meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/Depths of Yonah/English/The Depths of Yonah, Rabbi Chaim & Binyamin Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2018.txt"}
text: Depths of Yonah
  במצולות ספר יונה
  The Depths of Yonah, Rabbi Chaim & Binyamin Jachter. Teaneck, NJ, 2018
  
  
  Depths of Yonah
  
  Acknowledgements
  
  I was intimidated and concerned. I had never taught Sefer Yonah (the book of Jonah) and the Torah Academy of Bergen County had assigned me four sections of Sefer Yonah. I worried and fretted as I looked ahead. However, as I began to immerse myself in Sefer Yonah and its many and varied Mefarshim (commentaries) it dawned on me that Sefer Yonah is a Sefer like no other in its potential for rich discussion and insight.
  The four different groups at Torah Academy eagerly embraced Sefer Yonah and shared their thoughts and reflections on the very fundamental issues raised in this magnificent Sefer. I thank this group of nearly one hundred Orthodox teenagers for the electrifying learning experience and the many outstanding questions and answers shared.
  The learning was so special we decided that we wanted to share this experience with the broader community. I thank my son (and Torah Academy Talmid - student) Binyamin who, in the midst of his learning at Yeshivat Shaalvim in Israel, partnered with me in creating a work which helps reveal deep insights of Sefer Yonah and its profound connection to Yom Kippur. Binyamin brilliantly recommended including Torah Academy alumnus Aryeh Krischer in our project to edit and enhance our work. Aryeh has exceeded our expectations in smoothing out the language and contributing important questions and insights.
  I thank Rav Yosef Adler, Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Academy and Rav of Congregation Rinat Yisrael for his constant encouragement and specific support for the publication of this work. Torah Academy’s administrators Rav Asher Yablok, Mr. Arthur Poleyeff and Rav Ezra Wiener are also due a debt of gratitude for their kindness and support.
  The breakfast table in the Torah Academy faculty lounge is a treasure of our Yeshiva. I can always rely on a significant discussion amongst the Rebbeim concerning the issues in Sefer Yonah which yields invaluable and enriching insights. I thank my wonderful colleagues for providing such a spiritually nourishing environment.
  I thank Hashem for the privilege of serving as the Rav of Congreagtion of Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck. The breaks during the Yom Kippur Tefilah in which we delve deeply into Sefer Yonah are among my sweetest memories. May Hashem continue to send us many more years of beautiful Shabbatot and Yamim Tovim together. Special thank you to Heidi and Jack Varon for enabling this wonderful Kehillah.
  I thank my wife Malca and children Bracha and Yisroel Meir, Binyamin, Chaya Zipporah, Atara, and Hillel for providing a loving and happy environment in our house. My, Baruch Hashem, many Sefarim and articles easily flow due to the joyful environment in our home. The accolade Rabi Akiva bestowed upon his family “Sheli VeShelachem Shelah Hi,” “my learning and your learning is all due to her”, applies at least in equal measure to my family.
  May this work serve LeIlui Nishmat, to elevate the souls of my parents Ben and Shirley Jachter a”h. Although they never had the opportunity to know their daughter-in-law Malca and grandchildren, I am certain that they would have been enormously pleased with their high quality character.
  May this work serve as a merit for my ailing father-in-law Rav Shmuel Tokayer and a source of comfort and support to my dedicated mother-in-law Mrs. Chana Tokayer. May Hashem extend them both great support and kindness.
  Most of all, I thank Hashem for fulfilling my dreams to be blessed with a loving spouse and children, and to spend a life immersed in Kedushah, holy projects. As a young man I dreamed of teaching Torah to teenagers and leading a friendly and warm Kehillah (congregation). Thank you Hashem for transforming these aspirations into reality. Thank you Hashem for facilitating such a large and loyal readership, way beyond any dreams I harbored. “Mah Ashiv LaHashem Kol Tamolehi Alai”, I am overwhelmed with the enormous gratitude to which I owe our Creator (Tehillim 116:12). May it be His Will to continue bestowing all these blessings for many decades to come.
  
  
  
  
  
  Section 1
  
  
  
  
  
  Yonah Flees Hashem
  Chapter 1 - A Sefer Like No Other - Radak’s Stunning Question
  The question itself is shocking. Radak, a premier commentator, asks why the Tanach (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) would bother to include a Nevuah (prophecy) directed to the population of Nineveh, all of whom were not Jewish. The question presumes that the Tanach collects and records Hashem’s communications only as they pertain to the Jewish people. Indeed, Radak notes, Yonah is the only Sefer (book) in Tanach in which Jews play no role1<i class="footnote">Sefer Iyov, though, deals entirely with non-Jews. Radak might, as does the Rambam, subscribe to the belief that Iyov is a parable and so the fact that Iyov is not Jewish also is irrelevant. </i>.
  Support for the Radak’s QuestionThe eighth of Tevet, two days before the fast on the tenth of Tevet, is regarded in Piyyutim (liturgical poetry) as a day of mourning for our people. Chazal teach that the eighth of Tevet is the day king Ptolemy compelled seventy sages of Israel to translate the Torah into Greek (Megillah 9a). This Gemara makes clear that the Torah is directed exclusively at the Jewish People and thus provides evidence for the Radak’s presumption.
  Radak’s Three AnswersRadak answers that Sefer Yonah is incorporated into Tanach since Nineveh’s Teshuvah (repentance) serves as a model and inspiration for future Teshuvah2<i class="footnote">This also clearly explains why Chazal (Megillah 31a) instituted the reading of Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur at Minchah.</i>. Nineveh provides an especially good role model since the people repented the first time they heard rebuke from a Navi. Their actions also serve as somewhat of a rebuke to us: if non-Jews were rebuked once and repented, all the more so we, who constitute Hashem’s special nation, should certainly heed the call of genuine spiritual leaders to repent.
  Another reason given to include Sefer Yonah in Tanach is to record the great miracles described therein for all generations. Indeed, Ramban at the conclusion of Parashat Bo writes that recognition and acknowledgement of Hashem’s open miracles leads to an appreciation of the daily hidden miracles Hashem performs for us.
  Finally, Radak notes that Hashem accepts Teshuvah and extends forgiveness to all nations of the world. Sefer Yonah clarifies for us that indeed “VeRachamav Al Kol Ma’asav,” “Hashem extends His mercy to all of His creations” (Tehillim (Psalms) 145:9).
  Sefer Yonah broadens the horizons and perspectives of Jews to include all of the world’s inhabitants. As the Sefer concludes, how could Hashem <i>not</i> be concerned and emotionally invested in a large city of more than one hundred twenty thousand people?
  Although Hashem undoubtedly reserves His special love for Am Yisrael, His special nation, Hashem is invested in the spirituality and well-being of every person3<i class="footnote">Although Hashem was displeased with the translation of the Tanach into Greek, He did not foil this effort (see Megillah 3a, Megillah 9a, and the Piyyutim for Asarah BeTevet. Apparently, on some level Hashem wanted all of Tanach to be translated and all peoples exposed to the great lessons communicated by the Book of Books. The displeasure with the translation might stem from its inaccuracies. See Gemara and commentary for more details.</i>. He is called “מלך העולם” (king of the entire world) after all. So it’s not just about us. As the Ramchal teaches, the universe is created for Man to choose well, Jews and non-Jews alike. In addition to the universal responsibility to choose well, the Jews have a special responsibility to bear.
  Additionally, Sefer Yonah has made a great stride toward bettering the world and its population. Yonah/Jonah is a wildly popular biblical story which has successfully communicated to all nations of the world that Hashem cares about every human being and that every human being is redeemable. Perhaps it is because of these essential lessons that Hashem influenced Sefer Yonah to be written in a most compelling manner that in every generation attracts untold millions to its powerful messages.
  ConclusionOf course, the most obvious reason to include Sefer Yonah in Tanach is its grappling with some of the most fundamental issues of Torah life. At the heart of Sefer Yonah is the struggle between Yonah’s advocacy for the administration of Middat HaDin, Hashem’s attribute of strict justice, and Hashem’s insistence on the necessity of Middat HaRachamim, Hashem’s merciful aspects. It seems that Radak does not offer this answer, perhaps because this tension is readily discernable and did not require Radak’s insight.
  Perhaps, though, because the tension is so readily discernable, Yonah is an ideal choice to read on Yom Kippur. At the height of the Yom HaDin (Day of Judgement) we are reminded that Hashem conducts Himself with a balance of Din and Rachamim, and that even the most undeserving can still repent.
  
  
  
  Chapter 2 - Why Did Yonah Flee? - Part One
  It is unprecedented and unparalleled in any other situation in Tanach! Why would Yonah flee from Hashem? Why would a Navi refuse to go to Nineveh and comply with Hashem’s command? This is the central question of Sefer Yonah and resolving this problem will lead us to the essence of the message of this great Sefer.
  Explanation Number One - Yonah is a Straightforward SinnerNone of the Mefarshim (commentators) (to the best of my knowledge) adopt the approach that Yonah is a simple and straightforward run of the mill sinner. However, the reader/listener to Sefer Yonah, who might not take the time to delve deeply into the meaning of the Sefer, might easily receive this erroneous impression. One might think the story of Yonah is simply the story of a sinner who is punished and performs Teshuvah and repents, serving as a role model for us especially as we read Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur.
  The reasons why none of the Mefarshim adopt such an approach are manifold. To begin, simply to reach the level of a Navi one must be of great spiritual character and stature. The Rambam (Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 7:1) writes:
  Nevuah (prophecy) rests only upon one with great knowledge and wisdom, heroic in his personal attributes, one whose Yetzer HaRa (evil inclination) never overcomes him and whose thinking is very wide and correct4<i class="footnote">This is especially so regarding a Navi chosen to deliver Mussar (rebuke). </i>.
  Moreover, why would Hashem make a series of extraordinary miracles such as with the fish and then later with the Kikayon for a petty sinner? Finally, Yonah describes himself while in the throes of a ferociously intense conversation during a fierce storm as “Ivri Anochi VeEt Hashem Elokei HaShamayim Ani Yarei,” “I am a Hebrew and the God of the Heavens I fear” (Yonah 1:9).
  Yirat Shamayim, Fear of Heaven [Hashem], fundamentally means respect of God. Yonah defines himself during an intensely existential moment as one who deeply reveres the Ribbono Shel Olam (Master of the Universe). If Yonah fears Hashem then there must be something deeper, believe all the Mefarshim, for Yonah’s singular rebellion.
  Explanation Number Two - Rashi to 4:1 vs. Ibn EzraRashi5<i class="footnote">To clarify, Rashi adopts this approach only to explain Yonah’s displeasure at Hashem forgiving Nineveh. He does not explicitly offer this as a reason for Yonah’s flight to Tarshish. Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, though, does explain Yonah’s flight based on this reason.</i>, following Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, raises the idea that Yonah fears to appear as a Navi Sheker (false prophet). Yonah anticipates that Nineveh will be receptive to his message and that they will repent, leading Hashem to forgive them. Thus, his warning that Nineveh will be destroyed in forty days (3:4) would go unfulfilled leading Yonah to fear that he would be regarded as a fraud.
  Ibn Ezra (1:1) offers a scathing critique of this approach. He asks the obvious question - how could this concern justify rebellion against Hashem6<i class="footnote">One may add: why would it be sensible for Yonah to accept the certain designation as a Navi who is Koveish Nevuato, refuses to deliver his prophecy, to avoid the mere possibility of being classified as a Navi Sheker? </i>? Moreover, the people of Nineveh live so far away from Yonah’s residence in Eretz Yisrael why would he care about how he is regarded in Nineveh? Yonah could have presented his prophecy, left Nineveh, and never been heard from again in that region.
  Finally, the people of Nineveh would not be foolish to the extent of calling Yonah a liar. After all, they readily understood that in order to be saved they needed to do Teshuvah. It was obvious to the people of Nineveh that Yonah issued a warning only because there was an opportunity to overturn the decree with Teshuvah7<i class="footnote">This is yet another reason for reading Yonah on Yom Kippur, as it clinches the principle that Teshuvah can overturn a heavenly punishment, as the celebrated Piyut recited by Ashkenazim on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur states “UTeshuvah UTefilah UTzedakah Maavirin Et Roah HaGezeirah,” “repentance, prayer and charity can overturn the evil portion of a decree.” </i>. Accordingly, why would Nineveh regard Yonah as a Navi Sheker if they recognize they were saved because they did Teshuvah?
  Therefore the Ibn Ezra utterly rejects the opinion of Rashi following the Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer8<i class="footnote">Torah Academy of Bergen County student Max Schmutter adds that had Yonah been concerned about being labeled a Navi Sheker, he could have or should have explicitly stipulated that the decree of destruction applies only if they do not do Teshuvah. One may respond that Yonah fears that Hashem will not permit him to exercise control over the words that he says to Nineveh, similar to Bilam who tried and failed to curse the Jews. Thus, Yonah may have feared that he would not the option to make this stipulation. Aryeh Krischer responds to this potential fear by pointing out that in general prophets shape the messages they give (Sanhedrin 89a) and Bilam is the exception since he tried to go against the will of Hashem.</i>. Indeed, none of the other Mefarshim adopt the approach of Rashi/Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer.
  Understanding Rashi on a Deeper LevelBesides Ibn Ezra’s seemingly irrefutable arguments, as my Torah Academy of Bergen County students argued, Rashi’s approach, simply put, makes Yonah seem petty. Would Yonah prefer the more than one hundred and twenty thousand residents of Nineveh perish9<i class="footnote">One could argue that Yonah does not consider these lives as important since in his calculation they deserve to die, as we shall later discuss. </i> rather than he be accused of being a false prophet? This sort of attitude does not at all seem compatible with the Rambam’s aforementioned description of a Navi.
  Instead, we suggested that Rashi does not mean that Yonah was merely concerned about preserving his reputation. Rather, he was concerned for Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying Hahsem), specifically about avoiding a Chillul Hashem (desecrating Hashem). Yonah was concerned, according to this approach, that the word of Hashem would never be taken seriously in the future if his warning to Nineveh would not materialize soon after he pronounced his prophecy.
  Moreover, one may suggest, based on his name, that Yonah was deeply devoted to truth. Shmuel I 25:25 states “Ki Chishmo Kein Hu,” “a person’s essence is captured by his name.” Many have noted that Yonah is described in 1:1 as Yonah ben Amittai. His father’s name Ammitai derives from the word “Emet”, truth10<i class="footnote">On the other hand, a “Yonah” is a dove, representing peace, yet Yonah fights that peace by working towards Nineveh’s death, trying to die himself, and raging against Hashem during the Kikayon episode. Elsewhere we discuss the meaning of the name Yonah. </i>, which indicates this trait was a fundamental part of Yonah’s name.
  Yonah, as stated in Melachim II 14:25, is from the town of Gat Chefeir, which is located in the portion of the tribe of Zevulun (whose borders are delineated in Yehoshua 19:14). This means that Yonah lived in the Northern Kingdom (during the reign of the less than excellent Yoravam ben Yoash), which was steeped in Avodah Zarah (idolatry). Indeed, Hashem reports (Melachim I 19:18) that only seven thousand of the residents of the Northern kingdom refrained from idolatry. For Yonah to emerge as a prophet in such an environment, a deep and even fanatic devotion to truth was necessary.
  Human nature craves to follow the herd and not to differ from societal norms. It takes an enormous devotion to truth to have the courage to deviate from the societal norm. Moreover, Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim I 9:1) report that Yonah was a disciple of the prophet Elisha. It is clear from Melachim II 4:42-43, 5:21-26, and 6:1-7 that the students of Elisha lived in dire poverty. To be a devotee of Elisha required a deep devotion to truth no matter what the cost, a devotion Yonah took too far.
  I suggest that Rashi and Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer view Yonah as someone who is single minded in his devotion to truth and that any deviation from truth is deeply disturbing and intolerable to him. For this reason, the mission to Nineveh was absolutely intolerable. Indeed, the Zohar (Shemot 193) writes that “Yonah emerges from the strength of Eliyahu [HaNavi]”. Chazal, in fact, believe that Yonah is the child that was revived by Eliyahu HaNavi in Melachim I 17:21-22. Eliyahu HaNavi along with Pinechas are the only characters in Tanach described as zealots (Bemidbar 25:11 and Melachim I 19:10 and 14). One may speculate that according to this view Yonah spent time with Eliyahu HaNavi after the revival and Yonah thereby adopted Eliyahu’s zealous devotion to truth.
  ConclusionAccording to Rashi and Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, Yonah was Ben Amittai, a zealot for truth. A major theme of Sefer Yonah according to this approach is Hashem trying to temper and balance Yonah’s single minded devotion to truth with other Godly values.
  One cannot focus exclusively only one Torah value. This is the import of the teaching of Shlomo HaMelech in Kohelet (7:16) that one should refrain from being too wise or too pious. Piety and wisdom constitute core Torah values. However, if one focuses exclusively on only one of these values, to the exclusion of all others, one has distorted the teachings and meaning of the Torah.
  Yonah mistakenly focused exclusively on the value of truth to the exclusion of all of other values such as Chessed (kind deeds) and Teshuvah. According to Rashi and Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, through the experiences recorded in Sefer Yonah the prophet learns to balance out his profound devotion to truth with other Torah values as well.
  Furthermore, notes Aryeh Krischer, Yonah’s fanatical devotion to truth and Din not only led him to ignore other Torah values, but also led him to actively disobey Hashem. The Gemara (Sotah 14a) learns proper values from Hashem by the principle of VeHalachta BeDrachav, and you shall walk in [Hashem’s] ways. More than simply having views lacking in nuance, Yonah’s flawed perception of proper values led to disregarding the ultimate value: to follow the will and ways of Hashem.
  On Yom Kippur, we are summoned to take a hard-nosed and objective look at ourselves. We are called upon to discover not only that which we lack but also that to which we devote undue attention. This is the great balancing act that the Rambam teaches in Hilchot Deiot that constitutes the key to life: avoiding any extremes, with specific and very limited exceptions. Yonah’s misdirected emphasis on Din, justice, reminds us to remember this theme as the end of our Yom Kippur approaches. We must not only repent for the old, but adjust the new to ensure it too aligns with the will of Hashem.
  We continue in our next chapter with more fascinating and insightful explanations of why Yonah disobeyed Hashem’s command to rebuke Nineveh.
  
  
  
  Chapter 3 - Why Did Yonah Flee? - Part Two
  Let us continue to peel back the layers as we endeavor to crack the mystery of why a great spiritual figure such as Yonah would disobey a direct order from Hashem.
  Approach Number Three – Yonah Protecting Am YisraelAccording to the Midrash cited by Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, Yonah was trying to protect the image of our people. Yonah is concerned that if the people of Nineveh do Teshuvah, it will bring about a catastrophe to Am Yisrael.
  Rashi (1:3) presents this idea as follows:
  What motivated Yonah to refuse to go to Nineveh? He reasoned, ‘the non-Jews are easily led to Teshuvah. If I address them and they do Teshuvah then I will be Mechayeiv (condemn) the Jewish People who do not heed the words of the Neviim. ‘
  Rashi’s formulation brings to mind the well-known Gemara11<i class="footnote">Translation adapted from  </i> (Yoma 35b)
  Our rabbis taught: A poor person, a rich person, and an evil person come before the heavenly court. They ask the poor person, “Why did you not study Torah?” If the poor person answers, “I was poor and worried about earning a living,” they will ask the poor person, “Were you poorer than Hillel?” For it was told of Hillel that every day he used to work and earn one tropaik [small amount], half of which he would give as tuition to the doorkeeper at the House of Learning; the other half he would spend on his and his family’s needs. One day, he was unable to earn anything and the doorkeeper would not permit him to enter the House of Learning. So he climbed up to the roof and sat upon the window to hear the words of the Living God out of the mouths of Shmaya and Avtalion. That day was a Friday in the middle of winter, and snow fell on him from the sky. When the dawn rose, Shmaya said to Avtalion, “Brother Avtalion, every day, this house is light and today it is dark.” They looked up and saw the figure of a man in the window. They went up and found Hillel covered by four feet of snow. They brought him down, bathed and anointed him, and placed him in front of the fire...
  They ask the rich person, “Why did you not study Torah?” If the rich person answers, “I was rich and preoccupied with my possessions,” they say to the rich person, “Do you mean to say you were richer than Rabi Elazar?” Of Rabi Eleazar ben Harsom, it is reported that his father left him an inheritance of one thousand cities on land and a thousand ships on sea. Yet every day he would take a sack of flour on his shoulder and go from city to city and province to province for the sole purpose of studying the Torah...
  They ask the evil person, “Why did you not study Torah?” If the evil person says, “I was so good-looking that I was too busy just keeping my passions under control,” they will ask him, “Do you mean to say you were better-looking then Joseph?” It was told of Joseph the virtuous that every day Potiphar’s wife tried to seduce him with words and actions. The dresses she put on for him in the morning, she did not wear in the evening; those she put on in the evening, she did not wear the next morning. She said to him, “Yield to me!” He said, “No.” She said, “I will have you imprisoned” [if you don’t]...Finally, she offered him a thousand pieces of silver if only he would lie with her, but he refused...
  Thus, the poor who do not study Torah stand condemned by the examples set by Hillel. The rich who do not study Torah stand condemned by the example set by Rabbi Eleazar ben Harsom. And the evil who do not study Torah stand condemned by the example set by Joseph.
  Similarly, the Teshuvah of Nineveh will condemn the Jewish people by raising the bar for Teshuvah in the same manner in which Hillel raised the bar for Torah study for the poor, Rabi Eleazar ben Harsom raised the bar for Torah study for the wealthy, and Yosef HaTzadik raised the bar for resisting the Yetzer HaRa even in the most challenging of circumstances.
  Rav Ben Zion Shafier offered the following information to help understand this idea: No one thought it was possible to run a mile in less than four minutes before 1954. Many made the effort but no one was able to do so. Many experts in human physiology claimed at that time that the human body is incapable of achieving this feat. However, once it was first achieved in 1954 by Roger Bannister in 3:59.4 the "four-minute barrier" was subsequently broken by many male athletes, and is now the standard of all male professional middle distance runners.
  This idea is called the Elephant Dilemma. A baby elephant does not possess sufficient strength to remove the peg holding it in captivity. As it grows up, the elephant is much stronger than necessary to remove the peg from the ground where it is stuck. Even so, fully grown elephants do not typically escape the circus. This phenomenon is due to the fact that the elephant has a psychological barrier telling it that it still is not strong enough to uproot the stake holding it down. But if the peg is accidentally pulled out of its spot, the elephant can never go back to its state of unknowing and inability. It will always be able to escape its pegged prison.
  Similarly, once Nineveh would break the Teshuvah barrier it now sets the standard. Nineveh’s Teshuvah shows we are all capable of repenting, and there is no excuse for not doing so. Of course, where Yonah feared “breaking the Teshuvah barrier” we instead find a compelling reason to hear about the Teshuvah of the people of Nineveh on Yom Kippur.
  According to this Midrash, Yonah sinned for a noble reason. This is called by Chazal (Nazir 23) an Aveirah Lishmah, a sin for the sake of goodness. This is certainly apparent in the manner in which Radak (1:1) presents this Midrash: Yonah advocated for the dignity of the son (i.e. our people, the Jews) and not for the dignity of the father (i.e. Hashem).
  The well intentioned nature of Yonah’s flight makes Yonah’s rebellion worthy of inclusion in Tanach. Sefer Yonah represents the noble struggle with which Yonah engaged Hashem. As Yonah grows and learns during this struggle with Hashem, the discerning and thoughtful student of Sefer Yonah vicariously relives Yonah’s struggle and grows alongside him and from him.
  Non-Jews Close to Teshuvah?Rashi’s comment, though, that non-Jews are Kerovei Teshuvah (close to repentance), unlike the Jewish People, appears to be counterintuitive. Hashem’s special people are not Kerovei Teshuvah but non-Jews are?! This seems an utterly shocking statement to make. Why would Hashem chose us as His nation if it is difficult for us to perform Teshuvah?
  We can answer based on a Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 42:9).
  R. Yakim said: Three are the undaunted: among beasts, it is the dog; among birds, it is the cock; and among the nations, it is Israel. R. Isaac ben Redifa said in the name of R. Ammi: You think that this is said disparagingly, but it is really in their praise. R. Abin said: To this very day Israelites in the Diaspora are called the stiff-necked people.
  Similarly, the Gemara (Beitzah 25b) notes that Hashem specifically chose to give the Torah to us, the most Az (fierce) of all nations. One could translate Az as “fierce,” but I suggest it be translated as “brazen” in the sense that we are opinionated and strong minded and not easily swayed.
  The Jews who accepted the Torah were not a docile and gullible people who accepted everything that Moses told them at face value because of his seductive and persuasive oratory. On the contrary, they constantly bickered with and disobeyed Moses, who was a very poor speaker. Virtually the only time we were unified was at Mount Sinai, because the authenticity of the Sinai experience itself was profoundly compelling and unquestionably persuasive.
  Similarly, we find in every generation that observant Jews are not passively trusting people who accept what they are told. Every significant Talmudic and halachic issue is carefully examined by both experts and laymen who rigorously analyze every opinion, new and old. Despite these many disputes, observant Jews agree upon core values and beliefs such as the divine authorship of the Torah.
  A contentious people that believes in mass revelationThe Israeli novelist Amos Oz noted12<i class="footnote">Quoted in Dan Senor and Saul Singer<i>, Start-Up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle</i> (Toronto: McClelland &amp; Stewart, 2011), 51.</i>:
  Judaism and Israel have always cultivated a culture of doubt and argument, an open-ended game of interpretations, counter-interpretations, reinterpretations, opposing interpretations. From the beginning of the existence of Jewish civilization, it was recognized by its argumentativeness.
  Shimon Peres13<i class="footnote">Quoted in Seth M. Siegel, <i>Let There be Water: Israel’s Solution for a Water-Starved World</i> (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, 2015), 235.</i>, Israel’s former president, told an interviewer while still in office that “the greatest Jewish contribution to the world is dissatisfaction,” which he said “is bad for the country’s leaders, but very good for science and progress.” Nearly every page of Gemara is filled with arguments. In the centuries after the finalization of the Talmud, the disputes persist with great vigor. Maimonides’ code and the Shulhan Arukh were surrounded by vigorous critical review and argumentation. Excellent lectures and high-level yeshivas are distinguished by intense debate and argument. The Gemara relates how R. Yochanan experienced severe depression after the death of Resh Lakish because his students did not challenge him. R. Yochanan deeply missed Resh Lakish’s persistent questioning, which had helped him to refine his Torah thoughts.
  Avraham Avinu began his spiritual path specifically by questioning the status quo of the civilization around him. This Jewish trait persists until today. Science, as shown by the incredibly disproportionate percentage of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes, has been improved by Jews who push past current bounds of science to make new innovation. It’s written into our blood that we don’t sit with what we are told but rather mold the prevailing wisdom into our new creation.
  Perhaps it is for this reason Hashem chose the Jewish people – the notoriously stiff-necked nation – to serve as His witnesses. If such an argumentative and contentious people confirm the veracity of the Sinai revelation despite the extensive demands it makes upon its adherents, then it most certainly is true.
  ConclusionRashi apparently understands that Yonah was a spectacularly charismatic and mesmerizing speaker. The best proof of this is the incredible response of Nineveh to Yonah’s very brief speech recorded in Perek 3. Non-Jews are, relatively speaking, able to be easily swayed to this type of personality (the German people’s being swayed after Hitler’s mesmerizing oratory is an example). Jews, however, as we explained are not. This is precisely the fear that Yonah has when called upon to address Nineveh and bring them to Teshuvah.
  The reader of Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur should realize that the status quo is not something with which to be content and remain idle. Rather, we have to push past what we are being told about who we are into someone who is much better. Sefer Yonah impels us to mold our nature and grow into our new selves that are coming to be this year.
  
  
  
  Chapter 4 - Why Did Yonah Flee? - Part Three
  Approach Number Four - Abarbanel, Mahari Kra, and MalbimYet a fourth explanation is offered by Abarbanel, Mahari Kra, and Malbim to explain Yonah shockingly disobeying Hashem’s order. These commentators note that Nineveh is, of course, the capital city of Assyria and that Assyria will emerge as our major enemy a few generations after Yonah. Yonah would prefer to have Assyria destroyed rather than effectively allow it to inflict immense damage14<i class="footnote">One could question this approach by arguing that, since Hashem concluded that Am Yisrael deserved punishment, even if the Assyrians were destroyed Hashem would have chosen another nation (such as the Babylonians) to punish Am Yisrael. Indeed, Yeshayahu (10:5) presents Assyria as the “rod of Hashem” (Sheivet Api) - a substitute rod could be found. Similarly, Mitzrayim (Egypt) was not named in the Brit Bein HaBetarim (Covenant Among the Parts) as the people who would enslave and afflict our people (Bereishit 15:13) since Egypt did not necessarily have to be the nation that harmed us. </i>, both on the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel15<i class="footnote">Sefer Melachim and Sefer Yishayahu describe this damage extensively. Viewing the Lachish relief at the British museum depicting the Assyrian conquest of the Judean city Lachish gives one an insight into the dismal horror that the Assyrians inflicted on our people. Upon visiting Lachish one sees, besides for the destroyed and corroded defenses, the palace of the city’s governor/prince completely demolished and barren, save for the base, which is how we know of its existence at all. It is a huge building, yet nothing of the structure remains since it was so brutally destroyed by the Assyrians.</i>.
  This explanation works well with the timing of Yonah’s career as described in Melachim II 14:25. This section makes it clear that Yonah prophesied during the reign of the Judean king Amatziah who ruled the tenth generation from David HaMelech. The Assyrians emerged as a dominant force in the region during the reign of Achaz, the thirteenth generation from King David. Yonah foresaw the development of Assyria into a regional power which would pose an enormous problem for our people. Yonah sought to interfere in the historical process and cause the destruction of Assyria or, at the very least, avoid playing an instrumental role in saving it.
  Prophetic Interference with the Historical ProcessAccording to this approach, Sefer Yonah represents a struggle between the Navi and Hashem as to the viability of interfering with the historical process. This is reminiscent of two passages that appear in the rabbinic literature:
  Sarah, seeing that her stepson Yishmael was a menace to the spiritual health of her only son Yitzchak, tells Avraham Avinu to drive him out of their house, together with his mother Hagar. Hashem tells Avraham to listen to Sarah, who then sends Hagar and Yishmael out into the desert with some bread and water. When their provisions run out, Hagar casts her son under a tree, moving away at some distance, not wanting to witness his death. God hears the boy crying, and sends an angel to tell Hagar that He hears his voice, “Baasher Hu Sham,” “as he is there” (Genesis 21:17).
  Rashi, quoting Rabi Yitzchak (Rosh Hashanah 16b), writes “A person is judged only from his actions of that moment, as it is stated, ‘For God has heard the boy’s cries, as he is there.’” Rashi continues: At that very time the angels were prosecuting Yishmael, they were questioning Hashem who was about to miraculously save the boy. The angels said, ‘His descendants will kill many of the Jewish people. Let him die now,’ they counsel (Bereishit Rabah 53:14). Hashem answers by asking, ‘Is he a Tzadik (a righteous person) now, or an evildoer?’ ‘Tzadik16<i class="footnote">Yishmael was hardly a Tzadik, as evidenced by the fact that Sarah insisted and Hashem confirmed that he be expelled. Rather, Rashi means that Yishmael at that point had not “Nitmaleih Seeito”, accumulated sufficient sins to render him as deserving to die (see Bereishit 15:16 with Rashi regarding the concept of “Nitmaleih Seeito”,).</i>,’ they answer. ‘So that is how I will judge him,’ (says God), ‘Baasher Hu Sham,’ ‘as he is now.’” A person is not judged by his future actions, says the Gemara and Midrash17<i class="footnote">Translation is adapted from  </i>.
  Yonah, like the angels prosecuting Yishmael, wishes to have Assyria destroyed now due to their future actions. Hashem, though, rejects this approach insisting on judging Assyria based solely on their current conduct.
  Another example of an attempt to interfere with the historical process occurs with King Hezekiah. Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah) was one of the greatest of all Jewish kings, on a level with David and Shlomo (Solomon). In Melachim II chapter 20, Chizkiyahu took ill and the prophet Isaiah came to visit him. Isaiah told Chizkiyahu that he was fated to die. Chizkiyahu cried and repented, so Hashem changed the decree and added fifteen years to his life.
  The Talmud (Berachot 10a) sheds light on why Chizkiyahu was going to die. There, the Talmud tells us the following discussion took place:
  Chizkiyahu: What did I do to deserve such harsh treatment?
  Yeshayahu: It is because you chose not to fulfill the obligation to marry and have children.
  Chizkiyahu: But I foresaw prophetically that if I did, my son would do horrible things.
  Yeshayahu: That’s between your son and God. Your job is to fulfill your obligation and to have children!
  Chizkiyahu repented and agreed to fulfill his obligation. Sure enough, his son Menashe grew up to be one of the worst kings in Jewish history. According to Melachim II 24:4, he figuratively filled the streets of Jerusalem with innocent blood. He was so steeped in idolatry that his influence could not be stemmed by his grandson, the righteous king Yoshiyahu. Menashe was directly responsible for the Babylonian exile and the destruction of the first Temple – and yet Hashem told Chizkiyahu that it was his responsibility to have children18<i class="footnote">Translation adapted from  </i>!
  Yeshayahu taught Hezekiah the key lesson: “BeHadi Kavshi DeRachmana Lama Lach,” what right do you have to interfere with the historical process? The human being is obligated to fulfill his responsibilities and leave the rest to Hashem, the same applies to Yonah. According to this fourth interpretation of his rebellion Yonah is taught by Hashem that he is to do the job Hashem assigned him to carry out, and leave the rest to Hashem.
  The Fifth Approach - Professor Uriel Simon: Midat HaDin vs. Midat HaRachamimAccording to Professor Simon, Yonah’s core complaint is about Midat haRachamim – how can you run your world if people know that they can do evil and then always turn around and do Teshuvah (repent)?
  Professor Simon’s approach is overwhelmingly compelling. It fits wonderfully into each and every aspect of Sefer Yonah from the escape to Tarshish, to the struggle with the sailors, to the prayer in the large fish and the Mashal of the Kikayon that concludes the Sefer. Professor Simon notes that the same cannot be said about any of the other approaches.
  The question we raise, though, if this approach is so compelling, and it seems to be the most compelling of all the approaches, why was it not set forth by any of the earlier commentators? I suggest that this answer is the most obvious and it is apparent to any thoughtful reader of Sefer Yonah. This approach is so evident in the text19<i class="footnote">Yonah’s demand for Din is so consistent throughout the Sefer, that this theme is readily detectable by anyone who devotes close attention to the text. </i> that there was no need for earlier commentaries to state this explanation. All of their explanations simply complement this basic approach.
  ConclusionSefer Yonah represents the triumph of Middat HaRachamim over Middat HaDin, making it the perfect reading for Yom Kippur! On the day described as Yom HaDin (the Day of Judgement) we read about how Hashem responds to Din, judgement, with Rachamim, mercy. As Professor Simon notes this explains the practice of both Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews to add to the reading of Yonah at Mincha on Yom Kippur the last three Pesukim of Sefer Michah (Tur Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 622 and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 622:2). These Pesukim state:
  יח מִי-אֵל כָּמוֹךָ, נֹשֵׂא עָוֺן וְעֹבֵר עַל-פֶּשַׁע, לִשְׁאֵרִית, נַחֲלָתוֹ: לֹא-הֶחֱזִיק לָעַד אַפּוֹ, כִּי-חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא. יט יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ, יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ; וְתַשְׁלִיךְ בִּמְצֻלוֹת יָם, כָּל-חַטֹּאותָם. כ תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב, חֶסֶד לְאַבְרָהָם, אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ, מִימֵי קֶדֶם
  18 Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger forever, because He delighteth in mercy. 19 He will again have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. 20 Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old (translation from Jewish Publication Society, 1917).
  This additional reading expresses how enthralled we are at Hashem’s determination to conduct the world with Rachamim and the scope of His mercy. We are amazed at His steadfast commitment to mercy despite Yonah’s resolute opposition to such flexibility. This gives us great succor and support as we head to the climax of the season of judgment on Yom Kippur at Mincha.
  
