Yisroel Benporat
The Splitting of the Reed Sea endures in Jewish tradition as one of the most memorable and awe-inspiring miracles of the Exodus story. It represented God’s utter mastery over nature and a stunning salvation of the oppressed Israelites. A straightforward reading of Exodus 14 suggests that the purpose of the miracle revolved around the Egyptians rather than the Israelites. God tells Moses that He will “gain glory through Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD.”[1] This verse suggests that the Splitting of the Sea served primarily to increase the knowledge and glory of God; indeed, the Song of the Sea as well as the later testimony of Rahab describe how other nations greatly feared God as a result of this miracle.[2] This essay offers a novel rereading of the narrative based on overlooked rabbinic sources. I argue that Exodus 14 reenacted the earlier episode of the Akeidah (Binding of Isaac) in Genesis 22. The literary links between these two texts yield the intriguing possibility that the Splitting of the Sea also functioned as a test of the Israelites’ faith analogous to God’s trial of Abraham.
Rabbinic sources draw explicit connections between the Akeidah and the Exodus. Mekhilta notes several thematic parallels. Firstly, it likens Abraham’s and Pharaoh’s eagerness to fulfill their respective missions; Abraham saddled his donkey himself, and Pharaoh similarly harnessed his chariot without the aid of servants.[3] Secondly, R. Shimon b. Yochai states that the knife wielded by Abraham in preparation to slaughter Isaac protected the Israelites from the sword brandished by Pharaoh.[4] While neither of these parallels reflect specific textual connections, R. Benaya provides a third example based on the reappearance of a verb; in merit of Abraham splitting wood in preparation for the sacrifice of Isaac (vayibaka atzei olah), God split the sea (vayibaki’u hamayim).[5] A fourth parallel notes that the Splitting of the Sea occurred during the morning watch (ashmoret haboker), just as Abraham arose early in the morning (baboker) to perform the Akeidah.[6]
Beyond those identified by the Mekhilta, more recent writers have found further literary links between these two biblical episodes. R. Yaakov Medan points out that both passages contain wordplay between seeing (re’iyah) and fear (yir’ah).[7] Nachum Krasnopolsky notes that after the Akeidah, God promises Abraham that He will make his offspring as numerous as the sand “on the seashore” (al sefat hayam); this detail does not appear in God’s earlier blessings to Abraham, and the phrase al sefat hayam is not used again until it next appears in reference to the dead Egyptians.[8] From a structural standpoint, R. Elchanan Samet argues that both episodes contain two parallel passages with a dividing sentence that marks a surprise turn from the apparent conflict to its resolution; in the case of Abraham, the appearance of the angel, and at the sea, God’s command to Moses to split the water.[9] In both cases, the initial framing of each narrative assures the reader of a positive outcome; the Torah tells us that God tested Abraham, and God foreshadows to Moses that He will gain glory through the Egyptians.[10] I would add another commonality: in both cases, an angel intervenes to protect people in a vulnerable position: Isaac from Abraham, and the Israelites from the Egyptians.
The above parallels invite us to read Exodus 14 as a sequel to the Akeidah. The concept of a nisayon (test) helps explain other rabbinic sources on the Splitting of the Sea. One passage in Avot de-rabi Natan states that God “tested our ancestors with ten trials, and they did not emerge whole from any of them… they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds.”[11] Similarly, Midrash Tanhuma inserts the sea motif into the Akeidah; after failing to convince Abraham and Isaac to abandon the mission, Satan “made himself into a great river before them.” Abraham persisted on his path until the water reached his neck, whereupon he cried out to God, who responded that through Abraham his name will become unified throughout the world; subsequently, God “rebuked the spring and the river dried up.”[12] In this reading, God tests Abraham’s faith through a trial by water akin to the one his descendants faced centuries later.
Reading Exodus 14 as a trial along the lines of the Akeidah raises the question of the purpose and intended outcome of the test, and whether or not the Israelites passed it. Did God expect the Israelites to believe that He would spit the sea for them? From the Israelites’ perspective, they presumably faced death on both sides; they did not know what would happen next. Hence their complaint to Moses, “Was it for want of graves in Egypt that you brought us to die in the wilderness?”[13] Perhaps returning to slavery in Egypt remained a possibility; upon finding out that the Jews fled, Pharaoh had exclaimed, “What is this we have done, releasing Israel from our service?”[14] Regardless, entering the sea without an assurance of a miracle constitutes a life-or-death test. In this regard, the analogy to the Akeidah works well; God challenged Abraham to sacrifice his own son, and the Israelites to sacrifice themselves.
