Strong Personality

The Haftorah for Parshas Vayetzei is taken from the end of Sefer Hoshea, and parts of it are quite familiar, as they are also Leined as the Haftorah for Shabbos Shuva. In the very first Passuk, however, we find a direct connection to the weekly Sedra. The Navi tells us: “Vayivrach Yaakov Sedeh Aram VaYavod Yisroel B’Isha U’BIsha Shamar”. The remainder of the Haftorah, which is devoted to Tochacha before the Navi turns to the topic of Teshuva, does not seem related to the story of the time Yaakov spent in Bais Lavan. That said, there are always important messages to be found in the words of the Navi.

Although the Navi begins by speaking about the travels of Yaakov Avinu, the next Passuk speaks about his offspring: “UviNavi He’eleh Hashem Es Yisroel MiMitzrayim”. It was at the hands of a Navi, we are reminded that Hashem took us from Mitzrayim. The Navi would seem to be contrasting the experiences of Yaakov Avinu and his descendants: though Yaakov was forced to flee his parents’ home afraid for his life, just a few generations later his children left Mitzrayim led by a Navi Hashem. What, though, is the message of these words? What are we to learn from this comparison?

It is also important to note that there are two more words in the Passuk: “U’Vinavi Nishmor”. What does this mean? We can readily identify the Navi who took us out of Mitzrayim—Moshe Rabbeinu—but who is the second Navi that the Passuk refers to, who “guarded us”?

Rashi explains that this Passuk is really a continuation of a topic the Navi had previously been discussing: the degradation of the Neviim by Klal Yisroel. Hashem sends us messages through his designated Neviim, and we are “Maligim B’Divrehem”, scoffing at their words. This behavior, explains Rashi, seems to ignore the leadership provided by a Navi when we were taken out of Mitzrayim.

Picking up this thread, other Meforshim explain the final words of the Passul. For example, Radak writes: “Arbaiim Shana Shehayu BaMidbar Nishmiru al Yidei Navi Shenasati Bahem…” As we know, the Shlichus of Moshe Rabbeinu did not end when we left Mitzrayim—we remained under his care for the next forty years—and it is this part of our history to which the Navi refers with these final words.

Taken together, we can understand the Pshat in the Passuk as follows: HKBH took us out of Mitzrayim with a Navi, Moshe Rabbeinu, and allowed him to remain our leader for the next forty years, yet we do not respect Neviim, scoffing at their words and ignoring their entreaties.

There seems, however, to be two very simple questions to be asked on this approach. First, why is the word “Navi” mentioned twice? If, as we have seen, the entire Passuk is talking about Moshe Rabbeinu, it would have been sufficient to refer to him only once, what might be meant by the second appearance of this word? In addition, why does the Navi refers to the role of Moshe Rabbeinu in the Midbar as “Nishmar”, which is a more passive term? Moshe was a true leader, taking a very active role in the care of Klal Yisroel—why does the Navi seem to relegate him to the job of a mere watchman?

Although it is clear that the Meforshei HaPshat understood the entire PAssuk to be speaking about Moshe Rabbeinu—giving rise to these two questions—there is a different approach found in Chazal.

The Medrash in Peskita Rabasi brings the following Drasa in the name of R’ Tanchuma: “UviNavi He’eleh Hashem Es Yisroel MiMitzrayim Zeh Moshe U’Vinavi Nishmor Zeh Eliyahu”. The two instances of the word Navi, according to the Medrash, refer to two different Neviim: Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu HaNavi.

The Medrash continues, explaining that the way in which Moshe and Eliyahu act as Goalim are similar in two ways. First, the Pessukim use terms of Shlichus with regard to both, teaching us that they act as direct emissaries of HKBH. Second, both bring about Geulos that are permanent—we never returned to Mitzrayim, and the Geulah HaAsida will also be everlasting.

The similarities, however, to not end there. In fact, the Medrash tells us: “V’Ata Motzei SheMoshe V’Eliyahu Shavin Zeh Lazeh B’Chol Davar”, the two are equal in every way. The Medrash then brings numerous ways that the lives of Moshe and Eliyahu mirrored each other. Some of these parallels speak to the character of the two Neviim, they are both called “Ish HaElokim” for example, and some are seen in the events of their lives: Moshe was forced to flee from Pharaoh and Eliyahu from Izevel. There are similiarities in the way the two spoke, and in the way they used Teffilah on behalf of Klal Yisroel, and There are even similarities in the way Moshe and Eliyahu both left the world. Indeed, Moshe V’Eliyahu Shavin Zeh Lazeh B’Chol Davar.

This Medrash of course answers the questions we had on the Passuk in Hoshea. If the Passuk refers to both Moshe and Eliyahu the double use of the word Navi is readily understood. In addition, the word “Nishmor” seems more applicable to the role of Eliyahu, who awaits the moment that he can serve as a Goel. That said, the Medrash itself requires some explanation.

It is certainly not by chance that the lives, characters and roles of Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu are so similar. Why, then, is this the case? What is it that links Moshe and Eliyahu, and why are they Shavin Zeh Lazeh B’Chol Davar?

It seems that the answer to this question is perhaps found in the way the Medrash introduces this topic: “Atah Motzei Shtei Neviim Amdu Lahem L’Yisroel M’Shivto Shel Levi Moshe Rishon V’Eliyahu Achron USheneihem Goalim Es Yisroel”. There were two Nevvim that came from Shevet Levi and served as Goelim of Klal Yisroel: Moshe was the first Goel and Eliyahu will be the last. It seems, based on these words, that the central unifying factor that connects Moshe and Eliyahu was their shared ancestry: they both came from Shevet Levi.

