Shiur #28: "Indeed, For Your Sake We Are Being Killed All The Day" - Psalm 44 (Part I)
SEFER TEHILLIM
****************************************************************************************
This shiur is
dedicated in memory of Shmuel breb David Ehrenhalt, z"l,
father of our alumnus
Steve.
May the entire Ehrenhalt family be comforted among the mourners of
Tzion veYerushalayim.
****************************************************************************************
Yeshivat
Har Etzion mourns the death of Yona Baumel, z"l.
Mr. Baumol died on Friday,
without fulfilling his heart's deepest desire:
to discover the fate of his
son and our talmid - Zecharia,
last seen on the Sultan Yakoub battlefield
in Lebanon 27 years ago.
We continue to
pray for Zecharia's return.
HaMakom
yenakhem etkhem be-tokh she'ar avelei Tzion veYerushalayim.
****************************************************************************************
Lecture
28:
"indeed,
for your sake we are being killed all the day"
Psalm
44 (part i)
Rav Elchanan
Samet
(1)
To the director of music, for the sons of Korach,
a maskil.
1
(2) O God,
we have heard with our ears,
our fathers have told us,
of the deed You did in their days, in days of old.
(3)
You with Your hand drove out the nations, and
planted them.
You broke the peoples and cast them out.
(4)
For they did not take possession of the land by
their own sword,
and their own arm did not save them,
but your right hand and Your right arm, and the
light of Your countenance, for you blessed them.
2
(5) You
alone are my king, O God,
Command salvations for Yaakov.
(6) Through You we have smitten our enemies.
Through Your name we have trampled on those who
rose
up against us.
(7) For I did not trust in my bow,
and my sword did not save me.
3
(8) When
You saved us from our enemies,
and You put to shame those who hate us.
(9) We praised God all the day,
and we thanked Your name forever.
Sela.
4
(10) Even when You
abandoned us and put us to shame,
and You did not go out with our armies,
(11) When You made us
turn back from our enemy,
and those who hate us plundered us for themselves.
(12) When You gave us
like sheep to be eaten,
and You scattered us among the nations.
(13) When You sold Your
people for no sum,
and You did not set their prices high.
(14) When You made us a
reproach to our neighbors,
a scorn and a derision to those round about us.
(15) When You made us a
byword among the nations,
a shaking of the head among the peoples.
(16) All the day my
humiliation is before me,
and shame covers my face,
(17) From the voice of
him who taunts and blasphemes,
from the enemy and the avenger.
(18) All this has come
upon us, yet we have not forgotten
You,
nor have we been false to Your covenant.
(19) Our heart has not
turned back,
nor have our steps turned from Your way.
5
(20) [Even] when You
broke us in the place of jackals,
and You covered us with darkness.
(21) I swear that we
have not forgotten the name of our
God,
nor have we stretched out our hands to a strange
god.
(22)
Surely God has searched this out,
for He knows the secrets of the heart.
(23)
Indeed, for Your sake we are being killed all the
day,
we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter.
6
(24) Awake, why do you
sleep, O Lord?
Arise, do not abandon us forever.
(25) Why do You hide
Your face?
Why do You forget our affliction and oppression?
(26)
For our soul is bowed down to the dust,
our belly cleaves to the ground.
(27) Arise and help
us,
and redeem us for the sake of Your lovingkindness.
I. A PSALM OF
COMPLAINT
Already upon an
initial reading, it is clearly evident that Psalm 44 is a psalm of national
complaint. In order to understand the depth and the severity of the complaint,
the psalm must be read very carefully, with attention paid to its various
aspects. This we shall do in the sections that follow.
This is not the only
psalm of national complaint in the book of Tehilim; there are several
others like it,[1]
and complaints of the individual also find expression in our book.[2]
Of course, harsh arguments are sounded against God outside the book of
Tehilim as well.[3]
Elsewhere in Scripture in the Torah, in the books of the Prophets, and even in
the book of Iyov the complaints merit a response from God, whereas in
the book of Tehilim, which is not a prophetic book, but rather a book in
which man voices his thoughts before God, the complaints are not answered by
God.
