Toldos: Does God Judge Our Prayers Based on Our Parents?

This week's Torah content has been sponsored anonymously, by a listener who always manages to find me supplemental sources which enhance my shiurim.

Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for the podcast version.

Artwork: DALL-E responding to the prompt, "Van Gogh painting of Biblical Isaac in light and Rebecca in darkness"

Toldos: Does God Judge Our Prayers Based on Our Parents?

“Yitzchak entreated Hashem on behalf of his wife because she was barren” (Bereishis 25:21). Although the pasuk makes it sound like Yitzchak was the only one who prayed, Rashi (ibid.) clarifies that he was joined in tefilah (prayer) by Rivkah: “he stood in one corner and prayed while she stood in another corner and prayed” (B.R. 63:5). Why, then, does the pasuk go on to say: “Hashem answered him, and Rivka conceived.” Shouldn’t it have said “them”? The Gemara answers by deriving a principle: “the tefilah of a tzadik ben tzadik (a righteous offspring of a righteous parent) cannot be compared to the tefilah of a tzadik ben rasha (a righteous offspring of an evil parent)” (Yevamos 64a). Yitzchak and Rivkah were both tzadikim, but the pasuk tells us that Hashem responded to Yitzchak because his father was the righteous Avraham Avinu, whereas Rivkah’s was the wicked Besuel.

This is problematic. Why should parentage have an impact on whether one’s tefilah is answered? To the contrary – David ha’Melech teaches us that “Hashem is close to all who call Him, to all who call Him in truth” (Tehilim 145:18). Chazal teach us that “the Merciful One desires the heart” (Sanhedrin 106b) If Yitzchak and Rivka were both tzadikim and both engaged in sincere tefilah, why should the righteousness or wickedness of their respective fathers matter?

This principle shows up in halacha as well. The Shulchan Aruch (OC 53) lists the criteria that are taken into consideration when appointing a shatz – that is, the “official” shaliach tzibur (communal representative), who leads the congregational prayers. Some of these criteria pertain to the candidate’s perfection: his righteousness, his wisdom, his humility. Other criteria are based on perceptions: his reputation, his voice, his appearance. The Bach (OC 53:3) infers from our Gemara that if two people are equally fit to serve as the shatz, it is preferable to appoint the one who has yichus (a superior family pedigree) over the one who lacks yichus. The Taz (OC 53:3) disagrees and maintains that in a tiebreaker situation, we should appoint the shatz from an inferior family because, all things being equal, “it is better to draw near this person from an undistinguished family in order to bring this offspring closer to the shechinah (Divine presence),” as it is stated: “peace, peace to the far and the near” (Yeshayahu 57:11).

In order to make sense of the Gemara in Yevamos and explain the disagreement between the Bach and the Taz, I feel that it is necessary to make a daring move. When the Gemara says, “the tefilah of a tzadik ben tzadik cannot be compared to that of a tzadik ben rasha,” it is NOT speaking about the “likelihood” of the tefilah being answered. “Hashem is close to all who call Him, to all who call Him in truth,” full stop. Rather, the tefilah of a tzadik ben tzadik is superior for extrinsic reasons, because of how it is perceived. Indeed, when the Gemara asserts the superiority of Yitzchak’s tefilah, Rashi there does NOT say: “therefore, Hashem answered him [instead of Rivkah]” but rather, “therefore, the pasuk ascribes [the answering] to him.” In other words, the tefilos of Yitzchak and Rivkah were equally effective, but the Torah assigns the credit to Yitzchak. If the Torah had said, “Hashem answered her,” we would focus on Rivkah alone, as we do when we read about Chanah’s tefilah. If it had said, “Hashem answered them,” we’d focus on their plight as a couple. But when the Torah says, “Hashem answered him,” it frames the answering of Yitzchak’s tefilah as a furtherance of the legacy of righteousness initiated by his righteous father Avraham.

Likewise, the yichus of the shatz has no bearing on the likelihood of his tefilah being answered. Rather, the disagreement is about which middah of Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu we seek to reflect via our appointment of this candidate as shatz. According to the Bach, we appoint a tzadik ben tzadik to highlight Hashem’s support of righteous legacies: “Hashem is good, forever is His kindness, and His faithfulness is from generation to generation” (Tehilim 100:5). According to the Taz, we convey the idea that Hashem seeks “peace, peace for the far and the near” (Yeshayahu 57:11) by appointing someone from a “distant” family and drawing him close to the shechinah.

Regardless of whether this explanation is correct, I believe its methodology is sound. When faced with a perplexing midrash about tefilah, we should not discard our fundamental understanding of how tefilah works in order to explain it.

________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

Haftaras Parashas Pinchas: Goyishe Jews

The Torah content for these two weeks has been sponsored by Judah and Naomi Dardik in loving memory of Rabbi Moskowitz zt''l, who taught his students to pursue truth by asking questions, who modeled love of Torah and learning, and who exemplified living a life of the mind.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Haftaras Parashas Pinchas: Goyishe Jews

Preface: I wasn't in the mood to write a dvar Torah article for this Friday. I almost didn't write anything at all, but I told myself, "I'll just start writing and see if I end up with anything good." Well, I ended up with something, but it ain't a dvar Torah! I don't even know if there are any "ideas" per se, other than some insight into prophetic rhetoric. Also, this was definitely influenced by a discussion I had with my students over the course of this week about Jewish racism. Anyway, think of this as more of an editorial or a rant inspired by the haftarah than an actual dvar Torah. 

I didn’t encounter Jewish racism against non-Jews until I moved to the East Coast. That was the first time I heard derogatory statements made about “goyim” (to be pronounced not as “goh-YEEM,” but “GUH-yim,” as if one is spitting out a word with a bitter taste). Sometimes this racism is expressed as generic xenophobia. Other times it takes the form of specific racial stereotyping. Sometimes it’s muttered in undertones. Other times it’s expressed unabashedly, or even proudly. I am often tempted to respond to these comments by saying, “Hey, buddy, my grandma is a goy!” or “You do know that I used to be a goy, right?” On one occasion I might or might not have responded with an antisemitic slur against the offender.

As disgusting as I find this anti-gentile bigotry to be, I do think there’s a place for it: when rebuking Jews.

The haftarah for Parashas Pinchas is the opening chapter of Sefer Yirmiyahu, whose prophetic career begins with the following call-to-action from Hashem: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you left the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you as a navi la’goyim (prophet for the nations)” (1:5). The problem is that Yirmiyahu did not act as a prophet for the goyim, but only for Israel.

