פרק ע׳׳ז - Bo: By Choice

Kapital 77 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Al Yidusun L’Asaf Mizmor”, an uncommon attribution: while there are many Perakim which are written by Asaf, the addition of the word “Yidasun” must be understood. The simplest approach is to assume that Yidusun was an additional author of the Perek, besides Asaf, a notion which is supported by a Passuk in Divrei Hayamim which mentions a person name “Yidusun” who lived at the time of Dovid Hamelech. Rashi does not take this approach, however, and instead explains that this word refers to the “Dasos V’Dinin Haovrin Al Yisroel”, the various decrees that befall Klal Yisroel.

Interestingly, in an earlier Perek that begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Al Yidusun Mizmor L’Dovid”, Rashi brings two explanations of this word: first, that “Yidusun” it is a type of instrument, and second, that it refers to the “Dasos V’Dinin”. The fact that in this case Rashi only mentions one of these Pshatim—that it refers to the Gezeiros against Klal Yisroel—is perhaps indicative of the overall theme of this Perek.

The overall consensus of the Meforshei HaPshat is that these Pessukim were written B’Nevuah and speak about Galus. Sforno, for example, explains that in this Perek Asaf is “Misonen U’mispallel Al Tzaras HaGalus”. This thread is easily found in the Pessukim itself, which begin with the words “Koli El Elokim V’Etzaka”. In times of pain and suffering, which are found all too often in Galus, we raise our voices and cry to Hashem, hoping for our Yeshua. The Perek continues in this vein, speaking about the Layla, which Rashi explains refers to the dark Galus, during which “Nigra V’Lo Safug Me’ana Hinachem Nafshi”, our tears flow without end, and we cannot find true Nechama.

Besides the pain of Galus itself, the Perek speaks about the tendency we have to look back, to remember better times, and the anguish this itself causes. “Ezkerah Elokim V’Ehemaya”, we remember and we moan, “Nifamti V’Lo Adaber”, this grief prevents us from even speaking. As we recall the days of yore, “Chashvti Yamim M’Kedem Shnos Olamim”, we cannot help but question our future: “HaL’Olamim Yiznach Hashem V’Lo Yosif Lirtzos Od”. Will Hashem reject us forever? Will he never again show us favor? “HaEfes L’Netzach Chasdo”, has His Chesed disappeared forever? “Hashachach Chanos Kel”, has Hashem forgotten how to have mercy?

After expressing these questions, the Perek turns to Chizuk, speaking about the times that HKBH has saved us in the past: “Ezkor Ma’alilei Kah Ki Ezkera M’Kedem Pilecha”. As the Perek comes to a close, the Pessukim speak about the greatness of Hashem, “Mi Kel Gadol K’Elokim…Attah HaKel Oseh Peleh”. We are reminded that HKBH who controls all, and is of course not bound by Teva, will extract us from Galus, come what may.

The latter part of the Perek focuses on the prime example of a Geulah that follows this dictum: Yetzias Mitzyaim. The Pessukim remind us of the Nissim that took place at that time, both as we left Mitzrayim and at the Yam Suf. Phrases such as “Zormu Mayim Avos Kol Nasnu Shechakim” and “Kol Ra’amcha B’Galgal” remind us that even when we may not have merited Geulah, it arrived in a way that defied Teva.

This section of the Kapital is obviously closely connected to this week’s Parsha, and can perhaps allow us new insights into Yetzias Mitzrayim, but the way it is introduced requires some explanation.

After making a general statement about the limitless abilities of HKBH, the Passuk says: “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef Selah”. The first three words are a clear reference to Yetzias Mitzrayim, which we know came about “B’Yad Chazaka U’Bizroah Netuya”, but what of its final phrase? Why is Klal Yisroel referred to as “Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef”?

