5782
The Real You
The Parshah begins ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם אלהים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא כי אמר אלהים פן ינחם העם בראתם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה. ויסב אלהים את העם דרך המדבר ים סוף וכו'. On this Pasuk, the Medrash Rabbah writes ויסב וכו' מכאן אמרו רבותינו אפי' עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב שכך עשה להם הקדוש ברוך הוא שנאמר ויסב אלהים.
The simple meaning of the word of ויסב is as Rashi writes הסיבם מן הדרך הפשוטה לדרך העקומה that Hashem turned the Jews from the straight forwarded path and took them in a roundabout way. Therefore what the Medrash is saying that from here we see a source for הסיבה seems to be a play on words with the word ויסב. However, the word ויסב in the Pasuk means taking them in a roundabout way and הסיבה is about eating and drinking in a reclining position. So what is the connection between the two things? Furthermore, the Medrash seems to imply that we need a special source for the חיוב הסיבה of a עני. This is difficult to understand because all חיובים and מצות in the Torah apply to everyone equally, whether a person is עשיר or a עני so why would we need a special source to be מחייב a עני in הסיבה?
This Halacha of אפי' עני שבישראל seems to appear in the first Mishnah of ערבי פסחים דף צט: and it saysערב פסחים סמוך למנחה לא יאכל אדם עד שתחשך אפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב . However, Tosfos there is bothered by the above mentioned question that why would we think that a עני wouldn’t be obligated in הסיבה. Therefore, Tosfos in one of his explanations writes that אפילו עני שבישראל is going on the beginning of the Mishna that says ערב פסחים סמוך למנחה לא יאכל אדם עד שתחשך. The Chiddush being even though the whole reason for not eating Erev Pesach is in order to eat the Matzah לתיאבון and a poor person who doesn’t eat often will still eat לתיאבון even if he eats during the day, nevertheless, he is still not supposed to eat on Erev Pesach.
However, it’s clear from the Medrash Rabbah that אפילו עני שבישראל is going on the second part of the Mishnah that אפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב. Therefore we must learn like the other explanation in Tosfos as to why one would have thought a עני is not מחוייב in הסיבה and he writes דסלקא דעתך דהסיבת עני לא חשיבא הסיבה דאין לו על מה להסב ואין זה דרך חירות. We would have thought that since a poor person doesn’t have what to lean on, so his reclining is not considered a leaning דרך חירות. Therefore the Mishnah teaches us אפילו עני שבישראל לא יאכל עד שיסב that he should lean.
But if he doesn’t have what to lean on, then how does he lean? So the דרישה says that he should borrow a bed or a couch from his neighbor to recline on. According to this, the הוא אמינא of why a עני shouldn’t be obligated in reclining is because reclining on a borrow couch isn’t דרך חירות but we conclude that it nevertheless is דרך חירות even though he is being מיסב on a borrowed bed. It must be understood why we would’ve thought that reclining on a borrowed bed is not דרך חירות and why למסקנה, it is דרך חירות.
The Rav gave an explanation in the name of his father, Reb Avraham Weinfeld, based on the Gemara in the end of Kiddusin 82a. The Gemara says as follows:
תניא, ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר: מימי לא ראיתי צבי קייץ, וארי סבל, ושועל חנוני, והם מתפרנסים שלא בצער, והם לא נבראו אלא לשמשני, ואני נבראתי לשמש את קוני, מה אלו שלא נבראו אלא לשמשני מתפרנסים שלא בצער, ואני שנבראתי לשמש את קוני - אינו דין שאתפרנס שלא בצער אלא שהרעותי את מעשי וקיפחתי את פרנסתי, שנאמר: עונותיכם הטו.
From this Braisa we learn a principle that in reality, every Jew should be able to have a פרנסה easily, שלא בצער, and everything should be set for him without a טרחה because he was created לשמש את קוני. It’s only because of the הרעותי את מעשי that we are in a state of קיפחתי את פרנסתי and therefore it’s a possibility to have a עני שבישראל.
