Shimini – פרק ל׳׳ח

Kapital 38 begins with the words “Mizmor L’Dovid L’Hazkir”, an opening that appears only one other time in Sefer Tehillim. Rashi explains the purpose of this Mizmor based on its unique introduction: Dovid Hamelech wrote this Perek “L’Omro B’Shaas Tzar”, to be said in times of trouble, “L’Hazkir Tzarasam Shel Yisroel Lifnei HKBH”, to remind HKBH of our Tzaros. Although Radak first suggests that the “Hazkir” was one of the types of Niggunim used in the Mikdash—an approach in line with his general understanding of such terms—he later explains this word, and the purpose of the Perek, similarly to Rashi: the Mizmor was written for anyone to say when they are in pain, “L’Hazkir”, as a reminder that Teffilah is our only choice in such times.

Perhaps supporting the approach of Rashi and Radak, Sfrono explains the context in which Dovid wrote these lines. The Gemara in Sanhedrin tells us that Dovid Hamelech suffered from Tzaras for six months, during which time the Shechina was removed from him, and it was during this period that these lines were written.

Taking the words of the Meforshim in tandem, we see that, as is so often the case in Sefer Tehillim, Dovid used his personal suffering to bring others hope. He translated his own pain into words that others could use during their darkest hours to plead for the Yehsuas Hashem.

The words of the Mizmor itself certainly convey these feelings, as the Pessukim describe the Tzaros we face in very stark terms: “Ki Chitzecha Nichasu Bi VaTinachas Alai Yadecha”. The pain we feel is inflicted by the arrows of HKBH, so to speak, and it is His hand that we feel pressing down upon us. These Tazros also feel boundless, with every part of our being affected: “Ain Misom B’Bsari….Ain Shalom B’Atzmi.

Even if one does not understand the meaning of phrases such as “Nifugosi V’Nidkesi Ad Me’od”, we can sense their tenor. That they speak of a person who is numbed by his pain, and crushed by his Tzaros, is almost palpable. The same is true of the words “Libi Sicharchar Azvani Kochi”, in which Dovid describes his faltering heart and waning strength.

Pain and suffering such as that which Dovid describes is often accompanied by a sense of loneliness—an emotion that Dovid describes as well: “Ohavi V’Re’ai M’neged Nigi Yaamdu U’Krovai Merachok Omdu”. If his loved ones seemed distant, Dovid’s enemies were poised to take advantage of his situation: “Vayiankshu Mivakshei Nafshi V’Dorshei Ra’asi….”

The Mizmor continues in this vein, and ends by reiterating Dovid’s awareness that there was only one way for him to be spared from further Tzaros: “Al Ta’azveni Hashem Elokai Al Tirchak Mimeni…Chusha L’Ezrasi Hashem Teshuasi”.

As we have seen, the Perek has a simple purpose: embroiled in his own Tzaros, Dovid found a way to give a voice to others, allowing them to use his words to beg for their own Yeshous for generations to come. This is certainly an exhibit of the character of Dovid Hamelech, but it seems that Chazal saw an additional level of Tzidkus in this Perek, related to this week’s Parsha.

At the beginning of Parshas Shimini we learn of the events that transpired on the day of the Chanukas HaMishkan. The “Yom HaShimimi” was meant to be one of great celebration—it was the day that the Shechina would dwell in the Mishkan, amongst Klal Yisroel—but it was soon marred by great tragedy. Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon HaKohen, who were meant to be Oleh L’Gedulah, brought an Aish Zarah into the Mishkan, and perished.

In the aftermath of this tragedy, the Pessukim record the words of Moshe to his brother Aharon: “Hu Asher Diber Hashem Leimor B’Krovai Ekadesh…” The Torah then tells us how Aharon reacted: “Vayidom Aharon”.

The Mechilta, there, explains this exchange.

Moshe told Aharon: “M’Sinai Ne’emar Li Asid Ani L’Kadesh Es HaBayis HaZeh…B’Adam Gadol Ani Mekadsho”. HKBH had told Moshe Rabbeinu that the Mishkan would become Mekudash through and Adam Gadol, “B’Krovai Ekadesh”, and Moshe had thought that the Adam Gadol would be either him or Aharon, but it was now clear that Aharon’s sons were Gedolim.

The Mechilta continues, relating Aharon’s reaction to this information: “Kivan SheShama Aharon Kach Tzadak Alav Es HaDin V’Shasak.” When Aharon heard Moshe Rabbeinu's words, he was Matzdik the Din and remained silent, as the Passuk says, “Vayidom Aharon.”

