Chapter 17 of Melachim A opens the story of Eliyahu the prophet: he swears in the name of Hashem that there will be no dew or rain except by his word, and as a result of this decree he must hide at the brook of Kerit, where he drinks from the brook and the ravens sustain him. Once the brook dries up, the Holy One, blessed be He, sends him to Tzarfat, which belongs to Tzidon, to a widow who was commanded to sustain him. From there onward two great miracles unfold: the jar of flour and the jug of oil, and the revival of the widow's son. We will follow the order of the pesukim, chiefly according to the profound explanation of the Malbim.
"And Behold, There Was a Widow" - A Summons From Heaven
וַיָּקָם וַיֵּלֶךְ צָרְפַתָה וַיָּבֹא אֶל־פֶּתַח הָעִיר וְהִנֵּה־שָׁם אִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת עֵצִים וַיִּקְרָא אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר קְחִי־נָא לִי מְעַט־מַיִם בַּכְּלִי וְאֶשְׁתֶּה. - So he arose and went to Tzarfat, and he came to the entrance of the city, and behold, there was a widow gathering wood, and he called to her and said: Please fetch me a little water in a vessel, that I may drink.
Why did Eliyahu first ask her for water? At the simple level, he was thirsty. But Chazal, and so Rashi brings, explain that Eliyahu did not know who the widow was with whom the Holy One, blessed be He, had designated him to dwell, and he decided to follow the way of Eliezer the servant of Avraham: "the maiden to whom I say, please let down your jug that I may drink" - the one who is ready to give water to drink is the one designated for kindness, and through her the abundance will flow.
The Malbim is precise in the phrase "and behold, there was a widow gathering wood": it does not mean that her home was at the entrance of the city, and when he arrived he saw her, but rather that she happened to be there in order to gather wood, and Hashem summoned her there so that Eliyahu would meet her quickly. How does he know this? The Malbim holds a rule in the Holy Tongue that wherever "and behold" is stated, it indicates something new that was not there before.
I mentioned this matter in the book "Mishnat HaChalomot": the dreams recorded in Scripture are full of the word "and behold" - "and behold, my sheaf arose and stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and bowed down to my sheaf", "and behold, cows coming up out of the river", "and behold, on the vine were three branches". Why? Because for a person who sees a dream, each segment is for him something new, an astonishment, and especially since a true dream comes with astonishment. And another explanation: "and behold" is always a living and vivid expression, as if I am seeing it before my eyes right now. So too here: "and behold, there was a widow gathering wood" - something new happened here, Hashem summoned her there, and she came for the sake of Eliyahu.
The Water and the Bread - A Measured Test
וַתֵּלֶךְ לָקַחַת וַיִּקְרָא אֵלֶיהָ וַיֹּאמַר לִקְחִי־נָא לִי פַּת־לֶחֶם בְּיָדֵךְ. - And she went to fetch it, and he called to her and said: Please bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.
Eliyahu wants to know what she lacks: water or bread. He begins with water, for Hashem had moved him from the brook of Kerit precisely because of the water, since the brook had dried up. The moment she goes to bring him water, he understands that water is not what she lacks. If so, what does she lack? Bread. And therefore, right as she is going, he asks for "a morsel of bread."
And why specifically "a morsel"? A morsel is a piece, from the expression "crumble it into pieces" - cut it into small pieces. He does not ask her for a large piece. And this is proper conduct: a person should always ask for a small amount, and if the other side wishes, they will give him more.
The Widow's Reply: "If I Have Any Cake"
וַתֹּאמֶר חַי־יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אִם־יֶשׁ־לִי מָעוֹג כִּי אִם־מְלֹא כַף־קֶמַח בַּכַּד וּמְעַט־שֶׁמֶן בַּצַּפָּחַת וְהִנְנִי מְקֹשֶׁשֶׁת שְׁנַיִם עֵצִים וּבָאתִי וַעֲשִׂיתִיהוּ לִי וְלִבְנִי וַאֲכַלְנֻהוּ וָמָתְנוּ. - And she said: As Hashem your God lives, I have no cake, only a handful of flour in the jar and a little oil in the jug, and behold, I am gathering a couple of sticks, and I will go in and prepare it for myself and my son, that we may eat it and die.
