English translation — שלח ג

A.

From the verse¹

"And they tested Me these ten times" learn Chazal²,

that "ten trials our fathers tested the Holy One, blessed be He,³

in the wilderness".

Regarding the "ten trials",

one finds several opinions,

and among them:

a)

In tractate Arakhin<sup>4</sup>

: two<sup>5</sup>

at the sea and two at the water, two at the manna, two at the quail, one at the calf, and one at the wilderness of Paran.

And as the Gemara<sup>4</sup>

then details: two at the sea — one at the descent

("Are there no graves in Egypt?"<sup>6</sup>)

and one at the ascent

("Just as we ascend from this side, so do the Egyptians ascend from the other side").

Two at the water — at Marah<sup>7</sup>

and at Rephidim<sup>8</sup>.

Two at the manna — "Do not go out" and they went out<sup>9</sup>,

"Do not leave over" and they left over<sup>10</sup>.

Two at the quail — first quail

(of Parshat Beshalach<sup>11</sup>)

and second quail

(of Parshat Beha'alotcha<sup>12</sup>).

Calf and wilderness of Paran

b)

In Avot d'Rabbi Natan<sup>13</sup>

it stands,

that the ten trials<sup>14</sup>

are: sin of the calf,

"And the people thirsted there for water"<sup>15</sup>

(at Rephidim),

"They contended at the Sea of Reeds",

(spies).

spies,

"They grumbled about the manna",

"The dispute of Korach",

quail,

and the three trials "at Taverah, and at Massah, and at Kivrot Hata'avah"<sup>16</sup>

(Taverah — the complainers<sup>17</sup>,

at Massah — "at the gathering of the manna"<sup>18</sup>,

Kivrot Hata'avah — second quail).

According to this opinion, also included are: the sin of the complainers,

the incident of Korach and "they fell upon the manna",

and on the other hand, the test of the waters at Marah is not counted,

one test at the sea¹⁹

and one test with the manna²⁰.

c)

The Rambam in his commentary on the Mishnah²¹

counts the ten tests: the Sea of Reeds,

Marah,

the request for the manna in the wilderness of Sin,

Do not leave over,

Do not go out

(on the Sabbath day),

waters at Rephidim,

the incident of the Golden Calf,

Taaveirah

(the complainers),

Kivros Hataavah

(quail)

and the sin of the spies.

According to this opinion, it comes to

(regarding those counted in Tractate Erachin)

the sin of the complainers,

and also that Jews <b>requested</b> the manna,

and instead of them, he omits one trial at the sea and one trial at the quail²².

B.

Rashi,

in his commentary on the Torah,

on the verse¹

"These ten times" interprets: "Two*²²

at the sea and two at the manna and two at the quail etc. as it is brought in tractate Arakhin" — like the opinion in Arakhin²³.

That which Rashi

( — in the way of the plain meaning)

cannot accept the opinion of Avot d'Rabbi Natan is understood²⁴,

because²⁵

the two tests of the incident of Korach and "they fell upon the manna" occurred <b>after </b>the sin of the merag-

lim²⁶,

which is the test <b>the tenth</b>

(since that "You have tested me these ten times" was said here by the spies).

One must however understand why Rashi adopts

( — peshuto shel mikra)

the opinion of tractate Arakhin and not as the Rambam enumerates them in his commentary on the Mishnah:

That Rashi does not count the request for meat as a test — is understood,

because²⁷

Rashi

( — its plain meaning)

holds that "they asked for bread <b>properly</b>"²⁸

and the Almighty gave them the manna for that "in a <b>loving</b> manner"²⁹

that "they asked for meat <b>improperly</b>"³⁰]

But: a)

The sin of the complainers is <b>explicitly</b> related in the Chumash¹⁷,

b)

The second test at the sea

(at the ascent)

is not mentioned in the plain meaning of the verse

— "The splitting of the sea on its shore so that &lt;b&gt;Israel should not say &lt;/b&gt;just as we etc. so they etc." — it is proven,

that Rashi assumes,

that in actuality there &lt;b&gt;was not &lt;/b&gt;any trial in their ascent from the sea&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;]

And since Rashi interprets the plain meaning of Scripture,

he had to count the complainers and not count a second trial at the sea,

which is according to the interpretation of the Rambam

(who counts only trials that "all of them are words of Scripture"³³),

and not "as it is in tractate Arakhin"³⁴.

