Eikev, Nechemta II, Yishayah 49:14 – 51:3

It’s been a while! No promises about how regular this can be, but Baruch Hashem, I was able to write down some thoughts on this week’s haftarah.

Context

The first part of the book of Yishayahu is wide-ranging, but politically and historically, it focuses on a time in which Yehudah and Yisrael are being threatened by Ashur and exploring alliances with Mitzrayim. Yishayahu discouraged that alliance and predicted its negative consequences; he tried to convince people to rely on Hashem instead. Chapter 40 of Yishayahu marks a shift in attention to a different historical era and a more redemptive tone. Chapter 45 describes G-d handing power to Koresh or Cyrus, king of Persia. Then, Chapter 47 describes Babylonia being punished for its excessive punishment of Judah. Shortly before our haftarah, the Jews are told in 48:20 — Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea! The time for redemption is near.

Overview

[49:14-23] G-d remembers Zion in her suffering, and returns the Jews in great numbers.

[49:24-26] G-d will redeem the Jews from their captors and harshly punish them.

[50:1-3] G-d: I never banished you, so why don’t you trust Me to redeem?

[50:4-11] Yishayah: G-d gave me a mission, and I fulfill it without fear despite attacks.

[51:1-3] Look to Avraham and Sarah for inspiration. Zion is comforted.

Who bore these for me?

There is a strange pairing of metaphors in the beginning of the haftarah. On the one hand, G-d is compared to the mother of Zion. Zion complains “Hashem has abandoned me” to which G-d responds

טו הֲתִשְׁכַּח אִשָּׁה עוּלָהּ, מֵרַחֵם בֶּן-בִּטְנָהּ? גַּם-אֵלֶּה תִשְׁכַּחְנָה, וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ.  

15. Can a woman forget her baby, Or disown the child of her womb? Though she might forget, I never could forget you.

Then, He reassures Zion that her children are returning; now, Zion is the mother and the Jews are the children. But unlike the Mother G-d Who could not forget Her children, Zion seems not to recognize her children.

כא וְאָמַרְתְּ בִּלְבָבֵךְ, “מִי יָלַד-לִי אֶת-אֵלֶּה, וַאֲנִי שְׁכוּלָה, וְגַלְמוּדָה; גֹּלָה וְסוּרָה, וְאֵלֶּה מִי גִדֵּל– הֵן אֲנִי נִשְׁאַרְתִּי לְבַדִּי, אֵלֶּה אֵיפֹה הֵם.”  {פ}

21. And you will say to yourself, “Who bore these for me When I was bereaved and barren, Exiled and disdained— By whom, then, were these reared? I was left all alone— And where have these been?”

The essential feature of a mother underlined at the beginning of the haftarah is her recognition of her children, but Zion defies this characteristic just verses later. How are we to understand this?

One answer is that Zion has not actually forgotten her children, but that this reaction is one of disbelief. My children were lost irretrievably, these could not be them.

Along these lines, Malbim has a beautiful reading of verses 21 – 23, as follows. In verse 21, Zion asked three questions “1. Who bore these? 2. By whom were these reared? 3. Where are these coming from?”  (Malbim interprets the third question differently from the JPS translation above.)

In the subsequent two verses, G-d responds in reverse order: 3. “I will raise My hand to nations..they shall bring your sons”; in other words, these children are coming from the nation. 2. “Kings shall tend your children, their queens shall serve you as nurses.” Your children were cared for and freed by the kings of the other nation (Perhaps an allusion to Cyrus.) 1. “I am the LORD, Those who trust in Me will not be shamed.” You thought that your children had been forever lost to captivity, so these children must be others. But I am Hashem, and it is within My power to redeem and return those same children.

Another possible interpretation is that the trauma of the Destruction had robbed Zion of her very identity as a mother. She had regressed to the dependent child, bemoaning her abandonment by G-d, her Mother. The idea of children dependent on Zion to “make room for them” is so foreign that it requires a complete reset.

Where is the bill of divorce?

Chapter 50 begins with a stark challenge from Hashem to the Jews:

א כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה, 

אֵי זֶה סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת אִמְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ, 

אוֹ מִי מִנּוֹשַׁי, אֲשֶׁר-מָכַרְתִּי אֶתְכֶם לוֹ; 

הֵן בַּעֲוֺנֹתֵיכֶם נִמְכַּרְתֶּם, וּבְפִשְׁעֵיכֶם שֻׁלְּחָה אִמְּכֶם.  

ב מַדּוּעַ בָּאתִי וְאֵין אִישׁ, קָרָאתִי וְאֵין עוֹנֶה–

הֲקָצוֹר קָצְרָה יָדִי מִפְּדוּת, וְאִם-אֵין-בִּי כֹחַ לְהַצִּיל; 

הֵן בְּגַעֲרָתִי אַחֲרִיב יָם, אָשִׂים נְהָרוֹת מִדְבָּר, 

תִּבְאַשׁ דְּגָתָם מֵאֵין מַיִם, וְתָמֹת בַּצָּמָא. 

ג אַלְבִּישׁ שָׁמַיִם, קַדְרוּת; וְשַׂק, אָשִׂים כְּסוּתָם.  {פ}

 

1. So said Hashem: Where is the bill of divorce of your mother whom I dismissed? And which of My creditors was it to whom I sold you off? You were only sold off for your sins, and your mother dismissed for your crimes. 2. Why, when I came, was no one there, Why, when I called, would none respond? Is My arm, then, too short to rescue, Have I not the power to save? With a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, And turn rivers into desert. Their fish stink from lack of water; They lie dead of thirst. 3. I clothe the skies in blackness And make their raiment sackcloth.

The beginning of verse 1 is posed as a rhetorical question, set up to be contradicted by the end of the verse. Question: Where is the bill of divorce of your mother? (Implication: Your mother was never divorced!) Question: Which of My creditors did I sell you to? (Implication: You were never sold off!) But the implied contradictions we would expect seem to be subverted in the end of the verse — the mother was sent away, the children were sold.

How then does the conclusion of the verse contrast with the beginning?

One contrast is who initiates the punishment of the Jews. In the first half of verse 1, G-d supposes that He gave the bill of divorce and that His debtors demanded the sale. No, it was the Jews’ sins that mandated G-d’s punishment; they brought it on themselves. The upside of this idea is that G-d does not desire distance from the Jewish people. He did not cast them off of His own Will, so there are no barriers to their repentance and return to Him. Once they repent of the deeds that pushed them away from G-d, they will be able to return to him.

This idea is put forward by the Abarbanel on the verse.

והענין דומה לאשה שחטאה לבעלה וכאשר הכירה בחטאתיה קודם שיגרשנה מעליו היא מעצמה יצאה מן הבית ושולחה משם מבלי שהבעל ישלחנה ולא יגרשנה, וזהו אומרו ובפשעיכם שלחה אמכם לא אמר שלחתי אמכם כי אם שולחה…ולכן עליהם העון הזה שאחרי שחטאו והלכו בגלות היה להם לשוב בתשובה וינחם השם על הרעה וימהר גאולתו, והם לא עשו כן כי החזיקו ברשעתם ולא שבו עוד אליו.

The matter is similar to a woman who wronged her husband, and when she recognized her sins, before he banished her from him, she left the house of her own accord, and was sent away from there without the husband ever sending her or banishing her. For this reason it says “due to your sins, your mother was sent.” — he did not say “I sent your mother”, rather “your mother was sent.”… And therefore, this guilt is upon them. For after they sinned and went into exile, they should have repented, and G-d would reverse the evil and hasten the redemption. But they did not repent, rather they held fast to their wickedness and did not return to him.

Alternatively, the contrast between the two halves of the verse is one of degree. Hashem says, I did not give your mother a bill of divorce; instead, I only sent her away. This was only a temporary punishment, not a permanent divorce.

Malbim expresses this in his commentary:

אם משלחה מפני שמאס בה משלחה לחלוטין ונותן בידה ספר כריתות ואז אין לה לצפות שישוב אליה עוד, אבל אם שלחה מפני שמרדה כנגדו מגרשה מביתו רק לפי שעה, ואינו נותן בידה ספר כריתות ועת תיטיב מעשיה ישיבה לביתו

If He sends her away because He despises her, He would send her completely and put a bill of divorce in her hand and so she should not expect to return to Him again. But if He sent her because she rebelled against Him and he banishes her from His house only temporarily, and He does not give her a bill of divorce. Then, when she improves her deeds, He will return her to His house.

What about the sale? If the sale was to debtors, then there are obstacles to reacquisition. The owner would need to collect the funds to buy them back. But here they are sold in only a general way, so that this is not an obstacle. (An even edgier reading, which I have no linguistic evidence to justify, is that the verse is saying that the Jews were sold to their sins. Sin was their master, not anyone that G-d had given them to. Only they could buy their freedom from sin.)

Look to the rock you were hewn from

After a passage in which Yishayah describes his own persecution, the haftarah ends with three verses addressed to pursuers of justice and seekers of G-d.

א שִׁמְעוּ אֵלַי רֹדְפֵי צֶדֶק, מְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה;

הַבִּיטוּ אֶל-צוּר חֻצַּבְתֶּם, וְאֶל-מַקֶּבֶת בּוֹר נֻקַּרְתֶּם.  

ב הַבִּיטוּ אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֲבִיכֶם, וְאֶל-שָׂרָה תְּחוֹלֶלְכֶם:  

כִּי-אֶחָד קְרָאתִיו, וַאֲבָרְכֵהוּ וְאַרְבֵּהוּ.  

ג כִּי-נִחַם יְהוָה צִיּוֹן, נִחַם כָּל-חָרְבֹתֶיהָ, 

וַיָּשֶׂם מִדְבָּרָהּ כְּעֵדֶן, וְעַרְבָתָהּ כְּגַן-יְהוָה; 

שָׂשׂוֹן וְשִׂמְחָה יִמָּצֵא בָהּ, תּוֹדָה וְקוֹל זִמְרָה.

1. Listen to Me, you who pursue justice, You who seek the LORD: Look to the rock you were hewn from, To the quarry you were dug from. 2. Look back to Abraham your father And to Sarah who brought you forth. For he was only one when I called him, But I blessed him and made him many. 3. Truly the LORD has comforted Zion, comforted all her ruins; He has made her wilderness like Eden, her desert like the Garden of the LORD. Gladness and joy shall abide there, thanksgiving and the sound of music.

This passage justifies the inclusion of Yishayah’s struggles. He speaks to the individual righteous person, who may feel persecuted or alone (like Yishayahu has) that they should take inspiration from Avraham and Sarah. Just like you, Avraham and Sarah started out on their own, but Hashem blessed them and made them many. 

Yishayahu connects his personal story and the story of each righteous person to the national redemption that he foretells. Zion which now feels alone and persecuted will also be comforted and blessed, filled with joy and song.

Shabbat Shalom!

Rosh Hashanah Day I, Shmuel Alef 1:1-2:10

Hello, my dear readers! (Reader?) I return to you after something of an unplanned hiatus. I recently moved across the country to begin a tenure-track job in Florida. I will be back in CA for the Spring so my absence is short-term this time around.

