Good morning Rabbosai. I apologize a little glitch on this end so I'm on the phone. Is it audible? Yes. Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Okay so Kapitel Yud-Aleph. למנצח לדוד בהשם חסיתי איך תאמרו לנפשי נודו הרכם ציפור.
The Malbim by way of introduction to the Kapitel as well as summation he says: במזמור זה יתווכח עם בני דורו אשר טענו על אמונת ההשגחה ממה שהרשע מכתיר את הצדיק והשם לא יעשה משפט.
The challenge that when people see a Rasha triumphing over a Tzaddik, the non-believers draw a conclusion from that that there is no Hashgacha. How does one reconcile the triumph of a Rasha over a Tzaddik in light of Hashgacha? Uteshuvato and again, and this the question and the answer, the Malbim will explain subsequently how they unfold over the course of the Psukim here: שבו יבחן את בני אדם. It's HaKadosh Baruch Hu's way of testing us: שאם היה מעניש את הרשע תכף לא היה מקום לבחירה ולשכר ועונש והיו כולם עובדים את השם מיראת העונש אבל על ידי שהעלים את השגחתו ובו יבחנו הצדיקים העובדים את השם באמת ובו יגדל שכרם.
If Hashgacha always instantaneously reacted, responded, judged, and imposed punishment, so then the evidence of HaKadosh Baruch Hu would be just so overwhelming we wouldn't have Bechira. It's axiomatic that Retzon Hashem I'm sorry it's axiomatic that Retzon Hashem is that we, people, were created as Baalei Bechira. In order for that to be Baalei Bechira there has to be a need for us to come to conclusions, for us to resist a temptation and impulse. משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say if you have an open fire. So a person is not tempted and will not stick his finger in there. Someone says if you stick your finger in there for 20 seconds into this raging fire I'll give you $10,000. No one's going to do it because we all know from personal experience that the second I'm sorry the second a person puts his finger into fire it burns and inflicts pain and damage and the reality, that reality, it's not really there isn't really any Bechira in any real sense when given such an offer. So I don't know whether it's elsewhere or I haven't seen it. The same in Gemara in Shabbos that vayasivu betashtis hahar, that מלמד שכפה עליהם הר כגיגית, that as it were, we were mekabel Torah from coercion, out of coercion, ומכאן מודעא רבה לאורייתא. So what's the pshat? So the pshat is as follows: Hakadosh Baruch Hu comes and offers us the Torah, says it's a bris, you'll be committed to Me, and I—this is so extraordinary—reciprocally, will be committed to you. Okay, so were we free agents? Were we baalei bechira when we responded to that offer? So we were on the heels of an entire year of the eser makos, which then culminated in Krias Yam Suf. And the memory is still extremely fresh; it's only been six weeks since Krias Yam Suf. The gilluy of Elokus, the everything was so vivid that it's as if we had no choice but to accept the Torah. How could one not accept the Torah after experiencing everything Hakadosh Baruch Hu did: hein experiencing the chesed of Hashem for Bnei Yisrael, hein experiencing the hashgacha in the world, hein experiencing that Hashem emes. So there wasn't really bechira. כפה עליהם הר כגיגית doesn't mean that there was physical coercion with a threat of being literally buried. What it means is that the gilluy was just so overwhelming and so overpowering, and yet, based on that kabbalah, so we have to remain true to Torah even in a world when Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s presence is much more hidden. In a halachic—so that's a possible pshat in divrei aggadata. In a halachic context, if you take a look at the famous Chazon Ish in the beginning of Yoreh Deah, I think it’s siman beis, where he famously says that the din of moridin v’ein maalin for the minim, for apikorsim, etc., he says, was only b’ymei Chazal at a time in history when hashgachas Hashem was so geluya that kfira represented something which was just really perverse and perversely brazen. It wasn't—it couldn't result at that time in history from confusion, it certainly couldn't result at that time in history from having grown up as a tinok shenishba. No, it was like a bechina of—not exactly, but משל למה הדבר דומה, but clearly not exactly like that—but a bechina of Korach's rebelliousness against Moshe Rabbeinu. It's perverse. It's perversely brazen. Under those circumstances, when that’s what kfira represented, so then the din was moridin v’ein maalin, but bazman hazeh, the Chazon Ish says that din is not noheg. Maybe just bear with me one minute, let me try to read you the lashon בלי נדר אם ירצה השם. One minute, please. Shenireh, so this is And the Chazon Ish, Yoreh Deah, Siman Bais, S'if Tes Zayin. ונראה דאין דין מורידין אלא בזמן שהשגחתו יתברך גלויה כמו בזמן שהיו נסים מצוין ומשמש בת קול.
