PARSHAS HAAZINU
Shiras Haazinu joins Oz Yoshir as the second of the two “songs” in the Torah. Unlike Oz Yoshir, however, which is a song of thanksgiving to HaKodosh Boruch Hu, Shiras Haazinu is a dire warning in the form of a lyrical composition.
The content of Haazinu is complicated even to translate into a familiar idiom, whether in Hebrew or in any other language. However, we will focus on a verse at the beginning of the Parsha that will disclose gthe methods of communicating messages that may not always be appreciated by their recipient.
After addressing the Heavens and Earth to serve as perpetual witnesses for G-d’s Words to B’nei Yisroel in the opening verse of the Parsha, we read, “Ya’arof ka’mo’tor lik’chi, ti’zal ka’tal im’ro’soi ki’s’i’rim ‘alei deshe v’chir’vi’vim ‘alei ei’sev” (Perek 32/Posuk 2).
Let my teachings come down like rain, let my words trickle like dew, like the storm upon grass and like rain pellets on vegetation.
Certainly the words likchi- “teachings” and imrosi- “words” refer to the contents of this Shira that Moshe Rabbenu was going to transmit.
We will focus on how that message comes across and the way that the Torah wishes to convey those means of transmitting the message.
If we examine the words “mottor” and “tal”-rain and dew, the difference seems to be apparent.Mottor-rain comes in an abudnace, tal comes in minute amonts, sometimes barely apparent.
Thus, there is a quantitative difference in how Torah is transmitted. Sometimes it is transmitted in large amounts; at other times it is conveyed in small amounts. Why should there be a difference in the amount of Torah that is conveyed?
How are those varying quantities transmitted? The Torah uses two verbs in our Posuk. The second of the terms is tizal. It refers to small amounts that are flowing. We translated it as “trickle” which denotes small amounts. There is most definitely agreement between the words “tizal” and “tal”. Tal is a small amount which moves slowly-it trickles.
However when it comes to the word “yaarof” in connection to mottor-rain there is a significant difference of opinions as to what it means.
A look at the Targumim makes that difference abundantly clear.
Onklos translates yaarof as “y’va’sam”. Y’va’sam means to flavor something, give it a fragrance and make it pleasant. According to this explanation the words of Torah that Moshe Rabbenu is placing before B’nei Yisroel are enhancements which are appreciate from the outset because of their pleasant taste and smell.
According to this explanation the transmission of Torah and the particular message of Shiras Haazinu is one of good will and amiability.
Rashi tells us of various P’sukim that support this explanation of the word “yaarof”.
On the other hand, Targum Yonason ben Uziel renders the word “yaarof” as meaning yinkof-meaning to hit grievously or to kill. It is likely that this meaning is more easily understood if we associate the word “yaarof” with the Egla Arufa-the calf of the broken neck which is brought when there is an unsolved murder in a rural area (D’vorim Perek 21P’sukim 1-9).
According to this translation we would translate the first part of the verse as, “Let my teachings pelt you like rain”. That would be in consonance with the way we translated r’vi’vim at the end of the verse.
According to this rendition the transmission of Torah and the particular message of Shiras Haazinu is one of good harshness and severity.
How do we understand the chasm that exists between these two translations?
Ba’al Haturim justifies the two approaches implied by the two Targumim, although he adopts the translation of Targum Yonoson.
Baal Haturim translates “yaarof” as ‘giving a blow’. He cites the verse in Hoshea (Perek 10/Posuk 2) as a proof for the translation of yaarof as referring to a “hit”.
Divrei Torah are accepted differentially. They are the same, unchanging. However their recipients will determine how that message is received.
He explains that one who learns Torah as Moshe Rabbenu did will receive the Torah as a balm, soothing and fragrant. The fact that it comes down hard does not mean that it will be received as a blow. The force of the descending Torah to Man will be appreciated because Man desires the abundance of Torah when it comes down at a fierce pace. That, explains Baal HaTurim, is the intent of Targum Onklos.
[The enlightening notes of Rav K. Reinitz to Baal HaTurim explain that even though yaarof means to hit, by applying common rules of interchangeable letters in L’shon HaKodesh we can give support to Onklos. The letters “beis”, “vov”, “mem” and “peh/feh” are interchangeable. Thus, the final letter of yaarof, a “feh” can become a “beis”. Now the word would be read “ye’e’rav”-to be sweet.]
On the other hand, for one who learns Torah for inappropriate reasons, the very words of Torah can be fatal and poisonous.
Baal HaTurim is referring in this explanation to the words of Chazal in Masseches Taanis (7 a).
The Gemara there writes, “…kol ho’o’sek b’Torah lishmo, toroso na’a’seis lo sam ha’chaim she’ne’e’mar (Mishlei Perek 3/Posuk 18) ‘eitz chaim hi la’ma’chazikim boh…v’chol ho’o’sek baTorah she’lo lish’moh na’a’sis lo sam ha’moves she’ne’e’mar ‘v’orfu shom es ho’eglo banachal”.
