Call of the Rooster

As is the case with the Torah itself, we know that the words of the Neviim were chosen with utmost care. We must endeavor to understand each of the Divrei HaNeviim, so that we may understand the message that they hold for us. The is also true, perhaps even more so, when it comes to phrases with which we are familiar, as we find in this week’s Haftorah.

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.

The Haftorah continues, describing the fate to which we have condemned ourselves: our edifices are to be destroyed, and our possessions will become the spoils of marauding enemies. The Navi then seems to turn to the cause of our demise, contrasting two approaches to life.

First, the Passuk says: “Arur Hagever Asher Yivtach B’Adam VSam Basar Zerao U’Min Hashem Yasur Libo”, one who puts his faith in man and makes flesh his strength is cursed, for he has turned his thoughts away from the Borei Olam. Such a person is compared by the Navi to a bush in the scorched desert, alone and fruitless.

Then, the Navi draws a parallel: “Baruch HaGever Asher Yivtach B’Hashem V’Haya Hashem Mivtacho”. When one trusts in Hashem, he finds Bracha and Hashem protects him. This person is compared to a tree planted near water, whose leaves are ever fresh and which produces an endless bounty of fruits.

These two Pessukim certainly seem fundamental in nature, as they discuss one of a basic part of our lives: Bitachon. Trusting in Hashem in all circumstances is elementary to Yiddishkeit, but of course takes a lifetime to perfect. The Navi here seems to be setting some very basic parameters: one who lacks Bitachon of any sort, who is Yivtach B’Adam, is in the category of Arur, and one who has complete Bitachon in Hashem will find limitless Bracha.

As we know Bitachon takes many forms, and applies in many areas of life. In fact, the Meforshim seem to differ as to the type of Bitachon the Passuk speaks about.

Rashi tells us that the Passuk refers to one who places his trust in mankind “B’Charish U’Bakatzir”, at the times of planting, saying “Ezrah B’Shviis”. Similarly, Mahari Kr”a explains that the Brachos that await one who is “Yivtach B’Hashem” refer to the Brachos promised to Shomrei Shiviis.

In the view of these Rishonim, the Bitachon spoken about by the Navi is in areas of Parnassah. When one puts too much stock in his own talents and abilities, for example, he assumes that his agricultural prowess results in the crops that provide for he and his family and he cannto help but plant even during Shemitah. If one is a Boteach B’Hashem, however, understanding that his Parnassah comes from Shamayim, the Brachos of Sheviis are within his reach.

Radak, however, learsn the Pessukim slightly differently. He sees the Navi as speaking to those in his generation, who placed much stock in the surrounding nations. They felt that the “Adam, the physically strong armies, would protect from enemies set upon them by Hashgacha Elyona, and thus removed any thoughts of Hashem from their mind. When one places his trust in Hashem, however, he need not fear for anything for he knows that Hashem is protecting him. This itself is the greatest Bracha: freedom from fear.

Radak, then, seems to understand the Passuk to be referring not to Bitachon in terms of Parnassah and sustenance, but to physical security. If one allows the strength of an army to dictate his level of physical comfort, he is relegated to the category of Arur. If, however, he remains aware that Hashem is his ultimate protector, he will find Bracha.

In a way there is not that much light between the Pshatim offered by Rashi and Radak: the Navi is clearly speaking about Bitachon, and these two approaches just define the type of Bitachon to he it refers. That said, perhaps there is a way to understand the Pessukim in a broader sense, so that we can see how both these Peshatim fit into the words. It seems there is a very basic question to be asked on the Lashon of the Pessukim which may help us do just that.

As we know, there are a number of words in Lashon Kodesh that mean “man”. The terms Adam, Ish, Ben Adam, and Enosh can all mean “a person” and each of them could be used in this Passuk. instead, the Navi chose a much more uncommon term: Gever. In both Pessukim the subject of the Navi’s words is a “Gever”. Why is this word used instead of any of the other, more frequently found, terms?

One of the other limited places that we find the use of this word and implication in Tanach is in Pashas Balak. There, Bilaam begins one of his unintentional Brachos with the words “Ne’um Bilaam beno Beor U’Ne’um HaGever Shisum HaAyin.” Bilaam refers to himself as Gever and Rabbeinu Bachya, sensitive to the rare use of this term, offers an interesting Pshat. The Gemara in Avodah tells us that Bilaam was able to discern the one split-second of the day in which the anger of Hashem is aroused, and planned to issue his curses then. There is only one other being that has a connection to this ability: the rooster, which has an ability to slight discern difference in time, as we know.

