Difference between revisions of "Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah/2/en"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Original Author: Yonatan Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky)
 
>Title modification script
m (Title modification script moved page Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah/2 to Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah/2/en without leaving a redirect: Converting page titles)
 
(23 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
<page type="Approaches">
 
<page type="Approaches">
 
<h1>Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah</h1>
 
<h1>Miracles and Mitzvot at Marah</h1>
 
 
<div class="overview">
 
<div class="overview">
 
<h2>Overview</h2>
 
<h2>Overview</h2>
<p>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.</p>
+
<p>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.</p>
<continue>
+
<continue>
<p>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.</p>
+
<p>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.</p>
</continue>
+
</continue></div>
</div>
 
 
 
<!--
 
<br/>
 
<p style="text-align:center; font-weight:bold; font-size:1.2em">What was the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" that was received at Marah?</p>
 
-->
 
 
<p>In exploring the events of Marah, commentators present various understandings of what were the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and why they were necessary:</p>
 
<p>In exploring the events of Marah, commentators present various understandings of what were the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and why they were necessary:</p>
 
 
<approaches>
 
<approaches>
<!--
 
<multilink><aht source="TurShemotLong15-25">Tur</aht><aht source="TurShemotLong15-25">Long Commentary Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Tur">About R. Yaakov b. Asher</aht></multilink>,
 
<multilink><aht source="SefornoShemot15-25">Seforno</aht><aht source="SefornoShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="R. Ovadyah Seforno" /></multilink>,
 
<multilink><aht source="MinchahShemot15-25">Minchah Belulah</aht><aht source="MinchahShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Minchah Belulah">About R. Avraham Rappo of Porto</aht></multilink>,
 
<multilink><aht source="NetzivShemot15-25">Netziv</aht><aht source="NetzivShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25-26</aht><aht parshan="Netziv">About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin</aht></multilink>,
 
-->
 
  
 
<category>Behavioral Guidelines
 
<category>Behavioral Guidelines
<p>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.</p>
+
<p>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.</p>
<opinion name="">Torah Laws
+
<opinion>Torah Laws
 
<p>Hashem began to give the nation a preview of some of the Torah's eternal commandments.</p>
 
<p>Hashem began to give the nation a preview of some of the Torah's eternal commandments.</p>
<mekorot>R. Yehoshua, R. Elazar HaModai,<fn>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
+
<mekorot>R. Yehoshua, R. Elazar HaModai,<fn>Some manuscripts of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael read R. Eliezer HaModai. Both R. Eliezer and R.
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
+
<opinion name="Ethical Conduct">
<opinion name="Ethical Conduct">Ethical Code of Conduct
+
Ethical Code of Conduct
 
<p>Moshe taught the people how to properly conduct themselves during their trek in the desert.</p>
 
<p>Moshe taught the people how to properly conduct themselves during their trek in the desert.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><aht source="RambanShemot15-25">Ramban</aht><aht source="RambanShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Ramban">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</aht></multilink>,<fn>Cf. the first possibility suggested by <multilink><aht source="RAvrahamShemot15-25">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</aht><aht source="RAvrahamShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham Maimonides" /></multilink> that the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refers to ad hoc laws which applied only to the wilderness period and not for future generations.</fn>  
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RambanShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>,<fn>Cf. the first possibility suggested by <multilink><a href="RAvrahamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink> that the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" refers to ad hoc laws which applied only to the wilderness period and not to future generations.</fn> <multilink><a href="HaRekhasimShemot15-25" data-aht="source">HaRekhasim Levik'ah</a><a href="HaRekhasimShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Yehuda Leib Frankfurter (HaRekhasim Levikah)" data-aht="parshan">About R"Y Frankfurter</a></multilink>, R. Yaacov Medan<fn>In his <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega17_medan.pdf">article</a>, "איפה ואיפה – עיון בפרשיות נדודי ישראל במדבר", Megadim 17 (1992): 62-63. After reconstructing the backdrop and need for the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט", R. Medan 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.</fn></mekorot>
<multilink><aht source="HaRekhasimShemot15-25">HaRekhasim Levik'ah</aht><aht source="HaRekhasimShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="HaRekhasim Levik'ah">About R"Y Frankfurter</aht></multilink>,  
+
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – 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 <a href="Yehoshua24-25" data-aht="source">Yehoshua</a> and <a href="ShemuelI30-25" data-aht="source">Shemuel</a> 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.</point>
R. Yaakov Meidan<fn>In his <a href="http://www.herzog.ac.il/tvunot/fulltext/mega17_medan.pdf" rel="external">article</a>, "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 is also underlying the opinion of R. Yehoshua cited above. In contrast, Ramban views his approach as distinct from that of Chazal.</fn>
+
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b><ul>
</mekorot>
 