  
  
  Chapter 5 - Tarshish
  Tarshish. Where is it? Chapter 1 Pasuk 3 names Tarshish as the place Yonah sought to flee. Clearly there must be some significance to this intended destination. In order to determine the significance of Tarshish we must first endeavor to discover where Tarshish is located. The fact that our Pasuk mentions Tarshish no less than three times adds to the urgency to discover an explanation.
  Approach Number One - RashiRashi (on Pasuk 3) writes that Tarshish is a sea. Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel follows this approach as well. According to this explanation Yonah does not care about the ship’s destination. Instead he is simply desperate to flee the Land of Israel. Rashi cites a Midrash which presents a well-known Mashal (parable): A slave flees his master who is a Kohen and he runs to a cemetery, a Tamei (impure) place where his master is forbidden to enter. The master says I cannot retrieve you but I can send others to get you. Chutz LeAretz (outside Israel) is the Tamei place from the story and Yonah, the slave, believes he can escape Hashem, the Kohen. However, as in the Mashal, Hashem has other recourse: the storm that threaten to sink Yonah’s boat is the agent sent to recover the slave.
  Approach Number Two - Da’at Mikra (three options)
  The Da’at Mikra is well-described at Wikipedia as “a series of volumes of Hebrew-language biblical commentary published by the Jerusalem-based Mossad Harav Kook and constitutes a cornerstone of contemporary Israeli Orthodox Jewish bible scholarship. The singularity of Da’at Mikra lies in its combination of a traditional outlook and the findings of modern research. The Da’at Mikra editors have sought to present an interpretation based primarily upon Peshat — the direct, literal reading of the text — as opposed to Derash – allegorical or non-literal readings. They do so by incorporating geographic references, archaeological findings, and textual analysis, presenting a clear link between the commentary's traditional approach and contemporary methodology”. Editors of the Da’at Mikra series include the following acclaimed scholars: Professor Yehuda Elitzur of Bar-Ilan University, the International Bible Contest champion and Bible scholar Amos Hacham, Rav Sha’ul Yisra’eli, and Rav Mordechai Breuer.
  Da’at Mikra, then, is a perfect source to help us in our search for the location of Tarshish. Da’at Mikra notes that the word Tarshish refers to the sea20<i class="footnote">Da’at Mikra notes that in Greek the word Talsos means sea. Exchange the letter l with an r and one is left with the name of the city Tarsos, one of Da’at Mikra’s candidates for the identification of the Tarshish of Sefer Yonah. Da’at Mikra notes that Targum Yonatan translates Tarshish as sea every time it appears in Tanach when it refers to a location. It also notes that Onkelos translates the word Tarshish, one of the stones included in the Choshen (Shemot 28:20), as Kerum Yama, the color of the sea. </i> and thus a number of cities that lie near the sea are called Tarshish. It also notes that it is not clear which Tarshish is the one referred to in Sefer Yonah. It offers three possibilities: One is a Tarshish (or Tarsos) located one hundred and thirty kilometers northwest of Alexandria and located in the south of contemporary Turkey21<i class="footnote">This city is described at  The classic Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 9:10:2) identifies Tarshish of Sefer Yonah with this city. </i>. A second possibility is a city located on the southern coast of Spain, near the Straits of Gibraltar22<i class="footnote">This city is called Tartessos described at  </i>. Da’at Mikra notes that some suggest a third possibility and identify the Tarshish of Sefer Yonah as a different city located along the Mediterranean coast.
  Why is the location important for us to know? Da’at Mikra explains that Yonah is heading in the opposite direction of Nineveh. Nineveh lies to the east of Israel, where Yonah is located, and Yonah attempts to escape to the west. If Tarshish is indeed in modern Spain then Yonah’s rebellion is even more striking: Spain was regarded as the farthest western point on earth during the time of Sefer Yonah.
  Professor Simon - The Spain OptionProfessor Uriel Simon argues for the Spain identification. He notes:
  “In three different passages (Yishayahu 60:6-9, Yechezkeil 38:13, and Tehillim 72:10) the full geographical extent of the known world is delimited by Tarshish at one end and Sheva at the other. Given that the latter lies in the east (in the southern Arabian peninsula), at the end of the overland caravan route, the other must lie in the uttermost west, at the end of the maritime trade route”.
  Professor Simon argues that the threefold mention of Tarshish in Pasuk 3 stresses the point that Yonah “was not merely seeking to leave the Land of Israel by sea and flee to whatever destination the first ship might carry him, but in fact was trying to sail to the farthest possible point from his assigned destination”. Indeed, the Spain option seems to fit best with Yonah’s motivation. It's in the opposite direction of his mission, it's the most drastic of places to go, and it gives him peace of mind that the status quo will continue to exist just as he wants.
  Supporting the Spain OptionYonah most certainly presents throughout the Sefer as a character who goes to extremes. In both Perek 1 and Perek 4 he makes crystal clear his willingness to die for his beliefs. Despite the great pressure placed on him in Perek 1 by both the storm and the sailors to repent, Yonah refuses to relent. In Perek 2 he does not call out to Hashem until he has spent three full days in the large fish. Chazal (Nedarim 38a) understand that Yonah paid the fare for the entire ship, expending an enormous sum to achieve his goals. Understanding Yonah as fleeing all the way to Spain is quite compatible with his temperament and personality.
  Implications of the Spain OptionIf we understand that Yonah fled all the way to Spain, the Ibn Ezra’s Peshat/literal explanation of the phrase “VaYitein Secharah,” “and he paid its fare” (Yonah 1:3), is sensible. Chazal as quoted understand that “its fare” refers to Yonah paying for the entire ship’s fare. Radak explains this as an expression of Yonah wishing to leave as soon as possible. Torah Academy students suggest it shows Yonah’s desire to reduce the number of people he would expose to danger by his undertaking a journey which is likely to incur the wrath of God.
  Ibn Ezra and Radak, however, offer a literal explanation of “its fare” that Yonah paid for his and only his fare. The question one might ask why then does the Tanach record this seemingly trivial fact23<i class="footnote">This question does not impose a problem for Ibn Ezra who understands that Diberah Torah KeLashon Bnei Adam, the Torah speaks as an ordinary person would, and thus not every word carries profound significance. </i>. This is not a problem if one adopts the Tarshish as Spain option. A trip to Spain in ancient times took a year, as reported in Bava Batra 38a. Professor Simon explains this based on frequent stops at ports for supplies and trade. Such an ambitious venture was made with expectations and hopes to make large profit. As such, Yonah would have had to expend a very large sum to pay for such a journey. Thus, recording Yonah paying such a huge sum expresses his burning desire to flee as far from Nineveh as possible.
  Another implication of the identification of Tarshish in Sefer Yonah as Spain is in regards to the cargo shed by the sailors in their attempt to save themselves from the storm (1:5). If the ship was destined for Spain it must have been loaded with an enormous volume of very expensive cargo. The shedding of such valuables would not have been a matter taken lightly at all. This underscores the extreme danger in which the sailors felt and the profound relief upon their survival24<i class="footnote">The shedding of the cargo must have significant spiritual import, otherwise, it is difficult to understand why it is mentioned in Sefer Yonah. The sailors made a great spiritual advance as part of shedding their precious cargo. Some are so weighed down with very expensive items it prevents them from scaling and ascending the mountain of Hashem (paraphrasing Tehillim 24:3). Rav Avraham Pam tells of a Rosh Yeshiva who visited a Talmid who amassed considerable wealth and lived in an opulent home. The Rosh Yeshiva noted the very expensive wall paper and bemoaned the fact that the time the Talmid could have invested to master Masechet Berachot or Masechet Ketubot, was devoted to amassing wealth to afford such costly furnishings. The sailors’ shedding of the very expensive cargo certainly fits with the Rosh Yeshiva’s perspective. </i>.
  ConclusionAccording to Rashi, Yonah fleeing to Tarshish expresses his desire to avoid his mission. According to Da’at Mikra and Professor Simon Yonah’s flight is much stronger: Yonah seeks to flee as far as possible away from Eretz Yisrael. Yonah seeks to do the exact opposite of what Hashem commands, as Yonah is a person of extremes. Yonah rarely rebels against Hashem, but when he does rebel against Hashem, it is done in the most intense manner possible.
  What does this have to do with Yom Kippur? Yonah’s flight ultimately fails. Hashem “finds” him and Yonah suffers the consequences. As we stand in judgement for our deeds, both good and bad, we may feel the urge to flee, even to the ends of the Earth, to escape the judgment of Hashem. We are reminded by the opening events of the Sefer that even a flight to a modern day Tarshish will not remove us from the eyes of Hashem. We must address our failings rather than hopelessly fleeing from them.
  
  
  
  Chapter 6 - Escaping God?
  Does Yonah actually think he can flee God? Ask Ibn Ezra to Yonah 1:1 and Radak to Yonah 1:3. Is Yonah not familiar with Yeshayahu HaNavi’s teaching “Melo Kol HaAretz Kevodo,” “Hashem’s glory encompasses the entire world” (Yeshayahu 6:3)? Did not David HaMelech state “VeAnah MiPanecha Evrach,” “and where could I go to escape from You?” (Tehillim 139:7)?
  Yonah’s flight from Hashem appears utterly irrational! Tanach records those incidents only from which all generations can learn (Megillah 14a). Why does Tanach record such utterly bizarre behavior?
  Rashi and Ibn Ezra’s Classic AnswerRashi (1:1) presents the classic explanation of Yonah’s flight (quoted above as well): Mashal (a parable) to a slave of a Kohen who seeks to flee his master and therefore runs into a cemetery (where the Kohen is forbidden to enter). The gambit fails, of course, since the master simply summons another slave to retrieve him from the cemetery.
  Ibn Ezra bolsters this explanation from the language of the Pasuk. He notes that Yonah did not seek to escape “MiPnei Hashem,” “from Hashem”, rather “MiLifnei Hashem,” “from the presence of Hashem” (Yonah 1:3). Yonah did not think he could elude Hashem and instead sought to simply “step out of Nevuah range.” Yonah perceived Chutz LaAretz as what we would call “out of bounds”, out of the playing field, so to speak, of prophecies about Nineveh25<i class="footnote">See Moed Katan 25a and Sefer HaKuzari 2:14 for an explanation why certain Neviim such as Yechezkeil received prophecy outside of Eretz Yisrael. </i>.
  A Deeper Explanation of Rashi and Ibn EzraEven in light of Rashi and Ibn Ezra’s explanations Yonah’s behavior still appears entirely unreasonable and even irrational. It calls to mind Adam HaRishon and Chava’s pathetic attempt to “hide” from Hashem after they ate from the Etz HaDaat (the Tree of Knowledge) (Bereishit 3:8). Yonah must recognize the foolishness of his calculations. From the remainder of Sefer Yonah, Yonah does not at all seem to be naïve or simple minded. Why then did he exercise such poor judgment?
  We suggest that Yonah’s ill-fated attempt to flee from God’s jurisdiction is the perfect description of the mind-set when people sin. People sometimes think, quite irrationally, that they can act independently from God26<i class="footnote">To clarify, Yonah does not flee the Land of Israel to elude punishment but rather to shirk the obligation to carry out Hashem’s command. </i>. Most often, though, they fail to think at all. Had people properly thought out their behavior they never would have disrespected God’s will.
  Chazal teach (Rashi to Bemidbar 5:12 s.v. Ki Tisteh Ishto citing Midrash Tanhuma Bemidbar 5) “Ein Adam Chotei Ela Im Kein Nichnas Bo Ruach Shtut,” “a person sins only if overcome by irrational thinking”. However the objective observer, similar to readers of Sefer Yonah, recognize the irrationality of a sinful act. The sinner, on the other hand, caught in the throes of his misdeed, fails to recognize the foolishness of his act.
  Religion Free ZonesHow to explain, for example, people who are piously meticulous in prayer at the synagogue and Torah study in the Beit Midrash, yet act reprehensively when at their place of business? Why do people who would never dream of eating anything that comes even remotely close to non-kosher log on to foreign and forbidden sites on the internet or view a movie that is not fitting to watch?
  Sadly, such behavior may be explained as people irrationally viewing certain areas of life as “religion-free or God-free zones”. Just as Yonah thought he could escape into a God free zone by leaving the Land of Israel, so too those who violate God’s laws thoughtlessly and foolishly delude themselves into thinking that a God free zone exists. On Yom Kippur we are expected to take a good hard look at our lives and examine our actions and deeds. Our bird’s eye view into the absurd behavior of Yonah should grip us, bring us back to our senses, and help us avoid such counterproductive, self-destructive, and self-sabotaging violations of God’s laws.
  Yom Kippur is a day when we immerse ourselves in holiness and remove ourselves from our usual human urges. This allows us to reboot and reset our behavior so as to act in better ways after Yom Kippur is over. Sefer Yonah plays a critical role in our rebalancing, rebooting, and reimagining our lives. It leads us to realize our potential to achieve spiritual excellence.
  ConclusionYonah is most likely motivated to flee God due to his anger at God for adopting too lenient judgment of mankind in general, and Nineveh specifically. His flight to Tarshish to elude God’s presence is senseless, perhaps spurred on by his anger. Our recognition of the senselessness of Yonah’s actions has the potential, especially on Yom Kippur, to guide us back to act in a sensible, wholesome, and constructive manner. A manner in harmony with, and not in conflict with, the loving God whose every command is issued to serve our best interest.
  Sefer Yonah communicates to us readers on Yom Kippur to have a look from outside of ourselves. We can see the behavior Yonah is overlooking and we must make sure not to overlook similar behaviors in ourselves.
  Postscript - Thought of Binyamin JachterYonah’s running is calculated. He was sitting when he got the Nevuah27<i class="footnote">This is implied by Yonah 1:3 which states that Yonah arose.</i> (prophecy), so he was in a position of thoughtfulness (like a sitting Beit Din), only afterward does he arise and flee. Yonah’s flight from Hashem is the most intense form of imagery Yonah could utilize to demonstrate his passionate commitment to his cause. He is willing to drop everything in his life and run “from” Hashem, just to adhere to his position and purpose. His purpose, as we explain throughout this work, is either to protect Bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews) from the dangers that showing Rachamim (compassion) to Ashur (Assyria) presents or to stay consistent with his extreme position regarding Din.
  It is necessary for Sefer Yonah to record Yonah’s flight as a set up to show an upsurge of false ideals that the Sefer later destroys. Hashem teaches us that we may be maintaining a strong but misguided set of ideals that to us seems correct due to our disregarding what even wise mentors advise. Sefer Yonah teaches us to take a moment to reflect and realize that our ideals may be flawed and we must take care to adjust them to match Hashem’s ideals.
  
  
  
  Chapter 7 - Collective Punishment
  Why do the sailors deserve to suffer? We understand why Yonah deserved the terrible ordeal28<i class="footnote">Even though the sailors ultimately were saved, one is not subjected to a trauma unless it is deserved. For example, the Gemara (Megillah 12a) wonders why the Jews portrayed in Megillat Esther deserved to endure the anxiety of the decree of Haman.</i> of the vicious storm Hashem unleashed on Yonah’s ship. Sechar VeOnesh (reward and punishment) is a fundamental principle of our faith (see, for example, Mishnah Sotah 1:7). God rewards and punishes in proportion to a person’s Mitzvot (good deeds) or Aveirot (sins). In Yonah’s case, his severe infraction of blatantly disregarding a direct order from God is met with the severe punishment of the terrible storm. However, asked my students at Torah Academy of Bergen County, what did the sailors do wrong that they had to endure such a terrible storm?
  The storm, of course, was intended to teach Yonah a lesson. We think that the storm could be a reference to an incident with Eliyahu HaNavi, who according to Chazal is Yonah’s grand-Rebbe. Hashem tells Eliyahu that He isn’t found in the raging winds, but rather in the soft sound (Melachim I Perek 19). It seems that raging storms run against Hashem’s “nature”, so why use one here? We argue that Hashem shows Yonah that, just like He has gone out of His “comfort zone” to help Yonah progress, Yonah needs to leave his devotion to Din, to which he is naturally inclined, to help guide Ashur (Assyria) along the proper path. But our question remains unanswered: what can the sailors gain from the storm?
  Solution Number One - Woe to the Wicked One, Woe to his Neighbor.
  One answer is to simply apply the celebrated principle of “Oy LeRasha Oy LeShcheino,” “woe is to the wicked, woe is to his neighbor” (Sukkah 56b).
  Ir HaNidachat (the case of the wayward city; Devarim 13:13-19) serves an excellent illustration of this principle. If the majority of a city’s inhabitants are found to be idol worshippers, the entire city is (at least in theory) subject to capital punishment. Even the minority of inhabitants who did not worship idols are subject to the death penalty. Woe is to the wicked, woe is to their neighbors. Similarly, the sailors may not have done anything wrong, but nonetheless their proximity to Yonah’s wickedness in fleeing Hashem left them as “collateral damage”. Evidence to this answer is the fact that when the sailors disposed of Yonah the storm abated, indicating Yonah was the sole cause of the storm.
  The comparison to Ir HaNidachat is questionable, though. The minority who were innocent of idolatry are put to death since they witnessed their neighbors serve idols and the former group did not either protest or leave the town. Yonah’s shipmates, however, did not have either option. The ship’s crew presumably did not know of Yonah’s rebellion against the divine command and they certainly did not have the option of leaving the ship once the storm hit and they engaged Yonah in conversation and discovered his sin29<i class="footnote">Alternatively, one might interpret 1:10 “Ki YaDeu HaAnashim Ki MiLifnei Hashem Hu Boreiach Ki Higid Lahem”, as Yonah having told the sailors of his flight from God upon his embarking the journey. After all, the spectacle of Yonah’s paying the entire ship’s fare (according to Nedarim 38a) is likely to have sparked questions and perhaps an explanation from Yonah.</i>. A bigger problem with this approach, is that Oy LeRasha, Oy LeShcheino must carry the connotation “your bad neighbors will lead you astray”. Otherwise how could the corollary of this principle, Tov LeTzadik, Tov LeShcheino (fortune to the righteous, fortune to his neighbor) exist30<i class="footnote">This is apparent from Rashi to Bemidbar 3:29 and 38. On the other hand, this principle also teaches the responsibility good people have to move away from evil doers, as emphasized by the Rambam (Hilchot Deiot 6:1). </i>? Accordingly, the sailors could not have been poorly influenced if they had no knowledge of Yonah’s wrongdoings.
  Solution Number Two - Punishment for IdolatryYonah 1:5 records that when the vicious storm hit, each crew member began to call for help to his god. Accordingly, we see that the crew members were idolaters. If so, we can apply the principle of Megalgilin Chov Al Yidei Chayav, Hashem brings about difficult experiences through evil people (Shabbat 32a). In other words, the sailors were not quite innocent bystanders and were therefore made to endure the storm along with Yonah. After all, Avodah Zarah is one of the seven Noahide Laws (Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach) and is regarded as a sin so severe that Jewish law rules YeiHareig VeAl Ya’vor, better to die than to worship idols.
  This answer, though, appears inadequate. After all, the sailors in all likelihood were raised by families, communities, and cultures that had been worshipping idols for centuries if not millennia. Thus, the sailors would be characterized as the equivalent of a “Tinok SheNishba”, a baby captured and raised by heathens, whom we regard as innocent for the most part, since his behavior and beliefs were shaped by the environment in which he was raised (see Rambam Hilchot Mamarim 3:1-3). Moreover, we will see later in our studies that Hashem treated Nineveh leniently to a great extent because he considered them as Tinok SheNishbah in regards to their worship of idols.
  Solution Number Three – The sailors as “Extras”
  One Torah Academy student suggested that the sailors were, using cinematic terminology, “extras”. Thus, Hashem and Yonah (and the people of Nineveh) are pretty much the only characters in Sefer Yonah that “matter”. The sailors are merely background scenery and support staff and the storms impact on the sailors is not part of Hashem’s calculations.
  We did not consider this a viable answer31<i class="footnote">If one adopts the lone view of Ibn Kaspi that Yonah is a fictional story, then this cinematic storytelling is a usable answer since none of the events in the story depict Hashem’s actual interactions with the world.</i>. From the perspective of a movie producer, the sailors are “extras”, secondary players who are not sufficiently important to merit significant consideration. However, from Hashem’s perspective, no one is an “extra” and no one is unimportant. As the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5) teaches “Man was created as a single being to teach that whoever kills one person is as if he killed an “Olam Malei,” an entire world. In the Torah’s perspective each human being is evaluated as an Olam Malei and cannot be dismissed as a mere “extra”. “Tov Hashem LaKol VeRachamav Al Kol Maasav,” “Hashem is good to all and His mercy extends to all his creations” (Tehillim 145:9).
  Solution Number Four – A NisayonPerhaps the most compelling answer is to view the sailors as experiencing a Nisayon (test). Ramban (Bereishit 22:1) explains a Nisayon as a means to transform latent potential to reality. An analogy may be made to the Israel Defense Force’s Officer’s Training Course (Koorse Ketzinim). The trainees are placed in a wide range of predicaments in order for them to actualize their potential as leaders. Similarly, Hashem placed Avraham Avinu and Yitzchak Avinu into the Nisayon of Akeidat Yitzchak (Binding of Isaac) in order to actualize their latent spiritual greatness.
  One may say the same regarding the sailors. The terrible ordeal of the storm brought about great spiritual and interpersonal growth among the sailors. The sailors recognized Hashem the God of the heavens who created the land and the sea. They even made commitments to Hashem which they honored, as described at length in Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer cited by Radak (1:16).
  On an interpersonal level, the sailor’s treatment of Yonah was, simply put, superlative. They go way above the call of duty and moral responsibility to insure that they leave no stone unturned in their effort to find a way to have the storm abate without casting Yonah overboard to his death.
  In a word, the sailors endured the ordeal of the storm and emerged as superlative human beings. It is, thus, hardly surprising to find both Ibn Ezra and Radak explain that Yonah’s call to Teshuvah was heeded so seriously and immediately by the people of Nineveh because Yonah was accompanied by none other than the sailors as living proof of his prophecy and Hashem’s will.
  ConclusionA lesson for our lives may be drawn from the sailors’ experience. At times we may be placed in an ordeal in which we experience considerable physical and/or psychological suffering. Hashem in these situations might well be presenting us with such a situation not as a punishment, but rather as an opportunity for growth in our relationship with Hashem and our relationship with other people. The sailors serve as powerful role models to teach us how much we can grow if we adopt the proper perspective. This is an especially important message for us to hear on Yom Kippur, as the fast we much endure is intended to propel and ignite us to reach great heights.
  
  
  
  Chapter 8 - Focused Punishment/ Attention
  The question is obvious. Why do the sailors presume that the storm is directed specifically at them (1:7)? Even in ancient times the Mediterranean Sea was a pulsating travel lane for robust trade amongst the nations that lived along its coasts. Perhaps the evil committed by a person traveling on a different ship caused the storm. Perhaps the other travelers on ships in the area suffered due to the principle of “Oy LeRasha Oy LeShcheino,” “woe to the evildoer, woe to his neighbor” (Sukkah 56b). Why presume someone on their ship caused the storm?
  Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer AnswerAll of the premier commentators to Sefer Yonah – Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Mahari Kra, Radak, and Abarbanel – cite a version of the response provided by the Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer.
  Radak quotes:
  “A great storm came upon them in the sea. To the ship’s right and left all the ships were coming and going in peace in the quiet of the sea and the ship Yonah traveled in was in great distress to the extent they feared the ship would be destroyed32<i class="footnote">Binyamin Jachter poses a powerful question on this Midrash. In an intense rain one usually is unable to see beyond one’s immediate area. How would the sailors witness the other ships calm in this situation? Binyamin suggests that the Midrash believes that the situation must have been such that allowed the sailors to view the other boats or that somehow the sailors on the other boats managed to communicate with the sailors on Yonah’s boat. Aryeh Krischer notes that being able to see far beyond the normal range in a storm may have contributed to the sailor’s sense that the storm was directed at them.</i>”.
  Pashtanim Citing this MidrashIt is startling that even those commentaries that are devoted to the Peshat (straightforward and direct meaning of Tanach) cite this Midrash to resolve our question. This is startling since Pashtanim hardly ever cite Midrashim to solve problems in the Torah text. In addition, Pashtanim are inclined to support a more natural explanation of the Tanach, or at least tend to minimize the miracles presented in the Torah33<i class="footnote">Midrashim, by contrast, tend to magnify the miracles of the Torah. I thank Torah Academy of Bergen County alumnus Eli Bierig for this insight into one of the differences between Pashtanim and commentators such as Rashi who tend to cite Midrashim to solve problems in the text.</i>.
  The Ibn Ezra presents the Midrash as follows: “There are those who say that there were other ships and they could travel freely and only this (i.e. Yonah’s) ship was in distress.” It seems that according to the Ibn Ezra’s version or presentation of the Midrash the storm was not localized specifically on the ship, as the Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer might be understood, rather all the ships in the area were caught. All the ships in the area grappled with the storm, but only the ship upon which Yonah was a passenger was in existential danger.
  According to Ibn Ezra’s version God’s hand was more subtle than as presented in the Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer and the sailors had to make the decision to discern Hashem’s involvement. This indeed is a more typical manner in which Hashem intervenes in the world. He prefers a more natural course of events (see Shabbat 53b) which leaves us the choice whether to recognize His subtle hand at work.
  The sailors may have recognized Hashem’s involvement as follows: first they began throwing out all of their load and equipment. Only afterward they realized that the neighboring ships were not undertaking the radical action of jettisoning cargo did they take a moment to recognize that “The other ships are weathering a normal storm, why are we falling apart?” Thereby they noticed the subtle intervening of Hashem.
  A suggested Parallel to the Jewish Experience during WW IIWith trepidation I suggest a parallel to the predicament of our people during World War II. The storm raged everywhere but only the Jews were under threat of complete annihilation. The discerning eye recognized Hashem’s involvement, though we do not completely understand the reason for the extreme ferocity of these terrible years. Yirmiyahu HaNavi expresses the point thusly, “Im Yeish Machov KeMachovi,” “is there a pain like my pain?” (Eichah 1:12). All the neighboring countries suffered as a result of the Babylonian conquests. However, Yirmiyahu notes the Hand of God directed towards the Jews in that the suffering we endured was dramatically worse that the suffering of the other nations under the Babylonian yoke.
  Conclusion:The image of Hashem’s specific targeting of Yonah’s ship as a way of recognizing God’s accountability has important ramifications for us, especially on Yom Kippur. We see clearly from the Midrash that Hashem’s messages to the world are not only through events, but also through the degree in which events affect our lives. If an honest self-appraisal yields the conclusion that somehow one is suffering more intensely than most others, one should engage in honest self-evaluation and try to determine the message Hashem is subtly communicating.
  
