ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: I Spy

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

ื ืœืžื ืฆื— ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช ืœื“ื•ื“ ืžื›ืชื: ื‘ืฉืœื— ืฉืื•ืœ;
ื•ื™ืฉืžืจื• ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืœื”ืžื™ืชื•ืƒ
ื‘ ื”ืฆื™ืœื ื™ ืžืื™ื‘ื™ ืืœืงื™; ืžืžืชืงื•ืžืžื™ ืชืฉื’ื‘ื ื™ืƒ
ื’ ื”ืฆื™ืœื ื™ ืžืคืขืœื™ ืื•ืŸ; ื•ืžืื ืฉื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื”ื•ืฉื™ืขื ื™ืƒ
ื“ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื” ืืจื‘ื• ืœื ืคืฉื™ ื™ื’ื•ืจื• ืขืœื™ ืขื–ื™ื;
ืœื ืคืฉืขื™ ื•ืœื ื—ื˜ืืชื™ ื”ืณืƒ
ื” ื‘ืœื™ ืขื•ืŸ ื™ืจืฆื•ืŸ ื•ื™ื›ื•ื ื ื•; ืขื•ืจื” ืœืงืจืืชื™ ื•ืจืื”ืƒ
ื• ื•ืืชื” ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™ื ืฆื‘ืึพื•ืช ืืœืงื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ืงื™ืฆื” ืœืคืงื“ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื•ื™ื;
ืืœ ืชื—ืŸ ื›ืœ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ ืื•ืŸ ืกืœื”ืƒ
ื– ื™ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืœืขืจื‘ ื™ื”ืžื• ื›ื›ืœื‘; ื•ื™ืกื•ื‘ื‘ื• ืขื™ืจืƒ
ื— ื”ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืคื™ื”ื ื—ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืคืชื•ืชื™ื”ื; ื›ื™ ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืƒ
ื˜ ื•ืืชื” ื”ืณ ืชืฉื—ืง ืœืžื•; ืชืœืขื’ ืœื›ืœ ื’ื•ื™ืืƒ
ื™ ืขื–ื• ืืœื™ืš ืืฉืžืจื”; ื›ื™ ืืœืงื™ื ืžืฉื’ื‘ื™ืƒ
ื™ื ืืœืงื™ ื—ืกื“ื• (ื—ืกื“ื™) ื™ืงื“ืžื ื™; ืืœืงื™ื ื™ืจืื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจืจื™ืƒ
ื™ื‘ ืืœ ืชื”ืจื’ื ืคืŸ ื™ืฉื›ื—ื• ืขืžื™ ื”ื ื™ืขืžื• ื‘ื—ื™ืœืš ื•ื”ื•ืจื™ื“ืžื•; ืžื’ื ื ื• ืื“ื ื™ืƒ
ื™ื’ ื—ื˜ืืช ืคื™ืžื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืคืชื™ืžื•;
ื•ื™ืœื›ื“ื• ื‘ื’ืื•ื ื; ื•ืžืืœื” ื•ืžื›ื—ืฉ ื™ืกืคืจื•ืƒ
ื™ื“ ื›ืœื” ื‘ื—ืžื” ื›ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ืžื•:
ื•ื™ื“ืขื• ื›ื™ ืืœืงื™ื ืžืฉืœ ื‘ื™ืขืงื‘; ืœืืคืกื™ ื”ืืจืฅ ืกืœื”ืƒ
ื˜ื• ื•ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืœืขืจื‘ ื™ื”ืžื• ื›ื›ืœื‘; ื•ื™ืกื•ื‘ื‘ื• ืขื™ืจืƒ
ื˜ื– ื”ืžื” ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืŸ (ื™ื ื™ืขื•ืŸ) ืœืื›ืœ ืื ืœื ื™ืฉื‘ืขื• ื•ื™ืœื™ื ื•ืƒ
ื™ื– ื•ืื ื™ ืืฉื™ืจ ืขื–ืš ื•ืืจื ืŸ ืœื‘ืงืจ ื—ืกื“ืš:
ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ืช ืžืฉื’ื‘ ืœื™; ื•ืžื ื•ืก ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฆืจ ืœื™ืƒ
ื™ื— ืขื–ื™ ืืœื™ืš ืื–ืžืจื”; ื›ื™ ืืœืงื™ื ืžืฉื’ื‘ื™ ืืœืงื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ืƒ

ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ืคืจืง ื ื˜

ื›ื•ืชืจืช

ืืžืจ ืจื™ื‘ืดืœ ื‘ืขืฉืจื” ืžืืžืจื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื— ื ืืžืจ ืกืคืจ ืชื”ืœื™ื ื‘ื ื™ืฆื•ื— ื‘ื ื’ื•ืŸ ื‘ืžืฉื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืฉื™ืจ ื‘ืืฉืจื™ ื‘ืชื”ืœื” ื‘ืชืคืœื” ื‘ื”ื•ื“ืื” ื‘ื”ืœืœื•ื™ึพื” ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžื›ื•ืœืŸ

ืคืกื—ื™ื ืงื™ื–,ื

Donโ€™t spend too much time on the title; no one knows what lamenatzeiach really refers to so just accept one of the approaches.

Rabbi Avi Baumol, The Poetry of Prayer: Tehillim in Tefillah, page 290

โ€ฆื•ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžืงื“ืฉ ืœื”ืœืœ ื”ื ื ื‘ืœื™ื ื•ื›ื™ื ื•ืจื•ืช ื•ืžืฆืชื™ื ื•ืฉื•ืคืจ ื•ื—ืฆื•ืฆืจื•ืช, ื•ื”ื™ื• ื”ื›ืœื™ื ื ื—ืœืงื™ื ืขืœ ื ื’ื™ื ื•ืช ื™ื“ื•ืขื™ื ืืฆืœื; ื™ืฉ ืžื”ื ื’ื™ื ื•ืช ื”ื ืงืจื ืขืœืžื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ื ื’ื™ื ื•ืช, ื•ื‘ื• ื”ื™ื” ื ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื”ื ืงืจื ื”ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ืžื”ื ื ืจืงื ืžืฉื›ื™ืœ ื•ื™ืฉ ืฆื”ื ื ืงืจื ืžื›ืชื ื•ื™ืฉ ื ื—ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ื’ื™ืชื™ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ื ืงืจื ื›ืœื™ ืขืฉื•ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ืขื•ื’ื‘ ื•ื™ืฉ ืžื™ื ื™ื ื•ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื—ืœื•ืง ื‘ื ื’ื™ื ืชื• ื›ืžื• ืฉื”ื•ื ื™ื“ื•ืข ืืฆืœ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื”ื—ื›ืžื”. ื•ืžืฆืื ื• ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื ื›ื’:ื”) ื•ืืจื‘ืขืช ืืœืคื™ื ืžื”ืœืœื™ื ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื›ืœื™ื ืืฉืจ ืขืฉื™ืชื™ ืœื”ืœืœ.

ืจื“ืดืง, ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž ื“:ื ื“ืดื” ืœืžื ืฆื—

The superscription of most ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž, in addition to describing the author, often uses other terms that presumably describe the kind of work it is, or how it was meant to be played, but we do not know what any of the terms mean. The assumption of the ืžืคืจืฉื™ื is that they describe instruments or tempos or other musical instructions, but in our analysis, that just begs the question. Why should a given perek be a ืžื–ืžื•ืจ and another a ืฉื™ืจ? It is as though we had the scores of Mozartโ€™s symphonies but no knowledge of Italian; we could count the number of movements labeled Molto allegro or Andante but it wouldnโ€™t mean anything.

So we have to do something with the superscriptions. They are Hebrew words, and have ืฉืจืฉื™ื that we can analyze and see how they fit in the theme of the perek.