The simplest answer is to read “la’goyim” not as “for the nations” but as “regarding the nations.” Shadal (among others) explains: “navi la'goyim [means] for Israel and the nations – not that he will go and speak to the nations, but rather, in speaking to Israel, he will mention what will befall some of the nations.”

Rashi, however, takes a different approach:

navi la'goyim [means] to the Jews, who act like goyim. This is expounded in Sifrei: "‘A prophet from your midst ... I will raise up for you" (Devarim 18:15) – not for those who deny Torah. How, then, do I understand 'I will designate you as a prophet for the goyim'? This refers to the Jews who act like goyim.”

Yirmiyahu wasn’t the only navi to rebuke his brethren for acting like non-Jews. In one of the first prophecies about Churban Bayis Rishon, Yeshayahu says, “Hear the word of Hashem, O chiefs of Sedom; give ear to the Torah of our God, O people of Amorah” (Yeshayahu 1:10), comparing the Jewish residents of Jerusalem to the non-Jewish citizens of the two most notoriously evil cities on record. He then goes on to relay Hashem’s rejection of their divine service on account of their grievous interpersonal injustices:

[Hashem says:] I hate your Roshei Chodashim and your Moadim with My Being; they have become a bother to Me; I am weary of bearing [them]. When you spread your hands [in prayer], I will hide My eyes from you; even when you increase prayer, I will not listen; your hands are filled with blood. Wash yourselves, purify yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes; cease doing evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan; take up the grievance of the widow. (1:14-17)

Imagine if someone tried to pull a Yeshayahu move like this in a modern setting: a shul rav gets up in front of his frum congregation to give his Shabbos dvar Torah and says: “You’re all a bunch of GUHyim. Hashem hates your Shabbosos. Your Yomim Tovim disgust Him. Why do you even bother davening? He won’t listen to you. You’re like Hamas. You’re worse than Putin’s henchmen. You’re no better than the Nazis.”

“But wouldn’t this approach to rebuke perpetuate the same anti-gentile prejudices you condemn?” Yes, unfortunately, it would. But it’s a step in the right direction. If every instance of anti-goyim bigotry were met with an equal but opposite rebuke for “goyishe behavior” on the part of the offender, maybe they would think twice before speaking. Of course, I don’t really believe this would work. But it’s a nice fantasy.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

Haftaras Re'eh: Torah as Water, Wine, and Milk

Today's Torah content has been sponsored by the generous contributions of my Patrons on Patreon.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Haftaras Re'eh: Torah as Water, Wine, and Milk

In the haftarah of Re’eh, the navi proclaims: “Ho! Everyone who is thirsty, go to water, even one with no money, go, buy and eat; go and buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Yeshayahu 55:1). Radak (ad loc) explains that water, wine, and milk are all metaphors for Torah and chochmah:

Water is a metaphor for Torah and for chochmah: just as it is impossible for the world [to survive] without water, so too, it is impossible for the world [to survive] without chochmah; and just as one who is thirsty yearns for water, so too, the rational soul yearns for Torah and for chochmah, as it is stated in the prophecy of Amos: "not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the word of Hashem” (Amos 8:11) ...

Torah is compared to wine, for just as wine gladdens the heart – as it is stated: “wine gladdens the heart of man” (Tehilim 104:15) – so too, words of Torah, as it is stated: "the statutes of Hashem are upright, gladdening the heart" (ibid. 19:9).

[Torah is compared] to milk, for just as milk sustains the nursing baby and enables it to grow, so too, words of Torah sustain the soul and enable it to grow, for it continues to grow through learning on the level it is at.

To summarize: Torah is like water because it is necessary for survival; Torah is like wine because it gladdens the heart; and Torah is like milk because it promotes growth and development.

According to this interpretation, it follows that there are three different desires that are satisfied through Torah and chochmah. The desire corresponding to water is stated explicitly by the Radak: “just as one who is thirsty yearns for water, so too, the rational soul yearns for Torah and for chochmah.” Aristotle’s Metaphysics opens with the statement: “All men, by nature, desire to know.” This innate desire expresses itself in a number of ways: curiosity, the seeking out of the underlying lawfulness in nature, the need for things to make sense and the irritation or repugnance when things don’t make sense, the drive to ask and answer “What?” and “Why?” When this thirst for chochmah is frustrated, the rational soul suffers. And if the thirst persists for too long without being quenched, there is a risk that the soul will wither and die.

The desire corresponding to wine is evident: the rational soul yearns for that which brings it enjoyment, and chochmah is inherently enjoyable. Rambam explains that ahavas Hashem (love of God) is attained “by comprehending and contemplating His commandments, His creations, and His actions, thereby attaining the ultimate enjoyment through our intellectual apprehension” (Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Aseh #3).

The desire corresponding to milk is the most nuanced of the three: it is the desire for development, or self-actualization. Marcus Aurelius wrote that “Every living organism is fulfilled when it follows the right path for its own nature.” Just as the body is programmed to engage in behaviors which promote its own growth, so too, the rational soul seeks that which promotes its own development and flourishing.

The navi’s mashal doesn’t only pertain to the substance of Torah and chochmah, but also the cost. “Ho! Everyone who is thirsty, go to the water, even one with no money, go, buy and eat; go and buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Yeshayahu 55:1). Not only do Torah and chochmah satisfy these three desires, but they have been given to us for free. The practical implications of this pasuk are clear. When we say our birchos ha’Torah in the morning, it behooves us to pause and feel genuine gratitude to Hashem for making His Torah and His chochmah freely available and accessible to everyone.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself

This week's Torah content is sponsored by the Reznik family in dedication to the loving memory of Silvia Tanzer (Sora Hesha bas Chaim Moshe) and Irving Tanzer (Yisroel ben Yechezkel).

Click here for a one-page printer-friendly version of this article, and click here for an audio version. 

Artwork: Agonizing Remorse, by Robbie Trevino

The Sin of Refusing to Look at Oneself

The first of the Neviim Acharonim (Later Prophets) to prophesy about the destruction of Bayis Rishon (the First Temple) and Galus Bavel (the Babylonian exile) was Yeshayahu, in the first prophecy he received:

[Hashem] said: Go and say to this people, "You surely listen, but you do not understand; you surely see, but you do not know. The heart of this people has become fat, its ears have become heavy, its eyes have become covered over – lest it see with its eyes and hear with its ears and understand with its heart, and it return (i.e. engage in teshuvah) and be healed.” (Yeshayahu 6:9-10)

Radak explains:

You listen with your ears to the words of the neviim who rebuke you, but you do not understand; you see the wonders of the Creator but you do not know. In other words, you do not apply your mind, and you do not pay attention to Me. You intentionally fatten your heart and make your ears heavy and cover over your eyes so that you do not hear, and do not see, and do not understand, and do not know, for you desire neither teshuvah nor "healing," which is the forgiveness after teshuvah.

