Pushed Aside

As we learn the Haftoros there are many sections with which we are completely unfamiliar. The urge to explore and better understand those Pessukim is understandable, as we try to grasp the Divrei HaNeviim. There are also Pessukim and phrases that are more familiar to us for a variety of reasons. When we encounter these, we must endevor to understand them better as well, so that we may properly appreciate their message. One such Passuk appears in this week’s Haftorah, and the message conveyed by its words is certainly worth exploring.

The Haftorah for Parshas Shemos is taken from Sefer Yeshaya and, perhaps mirroring the Parsha which speaks about the first throes of Galus Mitzrayim, the bulk of the Pessukim speak about the behaviors and attitudes that lead us into Galus. The Navi criticizes every part of Klal Yisroel: there is Tochacha aimed at the Aseres HaShevatim as wells as Malchus Yehuda, at the Kohanim and even at the Neviim. It seems that at the moment of this Nevuah no one in Klal Yisroel was living up to their promise. This in turn led to the reality of Galus with which we are well acquainted.

Interspersed in these Pessukim of Tochcha, however, are those heralding Geulah. Among these is a Passuk that practically rolls off our tongues: “Vahaya Bayom Hahu Yitakah B’Shofar Gadol U’Vau HaOvdim B’Eretz Ashur V’Hanidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim.” The Navi foretells a day on which the clarion call of the Shofar will be heard, and those stranded in Ashur and Mitzrayim will return, “V’Hishtachavu L’Hashem B’Har Hakodesh B’Yerushalayim.” These words, which make an appearance in Mussaf of Rosh Hashana as one of the Pessukim of Shofros, are a beacon of hope throughout Galus, as we cling to the promise that one day we will all return to Yerushalayim, but we must ask ourselves: what do they mean?

The Navi speaks of two groups: the “Ovdim” in Eretz Ashur, and the “Nidachim” in Eretz Mitzrayim, clearly meaning to distinguish between the two. We must therefore understand what each of these represent. Who are the Ovidm, and who are the Nidachim and how are the different from one another?

In addition, we must understand the specific promise that the Navi makes about these groups. Of the many parts of our Avodas Hashem, the practice of Histachavaya is the least prominent. Why, then, does the Navi specify that these two populaces, the Ovdim and the Nidachim, will bow to Hashem in Yerushalayim? What is the significance of the words “V’Hishtachavu L’Hashem B’Har Hakodesh B’Yerushalayim”?

Perhaps, if we answer the first question, we will be better able to answer the second.

The Meforshim do speak about the identity of the Nidachim, with relative consensus. Radak and Metzudos explain that these are the Aseres Hashevatim, who were scattered by Sancherev and never returned to Eretz Yisroel. Rashi explains that this is why they are called Ovdim: they were banished to a faraway land, behind the Sambatyon river, and were therefore totally cut off and lost. It is this group that will finally return to Yerushalayim on the glorious “Yom HaHu”, and resume their Avodas Hashem.

For the most part, however, there is little discussion as to the identity of the “Nidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim”. If the “Ovdim B’Eretz Ashur” are the Aseres HaShevatim, one would assume that the Nidachim are the remaining portions, the Golim of Yehuda and Binyomin, but we don’t find that brought explicitly.

The Ry”d points out that in the times of Nevuchadnetzar there were those who were Nigleh to Mitzrayim, and the Navi speaks of them, but this is difficult to understand. The Aseres Hashevatim did not return to Eretz Yisroel once they were Nigleh, as we have seen, but that was not necessarily true of those who were driven out at the hands of Nevuchadnetzar. Why then would the Navi speak of the “Nidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim” returning L’Asid Lavo if they are likely no longer found there?

As always, if the Meforshei HaPshat do not address a question, we must turn to Divrei Chazal to seek an answer.

The Mishna in Sanhedrin brings the words of R’ Akiva who teaches that the Dor HaMidbar does not have a Chelek in Olam Habaah. The Gemara there, brings Tana’aim who argue on R’ Akiva, insisting that the Dor Hamidbar does in fact have a Chelek in Olam Habaah. The Yerushalmi on this Mishna brings the Shita of Rebi who proves that the Dor Hamidbar does in fact come to Olam HaBaah based on the words in our Passuk. The Drasha taught by Rebbi is as follows: “U’Vau HaOvdim B’Eretz Ashur—Elu Aseres Hashevatim—V’Hanidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim—Zeh Dor Hamidbar”. We see, then, that insofar as the “Ovdim” are the Aseres Hashevatim, the “Nidachim” are the Dor Hamidbar.

How can we understand this Gemarah? The Dor Hamidbar perished before entering Eretz Yisroel, as Hashem promised: “Bamidbar Hazeh Yitamu V’Sham Yomusu”. If so, why are they referred to as being B’Eretz Mitzrayim? Their location at the time of the Geulah HaAsida will be in the Midbar, not Mitzrayim, why would the Navi refer to them in this way?

If we can answer this most pressing question, we can perhaps also address two more basic ones. First, why does the Navi call out the Dor Hamidbar specifically? What is notable about the fact that they will be returning, alongside the Aseres Hashevatim, to be Mishtachaveh on Har Hamoriah? Second, why are they refered to as Nidachim? We saw from Rashi that there is a particular reason that the Aseres Hashevatim are called Ovdim, why then is the Dor Hamidbar called “Nidachim”?