In this section, we
shall discuss the main features of psalms of complaint in the book of
Tehilim, and in the last section of this study we shall deal with the
theological problem arising from the very existence of such psalms in Scripture.
We shall dedicate the intervening sections to an analysis of our psalm, in a
manner that will clarify the essence of the complaint expressed therein. We
shall also deal with the historical circumstances that serve as a backdrop for
this complaint.
In our study of Psalm
30, section II, we discussed the features of thanksgiving psalms in the book of
Tehilim. A psalm of complaint is the very opposite of a psalm of
thanksgiving. A psalm of complaint's point of departure is some harsh calamity
that God brought upon his people,[4]
the justification of which is not understood by the psalmist, and in the wake of
which he raises objections against it. For this reason, several psalms of
complaint contain incisive rhetorical questions, such as: "O God, why
have You cast us off for ever
" (74:1); or "How long, Lord, will You be
angry for ever
" (79:5); and in our psalm: "Awake, why do you sleep, O
Lord?
Why do You hide Your face?
(vv. 24-25).
As in psalms of
thanksgiving, psalms of national complaint generally describe the background
in the past for the complaint voiced in the psalm,[5]
only that this background in reversed in the two types of psalms: in a psalm of
thanksgiving, the background is the calamity from which the psalmist has been
delivered, whereas in a psalm of complaint, the background is the period during
which God shined His face on His people prior to the calamity's arrival.[6]
The distinction
between psalms of complaint and psalms of supplication is subtler.[7]
As in a psalm of complaint, in a psalm of supplication the point of departure is
some difficulty in which the petitioner finds himself, and both types of psalms
include a prayer for deliverance from that difficulty. How then are they
different?
The difference
between them is two-fold: First of all, they differ in the way that the
petitioner perceives the trouble and in his religious response to it. In psalms
of supplication, the affliction leads to an agitated prayer directed toward the
future, whereas in psalms of complaint, it leads to harsh protests regarding the
past. Second, the prayer itself is different in the two types of psalms: in
psalms of supplication the prayer is permeated with an optimistic spirit, and
with the fervent faith that God will hear the prayer and answer it. Accordingly,
most psalms of supplication conclude with an account of the deliverance and the
thanksgiving, even if they have not yet materialized in the real world. In
contrast, the prayer in a psalm of complaint is one of despondency, expressing
more despair than hope, and such a psalm generally concludes on a pessimistic
note.[8]
II. THE STRUCTURE OF
THE PSALM
Let us now examine
the structure of our psalm and the correspondence that it shows with the
features of psalms of complaint that were discussed in the previous
section.
Our psalm is clearly
divided into two large parts of unequal length: the first part is comprised of 8
verses (2-9), and it describes the background in the past the period during
which God shined His face upon
Verse 10 opens the
main and larger part of our psalm eighteen verses which describes the
current situation, in which God hides His face from Israel ("Why do
You hide your face" v. 25). This part is mostly a complaint, and only the
last four verses (vv. 24-27) close the complaint with a desperate prayer, in
which the complaining tone continues to be evident.
The significant
difference in length between the two parts of the psalm (about a third and two
thirds) is understandable: the first part is merely background, albeit
exceedingly necessary, for the second and primary part of the
psalm.
We have divided each
of the two parts of the psalm into three sections.[9]
We shall explain this division over the course of a systematic analysis of the
psalm. Here let us merely point out the clear tendency toward increasing brevity
over the course of the three sections in each of the psalm's two parts.[10]
Finally, it should be
noted that our psalm is based on several contrasts that will be discussed over
the course of our analysis of the psalm. The primary contrast is that between
the first part of the psalm ("the light of Your countenance") and the second
part ("You hide Your face"). However, each section in itself is based on a
contrast, to the point that we can say that contrast is the most important
literary device that the psalmist uses to express his
ideas.
