Transcript

So I think Kapittel Yud over here. למה ה' תעמוד ברחוק תעלים לעתות בצרה. The Malbim comments על פי המזמור הקודם which dealt with Hashgacha,

מעורר על שאלת רשע וטוב לו שזה סיבה שיהיה נעלם מעיני הבריות כי יש אלקים שופטים בארץ.

So the way the Malbim understands our kapittel is that Dovid Hamelech is asking about the theological dilemma of rasha vetov lo. According to that understanding, the kapittel doesn't give an answer. So when you get to the end of the kapittel, there is no answer to the question, right? So the question is למה ה' תעמוד ברחוק, the metaphor of Hakadosh Baruch Hu standing distantly is why is it that we have the impression that there's no Hashgacha at all? And even le'itos batzarah, even then maybe a discerning person can detect the veil, the hidden, ta'alim, the veil, the hidden hand of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. But even then le'itos batzarah you remain hidden. Even then it seems as though it's not that what's happening in the world is carrying out and implementing ratzon Hashem, but it seems like the workings of that the rasha is just acting of his own accord and imposing suffering and destruction. Why should it seem to people that בגאוות רשע ידלק עני? Even when I know Dovid Hamelech would say that it is Hashgacha and that the rasha is acting as the shevet apo of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, as the rod of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's wrath. But what appears is that the rasha in his ga'avah is chasing after the ani. And as a result, when people have this distorted perception because they fail to realize that you're hiding le'itos batzarah, they see it as something natural unfolding. They see it as that the only propelling force here is the ga'avah of the rasha. So the result is that יתפשו במזימות זו חשבו, שעל ידי—reading the Malbim at the end of pasuk

beis—שעל ידי שבני אדם טועים בזה וחושבים בלבבם שהרשע עושה כן מעצמו בגאותו ובגאוותו ומסתפקים בהשגחה.

That this mistake causes them to be caught in the conspiratorial net of the rasha

כי על ידי שאין מכירים שהוא עונש מהשם והעם לא שב עד המכהו על ידי זה יימסרו ביד הרשע לעשות בהם כרצונו.

