public life vs private life

The meforshim are bothered by the contradictory reactions of Bn"Y when they discovered the Egyptian army in pursuit.  On the one hand, וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל ה׳ (14:10), they turned to Hashem, and yet on the other hand, וַיֹּאמְרוּ֮ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה֒ הֲֽמִבְּלִ֤י אֵין־קְבָרִים֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם לְקַחְתָּ֖נוּ לָמ֣וּת בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לָּ֔נוּ לְהוֹצִיאָ֖נוּ מִמִּצְרָֽיִם (only one pasuk later! 14:11) they complained that they were going to die and should have never left Egypt. Ramban writes that the two different reactions are evidence that there were two different groups at Yam Suf. There was a group who turned to Hashem in tefilah, and there was a group that rebelled and pinned blame for the situation on Moshe.

R' Yosef Shaul Nathanson in Divrei Shaul writes based on a Zohar that there is in fact no contradiction between the two pesukim. The term וַיִּצְעֲק֥וּּ, says the Zohar, indicates a cry inside a person's heart. On the outside, a person might be screaming at Moshe in anger, but inside his heart he is crying out to Hashem for help. On the outside, a person might be defiant, rebellious, but on the inside, he remains connected to Hashem and longs for Him.

Later in the parsha, when the people go out to collect the mon on Shabbos even after being warned not to do so, Hashem tells Moshe (16:28)

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה עַד אָנָה מֵאַנְתֶּם לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי

Malbim comments on the use of the term מֵאַנְתֶּם:

יש הבדל בין מאן ובין לא אבה, שהבלתי אובה הוא בלב והממאן הוא בפה אף שיאבה בלבו, וכל אדם יאבה בלבו לקיים מצות ה׳ רק שימאן בפה כי יהיה עליו לטורח

The word מאן refers to a public display of rebelliousness, but it doesn't reflect what's on the inside. A person may be a mechalel Shabbos for whatever reason, but that's just on the outside. In his heart of hearts, he wants that connection to Shabbos.  

The actions and words that you see and hear on the outside do not always reflect what is in a person's mind and heart.

Too bad we didn't have this Malbi"m last week, because now we have a deeper insight into Hashem's words to Pharoah (10:3)

עַד מָתַי מֵאַנְתָּ לֵעָנֹת מִפָּנָי שַׁלַּח עַמִּי וְיַעַבְדֻנִי

Pharoah, I know you are have to put up a brave front so as to not lose face in front of your people -- it's מאן, public posturing -- but you know and I know that your heart is not really in it and you want to buckle under.

Coming back to the Divrei Shaul, I think this yesod can help explain another pasuk later in the parsha (17:3-4)

וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא

וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ לֵאמֹר מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי

Aside from the word לֵאמֹר being redundant, the pasuk is a stirah minei u'bei. On the one hand, it talks about וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה, a lashon of tefilah, אֶל ה׳, Y-K-V-K, the midas ha'rachamim. Yet in the very same pasuk, Moshe sounds like he throws the people under the bus and complains that they are out to get him מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה עוֹד מְעַט וּסְקָלֻנִי. Netziv asks: אין לשון ״ויצעק״ מורה כי אם על תפלה, וכאן לא כתיב אלא דברי תרעומות, והכי מיבעי ׳ויאמר משה׳ כמו בספר במדבר (יא,יא) במעשה דמתאוים

Netziv answers (see also haKsav veHaKabbalah) that Moshe did pray for the people, but at the same time, he felt his own life was in danger, and therefore was forced to ask Hashem for protection from the mob at the same time:

אלא מכאן למדו חז״ל במכילתא שהתפלל משה על המים, כמשמעו, והכי תניא: ״ויצעק משה״ – ללמדך שבחו של משה, שלא אמר הואיל שהם מדיינין עמי איני מבקש עליהם רחמים, אלא ״ויצעק משה״ (עכ״ל). אלא בתוך התפלה היו גם דברים אלו שיעשה למענו, שהרי הוא מסוכן, ובאו הדברים בכתוב מפני התשובה של ה׳

Based on the Divrei Shaul, I would say that even as Moshe was in fact verbally (hence the לֵאמֹר) chastising the people, in his heart, וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל ה׳ (and this is why it deliberately uses that phrase of וַיִּצְעַק ַand not ויאמר משה like in Bamidbar), he was crying out to Hashem to have mercy on them.

The Rambam writes in Hil Deyos (2:3)

וְאִם רָצָה לְהַטִיל אֵימָה עַל בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ, אוֹ עַל הַצִּבּוּר - אִם הָיָה פַּרְנָס וְרָצָה לִכְעֹס עֲלֵיהֶן כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְמוּטָב - יַרְאֶה עַצְמוֹ בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁהוּא כוֹעֵס כְּדֵי לְיַסְּרָם וְתִהְיֶה דַּעְתּוֹ מְיֻשֶּׁבֶת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, כְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא מִדַּמֶּה כוֹעֵס בִּשְׁעַת כַּעְסוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ כוֹעֵס.

A leader sometimes has to put on a public face of anger and disapproval, but in his heart, he must remain calm. In Moshe's case, it went beyond that. His heart remained filled with love for his people, filled with prayer on their behalf, even has he verbally chastised them for their misdeeds.

What is the take away for us? That rebellious teenager may not be as rebellious on the inside as he seems on the outside. And the anger a parent/teacher may be showing on the outside may not really reflect the deep love that exists on the inside.

something harder than splitting the sea; attention at all costs; Moshe re-learns a valuable lesson

1) The parsha opens by telling us that Hashem could not lead the people through the land of the Plishtim  פֶּֽן⁠־יִנָּחֵ֥ם הָעָ֛ם בִּרְאֹתָ֥ם מִלְחָמָ֖ה וְשָׁ֥בוּ מִצְרָֽיְמָה, because they were not ready for war and might want to turn back to Egypt in fear.  Instead, they went by way of Yam Suf, which necessitated splitting the sea.  

Hashem always tries to minimize the amount of miracle required.  The mashgiach R' Chatzel Levenstein asked: couldn't Hashem have just stiffened the people's resolve so that they would not fear the Plishtim and in this way they could take the shorter path?  Wouldn't that have been easier than doing kri'as Yam Suf? 

It must be, answered R' Chatzkel, that changing people's attitudes is in fact even harder than splitting the sea.

2) "There is no such thing as bad publicity," goes the saying.  Some people love attention, no matter if it's for good or bad, no matter what the cost of that attention might be.  I think that is the simplest pshat in this Midrash:

 וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה – כְּשֶׁשָּׁלַח פַּרְעֹה אֶת הָעָם מִי צָוַח וַוי, פַּרְעֹה. מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ הוֹלֵךְ לִמְדִינָה אַחַת, הָלַךְ וְשָׁרָה אֵצֶל עָשִׁיר אֶחָד וְקִבֵּל הֶעָשִׁיר בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ בְּעַיִן טוֹבָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַמֶּלֶךְ מִי קִבֵּל בְּנוֹ וּבְאֵיזֶה מְדִינָה הוּא, הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ אִגֶּרֶת אֵצֶל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ וְאָמַר לוֹ שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי פַּעַם אַחַת וּב׳ וְג׳ הָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ בְּכָל זְמַן וּבְכָל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ וְהוֹצִיא לִבְנוֹ בְּעַצְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ צוֹעֵק עַל שֶׁיָּצָא בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ שְׁכֵנָיו לָמָּה אַתָּה צוֹעֵק, אָמַר לָהֶם כָּבוֹד הָיָה לִי כְּשֶׁהָיָה בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ אֶצְלִי שֶׁהָיָה הַמֶּלֶךְ כּוֹתֵב אִגֶּרֶת לִי, וְהָיָה זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁנִּמְשַׁךְ בְּנוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ מֵאֶצְלִי אֵינוֹ נִזְקָק לִי בְּדָבָר, לְכָךְ אֲנִי צוֹעֵק. כָּךְ אָמַר פַּרְעֹה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶצְלִי הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא זָקוּק לִי וְהָיִיתִי סָפוּן בְּפָנָיו וְהָיָה מְשַׁלֵּחַ לִי אִגֶּרֶת בְּכָל שָׁעָה וְאוֹמֵר: כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים שַׁלַּח עַמִּי (שמות ט׳:א׳), וְהָיָה פַּרְעֹה שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי משֶׁה שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְלֹא הָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְשַׁלְּחָם, כְּשֶׁיָּרַד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִצְרַיִם וְהוֹצִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וָאֵרֵד לְהַצִּילוֹ מִיַּד מִצְרַיִם (שמות ג׳:ח׳), הִתְחִיל פַּרְעֹה צוֹעֵק וַוי שֶׁשִּׁלַּחְתִּי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וַיְהִי בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה.

Pharoah regretted sending Bn"Y away because he missed getting that "אִגֶּרֶת" from Hashem on a regular basis in his mail.  What was that אִגֶּרֶת?  "Dear Pharoah, Release my people or you will get yet another makkah.  Sincerely yours, G-d."  And then the makkah would come.  You would think a person would get tired of getting letters like that, of suffering one makkah after the next.  Not Pharaoh.  Better to have G-d's attention, to get his letters, even at the cost of makkos, than to be ignored.  Such is the craving for attention.

We find something similar at the end of VaYechi, when the brothers return to Egypt after burying Yaakov, and we read (50:15)

 וַיִּרְא֤וּ אֲחֵֽי⁠־יוֹסֵף֙ כִּי⁠־מֵ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֔ם וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ ל֥וּ יִשְׂטְמֵ֖נוּ יוֹסֵ֑ף וְהָשֵׁ֤ב יָשִׁיב֙ לָ֔נוּ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־הָ֣רָעָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר גָּמַ֖לְנוּ אֹתֽוֹ׃

Rashi explains מהו ויראו? הכירו במיתתו אצל יוסף, שהיו רגילין לסעוד עמו על שולחנו של יוסף, והיה מקרבן בשביל כבוד אביו, ומשמת יעקב לא קירבן.

