Read the Signs

On the Shabbos that immediately proceeds Tisha B’av, the Haftorah we Lein begins with the words “Chazon Yeshayahu ben Amotz”. Accordingly, the Shabbos has become known as “Shabbos Chazon”, a name which has sources as early as The Rama. Refering to this Shabbos based on the Haftorah would seem to tell us that we must frame our outlook on this Shabbos, and the week that follows it—including our preparation for Tish B’av—based on the words of the Navi that we read.

The Haftorah itself comes from the first Perek of Sefer Yeshaya and, as fits the time in which we read it, includes a most brutal Tochacha of Yehudah and Yerushalayim. It is almost impossible to read the Pessukim of the Haftora without emotion, as the Navi speaks in such stark terms about the state of Klal Yisroel. We are described as “Zera Meraim Banim Mashchisim” whose appearance in the Chatzros Hakodesh is unwanted, we the “Ramos Chatzerei”. Our divergence from the Derech Hayashar has rendered our Korbanos unwanted, and our fate has been determined: “Enachem MiTzarai V’Enkima M’Oivai”.

As we Lein these Pessukim our thoughts turn inward: are we, in these days and times, any better than those to whom the Navi spoke? Are we not guilty of the same missteps? We know that we must change in some way in order for our situation to change, but how? Perhaps if we have a better idea of the root cause of the behaviors that led to the Churban, we may find a way to alter our own paths.

Although the majority of the Pessukim are the Dvar Hashem directed at Bnei Yisroel, there is one Passuk in which the Navi speaks on behalf of the people. He says: “Lulei Hashem Tzivakos Hosir Lanu Sarid K’Mat K’Sdom Hayinu L’Amora Diminu.” The intents of the Passuk seems clear: if not for the fact that Hashem left us some survivors we would be like Sdom and Amora. There are, however, a few questions that can be asked on the way the Passuk is written.

First, the meaning of the word “K’Mat” is the source of some discussion. As we know, the literal translation of this word is “almost”, but its placement in the Passuk is troubling. Rashi tells us that it is to be appended to the second half of the Passuk: “K’Mat K’Sdom Hayinu”, we would have almost been completely destroyed, like Sedom. The Ta’am on the Passuk, however, seem so to suggest that the word belongs to the first half of the Passuk, and indeed Ibn Ezra tells us that the correct phrasing is “Lulei Hashem Tzivakos Hosir Lanu Sarid”. This would suggest that the meaning of this words is related to the word “Me’at”, and the Passuk is telling us that the survivors were small in number. Indeed Mahari Kr”a, who seems to take this approach to the Passuk, notes that those left in Eretz Yisroel by the time of the Churban were themselves a small fraction of Klal Yisroel and not all of them survived. We were in fact diminished to a “Sarid Me’at”.

Regardless of how we understand the phrasing of the Passuk, however, there are two more questions that can be asked on its words.

First, what is meant by the use of the Shem of Tzivakos in this instance? We know that each of the Shemos HaKedoshim has its own meanings and implications, and so we must understand what the appearance of this one of the Kinuyim tells us about this Passuk.

The second, and perhaps most glaring, question concerns the reference to Sedom: what is this to tell us? The intent of the Passuk is to convey that we were liable to be completely destroyed, as Sedom and Amora were, but why is the metaphor necessary? The Navi could have said that if not for the survivors left over by Hashem we would have been completely destroyed—what is added by mentioning Sedom?

Radak explains that the reference to Sedom is not limited to the punishment that we deserved, but to the reason that we deserved it: “Ki Anachnu Asinu Ma’asehem V’Hayinu Chayavim Keliah K’Moham”. We fell into the practices of Sedom, and were therefore Chayav Keliah just like them.

It would seem, then, that if we wish to explain why the Navi mentions Sedom, we must understand which of their behaviors we were unfortunately emulating, and why that made us Mechuyav K’Liah.

There is much written, both in Chazal and Meforshim, about the actions of Anshei Sedom, who were, as the Torah tells us “Ra’im V’Chataim L’Hashem Me’od”. Based on these sources it seems that their Chataim mostly related to Inyanim of Bein Adam L’Chaveiro. As we know, for example, they adopted an attitude of “Sheli Sheli V’Shelach Shelach”, rejecting the notion that one should share of his resources with another. The Gemara in Eiruvin tells us that this was even if they in no way lost by the other party gaining—Midas Sedom engendered a complete disregard for the needs of others.

Classifying the Aveiros of the Anshie Sedom in this way, however, calls to mind a question. Chazal seem to indicate that the first Churban was brought about by a rift in the way we adhered to Mitzvos that are Bein Adam L’Makom, and not those that are Bein Adam L’Chaveiro. We know that Churban Bayis Sheni came about because of a breakdown in interpersonal relations, and an increase in Sinas Chinam, but the Navi is speaking about Churban Bayis Rishon—how can we then understand the concept of “Asinu Ma’asehem V’Hayinu Chayavim Keliah K’Moham”?

The truth is, however, that although the Anshei Sedom were in fact depraved in their behavior towards others, there is perhaps a different reason that these actions led to their utter and complete destruction.