Yeshayahu does not focus on the people’s sinfulness per se. Rather, he rebukes them for their refusal to look at themselves with a critical mind, since doing so would prompt them to do teshuvah.

There are two ways to understand the intent of this message. The first is to assume that the navi is primarily concerned with the sinfulness of the people, and he is simply pointing out that their impediment to doing teshuvah and being “healed” is their refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. The second reading is that the navi is primarily concerned with the people’s resistance to the type of self-knowledge which leads to teshuvah, and the oblique reference to their sinfulness is merely the backdrop of this focus.

I believe that the second understanding is correct. The strongest evidence for this reading is that no sin is explicitly identified other than the refusal to look, listen, and know themselves. This sin is expanded upon by Anthony de Mello in Awareness: The Perils and Opportunities of Reality:

The first thing I want you to understand, if you really want to wake up, is that you don't want to wake up. The first step to waking up is to be honest enough to admit to yourself that you don't like it … We don't want to look, because if we do, we may change. We don't want to look. If you look, you lose control of the life that you are so precariously holding together. And so in order to wake up, the one thing you need the most is not energy, or strength, or youthfulness, or even great intelligence. The one thing you need most of all is the readiness to learn something new. The chances that you will wake up are in direct proportion to the amount of truth you can take without running away. How much are you ready to take? How much of everything you've held dear are you ready to have shattered, without running away? How ready are you to think of something unfamiliar?

We often resist doing teshuvah because we are attached to a particular behavior and don’t want to stop. But there is another reason why we may resist doing teshuvah: because we are terrified of seeing who we are in the present, or of who we may become in the future if we allow ourselves to let go of the life and the narrative about ourselves that we so desperately and precariously cling to.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle/Chase QuickPay and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you. 

If you would like to sponsor an article, shiur, or podcast episode, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone. 

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  For the full guide to all of my Torah content, click here. 

Shavuos 5780: Torah and the Limits of Human Intellect

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Mind Unbound, by Jason Felix

Shavuos 5780: Torah and the Limits of the Human Intellect 

The Mysterious Case of the Incomprehensible Haftarah 

The haftarah for Shavuos morning is the infamous first chapter of Sefer Yechezkel. Known as Maaseh Merkavah (the Work of the Chariot), this nevuah (prophecy) is considered to be one of the deepest and most cryptic passages in all of Tanach. Its meaning is so abstruse that there are halachos governing how and to whom it is expounded, as the mishnah in Chagigah 2:1 states: “One may not expound … on Maaseh Merkavah in the presence of [even] one [student], unless he is wise and intuitively understands with his own mind.” 

To appreciate just how incomprehensible this haftarah is, here is an excerpt: 

I looked and saw a stormy wind coming from the north, a great cloud and flashing fire, surrounded by a radiance and within it was something that looked like chashmal within the fire. Within it there were four creature-like shapes. This was how they looked: they had the shape of a human. Each had four faces, and each had four wings. Their feet were straight feet, and the bottoms of their feet were like the bottom of a calf’s hoof, sparkling like burnished bronze. [They had] human hands beneath their wings on their four sides, and the four had faces and wings; their wings were intertwined. They did not turn when they moved; each [could] move in the direction of [any of] its faces. Their faces were shaped like a man’s, with a lion’s face on the right of each of the four of them, an ox’s face on the left of the four of them, and the four of them had an eagle’s face. Their faces and wings were separated above; each had two [wings] linked to one another and two covering their bodies. Each moved in the direction of its faces. They went wherever the spirit drove them, and they did not turn as they moved. (Yechezkel 1:4-12)

Every Shavuos morning, upon the conclusion of this haftarah, someone inevitably makes a joke to the effect of, “Did you get all that?” or “Simple!” or “Crystal clear!” 

This raises a question that I have every Shavuos: If virtually nobody can understand this nevuah, and if even those who can understand it are forbidden to explain it, then why do we read it in public as the haftarah of Shavuos? And I don’t mean to ask: “What is the source?” or “What is the halachic rationale behind the selection of this haftarah?” I mean: “What is the point of reading something that is both intellectually and halachically inexplicable?” 

The Other Merkavah 

A couple centuries prior to Yechezkel’s nevuah, Yeshayahu ha’Navi also had a nevuah which is referred to as “the Merkavah.” Here it is in its entirety: 

In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and lofty throne, and its legs filled the Temple. Seraphim were standing above, at His service. Each one had six wings: with two it would cover its face, with two it would cover its legs, and with two it would fly. And one would call to another and say, “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh [1] is Hashem, Master of Legions; the whole world is filled with His glory.” The doorposts moved many cubits at the sound of the calling, and the Temple became filled with smoke. (Yeshayahu 6:1-4) 

Yechezkel’s vision of the Merkavah is described in great detail over the course of 28 pesukim whereas Yeshayahu’s description is only four pesukim long. Nevertheless, Chazal maintained that Yeshayahu’s nevuah was the greater of the two, as the Gemara in Chagigah 13b states: 

Rava said: Everything that Yechezkel saw was seen by Yeshayah. To what can Yechezkel be compared? To a villager who saw the king [and for whom such a sighting was rare]. And to what can Yeshayah be compared? To a city-dweller who saw the king [and who was accustomed to seeing the king on a more frequent basis]. 

Rashi [2] explains: “a city-dweller who [frequently] sees the king isn’t bewildered and isn’t amazed, and [therefore] doesn’t care to report [what he saw in great detail].” The Radak [3] goes further, explaining the metaphor’s implications about the relative levels of these two neviim: 

In other words, Yechezkel reported the details of these phenomena because it was extremely novel to him … but Yeshayah only described them in general terms, since he was more perfected than Yechezkel and this vision wasn’t as novel to him. 

And yet, despite being the more profound of the two prophetic visions, Yeshayahu’s Merkavah is even more familiar to the average Jew than Yechezkel’s. Why? Because an embellished version of it was incorporated into the daily davening in the berachos of Krias Shema: 

[The angels] all accept upon themselves the yoke of heavenly kingship from one another, and grant permission to one another to sanctify the One Who formed them, with tranquility, with clear articulation, and with sweetness. All of them as one proclaim His kedushah and say with awe: “Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh is Hashem, Master of Legions, the whole world is filled with His glory!” (Yeshayahu 6:3). Then the Ofanim [4] and the Chayos ha’Kodesh with great noise raise themselves towards the Seraphim; facing them, they give praise, saying: “Blessed is the glory of Hashem from his place” (Yechezkel 3:12). 