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – Ramban and Minchah Belulah understand this expression to refer to the mandating of a customary pattern of behavior (מנהג). They cite parallel verses from the books of <aht source="Yehoshua24-25">Yehoshua</aht> and <aht source="ShemuelI30-25">Shemuel</aht> where Yehoshua and David are similarly "שָׂם... חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט", and they explain these as referring to the establishing of a custom or proper behavior rather than to Torah laws.</point>
 
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b>
 
<ul>
 
 
<li>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.</li>
 
<li>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.</li>
<li>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.</li>
+
<li>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.</li>
<li>R. Meidan distinguishes between the two terms. He understands "חֹק" as a quota,<fn>Particularly a food allocation, similar to R"Y Bekhor Shor below. See <aht page="Dictionary:חֹק">חֹק</aht> for prooftexts.</fn> and reads "מִשְׁפָּט" as the process through which the water allocations were made for each family.</li>
+
<li>R. Medan distinguishes between the two terms. He understands "חֹק" as a quota,<fn>Particularly a food allocation, similar to R"Y Bekhor Shor below. See <a href="Dictionary:חֹק" data-aht="page">חֹק</a> for prooftexts.</fn> and reads "מִשְׁפָּט" as the process through which the water allocations were made for each family.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul></point>
</point>
+
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 and 16:4</b> – 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. Medan 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.<fn>See also the Lekach Tov Shemot 15:26 who learns from Marah "והישר בעיניו תעשה – זו לפנים משורת הדין".</fn></point>
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 and 16:4</b> – This approach understands "נִסָּהוּ" to refer 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 back to the ethical behavior mandated in 15:25.<fn>See also the Lekach Tov Shemot 15:26 who learns from Marah "והישר בעיניו תעשה – זו לפנים משורת הדין".</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Conditions in the wilderness</b> – According to R. Medan'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.<fn>R. Medan'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.</fn> 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.</point>
<point><b>Conditions in the wilderness</b> – 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.<fn>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 that the verses in Devarim describe only how there was hunger before Hashem started raining down the manna.</fn> 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.</point>
+
<point><b>Marah and self-control</b> – 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.<fn>R. Medan 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.</fn> 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.</point>
<point><b>Marah and self-control</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.</point>
 
 
<point><b>Ethic independent of halakhah</b> – 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.<fn>See also Lekach Tov and Ramban's interpretations of Shemot 15:26.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Ethic independent of halakhah</b> – 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.<fn>See also Lekach Tov and Ramban's interpretations of Shemot 15:26.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – Hashem is the one who is educating and testing the nation.</point>
 
<point><b>Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – Hashem is the one who is educating and testing the nation.</point>
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – 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.<fn>See Ramban Devarim 5:12 who thus explains "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" differently than the Bavli and Rashi. Ramban would likely explain like Shadal Shemot 18:16 that the "חֻקֵּי הָאֱלֹהִים" mentioned there refers to ad hoc laws.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
+
<category name="Divine Providence">
<category name="Divine Providence">Principles of Divine Providence<!--Fundamentals of Faith-->
+
Principles of Divine Providence
 
<p>The events of Marah taught the nation that Hashem rewards the righteous and punishes the sinner.</p>
 
