And they came to Marah, and they were not able to drink water from Marah because they were bitter. Therefore, the name of it was called Marah. And the people complained against Moshe saying: ‘What shall we drink?’ And he cried to God, and God showed him a tree, and he cast it into the water, and the waters were made sweet. There he placed upon them statutes and ordinances, and there he tested them. And he said: ‘If will hearken diligently to the voice of the Lord your God, and you will do what is right in his eyes and listen to his commandments and keep his statutes, all of the diseases that I have put upon the Egyptians I will not put upon you, for I am the Lord, your healer.’ (Shemot 15:23-26)

Just three days after the splitting of the sea, Bnei Yisrael faced their first of many challenges in the desert, a lack of fresh drinking water. The brief description of the incident in the Torah raises several questions:

1) The Torah records that God instructed Moshe to cast a particular piece of wood in the water in order to make it drinkable. What was the nature of this solution to the problem?

2) The Torah states that God gave them statutes and ordinances at Marah, but does not give details. What statutes and ordinances were given, and why were they given at Marah instead of being given together with all of the other commandments at Mount Sinai 46 days later?

3) The Torah states that the people were tested at Marah. What was the test?

And the Waters Were Made Sweet

The commentators argue as to whether the wood that Moshe cast into the water was a natural solution or a miraculous solution.

Ramban and Ha’amek Davar claim that the wood was a natural antidote to the bitterness of the waters:

רמב"ן - ויורהו - שהראה אותו עץ ואמר לו השליך את העץ הזה אל המים וימתקו. ובעבור שלא מצאתי לשון מורה אלא בענין למוד … נראה בדרך הפשט כי העץ ההוא ימתיק המים בטבע והוא סגולה בו ולמד אותו למשה.

העמק דבר - לפי הפשט כבר נוצר במקום המים המרים עץ להמתיקו כמו כל הטבע אשר במקום חסרון איזה פרט הכרחי לחיי האדם נוצר שם איזה דבר אחר להשלים המחסור. כך בזה המקום היה גדל איזה עץ הממתיק את המים ומשה לא ידע.

Ramban -And He showed him: He showed him the tree and told him: “Cast this wood into the water and it will become sweet.” Since I have only found the word “moreh” relate to instruction, … it appears, according to the simple meaning, that that tree sweetens the water naturally because of its particular traits, and that God taught this to Moshe.

Ha’amek Davar: According to the simple meaning, the tree had already come into existence along side the water in order to sweeten it, as in all aspects of nature, when an essential element of human survival is lacking, something exists in order to supply what is lacking. So too, here, a particular tree that would sweeten the water grew, but Moshe did know.

Ramban’s interpretation is based on the fact that the wording of the Torah here differs from the style used to describe the performance of miracles in other places. In describing the events in Marah, the text uniquely uses the word “ויורהו”, which refers to the process of teaching. This implies, according to Ramban, that God taught Moshe how the wood from that particular tree would sweeten the water naturally. In other instances, when God directed Moshe to perform a miracle, He simply ordered Moshe to perform a particular action, such as “take your staff and stretch your hand over the sea.” (Shemot 14:16) That element is missing in the case of Marah.

Ha’amek Davar alludes in his interpretation to a broader concept that distinguishes between supernatural miracles and the miraculous properties of the natural world. In his conception, the sweetening of the water at Marah might be referred to as a hidden miracle (“נס נסתר”) – that the natural world that God created is designed to generate solutions to problems that arise.

There He Placed Upon Them a Statute and an Ordinance

The Rabbis and commentators differ regarding what legislation was introduced at Marah. The Mechilta records two opinions:

חק – זה שבת, ומשפט – זה כיבוד אב ואם, דברי ר' יהושע. ר' אליעזר המודעי אומר: חק – אלו עריות שנאמר (ויקרא יח:ל) לבלתי עשות מחוקות התועבות, ומשפט – אלו דיני קנסות ודיני חבלות.

