Achron Shel Pesach

The final days of Pesash do not seem to have their own Avodah, but the Nes of Krias Yam Suf would appear to be a major theme of the Yom Tov. Absent a defining Teffilah, Mitzvah, or even unique Minhag related to this Nes—one that obviously played a major role in our survival as a nation—it can be difficult to understand what we are supposed to learn from it. How is Krias Yam Suf supposed to inform our approach to these days of Pesach, and what lesson are we to take from the Nes into our lives as Yom Tov departs? Perhaps if we look to the Krias Hatorah that the Rabanan were Misaken for Shvii Shel Pesach, the day on which the Nes took place, we can answer these pressing questions. L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah 6T7JKNÑ`````1 L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah K#J LB The Leining for this day, unsurprisingly, is the Parsha of Krias Yam Suf itself as well as Shiras HaYam. However, wen the Gemarah in Megillah provides a shorthand to remember the Leining for each day of Pesach, the word used for the seventh day is “Shalach”, telling us that we should begin the Leining at the beginning of Parshas Beshalach. Now, the actual Nes of Krias Yam Suf takes place much later in the Parsha, but we start from the very beginning of Beshalach nonetheless. It would seem, then, that there is an important message to be found in the Pessukim at the very beginning of the Parsha, which is specifically applicable to this day of Yom Tov.

That said, within the first few Pessukim in the Parsha, there is one that seems somewhat out of place, but is perhaps included to teach us an important lesson.

Parshas Beshalach begins by discussing the events immediately following Yetzias Mitzrayim, Beschalach Pharaoh Es HaAm. The Torah tells us of the path of travel that Hashem chose for Klal Yisroel, avoiding a route that would spark immediate warfare, an prospect which could have detrimental effects on the morale of the newly freed nation. Nevertheless it seems that Bnei Yisroel was prepared for the possibility of eventual war, as the Torah tells us “VaCahmushim Alu Bnei Yisroel M’Eretz Mitzrayim”, which Rashi explains to mean that they left Mitzrayim bearing arms. All of these Pessukim discuss the present situation of Klal Yisroel: the preparation and events of the first few hours of Cheirus.

It is the next Passuk that is somewhat curious: “VaYikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo”, when Moshe left Mitzrayim he was carrying the Atzmos Yosef, “Ki Hashbeah Hishbiah Es Bnei Yisroel Leimor…” because Yosef HaTzaddik was Mashbiah Bnei Yisroel, inducing them to promise that when they left Mitzrayim his remains would travel with them, to be brought to Kevurah in Eretz Yisroel.

The first question we must ask is why these words appear here. The Torah is discussing the way that Hashem arranged matters so that Bnei Yisroel could travel with relative peace of mind—why is it now important to tell us Moshe Rabbeinu taking the Atzmos Yosef? In fact, it seems that there is better place for the Torah to the fact that Moshe Rabbeinu did so.

The Gemara in Sota speaks of the Chavivus HaMitzvos of Moshe Rabbeinu: “Bah U’Re’eh Kamma Chavivos Mitzvos Al Moshe Rabbeinu SheKol Yisroel Kulan NisAsek BiBizah V’Hu Nisasek B’Mitzvah.” We can see how important and beloved Mitzvos were to Moshe Rabbeinu, says the Gemara, because in the hours preceding Yetzias Mitzrayim, when all of Klal Yisroel was busy relieving the Mitzriyim of their Klei Kesef U’Klei Zahav, Moshe Rabbeinu found himself involved in a Mitzvah. The Gemara is, of course, referring to the Mitzvah spoken about in our Passuk: VaYikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo. Indeed the ensuing discussion on the Gemara isx about how exactly Moshe Rabbeinu went about locating and summoning the Atzmos Yosef.

We may have assumed, in any case, that the discussion of Moshe Rabbeinu and the Atzmos Yosef belonged earlier, prior to Yetzias Mitzrayim, when these actions actually occurred, but this Gemarah makes the question even stronger. If there is an important lesson in Chavivus HaMitzvos to be learned from the exalted focus of Moshe Rabbeinu, in contrast to that of the rest of Klal Yisroel, should the two not be adjacent to one another? This Gemara would strongly suggest that the Torah tell us about the Atzmos Yosef when discussing Bizas Mitzrayim, but it does not. Rather, the Torah waits until Parshas Beshalach, after Yetzias Mitzrayim, to mention that Moshe was bearing the Atzmos Yosef. Why? What is the message? As is often the case, however, if we look closely at the Divrei HaRishonim, the answer to our question becomes clear even as they may not raise it directly.

