Bishalach 5759

B'shalach5759 “Chok and Mishpat” Rabbi Ari Kahn

A

fter the momentous Exodus and the spectacular splitting of the Sea the Jews find themselves at Marah: So Moshe brought Israel from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water. And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore its name was called Marah. And the people murmured against Moshe, saying, What shall we drink? And he cried to the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, which when he threw into the waters, and made the waters sweet; there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he tested them, and said, "If you will diligently listen to the voice of the Lord your G-d, and will do that which is right in His sight, and will give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon you, which I have brought upon the Egyptians; for I am the Lord that heals you." (15:22-26)

While the situation seems like a question of insufficient supplies, namely, the people are in need of an efficient water source, the end of the text seems perplexing. "There he made a statute and an ordinance". Traditionally this text has been understood as an indication of some type of law-giving. Prior to Sinai, where the major Revelation would take place, the people here receive the first installment of Torah: statutes and ordinances. The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honoring one's parents. ‘Social laws,’ for it is written, "There [sc. at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance". 'The Sabbath and honoring one's parents’ for it is written, "As the Lord thy G-d commanded you" (Sanhedrin 56b) The logic of the Talmud is clear: The Ten Commandments are enumerated twice in the Torah. When they are repeated, specifically these two commandments - Shabbat and honoring parents - contain the phrase "as the Lord thy G-d commanded you".1 Clearly, this phrase would be equally apt for any or all of the Ten Commandments which had been given years before at Sinai. Why is 1

D'varim 5:12,16: "Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your G-d has commanded you. Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your G-d has commanded you; 1

this phrase added only to these two Commandments? The Talmud asserts that some laws were actually taught at an earlier juncture, at Marah. Therefore "As the Lord thy G-d commanded you" refers to Marah, and not to the first Tablets transmitted at Sinai. Regarding the "Social laws" the Midrash explains: “These are (v'eleh) the ordinances” adds to those that preceded, viz to what is written above: 'There He made for them a statute and an ordinance' (Shmot 15, 25). Another explanation of “Now these are the ordinances”: What precedes this paragraph? 'And let them judge the people at all seasons" (ib., 18, 22), and here it says, “Now these are the ordinances”. With the Decalogue in between. Like a distinguished lady walking in the center of an armed bodyguard, so has the Torah laws preceding it and laws following it, while it is in the center. Hence it says, "I walk in the way of righteousness" (Mishlei 8, 20). The Torah exclaims: 'In which path shall I walk? I will walk in the path of those who act righteously in the midst of the paths of justice’ (ib.)--with the Torah in the center and laws preceding it and following it. Preceding it, as it says, 'There He made for them a statute and an ordinance,’ and following it, as it says, 'Now these are the ordinances.' (Midrash Rabah 30:3) Again we see that certain laws were taught prior to Sinai. The question is, which laws were chosen to be taught at this juncture, and why? As we have already seen, the Talmud included in this pre-Sinai category social laws, Shabbat, and honoring one's parents. In his comments on our Parsha, Rashi says: In Marah they were given a few of the sections of the Torah, so that they be involved in them: Shabbat, Parah Adumah and Laws. (Rashi on Sh'mot 15:25) Rashi replaces honoring parents with Parah Adumah, a shift that has been noticed by numerous commentaries.2 Perhaps even more interestingly, in other places Rashi does list honoring parents as having been commanded at Marah. Why, then, did Rashi add Parah 2

The Torah Temima suggests that this Rashi represents an error of transmission: originally, Rashi's comment read "honoring parents"(kibud av v'em), represented by the letters "kaf aleph". At some point, this was inadvertently mistaken for "peh aleph", initials for Para Adumah. Rav Kasher, in the Torah Sh'lemah, ridicules this suggestion, asserting that all the manuscripts bear out the reading as it has been transmitted, "Para Adumah". Numerous Rishonim, including the Ramban, cite Rashi with the term Para Adumah. Rav Kasher then suggests that perhaps the Talmud has an alternative reading with the words Para Adumah. See Torah Sh'lemah pages 284,285. 2

