Coordinated Cries

Kapital 13 begins with the words “Lemenatzeach Mizmor L’Dovid” and is one of the shorter Perakim in Sefer Tehillim. Radak identifies two ways to understand the impetus for this Perek, both of which are fairly common: either Dovid wrote it that a time that he was beset by enemies, or it is written about the Galiyos that Klal Yisroel would later experience. Both approaches can be seen in the Pessukim, all of which are rather plaintive.

Although the Perek ends with Dovid Hamelech declaring his Bitachon that Chesed Hashem prevails, “V’Ani B’Chasdecha Batachti…”, the opening Pessukim are somewhat less hopeful. Dovid asks HKBH: “Ad Anah Hashem Tishkacheni Netzach Ad Anah Tastir Panecha Mimeni”. The Hester Panim that is felt when one is in a troubling situation can some time make one feel that Hashem has forgotten them, so to speak—an emotion that is expressed very plainly in these words. The next Passuk has a similar tone and message: “Ad Anah Ashis Eitzos B’Levavi Yomam Ad Anah Yarum Oyvai Alai”. Dovid speaks about the troubles that plague his mind, and the machinations of his enemies, all of which contribute to his feelings of hopelessness.

Although these Pessukim are easily understood, both on their own and in the context of the Perek, the way they are written requires some explanation: the words “Ad Anah” are not that common and must be understood. Radak and Metzudos explain that these words mean “Ad Massai”, and Dovid is therefore asking Hashem, “Until when …” at the beginning of each of these phrases. While this is understandable in the literal sense of the Pessukim, we still must understand why these words are chosen: the Passuk could have said “Ad Masai Hashem Tishkacheni Netzach…” and so on—the words “Ad Anah” must have a specific connotation that Dovid Hamelech wished to inject into these Pessukim.

Adding to this notion is the fact that the word “Anah”, spelled with a Hey at the end as it is here, does appear elsewhere in Tanach, which a particular meaning. For example, the Passuk in Sefer Shmuel tells us that when Dovid was running from Shaul, he asks the Urim V’Tumim if he should return to Eretz Yehuda, asking “Anah E’eleh”, meaning “to where should I go”. The implication of the word Anah, here and elsewhere, is the word “where”. How does that fit into these Pessukim?

The truth is that this is not the only place in Tanach where the words “Ad Anah” appear—they are found in this week’s Parsha as well.

After the Klal Yisroel reacted to the words of the Meraglim, the Passuk tells us that Hashem spoke to Moshe Rabbeinu, saying: “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am HaZeh V’Ad Anah Lo Ya’aminu Bi…” HKBH uses this term to criticize the complaints and lack of Bitachon on the part of Klal Yisroel. Rashi, there, explains the words “Ad Anah” as “Ad Heichan”, which conforms to the meaning of the word Anah elsewhere, but presents its own difficulty. How do we understand the words of HKBH here? How does the question “Ad Heichan”, until where, fit with the remainder of the Passuk?

Perhaps we can answer this question based on the words of Sforno here. He writes: “Ad Eizeh Gevual M’HaBizu Esbol SheYivzuni”. The words “Ad Heichan”, are obviously not to be understood literally, as “to which place”, but “to what extent”. Hashem was asking Moshe, Kaviyachol: “To what extent must I bear the embarrassment of Klal Yisroel?”

We can use this understanding to explain the words of Dovid Hamelech here: he is asking to what extent he must bear his pain and suffering, and the plotting of his enemies, “Ad Anah Yarum Oyvai Alai”.

Although we can often understand the words in one place based on their use in an unrelated Passuk, in this case, it seems that the common words are used precisely because the Pessukim are in fact related.

The Medrash in Bamidbar Rabba, on the words “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am HaZeh…” tells us that HKBH told Moshe Rabbeinu the following: “Shtei Tzavachos Tzavachti Mipnechem Sofchem LiTzoach Arbah”. Because Hashem cried out, Kaviyachol, twice, we would cry our four times. The Medrash goes on to explain that the two “cries” of HKBH are marked by the two uses of the words “Ad Anah” at the Chet HaMeraglim, and the four “cries” that result are the four cries of “Ad Anah” found in the Pessukim in Tehillim.

The Medrash clearly links the Pessukim in Parshas Shelach and those in Tehillim by more than just the phrase “Ad Anah”, which they have in common. It is telling us that the words “Ad Anah Hashem Tishkacheni Netzach” are needed because we caused Hashem to say “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am”.

This Medrash would seem to fit better with the second Pshat brought by Radak as to the subject of this Kapital. If the Perek is written by Dovid Hamelech about his personal travails, it would be difficult to understand that he was punished, leading to the cries of “Ad Anah”, because of the Meraglim. If, however, we assume that Dovid wrote these lines about Galus, then we can explain that the pain of Galus is because of the Meraglim.

This notion is supported by the words of Rashi in Tehillim who explains that the words “Ad Anah” are repeated four times “K’Neged Arba Golios”, in connection with the four times that we found ourselves in Galus. The words of Rashi would seem to be based on a rather pithy Medrash Tanchuma which lists each of the four phrases that begin with “Ad Anah” and connects them to the four nations that oppressed Klal Yisroel in Galus: Bavel, Madai, Yavan and Edom, respectively.

