Mishpatim 5769
Rabbi Ari Kahn
‘Lex Talionis’ : Law and Ethics
While for many people “Torah” is synonymous with “Law”, until the 21st chapter of Exodus the Torah has remarkably little discussion of Law. Up to this point, the main focus has been narrative, with occasional detours to introduce individual laws. This Parsha’s first three chapters mark a departure. Biblical narrative is left in abeyance, and a series of laws is presented, with little or no connection to the narrative.
One of the most familiar of these laws is often considered the quintessential expression of “Old Testament” values. In short, to-the-point language, we are instructed in matters of conflict that result in physical harm:
:(כד) עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל:
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. Shmot 21:24
The accepted translation is “an eye for an eye”. A more literal, though not very helpful translation, would be “an eye under an eye”. The word tachat literally means “under”, but the sentence lacks any decisive meaning when translated this way. This same word appears several times in the Torah in other contexts:
בראשית פרק ד
(כה) וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת לִי אֱלֹהִים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן:
And Adam was once again intimate with his wife and she had a son. And he called his name Shet, ‘for God has provided me with other offspring tachat Hevel – in place of Hevel - for he was killed by Kayin. (Bereishit 4:25)
Though the word tachat could be translated literally as “under” or “for”, neither of these translations works well in this context. Rather “in place of,” “instead of,” or “as a replacement for” is clearly the best definition.
Similarly, when Avraham was commanded to bring his son Yitzchak as an offering, at the last minute the heavens opened and an angel called out, bidding him to stop. The text continues,
בראשית פרק כב
(יג) וַיִּשָּׂא אַבְרָהָם אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה אַיִל אַחַר נֶאֱחַז בַּסְּבַךְ בְּקַרְנָיו וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאַיִל וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנוֹ:
Avraham lifted his eyes, and behold a ram was entangled in the brush by the horns, and Avraham went and took the ram, and offered it as an offering tachat b’no - in place of his son. (Bereishit 22:13)
Again, the best translation for tachat is ‘in place of,’ and not “under” or “for”. This slight linguistic nuance offers us an opportunity to reexamine our understanding of the oft-quoted phrase, “an eye for an eye”. What has made this phrase so popular? Is there an ideological, or even perhaps a theological bias which underlies this translation?[1]
The connotation of “an eye for an eye” is that the punishment for removing an eye is that the perpetrator’s eye will be put out. We should note that normative Jewish law has never interpreted this pronouncement in this way. Jewish law is unequivocal: no Jewish court ever sanctioned or implemented this method of corporal punishment. Taking an eye from the perpetrator would be an affront to Jewish law, as practiced both in modern and ancient times. No authentic Jewish court ever meted out such punishment.[2] Jewish law has always dictated monetary restitution, interpreting the Torah as said having commanded “[the value of an] eye in place of an eye”.
If the law is so unequivocal, why is the Torah’s wording so equivocal? Why doesn’t the Torah simply state that if you knock out an eye, you are required to pay the victim the value of the eye? This is not an unheard of formulation; there are numerous examples of monetary compensation in the Torah. In short, in this verse we are confronted with two distinct problems: What does this phrase mean? And why was it written in this particular way, leaving room for misunderstanding?
Comparing the emerging legal codex of our Parsha with other authoritative codes of law current in the ancient Near East, our problem only worsens. The best known of these is the Code of Hammurabi which mandated lex talionis, literally prescribing punitive removal of an eye.[3]
In contrast, Jewish law sees the body as being owned by God; the individual is merely a caretaker. This idea is concisely and clearly expressed in a stunning statement by Rav Sh’neor Zalman of Liadi, in his Shulchan Oruch:
שולחן ערוך הרב -דיני נזקי גוף ונפש
ד - אסור להכות את חבירו אפילו הוא נותן לו רשות להכותו כי אין לאדם רשות על גופו כלל להכותו ולא לביישו ולא לצערו בשום צער (ב) אפילו במניעת איזה מאכל או משתה
It is forbidden to strike one’s fellow, even if he gives permission to strike him, for a person does not own his or her body at all [to allow] striking or embarrassment or to cause pain of any kind, even through denying a particular food or drink.
Clearly, if the body is owned by God and one is forbidden to cause pain of any kind – physical or emotional - the very thought that the Torah would mandate removing an eye as punishment is implausible. Nonetheless, when damage is incurred, when an individual suffers physical harm at the hands of another, the damage to the victim’s person or livelihood carries a price.
The Ibn Ezra,[4] citing Rav Saadya Gaon, rejects the principle of lex talionis on technical grounds: If one person injures another, impairing but not obliterating their vision, how can a court implement a fair punishment? Would it be reasonable to expect a court of law to precisely mete out punishment, impairing the offender’s vision to the precise degree as the damage caused to the victim? Rav Saadya points out that such an interpretation of the Torah is impractical, even impossible, and must therefore be an incorrect understanding of the text. Although his objection is technical and not based on moral concerns or social sensitivities, but solely on the inexact result of this type of punishment in cases of partial blindness, Rav Saadya concludes that the Torah legislated against this behavior in all cases, even when the victim completely lost vision in the damaged eye.[5] The weakness of the argument is that in cases of absolute blindness, which ostensibly is the case referred to by the straightforward reading of the Torah text, exact retribution could be measured, so why would it then be rejected?[6]
Thus far, we have addressed the verse in question from several distinct approaches: First, we have examined linguistic considerations: Do the words of the verse, tachat ‘ayin, actually mean “an eye for an eye”? Second, we have posed the moral dilemma inherent in this verse, based on the principle that the human body is the sole property of God, and at no time or in any way is man allowed to do it physical harm. Finally, technical considerations come into the equation, namely the difficulty in implementing fair punishment across the board and in a variety of cases. Yet there remains an additional, more practical consideration: Aside from the barbaric and grotesque elements of removing a body part of the perpetrator, other than perhaps the most base motivation of revenge, how would the punishment indicated by a literal reading of the verse, “an eye for an eye,” help the victim?[7]
The Rambam, in his halakhic magnum opus Yad Hachazaka, puts forth three arguments as to why the verse could not possibly have been intended to be taken literally.[8] His first argument is based on tradition: The interpretation of this verse has always been taught from the authoritative Oral Tradition, namely that one pays money for these types of damages. His third argument follows along this same line; he reiterates that this interpretation has its origin at Mount Sinai and was taught and explained to Moshe, and in turn by Moshe, in this manner.
The Rambam’s second argument is more helpful to our current discussion, for instead of simply focusing on the words in question, The Rambam considers the broader context of Parshat Mishpatim, bringing to bear verses in an earlier section of the Torah that deal with bodily damages: Our verse, as the Rambam points out, is composed of several parts, including instructions for other cases of physical damage: “An eye tachat an eye, a tooth tachat a tooth, a hand tachat a hand, a leg tachat a leg” –in short, a list of physical wounds. What we might have forgotten, if not for the Rambam’s comment, is that the Torah dealt with wounds a few verses earlier:
שמות פרק כא
(יח) וְכִי יְרִיבֻן אֲנָשִׁים וְהִכָּה אִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בְּאֶבֶן אוֹ בְאֶגְרֹף וְלֹא יָמוּת וְנָפַל לְמִשְׁכָּב:(יט) אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא: ס
If men struggle and one man hit his friend with a rock or a fist, and (the victim) does not die, rather he is incapacitated. If he gets up (lives) and walks on his own, the one who struck will be exonerated (of a capital charge); he will pay only damages of lost wages and medical expenses.
Here we clearly see that the “price” of damaging one’s friend is financial, not corporal. The word “tachat” used in our verse must necessarily be understood within the context of this adjacent verse, and the idea of financial restitution begins to seem more than interpretation, more than apologetics. The contextual argument is quite compelling, almost unavoidable.
The experienced reader, though, is left somewhat unsettled. This passage from the Yad Hachazaka gnaws at us because it is uncharacteristic. The Rambam is wont to state his opinion without citing any source, without offering supporting arguments. Why did he feel it necessary in this case to put forth three distinct arguments? Occasionally, adding multiple arguments weakens ones’ position; why did the Rambam feel that in this case, rather than simply stating the law as is his usual style, he needed to prove the law, and with multiple proofs?
A Talmudic passage, with which the Rambam was most certainly familiar, may be the key to this uncharacteristic style. In his third point, the Rambam states that the non-literal interpretation of this verse has been universal in the practice of Jewish law, and every Jewish court from the time of Moshe has been unanimous in discharging obligations for physical damage through financial restitution. While he stated that this has been the opinion followed in practice, he did not state that this opinion has always enjoyed an absolute monopoly in halakhic thought. A passage in the Gemara may indicate that there may have been a dissenting opinion:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף פד/א
תניא ר"א אומר עין תחת עין ממש ממש סלקא דעתך רבי אליעזר לית ליה ככל הני תנאי … אלא אמר רב אשי לומר שאין שמין אותו בניזק אלא במזיק:
It was taught: R. Eliezer said: ‘Eye for eye’ should be understood literally. Literally, you say? Could R. Eliezer be against all those Tannaim [enumerated] above…? R. Ashi therefore said: It means to say that the valuation will be made not of [the eye of] the injured person but of [that of] the offender. (Talmud Bavli Baba Kamma 84a)
The Talmud records the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who contends that ‘an eye tachat an eye” is to be understood literally – but not in the manner we might expect. The Talmud qualifies and explains his opinion: The perpetrator indeed pays the value of an eye. The question is, the value of whose eye? The value of the victim’s eye, or the value of his own eye? Rabbi Eliezer seems to be telling us that this man “deserves” to lose his eye, but the Torah allows him, even requires him, to pay ransom for his own eye. He is not paying the replacement value of the victim’s lost eye; he is paying a ransom, the value of his own eye which should, by all rights, be forfeited.[9]
The uncharacteristic style of our passage in the Rambam’s Yad Hachazaka, then, impart a certain hesitation which we may reconcile with the Rambam’s appreciation of this dissenting Talmudic opinion. We may gain further insight if we examine the Rambam’s philosophical magnum opus, “The Guide for the Perplexed”. Here, the Rambam explains the concept of punishment in philosophical terms. The one overarching principle in the Torah’s philosophy of punishment is that whatever a person does, he deserves to be punished in an identical way. This should be precise; crime creates punishment.
ספר מורה נבוכים - חלק ג פרק מא
שם עונש כל חוטא לזולתו בכלל - שיעשה בו כמו שעשה בשוה, אם הזיק בגוף ינזק בגופו, ואם הזיק בממון ינזק בממונו.
The punishment of one who sins against his neighbor consists in the general rule that there shall be done unto him exactly as he has done: if he injured anyone physically, he must suffer physically; if he damaged the property of his neighbor, he shall be punished by damage to his own property.
There are spiritual rules of the universe; there is an equal and opposite effect to a person’s actions. There is a Divine quid pro quo. A spiritually sophisticated individual should expect Divine retribution for any and all indiscretions. One of the most basic tenets of Judaism is reward and punishment, and such should be man’s expectations. We do not do good for the sake of the reward that will follow, rather we believe that there is reward and punishment for all our actions. To elucidate this principle, the Rambam cites these very verses from our Parsha. He then continues:
ספר מורה נבוכים - חלק ג פרק מא
ויש לבעל הממון למחול ולהקל. אמנם ההורג לבד, לחוזק חטאתו, אין מקילים לו כלל ולא ילקח ממנו כופר, ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שופך בה כי אם בדם שופכו". ומפני זה אילו חיה הנהרג שעה אחת או ימים, והוא מדבר ושכלו טוב, ויאמר, "הניחו הורגי" הנה מחלתי וסלחתי לו" - אין שומעים לו, אבל נפש בנפש בהכרח, בהשוות הקטן לגדול והעבד לבן חורין והחכם לסכל - שאין בכל חטאות האדם יותר גדול מזה. ומי שחיסר איבר יחוסר איבר; "כאשר יתן מום באדם, כן ינתן בו". [ולא תטריד רעיונך בהיותנו עונשים הנה בממון, כי הכונה עתה לתת סיבת הפסוקים, ולא סיבת דברי התלמוד. ועם כל זה יש לי במה שאמר בו התלמוד דעת, ישמע פנים בפנים]. והמכות אשר אי אפשר לעשות כיוצא בם בשוה - דינם בתשלומים, "רק שבתו יתן ורפוא ירפא":
But the person whose property has been damaged should be ready to resign his claim totally or partly. Only to the murderer we must not be lenient because of the greatness of his crime; and no ransom must be accepted of him. "And the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it" (Num. xxxi. 33). Hence even if the murdered person continued to live after the attack for an hour or for days, was able to speak and possessed complete consciousness, and if he himself said, "Pardon my murderer, I have pardoned and forgiven him," he must not be obeyed. We must take life for life, and estimate equally the life of a child and that of a grown-up person, of a slave and of a freeman, of a wise man and of a fool. For there is no greater sin than this. And he who mutilated a limb of his neighbor, must himself lose a limb. "As he has caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again" (Lev. xxiv. 20). You must not raise an objection from our practice of imposing a fine in such cases. For we have proposed to ourselves to give here the reason for the precepts mentioned in the Torah, and not for that which is stated in the Talmud. I have, however, an explanation for the interpretation given in the Talmud, but it will be communicated vivâ voce (in person, face to face). Injuries that cannot be reproduced exactly in another person, are compensated for by payment; "he will pay only damages of lost wages and medical expenses." (Shmot 21, 19). (Guide for the Perplexed, Book 3 Chapter 41)
Here we have watershed of Jewish philosophy: The Rambam makes a remarkable distinction between what is written in the Torah versus the tradition found in the Talmud; even when contradictory, both are true. The Rambam makes no attempt to reconcile the Talmudic tradition with the Biblical text, explaining that the functions of each are different. In the Guide to the Perplexed, the Rambam explains Jewish philosophy, based on the text of the Torah. On the other hand, when discussing the Law, and the implementation of legal principles, the Rambam forcibly states that our authoritative source for financial restitution is the orally transmitted tradition recorded in the Talmud and universally upheld in Jewish practice. Only when this distinction is made by the Rambam are we able to understand why the language of these Torah verses is less than straightforward, non-legal. The words of the Torah serve a higher purpose than legal formulation. They reflect a philosophical cornerstone of Judaism; while other factors cause the legal implementation to take a slightly different course, the importance of the philosophical statement contained in this verse is preserved by the language used to express it. The words as they appear in the Torah have a value independent of their practical interpretation.[10] In this instance they teach the philosophy of the law even when it is not literally implemented.
We might say that while the Rambam does not concur with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he agrees with a certain sentiment expressed by that earlier authority: A person who knocks out someone else’s eye deserves to lose his own eye. Nonetheless, no Jewish court, today or at any time in the past, has the authority to rule in this manner, for this is not the law. Jewish courts mete out financial punishments. According to Rabbi Eliezer’s line of reasoning, a vestige of the underlying philosophical statement remains when the perpetrator is forced to pay a sum in lieu of his own eye, an eye that he should lose. And while the Rambam’s formulation, quoted above, indicates that the sum paid is the value of the victim’s eye (and not the perpetrator’s eye, as per Rabbi Eliezer), the Rambam also indicates that the victim is asked to compromise, to accept payment in lieu of what should morally be his – his own eye, restored.
The implication of all this is that we are faced with two levels of truth. There is a level of truth that exists and is applied in the Heavenly Court, and this truth is absolute, non-negotiable and unbending. But this is not the way that God asks us to bring His truth to Earth. We are instructed to operate on a different level, a kinder, less exact level, which replaces “fairness” and absolute justice with practicality. Although Divine Justice is not always served, this is an unavoidable byproduct of our very nature, and thus, too, an aspect of God’s Will.
On the other hand, the moral message can not be lost upon us: The guilty party deserves punishment. This insight can help us with a question which is answered with great difficulty by various commentators: If “An eye for an eye” means money, why does the Torah not simply write “pay the value of an eye”? Our answer is now clear: The perpetrator should see that he deserves precise and parallel punishment for each and every indiscretion. Moreover, disengagement of the moral element from the financial restitution should dissuade the perpetrator from thinking that morally he has made full amends by paying the fine levied by the court. Had the Torah not stated the moral culpability of these actions, we would likely find rampant perversions of the spirit of the law: for example, a wealthy individual might do a cold mathematical equation and knock out one or two eyes of his enemies, relying on the financial restitution he will pay to effect moral healing. Indeed, the Talmud is familiar with this sort of attitude:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף לז עמוד א
חנן בישא תקע ליה לההוא גברא, אתא לקמיה דרב הונא, א"ל: זיל הב ליה פלגא דזוזא; הוה ליה זוזא מכא, בעי למיתבה ליה מיניה פלגא דזוזא, לא הוה משתקיל ליה, תקע ליה אחרינא ויהביה נהליה.
The scoundrel Hanan, having boxed another man's ear, was brought before R. Huna, who ordered him to go and pay the plaintiff half a zuz. As [Hanan] had a battered zuz he desired to pay the plaintiff the half zuz [which was due] out of it. But as it could not be exchanged, he slapped him again and gave him [the whole zuz]. (Talmud Bavli Baba Kamma 37a)
Hanan’s cavalier attitude earned him the moniker “scoundrel”:[11] He felt that by paying for a crime he was exonerated, thus he could premeditatedly strike someone, knowing that the monetary “solution” was within his reach, even at his convenience. This was precisely what the Torah wished to avoid. This is the type of moral equivalence created by a price–tag that comes with no moral debt attached. The Rambam’s formulation shows us that this is not Judaism’s view: While lenience is the reigning principle of the Jewish court system, there is another system of justice which operates on the moral level, and we are enjoined by the words of the verses in Parshat Mishpatim never to forget the standards of Divine truth that we should use as our moral compass.
The cynic[12] can look at the discrepancy between the written law and the oral law and claim that the written Torah is barbaric, a remnant of the Dark Ages, while the Rabbis were involved in the evolution of a somewhat more sensitive and socially mature Judaism. Our most basic response to the cynic is that he has misread the text: The Torah never says to put out the perpetrator’s eye. The more sophisticated response is that the Written Torah, the Word of God, expresses the Divine perspective, represents a more perfect approach to human existence - an approach of pure values, a philosophy of morality. The Written Torah is not a guide to adjudication; it is a guide to ethics, values, morals and ideals.[13] The Oral Law tells how to bring these values into our world, how to adapt Divine considerations to human needs, and how to live by the principles of Divine truth.[14]
While at times we feel a tension between a reading of the text of the Torah and the Rabbinic interpretation, there is a possibility that we lack the skills and understanding to properly understand the text. The Vilna Gaon explained that the tension between the Written and Oral Torah is merely a product of our superficial efforts to read and understand the text; deep understanding brings harmony. The Written Torah and Oral Torah are two parts of a whole; both express Divine teachings. If at times tension seems to exist, it is caused by our limited understanding of the mechanisms of the spiritual and physical universe. A case in point is the very verse we have been examining. The Gaon illustrates that the written text, which reads, literally, “An eye under (or, below) an eye,” and the oral tradition which mandates financial compensation, are really saying the same thing. The key to his understanding is the usage of the word tachat – under. The Hebrew word for eye is ayin, which is spelled עין – ayin, yud, nun. To unravel this mystery, the Vilna Gaon follows the words of the Torah with unparalleled precision: He literally looks “below” ayin, noting that the letters subsequent to each of the letters of the word ‘ayin spell כסף (kesef) – money! For an eye you pay tachat ayin – under an eye. The letter under an ayin is peh, the letter under yud is kaf, the letter under nun is samech. The written words of Torah include all the information necessary to understand the oral tradition and legal application.[15]
Although most of us are not blessed with the skills of the Vilna Gaon, the day will come when all the tensions will be resolved and we will be able to clearly grasp the unity of the Torah as the Word of God. God and His compassion and Judgment will be manifest. In the words of the prophet Yesha’ayahu, on that day we will see God “ayin b’ayin” - eye to eye:
1. Awake, awake; put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city… 3. For thus says the Lord, ‘You have sold yourselves for nothing; and you shall be redeemed without money.’ … 7. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings the news, who announces peace; who brings good news, who announces salvation; who says to Zion, Your God reigns! 8. The voice of your watchmen is heard; together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye, when God returns to Zion. (Isaiah 52:1-3,7,8)
[1] Common Christological bias attempts to contrast the New Testament’s so-called doctrine of love and kindness, represented by “turning the other cheek”, with “Old” Testament harshness, epitomized by “an eye for an eye.” This bias is most clear in the “Sermon on the Mount” where the founder of Christianity says: “It is said of them of old, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,’ but I say love your neighbor as yourself”. Of course, the “old” Torah actually states (Vayikra 19:18), “Love your neighbor as yourself,” without any reference to hating your enemy.
