Staff Work

Kapital 110 begins with the words “L’Dovid Mizmor Ne’um Hahsem…” and is a short Perek with a distinct focus. From the outset, it is clear that this Perek speaks about victory over enemies: “Shav L’Yemini Ad Ashis Oyvecha HaDom L’Raglecha”, but the identities of these enemies is not as apparent. In fact, Rashi included two separate Pirushim on the entire Perek, each one aligning with a view as to the origins of these Pessukim.

The first Pshat in Rashi follows the Midrashei Chazal who attribute this Perek to Avrohom Avinu. Following the miraculous victory over the four kings, Avrohom would certainly have been endlessly thankful to HKBH, and Chazal tell us that he wrote these words at that time.

An allusion to the war is found in the middle of the Perek: “Nishbah Hashem V’Lo Yinachem Tzedek.” Rashi explains that Avrohom had been worried that he may be held responsible for the deaths of so many, but Hashem told him not to fret: “Al Tirah Avrom…” In fact, “Atah Kohen L’Olam”, he was rewarded with Kehuna for his actions in that battle. The Passuk ends with the words “Al Divrasi Malki Tzedek”, referring of course to the king who praised him so highly at that time.

Rashi, and others, view the Perek through this lens, finding many references to Avrohom Avinu and his actions. For example, the Passuk says “Amcha Nidavos B’Yom Cheileich B’Harei Kodesh M’Rechem…” Rashi explains that Avrohom, who was Hikir Es Boro at the young age of three, was considered a “Kodesh M’Rechem Imo.”

Some references are even more direct. For example, the Passuk says “Machatz B’Yom Apo Melachim”, speaking specifically about a war with kings. The next Passuk, according to Rashi, speaks about the Bris Bein HaBesarim, which immediately followed the war with the four kings.

Ibn Ezra brings the view that this Perek was written in reference to the war fought by Avrohom Avinu, but writes that he himself sees these Pessukim in a more general sense. The enemies being spoken about, he says, are those of Dovid Hamelech. The second Pshat of Rashi, brought at the very end of the Perek, takes a similar approach.

The enemy spoken about in this Perek, says Rashi, is Shaul Hamelech, and was written as Dovid ran from his vengeful predecessor. Rashi goes through each of the Pessukim and shows how they may be related to that episode, and indeed have broader meaning. In this Pshat, the Pessukim are understood as speaking not only about Shaul, but about all of our enemies, as Dovid writes about their attempts to defeat us, and the Yeshua that Hashem brings us.

In taking this broader approach to the Pessukim, we can of course look to Divrei Chazal to understand their meaning. In fact, there is a Medrash that explains a Passuk in this Perek in a way that addresses one of the well-known questions on this week’s Parsha.

The Passuk tells us: “Mateh Uzcha Yishlach Hashem M’Tzion…” In his first Pshat, Rashi explains that the Matteh, which means something to lean one, refers to Malki Tzedek, who brought provisions to the tired soldiers returning from the war, helping to support them in their time of need. In his second approach, Rashi explains that these words refer to the Mitzvos and Maasim Tovim that help support a person as hie faces his enemies.

The Medrash in Shemos Rabba brings a third approach.

The Passuk in this week’s Parsha says “V’Amarta El Aharon Kach Es Matcha.” On these words the Medrash brings the Passuk in Tehillim, “Mateh Uzcha Yishlach Hashem M’Tzion” and concludes: “Ain HKBH Rodeh Es HaReshaim Ella B’Mateh L’Fi Shenimshalu L’Kelavim.”

The Medrash seems to be answering a very simple question that many ask on the entire story of Yetzias Mitzrayim: Why the Matteh? Why was it necessary for Moshe and Aharon to employ the Matteh when bringing the Makkos upon Mitzraimy? The Medrash answers that HKBH punishes Reshaim using a Matteh because they are like dogs, who are controlled through by using a stick. This is why Moshe and Aharon used the Matteh in bringing the Simanim and in punishing Pharoah—he was a Rasha, akin to a dog, and required this treatment.

The Passuk in Tehillim, “Mateh Uzcha Yishlach Hashem M’Tzion” can be understood in this light as well: the enemies spoken about in this Perek also would be beaten with a stick, like the dogs they represent.

