פרשת בשלח (Copy)

And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go (Exod. 13:17). The word let go (shallah) indicates “to escort,” as in the verse Abraham went with them to bring them (leshalleham) on the way (Gen. 18:16). Similarly it states; And Isaac sent them away (vaye-shallehem), and they departed from him in peace (ibid. 26:31). Why does this scriptural portion open with this verse? Because the mouth (i.e., Pharaoh) that had declared: And moreover, I will not let Israel go (Exod. 5:2), now retracted and said: I will let you go (ibid. 8:24). This explains why this portion of Scripture begins with the words When Pharaoh had let the people go. What was his reward for doing so? Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian (Deut. 23:8), for the mouth that had said: I know not the Lord (Exod. 5:2) reversed itself and declared: The Lord is righteous (ibid. 9:27). What was his reward for saying this? He gave them a burial place, as it is said: Thou stretchest out Thy right hand—the earth swallowed them (ibid. 15:12).

God led them not by the way of the Philistines (ibid. 13:17). He guided them in the manner indicated in the verse Thou didst lead Thy people like a flock (Ps. 77:21), and as in the verse By day also He led them by a cloud (ibid. 78:14). By the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. The word near indicates that the promise the Holy One, blessed be He, had made to Abraham was soon to be fulfilled. Near also implies that it was the nearest way to return to Egypt. Furthermore near relates to the oath Abraham had sworn with Abimelech. Now therefore, swear unto me here by God, that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, or with my son, nor with my son’s son (Gen. 21:23) was near fulfillment, even though his grandson had not yet been born. Furthermore, near implies that the previous war was too recent to risk another.¹The “previous war” being the one referred to in the continuation of the verse: lest … the people repent when they see war (Exod. 17:1). A tradition exists that the descendants of Ephraim left Egypt before the designated time and 300,000 were killed. See Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 3:8–9. Only ten escaped. Another explanation of Although that was near. It was too close to the time in which the Canaanites had obtained the land, for it is written: And in the fourth generation they shall come back hither (ibid. 15:16), and the fourth generation had not yet come. God led the people about by the way of the wilderness (Exod. 12:18). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If I lead them into the land by the most direct route, they will each take possession of a field and a vineyard and neglect the law. Therefore I will lead them through the wilderness for forty years and cause them to eat the manna and drink the water of the well so that the law may penetrate into their very beings.

Furthermore, when the Canaanites heard that the Israelites were soon to enter the land, they arose, burnt the seeds, uprooted the trees, cut down the shoots, destroyed the buildings, and stopped up the wells. Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Since I assured Abraham, their father, that they would enter into a land filled with everything that was desirable, I will keep them in the wilderness for forty years while the Canaanites restore what they have destroyed.

The Gemara is surprised at this explanation: And was Yosef of Hutzal really uncertain how to punctuate this verse? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Isi ben Yehuda says: There are five verses in the Torah whose meaning cannot be decided, i.e., it is unclear from the text how the verses should be read.

The first example is the term: “Se’et” (Genesis 4:7). It is unclear whether the verse should be read: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up [se’et]?” in which case se’et involves forgiveness and pardon; or: “If you do well, but you will lift up [se’et] your sin if you do not do well.” According to this interpretation, se’et is referring to remembrance: If you do not do well, your sin will be remembered.

The second uncertain case is the term: “Meshukkadim” (Exodus 25:34). This verse can be read: “And in the candelabrum four cups made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim]”; or as: “Its knops and its flowers made like almond blossoms [meshukkadim].” In other words, the term meshukkadim can be read either with the first part or the last part of the verse.

Likewise, the term: “Maḥar” (Exodus 17:9) can be read: “And go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow [maḥar]”. Alternatively, it can mean that Joshua must go out to war with Amalek immediately, and Moses added: “Tomorrow [maḥar] I will stand on the top of the hill” (Exodus 17:9), but today you do not need my prayer. Once again, the issue is whether this term belongs to the beginning or the end of the verse.

The fourth case is the term: “Arur” (Genesis 49:7). This verse can be read: “Cursed [arur] be their anger for it was fierce, and their wrath for it was cruel,” on account of Levi and Simeon’s treatment of Shechem. Alternatively, this term, which appears at the beginning of the verse, can be read as the last word of the previous verse: “And in their anger they cut off cursed [arur] oxen” (Genesis 49:6–7). According to this interpretation, “cursed oxen” is referring to the oxen of Shechem, who descended from the accursed Canaan.

Finally, the term: “Vekam” (Deuteronomy 31:16) can be read as: “Behold, you are about to sleep with your fathers and rise up [vekam]” at the time of the resurrection of the dead; or: “And this people will rise up [vekam] and go astray.”