[2] See the assertion of the Rambam cited below.
[3] See Hammurabi's Code of Laws, Translated by L. W. King: 196. If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. 197. If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken. 198. If he put out the eye of a freed man, or break the bone of a freed man, he shall pay one gold mina. 199. If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.
[4] See Ibn Ezra Shmot 21:24
אבן עזרא שמות (הפירוש הארוך) פרק כא פסוק כד
(כד) עין אמר רב סעדיה, לא נוכל לפרש זה הפסוק כמשמעו. כי אם אדם הכה עין חבירו, וסרה שלישית אור עיניו, איך יתכן שיוכה מכה כזאת בלי תוספת ומגרעת. אולי יחשיך אור עינו כלו. … והכלל לא נוכל לפרש על דרך מצות התורה פירוש שלם, אם לא נסמוך על דברי חז"ל. כי כאשר קבלנו התורה מן האבות. כן קבלנו תורה שבעל פה, אין הפרש ביניהם. והנה יהיה פי' עין תחת עין ראוי להיותו עינו תחת עינו, אם לא יתן כפרו.
[5] See Rav Yehuda Halevi Kuzari section 3 subsection 46. There was a certain degree of crosspollination of ideas between Rav Avraham Ibn Ezra and Rav Yehuda Halevi. There was a relationship between the Kuzari and Ibn Ezra, the precise nature of this relationship is unknown, some theorize that they were blood relatives, or in-laws.
ספר הכוזרי - מאמר שלישי אות לא - ס
(מו) אמר הכוזרי: האם לא נאמר אצלנו דין ענשים מפרש בתורה עין תחת עין שן תחת שן כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו:
(מז) אמר החבר: האם לא נאמר בסמוך לזה ומכה נפש בהמה ישלמנה נפש תחת נפש האין זה תשלום כפר אין הכתוב אומר אדם שהרג סוסך הרג סוסו כי מה בצע בהרגך את סוסו וכן אדם שקטע ידך קח כפר ידך כי מה בצע בכרתך את ידו אף כי דינים שיש בהם משום סתירה לשכל הישר פצע תחת פצע חבורה תחת חבורה וכי איך נוכל לשער זאת יתכן כי האחד מהם ימות מפצעו זה והשני לא ימות מפצע דומה לזה ואיך נדאג לדבר כי יהיה הפצע אשר יושם בו דומה בדיוק לפצע אשר שם בחברו כיצד נעור עינו של אדם אשר אין לו כי אם עין אחת ככפר לעוור עינו של אדם אשר לו שתי עינים וישאר זה עור בשתי עיניו שעה שהאחר יהיה עור רק בעינו האחת והרי התורה אמרה כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו אך למה לדבר אתך על הפרטים האלה אחרי אשר הקדמתי לך עד כמה רב הצרך במסרת וכמה נאמנים מקבליה ומה רבה גדלתם והשתדלותם בשמירתה:
[6] See above, the response of the Kuzari, as well as the opinion of Rav Ashi, below, for a possible resolution to this problem: Even in cases of total loss of vision, the “value” of the eye of the victim and that of the perpetrator is not necessarily equal.
[7] See Sanhedrin 58 where Rav Huna had the arm of a particular pugilist amputated, though from the context it does not see as much punishment as self defense, for the man would not stop his attacks upon others: “R. Huna had the hand cut off [of one who was accustomed to strike other people].”
[8] See Rambam Yad Hachazaka Laws of Khovel U’Mazik, Chapter One, Laws 2,5,6.
רמב"ם הלכות חובל ומזיק פרק א
הלכה ב- נזק כיצד, שאם קטע יד חבירו או רגלו רואין אותו כאלו הוא עבד נמכר בשוק כמה היה יפה וכמה הוא יפה עתה ומשלם הפחת שהפחית מדמיו, שנ' )שמות כ"א כ"ד, ויקרא כד' כ'( 'עין תחת עין', מפי השמועה למדו שזה שנאמר תחת לשלם ממון הוא.
הלכה ה- ומנין שזה שנאמר באיברים עין תחת עין וכו' תשלומין הוא, שנאמר )משפטים כ"א כ"ה( 'חבורה תחת חבורה' ובפירוש נאמר 'וכי יכה איש את רעהו באבן או באגרוף וגו' רק שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא,' הא למדת שתחת שנאמר בחבורה תשלומין, והוא הדין לתחת הנאמר בעין ובשאר איברים.
הלכה ו- אע"פ שדברים אלו נראים מענין תורה שבכתב כולן מפורשין הן מפי משה מהר סיני וכולן הלכה למעשה הן בידינו וכזה ראו אבותינו דנין בבית דינו של יהושע ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובכל בית דין ובית דין שעמדו מימות משה ועד עכשיו.
[9] A similar argument is found in Talmud Bavli Baba Kamma 40a : Since it was the life of the owner of a beast that has killed someone that should be redeemed, the payment must surely correspond to the value of the owner’s life, and not the value of the beast’s victim:
תלמוד בבלי מסכת בבא קמא דף מ/א
דתניא ונתן פדיון נפשו דמי ניזק ר' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר דמי מזיק מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דרבנן סברי כופרא ממונא הוא ור' ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה סבר כופרא כפרה
For it was taught: [The words] ‘Then he shall give for the ransom of his life’ [indicate] the value [of the life] of the person killed. But R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka interprets it to refer to the value [of the life] of the defendant. Now, is this not the point at issue between them, that the Rabbis consider kofer (ransom) to constitute a civil liability whereas R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka holds kofer to be of the nature of propitiation?”
[10] A similar idea is found in the commentary of the Recanati on Shmot 21:24; however, this source replaces what the Rambam would call a philosophical understanding, with what the Recanati calls a mystical understanding.
ריקאנטי שמות פרק כא פסוק כד
(כד) עין תחת עין וגו' [שם כ"ד]. כבר ידעת כי זה הפסוק אמרו רבותינו ז"ל [בבא קמא פ"ג ע"ב] שאינו כפשוטו אלא לממון, גם פסוק [ויקרא כ"ד, כ'] כאשר יתן מום באדם כן ינתן בו, הכוונה בו לממון דבר הניתן מיד ליד, וכן [דברים כ"ה, י"ב] וקצותה את כפה, וכן [להלן כ"ט] בעליו יומת. ואולי תשאל אחרי שאין הכוונה בו ככתבו למה נכתב כך לתת מקום למינים לרדות, והתשובה היא מה שאמרו רז"ל שבעים פנים לתורה, ופירוש המצוה כפי פשוטה ניתן בתורה שבעל פה ואחריה נלך. אמנם בא לשון הפסוק בענין אחר שיובנו בו הפנים האחרים שלא היו מובנים בלתי הלשון ההוא, דוגמא לדבר באומרו עין תחת עין, האמת הוא כפי הקבלה [ב"ק פ"ג ע"ב] כי החובל בחבירו חייב בחמשה דברים, אמנם נכתב כך לסוד גדול מאוד,
[11] Most closely translated as “scoundrel” or “wicked”. For more on Hanan, see Talmud Bavli Baba Kamma 115a, there the Gemara tells that he may have been a scoundrel – but he wasn’t a thief: “But was Hanan the Wicked not notorious, …? He was only notorious for wickedness, but for theft he was not notorious at all.”
[12] See Baley Tosfot21:23 who answers the cynics by quoting the Rambam, Also see Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kamma 8:1.
פירוש בעלי התוספות על שמות פרק כא פסוק כג
עין תחת עין. תשובה למינים האומרים עין עין ממש. שהרי כתיב לעיל והכה את רעהו באבן או באגרוף. כלומר כל מה שאירע ע"י ההכאה ובלבד שלא ימות. שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא. ואם עין תחת עין ממש. כמו כן פצע תחת פצע ממש אם כן למה נותן שבת ורפוי. והלא כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו. אלא ש"מ דר"ל דמי עין. מיימו"ן:
[13] Regarding two levels of judgment see Shla HaKadosh, Shnie Luchot Habrit Mishpatim, Torah Ohr.
ספר השל"ה הקדוש - ספר שמות - פרשת משפטים תורה אור
והמשפטים הם קיום כולם. ואמרו רבותינו ז"ל (שמו"ר ל, ג), התורה תחילתה דינין וסופה דינין, תחילתה דינין שם שם לו חק ומשפט, וסופה דינין ואלה המשפטים. דע כי יש שני מיני דין, יש דין שהוא מדת הדין גמור, ויש דינים שהם משותפים במדת הרחמים. וכמו שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל (ב"ר יב, טו), בתחלה עלה במחשבה לברוא העולם במדת הדין, ראה וכו' שיתף מדת הרחמים עם מדת הדין. וכיצירתו של אדם כך תורתו, כלומר נידון בבית דין שלמטה, לפעמים נדון במדת הדין הגמור, כגון ארבע מיתות בית דין, ויש משותף כמו וגם בעליו יומת פירש"י בידי שמים, ומשותף ברחמים אם כופר יושת עליו וגו' שאז נפטר מהמיתה. וכמו עין תחת עין, שפירשו רבותינו ז"ל (ב"ק פד, ב) שרצה לומר דמי עינו. וכתבו התורה בלשון עין תחת עין, להורות שהיה ראוי ליתן עין ממש, אלא שמצד מדת הרחמים באה הקבלה ליפטר בדמי עין. וכן מצינו בכלל הדינים שבין אדם לחבירו, שמצוה בדיינים להתחיל בפשרה, ולא לירד לעומק הדין. והכל כדרך שהקב"ה דן את העולם, לפעמים מדקדק כחוט השערה, כמו שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל (יבמות קכד, ב) וסביביו נסערה מאוד, ולפעמים משתף רחמים בדין, כי לולי זה לא היה העולם מתקיים. וכן ראוי להיות בבית דין שלמטה, כי על כן גם הם נקראים אלהים, כמו שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל אין אלהים בכל מקום אלא סמוכים:
ועל זה מתבאר הפסוק ואלה המשפטים, וכתב רש"י ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים, מה הראשונים מסיני אף אלו מסיני, הלא כל דקדוקיה ופרטיה מסיני. ויש מפרשים שנתנו מסיני בקולות וברקים כמו י' דברות. אבל יש רמז בכאן, רומז למה שכתבתי בפרשת בראשית, מתחלה עלה במחשבה לברוא העולם במדת הדין, ראה שאין העולם מתקיים שיתף כו'. שחס ושלום ראשית המחשבה לא נתבטלה, רק נתקיימה בבני עלייה, שהם הראשונים אשר נשמתם למעלה במקור הנשמות, ועמהם מדקדק הקב"ה כחוט השערה ומדקדק בדין המדוקדק כו', עיין שם באורך מה שכתבתי. ושם בארתי כל הדן דין אמת לאמתו נעשה שותף להקב"ה במעשה בראשית עיין שם. ועל הראשונים אלו שהם עולים בסוד המחשבה ונדונים בשם אלהים שהוא מדת הדין, ובהם נתקיים בראשית, אותם ראשית הם נדונים באלהים כו'.
[14] See Yismach Moshe Dvarim 90a
ספר ישמח משה - פרשת דברים דף צ/א
והנה מה שנכתב בתורה הוא מן הדין, דכל התורה הוא מפי הגבורה נאמר. וידוע דהתורה שבכתב הוא דין, על כן אין ללמוד בלילה. ושבעל פה הוא רחמים, וכמו שביארתי בסוף פרשת אמור ד"ה בילקוט (סוף איוב [ילקו"ש איוב רמז תתקכ"ז]), את מוציא כשבא יסורין על איוב כו' אמר לו הקב"ה כו'. ומזה תבין (שמות כא כד) עין תחת עין, ממון (כתובות ל"ב ע"ב). והנה פירשתי להפשוטים עין, ר"ל מי שהכה עין, יענש במה שהוא תחת עין, ר"ל במקום עין דהיינו דמי עינו. וידוע שאמרו דורשי רשימות כי תחת עין, הוא כסף. מכל מקום קשה למה לא כתבה התורה בפירוש. ולפי מ"ש אתי שפיר, כי שורת הדין הוא עין ממש, רק בעל פה מיקל מצד הרחמים, על כן לא נכתב בפירוש והבן,
[15] Kol Eliyahu Shmot 21:23
ספר קול אליהו על שמות פרק כא פסוק כג
בפסוק עין תחת עין וגו' (שמות כא. כג), קבלו חז"ל דהוא ממון (ב"ק פג.), ויש לומר דבפסוק מרומז שאין עין ממש אלא ממון כי הול"ל עין בעד עין מהו הלשון תחת, אלא לרמז כי האותיות שתחת העי"ן בהא"ב הוא כס"ף, תחת העין הוא פ', ותחת היו"ד הוא כ', ותחת הנו"ן הוא ס', ועולה אותיות כסף, וזהו עין אם לקח עין יתן תחת עין והוא כסף. (שער בת רבים פ' אמור):
Monday, February 16, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Parshat Yitro 2009
Parshat Yitro 2009
© 2009 Rabbi Ari Kahn
“Saying…”
2448 years after creation, after 210 years in Egypt, after 86 years of servitude, after 7 weeks of freedom, the heavens are about to open – and the word of God will flow. A symphony of sound will burst out, but not just any sound: palpable sound. This is sound that is not merely heard. This is truth - truth you can see and feel. This is theophony; this is Revelation.
But before the content of the Revelation is imparted, before the words of God are perceived by the Children of Israel, after the thunder and lightning fill up the sky, there is one last verse, perhaps an introduction to the Decalogue:
ספר שמות פרק כ
(א) וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר:
And the Almighty spoke all of these things, saying- (Shmot 20:1)
While each and every word in this verse deserves attention, there is one word in particular that catches our attention. The final word in the verse, laymor (“saying”), seems extraneous, and therefore incomprehensible. The word is familiar to us from what may be the most often - repeated verse in the Torah, “And God said to Moshe, saying”. In that usage, the intention is for Moshe to repeat the dictate, to share the Word of God with the People. But in this instance, the entire nation is present. All of the Jews stand at the foot of the mountain, and they presumably[1] hear and see the Word of God. Why is “saying” necessary here, when God Himself is speaking to all the people directly?[2]
Two Torahs
Commentaries have struggled with this word – and offered all types of suggestions: The Sfat Emet[3], for example, points to the use of the word laymor in this verse as an indication of the co-existence of Oral Torah with the written Torah about to be transmitted. In this view, two distinct aspects of Oral Torah are brought to the fore, as we are enjoined to teach the Oral Torah for two reasons: The Oral Law fulfills a very critical functional role, enabling us to apply the principles of the written Torah in subsequent generations. Additionally, the ongoing learning of the Oral Torah is seen as a sort of ongoing revelation. As Torah is learned and applied to new situations, the Word of God is continually brought into human experience. The Oral Law is what keeps us in touch with the Sinai experience.[4] This dovetails with the idea that the totality of Torah was revealed at Sinai - including that which would be revealed to future generations.[5] This idea, according to Rav Zvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov in his Igra Dkala, is encapsulated in the word laymor: By studying and applying the Torah, future generations return to what was said at Sinai.[6] Furthermore, the authenticity of the teachings of later scholars is established by linking it to the experience at Sinai.
Knowing God
The Maor VaShemesh (Rav Klonomous Kalman Epstein) connects the word laymor to the next verse – “Anochi” - “I am the Lord God…”
Ultimately, the most important Commandment is the first: “Anochi”, the knowledge or acknowledgment of God, transcends all other Commandments and is the raison d’etre of all the Commandments. Lacking belief in God, the other Commandments become absurd. Indeed, the very word “commandment” becomes an oxymoron without God. Hence, citing a teaching of Rav Elimelech of Lizhansk, the Maor VaShemesh explains that all of the Torah is encapsulated in Anochi, for if a person accepts this first precept – they will then necessarily comply with the Torah as a whole; profound belief will lead to profound observance. The reverse is true as well: through the performance of the mitzvot we will come to know God.[7] “The word laymor is therefore linked to Anochi : ‘Laymor (saying) Anochi,’ for this will lead to the performance of all the other Commandments. And when you fulfill the Commandments, you will discover Anochi - God.” Our verse, then, should be rendered thus: ‘God spoke all of these things in order to bring the Jews to say (or comprehend) “Anochi”.[8]
The Shem Mishmuel (Rav Shmuel Bornstein) explains the superfluous ‘laymor’ in our verse from a different angle. Elsewhere in his commentary, Rashi cites a tradition that all the of the Ten Commandments were transmitted simultaneously – “in one utterance.” With their limited, human sensory capacity, the Jews were incapable of grasping this type of Divine speech. In order for them to understand the content of God’s communication, says the Shem Mishmuel, it was necessary for Moshe to speak, to relay the Word of God in a more human form, just as he did on all the other occasions when the text includes the term laymor, “saying”.[9]
Revelation and Response
This tradition notwithstanding, Rashi himself offers a different explanation for the idiosyncratic language of this particular verse. Rashi addresses the problem of laymor with a somewhat enigmatic comment:
רש"י על שמות פרק כ פסוק א
לאמר - מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן ועל לאו לאו
This teaches that in response to the positive Commandments they said “yes” and to the negative commandments they said “no” (Rashi Shmot 20:1).
Laymor , “saying”, indicates that the people responded with a resounding “Yes!” when they received positive Commandments, and with a heartfelt “No!” when the Commandment was in the negative form (a prohibition). Yet Rashi’s comment leaves none the wiser as to the exact meaning or purpose of the words of our verse, since we still do not know what precisely the word “laymor” refers to, and what the significance of the Peoples’ response is.
Looking back to Rashi’s source, we find a difference of opinion in the Mechilta; Rashi cites the view ascribed to Rabbi Yishmael.
מכילתא פרשת בחדש פרשה ד
לאמר. שהיו אומרי' על הן הן ועל לאו לאו דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר על הן הן ועל לאו הן.
They would respond “Yes” to positive Commandments and “No” to negative Commandments; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva (disagrees and) says that to the positive Commandments they responded “Yes” and to the negative commandments they responded “Yes”.
We should address two distinct issues raised by this source and Rashi’s treatment of it. First, what exactly is the disagreement between the two Talmudic authorities? Secondly, why does Rashi cite the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, given the Talmudic principle that Rabbi Akiva’s is the decisive, accepted opinion in all cases of disagreement with his contemporaries?[10] The Maharal, and later, Rabbi Soloveitchik both explain the argument: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael agree that regarding the positive commandments the Jewish People responded and said “yes we will” – for example, when God said ‘Remember the Sabbath Day to sanctify it’, the people responded, “yes we will”. The difference of opinion is regarding the negative commandments. Rabbi Yishmael taught that “do not murder” was rejoined with “no (we will not murder)”. While Rabbi Akiva taught that the people said “yes, (we will not murder)”.[11] There is a deep philosophical question at the heart of this seemingly trivial difference of opinion, summed up by Rav Soloveitchik as follows:
Should performance of a mitzvah result from an extraneous norm imposed upon finite man by the infinite, inscrutable Will of G-d, or should performance result from an inner urge whose realization enhances life and exalts the personality? This dichotomy [is often expressed as the central issue] of "metzuveh ve'oseh", whether reward is greater for one who performs a mitzvah as a result of an imperative or for one whose observance results from personal initiative. [12] Rabbi Akiva’s opinion expresses a very distinct approach to this question. He maintained that B'nei Yisrael's response was yes to all pronouncements, including the negative ones. In other words, their response was, "we surrender to Your will, we accept the norm, we shall comply with it". Even though the negative precepts are acceptable to and sanctioned by any civilized society, they require commitment and surrender to G-d nonetheless. Without surrender to Anochi, moral behavior is removed from the sphere of observance. God is taken out of the equation. The result is homocentric morality, observance of commandments that are socially acceptable at any given time or place.
Rabbi Akiva therefore maintained that morality must not rely solely on man's cognitive abilities, even in regard to mishpatim, since certain domains are inaccessible to human moral exploration and illumination. Yet the entire structure of morality would collapse should society actually permit their violation.”[13]
Rabbi Yishmael’s view is quite different. When they respond “no” to prohibitions – such as, “No, we will not murder,” they acknowledge that murder is wrong. Indeed, according to Rabbi Yishmael, the people already believe murder is wrong. The Word of God confirms what they already know. There exists, according to this opinion, “natural moral law”, and this, too, is part of the Revelation.