III. THE FIRST PART
OF THE PSALM (VV. 2-9) "THE LIGHT OF YOUR
COUNTENANCE"
I. SECTION 1 (VV.
2-4)
The first section
describes a distant period of glory the period of the conquest of Eretz
Why does the psalmist
choose to open with this period, and not, as is more common, with an account of
the exodus from
Second, the period of
the conquest of Eretz
The contrast that
stands out in this section (and that will repeat itself and appear in different
forms in other sections of the psalm) is between God's vigorous activity with
respect to
This contrast
expresses itself in verses 3-4: Verse 3 opens with special emphasis on the word
"You" You acted and did, whereas verse 4 asserts that "they did not" act. Let
us compare the actions attributed to God in this section to those attributed to
God: "You did," "You
drove out," "You planted," "You cast out," "You blessed
them."
This contrast is
sharpened by the repeated use of the same words:
You drove out
("horashta")
- for they did not take possession
("yarshu")
Should this contrast be understood in its plain sense? Didn't the people
of
Elsewhere, we discussed at length the expression that appears in many
places in Scripture, in the form of "lo X ki im Y."[12]
We demonstrated there that this expression does not come to absolutely negate X,
but rather to subordinate it to Y. This expression usually comes to express a
conditional statement: There will be no X if there is no Y. "Ki im" is
used in the sense of "ela im," "unless."[13]
We argued there that there are several verses in Scripture, which, though
they read "lo X ki Y" (missing the word "im"), should also be
understood as conditional statements, as if they read "ki im."[14]
Among the verses brought there as examples was verse 4 of our
psalm:
For they did not take
possession of the land by their own sword
("lo X")
but your right hand
and Your right arm, and the light of Your countenance, for you blessed them
("ki Y").[15]
According to this understanding, our verse means as follows: Though
indeed they took possession of the land with their sword and their arm, this by
itself would not have been possible, were it not that "Your right hand and Your
arm, and the light of Your countenance, for You blessed them." It was only God's
favor that gave force and validity to man's action. Using the words that are
repeated in the two halves of the verse, we can express this as follows:
Their arm brought them deliverance, only because of "Your right hand and
Your arm."
This understanding of verse 4 is necessary not only because of what is
stated in the book of Yehoshua, but also because of what is stated later
in the psalm in the second section:
Through You we have
smitten our enemies.
Through Your name we
have trampled on those who rose up against us. (v. 6)
We see then that it is we who have smitten our enemies, but we did
this using God's strength ("through You"); it is we who have
trampled on those who rose up against us, but we did this using "Your
name" by mentioning Your name, and by recognizing that it is You who gives
us the strength to do this.
It turns out then that the contrast expressed in the first section is
merely imaginary contrast. What the verse really means to say is that the human
action of our forefathers the conquest of Eretz
2. SECTION 2 (VV.
5-7)
This section
expresses an idea that is very similar to that expressed in the previous
section: God's action and favor are what deliver
Why, then, have we defined verses 5-7 as a separate section, and not as a
continuation of section 1?
Two linguistic phenomena stand out in this section and distinguish it
from the previous section. First of all, the shift into the singular in verses 5
and 7 (verse 6 remains in the plural as in section 1): "You alone are my
king
"; "For I did not trust in my bow, and my sword did not save
me."
Second, there is a change in tense in the verbs in section 2. In section
1 all the verbs are in past tense, whereas in section 2 they are in future
tense: "nenage'ah" ("we will smite"); "navos" ("we will trample");
"evtach" ("I will trust"; "toshi'eini" ("it will save me"). What
is the meaning of these verbs in future tense? They express continuous or
repetitive actions. That is to say: this is the way we smite our enemies
every time we fight then, and we do not trust in our weapons. It turns out then
that section 2 is not dealing with the distant historic past, but with the
present. It does not describe the actual present situation, for this is only
found in the second part of the psalm, but rather the recent past which the
psalmist himself experienced.