The bei Machoza used to have bas kol. Gemorah Sanhedrin amongst other things tells stories elsewhere also, Bava Metzia. וצדיקי הדור תחת השגחה פרטית הנראית לעין כל. Then והכופר אז הוא בנליזות מיוחדת והטיית היצר לתאוות והפקרות. It's it's again, it's perverse, it's lehachis. אבל בזמן, I'm skipping a couple of lines, אבל בזמן ההעלם שנכרתה האמונה מדלת העם. He says at a time of he'elem when hashgachas Hashem isn't gluyah the way it was at earlier tekufos in history. Now he says moridin v'ein maalin would make things worse. אין במעשה הורדה גדר הפרצה. It's not a geder of a spiritual cancer, אלא הוספת הפרצה שיהיה ביניהם כמעשה השגחה ואטימות חס ושלום. ונפלה עלינו להחזירם בעבותות אהבה
with cords of love ולהעמידם בקרן אורה במה שידינו מגעת. For that yesod that that when things are again there are obviously degrees of that. There are degrees of that but it's the same basic idea that the Malbim is talking about as well that there has to be a degree of he'elem in the world in order for there to be in order for there to be bechirah. Again sometimes there can be a degree which allows for bechirah but it's still it's what the Chazon Ish describes that the bechirah is a bechirah which is being exercised perversely. Sometimes what the Malbim is talking about is that it's so overwhelming that even that kind of bechirah would be unimaginable and what we have bazman hazeh, the norm that we have bazman hazeh, is that there certainly is still personal responsibility for decisions we make but they don't rise to even when Rachmana litzlan a person makes the wrong decision they don't rise to that level of azzus, of brazenness and perversity. What's the teitsch in the words Hashem chasisi? I have bitachon in Hashem. I I I seek shelter in Hakadosh Baruch Hu because I trust in his hashgacha. So how do you challenge me and tell me that my wandering nod v'nod? Nudi is the sort of the abstract noun from nod that my my wandering over your mountain is like the wandering of a bird meaning a bird there is no hashgacha. It's when the bird wanders there's nothing providential about that and you buttress your point, pasuk bais, כי הנה הרשעים ידרכון קשת that they bend their bow as we have the same idiom in the beginning of Eicha. Dach kashta k'oyev. כוננו חצם על יתר. They prepare, they they set in place their their arrow לירות במו אפל לישרי לב to shoot in the dark meaning it's an ambush so the yishrei lev whom they're targeting can't don't see the impending attack and they can't defend themselves. Ki hashasos, this is all part of the challenge of the deniers of hashgacha. Ki hashasos yeharesun, the foundations meaning the tzaddikim who are tzaddik yesod olam are being destroyed. The foundations, shasos, foundations, yeharesun are being destroyed. tzaddik mah pa'al referring to Tzadiko Shel Olam, הקדוש ברוך הוא מה פעל. And where's Hakadosh Baruch Hu? That's the the challenge, pasuk daled. According to the Malbim begins the answer: Hashem beheichal kodsho, Hashem bashomayim kisso, eynov yechezu, עפעפיו יבחנו בני אדם. So sometimes we perceive hakadosh baruch hu beheichal kodsho in the Beis HaMikdash, we perceive hakadosh baruch hu down here on earth, i.e., we recognize his hashgacha. But sometimes we perceive, our perception is that hakadosh baruch hu is bashomayim kisso, that his throne is far removed and is and is very distant in the sense that we don't perceive hashgacha. The reality of course is that Hashem is beheichal kodsho and eynov yechezu, eynov yechezu links up with Hashem beheichal kodsho the Malbim says. hakadosh baruch hu's eyes kiveyachol they do see, perceive, that there is hashgacha, but what accounts for the fact of that hakadosh baruch hu allows it to appear to us as though bashomayim, as though Hashem bashomayim kisso, is that עפעפיו יבחנו בני אדם, is that hakadosh baruch hu intends to test us by by withholding, postponing, or camouflaging hashgacha. So thereby hakadosh baruch hu is testing people. ה' צדיק יבחן ורשע ואוהב חמס שנאה נפשו. You take a look at the the Malbim here on posuk hey. Hashem tzaddik yivchan, ה' מעלים השגחתו שעל ידי כך יבחן את הצדיק אם עובדו מאהבה מבלי פניה חיצונית.
