📋 Shiur Overview
The Consolation in Contemplating Reality – Shabbat Nachamu
Introduction: How to Continue After the Exile of the Shechina
Erev Shabbat Va’etchanan, Shabbat Nachamu. In recent shiurim we have dealt with the subject of the Three Weeks according to the matters of the days, and now I stand in doubt that I don’t know how to resolve ever: How does one continue onward after we have spoken about the exile of the Shechina, about the true state, about reality as it is. Three full weeks dealing with this, and Tisha B’Av is the climax of the matter. And it always seems to me, truly, that it is exceedingly difficult to continue onward from here, and about this very thing one must learn and understand.
And we have already spoken about this, and said that it is impossible to truly speak about the exile of the Shechina as long as one does not understand the joy that lies within it. For joy means nothing other than to be alive, simply to be living. A dead person does not mourn at all, for the mourners are the living, whereas the dead do not experience pain and are not in mourning, for they are not alive. The mourners are the living, and therefore one must already within the mourning itself introduce abundant joy, abundant vitality, abundant light — for if not, there is no life here at all.
And all this is what opens our eyes to see the state of the Shechina in truth. As the Shechina said to Maran the Beit Yosef, as we spoke in previous shiurim, in that revelation where she said to him “If you only knew” — if you only knew how great the pain I have. In other words: if a person could look with open eyes at reality, without all those coverings of words of encouragement, without all those words of foolishness and vanity — he could not bear it, he would find no meaning, there would be no meaning in life. Thus it is written in the revelation of the Shechina to Maran the Beit Yosef — I don’t remember the exact language — and they received this as something important and very central, as a central revelation of what it means to touch and grasp the pain of the world, the pain of the Shechina.
The Order of the Sages: Living Within the Destruction
And thus is indeed the truth. If we were worthy, as Rabbi Yochanan said, if we truly understood, we could not eat meat or drink wine, not marry or engage in procreation, and not engage in settling the world all year. But what then? If so, there would be no world at all, and there would be no one for the Holy One, Blessed be He, to redeem. Therefore the Sages established an order, as is their way in everything to establish an aspect of the middle path: all year we marry, but at the time of the wedding we remember and say “If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget” (Psalms 137), and we omit one beautiful thing from the wedding, one ornament, and the like. A person builds a house, and leaves in it a remembrance of the destruction.
In other words: all this stems from the fact that it is truly impossible to live within the destruction, and one must understand this well. And this is what I seek to express — and surely it has already been said in many ways — but this is the first point, the first derasha of Shabbat Nachamu: the matter is truly exceedingly difficult.
Hester Panim of Hester
We live complete lives within a certain concealment, which can be called hester panim of hester. For if a person truly grasped the reality of the world — from the aspect of evil in it, from the aspect of deficiency in it, not from the aspect of good that will be revealed but from the aspect of deficiency — from the aspect of what is called the exile of the Shechina, from the aspect of what one should contemplate in Tikkun Chatzot every night; for the matter does not cease on Tisha B’Av, and when we begin the seven of consolation we do not stop saying Tikkun Chatzot, in whatever way it means, as we learned — if a person truly looked at this, he could not live, and would be in complete depression. And this is not mere rhetoric: one who studies the kinot can become completely depressed from them.
The Loneliness of the Shechina in Megillat Eicha
If so, but what then, what is the solution? I contemplated this in my study of Megillat Eicha, and I say thus: The prophet Yirmiyahu laments over the Shechina, laments over the city of Zion and Jerusalem. And the main word — and though this is not a shiur on Eicha — almost the entire matter lies in the first word, in the first verse: “How does she sit alone” (Eicha 1:1). The Shechina sits alone — and we learn that she is alone from her husband and alone from her children, she has no companions, she has no union, she is alone, she is lonely. And in what is her loneliness? One of the things said there is that all her friends have betrayed her — “All her friends have betrayed her” (Eicha 1:2).
And when we reach the second chapter, the prophet begins to speak about how it is impossible even to establish something comparable to her: “What shall I testify for you, what shall I liken to you” (Eicha 2:13). These verses are what the Zohar became very passionate about in the introductions to the Zohar, for the entire Zohar is in a certain sense an answer to Megillat Eicha, and one must remember this. “What shall I testify for you, what shall I liken to you, O daughter of Jerusalem, what shall I compare to you and comfort you, O virgin daughter of Zion, for your breach is as great as the sea, who can heal you” (Eicha 2:13). This is the verse upon which the Zohar is built, on that “who can heal you,” how to find the “can heal you.”
The Mourner Who Is Alone
And the meaning of the matter: Generally, just as a person sitting shiva, a person in mourning — he is alone. Every mourner is alone. “A mourner has no mouth,” he cannot speak, cannot express what he feels. Many people have described this: they were in mourning, some tragedy occurred, and they go outside, and the world continues as usual, the entire world continues onward. What does this mean? That very loneliness causes a person to feel bad, to feel as if he is the only one, as if he is lost, as if he is the only one to whom death happens, to whom tragedy occurred, and the entire world continues onward. And a person says to him: Don’t worry, you are not so important in your own eyes — you too will die, and on their way out from your shiva people will think only about the traffic on the way home, and will not think about you at all. And this is a decree upon every person, and now I die in my heart.
The Consolation: You Are Not Alone
And this is the loneliness. And for this there is consolation: when we come to comfort a mourner, one of the main things is — there is no need for saying Torah thoughts and raising the question and the answer why such and such. The main thing is, that in coming to comfort we show the mourner that he is not alone. This is the order of the world, the order of Judaism, as we say “among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem” — you are not the first mourner and you are not the last mourner, there is an order, and we are with you. We place the matter within a context, and in this there is a certain consolation, as they say “the trouble of many is half a consolation.”
And about this the prophet says, and thus Rashi explained in Eicha, “What shall I testify for you, what shall I liken to you” — what shall I compare to you and comfort you, for I have nothing to establish comparable to your trouble. If I had another, if I could say: Look, such and such city also experienced a similar matter — for then it would be possible to live with it, for it is part of reality, part of the world. And when a person understands that something is part of the world, he is calmed, but here the matter does not exist. “What shall I liken to you” — if so, “for your breach is as great as the sea,” I have no consolation, no words of comfort I can give you, for your breach is greater than all other cities, greater than all other troubles, and in this too you are alone. You have no one even with whom to lament, besides that they do not want to lament over you; and if they do lament, they laugh and their mockery is on their lips. Laughter over all my people — all the other people laugh, saying: Ha, I knew it, “sitting alone.” They laugh, but they do not sympathize, and they cannot truly participate in the pain, and they cannot participate, for they do not have that type of problem.
The Role of a Prophet: Testifying, Likening, Comparing, Healing
And when the prophet says this, seemingly a wonderful matter arises in the next verse. For he is a prophet, and Yirmiyahu was a prophet, and Yirmiyahu wrote Megillat Eicha, as the Midrash says and as the Sages say. And the role of a prophet, of a true prophet, is this: a true prophet is a person who can lift reality, lift the pain of the Shechina, lift the state of the Shechina to the gate, to joy. Whatever the reality may be — he is capable of lifting it.
And indeed, when it says “What shall I testify for you, what shall I liken to you,” a question immediately arises: What does “What shall I testify for you” mean? Flesh and blood, a person speaking with human intellect, must live with certain coverings, with certain garments, for he cannot stand directly facing the truth. Only the Holy One, Blessed be He, “the eyes of Hashem your God,” He can look directly at reality; whereas a person must see himself within certain garments, within certain concepts, he places everything within an action, so that he can lift it.
And behold, one of the ways to comfort a person is to establish something comparable to his trouble, and in this the prophet said “What shall I compare to you and comfort you” — I have nothing. And the question arises: But he is a prophet. What then is the role of a prophet if not to express things that no one else can express? What is the role of a prophet if not to say things that are truly in the category of “who can compare to him”? “Who can compare to you” — this is exactly the language we say in Nishmat, and I believe it is a piyyut that comes after Nishmat: “Who can liken to you, who can compare to you, who can arrange for you.” Whereas he says “What shall I liken to you, what shall I compare to you” — and is not “who can liken to him” his entire role. What is a Jew? A prophet is a person connected to the Shechina, connected to those types of things that are “who can liken to them and who can compare to them.” And if so, what is his claim — “What shall I testify for you, what shall I liken to you, what shall I compare to you, who can heal you”? These are the four verbs in the verse.
