Swear Words

In the days of Chodesh Elul, when we highlight the concept of “Ani L’Dodi V’Dodi Li”—the loving relationship that exists between each of us and the Ribbono Shel Olam—Pessukim that discuss a Geulah spurred by that same love are certainly a wonderful primer, and reminder of just cherished we are in the eyes of HKBH. As we learn the next of the Shiva D’Nechemta, in which this theme resounds, let us approach the words of the Navi from this perspective, as we try to elevate our Avodah in these days based on these Pessukim.

The Haftorah itself is quite brief (although this year we add the Pessukim of “Aniya Soarah” which we missed two weeks ago) and, as is the case with most of the Haftoros read in this period, is allegorical in nature. The Haftorah begins with the words “Rani Akarah”, in which Yerushalayim is referred to as a barren women—a common metaphor for a city bereft of its ultimate purpose—and is told to rejoice as it will soon be reinhabited. The Navi also speaks to Klal Yisroel, urging them to return to Hashem, as a spurned woman is called back to her husband: “Ki K’Isha Azuva V’Atzuvas Ruach Koracha Hashem”.

There are two Pessukim in the middle of the Haftorah, which, when properly understood, reveal something of an interesting theme. In two separate ways, the Navi speaks about the temporary nature of Galus: “B’Rega Kattan Azavtich” and “B’Shetzef Ketzef Histatrti Panai Rega Mimech.” In both cases the times of Hester Panim, the periods of distance from Hashem, are referred to as with the term “Rega”, a moment. One would expect that in contrast, the Navi would refer to times of Geulah in similar terms, ones relating to longer periods of time perhaps. In the first case, however, the Navi speaks not about time, but about Rachamim: “B’Rachamim Gedolim Akabtzech”. Even in the second Passuk, in which the Navi does refer to a length of time, it is framed in one of the Middos of HKBH: “B’Chesed Olam Richamtich”. Rashi explains the words “Chesed Olam” means that the Chesed will last “Ad Olam”, forever.

It seems, then, that the Navi is telling us that the period following Geulah will be everlasting and thus longer even than our interminable Galus—certainly a welcome message—but why does he include the terms “Rachamim” and “Chesed”, how are these related to the length of time?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the final two Pessukim of the Haftorah, in which the Navi tells us that Hashem has taken a Shavuah “Mikitzof Alaich U’Migiar Bach”, that he will not become angry at us, nor rebuke us. “Ki HeHarim Yamushu V’Hagvaos Timutena”, even if the mountains move and the hills are shaken—which Rashi tells us are a reference to a termination of our Zechus Avos—Chasdei M’Itach Lo Yamush, the Chesed Hashem will endure.

The eternal nature of the Yemos Hamashiach, explains the Navi, will be a result of this Shavuah, that the Rachamim and Chesed of Hashem will not run out. Even if our actions are of the sort that call for destruction, and even if we can no longer use the Zechus Avos to excuse ourselves, we will be safe from further Galus because of this Shavuah. Thus, the comparative Rega Kattan of Galus will be far outweighed by the state of “Rachamim Gedolim” and “Chesed Olam” that follows Geulah.

What is interesting, however, is that there are a number of words that appear before the Navi discusses the Shavuah of Hashem, which require some explanation.

The first, and perhaps most surprising, difficulty in understanding these words is that we don’t know just how many there are. The Passuk is commonly written, at least in our texts, as follows: “Ki Mei Noach Zos Li Asher Nishbati M’Avor Mei Noach Od Al HaAretz”, but there is a Machlokes whether this is the correct rendering. Radak notes that most Seforim have two words, Mei Noach, referring to the Mabul, but the Targum Yonassan seems to read it as “K’Yimei Noach” meaning as in the time of Noach. This is an unusual situation, and surely we should try to understand why there would be a preference to read the Passuk in either way, but especially in a way that is different than most Girsaos.

