How did the piece of wood turn the bitter water sweet?
Rashi (to Pesachim 39a) and Ramban #1 (citing the Mechilta), Targum Yonasan and Midrash Tanchuma: The wood, like the water, was bitter; 1 and the fact that it turned the water sweet was a miracle within a miracle. 2
Ramban #2: Hashem taught Moshe that this particular species of wood had in its nature to sweeten bitter water. 3
Targum Yonasan: Moshe wrote the Great Name of Hashem (Havayah) on it.
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: It was from a tree called 'Hirduf.'
Ramban Similar to that of Melachim II 2:21. And the Torah writes "va'Yorehu" because Hashem showed Moshe where the wood was to be found, or because He brought it to him miraculously.
Ramban: Hence the word "va'Yorehu" ('and He taught him').
What is the significance of the word "va'Yorehu [Hashem Eitz]"? What did Hashem teach Moshe?"
Ramban #3 (citing the Tanchuma): Hashem taught Moshe His ways - that He sweetens the bitter with things that are bitter.
What are "Chok" and "Mishpat" referring to?
Rashi and Ramban #1 (citing Sanhedrin 56b): They refer to Shabbos, Parah Adumah, 1 and Dinim (Mishpatim - civil laws), respectively.
Ramban #2: "Chok" and "Mishpat" 2 both refer to the customs and regular practices that Hashem introduced when they entered the great and awesome desert, customs to busy themselves with until they entered an inhabited land.
Ramban #3: With reference to "v'Sham Nisahu," Hashem chastised them by making them suffer Chok - the law of the desert, to suffer hunger and thirst, thereby inducing them to cry out to Him (not by complaining), and Mishpat - He taught them a series of civil laws by which to live by - to learn to love one another, to obey the instructions of their leaders, laws of Tzeni'us regarding their wives and children; how to behave with respect towards peddlers who entered the camp to sell their wares, and how to behave ethically when plundering their enemies - not to indulge in the abominations of the other nations. 3
Da'as Zekenim: They refer to Kibud Av va'Em, which is both a Chok and a Mishpat.
Targum Yonasan: They refer to Shabbos, Kibud Av va'Em, and Parah Adumah; and the Dinim of wounds and of Kenasos (fines). 4
Sanhedrin 56b: They refer to Shabbos, Kibud Av va'Em, and Dinim. 5
Mechilta: See below, 15:25:152:4* .
Rashi to Devarim 5:16 includes Kibud va'Em; see Sifsei Chachamim and Gur Aryeh (15:25:3.2:1 ). See also Answer #6 and note.
The Ramban cites many cases where that is what "Chok" and "Mishpat" means (See for example Yirmeyah 33:25 regarding "Chok," and Bereishis 40:13 regarding "Mishpat," and Yehoshua 24:25 ). See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
Ramban: See Devarim 23:10. See also Ramban DH 'v'Chein bi'Yehoshua.'
See Peirush Yonasan.
See Torah Temimah, note 36, who elaborates.
What "test" is the Pasuk referring to?
Rashi and Rashbam: Hashem tested the people by depriving them of water and watching their reaction. They failed by grumbling, instead of properly asking Moshe to Daven on their behalf. 1
Ramban #1 (interpreting Rashi's statement in DH 'Sham Sam lo'): He introduced them to the aforementioned Mitzvos (in advance of Matan Torah) 2 to see whether they would accept them willingly and with joy, or reluctantly. 3
Ramban #2: Refer to 15:25:3:3.
Seforno: He tested Yisrael to see whether they would receive the Chok and Mishpat that He gave them at Marah, or whether they would reject them and revert to their old ways; because, provided that they would accept them and continue to observe them, they would not suffer the plagues of the Egyptians. 4
Targum Yonasan: Yisrael tried Hashem with ten tests. 5
See Ramban's objection to this explanation.
Ramban: Just as Avraham Avinu performed the Mitzvos before they were commanded. It also trained them in the performance of Mitzvos.
