Pesach5 min read

God Stopped the Angels From Singing When Egypt Drowned

When Egypt's army drowned at the Red Sea, the angels began their morning hymn. God silenced them. His reason is recorded in the Talmud exactly.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. The Angels Who Started Singing
  2. What the Verse Said That Night
  3. Before the Sea, Not Only After
  4. The Song That Finally Came

The Angels Who Started Singing

The Egyptians were drowning. The walls of water had collapsed back over the army, over the chariots and horses and soldiers who had spent two hundred and ten years extracting labor from Israel, over Pharaoh's captains, over the finest military force in the ancient world. The crossing was complete. Israel stood on the eastern bank. The sea was doing its work.

The ministering angels wanted to sing. They had been waiting for this moment. The oppressor was being destroyed, the people of Israel were free, the demonstration of divine power and divine fidelity was total and undeniable. What better occasion for a hymn? They began their morning song.

God stopped them. The Talmud in tractate Megillah records the exact words: My handiwork is drowning in the sea, and you want to sing before Me? The angels fell silent. The Egyptians were not abstractions. They were not merely instruments of oppression or symbols of Pharaoh's pride. They were creatures God had made with the same hands that had made the Israelites. They were drowning. This was not a moment for celestial music.

What the Verse Said That Night

The verse behind the Talmudic teaching is in Exodus 14:20: And the one did not come near the other all the night. The sages read this as describing the moment before the sea split when the pillar of cloud came between the Egyptian and Israelite camps, keeping them separated in the dark. But Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani, citing Rabbi Yonatan, found a second meaning in it. That night, the angels who wanted to sing their hymn to God were also kept from approaching, not by a pillar of cloud but by God's own prohibition. And did not come near: neither army crossed, and the angels did not draw near to offer praise.

The context in which this teaching appears in the Talmud is itself revealing. The discussion is about the word vayhi, and it came to pass, which the sages associated with moments of grief or ambivalence rather than pure celebration. The Exodus was the great triumph of Israel's history, and it was shadowed by the death of thousands. Triumph and grief occupied the same moment. The word vayhi named the compound quality of the event.

Before the Sea, Not Only After

This was not the first time God had silenced his celestial choir. A second tradition preserves a similar scene from an earlier moment, before the sea had split at all, when Israel stood pinned between the Egyptian army pressing from behind and the impassable water stretching ahead. The angels began their daily hymn at that moment, as scheduled. God stopped them again. My children are in danger, He said, and you want to sing?

The two silences frame the event. Before the sea parted, God would not allow celebration because Israel had not yet been saved. After the sea parted, God would not allow celebration because the dead were his creations. Between the two silencings was the crossing itself, the only moment in the story when the song was entirely appropriate, and it was the humans, not the angels, who sang it: Moses and all of Israel lifting their voices in the Shirat HaYam, the Song of the Sea, and then Miriam taking the tambourine and leading the women in their own reprise. The angels had to wait and listen to the humans sing the praise the angels had been forbidden to offer.

The Song That Finally Came

God had silenced the angels at the sea. But God did not silence Moses. The same morning that the angels were told to hold their praise, Moses lifted his voice and sang. The Song of the Sea, which opens Exodus 15, is one of the oldest poems in the Hebrew Bible, and the tradition understood it as the song the angels wanted to sing but were forbidden to offer. The humans who had just crossed the water, who had spent two hundred and ten years in slavery and had watched the sea collapse on their oppressors, they were permitted to sing what the celestial beings were not. The restriction was not on praise itself. It was on praise offered at a remove, by creatures who had not been enslaved and had not crossed and had not suffered and had nothing at stake in the water.

Israel sang because Israel had earned the song. The angels had to listen. Miriam then took the tambourines, the instruments she had packed in Egypt before leaving because she knew they would be needed, and led the women in a second singing. The song of the human beings who had survived the night and crossed the sea rang across the eastern bank while the ministering angels stood and heard it without being permitted to join in.

PesachRed SeaEgyptAngelsMusicMercy
← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

5 sources

The texts this telling draws on, in full. Open a card to read inline, or expand it for a wider, quieter read.

Megillah 10bTalmud Bavli, Megillah

Now, didn’t they say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to consecrate them? Rather, this is what the baraita means to say: It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and enumerated them. The baraita continues. And not only these, but in any city with regard to which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Eretz Yisrael for its time and sanctified Eretz Yisrael forever.

This is difficult, as there is a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yishmael and another statement of Rabbi Yishmael. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between two later tanna’im, who hold according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. And if you wish, say instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as with regard to this statement, Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall” (Leviticus 25:30).

