avakesh

Kuzari 12: Non-Jews and Paradise

Download Gentiles and the World to Come

Rabbinic commentaries to the "New Testament".

I recently posted on R. Yakov Emden's attitude to early Christianity.  I just came across a relevant discussion, here

"...There was actually another Soloveitchik who also had a great interest in things Christian. I refer to R. Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik. Here is a picture of him.

He was the grandson of R. Hayyim of Volozhin and the uncle of R. Joseph Baer Soloveitchik, the Beit Halevi. He is also the subject of a comprehensive monograph by Dov Hyman, who was a medical doctor trained in London and who lived in Manhattan. For some reason this book was kept fairly secret, with only fifty copies published and never sold in stores. Here is the title page of the book.

Among Soloveitchik's works is a volume entitled Kol Kore (Paris, 1875). Friedberg, Beit Eked Seforim, describes this book as "in opposition to the New Testament." Yet Friedberg never looked carefully at the volume, for if he did he would have seen that rather than being in opposition to the New Testament, it is in favor of it. Yet it is not a missionary tract. Rather, Soloveitchik followed the approach of R. Jacob Emden (whom he cites in his introduction) that the New Testament is only directed towards Gentiles, and supports the Noahide Laws. However, it has nothing to say to Jews, whom it acknowledges are obligated to keep the Torah. In line with this conception, Soloveitchik felt comfortable in authoring a commentary on the book of Matthew, and that is what the Kol Kore is. Here are the title pages of the first edition as well as the 1985 reprint.

 

This is not the only rabbinic commentary on the book of Matthew. In 1900 R. Samuel Weintraub's commentary on this Gospel was published (Milhemet Shmuel). Yet unlike Soloveitchik's work, Weintraub's commentary is devoted to exposing the Gospel's faults.²⁹ Here are the two title pages of the book.

The book is an interesting polemic, which unlike most polemics is written in the form of a commentary.... "

A lifetime of growth in Mussar

Download Mussar

A lecture that describes three stages of growth in Mussar over a lifetime.

R. Yakov Emden's teretz for a stirah in the Gospels

R. Yakov Emden was a genius intimately familiar with many branches of knowledge. Among them was the "New Testament", on which he had written an (unpublished) commentary. I suspect that it is his campaign against Shabetai Tzvi that led him to explore this "other" Messianic movement. Here is how he resolves a theologically important contradiction in the Gospels, based on halacha.

"Many have asked that Paul appears to contradict himself here. In the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 16), it is mentioned that Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy. And they found this very puzzling, for this act seems to contradict the later text which seems to indicate that he considered circumcision a temporary commandment until the Messiahs arrival; but this took place after the time of the Nazarene! Therefore you must realize--and accept the truth from him who speaks it-- that we see clearly here that the Nazarene and his Apostles did not wish to destroy the Torah from Israel, God forbid; for it is written so in Matthew (Mt. 5), the Nazarene having said, "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Torah. I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. I tell you this: So long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Torah until it is achieved. If any man therefore sets aside even the least of the Torahs demands, and teaches others to do the same, he will have the lowest place in the Kingdom of Heaven, whereas anyone who keeps the Torah, and teaches others so, will stand high in the Kingdom of Heaven." This is also recorded in Luke (Lk. 16). It is therefore exceedingly clear that the Nazarene never dreamed of destroying the Torah.

We similarly find Paul, his disciple, in a letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5), accusing them of fornication, and condemning one who had lived with his fathers wife. You may therefore understand that Paul doesnt contradict himself because of his circumcision of Timothy, for the latter was the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father (Acts 16), and Paul was a scholar, an attendant of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, well-versed in the laws of the Torah. He knew that the child of a Jewish mother is considered a full Jew, even if the father should be a Gentile, as is written in the Talmud and Codes. He therefore acted entirely in accordance with the Halakha by circumcising Timothy. This would be in line with his position that all should remain within their own faith (1 Cor. 7). Timothy, born of a Jewish mother, had the law of a Jew, and had to be circumcised, just as he was enjoined to observe all commandments of the Torah (Pauls condemnation of the man who lived with his stepmother is similarly understandable, as such an act is also forbidden to Noahides), for all who are circumcised are bound by all the commandments. This provides a satisfactory reply to the question.

