Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, p. 86ff.

I. On the verse:1 “And towards morning, the sea turned back to its power,” the Midrash2 states that when G‑d created the sea, He established a condition [for its existence] with it: that it should split for the Jewish people when they desired to pass through. This is alluded to by the term לאיתנו, “to its power,” whose letters can be rearranged to form the word לתנאו,3 “as per its condition”, i.e., the sea turned back to its power; it turned [back] because of the condition established with it at the outset.

There is, however, a conceptual difficulty. The verse “And... the sea turned back to its power” speaks, (not about the splitting of the sea, but on the contrary,) about what transpired afterwards when the sea returned to the state it was in before it split. How then can the Midrash associate the return of the sea “to its power” with the condition which G‑d established with it at the outset?

The commentaries4 answer that the condition that G‑d stipulated with the sea (that it should split for the Jewish people) was that if it did not split for the Jews, it would never contain water again. {As Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair told the river Ginei (when the river refused to split for him):5 “If you do not split for me, I will decree that water will never pass through you again.”}

On that basis, they explain the statement of the Midrash that the return of the sea to its power reflected the fulfill­ment of its condition. For if it had not fulfilled its condition, its existence would have been nullified entirely.

This resolution is, however, not entirely satisfactory [for the following reasons]:6

a) Had the sea not fulfilled its condition (not only would it not have had any strength, it would have ceased to exist entirely). As Rashi indicates, however, the word לאיתנו, only alludes to the sea’s power, [not to the totality of its existence]. [Why then is its power associated with the fulfillment of its condition?]

b) The literal interpretation of the word לתנאו is “to its condition,” the sea turned back to its condition. According to the above interpretation, by contrast, it appears that the sea turned back to its power because it fulfilled the condi­tion established with it. The returning itself, however, does not involve its condition.

II. There is a maamar in the text Or Torah that was collected from the Maggid of Mezeritch’s teachings (which he in turn attributes to the Baal Shem Tov7) that focuses on the verse: “And towards morning, the sea turned back to its power.” The Maggid also focuses on the association of the sea’s “power” and the condition established with it as stated by the Midrash. Using this Midrash, {he explains the expression used by our Sages:8 “fulfilling the will of the Omnipresent,” rather than fulfilling His word or His utterance,9 and also} the answer given by Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair to the river Ginei mentioned above: “If you do not split for me, I will decree that water will never pass through you again.”

Since G‑d established a condition with the entire crea­tion10 “that it carry out the will of the righteous even though it is against its nature,” if the river Ginei had not fulfilled the condition by splitting, “it would be as if it had never existed at all, as if water had never been created there. And thus water would never pass through it again.” In other words, by stating that “water will never pass through you again,” Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair was stating more than that the river would be dry in the future. His intent was that since the river was created on the condition that it fulfill the will of the righteous, its entire existence, including its existence up until that time, was dependent on its fulfillment of the condition. For if it had not fulfilled “the condition stipulated at the time of the utterance [which brought it into being],” it would have been as if “it had never been created at all.” For it would never have existed in such a manner.

On this basis, we can explain the difficulty raised above: that had the sea not split for the Jews, not only would it have lost its power, its entire existence would have ceased.

The sea’s fulfillment of the condition had an effect beyond securing its continued existence (for had it not fulfilled the condition, water would not have flown through it again). {Although it is seemingly inappropriate to say that an entity that has already existed could be nullified [to the extent that it never existed],} had the sea not fulfilled the condition, even its existence until that time would have been nullified. [It would be] nullified as if it had never existed as [an element of] the creation,11 (to the extent that it would have been “nothingness 12and non-being as it actu­ally was before13 the six days of creation”14).

Therefore [the fulfillment of] the condition is associated with the power of the sea. Through the fulfillment of the condition, not only did the sea continue to exist afterwards (without change), [but] strength and power was endowed to its previous existence.15

This explanation, however, resolves only the first diffi­culty — why the verse states לאיתנו, which indicates that the fulfillment of the condition effected only the sea’s power, because [the splitting effected] (also16) the previous exis­tence of the sea. The second question — that the meaning of the word לתנאו is “to its condition” — appears to be unre­solved. For the sea did not return “to its condition.”