The Four Verbs in the Verse
To testify, to liken, to compare, to heal — all these go together, and this is the role of the prophet. His role is to find how to testify: “I have testified against you today” (Devarim 30:19) — this was the role of the first prophet, Moshe Rabbeinu, and also Yeshayahu the prophet. They testify to Israel the reality, “I have testified against you today the heavens and the earth” (Devarim 30:19) — I am showing the reality. I compare, I speak about those things that have no comparison, that truly have no comparison — and yet it is possible to express them. For this is the role of words of Torah, of the alef-bet of Torah — to give words to this.
And what is to liken? “And by the hand of the prophets I will liken” (Hoshea 12:11). “Great is the power of the prophets who liken the form to its Creator” (Bereishit Rabbah 27). The greatness of the prophets is that they are capable of likening things that cannot be likened. And how? Because for this he is a prophet, this is his role. And this is “who can heal you” — and about this it says “For I am Hashem your healer” (Shemot 15:26). This was one of the first things the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel when they left Egypt: “For I am Hashem your healer” — I can heal reality, I can heal. “And he healed the altar of Hashem that was broken down” (Melachim I 18:30) — I can heal reality from looking at it with clarity. He testifies, and he compares, and he likens, and he comforts, and he heals. This is the matter. And he says “I cannot” — and this is truly a question, for this is his role.
The False Prophets: Vanity and Foolishness
About this Yirmiyahu says the next verse, and laments and says: I will answer you — behold your prophets, your prophets, and his intention here is to the false prophets that we learn about in the book of Yirmiyahu. And from here we see that it is his book, for he struggled and fought with the false prophets, like Chananya ben Azur and his colleagues, who testified and said that the vessels of Hashem are returning from Babylonia, and made complete signs, signs and wonders, and gave encouragement to the world not to be alarmed, that everything will return to its repair, that everything will be good. And Yirmiyahu the prophet says: Do you grasp? Your prophets betray their role of being prophets.
“Your prophets have seen for you vanity and foolishness, and they have not revealed your iniquity to bring back your captivity, and they have seen for you burdens of vanity and banishments” (Eicha 2:14). Your prophets, those whose role is to testify and liken and compare and comfort and heal, said instead “vanity.” “Vanity” means falsehood, nothing, garbage, not truth. “And foolishness” means things without taste, like “a palace foolish without a king,” things without taste, like something without salt that is called foolish.
To Reveal Your Iniquity
And they did not reveal your iniquity, as they said in the Gemara “Heaven shall reveal his iniquity and earth shall rise up against him” (Iyov 20:27). The first role of a prophet, the first role of comprehension, is to reveal the iniquity, to be clear with it. As they said “the early ones whose iniquity was revealed, their end was revealed” (Yoma 9). And though in Yoma it is said, I think there is in it a hint about the Second Temple, for the Sages said that the breach we have — which they call baseless hatred — is in the category of “the later ones whose iniquity was not revealed and their end was not revealed.” We do not know at all what our problem is. And that we do not know does not mean that we truly do not know — one can study the Gemara and see that it is written “because of baseless hatred” and the like — but that we do not grasp it, we do not have the grip, we do not have the strength, we do not have a prophet. And this is the role, this is the meaning of a prophet.
And this is the meaning of the matter that when we say we have no prophet: we have no one capable of looking at reality with eyes and saying what it is. We have all kinds of people who say that if they reveal the iniquities, “to bring back your captivity,” it is possible to return in teshuva, it is possible to repair the captivity, the wildness, the audacity, the improper conduct; and if not — the prophet pushes away, and it is “burdens of vanity and banishments,” false words and words that push away from the path. Instead of bringing back the ways, “to bring back your captivity,” the words of prophecy push the person away from the path.
What Is “Foolish”? Yirmiyahu’s Deep Critique
I contemplated thus: What is “burdens of vanity”? All the languages I understand. “Banishments” — I understand what it is. “Vanity” — falsehood, or like “a false ephah,” not good. But what is “foolish”? What is its matter here? I understand that it is a rhetorical expression — things without taste. But what does things without taste mean? What is the matter of lack of taste here?
And I contemplated that there is here a deep critique of Yirmiyahu the prophet on the false prophets, and he teaches us what is the way to be a true prophet — for then it will be fulfilled “and you shall be as My mouth” (Yirmiyahu 15:19), and then there will be “who can heal you,” as the Zohar says about “who” — that one who stands on the secret called “who,” which is Bina. This is “who can heal you,” as it says “As one whom his mother comforts, so will I comfort you, and in Jerusalem you shall be comforted” (Yeshayahu 66:13).
Prophets and Bina
And what does this mean? Yirmiyahu the prophet, and prophets in general, their matter is in Bina; a prophet is one who speaks with the “who.” And the meaning is thus: We see all those false prophets, prophets of “only the vision of their heart” (Yirmiyahu 23). One should not blame people — reality is what causes this — but these are those people who for everything have a good word, for every tragedy, for every problem, they have some cliché, they have something: Well, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will help, everything will be good.
Encouragement as Escape from Participating in Pain
I spoke recently with someone, for many times when a person comes to his friend with a trouble he has, the friend gives him encouragement. This is the way of the world: they give encouragement, they say “don’t worry, it will be good.” And when one delves into the matter one sees that the reason he gives it many times is not because he wants to strengthen his friend and help him. For it is not at all clear that the way to help another is to strengthen him and tell him everything will be good; it may be that the way is the opposite — to awaken him and show him what he needs, “to reveal your iniquity,” to show him what the problem is — and “your iniquity” does not necessarily mean his sin — and what can be done, what needs to be done. Not always is there what to do, for he has an illness or another matter, but one needs to know what can be done; and not always is this the correct way.
Many times there are other things. Many times it is required that you do something, and many times that encouragement they say is nothing but the discomfort of the encourager. That is: when a person comes to me with trouble, he has as it were a claim on me. First, there is a problem in the world, and what is to be done with it? Must I do something? Must I help you? Someone wronged you — do you think I should now go and call that person, arouse against him, do something to him? Ha, you know what? The person gives him — tells him faith, tells him encouragement. Tells him the same thing they tell everyone, the same refrain: Ha, the Holy One, Blessed be He, helps with everything, “whatever the Merciful One does is for the good” (Berachot 60), know that “I am not a person in the world at all,” and all kinds of such refrains.
And he does not do this because he wants to help another, but does it because he does not want to be guilty, does not want to be in that uncomfortable situation where there is a problem that perhaps something needs to be done with it, and therefore he pushes him away with this. And in general, I am not only speaking about it obligating him to do something — the very thing is not comfortable for him. People do not like to feel bad, and this is right and natural; and even in his friend’s trouble he does not want to feel bad. Therefore he says encouragement so that he will not have to participate in his friend’s pain. So the encouragement is a way how not to participate in another’s pain. I am not saying there is no need to know when to encourage and when it is needed, but there is such a distinction here.
The Tasteless Cliché
Yirmiyahu the prophet was certainly one of the Jews who had that distinction, and claimed that besides being vanity, it is also foolish — it has no taste. And when one studies all those writings of encouragement, all those clichés of encouragement, the same thing again and again. The same story the maggid tells every week, that never leaves his mouth. There is no taste in it — not only is it false, but there is no taste in it. One who cries — this is a basic critique on one who says things that are again and again the same thing, a cliché. “Cliché” — perhaps there is no Hebrew word for this, perhaps they will yet teach the word — means something tasteless, like bread without salt that has no taste.
