Acting Class

Although we are still in the midst of the period marked as weeks of Nechama, because this Shabbos is also Rosh Chodesh Elul, we take a break from Leining the Haftoros of the Shiva Dinechemta and read the Haftorah of Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, known as HaShamayim Kissi. Knowing how much of significance Chazal assigned to the Haftoros that we Lein during this period, this departure from the norm may seem out of place—for example, if Rosh Chodesh Av falls out on Shabbos we do Lein the regular Haftorah and not HaShamayim Kissi. It seems, however, that there are two mitigating factors in this case, which allow the chage.

First, the Pessukim normally Leined as the Haftorah for Parshas Re’eh immediately follow those of Parshas Ki Seitzei, and so we can “make up” the missed Haftorah in just a few weeks, as is common Minhag. In this way we ensure that the comforting words of the Navi are heard in their totality during this period of time. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Mishna Beura in Hilchos Rosh Chodesh points out that the Haftorah of HaShamayim Kissi includes “Nechomos Yerushalayim”. It seems then that Chazal allowed this change as part of their Takana since we can still maintain our focus on Nechama, which is so important at this time of year. With that said, it would seem appropriate, when this Haftorah is Leined on Rosh Chodesh Elul, to concentrate on the parts that pertain to Nechamas Tzion.

The Pessukim of the Haftorah come from the final Perek of Sefer Yeshaya—another indication that this Haftorah is not much a departure from the Shiva Dinechemta—and thus comprise the final Nevuah of Yeshayahu. In a sense they can be seen the culmination of all his words and may of the themes that appear elsewhere in the Sefer are touched upon here—including stinging Tochaca of Klal Yisroel. There is one Passuk in the middle of the Haftorah, however, that seems to encapsulate the Divrei Nechama to which the Mishna Berurah refers.

“Simchu Es Yerushalayim V’Gilu Bah Kol Ohaveha Sisu Ita Misos Kol HaMisablim Aleha”. In a general sense, the Navi seems to be making a very comforting prediction: those whose minds were on Yerushalayim during Galus will rejoice in its redemption. What is interesting, however, is how he chooses to say this. There are two types of people spoken about: Ohaveha, those who love Yerushalayim, and Misablim, those who mourn its destruction. The Navi also uses three terms to describe the feelings of elation they will experience: Simcha, Gila and Sason. Clearly this message could have been given over in a more direct and succinct way—we must understand what the Navi is communicating with his choice of words.

First, how can we define the two classes of people the Navi speaks about? We know what a Misabel is, one who mourns and bemoans that which has been lost, but who is counted as Ohaveha, one who loves Yerushalayim? Metzudos, as is his wont, provides us with a very clear definition: “Kol Mi SheAhav Osa ViSa’ev Lerosah B’Binyana”. One who not only loves Yerushalayim, but yearns to see it rebuilt, is called an Ohev. According to this Pshat it would seem that the chief distinction between Ohaveha and Misablim Aleha is in their view: a Misabel looks at the past and mourns the Churban whereas an Ohev is focused on the future and deeply wishes to see the Geulah. Perhaps another distinction can be made, however, based on the other words used in the Passuk. Chazal, in Avos D’Rabi Nosson, tell us that there are no less than ten Leshonos used in Tanach to describe happiness, three of which are used in this Passuk. As we know, the Leshonos used in the Pessukim are very precise—these are not ten synonyms, but ten words that each describe a different type or level of joy. Various Meforshim discuss how each of these is different and what they describe, lending meaning to each instance of their use.

The first two Leshonos use in the Passuk, Simcha and Gila, are actually the subject of a Machlokes between he Malbim and the Gr”a. Elsewhere in Sefer Yeshaya, the Malbim defines Simcha as the feelings felt toward and ongoing or permanent situation, a constant state of joy. Gila, on the other hand, is the emotion experienced at a sudden, perhaps unexpected, turn of events. The Gr”a, in his Pirush on Mishlei, defines these two terms in the opposite way: Gila comes on a “Davar Timidi” while Simcha relates to a “Davar Shenischadesh”. While this Machlokes obviously impacts the way we can understand some Pessukim, it is actually not that relevant to our Passuk, which promises both Simcha and Gila to Ohaveha, the ones who love Yerushalayim. According to both the Malbim and the Gr”a we can understand that those who spent their time in Galus thinking about, and yearning for, Yerushalayim, will be rewarded with momentary elation at the time of the Geulah as well as long-lasting feelings of joy thereafter.

Malbim, here, addresses the third type of joy mentioned in the Passuk: Sasson. This type of Simcha, he explains, is a visible, external, expression of happiness. Other types of joy are internal, they are felt inside a person, but no one else can sense them. When a person’s actions and posture are clearly joyous, he is in a state of Sasson. Though Malbim does not say so, perhaps a source for this definition of the word Sasson can be found in the Gemarah in Megillah. The Passuk at the end of Megilas Esther tells us about the emotional state of the Yidden at the time of the Nes, ascribing the terms “Orah, V’Simcha V’Sason V’Yikar”. The Gemara brings a Drasha for each of these words, telling us: “Sasson Zu Milah.” The word Sasson used in the Passuk there relates to Bris Milah, a Mitzvah which is external. We see, then, that this term is used when describing palpable, visible Simcha.

The Malbim explains that the “Misablim” to whom the Passuk refers are rewarded Midah K’Neged Midah. Not only did they mourn the Churban, but they took upon themselves noticeable, external, Simanei Aveilus. They will therefore be rewarded with Sasson, an form of Simcha and joy that too is external.

