Shabbos Parashas Haazinu - 5779

Shabbos Parashas Haazinu - 5779

Rabbi Hal Miller

David spoke to God the words of this song. [Shmuel II 1:1]

We read a special haftorah for the Shabbos between Rosh Hashanah and Yom

Kippur, from the second book of Shmuel. It is also Psalm 18, although with

numerous differences.

Rav Hirsch tells us that our haftorah, in Shmuel, is the original version, and that

David made some changes later when he collected his book of Psalms. Why

would David do so? What was so important about this haftorah that needed to be

emphasized in a different way?

Abarbanel finds 74 differences and asks why two versions, both presumably Divinely

inspired and written by the same man, could both be correct. He answers that,

contrary to Rashi's view that it was written late in life, our version here is what David

sang during his lifetime, as things happened to him. The version in Psalms, according

to Abarbanel, is what David wrote in a more general fashion late in his life, in

order that other people in other times might find more connection to his words.

The very first verse of the haftorah was changed when it came to Psalms. There,

David wrote, "To the Conductor, by the servant of God, David, who spoke to God

the words of this song." Rav Hirsch writes that "David dared call himself a servant

of God only afterward when he could look back upon a long life of labor in the cause

of God." This seems to agree with Abarbanel's approach.

Radak differs from Rashi in numerous specifics throughout. He, with the backing of

Sforno, explains how the text tracks David's life. The various differences in the two

copies show more after-the-fact accuracy in the version in Psalms, which seems to

go against Rashi and back up Abarbanel.

Midrash Tehillim interprets the text differently, as referring to events of the future. If

so, then Rashi's understanding could still be correct. Nechama Leibowitz questions

the approach of the Midrash, showing how it makes the "servant of God" text appear

to be an "arbitrary addition designed to lend a spurious aura of antiquity to what was

really not a Davidic Psalm." She brings sources to say that the text of Psalms is

allegorical, not to be taken as history, but she criticizes this position, saying that in

any even, there has to at least be some historical accuracy.

We can understand our haftorah as following the Midrash Tehillim, describing the

four kingdoms of the future, and Psalms 18 as David's history of his life. They are

certainly close, which should come as no surprise.