Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk 1 Raja-raja 22:20

We may best understand what the Torah has in mind by recalling the incident involving a true prophet Michayuh and a number (400) of false prophets, notably Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (compare Kings I chapter 22). This occurred during the reign of Yehoshaphat King of Yehudah and Achav King of Israel when the latter invited Yehoshaphat to join him in a war against the Syrians (Aramites) in order to recapture Yavesh Gilead [the equivalent of the Golan Heights in those days. Ed.]. Originally, all the prophets including Tzidkiyahu ben Kenaanah (who was only called in at the insistence of Yehoshaphat) prophesied success, urging the king to go to war. When Yehoshaphat who was uncomfortable in the company of 400 false prophets, all of whom appeared to be Achav's "yes-men" demanded to hear the opinion of a true prophet, one whom Achav had not invited, Michayuh was called, Achav had first demurred claiming that he always prophesied negatively for him and when Michayhu saw that the chief of the false prophets Tzidkiyahu boasted that Achav would succeed with the iron horns he displayed, he too wished the king success, using almost the same language as the other prophets. Yehoshaphat was still suspicious and upon consulting Michayuh again the latter revealed that he had seen a vision of all the Israelite soldiers fleeing into the hills, etc. He also explained that G'd in heaven had allowed Achav to be deliberately misled into going to war so that he would fall in battle. In my commentary on the Books of the Prophets I have dealt with the problem of why the true prophet Michayuh had originally prophesied success for Achav when he had wished him success in his forthcoming battle instead of warning him to desist. I explained that it was precisely this prophet who had been imbued with the spirit of Navot Hacarmeli whom Achav and Izzebel had arranged to become the victim of a judicial murder by framing him. Navot's spirit had complained in the heavens about his life not having been avenged. While Michayuh was thus temporarily under the spell of the spirit of Navot, he had made a comment which lured Achav into waging war. Shortly thereafter his own spirit took over and he revealed to Yehoshaphat in the presence of Achav what he had truly been shown. By that time Achav had good reason not to take him seriously since he had contradicted himself and discredited himself. There are numerous questions regarding the conduct of Michayuh, not the least of which is why he eventually tried to thwart G'd's plan to entrap Achav so that he could fall in battle. Why did he tell Achav about what he had seen in a vision thus encouraging Achav to save his life by not going to war?

ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “and you must not accept a ransom payment in exchange of the life of the murderer.” The Torah tells us here that no amount of money is adequate to atone for the death of a Jew; hence a ransom payment is out of the question. The guilt of murdering someone is the greatest sin between man and his fellow man. Solomon told us in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit; let no one help him.” We may learn a lesson from Achav, King of Israel. When the prophet makes comparisons between the levels of guilt of different kings we are told in Kings I 21,25 concerning a very evil king, “there was never one like Achav who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Izzevel.” When Achav’s sins were measured and his merits were weighed against them, the decisive sin held against him was that he had framed Navot and had him executed. This is why we read in Kings I 22,21: “the spirit (of the deceased Navot) came forward before the Lord and said: “I will entice him.” “How?, the Lord asked him.” And he replied: “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then He (G’d) said: “you will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.” (Compare Sanhedrin 102). The story is an illustration that although Achav had not even killed with his own hands and could have pointed to the court which convicted Navot as guilty as responsible for his death, G’d considered the deed as his. How much more severely must someone be viewed who killed with his own hands.