Parshah B’Shalach is Genesis 13:17-17:16, and is generally thought of as the Shabbat Shirah portion, the crossing of the Red Sea and the song on the other side. The parshah goes on afterwards to start the actual journey, with mannah and quail, and Joshua’s first battle. That battle (17:8-16), by the way, has one of the more memorable if inexplicable bits: Moses stands apart from the battle, and when he raises his hands, the Israelites win, and when he lowers them, they lose. But the battle goes on all day, so by the end of it he is sitting on a rock with Aaron and Hur on either side holding his hands up for him, and the Israelites win. If that’s a miracle of the Lord, what an odd way of doing it, and if it isn’t, what is it?
Anyway, there isn’t really a Moment of Decision in that, and besides I think Rabbi is a little tired of my picking the obscure bits and ignoring the main story, so I will ask about the Red Sea. Specifically, I’m thinking I will ask what happens if Moses doesn’t trust the Lord on this one and asks the Israelites to stand and fight. Remember, the Israelites are armed (13:18, and besides it’s implied in that battle story) and the Egyptians are not only demoralized and weakened by the Plagues, but have been hit with a pillar of cloud in the night, to prevent them getting a good start. And, of course, there’s the question: would the Lord have let the Israelites lose?
What do you think, Gentle Reader? If there had been a battle, instead of a miracle, would the Israelites still have been redeemed? And if they had, what sort of song would they have sung?
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
Moses stands apart from the battle, and when he raises his hands, the Israelites win, and when he lowers them, they lose.
Sounds to me like Moses has really bad BO, to which the Israelites have become accustomed in their travels, but which is powerful distractin’ to their enemies.
There seems to be a back-and-forth going on in this parasha, and, i believe, continuing into the next few, in which the Israelites are dubious about the Lord and go off and do their own thing, and the Lord says, “no, dudes, you need me in order to survive, no really.”
So, if they’d been able to fight the Egyptians in actual combat, it would have made it that much more difficult for the Lord to get his point across, even if he had been somehow instrumental in the battle, whereas it’s probably pretty clear to the Israelites that they did not personally part the Red Sea.
What if the Lord hadn’t used the Israelites as bait for a soggy Egyptian-trap? The translation you link to, at least, describes the Israelites walking between walls of water after the sea had closed on the Egyptians behind them, implying a reason other than “the miracle wouldn’t work that way” — what if the Lord had foregone drowning the Egyptians and stuck with just the decisive rescue?
…or should that be “had forewent?” I’m never quite sure how to parse that word.
Um, I don’t know anything about the Bible, or Judaism, but the thing with Moses’ hands, that’s an incredibly powerful image. It makes me think the success of the Israelites depends on their leaders, but the leaders can’t just stand alone, they need to support each other. Which I suppose is rather inspirational-postery, but then, I suppose a holy book is a reasonable and non-cheesy place for inspirational imagery. ::grin:: It’s so concrete… you can *feel* what it would be like to have to keep your hands raised *all day*, how heavy they would be and how you would just want to rest, or what it would be like to hold someone’s arm up, being opposite this other arm-holder, bracing the poor central fellow between you and sometimes just looking back and forth, yup, we’re still here. I mean, it takes this whole complicated thing and it makes it something physical. I am babbling, but good writing can have that effect. Maybe I should read more of this thing someday ::grin::.
Irilyth,
Moses smells! Heehee. The Amalekites mocking Moses’ hygiene may account for the Lord’s grudge against them, which is bizarrely vicious.
Chaos,
I agree, although you might say that the Lord is replacing the Jews’ dependence on Egypt with a dependence on Him (or Her) before slowly moving them off to the Holy Land. I must say, if you can imagine reading the story for the first time, when the Lord says ‘go back towards Egypt for a few days’, you’ve got to be thinking ‘NNNOOOOoooo!’
Dan P,
Hm. Past perfect of forego is fahrfegnügen, isn’t it? No, I think it’s pretty clear that it is a soggy-Egyptian trap from the beginning. The Lord specifically sets the whole thing up, plagues and all, to demolish the Egyptians in every way. It’s kinda personal. I’m uncomfortable with it, myself, but then, maybe that’s why the rabbis have us spill out some wine, as acknowledgement that the Egyptians got a pretty raw deal out of it. I mean, if the point was just to get the Israelites to the Holy Land, couldn’t there have been just one plague—DARKNESS—and when the Egyptians could see again, look, no Jews!
Amy,
Actually, I had never thought about it in that metaphoric light, and you’re right. I tend to think of it as silly and unnecessary, but as a one-image shot of what Moses is about to go through, it’s pretty terrific.
Thanks,
-V.
I suppose the drowning of the Egyptians has always seemed to me to be the thin end of the wedge towards the particularly bloodthirsty period in the Lord’s guardianship that comes later. There’s an argument to be made that even the killing of the Egyptians’ firstborn sons was necessary to persuade Pharaoh to give his word that they could go, but at the time of the crossing, both Law and (divine) Force are on their side and they’d be getting away cleanly, justly, and spectacularly even without the slaughter.
You might correctly suspect that we’re wandering into one of my sore points about the book of my rearing; time for me to let it go. 🙂