“Statute” – this refers to Shabbat, “ordinance” – this refers to honoring parents, so the opinion of R. Yehoshua. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: “statute” – this refers to sexual prohibitions, as it says (Vayikra 18:30): “that you not commit any of these abominable customs (“chukot”)”, “ordinances” – this refers to fines and damages.

What is the reasoning behind these two opinions?

R. Eliezer Hamodai bases his opinion on the terms “חק” (statutes) and “משפט” (ordinances). “Statutes” refers to commandments that we would not know were they not commanded, and “ordinances” are those laws that have a rational basis. R. Eliezer identifies the statutes given at Marah as the laws governing sexual behavior because they are referred to as “statutes” (חוקים) in the Torah. He identifies the “ordinances” as the basic civil laws because they could be derived rationally. Why did R. Eliezer choose the laws governing sexual behavior as the “statutes” of Marah rather than numerous other laws referred to as “statutes” in the Torah? Apparently, R. Eliezer saw these laws and the civil laws as the foundations of human society. These laws were given at Marah, just after Bnei Yisrael achieved complete independence, to govern their social interactions during the period preceding the giving of the Torah.

R. Yehoshua’s opinion is based on the text of the ten commandments in Parashat Ve’etchanan. In that text, only the commandments of Shabbat and honoring parents include the additional clause “כאשר צוך ה' אלקיך”, “as the Lord your God commanded you”:

שמור את יום השבת לקדשו כאשר צוך ה' אלקיך. (דברים ה:יב)

כבד את אביך ואת אמך כאשר צוך ה' אלקיך …(דברים ה:טז)

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. (Devarim 5:12)

Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you. (Devarim 5:16)

According to R. Yehoshua, this phrase indicates that these laws were given at Marah, before the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Rashi adopts this opinion, as well:

פסוק יב - כאשר צוך: קודם מתן תורה במרה.

פסוק טז - כאשר צוך: אף על כיבוד אב ואם נצטוו במרה שנאמר שם שם לו חק ומשפט.

Verse 12: As He commanded you: Prior to the giving of the Torah in Marah.

Verse 16: As He commanded you: Also regarding honoring parents they were commanded at Marah, as it says: “There he placed upon them statutes and ordinances.”

In spite of his interpretation in Devarim, Rashi seems to combine the opinions of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer in his commentary on verse 15: 25:

שם שם לו - במרה נתן להם מקצת פרשיות של תורה שיתעסקו בהם שבת ופרה אדומה ודינין.

There he placed upon them - At Marah He gave them a few sections of the Torah that they might engage in them: Shabbat, the red heifer, and civil laws.

Ramban (Devarim 5:12) points out the apparent inconsistency in Rashi’s interpretations:

כאשר צוך ה' אלקיך - קודם מתן תורה במרה שם שם לו חק ומשפט, לשון רש"י. ואם כן גם מצות כבוד אב ואם יהיה במרה, והרב לא הזכיר שם אלא שבת פרה אדומה ודינים.

As the Lord your God commanded you: Before the giving of the Torah at Marah, there He gave them the “statutes” and “ordinances”. If so, also the commandment of honoring parents was given at Marah, but “the teacher” (Rashi) only mentioned there Shabbat, the red heifer, and civil laws.

We must conclude that Rashi included honoring of parents within the category of “דינים”, the civil laws. Rashi seems to combine in his interpretation the interpretations of both R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer. Nevertheless, he includes the law of the red heifer (פרה אדומה) as the statute instead of the laws governing sexual conduct included by R. Eliezer. Given the choice of various laws referred to as statutes in the Torah, Rashi chose the law considered the paradigm statute:

זאת חוקת התורה אשר צוה ה' לאמר דבר אל בני ישראל ויקחו אליך פרה אדומה תמימה …(במדבר יט:ב)

This is the statute of the Torah that the Lord has commanded saying: Speak to Bnei Yisrael that they bring you a red heifer without blemish …(Bemidbar 19:2)

Rashi views the purpose of the laws given at Marah differently than R. Eliezer. While R. Eliezer implies that the laws were given to govern social conduct, Rashi indicates that the laws were given “שיתעסקו בהם”, so they could engage in practicing some laws before receiving the Torah. In other words, God hoped to gradually bring them into Torah observance by initially giving them a few laws. As such, the content of the laws, a sampling of statutes and ordinances, was largely irrelevant.

