Unbreakable

As we know, there are no coincidental occurances when it comes to our yearly calendar, which was designed by Chazal with specific intent. The attachment of a particular Parsha to a time of year, for example, is not mere happenstance, but rather the indication of specific message that the Rabbanan wished to send us regarding one or both. The fact that Shavuos can only occur after Parshas Bamidbar has be Leined is therefore evidence that the content of the Parsha somehow prepares us for the coming Yom Tov. The same can also be said about the Haftorah of Bamidbar: if we examine the words of the Haftorah correctly, we may find a vital message related to Shavuos.

The Haftorah itself comes from Sefer Hoshea, and is comprised of a lengthy Nevuah that Hoshea received regarding the fate of Klal Yisroel. Hoshea lived at the same time as Yeshayahu, and his words are similarly dire. He was keenly aware of the shortcomings that plagued Bnei Yisroel—an awareness which, the Gemarah in Pesachim tells us, led him to make a suggestion to Hakadosh Baruch Hu: “He’eviram B’Uma Acheres”. Hoshea asked Hashem why he continued to care for a nation that did not heed His word—why not designate a new Am HaNivchar? Sefer Hoshea begins with the answer the Navi was given by Hashem: he was instructed to take an Eshes Zinunim, a wife who herself may have been less than faithful, and whom the Ribbono Shel Olam would later instruct Hoshea to send away. When Hoshea replied that he was unable to do so, for he had grown fond of her, the implication was clear: Hakadosh Baruch Hu could not so easily spurn Klal Yisroel either.

Although there is a Machlokes whether the marriage between Hoshea and the Eshes Zinunim actually took place, or if these exchanges were allegory, the backdrop of the initial Perakim of Hoshea, including the Pessukim which comprise the Haftorah, is the discussion of the relationship between a man and his wife. Much of the metaphor that is found within the words of Navi reflects this theme: for example, Hoshea tells us that the relationship between Hashem and Klal Yisroel has devolved to the point of “Ki HI Lo Ishti V’Ani Lo Isha”.

Later, when the words of the Navi turn to Divrei Tanchumin, this symbolism is employed once again. The Navi tells us that there will be a day on which the relationship is restored, “Kiyom Alosa M’Eretz Mitzrayim”. On that day, Hashem says: “Tikrai Ishi V’Lo Tikrai Li Od Ba’ali”, we will once again refer to Hashem with these terms fo Here, too, the Lashon of Isha is used, but this Passuk is a bit difficult to understand. Both the terms “Ishi” and “Ba’ali” refer to a husband—what is meant by the fact that Klal Yisroel, restored to its close relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, will use the term “Ishi” but not “Ba’ali”?

Rashi appears to be sensitive to this point and explains the difference between these two terms. The word “Ishi” refers to a relationship based on love and admiration, “Chibas Ne’urim”, while the term “Ba’ali” is used in the context “Adnus U’Morah”, fear and control. The Passuk is therefore telling us, according to Rashi, that “Bayom HaHu” Klal Yisroel will enjoy a health and loving relationship with Hashem, and not one that is based on fear.

The words of Rashi, unsurprisingly, seem to represent the simplest level of Pshat in these words. The Navi is telling us that when the days of L’Asid Lavo arrive we will enjoy a close and loving relationship with Hashem—words that certainly give us hope during the long and painful Galus. There is, however, another approach to these words which itself some explanation.

Mahar”I Kr”a explains that the term “Ba’ali” is too similar to the name of the Avodah Zarah of “Ba’al”, which was popular prior to the Churban Habayis, and so in the future, when our connection to Hashem is restored to its closest levels, the term “Ba’ali” will seem inappropriate. This explanation of the PAssuk is a little difficult to understand. The very next Passuk says: “V’Hasirosi Es Shemo HaBa’alim MiPihah”, that Hashem will remove the name of the Ba’al from our mouths. Metzudos explains that Hashem will put into our hearts the ability to remove ourselves so completely from the Avodah Zarah of Ba’al that we will no longer utter the term “Ba’al” even in an unrelated context. It seems, then, that the avoidance of the term “Ba’ali” as relates to Hashem is an effect of this Passuk—if so, why is the effect placed before the cause? It would seem more appropriate to tell us “V’Hasirosi Es Shemo HaBa’alim” and therefore “Tikrai Ishi V’Lo Tikrai Li Od Ba’ali”, and not visa versa as it appears.

