Practice makes perfect. Or does it?

Practice may not make perfect, but without it, it will be hard to potentially achieve perfection. This principle works whether one is an Olympic diver, an actor, or a Jew yearning to connect to the Almighty.

I don’t remember the context, but in our home, a seemingly insignificant date next month will take on great consequence. My son wanted to know exactly when he would be six-and-a-half, i.e. half way to bar mitzvah. That event will be marked next month as my little tzadikel can’t wait to be obligated in mitzvos. I imagine my daughters’ 6th birthday will be celebrated in the same anticipatory way.

With all the pomp and attention focused on the splitting of the Red Sea, the manna, feeding the Jews and the war with Amalek in this week’s Torah portion, I’d like to look at another verse, one that seems almost fleeting and as insignificant as the date next month where my son will be closer to his bar mitzvah than his birth.

"ויצעק אל ה' ויורהו עץ וישלך אל המים וימתקו המים, שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו" (שמות ט"ו:כ"ה)

“And he cried to the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, which when he threw into the waters, and made the waters sweet; there he made for them a statue and ordinance, and there he tested them” (Shmos 15:25).

While the first part of the verse portrays a fantastic miracle rife with meaning and messages, I would like to focus on the latter part of the verse, where Hashem provided “a statute and ordinance.” What does this mean? The Torah is not bestowed until next week’s parshah, when the Jews arrive at Sinai. Here they are at Marah.

Rashi’s comment serves as the base of our exploration.

"במרה נתן להם מצקת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהם, שבת ופרה אדומה, ודינין"

(רש"י שם)

“At Marah, a few chapters of the Torah were given to the Jewish people, so they shall be busy with them: Shabbos, Red Heifer and civil law”

Let me pose a few questions regarding this commentary of Rashi.

.

First, as mentioned, why are laws being given prior to the giving of the Torah? Second, if they are being given, why does the text not tell us explicitly? Third, what do we learn from these 3 specific areas of law and why they were chosen, according to Rashi, to be taught as preludes to Sinai?

Let me address the third question first. There are actually multiple sources regarding the specific laws taught to the Hebrews at Marah. Tosafos (Shabbos 87b) question the list of laws taught at Marah citing a Midrash (Seder Olam Rabbah ch. 5) that at Marah the Jews were instructed about the seven Noachide laws (prohibitions against idolatry, sexual immorality murder, ripping limbs from live animals, cursing God, theft and the need for civil society) plus three additional ones: Shabbos, civil law and the requirement to honor parents (seemingly instead of the Red Heifer). The Talmud (Sanhedrin 56b) also suggests that the forbidden intimate relationships were taught under the rubric of chok. Torah Temimah makes an audacious assumption, namely, that Rashi’s text is in error. He suggests that perhaps an acronym was used to represent honoring parents; instead of ‘cuf’ and ‘aleph’ (i.e. kibud av va’em) someone read it as ‘peh’ and ‘aleph’ or parah adumah, red heifer. Rabbi Elchanan Adler, a RIETS Rosh Yeshiva and a friend and mentor, wrote an outstanding book about the origins of the command of Shabbos, and addresses in depth the question of what happened at Marah. I recommend it highly and drew forth from it at great length for this d’var Torah. (Click here for more details.) Rabbi Adler challenges the Torah Temimah’s assertion (pp. 123 footnote 2) as he found an ancient source (Seder Olam Zuta) backing our version of Rashi.

The Maharal (Gur Aryeh) tries to view the 3 mitzvos mentioned as paradigms of chok and mishpat. The former term traditionally represents laws we would not have enacted on our own while the latter represents the opposite. The Red Heifer is the classic case of a law we would not have enacted, one for which we struggle to even understand its rationale. He also notes that Shabbos can also be seen as a ‘chok’ using its denotation as a boundary found in Chumash (Bereshis 47:22), that the work-week is bound by a Divine mandate to cease from productive activity. Therefore argues the Maharal, Rashi (and the Midrash) linked it to the Red Heifer, the chief chok.

So we’re not really clear which specific laws and ordinances were taught. Perhaps answering the first question will help us understand the other challenges to this verse, namely, why are a series of laws being presented before the formal acceptance of the Torah at Sinai?

