Long Days

There are many Haftoros that are very difficult to understand on their face. The Neviim speak cryptically, employing metaphor and symbolism, and much effort is required to decipher their intent. On the other hand, when the Pessukim of the Haftorah tell us a story, they are somewhat easier to understand. Even when this is the case, however, we have to focus not only on what the Navi tells us, but how. It is often here that the deepest lessons lay.

The Haftorah for Parshas Vayechi comes from the beginning of Sefer Melachim and tells us of the final conversation between Dovid Hamelech and his son and heir apparent, Shlomo. The Pessukim contain what is clearly advice from a loving father to a son thrust into a position of great responsibility. Dovid advises Shlomo in a general sense, telling him “V’Chazakta V’Hayisa L’Ish”, and warning him to stay on the Derech Hashem to ensure that “Lo Yikares Lecha Ish M’Al Kisei Yisroel”. Dovid also offers specific instructions about how to deal with certain individuals who had not served him faithfully.

What is perhaps most interesting about the interactions between Dovid and Shlomo is not what is said, but the way the Navi introduces the matter. The Passuk tells us: “Vayikrivu Yimei Dovid LaMus”, the days of Dovid drew close to Misa. This is an unusual turn of phrase, which always indicates that more exploration is necessary. In fact, this phrase is so unique that it appears only twice in all of Tanach: once here, and once in this week’s Sedra, where we are told “Vayikrivu Yimei Yaakov Lamus”. Obviously, if these words are used so sparingly, there is a reason that they are chosen with respect to Dovid specifically, and it is ours to understand why.

Rashi does not comment on the Passuk in Melachim, but in Parshas Vayechi he explains the implication of these words: “Kol Mi Shenemra Bo Kereiva LaMus Lo Hegiah LYimei Avosav”. Any time it says that someone was Karov LaMus, it is because he did not live as long as his forefathers. Yaakov Avinu lived 147 years, whereas Yitzchok lived 180. In the case of Dovid, who only lived 70 years, his life was far shorter than his ancestors. In fact, Daas Zekenim points out that the lives of Dovids three previous forebears—Boaz, Yishai and Oved—spanned over 400 years, indicating that each enjoyed very long lives.

The explanation of Rashi, which is of course based on Divrei Chazal, seems to explain one part of this phrase: the word “Vayikrivu”. When one did not live as long as his father, it is said that his Misa was brought close, “Vayikrivu”, as if to say that they came earlier than they may otherwise have. There is another word in this phrase that requires explanation, however, which is not necessarily aided by this approach: “Yimei”. If the Passuk wishes to inform us about the relatively short lifespan of Dovid Hamalech, or Yaakov Avinu, it could have spoken about his years, using a word related to Shanim, or his life, and used a word related to Chayim. Why does the Passuk speak about the days of Dovid coming closer?

The truth is that Chazal seem to be sensitive to this question, as it is the basis for an interesting Medrash.

The very last Medrash Tanchuma in the entire Torah discusses the words “Hen Karvu Yamecha Lamus”, which were said to Moshe Rabbeinu at the end of his life. The Medrash wonders: “V’Chi Yamim Hem Mesim?”, is it the days that pass on? Rather, explains the Medrash “Elu HaTzadikim Af Al Pi SheHen Meisin YImeihen Bitelin Min HaOIam Aval Hem Atzman Kayamim”. When a Tzaddik passes on from this world, explains the Medrash, his days are no longer but he himself remains. Further on the Medrash explains this dichotomy with a more familiar maxim: “Tzadikim Afilu B’Misasam Keruyim Chayim”. A Tzaddik, even when his is not physically alive, is still called “Chayim”. Reshaim, on the other hand, are called Mesim even when they are biologically alive.

