Completely Shielded

Kapital 84 begins with the words “Lamenatzeach Al HaGitis L’Bnei Korach Mizmor”, making it one of eleven Perakim in Sefer Tehillim that are in some way attributed to the group “Bnei Korach”. As we know, there is a Machlokes among the Meforshei HaPshat as to the identity of this group and therefore the origins of these Perakim. Rashi, earlier, explains that three sons of Korach—Asir, Elkana, and Aviasaf—were originally caught up in their father’s scheme, but separated themselves when the Machlokes erupted. Because of this, when the earth swallowed up the Adas Korach, a shelf emerged on which they rested rather than descending into Gehinom. The Gemara in Sanhedrin relates that they remained on the shelf singing Shira, and Rashi explains that this Shira became Perakim of Tehillim.

Radak, on the other hand, explains that the Bnei Korach were not in fact involved in authoring these Perakim. Rather, Dovid Hamalech wrote them and gave them to the Bnei Korach who were Meshoririm—the Leviim who sang Shira—at the time.

This Machlokes may have a bearing on the way we understand not only the origins but the overall theme of this Perek. Radak first explains that these Pessukim were written by Dovid Hamelech when he was Goleh to Eretz Pilishtim during his flight from Avshalom. This would, of course, be in line with his general understanding of the identity of the Bnei Korach.

Radak also suggests, however, that the Perek has more general theme, that it was “Ne’emar Al Lashon Bnei HaGalus”, said about—or on behalf of—those who find themselves in Galus. This understanding would aligns with the approach of Rashi, that the Perek is based on the Shira of the Bnei Korach, who may have sung about Galus in a general sense as well. Radak concludes with the words “V’Zeh Nachon”, however, indicating that whether this Mizmor was first composed by Bnei Korach or by Dovid Hamelech, it is focused on the Galus and not a particular moment in Dovid’s life.

Given this overall theme, it is perhaps not surprising that the emotion most predominant in these Pessukim is longing. This feeling, induced by our distance from home is reflected at the very outset of the Mizmor, which begins with the words “Mah Yedidus Mishkenosecha Hashem Tzivakos…” expressing a longing for the Mikdash and all that it represents.

These emotions are expressed most overtly in the next Passuk, however: “Nichfisa V’Gam Kalsa Nafshi L’Chatzros Hashem”. Rashi explains that the word “Nichfisa” means “Nechmeda” and “Kalsa” means “Nisava”. Metzudos adds that the word “V’Gam” indicates that the feelings of “Kalsa” are more intense than those of “Nichfisa”: not only are we “Chomed” the Chatzros Hashem, but we are “Nisveh” as well.

Ibn Ezra adds an even more intense dimension to these words, explaining that the word “Kalsa” is related to the term “Kila” or destroy: our desire and longing for the Mikdash is so intense that “Kimat Klasa”, we can barely survive. In fact, these emotions are felt in our body and mind as the Passuk concludes: “Libi U’Besari Yeranenu El Kel Chai”.

Our desperation at the destruction of the Mikdash is presented as a metaphor as well: “Gam Tzippor Matzah Bayis…Es Mizbechosecha Hashem…” This Passuk speaks about a bird finding a nest, and a place in which to hatch her young, then mentioning the Mizbeach. Rashi explains that this refers to the desolation of the Makom HaMikdash, “Mizbechosecha Hashem”, in which birds now make their nest. Radak explains these words from a different perspective, as an expression of defeat: even birds can find a safe haven, while we still languish in Galus.

The Pessukim speak about the great Zechus one would have if he could enter the Mikdash, using one of the most familiar Pessukim in Sefer Tehillim: “Ashrei Yoshvei Baisecha Od Yehallucha Selah”. Rashi explains that this refers to the Mikdash, and the opportunity one would have to be Mehallel HKBH once ensconced in its glory.

Towards the end of the Perek, the Pessukim turns into an overt Tefillah, beginning with the words “Hashem Elokim Tzevakos Shema Tifilasi Ha’azina Olkei Yaakov…” In this Tefilah we ask HKBH to bring back the Mikdash, for that is our ultimate purpose on this world: “Ki Tov Yom B’Chatzarecha M’Elef….” Even a single day spent basking in the glory of the Shechina is favorable to a thousand days in Galus.

