Avodah Mailing List

Volume 16 : Number 144

Tuesday, February 28 2006

• The source for the term "Krias" Yam Suf

[Forwarded by R' Rich Wolpoe. -mi]

Draft - April 19, 2005
WHAT IS THE REAL SOURCE FOR
THE TERM "KRIAS" YAM SUF?
By MICHAEL HOENIG

1.   The Question

       The question is: what is the Makor (source) for Chazal's use of
the language, "Krias Yam Suf," specifically utilizing the term "Kriah,"
commonly understood as "tearing"? Exactly when did this usage start?
And, more important, why? Starkly put, the term "Kriah" is an
extraordinarily inapt word to use with any body of water, let alone a
sea. How does one "tear" the sea? Minimally, it is awkward and clumsy.
Moreover, Torah's further text states, "Vayoshuvu Hamayim" (the waters
returned). That simply is not the opposite of, or the "repair" for,
"tearing" or "Kriah." It is, however, apt opposing terminology for
the act of "Bekiah" or splitting of the sea, as Torah actually puts it.
Waters divided would "return" to each other. In fact, one can search
high and low, but the entire Torah text offers no usage of the word
"Kriah" with a body of water. Neither do the books of the Neviim,
the Prophets. And Dovid HaMelech (King David), in Tehillim (Psalms),
apparently eschews use of the word, seeming to prefer other terminology.
The latter fact is quite significant for Tehillim frequently soars with
majestic descriptions of Hashem's creations animating extraordinarily
beyond their wont: seas seeing and fleeing; mountains trembling or
jumping swiftly, etc.

In Sefer Bereishis, at creation, when Hashem separated the waters of
the Rakia, the Torah does not use "Kriah" but, rather, "Vayivdelu" (the
waters divided). In the Book of Yehoshua (Joshua), when the Jordan River
(Yarden) splits miraculously, the text on two occasions is not "Kriah"
or "Bekiah" or "Vayivdelu." Rather, it is language of "Krisa" (HaMayim
Nichras), also somewhat awkward but, still, no mention of "Kriah."
And although "Krisa" might be closer in parlance to "Kriah," that usage
in Yehoshua suggests that "Krisas Yam Suf" would then be more apt.

Biblically speaking, therefore, the expression, "Krias" Yam Suf, so
ubiquitous today, indeed now almost the exclusive vernacular, is unknown
to scripture. Not only that, the traditional Siddur (prayer book)
does not use the term at all, although the splitting of the Yam Suf
is mentioned several times in our daily prayers. Likewise, the major
Piyuttim, for example, the Selichos prayers, when referring to the sea
dividing, do not seem to mention "Krias" Yam Suf. Other expressions
are used.

Torah references to the miracle at the Sea actually use the language
of "Bekiah" (dividing or splitting) as in "Vayivaku Hamayim." Siddur
references do likewise, as in "Bokeah Yam Lifnei Moshe." The Book of
Nechemia (9:11) says "Vehayam Bakaata Lifneihem." Tehillim, Psalm 136,
uses language of "Gezirah" as in "Legozer Yam Suf Ligzorim," referring
to the miracle where the splitting of the sea was further refined to
create 12 distinct, parallel paths each separated by a wall of water,
through which each tribe could pass within its own pathway. So, if
the ancient, original sources eschew use of "Kriah," how and why and
when did this markedly inapt term work its way into Rabbinic dialogue
and then become perhaps the dominant expression?

The question is not merely academic. Torah language has a profundity
to it. Torah text ought to be continually studied, used and not cast
aside for a perhaps inappropriate substitute that may distort the
linguistic, interpretive, poetic and scriptural message the original
term intended. Pinpointing exactly when and why the expression "Krias
Yam Suf" surfaced would help explain whether certain of Chazal may have
intended the expression to play some important role and, perhaps, why
it became so popular. Was it meant to explain or interpret scripture?
Enhance scripture? Be synonymous with scripture? Displace scripture? If
we are to recall the Yam Suf phenomenon each day in holy prayer, why
change the seemingly preferred, classical texts?