Our question about the haftarah of Shavuos is even stronger if asked about this part of davening: Why did the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah (The Men of the Great Assembly) select one of the most recondite prophetic visions and make it a centerpiece of our daily davening? What did they expect us to understand? What Jew comprehends the distinction between Ofanim, Chayos ha’Kodesh, and Seraphim? Who understands what it means for angels to “accept upon themselves the yoke of heavenly kingship from one another” or “grant permission to one another to sanctify”? Who can explain what it means for angels “to praise” or even “to know”? 

I’m not the only one who is bothered by the inclusion of such incomprehensible statements in our davening. Ibn Ezra [5] excoriates ha’Kalir [6] and other paytanim (liturgical poets) for incorporating enigmatic statements, allegories, and sodos (deep ideas) into the prayer service. Ibn Ezra maintains that the language of tefilah should be straightforward. He writes: 

Why don’t we learn from Shlomo [ha’Melech], who was not surpassed by anyone wiser, and yet, his tefilah that he davened is readily coherent; anyone who knows Hebrew can understand it, and it contains no enigmas or metaphors. The same is true of the tefilah of Daniel, [despite the fact that he] was a “solver of riddles” (5:12). They only davened with clear statements, and they were wise men – all the more so regarding the masses of men who daven and are not wise! [7] … 

[Furthermore,] all of [ha’Kalir’s] liturgical poems are filled with aggados and midrashim [which are allegorical and contain statements that are not meant to be taken at face-value], but the Sages said: “no verse departs from its straightforward meaning.” If so, then it is not proper to daven with anything other than pshat (a straightforward meaning), [and it is not proper to daven] with something that contains a sode, or an allegory … 

Granted, Ibn Ezra’s criticisms were only directed at those paytanim who introduced their own compositions into the liturgy. He certainly wouldn’t object to the tefilos and berachos composed by the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah. Yet, in light of his objections to the paytanim for their use of esoteric material, one wonders why one of the most esoteric prophetic visions was made into the centerpiece of the berachos of Krias Shema for every Jew to say. What are we supposed to get out of this? 

An Answer to Our Second Question … 

I recall an answer to this last question that was given by my Rosh Yeshiva. [8] He said that the Anshei Kneses ha’Gedolah incorporated this description of the angelic host praising Hashem in order to remind us that the human intellect is not supreme. 

The Torah maintains that mankind is the greatest species on earth – the only creature with a tzelem Elokim (truth-seeking intellect capable of grasping abstract concepts). Yet, man’s mind is qualitatively inferior to that of the angels, as David ha’Melech states: “You have made [frail man] but slightly less than the angels, crowning him with soul and splendor” (Tehilim 8:6). 

Even Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest human being who ever existed, was unable to obtain positive knowledge of Hashem, due to the limitations imposed by his physicality, as it is stated: “[Hashem] said, ‘You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see Me and live’” (Shemos 33:20). In contrast, the Rambam [9] writes about the angels: 

All of these immaterial forms (i.e. angels) are alive and comprehend the Creator, and know Him with a great and exceeding knowledge. And each and every immaterial form [knows the Creator] in accordance with its level, but not in accordance with His [true] greatness. Even the highest level [of angel] is unable to completely grasp the reality of the Creator as it really is, due to its deficient mind. 

But it comprehends and knows more than that which is grasped by the immaterial form beneath it; and likewise for each and every level, until the 10th level. And the 10th level also knows the Creator with a knowledge that human beings - who are comprised of a material body and an immaterial form - are not able to comprehend and know like it. But none [of these beings] knows the Creator as He knows Himself. 

In other words, there is a hierarchy of knowledge: animal intelligence is incapable of grasping abstract concepts; human intelligence can grasp abstract concepts, but cannot obtain positive knowledge of that which is purely immaterial; angelic intelligence can grasp that which is purely immaterial, but not fully; only the Creator truly knows Himself. 

Why is concept relevant to mention in the berachos of Krias Shema? I don’t remember what my Rosh Yeshiva said on this particular point, but I would say as follows. Krias Shema is referred to by Chazal as kabbalas ole malchus shamayim (lit. “acceptance of the yoke of heavenly kingship”), which is an acknowledgment of Hashem’s Oneness. [10] This may be the highest level knowledge we can have of the Creator, but we must not fall into the trap of thinking that it is the highest level of knowledge. By prefacing our kabbalas ole malchus shamayim with an acknowledgment of the kabbalas ole malchus shamayim of the angels, who “all accept upon themselves the yoke of heavenly kingship from one another,” we remind ourselves that as humans, our knowledge is imperfect, and we can’t even grasp what it means for the angels to have knowledge of Hashem and praise Him. 

… Which Answers Our First Question 

I believe that my Rosh Yeshiva’s answer to our second question also answers our first question. What is the point [11] of reading the Maaseh Merkavah, which almost nobody can understand, as the haftarah on Shavuos? To remind us that as much Torah we think we understand, a complete grasp of Torah is entirely beyond us. 

I wrote about this at length in my article, The Limits of Our Understanding of Torah, in which I cited the second paragraph of the Ralbag’s Introduction to Torah [12]: 

It is vital not to lose sight of the fact that it is impossible for us to completely apprehend the chochmah (wisdom) and chaninah (beneficence) which is manifest in the Torah’s existence. Rather, we have very little knowledge of this, and we are exceedingly ignorant – just as we have very little knowledge of the wisdom and beneficence which is manifest in the nature of all existing things; we apprehend very little of the chochmah in their design, as is evident to those anyone who has intensively studied the natural sciences, and who recognizes the gap between our theoretical models of the laws of the universe and their reality … It therefore follows from the fact that the Torah is divine – namely, that it is from Hashem, as is known to all people today – [that its nature will also be incompletely understood], even though it is the absolute truth. 

There is only one human being who completely understood Torah: Moshe Rabbeinu. And even his understanding was restricted by the limitations of his physicality, which prevented him from having positive knowledge Hashem. 

Shavuos is Zman Matan Toraseinu, a celebration of the giving of the Torah. [13] If we were to mistakenly think that our intellect is supreme, and that a full comprehension of the Torah is within our grasp – even theoretically, if not practically – then our view of Torah would be fundamentally flawed. Hashem set up boundaries around Har Sinai, “lest [the people] break through to Hashem to see, and a multitude will fall” (Shemos 19:21). At the event of Matan Torah there was a danger that Bnei Yisrael would overestimate their own abilities, push themselves beyond their limitations, and be irreparably harmed. The same is true in our own acceptance of Torah on a daily basis. 