Despite the transition and getting ready for classes, I was hoping to keep the blog going. Then, I came up against the end of Yishayah. As difficult as the first section of Yishayah is, the later chapters are (to me) incredibly difficult to understand. I tried to get some analysis together but I failed to generate anything I found convincing or insightful. So, in part thanks to the advice of Jamie Conway, I decided to take some time to work through these haftarot in the context of the sefer as a whole. I’m hoping this will give me better context to understand them.

After that decision, I took a look at my coverage of haftarot so far. I have blogged about 36 haftarot, and there are approximately 45 haftarot left to cover. (The approximate-ness is due to overlapping haftarot.) Of those, 15 come from Yishayah 40-66. That leaves another 30 haftarot that I pray I will be able to blog about. After writing about those, iy”H I plan to do a Yishayah unit, where we will cover all of the remaining difficult haftarot.

So that’s my plan, dear reader(s), and it means another 1-1.5 years of haftarah analysis. I hope you stick with me :-). For this week, I’m going to jump into the story of Chanah. I can’t address anything close to all of it, but we’ll try to touch some key points.

Context

This story is the very beginning of the book of Shmuel. The historical context then is the book of Shoftim. The era was tumultuous with constant invading armies from the neighboring nations. There was also internal strife characterized by the tyrannical reign of Avimelech son of Gidon and the horrific story of the concubine in Givah (pilegesh b’givah). Interestingly, the book of Shmuel doesn’t deal with any of this history head on — instead the kingship seems to bloom from nowhere in particular. The transition from Shoftim to Shmuel definitely merits further study.

Overview

[1:1-8] Elkanah has two wives: Peninah with many children and Chanah with none. Chanah is persecuted and miserable.

[1:9-18] Chanah prays in sorrow swearing that if she is blessed with a son, he will be devoted to G-d’s worship. Eli the priest views her prayer, and he accuses her of drunkenness. When she explains herself, he blesses her that her prayer should be fulfilled.

[1:19-28] Chanah is blessed with a son whom she names Shmuel. She keeps him at home until he is weaned, and then she brings him to Eli.

[2:1-10] Chanah prays a prayer of thanks to G-d, noting how G-d reverses fortunes.

“And Elkanah had two wives”

The archetype of two wives is so familiar in the Bible that it almost seems cliche. When the Navi resorts to a cliche, it’s usually telling us something — something must be different about the usage of the cliche here that makes a point about our story.

Let’s survey the history of wife-pairs through the Bible and see what we can glean (Lemech had two wives Adah and Tzilah, but neither has an independent character to speak of, so we skip them)

1. Avraham’s two “wives” were really one wife Sarah, and one concubine Hagar, the Egyptian maidservant who Sarah gave to her husband so she could have a child with him. After she successfully has a child, Hagar views Sarah with disrespect, and Sarah responds by tormenting her (ותענה). The conflict is settled in Sarah’s favor, with the eventual banishment of Hagar.
2. Yaakov’s two wives Rachel and Leah. Yaakov openly favors Rachel as his beloved. Meanwhile, Leah successfully has children long before Rachel does. The conflict expresses itself in a few ways — a) Rachel envies her sister and demands children from Yaakov. b) In naming their sons, Leah continually pines for the affection of her husband, while Rachel yearns to one-up her sister. c) In the story of the duda’im, Leah accuses Rachel of stealing Yaakov from her. This conflict is never decided in either wife’s favor.
3. The mitzvah of bechor ben ha’snuah in Devarim 21:15. Here, too, a man (in this case a generic man) has two wives, one favored and one disfavored. The disfavored wife is blessed with children first. No information is given about the family dynamics, but the Torah comes out clearly in defense of the property rights of the disfavored wife’s son.

In these three cases in the Torah, we find one favored wife vindicated, one disfavored wife vindicated, and one conflict that is never quite resolved. On this background, we approach the story of Chanah and Peninah.

Like with Sarah and Hagar, one wife (Peninah) consciously abuses the other (Chanah). Like with Rachel and Leah, the open favoritism demonstrated by the husband (Elkanah) exacerbates the conflict between the wives — Chanah is given מנה אחת אפים, a “generous portion” as most commentators translate it, compared to the standard portion received by Peninah and her children. Peninah then abuses and angers her. The idea of a distribution of portions also echoes the concepts in Devarim — there too, we are dealing with a distribution of inheritance.

How then does our story differ? In the Sarah-Hagar story, Hagar demonstrated contempt or dismissal of Sarah, which violated the hierarchy, and in some sense began the conflict. In our story, Chanah is blameless. In the Rachel-Leah story, Rachel blames her husband for her inability to conceive; he responds by asking, “Do I stand in G-d’s place?” Chanah does not blame Elkanah for her plight; instead, Elkanah blames her for her sadness, asserting that he should be as good as ten sons! Finally, while the disfavored wife is given property rights in Devarim, Chanah’s privileged portion appears to be unchallenged by the prophetic narrator.

The gist of all these differences is that Chanah is truly the righteous underdog in every respect. She has no faults to speak of. This is why her eventual vindication holds so much emotional power. The triumph of a pure-hearted martyr is worth celebrating.

One additional story of two wives in Tanach that I haven’t yet listed even further extends the genre. That is, the story of Rut and Orpah in Megilat Rut. Without much time to go into detail, there are a number of strange parallels.

1. Just as Elkanah says “Am I not better for you than ten sons?”, the women of Naomi’s city say to her after the birth of Oved “your daughter-in-law bore her for you, who is better to you than seven sons.”
2. In verse 10, the prophet describes Chanah as “marat-nefesh”, bitter of spirit. When Naomi returns from Mo’av, she tells people to call her Marah, because G-d has embittered her life.
3. In verse 18, Chanah tells Eli “May your maidservant find favor in your eyes”. Similarly, in Chapter 2 of Rut, she tells Boaz, “May I find favor in your eyes, because you have spoken to the heart of your servant.”

In general, the Boaz – Rut – Na’ami dynamic bears similarity to the Eli – Chanah – Elkanah dynamic. I don’t have much insight into why this parallel exists, except that the origin stories for David and Shmuel, the anointed and anointer, may lay the seeds for their intertwined destinies.

And he shall dwell there for eternity

To my knowledge, there aren’t too many vows made in Tanach. People often make declarations, e.g. Moshe demanding to be erased from the Torah if G-d destroys the people, but it’s rarely referred to as a “neder”. Here are the five examples I found:

1. Ya’akov swears to build an altar at Beit El if G-d protects him, feeds him and clothes him. (Bereishit 28)
2. The nation (collectively) of Israel swears that if G-d gives them victory over the Emori, then they will consecrate their cities. (Bamidbar 21)
3. Yiftach swears that if he has victory over Amon, then he will sacrifice the first thing to greet him from his house. (Shoftim 11)
4. Chanah swears that if G-d gives her a son then she will give him to G-d for eternity, and he will not put a razor on his head (our chapter Shmuel Alef 1).
5. Avshalom tells David that he swore while in Geshur to bring a sacrifice if G-d allowed him to settle in Jerusalem. (Shmuel Bet 15)

In each of these cases besides Chanah, there is a concrete exchange of a favor from G-d for a sacrifice or service to G-d. With Chanah, the exchange is a bit messier. The favor is precisely the sacrifice that she will return to G-d. This ambiguity is reflected later when in verses 27-28:

כז אֶל-הַנַּעַר הַזֶּה, הִתְפַּלָּלְתִּי; וַיִּתֵּן ה’ לִי אֶת-שְׁאֵלָתִי, אֲשֶׁר שָׁאַלְתִּי מֵעִמּוֹ.

כח וְגַם אָנֹכִי, הִשְׁאִלְתִּהוּ לַה’, כָּל-הַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה, הוּא שָׁאוּל לַה’; וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ שָׁם, לה’.

27 “It was this boy that I prayed for, and Hashem has granted me what I asked of Him.

28 I, in turn, hereby lend him to Hashem. For as long as he lives he is lent to Hashem.”

On one hand, Shmuel was borrowed by Chanah; on the other hand, he was lent to G-d!

This unusual give-and-return may give us insight into Chanah’s relationship with G-d. It’s not about an exchange where after the conclusion, both parties can go their merry way. It’s a partnership that, after being formed, will never be dissolved. As Chanah says in her prayer, “the feet of His righteous He shall guard.”

“He raises the poor from the dust”

Shirat Chanah is beautiful and it discusses how G-d can turn destinies upside down. He makes the poor rich, and the rich poor. He humbles the proud, and exalts the humble. It bears a lot of resemblance to the first mizmor of Hallel, Psalm 113, in particular, the following verses:

ז מְקִימִי מֵעָפָר דָּל; מֵאַשְׁפֹּת, יָרִים אֶבְיוֹן.

ח לְהוֹשִׁיבִי עִם-נְדִיבִים; עִם, נְדִיבֵי עַמּוֹ.

7 He raises the poor from the dust, lifts up the needy from the refuse heap

8 to set them with the great, with the great men of His people.

Compare that to verse 2:8 in Chanah’s song:

ח מֵקִים מֵעָפָר דָּל, מֵאַשְׁפֹּת יָרִים אֶבְיוֹן,

לְהוֹשִׁיב עִם-נְדִיבִים, וְכִסֵּא כָבוֹד יַנְחִלֵם:

8 He raises the poor from the dust, Lifts up the needy from the dunghill,

Setting them with nobles, Granting them seats of honor.

Similarly, consider the following verse (I Samuel 2:5) which explicitly invokes Chanah’s predicament:

ה שְׂבֵעִים בַּלֶּחֶם נִשְׂכָּרוּ, וּרְעֵבִים חָדֵלּוּ,

עַד-עֲקָרָה יָלְדָה שִׁבְעָה, וְרַבַּת בָּנִים אֻמְלָלָה.

5 Men once sated must hire out for bread; Men once hungry hunger no more.

While the barren woman bears seven, The mother of many is forlorn.

Now see its analog in Psalm 113:

ט מוֹשִׁיבִי, עֲקֶרֶת הַבַּיִת– אֵם-הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה: הַלְלוּ-קהּ.

9 He sets the childless woman among her household as a happy mother of children. Hallelujah.

The interesting observation that arises in comparing these two poems is that Shirat Chanah has a bitter edge. While Psalm 113 praises G-d only for reversing someone’s negative fortune and granting good fortune, Shirat Chanah also describes the downturn of those with good fortune.

This contrast highlights the contrast between the prose and poetry of our haftarah. As we observed above, Chanah’s actions are blameless. While Peninah and even Eli mistreat her, Chanah does not retaliate. Her only revenge is by praying for G-d’s help. Meanwhile, in the Shirah, Chanah “widens her mouth” over her enemies.

There is an interesting midrash about the verse “While the barren woman bears seven, the mother of many is forlorn.” The midrash wants to literally connect these words to the story of Chanah and Peninah, but Chanah only had 5 children after Shmuel, and Peninah never lost her children. The midrash (which I cannot presently locate but does exist!) explains that originally Peninah had 10 children and Chanah had none. With the birth of each child to Chanah, two of Peninah’s children would die. When Peninah had only two children left (after Chanah’s fourth child), she pleaded with Chanah to pray for her surviving children. Chanah did so, and by saving their lives, she was considered to be the mother of those two as well. So at the end of the story, Chanah had 5 + 2 = 7 children, and Peninah had none.