Rabbi Akiva’s understanding of the acceptance of Torah is far more arduous and demanding: Man goes against his nature, man does not necessarily agree with the value statement or judgment, yet he accepts the Word of God, the authority of God. The People’s response, “Yes” to both positive and negative Commandments, removes observance from the sphere of human morality and places it exclusively in the realm of obedience, acquiescence to God’s command.
When explaining the text of the Torah, Rashi takes into account the reality of that particular moment at Mount Sinai. There, the Jewish People experience God firsthand. In the context of such an overwhelming experience, Rabbi Yishmael’s view may have made more sense to Rashi: When God speaks directly to the Jews, as individuals and as a society, the logic and morality of each and every Commandment, positive and negative, is unavoidable. Everything is illuminated, crystal-clear. Torah, when presented in this way, is obvious and perfect. [14] At that particular, unique moment in history, acceptance and obedience, practice and theory are indivisible. At that moment, responding “no” to prohibitions was both a statement of agreement and of obedience, for there was no gap between the two. Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion was the more appropriate one in Rashi’s eyes because it most faithfully explained the verse itself. [15]
On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva’s explanation is more apt for subsequent generations, for whom obedience, submission to the Word of God and the rejection of moral relativism is the very core of true observance. When the words are not accompanied by thunder and lightning, we accept the law even when its logic escapes us.[16] Rabbi Akiva believed that acceptance of the Torah is predicated upon accepting the Yoke of Heaven: whether we understand or not, we accept. Whether we desire what is forbidden or not, we obey.
Whether we say “Yes we will”, “no we won’t”, or “yes, we won’t” we speak as a response to the theophony. Whether we still hear the echoes of the Divine words, or if the thunder and lightning have abated, we accept the Torah, in every generation – whether or not we agree completely or understand completely - because sometimes we can only understand after we obey. We hope and pray that what we don’t understand will become clear when we live a life of Torah.
[1] See Shmot 19:9:
ספר שמות פרק יט
(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ וְגַם בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם וַיַּגֵּד משֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה’:
God tells Moshe that He will speak to him from the cloud so that the nation will witness this speech. The implication is that the main beneficiary of the Divine word at Sinai was Moshe, and the others were there to see God speak to Moshe. This approach may be supported by the Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed, Part 2 Chapter 35, where the Rambam delineates the supremacy of Moshe’s prophecy.
[2] Many of the commentaries note this textual difficulty, including the Maharal in the Gur Aryeh, and the Mizrachi, and Rav Dovid Halevi in the Taz, Rav Zadok of Lublin in Pri Zadik, and others.
פרוש הט"ז על התורה - שמות פרק כ פסוק א
לאמר, מלמד שהיו עונין כו'. דכל לאמר הוא שיחזור השומע ויאמר לאחר מה ששמע הוא וכאן שמעו כל ישראל ולמי יצטרכו לחזור ולהגיד. וכן בכ"מ שאין שייך שם לומר לאחרים צריך פירוש על מלת לאמר:
ספר פרי צדיק פרשת יתרו - אות יא
[יא] וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר. תיבת לאמר לכאורה אין לו פירוש כאן
[3] The Sfat Emet makes this point on numerous occasions. See Sfat Emet Yitro 5640, Yitro 5641 and Shavuot 5647
שפת אמת ספר שמות - פרשת יתרו - שנת [תרמ"א]
ברש"י לאמר שהיו עונין על הן הן כו'. הוא ענין תורה שבע"פ שאומרים וחיי עולם נטע בתוכינו והוא העדות שהתורה מיוחדת לבנ"י שנמשכו מיד אחר הדברות. והוא כענין אין טפה יורדת משמים שאין טיפיים עולות לנגדה. וע"ז דרשו חז"ל ה' עוזי ומעוזי. שהתורה נק' עוז. ומעוזי הוא כח התורה שבע"פ. שהגם שהחכמים מוציאין בחכמתם. הוא רק כח הש"י שנטע בתוכינו:
שפת אמת ספר שמות - פרשת יתרו - שנת [תר"מ]
לכן כ' יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' כו' כמלאכים שנק' עומדים כו'. והמכוון שבנ"י יאמרו וימשכו אותן הדיברות מדרגה אחר מדרגה עד שיתקרבו כל הברואים. כי חיות הכל בתורה. ותיקון הכל בכח התורה. וז"ש לאמר שצריך כל אדם מישראל להעיד בכל יום על הבורא ית' כמ"ש שמע ישראל פעמים בכל יום. ודברים אלו מאירין לכל העולם ולכל הברואים. וברש"י לאמר מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן כו'. והיינו שאין דיברות הבורא ית' כדיברות ב"ו. רק הדיברות היו חקוקים בלבם. והיינו דכ' רואים את הקולות. היינו בלבם ראו שנתקיים מיד. וניתקנו נפשותם שנמשכו אחר הדיברות. וזהו ענין תורה שבע"פ שכ' חיי עולם נטע בתוכינו שנבללו דברי תורה בנפשותם. וז"ש ומעוזי. היינו שנעשו מעצמות בנ"י תורה שנק' עוז:
שפת אמת ספר במדבר - לשבועות - שנת [תרמ"ז]
וז"ש וידבר כו' לאמר. פרש"י שהיו עונין על הן כו'. פי' שהקב"ה נתן דיבורו בפיהם של ישראל שיוכלו להוציא מעינות מים חיים מן התורה. וזהו ענין תורה שבע"פ ה' האמירך וע"ז כתיב דברי אשר שמתי בפיך כי שימה הוא סידור שבפי איש ישראל מתיישבין הדברי'.
[4] Chapter of the Fathers 3:2,6
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ג
אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי יְיָ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב יְיָ וַיִּשְׁמָע וַיִּכָּתֵב סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֹן לְפָנָיו לְיִרְאֵי יְיָ וּלְחשְׁבֵי שְׁמוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁנָיִם. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ שָׂכָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איכה ג), יֵשֵׁב בָּדָד וְיִדֹּם כִּי נָטַל עָלָיו:
(ו) רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶן דּוֹסָא אִישׁ כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב), אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ט), וַאֲגֻדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב), בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי ה' אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב ה' וַיִּשְׁמָע וְגוֹ'. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ), בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:
Mishnah 2. But [when] two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, the shechinah abides among them, as it is said: ‘Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon his name.’ I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the shechinah] except [among] two, whence [is there proof that] even [when there is only] one [person]. The Holy One, Blessed be He, appoints unto him a reward? Since it is said: ‘Though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself.’
Mishnah 6. R. Halafta [a man) of K’far Hanania said: [When there are] ten sitting together and occupying themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: ‘God stands in the congregation of God.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there are] five? [from] that which is said: ‘And He has founded His band upon the earth.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there are three?] [From] that which is said: ‘In the midst of the judges he judges.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [where there are] two? [From] that which is said: ‘Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard etc.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there is] one? [From] that which is said: ‘In every place where I cause my Name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you.’
[5] See Talmud Bavli Brachot 5a, Talmud Yerushalmi Peah chapter 2 Halcha 4 (17a)
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף ה עמוד א
ואמר רבי לוי בר חמא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש: מאי דכתיב +שמות כ"ד+ ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם, לחות - אלו עשרת הדברות, תורה - זה מקרא, והמצוה - זו משנה, אשר כתבתי - אלו נביאים וכתובים, להרתם - זה תלמוד; מלמד שכולם נתנו למשה מסיני.
תלמוד ירושלמי פיאה פרק ב דף יז עמוד א /ה"ד
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר עליהם ועליהם כל ככל דברים הדברים מקרא משנה תלמוד ואגדה אפילו מה שתלמיד וותיק עתיד להורות לפני רבו כבר נאמר למשה בסיני מה טעם יש דבר שיאמ' ראה זה חדש הוא וגו' משיבו חבירו ואומר לו כבר היה לעולמים
Talmud Bavli Brachot 5a - R. Levi b. Hama says further in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And I will give you the tablets of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written that you may teach them? ‘Tablets of stone’: these are the Ten Commandments; ‘the law’: this is the Pentateuch; ‘the commandment’: this is the Mishnah; ‘which I have written’: these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; ‘that you may teach them’: this is the Gemara. It teaches [us] that all these things were given to Moshe on Sinai.
[6] See Igra D’kala page 201a
ספר אגרא דכלה - דף רא/א
והוא סוד מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים (תהלים קמה יג). והנה המדרש הזה בא לבאר וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה לאמ"ר. דקשה למה אמר כל הדברים. וגם מהו הלאמר. והנה בא לבאר לנו ענין הלאמר הוא השי"ת דבר בקדשו כללות דברי תורה דברים כוללים שיתאמרו בכל דור ודור כל ימי עולם, היינו בדברי נותן התורה כלול כל מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, ובכל דור ודור כל חכם לב בישראל, זה מחדש ומוליד דבר זה, וזה דבר חידוש אחר, הכל מדברי אלקים חיים זה מחדש ומוליד דבר וכו', בכל פעם שכל משכל ומושכל ממושכל כמדליק נר מנר.
[7] Maor VaShemesh, Parshat Yitro.
ספר מאור ושמש - פרשת יתרו ד"ה איתא
איתא במדרש רבה זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו. נוכל לפרש על פי ששמעתי מפה הקדוש הרב רבינו אלימלך זצוק"ל על פסוק וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך כי לכאורה מלת לאמר הוא כמיותר. ופירש הוא ז"ל שהקב"ה נתן לנו התורה והמצות וכל התורה כולה הוא כלול באנכי ה' אלהיך כי זה עיקר הכל אם אדם מקבל אלהותו יתברך שמו עליו על ידי זה הוא שומר ומקיים את כל התורה שלא לעבור על לא תעשה חלילה ומקיים המצות עשה וכל התורה והמצות הם נתיב אשר על ידם נוכל לידע מאלהותו יתברך שמו, וזהו וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך פירוש שבכלל אנכי הוא כל התורה כולה ולכן דבר הקב"ה כל דיבור ודיבור בפני עצמו כדי שנוכל לבא על ידו שנדע אלהותו יתברך שמו. וזהו וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה כדי לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך כלומר על ידי קיום המצות והתורה נוכל להשיג השגות אלהותו יתברך שמו, וכל התורה כולה היא תלויה באנכי דהיינו אם האדם מאמין באלהותו ממילא בודאי מקיים התורה והמצות כראוי ואם חלילה אינו מאמין באלהותו ממילא אינו רוצה לקיים התורה והמצות.
[8]This train of thought has significant ramifications for modern Jewish education: How can we break into this circle of teaching and observance; which comes first, theory or observance? In the “normal” situation, a child is drawn into the world of mitzvoth as cognition allows that particular practice to be performed. For thousands of years, children learned how to perform mitzvoth by observing their surroundings, and acquired theoretical or philosophical insight as they developed in their practice. In today’s world there are those whose first experience of observance is in adulthood. The onset of observance and learning are not always able to be lock-stepped, for there are some commandments that can’t be performed until one understands the ideas, and some ideas that can’t be understood until performed. Not all mitzvoth are the same. Additionally, not all people are the same. Different people connect with different mitzvot naturally and spontaneously, while others may be out of reach, or less easily incorporated or understood.
[9] Shem Mishmuel Yitro 5672
ספר שם משמואל פרשת יתרו - שנת תרע"ב
וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה. פירש"י מלמד שאמר הקב"ה עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד וכו', מה ת"ל עוד אנכי ולא יהי' לך שחזר ופירש על כל דיבור ודיבור בפני עצמו: ונראה דמה שאמר תחילה כל הדברות בדבור אחד לא הבינו ישראל כלל מדהצריך לחזור ולומר כל דבור ודבור בפני עצמו. ועוד הרי אמרו בש"ס ר"ה (כ"ז.) זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו מה שאין הפה יכול לדבר ואין האוזן יכולה לשמוע, ומכ"ש כל עשרת הדברות ביחד. וא"כ יש להבין מה תועלת היתה לדבור זה הכללי. ונראה דשורש הנשמה טרם באה בהתחלקות החושים, ואולי היא בחי' יחידה,
[10] Talmud Bavli Eruvin 46a
תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף מו/ב
אמרו הלכה כרבי עקיבא מחבירו
[11] Maharal Tiferet YIsrael chapter 34.
ספר תפארת ישראל - פרק לד
וקאמר ר' ישמעאל שהיו אומרים על הן הן ועל לאו לאו, באור זה כי היו מקבלים כל דבור כפי מה שהוא כי כאשר אמר אנכי היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור לומר כי כך נעשה, וכאשר אמר לא יהיה לך קבלו עליהם הדבור לא יהיה לנו אלהים אחרים כפי אשר היה הדבור היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר כאשר אמר להן אנכי וגו' היו מקבלין עליהן הדבור לומר כי כך נעשה, וכאשר אמר לא יהיה לך קבלו גם כן הן כלומר דבר זה כמו שגזרת עלינו. על דעת ר"י היה הקבלה מחולקת לעשה ולא תעשה, ולדעת רבי עקיבא היה קבלה אחת רק כך נעשה כמו שגזרת. וטעם רבי ישמעאל כי צריך שתהיה קבלת הגזרה כאשר היא עצם הגזרה בעצמה, אם הגזרה לעשות דבר כך הקבלה לעשות דבר זה, ואם הגזרה שלא לעשות דבר זה קבלת הגזרה כך גם כן שלא לעשות דבר זה. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר שאין קבלת הגזרה רק לקבל בלבד הגזרה תהיה הגזרה מה שהיא הגזרה, ולכך היו אומרים על לאו ועל הן קבלת הגזרה בענין אחד, והיינו שאמרו הן כי דבר זה הוא מצד המקבל שהוא מקבל עליו כל מה שיאמר הגוזר לדבר שלא יעשה או מה שיעשה אין צריך רק שיקבל שהוא מוכן לעשות רצון הגוזר וזה שיאמר הן. ודי בזה:
[12]Lecture presented to the Rabbinical Council of America by Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik on June 22, 1972.The Rav indicated that if in this dispute the choice were his, he would be guided by the rule, "Halacha keRebbe Akiva", and would accept Akiva's interpretation. “Surrender and obedience are most necessary,
not only for chukim but for mishpatim as well…. With regards to the sin of murder, man, no matter what persuasion, faith or ideology indignantly condemns the murderer and the act of murder. Yet, what about a situation which Dostoevsky portrayed so vividly in Crime and Punishment? The book depicts a cruel, miserly old woman who is a loan shark sucking the blood of those unfortunates caught in her web; a person who evicts the old and frail on a winter day in below zero temperatures. In sharp contrast, also depicted is a brilliant young student who cannot afford to continue his medical studies and who hopelessly watches his sister being sold into white slavery and exiled to some oriental country. A loan of a few hundred rubles could have remedied his problems, yet the old woman refused to lend him the money. In a moment of despair the student kills the miser. Do we have the right to condemn the student? Should we consider such a murder a crime? Again the answer is Rabbi Akiva's 'hen'; the Almighty has forbidden murder, whatever the motive…
[13] ibid.
[14] Perhaps this is the meaning of the Gemara that at Sinai God upended the mountain and held it over the heads of the people, forcing them to accept the Torah. I would suggest that this passage is not to be taken literally; rather, when God spoke to them, they had no choice but to accept the Torah. See Talmud Bavli Shabbat 88a.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף פח/א
ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר אמר רב אבדימי בר חמא בר חסא מלמד שכפה הקדוש ברוך הוא עליהם את ההר כגיגית ואמר להם אם אתם מקבלים התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם תהא קבורתכם
[15] Rashi sees his mandate to explain the text of the Torah, and will choose the Halachic opinion that fits into the plain reading most easily. See Rashi on Bereishit 33:20
רש"י על בראשית פרק לג פסוק כ
ודברי תורה כפטיש יפוצץ סלע מתחלקים לכמה טעמים ואני ליישב פשוטו של מקרא באתי.
[16] Rabbi Soloveitchik in this lecture introduced a concept known as efshi, ei efshi, The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna, in the introduction to Avot (shmoneh prakim) writes that there some laws that are perfectly natural, and religiously acceptable to desire, like eating milk and meat, wearing shatnez, certain sexual laws, a person may feel that he or she desires to break these laws, but they surrender to God and abstain. There are other laws like murder, that a person should know is wrong and not desire.
רמב"ם פירוש המשניות - שמנה פרקים להרמב"ם - פרק ו
וכאשר חקרנו דברי חכמים בזה הענין, נמצא להם שהמתאוה לעבירות ונכסף אליהן הוא יותר חשוב ויותר שלם מאשר לא יתאוה אליהן ולא יצטער בהנחתן, עד שאמרו, שכל אשר יהיה האדם יותר חשוב ויותר שלם תהיה תשוקתו להעבירות והצטערו בהנחתן יותר גדולות. והביאו בזה הדברים ואמרו (סוכה נ"ב) "כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול הימנו", ולא דים זה, עד שאמרו, ששכר המושל בנפשו גדול לפי רוב צערו במשלו בנפשו, ואמרו (אבות פרק ב') "לפום צערא אגרא". ויותר מזה, שהם צוו להיות האדם מתאוה לעבירות, עד שהזהירו מלומר, שאני בטבעי לא אתאוה לזאת העבירה, ואף על פי שלא אסרה התורה, והוא אמרם (ספרא קדושים), "רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, לא יאמר אדם אי אפשי לאכול בשר בחלב, אי אפשי ללבוש שעטנז, אי אפשי לבא על הערוה, אלא אפשי ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי". ולפי המובן מפשוטי שני המאמרים בתחלת המחשבה הם סותרים זה את זה, ואין הענין כן, אבל שניהם אמת ואין מחלוקת ביניהם כלל, והוא שהרעות אשר הן אצל הפילוסופים רעות, אשר אמרו, שמי שלא יתאוה אליהן יותר חשוב מן המתאוה אליהן ויכבוש את יצרו מהן, הם הענינים המפורסמים אצל כל בני אדם שהם רעים כשפיכת דמים, כגנבה וגזלה, ואונאה, ולהזיק למי שלא הרע לו, ולגמול רע למטיב לו, ולבזות אב ואם וכיוצא באלו, והן המצוות שאמרו עליהן חכמים זכרונם לברכה, (יומא ס"ז) שאילו לא נכתבו ראויות הן ליכתב, ויקראו אותן קצת חכמינו האחרונים, אשר חלו חלי. המדברים מצוות השכליות. ואין ספק שהנפש אשר תכסף לדבר מהן ותשתוקק אליו, שהיא חסרה ושהנפש החשובה לא תתאוה לאחת מאלו הרעות כלל, ולא תצטער בהמנעה מהן.
© 2009 Rabbi Ari Kahn
“Saying…”
2448 years after creation, after 210 years in Egypt, after 86 years of servitude, after 7 weeks of freedom, the heavens are about to open – and the word of God will flow. A symphony of sound will burst out, but not just any sound: palpable sound. This is sound that is not merely heard. This is truth - truth you can see and feel. This is theophony; this is Revelation.
But before the content of the Revelation is imparted, before the words of God are perceived by the Children of Israel, after the thunder and lightning fill up the sky, there is one last verse, perhaps an introduction to the Decalogue:
ספר שמות פרק כ
(א) וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֵת כָּל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֵאמֹר:
And the Almighty spoke all of these things, saying- (Shmot 20:1)
While each and every word in this verse deserves attention, there is one word in particular that catches our attention. The final word in the verse, laymor (“saying”), seems extraneous, and therefore incomprehensible. The word is familiar to us from what may be the most often - repeated verse in the Torah, “And God said to Moshe, saying”. In that usage, the intention is for Moshe to repeat the dictate, to share the Word of God with the People. But in this instance, the entire nation is present. All of the Jews stand at the foot of the mountain, and they presumably[1] hear and see the Word of God. Why is “saying” necessary here, when God Himself is speaking to all the people directly?[2]
Two Torahs
Commentaries have struggled with this word – and offered all types of suggestions: The Sfat Emet[3], for example, points to the use of the word laymor in this verse as an indication of the co-existence of Oral Torah with the written Torah about to be transmitted. In this view, two distinct aspects of Oral Torah are brought to the fore, as we are enjoined to teach the Oral Torah for two reasons: The Oral Law fulfills a very critical functional role, enabling us to apply the principles of the written Torah in subsequent generations. Additionally, the ongoing learning of the Oral Torah is seen as a sort of ongoing revelation. As Torah is learned and applied to new situations, the Word of God is continually brought into human experience. The Oral Law is what keeps us in touch with the Sinai experience.[4] This dovetails with the idea that the totality of Torah was revealed at Sinai - including that which would be revealed to future generations.[5] This idea, according to Rav Zvi Elimelech Shapira of Dinov in his Igra Dkala, is encapsulated in the word laymor: By studying and applying the Torah, future generations return to what was said at Sinai.[6] Furthermore, the authenticity of the teachings of later scholars is established by linking it to the experience at Sinai.