The Gemara in Sanhedrin asks this question is a plain manner: “V’Chi Yosel Yalad? H’Halo Yaako Yalad?” Did Yosef give birth to Klal Yisroel? Why is the entire nation referred to as “Bnei Yosef” when

he was the father of only some of us? The Gemara answers: “Ela Yaakov Yalad V’Yosef Kilkel Lifichach Nikru Al Shemo”. It is true that Yaakov was the father of the Shevatim, but it was Yosef who sustained them during the years of famine, and so they are referred to as his children.

This Gemara obviously addresses the most pressing question on the Passuk, but we still must understand why these words appear here specifically. Why do we learn this lesson, Yosef Kilkel Lifichach Nikru Al Shemo, in a Passuk that speaks about Yetizas Mitzrayim?

Perhaps adding to this question is the way Chazal understand the opening words of the Passuk.

We are used to the words “B’Yad Chazaka U’Bizroah Netuya”, and the idea that HKBH took us from Mitzrayim with strength, but what does that mean? One might assume that this refers to the way the Mitzriyim were dealt with—a Yad Chazaka indeed—but there is a Medrash that tells us otherwise.

The Passuk in Shir HaShirim refers to Klal Yisroel as “Shoshana Bein Hachochim”, a rose among thorns. The Medrash Rabba in Parshas Acharei Mos brings a number of Drashos on these words, among them one that is less than laudatory. When a rose is hidden by thorns, explains the Medrash, it is painful for its owner to pluck it—so too, it was painful for HKBH to take us, the rose, from Mitzrayim, the thorns. The Medrash elaborates: by that point in the Shibud, there was not much of a difference between the Yidden and Mitzriyim, they were quite similar inwardly and outwardly. The only reason Yetzias Mitzrayim occurred, explains the Medrash, is because HKBH made a Shavuah that it would.

The Medrash then brings another Drasha in this vein: “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha, Betrunia”. Based on the words in Sefer Tehillim, the Medrash concludes that HKBH used trickery, so to speak, to remove Bnei Yisroel from Mitzrayim. Because we were so similar to the Mitzriyim, the Midas HaDin did not allow us to leaver, but Hashem forcibly removed us, “B’Zroah”, against the Middas HaDin.

It emerges that the same Passuk that teaches us “Yosef Kilkel Lifichach Nikru Al Shemo”, also makes reference to the fact that we did not really deserve to be taken from Mitzrayim, and it was only in the manner of “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha”, against the Middas HaDin, that we were able to leave. It cannot be a coincidence that these two phrases, with their attendant meanings, are joined in one Passuk. How can we understand their relevance to one another?

In order to answer this question, let us look at one more Medrash related to this Passuk.

At the end of Parshas Naso, we read of the Korbanos HaNesiim, which were brought during the Chanukas HaMishkan. Although each of the twelve Nesiim brought the same exact set of Korbanos, the Torah devotes reiterates each one on its own, resulting in a long set of seemingly repetitive Pessukim. As we know, however, there is a reason that each word in the Torah is written, and so there must be a separate Limud for each of the Korbanos HaNesiim.

Indeed, the Medrash in Bamidbar Rabba assigns a separate theme to the Korbanos of each of the Nesiim, and explains how each part of the Korban relates to that motif. For example, the first Nasi was Nachshon ben Aminadov, of Shevet Yehuda, whose Korbanos were related to the Melucha, and the Medrash shows how each component of his Korban refers to an aspect of Melucha.

On the sixth day, Eliasaf ben Diuel, the Nasi of Shevet Gad, brought his Korbanos, which the Medrash tells us were “Keneged Yitzias Mitzrayim”. Once again, the Medrash goes through the entire set of Korbanos, and shows how each part relates to Yetzias Mitzrayim. Among the many animals brought as Korbanos were “LiZevach HaShlamim Bakar Shnayim”, two heads of cattle were brought as Shlamim. The Medrash tells us that in the case of Gad: “Keneged Yaakov V’Yosef Shebizechusam Nigalu Yisroel Mimitzrayim”, the two cattle are related to Yaakov and Yosef, in whose Zechus we were taken from Mitzrayim. The Medrash then brings a proof to this notion: “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef Selah”.

