and testified. Izevel said to them: here before you is the king's handwriting, his signature and his seal, that Navot blasphemed God and king ("God" meaning idolatry), and you surely believe that his words are true and it is clear to you that he is not lying. But for the king to come and testify before a court that Navot disgraced him, this is not fitting for his honor, it is a disgrace to the king. Had there been here only a disgracing of his god, the king would have come and testified, for it is not a personal matter; but here there is a personal offense, and it is not fitting for the king's honor to come and say "he disgraced me, he offended me."
Therefore: you will carry out the cunning. Bring witnesses to testify that the thing happened before them. Now, there is no lie here in the actual facts. The lie is only in their saying that they saw what they did not see, but the facts themselves are true. And this is why the elders do not object: about the facts themselves there is no dispute, for the king himself testifies to them; you only carry out this cunning so that the king will not be forced to come and testify.
Therefore, "proclaim a fast and seat Navot at the head of the people" - as is done with those condemned to death, so that all may see. And regarding the phrase "and seat two men, scoundrels, opposite him," the Malbim is precise: it does not mean that they are scoundrels in themselves, but scoundrels "opposite him" - when they testify against him about what they did not see, that will be an act of a scoundrel; but in themselves they are not scoundrels, for the facts are true.
וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ הַזְּקֵנִים וְהַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעִירוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם אִיזָבֶל כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּתוּב בַּסְּפָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם׃ - And the men of his city, the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Izevel had sent to them, as was written in the letters that she had sent to them.
They did exactly as she told them. That is, everyone knew that the testimony was false - the men of his city, the elders, and the nobles - but they believed that the facts were true. The witnesses were false, the facts were true, and so they agreed to the matter itself. And why were they drawn to this? Two reasons appear in the text. First, "the men of his city... who dwelt in his city" - they had hatred toward him, the envy of neighbors and fellow townsmen. And second, "as was written in the letters that she had sent to them" - I am only following orders. This is what was written, this is what Izevel requested, this is what we did. That was their justification.
קָרְאוּ צוֹם וְהֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת־נָבוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃ - They proclaimed a fast and seated Navot at the head of the people.
וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל וַיֵּשְׁבוּ נֶגְדּוֹ וַיְעִדֻהוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַבְּלִיַּעַל אֶת־נָבוֹת נֶגֶד הָעָם לֵאמֹר בֵּרַךְ נָבוֹת אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר וַיִּסְקְלֻהוּ בָאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת׃ - And the two men, worthless fellows, came in and sat before him, and the worthless men bore witness against him, against Navot, before the people, saying: Navot blasphemed God and the king. And they took him outside the city and stoned him with stones, and he died.
Note the precision here: it does not say "worthless fellows against him," but simply "worthless fellows." The Malbim explains: because in truth they brought two men who were essentially worthless, corrupt men in their very nature, not people who were themselves upright and only became worthless in this matter. And they testified before the entire people and before the judges, the elders and the nobles: "Navot blasphemed God and the king." Even though they did not see it with their own eyes, they relied on the fact that Izevel testifies that Achav testifies that this is what happened, and only a technical impediment prevents him from testifying himself. And if the facts are correct, we can testify with full confidence, and for this he deserves punishment.
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ אֶל־אִיזֶבֶל לֵאמֹר סֻקַּל נָבוֹת וַיָּמֹת׃ - And they sent to Izevel, saying: Navot has been stoned and is dead.
They sent her word: the mission was crowned with success.
וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ אִיזֶבֶל כִּי־סֻקַּל נָבוֹת וַיָּמֹת וַתֹּאמֶר אִיזֶבֶל אֶל־אַחְאָב קוּם רֵשׁ אֶת־כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי אֲשֶׁר מֵאֵן לָתֶת־לְךָ בְכֶסֶף כִּי אֵין נָבוֹת חַי כִּי־מֵת׃ - And it came to pass, when Izevel heard that Navot had been stoned and was dead, that Izevel said to Achav: Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Navot the Yizre'elite, which he refused to give you for money, for Navot is not alive but dead.
