The next perek of ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื is, in our model, based on the penultimate pasuk of ืืฉืจื:
ืฉืืืจ ืืณ ืืช ืื ืืืืื; ืืืช ืื ืืจืฉืขืื ืืฉืืืื
Reading this, it seems inappropriate, far too violent for the poetic ืชืืืืื. And our perek is similarly problematic: ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช ืืืืื ืืขืฉืืช ื ืงืื ืืืืื; ืชืืืืืช ืืืืืื. Itโs OK to praise ืืณ for saving us, but why celebrate destroying our enemies?
ืืื ืืชืื (ืืืจื ืืืืื ื ื:ืื) ืึฐึผืฆึตืืช ืึดืคึฐื ึตื ืึถืึธืืึผืฅ ืึฐืึนืึฐืจึดืื ืืึนืืึผ ืึทืืณ ืึดึผื ืึฐืขืึนืึธื ืึทืกึฐืึผืึน. ืืืดืจ ืืืื ื: ืืคื ื ืื ืื ื ืืืจ ืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื? ืืคื ืฉืืื ืืงืืดื ืฉืื ืืืคืืชื ืฉื ืจืฉืขืื. ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืฉืืืช ืื:ื) ืึฐืึนื ืงึธืจึทื ืึถื ืึถื ืึถื ืึธึผื ืึทืึธึผืึฐืึธื? ืืงืฉื ืืืืื ืืฉืจืช ืืืืจ ืฉืืจื. ืืืจ ืืงืืดื ืืขืฉื ืืื ืืืืขืื ืืื ืืืชื ืืืืจืื ืฉืืจื?
๏ฌฑึดื ึฐืคึนื ื๏ญืึดืึฐืึธ ืึทื ๏ญึด๏ฌซึฐืึธื; ๏ฌตืึด๏ฌปึธ๏ฌชึฐื๏ญ ืึทื ืึธืึตื ืึด๏ฌฑึถืึธื
But that seems to be exactly what weโre doing in our perek. In the sequence of ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื, our ืืื is becoming more ecstatic, with a ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ and with musical instruments and dancing:
ื ืืืืืื;
ืฉืืจื ืืืณ ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ; ืชืืืชื ืืงืื ืืกืืืืื
ื ืืฉืื ืืฉืจืื ืืขืฉืื; ืื ื ืฆืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืื
ื ืืืืื ืฉืื ืืืืื; ืืชืฃ ืืื ืืจ ืืืืจื ืืื
And we are singing to ืืณ because He has favored us and redeemed us:
ื ืื ืจืืฆื ืืณ ืืขืื; ืืคืืจ ืขื ืืื ืืืฉืืขืื
ื ืืขืืื ืืกืืืื ืืืืื; ืืจื ื ื ืขื ืืฉืืืืชืื
Thatโs all pretty standard. But then we describe what weโre celebrating, and itโs not even about G-dโs vengeance; itโs about ours. The ืืกืืืื are the ones with ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช ืืืื:
ื ืจืืืืืช ืึพื ืืืจืื ื; ืืืจื ืคืืคืืืช ืืืืื
ื ืืขืฉืืช ื ืงืื ืืืืื; ืชืืืืืช ืืืืืืื
ื ืืืกืจ ืืืืืื ืืืงืื; ืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืืจืืื
ื ืืขืฉืืช ืืื ืืฉืคื ืืชืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืกืืืื;
ืืืืืืื
There are two approaches to this. One is to take it literally: our modern minds are too sensitive, but there are times that ืืกืืืื need to take up the sword.
