Melakhim B 11-12: The Wicked Queen and the Boy King (Atalia and Yo'ash)
SEFER MELAKHIM BET: THE SECOND BOOK OF KINGS
By Rav Alex Israel
*********************************************************
Dedicated in memory of
Joseph Y. Nadler zl, Yosef ben Yechezkel Tzvi
*********************************************************
Shiur #13: Chapters 11-12
The Wicked Queen and the Boy King (Atalia and Yoash)
The Yeihu revolt generates a political upheaval in both the Northern and
Southern kingdoms. In Yisrael, Yeihu succeeded King Yehoram whom he had
assassinated,[1]
and thus, despite the advent of a new royal dynasty, Israel did not suffer from
break in leadership. In Yehuda, however,
with the king having been killed,[2]
and many of his close family members as well[3],
a
leadership vacuum emerged. It is Atalia, the king's mother, also the daughter of
Achav and Izevel (8:26), who seizes the throne. In an act of unspeakable
cruelty, she kills the entire royal family, including, we assume, many of her
own children and grandchildren (11:1). Unbeknownst to her, baby Yoash, the
youngest of Achazyahu's sons, heir to the monarchy, is secretly snatched from
the massacre and is raised in secret, until he will be able to ascend the
throne. Yet again, this episode bears witness to the corrupting influences of
the Northern kingdom; norms that originated in Phoenicia have now seeped into
Yehuda by its alliance with the North.
Unlike Yeihu's murderous revolution in Yisrael, Atalia's motive in massacring
her own family is inexplicit.[4]
The sanitized phrase "she killed off all the seed of the royal house," (1:1)
indicates an absolutely tyrannical desire to govern that sweeps away all normal
moral sensitivity,[5]
as described by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz:
On the one hand, it is clear that Atalia, like [Izevel], was not just a strong
personality but a woman who yearned to rule; a woman with a real ambition, an
intense passion for power... Her passion was simply for power itself, and this
drive of hers was so strong that it caused her to carry out a series of extreme
acts, even to the point of destroying the royal heirs.
She did not even make any serious political or religious changes within the
country. She became simply a manifestation of this one drive: to rule.[6]
Rabbi Steinsaltz also explains how the political background made this all
possible:
Queen Atalia's rule was possible
only because she ruled in the kingdom of
[Yehuda], where a single dynasty had reigned for many years, and where there had
not been a single real revolt or serious threat to overthrow the royal dynasty.
Thus Atalia, who in fact had no real claim or right to rule, could, in the
absence of other claimants to power, govern for six years a fairly long
period.
If she had come to power a few years earlier, it would have been claimed that
the queen was getting political help and support from the members of the ruling
house of [Yisrael], to whom she was related. The surprising thing is that Atalia
took up the reins of government after her family and her power base in the
kingdom of [Yisrael] were destroyed to the last man. At such a time, there
should have been a popular response against foreign rule (it should be
remembered that Atalia may have been [Izevels] daughter and, in any case, was
not from [Yehuda] but from [Yisrael] and was thus, from every viewpoint, a
foreign transplant). Nevertheless, despite all these strikes against her, Atalia
maintained control of the government for a considerable length of time. Her
removal from power was the result of a conspiracy in the highest circles of the
kingdom, and not as the result of a popular revolt.[7]
And yet, the Tanakh itself tells her story only obliquely as a
preliminary detail in the plot to overthrow her. Atalia is treated as an
illegitimate monarch, with her reign ignored by the standard protocol employed
by Sefer Melakhim for each king. Her story, the pretext for the
rise of the boy-king Yoash, merely underscores her fraudulent rule.
Y(EH)OASH, KING OF YEHUDA
Yoash has a colorful and intriguing biography. He is the child-king who
survives Atalia's massacre and is raised in the chambers of the Temple, only to
be crowned at age seven in a dramatic coup.
[8]
Guided by the High Priest, he dedicates
his life to the Temple, but in his old age, for no obvious reason, he turns away
from God and serves Baal. We shall follow his life story and seek to understand
his surprising turn to idolatry, late in life. Why would a person so entrenched
in the service of God suddenly repudiate his life's commitment? What happened?
In studying Yoash's life, we shall divide it into three sections to give it
some shape and structure:
1. His Infancy
2. The Renovation of the Temple
3. Yoash's Demise: Chazael's Attack, and Yoash's
Assassination
-
YOASH, THE CHILD KING (AGE 1-7)
After Atalia massacres all the male heirs to the throne, Yoash's aunt,
Yehosheva, saves his life, concealing the little prince and his wet-nurse. One
imagines that this effort is far from simple; after all, the baby's body would
have had to be accounted for. Almost certainly, a team of conspirators is
involved in hiding the young heir, probably people affiliated with the more
traditional regime of Yehuda, which had been God-fearing. The most prominent of
this clandestine circle is Yehoyada, the High Priest who allows Yoash to be
raised in the confines of the Temple itself.[9] Six years later,
when Yoash is seven years old, the secret is revealed. Yehoyada stages a
revolution within the courtyard of the Temple. He ensures that the Temple is
fully guarded and secured, and, in an organized ceremony, the young king is
crowned; the trumpets sound, and the people applaud and acclaim their new king.
