Мелахим Б 2:24 Мидраш: Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition) & Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer

R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Maier: "Whoever does not escort a stranger is as if he would shed blood, for, had the inhabitants of Jericho escorted Elisha it would never have happened that he should let a bear loose again the children, as it is said (II Kings 2, 23) And he went up from, thence to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children from the city, and they mocked him and said unto him: 'Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead! Because thou hast caused the place to become bald for us; (i.e., on account of his having cured the rotten water of that city, these lads lost their business of selling wholesome water to the inhabitants), He calls them lads and then he calls them minors. How are both possible? Said R. Elazar: "They are called lads (Nearim.) because they were void of meritorious deeds, and they were called small, because they were small in belief." In a Baraitha we are taught that they were lads, but made themselves inferior like small children. R. Juda raised the following objection: "Perhaps Naarim, refers to the place from where they come? Have we not read such a name in the following passage (Ib., 5, 2) And the Syrians had gone out in predatory troops and had brought away captive out of the land of Israel a little maiden. We have raised a question, the passage terms it maiden and then it calls her little. Whereupon R. P'dath explained thus: "She was indeed little and the word Naaro does not mean maiden, but it means that she came from Naarim. [Hence Naaro is also the name of a town]?" In the latter case, it is different because the place is not mentioned from where she came [therefore we explain the word Naaro to refer to the place]. But, in the former case the place of the lads is mentioned [and therefore we cannot explain the word Naarim to mean the place]. (Ib. 2, 24) And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. What does this mean, and he looked on then? Said Rab: "It means literally that he fixed his eyes upon them, as we are taught in a Baraitha that Rabban Simon b. Gamaliel says: 'Whereever the sages fix their eyes either death or poverty follows.' " Samuel, however, said: "This means he observed that they were not well-bred children." And R. Isaac Naphcha said: "He saw them wearing their hair according to the style of Ammorites;" while R. Jochanan said, "He observed that they were not imbued with meritorious deeds." But perhaps their children had something? Said R. Elazar: "Neither in them, nor in their children, even to endless generations; he found them all to be destitute of meritorious deeds." (Ib., ib., ib.) And cursed them in the name of the Lord; and there came forth two she-bears out of the forest, etc. (Fol. 47) Rab and Samuel differ [in the explanation of this passage] one said that a miracle happened and the other said that a miracle within a miracle happened. The one who contends that it was merely one miracle bases his opinion that it was a forest, without bears and therefore a miracle happened with the bears. But the one who claims that it was a miracle within a miracle, bases his theory that there was neither a forest nor bears and through a miracle both were created. According to the latter's opinion, why was it necessary to create the woods, would it not have been sufficient the bears alone? Because the bears would have been afraid to get loose upon human beings, were it not for the fact that they were near woods.

(Ib., ib., ib.) And tore of them forty and two boys. Said R. Jose, the son of R. Chanina: "On account of the forty-two sacrifices that Ballak, the king of Moab. offered, it happened that forty-two Israelites' children were torn." Is this the real cause? Behold R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "Always shall a man occupy himself with the study of the Torah, and the fulfillment of meritorious deeds, even it is not for its real purpose, because out of a selfish purpose he will come to do so for its real purpose, for as reward for the forty-two sacrifices that Ballak, the king of Moab offered, he was rewarded that Ruth came forth from him of whom Solomon is a descendant, concerning whom the passage says (I Kings 3, 4) One thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon the altar, and R. Jose, son of R. Chanina said: "Ruth was the daughter of King Eglon, who was the grandson of Ballak, the king of Moab." [Hence I see that at the end he meant well]. However, since his real purpose was to curse Israel, thus through the above incident his curse was fulfilled. (II Kings 2, 19) And the men of the city said unto Elisha, 'Behold, we pray thee; the situation of this city is pleasant, as my Lord seeth; but the water is bad, and the land causes miscarriages.' Since the water is bad and the land causes miscarriages why do they say that the city is splendid? Said R. Chanin: "It is the usual esteem in which inhabitants hold their place."

And Abraham, son of Terah, passed by, and saw them building the city and the tower, and he cursed them in the name of his God, as it is said, "Swallow up, O Lord, divide their language" (Ps. 55:10). But they rejected his words, like a stone cast upon the ground. Is it not a fact that every choice and good stone is only put at the corner of a building? and with reference to this, the text says, "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner" (Ps. 118:22).