On the celebration of Matan Torah we remind ourselves of our limited ability to grasp Torah by reading a passage of Torah which nobody but the most delusional and haughty individual could possibly think he or she fully understands. This reminder keeps our ego and our self-knowledge in check, which in turns, helps make us worthy to accept the Torah. 

So next time you hear Maaseh Merkavah being read in shul on Shavuos, and you find that you don't understand a single thing, remind yourself that that is precisely the point.

[1] The word “kadosh” is typically translated as “holy,” which is an anathema to me. Seeing as how ק.ד.ש. means “separate” and in relation to Hashem it means “separate from physicality,” I prefer to translate “kadosh” as “transcendent” – but if I translated “kadosh, kadosh, kadosh” as “transcendent, transcendent, transcendent,” then I’d get weird looks from people in shul.
[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Chagiga 13b
[3] Rabbeinu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Yeshayahu 6:1
[4] “Ofanim,” “Chayos ha’Kodesh,” and “Seraphim” are types of angels. See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah 2:7 for a comprehensive list and ranking.
[5] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Koheles 5:1
[6] From Wikipedia: “Eleazar ben Kalir, also known as Eleazar HaKalir, Eleazar ben Killir or Eleazar Kalir (c. 570 – c. 640) was a Byzantine Jew and a Hebrew poet whose classical liturgical verses, known as piyut, have continued to be sung through the centuries during significant religious services.”
[7] I expect someone to object to my reading of the Ibn Ezra on the grounds that he’s referring specifically to using metaphors like referring to Hashem as a lion (based on Hoshea 11:10) or fire (based on Devarim 4:24). Yes, one can argue that his critique is limited to a specific kind of metaphor-usage. Nevertheless, one can also argue that this objection stems from the sort of nitpicking which misses the main point. That’s my argument.
[8] Regrettably, I do not recall where, when, or in what context I heard this explanation. I hope I am conveying it accurately, but it is entirely possible that I am not. Take it with a grain of salt.
[9] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha’Mada, Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah
[10] See Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Sefer ha’Mitzvos: Mitzvas Aseh #2. Incidentally, if anyone tries to claim that kabbalas ole malchus shamayim refers to the acceptance of mitzvos, this line from tefilah is a good disproof. The angels most definitely know God’s Oneness, but they do not “accept” His mitzvos.
[11 Again I will remind you that I am NOT answering the question, “What is the halachic rationale for this reading?” I am answering the practical question, “What are we supposed to get out of it?”
[12]Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis: Introduction to Torah
[13] Among other things. See my article Shavuos is NOT About Matan Torah for other views.

Haftaras Parashas Devarim: Permanent Stains

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Haftaras Parashas Devarim: Permanent Stains

The haftarah for Shabbos Chazon (i.e. the Shabbos before Tishah b'Av) is the first chapter of Sefer Yeshayahu. The navi (prophet) begins with a scathing censure of the citizens of Yerushalayim and Yehudah. He labels them as "rebels," decries their refusal to know God, calls them "a sinful nation, a people weighed down by iniquity, evil offspring, destructive children" who have "forsaken Hashem and turned their back [to Him]" (Yeshayahu 1:4). He tells them that their sacrifices, their holidays, and their prayers are worthless and are abhorrent to Him because "[their] hands are filled with blood" (ibid. 1:15). He refers to his fellow Jews as "chiefs of Sedom ... people of Amorah" (ibid. 1:10), urging them:

Wash yourselves, purify yourselves, remove the evil of your deeds from before My eyes; cease doing evil. Learn to do good, seek justice, vindicate the victim, render justice to the orphan, take up the grievance of the widow. (ibid. 1:16-17)

But then, in the midst of this harsh rebuke, he delivers a message of hope:

"Come, now, let us discuss together," says Hashem, "If your sins are like scarlet they will become as white as snow; if they have become red as crimson, they will become [white] as wool. If you are willing and obey, you will eat the goodness of the land. But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword" - for the mouth of Hashem has spoken. (ibid. 1:18-20)

The Abravanel [1] explains the import of this message:

The correct [explanation] to me is that because the navi rebuked the people of Yehudah and Yerushalayim so much, and called them “chiefs of Sedom, people of Amorah,” “wicked offspring, corrupt children,” he was worried that perhaps they would give up hope from [doing] teshuvah. Therefore, he spoke to their hearts, [saying:] “Come, let us discuss.” It is as if he had said, “My brothers and friends! Let us come, now, and accept rebuke by returning to Hashem” – for this (i.e. doing teshuvah) is the true acceptance of rebuke … And he informed them that even though their sins are like scarlet – that is, red from the blood of the victims of murder and oppression – then if they accepted rebuke, [their garments] would immediately be whitened like snow and like wool, and there wouldn’t remain any mark at all, for the color white signifies purity.

This message is consistent with our understanding of Judaism's stance on teshuvah. Hashem is always willing to accept our teshuvah and forgive our sins. He is "the Gracious One, abundant to forgive," as we say three times a day. This theme permeates the liturgy on Yom ha'Kippurim, especially in Neilah. The Rambam [2] writes at the end of his list of the 24 things which prevent teshuvah:

All of these things: even though they hold back teshuvah, they do not prevent teshuvah. Rather, if a person did teshuvah from them, then he is baal teshuvah, and he has a portion in Olam ha’Ba (the World to Come).

So what is the problem here? The problem doesn't stem from the way Yeshayahu talks about teshuvah. The problem is the way Yirmiyahu talks about teshuvah. He says, in Hashem's name:

For I have always broken your yoke and torn off your straps, and you have said, "I will not transgress!" Yet upon every lofty hill and under every leafy tree you wander like a harlot. I had planted you from a choice vine, entirely of faithful seed; how, then, have you turned yourself into an inferior, alien vine before Me? Even if you were to cleanse yourself with nitre (i.e. stain-remover) and use much soap, your iniquity has become a stain before Me - the word of my Lord, Hashem-Elokim. (Yirmiyahu 2:20-22)

The same analogy is used by these two neviim (prophets), but the message is the opposite: according to Yeshayahu, our iniquity is like a stain that can be removed; according to Yirmiyahu, it is like a stain that can't be removed. 

Now, one might try to resolve this by saying that these two neviim were speaking at different times in Jewish history, separated by nearly 200 years: Yeshayahu was the first navi to prophesy about the destruction of Yerushalayim, and Yirmiyahu was the last. Similarly, one can answer that these two neviim were speaking to two different groups of Jews; the Jews in Yirmiyahu's time were undoubtedly more corrupt than the Jews addressed by Yeshayahu.