She swears to him by Hashem her God that she has no "ma'og" in her house, meaning prepared bread. "Ma'og" comes from the root meaning circle, as in "he drew a circle (ag ugah) and stood within it" - the intent there is not baking a cake but drawing a circle. Bread was baked round, and therefore it was called "ma'og" or "ugah," like the pita of our times. This is also what the children sing, "ugah, ugah, ugah, in a circle we dance" - it is not about a cake at all but about a circle. And by the way, even the source of the word "challah" is from the same idea: challah is from the word machol (dance circle), for they would make the challot round. Circle, round, dance circle, ma'og - it is all one idea.
And what does she have? "A handful of flour in a jar." "Kaf" is not a spoon but the palm of the hand, and so Yonatan translates: the fill of the palm of her hand. Earlier generations would speak with gestures and measure by hand: showing with the finger such a size, such a length, "the full of a double sit" between the finger and the thumb and the ring finger. This was their way, to indicate measures with their hands, and this was the usual quantity. So too we always estimate in standard quantities: a thumb, two fingers, eggs - standard chicken eggs and the like.
"And we shall eat it and die" - the Holy One, blessed be He, does not perform a miracle for nothing
Why must she emphasize "and we shall eat it and die"? The Malbim explains: Hashem does not perform a miracle for nothing, but only when there is a great need. As long as she still had enough to eat, there was no need for a miracle, and as long as there was no need for a miracle, Eliyahu was not sent there and the miracle did not begin. But when she reached the last portion, when only enough was left to sustain her and her son, then Hashem sends Eliyahu - now the situation is fitting for a miracle to be performed so that she not die. And this is what she emphasizes: "and we shall eat it and die" - this is the time fitting for a miracle, to save her from death.
"Make me from it a small cake first"
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ אֵלִיָּהוּ אַל־תִּירְאִי בֹּאִי עֲשִׂי כִדְבָרֵךְ אַךְ עֲשִׂי־לִי־מִשָּׁם עֻגָה קְטַנָּה בָרִאשֹׁנָה וְהוֹצֵאת לִי וְלָךְ וְלִבְנֵךְ תַּעֲשִׂי בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. - And Eliyahu said to her: Do not fear, go and do as you have said, but first make me from it a small cake and bring it out to me, and for yourself and your son you shall make afterward.
On the face of it this is puzzling: why does Eliyahu put himself before her? Especially since this is not proper conduct and courtesy, that a person who comes to lean on the table of others should ask to be given first and the host last. Surely there is something here. And several explanations have been offered on the matter.
The first explanation, the plain sense of the verse, and so says the Radak: he was hungry. Eliyahu came from a long journey and had not eaten for a long time, and it is possible that the matter even bordered on danger to life, and therefore, because of the greatness of his hunger, he had to eat first.
The second explanation, brought in the Me'am Loez and in other commentators, is based on the Gemara that Eliyahu the prophet was a Kohen. How do we know? Eliyahu is Pinchas, and there it is asked how he could occupy himself with the burial of Rabbi Akiva when he is a Kohen. And what does a Kohen deserve? The separation of challah, and it is called terumah which is separated at the outset. Therefore he said to her "and bring it out to me" - a term of separation, separate it for me: since I am a Kohen, first give to me as is the law of separating challah, which comes first.
And the Malbim, in his way, reveals here an additional depth. Eliyahu knows that the flour and the oil will not multiply for his own sake, since his very preparation is opposed to increase and miracle: after all, he is the one who shut the gates of abundance, and it is not possible that the abundance should be opened for his sake. If Eliyahu needs abundance, he must come through someone else - and therefore it came to him through the brook Kerit, and afterward through the ravens who sustained him from the table of Achav or Yehoshafat. But through his own path there is no way abundance would arrive, for on the contrary, he stopped the abundance.
Therefore he said to her: here is a cake that needs to multiply. If you eat first and I last, it turns out that I would be eating from what multiplied by miracle - and for me no miracle would be performed. Therefore let us do the opposite: here is a cake that has enough for me, and what already exists I will eat, while what will multiply by miracle - you will eat. And after the abundance begins to multiply for your sake, then automatically I too will be able to continue and benefit from it. It turns out that it was necessary for Eliyahu to eat first, for he eats from what exists in any case, and only afterward, when the abundance comes for her sake, by virtue of her righteousness and merit, will Eliyahu be able to benefit from it incidentally.
