Well Being

Kapital 5 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos Mizmor L’Dovid”, and is typical of the Perakim found towards the beginning of Sefer Tehillim in its raw, almost desperate, content. Rashi explains that these Pessukim were written as a Tefillah to be saved from the clutches of our enemies, whomever they may be and whenever they may challenge us. Other Meforshim, however, see this Kapital as being more personal to its author, Dovid Hamelech. Radak, for example, explains that Dovid wrote these words as a plea to be saved from his multitude of antagonists, including Doeg and Achitofel. In a similar vein, Sforno sees these words as pertaining specifically to Shaul Hamelech, as he pursued Dovid.

The truth is that these approaches are not in conflict, we can understand them in tandem: indeed Dovid wrote these words as a personal Teffilah, but infused them with the ability to serve us for generations to come. At any time, we can turn to these Pessukim and use the Teffilos of Dovid Hamelech as our own. A cursory review of this Perek reveals how the words uttered by Dovid all those years ago may still be relevant now.

Dovid Hamelech cries: “Amarai Ha’azina Hashem Bina Hagigi”, and Rashi explains that sometimes one does not have the ability or capacity to express themselves with words, but at those times we hope that Hashem will discern our feelings nonetheless and bring our salvation.

The Pessukim continue in this vein, as Dovid Hamelech begs HKBH to hear his cries and fulfill his request for the Yeshuas Hashem. He asks that his enemies meet their ultimate downfall, “Lo Yisyatzvu Holilim L’Neged Einecha”, and that their ways be brought swiftly to an end. Dovid also makes clear that he wishes his enemies be eliminated not for his own comfort, but because that would allow him the freedom to serve HKBH freely: “V’Ani B’Rov Chasdecha Avo Beisecha…”

The Teffilos of Dovid Hamelech expressed in these Pessukim indeed establish a framework for our cries in times of trouble, and the Pessukim themselves are clear in their intent. That said, there is one question on the overall Perek that requires a bit of explanation—the way in which it is introduced.

As is the case with most Perekim in Tehillim, this one begins with an introductory Passuk describing its origins and classification: “Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos Mizmor L’Dovid”. The words Lamenatzeach and Mizmor are of course very common, but the term “Al HaNichilos” is not. In fact, this is the only appearance of these words not only in Sefer Tehillim, but in the entire Tanach. This cannot be coincidental—clearly Dovid wished to begin this particular Perek with this term, and for these words to be said “Al HaNichilos”.

Notably, the Meforshei HaPshat do not seem to take great note of these words. Radak explains that Nichilos are a type of instrument, and refers to a Klal established in his Pirush on the previous Perek: Dovid understood the Kochos and depth of each instrument, and chose with great care which was suitable to a particular Mizmor. These words, then, are uniquely suited to the Nichilos, but we don’t necessarily know why.

Rashi agrees with Radak in his explanation of this term, but notes that Chazal understood the word “Nechilos” in the sense of Nachla, an inheritance. He then adds: “V’Ain Zeh Mashmaos HaTeiva V’Gam Inyan HaMizmor Aino Midaber B’Nalacha”. Given that the Perek does not speak about Nachalos, Rashi does not seem to understand the view of Chazal as to the meaning of the term Nichilos.

How can we understand the words of Chazal? Why would Dovid Hamelech proclaim this Perek, which is not related to Nachalos, to be “Al HaNechilos?” Rashi seems to reject the words of Chazal, at least in the Derech HaPshat, but we must understand them nonetheless. In order to do so, we must of course go to the source.

In this week’s Parsha, we read the Shira sung by Bnei Yisroel about the Be’er. Within the Shira, they briefly recount their travels in the Midbar: “Mimidbar Matana U’Mimatana Nachliel U’MiNachliel Bamos”. Now, most of these locations are not mentioned earlier in the Torah—they are words used to reference the various events that occurred to Bnei Yisroel in their travels.

The Medrash Tehillim, here, explains the words “U’Mimatana Nachliel” in a few different ways. One explanation is that at Matan Torah a Nachala occurred: “Nachalu L’HKBH L’ELoka V’H Nachal Osam L’Umah”. We received Hashem as a Nachal, and He us. The Medrash concludes that Dovid wished to write a Mizmor about these duel Nachalos: “Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos”. This is likely the Medrash to which Rashi refers, as Chazal explain the word “Nichilos” as relating to Nachalos, and Rashi’s question is therefore understandable. There is, however, another explanation in the Medrash.

The Medrash tells us that the word “Nachliel” refers to the Be’er itself: “Mitoch SheHaBe’er Nassan Li Mattana Nachalti Oso.” The Be’er was the Matana and it became a Nachala: “U’Mimatana Nachliel”. Here too the Medrash concludes that Dovid wished to write a Mizmor about this Nachala: “Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos.”