  
  
  Chapter 9 - Yonah to the Bottom of the Ship
  It is a stunning contrast of scenes as the storm begins to rage at sea. At the top of the boat the sailors are fervently praying to their respective gods for salvation. Yonah, shockingly, descends to the bottom of the bottom of ship in the midst of all this chaos and not only refrains from praying but even goes to sleep! How do we explain this shocking behavior?
  Option Number One - Ibn EzraIbn Ezra offers a characteristic plain vanilla “Peshat” (simple and straightforward meaning of the text) explanation. He suggests that this was Yonah’s first time on a ship at sea and that Yonah was sea sick.
  Ibn Ezra is not a devotee of the belief in the omnisignificance of every word in Tanach. According to Ibn Ezra not every word has profound lessons to teach. Rather sometimes “Diberah Torah KeLashon Bnei Adam”, the Torah simply uses a typical human style of expression34<i class="footnote">To add to Ibn Ezra’s style: the purpose of using human expression is to make it easier for humans, who are meant to be reading and interpreting the work, to understand the flow of the story. This approach can work better for Ketuvim (Writtings) than Navi (Prophets) because as you get further away from Torah, the level of Nevuah used to write the Sefarim decreases. Conversely, the closer you get to Torah, the more likely any given word has particular significance. </i>. Ramban and most other Mefarshim (commentaries) do not adopt this approach to Tanach. They prefer the model of Rabi Akiva who made heaps of interpretations based only on the little signs above certain letters in the Torah (Menachot 29b).
  Option Number Two - Mahari KraMahari Kra writes that Yonah didn’t want to waste his time praying because he thought Hashem would not hear his prayers due to his rebellion. This is a paradigmatic non-constructive approach of those who are not connected with Hashem. They refuse to engage Hashem in Tefilah since they deem themselves unworthy of doing so35<i class="footnote">This serves as an example of a point made by Rav Yonatan Sacks of Landers College for Men. The Midrash (Bemidbar Rabbah 1:7) states that the Torah was given “באש ובמים” meaning that sometimes we should exercise the Middah (trait) of acting like water that is just seeping into the ground and is Afar VaEifer (dust and ashes), and other times we are bidden to implement the Middah of fire and embrace the attitude that Bishvili Nivrah Olam (the world was created for me). At the Meraglim (Sin of the Spies) incident, we tragically used the Middah of water at the wrong time and said we are incapable of the project assigned to us. At the Korach incident we used the Middah of fire at the wrong time and audaciously made the claim of “Kulam Kedoshim,” “[the nation,] they are all holy” (Bemidbar 16:3). Yonah in turn, according to the MaHari Kra, improperly used the Middah of water at a time when fiery desperation was appropriate.</i>. Sadly, in truth, Hashem is <i>most</i> interested in hearing from those disconnected from Him, as we shall see in our analysis of Perek 2.
  Option Number Three - The Malbim (First Suggestion)
  The Malbim follows his characteristic distinguishing between Hebrew synonyms. He notes that the language of Pasuk 5 shifts from describing the boat as an Oniyah to Sefinah.
  Safoon means something that is covered. An Oniyah describes a boat in its entirety. Sefinah refers simply to the hold of the boat. The Oniyah is open to the world, the Sefinah is confined and closed. Yonah doesn’t want to be out on the open because then, when the boat capsizes, he might wash back to shore. However, stowed away in the hold of the boat, if the boat capsized he would surely go down with it36<i class="footnote">Interestingly, Malbim cites as evidence to this approach rulings of Poskim permitting an Agunah (a woman whom we are unsure if her husband remains alive) to remarry if there is adequate evidence that her husband was located in the hold of a ship when it capsized. </i>.
  Option Number Four - Malbim (Second Suggestion)
  Malbim’s second suggestion is that he would go to the bottom and go to sleep. Yonah figures that the water would rise first to the bottom level of the boat then kill him and the storm then would end. The sailors on the top of the boat, in turn, would be saved.
  This idea, note my Torah Academy of Bergen County students, fits with the Gemara (Nedarim 38a) that Yonah paid the entire fare of the ship in order to reduce the number of passengers on the ship who would be placed in danger of Hashem’s anger at Yonah’s recalcitrance. Yonah was, even during his rebellion against Hashem, looking to avoid causing (or at least minimizing) collateral damage.
  Option Number 5 - Yarketei HaSefinahThe Torah Academy students and I suggest an approach based on the fact that the Pasuk records not that Yonah descended to the bottom of the ship, but rather to the “Yarketei HaSefinah,” “the very bottom of the boat37<i class="footnote">This contrasts with Ibn Ezra and Radak’s explanation that Yonah went to one of the ends of the boat. Our explanation focuses on the word Yarad, descend, that implies that Yonah went to the very bottom of the boat and not simply to one of its ends. </i>” (Yonah 1:5). My Talmid Akiva Motechin understands that Yonah was once again rebelling against Hashem and retreated to the furthest place possible away from the storm.
  This parallels Yonah’s seeking to go to Tarshish, if we explain Tarshish following Da’at Mikra and Professor Simon to refer to Spain, which lies at what was regarded in Yonah’s time as the extreme western edge of the world. As we noted earlier, this is in direct contrast with his divine mandate to travel east to Nineveh. In Pasuk 5 Hashem is reaching out to Yonah via the storm38<i class="footnote">Tehillim 148:8 relates that “Ruach Searah Osa Devaro,” “storms carry out the bidding and mission of Hashem.” </i>, and in reaction Yonah goes as far away as possible from the storm. Once again Yonah goes to the extreme in his choice of actions that express his displeasure with Hashem.
  Yonah going to sleep fits with our approach that descending to the bottom of the boat is another expression of rebellion. As Rav Kook (Mussar HaKodesh, page 304) puts it “sleep releases a person from his obligations to the external world39<i class="footnote">Rav Yehoshua Bachrach (“Yonah ben Amittai VeEliyahu” p. 14) refers to this passage in Rav Kook to explain Yonah falling asleep. </i>”. Yonah descending to the extreme bottom of the ship followed by falling asleep is a stark contrast with the far more appropriate behavior of the sailors.
  Rav Yehoshua Bachrach (“Yonah ben Amittai V’Eliyahu” p. 14) notes that the word “VaYeiradeim” expresses a deep sleep (such as Tardeimah40<i class="footnote">In modern Hebrew, Haradamah is the word used for surgical anesthesia. </i>, the deep sleep Hashem imposed on Adam HaRishon when He removed his rib to create Chavah recorded in Bereishit 2:21). This expresses that Yonah is completely detached from the storm and the message that Hashem is sending with it. The shoresh (root) of VaYeiradeim could be “Y-r-d”, from the word Yarad, meaning descend. Yonah descended and steeped himself into his sleep.
  ConclusionYonah at this point is a paradigm of the counterproductive behavior of someone who feels alienated from Hashem. The alienation drives the person further and further away from Hashem. A person who finds himself in this situation should make every effort to break himself from this pattern and relate to Hashem in a healthier and much more constructive mode.
  Yom Kippur is the perfect day to free oneself from this destructive pattern. Anyone who relates to Judaism, traditional to Chareidi, comes to a Beit Kenesset on Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is a day to wake up, break the cycle of the bad, and wipe the slate clean to start the next year with the mindset of coming closer to Hashem and His Torah.
  
  
  
  Chapter 10 - The Captain’s Shocking Rebuke
  “Why did the captain abandon his sailors on deck and reach out to Yonah to pray?” asked my Torah Academy of Bergen County students. Could not have the captain sent a subordinate to try to convince Yonah to pray? A captain abandoning his sailors during a severe crisis is most unusual at best and egregiously irresponsible at worst!41<i class="footnote">Binyamin Jachter responds: Why send a subordinate into the most dangerous part of the ship (assuming that the bottom of the boat is the most dangerous location on the ship because if the boat starts to sink, it is the easiest place to drown)? That would be cowardly and bad leadership. The captain goes head-first into the danger to save his crew. Aryeh Krischer responds to Binyamin: In a situation like the storm the captain’s leadership on deck may well be the only thing that keeps the boat from sinking.</i>
  A most “Jewish” RebukeMoreover, the language employed by the captain is decidedly “Jewish”. After pushing Yonah to call out to his God, the captain says perhaps “HaElokim”, “the God” (Yonah 1:6) will listen to our prayers. The captain, who began the Pasuk with pagan assumptions that Yonah’s God is one among many, suddenly shifts into a monotheistic mode, invoking “the” (i.e. singular) God. Perhaps the captain is tailoring his words to his audience - Yonah. But the captain began by appealing to Yonah to call out to Elokecha, your God. Moreover, if the captain was aware of Yonah’s religious position why does he inquire into Yonah’s religion once Yonah arrives on deck?
  Furthermore, the attitude expressed by the words “perhaps Hashem will listen to us”, is (as noted by Professor Uriel Simon) decidedly Jewish. Moshe Rabbeinu express such an attitude upon his ascending to Har Sinai to appeal for clemency for the Cheit HaEigel (Shemot 32:30) “Ulai Achaperah Bead Chatatchem”, “<i>perhaps</i> I will achieve atonement for your sins”. Numerous other examples abound in Tanach.42<i class="footnote">Ashkenazic Jews recite in Selichot the refrain “Ulai Yachus Al Am Oni VeEvyon Ulai Yerucheim,” “perhaps He will feel concern for the poor nation perhaps He will have compassion.” This echoes the statement of the ship’s captain “perhaps God will listen”. Other examples in Tanach include David HaMelech declaring Mi Yodeia VeChanani Hashem VeChai HaYaled,” “who knows perhaps Hashem will forgive me and allow the child to live” (Shmuel II 12:22). The Gemara (Chagigah 4b) stresses this idea as well repeatedly stating in connection with our efforts in regards to Hashem “Kuli Hai VeUlai”, all this effort is invested and yet only might yield the desired result. </i> The question, accordingly, emerges as to how did a pagan know to formulate his words in complete harmony with Jewish values?
  Moreover, the captain’s rebuking Yonah “Mah Lecha Nirdam,” “how can you sleep at a moment like this?” (1:6), resonates deeply with Sephardic Jews, as this rebuke is paraphrased at the beginning of the Sephardic Selichot services. Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 3:4) expresses a point similarly, that the role of the Shofar is to arouse those who have fallen into the trap of a spiritual slumber. Again the question emerges, how did the pagan know how to talk in a Jewish style to Yonah?
  My students noted that this ship was docked in the Jaffa harbor. The sailors, or at least the captain, are likely at that time to have learned a significant amount about Judaism and therefore the captain knew how to modify his speech when talking to a pious Jew. The problem with this approach is that the sailors’ later inquiries of Yonah when he is on deck creates the impression that they are unaware of Yonah’s belief system.
  I suggest something a bit more ambitious. The Torah presents situations where Hashem completely “hijacks” a person and his speech. The classic example is when Hashem “hijacked” Bilam’s mouth to have him bless Bnei Yisrael. Another example is Hashem hardening Paroh’s heart. I suggest in turn that Hashem commandeered the mouth of the captain of Yonah’s ship to rebuke him43<i class="footnote">In our High Holiday Piyyutim, Poetic Liturgy, Hashem is sometimes referred to as “Rav HaChoveil”, the captain of the ship. In fact, the term Rav HaChoveil in our Pasuk may be understood as referring both to the ship’s captain and alluding to Hashem. Rav HaChoveil literally means the one in charge of the ropes. This is an apt description of Hashem who is the one in charge of subtly maneuvering the ropes or “pulling the strings” behind the scenes in His delicate guiding and balancing the world.</i>.
  This is reminiscent of the Gemara (Avodah Zarah 17a) recounting the sordid story of Elazar ben Dordiah, who visited a Zonah (harlot) in a far off land all. Suddenly she stuns him by giving him hauntingly poignant Mussar (rebuke). How did the harlot who was so removed from even any remote connection to Jewish life know to rebuke Rabi Elazar ben Dordiah in a most powerful and Jewish way? I suggest that Hashem “hijacked” the harlot and it was as if Hashem spoke directly to Elazar ben Dordiah. His extreme reaction indicates that Elazar ben Dordiah realizes that it was none other than Hashem who was rebuking him. Similarly, I suggest that Hashem “hijacked” the ship’s captain to deliver poignant and Jewish style words of rebuke. This hypothesis resolves all of the questions we posed on the captain’s behavior. Hashem hijacked the captain to leave his post at a time of crisis and to speak to Yonah in a most Jewish style. Hashem’s intent was to drive home a point to Yonah, and Yonah who is trained to detect Hashem’s presence should easily discern Hashem as the true speaker.44<i class="footnote">According to the Malbim, Yonah does not simply remain in Eretz Yisrael and ignore Hashem’s call to visit Nineveh, because he fears Hashem will “hijack” him and force him to rebuke Nineveh if he does not flee Eretz Yisrael.</i>
  Conclusion:Hashem has tried communicating directly with Yonah (1:1) and then indirectly through the storm. Yonah clings to his stubborn and unyielding approach despite a most vigorous reproof from Hashem. Hashem tries to spur Yonah to action by speaking through the ship’s captain45<i class="footnote">Recall our discussion of Yonah’s deep sleep, where Yonah shut himself down from Hashem who is trying to engage him through the storm.</i> but once again Yonah refuses to relent, much to his and his fellow-travelers’ detriment.
  The idea of Hashem, in the guise of the ship’s captain, imploring Yonah to awaken from his spiritual slumber looms large in our minds towards the end of Yom Kippur. At the height of the “storm” of Yom Kippur the “Rav HaChoveil” addresses us listeners as well imploring us to awaken from our spiritual slumber to a more invigorating and vigorous spiritual life.
  
  
  
  Chapter 11 - Lots
  The sailors cast lots repeatedly, explains Metzudat David, to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Yonah’s guilt. This is problematic, however, since there does remain an infinitesimal chance that it is just coincidence that the lots repeatedly fall upon Yonah. How can probability convince them of Yonah’s guilt?
  The answer is that, when faced with a choice between divine manipulation and a vanishing likelihood of mere coincidence, the reasonable approach is to disregard the infinitesimal chance of mere coincidence and decide on Yonah’s guilt.
  This is the manner in which prudent people act. Those who recognized the fraud and avoided the scheme of Bernard Madoff recognized that earning fifteen to twenty percent rewards year after year without exception is not a normal stock market behavior. Rather, they properly concluded that external manipulation was involved.
  Similarly, religious individuals often look at the enormous and varied odds against the formation of the world. There is an infinitesimal chance that life as we know it is merely a coincidence. The prudent individual disregards the tiny chance that it is all a result of chance and attributes the world’s creation to divine manipulation.
  That’s why many, from the Aruch HaShulchan to Voltaire, say that the proof to Hashem is the Jewish people’s record of surviving. We beat the odds over and over. Our history is a constant, incredible pattern easily discernable by those who wish to recognize it.
  Religious individuals detect God’s ongoing involvement in worldly events in a similar manner. Examples include the United Nations vote to establish a Jewish State in Palestine on November 29, 1947 and Israel’s shocking victory in the 1967 Six Day War. As I detail in my book “Reason to Believe: Rational Explanations of Orthodox Jewish Thought” (pages 121-39 and 152-159) many fortuitous events had to occur to insure our success in these two instances. Skeptics claim that the Jews benefitted from a random string of good fortune, against enormous odds. Religious people take the far more reasonable choice comparing such a situation to someone who won a series of lotteries despite staggering odds. In such a situation rational people agree that a police investigation is warranted. Religious people adopt the same reasonable approach to investigate and conclude that God’s subtle hand manipulated the situation in our favor.
  Far from being a leap of faith, religious belief is far more rational than secular perspectives. It is the secular approach, not the religious approach, that requires a leap of faith, so to speak.
  ConclusionThe prudent decision making by the sailors in interpreting the results of the lottery reveals how a reasonable person reaches conclusions in interpreting the events one encounters in life. Being reminded of this on Yom Kippur bolsters our faith for the peak moment of Yom Kippur when we conclude with a rousing affirmation of “Hashem Hu HaElokim,” “God is the master”.
  
  
  
  Chapter 12 - Ivri Anochi VeEt Hashem Elokei HaShamayim Ani Yarei
  The sailors pose five questions to Yonah.
  Question 1. - Because of whom has this evil befallen us?
  Question 2. - What is your work?
  Question 3. - Where do you come from?
  Question 4. - What is your land?
  Question 5. - From what people are you?
  Why does Yonah respond by saying only that he is an Ivri and a God fearing man?
  Metzudat DavidThe Metzudat David answers that the first four questions are interpersonal questions while the last question is a more spiritual one. Yonah disregarded the first four questions because he felt they were unimportant, but answered the fifth one because it was important. By saying “I fear Hashem”, it is as if he is telling the sailors that he is responsible for upsetting Hashem. He mentions that God controls everything including the sea, and that Hashem has placed him on the sea because he disregarded His command to go to Nineveh.
  According to this approach Yonah did not disregard the first question, he simply answered it second, after first responding to the last question. The new question would become 'why did Yonah switch the order of the answers?' The first question is answered last and the last question is answered first.
  RadakThe Radak explains that Yonah is not addressing all of the sailors’ questions, instead he is just responding in general as to his identity and personality. Radak also believes that Yonah told the sailors his entire saga; the telling is simply not mentioned in the Navi46<i class="footnote">The Radak believes this to be implicit in the text and unnecessary to state. The Navi records the beginning of the conversation which presumably triggered further give and take in which Yonah revealed his entire situation. The sailors’ response, recorded in Pasuk 10, makes this clear, in the Radak’s opinion. </i>.
  AbarbanelAbarbanel interprets Ivri from the word Oveir, or violator. Yonah is saying he is a violator of God’s command and he fears God will punish him. The appeal of this answer is that it assumes every word Yonah said was necessary and anything else would be unnecessary. There isn't a need to necessarily connect his response to the sailors’ questions considering he doesn't answer most of them.
  Conclusion - Two Great LessonsThe first lesson that emerges from this exchange between Yonah and the sailors is how a Jew should define himself. As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein mentioned on numerous occasions, we do not define ourselves as an attorney, physician, or even a rabbi. We are and should define ourselves as Yonah did: “Ivri Anochi VeEt Hashem… Ani Yarei,” “I am a Jew and I fear Hashem” (Yonah 1:9).
  Secondly, the reaction of the sailors “Mah Zot Asita,” “What have you done?” (Yonah 1:10) is most instructive. As Professor Simon appropriately notes they do not say “what have you done to us?”, rather “what have you done?” An objective evaluation of our sins is that they are senseless and foolish. This is exactly what the sailors are communicating to Yonah. Yonah unfortunately does not receive their message.
  The sailors address us as well as we listen to them on Yom Kippur at Mincha. They are shocked at the object senselessness of our sins and they are absolutely correct. Hopefully, we react in a constructive manner and finish Yom Kippur as better Jews and people.
  
  
  
  Chapter 13 - What Should We Do?
  Despite the raging storm and despite establishing Yonah’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the sailors still endeavor to save Yonah along with their own lives. The sailor’s question (Yonah 1:11) “Mah Naaseh Lach,” “what should we do to you?”, is another example of their Middat HaRachamim, extraordinary kindness that goes well beyond the call of duty. Although the sailors enjoy the right to immediately kill Yonah since he is undoubtedly a Rodef (unnecessarily placing their lives at risk), they still seek to prod Yonah to repent.
  Malbim’s Explanation and Binyamin Jachter’s Alternative IdeaMalbim understands “Mah Naaseh Lach” as the sailors offering Yonah the opportunity for them to sail to a port that is nearest to an overland route to Nineveh. Binyamin Jachter argues, though, that the sailors were simply asking a man of God for his professional opinion of how to manage the situation. Indeed, the Pasuk makes no mention of the sailors pressuring Yonah to travel to Nineveh.
  In fact, Binyamin believes that because the sailors refrained from pressuring Yonah to visit Nineveh, Yonah was granted the opportunity to talk to Hashem directly, and to determine for himself what he is willing to tolerate in order to avoid his mission. He eventually arrives at his own conclusion while in the large fish. Binyamin believes that this decision would never have emerged from Yonah’s internal struggle had the sailors applied considerable pressure.
  An Additional ExplanationOne could also understand the sailors as acting in a prudent manner. In trying to prod a recalcitrant individual to act in a sensible way, a delicately balanced approach is needed. A mixture of subtle pressure and offering a choice is an effective method to take.
  For example, in my quarter of a century experience as a Get administrator who often deals with recalcitrant spouses I have learned that threatening such people or issuing orders to such people are counterproductive. No one is comfortable with the indignity of eliminating an ability to choose. On the other hand, a gentle but firm hand is necessary to guide the recalcitrant to a better psychological place and better choices.
  This is precisely the brilliance of the sailors saying to Yonah “Mah Naaseh Lach”. On the one hand, it firmly communicates to Yonah that the situation is extremely dire and they will take action to avoid catastrophe. However, they still offer Yonah a choice and some say as to the steps they will take to save their lives.
  It is also a prod to Yonah to repent. They are delicately implying to Yonah, either repent or we will cast you in the sea. They express their point, though, not as a blunt threat but in an indirect manner that respects Yonah. The sailors hope that by not forcing Yonah into a corner, Yonah will act reasonably and save himself and his fellow passengers.
  Conclusion:According to Binyamin’s approach, like Yonah, we can take pressure as an opportunity to make a decision, but the final choice must be internally generated. Thus, the sailors ask Yonah to have a look at his situation. Yonah then is hurled into a predicament which calls into question the scope of what he is willing to do to uphold his beliefs. Yonah proceeds to make his final, internally driven choice with a prayer to Hashem and Hashem follows up by releasing Yonah from the fish.
  Hashem does exactly the same for us on Yom Kippur. By reading and hearing Sefer Yonah we are receiving the gentle but firm message to adjust and improve our behavior for the betterment of all and avoidance of catastrophe. The decision to better ourselves, however, must come from ourselves and ourselves alone.
  
  
  
  Chapter 14 - Throw Me into the Sea
  Yonah (Yonah 1:12) resolutely responds to the sailors question “Mah Naaseh Lach,” “what shall we do to you?” (Yonah 1:11) with “throw me into the sea” (1:12). Yonah is willing to sacrifice himself on behalf of the Jewish people or for his principles in his struggle with Hashem, two options we previously discussed.
  My Torah Academy of Bergen County students ask if Yonah is willing to die, why not simply jump into the sea? If Yonah refuses to repent, why leave the sailors no choice other than to directly cause his death? We have seen that Yonah makes every effort to save the lives of the sailors. Why does he force the hand of these innocent bystanders?
  Avodah Zarah 18a – Rabi Chaninah ben TradyonThis is a difficult question to answer. Perhaps an answer can be found in an equally problematic episode presented in Avodah Zarah 18a involving the gruesome and brutal execution of Rabi Chaninah ben Tradyon.
  Commentaries have struggled to understand why Rabi Chaninah ben Tradyon refused to open his mouth to end his misery on the one hand, yet on the other hand he agreed to the executioner removing the wet tufts of wool from his heart (see, for example, Teshuvot Igrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat 2:73 and 74:2 and Nishmat Avraham 5:102-103).
  The basic answer offered (with many variations) is the fundamental distinction between a passive act and an active act (Kum VeAseh (active) as opposed to Shev VeAl Taaseh (passive)). An active act of euthanasia is never permitted. A passive “act” in very limited circumstances might be permissible.
  ConclusionYonah even at the height of his rebellion refuses to perform and active action of suicide. He prefers to remain passive and let the sailors act in accordance with the Halacha permitting and even requiring killing someone who endangers others’ lives. With this example we listeners to Sefer Yonah are reminded of the great sanctity of human life and that no matter the circumstance action cannot be taken against the laws set forth by Hashem in the Torah.
  Moreover, this incident emphasizes that Yonah is not suicidal, rather he is a disciplined man with a cause he perceives as greater than himself. Yet he still makes the effort to make sure he doesn’t violate the Halacha of “VeChai BaHem,” “and live by them” (Vayikra 18:5). This act of restraint is most praiseworthy and serves as a model of dedication to a cause and even more so to wholeheartedly devoting oneself to strict adherence to Torah and Mitzvot. What a perfect message to hear as Yom Kippur draws to a close!
  
  
  
  Chapter 15 - Yonah is Thrown into the Sea
  It is a well known Midrash. Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer (cited by the Mahari Kra to 1:16) relates that before releasing Yonah into the raging sea, the sailors “test dipped” Yonah. They first dipped him in a bit and the storm abated. They then removed Yonah entirely from the sea and the storm raged once again. The sailors kept on lowering Yonah further into the sea and the same process repeated itself. Let us delve more deeply into the meaning and significance of this Midrash.
  Malbim - Basis in the TextThe Malbim (to 1:15) supports our Midrash from Pasuk 15. The Pasuk states “and they carried Yonah and threw him into the sea”. It was not necessary to state the words “and they carried Yonah”. Malbim explains that these “extra” words allude to the action taken by the sailors before casting Yonah into the sea.
  Our Midrash most certainly fits with the storyline of Perek one. The sailors have made every effort to ensure they are not causing the death of an innocent man. The sailors, for example, cast “Goralot,” “lots” (1:7). Metzudat David explains that they cast repeated lots and every time the lot fell upon Yonah. The repeated raising and lowering of Yonah and corresponding raging and abating of the storm was final confirmation that Yonah undoubtedly was the cause of the storm. The sailors also made every effort to cajole and convince Yonah to repent so that Hashem would relent and spare everyone’s lives, including Yonah’s. By lowering Yonah slowly but surely lower and lower into the water, the sailors clearly indicated to Yonah that these were his final opportunities to repent47<i class="footnote">We should seize the opportunity to learn from the nobility and wonderful example of acting beyond the letter of the law set by the sailors. Who is wise, say Chazal, one who learns from everyone (Avot 4:1). </i>. This is reminiscent of one who is taken out to be stoned after being found guilty in Bet Din (Jewish court). As such a person nears the place of execution the escorts repeatedly prompt the condemned to repent (Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:2).
  Deeper message to YonahThere is a deeper message communicated by the sailors to Yonah in this incident. The sailors extend great kindness, Middat HaRachamim (attribute of mercy) - Lifnim Mishurat HaDin (beyond the letter of the law) – far and above the Middat HaDin (attribute of justice) which Yonah deserved. Yonah should have learned from the example taught by the sailors and should have been moved to undergo a “paradigm shift” and adopt a kinder approach to Nineveh in specific and to Hashem’s Middat HaRachamim in general. Yonah, unfortunately, stubbornly stayed on a negative course and did not extricate himself from the spiritual morass in which he embedded himself. He chose not to exercise his final opportunity to avoid being thrown into the sea.
  Conclusion:We hear this story during the waning moments of Yom Kippur. Hashem provides us with repeated opportunities to change our course and repent. As this great day ends, Sefer Yonah reminds us that Neilah is hovering just around the corner, and our last opportunity to repent is at hand before Hashem seals the book on our fate for the coming year. Hopefully, we will learn from Yonah’s missteps and be spurred into positive action and thought.
  
  Section 2
  
  
  
  
  
  Yonah Repents… Maybe
  Chapter 1 - Saving Yonah
  Why save Yonah? After his repeated rebellious and reckless behavior, Yonah is finally cast overboard by the righteous sailors described in Perek 1. Why did Hashem then make an extraordinary miracle to save Yonah? asked my students at Torah Academy of Bergen County. Couldn’t Hashem have found a different Navi to visit Nineveh and warn them of their impending doom if they do not repent?
  A Compelling QuestionThis question is indeed compelling. After all, Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 9:1) assert that Yonah began his career as one of the Bnei HaNeviim (prophets in training) who studied under the tutelage of the prophet Elisha. Melachim II 4:43 records that there were one hundred students in Elisha’s Yeshiva, training to be prophets. Melachim II 6:1 implies that later Elisha had even more Talmidim. Thus, Hashem indeed had a choice of many different Neviim from among Yonah’s peers to send to address Nineveh.
  Both Abarbanel and Malbim compare the magnitude of the miracle of the fish saving Yonah to that of Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah being saved from Nevuchadnetzar’s cauldron as described in Daniel Perek 3. Torah Academy of Bergen County students, though, note the great disparity between Yonah on the one hand and Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah on the other. The latter placed their lives in great danger to avoid worshipping Avodah Zarah (or something that resembled Avodah Zarah), thus sanctifying Hashem’s name, whereas Yonah jeopardized himself in his resistance to Hashem’s command and perpetrated a desecration of Hashem’s name. We understand why Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah deserved a miracle, and a great one at that. We are left wondering why Yonah deserved a miracle of comparable greatness.
  Answer Number One - Ein Shenei Neviim MitNabeim BeSignon EchadThe classic and contemporary commentaries do not, to the best of my knowledge, address this issue. Thus, we endeavored at Torah Academy to develop a number of approaches to resolve the problem on our own.
  One possible approach lies in the fact that, as Chazal (Sanhedrin 89a) teach, Ein Shenei Neviim MitNabeim BeSignon Echad, no two prophets prophesy in the same style. Thus, sometimes it is appropriate for a prophet of a certain personality to deliver a specific message. For example, Eliyahu HaNavi, who was a fiery zealot (as evidenced in Melachim I 17:1 and 19:10), was the perfect Navi to inform Achav of the impending destruction of his entire family (Melachim I 21:21-24).
  By contrast, it was best for Elisha, who had a much softer personality than Eliyahu HaNavi (as evidenced by Melachim I 19:20-21 and Melachim II 2:21-22), to anoint Chazael (Melachim II 8:7-15). Elisha’s crying when informing Chazael of his divine destiny to punish our people (see Melachim I 19:15-18), likely softened the blow Chazael dealt to our people (Melachim II 12:18-19).
  Yonah, in turn, was the perfect Navi to anoint Yeihu and inform him of his mission (see Melachim I 19:15-18) to utterly destroy the house of Achav (Melachim II 9:6-10). Accordingly, Yonah might have been indispensable as the Navi with the personality uniquely appropriate to communicate to Nineveh in the strongest terms that they will be completely wiped out if they do not immediately improve.
  Proof of the appropriateness of Yonah to express this message is the fact that Nineveh responded so unanimously and forcefully to his message. Yonah was the best and possibly only choice for the task to deliver Hashem’s warning to Nineveh. Thus, Hashem chose to save Yonah rather than find a replacement.
  Answer Number Two - The Triumph of Rachamim over DinAlternatively, we may explain that Hashem does not want Din, and therefore Yonah as the personification of Din, eradicated from the world. If He did, then Yonah would never have received the Nevuah and the world would not have been created with Din in the first place. Rather, Hashem wants Yonah’s sense of Din to be transformed into a better balance of Din and Rachamim (see Rashi to Bereishit 1:1 s.v. Bara Elokim). Hashem’s wants Yonah to change his mind, not to die.
  Answer Number Three - No Opt Out Option for a JewA third approach views the rescue of Yonah as part of an issue larger than the specific situation of Yonah’s warning to Nineveh. Yonah is the only Navi in the Tanach who actively seeks to get out of a divine mission. Yonah flees to Chutz LaAretz (outside of Israel) as a “safe zone” where he thinks he can side step Hashem’s command. He retreats to the bottom of the ship and even asks to be tossed into the sea to avoid the mission on which Hashem has sent him.
  By saving Yonah from the ravages of the sea, Hashem communicates to Yonah and to Jews of all generations that a Jew cannot evade the divine mission upon which he is sent. “Af Al Pi Shechata, Yisrael Hu”, a Jew who sins is still a Jew (Sanhedrin 44a). A Jew who converts out of his religion remains a Jew, as there is no opt out option for a Jew.
  Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik eloquently presents Yonah as the paradigm for Hashem not permitting a Jew to escape his destiny, in his essay “Kol Dodi Dofeik”. Rav Soloveitchik outlines six ways we may discern Hashem’s involvement, or knocking, in the creation and maintenance of Medinat Yisrael (Sate of Israel). Rav Soloveitchik cites Yonah in the fourth knock he presents48<i class="footnote">Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, <i>Kol Dodi Dofek</i> (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2006), 35-37. </i>:
  “Fourth, the Beloved is knocking in the hearts of the perplexed and assimilated youths. The era of divine self-concealment (Hastarat Panim) at the beginning of the 1940’s resulted in great confusion among the Jewish masses and, in particular, among the Jewish youth…Buried, hidden thoughts and paradoxical reflections emerge from the depths of the souls of even the most avowed assimilationists. And once a Jew begins to think and contemplate, once his sleep is disturbed—who knows where his thoughts will take him, what form of expression his doubts and queries will assume?”
  Rav Soloveitchik thinks “it is good for a Jew not to be able to hide from his Jewishness.” Like Yonah, even the self-haters will find no refuge in the innermost depths of their respective ships. Like Yonah, again, when asked “Who are you?” they should answer “I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven.”
  Yonah communicates the message taught by Avot 4:22:
  Let not your heart convince you that the grave is your escape; for against your will you are formed, against your will you are born, against your will you live, against your will you die, and against your will you are destined to give a judgment and accounting before the King, King of all kings, the Holy One, blessed be He49<i class="footnote">Translation adapted from Chabad.org </i>.
  Neither Chutz LaAretz, the bottom of the boat, or even death are a way out of Hashem’s command. By Hashem saving Yonah from the raging sea, He teaches that there is no escape from Hashem and the task He has sent us to fulfill in this world50<i class="footnote">The Kabalistic notion of Gilgulim fits with this idea as well. Someone who does not complete their mission in this world will be reincarnated so that he will fulfill his function in another milieu. </i>.
  Answer Number Four – Yonah as a Symbol of Am YisraelTorah Academy students still noted that Hashem rarely, if ever, miraculously intervenes to save someone who commits suicide, no matter how important and indispensable to the world. Why, then, did He save Yonah in a most extraordinary manner?
  We put forth a bold possibility. We developed the idea that Yonah symbolizes the entire Am Yisrael and that Hashem will not permit our entire nation to spiritually self-destruct. Rashi (to Bereishit 15:10 s.v. VeEt HaTzipor Lo Batar) writes that the Jewish people are compared to a dove. This is most appropriate since a dove is the quintessential example of a kosher bird.
  In Shir HaShirim, a parable for the relationship between Hashem and Am Yisrael, the woman (Raayah; i.e. the Jewish people) is often compared to a dove (see, for example, Shir HaShirm 1:15, 2:14, 4:1, and 5:2). The Midrash (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:2 and 2:14) explains at length the comparison between a Yonah/dove and the Jewish people. Here is one example: “Just like a dove once she meets her mate never leaves him for another… just as a dove whose fledglings are taken from her nest still doesn't abandon her nest…, so are the Jewish people faithful to G‑d.”
  Most popularly, the Jewish people’s appreciation for Shabbat is described in the poem ascribed to Rabi Yehudah HaLevi “Yonah Matzah Bo Manoach,” “Yonah (dove) found in it [Shabbat] rest.” The linking of the dove and the Jewish people is a most solid one.
  Accordingly, it could be that the Yonah the prophet, not the bird, might also symbolize the Jewish people, especially if we understood Yonah’s motivation to flee as completely on behalf of the Jewish people. Based on this, we suggest that Hashem’s rescue of Yonah from the ravages of the sea despite his willingness to destroy himself represents Hashem’s rescue of the Jewish people’s spirit, even if we willingly try to shed it.
  Hashem promised that the Torah will never be forgotten completely from the Jewish people (Rashi to Devarim 31:21). Thus, even if we will willingly cast off the Torah, Hashem will ensure that it is not completely forgotten, just as He did not permit Yonah to let himself be destroyed. Hashem might not intervene and save an individual Jew from destroying himself either physically or spiritually. However, He most certainly will intervene and not permit the total physical or spiritual elimination of Am Yisrael.
  The Jewish people were well on the road to spiritual self-destruction in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. In the United States there were no more than a few hundred yeshiva students and even in Israel, Ben-Gurion was willing to exempt Yeshiva students from the draft since there were so few of them. Moreover, Ben Gurion and his advisors’ expectation was that the secularization of the Jewish people was inevitable and that there would soon be no Yeshiva students left in a matter of a decade or two. The architect of the modern State of Israel could not have foreseen the intervention of the Beloved Hashem who helped revive Torah study around the world to the extent that there are hundreds of thousands of full-time devotees of Torah study worldwide.
  Moreover, the large fish might represent the Exile. Yonah’s miraculous survival in the fish51<i class="footnote">Rav David Nachbar offers the idea that the fish was a middle ground for Yonah. He wants life, but as he sees fit, and he is also willing to die for his cause. Working with the suggested approach of convincing Yonah to the side of Rachamim, the only way for Hashem to convince Yonah was to show him he did not have the option to live as he wants or die protecting Bnai Yisrael. Yonah is placed in a state of limbo, accomplishing nothing, which is devastating for Yonah. It forces him to make the choice to live as Hashem wants. It is a clear message to him and to us that we cannot devise our own rules and morals but must adhere to the objective morality of Hashem.</i> might foreshadow the miraculous survival of our people in Galut/Exile. Indeed, Bava Batra 73b compares the Galut to a large fish. The Gemara records Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah relating that once when traveling on a boat he saw a large fish upon which a great amount of sand accumulated on its back. He and his fellow travelers thought it was an island and they disembarked from the ship and began to cook and bake on the back of the whale. When it became too hot for the large fish to tolerate the heat, it turned over. Rabbah Bar Channah observed that had the ship not been close by the fish, he and his fellow travelers would have drowned. The Maharsha (ad. loc. s.v. Chazinan) and Rav Soloveitchik’s (Yemei Zikkaron, pp.166-167) explain this tale as a parable regarding the Jewish experience in Galut52<i class="footnote">My analysis of this story may be found at www.parshapages.com/.../Island%20of%20Rabbah%20Bar%20Bar%20Chanah.doc. </i>.
  The comparison of the Jewish people to Yonah might explain the Midrash (Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer cited by the Radak to Yonah 2:1) that states that the large fish was set aside by Hashem to save Yonah already from the time of the six days of Creation. The Midrash may be understood as teaching that the Jewish People are an integral part of the Creation of the World and therefore Hashem will not permit the nation to self-destruct since the world cannot function without this essential component. This idea is expressed in Yirmiyahu 31:35-36 and 33:25 “If not for My covenant day and night, I would not sustain the heavens and the earth.”
  Accordingly, Yonah’s survival in the large fish has enormous implications for both his time and for eternity. Just as Yonah was indestructible in his Sefer, so too the holy and eternal Jewish nation will not and cannot be destroyed.
  However it is explained, Hashem rescuing Yonah is an expression of Middat HaRachamim. Yonah certainly does not deserve this rescue from a Middat HaDin perspective. This is yet another example of how Hashem is showing Yonah the importance of Middat HaRachamim, which Yonah so roundly rejects in the context of Nineveh. Hashem provides Yonah with an opportunity to experience being the beneficiary of Middat HaRachamim so that he would hopefully be content when it is administered to Nineveh.
  ConclusionHashem creating an extraordinary miracle to save Yonah, however it is explained, is an extraordinary act of kindness performed for a recalcitrant prophet. It brings to mind the story of the Baal Shem Tov who, when asked for advice by a father whose son was abandoning Torah observance, told the father that he should love his son more. When Yonah retreated into stubborn defiance, Hashem loved Yonah more and showed him extra kindness.
  Finally, according to approach number two with Hashem nudging Yonah to mitigate Din with Rachamim, we have a perfect fit with the major theme of Yom Kippur. Hashem saving Yonah is a most fitting expression of the triumph of Rachamim over Din, a chord that resonates most deeply as we approach the end of our judgment period. If Hashem went to such extraordinary lengths to save Yonah despite his rebellion, we plead that He goes to extraordinary lengths to save us as well despite our various respective shortcomings. Throughout Yom Kippur, and even in the Tachanun prayer recited during the weekday morning prayer, we beg Hashem “Lo Al Tzidkoteinu Anachnu Mapilim Tachanunim Lifanecha, Ki Al Rachamecha HaRabim,” “we do not fall begging before You because we are righteous [that we might deserve to have our prayers answered], rather we ask because of Your great mercy (Rachamim).” We hope and pray that if Hashem would place Rachamim over Din and save Yonah, perhaps He may do the same for us.
  
