Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah/2/en

Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

The Marah narrative is the story of a nascent nation facing the crushing realities of life in the wilderness with limited physical provisions, no legal code, an uncertain moral compass, and a theological vacuum. Commentators disagree over which of these issues took precedence and how Hashem began to address them at Marah. For the Mekhilta and the Bavli, the first priority was for the Israelites to get accustomed to Torah and mitzvot, while Ramban argues that the nation needed to learn moral discipline and self-control. R. Saadia and Ralbag contend that philosophical beliefs were an even more critical foundation for the people's religious development, and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor maintains that the way to the nation's heart was by first providing for all of its material needs.

Exegetes also grapple with the textual issue of how to understand the transition between the first half of the story which reports how Hashem provided for the physical needs of the nation and the second half which ostensibly describes the religious guidelines that Hashem set down. Some Midrashic opinions maintain that the entire story speaks of spiritual needs, and they reinterpret the lack of water as a metaphor for a spiritual thirst for Torah. At the other end of the spectrum, R"Y Bekhor Shor and R. Bachya contend that both parts of the story focus on the material needs of the people and that "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refers to physical provisions rather than legal commandments. Finally, many exegetes assert that there are indeed two separate aspects and that the miracle of Marah was intended to demonstrate that physical health is dependent on following the mitzvot of Hashem.

In exploring the events of Marah, commentators present various understandings of what were the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and why they were necessary:

Behavioral Guidelines

At Marah, Hashem gave the Israelites instructions as to how to behave. This option subdivides as to whether these directives were intended for all generations or just for the nation in transit.

Torah Laws

Hashem began to give the nation a preview of some of the Torah's eternal commandments.

Sources:R. Yehoshua, R. Elazar HaModai,¹ and R. Yehuda in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Vayassa 1Mishpatim Nezikin 1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Mekhilta DeRashbiShemot 15:25About Mekhilta DeRashbi, Seder Olam RabbahSeder Olam Rabbah 5About Seder Olam Rabbah, Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 56bAbout the Bavli, Seder Olam ZutaSeder Olam Zuta 4About Seder Olam Zuta, Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 15:25About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiShemot 15:25-26Shemot 24:3Devarim 5:12Devarim 5:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Lekach TovShemot 15:25About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:32About R. Moshe Maimonides²

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – The parallel verse "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם" in Shemot 21:1 also refers to the giving of mitzvot, and this may underlie R. Yehuda's words in the Mekhilta. However, as Ramban points out, if the verse is referring to specific laws, one would have expected the Torah to enumerate them as it does in other instances.

Commandments before Sinai – All of these sources agree that the Israelites received a number of commandments prior to the revelation at Mt. Sinai.³

Marah – physical and spiritual – This approach understands that mitzvot and Torah were the most vital element for the development of the Israelite nation,⁴ and thus they needed to be given at the very first opportunity. Marah, as the first post-Yam Suf stop, was therefore the place where fundamental precepts (or at least a preview⁵ of them) were transmitted to the people along with the water needed to quench their physical thirst. The "דורשי רשומות" in the Mekhilta⁶ go a step further. They suggest that the lack of water described in the episode is merely a metaphor for a shortage of Torah.⁷ According to them, the entire story revolves purely around the spiritual needs of the nation, rather than their physical necessities.⁸

Referents of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – In attempting to identify the specific commandments to which these terms refer, these sources are influenced by how they understand the general meanings of these terms,⁹ the needs of a newly freed nation, and verses from other places in Torah which may provide evidence that a particular precept was given before Sinai.¹⁰ The Mekhilta records the earliest two sets of identifications, each of which views "חֹק" and "מִשְׁפָּט" as two distinct entities:

• Shabbat ("חֹק") and honoring parents ("מִשְׁפָּט") – R. YehoshuaMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Vayassa 1Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot 15:25About Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelAbout Mekhilta DeRashbi¹¹
• Forbidden sexual relationships ("חֹק") and torts ("מִשְׁפָּט") – R. Elazar HaModaiMekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Vayassa 1Mekhilta DeRashbi Shemot 15:25About Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelAbout Mekhilta DeRashbi¹²

These two Tannaitic positions combine to cover most of the commandments in the Decalogue.¹³ Subsequent sources mix and match between these two opinions to form additional permutations and combinations:¹⁴

• Shabbat ("חֹק") and civil law ("מִשְׁפָּט") – RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:32About R. Moshe Maimonides¹⁵
• Shabbat, honoring parents, and civil law / torts – Seder Olam RabbahSeder Olam Rabbah 5About Seder Olam Rabbah,¹⁶ Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 56bAbout the Bavli,¹⁷ Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 15:25About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan¹⁸
• Shabbat, laws of the red heifer,¹⁹ and civil law – Seder Olam ZutaSeder Olam Zuta 4About Seder Olam Zuta,²⁰ RashiShemot 15:25-26Devarim 5:12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki²¹
• Shabbat, honoring parents, laws of the red heifer, and civil law – Rashi Shemot 24:3Shemot 24:3Devarim 5:12Devarim 5:16About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki²²

Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 and 16:4 – This approach subdivides regarding whether "נִסָּהוּ" means to test or to elevate / glorify (see נסה)‎,²³ and whether it is connected to the giving of mitzvot or lack of water.²⁴

• To test – this is how R. Eliezer and most commentators understand the word, and this matches its common usage in Tanakh. There are several ways to understand this test:
  • Hashem tested the nation to see if they would follow his commandments – RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25About R. Levi b. Gershon's third option. According to this view, "וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ" refers to the commandments of "שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט", and the following verse (15:26) spells out that the test is: "אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה וְהַאֲזַנְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָיו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כָּל חֻקָּיו...". Ralbag notes that this reading is also supported by the parallel to "לְמַעַן אֲנַסֶּנּוּ הֲיֵלֵךְ בְּתוֹרָתִי אִם לֹא" in Shemot 16:4.²⁵
  • Hashem tested the nation to see how they would complain about material needs – Rashi.²⁶ According to Rashi, the Israelites failed the test as they complained in an inappropriate manner.
  • The Israelites tested Hashem to see if He could provide for them – Targum Pseudo-Jonathan²⁷
• To elevate / glorify – This is the position of R. Yehoshua, and it works well with his choice of Shabbat as the "חֹק"‎.²⁸ RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25About R. Levi b. Gershon explains similarly in his second option, and he points to Shemot 20:17 and Tehillim 4:7 as support.²⁹ The exaltation could manifest itself in one of two ways:
  • Hashem elevated the Israelites above the other nations by giving them mitzvot.³⁰
  • Hashem glorified the Israelites in front of all of the other nations by providing for their physical needs.³¹

Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ" – All of these sources understand that "שָׂם לוֹ" means that Hashem gave something to the Children of Israel. Similarly, the Mekhilta and Rashi understand that Hashem is the subject of "נִסָּהוּ" and He is testing the people.³² However, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan interprets that the Israelites are the ones who tested Hashem (with their demand for water).³³

Ethical Code of Conduct

Moshe taught the people how to properly conduct themselves during their trek in the desert.

Sources:RambanShemot 15:25About R. Moshe Nachmanides,³⁴ HaRekhasim Levik'ahShemot 15:25About R"Y Frankfurter, R. Yaakov Meidan³⁵

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – Ramban and Minchah Belulah understand this expression to refer to the mandating of a conventional pattern of behavior (מנהג). They cite parallel verses from the books of Yehoshua and Shemuel where Yehoshua and David are similarly "שָׂם... חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט", and they explain these as referring to the establishing of a custom or expected behavior rather than to Torah laws.

Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"

• According to the first variation in Ramban, each of "חֹק" and "מִשְׁפָּט" refer to the manner in which the Israelites' needs would be provided for in the wilderness.
• The second option in Ramban views the two terms as parallel but different aspects of how the Israelites needed to behave in the wilderness. "חֹק" refers to trusting in Hashem for their needs and "מִשְׁפָּט" relates to proper interpersonal discipline while camped in the desert.
• R. Meidan distinguishes between the two terms. He understands "חֹק" as a quota,³⁶ and reads "מִשְׁפָּט" as the process through which the water allocations were made for each family.

Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 and 16:4 – This approach understands "נִסָּהוּ" as referring to the test of whether the Children of Israel would adhere to the code of conduct prescribed by the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט". Ramban explains that the tests both here and in Shemot 16:4 are to see how the nation will react to the difficult conditions of their wilderness trek. R. Meidan similarly views both as testing whether the people would act with restraint and abide by the strict system of food and water rationing. According to this approach, 15:26 refers to the ethical behavior previously mandated in 15:25.³⁷

Conditions in the wilderness – According to R. Meidan's reconstruction, even though Hashem provided supernaturally for the Israelites' subsistence in the wilderness, the supplies of food and water were not unlimited, and rationing was vital.³⁸ Thus, each person was limited to one omer of manna per diem, and the manna was weighed to make sure that nobody took more than their fair share.

Marah and self-control – Marah was the first stop in the wilderness, and it was critical that ground rules be laid down immediately to insure the nation's physical survival and moral behavior. If the people had not been taught to exercise discipline and self-restraint, the result could have been chaos and disaster.³⁹ According to this approach, Marah was not an exalted spiritual experience in which the nation received a preview of the revelation at Sinai, but rather a much more mundane story of providing for the nation's basic physical needs and enabling newly freed slaves to create a civilized society.

Ethic independent of halakhah – Ramban's focus on the existence of a code of morality in addition to the commandments of the Torah is consistent with his positions in Vayikra 19:2 and Devarim 6:18 that morality is not governed merely by the letter of the law.⁴⁰

Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ" – Hashem is the one who is educating and testing the nation.

Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that any commandments were given before the revelation at Sinai other than the Shabbat which is explicitly mentioned in Shemot 16.⁴¹

Principles of Divine Providence

The events of Marah taught the nation that Hashem rewards the righteous and punishes the sinner.

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Shemot 15:25About R. Saadia Gaon, RashbamShemot 15:25Shemot 16:4About R. Shemuel b. Meir, RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25About R. Levi b. Gershon, AbarbanelShemot 15:25About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 15:25About R. S.D. Luzzatto, U. CassutoShemot 15:25-26About U. Cassuto

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 – According to most of these commentators,⁴² this phrase refers to Hashem's laying down the theological principle of reward and punishment.⁴³ This tenet is then spelled out in 15:26.⁴⁴ For other cases of "שָׂם... חֹק" referring to the ways in which Hashem runs the world, see Yirmeyahu 33:25 and Mishlei 8:29.

Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"

• R. Saadia explains that "חֹק" refers to the reward of the righteous and "מִשְׁפָּט" refers to the judgment of the wicked.
• Abarbanel understands that "חֹק" and "מִשְׁפָּט" both refer to the principle of providence, with the first being from the Israelite perspective and the second from Hashem's perspective. His distinction is based on the verse in Tehillim 81:5.
• Ralbag in his second approach and possibly also Rashbam⁴⁵ interpret the term to refer to practical commandments. However, even according to them, at Marah, Hashem only established the necessary theological foundations⁴⁶ for the future transmission of the mitzvot, but did not give any of the actual commandments themselves.⁴⁷

Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ" – Most of these sources assume that Hashem is the subject of these verbs and He is educating the Children of Israel. Ralbag (in his first approach), however, understands that the verse describes the nation's erroneous notion that Hashem was a wrathful God capable only of punishing people, and their testing of Hashem to see if He could provide for their needs as well.⁴⁸ According to Ralbag, the sweetening of the water and Hashem's words in 15:26 were His response to the people which demonstrated that He is a benevolent God who also controls the good in the world.⁴⁹

Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26, 16:4, and 17:7 – The commentators diverge here in their interpretations:

• Hashem tested the Israelites - R. Saadia explains that Hashem was testing whether the nation would conduct themselves appropriately under adverse circumstances.⁵⁰ Shadal proposes a variation of this according to which Hashem was testing whether the Israelites would continue to complain after He provided for their needs. Shadal points to the parallel in Shemot 16:4.
• The Israelites tested Hashem - Ralbag's first approach - see above.⁵¹ "נִסָּהוּ" would thus be parallel to "‏נַסֹּתָם אֶת ה'‏" in Shemot 17:7.
• Hashem elevated the Israelites by informing them that He would give them mitzvot - Ralbag's second approach.
• Hashem performed miracles for the Israelites - Abarbanel. He relates "נִסָּהוּ" to נס.
• Hashem began to make the Israelites accustomed to depending upon Him for their needs - This may be the position of Rashbam Shemot 16:4.⁵² By providing miraculously for the nation's basic needs on a daily basis, Hashem was able to nurture their faith in Him and His ways.

Marah's pedagogical methodology – Abarbanel explains that the Children of Israel needed to internalize belief in Divine providence and in Hashem's system of reward and punishment before they could be given the commandments. Marah and the miracles of Shemot 16-17 thus attempted to achieve this objective so that the Israelites would be prepared for the revelation at Sinai.⁵³

Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai,⁵⁴ and Ralbag emphasizes that Shemot 21:1 indicates that civil law was given only after the Decalogue.⁵⁵

Resources for Physical Survival

At Marah, Hashem provided for the physical needs of the nation.

Sustenance

Hashem supplied the people with water.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 15:25Shemot 16:4About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – R"Y Bekhor Shor interprets this to mean that Hashem provided the nation with sustenance.⁵⁶ He points to the case of Bereshit 47:22 as another example where "חֹק" refers to food.⁵⁷

Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 16:4 – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, in both verses Hashem is testing the nation to see if their hearts will be won over by His caring for all of their needs.⁵⁸

Promise of health in 15:26 – As opposed to most other commentators who view Hashem's promise of health as a reward for keeping the commandments, R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that Hashem is merely telling the nation that this will be the natural result⁵⁹ of observing mitzvot such as kashrut and ritual impurity.⁶⁰ Indeed, according to R"Y Bekhor Shor this is the very purpose of these mitzvot.⁶¹

Marah's pedagogical methodology – Hashem is emphasizing the "carrot" approach. First, He provides for all of the nation's physical needs without asking for or expecting anything in return. Only after Hashem has sustained the nation with His miracles for a period of time will they feel a debt of gratitude and be receptive to His commandments. According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, the entire story of Marah, including its aftermath, is entirely focused on Hashem's caring for the Israelites' sustenance and health.

Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.⁶²

Herbal Remedies

Hashem taught Moshe the medicinal properties of herbs.

Sources:Opinion cited by R. BachyaShemot 15:25About R. Bachya b. Asher,⁶³ Tzeror HaMorShemot 15:25-26About R. Avraham Saba⁶⁴

Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – These terms refers to the principles and knowledge of the properties of various plants, with "חֹק" meaning the properties which are less understood and "מִשְׁפָּט" being the ones which are better understood.⁶⁵

Meanings of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ" – Hashem provided Moshe ("שָׂם לוֹ") with this botanical knowledge, and Moshe tested out the tree ("נִסָּהוּ"‎).⁶⁶

Cautionary advice in Shemot 15:26 – Hashem admonishes Moshe not to rely solely on his newly acquired medicinal knowledge,⁶⁷ but rather to pray to Hashem and observe His commandments, thereby preventing the onset of any malady in the first place.⁶⁸

Unitary theme of Marah – According to this approach, herbalism and the curing the waters of Marah is the theme which links all of the verses in the story, and there is no dual message.⁶⁹

Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.⁷⁰

¹ Some manuscripts of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael read R. Eliezer HaModai. Both R. Eliezer and R. Elazar HaModai appear several times in this section of the Mekhilta, and there are numerous discrepancies between the textual witnesses.

² See also R. Shemuel b. Chofni GaonBereshit 47:22About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon.

³ Some of these commentators point to the mention of "חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים" in Shemot 18:16 and the words "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" regarding Shabbat and honoring parents in Devarim 5:12,16 (according to this opinion, both versions of the Decalogue were uttered by Hashem in one breath) as evidence for this position. For more, see Mitzvot Before Sinai, Chronology of Shemot 18 and Moshe's Duties. This position is also what allows the Mekhilta and Rashi to adopt the position that Shemot 24:1-12 occurred before the Decalogue and that the "מִשְׁפָּטִים" mentioned in 24:3 are the ones given at Marah. [Interestingly, Pseudo-Philo 11:14 places the story of Marah after the Decalogue.]

⁴ This view could take the position that the observance of mitzvot was intended to bolster belief in Hashem ("אחרי המעשים נמשכים הלבבות"). Cf. the position of R. Saadia et al. below that Marah taught the fundamentals of faith which would then lead to the observance of the commandments.

⁵ See the first opinion in the Tzeror HaMorShemot 15:25-26About R. Avraham Saba that the nation could only receive a few mitzvot because they were not yet ready to receive all of the commandments.

⁶ Their words are cited also in Bavli BK 82a, and form the basis for the interpretation of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Shemot 15:22.

⁷ See also R. Elazar HaModai in the Mekhilta who explains that "הַמָּיִם" in Shemot 15:27 also refers to Torah. The Rabbinic interpretation may be engaged in a polemic against early Christian exegesis (e.g. Tertullian, On Baptism 9) which claimed that the waters of Marah were baptismal.

⁸ There is a second Midrashic motif in which the tree used to sweeten the waters of Marah is the "tree of life/Torah" (see Mishlei 3:18). This approach is taken by the "דורשי רשומות" and Rashbi in the Mekhilta, Pseudo-Philo 11:14, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. It is possible that here, too, there exists an underlying polemic against the Christian interpretation that the tree symbolized the cross of Jesus (see for e.g. Origen, Homilies on Exodus 7, who also adds that the bitter waters symbolize the Torah and the commandments). Less subtle polemic from the medieval period can be found in Hadar ZekeinimShemot 15:25About Hadar Zekeinim and the Hamburg 45 ms. brought in Tosafot HaShalem.

⁹ See חֹק for the options regarding the relationship between "חֹק" and "מִשְׁפָּט".

¹⁰ See the notes below regarding Shemot 16:23, Shemot 18:16, and Devarim 5:12,16.

¹¹ R. Yehoshua does not explain his selection of these two mitzvot (cf. the somewhat forced explanation in Midrash Aggadah (Buber) Devarim 5:15), but it is likely influenced by the understanding that the words "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" which appear in the Decalogue with regard to both of these commandments implies that they were given prior to the revelation at Sinai. This derivation is explicit in the Bavli Sanhedrin, but the Bavli does not link the words "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" to these precepts (see below). The first source to explicitly merge R. Yehoshua's position with the derivation found in the Bavli is the Lekach Tov. An additional factor which may have led to the choice of Shabbat is the verse in the next chapter (Shemot 16:23) "הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' שַׁבָּתוֹן שַׁבַּת קֹדֶשׁ לַה' מָחָר" which may be interpreted as referring to a transmission of the laws of Shabbat at an earlier point. For more fundamental explanations of R. Yehoshua's choice of mitzvot, see Rambam below regarding Shabbat as teaching the foundations of belief in Hashem, and R. Yaakov Meidan, "איפה ואיפה – עיון בפרשיות נדודי ישראל במדבר", Megadim 17 (1992): 72-74 who argues that honoring of parents was essential for establishing law and order and the rights of the household head to allocate food and water.

