NACHUM SEGAL AND BARUCH C. COHEN, ESQ. DISCUSS “AVOIDING A CHILLUL HASHEM”

Nachum welcomed attorney Baruch C. Cohen, Esq. to this morning’s JM in the AM to discuss his recent presentation on the topic of Chillul Hashem entitled, “Avoiding Chillul Hashem – “Killer Litigation Strategies for Lawsuits, Business and Life.”



http://www.nachumsegal.com/nachum-segal-and-baruch-c-cohen-esq-discuss-avoiding-a-chillul-hashem/

HAEMTZA BLOGSPOT: Behaving like a Mentch, by Harry Maryles

Although I have never met him, Orthodox Los Angeles attorney Baruch Cohen and I have a shared experience that we would not wish on our worst enemy. We both lost children to a rare form of cancer known as Ewing’s Sarcoma. He a lost a daughter. I lost a grandson. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must be like to lose a child. The pain must be indescribable. But I can tell you that losing a grandchild is not easy either. (R’ Baruch talks about his personal experience in a Mishpacha Magazine  article.)

Thankfully we have more than just that in common. We both have an almost visceral hatred for Chilul HaShem. Especially the kind that is the result of poorly developed sense of ethics when it comes to the secular world in which we live. This has unfortunately manifested itself more times than I can count in recent years. So often that I have stopped counting.

More often than not this happens by way of cheating the government out of money. Whether it is laundering criminally obtained funds via an elaborate charity system; or avoiding federal taxes through inflated charitable donations – 90% of which are kicked back; or using funds the government earmarked for one thing for something else; or using other people’s social security numbers to divert payments to themselves… you name it. If there is a way to cheat the government, it has probably been tried.

I have written about many of these things and have condemned them all. They were legally wrong and the perpetrators knew it. But in some cases they saw nothing wrong with it morally and committed those crimes because they thought they could get away with. I recall one fellow I know who now sits in prison making an offhand remark that government clerks  manning the system are so ‘dumb’ that stealing from the government would be a near risk free enterprise. He found out that those clerks weren’t so dumb after all. And in fact they are a lot smarter than he is.

That said, fear of being caught should not be what motivates anyone from committing a crime. Even now where prison reform is a bit more favorable to those who commit those crimes. It ought to be our sense of morals and ethics… our fear of creating a Chilul HaShem. Not fear of getting caught.

This is where Jewish education seems to have failed. Let me hasten to add that I am not castigating every yeshiva or elementary school. I am absolutely convinced that many schools do teach ethics and try mightily to teach their students ethical behavior. That in fact was my own personal experience. I had many teachers like that and one in particular that was an exemplar of ethical and moral behavior in every respect. 

But I fear that are many instances where there has not been enough of that. Not at home where it should begin. And not in school. In fact there are some schools that practically teach the opposite. I recall listening to a recording of a Hashkafa Shiur where a Rebbe in a popular Yeshiva high school vilified virtually all non Jews to such an extent, that one might come out believing that it is practically a Mitzvah to take advantage of them in any way you could – as long as you didn’t get caught! It sickened me, to say the least!

This is where Baruch Cohen comes in. His Hashkafos are Charedi in the mold of the Chofetz Chaim Yeshiva. For which I have a soft spot. They are among the finest of Yeshivos - producing role models of behavior. Their students become Talmidei Chachamim with a highly developed sense of morals and ethics. I received the following note from him which speaks for itself: 

This past x-mas, I  had the opportunity... to address the Boys Division of Valley Torah High School  (VTHS) on “Killer Litigation Strategies for Lawsuits, Business and Life.” (Avoiding Chillul Hashems).  Below and enclosed is the the outline of the speech. It was based on many Youtube speeches that I heard by criminal defense attorney Ben Brafman on the issue.

I used various headlines of Chillul Hashem in the powerpoint presentation so that the boys and the rabbonim experience the "cringe factor."

It was a huge hit; the boys didn't want to leave afterwards and the hands were all raised with questions. This important topic totally gripped the audience. Your outstanding blog on this issue was a major inspiration.  

This was followed by another note which said the following: 

VTHS Dean and Rosh Yeshivah Rabbi Avrohom Stulberger said: "We need more voices like that of Baruch Cohen. Frum attorneys, yeshiva graduates, a talmid chochom to be role models to our kids. Too often it's only rabbonim who we look to as role models. We need more baal habatim who are shtark bnei torah to set examples to our kids. To know from the secular world, right from wrong. To speak from the trenches of the secular world, how to behave like a mentsch." 

And that was followed by still another note from R’ Baruch personally: 

Frum Baal habatim who have been koveah itim on a serious level all of our lives need to be seen as role models for our youth. Our society’s 2-tier system that the ideal is learning in kollel and the not-so-ideal is to work for a living is simply wrong and misguided. It turns off many and gives them an inferiority complex if they pursue honest parnassah that somehow they failed the system.  

Like I said, we have a lot in common. What he has done in LA should be the model adopted by all days schools and Yeshiva high schools. I hope that officials at Torah U’Mesorah are listening. What follow is the above-mentioned outline of his talk. 

1. The World Does Not like Jews - we do not need to encourage more people to dislike us

2. Wearing a Yarmulkeh - carries with it an extra measure of responsibility

3. We Must Be More Honest - more careful, more courteous & more prudent

4. When We Screw-Up, it Gets Magnified - the “Cringe Factor” (ie., Frum Slumlords)

5. Having Good Intentions Is Not a Legitimate Excuse - for Breaking the Law

6. Bad Behavior for a Good Cause - a lie for a good reason & a Mitzvah is still a lie

7. The US Government Is Not the Enemy - we’re not in Europe during WW-II8. We Cannot Pick & Choose the Rules We Live by - no smorgasbord Judaism 

Baruch Cohen’s 14 Rules for the American Orthodox Jew: 

1. Keep Your Word - do what you what you say you're going to do

2. Document Everything - confirm everything in writing

3. Follow the Rules - be a law-abiding citizen - know the laws - serve on a Jury

4. Don't Think You're Smarter than the Law & Won't Get Caught - you will 

5. You’re Not Right Because You’re Orthodox - you’re right because you’re honest

6. Establish Credibility  - admit when you're wrong

7. Listen to Your Internal Compass - if it sounds to good to be true, it is;

8. Consult Before Taking Action - not after

9.  Believe in Yourself, Act with Courage & Confidence - but never with arrogance

10. Stop Being Nosy - “but I’m just asking”

11. Give Unconditionally - with no expectation of anything in return

12. Insert Bais Din Arbitration Clauses in Your Contracts - believe in our Torah

13. Stand up for Judaism & Eretz Yisroel - never apologize about both

14. Pause, Before Pushing “Send” on Emails and Texts - it could save your life
https://haemtza.blogspot.com/2018/12/behaving-like-mentch.html  

The Valley Torah Scroll The official newspaper for Valley Torah High School. Always the first to get you your news! BALANCING AMERICAN LAW WITH JEWISH LAW- BARUCH C. COHEN, ESQ. Posted on January 17, 2019 by David Kerendian

Honesty, respect, ethics, and integrity- four principles the Los Angeles civil litigation attorney, Baruch C. Cohen, spoke about on December 25th. Along with speaking about these four principles, Baruch C. Cohen, (BCC), spoke about his 13 Rules for the American Orthodox Jews and had a Q&A with the Valley Torah students.