With regard to the manna, the Torah further states: “And it was white [lavan] like coriander seed; and its flavor was like wafers made of honey” (Exodus 16:31). The Gemara questions this, since coriander is brown, not white. Rabbi Asi said: The manna was round like coriander seed but white like a pearl. This was also taught in a baraita: Coriander [gad] is so named because it is similar to flax seeds on their stalks, which are bound [agud] in a bundle.

Others say: It was called coriander [gad] because it is similar to a tale [haggada], which draws a person’s heart toward it, just like water, which is essential for life, draws one. It was taught in another baraita: Why is it called gad? Because it told [maggid] the Jewish people the answer to issues of uncertainty, such as the paternity of a baby. If a woman remarries within two months after her divorce or the death of her husband and gives birth seven months after her remarriage, it is unclear if the baby gestated for seven months and is the son of the second husband or for nine months and is the son of the first husband. The manna would tell them if the baby was born after nine months and belongs to the first husband, or if the baby was born after seven months and belongs to the second husband. Since the manna was collected by each family based on the number of its biological members, the manna established the baby’s paternity.

The manna was called white because it whitened Israel’s sins. The people feared that if they sinned the manna would not continue to fall. Consequently, they devoted themselves to introspection and repentance.

Similarly, it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Just like the prophet would tell the Jewish people what was in the holes and what was in the cracks of their souls, highlighting the sins of the people, so too, the manna clarified for Israel what was in the holes and what was in the cracks. How so? If two people came before Moses for a judgment, one saying: You stole my slave, and the other one saying: I did not steal him, rather you sold him to me, Moses would say to them: In the morning there will be a judgment. How was the matter resolved? If on the following day the slave found his omer of manna in his first master’s house, it would be clear that he was stolen, because the manna still came to the first owner. And if on the following day he found his omer of manna in his second master’s house, it would be clear that he had been sold.

Similarly, if a man and a woman came to Moses for a judgment, he saying: She sinned against me, and therefore I may divorce her and am not obligated to pay her divorce settlement, and she saying: He sinned against me and therefore I am entitled to the full settlement from the marriage contract, Moses would say to them: In the morning there will be a judgment. The following day, if her omer of manna was found in her husband’s house, it would be clear that she sinned against him. The fact that her nourishment was given to his household signifies the fact that he has respected her appropriately and is worthy of nourishing her. If her omer of manna was found in her father’s house, it would be clear that he sinned against her. Her nourishment has not been given to his household, signifying that he has been disrespectful to her and is not worthy of nourishing her.

AND it was when Pharoh had released the people, that the Lord did not conduct them by the way of the land of the Phelishtaee though that was the near one; for the Lord said, Lest the people be affrighted in seeing their brethren who were killed in war, two hundred thousand men of strength of the tribe of Ephraim, who took shields, and lances, and weapons of war, and went down to Gath to carry off the flocks of the Phelishtaee; and because they transgressed against the statute of the Word of the Lord, and went forth from Mizraim three years before the (appointed) end of their servitude, they were delivered into the hand of the Phelishtaee, who slew them. These are the dry bones which the Word of the Lord restored to life by the ministry (hand) of Yechezekel the prophet, in the vale of Dura; but which, if they (now) saw them, they would be afraid, and return into Mizraim.

Rabbi Abba said to Rabba bar Mari that there is an apparent contradiction in a verse. It is written: “All the disease that I placed in Egypt I shall not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). And since God does not place the disease upon the Jewish people, why is healing necessary? Rabba bar Mari said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This verse can be interpreted and the contradiction resolved from the contents of the verse itself, as it is stated: “And He said: If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God” (Exodus 15:26). If you hearken to God’s voice, I will not place the disease upon you, and if you do not hearken to God’s voice, I will place the disease upon you. Nevertheless, even if you do not hearken to the voice of God, and I place the disease upon you, know that I will heal you, “for I am the Lord, your Healer.”

Rabbi Abba said to Rabba bar Mari that there is an apparent contradiction in a verse. It is written: “All the disease that I placed in Egypt I shall not place upon you, for I am the Lord, your Healer” (Exodus 15:26). And since God does not place the disease upon the Jewish people, why is healing necessary? Rabba bar Mari said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This verse can be interpreted and the contradiction resolved from the contents of the verse itself, as it is stated: “And He said: If you will diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord, your God” (Exodus 15:26). If you hearken to God’s voice, I will not place the disease upon you, and if you do not hearken to God’s voice, I will place the disease upon you. Nevertheless, even if you do not hearken to the voice of God, and I place the disease upon you, know that I will heal you, “for I am the Lord, your Healer.”