In addition, why would the Navi make specific reference to the Aveiros of the past when discussing the close relationship of the future? By referring to the fact that we may have once used the term “Ba’al” in reference to the Avodah Zarah and not Hashem, Hoshea seems to be adding criticism to his Dvirei Nechama. Why?

Although these words must still be explained, it seems that we have perhaps uncovered a close connection between the Haftorah and Shavuos.

The Medrash in Shir HaShirim Rabba lists ten times in Nach that Klal Yisroel is referred to as a “Kallah”, evidence of the relationship embodied in the words of the Paytan: “Keneses Yisroel Kallah Keruah BaNiema”. We are known as the Kallah in the loving relationship between husband and wife that characterizes our connection to the Borei Olam, and Chazal tell us when this relationship began. The final Mishna in Meseches Taanis brings the Passuk in Shir Hashirim that mentions a “Yom Chausnaso” and “Yom Simchas Libo” and the Mishna explains: “Yom Chasunso Zeh Mattan Torah U’ViYom Simchas Libo Zeh Binyan Bais Hamikdash.”

It seems clear from the words of the Mishna that the day of Mattan Torah, Shavuos, is known as the Yom HaChasunah between Klal Yisroel and Hakadosh Baruch Hu. If this is the case, it would seem most appropriate to prepare for the Yom Tov by mentioning the apex of that relationship, the moment in time when it will be the closest and least strained, the day of “Tikrai Ishi V’Lo Tikrai Li Od Ba’ali”.

If we look at the Meforshim on the Mishna, however, this supposition is called into question. The Rav M’Bartenura, who is really quoting Rashi on the Gemarah, explains that when the Mishna says “Yom Chasunso Zeh Mattan Torah” it refers not to Shavuos, the day of Mattan Torah, but to Yom Kippur, on which the Luchos Shnios were given. Although this would seem to fit in the context of the Mishna which begins with the words “Lo Hayu Yomim Tovim L’Yisroel K’Chamisha Asar B’Av V’Yom HaKippurim”, it is a very difficult to understand this Pshat in the words “Yom Chasunso Zeh Mattan Torah”: “Mattan Torah” took place on the sixth of Sivan, and nowhere else is Yom Kippur referred to by this term. Why would Chazal use these words in reference to Yom Kippur and not offer that explanation?

This understanding of the Mishna in Taanis also seems to negate the connection we established between our Haftorah and Shavuos: if the Yom Hachasunah is Yom Kippur and not Shavuos, the discussion of “Tikrai Ishi V’Lo Tikrai Li Od Ba’ali” seems less directly relevant. Perhaps, however, we can understand the concept of the Chasunah between Hashem and Klal Yisroel in a way that resolves the words of Rashi and those of the Navi.

The Maharal, in the eleventh Perek of Netzach Yisroel, establishes a number of truths: the world cannot exist without Torah and the Torah could not be given to Klal Yisroel, therefore it was a Davar Hechrechi, and absolute requirement, that Klal Yisroel accept the Torah. Based on this reality, he explains a somewhat difficult, yet well-known, Mamar Chazal.

The Gemara in Shabbos tells us that at the time of Kabalas HaTorah: “Kaffa Aleihem Har K’Gigis”, Hashem held Har Sinai over Bnei Yisroel like a barrel, and said: “Im Attem Mikablim Es HaTorah Mutav V’Im Lav Sham Tihei Kevuraschem.” Essentially, Bnei Yisroel accepted the Torah under the threat of destruction—a concept that has been the source of much discussion over the millennia. The Maharal raises an interesting question: Bnei Yisroel had already committed to Kabalas HaTorah by saying “Na’aseh V’Nishma” prior to this point. Why then was it necessary for Hashem to coerce them by holding the mountain above them, Kaviyachol?