The word lo is written with an alef, meaning no, that it does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, lo with a vav, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that even though it does not presently have a wall, as it was destroyed, but it had a wall previously, it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the first consecration sanctified Jerusalem forever. § The Gemara returns to the primary topic of this chapter, the book of Esther.

The Gemara cites various aggadic interpretations of the verses of the Megilla. The opening verse of the Megilla states: “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus” (Esther 1:1). Rabbi Levi said, and some say that it was Rabbi Yonatan who said: This matter is a tradition that we received from the members of the Great Assembly. Anywhere that the word vayhi is stated, it is an ominous term indicating nothing other than impending grief, as if the word were a contraction of the words vai and hi, meaning woe and mourning.

The Gemara cites several proofs corroborating this interpretation. “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days of Ahasuerus” led to grief, as there was Haman. “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the days when the judges ruled” (Ruth 1:1) introduces a period when there was famine. “And it came to pass [vayhi], when men began to multiply” (Genesis 6:1) is immediately followed by the verse: “And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth” (Genesis 6:5).

“And it came to pass [vayhi] as they journeyed from the east” (Genesis 11:2) is followed by: “Come, let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4), which led to the sin of the Tower of Babel. The Gemara cites further examples: “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel” (Genesis 14:1), about whom it is stated: “These made war” (Genesis 14:2). Another verse states: “And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho” (Joshua 5:13), it was there that he saw an angel “with his sword drawn in his hand” as a warning.

It is written: “And the Lord was [vayhi] with Joshua” (Joshua 6:27), and immediately afterward: “But the children of Israel committed a trespass” (Joshua 7:1). It states: “And it came to pass that there was a certain man of Ramathaim” (I Samuel 1:1), and it mentions shortly afterward Hannah’s inability to conceive: “For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed up her womb” (I Samuel 1:5). Similarly, the verse states: “And it came to pass, when Samuel was old” (I Samuel 8:1), and then it is written: “And his sons did not walk in his ways” (I Samuel 8:3).

Also, it states: “And it came to pass that David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him” (I Samuel 18:14), and only a few verses prior it is written: “And Saul viewed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). In another instance, the verse states: “And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house” (II Samuel 7:1). Here King David mentioned his desire to build a temple for God, but it is written elsewhere that he was told: “Yet you shall not build the house” (II Chronicles 6:9).

After citing several verses where vayhi portends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1), which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that day: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar to the joy that existed on the day on which the heavens and earth were created.

The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. It is written here, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day,” and it is written there, in the Creation story: “And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created.

Apparently, the term vayhi is not necessarily a portent of grief. The Gemara answers: This verse does not contradict the principle. On the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle, a calamity also befell the people, as Nadav and Avihu died. The Gemara cites additional verses where vayhi is not indicative of impending grief: But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] in the four hundred and eightieth year” (I Kings 6:1), which discusses the joyous occasion of the building of the Temple?

And furthermore, isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] when Jacob saw Rachel” (Genesis 29:10), which was a momentous occasion? And isn’t it written: “And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was [vayhi] morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5)? And isn’t there the second day of Creation, and isn’t there the third day, where the term vayhi is used? And aren’t there many verses in the Bible in which the term vayhi appears and no grief ensues?

Apparently, the proposed principle is incorrect. Rather, Rav Ashi said: With regard to every instance of vayhi alone, there are some that mean this, grief, and there are some that mean that, joy. However, wherever the phrase “and it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei]” is used in the Bible, it is nothing other than a term of impending grief. The Gemara states that there are five instances of vayhi bimei in the Bible.

“And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahasuerus”; “And it came to pass in the days [vayhi bimei] when the judges ruled”; “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Amraphel”; “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Ahaz” (Isaiah 7:1); “And it came to pass in the days of [vayhi bimei] Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 1:3). In all those incidents, grief ensued. § Apropos the tradition cited by Rabbi Levi above, the Gemara cites additional traditions that he transmitted.

Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers. The Gemara questions: What novel element is this statement teaching us? The Gemara responds: It is in accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets will emerge from her.

From where do we derive this? From Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face” (Genesis 38:15). Can it be that because Tamar covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute? On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face.

Rather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with her appearance, Judah didn’t recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her. Ultimately, she merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kings emerged from her through David, who was a descendant of Tamar’s son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of prophets.

This is derived from that which Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors. Amoz, father of Isaiah, and Amaziah, king of Judea, were brothers, and it is written: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar. And Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a tradition that we received from our ancestors: The place of the Ark of the Covenant is not included in the measurement of the Holy of Holies in which it rested.

