Why was Sefer Yonah Included in Tanach? (Part 1 of 2)

I will be teaching Sefer Yonah for the first time this year. Since this is also the first time I've learned Sefer Yonah, I thought it might be a good idea to write out some of my findings, in an effort to organize my thoughts and better prepare myself for the course I'll be teaching. I hesitate to preemptively refer to this as a "series," but we'll be optimistic and see where this goes.

Assyrian Archers

Why was Sefer Yonah Included in Tanach? (Part 1 of 2)

The Question

The Radak begins his commentary on Sefer Yonah with a basic question:

One might ask: Why was this prophecy [of Yonah] written in the Kisvei ha'Kodesh, seeing as how (a) it is entirely about Ninveh, which belonged to the gentile nations, and (b) it contains no mention whatsoever of Israel? There is nothing like this in all of the Neviim.

Before we tackle this question, it would be prudent to review Chazal's general criterion for which prophecies were included in Kisvei ha'Kodesh and which were not: 

Many prophets arose for Yisrael - twice as many as the [number of Jews who] left Egypt - but only those prophecies which were necessary for [future] generations were written down, while those which were not needed for future generations were not written (Megilah 14a).

Rashi (ad loc.) explains the phrase "a prophecy which was necessary for [future] generations" to mean "[a prophecy which was necessary in order] to teach teshuvah or horaah (instruction)." 

One might think that this statement of Chazal paves the way for an answer to the Radak's question, namely, by allowing us to infer that Sefer Yonah was written and included in Kisvei haKodesh in order to teach some lesson in teshuvah or horaah to future generations. Upon further scrutiny, however, we see that this statement of Chazal is the basis of the Radak's question. Chazal introduced their principle with the words: "Many prophets arose for Yisrael." The Radak is bothered by the fact that Yonah didn't "arise for Yisrael" at all! He prophesied to Ninveh, and didn't even mention Yisrael! 

Radak offers three answers to his own question. The Abravanel objects to the Radak's first answer, and provides an answer of his own. We will examine the Radak's first answer and the Abravanel's answer in Part 1 of this blog post, and we will take up the Radak's second and third answers in Part 2.

Answer #1: Catalyst for Teshuvah

Radak's first answer is probably the most well-known: 

It is possible to explain that [Sefer Yonah] was written in order to serve as a mussar (disciplinary teaching) to Yisrael, for behold - a foreign nation which has no relation to Yisrael was close to doing teshuvah, and they actually did teshuvah shleimah from their evil the first time they were rebuked by a navi. [On the other hand,] Yisrael was rebuked day and night by neviim, and didn't do teshuvah from their wickedness. 

In other words, Sefer Yonah is meant to serve as a standing rebuke to Bnei Yisrael by drawing our attention to Ninveh as a paradigmatic response to a navi's call to teshuvah and inspiring us to follow in Ninveh's footsteps. 

This explanation is reflected in the selection of Sefer Yonah as the haftorah for minchah of Yom ha'Kippurim. Why else would we read this sefer on the final day of teshuvah, if not to inspire us to do teshuvah like the people in the story? Similarly, back when public fasts were decreed on account of catastrophes (e.g. droughts, plagues, wars), Sefer Yonah played an integral part of the halachically mandated communal teshuvah procedure, as outlined by the Rambam in Hilchos Taaniyos 4:2:

Afterwards, one of the wise elders [of the community] stands before them while they are sitting. If there is no wise elder, a man of wisdom should be chosen. If there is no man of wisdom, a man of stature should be chosen. He should speak words of rebuke to them, telling them: "Brethren, it is not sackcloth and fasting that will have an effect, but rather teshuvah and good deeds. This is evident from [the story of] Ninveh. It is not stated with regard to the people of Nineveh, 'And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting,' but rather, 'And God saw their deeds' (Yonah 3:10). Similarly, in the words of the prophetic tradition, it is written, 'Rend your hearts and not your garments' (Yoel 2:13)" He should continue in this vein according to his ability until they are humbled and turn [to God] in complete repentance.

Abravanel doesn't buy the Radak's explanation:

If we were to explain that [Sefer Yonah] was written as a mussar to Yisrael, to motivate them to do teshuvah like the citizens of Ninveh, this would be an extremely weak explanation. If Bnei Yisrael won't take mussar from the mitzvos of the Torah and the words of the Neviim, how will they take mussar from the actions of the citizens of Ninveh? 

Furthermore, nowhere is it mentioned that the bamos (altars), pesilim (graven images), and false gods were removed from Ninveh, because they still held fast to all of these things, in spite of their teshuvah. What, exactly, is the mussar that Bnei Yisrael are supposed to take from that [partial kind of teshuvah]?

