Productive Relationships

A majority of Parshas Bechukosai is devoted to the Pessukim of Bracha and Klalah, known as the Tochacha, which discuss the realities of living in Eretz Yisroel. The Torah is quite clear: if Klal Yisroel is careful to follow the Derech Hashem and treat the land as they are meant to, they will find unlimited Bracha. If the opposite is true, however, “V’Eschem Ezrah Bagoyim” the land will lie fertile as we are scattered amongst the nations of the world. The Haftorah, which is a Nevuah of Yirmiyahu, reflects these realities as the Navi explains why Klal Yisroel is threatened by the armies who would soon overtake them. Yirmiyahu reminds the people that it is their own inequities that led them to this point, “Chattas Yehuda Kesuva B’Et Barzel”, and that dedication to the Ratzon Hashem may have prevented it.

Although the connection between the Parsha and Haftorah is thus evident, it seems that there may also a relevance between the Haftorah and the time of year in which we find ourselves. The Gemarah in Megillah makes it clear that Parshas Bechukosai is Leined prior to Shavuos, and it follows that the Haftorah is as well. With that in mind, perhaps we can find a message within the words of the Navi, troubling as though they are, that can help us prepare for the approach Chag Mattan Toraseinu.

After his initial words of direct Tochacha to Bnei Yisroel, the Navi speaks in broader terms: “Ko Amar Hashem Arur HaGever Asher Yivtach B’Adam V’Sam Basar Zero’o U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo.” Though we are more familiar with a later Passuk in which the Navi speaks about the opposite Middah, “Baruch HaGever Asher Yivtach B’Hashem”, here Yirmiyahu refers to one who places his trust, so to speak, in mankind.

As this is the beginning of a new section within the words of the Navi, as indicated by the words “Ko Amar Hashem”, it is not immediately clear how these words relate to the overall theme of the Divrei Tochacha at hand. Rashi explains that the Navi is not speaking in the most general terms, but specifically about one of the chief causes of Galus: a lack of Shemiras HaShemita. Rashi explains that the words “Asher Yivtach B’Adam” refer to one who says “Ezrah B’Shviis V’Ochel” and the words “U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo” speak about a lack of Bitachon in the Bracha that Hashem promises will accompany the years of Shemita, “ViTzivisi Es Berchasi Lachem”.

According to Rashi, the progression of the Pessukim can be easily understood. In the Tochacha of Bechukosai, the Torah tells us: “Az Tirtza HaAretz Es Shabsoseha”, and Chazal explain that this refers to the fact that when the land lies fallow, because its inhabitants are in Galus, it will make up for the years of Shemitah that were not correctly observed. Thus, as the Navi speaks about why we faced the prospect of Galus, he includes a reference to the behavior that is specifically linked to our expulsion from Artzeinu HaKedosha.

This approach, which seems based on the way Rashi reads earlier Pessukim as well, is not universal, however. Radak sees these words as having a broader message: though the Kasdiim were approaching and disaster seem imminent, there were those who thought that one of the surrounding nations, Mitzrayim or Ashur, would come to their aid. Thus the Navi reminds us where our Bitachon must be placed: “Arur HaGever Asher Yivtach B’Adam”. We must not assume that others will help us, for the Ratzon Hashem is ever paramount. In this approach, the final words of the Passuk indicate the level of Bitachon B’Adam that the Navi was addressing. It is understandable, explains Radak, that one would think that Hashem will send a Yeshua through people, but that is not what the Navi speaks. Rather, the words “U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo”, refer to someone who places all his trust in mankind to the exclusion of the Ribbono Shel Olam.

What emerges is a vast difference in opinion as to how these words are understood. According to Rashi, the Navi is speaking about how Bnei Yisroel arrived at their current situation: through a lack of Bitachon that led to widespread violations of Shemitah. According to the Radak and those who share his approach, however, the Navi is not speaking about how Bnei Yisroel reached this point, but about how they should view their current situation. Rather than ignoring the Hashgacha Elyona and placing their faith in those around them, they should turn back to the Derech Hashem and maybe then they would be spared.

While it is common for Meforshim to differ in their understanding of a Passuk, and we know that there are Shivim Panim L’Torah, perhaps we can find a way to somehow resolve both approaches to the words of the Navi. To do so, let us begin by looking at the very next Passuk, which continues to discuss the “Yivtach B’Adam”.

“V’Haya K’Arur B’Arava…” The Navi compares one who is identified in the earlier Passuk to a bush in the desert, alone and without sustenance in the “Eretz Meleicha V’Lo Teshev.” The implication of these words is that the punishment for he who is “Yivtach B’Adam…U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo” is that his own sustenance will suffer. He will not see the fruits of his labors, as the Passuk says “Lo Yireh Ki Yavo Tov”.

It is a little difficult to understand this Passuk according to Rashi: if the earlier words of the Navi refer specifically to those who don’t keep Shiviis, and are now facing Galus on account of that, then their punishment is clear—they are losing their grip on Eretz Yisroel just as the Torah promises. What is added by the Mashal of the Arur B’Arava? It would seem that the time for that part of their punishment had passed—perhaps they would not have seen Peiros from their work during Shemita, but why mention that now? According to Radak that the Navi is mentioning the current situation, and the proper way to react to it, these words are perhaps better understood: if one abandons Bitachon in Hashem in favor of Basar V’Dam, he will not benefit.