The HaKesav VeHaKaballah, Part I, on Shemos 14:16, Parshas Beshalach
(Rabbi Yaakov Tsvi Mecklenberg), actually asks the question the other way
around: why does Torah use the language of "Bekiah" when Chazal use the
expression "Kriah."? The answer given is notable and remarkable, yet it
only heightens our questions. This respected commentary suggests that a
fantastic geological and topographical miracle occurred in which a deep,
low valley (Bikah) was formed in the sea bed. This miracle is said to
be a response to Bnai Yisrael's explicit refusal to enter the sea when
Moshe commanded. "We will not pass until the sea is turned into a valley
before us" ["Lo Naavor Ad Sheyeaseh HaYam Bikah Lefonenu"], they said.
In this version of the miracle, not only did the water shift but a major
geological change occurred. Given the arguably "greater" miracle of
water splitting plus valley-formation, one would expect the language of
"Bekiah" to not only be retained but preferred. Such imagery would add
glory to the miraculous events. Why would Chazal shift at some point
to an awkward expression that does not convey this astounding result?

2. The Time Frame

The Passover Haggadah mentions language of "Kriah" only once, in the
"Dayenu" recitation. However, it is not clear that the "Dayenu"
composition itself was actually in the Haggadah when originally
issued or added later. Although the Passover Haggadah was assembled
in Talmudic times, its content seemed to be fluid. Apparently, it was
during the "Gaonim" period (9th and 10th centuries C.E.) that a stable
text form emerged. The earliest, completed Haggadah text, according
to one internet source, appeared in the Siddur of Rav Saadiah Gaon of
the Sura Academy (Babylonia, 10th century C.E.). However, an earlier,
almost complete text appeared in the Seder (or Siddur) of Rav Amram Gaon
(Scholar of the Sura Academy, 9th century C.E.). Other than Rav Amram's,
the earliest written forms of Haggadah text are mostly found in the
Cairo Genizah (depository in Egypt in the 10th and 13th centuries C.E.).

According to the Ohr Somayach website ("Pesach/The History of the
Haggadah"), additions were made to the Haggadah, such as Chad Gadya and
Dayenu. Says this source: "Rav Saadia Gaon (882 CE-942 CE) included
neither in his Haggadah, although he did recognize the existence of
Dayeinu." Neither Rashi nor Rambam included Chad Gadya in their versions
although Rashi did include Dayenu. The foregoing seems to suggest that
elements of Haggadah text trace back to Talmudic times but that the more
stable text originates in the Gaonic era. This still raises questions
as to when "Dayenu" was added and, even, whether the original text of
the song had the language of "Kriah" as do later versions.

The Passover Haggadah titled, "The Temple Haggadah" (The Temple Inst.,
Carta; Cana 1996), by noted Beis HaMikdash (Holy Temple) expert and
author Israel Ariel, provides a commentary oriented to Temple practices.
At p. 36 of the English version, the author suggests that the "Dayenu"
was "a song recited by the festive pilgrims upon the 15 steps." The 15
points of Dayenu, it is suggested, correspond to the 15 "Songs of
Ascent" in the Psalms. Others maintain they symbolize the 15 steps in
the Holy Temple leading from the Women's Court to the Nikanor Gate and
on through to the Court of Israel (citing Mishnaic, Talmudic sources).
The author then develops the conclusion that the Dayenu song is "indeed
ancient, and dates from the era of the Temple," suggesting that it was
sung by joyful pilgrims and was connected to the recitation made by
persons bringing the first fruits. If Dayenu dates to Temple times,
which Temple was it? And did it actually incorporate the language of
"Kriah" as do later versions?

With the help of a young Talmid Chacham, a Smicha candidate from Yeshiva
University's RIETS, a computer word search was conducted upon the Bar
Ilan Responsa Project (number 10) for the expression "Krias Yam Suf."
It appeared five (5) times in the Talmud Bavli (Babylonian) and three (3)
times in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Jerusalem). This clearly suggests some
usage of the term during Talmudic times but, given the textual breadth
of these works, such numbers do not seem overwhelming. By contrast,
there were more "hits" for usage of "Kriah" in Midrashic literature
such as the Mechilta, Sifri, Bereishis and Shemos Rabbah and others.
By the time of the Rishonim Commentators such as Rashi, "Krias Yam Suf"
seems the dominant expression.