I think that on the peshat level, we can take the seven and zero verse to be figurative, and not interpret it literally about Chanah and Peninah, but Chazal were identifying an unusually harsh and unforgiving quality to Shirat Chanah. Chanah always acted with utmost righteousness, but in her prayers, her pain and suffering found their full expression. I am reminded of G-d’s warning in Shmot 22:21-23 —

כא כָּל-אַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם, לֹא תְעַנּוּן.

כב אִם-עַנֵּה תְעַנֶּה, אֹתוֹ–כִּי אִם-צָעֹק יִצְעַק אֵלַי, שָׁמֹעַ אֶשְׁמַע צַעֲקָתוֹ.

כג וְחָרָה אַפִּי, וְהָרַגְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בֶּחָרֶב; וְהָיוּ נְשֵׁיכֶם אַלְמָנוֹת, וּבְנֵיכֶם יְתֹמִים.

21 You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan.

22 If you do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to Me,

23 and My anger shall blaze forth and I will put you to the sword, and your own wives shall become widows and your children orphans.

This is a potent reminder on Rosh Hashanah that the most vulnerable members of society have a direct audience with G-d, Who will be their dearest ally.

U’teshuvah u’tefilah u’tzdakah ma’avirin et ro’a hagezeirah! Shanah tovah u’metukah.

Devarim, Shabbat Chazon, Yishayah 1:1-27

Quick public service announcement: The new 929 cycle (http://www.929.org.il/), which learns the whole Tanach, one chapter at a time, began this week. We’re now on chapter 5 of Bereishit (or later depending when this is posted/read). Please join in!

Context

Yishayah was a prophet in Yehudah through the reigns of Uziah (mostly good king), Yotam (good), Achaz (bad), and Chizkiyahu (very good). The historical period was marked by repeated threats from Assyrian invaders. Yishayahu is also featured in the book of Melachim Bet, where he interacts with Chizkiyah during the siege of Jerusalem. Chapters 1-5 of the book are a unit, describing G-d’s punishment and ultimate redemption of Judah and Israel.

Overview

You could definitely argue that some of these units should be combined, but here’s my attempt at a division of the haftarah:

[1] Title and biography of Yishayah.

[2-4] Hashem: the Jews have betrayed Me; they were less grateful than animals.

[5-9] Why do you invite punishment? You have suffered brutally, and your land is in ruins.

[10-17] I despise your Temple service; purify your deeds and bring justice to the downtrodden!

[18-20] Your sins can be corrected. If you agree, good. If not, you will die.

[21-27] Jerusalem has become corrupt; I will purify it and return it to the goodness of yore.

“Why do you seek further beatings?”

The section that begins at the end of verse 4 and goes through the end of verse 9 seems to belong to a different prophetic era. It sounds more like Yirmiyah looking back at the destruction of the kingdom than like Yishayah living in one of the better periods of their civilization. So what is happening here? What is Yishayah referring to when discussing the brutal punishment of the Jews?

The mefarshim that address this all seem to read it as predictions for the future. It is not that the land is currently in ruins, rather it will be destroyed if current trends continue. For instance, Rashi on the words “opposite you, strangers eat it” writes

לנגדכם זרים אוכלים אותה. לעיניכם יאכלוה אויביכם:

Opposite you, strangers eat it. In front of your eyes will your enemies eat it.

He changes the tense so that it serves as a prophecy rather than a description of current events. However, the prophet consistently seems to be in present tense, so this is a hard interpretation to accept.

One thing that can perhaps explain it is Assyrian invasion and taxation. From the time of Uzziah, the Assyrian records indicate that Yehudah was paying tribute to Assyria. Though Yehudah was powerful, Assyria was the major player and would remain a threat until its invasion and destruction of Yisrael in the time of Chizkiyah. They also invaded Yehudah and laid siege to Yerushalayim, but they were devastated by a miraculous Divine intervention. Perhaps this crisis felt like a destruction.

The rest of the haftarah is also pretty pessimistic but mostly it is a rebuke of the corruption and evil infecting the Judean society. Another reading of this unit is that the disease and destruction attributed to Yehudah at large is really aimed at the poorer strata of society. In their eyes, things already look bad; they are being abused by people who are perverting justice. If the Assyrians were to invade in the future, it would just be the culmination of a destruction already underway.

An interesting linguistic phenomenon crops up in this section. The word זר or stranger appears in this section, but also sound-alike words. In verse 4, נָזֹרוּ אָחוֹר or “turned their back on him” is explained as coming from the same root as nazirite by many of the mefarshim. In verse 6, לֹא-זֹרוּ or “was not sprinkled [with medicinal powder]” is said to have the root “z.r.h” also from winnowing. Further in verse 7 right after the appearance of זרים or strangers, is another instance of זרים. Many of the mefarshim (Ibn Ezra, Radak, and Malbim) explain this is from the root “z.r.m” or torrential flow, so that the cities are overturned as in a flood.

Bizarrely, the same distinctive sound is used with many distinct meanings. Perhaps, Yishayah is trying to send the message almost subliminally, that the worst aspect of suffering is not the physical experience, but the estrangement we will feel from G-d.

“Come, let us reach an understanding”

The short section in verses 18-20 is rather strange. We start with this unusual invitation to debate, followed by a reassurance that sins can be forgiven and erased. (This is familiar from the Yom Kippur prayers.) Then, it appears we are offered an ultimatum: agree, and eat; or reject and be eaten. Why are we invited to this debate? Why are we being reassured immediately after being challenged and before being offered an ultimatum. What is the offer that we are expected to agree to or reject?

Things would be greatly clarified if instead of being reassured about our sins, we were challenged to change our sins. Then this would be a logical paragraph: 1. Come here, 2. Change your ways, 3. Agree — great. Reject — bad. So how are we to interpret the phrase we find here instead.

Rashi explains that the offer really appears in the previous unit, specifically verses 17 and 18.

לכו נא ונוכחה מה כתוב למעלה ממנו חדלו הרע למדו היטב ואחר שתשובו אלי לכו ונוכחה יחד להודיעני עשינו מה שעלינו עשה מה שעליך ואני אומר אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג וגו’:

Come let us debate that which is written earlier “stop doing evil, teach the good”. And after you return to Me, let us debate, to inform Me “We have done our duty, now do Yours” and I will say “If your sins are like scarlet, they shall be like snow, etc.”

In Rashi’s view, this reassurance is really part of the next phrase involving the reward or punishment. Mahari Kara echoes this and explicitly rejects the inclination to treat this as its own unit on the basis of the Masoretic division:

אל ישיאך לבך להפסיק ולהפליג ולהרחיק שאחר הפסקה מענין של מעלה לפי שיש שם הפסקה. לא בא אלא לחבוש שבר של מעלה.

Let not your heart deceive you to break, separate, or distance as if it is broken(?) from the topic of above because there is a paragraph break there. It did not come except to bandage the damage from above.

The commentary of the Malbim on this unit is simply beautiful. Like the other mefarshim, the challenge is connected to the previous verses. He differs though in his interpretation of the erasure of sin. This isn’t meant as a reassurance, but as part of the argument!

לכו, בואו נא ונוכחה יחד, מדוע אינכם עושים כן ? מדוע אינכם שבים אל ה’ כאשר הוריתיכם. ? מה תדאגו ותיראו לשוב, הלא גם אם יהיו חטאיכם צבועים ואדומים כחוט השני מה בכך הלא כשלג ילבינו? אם תרחצו ותזכו, כמ”ש רחצו והזכו, יתכבסו הכתמים וטהרתם מכל חטאתיכם… וא”כ מדוע אינכם שבים בתשובה. ? הלא אין לך דבר שעומד בפני התשובה. ?

Go, come, and let us debate together, why are you not doing this? Why are you not returning to G-d as I commanded you to do? What do you worry and fear to return, behold even if your sins are dyed and red as the scarlet thread, what is in it — for will it not whiten like snow? If you wash and purify yourselves, like it says “wash and purify yourselves”, the stains will be laundered and you will be purified from all your sins… if so why do you not return in repentance? Behold, there is nothing standing in the way of repentance!

The Malbim reframes the opposition of the sinful Jews– they are not committed to their evil deeds. Rather they are afraid of repentance, or doubtful of its efficacy. G-d’s reassurance, then, is a rejection of this excuse. “Don’t try to argue that you’re too far gone. No one is too far gone from teshuvah. The choice is STILL in your hands.” This strikes notes similar to the story of Acher from the Talmud, but time unfortunately prevents me from citing it.

Shabbat Shalom! May Tisha B’Av and the coming yamim noraim bring you from estrangement to hope.

Matot-Mas’ei, Por’anuta II, Yirmiyahu 2:4-28, 4:1-2 or 3:4

Back to the usual structure :-).

Context

This week’s haftarah picks up immediately after the previous week’s haftarah in chapter 2 of Yirmiyah. Just to refresh, Yirmiyah was the prophet during the tragic end of the Judean kingdom and bore witness to the destruction of Yerushalayim.

Overview

The division is not immediately obvious. At first the “ne’um Hashem”s seem to be a good demarcator, but then verse 13 is really a thematic continuation of verse 11. Still here’s a first approximation:

[4-9] Hashem says: Your leaders failed to seek Me, though I brought you to the Promised land.

[10-13] No other nations traded their true G-d for false gods — shameful.

[14-19] Israel has become a subject of abuse and oppression, and it is due to their evil.

[20-24] Despite G-d’s aid, Israel has become filthy with sin and cannot deny it.

[25-28] Israel rejects G-d and worships myriad idols, but then asks G-d for help.

Concluding Section [3:4] From now, you will call Me father and be the companion of My youth.

Or [4:1-2] Repent and return to Me, and cast away your idols, then you will be blessed.

“Where is Hashem?”

One of the serious faults that is leveled twice against the Jews in this haftarah is that they failed to ask “Where is Hashem?” In verse 6, we see first that the Jews turned to idols instead of looking for G-d. Then in verse 8, it is a failure attributed to the kohanim, that they did not ask where is Hashem.

An interesting context for this question is that it most often crops up in the mouths of oppressors and enemies! For example,

לָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ הַגּוֹיִם אַיֵּה־נָא אֱלֹקיהֶם׃

Let the nations not say, “Where, now, is their God?” (Tehilim 115:2)

בְּרֶ֤צַח ׀ בְּֽעַצְמוֹתַ֗י חֵרְפ֥וּנִי צוֹרְרָ֑י בְּאָמְרָ֥ם אֵלַ֥י כָּל־הַ֝יּ֗וֹם אַיֵּ֥ה אֱלֹקיךָ׃

Crushing my bones, my foes revile me, taunting me always with, “Where is your God?” (Tehilim 42:11)

Typically, this question is used as a taunt by our enemies. In times when things are going really badly for the Jews, this taunt tells them “You are so confident that G-d favors you, but your current condition indicates otherwise!” They take the Jews’ suffering as evidence that they do not have any special relationship with G-d.

Yet, here, Yirmiyah is telling the people: this is the question you should have been asking! They should have realized that they are meant to have a special relationship with G-d, and their suffering must be taken as a sign of a disturbance in the force. Then they could determine what actions merited this punishment.