Mr. Cohen started off his presentation speaking about the immense responsibility a Jew has wearing a yarmulke in public. A man who wears a yarmulke in public represents Judaism and will have either a positive or negative impression to the people around him. Mr. Cohen brought examples including Jewish slumlords, Jews convicted of forging tax returns, and Jewish money launderers as a few examples of those who represent Judaism in a negative way. By these Jews committing such crimes while wearing a yarmulke, they create a huge Chillul Hashem and badly hurt the Jewish name.

On the other side of the spectrum though, there are many Jews who have had a highly positive effect in America.

Of these men, Mr. Cohen specifically mentioned criminal defense attorney Benjamin Brafman who once answered a reporter, after being asked what he was going to do after his client was acquitted in the New York State Supreme Courthouse, that he will be going home for Shabbat to be with his family. His answer was broadcasted on live television and was a kiddush Hashem heard all around the world.

So how can one be sure to not only not have a negative impression on gentiles, but even have a positive effect on them?  By following the four principles of Baruch C. Cohen—being honest, having respect, showing proper ethics, and a sense of personal integrity.

Mr. Cohen then followed up with his 13 Rules for American Orthodox Jews, which consisted of rules that an everyday orthodox Jew should follow in order to create a kiddush Hashem in addition to having material wealth.

1) Keep your word. It will help avoid future problems

2) Document everything.

3) Be a law-abiding citizen. Jewish people are put under a microscope and any slip up will be highlighted.

4) Don’t cheat the law—you will get caught, it is only a matter of time.

5) Be honest—just because you’re an orthodox Jew does not mean you’re always right.

6) If something is too good to be true, it is.

7) Consult with a lawyer or a law understanding friend before taking action.

8) Act with confidence and self assurance but never with arrogance.

9) Do not concern yourself with other people’s business- stop being nosy.  

10) Do not expect favors in return. It’s likely that you won’t receive them.

11) Believe in the Torah and insert Bais Din arbitration clauses in your contracts.

12) Stand up for Judaism and Israel when they’re verbally attacked.

13) Pause before pushing “Send” on emails, texts, and posts. People’s careers and lives have been destroyed with one click of a button.

Mr. Cohen then answered questions posed by the Valley Torah students. These questions ranged from advice for high school student to how Mr. Cohen copes with defending people that might be guilty, answering the latter by saying,  “I have a clause in my contract that if you lie to me, I’ll walk your case. A condition to me representing you is complete and total candor and truth.”

After his speech, Mr. Cohen remarked that one particular question stood out to him.

The question, posed by a senior, asked that the rewards of a virtuous life can be seen in Olam Haba (the World to Come), but when it comes to this world, it may seem that a life of fraud and lies is a way to get rich quick. If this is the case what is a reward in this world of a moral life.

To this, Mr. Cohen shared a story with a colleague who cheated on the LSATs (law school entrance exam), and felt as if his entire earnings were false. He then gave examples of people who built up their web of lies in regards to fraud over many years, only to have it come crashing down in a matter of days.

His lesson was simple. Behind all the wealth and glamour of a crime-driven life is the fear of being caught. Every knock on the door, every phone ring, even any parked police car can strike fear into the hearts of a criminal. A Torah and respectable life, on the other hand, not only avoid this, but give someone a sense of purpose beyond material wealth. Living a proper life provides one with a sense of pride in that he has earned his rightful place, and in the end, there is no cheating your way to reward in the world to come.

In his hour and fifteen minute presentation, Baruch C. Cohen packed in moral principles, his 13 most important laws, and answered all directed questions. Baruch Cohen not only inspired the Valley Torah students, but he gave us advice as to how we can all reach optimal success.

David Kerendian is a staff writer for The Valley Torah Scroll. He is currently a member of the Class of 2022. https://vtscroll.com/2019/01/17/baruchcohen2018/

TUNE IN & LISTEN:

Nachum Segal interviews civil trial attorney Baruch Cohen: 

“Killer Litigation Strategies for Lawsuits, Business and Life” 

on the JM in the AM radio show, WFMU (91.1) in NJ

www.nachumsegal.com

Thursday January 24, 2019

5:30AM pst, 8:30AM est

1. The World Does Not like Jews - we do not need to encourage more people to dislike us

2. Wearing a Yarmulkeh - carries with it an extra measure of responsibility

3. We Must Be More Honest - more careful, more courteous & more prudent

4. When We Screw-Up, it Gets Magnified - the “Cringe Factor” (ie., Frum Slumlords)

5. Having Good Intentions Is Not a Legitimate Excuse - for Breaking the Law

6. Bad Behavior for a Good Cause - a lie for a good reason & a Mitzvah is still a lie

7. The US Government Is Not the Enemy - we’re not in Europe during WW-II

8. We Cannot Pick & Choose the Rules We Live by - no smorgasbord Judaism

----------------------

BCC’S 15 Rules for the American Orthodox Jew:

1. Keep Your Word - do what you what you say you're going to do

2. Document Everything - confirm everything in writing

3. Follow the Rules - be a law-abiding citizen - know the laws - serve on a Jury

4. Don't Think You're Smarter than the Law & Won't Get Caught - you will

5. Myth of Shortcuts - work hard; there’s no express elevator to the Penthouse Suite

6. You’re Not Right Because You’re Orthodox - you’re right because you’re honest

7. Establish Credibility  - admit when you're wrong

8. Listen to Your Internal Compass - if it sounds to good to be true, it is;

9. Consult Before Taking Action - not after

10. Believe in Yourself, Act with Courage & Confidence - but never with arrogance

11. Stop Being Nosy - “but I’m just asking”

12. Give Unconditionally - with no expectation of anything in return

13. Insert Bais Din Arbitration Clauses in Your Contracts - believe in our Torah

14. Stand up for Judaism & Eretz Yisroel - never apologize about both

15. Pause, Before Pushing “Send” on Emails and Texts - it could save your life

The Classification of “Krias Yam Suf” Rather than “Bekias Yam Suf” Alluding to the Second Splitting for the Sake of Dasan and Aviram inspired by HaRav Pinchos Friedman - Sefer Shvili Pinchos by Baruch C. Cohen, Esq.