Of course, putting aside any textual questions, the reference to Noach is itself difficult to understand. The implication is somewhat clear: just as Hashem made a Shavuah at the time of Noach, that he would never again bring a Mabul, a Shavuah is made regarding the Yemos HaMoshiach as well, as the Navi continues. That said, one wonders what is added by the reference to the Shavuah at the times of Noach? Why must the Navi speak about that Shavuah in reference to one that Hashem makes regarding the future?

The reference to Noach is even more curious if one takes a good look at those Pessukim. Throughout the ten Pessukim in Parshas Noach that speak about this promise, the Lashon of Shavuah is not used even once. The only term referring to a promise or agreement that is used in those Pessukim is “Bris”. Lest we assume that a Bris and Shavuah are interchangeable, the Ksav V’Hakabalah explains that the nature of a Bris is that two parties agree to act in a certain way to one another. An example he brings would be if two people pledge to take part in each other’s Simchos—this type of agreement is a Bris, for it requires action and commitment on the behalf of two parties. A Shavuah, we know, is an oath—a one sided vow that a person takes upon himself. The constant appearance of the word “Bris” in the Parsha of Noach would therefore seem to indicate something different than a Shavuah—why then does the Navi speak about it here?

The truth is that the Gemah, in Meseches Shavuos, speaks about these words, and does find a Lashon of Shavuah. There the Gemarah tells us that the a double negative, “Lav Lav” is a Lashon Shavuah, an instance which appears in those Pesuskim. Hashem says “V’Lo Yikares Kol Basar Od Mimei HaMabul V’Lo Yihiyeh Od Mabul L’Shaches HaAretz”, twice Noach is told that the earth will not be affected by a Mabul, and the “Lav Lav” present in the Passuk renders it a Shavuah. That said, the only reason the Gemarah knows that “Lav Lav” is a Lashon Shavuah is because the Passuk here refers to it as such: “Asher Nishbati M’Avor Mei Noach”. In other words, the Passuk here speaks about a Shavuah made to Noach, but we would not have known that it was a Shavuah—we would have assumed it was a Bris—if not for the Passuk referring to it as such.

Why is this all necessary? What is gained by the Navi referring to the Shavuah made to Noach, which seems to barely be a Shavuah at all? We must in some way assume that this affects the Shavuah made by HKBH with regard to Yemos HaMoshiach—how might that be the case?

The Be’er Mayim Chaim, in Parshas Noach, offers something of a novel approach to the Pessukim there. He notes that the words “V’Hakimosi Brisi”, which appear at the beginning of the Passuk containing the words “V’Lo Yikares Kol Basar…”, seem extra as Hashem already said “Hinini Mekim Es Brisi Itchem”. Why did Hashem repeat these words? He explains that in fact there were two separate statements made. The first Passuk says “V’Ani Hinini Mekim Es Brisi Itchem V’Es Zarechem Achareichem”, that the Bris was to be made with Noach and his children. Noach, however, saw an issue with this statement: what if his children did not follow in his footsteps? What if the wandered back to Chamas, and were no longer in a state of “Zarechem Achareichem”? In response to this Hashem said “V’Hakimosi Es Brisi Itchem” and spoke in broader terms: “Kol Basar”. This second Bris was made regardless of any requirements of “Zarechem Achareichem” and applied universally.

Based on this we can understand that there was a Bris and Shavuah made following the Mabul. First, Hashem spoke about Noach and his sons, assuming they would follow in his path, in which case they would be protected. This was a Bris as defined by the Ksav V’Hakabalah for it required action on behalf of both parties: if Noach’s offspring were to stay in his path, they would be afforded protection. The second statement, however, was a Shavuah—it was not at all dependent on our actions, as the Be’er Mayim Chaim puts it: “Aino Taluy B’Shum Tenai”. It is this Passuk that contains the “Lav Lav”, which the Gemarah identifies as a Lashon Shavuah, because it was just that—an absolute promise that a Mabul would never again be brought.

In explaining the nature of such a Shavuah, one that is absolute, the Be’er Mayim Chaim cites a Medrash in Beraishis Rabba, which may allow us an important insight.