This is also underlined by the name of G-d used in each context. Yirmiyah blames them for not asking “Where is Y-H-W-H” the tetragrammaton specifying This Particular G-d. The enemies on the other hand, accuse them of not having any helpful gods, using the conceptual word for G-d.

Instead, they came to the wrong conclusion — we need to find some other gods. This response is challenged at the end of the haftarah:

כח וְאַיֵּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ לָּךְ– יָקוּמוּ, אִם-יוֹשִׁיעוּךָ בְּעֵת רָעָתֶךָ:

כִּי מִסְפַּר עָרֶיךָ, הָיוּ אֱלֹהֶיךָ יְהוּדָה. {ס}

And where are those gods You made for yourself? Let them arise and save you, if they can, In your hour of calamity. For your gods have become, O Judah, As many as your towns!

“Tore off your yoke-bands”

Verse 20 is a really interesting example of how subtleties of Biblical grammar affect our interpretations of verses. It’s also possible that these subtleties motivated a keri/ch’tiv discrepancy. The verse is below, with transliterations for disputed words:

כִּ֣י מֵעוֹלָ֞ם שָׁבַ֣רְתִּי עֻלֵּ֗ךְ נִתַּ֙קְתִּי֙ מוֹסְרֹתַ֔יִךְ וַתֹּאמְרִ֖י לֹ֣א אעבד [אֶעֱב֑וֹר] כִּ֣י עַֽל־כָּל־גִּבְעָ֞ה גְּבֹהָ֗ה וְתַ֙חַת֙ כָּל־עֵ֣ץ רַעֲנָ֔ן אַ֖תְּ צֹעָ֥ה זֹנָֽה׃

For long ago shavarti your yoke, nitakti your yoke-bands, And you said, “I will not work [trespass].” On every high hill and under every verdant tree, You recline as a whore.

Note that the phrases “high hill” and “verdant tree” is a reference to Devarim 12:2 where G-d commands Israel to destroy the places of idol worship on the high mountains and under verdant trees. The fact that Israel reclines there means that they were worshipping idols.

At first glance, it is not clear why the emphasized words should be complicated to translate. Sh.v.r and n.t.k are common roots in Tanach meaning “break” and “sever” respectively. Meanwhile, the conjugation, as any speaker of modern Hebrew will tell you is first person singular past-tense. So they should be translated “I broke” and “I severed”.

This is how all the classical commentaries read the verse. The challenge becomes how to understand the first half of the verse, and then how to explain its connection to the latter half. Metzudat David explains that this is referring to G-d freeing the Jews from subjugation at the hands of foreign nations. They commit not to sin, but then they transgressed. So the “ki” serves as a contrasting conjunction. Malbim stays closer to the context in the haftarah, and says that it refers to the demanding practices of idol worshippers. G-d banished idol worship, thus freeing the Jews from commitment to those horrible practices so that they might worship Him.

The JPS translations opts for a different translation. Both shavarti and nitakti are translated as second-person singular. I.e. For long ago you broke your yoke, you severed your yoke-bands. There are other examples of this, e.g. in Shoftim “ad shakamti” is often translated as second-person, and in Naomi’s directions to Rut in Rut 3:3-4, the written forms of the second-person verbs end in yud. Now the “ki” serves to connect the halves of the verse as synonymous clauses: you have always been rebellious breaking your yoke (of mitzvot), and you worshipped idols on the mountains and under trees.

This difference in translation might influence the keri and chetiv. The Minchat Shai, written by R. Yedidiah Solomon around the year 1600 in Italy, notes that having a keri/ch’tiv discrepancy where the word is written with a dalet and then read with a reish is quite rare. It happens only twice — here and in Ezra chapter 8, where Zacur’s name is written as Zavud. Perhaps the two translations explain the keri/ch’tiv. In one understanding of the verse, the original word is “e’evod”, “I will not work”, i.e. the destruction of the yoke was a manifestation of their refusal to work in service of G-d. In the other, the word is “e’evor”, “I will not transgress” i.e. G-d broke their yoke so they promised not to transgress, but later broke their commitment.

“Now you will call me father”

Whenever a haftarah stops the haftarah somewhere and then includes a verse or verses from elsewhere, it invites the question: What concluding thought were the Sages who initiated these minhagim trying to convey?

It seems that the haftarah was trying to end the excerpt from Chapter 2 on the idea of Israel’s guilt specifically in the sin of idolatry. Later on in chapter 2, in verse 34, the Jews are accused of being stained with the blood of the innocent poor. While this is an essential part of the prophetic message of Yirmiyah, it is not the idea of this haftarah. The haftarah is about our betrayal of G-d, leaving Him behind in favor of idols.

The Sephardic custom is to read verses 4:1 and 2. These are a prophecy of repentance and return to G-d, and a final farewell to idolatry. This takes the final note of the haftarah and emphasizes how we can turn it around. It leaves us with a reason for hope. There is perhaps a linguistic reason for the connection. The word “mipanai” in verse 1 may connect us to the two words from the same root in verse 27.

Much the same can be said for the Ashkenazic custom which is to read verse 3:4. There we read that we will call Hashem our father. This too indicates a rekindling of the relationship. It also responds to a phrase in verse 27– the Jews called wooden objects “our father”. In the future, we will only call Hashem our father.

Shabbat Shalom! May it give you the spirit to ask the right questions!

Pinchas, Por’anuta I, Yirmiyahu 1:1-2:3

SPOILER ALERT! If you will be at Congregation Beth Israel this shabbos, this is the text of the dvar torah I will deliver. The first two tables are the handouts, which divides up the verses in the haftarah, and the rest is the speech.

0	א:א דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ, בֶּן-חִלְקִיָּהוּ, מִן-הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר בַּעֲנָתוֹת, בְּאֶרֶץ בִּנְיָמִן. ב אֲשֶׁר הָיָה דְבַר-ה’ אֵלָיו, בִּימֵי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בֶן-אָמוֹן מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, בִּשְׁלֹשׁ-עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לְמָלְכוֹ. ג וַיְהִי, בִּימֵי יְהוֹיָקִים בֶּן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, עַד-תֹּם עַשְׁתֵּי עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, לְצִדְקִיָּהוּ בֶן-יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה– עַד-גְּלוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִישִׁי. {פ}
1	ד וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה’, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. ה בְּטֶרֶם אצורך (אֶצָּרְךָ) בַבֶּטֶן יְדַעְתִּיךָ, וּבְטֶרֶם תֵּצֵא מֵרֶחֶם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ: נָבִיא לַגּוֹיִם, נְתַתִּיךָ.
2	ו וָאֹמַר, אֲהָהּ ה’ אלקים, הִנֵּה לֹא-יָדַעְתִּי, דַּבֵּר: כִּי-נַעַר, אָנֹכִי. {ס} ז וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֵלַי, אַל-תֹּאמַר נַעַר אָנֹכִי: כִּי עַל-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁלָחֲךָ, תֵּלֵךְ, וְאֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוְּךָ, תְּדַבֵּר.
3	ח אַל-תִּירָא, מִפְּנֵיהֶם: כִּי-אִתְּךָ אֲנִי לְהַצִּלֶךָ, נְאֻם-ה’. ט וַיִּשְׁלַח ה’ אֶת-יָדוֹ, וַיַּגַּע עַל-פִּי; וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֵלַי, הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי דְבָרַי בְּפִיךָ. י רְאֵה הִפְקַדְתִּיךָ הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, עַל-הַגּוֹיִם וְעַל-הַמַּמְלָכוֹת, לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ, וּלְהַאֲבִיד וְלַהֲרוֹס–לִבְנוֹת, וְלִנְטוֹעַ.
4	יא וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה’ אֵלַי לֵאמֹר, מָה-אַתָּה רֹאֶה יִרְמְיָהוּ; וָאֹמַר, מַקֵּל שָׁקֵד אֲנִי רֹאֶה. יב וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֵלַי, הֵיטַבְתָּ לִרְאוֹת: כִּי-שֹׁקֵד אֲנִי עַל-דְּבָרִי, לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ. {ס}
4	יג וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה’ אֵלַי שֵׁנִית לֵאמֹר, מָה אַתָּה רֹאֶה; וָאֹמַר, סִיר נָפוּחַ אֲנִי רֹאֶה, וּפָנָיו, מִפְּנֵי צָפוֹנָה. יד וַיֹּאמֶר ה’, אֵלָי: מִצָּפוֹן תִּפָּתַח הָרָעָה, עַל כָּל-יֹשְׁבֵי הָאָרֶץ. טו כִּי הִנְנִי קֹרֵא, לְכָל-מִשְׁפְּחוֹת מַמְלְכוֹת צָפוֹנָה–נְאֻם-ה’; וּבָאוּ וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כִּסְאוֹ פֶּתַח שַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם, וְעַל כָּל-חוֹמֹתֶיהָ סָבִיב, וְעַל, כָּל-עָרֵי יְהוּדָה. טז וְדִבַּרְתִּי מִשְׁפָּטַי אוֹתָם, עַל כָּל-רָעָתָם–אֲשֶׁר עֲזָבוּנִי, וַיְקַטְּרוּ לֵאלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים, וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ, לְמַעֲשֵׂי יְדֵיהֶם.
3	יז וְאַתָּה, תֶּאְזֹר מָתְנֶיךָ, וְקַמְתָּ וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי אֲצַוֶּךָּ; אַל-תֵּחַת, מִפְּנֵיהֶם–פֶּן-אֲחִתְּךָ, לִפְנֵיהֶם. יח וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נְתַתִּיךָ הַיּוֹם, לְעִיר מִבְצָר וּלְעַמּוּד בַּרְזֶל וּלְחֹמוֹת נְחֹשֶׁת–עַל-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ: לְמַלְכֵי יְהוּדָה לְשָׂרֶיהָ, לְכֹהֲנֶיהָ וּלְעַם הָאָרֶץ. יט וְנִלְחֲמוּ אֵלֶיךָ, וְלֹא-יוּכְלוּ לָךְ: כִּי-אִתְּךָ אֲנִי נְאֻם-ה’, לְהַצִּילֶךָ. {פ}
2	ב:א וַיְהִי דְבַר-ה’, אֵלַי לֵאמֹר. ב הָלֹךְ וְקָרָאתָ בְאָזְנֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם לֵאמֹר, כֹּה אָמַר ה’, זָכַרְתִּי לָךְ חֶסֶד נְעוּרַיִךְ, אַהֲבַת כְּלוּלֹתָיִךְ–לֶכְתֵּךְ אַחֲרַי בַּמִּדְבָּר, בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא זְרוּעָה.
1	ג קֹדֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַה’, רֵאשִׁית תְּבוּאָתֹה; כָּל-אֹכְלָיו יֶאְשָׁמוּ, רָעָה תָּבֹא אֲלֵיהֶם נְאֻם-ה’. {פ}

 

