One Must Accept It Joyously
Student Summaries of Sichot of the Roshei Yeshiva
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT
BESHALACH
SICHA OF HARAV
AHARON LICHTENSTEIN SHLIT"A
One Must Accept
It Joyously
Summarized by
Avi Shmidman
Adapted by Dov
Karoll
The exodus from Egypt is deeply ingrained in our collective
consciousness. The splitting of the
Red Sea and the song of praise are particularly salient events in that process.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 94a) cites two cases of praise by one party
which brought to light the fact that another had not given praise. The Gemara opens by citing the case of
Chizkiyahu, who did not sing praise for the salvation God brought upon him. Instead, the earth itself sang out to
God. The Gemara cites a verse from
Yeshayahu (24:16): "From the fringe of the earth we have heard songs,
glory to the righteous
" The Gemara
then cites another example: Moshe and the entire Jewish people did not give the
proper praise to God, until Yitro came along and exclaimed, "Barukh
ha-Shem," "Blessed be God" (Shemot 18:10).
How is this to be understood?
Did not Moshe lead the people of Israel in Song at the Sea? What does it mean that they did not
properly sing to God until Yitro came along?
One answer seemingly is contained in the Gemara's explanation of what
Yitro added. At the sea they may
have sang to God, but they did not exclaim, "Barukh ha-Shem." Yitro's praise of God was more focused
on God's greatness, and this was an element that was less present in the song of
Moshe and the people at the sea.
But perhaps one could suggest another approach regarding what was lacking
in the Song at the Sea. What is the
most central element of the Song?
Presumably it is the first line of Moshe's song, the element which
constitutes the entirety of the Song of Miriam: "I will sing to God for He has
triumphed gloriously; He has thrown the horse and the rider into the sea" (15:1,
21). (The formulation is only
slightly different in the two places, with an adjustment of the grammatical form
from the first person to the second, but the content remains the
same.)
In both formulations, the relation between the song and the triumph is
achieved through the use of the word "ki," translated above as
"for." According to the Gemara
(Shevu'ot 49b), the word "ki" in the Torah can have any of four
different meanings: if, perhaps, rather and because. However,
the word has a fifth sense, equivalent to the Hebrew word "asher," which
would be translated into English as "that,"
"which," or
"who,"
depending on the context.
In the case of our verse, there are two possibilities as to what
"ki" can mean. It can mean
either "I will sing to God, who has triumphed gloriously" (the fifth
definition), or "I will sing to God because He has triumphed gloriously"
(the fourth definition). Onkelos
follows the former, while Targum Yonatan follows the
latter.
If one takes the latter approach, the problematic aspect of the Song at
the Sea is understandable. The Song
is conditional. It is an expression
of praise to God based on the glorious triumph. But what would have happened if the
people of Israel had suffered crushing defeat rather than glorious triumph? Would the people then not have sung to
God? Would they not have recognized
this as being an act of Divine intervention as well?
Such conditional song lacks two crucial aspects of the service of
God. First, it reflects on a
deficiency in yir'at ha-Shem, or awe of God. The Mishna (Berakhot 9:5, 54a)
states, "One must bless God for the bad just one blesses Him for the good." The Gemara (60b) seeks clarification of
this statement. It first suggests
that the same blessing is recited on each occurrence, but it rejects this
explanation. The Gemara then
suggests that the similarity is not in the content of the blessing, but rather
in the joy with which one should accept God's verdict. Just as one should rejoice over positive
verdicts from God, so too one should rejoice over negative ones. This demands a very high level of awe of
God, the ability to accept everything He provides. As such, an inability to sing at defeat
indicates deficient awe.
Second, one who is able to sing only for the good is lacking in ahavat
ha-Shem, love of God. The
Rambam (Hilkhot Berakhot 10:3), in citing the ruling of the Gemara
mentioned above, categorizes the acceptance of divine decrees of evil as
reflecting great love for God.
For two thousand years, Jews were oppressed and persecuted in many lands
and in many ways. Nonetheless, we
know of countless songs they sang throughout the generations. In recent generations, we have merited
the establishment of the State of Israel, and with it we have once again have
had the opportunity to sing about triumphant victory on a national level.
However, this positive development has been accompanied by a diminishing
ability to sing to God in all situations.
We are now used to singing for triumphant victory, but when tragedy
befalls, we cannot open our mouths.
The dangers of such conditional turning to God are twofold. First, if
tragedy strikes, there can be an abandonment of Torah and Judaism. But the ramifications of such an
approach are grave even if this is not the case. If we are unable to sing to God when
things are bad, this reflects deficient yir'at ha-Shem and ahavat
ha-Shem, even if we do sing when things are good.
We need to make sure to sing to God with the same joyful acceptance of
the divine decree, whether the decree is good or bad. May we merit singing on occasions of
triumphant victory, while still knowing how to praise God even if our situation
is reversed.
[This sicha was
originally delivered on leil Shabbat, Parashat Beshalach 5761
(2001).]
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!