 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
PARSHA HA'AZINU
(All rights reserved to Keren Yishai)
Parashat Ha’azinu “There is no Rock like our God” Rav M. Elon As
we stand immediately prior to Rosh ha’Shanah, we will
devote our discussion to the topic of Divine curing of
infertility. Rosh
ha’Shanah has as its focus point the healing of the
infertility of Sara, Rachel, and Chana. This is also the context of the Torah Reading
on the first day of Rosh ha’Shanah, “And God
remembered Sara,” (Bereshit 21:1;) as well as the
content of the Haftara which deals with God’s grace
to the barren Chana who then gives birth to seven
children. We are all familiar with the words of our
Sages that there were seven pivotal female characters who suffered infertility:
Sara, Rivka, Leah – the verse describing Leah states
“And she ceased giving birth,” (Bereshit 29:35,) which
indicates a cessation of the ability to give birth, Chana,
the Shunamite woman (who our Sages comment merited to
conceive on Rosh ha’Shanah,) and finally the seventh
individual to suffer this disability was Zion, the verse turning to Zion as
follows: “Sing, O barren (woman,) you who has not born (children,)” (Yeshayahu 54:1.) In
any event, as we mentioned previously, the curing of the infertility of a
number of people occurred on Rosh ha’Shanah, which
leads us to question the specific link of this act to Rosh ha’Shanah. It seems that we will be able to understand
this properly through a study of this phenomenon of infertility – when it first
appeared and what its purpose is. The
parashot which open the Torah, Bereshit
and No’ach, hold within them the historical records
of a period of no less than two thousand years.
One of the clear characteristics of these parashot
is the genealogical lines that develop and expand. Then, in the one thousand and forty-eighth year after creation, Avraham our forefather is born. When he is fifty-two years of age the first
two thousand years of “To’hu” (“Chaos”) of the
earth’s existence come to their conclusion.
And then a phenomenon that has never previously manifested occurs –
barrenness and infertility. Our Matriarchs
experience infertility – not as an abnormal, irregular phenomenon, but as an
event that each and every one of the Matriarchs are to
experience! There seems to be a
fundamental defining contrast between the first two thousand “To’hu” years of the earth’s existence wherein we observe a
steady development of the various familial lines, and the beginning of the
rectifying “years of Torah” which begin with infertility. We
must note that the infertility of our Matriarchs is not simply a local,
contained crisis, rather this is a reality that leaves
its mark throughout history until our contemporary age. Examining
Sarah we understand that if it were not for her inability to bear children,
Avraham would never have taken Sarah’s maidservant Hagar as his wife, (which he
only did at Sarah’s own request.) An
entire national identity, that of Yishma’el,
would never have appeared had this not occurred. So too without Rachel’s infertility Ya’akov
would never have taken her maidservant Bil’hah, (and
then Leah’s maidservant Zilpa,) and thus the twelve
tribes would never have eventuated - the births of Dan, Naftali,
Gad, and Asher possibly never having occurred. One
of those barren women who merited an answer to her prayers for children on Rosh
ha’Shanah was Chana. We
will study this concept of infertility as well as its Divine cure through the
medium of Chana’s infertility. “And there was a certain man of Ramatayim-Tzofim, of (Shemu’el I 1,1) [The
term “an Efrathite” denotes that he was of the Tribe
of Efrayim, the tribe named thus based on the verse “For
God made me fruitful (“hifrani,”)” (Bereshit 41:52.) Thus we observe another deep contradiction
within Elkanah’s household, a contradiction between
the continuing ancestral lines flowing from one generation to the next,
especially within the Tribe of Efrayim, as opposed to
Chanah’s inability to conceive.] We observe a verse which gives us a detailed description of Elkanah’s familial heritage – something which is not pure
semantics but which serves to amplify the great paradox between his strong,
developed lines of ancestry and his own wife’s inability to continue that chain
of tradition. “And he had two wives: the name of the one was Chanah, and the name of the other Peninah;
and Peninah had children, but Chanah had no children.
And this man would go out of his city year by year to worship and sacrifice
to the Lord of hosts in (ibid. v. 2-5) “But
God had closed her womb” – this is also illustrates the inherent contradiction
between the womb which is intended to be open and to give birth, creating the
flow of generations, and the reality of that instrument of fertility which is
described as being closed and contained.