Ramban: And the following Pasuk informed them that there were more Mitzvos to come. Gur Aryeh - Why doesn't Rashi interpret this way? See 15:25:4.2:1 .
Seforno: As the following Pasuk spells out.
See Bartenura, Avos 5:4, and Na'ar Yonasan. As for why Rashi does not interpret this way, see Gur Aryeh (15:25:4.1:1 ).
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "There, He emplaced for them [Chok u'Mishpat] - At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah, that they should occupy themselves in [learning] them; [namely] Shabbos, Parah Adumah, and Dinim (monetary laws)." How can we show that it was these Mitzvos in particular?
Gur Aryeh: The default "Chok" in the Torah is Parah Adumah - a Mitzvah without any reason (to our understanding). 1 Shabbos is also a Chok - despite that there is no Pasuk that refers to it as such - in the sense that "Chok" means designated bounds or limitations. A person may perform his work for six days, and on the seventh he must cease. 2 The term "Mishpat" means monetary law.
Rashi to Bamidbar 19:2.
Chok means something that is fixed and established; and Shabbos is fixed in place since Creation. It would seem that the first definition of "Chok" - a Mitzvah without a logical reason - stems from this meaning as well; see Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch.8) - "So Hashem decreed regarding the order [of Torah living], in His wisdom, and not a single thing is extra or for naught; this is what Hashem established as His Chukim." (EK) Also see below, 15:26:1.2:1 .
Rashi writes: "At Marah, Hashem gave them a few sections of the Torah -- Shabbos, Parah Adumah, and Dinim (monetary laws)." But in Rashi's comments to the Aseres ha'Dibros in Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5:16), he writes that Kibud Av va'Em was also given at Marah! Why doesn't Rashi mention it here?
Gur Aryeh: While it is true that the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Em was given at Marah, this cannot be derived from the words in our Pasuk, "Chok u'Mishpat" -- since Kibud Av va'Em fits into neither category 1 (see the preceding question). (Rather, it is derived from the added phrase "Ka'asher Tzivecha Hashem Elokecha" in the Aseres Ha'Dibros of Parshas Va'eschanan (Devarim 5:16).
Gur Aryeh: Kibud Av va'Em is not a Chok. Even had it not been commanded, it would be self-evident to us that we must honor our parents. Shabbos, on the other hand, is a Mitzvah we would not have intuited. (But elsewhere in Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 41, p. 128), he writes (citing the view of R' Yehoshua in the Mechilta, see 15:25:152:4* ) that the "Chok" of our Pasuk is Parah Adumah; whereas "Mishpat" in fact refers to Kibud Av va'Em - which the Sechel dictates, more so than other Mitzvos. These two [Mitzvos] are interdependent; that is why Dama ben Nesina (who was a Gentile, and fulfilled Kibud Av due to reason alone) was rewarded with a Parah Adumah in his herd (Kidushin 31a). (See the notes of R' Yehoshua Hartman, in the Mechon Yerushalayim edition of Maharal.)
Rashi writes: At Marah, Hashem gave them a few sections of the Torah, that they should occupy themselves in [learning] them; [namely] Shabbos, Parah Adumah, and Dinim (monetary laws)." Gur Aryeh explained above, that Kibud Av va'Em was also commanded at Marah, although it fits into neither the category of "Chok," nor of "Mishpat." But if so, why doesn't the Torah simply add another term here, which would refer to Kibud Av va'Em as well?
Gur Aryeh #1: We mentioned above (from Bava Kama 82a , see 15:22:152), that the reason Bnei Yisrael became weary was because they had gone three days without the study of Torah. Hashem specifically gave them three Mitzvos that would be a sample of what Torah-learning is all about. 1 Shabbos includes a multitude of Halachos; 2 Parah Adumah is exceedingly deep; and Dinim require Chochmah (see Bava Basra 175b) and establishing fine logical distinctions. 3
Gur Aryeh #2 (to Devarim 5:16): Kibud Av va'Em is a Mitzvah that a person will fulfill instinctively. Our Pasuk, on the other hand, refers to Mitzvos with which Hashem tested Bnei Yisrael - as the Pasuk concludes, "... v'Sham Nisahu." Kibud Av va'Em was not a test. 4
Thus, although Kibud Av va'Em was indeed commanded at Marah, our Pasuk only mentions those Mitzvos that would serve as their introduction to Torah-learning.