Notably, the foregoing appears to suggest that Torah, Navi, Psalms,
the Siddur and earlier holy writings all use terms other than "Kriah";
that this expression is only modestly reflected in Talmudic texts and
somewhat more in Midrashic sources; and, later, after the Gaonic era,
the Dayenu song was added to original Haggadah texts where "Kriah"
is mentioned only once. Israel Ariel suggests "Dayenu" was sung in
the Temple by Olei Regel (pilgrims) but it is not clear from his
comments which Temple or whether the ancient version of the song
actually used language of "Kriah." If the foregoing rough survey is
correct, clearly, a "sea change" of sorts (pun intended) seems to have
occurred in Talmudic - Midrashic times. Why? What is so preferable
about "Kriah."? What is "wrong" with the classic scriptural language?
As the HaKesav VeHaKabbalah suggests, the miracle had been enhanced.
Why not project that more majestic image?

3. Some Responses

A. A "Simple Answer": The Question is Flawed

A celebrated Rosh Yeshiva and scholar advised this writer that, from
his perspective, there was a "simple answer" and that, in essence, the
question was "in error." The question mistakenly focuses on Chazal's
language change here as if it were a single issue. In fact, however,
there are literally thousands of instances where Chazal departed from
the Lashon Mikrah, the Torah's language, to form a Lashon Chachomim.
Essentially, it is as if there are two Hebrew languages, that of Torah
and that of the Mishnah. To illustrate, this scholar offered some
examples. Take the word, "sun." In Torah the term used is "Shemesh"
but Mishnah uses the expression, "Chamah." Similarly, the word, "moon,"
is signified in Torah by "Yareach" but Mishnah uses the term "Levana."
The word for "here" in Torah is "Po" but in Lashon HaMishnah, the word,
"Kan" is used.

The Rosh Yeshiva says there was a totally different Hebrew spoken
by the Tannaim. Chazal quite unconsciously changed word forms.
This phenomenon is also traced in a two-volume text called, "Lashon
Mikrah VeLashon Hachamim" (author: Abba Ben David; Devir Publishers,
Tel Aviv, 1967), giving many examples.

Perhaps the word "Gazar," in Mishnaic times, became a word more associated
with passing laws and Bris Milah so Chazal did not wish to utilize
the term Dovid HaMelech used for the miracle at the Sea, "Gozer Yam
Suf LeGezorim." In the Mishnah the word "Bekiah" is associated with
wood-chopping, so perhaps the majestic splitting of the Sea was, instead,
called "Kriah." Since this particular change in language is only one
among countless others, the methodological approach of the question
posed at this essay's outset is wrong. Indeed, says this scholar, one
could ask the same question about many word changes made by Chazal.
According to this viewpoint, therefore, Chazal's change from "Bekiah"
to "Kriah" evolved and was not necessarily purposeful or distinctive.

B. Questions of Great Depth; Perhaps A Secret (Sod)?

The questions posed in this essay and the elusiveness of answers seem
validated, however, by statements attributed to three Torah luminaries as
recorded by other notables. Indeed, so deep and complex are the reasons,
they seem shrouded in some mystery. These sources were referred to
this writer by a recognized Talmid Chacham in Toronto, Canada.

1. The Chidushei HaRim

The Likutai Yehudah, sefer of the grandson of the Chidushei HaRim (the
Gerrer Rebbe), reports [at Beshalach, pp. 94-95] that the Gadol Hador
(the Great Sage of his generation) was asked why Chazal use language
of "Krias Yam Suf" but in Torah we find only language of "Bekiah"?
[Shoalti Oso (the Chidushei HaRim) Lama Bedivrai Chazal Nikra Krias Yam
Suf, UBeTorah Lo Matzinu Kasuv Ela Lashon Bekiah]. The Gerrer Rebbe
answered that he had many things to say on this subject but was unable
to transmit but a small "Remez" or hint. [VeHeshiv, SheYesh Lo Devarim
Harbei BaZeh VeEino Yachol Lomar Ach Remez MeAt].

The Chidushei HaRim went on to explain his Remez snippet in terms of
"Kriah" being terminology used when two separate things have been
made into one and then, afterwards, when they are separated, this is
called "Kriah." But, as to an item that was unitary to begin with,
the act of separation is not called "Kriah." Since the Sea had a
"Tnai" or condition that it would split and glorify Hashem but was held
together until the miracle of separation, the apt language is "Kriah."
The waters, so to speak, were "separated" from inception but thereafter
put together as one. Therefore their later division is called "Kriah."
[LiKutei Yehudah, Beshalach, p. 95].