The Ramban in Hilchos Gerishin (end of chapter 2) writes:
מי שתקפו יצרו הרע לבטל מצוה או לעשות עבירה והוכה עד שעשה דבר שחייב לעשותו או עד שנתרחק מדבר שאסור לעשותו אין זה אנוס ממנו אלא הוא אנס עצמו בדעתו הרעה. לפיכך זה שאינו רוצה לגרש מאחר שהוא רוצה להיות מישראל רוצה הוא לעשות כל המצות ולהתרחק מן העבירות ויצרו הוא שתקפו וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו ואמר רוצה אני כבר גרש לרצונו
Based on this Rambam, it comes out that the הרעותי את מעשי is only on the external level, but on the internal level, we are on a level of חבוקה ודבוקה בך יחידה לייחדך (הושענות). Therefore, the קיפחתי את פרנסתי is also on the external level only, and in reality, internally, we are עשירים because if the סיבה is only external, then the מסובב is also only external.
According to this, the reason why even a poor man is מיסב is because since he is a ישראל, it’s not possible that he could be poor internally, and his state of poorness is only temporary and externally. Therefore, he can be מיסב on a borrowed bed and it is still considered דרך חירות and it’s not like נזם זהב באף חזיר, because his essence and internal self is that of a עשיר and he is שייך to בני חורין.
The Parshah began ויהי בשלח פרעה את העם ולא נחם אלהים דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא כי אמר אלהים פן ינחם העם בראתם מלחמה ושבו מצרימה. If the Geulah was purely for the benefit of the Jews because of their pain and suffering, then if they want to go back to Mitzrayim, why does Hashem force them to a point of no return? Why was Hashem taking them out in a way to avoid פן ינחם, to prevent them from going back? It must be because Hashem is theבוחן כליות ולב and he knows are real desires and wants. So Hashem knew that the Jews wanting to return to Mitzrayim בראתם מלחמה was not a genuine and internal desire rather it would be from panic and confusion and their external conscious would temporarily take over and convince them to go back to Mitzrayim. But in reality, their deep down desire was not to go back but rather to receive the Torah at Har Sinai. Therefore, Hashem took them out in such a way in order to make sure that even when such feelings would surface, there wouldn’t be a possibility of ושבו מצרימה. He brought them to a point of no return once the Yam Suf turned back in to water.
We learn from the ויסב אלהים that Hashem really knows deep down what we desire which is to do his will and the ינחם is only because of the שאור שבעיסה, the יצר הרע. It is because of this that אפי' עני שבישראל צריך הסיבה because in reality, there is no עני שבישראל because the קיפחתי את פרנסתי is only because of the הרעותי את מעשי which is only on the external level. Therefore, we could learn from the ויסב אלהים that even a poor person requires הסיבה and that it’s דרך חירות.
The Rav added a lesson for us is that every person, even once he is growing and heading in the right direction in his Avodas Hashem has struggles and challenges. There is a concern of בראתם מלחמה, the מלחמת היצר that he’ll want to be ושבו מצרימה and throw in the towel and give up. Therefore, a person needs the ויסב that he should take measures to put himself in a position of no return. He is able to apply certain things in his life that will guarantee his success and the leaving of his Mitzrayim. But before a person could do such a thing, he first must determine who he is and how he wants to define himself. Does he define himself by his peak moments when he is wanting to grow in his Avodas Hashem, or by his low moments? A person should really identify himself as the self in his high moments and then once he has that recognition, then we can begin to implement tools and strategies in his life, the ויסב, to prevent the ינחם.
Bitachon
The Pasuk says ויאמר ה' אל משה מה תצעק אלי דבר אל בני ישראל ויסעו (יד,טו). Rashi writes למדנו שהיה משה עומד ומתפלל, אמר לו הקדוש ברוך הוא לא עת עתה להאריך בתפלה שישראל נתונין בצרה. On מה תצעק אלי, the Or Hachaim asks who should the Jews cry out to if not for Hashem, and especially during a עת צרה as it says מן המצר קראתי וכו'. And if the problem was the excessive davening, so if a person davens and isn’t answered, he continues to daven until he sees that his Teffilos were accepted. So what was Hashem saying to Moshe מה תצעק אלי?