I.e., precisely what actions are included under forbidden Melachah is not explicit in the text! Rather, the Halachos of Shabbos are Torah she'Ba'al Peh (see Chagigah 10a).
Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 21, to Avos 1:1): In the realm of Dinim, one must understand the root of the Din, so as not to end up making the exempt party liable, or the liable party exempt. (The monetary laws recorded in the Torah form only the basis of "Dinim;" obviously not every eventuality that can develop between man and his fellow, can be found written explicitly in the Torah!) A Dayan must utilize his reasoning, until he arrives at the depths of the matter.
Parenthetically, Gur Aryeh (to Devarim ibid.) understands that the "test" was whether or not Bnei Yisrael would fulfill Hashem's Torah. But Rashi to our Pasuk explains differently - The test was what Bnei Yisrael's response would be to the lack of water (and if so, the question remains as to why Kibud Av va'Em is not alluded to in this Pasuk.) Also see 15:25:4.2 below.
Rashi writes: "At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah... Shabbos." Chazal (Shabbos 118b) state that if only Bnei Yisrael had observed 'the first Shabbos,' no nation could have ever ruled over us - as we find that our attempt to gather Manna on Shabbos (16:27) was followed by Amalek's attack (17:8). Tosfos to Shabbos 87b asks - But this seems difficult chronologically! We reached Marah at the end of Nisan, three days after leaving the Yam Suf. The first Shabbos after the Manna fell, was already 22 Iyar (see 16:1:1.1:1**) - such that it surely was not 'the first Shabbos' after we were commanded at Marah!
Gur Aryeh #1: The Gemara means that they failed to observe the first Shabbos after having been commanded all of its Halachos; and there is an opinion that at Marah, they were not yet commanded regarding Techumin. 1 Furthermore, at Marah they were commanded about Shabbos as a Mitzvas Aseh. It was only later, in connection with the Manna, it became a Lo Sa'aseh as well (e.g., 'do not go out to gather Manna on Shabbos').
Gur Aryeh #2: At Marah, the Mitzvah of Shabbos was instructed to us Ba'al Peh; 2 it was only later, in the context of the Manna, that Shabbos was written explicitly. Any Mitzvah that Hashem gave Ba'al Peh was not yet called "Torah" -- until Matan Torah, when we were given Torah Shebi'Kesav. 3
Shabbos is not written explicitly here at Marah; the fact that it was taught here is derived only from Devarim 5:16.
Also see Gur Aryeh (to Bamidbar 15:32) - At Marah they were given only the general principles of Shabbos, but not yet the details. Prior to Matan Torah, any Mitzvos commanded were comparable to the 7 Mitzvos of Bnei Noach (see Sanhedrin 56b, cited below 15:25:152:4).
Rashi writes: "'V'Sham Nisa'hu' [lit., and there he tested him] - [I.e., Hashem tested] the nation." But can't these pronouns be read the other way as well - i.e., that it was the nation that tested Hashem (with their conduct - as we find in 17:7)?
Gur Aryeh: In our Pasuk, this phrase is a continuation of, "... there He emplaced for them Chok and Mishpat" - which certainly means Hashem emplaced Mitzvos for the nation. (Hence, it was Hashem who tested the nation as well.)
Rashi writes: "[He tested] the nation, and saw their stiff-neck, that they did not consult Moshe with fitting speech (when faced with a lack of water) ...." Mizrachi asks - Why doesn't Rashi explain the test as being whether or not they would observe the Mitzvos that He was now giving them?
