Waterfall

There are some Pessukim that are read as the Haftorah multiple times per year. For example, the Hafotrah for Shabbos Chanukah is the same as that of Parshas Behaloscha. The Haftorah of Parshas Noach, however, is in a way unique as it is a composite of two other Haftoros. The first half of this week’s Haftorah is the same as Parshas Ki Seitzei, and the second half is the same as Parshas Re’eh. This would seem to indicate that either part of the Hafotrah can stand on its own, yet Chazal prescribed both as the selection for this week’s Sedra. It would therefore seem prudent to learn the Pessukim in a way that could perhaps allow us an insight into why this is the case, and how it is supposed to inform our lives.

The Pessukim of the Haftorah are taken from Sefer Yeshaya, and is largely allegorical in nature. The Haftorah begins with the words “Rani Akarah”, in which Yerushalayim is referred to as a barren woman—a common metaphor for a city bereft of its ultimate purpose—and is told to rejoice as it will soon be reinhabited. This sets the tone for the remainder of the Haftorah, which contains Divrei Nechama.

At first it is difficult to establish a connection between our Parsha and the theme of these Pessukim, but an overt link is found at the end of the first half of the Haftorah. There, the Navi discusses the Shevuah tat Hashem makes regarding Acharis HaYamim—that it will be everlasting—and compares this to another Shavuah. The Navi tells us: “Ki Mei Noach Zos Li Asher Nishbati M’Avor Mei Noach Od Al HaAretz. Just as Hashem made a Shavuah to Noach that he would never again bring a Mabul, so too He promises that the period of Acharis HaYamim will not be affected by our shortcomings.

Obviously this is a clear connection between the Divrei HaNavi and the Parshas HaShavuah: the Haftorah makes clear reference to Noach and the Mabul, as well as the promise made by Hashem afterward. This gives rise to a question: if the connection between the Sedra and the Haftorah is found here, why did Chazal instruct us to continue the Haftorah, incorporating the second section, which begins with the words Aniyah Soara? If the Haftorah of Rani Akara is read on its own as part of the Shiva D’Nechemta, why can’t it comprise the entirety of the Haftorah for Parshas Noach? Perhaps, however, we can find within the second part of the Haftorah the answer to a question raised on the very Passuk that connects to our Parsha.

As we noted, the Navi mentions Noach by name in the first half of the Haftorah, but it is important to point out that the correct reading of the Passuk is not entirely clear, and is in fact the topic of a Machlokes amongst the Meforshim.

The controversy surrounds the words “Ki Mei Noach”. Radak notes that most Seforim have three words, Ki 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. The approach of the Radak would seem to be supported by the fact that the Navi clearly uses these words later in the same Passuk: “Asher Nishbati Me’avor Mei Noach.” It would therefore seem likely that the initial words are to be read the same way. This being the case, a question arises.

Why, in fact, does the Navi refer to the Mabul as “Mei Noach”? Metzudos explains that Noach is a point of reference—since the Mabul took place in his times, they are referred to by his name. But why the emphasis on the water of the Mabul? Why, twice, does the Navi speak specifically about the waters of the Mabul in this way? In a way the version of the Targum, that the Navi is referring to the times of Noach, is a little more understandable—why speak about the Mei Noach specifically?

The truth is that this question really gives way to another, much broader question: why was the Dor HaMabul punished with water specifically? It seems that even if the world was deserving of a Mabul, with the implications of that type of punishment, there are other types.

The Medrash in Vayikra Rabba brings that when he was Davening on behalf of the inhabitants of Sedom, Avrohom Avinu asked Hashem why a “Mabul Shel Esh” would not violate the Shavuah made to Noach that a Mabul would never again be brought onto the world. A similar discussion took place between Bilaam and the Umos HaOlam at the time of Mattan Torah, as brought in the Medrash Mishlei. Perhaps most interestingly, the Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that when they heard that Hashem was to bring a Mabul, the Anshei Dor HaMabul discussed ways to protect themselves from either a Mabul Shel Esh or Mabul Mayim. We see, then, that there is a concept of a “Mabul Shel Esh” as well, yet here the Mabul Mayim was specifically chosen. We must understand why this was the case—why were the members of the Dor HaMabul punished exclusively through water?

Perhaps the answer lies in a Passuk that is found in the second half of the Haftorah, linking that section to the Parsha as well.