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: The Ark crafted by Moses had ten cubits of empty space on each side. And it is written in the description of Solomon’s Temple: “And before the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth” (I Kings 6:20). The place “before the Sanctuary” is referring to the Holy of Holies. It was twenty by twenty cubits.

If there were ten cubits of empty space on either side of the Ark, apparently the Ark itself occupied no space. And it is written: And the wing of one of the cherubs was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits; the wings of the cherubs occupied the entire area. If so, where was the Ark itself standing? Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Ark stood by means of a miracle and occupied no space? § The Gemara cites prologues utilized by various Sages to introduce study of the Megilla: Rabbi Yonatan introduced this passage, the book of Esther, with an introduction from here: “For I will rise up against them, says the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylonia name, and remnant, and offspring [nin], and posterity, says the Lord” (Isaiah 14:22).

This verse may be interpreted homiletically: “Name,” this is the writing of ancient Babylonia that will disappear from the world. “Remnant,” this is the language of ancient Babylonia. “Offspring,” this is their kingdom. And “posterity,” this is Vashti, who according to tradition was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter, and the book of Esther relates how she too was removed from the throne.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up; and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 55:13). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interpreted the verse homiletically as referring to the righteous individuals who superseded the wicked ones in the book of Esther.

“Instead of the thorn”; this means instead of the wicked Haman. He is referred to as a thorn because he turned himself into an object of idol worship, as he decreed that all must prostrate themselves before him. The Gemara cites proof that the term thorn is used in connection with idol worship, as it is written: “And upon all thorns, and upon all brambles” (Isaiah 7:19), which is understood to be a reference to idol worship.

The next section of the verse discusses what will replace the thorns, i.e., Haman: “Shall the cypress [berosh] come up”; this is Mordecai. Why is he called a cypress [berosh]? Because he was called the chief [rosh] of all the spices, as it is stated: “Take you also to yourself the chief spices, of pure myrrh [mar deror]” (Exodus 30:23), and we translate “pure myrrh,” into Aramaic as mari dakhei. Mordecai was like mari dakhi, the chief [rosh] of spices, and therefore he is called berosh.

The verse continues: “And instead of the nettle [sirpad],” this means instead of the wicked Vashti. Why is she called a nettle [sirpad]? Because she was the daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the ceiling [saraf refidat] of the House of God, as it is written: “Its top [refidato] of gold” (Song of Songs 3:10). The next section of the verse states: “Shall the myrtle [hadas] come up”; this is the righteous Esther, who was called Hadassah in the Megilla, as it is stated: ��And he had brought up Hadassah; that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7).

The concluding section of the verse states: “And it shall be to the Lord for a name”; this is the reading of the Megilla. “For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off”; these are the days of Purim. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you” (Deuteronomy 28:63).

The verse indicates that just as the Lord rejoiced in the good he did on behalf of Israel, so too, the Lord will rejoice to cause you harm. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: Does the Holy One, Blessed be He, in fact rejoice over the downfall of the wicked? But it is written: “As they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever” (II Chronicles 20:21), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason were the words: “for He is good” not stated in this statement of thanksgiving, as the classic formulation is: “Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good; for His kindness endures forever” (I Chronicles 16:34)?

Because the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Since this song was sung in the aftermath of a military victory, which involved the downfall of the wicked, the name of God was not mentioned for the good. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the one came not near the other all the night” (Exodus 14:20)? The ministering angels wanted to sing their song, for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: “And they called out to each other and said” (Isaiah 6:3), but the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands, the Egyptians, are drowning at sea, and you wish to say songs?

This indicates that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked. Rabbi Elazar said that this is how the matter is to be understood: Indeed, God Himself does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked, but He causes others to rejoice. The Gemara comments: One can learn from the language of the verse as well, as it is written: “So the Lord will rejoice [ken yasis]” (Deuteronomy 28:63). And it is not written yasus, the grammatical form of the verb meaning: He will rejoice.

Rather, it is written yasis. The grammatical form of this verb indicates that one causes another to rejoice. Consequently, these words are understood to mean that God will cause others to rejoice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is the case.

Rabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here. The verse states with regard to God’s reward to the righteous: “He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). The Gemara explains that this verse is referring to the righteous Mordecai. With regard to the next part of the verse: “But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up,” this is referring to Haman.

The conclusion of the verse states: “That he may give it to one who is good before God” (Ecclesiastes 2:26). This is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman” (Esther 8:2). Rabba bar Oferan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy from there the king and the princes, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:38).

“The king” who was destroyed; this is referring to Vashti. “And the princes”; this is referring to Haman and his ten sons. Rav Dimi bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here:

Full source
Legends of the Jews 1:63Legends of the Jews

Behind them? Pharaoh's army, breathing down their necks. Ahead? What seems like an insurmountable wall of water. It’s a moment of absolute crisis.

