Nitzavim — Cries of Return

כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ

רְצוֹנְךָ לֵידַע כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תְּפִלָּה, אִם אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כֻּלָּה חֶצְיָהּ הִיא עוֹשָׂה

Often, the Medrash begins its explanation of a particular Parsha with a Halacha. In the case of Parshas Nitzvaim, the Medrash begins with a discussion about Teffilah: אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹא הִתְפַּלֵּל תְּפִלַּת הַשַּׁחַר אוֹ תְּפִלַּת מוּסַף אוֹ תְּפִלַּת הַמִּנְחָה... אֵי זוֹ שָׁעָה מֻתָּר לוֹ לְהִתְפַּלֵּל וְיֵצֵא בָהּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. If a person was unable to Daven a particular תְּפִלָּה at the appropriate time, until when can he Daven and still be Yotzei? The Medrash goes on to answer this question and a longer discussion about Tefilla follows.

Although in many cases the connection between the Halachic discussion and the relevant Parsha is apparent—either implicitly or because the Medrash spells it out—in this case it is not so clear. Some Meforshim, however, assume that the words כִּי הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם refer to תְּפִלָּה, as the Passuk later uses the words בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ, a phrase which is reminiscent of the words of Chazal: אֵיזוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁהִיא בַּלֵּב הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּפִלָּה.

As part of this discussion, the Medrash make an powerful statement, גְּדוֹלָה הִיא הַתְּפִלָּה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, reminding us that HKBH places great importance on תְּפִלָּה. The Medrash continues with a Memra of R’ Elazar: רְצוֹנְךָ לֵידַע כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תְּפִלָּה, אִם אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כֻּלָּה חֶצְיָהּ הִיא עוֹשָׂה,. So powerful is תְּפִלָּה, that even if the goals of the one offering the תְּפִלָּה cannot be fully met, his desires will be partially fulfilled.

The Medrash supports this idea with an unlikely source.

In Parshas Beraishis we learn that after קַיִן killed his brother הֶבֶל, HKBH told him that he would be punished, using the words נָע וָנָד תִּהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ. In response, the Passuk there tells us that קַיִן said גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא. The Medrash explains the words of קַיִן as follows: אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם כָּל הָעוֹלָם אַתָּה סוֹבֵל וְלַעֲוֹנִי אִי אַתָּה סוֹבֵל, כָּתַבְתָּ: נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן וְעֹבֵר עַל פֶּשַׁע. How could it be, asked קַיִן , that HKBH could forgive so many transgressions, but not his? The Medrash concludes, telling us about the affect of these words: מִיָּד מָצָא חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְנִמְנַע מִמֶּנּוּ נָע חֲצִי הַגְּזֵרָה. Hashem heard the words of קַיִן and removed half of the גְּזֵרָה, as the Passuk later tells us: וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד, indicating that קַיִן in fact had a settled place to live and was not נָע . it follows, it seems, that it is true of all תְּפִלָּה that אִם אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כֻּלָּה חֶצְיָהּ הִיא עוֹשָׂה.

While the overall message of the Medrash, תְּפִלָּה אִם אֵינָהּ עוֹשָׂה כֻּלָּה חֶצְיָהּ הִיא עוֹשָׂה, certainly resonates we must still understand the proof brought the story of קַיִן . The words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא seem to be more of a declaration that a תְּפִלָּה. In fact, Ibn Ezra explains that the word עֲוֹנִי , in this context, means עֹנֶשׁ הֶעֱוָן, meaning that קַיִן was speaking about his punishment, and not his actual Avierah. Why does the Medrash see these words as a תְּפִלָּה, and especially the type that exemplifies the כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תְּפִלָּה?

The Medrash becomes even more difficult to understand based on the way these Pessukim are explained in Vayikra Rabba in Parshas Tzav.

The Medrash, there, brings a Machlokes about the ways to remove a גְּזֵרָה, either partially or completely: R’ Yehudah says תְּשׁוּבָה עוֹשָׂה מֶחֱצָה וּתְפִלָּה עוֹשָׂה הַכֹּל and R’ Yehoshua ben Levi says תְּשׁוּבָה עָשְׂתָה אֶת הַכֹּל וּתְפִלָּה עָשְׂתָה מֶחֱצָה. Each hold that there is a way to remove a גְּזֵרָה completely, the Machlokes is only whether that is accomplished by תְּשׁוּבָה or תְּפִלָּה.

To support the words of R’ Yehudah, תְּשׁוּבָה עוֹשָׂה מֶחֱצָה וּתְפִלָּה עוֹשָׂה הַכֹּל , the Medrash brings a familiar example: the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא. We see, explains that the Medrash that these words removed only part of the גְּזֵרָה, because the Passuk later says וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ נוֹד.

