I Am You Mother

The Haftorah for Parshas Beshalach is taken from the Pessukim in Sefer Shoftim that discuss Devorah HaNeivah, who served as the Shofet of Bnei Yisroel. When Devorah assumed leadership, Bnei Yisroel had been living under the oppressive rule of Yavin Melech Cannan for twenty years. The Pessukim tell us that Devorah summoned Barak ben Avinoam, and instructed him to raise up an army to battle the army of Yavin, led by Sisra. Barak and his army experienced Nissim Geluyim and Sisra and his army were vanquished, with the general being slaughtered by Yehudis while on the run. Following this unlikely victory, Devorah and Barak sang a Shira to HKBH—a poetic song celebrating the Yad Hachazaka that they had seen.

Shiras Devorah is counted among the Eser Shiros, the ten Shiros sung by Klal Yisroel. Some of these Shiros were sung by the entire nation, such as Shiras HaYam, and others by our leaders alone, and one of them—the Shira of L’Asid Lavo—has yet to be sung at all, but each is clearly infused with Kedusha and significance. These are not mere songs, but Shiros, akin to the Shira sung by Malachim. This being the case, it would seem vital to try and understand even the smallest word within Shiras Devorah in the hopes of discovering new and deeper meaning.

The victory over the armies of Sisra, which led to freedom from the oppression of Yavin was unexpected, and Devorah, throughout her Shira, illustrates the sense of Shibud L’Geulah felt as a result of the war. To do so, she must first establish the reality that existed prior to the Nissim—the status quo ante, so to speak. To that end, Devorah tells us: “B’Yimei Shamgar Ben Anas M’Yimei Yael Chadlu Arachos”. Rashi explains that during the reign of Yavin—when Shamgar and Yael were the Shoftim—people were afraid to travel in caravans, lest they be attacked by the enemies. Therefore, they traveled “Arachos Akalkalos”, via roundabout routes. This gives us an idea of the situation faced by Bnei Yisroel before the Yeshuas Hashem was realized.

In was would seem to be a similar vein, the next Passuk tells us: “Chadlu Pizaron B’Yisroel Chadelu”. Although these are not immediately familiar terms, Rashi provides clarity. He explains that during the days of Yavin, people were afraid to live in Prazim, unwalled cities, because they would be open to attack. These cities thus ceased to be inhabited, as everyone flocked to sanctuary cities.

The second half of this Passuk is also slightly cryptic: “Ad Shekamti Devorah Shekamti Em B’Yisroel.” Theese words are easily translated, “Until I, Devroah, arose, until I, a mother to Yisroel, arose”, but their implication is not clear.

Metzudos explains that Devorah is referring to the turning point in this reign of terror. She is explaining that the victory that came about at her hands was complete, and so life could return to normal, “M’Ata Yihiyeh K’Az.”

Taken altogether, these two Pessukim are well understood. Klal Yisroel had endured a period of time during which the threat of terror was so real that their lives were altered: they did not travel as they once had, and they could not even live in cities that did not afford adequate protection. Now, however, the enemy had been defeated with finality, and Bnei Yisroel could return to the days of old. A turn of events certainly worthy of Shira.

But what of the final words of the Passuk: “Shekamti Em B’Yisroel.” What do these add? Why does Devorah choose this point to refer to herself as a mother to Klal Yisroel, and what is the implication of this term?

This question becomes even a bit stronger based on a somewhat surprising Gemarah in Meseches Pesachim.

The Gemara there teaches us an important lesson about the destructive nature of Gaivah Klal: “Kol HaMisyaher Im Chacham Hu Chachmaso Mistalkes Mimenu Im Navi Hu Nevuaso Mistalekes Mimenu”. If a Chacham acts in a haughty manner, his Chachma is removed from him, and if a Navi acts this way, his Nevuah is removed from him. The Gemarah then cites instances is which this occurred. The Chacham whose Chachma was lost to him was Hillel, as seen in a story the Gemarah tells. The Navi whose Nevuah was lost due to Gaiva, however, was Devorah.

In saying the words “Ad Shekamti Devorah Shekamti Em B’Yisroel”, explains the Gemara, Devorah exhibited a sense of Gaivah, as though she was taking credit for the Nes that occurred. As a result, her Nevuah was taken from her, as see a number of Pessukim later she attempted to arouse her spirit with the words “Uri Uri Devorah Uri Uri Divrei Shir.”

This Gemara is simply astounding. Of course, any time Chazal note an apparent failing in one of our leaders we are presented with a challenge, for we must resolve our understanding of their Tzidkus with the facts presented by our Chachamim. In this case, however, the lapse in Devorah’s Middah of Anava seems very much out of place.