The Classification of “Krias Yam Suf” Rather than “Bekias Yam Suf”  Alluding to the Second Splitting for the Sake of Dasan and Aviram inspired by HaRav Pinchos Friedman - Sefer Shvili Pinchos by Baruch C. Cohen, Esq.

Questions – especially from children – play a central and critical role at the Pesach seder. According to the Talmud many aspects of the Seder are actually performed just for the purpose of inspiring children to ask questions. And of course, perhaps the most well known and beloved section of the Haggadah is the Mah Nishtana which is asked by the children. Chazal instituted that Sippur Yitzias Mitzrayim be performed in a question-answer format, as derived from the Mishnah in Pesachim (117a). So, we will begin by asking a few question.

1. Why Didn’t Dasan and Aviram Die in Egypt?

Innocent question #1: The Torah tells us that “Chamushim alu miMitzrayim” (Shemos 13:18) and Rashi quotes the Medrash that four-fifths of the Jews died during the Plague of Darkness, leaving only the remaining one-fifth that went out from Egypt. Basically, only twenty percent of the Jewish nation arose from Mitzrayim. The rest were killed in the plague of darkness “Choshech” because they denied the destiny of Israel. People who did not believe that the Jewish nation would be redeemed did not merit to be saved. Yet the Torah also tells us later on in the Torah, after Yetzias Mitzrayim  (the Exodus) of the wickedness of Dasan and Aviram. The question is, why didn’t Dasan and Aviram die in Mitzrayim? More on this later.....

2. “Krias Yam Suf” vs. “Bekias Yam Suf” 

Second question: In Parshas Beshalach, we learn of the incredible miracle known as “Krias Yam Suf” — a miracle which affects us to this very day. Yet, in the entire Torah, we do not find the terminology “Kriah” related to Yam Suf; rather we find the term “Bekiah,” as evident in the following Possuk (Shemos 14:16) “U-Nateh Es Yadecha UveKauhu” and stretch your arm over the sea and split it. Similarly, it states (ibid. 14, 21): “VaYibaku Hamayim” — ”and the waters split.” In both instances, we find a form of the term “Bekiah” employed and not “Kriah.” So, why did our Rabbis choose to employ the term “Kriah” in relation to the phenomenal splitting of the sea, rather than the term “Bekiah”?

3. Why the Redundancy in the Possuk: “And Bnei Yisrael Walked on Dry Land Through the Sea”?

The Torah divides the miraculous feat of “Krias Yam Suf” into two chronological phases. In phase one (Shemos 14:21), Moshe Rabeinu splits the sea and transforms it 

“VaYet Moshe es Yado Al HaYam, VaYolech Hashem es HaYam Beruach Kadim Azah Kol Halaylah, VaYasem Es HaYam LeCharavah, VaYibaku Hamayim.  VaYaVo-u Bnei Yisroel BeSoch Hayam BaYabasha, VeHamayim Lahem Chomah Mimiynam U-Misimolom” (Shemos 14:21) 

Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea, and Hashem moved the sea with a strong east wind throughout the entire night, and he turned the sea to damp land and the waters split. And Bnei Yisrael entered the sea on dry land; and the water formed a wall for them on their right and on their left. 

Immediately afterwards, the second phase of the miracle arrives. Moshe causes the waters of Yam Suf to return to their original state to devour and drown the Egyptians (Shemos 14:23): 

”VaYirdifu Mitzrayim VaYavau Achareihem, Kol Sus Paroh Richbo Ufarashav El Toch HaYam... VaYomer Hashem el Moshe, NeTeh Es Yadcha Al HaYam, Vayashuvu Hamayim El Mitzrayim Al Richbo VeAl Parashav. Vayet Moshe es Yadav Al HaYam, VaYashev HaYam Lifnos Boker LeiSano ... VaYaShuvu Hamayim, Vayichasu Es HaRechev Ve-es HaParshim Lechol Chayal Paroh HaBaim Achareihem BaYam Lo Nishar Bahem Ad Echad. U-Benei Yisroel Halchu BaYabasha Besoch Hayam, VeHamayim Lahem Ch(o)Meh Mimiynam U-Misimolom.” 

Mitzrayim pursued and came after them — every one of Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots and his horsemen — into the midst of the sea . . . Hashem said to Moshe, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, and the waters will go back over Mitzrayim, over its chariots and over its horsemen.” Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea, and toward morning the water went back to its power . . . The waters came back and they covered the chariots and the horsemen of the entire army of Pharaoh, who were coming behind them in the sea — there remained not a one of them. And Bnei Yisrael went on dry land in the midst of the sea; the water formed a wall for them, on their right and on their left.

Therefore, question # 3 is: why does the Torah repeats itself? We were already informed in the first phase of the miracle (Shemos 14:21): “VaYaVo-u Bnei Yisroel BeSoch Hayam BaYabasha, VeHamayim Lahem Chomah Mimiynam U-Misimolom” And Bnei Yisrael entered the sea on dry land; and the water formed a wall for them on their right and on their left. So why is this fact repeated for us in the description of phase two of the miracle (Shemos 14:23):  “U-Benei Yisroel Halchu BaYabasha Besoch Hayam, VeHamayim Lahem Chomeh Mimiynam U-Misimolom”

And Bnei Yisrael went on dry land in the midst of the sea; the water formed a wall for them, on their right and on their left.

4. Not-So Subtle Difference: “BeSoch Hayam BaYabasha” vs. “BaYabasha Besoch Hayam” 

Additionally, we must explain the subtle nuances and differences found in the Pesukim. In the earlier Passuk, it states: “BeSoch Hayam BaYabasha” First it mentions: “in the midst of the sea” and then “on dry land.” Whereas in the later Passuk, it states: “BaYabasha Besoch Hayam” First, it mentions “on dry land,” and afterwards, it states “in the midst of the sea.” Therefore question # 4 is why the switch?

