Month: February 2023

How not to Cook a Baby Goat

Posted by

4

By Ariella Casey

Strange Laws…Whose?

Perhaps my favorite minefield, if you can call it a minefield, is located in the back yard of churches and synagogues. What? You ask. What is buried there? What–besides corpses in old church graveyards or worn out holy books in a Jewish genizah? Believe me you can find beliefs and systems of belief there too!

There are many traditions and man-made laws in the religious world, some which have been passed down by tradition and some which have morphed into creeds that have very little likeness to what was originally taught.

In a way these things are like grenades. Here in Israel we are warned of mine fields of still active explosives.

There are traditions, like mine fields that may have been buried for centuries and nobody really knows why they are accepted and even feared. Why have they turned into something for which they were never purposed? And how do we get back to basics in order to put them back in the genizah or cemetery as fully discarded trash or on the other hand, resurrect them, polish them up, remodel and set them up, if you would, on their own foundation for all to behold?

And what is the tool that qualifies for discovering and clarifing in this search in the minefield of claimed truth? If we have nothing else, we have the Sacred Scriptures, which in their original language is of much more value than any other modern tool. And basically, the Torah is the Capstone by which all must be measured. It is sort of like what the prophets Zechariah and Isaiah call a plumet or plumb line.

Zec 4:10 For who hath despised the day of small things? Yea, they shall rejoice even those seven — and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel: these are the eyes of YHVH, which run to and fro in the whole earth.”

Isa 28:17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

And King David in the book of Psalms calls them a lamp.

Psa 119:105 your word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

The book of Proverbs uses the same symbolism:

Pro 6:23 For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light…

So how dare anyone use the Bible to disprove the teachings of the Sages? Who are we anyway? Can someone who has never been to Yeshiva understand anything about truth?

Perhaps we should see what the Bible says about truth. Does it need the ancient Sages and accredited Yeshivas to teach its truths? And is it possible to serve God by following the simple basic Torah?

Deut 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

If we look at Jewish law and scrutinize it, we can often find that a closer look reveals something that the Torah either does not state specifically or does not state at all. Lets take our lamp and plumb line to one of the strictest observances in Judaism– the teaching and practice of not mixing milk and meat. Where does it come from and could it possibly be taken out of context or exaggerated?

Exodus 23:19 The first of the firstfruits of your land you shalt bring into the house of YHVH your God. You shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּֽוֹ

The same law appears in Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21.

Exo 34:26 “The first of the firstfruits of your land your shalt bring unto the house of YHVH your God. You shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.”

Deu 14:21 “Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in your gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto YHVH your God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.”

Seems pretty simple, just don’t cook a baby goat in it’s own mother’s milk. This is the conclusion I come to by looking at the simple text in the Torah. But later we will take a look at something deeper regarding this command. I wonder if it is about a literal boiling, or cooking or something deeper?

Notice that the first two references regarding this law come right after the command to bring the firstfruits. The third reference comes after “for thou art a holy people unto YHVH your God.

But from this simple injunction there have been added many layers of fences—precautions, ways to keep from breaking the law…But do any of them actually fit? Are they actually necessary? What are they? These are general rules I have come across in my friendship with Orthodox Jews. Where did they come from and how have they developed?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the YHVH your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)

  • …do not cook a calf in milk of any animal, nor a goat, nor a chicken, nor a turkey…
  • …do not eat a cold cut with cheese even though it was not cooked together
  • …do not use a pan that has been used for milk to cook any meat of any kind, other than fish
  • …do not eat meat on a plate that has had milk products at times
  • …do not eat meat products with milk products at the same meal nor even up to the next meal
  • …a space of 6 hours must be placed between milk and meat
  • …do not wash dairy and meat dishes in the same water nor keep them in the same cupboard, nor use the same silverware to eat both. Separate dishes must be used for meat and milk meals.
  • …do not set a milk dish on a counter where meat has been prepared.