III. The resolution of the above can be understood by pref­acing the explanation of the difficulty in the meaning of the term לאיתנו, “to its power,” which required the Midrash to interpret it as לתנאו, is “to its condition.”17

The fact that the Torah tells us that the sea returned לאיתנו, “to its power,” is obviously a new development. [For otherwise, it would not have been necessary to say so. Yet that raises a question:] Why would we think that the fact that G‑d “transformed the sea into dry land”18 weakened the nature of the sea to the extent that even when the sea returned, it no longer had its original strength? Why must the Torah state לאיתנו, “to its power,” to negate such a conception?

One might be able to resolve these questions through explaining that we find {[in general, and] in particular, in connection with the exodus from Egypt,} two types of mira­cles:19

a) Miracles which change the nature [of the entities] which existed previously, for example, the miracle in which Moshe inserted his hand in his bosom and it came out “leprous like snow.”20 After the miracle, Moshe’s hand remained leprous; that became its natural state. For it to return to a state of health, 21 a second miracle was necessary to negate the leprosy.22

b) Miracles in which the situation created by the miracle remains miraculous, defying nature; for example, the mira­cle of the transformation of the water into blood. The water remained water; its nature did not change. It is just that [for the Egyptians], its apparent and functional state was blood.23 Therefore, when the miracle ceased, [another mira­cle was not necessary to transform the blood back to water]. On the contrary, the change to blood was nullified as a matter of course.24

With regard to the matter at hand, the miracle of the splitting of the sea: If the transformation of the sea to dry land meant that the nature of the water changed and it actually became land, the return of the sea would require making a new entity, [making the land, sea]. Therefore the verse states: “the sea turned back to its power,” indicating that it returned to the strength which it originally pos­sessed, as Rashi states: “to its original power.”25 For even when it was outwardly dry land, it remained (in its inner state), water.26

This interpretation is, however, not sufficient. From the fact that the miracle of the splitting of the sea came about because “G‑d propelled the entire sea with a strong east wind throughout the entire night,”27 it is evident that the sea did not undergo a fundamental change in nature and become dry land. {The fact that the water “stood like a column and like a wall”28 came about through (the Divine power that enclothed itself29 in) the east wind that contin­ued blowing the entire time.} [Had that wind stopped, the water would have reverted to its original state. Hence, it is not necessary for the verse:] “And towards morning, the sea turned back to its power,” to teach us this concept. Thus, the question remains: What new concept does this verse introduce?

For this reason, the Midrash interprets the verse as meaning that the sea returned {not only to the strength it possessed before it split (for that is not a new concept), but} to the strength with which G‑d endowed it at the beginning of creation when He established the condition with it to split for the Jewish people. This strength is immeasurably greater than the strength the sea possesses on its own accord (as will be explained in section V).

This condition was fulfilled when the sea split. Never­theless, the verse states, “And... the sea turned back to its power,” because the strength with which the condition endowed the sea was drawn down to it in a revealed manner (not at the time when it split, but) when it reverted to its original state (as explained in section VI). Through the sea splitting, becoming as dry land, and then reverting to sea, it came “to its power,” “to its condition,” to the strength endowed it by the condition [G‑d established].

IV. To resolve the above, it is necessary to understand why it was necessary for G‑d, at the time of the creation, to establish a condition with the sea to split for the Jewish people. On the surface, since G‑d is the Master of the world, it is obvious that He has power and jurisdiction over the sea, and can cause it to split without having to establish a condition at the outset.30

The concept can be explained as follows: The creation was brought into being “for the sake of the Jewish people and for the sake of the Torah.”31 The intent is {not only that the world exists in order to give the Jews the opportunity to observe the Torah and its mitzvos, as one entity serves another, without having any [inner] connection to [the purpose] itself. Instead,} [the motive is that] the Jews, through their Divine service in the Torah and its mitzvos {and through carrying out [their worldly activities in a manner of] “Know Him in all your ways,”32 and “All your deeds should be for the sake of heaven,”33} should make the world itself a dwelling for G‑d.