The Or Hachaim answers as follows:
אכן יתבאר הענין על פי מאמרם ז"ל (שמות רבה פכ"א) שישראל היו נתונין בדין מה אלו אף אלו, ודבר ידוע הוא כי כח הרחמים הוא מעשים טובים אשר יעשה האדם למטה יוסיפו כח במדת הרחמים ולהיפך ב"מ ימעיטו הכח, והוא אומרו (דברים לב יח) צור ילדך תשי, והנה לצד שראה אל עליון כי ישראל קטרגה עליהם מדת הדין, והן אמת כי חפץ ה' לצדק ישראל אבל אין כח ברחמים לצד מעשיהם כנזכר, אשר על כן אמר למשה תשובה נצחת מה תצעק אלי פירוש כי אין הדבר תלוי בידי הגם שאני חפץ עשות נס כיון שהם אינם ראוים מדת הדין מונעת ואין כח ברחמים כנגד מדת הדין המונעת, ואמר אליו דבר אל בני ישראל פירוש זאת העצה היעוצה להגביר צד החסד והרחמים דבר אל בני ישראל ויתעצמו באמונה בכל לבם ויסעו אל הים קודם שיחלק על סמך הבטחון כי אני אעשה להם נס ובאמצעות זה תתגבר הרחמים.
The Or Hachaim explains that Hashem was telling Moshe that the Jews weren’t fit to be saved because מדת הדין was preventing the ישועה and there is no כח ברחמים against מדת הדין. Therefore, Hashem told Moshe the following עצה that in order to increase the חסד והרחמים, they should strengthen their Emunah as much as they could and just head towards the Yam before it splits and rely on their Bitachon and then Hashem would do the miracle for them.
This idea is expressed in Tehillim 32:10 רבים מכאובים לרשע והבוטח בה' חסד יסובבנו. The simple explanation of this Pasuk is that it’s two different people, one being the רשע and the other being the בוטח בה'. However, the Medrash that is quoted by Yalkut Shimoni explains on this Pasuk that even the רשע who is deserving of רבים מכאובים and is not worthy of being saved, nevertheless if he is בוטח בה', then חסד יסובבנו.
Integral Part of a Mitzvah
The Pasuk says ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף. The Gemara in Sotah 13a says the following:
ת"ר: בא וראה כמה חביבות מצות על משה רבינו, שכל ישראל כולן נתעסקו בביזה והוא נתעסק במצות, שנאמר: חכם לב יקח מצות וגו'
But the question is that collecting ביזת הים was also a Mitzvah as the Pasuk says דבר נא באזני העם וכו' so why was the Mitzvah of taking the bones of Yosef looked at as a greater Mitzvah than the Mitzvah of being involved in the ביזה? Furthermore, the Pasuk quoted is חכם לב יקח מצות and it would make more sense for יקח מצות to be connected with צדקות so why does collecting Mitzvos have to do with חכמה?
The following answer was said over in the name of Rav Avraham Weinfeld. The Gemara in Baba Metziah 32b says even though the מצוה of פריקה comes before טעינה because of צער בעלי חיים, nevertheless by a אוהב לפרוק ושונא לטעון, there is a מצוה בשונא כדי לכוף את יצרו. We see from this Gemara that besides for the actual Mitzvah being performed and all that it contains, there is the idea of לכוף את יצרו and it’s so integral to the Mitzvah that it is מכריעה what the Halacha should be.
Therefore, it’s true that being עוסק in ביזת הים was a Mitzvah, but it lacked the element of לכוף את יצרו. However, to leave the Mitzvah of being עוסק in ביזת הים and to be involved with the עצמות יוסף, not only was that a Mitzvah but it also had the element of לכוף את יצרו. This is also why the Pasuk says חכם לב יקח מצות because this was a חכמה.
ויצעקו בני ישראל
The Pasuk says ויצעקו בני ישראל אל ה and Rashi writes תפשו אומנות אבותם seemingly indicating a high level of spirituality that they davened to Hashem. However, the immediate next Pasuk says ויאמרו אל משה המבלי אין קברים במצרים. How could it be that from one Pasuk to the next, the Yidden changed so drastically?
A simple explanation could be that is the human condition, as strange as it may seem. The Alter from Kelm used to say “amol a Malach, amol a galach”, meaning a person is an embodiment of contradiction and therefore it’s possible that sometimes a person is like this and sometimes he is like this.
The Ramban deals with this difficulty and explains that there were actually different groups in Klal Yisrael and some were on the high level of ויצעקו בני ישראל אל ה and some were on the not so high level of המבלי אין קברים במצרים.