The Medrash then brings examples of other Tzadikim who were “Matzdik Aleihem Es HaDin”, including the Avos HaKedoshim, citing the words that each of them said regarding troubles that they found. In addition, “Dovid Tzadak Alav Es HaDin” Dovid was also MAtzdik the Din, as the Passuk in this Perek of Tehillim says: “Hevishu Numaku Chaburosi Mipnei Ivalti”. Dovid proclaims that his wounds fester, that he suffers, because of his Aveiros—an act, according to the Mechilta, of Tzidduk HaDin.

The Mechilta seems to point out an act of Tzidkus found within this Perek—Dovid ties his Tzaros to his own actions in a public way, so to speak—but requires explanation on several fronts.

First, in a general sense, how can we understand the words “Kivan SheShama Aharon Kach Tzadak Alav Es HaDin V’Shasak”? Why did Moshe’s explanation, “M’Sinai Ne’emar Li Asid Ani L’Kadesh Es HaBayis HaZeh…B’Adam Gadol”, cause Aharon to be Matzkik the Din? Also, and perhaps more pressing, how is silence an expression of Tzidduk HaDin? Aharon did not say “Hashem Hu HaTzadik…” or anything of the sort—he remained quiet. He may have accepted the Din, but how can we understand that the words “Vayidom Aharon” represented Tzidduk HaDin?

And, if it is true that Aharon’s silence was itself Tzidduk HaDin, how can we understand the remainder of the Medrash? The examples brought from the Avos HaKedoshim are all statements that they made, including “V’Anochi Afar V’Efer” and “Katonti MiKol HaChasadim”. Why does the Medrash compare these examples of active Tzidduk Hadin, so to speak, with the passive Tzidduk Hadin represented by the words “Vayidom Aharon”? Also, if Aharon learned that he should be Matzdik Es HaDin from the Avos, why did he remain silent instead of making a statement as the Avos did? The same can be asked of Dovid Hamelech: presented with the Tzidduk HaDin of “Vayidom Aharon”, why did he use the words “Hevishu Numaku Chaburosi Mipnei Ivalti”?

Lastly, there are examples throughout Tehillim of Dovid Hamelech speaking openly about his inequities, tying the travails he experienced to his Aveiros. Why, then, did the Medrash choose this example specifically to illustrate that Dovid was Matzdik Es HaDin?

In order to explain this Medrash, we must better understand Aharon’s silence at that moment.

The truth is that even the way the Passuk is written must be explained: why is the word “Vayidom” used instead of a form of the word “Shtikah”? While this may seem like a question of semantics, there is a Medrash that seems to reveal that is in fact a nuanced point.

The Medrash Rabba explains the words “B’Krovai Ekadesh similarly to the way the Mechilta does, but brings a different Pshat to the words “Vayidom Aharon”: “Kivan Sheshama Shebanav Yarei Shamayim Hem Shasak”. When Aharon heard that his sons were Gedolim, and could therefore fulfil the words “Asid Ani L’Kadesh Es HaBayis HaZeh…B’Adam Gadol”, he was silent. The Medrash adds that he was rewarded for this silence as well. Then, the Medrash asks a question: “UMinayin SheShasak?”, how do we know that Aharon was in fact silent? The Medrash answers with the words “VaYidom Aharon”.

How can we understand this final question? If the word “VaYidom” means silence, and is interchangeable with the term “Shetikah”, what is the Medrash asking? We know that Aharon was silent because the Passuk tells us so—rather, we must understand that the word “VaYidom” does not necessarily mean “and he was silent”, and the Medrash therefore has to tell us that in this case it does.

If so, we must understand what the word “Vayidom” connotes and why it was used here to mean silence, as the Medrash indicates.

In order to understand the meaning of a word in the Torah, it is often helpful to turn to Targum Onkeles. In this case, the words “Vayidom Aharon” are rendered as “VaShibach Aharon”, which means “and Aharon praised”. Now, Shevach is generally understood to be vocal in nature, which would seem to indicate that Aharon was not silent here, but rather offered Shevach with words. It is this point that the Medrash clarifies: “UMinayin SheShasak…Vayidom Aharon”.

How then can we understand the essence of the term “VaYidom”? On one hand, we see that it means “Shevach”, but the Medrash seems to indicate that it connotes silence. The only logical conclusion is that silence is a form a Shevach, a notion that seems to be supported by Chazal.

