 |
|
|
Surf A Little Torah PARASHAT BESHALACH by Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Beshalach bridges between the two most momentous events of Sefer Shemot: the Exodus and Matan Torah. The events that transpire over the course of this parasha apparently serve to prepare the newly emancipated slaves for their new mission, the responsibilities of which are outlined in the Torah they receive at Sinai. As we study the transition Benei Yisrael undergo in Parashat Beshalach, we cannot ignore a remarkable contrast in their attitude between the beginning and end of the parasha. The opening verse tells us, "When Pharaoh sent the nation, God did not lead them by way of the land of Pelishtim… for God said, 'The people may have a change of heart when they see war and return to Egypt." Not surprisingly, the former slave nation left their captors nervous and uneasy. The Almighty knew that at the dawn of their freedom, Benei Yisrael still lacked the confidence and emotional stamina necessary to confront war. He therefore took them along a roundabout route that would avoid any chance of hostilities. By the time we reach the parasha's final verse, however, all that has changed: "Amalek came and fought Yisrael at Refidim." Without hesitation, Yehoshua mobilizes a capable army and Benei Yisrael - with God's overt assistance - respond valiantly to the surprise attack. The people are no longer afraid of war. They have reached the point where they can react to adversity with a sense of mission and responsibility. Appropriately, then, the parasha of preparation concludes on this note. Benei Yisrael march forward from here to Parashat Yitro, where they receive the Torah. The ability to respond to challenge thus emerges as a focal point of Benei Yisrael's preparation for Matan Torah. Throughout their ordeal in Egypt and their longings for redemption, the slaves may have likely fantasized about a worry-free future where they confront no hardship, no frustration, no disappointments, and no struggle. But as any Torah-observant Jew knows, Torah life is not carefree. Accompanying the joy and gratification of Torah observance are various types of obstacles and challenges that to overcome one requires firm resolve, selfless devotion, and genuine love. Over the course of Parashat Beshalach, Benei Yisrael transform from a slave nation fleeing from challenge to a proud, strong people prepared to take on the rigorous challenges of Sinai. **** Parashat Beshalach concludes with Benei Yisrael's victorious battle against the nation of Amalek. The Torah relates that Moshe ascended a hilltop overlooking the battlefield where he lifted his hands in full view of his nation's combatants down below. So long as he held his hands high, Benei Yisrael overpowered Amalek. Therefore, in order to support his arms, two other leaders joined him on the hilltop to help: his brother, Aharon, and his nephew (Miriam's son), Chur. Rav Mordechai Ilan suggests that the image of Moshe flanked by Aharon and Chur carries a powerful symbolic dimension. Aharon is eternally known as the relentless pursuer of peace, endeared and beloved by the people for his sincere efforts in establishing harmony and unity among Benei Yisrael. Chur, by contrast, represented bold, defiant opposition to the majority in order to promote truth and justice. The Midrash speaks of his heroic attempt to halt the fashioning of a golden calf, an effort that cost him his life at the hands of the calf's instigators. The position of these two men on either side of Moshe Rabbenu symbolizes the two complimentary attitudes that must accompany a Jewish leader. On the one hand, leadership must seek to ensure social harmony and prevent dissent and discord. Leaders must follow the example of Aharon, seeking to spread a spirit of peace, brotherhood and goodwill among people. Concurrently, however, they must wave the banner of Chur. When the need arises, they must be prepared to fight and resist negative trends in order to promote truth. As much as a leader must seek peace, he must know when the time has come to forego peace in order to fight for what is right, true, and just. Lest one think that the message emerging from this symbol is a purely political one, later in Sefer Shemot we again encounter the Aharon & Chur team, though in a far different context. Towards the end of Parashat Mishpatim, Moshe prepares for his forty-day stay atop Mount Sinai and assigns Aharon and Chur judicial responsibilities in his absence. Perhaps the same balance we discussed applies in a legal context, as well. Chur, the champion of absolute justice, must be tempered by Aharon, the ultimate proponent of peaceful resolutions. On the one hand, the concept of compromise plays a vital role in the Torah's legal system; a court is encouraged to seek conflict resolutions pleasing to both parties. At the same time, however, judges must represent and uphold truth; crooks must be held accountable for their actions, and corruption and deceit must be eliminated. Thus, both the desire for compromise and the ideal of strict fairness must be employed in order to ensure a peaceful but just society. ***** Undoubtedly, the highlight of Parashat Beshalach -and among the highlights of Sefer Shemot - is the splitting the Yam Suf and Benei Yisrael's response of "shira" (song). The Mekhilta cites a fascinating dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Akiva as to the nature and character of this "shira." Rabbi Nechemia likens this song to the recitation of shema, while Rabbi Akiva views it as a form of hallel. What is this argument all about? Perhaps we should begin by narrowing the question a bit. If we would have to compare Benei Yisrael's shira to a portion of our liturgy, we would almost certainly select hallel. Do not both these prayers center around praise for the Almighty, generally recited on special occasions of joy and thanksgiving? Why, then, would anyone think to associate the shira with shema? These two views may reflect two different responses to stirring, inspiring events. Hallel signifies the spontaneous, instinctive