And when is there taste? There are those who think that if so one needs to be an artist, a master of homiletics, and he needs each time to turn the intention, to say each time some wisdom, some supreme wisdom, and then there is taste. True, there is in this a bit more taste than one who always says the same cliché again and again and even he himself does not believe in it. But even this can become tasteless, for they grasp the trick — they grasp how he says each time the opposite. Don’t think — what am I getting at? — don’t think that Shabbat Chazon is the lowest Shabbat of the year, no, it is the highest Shabbat of the year. Don’t think that Shabbat Nachamu is a good Shabbat — you know what, I’ll say the opposite, I’ll give a discourse that Shabbat Nachamu will be sad. Why? Because last week we were supposed to be happy, and this week we’ll be sad. Perhaps exactly the opposite? I don’t know. And also the regular way is holy. So both are interesting.
Truth as the Source of Interest
What is an interesting thing? What is something that is not foolish? It is the opposite of foolish — salted, words of taste. And one must contemplate this, and I seek to contemplate this very much, for this is something that concerns me as well. Everyone seeks to hear the Rebbe, to hear the darshan, to hear the maggid shiur who says things of taste, who says chiddushim. Anyone who is a bit wise, a bit mature, does not seek to repeat the same thing — though perhaps this too is needed — but seeks to hear some chiddush.
Now a question arises: How does one find chiddushim? How does one find true things that have taste? From where does one take words of taste? Many times it seems to a person that words of taste need to be the opposite — if the regular Rav says thus, the Rav will say the opposite; or not exactly thus, but he will bring three opinions and make from them some Torah. And what will be when one needs nevertheless to say encouragement like the cliché says? For then he is lost, for then he does it but feels nothing, and there is no taste in it either — certainly there is no taste, doubly there is no taste, and even he himself does not believe in it.
Or in general, as they say, because he needs chiddushim he says crooked things, for the straight things are no longer a chiddush, the straight things everyone already knows. And therefore, in order to innovate, in order to feel some taste, one needs to make a crooked interpretation. But even in this there is no logic — it cannot be that we will need to make a crooked interpretation. And we return to the claim: Suppose the false prophet said something of taste and made a beautiful metaphor, it would be good. But the problem is that it is false, is it not? And what connection is there in it being “vanity and foolishness” — the lack of taste is one problem and the lack of truth another problem?
The Gemara: No Two Prophets Prophesy in the Same Style
And behold the Gemara says: How did Yirmiyahu the prophet truly know? For Tzidkiyahu and Chananya ben Azur and one hundred and fifty prophets there were, and all of them said a prophecy opposite to Yirmiyahu’s prophecy. The Gemara says in Sanhedrin — a wonderful Gemara that needs to be explained, a terrible Gemara — how did Yirmiyahu know that he was speaking truth and they were speaking falsehood? Perhaps they were speaking truth?
The Gemara says thus: He saw one hundred and fifty prophets saying the same prophecy, exactly in the same language. Yirmiyahu said: I have a tradition — and one must study from where the tradition came, and I don’t remember the exact language of the Gemara — “one subject rises for several prophets” (Sanhedrin 89). “Subject” means one topic. One topic many prophets can say, and many times they will say it in the same formulation, and even in the same word and the same metaphor we sometimes see — this is the Gemara’s intention — except that each one places it within his course, within his style, within his view of what there is. “And no two prophets prophesy in the same style” (Sanhedrin 89). Two prophets do not prophesy in the same style. As if there is here a tradition: when the Holy One, Blessed be He, sends prophecy to a person, He does not send it in the same language to two people.
And if two people, two prophets, say exactly the same verse — this is already a sign that he is a false prophet. And if a person studies the prophets, sometimes he finds the same verse? One can say that this is when one transmits his friend’s words — it is permitted to repeat his friend’s prophecy, permitted to say after him, for it may be that it is the same truth, and if it is a good thing there is no need to innovate innovations. But its meaning is that he places it within his world, within his interpretation.
And this Yirmiyahu knew. He saw that if everyone says in one style, this is a false prophet. And what does this mean? Thus I learn in this: We see here clearly that that topic I am saying — has no taste. Has no taste. For when everyone says the same Torah, there is no taste in it. “No two prophets prophesy in the same style.”
Truth Is What Is Interesting
But what then, you will say, what does it mean — everyone needs to be original, everyone needs to say some new metaphor? And what if I have no other metaphor, but I say the same mazal tov that everyone says? No — the problem is that now I do not know, and not only do I not know, but it is not truth. That is: the very fact that you say something tasteless is a sign that it is not truth.
Or in other words: if a person seeks the truth, let him know thus — not only does he seek the truth, but if a person seeks something that has taste, let him know that there is no need to seek taste, but one only needs to seek the truth. At that moment when he seeks reality, when he is straight, when he seeks what the facts truly are — automatically it will be interesting. Why? For the interest does not come from people, and does not come also from the fact that once I thought thus and today I think differently — this thing is interesting perhaps for small children. The interest comes from the fact that what I say, what the true Amora, true Rav, says — is the truth. It fits with everything.
As they say “truth fits itself on all its sides.” He says something true, and finds for it thousands of proofs. Why? For truth is something that is reality, and it fits. He goes out to the street and sees it. He learns in this book, learns a Chassidic book, learns a Lithuanian book, learns any book — insofar as the books came to express the truth, he sees it everywhere. And when he says falsehood, he finds many questions, for falsehood is an inverted thing; but the Rebbe says wisdom. And when one learns something true — and truly I mean anything that is clearer, that brings the person closer to God, that is brings the person closer to what reality is — for then it is exceedingly interesting.
Why People Are Boring
In other words: one who wants to be interesting, to innovate an interesting chiddush — most people are not capable of this not because they are boring and not because they imitate others, but most people are not capable because they cover reality with vanity and foolishness. “They have seen for you vanity and foolishness,” they cover — this is Shabbat Chazon. He covers the way with a bundle of metaphors that are “two prophets prophesy in the same style,” everyone says the same thing. It is simply clear that he is not looking at reality directly. And at that moment when you look at reality directly — certainly it may be that you will say almost the same verse as your friend, but in one letter it will be different, for you see it a bit differently. And do not be ashamed, say exactly thus — it will be interesting. But from fear of another, fear to say by yourself, fear to look at the world, fear to look at God as He is — certainly you will be vanity and foolishness, for vanity and foolishness go together.
So vanity and foolishness are not two separate things. What is a cliché — is because he is not looking at truth. And the source of interest is not falsehood, but the source of interest is truth. Reality is rich enough, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does every day “new every morning, great is Your faithfulness” (Eicha 3:23), does every day new things, chiddushim upon chiddushim. There is no lack at all of chiddush every day for one who looks at what there is of the new in it. And that we have no chiddush, that we say every week the same thing — is because we are afraid to look at reality. Because we do not ultimately look at reality, we look at what was said yesterday. The prophet looks at what the other prophet said, at the other table — certainly then he says falsehood, then there is a spirit of falsehood in the mouth of every prophet, for everyone says the same falsehood, for he is not looking himself at reality but at what was already said. And even if there is in it a point of truth, it is still falsehood, for if he looked at truth he would see a bit differently.
Entering the Ruin
And this is a simple introduction to what I began to speak. Now we return to what we spoke. It comes out thus: The Shechina said to the Beit Yosef, and she says to everyone truly, to everyone who hears the bat kol that moans like a dove — sometimes one must enter a ruin. It is forbidden to enter a ruin, this is the hint in the Gemara. It is forbidden to enter a ruin. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi met Eliyahu the prophet, and told him that he entered a ruin to pray, as it is written in tractate Berachot; and Eliyahu told him that it is forbidden to enter a ruin, for several reasons a Jew should not enter a ruin. This is not the way, a person’s place is not in a ruin.
And what does it mean to enter a ruin? The matter is already hinted in many books. There is a place called destruction — the destruction of the Temple, “one ruin of the ruins of Jerusalem.” A person cannot live in a ruin. A ruin is not a place. A ruin is a place where “satyrs and demons,” there walk demons and spirits, and from sadness nothing is built. Even from sadness of destruction nothing is built. From the ruin nothing is built. And from where does the builder of the ruins of Jerusalem build? From making a wedding, from “all joy” — joy and joy and groom and bride. In joy it is possible to build something, whereas from the ruin it is not possible to build. It is forbidden to enter destruction.
