Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Beshalach concludes with Amalek's unprovoked attack against Benei Yisrael. In response, Moshe charges Yehoshua with the mission of assembling an army to fight the aggressor (17:9). Some commentaries have noted the apparent difficulty with the Torah's reference to Yehoshua with this name here in Sefer Shemot. Later in Chumash, in Parashat Shelach, the Torah relates that Yehoshua, listed there as one of the twelve scouts sent on the ill-fated spy mission to Canaan, was originally called Hoshea. Moshe, however, changed his student's name to Yehoshua (Bemidbar 13:16). The Midrash (cited by Rashi there in Bemidbar) explains that the new name "Yehoshua" was meant as a contraction of the two words, "Y-H yoshi'ukha" - "God shall save you," a prayer that Yehoshua should not be led astray by the other scouts' plans to discourage Benei Yisrael from proceeding into the Land. If the name "Yehoshua" was assigned to him only at that point as a prayer relevant to that specific episode, why does the Torah refer to him by this name already here, in Parashat Beshalach?

The Ramban answers that Moshe had always called his student Yehoshua, as he prophetically foresaw that Yehoshua would need this prayer as he set out on the scouting mission with his fellow spies.

The Ketav Sofer (Rav Avraham Shemuel Binyamin Sofer, Pressburg, 19^th century), however, suggests a different explanation. He claims that Moshe assigned this name to Yehoshua at this point because here, too, the inexperienced warrior needed the prayer, "God shall save you," that the Almighty shall grant him victory in the campaign against Amalek. Later, before dispatching the scouts, Moshe reconfirms the name change in prayer that Yehoshua should be saved from the influence of his fellow scouts.

We may perhaps add that according to this explanation, a relationship of sorts seems to exist between these two challenges Yehoshua faces: leading a battle against Amalek and standing his ideological ground against the ten spies. In both instances, Moshe issues a special prayer for divine assistance. How may we understand the association between these two events?

When the scouts return from their mission and attempt to dissuade Benei Yisrael from entering the Land, it is Kalev, rather than Yehoshua, who stands up in Moshe's defense (Bemidbar 13:30). Yehoshua chimes in only later, as he and Kalev together address the nation (Bemidbar 14:6-9). It appears as though Kalev was, by nature, a more forceful personality, more easily capable of resisting negative influence and fighting for truth in opposition to the advocates of falsehood. This would explain another anomaly: why did Moshe pray only for Yehoshua, and not Kalev? Apparently, Kalev possessed a certain strength of character that gave Moshe confidence in his ability to oppose the majority. Yehoshua, however, was a "lad" who "never budged from inside the tent" (Shemot 33:11). More reserved, quiet and unassuming, Yehoshua required an extra prayer from Moshe before leading an army and before confronting the cynicism of the spies. Therefore, both before his battle with Amalek and excursion into Canaan, Moshe beseeches the Almighty on his behalf, that He give the pious student the strength and resolve to lead, fight fearlessly, and be victorious.

*****

A sizable portion of Parashat Beshalach is devoted to the manna that sustained Benei Yisrael throughout their 40-year sojourn through the wilderness. The Midrash says, "The Torah was given only to those who ate manna" (Mekhilta 17). The "manna lifestyle" was, apparently, indispensable for the receiving of the Torah. As we are enjoined to "receive" the Torah every day of our lives (it has been explained the Shavuot is called "zeman matan Torateinu" - the day of the giving of the Torah, and not "zeman kabbalat Torateinu' - the day of receiving the Torah - because we must receive the Torah every day), it perhaps behooves us to understand the unique qualities of the manna necessary for proper acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot.

First and foremost, the manna, unlike any other source of nourishment, was unmistakably of divine origin. Even the most arrogant among Benei Yisrael could not possibly claim to have provided for his family through his own efforts. This food came directly from the Almighty Himself, a recognition without which a Torah lifestyle cannot be conducted. Meeting the many demands of halakha requires considerable sacrifice of resources. Only one who sincerely believes that ultimately, our efforts to earn a livelihood are futile without divine assistance, can consistently obey and observe the Torah's mandates.