The reason why this answer fails is that Yirmiyahu, himself, delivers Yeshayahu's same message later on in his sefer, saying: "Cleanse your heart from evil, O Yerushalayim, so that you may be saved; how long will you lodge your iniquitous thoughts within yourself?" (ibid. 4:14). Apparently, their hearts can be cleansed from iniquity, even according to Yirmiyahu!

Chazal (Rosh ha'Shanah 18a) note this internal contradiction and offer a cryptic resolution:

It is written: "cleanse your heart from evil" and it is written: "even if you were to cleanse yourself with nitre and use much soap, your iniquity is a stain before Me"! ... There is no contradiction: here [in the latter case] we are dealing with a [Divine] verdict accompanied by a [Divine] oath, whereas there [in the former case] we are dealing with a [Divine] verdict that is not accompanied by a [Divine] oath.

According to Chazal, we can cleanse ourselves from iniquity even after the Divine verdict has been sealed, but only if this verdict was not accompanied by a Divine oath. If a Divine verdict is sealed with a Divine oath, then the iniquity cannot be cleansed. As an example of the latter, they cite the case of the House of Eli: "Therefore, I have sworn concerning the House of Eli that the iniquity of the House of Eli would never be atoned for by sacrifice or minchah-offering" (I Shmuel 3:14). 

The Abravanel doesn't accept Chazal's answer:

If we were to say like the words of Chazal – that “your iniquity is a stain before Me” because it was a Divine verdict accompanied by an oath, which cannot be overturned, and the teshuvah cannot be accepted – then a huge difficulty is posed to us by the repeated sending of the neviim and their rebukes, and all their words would be in vain and for no purpose, for if the decree were true, the diligence of the neviim would be false. Moreover, [according to Chazal’s answer], this severely weakens the doctrine about the virtue of teshuvah that we have received [through the Oral Tradition, namely,] that nothing stands in the way [of teshuvah].

In other words, if teshuvah cannot atone for a sin when the Divine verdict was accompanied by an oath - as in the case of Yirmiyahu 2:22, according to Chazal's reading - then the sending of the neviim urging the people to do teshuvah was pointless! Furthermore, this answer flies in the face of everything we know about the unstoppable power of teshuvah!

Instead, the Abravanel offers two answers: first the Radak's, and then his own. The Radak [3] resolves the contradiction based not on the acceptance of teshuvah, but on the process of kaparah (atonement) for different levels of sin:

Based on the divisions of kaparah (atonement) expounded by Rebbi Yishmael (Yoma 86a), the view of the Radak is proper and acceptable. [He answers] that if the Jews of that generation did teshuvah, they would be saved from the enemy and would not have gone into exile, but they [still] would have received [some degree of] punishment for their iniquities – whether by plague, or by famine, or by other catastrophes while they were still on their land. This is because there are iniquities for which teshuvah alone is not sufficient to provide kaparah; [in some cases the teshuvah must be accompanied] with yisurin (afflictions) that cleanse [the remnants of the iniquities] or with death. Regarding the possibility of saving the people from exile by means of teshuvah, [Yirmiyahu] said: “cleanse your heart from evil so that you may be saved.” Regarding the other punishments which cleanse iniquities it was stated here: “even if you cleanse … [your iniquity is a stain before Me.”

The Radak's answer is that teshuvah is always accepted - completely and fully - but this doesn't mean that the teshuvah will remove all of the punishments or consequences. In some cases, the sinners may need to endure suffering or even death in order to provide full kaparah. Accordingly, it would seem that in Yeshayahu's time, Bnei Yisrael could have done teshuvah and attained complete kaparah, whereas in Yirmiyahu's time, their teshuvah would have successfully "cleansed their hearts from evil," but there would remain a stain which could only be removed through additional suffering.

The Abravanel answers through a subtle reading of the metaphor which dissolves the contradiction:

But according to my own opinion, this question doesn’t apply to our pasuk, for here it did not state: “if you cleanse your heart from evil" - which alludes to true teshuvah - as he said in the other pasuk: “cleanse your heart from evil.” He didn’t say that in this pasuk because the navi didn’t intend to say here that even if they did teshuvah it wouldn’t benefit them. 

Rather, his intent was to say that the people of his generation were wicked in secret, but outwardly portrayed themselves as pious. Regarding this he said to them that even though they do outward acts of piety, Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu knows their secret wicked actions. This is the meaning of: “even if you cleanse yourself with nitre and use lots of soap” – which are things used to whiten clothing. Behold! Despite all of the outward actions that you do with deception and fraud, “your iniquity is a stain before Me” – in other words, your hidden iniquity is a stain and a blemish before Me.

There is a difference between cleansing your clothing (i.e. doing external acts of piety) and cleansing your heart (i.e. doing real teshuvah, thereby changing yourself). The navi here doesn't say "you can't cleanse your heart" but rather "even if you cleanse your clothing, the sin of your heart is a stain before Me." 

Personally, I prefer the Abravanel's interpretation over the Radak's. Time and again we see the Navi rebuking Klal Yisrael for engaging in external forms of teshuvah while retaining their inner corruption. A great example of this can be found in another one of Yeshayahu's prophecies, which we read as the haftarah on the morning of Yom ha'Kippurim:

Cry out vociferously, do not restrain yourself; raise your voice like a shofar - proclaim to My people their willful sins, to the House of Jacob their transgressions. They pretend to seek Me every day and to desire to know My ways, like a nation that acts righteously and has not forsaken the justice of its God; they inquire of Me about the laws of justice, as if they desire the nearness of God, [asking,] "Why did we fast and You did not see? Why did we afflict ourselves, and You did not know?"

Behold! On your fast day you seek out personal gain and you extort all your debts. Because you fast for grievance and strife, to streak [each other] with a wicked fist; you do not fast as befits this day, to make your voice heard above. Can such be a fast I choose, a day when man merely afflicts himself? Can it be merely bowing one's head like a bulrush and spreading sackcloth and ashes?

Surely this is the fast I choose: to break open the shackles of wickedness, to undo the bonds of justice, and to let the oppressed go free, and to annul all perversion. Surely you should break your bread for the hungry, and bring the moaning poor [to your] home; when you see a naked person, clothe him; and do not hide yourself from your kin. 