The ืชืงื•ื ื™ ื–ื”ืจ takes the ten forms of praise (though a slightly different list from the gemara) and associates them with the ten ืกืคื™ืจื•ืช, the attributes by which the Divine manifests in the physical world. While I donโ€™t know if David had in mind a system as intricate and precise as the medieval Kabbalists, it makes sense that each ืžืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื— had a real meaning and corresponded to a specific aspect of our appreciation of ื”ืณ.

ืœืžื ืฆื—

ื™ื– ื•ื™ืขืžื™ื“ื• ื”ืœื•ื™ื ืืช ื”ื™ืžืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ืืœ ื•ืžืŸ ืื—ื™ื• ืืกืฃ ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืจื›ื™ื”ื•; ื•ืžืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืžืจืจื™ ืื—ื™ื”ื ืื™ืชืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืงื•ืฉื™ื”ื•ืƒ โ€ฆ ื›ื ื•ืžืชืชื™ื”ื• ื•ืืœื™ืคืœื”ื• ื•ืžืงื ื™ื”ื• ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืื“ื ื•ื™ืขื™ืืœ ื•ืขื–ื–ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื›ื ืจื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื™ืช ืœื ืฆื—ืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื ื˜ื•

ื:ื™ื— ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืฉืœืžื” ืœื‘ื ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ืœืฉื ื”ืณ ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืœืžืœื›ื•ืชื•ืƒ ื‘:ื ื•ื™ืกืคืจ ืฉืœืžื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ืืœืฃ ืื™ืฉ ืกื‘ืœ ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ืืœืฃ ืื™ืฉ ื—ืฆื‘ ื‘ื”ืจ; ื•ืžื ืฆื—ื™ื ืขืœื™ื”ื ืฉืœืฉืช ืืœืคื™ื ื•ืฉืฉ ืžืื•ืชืƒ

ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื‘

ืฉึฐืื‘ึดื™ืขึธืึธื” ื‘ึฐึผื ึดืฆึผื•ึผื—ึท ื“ึฐึผืึดื™ื”ื•ึผ ื ึถืฆึทื— ื™ึดืฉึฐื‚ืจึธืึตืœ, ื•ึทืขึฒืœึตื™ื”ึผ ืึดืชึฐึผืžึทืจ (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื˜ื•:ื›ื˜) ื•ึฐื’ึทื ื ึตืฆึทื— ื™ึดืฉึฐื‚ืจึธืึตืœ ืœึนื ื™ึฐืฉึทืืงึตึผืจ [ื”ึทืฉึฐึผืื‘ึดื™ืขึดื™ ื‘ึฐึผื ึดืฆึผื•ึผื—ึท, ืฉึถืื”ื•ึผื ื ึตืฆึทื— ื™ึดืฉึฐื‚ืจึธืึตืœ, ื•ึฐืขึธืœึธื™ื• ื ึถืึฑืžึทืจ ื•ึฐื’ึทื ื ึตืฆึทื— ื™ึดืฉึฐื‚ืจึธืึตืœ ืœึนื ื™ึฐืฉึทืืงึตึผืจ]

ืชืงื•ื ื™ ื–ื”ืจ, ืชืงื•ื ื ืชืœื™ืกืจ, ื›ื—:ื‘

The ืคืฉื˜ of the word ื ืฆื— in this context is โ€œleaderโ€, hence the usual translation of ืœืžื ืฆื— as โ€œfor the conductorโ€. But we do not know what that means. The ื–ื”ืจ connnects it, simply enough, with the ืกืคื™ืจื” of ื ืฆื—, in this case meaning โ€œeternityโ€ rather than โ€œvictoryโ€. It the the manifestation of ื”ืณโ€™s hand in history. In the words of Aish Hatorahโ€™s Kabbalah 101, โ€Netzach refers to actions of G-d that are chesed, โ€˜kindness,โ€™ in essence, but are presented through a prelude of harshnessโ€œ. In chassidus, it is associated with ื”ืฉืคืขื” ืžืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื”, the influence that ื”ืณ has on the lower world.

