Be'ha'aloscha, Bamidbar 11:7. The Color of the Mahn

Rav Yehoshua ibn Shu'ib, (Spain 1280-1340, a talmid of the Rashba,) in his drashos on this week's parsha, writes that one should cover the Challa with white covers.  Similarly, the Eliah Rabba (OC 271 SK 16) brings from the Tzeida Laderech that the cover should be white.  (Actually, the Tzeida Laderech says that whole tablecloth should be white.   Considering that ibn Shu'ib was the rebbi of Rav Menachem ben Zerach, author of the Tzeida LaDerech, it is very likely that the Tzeida Laderech is just quoting his rebbi.  On the one hand, that means that the ibn Shu'ib really did mean 'white', but on the other hand, it makes it likely that ibn Shu'ib also meant the whole tablecloth, not the covers of the challos.  But this doesn't matter.  The Achronim take it to refer to the challah cover, so we will, too.) Achronim ask why the cover should be white, and some suggest that Levanos simply means Clean, as we find in the issur of Libun on Shabbos, where Libun means removal of dirt.  In Shulchan Aruch, it just says that the cover should be clean.

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is quoted as saying that the cover of the Challos can be transparent, because the main purpose is to physically cover the Challah, as a remembrance of the Mahn which was also covered, and not to hide it from exposure to the wine.  So, what to do? White or transparent?  This is not a momentous question.  I guarantee that nobody is going to give a din v'cheshbon on having the wrong color challa cover.  But..... read on.

It so happens that the Malbim in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 16:31) asks that there, the Torah describes the Mahn as being והוא כזרע גד לבן, while in our parsha, in 11:7, it is described as והמן כזרע גד הוא ועינו כעין הבדולח.  In Beshalach it is called Zera Gad Lavan, while in Behaaloscha it is just called Zera Gad which is like crystal, bedolach.  He answers that the whole week, the Mahn was transparent, but on Shabbos it was white, and Parshas Beshalach is talking its appearance specifically on Shabbos.


(I've always thought that Lavan sometimes is used to mean transparent; although the words בהיר צלול and  שקוף are more clear, so to speak, I think that when the Gemara talks about זכוכית לבנה, the most valuable and extravagant kind of glass, they mean colorless.  As evidence, see Pliny's Natural History book 37, where he says "Still, however, the highest value is set upon glass that is entirely colourless and transparent, as nearly as possible resembling crystal, in fact. "  Transparent and translucent are to some extent on a continuum.)


If so, we might say that this would explain why on Shabbos, the covers of the Challos should be white, but on Yamim Tovim, you can use whatever color you want, including transparent.  In fact, maybe transparent would be especially appropriate for Yomtov.  To be yotzei le'chol hadei'os, use a white cover inside transparent vinyl.


(See also here, which, if it matters, I saw after I got ready to write this.  The only thing new that I saw there was the Ibn Shu'ib, and as I pointed out above, that's just the Tzeida Laderech in an earlier iteration.  On the other hand, the mar'ei mekomos that I did have were basically from Rav Shimon Kalman Goldstein.  Yasher Koach.)

Beshalach, Parshas Ha Man and Segulos

The minhag of being ma'avir sedra on the Parsha of the Man specifically on the Tuesday of Parshas Beshalach has become popular lately.  The idea that saying that parsha is a segula for Parnassa is brought from the Yerushalmi by many poskim, including the Mishna Berura (1:SK 13).  (Although the Aruch Hashulchan in 1:24 brings that the Prisha in SK 14 is the first to have brought that Yerushalmi, and that he, the Aruch Hashulchan, couldn't find it in his Yerushalmi, and he gives an explanation for why it's not found in Nusach Ashkenaz siddurim.)  The particular focus on Shnayim Mikra v'echad Targum on the Tuesday of Parshas Beshalach is attributed specifically to the Riminover, and denied, according to the Davar Be'Ito, by all the Riminover elders.  In any case, it's popular.

I think that Bnei Torah should remember an interesting Noda Be'Yehuda on a similar topic, that leads to a slightly different perspective on this particular "Segula."

I found the Noda Be'Yehuda particularly interesting because of its evolution.  The Noda Be'Yehuda quotes the Abudraham, who quotes the Sefer HaManhig.  Each of them add a little kneitch, as follows.

Sefer Hamanhig (end of Hilchos Shabbos, right before Hilchos Se'uda):

מנהג כל ישראל לומר במוצאי שבת ויתן לך  וכל הפסוקים של ברכות שיתברכו ישראל בשבת הבאה ומעתה ועד עולם, ובפרובינצא אומרים אחריה אין  כאלהינו ופטום הקטרת, ונראה הטעם לפי מה דאמר בבבלי ביומא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מפני שמעשרת ונשלמה פרים שפתינו למען נתעשר ונצליח 

Abudraham (end of Hilchos Shabbos):

וכתב אבן  הירחי  נהגו  בפרובנצא לומר אחר אלו הפסוקים אין כאלהינו ופטום הקטורת והטעם
 משום  דתניא ביומא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מפני שמעשרת שנאמר ישימו קטורה  באפך וסמיך ליה ברך
 ה׳  חילו.  ונשלמה פרים שפתינו למען נתעשר ונצליח  בכל דרכינו ע״כ .

Noda B'Yehuda (OC I:100)

ומה שנהגו לומר חרוזים הללו קודם לכן היינו לפי שמעשרת ולכן אומרים אין כאלהינו שלא נאמר כחי ועוצם ידי עשה החיל רק הכל מה׳ ניתן לנו ולו נאה לברך על העושר. ועי׳ באבודרה״ם

So the Manhig said that in Provence they would say Pitum Haketores Motzei Shabbos because it brings wealth.  The Abudraham quotes him and adds the source for the Segula, which is the nexting of the words Ketores and ברך ה׳  חילו, and the word חיל refers to worldly success.  The Noda Be'Yehuda quotes the Abudraham, and, focusing on the Abudraham's having noted the word חיל, he adds that the reason we preface the Ketores with Ein Keilokeinu is to remind us that we must never think that כחי ועוצם ידי עשה לי את החיל, to remind us that it is not our efforts and cleverness that makes us wealthy, it is the Ribono shel Olam that makes us successful.