5. Not-So Subtle Difference: “Chomah” vs. “Ch(o)Meh” 

Secondly, earlier it states: “VeHamayim Lahem Chomah.” The word “Chomah” meaning “wall,” is spelled out completely, including the letter “Vav.” Whereas, when this phenomenon is repeated, it states: ”VeHamayim Lahem Ch(o)Meh.” Here, the letter “Vav” is omitted. This is elucidated by the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 238) as indicating that the sea was full of anger towards them “Ch(o)Meh” (“Cheimah - anger). That being the case, question # 5 is: why does the word ”Chomah”appear in its full form, including the “Vav,” in the earlier passuk, suggesting that the sea was not angry at them?

6. The Sea Split a Second Time Specifically for Dasan and Aviram

In the Machzor Beis Yisrael for Pesach, it presents a fascinating idea in the name of the Midrash. Dasan and Aviram originally remained in Mitzrayim with Pharaoh; they were not with Bnei Yisrael when the sea split for them. Afterwards, however, when they witnessed the miracle of “Krias Yam Suf” and how the waters fell back upon the Egyptians, they regretted their decision and opted to rejoin Yisrael. Then, amazingly, the sea miraculously split a second time specifically for them. Support for this notion can be found from the following Passuk in Parshas BeShalach (Shemos 14;3): 

“VeAmar Paroh LeBnei Yisroel, NeVuchim Heim BaAretz Sagar Aleihem HaMidbar” and will Pharaoh will say to the Bnei Yisrael, “They are confined in the land; they are closed in by the desert.” 

But how will Pharaoh be able to say such a thing to Bnei Yisrael after they have already left his realm and his presence? Rashi solves this difficulty as follows: ”LeBnei Yisroel; Al Bnei Yisroel” rather than speaking to Bnei Yisrael, he will be addressing his ministers and servants with regards to Bnei Yisrael and telling them that Bnei Yisrael are confined and trapped. Targum Yonatan, however, provides a different interpretation: ”VaYomer Pharoh LeDasan UlAviram Bnei Yisroel DeMishtayrin BeMitzrayim.” The passuk is informing us that Pharaoh will address members of Bnei Yisrael that will remain behind in Mitzrayim, namely Dasan and Aviram  -  which implies that Dasan and Aviram did not leave Egypt with the Jews, but remained lingering in Egypt even after the Exodus. When the miracles of the Exodus began to take place – and according to Chazal they were apparent the world over – Dasan and Aviram and their families sprinted towards the Red Sea, regretting their decision to remain. 

This interpretation agrees very nicely with the Midrash — that Dasan and Aviram were not part of Israel at the time of “Krias Yam Suf.” Instead, afterwards, when they changed their minds, the sea split especially for them. A similar explanation is found in the Be’er Mayim Chaim on the Passuk (Shemos 14, 29): 

“Ubnei Yisroel Halchu BaYabashah - Miyut Rabim Shnayim, Lomer Ki Al Shnayim MiYisroel Levad Nikra HaYam, VeHaym Dasan Va-Aviram ShOmru Chazal Shenisharu, VeNikra Hayam Aleihem.” 

The minimum plurality is two; so when the passuk states that Bnei Yisrael entered on dry land, it is referring to a mere two members for whom the sea split, and they are none other than Dasan and Aviram — with regards to whom Chazal stated that they remained behind and the sea subsequently split for them alone. 

7. The Sea Was Enraged by Dasan and Aviram

This now illuminates for us the precise language employed by the two Pesukim. The earlier Passuk is speaking of the first time the Yam Suf split on behalf of the entire nation of Yisrael. With regards to them it is written: ”VaYaVo-u Bnei Yisroel BeSoch Hayam BaYabasha” And Bnei Yisrael entered the sea on dry land -  for, in fact, Nachshon ben Aminadav and the tribe of Yehudah leaped into the sea ahead of everyone else; afterwards, following their lead, all of Yisrael joined them, jumping first into the midst of the sea -- ”BeSoch Hayam “ — and only afterwards did they walk on dry land -- “BaYabashah.” Regarding them the Torah states: “The water formed a ”Chomah” for them, to their right and to their left.” Here the word ”Chomah” appears in its full form, with a “Vav,” because the sea was not angry with them; rather it formed a protective wall around them, to their right and to their left.

Subsequently, however, the Torah recounts how the Egyptians pursued Yisrael into the midst of the sea that had turned into dry land. At that point, Hashem instructed Moshe to stretch his arm out over the sea and cause the waters to return and envelop the Egyptians. It is now obvious that this latter Passuk: “And Bnei Yisrael went “BaYabasha Besoch Hayam”  on dry land in the midst of the sea” — is referring to after the waters already returned to envelop the Egyptians.

Based on what we have learned, the picture becomes quite clear. The second Passuk is talking about Dasan and Aviram, whom the Torah refers to as Bnei Yisrael in the passuk: “VeAmar Paroh LeBnei Yisroel” As the Targum Yonatan explains, this passuk refers to Dasan and Aviram, who remained behind in Mitzrayim. For them the sea split a second time after it had returned to its original state to drown the Egyptians.

This then is the interpretation of the pesukim: “The waters came back and they covered the chariots and the horsemen of the entire army of Pharaoh, who were coming behind them in the sea — there remained not a one of them.” Nevertheless, the sea split a second time for the sake of Dasan and Aviram. “And Bnei Yisrael” — namely Dasan and Aviram, who had remained in Mitzrayim — “went on dry land in the midst of the sea.” Here the Torah specifies that they went: “BaYabasha Besoch Hayam” on dry land in the midst of the sea. For, they entered the sea after it had already turned into dry land once for Yisrael, at the first splitting of the Yam Suf, and subsequently it became a sea once again. 

So, regarding Dasan and Aviram, it is written:  VeHamayim Lahem Ch(o)Meh Mimiynam U-Misimolom where the word .”Ch(o)Meh “ appears without a “vav.” This indicates that the sea became enraged — full of CheyMeh due to the fact that it had to split a second time for their sake. This is the gist of his beautiful explanation.

8. Toward Morning the Sea Returned to the Condition Agreed upon with Hashem 

According to his magnificent interpretation, we can reconcile a difficulty in the narrative addressed by the commentaries.  When the sea returns to envelop the Egyptians, it states (Shemos 14, 27):  

“VaYet Moshe es Yado Al HaYam Vayashav HaYam Lifnos Boker LeItanu”

Moshe stretched out his hand over the sea, and toward morning the water went back to its power.