The intent of making a dwelling for G‑d is [making] a dwelling for His essence, like a dwelling for a mortal king, in which his entire essence is found in the dwelling.34 Ac­cordingly, [the existence of] the world itself has to be [structured] in a manner that enables it to also appreciate the aspect of G‑dliness that transcends the G‑dliness that was condensed according to the limits of the worlds. (This includes even the Divine power manifest in the creation of the worlds.)35

Therefore G‑d established a condition with the sea, and with every other entity brought into being during the six days of creation,36 that when the time came, they would change their nature for the sake of the Jewish people. Had He not established this condition,37 i.e., had the creation itself not accepted the possibility for miracles and changes in the natural order, the result would be that the miracles and changes in the natural order that come about from the light which is (encompassing, sovev, and) above the worlds38 would nullify the existence of the worlds.39 Therefore G‑d created the sea (— and all other created beings —) with the condition that it split for the Jewish people.

Torah Law states that when a condition is established beforehand in the proper manner, if the principal does not fulfill the condition, the matter is nullified entirely retroac­tively. Similarly, in this instance,40 the manner in which the world was created was that [if it would not enable the Jews to observe the Torah and its mitzvos,] the existence of the creation would be nullified. It would be as if, at the outset, it had not been created. This was intended so that the exis­tence of the sea itself [— and similarly, the entire creation —] should agree41 to the change of the natural order.

V. Based on the above, it is understood that the condition which G‑d stipulated with the sea (and similarly, with all the other created beings at the time of the creation), that it should split for the Jewish people, endowed it with far greater power than it possessed by virtue of its creation itself (as it would have existed without the condition).

When an entity exists for a specific time, and then its existence ceases, even during the time it existed, its exis­tence is weak.42 Indeed, this weakness is the reason why afterwards, the entity ceases to exist.43

Therefore one may conclude that the world (as it exists in its own right, by virtue of its being brought into being by the Ten Utterances of Creation) does not possess true power. For it will exist for only six thousand years and then it will cease.44

Because of the condition that G‑d established with it at the time of its Creation, [the world] receives greater and more encompassing strength. The fact that He created the world with the condition “that it carry out the will of the righteous even though it is against its nature” shows that although G‑d created the world “for the sake of the Jewish people,” that intent is an inner dimension of the world itself.

{For if the concept that the world was created “for the sake of the Jewish people” was that one entity serve another although it has no connection to it, it would not be appro­priate to say that the creation was brought into being so that the world would go against its nature.}

The Jews are “the sprouting of [G‑d’s] planting, the work of [His] hands.”45 Therefore they are eternal, an entity of [G‑d’s] thought46 which is the source and the reason (for the existence of) His speech, [the medium through which the world was brought into being]. By making “the fulfill­ment of the will of the righteous” [a condition] within the existence of the creation itself, G‑d introduced a dimension of eternality into them which transcends their own exis­tence.47

VI. On this basis, we can appreciate the interpretation offered by the Midrash to the verse: “And towards morning, the sea turned back to its power,” “as per the condition established with it at the outset.” While the sea was split, one could think that the miracle (changed and) nullified the sea’s previous existence,48 and thus the strength with which the fulfillment of the condition endowed the sea was not revealed.

When, however, the sea “turned back” — {and “turned back to its power,” which as implied by its simple meaning is that its nature did not change (as stated in section I) and yet, its own existence left room for doing G‑d’s will against its nature} [a change was brought about]. Through the fulfillment of the condition, the sea attained its strength, i.e., a far greater dimension of strength than it possess by virtue of its own existence.

Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Beshallach, 5729