ืืื ืืืืฆืจ, ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช ืืืื: ืืงืืืืืื ืฆืืื ืืืืืชื ืฉื ืืฆืืื ืืช ืืืชืืช
ืืื ืืฉืื ืืื ืืืจืืืืื ืืืืชืจ ืืชืืืืืช ืืขื ืืืืืื, ืืชืืืขืชื ืืงืืืงืืืืืช ืืืืืืชื ืืขืฆืืืช ืืื ืืื ืืจื ืืจ-ืืืืื, ืืื ืืขืืืื ืื ืืืฆืืืืช ืฉื ืืืื ื ืืืืืืช, ืืืง ื ืืืจ ืืื ื ื ืืื ืฉืื ืืฉืืช ื ืฉืง ืืืืคื ืืืืจืื, ืืขืฉืืช ืฉืืืืฉ ืืืื ืฆืืื ืืืืืื ืืืง ืื ืืืื ืืืืืืชโฆืืกืคืจ ืฉืืคื ืื ื ืืืื ืืช ืืืืก ืฉื ืืืงืืืืืื ืืฆืืื ืืืืืื ืืคื ืฉืืื ืขืืื ืืืชืืืื ืฉื ืืืืื, ืจืื ืื ืืื ืฉื ืฆืืืืจ ืืฆืืื ืืช ืืืชืืช.
To understand the place of this ืืงืืืืืื ืฆืืื in ืกืคืจ ืชืืืืื, I would like to cite C. S. Lewis, Orthodox Judaismโs favorite Anglican.
Cf. C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (London, 1958), ch. 3, โThe Cursings.โ While written from an explicitly Christian point of viewโand hence not wholly palatable for a Jewish readerโthe chapter contains some valuable insights.
Reflections on the Psalms is Lewisโs essays on ืชืืืืื, and it is fascinating because it looks at ืชื ืดื through very different eyes than the ones we use, and makes us think about the assumptions that we take for granted. We talked about this in the context of โthe sweetness of Torahโ when discussing ืชืืืืื ืงืื. โThe Cursingsโ is about the ืชืืืืื asking for ื ืงืื, what Lewis calls โvindictivenessโ.
[W]e cannot be certain that the comparative absence of vindictivenessโฆis a good symptom. This was borne in upon me during a night journey taken early in the Second World War in a compartment full of young soldiers. Their conversation made it clear that they totally disbelieved all that had read in the papers about the wholesale cruelties of the Nazi regime. They took it for grantedโฆthat this was all lies, all propaganda put out by our government to โpep upโ our troops. And the shattering thing was, that, believing this, they expressed not the slightest anger. That our rulers should falsely attribute the worst of crimes to some of their fellow-men in order to induce other men to shed their blood seemed to them a matter of courseโฆNow it seemed to me that the most violent of the Psalmsโor, for that matter any child wailing out โBut itโs not fairโโwas in a more hopeful condition than these young menโฆ[N]ot to perceive [the diabolical wickedness] at allโnot even to be tempted to resentmentโto accept it as the most ordinary thing in the worldโargues a terrifying insensibility. Clearly these young men hadโฆno conception of good and evil whatsoever.
Thus the absence of angerโฆcan, in my opinion, be a most alarming symptom.
The expression ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช, a โdouble-edged swordโ may be a hint to this. Righteous anger is a dangerous thing.
Even when that indignation passes into bitter personal vindictiveness, it may still be a good symptom, though bad in itself. It is a sin; but at least it shows that those who commit it have not sunk below the level at which the temptation to that sin existsโฆIf the Jews cursed more bitterly than the Pagans this was, I think, at least in part because they took right and wrong more seriouslyโฆDifferent, certainly higher, a better symptom; yet also leading to a more terrible sin. For it encourages a man to think that his own worse passions are holy.
So the ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช must always be preceded by ืจืืืืืช ืึพื ืืืจืื ื; it has to be not just in the service of G-d, but reflecting the will of G-d.
ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ is usually taken as a reference to ืืืจืืช ืืืืื, when ืืณ's justice will be made manifest.
ืื ืืฉืืจืืช ืฉื ืืืจื ืืขืืื ืืฉืื ื ืงืืืชโฆืืื ืืขืชืื ืืืโฆืืืืจืื ืฉืืจ, ืืฉืื ืืืจ ืฉื ืืืจ (ืชืืืื ืฆื) ืฉืืจื ืืืณ ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ.
