The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT BESHALACH

Rav David Silverberg

            Parashat Beshalach tells of the manna, the food that God sent Benei Yisrael from the heavens each morning to sustain them during their travels in the wilderness.  When the manna descended for the first time, Moshe said to the people, "It is this bread that the Lord has given you to eat" (16:15).

            Rav Meir Ha-kohen of Warsaw, in his Imrei Kohen (Warsaw, 1935), takes note of a parallel that exists between the final words of this verse – lakhem le-okhla ("you to eat") – and a verse in Sefer Vayikra (25:6) concerning the produce of the shemitta ("sabbatical") year: "The [produce] of the land's rest shall be for you to eat" ("ve-hayeta shabbat ha-aretz lakhem le-okhla").  The Gemara (Masekhet Bekhorot 12b and elsewhere) infers from the word le-okhla ("to eat") used in the context of shemitta that produce grown during the shemitta year is designated solely for consumption, to the exclusion of commerce.  One may collect shemitta produce for his own consumption or to distribute freely to others, but not for profitable gain.  Similarly, the Imrei Kohen suggests, Moshe emphasized to Benei Yisrael that the manna was given to them exclusively le-okhla, for consumption, and not for commerce.  It was forbidden for any member to sell his ration of manna or any part of it to somebody else, just as the Torah forbids selling shemitta produce.  The Imrei Kohen notes in this context a comment by Rabbenu Bechayei (to 16:21) that when the uncollected manna left on the ground melted in the sun, Benei Yisrael would generously donate some of their portions to those who neglected to collect that morning.  The word le-okhla indicates, however, that although it was permissible to charitably share one's manna with those in need, it was forbidden to sell it for profit.  Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (chapter 16, note 93), cites this interpretation of le-okhla in the name of a work entitled Mincha Belula.

            The prohibition against selling one's portion of manna likely relates to the need to recognize and appreciate the manna as a gift that has come directly from the Almighty.  A gift received from somebody of note is generally kept, cherished and treasured, not sold on the commercial market.  It would seem that this notion similarly underlies the prohibition against selling shemitta produce.  The shemitta year, during which the Torah forbids tilling the land, is intended to remind the landowner that the land essentially belongs to the Almighty, who allows Am Yisrael to work His land and enjoy its produce.  Once in seven years we give back the land to the Almighty, so-to-speak, as an expression of this awareness of His ownership over the earth.  Hence, the fruits which we take and eat during the shemitta year have been given to us directly by God – to whom, as mentioned, we have "returned" the land.  Therefore, just as with the manna, we are to use this produce solely for consumption, and not for commerce, thereby expressing our recognition of the fact that it has been received as a special gift from the Almighty.

******

            The haftara for Parashat Beshalach is taken from Sefer Shoftim (chapters 4-5, according to common Ashkenazic practice) and tells the story of the prophetess and leader Devora.  The narrative begins by introducing Devora as a prophetess who served as a judge and "would sit underneath the palm-tree of Devora" (4:5).  The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (14a) presents two possible explanations for the significance of this palm-tree.  First, it suggests that Devora sat underneath specifically a palm because this tree offers little shade and privacy.  Since men would approach her for judicial consultation, she selected an area where she would not be secluded with her visitors, so as not to violate the prohibitions of yichud (a man's seclusion with a woman).

Secondly, the Gemara suggests that the verse does not refer to an actual palm-tree, but rather to Devora's achievements as a leader: "Just as a palm-tree has only a single 'heart', so do Israel have only a single heart [devoted] to their Father in heaven."  Most trees have branches that are leaner replicas of the trunk, whereas palm branches are not firm and stiff like the trunk (Maharsha).  The single "heart" of the palm is used in this verse as a metaphor for the religious devotion that unified the people under the leadership of Devora during this time.

            Rav Yigal Ariel, in his work Oz Va-anava (pp. 215-6), comments that the Gemara's second interpretation of the phrase "tomer Devora" ("the palm-tree of Devora"), like the first approach, relates to Devora's role as judge.  Rav Ariel writes, "The engagement in the routine, day-to-day judgment was a most significant educational endeavor towards the internal, spiritual unification of the people."  Devora effected a significant spiritual change among the people specifically through her role as judge, by involving herself in and relating to the trivial, day-to-day concerns of the nation.  Rather than isolating herself from the people or merely preaching to them, she got intimately involved in their lives, working to settle civil disputes and bring families and communities together.  Devora succeeded in drawing Benei Yisrael's hearts towards the Almighty by extending her heart towards them, by showing care and concern for their everyday needs and working closely with them.  This loving devotion to the people had the effect of inspiring them to return to the faithful service of the Almighty and joining forces to complete the process of kibush ha-aretz (the conquest of the land).