Interestingly, the Septuagint translates ืœืžื ืฆื— as ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯ„แฝธ ฯ„ฮญฮปฮฟฯ‚, โ€For the telos, the ultimate purposeโ€œ.

We shall have to see how well that understanding of ืœืžื ืฆื— fits with the relevant ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž.

ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช

There is a series of ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž (ื ื–โ€“ื ื˜) titled ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช (there is one more, ืขื”, by ืืกืฃ). The phrase is generally taken to mean โ€œa prayer that I, David, not be destroyedโ€ which fits in the context of Saulโ€™s attempts to kill him, but I think a better understanding is the interpretation of ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื on ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ื ื–,โ€Ž โ€ื‘ื‘ืจื—ื• ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืžืขืจื”โ€œ:

ื™ืขืŸ ืฉืขืœ ืขื ื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื—ื‘ืจ ืขื•ื“ ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ืœืงืžืŸ ืกื™ืณ ืงืžืดื‘ ื•ืฉื ื“ื‘ืจ ืžืฆืจืชื• ืœื‘ื“, ื•ืคื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื’ื ืžืžื” ืฉื›ืคื” ืืช ื™ืฆืจื• ืœื‘ืœ ื™ืฉื—ื™ืช ืืช ืฉืื•ืœ, ืฆื™ื™ืŸ ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืžืœื•ืช ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช, ืฉื›ืŸ ืชืคืก ืขืœ ื–ื” ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืฉื—ืชื” (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื›ื•:ื˜) ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืืœ ืชืฉื—ื™ืชื”ื•.

ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช is a prayer that ื”ืณ not destroy Davidโ€™s enemies, specifically Saul. It is a realization that ื”ืณ's purpose in the world would be better served reforming the ืจืฉืข than destroying him (and all the ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช perakim are also ืœืžื ืฆื—). This interpretation fits this perek as well.

ืœื“ื•ื“

We have dealt before with ืœื“ื•ื“ meaning โ€œto Davidโ€ by the ืจื•ื— ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ. Coming after the ืžืืžืจ ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื—, the gemara explains (ืคืกื—ื™ื ืงื™ื–,ื)โ€Ž ืืžืจ ืฉื™ืจื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉืจืชื” ืขืœื™ื• ืฉื›ื™ื ื”. This makes sense in the context of the stress of escaping from Saulโ€™s spies; (ืฉื‘ืช ืœ:ื‘)โ€Ž ืฉืื™ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ื ื” ืฉื•ืจื” ืœื ืžืชื•ืš ืขืฆื‘ื•ืช (see the discussion of Saulโ€™s paranoia).

ืžื›ืชื

ืžื›ืชื is a hard word to translate; itโ€™s not quite a hapax legomenon but it only appears in the superscriptions of six ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž. It is not included in the gemaraโ€™s list of ืžืืžืจื•ืช ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื— or in the discussion of them in the ื–ื”ืจ. In modern Hebrew it is used for an epigram and in the Septuagint it is translated as ฮตแผฐฯ‚ ฯƒฯ„ฮทฮปฮฟฮณฯฮฑฯ†ฮฏฮฑฮฝ (โ€for writing on a columnโ€œ, an inscription), but these seem to be simply based on the context here.

The Targum interprets it as a compound, ืžืš and ืชื,โ€Ž ืžื›ื™ืš ื•ืฉืœื™ื, humbled and perfect, but that is clearly a midrashic interpretation (though consistent with what we will discuss). Most of the ืžืคืจืฉื™ื simply take it as a word for a kind of song.