0	1:1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2 The word of Hashem came to him in the days of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign, 3 and throughout the days of King Jehoiakim son of Josiah of Judah, and until the end of the eleventh year of King Zedekiah son of Josiah of Judah, when Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month.
1	4 The word of Hashem came to me: 5 Before I created you in the womb, I selected you; Before you were born, I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet for the nations.
2	6 I replied: Ah, Lord GOD! I don’t know how to speak, For I am still a youth. 7 And Hashem said to me: Do not say, “I am still a youth,” But go wherever I send you And speak whatever I command you.
3	8 Have no fear of them, For I am with you to deliver you —declares Hashem. 9 Hashem put out His hand and touched my mouth, and Hashem said to me: Herewith I put My words into your mouth. 10 See, I appoint you this day Over nations and kingdoms: To uproot and to pull down, To destroy and to overthrow, To build and to plant.
4	11 The word of Hashem came to me: What do you see, Jeremiah? I replied: I see an almond branch. 12 Hashem said to me: You have seen right, For I am watchful to bring My word to pass.
4	13 And the word of Hashem came to me a second time: What do you see? I replied: I see a steaming pot, Tipped away from the north. 14 And Hashem said to me: From the north disaster will break loose on all the inhabitants of the land! 15 For I am summoning all the peoples Of the kingdoms of the north —declares Hashem. They shall come, and shall each set up a seat Before the gates of Jerusalem, Against its walls roundabout, And against all the towns of Judah. 16 And I will argue My case against them For all their wickedness: They have forsaken Me And sacrificed to other gods And worshiped the works of their hands.
3	17 So you, gird up your loins, Arise and speak to them All that I command you. Do not break down before them, Lest I break you before them. 18 I make you this day A fortified city, And an iron pillar, And bronze walls Against the whole land— Against Judah’s kings and officers, And against its priests and citizens. 19 They will attack you, But they will not overcome you; For I am with you—declares Hashem—to save you.
2	2:1 The word of Hashem came to me, saying, 2 Go proclaim to Jerusalem: Thus said Hashem: I accounted to your favor The devotion of your youth, Your love as a bride— How you followed Me in the wilderness, In a land not sown.
1	3 Israel was holy to Hashem, The first fruits of His harvest. All who ate of it were held guilty; Disaster befell them —declares Hashem.

 

Shabbat Shalom! I’m very grateful to Rabbi Cohen and Maharat Sutton for the opportunity to learn Torah with you this morning. Last Simchat Torah, Rabbi Cohen challenged the congregation to adopt a new Torah project for the year. Since then I’ve been studying the haftarah and writing an analysis each week. Today, I invite you to join me in studying today’s Haftarah.

This Sunday, we observed the fast of Shivah asar biTamuz, which marks the beginning of the three weeks of mourning for the destruction of the Temple, culminating in Tishah biAv. The three weeks has three specially-selected haftarot often called “tlata di’poranuta” or “three of suffering” in Aramaic. The first of the suffering haftarot is our focus today — Yirmiyah chapter 1 verse 1 to chapter 2 verse 3. Yirmiyah is famously the prophet who survived the destruction, and the book of Eichah or Lamentations is attributed to him.

To give a brief overview, this is Yirmiyah’s first prophecy. Yirmiyah, like Moshe before him, tells G-d that he cannot speak, and G-d reassures Yirmiyah that He will put the right words in Yirmiyah’s mouth. Some political actors will oppose Yirmiyah, but G-d will have his back.

Then, He seems to take Yirmiyah for a prophetic test drive, sending him two images: an almond branch, which represents G-d’s urgency, and a cauldron boiling from the north, indicating the coming Babylonian invasion, which is meant as a punishment for Israel’s idolatry. The haftarah concludes with a conciliatory message, that G-d remembers our early connection and holds that memory in Israel’s favor. As far as choosing tlata diporanuta, the destruction is mentioned, but it’s described in a vague and symbolic way. Why is this the right choice to start the three weeks?

Let’s take a closer look. The handouts feature the full text of the haftarah divided up into sections, in Hebrew on one side and English on the other. I split up the sections to show how this haftarah is a beautiful compact literary unit, built on a chiastic structure. Chiastic structure is basically a mirror image around its center, so it looks like ABCDCBA. The section marked 0 is a quick author’s bio for the whole book and it doesn’t play into this structure.

What is the theme of unit 1? Holiness — in the first part, G-d tells Yirmiyah וּבְטֶרֶם תֵּצֵא מֵרֶחֶם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ Before you were born, I consecrated you. In the second part, G-d describes Israel as, קֹדֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַה’ Israel was holy to Hashem. The Hebrew root “k.d.sh.” appears in both.

How about unit 2? Youth — In the first part, Yirmiyah expresses his anxiety to be a prophet because he is just a youth נַעַר, אָנֹכִי. In the second part, G-d remembers the devotion of Israel’s youth חֶסֶד נְעוּרַיִךְ. Here too, the same root word appears in both sections.

What can we say about unit 3? This is about G-d’s redemption from those who would challenge Yirmiyah. In fact, the same phrase only slightly permuted appears in both: כִּי-אִתְּךָ אֲנִי לְהַצִּלֶךָ, נְאֻם-ה’ and כִּי-אִתְּךָ אֲנִי נְאֻם-ה’, לְהַצִּילֶךָ. In English, For I am with you to deliver you —declares Hashem, and For I am with you—declares Hashem—to save you. (I’m not sure why JPS translation changes deliver to save, but it’s the same word in Hebrew.)

Finally, unit 4 is clearly about vision. First the vision of the branch, then the vision of the boiling cauldron. In both sections, G-d asks Yirmiyah מָה אַתָּה רֹאֶה “what do you see?”

Hopefully, you are all convinced that this structure is actually there in the haftarah, not just superimposed by my imagination. [Audience nods vigorously] So, now that we have a feel for the structure of the haftarah, what do we do with it? Why should we care?

Chiastic structure generally does two things: first, it draws our attention to the central reflection point. Second, it pushes us to compare and contrast the two corresponding units in each half. It’s like two slightly different images printed on a transparency in red and blue. Once you fold the transparency over, you can see what the two images share and where they differ.

So, let’s start with section 1. As we mentioned before, the common thread is sanctity and distinctiveness. The idea that a prophet and Israel share this property seems natural to me. But what does that sanctity entail in this context? For Yirmiyah, it’s about prophesying to the nations! But for Israel, it is a promise of punishment for those who consume Israel. This idea which may be a point of pride is now barely a consolation.

Moving on to section 2, the common thread here was youth. Yirmiyah’s youth is seen by him as a sign for concern; he fears that he is not ready for this job, but perhaps he’ll improve and be ready some day. Israel, on the other hand, is remembered for the devotion of its youth. Somehow things have become corrupted; the best days are not ahead but behind.

Next is section 3, where G-d promises Yirmiyah that He will save him. The metaphors in the two sections are both striking: In the first section, verse 10, Yirmiyah is told that he has been appointed “To uproot and to pull down, To destroy and to overthrow, To build and to plant.” This is the language of a conquering nation. In the second half, the metaphor is not an attacker but a defender, verse 18 reads: “I make you this day A fortified city, And an iron pillar, And bronze walls” In a prophecy about an upcoming war, we expect G-d to reassure the people about their triumph. Instead, G-d uses the military imagery to describe Yirmiyah’s conflict with the Jews themselves. No comfort is on its way for the battle with Babylonia.

Finally, we get to our central units–the two visions. The first vision is a מַקֵּל שָׁקֵד an almond branch. Does anyone remember another image of a stick growing almonds, perhaps from a recent parsha? Indeed, from Parshat Korach, Aharon’s staff grew almonds when it was left in the mishkan. There it was a sign of G-d’s favor and selection of Aharon. But in Korach, it was not a “makel” it was a “mateh”. As Malbim points out, “mateh” is a symbol of power and leadership. A “makel” is a rod that you use to strike an animal: Bil’am struck his donkey with a “makel” in last week’s parsha, and when David approaches Goliath, the giant taunted “Am I a dog that you come to me with ‘maklot’?” Yirmiyah’s vision takes the sign of G-d’s favor from Korach and twists it into a vision of pain. What about the almond? G-d explains that it’s a pun on “shoked” which also means “ready to act imminently”. The punishment is coming soon.

The second vision is a cauldron boiling from the north. In the book of Yechezkel, the false prophets claim that Jerusalem is a pot, and the people its meat. I agree that it’s a weird metaphor, but the people hearing it understood it as a promise that they were secure and need not fear. The pot metaphor is overturned here — it’s an omen of impending trouble. As for the interpretation provided in the verses, here too we have a series of puns, not quite as strong this time. From “nafuach”, or boiling, we get the פ and ח which carry through to מִצָּפוֹן תִּפָּתַח הָרָעָה, describing how trouble will break out, מִשְׁפְּחוֹת מַמְלְכוֹת צָפוֹנָה identifying the attackers from the north, and פֶּתַח שַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם the opening of the gates of Jerusalem, where the court typically sits; here it’s used for the court where G-d prosecutes the Jews for their treachery.

What tone does our haftarah set for the three weeks? The ideas and metaphors that, in another context, made us feel safe and comfortable are now corrupted and frightening. The world has been turned upside down. In the words of Eichah,

אֵיכָ֣ה ׀ יָשְׁבָ֣ה בָדָ֗ד הָעִיר֙ רַבָּ֣תִי עָ֔ם הָיְתָ֖ה כְּאַלְמָנָ֑ה רַּבָּ֣תִי בַגּוֹיִ֗ם שָׂרָ֙תִי֙ בַּמְּדִינ֔וֹת הָיְתָ֖ה לָמַֽס׃

Alas! Lonely sits the city Once great with people! She that was great among nations Is become like a widow; The princess among states Is become a thrall.

I think this anxiety and confusion of good-turned-bad is the reason for Chazal choosing this haftarah to start the three weeks.

Now that’s a bit of a dark note to end on, so I would like to share one morsel from the parasha. In Pinchas, we learn all about the sacrifices offered in the Temple. Foremost among them was the tamid offering which was offered twice every day. There is a famous midrash in which the Sages dispute what is the most important concept in the Torah.

“ואהבת לרעך כמוך’, אמר רבי עקיבא: זה כלל גדול בתורה. בן עזאי אומר: ‘זה ספר תולדות אדם’ – כלל גדול מזה”.

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself”, Rabbi Akiva said: This is the main principle of the Torah. Ben Azai said: “This is the book of generations of man” — this is an even greater principle.

Rabbi Akiva believed that the main mission of the Torah was to create a society where people cared for one another. Ben Azai underlined the common origin of human beings in the Divine creation as a more important principle. Rav Yehudah Amital zt”l cited the Maharal who brings a longer version of this dispute including the opinion of Shimon ben Pazi:

שמעון בן פזי אומר: מצינו פסוק כולל יותר והוא ‘את הכבש האחד תעשה בבקר ואת הכבש השני תעשה בין הערביים’.

Shimon ben Pazi said: We have found an even more general verse, and it is “You shall offer one lamb in the morning and one lamb in twilight.”

Shimon ben Pazi believed that the most important aspect of Torah was the steady dedication of the daily sacrifice, in contrast to the excitement of the infrequent musaf offerings. Becoming better Jews is about consistent and gradual investment. I again want to thank Rabbi Cohen for inspiring me to begin offering that weekly lamb.

Thank you so much for your attention! Shabbat shalom.