¹² In contrast to R. Yehoshua who does not appeal to other Biblical usages of these terms, R. Elazar HaModai adduces support for his position from the appearance of the term "חֹק" (in various forms) with regard to sexual prohibitions (see Vayikra 18:3,4,5,26,30, 20:8,22). In Mekhilta Yitro Amalek 2 he presents an identical interpretation of the "חקים" in Shemot 18:16,20. See also R. Yehuda in Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelMishpatim Nezikin 1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael who similarly identifies "מִשְׁפָּט" with the civil laws given under the heading of "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים" (Shemot 21:1). However, it is possible that R. Elazar's underlying motivation may be an attempt to define which categories of laws were the most critical for maintaining law and order amongst a new nation camped together in the desert. [In limiting "מִשְׁפָּט" to torts, R. Elazar may be trying to avoid the problem raised in the Bavli that civil law was already given as part of the Noachide commandments.]

¹³ This is not surprising, as the Decalogue would be an obvious place to begin when looking for commandments important enough to be the very first ones given to the nation.

¹⁴ There may also be a disagreement between the Mekhilta and many of the later sources (other than the Rambam) as to whether the words "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refer to two different commandments or whether they together constitute a single category of mitzvot. While the Tannaim in the Mekhilta distinguish between the terms (and thus identify each with a single commandment), Seder Olam Rabbah, Bavli Sanhedrin, and the Targum do not and rather appear to treat a "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" as a single entity (and this also allows them to identify more than two commandments).

¹⁵ The Rambam understands "חֹק" in accordance with R. Yehoshua and "מִשְׁפָּט" in accordance with R. Elazar HaModai, but it is not clear whether the Rambam is drawing from both opinions in the Mekhilta or merely modifying the Bavli. The Rambam explains that these two mitzvot were the ones given because they embody the foundations of both faith and interpersonal relationships (he contrasts them with the laws of sacrifices which were commanded only later).

¹⁶ Seder Olam Rabbah enumerates a total of ten mitzvot given at Marah, arriving at this number by including the Seven Noachide Laws (among which it also includes civil law) in addition to these three which were given specifically to the Israelites. The Bavli cites this position and questions how it can count "דינים" twice, once as part of the original Noachide Laws and a second time as part of the additional three given to the Israelites. After examining a number of possible variations which attempt to argue that the דינים given at Marah incorporated new details, the Bavli ultimately concludes that this approach must not count דינים as one of the Seven Noachide Laws (but rather, like Tanna debei Menasheh, replaces דינים and ‏ברכת ה'‏ with סירוס and כלאים). This explanation, though, does not work within Seder Olam Rabbah itself which explicitly counts דינים twice.

¹⁷ While Seder Olam Rabbah does not explain how it arrived at the three mitzvot newly learned at Marah, the Bavli brings two different sources. It suggests that the term "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refers to דינים, but it derives Shabbat and honoring parents from the verses in Devarim 5 where they are introduced with the words "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" (implying that they were known from before the revelation at Sinai). See note above on R. Yehoshua's opinion and the discussion there of Shabbat's appearance in the story of the Manna in Shemot 16.

¹⁸ Targum Pseudo-Jonathan specifies torts, following R. Elazar HaModai in the Mekhilta. This may also have an advantage of avoiding overlap with the Seven Noachide Laws – see above for the Bavli's discussion of this.

¹⁹ (a) It is not surprising that Tannaitic sources and the Bavli make no mention of the laws of the red heifer (פרה אדומה), as it is hard to imagine that this mitzvah would have deserved first priority at this early stage of the nation's development. It appears that Rashi's commentary bears primary responsibility for the spread of this opinion. An additional early source for פרה אדומה being given at Marah is the Yotzer for Parashat Parah attributed to R. Elazar HaKalir. [Regarding the original text of Seder Olam Zuta and textual issues in Rashi's own commentary, see below.]
(b) The notion that פרה אדומה was given already at Marah is apparently predicated on the assumption that פרה אדומה is the quintessential example of a "חֹק" (see R. Chaim PaltielShemot 15:25About R. Chaim Paltiel who cites the phrase "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה" from Bemidbar 19:2). But while this is a commonplace assumption today, it also is largely a result of the influence of Rashi himself in his commentary on BemidbarBemidbar 19:2About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki. [Rashi's comments there integrate the motifs of the Bavli and Pesikta DeRav KahanaParah 4:1,6About Pesikta DeRav Kahana. For other possible interpretations of the phrase in Bemidbar, see Chukkat HaTorah.] Thus, Rashi's commentary regarding Marah is fully consistent with his interpretation in Bemidbar and with his interpretation of "חֻקָּיו" in Shemot 15:26.
(c) In contrast, פרה אדומה does not appear in the list of חוקים in SifraAcharei Mot 9About Sifra and in most textual witnesses of Bavli YomaYoma 67bAbout the Bavli. The Bavli is thus also fully consistent in not identifying פרה אדומה as the "חֹק" of Marah. [See also Bavli Gittin 60a that the laws of Parah were given only at the beginning of the second year. Note, though, that פרה אדומה is found in a Spanish printing of Masekhet Yoma and was likely in the texts which RambamHilkhot Meilah 8:8About R. Moshe Maimonides and RambanVayikra 16:8About R. Moshe Nachmanides had before them.]