reaction of exuberance. One who experiences a momentous, joyous event may naturally react with festive song and dance. According to Rabbi Nechemia, however, Benei Yisrael's "song" at the Yam Suf constituted a much different type of response: one of "kabbalat ol malchut shamayim" - the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, the essential requirement of shema. This view maintains that Benei Yisrael's reaction was more cognitive than experiential. The shira expresses not only joy but the lessons the people learned from this miracle, the profound insight they had gained into God's rule and dominion. Indeed, the verse directly preceding the shira, which perhaps even prompted it, reads, "… and they believed in God and in Moshe, His servant." Benei Yisrael thus reacted to the splitting of the sea intellectually, using this incident to reinforce their commitment to the ultimate authority of God. This may underlie Rabbi Nechemia's comparison between the shira and shema. ***** The mishna in Masekhet Berakhot (54a) legislates that one who sees the sites of miracles performed for our ancestors must recite the berakha, "she-asa nissim la-avoteinu ba-makom ha-zeh" - "Who performed miracles for our ancestors in this place." The Gemara there cites several examples of such sites, including the "ma'abarot hayam" - the place where Benei Yisrael crossed the Yam Suf, as described in Parashat Beshalach. What exactly must one see? The Kaftor Va-ferach, cited by the Bei'ur Halakha (beginning of O.C. 118), distinguishes between two different requirements. One recites the berakha only upon seeing the actual location at which Benei Yisrael crossed the sea. If one sees any other area of the sea, then he does not recite the berakha. He is, however, required to offer praise to the Almighty for the miracle of the sea's splitting, only not in the formcontext of a berakha. The Bei'ur Halakha brings support for this view, that one recites a berakha only upon seeing the actual spot where Benei Yisrael crossed. A further restriction on the requirement appears in the Netziv's "He'emek She'eila," his monumental work on the "She'iltot." As mentioned, the Gemara in Berakhot lists several miracles that occurred in Biblical times that we must verbally commemorate upon seeing the sites where they occurred. For each miracle, the Gemara cites a verse in the Chumash that records the respective supernatural event. Now the verse cited in the context of the splitting of the sea is 14:22: "And Benei Yisrael went into the sea on the dry ground." The Netziv notes, however, that the She'iltot cites a similar verse just a few sentences later, after the actual description of the nation's passage through the sea. The Torah looks back in retrospect, as it were, and writes, "But Benei Yisrael had marched through the sea on dry ground" (14:29). While at first this variation may seem trivial, the Netziv finds a practical difference between the two versions. Namely, the She'iltot cited the later verse to teach that one recites the berakha only upon seeing the site where the miracle was completed. That is, this berakha is required only when seeing the spot where Benei Yisrael left the sea and stepped onto dry land, because only then did they fully escape harm's way. This is why the She'iltot cites the later verse, which appears after the entire incident. The Netziv's nephew, author of the "Torah Temima," notes that most sources indicate otherwise, that one recites this berakha upon seeing any site along Benei Yisrael's route as they crossed the sea. Much debate exists among scholars as to the precise route taken by Benei Yisrael as they left Egypt. In fact, the very identity of the body of water that split before them remains the subject of considerable controversy, thus rendering our topic, at least for the time being, academic Torah study rather than a practical halakhic issue. ***** Parashat Beshalach features the source of the well known halakha of "hiddur mitzva," beautifying mitzvot. Benei Yisrael's song of "Az Yashir," sung after crossing the sea, includes the declaration, "This is my God and I will glorify Him" (15:2). The Gemara (Masekhet Shabbat 133b) interprets this to mean, "I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot." The Gemara there derives from this verse the requirement to maintain high aesthetic standards when acquiring objects for the performance of mitzvot, such as a sukka, tzitzit, a Sefer Torah, and the ink and accessories used for the Sefer Torah. The Ritva, Mordekhai and Maharsha understand the derivation of this halakha from the verse as an "asmakhta," a symbolic allusion from the Biblical text; in truth, they claim, the requirement to beautify mitzvot is of rabbinic origin. By contrast, the Sha'agat Aryeh (50) strongly implies that this halakha in fact constitutes a Biblical requirement. If we adopt this second position, that Benei Yisrael indeed intended in this verse to commit to a high aesthetic standard in the performance of mitzvot, then an interesting issue arises concerning the timing of this declaration. Benei Yisrael were still a full six weeks away from Matan Torah. The only mitzvot they have studied heretofore are those concerning the observance of Pesach. How, then, could they take upon themselves obligations concerning mitzvot of which they as yet know nothing? They haven't heard about the need for tzitzit - how could they already decide to wear a state-of-the-art set of strings? This perhaps tells us something about the nature of this halakha. Namely, it demands primarily a general attitude, rather than specific details. Needless to say, this overall feeling must express itself through the specifications that high aesthetic standards entail. At its core, however, this halakha involves a perspective on mitzvot that focuses upon the great privilege of serving the Almighty. Similar to our discussion last week concerning the prohibition of delaying mitzva performance, the beautification of mitzvot expresses their importance in our eyes. Benei Yisrael thus did not accept upon themselves any specific guidelines, at least