As the Mishna Berura puts it, (OC 1 SK 13),

ופרשת המן כדי שיאמין שכל מזונותיו באין בהשגחה פרטית וכדכתיב המרבה לא העדיף והממעיט לא החסיר להורות שאין ריבוי ההשתדלות מועיל מאומה ואיתא בירושלמי ברכות כל האומר פרשת המן מובטח לו שלא יתמעטו מזונותיו
The Parshas Ha Man is said so that a person will have faith that all his sustenance comes through Hashem's involvement with each person's individual affairs, as it says, he who took more had no extra, he who took less had no shortfall, to teach that excessive effort does not help a bit.  In the Yerushalmi in Brachos:  Anyone that says Parshas HaMon is guaranteed that his sustenance will not decrease.

great unknown and others, commenting at Chaim B's blog, expressed the idea very well.  They said that the primary purpose of saying this parsha is to internalize certain lessons and to inculcate greater bitachon.  To view it as a segula alone, gu said "... cheapens it and replaces a kesher with the Ribbono Shel Olam with a mechanical exercise." 


Chaim B, on the other hand, wrote:
I reject the dichotomy. 
When R' Chaim Volozhiner (a source even a Litvak can respect!) writes that he has a "segulah nifla'ah" (Nefesh haChaim 3:12) to ward away evil -- to always have in mind "ain od milvado" -- do you think me means to replace a kesher with Hashem with some "mechanical exercise," or magical incantation because he uses the dreaded word "segulah," or is the segulah gufa the means to deepen and strengthen that very kesher? 

If you understand R' Chaim Volozhiner's segulah as the latter, why insist on understanding the Riminover's any differently?


As Chaim implies, though I can't speak for him, which he does in the comments here as well, I think that the two approaches are not inconsistent or mutually exclusive.  To me it is clear that the purpose of saying Parshas Ha Man is to internalize lessons of hashkafa and bitachon.  But the Chidush of the Yerushalmi is that the act of focusing on these lessons while reciting the parsha of the Man is a segula for Parnassa.  In other words, there are three possibilities.
1.  Reciting Parshas Ha Man mindlessly is a mitzva of reading the words of the Torah, but it doesn't improve your parnassa.  
2.  Contemplating Hashgacha Pratis is a mitzva, but it does not necessarily strengthen your parnassa any more than would thinking about the Chazon Ish's Emuna U'Bitachon .  
BUT....
3.  Reciting Parshas Ha Man with an intense focus on reinforcing your Emuna and Bitachon, your sincere faith and trust that Hashem provides for your needs, THIS combination of Parsha and Kavana is a powerful segula.


Segulos can be nice, and some have a good yichus, as long as you don't overdo them, as we discussed here.  But if do you say Parshas Ha Man, remember that it's not the mere incantation of the parsha that gives you parnassa, it is the Ribono shel Olam, about Whom we say  העושר והכבוד מלפניך ואתה מושל בכול.  The Urim ve'Tumim is beautiful, and without the Choshen, the Kohen Gadol is a mechusar begadim, but without the Sheim HaMeforash, it's not going to answer any questions.  Reciting the Parshas Ha Man as a means of strengthening our dveikus and emuna is the one and only true Segula for Parnassa.


We have to be careful to not allow the passage of time and yeitzer hara of magical thinking to debase our minhagim.  I heard from an adam gadol that he thinks that the popularity of making a kiddush on a Yahrtzeit stems from the time that people would make a siyum for the zechus of the niftar, and since making a siyum is hard, they kept the kiddush and dropped the siyum.  Here, too, let's try not to be אוחז את הטפל ומניח את העיקר.

UPDATE:

I found a very relevant teshuva in the Tzitz Eliezer, 17:30, as follows:  (If you have the Bar Ilan, or have the time to patchkeh with it, I'll give you my password and you're welcome to fix the errors.  Or you can just go to hebrewbooks.org and read it in the original there.  I am fully aware of certain controversial psakim Harav Waldenberg has written and their reception by other poskim, so I'm not being ממשכן myself for his psak, but it's interesting and informative in any case.)

 סימן ל

 האיסור  להתרפאות  בד״ת ובאמירת תהלים והיה״ר שלאחר מיכן עבור חולה. בשבועות דף  ט״ו ע״ב :  רב י  יהושע בן לוי  אמר להו להני קראי וגני, היכי עביד  הכי והאמר ריב״ל אסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה, להגן שאני, ואלא כי אמר אסור דאיכא מכה אי דאיכא מכה אסור ותו לא והתנן הלוחש על המכה אין לו חלק לעוה״ב, הא אתמר עלה א״ר יוחנן ב רוקק שנו לפי שאין מזכירין שם שמים על הרקיקה.

א) הרמב״ם בפי״א מה׳  ע״ז הי״ב  פוסק בזה בזה״ל הלוחש על המכה וקורא פסוק מן התורה, וכן הקורא על התינוק שלא יבעת, והמניח ספר תורה או תפילין על הקטן  בשביל שיישן לא די להם שהם בכלל מנחשים וחוברים אלא שהן בכלל הכופרים בתורה שהן עושין דב רי  תורה רפואת גוף ואינן אלא רפואת נפשות שנאמר ויהיו חיים לנפשך, אבל הב ריא  שקרא פסוקין ומזמור מתהלים כדי  שתגן עליו  זכות קריאתן וינצל  מצרות וממזיקין הרי זה מותר עכ״ל, יוצא מזה שרק בריא מותר לו לקרוא פסוקין ומזמור מתהלים כדי שתגן עליו זכות קריאתן, אבל חולה אסור לו לעשות בכזאת.

 וכך  נפסק בשו״ע יו״ד טי ׳  קי״ט  סעיפים ח׳יי״ב, רק לא נזכר במפורש ״מזמור מתחלים״  כפי  שנזכר