The Mechilta, in Parshas Beshalach, discusses the reason that Sedom was destroyed. The Medrash begins by explaining that Sedom was an area that was rich in natural resources, as the Passuk in Iyov tells us it was “Eretz Mimenah Yetzei Lechem”, a land where bread came from the earth, and “Makom Sapir Avaneha V’Afros Zahav Lo”, a place whose rocks were precious stones and whose dust was gold. The people, seeing that they had all that they could ever need, decided that they had no use for visitors, for what could outsiders provide them? because of this they said “Bo’u V’Nishkach Toras Regel M’Artzeinu”, let us abolish the practice of welcoming outsiders.

HKBH was incensed by this attitude and decision, relates the Medrash, and exclaimed: “Shotim ShebaOlam, B’Tova SheHishpaati LAchem Atem Misgaim”. Hashem looked upon the Anshei Sedom with disgust because it the very abundance that He provided them was the source of their depravity. The Medrash concludes that it was because they wished to obliterate the “Toras Regel” from their land that they were in turn obliterated from the earth.

This Medrash seems to tell us that the ultimate cause of the destruction of Sedom was not the way they interacted with others, but the root of these behaviors. The Anshei Sedom did not understand—or chose to ignore—the source of their bounty, and this led them to misuse it. Perhaps, however, we can take this idea one step further.

The Torah introduces the Pessukim that describe the destruction of Sedom as follows: “Vayomer Hashem Zaakas Sedom V’Amora Ki Rabah V’Chatosam Ki Kavda Me’od”. The Maharim Dushininsky, the previous Dushinsky Rebbe from Yerushalayim, asks a striking question on this Passuk: it was at this point that the Avreiros of the Anshei Sedom left no option other than destruction—why then is Hashem, the name of Rachamim, used and not Elokim, the Shem of Din?

The Maharim offers two answers, the second of which can be instructional in our case.

In Parshas Lech Lecha we learn about the war between the four kings and the five kings which included the Melech of Sedom. In that war, before Avrohom came to their aid, the Passuk tells us “VaYikchu Es Kol Rechus Sedom V’Amora”, their possessions were taken as spoils of war. Later on Avrohom returned the Rechush to Sedom and refused to be repaid.

This episode, explains the Maharim, was meant as a warning: the Anshei Sedom were wealthy, and they allowed their outlook to be affected by their bounty. Hashem wished to steer them away from this behavior and so He caused their possessions to be lost in the war—but they did not learn their lesson.

It was for this reason that their continued depravity angered HKBH to such a degree: they had been given a sign that they failed to interpret. Had they taken stock after the war and realized that their hold on their Rechush was tenable, they may have saved themselves, but they failed to do so.

This is why the Shem of Rachamim, and not Din, is used in the Passuk, to show that the punishment of Sedom began with Rachamim. The Melech Rachum V’Chanun attempted to warn the Anshei Sedom, but they were blind to his entrites, and instead “B’Tova SheHishpaati LAchem Atem Misgaim”. The Tova was not their riches, but the fact that Hashem tried to warn them, to steer them from disaster.

Perhaps we can use this idea to understand the Passuk in our Haftorah.

“Lulei Hashem Tzivakos Hosir Lanu Sarid K’Mat K’Sdom Hayinu L’Amora Diminu”

As we noted, the Shem of Tzivakos in this Passuk must have intent. The Maharal, in Be’er HaGola, explains that the Shem of Tzivakos refers to “Ribuy HaToldos”, the growth of Klal Yisroel. Tzivos are armies or legions, and it is through this Shem that Hashem perpetuates and expands that which he has created.

The Navi speaks on behalf of Klal Yisroel, saying that if not for Hashem Tzivakos, the Sarid that that was leftover would have been Me’at, because “K’Sdom Hayinu”.

Hashem brought the Churban, but he left over just a few people—a nucleus from which to rebuild. But we were like the Anshei Sedom, ignorant of the signs that Hashem sent us—so much so that even the Churban itself was not enough to awaken us. Were it not for the fact that it was Hashem Tzivakos, with the Shem of “Ribuy Tolados”, we would not have seen continued growth, we would have remained a Sarid Me’at.

“Anachnu Asinu Ma’asehem V’Hayinu Chayavim Keliah K’Moham”, at the time of the Churban we were much like the Anshei Sedom, ignorant of the many signs that Hahsem sent us to try and steer us from the path of destruction. This itself would have caused our destruction, much as it did in the times of Sedom, were it not for Hashem Tzivakos.

As we read these Pessukim, we must ask ourselves: do we see the signs? HKBH sends us messages, albeit in a less obvious way, but they can be seen if we open our eyes. As we come to another Tish B’Av, wishing to avoid a repeat performance, hoping to find a path to Geulah, we must strain to see the signs. If we do so, we can depart the path of the Anshei Sedom and live not in the world of “Eicha Haysa L’Zonah Kiryah Ne’emana”, but of “Tzion B’Mishpat Tipadeh V’Shaveha B’Tzadaka”.