Now a startling further revelation by the LiKutei Yehudah! The Chidushei
HaRim was also asked, why then did the Torah use language of "Bekiah"?
[VeShoalti Oso Lama BaTorah Nikra Bekiah?] The Gerrer Rebbe answered that
he was not able to respond because his lips were sealed on the matter!
[VeHeshiv Li Ki Eino Yachol Lomar Ki Mastimin Es Piv (on these matters)].
With the latter expression, the Chidushei HaRim obviously was not saying
he did not know the answer but, rather, meant to say that the matter
was not one for him to reveal; his lips were sealed on it; it was a
matter of Sod (secret)!

The Likutei Yehudah cites the Ramasayim Tzofim, a commentary (Perush) on
the Tanna DiBay Eliahu [see Zuta, Perek 16, Ramasayim Tzofim 10, Parshas
Beshalach], where this entire episode with the Chidushei HaRim is also
quoted along with additional pertinent elaboration by the commentator
on Chazal's choice of "Kriah."

2. The Baal HaTanya Commentary

The Baal HaTanya (Lubavitcher Rebbe) Siddur has a commentary called Shaar
Chag HaMatzos [see pp. 578-584], where the episode of Krias Yam Suf and
its particulars is discussed at length. Much of it is Kabbalistic in
nature and beyond this writer's comprehension. The commentary says near
the outset that it is important to comprehend the "body" or essence of
the episode of Krias Yam Suf and why it was referred to in the idiom of
"Kriah." [Yesh LeHavin Guf Inyan Krias Yam Suf . VeLama Nikra BeShem
Kriah .] Citing the Zohar, Arizal, etc., the author somehow connects
the descent of Neshamos (souls) to this world as a kind of "birth"
with an analogy to the birth of a baby who passes from the realm of the
unseen to be revealed. This, then, is the pertinence of the subject of
"Kriah," analogous to the opening of the narrow womb for the birth of
a baby, where the infant passes from the waters that housed him and is
revealed via the "tearing" away from the womb. [See discussion, id at
pp. 578-579]. For our purposes here, the significance of such profound
thoughts is that there somehow is a purposefulness and, indeed, profound
depth in Chazal's election to use the language of "Kriah."

3. The Reshimos Lev: 'Utmost Depth'

The Reshimos Lev, a sefer by Rabbi Yonason David, contains certain MaMorim
and HaOros (statements and insights) attributed to the noted Rosh Yeshiva
of Yeshivas Chaim Berlin, Rav Yitzchak Hutner ztl. Under the title,
"Pesach (Year Tof Shin Lamed Aleph)," at p. 54, the Reshimos Lev states
that scrutiny is required as to why Chazal used the term "Krias," and
did not say "BeKias" Yam Suf, as the Torah uses the latter expression.
The Reshimos Lev recites that Rabbi Yonason David, son-in-law of Rav
Hutner, advised that this question had been asked of the Chidushei
HaRim and the latter responded that the subject was extremely "deep,"
to the utmost. [VeAl Zeh HeIr . Rav Yonason Shlita SheShoAlu Ken
LeChidushei HaRim, VeHeshiv SheHu Davar Amuk Ad Meod].

C. A Scriptural Source?

A renowned Talmid Chacham from Queens, New York, well-known for his
incisive Shiurim, suggests that the question is answered by Scripture,
specifically in Yirmiah, 22:14, where the Prophet states, "VeKora
Lo Chalonoy." Astscroll translates this as, "he breaks open windows
for himself." Both Rashi and Radak, however, explain the word "VeKora"
as a form of "opening." Radak also refers to Targum Onkolos' translation
"Upatzem" similarly. Indeed, Rashi [at 22:14] cites other instances
in Navi where the language of "Kriah" is used, also essentially meaning
"to open." Rashi says, after citing two such other Navi references,
"Kulan Lashon Pesicha," all are language of "opening."

Thus, suggests the respected scholar from Queens, Chazal's use of the
idiom "Kriah" for the Yam Suf experience is logical, i.e., the Sea
"opened" before Bnai Yisrael. And Chazal thus had a Scriptural source
for using this descriptive language.