Some of the meforshim (e.g. see Malbim, Ksva vhaKabbalah) learn that the word  ל֥וּ here does not mean  שמא ישטמנו, like Rashi explains, but rather  הלואי.  The brothers wanted Yosef to express whatever anger, whatever hatred, whatever bad feelings he may harbor against them.  Why would they want such a thing?  Because worse than suffering someone's anger is suffering being ignored.  

Pharoah is like a celebrity whose moment in the sun has faded, and as much as they hated being hounded by media and fans in the past, they now miss the limelight.  Pharoah exclaimed "Woe is me!" because worse than suffering G-d's makkos is suffering the fate of being ignored.

3) Even though Moshe told the people that "Hashem yilachem lachem" and they had nothing to fear, he paused and started to daven, as if he was less than confident of the outcome.  Hashem immediately stopped him:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה׳ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מַה⁠־תִּצְעַ֖ק אֵלָ֑י דַּבֵּ֥ר אֶל⁠־בְּנֵי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל וְיִסָּֽעוּ׃

וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ עַל⁠־הַיָּ֖ם וּבְקָעֵ֑הוּ וְיָבֹ֧אוּ בְנֵֽי⁠־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּ֖ם בַּיַּבָּשָֽׁה׃

What was Moshe nervous about? 

(Netziv writes that Moshe assumed that Hashem would save Bn"Y b'derech ha'teva.  When things are done b'derech ha'teva, such as fighting a war, the overall outcome may be guaranteed, but there is no guarantee against harm to each individual.  Therefore, Moshe davened.)  

The Midrash comments on the pasuk וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֣וֹךְ הַיָּ֑ם וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that 

היו מלאכי השרת תמהים לומר בני אדם עובדי עבודה זרה מהלכין ביבשה בתוך הים, ומנין שאף הים נתמלא עליהם חמה, שנאמר (שמות י״ד:כ״ט) והמים להם חמה אל תקרי חומה אלא חימה

When the malachim looked down at Bn"Y, they didn't see much difference between them and the Mitzrim.  Why did Bn"Y deserve for the Yam to split for them and for the Mitzrim to drown?

Whether Moshe was aware of their thinking, or whether the same thought occurred to him independently, it clouded his judgment and led him to pause and question whether Bn"Y were deserving of the victory that was promised.  It led him to think that without his tefilos, the Jewish people might not make it.

Hashem's response: וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗ וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ .  You remember back in parshas Shmos, when Moshe was arguing with G-d about whether to accept his shlichus, Moshe questioned the faith of Bn"Y: וַיַּ֤עַן מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י (4:1)  Hashem responded by telling Moshe that he will give him signs to perform.  First, to cast down his staff and it will turn into a snake.  Rashi explains: רמז לו שספר לשון הרע על ישראל, ותפש אומנותו של נחש.  Secondly, He told him to put his hand inside his cloak and it would turn white.  Rashi  explains: אף באות זה רמז שלשון הרע סיפר באומרו: לא יאמינו לי (שמות ד׳:א׳), לפיכך הלקהו בצרעת, כמו שלקתה מרים על לשון הרע  Never cast aspersions on the Jewish people.  

When the malachim began to voice their doubts, giving Moshe pause, Hashem reminded him of this lesson he learned on day #1 of his appointment as leader. וְאַתָּ֞ה הָרֵ֣ם אֶֽת⁠־מַטְּךָ֗, pick up that staff that turned into a snake when you questioned the faith of Bn"Y; וּנְטֵ֧ה אֶת⁠־יָדְךָ֛ stretch out your hand which turned white because you spoke lashon ha'ra against my people.  How can you question the merits of the Jewish people compared to those of the Egyptians?  (Techeiles Mordechai of the Maharasham).  

Moshe's argument  וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא⁠־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י, was finally put to rest at Yam Suf, וַיַּֽאֲמִ֙ינוּ֙ בַּֽה׳ וּבְמֹשֶׁ֖ה עַבְדּֽוֹ׃.

T"u b'Shevat; leftover mon for shabbos -- hutra or dechuya?; "ki va sus Pharoah" -- part of the shira or not?

1) Chazal tell us that each of the makkos lasted a month.  The makkah itself lasted a week, and there were three weeks of warning given. The last makkah of bechoros took place on Pesach.  Turn the clock back a month and on the 15th of Adar there would have been makkas choshech for the Egyptians.  For us, this is the time we celebrate ליהודים היתה אורה.  Turn the clock back another month to 15 Shevat and the Egyptians had arbeh to deal with, which consumed all the produce from the trees (10:5) וְאָכַל֙ אֶת־כׇּל־הָעֵ֔ץ הַצֹּמֵ֥חַ לָכֶ֖ם מִן־הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃.  We in turn have the holiday of T"u b'Shevat, which we celebrate by eating the fruits from the trees.  (Chasam Sofer in the derashos)

2) There was an exception to the rule of אִ֕ישׁ אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר, for the mon collected on Friday that was left overnight for Shabbos.  Sefas Emes (Michtivei Torah) has a safeik whether this mon put aside for Shabbos could be leftover until Sunday.  In other words, does the issur of אַל־יוֹתֵ֥ר מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַד־בֹּֽקֶר apply to all mon and is just dechuya for the sake of Shabbos meals, or was the mon that fell of Friday מופקע completely from the issur?  

The gemara (Kid 38) writes that after Moshe died and the mon ceased to fall, Bn"Y ate the leftovers until the day after Pesach, at which point they began to eat the produce of Eretz Yisrael.  How were they allowed to keep leftovers?  Rishonim write that Moshe died on Shabbos afternoon, which is one of the reasons we recite "tzidkascha tzedek" -- tziduk ha'din -- at mincha on Shabbos.  (See Tos Menachos 30: מה שנוהגין לומר צידוק הדין בשבת במנחה פירש רב שר שלום גאון על שנפטר משה רבינו באותה שעה לפיכך נמנעו מלעסוק בתורה משום דאמרי' חכם שמת כל בתי מדרשות שבעיר בטילין וקשה דהא כתיב בן מאה ועשרים שנה אנכי היום ודרשינן היום מלאו ימי ושנותי ואם בשבת מת א"כ כתב היום מערב שבת ויש לתמוה דכתב על העתיד ולר"ש לא בעי למימר דהפסוק נאמר על העתיד מדקשיא ליה מהא דכתיב לקוח את ספר התורה הזה שמא על שם שעתיד יהושע כג] להשלימו ועוד קשה דבסדר עולם משמע דבשבעה באדר שמת משה בו ערב שבת היה)  If the mon that fell of Shabbos is מופקע from the issur of keeping leftovers, then problem solved.  

The Brisker Rav rejected this proof.  Once the mon ceased to fall, the halachos associated with the mon like not keeping leftovers also ceased to be in effect.   

4) Maaseh Rav quotes the GR"A (#29) to omit the pasuk of  כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ ... וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם׃  when reciting shiras ha'yam.  On the one hand, the pasuk does not sound like part of the praises of Hashem sung in shirah, but rather sounds like a description of the event. On the other hand, however, the pasuk is written in the unique format of the pesukim of shirah, with extra blank space between the phrases (אריח על גבּי לבינה).  

The Rishonim already take up the question of whether it is part of the shirah or not.  Ramban quotes Ibn Ezra:

אמר ר׳ אברהם שגם זה מן השירה, כי היו משוררים ואומרים: כי בא סוס פרעה ברכבו ובפרשיו בים וישב ה׳ עליהם את מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוך הים, והוא נס בתוך נס.

But then objects and says:

ואיננו כלשון השירה והנבואות. אבל פירושו: אז ישיר משה (שמות ט״ו:א׳), כי בא סוס פרעה בים [ביום ההוא מיד, לא מיום המחרת או אחרי כן. או טעמו: אז, כאשר בא סוס פרעה] בים, והשיב עליהם השם מי הים בעוד בני ישראל הולכים ביבשה בתוכו – להגיד כי בלכתם בתוכו ביבשה אמרו השירה

Both approaches of Ibn Ezra and Ramban implicitly answer a question which the Netziv spells out: mai kah mashma lan this pasuk?  Isn't it clear already that Bn"Y sang shirah as they crossed sea and watched the Egyptians drowning?  Ramban sees the pasuk as emphasizing the fact that shirah was an immediate reaction, sung on the spot, without preparation or rehearsal. Ibn Ezra sees the point as the fact that the Egyptians were drowned in the sea simultaneously with Bn"Y being on dry land and singing shira.  The Oznayim laTorah writes that Bn"Y said shirah for the fact that the Egyptians followed them into the river.  What were they thinking?  After so many makkos, couldn't they anticipate that this was a trap?  The only explanation is that the fact that they followed was itself miraculous.

Netziv develops a yesod that he already touches on earlier in the parsha (14:20). Chazal comment on  וְהַמַּ֤יִם לָהֶם֙ חֹמָ֔ה מִֽימִינָ֖ם וּמִשְּׂמֹאלָֽם that חֹמָ֔ה is written chaseir, without a vav, and can be read as cheima, anger.  Yalkut Shimoni:

הָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת תְּמֵהִין לוֹמַר בְּנֵי אָדָם עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מְהַלְּכִים בַּיַּבָּשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף הַיָּם נִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן חֵמָה, שֶּׁלְּמַעְלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר וְהַמַּיִם לָהֶם חֹמָה חֵמָה כְּתִיב

If the Egyptians are to be judged for their wrongdoings, then it is only fair that Bn"Y pass muster as well.  Why should our shortcomings, our idolatry, be overlooked?  The angels claimed that Bn"Y were themselves guilty of avodah zarah and therefore undeserving of the miracle of the sea being split.  

Fortunately, G-d, not angels, is the final arbiter of justice.

The shirah ends with a vision of future geulah, ה׳ יִמְלֹ֖ךְ לְעֹלָ֥ם וָעֶֽד׃.  Chazal do not paint a rosy picture of what awaits us at that time.  Ula (San 98) said ייתי ולא אחמיניה׳, let Moshiach come, but not while I'm alive to have to suffer through it happening.  G-d will sit in ultimate judgment of the world, and while we may be confident that the nations will get their comeuppance, who is to say that we will pass muster and not suffer as well?  