            An indication of the tenderness with which Devora led and guided the people perhaps appears in the shira – the song of triumph that she composed together with Barak, the nation's general, after the victory over the Canaanites.  Towards the beginning of the shira she describes the woeful state of the nation as it suffered under the oppression of the Canaanites, adding that this situation prevailed "until I, Devora, arose, until I arose as a mother in Israel" (5:7).  Devora speaks of the "maternal" quality of her leadership, how she cared for the people as a mother tenderly and lovingly looks after her children.  It was through this care and devotion that she reached the hearts of the nation, and merged them into "a single heart" firmly committed and devoted to their Father in heaven.

******

            The second verse in Parashat Beshalach tells that after the Exodus from Egypt God led Benei Yisrael along a circuitous route through the desert towards the Land of Israel: "Va-yasev Elokim et ha-am derekh ha-midbar" ("God brought the nation in a roundabout route, through the wilderness").  A famous Midrashic passage (Shemot Rabba 20:18) comments on this verse, "From here our Rabbis inferred that even a poor man in Israel may not eat [on the night of Pesach] until he reclines, for this is what the Almighty did for them."  Somehow, the circuitous route along which God led Benei Yisrael indicates that the obligation of heseiba – reclining during the seder on Pesach night – applies even to the impoverished members of the nation.  On one level, the Midrash clearly finds an allusion in the word va-yasev to the obligation of heseiba given the close relationship between the two words.  But where in this verse is there any allusion to the situation of a poor man on Pesach?

            Rav Baruch Yitzchak Yissachar Leventhal, in his Birkat Yitzchak (Jerusalem, 1946), explained that one reason why God chose to lead Benei Yisrael through the barren wilderness was to impress upon them the fact that freedom does not depend upon material wealth.  As the Sages famously commented, "Ein lekha ben chorin ela mi she-oseik be-Torah" ("There is no greater free man than he who involves himself in Torah").  Immediately upon leaving Egypt, Benei Yisrael were taken into an empty wilderness where they received the Torah and were thus shown that true "freedom" means the ability to serve the Almighty, not the ability to amass wealth.  This lesson of the wilderness is essential for the underprivileged members of the nation to recall as they prepare to celebrate the festival of Pesach.  They, too, have reason to celebrate and give praise to God, despite their current state of financial hardship.  Since freedom means the opportunity to study and observe the Torah, a Jew celebrates his freedom even when he finds himself in a "desert," with limited material resources.  Therefore, "even a poor man in Israel may not eat [on the night of Pesach] until he reclines, for this is what the Almighty did for them."  God brought Benei Yisrael into freedom by leading them to a desert; similarly, even a person confronting financial crisis must recline as a joyous, festive demonstration of his freedom.

******

            A famous Talmudic passage (Megila 10b, Sanhedrin 39b) cites Rabbi Yochanan as commenting that at the time of the miracle of the Yam Suf (the splitting of the Sea of Reeds), the ministering angels requested permission to sing praise to God.  God rejected their request, exclaiming, "The products of My hands are drowning at sea, and you will sing praise?!"

            God's response is commonly understood to mean that as joyous an occasion as this was, it would have been inappropriate to sing praise to God as scores of human beings – the products of God's hands, as it were – lost their lives.  The Egyptians assuredly deserved their fate, but, nevertheless, the loss of human life of any kind is deemed a tragedy that mitigates the joy of salvation, and for this reason God denied the angels the right to sing triumphant songs of praise.  Indeed, in Masekhet Megila, this comment appears immediately following a different remark of Rabbi Yochanan, "The Almighty does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked" ("Ein Ha-kadosh Barukh Hu samei'ach be-mapalatan shel resha'im").

            This passage has given rise to an entire literature surrounding the issue of under which circumstances celebrating the downfall of the wicked is appropriate, and, when it is appropriate, what limits must be imposed on the festivities.  These discussions surround mainly the question of why Benei Yisrael were permitted to sing the famous Az Yashir song of praise – which the Sages even included in our daily prayer service – while the angels were denied this right.

