Before us is the commentary of the sefer Zera Shimshon on Shir HaShirim, the eighth chapter of the work, on the pasuk "My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart" (Shir HaShirim 2:9), page 120. The full pasuk reads:
דּוֹמֶה דוֹדִי לִצְבִי אוֹ לְעֹפֶר הָאַיָּלִים, הִנֵּה־זֶה עוֹמֵד אַחַר כׇּתְלֵנוּ, מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן־הַחַלֹּנוֹת, מֵצִיץ מִן־הַחֲרַכִּים׃ - My beloved is like a gazelle or a young hart; behold, he stands behind our wall, observing through the windows, peering through the lattices.
The author analyzes several precise points in this pasuk. First, why specifically "observing through the windows" and "peering through the lattices"? The Holy One, blessed be He, watches over us - what is added by knowing through which window or through which narrow lattice He looks? It would have been sufficient to say that Hashem watches over us. Second, "behold, he stands behind our wall" - why behind the wall and not inside? This wording implies distance. Third, "like a gazelle or [o] a young hart" - if the verse means that my beloved resembles both, it should have said "and a young hart" with the letter vav, as indeed the Targum amends it. And fourth, why are two parables needed at all? Why was one not enough - either a gazelle or a young hart?
Whenever Scripture employs two different analogies, it is out of necessity, and each parable contains a message absent in the other. A classic example: Avraham Avinu said, "I am dust and ashes." Why both? Because each of these also has a positive aspect, and Avraham wished to seize upon the aspect of nothingness in each. Had he said only "dust" - while from the perspective of the past it has no utility, from the perspective of the future one can knead clay from it, make pottery, and build houses. And had he said only "ashes" - from the perspective of the future nothing can be done with it, but from the perspective of the past it was once fine, useful wood. Therefore he stated both: "dust" to indicate his nothingness regarding the past, and "ashes" to indicate his nothingness regarding the future. The same applies here: if two parables are stated, it is a sign that a distinct message is embedded in each of them.
Let us preface with the Targum's rendition of the pasuk: "When the glory of Hashem was revealed in Egypt on the night of Pesach and struck down every firstborn, He rode upon a swift cloud and ran like a gazelle and like a young hart, and He protected the houses where we dwelt." That is to say: on that night of Pesach when the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, was revealed in Egypt and He slew every firstborn, He rode upon a swift cloud, ran like a gazelle and like a young hart, and protected the houses where we dwelt - so that the destroyer would not strike our homes as well. By virtue of what? By virtue of the blood that Israel placed upon the lintel. Thus, the pasuk refers to the Exodus from Egypt and to the salvation that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted us there.
The reason we left Egypt before the completion of the four hundred years decreed at the Covenant Between the Parts is well known: Israel had become submerged in the forty-nine gates of defilement, and had they entered the fiftieth gate, they would have been beyond remedy. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy upon them and took them out before their time. This is also the reason for "for in haste you departed from Egypt" - why with speed, like a gazelle and a young hart? Because in another moment we would have been engulfed in the fiftieth gate.
From where do we learn that it is impossible to emerge from the fiftieth gate through one's own efforts? From what is stated: "Fortunate are you, Israel! Before Whom do you purify yourselves, and Who purifies you? Your Father in Heaven." "Before Mi" - as long as you are before the Mi (whose numerical value is fifty, corresponding to the letter Nun), you purify yourself. But "and Who [u'Mi]" - if you have already reached the fiftieth gate itself, you can no longer purify yourself; rather, "your Father in Heaven purifies you." Only the Holy One, blessed be He, can extract you from there, requiring a miracle and a supernatural reality. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, saw to it to take them out a moment before the fiftieth gate. And as for what is said, that "they would have been beyond remedy" - the meaning is that by natural means there would be no remedy for them.
This aligns with what has been discussed: there are two modes of Divine governance: the governance of strict justice (Hanhagat HaMishpat) and the governance of Divine singularity (Hanhagat HaYichud). The governance of justice is a fixed order - "A king by justice establishes the land." The governance of singularity means that the Holy One, blessed be He, elevates Himself above the system of justice and acts purely according to His will, for "there is none else beside Him." Likewise in the future, even if Israel lacks merits, Hashem will redeem us through the governance of singularity. According to the governance of justice, one who enters the fiftieth gate has no exit from it, and extracting us would have required transcending the natural laws of the world.
However, other verses imply a different reason: that it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to bring them out, even though they were not worthy of being redeemed, because of the outcry they cried before Him. As it is written: 'I have surely seen the affliction of My people... and I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of Egypt' (Shemot 3:7-8), and 'And I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go... and I will stretch out My hand' (ibid. 3:19-20). In other words, it was not out of concern that they would become defiled in the fiftieth gate, but rather because the people of Israel cried out from the harshness of the servitude, and this is what brought about the early redemption. And 'I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go, and I will stretch out My hand' - for Hashem wanted them to recognize His might, and therefore He acted in this manner.