Netziv sees this final pasuk as an answer. כִּ֣י בָא֩ ס֨וּס פַּרְעֹ֜ה בְּרִכְבּ֤וֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו֙ and G-d sat in judgment and found them wanting. At the same time, וּבְנֵ֧י יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל הָלְכ֥וּ בַיַּבָּשָׁ֖ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הַיָּֽם -- despite our flaws, despite the fact that we had our own imperfections, despite the protests of the angels, Hashem spared us and miraculously saved us.  

The future geulah will have its challenges and it may be painful to behold it unfold (witness current events), but we should not doubt for a moment that ultimately, we will be vindicated.  

4) By coincidence, the halacha yomi of the Pninei Halacha series is up to the halachos of writing a sefer Torah.  R' Melamed offers the following explanation of the blank space as a break between parshiyos (i.e. peshucha, stuma):

רמז יש בהלכה זו: האותיות השחורות מבטאות את כל מה שאנו מכירים ומבינים ויכולים להסביר, ולכן אנו מסוגלים להביע רעיונות אלו באמצעות האותיות. אבל יש רעיונות נשגבים, עליונים ועמוקים שאי אפשר לבטאם, הם כל כך גבוהים עד ששום מילה ואות לא יוכלו להכילם ולבארם. אך יחד עם זאת, אנו יודעים שהם קיימים, והם משפיעים על חיינו, מהם נובעות כל ההשגות והמחשבות שלנו. הקלף הלבן המקיף כל אות, מבטא את אותם הרעיונות הגבוהים שאינם ניתנים לביטוי. ומתוך הקלף הלבן, מתגלה ומופיעה לעינינו האות השחורה. מתוך מה שמעל ההכרה, מתגלים אלינו רעיונות מוכרים וברורים. וזה יסודה של התורה, מקורה שמימי ועליון, והיא יורדת עד לחיים היום יומיים שלנו (ע' לקוטי תורה לאדמוה"ז שה"ש מו, ג; דרך מצוותיך לצמח צדק, מצוות תפילין ב).

There are concepts that can be communicated in words and letters, and there are ideas that are so lofty that they transcend being encapsulated in that way.  The letters of the Torah are what can be communicated directly; the blank space represents those ideas that we sense, but which cannot be put into words.  The background of those ideas creates the canvas upon which the letters take shape and have meaning.

Every phrase of the shirah is surrounded by blank space.  As much as we understand and appreciate the words of shirah, there are depths of meaning davka in this parsha that go beyond what can be communicated through words alone. 

bitter waters

1. The WSJ reports that certain "rabbis" have decided they can no longer say the tefilah l'shlom ha'Medinah because they refuse to pray for the success of the new Israeli government.  The article goes on to discuss praying for the secular governments those of us in the diaspora live under.  When Obama y'mach shemo was President, and now continuing under Biden, I thought it best to have them in mind in our prayers every day, not just once a week -- "v'lamalshinim al t'hi tikvah v'kol ha'risha k'rega toveid..."  

2. A well known Rabbi put out a list of halachos pertaining to cruises, some of them specifically aimed at situations that come up on a non-kosher cruise, like whether you can eat food heated in a treif oven, etc.  I think he may have missed an important din that may render all the other questions moot:

 והענין: כי התורה הזהירה בעריות ובמאכלים האסורים, ותתיר הביאה איש ואשתוג ואכילת הבשר והיין, ואם כן ימצא בעל התאוה מקום להיות שטוף בזמת אשתו או נשיו הרבות, ולהיות בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו, וידבר כרצונו בכל הנבלות, שלא הוזכר איסור זה בתורה, והנה יהיה נבל ברשות התורה. לפיכך בא הכתוב הזה אחרי שפרט האיסורים שאסר אותם לגמרי, וצוה בדבר כללי, שנהיה פרושים מן המותרות.

3. Ibn Ezra (14:13) famously asks why the 600,000+ of Bn"Y were afraid of the small number of Mitzrim chasing after them.  

 יש לתמוה: איך יירא מחנה גדול משש מאות אלף איש מן הרודפים אחריהם, ולמה לא ילחמו על נפשם ועל בניהם. התשובה: כי המצרים היו אדונים לישראל, וזה הדור היוצא ממצרים למד מנעוריו לסבול עול מצרים ונפשו שפלה, ואיך יוכל עתה להלחם עם אדוניו.

He answers that psychologically, Bn"Y were unable to bring themselves to fight because the years of servitude had conditioned them to respect the Egyptians as their masters.

This explains why Bn"Y had no trouble going to war against Amalek at the end of the parsha.  It was not fear of battle which tied their hands, but fear specifically of the Egyptians, who had held them as slaves.

I noticed that the Seforno does not agree.  He writes (14:8)

ובני ישראל יצאים ביד רמה – כענין ״ידנו רמה״ (דברים ל״ב:כ״ז), היו מתאמצים לנצח את פרעה וחילו שלא היו רבים במספר כמותם. ובזה הודיע שלא היו יודעין ענין המלחמה, כי אמנם היה ראוי לירא מאותם המעטים מלומדי מלחמה יותר ממה שהיה ראוי לירא מכל המון מצרים הנוסע אחריהם אחר כך

He understands that there were two groups of Egyptians, וַיִּקַּ֗ח שֵׁשׁ־מֵא֥וֹת רֶ֙כֶב֙ בָּח֔וּר וְכֹ֖ל רֶ֣כֶב מִצְרָ֑יִם, six hundred crack troops led by Pharoah + a mass multitude of other soldiers.  Bn"Y charged ahead  וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יֹצְאִ֖ים בְּיָ֥ד רָמָֽה with reckless abandon, with no fear of engaging these crack troops in battle.  Had Bn"Y been more experienced in the art of war, they would and *should* have been more afraid, since 600 seasoned troops can put up a fight even if greatly outnumbered.

4. Right after the shiras ha'yam we have the episode of the bitter waters.  Bn"Y went from being surrounded by water to not having a drop to drink.  Moshe responded:

 וַיִּצְעַ֣ק אֶל־ה׳ וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ ה׳ עֵ֔ץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ֙ אֶל־הַמַּ֔יִם וַֽיִּמְתְּק֖וּ הַמָּ֑יִם שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃

The word וַיּוֹרֵ֤הוּ suggests that Moshe was taught a lesson here.  Targum Onkelus translates it as וְאַלְּפֵיהּ; Ramban writes לא מצאתי לשון מורה אלא בענין למוד.  Was this simply a botany lesson, that that particular tree could make the water potable?  Ramban writes that there was more to it than that.  He siggests that the tree was bitter, but it miraculously transformed the bitter water to sweet.  It would be like adding salt to salty sea water to make it drinkable.  Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi explains that the lesson Moshe was giving over here is that there is no direct connection between the means and the end.  Your going to work is not the cause of your getting enough money to take home a salary and have a nice home and be able to go on a cruise.  Your spending hours working on a sugya is not the cause of it going into your brain.  Just like adding salt to salty sea water obviously is not the cause of it becoming sweet -- it's has to be a gift from Hashem -- so too with everything else in life.  We put in effort because we have a chuyuv to do so, but the result ultimately comes from Hashem. 

There is a lot to say on this parsha of the bitter waters, much more than I have time to write about.  Why did Hashem deprive them of water to begin with?  When Hashem responded, why did he not give them potable water right away -- why give them bitter water that then has to be sweetened?  Chazal tell us that water represents Torah.  Bn"Y went from experiencing nevuah, singing shirah, so having what seemed to be no connection.  The Ishbitzer writes that there are moments in life when we experience gadlus ha'mochin, when we feel really connected and spiritually uplifted, but then there are moments when we sink and feel that we have nothing, that we are nothing.  Hashem wanted to show Bn"Y this the down moments are also part of the bigger plan.  There are moments in life filled with "bitter waters," but those too can be sweetened.  

al sefas ha'Yam - the death of the illusion

  וַיַּ֤רְא יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶת־מִצְרַ֔יִם מֵ֖ת עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם  The Mitzrim died in the Sea, so what does it mean  עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם?  

There was a contingent of Jews who had a hava amina of turning back to Egypt when they saw Pharoah's army pursuing after them.  They probably rationalized to themselves, "We got through 210 years of this -- what's a few more years or decades?"

The thing is, once you taste freedom, the spell of oppression is broken and there's no going back.  It's like, l'mashal, Adam after the cheit.  Once there was a recognition of tov v'ra, whatever that means, you can't put the genie back in the bottle so easily.  

So maybe from a distance, the rationalizations held.  Maybe from a distance, some could think that, "Hey, maybe things in Egypt were not so bad..."  When you face a lifetime of oppression day in and day out, you become used to it, inured to the injustices and violence, and it begins to seem almost normal.   

But now, when the Egyptian army drew close, when they stood עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם right next to Bn"Y, and the people could look into the eyes of their former oppressors, do you know what they saw?  וַיַּ֤רְא יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶת־מִצְרַ֔יִם מֵ֖ת עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם   They saw walking dead.  They saw והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה, אלו רשעים שבחייהם קרויים מתים (Brachos 18).  Thanks to their small taste of freedom, the people now recognized their former captors for the brutal monsters that they were.  

The physical death of the Mitzrim was perhaps anticlimactic, as it was at this moment that the illusion of Egypt as a mighty empire, as an advanced culture, as someplace Jews had called home for better or worse for centuries, crumbled and died.  The stark reality that revealed itself to Bn"Y was that this was no sophisticated empire -- it was a bunch of thugs bent on never surrendering their power.  There could be no return to such a place.

This recognition was the precursor and perhaps the precondition to the yam splitting.

(The classical meforshim all discuss the question of what עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם means here.  The Sanz Klausenberger (Shefa Chaim) has a number of pieces where he explains it similarly to this.)

