Yisro Incensed

The Haftorah for Parshas Yisro comes from Sefer Yeshayahu. Many of the Haftoros we read throughout the year are taken from this Sefer, and most follow one of two patterns: they are either words of Tochacha—sometimes directed at Klal Yisroel and sometimes at others—or words of Nechama that portend the Geulah. The earlier Perakim of Yeshayahu, however, are more narrative, and this week’s Hafotrah, taken from that part of the Sefer are therefore somewhat different than one may expect.

The Haftorah itself is comprised three sections. In the first, the Navi describes a Nevuah that is quite similar to the Ma’aseh Merkava described by other Neviim. Rashi tells us that, although it appears in the sixth Perek of the Sefer, this was Yeshayahu’s first Nevuah—it is therefore known as Hekdeshas Yeshayahu. These Pessukim describe sights that we cannot begin to understand, and include the description of the Malachim proclaiming “Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh”, a formulation with which we are quite familiar. The third, and shortest section of the Haftorah is a series of Pessukim in which the birth of Chizkiyahu is predicted. Between these two portions of the Haftorah is a short section which requires some explanation.

The Navi tells us that in the days of King Achaz who was the Melech Yehuda at the time, Razin, the king of Aram joined together with the Melech Yisroel, Pekach ben Remalyahu, to march upon Yerushalayim. The was treachery that was altogether too familiar at the time—the kingdoms of Yehuda and Yisroel were often at odds—but was frightening nonetheless. The Navi tells us: “Vayugad L’Bais Dovid Nacha Aram al Ephraim VaYana Libo U’Levav Amo”. When Achaz heard about the joint operation he was frightened, trembling as a tree in a strong wind.

The Pessukim continue, telling us that Hashem spoke to Yeshayahu, telling him: “Tzeh Nah L’Kraas Achaz”. The Navi was told to go meet Achaz, and the Passuk adds that he was to bring “Shar Yashuv Bincha” along with him. The message that Yeshayahu was told to give Achaz was simple: “Hishamer V’hashket Al Tira U’Levavcha Al Yeirach”. There was no reason for Achaz to be frightened, for Razin and Pekach would not be successful.

There are a number of questions to be asked about these Pessukim, one specific, and two more general.

First, why was Yeshayahu instructed to bring Shar Yashuv along on this mission? What did his presence add to the discussion between the Navi and Achaz? We know that Yeshayahu had two sons—why was he told to take Shaar Yashuv specifically?

In fact, the exact meaning of these words is not entirely clear. Some, including Radak and Metzudos, take on the Pashut Pshat in the words, which we have subsumed: Shar Yashuv was a son of Yeshayahu. Rashi, on the other hand, offers a different Pshat: “Shearis Meat SheYashuvu Elai Al Yadecha”. The words “Shar Yashuv” refer to a group of people that were brought closer to Hashem at the hands of Yeshayahu, and they are considered like his sons.

Though this is certainly a novel interpretation of these words—one which even seems to be a departure from the usual Derech of Rashi—our question still stands and is maybe even bolstered. What did this group of people, the Baalei Teshuva of the time—add to the encounter between Yeshayahu and Achaz? Why was their presence necessary?

In a more general sense, we must understand why Hashem sent the Navi to speak to Achaz at all. The Passuk tells us at the outset that the plot between Yisroel and Aram would not be successful: “V’Lo Yuchal L’Hilachem Aleha”. Why then was it necessary to tell Achaz not to be afraid? Achaz was not among the Tzadikim of his time—why would Hashem send the Navi just to allay his fears?

Lastly, why are these Pessukim included in the Haftorah for Parshas Yisro? The central theme of the Sedra is Mattan Torah—why did Chazal wish us to Lein these Pessukim as part of the Maftir, how are they connected? In is interesting to note that the Navi speaks about the discussion that occurred when Yeshayahu actually met Achaz, but those Pessukim are not included in the Haftorah—only those that discuss the instructions issued to the Navi are. Why is this the case?

In order to fully understand the meaning of these Pessukim, and the message conveyed by the story, let us try and understand the purpose of Yeshayahu’s mission a little better.

As we noted, there is not a clear indication as to why Hashem wished for Yeshayahu to approach Achaz about this issue. The Mincha Gedolah, however, explains that there was something of an ulterior motive: because Achaz was scared, and in a state of turmoil, there may have been an opening to affect some change. Hashem wished for Yeshayahu to offer Tochacha to Achaz in the hopes of bringing him Tachas Kanfei Hashechina, but under most circumstances there would be fierce opposition. Because Achaz now faced a threat, and as the Peassuk earlier testified he was scared, it may have been a “Shaas HaKosher” to bring him back to the Drech Hashem.

If this is true, we must look at this entire story through the lens of its purpose: Hashem sent the Navi to speak with Achaz so as to affect him, and each element must have been meant to further this goal. In order to understand how this was meant to be accomplished, it might be helpful to identify what behaviors or attitudes were being addressed. What was the failing of Achaz that Yeshayahu would have to address in order to be successful in his ultimate goal?