Elkanah’s household is filled with internal
tension. “And
her adversary also provoked her bitterly, in order to agitate her, because God
had closed her womb. And as he did so year
by year, when she went up to the house of God, so she would provoke her;
therefore she wept, and did not eat.” (ibid. v. 6,7) Elkanah the loving husband attempts to ease
the burden that his beloved wife must bear. “Then Elkanah her husband said to her,
‘Chanah, why do you cry? And why do you
not eat? And why is your heart grieved? Am I not better to you than ten sons?’” (ibid. v.
8) However
Chanah does not even react to her husband’s efforts in appeasing her – not out
of disrespect for him – but rather as a result of the simple fact that his
endeavors are entirely unable to counter the terrible anguish that she
experiences. “So Chanah rose up after the eating
and the drinking in (ibid. v.
9) Chanah
moves between two men, each misunderstanding her in their own contexts. She moves between her husband and the
“Rabbi,” Eli ha’Kohen, who mistakes her behavior for
that of a drunk. “And she came, and was in bitterness
of soul, and she prayed to (“al”) God, and wept bitterly. And she vowed a vow, and said: ‘O Lord of Hosts,
if You will look on the affliction of your maidservant, and will remember me,
and will not forget Your maidservant; and You will give your maidservant a male
child - then I will give him to God all the days of his life, and no razor shall
come upon his head.’” (ibid. v. 10,11) Chanah’s prayer is defined as a prayer “al ha’Shem,” (literally “about God,”) as opposed to a prayer
“to God,” or “before God.” It would in
fact seem that the word “al” is the incorrect preposition in this context, for
praying “al” – “about” – indicates praying for the welfare of a certain
individual other than for the welfare of she who
offers the prayer. Here, however, the
literal meaning of the verse indicates her prayer as a prayer for her own welfare, that she should merit to conceive and give
birth. Certainly it cannot be understood
as a prayer about God. Our
Sages understood this terminology of the verse as expressing the severe style
of Chanah’s plea to God: “And Rabi El’azar
said: ‘Chanah made severe statements to God, as the verse states ‘and she
prayed ‘al’ God’ – indicating that she made critical statements to God.’” (Berachot 31b) Therefore
Chanah speaks harshly in her prayer – yet she is not speaking harshly as a
result of mere frustration. She
expresses herself in this manner as a result of completely different emotions
and concerns. Our Sages expound the
nature of her vow as follows: “‘And she vowed a vow, and said:
‘O Lord of Hosts…’’ – Rabi Elazar said: ‘From the day
that God created His world there was no-one who called Him ‘Lord of Hosts’
until Chanah (prayed) and called Him (Lord of) Hosts.’” (ibid.) The
term “Lord of Hosts” is recorded in the Torah prior to Chanah, yet no-one had
used this term in designating God. Chanah,
herself, explains the significance of this term “Lord of Hosts:” “Chanah said before God: ‘Master
of the Universe, from the myriads of hosts that You
created in Your universe – is it difficult in Your eyes to give me one son?’” (ibid.) The
intensity of the anguish that is contained in these words is clearly apparent,
and certainly needs no further clarification.
However it is surprising that our Sages felt the need to expand on this
by means of a parable. “To what parable can this be
compared? To (the parable of) a human
king who made a feast for his servants, and one poor
person arrived (at the feast,) and stood by the door. He said to them: ‘Give me one slice (of bread,)’
yet they paid no attention to him. He
pushed his way in and went to the king.
He said to him: ‘My lord, king, from this entire feast you have made is
it difficult in your eyes to give me one slice (of bread?)’” (ibid.) The
necessity for this parable is in order to clarify a concept that the incident represented
by the parable does not fully clarify itself.
Thus, this parable is the basis for understanding this topic, and
therefore we will examine it. Let
us imagine a destitute person who subsists from scrounging around trash
bins. It makes sense that this
individual will have made his way around the king’s palace numerous times in
his search for food – each time having shamefully been driven away by the
king’s servants and members of his circle.
This penniless person then makes it through the various security
measures, and penetrates the king’s inner circle, ultimately standing face to
face with the king with only one request: a slice of bread. How
was this impoverished individual able to make it through the king’s security
and numerous guards? In truth it is the
deep-seated conviction that this destitute individual possesses that leads to
the situation wherein it is only the king – and no other – who may assist
him. He has one desire, exerting great
efforts in order that he realize his wish: to see the
king face to face without any intermediary. This impoverished man must have had to move
through the sewerage pipes, climbing rain gutters and scaling walls in order to
steal into the palace, for entry through the palace gates in the manner of the
noble aristocrats is certainly not afforded to him. Surely
when he reaches the king his clothes will bear the stench of the sewers that
were his path in order to reach the king.