 ברמב״ם ורק נזכר מקריאת ״פסוקים״ סתם וזה קשה לומר דכוונת השו״ע היא רק על פסוקים מן התורה ממש ולא מנ״ך  דבגמ׳ שבועות שם לא משמע כן, ובודאי כונת השו״ע לכלול בזה גם פסוקים בנ״ך. וראיתי  בספר משנת יעקב שי״ל  בזמן האחרון שמקשה לפי״ז על הנוהג המקובל לומר תהלים לרפואתו של חולה, וז״ל:  ותימא  דמבואר כאן דרק לבריא מותר אבל עבור חולה אסור לקרוא פסוקין ומזמורי תהלים כדי שתגן  עליו  זכות קריאתן וינצל  מצרות וממזיקין, וא״כ איך אנו אומרים פרקי תהלים על החולה ואח״כ אומרים יה״ר מלפניך  וגו׳ בזכות ספר תהלים שקראנו לפניך  וגו׳ בזכות מזמוריו וגו׳  ותשלח רפו״ש לחולי עמך ולחולה פב״פ וגו', הרי  לכאורה ד״ז  אסור לחולה כנז׳ ואולי מה שאומרים בזכות מזמוריו וגו׳ קאי על הרישא שבתפלה שתכפר לנו על  כל חטאתינו וכו׳ דזה בודאי מותר, ומה שאומרים אח״כ ותשלח רפו׳׳ש היא  בקשה מיוחדת אגב אמירת התהלים ואגב בקשת כפרת העונות וצ״ע  עכ״ל הספר. ונראה ליישב, דהנה התום׳ בשבועות שם מקשים מהא דאמר בשבת דף  ס״ז ע״א  לאשתא צמירתא לימא הכי וירא מלאך ה׳  אליו וכוי׳ ומתרצים דסכנתא שאני יעוין ביוי׳ד שם). והמאירי בשבועות שם כותב לתרץ שאין זה אלא כעין תפלה והבטחה שתבוא לו ישועה מתוך גודל הצרות וכו׳ ע״ש. ומצאתי  במאירי על מס׳ שבת שכותב לתרץ בעוד אופן, והוא, דאפשר שלא נאמר אלא כשעיקר רפואתו מן התורה, אבל כאן (בשבת) הוא מונה  הרבה דב רים בזולת הזכרת אותם המקראות ע״ש, יוצא לנו מהמאירי דמתי נאמר דאסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה, דוקא כשאינו עושה מלבד זה פעולה נוספת לריפוי המחלה, אבל אם נוסף לזה עושה עוד דבר אזי ליכא כבר להאיסור, ואם כן לפי״ז אם נוסף לאמירת תהלים נותנים לחולה תרופות לרפאותו מחליו אזי לא נאמר האיסור על  בכה״ג, ומיושבת בפשיטות קושית הספר הנ״ל, והתימא בזה תהא נשארת לפי׳׳ז רק על יחידים בודדים שלא משתמשים ברפואות לריפוי מחלת החולה ומסתמכין על אמירת התהלים בלבד.

 ב) עוד זאת ראיתי  במהרש״א בשבת שם שכותב לתרץ קושית התוס׳ וכן מה שקשה גם מההיא דאמרינן חש בראשו יעסוק בתורה כו׳ חש בגופו כו׳ שנאמר ולכל בשרו מרפא, והא אמ רינן דאסור להתרפאות בדברי תורה׳ והוא, דודאי אם

 האדם לומד משום רפואת הנפש שהיא התורה וממילא יתרפא גוף החולה ברפואת הנפש שרי׳ ולא אסרו להתרפאות בד״ת אלא בלוחש על המכה ולא נתכוון לרפואת הנפש כלל יעו״ש. ואם המהרש״א כותב להתיר היכא שהוא מכוין משום רפואת נפש בלבד, ורק ממילא יתרפא עי״כ  גוף החולה, הנה מצינ ו שכותב לומר בזה ביתר על כן בספר תורת  חיים עמ״ס שבועות שם, והוא, דשאני  הכא (בשבועות) שאומר פסוקים דרך לחש וזה ודאי אסור שעושה דברי תורה רפואת הגוף ואינן אלא רפואת הנפש, אבל התם (בחש בראשו וכו׳) איירי שעוסק בת׳׳ת לש״ש לקיים מצ ות השם שצוה ללמוד ומתכוין שיועיל לו זכות הת״ת  שיתרפא מחליו לכך שפיר דמי עיי״ש. הרי  שהתו״ח מתיר  אפילו כשגם מתכוין  שיועיל לו זכות הת״ת  שיתרפא מחליו מכיון שעיקר עסיקתו בת״ת  הוא לש״ש לקיים מצ ות חשם שצוה ללמוד. ואם כן לפי  דבריהם של המהרש״א והתו״ח מיושב בפשיטות ענין  אמירת  תהלים וע נ י ן  אמירת  היה״ר  בזכות וכוי, כי  תהלים הוא אומר לא בדרך לחש כי אם דרך תפלח ותחנונים לש״ש באשר כך הוא רצון ה׳ שירבו  בתפלה לפניו בעת צרה׳ ובזכות זה של מילוי רצונו יתברך  הוא מבקש שיועיל לו זכות זה שיתרפא  פב״פ  מחליו.

 ג) ו אני  מוצא דבעיקרן של דברים כוונו המהרש״א והתו״ח לדברי  ספר החינוך  מצוה תקי״ב,

 ומעמיס זאת בכוונת התירוץ של הגמ׳  בשבועות שם דלהגן שאני, וז״ל ואין הדבר חלילה דומה לענין חובר חבר שזכרנו וכבר אז״ל ע״ז אסור להתרפאות בד״ת,  אבל הזכירו לומר מזמורים אלו שיש בהם דברים יעוררו נפש היודע אותם לחסות בהש״י ולהשים כל מבטחו ולקבוע בלבבו יראתו ולסמוך על חסדו וטובו, ומתוך התעוררותו ע״ז יהי׳  נשמר בלי נזק וזהו שהשיבו בגמ׳  בענין זה וכוי ואמרו להגן שאני, כלומר לא אסרה תורה שיאמר  אדם ד״ת  לעורר נפשו לטובה  כדי שיגן  עליו אותו הזכות לשמרו עכ״ל׳ הרי כנז״ל, וחזינן דהחינוך לא הזכיר בדבריו לחלק בזה בין חולה לבריא, והיינו מפני שכל שעושים כן כד י לעורר את הנפש לחסות בהשי״ת ולהשים בו כל מבטחו, ולקבוע בלבבו יראתו ולסמוך על  חסדו וטובו, ושהתעוררותו בנפשו לטובה  תגן עליו זכות זה, בכל כגון דא אין חילוק בין אם הוא עושה כן בור בריא או אפילו עבור חולה, ושרי בכל גוונא לעשות זאת, ושמחתי למצוא בספר מעין  החכמה על המצוות מבעהמ״ח עצי  ארזים (ד׳ קע״ו׳ דפוס לבוב) שכותב נמ י דמספר החינוך משמע שגם בחולה הדין כן ע״ש. וא״כ זהו איפוא ענין  אמירת התהלים שאנו אומדים עבור חולה כדי  לעורר את הנפש לחסות בהשי׳׳ת ולהשים בו כל מבטחנו, ולקבוע בלבנו יראתו והסמיכה על חסדו וטובו, וזהו גם ענין  אמירת  היה״ר שלאחר מיכן שתגן  אותו הזכות של התעוררות הנפש ע״י  אמירת  התהלים כמי  שה׳ ברוב רחמיו וחסדיו ישלח דברו וירפא את החולה מחליו. [ויעו״ש  בס׳ מעין החכמה מה שמחדש לומר בביאור סוגית הג מ׳  בשבועות דבפסוקים שיש בהם שם שמים אינו  מן הכופרים כי  אם ברוקק אבל בלא״ה לא דמכיון דאית בהו הזכרת ש״ש  הוי קצת כמו להג ן וכמתפלל שיעזור לו ה׳  בזכות התרוה, ובהני  פסוקי דלית  בהו הזכרת שם שמים אסור אפילו בלי רקיקה ע״ש ואכמ״ל],