The Medrash Tanchuma in Parshas Titzaveh teaches us an interesting fact about Achaz and his activities. He was, in the words of the Medrash, Mevatel the Mesorah of the Torah Hakedosha by closing Batei Sefer, he was also an Oved Avodah Zarah, and was “Hirbeh L’Hachis”, causing much anger Klapei Shmaya. This is in addition to the fact, as mentioned in the Pessukim, that Achaz affected the Avodah in the Bais Hamikdash, closing the doors to the Heichal and extinguishing the Menorah. The Medrash, however, tells us that Hashem was Mevater on all these actions, save one: the Bittul HaKetores. Achaz prevented the Ketores from being brought properly, and he was ultimately punished for this specifically.

The connection between Achaz and Ketores is perhaps seen elsewhere as well.

The life of Achaz is spoken about in a number of places in the Pessukim, and in Sefer Melachim the Passuk mentions the Aveiros of Achaz, specifically: “Vayizbach VaYiktar BaBamos V’Al HaGivaos V’Tachas Kol Etz Raanan”. Achaz brough Korbanos, and it would seems was Maktir Ketores, wherever he wished to do so. The very next Passuk mentions the plot of Ratzin and Pekach ben Remalyahu, which would seem to indicate that they are related. It seems, then, that the attitudes and missteps of Achaz were perhaps closely tied to, and maybe identifiable through, his lack of respect for Ketores.

In order to understand how and why this may have been the case, let us try to understand a little more about the Ketores.

There are a number of Medrashim which is identify the Ketorah as “Chaviv Mikulam”, the most beloved by Hashem of all other Korbanos. This superlative is obviously indicative of something deeper at work, a most important message for us to uncover.

The Passuk in Parshas Pekudei describes the way in which the Mishkan was set up, telling us: “V’Nasata Es Mizbach HaZahav LaKetores Lifnei Aron HaEdus.” The Mizbach HaZahav had one main use—the Haktaras HaKeotres—and the Passuk tells us that it was placed in front of the Aron HaEidus. Earlier, the Pessuk says that Moshe placed the Mizbach HaZahav “Lifnei Hakapores”, but here it specifies “Lifnei Aron HaEdus”. This would seem to indicate that the Torah wishes to draw a parallel between the Ketores and the Aron, teaching us that the two are connected.

How might we understand this? How are the Ketores and Aron linked to one another?

In Parshas Vayakel the Torah refers to the Shemen Hamishcha as “Kodesh” and the Kteroes HaSamim as “Tahor”. The Shem M’Shmuel points out that the Ketores is also called Kadosh elsewhere, but the Torah must have intended to teach us that at its root, it is Tahor. This, he explains, can help us understand its essence

The Ravaad explains that Kadosh refers to Machashava and Tahor to Ma’aseh. The Shem M’Shmuel adds that Kodesh is different than Kadosh: something which is Kadosh elevates that which it comes into contact with, bringing it to closer to its Shoresh. The Shemen HaMischa, then, is Kodesh because its application elevates the one who was Nimshach, both in Ruchnias and Gashniyus.

Tahor, on the other hand, refers to a process of cleansing: the imperfections are removed from the item that becomes Tahor even as it remains in its place. The process of Tahara is not itself elevating—it does not impart nor does it demand a higher Madreigah than before. The person is cleansed of his Tumah while remaining in the same spot, so to speak.

Ketores, explains the Shem M’Shmuel, is the ultimate Tahor. It removes a bad smell, in the physical sense as well as in Ruchnias, even as one remains in his former place. The word “Ketores” is related to the term “Kesher” or connection, because even as one is in a low place, it can allow him a connection. This, he concludes, is why the Ketores is brought before the Neiros of the Menorah were lit: because Ketores has an affect even before light enters the room. Even before one can sense Kedusha, and is elevated, he can be Tahor.

It follows, then, that the placement of the Mizbeach HaKetores, “Lifnei Aron HaEidus”, is not perchance. The message is clear: Tahara comes through a connection to Torah. Even if one’s actions are not perfect, even if he has not yet elevated himself, he can experience Tahara through a connection to the Torah Hakedosha.

Perhaps this is what Achaz did not understand. He brought Ketores outside the confines of the Bais Hamikdash, perhaps showing that he thought its restorative powers to be mystical in nature and not grounded in any particular process. One who bring Ketores not “Lifnei Aron HaEidus” ignores the most important aspect of the Tahara process: a connection to the Torah itself.

Yeshayahu was meant to try and steer Achaz away from this path, and so Hashem sent him to speak with the king and told him to bring the “Shar Yashuv” those who had been brought closer to Hahsem by the Navi. They are called Bincha, because they were brought back with the Torah, becoming the children of Yeshayahu through the rubric of “Banecha Elu Talmidecha”. Their presence at that moment was important for it showed Achaz that Tahara was in fact possible, but only through a connection to the Torah.

That Achaz eventually ceased the practice of Ketores entirely showed that he did not heed the words of the Navi, and that he had not interest in true Tahara, and for that he ultimately met his fate.

It now seems almost silly to wonder why these Pessukim are to be read as the Haftorah for Parshas Yisro. This week, as we learn the PEssukim of Mattan Torah, and are reminded of our identity as Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh, we must remember that a connection to Torah is our ultimate lifeline. Even when we feel as though we are not living up to our full potential, we must know that Tahara comes through a Kesher with the Torah Hakdoesha, and that through this connection we can be cleansed of our imperfections.