This is elucidated by the Midrash as follows (Bereishis Rabbah 5:5): “

”Amar Reb Yochonon, Tan-In Hakodosh Baruch Hu Im HaYam SheYihe Nikra Lifnei Yisroel, HaDah Hu, DiChSiv, HaYam Vayashav LeItanu, LeTnai SheHaTenah Imo.” 

Rabbi Yochanan said: Hashem imposed conditions upon the sea that it split before Yisrael — as it is written:  “The sea went back to its power (“LeItanu”), to its condition, that the Tenai (Condition) that had been agreed upon.  

All of the commentaries led by the Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh find this perplexing.  Hashem  stipulated that the sea split for the sake of Yisrael.  Why then is this stipulation alluded to when the sea returned to its original state toward morning to cover up the Egyptians and not when the Passuk describes the actual miracle of “Krias Yam Suf”?  

The initial splitting of the sea for the sake of Yisrael did not require the stipulation Hashem imposed upon the sea.  After all, the purpose of taking Yisrael out of Mitzrayim was so that they would receive the Torah on Har Sinai.  

Had Yisrael not accepted the Torah, the world would have returned to a state of chaos and nothingness — “Sohu Va’vohu.”  We learn this from the following elucidation in the Gemara Avodah Zara 3a:   

“Mai Dichsiv (Bereishis 1:31): VaYehi Erev VaYehi Boke, Yom HaShishi; MeLamed, SheHaTenah Hakodosh Baruch Hu Im Maaseh Bereishis VeOmer: ‘Im Yisroel MeKablin Es Torasi MuTav, VeIm Lav, Achazir Eschem LeSohu VaVovu” 

What is the significance of that which is written:  “There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day”?  This teaches us that Hashem made a stipulation with all of creation and said, “If Yisrael accept My Torah then all is well; if not, I will return you to chaos and nothingness.”  

Hence, the sea itself wanted to split for the sake of Yisrael, so that they would receive the Torah.  After all, if they were unable to leave Mitzrayim and would not receive the Torah, all of creation, including the sea, would return to a state of nothingness.  Clearly, every creation desires its continued existence rather than its elimination.  Yet, when the sea was supposed to split a second time for the wicked Dasan and Aviram, it refused.  Nevertheless, it was obligated to honor and uphold the condition that Hashem had imposed upon it — to split for the sake of Yisrael as long as the need existed.  Therefore, at the time of the first splitting, the stipulation Hashem made with the sea is not mentioned; since there was no need for it.  With the second splitting, however, for the sake of Dasan and Aviram, it was necessary to impose the condition.  

This then is the message conveyed by the Passuk:  Vayashav HaYam Lifnos Boker LeItanu” and the elucidation in the Midrash “LeTnai.” Even after the waters had returned to envelop the Egyptians, it still had to uphold the condition imposed upon it by Hashem — to split a second time for the sake of Dasan and Aviram.  Hence, the Torah proceeds to clarify why the condition was necessary at this time: “U-Benei Yisroel Halchu BaYabasha Besoch Hayam” because this time it was splitting for Dasan and Aviram solely in the merit of the condition 

9. Dasan and Aviram Were Jewish Guards Who Received Beatings on Behalf of Yisrael

Now, it behooves us to address the perplexing matter with which the commentaries struggle. We know that Dasan and Aviram were already wicked while in Mitzrayim, as is evident from that which is written regarding Moshe (Shemos 2, 13): 

“VaYetzei BaYom Hasheini VeHinei Shnei Anashim Ovrim Niytzim VaYomer LeRasha Lamah Sakeh Re-Echa.” 

He went out on the second day and, behold, two Jews were quarreling with one another. He said to the wicked one, “Why would you strike your fellow?” 

Rashi comments: These two Jews were none other than Dasan and Aviram, the same two who left over some of the “Mahn.” Moshe inquires: “Why would you strike your fellow Jew?” Even though he hadn’t actually struck him, he is called a “Rasha,” because he raised his arm to strike him. The passuk employs the word Re-Echa to indicate that the fellow Jew was also wicked, just like the first one. 

So, we must endeavor to explain why these two wicked men were allowed to live and to leave Mitzrayim (innocent question #1). Why didn’t they perish during the three days of darkness along with all of the other “Reshaim”? The matter is even more inexplicable in light of the Midrash which teaches us that the sea split a second time especially for Dasan and Aviram. How did these two wicked men merit such a feat?

A wonderful explanation, which is worth publicizing, appears in Chiddushei Maharil Diskin (Beshalach), authored by the great Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin, ztz”l. He addresses the following passuk (ibid. 5, 14):  

”VaYuchu Shotrei Bnei Yisroel Asher Samo Aleihem Nogshei Paroh Lemor: Madua Lo Kiliysem Chakcham Llbon CiTmol Shilshom Gam Timol Gam Hayom.” 

The guards the Bnei Yisroel, who had been appointed by Pharaoh’s taskmasters, were beaten, saying, “Why did you not complete your quota to make bricks, the same as yesterday and the day before, even yesterday and even today?” 

Later on, it is written (ibid. 19): 

”VaYiru Shotrei Bnei Yisroel Osam BeRah Leymor Lo Sigreu Davar Yom BeYomo. Vayifgeu es Moshe Ve-Es Aharon Nitzavim LiKrosom BeTzaasam MeAis Parh, VaYomru Aleihem Yirei Hashem Aleichem, VaYishpot Asher HiVashtem Es Reichano BeAiynai Paroh Uva-isi Avadov Lases Cherev BeYadam Lehorog.”  

The guards of the Bnei Yisrael saw them in a bad state when they said, “Do not reduce your bricks, each day’s quota on that day.” They encountered Moshe and Aharon opposite them, as they left Pharaoh’s presence. They said to them, “May Hashem look upon you and judge, for you have made our very scent abhorrent in the eyes of Pharaoh and the eyes of his servants, to place a sword in their hands to murder us!” 

Here Rashi comments: “Our Rabbis have expounded that every use of the terms Nitzim or Nitzavim is a reference to Dasan and Aviram, for it says of them explicitly (Bamidbar 16, 27): ”Yatzu Unitzavim.“ 

We learn from these pesukim that Dasan and Aviram were Jewish guards who received beatings on behalf of Yisrael. The Midrash explains (Shemos Rabbah 5:21) 

“Asher HiVashtem Es Reichano” Rabi Yochonon Amar, Min Hamakos Shahayu Mechin Osam Hayah Reichin MiBaish.” 

It states it for you have made our very scent abhorrent;” Rabbi Yochanan said: From the beatings they received, they developed an abhorrent smell. 

