[Avodah] Eliyahu on Har Carmel

[Chana Luntz]

I am sending this to Avodah as the chances the moderators of Areivim will
let it through there are, I suspect, pretty slim.  I have therefore renamed
the title.

RZS writes:
> Eliyahu had not just permission but a command to do it -- not from
> any beit din, but from Hashem. 

Well the Radak (on Melachim 1 18:21) is mesupik as to whether Eliyahu did
indeed have a command to do it, or whether he did it out of his own svara
an action to which Hashem subsequently acquiesced (this is despite the pasuk
at 18:36 saying ubidvarecha asiti which would seem to imply that it was done
at Hashem's command) -- because other than this later statement of Eliyahu,
there is no record of any such command from Hashem and this pasuk can be
explained to mean for Hashem's sake rather than under his direct command
(this being the explanation he appears to prefer).


 And we would need a similar command
> from Hashem to do the same.  I don't think any beit din would have
> the authority to give permission, let alone command it. 

Tosphos too takes the view (see Sanhedrin 89b) that in fact Eliyahu acted on
har Carmel out of his own initiative, precisely because the actions of
Eliyahu on Har Carmel are used by Rav Chisda on Yevamos 90b as a
justification to allow the Chachamim to act in a horaas sha'ah by abrogating
a Torah law, and if Eliyahu had acted only in accordance with a command of
Hashem then there would be no proof to Rav Chisda's position (or at the very
least, even if there was in fact a command from HaShem, the he would have
been able to act in such a way as an established navi even if there had been
no command from Hashem.  This is also because as stated in Megilla 2b, a
navi is not allowed to be mechadesh anything, so were it not for the fact
that the Chachamim have the power to suspend a Torah law in a horaas sha'ah
then neither would a Navi have that power.  They then explain [d'vrecha] as
being because Eliyahu darshened a pasuk in Breishis as pointing to his
actions on har Carmel, see there (ie Tosphos Sandhedrin 89b s'v "Eliyahu
bhar haCarmel".

> --
> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
> zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.

Shavuah Tov

Chana