Every Last Drop

“מִכָּאן וְעַד הָרָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וְהַגְּשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִין וְאֵין טִפָּה מִתְעָרֶבֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ”

Parshas Ki Savo contains extensive Pessukim of both Bracha and Kallalah, referred to at the Tochacha, which Moshe gave over to Klal Yisroel just before they entered Eretz Yisroel. These Pessukim are predicated on a very simple equation: the Brachos come “אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ”, while the Klalos are found when the opposite it true, “אִם לֹא תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ”.

Among the many Brachos that are promised if we follow the Derech Hashem is one that seems basic in nature: “יִפְתַּח ה׳ לְךָ אֶת אוֹצָרוֹ הַטּוֹב אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם לָתֵת מְטַר אַרְצְךָ בְּעִתּוֹ”. If we are in the category of “שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ” than we will experience the Shefa that comes with timely rain and bountiful produce. The value of timely and plentiful rain is understood even today, when we no longer live in a strictly agrarian society, and even more so when we did. It is therefore understood that this would be an important Bracha, one upon which so many others depend.

The Medrash, here, seems to highlight the significance of this particular Bracha, speaking about the practice of one of the Tana’im: “רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה רוֹאֶה אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִים הָיָה מְבָרֵךְ יִתְפָּאֵר וְיִתְגַּדֵּל וְיִתְבָּרֵךְ שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם.” When R’ Yehuda bar Yechezkel saw the rainfall arriving in the proper time and in the requisite volume, he would call out in Shevach V’Hoda’ah to HKBH, “שֶׁהוּא מְמַנֶּה אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים וְרִבֵּי רְבָבוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים עַל כָּל טִפָּה וְטִפָּה שֶׁיּוֹרֶדֶת”. R’ Yehuda explained that Hashem assigns legions of Malachim to the rain, one for each drop.

The Medrash continues, explaining why this is necessary: “מִכָּאן וְעַד הָרָקִיעַ מַהֲלַךְ חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וְהַגְּשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִין וְאֵין טִפָּה מִתְעָרֶבֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ”. Shamayim, from whence the rain comes, is five hundred years away from the Aretz, and yet no single drop of rain is mixed with another.

This Medrash begs explanation: why must HBKH to assign a specific Malach to each and every drop of rain, so that none are mixed up? What danger is presented by a reality of “טִפָּה מִתְעָרֶבֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ”? And, if this is in fact a risk, why is it nto part of the Teva of rain that no two drops are mixed together? It seems from the words of R’ Yehuda that if not for the Malachim, the drops would indeed mix—why? What is it about this aspect of Geshamim that caused R’ Yehudah to exude praise of Hahsem in this way? The Medrash introduces this passage with the words “רְאֵה כַּמָּה גָדוֹל יְרִידַת גְּשָׁמִים”, singling out the attribute described by R’ Yehudah among the many benefits of rainfall—why?

It is worth noting that this is not the only time that the role of Malachim in rainfall is discussed.

The Sifri in Parshas Ekev, on the words “וְנָתַתִּי מְטַר־אַרְצְכֶם בְּעִתּוֹ יוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ”, brings the following Drasha: “לֹא עַל יָדִי מַלְאָךְ וְלֹא עַל יָדִי שָׁלִיחַ”. The word “וְנָתַתִּי” is understood to exclude any being other than HKBH, who bring the rainfall without any other intermediary. These words are reminiscent of the statement made Makkas Bechros: " ...וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה אֲנִי וְלֹא מַלְאָךְ... אֲנִי וְלֹא שָׂרָף”, but they must be understood on their own.

How do are the Sifri and the Medrash Rabba resolved with one another? If it is true that HKBH brings the rain “לֹא עַל יָדִי מַלְאָךְ”, why does the Medrash here speak about “אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים וְרִבֵּי רְבָבוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים עַל כָּל טִפָּה”? Are the Malachim involved in the rainfall or not?

On a very basic level we can explain the Sifri based on another Drasha brought Medrash on the words “יִפְתַּח ה׳ לְךָ אֶת אוֹצָרוֹ הַטּוֹב”. The Medrash asks: why does the Passuk use the word “יִפְתַּח”, which connotes opening, when speaking about rain? The Medrash brings an answer from R’ Yochanan: “שְׁלשָׁה מַפְתְּחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ שֶׁל הַקַּב׳׳ה, וְאֵין בְּרִיָּה שׁוֹלֶטֶת עֲלֵיהֶן לֹא מַלְאָךְ וְלֹא שָׂרַף”, there are three “keys” that are in the hands of HBKH alone: “מַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁל תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים, וּמַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁל עֲקָרוּת, וּמַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים”. These three benefits—rainfall, children and Techias HaMessim—can be brought abour by HKBH alone, and no other being.

This would seem to be the message of the Sifri as well: the choice to bring rain comes through HKBH alone, “לֹא עַל יָדִי מַלְאָךְ וְלֹא עַל יָדִי שָׁלִיחַ”, because only Hashem holds that key. Once that decision is made, however, and the rain begins to fall, the “אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים וְרִבֵּי רְבָבוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים” are dispatched to ensure that “וְאֵין טִפָּה מִתְעָרֶבֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ”.

Inasmuch as we understand the role of the Malachim in the arrival of rain, we still must understand their necessity: where is the benefit of the fact that no two raindrops are mixed together? What is the message of the Medrash that teaches us about this phenomenon?