This will also solve the apparent contradictions in the Nazarenes own statements. Christian scholars have assumed from certain passages in the Gospels that he wished to give a new Torah to take the place of the Torah of Moses. How could he then have said explicitly that he comes only to fulfill it? But it is as I have said earlier--that the writers of the Gospels never meant to say that the Nazarene came to abolish Judaism, but only that he came to establish a religion for the Gentiles from that time onward. Nor was it new, but actually ancient; they being the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, which were forgotten. The Apostles of the Nazarene then established them anew. However, those born as Jews, or circumcised as converts to Judaism (Ex. 12:49; one law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger) are obligated to observe all commandments of the Torah without exception. "

A book was written based on this letter, here and here

Pupa Rebbe Dancing

Future determines the past

We all know that the past influences and defines the future. But is it possible for the future to influence the past?

This subject has been discussed by modern philosophers and scientists. Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The future influences the present just as much as the past" and some physicists think that the mathematical equations that govern causation hold true in both directions, from the past to the future as well as in reverse (reverse causation). According to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience." Well, may be, may be not.

Reverse causality

Destiny might be considered reverse causality in that a cause is predated by an effect; e.g., "I found a twenty dollar bill on the ground because later I would need it."

Some modern religious movements have postulated along the lines of philosophical idealism that causality is actually reversed from the direction normally presumed, and that causality does not proceed inward, from external random causes toward effects on a perceiving individual, but rather outward, from a perceiving individual's causative mental requests toward responsive external physical effects that only seem to be independent causes. In other words, there were many potential causes to which we could have attributed a particular effect. It is we who choose to connect a particular cause to a particular result.

Such thought gives rise to new causality principles such as the doctrine of responsibility assumption. The latter postulates that we are responsible for everything that happens to us. John Denver explained it thusly in the opening lines of Farewell Andromeda capture the essence of responsibility assumption:

Welcome to my morning, welcome to my day

I'm the one responsible, I made it just this way

To make myself some pictures, see what they might bring

I think I made it perfectly, I wouldn't change a thing

A recent book I read  related the idea that the future can affectthe past in the name of R. Y.D. Soloveitchik to the concept of Teshuvah. Repentance is exactly the ability of making the future change and transform the past.

Consider two boys who grow up in most unfortunate circumstances, let’s say in a neighborhood where all young men join gangs. As they rise and gain status, as they, in fact, become gang leaders, they realize the dangers and the essential immorality of their lifestyles. They see all their friends end up dead or in jail and finally they both leave. One makes a clean break, signs up with the Army, and after finishing his term of enlistment, moves to a farm. He will never return to the old neighborhood lest he be sucked back up into his previous life. He has made a clean break and must unquestionably be commended. Yet, how much has he lost! He has resolutely and decisively renounced his former friends, his parents, schoolmates, upbringing, and memories - his very essence. he now is a new man! Is there any doubt that his move, while necessary and commendable, has made him poorer and caused him deep inner injury?! His friend, chose differently. He, inspired by his new conviction, goes back to the old neighborhood, as, let us suppose, an addiction counselor. He builds a social service organization. He uses his intimate knowledge of criminal culture and its distribution networks and patterns of association, to preach a gospel of communal renewal. He turns the sordid past into an inspiring future - for it was his past that enabled him now to accomplish all this. It is there that he learned how to lead. It is the past that gave him the connection, the credibility, the story, that enabled him to build something good in the place of past evil. He did not give up his past; he made it the basis and foundation for new gains.

Repentance through Love turns sins into assets, for if not for the sins there would not have been assets.

"Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, for intentional sins become for a penitent as if they were not intentional, as it says: Return Israel to your God for you have stumbled in you crime (Hosea 14,). Crime refers to intentional sin and yet it is called "stumbling". Is this really so? Did not Reish Lakish say, "Great is repentance, for it turns sins into merits, as it says, "When the wicked returns from his sin,he shall live (in the sense of "prosper") (Ezekiel 33,)". No problem - this statement is about repentance through love and this one is regarding repentance from fear (Yoma 86b)".

We now understand how sins can turn into merits.

This reminds of the idea of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto in regard to how the ultimate achivement of Yichud Hashem,or Unity of all things in God, will demonstrate the non-existence of evil. Here too, the eventual Revelation of the Unity of God, that He is good and his intent was good, forces a reassessment of the reality of evil.

An example may clarify matters. Imagine that you are watching a movie. In this movie, a great deal of time, perhaps evens everal generations elapses in the hour or two in which you watch the movie. We can say, that the time in teh movie tuns at a totally different pace than  in your world, the world of the movie watcher. You, the person who sees the movie also knows the outcome of which the participants within the scenes are not aware. Because of this knowledge, you percieve everything that happens therein in completely diferent way than they do. In this fashion, the future of the movie influences and modifies its past. In the same way, future can transform and modify both the present and the past. A powerful idea and one that gives hope and creates patience, for nothing is forever and we can always repair.