I always say: a person studies all the commentators, and when he reaches the Malbim he understands "here is where you settled it right" - this is the plain meaning of the verses. He grasps the depth of the matter and leaves the other commentators. Heaven forbid to belittle the other commentators, but of the Malbim the great ones of Israel said that many of his explanations were spoken with divine inspiration.
"כֹּה אָמַר ה'" - a blessing of something from nothing
כִּי כֹה אָמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא תִכְלָה וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן לֹא תֶחְסָר עַד יוֹם תֵּת־יְהֹוָה גֶּשֶׁם עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. - For thus says Hashem, the God of Israel: The jar of flour shall not run out and the jug of oil shall not fail, until the day Hashem sends rain upon the face of the earth.
The Malbim explains: Eliyahu stresses to her that this is not according to his words but according to Hashem. In contrast, by Elisha, in the blessing he gave in the widow's oil, it is written that it was according to his word. And here, why "thus says Hashem"? As we explained: Eliyahu himself was not fit for such abundance, since it was he who shut off the channels of abundance. The one fit for it is the woman, and the abundance comes because Hashem commanded it.
One must understand that there is a difference between abundance that comes through a prophet and by his power, and abundance that comes by the will of Hashem and by His decree. The prophet has power only to bring forth something from something, whereas the decree of Hashem brings forth and creates something from nothing. Note something interesting: by Elisha, when he gave a blessing in the oil, what did he tell the Shunamite woman to bring? Vessels. And until when did the oil flow? Until the vessels ran out, and then it stopped. There are indeed two expositions of Chazal there regarding the word "stood," but let us follow the plain meaning: the oil ceased to flow.
Here it is not so. The jar of flour on its own keeps producing all the time, and the jug of oil keeps giving. They did not need vessels to pour into. There, through the prophet, it is something from something, and it comes to an end. Here, since it is according to the word of Hashem, it is something from nothing: even if nothing remains in the jar, the jar will keep on giving.
Therefore the Malbim is precise: it does not say "the flour shall not run out" but "the jar of flour shall not run out." The flour itself may run out, and that is of no consequence, for the vessel will continue to produce new flour. From where? From nothing, because "thus says Hashem." Had this been according to the word of the prophet, no prophet can make something from nothing, and at most he needs an existing "something": this is why Elisha asked the Shunamite woman what she had in the house. If there is a flask of oil, from that something can be made, and if there is nothing, there is nothing to do. Here, by contrast, the vessel can always pour out abundance, for the blessing rests in the vessel and not in the existing substance, not in the flour itself and not in the oil itself.
"וַתֹּאכַל הִיא־וָהוּא" - the kri and the ktiv
וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתַּעֲשֶׂה כִּדְבַר אֵלִיָּהוּ וַתֹּאכַל הִיא־וָהוּא וּבֵיתָהּ יָמִים. כַּד הַקֶּמַח לֹא כָלָתָה וְצַפַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶן לֹא חָסֵר כִּדְבַר יְהֹוָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּיַד אֵלִיָּהוּ. - And she went and did according to the word of Eliyahu, and she and he and her household ate for many days. The jar of flour did not run out and the jug of oil did not fail, according to the word of Hashem that He spoke through Eliyahu.
She made the cake from what she had, not from what had been blessed, and from that she gave to him first and only afterward took for herself, since the essence of the blessing was for her sake and not for Eliyahu's. From this we understand why it is written "and she and he ate": here it speaks of the continued eating, and from now on by whose merit does Eliyahu eat? By her merit, for the blessing rested because of her. He is secondary to her and eats by her merit, as it says "behold, I have commanded a widow there to sustain you": your sustenance depends on her.
And why is the ktiv "he and she"? Because regarding that same cake which she made just now and served to him, he ate first, as he requested, "make me one first." But from here on, by whose merit is the blessing? By her merit, and therefore she is the one who eats the blessing first: "she and he." Both matters are true, and both are hinted at in the kri and the ktiv.
Likewise "the jar of flour did not run out": not that the flour did not run out, but that the jar did not cease from pouring and did not stop giving of its blessing. And why is there no need for an existing substance in order to give a blessing? "According to the word of Hashem that He spoke through Eliyahu": since this is the word of Hashem, it is possible for it to give abundance always, even when there is no existing substance from which to bring it forth.
"וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" - the illness of the son
וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה חָלָה בֶּן־הָאִשָּׁה בַּעֲלַת הַבָּיִת וַיְהִי חָלְיוֹ חָזָק מְאֹד עַד אֲשֶׁר לֹא־נוֹתְרָה־בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה. - And it came to pass after these things that the son of the woman, the mistress of the house, fell sick, and his sickness was so severe that there was no breath left in him.
Wherever the verse says "after these things," Scripture comes to tell us that there is a connection between what happened before and what is happening now. And what is the connection? For this purpose the verse gives us preliminary points, in order to explain why the woman understood that her son's entire illness and death stemmed from Eliyahu the prophet.
First point: "the son of the woman, the mistress of the house." It does not say "the woman from Tzarfat" but "the mistress of the house," to teach that the miracle was performed on her merit and for her sake. If so, she already has reason to worry: if a miracle was done for me, and I am the mistress of the house here, it is a sign that something here is connected to me.
Second point: "and his sickness was so severe." This is not a natural illness, for a natural illness means a person lies for several days and the disease gradually intensifies. Here, all at once, his sickness was very severe, and this teaches that something improper had occurred here. "Until there was no breath left in him" - the illness was severe immediately, so that she understood there was a punishment here.
And this contradicted what she had understood from Eliyahu. After all, Eliyahu had told her that Hashem was performing a miracle for her. And the Gemara in Masechet Taanit relates that in Sura there was both plague and famine, and they came to ask: one does not pray for two things at once, so for what shall we pray - that He remove the famine from us or the plague? The Sages told them: pray for the famine, for the One who grants abundance grants it to the living, since Hashem does not grant abundance to the dead. If so, it is difficult for that widow: if Hashem performed a miracle for my sake, and He grants abundance to the living, how is it possible that my son died?
"To bring my sin to remembrance" - which sin?
וַתֹּאמֶר אֶל־אֵלִיָּהוּ מַה־לִּי וָלָךְ אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים בָּאתָ אֵלַי לְהַזְכִּיר אֶת־עֲוֺנִי וּלְהָמִית אֶת־בְּנִי. - And she said to Eliyahu: What have I to do with you, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance and to kill my son.
Our Sages say: that woman said to him - until you came, my deeds were weighed against the deeds of the people of my city, and next to them I was considered a righteous woman. Now that a righteous man like you has come to me, my deeds are weighed against yours, and shortcomings are found in me. To what may the matter be compared? To a person standing in darkness who lights a lantern - what wonderful light. Another person comes and lights a floodlight, and the lantern can no longer be seen at all, and even appears to darken. So too: you, Eliyahu, came, and the immense light you spread causes me to be considered a woman full of shortcomings beside you, and my flaws are revealed.
The Ralbag explains that had the prophet not been there, Hashem would, as it were, have overlooked her sins, but when a prophet arrives there, the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting with the righteous to a hairsbreadth, and not only with them but "and round about Him it storms mightily" - He is also exacting with those around them, that everything be done with the utmost precision, in fear of Heaven and in careful observance of halacha. And when you are near me and they are exacting with you, they are consequently exacting with me as well.
The Radak explains: "you have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance" - it may be that I was not careful with your honor as I should have been, perhaps I did not prepare all that was needed in the proper time and with the proper effort, and because of this the Holy One, blessed be He, exacted payment from me for not having been precise in treating you properly and as befits you.
And the Malbim continues the line we began with: she suspected him that what he told her in the name of Hashem, "the jar of meal shall not be spent and the cruse of oil shall not fail," was not truly in the name of Hashem, but that he performed the miracle by his own power - perhaps through sorcery and witchcraft, God forbid, or by making use of the holy Names. And after all our Sages said "one who makes use of the crown passes away," and perhaps now I am paying the price. As it is written in Sefer Chassidim, that we have not seen a person who made use of the holy Names and adjurations of angels who did not pass away and suffer harm - either he, or his children, or his relatives, or his descendants after him; someone always suffers harm from this. And it is known that in Sefer Chassidim itself it is related about relatives who were harmed as a result of engaging in these matters. She said to him: you cause my merits to be drawn away from me, and consequently my sins are brought to remembrance.
