Thirst Quenching

The Haftorah we Lein this week is the second of the Tlasa D’Parenusa, the series of heart-rending Haftoros which we began last week. During the “three weeks” we observe certain Minhagei Aveilus which become stricter as we get closer to the Churban, until they reach a pinnacle—or nadir—on Leil Tisha B’Av. Similarly, the words of the Navi that we read in each of these weeks seem to become more intense, more biting, as we approach Tisha B’Av. It would certainly seem that Chazal, in being Misken the combination of Dinei Aveilus and the Haftoros, wished to convey the message that as Tisha B’Av approaches, not only should our conduct be altered, but our mindset as well. With that in mind, let us examine the words of the Navi that our Chachamim felt should guide us at this point in the process.

The Pessukim of the Haftorah come from Sefer Yirmiah and are a continuation of the Haftorah we read last week. As we noted, however, the words of Hochacha found in this Haftorah are far more direct, pointing out in stark terms the shortcomings of Klal Yisroel. Our distance from HKBH is highlighted at the outset, when the Navi asks, on behalf of Hashem: “Mah Matzu Avoseichem Bi Avel Ki Rachaku M’Alai”. The Navi suggests that Klal Yisroel seems to have forgotten all that Hashem had done for them, taking them out of Mitzrayim, sustaining them in the Midbar, and finally bringing them to the “Eretz HaKarmel”. The Haftorah continues in this vein, pointing out the ways in which we have failed to live up to our responsibilities, and foretelling the punishment that awaits us. The theme of the Haftorah is unambiguous, but as we learn the Pessukim there is one element that is repeated a number of times, hinting to further depth.

At one point, in recounting the failings of Klal Yisroel, Hashem tells the Navi: “Ki Shtayim Ra’os Asah Ami”, we did two wrongs. “Osi Azvu Mekor Mayim Chaim LaChatzov Lahem Bo’aros Bo’Aros Nishbarim Asher Lo Yachlu Hamayim.” We abandoned Hashem, the “Mekor Mayim Chayim”, and in His place we dug broken cisterns that could not hold the water. This Passuk is not easily understood based only on its literal translation, but it is understood that Mayim, water, plays a role.

A few Pessukim later, this element is found again. The Passuk says: “V’Ata Mah Lach L’Derech Mitzrayim Lishtos Mei Shechor.” Why, asks the Kaviyachol, do we go to Mitzrayim just to drink of the “Mei Shechor”, which refers to the Nile River. The same question is asked of Ashur and the Euphrates: “Mah Lach L’Derech Ashur Lishtos Mei Nahor”. In this Passuk too, the Navi speaks about drinking water specifically.

Later the Navi warns us to abandon our ways using similar symbolism: “Meni Raglech M’Yachef U’Gronech M’Tzimah”. We are told to save our feet from walking bare, and our throats from being thirsty. Once again, the concept of water and thirst appear in the words of the Navi.

It would seem that multiple appearances of the same elements—water and thirst—are not coincidental. Clearly there is a reason that the Navi uses these items specifically in trying to convey his vital message to Klal Yisroel. In order to determine what the message of these symbols, let us look to their first occurrence within the Haftorah.

As we noted, the Passuk tells us that we have done a “double wrong”, leaving the “Mekor Mayim Chayim” for “Bo’Aros Nishbarim”. There are two very basic questions that can be asked on the Passuk. First, while the Navi tells us that we have done a double-wrong, “Shtayim Ra’os Asah Ami”, in a sense only one error is listed: we abandoned Hashem for Elohei Nechar. It is not clear in what way this is to be seen as a twofold offense. Second, we must of course understand why Hashem refers to Himself as the “Mekor Mayim Chaim” in this case. What does this Kinuy imply?

Rashi addresses our first question, the apparent absence of two errors, in is Pirush on the Passuk. He explains that had we left Hashem for “Keyotzeh Bah”, a force of similar powers, that would have been one “Ra’ah”. The fact that we abandoned HKBH only to rely on empty vessels was in effect doubled the wrong.

This Pshat is somewhat difficult to understand, however. First, leaving Hashem for worthless gods would seem to make the Aveira worse, but it is still not two separate offenses. The Passuk says “Shtayim Ra’os”, which makes it sound like there were two things done wrong. Also, it would never have been possible to leave Hashem for a “Keyotzeh Ba”, as we know that none exists in any way, the very act of leaving, then, will always have the same effect. Why then is this specifically called “Shtayim Ra’os”?

While we may sometimes look towards other Meforshim to explain Rashi or offer alternative Pshatim, in this case we can turn to the Divrei Chazal, in which we find two ways to explain the Shtayim Ra’os.

The Medrash in Devarim Rabba explains that with these words Hashem refers to the Dibros of “Anochi” and “Lo Yihiyeh”, which Klal Yisroel abandoned in turning to the Elohei Nechar. The Medrash also points out that these two Dibros were the ones that we heard directly M’Pi HaGevurah, and abandoning these Dibros specifically created an additional level of Chutzpah. This is one way of understanding the words “Shtayim Ra’os” that is found in Chazal.