The Israelites’ complaint supports the critical characterization of the Psalmist: “Our forefathers in Egypt did not perceive Your wonders; they did not remember Your abundant love, but rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.”[15] Avot de-rabi Natan, cited above, echoes this criticism and implies that the Israelites did not fully pass the test. A Talmudic passage also follows this reading, and it even adds that the Israelites rebelled a second time during their arrival back on dry land, as they still feared that the Egyptians would follow them.[16]
However, other rabbinic sources suggest that at least some Israelites demonstrated faith at the sea. Sotah 36b-37a records a dispute between R. Meir and R. Yehuda. R. Meir maintains that while each of the tribes fought over which one would enter the sea first, the tribe of Benjamin jumped in; R. Yehuda, however, asserts that all of the tribes refused to enter the sea, until Nahshon ben Aminidav of the tribe of Judah jumped in. Like R. Yehuda, Mekhilta identifies “four factions at the sea: One was for lunging into the sea [i.e., drowning]; another, for returning to Egypt [i.e., slavery]; another for warring against [the Egyptian forces]; another, for crying out against them.” R. Yehuda and the Mekhilta here presumably maintain, like Avot de-rabi Natan, that the Israelites failed the test. R. Meir, on the other hand, seems to contend that the Israelites passed the test; after all, the biblical account does not indicate hesitation after God reveals the plan to Moses, and the chapter concludes by highlighting the Israelites’ belief in God.[17]
One final rabbinic source deserves closer consideration as a possible rejection of the Akeidah-Exodus analogy. R. Benaya’s argument that the merit of Abraham splitting the wood resulted in the Splitting of the Sea appears in another midrash alongside a dissenting view: “Rabbi Levi said [to him]: Enough. Until here. Rather, Abraham [acted] according to his ability, and the Holy One blessed be He [acted] according to his ability.”[18] Here, R. Levi denies any connection between Abraham’s actions and God’s decision to split the sea, though the precise point of contention remains unclear. R. Benaya’s emphasis on Abraham’s merit fits well with R. Yehuda’s account that the Israelites failed to adequately demonstrate their faith. R. Levi’s rejection of this view fits well with R. Meir’s opinion, which regarded the Israelites as thoroughly believing in God, thus rendering Abraham’s merit unnecessary.
Framing Exodus 14 as a second Akeidah provides a compelling explanation of the episode’s purpose. Why would God orchestrate an elaborate series of stunning miracles merely to increase the awareness and glory of Himself among the Egyptians whom He had decimated through the Ten Plagues and whose army he would immediately annihilate? It seems difficult to accept a reading of the Israelites as mere bystanders or props in this plan. The rabbinic analogy to the Akeidah, however, explains the enduring significance of the Splitting of the Sea. In Genesis 22, Abraham demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice Isaac by splitting wood for his trial by fire; in Exodus 14, his descendants encountered their own trial by water. These two moments, both memorialized daily in our liturgy, stand as eternal reminders of the power of faith and the glory of God’s will.
[1] Ex. 14:4; see also v. 17-18. All biblical translations follow the JPS 1985 edition via Sefaria. Unless otherwise noted, all other translations follow Sefaria.
[2] Ex. 15:14-16; Joshua 2:10.
[3] Gen. 22:3; Ex. 14:6.
[4] Gen. 22:10; Ex. 15:9.
[5] Gen. 22:3; Ex. 14:21.
[6] Ex. 14:24; Gen. 22:3.
[7] Gen. 22:12-14; Ex. 14:10, 13, 31.
[8] Gen. 22:17; Ex. 14:30.
[9] Gen. 22:11-12; Ex. 14:15-16.
[10] Gen. 22:1; Ex. 14:4.
[11] Avot de-rabi Natan 34:1. A variant of this source inverts the idea by stating that the Israelites “tested” God ten times in the wilderness, including once at the sea (Avot de-rabi Natan 9:2; cf. Mishnah Avot 5:3-4).
[12] Tanhuma, Vayeira 22 (translation mine).
[13] Ex. 14:11.
[14] Ex. 14:5.
[17] Ex. 14:16, 31.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.