Another Talmid Chacham from Queens, a Talmid of the former's Shiurim,
adds that Tosafos, in Sanhedrin 11a, in explaining how Rabban Shimon Ben
Gamliel can refer to the word "Chodesh" (month) as a period of only 29
days when Torah in another context refers to "Chodesh" as a full month
of 30 days, says: "Lashon Torah LeChud VeLashon Chachamim LeChud" [the
language used by Torah is one thing and the language used by Talmudic
Sages is another]. In other words, Chazal can and do adopt suitable
terminology which differs from that used by Torah. Combining their
suggestions, this learned duo believe Chazal meant to emphasize the Sea
"opening" (as Rashi and Radak opine "Kriah" to mean in Yirmiah) and that
it is not at all strange that Chazal departed from the Torah language.

However, the cited text in Yirmiah clearly does not deal with a sea or a
body of water. Moreover, one of Rashi's additional sources for "Kriah"
meaning "Pesicha" (opening) is from the Book of Yeshayah (Isaiah) 63:19,
where the Prophet renders, "Lu Korata Shamayim ." [If only you would tear
open the heavens ."] Rashi in Yirmiah reads "tearing" here as an idiom
for "opening." Yet, a few Pesukim earlier, the very same Prophet says,
"BoKeah Mayim Mipneihem LaAsos Lo Shem Olam" ["Who split the Sea before
them to make Himself eternal renown?] [Isaiah 63:12]. Thus, when dealing
with a body of water, and specifically the Sea, Yeshayah uses language
of "Bekiah," the very same expression used elsewhere in Scripture with
the Yam Suf episode. Would Chazal eschew the Navi's language dealing
directly with the Yam Suf in order to adopt other language not dealing
with water at all simply because the latter meant to convey a form of
"opening"? And, in any event, why should "Kriah" supplant "Bekiah"?

4. Other Rabbinical Responses

A. 'Tearing' Up the 'Shtar Chova'

A Haggadah in Hebrew entitled, "Ki Yishalcha Bincha," featuring more than
600 questions and answers explaining the Haggadah, asked a question
on "Dayenu." "Why did the Magid use language of Kora" in the song?
Why didn't he say, "Boka Lanu Es HaYam," given the language of "Bekiah"
in Torah?

The text's commentary answers as follows. Midrashically speaking,
the Yam Suf at creation was formed with a "Tnai," a precondition or
obligation - a kind of "genetic debt," so to speak - that it would split
at precisely the time of the Exodus. The sea was thus pre-programmed
to divide (citing Yalkut Shimoni). Building on this Midrashic thought,
the author of the response suggests that, when the sea divided as
it was obligated to do, the "Shtar Chova," the IOU or document of
debt, was "torn up" thereby releasing the obligation. [Kemo Adam
SheYesh Lo Chov Al Chavero BiShtar UBeshaas Periah, Korea HaShtar].
To commemorate this occasion, the Dayenu song uses language of "Kriah,"
i.e., "tearing." Nice! But where is the Makor for that? Did Chazal
really reason similarly when they started to use the term?

B. 'Jewish Press' Answer

In September 1998, the basic question was posed by a fascinated, learned
letter writer to the author of the Jewish Press' "Questions and Answers"
column [see Jewish Press, Sept. 4, 1998, pp. 5, 76]. The column
reinforces our question: later references to "Kriah" by Rashi and Kli
Yakar "do not explain why Chazal chose this particular terminology . in
preference to several other available synonyms. Better yet, why didn't
they use the scriptural text itself."? [Id. at 76] The column then
notes scant Talmudic references to "Krias Yam Suf," one suggesting
that marriage matchmaking is as difficult as splitting the Yam Suf
(Sotah). Commentaries suggest this only refers to matchmaking of a
second marriage. (zivug sheni) Two couples, two unions, are torn
apart in order to arrive at the zivug sheni. There is some parallel
to events at the sea since rescue of Bnai Yisrael meant drowning of the
Egyptians, ostensibly a kind of tearing apart. The Jewish Press column
also suggests that "Kriah," rending of a garment, is a sign of mourning.
Likewise, there was crying in Heaven at the destruction of the Almighty's
creatures at the sea, a kind of mourning.