One who learns Torah for its own sake, his Torah becomes for him a lifesaving potion, as the verse says, [Torah] is the tree of life for those who hold on toit.one who learns Torah not for its own sake, [his Torah] becomes poisonous for him…
Colloquially, we may say, ‘The Torah is what you make of it.” On the face of it, this seems like a most puzzling statement. Our immediate response is: that statement is false. Torah has its own integral value. Whatever you do, Torah is still Torah. It is still holy. It is still the will of HaKodosh Boruch Hu!
Of course that is true. There is nothing to denigrate the inherent value of Torah. The question here is how we integrate Torah.
In the same way that we can take something which is tahor and we can make it tomei, and vice-versa, so a person can misuse Torah as well.
One who wishes a large amount of Torah, as represented by mottor-rain may wish so for differing purposes. If the desire is lishmoh-Torah for its sake, the study of Torah to bring one closer to Hashem, then since it is being used properly, its purity radiates onto the who studies it.
If on the other hand one learns not lishmoh-his study of Torah is to bring personal fame or honor or to receive a certain position, then one has taken that Torah and polluted it.
[This is not in contradiction to that which Chazal taught us (Masseches P’sochim 50 b) , “mi’toch she’lo lish’moh bo lishmoh”. When will an act which is not dedicated to inherent Mitzvah-valence bring about greater dedication? That is when the act is not misused. When the act is not misused, just that it is not used to its fullest extent, then eventually a person can come to the state of “lishmoh”. However, when there is an intention and the intention is wrong and at odds with “lishmoh”, there is no guarantee that it will right itself.]
Meshech Chochmo (D’vorim Perek 8/Posuk 10 d.h. “v’o’chalto”) has a lengthy exposition on this topic, citing our verse as well and other gemoros.
It may seem that this is a very pessimistic way of looking at Limmud Torah at the onset of the New Year. Certainly, the truth is what it is and we cannot sugarcoat it to make ourselves feel good. On the other hand there is another way of learning our verse, seeing the first phrase and the second one as being two aspects of proper Limmud Torah.
Netziv sees the mottor and tal as two types of Torah learning.Mottor represents Torah learning which requires great dedication and concentration. It represents a type of learning in which we see milchamto shel Torah, the struggles that are inherent in coping with complicated concepts and difficult sugyos. It deals with the areas of Halacha, theoretical and practical.
This idea is reminiscent of what Chazal (Masseches Shabbos 83 b) learned from the unique phraseology of a Posuk in Sefer B’midbar (Perek 19/Posuk 14). The Torah writes regarding the tum’a that comes about by being in the same covered room as a dead body: “O’dom ki yo’mus bo’o’hel”. Chazal said, “ein divrei Torah miskaymin elo b’mi she’mei’mis ‘atzmo ‘aleihem.” Torah does not have permanence except from those who kill themselves over it.
Ya’arof does mean to kill. But it does refer to “killing” as a punishment. Rather it relates to someone who has dedicated his very life to plumbing the depths of Torah to his fullest.
Tal on the other hand, the Netziv explains, refers to a less demanding type of Limmud Torah-that of the study of Aggada.
In that realm the quantity of knowledge is not required, Netziv says, and thus the less weighty tal is the symbol for that aspect of Limmud Torah and the necessity for supplying information is less significant, in comparison to the study of Halacha. Thus, the flow of information is described as tizal, a gentle stream of knowledge.
Those who are patrons of Aggadah might wish to counter that the study of aggadah can be rigorous and strenuous as well.
Is there anotherway to view ourverses?
Sfas Emes (Haazinu 5648 d.h. Baposuk yaarof) explains that the process of Limmud Torah is described in our verse.
When we first begin to study Torah in depth, or begin an unfamiliar sugya it is “murder” to understand it.
We are bombarded with so much material that it is like a torrential rainstorm coming down at a fierce pace. “Yaarof kamotor”. It seems impossible withwhich to cope. We are absolutely overwhelmed as the rain comes down at a breakneck speed.
However, with time and dedication that which first appeared to be unmanageable now is very different. We learn how to listen to and absorb new information. That which was overwhelming is now not so. That which was heavy rain is now tal, fully within our capabilities to manage it.
No longer are we bombarded by it, we now see it as an easy flow.
That, says Sfas Emes, is the process of Torah study.
However, one central question must be raised. What does this verse have to do with the ensuing Shiras Haazinu?
In Masseches Bava Basra (16 a) we learn, “Boro HaKodosh Boruch Hu yetzer ho’ra’, boro lo Torah tavlin. Hashem created the yetzer hora and he created Torah as its antidote.
Hashem is always “makdim re’fuah lamakka” (Masseches Megila 13 b). Hashem created the curative prior to the affliction.
Shiras Haazinu tells us of the affliction. Its introductory verses tell us of the preventative.
Talmud Torah is the refuah and since it was created prior to the affliction, even if we sense that the affliction has already arrived we can nullify it by the means that the Torah itself has shown us.
Shabbat Shalom
Ksiva Vachasima Tova,
Rabbi Pollock