This part of the Haftorah speaks about the affects of the lengthy Galus on Klal Yisroel, and how our spiritual needs will be addresses L’Asid Lavo. The Navi tells us: “Hoi Kol tzama Lechu L’mayim”, which literally means: “let all those who are thirsty go to the water.” Clearly this is one of the many Pessukim in Sefer Yeshaya that cannot be understood without the aid of Chazal.

Chazal, in numerous places, uses this Passuk as a proof to a well-known saying: “Ain Mayim Elah Torah”. Based on this, we can understand what the Navi is telling us: following the Galus, all those who are “thirsty”, desperate for Ruchnias, will have access to the water they seek—the Torah itself. Maybe this appearance of the word “Mayim”, and the way that Chazal tell us it is to be understood, can also help us understand the earlier Pessukim that mention the Mei Noach.

Under normal circumstances, one might ask why Chazal compare the Torah to water, but in this case we need not wonder, because they themselves explain the connection. In fact, the Medrash Tehillim offers no less than six ways in which the Torah Hakedosha is similar to water. The Gemara in Taanis, however, mentions just one: “Mah Mayim Menichin Makom Gavorah V’Holchin L’Makom Namuch, Af Divrei Torah Ain Miskaymin Ela B’Mi SheDaato Shefela.” Just like water flows from a higher place to a lower place, so too must one be able to lower himself in order to be properly Mekabel the Torah. Seeing as the Gemarah chooses this one comparison between Torah and Mayim of all the others, we can perhaps assume that it is the primary explanation. That said, let us examine this idea a bit closer.

Why is it that Chazal use this property of water to explain the mindset one needs to have, one of Shiflus, in order to contain the Torah, and why indeed is Shiflus such an integral part of ones development in Torah?

The Maharal, in Nesiv HaTorah, explains that the reason water flows form a higher spot to a lower one is because it is not confined to any boundaries, it expands or contracts based on the vessel it is in. A “Makom Gavoah”, explains the Maharal, is by definition a place of Gevulim, and so water naturally flows away from it to a Makom Namuch, a place of no Gevulim, where it can exist in its natural state.

The Torah, explains the Maharal is also “B’Li Gevulim”, it is so vast and all-encompassing that it has no boundries, self-imposed or otherwise. This being the case, it can only be contained by someone who is himself without Gevulim. A Ba’al Gavia imposes boundaries —he feels that his station and stature place him in a category all his own, and the Torah can therefore not exist within him. Only if one is Mashpil himself, removing those Gevulim and allowing himself to be Mispashet to his surroundings and circumstances, can the Torah be Miskayem within him.

Perhaps, based on this, we can understand why the Dor HaMabul was punished using Mayim specifically.

The Gemara, in Sanhedrin, tells us: “Lo Nechtam Gezer Dinam Ad ShePashtu Yadam B’Gezel.” The ultimate cause of the Mabul was that the members of the generation engaged in rampant theft. If we think about it, there is no greater sign of Gaivah than the sense of self-entitlement. When one has a high opinion of himself, he determines that he may take what he wants from who he wants. Thus, the punishment that fit the crime was one in which water, which symbolizes the importance of Shiflus. By using water, which does not confine itself to boundaries, to destroy the Dor that was self-obsessed, Hashem sent a very clear message. The way for us to avoid Chamas and the destruction that follows, is to follow the path of Mayim, and bring Shiflus into our lives.

Maybe this is how the second part of the Haftorah relates to the first half: by including the Passuk that teaches us “Ain Mayim Ela Torah”, our minds are drawn to the message of Shiflus carried by the Mayim. This, in turn, allows us to understand the “Mei Noach”. By understanding the value of being without self-imposed boundries, we can understand why the Mabul Mayim was necessary.

In this, the week that we ponder the Dor HaMabul, how low they sank and why they deserved such destruction, we must also think about how we can avoid their fate. The world around us sinks lower and lower into the depths of Chamas with each passing day, but we must fight the current. The way to do so is to be Mashpil ourselves, removing the boundaries that cause Gaivah. In this way we will be Zoche to the ultimate protection: that of the Torah itself. By clinging to the Torah we can protect ourselves from the raging waters of Chamas, so that Hashem will remember us, as He did Noach, and bring the days defined by a new Shavuah: “Chasdi M’Itach Lo Yamush U’Bris Shlomi Lo Tamut”