²⁰ See, however, R. Menachem Kasher in Torah Shelemah 14:293-295 (פרשת בשלח מילואים י"א) and C. Milikowsky, "פרה אדומה לפני סיני - מסורת קדומה או טעות סופרים", in עיונים בספרות חז"ל במקרא ובתולדות ישראל לכבוד ע"צ מלמד (Jerusalem 1982): 270 who point out that other editions of Seder Olam Zuta do not mention either Marah or פרה אדומה, but instead read: "ובאותה השנה בחודש השני נתנה תורה לישראל, ובאותה השנה בחדש השלישי נתנו לישראל עשרת הדברות, ובשנה השנית נתנה להם תורה בי"ה ‏[=ביום הכיפורים]‏". They both conclude that the line in question was a later insertion to the text of Seder Olam Zuta which was influenced by Rashi's commentary. Milikowsky (p. 271) arrives at a similar conclusion regarding the variant texts of Seder Olam Rabbah.

²¹ (a) The Tosafist commentaries of Paneach Raza, Riva, and R. Chaim PaltielShemot 15:25About R. Chaim Paltiel, as well as Rashi's supercommentators, note that Rashi's position deviates from earlier Rabbinic sources and stands in contradiction to sources which imply that פרה אדומה was given only later (see also Chizkuni's proposed solution) and came to atone for the sin of the golden calf. This causes the Torah Temimah to go so far as to suggest that there is a scribal error in the text of Rashi, and that the original text read "וכ"א" (i.e. וכיבוד אב ואם), and it was then corrupted into "ופ"א" which was then deciphered as ופרה אדומה. Arguing against this theory is that early manuscripts and citations of Rashi all read like our text, and Rashi's commentary to Shemot 24:3 lists both honoring parents and פרה אדומה (see below). Additionally, as noted above, our text of Rashi is also consistent with his interpretations of Shemot 15:26 and Bemidbar 19:2.
(b) Like Seder Olam Rabbah above, Rashi does not explain how he derives three different mitzvot from the two words of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט". See R. Chaim PaltielShemot 15:25About R. Chaim Paltiel who suggests that Rashi learned the laws of the red heifer from "חֹק", civil law from "מִשְׁפָּט", and Shabbat from "וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ". While this suggestion is consistent with both Rashi's interpretation in Shemot 15:26 that "חֻקָּיו" includes פרה אדומה and his interpretation in Shemot 16:4 that "לְמַעַן אֲנַסֶּנּוּ" refers to a test of whether they would observe the Shabbat, it does not match Rashi's own explanation of "וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ". For more, see below on Rashi Shemot 24:3. See also R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 16:28About R. Avraham Maimonides who links the three verses of 15:26, 16:4 and 16:28.

²² See above that Rashi on Shemot 15:25 did not include honoring parents. Rashi on Shemot 24:3 could learn Shabbat and honoring parents from "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" (like the Bavli, and see also discussion of R. Yehoshua above), and then additionally derive פרה אדומה and civil law as the archetypical "חֹק" and "מִשְׁפָּט".

²³ Ramban, in explaining the position of the Bavli and Rashi, raises a third possibility that would understand נסה as to train or make accustomed. According to this, Hashem wanted the Israelites to gradually become accustomed to mitzvot.

²⁴ The exegetes' positions on this question are heavily influenced by how they understood the focus of the story as a whole.

²⁵ However, see below that both 15:25 and 16:4 can be interpreted in multiple ways. Also, see the note above for the possibility within Rashi's general position that both verses can be interpreted as speaking specifically about a test of whether the nation would observe Shabbat.

²⁶ Cf. R. Saadia below and Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 15:25Shemot Short Commentary 15:25About R. Avraham ibn Ezra. This approach would need to say either that Hashem intentionally made the waters of Marah bitter (this is the opinion of R. Yehoshua in the Mekhilta) to test the Israelites (this is the opinion of R. Elazar in the Mekhilta, arguing against R. Yehoshua), or that the waters were naturally bitter (R. Elazar) and Hashem chose this particular route in order to test the nation.

