Shabbos Chazon – פרק קל׳׳ז

Kapital 137 begins with the words “Al Naharos Bavel”, and is, of course very closely related to the period of Bein Hametzarim. In his introduction to Sefer Tehillim, Ibn Ezra uses this Perek as proof that Dovid Hamelech wrote Tehillim using Ruach HaKodesh, for if not, he could not have written about the events that followed the Churban HaBayis so many years later. Taking this into account, a simple question arises: why was it necessary for Dovid to know about these events so that he could write this Kapital? There is no doubt an important message we can take from its words—what might that be?

At the outset, Rashi points out that this Perek is written from the perspective of the Leviim, whom were taken to Galus at the hands of Nevuchadnetzer. Although this notion is supported by mention of Bavel, Sforno points out that a later Passuk speaks about Edom, a reference to Churban Bayis Sheni. Radak, later, explains that indeed most of the Pessukim are written from the perspective of the Leviim, but the last three spoken by Dovid himself, who knew that the second Churban would come at the hands of Edom.

That the first number of Pessukim are taken from the experiences of the Leviim following Churban Bayis Rishon seems uncontrivable. The Passuk begins: “Al Aravim B’Socha Talinu Kinoroseinu”, words that are the source for a well known story. Radak explains that the Meshoririm left Yerushalayim with their harps and as they sat on the banks of Nahar Peras they took their instruments in hand, intending to play music as they had while in the Ir HaKodesh. However, as they began to think about the Churban, the harps became heavy in their hands, and they hung them upon the nearby willows, their sweet tones silenced in pain.

The story continues in the next Passuk: “Ki Sham She’alunu Shovenu Divrei Shir…” The Yalut tells us that Nevuchadnetzar, taking note of their silence, asked the Leviim to play for him and his gods as they had in the Bais Hamikdash. The next Passuk records their answer to this request: “Eich Nashir Es Shir Hashem Al Admas Nechar.” Although this seems like a rhetorical question, the Yalkut explains that in fact it was a very practical response: the Leviim had severed their own thumbs, rendering themselves truly incapable of playing the Shir Hashem Al Admas Nechar.

The Perek continues with two of the most stirring Pessukim related to the Churban, words which are used to this day to express our longing for the Bais Hashem. “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini” The simple understanding of the Perek would attribute these words to the Leviim: as they sat on the banks of the river, contemplating their loss, they vow never to forget Yerushalayim and everything it represents. “Tidback Leshoni L’Chiki Im Lo Ezkerechi.”, even their ability to sing would be curtailed by their mourning over the Churban Habayis.

Rashi, however, seems to understand these words slightly differently. He writes: “Keneses Yisroel Omeres Ken.” These words were not said by the Leviim—they were the commitment of Klal Yisroel. At the time of the Churban, as all of us were taken to Galus, we made this pledge to keep Yerushalayim and the Bais Hamikdash at the forefront of our thoughts, even in our most joyous times. It is this commitment that we uphold to this day, constantly recalling the Churban even as Simcha pervades our lives.

Though they differ as to whom uttered these words—whether it was the Leviim or all of Klal Yisroel—Rashi and Radak agree that this Passuk is written from the perspective of those that were sent into Galus following the Churban. There is, however, a Medrash that attributes these words slightly differently.

The Passuk in Yeshaya, which is read as part of the Shiva D’Nechemta, speaks about the notion that Hashem may have forgotten His chosen city and its people: “VaTomer Zion Azavani Hashem V’Hashem Shechachani”. The Medrash Agadas Beraishis, a collection of Medrshim attributed to the Tana Rav, cites this Passuk and tells us that Hashem responds to this claim with the words “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini”. The Medrash continues, relating the response of HKBH: “At Omeres Azavani Hashem Im Eshkocheich Osach Eshkach Es HaTorah SheNasati B’Yemin.”

The Medrash seems to be telling us that the words “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini” can be understood as having been said by HKBH: lest we think that Hashem has forgotten Yerushalayim, we must know that to do so would be as though the Torah itself, which was given B’Yemin, was forgotten. This approach certainly differs from that of the Meforshei HaPshat: it is not those who were present Al Naharos Bavel who declared “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini”, but Hashem, reassuring us that it would not be possible for Him to forget.

How can we understand this Medrash? Why does HKBH respond to the allegation that He may forget us, “Azavani Hashem V’Hashem Shechachani”, by speaking about the Torah SheNasati B’Yemin? What is the connection between these two Pessukim? How indeed do the words “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini” form a reply to the claim of Tzion, “Azavani Hashem V’Hashem Shechachani”?

