Moving Mountains

Parshas Noach is associated most closely with the story of Noach, but the Pessukim that speak about the Mabul do not comprise the entire Parsha. The end of the Parsha tells us about the Dor Haflaga, and we learn about the ten Doros that followed Noach. The final Pessukim begin telling the story of Avrohom, and by the time the Parsha ends, Avrohom is on his way towards Eretz Cannan. In a sense, then, we can see Parshas Noach as the beginning of the story of the Avos HaKedoshim, which continues through the rest of Sefer Beraishis. It is therefore appropriate tha the Haftorah teaches us an important lesson about how we are to relate to the Avos in our own lives.

The Haftorah is taken from Sefer Yeshaya, and is actually comprised of two of the Shiva D’Nechemta: “Rani Akara” and “Aniah Soarah”. Unsurprisingly, then, the Pessukim are hopeful and forward looking. We know, however, that the Navi was not a poet—even that which seems like flowing verse is actually full of meaning. A prime example of this notion is found at the end of the first half of the Haftorah.

The Passuk tells us: “Ki HaHarim Yamushu V’Hagvaos Timutena V’Chasdi M’Itach Lo Yamush”. Taken literally, the Passuks is telling us that even though mountains may be moved, and hills may falter, the Chesed Hashem will never abandon us. Metzudos explains that even as solidly planted as mountain are, there are sometimes events so dramatic that they can move. The Chesed of HKBH, however, is unwavering—it will always be with us, no matter the circumstance. In this approach, the words “Harim” and “Gvaos” are mere metaphor—one may assume that the Navi chose them only for the sake of comparison. As we know, however, there is always a deeper meaning.

Although we assume that Pirush Rashi hews to the Pashur Pshat in the Passuk, this does not seem to be the case here. Rashi tells us: “Af Im Tichleh Zechus Avos V’Imahos Chasdi M’Itach Lo Yamush.” Even if the Zechus of the Avos and Imahos is destroyed, the Chesed of Hashem is not removed. The approach of Rashi seems to assign meaning to the words “Harim” and “Gvaos”, the mountains being the Avos and the hills the Imahos.

There are two questions that can be asked on Rashi. First, how does he know that the “Harim V’Hagvaos” refer to the Avos and Imahos? Second, and perhaps more importantly, what does it mean for the Zechus of the Avos and Imahos to be destroyed? Why might this happen, and why does Hashem tell us that His “Chesed” will remain intact even should that occur?

There is also a question to be asked on the Lashon of Rashi, based on a Gemara in Meseches Shabbos, where we find a Machlokes between Shmuel and R’ Yochanan with regard to Zechus Avos.

The Gemarah tell us that at the time of the Churban Bais Hamikdash, the Malach Gavriel was told to inscribe the letter “Tav” on the foreheads of the Tzaddikim so that they would be spared from the Malachei Chavala let loose on Yerushalayim. The Gemara later asks why it was a “Tav” specifically that was inscribed on the foreheads of Tzaddikim. Shmuel answers that the “Tav” stood for “Tamu Zechus Avos”, an indication that the Zechus Avos had ended, and would no longer protect the wicked. R’ Yochanan explains that the “Tav” stood for “Tachun Zechus Avos”, meaning that it was the Zechus Avos in particular which would bring Rachamim onto the Tzaddikim.

Without wading into the Machlokes itself, the word “Tichleh”, which means destroyed, is used by neither Amorah. If, according to Rashi, the Passuk is telling us that even when Zechus Avos cannot protect us, the Chessed Hashem can, why “Tichleh”, which is not used in the Gemara, as opposed to “Tamu” which is? Is there a difference between Zechus Avos somehow coming to an end and being destroyed?

Perhaps in order to better understand the words of Rashi, it would be helpful to identify the source for his words.

The Yerushalmi, at the beginning of the last Perek in Sanhedrin, tells us: “Amar HKBH L’Yisroel Banai Im Reisem Zechus Avos Shematah V’Zechus Imahos SheNismotitah Lechu V’Hidbaku B’Chesed.” Hashem tells His children that if we see that the Zechus Avos and Imahos have collapsed, we should cling to Chesed. The Gemarah then cites the Passuk in our Haftroah as the source for this Memrah, explaining that “Harim” refers to the “Zechus Avos” and “Gvaos” to the “Zechus Imahos”

It is clear that Rashi based his Pirush to these words on this Gemarah. We see that the Navi is referring to the Zechus of the Avos and Imahos, telling us that when there is a disturbance to these protections, we should turn to Chesed. In fact the Lashon of the Gemarah, the words “Shematah” and “SheNismotitah” imply collapse or destruction, similar to the word Tichleh used by Rashi.

Instead of being puzzled by the words of Rabban Shel Yisroel, however, we can turn our attention to the Yerushalmi. As we have established, there is a concept of “Tamu Zechus Avos”. One wonders if the risk spoken about in the Gemarah, that the Zechus Avos and Imahos with be “Mismotet”, or collapse, is one and the same or separate. Did the Gemara choose a different word to describe a different phenomenon or are they the same?