Balak, Michah 5:6 – 6:8

I made another haftarah info visualization! This time, red squares are haftarot we have covered, blue squares are haftarot we haven’t covered, white squares are non-haftarot, and black squares are not chapters of Tanach.

What should be plain from this image is that we still have a long way to go to cover all haftarot. Furthermore, if you’re expecting to learn all the prophets from the haftarot, you’re going to miss a lot. Zephaniah, Chagai, and Nachum don’t even get one… In any case, this week we get to see Michah!

Context

Michah is one of the Twelve Minor Prophets. He prophesied about both Yisrael and Yehudah during the reigns of Yotam, Achaz, and Chizkiyah, kings of Yehudah. Yotam was a good king but didn’t end the de-centralized bamah worship. Achaz was evil and practiced idolatry. Chizkiyahu was one of the best kings, even ending the bamah worship. Michah has 7 chapters.

• In 1-3, he mostly condemns the leaders and predicts their doom and downfall.
• In 4-5, he predicts a future redemption for Israel and the world, including destruction of the sinners.
• In 6-7:13, he describes G-d’s accusation of the people’s sins and details their crimes.
• In 7:14-20, Michah returns to the positive, predicting reconciliation between G-d and his people.

So the first half of our haftarah is one of Michah’s positive predictions, and the second half is an accusation of the people.

Overview

[5:6-8] Michah compares Israel to dew (for its independence from man) and a lion (for its dominance).

[5:9-14] G-d describes His future destruction of evil and idolatry.

[6:1-5] G-d testifies in front of the mountains to Israel’s perfidy despite His generosity.

[6:6-8] “How do I please G-d? Sacrifices? My child?” The response: justice, goodness, modesty.

“Like droplets on grass”

Torah readers will immediately identify the image used in verse 5:6 as a reference to the song of Ha’azinu. The verse reads as follows:

ו וְהָיָה שְׁאֵרִית יַעֲקֹב, בְּקֶרֶב עַמִּים רַבִּים,

כְּטַל מֵאֵת ה’, כִּרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי-עֵשֶׂב–

אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יְקַוֶּה לְאִישׁ, וְלֹא יְיַחֵל לִבְנֵי אָדָם. {פ}

6 The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples

as dew from G-d as droplets on the grass

which do not look to any man nor place their hopes in humankind.

The corresponding verse from Haazinu is Devarim 32:2 —

ב יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי, תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי,

כִּשְׂעִירִם עֲלֵי-דֶשֶׁא, וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי-עֵשֶׂב.

2 Let my lesson come down like rain, my speech distill as the dew;

like showers on young growth and like droplets on the grass.

The precise words “droplets on the grass” are repeated in both locations. However, despite using the same phrase, the navi throws the metaphor in an entirely different direction. [I’m sure there’s a literary term for this technique, where you subvert a standard metaphor to say something new, but my Google-fu was not up to the task of finding it.]

In Haazinu, the image of droplets on the grass is meant to express a life-giving beneficial teaching that enriches the grass receiving it. In the analogy, Moshe representing G-d is the giver of rain/dew, the Torah is the water, and the Jewish people are the grass. They are living organisms with all of the needs and challenges that accompany life. Moshe encourages the people to obey G-d and not rebel once they have settled down: he teaches them what it takes to survive and thrive.

In Michah, the droplets are the Jewish people themselves. Michah underlines a very particular property of rain: rain is not dependent on man. This is true, but rain isn’t really dependent on anything. Rain has no impulses, no needs, no tendencies. What is the use of the dew/rain analogy, when it applies just as easily to anything inanimate?

Perhaps, Michah is inviting us to compare this image with the image from Devarim. Here, just as in Devarim, G-d is still the giver of water, but the Jewish people are no longer the beneficiaries of G-d, they are the emissaries, the carriers of the Torah. Michah sees his audience in this period of time as being open to serving as the proverbial “light unto the nations.” This prophecy may have been delivered in the era of Chizkiyah, for example, when the people turned towards righteousness, but they still had to worry about the invasion of Assyria and the other political and military woes of the day.

Michah takes the classic image of dew and says that his audience will exceed the audience of Moshe Rabbeinu. Moshe’s audience drank of the Torah. Michah’s audience will carry the Torah to the world unencumbered by the oppression and violence that plauged them then.

“Remember what Balak king of Moav plotted”

The haftarah takes a sharp turn at verse 5:9. After spending three verses on positive predictions for Israel, the prophet shifts to negative predictions. In chapter 6 verses 1-5, G-d is presenting a case against Israel. The content of that accusation? That G-d has done no wrong and only good to Israel, so the people should be more grateful. In verse 3, G-d challenges the people:

ג עַמִּי מֶה-עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ, וּמָה הֶלְאֵתִיךָ: עֲנֵה בִי.

3 My nation, what have I done to you And what hardship have I caused you? Testify against me!

G-d presents three exhibits for evidence: 1. I brought you out of Egypt. 2. I sent Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam as leaders. 3. Remember what Balak wanted to do and how Bil’am responded to him. This is the most obvious connection between the parsha and the haftarah. But it’s not immediately clear why this event is relevant to this chapter of Michah. G-d performed any number of great kindnesses for the Israelites during their years in the desert! See Shmot through Devarim for examples, or Psalms 105 & 106 for a poetic retelling.

One feasible response is that the prophet wanted to mention an instance where G-d had saved them from an evil end. If that were the case, why not mention the miraculous victory over Amalek or Sichon & Og? In those cases, the Israelites knew about how grateful they needed to be to G-d.

Perhaps, the point of citing the example of Balak and Bil’am is that based on the previous verse, the Israelite may respond “Fine, Hashem redeemed us from Egypt, but then He delegated leadership to Moshe, Aharon and Miriam. G-d may help me from time to time, but He does not ‘walk with me.’” I apologize for invoking this cliche, but this Israelite may look at the lone set of footprints on the beach and think he’s alone. By mentioning Bil’am, the prophet says “that’s when G-d was carrying you.” Or more analogously, that’s when G-d was standing off to the side and making sure the shark didn’t eat you.

This idea may also inform the last verse of the haftarah:

ח הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם, מַה-טּוֹב; וּמָה-ה’ דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ,

כִּי אִם-עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד,

וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת, עִם-אֱלֹקיךָ.

8 He has told you, O man what is good, and what Hashem requires from you:

Only to do justice and love goodnes,

And to walk modestly with your G-d.

Lest you think that your wanderings through the desert were out of G-d’s presence, remember that G-d is by your side. This also helps explain why we should stay modest — we can’t take credit for our successes, because G-d is aiding us.

Shabbat Shalom! Let the dewdrops of rest re-energize you for the coming week!

Chukat, Shoftim 11:1-33

Context

The era of the judges is characterized by a cycle of sin, subjugation beneath foreign nations, repentance, followed by redemption through a heroic judge. By the time we reach Chapter 11, we have gone through most of our favorites. Until now, we have had Otniel, Ehud, Shamgar ben Anat, Devorah / Barak, Gid’on, followed by his son Avimelech (who was more of a tyrant than a judge), and Tola and Ya’ir. In chapter 10, the nation of B’nei Ammon take over the land of Gil’ad, which is on the opposite side of the Jordan. The Israelites repent and assemble at Mitzpah to fight the Ammonites, but they don’t yet have a general.

Overview

[1-3] Yiftach, an able warrior and the son of a prostitute, is chased away by his “legitimate” half-brothers, and attracts a band of ruffians who travel with thim.

[4-11] Ammon attacks Israel, so the elders of Gil’ad go and beg Yiftach to be their general. Yiftach insists that they appoint him leader, and they agree.

[12-28] Yiftach asks why Ammon is attacking, and the king of Ammon claims that Israel has stolen Ammonite land. Yiftach recounts the history of Sichon and the Emorite and how they attacked Israel despite Israel’s peaceful overtures; the Ammonite never possessed that land. The King of Ammon ignores this message.

[29-33] Yiftach pledges an offering to G-d if he triumphs in battle, then he defeats Ammon.

“You shall not inherit in our father’s house”

What is it about Yiftach’s background that makes it an important part of his story as a judge? Theoretically, the Navi, or at least the haftarh, could have skipped verses 1-10 and begun with the appointment of Yiftach to the position of general. Why is it important that he was a son of a “zonah” or prostitute and that he was banished by his brothers?

My answer to this is inspired by a dvar torah delivered a few years ago by Elishav Rabinovich shlit”a at Congregation Beth Israel in Berkeley. Elishav spoke about the book of Rut and how it was related to the story of the ancestors of Rut and Orpah — Lot and his daughters. After the destruction of the city of Sodom, Lot and his daughters escape. Not to the mountains at first, just to the city of Tzo’ar.

In many retellings of the story, the daughters of Lot thought that the entire world had been destroyed, which is why they resorted to having children by their father. However, the text doesn’t support that — after all, they had seen the city of Tzo’ar survive! Elishav suggested that the daughters of Lot had absorbed the philosophy of Sodom. Outsiders are simply not good enough to be in our midst or part of our family. The Da’at Zekenim cites the Ibn Ezra (perhaps a different edition than we have) along those lines:

ואיש אין בארץ לבא. פי’ ר’ אברהם אבן עזרא ז”ל איש אין בארץ ראוי לבא עלינו כי היו מחזיקות עצמן במיוחסות:

And there is no man in the land to come. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra z”l explained: there is no suitable man to come unto us, because they accorded themselves high status.

The children of Lot’s daughters, Moav and Ammon, seem to learn the lesson of their mothers. The Torah condemns them for not meeting the Israelites with food and drink when they left Egypt. Later, in the book of Ruth the story is turned on its head when Rut, the descendant of Moav, son of Lot’s older daughter, rejects the attitude of her ancestor. She allows herself to become a stranger in another land, where she receives the generosity of Boaz who overlooks her foreignness.

Our story in Sefer Shoftim sees a reversal in a different way. Here, the ones acting as agents of exclusion, turning away the stranger are the Israelites! Given their behavior, it makes sense that they are put under the sovereignty of Ammon. Their moral character has decayed so far that they are no better than Ammon. This is especially pronounced when we consider the commentary of Radak who cites an Aramaic translation of our text:

ובתרגום של תוספתא דא היא נימוסא הות בישראל מלקדמין דלא מיסתחרא אחסנתא משבטא לשבטא ובכן לא הוה יכיל גברא למיסב איתתא דלא משבטא וכד הות איתתא דרחמא גברא דלא משבטהא הות נפקא מבי נשא בלא אחסנתא והוו אנשי קרון לה פונדקיתא דרחימת גברא דלא משבטהא וכן הוה ליה לאימיה דיפתח

And in the Targum of Tosefta: “This was the custom in Israel back then, not to pass inheritance from one tribe to another, and so a man could not marry a woman from outside his tribe. And if a woman loved a man not from her tribe, she would leave her father’s house without an inheritance, and the people would call her an ‘innkeeper’ because she loved a man who was not from her tribe. And so it was for Yiftach’s mother.’

Based on this translation, their alienation of Yiftach was not because he was foreign or born to a prostitute, but that his mother came from a different tribe within the same nation. Still, they banished him and could not welcome him as a brother. Only when the elders correct this dire mistake does the nation merit redemption from the Ammonites.

