In making his suggestion, Yitro says “וְהָיָה כָּל-הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפְּטוּ-הֵם (and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring to you [Moshe], but every small matter they will judge themselves).” When Moshe actually implements the advice, however, the Pasuk says “אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם (and the hard matters they brought to Moshe and the small matters they judged themselves)”. What is the significance of the word change between הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל (the great matters) and הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה (the hard matters)?

The Mechilta quotes a disagreement between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Yehoshua says that Moshe certainly did exactly what Yitro suggested he do, while Rabbi Elazar said that Moshe took the advice of his father-in-law, but in the end modified it a little per Hashem’s command.

According to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, then, we can easily understand the word change. While Yitro wanted Moshe to judge the important matters, Moshe felt it was more important for him to take the hard cases, regardless of the importance of its litigants.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, however, if Moshe did exactly what Yitro suggested, why did the Torah choose to use a different word to explain the outcome?

The Rashbam comments on the words כָּל-הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל (all the great matters) and says that these “great matters” are people coming to build their relationships with Hashem. The small matters therefore would be standard court litigation without any real spiritual growth involved.

With this idea, in mind, Rabbi Yehoshua now seems to make sense as we can understand that these “great matters” are one and the same with the hard matters. Figuring out whether Reuven owes Shimon money may be complicated but doesn’t compare in difficulty to helping Levi grow as a person.

Unfortunately, according to the Rashbam, Rabbi Elazar is now quite challenging. If the “great matters” are working on developing peoples’ relationships with Hashem, why wasn’t the advice of Yitro good advice? Why did Moshe still feel the need to modify his advice.

The Ba’al Haturim comes to the rescue by totally changing the meaning of the words הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה (the hard matters). He says that the truly hard matters are managing those court cases of the most important people, as they are the most “stiff-necked” of everyone.

According to this view, we can now understand why Moshe chose to modify his father-in-law’s advice. Yitro figured that any of the people Moshe chose could handle general litigation while Moshe should focus on the general religious growth of the population. But Yitro missed one thing. In Judaism everything – even tort law – is a religious experience. Moshe knew how easily a stiff-necked litigant could falter in their religious growth and wanted to make sure he was there in those cases to help everyone grow as best as they could.

וַיַּסַּע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם-סוּף, וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל-מִדְבַּר-שׁוּר; וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת-יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, וְלֹא-מָצְאוּ מָיִם. וַיָּבֹאוּ מָרָתָה–וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת מַיִם מִמָּרָה, כִּי מָרִים הֵם; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא-שְׁמָהּ, מָרָה. וַיִּלֹּנוּ הָעָם עַל-מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר, מַה-נִּשְׁתֶּה. יִּצְעַק אֶל-יְהוָה, וַיּוֹרֵהוּ יְהוָה עֵץ, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל-הַמַּיִם, וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם; שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט, וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ.

In this week’s parsha, immediately following the splitting of the Yam Suf, we encounter a strange story in which Bnei Yisrael travel for 3 days and complain about not finding water. How is it possible that the Jewish people could start complaining just 3 days after witnessing the miracles of crossing the sea?

To ask a second question, the Gemara in Bava Kama 82a tells us “Ein Mayim Ela Torah”, that water is always analogous to Torah. (This story, the Gemara says, is the reason why we never go more than 3 days without having a Torah reading in Shul — on Shabbat, Monday and Thursday.)

This is strange because even though it might make sense to us to need to continually refresh our connection to the Torah to maintain its impact, I’m sure that just 3 days after seeing the miracle of the splitting sea the impact would still linger. Furthermore, can’t we assume that Moshe was constantly teaching the Jewish people about how to properly relate to Hashem during the journey to Mt. Sinai?

Looking very carefully at the words that describe this whole incident will I think help explain these two questions.

Firstly, the language of וַיַּסַּע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-יִשְׂרָאֵל (And Moses led Israel) is very rare. Usually it would say something like וַיִּסְעוּ (and they traveled) like it does following this story. The Ba’al haTurim quotes the famous story that all the riches of Egypt washed up on the shores of the sea, and Bnei Yisrael were too busy collecting the riches to want to leave. Moshe had to actively lead the Jews away from where they wanted to be so they could move towards Mt. Sinai and the receiving of the Torah.

Secondly, the language of כִּי מָרִים הֵם (because [the waters] were bitter) is ambiguous. The standard understanding would be that Bnei Yisrael couldn’t drink the water because the water was bitter, but the pasuk could just as easily say that they couldn’t drink the water because Bnei Yisrael themselves were bitter!

I think by combining these two ideas, we can have a better picture of what was really happening. Bnei Yisrael felt that they deserved to collect more of the spoils of Egypt. When they were forced to move on, despite the miracles they had experience, they quickly developed a bad attitude and felt as if they had been cheated of something that was rightfully theirs. They got lost in the pursuit of wealth and failed to recognize the gifts Hashem was giving them. After traveling for 3 days they arrived at this miraculous oasis in the desert, but all they could taste was the bitterness of what they had left behind at the sea.

If the people who experienced the miraculous Exodus could fall prey to thoughts like this, what chance do we have today? The Kli Yakar, comes to our aid with his analysis of the end of this story.

Looking at the phrase וַיּוֹרֵהוּ יְהוָה עֵץ, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל-הַמַּיִם, וַיִּמְתְּקוּ  הַמָּיִם (and Hashem showed [Moshe] a tree, and he threw it into the waters, and the waters were made sweet), he notes that the word וַיּוֹרֵהוּ does not actually mean “and He showed him ” but rather “and He taught him” (it has the same root as the word Torah).

Additionally, the Kli Yakar quotes the the famous phrase “Etz Chaim Hi” ([The Torah] is a tree of life); to cure Bnei Yisrael of their bitterness, Hashem had to teach Moshe the lessons of Torah which he then “threw” into the bitterness of the Jewish People. They had to learn that Torah and truth, not gold, are the true keys to life. (This is why one of the mitzvot they were taught here was Shabbat and the importance of taking a day off from work to connect to Hashem.)

We can now better understand the teaching of the Gemara that we must make sure to never go more that 3 days without learning. It is so easy for anyone, even the people who crossed the sea on dry land, to lose sight of their place in the world. By constantly learning and growing we can make sure that our thoughts stay straight and tied to the ultimate truth of the Torah and Hashem.

Shabbat Shalom and happy Tu B’Shvat