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].