Now we can understand the transition from plural to singular in verses 5
and 7: it comes to express the reality in which the psalmist himself personally
participated. He did not "hear with his ears," but rather he experienced it
himself. While it is true that we are not dealing with a personal experience,
but with a war fought by the entire people of
To complete our discussion of this section, we must still explain verse
5:
You alone are my
king, O God,
Command salvations
for Yaakov.
The word "command" is in the imperative, and thus it expresses a request,
that God command the salvations of Yaakov. This does not fit into the context in
which this verse appears in the first part of the psalm. For in this part, in
all three of its sections, God saves
The Meiri was
sensitive to this difficulty and explained our verse in the following
manner:
You alone would
command the salvations of Yaakov. It seems to me that the word
"tzaveh" is an infinitive, that is to say, You were our king to
command our salvations.
Accordingly, this verse is not a petition, but rather a description of an
ongoing state: God commands the salvations of Yaakov. Thus, the verse fits in
with the two verses that follow it.
A simpler explanation can be proposed based on the principle "oleh
ve-yored be-otiyot," "backwards and forwards letters." Rav Reuven Margoliot
dealt with this rule in his book, "Ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mesora,"[16]
pp. 65-70:
It is the way of
Scripture that when the first letter of a word is the same as the last letter of
the previous word, that letter is read with the first word and with the second
word.
Rav Margoliyot brings dozens of examples of how this principle is used in
Scripture, and in some cases he resolves serious difficulties in
understanding.[17]
He does not, however, cite our verse.
According to the aforementioned rule, our verse should be read as if it
were written:
You alone are my
king, O God, ("Elokim")
who commands
("[mi]tzaveh") salvations for Yaakov.[18]
Accordingly, already the opening verse of the second section clarifies
the difference between it and the previous section: Not only in the past did God
save
3. SECTIONS 3 (VV.
8-9)
Section 3 is the
smallest section in this part of the psalm, and it is also not built around
contrast, as are the previous sections, but rather on a complementary account of
God's action and the action of
As we have explained,
in the previous sections as well, the contrast came to express the complementary
relationship between
We must still
understand the grammatical character of section 3. We must first clarify the
meaning of the word "ki" with which verse 8 opens. This is the fifth
appearance of the word in the first part of the psalm, and we already noted in
our discussion of section 1 (note 15) that the two times that it appears in
verse 4 at the beginning of two parallel clauses, it appears in different
senses. It seems that here too the word "ki" at the beginning of verse 8
is used in a different sense than that same word at the beginning of verse 7:
there it meant (as at the beginning of verse 4) "for," "because," and it
connects verse 7 to the previous verse by way of contrast.
At the beginning of
verse 8, however, it seems that the word "ki" should be understood in the
sense of "when," thereby connecting verse 8 to verse 9. According to this, the
whole of section 3 is one complex sentence, in which verse 8 constitutes the
subordinate clause and verse 9 serves as the main clause. The section in its
entirety means as follows:
When You saved us
from our enemies
(both in the distant past, at the time of the conquest of the
Land, and in the more recent past described in section 2), we praised You and
thanked Your name for all time, and thus we filled our obligation to recognize
the good things that You did for us.
(To be
continued)
(Translated by David
Strauss)
[1] In addition to our
psalm, also Psalms 74, 79, 80, and 89.
[2] Psalm 39; the first
part of Psalm 73; and Psalm 88. (Psalm 13 might also fall into the category of
psalms of complaint.)
[3] I.e., Avraham in his
defense of
[4] Most of the psalms
of complaint are psalms of national complaint (see notes 1-2). The reason for
this is that the people of
[5] Psalm 79 lacks such
background.
[6] Here, however, we
must note a fundamental difference between the two types of psalms with respect
to the connection between the past background and the present situation. In a
psalm of thanksgiving, the two are connected by the prayer offered by the person
in the time of his affliction, whereas, in a psalm of complaint, the transition
from the period of favor to the period of calamity is not explained. On the
contrary, this unexplained shift constitutes the grounds for
complaint.