 ד) כדאי להזכיר גם שיטת כמה מגדולי  הראשונים כרבינו ישעיה  הראשון וריא״ז  והריטב״א דקסברי דרק כשיש מכה אסור, אבל אם יש עליו קדחת מותר  ללחוש ולהתרפאות בדברי תורה הואיל ואין בו מכה, וע פי״ז כותב חחיד״א ז״ל בספרו פתח עינים בשבועות דף ט״ו לתרץ בנקל ההיא דעירובין דף נ״ד  דחש בראשו יעסוק בחורה וכו׳ כי יש לחלק בין יש לו כאב או חולי כמו קדחת וכיוצא דאזי שרי, ודוקא בדאיכא מכה אסור יעו״ש.

 ה) עוד נראה שבכלל עצם האיסור אפילו כשישנו הוא רק חיכי שבוחר איזה  פסוקים או מזמורים לומר, אבל אם אומר אותם על  הסדר בלי ברירה אזי לא נאמר בכלל בכגון דא האיסור, ודבר זה יש לדייק מלשונו של הרמב״ם בה׳ ע״ז שם שכותב בלשון ״אבל הבריא  שקרא פסוקין ומזמור מתהלים״ ואינו כותב בלשון ״מזמור תהלים״  אלא מדייק לכתוב בלשון ״מזמור מתחלים״  והיינו שבורר מזמור ״מתהלים״  איזה  שיש לאומרו, ומינה  דהא  אם איגו בורר אלא אומר איזה מזמור שהוא אזי אין  בכלל איסור, ואם כנים ז.-נ,׳ בדברינו אלה יצא לנו דכשמתפללים על החולה אומרים תהלים מן המובחר הוא שלא לברור איזה מזמורי תהלימ  לומר׳ אלא ממקום שמתחילים לומר להמשיך את  האמירה  על הסדר.

ו) ולבסוף׳ מעין  הדברים שכתבתי  לומר בפתיחת דברי באות א׳  עפ״י המאירי בשבועות, נראה בהמשכיות לומר גם זאת, דאם הוא כולל באמירת הדברי תורה להחולה  לא רק עבור החולה כי אם גם עבור בריא דג״כ מותר  אז, כי  כשם שכתב המאידי  דמותר  כאשר משתף  רפואות המותר ותוהיינו, בהיות שמראה עי״ז  שאין סמיכותו  בעיקרו רק מהד״ת. כך יש לומר דמ ותר  נמ י  כאשר מראה שאמירתו הד״ת  איננו רק על הולד. כי אם גם בשיתו ף  על  בריא שמותר זאת, דעי״ז מגלה שאמירתו היא משום להגן, ואם כן יתכן איפוא שלכך מס ד ר י  הי ה ״ ר  שא ח ר  תהלים דאגו לכלול בנוסחת הי ה״ר  שזכות הא מ י ר ה תחול גם על הבריאים להגן, ובכפי שאומרים בו ״ותשלח רפו״ש לחולה עמך ולחולה פב״פ  ותקרא לשבוים דרור ולאסירים פקח קוח ולכל הולכי דרכים וכו׳ תצילם מכל צער ונזק וכו׳ ותשלח ברכה והצלחה כל מעשה ידינ ו ובו׳ וכו׳״, דמ כ י ו ן  שכוללים יח ד עם הבקשה שזכות האמירה  תג ן על החולה שתגן גם על כל הבריאים להצילם מכל צער ונזק אין כבר בעיה על איסור להתרפאות בד״ת.

 ובעשיית מי  שברך בציבור אחר אמירת  כמה מזמורי תחלים עבור חולה שלא מזכירים

 גם עבור בריאים, חרי באמת לא מזכירים שם גם נוסחת ״בזכות״ מזמורי תהלים, וא״כ י״ל שפיר בזה שהמי שברך היא  בקשה מי ו ח ד ת  אג ב אמירת  מזמורי התהלים. עכ״פ  אשכחנא פתרון. לקושית הספר והנה להן

 לישראל אם אין נביאים הן בנ י נביאים הן,

Beshalach. Marriage and the Splitting of the Sea. Drasha for Sheva Brachos (#9)

Sota 2a:

אמר ר' יוחנן וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף שנאמר (תהילים סח) אלהים מושיב יחידים ביתה מוציא אסירים בכושרות

Reb Yochanan said, it is as difficult to match couples in marriage as splitting the sea.

Most of the famous pshatim on "it is as hard to match them as to split the sea" are boring.  So here are the ones I like.  The ones I don't attribute are my own.

Note to speakers:  As Eli points out in the comments, it is hard to deny the pashtus that this expression refers to second marriages, not first marriages.  However, as I respond there, hard, but not impossible.  Many many meforshim apply it to first marriages, as indicated by its use in Midrashim.   In any case, you should be prepared in case someone comes over later to correct you.

1. Even though Kri'as Yam Suf was preordained and inevitable- the Sea was created on the condition that it split for Bnei Yisrael, as taught in Breishis Rabba 5:5, אמר ר' יוחנן תנאין התנה הקב"ה עם הים שיהא נקרע לפני ישראל הדא הוא דכתיב (שמות יד) וישב הים לאיתנו לתנאו שהתנה עמו - the Ribono shel Olam wanted the Jews to cause it to happen with their tefillos and Emuna and mesiras nefesh.  This is hard for the Ribono shel Olam because Hakol bidei Shamayim chutz mi'yiras shamayim.  Same with shidduch; it's preordained, but the  Ribono shel Olam wants hishtadlus and courage and tefilla on your part to make it happen.  Part of the reason for this is that we need to learn that we can overcome our past.  The Ribono shel Olam helps us, and directs us, but we ourselves need to develop the strength of character and faith to make a break with the past.

