2021/5781
The day has finally arrived. After hundreds of years [1] in the service of the Egyptian empire, the newly collective Am Yisrael, Israelite nation, is set free by Paroh’s acquiescence. The nation witnesses one of the most impressive feats to ever occur, through both Keriyat Yam Suf and the annihilation of Paroh along with one of the ancient world’s largest and most experienced cavalries. As it is only logical, we witness the resulting celebration of Am Yisrael over its newfound and complete freedom and survival through the guiding Hand of Hashem. Equally logical, of course, is the soon to follow series of complaints by the Bnei Yisrael as they begin their long journey into the wilderness. The question to be asked, however, lies not so much in why Bnei Yisrael begins filing their complaints of lack of non-bitter water with Moshe Rabbeinu right after their emancipation, but rather in the meaning behind Hashem’s response.
“VaYitzak El Hashem VaYoreihu Hashem Eitz VaYashleich El HaMayim VaYimtiku HaMayim Sham Sham Lo Chok U’Mishpat ViSham Nisahu,” “He [Moshe] cried out to Hashem, and Hashem instructed him about a wood, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweetened; there [at Marah, Hashem] gave them the commandments and the laws and He tested them” (Shemot 15:25). In hindsight, this Pasuk presents a slew of difficulties, for we are obviously perplexed as to what Mitzvot have been given at such an early stage in the process of Bnei Yisrael’s “path to Sinai,” why Hashem has given these Mitzvot, and what this mysterious test is to which the latter part of the Pasuk alludes? In order to properly understand any incident in Tanach, like the one presented here, we must approach our exegesis with full knowledge and approach of contextualization in ancient near-eastern history. [2] We may thus approach the situation through a developmental light, spanning the minds of over 2,000 years of Jewish history in order to help us derive and grasp the Teirutzim of this incident.
In asking the first and second questions, of what Mitzvot have been revealed at this time and why these Mitzvot, we may look to Chazal and the great commentator Rashi for guidance. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) states that at Marah, where Bnei Yisrael was currently encamped, they were given the Mitzvot of, “Dinin VeShabbat VeKibud Av Va’Eim.” [3] Rashi (Shemot 15:25 s.v. Sham Sham Lo), possessing knowledge of this Gemara, posits a different understanding of the Mitzvot revealed and commanded to them, replacing Kibud Av Va’Eim with the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah. This is, obviously, rather strange to begin with, as Rashi is seemingly in contradiction with Chazal, in addition to having no source found in the Torah for these being the Mitzvot given at Marah itself. Ramban (ad loc.), noting this very problem, attempts to tackle all of our questions raised, through keen observation of Rashi’s very wording. There is no mention of the Mitzvot being given because there is simply no commandment to observe them. As Rashi himself states, these sections of the Torah were given as a means of Bnei Yisrael to occupy themselves until Ma’Amad Har Sinai arrives, not as an enforcement and assignment to observe these Mitzvot prematurely. In fact, the allusion to a test found in the latter part of our Pasuk, is indicative of Hashem testing Bnei Yisrael to see if they were going to observe the Mitzvot or not. [4] Thus, Ramban has taken the view of Rashi under a microscope, and concluded that there were indeed no commandments, but simply a trial period of these Mitzvot that help to clarify what this “test” really was.
Not all Mefarshim subscribe to Ramban’s approach, however, some endorse Rashi’s interpretation, while others do not. [5] In fact, even Rashi does not find this test to be related to the Mitzvot. Rashi (ibid. s.v. ViSham Nisahu) finds this to be a test to see whether Bnei Yisrael would treat Moshe Rabbeinu with Kavod, noting their lack of said manners previously. [6] Rashbam (ibid. Sham Sham Lo Chok U’Mishpat), however, sees this test in a similar vein to Ramban, viewing it as a rebuke to Bnei Yisrael to accept all Mitzvot, both Chukim, despite violating all reason, and Mishpatim, which may be self-explanatory. Additionally, this incident reflects a critical aspect of the future which lies ahead for Bnei Yisrael, a history which many contemporary Rabbinic scholars have taken the opportunity to magnificently frame the idea of Am Yisrael and Yahadut as a whole.
In Iyar 5716 (May of 1956), a monumental speech was delivered at a Yom Ha’Atzma’ut celebration held by the Mizrachi- Religious Zionists of America in New York. The speech, originally delivered in Yiddish, was later translated and elaborated upon to Hebrew years later under the title, Torah U-Meluchah, of which it became known for many years until its translation to English in 1990. Today, this speech-turned-essay is known to many as the famed work, Kol Dodi Dofek, by Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik. Rav Soloveitchik, in his address, sought to discuss and qualify the religious significance of the creation of the State of Israel, an event reeking of Hashgachah Pratit, and the Halachic-moral obligation that its existence imposes upon Jews globally. One particularly critical thought proposed is an oft-overlooked analysis of the Brit, covenant, between the Bnei Yisrael and Hashem at the onset of Yetziat Mitzrayim, and later on, at the outset of Ma’Amad Har Sinai.
In accordance with the Rav’s postulate that an individual is bound to their nation “with bonds of fate and chains of destiny” (Kol Dodi Dofek, p. 51) one can conclude that the Covenant of Egypt is one of Fate, and the Covenant of Sinai is one of destiny. Fate is significant of a unitary existence of compulsion, merging the uniquity of the individual into one national unit. The individual, against their will, is subject to this fate and is unable to avoid it or “be absorbed into a different reality” (ibid., p. 52). Citing the historical isolation and loneliness of the Jew, and the historical instances of Jewish expulsion found in Tanach resulting from the shedding of one’s national- religious identity, [7] we observe the fact that there is no escaping our identity in any case, which may in turn prove critical to ourunderstanding of the incident at Marah in this week’s Parashah.
