Long Game

Kapital 106 begins with the words Halleluka Hodu L’Hashem Ki Tov Ki L’Olam Chasdo, and has a very interesting focus. The entirety of the Perek, which is quite long, is devoted to a survey of our history as a nation, and recounts the various Chasadim that HKBH has done for us.

In order to frame the Perek, Dovid Hamelech begins with something of a rhetorical question: “Mi Yimallel Gevuras Hahsem Yashmiah Kol Tehilaso”. Ibn Ezra explains that these words serve as a reminder at the outset that it impossible to adequately be Mehallel HKBH, nonetheless it is incumbent upon us to do so to the best of our abilities.

The next Passuk tells us the secret to being able to be Meshabeach HKBH: “Ashrei Shomrei Mishpat Oseh Tzeddaka B’Chol Es”. Metzudos explains that when one is Rodeph Achar HaTorah, when one seeks Torah and Mitzvos, “Yoreh BaZeh Gadlus HaNossen Es HaTorah”. A byproduct of being counted among the “Shomrei Mitzvah V’Osei Tzeddaka”, is the ability to better recognize, and therefore praise, the Tovas Hahsem.

The remainder of the Perek follows an interesting pattern, related to this theme. Dovid Hamelech recounts the various times in our history when HKBH was Maitiv even though were not necessarily living up to the standard of “Shomrei Mitzvah V’Osei Tzeddaka”, or when our recognition of the Hashgachas Hahsem was lacking. This, of course, is the ultimate expression of the Chesed that Hashem does for us, as he is Maitiv even when we are not deserving.

The Pessukim themselves are written quite plainly, with little metaphor, and speak about events beginning with Yitzias Mitzrayim until the early days of Yeshivas HaAretz. The various periods of distress in the Midbar are mentioned, as well as the Aveiros done once we were settled in Eretz Yisroel.

Towards the end of the Perek, Dovid sums up the cycle of our history in a few Pessukim. “VaYitmu B’Maasehem…Vayichar Af Hashem B’Amo”, we become defiled through our actions, and HKBH becomes angry at us. “Vayitnem B’Yad Goyim…Vayilachatzum Oivehem”. We fall into the hands of our enemies, who then proceed to oppress us. In the end, however, “Pa’amim Rabbos Yatzilem…Vayiten Lahem Rachamim”. Hashem saves us despite our lack of Zechusim and our inadequate appreciation, a true display of His Hatava.

While the lessons of this Perek are many, there is one section that is of course very relevant to his week’s Sedra. Dovid Hamelech begins his review of our history by recalling our origins, inauspicious as they may have been: “Avoseinu B’Mitzrayim Lo Hiskilu Nifleosecha…V’Yamru Al Yam B’Yam Suf”. At the time of Yetzias Mitzrayim, the Yidden were in some way lacking in their appreciation for the Nissim done on their behald in Mitzrayim, to the point that they rebelled at the Yam Suf.

Rashi explains that the Yidden were “M’Ketanei Emunah”, because even after they crossed the Yam Suf on dry land, they did not believe that the danger had passed, rather they thought the Mitzriyim would emerge as well. It was only when the bodies of their pursuers washed up on the shore that Bnei Yisroel understood that they had been saved. In keeping with the motif of the Perek, the Passuk points out that this lack of Hakara or Emunah did not affect our fate: “VaYoshiem L’Man Shemo…” We were saved nonetheless.

The Perek continues, speaking about the events of Krias Yam Suf at some length, and the topic of our Emunah is revisited, this time for the good. The Passuk says: “VaYaminu B’Devarav Yashiru Tehilaso”. The translation of these words is easy to identify--we had Emunah, and sang the praises of Hahsem—and Chazal expand somewhat on their deeper meaning.

The Tanchuma in this week’s Parsha makes a powerful statement: “Ain HaGolios Asidin LiHigael Ela B’Schar Emunah”, our ultimate Geulah will come only as a reward for Emunah. The Medrash proves this from a Passuk in Shir HaShirim, and then tells us of an additional Schar for Emunah: “B’schar Emunah Sharsa Aleihem Shechina V’Amru Shira”. Because of the Emunah that Klal Yisroel had, at the time of Krias Yam Suf, they were Zoche to Nevuah, and the ability to sing Shira. The Medrash bases this idea on two Pessukim. The first is one with which we are quite familiar: “Vayaaminu B’Hashem U’ViMoshe Avdo…Az Yashir”. The second Passuk is from Tehillim: “VaYaminu B’Devarav Yashiru Tehilaso”. In both cases, the Medrash is telling us, it is clear that Emunah led directly to Shira.

The Medrash is relatively simple to understand, but there is a pressing question that must be addressed: why were two Pessukim necessary? The words in this week’s Parsha, “Vayaaminu B’Hashem…Az Yashir” seem to convey the message quite clearly—why is the second Passuk, the one from Tehillim, needed? What does it add?

In general, the entire concept of Klal Yisroel’s Emunah at the time of Krias Yam Suf is difficult to understand. The Medrash Rabbah here tells us that Klal Yisroel had Emunah in Mitzrayim, as the Passuk in Parshas Va’Era tells us “VaYaamin HaAm”. Then, they lost there Emunah, as we saw from the way Rashi explains the words “V’Yamru Al Yam B’Yam Suf”. Then, they regained Emunah, as we see from the Pessukim mentioned in the Tanchuma, “Vayaaminu B’Hashem U’ViMoshe Avdo…Az Yashir” and “VaYaminu B’Devarav Yashiru Tehilaso”.

How can we understand this Medrash? How is it possible that Bnei Yisroel had attained a level of Emunah in Mitzrayim only to lose it, and then regain it at the Yam Suf to the point that they are able to sing Shira? What is the message of these words?