Thus, Rabbi Yehoshua Leib explains that it is precisely in this merit — that as Jewish guards they received beatings on behalf of Yisrael; who preferred receiving corporal punishment rather than giving it - that Dasan and Aviram did not perish during the three days of darkness.

10. “Krias Yam Suf” Refers to the Splitting of the Sea for Dasan and Aviram

Following this line of reasoning, we can explain why our Rabbis refer to the incredible miracle of Bnei Yisrael passing through the sea in terms of “Kriah” “Krias Yam Suf” even though the Torah employs the term “Bekiah” --  “VaYibaku Hamayim.”  "For, if we analyze the difference between the terms “Bekiah” and “Kriah” we find that “bekiah” can be applied even to something performed entirely voluntarily — in accordance with one’s will. The term “kriah,” however, is usually associated with something that involves significant distress. 

For example, we see in the torah that: 

”Vayashev Reuvein Al HaBor VeHineiy Ain Yosef BaBor, Vaikra es Begadav.” (Bereishis 37:29) 

Reuven returned to the pit and, behold, Yosef was not in the pit; so, he shred his garments.  

Also (Bereishis 37:34): 

“VaYikra Yaakov Simlosav Vayasam Sak BeMasnav.” 

And Yaakov tore his garments and placed a sackcloth on his loins.

Similarly (Megilas Esther 4:1): 

“VaYikra Mordechai es BeGadav, VaYilbash Sack VaEpher.” 

Mordechai  ripped his clothes and he put on a sack and ashes.

Lastly, Shmuel HaNavi says to Shaul HaMelech (Shmuel I 15, 28):  

“Kerah Hashem es Mamleches Yisroel MeAlecha HaYom Unesanah Lereiyecha HaTov Mimecha.” 

Hashem has torn the kingship of Yisrael from upon you this day, and has given it to your fellow, who is better than you. 

This enlightens us as to why the Torah characterizes the incredible miracle of Yisrael passing through Yam Suf in terms of “Bekiah”: “VaYibaku Hamayim” For, the Torah employs this term solely with regards to the initial splitting of the sea for the sake of the entire nation of Yisrael. On that occasion, the sea split of its own free will (without the need to resort to the condition imposed by Hashem at the time of creation). In contrast, when the sea turned into dry land for a second time, specifically for Dasan and Aviram, the term “Bekiah” is not mentioned at all.  and“ “U-Benei Yisroel Halchu BaYabasha Besoch Hayam.” The Bnei Yisrael walked on dry land in the midst of the sea. 

Therefore, our Rabbis correctly classify the second transformation of the sea into dry land for the sake of Dasan and Aviram as: “Krias Yam Suf”  In other words, on that second occasion, the sea was forced to split for Dasan and Aviram against its will — akin to a person who rents his clothes due to extreme torment and distress. 

We can now appreciate the depth of the sages’ wisdom. They chose not to utilize the term “Bekias Yam Suf,” but rather the “Krias Yam Suf.” They wished to emphasize the merit of the entire nation of Yisrael, especially for Dasan and Aviram. They earned merit by enduring beatings for the sake of Yisrael. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERESTING ENDNOTES

a. Siddur references “Bekiah” as in "Bokeah Yam Lifnei Moshe." The Book of Nechemia (9:11) says "Vehayam Bakaata Lifneihem." Tehillim, Psalm 136, uses language of "Gezirah" as in "Legozer Yam Suf Ligzorim," referring to the miracle where the splitting of the sea was further refined to create 12 distinct, parallel paths each separated by a wall of water, through which each tribe could pass within its own pathway.

b. The HaKesav VeHaKaballah: Part I, on Shemos 14:16, Parshas Beshalach (Rabbi Yaakov Tsvi Mecklenberg), actually asks the question the other way around: why does Torah use the language of "Bekiah" when Chazal use the expression "Kriah."? The answer given is notable and remarkable, yet it only heightens our questions. This respected commentary suggests that a fantastic geological and topographical miracle occurred in which a deep, low valley (Bikah) was formed in the sea bed. This miracle is said to be a response to Bnai Yisrael's explicit refusal to enter the sea when Moshe commanded. "We will not pass until the sea is turned into a valley before us" ["Lo Naavor Ad Sheyeaseh HaYam Bikah Lefonenu"], they said. In this version of the miracle, not only did the water shift but a major geological change occurred. Given the arguably "greater" miracle of water splitting plus valley-formation, one would expect the language of "Bekiah" to not only be retained but preferred. Such imagery would add glory to the miraculous events.

c. A Computer Word Search: was conducted upon the Bar Ilan Responsa Project (number 10) for the expression "Krias Yam Suf." It appeared five (5) times in the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian) and three (3) times in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem)

d. Starkly put: 

i. the term "Kriah" is an extraordinarily inapt word to use with any body of water, let alone a sea. How does one "tear" the sea? Minimally, it is awkward and clumsy. Moreover, Torah's further text states, "Vayoshuvu Hamayim" (the waters returned). That simply is not the opposite of, or the "repair" for, "tearing" or "Kriah." It is, however, apt opposing terminology for the act of "Bekiah" or splitting of the sea, as Torah actually puts it. Waters divided would "return" to each other. 

ii. In Sefer Bereishis, at creation, when Hashem separated the waters of the Rakia, the Torah does not use "Kriah" but, rather, "Vayivdelu" (the waters divided). In the Book of Yehoshua (Joshua), when the Jordan River (Yarden) splits miraculously, the text on two occasions is not "Kriah" or "Bekiah" or "Vayivdelu." Rather, it is language of "Krisa" (HaMayim Nichras), also somewhat awkward but, still, no mention of "Kriah." And although "Krisa" might be closer in parlance to "Kriah," that usage in Yehoshua suggests that "Krisas Yam Suf" would then be more apt.