Please note, too, that at the Yam Suf, Bnei Yisrael were surrounded by temples of Avoda Zara- 14:2, לפני פי החירות בין מגדול ובין הים לפני בעל צפון נכחו תחנו על הים see Rashi there.  (Also, note that besides Baal Tzefon, Chiros may refer to the falcon-headed Horus, one of the indefatigably libidinous Egyptian Gods, as hinted in Maseches Kalla Rabbasi 7:4, כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר מה זכו החירות אלא זונות היו וכשראו את ישראל הפכו את פניהם לפיכך נקראו חירות.)  The Jews' fear of the Egyptians might have been aggravated by the proximity of the Gods of Egypt whom the Jews still feared as independently powerful.  It was because of this fear of the past, this fear of the Egyptian Gods, that it was said about the Bnei Yisrael ve'halalu ovdei Avoda Zara.  At that very moment they showed their superstitious belief that the Gods of Egypt might fight the Ribono shel Olam.  The only way Bnei Yisrael liberated themselves from these indoctrinated superstitions, the only way they could break the crippling chains of the past and embrace their bright future was by leaping into the sea in a physical demonstration of single minded faith and trust in the Ribono shel Olam.

2.   Kri'as Yam Suf involved midas hadin for the Egyptians and midas harachamim for the Jews.  To manifest the attribute of strict justice and the attribute of loving mercy in one event cannot be done through a shliach.  Only the Ribono shel Olam alone can do this, as was the case in Mitzrayim during Makkas Bechoros.  In Mitzrayim, though, they had the zechus of doing the korban pesach, which was mesiras nefesh, and that made it easier to save Klal Yisrael, because mesiras nefesh is equivalent to netillas neshama.  In married life we need to learn to judge and discipline ourselves with strict midas hadin and our spouses with loving rachamim.

3.  The chidush and the symbolism was that after the phenomenal pirud, the sea rejoined as if nothing had happened.  The most important rule of marriage is that inevitably, there will be strong differences of opinion.  When that passes, it should be as if nothing had happened.  While Klal Yisrael walked through, the sea became a beautiful path with sides of solid windows made of water, when the Mitzrim came after them, it changed into a churning maelstrom of chaos and destruction.  Five minutes later, you could go out in a row boat and you wouldn't notice that anything had happened.  (See studies by John Gottman, respected marriage counselor and erstwhile Lubavitcher.)

4.  Chazal use the expression "Kashe K'krias Yam suf in two contexts: in Sota 2a on Shidduchim, and in Pesachim 118a on Parnassa.  (I've heard shadchanim say that for them to make a living is twice as hard as  Kri'as Yam Suf, because both Gemaros apply to them.)

When Hashem told Avraham about Yetzias Mitzrayim, it became a foregone conclusion, and the Yam should have split immediately when the moment came.  It was a tnai with the ma'aseh breishis that was applied to the children of Avraham Avinu.  The problem was that the Sar shel Yam complained "I would be happy to split for the sake of the children of Avraham Avinu, but who are these people??  They look like Egyptians with Peyos.  They're the same ovdei avoda zara as the Egyptians.  Why should I split for these people?"

When a person davens for parnassa on Rosh Hashanna and Yom Kippur, he is like an angel, his thoughts are lofty and pure, he is a worthy recipient of the brachos the Ribono shel Olam showers down upon him.  A few months later, the bracha of parnassa is supposed to be fulfilled, and the Sar of Parnassa looks down at the person, and looks at his delivery order for the person who got the bracha, and he says "Hey, this is not the same person.  Who is this guy, and why should he get the bracha of parnassa?  I must have the wrong address."

When a person is going out on dates, he opens the door for the girl, he listens attentively to all her naarishkeit, he notices her tznius and her refined deportment, he is careful to make sure she is comfortable, and he is the perfect suitor.  They get married, a few months pass, and they get used to each other and start taking each other for granted, and he's not opening doors any more.  The sound of her voice either puts him to sleep or doesn't let him sleep.  It's not the same.

Kashe zivugam kikrias Yam Suf; when the promise was made, everything was perfect.  But when it comes time to fulfill the promises, they start to look like entirely different people.  The chochma, and the challenge, is that when you need the parnassa, you look like you did when you made those promises on the Yamim Nora'im; the challenge of Krias Yam Suf is that the entire year we should look like the descendants of Avrohom Avinu, to whom the promise was made; and the challenge of a good marriage is to make sure that you look and act like the suitor who made the promises to respect your wife yoser mei'gufo even when you're long married.

5.  A pshat submitted by lu:  Unlike a solid that is split, a divided liquid requires constant effort to maintain that state; no less energy is required to sustain it than was invested in creating it, and that investiture of energy will have to be constant and ongoing.  The symbolism is although marriage creates the new entity of a married couple, perpetuating that state requires constant attention and effort.  It can never, ever be taken for granted.  (This teretz, though very good, was kind of too straightforward and earnest for this post, but then I realized it shtims with the Rogotchover in Tzafnas Pa'anei'ach Hilchos Trumos page 20, and Reb Elchanan in Kovetz Shiurim Kiddushin #61.)

6.  A pshat submitted by the Pelleh Din, The Hermit and Rav Hakollel of Manchester  והגלילות:
Kriyas Yam Suf is מוציא אסירים בכושרות - בבכי ובשירות
People tend to think that by getting married they are losing some of their freedom, but from the analogy to קריעת ים סוף we see it's really a freedom.  Accepting an עול granted - so was the יציאת מצרים and acceptance of the עול תורה.    As Chazal say, אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה.