Knowing God
The Maor VaShemesh (Rav Klonomous Kalman Epstein) connects the word laymor to the next verse – “Anochi” - “I am the Lord God…”
Ultimately, the most important Commandment is the first: “Anochi”, the knowledge or acknowledgment of God, transcends all other Commandments and is the raison d’etre of all the Commandments. Lacking belief in God, the other Commandments become absurd. Indeed, the very word “commandment” becomes an oxymoron without God. Hence, citing a teaching of Rav Elimelech of Lizhansk, the Maor VaShemesh explains that all of the Torah is encapsulated in Anochi, for if a person accepts this first precept – they will then necessarily comply with the Torah as a whole; profound belief will lead to profound observance. The reverse is true as well: through the performance of the mitzvot we will come to know God.[7] “The word laymor is therefore linked to Anochi : ‘Laymor (saying) Anochi,’ for this will lead to the performance of all the other Commandments. And when you fulfill the Commandments, you will discover Anochi - God.” Our verse, then, should be rendered thus: ‘God spoke all of these things in order to bring the Jews to say (or comprehend) “Anochi”.[8]
The Shem Mishmuel (Rav Shmuel Bornstein) explains the superfluous ‘laymor’ in our verse from a different angle. Elsewhere in his commentary, Rashi cites a tradition that all the of the Ten Commandments were transmitted simultaneously – “in one utterance.” With their limited, human sensory capacity, the Jews were incapable of grasping this type of Divine speech. In order for them to understand the content of God’s communication, says the Shem Mishmuel, it was necessary for Moshe to speak, to relay the Word of God in a more human form, just as he did on all the other occasions when the text includes the term laymor, “saying”.[9]
Revelation and Response
This tradition notwithstanding, Rashi himself offers a different explanation for the idiosyncratic language of this particular verse. Rashi addresses the problem of laymor with a somewhat enigmatic comment:
רש"י על שמות פרק כ פסוק א
לאמר - מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן ועל לאו לאו
This teaches that in response to the positive Commandments they said “yes” and to the negative commandments they said “no” (Rashi Shmot 20:1).
Laymor , “saying”, indicates that the people responded with a resounding “Yes!” when they received positive Commandments, and with a heartfelt “No!” when the Commandment was in the negative form (a prohibition). Yet Rashi’s comment leaves none the wiser as to the exact meaning or purpose of the words of our verse, since we still do not know what precisely the word “laymor” refers to, and what the significance of the Peoples’ response is.
Looking back to Rashi’s source, we find a difference of opinion in the Mechilta; Rashi cites the view ascribed to Rabbi Yishmael.
מכילתא פרשת בחדש פרשה ד
לאמר. שהיו אומרי' על הן הן ועל לאו לאו דברי רבי ישמעאל. רבי עקיבא אומר על הן הן ועל לאו הן.
They would respond “Yes” to positive Commandments and “No” to negative Commandments; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva (disagrees and) says that to the positive Commandments they responded “Yes” and to the negative commandments they responded “Yes”.
We should address two distinct issues raised by this source and Rashi’s treatment of it. First, what exactly is the disagreement between the two Talmudic authorities? Secondly, why does Rashi cite the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, given the Talmudic principle that Rabbi Akiva’s is the decisive, accepted opinion in all cases of disagreement with his contemporaries?[10] The Maharal, and later, Rabbi Soloveitchik both explain the argument: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael agree that regarding the positive commandments the Jewish People responded and said “yes we will” – for example, when God said ‘Remember the Sabbath Day to sanctify it’, the people responded, “yes we will”. The difference of opinion is regarding the negative commandments. Rabbi Yishmael taught that “do not murder” was rejoined with “no (we will not murder)”. While Rabbi Akiva taught that the people said “yes, (we will not murder)”.[11] There is a deep philosophical question at the heart of this seemingly trivial difference of opinion, summed up by Rav Soloveitchik as follows:
Should performance of a mitzvah result from an extraneous norm imposed upon finite man by the infinite, inscrutable Will of G-d, or should performance result from an inner urge whose realization enhances life and exalts the personality? This dichotomy [is often expressed as the central issue] of "metzuveh ve'oseh", whether reward is greater for one who performs a mitzvah as a result of an imperative or for one whose observance results from personal initiative. [12] Rabbi Akiva’s opinion expresses a very distinct approach to this question. He maintained that B'nei Yisrael's response was yes to all pronouncements, including the negative ones. In other words, their response was, "we surrender to Your will, we accept the norm, we shall comply with it". Even though the negative precepts are acceptable to and sanctioned by any civilized society, they require commitment and surrender to G-d nonetheless. Without surrender to Anochi, moral behavior is removed from the sphere of observance. God is taken out of the equation. The result is homocentric morality, observance of commandments that are socially acceptable at any given time or place.
Rabbi Akiva therefore maintained that morality must not rely solely on man's cognitive abilities, even in regard to mishpatim, since certain domains are inaccessible to human moral exploration and illumination. Yet the entire structure of morality would collapse should society actually permit their violation.”[13]
Rabbi Yishmael’s view is quite different. When they respond “no” to prohibitions – such as, “No, we will not murder,” they acknowledge that murder is wrong. Indeed, according to Rabbi Yishmael, the people already believe murder is wrong. The Word of God confirms what they already know. There exists, according to this opinion, “natural moral law”, and this, too, is part of the Revelation.
Rabbi Akiva’s understanding of the acceptance of Torah is far more arduous and demanding: Man goes against his nature, man does not necessarily agree with the value statement or judgment, yet he accepts the Word of God, the authority of God. The People’s response, “Yes” to both positive and negative Commandments, removes observance from the sphere of human morality and places it exclusively in the realm of obedience, acquiescence to God’s command.
When explaining the text of the Torah, Rashi takes into account the reality of that particular moment at Mount Sinai. There, the Jewish People experience God firsthand. In the context of such an overwhelming experience, Rabbi Yishmael’s view may have made more sense to Rashi: When God speaks directly to the Jews, as individuals and as a society, the logic and morality of each and every Commandment, positive and negative, is unavoidable. Everything is illuminated, crystal-clear. Torah, when presented in this way, is obvious and perfect. [14] At that particular, unique moment in history, acceptance and obedience, practice and theory are indivisible. At that moment, responding “no” to prohibitions was both a statement of agreement and of obedience, for there was no gap between the two. Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion was the more appropriate one in Rashi’s eyes because it most faithfully explained the verse itself. [15]
On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva’s explanation is more apt for subsequent generations, for whom obedience, submission to the Word of God and the rejection of moral relativism is the very core of true observance. When the words are not accompanied by thunder and lightning, we accept the law even when its logic escapes us.[16] Rabbi Akiva believed that acceptance of the Torah is predicated upon accepting the Yoke of Heaven: whether we understand or not, we accept. Whether we desire what is forbidden or not, we obey.
Whether we say “Yes we will”, “no we won’t”, or “yes, we won’t” we speak as a response to the theophony. Whether we still hear the echoes of the Divine words, or if the thunder and lightning have abated, we accept the Torah, in every generation – whether or not we agree completely or understand completely - because sometimes we can only understand after we obey. We hope and pray that what we don’t understand will become clear when we live a life of Torah.
[1] See Shmot 19:9:
ספר שמות פרק יט
(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ וְגַם בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם וַיַּגֵּד משֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל ה’:
God tells Moshe that He will speak to him from the cloud so that the nation will witness this speech. The implication is that the main beneficiary of the Divine word at Sinai was Moshe, and the others were there to see God speak to Moshe. This approach may be supported by the Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed, Part 2 Chapter 35, where the Rambam delineates the supremacy of Moshe’s prophecy.
[2] Many of the commentaries note this textual difficulty, including the Maharal in the Gur Aryeh, and the Mizrachi, and Rav Dovid Halevi in the Taz, Rav Zadok of Lublin in Pri Zadik, and others.
פרוש הט"ז על התורה - שמות פרק כ פסוק א
לאמר, מלמד שהיו עונין כו'. דכל לאמר הוא שיחזור השומע ויאמר לאחר מה ששמע הוא וכאן שמעו כל ישראל ולמי יצטרכו לחזור ולהגיד. וכן בכ"מ שאין שייך שם לומר לאחרים צריך פירוש על מלת לאמר:
ספר פרי צדיק פרשת יתרו - אות יא
[יא] וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר. תיבת לאמר לכאורה אין לו פירוש כאן
[3] The Sfat Emet makes this point on numerous occasions. See Sfat Emet Yitro 5640, Yitro 5641 and Shavuot 5647
שפת אמת ספר שמות - פרשת יתרו - שנת [תרמ"א]
ברש"י לאמר שהיו עונין על הן הן כו'. הוא ענין תורה שבע"פ שאומרים וחיי עולם נטע בתוכינו והוא העדות שהתורה מיוחדת לבנ"י שנמשכו מיד אחר הדברות. והוא כענין אין טפה יורדת משמים שאין טיפיים עולות לנגדה. וע"ז דרשו חז"ל ה' עוזי ומעוזי. שהתורה נק' עוז. ומעוזי הוא כח התורה שבע"פ. שהגם שהחכמים מוציאין בחכמתם. הוא רק כח הש"י שנטע בתוכינו:
שפת אמת ספר שמות - פרשת יתרו - שנת [תר"מ]
לכן כ' יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' כו' כמלאכים שנק' עומדים כו'. והמכוון שבנ"י יאמרו וימשכו אותן הדיברות מדרגה אחר מדרגה עד שיתקרבו כל הברואים. כי חיות הכל בתורה. ותיקון הכל בכח התורה. וז"ש לאמר שצריך כל אדם מישראל להעיד בכל יום על הבורא ית' כמ"ש שמע ישראל פעמים בכל יום. ודברים אלו מאירין לכל העולם ולכל הברואים. וברש"י לאמר מלמד שהיו עונין על הן הן כו'. והיינו שאין דיברות הבורא ית' כדיברות ב"ו. רק הדיברות היו חקוקים בלבם. והיינו דכ' רואים את הקולות. היינו בלבם ראו שנתקיים מיד. וניתקנו נפשותם שנמשכו אחר הדיברות. וזהו ענין תורה שבע"פ שכ' חיי עולם נטע בתוכינו שנבללו דברי תורה בנפשותם. וז"ש ומעוזי. היינו שנעשו מעצמות בנ"י תורה שנק' עוז:
שפת אמת ספר במדבר - לשבועות - שנת [תרמ"ז]
וז"ש וידבר כו' לאמר. פרש"י שהיו עונין על הן כו'. פי' שהקב"ה נתן דיבורו בפיהם של ישראל שיוכלו להוציא מעינות מים חיים מן התורה. וזהו ענין תורה שבע"פ ה' האמירך וע"ז כתיב דברי אשר שמתי בפיך כי שימה הוא סידור שבפי איש ישראל מתיישבין הדברי'.
[4] Chapter of the Fathers 3:2,6
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ג
אֲבָל שְׁנַיִם שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְיֵשׁ בֵּינֵיהֶם דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי יְיָ אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב יְיָ וַיִּשְׁמָע וַיִּכָּתֵב סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֹן לְפָנָיו לְיִרְאֵי יְיָ וּלְחשְׁבֵי שְׁמוֹ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שְׁנָיִם. מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ שָׂכָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איכה ג), יֵשֵׁב בָּדָד וְיִדֹּם כִּי נָטַל עָלָיו:
(ו) רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בֶן דּוֹסָא אִישׁ כְּפַר חֲנַנְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשָׂרָה שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה, שְׁכִינָה שְׁרוּיָה בֵינֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב), אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת אֵל. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ חֲמִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עמוס ט), וַאֲגֻדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁלשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פב), בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹהִים יִשְׁפֹּט. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי ה' אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב ה' וַיִּשְׁמָע וְגוֹ'. וּמִנַּיִן אֲפִלּוּ אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ), בְּכָל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ:
Mishnah 2. But [when] two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, the shechinah abides among them, as it is said: ‘Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon his name.’ I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the shechinah] except [among] two, whence [is there proof that] even [when there is only] one [person]. The Holy One, Blessed be He, appoints unto him a reward? Since it is said: ‘Though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself.’
Mishnah 6. R. Halafta [a man) of K’far Hanania said: [When there are] ten sitting together and occupying themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: ‘God stands in the congregation of God.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there are] five? [from] that which is said: ‘And He has founded His band upon the earth.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there are three?] [From] that which is said: ‘In the midst of the judges he judges.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [where there are] two? [From] that which is said: ‘Then they that fear the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened, and heard etc.’ And whence [do we infer that the same applies] even [when there is] one? [From] that which is said: ‘In every place where I cause my Name to be mentioned I will come unto you and bless you.’
[5] See Talmud Bavli Brachot 5a, Talmud Yerushalmi Peah chapter 2 Halcha 4 (17a)
תלמוד בבלי מסכת ברכות דף ה עמוד א
ואמר רבי לוי בר חמא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש: מאי דכתיב +שמות כ"ד+ ואתנה לך את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם, לחות - אלו עשרת הדברות, תורה - זה מקרא, והמצוה - זו משנה, אשר כתבתי - אלו נביאים וכתובים, להרתם - זה תלמוד; מלמד שכולם נתנו למשה מסיני.
תלמוד ירושלמי פיאה פרק ב דף יז עמוד א /ה"ד
רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר עליהם ועליהם כל ככל דברים הדברים מקרא משנה תלמוד ואגדה אפילו מה שתלמיד וותיק עתיד להורות לפני רבו כבר נאמר למשה בסיני מה טעם יש דבר שיאמ' ראה זה חדש הוא וגו' משיבו חבירו ואומר לו כבר היה לעולמים
Talmud Bavli Brachot 5a - R. Levi b. Hama says further in the name of R. Simeon b. Lakish: What is the meaning of the verse: ‘And I will give you the tablets of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written that you may teach them? ‘Tablets of stone’: these are the Ten Commandments; ‘the law’: this is the Pentateuch; ‘the commandment’: this is the Mishnah; ‘which I have written’: these are the Prophets and the Hagiographa; ‘that you may teach them’: this is the Gemara. It teaches [us] that all these things were given to Moshe on Sinai.
[6] See Igra D’kala page 201a
ספר אגרא דכלה - דף רא/א
והוא סוד מלכותך מלכות כל עולמים (תהלים קמה יג). והנה המדרש הזה בא לבאר וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה לאמ"ר. דקשה למה אמר כל הדברים. וגם מהו הלאמר. והנה בא לבאר לנו ענין הלאמר הוא השי"ת דבר בקדשו כללות דברי תורה דברים כוללים שיתאמרו בכל דור ודור כל ימי עולם, היינו בדברי נותן התורה כלול כל מה שתלמיד ותיק עתיד לחדש, ובכל דור ודור כל חכם לב בישראל, זה מחדש ומוליד דבר זה, וזה דבר חידוש אחר, הכל מדברי אלקים חיים זה מחדש ומוליד דבר וכו', בכל פעם שכל משכל ומושכל ממושכל כמדליק נר מנר.
[7] Maor VaShemesh, Parshat Yitro.
ספר מאור ושמש - פרשת יתרו ד"ה איתא
איתא במדרש רבה זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו. נוכל לפרש על פי ששמעתי מפה הקדוש הרב רבינו אלימלך זצוק"ל על פסוק וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך כי לכאורה מלת לאמר הוא כמיותר. ופירש הוא ז"ל שהקב"ה נתן לנו התורה והמצות וכל התורה כולה הוא כלול באנכי ה' אלהיך כי זה עיקר הכל אם אדם מקבל אלהותו יתברך שמו עליו על ידי זה הוא שומר ומקיים את כל התורה שלא לעבור על לא תעשה חלילה ומקיים המצות עשה וכל התורה והמצות הם נתיב אשר על ידם נוכל לידע מאלהותו יתברך שמו, וזהו וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך פירוש שבכלל אנכי הוא כל התורה כולה ולכן דבר הקב"ה כל דיבור ודיבור בפני עצמו כדי שנוכל לבא על ידו שנדע אלהותו יתברך שמו. וזהו וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה כדי לאמר אנכי ה' אלהיך כלומר על ידי קיום המצות והתורה נוכל להשיג השגות אלהותו יתברך שמו, וכל התורה כולה היא תלויה באנכי דהיינו אם האדם מאמין באלהותו ממילא בודאי מקיים התורה והמצות כראוי ואם חלילה אינו מאמין באלהותו ממילא אינו רוצה לקיים התורה והמצות.
[8]This train of thought has significant ramifications for modern Jewish education: How can we break into this circle of teaching and observance; which comes first, theory or observance? In the “normal” situation, a child is drawn into the world of mitzvoth as cognition allows that particular practice to be performed. For thousands of years, children learned how to perform mitzvoth by observing their surroundings, and acquired theoretical or philosophical insight as they developed in their practice. In today’s world there are those whose first experience of observance is in adulthood. The onset of observance and learning are not always able to be lock-stepped, for there are some commandments that can’t be performed until one understands the ideas, and some ideas that can’t be understood until performed. Not all mitzvoth are the same. Additionally, not all people are the same. Different people connect with different mitzvot naturally and spontaneously, while others may be out of reach, or less easily incorporated or understood.
[9] Shem Mishmuel Yitro 5672
ספר שם משמואל פרשת יתרו - שנת תרע"ב
וידבר אלקים את כל הדברים האלה. פירש"י מלמד שאמר הקב"ה עשרת הדברות בדבור אחד וכו', מה ת"ל עוד אנכי ולא יהי' לך שחזר ופירש על כל דיבור ודיבור בפני עצמו: ונראה דמה שאמר תחילה כל הדברות בדבור אחד לא הבינו ישראל כלל מדהצריך לחזור ולומר כל דבור ודבור בפני עצמו. ועוד הרי אמרו בש"ס ר"ה (כ"ז.) זכור ושמור בדיבור אחד נאמרו מה שאין הפה יכול לדבר ואין האוזן יכולה לשמוע, ומכ"ש כל עשרת הדברות ביחד. וא"כ יש להבין מה תועלת היתה לדבור זה הכללי. ונראה דשורש הנשמה טרם באה בהתחלקות החושים, ואולי היא בחי' יחידה,
[10] Talmud Bavli Eruvin 46a
תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף מו/ב
אמרו הלכה כרבי עקיבא מחבירו
[11] Maharal Tiferet YIsrael chapter 34.