Ramban and Samson Raphael Hirsch contend that the “statutes and ordinances” given at Marah were not laws at all, but rather instruction of a different nature:

רמב"ן - ועל דרך הפשט כאשר החלו לבוא במדבר הגדול והנורא וצמאון אשר אין מים, שם להם במחייתם וצרכיהם מנהגים אשר יתנהגו הם עד בואם אל ארץ נושבת. כי המנהג יקרא חוק (משלי ל) הטריפני לחם חוקי, (ירמיהו לג) חוקות שמים וארץ, ויקרא משפט בהיותו … וכן (שמואל א' כז) כה עשה דוד וכה משפטו כל הימים, (בראשית מ) כמשפט הראשון אשר היית משקהו.

או: שייסרם בחוקי המדבר לסבול הרעב והצמא לקרוא בהם לא דרך תלונה, ומשפטים מיהיו בהם לאהוב איש את רעהו ולהתנהג בעצת הזקנים …

הירש - שם כשראו ונוכחו שהמר ביותר נהפך למתוק בהתמזגו בדבר אשר צוה עליו והורהו הקב"ה, שם נתן לו את יסוד החוק והמשפט והורנו שחוקיו ומשפטיו הם התרופה לכל נגע ופגע של היחיד ושל החברה האנושית בכללה, בהתגלותו בזה כרופא כל בשר, כי אני ה' רופאך.

Ramban - According to the simple meaning, when they came to the vast and awesome desert in which there was no water, he gave them for their survival and their needs the practices that they should follow until they would reach a populated area. For such practice is called “chok” as in Proverbs 30: “feed me with my customary portion” and in Yirmiyahu 33: “the customs of heaven and earth”, and it is called “mishpat” … as in Shmuel I 27: “thus did David, and so was his practice all of the days”, and in Bereshit 40: “after the former practice when you were his butler”.

Or: He made them suffer from the laws (“chok”) of the desert, to suffer hunger and thirst so that they call on them without complaint, and accept the ordinances to love their neighbors and follow the counsel of the elders.

Hirsch: There, when they themselves saw that something bitter was turned sweet by stirring in something that God had commanded and instructed, there He gave them the foundations of the statutes and ordinances, and taught them that His statutes and ordinances are the remedy for all ailments of the individual and of human society in general, by revealing himself as the healer of all flesh – “for I am the Lord your healer”.

Ramban and Hirsch both contend that the circumstances and conditions that confronted Bnei Yisrael at Marah inherently provided the opportunity for Bnei Yisrael to learn some of the fundamental principles of survival. According to the first interpretation of the Ramban, God instructed them in the strategies that would help them to survive in the desert. This interpretation is based on uses of the terms “חוק” and “משפט” in other places in Tanach to refer to custom or practice. In his second interpretation, Ramban interprets the term “חק” to mean the harsh conditions of the desert. These conditions, hunger and thirst, forced them to learn “משפט”, the significance of a positive relationship to God and to man that would help them to survive these challenges.

Hirsch contends that the very fact that the bitter waters were sweetened by God’s direction taught them that God’s statutes and laws are the primary source of healing in the world. In other words, according to Hirsch. Bnei Yisrael did not receive specific laws at Marah. Rather, they gained an understanding at Marah of the importance and the impact of God’s laws.

And There He Tested Them

At Marah, Bnei Yisrael faced the first of ten tests that they would confront in the desert.[1] The commentaries differ as to the nature of the test. According to Rashi, the test was the encounter with the bitter water itself:

ושם נסהו - לעם, וראה קשי ערפו שלא נמלכו במשה בלשון יפה: בקש עלינו רחמים שיהיה לנו מים לשתות, אלא נתלוננו.