This provides us with valuable practical insight: having a religious self-image can be an obstacle to teshuvah. The Jews in Yeshayahu's time - and, according to the Abravanel, in Yirmiyahu's time as well - viewed themselves as pious and religious. They brought their korbanos, they observed the moadim (holidays), they made their aliyos l'regel (festival pilgrimages), they davened, and they learned. This is precisely why Hashem's rebuke in our haftarah was calculated to shatter their pious self-image, which which was reinforced with outward actions of piety and the scrupulous observance. Yeshayahu's central message in our haftarah may be summed up as: "Who do you think you are?" He goes on to dismantle every characteristic that the Jews of his time used to prop up their righteous façade:

"You think you are loyal? You are rebels! You think you're special because you're the descendants of the Avos? You are like the citizens of Sedom and Amorah! You think you're righteous because you are scrupulous in the avodah ba'Mikdash (Temple service)? Your avodah is worthless to me. I am sick of your korbanos, your moadim, your aliyah l'regel, and I refuse to listen to your tefilos - all so long as you continue to harbor inward corruption and injustice towards your fellow man. Yerushalayim was once a city of righteousness and faithfulness. Now it is a city of murderers and liars." 

This "assault on self-image" is a harsh tool, but an effective one. My chavrusa gave an apt analogy: if you point out policy problems among the respective parties of conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats, this will be very easy for them to shrug off these critiques - but if you accuse the Republicans of being hell-bent socialists intent on destroying America or if you accuse Democrats of being villainous fascists who oppress minorities, that'll get their attention. And if you are skillful enough in making your case, you might succeed in getting them to question the veracity of their own self-image and identity. 

This is what many of the neviim sought to do in their rebukes of Klal Yisrael. If they merely pointed out specific aveiros (transgressions) and avonos (iniquities), it would be very easy for the Jews to shrug and say: "Sure, I agree that this is a problem, but there's always room for improvement." No real teshuvah would take place; any teshuvah they did would be confined to their outward actions - their clothing, rather than their heart. Instead, the neviim framed their rebukes in terms of identity: "Is that who you think you are? You are exactly the opposite." Once their self-image is shattered, the real teshuvah process can begin.

This is a core objective of the annual ymei taanis (fast days). Rather than wait for a national catastrophe to befall our people and compel us to engage in a national soul-searching, we use the national tzaros (catastrophes) of the past to prompt this type of introspection in the present, at regular intervals. Who are we, as a nation? Who are we supposed to be, and how have we become what we have become? 

This is also why we read haftaros such as this one today. Nevuah has ceased from our nation, as a result of our iniquities, but the contents of nevuah are more relevant than ever. The question is whether we will listen to the words of the navi and ask ourselves: “Who are we, as a nation? Who are we supposed to be, and how have we become what we have become?” 

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Yeshayahu 1:18; this goes for all Abravanel references in this post

[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Teshuvah 4:6

[3] Rabbeinu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Yeshayahu; I've chosen to quote the Abravanel's summary of the Radak's view, since it's a little bit clearer

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Here's a blog post I cranked out just now, on Purim afternoon, in the few hours between minchah and seudah. My apologies for any errors or lack of clarity or incompleteness. Time was of the essence! 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Forest (Zendikar), by Vincent Proce

Human Expectations and Divine Redemption

Yeshayahu 55 as an Introduction to Megilas Esther

When Chazal gave drashos (homiletic expositions) on entire books of Tanach they would customarily begin with a pesichta - an introductory drashah. This pesichta would usually be rooted in a pasuk from another book of Tanach, but would aim to encapsulate a major theme or idea of the book for which the pesichta served as an introduction. For example, a pesichta to Megilas Eichah might be based on a pasuk in Mishlei; a pesichta to Shir ha'Shirim might be based on a pasuk in Tehilim. 

The Gemara in Megilah (15b) presents a collection of pesichtos on Megilas Esther. I would like to briefly explore the drashah of R' Shmuel bar Nachmani. Here is the translation: 

R' Shmuel bar Nachmani began with this pesichta: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise; [and it shall be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off]" (Yeshayahu 55:13). 

"In place of the thorn" - [this means:] in place of the evil Haman, who made himself into object of avodah zarah (idolatrous worship), as it is written: "and upon all thorns and upon all branches" (ibid. 7:19).

"a cypress will rise" - this refers to Mordechai, who was called "the finest of the spices," as it is stated: "And you - take for yourself the finest of the spices, pure myrrh" (Shemos 30:23), and the Targum translates ["pure myrrh"] as "mari dachi" (מרי דכי in Aramaic, which resembles the spelling of Mordechai, מרדכי, in Hebrew).

"and in place of the nettle" - [this means:] in place of the evil Vashti, granddaughter of the evil Nevuchadnetzar, who burnt the resting place of the House of God, as it is written: "His resting place was gold" (Shir ha'Shirim 3:10).

"a myrtle (hadas) will rise" - this refers to the righteous Esther, who was called "Hadassah" (myrtle). 

"and it shall be for Hashem for a name" - this refers to the reading of the Megilah. 

"for an everlasting sign that will not be cut off" - this refers to the days of Purim. 

When my chavrusa and I prepared this drashah we found the particulars to be a bit daunting. Why is Vashti mentioned and not Achashveirosh? What's with comparison between Mordechai and the spices of the ketoress (incense)? How are the pesukim cited here relevant to the points that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani made? Why do the points about Mordechai and Esther focus on their names, whereas the points about Haman and Vashti focus on the wicked deeds associated with them?

Instead of trying to answer these questions, we focused on trying to get the main idea, and attempting to understand how R' Shmuel bar Nachmani intended this pesichta to be an introduction to Megilas Esther.

The Main Idea of Yeshayahu 55

In order to understand the insight that R' intended to shed on Megilas Esther, we must analyze the pasuk from Sefer Yeshayahu in its context. Here is the full passage:

Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it. For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off (Yeshayahu 55:6-13).

This passage can be divided into three sections. I will restate the pesukim according to their divisions, prefaced by titles which summarize their themes:

Section #1 - Hashem's Acceptance of Teshuvah: Seek Hashem when He can be found; call upon Him when He is near. Let the wicked one abandon his path and the iniquitous man his thoughts; let him return to Hashem and He will show him mercy; to our God, for He is abundantly forgiving. For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem. As the heavens are high over the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.

Radak explains that the navi is reassuring the sinner that his teshuvah will be accepted. Hashem is not like a human being. A human being who is wronged might not be willing to forgive the wrongdoer on account of the severity of the offense. Alternatively, he might forgive him outwardly but secretly continue to bear a grudge. Hashem isn't like that. Even if a person is a rasha (evildoer) who has sinned egregiously, he should never give up on doing teshuvah. Hashem always desires and accepts teshuvah, and is abundant in His forgiveness. 

Section #2 - Hashem's Word is Beneficial and Reliable: For just as the rain and snow descend from heaven and will not return there, rather it waters the earth and causes it to produce and sprout, and gives seed to the sower and food to the eater, so shall be My word that emanates from My mouth, it will not return to Me unfulfilled unless it will have accomplished what I desired and brought success where I sent it.