These suggestions are interesting but do they clearly and authoritatively
answer the questions?

C. Emunah and Bitachon Enhance "Bekiah" into "Kriah"

A notable Talmid Chacham from Toronto combines a point from Rav Chaim
Volozhin's, Nefesh HaChayim [Shaar Aleph - Perek 9, at pp. 32-33],
with the Baal HaTanya's commentary, previously addressed, about the
"tearing" of the emerging baby from the mother's womb. The Nefesh
HaChayim relates that when Hashem said to Moshe, "Why do you cry unto me?
Speak to the Bnai Yisrael and let them proceed" [Ma Titzak Elai, Daber El
Bnai Yisrael VeYisaU (Shemos 14:15)], Hashem wanted the nation's faith and
confidence to manifest so that their certainty of the Sea splitting would
be felt. The miracle would thereby be enhanced as the People proceeded.
However, the first few steps, the initial burst forward into the Sea,
was paramount. Says the Nefesh Hachayim, this expression of Bitachon
and faith would be a stimulus in Heaven above to effect the miracle
and the Sea would split before them. [VeYisu Haloch VeNasoa El HaYam
. MeOtzem Bitachonam SheVadai Yikora Lifneihem. Az Yigremu Al Yedai
Zeh HisOrerus LeMaalah, SheYaaseh Lahem HaNes VeYikora Lifneihem]
Hashem wanted the honor and distinction (Kavod) for the miracle to be
attributable to the Bnai Yisrael for their confident dismissal of fear
and assumption of absolute faith.

Under this dynamic, the opening aspects of the miracle were "Bekiah,"
an initial splitting of the water, the sea bed becoming dry and the
12 walls being formed. However, as the People proceeded with surging
confidence, "Kriah" occurred, in that the walls and other facets of the
miracle "adjusted" further to the People's needs. The Baal HaTanya's
reference to the phenomenon of the newborn emerging by "tearing" away
from the mother's womb is similar in that Hashem greatly assists the
infant's egress after the first few human efforts ensue. The language of
"Kriah" better emphasizes the role of the great Bitachon shown by Bnai
Yisrael at a time of danger and glorifies their role in enhancing the
miracle at the Sea.

D.   Heightened Perceptions During the Miracle

A Talmid Chacham from Lakewood views Chazal's change in terminology
as reflective of the great status achieved by Bnai Yisrael during the
miracles at the Sea. He suggests that the language of "Bekiah" connotes
something done with an instrument or via some medium, citing to the
Gemara in Kidushin 47, which speaks of a "ShoEl," a borrower of an axe:
"BaKa Bo, Bo KanOh"; if he chopped with the axe he becomes a ShoEl.
When Hashem split the Sea, to the ordinary human eye, he seemed to
use the medium or instrument of the strong east wind which blew all
the night. But the People, having reached the intimate, visionary
status of declaring "Zeh Keli VeAnvehu," recognized instead that Hashem
performed the miracle, so to speak, with his own hands. The language of
"Kriah," a tearing, is appropriate when one rends something with his own
hands. Because "Kriah" better extols and reflects the unique perceptive
ability of Bnai Yisrael at that special moment, Chazal preferred using
this term. This approach is similar in style to another substitution by
Chazal of a word in Torah with one of their own. The Torah calls the
Passover Holiday, "Chag HaMatzos," but Chazal (and we today) call the
Festival, "Pesach." The reason, said the Berditchover Rebbe, is this:
Hashem emphasizes praise of Bnai Yisrael for abstaining from Chometz and
eating Matzos, hence Torah calls the Holiday, Chag HaMatzos. Bnai Yisrael,
on the other hand, praise Hashem for saving us from Makas Bechoros, the
deadly Tenth Plague, hence we emphasize this aspect of the miracle with
the name, Pesach. Similarly, Chazal elected to use the term "Kriah"
to extol the Nation's high status and its visionary recognition that
the Sea was "torn," so to speak, with Hashem's own hands.