In his Pirush on the words “VaYikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef”, after citing the Gemara in Sota regarding the Chavivus HaMitzvah of Moshe Rabbeinu, Rabbeinu Bachya writes: “U’mitaam Mah SheDarshu Chazal B’Zecus Yosef Nikra HaYam.” Besides the Mitzvah and the Shavuah, says Rabbei Bachuya, there was another reason to take the Atzmos Yosef: Chazal tell us that they had a direct effect on Krias Yam Suf. This may help us understand why the Torah chose to speak about the Atzmos Yosef here, in Parshas Beshalach: they are similar to the Klei Zayin, tools of war, that Bnei Yisroel had with them, as they too ensured the safe travels of Bnei Yisroel in the Midbar. Just as they could not face their foes without adequate arms, we could not approach the Yam Suf without the protection of the Atzmos Yosef.

If this is the case, that the Passuk is brought at the beginning of Beshalach to hint at the role of Atzmos Yosef in Krias Yam Suf, it would certainly behoove us to understand the connection between the two.

Rabbeinu Bachaya refers to a Medrash in Beraishis Rabba that tells us “B’Zecus Yosef Nikra HaYam”, which is learned from the fact that the Passuk in Tehillim, in the Kapital of “B’Tzeis Yisroel M’Mitzrayim” says “HaYam Ra’ah VaYanos”, and the same word is used when Yosef escaped the temptation of Eishes Potifar: “VaYanas VaYetzei HaChutzah.” This connection is not a mere “Gezeiras Shav”, based on the appearance of the word “VaYanas” in both Pessukim, however, as can be seen from the Divrei Chazal that explain the Passuk in Tehillim. Because the Passuk implies that at the time of Krias Yam Suf the Yam “saw” something that cause it to split, the Medrash Tehillim offers a few opinions as to what the Yam saw. Among the explanations, we find a reference to Yosef Hatzaddik: “Ra’ah Arono Shel Yosef Yored L’Yam”. The Yam saw the Aron of Yosef HaTzadik, so to speak, and that is what cause it to split.

It seems then that it was not just the Zechus of Yosef that caused the Yam to split but the presence of his Aron, containing his Atzamos, at the Yam which allowed the Nes to occur. It is important to note that although the Medrash does bring an opinion that Yam did not wish to split and allow Bnei Yisroel to pass, that account comes later in the Medrash—according to the opinions that the Atzmos Yosef caused the Yam to split, they were the primary cause of Krias Yam Suf and not just an answer to the claims of the Yam.

While it is now clear that the Atzmos Yosef had were directly related to Krias Yam Suf, there are two basic questions that can be asked on these Divrei Chazal. First, the use of the word VaYanos to illustrate this connection is notable. We know that the Maseh Tzidkus of Yosef on that day was beyond our comprehension, and had untold ramifications on all Klal Yisroel for Doros, but Chazal seem to emphasize the fact that Yosef ran away, VaYanos VaYetzei HaChutzah, which took place after his initial success in overcoming the Nisayon. Sforno on these words explains that Yosef ran out of the room to avoid further temptation by the Yetzer Harah. We see then that the act of running was somewhat secondary, yet it appears from Chazal that it was this action that was the Zechus for Krias Yam Suf. In fact, the Medrash Tehillim tells us that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to the Yam: “Yanos Mipnei HaNos”, meaning that the Yam should run, so to speak, in the face of he who ran, Yosef. Clearly, then it was the fact that Yosef “ran” which cause the Yam to split. What can we learn from this?

Second, why were the Atzmos Yosef themselves necessary? Why couldn’t the Yam split in his Zechus without “seeing” the Aron of Yosef? The Passuk and Medrash both imply that it was only after “HaYam Ra’ah” that “Vayanos” took place. What was added by the fact that the Atzmos Yosef were there? Why couldn’t the Zechus of this massive Maseh Tzidkus itself be enough without corporal representation?

Perhaps the answer lies not in the fact that Yosef ran, but in how he was able to do so.

The Medrash Rabba on the words “VaYanos VaYetzei HaChutzah” says “Kafatz B’Zechus Avos”, Yosef jumped, so to speak, with the Zechus Avos. The Drasha brought to support this idea is that the word HaChutzah, which is used here, is also used by the Bris Bein HaBesarim, where the Passuk tells us “VaYetzei Oso Hachutza”, that Hashem took Avrohom Avinu outside. Though this Medrash is perhaps not the most difficult to understand on its surface, we must always try to understand what Chazal really meant to teach us with their words.