It is apparent that the Medrash in Vayikra Rabba understands the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא as an act of תְּשׁוּבָה , supporting the Shita of R’ Yehuda that תְּשׁוּבָה עוֹשָׂה מֶחֱצָה . There are two questions on this approach. First, how do these words connote תְּשׁוּבָה on the part of קַיִן ? the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא do not seem to indicate any sort of remorse or commitment—how can we understand their use a proof that תְּשׁוּבָה עוֹשָׂה מֶחֱצָה ?

Perhaps more importantly, this approach would seem to directly contradict the Medrash in Parshas Nitzavim that uses the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא to illustrate the כֹּחָהּ שֶׁל תְּפִלָּה. Are these words indeed תְּשׁוּבָה or תְּפִלָּה? How can we resolve the two Medrashim?

While it would seem simple to suggest R’ Elazar, who is quoted in the Medrash here, holds like R’ Yehoshua ben Levi, that תְּשׁוּבָה עָשְׂתָה אֶת הַכֹּל וּתְפִלָּה עָשְׂתָה מֶחֱצָה, this might not help in explaining the two Medrashim, for it is never suggested in Vayikra Rabba that the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא are proof to R’ Yehoshua ben Levi. If he in fact held that these words were תְּפִלָּה, they would support his view.

How then can we understand these two Medrashim: we the words of קַיִן meant as תְּפִלָּה or תְּשׁוּבָה , and how can we understand their meaning in each case?

Another Mamar Chazal is relevant to this discussion and adds important context to the word קַיִן.

The Gemara in Chelek, in the midst of a discussion regarding תְּשׁוּבָה , teaches: שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאוּ בַּעֲלִילָה, there were three people who approached HKBH with demands. Rashi, there, explains: לֹא בָּאוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ לִפְנֵי הקב״ה בַּתְּפִלָּה אֶלָּא בָּאוּ בָּעֲלִילָה שֶׁאָמְרוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל נִצָּחוֹן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה. These three people did not Daven to Hashem with a request, but offered words that were in some way irrefutable, in a sense pressing HKBH to grant their wishes.

One of the three is קַיִן and the Gemara explains: גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשׂוֹא אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם כְּלוּם גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִשִּׁשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא שֶׁעֲתִידִין לַחְטוֹא לְפָנֶיךָ וְאַתָּה סוֹלֵחַ לָהֶם. When קַיִן said the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא, he was asking HKBH why Klal Yisroel would be forgiven for the חֵטְא הָעֵגֶל and not he for his Aveirah. This claim, it seems, was classified as דְּבָרִים שֶׁל נִצָּחוֹן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה, and it was for this reason that the גְּזֵרָה against קַיִן was reduced, as we see in the Medrashim.

It seems from this Gemara that the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא are neither a form of תְּשׁוּבָה , nor a תְּפִלָּה—at least not in the sense of a בַּקָּשָׁה. What then are they? What did קַיִן mean when he said these words, and why indeed were they so effective?

To answer these questions, it is important to understand the essence of תְּפִלָּה on a new level.

The Passuk in Parhas Beshalach tells us: וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. When Bnei Yisroel were approaching the יַם סוּף, they realized that they were trapped between the sea and their enemies, and they cried out to Hashem. Rashi, there, comments: תָּפְשׂוּ אֻמָּנוּת אֲבוֹתָם, Bnei Yisroel grabbed on to the ways of the Avos, all of whom engaged in Teffilah. He continues, bringing Pessukim to illustrate the times that the Avos Hakedoshim were Mispallel.

R’ Yerucham Levovitz, in Daas Torah on Parshas Beshalach, asks a question on Rashi: why is it necessary for Rashi to tell us that Klal Yisroel were Mispallel at that time because תָּפְשׂוּ אֻמָּנוּת אֲבוֹתָם? What does this teach us? We know that the Avos engaged in תְּפִלָּה , what does this add here? In addition, why does Rashi have to bring the Pessukim that show when the Avos were Misplallel? How can we understand the Passuk through the eyes of Rashi.

The Mashgiach answers these questions with an important insight into תְּפִלָּה , based on a Medrash.

The Medrash Rabba, there, adds background to the events of the יַם סוּף: the Pessukim tell us that while Bnei Yisroel were in Mitzrayim, they cried out to Hashem, וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָרַבִּים הָהֵם וגו' וַיִּזְעָקוּ, and this led to the Geulah. Later, adter they had left Mitzrayim, הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹלָם פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת, Hashem wished to hear their voice once again, but they were not forthcoming. Therefore, גֵּרָה לְפַרְעֹה לִרְדֹּף אַחֲרֵיהֶם, HKBH made Pharaoh run after them, so that they would be in a precarious position and they were indeed spurred to תְּפִלָּה מִיָּד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל ה' . The Medrash concludes, telling us that this satisfied the Ratzon Hashem: אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְכָךְ הָיִיתִי מְבַקֵּשׁ, לִשְׁמֹעַ קוֹלְכֶם.