<p>The events of Marah taught the nation that Hashem rewards the righteous and punishes the sinner.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><aht source="RasagShemot15-25">R. Saadia Gaon</aht><aht source="RasagShemot15-25">Commentary Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="R. Saadia Gaon" /></multilink>,  
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RasagShemot15-25" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RasagShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Commentary Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>,  
<multilink><aht source="RashbamShemot15-25">Rashbam</aht><aht source="RashbamShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht source="RashbamShemot16-4">Shemot 16:4</aht><aht parshan="Rashbam">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</aht></multilink>,  
+
<multilink><a href="RashbamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="RashbamShemot16-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:4</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>,  
<multilink><aht source="RalbagShemot15P25">Ralbag</aht><aht source="RalbagShemot15P25">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Ralbag">About R. Levi b. Gershon</aht></multilink>,  
+
<multilink><a href="RalbagShemot15P25" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShemot15P25" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink>,  
<multilink><aht source="AbarbanelShemot15-25">Abarbanel</aht><aht source="AbarbanelShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Abarbanel">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</aht></multilink>,  
+
<multilink><a href="AbarbanelShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>,  
<multilink><aht source="ShadalShemot15-25">Shadal</aht><aht source="ShadalShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="Shadal">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</aht></multilink>,  
+
<multilink><a href="ShadalShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</a></multilink>,  
<multilink><aht source="CassutoShemot15-25">U. Cassuto</aht><aht source="CassutoShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25-26</aht><aht parshan="Umberto Cassuto">About U. Cassuto</aht></multilink>
+
<multilink><a href="CassutoShemot15-25" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="CassutoShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25-26</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. U. Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot>
</mekorot>
+
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26</b> – According to most of these commentators,<fn>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.</fn> this phrase refers to Hashem's laying down the theological principle of reward and punishment.<fn>For a different variation that also emphasizes that Marah came to teach a lesson about mitzvot, see the <multilink><a href="Akeidat40" data-aht="source">Akeidat Yitzchak</a><a href="Akeidat40" data-aht="source">Shemot #40</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Arama</a></multilink> 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.</fn> This tenet is then spelled out in 15:26.<fn>Abarbanel and Shadal explicitly equate the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" with 15:26.</fn> For other cases of "שָׂם... חֹק" referring to the ways in which Hashem runs the world, see <a href="Yirmeyahu33-25" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 33:25</a> and <a href="Mishlei8-29" data-aht="source">Mishlei 8:29</a>.</point>
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26</b> – According to most of these commentators,<fn>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. According to Ralbag also, though, Marah came to teach the principle of Divine providence. On Rashbam and Ralbag's second approach, see below.</fn> this phrase refers to Hashem's laying down the theological principle of reward and punishment.<fn>For a different variation that also emphasizes that Marah came to teach a lesson about mitzvot, see the <multilink><aht source="Akeidat40">Akeidat Yitzchak</aht><aht source="Akeidat40">Shemot #40</aht><aht parshan="Akeidat Yitzchak">About R. Yitzchak Arama</aht></multilink> 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.</fn> This tenet is then spelled out in 15:26.<fn>Abarbanel and Shadal explicitly equate the "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" with 15:26.</fn> For other cases of "שָׂם... חֹק" referring to the ways in which Hashem runs the world, see <aht source="Yirmeyahu33-25">Yirmeyahu 33:25</aht> and <aht source="Mishlei8-29">Mishlei 8:29</aht>.</point>
+
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b><ul>
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b>
+
<li>R. Saadia explains that "חֹק" refers to the reward of the righteous and "מִשְׁפָּט" refers to the judgment of the wicked.</li>
<ul>
+
<li>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 <a href="Tehillim81-5" data-aht="source">Tehillim 81:5</a>.</li>
<li>R. Saadia explains that "חֹק" refers to the reward of the righteous and "מִשְׁפָּט" refers to the judgment of the wicked.</li>
+
<li>Ralbag in his second approach and possibly also Rashbam<fn>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.</fn> interpret the term to refer to practical commandments. However, even according to them, at Marah, Hashem only established the necessary theological foundations<fn>Cf. Shadal who speaks of "החוק והמשפט הכללי" and Cassuto who renders "הקדמה והתחלה לחוקיו ומשפטיו".</fn> for the future transmission of the mitzvot, but did not give any of the actual commandments themselves.<fn>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.</fn></li>
<li>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 <aht source="Tehillim81-5">Tehillim 81:5</aht>.</li>
+
</ul></point>
<li>Ralbag in his second approach and possibly also Rashbam<fn>Rashbam's wording is ambiguous, but his mention of "את החוקים ואת המשפטים אשר ילמדם" would appear to indicate that he understood the phrase "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" to refer to commandments rather than theology.</fn> interpret the term to refer to practical commandments. However, even according to them, at Marah, Hashem only established the necessary theological foundations<fn>Cf. Shadal who speaks of "החוק והמשפט הכללי" and Cassuto who renders "הקדמה והתחלה לחוקיו ומשפטיו".</fn> for the future transmission of the mitzvot, but did not give any of the actual commandments themselves.<fn>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 stake out differs fundamentally from those of the Midrash and Ramban presented above, and is much closer to that of R. Saadia and Abarbanel.</fn></li>
+
<point><b>Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – 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.<fn>Ralbag develops this theory in a number of other places as well – see his comments on Shemot 10:10, 17:6-7, 32:12.</fn> 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.<fn>Ralbag notes that Marah was the first miracle in which the Israelites benefited without a different party being punished.</fn></point>
</ul>
 