And further: since Rashi counts "two at the sea" — it turns out,

that

(together with the sin of the complainers which is "words of Scripture")

there were already eleven trials in the desert at the time of the sin of the spies!

3.

Also must have an explanation:

In Avot d'Rabbi Natan³⁵

he connects

(several of)

the ten trials with the

Verse³⁶

"These are the words that Moses spoke etc. in the wilderness, in the plain etc., and Di Zahav,"

that they are hinted at in the names that are enumerated there in the verse.

And so there is a teaching in the Sifri³⁷,

that all the ten trials which are enumerated in tractate Arakhin

(at the sea etc.)

are hinted at in the aforementioned verse³⁸.

And so Rashi teaches³⁹,

that the verse "These are the words etc." includes "words of rebuke",

and that "he enumerated here all the places where they angered before the Omnipresent",

and afterwards Rashi specifies the sins which are hinted at here,

and his language: In the wilderness — ..

that they angered Him in the wilderness when they said "If only we had died etc."⁴⁰

; in the plain — because of the plain that they sinned with Baal Peor etc.; opposite the Sea of Reeds — for what they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds etc.; between Paran and between Tofel and Lavan — ..

that they spoke disparagingly about the manna which is white ..

in the wilderness of Paran through the spies; and Chatzerot — in the dispute of Korach etc.; and Di Zahav — ..

the calf —

According to this, it turns out,

that in this verse in Devarim are counted <b>not</b> the same matters as the ten trials in tractate Arakhin

(which Rashi brings in our parshah,

as above).

One needs an explanation: why does Rashi not learn like the drasha in Sifri

(or — Avot d'Rabbi Natan),

that the words of rebuke of Moshe Rabbeinu are related to the same sins for which the Most High rebuked the

Jews saying "You have tested me these ten times"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;?

4.

In the language of Rashi

(in our parshah)

The body itself is not understood:

a)

Since Rashi is anyway not quoting in his commentary all ten trials,

but he says that whoever wants to know in detail

(which is not relevant to the plain meaning of the verse here — therefore he does not bring it here)

can know it from tractate Arakhin

("etc. as it is stated in tractate Arakhin")

— why does he enumerate <b>six</b> of them and not write in brief "two in the sea etc. as it is stated in tractate Arakhin"?

b)

The wording in tractate Arakhin is: "two in the sea and two in the water, two in the manna, two in the quail etc." — Rashi in his commentary, however, <b>reverses</b> the words "two in the water"⁴²

— and includes them in the "etc." which he says after "two in the quail"?

The wonder is even greater: the only one of all the ten,

that the Torah says <b>explicitly</b> that Jews thereby <b>tested</b> the Almighty⁴³,

is from the "two in water" the test

In Rephidim⁴⁴

— and specifically <b>this</b> test Rashi <b>does not</b> mention in his commentary on <b>vaynasu</b>

(and includes it in "etc.")

E.

Seemingly one could answer

(the questions in section d),

that by noting to tractate Erachin Rashi is not so [about] the other four attempts,

which he does not bring down,

but primarily — knowledge which are the six which he does cite.

In other words: when the ben chamesh lamikra will learn the verse "and they tested Me these ten times",

he will himself find in Chumash several trials,

which are explicit,

and Rashi only needs to guard the places where one could make a mistake.

Therefore Rashi does not need to specify "two in water"

(which are explicit in the verse),

and so too — not the sin of the calf and the sin of the spies.

But not so by the sea,

that in the verse it says only one trial⁴⁵

— Rashi must add that there were “two at the sea”

(and as they are enumerated,

as it is stated,

in tractate Arakhin)

And likewise by the manna,

where there would have been a possibility to think that one must also count the request for the manna

(since this was in a manner of “and they complained”),

according to the explanation of the Rambam — Rashi warns that there were only “two in the manna”

(“as it is stated

In Tractate Arakhin, that the "two [instances of] 'in the morning'" are "Do not leave over" and "Do not go out").