Except that it happened that the Jew has nowhere to pray — and this is the secret. It happened that the Jew has nowhere to pray, and sometimes he is forced to enter even the ruin. This is the meaning of the three weeks: that he has not, and is forced sometimes to enter even the ruin. Except that they already established an order. So he enters the ruin, and the ruin is very real, and there he heard a bat kol moaning like a dove, a bat kol that is a voice from heaven. And where is the “voice from heaven”? Why don’t they hear it in the settlement? Because the settlement is a well-covered place, full of vanity and foolishness, a community of vanity and foolishness. There is a beit midrash there, and on it a big sign, and there come the prophets of “they have seen for you vanity and foolishness.” And from lack of choice they live there. And if he enters the ruin, he hears there how great the troubles are, how terrible the matter is. Well, and if the matter is terrible, the question arises: If so, how does he continue onward? What will he do now?
Consolation Is Not a Bluff — It Is More Truth
And here there is an
Consolation Is Not a Bluff — It Is More Truth
And here there is an additional chiddush that must be understood well and heard well: that there is not even one word of falsehood in the entire matter of consolations, there is not even one word of encouragement in this. If a person thinks that the seven of consolation are something where indeed we are in exile, but we are going to act as if we are not — “Give strong drink to the perishing” (Mishlei 31:6), we get drunk and pretend as if we are not — this is not consolation at all, this is a bluff. And what kind of consolation is this? Consolation means to live in falsehood? If the truth is that the Shechina is in exile, and despite all this we find all kinds of Torah thoughts that contradict truth, that contradict basic reality — one who studies the newspaper knows this; and one who does not study the newspaper will think everything is fine. It cannot be, such a thing cannot be at all.
But what then? But the meaning is thus: It is not correct that what we say is only half the story. It is not correct that if a person looks at the truth in its truth he will not be convinced, and will say “My brothers, you comfort me with vanity” — I am not seduced by all those Torah thoughts, I seek to look at reality, and I see that the situation is sunk deep in the ground. It is not correct that he will remain there. Indeed true, there is in this very much truth, and one must give time to this part, one must look at it and not fear it. But if he truly remains there — this is the very thing. Not like Rabbi Akiva who laughed, who made a calculation — I don’t know how to learn this — that if a person truly remains there, if he truly looks there, he will see that there are more things, there are more things.
Realism Is Not Pessimism
What does this mean, and how can one say this in the simplest way? One must be realistic. We say one must be realistic. And there is a tendency, an interesting tendency, a funny tendency in the world, that makes a mistaken identification of realism with pessimism. Very interesting. As someone said: a pessimist is one who sees the glass half empty, and an optimist is one who sees the glass half full. And what is reality? One who says the glass is half empty and half full. Except that many times one who considers himself a realist says the part. Why? Because it is true that many of the lost sinners seek even half a glass when it does not exist: the glass is a third full, and he says it is half full. Why do you say it is a third full? What, isn’t it enough? And it may be even more than this, and it may be even that it is so full to above its top.
And a realist is one who says: It is possible to fill it. You are very focused on what you see — very good. But realism does not mean to see only exactly what there is now. For tomorrow it may be different. It can be — does not mean it will be, but it can be. There is very much, and when one delves into the matter one sees, and it is possible — we have already spoken about this point in other ways in previous shiurim and this is not its place. It is possible to look at reality. There is almost — except as long as a person is alive; and if a person is dead, one must know what happens there in the upper world, and I don’t know, there will be other goods and other evils. But as long as a person is alive, the troubled optimist always finds some good point. He does not intend to lie ever; and if he says falsehood, certainly this is a spirit of falsehood and one must be careful.
On What to Focus
And sometimes one must — and I say, this is not only a matter of what is truth, but many times also a matter of on what to focus. It is very important to remember: the question of truth and falsehood is not always the only question. There is a question of intention — we spoke about this on the night of Tisha B’Av — a question of on what to focus. And it is true that there are mitzvot, there is an order, where the focus itself is what is required. One who says he seeks the truth — we spoke about this last week in shiur and this is not its place — one who says he seeks the truth, this is never enough, for one also needs to know on what to focus. Besides what we spoke that one needs to know in what to trust, one also needs to know on what to focus.
Suppose this is the truth, and the truth is that the entire world is truth. That all that exists, “all that Hashem made,” all this is truth. And on what exactly do I focus? This requires a new responsibility, new knowledge, new intellect that says: this is truth, and this too is truth. And now a person contemplates this, and now a person contemplates this. And how does one know on what to contemplate? Here truly enters the matter of what they call pessimism, optimism, and all those types of character traits. This is already a matter of character traits, not a matter of intellect, not a matter of knowledge, but a matter of character traits.
In Truth There Is More Good Than Evil
And what I am explaining here is that there is here truth. That is: if a person says — I don’t want to know any stories, I don’t want to believe in any Torah thoughts, I only want to look at reality — even he will see that many times it can even be. And I believe this was the contemplation of Yeshayahu the prophet in what he wrote. It is customary among us to say seven consolations, and only three punishments and seven consolations; and there are many more, and one can always learn that because a person is so broken he needs so very much encouragement, perhaps and perhaps he will do something. But this too is true, and this returns to very deep contemplations that exist in the question of why there is good and evil in the world, why there is evil — which is also true, that if a person delves he will see that there is always more, or almost always there is more truth, more good than evil.
The Parable of Technology
And if a person delves — I must say this — I will ask to say the parable, and I believe it is true what I am saying now, and if someone tells me a distinction… It is customary to lament. We said that everything can be said in the way of lamentation. It is customary to lament about — there is technology, there is internet, confuses people’s minds, takes away calm, takes away settled mind, introduces to people all kinds of forbidden thoughts, all kinds of forbidden actions, brings close all kinds of, makes all kinds of mixture of good and evil. Suppose everything is true. Even suppose everything is true — I am not speaking now. One can say, if he is positive, that he is pro-technology, and will find merit for it, and will be a Jew who says he is satisfied and says everything is only vessels; and they have already spoken about this extensively in other places. Another will say: You are not realistic. Look at reality, and you will see — look how many people’s minds are confused, how many people are bewildered, how many people transgress because of it.
Good, you know what? I admit about all reality. I already sat with you on Tisha B’Av, and lamented over all the transgressions in the world, over all the sins in the world, over all the evil in the world, over all the destructions in the world, endlessly without end. We look at this like “the arm of my right hand” of the Beit Yosef, we look at all reality. I am capable of seeing the destruction before it was. He saw the entire thing with clarity, without any doubts, without any evasion, without any vanity and foolishness.
Now I say to you: Now come with me, and admit about the truth. If you want me to admit about the truth, to look at the truth — now come with me and tell me how many good things there are in this, how much good. And the truth is: just as we have difficulty, just as there is vanity and foolishness, just as it is hard for a person to bear the evil, just as it is hard for a person to bear how confused the situation is in many of the things that can be — so it is hard perhaps, and perhaps even harder, I don’t know, at least as hard as it, for a person to bear how good things are.
For a person only needs to get up in the morning and see what world he lives in: he can touch a button, and it lights by itself, and there is light. There was here an entire matter, “You shall not kindle fire in all your dwellings on the Shabbat day” (Shemot 35:3), making a bit of fire was an entire matter — thirty-nine labors, laws of Shabbat. One who knows reality, history, knows this is not a simple thing to light at night. It is a difficult thing, costs dearly; and for half a pruta the electricity costs an entire night.
And he continues in the morning, and seeks to know something, and presses a button, and it brings him immediately exactly the Gemara, exactly the source, exactly all the science, everything he seeks to know in the world in one moment. I don’t believe — just as that person claims about me that I am imagining, that I don’t understand how there is evil in the internet and think it is a good thing — I don’t believe that one who admits about the truth, who seeks to be a prophet and look at reality, has at all the tools, at all the expressions of joy, the expressions of consolation that can be said about such a thing.