A brief discussion of the status of pre-Siniatic laws is in order. Maimonides (Commentary on the Mishnah Chulin 7:6) rules that all the mitzvos taught prior to Sinai were not binding; they only became binding covenantal law at Sinai. Included in this list are the seven Noachide laws, circumcision, the mandate to avoid the sciatic nerve, the law to create a Jewish calendar and sanctify time, the laws revolving around the Paschal offering and the prohibition of chametz on Pesach and tefillin. So clearly, according to the Rambam, the purpose of the mitzvos taught at Marah was not legislative.

So what was the goal?

Ramban focuses his commentary on the last words in the verse, “there they were tested.” He concludes that we have precedent for mitzvos prior to Sinai. Here Hashem’s goal was to acclimate the nation to the mitzvos, so they will ultimately perform them with joy and a good heart.

I saw that the Oznayim l’Torah felt that with such a large populace, they needed some basic rules, even before Sinai. So civil laws were discussed, as well as Shabbos, a most fundamental precept. Shabbos was a great introduction to Torah life for all that it encompasses. Shabbos would also become relevant with the impending gift of the Manna and its absence on Shabbos. So he suggests that laws were needed for the basic conduct of society, even prior to Sinai. Torah Temimah offers a fascinating answer. Since, according to tradition, the Jews were somewhat forced to accept the Torah (the image of the mountain being held above their heads in threatening fashion) at Sinai, these they “accepted” with their own will and without any supposed duress.

With all the above I would like to suggest a parallel to the laws of conversion. The Talmud and halachic codes are very ambiguous as to what laws must a convert master, let alone know. The answer is “a small portion of the light and heavy laws.” I warned you that it would be ambiguous! Debates rage today as to what is needed (somewhere between, on the one hand, an awareness of  the laws of Shabbat, kashrut, family purity, prayers and, on the other hand, passing the equivalent of an ordination test). A non-Jew studying to become a Jew must experience Judaism. They can’t do so without delving into it. Knowing the details of how one disposes of watermelon seeds on Shabbos may not be a pre-requisite to conversion. Knowledge that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh, and our mimicking that process weekly is critical knowledge, both in deed and creed.

The Daf Yomi finds itself studying the laws of non-Jewish slaves. When they are emancipated from their status, they become Jews. No conversion process or ceremony is necessary. Perhaps they have seen Judaism lived. They immerse in it, before they immerse for it. They have observed many of the mitzvos.

Another reason why a convert must study prior to the ceremony is to benefit the convert. If a rabbinical court deems the individual Jewish, they immediately become obligated in the mitzvos that apply to them (i.e. man or woman). In his introduction to the Mishnah Brurah’s laws of Shabbos, the author stresses how important it is to truly review and master these laws, for Shabbos re-appears weekly.

Perhaps the Jews needed to be acclimated to the concept and flavor of Torah prior to receiving the whole package in the most spiritual and frightening moment of their lives. Rav Soloveitchik links the observance of Shabbos and the concept of practice and preparation, from the perspective of the manna. “The essence of Shabbos is based on the verses about the manna. It is a day for which we must prepare. The prohibition of muktzeh is centered on the need for preparation. One does not merit, nor is one worthy of, celebrating Shabbos unless one prepares for it… Proper presentation is a necessary condition for any encounter with holiness.” (Divrei Hashkafa, p. 147; Yemei Zikaron, p. 185).

Practice or preparation makes perfect. In terms of a performance, it will yield better results. In terms of a military operation, it could save lives. In our case, it gave the freed Hebrew slaves a taste of the beauty of the life they were about to accept, mimicking the Ramban’s answer. Not only would they be more familiar with the Divinely ordained Torah they were to receive, they would anticipate the truest form of freedom they would receive: responsibility. I’ve seen so many converts anticipating emerging from the purifying and life-alterning waters of the mikvah, knowing that all the challenges, the studies and the hard work, served as a prelude to their transformation. We are all the richer because of their decisions. We too accepted the Torah at Sinai and were converts as well. So we are convert nation – each and every one of us. The process of studying and experiencing was part and parcel of the great conversion to Judaism we experienced collectively at Sinai.