ספר תפארת ישראל - פרק לד
וקאמר ר' ישמעאל שהיו אומרים על הן הן ועל לאו לאו, באור זה כי היו מקבלים כל דבור כפי מה שהוא כי כאשר אמר אנכי היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור לומר כי כך נעשה, וכאשר אמר לא יהיה לך קבלו עליהם הדבור לא יהיה לנו אלהים אחרים כפי אשר היה הדבור היו מקבלים עליהם הדבור. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר כאשר אמר להן אנכי וגו' היו מקבלין עליהן הדבור לומר כי כך נעשה, וכאשר אמר לא יהיה לך קבלו גם כן הן כלומר דבר זה כמו שגזרת עלינו. על דעת ר"י היה הקבלה מחולקת לעשה ולא תעשה, ולדעת רבי עקיבא היה קבלה אחת רק כך נעשה כמו שגזרת. וטעם רבי ישמעאל כי צריך שתהיה קבלת הגזרה כאשר היא עצם הגזרה בעצמה, אם הגזרה לעשות דבר כך הקבלה לעשות דבר זה, ואם הגזרה שלא לעשות דבר זה קבלת הגזרה כך גם כן שלא לעשות דבר זה. אבל רבי עקיבא סבר שאין קבלת הגזרה רק לקבל בלבד הגזרה תהיה הגזרה מה שהיא הגזרה, ולכך היו אומרים על לאו ועל הן קבלת הגזרה בענין אחד, והיינו שאמרו הן כי דבר זה הוא מצד המקבל שהוא מקבל עליו כל מה שיאמר הגוזר לדבר שלא יעשה או מה שיעשה אין צריך רק שיקבל שהוא מוכן לעשות רצון הגוזר וזה שיאמר הן. ודי בזה:
[12]Lecture presented to the Rabbinical Council of America by Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik on June 22, 1972.The Rav indicated that if in this dispute the choice were his, he would be guided by the rule, "Halacha keRebbe Akiva", and would accept Akiva's interpretation. “Surrender and obedience are most necessary,
not only for chukim but for mishpatim as well…. With regards to the sin of murder, man, no matter what persuasion, faith or ideology indignantly condemns the murderer and the act of murder. Yet, what about a situation which Dostoevsky portrayed so vividly in Crime and Punishment? The book depicts a cruel, miserly old woman who is a loan shark sucking the blood of those unfortunates caught in her web; a person who evicts the old and frail on a winter day in below zero temperatures. In sharp contrast, also depicted is a brilliant young student who cannot afford to continue his medical studies and who hopelessly watches his sister being sold into white slavery and exiled to some oriental country. A loan of a few hundred rubles could have remedied his problems, yet the old woman refused to lend him the money. In a moment of despair the student kills the miser. Do we have the right to condemn the student? Should we consider such a murder a crime? Again the answer is Rabbi Akiva's 'hen'; the Almighty has forbidden murder, whatever the motive…
[13] ibid.
[14] Perhaps this is the meaning of the Gemara that at Sinai God upended the mountain and held it over the heads of the people, forcing them to accept the Torah. I would suggest that this passage is not to be taken literally; rather, when God spoke to them, they had no choice but to accept the Torah. See Talmud Bavli Shabbat 88a.
תלמוד בבלי מסכת שבת דף פח/א
ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר אמר רב אבדימי בר חמא בר חסא מלמד שכפה הקדוש ברוך הוא עליהם את ההר כגיגית ואמר להם אם אתם מקבלים התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם תהא קבורתכם
[15] Rashi sees his mandate to explain the text of the Torah, and will choose the Halachic opinion that fits into the plain reading most easily. See Rashi on Bereishit 33:20
רש"י על בראשית פרק לג פסוק כ
ודברי תורה כפטיש יפוצץ סלע מתחלקים לכמה טעמים ואני ליישב פשוטו של מקרא באתי.
[16] Rabbi Soloveitchik in this lecture introduced a concept known as efshi, ei efshi, The Rambam in his commentary to the Mishna, in the introduction to Avot (shmoneh prakim) writes that there some laws that are perfectly natural, and religiously acceptable to desire, like eating milk and meat, wearing shatnez, certain sexual laws, a person may feel that he or she desires to break these laws, but they surrender to God and abstain. There are other laws like murder, that a person should know is wrong and not desire.
רמב"ם פירוש המשניות - שמנה פרקים להרמב"ם - פרק ו
וכאשר חקרנו דברי חכמים בזה הענין, נמצא להם שהמתאוה לעבירות ונכסף אליהן הוא יותר חשוב ויותר שלם מאשר לא יתאוה אליהן ולא יצטער בהנחתן, עד שאמרו, שכל אשר יהיה האדם יותר חשוב ויותר שלם תהיה תשוקתו להעבירות והצטערו בהנחתן יותר גדולות. והביאו בזה הדברים ואמרו (סוכה נ"ב) "כל הגדול מחברו יצרו גדול הימנו", ולא דים זה, עד שאמרו, ששכר המושל בנפשו גדול לפי רוב צערו במשלו בנפשו, ואמרו (אבות פרק ב') "לפום צערא אגרא". ויותר מזה, שהם צוו להיות האדם מתאוה לעבירות, עד שהזהירו מלומר, שאני בטבעי לא אתאוה לזאת העבירה, ואף על פי שלא אסרה התורה, והוא אמרם (ספרא קדושים), "רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, לא יאמר אדם אי אפשי לאכול בשר בחלב, אי אפשי ללבוש שעטנז, אי אפשי לבא על הערוה, אלא אפשי ומה אעשה ואבי שבשמים גזר עלי". ולפי המובן מפשוטי שני המאמרים בתחלת המחשבה הם סותרים זה את זה, ואין הענין כן, אבל שניהם אמת ואין מחלוקת ביניהם כלל, והוא שהרעות אשר הן אצל הפילוסופים רעות, אשר אמרו, שמי שלא יתאוה אליהן יותר חשוב מן המתאוה אליהן ויכבוש את יצרו מהן, הם הענינים המפורסמים אצל כל בני אדם שהם רעים כשפיכת דמים, כגנבה וגזלה, ואונאה, ולהזיק למי שלא הרע לו, ולגמול רע למטיב לו, ולבזות אב ואם וכיוצא באלו, והן המצוות שאמרו עליהן חכמים זכרונם לברכה, (יומא ס"ז) שאילו לא נכתבו ראויות הן ליכתב, ויקראו אותן קצת חכמינו האחרונים, אשר חלו חלי. המדברים מצוות השכליות. ואין ספק שהנפש אשר תכסף לדבר מהן ותשתוקק אליו, שהיא חסרה ושהנפש החשובה לא תתאוה לאחת מאלו הרעות כלל, ולא תצטער בהמנעה מהן.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Parshat B’shalach
Parshat B’shalach
© 2009 Rabbi Ari Kahn
The Eleventh Plague
With the ten plagues behind them, the Jews leave Egypt and head to Mount Sinai. In fact, Sinai had been on the itinerary from the outset of the Exodus story; a critical stop on the way to the Promised Land, Mount Sinai was one of the objectives of the Exodus.
שמות פרק ג
(ח) וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּלְהַעֲלֹתוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא אֶל אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה וּרְחָבָה אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ אֶל מְקוֹם הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי:…(יב) וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה:
(Shmot) 3:8 I will come down (or, I am descending) to rescue them from the grip of Egypt and bring them up out of that land to a good, spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, the territory of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Yevusites….3:12 'Because I will be with you,' replied [God]. 'And this will be the sign that I have sent you: When you take the People out of Egypt you will all then serve God on this mountain.'
When God first spoke to Moshe and empowered him to act as His messenger, the events that would unfold at Sinai were foretold. But after Pharoh relents, and before they reach Sinai, another major event occurs, an event whose nature is unclear. How are we to understand the splitting of the sea? Each step they take from the moment they are freed leads them both one step further from Egypt and one step closer to the Revelation at Sinai. How, then, should we view the events at the sea? Is this an introduction to the Sinai experience or the final chapter of leaving Egypt?
While the topic of this week’s parsha is a direct continuation of the preceding chapter, there is nonetheless a shift. This ambiguity requires the modern reader to shed some rather ingrained preconceptions: At no time, in no way does the Torah state that there will be ten plagues. This is a man-made categorization. We are so accustomed to seeing ten plagues, that the splitting of the sea is automatically assigned a category of its own, sui generis, unique and separate. The events of Parshat B’shalach are assumed to be distinct from those of the preceding parsha, apart from the ten plagues that are organically connected to leaving Egypt. But why? Why is the splitting of the sea seen as a separate event and not as the eleventh plague?
It may be instructive to take a step back and view the larger framework: The events at Sinai are conceptually divided between two elements: the Revelation itself, and the content of that Revelation - the experience of seeing the heavens open and hearing the voice of God, on the one hand, and the concepts which were imparted through that experience, on the other. Similarly, at the splitting of the sea we may discern two distinct elements. The Egyptians experienced punishment on a scale previously unknown to them, while the Israelites experienced revelation:
ספר שמות פרק טו
(ב) עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי לִי לִישׁוּעָה זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמֲמֶנְהוּ:
My strength and song is God And this is my deliverance; This is my God, I will enshrine Him, My father's God and I will exalt Him. (Shmot 15:2)
Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק טו פסוק ב
זה אלי - בכבודו נגלה עליהם והיו מראין אותו באצבע ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראו נביאים:
‘This is my God’ – He was revealed to them in His glory, and they saw and pointed to Him with their own finger. A maidservant at the [splitting of the] sea saw what the prophets did not see. (Rashi Shmot 15:2)
The splitting of the sea was not just a devastating blow for the Egyptians, nor was it exclusively a moment of salvation for the Jews. The Jews, as a Nation, saw a vision of God, a manifestation of His might. This was a moment of confirmation, a “pre-Revelation revelation”, as it were. The hand of God was clearly seen, as God appeared ready for battle as a “Man of war”, and they pointed to Heaven in awe:
ספר שמות פרק טו
(ג) ה’ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה’ שְׁמוֹ:
God is the Master of war, God is His name. (Shmot 15:3)
This week’s parsha is therefore a conduit, a corridor of history, in which punishment is transformed into revelation. Cause and effect, God’s active involvement in human history, the unique relationship between God and His Chosen People all become clear in this crystallizing moment, as the Jewish People inch closer to Sinai.
The parsha begins…
(יז) וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה: (יח) וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: (יט) וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ כִּי הַשְׁבֵּעַ הִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם וְהַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי מִזֶּה אִתְּכֶם:
13:17 When Pharaoh let the people leave, God did not lead them via the Philistine land, although it was the shorter route. God's consideration was that if the people encountered armed resistance, they would lose heart and return to Egypt. 13:18 God therefore made the people take a roundabout path, by way of the desert to the Red Sea. And the Israelites were armed when they left Egypt. 13:19 Moshe took Yosef's remains with him, for Yosef had bound the Israelites by an oath: 'God will grant you special providence, and you must then bring my remains out of here with you.' (Shmot 13:17-19)
When the Jews start their journey, apparently they are not quite ready to go, for God takes them on a circuitous route, lest they see war and turn back to Egypt. Ironically, they leave armed; the Israelites thought they were ready for battle, but God knew better.[1]
Verse 19, though seemingly somewhat out of context, may in fact reflect upon the “armaments” with which the Jews were equipped: While the Children of Israel take up their primitive arms for protection, Moshe takes Yosef’s remains, which, as we shall see, were more likely the catalyst for the splitting of the sea.
The next two verses seem to foreshadow the giving of the Torah:
(כ) וַיִּסְעוּ מִסֻּכֹּת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר: (כא) וה’ הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה: (כב) לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה לִפְנֵי הָעָם:
13:20 [The Israelites] moved on from Sukkot, and they camped in Etam, at the edge of the desert. 13:21 God went before them by day with a pillar of cloud, to guide them along the way, and by night with a pillar of fire, providing them with light so they could travel day and night. 13:22 The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night never left [their position] in front of the people. (Shmot 13:20-22)
The connection between these verses and those surrounding the giving of the Torah is both symbolic and linguistic. First, the clouds hovering above remind us of the clouds that engulfed the mountain at the Revelation. Second, the word yamush (depart) used here is a word which is rarely used in Tanach, but more often than not is associated with Torah, [2] as in describing Yehoshua’s dedication to his master Moshe:
ספר שמות פרק לג
(ט) וְהָיָה כְּבֹא משֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם משֶׁה: (י) וְרָאָה כָל הָעָם אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כָּל הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ: (יא) וְדִבֶּר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וְשָׁב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וּמְשָׁרֲתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל:
33:9 When Moshe went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the tent's entrance, and [God] would speak to Moshe. 33:10 When the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tent's entrance, the people would rise, and each one would bow down at the entrance of his tent. 33:11 God would speak to Moshe face to face, just as a person speaks to a close friend. [Moshe] would then return to the camp. But his aid, the young man, Joshua son of Nun, did not leave the tent. (Shmot 33:9-11)
This passage, in which we find both the symbol of the cloud and the expression of constant dedication, yamush, also includes elements that we see in the splitting of the sea, as well as elements we later find associated with the experience of Torah learning: Later in the parsha, after the revelation at the sea, after the song of joy and thanks Moshe and all the people sing to God, the Jewish People receive their first taste of Torah.
ספר שמות פרק טו
(כב) וַיַּסַּע משֶׁה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם סוּף וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל מִדְבַּר שׁוּר וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מָיִם: (כג) וַיָּבֹאוּ מָרָתָה וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת מַיִם מִמָּרָה כִּי מָרִים הֵם עַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ מָרָה: (כד) וַיִּלֹּנוּ הָעָם עַל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר מַה נִּשְׁתֶּה: (כה) וַיִּצְעַק אֶל ה’ וַיּוֹרֵהוּ ה’ עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ:
15:22 Moshe led the Israelites away from the Red Sea, and they went out into the Shur Desert. They traveled for three days in the desert without finding any water. 15:23 Finally, they came to Marah, but they could not drink any water there. The water was bitter (marah), and that was why the place was called Marah. 15:24 The people complained to Moshe. 'What shall we drink?' they demanded. 15:25 [Moshe] cried out to God, and He instructed him [regarding] a certain tree. [Moshe] threw it into the water, and the water became drinkable. It was here that he was given law and statute, and here he was tested (uplifted). (Shmot 15:22-25)
רש"י על שמות פרק טו פסוק כה
(כה) שם שם לו - במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהם שבת ופרה אדומה ודינין (סנהדרין מ):
Immediately following the splitting of the waters and the “Song of the Sea”, a national event occurred, which reverberates in our collective experience to this very day. The People of Israel receive Torah, and share a collective learning experience. At this juncture, the Jews have traveled three days’ distance from the site of their first revelation – the splitting of the sea – and they are thirsty. What they seek is more than physical sustenance. They beg for a continued revelation, an ongoing dialogue with God, and they are given certain Torah laws – hok u’mishpat. From that day forth, Jews do not allow an interval of three days to transpire between public readings of the Torah. This spiritual sustenance uplifted them, allowed them to face the trials and challenges that lay ahead.
This reading of the verse associates water with Torah. Yet the text remains somewhat impenetrable: The water they found was bitter, and became sweet after God’s instructions were followed. The Zohar draws a parallel to the bitter waters used to test woman suspected of infidelity. According to the Zohar, the very foundations of Jewish life had been shaken by the servitude in Egypt. A cloud of suspicion hung over the community, as husbands and wives suspected their spouses of sexual misconduct as a means of personal survival during the period of their slavery. The atmosphere of mistrust and guilt was paralyzing, embittering. At Marah, the bitter waters of the sotah ritual were administered to all of the people, and they emerged with a clean bill of spiritual health. What began as a ritual of blame and suspicion gave way to reconciliation, rapprochement, family and communal healing and unity. The water was sweetened, and the first precepts of Torah were received. Here, too, a spiritual corridor is created, moving the People from punishment to confirmation, from jealousy and distrust to a highly personal understanding of Torah law as the Word of God, from personal and communal estrangement to a unique perception of God’s involvement in personal and national history.
This transformation had to take place on their way to Sinai, for in order to receive the Torah, unity is required. When they stand at Sinai, the Jewish People stand as one. The core of this unity is the Jewish family. Suspicion and jealousy are contrary to the atmosphere needed for the Torah to be brought down from heaven.[3] The text points this out with a dramatic shift from the plural to the singular (which is imperceptible in translation):
שמות פרק יט
(ב) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר:
19:2 They departed from Rephidim and arrived in the Sinai Desert, camping in the wilderness. And Israel (literally, he – singular form) camped opposite the mountain. (Shmot 19:2)
רש"י על שמות פרק יט פסוק ב
ויחן שם ישראל - כאיש אחד בלב אחד אבל שאר כל החניות בתרעומות ובמחלוקת (מכילתא):
And Israel camped there: As one man with one heart. But in their other places of encampment, there was argument and discord. (Rashi Shmot 19:2)
Arriving at the foot of Mount Sinai, they have come a long way spiritually. They have experienced a revelation, they have received laws and statutes, and re-established the foundations of their personal and national relationships. All along this route, the terminology used to describe the processes they undergo is reminiscent of the Revelation at Sinai.
We should not overlook another telling use of the language of unity describing the pre-Sinai encampment: The Israelites were on their way out of Egypt, perhaps hoping and praying that they would never lay eyes on their abusive masters again. Then, it happens: Pharoh is closing in on them, with what looks like all of Egypt in pursuit:
ספר שמות פרק יד
(י) וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל ה’:
14:10 And Pharoh drew near, and the Israelites looked up and saw Egypt riding after them, and they became very frightened and the Children of Israel screamed to God. (Shmot 14:10)
Once again, the translation of this verse does an injustice to the interplay of plural and singular: Pharoh is closing in on them and Egypt, referred to in the singular, is in hot pursuit. The text might more properly have read “the legions of Egypt” or “the chariots of Egypt”. Why refer to Egypt in the singular? Here, too, Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק יד פסוק י
נוסע אחריהם - בלב אחד כאיש אחד.
‘Riding after them’: With one heart as one man. (Rashi Shmot 14:10)
Rashi’s allusion is unmistakable: The glorious unity experienced by the Jews as a prerequisite to receiving the Torah - “As one man with one heart” - is here, too, among the Egyptian pursuers – but in reverse, “With one heart as one man”.[4] The Egyptians are unified by their hearts’ desires and unite to achieve that goal, while the Israelites are united as a People and are therefore willing to put aside their desires to maintain their unity. The encampment at the foot of Mount Sinai was unique, for here we became one.
An earlier encampment, between Egypt and the sea, also draws our attention:
ספר שמות פרק יד
(א) וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: (ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָשֻׁבוּ וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי פִּי הַחִירֹת בֵּין מִגְדֹּל וּבֵין הַיָּם לִפְנֵי בַּעַל צְפֹן נִכְחוֹ תַחֲנוּ עַל הַיָּם: (ג) וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר:
14:1 God spoke to Moshe, saying, 14:2 'Speak to the Israelites and tell them to turn back and camp before Pi haHirot (Freedom Valley?), between Migdol (Tower?) and the sea, facing Ba’al Zefon (Lord-of-the-North?). Camp opposite it, near the sea. 14:3 Pharaoh will then say to (i.e., regarding) the Israelites ‘They are lost in the area and trapped in the desert.’ (Shmot 14:1-3)
Here they are told to encamp at a place called “Pi haHirot”, which is most literally translated as “the mouth of freedom”. Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק יד פסוק ב
ויחנו לפני פי החירות - (מכילתא) הוא פיתום ועכשיו נקרא פי החירות על שם שנעשו בני חורין והם שני סלעים גבוהים זקופים והגיא שביניהם קרוי פי הסלעים:
[Pi haHirot] is Pitom, and at this point it is called Pi haHirot because here the Israelites became free men. They are two tall upright rocks, and the canyon between them is called “the mouth of the rocks.” (Rashi Shmot 14:2)
Rashi identifies the specific locale as Pitom, one of the areas built by the sweat of Jewish slaves and now known as ‘the mouth of freedom’, the place where the slaves became free. Passing through this place allowed the erstwhile slaves to achieve emotional or existential freedom, traveling as a free nation through a towering symbol of their servitude. Now, they would not build, would not obey a slave-master; now they could admire, reminisce, sigh - and move on.
The name given to this new-old landmark, Pi haHirot, is similar to the word used to describe the engraved writing on the Tablets given on Sinai, harut. When discussing the verses that describe the Tablets of Stone, the Talmud teaches that we should not read harut (engraved), rather herut (freedom), “for only one who is involved in Torah is truly free”.[5] The linguistic similarity in the case of the Tablets is clearly a Midrashic rendering of two words that sound similar despite their different root spellings (the root of the word for engraving is spelled with the letter ‘tet, whereas the root for freedom is spelled with a ‘taf). In our present case, the similarity is more firmly grounded –hirot and herut are spelled with the same letters, and are thus more closely related. We have alternative definition of this word, no other more convincing reading of this place-name: Here, as they pass through, they become free.[6]
There are several elements of the description of this place that are disturbing. Rashi describes the pi (“mouth”) as a formation of two tall upright rocks forming a canyon or natural outlet, a mouth. While this seems innocuous enough, Rashi’s comments on the verse do not end there. The next few words of the verse, “before Baal Tzafon” leave the reader with a more troubling image:
רש"י שמות פרק יד פסוק ב
לפני בעל צפן - הוא נשאר מכל אלהי מצרים, כדי להטעותן, שיאמרו קשה יראתן. ועליו פירש איוב (איוב יב כג) משגיא לגוים ויאבדם:
Before Baal Tzafon: For he was the last remaining god of Egypt, so as to mislead the Egyptians so that they should say their deity is durable. Regarding this (continued existence of Baal Tzafon), Job explained, “He leads nations astray and He destroys them.” (Rashi Shmot 14:2)
Pi haHirot is before Baal Tzafon – the last of Egypt’s various gods left standing. The Mechilta[7] examines the geological formation of this area in terms of the Egyptian pantheon: These rocks had a very specific connotation, appearing as male and female. The shrine to Egypt’s hold-out deity is a fertility symbol. And it is there that the Israelites find freedom.