In order to properly understand this Passuk, and really the Medrash as well, we must understand the words of the Medrash, “L’Fi Shenimshalu L’Kelavim”. Why are Reshaim compared specifically to dogs? What is the Middah of a dog that renders a Rasha punishable by the Matteh Uzcha?

There is another Mamar Chazal that speaks about our enemies being compared to Kelavim, which perhaps adds to this question.

The Gemara in Megillah tells us that when Esther reached the Bais Achashverosh, ready to plead on behalf of her people, the Shechina left her. Esther sensed this, and began to wonder why, and the Gemara relates her thought process. Among the reasons Esther thought the Shechina may have departed was: “Shema Al Shekarasiv Kelev…Chazara V’Karaso Aryeh”. Esther realized that she had referred to Achashverosh as a dog, and perhaps this had caused the Shechina to leaver her presence, and therefore she began to refer to him as a lion.

Here too, we see that an enemy is referred to as a Kelev, but that this may have in some way been an error—Esther changed her description of Achashverosh in order to welcome the Shechina back into her midst. How can we understand the Medrash and Gemara in tandem? What is the type of enemy that is compared to a Kelev, and why was Esther wrong in using this term to describe Achashverosh?

To answer this question, let us look at the way Chazal describe the Middah of a Kelev.

The Merash, elsewhere in Shemos Rabba, speaks about the Middah of Chutzpah and tells us that there are three beings that have this Middah in abundance, among them: “Chatzuf B’Chaya Kelev.” The central Middah of a Kelev, then, is Chutzpah. It would seem that this Middah should be reflected in the enemies that are compared to dogs—how can we understand this concept?

Although we have seen that the Reshaim, and enemies of Klal Yisroel, are compared to Kelavim, there is another comparison to dogs that is perhaps more surprising. The Tikunei Zohar speaks about the Teffilos of Klal Yisroel on Rosh Hashana and actually compares us to Kelavim who act with Azus. This is obviously a difficult passage to understand and requires explanation.

The Satmar Rav, in a Rosh Hashana Drasha published in Divrei Yoel, explains this Tikunei Zohar with an empowering thought.

The Middah of Azus displayed by the dog is that he really poses very little threat. While other Chayos can maul or maim those who threaten them, the dog does not have that ability. In truth, his bark is must worse than his bite—he can make noise, and perhaps appear threatening, but the damage he can inflict is quite limited. This is the Azus of the dog, in the Geder of “Chatzuf B’Chaya Kelev”.

We, explains R’ Yoel, can learn from the dog—we can be Oved Hahsem with Azus. Sometimes we may feel that our bark too is worse than our bite—that we have too few Mitzvos and too many Aveiros to dare face HKBH in Tefillah. Nonetheless, we can learn from the Kelev to have Azus D’Kedusha, to bark even when we have no bite. It is this Middah to which the Tikunei Zohar refers—the comparison to the Kelev

is not a criticism, but a praise: on Rosh Hashana, Klal Yisroel comes before the Melech despite a lack of Zechuyos, employing true Azus D’Kedusha.

Based on this, we can understand the comparison of our enemies to Kelavim.

There are some enemies who are like Kelavim—they may persecute and even harm us, but their threat is not existential. When this is the case, the enemies are compared to dogs—they bark, and may even bite, but their threat is limited. This was Pharoah: he enslaved us, and inflicted great pain, but the Geulah was predetermined. This is the enemy that is Shenimshalu L’Kelavim, and is therefore punished with a Matteh.

Esther, however, made the mistake of thinking that Achashverosh was in the same category, but because he was attached to Haman, he was in a different realm. Amalek threatens our very existence—when an enemy comes from Amalek, we must treat him differently. We cannot rely on a Geulah in the offing—we must do our part to defeat his scrouge. That is why the Shechina left Eshter when she referred to Achashverosh as a dog—misjudging the threat of Amalek is itself detrimental—he must be seen as a lion.

We can now understand the words “Mateh Uzcha Yishlach Hashem M’Tzion” as explained by the Medrash, as well as the use of the Matteh by Moshe and Aharon. Hashem told them to use the MAtteh to show Klal Yisroel that Pharoah was but a Kelev—vicious but limited—and the Geulah would soon be brought.

As we confront our own enemies, we must be able to make the distinction between a Kelev and an Aryeh, treating each one as necessary, and enabling our Geulah to come as well.