"Arise, take possession" - what does inheritance have to do with this? We have a halachic principle: the property of those executed by the king goes to the king, and the property of those executed by the court goes to the heirs. So we saw with Yoav, who fled and grasped the horns of the altar so that he would not fall into the category of those executed by the king but rather those executed by the court, and consequently his property would go to his heirs.
Here there were two transgressions: he cursed the king and he cursed God, that is, the idol. For disgracing the idol he is liable to stoning, and therefore he was stoned. For disgracing the king, the nobles, the officials, judged him, and his liability is death by the sword and his property to the king. And ostensibly, since he was in fact stoned, it turns out that he was sentenced for cursing God, and that falls into the category of those executed by the court, and his property goes to the heirs!
To this Izevel says: No. Since there were here two liabilities of death, both on account of cursing the king and on account of cursing God, we have the principle "he is condemned to the more severe of them" - we impose the more severe, and therefore they gave him stoning. But this does not mean that they sentenced him only for cursing God; they sentenced him also for cursing the king, and consequently he falls into the category of those executed by the king, and his property goes to the king. Therefore: "Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Navot."
This is also the emphasis of "And it came to pass, when Izevel heard that Navot had been stoned and was dead" - to tell you: even though he was stoned, there is not merely a law of stoning here, but the law of death by the sword is also included in it, and consequently there is here the law of those executed by the king whose property goes to the king. And this is the meaning of "for Navot is not alive but dead": for otherwise, what is the novelty, since if he is not alive he is surely dead? Rather, on account of cursing the king his death is by the sword, and on account of cursing God by stoning, and behold, in fact he is not alive - and if he is not alive, then the lighter punishment, death by the sword, is also included in this. And if so, the vineyard comes to you as an heir.
וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ אַחְאָב כִּי מֵת נָבוֹת וַיָּקׇם אַחְאָב לָרֶדֶת אֶל־כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי לְרִשְׁתּוֹ׃ - And it came to pass, when Achav heard that Navot was dead, that Achav arose to go down to the vineyard of Navot the Yizre'elite, to take possession of it.
Therefore it says specifically "that Navot was dead" and not "that Navot had been stoned" - for by the law of "dead" the king has the right to inherit his property.
וַיְהִי דְּבַר־ה' אֶל־אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי לֵאמֹר׃ קוּם רֵד לִקְרַאת אַחְאָב מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר בְּשֹׁמְרוֹן הִנֵּה בְּכֶרֶם נָבוֹת אֲשֶׁר־יָרַד שָׁם לְרִשְׁתּוֹ׃ - And the word of Hashem came to Eliyahu the Tishbi, saying: Arise, go down to meet Achav king of Israel who is in Shomron; behold, he is in the vineyard of Navot, where he has gone down to take possession of it.
The emphasis "king of Israel who is in Shomron" points precisely to the issue with which we opened: had the vineyard been in Shomron, you would still have had some claim to it, under the law of expanding the royal palace and the needs of the king. But you are a king who is in Shomron, and the vineyard is in Yizrael, so what connection is there between Shomron and Yizrael? This was a private matter, and you had no permission under the law to take it.
וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר כֹּה אָמַר ה' הֲרָצַחְתָּ וְגַם־יָרָשְׁתָּ וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו לֵאמֹר כֹּה אָמַר ה' בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר לָקְקוּ הַכְּלָבִים אֶת־דַּם נָבוֹת יָלֹקּוּ הַכְּלָבִים אֶת־דָּמְךָ גַּם־אָתָּה׃ - And you shall speak to him, saying: Thus says Hashem, Have you murdered and also inherited? And you shall speak to him, saying: Thus says Hashem, In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Navot, the dogs shall lick your blood, yours too.