Hirsch connects the word to the root ื›ืชื, which is used in two ways in ืชื ืดืš; in ื™ืจืžื™ื”ื• ื‘:ื›ื‘ it means a stain: ื›ื™ ืื ืชื›ื‘ืกื™ ื‘ื ืชืจ ื•ืชืจื‘ื™ ืœืš ื‘ืจื™ืช ื ื›ืชื ืขื•ื ืš ืœืคื ื™ ื ืื ืื“ื ื™ ื”ืณ (you could translate ื ื›ืชื as โ€œinscribedโ€, which would go with the Septuagint, but then the metaphor of washing wouldnโ€™t work). In the talmud, a ื›ืชื is a bloodstain. In modern Hebrew, it is simply a stain.

The second meaning is a synonym for โ€œgoldโ€ as in (ืฉื™ืจ ื”ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื”:ื™ื)โ€Ž ืจืืฉื• ื›ืชื ืคื–, ืงื•ืฆื•ืชื™ื• ืชืœืชืœื™ื ืฉื—ื•ืจื•ืช ื›ืขื•ืจื‘โ€Ž (ืจืฉืดื™ offers the explanation of ืžื›ืชื as a metaphoric crown) or in (ืื™ื›ื” ื“:ื)โ€Ž ืื™ื›ื” ื™ื•ืขื ื–ื”ื‘ ื™ืฉื ื ื”ื›ืชื ื”ื˜ื•ื‘; ืชืฉืชืคื›ื ื” ืื‘ื ื™ ืงื“ืฉ ื‘ืจืืฉ ื›ืœ ื—ื•ืฆื•ืช. Hirsch connects the two by translating it as โ€œred goldโ€ (an alloy of copper and gold), as in (ื™ื•ืžื ืžื”,ื)โ€Ž ื–ื”ื‘ ืคืจื•ื™ื ืฉื“ื•ืžื” ืœื“ื ื”ืคืจื™ื.

Hirsch goes on to translate ืžื›ืชื in the sense of โ€œindelible stainโ€ as an โ€œeverlasting memorialโ€ but I would like to connect it back to โ€œbloodstainโ€. A ืžื›ืชื is a reflection on spilling blood, the indelible nature of bloodstains. Half of the ืžื›ืชื ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž are ืืœ ืชืฉื—ืช, a prayer to avoid violence. One of the others is ืชื”ื™ืœื™ืโ€Ž ืก:โ€Ž ื‘ื”ืฆื•ืชื• ืืช ืืจื ื ื”ืจื™ืโ€ฆื•ื™ืš ืืช ืื“ื•ืโ€ฆืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ืืœืฃ, reflecting on a war that ended up destroying his reign. David ended up blaming his bloodshed for his failure to achieve the one goal of his life: (ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ื ื›ื‘:ื—)โ€Ž ื•ื™ื”ื™ ืขืœื™ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืณ ืœืืžืจ ื“ื ืœืจื‘ ืฉืคื›ืช ื•ืžืœื—ืžื•ืช ื’ื“ืœื•ืช ืขืฉื™ืช; ืœื ืชื‘ื ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืœืฉืžื™ ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ืจื‘ื™ื ืฉืคื›ืช ืืจืฆื” ืœืคื ื™. Note that we will see that the ื ื‘ื™ื never records ื”ืณ saying this; these are Davidโ€™s words to Solomon.

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act V, Scene I

The rest of the perek consists of four stanzas: ื-ื• end with ืกืœื”;โ€Ž ื–-ื™ื donโ€™t have a distinct end but form an independent stanza by parallelism to ื˜ื•-ื™ื—;โ€Ž ื™ื‘-ื™ื“ end with ืกืœื” and are the climax of the perek; and ื˜ื•-ื™ื— return to the imagery of ื–-ื™ื.