So a few things to comment on here. But again, first and foremost, I think as we know that, I don't know whether we'll get through it all today, but as one makes one's way through the kapittel, the question remains unanswered. The question of tzaddik vera lo remains unanswered. The Ma'aseh of the Gemara in Berachos that the Rov quotes at the beginning of Kol Dodi Dofek. has a machlokes whether or not Moshe Rabbeinu was answered. Moshe Rabbeinu also asked Hakadosh Baruch Hu to understand the apparent phenomenon of tzadik v'ra lo and it's a machlokes in Chazal whether or not Moshe Rabbeinu was answered. But here, the Dovid Hamelech's question remains unanswered. He he concludes the kapittel concludes not with an answer but as it were an alternative beginning in pasuk yud beis קומה ה' אל נשא ידך and אל תשכח ענוים וכולו. So according to the Malbim's understanding the kapittel reflects the fact that whatever was the case with Moshe Rabbeinu but for the rest of us we are left with an inability to understand the phenomenon of rasha v'tov lo. The Rambam writes that what caused the philosophers more than anything to espouse to adopt and espouse heretical theories and philosophies about Hakadosh Baruch Hu was their inability to come to terms with again this phenomenon of rasha v'tov lo. Lulaye the Malbim one one could have said the the same pshat in the kapittel that Dovid Hamelech again למה ה' תעמד ברחוק refers again to this phenomenon of Hakadosh Baruch Hu seemingly being remote and distant from human affairs and taalam l'itos batzara means again that even when Hakadosh Baruch Hu is mashgiach but it's camouflaged veiled etc. But one could have said the following. We find in Parshas Ki Sisa after the cheit haegel when Hakadosh Baruch Hu kavyachol is poised to destroy Klal Yisrael and says to Moshe Rabbeinu ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול. So Moshe Rabbeinu says למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר. למה יחרה ה' אפך בעמך and למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר. So what's what's the pshat in that lamma? Pshat in that lamma is not that Moshe Rabbeinu is challenging Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Not questioning Hakadosh Baruch Hu in the sense that you know we hear someone say something and we're not sure it's right we don't think we agree so we we say lamma and as as a challenge. But it's clear that the lamma is a tefillah right? It's clear that the lamma is a tefillah of Ribono shel Olam if you'll adopt that course of action so there's gonna be a chillul Hashem. And the lamma isn't isn't Moshe Rabbeinu challenging Hakadosh Baruch Hu. It's Moshe Rabbeinu being mispallel. And there's such a tzura of tefillah of of the lashon lamma. Why should why should this state of affairs persist which again in in Parshas Ki Sisa which will generate which will lend itself to an interpretation which is a chillul Hashem of b'ra hotzi'am. So lulaye the Malbim one could have said in pasuk aleph that The entire kapittel is a tefillah. And the fact that it begins with lama, again, it isn't Dovid Hamelech questioning the phenomenon of rasha v'tov lo, but it's Dovid Hamelech again the lashon lama, not in the sense of challenging, in the sense of questioning, but it's Dovid Hamelech the same way following the model of Moshe Rabbeinu of למה יחרה אפך בעמך, lama yomru mitzrayim, it's a form of tefillah. Even the Malbim's pshat obviously doesn't mean that Dovid Hamelech is challenging Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but it means he's asking why is it that you'd have the rasha v'tov lo. Well what the Rambam tells us that it's the theodicy, the problem of evil which caused the philosophers to again develop all kinds of heretical philosophies, see is that is there the tzad of limud zchus in that observation? So when you look in the Rambam there clearly isn't. You don't get the he says it by way of indictment, by way of diagnosis. He's diagnosing the am aratzus rather than rather than being limud zchus. Why isn't that a limud zchus? That's l'mashal Akiva Eiger. Sometimes Akiva Eiger doesn't understand the Tosfos, so he writes tzarich iyun, sometimes writes tzarich iyun gadol, sometimes he writes Hashem yo'ir einai. Doesn't understand how a Tosfos says here is misyasheiv with the Gemara here, he doesn't understand maybe internally how it makes sense. So he'll conclude with one of those trademark phrases. Why doesn't he conclude by saying Tosfos is wrong? He should have written in the margin skip this Tosfos, you know, lama l'zman, fast forward to the next Tosfos. So the answer is that when there's a context to a question, so that dictates whether or not a person draws inferences from his inability to answer the question, or whether he remains with the tzarich iyun, with a tzarich iyun gadol, with Hashem yo'ir einai. Tzarich iyun means I need to learn more, right? When Akiva Eiger doesn't understand Tosfos, his reaction is I need to learn the Tosfos more. I need to learn Tosfos much more, because I really don't understand this. I need Siyata Dishmaya, Hashem yo'ir einai. So when there's a context, the context determines when a person draws an inference and when the person realizes that the chesron is in himself. You know the Ramchal writes in the Hakdama to Mesillas Yesharim. So we all know the Ramchal says that the way to achieve the goal of Mesillas Yesharim is מן החזרה עליו וההתמדה. Because it's not you're not going to have chidushim, it's just it's a reminder. So the point of a reminder is if you sign up for... It's just not gonna accomplish, not gonna accomplish too much. But when you look, you don't even have to read Ramchal's lashon carefully, we just need to read the lashon. He says לא תמצא ברוב דברי אלא דברים which are yedua'im. He doesn't say that ein berov devarai, he says לא תמצא ברוב דברי. And then two lines later he says for אפשר שלא ימצא הקורא בשכלו. A person always needs to know if there's a context to a question he has, to an impression he has. And Ramchal is really saying there, he says there's tilei tilim of chidushim in Mesillas Yesharim, but ruva druva druva people are not even going to sense, not only they're not going to fully understand, but they're not even going to notice that there's something here that they're missing. Sometimes you're going, you see there's a lot of beautiful scenery but you realize that you're traveling too fast to be able to take the scenery in. And sometimes you're oblivious to the fact that all that scenery even exists. The fact that we don't, can't understand rasha v'tov lo or the flip side of it tzaddik v'ra lo, but there's a context to that question. There's a context to that question of, again, overwhelming demonstration of metzius Hashem, of yedias Hashem, of hashgachas Hashem. So how is it in light of all that, that there's a phenomenon of rasha v'tov lo? צריך עיון גדול השם יאיר עינינו. The Rambam's ha'ara remains very true ad hayom hazeh. You see that we have to have the humility to know that we don't and can't and therefore won't understand everything. And when there's a context, the context tells us whether it's appropriate to draw an inference or not. If there is no context, then you are supposed to draw an inference. I remember many many years ago someone, an editor of a journal, sent a submission to my father zichrono livracha, asking him if he would read it over and share his impressions. So my father did and then when the editor called him up, said "so what'd you think?", he said "it's gibberish, it's nonsense". So the editor said, "yeah, I didn't understand it either but I thought maybe it's because it was so profound". So sometimes if there's no context, sometimes it's not true that everything a person reads written by anyone, the conclusion should be tzarich iyun, tzarich iyun gadol. Sometimes a person is supposed to draw an inference and that it's gibberish. But other times obviously there is an overwhelmingly compelling context, and then the person is supposed to conclude with צריך עיון גדול השם יאיר עינינו. That the Malbim's comment on the phrase of יתפשו במזימות זו חשבו, he says that as a result since people have the misperception due to the ta'alim l'itot batzara because you're veiled, you're hidden, due to their perception that בגאות רשע ידלק עני that the oni is just because the rasha is able to give free rein to his grandiose evil ambitions because they don't see the rasha as functioning as שבט אפו של הקדוש ברוך הוא, so as a result, they then become ensnared itafsu in this conspiratorial net because if they would have recognized that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is acting albeit in a veiled way, so then there would be nesorah l'teshuva. That's basically the idea of the famous Rambam at the beginning of Hilchos Ta'anios. That if a person reacts to an es tzara of with vehalachtem imi b'keri as seeing it as just incidental, accidental, it's geopolitics, there's no element of hashgacha, so the Rambam says it's derech achzariyus. Derech achzariyus because it's gorem that we should be misdabek b'ma'aseinu hara'im. When there's a tzara that affects the klal, so a yachid, ein hachi nami according to the Rambam could have a tzara which isn't an onesh being imposed but just that he's not zocha to a hashgacha to ward off that tzara. But by the rabim, there's no such thing. By the rabim, there's always hashgacha. And if there's an es tzara larabim, so it's never something which can be understood exclusively or should be understood exclusively on the natural level. It's always something that needs to be understood as well on the providential level.