Furthermore, the Midrash states on the verse, 'The time of the singing bird has arrived' (Shir HaShirim 2:12) - the time has arrived for the Torah to be given. That is to say, they left Egypt even though the four hundred years had not yet been completed, because the time had come when the Torah was fitting to be given. We thus have two reasons before us: one due to the outcry and the time for the giving of the Torah, and the second so that they would not become defiled in the fiftieth gate and be unable to leave.
Corresponding to these two reasons, we place chazeret and charoset, as well as two cooked foods, on the Seder table on Pesach night. As stated at the end of Pesachim (115b): chazeret - for the Merciful One had pity (chas) on us and redeemed us. And chazeret means romaine lettuce (and as is well known, the chazeret mentioned in Halachah is lettuce, not the horseradish commonly used today; the early texts refer to chasa, and sometimes with a soft chet as the Arabs would pronounce it). Charoset also contains the letters chet and samech (chas), as the Kabbalists wrote - because they would have become assimilated and lost, God forbid, meaning lest they enter the fiftieth gate, and therefore He had compassion (chas) on us. Thus, the chazeret and charoset correspond to the first reason.
The two cooked foods, which are the shankbone (zeroa) and the egg (beitzah), correspond to the second reason. The Taz (Orach Chaim 473) writes that an egg in Aramaic translation is be'a, hinting: de-ba'a Kudsha Berich Hu le-faraq yatana bidra'a meramema - that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to redeem us with an outstretched arm. This is the second reason: from the perspective of the Creator's will, blessed be He, since the people of Israel prayed and the time for the giving of the Torah arrived, He redeemed us with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm - and not merely because He took pity and brought the time forward so that we would not become swallowed up in Egypt within the fiftieth gate.
Seemingly, these two reasons contradict one another, for whichever way you look at it: either the designated end (ketz) was completed or it was not completed. If you say that Hashem wanted to redeem us to demonstrate His might, and because they prayed and the time for the Torah had arrived - it follows that the years of servitude were completed. And how were they completed? Through the harshness of the servitude: in practice, they enslaved us for 210 years, and during the eighty-six years of actual harsh labor, the equivalent of four hundred years was paid off. If so, there was no early departure at all! Yet this contradicts the other reason, according to which the designated end was not completed, and the Exodus occurred only so that we would not sink into the fiftieth gate.
In truth, however, both views are valid - both reasons are real and true. For it is known that had they not sinned with the Golden Calf, no nation or tongue would have ever held dominion over them, as it is written: 'Engraved (charut) upon the tablets' (Shemot 32:16) - and Chazal taught: Do not read it as charut (engraved), but rather cheirut (freedom), freedom from the subjugation of kingdoms. This means that the harshness of the servitude had indeed completed the tally, and there was no further need for additional exiles. As discussed at length in Parashat Shemot on the verse, 'And they shall say to me: What is His name? What shall I say to them?' - that if they would always remain 'children of Israel,' meaning righteous, they would not undergo other exiles. And likewise in Parashat Bo on the verse, 'And that you may tell in the ears of your son.'
This is the underlying principle: if the people of Israel completed their servitude, there was no cause for further exiles. But if they did not complete it, and there was no choice but to take them out a moment before they became hopelessly defiled, it turns out that they did not complete the servitude and would still have to complete it. Concerning this it was said, 'I Will Be What I Will Be' (Shemot 3:14) - I who will be with them in this exile will also be with them in another exile. Here He informed them that there would be further exiles, which corresponds to the reason that they had not completed their servitude.
It turns out that everything hinges on the sin of the Golden Calf. Had Israel received the Torah properly and not sinned with the Calf, the Holy One, blessed be He, would have regarded our redemption as one in which the servitude was fully completed through its harshness; consequently, they would not have required further exiles - 'engraved (charut) upon the tablets,' freedom (cheirut) from the subjugation of kingdoms. But once they sinned with the Calf, they shifted, as it were, to a different track, wherein the exile had not fully atoned for them and the Holy One, blessed be He, had merely cut the time short - and ultimately they would require further exiles.
The commentators explain that by its very nature, a gazelle senses and sees its pursuers from a great distance. A gazelle detects danger from afar and possesses extraordinary hearing; at the slightest rustle, it is the first to leap and flee, while other animals are clumsy and slow to rise. So too here: the Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw from afar that Israel would sin, which is why He said, "I will be what I will be" - just as I was with you in this subjugation, so I will be with you in another subjugation. This is the meaning of "My beloved is like a gazelle": Hashem is like a gazelle that sees the sin of the Golden Calf from afar, because of which further exiles would be necessary, and they were given no guarantee that their exiles of subjugation had come to an end.
