High and Low

Kapital 115 begins with the words “Lo Lanu Hashem Lo Lanu” and is immediately familiar as one of the Perakim said as part of Hallel. In fact, although the first half of this Kapital is only included when Hallel HaShalem is said, the second half, beginning with the words “Hashem Zichanu Yivarech” is also included in Chatzi Hallel. While the frequency with which these words are said may enhance our basic understanding of their meaning, there are always deeper messages waiting to be uncovered.

The Gemara in Pesachim , cited by Radak here, asks “Hallel Zu Mi Omro”, and offers several answers. In each case the Gemara mentions someone who was in a dangerous situation and asked Hashem to save them, but not for their own sake: “Lo Lanu Hashem Lo Lanu.” Among the possibilities that are mentioned to answer this question are Moshe and Bnei Yisroel at the Yam Suf, Devora and Barak, Chizkiyahu Hamelech and others.

The final opinion cited is that of R’ Yosi HaGalili: “Mordechai V’Esther Omruhu B’Sha’ah SheAmad Aleihem Haman HaRasha”. This suggestion is interesting as we don’t say Hallel on Purim, the day in which the Teffilos of Mordechai and Esther were answered. The Gemara in Megillah explains that we don’t say Hallel on Purim because “Akati Avdei Achashverosh Anan”, we are still subservient to Achashverosh. Though Haman was defeated during the days of Esther, we are still in Galus, still subject to the Achashverosh of our time, and Hallel is therefore not said. This being the case, a better understanding of the words said by Mordechai and Esther, the Teffilos that they offered, can likely help us understand how best to address our reality of “Akati Avdei Achashverosh Anan”.

As we know, the beginning of the Kapital speaks about the boundless Koach of HKBH relative to the ineptitude of the false gods worshipped by our enemies. While “Elokeinu Bashamayim Kol Ahser Chafetz Assah”, those that are “Ma’aseh Yidei Adam” cannot affect any actual outcomes. They might have impressive visages, as they are made of Kessef V’Zahav, but their corporeal existences are totally useless: “Peh Lahem V’Lo Yidaberu, Einayim Lahem V’Lo Yiru…”

The first portion of the Kapital ends with a full-throated expression of our Bitachon in HKBH: Klal Yisroel, the Kohanim, and the Yirei Hashem—whom Rashi defines as Gerim and Radak as Talmidei Chachamim—are all “Boteach B’Hashem” because they know that “Ezram U’maginam Hu”.

The second portion of the Kapital, beginning with the words “Hashem Zichronu Yivarech”, we ask that our Bitachon be rewarded: “Yivarech Es Bais Yisroel…HaKetamim Im HaGedolim.” We further ask that this Bracha be abundant, “Yosef Hashem Aleichem V’Al Beneichem…Beruchim Attem L’Hashem Oseh Shamayim V’Aretz”.

Radak explains that the next Passuk is connected to these words: “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam”. Although Hashem is the “Oseh Shamayim V’Aretz”, the physical world has been given to mankind to enjoy, though it is our responsibility to remember that in truth, HKBH is the Adon Kol. This knowledge should propel our Shevach V’Hodaah, as the Perek concludes: “V’Anachnu Nivarech Kah….”

On its face, there does not appear to be anything in this Perek that is specific to Mordechai and Esther: as the Gemara itself notes, throughout our history we have faced many existential threats, and offered Teffilos to HKBH that have been answered. Further, many of the Pessukim are in the category of Shevach, and even those that are clearly Teffilah do not seem to be of the nature that one would expect when facing a reality of “L’Hashmid L’Harog U’LiAbed Es Kol HaYehudim…Taf V’Nashim….” Where, then, do we find the marks of Mordechai and Esther upon these Pesukim, to the extent that the R’ Yosi suggests that they first said these words?

Perhaps we can answer this question based on a Gemara related to this week’s Parsha.

The Passuk tells us: “V’Noaditi Lecha Sham V’Dibarti Itach M’Al HaKapores.” When Hashem spoke to Moshe, the Shechina rested upon the Kapores which lay upon the Aron Hakodesh. The Gemara in Sukkah teaches a Halacha based on these words: the minimum height for a Sukkah is ten Tefachim. The Gemara continues, explaining that the Aron was one and a half Amos high and the Kapores was one Tefach, totaling ten Tefachim. Since the Passuk tells us that the Shechina rested upon the Kapores, at a level of ten Tefachim, the Schach, which represents the Sechina, must remain ten Tefachim off the ground.

The Gemara continues, explaining that the Shechina cannot descend lower than ten Tefachim because the Passuk says: “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam”, indicating that the Shamayim and Aretz are two different realms. It seems, based on the Gemara, that the part of the world given to humans, HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam, ends at the height of ten tefachim, after which the Shamayim Shamayim L’Hashem begins.

The Gemara later confirms that the Shechina never descended lower than ten Tefachim, and that the Kapores was indeed one Tefach high, ensuring that the Shechina indeed rested at that level in the Mishkan. The outcome is therefore clear: the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam” teach us that the Shechina does not descend below a height of ten Tefachim, staying squarely in its Reshus.

How can we understand this idea? Why does the Shechina rest only in its place, in the Shamayim Shamayim L’Hashem, and what impact does this have on us? Why must we be aware of the Shecina’s minimum height—how should the knowledge that HaShechina Eina Yoredes L’Mattah M’Eser Amos affect our own Avodas Hashem?