"Give me your son" - the upper chamber and the bed
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלֶיהָ תְּנִי־לִי אֶת־בְּנֵךְ וַיִּקָּחֵהוּ מֵחֵיקָהּ וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ אֶל־הָעֲלִיָּה אֲשֶׁר־הוּא יֹשֵׁב שָׁם וַיַּשְׁכִּבֵהוּ עַל־מִטָּתוֹ. - And he said to her, "Give me your son," and he took him from her bosom and carried him up to the upper chamber where he was staying, and laid him on his own bed.
Laying the child on his own bed hints first of all at the great pain that Eliyahu felt: he feels as though it is his own bed, as though he himself is the dead one, as though what is happening here is happening to me.
Beyond that: Eliyahu the prophet, after all, does not die. What did Hashem promise him? "Peace" (shalom), life forever. And we explained previously: what is shalom? Peace among all the components of the body. For death means the separation of the body's parts. When there is peace, the heart supplies blood to all the limbs, the lungs supply oxygen to the whole body, and there is harmony. When there is discord, the heart asks why should I work more than everyone else, and the lungs ask why should we give oxygen to everyone, and then death comes, which is separation, where each part goes off on its own and the body begins to fall apart. And when Pinchas was promised peace, it means eternal life, that the body will never separate. This is the concept of shalom, the concept of wholeness, and it is like the idea that "Yaakov Avinu did not die" and "his bed was whole." Therefore Eliyahu's bed (mitah, with a tet) symbolizes a wholeness in which there is no death, and on this bed he lays the boy, since it points to life, the opposite of death.
And one must also know that a place where a prophet or a holy person is present, the place itself receives holiness and becomes elevated and sanctified. And the opposite too: a place where a sin is committed, Heaven forbid, the place itself receives impurity and becomes abhorrent. That is why one does not turn a discotheque into a synagogue, for the place itself is flawed. It is told of the Chazon Ish that he walked with a young scholar and said to him: I feel holiness here, two people stood here and spoke words of Torah, he was able to sense it. And it is told of several of the great ones of Israel who were mistakenly brought to a place that was not holy and pure, and they sat in a car with the windows shut, and immediately felt that there was impurity in the area and asked to be taken out of there. A righteous person is able to sense this, one whose seismograph is sensitive feels both holiness and impurity. Therefore Eliyahu brought the child up to the upper chamber, a place where Eliyahu dwelled and occupied himself with Torah, and had the power to influence life upon the boy.
Eliyahu's Prayer: "Even Upon the Widow"
וַיִּקְרָא אֶל־יְהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי הֲגַם עַל־הָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִי מִתְגּוֹרֵר עִמָּהּ הֲרֵעוֹתָ לְהָמִית אֶת־בְּנָהּ. - And he called out to Hashem and said, "Hashem my God, have You also brought evil upon the widow with whom I am staying, to kill her son?"
Seemingly the question is completely puzzling. Who brought harm upon the people of Israel? Eliyahu the prophet. Hashem did not ask for this and did not decree that there be a famine; the famine came as a result of Eliyahu's decree. If so, how can he say "have You also brought evil upon the widow," as though Hashem is the one who brought the evil?
Therefore the Malbim explains: Eliyahu's question is not about the evil that the people suffer, but about the evil that has come upon him. Eliyahu says: Master of the World, if You are angry with me for what I did and want to bring evil upon me, why do You also bring evil upon the widow? The word "also" does not add to the evil that came upon the people of Israel through the famine, for it was not Hashem who did that but Eliyahu; rather the "also" refers back to him himself: if You have an issue with me, for having done something improper, why do You take it out on the widow? What is the fault of this poor widow, that merely because I am staying with her the punishment strikes her and kills her son?
"And He Stretched Himself Upon the Child"
וַיִּתְמֹדֵד עַל־הַיֶּלֶד שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים וַיִּקְרָא אֶל־יְהֹוָה וַיֹּאמַר יְהֹוָה אֱלֹהָי תָּשָׁב נָא נֶפֶשׁ־הַיֶּלֶד הַזֶּה עַל־קִרְבּוֹ. - And he stretched himself upon the child three times and called out to Hashem and said, "Hashem my God, let this child's soul please return within him."
What is "vayitmoded"? It is a term of measure, like "He stood and measured the earth." He placed himself upon the child by his measure: his face upon the child's face, his mouth upon his mouth, his hands upon his hands, his feet upon his feet, as we find with Elisha who lay upon the child.