The words “Vayikrivu Yimei Dovid LaMus”, then, tell us that Dovid was in the category: his days were coming to an end, but not his life. He was in the class of “Tzadikim Afilu B’Misasam Keruyim Chayim”, and so he would remain among the living even as his physical existence came to an end. This is of course unsurprising: Dovid Hamelech, Neim Zemiros Yisroel, about whom the Passuk testifies: “Asher Dovid Asa Es HaYashar B’Einei Hahsem V’Lo Sar Mikol Asher Tzivahu”. Clearly Dovid is to be counted among those who are “Keruyim Chayim” even after their passing.

That said, one wonders why the Passuk has to tell us this in regard to Dovid. The Medrash might have derived its lesson from Moshe Rabbeinu and Yaakov Avinu—two incomparable Tzaddikim whose “Yamim” are said to be ending. Once we know that Tzadikim Afilu B’Misasam Keruyim Chayim , we can assume that this applies to someone like Dovid Hamelech. Why is there a need for the Navi, here, to tell us “Vayikrivu Yimei Dovid LaMus” so that we may know that his days were ending but not his life?

This question takes on a different light if we examine the conclusion of the Tanchuma.

After establishing that a Rasha is called Mes even when he lives and breathes, the Medrash tells us why: “Mipnei Shero’eh Chama Zorachas V’Aino Mevarech Yotzer Or, Shoka’as V’Aino Mevarech Ma’ariv Aravim”. A Rasha sees a shining sun and neglects to make a Bracha, and similarly does not make the appropriate Bracha at the end of the day. He also neglects to make Brachos on his food and drink. A Tzaddik, on the other hand, makes a Bracha on all that he eats, drinks, sees and hears. This Hoda’ah concludes the Medrash, continues even as the Tzaddik is in the Olam HaEmes.

This part of the MEdrash is itself difficult to understand: why is the standing of a person, whether he is a Tzaddik or a Rasha, whether he is Chayim even when he has left this world or visa versa, based on the Brachos that he makes? Is this really the ultimate measure of a person’s Tzidkus? In addition, why does the Medrash choose the Brachos of Yotzer Or and Ma’ariv Aravim as the examples of the Brachos that a Rasha neglects to make? Surely there is a deeper understanding to these Divrei Chazal.

As they relate to Dovid Hamelech these words are certainly difficult to understand. As we have noted, we would have known that Dovid was a Tzaddik, and that “Tzadikim Afilu B’Misasam Keruyim Chayim”, without this Passuk. Based on the end of the Medrash, however, it appears that the Passuk specifically telling us that Dovid Hamelech was a Mevarch, that he made appropriate Brachos and expressed Hoda’ah to Hashem and therefore was among the Tzadikim about whom it is said Afilu B’Misasam Keruyim Chayim.

Why? Why does the PAssuk need to tell us this about Dovid Hamelech specifficaly? As we have seen, there are only two others in Tanach about whom this is said—Yaakov Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu—but we know that other Tzaddikim must also have made the appropriate Brachos, and were to be considered alive even after their passing. What does the Navi mean to tell us about the life and accomplishments of Dovid with these words?

Perhaps we can explain this Medrash based on another Mamar Chazal that mentions the longevity of Dovid Hamelech.

The Mincha Ketana on this Passuk explains the words “Yimei Dovid” in a similar way to the Medrash—that his days ended but not his life—and cites as his proof a Gemarah in Rosh Hashana which contains the words “Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam.” This phrase seems to indicate that Dovid lives on though he has long passed from the world—that his days have ended but not his life.

These words, Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam, and their source, may enable us to understand how Dovid lives on even to this day and what the Navi means to tell us.

The Gemara there tells a story: At one point, Rebbi felt that due to local cynics it wouldn’t be possible for him to be Mekadesh the Levana, and declare Rosh Chodesh, in his city. He therefore told his Talmid R’ Chiya to go to a place called Ain Tav and be Mekadesh the Levana there. Rebbi also told R’ Chiya that if he was successful in so doing, he should send him a message using the following words as a Siman: “Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam”.