It is no accident that the enslavement of the Jews took place in Egypt. Egypt was more than just a superpower in that era; it was the epicenter of immorality. Sinking to the “49th level of impurity” is not surprising in a place like Egypt. Time and again, the Torah enjoins us not to follow the practices of Egypt.[8] Egypt was a place of sexual depravity, as far back as our ancestors’ experience reaches: In our first visit to Egypt, Sarah is wrested from Avraham. In the next visit, the wife of Potiphar throws herself at Yosef; Talmudic tradition teaches that Potiphar himself had designs on Yosef[9] (which may explain why Potiphar’s wife was lonely and forlorn).
This was the crucible into which the Children of Israel were thrown. If the Jews are to make a difference in the world, they must make an impact in a society like Egypt. Alternatively, so long as Egypt prospers, the impact of Jews will be limited.
The Torah framework for the rejection of immorality is quite telling:
ספר ויקרא פרק יח
(ג) כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ:
18:3 Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs. (Vayikra 18:3)
The ways and mores of Egypt and Canaan are to be rejected. This should come as no surprise, for these nations share a common denominator, in quite a literal sense. Egypt and Canaan are descendents of brothers, sons of Cham, another individual whose morals were corrupt.
The Sages offer details as to the specific types of behaviors included in the prohibition to reject Egyptian and Canaanite ways. The Sifra lists the corrupt behaviors common in Egypt: men would marry men, women would marry women, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, a woman would marry two men.[10] Significantly, all the examples are in the realm of sexuality. In fact, the verse which commands us not to follow the ways of Egypt is the introductory statement to the Torah chapter dealing with forbidden relationships. The Midrash[11] traces the roots of sexually deviant behavior back to the generation of the flood; eventually, the flood formed a huge mikvah[12] to purge and cleanse the world of these sins.
Egypt is corrupt. One manifestation of this corruption is the slave economy, the empire built on feet of clay. The despotism of Pharoh, the evil and inhumane treatment of the slaves and the genocidal decrees imposed upon a subservient population are economic expressions of deep-rooted corruption. Leaving Egypt means uprooting this immoral socio-economic construct. But there is another element to leaving Egypt: the Jews were extricated from a society built around sexual depravity.
Freedom came in stages: walking out of Egypt, walking through the sea, drinking the sweetened waters, standing at Sinai. Each of these steps freed them from another aspect of their servitude in Egypt, and each brought them one step closer to complete liberation.[13] Passing through Pi haHirot, facing the Egyptian god with its image of male and female, was another step toward freedom - freedom from the corrupt sexual mores of Egypt.
This observation brings us full circle, back to the beginning of the parsha. When they left Egypt, the Jews were “armed”; they thought they were ready for battle. In fact, they did not know what battle they would be fighting. They may not have been fully aware of the extent to which Egyptian morality had made inroads; they were unaware of the different facets of slavery from which they would have to be freed. God took them on a circuitous route, one that would walk them through various stages toward true liberation - knowing that they were not prepared for the battles they would face.
God continued to protect them until the penultimate scene of the parsha. Here, they once again find themselves without water, and experience a spiritual crisis of a different sort. They begin to question whether God is in their midst or not. On this backdrop, Amalek arrives on the scene.
ספר שמות פרק יז
וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּדְבַּר סִין לְמַסְעֵיהֶם עַל פִּי ד' וַיַּחֲנוּ בִּרְפִידִים וְאֵין מַיִם לִשְׁתֹּת הָעָם… וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל משֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא...(ז) וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת ד' לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ ד’ בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן:(ח) וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם:
And all the congregation of the People of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, in their journeys according to the commandment of God, and camped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink.3. And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moshe, and said, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? 7. And he called the name of the place Massah u’Merivah, because of the quarrel of the People of Israel, and because they tested God, saying, Is God among us, or not? 8. Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
In Moshe’s retrospective of this episode, in Devarim, we are offered further insight into the mindset of the people. The feeling that God might not be with them, which precipitates the attack, is projected onto Amalek:
ספר דברים פרק כה
(יז) זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם: (יח) אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים: (יט) וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ד’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ד’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח:
17. Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came out of Egypt; 18. How he happened upon you by the way, and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and did not fear God. 19. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget. (Dvarim 25:17-19)
Rashi offers three explanations of the word used to describe what exactly Amalek did: korcha is a singular word, appearing nowhere else in Tanakh, a verb which Rashi posits may be derived from three different roots. One is from the word kar, meaning cold: the Amalekites “cooled” the Jews off. After leaving Egypt and witnessing miracles, receiving their first dose of revelation, embarking on the path of Torah observance, the Jews were “red hot” with enthusiasm and zeal. The Amalekites cooled off their enthusiasm.
The second interpretation of korcha is related to happenstance, from the word mikreh: Amalek “happened” upon them. The Jews began to see the world as happenstance; they experienced a moment of doubt regarding God’s continued involvement in history. They felt God was not an active part of their day-to-day lives at this point; the world was one of mikreh –chance or coincidence.
The third interpretation is from the word keri, which means a seminal emission. This is based on a Midrash which teaches that Amalek’s attack included deviant sexual practice, which culminated in mutilation of the male organ. Although grotesque, this view articulates a more profound idea: The timing of Amalek’s attack was not random. The Jews stood at the cusp of Sinai. A new age of morality was about to descend on the world. Amalek, the descendent of Esav, rejected limits, rejected rules, rejected the very idea of self-restraint upon which morality is built. Circumcision, the ultimate symbol of self-control, was abhorrent to Amalek, and it was this symbol they attacked.
When the Israelites left Egypt, they armed themselves with primitive weapons, under the illusion that they were ready to fight. Moshe took something else, something that would provide victory in this type of war; something that represented morality and self-control. He took the remains of Yosef.
The Yalkut Shimoni teaches that the sea was split due to the merit of Yosef: When he ran out of the house of Potiphar, escaping the advances of his master’s wife, the term used is vayanas: he fled. This is precisely the phrase used to describe the splitting of the sea:[14]
בראשית פרק לט
(יב) וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ לֵאמֹר שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי וַיַּעֲזֹב בִּגְדוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וַיָּנָס וַיֵּצֵא הַחוּצָה:
She grabbed him by his cloak. 'Lie with me!' she pleaded. Leaving his cloak in her hand, he fled and ran outside. (Bereishit 39:12)
תהלים פרק קיד פסוק ג
הַיָּם רָאָה וַיָּנֹס הַיַּרְדֵּן יִסֹּב לְאָחוֹר:
The sea saw it, and fled; the Jordan was driven back. (Psalms 114:3.)
ילקוט שמעוני בראשית - פרק לט - רמז קמו
ותתפשהו בבגדו וג' וינס ויצא החוצה. קפץ בזכות אבות כד"א ויוצא אותו החוצה. שמעון איש קטרון אומר בזכות עצמותיו של יוסף קרע הים לפני ישראל שנאמר הים ראה וינוס בזכות וינס ויצא החוצה.
Just as Yosef fled the grasp of Mrs. Potiphar, the sea fled at the sight of Yosef’s remains, receding and exposing a dry path for the Jews. This is not some sort of magical response to the remains of Yosef. The impact Yosef’s spiritual identity still had on the community is what turned the tide – literally and figuratively. Yosef left an invaluable spiritual legacy behind: He displayed tremendous spiritual fortitude in the various unenviable situations in which he found himself after being sold into slavery. In fact, it was the sale of Yosef that brought the entire family to Egypt. Yosef’s life, then, was both a model of moral integrity and a challenge, a constant reminder of the dangers of divisiveness and disunity. Redemption from Egypt must necessarily address both of these elements: Salvation stems from recognition and internalization of Yosef’s moral heroism. At the same time, the sale of Yosef by his brothers must somehow be reversed. Unity must be achieved, healing the division in the community most acutely expressed by the sale of a brother.
Going into Egypt, the Jews were a family divided. The harsh image of the brothers breaking bread as Yosef screamed from the pit is one of the most tragic scenes in the Torah. The Passover seder, when we sit and break bread as a family and tell the story of the slavery and the Exodus, must be part of a Tikkun, rectification of the division within the community. At Pi Hahirot, Egypt was united, with one heart: they were united in passion, for this was a place that represented the passion of idolatry wrapped up with sexual licentiousness. The Jews will need to pass through this place in order to become free: They will need to be tested, just as Yosef was tested and as Yosef’s brothers were tested.
In fact, they are successful in both aspects of the test. They pass through Pi Hahirot and arrive at the sea, and nature is upended: The sea yields in the presence of Yosef, who withstood his own human nature in his extraordinary escape from temptation. Significantly, it is Moshe who carries Yosef out, invoking this great moral role-model. Moshe is from the tribe of Levi, who along with Shimon were Yosef’s greatest adversaries. This is an important step toward healing the rift, reuniting the family of Israel, and becoming whole.
Leaving Egypt was not easy. It required physical, emotional and religious transformation. The path through Pi Hahirot may at first glance have seemed a counter-intuitive choice: it might have empowered the Egyptians, for it was the focal point of their depravity. But this is precisely why this route was the most appropriate corridor, leading to our collective transformation: Here, the Jews saw the work of their own hands at Pitom, and as they crossed near the symbol of Egyptian depravity, in fact it was the Jews who were empowered. They became impervious to this idolatry. This was the path from Egypt to Sinai. It was paved with liberation, revelation, and transformation.
From Pi Hahirot the Jews crossed through the waters of Yam Suf, immersing in what would normally have been a mikva. But because of the route they had travelled to arrive there, the Jews had already achieved holiness and did not need the waters to purify them. Significantly, the events at the sea take place on the seventh day after they left Egypt, the day husband and wife are reunited after she immerses in the mikva. The Zohar[15] takes this idea even further, describing the seven week period between Pesach and Shavuot, between Exodus and Revelation, as a time of purification and preparation, linking the counting of the omer to the counting of a woman’s seven clean days before immersion and reuniting with her husband.
At Sinai, each family, each husband and wife, and consequently the community as a whole, stood, once again, “as one person with one heart”. They had corrected the interpersonal rift at Marah, and the tribal rift at the splitting of the sea. And at the foot of Mount Sinai, at that very moment of unity, Moshe relays a strange law: Husbands and wives are to separate in preparation for the Revelation. For Sinai will symbolize a new marriage, both between man and God, and between each couple. They will begin again, begin anew, in a union based on holiness. Through this act of separation, through this act of self-restraint, they all become holy – they all become like Yosef. They are all ready to receive the Torah, one unified nation, conceived in holiness – and completely free.
[1] Rashi offers two interpretations for chamushim: first, that they were armed, and second, that only one of five Israelites (one fifth of the total Jewish population) left Egypt.
[2] See Yehoshua 1:8
יהושע פרק א
(ח) לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכָל הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ כִּי אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ וְאָז תַּשְׂכִּיל:
[3] It is interesting that when the Jews sin with the Golden Calf, they are made to drink the ground up pieces, which is also reminiscent of the bitter water ordeal. See Shmot 32:20
[4] See the Shem M’shmuel who notices the term and explains that the Egyptians were given this unity for a holy purpose, namely to induce the Israelites to repent and come closer to God.
ספר שם משמואל פרשת וישלח - שנת תרפ"א
ודומה לזה הגיד כ"ק אבי אדמו"ר זללה"ה בהא דכתיב על הים וישאו בנ"י את עיניהם והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם וייראו מאד וגו', שלכאורה איננו מובן מה היתה היראה הלא כבר ראו אותות ומופתים למכביר. אך ברש"י והנה מצרים בלב אחד כאיש אחד, וידוע שזה לא נמצא בטומאה שהם ענפין מתפרדין, ע"כ כשראו שהמצרים הם בלב אחד כאיש אחד, חשבו שבודאי יש אצלם עתה כחות קדושה ומזה נתיראו, אך האומנם שהי' כן שכ"ז הי' מפאת כחות קדושה, אבל הי' זה כדי לקרב לבם של ישראל לתשובה ולא ח"ו לעזור למצרים, עכ"ד. וכן י"ל נמי בהא דנתירא יעקב, מפני שחשב שבודאי יש כחות קדושה עם עשו, ובאמת שגם זה כך הי' בשביל שנתאוה הקב"ה לתפלתו של יעקב ע"כ נשלחו לעשו כחות קדושה:
[5] See Talmud Bavli Eruvin 54a and Pirkie Avot 6:2
תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף נד עמוד א
ואמר רבי (אליעזר) ]מסורת הש"ס: אלעזר]: מאי דכתיב )שמות ל"ב( חרות על הלחת - אלמלי לא נשתברו לוחות הראשונות לא נשתכחה תורה מישראל. רב אחא בר יעקב אמר: אין כל אומה ולשון שולטת בהן, שנאמר חרות אל תיקרי חרות אלא חירות:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ו
ואומר והלוחות מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלוחות אל תקרא חרות אלא חירות שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה וכל מי שעוסק בתורה תדיר הרי זה מתעלה שנאמר )במדבר כ"א י"ט( וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות:
[6] Certain mystical sources see the passage through the sea as a national rebirth experience, as they travel, physically and symbolically into a new stage of existence through a wondrous passageway between the waters.
[7] Midrashic sources describe the geographic formation of these rocks. See Mechilta Bshalach 5:1 for a description which evokes the image of the keruvim:
מכילתא פרשת בשלח פרשה א
וישובו ויחנו לפני פי החירות. מה חירות הללו לא היו משופעות אלא גדודיות ולא היו תרוטות אלא מוקפות ולא היו עגולות אלא מרובעות ולא היו מעשה אדם אלא מעשה שמים ועיני' היו להם לפותחו' כמן זכר וכמן נקיבה היו דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי יהושע אומר החירות מצד זה ומגדול מצד זה הים לפניה' ומצרים לאחריה'. דבר אחר פי החירות אין חירות אלא מקום חירותן של ישראל מקום מובחר להם מקום עבודה זרה שלהם. לשעבר היתה נקראת פיתום שנאמר שמות א' ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה את פיתום ואת רעמסס חזרו להם להקראת פי החירות שהיא מאחרת לעובדיה.
[8] Vayikra 18:3. See below.
[9] See Talmud Bavli Sotah 13b
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף יג עמוד ב
ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה - אמר רב: שקנאו לעצמו. (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו, מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר, ולבסוף פוטיפרע.
[10] Sifra Acharei Mot section 8.
ספרא פרשת אחרי מות פרשתא ח
ח) אי כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען לא תעשו יכול לא יבנו בניינים ולא יטעו נטיעות כמותם תלמוד לומר ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו לא אמרתי אלא בחוקים החקוקים להם ולאבותיהם ולאבות אבותיהם. ומה היו עושים האיש נושא לאיש והאשה לאשה האיש נושא אשה ובתה והאשה ניסת לשנים לכך אמר ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו:
[11] See Midrash Rabba Vayikra 23:9
מדרש רבה ויקרא פרשה כג פסקה ט
תני רבי ישמעאל כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען לא תעשו וגו' ואם לאו אני ה' אלהיכם תני רבי חייא למה אני ה' כתיב שני פעמים אני הוא שפרעתי מדור המבול ומסדום וממצרים אני עתיד ליפרע ממי שהוא עושה כמעשיהם דור המבול נמחו מן העולם ע"י שהיו שטופין בזנות אמר רבי שמלאי כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות אנדרלמוסיא באה לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים רב הונא בשם רבי יוסי אמר דור המבול לא נמחו מן העולם אלא ע"י שכתבו גומסיות לזכר ולנקבה ר' עזריה בשם רבי יהודה ברבי סימון וריב"ל בשם בר קפרא מצינו שעל הכל הקב"ה מאריך רוחו חוץ מן הזנות בלבד ואית ליה קריין סגיין שנא' (בראשית ו) ויהי כי החל האדם ויראו בני האלהים את בנות האדם וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם ויאמר ה' אמחה את האדם סדומיים ריב"ל בשם בר קפרא אמר כל אותו הלילה היה לוט עומד ומדבר עליהם סניגוריא כיון שבאו ואמרו לו (שם יט) איה האנשים ונדעה אותם בתשמיש מיד ויאמרו האנשים אל לוט עוד מי לך פה עד כאן היה לך פתחון פה ללמד עליהם סניגוריא אלא חתן בניך ובנותיך כי משחיתים אנחנו אני ה' אני הוא שנפרעתי משמשון ומאמנון ומזמרי ועתיד אני ליפרע ממי שיעשה כמעשיהם אני הוא ששלמתי ליוסף ליעל ולפלטי בן ליש אני עתיד לשלם שכר למי שעושה כמעשיהם
9. R. Ishmael taught: AFTER THE DOINGS OF THE LAND OF EGYPT... AND AFTER THE DOINGS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN... SHALL YE NOT DO, etc. (XVIII, 3), otherwise, I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD (ib. 4). R. Hiyya taught: Why is I AM THE LORD written twice? It implies: I am He who inflicted punishment upon the Generation of the Flood, upon Sodom, and upon Egypt, and I am the same who will inflict punishment upon any one who will act in accordance with their practices. The Generation of the Flood were blotted out from the world because they were steeped in whoredom. R. Samlai observed: In every instance where you find the prevalence of whoredom, an androlepsia1 comes upon the world and slays both good and bad. R. Huna says in the name of R. Jose: The Generation of the Flood were only blotted out of the world on account of their having written hymenean songs for sodomy. R. ‘Azariah in the name of R. Judah son of R. Simeon and R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Bar Kappara say: We find that the Holy One, blessed be He, is long-suffering towards every offence except whoredom, and there are numerous texts to bear this out; as it says, And came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth... that the sons of God saw the daughters of men... and they took them wives... And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great... And the Lord said: I will blot out man (Gen. VI, 1 ff). What of the Sodomites? R. Joshua son of Levi in the name of Bar Kappara said: During the whole of the night in question Lot was busy pleading on their behalf, but when they came and said to him: Where are the men... bring them out unto us, that we may know them (ib. XIX, 5)--’know them,’ that is to say, carnally--then forthwith The men said unto Lot: Hast thou here (poh) any besides? (ib. 12). By ’poh’ they as much as said: Until this moment you had a pretext (pithhon peh) for pleading in their favour, but now Son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters... bring them out of the place; for we will destroy this place (ib. 13 f). ’I am the Lord’ implies: I am He who inflicted punishment upon Samson, Amnon, and Zimri, and who will in the inflict punishment upon any one who will act in accordance with their practices. I am He who requited Joseph, Jael, and Palti the son of Laish, and I will in the future pay reward to any one who acts in accordance with their deeds.
[12] The third place which was included to form an unholy trinity with the generation of the flood and Egypt, was Sodom was cleansed with lava and fire, not water. Generally there are connections, thematic and linguistic, between Sodom and Egypt.
[13] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica in his Mei Shiloach Parshat Bshalach, suggests that the male/female image of Pi haHirot was an expression of the pagan perspective of freedom as a lack of law or structure. To the pagan mind, Pi haHirot was a place of freedom because there laws applied, sexually was not limited or regulated.
ספר מי השילוח - פרשת בשלח
וישובו ויחנו לפני פי החירות, ענין כח הטומאה של ע"ז הזאת היא קליפת זנות והיתה דמות זכר ונקבה, וע"כ קראו שמה פי החירות כי אצל האומות נראה שבמקום שיוכל להתפשט ולעשות כל תאות לבו שם הוא בן חורין, ע"כ נאמר ואמר פרעה נבוכים הם בארץ כו'. היינו כשיגיעו לפני ע"ז הלזו יהיה נראה שהם משועבדים מאחר שהם מוגדרים מאוד בזאת התאוה, אך באמת הוא להיפך שהם משועבדים לזה הדבר. שהרי מאחר שאין לבם ברשותם אשר השכל ימשול עליהם רק תאותם מושלת עליהם אין לך משעבוד גדול מזה:
[14] See Shem Mshmuel Bshalach 5675: Faith (emunah) is what causes the sea to be split, creating a parallel with the hands of Moshe, which are called emunah, in the defeat of Amalek.