"Have you murdered and also inherited?" - Did you kill him by law, that you should arise and inherit him under the rule that the property of those executed by the king goes to the king? Your deed is an act of murder! And how do you want both to murder and to inherit? And the Metzudat David adds: Is it possible that you murdered him as an enemy, and now you come and inherit him as a close relative and friend? On the one hand he was hated by you and your enemy to the point that you murdered him, and on the other hand you suddenly become his relative and his heir?
וַיֹּאמֶר אַחְאָב אֶל־אֵלִיָּהוּ הַמְצָאתַנִי אֹיְבִי וַיֹּאמֶר מָצָאתִי יַעַן הִתְמַכֶּרְךָ לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה'׃ - And Achav said to Eliyahu: Have you found me, my enemy? And he said: I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do that which is evil in the eyes of Hashem.
See how much insolence he had. "Have you found me, my enemy" - have you found me guilty of this sin? Did I murder him? The one who killed him was Izevel; my hand was not in the wrongdoing, my hands are clean.
To this Eliyahu replies: "I have found you" - yes, you are the murderer. For "because you have sold yourself to do that which is evil in the eyes of Hashem" - you sold yourself to your wife to carry out all her evil will, and you are like a slave to her to fulfill all her directives and commands. And consequently everything comes back to you: your obligation and your responsibility, that everything she does is considered as if you did it, for you sold yourself to her as a slave and it is as if you said: whatever she will do is by my authority, and I set my seal on everything with eyes shut.
And Chazal expound in the Midrash: What is "you have sold yourself to do evil"? That he would erase the mentions of Hashem's name and write in their place the name of the Baal - "In the beginning the Baal created," "And the Baal spoke." In every place where the name of Hashem or Elokim was written, that wicked man would write the name of the Baal. And this is what the verse says, "who plan to make My name cease." He sold himself to commit an act of transgression.
הִנְנִי מֵבִי אֵלֶיךָ רָעָה וּבִעַרְתִּי אַחֲרֶיךָ וְהִכְרַתִּי לְאַחְאָב מַשְׁתִּין בְּקִיר וְעָצוּר וְעָזוּב בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - Behold, I am bringing evil upon you, and I will sweep away after you, and I will cut off from Achav every male, both bond and free in Israel.
This will not be a merely personal matter, but the entire root of Achav will be uprooted, and no continuation will remain to the dynasty of the house of Achav; rather it will be utterly erased from the face of the earth.
And what is "one who urinates against the wall"? The expression appears many times in Tanach, and it has several interpretations. One interpretation: one who urinates against the wall is a dog, meaning that not even a dog will remain to you. A second interpretation: one who urinates against the wall means a man, for it is a man who urinates against the wall, so "I will cut off from him every man." And a third explanation: "mashtin" from the term "mashit," to set and to place - one who sets things upon the walls of his heart, meaning every person of understanding, every one possessed of wisdom and intellect, all of them I will cut off.
And what is "restrained and abandoned"? One interpretation: that they should not say of any animal or anything that remains, "this was restrained from the house of Achav," "this was abandoned from the house of Achav" - nothing will remain, everything will be erased. Another interpretation: "restrained" is the money that was kept in the houses, "abandoned" is the flocks and cattle that are left out in the field - there will remain to you neither what is in the field nor what is in the houses. And Chazal expound: restrained in this world and abandoned to the world to come, and Chazal say that Achav is one of the four kings who have no portion in the world to come.
וְנָתַתִּי אֶת־בֵּיתְךָ כְּבֵית יָרׇבְעָם בֶּן־נְבָט וּכְבֵית בַּעְשָׁא בֶן־אֲחִיָּה אֶל־הַכַּעַס אֲשֶׁר הִכְעַסְתָּ וַתַּחֲטִא אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And I will make your house like the house of Yaravam ben Nevat and like the house of Basha ben Achiya, because of the provocation with which you provoked Me, and caused Yisrael to sin.
