Peaceful Existence

Kapital 120 is the first of the fifteen Shir Hamalos, which were written by Dovid Hamelech to be recited by the Leviim in the Mikdash. It is a short Kapital that takes the form of a plaintive Teffilah to HKBH, but it also has an important connection to this week’s Parsha.

The words of the Perek are relatively simple to understand. Dovid begins by speaking about the Koach of Teffilah: “B’Tzarasa Li Karasi V’Aneni”. Whenever he found himself in in a difficult situation, he called out to Hashem, he was answered. Then, we learn what this Teffilah may have been: “Hashem Hatzilah Nafshi M’Sfas Sheker M’Lashon Rimiya”. Rashi explains that this refers to the Reshaim who use their powers of persuasion against us, putting us in positions that require the Yeshuas Hashem.

In a turn of metaphor, these machinations are compared to “Chitzei Gibor” and “Gachalei Resamim”, piercing arrows and hot coals. Radak explains that coals sometimes look as though they have cooled, but they smolder within, primed to burn the unwitting. The same is true of the purveyors of Sfas Sheker and Lashon Rimiya: they lure us in with a false sense of security, only to turn on us.

If we assume that these Pessukim were written by Dovid Hamelech about his own life, it is not surprising that he speaks so openly about enemies who lie and cheat, as these were obstacles he faced reputedly. There is, however, a Medrash that suggests a different origin of these words.

At the beginning of this week’s Parsha, the Torah tells us that, as Yaakov traveled toward Charan he reached the Makom Hamikdash, “Vayishkav Bamakom HaHu”, and he rested there. Rashi notes that the word “HaHu” is Lashon Miyut: “B’Oso Makom Shachav”, Yaakov rested at that spot but for the fourteen years he that he was in the home of Ever, “Lo Shachav BaLayla SheHaya Osek BaTorah.” This is a relatively well-known Rashi, which seems to speak to the Mesiras Nefesh of Yaakov Avinu for Limud HaTorah: so involved was the Ish Tam Yosehv Ohalim in his learning that for fourteen years he did not sleep.

The words of Rashi, however, are based on a Medrash in Beraishis Rabba, which speaks about Yaakov’s sleep habits. There, Chazal tell us that not only did Yaakov avoid sleep during the time that he was in Yeshivas Shem V’Ever, but also for the twenty years that he was in the Bais Lavan. The Medrash then asks a question about this astounding accomplishment: “Mah Haya Omer?” What did Yaakov say all night as he stayed awake? R’ Yehoshua Ben Levi answers: “Amar Chamesh Esrei Shir HaMaalos SheBiSefer Tehillim”, while R’ Shmuel bar Nachman says that he recited the whole Tehillim.

Although it is not clear from the Medrash whether the words of R’ Yehoshua ben Levi and R’ Shmuel bar Nachman are going on both sets of sleepless years or only one, it is clear from Rashi that he understood that during his years in the Yeshiva of Shem V’Ever, Yaakov was kept awake by Limud Hatroah. The origins of the Perakim of Shir Hamaalos, then, are in the years that Yaakov Avinu spent in Bais Lavan—it was during that time that Yaakov didn’t sleep, instead spending the night reciting these Perakim that were later said by Dovid Hamelech and incorporated into Tehillim.

If we understand that each of the fifteen Shir HaMaalos were originally said by Yaakov Avinu, we can now view the words of the first of the set in this light.

During the fourteen years that he was in Bais Lavan, it is certainly understandable that Yaakov would cry out, asking “Hashem Hatzilah Nafshi M’Sfas Sheker M’Lashon Rimiya’. Lavan was the ultimate Ramay, as Yaakov himself told his wives: “Avichen Hesel Bi”, your father has cheated me. This is clearly an appropriate Teffilah for Yaakov Avinu at the time. There is a statement made at the end of the Perek, however, that we must also understand.

The Passuk says: “Rabas Shachna Li Nafshi Im Sonei Shalom”. The author of these words declares that he has spent too much time among those who hate Shalom. In fact, “Ani Shalom”, he defines Shalom, while his enemies seek only war, despite his best efforts: “V’chi Adaber Hema LaMilchama. If we understand that Yaakov himself recited these words during his years in Bais Lavan, we must understand how they applied to him.

There seems to be a clear distinction drawn here: Yaakov sees himself as the personification of Shalom, while Lavan, in whose midst he was dwelling, was the opposite. In what sense was this the case? Why does Yaakov define himself in this way, “Ani Shalom”, and what distinction is he drawing with his father-in-law? On the face of it, Yaakov and Lavan did not fight—they seem to have maintained some sort of détente for at least most of the time that they were together. Even if they had disagreements, the term Milchama certainly seems out of place, and the contrast of Shalom therefore does at well.

How can we understand these words as applying to Yaakov Avinu? In what way was he the consummate Ish Shalom, as Ibn Ezra explains the words “Ani Shalom”?

When we think of the central Middah of Yaakov Avinu, Emes usually comes to mine, “Titen Emes L’Yaakov”, but it seems that perhaps there are others as well.

In the Hakdama to his Pirush on Shir HaShirim, the Ramban traces the Mesorah from Brias HaOlam all the way until Rabbeinu HaKadosh and the Mishna. When he reaches Yaakov Avinu, the Ramban writes that Yaakov took the Middos of Chesed and Din from his father and grandfather and adopted the Derech Memutza. He continues: “V’Haya Derachav Derech Emes V’Nesivos Shalom”. All of Yaakovs ways were not only Emes, but Shalom as well. This words of the Ramban certainly seems to meld with the idea of Yaakov Avinu identifying himself as “Ani Shalom”, but how can we understand their meaning?