e. The Chidushei HaRim - The Likutai Yehudah, sefer of the grandson of the Chidushei HaRim (the Gerrer Rebbe), reports [at Beshalach, pp. 94-95] that the Gadol Hador (the Great Sage of his generation) was asked why Chazal use language of "Krias Yam Suf" but in Torah we find only language of "Bekiah"? [Shoalti Oso (the Chidushei HaRim) Lama Bedivrai Chazal Nikra Krias Yam Suf, UBeTorah Lo Matzinu Kasuv Ela Lashon Bekiah]. The Gerrer Rebbe answered that he had many things to say on this subject but was unable to transmit but a small "Remez" or hint. [VeHeshiv, SheYesh Lo Devarim Harbei BaZeh VeEino Yachol Lomar Ach Remez MeAt]. The Chidushei HaRim went on to explain his Remez snippet in terms of "Kriah" being terminology used when two separate things have been made into one and then, afterwards, when they are separated, this is called "Kriah." But, as to an item that was unitary to begin with, the act of separation is not called "Kriah." Since the Sea had a "Tnai" or condition that it would split and glorify Hashem but was held together until the miracle of separation, the apt language is "Kriah." The waters, so to speak, were "separated" from inception but thereafter put together as one. Therefore their later division is called "Kriah." [LiKutei Yehudah, Beshalach, p. 95]. Now a startling further revelation by the LiKutei Yehudah! The Chidushei HaRim was also asked, why then did the Torah use language of "Bekiah"? [VeShoalti Oso Lama BaTorah Nikra Bekiah?] The Gerrer Rebbe answered that he was not able to respond because his lips were sealed on the matter! VeHeshiv Li Ki Eino Yachol Lomar Ki Mastimin Es Piv (on these matters)]. With the latter expression, the Chidushei HaRim obviously was not saying he did not know the answer but, rather, meant to say that the matter was not one for him to reveal; his lips were sealed on it; it was a matter of Sod (secret)! The Likutei Yehudah cites the Ramasayim Tzofim, a commentary (Perush) on the Tanna DiBay Eliahu [see Zuta, Perek 16, Ramasayim Tzofim 10, Parshas Beshalach], where this entire episode with the Chidushei HaRim is also quoted along with additional pertinent elaboration by the commentator on Chazal's choice of "Kriah."

f. The Baal HaTanya Commentary: The Baal HaTanya (Lubavitcher Rebbe) Siddur has a commentary called Shaar Chag HaMatzos [see pp. 578-584], where the episode of Krias Yam Suf and its particulars is discussed at length. Much of it is Kabbalistic in nature and beyond this writer's comprehension. The commentary says near the outset that it is important to comprehend the "body" or essence of the episode of Krias Yam Suf and why it was referred to in the idiom of "Kriah." [Yesh LeHavin Guf Inyan Krias Yam Suf . VeLama Nikra BeShem Kriah .] Citing the Zohar, Arizal, etc., the author somehow connects the descent of Neshamos (souls) to this world as a kind of "birth" with an analogy to the birth of a baby who passes from the realm of the unseen to be revealed. This, then, is the pertinence of the subject of "Kriah," analogous to the opening of the narrow womb for the birth of a baby, where the infant passes from the waters that housed him and is revealed via the "tearing" away from the womb. [See discussion, id at pp. 578-579]. For our purposes here, the significance of such profound thoughts is that there somehow is a purposefulness and, indeed, profound depth in Chazal's election to use the language of "Kriah."

g. 'Tearing' Up the 'Shtar Chova' - A Haggadah in Hebrew entitled, "Ki Yishalcha Bincha," featuring more than 600 questions and answers explaining the Haggadah, asked a question on "Dayenu." "Why did the Magid use language of Kora" in the song? Why didn't he say, "Boka Lanu Es HaYam," given the language of "Bekiah" in Torah? The text's commentary answers as follows. Midrashically speaking, the Yam Suf at creation was formed with a "Tnai," a precondition or obligation - a kind of "genetic debt," so to speak - that it would split at precisely the time of the Exodus. The sea was thus pre-programmed to divide (citing Yalkut Shimoni). Building on this Midrashic thought, the author of the response suggests that, when the sea divided as it was obligated to do, the "Shtar Chova," the IOU or document of debt, was "torn up" thereby releasing the obligation. [Kemo Adam SheYesh Lo Chov Al Chavero BiShtar UBeshaas Periah, Korea HaShtar]. To commemorate this occasion, the Dayenu song uses language of "Kriah," i.e., "tearing."

h. 'Jewish Press' Answer: In September 1998, the basic question was posed by a fascinated, learned letter writer to the author of the Jewish Press' "Questions and Answers" column [see Jewish Press, Sept. 4, 1998, pp. 5, 76]. The column reinforces our question: later references to "Kriah" by Rashi and Kli Yakar "do not explain why Chazal chose this particular terminology . in preference to several other available synonyms. Better yet, why didn't they use the scriptural text itself."? [Id. at 76] The column then notes scant Talmudic references to "Krias Yam Suf," one suggesting that marriage matchmaking is as difficult as splitting the Yam Suf (Sotah). Commentaries suggest this only refers to matchmaking of a second marriage. (Zivug Sheni) Two couples, two unions, are torn apart in order to arrive at the Zivug Sheni. There is some parallel to events at the sea since rescue of Bnai Yisrael meant drowning of the Egyptians, ostensibly a kind of tearing apart. The Jewish Press column also suggests that "Kriah," rending of a garment, is a sign of mourning. Likewise, there was crying in Heaven at the destruction of the Almighty's creatures at the sea, a kind of mourning.

i. Emunah and Bitachon Enhance "Bekiah" into "Kriah"- One can combine a point from Rav Chaim Volozhin's, Nefesh HaChayim [Shaar Aleph - Perek 9, at pp. 32-33], with the Baal HaTanya's commentary, previously addressed, about the "tearing" of the emerging baby from the mother's womb. The Nefesh HaChayim relates that when Hashem said to Moshe, "Why do you cry unto me? Speak to the Bnai Yisrael and let them proceed" [Ma Titzak Elai, Daber El Bnai Yisrael VeYisaU (Shemos 14:15)], Hashem wanted the nation's faith and confidence to manifest so that their certainty of the Sea splitting would be felt. The miracle would thereby be enhanced as the People proceeded. However, the first few steps, the initial burst forward into the Sea, was paramount. Says the Nefesh Hachayim, this expression of Bitachon and faith would be a stimulus in Heaven above to effect the miracle and the Sea would split before them. [VeYisu Haloch VeNasoa El HaYam . MeOtzem Bitachonam SheVadai Yikora Lifneihem. Az Yigremu Al Yedai Zeh HisOrerus LeMaalah, SheYaaseh Lahem HaNes VeYikora Lifneihem] Hashem wanted the honor and distinction (Kavod) for the miracle to be attributable to the Bnai Yisrael for their confident dismissal of fear and assumption of absolute faith. Under this dynamic, the opening aspects of the miracle were "Bekiah," an initial splitting of the water, the sea bed becoming dry and the 12 walls being formed. However, as the People proceeded with surging confidence, "Kriah" occurred, in that the walls and other facets of the miracle "adjusted" further to the People's needs. The Baal HaTanya's reference to the phenomenon of the newborn emerging by "tearing" away from the mother's womb is similar in that Hashem greatly assists the infant's egress after the first few human efforts ensue. The language of "Kriah" better emphasizes the role of the great Bitachon shown by Bnai Yisrael at a time of danger and glorifies their role in enhancing the miracle at the Sea.