Also, it seems that the Gemarah is offering us practical advice: if we sense that we are not protected by the Zechus Avos, we should be “Misdabek” in Chesed. This seems different than the Pshat in the Passuk offered by Metzudos and others: “V’Chasdi M’Itach Lo Yamush” does not refer to the Chesed of Hashem and the confidence in the fact that He will ultimately protect us. Rather, the Gemara seems to be telling us that when we sense a collapse in the protection of the Zechus Avos, we must be Misdabek in Chesed, performing acts of Chesed for others. It would seem that the Zechus of this Chesed will stand for us, protecting us as Zechus Avos might have.

If this is the case, if this is the Eitzah of the Gemarah, we must of course understand why this is true. How do we understand that the Zechus Avos can be replaced, so to speak, by Chesed?

To answer this question, we must of course try to understand the concept of Zechus Avos a little better.

R’ Chatzkel Levenstein, in Ohr Yechezkel on Darchei HaAvodah, poses an interesting question which leads to a discussion that may be instructional.

As we know, there were two major Chataim that were committed by the Dor Hamidbar: the Chet HaEgel and the Chet HaMeraglim. R’ Chatzkel points out that we would assume that the Chet HaEgel, which touched on the Issur of Avodah Zarah, was more Chamur. The punishments for these two Aveiros, however, do not seem to agree with this supposition. Those who participated in the Egel were punished immediately, but the rest of Klal Yisroel remained as before the Chet, and received Selicha and Mechila from HKBH. The Chet of the Meraglim, on the other hand, resulted in the eventual death of every adult male alive at the time, and the Mechila granted by Hashem only extended the time over which this Onesh took place.

Why, asks R’ Chatzkel, was this the case? Why do the punishments seem inversely proportional to the Aveiros?

The answer, he explains, can be found in the way that Moshe Rabbeinu was Misplalel at the time.

The Ramban points out that Moshe mentions only the Middos or “Erech Apayim” and “Rav Chesed”, but not “Rachum V’Chanun”, “Emes” or “Notzer Chesed L’Alaphim”. Ramban explains that this was because Moshe Rabbeinu knew that these Teffilos would not be effective at the time, based on their specific meaning and the way that they relate to the Aveirah that occurred.

For example, Moshe knew, explains the Ramaban, that were the Middah of “Emes” applied, Bnei Yisroel would be found liable, and so he omitted that word. When it comes to the Middah of “Notzer Chesed L’Alaphim”, Ramban explains that these words refer to the Zechus Avos, and Moshe knew that Zechus Avos would not stand for Klal Yisroel at the time, leading him not to mention these words.

R’ Chatzkel explains that the Chet of the Meraglim was rooted in a lack of Emunah—they did not believe that HKBH could defeat the inhabitants of the land. This can be seen from the way they issued their report, as well as the Tochacha they were given by Moshe Rabbeinu when they did so. This being the case, continues the Mashgiach, there was no hope for Zechus Avos to protect them, as the Emunah in Hashem is the very gift the Avos gave us. If we do not maintain the ways of the Avos, if we do not cling to their Middos, there is no way to rely on their Zechuyos.

The punishment that Bnei Yisroel received for the Chet Hameraglim was a reflection of the fact that they could not be adequately protected by the Middos HaRachamim, including the Zechus Avos which does not protect those who do not follow in their ways.

Perhaps we can explain the Yerushalmi, and in turn our Passuk, based on this idea.

We know that there is a concept of “Tamu Zechus Avos”, mentioned by the Gemarah in Shabbos. This would seem to refer to a ceseation of the Zechus Avos in general. In fact, the Gemarah there brings a number of opinons as to “Masai Tamu Zechus Avos”, when in history the Zechus Avos became ineffective.

Maybe we can suggest that the Yerushalmi is introducing a different concept. There are times when Zechus Avos are generally in affect, but a person’s connection to them has been severed. A mountain is never completely destroyed—even if it collapses in some way it remains an edifice. Sometimes a person finds himself in a situation where he realizes that he is not protected by Zechus Avos, and it is because he has not lived up to his side of the bargain. Because he does not walk the path paved by the Avos Hakedoshim, he cannot be protected by their Zechuyos.

To these people, HKBH, through Chazal, offers a solution: “Lechu V’Hidbaku B’Chesed”.

The Avos each imbued us with specific Kochos, which make us who we are. Chesed, Gevuah and Emes are granted to us by dint of our lineage, and when we wish to connect to our Avos, we turn to these Middos. While perfection in Gevurah and Emes are of course lofty goals, however, Chesed is perhaps the most accessible. When one feels that perhaps the Zechus Avos is not working in his favor, then, he must turn to Chesed. By reengaging in the Middah of Avrohom Avinu, his connection to the Avos Hakedoshim will be reaffirmed, and he will once again find himself under their protection.

This message, found in the words of the Navi in this weeks Haftorah, allow us an insight that can be helpful in the coming weeks, as we live the Parshios of the Avos. We must learn the Parshios in a way that allows us insight into the ways of the Avos so that we may emulate them. This will allow us to be protected by the Zechus Avos in a way that ensures the promise of V’Chasdi M’Itach Lo Yamush.