There is a Gemara in Taanis, the Mesechta which speaks most about rainfall, which seems relevant to this discussion.

The Gemara tells us: “אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָטָר בִּשְׁבִיל יָחִיד, פַּרְנָסָה בִּשְׁבִיל רַבִּים.”. Rain comes because of individuals, while Parnassah comes due to the Rabbim. R’ Yochanan cites the sources for this statement: the words “יִפְתַּח ה׳ לְךָ אֶת אוֹצָרוֹ הַטּוֹב, which refer to rain, are Lashon Yachid, while the words “הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם”, found in Parshas Beshalach, are Lashon Rabbim.

This Gemara is, of course, difficult to understand: the purpose of rain is to bring Parnasah, why does the Gemara here seem to separate them? In fact, in many cases, Geshem and Parnasah are interchangeable terms—what does it mean that one is “בִּשְׁבִיל יָחִיד” and the other is “בִּשְׁבִיל רַבִּים”? Even the Pesuskim brought by the Gemara are difficult to understand: the words “יִפְתַּח ה׳ לְךָ אֶת אוֹצָרוֹ הַטּוֹב” are speaking about the future, and would seem relevant even today, but the words “הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם” refer to the Monn, which is no longer applicable; how are these Pessukim related to one another, and why does R’ Yochanan base his statement on a Passuk that does not apply in these days?

Pehraps we can answer these questions, and explain the Gemara, based on the way R’ Shlomo Ganzfried, author of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, explains a Passuk in Koheles in his Sefer Aprion.

The Passuk says: “מְתוּקָה שְׁנַת הָעֹבֵד אִם־מְעַט וְאִם־הַרְבֵּה יֹאכֵל וְהַשָּׂבָע לֶעָשִׁיר אֵינֶנּוּ מַנִּיחַ לוֹ לִישׁוֹן”, but is difficult to understand: why does a worker sleep well whether he has more or less food to eat, while the wealthy can’t sleep precisely because of their abundance?

R’ Ganzfried explains that the Passuk is actually speaking about the same person: if a person is focused inward, he would sleep well knowing that he worked for his food, that he put in efforts to sustain himself. Sometimes these efforts are more successful than others but a person can sleep well knowing that he tried his best. This is the meaning of the words “מְתוּקָה שְׁנַת הָעֹבֵד אִם־מְעַט וְאִם־הַרְבֵּה יֹאכֵל “.

The end of the Passuk, however, speaks about a person who is outwardly focused, who looks not at what he has, but at what other people have. He looks at the wealthy and obsesses over their abundance, in comparison to his relative paucity, and this prevents him from rest: “וְהַשָּׂבָע לֶעָשִׁיר אֵינֶנּוּ מַנִּיחַ לוֹ לִישׁוֹן”, the rich man’s wealth causes the worker to lose sleep.

Perhaps this is the message of the Gemarah.

We know that the Monn, which was brought in the guise of “הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם”, was specific to each person: every person got exactly what was needed for his household—not more and not less. In addition, the Monn fell in different places based on a person’s standing: the Tzaddikim received it at their doorstep, while others had to go to increasingly distant locations to collect theirs. In this type of circumstance, no one looks at what another has—each person is only concerned with his own portion.

This is what the Gemara is telling us: “פַּרְנָסָה בִּשְׁבִיל רַבִּים”, to the extent that Parnassah is brought in a general sense, we must look at it like Monn, “הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם”. We ought not be concerned with anyone else’s portion, like the Monn, rather we must focus on the fact that “מָטָר בִּשְׁבִיל יָחִיד”, there is a specific amount of rain that is related to each and every individual person. We must keep this in mind so that we maintain the reality of “מְתוּקָה שְׁנַת הָעֹבֵד אִם־מְעַט וְאִם־הַרְבֵּה יֹאכֵל “, avoiding the trap of “וְהַשָּׂבָע לֶעָשִׁיר אֵינֶנּוּ מַנִּיחַ לוֹ לִישׁוֹן”.

We can understand the Medrash based on this idea as well.

When HKBH chooses to send Shefa to this world, as the bearer of the מַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁל גְּשָׁמִים it brings Parnassah to the entire world, פַּרְנָסָה בִּשְׁבִיל רַבִּים. R’ Yehuda bar Yechzkel opens our eyes to a very important aspect of this rain: Hashem dispatches “אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים וְרִבֵּי רְבָבוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאָכִים עַל כָּל טִפָּה “ to ensure that אֵין טִפָּה מִתְעָרֶבֶת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ. Each drop of rain has a Malach assigned, ensuring that it reaches the proper address. The Tafkid of these Malachim is to bring about the reality of “מָטָר בִּשְׁבִיל יָחִיד”, guaranteeing that each person receives his portion of the Shefa, not one drop more and certainly not one drop less.

We can easily understand why R’ Yehuda bar Yechezkel celebrated this aspect of Geshem to such an extent: an awareness of this reality allows us to lead lives of “מְתוּקָה שְׁנַת הָעֹבֵד אִם־מְעַט וְאִם־הַרְבֵּה יֹאכֵל “. If we realize and internalize the fact that each raindrop, every ounce of Shefa, has a Malach directing it to the proper recipient, we have no reason to look at anyone else. We will sleep well, knowing that we have what we need, what is due us—that the Malachim have delivered.