At the same time, however, the manna did not arrive at every family's doorstep. Though Benei Yisrael did not have to plow, sow or spend their days in the office to earn a living, they were required to trek each morning outside the secure confines of the camp to collect their food. Why was this necessary? Once God wished to provide Benei Yisrael with bread from the heavens, why not place each family's portion right outside their tent each morning, like a postman delivers mail? This perhaps alludes to the fact that one cannot properly accept the Torah while living a life of complete inactivity. While on the one hand we must acknowledge that God alone provides our needs, we must exert personal effort and initiative in securing our livelihood.

Another powerful message emerges from a comment by Rabbeinu Bechayei concerning the small sample of manna set aside in commemoration of the miracle (16:33-34). Moshe bids Aharon to take a jar of manna and place it in the aron kodesh, alongside the two tablets. (Rashi notes that God issued this command later, after the construction of the mishkan.) Why was the manna to be eternally situated alongside the tablets? Rabbeinu Bechayei explains that ideally, one should earn his livelihood "in the aron kodesh," in a manner directly related to Torah. Rav Avraham Pam zt"l added that this does not require everyone to pursue a career in Jewish education or the rabbinate. It does, however, call upon every individual to choose his workplace carefully and ensure that, to whatever extent possible, his professional life accommodates the spiritual ideals of the Torah, and certainly does not compel him to compromise on those ideals.

The more we inculcate the lessons of the manna, the more profoundly we can "receive" the Torah on an ongoing basis throughout our lives.

*****

The opening verses of Parashat Beshalach tell of God's decision to chart Benei Yisrael's route through the wilderness in the direction of the Sea of Reeds, rather than leading them straight to Canaan. The term used to describe God's leading His nation along the circuitous route is, "va-yasev." The Midrash Rabba (Shemot Rabba 20:18) comments on this verse, "From here our sages said that even a pauper in Yisrael must not eat [at the seder] without reclining, for so did the Almighty do for them, as it says, 'va-yasev Elokim…'" Thus, the Midrash derives from the verse the obligation to recline at the seder, a requirement incumbent upon even those - such as the underprivileged - who may find it difficult to conduct themselves in a luxurious manner.

One can interpret this Midrash in one of two ways. First, the Midrash may have adopted a homiletic meaning of the word "va-yasev," associating it with the familiar term, "heseiba," the word used in reference to the obligation to recline at the seder table. Although the simple meaning of the verse is clearly that God rerouted Benei Yisrael through the wilderness, the Midrash translates this word to mean "recline." This would suggest that the Almighty had Benei Yisrael recline as a demonstration of freedom as they departed Egypt. (Note: the Midrash will often take words and phrases completely out of context in positing a homiletic interpretation.) This reading the Midrash may be corroborated by other pain Midrashic literature that explicitly state that the Almighty granted the newly freed slaves luxurious conditions as they left Egypt. Bemidbar Rabba 1:2 cites our verse and explains, "What is meant by 'va-yasev'? He had them lie down as kings lie on their couches." The Sefer Ha-manhig, in Hilkhot Pesach 54, writes similarly (presumably based on a Midrash), "He had them sit in a reclining position like princes."