  
  
  Chapter 2 - Yonah Switches Gears
  What a change from Perek 1 to Perek 2! In Perek 1 Yonah maintains a stony silence towards Hashem. Nothing, not a ferocious storm or the threat of being cast in the sea, moved Yonah from his stubborn and silent defiance. However, in Perek 2, after three days and three nights in the fish, Yonah finally opens up to Hashem. What prompted Yonah to alter his course and reengage with the Creator?
  Rashi vs. Ibn Ezra - Dag and DagahIn Perek 2 Pasuk 1 Yonah is described as being swallowed by a Dag and in Perek 2 Pasuk 2 he calls out to Hashem from the belly of the Dagah. Why the change of Dag to Dagah?
  Rashi and Mahari Kra cite the Midrash that resolves the contradiction by relating that Yonah first was swallowed by a male fish (Dag). However, Yonah was comfortable and was not prompted to pray. Hashem then caused the male fish to transfer Yonah to a female fish (Dagah). The female fish, in turn, was pregnant and full of many fetuses making it very uncomfortable for Yonah, thereby prompting him to pray to Hashem for his release.
  The Midrash is telling us that severe distress finally motivated Yonah to change. Proof to this assertion may be drawn from Perek 2 Pasuk 3 where Yonah states “Karati MiTzarah Li El Hashem,” “I have called to Hashem out of stress”. Indeed, we find that severe stress sometimes is the only means to reinstate proper perspective on our relationship to Hashem. The Gemara (Megilla 14a) teaches “The removal of this ring [Achashverosh’s signet ring which he gave to Haman] had a greater effect than forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses, who preached that Israel should better its ways.”
  Ibn Ezra and Da’at Mikra, though, offer a Peshat (straightforward understanding) approach to resolve the Dag/Dagah issue. They note Shemot 7:21 which records that the “Dagah Asher BaYeor Meitah,” “all of the fish in the Nile died”. Dag refers to an individual fish whereas Dagah refers to fish in general. The terms Dag and Dagah in the context of Yonah, accordingly, are interchangeable without any fundamental difference between the terms.
  The Torture of Being in the In-Between State of Life and DeathWhether or not the Midrash is a persuasive explanation of the shift from Dag to Dagah, the underlying message of the Midrash that the suffering endured by Yonah in the fish is what propelled him to finally communicate with Hashem, is most compelling. Professor Simon offers insight into the psychological torture Yonah must have endured during those three days and nights inside the fish:
  He is led to renew contact with the Lord not by the threatening waves, but by the closed belly of the fish; his mouth is not opened by the fear of death, but by the powerlessness of an in-between state that is neither life nor death.
  This approach fits well with an approach developed by Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach regarding withholding extraordinary medical treatment from patients who are near death. Halacha, generally speaking, forbids passive euthanasia (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 336:1). Nevertheless, Halacha might allow for passive euthanasia in extremely limited situations. Rav Shlomo Zalman (Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 1:91:24) writes:
  I believe that if a patient is suffering exceedingly great physical or even psychological pain, nutrition53<i class="footnote">We should note, however, that sometimes providing hydration and nutrition may actually harm that patient. It is essential that a Rav consult the patient's doctors and consider their input before rendering a decision.</i> and oxygen must be provided but it is permissible to withhold treatments that cause only great suffering, if the patient makes this request.
  Although Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv disagrees, Rav Auerbach extends this ruling to a patient who is in a coma (cited in Nishmat Avraham Y.D. 339:4 iii page 501 in the third edition). Even though the patient seems not to be enduring any physical pain, Rav Shlomo Zalman feels that it is intolerable for a person to be maintained in a limbo state that is neither life nor death.
  This is comparable to the situation in which Yonah found himself. It was utterly intolerable to be maintained in an in-between state that is neither life nor death.
  The Psychological Torture of Utter LonelinessOne may also explain the great agony Yonah experienced in the large fish in light of the experience of the long sleep of Choni Hameageil (Taanit 23a; translation from Wikipedia):
  Rabbi Yohanan said: "This righteous man [Choni] was troubled throughout the whole of his life concerning the meaning of the verse, 'A Song of Ascents: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like dreamers.' [Choni asked] Is it possible for seventy years to be like a dream? How could anyone sleep for seventy years?"
  One day Choni was journeying on the road and he saw a man planting a carob tree. He asked, "How long does it take [for this tree] to bear fruit?" The man replied: "Seventy years." Choni then further asked him: "Are you certain that you will live another seventy years?" The man replied: "I found [already grown] carob trees in the world; as my forefathers planted those for me so I too plant these for my children."
  Choni sat down to have a meal and sleep overcame him. As he slept a rocky formation enclosed upon him which hid him from sight and he slept for seventy years. When he awoke he saw a man gathering the fruit of the carob tree and Choni asked him, "Are you the man who planted the tree?" The man replied: "I am his grand-son." Thereupon Choni exclaimed: "It is clear that I have slept for seventy years." He then caught sight of his female donkey which had given birth to several generations of mules, and he returned home. There he inquired, "Is the son of Choni the Circle-Drawer still alive?" The people answered him, "His son is no more, but his grandson is still living." Thereupon he said to them: "I am Choni the Circle-Drawer," but no one would believe him.
  He then repaired to the beit ha-midrash [study hall] and there he overheard the scholars say, "The law is as clear to us as in the days of Choni the Circle-Drawer," for whenever he came to the beit ha-midrash he would settle for the scholars any difficulty that they had. Whereupon he called out, "I am he!" But the scholars would not believe him nor did they give him the honor due to him. This hurt him greatly and he prayed for mercy, and he died. Raba said: "Hence the saying, 'Either companionship or death’.
  The human being is meant to be with people. “Lo Tov Heyot Adam Levado,” “it is not good for man to be alone”, teaches Bereishit 2:18. Yonah could stand a terrible storm and being cast into the sea. He could not, though, tolerate three full days all alone inside a fish.
  ConclusionWhether it was physical or psychological, severe stress finally forced Yonah to relent and reconnect with Hashem. On Yom Kippur we culminate a ten day period of heightened psychological stress and awareness as we anxiously approach judgement. Reading Yonah reminds us to take this stress and utilize its transformative powers before the climax of the day.
  Whether Yonah truly repented while yet in the large fish will be discussed in our next essay.
  Postscript Number One – Why is a Fish Chosen to save Yonah?The Torah Academy students asked why Hashem specifically chose a fish to save Yonah. Hashem could have sustained Yonah underwater in a miraculous manner or have Yonah bounced to dry land. What is the significance of being saved by a fish and living in a fish?
  One could suggest that of all of the possible ways to sustain Yonah after he is cast in the sea it is the least “miraculous” or the option that minimizes the violation of the laws of nature. Indeed, both the Ramban (Bereishit 6:19) and Rashbam (Shemot 14:21) teach that even when Hashem makes a miracle He minimizes the extent of the violations of the laws of nature, due to His preference to mask His involvement in the world.
  Abarabanel and Malbim view Yonah being swallowed by, and later expelled from, the large fish as a form of rebirth for Yonah. This approach fits well with the Midrash cited earlier that states that Yonah was first in a male fish and then placed into a female fish full of fetuses.
  Yonah’s encasement in a fish fits with the Kabbalistic teaching that a Tzadik who sinned is returned after death as a Gigul (transmigrated soul) into a fish (see Ohr HaChaim to Bereishit 1:26).
  Da’at Mikra notes that the cuneiform for Nineveh (Ninâ) is a fish within a house. Thus, being swallowed by a fish which symbolizes Nineveh sends a powerful message to Yonah. If you refuse to visit Nineveh, I will, Hashem is communicating to Yonah, bring Nineveh to you, so to speak.
  I suggest that being swallowed by a fish is the abject opposite of the dignity of man as described in Bereishit 1:28 “URedu BiDgat HaYam,” “and you shall exercise dominion over the fish of the sea.” In Yonah’s case, a fish exercised dominion over him, bringing him to the abyss of despair which, in turn, finally brought him to confront Hashem in prayer.
  Postscript Number Two - The Significance of Three Days in the FishBereishit Rabbah 56:1 lists a slew of events that occur in Tanach after a wait of three days including Yonah reaching out to Hashem after three days in the large fish. These include Avraham and Yitzchak’s three day walk to the Akeidah (Binding of Isaac), the three day preparation for Maamad Har Sinai (the Revelation at Sinai), and the three days Esther devoted to preparing for her unauthorized entry to the throne room of Achashveirosh.
  Professor Simon writes that the number three “denotes a period that is long but not too long”. In other words, it is the shortest “long period of time”. Thus when it is important to devote a significant but minimal period of time to a certain task, three days is the choice. For Yonah, after three days it was long enough to reach the point he could no longer bear remaining inside the fish.
  We may add that in all the cases noted by the Midrash three days is a time of transition. For Yonah it was a time of transition from detachment from Hashem to reengagement.
  We may also add the significance of the number three in the Halacha as expressed in the Tanach, Mishnah, and Gemara. In these contexts the number three establishes a Chazakah, a pattern. For example, an ox that gores three times within a short amount of time establishes itself as an exceptionally dangerous animal, a Shor HaMuad. A woman for whom three husbands die establishes herself (in certain circumstances) as a Katlanit, a danger. One who practices a Chumra (Halachic stringency) three times has de facto in many cases accepted upon himself the Chumra as a Neder (vow).
  In the case of Yonah, after being in the fish for three days and three nights, Yonah recognizes that Hashem is not merely keeping Yonah in the fish temporarily. He realizes after this passage of time that unless he reaches out to Hashem in prayer, his stay in the fish is an indefinite one.
  
  
  
  Chapter 3 - Yonah was in a Large Fish for Three Days! Really?54<i class="footnote">Thank you to my son Binyamin, son-in-law Yisroel Perton, and dear friend Dr. Dino Feigelstock for helping me formulate the ideas in this essay. </i>
  A Torah Academy of Bergen County alumnus was eager to know whether an Orthodox Jew is required to believe that Yonah truly was swallowed by a large fish and survived inside it for three days. Indeed, it does seem to be quite a stretch of the imagination to believe this. The answer hinges upon when it is appropriate to interpret a portion of the Tanach in a non-literal manner.
  Precedents for Interpreting Tanach in a Non-Literal MannerUndoubtedly certain phrases in the Torah are not to be taken literally. Chazal (Chullin 90b and Tammid 29a) explicitly state that the Torah occasionally uses hyperbole. Devarim 1:28 refers to cities surrounded by walls which reach the heavens, a clear example of hyperbole. Melachim I 1:40 speaks of the earth cracking from the noise made by the party of Adoniyahu, another obvious exaggeration. These are by no means lies, since it is clear to any intelligent reader that these descriptions are obvious exaggerations.
  More than any other major early authority, the Rambam develops this discussion in his great philosophical work, the Moreh Nevuchim (Guide to the Perplexed). The Rambam insists repeatedly in this volume (section one, chapters 1-30) that Torah passages that suggest the corporeality of Hashem contradict fundamental logic (since Hashem is infinite, He cannot be restricted to a body) and therefore must be interpreted in a non-literal manner.
  Moreover, the Rambam believes that certain episodes in the Torah are not be understood literally. For example, he interprets Bereishit chapter 18 allegorically (Moreh Nevuchim 2:42) saying that the three angels must have appeared to Avraham Avinu in a vision because angels do not eat human food or even appear in a human form55<i class="footnote">The Ramban (Breishit 18:1) rejects this argument of the Rambam in the strongest of terms. </i>.
  In this chapter of the Moreh Nevuchim the Rambam writes that Yaakov Avinu’s wrestling with an angel was merely a prophetic vision as was the story of Bilam’s talking donkey. Four chapters later, in Moreh Nevuchim 2:46, Rambam insists that various bizarre prophetic episodes such as Hoshea marrying a harlot (Hoshea chapters 1-3) and Yishayahu walking barefoot and naked (Yishayahu chapter 20) occurred only in a prophecy. Rambam forcefully argues “Heaven forfend that Hashem would command His prophets to act in a psychotic manner.”
  Even more shockingly, the Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:22) endorses the opinion (presented in Bava Batra 15a) that the entire book of Iyov is merely a Mashal (parable). The Rambam insists that “any intelligent person” would agree that the first two chapters of Iyov which describes the Satan interactions with Hashem arguing against Iyov’s righteousness is to be understood as a parable.
  The Rambam argues that the description of Iyov as living in the land of Utz (Iyov 1:1) clearly indicates that what follows is a parable. The land of Utz is not described elsewhere in Tanach and, rather it is mentioned once as the name of one of the children of Avraham Avinu’s brother Nachor. The word Utz, Rambam argues, alludes to the word Eitzah (advice). In other words, setting the scene of Sefer Iyov in its opening verse in the land of Utz indicates that the book is about offering advice, or insight, as to how we are to perceive Hashem’s judgment in the world.
  Professor Uriel Simon - Yonah an AllegoryRambam does not address the issue of Yonah living in a fish for three days in the Moreh Nevuchim. Da’at Mikra in its introduction to Sefer Yonah notes that Ibn Caspi is the only classic authority who cites an opinion that the first two chapters of Sefer Yonah should be understood as having occurred only in a prophetic vision. The Da’at Mikra assumes that the Ibn Caspi refers to the Rambam. Indeed, the Rambam, towards the end of Moreh Nevuchim 2:46, writes “And from what I have mentioned derive to that which I have not mentioned”.
  Professor Uriel Simon vigorously argues that Sefer Yonah is meant to be taken as an allegory similar to the Rambam’s approach to the book of Iyov. He contrasts Yonah with Megillat Esther which he argues has all the hallmarks of an actual story. In Megillat Esther, the name of the king is mentioned, the country in which he rules is noted and a specific timeline is presented for the events presented in the storyline.
  None of these hallmarks of a true story exist in Sefer Yonah. The name of the king is omitted, the kingdom of Assyria (of which Nineveh is the capital city) is not mentioned and no timeline is offered for the events recorded. Moreover, Professor Simon argues that the events are presented in such a wildly unrealistic manner, such as the size of Nineveh being a three days journey long, to stress that the story is not intended to be understood literally.
  The Traditional Approach - Sefer Yonah is a True StoryEven the more rationally inclined commentators such as Ibn Ezra, Radak and Abarbanel understand all of Sefer Yonah, including the fish episode, as constituting an event that actually happened. Da’at Mikra cites a report printed in a 1927 issue of the Princeton Theological Review which records the saga of a sailor named John Ambrose who allegedly was swallowed by a whale and survived for three days inside the whale.
  Needless to say, many are deeply skeptical about this report. Moreover, Radak and Abarbanel understand Yonah’s survival in the fish as a miraculous event. Thus, a natural explanation is, at best, unnecessary. Just as Hashem made the miracle of Keriat Yam Suf (Splitting the Sea) and the revelation at Har Sinai, so too He made the many miracles recorded in Sefer Yonah.
  Da’at Mikra notes that Chazal also understood the entire Sefer Yonah in a literal sense. The Mishnah (Taanit 2:4) notes that one of the Brachot recited on the seven intense fast days for rain is “Mi Sheana Et Yonah Mimeiei HaDagah Hu Yaaneh Etchem VeYishma BeKol Tzaakatchem HaYom HaZeh, Baruch Atah Hashem, HaOneh BeEt Tzarah,” “the One who answered Yonah from the belly of the fish, will answer you and hear your cries today, blessed are you Hashem Who responds in a time of crisis.”
  We may add that the Rambam himself (Hilchot Taaniot 4:12) codifies this Bracha as normative Halacha. Thus, it is clear that the Rambam believes that the Yonah in the fish episode should be understood literally. The Rambam understands various stories as non-literal due to theological problems posed by the literal understanding. Hashem’s or even an angel’s corporeality is inconceivable to the Rambam and therefore he understands various Pesukim in accordance with this view. However, just as Rambam does not regard the Ten Makkot as allegorical even though it severely deviates from the natural course of events, so too the Rambam does not interpret Yonah in the fish or the Kikayon incident as allegory since there is no compelling theological reason to do so.
  Moreover, the Mishna’s phrase is paraphrased both in the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Selichot. Ashkenazic Jews say “Mi SheAnah LeYonah BeMeiei HaDagah, Hu Yaaneinu” and Sephardic Jews say “DeAnei LeYonah BeMeiei HaDagah, Aneinan”, “He who answered Yonah in the belly of the fish, [He will] answer us”. Thus, the view that Yonah in the fish should be viewed as an allegory lies considerably outside the mainstream of Jewish thought.
  Responding to Professor Simon’s ProofsProfessor Simon made compelling insights arguing that the literary style indicates that Sefer Yonah is to be understood as allegorical. However, we may respond that the Rambam’s primary proof to his approach is from the fact that the location of Sefer Iyov, the land of Utz, appears to be a fictional location. Sefer Yonah, though, focuses on Nineveh, a very real place. It also mentions Yaffo as a port for international commerce, which it was and remains so until this very day. Tarshish is a real place as well, as explained by Da’at Mikra.
  The portrayal of Nineveh as evil and an exceedingly large city is indeed realistic. Sefer Nachum serves as the sequel to Sefer Yonah predicting the destruction of Nineveh following its reversion to its evil ways after Yonah’s visit. Finally, the absence of any mention of Yonah’s visit to Nineveh in Assyrian historical records hardly constitutes evidence that this event did not take place. Although abundant amounts of ancient Assyrian artifacts and documents are extant, the absence of Yonah’s visit might be explained in numerous ways.
  It could be that Assyrian kings sought to squelch the story since Yonah’s message of morality was incompatible with their agenda. Alternatively, the repentance was so short lived that the Assyrians recorders of history did not find it worth mentioning. Finally, drawing conclusions from the absence of archaeological evidence is an endeavor fraught with danger which has yielded many theories that were subsequently debunked, especially in regards to the Tanach56<i class="footnote">For further discussion of this point, see my “Reason to Believe: Rational Explanations of Orthodox Jewish Thought” pages 100-104. </i>.
  ConclusionRav Yaakov Emden is famous for noting in the introduction to his Siddur that the survival of the Jewish people is a miracle greater in magnitude of any miracle recorded in the Tanach. Yonah’s miraculous survival in the fish foreshadows our supernatural survival in the Exile. Just as Hashem has orchestrated our survival throughout the past very difficult two thousand years, so too did Hashem arrange for Yonah to survive three days in the fish. The Jewish experience makes it much easier for us to believe the reality of Yonah’s miraculous survival in the fish. Furthermore, a major theme of Yom Kippur is Hashem’s relationships and interactions with the world. Remembering the miracles performed for Yonah provide a strong reminder that Hashem interacts directly with the world, a fact we would do well to remember on Yom Kippur.
  
  
  
  Chapter 4 - Yonah’s Obsession with the Beit HaMikdash
  One of most striking features of Yonah’s Tefilah recited while in the big fish is the frequent mention of the Beit HaMikdash. Yonah refers to the Beit HaMikdash (or a Korban he will offer there) no less than three times (Pesukim 5, 8 and 10) in this brief Tefilah that occupies no more than eight Pesukim.
  A focus on the Beit HaMikdash seems quite incongruous considering Yonah’s present imprisonment inside a fish. In such circumstances survival and rescue would appear to be the only thing that would occupy a reasonable person. For example, if someone were, heaven forfend, trapped in a collapsed coal mine, one would focus on rescue and not envisioning a trip to one’s favorite place of worship57<i class="footnote">The analogy might be inapt, though, since Yonah knew that Hashem wasn't going to kill him. Because Hashem sent the large fish to save Yonah from downing, Yonah realizes he's in a state of limbo, not living but not dead either. He had to think beyond of the scope of his situation.</i>.
  Da’at Mikra (to Yonah 2:2) writes that a similar Tefilah to that which Yonah uttered was commonly recited by sailors who were near death at sea and saved. These sailors, continues the Da’at Mikra, would come to the Beit HaMikdash and offer Korbanot. According to this approach Yonah tailored this commonly recited Tefilah to his situation, the focus on the Beit HaMikdash is not specific to Yonah but rather to all who are rescued from deep peril and offer a Korban Todah (thanksgiving offering).
  Rav Dr. Meir Levin (Torah.org class number eight on Sefer Yonah) cites the Yerushalmi (Sukkah 5:1) to solve our problem. The Yerushalmi states “Rav Yonah said: Yonah son of Amitai was at pilgrimage to Jerusalem and he entered the rejoicing of water drawing (Simchat Beit HaShoeva) and the Holy Spirit rested upon him”. Rav Dr. Levin concludes “this explanation certainly throws light on Yonah’s repeated reference to ‘your holy temple’ in his prayer from the belly of the fish58<i class="footnote">We must also consider that Yonah resided in the Northern Kingdom at a time when its less than excellent kings maintained a barrier to prevent Aliyah LeRegel. Yonah must have had to make an extraordinary effort to defy the government edict. Interestingly, Chazal (Eruvin 96a) depict Yonah’s wife as sharing her husband’s love for the Beit HaMikdash. Chazal record that Yonah’s wife also made Aliyah LeRegel and the Chachamim did not object. It is interesting that of all the wives of Tzadikim, only the wife of Yonah is mentioned as having made Aliyah LeRegel. This certainly fits with our understanding that Yonah harbored a special affinity and love for the Beit HaMikdash. </i>”.
  At Torah Academy we developed four additional approaches to this issue.
  Explanation Number One - The Goal of Yonah’s ResistanceTorah Academy of Bergen County student Eli Englard suggested that Yonah is focused on the Beit HaMikdash since this is the goal of his resisting Hashem’s command to address Nineveh. Recall Abarbanel’s approach that Yonah desired Nineveh’s demise since Nineveh was the capital of Assyria which had designs on conquering Eretz Yisrael. As such, Yonah’s ultimate goal is to protect the Beit HaMikdash from the threat posed to it by the Assyrians59<i class="footnote">See Melachim II 16:12-18 for a description of the damage indirectly caused by the Assyrians to the Beit HaMikdash. The Assyrians also likely influenced the evil king Menashe in his defiling of the Temple. </i>.
  According to this approach, already in his Tefilah recited while still in the fish Yonah is resisting Hashem’s anticipated forgiving of Nineveh. This approach is in harmony with Abarbanel and Malbim’s approach to another portion of Yonah’s Tefilah (2:9) which they interpret as a complaint Yonah lodges that Nineveh’s Teshuvah will not be long lasting.
  Yonah might be trying to push his agenda a bit further in the Tefilah. His goal is to convince Hashem to not forgive Nineveh even as Hashem is holding Yonah hostage inside the fish. Yonah is showing how he isn't thinking short term, but rather much longer and broader term with all of Bnai Yisrael and its Dveikut (deep commitment) to Hashem hanging in the balance.
  Explanation Number Two - The Beit HaMikdash as the Ideal of TruthRav Raphi Mandelstam, my respected colleague at Torah Academy of Bergen County, offers an intriguing approach. He argues that the essence of Yonah is his devotion to truth, as indicated by his name Yonah ben Amitai (the root of Amitai is Emet, the truth). Accordingly, although the Beit HaMikdash is extremely meaningful to every Jew, it is even more meaningful to Yonah since it represents the pinnacle of truth.
  The high standards of Taharah (purity), such as observing Taharah to the fourth degree (Revii LeTuma) instead of the usual second degree (Sheini LeTuma) is an example of the lofty ideals attained in the Beit HaMikdash and nowhere else. The perfection of Taharah achieved in the preparation of the Parah Adumah (Red Cow) described in the opening Perakim of Masechet Parah are another example. In the Beit HaMikdash an errant thought about eating or offering a Korban outside the proper time parameters renders the Korban Pigul, disqualifying the offering and carrying a punishment of Karet (a most grievous punishment). Kohanim or animals with blemishes may not be involved in the service (Avodah) in the Beit HaMikdash.
  All this represents a high achievement of Torah ideals and is the type of uncompromised and unvarnished truth to which Yonah ben Amitai aspires60<i class="footnote">Aryeh Krischer notes that even with these ideals of truth and purity, a main function of the Beit HaMikdash is to channel Hashem’s mercy to Bnei Yisrael. Thus, even the place Yonah turns to as symbolic of his unwavering position on Din really reflects Hashem’s Rachamim as well. </i>. Thus, we are hardly surprised that of all people Yonah ben Amitai is obsessed with the Beit HaMikdash. In the words of Torah Academy of Bergen County student Max Krantz, the Beit HaMikdash serves as Yonah’s “happy place” to which he retreats in his imagination to mentally escape the severe stress of being trapped inside a fish.
  Explanation Number Three - Yonah as a Representative of Am YisraelTorah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Gilad Ginsberg offers a suggestion based on Rashi’s assertion (Bereishit 15:10 s.v. Et HaTzipor) that the dove (Yonah) symbolizes Am Yisrael. This is a most compelling comparison considering that the dove constitutes the paradigmatic kosher bird (Chullin 61a).
  Gilad further suggests that Yonah trapped in the fish yet at the same time saved by the fish from drowning in the great sea represents the Jewish people saved by the Galut (exile) yet at the same time trapped in the Galut. Thus, just as Yonah is obsessed with the Beit HaMikdash while trapped in the great fish, so too the Jewish People remain obsessed with the Beit HaMikdash even at the darkest moments of the Exile. Indeed, the Beit HaMikdash is a ubiquitous feature of our Tefilot and Zemirot (songs). At a typical Orthodox Jewish wedding at least half of the songs sung mention the Beit HaMikdash.
  The Talmud Bavli does not encompass most of Seder Zeraim since most of the Halachot that appear in this Seder do not apply in the Exile. Nonetheless, the Bavli devotes much attention to Seder Kodashim which focus on Korbanot (sacrifices), despite their not applying in the Exile. In fact, two very large Masechetot, Zevachim and Menachot, reflect the great attention the Babylonian sages devoted to Korbanot despite the fact that they are not offered in the Exile. This is yet another expression of the Jews in exile following the paradigm set by Yonah of continued preoccupation with the Beit HaMikdash.
  In essence the Beit HaMikdash expresses the presence of Hashem among Am Yisrael. Indeed, the paradigm for the Beit HaMikdash is the Pasuk, “VeAsu Li Mikdash VeShachanti BeTocham,” “make for me a Mikdash and I will reside in them” (Shemot 25:8)61<i class="footnote">It is clear from the Rambam (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1) that this Pasuk refers not only to the Mishkan but also to the Beit HaMikdash. </i>. The words “in them” refer to the Jewish People. By focusing on the Beit HaMikdash even at our lowest ebb, we articulate our firm belief that Hashem will never abandon His people and his presence remains even in the midst of the Galut (Megillah 29a).
  Explanation Number Four - Think Big Even at Lowest PointI suggest that Yonah focusing on the Beit HaMikdash from the darkness of the fish sets the Jewish paradigm of thinking “big” even at the most desperate of times. This is most appropriate for a special people whose destiny is to bring Bracha (blessing) to the entire world (Bereishit 12:3).
  Examples of such behavior include (as recounted by Rav Avraham Pam) Jews going to the Nazi gas chambers chanting “Mir Zennen Zei Ibberleben,” “we will outlive them”. This most certainly has happened as the Jewish people today greatly surpass the achievements of the German people in virtually every area of human endeavors. A more mundane example of Jews harboring bold ambitions in difficult times is the bold launching of the extraordinarily successful Israel Aircraft Industry in the early 1950’s at a time when the newly born State of Israel was struggling to find food and housing for many its citizens.
  Yonah sets the model for Jews’ high ambitions despite seemingly impossible obstacles that stand in the way of achieving their dreams. Perhaps this phenomenon explains Yaakov Avinu’s highly improbable, yet successful, bovine venture despite the fact that Lavan had provided him with the lowest quality livestock as his venture capital (Bereishit 30:36 with Rashi). Yaakov’s strategy of peeled streaks placed before the sheep when they drank seems to have no scientific basis and yet, despite the severe handicaps Yaakov Avinu still emerged as an enormous financial success. I suggest the reason for Yaakov Avinu’s success is that when Jews have faith in the most dire of circumstances Hashem often manipulates the situation for us to attain great achievements. It seems that Hashem rewards Jews for harboring high ambitions. After all, the destiny of our people is to achieve high levels of success.
  ConclusionRav Daniel Fridman notes that Yonah’s obsession with the Beit HaMikdash is yet another reason for Chazal incorporating Sefer Yonah into the Yom Kippur services. Yom Kippur is most certainly the grandest day in the Beit HaMikdash having the most extensive and intricate service of the year including the dramatic entry of the Kohen Gadol into the Kodesh HaKodashim (Holy of Holies, the inner sanctum of the Beit HaMikdash). This clearly makes Sefer Yonah, and the pining of Yonah for the Beit HaMikdash, a most perfect fit for this holy day. Although we no longer have the Beit HaMikdash, we can still get a taste of desire to once more have that grandest of services that was Yom Kippur in the Mikdash speedily in our days.
  