This revelation raises another question, of course: how does the fact that they came from Shevet Levi affect Moshe and Eliyahu such that they are indeed so similar? Is there something in the genetic makeup of those who come from Levi that allows them to be the Goelim of Yisroel?

To answer this question, and better understand the message of the Pesikta, we must understand the essence of Shevet Levi. Perhaps we can gain an appreciation for the character of this Shevet based on a Medrash in Beraishis Rabba that is particularly appropriate to this time of year.

As we know, there were four Machios that we Mishabed the Yidden throughout their history: Bavel, Madai, Yavan and Edom. The Medrash in Parshas Vayechi tells us that each of these Malchios was “Keneged” a particular Shevet, and it was only someone from that Shevet that could save Klal Yisroel from their clutches. Among these, the Medrash tells us: “Levi Keneged Malchus Yavan.” It was Shevet Levi that was connected to Yavan, and therefore the Yeshua from the Yavan came at the hands of the Chashmonaim, who were of course Kohanim.

The Medrash explains the connection between Levi and Malchus Yavan: Levi was the third Shevet, and Yavan the third Malchus, and each have three letters in their name. In addition, it seems that there were certain Begadim that were worn by Yevanim that mimicked those of the Kohanim. While there must be deeper meaning to these seemingly mundane links between Levi and Yavan, it is difficult for us to understand why they two are “Keneged” one another, and why the downfall of Yavan had to come at the hands of Bnei Levi. Perhaps, though, if we can explain this Medrash Rabba, we will be better able to explain the Pesikta.

R’ Dovid Kohen, Rosh Yeshivas Chevron, in his Sefer Yimei Chanukah, explains the role that Shevet Levi played in the defeat of Yavan based on the Middos of Levi himself.

As we know, when it came time for Yaakov to give his sons Brachos, before he departed the world, there were two sons who received harsh criticism: “Shimon V’Levi Achim Klei Chamas Mechorosehem…Aror Apam Ki Az”. Because of their actions in Shechem, their father did not give Brachos to Shimon and Levi, but instead used the term Aror.

Based on the words of the Seforno there, R’ Dovid explains that Levi was actually Rauy L’Malchus, and should have been the Shevet of Melucha, but he lost that right because “Klei Chamas Mechorosehem”. It emerges, explains the Rosh Yeshiva, that the Middah that cause Levi to lose this right was “Az”, strength. Because he acted with too much force, he was no longer able to be the bearer of Malchus.

What is this Middah of “Az”? How can it be defined? The Rosh Yeshiva points us to the words of the Gr”a in his Biur on Shulchan Aruch, on the words “Havei Az KaNamer”. There, the Gr”a explains that one must act with Azus against anyone who mocks Avodas Hashem. in fact, it seems that this is the only time with Azus is called for—in any other instance the words of the Chazal ring true: “Az Panim L’Gehinom”.

The Middah of Yavan, explains R’ Dovid, was to be “Loeg B’Avodas Hashem”, to mock and ridicule serious matters of Avodas Hashem. this is seen from the fact that in Al Hanissim we refer to Yavan as the Zedim, and the Passuk in Tehillim says “Zedim Helitzuni Ad Meod”. The mark of a “Zed” is Leitzanus, or mockery of serious matters. This being the case, the only way for Yavan to be defeated was at the hands of someone from the Shevet of Levi, who possess the Middah of Azus. When used correctly, this trait is called “Azus D’Kedusha” and it was the Middah specifically that allowed the Chashmonaim, the purest of Shevet Levi, to reclaim the mantel that would have been theirs if not for the Azus of Levi and become Melochim.

We see, then, that one of the key Middos of Shevet Levi, which they inherited from their ancestor, is that of Azus, or standing up to those who seek to scorn and ridicule all that is holy. Perhaps based on this, we can understand the roles of Moshe Rabbeinu and Eliyahu.

When we are steeped in Galus, the words “Zedim Helitzuni Ad Meod” are not just moving words in a song—they are reality. Those around us mock all that we love, all that we care for, and the deluge of Letzanus becomes difficult to withstand. The only way for us to emerge from such deep Galus, then, is at the hands of someone who can stand tall in the face of those who are “Loeg B’Avodas Hashem”. This was true in Mitzrayim, when the travails of the Kur HaBarzel were so difficult to withstand, and it is certainly true in our Galus. Our only hope, then and now, is the arrival of a Goel who comes from Shevet Levi, and can use his Azus D’Kedusha to extract us.

We now understand why “Moshe V’Eliyahu Shavin Zeh Lazeh B’Chol Davar”: they were both tasked with using their Kochos as Bnei Levi to act as Goalim, to pull Klal Yisroel from the grips of the Maligim and Letzanim. The words “UviNavi He’eleh Hashem Es Yisroel MiMitzrayim U’Vinavi Nishmor” can now be seen as a soothing balm as well. Though, at times, we feel the walls closing in around us, and the scorn of the Loagim to difficult to withstand, we must know “U’Vinavi Nishmor”. Eliyahu Hanavi, our ultimate Goel, awaits the day on which he will be able to arrive, and with unmatched Azus D’Kedusha, remove us from this Galus never to return.