Based on the Tanchuma, and the words of Rashi, we can conclude that the Medrash in Bamidbar Rabba is sending us an important message: the cries that escape our lips in Galus, the times that we raise our eyes to Hashem and ask “Ad Anah Tastir Panecha Mimeni”, are the results of the fact that Hashem had to say “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am HaZeh” on that fateful night.

How can we understand this? We know that the Bechios Shel Chinam that Klal Yisroel cried at that time led to a Bechiya Shel Doros, but this Medrash seems to be adding an additional element. It seems that the response of HKBH to those cries, “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am” led to the various pleas that we have in Galus—what does this mean, and, why is it true?

Perhaps we can answer this question, and explain the link between the Pessukim in this week’s Parsha and those in Tehillim, based on another Medrash that highlights a different word in the Passuk in Shelach.

The Torah tells us, in Parshas Chukas, that towards the end of their stay in the Midbar, members of Bnei Yisroel complained about the Mon, saying “V’Nafsheinu Katza B’Lechem HaKelokel”. The Yalkut, on these words, explains that Klal Yisroel was complaining because the Mon was not digested as normal food is, and produced no human waste. HKBH reacted to these complaints with disbelief: the Mon rendered all who ate it equal to Malachim—they had no waste, and it was as if they had never eaten it—and this was what Bnei Yisroel found fault in. The Medrash concludes by connecting this episode to the Passuk in Shalach: “Ad Anah Lo Yaaminu Bi K’Chol HaOsos Asher Ani Oseh B’Kirbo”. Although the Chet Hameraglim took place almost forty years before the words “V’Nafsheinu Katza B’Lechem HaKelokel” were uttered, HKBH ties the complaints of Klal Yisroel in both instances together, making reference to the Nissim that were done “Bikirbo”, regarding their insides.

It seems, based on the Yalkut, that the Chet of Klal Yisroel at the time of the Meraglim was somehow connected to the remonstrations against the Mon, which took place numerous times in the Midbar, some prior to the Chet HaMeraglim, and some after. How can we understand this? What is the connection between these two sets of Aveiros, and how can this help us to understand the link between the cries of “Ad Anah”?

In Parshas Behaloscha, when the Torah tells us of the Asafsus, who also complained about the Mon, the Sifri explains their objections in a succinct way. The Asafsuf were did not desire exotic foods that they had never tried before, rather “Hayu Masrimin Al HaMon ShaHaya Yored Lahem Yom Yom”. They were complaining about the Mon, which fell each day.

This Sifri is a little vague—what were their complaints about the Mon, and why does the Medrash remind us that it fell each day?

The Netziv, in Ha’Amek Davar, explains the Sifri based on a Gemara in Yoma which tells us that the Mon feel each day, rather than once a year, so that the Bnei Yisroel would have to Daven each day to ensure that it would fall the next.

The complaint of the Asafsuf was that they were too dependent on HBKH: rather than their fate being in their own hands, so to speak, they were reliant on their Tefilos to bring the Mon each day. Because they couldn’t keep the Mon from one day to the next, and each day they received only what they needed until the next, there was no way for them to be in control of their own sustenance—they relied solely on HKBH. This is why there complaint was about the Mon, “ShaHaya Yored Lahem Yom Yom”.

Although the Sifri, and the words of the Netziv, are said about the Asafsuf, we can apply them to the later complaints about the Mon, found in Parshas Chukas. The Yidden complained that they were not living true physical existence—the fact that the Mon made them akin to Malachim further highlighted the fact that it was Lechem Min Hashamayim, and due in no way to their efforts.

Based on this idea, we can perhaps understand the connection between the Chet of the Meraglim and the complaints about the Mon.

The Meraglim knew that in order to live in Eretz Yisroel properly, and not risk being ejected from the land, Bnei Yisroel would have to live elevated existence, relying on the Hashgachas Hashem in totality. It is, of course, true that “Tovah HaAretz Me’od Me’od”, but it comes with a responsibility that they perhaps had a hard time accepting. They would no longer lead a life of Lechem Min HaShamayim in the strictest sense, but Yishuv HaAretz would depend on them understanding where their sustenance truly came from, perpetuating the feelings that arose in with regard to the Mon.

When HKBH saw that Bnei Yisroel accepted the words of the Meraglim, rejecting a continued existence of relying on the Hashgashas Hashem, He asked: “Ad Anah Yenitzuni Ha’Am HaZeh V’Ad Anah Lo Ya’aminu Bi…” making reference to their feelings on that night, as well as the attitude that caused them to reject the Mon. These two Averios share a bond, as they are both based on the desire to assume control of our lives, rather than relinquishing our Ratzon to that of the Borei Olam.

It was for this reason that Hashem said “Shtei Tzavachos Tzavachti Mipnechem Sofchem LiTzvoach Arbah”. The same illusions that lead us to Avierah in the Midbar—that our own devices would be preferable to the Hashgacha Elyona—lead us to Galus, and the oppression of the Umos HaOlam. As a result, we find ourselves crying out “Ad Anah Hashem Tishkacheni Netzach Ad Anah Tastir Panecha Mimeni”, longing and pining for the Hashgachas Hashem that we once rejected.

These Medrashim, and Pessukim, reveal a vicious cycle: we feel that the we would be better off without direct Hashgacha, only to learn how helpless we are when Hester Panim prevails. It is then that we ask “Ad Ana”, hoping that there is a limit to the troubles that we suffer, that there is an end in sight—that one day we can once again be Zoche to the Lechem Min HaShamayim that will mark our return to the warm glow of the Shechina.