E. Terminology Related to Phases of the Miracle

In 1998, intrigued by the question, Rabbi Yaakov B. Ackerman, Rav of the
Kehilla Heichal Shlomo in Kiryat Ata (as well as Director of Yeshivat
Tikvat Yaakov in Sde Yaakov), Israel, researched the topic (including
computer searches). This resulted in an article, as yet unpublished
[manuscript in Hebrew], entitled, "Krias Yam Suf; BeInian Lama Chazal
Mishtamshim BeVitui Krias Yam Suf BiMekom BeVitui Shel HaTorah HaKedosha
Bekias Yam Suf" [Regarding Why Chazal Use the Expression Krias Yam Suf
Rather Than That of the Holy Torah, Bekias Yam Suf].

Rabbi Ackerman surveys scriptural, Midrashic, and Rabbinical usage of
language of "Bekiah," "Gezirah" and "Kriah" in attempting to answer the
question posed. He notes the linguistic and idiomatic characteristics
of the terminology as used in other scriptural contexts. For example,
in Bereishis, Parshas VaYera, the Torah says, "VaYivaka Atzei Olah"
[Avraham split the wood for the Olah offering], which Targum Onkolos
renders "VeTzalach." Here, according to Onkolos, it means to cut (or
separate them) into a number of small pieces. Similarly, in a Navi text,
"VaYivaku Atzei HaAgalah" [the wood of the wagon was split], Targum
Onkolos translates it as "Tzalach" also meaning many pieces. Yet, in
other references to "Bekiah," Targum Onkolos translates them as "Boza."
The author suggests that all other scriptural references to "Bekiah" mean
that the division or splitting was only into two pieces or two parts.
So, too, with Krias Yam Suf. [Ulam Bishar Bekios SheMuzkarim BeTanach
Haysa HaBekiah Lishnayim, Kemo VaTivaka HaAdamah - VeIzbezata Ara.
VeChen BiKrias Yam Suf - Muzkar SheHayam Nechlak LeShenayim].

Rav Ackerman focuses similarly on the Psalms' use of language of "Gezirah"
[Psalm 136 - LeGozer Yam Suf LiGezorim]. Targum Onkolos there explains
Gezirah as "LeTzaleach Yama DeSuf LeTzilucha," using the root word
"Tzalach." Rashi renders "Gezirah" as 12 "torn" parts for the 12
Tribes [12 "Keraim" for 12 Shevatim (using the root word "Kora")].
Midrashic literature, however, is not uniform. The Yalkut says the Yam
Suf was split in two. The Mechilta says it was divided into 12 parts.
There are many Midrashic nuances on precisely what happened at the sea.

After similarly surveying the idiom in Talmudic, Midrashic and
Commentary sources, Rav Ackerman suggests that the multiple terminology
used variously by scripture and Chazal reflects the complexity and
multiple-stage, miraculous nature of the splitting of the Yam Suf.
The essential core of the miracle was the sea's splitting into two parts
- therefore, Torah language uses "Bekiah." Then Dovid HaMelech, in
Psalm 136, hints at a continuation of the miracle in a broader manner,
namely, creation of 12 pathways for the Tribes. This explains use of
the language of "Gezirah." Chazal use language of "Kriah," suggests
Rav Ackerman, because the 12 passages were then refined even further to
accommodate differences in the size and width needed for each Tribe to
go through its pathway.

"Kriah," this reasoning continues, is appropriate terminology because,
when used in the Talmud [i.e., matchmaking is as difficult as Krias
Yam Suf; and making a living is as difficult as Krias Yam Suf],
Chazal intended to convey the message that Hashem actually matches
couples or allots livelihood to persons according to their needs.
[HaKadosh Boruch Hu Nosen Parnasa LeAdam Kefi Hatzorchim Shelo; Vegam
Mezogeg Zivugim Lefi HaTzorech]. Similarly, the language of "Kriah"
at the Yam Suf connotes a later, refined stage in the splitting of the
sea whereby each of the 12 pathways [Gezorim] adjusted, so to speak,
according to the needs of each Tribe. To glorify and extol the breadth
and complexity of the miracle and thus increase faithful belief [Emunah],
suggests Rav Ackerman, Chazal adopted usage of language of "Kriah."

The latter adds a dimension beyond initial splitting of the sea in two.
[Ki HaKria HaPitzul Hevi LeAm Yisrael LeHaamin BaShem UveMoshe Avdo
Emunah Gedola VeChazaka, VeLachen Mishtamshim Chazal BeLoshon Kria
LeHachdir Bonu Emunah].