The Parable of Air Conditioning
There are air conditioners. It cannot be — thousands of years people suffered, and I am not entering into what was during thousands of years, but a person can suffer today, people suffer in whom there is no point in this, they suffer from the heat. An entire summer is truly trouble, as we learned. The summer is a time of troubles, “and bitter destruction” (Devarim 32:24) — I did not teach this here publicly, they taught it in other places. It is truly trouble, and they repair all that kelipah. They knew that this is the main thing, I wrote about this — I have not yet sent it ever, perhaps for next year — that the kelipah of the Three Weeks, the difficulty, is very connected to heat. “Bitter destruction” its matter is in heat. One can speak about this another time. There is in this a spiritual kelipah and a physical kelipah, and all the matters are truly connected to heat. This is the meaning of “bitter destruction” in the verse, and about this we learn that in the Three Weeks it exists, and about this the destruction was not destroyed at that time, because it was very hot. That is: the heat is truly a problem.
And thank God they touched almost on that problem: they press a small button, and generally when the air conditioner works, they press one button and already there is no heat. This is truly — I don’t think one needs to make a complete thanksgiving meal about this. They make meals on Shabbat Nachamu and on the fifteenth of Av — I believe one should establish a holiday for technology, for air conditioning. You know what — one thing at a time, one holiday a year in honor of the fact that there is air conditioning. And imagine if it were part of a holiday — I am not speaking in Torah, I am not speaking in physicality — you know what difference there is between settled mind to learn in a place that has air conditioning and a place that does not? It is a real difference, one can try and see. Even the greatest tzaddik who shook off everything he knows from this world — makes air conditioning, and learns better, and prays better, and everything is better. One should make a special holiday in honor of this. On the fifteenth of Av they will make a special holiday to dance in honor of the fact that there is air conditioning, and there are telephones, and there is electricity, and there is internet. All these are wonderful things — I am not speaking, I am not dismissing any problem, suppose for all of Tisha B’Av.
Three Punishments and Seven Consolations: The Calculation
Now let us calculate a bit, and when we begin to calculate we see that in reality, if there are three punishments — there are seven consolations. It must be so, for that reality is greater than evil means only that evil is not reality, and that everything exists. Automatically, in almost every difficult situation that is, in almost every individual situation — except a person who says “better my death than my life,” for then he will not say this — but as long as he does not say this, there is more good than evil, there is more, and the good is so good, so deep, and we have no tools to measure it, and we have no tools.
Joy of Mitzvah and the Arizal
The Arizal said that he attained all his levels through joy of mitzvah. And do you know what joy of mitzvah means? Joy of mitzvah means that the Arizal never said it is a weak generation. This is the meaning. For when a person says “Ha, we do such mitzvot,” he will have no mitzvot at all. And as they say, they say to him from heaven: Do you so belittle your mitzvot? You belittle. But if you say: Oh, we are capable today of doing more mitzvot than anyone was capable of doing, and we do the best, and are capable of learning Torah — there is no question in the world that we are capable today to learn the Torah, and to understand God, and to understand reality, and to understand the Torah of the Holy One, Blessed be He, with all the tools there are, with all the people there are. One can pick up a telephone and call whomever one wants, of whatever type one wants, and ask via artificial intelligence or directly, there is no difference. One can learn the Torah more than any early one, any late one, any tzaddik, anyone who was capable — automatically there are better interpretations.
And should a person feel bad that he says a better interpretation than Rashi on a verse? Rashi would be happy. He seemingly told his grandson that he is happy, and we are capable of being a thousand times better than the Rashbam was capable of dreaming. And it cannot be — and certainly there is still exile, and certainly there are still thousands of decrees and troubles and illnesses and stories, and they have already spoken about this, and we deny nothing.
Yeshayahu the Prophet Was Not a Visionary
Yeshayahu the prophet was not a visionary. He did not say: Oh, Yirmiyahu the prophet was black-viewed, saw evil, and I will look good. No and no and no. He said thus — thus at least goes the order, I can learn with depth and inside and we shall see — he said thus: I see the entire thing, I see the entire destruction, sharp exactly like him, deep exactly like him. I am capable myself of writing destructions like Yirmiyahu wrote. But I am also capable now to say: Our entire matter is not to deny reality. But look a bit at reality, and you will see how beautiful and how fortunate and how good it is.
And this is almost: just as we look at the troubles of the destruction, at the pain of the Shechina, and see “She has fallen, she shall rise no more” (Amos 5:2) — we do not see how to rise — so when we look at that something good. For it is a rule, as the Baal Shem Tov says: One who grasps part of the truth grasps part of the unity, and one who grasps unity grasps all of it. For goodness is unity, goodness means all Godliness. From this stems the entire thing. There is no such thing as half God, there is no such thing as half faith. There is half heresy here — “heresy” means half; “apikorsut” means half; “on condition to receive reward,” the French say, “reward” means half. When he is in smallness — this is only a place where he is; but in greatness everything is everything. And precisely because it is greatness, it does not have so many words. It is harder to express it, for everything is one, everything is one thing. We spoke about this in another shiur and this is not its place. But if it is possible to express this, if a person has such a beautiful gift and is capable of expressing this — certainly there is much more, very much more. One can truly be happy, and we will have a joyous Shabbat, and we will know and hear a bit of what we are speaking and labor on this.
📝 Full Transcript
The Comfort of Looking at Reality – Shabbat Nachamu
Introduction: How Do We Move Forward After Galut HaShechina
Tonight is Erev Shabbat Va’etchanan, Shabbat Nachamu. The last few shiurim we spoke about the sugya of Bein HaMetzarim according to the matters of the days. And now there is always a question of how to move forward after we speak about galut HaShechina, about the real situation, about the reality. We speak about it for a whole three weeks, but Tisha B’Av is the climax of it. And it’s truly very difficult to move forward from that, and this is something we must learn.
One cannot truly speak about galut HaShechina when one doesn’t understand the simcha that lies within it. Simcha means essentially to be alive. A person who is completely dead is not a mourner; the mourners are the living, the dead are not suffering. Therefore, one must place within the mourning very much simcha, very much chiyut, very much light, otherwise nothing lives.
And all this opens us up to see the true situation of the Shechina, as the Shechina said to the Beit Yosef, which we spoke about in the previous shiurim: “Ilu yedatem” – if we would have known what kind of pain I have. In other words, if a person could look with open eyes at the reality, not covered with all kinds of chizuk, with all kinds of divrei shtut vehevel, one would not be able to endure it, there would be no meaning in life. This is stated in the revelation of the Shechina to the Beit Yosef, which they accepted as a very central revelation of what it means to touch, to grasp the tzaar ha’olam, the tzaar HaShechina.
The Order of the Chachamim: Living Within the Churban
And this is the truth: as Rabbi Yochanan said, if we were worthy, if we truly understood, we would not be able to eat meat, not drink wine, not have weddings, not be engaged in pru urvu, not be engaged in yishuvo shel olam for a whole year. But then there won’t be any world, there won’t be anyone for the Almighty to redeem. So they made an order, as the Chachamim make for everything a bechina of derech ha’emtza’i: the whole year one has weddings, but at the time of the wedding one will remember, one will say “Im eshkachech Yerushalayim tishkach yemini” (Tehillim 137), one will leave out one beautiful thing from the wedding, one decoration. A person will have a house, but he will make one zecher lechurban.
In other words, this comes from the fact that one cannot truly live in the churban.
The Hester Pnei Hestera
We live a whole life in a certain hestera, one can call it hester pnei hestera. If a person would truly grasp the reality of the world from the side of the evil in it, from the side of the deficiency in it – not from the side of the good that one will see, but from the side of what is called galut HaShechina, from the side of what one must think about at tikkun chatzot every night (it doesn’t end with Tisha B’Av when the shiva d’nechemta begins, one must not stop saying tikkun chatzot) – when a person looks at this truly, he would not be able to live, he would be truly depressed. This is not a joke; whoever looks at the kinot can become completely depressed from it.
The Wretchedness of the Shechina in Megillat Eicha
So what is the solution? I thought about Eicha: Yirmiyahu HaNavi laments about the Shechina, about the city of Tzion Yerushalayim. The main word lies in the first verse, “Eicha yashva badad” (Eicha 1:1) – the Shechina is badad miba’ala uvadad mibaneha, she has no friends, no yichud, she is alone, she is wretched. All her friends have abandoned her: “Kol re’eha bagdu vah” (Eicha 1:2).
