Big Tent

Kapital 61 begins with the words Lamenatzeach Al Niginas L’Dovid, and Metzudos explains that the “Niginas” is a particular type of instrument, indicating that Dovid Hamelech composed this Mizmor using, or to be accompanied by, the Neginas. The Perek itself can be understood in two ways, as explained by Radak. The simplest approach is that these lines were written by Dovid Hamelech as he fled from Shaul, finding himself in a personal Galus. The other way of understanding the Perek is that it was written in regards to the Galus in which Klal Yisroel would find itself in the future.

The words of the Kapital are easily understood in either light. For example, Dovid Hamelech begins with the words “Shama Elokim Rinasi Hakshiva Tifilasi”, asking that Hashem hear our Tefillos. In any Galus, be it personal or national, the need for HKBH to accept ones Teffilos is acutely felt. The next Passuk expresses a similar idea: “Miktzei HaAretz Elecha Ekra”, our Teffilos are sent to Hashem from the ends of the earth, scattered amongst our enemies as we may be.

These Tefilos are accompanied by Kabalos as well: “Ki Attah Elokim Shamata LiNidarai”. Radak explains that Dovid made Nedarim to be fulfilled upon his safe return, and with these words asks HKBH to accept these Nedarim. So to, when in Galus, we express hopes that we may one day be able to fulfil Nedarim and Nedavos when we return to Eretz Yisroel.

The Kapital returns to the promise of Geulah, and the accompanying fulfilment of Nedarim, in its closing as well: “Ken Azamra Shimcha La’Ad L’Shalmei Nidarai Yom Yom”. Rashi sees these words as something of a pact: “K’Mo SheTetiv Li Ken Azamra Shimcha”. The Tovos that HKBH will do for us, in returning us to our rightful place, will lead us to exalt His name to no end.

The theme of the Perek, an intense yearning for a return to the warm embrace of HKBH, can be seen throughout its Pessukim, including one that is perhaps relevant to this week’s Parsha.

Dovid Hamelech says: “Agurah B’Ohalecha Olamim Echseh B’Seser K’Nafecha Selah”, asking to dwell in the Ohel of Hashem. Metzudos understands these words in an on a very practical level, as referring to protection from enemies, L’Olam, forever. Rashi, however, explains that the word “Olamim” refers to the two “worlds”: Olam HaZeh and Olam Habah. Dovid is therefore asking that he be Zoche in both this world and the next, and it appears that the source for this Pshat is to be found in Chazal.

The Gemara in Yevamos brings the story of R’ Elazar who said over a Halacha without attributing it to his Rebbi, R’ Yochanan. The Gemara tells us that R’ Ami and R’ Asi went to try and appease R’ Yochanan, who was upset at his Talmid, but to no avail only later was a different Amorah, R’ Yaakov bar Idi, was able to calm R’ Yochanan.

The Gemara then asks why R’ Yochanan was so upset at R’ Elazar and answers based on the words of this Passuk: “Agura B’Ohalecha Olamim”. It is possible, asks the Gemarah, for one to dwell in two worlds as once? Rather, explains the Gemara, Dovid was asking HKBH that Halachos should be said over in his name in this world, even after he had passed on to the next, so that it would be as if he remained in this world. The implication of the Gemara is that R’ Yochanan was so Makpid on his Talmidim repeating Memros in his name because this would allow him to live in two worlds, so to speak.

This Gemara certainly seems to the source for Rashi’s Pshat in the Passuk, but there is an important question to ask: why was this something that concerned Dovid Hamelech and then R’ Yochanan? Why is it important to live in two worlds, so to speak?

Before answering this question, there is another understanding of the Passuk to consider.

Radak, in keeping with his dual view of the Perek, explains the word “Ohel” slightly differently. If the Perek is seen as a general Tefilah of Galus, then these words refer to the Bais HaMikdash, for which we endlessly yearn. If, however, these Pessukim are more of a personal Tefilah of Dovid Hamelech, the word “Ohel” refers to the Mishkan, which was extant at the time. In either case, the Tefillah is simple to understand as the timeless plea to return L’Chatzros Bais Hashem.

It seems that the exact wording of the Passuk must be understood both according to Rashi and Radak. Why did Dovid Hamelech choose the word “Ohel” here? If, as Rashi learns from the Gemara, this Passuk refers to the two worlds, as indicated by the word “Olamim”, why is the word “Ohelecha” used at all?

Further, if we follow the approach Radak, that these words refer to the Mishkan or Mikdash, we can ask the same question. There are many words that can be used to speak about the Bais Hashem—why use the word “Ohalecha” in particular? To wit, what is the meaning of the term “Ohel” as it relates to the Mishkan, which is the focus of this week’s Sedra?

In order to answer these questions, and gain a better understanding of the Passuk, let us look to a Medrash that seems to merge both these ideas.

The Passuk in Parshas Naso speaks about the day of the Hakamas HaMiskah saying: “Vayehi B’Yom Kalos Moshe L’Hakim Es HaMishkan…” The Medrash Rabba there, perhaps sensitive to the “Hey HaYediah” in the word “HaMishkan”, takes the opportunity to relate various characteristics of the Mishkan. Among them the Medrash tells us: “Es HaMishkan SheHu Shakul K’Neged Kol HaOlam”, the Mishkan was, in some way, equal to the entire world. This idea is based on the fact that both the world and the Mishkan are referred to in Pessukim as “Ohel”, as the Medrash relates.

We see that the word Ohel actually links the two meanings of the word that are seen in this Passuk: both the world and the Mishkan are known as “Ohel”. Perhaps, then, the key to explaining the Passuk and the words of the Meforshim is to better if we better understand the implication of this word.

R’ Bentzion Yadler, in Tiferes Tzion on the Medrash in Naso, explains that the nature of an Ohel is that it is transient, it moves from one location to the other. This was of course the case with regard to the Mishkan, which was moved from one location to another, but it is true of the world as well. The world we live in, the Olam to which the Mishkan is compared, is fleeting—it is not Nitzchius—and so it too can be called an Ohel, the embodiment of transience.

Based on this we can explain the words Agurah B’Ohalecha Olamim. As we noted, there are other ways to refer to the Mishkan, but perhaps Dovid Hamelech chose this terms in particular because of the other meaning of these words.

Perhaps both Dovid Hamelech and R’ Yochanan were concerned not with what might happen after they passed from this world, but how they would act when they were still upon it. The way to ensure that we are fulfilling our protentional and maximizing our growth during our time on this planet, is to remember that it is an Ohel. Dovid Hamelech and R’ Yochanan ensured that they would use their time on this world wisely by constantly contemplating how they would be remembered when it was over. Dovid asked “Agurah B’Ohalecha Olamim” in order to remind himself that the day would come when his only way to contribute to this world would be through others bearing his words.

When in Galus, personal or national, we yearn for a return to the Bais Hashem, pleading “Agurah B’Ohalecha”, but we use the term Ohel, recalling the transient nature of our existence, and enforcing the imperative that goes with this reality.

Maybe this is why the Mishkan was in fact constructed as an Ohel—to carry forth this message with clarity. When one approached the Mishkan, he was reminded that his time on the world is fleeting, that we all live in an Ohel of sorts, and we must best make use of the time we have inside it. As we learn the Pessukim of the Meleches Hamishkan, this lesson is particularly important to remember, so that we may soon bring the day on which our Nedarim and Nedavos can be brought along with a Kiyum of the promise made to HKBH: “K’Mo SheTetiv Li Ken Azamra Shimcha”.