</point>
 
<point><b>Subjects and objects of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – 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 also provide for their needs.<fn>Ralbag develops this theory in a number of other places as well – see his comments on Shemot 10:10, 17:6-7, 32:12.</fn> 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 controls also the good in the world.<fn>Ralbag notes that Marah was the first miracle in which the Israelites benefitted without a different party being punished.</fn></point>
 
 
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26, 16:4, and 17:7</b> – The commentators diverge here in their interpretations:
 
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26, 16:4, and 17:7</b> – The commentators diverge here in their interpretations:
<ul>
+
<ul>
<li>Hashem tested the Israelites - R. Saadia explains that Hashem was testing if the nation would conduct themselves appropriately under adverse circumstances.<fn>Cf. Rashi above.</fn> Shadal proposes a variation of this according to which Hashem was testing if the Israelites would continue to complain after He provided for their needs. Shadal points to the parallel in Shemot 16:4.</li>
+
<li>Hashem tested the Israelites - R. Saadia explains that Hashem was testing whether the nation would conduct themselves appropriately under adverse circumstances.<fn>Cf. Rashi above.</fn> 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.</li>
<li>The Israelites tested Hashem - Ralbag's first approach - see above.<fn>Cf. the discussion of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan's position above.</fn> "נִסָּהוּ" would thus be parallel to "&#8207;נַסֹּתָם אֶת ה'&#8207;" in Shemot 17:7.</li>
+
<li>The Israelites tested Hashem - Ralbag's first approach - see above.<fn>Cf. the discussion of Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)'s position above.</fn> "נִסָּהוּ" would thus be parallel to "&#8207;נַסֹּתָם אֶת ה'&#8207;" in Shemot 17:7.</li>
<li>Hashem elevated the Israelites by informing them that He would give them mitzvot - Ralbag's second approach.</li>
+
<li>Hashem elevated the Israelites by informing them that He would give them mitzvot - Ralbag's second approach.</li>
<li>Hashem performed miracles for the Israelites - Abarbanel. He relates "נִסָּהוּ" to נס.</li>
+
<li>Hashem performed miracles for the Israelites - Abarbanel. He relates "נִסָּהוּ" to נס.</li>
<li>Hashem began to make the Israelites accustomed to depending upon Him for their needs - This may be the position of Rashbam Shemot 16:4.<fn>This position is explicit in the <multilink><aht source="BiurShemot16-4">Biur</aht><aht source="BiurShemot16-4">Shemot 16:4</aht><aht parshan="Biur">About the Biur</aht></multilink>. It is also Abarbanel's general understanding of the purpose of the episode, although not his interpretation of "נִסָּהוּ". Cf. <multilink><aht source="RAvrahamShemot15-25">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</aht><aht source="RAvrahamShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham Maimonides" /></multilink> who interprets "נִסָּהוּ" (here and in Shemot 20:17) as becoming accustomed to a situation.</fn> 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.</li>
+
<li>Hashem began to make the Israelites accustomed to depending upon Him for their needs - This may be the position of Rashbam Shemot 16:4.<fn>This position is explicit in the <multilink><a href="BiurShemot16-4" data-aht="source">Biur</a><a href="BiurShemot16-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:4</a><a href="Moses Mendelssohn" data-aht="parshan">About Moses Mendelssohn</a><a href="Biur" data-aht="parshan">About the Biur</a></multilink>. It is also Abarbanel's general understanding of the purpose of the episode, although not his interpretation of "נִסָּהוּ". Cf. <multilink><a href="RAvrahamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">R. Avraham b. HaRambam</a><a href="RAvrahamShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Avraham Maimonides" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Maimonides</a></multilink> who interprets "נִסָּהוּ" (here and in Shemot 20:17) as becoming accustomed to a situation.&#160; Rashbam is consistent elsewhere in understanding that נסה need not mean a test.&#160; See, for example his comments to Bereshit 22:1.</fn> 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.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul></point>
</point>
+
<point><b>Marah's pedagogical methodology</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
<point><b>Marah's pedagogical methodology</b> – Abarbanel explains that the Children of Israel needed to first 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai,<fn>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.</fn> and Ralbag emphasizes that Shemot 21:1 indicates that civil law was given only after the Decalogue.<fn><multilink><a href="RalbagShemot16P22" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagShemot16P22" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 16:22-23</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> 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.</fn></point>
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai,<fn>Rashbam Devarim 5:12 thus explains "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ" differently than the Bavli and Rashi, and Rashbam 24:1 assumes that Shemot 24 happened 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 came 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.</fn> and Ralbag emphasizes that Shemot 21:1 indicates that civil law was given only after the Decalogue.<fn><multilink><aht source="RalbagShemot16P22">Ralbag</aht><aht source="RalbagShemot16P22">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 16:22-23</aht><aht parshan="Ralbag">About R. Levi b. Gershon</aht></multilink> 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.</fn></point>
 