Based on this, the Mashgiach explains that the true purpose of Teffilah is to bring increased awareness of the complete control that HKBH exerts upon the world. In fact, he explains, this is the purpose of the entire Briah, as the Passuk in Ve’eschanan tells us: וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ כִּי ה' הוּא הָאֱלֹקים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל־הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת אֵין עוֹד. The more one recognizes that there is but one address, but one way to achieve anything on this world, the more effective his תְּפִלָּה is, and the more he accomplishes its ultimate goal.

In many cases, continues the Mashgiach, this is possible only when a person finds himself in a difficult situation: he has no place left to turn, so he turns to Hashem throughתְּפִלָּה This was theתְּפִלָּה of Klal Yisroel in Mitzrayim: they were downtrodden, abused, and had no place to turn. That caused them to cry out to Hashem, as the Pessukim tell us. In doing so, they accomplished the ultimate goal ofתְּפִלָּה : their awareness of HKBH was enhanced, and they underwent an experience of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ כִּי ה' הוּא הָאֱלֹקים . Later, HKBH wished to hear their voices again, מְבַקֵּשׁ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹלָם פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת, not because of the sound, but because it would create this increased level of awareness and connection.

While this type of תְּפִלָּה is effective and creates the increased level of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ , there is a higher level, revealed by the words תָּפְשׂוּ אֻמָּנוּת אֲבוֹתָם. The Pessukim that Rashi brings as examples of the תְּפִלָּה of the Avos are not at moments of peril or distress—they were the Teffilos that the Avos offered on a regular basis. The awareness that the Avos had of the Hashgachas Hashem was at such a level that every תְּפִלָּה they offered was in the same guise as we bring ourselves to when our lives are in danger. It takes moments of fear or despair for us to reach the realization that there is nothing but HKBH—the Avos lived with this at every moment.

When HKBH wished to hear the תְּפִלָּה of Klal Yisroel, they were placed in a situation that would force them to reach a level of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ , and at that moment they were תָּפְשׂוּ אֻמָּנוּת אֲבוֹתָם, accessing the Madreigah occupied by the Avos. This is the essence of תְּפִלָּה : it is not an opportunity to ask HKBH for what we need, but to bring ourselves to a higher level of recognition of the Hashgacha Elyona, forging a connection that allows us to experience the Chessedei Hashem.

Perhaps we can understand the words of קַיִן , and therefore the Medrashrim, based on this idea.

As Rashi in Sanhedrin writes, קַיִן was among those who were not בָּאוּ לְבַקֵּשׁ לִפְנֵי הקב״ה בַּתְּפִלָּה, he did not ask Hashem for anything with the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא, his was a תְּפִלָּה of a different nature. By speaking about the way that HKBH responds to different Aveiros, קַיִן exhibited an enhanced recognition of the way the world works. When קַיִן asked כְּלוּם גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִשִּׁשִּׁים רִיבּוֹא שֶׁעֲתִידִין לַחְטוֹא לְפָנֶיךָ וְאַתָּה סוֹלֵחַ לָהֶם, he showed that the Hashgachas Hashem was clear to him—he wished only to understand how it is developed. In showing HKBH that he had achieved a level of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ, he offered דְּבָרִים שֶׁל נִצָּחוֹן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם תְּשׁוּבָה, allowing his words to be heeded.

It emerges that the words גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְשׂוֹא are not strictly תְּפִלָּה or תְּשׁוּבָה—they are both.

In Sefer Melachim, there is a moment with Achav seems to have corrected his path, and HKBH speaks to Eliyahu Hanavi, saying: הֲרָאִיתָ כִּי־נִכְנַע אַחְאָב מִלְּפָנָי יַעַן כִּי־נִכְנַע מִפָּנַי לֹא־אָבִי הָרָעָה בְּיָמָיו. The תְּשׁוּבָה of Achav is referred to with the word נִכְנַע, which connotes submission. This is because the ultimate form of תְּשׁוּבָה is not just to avoid improper behaviors or commit to being better—it is placing ourselves in a position of נִכְנַע מִפָּנַי. If we submit ourselves to HKBH, recognizing the primacy of Hashgachas Hashem, increasing our levels of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ, our תְּשׁוּבָה will not be a momentary course correction, but one of permanence, as we act in accordance with our understanding of the way the world truly works.

In this way תְּפִלָּה can be used as a form of תְּשׁוּבָה: if we approach תְּפִלָּה with the proper mindset, using it as a way to increase our levels of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ, than we will grow closer to HKBH and further from our missteps. In the approaching יְמֵי הָרַחֲמִים וְהַסְּלִיחוֹת, when תְּפִלָּה and תְּשׁוּבָה seem to compete for our attention, we can perhaps learn from this lesson. Instead of looking at תְּשׁוּבָה as self-improvement, we can approach our תְּפִלָּה in a way that increases our sense of וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ אֶל־לְבָבֶךָ, which will in turn lead us to a תְּשׁוּבָה that is complete and long-lasting.