I donโt want to get too mystical, but the later Kabbalists were sensitive to the nuances of the language of ืชืืืืื and used that language to describe their elaborate mystical systems. Itโs important to note that โmasculineโ and โfeminineโ here have nothing to do with real men and women; men are not more โmasculineโ and women not more โfeminineโ. ืืกื is masculine, ืืื is feminine. It is using biology as a metaphor for other concepts, like the terms โmaleโ and โfemaleโ for pipes or electrical connections.
โฆIn terms of our ืฉืืจ, masculine is the infinite potential of the ืขืชืื ืืื. Feminine is the limited reality we live in now. A song of the potential future is a ืฉืืจ. This is the song of ืืืืช ืืฉืื, the end of history. ืืณ will be the acknowledged ruler of all humanity and we will live in a perfectly just society.
And we will be an active part of that eschatological battle, and will celebrate the ultimate victory of good.
ืจืืืืืช ืึพื: ืืฉืืืืื ืืืืืื ืขื ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืจืืืื ืืึพื ืื ืฉืืืฆืืื ืื ืืืืืช, ืืืชืคืื ืชืืื ืืคืืื ืืืจื ืืืื.
That works for our perek. But it seems out of context. This is part of the ืืื of everyday. It clearly follows from the last perek, which ended with ืชืืื ืืื ืืกืืืื, leading to our ืชืืืชื ืืงืื ืืกืืืื. Weโve argued that ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื is the ืืื of ืืณ's ืคืจื ืกื, sustaining the world both physically (ืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืขื) and emotionally (ืืขืืื ืขื ืืื ืืณ). This isnโt the place โto vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tearsโ (Genghis Khan). So, at least as part of our ืชืคืืื, I would read this perek allegorically.
The allegory comes from ืืืดื.
ืึทืึฒื ึดื ื ึธืชึทืชึผึดื ืึฐืึธ ืฉืึฐืึถื ืึทืึทื ืขึทื ืึทืึถืืึธ; ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึธืงึทืึฐืชึผึดื ืึดืึผึทื ืึธืึฑืึนืจึดื ืึผึฐืึทืจึฐืึผึดื ืึผืึฐืงึทืฉืึฐืชึผึดืื
ืืืืืจ โืืื ื ื ืชืชื ืื ืฉืื ืืื ืขื ืืืื ืืฉืจ ืืงืืชื ืืื ืืืืืจื ืืืจืื ืืืงืฉืชืโ ืืื ืืืจืื ืืืงืฉืชื ืืงื? ืืืื ืืืจ ื ืืืจ (ืชืืืืื ืื:ื) ืึผึดื ืึนื ืึฐืงึทืฉืึฐืชึผึดื ืึถืึฐืึธื ืึฐืึทืจึฐืึผึดื ืึนื ืชืึนืฉืึดืืขึตื ึดื? ืืื ืืจืื ืื ืชืคืื, ืงืฉืชื ืื ืืงืฉื.
And this particular ืืจื is a particular ืชืคืื:
ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง: ืื ืืงืืจื ืงืจืืืช ืฉืืข ืขื ืืืชื, ืืืื ืืืื ืืจื ืฉื ืฉืชื ืคืืืช ืืืื. ืฉื ืืืจ: ืจืึนืึฐืืึนืช ืึตึพื ืึผึดืึฐืจืึนื ึธื ืึฐืึถืจึถื ืคึผึดืืคึดืึผืึนืช ืึผึฐืึธืึธื, ืืื ืืฉืืข? ืืืจ ืืจ ืืืืจื ืืืืชืืื ืจื ืืฉื: ืืจืืฉื ืืขื ืื ื, ืืืชืื: ืึทืขึฐืึฐืืึผ ืึฒืกึดืืึดืื ืึผึฐืึธืืึนื ืึฐืจึทื ึผึฐื ืึผ ืขึทื ืึดืฉืึฐืึผึฐืืึนืชึธื. ืืืชืื ืืชืจืื: ืจืึนืึฐืืึนืช ืึตึพื ืึผึดืึฐืจืึนื ึธื ืึฐืึถืจึถื ืคึผึดืืคึดืึผืึนืช ืึผึฐืึธืึธื.
