Silver Mettle

Without fail, the period of Nechema following Tisha B’Av established by Chazal extends into Chodesh Elul. It seems then, that the Shiva D’Nechemta are supposed to, in some way, affect the preparations for the Yemei Hadin that are the focus of this month. As we learn the Haftorah, then, we must try to find a message within the Divrei Nechama that helps us improve our Avodah of Elul.

The Pessukim of this week’s Haftorah once again can be found in the latter part of Sefer Yeshaya, and include very encouraging messages about the coming Geulah. The Navi urges us to remain strong as we weather the storms of Galus and to look forward to the day in which the Yichud Hashem is apparent. As is the case throughout the Shiva D’Nechemta, the Haftorah is replete with metaphor and prose, and can therefore be difficult to understand. We can, however, rely on Chazal and the Meforshim to help us uncover the messages passed on by the Navi.

Towards the middle of the Haftorah there is a series of Pessukim that speak to Yerushalayim urging it to arise, so to speak. “Uri Uri Livshi Uzech”, says the Navi, encouraging Zion to awaken and clothe itself in finery. The next Passuk repeats this refrain: “Hisnaari M’Afar Kumi Shivi Yerushalayim”. These convey a message of positivity and hope, and the Navi then seems to tell us why indeed there is reason for optimism: “Ki Ko Amar Hashem Chinam Nimkartem V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu”. Hashem tells us that we were sold for free, and shall be redeemed without money. There is clearly an important message to be taken from these words, a reason for hope within the darkness, but their literal translation leaves us wanting.

Ibn Ezra explains these words in their simplest meaning: because Hahsem did not take any money from the Umos HaOlam when he gave Klal Yisroel over to them, He need to pay to redeem us. Other Meforshim seem to indicate that this Passuk is therefore speaking about the speed with which the Geulah, unencumbered by debt, will take place.

At the extreme other end of the spectrum is an approach found in the Mincha Gedolah. He explains that the words “Chinam Nimcartem” refer to the Aveira of Sinas Chinam, which was the cause of the Churban. In this view of the Passuk, however, the words “V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu” are a little more difficult to parse. Mincha Gedolah explains that when we are “B’Lo Kesef”, bereft of riches, Sinas Chinam will abate, and the Geulah will come. This Pirush falls squarely in the realm of Drush.

The middle ground, it seems, is taken by Rashi here. He explains that the words “Chinam Nimkartem” refer to the “Iskei Chinam” of the Yetzer Harah, whose machinations leave us without reward. Then, in explaining the phrase “V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu”, Rashi adds just two words: “Ela B’Teshuva”. Taken together, the Passuk is telling us that although we involved ourselves in “Iskei Chinam”, which led to Galus, the path to Geulah is readily available: we need not pay our way but only to do Teshuva. In this approach we see elements of both Pshat and Drush, but there is an important question which must be addressed.

As part of a long discussion about the coming of Moshiach, and what we can do to bring that day closer the Gemarah in the final Perek of Sanhedrim, known as Chelek, brings an existential Machlokes. Rav holds “Kalu Kol HaKitzin V’Ain HaDavar Taluy Ela B’Teshuva”, all the appointed times for the coming of Moshiach have passed, and the only way to now bring the Geulah is through Teshuva. Shmuel, on the other hand, holds “Dayo L’Avel SheYaamod B’evlo”, which means that eventually the Tzar that HKBH feels over the Galus will cause him to bring Moshiach irrespective of our actions.

The Gemarah then suggests that this Machlokes mirrors one between Tanaim, as we learn from Braysos that R’ Eliezer holds “Im Yisroel Osin Teshuva Nigalin V’Im Lav Ein Nigalin” whereas R’ Yehuoshua holds that the Geulah may come without Teshuva. The Gemarah continues, citing the proofs that each Tana brings from Pessukim. The first Passuk R’ Yehoshua quotes is quite familiar: “Chinam Nimkartem V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu”. R’ Yehoshua explains that the words “Chinam Nimkartem” refer to the Avodah Zarah that we served, which led us to Galus, and the words “V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu” mean “Lo B’Teshuva U’Masim Tovim”.

It certainly seems that R’ Yehoshua learns the meaning of these words in the opposite way as Rashi here—the words “V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu” do not mean “and not with Kesef but with Teshuva”, as Rashi suggests, but “and not with Teshuva”. How can we understand this apparent conflict? Adding to this question is the fact that the Gemarah continues, bring a series of proofs to either side that are refuted, and ultimately concludes with the words “V’Shasak R’ Eliezer”. If R’ Eliezer ultimately accepted the words of R’ Yehoshua then all agree with regard to the meaning of this Passuk—how then can Rashi suggest what seems to be a contradictory approach?

In addition to this most pressing question, there is another somewhat overarching one. Why does the Navi employ these terms? Rashi in the Gemara explains that since the Navi used the words “Chinam Nimkartem” to describe the Avordah Zarah that brought Galus upon us, he used the Lashon of Kesef in the end of the Passuk to refer to Teshuva and Maasim Tovim. Why? R’ Yehoshua does not explain in what way Kesef is related to Teshuva and Maasim Tovim, so it is not even clear how the words “V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu” mean “Lo B’Teshuva U’Masim Tovim”. How can we understand the way the Passuk is written?

