Halakhah sobre II Reis 4:49

Moreover, we learn about proper respect for the Torah and respect for Torah scholars from the Shunamite woman, who would visit the prophet on Shabbat and Rosh Ḥodesh (2 Melakhim 4:23; RH 16b). It is no coincidence that respect for the Torah is learned from the example of a woman, because women have more of a connection to the sublime general aspect of the Torah (Siḥot Ha-Ritzya, Shemot pp. 178-181).

This verse also serves to explain that counting the people of Israel is prohibited because of an inherent danger, viz., the danger of plague attendant upon direct counting of individuals. Rashi explains that the rationale underlying the prohibition against census-taking is danger re-suiting from an "evil eye." This concept is explained by Rabbenu Baḥya, Exodus 30:12, as predicated upon the manner in which divine providence is manifest. Providence may extend to an individual either qua individual or as a member of a larger group. When providence is directed toward a group even an undeserving individual may receive benefits since judgment is made with regard to the preservation and well-being of the group as a whole. However, when providence is directed toward an individual qua individual only his personal actions and merit are considered in determining whether he is to be deemed worthy of divine guardianship. The counting of individuals, explains Rabbenu Baḥya, has the effect of singling out the individual counted in this manner for particular scrutiny. If he is found lacking in merit he may receive punishment for misdeeds which otherwise might escape scrutiny. By way of analogy, Rabbenu Baḥya draws attention to the words of the Shunammite woman. Elisha asked her, "What is to be done for thee? Wouldst thou be spoken for to the king or to the captain of the host?" And she answered, "I dwell among my own people" (II Kings 4:13). The Shunammite woman did not wish to be singled out for mention to the king or to the captain of the host. So long as she remained anonymous she had nothing to fear from them. She was fearful, however, that were Elisha to cause those individuals to focus their attention upon her, the result might be detrimental rather than beneficial.⁴See also Seforno, Exodus 30:12. Cf., however, Ralbag, Exodus 30:12, and Akedat Yiẓḥak, Parshat Tazri’a, sha’ar 61, as well as Kli Yakar, Exodus 30:12. For amplification of Rambam’s position regarding the “evil eye” see Teshuvot ha-Rambam (ed. Freimann), no. 260; Migdal Oz, Hilkhot Shekhenim 2:16; and Bet Yosef, Ḥoshen Mishpat 158. See also Me’iri, Pesaḥim 109b. Cf., Abarbanel’s commentary on Exodus 30:12 in which he offers a naturalistic explanation of the harm caused by the “evil eye.”

One may not send regards to a woman whatsoever, even by means of a messenger, and even by means of her husband it is forbidden to send her regards, but it is permitted to ask her husband of her welfare. And the reason that one may not send regards to a woman is because maybe through sending her regards, even through a messenger, they will become acquainted with one another and come to affection [Rashi]. And according to this, the prohibition is only with sending regards that causes mental closeness and love, but to say "good morning" or the like - it seems that it isn't forbidden. And to ask someone else how a certain woman is doing, some say that this is only allowed by means of her husband and not by means of anyone else [Chelkat Mechokek], and some permit it [Bach]. And to ask a woman about the welfare of another woman is allowed [Maharsha]; and there are those who want to forbid this because the voice of a woman is nakedness, but that isn't seemly, because normal speech isn't prohibited with women, only a sweet voice where the listener benefits from it. And to write in a letter "send regards to your spouse" or "and tell your wife greetings" - it is prohibited, because this is sending regards through her husband, but to ask about her welfare in a letter - it is permitted, because he is asking her husband how she is faring. And as to his daughter and his daughter-in-law and his sister - it seems that it isn't forbidden whatsoever to send regards to them because causing mental closeness isn't pertinent, because it is the way of the land that a father sends regards to his children, and it is an obligation on him, and likewise a brother to his sister. And the bottom line of these concepts is that everything is dependent on astuteness and fear of heaven, and if his impulses are submissive and compliant to him and nothing gets aroused in his heart whatsoever - there isn't a concern about sending regards [Ritva], and therefore we found by Elisha that he said to his attendant "run now to call her and tell her 'peace to you'", although from there there is no proof, because everything was done because of (prophetic) speech, for he was a prophet.

Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1, chap 42, describes the occurrence of such a phenomenon in support of his contention that the term mavet is a homonym and that in biblical usage this term in certain places means "severe illness" rather than "death." In the narrative concerning Nabal's demise Scripture reports, "…and his heart died within him and he became hard as stone" (I Sam. 25:37), and then goes on to state, "And it came to pass after ten days and the Lord smote Nabal and he died" (I Sam. 25:38). Maimonides cites Andalusian authors who interpret the phrase "and his heart died within him" of the earlier passage as meaning "that his breath was suspended, so that no breathing could be perceived at all, as sometimes an invalid is seized with a fainting fit and attacks of asphyxia, and it cannot be discovered whether he is alive or dead, and in this condition the patient may remain one day or two."¹⁹This exposition of Maimonides’ position follows the interpretation advanced by Abarbanel in the latter’s commentary on the text of the Guide and appears to be the most facile analysis of Maimonides’ comments. Cf., however, Shem Tov, who sees the Andalusians as denying the miraculous resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17) and claims that Maimonides himself accepted the position of the Andalusians. Narboni and Ibn Caspi also ascribe such views to Maimonides. Ibn Caspi attempts to show that Maimonides was herein following the talmudic interpretation of this narrative. According to Ibn Caspi, the talmudic exposition does not consider the described phenomenon to be a case of resurrection. Maimonides was severely (and, according to Abarbanel, erroneously) attacked by others for denying that the son of the woman of Zarephath was resurrected since these authorities view Maimonides’ position as being contradictory to the rabbinic interpretation of the relevant passages. Cf. the letter of R. Judah ibn Alfacha to R. David Kimchi in Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Lichtenberg, Leipzig, 1859), p. 29, and Teshuvot Rivash, no. 45. Cf. also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 338, who interprets Maimonides as accepting the resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath literally but denying Elisha’s resurrection of the son of the Shunamite. (II Kings 4:34–35).

Do not remove the tablecloth or bread until after Birkas Hamazon. Bread should be on the table at the time of Birkas Hamazon to demonstrate the abundance of goodness from Hashem, blessed be His Name—that He gives us enough to eat and to spare, as Elisha [the prophet] said to his servant:²Kings II Chap. 4: 43. "For so said Hashem, eat and leave over." Another reason for this custom is that Hashem's blessing has no effect on a void. It is only effective on some existing substance, as Elisha said to the wife of Ovadiah:³Kings II 4: 2. "What do you have in the house?" [which I can bless.]