  
  
  Chapter 5 - Yonah’s Vision
  Hashem answered Yonah while Yonah was still in the fish! That is what it seems from Pasuk 3, where Yonah proclaims “Karati MiTzarah Li El Hashem Vayaneini,” “I called out in my anguish to Hashem and He answered me”. The problem is that Yonah uttered these words while still in the fish when he was yet to be answered!
  Approach Number One - Commentaries Cited by the Ibn EzraThe Ibn Ezra cites unnamed commentators who seek to solve this problem by arguing that Yonah uttered the Tefilah recorded in Perek 2 after he was released from the fish. They present proof to this approach from Pasuk 2 which states that Yonah called out to Hashem “MiMeei HaDagah,” “from the belly of the fish”. They infer from the fact that the Pasuk does not say that he called “BeMeei HaDagah,” “within the belly of the fish”, that Yonah recited this prayer after he was rescued.
  Ibn Ezra rejects this view, noting that it runs counter to the flow of the Perek, as Yonah’s release is recorded after the Tefilah, which implies that the prayer was said before the release. Moreover, Pasuk 3 states “MiBeten Sheol Shivati,” “from the belly of the grave I reached out to Hashem”, which implies that he called to Hashem from the belly of the fish. Rashi explains that Yonah compares the fish to a grave, since Yonah felt that is was a grave to him.
  Approach Number Two - Ibn EzraIbn Ezra, in turn, explains that Yonah is speaking in “prophetic past”. Since Yonah knows through prophecy that he will be released from the fish, he can speak of his release as if it already occurred. The Ibn Ezra cites many other examples in Tanach where a prophesied future event is written in past tense to signify that since it is prophesied it is as if the event already occurred. One example he provides is “Darach Kochav MiYaakov,” “a star has issued from Yaakov” (Bemidbar 24:17) which refers to the Mashiach’s (Messaiah) arrival, an event that to this day we continue to wait for anxiously.
  It is quite ironic, according to this approach, that Yonah is a beneficiary of a prophecy while outside of Israel, since he fled from Israel according to many commentators to free himself from the obligations of a prophet.
  Approach Number Three - AbarbanelAbarbanel utilizes a Midrash that identifies Yonah as the lad that Eliyahu HaNavi revived (see Melachim I 17:17-24) to explain our Pasuk. According to Abarbanel, Yonah is saying that just as a child he called out to Hashem and Hashem answered him, Yonah is confident Hashem will answer him now in his current predicament.
  Abarbanel explains the parallel second half of the Pasuk, “MiBeten Sheol Shivati Shamati Koli,” “from the belly of the depths I cried, my voice has been heard”, as not referring to Hashem having already saved Yonah from the belly of the fish (as Rashi understands) but rather that Yonah was saved literally from the grave, as he had been revived from the dead by Eliyahu HaNavi.
  One could question this approach since Yonah was revived as a child due to the merit of Eliyahu HaNavi and Yonah’s mother for providing Eliyahu with shelter. Just because Yonah was revived due to their merit does not necessarily indicate that he will be saved from the large fish, where the merit of Eliyahu HaNavi and Yonah’s mother would seemingly no longer stand in his stead to convince Hashem to release him.
  Approach Number Four - RadakRadak explains that Yonah knew he would be saved from the fish even without receiving a prophecy confirming this outcome. By the very fact that he was saved from the raging sea, he knew that he would be saved from the fish. This approach seems to be the most grounded in the text. Yonah states in this prayer that he was saved from the grave (2:3), referring to the very simple watery grave that was awaiting him when he asked to be thrown overboard.
  Similarly, we Jews can bolster our faith in the future redemption based on our miraculous survival until now. Just as Hashem has miraculously sustained us in the Galut, so too we can be fully confident that Hashem will bring about our future redemption in a miraculous manner.
  Approach Number Five - My SuggestionI suggest that Yonah created his own positive momentum by visualizing his release even before it took place. One could argue that for this reason we celebrated the first Korban Pesach in Mitzrayim, even though we were not redeemed yet. Before we could be freed we had to visualize and act as if we were already free. Celebrating the Leaving of Mitzrayim (Egypt) before we left generated the positive momentum that enabled us and brought merit upon us to actually leave. Yonah, in turn, merited leaving the fish since he visualized himself freed by Hashem from the fish even before it happened.
  This is reminiscent of the story of Rabi Akiva (Makkot 24) whose vision of Jerusalem once again being filled with Jewish children has been realized in our times to a great extent simply due to his vision. The Gemara relates:
  It happened that Rabban Gamliel, Rabi Elazar ben Azaria, Rabi Yehoshua, and Rabi Akiva went up to Jerusalem. When they reached Mt. Scopus, they tore their garments. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox emerging from the place of the Holy of Holies. The others started weeping; Rabi Akiva laughed. Said they to him: "Why are you laughing?" Said he to them: "Why are you weeping?" Said they to him: "A place [so holy] that it is said of it, 'the stranger that approaches it shall die,' and now foxes traverse it, and we shouldn't weep?" Said he to them: "That is why I laugh. For it is written, 'I shall have bear witness for Me faithful witnesses—Uriah the Priest and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah. Now what is the connection between Uriah and Zechariah? Uriah was [in the time of] the First Temple, and Zechariah was [in the time of] the Second Temple! But the Torah makes Zachariah's prophecy dependent upon Uriah's prophecy. With Uriah, it is written: 'Therefore, because of you, Zion shall be plowed as a field; [Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the Temple Mount like the high places of a forest.] With Zachariah it is written, 'Old men and women shall yet sit in the streets of Jerusalem.' "As long as Uriah's prophecy had not been fulfilled, I feared that Zechariah's prophecy may not be fulfilled either. But now that Uriah's prophecy has been fulfilled, it is certain that Zechariah's prophecy will be fulfilled." With these words they replied to him: "Akiva, you have consoled us! Akiva, you have consoled us!" (translation from Chabad.org).
  Rabi Akiva might have learned the power of a positive vision to create a better reality from Yonah’s positive visualization in the depths of the fish. The same confident approach is reflected in the king of Nineveh proclaiming “Mi Yodeia Yashuv, VeNicham HaElokim,” “if one does Tehsuvah, Hashem will relent” (Yonah 3:9 as interpreted by Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel, discussed at length in our chapter devoted to an analysis of this phrase).
  ConclusionAs we hear on Yom Kippur at Mincha how Yonah’s visualizing a better future brought about his salvation, we learn that visualizing ourselves as better Jews and people can help bring about a much better spiritual future for ourselves. Complete repentance requires us to confront our past, but in order for the process to be successful it must be fueled by optimism and a positive vision of hope in a new and improved relationship with the Ribbono Shel Olam in the future as well. Yonah’s example of a positive vision despite being enveloped in the darkness of the fish summons us to do the same.
  
  
  
  Chapter 6 - “Meshamrim Havlei Shav Chasdam Yaazovu” - I Can Translate the Words but What Does it Mean?
  The most enigmatic of all of the elements of Yonah’s Tefilah is the phrase “Meshamrim Havlei Shav Chasdam Yaazovu” (Yonah 2:9). It is easy to translate these words - they mean “those who guard useless trivialities, abandon their kindness”. However, it is far from simple to discern the message Yonah is communicating in this passage. The Mefarshim offer a wide range of understandings.
  Option Number One - Radak (first approach) and Metzudat DavidRadak (in his first approach) and Metzudat David understand Yonah’s prayer to refer to the sailors. They understand Meshamrim Havlei Shav to refer to the sailors when Yonah first boarded the boat since initially they were idolaters (1:5). Chasdam Yaazovu reflects Yonah’s assumption that the sailors will abandon the kind pledges they made to Hashem after they were rescued from the storm (1:16). According to this interpretation, Yonah cynically assumes that the sailors will not sustain the religious fervor stirred by the great storm and its aftermath.
  This is a shocking interpretation considering the noble behavior of the sailors both towards Hashem and towards Yonah in Perek 1. Why would Yonah speak negatively about the people who had risked their lives on his behalf and made every effort to avoid the need to cast him into the sea?
  On the other hand, this cynicism fits with Yonah’s unforgiving Middat HaDin approach. Yonah foresaw that religious fervor that is stirred by a dramatic event is likely to ebb not so long after the ordeal has passed. Indeed, the religious passion stirred by Yonah’s “grandrebbe” Eliyahu HaNavi62<i class="footnote">Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 9:1) assert that Yonah is a Talmid of Elisha, who of course was the protégé of Eliyahu HaNavi. </i> at Har HaCarmel dissipated shockingly soon after the inspirational peak (Melachim I 19:1-2 with Malbim). Eliyahu HaNavi was so traumatized (see Melachim I Perek 19) by this surge in spirituality which left almost as swiftly as it came that, according to this view, that trauma left its mark even on his followers and followers’ students.
  Yonah in Pasuk 10 contrasts himself with this fleeting religiosity by pledging that he will honor his promises. Yonah’s spirituality is far more sustainable since it was well grounded by the many years of apprenticeship as one of the Bnei HaNeviim (literally sons of the prophets, i.e. students) of Elisha.
  This may serve as a powerful exhortation to us listening to Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur at Mincha. We are warned to adhere to and sustain the spiritual commitments we make on Yom Kippur and to take steps to insure that we do not revert back to our old poor behavior soon after the power of Yom Kippur recedes.
  Option Number Two - Pirkei D’Rabi EliezerPirkei D’Rabi Eliezer adopts a far more positive approach to the sailors. This Midrash understands, similar to the Radak and Metzudat David, Meshamrim Havlei Shav as referring to the to the sailors original status as idolaters. However, Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer understands Chasdam Yaazovu as referring to their abandonment of Avodah Zarah. Idolatry had been their Chesed, their passion, but they abandoned this misguided passion after they experienced Hashem in Perek 1.
  This far more positive view of the sailors is echoed by Rashi and the second view of Radak. If fact, it seems that Radak prefers the positive assessment of the sailors, as in his commentary to 3:5, Radak presents the sailors as having accompanied and supported Yonah in his rebuke of Nineveh.
  According to this approach, Yonah in Pasuk 10 is not contrasting himself with the sailors but committing himself to follow their positive example. A distinct advantage of this approach is that, unlike the Metzudat David, it is not casting Yonah as one who engaged in the reprehensible practice of Mitkabeid BeKlon Chaveiro (promoting oneself at the expense of others). Chazal view one who engages in such behavior as having forfeited his share in the world to come (see Rambam Hilchot Deiot 6:3).
  Option Number Three - Abarbanel and MalbimAbarbanel and Malbim argue that Yonah adopts a cynical approach in this Pasuk, not to the sailors but to the people of Nineveh. According to this approach Chasdam Yaazovu refers to the people of Nineveh quickly abandoning their path of repentance, an outcome that Yonah anticipates. Abarbanel and Malbim understand Yonah as issuing a preemptive pro-Middat HaDin “warning” to Hashem that He will regret having forgiven Nineveh since they will soon revert back to their old ways63<i class="footnote">As seen later in Sefer Nachum. </i>.
  This approach is fascinating since it casts Yonah as continuing his fight with Hashem while still inside the fish. This fits well with the argument we put forth elsewhere that Yonah did not engage in Teshuvah in his Tefilah recorded in Perek 2.
  Option Number Four - Targum Yonatan ben UzzielTargum Yonatan, the authoritative Aramaic translation of Nach (see Megillah 3a) understands this Pasuk as a cynical evaluation of all idolaters. This view sees Yonah criticizing idolaters as disregarding the many kindnesses that Hashem provides them. Yonah in Pasuk 10 contrasts himself with this disregard in his promise to appreciate the kindness which Hashem has provided. Both Rashi and Radak cite Targum Yonatan as a viable interpretation of Pasuk 9.
  Da’at Mikra sets forth a variation to Targum Yonatan’s approach. Da’at Mikra understands the Pasuk as referring to all idolaters who will abandon their pledges to Avodah Zarah when they recognize the futility of idol worship. This approach is reminiscent of Rashi to Devarim 11:16 who explains the Torah referring to idolatry as Elohim Acheirim (other gods) “[Gods] that are strangers to those who worship them. The worshipper cries out to it, but it does not answer him; consequently, it becomes to him as a stranger” (translation from Chabad.org).
  Option Number Five - A Novel Approach from Binyamin JachterBinyamin Jachter’s understanding is very consistent with Yonah’s personality as we have seen it so far. He believes that Yonah is simply saying that Hashem should judge the sailors for their actual merits and not just forgive them due to the kindness they just performed. He wants cold, hard Din, whether or not he gained from their good deeds. Yonah is asking that Hashem take the kindness out of the equation so that way the scales do not tip away from all the different Avodah Zarah in which the sailors engaged. Only after ignoring kindness should Hashem factor in their merits.
  According to this approach, those who were loyal to vanities should be judged accordingly rather than with a focus on their Chesed, the kind and proper deeds and beliefs they have adopted.
  Option Number Six - Another New SuggestionMy Torah Academy students and I put forth a variation on Targum Yonatan’s idea. We suggest that Meshamrim Havlei Shav does not necessarily refer to idolaters but rather, as the words themselves suggest, to those who waste their time guarding trivialities. Chasdam Yaazovu, they abandon the kindness Hashem has bestowed upon them. The greatest Chessed/kindness bestowed by Hashem is the kindness or gift of time.
  Those who devote their time to utter nonsense64<i class="footnote">Spending hours upon hours watching sports events fits this description. While sometimes a break is needed from our serious pursuits, the countless hours devoted to viewing sports fritters away what Rav Aharon Lichtenstein rightfully terms our most important asset - time. </i> abandon the great kindness bestowed upon us by Hashem - time. Yonah contrasts himself with those who make this foolish mistake by stating in Pasuk 10 that he will devote time granted to him after his rescue from the fish to worthwhile endeavors such as bringing a Korban Todah in the Beit haMikdash. In other words, Yonah pledges to devote his life to useful projects.
  Torah Academy of Bergen County student Avi Baer cogently asks on this approach - didn’t we find Yonah eager to die in Perek 1? How, then, can we explain Yonah as pledging to use his time well in Yonah 2:10? One may answer that this is precisely the point. Yonah in Perek 2 is retracting the desire to die that he expressed in Perek 1 (although he reverts to this desire in Perek 4). Yonah may be understood as saying that although he wished to die in Perek 1, he is no longer adopting this course. Rather he is eager to live, greatly valuing his life and the time Hashem has, in His kindness, granted. According to this approach, Yonah in Perek 2 has transformed and reoriented himself, and thereby performed a significant act of Teshuvah, while still in the belly of the fish65<i class="footnote">One may wonder why Yonah uses such vague language in Pasuk 9. Perhaps it is in order to express each or many of the approaches articulated by the various commentaries to this Pasuk. There is great value to each approach and using somewhat vague language allows Yonah to express all these levels of interpretations simply by using one phrase. </i>.
  Conclusion The message of the power of time is especially poignant in the waning moments of Yom Kippur. Perhaps the most important commitment we can make on this day filled with great potential for transformation and elevation is to recognize and appreciate the great gift of life and time which Hashem bestows upon us and use it in the most productive manner possible.
  
  
  
  Chapter 7 - The Missing Teshuvah
  In the beginning of Perek 2 we find Yonah imprisoned inside the big fish66<i class="footnote">On the one hand the fish saved Yonah’s life. On the other hand, Yonah’s time inside the fish is a time of enforced confinement. This is similar to the city of refuge to where a careless killer runs. The Mishna in the second chapter of Makkot refers to these cities as Arei Miklat (cities of refuge) since it rescues the killer from the victim’s relative who would avenge the bloodshed (Goeil HaDam). The Gemara in the second chapter of Makkot, though, refers to these cities as Galut (exile). These cities, similar to Yonah’s fish, serve two purposes. It both saves the life of the sinner but also serves as a prison as punishment for the sin committed. </i>. At the end of the Perek we find Yonah released. The confinement makes sense as a punishment for Yonah’s ongoing defiance of Hashem. The release, though, does not make sense. In the Tanach, redemption is triggered by Teshuvah. Where is the evidence that Yonah repented in this Perek?
  The Missing TeshuvahThe Rambam in both the first and second Perakim of Hilchot Teshuvah sets forth the accepted process for repentance. There are three basic components – Vidui (confession), Charatah (regretting the sin), and Kabalah Al HeAtid (resolving never to repeat the violation). A careful inspection of Perek 2 does not reveal even a trace of Yonah having undergone any of these steps. All he does is pray for his release. Nonetheless, Hashem releases Yonah from the fish despite Yonah’s failure to make any movement towards Teshuvah! Where is the justice and what is the logic in Hashem’s actions?
  Abarbanel, Malbim, and Radak - Uncovering Yonah’s TeshuvahSome of the commentaries endeavor to discover Yonah’s actions of repentance. Abarbanel and Malbim view Pasuk 10 where Yonah states “That which I promised I will fulfill” as his commitment to fulfill his obligation to address Nineveh. The concluding two words of this Pasuk (2:10) “Yeshuata LaHashem,” “salvation stems from Hashem”, refers to Yonah’s resolving to no longer try to interfere in the historical process and leave that to Hashem (which according to Abarbanel and Malbim was Yonah’s motivation to disobey Hashem in the first place). Thus, according to Abarbanel and Malbim, Yonah has resolved not to repeat his sin and has (at least indirectly) confessed his sin.
  While this is a creative reading of Pasuk, the straightforward reading of the Pasuk (as presented in the Da’at Mikra) is that it is referring to Yonah pledging to honor his commitment to offer a Korban Todah subsequent to his release from the fish.
  The Radak understands the last two words of Pasuk 7 “Hashem Elokai,” “Hashem is my God”, as meaning ‘Hashem has judged or punished me in a just manner’ (recall that the name Elokim is associated with Din). Thus, according to Radak, Yonah has acknowledged his sin and accepts its consequence as fair.
  Once again, while this is a creative reading, it does not emerge from a straightforward reading of the Pasuk. The Peshat approach to the Pasuk, as explained by Da’at Mikra, is that Yonah expresses the closeness he now feels to Hashem.
  Three Proofs that Yonah did not do TeshuvahMy students and I believe that a straightforward reading of Perek 2 demonstrates that Yonah did not repent in Perek 2. We put forth three proofs to this understanding. First, Yonah never explicitly engages in any of the three crucial components of the Teshuvah process.
  Second, Pasuk 11 describes Yonah as being “Vayakei,” “regurgitated”, from the fish. This hardly constitutes a compliment. It is reminiscent of Vayikra 18:28 where Hashem warns us not to pollute the land with violations of Arayot “VeLo Taki HaAretz Etchem,” “lest the land vomit you [Bnei Yisrael] out [as it vomited its prior inhabitants]”.
  Rashi thereupon famously comments (based on the Torat Kohanim 20:123) “This can be compared to a prince who was fed obnoxious food, which could not stay in his intestines; so he vomited it out. Likewise, the Land of Israel cannot retain transgressors [and thus, it vomits them out67<i class="footnote">Translation from Chabad.org</i>]”. Thus, regurgitation in the Tanach is associated with sinners. Accordingly, Yonah remains a sinner even after his release from the fish at the end of Perek 2.
  Our third proof is that Sefer Yonah continues two more Perakim after Perek 2 concludes and Yonah’s struggle with Hashem continues full force. Had Yonah repented in Perek 2, the Sefer would have ended there. The fact that it continues clearly shows that Yonah had yet to internalize and make peace with Hashem’s agenda and methodology in dealing with Nineveh.
  Why Hashem Releases Yonah from the FishIf Yonah did not repent, one rightfully asks why then did Hashem respond to Yonah’s Tefilah and release him from the fish. We suggest that although Yonah did not repent in Perek 2, he does correct a major mistake.
  In Perek 1 Yonah shuts down entirely and refuses to engage in dialogue with Hashem. Yonah wants nothing to do with Hashem and however Hashem seeks to engage Yonah, Yonah rejects the overture. In Perek 2, however, Yonah once again reengages with Hashem. This is why Yonah’s Tefilah in Perek 2 repeatedly refers to Hashem as Elokav (2:2) or Elokai68<i class="footnote">What should bring up some insight on Yonah’s personality, is that he uses “Elokav” which is Hashem’s name of Din. Yonah still sees Hashem as an actuator of Din and nothing more, even when dealing with his own punishment. We will see a shift in Yonah’s thinking only when we reach the Kikayon episode, two Perakim later. In the meantime, “Elokav” and “Elokei” adds to the point that Yonah did not do Teshuvah and is still feeling the same way about Hashem while in the big fish. Nevertheless he is approaching the situation in a more constructive manner than he had while aboard the ship heading to Tarshish.</i> (2:7). Both of those words are in the Hebrew possessive and thus Yonah is identifying Hashem as his God. Yonah has returned to Hashem and is once again willing to engage in dialogue.
  Aryeh Krischer adds that Yonah is locked in the belly of the fish, symbolically removed completely from the world. He is beneath the waves, inside an animal. No other part of the world has any hope of contacting Yonah. Thus it is the perfect “measure for measure”: Yonah sought to sever contact with the Master of the World, as so his contact with the world was severed. (Leaving open only the option to contact the Master.)
  Although Yonah did not repent, Hashem felt there was hope for Yonah to eventually repent since at least Yonah is now willing to conduct a conversation with Hashem, which Yonah does again vigorously in Perek 469<i class="footnote">Alternatively, Hashem understood from Yonah’s Tefilah that he had a shift in approach and will now do what Hashem wants, however begrudgingly. Thus, there was no longer a need to keep Yonah in the fish. Keeping Yonah there any longer would not have brought Nineveh the Nevuah they needed, especially seeing as how effective Yonah ultimately was for them. Yonah was let out, not because of Teshuvah, but because of his approach towards Hashem and his mission. The difference between this answer and the answer we suggested in the body of our article, is that our article’s approach focuses on the conversation between Yonah and Hashem while the alternative looks at the actions Yonah is now willing to take.</i>. This is comparable to an estranged couple70<i class="footnote">Recall that the relationship between Hashem and the Jews is compared to a husband-wife relationship in Shir HaShirim, Hoshea, and many other places in Tanach and Chazal. </i> where one member refuses to talk to his or her partner. In such a situation, there is no hope for redemption. However, once a conversation begins, possibilities emerge. Similarly, if a student has totally shut down there is no hope for his performance in his learning to improve. However, once he emerges from his withdrawal, potential for improvement exists and his Rebbe will be thrilled that the student has “returned” from his self-imposed “exile”.
  ConclusionYonah, strictly speaking, does not deserve to be released from the fish since he did not repent. However, Hashem once again exercises his Middat HaRachamim with Yonah and lets him free simply due to Yonah engaging in dialogue. Hashem is eager for Yonah to repent and hopes that by once again showering him with His mercy that Yonah will be convinced of the cogency of Middat HaRachamim in regards to Nineveh. Hashem’s actions toward Yonah once again show Hashem’s Middat HaRachamim and remind us that even on Yom Kippur, the day of Din, Hashem is open and eager for us to return to Him and His ways. Yonah teaches us that even when our actions are not perfectly aligned with the Teshuvah process Hashem is willing to accept us as long as we show steps in the right direction.
  
  Section 3
  
  
  
  
  
  Yonah Goes to Nineveh
  Chapter 1 - Was Nineveh That Big?
  Is this true? Yonah 3:3 describes Nineveh as an exceeding great city, of three days' journey. The Gemara (Pesachim 94b) states that an average person can walk ten Parsah, the equivalent of forty kilometers in one day. This seems to indicate that Nineveh was one hundred and twenty kilometers wide.
  The problem is, as noted by Professor Uriel Simon, that the archeological evidence indicates that Nineveh was far smaller than this. Professor Simon notes that academics view as certain the identification of ancient Nineveh with current day Mosul, Iraq. The evidence of this to a great extent is that Jews and non-Jews alike maintain a tradition that the burial place of Yonah lies near Mosul.
  Professor Simon writes: "The city walls [of Nineveh], constructed by Sennacherib in the seventh century B.C.E. and whose course remains clearly visible, are twelve kilometers long; the city's maximum width is five kilometers".
  This information appears as well on the Nineveh entry on Wikipedia. "The total area of Nineveh comprised about 7 square kilometers (1,730 acres)".
  How might we reconcile the archaeological finds with Sefer Yonah's implication that Nineveh was one hundred kilometers wide?
  Ibn EzraIbn Ezra already was bothered by the large dimensions of Nineveh. He argues that the circumference of Nineveh is three days long and not its diameter. Thus Nineveh is only around forty kilometers in diameter, though forty kilometers is still quite large for an ancient city. When Yonah is described (3:4) that he went into the city a walk of one day, this refers to the diameter of the city which is approximately one third of its circumference (recall that the circumference is pi multiplied by the diameter).
  While Ibn Ezra mitigates our problem, he certainly does not solve it, since even the circumference of Nineveh is far smaller than one hundred twenty kilometers.
  Jack Hodari suggests that the three days refers to the spread of influence which the King of Nineveh had in his domain. The King of Nineveh’s sphere of influence might have extended from the Tigris until the city Aski Kalah (both located in the broader area of Nineveh/Mosul) on the smaller river to the east, a total distance of approximately fifty kilometers. This roughly fits the distance Ibn Ezra proposed.
  Jack also suggests that the description of Nineveh (Yonah 3:3) as an “Ir Gedolah,” “large city”, refers to Nineveh’s large regional influence and authority, rather than its physical size. The term Gadol (large) in Tanach at times refers to influence. Examples include71<i class="footnote">Translation adapted from Jewish Publication Society 1917 edition. </i>
  אֵינֶ֨נּוּ גָד֜וֹל בַּבַּ֣יִת הַזֶּה֮ מִמֶּנִּי֒ וְלֹֽא־חָשַׂ֤ךְ מִמֶּ֙נִּי֙ מְא֔וּמָה כִּ֥י אִם־אוֹתָ֖ךְ בַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר אַתְּ־אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְאֵ֨יךְ אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֜ה הָרָעָ֤ה הַגְּדֹלָה֙ הַזֹּ֔את וְחָטָ֖אתִי לֵֽאלֹקִֽים׃
  He wields no more authority in this house than I, and he has withheld nothing from me except yourself, since you are his wife. How then could I do this most wicked thing, and sin before God?” (Bereishit 39:9)
  וַיִּתֵּ֧ן יְקוָ֛ק אֶת־חֵ֥ן הָעָ֖ם בְּעֵינֵ֣י מִצְרָ֑יִם גַּ֣ם ׀ הָאִ֣ישׁ מֹשֶׁ֗ה גָּד֤וֹל מְאֹד֙ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם בְּעֵינֵ֥י עַבְדֵֽי־פַרְעֹ֖ה וּבְעֵינֵ֥י הָעָֽם׃
  The LORD disposed the Egyptians favorably toward the people. Moreover, Moses himself was much esteemed in the land of Egypt, among Pharaoh’s courtiers and among the people. (Shemot 11:3)
  HyperboleAs discussed above, Chazal (Chullin 90b and Tammid 29a) as well as Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:47), discuss the Tanach’s use of hyperbole, including city walls which reach the heavens (Devarim 1:28) and the earth cracking from the noise of a party (Melachim I 1:40). While these passages are obvious exaggerations, they are by no means lies since their hyperbolic nature is easily discerned.
  One could argue that the Tanach's description of the size of Nineveh is hyperbolic. It is intended to convey the great size of Nineveh as noted in Yonah 3:3 which refers to Nineveh as "a great city to God". However, one wonders what purpose would be served by describing Nineveh is such an overstated manner.
  Professor Simon's ApproachThe Torah Academy of Bergen County students found Professor Simon's explanation most compelling. He explains "the reference is not to the duration required to cross the city in a straight line but to the period needed to traverse its streets and byways so that all the inhabitants can hear his proclamation”.
  The Talmidim found this a compelling explanation considering that Yonah would likely have spoken to and interacted with Nineveh's inhabitants, more than the mere five words that are recorded in Yonah 3:4.
  What emerges then is the possibility that the description of Yonah walking into the city a walk of one day conveys to the reader that he did not complete his mission of interacting with each of the inhabitants of Nineveh. Perhaps completing only one third of the mission is an indication of passive aggressive behavior on the part of Yonah. Perhaps Yonah is trying to sabotage his mission in the hope that Nineveh will not repent. This latter option might be the reason why Yonah did not attempt to gain an audience with the king. Of course, the plan backfired since the word of Yonah spread like wildfire and impacted the entire city, despite Yonah not making a full effort to succeed.
  Aryeh Krischer suggests that perhaps the people of Nineveh were so receptive to Yonah’s message that it only took one day for the message to spread mouth-to-mouth across the whole city. Thus we are told “VaYaChel,” “And he began” (Yonah 3:4) – Yonah was in middle of his mission when it became a success. He did not even have the chance to finish it himself.
  ConclusionEven absent the evidence from artifacts, it is counterintuitive that Nineveh is one hundred and twenty kilometers wide. Thus, the idea of its being a three day’s walk needs a more compelling explanation, which Professor Simon provides. His explanation allows us to imagine in our mind’s eye the effort Yonah made and did not make in his reluctant fulfillment of Hashem’s command to address Nineveh. Ultimately, though, “Rabot Machshavot BeLev Ish VaAtzat Hashem Hi Takum,” “there are many thoughts in a person’s head, but what will emerge triumphant is Hashem’s plan” (Mishlei 19:21).
  We can extract from this discussions two lessons for Yom Kippur. From Yonah’s angle, perhaps trying hard to avoid fulfilling his mission, we see almost cynically that designs against Hashem’s will cannot hope to succeed. We may learn from this that in our own lives trying to thwart Hashem is hopelessly futile and we may as well try to follow His will, since nothing else can hope to succeed. On the other hand, the complement to this lesson we see from Nineveh’s response: once we take even small steps toward fulfilling Hashem’s mission our success has the potential to blossom and spread far faster than we would have dreamed. The work of three days can be done in one. What powerful ideas to have on the Day of Judgement! Try to oppose Hashem and a cynical slap in the face awaits, but strive for Hashem’s will and unparalleled success with surely follow.
  