Gur Aryeh: The Mitzvah of Parah Adumah could not yet be observed on a practical level. 1 So too regarding Dinim - the responsibility to fulfill them was upon Moshe, who would judge the case, not upon Yisrael. 2 Rashi therefore explains the test at Marah as a separate matter, independent of the Mitzvos they were commanded there.
Gur Aryeh cites this as Mizrachi's question. Yet Mizrachi himself writes that the test was not focused on the Mitzvos' observance, but rather on their acceptance - whether they would accept the Mitzvos happily. If so, the test could apply to accepting the Mitzvah of Parah Adumah as well? Perhaps Gur Aryeh understands that even such a test could not be applied to a Mitzvah that was not yet applicable on the practical level. Also note that Gur Aryeh in Devarim explains as does Mizrachi, that the test was whether or not they would accept the Mitzvos (see below, 15:25:155:2 ).
This seems to indicate that the Mitzvah of "Dinim" is not focused upon the litigants - e.g., to accept the decision of the Dayanim - but rather upon the judges, to decide the Din. (And until Yisro later advised adding judges (18:17-23), Moshe was the sole judge for all of Klal Yisrael. - EK)
Rashi writes that Yisrael were commanded about Shabbos. But later, in 16:22, he writes that they were surprised to find double Manna on Friday, since they had not yet been told about Shabbos!
Moshav Zekenim: That is a Derashah, and we do not challenge a Derashah. 1
Riva (to 16:1): Hashem told Moshe to tell Yisrael about Shabbos at Marah, but Moshe delayed telling them, like he delayed 2 telling them that extra Manna would fall on Erev Shabbos. 3
Seemingly, the two Derashos contradict each other. How can we resolve this Derashah with the Pesukim below, that the Nesi'im told Moshe that they collected double? Perhaps they expected that they will receive a single portion, and miraculously, it will suffice for two days (like the dough that they took from Mitzrayim - refer to 16:1:1:1), or it will be blessed in the innards, and half the usual amount will suffice for each day (like the Seforno (Vayikra 25:19) says about the fruit of Erev Shemitah), or that extra manna will fall Friday afternoon, or that it will fall on Shabbos and they will eat it outside. Why did Moshe need to tell them to bake it today? Perhaps they thought that they must eat it raw on Shabbos, and if they change its form, it will spoil. (PF)
Riva said this to explain how they could travel to Midbar Sin on Shabbos, and transgress Techumim. How can the Riva learn from the Manna? There, Moshe intended to command them shortly before Shabbos, so no one would transgress. Here, why did he not tell them before Shabbos? And why did Moshe himself travel? (PF)
Rashi writes: "... Hashem gave them a few sections of the Torah, that they should occupy themselves in [learning] them; [namely] Shabbos, Parah Adumah, and Dinim." Chazal discuss the meaning of "Chok u'Mishpat" in the Mechilta, and in Sanhedrin 56b -- and neither source mentions Parah Adumah! What then is Rashi's source?
Moshav Zekenim #1 (citing Bechor Shor): Moshe asked how bitter wood can sweeten water. 1 Hashem said that there is a Mitzvah like this - Parah Adumah, which is Metamei Tehorim (and Metaher Temei'im).
Terumas Ha'Deshen (cited in Chumash Otzar ha'Rishonim): (The Torah writes "Chok u'Mishpat" and) Parah Adumah is called "Chukas ha'Torah." 2
Moshav Zekenim #2 (to Bamidbar 19:2): "Asher Tzivah Hashem" (ibid.) implies that they had been commanded previously; 3 and the Gemara in Sanhedrin 56b learns similarly that they were commanded about Kibud Av va'Em at Marah.
Gur Aryeh: The Gemara (loc. cit.) lists ten Mitzvos commanded at Marah - the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach, Shabbos, Dinim, and Kibud Av va'Em. 4 Rashi must understand that the Gemara's list is limited to those Mitzvos that would immediately be practiced - even prior to Matan Torah - whereas the Parah Adumah would not be prepared until the second year. But because Rashi holds that "Chok" in its most simple meaning refers to Parah Adumah, he explains that it was introduced already now, as a topic for Torah study.
