Tuneless

Parshas Yisro is known as the Parsha of Kabbalas HaTorah. Although there are almost as many Pessukim that discuss other topics within the Sedra, the importance and magnitude of Mattan Torah is such that it defines the Parsha. We would assume, then, that when Chazal were Mesaken a Haftorah for this Parsah they did so in a way that compliments this theme, allowing us to gain further insight into Kabalas Hatorah. Our role, then, is to look at the Haftorah through this lens, to find the lessons it conveys.

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 Haftorah, taken from that part of the Sefer is 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 middle section is devoted to a message the Navi was to carry to Achaz, the king at the time, concerning an upcoming battle.

After reading about the Nevuah regarding the battle, the Minhag Ashkenaz is to skip a few Perakim and Lein another short section. This part of the Haftorah is comprised of two Pessukim in which the Navi speaks to Achaz about this son, who had been born prior to his ascension to the throne. The Navi tells us “Ki Yeled Yulad Lanu”, and then goes on to tell us that he had been named “Peleh Yoetz Kel Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom”. The final Passuk of this section, and the Haftorah, speaks a bit more about this boy and what he will accomplish in life, bringing Kavod to HKBH and Bais Dovid.

Rashi tells us that the Yeled Yulad Lanu of which the Navi speaks is Chizkiyahu Hamelech, who defied his father’s abject Rishus to become a true Tzaddik who used his power to steer Klal Yisroel back onto the Derech HaYashar. The Navi is predicting this rise, and telling Achaz that indeed his son will be an effective and inspirational king, given no less than eight names by HKBH.

In learning these Pessukim, a simple question comes to mind: why are they part of our Haftorah? Why did Chazal wish us to skip more than an entire Perek just to Lein these Pessukim on this Shabbos? Now, often we add Pessukim so that we can end the Haftorah on a positive note, but even if that is the case we must understand why these two Pessukim were chosen specifically. How does the prediction of Chizkiyahu’s greatness relate to Kabalas Hatorah?

The truth is that there is one aspect of these Pessukim that is in a way less than lauditory, and can perhaps help us understand the message Chazal wished to convey.

The second Passuk in this section begins with the words “L’Marbeh HaMishra ULiShalom Ain Ketz”. Mezudos explains that these words are explaining the name “Sar Shalom” given to Chizkiyahu: this name will be earned by Chizkiyahu’s consolidation of power and influence. He would be “Marbeh” the Sherara, thereby ensuring “Shalom Ain Ketz”. Rashi, however, explains that the Mishreh referred to in the Passuk is not that of the king but of HKBH: the Yiras Hashem engendered by Chizkiyahu will be the cause of the Shalom Ain Ketz.

There is one very notable feature of these words that is hard to overlook: the word “Marbeh” is written with a “Mem Stumah”, also known as an “Endeh Mem”. There are many words in Nach that are written differently than they are read, known as “Kri” and “Ksiv”, but here the word is pronounced the same, the anomaly is in the letter used. Clearly there is a reason for this, which is of course addressed by Chazal.

The Gemara in Sanhedrin mentions the Mem Stumah in this word, and explains its purpose with a story. “Bikesh HKBH La’asos Chizkiyahu Moshiach”, Chizkiyahu Hamelech had the potential to be the Moshiach, but the Malachim protested because he did not sing Shira when he experienced Nissim. The Gemara concludes: “L’Kach Nistam”. The Mem Stumah is to indicate that the opportunity for Geulah Sheleima was closed because Chizkiyahu did not sing Shira.

We must ask a very simple question based on this Gemara. These Pessukim are devoted to praising Chizkiyahu, telling Achaz that his son will be a Tzaddik and a credit to Malchus Shamayim and Malchus Bais Dovid—why hint at his shortcoming at this point? Chizkiyahu’s omission of Shira was clearly a fault, and precluded him from being the Moshiach—why used the Mem Stumah to indicate this mistake here?

To answer this question, let us look at the way that Chizkiyahu himself addressed the “Tayna” of the Malachim.

The Medrash, in Shir Hashirim Rabba tells us that indeed “Rauy Chizkiyahu Lomar Shira Al Mapalas Sancherev”, and Yeshaya HaNavi came to tell him so. This was the same question the Malachim had on Chizkiyahu: how can one who experienced such open Nissim not thank Hashem properly? Chizkiyahu answered the Navi, and therefore the Malachim as well: “Torah SheAni Osek Bah Mechaperes Al HaShira”. Chizkiyahu felt that the Torah that he learned was a sufficient replacement for Shira, and that is why he chose not to sing.