What an appropriate way to end chag ha'geulah.  Hashem is waiting to do miracles for us, but it has to start with וַיַּ֤רְא יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶת־מִצְרַ֔יִם מֵ֖ת עַל־שְׂפַ֥ת הַיָּֽם  , recognizing where we are as a dead end.  You can't move forward until the illusion that there is something to turn back to, the illusion of security and prosperity in galus, the illusion that this is a safe culture to raise our children in and have a life in, is broken.  

beyond the superficial

1) According to Midrash (see Ramban as well), Bn"Y splintered into different camps as they stood at Yam Suf watching the Egyptian army fast approaching.  Some were sure G-d would save them, but others were prepared to throw in the towel and started to question why they ever left Egypt to begin with.  It is to that group that Moshe directed his words, "Hashem yilachem lachem v'atem tacharishun."  Hashem will take care of the Egyptians and fight the fight for you, but "atem tacharishun," while everyone else is singing shirah, you will remain silent.  Only those who stood firm and passed the test of belief beforehand have a right to celebrate afterwards.  

2) The haggadah darshens the pasuk, " וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקים את־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וַיֵּ֖דַע אֱלֹקים," as referring to "perishus derech eretz," privacy in intimate matters, something only G-d could know and be aware of.  The Midrash, however, darshens the pasuk quite differently:

דָּבָר אַחֵר: וַיַּרְא אֱלֹקים – אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לְהַמְרוֹת עַל יַם סוּף, דִּכְתִיב: וַיַּמְּרוּ עַל יָם בְּיַם סוּף (תהלים ק״ו:ז׳).  וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים – יָדַע שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לוֹמַר (שמות ט״ו:ב׳): זֶה קלי

The Shem m'Shmuel, in his commentary on the haggadah, asks how can be that on the one hand the baal ha'haggadah sees in this pasuk a tremendous shevach of Bn"Y, and other meforshim comment that this וַיַּ֥רְא is one of the keys to unlocking the geulah, and yet the Midrash reads these same words as an allusion to the rebellion at Yam Suf?  How can you reconcile such widely opposing approaches to the same text?

He answers as follows:

וַיַּרְא אֱלֹקים and וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים,  the rebellion at Yam Suf and the singing of shirah, are not put side by side in the Midrash because one follows the other in chronological order.  Look at the very next line of the Midrash, which reads:

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר, רָאָה שֶׁעֲתִידִין לוֹמַר (שמות ל״ב:ד׳): אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל  וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים – שֶׁעֲתִידִים לְהַקְדִּים נַעֲשֶׂה לְנִשְׁמָע.

Naaseh v'nishma preceded cheit ha'eigel, yet the Midrash has the order reversed.

וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים does not follow וַיַּ֥רְא אֱלֹקים in time, but rather וַיֵּדַע is a deeper, more profound understanding and appreciation of what was once only seen, וַיַּ֥רְא , superficially.

On the surface, cheit ha'eigel is no less than a monumental rebellion against G-d.  However, if you dig below the surface, the exact opposite is true.  Bn"Y came to the eigel because they feared that they had lost Moshe, the only conduit they knew of to connect to G-d.  It was the search for a substitute, something to fill the void left by the loss of Moshe, something to help them reconnect with the spirituality and idealism they had known through him, which led them astray (an all too common story in our history -- how many people latch on to all kinds of ideals and causes to fill the void in their neshoma left by having no connection to anything?) וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים that this is not as rebellion, but a product of the same holy fervor that led to naaseh v'nishma in the first place.

The same is true of the rebellion at Yam Suf.  You can find Jews in the leadership of every movement -- civil rights, social justice, etc. -- that speaks out against unfairness and injustice.  The spark for that comes from Yam Suf.  We don't like to sit back passively and watch events unfold; we like to share our opinion on everything, to make their voices heard.  Our neshoma gets stirred up easily.  Sometimes, unfortunately, it leads us to וַיַּמְּרוּ עַל יָם בְּיַם סוּף, in the wrong direction.  Yet that same stirring up is what also leads to shirah. 

וַיֵּדַע אֱלֹקים that that passion, that hislahavus, that energy, that sometimes seems to carry us away, comes from a holy source and therefore can and will find expression in a great way as well.

Netziv on who jumped into Yam Suf first: sheivet Yehudah or sheivet Binyamin -- and why it matters

There is a Netziv in parshas Zos HaBracha (Harchev Davar 33:12) that is relevant to our parsha that is worth taking a look at if you did not see it then or don't remember it.  Everyone seems to think that Nachshon was the first one to take the brave leap and jump into the Yam Suf, after which the waters split, but in actuality, Chazal (in Mechilta and Tosefta in Sota) have a machlokes whether sheivet Yehudah went in first or whether sheivet Binyamin jumped in first (see this post where I quoted the hesber of the Degel Reuvain to the mahlokes).  According to the view that Binyamin jumped in first, the gemara writes that the members of Yehudah began to toss stones at them --  how dare the youngest usurp the place of Yehudah!  Chazal give a mashal: a king asked his elder son to wake him at 9:00 in the morning, and also asked his younger son to wake him, but at sunrise.  When the youngest son went in to wake his father, the elder one tried to stop him.  "Father asked me to wake him only later!" he protested.  To which the younger son answered that he was also doing what the father told him to do, and to get out of his way.  Hearing the commotion and noise of the argument, the father woke up.  "Since you both wanted to do my bidding, you both get reward," he declared.  So too, Yehudah is given the reward of malchus; Binyamin is given the reward of Beis HaMikdash being built in his portion.

Why is it that Binyamin was so anxious to take the lead and did not defer to Yehudah, his elder brother?  And what does the mashal add to our understanding here?

Netziv explains that the nature of Binyamin's avodah was to live on the highest level of trust and bitachon in Hashem.  Life need not be constrained by the normal rules and expectations of derech ha'teva.  "Y'did Hashem, yishkon la'vetach alav..."  The Shechina is always close to Binyamin, as the Shechina is always close to a baal bitachon.  This is why Binyamin's bracha given by Moshe appears right after Levi's bracha, and this is why Binyamin was zocheh to have the Beis HaMikdash built in his portion.

Yehudah, on the other hand, accepted G-d's presence as manifest through derech ha'teva, finding G-d in the day to day normal activities of life.  "Yadav rav lo v'eizer mi'tzarav ti'hiyeh..."  You need to fight wars to defeat enemies; you need to take action to avert tzaros.  Don't just sit back and trust G-d to perform miracles.  It is not a lack of kvod Shamayim, but aderaba, it is the greatest kvod Shamayim to see G-d's presence within teva and not just above it.

There is no right and wrong in the choice between Binyamin vs Yehudah, and throughout the ages this same machlokes reverberates though Jewish thought.  If a person, or Klal Yisrael chooses, we can forget about the rules of teva, live as if Hashem's hashgacha will take care of everything, and if we truly believe it, then it will.  Or we can choose to live within the rules of teva and trust that that is the medium through which yad Hashem acts.  

When Shaul falls in battle, David cries a kinah, a lamentation  (Shmuel 2 1:17-18):

 וַיְקֹנֵ֣ן דָּוִ֔ד אֶת־הַקִּינָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את עַל־שָׁא֖וּל וְעַל־יְהוֹנָתָ֥ן בְּנֽוֹ

וַיֹּ֕אמֶר לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת הִנֵּ֥ה כְתוּבָ֖ה עַל־סֵ֥פֶר הַיָּשָֽׁר

Netziv asks: is this the time to talk about the need for Yehudah to learn archery?  What does that have to do with the death of Shaul?

He answers that David understood that when Shaul, who was from sheivet Binyamin, lead the nation, it was on that high level of expecting the miraculous, of trusting G-d to take care of everything.  With Shaul's death, that level of bitachon would be lost.  The passing of the mantle to Yehudah meant living within derech ha'teva, of needing archers and armies to fight wars, with G-d helping behind the scenes.  לְלַמֵּ֥ד בְּנֵֽי־יְהוּדָ֖ה קָ֑שֶׁת is symbolic of that shift in level of belief and shift in level of hashgacha.

This is the machlokes that took place at Yam Suf.  There was a בְּר֨וּחַ קָדִ֤ים עַזָּה֙ כׇּל־הַלַּ֔יְלָה (14:21), a wind building all night, gaining in intensity, that could have pushed the waters of Yam Suf aside -- a meteorological occurrence, just the way a scientist would explain the event away.  The only difference is that this occurrence was not freak chance, but had yad Hashem behind it.  Sheivet Yehudah was waiting for the wind to pick up enough to split the water and then they would march through.  G-d does not need to reboot teva, to override teva, to make his presence known.  Aderaba, it is a higher level to find G-d within nature and not just beyond it.  

Binyamin, on the other hand, did not want to wait.  Forget nature -- just jump in and the water will split.  If you believe, you don't need to worry about anything else.  That is the ideal.  

The machlokes betweeh shevatim was not just a matter of who gets the kavod of going first, but it reflected different philosophies in avodas Hashem.

Chazal used the mashal of waking the king to convey this idea.  Kings don't normally wake up at sunrise.  They sleep in until later in the morning.  Yehudah followed the derech ha'teva in their avodas Hashem; he is the eldest son who wanted to wake his father the king only at the normal time.  Binyamim wanted to jump the gun, to go outside the norm, as that was their derech in avodah.

Hashem's response is that both approaches have merit.  All that matters in the end is that both intend to be marbeh k'vod Shamayim.

nachamu - when leaders fail to speak up

1) Everybody knows the famous words of the haftarah (Yeshayahu 40), "Nachamu nachamu ami...," but what I think most people don't know is the context.  In the previous chapter the navi tells Chizkiyahu הִנֵּה֮ יָמִ֣ים בָּאִים֒ וְנִשָּׂ֣א׀ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּבֵיתֶ֗ךָ וַאֲשֶׁ֨ר אָצְר֧וּ אֲבֹתֶ֛יךָ עַד־הַיּ֥וֹם הַזֶּ֖ה בָּבֶ֑ל that all of his children and his treasure will be carried off into galus to Bavel.  Chizkiyahu responds to this prophecy by saying ט֥וֹב דְּבַר ה׳ אֲשֶׁ֣ר דִּבַּ֑רְתָּ וַיֹּ֕אמֶר כִּ֥י יִהְיֶ֛ה שָׁל֥וֹם וֶאֱמֶ֖ת בְּיָמָֽי׃,  all good by me so long as it does not happen in my lifetime -- what happens afterwards is their problem.  Malbim tries to put a positive spin on it and say that what Chizkiyahu meant is that things can always change.  A nevuah of bad tidings can always be averted if people do teshuvah, so there is no need to yet worry and panic.  Still, Chizkiyahu has just heard unbelievably bad news and that's the best response he can muster?!  That's all he has to say?!   