Rav Avraham Sofer of Pressburg (the Ketav Sofer), however, suggests a different reading of the Midrash (the original Midrash cited, from Shemot Rabba), one which relates the halakha it establishes to the context of this verse. He notes that the Midrash here does not derive the entire institution of "heseiba" from this verse. Rather, it extracts from here the specific point that even a pauper must observe this ritual. The Ketav Sofer explains that on the surface, God's choice of direction seemed foolish (Heaven forbid!!). Why would He lead His nation into the arid, searing, Middle Eastern deserts when the nearest route would lead them rather quickly to the Promised Land? However, God specifically chose this route in order to demonstrate that no matter how threatening and hopeless a situation appears, He can come to the rescue at any moment in the most unpredictable ways. Thus, Chazal derive from here that even a person suffering from poverty and hunger has reason - and hence an obligation - to conduct himself with royalty on Pesach. He, too, must demonstrate his trust in the Almighty's ability to bring about sudden and drastic reversals of fortune. When it appears as though all possibility for hope has vanished, the story of the Exodus reminds us of God's unlimited capability to bring swift and dramatic salvation.

*****

The very first verse in Parashat Beshalach has been the source of much discussion and debate among commentators for centuries. "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Pelishtim, because it was nearer; for God said, 'The people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt." To what is the land of the Pelishtim "nearer"? Why would this be a reason for God not to bring Benei Yisrael along that route? (Indeed, several commentators reinterpret the second "ki" in the verse to mean, "despite the fact that," rather than, "because.") Why would Benei Yisrael encounter war specifically if they travel in that direction? All these questions have occupied traditional commentators. For a thorough treatment, the reader is referred to Nechama Leibowitz's Studies on Parashat Beshalach (1-2).

Here we will look at one particularly creative approach to this verse, that suggested by the Netziv. After citing and rejecting several of the interpretations offered by traditional commentators, the Netziv writes that the verse here points to two different reasons for God's selection of Benei Yisrael's route: the real reason, and the one told to the people. In truth, God led the people away from the Philistine route because He did not want them to enter Canaan too quickly. Before Benei Yisrael could establish their nation and homeland, they must first develop the unique characteristics they are to embody and reflect as they build their country. Having spent over two centuries in Egypt, Benei Yisrael need some time to foster their singular nature and values. The Almighty did not, however, wish to tell this to the Benei Yisrael at that point. He therefore told them the second reason, that the threat of war along that route might prompt the nation's return to Egypt.

Leaving aside the issue of the two different reasons, the Netziv's approach emphasizes the distinctiveness and independence of the Torah. It was specifically given to us in the wilderness, far from any other civilization, so as to impress upon us its independence from any other value system. Benei Yisrael's way of life need not conform to that of other peoples; this is precisely the function of their travels through the wilderness. For this reason, Torah study has assumed such a critical role particularly during Am Yisrael's years in exile. Living among other nations, Jews were compelled to fortify their beliefs and rituals by committing themselves to the unique, singular study of Torah. This devotion ensured the Torah's and nation's survival despite the endless threats to their existence. While we certainly can no longer live in the isolation of the wilderness (nor are we necessarily supposed to), the message of the desert experience must accompany us throughout our long journey through history.

*****

In his commentary to Parashat Beshalach (15:22), Rashi cites the well known Midrash describing Benei Yisrael's reluctance to leave the shores of the Sea of Reeds. After the sea split and allowed Benei Yisrael to pass through, the waters then collapsed upon the pursuing Egyptian army. As the spoils from the soldiers and chariots washed up ashore, Benei Yisrael wished to remain there to collect all they could. Thus, after the shirat ha-yam (song at the sea), the Torah writes, "Va-yasa Moshe et Yisrael mi-Yam Suf" - "Moshe caused Yisrael to travel from the Sea of Reeds." Moshe had to "cause" Benei Yisrael to travel, to urge them to leave the sea and continue on into the wilderness.

We can perhaps better appreciate the power of this Midrash by considering the location of this verse within the general structure of Parashat Beshalach. This parasha neatly divides into two distinct sections. The first deals with the Egyptians' pursuit of the newly emancipated slaves and the miracle at sea, concluding with the triumphant song after the Egyptians are drowned. The second half tells of Benei Yisrael's travails in the wilderness, their frustration with the lack of resources and the Almighty's response in each instance. This verse (15:22), which tells of Benei Yisrael's departure from the Sea of Reeds, marks the precise transition point between these two halves. Am Yisrael leaves the sea and enters the scorching wilderness of Shur, while the reader leaves the jubilant first half of this parasha and begins the somewhat unsettling second half.