Just as we saw with Yaravam ben Nevat, that such a promise was spoken about him and was fulfilled in him and Hashem cut him off entirely, and just as with the house of Basha ben Achiya, about whom such a promise was also spoken and was fulfilled - so too you. And for what? "Because of the provocation with which you provoked Me, and caused Yisrael to sin" - for you did this in order to provoke and in order to cause Yisrael to sin.
וְגַם־לְאִיזֶבֶל דִּבֶּר ה' לֵאמֹר הַכְּלָבִים יֹאכְלוּ אֶת־אִיזֶבֶל בְּחֵל יִזְרְעֶאל׃ - And also concerning Izevel Hashem spoke, saying: The dogs shall eat Izevel in the valley of Yizreel.
"In the valley of Yizreel" means in the plain of Yizreel, in the ravine of Yizreel. You say, "It is not I, it is she"? She too has an accounting, and she too will receive what is coming to her, and as we will see further on, this actually came to pass.
הַמֵּת לְאַחְאָב בָּעִיר יֹאכְלוּ הַכְּלָבִים וְהַמֵּת בַּשָּׂדֶה יֹאכְלוּ עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ - He of Achav who dies in the city the dogs shall eat, and he who dies in the field the birds of the heavens shall eat.
Since what is found in the city are dogs, the one who dies in the city will be eaten by dogs; and since in the field the birds of the heavens are found, the one who dies in the field will be eaten by the birds of the heavens.
רַק לֹא־הָיָה כְאַחְאָב אֲשֶׁר הִתְמַכֵּר לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה' אֲשֶׁר־הֵסַתָּה אֹתוֹ אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ׃ - But there was none like Achav, who sold himself to do evil in the eyes of Hashem, whom Izevel his wife incited.
The verse testifies that there were no kings like him. But seemingly, we have seen wicked kings, and we have seen Yaravam ben Nevat! Rather, Rashi says: they worshipped the calves out of fear. What was their fear? If we leave the people going up to Yerushalayim, we will lose the kingship. Therefore let us make for them an alternative Temple, let us set up calves here for them to worship so that they will not need to go up to Yerushalayim. This was the mindset that led them to idolatry - there is here a matter of fear, that they feared the people would abandon them. But with Achav it was not so; rather, "you sold yourself to do evil" - you did it in order to provoke, you sold yourself to idolatry.
The Yerushalmi relates: Chiel of Beit HaEli was his groomsman - meaning his beloved friend and companion - and every day he would set his own value and give it to idol worship. That is, he would assess himself, how much he was worth, and each day give his value in silver and gold to idol worship. There was none as wicked as Achav.
Beyond this, the Malbim adds a further dimension of wickedness: Achav sold himself to the will of others. All the other kings did evil of their own accord, and that is less severe than a king who does evil and sells himself to others. When a person sells himself to his wife to do evil, it means he has no limits: wherever she goes with her evil, he goes with her. That is "hitmakerchah" (your having sold yourself). When a person does evil of his own accord, there comes a point where he says: enough, this far and no further. But when you sell yourself to do evil according to wherever your wife will drag you, there is no boundary and no limit to how much evil you will do.
וַיַּתְעֵב מְאֹד לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי הַגִּלֻּלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ הָאֱמֹרִי אֲשֶׁר הוֹרִישׁ ה' מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - And he acted most abominably by following idols, just as the Emori had done, whom the Lord dispossessed before the children of Israel.
Both in quality and in quantity, he committed much abomination by following the idols. With Yeravam and the other kings there was a concern that they might lose their throne, but here "he acted most abominably by following the idols" - to cling to them completely, just as the Emori had done; not out of self interest, but out of a genuine desire to cling to them.
וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אַחְאָב אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיִּקְרַע בְּגָדָיו וַיָּשֶׂם־שַׂק עַל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וַיָּצוֹם וַיִּשְׁכַּב בַּשָּׂק וַיְהַלֵּךְ אַט׃ - And it came to pass, when Achav heard these words, that he tore his garments and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and walked softly.