R"Y Kara comments: והיה לו לבקש רחמים על ישראל שנגזר עליהםב גלות בבל בשבילו ולא ביקש. אמר הקב״ה: חזקיה שהיה לו לנחם אתכם ואינו מנחם את ירושלם ואינו מבקש רחמים על ישראל, אלא אמר טוב ולבד שיהיה שלום ואמת בימי, הריני מנחם את ירושלם. הדא הוא דכתיב: נחמו נחמו עמי  Hashem said, "Chizkiyahu should have consoled the nation, should have consoled Yerushalayim, should have begged for mercy on the people, and he didn't.  Therefore, I will console them myself -- nachamu nachamu ami..."   

At the risk of sounding sacrilegious, what we see from the navi is that sometimes our leaders miss the boat.  They hear the dvar Hashem all right, maybe even better than you or I can hear it, but their reaction is all wrong.  But what we also see from the navi is that even in those circumstances, Klal Yisrael will still find direction because Hashem himself will step in to guide us if our leaders fail.

2) I noticed a Seforno in our parsha that reads pesukim in Beshalach in way I had not thought about before and in a way which Seforno himself in Beshalach does not clue you in to.  Rashi comments on the dibra of Shabbos,  שָׁמ֛֣וֹר אֶת־י֥וֹם֩ הַשַּׁבָּ֖֨ת לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך , that the כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ refers to the fact that the commandment to keep Shabbos had already been given at Marah.  Rashi is referring to Shmos 15:25 שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃, where he explains (based on Sanhedrin 56) that the chok and mishpat are במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהן: שבת, פרה אדומה, וכיבוד אב ואם,א ודינין.  

Seforno helps answer the question that begs asking: What is the purpose of the Torah here alluding to the fact that the command of Shabbos was already given in Marah?  He explains that the dibra is not coming to tell us the historical fact of when the mitzvah of shabbos was given, but rather is coming to tell us how to keep shabbos properly.  The parsha there in Beshalach continues וַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ אִם־שָׁמ֨וֹעַ תִּשְׁמַ֜ע לְק֣וֹל ה׳ אלקיך  וְהַיָּשָׁ֤ר בְּעֵינָיו֙ תַּעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו כׇּֽל־הַמַּחֲלָ֞ה אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֤מְתִּי בְמִצְרַ֙יִם֙ לֹא־אָשִׂ֣ים עָלֶ֔יךָ כִּ֛י אֲנִ֥י ה׳ רֹפְאֶֽךָ.  I had always read this as a separate command, but Seforno explains that it's a continuation of the previous pasuk, a continuation of the שָׁ֣ם שָׂ֥ם ל֛וֹ חֹ֥ק וּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וְשָׁ֥ם נִסָּֽהוּ׃.  Shabbos is not just a day to relax in your hammock all day, sipping kiddush scotch and eating cholent.  Shabbos has to be a day of,  וְהַֽאֲזַנְתָּ֙ לְמִצְוֺתָ֔יו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ֖ כׇּל־חֻקָּ֑יו , a day spent learning Torah, thinking about avodah. The dibra tells us that your shemiras shabbos has to be  לְקַדְּשׁ֑֜וֹ , to make it a holy day, and we were given the template of how to do that כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוְּךָ֖֣ ה׳ אלקיך in Marah.

My wife's grandfather, R' Dov Yehudah Shochet, explained the Rashi in parshas Emor (Vayikra 23:3) מה עניין שבת אצל מועדות? ללמדך שכל המחלל את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילו חילל את השבתות, וכל המקיים את המועדות מעלין עליו כאילוא קיים את השבתות as making a similar point.  The test of whether a person's shmiras Shabbos is l'shem shamayim or not is how the person keeps the moadim.  No one relaxes preparing for Pesach.  Building a sukkah takes work. If you keeps Shabbos but slack off on the moadim, it's like chilul Shabbos because it shows the shmiras Shabbos was only for the sake of having a day to relax and sleep but not really l'shem mitzvah.

3) Rashi comments on לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (4:2) as follows: לא תוסיפו – כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות, וכן: לא תגרעו  I saw a diyuk in Rashi: why does Rashi add the words  וכן: לא תגרעו at the end?  The pasuk itself says וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ!  Something to think about.  

4) What would nachamu be without this?  (Do you prefer the original?)

va'yachalosh Yehoshua es Amalek -- Daat Zekeinim, Raavad, and Aristotle's sea battle problem

The Daat Zekeinim has an interesting answer as to why Yehoshua did not decimate Amalek completely, he only weakened them -- "va'yachalosh Yehoshua es Amalek (17:13) -- when he battled them (see also Ibn Ezra on the word vayachalosh!)

לכך כתיב ויחלש ולא כתב ויכה לפי שעמלק חוזה בכוכבים היה ובחר לו אנשים שאינן עתידין למות באותה מלחמה. וכן יהושע עשה כן דכתיב בחר לנו אנשים דמשמע קיימים ובריאים לכך לא היה יהושע יכול להרגם אלא חתך ידיהם ורגליהם וזהו ויחלש

Amalek had stargazers who knew the future and they sent into battle people who were not fated to die.  Yehoshua countered by choosing for his own army people who were also not fated to die.  So they fought to a standoff and Amalek was weakened in battle, but not wiped out.

Does this idea make sense?  Let's say, for example, that a soldier had his fortune told and it was revealed that he would not die in an upcoming battle.  If that solider chose to run directly into the enemy lines, right into their gunfire, fearing nothing, would the bullets just bounce off him?  Would he really remain unharmed?

Is this the same as Aristotle's "tomorrow's sea battle" problem?  If the statement "tomorrow there will be no sea battle" is true, then no matter what I do, there will be no battle.  So forget diplomacy, forget the need to stand down the navy -- just sit back and watch, because the outcome is already determined.  What then of free choice?  

Raavad in Hil Teshuvah 5:5 is not bothered by the contradiction.  His response to the Rambam's question of how Divine foreknowledge still allows for free will is that Divine knowledge is אבל היא כידיעת האצטגנינים שיודעים מכח אחר מה יהיו דרכיו של זה.  Just because the star gazer knows what you will eat for breakfast tomorrow morning does not mean that when you look in the cabinet tomorrow at the different boxes there you are not freely choosing the one you would like to have that day.  

Again, does it makes sense?  If the star gazer said today that you would eat Cheerios tomorrow, are you really free to choose whatever cereal you like?  

These topics are good for when you have a lot of free time on your hands.

don't wait to start singing

 תשורי מראש אמנה

עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא, שנאמר: (תהלים צח, א)שירו לה' שיר חדש כי נפלאות עשה.

ובאיזה זכות אומרים ישראל שירה?

בזכות אברהם שהאמין בהקדוש ברוך הוא, שנאמר: (בראשית טו, ו) והאמין בה', היא האמונה שישראל נוחלין בה, ועליו הכתוב אומר: (חבקוק ב, ד) וצדיק באמונתו יחיה.

הוי, תשורי מראש אמנה.

Last week I posted R' Chaim's chiddush that even if a person is sure Hashem is going to do a miracle and save him, he can only sing shirah after the fact.  "V'ani b'chasdicha batachti yageil libi b'yeshuasecha," but nonetheless, "Ashira la'Hashem ki gamal alay," not beforehand. 

The SHL"H has a different POV based on the Midrash above.  עתידין ישראל לומר שירה לעתיד לבוא -- why the double language?  If shirah is something that Bnei Yisrael are עתידין in the future going to sing, then obviously it will take place עתיד לבוא?  

The SHL"H explains that tzadikim don't wait for the miracle to happen -- their trust in Hashem is so great that they start singing shirah in anticipation of what's going to come.  

In the future, when we have that level of emunah, עתידין we will sing shirah לעתיד לבוא, on what will happen, without waiting for it to actually occur.  תשורי מראש אמנה - the shirah will be מראש, before the event occurs, because of our  אמנה, our faith in Hashem.

Bnei Yisrael at Yam Suf were not at that level, which is why (al pi peshuto shel mikra, not like the Mechilta we learned last week) they sang shira only after the fact.  "Ya'yaaminu ba'Hashem ub'Moshe avdo" afterwards, but their emunah was not complete enough beforehand.

The complaint (Meg 10b) of מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה is not because G-d was per se opposed to the malachim singing shira.  G-d was asking why the delay until now; why the wait until the Egyptians were drowning to start singing instead of starting beforehand.

Based on this approach, the SHL"H says a fantastic pshat in this gemara regarding Chizkiyahu:

 ביקש הקב"ה לעשות חזקיהו משיח וסנחריב גוג ומגוג אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע ומה דוד מלך ישראל שאמר כמה שירות ותשבחות לפניך לא עשיתו משיח חזקיה שעשית לו כל הנסים הללו ולא אמר שירה לפניך תעשהו משיח לכך נסתתם (Sanhedrin 94) 

The reason Hashem did not appoint Chizkiyahu to be Mashiach is because Chizkiyahu לא אמר שירה לפניך -- he didn't sing shirah לפניך, before the fact, but waited only until afterwards.  In the times of Mashiach we will be singing in anticipation of the miracles, not only after they happen.  