ספר שם משמואל פרשת בשלח - שנת תרע"ה
ע"כ ויסב אלקים את העם דרך המדבר ים סוף, ואמצעות האמונה שהלכו אחריו למדבר בלי מזון ומחי', ואח"כ כששבו ויחנו לפני פי החירות ולא אמרו היאך נתקרב אל רודפינו כדי שלא לשבור את לב הטף והנשים אלא אמרו אין לנו אלא דברי בן עמרם, וכן על הים שנכנסו למים עד חוטמם, זה עצמו הי' מירוק לפגם השכל, במה שבטלו את שכלם לרצון הש"י, זה השלים מה שהי' חסר מפאת חוסר הזמן עד ד' מאות שנה, ונעשו ראויים למ"ת, ואלמלא העגל לא היו צריכין עוד לשום מירוק. אך אמונה זו לא כ"כ קלה היא ולא כל הרוצה ליטול את השם יבוא ויטול, אלא ע"י שהיו שומרי הברית, ובסוד (ישעי' ס') ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ והבן. וזה ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, וזהו שבמדרש (פ' כ"ב) בזכות האמונה נקרע להם הים, ועוד אמרו בשביל ארונו של יוסף נקרע הים כי זה תלוי בזה:
[15] Zohar Vayikra 97b
Just as a woman then has to count seven days, so now God bade the Israelites count days for purity. They were to count for themselves, so as to be purified with supernal holy waters, and then to be attached to the King and to receive the Torah. The woman had to count seven days, the people seven weeks. Why seven weeks? That they might be worthy to be cleansed by the waters of that stream which is called living waters, and from which issue seven Sabbaths. When Israel drew near to Mount Sinai, that dew that descends from the supernal Point came down in its fullness and purified them so that their filth left them and they became attached to the Holy King and the Community of Israel and received the Torah, as we have explained.
© 2009 Rabbi Ari Kahn
The Eleventh Plague
With the ten plagues behind them, the Jews leave Egypt and head to Mount Sinai. In fact, Sinai had been on the itinerary from the outset of the Exodus story; a critical stop on the way to the Promised Land, Mount Sinai was one of the objectives of the Exodus.
שמות פרק ג
(ח) וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם וּלְהַעֲלֹתוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא אֶל אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה וּרְחָבָה אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ אֶל מְקוֹם הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי:…(יב) וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ וְזֶה לְּךָ הָאוֹת כִּי אָנֹכִי שְׁלַחְתִּיךָ בְּהוֹצִיאֲךָ אֶת הָעָם מִמִּצְרַיִם תַּעַבְדוּן אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים עַל הָהָר הַזֶּה:
(Shmot) 3:8 I will come down (or, I am descending) to rescue them from the grip of Egypt and bring them up out of that land to a good, spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, the territory of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Yevusites….3:12 'Because I will be with you,' replied [God]. 'And this will be the sign that I have sent you: When you take the People out of Egypt you will all then serve God on this mountain.'
When God first spoke to Moshe and empowered him to act as His messenger, the events that would unfold at Sinai were foretold. But after Pharoh relents, and before they reach Sinai, another major event occurs, an event whose nature is unclear. How are we to understand the splitting of the sea? Each step they take from the moment they are freed leads them both one step further from Egypt and one step closer to the Revelation at Sinai. How, then, should we view the events at the sea? Is this an introduction to the Sinai experience or the final chapter of leaving Egypt?
While the topic of this week’s parsha is a direct continuation of the preceding chapter, there is nonetheless a shift. This ambiguity requires the modern reader to shed some rather ingrained preconceptions: At no time, in no way does the Torah state that there will be ten plagues. This is a man-made categorization. We are so accustomed to seeing ten plagues, that the splitting of the sea is automatically assigned a category of its own, sui generis, unique and separate. The events of Parshat B’shalach are assumed to be distinct from those of the preceding parsha, apart from the ten plagues that are organically connected to leaving Egypt. But why? Why is the splitting of the sea seen as a separate event and not as the eleventh plague?
It may be instructive to take a step back and view the larger framework: The events at Sinai are conceptually divided between two elements: the Revelation itself, and the content of that Revelation - the experience of seeing the heavens open and hearing the voice of God, on the one hand, and the concepts which were imparted through that experience, on the other. Similarly, at the splitting of the sea we may discern two distinct elements. The Egyptians experienced punishment on a scale previously unknown to them, while the Israelites experienced revelation:
ספר שמות פרק טו
(ב) עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי לִי לִישׁוּעָה זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמֲמֶנְהוּ:
My strength and song is God And this is my deliverance; This is my God, I will enshrine Him, My father's God and I will exalt Him. (Shmot 15:2)
Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק טו פסוק ב
זה אלי - בכבודו נגלה עליהם והיו מראין אותו באצבע ראתה שפחה על הים מה שלא ראו נביאים:
‘This is my God’ – He was revealed to them in His glory, and they saw and pointed to Him with their own finger. A maidservant at the [splitting of the] sea saw what the prophets did not see. (Rashi Shmot 15:2)
The splitting of the sea was not just a devastating blow for the Egyptians, nor was it exclusively a moment of salvation for the Jews. The Jews, as a Nation, saw a vision of God, a manifestation of His might. This was a moment of confirmation, a “pre-Revelation revelation”, as it were. The hand of God was clearly seen, as God appeared ready for battle as a “Man of war”, and they pointed to Heaven in awe:
ספר שמות פרק טו
(ג) ה’ אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה ה’ שְׁמוֹ:
God is the Master of war, God is His name. (Shmot 15:3)
This week’s parsha is therefore a conduit, a corridor of history, in which punishment is transformed into revelation. Cause and effect, God’s active involvement in human history, the unique relationship between God and His Chosen People all become clear in this crystallizing moment, as the Jewish People inch closer to Sinai.
The parsha begins…
(יז) וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם וְלֹא נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים פֶּן יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה: (יח) וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם: (יט) וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה אֶת עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף עִמּוֹ כִּי הַשְׁבֵּעַ הִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם וְהַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת עַצְמֹתַי מִזֶּה אִתְּכֶם:
13:17 When Pharaoh let the people leave, God did not lead them via the Philistine land, although it was the shorter route. God's consideration was that if the people encountered armed resistance, they would lose heart and return to Egypt. 13:18 God therefore made the people take a roundabout path, by way of the desert to the Red Sea. And the Israelites were armed when they left Egypt. 13:19 Moshe took Yosef's remains with him, for Yosef had bound the Israelites by an oath: 'God will grant you special providence, and you must then bring my remains out of here with you.' (Shmot 13:17-19)
When the Jews start their journey, apparently they are not quite ready to go, for God takes them on a circuitous route, lest they see war and turn back to Egypt. Ironically, they leave armed; the Israelites thought they were ready for battle, but God knew better.[1]
Verse 19, though seemingly somewhat out of context, may in fact reflect upon the “armaments” with which the Jews were equipped: While the Children of Israel take up their primitive arms for protection, Moshe takes Yosef’s remains, which, as we shall see, were more likely the catalyst for the splitting of the sea.
The next two verses seem to foreshadow the giving of the Torah:
(כ) וַיִּסְעוּ מִסֻּכֹּת וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר: (כא) וה’ הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה: (כב) לֹא יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה לִפְנֵי הָעָם:
13:20 [The Israelites] moved on from Sukkot, and they camped in Etam, at the edge of the desert. 13:21 God went before them by day with a pillar of cloud, to guide them along the way, and by night with a pillar of fire, providing them with light so they could travel day and night. 13:22 The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire at night never left [their position] in front of the people. (Shmot 13:20-22)
The connection between these verses and those surrounding the giving of the Torah is both symbolic and linguistic. First, the clouds hovering above remind us of the clouds that engulfed the mountain at the Revelation. Second, the word yamush (depart) used here is a word which is rarely used in Tanach, but more often than not is associated with Torah, [2] as in describing Yehoshua’s dedication to his master Moshe:
ספר שמות פרק לג
(ט) וְהָיָה כְּבֹא משֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם משֶׁה: (י) וְרָאָה כָל הָעָם אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כָּל הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ: (יא) וְדִבֶּר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וְשָׁב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וּמְשָׁרֲתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל:
33:9 When Moshe went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the tent's entrance, and [God] would speak to Moshe. 33:10 When the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the tent's entrance, the people would rise, and each one would bow down at the entrance of his tent. 33:11 God would speak to Moshe face to face, just as a person speaks to a close friend. [Moshe] would then return to the camp. But his aid, the young man, Joshua son of Nun, did not leave the tent. (Shmot 33:9-11)
This passage, in which we find both the symbol of the cloud and the expression of constant dedication, yamush, also includes elements that we see in the splitting of the sea, as well as elements we later find associated with the experience of Torah learning: Later in the parsha, after the revelation at the sea, after the song of joy and thanks Moshe and all the people sing to God, the Jewish People receive their first taste of Torah.
ספר שמות פרק טו
(כב) וַיַּסַּע משֶׁה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם סוּף וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל מִדְבַּר שׁוּר וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מָיִם: (כג) וַיָּבֹאוּ מָרָתָה וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת מַיִם מִמָּרָה כִּי מָרִים הֵם עַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ מָרָה: (כד) וַיִּלֹּנוּ הָעָם עַל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר מַה נִּשְׁתֶּה: (כה) וַיִּצְעַק אֶל ה’ וַיּוֹרֵהוּ ה’ עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ:
15:22 Moshe led the Israelites away from the Red Sea, and they went out into the Shur Desert. They traveled for three days in the desert without finding any water. 15:23 Finally, they came to Marah, but they could not drink any water there. The water was bitter (marah), and that was why the place was called Marah. 15:24 The people complained to Moshe. 'What shall we drink?' they demanded. 15:25 [Moshe] cried out to God, and He instructed him [regarding] a certain tree. [Moshe] threw it into the water, and the water became drinkable. It was here that he was given law and statute, and here he was tested (uplifted). (Shmot 15:22-25)
רש"י על שמות פרק טו פסוק כה
(כה) שם שם לו - במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהם שבת ופרה אדומה ודינין (סנהדרין מ):
Immediately following the splitting of the waters and the “Song of the Sea”, a national event occurred, which reverberates in our collective experience to this very day. The People of Israel receive Torah, and share a collective learning experience. At this juncture, the Jews have traveled three days’ distance from the site of their first revelation – the splitting of the sea – and they are thirsty. What they seek is more than physical sustenance. They beg for a continued revelation, an ongoing dialogue with God, and they are given certain Torah laws – hok u’mishpat. From that day forth, Jews do not allow an interval of three days to transpire between public readings of the Torah. This spiritual sustenance uplifted them, allowed them to face the trials and challenges that lay ahead.
This reading of the verse associates water with Torah. Yet the text remains somewhat impenetrable: The water they found was bitter, and became sweet after God’s instructions were followed. The Zohar draws a parallel to the bitter waters used to test woman suspected of infidelity. According to the Zohar, the very foundations of Jewish life had been shaken by the servitude in Egypt. A cloud of suspicion hung over the community, as husbands and wives suspected their spouses of sexual misconduct as a means of personal survival during the period of their slavery. The atmosphere of mistrust and guilt was paralyzing, embittering. At Marah, the bitter waters of the sotah ritual were administered to all of the people, and they emerged with a clean bill of spiritual health. What began as a ritual of blame and suspicion gave way to reconciliation, rapprochement, family and communal healing and unity. The water was sweetened, and the first precepts of Torah were received. Here, too, a spiritual corridor is created, moving the People from punishment to confirmation, from jealousy and distrust to a highly personal understanding of Torah law as the Word of God, from personal and communal estrangement to a unique perception of God’s involvement in personal and national history.
This transformation had to take place on their way to Sinai, for in order to receive the Torah, unity is required. When they stand at Sinai, the Jewish People stand as one. The core of this unity is the Jewish family. Suspicion and jealousy are contrary to the atmosphere needed for the Torah to be brought down from heaven.[3] The text points this out with a dramatic shift from the plural to the singular (which is imperceptible in translation):
שמות פרק יט
(ב) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר:
19:2 They departed from Rephidim and arrived in the Sinai Desert, camping in the wilderness. And Israel (literally, he – singular form) camped opposite the mountain. (Shmot 19:2)
רש"י על שמות פרק יט פסוק ב
ויחן שם ישראל - כאיש אחד בלב אחד אבל שאר כל החניות בתרעומות ובמחלוקת (מכילתא):
And Israel camped there: As one man with one heart. But in their other places of encampment, there was argument and discord. (Rashi Shmot 19:2)
Arriving at the foot of Mount Sinai, they have come a long way spiritually. They have experienced a revelation, they have received laws and statutes, and re-established the foundations of their personal and national relationships. All along this route, the terminology used to describe the processes they undergo is reminiscent of the Revelation at Sinai.
We should not overlook another telling use of the language of unity describing the pre-Sinai encampment: The Israelites were on their way out of Egypt, perhaps hoping and praying that they would never lay eyes on their abusive masters again. Then, it happens: Pharoh is closing in on them, with what looks like all of Egypt in pursuit:
ספר שמות פרק יד
(י) וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל ה’:
14:10 And Pharoh drew near, and the Israelites looked up and saw Egypt riding after them, and they became very frightened and the Children of Israel screamed to God. (Shmot 14:10)
Once again, the translation of this verse does an injustice to the interplay of plural and singular: Pharoh is closing in on them and Egypt, referred to in the singular, is in hot pursuit. The text might more properly have read “the legions of Egypt” or “the chariots of Egypt”. Why refer to Egypt in the singular? Here, too, Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק יד פסוק י
נוסע אחריהם - בלב אחד כאיש אחד.
‘Riding after them’: With one heart as one man. (Rashi Shmot 14:10)
Rashi’s allusion is unmistakable: The glorious unity experienced by the Jews as a prerequisite to receiving the Torah - “As one man with one heart” - is here, too, among the Egyptian pursuers – but in reverse, “With one heart as one man”.[4] The Egyptians are unified by their hearts’ desires and unite to achieve that goal, while the Israelites are united as a People and are therefore willing to put aside their desires to maintain their unity. The encampment at the foot of Mount Sinai was unique, for here we became one.
An earlier encampment, between Egypt and the sea, also draws our attention:
ספר שמות פרק יד
(א) וַיְדַבֵּר ה’ אֶל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר: (ב) דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָשֻׁבוּ וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי פִּי הַחִירֹת בֵּין מִגְדֹּל וּבֵין הַיָּם לִפְנֵי בַּעַל צְפֹן נִכְחוֹ תַחֲנוּ עַל הַיָּם: (ג) וְאָמַר פַּרְעֹה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֻכִים הֵם בָּאָרֶץ סָגַר עֲלֵיהֶם הַמִּדְבָּר:
14:1 God spoke to Moshe, saying, 14:2 'Speak to the Israelites and tell them to turn back and camp before Pi haHirot (Freedom Valley?), between Migdol (Tower?) and the sea, facing Ba’al Zefon (Lord-of-the-North?). Camp opposite it, near the sea. 14:3 Pharaoh will then say to (i.e., regarding) the Israelites ‘They are lost in the area and trapped in the desert.’ (Shmot 14:1-3)
Here they are told to encamp at a place called “Pi haHirot”, which is most literally translated as “the mouth of freedom”. Rashi explains:
רש"י על שמות פרק יד פסוק ב
ויחנו לפני פי החירות - (מכילתא) הוא פיתום ועכשיו נקרא פי החירות על שם שנעשו בני חורין והם שני סלעים גבוהים זקופים והגיא שביניהם קרוי פי הסלעים:
[Pi haHirot] is Pitom, and at this point it is called Pi haHirot because here the Israelites became free men. They are two tall upright rocks, and the canyon between them is called “the mouth of the rocks.” (Rashi Shmot 14:2)
Rashi identifies the specific locale as Pitom, one of the areas built by the sweat of Jewish slaves and now known as ‘the mouth of freedom’, the place where the slaves became free. Passing through this place allowed the erstwhile slaves to achieve emotional or existential freedom, traveling as a free nation through a towering symbol of their servitude. Now, they would not build, would not obey a slave-master; now they could admire, reminisce, sigh - and move on.
The name given to this new-old landmark, Pi haHirot, is similar to the word used to describe the engraved writing on the Tablets given on Sinai, harut. When discussing the verses that describe the Tablets of Stone, the Talmud teaches that we should not read harut (engraved), rather herut (freedom), “for only one who is involved in Torah is truly free”.[5] The linguistic similarity in the case of the Tablets is clearly a Midrashic rendering of two words that sound similar despite their different root spellings (the root of the word for engraving is spelled with the letter ‘tet, whereas the root for freedom is spelled with a ‘taf). In our present case, the similarity is more firmly grounded –hirot and herut are spelled with the same letters, and are thus more closely related. We have alternative definition of this word, no other more convincing reading of this place-name: Here, as they pass through, they become free.[6]
There are several elements of the description of this place that are disturbing. Rashi describes the pi (“mouth”) as a formation of two tall upright rocks forming a canyon or natural outlet, a mouth. While this seems innocuous enough, Rashi’s comments on the verse do not end there. The next few words of the verse, “before Baal Tzafon” leave the reader with a more troubling image:
רש"י שמות פרק יד פסוק ב
לפני בעל צפן - הוא נשאר מכל אלהי מצרים, כדי להטעותן, שיאמרו קשה יראתן. ועליו פירש איוב (איוב יב כג) משגיא לגוים ויאבדם:
Before Baal Tzafon: For he was the last remaining god of Egypt, so as to mislead the Egyptians so that they should say their deity is durable. Regarding this (continued existence of Baal Tzafon), Job explained, “He leads nations astray and He destroys them.” (Rashi Shmot 14:2)
Pi haHirot is before Baal Tzafon – the last of Egypt’s various gods left standing. The Mechilta[7] examines the geological formation of this area in terms of the Egyptian pantheon: These rocks had a very specific connotation, appearing as male and female. The shrine to Egypt’s hold-out deity is a fertility symbol. And it is there that the Israelites find freedom.
It is no accident that the enslavement of the Jews took place in Egypt. Egypt was more than just a superpower in that era; it was the epicenter of immorality. Sinking to the “49th level of impurity” is not surprising in a place like Egypt. Time and again, the Torah enjoins us not to follow the practices of Egypt.[8] Egypt was a place of sexual depravity, as far back as our ancestors’ experience reaches: In our first visit to Egypt, Sarah is wrested from Avraham. In the next visit, the wife of Potiphar throws herself at Yosef; Talmudic tradition teaches that Potiphar himself had designs on Yosef[9] (which may explain why Potiphar’s wife was lonely and forlorn).
This was the crucible into which the Children of Israel were thrown. If the Jews are to make a difference in the world, they must make an impact in a society like Egypt. Alternatively, so long as Egypt prospers, the impact of Jews will be limited.
The Torah framework for the rejection of immorality is quite telling:
ספר ויקרא פרק יח
(ג) כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ:
18:3 Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow [any] of their customs. (Vayikra 18:3)
The ways and mores of Egypt and Canaan are to be rejected. This should come as no surprise, for these nations share a common denominator, in quite a literal sense. Egypt and Canaan are descendents of brothers, sons of Cham, another individual whose morals were corrupt.
The Sages offer details as to the specific types of behaviors included in the prohibition to reject Egyptian and Canaanite ways. The Sifra lists the corrupt behaviors common in Egypt: men would marry men, women would marry women, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, a woman would marry two men.[10] Significantly, all the examples are in the realm of sexuality. In fact, the verse which commands us not to follow the ways of Egypt is the introductory statement to the Torah chapter dealing with forbidden relationships. The Midrash[11] traces the roots of sexually deviant behavior back to the generation of the flood; eventually, the flood formed a huge mikvah[12] to purge and cleanse the world of these sins.
Egypt is corrupt. One manifestation of this corruption is the slave economy, the empire built on feet of clay. The despotism of Pharoh, the evil and inhumane treatment of the slaves and the genocidal decrees imposed upon a subservient population are economic expressions of deep-rooted corruption. Leaving Egypt means uprooting this immoral socio-economic construct. But there is another element to leaving Egypt: the Jews were extricated from a society built around sexual depravity.