Terumas ha'Deshen: Since Yisrael saw this miracle, they will be able to accept that the Parah Adumah is Metamei Tehorim and vice-versa. Otherwise, there was no need to teach it to them here.
Moshav Zekenim (to Bamidbar 19:2): This is not a proper answer. Many Mitzvos are called Chok, for example, "v'Shamarta Es ha'Chukah ha'Zos" (Shemos 13:10)!
Moshav Zekenim (loc. cit.): Even though the Torah writes "Zeh ha'Davar Asher Tzivah Hashem" by the topics of Nedarim (Bamidbar 30:2), and Shechutei Chutz (in Vayikra 17:2), there Moshe tells Yisrael that this is what Hashem commands now. Here, [it says so before it mentions speaking to Yisrael - PF] it is what Hashem already commanded.
As for the Mechilta; in R' Yehoshua's view, "Chok" refers to Shabbos, and "Mishpat" to Kibud Av va'Em; whereas according to R' Elazar ha'Moda'i, "Chok" refers to Arayos; and "Mishpat" to [the Dinim of] duress, robbery and injury. (As to why specifically these Mitzvos appear in this context, see below, 15:25:155 .)
Rashi writes: "At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah...." The Gemara (Sanhedrin 56b) in fact lists ten Mitzvos - including the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach. If the latter were included in order to re-iterate those Mitzvos that Yisrael had already been commanded, then why not add the Mitzvos of Milah and Gid ha'Nasheh, which were given to the Avos?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 162, to Sanhedrin 56b): At Marah, Bnei Yisrael were commanded those Mitzvos that must precede the other Mitzvos (i.e., as prerequisites). The Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach were commanded to the entire world; and the three new Mitzvos mentioned on the Gemara (Shabbos, Dinim, and Kibud Av va'Em) also had reasons to precede the others. 1 Although Milah and Gid ha'Nasheh were relevant to the Avos, and were therefore given in earlier times; they did not have precedence now as far as Bnei Yisrael were concerned.
See below, 15:25:155 . But why did the Sheva Mitzvos Bnei Noach need to be re-stated at this time? See Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 217, to Avos 5:1) - Adam was commanded these Mitzvos immediately upon his being created; they were part and parcel of his creation, and through these Mitzvos he became an "Adam." Likewise, the 613 Mitzvos are the completion of Yisrael. Thus we understand why before Yisrael accepted the 613 Mitzvos of the Torah , they first had to accept the 7 Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.
Rashi writes: "At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah... Dinim (monetary laws)." But Rashi, at the opening to Parshas Mishpatim (21:1), writes that the Dinim were given at Sinai!
Gur Aryeh: This poses no contradiction; the Dinim were stated at Marah, and again at Sinai 1 -- as was Kibud Av va'Em.
Especially in light of Gur Aryeh above (15:25:3.4:2) - any command that preceded Har Sinai was not yet called 'a Mitzvah of the Torah.'
Rashi writes: "At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah... Shabbos, Parah Adumah, and Dinim." Why these sections in particular; what is their significance?
Gur Aryeh #1: These Mitzvos would be a sample of Torah learning; see above, 15:25:3.3:1 . 1
Gur Aryeh #2 (to Devarim 5:16): 4 types of Mitzvos 2 were given to Yisrael at this juncture; a. Chukim, which have no revealed reason at all (e.g. Parah Adumah); b. Mitzvos that are understandable (Mekubalos) - once they are recorded in the Torah, their reason is clear (e.g. Shabbos); c. Mitzvos that are logical (Muskalos) - we would know their rationale even had they not been given (e.g. Dinim); d. Mitzvos that the person himself wants to fulfill (Tiv'iyos) - due to the mercy inherent in his character (e.g. Kibud Av va'Em). Hashem tested Yisrael regarding [fulfillment of] the first three types; 3 each type has a different reason why a person might rationalize their non-fulfillment. 4
Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch 45, p. 138): The Mitzvos of Shabbos and Kibud Av va'Em are due to the initial Creation. Shabbos testifies that Hashem created the world; and Kibud Av va'Em reminds us that Hashem created Adam in particular, as the primary aspect of Creation. Observance of these Mitzvos brings us to recognition of Hashem, the Creator of the world and of Man. 5
Gur Aryeh (to Devarim 5:16): The three Mitzvos that Rashi lists are not self-evident. Kal va'Chomer that Kibud Av va'Em was also stated here at Marah; it is a Mitzvah that logic dictates.