hakadosh baruch hu hides, camouflages his hashgacha, and in so doing he tests the tzaddik, whether the tzaddik is being oved me'ahava without any without any vested interest. שעל ידי שהצדיק נרדף מן הרשע ובכל זאת לא מט מצדקתו.
Even though the tzaddik is being nirdaph from the rasha and nevertheless he doesn't falter in his righteousness, yivchan or yibachen she'oved me'ahava. So it's it's discernible that he's an oved me'ahava. והגם שעל ידי שהשגחת ה' נעלמת whereas the rasha on the other hand, רשע ואוהב חמס שנאה נפשו and and hakadosh baruch hu lets the evil accumulate until the until the punishment which is described in in the next posuk. So here let's just try to be omeid on one last point for today rabbosai. The Malbim says that when a tzaddik finds himself in a position that he's being nirdaph min harasha and and nevertheless he doesn't falter in his tzidkos, so then his ahavas Hashem is discernible. Why is that ahavas Hashem? Maybe it's just maybe maybe it's not a madreiga of ahava. Maybe it's still maybe that's still yiras Hashem. He's thinking to himself, who am I, what am I, to to question Hashem, to challenge hakadosh baruch hu? It's a chutzpah for me to challenge hakadosh baruch hu. I'd be עתיד ליתן את הדין if I challenge hakadosh baruch hu. How does that how does that test whether he's being oved me'ahava? So the emes is this idea, again, this doesn't answer the question as much as it does just corroborate the Malbim's approach. Rashi in Parshas Va'eschanan on the parsha of Krias Shema, on the posuk of Ve'ahavta. So Rashi quotes from a Sifrei as follows: ואהבת עשה דבריו מאהבה. אינו דומה עושה מאהבה לעושה מיראה. העושה אצל רבו מיראה,
I'm sorry, כשהוא מטריח עליו מניחו והולך לו. So this is the same idea, right? This is a makor for the Malbim. The Sifrei quoted by Rashi here says explicitly, says explicitly that there's a point at which yirah can only sustain a person so long and carry him so far. And there's a point at which a person has to be able to draw on reservoirs of ahavah to be sustained. כשהוא מטריח עליו מניחו והולך לו. And I don't know whether this idea is as a logical idea as much as it is a, I don't know, call it psychological or or spiritual idea. Yirah apparently is a, and and here this rabbosai, it's it's it's a very very important yesod. Yirah is a logical response. It's a logical attitude. Let's think about yiras ha'onesh. It's very logical. It's very logical. Why, if if you tell a person that if he smokes, chas v'shalom he's liable to get lung cancer, so it's a very logical response that he's inhibited from smoking. If if a person is is aware that he's עתיד ליתן דין וחשבון for doing something, it's a very logical response that he doesn't do it. Logic, even though in theory one would expect it to be applicable in all situations, doesn't let a person act heroically. Doesn't let a person go beyond what we would sort of think are his natural, his natural capacity. Ahavah, the the the passion of ahavah is something that transcends logic. It's rooted very much in logic, but but it transcends logic and because of that it allows a person to be transcendent. It allows the person to be misgaber even where naturally his kochos should be spent. Yirah, once a person's kochos naturally are spent, so yirah is a logical, natural response. If a person's kochos are spent, yirah cannot carry him. But ahavah, which goes beyond logic, it's not illogical, it subsumes logic and goes beyond logic, ahavah require ahavah allows for a person to persist and continue and be misgaber even when naturally one would think that his kochos should have been exhausted. And that's why when the tzaddik is nirdach, it's a test that he's oved me'ahava. It's not something that can be attributable to to avodah mi'yirah. Okay, so we'll stop here for now.