Northern Light

This week’s Haftorah is the first of a series known as the Tlasa D’Parenusa, the three Haftoros leined during the weeks of Bein HaMetzarim. These three Haftoros are followed by the Shiva D’Nechemta, the seven Haftoros that are read in the weeks between Tisha B’Av and Rosh Hashana. In all, the next ten weeks are a period of time in which the Haftoros define not only our calendar but our mindset. The importance of the Haftoros to this span of the calendar can be seen from a Psak brought by the Elya Rabba in Hilchos Rosh Chodesh: if the wrong Haftorah was read on the first of the “three weeks”, the missed portion would be made up the next week in addition to the regular Haftorah. Clearly the Divrei HaNeviim are an important part of our Avodah in these weeks. With this in mind, it is understood that we must try each week to connect in some way the Pessukim selected by the Chachamim.

The first Haftorah of the Tlasa D’Parenusa is read on the Shabbos immediately following Shiva Asur B’Tamuz and comes from the very beginning of Sefer Yirmiyahu.. The Hafotrah begins with some introductory Pessukim that focus on the origins of Yirmiyahu HaNavi, and then turns to a description of the first two Nevuos he received. The words of Yermiyahu, who served as the final Navi prior to the Churban, resonate throughout this time of year—in the Haftoros and in Eicha itself—and the Haftorah is therefore an appropriate introduction not only to the period of Bein HaMetzarim, but to the Navi himself.

The Nevuos that the Pessukim describe are both allegorical in nature: twice Yermiyahu sees something that is seemingly mundane, after which HKBH explains their significance. As we learn Pessukim such as these, it is important to understand not only what the Navi was told, but the way in which the message was conveyed.

After learning the meaning of his first Mechzeh, Yermiyahu is asked once again what he sees, and he responds: “Sir Nafuach Ani Roeh”. Rashi explains that the word Nafuach means “boiling”, and so the vision that the Navi saw was one of a boiling pot. Yermiyahu also noticed something about the orientation of the Sir Nafuach: “U’Panav Mipnei Tzafon”. The exact meaning of these words is not clear, and there are differing opinions among the Meforshim. Radak explains that the mouth of the pot was facing north, while Metzudos writes that the boiling part of the pot was opposite the north.

In either case, it is clear that the orientation of the pot was noteworthy, and the next PAssuk explains its meaning. HKB tells the Navi: “Mitzafon Tiftach HaRa’ah Al Kol Yoshvei HaAretz.” Bavel, as Rashi notes, was to the north of Eretz Yisroel, and they were to be the aggressors who would bring the Churban. The calamities about which Yeshayahu was to warn Bnei Yisroel would thus eminate from the North. The Passuk continues: “Ki Hinini Koreh L’Chol Mishpachos Tzafona…U’Bau V’Nasnu Ish Kiso Pesach Sha’arei Yerushalayim.” Not only would Bavel be summoned, but the surrounding kingdoms of the north would descend upon Yerushalayim as well.

The message of the Nevuah is abundantly clear: absent sincere Teshuva on the part of Klal Yisroel, the enemies of the north would arrive, bringing with them all manner of destruction. That said, we must of course try to understand the way in which the Nevuah was given.

There are two elements to the vision that Yermiyahu saw: the “Sir Nafuach” and its positioning. We must understand why each of these was used to convey the message about the coming Churban.

First, why, of all things, was a pot used to symbolize destruction? Even the word “Sir” is uncommon, appearing only a few times throughout Tanach, why is it used here?

Even more pressing is the message of “Tzafon”, which seems to take precedence over the Sir itself. Why did it matter from which direction the enemies were appearing? If the purpose of the Mechzeh was to alert Bnei Yisroel to the impending doom, why was it important to note the direction from which their foes were arriving? The fact that the accessory enemies are referred to as “Mishpachos Tzafona” only serves to highlight the apparent importance of their geographical origin, and our need to understand this detail. The Pessukim speak more about the “Tzafon” portion of the Nevuah than the “Sir Nafuach”, indicating that this was perhaps the more important part of the message. perhaps, then, if we can explain the significance of Tzafon we can better understand the entire Nevuah.

In explaining the Mechzeh, the Passuk says “M’Tzafon Tiftach Hara’ah”, which seems to be referring to the events that the Nevuah is addressing. Chazal, however, see these words as having a broader meaning.

The Medrash, in Pirkei D’Rebi Eliezer, speaks at length about Brias HaOlam. As part of this discussion, the Medrash explains the characteristics of the Arba Ruchos HaOlam. For example, we are told that the Ruach Pinas Darom—the southern quarter of the world—comes Gishmei Brahcha. When it comes to the Pinas HaTzafon, the northern sector, the Medrash tells us: “Sham Hu Mador L’Mazikin V’LaZaos L’Ruchos V’Lashedim U’Librakim V’LaRaamim.” The northern part of the worlds is the source of destructive forces, be they physical—thunder, lightning, or earthquakes—or spiritual—Mazikim and Shedim. This is ture, explains the Medrash, because the Passuk tells us“M’Tzafon Tiftach Hara’ah”. This Drasha indicates that these words are referring not only to the Churban, but to a more general reality. All evil, it seems, originates in the north.

It is difficult to understand this concept, and why it is true, especially as there seems to be a Medrash that runs contrary to this idea.

The Passuk in Parshas Devarim tells us that Bnei Yisroel circled around the area Har Sair for quite a while, and eventually Hashem redirected Moshe: “Rav Lachem Sov Es HaHar HaZeh Penu Lachem Tzafonah.” Rather than continuing their path, the people should turn to the north.

