Your Own Name

Kapital 98 begins with the words “Shiru L’Hashem Shir Chodosh”, and is immediately familiar as one of the Perakim said each week as part of Kabbalas Shabbos. The Perek itself does not include any attribution, and indeed there are a number of opinons as to its origins and purpose.

The Medrash Tehillim tells us that on the final day of his life, Moshe Rabbeinu wrote eleven Mizmorim that were later included in Sefer Tehllim. This Perek would be included in that set, indicating that these words were written well before the times of Dovid Hamelech. Rashi, here, notes that these words were written “Al HaAsid”, including mention of the Yom HaMishpat that will come L’Asid Lavo. Accordingly we can assume that Moshe Rabbeinu wrote these words with regard to the Geulah HaHasida, and Dovid Hamelech later incorporated them into Sefer Tehillim.

Rashbam, however, writes that this Perek could not, in fact, have written by Moshe Rabbein. He bases this statement on the fact that the words “Shama VaTismach Tzion”, appear later in the Perek, “V’Lo Matzinu B’Moshe SheNisnabeh At Tzion”, we don’t find Nevuos about Tzion attributed to Moshe Rabbeinu elsewhere. Rather, Rashbam suggest that these Pessukim were written by Shlomo Hamelech when he was Zoche to place the Aron HaKodesh in the Mikdash, as the Passuk later says “Oz V’Tiferes B’Mikdasho”.

Radak takes an approach that has elements of both those of Rashi and Rashbam: these Pesukim, he explains, were written by Dovid Hamelech when the Aron was brought back from Bais Oved Edom, where it had been housed during the early days of his Melucha. This approach is based on Pessukim in Divrei HaYomim which tell us about the return of the, relating that Dovid Hamelech sang Shira upon this momentous occasion. The Shira that is brought in the Pessukim there is quite long, and includes most of the Pessukim in this Perek, as well as others that appear elsewhere in Sefer Tehillim.

After explaining this origin, Radak notes, like Rashi, that the Perek itself speaks about the future when we will all encourage others to sing a “Shir Chodosh” to Hashem following the Geulah.

Although these various approaches seem somewhat disparate, we can perhaps explain them in unison. Moshe Rabbeinu, on the last day of his life wrote Pessukim that spoke about the Geulah HaAsida, and the Shira that would be sung on that day in recognition of the Yeshuas Hashem. Later on, Dovid and Shlomo used these Pessukim at times in their lives that called for particular Shira, perhaps the adding the mention of Tzion as appropriate to their times, and it was this final Perek that we find in Sefer Tehillim.

If we take this composite approach to these Pessukim, it emerges that these Pessukim represent a preview of the Shira that will be said L’Asid Lavo, which can have some relevance when we find Geulah in our own lives. Indeed the Pessukim echo these ideas throughout the Perek.

The initial appeal of the Perek, “Shiru L’Hashem Shir Chodosh, is repeated in the next Passuk as well: “Shiu L’Hashem Barchu Shemo Basru M’Yom El Yom Yeshuaso”. Radak explains that the words “Basru M’Yom El Yom Yeshuaso” highlight the sentiment that the Geulah HaAsida will engender: the sweetness of the Geulah will be long lasting, with each day will seem like the day of the Geulah itself, warranting a new “Besurah”.

The excitement of the Geulah will cause us to speak publicly about the Tovos Hashem, “Sapru BaGoyim Kevodo B’Chol HaAmim Nifleosav…”, extolling for all to hear “Ki Gadol Hahsem U’Mehullal Me’od…” In an effort to draw attention to the Gadlus Hashem, we will even reduce ourselves to comparisons with other “gods”: “Ki Kol Elokei HaAmim Ellilim V’Hahsem Shamayim Asah”

The remaining Pessukim continue in this vein, calling others to join in our Shira with phrases such as “Havu L’Hashem Kavod Shemo Se’u Mincha U’Vau L’Chatzrosav”, “Hishtachavu L’Hashem B’Hadras Kodesh”, and “Imru BaGoyim Hashem Malach”. It is also clear that the feelings that engender this this Shira will be shared not only among humans, but across the entire Briah: ”Yismechu HaShamayim V’Tagel HaAretz…Yaaloz Sadiei…Az Yeranenu Kol Atzei Ya’ar…”

The Perek ends by reminding us that all this Shira is said “Lifnei Hashem Ki Bah…Lishpot Es HaAretz…” while we, of course, know that HKBH is the Shofet Kol HaAretz at all times, these words certainly reinforce the notion that this Shira is ultimately meant to be said at the time of the Yom HaDin HaGadol, as the Rishonim note at the outset of the Perek.

If we understand the Perek in this way—that it is a Shira originally written, at least in part, by Moshe Rabbeinu regarding the Geulah HaAsida—an idea which the Pessukim and Meforshim seem to support, a question arises: why did Dovid Hamelech, and later Shlomo, use these Pessukim in relation to the Aron HaKodesh?

It is clear from the Pessukim in Divrei HaYamim that Dovid indeed said these Pessukim as a Shira at that time, and Rashbam tells us that Shlomo said them when the Aron was placed in the Mikdash. Why were these the Pessukim chosen at those times? We know that Dovid sang Shira many times in his life, for many different events, but it was these lines that he sang when the Aron was returned—why was this the case? What connection may we find between this Perek and the Aron, which represents the Torah itself?

Perhaps we can answer this question based on a Medrash that connects this Perek with Parshas Bamidbar.