Interestingly, however, these words are used by Chazal to describe another type of individual, and perhaps this can allow us some insight into their meaning.

The Mishna in Avos brings a number of Memros from R’ Elazar ben Azarya regarding Limud HaTorah and those who engage in this most sacred pursuit. Among them, R’ Elazar discusses the necessary balance between Chachma, knowledge, and Ma’aseh, action. The Mishna tells us that one who is “Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav”, who places a greater emphasis on Chachma than Ma’aseh, is akin to a tree with many leaves but weak roots. In support of this idea, the Mishna cites our Passuk, “V’Haya K’Arur B’Arava..”

On its face, this is a little difficult to understand: the Mishna is speaking about someone who is learned, but does not necessarily put his Chachma into action properly. Is this really comparable to the “Yivtach B’Adam…U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo” that the Navi is referring to with this words V’Haya K’Arur B’Arava..”? Why did R’ Elazar ben Azarya choose such a harsh description for one who is “Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav”?

The Sefer Meir Einei HaGoleh, which is a collection of short thoughts from the Chidushei HaRi”m, contains something of a cryptic passage relating to this Mishna. The Passuk in Parshas Shelach says: “Amalek Yoshev B’Aretz HaNegev”, that Amalek lived to the south of Eretz Yisroel. The Chidushei Hari”m notes that Chachma comes from the south, as Chazal tell us “HaRotzeh L’Hachkim Yadrim”, and so one who is in the category of “Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav” is in “Moshavo Shel Amalek”, the land of our most hated enemy.

While it is difficult to understand the true depth of the words of the Chidushei Hari”m, and how Chachma is related to the Negev, one thing is clear: “Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav” is not a mere lack of proper priorities—one who leads such a lifestyle is in the company of Amalek himself. Certainly it is worth our while to understand a little more about this category of individual.

Rabbeinu Yona, in his Pirush on this Mishna, explains that the two Middos of Chachma and Maaseh are related to two words with which we are quite familiar: “Na’aseh V’Nishma”. When Klal Yisroel uttered this lofty phrase, they said: “We will put Ma’aseh before Chachmah.” In so doing, they committed to keep the Torah and its Mitzvos even before they understood what that entailed, and such is the level to which we aspire, to put Na’aseh before Nishma, Ma’aseh before Chachma.

It emerges, then, that one who is in the realm of “Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav” is not on the level of Na’aseh V’Nishma, but of Nishma V’Naaseh—but it is somewhat surprising that the Mishna compares this to U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo. After all, Chazal tell us that the words “Na’aseh V’Nishma” are a Lashon SheMalachei HaShares Mishtamshin Bo, the realm of Malachei Elyon. Is someone who fails to rise to that level indeed on the level of Amalek, as the Chidushei HaRi”m implies?

Perhaps to understand this, we must better relate to the level of Na’aseh V’Nishma. The Meshech Chachma in Parshas V’Eschanan explains that because Malachaim are so closely connected to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, they have no interest other than the Ratzon HaBorei. A Malach has no name—he is referred to by his Shlichus, because once he learns of the Ratzon Hashem that is his Kol Kulo. That is why the approach of Na’aseh V’Nishma is one of Malachaim—they are so closely connected to Hashem that the urge to follow His Ratzon is almost instinctive and requires no preparation.

At the time of Mattan Torah, explains R’ Meir Simcha, we rose to that level: as a nation, we were so closely connected to Hashem that we could commit to following his Ratzon without even hearing what it was, because it would be instinctive.

It follows, then, that when one is not on the level of Na’aseh V’Nishma, when he is on a level of Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav, where he must understand every aspect of a Mitzvah, every reason for a Minhag, it is a sign that he is disconnected from the Borei Olam. When the relationship falters, the eagerness to follow the Ratzon HaBorei suffers. This distance is symptomatic of the influences of Amalek, who seeks only to inject Richuk into our relationship with Hashem.

The Navi speaks about one who is Yivtach B’Adam…U’Min Hashem Yasir Libo, who, as Radak explains, has absolutely no connection with Hashem. This is not a person who has a weakness in his Emunah, whose Bitachon is a work in progress—it is someone who relies only on that which he thinks he understands. This can be seen in the way he pursues his Parnassah—Ignoring the promise of Bracha associated with Shemitah and working his fields instead, for example—or the way he examines geopolitical affairs. It can be seen in his Avodas Hashem and Kiyum HaMitzvos as well—his lack of relationship with Hakadosh Baruch Hu will remove him from a level of Na’aseh V’Nishma, and cause him to become Chachmaso Mirubah M’Maasav.

The message is clear: in all aspects of our lives, we must focus first on our relationship with Avinu Shebashamayim. Only if we are properly connected with the ultimate source of Bracha can we succeed in any of the areas touched upon in Chazal in discussing this Passuk. If we do not maintain this connection, we will soon find ourselves standing alone, as an “Arrer B’Arava V’Lo Yireh Ki Yavo Tov”.

As the day of Mattan Torah approaches, and we have the opportunity to once again renew the vow of Na’aseh V’Nishma, let us take the words of the Navi to heart. If we become the proverbial Gever Ashe Yivtach B’Hashem, we will experience Bracha not only in our material pursuits, but more importantly in our Ruchniasdik life. Our own growth in Torah and Avodah will blossom like an “Etz Shasul Al Palgei Mayim Asher Piryo Yiten B’Ito.”