To a certain extent, the next Passuk carries forward this idea: “Ki Shemesh U’Magen Hashem Elokim Chen V’Kavod Yiten Hashem”. Radak explains that while in Galus the only warmth or protection we have is from the “Shemesh U’Magen Hashem Elokim”, and with these words we ask that HKBH deliver us M’Afeila L’Ohr Gadol. The way this Passuk ends, however, requires some explanation.

On one hand, the words “Lo Yimna Tov L’Holchim B’Tamim” seem to fit into the overall Teffila: we ask that Hashem not withhold Tov from those who deserve it. At the same time, the words “L’Holchim B’Temimim” seem very specific: why are they used here? What is the definition of the “Holchei B’Tamim” and why does that quality render one worthy of the Geulah we all seek?

The literal meaning of these words, “those who walk in completion”, does not help us answer this question, but we know that there is a Middah called “Temimus” to which this may refer. If we can identify the traits associated with this Middah, we may understand what it means to be among the Holchim B’Tamim about whom we say “Lo Yimna Tov”.

The Middah of Temimus is mentioned in this week’s Parsha in very simple terms: “Tamim Tihiyeh Im Hashem Elokecha”. We are meant to pursue a Madreigah of Temimus, but the Torah does not specify what that means. Rashi, however, tells us: “Hishalech Imo B’Shleimus V’Titzapeh Lo V’Lo Tismoch Al HaMenachashim V’al HaMeonim”. One should be “Holech B’Temimus”, relying on Hashem and not super-natural forces such as seers an sorcerers.

It would seem from Rashi that in order to be defined as one of the “Holchim B’Tamim”, thereby qualifying for the promise of “Lo Yimna Tov”, one need only decry Menachashim and Meoninim—not an exceptionally high standard. The Middah of Temimus, however, seems to be elusive and difficult to achieve—how, then are we to understand the words of Rashi and the Passuk here that tells us “Lo Yimna Tov L’Holchim B’Tamim”?

Before trying to answer these questions, we can also take into account another question asked by the Medrash Shochar Tov on the very first Perek of Tehillim.

The Medrash brings the words “Shemesh U’Magen Hashem Elokim”, and explains that this Passuk refers to Avrohom Avinu, to whom the HKBH said “Anochi Magen Lach”. Similarly, the words “Lo Yimna Tov L’Holchim B’Tamim” correspond to the words “Hishalech Lifanai V’Heyeh Tamim”, said to Avrohom as part of the Tzivuy of Bris Milah.

The Medrash then asks a question: if these words refer to Avrohom Avinu, why are they plural, “Holchim B’Tamim” and not singular, “Holech B’Tamim”? The Medrash answers that any descendant of Avrohom who is Holech B’Tamim can be Zoche to the promise of “Anochi Magen Lach”. The words “Holchim B’Tamim” thefore refer to us, Klal Yisroel, who can receive the gift of Ki Shemesh U’Magen Hashem Elokim and Lo Yimna Tov if we follow the Temimus of our father Avrohom.

This Medrash, of course, begs the next question: how do we define the Temimus of Avrohom? In what way was he Zoche to the promise of Anochi Magen Lach?

The truth is that we often refer to these ideas each time we recite the words “Magen Avrohom” in Shemona Esrei, calling to mind the Magen that was provided the first of the Avos. Perhaps if we better understand the origins of this Bracha we can answer these questions. Although there are various Maamrei Chazal that discuss these words, there is one that can be instructional in this case.

The Pirkei D’Rebi Elazar tells us: “Avrohom Hischil Rishon L’Aser B’Olam”. The first one to take Maaser was Avorhom, who gave Maaser from Sedom and Amorah, as well as all that he got from Lot, to Shem ben Noach, who was a Kohen L’Kel Elyon, as the Passuk says: “Vayiten Lo Maasar M’Kol”. At that time, the Medrash continues, Avrohom said to HKBH: “Lo B’Koach Yadi Asisi Es Kol Ella…” freely admitting that all he had achieved came “B’Koach Yemincha She’Attah Magen Li”, at the hands of Hashem, so to speak. The Medrash concludes, telling us that the Malachim responded to this by saying “Baruch Attah Hashem Magen Avrohom.”