But the Maharal in Gur Aryeh writes the following about what Rashi say תפשו אומנות אבותם as follows:
דאין לומר שהיו צועקים כדרך הצדיקים שהם צועקים בעת צרה, דהא היו מתלוננים עכשיו לומר “הלא טוב לנו עבוד את מצרים” (ר' פסוק יב), אלא שהוא אומנות אבותם, שכך היה מנהג אבותם, ודבר שהוא מנהג אבותם נמשך האדם תמיד אחריו, אף על גב שאינו עושה בכוונת לבו ודעתו
The Maharal explains that the Yidden weren’t davening like Tzadikim do בעת צרה rather it was by rote, out of habit. They were conditioned to cry out when bad things happened but it wasn’t done whole heartedly. But the Rav added that not being able to daven with the right כוונת is not a reason not to daven and therefore a must continue, even by habit, and eventually it’ll become genuine.
5781
The Daily Song
In this week’s Parsha, we read the Shiras HaYam. The Shiras HaYam was said as a reaction to the extraordinary miracle of Krias Yam Suf which the Jews just experienced. The Shira begins with אז ישיר משה ובני ישראל את השירה הזאת ויאמרו לאמר. The word לאמר is difficult to understand because it usually means that which is about to be said should be said over to someone. But in the Pasuk, Moshe and the Bnei Yisrael are mentioned already so what is the purpose of the word לאמר?
The Yerushalmi in Sotah (5:4) asks what‘s the לאמר to which it answers לאמר לדורות. The Meforshim on the Yerushalmi offer different explanations. The Pnei Moshe says שיזכירו תמיד בכל יום את השירה הזאת that one should say the Shira every day. The Korban HaEida adds א"נ שיאמרו שירה על כל נס שיעשה להם that this Shira should be said when future miracles happen. That what the Korban HaEida says is understandable because just like they said Shira for the נס of Krias Yam Suf, so too they should say this Shira on future miracles. But according to the Pshat of the Pnei Moshe that we should say this Shira every day, this Shira was said on נסים גלוים. But in our daily lives, we don’t experience such נסים so why should we say the Shira every day?
Furthermore, the Mishna Berura (51:17) brings in the name of the Zohar ויאמר שירת הים בשמחה וידמה בדעתו כאלו באותו היום עבר בים. A person is supposed to say the Shiras HaYam with a שמחה and as if he himself today just experienced Krias Yam Suf. This is completely incomprehensible because why should we feel as if Krias Yam Suf happened to us today if it didn’t. And even more so, how can we be expected to feel such a way? This is seemingly an expectation that is impossible to fulfil as Krias Yam Suf was a once in history occurrence and a person can live his whole life without experiencing any form of a miracle, especially not a miracle such as Krias Yam Suf. Therefore how could it be expected of a person to say Shiras HaYam every day with a שמחה and as if he just experienced Krias Yam Suf?
In Pesachim 118a, רב שיזבי says in the name of רבי אלעזר בן עזריה that קשין מזוניתיו של אדם כקריעת ים סוף because דכתיב נתן לחם לכל בשר וסמיך ליה לגזר ים סוף לגזרים. Usually a person who would say such a thing is someone who has difficulty with פרנסה. But one usually doesn’t hear a successful business man complaining about the difficulty with making a פרנסה. However, the בעל המימרא is רבי אלעזר בן עזריה who was the richest of the Tanaim. About his wealth, the Gemara in Shabbos 54b says תריסר אלפי עגל הוה מעשר ראב"ע מעדריה כל שתא ושתא so he wasn’t lacking a פרנסה. Also, the Gemara in Brachos 57a says if someone sees רבי אלעזר בן עזריה in a dream, it’s a sign that he will become wealthy. Being that ראב"ע was the one who said this statement, it can’t merely be expressing the difficulty in making a livelihood. It also can’t be that its קשין for Hashem because for Hashem, everything is equally easy. Therefore, what is the meaning of קשין מזונותיו של אדם כקריעת ים סוף?
It must be that when ראב"ע said קשין מזונותיו של אדם כקריעת ים סוף, he was saying that although he was so successful, he nevertheless recognized that it was קשין כקריעת ים סוף. Just like it was obvious that it was Hashem who orchestrated splitting of the sea as it was completely miraculous without a natural explanation and nobody thought it was the doing of any Jew standing there, so too is the פרנסה of a person. The פרנסה of a person is not a product of one’s own efforts and success rather it’s only because of Hashem who gives him the ability to make a פרנסה. Another example where something is קשין כקריעת ים סוף is the Gemara in Sotah 2a that says וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף. The simple meaning of this Gemara is that finding the right match is קשין כקריעת ים סוף. But it could also be about maintaining the marriage. Maintaining the marriage, each day, could be קשין כקריעת ים סוף. The Gemara in Brachos 8a says that in מערבא they had a Minhag to ask the Chosson the day after he got married מצא או מוצא? מצא - דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה', מוצא דכתיב: ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה. What’s really the difference between these two Psukim? The Pasuk says ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה with an emphasis on the אני because if a person thinks it’s his doing and his accomplishments, then its מר ממות. But if a person recognizes humbly that his fate is in the hands of the Ribono Shel Oilam and it’s all Hashem’s doing just like Krias Yam Suf was, then it’ll be מצא אשה מצא טוב without the אני; it’s a find without the אני.