Rare footage of Abraham Joshua Heschel

A shtikl pilpul

The Torah is immensely wide and long. "Its measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea", says Job in his book (11:9). The same statement, disagreement or fact is capable of being convincingly explained in multiple ways.

The following disagreement between Rambam and Ra'avad is explained in three different ways:, first, grammatically, then in two different conceptual approaches and finally based on a kabbalistic concept. It is my opinion that ultimately the Kabbalistic approach is the simplest one.

Rambam and Ra'avad disagree on how careful one must be when pronouniing the Shema. Rambam requires the exactly correct pronounciation while Ra'avad allows a certain, specific lattitude.

Rambam Kriat Shema 2:9

9. [following from Halakhah 8, where Rambam ruled that the reading must be done carefully...] How should he be careful?

He should take care not to "weaken" a strong letter, nor "strengthen" a weak letter; not to "move" a "stationary" Sh'va nor to make stationary a moving Sh'va.

Therefore, he must leave space between the "connected" letters - between any two letters which are similar, where one comes at the end of a word and the other begins the next word. For instance: *b'khoL L'vav'kha*,he should first read *b'khoL*, wait a bit and then read *L'vav'kha*. Similarly with *va'avad'teM M'hera*, *hakanaPH P'til*.

He must enunciate the *zayin* of *l'ma'an tiZ'k'ru*.

He must extend the *dalet* of *echaD* (in the first verse), in order to crown God in the heavens, on earth and in the four directions. However, he must not slur the *het* (in *eCHad*), so that it doesn't sound like *ei chad*.

[RABD1: "How should he be careful..." I don't know what's lost if he "moves" a stationary schwa, if he says *b'khol l'vavkha*, leaving the second *bet* stationary, so that it won't sound like a *vav*; similarly, if he enunciates the *Yod* in *Yisra'el* so that it doesn't sound like an *Alef* or anything of that sort, let him "move" the stationary vowels and this is praiseworthy. Similarly *Nish'ba'* must be separated (from God's Name which follows - end of the second Parasha) so that the *Alef* is not "swallowed" by the *Ayin*]

So Ra'avad allows some inaccuracies in pronounciation but not others. This strange fact needs to be explained.

The grammatical approach

First the backgound from the discussion of this halacha in the Rambam by R. Yitzhak Etshalom

The Hebrew language, unlike English, is generally written with consonants only. Therefore, proper vocalization (putting vowel connectors between the consonants) depends on the *niqud* - markings above or below the consonant. Errors of this type, while easily made by the novice, can render a wholly different meaning to the word. As Meir points out (below), there are two issues at play here: proper pronunciation and comprehensible pronunciation. In other words, it is possible to be understood correctly while mispronouncing a word (for instance, saying "Yisra'el" instead of "Yisra'eil"); yet some errors in pronounciation lead to miscommunications (e.g. *Qal* - light, instead of *Qol* - voice).

Almost all of the vowel markings bear consistent sounds - they are vocalized the same way in every circumstance. Except for the *Qamatz Qattan*, which will be addressed later, the only vowel marking which is vocalized differently, depending on the context, is the *Sh'va'*. In order to understand how the Sh'va' (marked with two vertical dots - ":" underneath the consonant) operates, we must first introduce the two types of Hebrew syllables.

II.

T'NUA' Q'TANAH AND T'NUA' G'DOLAH

A syllable is known as a "T'nua'"; Hebrew includes "big" syllables ("T'nua' G'dolah") and "small" syllables ("T'nua' Q'tanah"). The rule is simple: if the vowel in question is a long vowel, the syllable driven by that vowel is a T'nua' G'dolah. If the syllable is driven by a short vowel, it is a "T'nua' Q'tanah".

Each basic sound has a short vowel and a long vowel:

"Ah" has the short Patach (single horizontal line under the letter) and the long Qamatz (marked like a small "T" under the letter).

"Ee" has the short Hiriq (marked by a single dot under the letter) and the long Hiriq (same dot under the letter, if that letter is followed by the letter Yod).

"Eh" has the short Segol (marked by three dots arranged in a bottom-pointed triangle) and the long Tzeirei (two dots, horizontally arranged next to each other).

"Oo" has the short Qubutz (three dots in diagonal descending order) and the long Shuruq (the letter is followed by a Vav with a dot in the middle).

"Oh" has the short Holam (single dot above the left side of the letter) and the long Holam (the letter is followed by a Vav with a dot over it).

For example, take a look at the word "Shabbat", which is written with a Shin (Patach under the Shin), a Bet (Qamatz underneath) and a Tav. Since the first syllable is driven by a Patach, it is a T'nua' Q'tanah. Since the second syllable is driven by a Qamatz, it is a T'nua' G'dolah.