Perhaps we can better understand these Medrashim and Pessukim if we take a closer look at the Passuk here in Tehillim.

There is a stark difference between the two Pessukim used by Chazal to establish the connection between Emunah and Shira. in the Parsha, the Torah tells us “Vayaaminu B’Hashem” which would seem to refer to Emunah in the classic sense of the word. The Passuk in Tehillim, however, says “VaYaminu B’Devarav”. What is the meaning of this type of Emunah? We can understand what it means to have Emunah in Hashem, but how can we understand the concept of Emunah in His words, and how does this relate to the ensuing Shira?

To answer this question, we must of course understand the implication of the word “Devarav”, as explained by Chazal.

The word “Davar” or “Dibur” appears many times throughout the Torah, most notably at the beginning of the final Sefer of Chumash: “Elah HaDevarim Asher Diber Moshe…” Rashi, there, tells us that the word Devarim is used, as opposed to another term for speech or words, because the Pessukim that follow are “Divrei Tochacha”. Rashi, as is most often the case, bases his words on a Maamar Chazal.

The Gemara in Maakos tells us that the Parsha of Retzicha was said in a Lashon Azzah, a strong language, as the Passuk says “Vayidaber Hashem El Yehoshua…Daber El Bnei Yisroel…Asher Dibarti Aleichem”. Rashi explains that thoughour Sefer Yehoshua the term “VaYomer Hashem” is used exclusively, other than with regard to the Arei Miklat. The implication of the Gemra is that the appearance of the word “Diber” so many times in this Parsha is because it is a Lashon Azah.

The Gemara establishes that indeed, “Kol Dibur Lashon Kasha”, that the word Dibur has harsh implications, but then asks a question. There is a Braisa tells us that the term “Nidbiru”, which comes from the same root, has the opposite implication: “Ain Nidbiru Ela Lashon Nachas”. Besides the word Nidbiru, the Braisa brings the words “Yadber Amim Tachteinu” to prove that the term “Yadber” also has softer implications. The Gemara answers: “Dibur L’Chud Yadber L’Chud”, the two terms can indeed have different, even opposite, meanings.

According to the Gemrah in Makkos, then, the Lashon of Dibur indicates harshness, Kol Dibur Lashon Kasha, but similar words from the same Shoresh may in fact have implications of Nachas. There is another Gemara, however, which seems to be in conflict.

The Gemara in Shabbos tells us that when two people engage in learning in a pleasant and agreeable fashion, HKBH listens to them, as the Passuk says “Az Nidbiru Yirei Hasehm…Vayakshev Hashem”. The Gemara concludes: “Ain Dibur Elah Nachas”. This Gemara, which does not differentiate between variations of the term “Dibur” in assigning it a label of “Nachas”, does not seem to agree with the Gemara in Makos which does.

Given these two Mamarei Chazal, how can we understand the meaning of the term “Dibur”? Is it a Lashon Kasha or a Lashon Nachas? Does it portend positivity or the opposite? If we can answer this question, perhaps we can understand the meaning of the words “VaYaminu B’Devarav”.

As we know, the world was created with ten Ma’amrim, each of which begins with the words “Vayomer Hashem.” Rav Hirsch, at the beginning of Parshas Beraishis, takes this opportunity to explain the various terms used to describe the words of Hashem.

The term “Dibur”, explains R’ Hirsch, is related to words such as Tafar—which means to sew—or Tur—which means a row—and other similar words. The common link between these related terms is that they refer to assembling that which is disparate. When one speaks without a particular goal, but just to express thoughts, connecting words or sentences without consideration of a listening audience, this is a speech of Dibur. Amira, on the other hand, is related to the word “Omer”, or a sheaf. When one takes his thoughts and bundles them together into a cogent message, so that he may impart it onto others, this is Amirah.

To make the distinction clear, R’ Hirsch notes that one can be a Medaber if he is in a room alone, but he cannot do Amira in such a circumstance—Amira requires a listener.

An outgrowth of this difference, continues R’ Hirsch is that Amira has an immediate consequence, whereas Dibur does not. As such, the world was created with Ma’amarim that had instant affect: “VaYomer Elokim Yehi Ohr, Vayehi Ohr”. The Torah, however, was given with Aseres HaDibros, because they are not meant to be acted on immediately but to endure as an eternal guide. Dibur, which is not reliant on a listener, is long lasting rather than quick acting.

If this is the case, we can now understand the two Gemaras, in Makos and Shabbos. Some forms of Dibbur are indeed Kasha, and some are Nachas, but the unifying factor is that in either case they have this quality: they are meant to be longer lasting, rather than immediately impactful. The speech of two Talmidei Chachamim learning together may be outwardly harsh, but if that is because they hope to eventually reach the Emes, it is indeed a Dibur of Nachas. Dibur can be Kasha, or it can be Nachas, but it always has affect beyond the moment.

Perhaps this is the meaning of the words “VaYaminu B’Devarav”. Klal Yisroel had reached some level of Emunah in Mitzrayim, but when they were confronted by the Mitzryim cornering them at the Yam Suf, they lost it, as the Medrash Rabba tells us. Then, when they were saved once again, they realized that the ways of Hashem are Dibur: we cannot judge them in the moment. When we see a reality, we must understand that it comes as Dibur, with long-term impact, not short-term results.

The Torah tells us “Vayaaminu B’Hashem” and Dovid tells us that it was in the guise of “VaYaminu B’Devarav”. Once Bnei Yisroel understood that events cannot be judged in an instant, but that the Darchei Hashem have long-range outcomes, they reached a level of Shirah. Only when one really understands that nothing is as it appears, but that there is a Hashgacha Elyona that reaches beyond the moment, is Shira attainable.