But this is seemingly a strange thing to be asking a Chosson about his new wife right after he gets married whether she is a מצא or a מוצא, whether or not she is a good match. But it could be explained as a Mussar because what she is to him might have more to do with how he is than how she is. Whether she is a מצא or a מוצא is sometimes a reflection of one’s self. If the person is a good person then it’ll be a מצא but if he is not a good person, she’ll be a מוצא. But if we are asking him, then that means it is not too late to work on himself and change it from being a מוצא to being a מצא. In the same vein, on the Pasuk אעשה לו עזר כנגדו, Rashi brings the Medrash that says אם זכה - עזר, ואם לא זכה – כנגדו from which we see that what she is to him depends on who he is. Similarly, in the Haftorah which talks about דבורה הנביאה, a tremendous person and yet the Pasuk refers to her as אשת לפידות. In the context of talking about such a great person as דבורה הנביאה it’s surprising to reference her by her husband who is unknown. (It could be because of this difficulty Chazal explain that she was called אשת לפידות because she would make the wicks for the Beis HaMikdash.) Unless the idea is because really he facilitated her path to greatness.
But in truth, it works both ways just like who the women becomes depends on the husband, also who the man becomes depends on the wife. In אשת חיל it says נודע בשערים בעלה בשבתו עם זקני ארץ which is talking about the husband. How is such a Pasuk part of the אשת חיל if it’s talking about the husband? It could be that the reason it’s part of the אשת חיל is because a true אשת חיל knows how to bring the best out of her husband and therefore נודע בשערים בעלה בשבתו עם זקני ארץ is one of the שבחות of the אשת חיל. Since a person every day has מזוניתיו and זווגו, he is recognizing every day the abundance of Chessed that the Ribono Shel Oilam is doing for him. If a person understands thatקשין מזונותיו andשל אדם כקריעת ים סוף זווגו, so actually every day he is crossing the Yam Suf and he recognizes Hashem’s Chessed and he should be בשמחה every day as if that day he crossed the Yam Suf because every day is no less than Krias Yam Suf except for that Krias Yam Suf was a נס נגלה and we live in נסים נסתרים.
(As a side note on the above Psukim the word מצא is past tense and מוצא is present tense, and a marriage is really a בעל אבידה מחזר אחר אבידתו because he is really finding the original match. The Gemara in Sotah 2a asks how it could be וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף if it saysארבעים יום קודם יצירת הולד, בת קול יוצאת ואומרת: בת פלוני לפלוני בית פלוני לפלוני שדה פלוני לפלוני to which the Gemara answers הא בזוג ראשון, הא בזוג שני. The simple understanding is that a זוג ראשון-first marriage is easy and זוג שני-second marriage is hard. But the הגהות יעב"ץ in the back of the Gemara says in short it doesn’t necessarily mean a first and second marriage but his first marriage could be a זווג שני. The idea could be that in heaven, this couple were meant for each other. But more often than not, they evolve in a way that they stray from where they are meant to be and therefore their marriage in this world is that of a זווג שני. It’s no longer with the original זווג because who they were in heaven as a match is not who they are anymore and therefore its קשין כקריעת ים סוף. So when the Pasuk says מצא which is past tense, that means where he found is old זווג, as it was in heaven and that is מצא אשה מצא טוב. But if it’s מוצא-present tense, finding something new, than its מר ממות.)