In the second chapter he begins to speak about how one cannot even compare: “Ma a’idech ma adameh lach habat Yerushalayim ma ashveh lach va’anachamech betulat bat Tzion ki gadol kayam shivrech mi yirpa lach” (Eicha 2:13). These are verses that the Zohar dealt with intensely in the hakdamot haZohar; the entire Zohar is in a certain way an answer to Megillat Eicha, one must remember this. The Zohar is built on this “mi yirpa lach,” how one finds the “yirpa lach.”
The Mourner Who Is Alone
Every mourner is alone. “Avel ein lo peh,” he has no one to speak with, he cannot express what he feels. A person was in mourning, some tragedy happened, he goes outside, and it’s olam keminhago noheg, the whole world continues on. This aloneness makes a person feel bad: I am the only one who is dying, tragedies are happening, and the whole world goes on, they don’t even think about you.
The Comfort: You Are Not Alone
And this is the wretchedness. For this there is a comfort, that when one comes to comfort a mourner, the main thing is not some Torah thoughts that one must tell him, to answer why. The main thing is to show the mourner that he is not alone. This is the seder ha’olam, seder Yahadut, as we say “betoch she’ar avelei Tzion viYerushalayim”: you are not the first mourner, not the last, it’s an order, we are here with you. So there is a certain comfort, as tzarat rabbim chatzi nechama.
About this he says, as Rashi explains in Eicha, “Ma a’idech ma adameh lach” – I have nothing to compare to your trouble. If I had something else to say: look, in another city there was also a similar matter – when a person understands that something is part of the world, he becomes calmed. But here there isn’t. Ma adameh lach, because your destruction is greater than all other cities, greater than all other troubles; you are alone in this too, you don’t even have anyone to complain to. If they complain, they laugh, it’s schok al kol ami; they say, ah, yoshvei badad, I knew. But they don’t truly feel with you, because they don’t have the same kind of problem.
The Role of a Navi: Me’id, Medameh, Meshavet, Merape
Seemingly there’s a question here: what does “ma a’idech” mean? The job of a navi – Yirmiyahu was a navi, Yirmiyahu wrote Megillat Eicha – a true navi can indeed elevate the reality, he can elevate the tzaar HaShechina, the situation of the Shechina, to the simcha. Whatever the reality may be, he can elevate it.
When you are a basar vadam who speaks with sechel enoshi, you must live with certain kisuyim, certain levushim; one cannot be direct with the truth. But the Almighty, einei Hashem Elokecha, can look directly at reality. A person must see himself within certain levushim, certain concepts; he places everything into a story so that he can elevate it.
So the question is: one is a navi. What is the role of a navi if not to bring out things that another cannot? Things that are mi yishveh lo? This is exactly the language we say in the piyut after nishmat: “Mi yidmeh lecha, mi yishveh lecha, mi ya’aroch lecha”. He says, “Ma adameh lach, ma ashveh lach?” This is the whole job. A navi is a person who is connected with the Shechina, connected to such kinds of things that are “mi yidmeh lahem umi yishveh lahem.” So what does he have complaints, “Ma a’idech, ma adameh lach, ma ashveh lach, mi arpe lach?”
The Four Verbs of the Verse
To be me’id, to be medameh, to be meshavet, to be merape – this goes together, and this is your job. Your job is to find how to be me’id. “Ha’edeti vachem hayom et hashamayim ve’et ha’aretz” (Devarim 30:19) – this was the job of the nevi’im, of Moshe Rabbeinu, of Yeshayahu HaNavi; they are me’id beYisrael the reality, they show the reality. I am meshavet, I speak about things that are ein domeh lo, and one can express it – this is the role of divrei Torah, of the alef beit of the Torah, to give words for this.
To be medameh: “Beyad hanevi’im adameh” (Hoshea 12:11), “Gadol koach hanevi’im shemedameh et hatzura leyotzrah” (Bereishit Rabba 27) – the greatness of nevi’im is that they can be medameh devarim she’i efshar ledamot. And “mi arpe lach”: “Ki ani Hashem rofecha” (Shemot 15:26) – one of the first things that the Almighty said to the Jews when they left Egypt: I can heal the reality. “Vayerape et mizbach Hashem heherus” (Melachim I 18:30) – I can be merape the reality through looking at it clearly. He is me’id, meshavet, medameh, menachem and merape. And he says “I cannot” – this is truly a question, this is his job.
The Nevi’ei Sheker: Shav VeTafel
About this Yirmiyahu says the next verse and laments: yes, but your prophets, your prophets – here he means the nevi’ei sheker that we learn about in Sefer Yirmiyahu. From this we see that it’s Yirmiyahu HaNavi’s sefer; he fought with the nevi’ei sheker, like Chananya ben Azur vachaverav, who testified that kelei Hashem are coming back from Bavel, they made signs, otot umoftim, gave chizuk to the world, that they shouldn’t be frightened, everything will be good. And Yirmiyahu says: your prophets are traitors in their role.
“Nevi’ayich chazu lach shav vetafel velo gilu al avonech lehashiv shevutech vayechezu lach masa’ot shav umaduchim” (Eicha 2:14). Your prophets, whose role is to be me’id, medameh, meshavet, menachem and merape, have instead said “shav” – falsehood, nothing, not truth. “Vetafel” means things without taste, like “heichal tafel bli melech,” like without salt is called tafel.
Legalot Avonech
And they were not megaleh your avon, as it says “Megaleh shamayim yegaleh avono ve’eretz mitkomemet lo” (Iyov 20:27). The first job of a navi, of a hashgacha, is to be megaleh the avon, to be clear with this. As it says “Rishonim nitgaleh avonam nitgaleh kitzam” (Yoma 9). I think this is a hint to the Beit Sheni, because the Gemara says that the destruction we have, which is called sinat chinam, becomes that the “acharonim lo nitgaleh avonam velo nitgaleh kitzam.” We know nothing about what our problem is. One can look in the Gemara and see that it says al sinat chinam, but we don’t grasp it, we don’t have the strength, we don’t have a navi. This means that when they say we don’t have a navi: we don’t have someone who can look at reality in the eyes and say what it is.
We have all kinds of people who say, if one will be megaleh the avonot – “lehashiv shevutech” – one can do teshuva, one can fix the sheviyut, the wildness, the chutzpa. But the navi sheker covers up, he is “masa’ot shav umaduchim,” falsehoods and things that push away from the path. Instead of “lehashiv shevutech” he pushes away from the path.
What Is “Tafel”? The Deep Critique of Yirmiyahu
“Maduchim” I understand; “shav” means sheker or like “eifat shav.” But what is “tafel”? I understand that it’s a lashon melitza, things without taste. What comes in that it has no taste?
I thought that there is a deep critique from Yirmiyahu HaNavi on the nevi’ei sheker, and he teaches us what is the way to be a navi emet, which then will be “Ve’ata tihyeh li lefi” (Yirmiyahu 15:19), then will be “mi yirpa lach” – the one who stands on the sod that is called “mi,” this is the bina, as it says “Ke’ish asher imo tenachemu ken anochi anachamchem uviYerushalayim tenuchamu” (Yeshayahu 66:13).
Nevi’im and Bina
Nevi’im have to do with bina; a navi speaks with the “mi.” We see all the nevi’ei sheker, the nevi’ei “ach chazon lev shav.” One cannot blame people, it’s the reality that causes this. But for everything, for every tragedy, they have a good word, some cliché: well, the Almighty will help, it will be good.
Chizuk as Running Away from Feeling With
Many times when a person comes to another with a trouble, the other gives him chizuk: don’t be discouraged, it will be good. But when one thinks into it, one sees that the reason why he gives chizuk is not always because he wants to help the other. It’s not at all clear that the way to help is through being mechazek him; it could be the opposite, to be me’orer him and show what he needs – “legalot avonech” (“avonech” doesn’t necessarily mean his sin) – to show what the problem is, what can be done. Not always is there what to do – he has an illness or another thing – but one must know what can be done.