The general rule of vocalization of T'nu'ot is that a T'nua' G'dolah ends with the vowel; a T'nua' Q'tanah ends with a consonant. You might almost think of them as "open" and "closed" syllables; a T'nua' G'dolah ends "open" - without attaching itself to the next consonant - and a T'nua' Q'tanah ends "closed" - attaching itself to the next consonant.

Before moving onto the Sh'va, one note about the Qamatz Qatan. There are some words where a Qamatz, normally a long vowel, is placed as a short vowel. The classic and most well-known case is the two-letter word Kol. Since the Qamatz here cannot be pronounced as a long vowel (since there is only one other letter, which is unvocalized) - it becomes a short vowel and is pronounced like a short "o".

III.

THE SH'VA

Although a Sh'va is a "stop" (telling the vocalizer to hold that consonant, much as is done with the last letter in a word - like the Tav in Shabbat), not all stops are alike. If a consonant is at the beginning of a T'nua', it is impossible to pronounce it as a totally "stopped" consonant. For example, the word "T'nua'" - since we are asked to pronounce the Tav at the beginning - but not to "move" it anywhere, it must have a minimal movement of sorts. That is why it is properly written - in transliteration - with an apostrophe. There is the slightest movement with the consonant.

On the other hand, if a letter at the end of a T'nua' has a Sh'va, it can easily and properly be pronounced with no movement at all. For example, the name "Avraham" - underneath the "Vet" (aVraham) is a Sh'va; since this letter is at the end of the first T'nua' of the word, it can be pronounced with no movement whatsoever. We do not call him Av'raham, rather Avraham.

Now, since a T'nua' G'dolah ends in a vowel and does not attach to the next consonant, if a Sh'va is preceded by a T'nua' G'dolah, it is vocalized like a Sh'va at the beginning of a word - it is slightly moved. This is called a "Moving Sh'va" - or "Sh'va Na'". If, however, the Sh'va is at the end of a T'nua Q'tanah (i.e. the letter before it bore a short vowel), that letter is the end of the T'nua and is totally stopped. The letter is vocalized as a "Stationary Sh'va" - or "Sh'va Nach". (You should be able to figure out, from this information, whether the Alef - the first letter of Avraham - has a Patach or a Qamatz under it.)

Rambam is concerned that when reading Sh'ma, we are careful about the difference between Sh'va Na' and Sh'va Nach - let's see some examples from the Sh'ma itself.

The word Yisra'eil is a good example for us. The first syllable is clearly a T'nua' Q'tanah, since the Yod has a short Hiriq under it (i.e. it isn't followed by another Yod) - hence, the "Sin" of yiSra'eil is the end of that T'nua' - and is a Sh'va Nach. In the second (Rabbinically added) line, the third word is "K'vod"; again, since the Sh'va is under the first letter, it must be a Sh'va Na'. Look at the first word of the next verse - "V'ahavta" - the vowel under the "Heh" is a Patach, so it is a T'nua' Q'tanah- which means that the T'nua' ends with the Vet - v'aHAVta - so the Sh'va under the Vet is a Sh'va Nach.

MIDWAY GLOSSARY:

T'nua' - syllable

Sh'va Na' - moving Sh'va

Sh'va Nach - stationary Sh'va

IV.

THE DAGESH

Now, what happens if a letter is the end of a T'nua' Q'tana - but also has its own vowel? For instance, the Bet of shaBBat is both the end of the first T'nua' - but is also the beginning of the next T'nua'. How can we demonstrate, both in written and oral form, that this letter is part of two T'nu'ot?

Enter the Dagesh. Dagesh is simply a dot in the middle of the letter - and almost all letters can take a Dagesh. What the Dagesh means when that letter is at the end of a T'nua' Q'tanah is that the letter should be understood to be doubled. (Arabic has the similar Shadda over the letter to be doubled). Therefore, we properly read Shabbat as "Shab-bat" - the Bet is doubled, as it "closes off" the first T'nua' and also begins the second.

(This should not be confused with a Dagesh Rafeh - the letters Bet, Gimel, Daled, Kaf, Peh and Tav always take a Dagesh at the beginning of a word or if following a T'nua' Q'tanah; however, this does not represent a "doubling" of the letter).

In other words, there is an assumed Sh'va Nach at the end of every T'nua' Q'tanah - and, if that letter has another vowel, we read it as if both are happening; first a Sh'va Nach, then the letter again with its own vowel.

Rambam is expressing concern that D'geshim be dealt with properly, such that a letter which should be read "doubled" is done so.

Now for the grammatical explanation from the weekly dikduk newsletter by. Dr. Meshulam Klarberg. The point of the disagreement according to it is whether one is permitted to pronounce the Sheva Nach as if it was Na.

"The implication is that the Ra'avad considers that the Sheva of the second
Bet of levavecha/levavcha is a Sheva Nach! This is so even though there is a
Meteg next to the Kamatz under the first Bet (Meteg is a secondary stress). In
view of the Ra'avad's silence regarding (mis)pronouncing a Sheva Na as a Sheva
Nach it seems that on that point he agrees with the Rambam. Dikdukei Shai quotes
the above Rambam requiring readers to distinguish between Sheva Na and Sheva
Nach but he does not refer to the Ra'avad's critique. From the above citation of
the Ra'avad's words we can learn his Halachic opinion on three grammatical
matters.
      1. A Sheva coming after a long unaccented vowel is Nach ('silent') even if
that vowel has a Meteg.

      2. It is permitted to pronounce a Sheva Nach as a Sheva Na - sometimes
this is even a hiddur ('praiseworthy practice').

      3. One should not pronounce a Sheva Na as a Sheva Nach.

      It should be noted that Dikdukei Shai suggests that the above Ra'avad may
be referring to levavchem (in the second paragraph of the Shema) and if that is
so, the above points cannot be derived from the Ra'avad. Dikdukei Shai quotes
present day authorities, concluding that Sheva in these positions is Na
('sounded')."

The conceptual approach

First approach, cited by R.Etshalom in the name of  M. Levin

Point 1. The disagreement between Rambam & Raavad is only about the Shva Na and Shva Nach. Raavad agrees regarding other steps to be m'dakdek b'otiotehah (careful about the enunciation). This is because refinements in Shva do not change meaning of the words whereas others do.

The disagreement appears to be whether *dikduk* (careful enunciation) is a part of Kriah when Kitvei Hakodesh are involved. Rambam states in Ch. 12 of Hilkhot Tefilla that if someone reads from a Sefer Torah without dikduk - we make him go back and reread properly. Thus, he requires that it be a part of any such reading, nicluding of teh Dhema. This is quoted in Shulkhan Aruch but the Rama disagrees. Raavad holds that dikduk is a part of obtaining correct meaning. Therefore, as long as the correct reading results, inaccuracies in pronounciation do not matter. Those inaccuracies that change the meaning would not be acceptable but those that  like sayngn sheva hach as na, would be pererctly fine. Rambam maintains that properly pronounicing the Sheva it is a part of correct reading, whtehr is changes the meanijng or not. Therefore, Rambam ibid holds that dikduk is also required in other languages and Raavad says that it is only a peirush (translation) (meaning-based) and does not require dikduk.

(See Rambam to Pirkei Avot 1, 17. s.v. Rabbi Shimon omer. He states that there are 2 types of recommended speech 1. Reading/ reciting - Torah, talmud etc. 2. Speaking- of middot etc - called Derech Eretz )

A side-question: Why is the requirement regarding Kriat Hatorah even B'di'avad and for Shma only L'khat'hila?

Perhaps, Kriat Hatorah is an obligation of the Tzibbur [public] (quoted in the name of R.Moshe Soloveitchik, for a discussion of this point between R. Chaim and his father\-n-law, R. Feinstein, see here). Dikduk has two components. 1. How one pronounces 2. How one understands. Regarding Shma there is a component of understanding. Even if it was not pronounced correctly, the text was still understood correctly. This is not the case with the Tzibbur, where understanding for everybody equally can only be assured if it is read correctly.

Second approach

We have previously discussed the interesting disagreement of Rambam and Tosafos about whether Sheam is a Proclamation of Faith or a prayer. This is farther discussed here. If this is correct, Rmabam, sees the Shema as a proclamation of faith inserted into the center of prayer services would naturally require that it must be pronounces exactly correctly. Such is the nature of a proclamation; no deviations from teh formula are accepted in it. However, if Shema is merely a prayer, as Ra'avad holds following Tosafos, as long as the meaning is presrved, deviaitons from proper grammar are fine.

Kabbalistic approach

Why is it acceptable to read Sheva Nach as Na but not vice versa? Turns out, Ra'avad in his commentary to the first chapter of Sefer Yetsira points out that all harsh sounds, specifically including dagesh'ed letters and the ones with a sheva nach, come from hth side of Gevurah (Severity), while the soft letters, including Sheva Na come from the side of Kindness (Chesed). This is why one can sweeten severities by pronouncing what should be hard softly (Nach as Na) but not pronouncing Sheva Nach as Na, which would introduce severity into kindness.

It would be great for the quality of this sugestion if the Ra'avad who wrote the commentary to Yetsirah was the same Ra'avad who wrote the notes on Rambam's Mishnen Torah. However, based on internal evidence R. Chaim VItal in the introduction to Eits Chaim, and after him the Chido in Shem Hagedolim, say that the commentary to Yetsirah was not written by this Ra'avad at all, but by an unnamed Ashkenazi scholar or the third Ra'avad. There are three rabbis and scholars referred to by this acronym:

• Rabbi Abraham ibn Daud, the first RABaD, a Spanish-Jewish philosopher and historian
• Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne the Eshkol, called RABad II, being an acronym for Rav Av Beth Din
• Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquières, called RABaD III, a son-in-law of the former

Nevertheless, the Ra'avad who commented on the Mishne Torah was also a kabbalist and surely he was aware of this teaching, as we find in his notes in Hil. Sukkah, Ch. 8: : "Ruach Hakodesh appeared in our House of study... and from Heaven this teaching was placed between us".

Kuzari 11: Promises and afterlife

Download Why the Torah does not promise Paradise and Hell

 Download Afterlife

By whose command: Theological issues in Mekhilta, Beshalach

And Moshe caused B’nei Yisrael to journey from Yam Suf (Exodus 15,22)

R. Yehoshua: This travel they traveled solely by Moshe’s command. All other journeys they traveled according to the word of the Almighty, as it says: …by the word of Hashem they encamped and by the word of Hashem they traveled…( Numbers 9); however, this journey was solely by the word of Moshe, as it says And Moshe caused Bnei Ysrael to journey…

R. Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for we find in several places that that they journeyed only by the command of the Almighty. So what does it mean (that) Moshe caused them to journey? (It is) to make known the goodness of Israel for as soon as Moshe told them “ come, go..” they did not say :”how will we go into the desert without provisions”. Instead, they believed and followed Moshe. Of them it states: To go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, I remembered for you kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, your going out after me into the desert, land not sown (Yirmiah 2,2).

Similarly we find that he turned backwords their itinerary three stops as it says: …and they traveled form Chiroth and they traveled form Marah and encamped at Eilim …and they traveled from Eilim and encamped by Yam Suf. So we find that they they returned for the honor of Aharon, for his burial place… (ibid).

Rabbi Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for so we find in several places. What does and Moshe caused them to journey tell us? That he forced them with a rod. When they saw the corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them, they thought:” Apparently no men have remained in Egypt”.

Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt. We will make an idol and it will descend in front of us and we will return to Egypt. You might think that they planned it but never carried it out, so it says (confirming the fact that actually started to do so): ..and they refused to listen and they did not remember your wonders which You performed for them and they hardened their necks and they appointed a leader to return to their slavery. However you the G-d of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, long-suffering and great of kindness and you have not abandoned them…even they made a molten calf (Nehemia 9).

R. Yehuda ben Ilay says: An idol passed through the sea with Israel and Moshe caused it to go away as it says: Moshe caused them to journey away from Yam Suf - from the matter that was (there) with Israel in the Yam Suf. What is that? It is the idol.

As Midrash goes, this passage is clearer than many others. For one thing, it quite explicitly indicates that the difficulty that occasions its comments is to be located within the words “And Moshe caused to journey”. It also provides us with two opposing views, those of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer and a disagreement is always a good starting point for analysis. It is a straightforward passage with which to begin our study of Midrash.

Yet, it is certainly not bereft of difficulties. From whence derive the diametrically opposing views expressed by the two protagonists; in addition the nature of the evidence that they adduce to support their interpretations is not entirely clear. Neither is the application of their statements to the quoted Biblical passage self-evident. We will see that the Midrash begins by cueing us into the difficulties that it sees in the verse but then proceeds to the underlying issue which is of great theological import. Once stated, it can be discussed and referred back to the text.

Let us proceed sentence by sentence.

And Moshe caused B’nei Yisrael to journey from Yam Suf (Exodus 15,22).

This verse describes an event that immediately follows the Song of the Sea. The previous two verses informed us that Miriam also sang the first lines of Moshe’s song; our verse represents an unexpected break from that song. It is in fact so unexpected that it is jarring. Why did the people journey, to what end, and by whose initiative? We do not know - there is a gap which the Midrash will now seek to fill by providing the “missing” information and background.

In addition, the verse also contains a contradiction for this is the only time that a journey in the desert is described as having been initiated by Moshe. It is even more surprising because it is the first journey, all subsequent ones being described as by the word of Hashem. Nowhere in the Torah is there an indication of when and on what occasion Hashem started to direct their journeys.