7.  I saw this from Rabbi Frand, and, as usual, it is excellent.

When It Comes To Finding a Mate -- Providence Will Handle It
The Medrash [Bereishis Rabbah 60] says that there were four people in history who made improper requests. Three of these people were fortunate, in that even though their request was articulated improperly, G-d answered them kindly. The fourth person received a terrible response. These four people were Eliezer, Kalev, Shaul, and Yiftach.Eliezer said "And it will be the girl that says 'Not only will I give you to drink, but I will give your camels to drink' will be the girl who will marry my master's son." [Bereshis 24:14] The Medrash says that this was not an appropriate way to ask. What if a maidservant had come out and met all of Eliezer's conditions? Fortunately, G-d sent Rivkah.Kalev promised to give his daughter in marriage to the person who would capture the city of Kiryat Sefer [Yehoshua 15:16]. Kalev did not know what kind of person would conquer the city. What if a slave would have conquered the city? Fortunately, Osniel ben Kenaz conquered the city.Shaul promised his daughter to the person who would kill Goliath [Shmuel I 17:25]. Again this was a rash promise, but again G-d was kind and Dovid killed Goliath.However, there was one man whose improper request resulted in tragedy. Yiftach was praying for success in battle against Ammon. Yiftach said to G-d, "If You deliver Ammon into my hands, the first thing that comes out of my house to greet me, I will offer as a sacrifice..." [Shoftim 11:31] Unfortunately, his daughter was the first to greet him. [According to the commentaries, Yiftach either sacrificed his daughter or sent her away for the rest of her life. Either way, this was a punishment for Yiftach's improper request.]The question can be asked: Eliezer, Kalev, and Shaul also asked improperly. Why were they fortunate and why was Yiftach struck with tragedy?The Beis Av offers a beautiful insight. The Beis Av says that the common denominator of Eliezer, Kalev, and Shaul was that their requests all involved Shidduchim, marriages. When it comes to finding a proper mate, that is one area regarding which a person can legitimately say "G-d -- take care of me!" When it comes to finding a person's life mate, the rule is that this comes from the Hand of G-d [Yalkut Shimoni 117]. Regarding Shidduchim one is allowed to play with Providence and rely on G-d's intervention.Yiftach's pledge had nothing to do with a shidduch. When one utters an irresponsible pledge like that, anything can happen.I once heard the following from Rav Simcha Zissel Brody, who heard it from the Chazzon Ish. The Chazzon Ish commented, there are two things that are "as difficult as splitting of the Red Sea" -- a person's livelihood and finding a mate. We all know that a person's livelihood is difficult because Adam received a curse that it should be difficult to bring forth bread from the earth. But, the Chazzon Ish asked, why should finding a mate be so hard?The Chazzon Ish explained that unfortunately, we live in a time in which we usually do not see the Hand of G-d. However, there is one area where everyone admits that we often can still see it. G-d takes a special interest, and plays a special role in Shidduchim.We all have stories that we feel were 'basherte'. I will just say over my favorite shidduch story. This is a story of a young man who went out looking for a shidduch for a very long time with no success. He went out with his seventy ninth girl. It was a terrible date. He came back upset and broken. He decided to go buy something to eat. He walked into a Kosher hamburger place in Borough Park, sat down at a table and ordered a burger. A woman came up to him and asked, "Are you married?" He responded "No". She said, "I have a shidduch for you." This was a woman completely out of the blue, who had never met him before! Yet he and the girl suggested by that woman are now living happily ever after.This is an example where we see Hashgocha (Divine Providence) -- the Hand of G-d. Here a person can take the liberty and say "Master of the World, take care of me."

I have to add, however, that Rabbi Frand's quote from the Chazon Ish needs some improvement, and, as a contemporary of Rabbi Frand's from our days as students in Ner Israel, I'm confident that when he said it he said it originally he made this clear.  The Chazon Ish's words don't explain the language of the Gemara that   וקשין לזווגן כקריעת ים סוף, because קשין indicates difficulty, and how does this explain difficulty?  The answer is that nothing is קשה for the Ribono shel Olam.  The word Kashe in this context means that the Ribono shel Olam needs to overcome the preference to leave the world to Derech Hateva, to the ostensibly natural flow of cause and effect.  When Hashem engages in obvious suspension of nature, that is called Kashe, difficult.  Shiduchim are an overt intercession, a clear suspension of the randomness of Teva.

Beshalach, Shemos 17:16. Amalek and Marriage

This is from the translation I did for Artscroll/Mesorah of Reb Moshe's journal, with some changes and an addition.

 וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס קה מִלְחָמָה לַה' בַּעֲמָלֵק מִדֹּר דֹּר     

And He said, the hand is on G-d's throne: G-d will be at war with Amalek for all generations. 

The verse uses an abbreviated form of the Hebrew word for throne, כֵּס, and the two letter Name of Hashem, קה, rather than the full name.  Rashi explains that the abbreviated forms indicate that Hashems' Name and Throne are diminished so long as Amalek exists.  

ומהו כס, ולא נאמר כסא, ואף השם נחלק לחציו? נשבע הקב"ה שאין שמו שלם ואין כסאו שלם עד שימחה שמו של עמלק כולו, וכשימחה שמו יהיה השם שלם והכסא שלם

With this in mind, the Gemara in Sotah (17a) seems, at first, perplexing.  The Gemara says that Hashem placed the letter yud in the Hebrew word for "man" איש and the letter hei in the Hebrew word for 'woman' אשה so that the Name of Hashem (Yud and Hei) would be formed upon their union in marriage.  If Hashem desired that the union of husband and wife be graced with His Name, why would He choose the incomplete Two-Letter Name as the signature of His Presence?  

The answer is that while it is true that Hashem graces each Jewish couple with His Name, He provides only a foundation, upon which the couple must build a true Jewish home.  Hashem's contribution, while essential, is only a beginning.  It is only the good works of the couple that can complete the Name that is present in their home.  If they succeed in doing so, then true blessing will surely follow, as the passuk states in Shemos 20:21, בְּכָל-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת-שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ.  wherever I mention My Name, I shall come to you and bless you.  (here ends the slightly modified translation of Reb Moshe's dvar torah.)

A friend pointed out that the Name of G-d that is formed by the union of husband and wife is not a product of the letters aleph and shin, which they have in common.  It is a product of the letters yud and hei, the letters which they do not have in common.  Hashra'as Hashechina, the presence of the Shechina in a Jewish home, stems from harmony- the dynamic harmonizing of their differing emotions and thought processes and perspectives.  As the Aruch Hashulchan says in his introduction to his sefer (found in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat, which was the first volume that he published of the set.)

תפארת השיר כשהקולות משונים זה מזה וזהו עיקר הנעימות

The splendor of music is when the voices are different from each other, and that is the essence of its beauty.

Now, let's think about this a little more. 

What's the point of Reb Moshe's vort?

Does it really say anything at all?  Let's see.  It says that a nice peaceful house is good, but it's only a beginning, that the people need to do more, that Avodas Hashem never ends, that you have to build on a good foundation.  Is there any insight here, anything here at all that we didn't know?  Is it, chas veshalom, a platitude?