Regarding this concerning the quail: there are opinions&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

that the stories about the quail

(in Parsha Beshalach and Parsha Beha'alotecha)

are not two separate events,

but rather the same thing — therefore Rashi warns: "Two [instances of] quail".

It is, however, a great difficulty to learn thus.

For just as it is not clear whether the request of Haman is considered a test

(since bread is a necessary thing),

so too is there a doubt whether the case of Marah

(where the Jews asked "Mah nishtanah"⁴⁷)

is a test

(since — water is a necessity).

Similarly, it can be a question whether one should count the sin of the complainers as a test.

And more.

6.

And it can be said the explanation of all this:

The commentary of Rashi here,

comes in continuation to his commentary immediately before this — on the word "vaynasu" — "according to its plain meaning."

And as the commentators⁴⁸

explain,

that one can interpret the word "vaynasu" in the sense of "anger"⁴⁹,

Rashi warns,

that "vaynasu oti" means "according to its plain meaning" — Jews tested the Almighty.

And based on this, it is answered <b>simply</b> why Rashi cannot accept the opinion of the Rambam,

that the sin of the complainers enters into the account of trials — because

The sin is, according to its simple meaning, that they tested Me

(according to Rashi⁵⁰)

— was not a matter of “<b>and they tested </b>Me”,

but a “pretext to separate from after the Place”.

And therefore Rashi adopts the interpretation of Tractate Arakhin — because specifically the ten trials contain within themselves the same sin of “<b>and they tested </b>Me”⁵¹

( — testing the Most High from a weakness in faith⁵²).

And this is also the reason for the change of the enumerated details in Rashi here and in Rashi in Parshat Devarim: In our parsha it speaks about matters which are a <b>test</b>,

in Parshat Devarim it speaks about words of rebuke from Moshe about <b>sins</b> of Jews in general

(not specifically those which are a test⁵³)

— such which are <b>primary and general</b> sins of the generation of the wilderness⁵⁴

they rebelled at the Sea of Reeds,

they complained about the manna

(for which they were punished with the fiery serpents⁵⁵),

the sin of the spies,

the incident of Korach and the sin of the calf].

7.

One must still, however, understand:

True indeed,

that in most places the word "vaynasu" is a language of testing,

but here the verse continues, "

(vaynasu oti etc.)

<b>velo shamu bekoli</b>",

that they <b>actually</b> did not obey the command of Hashem — would therefore have been more fitting to translate "vaynasu oti" from the language of anger,

and not from the language of testing.

(And it is understood — that trying to [serve] the Above does not have to be connected with transgressing a command of the Above.

And as one sees,

that many of the ten trials that are enumerated in Tractate Arachin were <b>not</b> in the manner of "they did not listen to My voice").

So the explanation in this: the necessity of Rashi to explain "and they tried — according to its plain meaning" is not

(only)

from the side of the translation of the word "vaynasu",

but from the side of the totality of the content of the matter — and this matter Rashi explains by repeating the three pairs of trials

(from Tractate Arachin),

as follows.

8.

One will understand this with an introduction of several difficulties in the portion:

a)

After the Almighty said to Moses our teacher "I will strike them with pestilence and disinherit them etc."⁵⁶,

Moses argued to the Almighty: "And the Egyptians will hear etc. and they will say to the inhabitants of this land they have heard etc.

And He will destroy this people etc. And the nations will say etc. Because the Lord was unable etc."⁵⁷.

It is puzzling: how can it be,

that besides the claim "And the nations will say ..

Because the Lord was unable etc.” did Moses our teacher not find any claims and defense,

to nullify the danger of "they will consume us" and "they will dispossess us" from <b>all</b> Jews — six hundred thousand besides women and children

(and men from below twenty years and above sixty years)⁵⁸

b)

Moses asked the Most High "Forgive please the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your kindness and as You have borne this people from Egypt until now",

and the Most High agreed to this and said "<b>I have forgiven according to your word</b>"⁵⁹.

