Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

A famous Midrash in Parashat Beshalach (Shemot Rabba 21:7) records that the miracle of the Sea of Reeds, which saved Benei Yisrael from the pursuing Egyptian army, was not self evident. Meaning, it was not clear that Benei Yisrael deserved to have this miracle performed for them. As the Midrash relates, the "prosecutors" in the Heavenly Tribunal argued that "these [the Egyptians] are idolaters and these [Benei Yisrael] are idolaters." Why, then, should God rescue Benei Yisrael and drown the Egyptians? Ultimately, Benei Yisrael demonstrate their faith and trust in God by proceeding onward towards the sea, which then split and allowed them to flee.

This Midrashic passage appears to contradict a different notion developed by the Midrash regarding Benei Yisrael's conduct on the night of the Exodus. Many Midrashim and commentaries discuss at length how Benei Yisrael's public performance of the korban pesach ritual constituted a heroic, defiant rejection of Egypt's pagan culture, which believed in the power of the constellation of the sheep. By placing the offering's blood on the outer part of their doorposts, Benei Yisrael proudly and unabashedly expressed their renewed commitment to monotheism, to the belief of their patriarchs, and a complete dissociation from the pagan worship to which they had grown accustomed over the course of their two-century sojourn in Egypt. According to many, this expression of faith was a precondition for their redemption from Egypt.

If so, then how could the "heavenly prosecutor" have argued for Benei Yisrael's destruction at the sea on the grounds of their having worshipped idols? Haven't they already repented and resolutely renewed their commitment to God?

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (in his "Ta'am Ve-da'at") explains that, evidently, God viewed their doubts and misgivings expressed on the shores of the sea (see 14:11-12) as an idolatrous spark that ignited within them. Questioning God's power and capabilities amounts to a diluted form of idolatry, if you will, which exposed Benei Yisrael to the heavenly prosecution.

Of course, this gives rise to the question as to why these misgivings resulted in a comparison of sorts between Benei Yisrael and the Egyptians. "These are idolaters and these are idolaters." Is this comparison fair? Can we really equate the fear and uncertainty of a persecuted people fleeing for their lives and trapped by the sea, with the stubborn belief in paganism by a powerful empire?

Rav Sternbuch answers that people are judged in accordance with their respective situation, background and expectations. God expected far more of Benei Yisrael, whom he had just miraculously delivered from Egypt, than He did from the Egyptians. Their "spark" of idolatry could, indeed, be weighed against the ideological polytheism of their former oppressors. One's conduct is not considered in a vacuum; he is judged based on what is expected of him, as determined by his background, upbringing and current circumstances. Therefore, Benei Yisrael's misgivings threatened to undermine their worthiness of redemption, as it transformed them back into "idolaters" who may be now be equated with the Egyptian pagans.

******

Parashat Beshalach tells of the manna, the miraculous food that descended daily from the heavens to feed Benei Yisrael as they traveled through the wilderness. As the Torah relates, a double portion of manna fell on Erev Shabbat, to provide the people's needs for that day as well as Shabbat, when no manna fell. In introducing the concept of manna to Moshe, God instructs, "It shall be on Friday, they shall prepare that which they bring" - meaning, Benei Yisrael are to prepare the manna collected on Friday for the following day, Shabbat. The Gemara (Masekhet Shabbat 117) derives from this verse the halakha of Shabbat preparation. Specifically, the Gemara learns from here that "a person should always arise early to shop for Shabbat." How does this verse indicate that one must begin Shabbat preparations early in the morning? Rashi there explains that we infer from this verse that Benei Yisrael were to prepare the manna immediately after bringing it to their tents ("they shall prepare that which they bring"). Since they collected the manna early in the morning, we may deduce that preparations were to begin early. The Midrash Tanchuma explains differently, claiming that the word "ve-haya" ("it shall be"), with which this verse begins, generally connotes promptness (see also Sifrei, beginning of Re'ei). Thus, "Ve-haya ba-yom ha-shishi" ("It shall be on the sixth day") refers to early on the sixth day. This is the explanation adopted by the Taz, in his comments to the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 250).