The Maharal offers an answer to this question based on a Medrash that he found, but whose source is unclear, which says: “Kaffa Aleihem Har K’Gigis Sheyihiyu Anusim L’Kabel Es HaTorah”, Hashem forced Klal Yisroel to accept the Torah, and it says that when one is Me’anes a women, he must marry her “V’Lo Yuchal L’Shalcha”, he is never allowed to divorce her.

Explains the Maharal: by forcing Klal Yisroel to accept the Torah, although they had already agreed to do so, Hakadosh Baruch Hu created a situation of “Lo Yuchal L’Shalcha”—because it took place under duress, the marriage between us and Hashem can never be dissolved. This reality has held us in good stead over the years: no matter how far we may stray, as Yechidim or the Rabbim, our connection to Hashem endures. The union that was created at the time of Mattan Torah, done B’Ones, is forever strong. Perhaps we can understand the words “Yom Chasunso Zeh Mattan Torah” based on this idea.

Of course Mattan Torah itself took place on Shavuos, this is uncontrivable fact. But when was the effect of that day most apparent? On Yom Kippur. We as a nation had quickly fallen from the levels achieved at Har Sinai. A mere forty days later we committed the Chet HaEgel, and the Luchos, emblematic of Mattan Torah itself, were shattered. Yet, just a short time later, on Yom Kippur, we received not only Kapparah for our Avonos, but a replacement for that which was lost. When we received the Luchos Shnios, then, we were keenly aware of the fact that the relationship between Klal Yisroel and Hashem was unbreakable, that our marriage, undertaken B’Ones, was an enduring bond. In this sense, the Yom Chasunaso, the day on which our marriage and its effects were solidified and clarified, was indeed Yom Kippur, the day of Kabbalas Luchos Shnios.

Perhaps, based on this concept, we can also explain the approach of the Mahar”I Kr”a to our Passuk. The Navi tells us that there will come a time when our bond with Hashem will be restored Kiyom Alosa M’Eretz Mitzrayim, but we may question whether we are in fact worthy of that eventuality. The long years of Galus have placed so much distance between us and the Ribbono Shel Olam—how can we hope to rise to that level?

The Navi tells us: “Bayom HaHu…Tikrai Ishi V’Lo Tikrai Li Od Ba’ali”, we will refer to Hashem and “Ishi” but not “Ba’ali” because the word “Ba’al” is sullied by its connection to our past. To whom does the Navi refer? To a person who indeed spoke of Ba’al with those implications, to someone who had at one time been a victim of circumstance and connected with outside influences—it is he that will use the term “Ishi” to refer to Hashem, because he will be elevated to that level despite his prior inequities.

This Passuk is then another example of the unshakable bond between each member of Klal Yisroel and Avinu ShebaShamayim. Each Neshama of Klal Yisroel was present on that day in Chorev, and each one accepted the Torah B’Ones. Therefore each of us connects to Hashem on the level of “V’Lo Yuchal L’Shalcha”, despite any shortcomings we may have, we remain irrevocably connected to the Kudsha Brich Hu.

We read these words in the Haftorah as a preparation for Shavuos, the day on which this connection became a reality. Each year we relive the moments of Har Sinai and are Mekabel the Torah anew—what better time can there be to reflect on our “marriage” to Hashem, the relationship formed under the Chuppah of Har Sinai? On Shavuos we remember, and celebrate, that no matter how far we may be, or may feel, we are in fact ever so close. We are members of the Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh that accepted the Torah, and it is this standing that allows us to be close to Hashem no matter the circumstance. As we renew our commitment to Torah and Limud Hatorah, let us also rejoice in the connection forged through this most precious gift, and strive to remove the distance caused by our decisions so that we can rejoice in the ultimate Yom Simchas Libo.