So far Yechezkel has spoken to those who seek out his prophecy – now the series of units dealing with different types of false prophecies is interrupted. According to Dr. Ganzel, this indicates that even those who recognized Yechezkel as a true prophet and came to hear the word of HaShem from him, would not merit to hear any true prophecy, because of their betrayal of HaShem. Her conclusion is that there are two preconditions to hearing a [true] prophecy from HaShem: first, of course, avoiding false prophets and resisting their temptations; second, as we will learn from this chapter, they can only receive a true message from HaShem if, at the same time, they are not serving idols.
[Note, there are those who opine that it is not avoda zara to worship other gods while still recognizing HaShem - from ChatGPT: "Ramban, on the other hand, offers a more nuanced perspective. In his commentary on biblical texts, he explores the complexities of human behavior and motivations. While acknowledging the absolute prohibition of idolatry, Ramban suggests that there may be instances where individuals, particularly non-Jews, who are not fully aware of the truth of monotheism, might engage in practices related to other deities out of ignorance rather than outright defiance of the God of Israel. He points to passages in the Bible, such as those concerning the sailors in the story of Jonah, as examples where individuals gradually come to recognize the supremacy of the God of Israel despite their initial adherence to other gods."]
We are not told who these certain of the elders of Israel are.
Unlike the description of the vision that Yechezkel experiences when the “elders of Yehuda” are before him, in Chapter 8, here the elders’ request is denied (as in the appeal of the elders in Chapter 20, verses 1-4), because of their sins. Why should people who worship idols merit hearing the word of HaShem? Nevertheless, they are not simply ignored and rejected; they are rebuked for their actions:
Notably, and uniquely in this Book, Yechezkel calls upon them to repent – perhaps because these people have, after all, come to hear God’s word from the prophet:
We then encounter a rather surprising group: prophets who have been tempted by HaShem to mislead the people with their words.
In contrast, R. Yosef Kara explains that it is not God Who tempts the prophet to speak falsely:
“He says something that he did not hear from He, and the people listen to him. ‘I the Lord have deceived that prophet’ – for he comes to tempt My people, so he finds himself being tempted. How do I tempt him? As the verse says later on: ‘I will stretch out My hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of My people Israel.’”
From ChatGPT: "Yoseph Kara, also known as Yosef Kara or Yosef ben Yitzchak Kara, was a medieval Jewish commentator and scholar who lived in the 12th and 13th centuries. He was born in Germany around 1060 CE and later moved to France. Yoseph Kara was renowned for his expertise in biblical commentary and Talmudic scholarship.
His most notable work is his commentary on the Torah, known as "Toldot Yitzchak," which provides deep insights into the meaning of the biblical text. Yoseph Kara's commentary is valued for its clarity and logical analysis, making it accessible to both scholars and beginners alike.
In addition to his commentary on the Torah, Yoseph Kara also wrote commentaries on various other biblical books and Talmudic tractates. His writings continue to be studied and revered within the Jewish scholarly tradition.
Yoseph Kara's contributions to Jewish learning helped to shape the understanding of the Torah and Talmudic texts for generations to come, making him a significant figure in Jewish intellectual history."
This is the second time since the beginning of the Sefer (the first instance was in 11:20) that the prophet concludes by emphasizing the bond between HaShem and His people. In both instances this formula follows a harsh prophecy, which brings some measure of consolation.
Now we turn to Individual Righteousness and Salvation
After considering the various categories of false prophets and prophecies, Yechezkel returns to the question: who could nevertheless be saved? This prophecy is uttered four times, each time similarly, but with slight stylistic variations. This technique echoes the prophet’s earlier rhetorical devices and his repeated efforts to persuade his audience of the veracity of his message. The prophet begins by describing the famine that will befall the city; then the wild animals that will pass through the land, followed by the sword, and finally, the pestilence. Describing these imminent afflictions raises the question of whether any righteous people will survive the onslaught. And if so, might their families also be saved in their merit, as in similar situations described in the Torah? The prophetic response to this question is that if indeed there are any righteous individuals to be found in the city, they alone will be saved.