            However, Rav Menachem Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima (note 126), argues that this reading of the Gemara is mistaken.  He notes that the Midrash Shemot Rabba (23:8) records Rabbi Yochanan's remark in a slightly different formulation, whereby God admonished the angels, "My legions are experiencing trouble, and you will sing praise before Me?"  This wording clearly indicates that God refers to Benei Yisrael, and not the Egyptians.  Rabbi Yochanan here teaches that the angels sought to sing God's praises prematurely, before the salvation was complete.  They requested to sing not after the drowning of the Egyptians, but earlier, before the splitting of the sea.  Indeed, even in the version recorded in the Talmud, Rabbi Yochanan makes this remark in reference to the verse, "and they did not approach one another the entire night" (14:20).  This verse describes the events preceding the splitting of the sea, when the Egyptian army drew near to Benei Yisrael and an angel stood in between the two camps, such that the Egyptians were unable to harm Benei Yisrael.  As Rav Kasher explains, the angels mistakenly thought that at this point the miracle was complete, and Benei Yisrael were saved from the pursuing Egyptians.  But God responded, "The products of My hands are drowning at sea" – Benei Yisrael were still trapped against the sea, and this was therefore no time for singing praise.

            As for the relationship between this comment and Rabbi Yochanan's previous remark that "the Almighty does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked," Rav Kasher suggests that the Gemara juxtaposed these two passages simply because they share the same author.  We often find in the Gemara that an Aggadic comment by a certain Sage is immediately followed by another statement by that same Sage.  Moreover, Rav Kasher adds, the juxtaposition of these two comments might be understood to mean that if the Almighty does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked, He certainly discourages celebration when Benei Yisrael confront crisis.  In this sense, the two passages are indeed related, even though the second does not pertain to the issue of singing praise over the downfall of the wicked.

******

            Parashat Beshalach tells of the famous miracle of keri'at Yam Suf, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds which enabled Benei Yisrael to escape from the pursuing Egyptian army after the Exodus.  We recount this event each morning during the daily prayer service, in the Ezrat Avoteinu section recited after shema: "You split the Yam Suf for them, You drowned the evildoers, You passed the beloved ones through, and the waters covered their oppressors" ("ve-Yam Suf lahem bakata ve-zeidim tibata vi-didim he'evarta va-yekhasu mayim tzareihem").

            At first glance, this description of keri'at Yam Suf does not seem to follow the proper sequence of events.  It clearly emerges from the text that it was only after Benei Yisrael crossed through the sea that God cast the waters upon the Egyptian army to drown them; logically, too, the waters could not have fallen back to place until after Benei Yisrael had safely reached the shore.  Yet, in Ezrat Avoteinu, we speak first about the "evildoers" – the Egyptians – drowning before we mention that the "beloved ones" – Benei Yisrael – passed through the sea.  Furthermore, once we tell that "You drowned the evildoers," why do we then recall how "the waters covered their oppressors"?

            The Moshav Zekeinim (a collection of commentaries from the Tosafists), commenting to this parasha (14:25), addresses this passage in the prayer service and offers a novel interpretation to the phrase "ziedim tibata" – "You drowned the evildoers."  According to this interpretation, the verb t.v.a., which is commonly translated to mean "drown," actually means "sink."  It refers not to drowning in water, but rather to sinking in mud or quicksand.  (The Moshav Zekeinim cites as proof-texts Yirmiyahu 38:22 and Tehillim 69:3).  Hence, in the context of Ezrat Avoteinu, the phrase "zeidim tibata" describes not the Egyptians' drowning in the waters of the sea, but rather their sinking in the mud before the waters fell back into place.  The Torah tells (14:23) that immediately after Benei Yisrael began to cross in between the split waters, the Egyptians pursued them into the sea.  God, however, brought chaos to the Egyptian army "with a pillar of fire and cloud" (14:24), which Rashi explains to refer to the moistening of the sea' floor.  The Egyptians' horses and chariots were stuck in the mud and actually began sinking, such that Benei Yisrael managed to cross safely and reach the shore.  Thereafter, once all of Benei Yisrael were ashore, God ordered Moshe to lift his staff over the sea so that the waters would descend and drown the Egyptians.

            Thus, the aforementioned passage from Ezrat Avoteinu is indeed accurate in its depiction of the events.  God first submerged the "evildoers" in the mud of the Yam Suf, even before His "beloved ones" had passed through the sea.  After they successfully crossed the Yam Suf, "the waters covered their oppressors" and drowned the Egyptians.