The Peri Megadim suggests that these different interpretations of the Gemara could yield practical ramifications regarding just how early on Friday morning one should begin his Shabbat preparations. According to Rashi, Chazal understood the verse to mean that Benei Yisrael began preparing for Shabbat after collecting the manna. The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (27a) writes that the manna was collected each morning during the first three hours of daylight, after which point the manna began melting in the sun. Accordingly, then, this passage in the Gemara would not require beginning preparations earlier than this point (the same as "sof zeman keri'at shema"). According to the Midrash Tanchuma, however, "ve-haya" teaches us that we must begin immediately when the day starts. Seemingly, then, this would require that one start his preparations even before reciting his morning prayers, as soon as possible on Friday morning (provided, of course, he will still have time to complete shema and tefila before their respective deadlines).

The Chafetz Chayim, in his "Bei'ur Halakha" (250), disagrees with the Peri Megadim's analysis. He argues that even according to the Midrash Tanchuma, one need not begin Shabbat preparations before shema and tefila on Friday morning. First of all, many authorities are of the opinion that the mitzva to prepare for Shabbat constitutes a rabbinic, rather than Torah, obligation. Evidence for this position may be drawn from the simple fact that, as the Rambam writes explicitly in his Hilkhot Shabbat, the mitzvot of kevod and oneg on Shabbat (honoring Shabbat and enjoying Shabbat) were themselves introduced "mi-divrei kabbala," by the prophets (specifically Yeshayahu). It is therefore hard to imagine a Torah obligation to prepare food for Shabbat if the obligation to eat on Shabbat does not exist according to Torah law. Necessarily, then, the extrapolation from this verse in Parashat Beshalach is to be understood as an "asmakhta" (a subtle allusion in the text for a rabbinically mandated halakha). Therefore, we should not afford halakhic significance to precisely how the halakha emerges from the verse, since it is only an allusion. Secondly, the Bei'ur Halakha argues, the Midrash Tanchuma's reading would not yield the Peri Megadim's conclusion even if we view it as a bona fide deduction from the verse. According to Chazal, Benei Yisrael had received the mitzva of Shabbat earlier in Parashat Beshalach, during their stay in Mara (see Rashi, 15:25). The mitzva of keri'at shema, however, was conveyed to them only at Matan Torah. Therefore, at this point indeed Benei Yisrael were to begin Shabbat preparations as early as possible Friday morning, because they bore no other obligations upon awaking in the morning. Once, however, the Torah was given and instructed them to recite shema in the morning, we apply the standard principle of "tadir ve-she'eino tadir, tadir kodem" - that we afford precedence to the more frequent mitzva. Therefore, one should first attend services on Friday morning and only thereafter begin his Shabbat preparations. If, however, one will be unable to purchase his groceries if he waits until afterservices, then he should shop beforehand, but must obviously ensure to recite shema and tefila before their respective deadlines.

******

Parashat Beshalach contains the famous "Az Yashir," the song sung by Moshe and Benei Yisrael praising God after the drowning of the Egyptian army at the Sea of Reeds. In Masekhet Sanhedrin 91b, the Gemara cites the introductory verse to this song - "Az yashir Moshe" ("Then will Moshe sing") - as a Biblical source for "techiyat ha-meitim" (resurrection of the dead). The future tense used in this verse - "yashir" - implies that Moshe and Benei Yisrael will, at some point in the future, sing this song of praise, thus necessitating their ultimate resurrection. Rashi, commenting on this verse, writes that this reading is clearly a Midrashic reading of the verse; Rashi demonstrates that grammatically, the form of this word, "yashir," actually refers to the past, that Moshe and Benei Yisrael at that time sung the song of Az Yashir. In any event, the term "az yashir" has become among the more famous allusions in the Torah for the doctrine of "techiyat ha-meitim."

Indeed, the Rambam, in his famous listing of the thirteen articles of faith (in the introduction to his commentary on the chapter "Chelek" in Masekhet Sanhedrin), mentions resurrection as the thirteenth principle, requiring us all to believe that God will, at some point, resurrect the dead. He makes brief mention of this article of faith elsewhere, as well, most notably in Hilkhot Teshuva (3:6), where he establishes unequivocally that those who deny this doctrine have no share in the hereafter. Nevertheless, during the Rambam's later years rumors spread throughout the intellectual Jewish community that he denies the concept of resurrection. A considerable controversy erupted, and the Rambam was compelled to write a lengthy treatise in Arabic, entitled in Hebrew, "Ma'amar [or Igeret] Techiyat Ha-meitim," in which he clarifies his position that belief in resurrection constitutes one of the thirteen central principles of faith.

