Upon encountering Pharoh and his army as they approached Yam Suf in the aftermath of their triumphant (Shemot 14:8 - "uBenei Yisrael yozeim beyad ramah") and miracle-suffused exodus from Egypt, the Torah reports that Benei Yisrael panicked (14:10) - "vayiru meod" - and burst into "zeakah"- "vayizaku el Hashem". Surprisingly, Moshe was advised that this response was either inappropriate or inadequate (14:15) - "vayomer Hashem el Moshe ma titzak eilai" - and that a more active and pragmatic policy was demanded - "daber el Benei Yisrael ve-yisau". The apparent rejection of prayer is puzzling, particularly in a time of evident crisis. Even Ramban (Sefer Hamitzvot, aseh no. 5), who disputes Rambam's codification of a daily imperative of prayer (see also Hilchot Tefillah 1:1-2) acknowledges the obligation in times of crisis (based on Bamidbar 10:9). Moreover, given the preeminence of prayer in Jewish life and thought as a critical facet of avodat Hashem (Taanit 2b and Rambam, Ramban Sefer Hamitzvot op cit) any proposal to even curtail supplication-petition is unanticipated. Yet, the Torah evidently registers a critique of "zeakah" in an acutely challenging historic moment in the development of Am Yisrael. What are the implications of this unanticipated reaction?
According to some mefarshim, there is no implied limitation of prayer in this context. Unkelos renders "zeakah" as "uzeiku", not a reference to prayer, but simply a cry that is an expression of fear. Ibn Ezra even understood the term as a signifying a cynical complaint, connected with "hamibli ein kevarim be-Mitzrayim..." Ramban (14:10-12) posits that the term is intentionally ambiguous, reflecting a divided population (Mechilta - kitot, kitot), those who appropriately turned to prayer during this crisis, and those who improperly lashed out with accusations that Hashem summarily dismissed. [He develops this perspective by noting the different usages of "Benei Yisrael"- those engaged in real tefillah, and "Am"- the group that were terrified and accusatory. He notes that in the aftermath of "vayisau", the Torah (14:31) declares: "vayiru ha-am et Hashem, va-yaminu ba-Hashem u-ve-Moshe avdo", reflecting the spiritual progress it engendered!] [See, also, Seforno's view that Hashem was critical only of one dimension of Moshe's prayer that may have reflected criticism of Am Yisrael.] These views presumably further affirm the efficacy and propriety of authentic prayer, as they dismiss the more unvarnished meaning of the Torah's words as inconceivable. The difficulty persists, however, according to the Mechilta, Rashi, and other mefarshim who identify "zeakah" with actual prayer.
At the same time, Rashi's contribution illuminates the ideal crisis posture, refining the role of prayer. While Rashi, citing the Mechilta - "tafsu umanut avotam"- does identify "zeakah" with prayer, he explains that prayer alone may occasionally be inadequate ("lo eit atah leharich betefilah she-Yisrael nesunin ba-zarah"). This is true particularly when it is possible to take additional concrete steps to resolve or alleviate the calamity, or to address the spiritual challenge. In these circumstances, failure to augment tefillah with the appropriate hishtadlut (substantive effort) may constitute overindulging in prayer, possibly undercutting its authentic character and also jeopardizing the efficacy of prayer itself. Tefillah as a primary vehicle of avodat Hashem and an indispensable spiritual response and mechanism in times of crisis needs to be consistently integrated with broader halachic commitment and the concrete actions that reflect and facilitate it. Exclusive reliance on prayer may also project an excessive supernatural focus that detracts from the appropriate normative, philosophical, and theological facets that stand at its core. Ramban, in his introduction to parshat Vayishlach, discussing Yaakov's paradigmatic spiritual strategy confronting Esav, famously invokes the midrashic triple formula of tefillah (prayer), milchamah (warfare), and doron (gifts, also akin to diplomacy-political influence). This multifaceted approach certainly did not diminish the prayer motif. Likely, it enhanced it.