  
  
  Chapter 2 - In Forty Days Nineveh Will Be Destroyed!
  “In forty days Nineveh will be destroyed” proclaimed Yonah (3:4) throughout the streets of Nineveh. No mention, though, is made about the possibility of doing Teshuvah and avoiding the pending calamity. How could Yonah have omitted such a critical point?! While one could suggest that Sefer Yonah presents only a highlight of Yonah’s speech and that in actuality Yonah said much more, the classic commentaries do not adopt this approach.
  Malbim’s First ApproachMalbim (to Pasuk 4) argues that it is not necessary to state the Teshuvah option since it is implicit in the very fact that Yonah is delivering his speech. Had the decree of destruction been irrevocable there would have been no need for the Navi to announce the impending doom.
  It is possible that Yonah sought to present his message in the most succinct manner possible and thus left the Teshuvah option implicit. Often, the shortest speeches make the most impact. The Gettysburg Address, for example, is recognized as one of the most influential speeches ever delivered by a country’s leader Yet President Lincoln took only a little more than two minutes to deliver the message. In addition, it is possible that Yonah wanted as many people as possible to hear the message directly from him and therefore had to reduce the speech to a minimum.
  Torah Academy of Bergen County Talmidim also noted the power of leaving things to be figured out on their own. This type of indirect communication can be most effective in achieving “buy-in” since the listeners participate in formulating the message instead of hammering it home directly.
  An example of the effectiveness of indirect communication is the manner in which Natan HaNavi delivered Mussar to David HaMelech after the sin of Bat Sheva and Uriah HaChiti. Instead of launching a frontal assault, Natan told a parable of a rich man who stole the sole lamb belonging to a poor individual and then telling David HaMelech that he, David, is that rich man (Shmuel II Perek 12).
  A possible weakness with this approach is that it appears to be inconsistent with how Neviim usually deliver their speeches. There is almost always a "but you can change it" part that comes afterwards. Examples of offering the Teshuvah option include Yeshayahu 1:19, Hoshea 14:2-10, and Malachi 3:7-12. In addition, this seems inconsistent with Yonah’s personality. When speaking to sailors in chapter one Yonah either said nothing or went far beyond the scope of the question asked. The “half in half out” style with which he approaches Ninveh is not his motif.
  Malbim’s Second ApproachMalbim (ibid.) presents a most intriguing alternative understanding. He suggests that Yonah deliberately chose to omit a part of the speech he was supposed to deliver72<i class="footnote">It is an interesting question as to whether Hashem composed the entire speech for Yonah or whether Hashem communicated the themes he wished Yonah to express but left it to Yonah to decide how precisely to formulate his speech. The question as to whether Yonah crafted his enormously effective speech or stumbled into it unwittingly might hinge upon our query as to whether Hashem composed the speech or whether Yonah came up with it on his own. </i>. He offers the possibility that Yonah omitted the option of Teshuvah since he was eager for Nineveh not to perform Teshuvah. Yonah wanted to avoid coming at all, but truncating his message was the best he was going to get.
  Yonah’s omission of the Teshuvah option is an example of what is stated in Mishlei (19:21) “Rabot Machashavot BeLev Ish VaAtzat Hashem Hi Takum,” “while there are many thoughts in man’s heart, Hashem’s plan will ultimately prevail.” Indeed, Moshe Rabbeinu states (Bemidbar 14:41) “Lamah Zeh Atem Overim Et Pi Hashem VeHi Lo Titzlach,” “why are you violating the word of Hashem, as your efforts will not succeed.” Hoshea (14:2) also teaches “Shuvah Ad Hashem Elokecha, Ki Chashalta BaAvonecha,” “return to God since you have failed in your sins.”
  Rashi vs. the Ibn EzraRashi presents a most interesting approach which develops the idea that Teshuvah is implicit in Yonah’s five word speech to Nineveh. Rashi notes that the word “Nehepachet,” “overturned”, may be understood in one of two ways. Either it means “destroyed”, as the word is used in the context of the destruction of Sedom. Alternatively, it could mean that Nineveh will “turn over”, as in the phrase “turn over a new leaf” or a complete reversal of behavior as in the phrase “VeNahaphoch Hu,” “and it was completely reversed” from Megillat Esther (9:1).
  In other words, by using the word “Nehepachet”, Yonah communicates to Nineveh that they have the opportunity to create their own destiny. Their destiny is either to be destroyed or to change. One way or another Nineveh will be “Nehepachet”, the only question is which outcome they wish to occur.
  Torah Academy students note the power of Rashi’s approach as it provides the people of Nineveh with a choice. This is similar to the sailors offering Yonah a choice (Yonah 1:11), saying to him “what should we do to you?” As mentioned previously, when one provides a choice one greatly increases the possibility one’s listeners “buy in”.
  Interestingly, the Ibn Ezra rejects Rashi’s approach. He insists that the word Nehepachet only means to be destroyed. Radak seems to agree with Ibn Ezra.
  A Suggested Compromise between Rashi and Ibn EzraTogether with the Talmidim at Torah Academy of Bergen County we offered a compromise between Rashi and Ibn Ezra. We suggested that it is possible that Yonah intended the word Nehepachet to mean destroyed as Ibn Ezra and Radak understand, fitting with Malbim’s second approach that Yonah deliberately omitted the Teshuvah option since he wanted Nineveh to be destroyed.
  However, the people of Nineveh chose to interpret Nehepachet in the manner presented by Rashi, leaving them a path open to Teshuvah and redemption. According to our approach, Nineveh sets a great example of the power of a positive interpretation creating its own momentum and resulting in a positive outcome. This would be an example of the Lubavitcher Rebbeet motto “Tracht Gut Vet Zein Gut,” “think good it will be good”. It also fits with what we suggested earlier that no matter what you do, it will still end up as Hashem's will.
  ConclusionYonah’s message resonates deeply to us as we listen to the message on Yom Kippur at Mincha. Yom Kippur is the culmination of a forty day period of Teshuvah beginning from Chodesh Elul. We are faced with a similar choice as the people of Nineveh and are given the opportunity to write our own destiny at this pivotal moment in the Jewish year.
  Postscript - Why the Number Forty?Why is the number forty chosen as the time for the people of Nineveh can perform Teshuvah? One may answer that it certainly evokes thoughts of the forty days of destruction during the time of the Mabul and the forty years in the Midbar when the older generation was eliminated. Thus, the number forty is associated with total destruction and elimination.
  We may add to this the idea expressed by Rav Zvi Grumet in his work “Genesis” (Jerusalem: Maggid Books, 2017, 86-87) that the number forty in Torah literature expresses an opportunity for rebirth:
  In both biblical and rabbinic literature, the number forty represents birth or rebirth. In the Bible, Moses is on the mountain for forty days and emerges as a man reborn with a radiant face. The spies enter the land as princes and forty days later return with the self-image of grasshoppers. The Israelite nation spends forty years in the desert and is transformed from a fractured nation of refugees into a unified nation of conquerors…..In rabbinic literature, there are forty minus one categories of prohibited (creative) work on Shabbat, a child is considered to be “alive” in the womb after forty days, and pregnancy lasts for forty weeks.
  We may add to this list that grape juice ferments into wine forty days after it is squeezed from the grape (Eiduyot 6:1). Malkot are also “forty minus one” as they are intended to spur the emergence of a new personality after the traumatic experience.
  Accordingly, the number forty conveys a similar message as the word Nehepachet. It can refer to utter destruction or rebirth. The people of Nineveh and every Jew on Yom Kippur are faced with the same stark choice as to which path we will choose - falling into the abyss or redeeming ourselves and restarting our lives.
  
  
  
  Chapter 3 - Yonah is Believed!
  It is truly remarkable that Nineveh was roused to immediate Teshuvah by Yonah’s five word speech. Nowhere else in Tanach do we find such a resounding response to a call to Teshuvah. Riders of the New York subway system are unfortunately familiar with people riding the trains proclaiming the end of the world. Reasonable people do not take such proclamations seriously. Why did the residents of Nineveh take seriously the dire declaration of a complete stranger? The Mefarshim endeavor to explain this most surprising and unusual reaction of the people of Nineveh.
  Ibn Ezra and Radak - The SailorsIbn Ezra (to Yonah 3:2) and Radak (to Yonah 3:5) both cite a Rabi Yeshua’s explanation that the sailors from Perek 1 accompanied Yonah and authenticated his message. This fits with the Midrashic assertion73<i class="footnote">Cited by Rashi to Yonah 1:5 s.v. Ish El Elohav.</i> that the sailors represented each of the nations of the world. Having such a wide variety of people support Yonah’s message would certainly lend to his credibility.
  While this approach certainly fits with the overwhelmingly positive impression depiction of the sailors in Perek 1, there appears to be no evidence to this idea from the text. Indeed it is surprising if not shocking that a confirmed Pashtan (devotee of the straightforward explanation of the Tanach text) such as Ibn Ezra presents this as a viable explanation.
  Midrash - ParohA very well known Midrash claims that the king of Nineveh of Perek 3 is none other than Paroh Melech Mitzrayim! Paroh was so traumatized by what he witnessed in Mitzrayim he knew not to once again pick a fight with HaKadosh Baruch Hu. While this Midrash solves two problems - the reason for Yonah’s success and the missing information regarding Paroh’s fate at the Yam Suf (according to this Midrash while the rest of Egypt drowned he escaped to Assyria where he became king) - it seems to be quite a fantastic claim. After all, the events of Sefer Yonah occur many centuries after Yetziat Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt).
  Together with my Torah Academy of Bergen County students we developed a variety of approaches to explain this Midrash. It might mean that the king of Nineveh was a descendent of Paroh. In more mystical terms, he may have been a Gilgul (reincarnation) of Paroh74<i class="footnote">The more mystically inclined Torah commentaries such as Ramban and Rabbeinu Bachayei embrace the belief in Gigullim whereas the more rationally inclined authorities such as Rav Saadia Gaon and Rambam are less inclined to do so. One may question the application of the Gilgul idea to this context since it is not generally assumed that a Gilgul is actively aware of the events that occurred in his prior lives. On the other hand, perhaps the King of Nineveh might be understood as subconsciously motivated by that which transpired in a prior Gilgul. </i>. Torah Academy Talmid Moshe Papier suggests that the king of Nineveh had read of Paroh’s experiences with Hashem in Mitzrayim and thus vicariously “was Paroh”75<i class="footnote">The power in reading lies in vicariously experiencing situations and learning lessons in a safe manner, thereby avoiding the need to repeat the mistakes of the protagonists. </i> and in doing so learned a vital lesson.
  Da’at MikraThe Da’at Mikra suggests that the reputation of the Jewish prophets had reached Nineveh and therefore Yonah was taken seriously. This seems to be a viable approach, as Chazal (cited by Rashi to Melachim II 9:1) present Yonah as a Talmid of Elisha. Elisha certainly made quite an impression on the leaders of neighboring Aram, such as Chazael, Ben Haddad, and Naaman as is well known to readers of Melachim II. Thus, Yonah might have been riding on the coattails of Elisha’s exceptional reputation in the region.
  One could question this approach, though, since there was no one (according to Peshuto Shel Mikra (the plain meaning of the text) to vouch for the credibility of Yonah and Yonah had no prior interaction with Assyria and Nineveh to have established credibility.
  Nikkarim Divrei EmetI suggested that perhaps we can take our cue from the Gemara (Sotah 9b) which explains why Delilah believed Shimshon’s explanation that cutting his hair would eliminate his great strength (Shoftim 16:18) . After all, Shimshon had fooled her repeatedly with false explanations of the source of his supernatural abilities.
  The Gemara explains that “Nikkarim Divrei Emet,” “truthful words are self-evident”. The Rashbam (Bereishit 40:16) takes his cue from this Gemara and uses this principle to explain why the Sar HaOfim (Paroh’s chief baker) realized that Yosef properly interpreted the dream of the Sar HaMashkim (Paroh’s cup bearer).
  Similarly, Yonah was so sincere and so authentic that his words and persona made a deep impression on the people of Nineveh. Truly spiritual individuals make an impression even on those who are not tuned in to Jewish spirituality. I recall a relative who was not observant tell me of the deep impression made on him by the following deeply spiritual giants - Rav Yitzchok Cohen shlit”a of Yeshiva University, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l of Yeshivat Har Etzion, and Rav Yosef Singer zt”l of the Lower East Side. Indeed, the Bnei Chet recognized Avraham Avinu as “Nesi Elokim Ata BeTocheinu,” “you are a prince of God among us” (Bereishit 23:6). Bat Paroh recognized that the Shechinah (Heavenly presence) was with baby Moshe (Rashi to Shemot 2:6).
  Abarbanel notes that Yonah 3:5 states that the people of Nineveh believed in Hashem and does not state that they believed in Yonah. This conveys the message that they grasped that Yonah was an authentic transmitter of the message of Hashem. It was the authenticity of the Godly message that convinced the people of Nineveh, not the result of a seductive and intoxicating manipulation by a gifted speaker.
  A Bold Suggestion - A Manipulation from HashemWe boldly offer a suggestion based on the approach that Yonah delivered such a short speech in order to sabotage the chances of its success. If this assumption is true then we can apply the principle of “Lamah Zeh Atem Overim Et Pi Hashem VeHi Lo Titzlach,” “why are you violating the word of Hashem - it will not work!” (Bemidbar 14:41). Outsmarting Hashem never works, in fact it backfires (as is also evident from Shemot 1:12). Perhaps we can explain the astounding Teshuvah of the people of Nineveh as a backfiring of Yonah’s effort to subvert the mission on which Hashem placed him.
  ConclusionHowever we explain it, Nineveh’s Teshuvah stands as an example of a communal Teshuvah that the Jewish people will perform which will initiate the arrival of Mashiach (Devarim 30:1-10 and Rambam Hilchot Teshuvah 7:5). Nineveh’s one hundred percent participation sets a powerful example for our people, an important message year round but especially as the day of Yom Kippur draws to a close.
  
  
  
  Chapter 4 - Let’s Eat Grandma
  The placement of a comma makes all the difference in the world. In a classic example, there is a very big difference between “let’s eat grandma” and “let’s eat, grandma”. Similarly, the question as to the placement of a comma in the phrase “Mi Yodeia Yashuv VaNicham HaElokim” (Yonah 3:9) stated by the king of Nineveh makes a great difference.
  Radak’s First ExplanationRadak’s first explanation of this phrase is “Who knows, perhaps if we repent God will relent.” The comma according to this approach is placed after the word Yodeia (know).
  The Da’at Mikra asserts that this explanation represents Peshuto Shel Mikra (the straightforward meaning of the text). The Da’at Mikra notes that this lack of certainty represents the humble attitude that a penitent should adopt.
  They cite the example of David HaMelech when praying for the child he fathered in an illicit relationship with Bat Sheva “Perhaps Hashem will forgive me” (Shmuel II 12:22). We may add Moshe Rabbeinu proclaiming in the wake of the Cheit HaEigel (Sin of the Golden Calf) “Veata Eeleh El Hashem, Ulai Achapera BeAd Chatatchem,” “and now I will ascend to Hashem, perhaps I will succeed in attaining forgiveness for your sin” (Shemot 32:30). Da’at Mikra also notes that this is the refrain of one the Selichot recite by Ashkenazic Jews, “Ulai Yachus Am Ani VeEvyon, Ulai Yeracheim,” “maybe He will have compassion for the poor nation, perhaps He will have mercy.”
  The Radak’s approach to Teshuvah echoes the Yerushalmi’s brilliant articulation of the gift of Teshuvah. The Yerushalmi states76<i class="footnote">Translation is from Chabad.org. </i>
  Chochmah (the attribute of wisdom), prophecy, the Torah, and G‑d were each asked what the punishment of a sinner should be. Chochmah replied: “A sinner should be driven from the world.” Prophecy replied: “A sinner should be punished by death.” The Torah replied: “A sinner should bring the Asham sacrificial offering and his will be forgiven.” G‑d replied: “Let the sinner repent and his sin will be forgiven.”
  In other words, a repentant sinner is not entitled to forgiveness. Rather it is a gift from Hashem. The beneficiary of a gift approaches his benefactor with humility and not with an attitude of entitlement77<i class="footnote">When Avraham Avinu asks for forgiveness for Sedom he aggressively pushes Hashem all the way down to saving Sedom if there are only ten righteous people in the town. Had he gone on and Hashem stayed to listen, Avraham might have haggled down for even fewer. His assertive requests are what gave him the answers he asked for. Although this is far from a humble approach, Avraham Avinu is not the sinner making a request for mercy. Rather, he is the righteous one pleading on behalf of the sinful city. He is thus in a position to petition Hashem in such an assertive manner. The same may be said regarding Moshe Rabbeinu’s Tefilot on our behalf after we partook in the Cheit HaEigel. </i>.
  Radak’s attitude is supported by the king of Nineveh’s humble acts of repentance described in (Yonah 3:6). The king is depicted as removing his royal robes and instead donning sackcloth and sitting in ashes.
  Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel’s ExplanationEvery translation is by definition a commentary on the Torah. Many verses can be interpreted in multiple ways. Thus, the choice of translation depends on how one interprets the Pasuk. Accordingly, the great translations of the Tanach, such as Targum Onkelos to the Chumash and Targum Yonatan ben Uzziel to Nach, should not be viewed as mere translations but as commentaries78<i class="footnote">In addition, the Gemara (Megillah 3a) writes that these translations are of very special origin and thus worthy of considerable respect. </i>.
  Our Pasuk is one such example of how Yonatan ben Uzziel should be seen as a commentator. Targum Yonatan translates our Pasuk as saying, “one who knows he has sinned should repent, then Hashem will relent”. In other words, the comma should be placed after the word Yashuv (literally return, here repent).
  Da’at Mikra observes that the Taamei Mikra (cantillation symbols) support this reading of the Pasuk. The Zakeif cantillation signifies a comma and it is placed at the word Yashuv. We also should note that the Taamei Mikra are not merely a means of placing the Pesukim to song, but they are a tool for interpreting Pesukim. Rashi adopts this approach as well, as does the Mahari Kra.
  This interpretation represents a very different approach to the attitude of a Baal Teshuvah (literally “Master of Repentance/Returning). It is a confident outlook, with the idea that if one repents, he can expect that Hashem will forgive79<i class="footnote">This mentality shows how prescient Melech Nineveh is in his ideals. He understands how Teshuvah works. Not that you can do bad and then repent but rather once you recognize the wrong doings and commit to reform, Hashem will forgive. The fact that Nineveh reverts and then is destroyed in the time of Sefer Nachum demonstrates how Nineveh is held up to their king’s standard. They knew better than to stop their reform.</i>.
  The Da’at Mikra notes that the Targum Yonatan and the composer of the Taamei Mikra do not represent the Peshuto Shel Mikra. Da’at Mikra argues that this interpretation is intended to encourage the listeners of this Haftarah on Yom Kippur during Mincha. The message is a reassuring one; that the listeners’ fasting and Teshuvah of Yom Kippur will not be for naught. It is also, Da’at Mikra, notes, important to sound the clarion call that if we sinned we should repent.
  The Difference between Radak and Targum YonatanThere is an enormous difference (Nafka Minah) between Radak’s and Targum Yonatan’s respective approaches. Radak presents the Baal Teshuvah as adopting a humble stance, while the Targum Yonatan presents the Baal Teshuvah as adopting a confident posture.
  Interestingly, the Rambam (Hilchot Teshuvah 2:4) presents the Baal Teshuvah as one who “Cries constantly before Hashem”, obviously adopting an approach similar to the Radak. This is hardly surprising as the Radak tends to adopt a philosophical orientation similar to that of the Rambam80<i class="footnote">Rambam could be stressing the word constant, referring to the repentant refusing to take no for an answer and continually asking for forgiveness until granted. While this might be a stretch, it is possible that Rambam can satisfy both approaches. </i>.
  Moreover, it seems to me that the difference between the Radak and Targum Yonatan reflects itself in the differing styles of Tefilah on Yom Kippur and Selihot between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews. As is well known, the Sephardic tunes on these days are much more upbeat and Piyyutim (lyrical prayers) radiate confidence that we will be forgiven. The chorus of one very famous Sephardic Pizmon (song), Adon HaSelihot (Master of Forgiveness), brims with confidence “Hatanu Lefanecha Raheim Aleinu,” “we have sinned before you, have mercy on us”. In a dramatic contrast, Ashkenazic Tefilah on Yom Kippur, while also very beautiful, is quite solemn.
  It is possible that the Sephardic tradition follows the approach of Targum Yonatan, the author of the Teamim, and Rashi, whereas Ashkenazic Jews follow the stance advanced by the Radak and Rambam. If this analysis is correct, it is most interesting that Sephardic Jews adopt the attitude put forth by Rashi, an Ashkenazic authority, whereas Ashkenazic Jews follow the outlook of the Radak and Rambam who are Sephardic sages81<i class="footnote">The interpretation of Rambam that appears in the prior footnote makes more sense in light of Sephardic practice. This aligns with usual sense that Rambam should be reflecting and shaping Sephardic practice and outlook.</i>.
  Radak’s Second ApproachRadak offers a second approach – “whoever knows how to perform Teshuvah should repent and Hashem will relent”. While it is highly significant that the Radak’s second approach shares with Targum Yonatan the confident stance of a penitent, it does differ in one significant regard. Whereas Targum Yonatan assumes that everyone is capable of Teshuvah and intuitively knows how to perform Teshuvah, according to Radak this is not a foregone conclusion.
  Why do Targum Yonatan and his supporters assume that everyone on some level knows how to perform Teshuvah? Perhaps their approach is rooted in a Gemara (Nedarim 39b) that Teshuvah was created before the world. This Gemara suggests that Teshuvah is embedded in the very essence of the world and thus everyone is capable and somehow knows how to do it82<i class="footnote">It is appealing to think that regret in an inherent feature of being human, as Targum Yonatan thinks. Even animals seem to get upset when they have done something wrong. It is easier to express these emotions when they are about something physical, like regretting eating a heavy meal before exercise. Therefore, when threatened with death, of course Nineveh knows how to regret and to express it. The king helps push the repentance past regular emotional turmoil by decreeing sackcloth and the like.</i>.
  This idea seems to also be suggested by the idea expressed in the Midrash (9:2) that Hashem created worlds and destroyed them. This Midrash seems to also suggest the notion that embedded in the very structure of the world is the capacity to rebuild after failure.
  ConclusionWhat a difference a comma makes! Fundamental issues regarding Teshuvah and our relationship with Hashem emerge from Yonah 3:9 depending on where one places a comma. Such a rich discussion hinges on the surprisingly important issue as to where we place the pause. Wherever one places the pause, on Yom Kippur it is especially important that we pause and consider our relationship with Hashem. There are many approaches to Teshuvah, but as the Gemara reminds us: either way God desires our repentance.
  
  
  
  Chapter 5 - Animals Fasting?
  It is one of the most peculiar aspects of the Yonah story, which has more than its fair share of unusual features. The fact that the king of Nineveh ordered animals to fast (Yonah 3:7) is no less than bizarre and demands an explanation!
  AbarbanelAbarbanel already posed this question noting that animals are obviously incapable of Teshuvah and therefore making them fast is simply an act of cruelty. Abarbanel offers a surprisingly mystical type of an answer83<i class="footnote">The Abarbanel is, generally speaking, a Rambam inspired rationally inclined commentator. Mystical approaches are hardly a hallmark of his writings. </i>. He notes that the Pasuk (Tehillim 145:15) praises Hashem as saying “Einei Chol Eilecha YeSabeirun,” “the eyes of all creatures look to Hashem for sustenance.” We can understand the Tefilah we recite during the mornings of Shabbat and Yom Tov “Nishmat Kol Chai Tevareich Et Shimcha,” “the soul of each living being blesses your Name,” as expressing a similar idea.
  Thus, on some deep level animals also cry out to Hashem for food and survival. Accordingly, explains Abarbanel, the king of Nineveh was so desperate he wanted animals to join in the Tefilah for survival. When animals are starved they howl out in pain which may be seen, on some deep mystical level, as a form of calling out to Hashem.
  Metzudat DavidMetzudat David sets forth a more down to earth explanation. He argues that the animal crying is to create “Agmat Nefesh”, to create a somber mood. The animals howling in hunger will cast a pall on Nineveh, motivating its inhabitants to take their petitioning to Hashem more seriously.
  The Halacha presents a similar idea in the context of a Katan (minor) losing a relative. While the Katan is excused from mourning obligations, we perform Keriah (tearing as a sign of mourning) on the Katan’s clothes in order to stir Agmat Nefesh, to spur those who see the torn clothes on the child to cry (Moed Katan 26b and Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deiah 340:27).
  Metzudat David’s approach fits well with Yonah 3:8 which records that the people of Nineveh covered themselves and their animals with sackcloth. Although the sackcloth does not impact the animals on any rational level, it does contribute to the somber atmosphere.
  TABC Student Ezra FinkelsteinTorah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Ezra Finkelstein suggests that the animals’ fasting is a de facto act and not a de jure one. The king was not interested in the animals fasting per se but in the people of Nineveh not distracting themselves from their Teshuvah by devoting time to tend to the animals feeding. The Torah Academy students debated as to whether Ezra’s suggestion fits into the text, which we concluded that it might and thus constitutes a viable explanation of the animals fasting.
  One could argue, though, if the kingitutes a viable explanation of the anima the why bother trying to cut, size, and fit sackcloth on all of Ninevehe explanation othe people did (3:8). Ask anyone who tries to put an outfit on a dog; it's a time consuming and painstaking process. It might not make sense to free Nineveh’s inhabitants’ time just to waste it with a symbolic gesture. Rather, just like in the time of the Mabul, the animals that were tainted by the humans around them die (see Rashi and Beit HaLeivi to Bereishit 6:12), so too the animals here should have to go through the same real and symbolic discomfort so they too can be cleansed.
  Our ObservationHowever one explains the animal fasting it is clear that it is misguided. Indeed, while Masechet Taanit (15a) presents the Teshuvah of Nineveh as a model of repentance that is worthy of emulation, Chazal never call for withholding food from animals even in the most dire of circumstances. Thus, it is clear that this aspect of Nineveh’s Teshuvah was very wrong.
  The reason for Nineveh’s misdirection was that, despite their sincere outreach to Hashem, they lacked a Rebbe or tradition to guide them as to how to properly reach. Similarly, Rashi (Yonah 3:8) cites the Gemara (Taanit 16a) that the people of Nineveh separated baby animals from their mothers, boldly proclaiming to Hashem if you do not pity us we will not show pity on these animals. This is also a misguided attempt to connect with Hashem that emerges from the absence of proper spiritual guidance.
  By contrast, the sailors successfully embracing Hashem was a result of the somewhat prolonged interaction they had with Yonah, as argued by Torah Academy of Bergen County student Asher Powers. Indeed, Radak (to Yonah 2:9) quotes Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer which states that
  Upon the sailors witnessing the miracles that Hashem made with Yonah, they discarded their idolatry in the sea. Thereupon they returned to Yafo and asceneded to Jerusalem where they received a Brit Milah and pledged to brings their wives and children to respect Hashem, a which they fulfilled.
  The people of Nineveh were also misguided in their toppling a giant tower if it was built even with one stolen brick (Radak to Yonah 3:10 citing Taanit 16a) in order to restore the brick to the original owner. Halacha in such cases adopts a much more reasonable approach to simply compensate the victim of the theft monetarily (Gittin 55a).
  The tearing of a bereaved minor’s clothes is hardly comparable to depriving an animal of food. The former situation triggers a healthy expression of emotion in a period of turmoil. Depriving animals of food is simply senseless.
  ConclusionI have heard of Baalei Teshuvah (people who grow up not fully observant and then take steps to become observant) acting in misguided attempts of spirituality. For example, I have heard of those who refuse to let their children connect with their grandparents (whose religious observance is less than what their children would prefer) lest they be negatively influenced. It is hard to imagine a reasonable Rav advocating such a policy. The wrong minded approach of Nineveh serves as an example of the cruel missteps that sincere people may adopt in their zeal for God, when they do not seek proper guidance from a healthy minded spiritual guide84<i class="footnote">One could respond, though, that everything works out relatively well for Nineveh. If their actions are meant to be a warning, then there has to be a negative consequence, none of which seem to be found. On the other hand, the fact that the Teshuvah of Nineveh does not last and it is destroyed in the time of Sefer Nachum seems to indicate that their Teshuvah was seriously flawed. </i>.
  On Yom Kippur we are often overcome with an intense zeal to return to Hashem. The Teshuvah of Nineveh teaches us that such zeal is incredibly powerful and transformative. However, Nineveh also teaches us at a key moment of the day that it is very easy to be misguided in our passion. We must ensure that we not only harness the transformative power of Teshuvah, but also harness that power properly and with the right guidance.
  
  
  
  Chapter 6 - Why Did it Not Last?
  The Teshuvah of Nineveh seems so sincere! Yet when we open Sefer Nachum we hear the prophet thundering his and Hashem’s great anger at Nineveh. He even refers to Nineveh as “Ir HaDamim,” “the city of blood” (Nachum 3:1). He foretells the great punishment Hashem will visit upon the city as a result of its wickedness. The great wrath of Hashem is expressed with unparalleled intensity (Nachum 1:2-3, translation from www.mechonmamre.org):
  The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, the LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; the LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. The LORD is long-suffering, and great in power, and will by no means clear the guilty; the LORD, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, and the clouds are the dust of His feet.
  Anyone who is even minimally acquainted with the history of Assyria is familiar with the extreme evil of that nation. The story the history books tell about ancient Assyria undoubtedly matches that which is presented in Sefer Nachum. The following video offers a compelling depiction of ancient Assyrian wickedness: History Channel Documentary - Assyrian Empire - The Ancient Assyrian Civilization, archived at 
  Mahari Kra (Yonah 4:11) expresses the point succinctly: “When the people of Ninveh returned to their original evil ways Nachum came and prophesied evil about them 85<i class="footnote">Aryeh Krischer asks why Nineveh did not repent this second time, especially considering how seriously they took Yonah the first time. He suggests perhaps this is a manifestation of Yonah’s initial fear. Yonah feared that when Nineveh repented and the destruction did not come to pass people would disregard his prophecy, or indeed any prophecy of Hashem. Indeed, it seems that Nineveh came to the conclusion that Hashem does not visit destruction upon them even when prophets issue stern warnings. Of course, it was Nineveh’s Teshuvah that staved off the destruction, but the people seem to have forgotten this salient detail.</i>. The question we are left to ponder is: why did Nineveh’s Teshuvah not last? Perhaps in discovering the long term failure of Nineveh we can discover how our spiritual growth can be sustainable in the long term, in contrast with the Teshuvah of Nineveh.
  Approach Number One - The Paroh SyndromeMy Torah Academy of Bergen County students argue that Nineveh followed the repeated poor behavior of Paroh during the ten Makkot (Ten Plagues). During the suffering of the Makkot Paroh begged Moshe Rabbeinu to pray to Hashem on his behalf. However, as soon as each Makkah ended, Paroh reverted to his previous poor behavior (see, for example, Shemot 9:28 and 34).
  The people of Nineveh repeated the same behavior. Under threat of destruction they zealously performed Teshuvah. When the threat no longer loomed they reverted to their original bad behavior. Perhaps this is why the Midrash identifies the king of Nineveh with Paroh. In addition, this suggestion might account for the possibility that Yonah remained near Nineveh until his death (as evidenced by the fact that Yonah is buried near Nineveh, present day Mosul, Iraq) as a reminder to its people not to revert to their original behavior86<i class="footnote">Alternatively, Yonah waited until the anticipated day of Nineveh’s destruction, since he anticipated their eventual reversion to their original behavior. </i>.
  Approach Number Two - Reish Lakish in the YerushalmiRabi Yochanan (Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 2:1) argues that even the Teshuvah performed by Nineveh was insincere. It is interesting that Rabi Yochanan similarly casts aspersions on the sincerity on Reish Lakish’s Teshuvah (Bava Metzia 84a)87<i class="footnote">On the other hand, one can understand Rabi Yochanan as celebrating the power of Teshuvah and expanding the scope of Hashem’s mercy, in that Hashem was willing to even accept Nineveh’s very limited Teshuvah. </i>.
  Rabi Yochanan infers from Yonah 3:8 that Nineveh restored only the theft “in their hands” (i.e. known). However, the theft that was concealed was not returned. Thus, it is hardly surprising to discover Nineveh’s poor behavior reemerged by the time of Nachum.
  My students were skeptical about this approach. They argued that Hashem would not have forgiven Nineveh had they not properly repented at least for the sin of theft. Perhaps this problem is the reason why the Talmud Bavli does not cite Rabi Yochanan’s opinion88<i class="footnote">Mahari Kra, though, does cite this opinion.</i>.
  Some students, though, defended Rabi Yochanan arguing that Hashem was willing to accept a beginning of Teshuvah. Indeed, Chazal teach that Hashem proposes: “Open for Me an opening as narrow as the eye of the needle and I will open for you gates as wide as the entrances of palaces” (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 5:2).
  Of course, this is a most welcome theme to sound on Yom Kippur. Hashem does not expect us to become Tzadikim immediately. Baby steps suffice at first, as long as they are the beginning of a longer journey heading in the proper spiritual direction.
  Approach Number Three - Shmuel in the BavliAs we have already seen, the people of Nineveh would go to the extreme and topple a giant tower if it was built even with one stolen brick (Radak to Yonah 3:10 citing Taanit 16a) in order to restore the brick to the original owner. Shmuel cites this extreme behavior as a major failing of Nineveh’s Teshuvah (note as before that Halacha is far more moderate and permits monetary compensation, see Gittin 55a).
  Shmuel’s explanation seems to be compelling. It fits with the straightforward reading of Yonah Perek 3 which seems to clearly indicate that the people of Nineveh were quite sincere in their repentance. It also sheds light on Nineveh’s reversion to its original wicked behavior. Such extreme righteousness is simply not sustainable.
  It is for this reason Chazal adopted a more lenient approach regarding restoring stolen items. Chazal explain their actions as Takanat HaShavim, a rule tailored to help those who wish to repent. This can be understood both as motivating the act of repentance and also making the Teshuvah a sustainable one.
  The fact that the Bavli (Taanit 16a) cites the approach of Shmuel and that the Radak (Yonah 3:10) cites the approach of Shmuel highlights the compelling nature of Shmuel’s approach. By contrast, none of the major commentaries cite the approach of Reish Lakish.
  As we wrote in our chapter discussing the king of Nineveh ordering animals to fast, the people of Nineveh lacked a Rebbe or tradition to guide them in proper spiritual and ethical behavior. Thus, their Teshuvah was well meaning but misdirected due to their lack of proper spiritual and ethical guidance from a proper spiritual authority. We noted by contrast that the sailors successful embracing of Hashem was a result of the somewhat prolonged interaction they had with Yonah, as argued by Torah Academy of Bergen County student Asher Powers.
  An important lesson for us to glean on Yom Kippur is the need for a spiritual guide. Interestingly, during intense fast days for rain, the Mishnah (Taanit 2:1) records that the heads and elders of the community are intensely involved leading and guiding the fasting and Teshuvah process. Ironcially, in their prayers the elders refer to the Teshuvah and fasting of Nineveh as a model for their community.
  Approach Number Four - The Powerful Impact of Cultural Legacies89<i class="footnote">The first two paragraphs of this section are adapted from  </i>
  In chapter 6 of the celebrated work “Outliers”, author Malcolm Gladwell highlights cultural legacies. He opens with disturbing descriptions of how longstanding cultural patterns and beliefs influenced violent conflicts among generations of families in Kentucky during the nineteenth century.
  The compelling research findings concerning long-term and deeply held values led Gladwell to the conclusion that cultural legacies are powerful forces. They have deep roots and long lives. They persist, generation after generation, virtually intact, even as the economic and social demographic conditions that spawned them have vanished, and they play such a role in directing attitudes and behavior that we cannot make sense of our world without them.
  The Torah is clearly in harmony with Gladwell’s perspective on cultural legacies. For example, the Torah (Devarim 23:4-5) forbids us to marry a Moabite or Ammonite due to their failure to offer us food as we passed near their land. One could ask why later generations are given a consequence for the mistake of an earlier generation.
  One may answer that the Moabites and Ammonites are descendants of Lot and his wife who made their home in Sedom. The failure of Ammon and Moav to act decently and offer food to the Jews traveling through the area demonstrates that they are the cultural heirs to the evil legacy of Sedom and Lot’s wife. Sedom’s primary sin was their refusal to show kindness to outsiders (Yechezkeil 16:49) and Lot’s wife was thoroughly infected with this sick attitude (Rashi to Bereishit 19:26 s.v. VaTehi, citing Bereishit Rabbah 50:4).
  For this reason we cannot marry Moabites and Ammonites, a people whose cultural legacy is revulsion of acts of kindness towards strangers. Torah Academy of Bergen County students suggest that the reason Nineveh readily reverted to their original path of sin is because the Assyrian culture was permeated with cruelty. This cultural legacy is difficult to overcome and indeed the people of Nineveh succumbed to its immense power.
  ConclusionIt is important to carefully examine Nineveh’s failed Teshuvah. Discovering the reasons for Nineveh’s lack of success helps, especially as we reach the zenith of Yom Kippur, chart a proper plan of spiritual growth that is both effective in the short run and sustainable in the long term. We must also take care to identify the cultural legacies that permeate our lives and take steps to combat those that do not jive with the life we wish to live while strengthening those that keep us on the right path.
  