Many times what is said as chizuk is actually the “uncomfortability” of the mechazek. When a person comes with a trouble, he has some claim on me: I must do something, I must help you; someone wronged you, I must go call that person? So one gives him rather emuna and chizuk, the same refrain that is said to everyone: the Almighty helps everything, kol man de’avid Rachmana letav avid (Berachot 60), all kinds of such refrains. And this is done not because one wants to help the other, but because I don’t want to be in the “uncomfortable” situation that there is a problem that I must do something about. People don’t like to feel bad – very normal – and the other’s trouble he also doesn’t like to feel. So he says chizuk so that he won’t have to feel with the other’s pain. I’m not saying that one must always, but there is such a distinction.
The Cliché Has No Taste
Yirmiyahu HaNavi was certainly one of those who were of the distinction, and he claimed that besides the fact that it’s shav, it’s also tafel, it has no taste. One looks into all the chizuk clichés, it’s the same thing again and again, the same story the maggid tells every week. It’s not only sheker, it has no taste. It’s like bread without salt.
One might think that such artists, such ba’alei darshanim, who make every time the opposite of what is meant, something of supreme wisdom – then this has taste. First of all it has a bit more taste than the one who always says the same cliché. But this can also become tasteless: one catches the trick of how every time the opposite is said. You shouldn’t think that Shabbat Chazon is the lowest Shabbat of the year, no, it’s the highest; you shouldn’t think that Shabbat Nachamu is a good Shabbat, I will say a speech that Shabbat Nachamu should be sad, because last week we should have been happy, and this week we should be sad. Maybe the opposite? I don’t know. The normal is also a kedusha. Both are interesting.
Truth as the Source of Interestingness
What is interesting, what is not tafel? It’s salted, it’s divrei ta’am. I want to be very strongly mitbonen in this, because it’s also relevant to me. Everyone seeks to hear the maggid shiur say devarim shel ta’am, say chiddushim; whoever is a bit mature doesn’t seek to repeat the same thing, he seeks to hear some chiddush.
Now there is a question: how does one find chiddushim, true devarim sheyesh lahem ta’am? Many times it seems that divrei ta’am must be the opposite: if the normal rav says this way, he will say the opposite; or he brings three shitot and makes a Torah’le. And what will be when one must indeed say chizuk like the cliché? Then he is lost, he does it but he doesn’t feel it, it certainly has no taste, one doesn’t even believe in it oneself. Or in order to be mechadesh he says crooked things, because the straight things everyone already knows. This also has no sense.
Back to the claim: if the navi sheker would have said a davar shel ta’am, a beautiful melitza, would it have been good? The problem is that it’s sheker. What is the connection that it’s shav vetafel – without taste is one problem, and sheker is a second?
The Gemara: Ein Shnei Nevi’im Mitnabaim BeSignon Echad
How did Yirmiyahu HaNavi truly know that Chananya ben Azur and one hundred and fifty nevi’im said a false nevua, and they said sheker and not him? Perhaps they are saying the truth?
The Gemara says in Sanhedrin: He saw one hundred and fifty nevi’im saying the same nevua, exactly the same language. So Yirmiyahu said, I have a tradition: Signon echad oleh lekama nevi’im (Sanhedrin 89) – signon means one topic. One topic many nevi’im can speak about, sometimes even the same nusach, but each one places it into his approach, into his style, into his perspective. Ve’ein shnei nevi’im mitnabaim besignon echad (Sanhedrin 89) – when the Almighty sends nevua, He doesn’t send it in the same language to two people.
If two nevi’im say exactly the same verse, this is a sign that it’s a navi sheker. (Sometimes one finds in nevi’im the same verse? This is when one may repeat the other’s nevua, if it’s a good word one doesn’t need to be mechadesh new things, but he places it into his world, into his peshat.) This Yirmiyahu knew: if everyone says besignon echad, this is a navi sheker. What does this mean? That if everyone says the same Torah’le, it has no taste – and this is a sign that it’s not truth.
Truth Makes One Interesting
You will say: everyone must be original? What if I don’t have another melitza, I say the same mazal tov that everyone says? No. The problem is that when you say something without taste, it’s a sign that it’s not truth. If someone seeks something with taste, he should know that it’s not lacking to seek taste, one must only seek the truth. The moment he will seek the reality, he will be honest, he will seek what is truly the fact, he will automatically be interesting.
Why? Because the interest doesn’t come from people, and not from the fact that I once thought one way and today differently (that’s interesting for small children). The interest comes from the fact that a true rebbe speaks the truth – it fits with everything. As it says “ha’emes mis’aim l’atzmo b’chol tzedadav”: he says a word of truth, he finds thousands of proofs for it, because truth is reality, it fits. He goes out into the street, he sees it; he learns a Chassidic sefer, a Lithuanian sefer – to the extent that the sefarim have succeeded in bringing out the truth, he sees it everywhere. When one speaks falsehood, one encounters many difficulties. When one learns out a word of truth – and by truth I mean anything that is clearer, that brings a person closer to God, to what the reality is – then it’s tremendously interesting.
Why People Are Boring
Most people are fake not because they’re boring or because they imitate others. Most people are fake because they cover up reality with shav v’safel – “chazu lach shav v’safel” – this is Shabbos Chazon. He covers it up with a bundle of flowery phrases that are “shnei nevi’im misnab’im b’signon echad,” everyone says the same thing. So it’s clear that he’s not looking at reality directly. The moment you look directly, perhaps you’ll say almost the same verse as the other person, but with one letter different, because you see it a tiny bit differently. Don’t be ashamed, say it exactly that way, it will be interesting. You’re afraid to look at the world, to look at God as He is, certainly you’ll be shav v’safel – the shav and safel go together.
It turns out that shav and safel aren’t two different things. The reason it’s a cliché is because he’s not looking at the truth, and the source of interest is not falsehood but truth. The reality is there enough; the Almighty makes every day chadashim labekarim raba emunasecha (Eicha 3:23), chiddushim upon chiddushim. There’s absolutely no lack of news every day for whoever looks. And the reason we have no news, that we say the same thing every week, is because we’re afraid to look at reality; we look at what we said yesterday, we look at what the other table said, certainly then there’s a ruach sheker b’fi kol navi. Even if there’s a nekuda shel emes in it, it’s still sheker, because if he looked at truth he would see it a bit differently.
Entering the Ruin
Now let’s go back. The Shechina said to the Beis Yosef, and it says to everyone who hears the bas kol menahemes k’yona, and the churva, that one must sometimes enter a churva. One may not enter a churva, this is the hint of the Gemara (Berachos): Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi met Eliyahu HaNavi, and he told him that he had gone into a churva to pray. Eliyahu said, one may not go into a churva. A person doesn’t belong in a churva.
What does going into a churva mean? There’s such a place called churban, churban Beis HaMikdash, churva achas mechurvas Yerushalayim. A person cannot live in a churva; it’s not a place, it’s a place where there are se’irim v’ruchos, where shedim v’ruchos roam, where atzavus builds nothing. Even atzavus over churban builds nothing. From where does one build churvas Yerushalayim? From making a wedding, from kol sasson, from simcha v’simcha v’chasan v’kalla. With simcha one can build; from a churban one cannot build, one may not go into a churban.
But it happens that a Jew has nowhere to pray – this is the secret of the three weeks. One must sometimes go into the churban; here there is speech, there is churban, they’ve already made an arrangement. He goes into the churban, and the churban is very real, here he heard a bas kol menahemes k’yona. Why doesn’t one hear it in settled areas? Because settled areas are a well-covered place, full of shav v’safel; there stands a big sign “beis hamidrash,” there come the prophets of “chazu lach shav v’safel.” But b’li breira one lives there. If he goes into the churban, he hears there how the troubles are, how terrible it is. And if it’s terrible – how does he continue? What does he do now?
The Consolation Is No Bluff – It’s More True
And here there’s an additional chiddush: there isn’t a single false word in the topic of nechamos, not a single word of chizuk. If someone thinks that the sheva d’nechemta is such a thing that we’re in exile but we’ll pretend we’re not, we’ll get drunk, tenu sechar l’oved, we’ll pretend it’s not – that’s not consolation, that’s a bluff. What kind of consolation is it, to live in a lie? If the truth is that the Shechina is in exile, and yet we find all kinds of Torah teachings that go against basic reality? There can’t be such a thing at all.