Of course, notes the Rav, failure to obey the commands of Hashem results in punishment and destruction of existence, connoting some very negative categories which stem from and even fearmonger those Jews who recognize and are aware of their shared fate. On the other hand, however, the covenant of fate is also expressed in positive categories, comprising four facets to the state of mind. These are: the awareness of a shared fate appearing as that of shared experience. Second, the awareness of shared historical experience which leads to the experience of shared suffering. Third, the expression of shared suffering in a feeling of shared obligation and responsibility to one another in the community. And finally, there is the facet of shared experience expressed only by cooperation with the fateful reality. In sum, these four facets can come to each reflect a critical part of our understanding of the incident recorded in this week’s Parashah.
In returning to our original commentaries, and with the questions we have asked earlier in mind, I would like to offer a new Derash on the Pasuk. With the approach of our commentators in mind, we may come to demonstrate the actualization of Bnei Yisrael’s covenant of fate as they approach the coming realization of the covenant of destiny at Har Sinai. With the direct interpretative approach of Rashi and our Gemara, we notice the pattern that each of these Mitzvot represent an eternal Mitzvah so distinctly unique to the Jewish people, that it can only be associated with its identity. Shabbat, unique to the Jewish people, is the perfect demonstration of the covenant of fate actualized. One can try their very hardest to disgrace and violate Shabbat, rejecting their heritage personally, but one can never truly shed the Sabbath from the covenant of fate that exists. In metaphysical terms, Shabbat, not simply as a day, but as an entity, lies outside of the realm of human intervention, and thus one can never truly escape the covenant of fate via the sacrifice of Shabbat. The “Dinin” of monetary cases, though eerily similar to those of financial laws mandated in all standard societies, remains eternally distinct by virtue of the Halachot of Ribbit and other areas of Choshen Mishpat distinctly applicable to Jews. The Parah Adumah stresses the uniqueness of Kedushah that eternally rests within Am Yisrael despite all events of history. The Mitzvah of Kibud Av Va’Eim stresses the very essence of the Brit Bein HaBetarim implicit in the covenant of fate from the times of Avraham Avinu. [8] With these parables in mind, suffice to say that this incident at Marah represents a true endowment and actualization of the covenant of fate. However, the covenant of fate can explain only what these Mitzvot given represent and why they, in particular, are endowed to Am Yisrael so prematurely. To understand the test which Hashem has set forth, this requires a realization of the covenant of destiny (of Sinai) which complements the covenant of fate (of Egypt).
With the approach of Ramban and Rashbam in mind, we may demonstrate that the Nisayon presented by Hashem to the Bnei Yisrael at Marah is indeed a test of recognition of the covenant of destiny. The rebuke Hashem delivers to them to accept the Mitzvot in their entirety represents the wake-up call so very needed in order for the Bnei Yisrael to properly accept Torah and Mitzvot at Har Sinai later on. By familiarizing themselves with these various Mitzvot, the Bnei Yisrael are in fact being weaned into the very notion of what it means to be a part of a covenantal community, one of both fate and of destiny. The covenant of fate reflected is demonstrated by the national-religious identity found as a result of being a faithful descendant of Avraham Avinu, but the covenant of destiny represents far more than that. It represents not only a recognition of one’s identity, but of the ethico-legal system eternally bound to that identity following the acceptance of the Torah at Har Sinai. Thus, this test presented by Hashem seeks to draw the fledgling Am Yisrael - in a time of unknowns and of fear, while standing in the middle of a vast desert, traveling to an unfamiliar and unpredictable new land- to a trial period of learning the Mitzvot they are soon to accept upon themselves, and to allot them the opportunity to independently and individually recognize their place among the covenant of fate as they travel toward the soon to become covenant of destiny that is implicit in the Yahadut of today.
[1] The expression of hundreds of years is not meant to detract from the 430 years explicitly mentioned in Tanach, but rather to allow for the possibility of various interpretations as to the number of years spent in Mitzrayim, as this is a perennial debate amongst scholars.
[2] For more background on this exegetical approach, I suggest reading Chapter 1 of Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman’s, Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith.
[3] The word “Dinin” stated in the Gemara is interpreted by many to mean Halachot pertinent to cases of monetary law. Additionally, Chazal debate the very aspects of Hilchot Shabbat revealed at that point (see Shabbat 87b).
[4] This conclusion is drawn by Seforno as well (ibid. S.v. VeSham Nisahu).
[5] For an account of why it may be that Rashi supplants Kibud Av Va’Eim for Parah Adumah in his interpretation, see Maharal’s commentary (Gur Aryeh, ibid., s.v. Shabbat U’Parah Adumah VeDinin).
[6] See Ohr HaChayim (ibid. 24:25 s.v. VaYilonu) for similar conclusion to Rashi regarding the meaning of this test.
[7] In essence, we may equate the shedding of one’s national-religious identity to fleeing from the presence of Hashem, as is seen to be the case in Sefer Yonah. The Rav also demonstrates the historical significance of the Jewish people’s loneliness through his analysis of the Avot and the Shevatim in Sefer BeReishit, with particular emphasis on Avraham Avinu and Yosef HaTzaddik.
[8] For a discussion and analysis of how the the Mitzvah of Kibud Av Va’Eim ties into the covenantal community, see Chapters 7 and 10 of A Letter in the Scroll: Understanding Our Jewish Identity and Exploring the Legacy of the World’s Oldest Religion by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks ZT”L.