“Now you shall inherit it?”

Yiftach gives an impassioned recounting of the history of Israel traveling through the desert, as a way of explaining that the land of Gil’ad never belonged to the Ammonites at all. However, he seems to be trying to convince them of two points: 1. That the land had originally belonged to the Emorites, and 2. That the Israelites had conquered that land after behaving peacefully and respectfully and still being met with hostile resistance. Why doesn’t Yiftach simply rely on making the first point, and then depend on the defense of “לאו בעל דברים דידי את”, “you have no standing in this dispute!”

I have two possible answers to this question:

1. The history is meant to provide a hint to the Ammonites, that even though the Israelites may begin admirably in overtures of peace, they will fight back when provoked. Just as, when push came to shove, the Israelites overthrew Sihon and the Emori, so too they will conquer Ammon, if the need arises.
2. The history is meant as a rallying cry to the people of Gil’ad and Israel. In any era of conflict, someone will raise the option of appeasement. “Perhaps we can make the Ammonites happy by conceding to their demands. We can move to a different part of the land.”
   Yiftach’s history is meant to remind the Israelites of the justice of their cause. “We have tried being friendly before, and it does not necessarily lead to peace. We will find peace where we can, but we will fight wherever our cause is just.” Indeed, from this point, he goes and rallies troops from across the region.

Shabbat Shalom! Keep an extra chair at your shabbos table for a stranger.

Korach, Shmuel Alef 11:14 – 12:22

Happy Friday! This unfortunately will be quite a short one — I’ve had a busy week!

Context

When Sha’ul was initially anointed as king, not all of the people fully accepted him. Then, Nachash the Ammonite leads an army against Yavesh Gilad, and Sha’ul successfully rallies the people to defeat them. Shmuel then decides to anoint him again to put down any objecters.

Overview

[11:14-15] Shmuel calls the people to Gilgal for a second anointment of Sha’ul.

[12:1-5] Shmuel demands that the people confirm that he has not acted corruptly.

[12:6-15] Shmuel recounts how G-d has saved Israel since slavery in Egypt, and claims that the people have acted wickedly by requesting a king, seemingly to replace G-d.

[12:16-22] Shmuel calls for a thunderstorm (rare in the summer) as a sign of G-d’s disapproval. The people are frightened, but Shmuel tells them that they should just obey G-d and all will be well.

My sons — here they are with you

The entire section in which Shmuel insists that anyone who he has wronged comes forward comes across as very indignant. It seems like Shmuel is taking the people’s request for a king as an insult to his personal integrity. But if you look earlier in the navi, when they request the king in Chapter 8, their concerns are well-founded!

א וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר זָקֵן שְׁמוּאֵל; וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת-בָּנָיו שֹׁפְטִים, לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. ב וַיְהִי שֶׁם-בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר יוֹאֵל, וְשֵׁם מִשְׁנֵהוּ אֲבִיָּה–שֹׁפְטִים, בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע. ג וְלֹא-הָלְכוּ בָנָיו בִּדְרָכָו, וַיִּטּוּ אַחֲרֵי הַבָּצַע; וַיִּקְחוּ-שֹׁחַד–וַיַּטּוּ, מִשְׁפָּט. {פ}

ד וַיִּתְקַבְּצוּ, כֹּל זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל-שְׁמוּאֵל, הָרָמָתָה. ה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה אַתָּה זָקַנְתָּ, וּבָנֶיךָ, לֹא הָלְכוּ בִּדְרָכֶיךָ; עַתָּה, שִׂימָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ–כְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם. ו וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר, בְּעֵינֵי שְׁמוּאֵל, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשָׁפְטֵנוּ; וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמוּאֵל, אֶל-יְהוָה. {פ}

1 And it came to pass, when Shmuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel. 2 Now the name of his first-born was Joel; and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beer-sheba. 3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after profit, and took bribes, and perverted justice. 4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Shmuel to Ramah. 5 And they said to him: ‘Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.’ 6 But the thing displeased Shmuel, when they said: ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ And Shmuel prayed to Hashem.

No one had ever accused Shmuel of wrongdoing; they had only accused his sons. This is in stark contrast with Moshe’s speech in the parsha which is motivated by accusations against Moshe’s character. And by the account of the navi, the accusation against Shmuel was based on the facts! So why did Shmuel go into this length speech about his own personal integrity, when no one had challenged it?

It’s true that the elders came to Shmuel based on the delinquency of his sons. But their call to action could have been decidedly different. “Behold, you are old, and your sons walk not in your ways; now… please fire your sons, and appoint judges who will act righteously after your custom.” Why did they not take this relatively minor step instead of the drastic step of requesting a king?

Perhaps Shmuel thinks that the elders mistrust him: “if Shmuel’s sons have gone to the dark side, Shmuel is not far off himself. Or maybe Shmuel would be willing to turn a blind eye for his beloved sons.” If that’s the case, why did they think that asking for a king would go better than asking for different judges? Maybe they thought that this was a way for Shmuel to save face. If a king is being appointed, it’s not that the family of Shmuel is being disgraced due to the actions of his sons. Instead, the people are merely transitioning to a new form of leadership as they were commanded to do in the Torah.

This is a bit of a mind-reading game: we’re trying to infer what Shmuel thought that the elders thought that he thought. But I think this nicely explains everyone’s actions.

Shmuel says in verse 2:

ב וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה הַמֶּלֶךְ מִתְהַלֵּךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם, וַאֲנִי זָקַנְתִּי וָשַׂבְתִּי, וּבָנַי, הִנָּם אִתְּכֶם; וַאֲנִי הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם, מִנְּעֻרַי עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.

2 And now behold, the king walks before you, and I have aged and become old, and my sons — behold they are with you; and I have walked before you from my youth until this day.

What is the reference to Shmuel’s sons there for? Perhaps in Shmuel’s speech here he is separating himself from his sons. “I am giving you the king you asked for, but it is not because I fear exposure. I have not offended anyone. Even though you removed me from power, the corruption that you noted in my sons is still in your midst, and it must be dealt with. There’s no sweeping it under the table.”

“For the Lord undertook to make you his people…”

The haftarah ends in an interesting place: the speech of Shmuel continues for three more verses after the end of the haftarah. The three omitted verses are:

כג גַּם אָנֹכִי, חָלִילָה לִּי מֵחֲטֹא לַיהוָה–מֵחֲדֹל, לְהִתְפַּלֵּל בַּעַדְכֶם; וְהוֹרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם, בְּדֶרֶךְ הַטּוֹבָה וְהַיְשָׁרָה. כד אַךְ יְראוּ אֶת-יְהוָה, וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בֶּאֱמֶת–בְּכָל-לְבַבְכֶם: כִּי רְאוּ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-הִגְדִּל עִמָּכֶם. כהוְאִם-הָרֵעַ, תָּרֵעוּ–גַּם-אַתֶּם גַּם-מַלְכְּכֶם, תִּסָּפוּ. {פ}

23 Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD in ceasing to pray for you; but I will instruct you in the good and the right way. 24 Only fear the LORD, and serve Him in truth with all your heart; for consider how great are the things He has done for you. 25 But if you shall still act wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king.’

Why does the haftarah leave out these three verses? A typical answer to this type of question is that the final verse is not a positive thought to end the haftarah on. This is true here (nobody likes being swept away), but verse 24 is quite positive as well. So why end specifically on verse 22?

Perhaps verse 23 was viewed as wrong to include in the haftarah. The speech of Shmuel closely parallels the speech of Moshe in Parashat Korach. In the story of the haftarah, Shmuel is able to forgive the people and pray for G-d to protect them in the future. In the parashah, on the other hand, no reconciliation is possible (for any number of reasons). Maybe when Chazal were choosing the haftarot, they thought that this contrast of Shmuel and Moshe might unfairly reflect on Moshe. So the ended while Shmuel was being stern but fair, and omitted the warm fuzzies.

Shabbat shalom! May this shabbat bring only friendly gatherings!

Shlach, Yehoshua 2:1-24

Shalom chaverim! Last week, the haftarah of Parshat Beha’alotecha was the same as the haftarah of Shabbat Chanukah, which we already studied. (In case you don’t remember, it’s Zechariah 2-4, and it’s really confusing.) For that reason, I decided to take the week off. This week, we’re back with the haftarah for Parashat Shlach.

Context

Our haftarah is the second chapter after the Torah concludes. In the first chapter of the book of Yehoshua, the title character takes Moshe’s mantle and assumes leadership. He reaffirms the pact with the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and half the tribe of Menasheh. In the chapters following, the people will prepare themselves to cross the Jordan and begin the conquest of the promised land.

Overview

There’s some strangely disjointed storytelling in this chapter. For example, verse 16 describes how Rachav sends the spies down a rope from the window, but then they continue to talk for fully six more verses. In any case, here is an attempted breakdown:

[1-3] The two spies are sent and lodge at Rachav’s house. Somehow, the king hears.

[4-7] Rachav hides the spies and sends the king’s men on a false hunt towards the Jordan.

[8-11] Rachav tells the spies that the inhabitants of Canaan fear Israel.

[12-21] Rachav makes a pact with the spies: she will tie a red cord in her window, and the Israelites will spare her family when they invade.

[22-24] The men flee to the hills to wait out the search party, then return to Yehoshua and report that the people are afraid of Israel.

“Bring out the men who came to your house!”

When I read the verse I quoted in the title, something clicked with me.

ג וַיִּשְׁלַח מֶלֶךְ יְרִיחוֹ, אֶל-רָחָב לֵאמֹר: הוֹצִיאִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הַבָּאִים אֵלַיִךְ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ לְבֵיתֵךְ–כִּי לַחְפֹּר אֶת-כָּל-הָאָרֶץ, בָּאוּ.

3 And the king of Jericho sent word to Rachav, saying: Bring out the men that have come to you, who came to your house, for they came to scout out the land.

This image of people coming to Rachav’s house, demanding for people to be brought out, brought to mind the story of the angels who visit Lot in Bereishit Chapter 19. Verse 19:5 reports:

ה וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה; הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ, וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם.

5 And they called out to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring out the men to us that we may know them.”

Indeed, the parallels between these two stories are far-reaching in the text.

1. The initial departure of the spies features some of the same language as the departure of the angels from Avraham’s tent in Chapter 18. In Yehoshua 2, we read:

א וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוֹשֻׁעַ-בִּן-נוּן מִן-הַשִּׁטִּים שְׁנַיִם-אֲנָשִׁים מְרַגְּלִים, חֶרֶשׁ לֵאמֹר, לְכוּ רְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְאֶת-יְרִיחוֹ…

1 And Joshua son of Nun sent from the Shittim two men, spies, in secret saying “Go, see the land and Jericho”…

Similarly, in Bereishit 18, we see:

טז וַיָּקֻמוּ מִשָּׁם הָאֲנָשִׁים, וַיַּשְׁקִפוּ עַל-פְּנֵי סְדֹם; וְאַבְרָהָם–הֹלֵךְ עִמָּם, לְשַׁלְּחָם

16 And the men rose from there and looked out over Sodom; and Avraham walked with them to send them.

2. Rachav is described as a zonah, literally a prostitute, though many commentaries say it means innkeeper in this context. In any case, if we take it literally, it stands as another similarity to the Bereishit story. After all, Lot essentially offers to prostitute his own daughters in an attempt to save his guests.