Now, we know that the chance of being Moshiach was taken from Chizkiyahu because he did not sing Shira. This would seem to indicate that it was, in some way, a mistake on his part. Yet the Medrash seems to indicate that Chizkiuahu had an explanation for his lack of Shira—it wasn’t out of a lack of gratitude to HKBH or recognition of the Nes. Rather, he felt that the Torah he learned was in some way a replacement. How can we understand this? What was the mistake that Chizkiyah made in thinking that his Torah could take the place of Shira?

In order to answer this question, we must understand a little more about the Torah of Chizkiyahu Hamelech.

The Gemara, a little later in Sanhedrin, tells us that when Sancherev approached, and destruction seemed imminent, it was the Torah that protected Klal Yisroel. The Gemara explains that Chizkiyahu inserted a sword into the entrance of the Batei Medrashim and said “Kol Mi She’ino Osek BaTorah Yidaker B’Cherev Zu”. Under the threat of death, the people engaged in serious Limud HaTorah, to the point that the Gemara tells us that one could have searched the entire Eretz Yisroel, from Dan to Be’er Sheva and from Gevas to Antifatris and would not have found one Am HaAretz. So widespread was the Limud Hatorah that every man, woman and child had expert knowledge of Hilchos Tumah V’Taharah.

Such was the level of dedication to Torah in the times of Chizkiyahu, and it would seem that this the Torah that he felt replaced his Shira. What could have been his mistake?

There is another Gemara, this one towards the beginning of Sanhedrin, that brings an interesting Drasha related to the Dor of Chizkihau. As we know, Shlomo Hamelech writes in Mishlei “Sheker HaChen V’Hevel HaYofi Isha Yiras Hashem Hi Tishalal”. The Gemrah teaches that each of these phrases applies to a different Dor: “Sheker Hachen” is the Dor of Moshe and Yehoshua, “Hevel Hayofi” is the Dor of Chizkiyahu and “Isha Yiras Hashem…” refers to the Dor of R’ Yehudah bar Ilai. The generation of Rav Yehuda bar Ilai, the Gemara concludes, was extremely poor, to the point that six people shared one blanket, yet they were still Osek BaTorah.

This is a Gemara that begs explanation, and many are given, one of which may be helpful to us.

R’ Yitzchok Isaac Scher, in Leket Sichos Mussar, explains that Shlomo Hamelech viewed anything that was not done with the epitome of Shleimus, in the most perfect way possible, as Hevel. That is why Chazal tell us that when Shlomo found out that the Mikdash would eventually be destroyed, and Klal Yisroel sent to Galus, he said of his efforts “Hevel Havalim Hakol Hevel”. Since, in some way, the building of the Bais Hamikdash was not B’Shleimus, it was “Hevel”.

This, continues Rav Scher, can help us understand the Drasha in the Gemara. The Dor of Chizkiyahu, as we have seen, was dedicated to Torah to unimaginable extents—but something was lacking. Chazal could not place the ultimate praise “Yiras Hashem Hi Tishalal” on this Dor, but only on the generation of R’ Yehudah bar Ilai. This indicates that the Yiras Shamayim of the later Dor was in fact greater. Being able to dedicate themselves to Torah despite their poverty, shows that they were in the category of “Yiraso Kodem L’Chochmoso”. Because the Torah of Chizkiyahu’s generation was in some way lacking the component of Yiras Hashem, it was in the category of “Hevel”, as defined by Shlomo Hamelech.

Based on this we can perhaps understand the mistake that Chizkayahu made, on his level. Shira is closely related to Yiras Hashem, as the Passuk in Parshas Beshalach says: “Vyiru Ha’Am Es Hashem..Az Yashir”. Perhaps, Torah that is accompanied by Yiras Shamayim, and therefore not “Hevel”, is in fact a replacement for Shira. The Torah of Doro Shel Chizkiya, however, was in some small way lacking in this regard and therefore not an adequate substitute for Shira.

Perhaps the Navi wished to communicate to us that there was a certain lack of Yiras Shamayim in the Dor of Chizkiyahu, which led to his mistake, but did not wish to discredit all that he accomplished. He therefore chose the most discreet way to do so. As we have seen, the words “L’Marbeh HaMishra” refer to the increased Yiras Shamayim brought about by Chizkiyahu, by using a Mem Stumah here the Navi teaches us that whatever lack of Yiras Hashem existed was on a very minor level. Chizkiyahu increased Yiras Hashem in his Dor, but did not reach the pinnacle, rendering his Torah an unworthy substitute for Shira—a relatively minor shortcoming.

We can now understand why Chazal may have wanted us to read these Pessukim on Shabbos Parshas Yisro. As we learn about Kabalas Hatorah we must always keep in mind that our goal must be to sing the sweetest song there can be: Torah accompanied by true Yiras Hashem.