ืืืื ืืื ืืืจืื, ืืืจื ืืฉืืื. ืืฆื ืื ืืฉืืื ืฉืื ืืื ืจื ืืื ืื ืืืชืืืฆื ื ืื ืื ืืืืืืช ืืจืขืื, ืืื ืืฆื ืืืืง ืืืืจื ืฉืื ืืื ืขืืื ืืคืื ืืจืฉืช ืชืืช ืื ืฉืื ืื ื ืคืฉื ืืื ืืืืืืช ืืจืขืื. ืขืดื ืืื ืืฉืื ืฉืืฉ ืืืื ืืจื ืฉืื ืื ืคื ืืื, ืืฆื ืืฉืืื, ืืื ืืฆื ืืืืจื. ืืื ื ืืฉืืืื ืืฉื, ื ืฉืืจ ืืืง ืืืืจื ืืืื ืืืืง ืืฉืืื ืืกืชืืง ืืื ื. ืขืดื ืจืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืจื ืขืืื, ืืืืื ืืชืืืงืืช ืื ืืืืจื ืืืจืื ืื ืชืืื ื ืจืขื ืืฉืขืช ืืฉืื ื, ืื ืืืจื ืืขืืจื. ืขืดื ืืกืจื ืื ื ืืืดื ืกืืืืช ืงืดืฉ ืฉืขื ืืืื, ืฉืขื ืืื ืืงื ื ืืื ืืืืจื ืฉืื ืจืืฉื ืงืืืฉื, ืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืื ืฉืื, ืขื ืฉืืฆื ืขืฆืื ืื ืืืื ืจืืืื ืืืืื ื ืื ืืืืืืช ืืจืขืื. ืขืดื ืืื ื ืืฉื ืขืดื ืงืดืฉ ืฉืขื ืืืชื, ืืืืื ืืจื ืฉื ืืณ ืคืืืช, ืฉืืื ืืฆื ืืฉืืื ืืื ืืฆื ืืืืจื, ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืืืื ืฉืขื ืืืืืื ืืชืืืจ.
My reading: the ืืจื ืคืืคืืืช ืืืื is our ืชืคืื that defends and integrates the two halves of our selves, what Rav Kook calls ืืืจื ืืฉืืื. More philosophical authors would call them ืืืืจ and ืฆืืจื, matter and form. The ืืืืื that require ืชืืืื are all the myriad parts of us that need to be tied together, ืืืกืจ ืืืืืื ืืืงืื; ืื ืืืืืื ืืืืื ืืจืื.
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
And that is the next aspect of ืืณ's ืคืจื ืกื that we celebrate. I go to sleep every night and I awaken every morning, and I am still me. That re-integration of my multitudes is the greatest miracle of all.
Humans are math enmeshed in meat. You can despair over that, or praise your Creator for making that possible.
Rav Hutner brings up an obscure halachic point: a bracha never ends with two thoughts. If we wish to express two concepts, we make two brachot:
ืจืื ืืืืจ: ืืื ืืืชืืื ืืฉืชืื.
But the bracha of ืืฉืจ ืืฆืจ seems to violate this rule:
ืึธึผืจืึผืึฐ ืึทืชึธึผื ืืณ, ืจืึนืคึตื ืึธื ืึธึผืฉึธืืจ ืึผืึทืคึฐืึดืื ืึทืขึฒืฉืืึนืช.
The bracha is about the miracle of the physical body (Dr. Kenneth Prager wrote an essay in JAMA that everyone should read, about ืืฉืจ ืืฆืจ), and the ืึทืคึฐืึดืื ืึทืขึฒืฉืืึนืช would seem to be part of that. However, Rav Hutner cites the Rema, that ืึทืคึฐืึดืื ืึทืขึฒืฉืืึนืช isnโt really the end of the bracha, itโs a bridge to the next bracha, ืืืืงื ื ืฉืื ืฉื ืชืช ืื:
ืืื: ืืฉ ืืคืจืฉ ืฉืืคืืื ืืขืฉืืช ืืื ืฉืฉืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ืืงืจืื, ืืงืืฉืจ ืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื.