And there He tested them - the people, and He saw their stubbornness, that they did not consult with Moshe in proper language: “Request mercy for us so we will have water to drink.” Rather, they complained.

Rashi claims that the first test of Bnei Yisrael was to see how they would react to one of the hardships of the desert. Unfortunately, they did not pass the test. Rather than asking Moshe to pray on their behalf, they complained.

Mizrachi questions Rashi’s explanation. He holds that the test of Bnai Yisrael at Marah was the laws that were given to them:

ולא ידעתי מי הכריחו לרש"י לפרש ושם נסהו על ההתלוננות…. ולמה לא יפרשהו על המצוות שנתן להם לנסותם אם יקבלום בשמחה או לאו, שאז יתישב יותר מה שכתוב אחריו מיד והיה אם שמע תשמעו.

I don’t know what forced Rashi to explain the phrase “and there He tested them” as a reference to the complaints.… Why didn’t he explain it as a reference to the commandments that he gave to them, to test if they would willingly accept them, for it is more consistent with what follows: “and it will be if you shall surely listen …”.

Mizrachi claims that his interpretation fits better into the context of the text. Siftei Chachamim defends Rashi’s interpretation based on the repetition of the word “שם” in the verse:

שם שם לו חק ומשפט ושם נסהו.

שפתי חכמים - וי"ל דאי קאי ושם נסהו על המצות שציוה להם הוה ליה למכתב שם שם לו חוק ומשפט ונסהו. ושם למה לי? דושם משמע ענין אחר ממה שנאמר לפני זה. לכן פירש נסהו לעם על התלונה.

There He placed upon them statutes and ordinances and there He tested them.

Siftei Chachamim: You could say that if the phrase “there He tested them” refers to the laws that He gave them, it should have said “there He placed upon them statutes and ordinances and tested them”. Why do we have the extra word “there” (שם)? “And there” implies that it is a different matter than that which was just stated previously. Therefore, he (Rashi) interpreted that He tested the people in reference to the complaint.

Shadal offers a third interpretation of the test at Marah:

נתן להם מחסורם – אם תלונותיהם אינם אלא מפני המחסור האמתי וכשימלאו מחסורם יהיו נאמנים.

He gave them what they were lacking – (to test) if their complaints were only because of the real shortage that existed, and when that shortage would be filled, they would be faithful.

In contrast to Rashi, Shadal legitimizes the complaints of Bnei Yisrael over the lack of fresh water. The test was to fulfill their need, and thus to see whether their complaints were only motivated by the lack of water.

Conclusion

ולא יכלו לשתות מים ממרה כי מרים הם - אמר ר' לוי: ומה "כי מרים הם? הדור היה מר במעשיו. (מדרש תנחומא ישן)

And they were not able to drink water from Marah because they were bitter - R. Levi said: What is the meaning of the phrase “because they were bitter”? The generation was bitter in their behavior.

In this unique interpretation, the Midrash indicates that the phrase “because they were bitter” does not apply to the water, but rather to Bnei Yisrael. Whether the result of a character flaw or simply of their circumstances, Bnei Yisrael were ill equipped to cope with the challenges that they found at Marah and beyond. In answering the three questions outlined at the beginning of our iyun, the commentators actually address a larger question – why was the Torah not given immediately to Bnei Yisrael after they left Egypt rather than 49 days later? The commentaries that we have seen indicate that Bnei Yisrael needed some preparation and adjustment before they would be ready to receive the Torah. Whether it was learning to survive in the desert, developing the building blocks of a just society, or understanding the rule of law, the commentators agree that at Marah, Bnei Yisrael began a process of development that would lead to Sinai. Just as the bitter waters were sweetened, so too Bnei Yisrael began to shed the bitterness of the Egyptian bondage, and were ultimately transformed to “ a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Shemot 19:6)

[1] There are commentators who say that this was the first test with which Bnei Yisrael would challenge God in the desert. This interpretation is based on the fact that the term “נסהו” has an indefinite subject and an indefinite object. As such, it can be translated as “they tested Him”. Rashi, however, rejects this interpretation.