The Abravanel is bothered by two points: (1) if the neviim sent to our own nation failed to motivate us to do teshuvah, then the neviim sent to another nation will certainly won't motivate us; (2) how can we look to Ninveh as our role model for teshuvah if their teshuvah wasn't complete? They neglected to do teshuvah for the most severe sin of avodah zarah! What kind of message does that send to Bnei Yisrael? That's like trying to inspire a teenager to become a straight-A student by pointing to another student who raised her grade in Art Class from a D to an A, but who flunked out of Math, History, and English! (Reminder: I'm preparing to teach Yonah to high school students; please excuse any mashalim which you find to be #unrelatable.)

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how the Radak would respond to the Abravanel's objections. The best I can do is offer my own defense of the Radak's answer, and suggest a framework for understanding their machlokes.

In order to defend the Radak's explanation, we must recognize who the people of Ninveh were, and appreciate the impression that their teshuvah would make on us, as members of the Jewish people. Ninveh was the capital of the Assyrian Empire - one of the most savage, ruthless, horrific nations in the Ancient World (as detailed by this gruesome article on Assyrian torture practices). Moreover, the Assyrians were the ones who would eventually go on to conquer the Northern Kingdom of Israel and bring about the exile of the Ten Tribes. According to my chavrusa (who happens to be quite the historian), the closest contemporary analogue to the Assyrian Empire is none other than Nazi Germany: a notoriously brutal and powerful regime which targeted the nation of Israel for destruction. 

Now, imagine what would happen if, in the middle of World War II, a Jewish leader traveled to Berlin and called for the Nazi's to repent from their evil ways ... and think about what it would be like if they did. Imagine seeing the entire population of Nazi Germany - led by none other than Hitler himself - don sackcloth, fast for three days and three nights, and cry out to Hashem for forgiveness. Imagine the Nazis voluntarily closing up the camps, freeing the Jews, returning their homes and possessions, showing genuine remorse for their actions, and expressing their regret to such an extent that the Jews of Europe actually forgave them. Wow, right? Seems impossible. But that's exactly the type of teshuvah that the barbaric Assyrians of Ninveh did:

The people of Ninveh believed in God, so they proclaimed a fast and donned sackcloth, from their great to their small. The matter reached the king of Ninveh; he rose from his throne, removed his robe from upon himself, covered himself with sackcloth and sat on the ashes, and had it promulgated and declared in Ninveh by the counsel of the king and his nobles, saying: "The man and the animal, the herd and the flock shall not taste anything; they shall neither graze, nor drink water. Both man and animal shall cover themselves with sackcloth; and they shall call out mightily to God. Every man shall turn back from his evil way, and from the robbery that is in their hands. He who knows shall repent and God will relent; He will turn away from His burning wrath so that we not perish." And God saw their deeds, that they had repented from their evil way; and God relented concerning the evil He said He would bring upon them, and did not do it.

The Abarbanel is correct in saying that we Jews have a bad track record when it comes to listening to calls for teshuvah from our own prophets. However, if we saw our enemies do real teshuvah, that would have a different sort of impact on us - one which might actually inspire us to do teshuvah ourselves. That, I believe, is the type of inspirational message that Sefer Yonah is intended to convey. In my opinion, that is far from "an extremely weak explanation."

And how would the Abravanel respond to this? I really don't know. I would like to think that he would agree, in principle, with my defense of the Radak, but that he would nevertheless maintain that this isn't sufficient to warrant including in Kisvei ha'Kodesh a prophecy which was directed at a gentile nation, and which doesn't even mention Yisrael. 

In other words, if Radak and Abravanel sat down to discuss why Sefer Yonah was included in Kisvei ha'Kodesh, I would not expect them to argue about whether or not Bnei Yisrael would be inspired by the teshuvah of Ninveh; rather, I would expect them to argue about whether that inspiration would be a sufficient basis for including Sefer Yonah in Kisvei ha'Kodesh. 

Unfortunately, my chavrusas and I were unable to define the root of the machlokes any further. If you have any insight, I would love to hear it.

Answer #2: Yonah's Piety (etc.)

In the meantime, the Abravanel offers his own explanation for why Sefer Yonah was included in Kisvei ha'Kodesh: 

Rather, according to what I have explained, Sefer Yonah was written [and included] among the Kisvei ha'Kodesh not on account of Ninveh, but on account of Yonah, and the strength of his piety, and the miracle that was done on his behalf, and in order that we should know that the word of God will forever be established.

Whereas the Radak's answer places Ninveh in the spotlight, the Abravanel maintains that Ninveh is merely the backdrop for the lessons to be learned from the prophet Yonah and his odyssey, with all of its ups and downs. 

I think that these two views of Sefer Yonah lead to two different experiences when learning the sefer. Based on the Radak's answer, our focus in learning Sefer Yonah should be the lessons about teshuvah that we learn from Ninveh. According to the Abravanel, our main focus should be on Yonah's struggle and Hashem's dialogue with him. 

Thankfully, I find myself drawn to different aspects of both approaches, and plan on learning Sefer Yonah using the commentary of the Radak and the Abravanel - among others. And that's just fine with me.