This also explains, writes the SHL"H, why when discussing the shirah Bnei Yisrael sang the pasuk uses the feminine voice, "ha'shira ha'zos," but when talking about the song of Miriam and the women, it uses the masculine voice, "va'taan lahem Miriam."  Bnei Yisrael's faith was incomplete, "tashash kocham k'neikeivah" in their midah of emunah, but the women went of of Mitzrayim carrying their "tupim u'mecholos," musical instruments, ready to sing even before the Yam split.  They had the gevurah the men were lacking, the emunah of "zechus nashim tzidkaniyos" which was the catalyst for the geulah.

kol ha'machala... lo asim alecha

I saw that learning the shtickel torah below from the Noam Elimelech is a segulah for refuah.  Now, I don't know if that's true or not, or whether it helps any more than reciting parshas ha'mon this past Tues helps with parnasa, but I figure at least you have a nice dvar Torah for shabbos and that's not a bad thing in itself.  If it also helps those in need of refuah, mah tov u'mah na'im, but that's just icing on the cake.

Kol ha'machala asher samti b'Mitzrayim lo asim alecha ki ani Hashem rofecha.  Rashi already is bothered by the question: if Hashem promises not to afflict us with any machalos, then what do we need the refuah for?

Next week we will read the aseres ha'dibros, and as we all know, the first commandment is Anochi Hashem Elokecha asher hotzeisicha mei'Eretz Mitzrayim.  Everybody asks: why is it that G-d "introduces" himself, if you will, as the one who redeemed us from Egypt instead of telling us that he is the creator of the universe?  

The N.E. explains that G-d's greatest "desire" is to give over his goodness.  G-d is the most perfect tov, and tov is not truly complete and perfect unless there is an element of being meitiv, of sharing that goodness with others.  Ramchal writes that G-d created the world for that purpose alone, so that He can be meitiv.  So viz a viz G-d, creation is not such a big chiddush.  Had it said, "Anochi Hashem Elokecha the creator of heaven and earth," you would say pshita, mai kah mashma lan, of course G-d created everything because he is the greatest tov and therefore wants to be meitiv.  (Compare with Moreh Nevuchim 2:33 and Derashos haRan derush 9, covered in this post). 

Yetzias Mitzrayim is a different story altogether.  As we read over the past two weeks, the Egyptians suffered one makkah after the next, culminating in makas bechoros and then finally Yam Suf.  "Asher hotzeisicha..." is a chiddush, as what happened seems to contradict the quality of G-d being meitiv.  Where is G-d's goodness in smacking around the Mitzryim?   Kol ha'machala asher samti... lo asim -- Hashem does not bring machalos, mi'pi elyon lo yeitzei ra'ah.  But we know Hashem did smite the Egyptians?  

The answer is that olam ha'zeh, for the most part, is a zero sum world.  It's either Egypt gets the good luck of an economy driven by slave labor, or Bnei Yisrael get their freedom -- either/or.  What is meitiv to one party comes at the expense of the other.  Hashem decided that being meitiv to Bn"Y is the best tov; punishing the Egyptians and forcing them to free Bn"Y is not a ra'ah, but is just a means to the end of the greater good.  

Coming back the the pasuk we started with: Kol ha'machala asher samti... lo asim, Hashem will not bring bad into the world.  If you see bad happening, then remember, "Ani Hashem rofecha," I, Hashem, am just there to make you better, to be meitiv to Klal Yisrael.  Sometimes there has to be suffering for the sake of the greater good, and the greater good is always that which benefits Klal Yisrael in the end.

כל המחלה אשר שמתי במצרים לא אשים עליך כי אני ה' רופאך. רש"י ז"ל הקשה בודאי כאשר לא ישים למה לרפואה? ונראה לפרש דהנה כתיב "אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים", ומקשים למה לא אמר אשר בראתי שמים וארץ, שלפי הנראה זה חידוש יותר. אך נראה דבאמת זה חידוש יותר שהוציאנו מארץ מצרים, דהנה בריאת עולם היה מחמת שהשי"ת ב"ה רצה להטיב לברואים, ואין הבריאה חידוש נגד השי"ת כי טבעו להטיב, אבל יציאת מצרים שהכה השי"ת את מצרים במכות מופלאות, וזה נגד טבעית הבורא ב"ה כי "מפי עליון לא תצא הרעה", אך מחמת שזה היה הטבה לישראל מה שהכה את מצרים, ועיקר הטובה היה לישראל, עשה השי"ת נגד הטבעית להכות אותם, וזה חידוש יותר גדול. וזהו "כל המחלה לא אשים", אך איך הכה אותם הלא מפי עליון לא תצא הרע? לזה אמר "כי אני ה' רופאך", ונמצא היתה ההכאה הזאת הטבה לישראל, אבל להשים חלילה שום מחלה על ישראל זה בלתי אפשר, כי מה הטבה יבוא מזה. וק"ל.

singing shira before a miracle occurs

What if a person is 100% sure that Hashem will do a miracle and save him from danger -- can/he say thanks to Hashem even before the miracle has occurred?  

The Emek Bracha quotes from R' Chaim that the answer is found directly in the pesukim, "V'ani b'chasdicha batachti yageil libi b'yeshuasecha," I have complete faith that Hashem will bring me salvation, "Ashira la'Hashem ki gamal alay," and I will sing praise to Hashem when he rescues me.  Even though I have complete faith that the miracle will occur, it is only after the fact, "ki gamal alay," that I sing shira, not beforehand.

The Mechilta on our parsha reads the pasuk, "Hashem yilachem lachem v'atem tacharishun?" as a question, not a statement.  You expect Hashem to do a miracle for you while you sit on the sidelines and do nothing?  Bnei Yisrael asked Moshe what they should do, and he answered that they should sing praises to Hashem.  

I can't find a Mechilta online, but here it is in Yalkut Shimoni:

 רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, ה׳ יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם הַמָּקוֹם יַעֲשֶׂה לָכֶם נִסִּים וּגְבוּרוֹת וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ עוֹמְדִין וְשׁוֹתְקִין. אָמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמֹשֶׁה, מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, מָה עָלֵינוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ מְפָאֲרִין מְרוֹמְמִין וּמְשַׁבְּחִין וְכוּ׳. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה פָּתְחוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל פִּיהֶם וְאָמְרוּ שִׁירָה, (להלן ט״ו:א׳) ״אָשִׁירָה לַה׳ כִּי גָאֹה גָּאָה״.

The Mechilta's reading that shira occurred before the miracle runs counter to simple pshat in the pesukim, but putting that aside, the Mechilta seems to undermine R' Chaim's argument.  According to the Mechilta, Klal Yisrael sang shira an anticipation of the splitting of Yam Suf; they didn't wait until after the fact, until the "ki gamal alay."

The Brisker Rav tries to defend R' Chaim by distinguishing between having emunah that a miracle will occur and being told by a navi like Moshe Rabeinu that a miracle will occur.  I think you need to explain why that distinction makes a difference, and secondly, where does it say that Moshe told Klal Yisrael that there would be a miracle like the splitting of the sea? 

is kiruv always a good thing?

No Rabbi alive today could say what the Maor vaShemesh says below:

והנראה לומר בכתובים הללו נרמז תוכחת מגולה לאנשים המקרבין את כל הבא לידם שמראין עצמן להם שהם חפיצים להיות מעובדי השם הגם שאין תוכם כברם מקרבין אותם ואומרין שבזה מתרבים כבוד שמים ובאמת טועין הם בזה שלא די שאינם עוזרים כלל בעבדות השם אלא שגם מבלבלים את העובדי השם אם הם עמם בצוותא חדא וכמה דברים מקולקלים מתנוצצים על ידם ומי לנו גדול ממשה רבינו ע"ה אב החכמים ואב לנביאים שודאי כוונתו הי' להרבות כבוד שמים במה שקירב את הערב רב ואעפ"כ היו כספחת לישראל וגרמו להם כמה רעות כמובא בספרי קודש ועד עתה הם הגורמים אריכות הגלות וקושי השיעבוד והי' גלוי לפניו ית' שיגרמו לישראל כמה דברים מקולקלים ויבלבלו אותם מעבדות השם ולא רצה לומר בפי' למרע"ה שירחק אותם מפני שהבחירה נתונה ביד האדם ולאשר יחפוץ יטנה ואולי ישובו מדרכם אבל רצון השם לא הי' שיקרב אותם משה רבינו והנה אם בני ישראל לבדם היו יוצאים ממצרים ולא הי' נדבק בהם הע"ר היה הש"ית מוליכם מיד לארץ ישראל דרך ארץ פלשתים כי קרוב הוא ושם תכלית העבודה ולא היו צריכים לניסי הים והמן ומתן תורה במדבר כי בית הבחירה הוא מעולה מכל המעלות כמו שחושב בעל האגדה האחרון אחרון חביב שהוא בנין בית הבחירה. אך שצפה הקב"ה שבאם יבואו תיכף לארץ ישראל והערב רב בתוכם יצמח לישראל כמה מכשולות רעות ח"ו לכן הקיפם דרך המדבר י"ס אולי בראותם שסגר עליהם המדבר ופרעה וחילו רודף אחריהם ברכבו ופרשיו וגם יראו מלחמת עמלק עי"ז יתנו לב לשוב ויתפרדו כל פועלי און

He sees the miracles of Yam Suf, the mon, even mattan Torah as all b'dieved concessions to the spiritual needs of the eirav rav, but ideally unnecessary.  We should ideally have left Egypt and immediately entered Eretz Yisrael and built Beis HaBechira (I assume he means that Torah would have been given there somehow), but the eirav rav made that impossible.  Think about that for a minute -- he is not pointing to the rebellions that took place in the midbar as signs that things were less than perfect, but rather he is pointing to the miracles, the things that we would have thought prove that things were great!  

shvu ish tachtav

1) The Oznayim laTorah suggests that the rock that Moshe was given to sit on during the battle with Amalek, "vayikchu even va'yasimu tachtav vayeishev aleha...," is symbolic of the rock / even we read about earlier in the same parsha in the shirah: "tipol aleihem aimasa va'pachad bigdol zero'acha yidmu k'even..."  Shiras ha'yam was a prophecy of the fear that would overtake Amalek and our future enemies in battle.

