וַיֹּאמֶר֩ אֵלִיָּ֨הוּ אֶל־אֱלִישָׁ֜ע שֵֽׁב־נָ֣א פֹ֗ה כִּ֤י יְהוָה֙ שְׁלָחַ֣נִי עַד־בֵּֽית־אֵ֔ל וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלִישָׁ֔ע חַי־יְהוָ֥ה וְחֵֽי־נַפְשְׁךָ֖ אִם־אֶעֶזְבֶ֑ךָּ וַיֵּרְד֖וּ בֵּֽית־אֵֽל׃
Lalu Elia berkata kepada Elisa, “Tinggallah di sini, kumohon, sebab Yang Mahakekal telah mengutus aku sampai ke Betel.” Tetapi Elisa menjawab, “Demi Yang Mahakekal yang hidup dan demi hidupmu, aku tidak akan meninggalkan engkau.” Maka turunlah mereka ke Betel.
From David to Destruction
Following Eliyahu HaNavi’s ascent, the Bnei HaNevi’im173See the earlier chapter, “Eliyahu HaNavi's Two Models of Torah Centers,” where we attempt to identify these “Bnei HaNevi’im.” insist that Elisha send a search party for his teacher. The Bnei HaNevi’im discern when Eliyahu HaNavi will depart the world, as they ask Elisha, “HaYadata Ki HaYom Hashem Lokei’ach Et Adonecha Mei’Al Roshecha,” “do you know that Hashem is taking your master away from you today?” (Melachim II 2:3 and 2:5). These are great men, and, as Rashi notes (Melachim II 2:2), perhaps they are even equal in stature to Eliyahu HaNavi. Why, then, do they insist on sending a search party for Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim II 2:16-18) when they know that he has left the world? Why do they think that Eliyahu HaNavi is lost somewhere in a mountain or valley (Melachim II 2:16) and insist on conducting a three-day manhunt for him?
Rabbeinu Bahya
A kabbalistic approach to our verse: The word שם in the verse לא תשא את שם ה' אלוה-יך לשוא refers to the Shechinah. The verse tells us that Hashem the attribute י-ה-ו-ה will not exonerate anyone who trifles with the name of the Shechinah, uses it in vain. We have a similar verse in Leviticus 19,12: ולא תשבעו לשמי לשקר, “and you shall nor swear an oath in My name which is a lie;” here too the word לשמי is a reference to the attribute known as Shechinah. The verse concludes with וחללת את שם אלו-היך, “and you would (thereby) desecrate the name of your G’d.” The clear message is that even swearing in the name of any of the lesser attributes of G’d is as severe a sin as uttering the tetragram itself to confirm one’s statement on oath .
The severity of the sin of dishonouring one’s oath is tied to the fact that the word שבועה, “oath,” is based on the word שבעה, “seven.” This is a reference to the seven קולות, different nuances of G’d’s voice, whose meaning Moses learned to understand during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Anyone who violates an oath based on these seven קולות, i.e. on the Sinaitic experience, is as if testifying that he is not entitled to life in the hereafter. By doing what he did he excluded himself from the community of people who have embraced these seven קולות as yardsticks by which to guide their lives. Our sages (Sifri Mattot item 153), when trying to illustrate the difference between שבועות ונדרים, “oaths and vows,” explain that an oath may be considered as using the “king as he manifests himself” to buttress his statement, whereas when someone formulates his oath as a vow he buttresses it by the “life of the king,” i.e. the king’s “essence.” You will appreciate this when you reflect on a verse in Kings II 2,2 where Elisha swears that he will not leave Elijah and let Elijah go to Beit El by himself. He phrases it thus: חי-י-ה-ו-ה, וחי נפשך אם אעזבך, “as the Lord lives and as you live I will not depart from you.” The expression חי ה' refers to the “king” Himself and constitutes an oath. The expression חי נפשך refers to the “life of the king” and constitutes a נדר, a vow.
The severity of the sin of dishonouring one’s oath is tied to the fact that the word שבועה, “oath,” is based on the word שבעה, “seven.” This is a reference to the seven קולות, different nuances of G’d’s voice, whose meaning Moses learned to understand during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Anyone who violates an oath based on these seven קולות, i.e. on the Sinaitic experience, is as if testifying that he is not entitled to life in the hereafter. By doing what he did he excluded himself from the community of people who have embraced these seven קולות as yardsticks by which to guide their lives. Our sages (Sifri Mattot item 153), when trying to illustrate the difference between שבועות ונדרים, “oaths and vows,” explain that an oath may be considered as using the “king as he manifests himself” to buttress his statement, whereas when someone formulates his oath as a vow he buttresses it by the “life of the king,” i.e. the king’s “essence.” You will appreciate this when you reflect on a verse in Kings II 2,2 where Elisha swears that he will not leave Elijah and let Elijah go to Beit El by himself. He phrases it thus: חי-י-ה-ו-ה, וחי נפשך אם אעזבך, “as the Lord lives and as you live I will not depart from you.” The expression חי ה' refers to the “king” Himself and constitutes an oath. The expression חי נפשך refers to the “life of the king” and constitutes a נדר, a vow.
From David to Destruction
In a variation of the Malbim’s approach, we suggest that the students who wish to leave the area are from the Beit El Yeshivah.231As aforementioned, the Malbim explains (Melachim II 2:2) that Eliyahu HaNavi and Elisha maintain two Yeshivot: one in Yericho near the Yarden, and the other in Beit El. The fact that the students ask to move to the Yarden shows that it is the students of the Beit El Yeshivah who wish to move. The students in the Yericho Yeshivah are already located at the Yarden. This branch of the Eliyahu HaNavi-Elisha Yeshivah is established in the nerve center of Malchut Yisrael’s renegade religious reforms, as a bastion of spiritual outreach for Beit El. Earlier, we compared this Yeshivah to the Chabad outreach centers established in the heart of predominantly secular San Francisco.