5. Absence of a Consensus

The foregoing scholarly and informative insights do not reveal a consensus
definitively explaining the "when," "how" and "why" "Krias Yam Suf"
became Chazal's dominant terminology. We do not have, it appears, an
authoritative consensus as to why we should not persistently use Torah's
own terminology of "Bekiah" or why this expression was (or should be)
supplanted. We do not precisely know why Tehillim's use of "Gezira"
is not sufficient of itself. That Torah luminaries and brilliant,
scholarly minds differ so markedly on what seems a "simple" question
is intriguing in and of itself. The range of opinion is startlingly
broad. The Chidushei HaRim seems to suggest a complexity and depth
of meaning partaking of "Sod" or secret. The Reshimos Lev, citing
the latter, says the matter is of the utmost depth. The Baal HaTanya
suggests that the expression connotes rich Kabbalistic meanings tied
up with the birth of souls. On the other hand, a noted Rosh Yeshiva
and scholar/author suggests that the question is not profound, indeed,
it is methodologically flawed. Chazal often changed Torah language,
sometimes quite unconsciously, and formed essentially a Mishnaic Hebrew
different from scripture. This is one of those many instances. Other
gifted Rabbis, scholars and Talmidei Hachamim disagree. Chazal's change
of terminology here was indeed purposeful. They answer the questions
either by identifying a Makor (source) in Navi or by advancing a number
of rationales rooted in established Rabbinic commentary or analysis of
scriptural language.

6. This Writer's Observations

Following years of grappling with the questions, this writer's own,
lay observations are offered here for what they are worth. First, the
Siddur's use of "Bekiah" and not "Kriah" makes eminent sense because
the Siddur's prayers are largely comprised of scriptural verses. Thus,
if Torah uses "Bekiah" and not "Kriah," then we can expect the Siddur to
follow suit and not create new idiom. Second, the computer word-search
survey noted above suggests modest infusion of the expression "Kriah"
in Talmudic, Midrashic times. The Rishonim, such as Rashi, seem to have
run with it. Since Rashi was one of the most prolific commentaries and
was most commonly coupled with Books of Scripture which were distributed
widely after the advent of the printing press, his (and possibly others')
influence in language usage could have popularized the term "Kriah"
into dominance.

Third, this writer would hypothesize that language of "Kriah" for a body
of water, while thoroughly awkward in the sense that one doesn't "tear"
water, is perhaps arguably fitting in regard to the Yam Suf miracle.
Our tradition, Midrashically speaking, is that the Yam Suf was a
"reluctant moose" when it was commanded to split. It simply "refused."
In effect, Midrashically speaking, it was forced to divide.

Moreover, the nature of water (its Teva) is to come together, to remain
together, to cling together, to flow uniformly within its container.
Water is thus programmed, in a kind of "genetic" sense to "resist"
division. (For example, water doesn't "divide" with a knife or axe
or scissor, etc.). Therefore, to force or coerce a sea to split,
Divine power would, in effect, have to "tear" one portion away from
another. Hashem's overturning of the sea's very nature would be a miracle,
in effect, against nature, a kind of intrinsically violent, forceful
ripping asunder of the sea's "will." "Kriah" might project an apt and
vivid word picture of such divine coercion, perhaps lending itself to
popularization of this concept. This hypothesis seems reinforced by
Chazal's teachings when, in Bereishis, Hashem divides the waters of the
Rakia. For that day of creation, the Torah notably does not say "Ki Tov"
[it was good]. The reason, suggest Chazal, is that waters wish to cling
together so dividing the firmament's waters was forcefully coercive
and against their nature, not a suitable circumstance to commemorate
with the statement "Ki Tov." Perhaps this same notion was embraced by
Chazal using the symbolic language of "Kriah" when describing the truly
miraculous events at the Sea. (Yet, in the Rakia division of waters,
Torah uses the term, "Vayivdelu.")

In any event, this essay ends essentially with many "responses" but no
definitive, consensus answer. Hopefully, someone will soon come forward
to reveal yet another authoritative source or to shed additional light
on what the Makor of "Kriah" is and why. Perhaps knowledgeable experts
will take up the challenge of a further search. Or, perhaps, this may
be one of those tense occasions when a question resists any consensus
and thus, arguably might be better than its answers.

-mi

**********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]