Mothers Rejoice

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 reminder of just cherished we are in the eyes of HKBH. This is a lens through which we can view the intersection of the Hafotros of the Shiva D’Nechemta and the month in which most of them are read.

The Haftorah for Parshas Ki Seitzei is once again found in the second half Sefer Yeshaya and is both brief, and typically allegorical. The Pessukim are generally upbeat, filled with the promise of our future, a time in which we are told, “Harchivi Makom Ahalaich”, that we will be forced expand our tents to accommodate burgeoning ranks. The fulfilment of these promises, the Navi tells us, will come through the Rachamim of HKBH, which are of course boundless. As positive as the message of the Navi is, however, there are times that it is fused with stark reminders of our current status.

The Hafotrah begins with the words “Rani Akarah Lo Yalada” as the Navi tells the “Akarah”, the barren women, to rejoice. The end of the Passuk spells out the reason for her joy: “Ki Rabim Bnei Shomemah M’Bnei Beulah”. The children of the barren, promises the Navi, will be even more numerous that those of the married woman. The crux of the Passuk is of course hopeful, but we must understand the way it is written.

First, it is important to identify to whom the Navi speaks—who is the Akarah. Rashi explains that the Passuk speaks of Yerushalayim, a city bereft of its inhabitants, an approach is shared by most Meforshim. Ibn Ezra understands these words slightly differently, as referring to Kneses Yisroel itself, a nation whose ranks have been thinned by Galus and oppression.

Whether we understand that the Navi speaks of Yerushalayim or of Klal Yisroel, however, we must understand why he uses this term at all. If the purpose of the Nevuah is to provide Nechama, why must the Navi remind us of our lack? We are used to seeing Yerushalayim, or Bnei Yisroel, described in these terms by Yermiyahu, for example, in Pessukim of Kinnah or mourning. Why does the Navi do so while trying to provide Nechama?

The Gemarah in Brachos points out yet another question on these words. A Tzidoki approached Beuriah, the wife of R’ Meir and asked challenged these words, asking: “MiShum D’Lo Yalda Rani?” Should the Akarah, he asked, rejoice because she did not bear children? Beruriah replied strongly, calling the man a fool, pointing out the explanation given by the Passuk itself: “Ki Rabim Bnei Shomemah M’Bnei Beulah”. There is, however, an unspoken question that the Gemarha entertains: why in fact does the Navi use the words “Lo Yalada”? An Akarah is a woman who has not had children, making these words somewhat redundant. The Gemarah explains that we must read the words as follows: “Rani Keneses Yisroel SheDoma L’Isha Akara Shelo Yalda Banim L’Gehenom Kavosaichu”, Bnei Yisroel should rejoice for they have not had children destined for Gehenom like the Umos HaOlam.

This Gemarah is somewhat wonderous: should an Akarah in fact rejoice that she has at least not borne unworthy children? To the extent that the Navi is referring to Yerushlayim, or even Kneses Yisroel, as an Akarah, why would they rejoice at the lack of wayward children? This would seem to be an ignoble Nechama at best—how can we understand the Passuk in light of the Gemarah?

Then, there is the question that arises whenever we face allegory—why did the Navi choose this term here? If, for whatever reason, it was necessary to discuss the fact that our numbers have been reduced, why personify Yerushalyim, or Kneses Yisroel, as an Akara? In fact, the Passuk also refers to the “Lo Chala”, which Meforshim explain is another way to refer to an Akara, who has not experienced the pains of childbirth. This reinforces the term “Akara” as applying to Yerushalayim, or Klal Yisroel, when in fact this is of course not entirely true. Why then did the Navi choose these terms?

Perhaps if we can clarify this final point, and explain why this term was chosen, we can answer the other questions as well. To do so, let us begin by examining an eye-opening Medrash.

The Pesikta D’Rav Kahana tells us that there were seven Akaros mentioned in Tanach: Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah, Chana, Eshes Manoach, and Tzion. The first six women are all spoken about in the Pessukim, and it is clear that they were unable to conceive children, it is the seventh and final name listed that is the most surprising. The Medrash of course brings the words of our Haftorah, “Rani Akara Lo Yalada” to prove that Tzion was an Akara, but the inclusion of Tzion among the Imahos and other Nashim Tzidkanios who were Akaros is difficult to understand. Why would the Medrash suggest that the experience of Tzion, so to speak, is comparable to that of a living, breathing and feeling, human?

Maybe, though, this is exactly the point of the Medrash: by including Tzion among the Akaros with which we are familiar, we can better understand why the Navi refers to Yerushalayim this way. If we better understand the plight faced by these great women, we may be able to understand what the Navi wishes to communicate to us.

The Medrash in Berashis Rabba addresses the issue head on, so to speak. Asks the Medrash: “V’Lama Nisakru Haimahos?” Why did each of the Imahos face the Nisayon of being Akaros? “SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Nisaveh L’Tefilasan Shel Tzaddikim.” Because HKBH desires the Teffilos of Tzaddikim, He created a reality in which the Avos and Imahos were forced to Daven in order to have children.