Several different factors contributed to this confusion, some of which are addressed by the Rambam personally in this treatise. For example, he had written that many of the alleged Scriptural proofs to resurrection do not, in fact, provide compelling evidence for this belief. Most notably, he claimed that the famous prophecy of Yechezkel of the rebirth of the "dried bones" (Yechezkel 37), which many, including Rav Sa'adya Gaon, cite as a Scriptural basis for this doctrine, is allegorical. The Rambam clarified that although he does, indeed, read these and other verses in a non-literal sense, the verses towards the end of Sefer Daniel do, in fact, confirm the doctrine of resurrection. Another source of confusion was the Rambam's notable brevity in discussing techiyat ha-meitim in his presentation of the thirteen articles of faith. This led his critics to believe (or at least make the accusation) that the Rambam did not firmly believe in this doctrine, and briefly mentioned it only for purposes of propriety.

A third source of confusion is the Rambam's controversial view concerning the nature of existence in the world to come. In Hilkhot Teshuva (8:2), the Rambam asserts that in the world to come the human body will not exist; it is a world of only the soul. The Ra'avad there writes that these comments of the Rambam seem "close" to the view of those who believe that the dead will never be resurrected. If only the soul experiences the world to come, then presumably the body and soul never reunite after death. This, too, led some to accuse the Rambam of denying the ultimate resurrection of the dead.

The Rambam replies that although techiyat ha-meitim will undoubtedly occur, the reunion of body and soul will not be everlasting. Life after death will be followed by another death; eventually, the souls of those deserving will earn the world to come. Thus, his view regarding existence in the hereafter does not preclude the belief in resurrection.

The question obviously arises as to the purpose of techiyat ha-meitim if those resurrected will die once again afterward. Rav Yosef Albo, in his Sefer Ha-ikarim, addresses this question and briefly suggests two answers. First, resurrection may serve to allow people the opportunity to improve unhindered by the many obstacles to perfection that we face in the pre-Messianic era. After the arrival of the Mashiach, the world's situation will be far more conducive to spiritual perfection; the dead will therefore be returned in order that they be granted this opportunity. Alternatively, Rav Albo suggests, resurrection may serve simply to publicize to the world the limitless might and power of the Almighty, in order that the world will once and for all unanimously acknowledge the existence and supreme authority of the Creator.

******

When God informs Moshe that Benei Yisrael will receive the daily ration of manna every morning, He also tells him of the purpose behind this method of feeding the people: "… that I may thus test them, to see whether they will follow My Torah or not" (16:4). In what way did the manna test Benei Yisrael? Rashi explains that God issued to Benei Yisrael two instructions regarding the manna. First, they were not to leave any for the next day (16:19), but rather trust that God will provide manna the following morning. Secondly, they were forbidden from leaving the camp to search for manna on Shabbat (16:25-27). It was to these two commandments that God referred when He described the "test" of the manna.

Why would specifically these two mitzvot reflect Benei Yisrael's overall obedience to the Almighty? How could He determine "whether they will follow My Torah" simply on the basis of their observance or neglect of these two commands?

An interesting answer is suggested by Rav Barukh Yitzchak Yissakhar Leventhal, in his "Birkat Yitzchak." In a certain sense, these two commands ran in direct opposition to one another. As mentioned, Benei Yisrael were not to save any manna for the following day in order to demonstrate their trust in the Almighty's ability to provide tomorrow's needs. By consuming all they received that day, they expressed their confidence in the manna's miraculous descent when they arose the next morning. On Shabbat, however, the opposite occurred. Moshe specifically instructed them to prepare a portion of manna on Friday for Shabbat (as we discussed earlier this week), and they were not to even show any curiosity as to whether manna fell on Shabbat morning. They were to believe absolutely that no manna would fall on Shabbat - the precise opposite attitude that was to guide their behavior during the week.

Herein, Rav Leventhal suggests, lies the particular significance of these two commandments. We demonstrate our commitment to mitzvot by observing even those commandments that appear to contradict one another. Chazal give several examples of this phenomenon. For instance, the Torah forbids wearing sha'atnez - clothing woven from wool and linen, but requires doing so when wearing tztzit (with the authentic tekhelet) or when a kohen dons his priestly garments. Observance of seemingly contradictory laws serves as the clearest expression of obedience to the word of God. Therefore, God tested Benei Yisrael by issuing these two prohibitions - that during the week they could not leave manna for the next day, whereas on Shabbat they were prohibited from going out to search for manna.