ืืืฃ ืืืจืื ืฉื ืืฉืจ ืืฆืจ ื ืืกื ืขื ืขื ืืื ืื ืฉื ืื ืคืฉ ืืืืขืืชโฆืืืฆื ืื ืืื ืืกืชืืืืช ืืืืชืืื ืฉื ืจืืคื ืื ืืฉืจ. ืืื ืฉื ืืชืืกืฃ ืขื ืืชืืื ืื ืื ืืขื ืื ืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืขืฉืืช, ืืคื ื ืฉืืืจื ืืจืื ืื ืฉื ืืฉืจ ืืฆืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืจืื ืฉื ืืืงื ื ืฉืืโฆืืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืฉื ืืืคืืื ืืขืฉืืช ืืชืืจ ืงืฉืจ-ืืฉืจ ืฉื ืฉืชื ืืืจืืืช ืืืื.
Thatโs why this requires ืฉืืจื ืืืณ ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ. Every day is worth a new song.
ืฉืืจื ืืืณ ืฉืืจ ืืืฉ: ืืืืืจ ืื ืืืื ืืื ืื ืืฉืืจืื ืืืื ืืืชืืืื ืืื ืื ืืืืฉื ืื ืฉืืจ.
And the way to integrate them is ืืขืฉืืช ืืื ืืฉืคื ืืชืื, to keep the Torah that is a ืืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืกืืืื.
And so we conclude with the last pasuk of ืืฉืจื:
ืชืืืช ืืณ ืืืืจ ืคื; ืืืืจื ืื ืืฉืจ ืฉื ืงืืฉื ืืขืืื ืืขืื
with a perek that ironically doesnโt praise ืืณ at all. Itโs a statement of how to praise ืืณ, not what to say:
ื ืืืืืื;
ืืืื ืึพื ืืงืืฉื; ืืืืืื ืืจืงืืข ืขืืื
ื ืืืืืื ืืืืืจืชืื; ืืืืืื ืืจื ืืืืื
ื ืืืืืื ืืชืงืข ืฉืืคืจ; ืืืืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืืจื
ื ืืืืืื ืืชืฃ ืืืืื; ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืขืืื
ื ืืืืืื ืืฆืืฆืื ืฉืืข; ืืืืืื ืืฆืืฆืื ืชืจืืขืื
ื ืื ืื ืฉืื ืชืืื ืึพื; ืืืืืืื
It starts with the parallel that we saw in ืคืจืง ืงืื: human beings singing ืืงืืฉื, in the ืืืช ืืืงืืฉ; and the hosts of heaven singing ืืจืงืืข ืขืื. Rav Schwab (in Rav Schwab on Prayer, p. 209) says that this isnโt really limited to the ืืืช ืืืงืืฉ, because our goal is that the entire world should become ืืงืื ืงืืฉื:
ืืชืื (ืืฉืขืืื ืกื:ืื) ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึดืึตึผื ืึนืึถืฉื ืึฐึผืึธืึฐืฉืืึน [ืึผืึดืึตึผื ืฉึทืืึธึผืช ืึฐึผืฉึทืืึทึผืชึผืึน ืึธืืึนื ืึธื ืึธึผืฉึธืืจ ืึฐืึดืฉึฐืืชึทึผืึฒืโึนืช ืึฐืคึธื ึทื ืึธืึทืจ ืืณ], ืืืืื ืืคืฉืจ ืฉืืื ืื ืืฉืจ ืืืจืืฉืืื ืืื ืฉืืช ืืืื ืืืฉ? ืืืจ ืจืื ืืื: ืขืชืืื ืืจืืฉืืื ืืืืืช ืืืจืฅ ืืฉืจืื ืืืจืฅ ืืฉืจืื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืื.
And both are wordless.