It emerges, from this Medrash, that each time we say the Bracha of Magen Avrohom, we recall the Maaser of Avrohom Avinu and his declaration of “Lo B’Koach Yadi Asisi Es Kol Ella…” It follows that the fact that Avrohom was “Hischil Rishon L’Aser B’Olam” is itself an expression of his Temimus, for which he was Zoche to the promise of “Anochi Magen Lach”. How can we understand this? How did the Temimus of Avrohom Avinu lead him to give Maaser?

It is interesting to note that in listing the qualities and accomplishments of the Avos Hakedoshim, the Rambam writes that it was Yitzchok Avinu who first gave Maaser, and not Avrohom, a statement which seems to run counter to the Medrash brought in Pirkei D’Rebi Elazar. Indeed, Ravad points out this apparent omission, asserting that the Rambam should have included Maaser among the Mitzvos that Avrohom did. We cannot, however assume that the Rambam ignored this Medrash, and so his words require explanation.

R’ Shalom Tzvi Shapira, an Alter Mirrer who served as a Mashgiach in Eretz Yisroel, answers this question in his Sefer Hameor Shebatroah.

The Maaser of Yitzchok, he explains, was taken from the crops that he grew, from the work of his own hands. The Maaser of Avrohom Avinu was completely different: it was taken from the spoils of war which he won B’Derech Nes. The Divrei Chazal are replete with the details of the battle that Avrohom fought with only 318 men, using handfuls of dirt that turned into arrows to defeat mighty armies—it was the loot of that war about which the Passuk says “Vayiten Lo Maasar M’Kol”.

When Yitzchok saw that his father took Maaser from these Maasei Nissim, he extended the Hanhaga into his life, as was the case in all he did, and began to take Maaser from crops, and that is the Mitzvah that we have until this day. The Rambam therefore includes the Maaser of Yitzchok, which is more similar to the Maaser that we take, and not that of Avrohom, which was taken from Maasei Nissim.

Based on this, we can perhaps explain the Temimus of Avrohom Avinu.

To a certain extent, it seems more logical to take Maaser from the crops that one grew than from that which he acquired B’Derech Nes. After all, when one toils in his field, or at his occupation and brings home the fruits of his labor, he should share the wealth, so to speak, giving part of his bounty to one who is less fortunate. If, however, he receives wealth only B’Derech Nes, it stands to reason that this is the exact amount that HKBH intended him to have, and therefore he may keep the entire fortune.

This logic only computes if one sees a difference between his crops and that which comes from Nes—this was not the outlook of Avrohom Avinu, however. He understood that there is really no difference between something he “worked” for and something given to him through an open Nes: they both come directly from HKBH. This is why Avrohom said “Lo B’Koach Yadi Asisi Es Kol Ella…” when he was giving Maaser from the spoils of the war that was won through clear Nissim: it was the same to him as if he had toiled long and hard for those riches, he saw no distinction between “regular” income and “miraculous” income.

This was the Temimus of Avrohom, which led to the promise of “Anochi Magen Lach” and the Bracha of Magen Avrohom: a sense of total and complete Bitachon, in which there is only one world, that of HKBH. Temimus reflects not only action, but a worldview in which one does not distinguish between the Olam HaRuchani and Teva—there is only Hashgachas Hashem. For a true Tamim in the Derech of Avrohom Avinu, the crops one harvests are just as miraculous as the spoils of a Nes: “Ain Bahem Shum Teva U’Minhago Shel Olam”.

This is the Temimus described by Rashi in Parhas Shoftim as well: “Hishalech Imo B’Shleimus V’Titzapeh Lo V’Lo Tismoch Al HaMenachashim V’al HaMeonim”. If one relies on the supernatural, he shows that his worldview allows for something other than Hashgachas Hashem, just as one who believes in Teva. A true Tamim sees no point in the Menachashim and Meonim, relying solely on HKBH in all matters.

This is the promise of “Lo Yimna Tov L’Holchim”: if one lives a life of Temimus akin to that of Avrohom Avinu, making no distinction between Teva and Hashgacha, but leading a life entirely dedicated for the Ratzon Hashem, he becomes one of the “Holchim B’Tamim” enjoys the promise of “Lo Yimna Tov”.

When we Daven for the “Shemesh U’Magen” to lead us M’Afeila L’Ohr Gadol, we must remember that it is the Holchim B’Tamim, who lead lives of Temimus in the path of Avrohom Avinu, who enjoy the promise of “Lo Yimna Tov and who will ultimately be Zoche to the dream of “Ashrei Yoshvei Baisecha Od Yehallucha Selah. “