My wife suggested that the rock / even that Moshe sat on may allude to another rock.  When Yaakov is fleeing from Eisav, en route to Lavan's house he stops to sleep and rests his head on an even.  Chazal tell us that there were actually many stones there, but they united into one stone under his head to protect him.  Yaakov then takes that rock, "vayikach es ha'even asher sam m'ra'ashosav..." and he makes it into an altar to give thanks to Hashem for the promise of protection that was given to him in a dream.  It is this promise of protection from Eisav, from future enemies, which Moshe drew upon in our encounter with Eisav's descendants, Amalak. 

2) I haven't sorted out this sugya myself, but wanted to pass along the mareh makom.  In O.C. 396 the SA quotes a din based on "shvu ish tachtav" (tachtav = shiur of personal space) that a person who walked outside the techum is free to move around 4 amos, as that is the definition of their personal resting space. 

These 4 amos are measured relative to the person, i.e. if the person is a basketball player, then he gets more space to move around.

Flip back to siman 349 and there is another din based on the same pasuk of "shvu ish tachtav" that you can move an object around within your own 4 amos of personal space even in a reshus ha'rabim (interestingly there is a daas yachid of the Raavad who holds this is only b'sha'as hadechak, not lichatchila, either because moving a lesser amount is a chatzi shiur or because you may come to go past the 4 amah limit.  The other Rishonim may hold that 4 amos is not a shiur, but rather is part of the definition of the issur -- anything less than "tachtav" is qualitatively not part of meleches Shabbos). 

Here too, you would expect the din to be that the  4 amos are relative -- if you are a basketball player, you get more room.  However, the M.B in Shaar haTziyun #3 quotes the Pri Megadim who writes that this is true only if you move the object bit by bit, but if you move an object all 4 amos in one shot, then the 4 amos are "beinoniyos," they are of fixed standard, average size.

Why should this din in siman 349 be different than the din in siman 396?  

(MB asks the question and rejects the Pri Megadim, but it still needs a hesber.) 

the gift of shabbos

L'kavod Shabbos a double portion, lechem yomayim, of Sefas Emes:

 

1) The parsha of the mon is the first place where we find an explicit command of shmiras Shabbos.  Hashem told Klal Yisrael to take note that “Hashem nasan lachem es ha’shabbos al kein hu nosein lachem ba’yom ha’shishiu lechem yomayim.”  Chazal, however, tell us that the mitzvah of Shabbos was in fact revealed to Klal Yisrael one week earlier, when they camped at Marah and were tested with its bitter waters. 

 

Tosfos (Shabbos 87b) raises a problem with this interpretation.  The pesukim tell us that despite being told not to, people still went out to gather mon on Shabbos, and the gemara comments that had Klal Yisrael only kept this first Shabbos, they would have been immune from all enemy attacks.  According to Chazal, this Shabbos after the mon fell was not the first Shabbos in the midbar -- the first Shabbos was the Shabbos at marah.  This Shabbos was in fact the second Shabbos.  How do you get the two gemara’s to fit? 

 

Sefas Emes answers that Klal Yisrael was in fact commanded to keep Shabbos already in Marah.  What was given to them in the parsha of mon was not the command to keep Shabbos –- what was given was the gift of Shabbos.  The gemara tells us that Hashem had a precious present in his storehouse that he decided to bestow upon Klal Yisrael.  That present is Shabbos.    

 

The gemara in Baba Basra has a machlokes R’ Akiva and the Chachamim whether one who sells does so “b’ayin yafeh” -– if you sell a pit, is the path to get to the there included automatically, or can the seller be stingy and demand extra for it?  Everyone agrees, however, that if something is being given as a present, then it is given “b’ayin yafeh” –- everything needed is included, both the item and the means to get there and use it. 

 

“Hashem nasan lachem as ha’shabbos” – Shabbos is a gift.  Therefore, “hu nosein lachem… lechem yomayim” –- he gives us the means of access as well.  Everything is included.  You get a double portion of mon in advance and won’t go hungry by not working on Shabbos.

 

This is not just some technical distinction to resolve the two gemaras, but reflects how we approach Shabbos and how we celebrate Shabbos.  If Shabbos is just a day when you have to follow some rules that prevent you from doing a bunch of things that you want to do, then it’s a pretty miserable day.  But if Shabbos is a gift with all the trappings included, then that’s a different story.  Who doesn’t like presents?

 

2) “Ichluhu ha’yom ki Shabbos ha’yom l’Hashem…”  Sefas Emes (5651) asks: the parsha earlier tells us that a person was not allowed to collect more mon than could be consumed in a single day.  Anything leftover would spoil by the next morning.  So on Monday, you could collect only the amount of mon you could eat on that Monday; on Tuesday, you could collect only what you could eat on Tuesday, etc.   Why then do we need a separate, new command of “ichluhu ha’yom,” to make sure to eat the portion of mon that fell on Shabbos on Shabbos and not leave it over  -– Shabbos is no different in this regard than any other day?

 

Sefas Emes answers that when you were told to finish all the mon on your plate on Monday, it was so that there would not be leftovers that would automatically spoil on Tuesday.  When the Torah says to eat all the mon on your plate on Shabbos, it’s not just to avoid leftovers -– it’s because “ki Shabbos ha’yom la’Hashem,” because the day of Shabbos is special and therefore needs a seudah in celebration.  Eat l’shem kedushas Shabbos, for the day’s own sake. 

Va'ya'aminu BaHashem u'b'Moshe avdo -- emunah after the fact?

"Va'ya'aminu BaHashem u'b'Moshe avdo..." 

That's emunah?! To believe after you see a sea split in two and watch your enemies drown?

Who would not believe under those circumstances?

What does the pasuk mean? 

(See Alshich, Ohr haChaim, Kedushas Levi, Maor vaShemesh... but I still don't understand it.)

hands down

Chazal tell us that the attack of Amalek happened because "rafu Y'DEIHEM min haTorah," because Klal Yisrael neglected their Torah learning.  Why the stress on "y'deihem?"  The Maharasham in Techeiles Mordechai quotes the Chazal that "Torah mateshes kocho shel adam."  That doesn't necessarily mean that a person who learns Torah is physically weak.  The Torah warns us that a person should not think his success comes from "kochi v'otzem YADI," his own strength and ability.  It's this koach -- the belief in the power of "kochi v'otzem YADI"  -- which Torah weakens.  Learning Torah humbles a person; the more one learns the more one recognizes the vastness and depths of the dvar Hashem and just how limited our own ability and insight is.  Because Klal Yisrael's dedication to learning fell a notch, "min haTorah," because of that loss, "rafu y'deihem," their perspective on the limits of the "kochi v'otzem YADI" was tainted.

The Mahrasham does not say it, but I think based on his approach we can understand why Klal Yisrael had to fight Amalek as opposed to being miraculously rescued as had happened at Yam Suf.  Since they invested trust in their kochi v'otzem yadi, Hashem responded in kind and let them use their own power to carry on the battle. 

Moshe's challenge was to shift their perspective.  "V'haya ka'asher yarim YADO..."  Moshe lifted up his hands and directed people's gaze to shamayim.  There is no power in "otzem yadi" -- our hands only have power when we connect to Hashem. 

"Va'yehi YADAV emunah ad bo ha'shemesh"  Ibn Ezra interprets emunah here either has steadfast or like the word "omain" (e,g. "Va'yehi omein es Hadasah"), to train, to nurture.  Our hands need to be trained to connect to Hashem. 

"YAD al keis K-h" -- the war with Amalek is won when we connect "otzem yadi," our ability, to the kisei of Hashem, the true source of power.

hungry for mon

A little halacha to start:

Chazal (B"K 82) tell us "ain mayim elah Torah" and darshen the pasuk in our parsha, "Vayeilchu shloshes yamim v'lo matzo mayim," as an allusion to the takanas Nevi'im (the Rambam says it was a takanah made by Moshe himself) not to go three days without public Torah study.  We therefore lein on  Shabbos, Monday, and Thursday.

Aruch haShulchan (135:5) says a chiddush that if for whatever reason the wrong parsha was leined on a Monday/Thursday, there is no need to do a makeup.

ולפי זה נראה לעניות דעתי דאף על גב דבשבת אם טעו וקראו סדרה אחרת דוודאי חוזרין וקורין הסדרה הזמנית, מכל מקום במנחה ובשני וחמישי כשטעו וקראו פרשה אחרת, מסדרה זו או מאחרת – אינם צריכים לחזור ולקרות. דכיון דאינה עולה לקריאת הציבור, שהרי בשבת הבא יקראוה מחדש, ולא נתקן אלא כדי שלא יהיו שלושה ימים בלא תורה, ומשום יושבי קרנות – ולכן בכל מה שקראו יצאו ידי חובתן. ואפילו אם נזכרו באמצע הקריאה נראה לעניות דעתי דמה שקראו – קראו, והמותר יקרא במה שנצרך היום לקרות. 

It seems like there are two parts to his argument: a) we will hear the whole parsha anyway on the upcoming Shabbos; b) the takanah of leining on Monday/Thursday is very different from the takanah of leining on Shabbos.  You have to read a specific sidra each Shabbos, but during the week the crucial point is that Torah be read publicly at least once every three days -- what you read is not important, so long as you read something. 

Is the idea of not going three days without hearing Torah the geder of the takanah, or just the reason behind instituting leining on Mondays, Thursdays, and Shabbos?  A possible nafkah minah might be the question of what to do if leining was missed on a Monday (quoted in Ah"S 135:7).  If the geder of the din is to avoid a three day gap without Torah, then maybe leining should be made up on Tuesday, which would avoid the gap.  On the other hand, if the takakah designated Monday and Thursday as leining days, then there are no makeups.  Avoiding a three day gap is why the takanah was made, but does not define its parameters. 

Secondly, a little machshava thought:

Did Bnei Yisrael, coming right off kriyas Yam Suf, really think that Hashem was going to starve them in the desert?  That they would not have what to eat, and had to complain to Moshe for food?

The Sefas Emes teaches that a person can have all he/she needs to eat and yet still be hungry. 

Baruch Hashem, I see in the newspapers ad after ad for Pesach hotels and vacations, but so many people who have so much these days are so dissatisfied with life.  They have an endless hunger for more and more and are never filled up.

