Destination Ahead

The Haftorah for Parshas Ki Sisa comes from Sefer Melachim, and includes the Pessukim which describe the standoff between Eliyahu Hanavi and the Neviei HaBaal which took place on Har HaCarmel. As with all stories mentioned in Tanach, we must resist the urge to think of this episode as mere legend, and instead try to find the message that reverberates in our lives.

In order to appreciate the meaning of the story, we must of course understand how it came to pass. As the Navi tells us at the beginning of the Haftorah, and in the Perakim prior, the Melech Yisroel at the time was Achav who led Bnei Yisroel astray and into the service of Ba’al, causing a drought that lasted three years. After that time, Eliyahu was told by Hashem to confront Achav so that rain could fall once again. Hoping to demonstrate the primacy of the Dvar Hashem, Eliyahu issues a challenge to the Neviei HaBaal: he and they would both place a Par on a Mizbeach without fire and then Daven, they to Baal and he to Hashem, that a fire descend to consume the Korban. If they were successful, offered Eliyahu, Baal would be proven to be the most powerful, but if his Teffilos were answered, the Derech Hashem would carry the day, so to speak.

As the day wore on, it became clear that Baal would not respond to his petitioners: “Ain Kol V’Ain Oneh V’Ain Kashev”. At that point, Eliyahu called those who had gathered, saying: “Geshu Elei”. The Navi testifies that they indeed did so: “VaYigashu Kol HaAm Eilav”.

Why did Eliyahu do this? Why call those gathered in opposition close to him? And, why did the people comply with his request? We must assume that each of Eliyahu’s actions on Har HaCarmel was calculated—what was the purpose of the words “Geshu Elai”?

Next, the Passuk tells us: “Vayirpeh Es Mizbach Hashem HaHarus”, indicating that Eliyahu repaired a Mizbeach that had been previously destroyed. Now, as we will soon see, the next Passuk speaks about the Mizbeach that Eliyahu built in order to bring his Korban—what then is the purpose of this rebuilt Mizbeach, and what are its origins?

Rashi explains that Eliyahu indeed built a physical Mizbeach, but he also reminded those gathered “Lihiyos Mizbach Hahsem Oleh Al Libam V’Shagur B’pihem”. The relationship between members of Malchus Yisroel and HKBH had been so damaged that the Shem Hashem was no longer on their lips, and Eliyahu took this opportunity to encourage them to repair this rift. Interestingly, Rashi refers to this as “Peshuto”, the simple meaning of the Passuk, even though it certainly does not seem to be so. How can we understand this? Why did Eliyahu take this opportunity to remind the Ovdei HaBaal that the Shem Hahsem should be Shagur B’Pihem and why does the Navi connect this to the Mizbeach that Eliyahu built?

In order to answer this question let us see how the Navi describes the Mizbeach that Eliyahu did in fact build.

The Passuk tells us: “VaYikach Eliyahu Shteim Esreh Avanim K’Mispar Shivtei Bnei Yaakov”. Eliyahu used twelve stones, corresponding to the Shevatim, in building the Mizbeach. This detail certainly requires explanation, but the end of the Passuk perhaps even more so: “Asher Haya D’Var Hashem Elav L’Emor Yisroel Yihiyeh Shimecha”. In identifying the father of the Shevatim, the Passuk refers Yaakov as the one who was told by Hashem “Yisroel Yihyeh Shimecha”.

These words beg explanation. We of course know who the father of the Shevatim was, and that Hashem called him Yisroel. Why does the Navi refer to him in this way here?

Rashi here cites a Medrash Rabba that addresses this exact point.

The Passuk in Parshas Vayishlach tells us that HKBH appeared to Yaakov, telling him that he would henceforth be known as Yisroel, and adding: “Goy U’Kahal Goyim Yihiyeh Mimeka”. The term Kahal Goyim is a little difficult to understand, and the Medrash Rabba there expands on the message Hashem gave to Yaakov: “Asidin Banecha La’asos Goy K’Kahal Amim Mah Kahal Amim”. There will come a time, said Hashem, that the children of Yaakov will act as all Goyim, bringing a Korban on a Bama though there was a Mikdash standing, and thus an Issur Bamos in place. Rashi himself adds the words “V’Ani Misratzeh B’Davar”, noting that Hashem would accept the Korban despite the Issur Bamos.

The Medrash identifies the story of Eliyahu on Har Carmel as the incident referred to in the Medrash: though there was an Issur Bamos in place at the time, HKBH was Nisratzeh to the Korban of Eliyahud. This is why the Passuk here makes reference to the Nevuah given to Yaakov at the time, “Yisroel Yihyeh Shimecha”, hinting to the fact that this episode was predicted from that very moment.

While the Medrash, especially the version cited by Rashi, help us understand why the Nevuah to Yaakov is mentioned in this Passuk, the way in which it is referenced seems to require some explanation. Why does the Navi refer to the words “Yisroel Yihiyeh Shimecha” when the message to Yaakov about the Korban of Eliyahu is based on the words “Goy U’Kahal Goyim Yihiyeh Mimeka”? The Navi could just as easily had said “Asher Haya D’Var Hashem Elav L’Emor Goy U’Kahal Goyim Yihiyeh Mimeka”, why speak about the name given to Yaakov at that time?