No, Reb Moshe never said platitudes.  His mind constantly worked on many levels, and careful attention to what he wrote and said revealed some of that thought process.  Here, Reb Moshe chose to emphasize the positive aspect of his observation - that if a person builds on the gift Hashem granted, then bracha will surely come to the house.  But he is teaching another implicit lesson here, and it's not a comfortable one.   The lesson is that a person who fails to take advantage of an opportunity, a person who rests on his laurels, a person who has achieved but can achieve more and fails to do so because he is lazy, that man is the brother of Amalek.  Whether passively diminishing by failing to do Hashem's work, or actively diminishing by doing wicked things - the result is the same.  This person is guilty of the same diminution of the Name of G-d as Amalek.  And this concept is expressed in Mishlei 18:9:

גַּם מִתְרַפֶּה בִמְלַאכְתּוֹ אָח הוּא לְבַעַל מַשְׁחִית

He, too, who is slack (weak) in his work is brother to the destroyer.

 As the Ramchal says in the Mesillas Yesharim on this passuk,

כי הנה העצל, אף על פי שאינו עושה רע בקום עשה, הנה הוא מביא את הרעה עליו בשב ואל תעש שלו. ואמר (שם יח, ט): "גם מתרפה במלאכתו אח הוא לבעל משחית" כי אף על פי שאינו המשחית העושה את הרעה בידיו, לא תחשב שהוא רחוק ממנו, אלא אחיו הוא ובן גילו הוא.

The lazy man, though not actively evil, produces evil through his very inactivity. We read further (Proverbs 18:9), "Also he who slackens in his work is a brother to the Destroyer." Though he is not the Destroyer who commits the evil with his own hands, let him not think that he is far-removed from him - he is his blood-brother.  (R' Aryeh Kaplan's translation)

So Reb Moshe's vort, properly understood, has a plangent resonance: A couple might say, our home is so pleasant and holy, why look outwards?  Why get involved in things outside of the house?  A person might say, "Look what I've achieved!  I've accomplished enough, I can relax, let others do the work."  These people need to know who is really talking.  That is the Amalek in our subconscious mind talking.  When you start thinking that way, remember that the mitzva of Mechiyas Amalek, the mitzva of restoring the Name and the Throne of Hashem, doesn't always involve taking a weapon in hand against 'the other'.

Beshalach, Shemos 17:8. Az Yashir and Amaleik

The Kli Yakar here cites the Mechilta as saying that Amaleik is allegorized to the fly. (The Baal Haturim here points out that the first letters of “zikoron basefer vesim be’oznei” are ‘zevuv.’) The Kli Yakar explains that the metaphoric use of “fly” alludes to an insect that does not have the ability to pierce the skin. It is only when the skin is broken that the fly can feed and generate all sorts of problems. “Hazevuv lahut achar hamakkoh, ” a fly is drawn to wounds. A fly cannot instigate a problem; it can only exploit and aggravate a problem. When a fly lands on you and walks around, the fly is thinking “Is death here yet?”

Similarly, Amalek cannot do anything when the spiritual integument of Klal Yisroel is intact. Only when there is a breach in our ruchnius, when the skin is not intact, can Amalek exploit that breach and attack us.

Amaleik and Safeik are each gematria 240. Amalek has been described as “korcho baderech,” which some interpret to mean a philosophy of mikreh- randomness and coincidence, the philosophy that denies divine justice and providence. When our faith is weak, when we doubt the existence of Hashgachas Hashem, Amaleik is empowered to exploit that breach. As Rashi says, it was only after we began to wonder “Hayeish Hashem bekirbeinu,” did Amaleik attack. They were attracted to the stench of spiritual decay.

Now let us move from the malodor of sin and faithlessness to the opposite. The Gemara (Shabbos 89a) says that the Malach Hamavves taught Moshe Rabeinu that Ketores has the power to stop a mageifah, to halt the Malach Hamaves. Additionally, Rashi says that the Angel of Amalek, the Sar of Amalek, is the Malach Hama'ves. The sefer Nifla’os Mi’torasecha by R’ Mordechai Aran notes that the word Amalek only appears twice in all of Tanach as a rosh teivos or a sof teivos of four consecutive words: once in order, once out of order.  Shemuel I 2:28 על מזבחי להקטיר קטורת “Al Mizbechi Le’haktir Ketores”, and Bamidbar 16:6 where the Adas Korach was instructed זאת עשו קחו לכם מחתות  “zos Ahsu Kechu Lachem Machtos”. Both of these references involve the bringing of ketores. Imagine that! In all of Tanach, only these two phrases have consecutive words beginning or ending with the letters AMLK, and both explicitly refer to the Ketores! Both phrases discuss the sweet smell of ketores, and both contain singular references to the Amalek, to the rot of death.  The Torah locks together the polar opposites; Good and Evil, Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem; the two primal antagonists in the eternal play of existence.

The antidote to the death-power of Amalek is the sweet smell of the ketores, which symbolizes the life-power of strong emunah and mitzvos done with joy.  As the Prophet Nechemiah told the Jewish people (Nechemiah 8:10)

  ויאמר נחמיה הוא התרשתא ועזרא הכהן הספר והלוים המבינים את העם לכל העם היום קדש הוא לה' אלקיכם אל תתאבלו ואל תבכו  כי בוכים כל העם כשמעם את דברי התורה.   ויאמר להם לכו אכלו משמנים ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדנינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות ה' היא מעזכם.

This parshah contains Oz Yoshir, the eponym of Shabbas Shira. Shira corresponds to ketores, as we find (Tehillim 141:2) “Tikon tefillasi ketores lefanecha.” This is reflected in the placement of the amud of the chazon in shul in a position that parallels the mizbeyach hazahav of the Beis Hamikdosh, which was used for burning ketores. Az Yashir is preceeded by "Va'ya'aminu BaHashem." When the Torah begins the shira, it uses the words ‘Az Yashir,’ not 'Az Shar.' Rashi explains (briefly, because it’s a dikduk Rashi) that Yashir is lashon assid, and Chazal darshan accordingly, but the pashut pshat is that sometimes lashon assid is used to say that “he was moved to...”, so the passuk means “Then, having experienced the miracle, Moshe and the Bnei Yisroel were inspired to sing, and they said...” The question is , why the three step introduction? 1; experienced miracle, 2. their hearts were moved to sing, and 3. they sang (or, Revelation, Exultation, Exaltation.) Why not just say that in response to the miracle, they sang? What does the extra step— “their hearts were moved to sing”— add? The answer is that shira is not just singing, it is song that comes from the heart. Mere chazanus is empty. Shira means song that comes from inspiration, from the heart, from the elevation generated by the awareness of Hashem’s loving presence.