There is a Passuk elsewhere in Tehillim in which Dovid Hamelech says of HKBH, “Lecha Dumiah Tehilah”. Rashi, there, explains that when it comes to HKBH, “HaShetikah Tehilla”, silence is a form of Shevach because there is no end to the Shevach due Hashem, and the Klal of “Kol HaMosif Goreah” applies. Here we see that the word Dumiah, the root of the word “VaYidom”, refers to the Shevach of Shtikah.

The Gemara in Megillah seems to take this idea even one step further. Quoting the words “Lecha Dumiah Tehilah,” the Gemara brings a Drasha: “Samma D’Kula Mashtuka.” Rashi explains that this means that the choicest and most fragrant spice is Shetikah. The words “Lecha Dumiah Tehilah” teach us that silence is not only a form of Shevach but indeed the highest and best form of praise for HBKH.

How can we understand this? For all the pages of Shiros V’Sishbachos, for all the Pessukim of Shevach V’Hodaah, would it really be best if we said nothing at all? How can we understand the concept of “Samma D’Kula Mashtuka” and how does it apply to the words “Vayidom Aharon”?

R’ Levi Yitzchok, in Likutim of Kedushas Levi, brings another Passuk in Tehillim that uses a similar word: “Dom L’Hashem V’Hischollel Lo”. This Passuk speaks of the need for a person to await the Yeshuas Hashem secure in the knowledge that it will arrive. The word “Dom” explains R Levi Yitzchok, connotes Bitachon—when awaiting the help of HKBH, one is silent not because he doesn’t know what to say, but because his Bitachon renders it unnecessary to speak.

If Dumiyah is defined as a silence that comes from Bitachon, we can understand the words “Samma D’Kula Mashtuka”. When a person reaches the levels of Bitachon that allow him to be silent, to stand by and await the Hashgachas Hashem, that is the ultimate praise of HKBH. When one trusts fully in Hashem, to the level of Dumiyah, his very existence is a form of Shevach, indeed Samma D’Kula Mishtuka.

The words “Lecha Dumiah Tehilah” teach us the value of Shevach through silence, and perhaps allow us to understand the words “Vayidom Aharon” on a new level.

Faced with utter tragedy, Aharon said nothing—but not because he was lost for words, or didn’t know what he could say, rather “VaYidom Aharon”, he expressed the ultimate Shevach. At that moment, Aharon attained a level of Bitachon that made it unnecessary for him to speak—his was a silence of “Dom L’Hashem V’Hischollel Lo”, and was therefore in the category of Samma D’Kula Mashtuka.

This is what the Mechilta means to tell us: with the words “Hu Asher Diber Hashem Leimor B’Krovai Ekadesh” Moshe Rabbeinu offered Aharon an explanation that allowed him new insight into the Darchei Hahsem, “Kivan SheShama…Tzadak Alav Es HaDin V’Shasak”. It was at that moment that Aharon attained the level of “Dom L’Hashem V’Hischollel Lo”, and he was therefore silent, offering the greatest display of Tzidduk HaDin possible. By not speaking, by engaging in the Middah of Samma D’Kula Mashtuka, Aharon showed that he trusted fully the Darchei Hashem, and there was no need for him to speak.

The Mechilta wishes to show, however, that other forms of Tzidduk HaDin are acceptable as well—not everyone is Zoche to attain a level of “Dom L’Hashem V’Hischollel Lo” and so it brings examples of our Avos HaKedoshim being Matzdik Es HaDin verbally. This tells us that even if our level of Bitachon does not match that of Aharon HaKohen, there are ways for us to exhibit Tzidduk HaDin.

Perhaps this is why the Medrash chose the words “Hevishu Numaku Chaburosi Mipnei Ivalti”, from this Perek specifically, as the example of Dovid being Matzdik Es HaDin. Since Dovid wrote this Mizmor on behalf of us, “L’Omro B’Shaas Tzar”, the Tzidduk HaDin that is found in its Pessukim is relevant to us as well. We may not attain a level of “Dom L’Hashem V’Hischollel Lo” and we may not be able to engage in the Samma D’Kula Mashtuka as Aharon did, but each on our own level may examine our circumstances and see the Tzeddek that is found in our Din. If we do so appropriately, then our cries of “Al Ta’azveni Hashem Elokai Al Tirchak Mimeni…Chusha L’Ezrasi Hashem Teshuasi” will resonate all the more.