ื ืืฉืืื ืืกืคืจืื ืืืื ืึพื; ืืืขืฉื ืืืื ืืืื ืืจืงืืขื
โฆื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืืจืื; ืืื ื ืฉืืข ืงืืืื
ืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ื ืืช ืืืืข, ืืื ืืืืกืืืจืื, ืืื ืืื ืกืืืืืช ืืชืื ืื ืื, ืืื ืืื ื ืงืื ืืืืืื, ืืื ืขืืืื ืืื ืจืฉืขืื, ืื ืืืืง ื ืืื ืขื ืฆืืคืืื ืืืฉืืขืช ืืณ, ืืื ืืชืืืืืืช ืขื โืืฆืืืืชืืืโ ืขื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืณโืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืฉื ืืช ืืืืืจื ืชืืืืื, ืืื ืืืืืืจื โืึทืึฐืืึผ ืึธึพืึผโ ืืฆืื ื ืืืชื; ืืืืข ืืขืช ืืืชืจืืื ืืื ืืื ืื ืืื ื ืงื.
We then praiseืืณโ ืืืืืจืชืื and ืืจื ืืืื. The latter preposition makes sense, ืืจื ืืืื, โin accordance with His greatnessโ. But the ืึพ in ืืืืืจืชืื is odd. We translate ืืงืืฉื as โin His holy placeโ, and in the rest of the perek, ืืชืงืข ืฉืืคืจโฆืื ืื ืืื ืืจ,โ ืึพ is instrumental, โwith the blast of the shofarโฆwith harp and lyre.โ
You could translate ืืืืืจืชืื as โwith His mighty actsโ, meaning that our ืืื will speak of ืืณ's ืืืืจื. But that doesnโt go with the wordlessness of this perek. So I would translate it as โin the midst of His mightโ, standing in the middle of creation, where we experience ืจื ืืืื.
When [the homo religiosus] confronts G-dโs world, when he gazes at the myriads of events and phenomena occuring in the cosmos, he does not desire to transform the secrets embedded in creation into simple equationsโฆHe gazes at that which is obscure without the intent of explaining it and inquires into that which is concealed without the intent of receiving the reward of clear understanding.
When he stands before the cosmos, he is entirely aflame with the holy fire of wonderโฆHe is frightenedโnay terrifiedโby the mysteryโฆHe flees from it, but at the same time, against his will, he draws near to it; enchanted, he finds himself irresitibly pulled toward it, pines for it, and longs to merge with it.
Our perek is how to do just that, and it starts with the shofar. We have talked about the shofar as the embodiment of wordless prayer:
ื ืชืงืขื ืืืืฉ ืฉืืคืจ; ืืืกื ืืืื ืืื ืืโฆืโฆืฉืคืช ืื ืืืขืชื ืืฉืืขื
โI, G-d, listen to the language of โืื ืืืขืชืโ, โI donโt knowโ.โ The shofar is the language that has no words to express itself.
And finally comes the sound of the shofarโฆa wordless cry in a religion of wordsโฆAnd whether the shofar is our cry to G-d or G-dโs cry to us, somehow in that tekia, shevarim, terua โ the call, the sob, the wail โ is all the pathos of the Divine-human encounter as G-d asks us to take His gift, life itself, and make of it something holy by so acting as to honour G-d and His image on earth, humankind.
On Rosh Hashanah we are reminded that there are some things that remain outside the realm of human comprehension, but also, that we nevertheless are required to try and comprehend themโฆPart of our task here on earth is to translate the untranslatable cry of the shofar, even while we recognize how impossible that is.
We all know the story:
In a small town in Poland, there was an orphan shepherd boy who grew up knowing very little about being Jewish. One day, shortly before Yom Kippur, he met a group of people who were traveling to Mezibush to spend the holiday with the Baal Shem Tov. The boy decided to join them and soon, he was standing with the many people in the Baal Shem Tovโs shul.
But the boy did not know how to daven he couldnโt even read the Aleph-Beis. He saw all the people davening earnestly from the depths of their hearts, and he also wanted to say something to HaShem that came from deep inside. So he drew a deep breath and let out the shrill whistle that he would sound every evening when he gathered the sheep from the fields. Right in the middle of davening on Yom Kippur, the shepherd boy whistled as loud as he could.