We are familiar with the water cycle: rain and snow fall from heaven, they water the earth, causing vegetation to sprout and food to grow for humans and animals; then the water "returns to the heavens" and the cycle begins anew. We have no trouble accepting the reality of the water cycle, and yet, when it comes to the word of Hashem, we become filled with doubt. We fear that His prophecies will not come true, we doubt that the mitzvos will actually be "for our benefit" (cf. Devarim 10:13), and we are skeptical about His hashgachah (providence). Yeshayahu is pointing out that we are being hypocritical: if we accept the water cycle, which operates in accordance with the word of Hashem, then we should accept all other instances of the word of Hashem as equally reliable. There should be no difference in our reliance on the laws of physics and the laws of metaphysics, since Hashem is the author of both sets of laws.

Section #3 - Hashem's Redemption is Certain: For in gladness shall you go out and in peace shall you arrive, the mountains and hills will break out in glad song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap hands. In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.

According to the Radak, this last part of the nevuah (prophecy) is about the future geulah (redemption) from galus (exile). He explains: "For in gladness you shall go out" of exile, "and in peace you shall arrive" in your Land. The rest of the passage is an allegory for the joy and flourishing that we will experience when we are redeemed. 

Now that we've gone over the pshat of this passage, we need to understand the main idea. What is the relationship between these three points that Yeshayahu is making? 

I believe the answer lies in what is perhaps the most important pasuk in this entire passage: "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways - the word of Hashem." I say that this is the most important pasuk because, according to the Rambam (Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:23), the idea of this pasuk contains the core message of Sefer Iyov - a book of profound wisdom, ascribed to Moshe Rabbeinu, on the subject of Hashem's management of human affairs. Rambam writes: 

How can we think that His management (hanhagah) and supervision (hashgachah) over [His creations] is at all similar to our management of what we manage and supervision over what we supervise? … Rather the term “supervision” (hashgachah) as applied to Him is not the same concept as our supervision, nor is His “management” (hanhagah) of His creations the same concept as our management of what we manage. The two concepts are not even comprised in one and the same definition – as is thought by those who are confused – and there is nothing in common between the two except in name alone. 

In the same way, our actions do not resemble His actions, and the two are not comprised in one and the same definition. Just as natural acts differ from those of craftsmanship, so do the Divine management (hanhagah), supervision (hashgachah), intention (kavanah) in these natural phenomena differ from our management, supervision, and intention of what we manage, supervise, and intend. 

This is the purpose of the entire Book of Iyov as a whole, namely, the establishing of this foundational concept, and the drawing of attention to the inference to be drawn from natural matters, so that you should not err and seek to affirm in your imagination that His knowledge (yediah) is like our knowledge, or that His intention (kavanah), supervision (hashgachah), and management (hanhagah) are like our intention, supervision, and management. 

We humans are prone to mistakenly thinking that Hashem operates in the same way that we do. We project our fallible, human tendencies onto the transcendent Creator. We imagine that His management, His knowledge, His intentions, and His supervision are the same as our own, and that we can understand these things by relying on the same premises as we do when we think about human behavior. This is a major error.

Yeshayahu pointed out three manifestations of this error: (1) we don't do teshuvah because we think of Hashem in the same way that we think of an unforgiving human being, (2) we don't trust that His words are true and will yield benefit, and (3) when we see the "overgrown thorns and nettles" of our state of exile, we can't imagine that there will ever be lush growth there; we don't believe that the joy and geulah will ever replace the sorrow and oppression of galus. 

By drawing allegories from the natural world - an instantiation of "Hashem's ways" that we are  familiar with, and that we do rely upon - Yeshayahu reassures us that we can also rely on Hashem in these three areas with the same degree of trust: we can trust that our teshuvah will be accepted, that the word of Hashem will be fulfilled and will benefit us, and that He will redeem us from exile and cause us to rejoice and flourish in our Land.

Yeshayahu 55 as the Theme of Megilas Esther

Okay, now that we've gone over the main idea of this passage in Yeshayu, the question is: What does this have to do with Megilas Esther? What is the connection that R' Shmuel bar Nachmani wanted us to see, and to adopt as our framework for reading Megilas Esther?

I believe the answer is that the Jews in Shushan might have easily made the same mistake that Yeshayahu warned about, namely, equating Hashem's ways with our ways. 

Think about what it would be like as a Jew in Shushan. Haman, second-in-command to the king, decreed a total genocide on the entire Jewish population. The situation seemed utterly hopeless. It would have been very easy for the Jews to give up hope - to doubt or deny all of the promises made by countless neviim that Hashem would ultimately deliver His people from their enemies and bring them back to their Land. They might think that even if they did teshuvah and turned to Hashem in tefilah, He would neither forgive them nor listen to them. They might think that He had abandoned His people, despite his numerous promises.

But they didn't make that mistake. Bnei Yisrael, led by Esther and Mordechai, remained true to the word of Hashem. They fasted, they davened, and they did teshuvah. They relied on the chochmah that they had acquired from Torah and did everything in their power to bring about salvation. They trusted that Hashem would save them, and they acted on that trust. 

And what was the result? V'nahafoch hu - a complete reversal of our expectations. The "thorn" of Haman was replaced by the "cypress" of Mordechai, and the "nettle" of Vashti with the "myrtle" of Esther. Instead of the Jewish people being annihilated by their enemies forever, the opposite happened: their enemies' lives were cut short, the Jews were saved, and their salvation was memorialized forever in the institution of Megilah and the days of Purim. 

Mordechai and Esther established Purim and its mitzvos so that Klal Yisrael would always have an example of how to respond to an existential threat. "In each and every generation they stand against us, to destroy us" (Haggadah shel Pesach). If we, like the audience of Yeshayahu 55, view Hashem's management of the world the same way that we view human management, then we will be prone to despair and to reliance on futile plans that are built upon human delusions, and we will fail. But if we take Yeshayahu's message to heart, that "My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways," and we trust in Hashem, rely on His word, and act accordingly - as did the Jews of Shushan - then "Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu [will] save us from their hand." 

No matter how dire the situation may seem from a human standpoint, Hashem is not bound by human conventions, nor is He confined to our limited understanding of how He will bring about redemption, "For My thoughts are not your thoughts and your ways are not My ways." And we need look no further than Megilas Esther for a real-world example of how all of our expectations were completely reversed: "In place of the thorn, a cypress will rise; and in place of the nettle, a myrtle will rise. This will be for Hashem for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off." 

As we celebrate Purim, we should take these ideas to heart so that if (God forbid) we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future, we will be able to have trust in the word of Hashem, Whose ways transcend human understanding.