It is not understood: since the Most High forgave the Jews — why did this not help in full and despite this was there the decree⁶⁰

"If they will see the land etc."?

9.

And it may be said the explanation in this:

That which the Above said that the generation of the desert will not enter into the Land of Israel,

is not in the category of a <b>punishment</b> from the side,

but a result "<b>natural</b>" from their

(sin and)

situation.

All that the spies told about the land of Israel — the might of the inhabitants of the land etc. — was true⁶¹,

so that entering the land of Israel could have been specifically

(if

One has a strong trust in the ability of G‑d and in His signs: not looking at the might of the inhabitants of the land,

the Almighty can give Jews the power to)

be victorious <b>in a miraculous way</b>.

And as Rashi⁶²

brings the words that Caleb said: "Did He not split the sea for us, and bring down the manna for us, and provide the quail for us,"

"Let us go up, let us go up,

even to the heavens, and He says, 'Make ladders and go up there, we will succeed in all His words'" — everything in a manner of miracles.

And this is the explanation of the words that the Supreme One said to Moses — "And until when will they not believe in Me, despite all the signs that I have performed in its midst.

I will smite them with a plague, etc."⁶³

: Since Jews are in the state of "they will not believe in Me, despite all the <b>signs</b>",

they are not a "vessel" for miraculous conduct,

that one should lead them into the Land of Israel in the way of all the <b>signs</b>

And in the manner as learned earlier⁶⁴

<b>In plain sense </b>

(its plain meaning, that is)

: And if you walk with Me casually, etc., I too will walk with you casually.

And &lt;b&gt;consequently &lt;/b&gt;is "we are being afflicted, etc."

To &lt;b&gt;this &lt;/b&gt; Moses answered&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

"And Egypt will hear, etc., and they will say, etc., 'Because the Lord was unable, etc.'": Since the entire reason of "we are being afflicted, etc." begins,

is from this "they will not believe in me" — is indeed on the contrary: the "and I will kill this people as one man" will cause that the "they will not believe in me" should be to an even greater extent — Egypt, etc., will say "&lt;b&gt;because the Lord was unable &lt;/b&gt;etc."

Upon this the Almighty said to Moses, "I have forgiven according to your words,"

and as Rashi explains: "Because of what you said, 'Lest they say, Because of the Lord's inability.'"

But the forgiveness removes the

(sin and consequently — the)

<b>punishment</b>,

so that there should not be "destroyed as one man."

But regarding the not entering into the Land of Israel — the forgiveness did not help.

For the deficiency in this is,

as above,

not a punishment for a sin,

but that being in the state of "they will not believe etc. in all the signs" requires the conquest to be in a natural way, and by nature the people are fierce etc. and they

(the generation of the wilderness)

<b>cannot </b>conquer the Land of Israel.

Tenth.

According to all the above it is understood why Rashi must explain here "and they tested — according to its plain meaning."

Even though from the continuation of the language of the verse it might appear that "and they tested" here is an expression of anger

( — since "and they did not listen to My voice")

— but from the totality of the content of the section it is proven,

that the deficiency of "and they tested Me" consists in the weakness of faith of the generation of the wilderness,

which was the cause of the decree "if they shall see the land etc."

And based on this, one will also understand why Rashi cites only the

(six)

trials from tractate Arakhin — because specifically in these trials it is emphasized and evident how much was lacking in the strength of faith of the Jews,

based on which it is understood why Moshe could not effect the nullification of the decree⁶⁰

"If they see the land etc."

Yes.

The explanation in this:

In a previous verse it says that the Supreme One said "

(and)

until

then &lt;b&gt;they will not believe &lt;/b&gt;in Me despite all the signs etc.”,

but not so here,

where it speaks about the decree “if they see the land etc.”,

the Supreme One said the expression: “

(for all the men who have seen My glory and My signs which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness)

&lt;b&gt;and have tested &lt;/b&gt;Me etc.”

(and not “and did not believe in Me”).

From this Rashi infers,

that the sin of "and they tested Me" is — <b>in this matter</b> — more severe than "they did not believe in Me"

for which this is a reason,

that even after the Most High forgives Jews for their sin and — <b>as Your word</b>,

they cannot conquer the land of Israel.