Perhaps, in order to answer this question, and gain a new insight into this Passuk, it would be helpful to better understand what Kesef represents.

As we know, Lashon Kodesh is different from other languages in that the words used to describe things are not arbitrary, but actually tell us something about the item themselves. This is true of the word “Kesef” as well. Ibn Ezra, in Parshas VaYakel, tells us that silver is called Kesef because “Tava Hi L’eynayim”, it attracts the eye and is desirable, and is therefore related to the word “Nichsifah”, which means longing or desire.

It emerges, based on the words of Ibn Ezra, that any time the word Kesef is used, especially in metaphor, it can be understood as relating to the concept of “Nichsefah”. For us to understand what this connotes, we must try to have a better understanding of this word as well.

The most famous use of the term “Nichsefah” is in Tehillim, where Dovid HaMelech says: “Nichsefah V’Gam Chalsa Nafshi BaChatzros Hashem”. Dovid’s longing for the Bais Hamikdash is described using two terms: Nichsefah and Chalsa, which must have different meanings. Rashi indeed explains that Nichsefah is related to the word “Chemdah” while Chalsa is an expression of “Taivah”. Radak there adds that the two words are necessary because Nichsefah, which we now understand to mean Chemda, is a lesser form of desire than Taivah.

It seems, then, that in order to understand the implication of the word Kesef, with its direct relationship to the emotion of Nichsefah, we must try to understand what Chemda is, and how it relates to Taiva.

As we know, these two terms “Chemdah” and “Taiva” appear in the Luchos Shnios, where there are two separate Dibros: “Lo Sachmod” and “Lo Sisaveh”. The Ksav V’Hakabalah in Parshas V’Eschanan explains the difference between the two terms.

While both “Chemdah” and “Taivah” are expressions of Taivah, they are distinct in that they describe the way one sees the object of his desires. If one longs for a particular object because he values the object in and of itself, because he sees it as a “Davar Shalem”, something that is complete and therefore desirable, he is experiencing the emotion of “Chemdah”. If, however, one desires the object is not because it is perfect, but because he feels that perfection may come if they are joined, he is said to feel “Taivah”.

He further explains that for this reason the word “Chemda” generally applies to Nashim—one desires a woman based on external appearances without thinking about her qualities and ways in which he could improve her. When it comes to other physical items, such as a home or field, the Lashon of Taivah or Chemdah can apply, because sometimes we sees them as perfect, but sometimes it takes work to perfect them even once we have attained the desired object. Chemda, it seems, is a form of desire that is skin deep, while Taivah is the feeling one has when they have considered the way that they may interact with the object, bringing about perfection.

Maybe we can use this understanding of the emotion of Chemdah, which is expressed with the word Nichsafeh, the root of the word Kesef, to explain the Passuk in our Haftorah.

“Chinam Nimkartem V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu”. The Navi reminds us how we ended up in the position we are—by engaging in the empty actions of Avodah Zarah and following the worthless Atzas HaYetzer. He then offers a way back: V’Lo B’Kesef Tigalu. The Gemarah teaches us that Kesef refers to Teshuva and Maasim Tovim, and the Passuk is telling us that these are not required in order to bring the Geulah. This means that the Geulah may come even if we do not do Teshuva, but does not preclude Teshuva as a path. Rashi, on the other hand, uses the words “Elah B’Teshuva”, indicating that Teshuva is the only path.

If we consider that there is a Teshuva of “Kesef”, however, we can perhaps understand that there is no conflict.

If we think about it, there are two reasons that one does Teshuva. Sometimes one feels that his life is not headed in the direction that he had hoped, and feels that if he does Teshuva and engages in increased Masim Tovim, he will be Zoche to an improved lot. Sometimes, however, one wishes to come closer to HKBH for the express purpose of being closer to Him, to improve not his life but his existence.

The former Derech is one of Chemda—he sees Teshuva as attractive without considering the way Kirva to Hashem can really affect him. Interested only in the fringe benefits of a relationship with the Borei Olam, he may end up doing Teshuva, but it is skin-deep. If, however, one realizes that a closer connection to HKBH will affect him on a very deep level, changing who he is, he will engage is a sincere and penetrating form of Teshuva.

The Gemarah tells us that even the most basic form of Teshuva, that of “Kesef” is not required to bring Moshiach, HKBH can bring the Geulah regardless of our actions. Rashi, however, is passing on a different message: if we hope to use Teshuva as a path to Geulah, we cannot rely on a lesser form of Teshuva: “V’Lo B’Kesef Elah B’Teshuva. An act of Kesef, one that is based on the shallow desires of Chemda, will not do. We have to do Teshuva for the purposes of changing ourselves, of becoming better people, not only to change our trajectory.

The days of Elul are ones in which we begin to ponder Teshuva, and all that it entails. As we undergo this process, we must consider our options: we can engage in the Teshuva of Kesef, perhaps bringing ourselves Kaparah and Zechuyos. Or, we can try to strive higher, aiming for amore complete form of Teshuva, in which we yearn to connect to Hashem for the purpose of being closer to him, changing not only what we do but who we are. This form of Teshuva may bring us not only the year we hope for, but the ultimate Geulah as well.