A Period of Divine Intervention?
At the end of Melachim I 21, Hashem instructs Eliyahu HaNavi to intercept Achav as he enters Navot HaYizre’eli’s field after the latter’s unjust execution. Clearly, Achav’s era is not a time of “Hester Panim,” a time during which Hashem does not directly reveal His involvement in the world. After all, in addition to directly telling Eliyahu HaNavi to intercede on His behalf after Navot’s murder, Hashem also openly reveals Himself to a significant portion of the population on Har HaCarmel (Melachim I 18). Why does Hashem not instruct Eliyahu HaNavi to intervene earlier, and save the innocent Navot HaYizre’eili from execution?
Da’at Mikra – A Peshat Explanation
Da’at Mikra notes that Navot HaYizre’eili does not exercise prudent caution in his interaction with the unscrupulous Achav. Da’at Mikra notes that Shlomo HaMelech advises to “keep the king's command” (Kohelet 8:2) to “fear both the Hashem and king” (Mishlei 24:21). Accordingly, we begin to see that Navot is not entirely innocent in this situation.
Navot’s response to Achav after the latter requests his vineyard in exchange for a better vineyard or monetary compensation is indeed harsh: “Chalilah Li MeiHashem Mititi Et Nachalat Avotai Lach,” “heaven forfend I should give from my father’s inheritance to you” (Melachim II 21:3). The statement potentially implies that Navot specifically does not want to sell the field to Achav. Even if Navot is trying to uphold the Torah value of maintaining one’s ancestral portion in Eretz Yisrael (see Rashi to VaYikra 25:25 s.v. Ki Yamuch), he could still express his reservations in a more diplomatic manner that is befitting of an audience with the king.
Moreover, if the Malbim is correct that Navot HaYizre’eili is implicitly criticizing Achav for abandoning his father’s legacy by permitting the introduction of Ba’al worship into Eretz Yisrael, then Navot is certainly acting recklessly. Even if Navot does not intend on criticizing Achav, it is certainly possible that Achav can interpret his words in this manner. It is the responsibility of the Navi, and not the commoner, to rebuke the king.
Indeed, the Gemara (Ketubot 30a) teaches: "All is in the hands of Heaven except for Tzinim and Pachim." The meaning of the phrase "Tzinim and Pachim" is based on the verse “Tzinim Pachim BaDerech Ikeish Shomeir Nafsho Yirechak MeiHem,” "thorns (Tzinim) and snares (Pachim) are in the path of the perverse; he who guards his soul will distance himself from them" (Mishlei 22:5). Rashi explains that dangers exist in the world, particularly for those who are "perverse," that is, for those who don't try to avoid them, but the cautious person takes heed not to be harmed by them.
Tzinim and Pachim are dangers that are the individual's responsibility to avoid— one must guard themselves against them, and not believe that they are divinely ordained and thus unpreventable. There is no assurance that God will intervene to save one from such hazards. This seems to adequately explain why Hashem does not intervene and save Navot HaYizre’eili. It is his responsibility to use his judgment, and avoid the Tzinim and Pachim that can potentially emerge from improper dialogue with Achav.
Explaining the Elders of Yizre’eil’s Cooperation
This might explain why the elders of Yizre’eil cooperate with Izevel in her diabolical scheme to murder Navot. After seeing Navot place himself in danger by acting in such a foolish manner towards Achav, the elders are unwilling to endanger their lives to save him. This situation is analogous to a swimmer who ignores posted signs and enters shark-infested waters. Are the lifeguards obligated to risk their lives to save the life of the foolish swimmer?
Of course, the situations are not analogous. It is quite one matter to remain passive and avoid risking one’s life to save someone who acts foolishly and places themselves in danger. It is quite another situation to assist in the murder of someone who acts foolishly by provoking a hooligan.
For example, in a precarious situation where one is told to either kill a person who foolishly provoked a ruffian or be killed by the same ruffian, one is not permitted to kill the person who foolishly picked a fight with the ruffian. Moreover, as Radak (Melachim I 21:10) notes, even the Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom do not tolerate any royal perpetration of evil against the populace. Thus, the elders of Yizre’eil could and should have mustered the courage to publicize Izevel’s evil plot, and thereby save Navot without any excessive risk on their part.
Midrashic Explanation
Chazal (cited in Yalkut Shimoni Remez 221) point out that Navot HaYizraeli would make his way to Yerushalayim every Regel (festival), where the crowds would assemble to hear him sing. One time, Navot decided to stay home. He paid the ultimate penalty for that refusal by having his vineyard coveted by King Achav, which eventually cost him his life. When individuals are blessed by Hashem with special abilities, these are tools He wishes us to use to serve Him.
The Midrash does not state the reason why Navot stayed home. It could be due to a fear of violating the Northern Kingdom’s policy of preventing its citizens from visiting the Beit HaMikdash in Yerushalayim. Perhaps Navot did not rely on the Torah’s promise that one’s land would not be confiscated when away in Jerusalem (Shemot 34:24).
Accordingly, since Navot does not rely on Hashem’s promise of protection due to his fear of Achav, Hashem punishes Navot by having Achav confiscate his field. Navot, it turns out, fears Achav when he should not, and does not fear him when he should. In other words, Navot’s needless fear (“BeChiya Shel Chinam;” see Ta’annit 29a) causes him to lose that which he fears losing.
This teaches a lesson of major importance: sometimes our fears are themselves a source of problems. This is a major reason why the Lubavitcher Rebbes dating back to the Tzemach Tzedek all taught the principle of “Tracht Gut Vet Zein Gut," “think good, and it will be good.” If one thinks positively, things will work out positively.
However, while it does account for the reason why Navot deserves to lose his field, the Midrash fails to address the reason for Navot’s death.115As noted by TABC student Akiva Prager (‘20). Why does he deserve to die? The answer may be based on the Peshat explanation that he unnecessarily endangers himself by speaking in an uncouth manner to Achav.
Alternatively, Navot fears that he will be caught and killed by Achav’s forces if he travels to Yerushalayim. According to this approach, Navot loses his life since he unnecessarily fears death instead of relying on Hashem’s guaranteed protection.
Conclusion
We cannot always account for the reasons behind Hashem’s actions. However, on many occasions, the stories within the Tanach provide us with adequate information, such as the story of Navot HaYizre’eili. Melachim I 21 provides us with this information to ensure that we do not repeat Navot’s fatal mistakes.