What the commandment does not say: (pretty much all of the above):

A chicken or turkey does not come from an animal that gives milk, that is perhaps the most far fetched and even the well known Jewish Sage and commentator Rashi “expressed the opinion that the reference to mother’s milk must exclude fowl from the regulation, since only mammals produce milk.” Wikipedia

The Torah says nothing of eating milk and meat items at the same meal. Nor does it say anything about mixing the milk of one animal with a with the meat of another species. It doesn’t even say that milk from one cow cannot be used with the meat from another cow’s calf, or goat meat of one with milk of another goat.

If we look even closer, we see that it says only to not cook a kid in his own mother’s milk. So a bottle of goat’s milk from a different farm would not be a problem to use in cooking.

It says nothing of using cheese or yogurt or sour cream at the same meal, or even on the same sandwich with a piece of meat. There is nothing about a glass of milk drunk at the same meal.

And since it states specifically “a kid” then cooking an adult animal in milk would not break the commandment even if it was the milk from it’s own mother, but then how would anyone know where the milk came from?

So, yes, here we see many fences have been added to a simple command apparently just to keep us safe from disobedience to the law, which in this case seems to be very obscure, especially when interpreted the way it has been in the rabbinic sense. Are we indeed serious at all about not adding to the commandment or changing what God says?

What if this whole commandment has been misinterpreted, no, I do not mean from Hebrew to English, I mean the underlying meaning of the verse. What is the concept? Here I give credit to my Jewish friend Batya Shemesh (a pseudonym) who told me she learned this from her father who was an Orthodox rabbi.

According to this explanation, the law is talking about a very young kid that is still nursing, that is still not weaned. You don’t take that nursing kid in the sight of it’s mother and kill it and cook it. After all, it is in it’s mother’s milk if it has not been weaned! Could this make more sense from the stand point of compassion, to not take the baby in the milk stage, (still not weaned)—not to take it away from it’s mother who has an emotional caring for her young? And that could be applied to not taking baby birds from the nest in the sight of the mother bird. By the way that is an actual law of the Torah…see Deut. 22:6-7:

“If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the mother together with her young. Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.”

Is this not the same principle? The principle of not causing unnecessary pain even to animals?

How it morphed and what it may have originally meant:

As we saw above, even the famous Rashi did not go for the idea that meat from fowl was included, yet it has become the norm. A lot of history and voting by the majority has gone to create the law as it exists today, even though it has nothing to do with what was originally meant.

“Obadiah Sforno and Solomon Luntschitz, rabbinic commentators living in the late Middle Ages, both suggested that the law referred to a specific foreign [Canaanite] religious practice, in which young goats were cooked in their own mothers’ milk, aiming to obtain supernatural assistance to increase the yield of their flocks.” Wikipedia

And according to a Blue Letter Bible commentator:

“The true sense of this passage seems to be that assigned by Dr. Cudworth, from a manuscript comment of a Karaïte Jew. ‘It was a custom with the ancient heathens, when they had gathered in all their fruits, to take a kid, and boil it in the dam’s milk; and then in a magical way, to go about and sprinkle all their trees, and fields, and gardens, and orchards with it, thinking by these means, that they should make them fruitful, and bring forth more abundantly in the following year. Wherefore, God forbad his people, the Jews, at the time of their in-gathering, to use any such superstitious or idolatrous rite.’” Exo 34:26; Deu 14:21; Pro 12:10; Jer 10:3 BLB

So I would conclude that whether this was an ancient pagan practice used as magic to convince that people’s god or gods to bless their crops, or whether it was actually a law of kindness given to keep Israel humble and kind and to show mercy even to such as a baby goat–the principles shown, even from simply refraining to boil a kid in it’s own mother’s milk, are a far cry from what today has morphed into an insane separation of that which is good from that which is good and requires a household to own at least two sets of dishes (I forgot, three sets, one for Pesach) and two sinks and separate cupboards in which to keep it separate.

Hashem must be shaking his head when he sees the extent people go to re-explaining what was meant to be simple and straight forward!