Perhaps this prophecy indicates that Yechezkel’s audience is concerned with the question of the fate of the righteous. This may show they have internalized the fact that the Destruction is on its way, and the speculation now is about its scope.
To understand the content of this prophecy, let us examine it in a format that reveals its structure:
(13) O mortal, if a land were to sin against Me and commit a trespass, and I stretched out My hand against it and broke its staff of bread, and sent famine against it and cut off human and animal from it, (14) even if these three men—Noah, Daniel, and Job—should be in it, they would by their righteousness save only themselves—declares the Sovereign GOD.
(15) Or, if I were to send wild beasts to roam the land and they depopulated it, and it became a desolation with none passing through it because of the beasts, (16) as I live—declares the Sovereign GOD—those three men in it would save neither sons nor daughters; they alone would be saved, but the land would become a desolation.
(17) Or, if I were to bring the sword upon that land and say, “Let a sword sweep through the land so that I may cut off from it human and animal,” (18) if those three men should be in it, as I live—declares the Sovereign GOD—they would save neither sons nor daughters, but they alone would be saved.
(19) Or, if I let loose a pestilence against that land, and poured out My fury upon it in blood, cutting off from it human and animal, (20) should Noah, Daniel, and Job be in it, as I live—declares the Sovereign GOD—they would save neither son nor daughter; they would save themselves alone by their righteousness.
There a number of prophecies about famine in Yerushalaim in the Sefer, see Chapters 4, 5, 6, 12, and 14. It is the first affliction to be felt by the the inhabitants - and becomes increasingly harsh. Dr. Ganzel theorizes that perhaps this is why the famine is emphasized in the early chapters that rebuke the city (4-14) rather than in the latter ones (15-24).
Nowhere in the Sefer is there any mention of the possibility that the people might be saved by the merit of their ancestors. But throughout our chapter, the prophet states that the city will not be saved by virtue of the righteous dwelling in it. Twice (for the first and last time) he even names the three righteous individuals who represent the righteous who might be saved through their own merit: Noach, Daniel, and Iyov. Yirmiyahu, too, like Yechezkel, rejects the possibility that the inhabitants of Jerusalem could be saved by virtue of the righteous present there:
Why Noach, Daniel and Iyov?
Maybe because they stand for universality? Noach lived at the time of the Flood, before the patriarchs of the Jewish nation. Daniel appears to have been known internationally for his wisdom, as we find in Yechezkel’s prophecy to Tyre
In no hidden matter can anyone
Compare to you.
While the commentaries are divided about the identity of the biblical Iyov, he too represents a universal symbol of a righteous person who suffers. Commenting on 14:14, Radak cites the midrash: “These three righteous individuals are mentioned because each of them saw three worlds: [a world that was] built, [a world that was] destroyed, and [a world that was re-built.” In Noach’s case this refers to the physical world; in Daniel’s case, the “world” is the Temple; and for Iyov, the “world” was his family. Thus, although Yechezkel’s prophecy foretells that the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be saved by virtue of the righteous, the mention of these three men nevertheless carries a covert message of consolation that Jerusalem will eventually be rebuilt.
Yechezkel emphasizes that even the sons and daughters of such exceptional individuals will not be saved; certainly not other inhabitants of the city. Through the comparison to Noach, the anticipated destruction seems even more devastating than the Flood, as Noach saved his entire family, but now even that possibility does not exist. Similarly, Daniel remained alone after he and his friends earn the king’s recognition, and Iyov too remained alone.
Ultimately, there are some survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem. But they are left alive not by virtue of the righteous individuals, but because of HaShem’s desire that the terrible actions and the resulting punishment of the inhabitants of the city be made known. The prophet thus deflects the claim made by his opponents that the punishment that he foretells for Jerusalem does not match its actions.
Note that the number of hypothetical righteous individuals (three) is smaller than the number of punishments that will befall the city (four) – another indication that ultimately the four “severe judgments” will prevail over the three righteous people. The prophet now adds that not only will all the human inhabitants of the city be annihilated, but the animals too.