One cannot learn this Gemara without asking a simple question: why did Rebbi choose these words as the Siman? What is the connection between Dovid Hamelech and Kiddush Hachodesh?

Rashi there explains that there is a connection between Dovid and the Levana, but this does not help us understand why the words “Chai V’Kayam” were used. Even if Rebbi wished to reference Dovid Hamelech in his Siman, because of this connection to the Levana, there must also be a reason that he used the phrase Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam in particular.

R’ Shlomo Kluger, in Chachmas HaTorah to Parshas Beraishis explains the Siman of Rebbi as follows.

In the Bracha of Kiddush Levana, which is our most direct connection to the Kiddush HaChodesh of old, we refer to Klal Yisroel as “Asidim L’Hischadesh Kamosa”. The monthly cycle of the moon, in which a body that seems to have faded is renewed in all its glory, is symbolic of our destiny: we too will one day emerge from our darkness and shine brightly.

R’ Shlomo explains that this Hischadshus will only happen when we are no longer Mavchin between good and bad—when we recognize that all which occurs is part of the Ratzon Hashem and therefore Kulo Tov. We learn this from a Passuk in Tzafania that compares Klal Yisroel after the Geulah to an Ani, a pauper who accepts anything that is given to him with grace.

This Middah, the ability not to be Mavchin between Tov and Rah, but to accept all with equanimity was present in Dovid Hamlech who said about himself “Avarcha Hashem B’Chol Es”. One can only praise Hashem in any circumstance—even the exceedingly difficult situations in which Dovid found himself—if he sees all as the Ratzon Hahsem, and therefore the ultimate Tov.

The next step in R’ Shlomo’s explanation is startling.

It was only when Adam HaRishon ate from the Etz HaDa’as that mankind became susceptible to being Mavchin Bein Tov L’Rah, before that point all would have been seen as the Tov that it is. If one achieves a level of “Avarcha Hashem B’Chol Es”, however, he escapes the affects of the Etz HaDaas and is therefore not subject to the Klalah of Misa that resulted from the Aveirah. The words “Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam” attest to this accomplishment: because Dovid was not Mavchin between Tov and Rah, he was not subject to Misa and was therefore “Chai V’Kayam”.

The Siman of Rebbi is now understood: the aspect of Chai V’Kayam that applied to Dovid Hamelech is closely tied to the Chidush Halevana and its relationship to our ultimate Hischadshus.

We can now understand the Tanchuma very well.

The words “Mipnei Shero’eh Chama Zorachas V’Aino Mevarech Yotzer Or, Shoka’as V’Aino Mevarech Ma’ariv Aravim” are not meant literally, but in the figurative sense. When one sees the sun setting, when he sees darkness descending, but cannot make a Bracha it is because he is Mavchin between Tov and Rah. A Tzaddik, however, makes a Bracha on all that he eats, drinks, sees and hears, as the Medrash tells us. This is because he is not Mavchin—everything that happens is worthy of Hoda’ah because it is all truly Tov. When one reaches this level in totality, he is on the Madreigah of “Avarcha Hashem B’Chol Es” and, as R’ Shlomo explained, not subject to the Klalah of Misa.

This is why the Navi tells us “Vayikrivu Yimei Dovid LaMus”. Dovid Hamelech was the paradigm of this Middah—with all that he endured throughout his life, he saw no Rah, and could say Shevach to HKBH at every turn. He clearly perceived all the Tov that Hashem bestowed upon him, and rose to a level of “Avarcha Hashem B’Chol Es”. Because of this, his life did not end when his days did, and he will always be “Dovid Melech Yisroel Chai V’Kayam.”

The lesson to us is clear: we must strive to walk in the path of Dovid Hamelech, not to be Mavchin between Tov and Rah, but to see that all Hashem does is Kulo Tov. In so doing we will bring closer the day of “Asidim L’Hischadesh Kamosa”.