By the time Atalia realizes what is happening, it is too late.
Yoash is the sovereign, and Atalia is
executed.
The coronation is followed by a ceremony, in which Yehoyada leads the nation in
renewing the covenant with God (11:17), thereby formally closing the period
during which Baal held sway in Yehuda. Moreover, he dismantles and destroys the
accoutrements of the Baal worship which had infiltrated the country under King
Yoram, King Achazyahu, and Queen Atalia.
For the next period, as Yoash grows up, it would appear that the kohanim
Priests are the strongest political group in the country, backing,
protecting, and guiding Yoash. Yoash clearly identifies with their worldview
and accepts their instruction (12:3). It therefore comes as no surprise when
Yoash turns his attention, as an adult, to a serious renovation and rebuilding
of the Temple.[10]
Yoash commissions the Priests to finance this project:
Yoash said to the Priests, All the money brought into the house of the Lord as
sacred donations
let the Priests receive it, each from their acquaintance;
they in turn shall make repairs to the House, whenever damage may be found."
(12:5-6)
-
THE RENOVATION OF THE TEMPLE[11]
Despite the lofty plans of the Temple renovation project, something goes wrong.
It is now Yoash's twenty-third year; the king is now thirty years old, and most
certainly an independent character. The king summons Yehoyada and the other
Priests, and accuses them of negligence vis-a-vis the Temple:
He assembled the Priests and the Levites and charged them as follows; Go out to
the towns of Yehuda and collect money from all Israel for the repair of the
House of your God. Do it quickly! But the Levites did not act quickly. And the
king summoned Yehoyada
and said to him: '"Why have you not demanded that the
Levites collect the tax[12]
from (the people of) Yehuda and Yerushalayim?'" (II Divrei Ha-yamim
24:6)
The Priests and Levites have failed at financing the Temple. And so, the king
steps in and adopts a direct method of taxation, bypassing the Priests. He
institutes a tax at the Temple itself, by means of a simple collection box:
And the Priest Yehoyada took a chest, and bored a hole in the lid of it, and set
it beside the altar, on the right side as one came into the house of the Lord
and when they saw that there was much money in the box, the kings scribe and
the High Priest came up, and they put up in bags
And they gave the money
into
the hands of the workmen (of the Temple). (II Melakhim 12:10-12)
In other words, he institutes an official admission fee for visiting the Temple.
This new financing strategy
is more effective:
All the officers and all the people brought it joyously and threw the money
into the box until it was full. (II Divrei Ha-yamim 24:9-10)
But why did the Priests and the Levites fail in their
responsibility? What is the flaw in the original mode of financing?
THE PROBLEM: PROTEKTZIA
One has to read carefully to discern the problem. The
Priests' initial method of collection is to solicit funds, "each from their
acquaintance": from personal
contacts, friends, and benefactors. The Radak explains that the Priests would
collect contributions by spreading the word around their circles of neighbors,
friends, associates and colleagues. This should have been an effective technique
to raise sufficient funding. If each Levite had done this, then the costs of the
renovation would have been met.
However, this method is reminiscent of a charity board
or a school committee in which each member must fill a table for the dinner with
their friends and relatives. This method may work well for small communal
organizations, but it is a disaster for public institutions. Why?
First, there is apathy. What incentive do Priests have to fundraise for the
Temple? As it is, Priests have to make collections for the tithes teruma
and maaser in order to subsist. One may presume that the Priests had
been reluctant to make requests for further money. Furthermore, they may have
feared that a generous donation to the Temple would come at the expense of funds
for themselves. Maybe they simply had resented being the sole fundraising
mechanism for the Temple renovations.
Second, this method opens the possibility of corruption. This system allows
certain Priests to become "activists," lobbying for extra funds and acquiring
powerful benefactors and backers, who may subsequently have a greater influence
in deciding the allocation of those funds. Financing through personal favors and
protektzia opens the door to paybacks, bribery, and other abuses of the
system.
Finally, if the fundraising mechanism is entrusted to an informal system,
without direct accountability, it may not be too difficult to imagine a scenario
in which Priests personally solicited funds and certain monies "went missing,"
other people using it for political gain. And when an organisation
becomes corrupt, who wants to put more money into it! King Yoash says:
"Do
not receive any more money from your acquaintances,
but deliver it for the repair of the house" (12:8),
indicating that some money is not being delivered! II Divrei Ha-yamim
(24:5) simply attributes the failure of the plan to laziness: an amateur system
rather than a fraudulent one. Nevertheless, shouldnt we conclude that this mode
of collection is fertile ground for problems?
THE SOLUTION: REGULATED GIVING
Yoash changes the system:
·
First,
"now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance"
(12:8).
·
Second, he introduces the money chest alongside the Temple altar.
Everyone who visits the Temple is required to give a donation.