In what does the severity of "and they tested Me" consist

(and even regarding "they did not believe in Me"

(plainly),

(plainly))?

It is understood:

At the time of "they will not believe in Me regarding all the signs which I performed in his midst,"

they do not believe in the &lt;b&gt;shown &lt;/b&gt;G‑dly signs,

there is an advice: they will show for them such

(greater and more wondrous)

miracle and wonder through which they will already have to believe in the ability of G‑d and this will bring to "they will believe in Me."

And in the language of the verse&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;

: And it will be if they do not believe etc. to the voice of the first sign and they will believe to the voice of the latter sign.

But "and they tested Me" is the situation — it speaks about "men &lt;b&gt;who see &lt;/b&gt;

(present tense)

My glory and My &lt;b&gt;signs &lt;/b&gt;which I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness" — they see and acknowledge that the Supreme One made the signs — and &lt;b&gt;nevertheless &lt;/b&gt;they tested the Supreme One

And "this ten times

(until this brought that)

and did not listen to My voice" — is what will help if one will show additional signs and greater etc. — it still remains a place for testing etc.

12.

And <b>the </b>manner in "and tested Me" expresses itself specifically in the three types of tests that Rashi brings; by them is the thing and its opposite

("they see My glory and My signs etc.

(and together with this)

and tested Me")

was in the <b>same </b>matter <b>itself</b>:

"Byam" — that the second⁶⁶

test was during their ascent from the sea,

that Jews said "Just as we ascend from this side, so too the Egyptians ascend from the other side."

At the same time that the Almighty made for them the great miracle of the Splitting of the Red Sea,

the Jews, at the very time of the act itself, tested the Almighty*⁶⁶

and argued — perhaps also the Egyptians were saved⁶⁷

"Two in the manna" — "Do not go out and they went out,

do not leave over and they left over": the manna was an open miracle,

a new creation⁶⁸

bread from heaven — and in the manna and through the manna itself the Jews tested the Almighty: the Almighty com-

Says "Do not leave over" and they <b>tested</b> the Most High — "and they left over".

The Most High said that on the day of Shabbat He would <b>not</b> make the miracle of the descent of the manna and therefore "Do not go out" — they went out to the field to test and see whether the manna had come,

Perhaps what the Most High said, that on Shabbat He would not make the miracle of the descent of the manna, did not hold!

And likewise regarding the quail — that Jews complained "Who will feed us meat"⁶⁹.

D.

H.

After that, as day by day the manna came down from heaven,

and

(according to the view of <b>Rashi</b>⁷⁰)

<b>Also quail</b> — and nevertheless,

at the time that "they lusted a lust"

(they wanted to have <b>more</b> meat⁷¹),

a doubt could have fallen upon them and consequently "they tested" "Who will feed us meat",

that the meat which they want

(in addition to the first quail)

the Most High cannot give!

but not so the other trials — the ones in water⁷²

and the sin of the calf and sin

the spies — was not the thing and its opposite in that same matter,

and therefore Rashi does not cite them

(in explanation).

13.

From the instructions from the above in the service of G-d:

One must remember how much one needs to be guarded, careful, and diligent that the signs that the Supreme One shows to the individual and to the community should take effect with their full strength and — in actual deed and in an inwardness: from the fact that by the generation of knowledge of the generation of the wilderness could have been,

that after the signs there should be the "they tested Me these ten times" — all the more so in the generation of the heels of Mashiach,

one must do and do until being certain — that one has guarded it.

And through this that each one will contemplate the signs that the Most High did with Jews as a collective,

and with each individual as a particular,

contemplation in a manner,

that this takes him through entirely —

then this prepares Jews for the entry into the Land of Israel through Mashiach our righteous one in the true and eternal redemption after which there is no exile,

and in a manner,

as the promise of the verse⁷³

: as the days of your departure from the land of Egypt — which the departure was through "My signs⁷⁴

which I performed in Egypt"

(will be very soon)

I will show him <b>wonders</b>.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Shlach 5734)