The Midrash thus beautifully highlights the difficulty involved in this transition. It was not easy for Benei Yisrael to suddenly leave the euphoria of the splitting of the sea and their final victory over Egypt, and begin their journey into the harsh conditions of the desert. Without Moshe's insistence, who knows how long they would have remained at sea, basking in the glory and exuberance of the miracle they had just experienced?

The tension between the two halves of Parashat Beshalach corresponds to the two diametrically opposing characteristics of religious life. On the one hand, it can bring immense joy, satisfaction, inspiration, and a genuine sense of contentment and fulfillment. It fills the vacuum of mundane life and gives one the sensational feeling of purpose and meaning. At other times, however, it is fraught with hardship, challenges, and frustration. The Torah makes demands on a person that often seem overbearing. We very often find ourselves shifting from the spiritual euphoria of the splitting of the sea to the wearisome trek through the wilderness of Shur. Unfortunately, not always do we have a Moshe Rabbenu to remind us of our responsibilities and pull us back into the realities of day-to-day Torah life. The Midrash shows that this transition is not easy, nor is it meant to be easy. We must remember that we cannot stay at the sea forever; the moments of jubilation are to lead us to reinforce our faith and devotion, which then enables us to properly obey and observe, even in the harsh conditions of the desert.

*****

Many Midrashim claim that the sea split in the merit of Yosef. Specifically, Yosef's having "fled" from the advances of Potifar's wife ("va-yanas" - Bereishit 39:12) is associated with the sea's "flight" to allow Benei Yisrael passage ("ha-yam ra'a va-yanos" - Tehillim 114:3). The Mekhilta in Parashat Beshalach cites Shimon Ish Kitron as saying, "In the meriof Yosef's bones I [God] split the sea for them [Benei Yisrael], as it says, 'He left his garment iher hand, and he fled and went outside,' and it says, 'The sea saw and fled.'" Similar passages appear in Bereishit Rabba 87, Tanchuma Vayeishev 9, and Midrash Ha-gadol Shemot 14:15.

How are to understand this association between Yosef's heroic refusal to succumb to Potifar's wife and the splitting of the sea? We may reasonably assume that the Midrash bases this connection on something beyond the term "va-yanas" shared by both incidents. Wherein lies this basis of association?

Perhaps the simplest explanation would be that the Midrash points specifically to the theme of reversal of natural instinct. Confronted by temptation, Yosef restrained his natural instincts in order to obey God's word. While a young, unmarried man his age would have normally consented to Potifar's wife, the divine word led Yosef to act in direct opposition to these instincts. Similarly, since the world's creation gravity pulls water into low-lying areas, creation oceans and seas. The Almighty here orders the sea to reverse its natural tide and split into two, forming two gravity-defying walls of water. As one Midrash describes, the sea at first refuses, claiming that it need not work against its natural tendency on behalf of Am Yisrael. In Yosef's merit, however, the sea agreed to fulfill God's word. Just as Yosef acted in opposition to his natural instincts to obey God's command, so does the sea defy its own nature in observance of the divine will.

We may add a further dimension to the concept of reversal of natural instinct as it applies to Yosef. Not only did Yosef restrain his innate, physical instinct, but he also reversed another natural tendency - full assimilation within Egyptian society. Chazal (cited by Rashi, Bereishit 39:6) comment that God brought upon the test of Potifar's wife in response to Yosef's inappropriate handling of his success in Egypt: "Once he saw himself as a ruler, he began eating, drinking and grooming his hair. The Almighty said, 'Your father is mourning, and you are grooming your hair! I will incite the bear [a reference to Potifar's wife] against you!'" Yosef's indulgence in food and drink and excessive attention to his looks may have signaled his gradual acclimation into the culture of Egypt. His resistance to Potifar's wife drew an important line, however, between acclimation and ethnic assimilation. The natural tendency for a youngster first beginning life relocated in a foreign land would be to fully acculturate and seek total absorption into his new country. Yosef reversed this natural trend by refusing to sleep with Potifar's wife. This heroic act reflected his identity awareness, his commitment to retain his family's values even in a foreign culture.