This Medrash is not obscure, but it is difficult to understand, at least on its face. First, why is HKBH said to be “Nisaveh L’Tefilasan Shel Tzaddikim”? Does the Kaviyachol get enjoyment from hearing Teffilos? And, even if He does, in some way, is it worth the Tzar of the Tzaddikim? Why would HKBH force the Avos and Imahos in such a painful position just for His enjoyment? In addition, even if we can understand the concept of Nisaveh L’Tefilasan Shel Tzaddikim, why was this the method chosen? Certainly there are other situations that would spur the Avos and Imahos to heartfelt Tefilah—why was the Nisayon of Akarah chosen specifically?

As part of a lengthy discussion about the Koach HaTefillah, Rav Elya Baruch Finkel zt”l lays out two important Yesodos that can help us answer these questions.

First, the Rosh Yeshiva introduces a dichotomy that relates to Tefillah in general. On one hand, he points out, a person can sometimes have a Zechus that cannot be actuated without Tefillah. For example, the Ramban in Parshas Shemos tells us that HKBH wished to cure Moshe of his Kvad Peh but because Moshe did not Daven for that to happen, it never did. On the other hand, there are times when a Zechus does not exist, but Teffilah can bring Hatava nonetheless. The prime example of this is Galus Mitzrayim: although Bnei Yisroel did not have the Zechuyos for Geulah, their Tefillah brought the Geulah, as the Passuk tells us “V’Yishma Elokim Es Na’akasam.” The Imahos, explains the Rosh Yeshiva, fell into the first category: although they had the Zechuyos necessary to have children, they were Akaros until their Teffilos changed their reality.

We can of course wonder why this was the case—if they had the Zechuyos, why was Teffilah necessary. This would seem to be the question of the Medrash Rabba, to which the answer given is “SheHakadosh Baruch Hu Nisaveh L’Tefilasan Shel Tzaddikim”, but the question persists—why here?

The next principle explained by R’ Elya Baruch may help us answer this question.

At the beginning of Sefer Shmuel we learn of the plight of Chana, one of the women mentioned in the Pesikta. The Navi speaks of her Teffilos, which are answered with the birth of Shmuel. Later, when Chana brings Shmuel to the Mishkan, he acts in a way which Eli HaKohen determines renders him to be Chayav Misa. Chana pleas with Eli, asking him to spare the life of Shmuel. The Gemarah in Brachos tells us that Eli promised Chana that Shmuel would be replaces, so to speak, as she would have another child. Chana responds: “El HaNaar HaZeh Hisplalti”, this is the son for whom I davened.

The Rosh Yeshiva explains the reply of Chana: Shmuel was imbued with particular Kochos and potential only because he was the result of her Teffilos. When someone has a need that spurs them to Teffilah, the results of the Teffilos have a special capacity for Sheliemus, and therefore Shmuel, about whom Chana could say “El HaNaar HaZeh Hisplalti” was in a sense irreplaceable.

The same was true, continues R’ Elya Baruch, of the Imahos: their children reached the heights that they did because they were born of their Teffilos. Chazal compare Haggar to a thorn bush, which grows very quickly without any work, as opposed to Sarah Imenu who was like wheat, which requires tremendous preparation and care before a crop is yielded. Although the inputs are vastly different in the case of these two plants, the results speak for themselves: the Teffilos of the Imahos brought forth Avos and Shevatim, while the likes of Haggar contributed only Yishmael and his ilk.

Based on these ideas, we can better understand the concept of “Hakadosh Baruch Hu Nisaveh L’Tefilasan Shel Tzaddikim”.

We know that HKBH is the ultimate Mativ, and his only true “desire” is to provide us with Hatava. If that which comes as the result of Teffilah is capable of greater Shelimus, as we have seen, it follows that there are times in which HKBH puts a person in a situation that seems difficult so that he turns to Teffilah precisely because of the results it will yield. HKBH did not need the Teffilos of the Tzaddikim for himself, he is “Nasaveh” for these Teffilos because He wishes to be Metiv the Tzaddikim on the highest level. By making the Imahos into Akaros, he put them in a situation where they could be Zoche to Zera Shel Kayama only through Teffilah, which would in turn yield children Avos and Shevatim.

Now we can understand the Pesikta D’Rav Kahana as well.

Tzion is mentioned in the Medrash among the more typical Akaros to teach us that we are in a similar situation. Our Geulah can come only through the most sincere Teffilos, we must ask for it, as we do countless times each day. In this way we are akin to an Akarah—out ultimate salvation is outside out control—but that means that our results will be similar to theirs as well. The Geulah for which we long, and Daven, will have the Shelimus that comes as a result of Teffilah. The ultimate Geulah will not be temporary, or partial, it will be complete and permanent, fitting the way in which it will be brought about.

This is why the Navi chooses the term Akarah, and why he reminds us of our status even while be Menachem us. The fact that Yerushalayim, or Kneses Yisroel itself, is in the category of Akarah should give us strength, because when the Teffilos of an Akara are answered, the potential of their children is enhanced. This is also why the Gemarah tells us “Rani Keneses Yisroel SheDoma L’Isha Akara Shelo Yalda Banim L’Gehenom Kavosaichu”. We are to take solace in the fact that we are not Zoche to a reality in which are wishes are fulfilled in part, because this is what puts us in the category of Akarah akin to that of the Imahos—our Teffilos will one day be answered in full, and we will be Zoche to a Geulah that can come only as the result of our Teffilos.

The message of the Navi is clear: “Rani Akarah Lo Yalada”, we must rejoice, in a sense, because we are in a situation of Akarah. Because our plight is so severe, our Teffilos can be sincere, and our ultimate redemption complete.