Treinta Piezas de Plata

Posted by

Treinta piezas de plata… Otro mal uso del contexto Bíblico

Entonces, ¿usted dice que su “Señor” fue vendido por treinta piezas de plata? No puedo discutir el hecho de que los cristianos lo afirmen o que esté escrito en el Nuevo Testamento, ¡pero no estoy impresionado con la supuesta prueba que conecta Mateo 26:15 con Zacarías 11-12-13!

Sí, he escuchado muchas “pruebas” sugeridas para la misión divina del “Señor” del cristianismo. Este tampoco funciona. Ya sabes, la historia: Judas Iscariote recibió 30 piezas de plata por la traición de su amo. Y para respaldar esta afirmación, se usa Zacarías 11:12-13.

Dice:

Y les dije: Si os parece bien, dadme mi precio; y si no, aguanta. Y pesaron por mi precio treinta piezas de plata. (¡Suena bastante convincente! Pero espera…)

Y me dijo el Señor: Echalo en el arca del tesoro, el buen precio que me han dado. Y tomé las treinta piezas de plata y las eché en el tesoro de la casa del Señor. (¡Sí, todavía suena bastante bien! Pero sigue leyendo…)

Averigüemos de dónde viene esto realmente.

En primer lugar, la versión KJV anterior del texto usa la palabra “precio” (שְׂכָרִי), que también según el hebreo Strong incluye los siguientes significados posibles:

שָׂכָר sâkâr, sierra-kawr’; de H7936; pago de contrato; concretamente, salario, pasaje, manutención; por implicación, compensación, beneficio:—alquiler, precio, recompensa(-ed), salario, valor.

Otras traducciones usan; alquiler, pago o tarifa aquí, entonces, ¿por qué se seleccionó la palabra “precio” para la KJV? Parece indicar que alguien está siendo comprado, pero ¿cuál es el contexto de Zacarías 11?

Si usamos el Tanakh para definir lo que está en Tanakh, en lugar de aplicar una pequeña cita extraída de su contexto original para dar credibilidad a una afirmación del Nuevo Testamento, tendremos una visión más completa de lo que realmente se dice. Así que retrocede e investiga el libro de Zacarías.

Zacarías 11 y mucho de la última parte de Zacarías está hablando de lo que iba a pasar con Israel y Judá por su desobediencia a su parte del pacto con YHVH que hicieron en Sinaí. Les muestra rompiendo este pacto, o y el voto de guardar el pacto que claramente se rompe significa que hay un precio que debe pagarse.

El precio por la ruptura de un voto para un hombre es de 50 siclos de plata. Para una mujer se valora en 30 piezas de plata en la Torá. ¡Sí! Es la cantidad que paga una mujer cuando hace y luego rompe un voto. Como dice el versículo siguiente, esto se paga a la tesorería del Templo. La valoración de su voto se muestra en Levítico 27:1-4:

El SEÑOR habló a Moisés, diciendo: 2 “Habla a los hijos de Israel y diles: Si alguno hace un voto especial al SEÑOR sobre el avalúo de personas, 3 entonces el avalúo de un varón de veinte años hasta sesenta años, cincuenta siclosa de plata, conforme al siclo del santuario. 4 Si la persona es mujer, la valoración será de treinta siclos.

Este es el contexto de la profecía de Zacarías 11:12-13:

“Y les dije: Si os parece bien, dadme mi salario; y si no, aguanta. Y pesaron por mi salario treinta piezas de plata. Y me dijo el Señor: Echalo en el arca del tesoro, el buen precio que me han dado. Y tomé las treinta piezas de plata y las eché en el tesoro de la casa del Señor.

