Chasidut su Salmi 146:78
Sha'ar HaEmunah VeYesod HaChasidut
Now we can understand with complete clarity the words of the sages, “All creatures were created with their complete agreement, and with full knowledge of their form and character.” This is the way it is with souls before they descend into this world. Certain great and precious souls, when all of the future suffering and pain that they will endure for the Glory of Heaven is spelled out for them, accept it all out of their love for God. This is as it is said in the Talmud (Shabbat, 88b), “Our Rabbis taught, those who are insulted but do not insult, hear themselves reviled without responding, act through love and rejoice in suffering, of them it is written (Shoftim, 5:31), ‘Those who love Him are as the sun when He goes forth in His might.’” And it is said further in the Zohar (Vayakhel, 198a): It is written (Tehillim, 146:5), “His hope (sivro) is in the Hashem his God.” It does not say tikvato (the normal word for hope.) And it does not say, “his trust” (bitchuno). But rather, “sivro.” The tzaddik would rather break himself (shivro) time after time, over Hashem his God. There are yet other souls who will not accept suffering and pain. And are thus created in a way that they will not suffer in the world, but rather, live lives of comfort, free from strife.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Exodus 15,18. “the Lord will reign forever.”
In psalms 146,10 David rephrases this by saying: ימלוך ה' לעולם אלוקיך, “the Lord shall reign forever, your G’d.” Moses mentions the subject first, whereas David mentions the subject’s activity, i.e. “reigning,” first. In the Zohar I 148 we find the following commentary on psalms 132,9 כהניך ילבשו צדק וחסידיך ירננו, “Your priests are clothed in righteousness, whereas Your pious ones sing for joy.” The Zohar substitutes the word לוויך, “Your Levites,” for the word חסידיך, “Your pious ones.” He justifies this by claiming that the psalmist, David, considers himself the “entertainer” of the King (G’d). Seeing that he had become qualified to “invite the King,” i.e. selecting a site for the Temple, where G’d was to reside, he realized that it was not enough for the King to be “entertained,” i.e. hosted, by an ordinary Israelite, and thus elevated himself to the status of the Levite, as only the priests and the Levites were ministering to the King’s needs, i.e. performing service in the Temple.
However, there is still another dimension to this parable. It is that even though the good fortune was a daily routine for the rich person in our parable, he did not take his good fortune for granted or as proof of his being worthy of this, but he did not lose sight of the origin of his good fortune and remained aware that he had no claim to it. Perhaps, this is even more noteworthy than the songs presented to G’d by the poor person in our story. The rich person realized that rather than his enjoying his good fortune personally, i.e. his ego thanking the Lord, he understood that it was his task to ensure that G’d will enjoy his prayers of thanksgiving, and that he had afforded him an opportunity to provide Him with a feeling of נחת רוח, “pleasurable satisfaction” at having created the person who had the option of feeling smug about his good fortune instead.
In psalms 146,10 David rephrases this by saying: ימלוך ה' לעולם אלוקיך, “the Lord shall reign forever, your G’d.” Moses mentions the subject first, whereas David mentions the subject’s activity, i.e. “reigning,” first. In the Zohar I 148 we find the following commentary on psalms 132,9 כהניך ילבשו צדק וחסידיך ירננו, “Your priests are clothed in righteousness, whereas Your pious ones sing for joy.” The Zohar substitutes the word לוויך, “Your Levites,” for the word חסידיך, “Your pious ones.” He justifies this by claiming that the psalmist, David, considers himself the “entertainer” of the King (G’d). Seeing that he had become qualified to “invite the King,” i.e. selecting a site for the Temple, where G’d was to reside, he realized that it was not enough for the King to be “entertained,” i.e. hosted, by an ordinary Israelite, and thus elevated himself to the status of the Levite, as only the priests and the Levites were ministering to the King’s needs, i.e. performing service in the Temple.
However, there is still another dimension to this parable. It is that even though the good fortune was a daily routine for the rich person in our parable, he did not take his good fortune for granted or as proof of his being worthy of this, but he did not lose sight of the origin of his good fortune and remained aware that he had no claim to it. Perhaps, this is even more noteworthy than the songs presented to G’d by the poor person in our story. The rich person realized that rather than his enjoying his good fortune personally, i.e. his ego thanking the Lord, he understood that it was his task to ensure that G’d will enjoy his prayers of thanksgiving, and that he had afforded him an opportunity to provide Him with a feeling of נחת רוח, “pleasurable satisfaction” at having created the person who had the option of feeling smug about his good fortune instead.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kedushat Levi
Another way of explaining the difference in syntax between Moses “enthroning” G’d forever and David doing so, based on the Talmud in Nedarim 10, runs as follows. The Talmud there discusses the prohibition of our formulating even a praise of the Lord by mentioning His name first. It is forbidden. For instance, when making a vow, one must not say: לה' חטאת “for the Lord a sin offering,” but must be careful to mention the words “sin offering” before adding the words: “for the Lord.” The reason for the prohibition is that if the donor were to die before completing his sentence, he would have been guilty of transgressing the third of the Ten Commandments, which warns us not to utter the name of the Lord in vain, as this is a sin that cannot be completely forgiven even if you do teshuvah. David was conscious of this halachah and that is why he prefaced his praise of the Lord with the word: ימלוך, “may He reign.
At the time when Moses intoned the song at the shores of the sea of reeds, the Israelites had become free from any ritual impurity that had contaminated them prior to that experience, so that, angel-like, they were not subject to the laws that restrict man. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 32,1). After the sin of the golden calf, when ritual contamination again affected the people, the prohibition to commence a sentence with mentioning the holy name of the Lord was re-introduced.
At the time when Moses intoned the song at the shores of the sea of reeds, the Israelites had become free from any ritual impurity that had contaminated them prior to that experience, so that, angel-like, they were not subject to the laws that restrict man. (Compare Sh’mot Rabbah 32,1). After the sin of the golden calf, when ritual contamination again affected the people, the prohibition to commence a sentence with mentioning the holy name of the Lord was re-introduced.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy