Midrash and Method
Midrash and Method
on the weekly parasha by
Meir Levin
e-mail

AishDas Home

Midrash and Method Home
Beshalach 5764

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.

Best wishes and blessings,

Meir Levin