כי הלל רשע על תאות נפשו ובוצע ברך ניאץ השם.

The result of Hakadosh Baruch Hu's hashgacha being camouflaged is that the rasha who's in reality only being allowed to act again as שבט אפו של הקדוש ברוך הוא as Hakadosh Baruch Hu's rod of wrath, but he and so many others see it that he's succeeding and the rasha takes pride in the fact that he has exceeded. Al here for the Malbim has the sense of beyond, above and beyond. כי הלל רשע על תאות נפשו that he succeeded beyond his targets, beyond his wildest dreams. ובוצע ברך ניאץ השם. Votzei'a is the object here, not the subject. Subject is not stated, it's just implied by the verb of beireich. And one who praises the rasha, the votzei'a, by not recognizing hashgachas Hashem, that person is guilty of ni'eitz Hashem. And again all of this is part of Dovid Hamelech's desire to understand lama, why Hakadosh Baruch Hu is this allowed to unfold that way. רשע כגובה אפו בל ידרוש אין אלקים כל מזמותיו. Again the lama carries over. Why is it that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not doreish to hold the rasha accountable who... who believes and who preaches Hakadosh Baruch Hu is not part of his thoughts, there's no recognition of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and not only is he not punished, but יחילו דרכיו בכל עת. He seems to be enjoying supernatural success, right? Kol drachav take root and they're successful. Marom mishpatecha minegedo, your judgments are so far removed from him, he doesn't seem to have any judgment visited upon him, and on the contrary, כל צורריו יפיח בהם. His enemies he blows away with your judgments against them. Amar belibo, the rasha thinks to himself, bal emot, I'll never falter. He doesn't think that there's any din vecheshbon, לדור ודור אשר לא ברע. And not only immediately does he feel secure, but even thinking towards the future as well that he's not going to be held accountable. Okay, we'll stop here for today.