Freedom came in stages: walking out of Egypt, walking through the sea, drinking the sweetened waters, standing at Sinai. Each of these steps freed them from another aspect of their servitude in Egypt, and each brought them one step closer to complete liberation.[13] Passing through Pi haHirot, facing the Egyptian god with its image of male and female, was another step toward freedom - freedom from the corrupt sexual mores of Egypt.
This observation brings us full circle, back to the beginning of the parsha. When they left Egypt, the Jews were “armed”; they thought they were ready for battle. In fact, they did not know what battle they would be fighting. They may not have been fully aware of the extent to which Egyptian morality had made inroads; they were unaware of the different facets of slavery from which they would have to be freed. God took them on a circuitous route, one that would walk them through various stages toward true liberation - knowing that they were not prepared for the battles they would face.
God continued to protect them until the penultimate scene of the parsha. Here, they once again find themselves without water, and experience a spiritual crisis of a different sort. They begin to question whether God is in their midst or not. On this backdrop, Amalek arrives on the scene.
ספר שמות פרק יז
וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּדְבַּר סִין לְמַסְעֵיהֶם עַל פִּי ד' וַיַּחֲנוּ בִּרְפִידִים וְאֵין מַיִם לִשְׁתֹּת הָעָם… וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל משֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא...(ז) וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת ד' לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ ד’ בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן:(ח) וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם:
And all the congregation of the People of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, in their journeys according to the commandment of God, and camped in Rephidim; and there was no water for the people to drink.3. And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moshe, and said, Why have you brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? 7. And he called the name of the place Massah u’Merivah, because of the quarrel of the People of Israel, and because they tested God, saying, Is God among us, or not? 8. Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
In Moshe’s retrospective of this episode, in Devarim, we are offered further insight into the mindset of the people. The feeling that God might not be with them, which precipitates the attack, is projected onto Amalek:
ספר דברים פרק כה
(יז) זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם: (יח) אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים: (יט) וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ד’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ד’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח:
17. Remember what Amalek did to you by the way, when you came out of Egypt; 18. How he happened upon you by the way, and struck at your rear, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and did not fear God. 19. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around, in the land which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance to possess, that you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget. (Dvarim 25:17-19)
Rashi offers three explanations of the word used to describe what exactly Amalek did: korcha is a singular word, appearing nowhere else in Tanakh, a verb which Rashi posits may be derived from three different roots. One is from the word kar, meaning cold: the Amalekites “cooled” the Jews off. After leaving Egypt and witnessing miracles, receiving their first dose of revelation, embarking on the path of Torah observance, the Jews were “red hot” with enthusiasm and zeal. The Amalekites cooled off their enthusiasm.
The second interpretation of korcha is related to happenstance, from the word mikreh: Amalek “happened” upon them. The Jews began to see the world as happenstance; they experienced a moment of doubt regarding God’s continued involvement in history. They felt God was not an active part of their day-to-day lives at this point; the world was one of mikreh –chance or coincidence.
The third interpretation is from the word keri, which means a seminal emission. This is based on a Midrash which teaches that Amalek’s attack included deviant sexual practice, which culminated in mutilation of the male organ. Although grotesque, this view articulates a more profound idea: The timing of Amalek’s attack was not random. The Jews stood at the cusp of Sinai. A new age of morality was about to descend on the world. Amalek, the descendent of Esav, rejected limits, rejected rules, rejected the very idea of self-restraint upon which morality is built. Circumcision, the ultimate symbol of self-control, was abhorrent to Amalek, and it was this symbol they attacked.
When the Israelites left Egypt, they armed themselves with primitive weapons, under the illusion that they were ready to fight. Moshe took something else, something that would provide victory in this type of war; something that represented morality and self-control. He took the remains of Yosef.
The Yalkut Shimoni teaches that the sea was split due to the merit of Yosef: When he ran out of the house of Potiphar, escaping the advances of his master’s wife, the term used is vayanas: he fled. This is precisely the phrase used to describe the splitting of the sea:[14]
בראשית פרק לט
(יב) וַתִּתְפְּשֵׂהוּ בְּבִגְדוֹ לֵאמֹר שִׁכְבָה עִמִּי וַיַּעֲזֹב בִּגְדוֹ בְּיָדָהּ וַיָּנָס וַיֵּצֵא הַחוּצָה:
She grabbed him by his cloak. 'Lie with me!' she pleaded. Leaving his cloak in her hand, he fled and ran outside. (Bereishit 39:12)
תהלים פרק קיד פסוק ג
הַיָּם רָאָה וַיָּנֹס הַיַּרְדֵּן יִסֹּב לְאָחוֹר:
The sea saw it, and fled; the Jordan was driven back. (Psalms 114:3.)
ילקוט שמעוני בראשית - פרק לט - רמז קמו
ותתפשהו בבגדו וג' וינס ויצא החוצה. קפץ בזכות אבות כד"א ויוצא אותו החוצה. שמעון איש קטרון אומר בזכות עצמותיו של יוסף קרע הים לפני ישראל שנאמר הים ראה וינוס בזכות וינס ויצא החוצה.
Just as Yosef fled the grasp of Mrs. Potiphar, the sea fled at the sight of Yosef’s remains, receding and exposing a dry path for the Jews. This is not some sort of magical response to the remains of Yosef. The impact Yosef’s spiritual identity still had on the community is what turned the tide – literally and figuratively. Yosef left an invaluable spiritual legacy behind: He displayed tremendous spiritual fortitude in the various unenviable situations in which he found himself after being sold into slavery. In fact, it was the sale of Yosef that brought the entire family to Egypt. Yosef’s life, then, was both a model of moral integrity and a challenge, a constant reminder of the dangers of divisiveness and disunity. Redemption from Egypt must necessarily address both of these elements: Salvation stems from recognition and internalization of Yosef’s moral heroism. At the same time, the sale of Yosef by his brothers must somehow be reversed. Unity must be achieved, healing the division in the community most acutely expressed by the sale of a brother.
Going into Egypt, the Jews were a family divided. The harsh image of the brothers breaking bread as Yosef screamed from the pit is one of the most tragic scenes in the Torah. The Passover seder, when we sit and break bread as a family and tell the story of the slavery and the Exodus, must be part of a Tikkun, rectification of the division within the community. At Pi Hahirot, Egypt was united, with one heart: they were united in passion, for this was a place that represented the passion of idolatry wrapped up with sexual licentiousness. The Jews will need to pass through this place in order to become free: They will need to be tested, just as Yosef was tested and as Yosef’s brothers were tested.
In fact, they are successful in both aspects of the test. They pass through Pi Hahirot and arrive at the sea, and nature is upended: The sea yields in the presence of Yosef, who withstood his own human nature in his extraordinary escape from temptation. Significantly, it is Moshe who carries Yosef out, invoking this great moral role-model. Moshe is from the tribe of Levi, who along with Shimon were Yosef’s greatest adversaries. This is an important step toward healing the rift, reuniting the family of Israel, and becoming whole.
Leaving Egypt was not easy. It required physical, emotional and religious transformation. The path through Pi Hahirot may at first glance have seemed a counter-intuitive choice: it might have empowered the Egyptians, for it was the focal point of their depravity. But this is precisely why this route was the most appropriate corridor, leading to our collective transformation: Here, the Jews saw the work of their own hands at Pitom, and as they crossed near the symbol of Egyptian depravity, in fact it was the Jews who were empowered. They became impervious to this idolatry. This was the path from Egypt to Sinai. It was paved with liberation, revelation, and transformation.
From Pi Hahirot the Jews crossed through the waters of Yam Suf, immersing in what would normally have been a mikva. But because of the route they had travelled to arrive there, the Jews had already achieved holiness and did not need the waters to purify them. Significantly, the events at the sea take place on the seventh day after they left Egypt, the day husband and wife are reunited after she immerses in the mikva. The Zohar[15] takes this idea even further, describing the seven week period between Pesach and Shavuot, between Exodus and Revelation, as a time of purification and preparation, linking the counting of the omer to the counting of a woman’s seven clean days before immersion and reuniting with her husband.
At Sinai, each family, each husband and wife, and consequently the community as a whole, stood, once again, “as one person with one heart”. They had corrected the interpersonal rift at Marah, and the tribal rift at the splitting of the sea. And at the foot of Mount Sinai, at that very moment of unity, Moshe relays a strange law: Husbands and wives are to separate in preparation for the Revelation. For Sinai will symbolize a new marriage, both between man and God, and between each couple. They will begin again, begin anew, in a union based on holiness. Through this act of separation, through this act of self-restraint, they all become holy – they all become like Yosef. They are all ready to receive the Torah, one unified nation, conceived in holiness – and completely free.
[1] Rashi offers two interpretations for chamushim: first, that they were armed, and second, that only one of five Israelites (one fifth of the total Jewish population) left Egypt.
[2] See Yehoshua 1:8
יהושע פרק א
(ח) לֹא יָמוּשׁ סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֶּה מִפִּיךָ וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה לְמַעַן תִּשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכָל הַכָּתוּב בּוֹ כִּי אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ וְאָז תַּשְׂכִּיל:
[3] It is interesting that when the Jews sin with the Golden Calf, they are made to drink the ground up pieces, which is also reminiscent of the bitter water ordeal. See Shmot 32:20
[4] See the Shem M’shmuel who notices the term and explains that the Egyptians were given this unity for a holy purpose, namely to induce the Israelites to repent and come closer to God.
ספר שם משמואל פרשת וישלח - שנת תרפ"א
ודומה לזה הגיד כ"ק אבי אדמו"ר זללה"ה בהא דכתיב על הים וישאו בנ"י את עיניהם והנה מצרים נוסע אחריהם וייראו מאד וגו', שלכאורה איננו מובן מה היתה היראה הלא כבר ראו אותות ומופתים למכביר. אך ברש"י והנה מצרים בלב אחד כאיש אחד, וידוע שזה לא נמצא בטומאה שהם ענפין מתפרדין, ע"כ כשראו שהמצרים הם בלב אחד כאיש אחד, חשבו שבודאי יש אצלם עתה כחות קדושה ומזה נתיראו, אך האומנם שהי' כן שכ"ז הי' מפאת כחות קדושה, אבל הי' זה כדי לקרב לבם של ישראל לתשובה ולא ח"ו לעזור למצרים, עכ"ד. וכן י"ל נמי בהא דנתירא יעקב, מפני שחשב שבודאי יש כחות קדושה עם עשו, ובאמת שגם זה כך הי' בשביל שנתאוה הקב"ה לתפלתו של יעקב ע"כ נשלחו לעשו כחות קדושה:
[5] See Talmud Bavli Eruvin 54a and Pirkie Avot 6:2
תלמוד בבלי מסכת עירובין דף נד עמוד א
ואמר רבי (אליעזר) ]מסורת הש"ס: אלעזר]: מאי דכתיב )שמות ל"ב( חרות על הלחת - אלמלי לא נשתברו לוחות הראשונות לא נשתכחה תורה מישראל. רב אחא בר יעקב אמר: אין כל אומה ולשון שולטת בהן, שנאמר חרות אל תיקרי חרות אלא חירות:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ו
ואומר והלוחות מעשה אלהים המה והמכתב מכתב אלהים הוא חרות על הלוחות אל תקרא חרות אלא חירות שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה וכל מי שעוסק בתורה תדיר הרי זה מתעלה שנאמר )במדבר כ"א י"ט( וממתנה נחליאל ומנחליאל במות:
[6] Certain mystical sources see the passage through the sea as a national rebirth experience, as they travel, physically and symbolically into a new stage of existence through a wondrous passageway between the waters.
[7] Midrashic sources describe the geographic formation of these rocks. See Mechilta Bshalach 5:1 for a description which evokes the image of the keruvim:
מכילתא פרשת בשלח פרשה א
וישובו ויחנו לפני פי החירות. מה חירות הללו לא היו משופעות אלא גדודיות ולא היו תרוטות אלא מוקפות ולא היו עגולות אלא מרובעות ולא היו מעשה אדם אלא מעשה שמים ועיני' היו להם לפותחו' כמן זכר וכמן נקיבה היו דברי רבי אליעזר. רבי יהושע אומר החירות מצד זה ומגדול מצד זה הים לפניה' ומצרים לאחריה'. דבר אחר פי החירות אין חירות אלא מקום חירותן של ישראל מקום מובחר להם מקום עבודה זרה שלהם. לשעבר היתה נקראת פיתום שנאמר שמות א' ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה את פיתום ואת רעמסס חזרו להם להקראת פי החירות שהיא מאחרת לעובדיה.
[8] Vayikra 18:3. See below.
[9] See Talmud Bavli Sotah 13b
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סוטה דף יג עמוד ב
ויקנהו פוטיפר סריס פרעה - אמר רב: שקנאו לעצמו. (בא גבריאל וסירסו) בא גבריאל ופירעו, מעיקרא כתיב פוטיפר, ולבסוף פוטיפרע.
[10] Sifra Acharei Mot section 8.
ספרא פרשת אחרי מות פרשתא ח
ח) אי כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען לא תעשו יכול לא יבנו בניינים ולא יטעו נטיעות כמותם תלמוד לומר ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו לא אמרתי אלא בחוקים החקוקים להם ולאבותיהם ולאבות אבותיהם. ומה היו עושים האיש נושא לאיש והאשה לאשה האיש נושא אשה ובתה והאשה ניסת לשנים לכך אמר ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו:
[11] See Midrash Rabba Vayikra 23:9
מדרש רבה ויקרא פרשה כג פסקה ט
תני רבי ישמעאל כמעשה ארץ מצרים וכמעשה ארץ כנען לא תעשו וגו' ואם לאו אני ה' אלהיכם תני רבי חייא למה אני ה' כתיב שני פעמים אני הוא שפרעתי מדור המבול ומסדום וממצרים אני עתיד ליפרע ממי שהוא עושה כמעשיהם דור המבול נמחו מן העולם ע"י שהיו שטופין בזנות אמר רבי שמלאי כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות אנדרלמוסיא באה לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים רב הונא בשם רבי יוסי אמר דור המבול לא נמחו מן העולם אלא ע"י שכתבו גומסיות לזכר ולנקבה ר' עזריה בשם רבי יהודה ברבי סימון וריב"ל בשם בר קפרא מצינו שעל הכל הקב"ה מאריך רוחו חוץ מן הזנות בלבד ואית ליה קריין סגיין שנא' (בראשית ו) ויהי כי החל האדם ויראו בני האלהים את בנות האדם וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם ויאמר ה' אמחה את האדם סדומיים ריב"ל בשם בר קפרא אמר כל אותו הלילה היה לוט עומד ומדבר עליהם סניגוריא כיון שבאו ואמרו לו (שם יט) איה האנשים ונדעה אותם בתשמיש מיד ויאמרו האנשים אל לוט עוד מי לך פה עד כאן היה לך פתחון פה ללמד עליהם סניגוריא אלא חתן בניך ובנותיך כי משחיתים אנחנו אני ה' אני הוא שנפרעתי משמשון ומאמנון ומזמרי ועתיד אני ליפרע ממי שיעשה כמעשיהם אני הוא ששלמתי ליוסף ליעל ולפלטי בן ליש אני עתיד לשלם שכר למי שעושה כמעשיהם
9. R. Ishmael taught: AFTER THE DOINGS OF THE LAND OF EGYPT... AND AFTER THE DOINGS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN... SHALL YE NOT DO, etc. (XVIII, 3), otherwise, I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD (ib. 4). R. Hiyya taught: Why is I AM THE LORD written twice? It implies: I am He who inflicted punishment upon the Generation of the Flood, upon Sodom, and upon Egypt, and I am the same who will inflict punishment upon any one who will act in accordance with their practices. The Generation of the Flood were blotted out from the world because they were steeped in whoredom. R. Samlai observed: In every instance where you find the prevalence of whoredom, an androlepsia1 comes upon the world and slays both good and bad. R. Huna says in the name of R. Jose: The Generation of the Flood were only blotted out of the world on account of their having written hymenean songs for sodomy. R. ‘Azariah in the name of R. Judah son of R. Simeon and R. Joshua b. Levi in the name of Bar Kappara say: We find that the Holy One, blessed be He, is long-suffering towards every offence except whoredom, and there are numerous texts to bear this out; as it says, And came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth... that the sons of God saw the daughters of men... and they took them wives... And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great... And the Lord said: I will blot out man (Gen. VI, 1 ff). What of the Sodomites? R. Joshua son of Levi in the name of Bar Kappara said: During the whole of the night in question Lot was busy pleading on their behalf, but when they came and said to him: Where are the men... bring them out unto us, that we may know them (ib. XIX, 5)--’know them,’ that is to say, carnally--then forthwith The men said unto Lot: Hast thou here (poh) any besides? (ib. 12). By ’poh’ they as much as said: Until this moment you had a pretext (pithhon peh) for pleading in their favour, but now Son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters... bring them out of the place; for we will destroy this place (ib. 13 f). ’I am the Lord’ implies: I am He who inflicted punishment upon Samson, Amnon, and Zimri, and who will in the inflict punishment upon any one who will act in accordance with their practices. I am He who requited Joseph, Jael, and Palti the son of Laish, and I will in the future pay reward to any one who acts in accordance with their deeds.
[12] The third place which was included to form an unholy trinity with the generation of the flood and Egypt, was Sodom was cleansed with lava and fire, not water. Generally there are connections, thematic and linguistic, between Sodom and Egypt.
[13] Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica in his Mei Shiloach Parshat Bshalach, suggests that the male/female image of Pi haHirot was an expression of the pagan perspective of freedom as a lack of law or structure. To the pagan mind, Pi haHirot was a place of freedom because there laws applied, sexually was not limited or regulated.
ספר מי השילוח - פרשת בשלח
וישובו ויחנו לפני פי החירות, ענין כח הטומאה של ע"ז הזאת היא קליפת זנות והיתה דמות זכר ונקבה, וע"כ קראו שמה פי החירות כי אצל האומות נראה שבמקום שיוכל להתפשט ולעשות כל תאות לבו שם הוא בן חורין, ע"כ נאמר ואמר פרעה נבוכים הם בארץ כו'. היינו כשיגיעו לפני ע"ז הלזו יהיה נראה שהם משועבדים מאחר שהם מוגדרים מאוד בזאת התאוה, אך באמת הוא להיפך שהם משועבדים לזה הדבר. שהרי מאחר שאין לבם ברשותם אשר השכל ימשול עליהם רק תאותם מושלת עליהם אין לך משעבוד גדול מזה:
[14] See Shem Mshmuel Bshalach 5675: Faith (emunah) is what causes the sea to be split, creating a parallel with the hands of Moshe, which are called emunah, in the defeat of Amalek.
ספר שם משמואל פרשת בשלח - שנת תרע"ה
ע"כ ויסב אלקים את העם דרך המדבר ים סוף, ואמצעות האמונה שהלכו אחריו למדבר בלי מזון ומחי', ואח"כ כששבו ויחנו לפני פי החירות ולא אמרו היאך נתקרב אל רודפינו כדי שלא לשבור את לב הטף והנשים אלא אמרו אין לנו אלא דברי בן עמרם, וכן על הים שנכנסו למים עד חוטמם, זה עצמו הי' מירוק לפגם השכל, במה שבטלו את שכלם לרצון הש"י, זה השלים מה שהי' חסר מפאת חוסר הזמן עד ד' מאות שנה, ונעשו ראויים למ"ת, ואלמלא העגל לא היו צריכין עוד לשום מירוק. אך אמונה זו לא כ"כ קלה היא ולא כל הרוצה ליטול את השם יבוא ויטול, אלא ע"י שהיו שומרי הברית, ובסוד (ישעי' ס') ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ והבן. וזה ויקח משה את עצמות יוסף עמו, וזהו שבמדרש (פ' כ"ב) בזכות האמונה נקרע להם הים, ועוד אמרו בשביל ארונו של יוסף נקרע הים כי זה תלוי בזה:
[15] Zohar Vayikra 97b
Just as a woman then has to count seven days, so now God bade the Israelites count days for purity. They were to count for themselves, so as to be purified with supernal holy waters, and then to be attached to the King and to receive the Torah. The woman had to count seven days, the people seven weeks. Why seven weeks? That they might be worthy to be cleansed by the waters of that stream which is called living waters, and from which issue seven Sabbaths. When Israel drew near to Mount Sinai, that dew that descends from the supernal Point came down in its fullness and purified them so that their filth left them and they became attached to the Holy King and the Community of Israel and received the Torah, as we have explained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)