We must of course understand this Medrash as well. What is the connection from the “Bakar Shenayim” of Eliasaf ben Diuel to Yaakov and Yosef? Why are these two Avos compared to Bakar in relation to their Zechus that took us from Mitzrayim? How can we understand this Medrash on its own, and in concert with the other Maamarei Chazal related to this Passuk?

To answer this question, perhaps it would be useful to better understand what Middah is represented by Bakar.

The Torah, at the beginning of Sefer Vayikra, tells us which types animals can be brought as Korbanos—Behemia, Bakar or Tzon—and does so in a way that teaches us that even within those species, not all animals are Kosher as Korbanos. The words “Min HaBakar” actually appear twice, and Chazal tell us that the first means “Min HaBakar V’Lo Min HaNe’evad”, one cannot bring an animal that was used as Avodah Zarah, and the second means “Min HaBakar V’Lo Min HaTreifah”, one cannot bring an animal that has been rendered a Treifah.

Now, it is important to note that each exclusion applies to all species—not just the one from which it is learned. For example, a Tzon that is Ne’evad is also Pasul, even though the Drasha is from Bakar. The Shem M’Shmuel, in Parshas Vayikra, sensitive to the obvious question, explains why each species were chosen to teach each particular universal Pessul. When it comes to Bakar, there are two Drashos—Ne’evad and Treifah—and it is the second one that can perhaps be instructional.

The Passuk in Yeshayahu says “Yada Shor Koneihu…” and the Meforshim explain that a Shor—which is a Bakar—has the innate ability to discern its owner immediately. Based on this the Shem M’Shmuel explains that the Middah of Bakar is to be Mavchin Bein Davar L’Davar—to make distinctions and sense differences. The word “Bakar” is related to “Boker”, he continues, because morning is a time of Havchana, when one can make distinctions. Treifah, on the other hand, is a lack mixture—a scrambled egg is called Beitzah Meturefes—and an animal that is a Treifah hovers between life and death, in a way that is hard to discern. It is for this reason that we learn “Min HaBakar V’Lo Min HaTreifah”, because the Middah of a Bakar, the ability to make distinctions, is the opposite of the Triefah.

Perhaps, based on this, we can explain the Medrash in Bamidbar Rabbah: “U’LiZevach HaShlamim Bakar Shnayim Keneged Yaakov V’Yosef Shebizechusam Nigalu Yisroel Mimitzrayim.” The Zechus of Yaakov and Yosef, which enabled us to leave Mitzrayim, was that of the Bakar. Yaakov and Yosef imbued all of us with the ability to be Mavchin, to know what is right and what is wrong, what is worthy of us, and what is less than, and it was that Zechus that allowed us to be taken from Mitzrayim.

“Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha, Betrunia” we were indeed unworthy of Geulah in our current state, but we had the gifts given to us by Yaakov and Yosef: Yaakov Yalad V’Yosef Kilkel. Through his actions, Yosef Hatzaddik showed us that we can be Mavchin, that we have the ability to see what is right and what is wrong, and that sustained us in a way. As close as we seemed to the Mitzriyim, we were not exactly like them—we were Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef, the bearers of their legacy: the innate ability to discern between right and wrong, between Kedusha and the opposite. It was this Zechus that allowed us to retain our identity of Shoshana Bein HaChochim, and allowed the possibility of “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha”.

The Passuk is now well understood: “Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef Selah”. The reason we were remove B’Zroah was because we were the Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef, the heirs to their rich legacy of Havchana Bein Davar L’Davar.

As we contemplate our own Galus, we must remember that even as we find ourselves among the sharpest of thorns, we remain the beautiful Shoshana, and the more we exercise the Kochos given to us by the Avos, the quicker we will again see a Kiyum of Ga’alta B’Zroah Amecha Bnei Yaakov V’Yosef Selah”.