In order to answer this question, it may be helpful to better understand the words that the Navi indeed chose.

We know that Avrom and Sarai were no longer called by these names once Hashem changed their names to Avrohom and Sara, but the names Yaakov and Yisroel are used interchangeably. The Gemara in Brachos explains that when Hashem told Yaakov “Ki Im Yisroel Yikrah Shimecha”, He was saying “Lo SheYeaker Yaakov MimKomo Elah Yisroel Ikkur V’Yaakov Tafel”. The name Yisroel was not meant to supplant or replace the name Yaakov. Rather, the name Yisroel would be the Ikur while Yaakov would remain the Tafel.

Clearly there is a reason that this is true, that the names Yaakov and Yisroel stayed in place when this was not the case with the names Avrom and Sarai. What is to be learned from this, and more specifically, how do we understand the statement of the Gemarah that “Yisroel Ikkur V’Yaakov Tafel”?

Rav Yonnason Shteif, zt”l, in a Maamar on Parshas Vayishlach, explains the names Yaakov and Yisroel in a way that can help us understand the Gemarah.

The name Yaakov, explains R’ Yonnason, can be understood based on the Passuk in Parshas Toldos: “V’Yaakov Ish Tam Yoshev Ohalim”. This name refers to a total and complete immersion in the world of Torah, as one who is Yoshev Ohalim. Yisroel, however, refers that which occurs once a person leaves the Ohel HaTorah. The life that a person leads, his interactions with the wider world. It is about this part of our lives that HKBH says “Yisroel Asher Bicha Espaer”. R’ Yonnason refrers to this as the “Yiud” or destination, of a Yid, the goal to which we aspire. The life of Yoshev Ohalim, the world of Yaakov, is of course elevated but it does not glorify Hashem to the extent that one who is Mikadesh Shem Shamayim in his Olam Hazeh interactions.

This can be seen in Yaakovs conversation with Saro Shel Esav. The Malach asks “Mah Shimecha” and then tells Yaakov “Lo Yaakov Yomar Od Shimech Ki Im Yisroel”. Yaakov thought that the Derech of Yoshev Ohalim is the only way to combat Esav, but he was told that he can also do so if he achieves the level of Yisroel Asher Becah Espaer. A person can defeat the Yetzer Harah “Sarisa Im Elokim” and “Im Anashim”, when he is living as a Yaakov or as an Esav.

Basedd on this we can easily understand the concept of “Yisroel Ikkur V’Yaakov Tafel”. We cannot hope to live our entire lives in a Ohel, we must interact with the outside world. When we do so in a way that is Mekadesh Shem Shamayim, we are put in the category of Yisroel Asher Becah Espaer, which is our Ikur purpose in this world.

Based on this idea, we can perhaps understand what happened on Har Carmel.

When Eliyahu Hanavi speaks to the people gathered on that day, he delivers an ultimatum of sorts: “Ad Masai Atem Poschim Al Shtei HaSeifim Im Hashem HaElokim Lechu Acharav V’Im Ha Baal Lechu Acharav”. It seems that Bnei Yisroel lived in a world of confusion: they felt that they could lead lives that included both Baal and HKBH, and need not decide between the two. It seems that Eliyahu was telling them that they had to choose, either Baal or Elokim, because the two cannot coexist, but perhaps there is a deeper message.

Many Meforshim, including Rabbeinu Bachya in Vayishlach and Abarbanel here, explain that Baal represented the epitome of Teva and a devotion thereto. The position of “Poschim Al Shtei HaSeifim” is somewhat understood then: the people felt that they could have Hashem for Ruchnias and Baal for Olam Hazeh. Eliyahu, was telling them that the two are mutually exclusive, and in fact a relationship with HKBH is relevant to all.

When his turn to bring the Korban came, Eliyahu first asked all who had gathered, no matter how far they had strayed, to come close. He did so to illustrate that despite their foibles, a connection to HKBH was possible. Then, as Rashi explained, he reminded them that the Shem Hashem should be Shagur B’Pi. This means that wherever a person goes, no matter how mundane his activity, he can maintain a relationship to Hashem.

Eliyahu was teaching the masses about living a life of Yisroel, one that can result in a reality of Yisroel Asher Bicha Espaer. He was reminding them that they can live in the world of Teva but do so in a way that is Mikadesh Shem Shamayim, fulfilling their ultimate Tafkid. His Mizbeach of twelve stones, connected to the Shevatim, is understandable as well: no matter a persons path, whichever Shevet he belongs to, he is still a Yisroel. One can be a Yissochar or a Zevulan, a Levi or Yehudah, with the connotations of those roles, but he is no less a Yisroel.

It is now understandable that the Navi makes reference to the words “Yisroel Yihiyeh Shimecha”, which teach us “Yisroel Ikkur V’Yaakov Tafel” at this juncture: this was the message that Klal Yisroel needed at that moment. They had to be reminded that they could leave Baal aside and enter a world in which Teva is elevated and used to reach the goal of Yisroel Asher Becha Espaer.

Who among us does not sometimes need the same reminder? We must take the words of the Navi to heart, avoiding situations that put us in a position of Poschim Al Shtei HaSeifim, chosing the life of Yisroel Ikkur V’Yaakov Tafel instead.