The Mishna in Sukka tells us that as the Kohanim left the Mikdash to do Nisuch HaMayim they would reach the Sha’ar that leaves towards the east. At that time, they would turn around, so that they faced the Mikdash and their backs were to the east and say: “Avoseinu SheHayu B’Makom HaZeh Achorehem El Heichal Hashem U’Pinehem Kedma”, recalling that those who had come before them would stand in that spot with facing east, with their backs to the Mikdash. They would continue, exclaiming that although previous generations had bowed to the dun, “Anu L’Kah V’Eienenu L’Kah”, we and our eyes were turned to Hashem.

This Mishna is based on a Passuk in Yechezkel that recounts this exact occurrence: there were those who stood in the Heichal and bowed to the sun. The Yerushalmi, on the Mishna, points out, however, that the word “Mishtachavim” is written differently in the Passuk. Although it is read in its usual form, “Mishtachavim”, it is written out as “Mishtachavisem”. The Gemara therefore concludes that they did not bow only to the sun, but to both the Hiechal and the Shemesh. This, explains the Gemarah, is what the Passuk refers to when it says “Shtayim Ra’os Asah Ami”: we bowed to both the Heichal and the Shemesh.

There is of course a blatant question to be asked on the Yerushalmi: Obviously bowing to the Shemesh is an abandonment of Hashem, but why is being Mishtachaveh to the Heichal coucted as the other of the two Ra’os?

Perhaps there is a way to explain this Yerushalmi in a way that will answer this question, and merge its approach with that of the Medrash Rabba.

R’ Shlomo Kluger, in Kehilos Yaakov on Sukka, explains the Yerushalmi, based on a premise of the Ramban, with an important insight.

In early times, those who served Avodah Zarah, did so not as a replacement for HKBH, but because they wished to have an “Emtza’i”, an intermediary between themselves and Hashem. R’ Shlomo explains that the Tanna of the Mishna holds that the “Avoseinu SheHayu B’Makom HaZeh” to which the Kohanim refer, fell into this category. They were not abandoning HKBH in totality, they were adding a Shituf, an additional partner, so to speak. They too felt that an Emtza’i was required for proper Avodas Hashem, and that is why they were Mishtachaveh to the Shemesh.

The Gemarah is therefore understood: the words Shtayim Ra’os Asah Ami refer to both of the Hishachavayos, as both were flawed. Obviosuly it is beyond the pale to place any hope in the Shemesh or any other creation, but it also displayed a rift in their relationship with Hashem. Because they wished for an Emtza’i, their Hishtachavaya to Hashem was itself a “Ra’ah”, as they clearly did not have the correct perception of our connection to the Kudsha Brichu.

We can now understand how the Medrash and the Yerushalmi relate to each other. The Medrash tells us that the two Ra’os are connected to the two Dibros that we abandonded. These were not just any Dibros, however, they were the ones that we heard from Hashem Himself, without any Emtza’im, but M’Pi HaGevurah. These Dibros signify the direct relationship that we may have with Hashem if only we seek it. By not relying on Hashem alone, but looking for Emtza’im and Shutfim, we display a lack of appreciation for this part of our relationship, and our inequities are multiplied.

Based on this we can understand the presence of the words “Mekor Mayim Chayim.” Hashem tells Klal Yisroel “Shtayim Ra’os Asah Ami”, you have done two wrongs, because you have not only looked to other forces but have ignored the most important part of our relationship: I am the “Mekor Mayim Chayim”, providing to you directly all that you may need. The Mayim Chayim of Hashem is compared to the Be’eros of Avodah Zarah because a Ma’ayan is free-flowing and always present, whereas a Be’er must first be filled by a primary source. In turning to other means, even as a Shituf or Emtza’i we not only abandon Hashem but also show that we don’t really understand the purpose of our relationship with Him, and all that it can offer us.

The other Pessukim that discuss water can be understood in this light as well.

The Passuk asks “V’Ata Mah Lach L’Derech Mitzrayim” and Rashi explains that the Passuk is criticizing our willingness to rely on the Umos Ha’Olam rather than Hashem. The words “Lishtos Mei Shechor” are now understood: when we rely on others, instead of or even in addition to, Hashem, we lose out on an opportunity. We have the ability to drink only from the Mekor Mayim Chaim, if we are willing to do so, but we give up that privilege to drink from other waters.

Later the Navi begs us: “Meni Raglech M’Yachef U’Gronech M’Tzimah”. If we do not take advantage of our opportunities to drink from the Mekor Mayim Chaim, to enjoy a direct and unobstructed relationship with Hashem, our thirst will never be quenched. The more we come to rely on outside forces and influences, the farther we travel from our ultimate source.

The message for this time of year is clear: in order to gain back all that we have lost we have to focus on our drinking source. We must avoid the temptation to find other drinking wells, all the while remembering that they are “Bo’Aros Nishbarim Asher Lo Yachlu Hamayim”, ultimately worthless. Instead, we must thirst for the Mekor Mayim Chaim, wishing to enjoy a direct connection to Hashem, without Shutfim or Emtza’im, so that one day we may drink the sweetest of waters.