Endless Song
Although we read the Shiras HaYam, it’s not clear where the Shira actually ends. On the Pasuk כי בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים וישב ה' עלהם את מי הים ובני ישראל הלכו ביבשה בתוך הים (טו,יט) the Ibn Ezra writes לפי דעתי, כי גם זה הפסוק מהשירה, להזכיר הפלא שעשה בתוך פלא that this Pasuk is part of the Shira and it’s mentioning the נס בתוך נס that while the Jews were still in the Yam Suf, it started to crash down on the Mitzriim behind them. However, the Ramban quotes the Ibn Ezra and disagrees and says ואיננו בלשון השירה והנבואות אבל פירושו, אז ישיר משה, כי בא סוס פרעה ביום ההוא מיד. According to the Ramban, the Pasuk כי בא סוס פרעה וכו' is the Torah speaking and it’s going back on אז ישיר. Rashi in Chumash isn’t clear either way but in Gittin 90a when Rashi is explaining that the word כי has four meanings, he says וכי בא סוס פרעה וגו' מפני שבא סוס פרעה וגו' לפיכך ותקח מרים וגו. It seems according to Rashi that the Pasuk כי בא סוס פרעה וכו' is not part of the Shira and its connected to the next Pasuk of ותקח מרים. It comes out that according to the Ramban and Rashi, the Pasuk כי בא סוס פרעה is not part of the Shira and therefore the last Pasuk in the Shira is ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד but according to the Ibn Ezra, it is.
Whether or not כי בא סוס פרעה is part of the Shira makes a difference in Halacha. In Masechta Sofrim Chapter 12, it says that the Shira needs to be written בשלושים שיטין, on thirty lines. In the Torah, written on the last two lines is the Pasuk כי בא סוס פרעה. According to the Ramban and Rashi that the Shira ends with ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד, that Pasuk needs to be the last Pasuk on the שלושים שיטין and the way it appears in the Torah today is seemingly not Kosher. However this wouldn’t seem to be critical because when the Rambam brings this Halacha, it is not לעיכובא. However there is a difference which would have ramifications in Halacha and that is the Shira needs to be written אריח ע"ג לבינה and the Rambam writes in Hilchos Sefer Torah 7:11 that if the Shira is written like the rest of the כתב, like a brick, and not אריח ע"ג לבינה, then the Sefer Torah is פסול. But if any other part of the Torah is written like a Shira, אריח ע"ג לבינה, then it is also פסול. Therefore, since in our Sefer Torah כי בא סוס פרעה is written אריח ע"ג לבינה and not like a brick, it must be that it’s part of the Shira like the Ibn Ezra and not like Rashi and Ramban However, there is a contradiction between how our Sefer Torah has the Shira, which is to have כי בא סוס פרעה as אריח ע"ג לבינה indicating its part of the Shira and what we do in Pesukei Dzimrah. The Rama in OH 51:7 says that one should repeat the Pasuk כל הנשמה וכו' because it is the end of Pesukei Dzimrah and also (quoting the Abudraham) the Pasuk ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד in אז ישיר. The Abudraham himself writes the reason is to show that it is the end of the Shira. It’s clear that the Abudraham was like the opinions of Rashi and the Ramban that כי בא סוס פרעה is not part of the Shira. So the way we say the Shira in davening is not like how it is in the Sefer Torah.
But not only is there a contradiction between how the Shira is said in davening and how it’s written in the Torah, but there is a contradiction within davening itself regarding how we say the Shira. The Magen Avraham there in ס"ק ט says in the name of the Arizal שטוב לומר עם השירה פסוק כי בא סוס וכו'. The indication of this is that כי בא סוס וכו' is not part of the Shira just it’s good to say it along with the Shira. However, the Mishna Berura there writes the reason to say כי בא סוס וכו' is because it’s part of the Shira. According to this, what is done in most Shuls is a contradiction. On the one hand we repeat ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד signaling that it is the end of the Shira, but then we say כי בא סוס וכו' which according to the Mishna Berurah is part of the Shira in which case we shouldn’t repeat the Pasuk ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד because the Shira is not yet complete? Because of this problem, in the Siddur of Reb Yaakov Emden’s father, it says to say כי בא סוס וכו’and not to repeat ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד.
To solve this issue, it could be said that there is the פרשת השירה and the חפצא of the Shira itself. Regarding the Halachos of שלושים שיטין and אריח ע"ג לבינה, those Halachos were said for the פרשת השירה but not by the חפצא of the Shira itself. According to this, it could be like Rashi and the Ramban that כי בא סוס וכו' is not מגוף השירה and therefore we repeat ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד, but nevertheless כי בא סוס וכו' is written as part of the Shira with the relevant Halachos מדין פרשת השירה.