Así que la cantidad de treinta es la valoración del voto de una mujer. ¿Por qué una mujer? Jesús no era una mujer. Entonces, desde el principio, el contexto no se ajusta al de la traición de Jesús. Pero algo funciona aquí; si miramos los otros capítulos de Zacarías podemos ver que Judá e Israel están representados como dos mujeres. Por ejemplo:

Zacarías 5:6-9:

Y yo dije: “¿Qué es?” Él dijo: “Esta es la canasta que está saliendo”. Y él dijo: Esta es su iniquidad en toda la tierra. 7 Y he aquí, la cubierta de plomo estaba levantada, ¡y había una mujer sentada en la canasta! 8 Y él dijo: “Esto es maldad”. Y él la metió de nuevo en la canasta, y descargó el peso de plomo en la abertura.

9Entonces alcé los ojos y miré, y he aquí, ¡dos mujeres que se adelantaban! El viento estaba en sus alas. Tenían alas como las alas de una cigüeña, y levantaron la canasta entre la tierra y el cielo. 10 Entonces le dije al ángel que hablaba conmigo: “¿A dónde llevan la canasta?” 11 Me dijo: “A la tierra de Sinar, para edificarle una casa. Y cuando esté preparado, pondrán la cesta allí sobre su base. (La profecía anterior de Judá siendo llevado a Babilonia puede parecer vaga si uno no está familiarizado con Zacarías).

Jeremías 6:2:

He comparado a la hija de Sion con una mujer hermosa y delicada.

Lamentaciones 2:1

“¿Qué cosa tomaré por testigo de ti? ¿A qué te compararé, oh hija de Jerusalén? ¿Qué te igualaré para consolarte, oh virgen hija de Sion? porque grande es tu quebrantamiento como el mar: ¿quién te podrá sanar?

Aquí y en muchos otros lugares, Israel o Judá se representa como una mujer/mujeres. Entonces, si una mujer, aquí prefigurada como Israel como una sola entidad, hace un voto y lo rompe, el valor es de 30 siclos de plata. Entonces HaShem está reclamando que ella necesita pagar por el voto roto, su voto de ser fiel al pacto que hizo con YHVH en el Sinaí. Y este dinero es para ser entregado a la tesorería del Templo, no como precio o pago de un soborno por la traición de Jesús, ¡no! Recuerda que Zacarías dice “dame mi precio (o pago o tarifa)”. (lo que me debes por romper un voto.)

Y es claro que el voto del pacto se está rompiendo en Zacarías 11, porque dice:

contra 10. Y tomé mi vara, la Belleza, y la corté en dos, para quebrantar mi pacto que había hecho con todo el pueblo.

Vs. 14: Entonces corté mi otro cayado, es decir, los lazos, para quebrantar la hermandad entre Judá e Israel.

Entonces, la historia del Nuevo Testamento de la traición de Jesús por parte de uno de sus discípulos no se ajusta a la profecía de Zacarías 11, que es claramente una profecía de la ruptura del pacto por parte de la “mujer” figurativa que representa a Israel.

¡Seamos cuidadosos en el uso libre de los textos bíblicos para mantenerlos en contexto antes de construir una casa sobre arena y adorar un dogma que no tiene fundamento!

Como siempre,

Ariella Tiqvah

Si disfrutaste mi publicación, ayúdenme en compartirla, y si quieres seguir mi blog, me ayudará a salir mas al público con mis ideas. Gracias por tu ayuda.

Thirty Silver Shekels

Posted by

1

Thirty Silver Shekels…Another misuse of context

So, you say that your “Lord” was sold for thirty pieces of silver? I can’t argue with the fact that Christians claim it or that it is written in the New Testament, but I am not impressed with the supposed proof that connects Matthew 26:15 with Zechariah 11-12-13!

Yes, I have heard a lot of suggested “proofs” for the divine mission of Christianity’s “Lord”. This one again bites the dust. You know, the story: Judas Iscariot was paid 30 silver pieces for the betrayal of his master. And to back up this claim, Zechariah 11:12-13 is used.