By using the word “Gever”, explains Rabbeinu Bachya, Bilaam referred to the ability he shared with the rooster, which is also known as a “Gever.” It seems, then, that any time we see the word “Gever” it may in some way allude to a rooster as well as a person. Perhaps we can use the teachings of Chazal that relate to this meaning of the word “Gever” to help us understand these Pessukim.

The Gemarah in Yoma tells us “B’Techila Hayu Yisroel Domin K’Tarnegolim Shemenakrin B’Aspha Ad SheBa Moshe V’Kava Lahem Zman Seudah”. At first, Bnei Yisroel were like chickens, which pick at the garbage pile , eating any time there is food, until Moshe Rabbeinu came and established meal times for them.

The Gemarah there is engaged in a discussion about how often a person must eat, and therefore uses this Memra in its most literal sense. One can easily see, however, that there is another way to understand it. Did Bnei Yisroel actually eat at will, and why did Moshe Rabbeinu have to establish mealtimes for them? What is meant by this Gemarah?

The Shefa Chaim of Sanz explains that while they were in Mitzrayim, Bnei Yisroel were steeped in the Redifas HaTaiva that defined the land. They ate and drank to fill their Tavias, allowing the pursuit of physical pleasures to overtake their lives. Just before Mattan Torah, however, Moshe Rabbeinu was Mekadesh Bnei Yisroel, instilling within them the abilities to withstand Taiva—to refrain from even that which is Muttar, in order to be Kadosh. In fact, only by eliminating the need to fulfil every last desire, by removing us from the category of “Tarnegolim Shemenakrin B’Aspha”, were we prepared to accept the Torah. This, explains the Shefa Chaim, is why the Bracha on the Torah is “Asher Bachar Banu MiKol HaAmim V’Nossan Lanu Es Toraso”. First, we were removed from the category of the other nations, through Kedusa and the ability to overcome our Taivos, and only then were we Mekabel the Torah.

The word “Gever”, then, can be seen as referring to this most basic difference between Bnei Yisroel and the nations of the word.

“Arur Hagever Asher Yivtach B’Adam”, one who is a “Gever”, akin to a rooster who is Menaker B’Ashpa, exhibits an inability to withstand Taiva. This removes him, in a way, from the level of Yisroel that is required for a true relationship with Hashem. If one is not ready to be Kadosh, to limit himself even when something is completely Muttar, he will not be a Boteach, be it in matters of Parnassah or physical security. This will lead to a removal of Hahsem from his mind, and the derogatory definitions assigned by the Navi.

As Chazal say, Middah Tova Meruba. If we understand the negative words of the Navi in this light, perhaps we can use the same approach for the next Pessukim.

The Gemara in Baitza tells us: “Mipnei Nah Nitnah Torah L’Yisroel Mipnei Shem Azim”, the Torah was given to Bnei Yisroel because they are Azim, a brazen nation. The Gemarah continues, telling us “Shlosha Azin Hen”, there are three beings that are especially brazen, “Yisroel B’umos Kelev B’chayos Tarnagol B’Ofos”. Among the nations, Yisroel has the greatest measure of Azus, as a dog does among animals and a chicken among birds. The Tarnagol, or Gever, thus represents a most vital Middah: “Azus”.

When one exhibits Azus D’Kedusha, a willingness to be strong minded in his adherence to Torah and Mitzvos and remain strong in the face of opposition, he is acting in the manner of a Gever, and displaying the Middah that itself allowed us to be Mekabel the Torah. When he achieves this level, he can be a true Boteach B’Hashem, as he will not let outside influences sway him. An attitude of “Kochi V’otzem Yadi” will not creep into his strong and strident façade, his faith in HKBH unwavering. About this person the Navi says Baruch HaGever Asher Yivtach B’Hashem.

As we approach Mattan Torah, these Pessukim take on a special meaning. In both cases the Navi speaks about a Gever, and in both Pessukim the Middos referred to are tied specifically to our ability to be Mekabel the Torah. If we cleave to our Azus D’Kedusha, and resist the urge to be act as Tarnegolim Shemenakrin B’Aspha, we will not only be Zoche to our own Kabbalas HaTorah, but we will also be Zoche to the Brachos promised by the Navi: “Lo Yiraeh Ki Yav Cham…V’Lo Yamish M’Asos Peri.”