시편 130:3의 인용 해설

A kabbalistic approach to the words זה א-לי ואנוהו. The word זה (as well as the word זאת) is a name of the Shechinah. Examples are 13,8 בעבור זה עשה לי, “He did it for me on account of זה.” In Genesis 49,28 we read וזאת אשר דבר להם. In Leviticus 26,44 we read: ואף גם זאת בהיותם בארץ אויביהם; these verses demonstrate that the Shechinah is with the Jewish people in all the exiles. This is why we read in Exodus 13.19 that “the angel of G’d journeyed with the Israelites,” as this presence orchestrated the salvation. This is also the meaning of the line in Exodus 23,21 -which is both promise and warning- כי שמי בקרבו, “for it (the angel, i.e. Shechinah) contains My name.” This “name” is what David referred to in Psalms 114,7 as אדון חולי ארץ, “the Lord who was present at the beginnings of the earth.” These considerations prompted Moses to mention עזי וזמרת י-ה, referring to G’d by His name י-ה, something totally uncharacteristic of Moses. Even though we do find that after the battle against Amalek Moses did mention that name of G’d (Exodus 17,16) where he spoke of כי יד על כס י-ה, we need to remember that in that context Moses made the point that G’d’s name as י-ה is incomplete just as the word כס for throne is incomplete and should have been כסא. While an Amalek exists in this universe, G’d, i.e. His name and His Kingdom, cannot be complete.
The reason that Moses did mention that name is because it represents the attribute of Justice. This is also why David uses this name in Psalms 130,3 where he says אם עונות תשמור י-ה מי יעמוד, “if she will keep track of sins (the attribute of Justice) who can possibly survive?” The word תשמור in that line is not a masculine second person future, but a feminine third person future, i.e. an indirect reference to the feminine attribute of Justice. In Psalms 118,18 David discusses the same theme when he writes that the attribute י-ה, though it had disciplined him severely, had not delivered him to the angel of death.” Again the name י-ה appears as the attribute of Justice. We find the same in Psalm 94,12.
In Bereshit Rabbah 92,1 the author emphasizes that David does not mention the tetragrammaton when speaking of the afflictions endured by those whom the Lord disciplines, but he rather refers to the source of these afflictions as י-ה. Here too the word תיסרנו should not be understood as “You discipline him,” but as “whom the attribute י-ה disciplines.” We may picture someone as standing in front of a judge who pronounces judgment upon him. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah.

כי היום ה' נראה אליכם, “for this day the Lord has appeared to you.” Actually Moses should have said “nireh” with the vowel segol under the letter aleph instead of the vowel kametz that we find here. [Seeing that the word refers to Hashem, who is certainly masculine]. The variation in the regular use of the vowel may be an allusion to the feminine attribute of Justice which would also manifest itself on that day killing Nadav and Avihu. We find something parallel to this in Psalms 130,3 אם עונות תשמר י-ה אדוני, מי יעמוד?, “if You G’d were to keep account of sins, O G’d, who will survive?” The name used for G’d is the attribute of Justice. In our chapter we encounter a verse (23) describing the manifestation of G’d which is described as כבוד ה', an attribute below that of the tetragram without moderating adjective.

By putting Yonah through this experience, Hashem teaches Yonah in a most visceral manner that Middat HaDin often causes intense pain and cannot stand as the sole value in judgement. As the refrain we often cite from Tehillim (130:3) expresses “Im Avonot Tishmor Kah, Hashem Mi YaAmod,” “if Hashem were to judge strictly by the book, no one could withstand.¹⁰¹Alternatively, Hashem is giving Yonah subtle Nevuah as to what the outcome of Ninveh would be. Just like the Kikayon expressed Rachamim and then its removal was far more painful than its arrival was joyous, so too Nineveh being saved now but destroyed later in Sefer Nachum is far more painful than being destroyed outright in the first place. Hashem might be trying to console Yonah by hinting that he did the right thing but in the wrong way. Yonah was trying to just brute-force his way to justice. Hashem was explaining that you have to give people a chance and if they don't take it, they fall even harder. Yonah did not take the message to heart, wanting to still believe in pure Din (using a psychological term: cognitive dissonance which means the mind is incapable of changing its beliefs because they would not match the body’s actions, causing internal debate and struggle).” Aryeh Krischer adds that Hashem may be trying to convince Yonah by employing the Golden Rule (as attributed to Hillel by the Gemara Shabbat 31a) – What is hateful unto you, do not do unto others. Perhaps Hashem hopes that by providing Yonah with joy and comfort through Middat HaRachamim followed by intense pain through Middat HaDin Yonah will realize that it is “hateful unto him” to bear the brunt of Middat HaDin. Once Yonah realizes the pain Middat HaDin can bring Hashem hopes he will cease attempting to “do unto others” in the manner of Din.