It says:

וָאֹמַר אֲלֵיהֶם אִם־טוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם הָבוּ שְׂכָרִי וְאִם־לֹא חֲדָלוּ וַיִּשְׁקְלוּ אֶת־שְׂכָרִי שְׁלֹשִׁים כָּֽסֶף׃

“And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.” (Sounds pretty convincing right! But hold on…)

וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֵלַ֗י הַשְׁלִיכֵ֙הוּ֙ אֶל־הַיּוֹצֵ֔ר אֶ֣דֶר הַיְקָ֔ר אֲשֶׁ֥ר יָקַ֖רְתִּי מֵעֲלֵיהֶ֑ם וָֽאֶקְחָה֙ שְׁלֹשִׁ֣ים הַכֶּ֔סֶף וָֽאַשְׁלִ֥יךְ אֹת֛וֹ בֵּ֥ית יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־הַיּוֹצֵֽר׃

And the Lord said to me, Cast it into the treasury: the goodly price that I was priced at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury in the house of the Lord. (Yes, still sounding pretty good! But read on…)

Let us find where this really comes from.

First of all, the above KJV rendition of the text uses the word “price” (שְׂכָרִי), which also according to the Hebrew Strong’s includes the following possible meanings:

שָׂכָר sâkâr, saw-kawr’; from H7936; payment of contract; concretely, salary, fare, maintenance; by implication, compensation, benefit:—hire, price, reward(-ed), wages, worth.

Other translations use; hire, payment or fee here, so why was the word “price” selected for the KJV? It seems to indicate that someone is being purchased, yet what is the context of Zechariah 11?

If we use the Tanakh to define that which is in Tanakh, rather than applying one small quote taken out of it’s original context to give credibility to a New Testament claim, we will have a more thorough view of what is actually being said. So back up and research the book of Zechariah.

Zechariah 11 and much of the latter part of Zechariah is speaking of what was going to happen to Israel and Judah for their disobedience to their part of the covenant with YHVH which they made at Sinai. It shows them breaking this covenant, or and the vow to keep the covenant which is clearly broken means there is a price that must be paid.

The price for the breaking of a vow for a man is 50 silver shekels. For a woman it is valued at 30 pieces of silver in the Torah. Yes! It is the amount a woman pays when she makes and then breaks a vow. As the following verse says, this is paid to the Temple treasury. The valuation of her vow is shown in Leviticus 27:1-4:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2“Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, If anyone makes a special vow to the LORD involving the valuation of persons,3 then the valuation of a male from twenty years old up to sixty years old shall be fifty shekelsaof silver, according to the shekel of the sanctuary. 4 If the person is a female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels.

This is the context of the prophecy of Zechariah 11:12-13:

“And I said to them, If you think good, give me my hire; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said to me, Cast it into the treasury: the goodly price that I was priced at by them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them into the treasury in the house of the Lord.”

So the amount of thirty is the valuation for a woman’s vow. Why a woman? Jesus was not a woman. So, from the get-go the context does not fit that of the betrayal of Jesus. But something does work here; if we look at the other chapters of Zechariah we can see that Judah and Israel are represented as two women. For example:

Zechariah 5:6-9:

And I said, “What is it?” He said, “This is the basketc that is going out.” And he said, “This is their iniquityd in all the land.” 7And behold, the leaden cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting in the basket! 8And he said, “This is Wickedness.” And he thrust her back into the basket, and thrust down the leaden weight on its opening.

9Then I lifted my eyes and saw, and behold, two women coming forward! The wind was in their wings. They had wings like the wings of a stork, and they lifted up the basket between earth and heaven. 10Then I said to the angel who talked with me, “Where are they taking the basket?” 11He said to me, “To the land of Shinar, to build a house for it. And when this is prepared, they will set the basket down there on its base.” (The above prophecy of Judah being taken to Babylon may seem vague if one is not familiar with Zechariah,)

Jeremiah 6:2:

I have likened the daughter of Zion to a comely and delicate woman.

Lamentations 2:13:

“What thing shall I take to witness for thee? what thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Zion? for thy breach is great like the sea: who can heal thee?”