The angels, ever-dutiful, decide it's time for their daily hymn of praise. But God, in his infinite wisdom and compassion, tells them to hold their celestial horses! "Forbear!" He commands, according to Legends of the Jews. "My children are in distress, and you would sing!"

This wasn’t the first time the angels had to take a back seat to the Israelites, as Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews recounts. But what happens next is even more astonishing.

After the men sang their praises (likely the Shirat HaYam, the Song of the Sea), the women of Israel stepped forward. And they sang. Only then, after the men and the women, were the angels finally given their turn.

Can you just picture the heavenly host, tapping their feet, wings rustling impatiently? They started to murmur, according to the legend. "Is it not enough that the men have preceded us? Shall the women come before us also?"

Their complaint is understandable. They are, after all, angels! But God’s response is utterly definitive. “As surely as ye live, so it is," He declares. The order is set.

So what does this tell us? Why this seemingly minor detail in the grand narrative of the Exodus?

Perhaps it's a reminder that even in the most spiritual realms, humility and empathy are paramount. That even beings of pure light and divine purpose sometimes need to step aside and recognize the value and the voice of others, especially those who are suffering. It also highlights the importance and spiritual power of women in Judaism. Their song, their praise, was so vital it took precedence even over the angels.: when have you had to take a backseat? When have you had to recognize the importance of someone else's voice, someone else's experience? And what did you learn from it? Maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit of angelic murmuring in all of us. And maybe, just maybe, we all need that divine reminder to listen, to empathize, and to let others sing.

Full source
Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 241:9Yalkut Shimoni on Torah

Another interpretation of "then sang": At the hour when Israel were encamped at the sea, the ministering angels came to praise the Holy One, blessed be He, but He did not allow them, as it is said, "and the one did not come near the other" (Exodus 14:20), and it says "and one called to the other." To what were they like? To a king whose son was taken captive; he put on vengeance against his enemies, went and brought him back, and people came to recite a hymn to him. He said to them: When I am redeeming my son, you praise me? So too Israel were set in distress at the sea, and the ministering angels came to praise the Holy One, blessed be He, and He rebuked them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: My children are set in distress, and you praise Me?

Once they came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels both sought to recite the song. Rabbi Avin the Levite said: To what is the matter like? To a king who went down to battle and was victorious, and his son and his servants came with a crown in their hands to set upon the king's head. They came to the king and said to him: Your son and your servants are standing with a crown in their hands; who shall enter first? He said to them: Fools of the world, my servant before my son? Let my son enter first. So when Israel came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels came to recite the song, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the ministering angels: Let Israel be first, as it is said, "then sang Moses."

Then the women and the ministering angels were standing, each wondering who should praise first. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said: The Master of Peace made peace between them, as it is said, "the singers went before, the players on instruments after" (Psalms 68:26) - "the singers went before," these are Israel; "after," these are the angels; "in the midst of maidens playing timbrels," these are the women. Rabbi Levi said: Heaven forbid, I will not accept this; rather the women praised first, as it is written "in the midst of maidens playing timbrels" - the maidens were in the middle. The ministering angels began to complain, saying: It is not enough that the men went before us, but even the women? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: By your lives, yes.

What is written (Ezekiel 3:12): "Then a spirit lifted me, and I heard behind me"? What is "behind me"? After I and my companions had praised, afterward the ministering angels said, "Blessed be the glory of the LORD from His place." What is written (Ezekiel 1:24): "When they stood, they let down their wings"? What is "when they stood"? Is there sitting above? Is it not written (Isaiah 6:2), "seraphim standing above Him," and likewise (Daniel 7:16), "I came near to one of those who stood there"? Rather, read "when they stood" as "when the people were silent" [be'am dom]: when Israel stand and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, at that hour the angels let down their wings.

Full source
Legends of the Jews 1:39Legends of the Jews

The familiar picture has that moment as a straightforward triumph of good over evil. God parts the sea, the Israelites cross to safety, and then… boom. The Egyptians are swallowed by the waves. But according to the legends, the story is far more complex. It's a moment filled with divine debate, angelic advocacy, and profound questions about justice.

The scene. The Israelites are safe, the Egyptians are in pursuit, and God is about to unleash the full force of the sea. But then, an angel steps forward. Not just any angel, but Uzza, the Angel of the Egyptians.

Angels have roles, just like us. Some are in charge of rain, others of healing, and some, like Uzza, are even the spiritual representatives of entire nations. As we read in Legends of the Jews, Uzza felt compelled to defend his people, even as they faced annihilation.