·
Third, "the kings
scribe and the High Priest came up, and they put up in bags" (12:11).
This improves the situation in several ways:
1. Control: The money
management is taken away from the control of the Priests.
2. Anonymity: People
cannot build large power factions by means of their fundraising potential. This
limits the possible corruption within the ranks of the Priests.
3. Accountability: A
representative of the government and the High Priest each have to be
present as the money is counted.
II Divrei Ha-yamim adds that the people gave this tax "joyously." Who gives
taxes with glee? Not many people do, except those who are relieved that they now
have a transparent and accountable mechanism of donating to and supporting their
beloved spiritual institution. Now they need not be concerned about financial
misappropriation or mere amateur financing.
The text suggests that these improvements did the trick and that, indeed, the
Temple received the requisite funds.
TRUSTING THE TREASURER
We have spoken about the problems that arise when relying too heavily
upon an informal fundraising mechanism, based upon personal connections and
simple goodwill. In contrast, regarding King Yoashs plan we read:
They reckoned not with the men, into whose hand they
delivered the money to be bestowed on workmen: for they dealt faithfully.
(12:16)
Rashi explains:
The treasurers did not bring the administrators to
account for their expenditure, given to the workmen and contractors, for they
were not suspect, for they acted in faith.
Despite the earlier misappropriation of Temple funds,
the administrators who supervise and manage the builders and craftsmen for the
Temple are given a free hand to make financial decisions for the Temple
renovations, without close scrutiny. Interestingly, the Talmud uses this as a
source for rules of charity funds:
Our Rabbis taught: The collectors of charity are not required to give an account
of the moneys entrusted to them for charity, nor the treasurers of the Temple of
the moneys given for holy purposes. There is no actual proof of this (in
Tanakh), but there is a hint of it in the words: They reckoned not with the
men into whose hand they delivered the money to give to them that did the work,
for they dealt faithfully." (Bava Batra 9a)
We should note that the Talmud does not advocate for a completely non-regulated
environment. Talmudic legislation mandates two, and preferably three, charity
treasurers, both for collection and distribution of charitable funds, in order
to preclude fraud and ensure financial integrity. Additionally, the Talmud rules
that the charity officer be a person of impeccable reputation. On the other
hand, if every charity official is cross-examined over each budgetary decision,
or every receipt that is misplaced, then few people would be willing to take the
task upon themselves. At some level, along with the safeguards and the
accountability, there must also be a certain element of trust and integrity.
When is trust appropriate and when is it negligent? When can one rely on the
integrity of public officials and when must one be suspicious and wary? How does
one decide?
These are difficult dilemmas facing any public sector, because, obviously, there
is always a degree of discretion in running such a project: do you take the
cheaper or more expensive craftsman? Which fabric or material do you select? Do
you take standard goods or have them specially designed? When it comes to
questions such as these, it would appear that license is given to the
trustworthy work-managers to appropriate the funds as needed. And it would
appear that part of their professional pride is precisely that trait of
integrity and honesty "for they acted in faith."
NEXT WEEK, we shall address the religious turnaround of
Yoash, and the reversal of the kingdom's fortunes in the latter days of
Yoash's life.
[1]
9:24
[2]
9:27-8
[3] 10:13-14
[4] There are
several instances of kings who kill the entire line of a pretender or contender
for the throne, especially in Yisrael. See Shoftim 9:5, Shmuel I
24:21, I Melakhim 15:29. But here it is her own family!
[5] Atalia bears
the title, unique in Tanakh, of "wicked - mirsha'at" (II
Divrei Ha-yamim 24:7).
[6]
Biblical
Images
(New York: Basic Books, 1984), p.193
[7]
(ibid. pg.190)
[8]
The figure of King Yoash burst in to the public limelight some years ago when a
tablet surfaced, said to have been excavated on the Temple Mount, which quoted,
almost verbatim, certain lines from Divrei Ha-yamim that relate to
Yoash. Unfortunately, the widespread assessment was that it was a forgery. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoash_Inscription.
[9] See Shir
Ha-shirim Rabba 1:66 and Midrash Sochar Tov on
Tehillim 18:23, where there is a discussion as to whether he was kept in
the attic of the Temple or the side chambers see Rashi and Radak. The
Targum to II Divrei Ha-yamim 22:11 suggests that he was kept
in the Kodesh Kodashim (Holy of Holies) itself, but possibly the
intent is to the attic above the Kodesh Kodashim (Daat Mikra).
[10]
This is particularly urgent due to the vandalizing of the Temple, perpetrated by
the Atalia regime. See II Divrei Ha-yamim 24:7.
[11]
This is the haftara for Parashat Shekalim
[12]
This is called, "the tax of Moses the servant of God" and would seem to refer to the
annual half-shekel donation to the Temple. See Shemot 31:11-16.
In that passage it seems that the money was used in order to take a national
census, with the silver donated to the Tabernacle. However, Divrei Ha-yamim
supports the tradition as detailed in Tractate Shekalim of an annual
half-shekel tax for Temple purposes even in the absence of a national census.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!