It seems that in order to explain this Medrash we must better understand the words of HKBH: “Eshkach Es HaTorah SheNasati B’Yemin”. Certainly, the same message could have been given without the words “SheNasati B’Yemin”, and so their addition is notable. What does it mean that the Torah was given “B’Yemin”, with the right hand of Hashem, and how does that relate to the conversation between HKBH and Tzion as recorded in the Medrash?

There are many Medrashim that mention the fact that the Torah was given “B’Yemin”, most of which bring the same source as the Aggadas Beraishis. For example, the Gemara in Brachos brings the Passuk in Yeshaya that says “Nishba Hashem B’Yemino U’Bizeroah Yado”, and tells us that “Yemino Zu Torah”. The Gemara proves this from the same source as the Agadas Beraishis: the Passuk in Zos HaBracha that says “M’Yemino Esh Das Lamo”. Similarly, Chazal often Darshan an appearance of the word “Yemin”, or any concept pertianing to the right-hand side, as related to the Torah, about which it is said “M’Yemino Esh Das Lamo.”

There is, however, another Medrash that draws a different comparison between the Torah and the word Yemin.

The Passuk in Shir HaShirim also mentions the concept of left and right hands, saying: “Smolo Tachas L’Roshi V’Yemino Techabkeni”. The Medrash in Shir HaShirim Rabba offers several Drashos on these words, among them: “Smolo Tachas L’Roshi Elu Luchos HaRishonim V’Yemino Techabkeni Elu Lchos HaShniim.” This Medrash also relates the hands of HKBH to the Torah, Kaviyachol, telling us that the Luchos Rishonim are connected to the Yad Smol of HKBH and the Luchos Sheniim to the Yad Yemin.

What does this mean? Why are the two sets of Luchos related to the two hands of HKBH and in particular, what aspect of the Luchos Sheniim connects them to the Yemin?

R’ Yehoshua of Belz, the second Belzer Rebbe, explains this Medrash based on an important Yesod. The left side, he tells us, is related to the Middas HaDin, while the right side, Yemin, relates to Middas HaRachamaim. Rashi in Parshas Beraishis tells us that originally HKBH intended to create the world completely through Middas HaDin, but when He saw that the world would not be able to exist in such a construct, the Middas HaRachmim was added, and in fact, given precedence over Din.

This, explains The Rebbe, is the meaning of the Medrash: when the Luchos Rishonim were given to us we existed in a state of Adam HaRishon Kodem HaChet and, had we been Zoche, we would have been able to achieve Shelimus even under the Middas HaDin. Following the Chet HaEgel, however, this was no longer a possibility, and the Luchos Sheniim were given B’Yemin, with the Middas HaRachamim. The Yemin in this case is also related to another aspect of HKBH that relates to the right hand: “Ki Yemincha Peshuta L’Kabel Shavim”.

The Middas HaRachmim of Yemin is that we can achieve Shelimus even when we have fallen. The Luchos Shniim tell us that even after Chet, even when we have lost the stature we once had, it is possible to lift ourselves up and reach new heights. The Luchos Sheniim were given B’Yemin, the same Yemin that is Peshuta L’Kabel Shavim—they gave us the ability to access this Midda of Yemin, and achieve greatness even when we have already fallen short.

Perhaps this is the answer that HKBH gives Tzion: “Omeres Azavani Hashem Im Eshkocheich Osach Eshkach Es HaTorah SheNasati B’Yemin”. We are fearful that HKBH may forget and abandon us. Why? What would make us feel this way? One can only assume that, being aware of our own shortcomings, we are fearful that we may one day sink below the point that Geulah is possible. How can we hope that Hashem will return us to our land if we know that we are wholly unworthy?

Hashem responds to these fears by reminding us that the Torah was given B’Yemin, the hand with which the Luchos Sheniim were given. To this day we reside in the world of the Luchos Sheniim, able to achieve Shleimus even when we are so far from our goal. In the world of Yemincha Peshuta L’Kabel Shavim there cannot be a point of no return—we can always emerge from the depth and seize new heights.

It seems that in order to be Zoche to the Geulah, we must live both Pshatim in the words “Im Eshkocheich Yerushalayim Tishkach Yemini”. It is vital that we mourn the Churban, that we are among the Misablim Al Yerushlayim so that we can by among the Zochin V’Roin B’Binyana. At the same time, we must use the PShat of the Medrash to maintain our hope—if we believe that we can achieve Shelimus, through the Middah of Yemin, then we will understand that HKBH cannot forget us, that we are mere steps from the Geulah, to the ultimate day of Alleh Es Yerushalayim Al Rosh Simchasi.