Adumah to this category at all, and why he omits the commandment to honor parents at this point. In Parshat Mishpatim Rashi writes: The seven Noachide laws, Shabbat, honoring parents, Parah Adumah, and [social] laws which were given at Marah (Rashi 24:3) Rashi clearly states that both honoring parents and Parah Adumah were taught at Marah. The inclusion of Parah Adumah can be attributed to simple exegesis. The term used in the Torah was chok. The archetypal chok is, of course, the Red Heifer. The term mishpat, on the other hand, indicates law. Therefore, Rashi would naturally include in his comments Parah Adumah, which is The Chok, and social laws, which are mishpat. Why did Rashi include Shabbat? The answer lies in an appreciation of the broader canvas which Rashi treats: The very next section of the Torah deals with Shabbat, and it presupposes some knowledge on the part of the people: And he said to them, 'This is what the Lord had spoken about, tomorrow is the day of rest, the Holy Shabbat to the Lord. (16:23) Prior to this verse, we do not find any discussion of Shabbat in the Torah other than the general comments in Bereishit. Nonetheless, the text makes clear reference to some type of earlier discussion centering around Shabbat--"This is what the Lord had spoken about". Arguably, Rashi, first and foremost a biblical commentator, is attempting to explain the simple reading, the "pshat" of the verse, and therefore lists Shabbat among the laws transmitted at Marah, based on the context of the verses. On the other hand, in Mishpatim, Rashi lists what had been taught prior to the Revelation at Sinai, he incorporates the Talmudic tradition, also citing the Commandment to honor parents. A careful reading of Rashi may provide another solution to this problem. Rashi says that "at Marah they were given a few of the sections of the Torah, so that they be involved in them". The term sheyit'asku --to be “involved” - implies an intellectual pursuit, and not necessarily a behavioral commitment. This follows the teaching in the Talmud that Marah is the source upon which public reading of the Torah is based: ‘And they went three days in the wilderness and found no water,' upon which those who expound verses metaphorically said: Water means nothing but Torah, as it says: "Ho, everyone that thirsts, come for water" (Yishayhu 55:1). It thus means that as they went three days without Torah they

3

immediately became exhausted. The prophets among them thereupon rose and enacted that they should publicly read the law on Shabbat, make a break on Sunday, read again on Monday, make a break again on Tuesday and Wednesday, read again on Thursday and then make a break on Friday so that they should not be kept for three days without Torah.’ (Baba Kamma 82a) The events at Marah are the source of Torah study, but not necessarily for the practice of Torah. This argument is buttressed by the inappropriateness of the inclusion of Para Adumah among the statutes transmitted at Marah: At this point, in the desert, before the construction of the Mishkan, the laws of Para Adumah, indeed the entire concept, could only have been a theoretical construct. Therefore, at Marah which is the inspiring experience for public Torah study every three days, the Jews are given some laws to occupy themselves intellectually.3 Why, then, is the Commandment to honor parents not included? The Maharal points out that the verse ends with, "there He tested them": such a test, regarding the honor of one's parents, would be inappropriate. The Maharal categorizes the Commandments, dividing them into four groups: First, Commandments that are beyond logic --referred to as called chok. Second, Commandments whose logic would elude us had it not been for the Torah’s explanation. The third type are commandments which are part of a social contract whose logic is apparent, such as a prohibition against stealing, which legislate against human desire. Finally, there are Commandments which are part of an individual's emotional makeup, Commandments which converge with human instinct. Honoring parents is a most logical Commandment, one that is within human nature. This does not imply that all men excel in the performance of this commandment; nonetheless it is part of man's inborn character to honor and cherish his parents. The Talmud routinely brings examples of non-Jews, unsavory characters such as Esav, or Damah ben Natinah, a pagan, as quintessential examples of filial relationships. The Maharal's suggestion is that a test regarding honoring parents is incongruous. This becomes more clear in light of our thesis that it was the study of Torah, and not its practice, that was laid down at Marah. The acceptance of laws such as Parah Aduma and Shabbat required a stretch of man's belief. To accept and study the laws of honoring parents can not be called a “test”. Therefore, the Maharal says, 3