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
+
<category name="Physical Survival">
<category name="Physical Survival">Resources for Physical Survival
+
Resources for Physical Survival
<p>At Marah, Hashem provided for the physical needs of the nation.</p>
+
<p>At Marah, Hashem provided for the physical needs of the nation.</p>
<opinion name="">Sustenance
+
<opinion>Sustenance
 
<p>Hashem supplied the people with water.</p>
 
<p>Hashem supplied the people with water.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><aht source="RYBSShemot15-25">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</aht><aht source="RYBSShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht source="RYBSShemot16-4">Shemot 16:4</aht><aht parshan="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" /></multilink></mekorot>
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RYBSShemot15-25" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="RYBSShemot16-4" data-aht="source">Shemot 16:4</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink></mekorot>
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor interprets this to mean that Hashem provided the nation with sustenance.<fn>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.</fn> He points to the case of <aht source="Bereshit47-22">Bereshit 47:22</aht> as another example where "חֹק" refers to food.<fn>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.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor interprets this to mean that Hashem provided the nation with sustenance.<fn>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.</fn> He points to the case of <a href="Bereshit47-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 47:22</a> as another example where "חֹק" refers to food.<fn>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. Medan above, and he cites numerous prooftexts. While R"Y Bekhor Shor explains "מִשְׁפָּט" to be synonymous with "חֹק", R. Medan understands it to be the administrative process through which the food allocations were fixed.</fn></point>
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 16:4</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, in both verses Hashem is testing the nation to see if he can win over their hearts by taking care of all of their needs.<fn>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 similarly to Rashbam.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Meaning of "נִסָּהוּ" and its relationship to Shemot 16:4</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
<point><b>Promise of health in 15:26</b> – 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 result<fn>Cf. R. Yosef Kara.</fn> of observing mitzvot such as kashrut and ritual impurity.<fn>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.</fn> Indeed, according to R"Y Bekhor Shor this is the very purpose of these mitzvot.<fn>This is consistent with the interpretation offered by Rashbam Vayikra 11:3 and others – see <a href="$">Kashrut</a>. R"Y Bekhor Shor Vayikra 11:2, himself, presents a variation of this explanation, according to which the reason for these prohibitions is because it would be disgusting for an unclean person to come before Hashem.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Promise of health in 15:26</b> – As opposed to most other commentators who view Hashem's promise of health as a reward for keeping the commandments, R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that Hashem is merely telling the nation that this will be the natural result<fn>Cf. R. Yosef Kara.</fn> of observing mitzvot such as kashrut and ritual impurity.<fn>This is consistent with R. Yosef Bekhor Shor's general understanding that Hashem's goal at Marah is simply to be kind to the nation. He equates the giving of the commandments with Hashem's sweetening of the waters of Marah.</fn> Indeed, according to R"Y Bekhor Shor this is the very purpose of these mitzvot.<fn>This is consistent with the interpretation offered by Rashbam Vayikra 11:3 and others – see <a href="$">Kashrut</a>. 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.</fn></point>
<point><b>Marah's pedagogical methodology</b> – 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 all focused on Hashem's caring for the Israelites' sustenance and health.</point>
+
<point><b>Marah's pedagogical methodology</b> – 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.</point>
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.<fn>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.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.<fn>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.</fn></point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
+
<opinion>Herbal Remedies
<opinion name="">Herbal Remedies
 