The truth is that there is an element of Mitzrayim notable in the Aveirah of the Dor Hamidbar—the one that doomed them to the punishment of “Bamidbar Hazeh Yitamu”. When the Meraglim returned from Eretz Yisroel, portending disaster and destruction and declaring “Lo Nuchal L’Alos”, there were two reactions. The people complained to Moshe and Aharon, asking why HKBH is taking them to Eretz Yisroel only to die at the hand of the enemies. Then, they asked: “Halo Tov Lanu Shuv Mitzrayma”, wondering if a return to Mitzrayim might be beneficial. Indeed, this idea seems to have taken hold, for the next Passuk tells us that among themselves the people were saying “Nitnah Rosh V’Nashuva Mitzraymah”.

We know, however, they did not carry out this plan—no one returned to Mitzrayim. Why, then, does the Navi refer to them as being there with the words “V’Hanidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim”? Perhaps, if we understand the crux of their Aveirah we can understand not only why the Navi refers to them in this way, but why they made this suggestion in the first place.

The Tanchuma, at the beginning of Parshas Shelach brings a Mashal of a king who wished to give a gift to his friend, but the friend died before he could receive it. The king therefore granted the gift to his children in his stead. The Nimshal, says the Medrash, is that that HKBH wished to give Eretz Yisroel to the Avos Hakedoshim, but they were Niftar and so he instead granted it to their children. It was this promise of which HKBH was informing Moshe when He said “Shelach Lecha Anashim”.

The Sfas Emes, in Parshas Shelach, points out that Mashal and Nimshal do not seem to match: the Avos were always promised that their offspring would inherit the land and not they themselves. To answer this question, he explains the concept of Yerushas HaAretz on a deeper level.

In truth, the Avos were Zoche to Eretz Yisroel through their Ma’asim Tovim, a Madreigah that Bnei Yisroel reached as well following Yetzias Mitzrayim and Mattan Torah. The Chet HaEgel, however, made this impossible—their Aveira had rendered Klal Yisroel unworthy of the Yerushas HaAretz promised to the Avos. However, because of the Havtacha made centuries earlier, HKBH wished to grant them the land nonetheless.

Herein lie the mistake of the Meraglim and in turn Bnei Yisroel.

The Meraglim, explains the Sfas Emes, knew that they were to be Zoche to Eretz Yisroel as the Avos were, because of their Ma’asim Tovim, and they understood that this was no longer possible because of their inequities. Their mistake was not believing that HKBH would give them the land regardless. Had they understood this, they never would have been put off by that which they saw on their journey—it was only because they didn’t believe in their ability to be recipients of the Tovas Hashem that they fell to Aveirah. They lacked Emunah in Hashem but also in themselves, and that is why they succumbed to Aveirah.

In passing on their report to Bnei Yisroel, the Meraglim conveyed their outlook as well: they explained that in their current state, they could not be not Zoche to receive the land in the manner of the Avos, and their exploration showed be able to conquer it through Teva either. This was the message of “Lo Nuchal L’Alos”.

Based on this thought we can understand the protests of Bnei Yisroel, and maybe the secondary reaction of “Halo Tov Lanu Shuv Mitzrayma” as well.

The Mechilta in Parshas Beshalach teaches us: “Lo Haysa Malchus Yerudah M’Shel Mitzrayim”, there was no kingdom that was lower, weaker, than Mitzrayim. They were temporarily elevated, however, “B’Shvil Kavodan Shel Yisroel”. The whole land of Mitzrayim was effected, and enhanced, by the very presence of Bnei Yisroel.

Mitzrayim, then, was a place where Bnei Yisroel felt that their status affected their surroundings, where their very existence was a boon to society. We can perhaps then understand than when they felt that their mistakes had cost them standing—costing them their Zechus to Yerushas HaAretz, for example—they would seek to return to the comfort of Mitzrayim. We know that Bnei Yisroel was affected by their surroundings in Mitzrayim, yet their presence elevated their surroundings, nonetheless. The instinct of “Nitnah Rosh V’Nashuva Mitzraymah” is born of the realization that Aveiros had reduced their Madreigah, and a desire to once again feel as though they were elevated.

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

The Dor Hamidbar does not refer only to the Meisei Hamidbar—it refers to all those who emulate them. throughout Galus, battered by our realities, there are those who feel that we are perhaps no longer Zoche to Geulah, that we are beyond redemption. This comes not only from a lack of Emunah in the Kochos of HKBH, but also a lack of realization that we can be Nigal despite our failings. These same people feel a sense not only of comfort, but of success in Galus, deluding themselves into thinking that they are a positive influence B’Eretz Lo Lahem.

These are the consummate Nidachim. The term Nidach is used elsewhere in Tanach, in Sefer Shmuel. There, the Isha Takoah begs Dovid Hamelech to spare Avshalom’s life, referring to the wayward son as a Nidach: “L’Bilti Yidach Mimenu Nidach”. We know that Dovid loved Avshalom despite his rebellion, Avshalom cast himself away. A Nidach, then, is someone who is loved regardless of his inequities, because more than anything he distances himself.

The Dor Hamidbar fit this bill, as we have seen, as do those throughout history who followed in their footsteps. We grant ourselves the status of Nidach, discouraged by our failings and disillusioned by our apparent successes.

The Navi promises: “Vahaya Bayom Hahu Yitakah B’Shofar Gadol U’Vau HaOvdim B’Eretz Ashur V’Hanidachim B’Eretz Mitzrayim V’Hishtachavu L’Hashem B’Har Hakodesh B’Yerushalayim.” Hishtachavaya connotes subjugation: on that day we will realize that our entire worldview was skewed, that we had never been as Nidach as we imagined, that salvation was always just a moment away. We can bring this day closer if we recognize the love Hashem has for us despite our failings, resisting the lure echoed by the words “Nitnah Rosh V’Nashuva Mitzraymah”.