The people in the shul were shocked, but the Baal Shem Tov calmed them and said, โA terrible decree was hanging over us. The shepherd boyโs whistle pierced the heavens and erased the decree. His whistle saved us, because it was sincere and came from the very bottom of his heart, where he feels love for HaShem even though he doesnโt know or understand why.โ
Poetry is putting words to feelings that have no words. But we, unlike David, are not poets. Any words we try to use to express ourselves would be inadequate. But that is enough for ืื ืื ืฉืื ืชืืื ืึพื, for every living thing to praise ืืณ, and for the entirety of our selves to praise ืืณ. Itโs not that ืืงืืดื needs our praise; it is that we need it.
The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak about what they care aboutโฆ
I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation. It is not out of compliment that lovers keep on telling one another how beautiful they are; the delight is incomplete till it is expressed. It is frustrating to have discovered a new author and not to be able to tell anyone how good he is; to come suddenly, at the turn of the road, upon some mountain valley of unexpected grandeur and then to have to keep silent because the people with you care for it no more than for a tin can in the ditch; to hear a good joke and find no one to share it with.
Unlimited by words, the psalmist attempts to create a complete and seamless relationship between the author and the reader; both together prepare for the ultimate conclusion of this book of life. This is the ืฉืืจ ืืืฉโthe โnew songโ alluded to in the previous psalm; this is the final praise which he yearns to be sung by all creatures who possess breath.
โAll creatures who possess breathโ is the usual translation of ืื ืื ืฉืื ืชืืื ืึพื. But I think it would be better to translate it as โall of oneโs breathโ. The word ื ืฉืื doesnโt appear anywhere else in ืกืคืจ ืชืืืืื, and elsewhere in ืชื ืดื it clearly means โbreathโ, not the more modern meaning of โsoulโ (in ืชืืืืื that is called โืืืืโ). It fits in with the โwordlessโ themeโI praise ืืณ simply by breathing.
ืจึทืึผึดื ืึตืึดื ืึผึฐืฉืึตื ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฒื ึดืื ึธื ืึธืึทืจ: ืขึทื ืึผึธื ื ึฐืฉืึดืืึธื ืึผื ึฐืฉืึดืืึธื ืฉืึถืึธืึธื ื ืึนืฉืึตื ืฆึธืจึดืืึฐ ืึฐืงึทืึผึตืก ืึทืึผืึนืจึตื, ืึทื ืึผึทืขึทื (ืชืืืื ืงื :ื): ืึผึนื ืึทื ึผึฐืฉืึธืึธื ืชึผึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึธึพืึผ; ืึผึธื ืึทื ึผึฐืฉืึดืืึธื ืชึผึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึธึพืึผ.
And this ends ืกืคืจ ืชืืืื. But that doesnโt complete all possible ืชืืืื.
ืืืจ ืฉืืื: ืื ื ืื ืืขืฉื ืืื ืฉืขืฉื ืืื, ืืื ืคืชื ืืืืชื ืืจืืฉ ืืืชืืืช [ืึทืฉืึฐืจึตื ืึธืึดืืฉื] ืืกืืื ืืืืฆืข ืึผึนื ืึทื ึผึฐืฉืึธืึธื, ืชึผึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึธึพืึผ, ืืื ืื ื ืืื ื ืขืืฉื ืื; ืื ื ืคืืชื ืืืืฆืข ืืืชืืืช [ืึดืฉืึฐืึตื ืฉืึฐืึนืึนื ืึถื ืึผึธืึดื] ืืืกืืื ืืกืืฃ ืืืชืืืช [ืชึผึฐื ืึผ ืึธืึผ ืึดืคึผึฐืจึดื ืึธืึถืืึธ].
David ends his book halfway through the alphabet. Shlomo takes that as an invitiation to continue on in his own words, with his own feelings. And so should we all.
To summarize in Twitter-ish:
ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื is the ืืื sung:
ืงืื: in solitude ืงืื: with community ืงืื: with the universe ืงืื: with song and dance ืงื : without words
ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื is the ืืื of:
ืงืื: the miracle of physical sustenance ืงืื: the miracle of emotional stability ืงืื: the miracle of being part of creation ืงืื: the miracle of spiritual integration ืงื : the miracle of ืืื
And so we conclude ืคืกืืงื ืืืืืจื and are truly ready to start our ืชืคืืื.