not directly. They did, however, commit themselves to welcoming God's commandments lovingly and eagerly, placing them at the center and core of their lives. (Based on Rabbi Elyakim Devorks, Bi-Shvilei Ha-halakha, vol. 2, p. 167.) ***** Yesterday we looked at the halakha of "hiddur mitzva," the beautification of mitzvot, which Chazal derive from a verse in the "shirat ha-yam" - song at the Yam Suf (15:2). As we saw, the Gemara requires pleasant-looking items for mitzva performance, including objects such as sukka, tzitzit, and Sefer Torah. What happens, though, if one performs a mitzva with an item of low aesthetic quality? Has he fulfilled his requirement nonetheless, or must he go ahead and perform the mitzva a second time? Two passages in the Gemara seem to indicate two different responses to this question. On the one hand, the Gemara in Masekhet Gittin disqualifies a "striped" Sefer Torah, that is, a sefer with some words appearing bolder than others, based on the requirement of "hiddur mitzva." This would suggest that indeed beautification is indispensable for the fulfillment of the mitzva. By contrast, in Masekhet Sukka 33a, the Gemara requires one to bind his lulav when holding it on Sukkot on the basis of "hiddur mitzva," but explicitly excuses one who fails to do so from repeating the mitzva. Apparently, one post facto fulfills a mitzva even in the absence of the optimally required standard of "hiddur!" How may we reconcile these two conflicting rulings? Rav Soloveitchik distinguished between two different halakhot coexisting under the general category of "hiddur mitzva." First, one must ensure a general quality of "hiddur" in his performance of mitzvot. The halakha requires one to strive, to the best of his ability, for the highest possible aesthetic standards in the context of mitzvot. This requirement does not, however, disqualify a mitzva performed with an object of less beauty than another of its like. Must everyone use the single most beautiful etrog in the world on Sukkot? Clearly not. Rather, each individual, according to his means, must seek the highest standards available to him. The second halakha under this category, however, renders a given object unacceptable for the performance a mitzva. An object featuring a blemish may be considered objectively displeasing by even average standards, and hence unfit for use. For example, Rashi (Masekhet Sukka29b) explains the disqualification of a dried-out lulav as based on this requirement of "hiddur mitzva." A shriveled lulav is considered inherently blemished. Not only does it fall short of the highest standards, it falls beneath the threshold of acceptability. This resolves the contradiction. Taking a lulav without binding it in no way renders the lulav itself defective. As such, one fulfills the mitzvah, albeit at a lower standard. By contrast, a Sefer Torah with certain portions darker than others is simply not nice. It cannot be considered fit for use. Thus, this single halakha of "hiddur mitzva" actually exists on two levels. There is one general ideal of performing mitzvot at the highest aesthetic standard possible, and secondly, an item considered inherently blemished is unfit for use in the context of mitzva observance. ***** The Torah at the end of Parashat Beshalach tells of Benei Yisrael's dependence upon Moshe's arms during the battle against Amalek. When Moshe lifted his hands, his nation would overpower the forces of Amalek, while when he lowered his arms Benei Yisrael lost ground in the campaign. The mishna in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah (29a) asks, "Do Moshe's arms make or break war?" It then immediately answers, "Rather, so long as Yisrael looked upwards and subjugated their hearts to their Father in heaven they would overpower; if not, they would fall." Clearly this mishna presents an important message that provides much for thought and discussion. But the question arises, why did Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nasi, the redactor of the mishnayot, see fit to include this mishna among the mishnayot of the second chapter of Masekhet Rosh Hashanah? This chapter outlines the basic laws of shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah; of what relevance is the war against Amalek? Perhaps this mishna should appear in Masekhet Avot, with other teachings of proper behavior and attitude, or in Masekhet Megila, which deals with Purim, the victory over Amalek's infamous descendant, Haman! The Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yehuda Amital shlit"a, answers that Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nasi wished to convey through this mishna a critical message particularly relevant to the mitzva of shofar. Chazal speak of the potential power of the shofar to overturn harsh decrees and bring our prayers before the Heavenly Throne. The danger, however, exists that people would approach the shofar blowing as a magical charm of sorts, a relatively easy ticket to the gates of atonement on the Days of Awe. Rabbi Yehuda sought to teach us that the power of shofar depends entirely upon our soul-searching and introspection, the subjugation of our hearts to the yoke of Heaven. He therefore reminds us that even Moshe's hands, which appear to have functioned like some magical formula to assist Benei Yisrael in war, did not themselves bring the people to victory. This mishna serves to eliminate a simplistic, superstitious approach to institutions such as shofar blowing. God will not grant us health and happiness because we listened to the shofar. He may do so, however, if the shofar triggers within us the proper response of, "Awaken, you who slumber, from your sleep!"
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds. Make Jewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the (c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et
This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds. MakeJewish learning partof your week on a regular basis - enroll in the (c) YeshivHar EtzioAll rights reserved to Yeshivat Har Etzion Yeshivat Har Et | ||||||||||||||||||||