When he was told, by Hashem, about the fate of Sedom and Amora, Avraham Avinu tried to intercede with Teffilos on their behalf. The Medrash tells us that one of his claims was based on the promise made to Noach: “Nishbata She’ain Atah Mevi Mabul L’Olam Mah Atah Ma’arim Al HaShavuah…Mabul Shel Mayim Ain Attah Mevi Mabul Shel Esh Atah Mevi”. Avrohom asked Hashem why the plan to destroy Sedom with fire was not a violation of the Shvuah made to Noach—although that Shavuah referred to a Mabul of water, why was a Mabul of fire any different?

Although we know that in the end Avrohom’s Teffilos were unsuccessful—and Sedom was in fact destroyed—we learn from this Medrash how he understood the Shavuah made to Noach. Although the Pessukim would seem to limit the Shavuah to a Mabul Mayim, Avraham clearly understood that it applies to Aish as well. And, the Gemarah in Sota implies that the Shavuah really only goes on the whole world, but Avraham seemed to understand that it applied to even one nation. What was Avraham’s understanding of the promise made to Noach, and how can we apply it to the Shavuah made about Yemos HaMashiach?

Avraham Avinu, with his keen understanding of the Darchei Hashem, looked beyond the words of the Shavuah and tried to understand its intent. In promising that never again would a Mabul come on the world, regardless of any devolution into Chamas, HKBH was making a statement about his Middas HaRachachamim. Avraham understood that Schar and Onesh are not arbitrary, they are part of Teva—actions have consequences. If the world would reach the point where it deserved a Mabul, and Hashem did not bring one because of the Shavuah, that would only be because the Middas HaRachamaim overrode the Middas HaDin.

Avraham tried to use this understanding of the Shavuah in his Teffilos on behalf of the Anshei Sedom. If there was a point in which Middas HaRachamim can override the Middas HaDin, what did it matter if the details were somewhat different? His claim of “Mabul Shel Mayim Ain Attah Mevi Mabul Shel Esh Atah Mevi” was not that the actual Shavuah would be violated, but that its spirit might—the Middas HaRachamim would be subjugated to the Din that the Anshei Sedom really did deserve. Though his Teffilos were unsuccessful, Avraham’s logic and approach are unassailable.

The Navi tells us “Ki Mei Noach Zos Li Asher Nishbati M’Avor Mei Noach Od Al HaAretz”, comparing the Shavuah that is to be made about our future with the one that was made in the past. The implication is now clear: the Shavuah regarding Yemos HaMoshiach is like the one that Avraham Avinu understood. It is universal, “Aino Taluy B’Shum Tenai”, and it reflects a magnitude of Rachamim heretofore unseen. Just as the purpose of the Shavuah at the time of Noach was to guarantee that, at some point, the Middas HaRachamim would prevail, we can be assured that L’Asid Lavo it always will. Lest we assume that, there is a breaking point, at which time even a Shavuah cannot protect us, the Navi refers to the absolute nature of the Shavuah made to Noach to remind us not just of its effects but of its intent.

Perhaps this is why some read the word as “K’Yimei Noach”, and not “Ki Mei Noach”. After the Mabul the Middas HaRachamim had primacy over absolute destruction, even when Din called for that eventuality. So binding and unvarying was this Shavuah, that it was as if a new reality now existed in the world. The Navi uses this term to make the same statement about our future: it will be governed by a new set of rules, dictated by the Shavuah of “Nishbati Mikitzof Alaich U’Migiar Bach”.

What more motivating words can we Lein as we prepare for the Yomim Noraim? This is a time when we are most keenly aware, and abashed, of our shortcomings. As we do the introspection necessary for this time of year, however, we must also be cognizant of the power of Rachamim. We can appeal to the Middas HaRachamim, through Teffilah and Teshuva, and even if we are lacking, escape the Din which we may deserve and instead be Zoche to the Bracha which we seek.