R. Yehoshua : This travel they traveled solely by Moshe’s command. All other journeys they traveled according to the word of the Almighty, as it says: …by the word of Hashem they encamped and by the word of Hashem they traveled…( Numbers 9); however, this journey was solely by the word of Moshe, as it says “ And Moshe caused Bnei Ysrael to journey…

R. Yehoshua points out the difficulty and asserts that this particular journey was in fact commanded by Moshe and that it was an exception. We will return to his view later. In the meantime, the Midrash presents another opinion.

R. Eliezer says they traveled by the word of the Almighty for we find in several places that that they journeyed only by the command of the Almighty. So what does it mean (that) Moshe caused them to journey? (It is) to make known the goodness of Israel for as soon as Moshe told them “ come, go..” they did not say :”how will we go into the desert without provisions”. Instead, they believed and followed after Moshe.

R. Eliezer elects to bring our verse into an agreement with the verse in Numbers. All journeys were commanded by G-d. Why is Moshe then mentioned? It is to make known that the Jews followed him with complete trust.

One commentator (R. Avrohom of Slonim) suggests that R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer disagree about the route that Bnei Yisrael took out of the Red Sea. According to R. Yehoshua, they followed Moshe along the relative safety of the outlines of the shore ultimately weaving their way back to the starting point on the shore of the Red Sea. This was a reasonable course that did not require G-d’s guidance whereas according to R. Eliezer they headed directly out into the desert, demanding a great deal more trust. At that time, the Cloud of Glory was still behind them, where it moved to serve as a buffer between the pursuing Egyptians and the escaping Israelites (see Ibn Ezra). “ Instead, they believed and followed after Moshe”. In other words, our verse is set off from the preceding narrative because the immediate leader has changed. Previously it was the Cloud of Glory; now it is Moshe. It is still, however, “by the mouth of Hashem."

Of them it states: “To go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, I remembered for you kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, your going out after me into the desert, land not sown (Yirmiah 2,2).

The citing of this verse brings us to the crux of the issue. It is well recognized that in the Torah we encounter two opposing perceptions of the Jewish people’s behavior in the desert. On one hand they are viewed as rebellious, ungrateful and stiff-necked. Rebellious have you been with Hashem from the day that I have known you (Deuteronomy 9,24). On the other hand, they are described as G-d’s special inheritance that he personally sustains and protects throughout the trials of the desert, as for example, throughout Exodus 16, the story of the Mann. Similarly, the prophetic utterances that see the sojourn in the desert as a long string of rebellion and backsliding (for example Psalms 78) are balanced by ones like our verse in Yirmiah and in Hoshea 2,16. There they are portrayed as praiseworthy and completely righthouse. In general, R. Yehoshua throughout the Mekhilta tends to the first view while R. Eliezer Hamodai adopts the second. R. Eliezer generally follows the first view, although he sometimes nuances it to admit some responsibility on the part of B’nei Yisrael. I must note that, as in our passage , determining R. Eliezer’s position is complicated by the repeated confusion between R. Eliezer and R. Eliezer Hamodia that one finds in various manuscripts of the Mekhilta.

“The generation of the desert have no portion in the World-to-Come… these are words of R. Akiva. R. Eliezer says: Of them it states Gather for me my Chassidim, who sundered my covenant over a sacrifice (Pslams 50)…. Says R. Yochanan: “R. Akiva left behind his (usual) benevolence for it states: To go and proclaim in the ears of Jerusalem, I remembered for you kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, your going out after me into the desert, land not sown. Others are admitted through their merit, they themselves are not”(Sanhedrin 110b)?

This very issue, of course, became a “theological football” with the rise of Christianity. The Church fathers latched on to the accusation that Jews have always been a recalcitrant and rebellious people with no redeeming features of any kind. They, therefore, ascribed all positive references in the Torah to proto-Christians and all negative ones to the Jewish nation. Discarding this all important nuance enabled them to dissociate the Church from its Jewish origins.

Similarly we find that he turned backwards their itinerary three stops as it says: …and they traveled from Chiroth and they traveled from Marah and encamped at Eilim …and they traveled form Eilim and encamped by Yam Suf. So we find that they returned for the honor of Aharon, for his burial place (ibid).

This passage does not flow well with the preceding statement of R. Eliezer. I suggest that we adopt the interpretation of Merkevet Hamishna that it in fact returns us to the position of R. Yehoshua. It brings proof from the other time that B’nei Yisrael turned backwards; that time it was to bury and eulogize Aharon. That event serves as a model for our situation. In that case, they turned back for the sake of Aharon. In our case, they did so upon Moshe’s request. These two instances of following these two leaders may be related to the previously cited verse from Yirmiah, which the Targum translates as follows: “after me into the desert - after my messengers, Moshe and Aharon”, referring to these two journeys.