As a reward, the sea reversed its natural trend and split on behalf of Benei Yisrael.

We will iy"H speak more about this Midrash tomorrow.

*****

Yesterday we discussed the association drawn by the Midrash between Yosef's having withstood the test posed by Potifar's wife and the splitting of the sea for Benei Yisrael. As we saw, the Midrash relates that in the merit of Yosef's having fled ("va-yanas" - Bereishit 39:12) from Potifar's wife, the sea's waters "fled" from Benei Yisrael ("ha-yam ra'ah va-yanos" - Tehillim 114:3). Today we will explore two possible explanations for this connection between these two events.

Rav Yitzchak Kerpel of Hungary, in his work, "Nefesh Yitzchak" (published posthumously in New York by his grandson, Yechiel Kerpel, in 1947), suggests that this Midrash seeks to emphasize the definitive and absolute nature of Yosef's refusal to sleep with Potifar's wife. The verse in Parashat Vayeshev (Bereishit 39:8) reads, "va-yema'en" (he refused), implying that Yosef needed no process of logical deduction or calculation in reaching his decision. (Though Rav Kerpel does not make this point explicitly, he probably understood the "pesik," the silent pause after the word "va-yema'en," as separating this word from the rest of the verse, in which Yosef explains to Potifar's wife why he cannot consent. This separation indicates that for himself, Yosef needed no explanation; only in his response to Potifar's wife did he feel the need to explain.) For Yosef, the very fact that a given action is forbidden was sufficient reason to abstain. In this merit, the sea split for Benei Yisrael. The Midrashim describe the "negotiations" that took place between the sea and the Almighty as Benei Yisrael stood at sea with the Egyptians closing in on them. Specifically, the sea argued that Benei Yisrael worshipped idols just as the Egyptians had; why should it split on behalf of Benei Yisrael and drown the Egyptians? Once, however, the Almighty invoked, as it were, the merit of Yosef, the sea stopped its deliberations and split. The Midrash thus teaches that if we obey God's command without prior deliberation and pondering, then God will do the same for us. He will fulfill our wishes without first carefully considering our worthiness and calculating our merits.

We may suggest a different approach, one which brings us back to yesterday's analysis of the incident with Yosef and Potifar's wife. The splitting of the sea marked the final stage of the Exodus, the point at which Benei Yisrael's freedom from Egyptian bondage became finalized and irreversible. The Midrash perhaps tells us that this occurred in Yosef's merit. As we saw, his refusal to consent to Potifar's wife's advances involved more than his having overcome temptation; it also set a critical boundary on the level of Yosef's interaction with Egyptian society. It meant that he was committed to his heritage and family despite his transplantation in a foreign culture and society. He remained committed to preserving his identity even as he climbed the aristocratic ladder in a foreign country. This crucial message rendered Benei Yisrael worthy of redemption. As mentioned, the "heavenly prosecution" argued that Benei Yisrael resorted to idolatry in Egypt; why should they deserve redemption? God responded by invoking the merit of Yosef. Despite their having worshipped idols, they nevertheless remained ethnically distinct throughout the exile. A famous Midrash attributes the redemption to the fact that Benei Yisrael retained their language, names and clothing; in short, they retained their unique identity. We may perhaps trace this back all the way to Yosef, the one who began the Egyptian exile. He drew a definite boundary between involvement in society and assimilation. It was this boundary that enabled Am Yisrael to grow as an ethnically distinct nation within Egypt, and which ultimately rendered them worthy of redemption.

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 part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il