In addition, we must explain how this understanding of the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam” fits into the context of the Perek in which they are found. Why did Mordechai and Esther speak about the area to which the Shechina limits itself when being Mispallel about Haman? If this Perek was first said at the time when “Amad Aleihem Haman HaRasha”, why did they include the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem…” with their implication regarding the Reshuyos of the Shechina?

In order to answer these questions, we must better understand the concept of Shamayim and Aretz existing as two separate Reshuyos, separate domains from one another. This is especially difficult, as there is a Medrash which seems to contravene the idea.

The Medrash in Parshas Va’era tells us that originally HKBH indeed created a world in which the reality of “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam” existed: the Shechina would stay in the realm of Shamayum, while the Bnei Adam inhabited the Aretz. Then, at the time of Mattan Torah, HKBh was “Bitel Gezeirah Rishona” and said that the Tachtonim should ascend to the Elyonim, and vice versa, “V’Ani HaMaschil” HKBH was the first to follow this dictate, Kaviyachol.

It seems from the Medrash that the Shechina was in fact “Yored L’Mattah M’Eser Amos” and that after Mattan Torah the concept of two Reshuyos, and a literal fulfilment of the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem…” ceased to exist, contrary to the conclusion of the Gemara. How, then, can we understand the two Mamarei Chazal in concert with one another, and how can this help us understand the words ““Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam”?

The Passuk in Sefer Yeshaya says “Lu Karata Shamayim Yaraditah M’Panecha Harim Nazolu”, speaking about HKBH tearing open the Shamayim, referring to Mattan Torah, as Targum Yonasan explains. It seems that at the time of Kaballas HaTorah the Shamayim was in some way torn—a concept that seems relevant to our discussion.

The Shem M’Shmuel in Parshas Yisro explains these words with an important insight. He writes that his father, the Avnei Nezer, explained that during Ma’aseh Beraishis, the Rokiah was made to separate the Mayim Elyonim from the Mayim Tachtonim, and this affect permeates the Briah. In all cases there is Kodesh and Chol, Elyon and Tachton, and a separation exists so that never the twain shall meet. This separation, concludes the Avnei Nezer, is called Shamayim. The Shem M’Shmuel explains that because this was the case, when the Torah, which is from the Olam HaElyon, was given to the Olam HaTachton, there was a necessity of Krias Shamayim—the separation had to be parted.

This is not only true in the world at large, continues the Shem M’Shmuel, but in a person himself as well. We each have a Chelek that is Elyon, known as the Sechel, and a Chelek that is Tachton, known as the Lev, and there is often a separation between them. The separation does not allow the Sechel to control the Lev, and the Tachton can therefore become the dominant force. Just as Mattan Torah created a Krias Shamayim, allowing the separation between the Elyon and Tachton to be permeated, so to the Torah and Mitzvos can allow each person’s Eloyn to access his Tachton, thereby allowing Sechel to take control.

This idea can allow us to understand the Medrash Rabba: the world was created in a way that there is a distinct separation between Elyon and Tachton, under the rubric of “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam”. With Mattan Torah, however, an opening was created, allowing the Elyonim and Tachtonim to coexist—the Torah itself serves as the conduit between Kodesh and Chol, allowing a persons own Olam HaEloyon to control his Olam HaTachton. It is therefore true that the Shechina did not descend below Eser Amos, as the Gemara suggests, but at the same time a portal was created allowing the “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem” to suffuse the “Aretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam”.

This is why the Gemara goes to such great lengths to determine that the Shechina rested at exactly the height of ten Tefachim, atop the Aron HaKodesh, as the words “V’Noaditi Lecha Sham” reveal. This teaches us that the Torah, represented by the Aron, is where we can meet the Shechina, so to speak. The Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem ends at ten Tefachim, and it is there that the Aretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam begins, but the chasm between the two is bridged by the Torah. This concept is, therefore, instructional to us: if we wish our Sechel to rule upon our Lev, if we want our Elyon to dominate our Tachton, we must cling to the Torah, for this allows the necessary Krias Shamayim.

The Shem M’Shmuel explains that this applies among the Umos HaOlam as well. Amalek, the epitome of the Olam HaTachton, can only be defeated with the Cherev of Yisroel, which is Torah and Teffilah. This well understood: if we wish for Bnei Yisroel, the representation of the Olam HaElyon among the Umos, to dominate the Reishis Goyim Amalek of the Olam HaTachton, we must create a Krias Shamayim through the Torah.

We can now understand why Mordechai and Esther included the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam” in their Teffilos. Faced with an enemy that defines the Olam HaTachton, they wished to reassert our connection with the Olam HaElyon. By engaging in Torah and Teffilah, they created the opening between Shamayim and Aretz necessary for their Yeshua. The extent of their success is seen by the fact that Chazal tell us “Kimu Mah SheKiblu K’var”, that there was another instance of Mattan Torah at the time of the Nes Purim. The actions of Mordechai and Esther, and all whom joined them, created a Krias Shamayim akin to that of Har Sinai, bringing to fruition the words “Hashamayim Shamayim L’Hashem V’HaAretz Nassaan L’Bnei Adam” with all their implication.

As we still face the forces as Mordechai and Esther, “Akati Avdei Achashverosh Anan”, we can look to their words for instruction. If we access our potential in Torah and Tefffilah, if we maximize our Avodas Hahsem, than we can bring the Olam HaTachton under the control of the Olam HaElyon—not only on a personal level but within the world—so that we may join with all Bais Yisroel in singing the ultimate Hallel of “V’Anachnu Nevarech Kah M’Attah V’Ad Olam.”