And what is the point of this? One explanation is given by the Radak: so that his prayer would be with greater intention, like "And Yitzchak pleaded with Hashem opposite his wife." When the one being prayed for is present, opposite, there is greater intention and greater benefit in it. And from here we learn a principle: sometimes a person goes to a righteous man and asks him to bless so and so, and it would have been better for that person to go himself to the righteous man, for then the flow of blessing is greater. "Opposite his wife" means his wife was in front of him, and so too here.
The Radak offers an additional explanation, along natural lines: by lying upon the child he transferred some of his own warmth to him, and with his mouth upon the child's mouth perhaps his breath would impart breath to the boy as well. However, here it is explicit that the matter was done through prayer, for he prays and says, "Hashem my God, let this child's soul return within him," and he did this three times, each time repeating the same request.
Regarding the word "soul" (nefesh): in Scripture the terms nefesh or ruach appear many times, and the intent is not to split hairs over whether it is nefesh, ruach, or neshamah, for this is a general term. In the works of the Kabbalists the distinction between nefesh, ruach, and neshamah is indeed discussed, but in Scripture, when used plainly, "nefesh" includes the nefesh, the ruach, and the neshamah.
"See, Your Son Lives" - The Humility of a Prophet
וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהֹוָה בְּקוֹל אֵלִיָּהוּ וַתָּשָׁב נֶפֶשׁ־הַיֶּלֶד עַל־קִרְבּוֹ וַיֶּחִי. וַיִּקַּח אֵלִיָּהוּ אֶת־הַיֶּלֶד וַיֹּרִדֵהוּ מִן־הָעֲלִיָּה הַבַּיְתָה וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ לְאִמּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלִיָּהוּ רְאִי חַי בְּנֵךְ. - And Hashem heard Eliyahu's voice, and the child's soul returned within him, and he lived. And Eliyahu took the child and brought him down from the upper chamber into the house, and gave him to his mother, and Eliyahu said, "See, your son lives."
What is the meaning of "See, your son lives"? It would have been enough to say "and he gave him to his mother"; does she not see that he is alive? Rather, it is explained that Eliyahu wished to conceal his greatness, so that it not become known that it was he who revived him. Therefore, when he brought him down to her, he said: I do not know what you want, he was alive, I did nothing to him, come and see, the child is alive. All of this stemmed from his modesty and humility, so that she would not feel indebted to him and would not realize that he revives the dead.
"Now I Know" - Both Doubts Are Resolved
וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־אֵלִיָּהוּ עַתָּה זֶה יָדַעְתִּי כִּי אִישׁ אֱלֹהִים אָתָּה וּדְבַר־יְהֹוָה בְּפִיךָ אֱמֶת. - And the woman said to Eliyahu, "Now I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of Hashem in your mouth is truth."
See how wonderfully this fits with the Malbim's explanation. Her doubt had been twofold: perhaps what you told me in Hashem's name was not the word of Hashem, but you did it through sleight of hand or sorcery. To this she says, "Now I know that you are a man of God" - there is no sorcery here at all, you are truly a man of God. And the second doubt: perhaps it is not sorcery, but you used the holy Names, and by your own power as a man of God you decreed it, and not by the word of Hashem, and if it was by your own decree, there is in this the danger of "one who makes use of the crown passes away." To this she adds, "and the word of Hashem in your mouth is truth" - what you said, "Thus says Hashem," was truly the word of Hashem, you did not decree it, nor was it by your own word, but by the command of Hashem.
And how did she come to know this? From the fact that in the end the child lived. Had the matter been sorcery, no sorcerer is able to revive the dead. And had it been a punishment for having used the holy Names, would he then use the crown again to revive him? That is surely not applicable. If the death came as a punishment for making use of the Names, it is impossible that through a further use of the Name he would bring the child back to life.
The Ralbag explains differently: she thought that perhaps when he told her "the jar of flour shall not run out," he did not say it from his own prophecy, but had heard it from another prophet and passed along the information. Now she says, "Now I know that you are a man of God" - I have come to know that what you conveyed was in your own name, that this power flows from you.