He challenges God directly. "O Lord of the world!" he cries out, "Thou are called just and upright... Why, then, dost Thou desire to make my children perish in the sea?" He reminds God of His own principles: justice, impartiality, and fairness. It's a bold move, questioning the Almighty, but Uzza feels he must speak for those about to be lost.

And his argument? It's a fascinating one. He asks, "Canst Thou say that my children drowned or slew a single one of Thine?" He points out that the Egyptians, despite their cruelty, hadn't committed outright murder against the Israelites.

Then comes the kicker. Uzza argues that even the harsh slavery the Egyptians imposed had been compensated. "Thy children," he says, "have received their wages, in that they took their silver and golden vessels from them." In other words, the Israelites were paid for their labor with the wealth they carried out of Egypt.

It's a stunning claim, isn't it? It forces us to consider the complexities of justice and retribution. Was the Egyptians' suffering a just punishment? Or was it an excessive response to their actions?

The text doesn't tell us how God responded to Uzza's plea in this particular telling. But the fact that this debate is even included in the narrative speaks volumes. It suggests that even in moments of divine intervention, there's room for questioning, for advocacy, and for a profound wrestling with the nature of justice. This isn’t a simple story of good versus evil; it's a reminder that even divine actions are subject to scrutiny and debate within the heavenly realms.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? What other unseen arguments and angelic pleas are happening behind the scenes of the stories we think we know so well? And what does it tell us about our own responsibility to question, to advocate, and to seek justice in the world?

Full source
Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Beshalach 13:3Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Beshalach

Another interpretation: THEN SANG (Exod. 15:1). When Israel was encamped at the sea, the ministering angels came to praise the Holy One, blessed be He, but the Holy One, blessed be He, did not permit them, as it is said, AND THE ONE DID NOT COME NEAR THE OTHER, etc. (Exod. 14:20), and it says, AND ONE CALLED TO ANOTHER (Isa. 6:3). To what were they comparable? To a king whose son had been taken captive. He clothed himself in vengeance against his enemies and went to bring him back. The people came to say to him a hymn. He said to them: When I have redeemed my son, then you shall praise me. So too Israel were placed in distress at the sea. The ministering angels came to praise the Holy One, blessed be He; He rebuked them. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: My children are placed in distress, and you would praise before Me?

When they came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels sought to say a song. Rabbi Avin the Levite said: To what is the matter comparable? To a king who went down to war and was victorious, and his son and his servant came, a crown in their hands to set upon the king's head. They came to the king and said to him: Your son and your servant are standing, and a crown is in their hands; who shall enter first? He said to them: Fools of the world! My servant before my son? Let my son enter first. So too, when Israel came up from the sea, Israel and the ministering angels came to say a song. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the ministering angels: Let Israel be first. THEN SANG MOSES [AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] (Exod. 15:1).

The women and the ministering angels were found standing; who would praise first? Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: The Master of Peace made peace between them, as it is said, THE SINGERS WENT BEFORE, THE MINSTRELS AFTER, AMONG THE MAIDENS PLAYING TIMBRELS (Ps. 68:26). THE SINGERS WENT BEFORE (the minstrels), these are Israel; (and afterward) [after] THE MINSTRELS, these are the angels; (and afterward) AMONG THE MAIDENS PLAYING TIMBRELS, [these are the women]. Rabbi Levi said: By the heavens, I do not accept this thing! Rather the women praised first, because "after the minstrels", these are Israel, "among the maidens playing timbrels", these are the women. The ministering angels began to complain before the Holy One, blessed be He. They said: Is it not enough for us that the men preceded us, but the women too? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: By your lives, so it is.

Rabbi Helbo said in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman: See what is written, THEN A SPIRIT LIFTED ME UP, AND I HEARD BEHIND ME (Ezek. 3:12). What is "behind me"? After I and my companions had praised, afterward the ministering angels went and said, BLESSED BE THE GLORY OF THE LORD FROM HIS PLACE (ibid.). Rabbi Pinhas the Priest bar Hama said: What is written? WHEN THEY STOOD, THEY LET DOWN THEIR WINGS (Ezek. 1:24). What is [WHEN THEY STOOD]? Whoever hears "when they stood" might suppose that perhaps there is sitting above, [Heaven forbid, there is no sitting above], rather, all stand, as it is said, SERAPHIM STOOD, etc. (Isa. 6:2), and so it says, I CAME NEAR TO ONE OF THOSE WHO STOOD THERE (Dan. 7:16). What is "when they stood"? Rather, when Israel stand and praise the Holy One, blessed be He, at that hour they let down their wings.

Full source