In a cryptic passage, the Seforno (on this verse) alludes to an entirely different approach to this "test." Remaining loyal to the Almighty even when receiving one's sustenance effortlessly is, indeed, a formidable challenge. Man has a tendency to think of God and commit himself to His law specifically during times of crisis and uncertainty. The manna, Benei Yisrael's consistent and reliable source of sustenance throughout their sojourn in the wilderness, tested them to see if they would remain loyal to God even when they received their daily rations every morning without any effort.

******

The third verse of Parashat Beshalach records that Motook with him the remains of Yosef when Benei Yisrael left Egypt: "Moshe took with him the bones of Yosef, who had exacted on oath from the children of Yisrael, saying, 'God will be sure to take notice of you: then you shall carry up my bones from here with you'" (13:19). The location of this brief account requires explanation. Benei Yisrael left Egypt in last week's parasha, Parashat Bo. Parashat Beshalach describes the journey taken by Benei Yisrael once they left, tracing their experiences from Egypt to Refidim (and then, in Parashat Yitro, to Mount Sinai). Why were we not told earlier that Moshe took with him Yosef's remains?

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch explains that Moshe's transport of Yosef's bones is introduced to establish a contrast between Yosef and Benei Yisrael. The first two verses of the parasha tell that God did not lead Benei Yisrael along the shorter route out of Egypt in fear that they might return to Egypt at the first sign of trouble. In this context, the Torah recalls Yosef's request that his brothers transport his remains to Canaan. Even on his deathbed, Yosef expressed full confidence in Benei Yisrael's eventual return to Egypt; he had no doubts that God will ultimately redeem His people. Benei Yisrael, however, who just witnessed God's supernatural deliverance, were still uneasy about their departure from Egypt, thus compelling the Almighty to lead them along the indirect route. It is this contrast, Rav Hirsch suggests, that the Torah wishes to emphasize through the juxtaposition of these verses.

A slightly different approach is taken Rav Yoel Leib Ha-levi Herzog of Paris, in his "Imrei Yoel" (published in England, 1922). The verse immediately preceding this one ends with the clause, "va-chamushim alu Benei Yisrael mei-Eretz Mitzrayim." According to many, this means that Benei Yisrael left Egypt armed, prepared for battle. Rav Herzog claims that Benei Yisrael armed themselves because they were not convinced that the redemption had indeed arrived. They remained skeptical as to whether God is truly freeing them once and for all from Egypt, and they therefore anticipated warfare along the way. This same skepticism accounts for their laxity in tending to Yosef's remains. Their ancestors had promised Yosef that his remains would be brought out of Egypt, but Benei Yisrael did not concern themselves with this promise as they left Egypt because they were not yet convinced that they were headed towards Eretz Yisrael. The Torah thus juxtaposes these two verses in order to underscore Benei Yisrael's lack of confidence as they departed from Egypt.

******

The shirat ha-yam (song sung by Benei Yisrael after crossing through the Sea of Reeds) concludes with the famous verse, "Hashem yimlokh le-olam va-ed" - "The Lord will reign for ever and ever!" (15:18). This verse actually ends not only the shira, but Pirkei Avot, as well. The final mishna of Masekhet Avot reads, "Whatever the Almighty created in His world, He created only for His glory, as it is stated, 'Everything that is called by My Name, it is for My glory that I created it; I have formed it, indeed, I have made it' (Yeshayahu 43:7); and it says, 'The Lord shall reign for ever and ever'."

A close look at this mishna raises some question as to the purpose served by the verse "Hashem yimlokh… " The verse in Yeshayahu is cited as a proof-text to the mishna's assertion that "Whatever the Almighty created in His world, He created only for His glory." What, then, does the mishna add by quoting our verse from the shira?

The Midrash Shemuel explains that this final citation responds to the challenge that many will undoubtedly pose to the theory advanced in this mishna. If, truly, God created everything in the universe for His glory, then why does the vast majority of existence appear so diametrically opposed to divine glory? Why is there so much hatred, bloodshed, greed and corruption? Why does the world seem so ungodly if it is intended only to give honor to God? To this the mishna responds, "Hashem yimlokh le-olam va-ed" - The Lord WILL reign - in the future. True, the intended purpose of the world has yet to be realized; in the future, however, God will reestablish His kingdom, so-to-speak, and then we will, indeed, behold how the entire universe is created only for God's glory.