Who Was the Child? Yonah ben Amitai
Chazal say: the son whom Eliyahu revived is Yonah ben Amitai the prophet. And the child whom Elisha revived was Chavakuk, so named after "at this appointed time, at the living season, you shall embrace a son," and also because she embraced him while pleading over him. It is written of Yonah that he lived by the power of Eliyahu, and there are parallels between them: Eliyahu went up in a storm to the heavens, and Yonah went down into the sea. Of Eliyahu it is written that he asked for his soul to die, when he went into the wilderness and walked forty days by the power of that one meal, and said, "I am no better than my fathers," and asked to die; and of Yonah too we find the same, under the kikayon, after the kikayon withered he asked for his soul to die. And why is he called Yonah ben Amitai (son of Amitai, from emet, truth)? Because who revived him? Eliyahu, who was regarded for him as a father, and of Eliyahu it is said, "and the word of Hashem in your mouth is truth (emet)."
The honor of the Father and the honor of the son
Chazal say: Eliyahu demanded the honor of the Father but did not demand the honor of the son, while Yonah ben Amitai demanded the honor of the son but did not demand the honor of the Father, and each one was held accountable for not demanding equally both the honor of the Father and the honor of the son.
Eliyahu decreed a very harsh decree upon Israel, a decree of famine. Why? Because he demanded the honor of the Father: how can it be that people worship idols and provoke the Creator of the world, and yet rain still falls for them? But the honor of the son he did not demand, and what would become of Israel: plagues and famine.
With Yonah it was the opposite. Hashem tells him: go and prophesy about Nineveh, "in another forty days Nineveh will be overturned," and Yonah flees. Why? Because he knew that his rebuke would be effective, and when he would speak to them they would all repent, and Hashem would not bring the decree upon them. And what of it? He said: then there will be a tremendous accusation against Israel. Here I rebuke Israel for many long years and they do not return, yet these gentiles, with a single rebuke, return immediately. Furthermore, the gentiles are of a bad nature and quickly return to sin: they will repent for a month or two, suddenly everyone is righteous, returning stolen goods and putting sackcloth on their flesh, and within a short time they revert to their ways. Israel, on the other hand, though they are not quick to repent, when they do return it is a genuine repentance. It turns out that from this, God forbid, an accusation against Israel would emerge.
And what does Yonah do? He flees. Does a prophet flee from Hashem? Is it possible to flee from Hashem? Rather, Yonah knew that prophecy rests only in the Land of Israel, and therefore he said: I will leave the Land. In our terms, he turned off the phone so they could not reach him. But he did not know that the Holy One, blessed be He, could send him a fish to swallow him and return him to the Land of Israel, for there is no such thing as fleeing from Hashem, but rather "from You to You I flee": the flight from Hashem is toward Hashem, and it is impossible to flee to any other place.
It turns out that Yonah did not spare the honor of the Father: here are people sinning and provoking, and he spared the honor of the son, that there be no accusation against Israel. And of course, all of this is relative, God forbid to say more than what Chazal said. Thus they were opposite in their approach: Eliyahu spared the honor of the Father and not the honor of the son, and one may say that Yonah ben Amitai, as it were, came to correct this, but went to the opposite extreme. And the correct path is the middle path: to spare both the honor of the Father and the honor of the son, both the honor of Heaven and the honor of flesh and blood, and to see the condition of Israel. And indeed we see further on that it was not pleasing before Him, blessed be He, that Israel should suffer, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, sought every way to bring Eliyahu to the point where he would pray for Israel and plead on their behalf, and in the end restore the rain to them.
In summary:
The chapter teaches us the ways of divine abundance. Hashem does not perform a miracle needlessly but only at a time of great need, and when the widow reaches her last morsel Eliyahu is sent to her. Eliyahu, who himself stopped the channels of abundance, cannot be sustained by the power of a miracle done on his behalf, and therefore he first eats from what exists and only afterward benefits from the blessing that rested by the merit of the widow. And since the blessing came "thus says Hashem" and not by the word of the prophet, it is something from nothing: the jug itself does not run out, even though the flour does run out. From there onward, the illness of the son and his revival clarify for the widow her two doubts: that there is no sorcery here and no use of holy Names, but rather "you are a man of God and the word of Hashem in your mouth is truth." And in the end, from the child who was revived arose Yonah ben Amitai, and from him Chazal derive the great principle: to demand equally the honor of the Father and the honor of the son.