The Rambam in the end of Sefer Ahava brings the order of davening and he writes by Az Yashir וקורא השירה עד סופה כמנהג המקום. It’s not clear what the Rambam is referring to when he ends off כמנהג המקום. The Rambam in Hilchos Tefila 7:13 writes יש מקומות שנהגו בהן לקרות בכל יום אחר שמברכין ישתבח שירת הים ואחר כך מברכין על שמע, ויש מקומות שקורין שירת האזינו, ויש יחידים שקורין שתי השירות הכל לפי המנהג. (Side note, the Rambam has Shiras HaYam after Yishtabach.) One could explain the Rambam in the end of Sefer Ahava which says וקורא השירה עד סופה כמנהג המקום that he is referring to the Minhagim above of saying שירת הים or שירת האזינו. However, that doesn’t seem to be the correct explanation because if that would be the case, there would be no need for the Rambam to add עד סופה, rather it would be sufficient for the Rambam to just write וקורא השירה כמנהג המקום. Therefore it could be that already during the times of the Rambam there were different opinions regarding the end of the Shira, if it was the Pasuk ה' ימלוך לעולם ועד or the Pasuk כי בא סוס וכו' and therefore when he writes וקורא השירה עד סופה כמנהג המקום, he is referring to Minhagim of where to end the Shira.
However, this that there is confusion as to where the Shiras HaYam ends might not be a coincidence. Reb Tzadok explains that שיר is דבר המקיף meaning it’s a לשון of something that is circular. To explain this idea, it could be that just like in a song the back and forth of the notes together make up the beauty of the song, so also in life we should realize the regressions and progressions are all part of one complete wholeness. Therefore life is like a circle that at the end it all comes together.
The Medrash Rabba says that the אז ישיר משה was a correction for when Moshe said ומאז באתי על פרעה וכו'. When Moshe Rabbeinu initially came to Pharaoh, his actions seemed to have the opposite affects and it was only setting the Jews from being redeemed. But what Moshe didn’t realize was that every regression is really a progression and that’s because of the קושי השעבוד, they went out of Mitzrayim after 210 years as opposed to 430 years. So when the עבדות became worse after Moshe came to Pharaoh, it seemed like a regression and that things were getting worse but really it was a progression that because the שעבוד got worse, it expedited their time in Mitzrayim. It was only at the end where Moshe finally understand and it all came together and that’s why he sang Shira. That is how the אז ישיר משה was a תיקון for when he said ומאז באתי על פרעה וכו'. Also, in the Gemara Gittin 56b which discusses when Titus stabbed the Paroches and blood came out Reb Yishmael was דורש the Pasuk in the Shira מי כמכה באילים ה'-מי כמכה באלמים. This means that the Shira brings us to a level of understanding that even what is apparently negative has a positive message. Sometimes we see the מי כמכה באילים ה'- Gevura, when Hashem displays his strength and sometimes we see the מי כמכה באלמים when Hashem controls himself and doesn’t let his כעס conquer the שונאי ישראל. But in both situations it’s all מי כמכה and part of a bigger picture. So the idea of a Shira is that we sing Shira when we have the realization that every regression is really a progression. Therefore it’s befitting of the Shira to not have a clear end, because it expresses the idea that there is no real end but rather it’s a cycle.
תחיית המתים מן התורה
In the beginning of the Shira, Rashi quotes the Medrash אמרו רבותינו זכרונם לברכה, מכאן רמז לתחיית המתים מן התורה. What is the emphasis of מן התורה? It would seem sufficient to just be from here we see a מקור for תחיית המתים. What is the extra emphasis of מן התורה?
In his Hakdama to שב שמעתתא, the קצות writes that a person can only get Oilam Haba through learning Torah or by supporting Torah. He says this is the meaning of the Mishna in Sanhedrin אלו שאין להם חלק לעה"ב וכו' והאומר אין תחיית המתים מן תורה that even if a person believes in the idea of תחיית המתים but it’s not מסיבת התורה that the revival is not because of the Torah, he will not have a חלק in Oilam Haba. That is the meaning of לתחיית המתים מן התורה that it’s specifically because of תורה, the Torah is the כח for תחיית המתים and it’s not just saying a רמז form the Torah in the sense of where it can be found but that it’s the source, it’s what powers it.
Videos
Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5784 - The Endless Song
Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5782
Thursday Night Parsha Shiur 5781
Spiritual Growth through Material Affluence 5772