²⁷ See below for elaboration.

²⁸ R. Yehoshua, though, connects "נִסָּהוּ" to the root נשא, and this exposes him to the criticism of R. Eliezer. Ralbag, in contrast, brings support from other instances of the root "נסה".

²⁹ See נסה for a full discussion.

³⁰ See also Devarim 4:6-8. Ralbag takes this position explicitly. Cf. R. Chaim PaltielShemot 15:25About R. Chaim Paltiel who connects "נִסָּהוּ" to נס (a flag), and suggests that the mitzvah of Shabbat was a public symbol ("אות") of Hashem's covenant with the Children of Israel.

³¹ This option is hinted to in Ralbag's comments. Cf. Ben Sira who states that the purpose of Marah was to demonstrate Hashem's power.

³² For discussion of the bi-directional testing in the wilderness, see Testing.

³³ This follows Bavli ArakhinArakhin 15aAbout the Bavli which lists this incident as one of the ten times that the Children of Israel tested Hashem (see Bemidbar 14:22). See also Avot DeRabbi NatanVersion B, Chapter 38About Avot DeRabbi Natan which cites our verse as the prooftext for this (the Bavli does not). However, see Devarim 6:16 which may imply that the first time the Israelites tested Hashem was at מסה. For a variation of this approach, see Ralbag below.

³⁴ Cf. the first possibility suggested by R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 15:25About R. Avraham Maimonides that the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refers to ad hoc laws which applied only to the wilderness period and not to future generations.

³⁵ In his article, "איפה ואיפה – עיון בפרשיות נדודי ישראל במדבר", Megadim 17 (1992): 62-63. After reconstructing the backdrop and need for the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט", R. Meidan attempts to show that this also underlies the opinion of R. Yehoshua cited above. In contrast, Ramban views his approach as distinct from that of Chazal.

³⁶ Particularly a food allocation, similar to R"Y Bekhor Shor below. See חֹק for prooftexts.

³⁷ See also the Lekach Tov Shemot 15:26 who learns from Marah "והישר בעיניו תעשה – זו לפנים משורת הדין".

³⁸ R. Meidan's picture is based on the verses in Devarim 8:2-3 which describe the hunger in the wilderness. He understands, like Ramban (Shemot 15-16 and Devarim 8), that people were constantly famished despite the manna. Other exegetes, though, interpret the verses in Devarim to be describing only the hunger which existed before Hashem started raining down the manna.

³⁹ R. Meidan points to the incident of קברות התאוה in Bemidbar 11 as a case where the nation's indulgence of their unbridled desires, in fact, led to tragic consequences.

⁴⁰ See also Lekach Tov and Ramban's interpretations of Shemot 15:26.

⁴¹ See Ramban Devarim 5:12 who thus explains "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" differently from the Bavli and Rashi. Ramban would likely explain similarly to Shadal Shemot 18:16 that the "חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים" mentioned there refers to ad hoc laws.

⁴² See below that Ralbag (in his first approach) differs in understanding the subject of the verse to be the Israelites and their erroneous theological assumptions. Ralbag agrees, though, that Marah came to teach the principle of Divine providence. Regarding Rashbam and Ralbag's second approach, see below.

⁴³ For a different variation that also emphasizes that Marah came to teach a lesson about mitzvot, see the Akeidat YitzchakShemot #40About R. Yitzchak Arama who explains that the sweetening of the water symbolized that commandments that were at first incomprehensible ("חֹק") and bitter (as they ran counter to the Egyptian lascivious lifestyle) would be transformed into understandable ("מִשְׁפָּט") and sweet ones. According to R"Y Arama, the Egyptian malady described in 15:26 refers to their hardened hearts which was the cause of their afflictions.

⁴⁴ Abarbanel and Shadal explicitly equate the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" with 15:26.

⁴⁵ Rashbam's wording is ambiguous, but his mention of "את החוקים ואת המשפטים אשר ילמדם" (cf. Devarim 5:1) would appear to indicate that he understood the phrase "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" to refer to commandments rather than theology.

⁴⁶ Cf. Shadal who speaks of "החוק והמשפט הכללי" and Cassuto who renders "הקדמה והתחלה לחוקיו ומשפטיו".

⁴⁷ According to Rashbam and Ralbag, Hashem only informed the Israelites that they would receive these commandments in the future. Thus, the position that Rashbam and Ralbag posit differs fundamentally from those of the Midrash and Ramban presented above, and is much closer to that of R. Saadia and Abarbanel.

⁴⁸ Ralbag develops this theory in a number of other places as well – see his comments on Shemot 10:10, 17:6-7, 32:12.

⁴⁹ Ralbag notes that Marah was the first miracle in which the Israelites benefited without a different party being punished.

⁵⁰ Cf. Rashi above.

⁵¹ Cf. the discussion of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's position above.