******

            We read in Parashat Beshalach of the troubles Benei Yisrael encountered shortly after keri'at Yam Suf, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.  After traveling three days without finding a water source, they finally discover water in Mara, but "they could not drink the waters of Mara, because they were bitter" (15:23).  In response to the people's complaints, God instructed Moshe to cast a certain tree into the water which miraculously sweetened it (15:25).

            The Midrash (Shemot Rabba 50:3; Tanchuma Yashan – Vayakhel, 9) proposes a different reading of this episode, claiming that the phrase "they were bitter" refers to Benei Yisrael, and not to the waters of Mara.  An explanation of this Midrash appears in the work Derashot Ibn Shu'ib (cited in Torah Sheleima to this verse, note 257): "For one who keeps something bitter like wormwood in his mouth – all sweet things he puts in his mouth seem bitter."

            The Midrash appears to be saying that the waters of Mara were perhaps somewhat foul-tasting, but were nevertheless drinkable.  The people could have drunk the water, but they refused to do so because it did not taste fresh.  We might compare their reaction to the common situation of a child who refuses a perfectly fresh, tasty food item because it does not precisely accommodate his/her tastes.  As the Derashot Ibn Shu'ib explained, the people's disgust for the water stemmed from the "bitterness" inside them.  It was their immaturity and intolerance for adversity that led them to complain about the water.  Had they approached the situation with a "sweeter" attitude, with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty for all that He had done for them, the waters would have tasted "sweet" even without God's intervention.

            Very often in life we come upon "bitter waters," difficult, complex and trying situations.  The Midrash here teaches that rather than demanding God's intervention to "sweeten" the situation, we should try to approach the matter with a positive, upbeat attitude and be grateful for the "waters" even if they are not quite as fresh and tasty as we would like.

******

            We read towards the beginning of Parashat Beshalach that Moshe made a point of taking Yosef's remains as Benei Yisrael left Egypt, in fulfillment of the promise that Yosef's brothers made to Yosef to bury his remains in the Land of Israel (13:19).

            The Midrash (Shemot Rabba 2:19; see also Masekhet Sota 13a) cites two views as to where Yosef's remains had been kept during the 139 years that had passed since his passing.  One view claims that Yosef's casket was submerged in the Nile River, while another view held that it was buried in his palace, as is customarily done to the remains of famous kings and dignitaries.  According to this second opinion, the Egyptian sorcerers fashioned two golden images of dogs in front of the casket, and if anybody would dare approach the site, the dogs would magically "bark" at such a volume that they would be heard throughout the land of Egypt.  However, when Moshe came to retrieve Yosef's remains, he effortlessly succeeded in silencing the dogs and took Yosef's casket without any interference.

            How might we explain the meaning behind this description of Yosef's burial in Egypt?

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in Emet Le-Yaakov, suggested an allegorical reading of this Midrashic passage.  The golden images of dogs perhaps serve as a symbol of the wealth and prestige that Yosef enjoyed once he ascended to the position of Egyptian viceroy.  After Yosef's death, as the Egyptians sought to abuse and oppress Benei Yisrael, the establishment found it necessary to discredit Yosef.  In light of all he had done for the country, rescuing it from the ravages of drought and bringing the wealth of all the surrounding nations into its treasury, the new administration's campaign of oppression against the Hebrews would have met with considerable opposition.  Anticipating support for Benei Yisrael, the government officials erected "golden dogs" around Yosef's tomb, meaning, they portrayed the deceased ruler as a cruel, selfish, manipulative bureaucrat who acted solely for personal gain.  He cared not about Egypt, they claimed, but about only his personal wealth and stature.  The image of the dogs "barking" and the sound reverberating throughout the country, according to Rav Yaakov, refers to the nationwide scope of this publicity campaign launched by the Egyptian authorities.  They ensured to disseminate this unfavorable image of Yosef throughout the country, so that they would have a free hand to oppress and enslave Benei Yisrael.

            Moshe, of course, succeeded in silencing the dogs.  The ultimate defeat of Pharaoh, the great miracles which brought the kingdom to its knees and forced it to free the slaves, exposed the fallacy of this image of Yosef.  The people of Egypt had no choice but to concede that Benei Yisrael were wrongly persecuted, that a group of loyal, upright citizens were denied basic rights and freedoms without any justifiable cause.