Pleading Not Guilty

The the next four psukim describe Davidโ€™s situation. The words ืื™ื‘ื™,โ€Ž ืžืชืงื•ืžืžื™,โ€Ž ืคืขืœื™ ืื•ืŸ,โ€Ž ืื ืฉื™ ื“ืžื™ื evoke an escalating danger, from those who โ€œmerelyโ€ hate to those who act against him to those who do violence. But David protests his innocence; he doesnโ€™t deserve any of this. The protests also escalate: ืœื ืคืฉืขื™, I am not guilty of ืคืฉืข, an intentional sin, nor even of ื—ื˜ื, negligence. ื‘ืœื™ ืขื•ืŸ, there isnโ€™t even a crime to accuse me of! I am obviously innocent; ื”ืณ must be asleep, ื›ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืœ, to not notice this. Davidโ€™s despair reaches near-heretical levels (he gets better!).

Pasuk ื• expands Davidโ€™s view to the entire world. Hirsch sees in this Davidโ€™s argument why he should be saved. David himself is just one unimortant person, but the injustice of allowing the king to kill the innocent would destroy Israelโ€™s mission in the world. โ€œIfโ€ฆmen of such perfidy, supported by power, can enjoy Thy ื—ืŸ, Thy favor, even in Israelโ€ฆthen the fact that they go unpunished would constitute a license from Thee for all the tyrants in the world, permitting them to indulge in any and all excesses of perfidy.โ€

Running Dogs

The simile comparing Davidโ€™s enemies to dogs running loose in the city becomes more powerful when it is repeated with a very different implication at the end of the perek. Their mindless baying is a matter to be mocked, not feared, since ื”ืณ is in fact awake and watching. ืจื“ืดืง translates ืขื–ื• ืืœื™ืš ืืฉืžืจื” as โ€œThe power [now] is his [Saulโ€™s], so I will wait for You to save meโ€. David asked in pasuk ื” for ื”ืณ to see, now says that ื”ืณ will allow him to see the end of his enemies. ืฉืจืจื™ is from the root ืฉื•ืจ, to see from afar, and means โ€œenemies who watchโ€, โ€œspiesโ€. Instead of his enemies spying on him, he will spy on them.

ื“ืขืจ ืžืขื ื˜ืฉ ื˜ืจืึทื›ื˜ ืื•ืŸ ื’ืึธื˜ ืœืึทื›ื˜.

ื™ืชืžื• ื—ื˜ืื™ื ืžืŸ ื”ืืจืฅ

As David is praying to be saved, the plea of ืืœ ืชื”ืจื’ื is unexpected. He wants his enemies defeated not to save himself, but to be an object lesson for the world. And their death, however dramatic, would be too soon forgotten. As ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื says:

ื›ืฉืจืื” ืืช ืฉื•ืจืจื™ื• ื•ืฉื•ืžืจื™ื•, ืžื‘ืงืฉ ืืœ ืชื”ืจื’ื, ืจืดืœ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืื•ื ื™ ื‘ืขืช ืฉืื‘ืจื— ื‘ืขื“ ื”ื—ืœื•ืŸ ื•ืชืฆื™ืœื ื™ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืืชื’ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ื ื•ืื”ืจื’ื, ื›ื™ ืคืŸ ื™ืฉื›ื—ื• ืขืžื™ ืžื”ืณ ืฉืขืฉื• ื ื’ื“ื™, ืจืง ื”ื ื™ืขืžื• ื‘ื—ื™ืœืš ืฉื™ื ื•ืขื• ืขืชื” ืžืžืงื•ืžื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื™ืจืื• ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื—ืชื™, ื•ืื—ืดื› ื”ื•ืจื™ื“ืžื• ืžื’ื“ื•ืœืชื.