⁵² This position is explicit in the BiurShemot 16:4About the Biur. It is also Abarbanel's general understanding of the purpose of the episode, although not his interpretation of "נִסָּהוּ". Cf. R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 15:25About R. Avraham Maimonides who interprets "נִסָּהוּ" (here and in Shemot 20:17) as becoming accustomed to a situation.

⁵³ According to Abarbanel, Hashem intentionally caused the nation to be in a situation where they were lacking food and water. [He thus also attempts to explain why the people were not punished for their complaints in the incidents before the Decalogue.] This view is almost diametrically opposed to that of R"Y Bekhor Shor below. See also the dispute between R. Yehoshua and R. Elazar HaModai over whether the waters were naturally bitter or became that way in order to create a need for the miracle.

⁵⁴ Rashbam Devarim 5:12 thus explains "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" differently from the Bavli and Rashi, and Rashbam 24:1 assumes that Shemot 24 occurred after the Decalogue. See also Shadal Shemot 18:16 that the "חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים" mentioned there refers to ad hoc laws. Alternatively, see R. Saadia and Cassuto that Yitro arrived at the Israelite camp after the revelation at Sinai. Abarbanel, though, posits that Moshe received all of civil law at Mara, but that it was not until Parashat Mishpatim that Moshe was instructed to transmit the laws to the people, and thus in the meantime Moshe needed to judge every case.

⁵⁵ RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 16:22-23About R. Levi b. Gershon also states that it was pedagogically more effective for the Israelites to see that there would miraculously be a double portion of manna on erev Shabbat, and none on Shabbat, before receiving the commandment to observe Shabbat.

⁵⁶ In 15:26 he seems to also present a second option according to which Hashem gave the nation laws which would ensure their good health.

⁵⁷ It is unclear whether R"Y Bekhor Shor thinks that "חֹק" means food itself, or merely a portion (of food). The latter option is developed by R. Meidan above, and he cites numerous prooftexts. While R"Y Bekhor Shor explains "מִשְׁפָּט" to be synonymous with "חֹק", R. Meidan understands it to be the administrative process through which the food allocations were fixed.

⁵⁸ While this resembles the approach of Rashbam, Abarbanel, and the Biur above that Hashem created the shortages of food and water so that the Israelites would recognize their dependence on Him, R"Y Bekhor Shor emphasizes Hashem's role in providing the solution rather than the problem. In Shemot 16:4 and Devarim 8:3, though, he explains like Rashbam.

⁵⁹ Cf. R. Yosef Kara.

⁶⁰ This is consistent with R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's general understanding that Hashem's goal at Marah is simply to be kind to the nation. He equates the giving of the commandments with Hashem's sweetening of the waters of Marah.

⁶¹ This is consistent with the interpretation offered by Rashbam Vayikra 11:3 and others – see Kashrut. R"Y Bekhor Shor Vayikra 11:2, himself, presents a variation of this explanation, according to which the reason for these prohibitions is that it would be disgusting for an unclean person to come before Hashem.

⁶² R. Yosef Bekhor Shor Shemot 24:1, however, adopts the position that 24:1-12 occurred before the Decalogue, and this has ramifications for understanding Shemot 24:3. See also his interpretation of Shemot 18:16.

⁶³ The roots of this approach may be found already in Ramban who writes: "נראה בדרך הפשט כי העץ ההוא ימתיק המים בטבעו, והוא סגולה בו, ולימד אותה למשה". However, Ramban applies this notion only to explain the word "וַיּוֹרֵהוּ", while explaining the term "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" differently – see above.

⁶⁴ The Tzeror HaMor appears to be working off R. Bachya.

⁶⁵ Cf. the Mekhilta which attempts to intensify the miracle by claiming that the waters were sweetened by use of a bitter agent.

⁶⁶ The Tzeror HaMor also presents the possibility that "נִסָּהוּ" means that Hashem enhanced the honor of Moshe by transmitting the mitzvot through him. Neither of these options would be a viable interpretation of "אֲנַסֶּנּוּ" in the parallel verse in 16:4.

⁶⁷ Many classical and medieval rabbinic sources display ambivalent attitudes toward medicine – see Ramban Vayikra 26:11. R. Bachya and R. Avraham Saba here try to temper the possibility of using the Marah story to encourage its practice. Interestingly, Ben Sira employs our story to praise the benefits of medicine and encourage its application.

⁶⁸ It is unclear according to these exegetes whether the warning was intended specifically for Moshe (who presumably knew to trust in Hashem) or for the entire nation.

⁶⁹ See the formulation of the Tzeror HaMor "לזה סמך מיד ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה' אלהיך... וזה קישור נפלא".

⁷⁰ See Chukkei HaElokim – Statutes Before Sinai? and Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice for R. Avraham Saba's interpretation of Shemot 18:16.