One of the prerequisites of Shira, it seems, is a complete understanding that the Nes upon which the Shira is bring sung came about completely through the Yad Hashem. This is seen from the Shiras HaYam, which is introduced with the words “VaYaminu B’Hashem U’BMoshe Avodo” and only then “Az Yashir”. The Emunah is a precondition of the Shira. This means that if Devorah was Zoche to sing Shira it was the result of her complete appreciation for the source of the Yeshua. How, then, is it possible that she was Misyaher in the midst of the Shira, seeming to claim credit for the salvation, with the words Ad Shekamti Devorah Shekamti Em B’Yisroel?

The words “Em B’Yisroel” now take on a new meaning as well, and their presence must be explained in this light. To the extent that Devorah was now taking some level of ownership of the Yeshua, why did she use these words to do so? The statement “Ad Shekamti Devorah” would seem to be enough on their own, why did she add this phrase as part of her apparent self-glorification?

In order to answer this question, and perhaps explain our Passuk, it would be useful to understand the true implication of the word “Em”. What did Devorah mean when she proclaimed herself to be “Em B’Yisroel”?

The Passuk at the end of Sefer Yeshaya speaks about the times of L’Asid Lavo, promising: “K’Ish Asher Imo Tenachamenu Ken Anochi Anamchemchem.” Just like a mother consoles her offspring, we will be consoled by HKBH upon the Geulah HaAsida.

The Pesikta D’Rav Kahana uses this Passuk to teach us about the divergent characters of fathers and mothers: “Darko Shel Av L’Rachem A father’s way is to be Merachem on his children, as the Passuk in Tehillim says, “K’Rachem Av Al Banim”. A mother, is different, the Medrash tells us: “Darka Shel Em L’Nachem”, a mother’s way is to console, as the Passuk in Yeshaya indicates.

We must of course understand what the Pesikta means to tell us about the role of a mother—what does it mean that her capacity is to be Menachem?

The Medrash there concludes “An Avid D’Av U’Dem”, HKBH promises that He will fulfil the role of both the Av and the Em as the Passuk says ““Anochi Anochi Hu Menachem”. R’ Tzadok HaCohen, in Pri Tzaddik on Parshas Shoftim, asks: the Passuk only mentions the Nechama of the Av and not the Rachamim of the Em, how then does the Medrash see that both will be fulfilled.

He explains that there is a difference between the Nechama and the Rachmanus discussed in the Medrash. Rachamim, which is attributed to an Av, pertains to the future: it prevents us from veering from the Derech Hashem going forward. Nechama, on the other hand, relates to the past: it corrects that which has already happened. Both of these, however, are accomplished through Limud HaTorah. The words “Anochi Anochi” allude to the power of the Torah, given with the word “Anochi”, to affect both Rachamim and Nechama.

Perhaps we can understand the words of Devorah based on this idea as well.

If we think about it, a claim of credit is completely misplaced within a Shira, the purpose of which is to praise HKBH for the Yeshua that He wrought. Maybe, however, we can understand the words of Devorah as themselves being a Shevach of the Poel Yeshuos.

The Pessukim in Shoftim are very clear in telling us that the hard times which befell Klal Yisroel were due to our own actions. We strayed from the Derech Hashem and were therefore subject to enemy forces. It follows, then, that the Yeshua only came when these inequities were removed, allowing us to enjoy the protection afforded by HKBH.

The salvation at the time of Devorah came following a particularly brutal period of time, which means that Klal Yisroel must have been at something of a spiritual Nadir. Devorah was now singing the praise of HKBH: caravans could not travel, and unwalled cities were barren until an Em B’Yisroel came along. The Koach of an Em, however, is only L’Nachem, to correct the ills of the past, having no affect on the future. Nonetheless, says Devorah, Hashem saw the Teshuva of Klal Yisroel and brought the Yeshua even before they had proven their worth going forward.

HKBH did not wait to see if the Nechama, the regret for that which we had done, turned into a lasting commitment. It was the Nechama itself, brought by an Em, that allowed the Yeshuas Hashem to arrive. Although this statement was, on some level, a display of Yuhara that had consequences, we can now understand its context within the Shiras Devorah. What greater praise can there be than to show that HKBH awaits our Teshuva and brings the Yeshua even before we prove our new mettle?

As we learn the Shiras Devorah we can reflect upon this reality, reminding ourselves that we need only be truly Menachem on our past, and then we will see the ultimate Geulah and with it both the Nechama and Rachamim of HKBH.