The Ramban understands Rashi in this light, he further sees the learning as a preparation for the accepting of the Torah, which the Ramban views as a quasi conversion process. Also see the comments of the Mahral to these verses (in Shmot) where he gives a very similar explanation. 4

Rashi did not include it in his commentary on the verse in our Parsha. At Marah the Jews received all four types of laws: the transcendental, metalogical, social and logical. I once heard Rav Yehuda Amital modify this teaching. When asked for guidelines for the newly-observant, Rav Amital replied that this was the educational challenge faced at Marah. The first steps undertaken toward observance should include a law in the interpersonal sphere--like the prototype of honoring parents. The second category should be represented by a law concerning Shabbat, a law involving the relationship between man and G-d. The third category, represented at Marah by the laws of Parah Adumah, should involve something which transcends human understanding. We understand how the people would have been attracted to a law like honoring parents, being eminently logical and appealing to human nature. Seen through the eyes of a generation only recently redeemed from hundreds of years of subjugation in Egypt, the laws of Shabbat may also have been logically compelling. Yet religious experience also necessitates something beyond this type of logic; it requires a transcendent component. There must be a rendezvous with the Divine. This is the heart of religious experience. Without it, the relationship with G-d would be reduced to a human construct. This is

5

what the Jews received at Marah4, and should serve as the cornerstone of our own commitment. © 1998 Rabbi Ari Kahn, All Rights Reserved

4

The Zohar understands that at Marah the Jews underwent a process which would cleanse them from the Egyptian exile and prepare them for Sinai Said R. Shimon further: ‘The unleavened bread is called “the bread of poverty “ (D'varim XVI, 3), because at that time the moon was not at full strength, the reason being that, although the Israelites were circumcised, the rite had not been completed by “peri'ah”, and therefore the seal of the covenant was not revealed in its complete form. But later, when this completion had been achieved-namely at Marah, where Moshe “made for them a statute and an ordinance” (Ex. 15: 25)the Holy One spoke unto them, saying: “Until now you have eaten the ‘bread of poverty’, but from now on your bread shall emanate from a far other region: ‘I will rain bread from heaven for you’ ” (Ibid. XVI, 4). (Zohar, Sh'mot 40a) R. Eleazar adduced here the verse: “And when they came to Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter.... There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them” (Ex. 15: 23-25). ‘I wonder’, he said, ‘how it is that people take so little trouble to understand the words of the Torah. Here, for example, one should really inquire what is the point of the words “There he made for them... and there he proved them”. But the inward significance of the water mentioned here is this. The Egyptians claimed to be the parents of the children of Israel, and many among the Israelites suspected their wives in the matter. So the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them to that place, where He desired to put them to the test. Thus when Moshe cried to the Lord he was told: Write down the Divine Name, cast it into the water, and let all of them, women and men, be tested, so that no evil report should remain in regard to My children; and until they all be probed I will not cause My Name to rest upon them. Straightway “the Lord showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters”, the tree being thus identical with the Divine Name the priest has to write for the testing of the wife of an Israelite. Thus “There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them”. Now it may be asked: This was properly done for the women, but why include the men? But, indeed, the men also had to be probed to show that they had not contaminated themselves with Egyptian women, in the same way as the women had to be probed to show that they had kept themselves uncontaminated by Egyptian men, all the time they were among them. And all, male and female, were proved to be pure, were found to be the seed of Israel, holy and pure. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, caused His Name to dwell among them. Hence assuredly it was by the waters “there that he... proved them”. Similarly here it is through water that the priest proves the woman, and through the Divine Name.’ (Zohar, Bamidbar 124b)

6