Rather what is the meaning: It’s not correct that what we say is only one half of the story. It’s not correct that if someone will look at the truth l’amito he won’t be consoled, will say “achi tanchumuni havu” – don’t console me with all these Torah teachings, I want to look at reality, I see that the situation is deep in the ground. It’s not correct that he’ll remain there. It’s true, there’s very much truth in this, one must give time to this part, one must look at this, one shouldn’t be afraid of it. But if one will truly remain there, if one will truly look there, one will see that there are still other things.
Realism Is Not Pessimism
How can one say it in the simplest way? One must be realistic. And there’s such a tendency, such a foolish tendency in the world, that makes a misidentification of realism with pessimism. As they say: a pessimist sees the half-empty glass, an optimist sees the half-full glass, and the realist says it’s half empty and half full. But often the one who considers himself realistic says the half toward the lower; it’s a third full and he says it’s only half full – why not say it can be even more?
A realist doesn’t mean seeing only exactly what is now; it can be different tomorrow – it doesn’t mean it will be, but it can. As long as a person lives (if a person is dead one must know what happens in the upper world, there will be other goods and other bads) – as long as a person lives, the optimist always finds some nekuda tova, and he doesn’t mean any falsehood. If he speaks falsehood, that’s certainly a ruach sheker, one must be careful.
What to Focus On
It’s not only a topic of what is the truth, but also what to focus on. We spoke Tisha B’Av night about this, a question of kavana. There are mitzvos, there’s an order that the focus must be itself. The one who says he seeks the truth – we spoke about this last week in the shiur l’shoshi – that’s not enough, because one must also know what to focus on.
Let’s say the truth is that kol ha’olam kulo is truth, kol ma she’asa Hashem – this is all truth. And what exactly do I focus on? One needs some new da’as, a new seichel that says this is truth and also this is truth, and now one thinks about this. How does one know what to think about? Here is truly the topic of what’s called pessimism and optimism – this is a topic of midos, not a topic of seichel or da’as.
The Truth Has More Good Than Bad
What I’m explaining is that there’s a truth: if a person says I don’t want to know any stories, I don’t want to believe in any Torah teachings, I only want to look at reality – he’ll also see that often it can even be. I think this was the hizbonenus of Yeshayahu HaNavi: we only have three prophecies of punishment and seven of consolation, and there’s much more. One can learn that because we’re so broken we need so much chizuk, perhaps perhaps we should do something. But it’s also true, and this goes back to very deep hizbonenus in the question of why there is good and bad in the world: if one will think deeply one will see that there’s almost always more truth, more good than bad.
The Parable of Technology
It’s customary to complain; everything one says can be said in a complaining way. There’s technology, there’s internet, it confuses people, it takes away focus, yishuv hada’as, it brings in forbidden thoughts, forbidden actions, it makes all kinds of mixtures of good and bad. Let’s say everything is true. Someone who is positive says pro-technology, tech-positive, that it’s all just tools; they’ve spoken about this at length in other places. Let someone say, you’re not realistic, look how many people get confused, how many commit sins because of this.
Okay, I admit to the entire reality. I’ve already sat Tisha B’Av with you, I said, kol ha’aveiros sheba’olam, all sins, all evil, all destructions in the world, complain about them endlessly, like churban yameinu; he saw the whole thing clearly without any doubts, without any shav v’safel. Now come with me and admit the truth: tell me how many good things there are in this. And the truth is, just as it’s hard for a suffering person to be with the bad and how confused the situation is, it’s still so hard, perhaps harder, for a suffering person to be with how good things are.
One only needs to get up early in the morning and see that I live in a world where I can give a touch of a button, it lights up by itself, it becomes light. “Lo seva’aru eish b’chol moshvoseichem b’yom haShabbos” (Shemos 35:3) – making a bit of fire was a whole thing, 39 melachos, laws of Shabbos; making light at night was a difficult thing, it cost dearly, and for half a penny the electricity costs a whole night. He presses a button and it brings him immediately the Gemara, the source, the entire science, everything he wants to know in the world in one moment. I don’t believe that someone who admits the truth, who wants to be a prophet and look at reality, has at all the tools, the expressions of joy, the expressions of consolation that one can say about such a thing.
The Parable of Air Conditioning
There are air conditioners. People have suffered for thousands of years from the heat. Summer is called a time of troubles, “v’ketev meriri” (Devarim 32:24) – I’ve written that the klipa of Bein HaMetzarim, the difficulty, has very much to do with the heat. “Ketev meriri” has to do with the heat; there’s a spiritual klipa and a physical klipa from it, and because of this the churban wasn’t destroyed at that time, because it’s very hot. The heat is literally a problem.
And baruch Hashem that they’ve almost solved the problem: one presses a small button, and the heat is gone. I think one must establish a yom tov for technology, for air conditioning – one yom tov a year in honor of this. Imagine how it’s part of yom tov; I’m not talking about gashmiyus – what’s the difference in yishuv hada’as to learn in a place where there’s air conditioning and a place where there isn’t? It’s a real difference. Even the greatest tzaddik who has detached himself from olam hazeh, with air conditioning he learns better, prays better. Chamisha asar b’Av, we’ll make a special yom tov dancing in honor of the fact that there’s air conditioning, and telephones, and electricity, and internet – these are all wondrous things. I’m not dismissing any problem, let’s follow through the entire Tisha B’Av.
Three Prophecies of Punishment and Seven of Consolation: The Calculation
Now let’s calculate, and we’ll see that in reality, if there are three prophecies of punishment, there are seven of consolation. It must be, because if reality is more than the bad – and everything exists – then automatically in almost no difficult situation, almost in every single situation (unless a person says tov mosi mechayai, then he shouldn’t say it), there’s more good than bad. And the good is so good, so deep, and we don’t have the tools to appreciate it.
Simcha Shel Mitzva and the Arizal
The Arizal said that he received all levels through simcha shel hamitzva. Simcha shel hamitzva means that the Arizal never said it’s a weak generation. Because when a person says, we supposedly do mitzvos, he truly won’t have any mitzvos. They say from Heaven: you hold such resentment about your mitzvos? If you say, where, we can today do more mitzvos than anyone could do, and we do the best, and we can learn Torah – there’s no question that we can today learn the Torah and understand God, understand reality, with all the tools that exist. One can pick up a phone, call whoever one wants, ask AI or directly. One can learn the Torah more than any rishon, any acharon, any tzaddik, whoever could; automatically there are better explanations.
Should one feel bad that I say a better explanation than Rashi on the verse? Rashi would be happy; he supposedly said to his grandson that he’s happy, and we can be a thousand times better than the Rashbam could dream. And certainly there’s still exile, and certainly there are still thousands of decrees and troubles and illnesses, and we’re not denying anything.
Yeshayahu HaNavi Was Not a Fantasizer
Yeshayahu HaNavi was not a fantasizer. He didn’t say: ah, Yirmiyahu HaNavi is a pessimist, I’ll look at the good. No. He said: I see the whole thing, I see through all the churban, just as sharply, just as deeply, I can myself write destructions like Yirmiyahu. But I can also say, our whole thing is not to dismiss the reality – look a bit at the reality, you’ll see how beautiful and how fortunate and how good it is.
And just as one looks into the troubles of the churban, into the troubles of the Shechina, one sees how nafla lo sosif kum (Amos 5:2), one can’t see how one gets up. Just so when one sees into the bit of good – as the Baal Shem Tov says, ochaz b’miktzas ha’emes ochaz miktzas ha’achdus ochaz b’chulo. Tova is achdus, tova is entirely divine. There’s no such thing as half God, no such thing as half emuna. There’s half kefira, kefira means half, apikorsus means half; shelo al menas lekabel pras, pras means half. When he’s in katnus, that’s only where he is; but in gadlus it’s everything. And precisely because it’s gadlus, it doesn’t have so many words, it’s harder to express, because it’s all one.
But if one can express it, if one has a gift like beauty, it’s certain that there’s very much more. One can truly be joyful, and we’ll have a joyful Shabbos, and we’ll hear a bit of what we’re saying and work on it.