3. Someone arrives before the men lie down to sleep. In the Yehoshua story, Rachav ascends to the roof before the men go to sleep.

ח וְהֵמָּה, טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּן; וְהִיא עָלְתָה עֲלֵיהֶם, עַל-הַגָּג.

2:8 And it was, before they lay down, and she ascended to them on the roof.

Similarly, in the Bereishit story, the mob arrives before the men go to sleep.

ד טֶרֶם, יִשְׁכָּבוּ, וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל-הַבַּיִת, מִנַּעַר וְעַד-זָקֵן: כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה

19:4 Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house from young to old, with all the people on the periphery.

Almost the same phrase is used in both cases.

4. Lot closes the door behind him to protect his guests, just like the hunters close the door behind themselves. In Yehoshua, the wording is as follows:

ז וְהָאֲנָשִׁים, רָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ הַיַּרְדֵּן, עַל, הַמַּעְבְּרוֹת; וְהַשַּׁעַר סָגָרוּ–אַחֲרֵי, כַּאֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ הָרֹדְפִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם.

7 And the men chased after them towards the Jordan at the crossings, and they closed the gate after them as the pursuers left after them.

In Bereishit the wording is:

ו וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵהֶם לוֹט, הַפֶּתְחָה; וְהַדֶּלֶת, סָגַר אַחֲרָיו

6 And Lot went out to them at the entrance, and he closed the door after him.

The language in both cases is nearly identical.

5. The angels offer to save the family of Lot, just as the spies agree to save the family of Rachav during the conquest.

6. After departing the city, Lot hides out in the mountains. So too, the spies go up to the mountains to wait out the search party for three days.

When a text adopts the structure of a well-known tale for a new story, the author is consciously trying to set up expectations that he can subvert in the new version. So what is different about this story when we compare it to the story of Lot?

One striking difference is the force and initiative of the character of Rachav as compared to the character of Lot. Lot doesn’t do much to protect his guests beyond making a bizarre offer of his daughters (which based on the response, may have been meant as more of a rebuke). Rachav, on the other hand, cleverly deceives the inquisitors, hiding her guests on the roof. Lot is told by the angels to gather his relations, but doesn’t manage to persuade anyone. Rachav is proactive about negotiating with the spies for the sake of her family, and, we learn later, she succeeds in saving them all. Rachav tells her guests how best to escape the pursuers in the mountains, meanwhile, Lot is the one who must be directed to escape. All around, Rachav is a no-nonsense boss, and Lot is a pushover.

The other interesting difference is the nature of the people coming to capture the guests. The people in Sodom have only evil in their hearts. They want to abuse the guests for no reason other than exercising their own power. Meanwhile, the people of Yericho seem to have an honestly quite legitimate claim to capture the spies. The king correctly determines that the guests are hostile spies who will use any information collected to aid an invading army.

Why then was Rachav so proactive in harboring her fugitive guests? What justified in her mind what amounted to treachery against her king and fellow citizens?

At first, I unjustly suspected Rachav of narrow self-interest, or perhaps a strategic attempt to save her family. But a closer reading of her speech to the spies in verses 9-13 reveals that it was not just a fear of death that motivated her. She heard about the miracles performed for the Israelites and came to an earnest religious awakening.

יא וַנִּשְׁמַע וַיִּמַּס לְבָבֵנוּ, וְלֹא-קָמָה עוֹד רוּחַ בְּאִישׁ מִפְּנֵיכֶם: כִּי, ה’ אֱלֹקיכֶם–הוּא אֱלֹקים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל, וְעַל-הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת.

11 And we heard and our hearts melted, and no spirit arose in any man before you: for Hashem your G-d he is the G-d in the heavens above, and on the land below.

By using this story, the Navi underlines for the reader how righteous and true the faith of the Israelites was, that even an enemy citizen could recognize it.

“And she tied the red cord in the window”

A quick riddle to end the post: The sign that Rachav arranged with the spies to indicate which house was hers, was that she would tie a red string in the window of her home. Who else in Tanach tied a red string? What else does that story and Rachav share in common?

Shabbat shalom! Keep your shabbos guests safe if the king comes knocking.

Nasso, Shoftim 13:2-25

Hi there! Last week was a lot of fun — I taught a class about the second day of Shavuot’s Haftarah from Chavakuk 3. Unfortunately, it’s not yet written up in blog post form, but hopefully someday! In the meanwhile, enjoy some thoughts on haftarat Nasso.

Context

We saw the book of Shoftim before, in the haftarah for Shabbat Shirah: there we read about the judge and prophet Devorah. Devorah is the fourth judge in the book of Shoftim; after Devorah, the judges that follow are Gid’on, Avimelech and Yiftach (about whom we learn a lot), as well as Tola, Yair, Ivtzan, Elon, and Avdon, about whom we don’t learn much. Our haftarah picks up after the people have begun to sin, and the Plishtim begin oppressing them. We will read about the arrival of the twelfth judge Shimshon.

Overview

[2-5] Angel comes to Manoach’s wife and gives instructions regarding Shimshon’s nazir status.

[6-7] Manoach’s wife reports back to him.

[8-14] Manoach prays for the angel to come again, he does and re-instructs Manoach.

[15-23] Manoach offers to feed the angel; instead, the angel instructs him to bring a sacrifice. Then the angel disappears in the fire, and Manoach fears for his life. His wife reassures him.

[24-25] The woman gives birth to a son named Shimshon, and he becomes prominent in Dan.

“There was a certain man from Zorah”

Reading through the haftarah, I was struck by the following nearly chiastic structure:

1] A man named Manoach from family of Dan lives in Zorah. His wife has not borne children.

2] Angel appears to the wife with instructions about a son who will be a nazir.

3] Wife reports back to husband.

4] Manoach prays that the man/angel appear again.

4’] Angel appears again to wife.

3’] Wife reports back to husband.

2’] Angel gives instructions to husband regarding their son who will be a nazir.

Additional sub-unit about the offer of food and the sacrifice.

1’] The woman gives birth. The son is named Shimshon and becomes prominent in Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.

There are a few lessons that I believe we can learn from this structure:

1. Though there are four characters mentioned in this chapter, only two of them are named (though you might argue that Pel’i is the angel’s name, this is hardly convincing). The chapter begins by naming Manoach, and ends with the naming of Shimshon. These characters are set up to be foils to one another.
   Manoach’s name comes from the root נ.ו.ח which means rest. Shimshon’s name might come from shemesh, i.e. the sun, which travels from one horizon to the other. Alternatively, it might come from shamash, i.e. a servant (one who works and does not rest). The end of the chapter also describes Shimshon being moved by the spirit or literally the wind of G-d. Manoach is a figure at rest and Shimshon is on the move.
2. Our usual assumption is that the center of a chiasmus is the key focal point of the story. Here the central pair is Manoach’s prayer and the angel’s return. There is something in this pairing that is reflective of the entire trajectory of the book of Shoftim. The people find themselves in positions where they cry out to G-d for help. Then G-d replies but not quite in the way that they might have expected. He sends someone with a disabled right hand (Ehud), someone of scandalous parentage (Yiftach), and *gasp* a woman (Devorah)! One of the most memorable stories in Shoftim is Yiftach promising G-d the first animal to greet him after battle if he wins. He does win, but then his daughter greets him and his victory comes at a bitter price. When Manoach prays that the angel should return to them to instruct them, and the angel returns to the wife alone, this falls into this pattern of almost-connecting prayers.
3. Something is unusual about the whole sub-unit in which the angel is offered food, is asked his name, and then disappears — it breaks the chiastic structure. Because the flow of the story is all about the coming of Shimshon, this tangent does not really relate. Why then is it included at all? Perhaps, for a shofet whose deeds seem generally not-so-righteous, the Navi wanted to emphasize the Divine plan behind his ascent to power.

“Her husband Manoach was not with her”

The connection to our parsha seems at first rather obvious: the angel’s two sets of instruction regarding Shimshon’s nazir status connects to the laws of the Nazir which are related in our parsha. However, looking closer at the haftarah, we see another law, related right before nazir in Parshat Nasso, to which allusions are made. That law, of course, is sotah.

First off, much of the haftarah is about a husband and wife who have poor communication. In particular, the husband repeatedly expresses suspicion about what his wife says. When she tells him what the angel says, he prays that the angel/man should return so he could hear it for himself. When she reports that the angel/man has returned, he still goes and asks him if he is in fact the same entity.

Another minor connection is the mention of “בטן” in verses 5 and 7, which is not a common word in the Torah. It does appear in sotah, describing the gruesome punishment that will befall a guilty woman.

Furthermore, the absence of Manoach when the angel arrives the second time in verse 9 is described very similarly to this verse from the chapter of sotah (Bamidbar 5:13):

יג וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ, שִׁכְבַת-זֶרַע, וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ, וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה; וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ, וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה.

13 in that a man has had carnal relations with her unbeknown to her husband, and she keeps secret the fact that she has been defiled without being forced, and there is no witness against her—

Finally, the reward for a woman who is subjected to the sotah trial when she was innocent is that she will become pregnant. So too, in our haftarah, Manoach’s wife is blessed with a child.

Having established a link between our haftarah and the laws of Sotah, what is there to be learned? Perhaps this is foreshadowing to Shimshon’s later misadventures with the women in his life, particularly Delilah. Just as his parents possessed the mutual distrust signified by the sotah, so too Shimshon’s relationships would be plagued by distrust.

“Nor did he tell me his name”

There are many strange echoes from the book of Bereishit in our haftarah. I’ll only list a few here:

1. The wife of Manoach is described as barren, like three of the foremothers.
2. The arrival of an angel predicting the birth of a son echoes Bereishit chapter 18 in which the angels tell Avraham about the birth of Yitzchak.
3. The phrase in verse 11 “‘Are you the man who spoke to the woman’ and he said ‘I am’” is very similar to the exchange between Yitzchak and Yaakov in Bereishit 27:24, where Yitzchak asks “‘Are you my son Esav’ and he says ‘I am’.”
   Incidentally, the midrash in Bamidbar Rabah explicitly connects these ‘I am’s, asserting that both are not entirely straightforward. The angel’s meant ‘I am [an angel, not a man.]’ Yaakov’s meant ‘I am [Yaakov not Esav]’
4. The same phrase from verse 18 “Why would you ask my name?” is used in Bereishit 32:30, in which the angel who wrestled with Yaakov refuses to give his name.
5. The offer to feed the angels also mirrors Avraham’s behavior in Bereishit 18.

So what is this all about? Perhaps there is something about the rise of Shimshon that marks the end of an era. The Biblical era of heroism and legends is coming to an end, and the time for politics and messy interpersonal relationships is rising with the eventual arrival of the monarchy. Shimshon is the last larger-than-life figure in the Bible who somehow lived outside of the normal rules of tribal politics. That’s just one possibility.

Shabbat Shalom! May all your prayers be answered in the fullest and truest way!