 
<p>Hashem taught Moshe the medicinal properties of herbs.</p>
 
<p>Hashem taught Moshe the medicinal properties of herbs.</p>
<mekorot>Opinion cited by <multilink><aht source="RBachyaShemot15-25">R. Bachya</aht><aht source="RBachyaShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25</aht><aht parshan="R. Bachya b. Asher" /></multilink>,<fn>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.</fn>  
+
<mekorot>Opinion cited by <multilink><a href="RBachyaShemot15-25" data-aht="source">R. Bachya</a><a href="RBachyaShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25</a><a href="R. Bachya b. Asher" data-aht="parshan">About R. Bachya b. Asher</a></multilink>,<fn>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.</fn>  
<multilink><aht source="TzerorShemot15-25">Tzeror HaMor</aht><aht source="TzerorShemot15-25">Shemot 15:25-26</aht><aht parshan="R. Avraham Saba" /></multilink><fn>The Tzeror HaMor appears to be working off R. Bachya.</fn>
+
<multilink><a href="TzerorShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Tzeror HaMor</a><a href="TzerorShemot15-25" data-aht="source">Shemot 15:25-26</a><a href="R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Saba</a></multilink><fn>The Tzeror HaMor appears to be working off R. Bachya.</fn></mekorot>
</mekorot>
 
 
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. the Mekhilta which attempts to intensify the miracle by claiming that the waters were sweetened by use of a bitter agent.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Definitions of "חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט"</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. the Mekhilta which attempts to intensify the miracle by claiming that the waters were sweetened by use of a bitter agent.</fn></point>
<point><b>Meanings of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – Hashem provided Moshe ("שָׂם לוֹ") with this botanical knowledge, and Moshe tested out the tree ("נִסָּהוּ"&#8206;).<fn>The Tzeror HaMor also presents the possibility that "נִסָּהוּ" means that Hashem raised 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.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Meanings of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ"</b> – Hashem provided Moshe ("שָׂם לוֹ") with this botanical knowledge, and Moshe tested out the tree ("נִסָּהוּ"&#8206;).<fn>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.</fn></point>
<point><b>Cautionary advice in Shemot 15:26</b> – Hashem admonishes Moshe not to rely solely on his newly acquired medicinal knowledge,<fn>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, <aht source="BenSira38-4">Ben Sira</aht> employs our story to praise the benefits of medicine and encourage its application.</fn> but rather to pray to Hashem and observe His commandments, thereby preventing the onset of any malady in the first place.<fn>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.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Cautionary advice in Shemot 15:26</b> – Hashem admonishes Moshe not to rely solely on his newly acquired medicinal knowledge,<fn>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, <a href="BenSira38-4" data-aht="source">Ben Sira</a> employs our story to praise the benefits of medicine and encourage its application.</fn> but rather to pray to Hashem and observe His commandments, thereby preventing the onset of any malady in the first place.<fn>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.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Unitary theme of Marah</b> – 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.<fn>See the formulation of the Tzeror HaMor "לזה סמך מיד ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה' אלהיך... וזה קישור נפלא".</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Unitary theme of Marah</b> – 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.<fn>See the formulation of the Tzeror HaMor "לזה סמך מיד ויאמר אם שמוע תשמע לקול ה' אלהיך... וזה קישור נפלא".</fn></point>
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.<fn>See <aht page="Chukkei HaElokim – Statutes Before Sinai">Chukkei HaElokim – Statutes Before Sinai?</aht> and <aht page="Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice">Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice</aht> for R. Avraham Saba's interpretation of Shemot 18:16.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Commandments before Sinai</b> – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.<fn>See <a href="Chukkei HaElokim – Statutes Before Sinai" data-aht="page">Chukkei HaElokim – Statutes Before Sinai?</a> and <a href="Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice" data-aht="page">Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice</a> for R. Avraham Saba's interpretation of Shemot 18:16.</fn></point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
 