It emerges, based on the Pshat of the Malbim, that there is another difference between the Misablim and the Ohavim: how their feelings toward Yerushalayim manifest themselves. Ohaveha, those that love Yeshulayim and yearn for its restoration, keep their feelings inside them, whereas Misablim allow their mourning to show. As we have seen, each of these “types” of people will be rewarded L’Asid Lavo with the appropriate emotions. That said, we must ask ourselves why the Navi specifically mentions the Misablim, and why they are specifically rewarded for their external displays of Aveilus. Why is it not enough for a person to mourn Yerushalayim on the inside, to feel the pain of the Shechina and recognize what we have lost? What do the public acts of Aveilus add?

This may seem like something of a inane question with an the obvious answer: someone who allows his feelings of grief over the Churban to affect him so much that it is externally visible is rewarded on a different level, with feelings of Sasson in addition to any Simcha or Gila that he may have otherwise felt. There is a Gemarah in Gittin, however, that may indicate differently.

In the midst of the Sugya of Galus that is permissible to be learned on Tisha B’Av the Gemara speaks about a town called Kfar Sachanya D’Mitzrayim. There are a number of stories told about the Tzidkus of those who lived in this area, including acts of Mesiras Nefesh as well as a high level of responsibility for their actions. The Gemarah concludes with a question: if the residents of Kfar Sachanya were such Tzadikim, why were they destroyed? The answer given is a bit startling: “Mishum D’Lo I’Abul Al Yeshulayaim”, because they did not mourn Yerushalayim.

It appears from the Gemara that Aveilus for the Churban, which we defined as visible and outward Simanei Aveilus, is not just a higher Madreiga, but a requirement. For all their Tzidkus, the residents of Kfar Sachanya were punished because they were not Misabel. They may have had feelings of sadness over the Churban—they may even have been Ohavim, loving Yerushalayim and awaiting our return to its confines—but they were not Misabel, and that was their downfall.

Now we may certainly ask: why? What is the virtue of external grief, why is visible Aveilus a requirement? If we can answer this question we will understand why those who reach this level, the Misablim, will be treated to feelings of Sasson in the future.

R’ Moshe Schwab, who was a Mashgiach in Gateshead Yeshiva, addresses this Gemarah in his Sefer, Maarchei Lev. He explains the answer of the Gemarah, “Mishum D’Lo I’Abul Al Yeshulayaim” very briefly. Yes, he notes, the residents of Kfar Sechanya were Tzaddkim, Oskim BaTorah and Yarei Shamayim, but they lacked in one area: “Hayu cheserim B’Sheifa L’Hisalos Yoser V’Yoser.” They did not have the proper focus on achieving higher levels in their Ruchniyos, they content where they stood.

It is not clear how R’ Schwab see this from the Gemarah. How does he know that this was true of the Anshei Kfar Sachanya? How does the fact that they were not Misabel on Yerushalayim show that they were not interested in growth?

Perhaps we can understand this based on a Yesod that is mentioned often in the Sefer HaChinuch: “Adam Nifal K’Fi Peulaso”. The Chinuch tells us that many Mitzvos are given to us because our performance of these act, the physical Asias Hamitzvos, will change us. A person is affected by his actions on a very deep level and when we do these Mitzvos we are changed people.

There is a similar idea mentioned by the Ramchal in Mesilas Yesharim, in the discussion of Zerizus: “HaTenuah HaChitzona MeOreres HaPenimius”, an external act affects a person’s Pneimius. For this reason, Ramchal encourages a person to act with Zerizus even when it is only an external, physical sort, and even when it comes to mundane activities, for this will prime him for higher, more spiritual forms, of the Middah.

Perhaps now we can understand the way R’ Schwab learns the Gemara. True Avielus on Yerushalayim is not an internal process, it refers to external acts of Aveilus. this is not necessarily an outgrowth of a deep level of mourning—it can also be a precursor. If a person wishes to grow, to affect true change in his life, it will be noticeable in his actions, as he tries to allow his Chitzonios to affect his Penimius. If the people in Kfar Sechanya were truly interested in growth, if they had a Sheifa L’Hisalos Yoser V’Yoser, they would have been among those counted as Misablim. They would have acted in a way that showed their desire to achieve more, to connect to Yerushalayim on a deeper more meaningful level, to feel the Tzar of the Shechina in a way that was more real. That they were not Misablim was a sign that they did not seek to grow, that they were happy with the satus quo not only in matters related to the Churban, but in general, and this was their downfall.

This is the virtue of a Misabael, one who is rewarded with Sasson, as the Navi promises. We can be Ohavim, longing for the Geulah and having feelings of love for Yerushalayim, but that is not enough. We must constantly seek to become closer to Yerushalayim, to feel the effects of the Churban in our lives. The way to do that is with external, physical acts of Aveilus.

There are many Takanos Chazal related to the absence of the Bais Hamikdash, and we can now understand their purpose: to allow us to take actions of Chitzon so that our Penimius is affected. Every time we do something Zecher L’Churban we should try to internalize that action, to allow the Tzar HaShechina to be felt a little more deeply. If we try to do this, if we try to let ourselves be Nifal Lfi our Peulos, we will be counted not only as Ohavim but as true Misablim, about whom the Gemarah says: “Kol HaMisabel Al Yerushalayim Zoche V’Roeh B’NEchemasa.”