Elsewhere, Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 23, to Avos 1:1) divides Mitzvos into three categories - a. Mishpatim - with known logical reasons; b. Chukim - the reasons for which were not revealed; c. Mitzvos - We can arrive at their reasons through study of Torah. (Corresponding to these three, Anshei Kneses Ha'Gedolah admonished us to judge patiently and carefully; to create safeguards for the Torah, and to establish many students towards its study - respectively.) Maharal (ibid. p.22 ) aligns that Mishnah with the three Midos of Chochmah, Binah, and Da'as; also see Rav Hartman's notes in the Mechon Yerushalayim edition of Gur Aryeh. Compare to Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 48, p. 150) where he categorizes the Torah as Edos, Chukim, and Mishpatim.
As above (15:25:3.3:2 ), Kibud Av va'Em was not intended as a test.
Gur Aryeh (ibid.): One could rationalize non-observance of the Chukim; saying that he knows of no reason he should keep them. Even if he believes that Hashem, Who gave the Chukim, knows their reason; one might question the Mishpatim (monetary laws), that based on his own reasoning the law should be otherwise. One also might claim that the reason the Torah gives for the Mitzvos Mekubalos (i.e. Shabbos) does not resonate with him. Hence, in order to fully test Bnei Yisrael's willingness to observe the Mitzvos, all three types were necessary. (Kibud Av va'Em was taught here for other reasons, as above.)
Maharal (ibid., beg. Ch. 41): Kibud Av va'Em relates to Kavod of Hashem; because a person is an effect (Alul), he must respect his cause (Ilah) - meaning Hashem, as well as one's own father and mother. After we were commanded about Shabbos - to recognize Hashem as the Prime Cause, meaning that the world is not here by chance - we were commanded about Kibud Av va'Em - our specific cause, that as individuals we are also not here in the world just by chance. See Maharal further (ibid. beg. Ch. 36).
Rashi writes: "'At Marah, He gave them a few sections of the Torah...." According to R' Elazar ha'Moda'i (in the Mechilta), the term "Chok" refers to the prohibition of Arayos. Why are Arayos called "Chok"?
Maharal #1 (Derech Chayim p. 23, to Avos 1:1): The reason for the prohibition of Arayos is not known to us. That is why Chazal had to enact various safeguards against indecent conduct, as well as Sheniyos l'Arayos. 1
Maharal #2 (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ha'Bushah Ch. 2, p. 202): The term "Chok" means designated bounds or limitations. 2 Hashem emplaced limitations on whom we may marry; and violation of the laws of Arayos encroaches upon that set boundary. 3
A second degree of forbidden relatives - see Yevamos 21a. Rabbinic safeguards apply especially to Chukim; see the preceding question (15:25:155:2* ). Also see Gur Aryeh to the following Pasuk (15:26:1.1:1).
As Maharal writes in Gur Aryeh - see 15:25:3.1:1 above.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, Intro #1, p. 4): "The Sod of Arayos... is the order within existence, and of its connections... Hashem arranged, in His wisdom, that this one is forbidden [in marriage] with that one... All Arayos are, in essence, distancing oneself from matters with which connection is improper - such that each entity remains within its own Chok and boundary ... That is why the Arayos are called a 'Chok.'" As explained above (15:25:3.1:1 4
), "Chok" means something set or established. Also see Maharal (Nesivos Olam Vol. 2, Nesiv Yir'as Hashem Ch. 4, p. 33).