And behold! He has succeeded and
he stands before the king. He requests
one slice of bread from the king, and it is in this request that we observe his
greatness over the ministers and nobles in the king’s court. While the latter receive their cuisine from
the king’s servants and waiters, this destitute, impoverished individual,
despite requesting no more than a small slice of bread, receives his bread
directly from the king without any intermediaries. However
there is an even harsher inference in the request for a slice of bread from the
king. In placing this request before the
king the impoverished beggar insinuates that his lacking one slice of bread is
by no means his shame, but rather the shame and disgrace of the king! How
is it possible that in a world and in a kingdom that are subject to you, there
are impoverished individuals who lack a slice of bread? Chanah
speaks harshly to God, yet she does not thrust her grievances at God, as if to
say that the fact that she does not have a child is a terrible disgrace for the
King, a shame on God. Thus, when she
does merit to conceive, the child’s name will be Shemu’el
– since he will be lent (“sha’ul”) to God. She does not desire to keep her child for herself, rather she aims to grant him to God. This
is the fundamental notion of prayer that we derive from her. Chanah teaches the
nation throughout all its generations that prayer for herself
is in fact prayer for God, for her entire will is to fulfill His will, and His
will is to accomplish hers. This is the
impoverished individual whose entire desire is to appear before the king. The
basis of this can be derived from the word “Mechilah”
– “forgiveness” – with all its varied significances in Hebrew. What
is “Mechilah?” One significance of this word is to forgive, or
to pardon. Another definition of this
word (which seems entirely disassociated from its general significances) is to excavate
a cavity or a tunnel in a boulder or a mountain. Moshe
Rabbenu taught Yisra’el how to ask forgiveness at the
“Crevice in the Rock,” (Shemot 33:22.) Moshe
pleads: “And he said, ‘I beg You,
show me Your glory.’” (Shemot 33:18) God
then responds: “And He said, ‘I will have all My
goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of God before you; and I
will show compassion to whom I will show compassion, and I will be merciful to
whom I will be merciful.” (ibid. v.19) Then
God adds: “And He said, You are incapable of
seeing My face; for no man shall see Me and live.’ And God said, ‘Behold, there is a place by
Me, and you shall stand upon the rock; And while My glory passes by, I will
place you in a crevice in the rock, and will I cover you with My hand until I
have (completely) passed by; And I will remove My hand, and you shall see My
back; but My face shall not be seen.” (ibid. v.20-23) Moshe
is placed, then, in the crevice in the rock, in a “Mechila”
– a hollowed excavation in the rock – and it is there that he learns the
Thirteen Divine Attributes, (which are the significance of his request of Mechila from God.) “…And God descended in the cloud,
and stood with him there, and He called out with the name of God. And God passed by before him, and he (Moshe) called
out: ‘God, God, Lord, Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to anger, and Abundant
in Kindness and Truth. Preserver of
kindness for thousands (of generations,) Forgiver of iniquity, willful sin, and
error, Who does not clear (those who do not repent;)
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's
children, to the third and to the fourth generation.’” (ibid. 34:5-7) Our
Sages commented on the expression “I will show compassion on whom
I will show compassion,” in the following manner: “‘And He said, ‘I will have all My goodness pass before you,’’ – (this is) the attribute of
goodness as well as the attribute of calamity. ‘And I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.’ – at
that moment God showed him all the storehouses containing all the reward primed
for the righteous. Moshe then said: ‘This storehouse, to whom does it belong?’ And God answered him, ‘To those who perform
Mitzvot’. ‘And this (second) storehouse, to whom
does it belong?’ ‘To those who raise orphans.’ And so on through each storehouse.” (Shemot Rabba
45:6 s.v. va’yomer) All
these individuals merit a storehouse as a result of their own actions. There is another dimension, however: “And afterwards He showed him a
large storehouse. (Moshe) asked: ‘Whose storehouse is
this?’ (God) answered him: ‘He
who deserves reward, I give him from the appropriate (storehouse of that)
reward. He who has no reward – I give
him free gifts (“matnat chinam”)
from this (storehouse,) as the verse states: ‘And I will
show compassion (“v’chanoti”) on whom I will show
compassion (“a’chon.”)’ ‘And I will show compassion on whom I