  Section 4
  
  
  
  
  
  Hashem Confronts Yonah
  Chapter 1 - Yonah Upset Again?!
  Yonah Perek 4 finds the protagonist once again infuriated at Hashem for forgiving Nineveh. My Torah Academy of Bergen County students wondered why Yonah is once again upset. Didn’t Yonah’s experience in the large fish reconcile him to the concept of Teshuvah? The people of Nineveh engaged in genuine repentance and Hashem forgave them. This seems entirely reasonable while Yonah’s extreme reaction seems unwarranted and irrational.
  Rashi’s ApproachRashi (to Yonah 4:1), citing Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, explains that Yonah feared being labeled a Navi Sheker (false prophet). After all, he prophesied that Nineveh would fall in forty days and it did not. One imagines that Rashi does not believe that Yonah was concerned for his own reputation but rather was disturbed that he created a Chillul Hashem (desecration of Hashem). Yonah feels that the failure of the fulfillment of his prediction undermines the credibility of Jewish teachers and teachings.
  Most Mefarshim, however, do not find this to be an attractive approach. As noted by Ibn Ezra and Malbim the very fact that Yonah informed Nineveh of their imminent doom was due to the potential for them to do Teshuva for their wrongful actions. Thus, there is no reasonable concern for Chillul Hashem. The rational man realizes that Yonah’s prediction did not materialize since Nineveh engaged in widespread Teshuvah, thereby canceling the decree of destruction.
  Radak and Metzudat DavidRadak and Metzudat David explain that Yonah was not upset at the Teshuva of Nineveh but rather the fact that Am Yisrael (Nation of Israel) will, in due order, experience great destruction at the hands of the Assyrians90<i class="footnote">Recall that Nineveh is the capital of Assyria. </i>. Yonah is especially disturbed by the fact that he brought about the rescue of Assyrians and thus contributed to the terrible suffering later generations of Jews would be forced to endure.
  One could argue that Yonah did not have to be a prophet to realize that Assyria would emerge as a fierce enemy of our people. He could simply have been paying attention to the trends already at play in his time. He noticed Assyria amassing strength, skill, and ambition. Yonah thus realized that it is only a matter of time until Assyria would come and overwhelm Am Yisrael.
  Yonah was thus upset at the bleak future he foresaw. Yonah’s displeasure on behalf of our people is comparable to Moshe Rabbeinu’s request to die when it looked likely that Hashem would not forgive us for the Cheit HaEigel (Sin of the Golden Calf) wherein Moshe says to Hashem “Mecheini Na Meisifrecha,” “erase me from your book” (Shemot 32:32).
  A problem, though, with the approach of the Radak and Metzudat David is that this is the same reason they offer for Yonah’s flight to Tarshish. It would seem that while in the large fish Yonah had reconciled and resigned himself to not interfere in the historical process and to accept Hashem’s judgement of Nineveh and the Assyrians based on their current behavior rather than their terrible future misdeeds. Radak and Metzudat David do not seem to satisfactorily explain why Yonah is upset once again in Perek 4.
  Abarbanel and MalbimThe approach articulated by Abarbanel and Malbim overcomes the preceding objection. They explain that Yonah in the large fish had made peace with the idea of Teshuvah. However, Yonah was furious that Hashem spared Nineveh despite their failing to do a complete Teshuvah91<i class="footnote">This is especially true according to Rabi Yochanan (Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 2:1) and the Mahari Kra (Yonah 3:8) who believe that the people of Nineveh returned only the stolen items about which the victims were aware. </i>.
  Abarbanel and Malbim note that Yonah Perek 3 describes the people of Nineveh restoring stolen property. However, nowhere in Perek 3 do we find that they corrected their sin of Avodah Zarah (idol worship). Yonah is infuriated that Hashem would forgive Nineveh without the people correcting the cardinal sin of Avodah Zarah92<i class="footnote">One may pose a serious question on this approach - did not the people of Nineveh fully embrace Yonah’s message and wholeheartedly (according to many opinions) repent? Doesn’t this express an acceptance of Hashem and rejection of Avodah Zarah? We may answer that while it indicates a wholehearted acceptance of Hashem it does not necessarily imply that they forsook their gods. After all, there are many instances of people who both serve Hashem and worship Avodah Zarah. Examples include the majority of the Jews of Northen Israel in the time of Eliyahu HaNavi (Melachim I 18:21) and the Samaritans of Melachim II (17:41). </i>. In other words, Yonah in the fish reconciled himself to the idea of Teshuvah. However, he is upset that Hashem forgave Ninenveh for an incomplete Teshuvah.
  It is important to note that Avodah Zarah may be and should be seen as the root for all evil. Absent one absolute authority for all, there is no accountability. When there is no accountability, chaos inevitably emerges where might makes right and all sense of justice is lost. Avodah Zarah is synonymous with moral relativism. When there is more than one God there is more than one standard of morality. Moral relativism opens the floodgates to all kinds of horrific behavior, since there is no universal authority to enforce one uniform moral code. Absent one belief in one God, morality becomes a free for all and the gates to immorality of open. Thus, Yonah understood that absent correction of the sin of Avodah Zarah, eventually Nineveh would slide back into a society where theft and other evils are rampant, as it had been prior to Yonah’s arrival.
  Yonah is furious that Hashem judged so leniently and calls Hashem to task arguing that in such a world there is no motivation for proper behavior when the “HaShofeit Kol HaAretz Lo Yaaseh Mishpat,” the judge of all the earth does not render justice” (Bereishit 18:25). While Avraham Avinu uses this assertion to argue that Hashem is too strict with Sedom, Yonah uses this principle to argue that Hashem is too lenient with Nineveh.
  Evidence to the Abarbanel and Malbim may be gleaned from Yonah 4:2 where Yonah states that Hashem is “Chanun VeRachum Erech Apayim VeRav Chesed,” “gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abundant in kindness.” While we are quite familiar with these words taken from the thirteen attributes of mercy, a recurring theme of the Tefilot (prayers) of the Yamim Noraim (High Holy Days), a careful examination reveals that Yonah deviates from the text that appears in the Torah. Whereas the Torah states that Hashem is “Rav Chesed VeEmet,” “abundant in kindness and truth” (Shemot 34:6), Yonah states that Hashem is “Rav Chesed,” “abundant in kindness.”
  This omission cuts to the core of Yonah’s argument. Hashem describes Himself (Shemot 34:6) as “Rav Chesed VeEmet,” “[one who balances] much kindness and truth.” A judge who is too strict is as untenable as is one who shows too much kindness. A balance between Chesed (kindness) and Emet (truth) must be struck in order for the world to function properly. Yonah claims Hashem is Rav Chesed, overemphasizing kindness in forgiving Nineveh too easily, leading to the undermining of justice and the detriment of mankind93<i class="footnote">Similarly, Hashem refers to Himself as “Rachum VeChanun” (merciful and gracious). Yonah, in turn, flips the order and describes Hashem as “Chanun VeRachum”, implying that Hashem “gives away” too much “for free”. </i>.
  ConclusionYonah seems to make a sound argument in his protest against Hashem. The discerning reader joins Yonah in his questioning of Hashem’s justice. After all, Chazal teach that whoever has compassion on the cruel is being cruel on the compassionate (Tanhuma, Parashat Metzora 1 and Yalkut Shimoni, Shmuel I Chapter 121). This certainly appears to apply to Nineveh and the Assyrians. The reader eagerly anticipates hearing how Hashem will explain the logic of his forgiving Nineveh without having corrected the sin of Avodah Zarah and then see how we may seek for Hashem to apply that Chesed towards ourselves. Indeed, as Yom Kippur draws to a close, we hope desperately that Hashem will forgive us despite us not fully and properly recanting, and Yonah reminds us that such hope is not out of the question.
  
  
  
  Chapter 2 - Yonah Hunkers Down
  The tension between Hashem and Yonah reaches its zenith in Perek 4. Hashem tries to convince Yonah to relent by administering a dose of Middat HaDin (Attribute of Justice) with His harsh response to Yonah’s complaint and death wish. Yonah, however, refuses to relent and settles down to the east of Nineveh (Yonah 4:5).
  Yonah’s behavior is shocking! In Perek 1 he refuses to follow Hashem’s bidding and does not travel to Nineveh. In Perek 4 Pasuk 5 Yonah continues his rebellion and refuses to leave Nineveh! How are we to explain Yonah’s behavior?!
  The Ibn Ezra’s Radical ViewThe Ibn Ezra (to Pasuk 5) adopts a radical approach to solve this problem. Pasuk 5 in his view actually takes place immediately after Yonah proclaims throughout Nineveh that the city will fall in forty days. Yonah settles down outside Nineveh to wait and see if the people will react to his words and repent.
  It is not surprising for Ibn Ezra to adopt this sort of approach, arguing Ein Mukdam UMeuchar BaTorah, that at times the Tanach presents events not in their chronological order. Ibn Ezra is renowned for his liberal application of this principle to solve problems in the text (see, for example, Ibn Ezra’s commentary to Shemot 18:1 and Bemidbar 16:1).
  The other commentaries do not find this approach to be attractive as it places Pasuk 5 entirely out of order. Pasuk 5 clearly is Yonah’s response to Hashem’s telling him “HaHeiteiv Charah Lach,” “are sufficiently fed up?” in Pasuk 4. Moreover, the principle of “Ein Mukdam UMeuchar BaTorah” is applied only when there is a compelling reason to do so. There is hardly a compelling reason to present Yonah’s waiting for Nineveh’s reaction after Hashem’s question in Perek 4 Pasuk 4. Interestingly, Ibn Ezra to Yonah 2:2 offers a similar critique of those who argue that Yonah’s Tefilah of Perek 2 was uttered only after he was spat out of the large fish.
  Radak’s More Accepted ViewA more mainstream view is that which is articulated by Radak. Radak explains that Yonah settled down outside Nineveh, waiting to see if and when the people of Nineveh would backslide from their Teshuvah. Yonah has his “evil eye” out for Ninveh and is eager to see them fail.
  Evidence to this approach may be gleaned from the fact that Yonah sat outside the city. My Torah Academy of Bergen County students see this as Yonah wanting to have a bird’s eye view of the evil that, as he perceives, will inevitably break out in Nineveh. Yonah’s perch outside the city is reminiscent of Bilaam lurking outside our camp looking for the shortcomings inside.
  Abarbanel, though, sees Yonah settling outside the city as an expression of Yonah’s complete distaste for the people of Nineveh. He wanted to distance himself from them. It was intolerable for Yonah to remain inside the city94<i class="footnote">One could argue, though, that Yonah never declares that he hates the people of Nineveh. His only distaste is with Hashem's exceptionally lenient judgment of them. If their evil is the cause for distaste, then he would seemingly hate Bnei Yisrael of the Northern Kingdom as well because they were just as bad at this point (see Melachim I 19:18). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Yonah’s desire to distance himself from Nineveh does not stem from hatred.</i>.
  More evidence to Radak’s view is the fact that Yonah hunkers down to the east of the city. Professor Simon notes that Yonah’s home, Eretz Yisrael, lies to the west of Nineveh. By Yonah settling to the east of the city Yonah is proclaiming that he will not go home until his mission of seeing to Nineveh’s destruction is complete95<i class="footnote">An interesting point to ponder is the fact that, according to one approach, Yonah delivers his message to only one third of the city, which is presumably the western portion of the city, since he travels to Nineveh from the west. Yet he somehow ends up on the other side. This seems like he either had a great deal of determination to see Nineveh’s destruction or he was running from the shame he feels he would endure by returning to Eretz Yisrael (Israel), knowing the embarrassment he is inevitably causing to the Jewish People (recall Rashi’s comment that Nineveh’s Teshuvah makes the recalcitrant members of Am Yisrael look terrible in the eyes of Hashem).</i>.
  Yonah’s stubborn vigil is reminiscent of the stubborn vigil of Choni HaMaageil. Chazal in Masechet Taanit (19a) relate that once during a severe drought the Jewish people approached Choni to beseech Hashem for rain. Choni famously proceeded to draw a circle and declared to Hashem that he will not leave the circle until it rains. Hashem made it rain very lightly and then very strongly but Choni held fast and refused to leave the circle until Hashem sent Gishmei Bracha (rains of blessing) of the kind that would effectively alleviate the widespread suffering.
  Some of the Torah Academy of Bergen County students boldly suggest that the role Yonah seeks to play east of Nineveh is eerily reminiscent of the role the Satan. Satan is not a sort of “gadfly angel” or “loose cannon” in the heavens who starts trouble. Rather, Satan plays the role of the “prosecutor general” of the world. Hashem employs angels to play this role in order to make His deliberations comprehensible to us; as Ramban (Iyov 2:3) puts it, the Torah speaks in human language.
  Satan, under Hashem’s supervision, becomes the representation of Hashem’s strict attitude in decision-making, or what is commonly referred to as Hashem’s Middat HaDin. This explains the surprising fact that Shmuel II 24:1 and Divrei HaYamim I 21:1 use Hashem and Satan interchangeably! Satan is a personification of God’s attribute of judgment, not a mean-spirited angel who manipulates Hashem into harming people.
  ConclusionUnlike Choni HaMaageil who tried and succeeded in forcing Hashem’s hand to act with compassion to His people, Yonah tried to force Hashem’s hand to deal harshly with Nineveh. It will take the strong medicine of the Kikayon to restore Yonah to his spiritual equilibrium and for us to gain a rare glimpse into Hashem’s method of judging and guiding the world.
  Indeed, Yonah’s encampment outside of Nineveh represents the high water mark of Yonah’s rebellion against Hashem. Ultimately, though, setting up shop outside Nineveh to wait for failure hurts Yonah. And from here was can glean important insight into ourselves, an especially important insight on Yom Kippur as we listen to these events retold. Too often we set ourselves up to fail. Even when we succeed some part of us constantly looks back waiting for the other shoe to drop. Yonah sitting outside Nineveh brings to mind the subconscious “sitting outside” we may do to ourselves (or, far worse, to others), waiting for the Teshuvah of Yom Kippur to fade. Hearing of this incident reminds us at the height of Teshuvah that, although we must be vigilant to guard our success, excessive focus on our (and others’) actions before we repented and expecting ourselves to fall back into old habits will ultimately backfire. Yonah did not accept that Nineveh’s slate had been wiped clean. It behooves us to recognize this error and correct it in ourselves before Yom Kippur ends. On the Day of Judgement we beg Hashem for forgiveness, and we must recognize that once forgiveness is granted we truly are forgiven.
  
  
  
  Chapter 3 - Are You Sufficiently Fed Up?
  The action in Perek 4 is bold and furious. Yonah boldly issues his complaint of Hashem’s excessive compassion for the people of Nineveh and asks to die. Hashem’s response is no less shocking - he tells Yonah (4:4) “HaHeiteiv Charah Lach,” “are you sufficiently fed up?” The Abarbanel wonders what sort of a response this is to Yonah’s complaint. Torah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Ezra Finkelstein, a certified first responder, adds to the question noting that this is hardly an appropriate response to someone with suicidal ideation!
  One could argue that Yonah is not suicidal, even though he asks for death many times throughout the Sefer. He has every opportunity to kill himself but he chooses to remain passive. Is he sufficiently depressed? Most definitely. But he does not want to kill himself. He understands that suicide is so problematic that he is willing to be tortured by life than violate96<i class="footnote">Aryeh Krischer asks: If Yonah was so worried about severe prohibitions why did he run away from Hashem in Perek 1? One could respond that Yonah is a zealous advocate for the approach articulated by Rabi Yehoshua (Bava Metzi’a 59b) that Torah is “Lo BaShamayim”. Once the Torah is given, Torah scholars determine the course of Jewish Law, rather than Hashem. Yonah deeply honors and is committed to Torah law and values. He simply felt that he had the right to protest Hashem’s directive in the same manner as Avraham Avinu challenging Hashem’s treatment of Sedom, Moshe Rabbeinu’s challenging Hashem’s harsh judgment in the wake of the Cheit HaEigel (sin of the Golden Calf) and the Chachamim’s rejection of the Bat Kol (heavenly voice) that gave a ringing endorsement of Rabi Eliezer’s ruling regarding Tannur Shel Achnai. </i> this severe prohibition. He wants the sailors to throw him over, he stays below deck, he asks for death. All of these are passive behaviors designed to end his life without directly killing himself.
  The Creative Solution of the Da’at MikraDa’at Mikra notes that there is a paragraph break (Setumah) before Pasuk 4, indicating that the content of Pasuk 4 is separate from the prior section. Thus, Da’at Mikra understands Pasuk 4 not as a response to Yonah but rather as an introduction to the Kikayon episode. The Kikayon episode is introduced “HaHeiteiv Charah Lach” since this is the reaction of Yonah to the loss of the Kikayon as recorded in Pasuk 9.
  It should be noted that not every edition of the Tanach includes a paragraph break before Pasuk 4. For example, in both the Mikraot Gedolot and Koren editions of the Tanach there is no paragraph break before Pasuk 4. However, the Aleppo Codex and the Leningrad Codex both have a paragraph break before Pasuk 4.
  These latter two precious documents are the most authoritative extant texts of the Tanach. The Aleppo Codex in particular is of great stature as it was written in the city of Tiberias in the 10th century C.E. and its accuracy was endorsed by none other than the Rambam (Hilchot Sefer Torah 8:4). The Aleppo Codex is currently housed and on display at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Its fascinating history is described at 
  The Explanation of the Radak and Metzudat DavidThe Radak and Metzudat David adopt a somewhat similar approach to Da’at Mikra. They agree that “HaHeiteiv Charah Lach” introduces the Kikayon incident. However, they understand “HaHeiteiv Charah Lach” as Hashem’s response to Yonah’s complaint. They understand the phrase as conveying a warning to Yonah that Hashem will present something that will very much upset Yonah.
  An advantage of the Radak and Metzudat David’s approach is that it presents Hashem as preparing Yonah for the emotional rollercoaster of the Kikayon upon which Hashem is about to introduce to him. A disadvantage of this approach is that it is not explicit in the text and requires one to assume “Chesurei Mechsara”, that the missing message is implicit to the thoughtful reader.
  The Approach of Professor SimonProfessor Simon understands Hashem as specifically not dignifying Yonah’s suicide request. Hashem mocks Yonah’s complaint instead of validating it, which seems to be quite cruel. According to this understanding, Hashem is communicating to Yonah that he is acting foolishly.
  While this does seem to be the straightforward meaning of Pasuk 4, it nonetheless raises the question of why Hashem reacts so harshly to Yonah. I suggest that Hashem begins to convey to Yonah that Middat HaDin (Attribute of Judgement) often is untenable.
  Yonah’s complaint to Hashem, strictly speaking, is foolish. After all, Yonah should have realized after the fish episode that Hashem would not acquiesce to Yonah’s demands. While there is precedent from Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu for making an effort to change Hashem’s mind, the events of Perek 1 should have made it absolutely clear to Yonah that Hashem would not alter His lenient approach to Nineveh.
  Hashem directly tells Yonah the unvarnished truth. It is reminiscent of Beit Shamai assessing a Kallah (bride) to her Chatan (groom) “KeMot Shehi,” “as she is” without any embellishment (Ketubot 17a).
  Nonetheless, compassion is the order of the day for someone who is upset to the extent that he wishes to die. The withholding of compassion in such circumstances is indeed cruel. Hashem’s withholding compassion is intended to demonstrate to Yonah that acting in accordance with strict justice is not always appropriate. Although in theory correct, it is unkind and should not be done. In this manner, Hashem seeks to impart to Yonah that at times the administration of strict justice is simply inappropriate. By giving Yonah a small97<i class="footnote">The full dose would be Mitah Bedei Shamayim (death inflicted by heaven) which Yonah deserves as a Navi who is Koveish Nevuato (refuses to communicate his prophecy) (Rambam Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 9:3). </i> dose of Middat HaDin when he was in great need of Middat HaRachamim (Attribute of Mercy), Hashem hoped Yonah would learn his lesson and relent. Hashem seeks to communicate the idea expressed by Rashi (Bereishit 1:1 s.v. Bara Elokim, citing Bereishit Rabbah 12:15)
  In the beginning it was His intention to create it with the Divine Standard of Justice, but he perceived that the world would not endure; so He preceded it with the Divine Standard of Mercy, partnering it with the Divine Standard of Justice98<i class="footnote">Translation is from Chabad.org. </i>.
  One could argue, though, that Professor Simon’s approach seems excessive. Telling a depressed person that they are being foolish would not accomplish anything other than to lead them to be even more depressed.
  ConclusionIn spite of Hashem’s efforts to convince him otherwise, Yonah has yet to learn his lesson. In our next chapter we will explore Yonah’s sharp response recorded in Pasuk 5.
  Furthermore, we see in Hashem’s harsh response to Yonah’s repeated efforts to implement Din that strict justice breeds strict justice. In other words, if we treat others without mercy and exercise our own Middat HaDin we can fully expect Hashem to exercise Middat HaDin when dealing with us. As Tehillim Perek 130 reminds us, however, if Hashem were to judge us with what we deserve “Mi YaAmod,” “who could stand?” (130:3). Seeing Hashem’s harsh response to Yonah should be shocking, and that shock should spur us to treat others with Rachamim, since surely we ourselves desire such treatment from Hashem. Sefer Yonah reminds us of this critical message about Din and Rachamim at a pivotal moment of the Yom Kippur, the Yom HaDin (Day of Judgement) itself.
  
  
  
  Chapter 4 - The Kikayon - Part One
  What an overreaction! Yonah has just hunkered down outside of Nineveh and set up a Sukkah for shade. Hashem then provides a Kikayon for shade. The Gemara (Shabbat 21a) identifies the Kikayon as similar to the plant known in Aramaic known as “Tzloliva”, which Da’at Mikra notes is the Latin equivalent of the <i>Ricinus communis</i> (from which castor oil is made). The Gemara notes that that the Kikayon is a very leafy plant, a fact which is readily apparent upon viewing a picture of the <i>Ricinus communis</i>99<i class="footnote">Ibn Ezra to Pasuk 6 quotes sages of Spain who explain the Kikayon as a pumpkin, but he argues that the exact identity of the tree is not necessary to grasp the meaning of the text. One might object to Ibn Ezra’s assertion, especially since the Gemara’s identification of the Kikayon as a very leafy tree sheds light as to why Yonah was pleased at its sudden appearance despite having already built a Sukkah for shade. </i>.
  It is understandable that Yonah would be pleased that Hashem has enhanced his shade, especially needed in the blistering Middle Eastern sun. However, the “Simcha Gedolah,” “great happiness” (Yonah 4:6) experienced by Yonah appears to be overblown, especially since he already has a Sukkah for shade (as stated in Yonah 4:5).
  Solutions from the Abarbanel and the Metzudat DavidAbarbanel surmises that the Sukkah built by Yonah had dried up and that without the Kikayon Yonah was suffering terribly. Thus, Yonah was rescued from death by the leafy Kikayon, explaining his great joy at its appearance. While an interesting approach, there seems to be little support in the text for Abarbanel’s understanding.
  Metzudat David adopts a similar but less ambitious approach. He understands that the Sukkah could provide shade only temporarily before drying up in the blistering heat but the Kikayon would last for a long time without drying. Since the Kikyaon is attached to the ground it would retain its moisture.
  These approaches do not explain why at the moment the Kikayon appeared Yonah was so happy. The Kikayon seems to be only in a state of potential good, useful only insofar as it lasts long enough to be useful. Seemingly the advent of the Kikayon should not be enough to create a Simcha Gadolah.
  Background for the Approach of the Malbim - Detecting Hashem’s InterventionYosef in Sefer Bereishit (45:8 and 50:20) makes the surprising claim that Hashem sent him to Egypt to provide food for his family in the famine. He makes this assertion twice: once when he reveals his identity to his brothers and yet again when consoling his brothers after their father Jacob’s death. We are perplexed, though, as to how Yosef became convinced that this indeed was Hashem's intention. After all, unlike the Patriarchs, Yosef never received a direct prophecy from Hashem, so how was he privy to God's will?
  This question has ramifications for us. For if Yosef can discern God's will without the benefit of direct communication, then we also might be able to discover Hashem's will even in an age devoid of prophecy (or even the Bat Kol (heavenly voice), the lower degree of prophecy that was sometimes heard in Talmudic times).
  An answer to our query emerges from an analysis of an intriguing comment made by Rashi. The Torah records that the caravan that transported Yosef to slavery in Egypt was carrying fragrant spices such as balsam and lotus. Chazal and Rashi wonder why the Torah records this seemingly-trivial detail, which appears entirely irrelevant to the story. Why does Hashem feel it is important for us to know the cargo contents of the caravan?
  Rashi (to Bereishit 37:25), following Chazal (citing Bereishit Rabbah 84:17), explains that normally Arab caravans carried foul-smelling items such as resin and tar. Hashem arranged that the caravan transporting Yosef would feature fragrant spices so that Yosef need not suffer from the malodorous wares.
  This teaching is quite puzzling. Yosef is being transported to Egypt to live a miserable existence as a slave. Yosef’s privileged life as Jacob’s favorite son was transformed instantly to a wretched reality. How would Hashem’s arranging for the caravan to carry sweet smells help Yosef in any significant manner? Odoriferous cargo would have appeared to constitute the least of Yosef’s newly-encountered problems. The situation would seem analogous to someone who, God forbid, was kidnapped by ISIS and Hashem arranged for the vehicle transporting the victim to be pleasant-smelling. What benefit does the victim in such horrific circumstances have from the pleasant smell?
  One answer is that Yosef was a highly intelligent person, as Onkelos and Rashi (to Bereishit 37:3) point out. He therefore realized that it was unusual for an Ishmaelite caravan to be carrying sweet-smelling spices. Add in the fact that caravans tend to be terribly malodorous because they are filled with sweaty men and animals traveling through a scorching desert, and having a good smell in such circumstances becomes not just rare but almost unheard of.
  Yosef realized that this rare occurrence must have been a subtle message from Hashem that He is with him and that He orchestrated his sale to Egypt for a purpose. This message Yosef eventually articulated confidently to his brothers. Yosef did not need a divine revelation to ascertain this information; he needed only a sense of logic and sensitivity to his surroundings to become conscious of Hashem’s involvement. The ongoing and eventually dramatic turn of events during Yosef’s time in Mitzrayim (Egypt) encouraged the same train of thought and led Yosef to detect and identify Hashem’s continued support and intervention.
  Malbim’s ApproachThe Malbim presents a most compelling explanation of Yonah’s great joy. Malbim explains that the Kikayon’s miraculous sudden appearance clearly indicates divine intervention. Yonah, in turn, interpreted the divine intervention as signaling divine approval of his hunkering down outside of Nineveh. The leafy plant will facilitate Yonah stationing himself long term there, causing Yonah to assume that Hashem is coming around to his way of thinking. Yonah surmised that just as Moshe Rabbeinu convinced Hashem to spare us after the Cheit HaEigel (Sin of the Golden Calf), he, Yonah, is well on his way to convincing Hashem that He has been far too lenient to Nineveh.
  Malbim’s approach explains very well Yonah’s great joy at the appearance of the Kikayon. His joy emanates from far more than the shade it provides. Yonah is overjoyed at what he, incorrectly, perceives as divine approval. It also explains Yonah’s joy despite the fact that his Sukkah already provided shade. Finally, it explains the profound pain experienced by Yonah when the Kikayon was removed.
  ConclusionWhile Malbim’s explanation solves a range of problems, it does not explain why Hashem made Yonah experience such an intense psychological trauma. We shall soon return to explore and resolve this question.
  The Malbim’s explanation also helps explain why we read this Sefer on Yom Kippur at Mincha. As we are preparing for the final moments of the day we see, according to Malbim, a stark example of how to perceive Hashem’s hand in the world. Yosef saw Hashem’s direct intervention and took it for good, saving his family and the whole region. In doing so, following Hashem’s intervention and using it to execute Hashem’s will, Yosef succeeded mightily. Yonah did the opposite, he took Hashem’s intervention and used it to directly oppose Hashem’s will, believing himself correct and Hashem wrong. The result: Yonah falls hard. Sefer Yonah reminds us to look at the past and present to see Hashem’s divine intervention the world. The Sefer also reminds us to make amends for interpreting Hashem’s hand against Hashem’s will and to resolve as Yom Kippur draws to a close to treat Hashem’s involvement in the world in the coming year with the respect and care it deserves.
  