The integration of "ve-yisau" was additional to but possibly also the ideal culmination of Klal Yisrael's "zeakah" of tefillah. In this context, it may have been a prescription to deepen their profound faith in Hashem, well beyond the sense of dependence implied by simple petition. Meshech Chochmah (Shemot 14:15), interpreting the Mechilta, posits that this charge entailed that Am Yisrael would seize the initiative in this demonstrative act of emunah, that Moshe would specifically bring up the rear. Perhaps the projected "va-yisau" as a way of furthering and consolidating national faith in Hashem, culminating in "vayaminu ba_Hashem u-be-Moshe avdo" (14:31) further validated the promise of "Hashem yilachem lachem, ve-atem tacharishun" (14:14) understood by the Mechilta (parshah 2:6) as a broad future commitment, perhaps even when undeserved (see Meshech Chochmah 14:14):"lo be-shaah zu bilvad yilachem lachem, ela leolam yilachem keneged oyveichem."
Moreover, the ambiguity of the term "zeakah" may convey not only diverse populations as Ramban proposed, but also a complex prayer posture that reflected both an appropriate mix of anxiety and dependence on Hashem's providence, as well as a problematic expression of panic and desperation bordering on yeush - helplessness. The latter may have been particularly inappropriate given the background of miracles reflected in the exodus and the specific Divine commitment unequivocally conveyed through Moshe (as noted by Ibn Ezra and others). R. Saadiah translates "vayizaaku" (14:10) in a manner that suggests that the Torah intentionally utilizes this term that equally communicates a loud cry of anguish and a sober prayer for salvation. Unkelos (14:15) interpolates into his rendering of Hashem's rejection of further "zeakah" the fact that their prayer had already been accepted. Confidence and faith in Hashem, alongside exclusive reliance on Divine providence and personal humility are elemental features of avodat Hashem, and particularly prominent in the structure and content of "avodah she-be-lev zu tefillah" (Taanit 2b).
The need to inculcate faith and confidence was particularly challenging but also acutely vital at this stage in Am Yisrael's national evolution. As Ibn Ezra notes (14:13), Am Yisrael's panic at Yam Suf ensued despite their numerical superiority at this juncture and notwithstanding the explicit Divine assistance that enabled them to extricate themselves from Egypt. Yet, when they encountered Egypt and Pharoh, they were psychologically paralyzed as they confronted their longtime masters. This despite their apparently proud departure - "u-Benei Yisrael yotzim be-yad ramah" (14:8), a temporary assertion of confidence and dignity also depicted by Ibn Ezra (14:8): "lo yatzu ke-demut borchim, ve-hayah imahem kol kelei milchamah". The prescription of "vayisau", in conjunction with appropriate prayer, was crucial to neutralizing this posture of obeisance and cultivating a measure of national strength, dignity, faith and confidence required at this critical historical moment (albeit that would only be fully achieved according to Ibn Ezra's analysis by the next generation that entered Eretz Yisrael). Thus, "vayosha Hashem ba-yom hahu et Yisrael mi-yad Mitzrayim" (14:30). Ibn Ezra (14:30), acutely sensitive to this theme, emphasizes that the authentic salvation and redemption from Egypt that transcended the physical freedom achieved days earlier occurred only in the aftermath of vayisau and the miracle of keriat Yam Suf that it engendered. It was this profound faith experience, initiated by "vayisau" in the aftermath and as a necessary augment to prayer that fostered national confidence and dignity, true salvation ("atah hayu Yisrael noshiim miyad Mitzrayim ki ad atah hayah aleihem pachad hamelech").
We, too, are living in very challenging times, confronting dangers and disappointments that engender anxiety and uncertainty. The security situation in Eretz Yisrael, the tragic losses that we have endured and continue to suffer, the venom of global antisemitism, the callous attitude of presumed friendly nations, the grotesque journalistic misrepresentations of facts and contexts have left us reeling. Thankfully, we have been able to find much solace, inspiration and guidance in intensified prayer. At the same time, the need for appropriate hishtadlut, "vayisau" as expressed by "lo eit atah le-haarich be-tefilah (exclusively), sheYisrael netunim ba-tzarah"- financial support, political activism, volunteerism- to augment intensified tefillah has never been more obvious. Even as we focus on these appropriate normative responses, we should be mindful of the other facet of "vayisau", the need to deepen our sense of faith in Hashem and confidence in the destiny of Klal Yisrael, never to descend into despair or panic. We need to fortify ourselves by further appreciating and immersing ourselves in the principles and values that define our national core essence. In that way, we will surely be deserving of the continued Divine providence and promise, encapsulated in the aforementioned Mechilta: "lo be-shaah zu bilvad yilachem lachem, ela leolam yilachem keneged oyveichem."