Here and in many other places, Israel or Judah is represented as a woman/women. So if a woman—here prefigured as Israel as a single entity, makes a vow and it is broken, the value is 30 silver shekels. So HaShem is claiming that she needs to pay for the broken vow, her vow to be faithful to to the covenant she made withYHVH at Sinai. And this money is to be given to the Temple treasury, not as the price or payment of a bribe for the betrayal of Jesus, no! Remember Zechariah says “give me my price (or payment or fee).” (what you owe me for breaking a vow.)

And it is clear that the vow of the covenant is being broken in Zechariah 11, for it says:

vs.10. And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.

vs. 14: Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

So, the New Testament story of the betrayal of Jesus by one of his disciples does not fit the prophecy of Zechariah 11 which is clearly a prophecy of the breaking of the covenant by the figurative “woman” who represents Israel.

Let’s be careful in the free usage of Biblical texts to keep them in context before we build a house upon sand and worship a dogma that has no foundation!

As Always,

Ariella Tiqvah

If you enjoyed my post, please like and share, and if you care to follow my blog it will help me to get out there with my ideas. Thanks for you help.

Who Split the Sea? Nahshon, Moshe or …?

Posted by

5

Parsha Beshalach

Is it possible to understand the mysteries of the Torah and Tenakh today? With all the “enlightened” groups who claim certification for their knowledge of the truth, how can we really be sure? Jewish sages and Christian scholars have their approaches to truth. But are these trustworthy? How can anyone find anything?

If a purely scriptural approach is taken to understanding the Torah, using only the work of the prophets of Tenakh as commentaries, with a basic understanding of the original language, I believe that we will have a better understanding of the truths that were written long ago that still serve for our guidance today. History can at times be a reliable resource as long as it coincides with the sacred words of Tenakh. Much of what is claimed as history has been recreated by atheist scientists and evolutionists who have no use for the Creator of the Universe.

So let us plunge into some things written in the Parsha of the week, Exodus 13:17-17:16– Beshalach, named for the word in the first verse which means “sent out.”

We see the Children of Israel on their last day in the land of Egypt heading towards the Yam Suf–Sea of Reeds (today the Red Sea or Gulf of Aqaba). The reason the Torah gives for their journey to the Yam Suf is that God did not want them to see war which would have happened if they traveled through the land of the Philistines. This is interesting when we see the way they were placed into an apparent trap where Egypt could have easily done away with them or forced them to return to slavery. But יהוה did not want them to “see war” and that to me says He did not want them to fight a war, but that He wanted to fight for them in a clearly miraculous deliverance where He would completely destroy the armies of Egypt including Pharoah himself. And God wanted the credit for this. Israel could never say that they were delivered by their own hand. They were to be dependent on the Eternal and eventually learn to work with him, the human with the divine. Yet they were not ready…YET. And in this same parsha there is war, later with Amalek, and it is significant but that is for another time.

Many lessons can be learned from this telling of Israel’s escape from slavery. It was definitely a process of the mind. How does anyone go from being a slave to being a king? Examples of this in history, of tribes overcoming other tribes invariably show that a group of slaves will enslave everyone else when they come into power and this is precisely what God did NOT want to happen. His people were to be different, they were to be a just people, a light to the nations, a people able to rule the world under the supervision of the Almighty, to rule in equity and create Shalom. But Israel was not ready for that and unfortunately we are still not ready to take the lead in these matters. We are still allowing the nations to decide much of what we do as a nation. But let’s not lose the story of Beshalach.

Israel is camped at the shores of Yam Suf at “Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the sea”. Moshe has been told by יהוה that this situation is what will inspire Pharoah to go in after them (vs 3) for they will appear “trapped in the land.” When Israel sees that Pharoah is after them again with “all his horses and chariots”, the Torah says that they “were very frightened.” It also is the first time they claim it better to be slaves in Egypt than to die in the Wilderness.

But the view of Hashem here is a merciful God that understands the fears of His people. They were really just babes here, barely rescued from slavery by the last horrible plague which caused Pharoah to release them. God does not want them to do anything but to wait and see His salvation. Moshe says:

“Do not fear! Stand fast and see the salvation of יהוה that He will perform today, for as you have seen Egypt today, you shall not see them ever again! יהוה shall make war for you and you SHALL REMAIN SILENT.” Ex 14:13-14 (Note, there is no suggestion that Israel is going to do something on their own.)