  
  
  Chapter 5 - The Kikayon - Part Two: Explaining the Torture
  Psychological torture! Hashem literally puts Yonah through profound mental anguish by suddenly providing Yonah with the Kikayon and just as suddenly removing it. Hashem, as explained by Malbim, at first leads Yonah to discern divine approval of his protest vigil but then, just as suddenly, reveals His disapproval. Not surprisingly, Yonah experiences intense psychological pain from this rollercoaster-like cascade of changing emotions and responds by asking for his death (Yonah 4:8-9).
  A Painful AnalogyTo explain the extent of the pain experienced by Yonah an analogy may be drawn to a certain dysfunctional series of interactions between a couple. The Tanach and Chazal repeatedly compare our relationship with Hashem to a relationship between husband and wife, of which Shir HaShirim (Song of Songs) is the most prominent example.
  Halacha (Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 119:10) forbids a spouse from initiating physical relations if said spouse intends to soon after seek a divorce. Physical relations are deeply significant to a couple, far more than mere satisfaction of biological urges. Physical relations are the most intense form of bonding between two human beings. It is unspeakable cruelty, then, to initiate relations and then soon after initiate divorce proceedings with all of the searing emotional pain involved.
  As a very active Get administrator, I have sadly been informed of such situations occurring. Victims have shared the deep hurt they have experienced to the extent of their becoming suicidal, similar to Yonah. I was compelled to refer the victims to appropriate counseling to help them cope with the ordeal they were forced to endure.
  Hashem leading Yonah to infer divine approval and then suddenly express His disapproval seems to follow this pattern of unspeakably cruelty100<i class="footnote">Although Yonah wishes to die, Halacha views torture as worse than death (see Ketubot 33b and Shach Yoreh Deiah 157:8). </i>. How could have Hashem done such a thing?
  Explaining Hashem’s StrategyTorah Academy of Bergen County student Ezra Finkelstein noted that Yonah acted in a similar manner to Hashem. It is obvious that in order to become a Navi, Yonah must have devoted many years to developing an intense relationship with Hashem. Yonah’s subsequent silent disobedience when Hashem sent him on a mission to address Nineveh mimics poor couple interaction.
  Healthy couples engage in a discussion when disagreement emerges. A spouse shutting down in the midst of a disagreement is most hurtful and destructive. However one explains Yonah’s disobedience, his silence was utterly inexcusable. Thus, one could argue that Hashem dealt with Yonah in a manner commensurate to the manner in which Yonah interacted with Hashem. After all, Chazal teach (Mishnah Sotah 1:7) that Hashem treats one in the method that he has treated others.
  In addition to Ezra’s approach it is worth noting Rav David Fohrman’s approach to the Kikayon. He notes that the Kikayon by right should never have come into existence. Its appearance is an indisputable example of Middat HaRachamim, Hashem’s aspect of mercy. On the other hand, the removal of the Kikayon is a clear manifestation of Middat HaDin, pure justice, since the Kikayon by right should not exist.
  Accordingly, we may add, Hashem was giving Yonah an intense dose of Middat HaDin. Yonah had been a stubborn advocate for Hashem adopting a stricter mode of justice. Hashem has tried every which way to direct Yonah away from this stance. Hashem’s last resort (short of removing Yonah’s ability to exercise his free will) is to administer to Yonah a very intense form of Middat HaRachamim followed very soon by an abrupt and raw confrontation with Middat HaDin.
  By putting Yonah through this experience, Hashem teaches Yonah in a most visceral manner that Middat HaDin often causes intense pain and cannot stand as the sole value in judgement. As the refrain we often cite from Tehillim (130:3) expresses “Im Avonot Tishmor Kah, Hashem Mi YaAmod,” “if Hashem were to judge strictly by the book, no one could withstand.101<i class="footnote">Alternatively, Hashem is giving Yonah subtle Nevuah as to what the outcome of Ninveh would be. Just like the Kikayon expressed Rachamim and then its removal was far more painful than its arrival was joyous, so too Nineveh being saved now but destroyed later in Sefer Nachum is far more painful than being destroyed outright in the first place. Hashem might be trying to console Yonah by hinting that he did the right thing but in the wrong way. Yonah was trying to just brute-force his way to justice. Hashem was explaining that you have to give people a chance and if they don't take it, they fall even harder. Yonah did not take the message to heart, wanting to still believe in pure Din (using a psychological term: cognitive dissonance which means the mind is incapable of changing its beliefs because they would not match the body’s actions, causing internal debate and struggle).</i>” Aryeh Krischer adds that Hashem may be trying to convince Yonah by employing the Golden Rule (as attributed to Hillel by the Gemara Shabbat 31a) – What is hateful unto you, do not do unto others. Perhaps Hashem hopes that by providing Yonah with joy and comfort through Middat HaRachamim followed by intense pain through Middat HaDin Yonah will realize that it is “hateful unto him” to bear the brunt of Middat HaDin. Once Yonah realizes the pain Middat HaDin can bring Hashem hopes he will cease attempting to “do unto others” in the manner of Din.
  ConclusionAt times, physicians must administer medicine that is most difficult to endure. They do so only when this is the only manner in which the patient’s health can be restored. The pain Yonah had to endure during the Kikayon episode was unfortunately necessary as it represented the only way to restore Yonah to his spiritual equilibrium.
  In the waning hours of Yom Kippur, as we read of the events of the Kikayon, we are drawn to think of our own lives. Have we been too inflexible? Are we putting our own set of values above Hashem’s? Better to resolve to do better now and learn from Yonah’s mistakes than have to suffer our own version of the Kikayon episode.
  
  
  
  Chapter 6 - The Kikayon - Part Three: The Nineveh Analogy
  Sefer Yonah ends with a dramatic flair. Hashem tells Yonah (4:10-11) “You cared about the Kikayon whose existence was fleeting - how much more so should I care about Nineveh which has more than one hundred twenty thousand people.” The analogy, though, appears to be entirely inapt. Hashem cared about Nineveh per se. Yonah did not care about the Kikayon per se, but rather for what it provided and for what it represented.
  Explaining the Word “Chas”The key word to translate properly in order to unlock the deeper meaning of Hashem’s argument is the word “Chas”. Yonah was “Chas” on the Kikayon and Hashem all the more so is “Chas” on the people of Nineveh (note above “cared” is used for Chas). Metzudat Tziyon and Da’at Mikra translate Chas as pity, similar to Chemol. While this is a close translation, I suggest a more refined explanation based on an emotion experienced by sports enthusiasts.
  Sports fans are elated when “their” team is victorious and dejected when “their” team loses. These deep emotional feelings (there is a great deal to discuss regarding whether such emotions are in the viewers’ best interest) occur despite the fact that they are experienced regarding a matter that is, objectively speaking, trivial. This intensity emerges from the emotional investment the fans make into the game.
  I suggest that the word “Chas” should be understood in this manner. Chas refers to making an emotional investment. In the Amidah we ask Hashem “Chus VeRacheim Aleinu,” “have Chus and pity on us”. Chus is a prerequisite to Racheim, pity. When one is emotionally invested in someone they have pity on them. An example is a caring Rebbe who makes an emotional investment in his students and therefore grades examinations in a manner that is tilted in favor of the student. We ask Hashem to similarly emotionally invest in our well being and as a result to deal with us mercifully. Once Hashem is invested in us and very much wants us to succeed, the compassion flows naturally.
  Explaining the Kikayon-Nineveh AnalogyYonah certainly made an emotional investment (“Chas”) in the Kikayon, as evidenced by his elation at his appearance and utter dejection at its loss. Hashem explains to Yonah that the emotional investment he made in the Kikayon should help him understand the emotional investment He makes (“Chas”) in Nineveh.
  Hashem’s emotional investment in mankind and his desire for us to succeed explains why Hashem judges Nineveh based on their current spiritually improved state and not based on their future unspeakably cruel actions. As is clear from Melachim II 14:25, Yonah’s lives a few generations before Assyria emerges as brutal actor on the world stage. While Yonah might wish for Assyria to be judged based on a combination their current and on their future actions, Hashem refuses to do so102<i class="footnote">It is interesting to note that Hashem doesn't place Bnei Yisrael before the other nations in this sense. Human beings are created equal and treated equally by Hashem, no matter if doing so will demoralize and jeopardize the Chosen People.</i>.
  This is reminiscent of the Midrash concerning the conflict between the Malachim and Hashem regarding the fate of Yishmael (Rashi to Bereishit 21:17, citing Rosh Hashana 16b). When the young Yishmael cried out to Hashem to save him from his thirst in the desert, the angels cried out for Hashem to not save him based on the cruelty Yishmael’s descendants would inflict upon the Jewish People103<i class="footnote">While the Gemara specifically mentions Arab cruelty in the wake of the Jews’ entry into Exile, the Gemara readily lends itself to refer as well to the cruelties the descendants of Yishmael have needlessly inflicted on our people during the past one hundred years. </i>. Hashem resoundingly rejects the Malachim and insists on judging Yishmael “BaAsher Hu Sham,” “as he is then” (Bereishit 21:17), i.e. based on his current actions and not based on the despicable behavior of his progeny. Although one is tempted to sympathize with Yonah and the angels regarding this issue, Hashem’s eager ambition for each person’s spiritual success precludes Him from adopting such a policy.
  Hashem placed Yonah through the trauma of the loss of the Kikayon so Yonah could get a taste of the emotional investment Hashem makes in all humanity. Hashem judges in a manner tilted to mercy since he is invested in each human being’s and all humanity’s success. Sefer Yonah ends with one of the most revelatory episodes in the entire Tanach in which Hashem reveals His “emotional state” and mindset regarding how He judges the world. By vicariously experiencing that which Yonah endured we can, along with Yonah, acquire a taste and get a feel for how Hashem judges the world.
  Conclusion - A Powerful Message for Mincha on Yom KippurIt is deeply motivating for a student to feel that his Rebbe is invested in his success. The knowledge that the Rebbe will even determine the student’s grade with compassion due to the commitment he has for the student is most edifying and even comforting.
  Upon hearing this concluding message of Sefer Yonah on Yom Kippur we experience a boost in confidence and motivation for spiritual success. We are ready to pray Mincha104<i class="footnote">Recall that the Gemara (Berachot 6b) teaches that Mincha is extremely important because Eliyahu HaNavi was answered during the Mincha prayer as indicated in Melachim I 18:36.</i> and Neilah with added fervor. The Creator of the world wants us to succeed. Hashem is, Kavyachol (as if, by analogy), cheering us on to victory as Yom Kippur reaches its climax.
  My dear Talmid and respected colleague Rav David Nachbar tells me that on Yom Kippur he silently and fervently begs the gentleman reading Maftir Yonah to read more slowly so that listeners can absorb the deep messages communicated by this magnificent Sefer. When we devote attention to a deeper understanding of this wonderful Sefer our experience of Yom Kippur and connection to Hashem deepens and becomes ever more meaningful.
  
  
  
  Chapter 7 - Between Right and Left
  In explaining why He forgave Nineveh, Hashem tells Yonah that the city’s many inhabitants do not know between right and left (Yonah 4:11). Presumably this means they do not distinguish between right and wrong.
  This is an enormously difficult assertion. After all, every human being is created in the image of Hashem and is thus capable of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, no matter the environment in which he was raised.
  Approach Number One - Rashi, Radak, and Metzudat DavidOne approach that many of the Mepharshim find attractive is the idea that Hashem is referring to the children of Nineveh regarding whom one may say they do not distinguish between right and wrong. According to this approach, Hashem spared Nineveh due to its innocent children.
  Professor Uriel Simon presents intriguing support to this approach. He notes that archaeological discoveries indicate that the population of Nineveh hovered around 300,000. This, of course, is far more than the population of 120,000 people mentioned in Yonah 4:11. Professor Simon suggests that the 120,000 refers to those residents who are innocent, namely the children.
  My Talmidim at Torah Academy of Bergen County did not find this argument compelling since the children were unlikely to compose such a large component of Nineveh’s population. This is especially true according to the Minchat Chinuch’s (190:8) suggestion that a non-Jew is regarded as a minor only until approximately age nine when he has attained a level of sufficient understanding. Torah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Max Schechter smartly suggests that 120,000 was the number of Nineveh residents who remained in the city even after Yonah issued his warning of imminent destruction.
  Alternatively, it could be like our counts in Sefer Bemidbar. Only the men between ages of twenty and sixty are counted. Thus we can double the number of 120,000 to account for women and add another fifty percent for those under the age of twenty to give us the 300,000 count. The Tanach usually counts just the able bodied men because that is what shows the strength of the population.
  Abarbanel’s Kashya on Approach Number OneAbarbanel poses a devastating question on approach number one. He notes that Hashem did not spare Sedom or the Dor HaMabul (Generation of the Flood) from destruction despite the children in their midst. The same applies to the destruction of Nineveh described in Sefer Nachum. Rather, we conclude from these instances, writes the Abarbanel, that children suffer the consequences created by the evil perpetrated by the adults in their environment. Interestingly, this might serve as a justification for the American dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite the many infants and children who sadly perished in these attacks.
  We may add that in the case of Sedom, Avraham Avinu seeks only for there to be ten righteous and moral people, not innocent individuals. Assuming that Nineveh’s teachings were immoral, all children were tainted and so, though innocent, were not sufficient to save the city. Thus, just like the animals of the Dor HaMabul, they too were brought down with the punishment.
  Approach Number Two - AbarbanelThe Abarbanel adopts an approach consistent with his understanding that Yonah is upset that Hashem forgave Nineveh despite the fact that the inhabitants did not abandon the worship of idolatry. According to Abarbanel, Hashem explains that in regard to the sin of Avodah Zarah he regards the people of Ninveh as not being able to distinguish between right and left. Nineveh’s residents, adults and children alike, are the equivalent of a Tinok SheNishbah, a Jewish baby captured and raised by non-Jews who does not know better than to worship idols.
  The Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 3:1-3), when he codifies the harsh actions that the Halachah prescribes for a known Apikores (someone who rejects one of the pillars of traditional Jewish thought), limits their application as follows:
  This rule applies only to one who has consciously rejected belief in the Oral Law on his own thoughts and reasoning, such as Tzadok, Baytus (both of whom started sects that rejected parts of our Oral Law), or their followers. However, children and grandchildren of those who go astray... who were born to Karaites and were raised with these tenets, such a person is like a Tinok SheNishbah... He is like one who was coerced [to violate mitzvot]. Although he heard as an adult that he is Jewish and saw practicing traditional Jews, he is still like one who is coerced, since he was raised on mistaken beliefs. It is therefore appropriate to try to influence them to return to traditional Jewish observance and beliefs and draw them with pleasant engagement until they return to a Torah life.
  Yonah 4:11 just might serve as the Biblical basis for the Rambam’s assertion. The powerful cultural legacy of idolatry in the ancient near east and the lack of appropriate spiritual guidance in the region make it reasonable for one to classify the people of Nineveh as Tinokot SheNishbu.
  Despite the idea of Tinok SheNishbah as a reason for compassion and innocence, some criticize the idea as literally infantilizing evil doers. These critics argue that such categorization is disrespectful to those who hold errant beliefs. A response to these critics is that indeed the Tinok SheNishbah approach, while it allows for leniency, is not a complimentary appellation. If the misled individual were to be thinking as an adult he would not worship idols or engage in other errant activities or harbor wayward beliefs. Indeed, Hashem compares those who are regarded as Tinok SheNishba to animals who do not know better. Animals do not think and simply follow their instincts. A Tinok SheNishba, while forgivable for his errors, is nonetheless comparable to a brute animal since he proceeds through life just following the herd and failing to think for himself. In contrast, Avraham Avinu and those who follow his path of thoughtful self-determination are the true adults.
  The Limitation of the Tinok SheNishbah RuleOne may wonder, accordingly, why Hashem destroyed Sedom and the Dor HaMabul. Why did Hashem not regard these communities as Tinok Shenishbah? Ramban (Bereishit 6:13) explains that regarding certain very obvious matters, such as theft, one is not considered to be a Tinok SheNishbah. Every human being is able and responsible to realize that theft is wrong even if the ambient culture regards it as acceptable.
  It is for this reason that the Torah (Bereishit 6:13) specifically mentions “Chamas,” “theft,” as the reason for the Mabul. In fact, Chazal (Sanhedrin 108a) assert that the sin of Geneivah (theft) led Hashem to doom the Dor HaMabul to destruction105<i class="footnote">Moreover, according to the rabbinic tradition (Talmud Yerushalmi Bava Metzia 4:12) which states that the people of the Dor HaMabul stole specifically less than a Shaveh Perutah, the minimum amount that is given Halachic significance, in order to avoid prosecution for robbery, these people were keenly aware that theft constitutes an evil act. </i>. Moreover, it is specifically the evil of Chamas that is mentioned in Yonah 3:8 that the people of Nineveh and its leadership corrected.
  According to Abarbanel, Yonah wondered why Hashem accepted the Teshuvah of Nineveh when they repented only for Geneivah but not for Avodah Zarah. Based on Ramban we can answer that regarding Geneivah, the idea of Tinok SheNishbah does not serve as an excuse. Regarding Avodah Zarah, Tinok SheNishba does deem a community as worthy of forgiveness since its mistakenness and inherent evil are not as apparent as that of theft or murder106<i class="footnote">The distinction might come from the fact that Avodah Zarah is said (see the first chapter of the Rambam’s Hilchot Avodah Zarah) to have started as a method of worshipping Hashem and so it is not as inherently evil as murder or theft.</i>.
  Similarly, the straw that broke the camel’s back regarding Sedom was that when they discovered that a young girl had fed a starving beggar, they smeared honey all over her and placed her upon the city wall, so that she died107<i class="footnote">The fact that on a technical level Halacha would classify this as an act of Grama, indirect causation excused from an earthly court’s capital punishment, does not detract one bit from the severity of this hideous act. Moreover, the heavenly court holds us responsible for Grama (Bava Kama 56a) and thus such technicalities did not spare Sedom from Hashem’s retribution. </i> from the stings of the bees attracted by the honey (Rashi to Bereishit 18:21 citing Sanhedrin 109b). Tinok SheNishbah is not an excuse for such unspeakable behavior. In the same way, Nineveh is much later destroyed because it has become the “Ir HaDamim,” “city of blood [murder]108<i class="footnote">A visit to the British Museum in London which displays artistic portrayals of the murderous conquests of the Assyrians displayed on the walls of Assyrian palaces graphically confirms the cogency of Nachum referring to Nineveh as an “Ir Damim”. </i>” (Nachum 3:1).
  My Torah Academy of Bergen County students noted that according to this approach the Nuremberg trials rightfully rejected the “just following orders” defense presented by Nazi war criminals. Every human being is expected to recognize the reprehensible nature of such despicable behavior despite the pervading mood in the surrounding culture.
  The Exception of the JewsOne may ask, then, why Jews are treated differently. For example, the primary reason for Churban Bayit Rishon (the destruction of the first Temple) was Avodah Zarah (see, for example, Yirmiyahu 1:16). Why didn’t Hashem classify the Jews as Tinokot SheNishbu regarding this sin as Hashem did regarding Nineveh? The Abarbanel answers that the presence of Neviim and other proper spiritual guides precludes this possibility. One might also answer that such a negative cultural legacy does not exist amongst our people as it did for the remainder of the residents of the ancient Near East.
  One may also distinguish Bein Yisrael LeAmim (between Israel and the other nations) that, while we are held accountable for a greater range of sins, we are also never completely destroyed. Other nations, however, are held accountable for fewer sins, but when they are judged by Hashem to be guilty of being utterly awash with the most basic sins they are completely destroyed as in the case of Sedom.
  ConclusionHashem explains to Yonah why He was willing to overlook Nineveh’s failure to eliminate Avodah Zarah from its midst. Similarly, it would appear that decent Nochrim (gentiles) who live a moral life but violate the prohibition of Avodah Zarah might nonetheless be admitted to Olam HaBa (the World to Come) despite their error since Hashem regards such actions as forgivable due to negative cultural influence. On the other hand, those who murder in the name of religion are not admitted to Olam HaBa since every human being is capable of knowing better.
  Postscript - Can Morality Exist Absent Belief in GodAlthough we have argued for the ability and responsibility for every human being to intuit that murder and theft are inherently abhorrent and wrong this does not imply that morality can exist without the Shofeit Kol HaAretz (Judge of the Entire Earth). Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (presented in Rav Abraham Besdin’s “Reflections of the Rav”, page 184) masterfully clarifies this matter:
  “The mind certainly condemns murder…But does this abhorrence of murder also apply when the victim is an old, cruel, miserly woman who in the eyes of society was a parasitic wretch, as in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment?…May euthanasia be practiced to relieve the elderly or terminally ill of further suffering? Here the logos hesitates, is uncertain, and imparts no decisive guidance”.
  The spark of divine within all of humanity (the Tzelem Elokim described in Bereishit 1:26-27 as interpreted by Rav Eliyahu Dessler in his Michtav MeiEliyahu) endows humanity with the ability to discern the evil inherent in murder and theft. However, absent divine revelation, the parameters of the proscriptions and the absolute nature of the prohibition to murder are impossible to discern.
  Yom Kippur is a day to repair our relationship with Hashem. We fast and pray for mercy just as the residents of Nineveh did, and like them we hope to be forgiven. However, the focus is not all on Bein Adam LeMakom (between humans and Hashem). As we saw in this article, Hashem let the egregious sin of Avodah Zarah, the epitome of an issue between us and Hashem, slide because the people of Nineveh ceased stealing from one another, a classic issue Bein Adam LeChaveiro, among fellow humans. We see clearly from Sefer Yonah that to have a successful Yom Kippur with Hashem among our first steps must be to repair our relationships with our friends, family, and fellow human beings.
  
  
  
  Chapter 8 - The Famous Unanswered Question of Sefer Yonah
  What a dramatic conclusion to a drama filled Sefer! After a very intense and gut wrenching exchange with Yonah in Perek four, the text concludes with a penetrating question that Hashem posed to Yonah - if you were so invested in the Kikayon, how could I [Hashem] not be invested in the city of Nineveh with its population exceeding 120,000 people?
  Fascinating is the absence of a response from Yonah. The possible interpretations of this silence are tantalizing!
  We should note that there is only one other instance in Tanach where a narrative ends with a question. Bereishit Perek 34 ends with Shimon and Levi’s response to Yaakov Avinu’s criticism of their violent reaction to the kidnapping of Dinah. Shimon and Levi ask “Shall we tolerate our sister being treated as a harlot”? Yaakov Avinu’s response to this question is not recorded.
  Moreover, Sefer Iyov, the other Sefer in Tanach where we find the protagonist engaged in an intense struggle with Hashem, concludes with Iyov explicitly conceding to Hashem’s rebuke. The contrast between Iyov’s explicit concession and Yonah’s silence begs for an explanation.
  In the story in Bereishit there is considerable debate as to how to interpret Yaakov Avinu’s silence. Should we interpret Yaakov Avinu as silently acquiescing to Shimon and Levi’s claim (as Rambam109<i class="footnote">Hilchot Melachim 9:14.</i> believes)? On the other hand, perhaps Yaakov Avinu withheld his response until his dying moments when he rebuked Shimon and Levi once again for their violence at Shechem (as Ramban110<i class="footnote">Bereishit 34:13 and 49:5-6. </i> believes).
  Option Number One - AcquiescenceYalkut Shimoni (551) interprets Yonah’s silence as submission to Hashem’s will. This Midrash records that Yonah stated:
  Immediately Yonah fell on his face and stated Ribbono Shel Olam (Master of the World), I recognize that I sinned before You. Forgive me for fleeing to the sea, as I was unaware of Your great might111<i class="footnote">Aryeh Krischer poses a potent question: If Yonah was submitting to Hashem’s will why is Rachamim completely absent from his statement? What great might does Yonah recognize? What does great might have anything to do with his struggle with Hashem? One may respond that according to the Midrash, Yonah came to recognize the power of restraint that Hashem exercises when judging with compassion. Yoma 69b describes Hashem’s Gevurah (might) when He restrains Himself from immediately punishing evildoers. </i>, which I now recognize.
  Midrash Yonah (Horovitz edition page 21) offers a similar approach:
  “Then he fell on his face and said: “Conduct Your world according to the attribute of mercy, as it is written “LaHashem Elokeinu HaRachamim VeHaSelichot112<i class="footnote">This Pasuk is incorporated in the Sephardic Selichot which is recited daily from Rosh Hodesh Elul until Yom Kippur and after every Tefilah on that great and holy day. </i>,” “to Hashem our God belong mercy and forgiveness” (Daniel 9:9).
  The interpretation of Yonah’s silence as submission is consistent with the Talmudic principle repeated often throughout Shas, Shetikah KeHodaah (silence is the equivalent of admission). Thus, if a litigant in Beit Din, halachic court, claims that his adversary owes him a certain sum of money and the adversary does not respond, the lack of response is to be understood as an admission to the claim.
  Professor Uriel Simon offers a very interesting argument supporting the position that Yonah submitted to, and internalized, Hashem’s message. In Sefer Melachim (Melachim II 14:25) we find that Yonah prophecies great success to Yarovam ben Yoash, a spiritually deficient King of Israel. Sefer Melachim attributes the subsequent success of Yarovam ben Yoash to Hashem’s merciful approach to the Jewish people.
  Accordingly, we see Yonah presenting a message expressing Hashem’s merciful side, despite Yonah’s intense struggle with Hashem to adopt a more strict approach to spiritually deficient individuals. Professor Simon argues that Yonah’s message to Yarovam ben Yoash occurred after the events recorded in Sefer Yonah, after Yonah embraced Hashem’s lenient approach to judgment113<i class="footnote">Yonah’s burial place in Mosul/Nineveh suggests that he never returned to Eretz Yisrael and that the prophecy to Yarovam ben Yoash occurred before he left for Nineveh. </i>.
  We may add to Professor Simon that the reason for Hashem’s lenient approach to Nineveh is identical to his lenient approach to Yerovam ben Yoash. Hashem reasons that Nineveh (according to Abarbanel’s interpretation) does not distinguish between its right and left hands regarding the prohibition of idolatry. Ninveh’s idolatry is forgivable (to paraphrase Torah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Ezra Finkelstein) since idolatry is tragically part of the cultural heritage of Nineveh. Thus, the people of Nineveh may be regarded as the equivalent of a Tinok SheNishba, a Jewish baby captured and raised among idolaters.
  Similarly, Yarovam ben Yoash did not pioneer new acts of Torah violations as did the arch villains of Sefer Melachim such as Yarovam ben Nevat, Achav, and Menashe. Rather, he merely continued the tragic cultural legacies of the leaders of Malchut Yisrael (the Northern Kingdom of Israel). Thus, Yonah expressed the will of Hashem that saw Yarovam ben Yoash as forgivable, which seems to indicate that Yonah had internalized the message communicated to him by Hashem at the conclusion of Yonah Perek 4. Accordingly, Melachim II 14:25 may be seen as analogous to Iyov’s admission to Hashem expressed in Iyov, Perek 42 Pesukim 1-6.
  Finally, we can argue that Yonah’s assumed acquiescence fits with the tradition of reading Sefer Yonah in its entirety during Mincha on Yom Kippur. Yonah’s presumed Teshuvah may be seen as a powerful model of a sinner’s ultimate submission to Hashem, a powerful image as we approach the end of Yom Kippur.
  Option Number Two - Continued ResistanceWe suggest that the silence of Yonah might be interpreted as continued resistance to Hashem. Yonah in Perek 1 resists Hashem both with flight to the sea and absolute silence about his mission. In addition, in the face of the storm, Yonah silently retreats to the very bottom of the ship to flee Hashem’s message.
  Yonah’s silence stands in stark contrast with Iyov’s very lengthy expressions of his struggle with how Hashem administers justice. Thus, Yonah’s silence at the end of the Sefer may be seen as a return to his earlier silent confrontation with Hashem114<i class="footnote">Binyamin Jachter suggests that Yonah felt that he accomplished what Hashem wanted and he is still enduring psychological attacks. To Yonah, Hashem’s actions to him were not Din but over-exaggerated revenge. Therefore, he went into silence as a form of not understanding how Hashem could act in this manner. Yonah is baffled by Hashem’s actions and does not grasp the message Hashem is sending, rendering himself mute as a result.</i>.
  Possible evidence of his continued rebellion might be seen in the odd tradition that Yonah is buried outside of Mosul, which is assumed to be the site of the ancient city of Nineveh. When I began my service as the rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Orah, the Sephardic Congregation of Teaneck, I was informed by the Iraqi Jews in the congregation of their tradition that Yonah was buried in Mosul, Iraq. I responded with incredulity, as why would Yonah be buried in Nineveh. It would appear from Tanach that Nineveh was a place where Yonah merely visited - he lived in Gat Chefer in Israel as recorded in Sefer Melachim (Melachim II 14:25) and that is where one would expect he would be buried.
  However, it turns out that my congregants are correct. There is a strong tradition, held by Jews and non-Jews of Iraq alike, that Yonah is buried in Mosul, Iraq (for a fascinating article on the multicultural appreciation of Yonah’s burial site that recently appeared in The Atlantic, see 
  Many of my Torah Academy of Bergen County students suggest that perhaps Yonah is buried outside of Mosul/Nineveh because Yonah never returned to Eretz Yisrael! They suggest that perhaps Yonah stubbornly maintained his vigil outside of Nineveh waiting until they return to their old bad habits to then call on Hashem to destroy the city! According to this approach Yonah never recanted, retracted, or backed down from his oppositional stance to Hashem’s Middat HaRachamim until his dying day!
  Torah Academy of Bergen County Talmid Akiva Motechin suggests a different approach to Yonah’s burial site in Nineveh. He suggests that perhaps Yonah internalized Hashem’s message and remained in Nineveh to encourage its residents to stay the course and avoid future destruction. Perhaps along the lines of the Midrash presented in the Yalkut Shimoni, Yonah then became emotionally invested in the welfare of Nineveh and never left the city. This might account for the multicultural appreciation for the burial site of Yonah, as he might have become a beloved figure in the city of Nineveh115<i class="footnote">One wonders then why the people of Nineveh reverted to their evil ways by the time of Sefer Nachum. We might answer that after Yonah’s death, while there remained a nostalgic positive feeling for the personality of Yonah, his messages might have come to be overlooked and forgotten. </i>. The multicultural appreciation for the site might reflect an age old appreciation for the Navi who came to feel a connection to the city following the trail blazed by Hashem.
  Pesukim Read after Completing Yonah at Mincha on Yom KippurBoth Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews add to the reading of Yonah at Mincha on Yom Kippur the last three Pesukim of Sefer Michah (Tur Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 622 and Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 622:2). These Pesukim state:
  יח מִי-אֵל כָּמוֹךָ, נֹשֵׂא עָוֺן וְעֹבֵר עַל-פֶּשַׁע, לִשְׁאֵרִית, נַחֲלָתוֹ: לֹא-הֶחֱזִיק לָעַד אַפּוֹ, כִּי-חָפֵץ חֶסֶד הוּא. יט יָשׁוּב יְרַחֲמֵנוּ, יִכְבֹּשׁ עֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ; וְתַשְׁלִיךְ בִּמְצֻלוֹת יָם, כָּל-חַטֹּאותָם. כ תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב, חֶסֶד לְאַבְרָהָם, אֲשֶׁר-נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ, מִימֵי קֶדֶם.
  18 Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger forever, because He delighteth in mercy. 19 He will again have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. 20 Thou wilt show faithfulness to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old (translation from Jewish Publication Society, 1917).
  Professor Simon (page xiii) explains our adding these three Pesukim as an expression of Yonah’s recanting his condemnation of Hashem’s overemphasis of Midddat HaRachamim by reciting the praises of Hashem Who desires to be gracious to His creations and lighten the burden of their sins and transgressions.
  One, however, can interpret our adding the last three Pesukim of Sefer Michah as the listeners’ and readers’ reaction to Sefer Yonah. One can understand that Hashem cuts Yonah off at the end of the Sefer, keeping the last word for Himself. This represents Hashem’s rejection of Yonah’s complaint by ending the conversation with Yonah, similar to His statement to Moshe Rabbeinu “Al Tosef Dabeir Eilai Od BaDavar HaZeh,” “no longer speak to me about this matter” (Devarim 3:26). We the listeners and readers of Sefer Yonah find the conclusion of Sefer Yonah and the scope of Hashem’s Middat HaRachamim to be utterly breathtaking and we therefore excitedly exclaim the final Pesukim of Sefer Michah. It is quite possible that Yonah never bought into this message. Yonah, though, is sidelined at the end of the Sefer. His complaint is heard but, at the conclusion, resoundingly rejected.
  ConclusionFrom beginning to end, every nook and cranny of Sefer Yonah demands deep thought and introspection. The surprising conclusion of the Sefer fits with the deeply intriguing character of the Sefer and lends itself to manifold interpretations. One should never dismiss Sefer Yonah as a mere entertaining tale to which we are regaled every Yom Kippur Mincha. Rather, it is a profound work brimming with deep meaning that yields unparalleled deep insights into Hashem and the human condition for which we reserve reading at the most opportune time of the holiest day of the year.