The prophecy then ends on a surprising note: despite everything we have heard until this point, it turns out there will be survivors after all so that the exiles will know what happened to the city.
Appendix: “When the land sins” (14:13) – an actual reality or a rhetorical device?
In many of his prophecies, Yechezkel begins by addressing the land – or specific places in the land – rather than the people. He speaks to “the mountains of Israel” (6:1-2; 36:1,4); the “ground of Israel” (7:2, 21:8); “the forest land of the Negev” (21:2-3); “Jerusalem” (16:2); “the bloody city” (22:2; 24:6,9); and “Mount Se’ir” (35:2). This form of presentation of a prophecy is quite unusual in Tanakh and therefore commands our attention. In some of these prophecies the “land” is addressed not only as an opening statement, but as the target audience throughout the prophetic unit (for instance, the prophecy to the “mountains of Israel” in 6:1-11). What is the significance of the prophet’s appeal to the land? While such an appeal is to be found in five different chapters of the Book, we will explore this question here, since Chapter 14 is the central example.
The appeals to the land, in order, are as follows:
1. In Chapter 7, Yechezkel speaks of the destruction of the land: “… the end is come upon the four corners of the land” (7:2). This prophecy begins with an appeal to the land (ground) of Israel with no explicit mention of its inhabitants.
2. In Chapter 14, it is the land itself that sins: “When the land sins against Me by treacherous betrayal (li-me’al ma’al)…” (14:13).[7] The sin of the land here does not include a description of human actions; rather, it depicts a trespassing of the land itself against God. God’s response to the acts of the land is formulated with the words, “I will stretch out My hand upon it, and will break its staff of bread, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it” (14:13). This is an earthly, natural punishment; not a political one relating to human actions. In its proper state, the land causes food to grow and crops to flourish. Now, owing to its sin, it can no longer offer a staff of bread. As a result, its inhabitants, both human and animal, go hungry and will no longer be able to live in it. Verses 15-20 too seem to describe the destruction of the land as a punishment to the land, rather than to the inhabitants who are exiled and are gone.
3. In 22:24 we find: “Son of man, say to her, You are a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.” The land is “not cleansed” (or “not pure”) and the prophet goes on to enumerate the reasons for this, all of which relate to the actions of the office-bearers:
“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey… Her priests have violated my Torah… Her princes in the midst of her are like wolves ravening the prey… And her prophets have daubed them with whitewash… The people of the land have used oppression and committed robbery…” (22:25-29)
4. In Chapter 36, the prophet addresses himself to “the land (ground) of Israel: “… and say to the mountains and to the hills, to the water courses and to the valleys, saying, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I have spoken in My jealousy and in My fury, because you have suffered the insult of the nations…” (36:6). Later on, Yechezkel speaks to the mountains of Israel and the ground of Israel in a prophecy of consolation, in which the land flourishes: “But you, O mountains of Israel, you shall shoot forth your branches, and yield your fruit to My people Israel…” (v. 8). These verses describe the revival of the people hand in hand with the flowering of the land. In doing so, Yechezkel emphasizes the scope of the redemption, against the background of the present state of the land. Note that even here, the motivation for God causing the land to flourish is the “insult of the nations” that has been inflicted on it, rather than Israel’s actions.[8]
The more common references to the land describe the Destruction, impurity, and exile as the result of the actions of the land’s inhabitants. These prophetic units are different: Yechezkel conveys his prophetic message by presenting the land as an independent entity. While this change appears to be merely semantic, done for the sake of rhetoric diversity, the contrast with the biblical perspective that appeals to man and his actions, is another way the prophet draws the attention of his target audience.[9] Out of a desire to make a real impression and affect them deeply, he presents his messages in a way that draws in his listeners, using different devices: the use of harsh and blatant language (for instance, the term “gilulim”); the awarding of “independence status,” as it were, to the land; and the use of animation (anthropomorphism). Thus the prophet emphasizes that the land is given to Israel by God, but the connection between the nation and the land is conditional upon the people’s actions and God’s will.