There is a famous midrash used here about Nahshon a leader of the tribe of Judah. He supposedly rushes into the sea up to his nostrils before the waters part, but this is not what the Torah says, and in fact it is very misleading. It stands in the way of the truth about what the Almighty wants to teach us about the process of release from slavery. We must see that Israel was not ready to go ahead for many years, in fact 40 more years in the wilderness, when they finally step into the waters of the Jordan before they part.

So what happens now?

Moshe is commanded to stretch out his rod over the sea, but when does this happen, lets follow the story:

“Then יהוה said to Moshe, “Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward. And you lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it, so that the Israelites may march into the sea on dry ground. And I will stiffen the hearts of the Egyptians so that they go in after them; and I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his warriors, his chariots, and his riders.” Ex 14:15-17.

Notice here that it seems that יהוה is saying that they go forward immediately, but this is a preview of what is actually going to happen after the seabed becomes dry through the strong east wind that comes up.

So what comes first? It is as if יהוה tells Moshe what is going to happen, and then tells what happens. The events start in verse 19.

The pillar of cloud which has led the Israelites on their journey as a warm light at night and a shadow against the heat of the day, now moves itself to the back of the camp along with the Angel of Elohim, between Israel and the armies of Egypt.

“The messenger (Angel) of God, who had been going ahead of the Israelite army, now moved and followed behind them; and the pillar of cloud shifted from in front of them and took up a place behind them” vs 19

“and it came between the army of the Egyptians and the army of Israel. Thus there was the cloud with the darkness, and it cast a spell upon the night, so that the one could not come near the other all through the night.” vs 20

Egypt had experienced a spell of darkness earlier in the 9th plague. This happens again here so that they cannot come near to Israel. I wonder what they were thinking–-”hmmm…maybe we should get the hell outta here”…?)

“THEN Moshe held out his arm over the sea and יהוה drove back the sea with a strong east wind all that night, and turned the sea into dry ground. The waters were split, and the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left.” vs 21-22.

Notice the order of events lined up in the literal Torah reading. Nobody rushed into the water before the seabed was dried up. So much for Nahshon and his adventures!

And then Egypt pursues the Israelites into the sea, their chariot wheels come off and when they are well into the midst of the sea they are all drowned by the water which comes crashing down over them from the great walls on either side! What audacity! To think you can trick the Most High into letting you capture that which He has set free! What stupidity and blind obedience to Egypt and it’s sorcery!

But what is the story saying about the plans and mercy of יהוה? How much mercy was shown to Isreal in their own blind disbelief which is shown to be the result of serving Mitzraim! God was saying, don’t do anything! You would just mess it up! Just sit there and wait for me to do something stupendous!

It was not at all about human effort. The only thing Israel was to do was to get up and walk when the seabed became dry enough to pass over. Yes! It took some emunah on their part, but basically there was no alternative other than face death at the hands of the Egyptians. There is a dry escape path ahead, already prepared for them. Yes there are towering walls of water on each side, but what the heck, let’s MOVE forward!

After the experiences of the 10 plagues, the protection of the Almighty clearly providing everything for them, it would be nigh impossible to refuse to move forward. It was just a tiny tiny babystep that was required of them and they obeyed. As Israel gathered together on the far banks of the Yam Suf and Moshe stretched out his rod one more time, they saw their enemies for the last time, “dead on the seashore.”

“Thus יהוה delivered Israel that day from the Egyptians. Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the shore of the sea. And when Israel saw the wondrous power which יהוה had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared יהוה; they had faith in יהוה and in God’s servant Moses.” Ex. 14:30-31

And then they sang!

Halleluyah!

Ariella Tiqvah

If you enjoyed my post, please like and share, and if you care to follow my blog it will help to get out there with my ideas. Thanks for you help.