As Hirsch understands ืžืืœื” ื•ืžื›ื—ืฉ ื™ืกืคืจื•, David is asking that the spies themselves be forced to admit their sins, to publicly tell of their perjury (treating ืืœื” ื•ื›ื—ืฉ as a hendiadys). But what does ื›ืœื” ื‘ื—ืžื”โ€Ž and ื›ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ืžื• mean if not to literally destroy them? This reminds us of the story of Beruriah and Rabbi Meir:

ื”ื ื”ื• ื‘ืจื™ื•ื ื™ ื“ื”ื•ื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื‘ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจืดืž ื•ื”ื•ื• ืงื ืžืฆืขืจื• ืœื™ื” ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื”ื•ื” ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืจืณ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื—ืžื™ ืขืœื•ื™ื”ื• ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ืžื•ืชื• ืืžืจื” ืœื™ืณ ื‘ืจื•ืจื™ื ื“ื‘ื™ืชื”ื• ืžืื™ ื“ืขืชืš ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ืงื“) ื™ืชืžื• ื—ื˜ืื™ื ืžื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื—ื•ื˜ืื™ื ื—ื˜ืื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืฉืคื™ืœ ืœืกื™ืคื™ื” ื“ืงืจื ื•ืจืฉืขื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืื™ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ืชืžื• ื—ื˜ืื™ื ื•ืจืฉืขื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืื™ื ื ืืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ืžื™ ืขืœื•ื™ื”ื• ื“ืœื”ื“ืจื• ื‘ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ื•ืจืฉืขื™ื ืขื•ื“ ืื™ื ื ื‘ืขื ืจื—ืžื™ ืขืœื•ื™ื”ื• ื•ื”ื“ืจื• ื‘ืชืฉื•ื‘ื”

ื‘ืจื›ื•ืช ื™,ื

This, the reform of the ืจืฉืข, is Davidโ€™s goal.

Running Dogs Redux

ื– ื™ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืœืขืจื‘ ื™ื”ืžื• ื›ื›ืœื‘; ื•ื™ืกื•ื‘ื‘ื• ืขื™ืจืƒ
ื— ื”ื ื” ื™ื‘ื™ืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืคื™ื”ื ื—ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืฉืคืชื•ืชื™ื”ื;
ื›ื™ ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืƒ
ื˜ ื•ืืชื” ื”ืณ ืชืฉื—ืง ืœืžื•; ืชืœืขื’ ืœื›ืœ ื’ื•ื™ืืƒ

ื™ ืขื–ื• ืืœื™ืš ืืฉืžืจื”: ื›ื™ ืืœืงื™ื ืžืฉื’ื‘ื™ืƒ
ื™ื ืืœืงื™ ื—ืกื“ื• (ื—ืกื“ื™) ื™ืงื“ืžื ื™; ืืœืงื™ื ื™ืจืื ื™ ื‘ืฉืจืจื™ืƒ

ื˜ื• ื•ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืœืขืจื‘ ื™ื”ืžื• ื›ื›ืœื‘; ื•ื™ืกื•ื‘ื‘ื• ืขื™ืจืƒ
ื˜ื– ื”ืžื” ื™ื ื•ืขื•ืŸ (ื™ื ื™ืขื•ืŸ) ืœืื›ืœ
ืื ืœื ื™ืฉื‘ืขื• ื•ื™ืœื™ื ื•ืƒ
ื™ื– ื•ืื ื™ ืืฉื™ืจ ืขื–ืš ื•ืืจื ืŸ ืœื‘ืงืจ ื—ืกื“ืš;
ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ืช ืžืฉื’ื‘ ืœื™; ื•ืžื ื•ืก ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฆืจ ืœื™ืƒ
ื™ื— ืขื–ื™ ืืœื™ืš ืื–ืžืจื”; ื›ื™ ืืœืงื™ื ืžืฉื’ื‘ื™
ืืœืงื™ ื—ืกื“ื™ืƒ

ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ืคืจืง ื ื˜

David again refers to his enemies as circling dogs, but now they they are wandering, looking for food. Their prey, David, has disappeared. He promises to sing in the morning, both a metaphor for a time of salvation and literally: the spies are waiting for morning to catch him and he will be gone. He now sees ืขื–ื™, the power is mine (Davidโ€™s) rather than ืขื–ื•, his (Saulโ€™s) and now he will praise ื”ืณ.