The Medrash in Parshas Lech Lecha, on the words “VaYetzei Oso Hachutza” is bothered by the addition of a “Heh HaYediah” at the beginning of the word “Hachutza”—this usually implies a specific place or item, a concept that doesn’t really applies to the outdoors. The Medrash therefore explains: “Hotzio L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”, that Avrohom was lifted above the entire world, including the Rakia. In this way the word “Hachutza” refers to a specific place—the area above the Rakia.

R’ Shlomo Kluger, in Torah Shlomo, explains that Avrohom was taken “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah” to exhibit the fact that Klal Yisroel exists above the Mazalos. Based on the Medrash in VaYeshev, however, it appears that the word “Hachutza” used with regard to Yosef is connected to the “Hachutza” of Avorohom Avinu, leading R’ Shlomo to ask: what does the “Hachutza” of Yosef refer to? The Passuk in VaYeshev seems understandable, Yosef ran outside of Potifar’s home, what is added by the “Heh HaYediah” of Yosef in a similar way to that of Avrohom Avinu?

R’ Shlomo answers this question by examining what that Yosef achieved in those moments.

We know that the actions that Yosef Hatzaddik took at that time were L’Maalah M’Derech HaTeva, he resisted a temptation in a way that was literally super-human. In fact, explains R’ Shlomo, if a Malach Elokim were to come down to this earth, he would be unable to overcome the Nisayon of Yosef Hatzadddik. There is only one place that is safe from a Taivah of this magnitude: “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”. Thus the Medrash is telling us that when Yosef avoided Aveira and ran outside,”, he had brought himself to a place outside the physical world, and in this way he experienced the “HaChutzah” of Avrohom Avinu, as he too was in a Matzav of “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”.

What then of the words in the Medrash “Kafatz B’Zechus Avos”? Why didn’t the Medrash tells us that the word “HaChutzah” refers to the area “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”? Why does the Medrash mention only the Zechus Avos?

The answer, R’ Shlomo concludes, is that Yosef was only able to achieve that which he did, to rise above temptation to the level that he did, is because of his Zechus Avos. Yosef’s actions did not take place in a vacuum—he reached the heights that he did because of the Zechus of Avrohom Avinu, who was himself lifted into the area L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah by Hakaodsh Bauch Hu. Thus, the Medrash is telling us that Yosef acted in a way that figuratively placed him L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah, where the Yetzer Harah has no Shlita, only because he was “Kafatz B’Zechus Avos”.

With this in mind, we can understand the Zechus of Yosef that brought about Krias Yam Suf.

The Medrash tells us that Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to the Yam: “Yanos Mipnei HaNos”. The Yam was told that the nation which now approached its shores was like no other: the Zechus Avos they possessed had the capability to propel them “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”, as occurred in the case of Yosef. Covered in the Refesh V’Tit of the Kur HaBarzel, sullied as they were by years of Galus, it may not have been apparent that these Yidden were capable of being “Kafatz B’Zechus Avos”, and so the Ribbono Shel Olam employed the Zechus of Yosef Hatzaddik, so to speak, to indicate that those hoping to cross through the Yam were party to these same Zechuyos.

Perhaps this is why the physical appearance of Arono Shel Yosef was necessary.

The Torah tells us: “VaYikach Moshe Es Atzmos Yosef Imo Ki Hashbeah Hishbiah Es Bnei Yisroel Leimor…” Rashi explains that Yosef was made his brothers take a Shavuah that they would in turn be Mashbia their own children so that those leaving Mitzrayim many generations later would remember to take his Aron with them. It emerges, then, that the fact that Arono Shel Yosef traveled with Bnei Yisroel was itself an act of connection to previous Doros—a fuflimient of a promise made from father to son over hundreds of years. Although we had perhaps not reached the level of Yosef Hatzaddik, we showed that the Mesorah was alive, that we were connected to our Avos and they to theirs—proof that the Zechus Avos that gave Yosef his abilities could be used by those standing at the brink of the Yam as well.

Maybe this is what Chazal wished to teach us by including this Passuk in the Leining of Shvii Shel Pesach. The first days of Yom Tov are of course focused on the Mitzvah of “V’Higadita L’Binchaand our own roles in the transmission of the Mesorah. On these last days of Yom Tov we can also concentrate on the benefit of this Mesorah: if we are Kafatz B’Zechus Avos, our capacity for success in Ruchnias is unlimited and we too can reach a place above Aveira and temptation, joinging the ranks of those who have journeyed “L’Maalah M’Kipas HaRakiah”.