So we see in this parsha, the Torah is really showing us a dichotomy, a contrast, a spectrum defined by, on the one hand, Shira, and on the other, Amalek. When Bnei Yisrael came to “Vaya’aminu Bashem uvemoshe avdo,” then “Oz Yoshir.” When Bnei Yisroel wondered “Hayeish Hashem bekirbeinu im oyin,” then “Vayavo Amalek.” Emunah brings shirah, which is like the ketores. Safeik brings Amalek.

The presence of Az Yashir and Amalek in this parsha is not coincidental. Just as we saw that in all of Tanach, only two pesukim contain the letters of Amalek, and both discuss the Ketores, here, too, the parsha that introduces Amalek precedes that story with Az Yashir, the antidote to Amalek. Once again, Ketores and Amalek face one another.

It was pointed out to me that this can be viewed as “Creating Your Own Reality.” In other words, when they doubted Hashem’s hashgocho and didn’t feel confident that they were safe, they were attacked; when they were confident that Hashem was protecting them, they were protected. This is like the Brisker story of “Ein Ohd Milvado” and R’ Chaninah ben Dosah. See also R Chaim Shmuelevitz in Sichos Mussor #35 and 64, who says that our beliefs create all of our realities, even to the extent that our beliefs contribute to the power of objects to cause us harm, as he brings from R Ami’s story of the Chuldoh and the Bohr in Taanis 8a.

Briefly: Amaleik=Zevuv. Zevuv is attracted to the smell of physical decay that comes from the wounds which allow it to feed and spawn and proliferate. Amaleik is empowered by and attracted to the metaphysical odor of spiritual decay--sin and failure of faith. The polar opposite of Amaleik/Zevuv is the fragrant Ketores. Ketores=Shir. Therefore, Shir is the opposite of Amalek. Shir expresses the exultation of faith and good works. Parshas Beshalach, which contains both Az Yashir and the Parsha of Amaleik, spans the two defining extremes of spiritual life: the state of Emunah and Shir, and the state of Safeik and Amaleik.

My son, in a drasha at his shul, expanded this with an insight that gives this genuine relevance to our lives. What follows is his.

We find that Parshas Ha'azinu contains many strongly worded criticisms of Klal Yisrael and warnings of dangerous and difficult times. Why, then, is it called a Shirah? Is the prophecy of Yirmiahu known as a Shira? Certainly not. So in what sense is Ha'azinu a Shirah? The answer is that Haazinu is a global perspective. It is only for us, who are handicapped by our imperfect understanding of the present and forgetfulness or unawareness of the past, that suffering is so emotionally painful and confusing. But with the global view of Shechina Medaberes Mitoch Grono shel Moshe, with a perfectly understood panorama of the past, the present, and the future, all things fall into place: U're'isem es achorai, ufanai lo yei'ra'u!" Life is experienced forward, but only understood backward. You cannot comprehend what you see because you simply are unaware of the factors that contributed to it or of the ultimate purpose of what you experience; we occupy a thin slice of dim light between endless expanses of darkness. When you finally are granted understanding, after all is done and the goal is acheived, then you will see that all of life is a Shirah, including the Chelbana. Reb Tzadok Hacohen of Lublin once said (in parshas Korach) that Chelbana comprises the letter Ches, which stands for Choshech, darkness, and the rest of the word is Levana, white, or light. Chelbana, the element of ketores that is foul smelling, symbolizes our narrow awareness-- light bound into darkness. But in the ketores, the Chelbana itself combines with all the other ingredients to create a supernally sweet fragrance.

The Beis Halevi in this week's parsha notes the Medrash that Moshe Rabbeinu said "with the word 'Az' I sinned, when I said "u'mei'az basi el Pharaoh," and with the word Az I now say Shira-- Az yashir Moshe. The Beis Halevi explains that now that Moshe saw the denoument of Yetzias Mitzrayim, he realized that not only should he say Shira on the Geula, but that he ought to say Shira on the suffering of the Jews in Mitzrayim.

It is Amalek, or the Amalek within us, that sees the suffering of innocents, the brutish indifference of nature, and says "the is no justice in life." They say that all is Mikreh, randomness, a black abyss of meaninglessness.

We, on the other hand, we say Shira. We know that everything happens for a reason, that Hashem loves mankind and that Hashem loves the Jewish people with a chiba ye'seirah, and we know that ultimately we will have a glimmer of understanding of the whole play of history. And that is the perspective that we express in Shira. Just as Moshe said Shira when the story of Mitzrayim reached its end, we say Shira too, in perfect faith in Hashem's justice and love.

What a great pity it is when people who suffer fall into despair or into sullen frustration. They give up, or they take it out on their friends and family, or they simply become emotionally unsupportive and distant. It is a pity because these people themselves will ultimately realize that they missed an opportunity to say Shira. They should have been saying Shira, and saying Shira itself would have lifted their spirits!

Shira does not have to be a song, it doesn't have to have notes or lyrics. Shira is when a person comes home from a hard day, and he knows that his job is on the line, and that he made bad investment decisions, and the first thing he does when he comes home is to make sure his family knows how much he loves them and how grateful he is that he has his family to return to. That is the truest form of Shira. Let's not wait for Biyas Hamashiach to sing Shira. Let us learn that to not say Shira is a Zeicher of Amalek, and we must eradicate Zecher Amalek. Let us re-learn what emuna and bitachon are all about, and we will say Shira every day of our life.

When I posted an earlier version of this two years ago, there were two comments:
One, anonymous, pointed out that Shiras Miriam begins with the Present Tense, implying that Women can percieve the Yad Hashem in miracles more quickly than men. The other, calling himself Furbo, put in a link to a gematriya and Bible Code engine, http://www.bible-code-depths.com.
Someone else asked for the source of there being ten shiros in Tanach. The sources are Yalkut Shimoni Yehoshua19:2, Mechilat Vayishlach 15:1, and Shir Hashirim Rabba 6:10.)  The Targum in the beginning of Shir Hashirim says that in Tanach you only find nine, and we will sing the tenth when Mashiach comes.

For a discussion about the heightened significance attributed to the sense of smell in Talmudic literature, and some insight into why smell is the most appropriate metaphor, please see http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/08/shoftim-devarim-1618-shoftim-veshotrim.html

A salute to the Kli Yakar: I believe his Yahrtzeit is around now. In any other generation, he would have been the Gadol Hador in Drush. He, however, had the misfortune of living next door to the Maharal.