The way the Ramban describes the Middos of Yaakov Avinu is obviously reminiscent of a familiar Passuk in Mishlei describes the Torah itself as “Deracheha Darchei Noam V’Chol Nisivoseha Shalom”. That the Nesivos of Yaakov matched those of the Torah is perhaps unsurprising—after all, Yaakov is the Amud HaTorah. If so, perhaps if we can explain the words “V’Chol Nisivoseha Shalom”, we will be better able to understand the way Yaakov Avinu describes himself—“Ani Shalom”.

The Tanchuma, in Parshas Tzav, brings the following Drasha: “V’Chol Nisivoseha Shalom Kol mah Shekasuv BaTorah L’Shum Shalom Hu Nechtav”. This statement, that everything that is written in the Torah is for the purposes of Shalom, leads to a question: Milchomos are discussed in the Torah, not only as narrative, but also as Mitzvos, how is this “L’Shum Shalom”? The Medrash seems to anticipate this question, adding: “Af Hamilchamos L’Shum Shalom”, even the wars themselves are for the purposes of Shalom.

How can we understand this Medrash? What does it mean that everything in the Torah is “L’Shum Shalom”? This question is of course magnified by the final statement of the Medrash, that even the Milchamos discussed in the Torah fit this rubric. How can we explain this?

The answer, of course, lies in the definition of Shalom.

Each evening, in Maariv, we mention the term “Sukkas Shelomecha” and then we ask “V’Sakinenus B’etzah Tova Milfanecha.” Rav Dessler, in a Maamar on Sukkos, explains that these two phrases are connected: the Sukkas Shelomecha is itself an “Eitzah Tova” from HKBH.

He continues, noting that the a Sukka is defined by Chazal as a “Diras Arai”, a temporary dwelling. This symbolizes an existence of “Biltul HaYesh” in the realm of Olam HaZeh. If one can totally discount the Olam Hazeh experience and temporal and fleeting, and realize that we all live in a Diras Arai, then we have achieved the most basic understanding of the Mitzvah of Sukkah. There is, however, a higher level of this Avodah.

As we know, the Sukkah is “Zecher L’Ananei HaKavod”, and the Gemara in Taanis tells us that the Ananei HaKavod came in the Zechus of Aron HaKohen, whose Midda was Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom. It emerges that the Sukkah, with its connotations of Bitul HaYesh, is connected to the Middah of Shalom. Rav Dessler explains this connection based on a Zohar in Parshas Emor which establishes a connection between Aharon HaKohen and the Anaei HaKavod using a Passuk in Parhas Shelach. There the Torah speaks about the opportunity Bnei Yisroel would have to see the protection of the Ananei HaKavod with their own eyes, using the word “Nireh” which has the same letters as Aharon.

Rav Dessler explains that when one “sees” the Kvod Hashem, he reaches an even higher level of “Bitul HaYesh”, one which comes with absolute knowledge of the Diras Arai that Olam HaZeh truly is. This is a level that Umos HaOlam cannot achieve—it is not intellectual but instinctual. This, concludes Rav Dessler, is the Sukkas Shalom.

True Shalom comes when one has the ability to be Mevatel his own Yesh in totality. When one places his needs and wants aside for the sake of others he may achieve peace, but he has not achieved Shalom. Only if his needs are non-existent in the face of others, rendered completely Battul, does Shalom exist. The ultimate Eitzah Tova, then, is to yearn to exist in the Sukkas Shalom, to live an existence in which our Olam Hazeh is not merely subjugated to Ruchnias concerns, but rather eliminated in totality. If we can reach this Madreigah, we dwell in the Sukkas Shalom and are afforded its protection.

With this understanding of the Middah of Shalom, we can explain the Medrash Tanchuma.

Shlomo Hamelech tells us, “V’Chol Nisivoseha Shalom” that every aspect of the Torah, even the smallest and most minor Mitzvos, are “L’Shum Shalom”. Their purpose is to train us, to give us the ability to exist in a world in which our Gashmius is not subservient to our Ruchnias, but completely Batul. This is the purpose of the Milchamos spoken about in the Torah as well: when we fight wars, we are given the ability to see the Yad Hashem openly, just as Bnei Yisroel were able to see, Ayin B’Yain, the effects of the Ananei HaKavod. This, in turn, leads to an increased recognition of Hashgachas Hashem, and allows us to advance on the path to total Bitul HaYesh. Indeed we can now understand why “Af Hamilchamos L’Shum Shalom”.

With this in mind we can also understand why Yaakov Avinu, the Amud HaTorah, would say about himself: ‘Ani Shalom V’chi Adaber Hema LaMilchama”. If the Torah is entirely “L’Shum Shalom” than one who embodies the Torah, as Yaakov Avinu did, can certainly achieve a level of total Bitul HaYesh, which would define him as Shalom personified. Lavan, on the other hand, was totally self-consumed, and had no ability to see the needs of others. He was therefore Milchama embodied, as he could not achieve even a basic level of Bitul to another.

When we ask “Masai Yigiah Ma’asi L’Maseh Avosai” we must contemplate the Middos of Yaakov Avinu, taking into account his own statement: “Ani Shalom”. If we work towards complete Bitul HaYesh, in Bein Adam L’Chaveiro but especially in Bein Adam L’Makom, we can achieve true Shalom, and the protection it affords.