</approaches>
 
</approaches>
 
+
</page>
 
 
<!--
 
<opinion name=""> <span class="unbold"> – There are two variations of this possibility:</span>
 
 
 
<point><b></b> –
 
<ul>
 
<li></li>
 
<li></li>
 
<li></li>
 
</ul>
 
</point>
 
-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
</page>
 
 
 
 
</aht-xml>
 
</aht-xml>

Latest revision as of 08:01, 30 July 2019

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.

"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:

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

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)‎,24 and whether it is connected to the giving of mitzvot or lack of water.25
  • 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. Gershom'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 16:4.26
    • Hashem tested the nation to see how they would complain about material needs – Rashi.27 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 Yerushalmi (Yonatan)28
  • To elevate / glorify – This is the position of R. Yehoshua, and it works well with his choice of Shabbat as the "חֹק"‎.29 RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 15:25About R. Levi b. Gershom explains similarly in his second option, and he points to Shemot 20:17 and Tehillim 4:7 as support.30 The exaltation could manifest itself in one of two ways:
    • Hashem elevated the Israelites above the other nations by giving them mitzvot.31
    • Hashem glorified the Israelites in front of all of the other nations by providing for their physical needs.32
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.33 However, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan) interprets that the Israelites are the ones who tested Hashem (with their demand for water).34

Ethical Code of Conduct

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

"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. Medan distinguishes between the two terms. He understands "חֹק" as a quota,37 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. Medan 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 15:25.38
Conditions in the wilderness – According to R. Medan'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.39 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.40 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.41
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 16.42

Principles of Divine Providence

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

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" and its relationship to Shemot 15:26 – According to most of these commentators,43 this phrase refers to Hashem's laying down the theological principle of reward and punishment.44 This tenet is then spelled out in 15:26.45 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 Rashbam46 interpret the term to refer to practical commandments. However, even according to them, at Marah, Hashem only established the necessary theological foundations47 for the future transmission of the mitzvot, but did not give any of the actual commandments themselves.48
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.49 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.50
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.51 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.52 "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 16:4.53 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.54
Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai,55 and Ralbag emphasizes that Shemot 21:1 indicates that civil law was given only after the Decalogue.56

Resources for Physical Survival

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

Sustenance

Hashem supplied the people with water.

"שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט" – R"Y Bekhor Shor interprets this to mean that Hashem provided the nation with sustenance.57 He points to the case of Bereshit 47:22 as another example where "חֹק" refers to food.58
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.59
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 result60 of observing mitzvot such as kashrut and ritual impurity.61 Indeed, according to R"Y Bekhor Shor this is the very purpose of these mitzvot.62
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.63

Herbal Remedies

Hashem taught Moshe the medicinal properties of herbs.

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.66
Meanings of "שָׂם לוֹ" and "נִסָּהוּ" – Hashem provided Moshe ("שָׂם לוֹ") with this botanical knowledge, and Moshe tested out the tree ("נִסָּהוּ"‎).67
Cautionary advice in Shemot 15:26 – Hashem admonishes Moshe not to rely solely on his newly acquired medicinal knowledge,68 but rather to pray to Hashem and observe His commandments, thereby preventing the onset of any malady in the first place.69
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.70
Commandments before Sinai – This approach does not need to postulate that commandments were given before Sinai.71