We know the navi tells us that at the time of redemption there will be a hunger, but not a hunger for food or drink, but a hunger for the dvar Hashem.

Bnei Yisrael had food, but they wanted more than gashmiyus food to fill their bodies with -- they wanted food that would also be dvar Hashem.

"Posei'ach es yadecha u'masbi'a l'kol chai ratzon" -- the Midrash notes that it doesn't says that Hashem is masbi'a with ochel, food, but rather Hashem is masbia and fulfills people's ratzon, desire.  If your ratzon is just for a good meal, Hashem can give you that, but if your desire is for the dvar Hashem, then He will give so much more.

That's why Parshas Eikev, in describing what Hashem did for us in the desert, the Torah tells us, "va'yi'ancha va'yarivecha va'ya'achilcha es ha'mon," Hashem made us hungry and then gave us the mon to eat.  Why does the parsha mention the hunger?  That was the complaint, the problem.  The pasuk should just tell us the wonderful thing Hashem did to solve the problem!

Sefas Emes answers that in this case, the problem was itself a bracha.  By all rights we should have been happy to just have enough food.  But we weren't.  We had a hunger and desire for food that also would be dvar Hashem.  That hunger could only be satisfied by the mon.

The Ch haRI"M teaches that on Tu B'Shevat it's decided what chiddushei Torah one will gain during the upcoming year.  In other words, Tu B'shevat is not about filling up on dried fruits (or fresh fruits).  It's about being hungry for Torah, for Eretz Yisrael, for ruchniyus things. 

who I'm not, not who I am

I've been very unmotivated to write lately, but this week for some reason felt like jotting some more down.  In a post last week I mentioned that “v’haya” usually connotes simcha. On the flipside, “vayehi” usually connotes sorrow. “Vayehi b’shelach Pharaoh” – shouldn’t that have been a good thing, a cause for rejoicing, not a cause for sorrow? The Midrash explains that the sorrow was Pharoah’s own. The Midrash gives a mashal to a person who was detaining the king’s son. The king sent letters, telegrams, messages asking this person to release his son and send him home, and each time the messages were ignored. Finally, the king himself came and took his son back. The person who was holding him bemoaned his fate. Until now, he said, he had been the recipient of almost daily letters from the king. Now, he was just a nobody. This was Pharaoh. Until now, he had been in constant “contact” with Hashem – dam, tzefardeya, kinim, etc. Now, he was no longer the recipient of Hashem’s “messages.”

It’s a strange fate to bemoan. Did Pharoah have some sadomasochistic wish to continue to be beaten up? I think Chazal here are revealing a keen insight into people’s personalities and not just Pharoah’s. Every shul has a guy who will complain every week that the kiddush is not up to snuff and the rabbi’s speech is no good etc. Why doesn’t he just go daven somewhere else? The answer is because being anti- is his whole chiyus.  Without something to complain about, he’s nothing. There is one blogger whose mission in life seems to be to report every wrongdoing by the YCT crowd and faculty. I feel sorry for this person if YCT ever closes, because what will he have to talk about?  What would McCarthy be like if there were no Communists?  Or, to take another example, the chassidim of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, et al talk more about G-d than the biggest yirei shamayim; registering their dissent is their life’s mission. It's who they are; it's what defines them. You can find examples galore.  Pharoah defined himself by his rebellion, by what he would not be and do. He needed Hashem to keep sending messages because his whole identity was the guy who rejected messages.  Without that, he was lost.

This is why I think Pharoah did not let BN”Y go free through all the makkos, even at the cost of Mitzrayim being destroyed.  You can compromise on many things, but you can’t compromise on your identity; you can't give up being who you are. Pharoah’s whole identity was playing the rebel against G-d. If he gave in, his whole persona would collapse.

2) The Midrash writes that the man started falling in a place called “Alush” in the merit of “lushi v’asi u’gos,” Avraham’s request to Sarah to knead fresh bread for the guests that arrived at his tent. The simple message is that since Avraham provided food for others, Hashem provided food for his children. That doesn’t explain, though, why the focus is specifically on “lushi,” on the kneading of the dough, that is highlighted by the place name Alush.

Shem m’Shmuel explains that Avraham didn’t just take the loaf he had in his cupboard or serve the bread he bought from the market to his guests. He waited until the guests came and only then had Sarah knead and prepare a fresh loaf for them. The reason wasn’t just so that the guests would have the freshest bread – the reason was so that he could invest in this bread the “l’shem mitzvah” of his gemilus chasadim. It wasn’t just food that Avraham was serving to his guests – it was spirituality, it was an exposure to taharah and mitzvos.

The reward Hashem gave Avraham’s children was midah k’neged midah. Just as Avraham’s bread was really a taste of ruchniyus disguised as a meal, so too, his children were given not just ordinary bread, but were given the man, food for malachim, a spiritual vitamin that could also physically sustain them.

3) The gemara (Sotah 37) quotes a Midrashic machlokes between R’ Meir and R’ Yehudah as to what exactly happened at the Yam. R’ Meir said that the shevatim were fighting as to who should go into the water first and Binyamin stepped up to lead the charge. R’ Yehudah says the shevatim were debating who should go first and then Nachshon jumped into the water up to his neck and then the water split.

R’ Reuvain Katz in his Dudai Reuvain asks how it’s possible to say eilu v’eilu here when it seems to be a historical debate as to who jumped into the water first. Secondly, since both R”M and R”Y darshen pesukim. Why didn’t the gemata do as it so often does and ask how each opinion reads the proof text of the other?

When there is a meeting at work, at a community group, wherever, and something needs to get done, you always have people who are first on line to talk about what they will care of. When things actually need to get done, however, often times the same people suddenly remember the doctor’s appointment they have or the other project that they just need to finish first, etc. It’s easy to make a pledge; it’s much harder to collect on one. R’ Meir is talking about who said they would jump in first. Binyamin here took the lead in saying that when the time came, they would be first into the water. Then they saw that this was not so simple -- the water was not going to split first, and wasn’t even going to split when they were waist deep. When push came to shove, when mesirus nefesh was needed, when it was time to translate words into action, it was Yehudah who took the lead and Nachshon dived in up to his neck.  Eilu v'eilu -- there are those who step forward to lead the charge in making pledges, but then there are those who step forward when it comes time for action. 

exclusivity for a dedicated elite or inclusiveness at the cost of compromise?

1) The Torah usually devotes itself to speaking about what G-d did, promised to do, or wants us to do. Our parsha is somewhat unique in that it spells out what G-d decided NOT to do, a hava amina of the RBSh”O, if you will. “V”lo nacham Elokim derech Eretz Plishtim ki karov hu…” Ideally G-d would have wanted to take us into Eretz Yisrael through the land of the Plishtim; however, lest the people clamor to turn back when faced with battle, Hashem instead took us around the long way.

The Chazon Ish is bothered by this “hava amina.” We know already from Parshas Shmos that Bnei Yisrael were destined to receive the Torah on Mt. Sinai, the mountain where Moshe saw the burning bush: “ta’avdun es ha’Elokim al ha’har hazeh.” Had BN”Y travelled north through the land of the Plsihtim directly into Eretz Yisrael, how would they have gotten to Sinai? Would they have entered Eretz Yisrael and then left again to get the Torah? It’s a simple pshat/geography question, but the Chazon Ish ends up with a tzarich iyun.

My wife suggested that we find that when Ya’akov was travelling to Lavan’s house, he passed by the makom mikdash but didn’t stop. When he turned around to go back, Hashem arranged for him to have kefitzas haderech so that he wouldn’t have to travel all that way. Rashi/Ramban disagree on how that happened: according to one view, Ya’akov’s route to the makom mikdash was shortened; according to the other view, the makom mikdash itself moved locations to come to Ya’akov. Why have Montezuma come to the mountain when the mountain can come to Montezuma? Here too, perhaps had BN”Y been able to enter Eretz Yisrael, Har Sinai would have come to them for the sake of kabbalas haTorah.

2) A number of meforshim are bothered by the fact that the pasuk first calls the people “ha’am” and then “Bnei Yisrael;” first we are told that the people will be scared by war, then we are told that Bnei Yisrael went out armed, as if they were primed and ready to fight. Ohr haChaim and the Maor v’Shemesh attack the questions from philosophically opposite vantage points. They share in common the assumption that the “am” and “Bnei Yisrael” refer to two separate groups, the “am” being the eiruv rav, the hoi poloi who tagged along, invited by Moshe to exit Mitzrayim with Bnei Yisrael, and “Bnei Yisrael” referring to the believers who G-d intended redemption for. The former group were liable to lose faith if the going got rough; the latter group were 100% committed to do whatever was asked of them.  Their reading of how G-d's reacted to these two groups is radically different.  Maor v’Shemesh suggests that the pasuk is telling us that G-d deliberately did not take the people through the land of the Plishtim because had they taken the short road, the “am” would have inevitably remained along for the ride. G-d's goal was to stretch out the journey in the hope (pen = maybe it will happen) that maybe they will fall by the wayside. The path through the midbar was a winnowing and weeding out process meant to discourage those who lacked fortitude from continuing. The Ohr haChaim goes in the opposite direction. G-d did not take the “am” through the Plishtim land precisely because it would have been too challenging, too discouraging, too difficult for them. “Ki karov hu” – the people, the “am,” have only newly (karov – near in time; products of the kiruv movement of Moshe) taken on the commitment to Torah, and therefore, too much cannot be demanded of them. (Parenthetically, this avoids having to read the word “ki” as “af al pi” [see Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Netziv]). The goal was to encourage the “am” to hang on, to accommodate their weakness, not to get rid of them.

Is it better to have a small, exclusive nucleus of strongly committed adherents, or better to be inclusive, to appeal to a broader base, even if the commitment of many will be weaker and diluted? That seems to be the issue Maor v’Shemesh and Ohr haChaim are grappling with. It’s the same issue our communities still grapple with: do you want to open a yeshiva for an elite group of top kids, or do you want to open a yeshiva that will educate everyone in the community, even if that means the classes need to go slower and the learning may be less intense? You can, I’m sure, think of other examples.