[7] In the first part of
our study of psalm 30, note 17, we noted the great similarity and the difference
that nevertheless exists between a psalm of thanksgiving and a psalm of
supplication. These two types of psalms usually contain the same four components
noted in that study, and the difference between them lies in the time during
which and the perspective from which the psalm is said: a psalm of thanksgiving
is said after the deliverance, whereas a psalm of supplication is said during
the very time of trouble. But the religious outlook expressed in these two types
of psalms is the same. Therefore, these two types of psalms can be defined as
two sides of the same coin. What is stated here already alludes to the answer to
the question regarding the difference between psalms of supplication and psalms
of complaint: the religious understanding of the affliction is very different in
the two types of psalms.
[8] These distinctions
are not absolute, but nevertheless it is always a good idea to examine the end
of the psalm, which is likely to teach us whether we are dealing with a psalm of
supplication or a psalm of complaint. Compare the desperate prayer at the end of
our psalm with the prayers at the end of the following psalms of complaint 39,
74, 88 and 89 (verse 52 is not part of the body of the psalm). Psalm 79 is
exceptional.
[9] We do not use the
term "stanza" ("bayit"), because (following A.L. Strauss; see our study
of psalm 131, end of section II) we have reserved that term for the analysis of
short psalms, in which the stanzas are the building blocks that determine the
psalm's structure. In a long psalm such as ours, the division into stanzas, the
small and basic units out of which the psalm is built, will not help us
understand the structure of the psalm as a whole. Here we must consider the
larger units of the psalm (each of which is comprised of several stanzas). For
lack of a better term expressing this idea, we refer to each of these units as a
"section."
[10] Section 1 35
words; section 2 20; section 3 12.
The second part of
the psalm is twice as long as the first part, and therefore each of its sections
is respectively longer, but the relationship between the three is the same:
section 4 66 words; section 5 32; section 6
27.
[11] Regarding the
conquest of Jericho, it is appropriate to say that it was done by the hand of
God, and that the sword and arm of Israel played no role, but the later wars of
conquest were fought in a natural manner (though at times with miraculous
help).
[12] Iyyunim
be-Parashot ha-Shavu'a, 2nd series, Parashat Eikev, pp.
361-365.
[13] The sources brought
there for this interpretation are the words of the Tannaim in Berakhot
12b, and the words of the Malbim in his Ayelet ha-Shachar, kelalim
229-230.
[14] We brought there
another nine verses in addition to our verse: Bereishit 45:8;
Shemot 16:8; Devarim 8:3; I Shmuel 8:7; ibid. 18:25;
Hoshea 6:6; Tehilim 115:1; I Divrei ha-yamim 29:1; II
Divrei ha-Yamim 19:6.
[15] In this verse, the
word "ki" appears at the beginning of each of its two parts, and the two
instances seem to carry different meanings. The first "ki" ("Ki
they did not take possession of the land by their own sword") means "for,
because," and it continues the argument of verse 3. The second "ki"
("ki your right hand and Your right arm, and the light of Your
countenance") means "but rather," and it comes to create a contrast between the
first part of verse 4 ("not by their own sword") and the last part ("but rather
Your right hand").
[16] Mossad ha-Rav Kook,
5724.
[17] Rav Margoliyot also
brings earlier sources from the Mesora, from Chazal, and from the
medieval commentators that noted this phenomenon before him. In more recent
generations many have noted it.
[18] One need not be
disturbed by the fact that the "mem" with which the first word ends is a
final "mem," whereas the "mem" with which the second word begins
is not, because the foundation of this principle is phonetic when the two
words were sounded one after the other, one of the "mems" was
omitted.
[19] It should be noted
that the verb "le-hoshi'a" connects the three sections. In section 1,
"and their own arm did not save them" (4); in section 2, "and my sword
did not save me" (7) and at the beginning of this section we also find
the noun "yeshu'a" in "command salvations for Ya'akov"; and in
section 3, "when You saved us from our enemies" (8). This determines the
subject of the entire first part of the psalm: It is God who saves