כֹּה אָמַר יְדֹוָד מַה מָּצְאוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בִּי עָוֶל כִּי רָחֲקוּ מֵעָלָי וַיֵּלְכוּ אַחֲרֵי הַהֶבֶל וַיֶּהְבָּלוּ. (ירמיה ב:ה)
In this week’s haftarah, the second of the three special haftarahs we read before Tisha B’Av, there is a pasuk that has to be understood: “What wrongdoings did your forefathers see in Me that they distanced themselves from Me … ” Zera Shimshon asks: Why Hashem mentions that the root cause for klal Yisroel’s stopping to adhere to His mitzvos are misdeeds on Hashem’s part? How could it be that anyone in klal Yisroel would entertain the thought that Hashem is not fair?
Zera Shimshon offers a possible explanation, based on a particular halacha in Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 236:6). This halacha posits that if an oath that has two components is taken between two parties and one party breaches even a single provision, the other party is fully released from their responsibilities under the oath. For instance, envision a couple who have pledged to marry each other by a certain deadline. This oath has two components: the commitment to marry each other, and to do so by a specific date. Should one party willfully fail to appear on the agreed date—violating one aspect of the commitment—the other party is entirely liberated from the pledge and is free even to wed another. Nonetheless, the party that failed to uphold the agreement remains bound by the second part of the original oath, which prohibits marrying someone else. This condition endures until the party who did not default remarries, triggering a total annulment of the initial oath.
This situation has parallels with the covenant between Hashem and the Jewish nation. Klal Yisroel pledged two things, to uphold all of Hashem’s mitzvos and to renounce idol worship. In return, Hashem vowed never to forsake them or choose another nation in their place. Zera Shimshon suggests that the above halacha can be the basis for understanding the above pasuk in the haftarah. How is this?
As the Jewish nation strayed from the Torah and gravitated towards idol worship, Hashem questioned: “What wrongdoings did you see in Me.” This implies that if the departure of klal Yisroel from their original covenant was set in motion because Hashem did something wrong, klal Yisroel’s deviance would have been accepted and Hashem would not have chastised them. This fits perfectly with the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling! Klal Yisroel began to drift away from keeping the mitzvos, breaking one part of their commitment. According to the Shulchan Aruch, that would have validated, permitted and justified Hashem to completely forsake the Jewish nation, since they didn’t keep a part of the agreement. If this would have been the case, then Bnei Yisroel would have been justified to completely leave the deal and there would be no basis for Hashem to chastise them for idol worship!
Hashem, therefore, said that this is not what happened, but He upheld His promise—despite klal Yisroel’s misdeeds and their dismissal of His mitzvos. Hashem’s fidelity to the covenant is evident in the abundant wealth bestowed upon them during their exodus from Egypt and the multitude of children with which klal Yisroel was blessed. It is only after establishing this context—Hashem’s unwavering adherence to the covenant—Hashem can rightfully rebuke the Jewish nation for their covenant breach and resultant distancing.
Returning to the initial question of: How is it possible for Hashem to believe that someone might perceive Him as unjust? According to the above, Hashem’s statement about suspecting Bnei Yisroel of doubting His actions does not necessarily imply that He actually suspected klal Yisroel of suspecting Him of wrongdoing. Instead, it suggests that He questioned whether they perceived Him as abandoning them—which, according to the Shulchan Aruch, would have been 100% justified—as this would be the only reason justifying their negative behavior.
To summarize: It is written in the haftarah that Hashem refers to His own wrongdoing as the root cause for the Jewish people distancing themselves from Him. Zera Shimshon asks: How could anyone suspect Hashem of doing something wrong?
Zera Shimshon proposes an explanation based on a halacha from the Shulchan Aruch. The halacha states that if one party breaches even a single provision of a two-component oath, the other party is completely released from their responsibilities. Drawing a parallel to the covenant between Hashem and the Jewish people, Zera Shimshon suggests that since the Jewish people began to stray from their commitment then Hashem would have been justified to completely forsake klal Yisroel. Although it would appear that Hashem did something wrong, in truth, He just acted as dictated in Shulchan Aruch. However, even though it only looked like Hashem did a misdoing, their deviation would have been accepted and Hashem would not have chastised them for idol worship.
However, Hashem clarifies that this was not the case and that He upheld His promise despite the Jewish people’s misdeeds. Hashem’s commitment to the covenant is evident in the blessings bestowed upon them during their exodus from Egypt. With this context established, Hashem rebukes the Jewish people for their breach of the covenant.
According to this, Hashem’s statement about suspecting the Jewish people does not imply that He actually suspected them of suspecting Him of wrongdoing. Instead, it suggests that He questioned whether they perceived Him as abandoning them, which would justify their negative behavior.
HaRav Shimshon Nachmani—author of Zera Shimshon lived in Italy—about 300 years ago, in the time of the Or HaChaim HaKodesh. The Chida writes that he was a great mekubal and wrote many sefarim—including sefarim about “practical Kabbalah”—and asked that all of his sefarim be buried after he passes away, except for Zera Shimshon and Niflaos Shimshon on Avos. HaRav Shimshon Nachmani had one child who died in his lifetime (hence the name “Zera Shimshon”) and in the preface, he promises for people who learn his sefarim after he dies, “ … And your eyes will see children and grandchildren like the offshoots of an olive tree around your tables, wise and understanding with houses filled with all manner of good things … and wealth and honor … ”