j. Heightened Perceptions During the Miracle: Chazal's change in terminology as reflective of the great status achieved by Bnai Yisrael during the miracles at the Sea. He suggests that the language of "Bekiah" connotes something done with an instrument or via some medium, citing to the Gemara in Kidushin 47, which speaks of a "ShoEl," a borrower of an axe: "BaKa Bo, Bo KanOh"; if he chopped with the axe he becomes a ShoEl. When Hashem split the Sea, to the ordinary human eye, he seemed to use the medium or instrument of the strong east wind which blew all the night. But the People, having reached the intimate, visionary status of declaring "Zeh Keli VeAnvehu," recognized instead that Hashem performed the miracle, so to speak, with his own hands. The language of "Kriah," a tearing, is appropriate when one rends something with his own hands. Because "Kriah" better extols and reflects the unique perceptive ability of Bnai Yisrael at that special moment, Chazal preferred using this term. This approach is similar in style to another substitution by Chazal of a word in Torah with one of their own. The Torah calls the Passover Holiday, "Chag HaMatzos," but Chazal (and we today) call the Festival, "Pesach." The reason, said the Berditchover Rebbe, is this: Hashem emphasizes praise of Bnai Yisrael for abstaining from Chometz and eating Matzos, hence Torah calls the Holiday, Chag HaMatzos. Bnai Yisrael, on the other hand, praise Hashem for saving us from Makas Bechoros, the deadly Tenth Plague, hence we emphasize this aspect of the miracle with the name, Pesach. Similarly, Chazal elected to use the term "Kriah" to extol the Nation's high status and its visionary recognition that the Sea was "torn," so to speak, with Hashem's own hands.

k. Terminology Related to Phases of the Miracle: 

i. In 1998, intrigued by the question, Rabbi Yaakov B. Ackerman, Rav of the Kehilla Heichal Shlomo in Kiryat Ata (as well as Director of Yeshivat Tikvat Yaakov in Sde Yaakov), Israel, researched the topic (including computer searches). This resulted in an article, as yet unpublished [manuscript in Hebrew], entitled, "Krias Yam Suf; BeInian Lama Chazal Mishtamshim BeVitui Krias Yam Suf BiMekom BeVitui Shel HaTorah HaKedosha Bekias Yam Suf" [Regarding Why Chazal Use the Expression Krias Yam Suf Rather Than That of the Holy Torah, Bekias Yam Suf]. Rabbi Ackerman surveys scriptural, Midrashic, and Rabbinical usage of language of "Bekiah," "Gezirah" and "Kriah" in attempting to answer the question posed. He notes the linguistic and idiomatic characteristics of the terminology as used in other scriptural contexts. 

ii. For example, in Bereishis, Parshas VaYera, the Torah says, "VaYivaka Atzei Olah" [Avraham split the wood for the Olah offering], which Targum Onkolos renders "VeTzalach." Here, according to Onkolos, it means to cut (or separate them) into a number of small pieces. Similarly, in a Navi text, "VaYivaku Atzei HaAgalah" [the wood of the wagon was split], Targum Onkolos translates it as "Tzalach" also meaning many pieces. Yet, in other references to "Bekiah," Targum Onkolos translates them as "Boza." 

iii. The author suggests that all other scriptural references to "Bekiah" mean that the division or splitting was only into two pieces or two parts. So, too, with Krias Yam Suf. [Ulam Bishar Bekios SheMuzkarim BeTanach Haysa HaBekiah Lishnayim, Kemo VaTivaka HaAdamah - VeIzbezata Ara. VeChen BiKrias Yam Suf - Muzkar SheHayam Nechlak LeShenayim]. Rav Ackerman focuses similarly on the Psalms' use of language of "Gezirah" [Psalm 136 - LeGozer Yam Suf LiGezorim]. Targum Onkolos there explains Gezirah as "LeTzaleach Yama DeSuf LeTzilucha," using the root word "Tzalach." Rashi renders "Gezirah" as 12 "torn" parts for the 12 Tribes [12 "Keraim" for 12 Shevatim (using the root word "Kora")]. Midrashic literature, however, is not uniform. The Yalkut says the Yam Suf was split in two. The Mechilta says it was divided into 12 parts. There are many Midrashic nuances on precisely what happened at the sea. 

iv. After similarly surveying the idiom in Talmudic, Midrashic and Commentary sources, Rav Ackerman suggests that the multiple terminology used variously by scripture and Chazal reflects the complexity and multiple-stage, miraculous nature of the splitting of the Yam Suf. The essential core of the miracle was the sea's splitting into two parts - therefore, Torah language uses "Bekiah." Then Dovid HaMelech, in Psalm 136, hints at a continuation of the miracle in a broader manner, namely, creation of 12 pathways for the Tribes. This explains use of the language of "Gezirah." Chazal use language of "Kriah," suggests Rav Ackerman, because the 12 passages were then refined even further to accommodate differences in the size and width needed for each Tribe to go through its pathway. "Kriah," this reasoning continues, is appropriate terminology because, when used in the Talmud [i.e., matchmaking is as difficult as Krias Yam Suf; and making a living is as difficult as Krias Yam Suf], Chazal intended to convey the message that Hashem actually matches couples or allots livelihood to persons according to their needs. [HaKadosh Boruch Hu Nosen Parnasa LeAdam Kefi Hatzorchim Shelo; Vegam Mezogeg Zivugim Lefi HaTzorech]. Similarly, the language of "Kriah" at the Yam Suf connotes a later, refined stage in the splitting of the sea whereby each of the 12 pathways [Gezorim] adjusted, so to speak, according to the needs of each Tribe. To glorify and extol the breadth and complexity of the miracle and thus increase faithful belief [Emunah], suggests Rav Ackerman, Chazal adopted usage of language of "Kriah." The latter adds a dimension beyond initial splitting of the sea in two. [Ki HaKria HaPitzul Hevi LeAm Yisrael LeHaamin BaShem UveMoshe Avdo Emunah Gedola VeChazaka, VeLachen Mishtamshim Chazal BeLoshon Kria LeHachdir Bonu Emunah].