This part of the Medrash is a little difficult to understand. We can understand that the Be’er was a Matana, but in what way was it a Nachla? We know that the Be’er ceased to function after Misas Moshe—it was not passed down as though a Nachla might. How then did the Matana become a Nachla, such that Dovid would write a Mizmor about it using the words Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos”?

In addition, when it comes to the connection to the words “Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos”, this second approach poses the same issue as the first: the remainder of the Perek does not seem to relate to Nachalos. Why, then, would Dovid assign this connection to the Pessukim that follow?

It is interesting to note that this Medrash also describes the effects of the Be’er in astonishing terms: it produced so much water that a woman who wished to travel between her home and that of her parents would take a boat. The Medrash in Bamidnar Rabba on the Shiras HaBe’er makes a similar statement, telling us that the space between the Degalim flowed with water, and the Yidden would travel by boat to see their friends in other Shevatim.

Why are we told about this aspect of the Be’er here? How does the amplitude of water that the Be’er provided relate to this Medrash about Nachalos?

In order to answer these questions and better explain the Medrash and Pessukim, it might be helpful to understand the relationship that existed between the Be’er and both Miriam and Moshe Rabbeinu.

In Teffilas Geshem, we ask Hashem to bring rain in the Zechus of the Avos HaKedoshim, mentioning the connection that each had to Mayim. When it comes to Moshe Rabbeinu, we speak about the fact that he was “Mashuch M’Toch HaMayim” and that he was a shepherd who ensured that his flock drank, but also add: “Segulecha Es Tazmu L’Mayim Al HaSelah Hach V’Yeitzu Mayim”. These words seem to make reference to the episode described in this week’s Parsha, known as the Mei Meriva, which is when Moshe hit the Sela and brought forth water. As we know, Moshe Rabbeinu was punished for this act—why then do we mention it in Tefillas Geshem? Why would we reference this difficult moment when asking for Hahsem to send us rain?

There is a seemingly simple way to answer this question: as we know, there were two times that Moshe Rabbeinu hit a rock and brought forth water. The first time, just after Yetzias Mitzryim, this was indeed the Tzivuy from Hahsem. Perhaps, then, the Piyut is referring to the first time, and not the second.

R' Zelig Reuven Bengis, in L’Palgos Reuven on Sukkos, notes that this cannot be the case, because the Torah uses the word “Tzur” there, and “Sela” here. The words “Al HaSelah Hach V’Yeitzu Mayim” must therefore be referring to the Mei Meriva, and the question remains. He, therefore, offers a different approach.

The Gemara in Taanis tells us that the Be’er was given to us B’Zechus Miriam, and was taken away when she was Niftar, but returned in the Zechus of Moshe and Aharon. R’ Bengis explains that the Zechus of Miriam was not as strong as that of Moshe, and therefore a physical action was required to bring about a Nes—Moshe had to hit the Tzur in order to create the Be’er.

When Miriam was Niftar, Moshe wished to recreate the Be’er and surmised that his Zechusim were not necessarily any greater than those of his sister, so an action would again be required. In reality, however, this was not the case—the Zechusim of Moshe Rabbeinu were so great that he could bring about a Nes by merely speaking.

R’ Bengis concludes that although Moshe was mistaken in this regard, and on his level required a punishment, these actions were due to his unique level of Anivus. Only the Anav Mikol Adam would wish to show that his Zechuyos were not sufficient, and it is therefore fitting that we reference this episode in this Piyut. When we stand at Tefillas Geshem we wish to mention the qualities of Moshe Rabbeinu that may serve as a Zechus for us, and so the moment of “Al HaSelah Hach V’Yeitzu Mayim”, in which his Anivus was on full display, is aptly mentioned.

Based on this we can perhaps understand the message of the Medrash.

At times we may feel as though our desires are out of reach, that we cannot achieve that which we hope for—that we and our Zechusim are not enough. The Be’er teaches us that this is never the case: Miriam was not on the level of her brothers, her Zechusim were not enough to bring about the Nes through mere speech. There was another avenue, however, and when Moshe took action, the Be’er was born.

The Medrash tells us that the Be’er was no mere trickle, it was not a dripping faucet, it was a force of nature that created literal rivers in the Midbar. In so doing, we received a gift, and a Nachla. The Be’er itself was a gift, but the knowledge that there is always a way to achieve, that each person has a path that is meant for them, that is a Nachla: “U’Mimatana Nachliel”.

It was this Nachla that Dovid wished to sing about, Lamenatzeach Al HaNichilos, and applied to this Perek specifically.

When we face our enemies, we may feel insubstantial, as though our Zechuyos are not enough to warrant salvation. Dovid reminds us of the Nachla of the Be’er: there is always an avenue. We can be Zoche to have our Teffilos answered, small as we may be. Sometimes we might have to take action, to prove that our desires are no lip service. We may need to show HKBH that we truly scorn our enemies for they prevent us from living the lives of Avdei Hahsem that we otherwise might, but the pathway exists, and our Yeshua is achievable.