A different approach is cited in the name of the work, "Mili De-avot." This explanation, too, reads the final passage of the mishna as anticipating the challenge of the cynics. According to this approach, however, the cynics ask, even if God created everything for His glory, of what purpose is it if He is not acknowledged? How could He claim kingship over the universe if so few people on earth recognize him? The mishna responds, "Hashem yimlokh le-olam va-ed." Mortal kings lose their title the moment they lose their constituency. A king cannot rule without subjects. The Almighty, however, rules "for ever and ever," regardless of what transpires, irrespective of the extent to which He is revered or ignored. God created everything for His glory, but nevertheless His rule and dominion is not undermined when human beings fail to recognize His glory through His wondrous creation.

The Tiferet Yisrael suggests a third interpretation of this mishna. The Almighty created everything for His honor, but the specifics of how this is so eludes us. We cannot identify the particular function towards this end served by every minute creature or object in the world. We often find it difficult even to identify with certainty the roles we as individuals must assume in this effort towards kevod Shamayim (divine glory). "Hashem yimlokh le-olam va-ed" refers to the next world, when we will all discover the truth about all that God created and determine definitively the role played by every object and person.

******

The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (48b) writes that it was Moshe who first introduced the obligation of birkat ha-mazon (grace after meals). More specifically, Moshe established the obligation to recite the first berakha of birkat ha-mazon; the other sections were introduced later. Many commentaries, including the Rashba there in Berakhot and Rabbenu Bechayei in Parashat Beshalach, explain that Moshe's legislation occurred when the manna began falling. According to Rabbenu Bechayei, and as stated explicitly in the Zohar, Chazal extract this theory from a verse in Parashat Beshalach: "The Lord spoke to Moshe: I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Speak to them and say: By evening you shall eat meat and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God." The final clause in this verse, "and you shall know that I am the Lord your God," alludes to birkat ha-mazon, whereby we express our awareness of the Almighty as the source of our sustenance.

The Rashba notes that this Gemara appears inconsistent with the common assumption that birkat ha-mazon constitutes a Torah obligation. This Gemara implies that Moshe personally instituted this obligation, whereas elsewhere Chazal teach us that God Himself established this mitzva, which originates from a verse in Sefer Devarim (8:10 - "ve-akhalta ve-savata… "). The Rashba explains that Moshe instituted not the obligation of birkat ha-mazon per se, but rather the specific formula to be recited. Thus, the obligation to thank the Almighty for food indeed originates from Torah, but Moshe formulated the precise text by which we fulfill this obligation.

It emerges from the Rashba's discussion that the birkat ha-mazon instituted over the manna is the standard obligation of birkat ha-mazon we recite after meals. Moshe introduced not a new obligation, but rather a specific formula by which to fulfill the standard obligation.

We emphasize this point because it gives rise to a fascinating question: Why would the standard obligation of birkat ha-mazon apply to the consumption of manna? As we know, one is required to recite birkat ha-mazon only after eating a sizable portion of bread. "Bread" has several properties, the most elementary of which being that it is made from grharvested from the ground. Whatever manna was, it wasn't bread; it originated in the heavens, not the land. Why, then, did Benei Yisrael have an obligation to recite birkat ha-mazon after their manna dinner?

This question was raised by Rav Yosef Engel, in his "Gilyonei Ha-shas" in Masekhet Berakhot. He suggests that this Gemara must adopt the view in Masekhet Yoma 75a that the manna changed consistency depending on the eater's wishes. As we all know, Chazal claim that the manna tasted like whatever the given individual desired to eat. One view in Masekhet Yoma goes one step further, claiming that the manna actually became whatever food the individual wanted (with several exceptions). Thus, perhaps birkat ha-mazon was required when the individual decided to eat bread, in which case the manna transformed into bread - not only in taste, but in essence, as well.

Rav Menachem Kasher, in his appendices to Torah Sheleima vol. 14 (#14), presents a much simpler and more straightforward explanation. God Himself refers to the manna as "lechem" (bread) in this narrative (see, for example, the verse cited above). If the Almighty afforded manna this status, we may reasonably assume that this takes effect halakhically, as well, such that manna requires the recitation of birkat ha-mazon. In fact, Rav Kasher draws Midrashic proof to this effect. In a manuscript of a Midrash entitled "Yalkut Teimani," Rav Kasher found a passage that in fact asks, "From where do we know that one recites birkat ha-mazon over manna?" The Midrash finds a source in Tehillim 78:24, which refers to manna as "degan shamayim" - heavenly grain. This proves that manna indeed had the formal status of grain, despite its having originated in the heavens, and its consumption therefore required the recitation of birkat ha-mazon.

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