Until now we have addressed the contradiction; now we begin to deal with the gap. The following passage attempts to provide the missing details.

Rabbi Eliezer says: They traveled by the word of the Almighty for so we find in several places. What does “and Moshe caused them to journey” tell us? That he forced them with a rod. When they saw the corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them, they thought: “Apparently no men have remained in Egypt”. Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt. We will make an idol and it will descend in front of us and we will return to Egypt. You might think that they planned it but never carried it out. It says (confirming that they actually started to do so): ...and they refused to listen and they did not remember your wonders which You performed for them and they hardened their necks and they appointed a leader to return to their slavery. However you the G-d of forgiveness, gracious and merciful, long-suffering and great of kindness and you have not abandoned them…even they made a molten calf (Nehemia 9).

R. Eliezer (some emend to read R. Eliezer Hamodai) now presents the unfavorable view of the generation of the desert. The verse form Nehemia exemplifies the opinion that B’nei Yisrael behaved badly in the desert and that it was only G-d’s grace and kindness that ensured their survival. It also intimates that there were transgressions that took place before the Golden Calf, presumably the one that is described in our passage. Here as well the B’nei Yisrael refused to follow and were led by force.

It is important to realize that such overarching ideas are guiding principles of interpretation and affect and determine how we approach individual verses. Throughout the Mekhilta we find individual passages or verses being interpreted in ways that seem to be far removed form their simple meaning. However, these are examples of being true to the big picture at the expense of the local. Each Tanna attempts to present an internally consistent and theologically unified interpretation of the desert narrative. As the Torah presents a complex, multileveled and, at times, intentionally contradictory picture, these attempts at harmonization invariably result in some compromise between the most simple local interpretation and being faithful to the large picture. For us, the readers, both variants are correct for “these and those are words of the Living G-d”. (The reasons for why the Tannaim pursued harmonization and did not adopt the approach of “eilu v’eilu” is of great interest and importance but would take us too far beyond the scope of this forum.) Some Midrashim took another tack to harmonized the opposing indications within the text by positing diverse groups within the nation, some righthouse and others sinful (see one example in Mekhilta to 14,13). One group expressed one attitude and the other another.

Parenthetically, the Mekhilta here seems to be making a well-known psychological point. How often do we confuse meanness with fortitude and cruelty with courage, machismo with manliness. When the Jews saw their cruel oppressors’ bodies they committed this common error. “When they saw the corpses of men who cruelly and with hard labor enslaved them, they thought: “Apparently no men have remained in Egypt”.

Adducing a return to idol worship is simply following the idea of Israel’s unremitting sinfulness to its logical conclusion.

R. Yehuda ben Ilay says: “An idol passed through the sea with Israel and Moshe caused it to go away as it says Moshe caused them to journey away from Yam Suf - from the matter that was (there) with Israel in the Yam Suf. What is that? It is the idol”.

R. Yehuda fills in the gap in a different way… He, like R, Yehoshua sees Moshe as the one responsible for ordering the journey away from the Yam Suf but he veers sharply away from ascribing continued sinfulness to the Jewish People. The Talmud tells us in Sanhedrin 103b that Micah’s image passed with B’nei Yisrael inside the sea. Moshe cause them to travel away from this image which remained inside the sea as it closed over the Egyptians. Perhaps R. Yehuda is expressing his perception of this event as the pivotal point in the history of the Exodus. The quick turning away from the Egyptians and the idol now buried along with them on the bottom of the Red Sea is emblematic of a sharp break with the idolatrous past. Both views of the Jews are correct; however, the negative one pertains to the period before the great miracle of the splitting of the Red Sea while the positive one belongs to the time after it.

The passage that we had studied begins with a contradiction but quickly focuses on the “big” question of how our forefathers in the desert to be viewed - as wholly righthouse epitomes of faith or wholly sinful rebellious folk sustained only in the merit of G-d’s kindness and grace. This central question runs through a number of other passages in the Mekhilta and remains an indispensable key to many difficult Midrashic passages. After the thelogical issue had been bared, the Midrash proceeds to fill the gap that is created by the abrupt discontinuity in our verse. The way in which it accomplishes this task integrates with the previous issue and allows other approaches to resolve it. As an exercise, reread the passage in its totality in-light of the approach advanced here.

It is specifically this co-mingling of exegesis, theology, hashkafa and musar that makes the study of Midrash such a profound and satisfying experience. May we merit to study and the words of our Sages and partake of their wisdom.