The Medrash Rabba, there, offers a number of Drashos on the words “Penu Lachem Tzafona”, based on the fact that Bnei Yisroel was in the territory of Esav, Har Seir, and was now told to turn northward. One of these Drashos applies these words to our everyday lives: “Im Raisem Shemizdaveg Lachem Birchu LaTorah”. If one senses that Eisav is interacting with him, he should run to the Torah. This advice, explains the Medrash, is based on the fact that Bnei Yisroel were instructed to depart from Esav with the words “Penu Lachem Tzafona”, and “Ain Tazfon Ela Torah”. Any mention of Tzafon, it seems, is related to the Torah.

How can we resolve this Medrash with the Pirkei D’Rebi Eliezer? Is Tzafon the source of all destruction and evil, or is it related to the Torah, the source of life itself?

To answer this question, let us examine one more apparent contradiction.

The Gemara in Bava Basra tells us: “HaRotzeh SheYeashir Yatzpin”. One who wishes to become wealthy, should direct his Teffilos to the north, for the Shulchan was places on the northern side of the Mikdash. On the other hand, the Gemara suggests, “HaRotzeh SheYachkim Yadrim”, one who wishes for Chachma should direct his Teffilos to the south, for the Menorah was in the south.

R’ Arala Belzer notes that this Gemarah seems to be in conflict with the Medrash in Devarim Rabba. If it is true that “Ain Tzafon Ela Torah”, as the Medrash notes, how can it be that Ashirus is also associated with Tzafon? Are not the persuits of Ashirus and Torah diametrically opposed?

The answer, explains the Rebbi, is based on a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch: “Kol Mah SheYehene B’Olam HaZeh Lo Yichaven L’Haanso Ela L’Avodas HaBorei Yisbarach”. One should direct even his physical pursuits in the service of HKBH. Although this seems to be a Midas HaChassidus, R’ Arala explains that it has practical ramifications as well.

As we know, Yaakov and Esav made an agreement: Esav was the master of Olam HaZeh, while Yaakov would maintain Shlita over Olam Habah. It is when this agreement is somehow breached that Esav has “Taynos” on Yaakov. When we encroach on Esav’s territory, taking a greater share in Olam Hazeh than nessecary, we become subject to the machinations of Esav.

The Medrash therefore advises us: “Im Raisem Shemizdaveg Lachem Birchu LaTorah”. When we sense that Esav is too close for comfort, that he is approaching, we must turn to Torah. If we direct our Chelek in Olam HaZeh to the Torah, to Ruchnias and Avodas Hashem, we can escape his clutches.

The concept of Toah and Ahsirus are not in conflict, then. Used correctly, they can exist in concert—both as ways and means to become closer to HKBH.

Perhaps, based on this idea, we can explain the apparent contradiction between the Medrash in Devarim Rabba and the Pirkei D’Rebi Eliezer, and by extension the Pessukim in our Haftorah.

M’Tzafon Tiftach HaRa’ah, all evil, all destruction, is rooted in Tzafon, which is a Remez to the Torah. As we have seen, however, the connection between Torah and Tzafon refers specifically to the Torah that is related to Ashirus. When we see evil in the world, when trouble approaches, we must understand that it is rooted in Tzafon, in our ability and success in using our Chelek in Olam HaZeh for Avodas Hashem. If we are able to apply the gifts of this world to Ruchnias, we must fear not. When, however, we are lacking in this area, we are subject to all the evils of the world.

The Navi was being told “M’Tzafon Tiftach HaRa’ah”, with a warning that our priorities in the area of Tzafon were skewed—we had conflated our relationships with Olam Hazeh and Olam HaBa’ah and would suffer as a result.

Perhaps this was indicated by the “Sir Nafuach” as well.

As we noted, the word “Sir” is quite unusual. One of the other places it appears, however, is in Parshas Beshalach where Bnei Yisroel complain to Moshe about a lack of food in the Midbar. The Passuk quotes Bnei Yisroel as reminiscing of their time in Mitzrayim “B’Shavtanu Al Sir HaBasar B’Achlnu Lechem LaSova.” The Alshich HaKadosh, there, notes that they spoke of sitting near the Sir HaBasar but eating mere Lechem. He explains, based on a Medrash, that Bnei Yisroel would sit near the pots used by the Mitzriyim to cook their meat, but would partake only of bread—they were not permitted to eat the meat.

It emerges, then, that when Bnei Yisroel spoke of the “Sir HaBasar” they were referring to a totally physical enjoyment—the smell of cooked meat. They could not have used that in their services of Hashem, it gave them no benefit, and so it was devoid of a properly balanced sense of Tzafon.

The use of the “Sir Nafuach” in the Nevuah of Yermiyahu perhaps refers to the Sir HaBasar. The message to the Navi was that our actions—our lack of sensitivity to the ideals of Tzafon—would lead to destruction. We were using Olam HaZeh only for our own purposes—with no benefit to our Avodas Hashem, like the Sir HaBasar for which Bnei Yisroel longed. It was this deficiency that would ultimately lead to the arrival of our enemies, under the rubric of M’Tzafon Tiftach HaRa’ah.

The period of Bein HaMetzarim is one during which we think about the Churban, and the ensuing Galus, and how we can bring the Geulah closer. Perhaps the message of M’Tzafon Tiftach HaRa’ah can be a guiding principal: if we balance our relationship with Olam HaZeh, using our physical pursuits for the purposes of Ruchnias, we will soon receive the ultimate message of “Rav Lachem Sov Es HaHar HaZeh.”