The Yalkut Shimoni, at the beginning of the Sedra, brings the words of a Medrash Asafa, which tells us of an episode that occurred at the time of Mattan Torah: “B’Sha’a Shekiblu Yisroel Es HaTorah, Niskanu Umos HaOlan Bahen….” The Umos HaOlam were jealous of Klal Yisroel, who accepted the Torah, and they asked HKBH: “Mah Rau L’Hiskarev Yoser Min HaUmos…”, why was Bnei Yisroel brought closer to HKBH than the other nations? The Medrash brings the Passuk Tehillim to tell us how Hashem dispelled this question: “Havu L’Hashem Mishpachos Amim”. The Umos were told to bring forward their “Sefer Yuchsin”, which were of course lacking.

This was contrasted with Klal Yisroel, who brought their own Sefer Yuchsin, so to speak, as the Passuk at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar says “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam”. The Medrash concludes that it was for this reason that the Torah counts Bnei Yisroel here, after the Mitzvos that were given on Har Sinai. The implication of the Medrash is that the counting that took place in Parshas Bamidbar, where the Torah tells us “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam” is the answer to the claim made by the Umos HaOlam: “Mah Rau L’Hiskarev Yoser Min HaUmos”.

How can we understand this Medrash? How do the words “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam” answer the question of the Umos, and explain why Klal Yisroel was Zoche to be Mekabel the Torah?

These words, “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam,” are mentioned in another Medrash in a way that can lead us toward a better understanding of their significance.

The Mechilta in Parshas Bo tells us that there were four Mitzvos that Klal Yisroel kept in Mitzrayim, without which the world cannot survive: they were impeccably careful about Giluy Arayos and Lashon Harah, “Lo Shinu Es Shemam”, and “Lo Shinu Es Leshonam”. The Medrash then brings a source to prove that each of these was true, citing the words “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam” to support the fact that “Lo Shinu Es Shemam”.

It seems, then, that the words “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam” are connected to the idea that Bnei Yisroel maintained their names throughout Shibud Mitzrayim, which the Mechilta refers to as “Mitzvah She’Ain Kol HaOlam Kedai Bahem” and other sources in Chazal suggest was part the impetus for Yetzias Mitzrayim. How can we understand this? What is the Chashivus of the fact that Bnei Yisroel were not Meshaneh their names while in Mitzrayim, which the Yalkut seems to suggest was also part of the reason they were Mekabel the Torah, and was the answer to the claim of “Mah Rau L’Hiskarev Yoser Min HaUmos”?

To answer these questions, we must understand the concept of a Sheimos within Yiddishkeit.

One of the places that we see the concept of names is in Parshas Vayishlach, when Yaakov Avinu faces Saro Shel Esav, after which he is told: “Lo Yaako Ye’Amar Od Shimcha Ki Im Yisroel…” In considering this story, one wonders why the name of Yaakov Avinu was changed at this juncture specifically: why did his encounter with the Malach lead to a change in name?

Sfas Emes explains that each person comes into this world with a singular Tafkid, a mission that only he can accomplish, and when that Tafkid is complete, his time on this world comes to an end. Our entire lives, then, are devoted to achieving this Tafkid one step at a time. This is to be contrasted with the role of Malachim, who are Omdim, and unable to grow: they can only achieve a mission.

When Yaakov Avinu faced the Malach and won, explains Sfas Emes, it was a sign that he had actually achieved his Tachlis at that point in time and Zoche to complete the Shlichus for which he was brought into the world. He was therefore in the category of an Omed, for he had no more room for growth. It was at this point that he was given a new, second Tafkid with which to continue his time in this world. This anomaly is represented by his new name, Yisroel, which was given to him “Ki Sarisa Im Elokim VaTuchal.” Yaakov Avinu, who was granted a second Tafkid, was on a higher level than Malachim who only have a singular Tafkid, “Ain Malach Echad Oseh Shtei Sheluchim”.

Sfas Emes explains that this is why Yaakov had to receive a new name at that moment: “Ki HaShem Shel Adam Hu Asher Nishlach Al Zeh L’Taken Inyan Zeh”. A person’s name, in some way, represents his singular mission—the Tafkid for which he was brought into the world, which and he alone can complete.

Based on this idea, we can understand the concept of “Lo Shinu Es Shemam” on a deeper level.

If a person’s name in some way represents his Tafkid, then maintaining a connection to that name exhibits an awareness that a Tafkid exists. The fact that Bnei Yisroel clung to their names even while in Mitzrayim, in the Kur HaBarzel, revelas that they maintained a consciousness with regard to their purpose in this world. Even as the Shibud affected them, and they stumbled, they never lost sight of the fact that they had a Shem, that a Tafkid existed for them to aspire to.

This can also help us understand how the reality of “Lo Shinu Es Shemam” was connected to Kabalas HaTorah: only one who has an awareness that they have a Tafkid—that they were placed upon this world to complete that Tafkid and that each moment of each day can be used to those ends—can be Mekabel the Torah. Bnei Yisroel, about whom it could be said “Lo Shinu Es Shemam” were therefore uniquely suited to be Mekabel the Torah, as they could be trusted to try and uphold its dictates. This was the answer to the Umos HaOlam who asked, “Mah Rau L’Hiskarev Yoser Min HaUmos”: Bnei Yisroel is different because they know their names, it is about them alone that it can be said “V’Yisyaldu Al Mishpechosam.”

Perhaps this is why Dovid and Shlomo used this Kapital to express their joy when the Aron reached its rightful place in each of their times: the words “Havu L’Hashem Mishpachos Amim” express how unique we are, that they Umos HaOlam cannot ask “Mah Rau L’Hiskarev Yoser Min HaUmos”, and that we alone are Zoche to the Torah which allows each of us to fulfill our own Tafkid on this world.