will show compassion,’ to he whom I desire to give (reward,) and so too (the
verse) ‘and I will be merciful to whom I will be merciful.’” (ibid.) This,
then, is the largest storehouse, the storehouse of the “free gifts.” [This is also the one term that Ya’akov
repeatedly employs: “These are the children whom God has been gracious enough
to grant (“chanan”) me,” (Bereshit
33:5;) “For God has been gracious (“chanani”) to me,” (ibid. v. 11.) All these that you see are not mine, but are
rather “free gifts” from God.”] How,
then, does one excavate a Mechila, a hollowed tunnel,
in a rock? Each
party begins to excavate from his side, tunneling through the obstacle until
both parties meet in the center. This is
exactly the Divine Mechila. God, too, so too speak excavates and tunnels
from His side, with the expectation that the individual will also begin his act
of digging, thus bringing man and his Creator together again. The
rock, “tzur,” represents a narrow, “tzar,” space. The
word “tzur” serves as the basis for the words “tzura,” “form.” It
is specifically through a narrow spaces that the rock
is lent its form – specifically through the hardship and tough surrounds. The knowledge that God is with us though our
hard ordeals (“tzara,”) and that the purpose of these
hardships is to shape one’s form is what offers man the possibility to excavate
the tunnel beginning from his side to then reveal that God has also tunneled
towards him. An
expression of this mutual tunneling of man and God can be found in the words of
the first Lubavitch Rebbe
on the verse: “Return to Me,
and I will return to you.” (Mal’achi
3:7) The Alter Rebbe
asks what the verse’s “I will return to you” means. How can God “return” to man? Indeed “the whole earth is full of His glory?”
(Yeshayahu 6:3.)
The Alter Rebbe explains that the greatest
distance between two people exists when they stand right next to each other –
but each faces the opposite direction.
The terminology “Return to Me, and I will
return to you” embodies God’s request, so to speak, that we should turn our
faces to Him. Certainly then His
countenance will turn towards us, and thus we will meet face to face. We find a beautiful expression of this
concept in a poem of Leah Goldberg: “It is not the ocean that is
between us; It is not the mountains that are
between us; It is us who are between us.” When the world’s two thousand years of Tikkun, Rectification, begin, then the great tribulations
begin to appear. When
Rachel tells Ya’akov “Give me children, or else I will die,” (Bereshit 30:1,) Ya’akov answers her: “Am I in God's place,
who has withheld from you fruit of the womb?” (ibid. v. 2.) Rachel desires a blessing for “fruit of
the womb” from the righteous ‘Tzadik’ - ‘Saint.’ She has already experienced great anguish,
has also visited many hospitals and health professionals, and now she turns to
Ya’akov. Ya’akov answers her that if God
has withheld fruit of the womb from her it is a sign that her spiritual status
is such that her prayers reach the highest spiritual realms. Therefore Ya’akov’s
prayers will certainly not assist her in reach the heights that she requires –
why then is she requesting his blessing?
(This is the understanding of the events according to the Ramban and the
Redak.) Chanah’s own
name hints at the “matnat chinam,”
the “free gift.” She offers a whispered
prayer for now her innermost secrets pour out in a manner that no man may
access them. When Elisha
asks the Shunamite woman whether she has any request,
she answers: “I live among my own people,” (Melachim II We may conclude that if we believe in Mechila - we have the ability to dig and excavate through
rock. Then we will reveal that our
Father is on the other side. The impoverished beggar came before the
king only to request a slice of bread, he did not make any additional lavish
requests for when the king would meet with him he would know better than the
beggar himself what it was the beggar required. The healing of infertility is the soul
quality of Am Yisra’el, who is the barren woman of the world, who is destined
to fulfill the verse: “Sing, O barren (woman,) you who
has not born (children,)” (Yeshayahu 54:1.) There are two Chanahs
in our historical consciousness – she who gave birth to seven children, and she
who lost her seven children about whom the Midrash remarks “A joyful mother of
children,” (Tehillim 113:9,) for the tzara (ordeal)
and the tzura (form) are interlocked. Thus the penniless beggar who so desires to
see the king that he is willing to pass through the sewers in order to reach
his goal finally merits to receive his slice of bread from the king’s very
hand, something which no minister or nobleman merits. Translated by Sholem
Hurwitz Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M.Elon
Home | Contact Us | Keren Yishai | Rav Mordechai Elon
Learn the Mekorot | Listen to the Shiur