And what is the parable of the young stag? A young stag is small, and because of its youth, its nature when moving away from its nest is to continually turn around and gaze back toward the place from which it fled. It maintains visual contact with the place where it grew up so that it can return, for it is not yet capable of surviving on its own, and therefore takes care not to wander too far. So too here: if Israel does not sin, they will look back and see the harshness of the servitude they endured in Egypt, and it will be credited to them as fulfilling the appointed term. When the Jewish people are righteous, the Holy One, blessed be He, counts the harshness of their servitude as though they had fulfilled their entire quota - and two hundred and ten years are reckoned as four hundred. This is the young stag: constantly looking back toward the nest from which we emerged, toward Egypt, seeing how the harshness of the servitude completed the years.
And because the Holy One, blessed be He, redeemed them from Egypt specifically under this conditional framework, the verse presents two parables with the word "or," rather than "and also": "My beloved is like a gazelle" - one possibility, where Hashem is like a gazelle who sees from afar that they are destined to sin, in which case further exiles will be required. "Or a young stag" - the second possibility, where we are like the young stag that looks behind it and sees that the harshness of the servitude in Egypt made up for the four hundred years.
There is a difficulty here that the commentators address: seemingly, one part of the verse is explained as referring to the Holy One, blessed be He, and the other part to the Jewish people. "My beloved is like a gazelle" refers to Hashem, who foresaw the sin of the Golden Calf, and He is "my beloved" in the literal sense. But "or a young stag" refers back to us, that we look backward and see that the harshness of the servitude made up the difference. Perhaps it should be read this way: "My beloved is like a gazelle" - the comparison to the gazelle applies to my beloved; "or a young stag" - or I am like a young stag. While this is not the simple reading of the text, this may be its underlying explanation: that "or a young stag" does not refer back to "my beloved," but rather to the Jewish people, looking back and seeing how the harshness of the servitude completed the measure.
Now, according to the perspective that they were destined to sin and the appointed time had not yet been completed, on that night of the plague of the firstborn, when permission was granted to the destroyers to strike, since Israel was not yet truly worthy of redemption, the Holy One, blessed be He, had to protect them. For if Hashem is like a gazelle seeing from afar that they are destined to sin, it follows that the appointed term had not yet been fulfilled and that they would have to complete their subjugation in future exiles; their redemption at that moment was solely to prevent them from sinking into the fiftieth gate of impurity. Therefore, they required special protection.
For this reason, He commanded them to place the blood upon the entrances of their homes, hinting to them that if they chose to sin, the door stood wide open. This is the allusion: "Sin crouches at the door," and one who comes to defile himself is opened up to do so. The blood on the doorway came to warn them and remind them that the choice was entirely in their hands, and that the entrance to sin lay open before them.
Seemingly, a question arises: could the destroyers not still enter through the windows and the crevices, so what did the blood on the doorway accomplish? After all, Scripture states, "For death has climbed through our windows," showing that a destroyer can enter even through the window, so it would have been appropriate to place blood there as well. Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, came to hint at the second possibility as well, that they might not sin, for the choice was theirs. From this perspective, there was no need whatsoever for blood on the windows, for they were already protected of their own accord, having completed their servitude through its sheer intensity.
Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, alluded to both conditions at once through their homes: blood on the doorways corresponded to the possibility that they would sin - where Hashem, like a gazelle, foresaw the sin of the Golden Calf from afar - alluding to the principle that whoever wishes to defile himself is opened up to do so. On the windows, however, they placed no blood, corresponding to the possibility that they would not sin, which is why the Shechinah Itself stood there to protect them. This is the meaning of "Behold, he stands behind our wall, peering through the windows, glancing through the lattices" - there, Hashem Himself stands guard, hinting that one who comes to purify himself is granted assistance; Hashem is with you, and through the window He aids you.
This also explains "behind our wall": The Holy One, blessed be He, stands, as it were, behind the wall and waits for you to come to purify yourself, and He immediately guards the windows, protects you, and is with you. Therefore, it does not say that He stands inside, nor at the doorway, but specifically behind the wall - to ensure that the forces of destruction do not enter through the windows or the lattices, and this applies to the perspective that we were worthy of redemption. On the other hand, regarding the perspective that we were not worthy and still needed to complete the exile, Hashem commanded to place blood on the doorway, hinting that "sin crouches at the door" and that for one who seeks to defile himself, an opening is made for him, warning them not to stumble or commit any sin. Thus far, and it is truly wondrous.