When Achav heard the harsh prophecy, he tore his garments, placed sackcloth on his flesh, afflicted himself, and walked "softly" - like an outcast, like a mourner. And Chazal add: "and walked softly" - that he would walk in secret, so that people would not see him as a mourner and an outcast, since that is not befitting the honor of the king.
וַיְהִי דְּבַר־ה' אֶל־אֵלִיָּהוּ הַתִּשְׁבִּי לֵאמֹר׃ הֲרָאִיתָ כִּי־נִכְנַע אַחְאָב מִלְּפָנָי יַעַן כִּי־נִכְנַע מִפָּנַי לֹא־אָבִי הָרָעָה בְּיָמָיו בִּימֵי בְנוֹ אָבִיא הָרָעָה עַל־בֵּיתוֹ׃ - And the word of the Lord came to Eliyahu the Tishbi, saying: Have you seen how Achav has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days; in the days of his son I will bring the evil upon his house.
Why does it first say "before Me" (milefanai) and then "before Me" (mipanai)? In truth Achav did not repent, but Achav submitted himself. Submission means that he showed the matter pained him, that it touched him, that he feared what was coming. And this is far better than a person who continues on his way and is not moved at all by what Hashem tells him. The very act of submission is a great virtue, one that sufficed for the Holy One, blessed be He, not to bring all the evil upon him in his own days, but only in the days of his son.
The Malbim makes a precise distinction: "milefanai" refers to the greatness and exaltedness of Hashem, may He be blessed, while "mipanai" refers to fear of punishment - fear of Him. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Eliyahu: Have you seen that Achav has humbled himself before Me? When you see his submission, does it appear to you that he submitted out of the greatness and exaltedness of Hashem? Know that it is not so: "because he has humbled himself before Me" - not out of My exaltedness, but only out of fear of Me, that is what brought him to it. And nevertheless, even though this is not repentance, and even though it is an inferior submission - not submission before His exaltedness but only so that the stick would not come down on his head - it still availed.
From here we see how great the virtue of submission is. It is remarkable that he has faith, even though he does not yet have awe of His exaltedness. And what is so novel about such submission? You tell a person: You saw? I pointed a rifle at him, you saw how he submitted? Thank you very much, with a rifle anyone submits. That is what is being said to him here. And yet, there is a lofty and immense virtue for a person to know - the very essence of repentance is submission before Hashem, the understanding that there is punishment for this, that there is judgment and there is a Judge.
The Malbim says: Know that had he repented with complete repentance, the entire decree would have been annulled. But since he did not repent and only displayed submission, and inferior submission at that, therefore the decree was not entirely annulled but only received a postponement. Had Achav not submitted, reality would have demanded that Yehu be anointed king immediately, and he would have killed Achav and his household at once, as this prophecy had already been transmitted to Eliyahu. But in the merit of his submission he received a postponement, as we see that for three years nothing happened - "and they dwelt three years without war between Aram and Israel," as the next chapter opens. What brought about those three years? That very submission.
Chapter 21 opens with a small vineyard beside a private home, and it ends with a verdict against the dynasty of Shlomo. Achav has no right to take the vineyard, since a king's authority is for royal needs and not for his personal use, and Navot is unwilling to give up his ancestral inheritance, both because of the inheritance itself and because he understood that the place was intended for idol worship. His sharp reply strikes Achav precisely at the place where feelings for the God of Israel still remained in him, and when Izevel incites him she weaves a sophisticated plot: letters sealed with the king's seal, judges on either side, two wicked witnesses, and a verdict that also includes the law of those executed by the crown so as to gain the inheritance. Eliyahu arrives at the vineyard with "Have you murdered and also taken possession?" and Achav tries to evade responsibility, but one who has sold himself to the will of others is accountable for everything done in his name. And yet, at the end of the chapter an opening appears: Achav submits, even though he submits only out of fear of punishment and not out of awe of God's greatness, and by virtue of that submission alone the decree was postponed. This is not a complete repentance that annuls the decree, but it teaches how great is the power of a simple recognition that there is judgment and there is a Judge.