English translation — בשלח ב

A.

It stands in Tur<sup>1</sup>

that "it is good to say" the "Parshat HaMan" every day<sup>2</sup>,

and the reason for this stands in Beit Yosef<sup>3</sup>

— "so that he will believe that all his sustenance comes to him through Providence."

The Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch — in the <b>first</b> edition<sup>4</sup>

— copies the law from Tur with the reason from Beit Yosef,

and adds

(the explanation of Levush<sup>5</sup>)

: "for so it was with the manna that the Holy One, blessed be He, provided to give each one an omer per head for all the souls of his household, as it is said<sup>6</sup>

and they measured with an omer, and he who gathered much did not have more, and he who gathered little did not lack."

But in his second edition

he changes,

and instead of bringing the reason of the Beit Yosef

(and the Levush)

he says: "And the explanation of the manna is to trust in the Lord who gives bread day by day."

d.

e.

A change in two details:

(a)

Instead of the language of the Beit Yosef "that he should believe" the Alter Rebbe says "to trust".

(b)

He does not bring the matter of the manna — that it was

(in Divine Providence)

"an omer per head for every person of his household",

but rather — that what the Almighty gave the manna consecutively,

"day by day",

must evoke the trust that the Almighty is "the giver of bread day by day".

In simple terms, these two changes mentioned are dependent on each other:

The concept in the manna that "Hashem oversaw to give each one an omer per head for every soul of his house..

And the one who gathered much did not have more, and the one who gathered little did not have less",

strengthens the <b>faith </b>of a Jew,

that his sustenance

(comes <b>not </b>from "my power and the might of my hand"<sup>11</sup>,

"comes to him through providence" from the One Above; as was seen tangibly with the manna,

that the actions of man did not change<sup>12</sup>

the quantity of the manna that the One Above

(determined and)

gave "to each one".

The concept of <b>trust </b>however is

(not only that one <b>believes </b>that a person's sustenance comes from the One Above,

but)

but)

that one <b>relies </b>on the One Above,

that He will <b>surely </b>provide him his sustenance — and this concept of <b>trust </b>is learned from that which the One Above gave the manna "<b>the matter of a day in its day</b>",

in a manner

Always,

so that one had <b>completely relied</b> upon the Above,

without any worry etc.

It is, however, in need of explanation: What is the reason,

that in Beis Yosef

(and Levush)

— and likewise in the <b>first</b> edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch — the matter of "so that he will believe etc." is brought; and

(specifically)

in the second edition the Alter Rebbe changes and states the reason "to trust in the Lord who gives bread day by day"?

2.

Seemingly it must turn out,

that there is also a practical difference &lt;b&gt;in halacha &lt;/b&gt;between the two reasons,

And with an introduction:

One of the differences between faith and trust is:

Faith is a matter of &lt;b&gt;constant &lt;/b&gt;— it is the detachment and certainty by the believer,

that the thing is so

(as he believes),

and consequently it is by him always,

also when the faith is not relevant to action&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;.

For example,

in our case: the faith that "all one's sustenance comes to him by Providence" — it is indeed not fitting to say,

that he believes in it only when he is occupied with his livelihood — rather the faith is constantly in his soul.

But not so trust,

the certainty and reliance upon the Most High for his sustenance,

is a feeling that is aroused in the person at the time of need&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

: at the time

The person occupies himself with his work to earn his livelihood,

he trusts in God that "and the Lord your God will bless you in all that you do"¹⁵

— the Almighty will surely bless his doing

(occupation)

in a manner that it will bring him a livelihood;

Or when someone finds himself, God forbid, in a time of distress and he sees no natural prospect how he will be saved from it — he does not fall, heaven forbid, into despair "from where will my help come"¹⁶,

rather he is certain

(trusts in God,

that the Almighty,

who is the master of nature and it is in His power to change nature¹⁷,

will surely help him)

— that "my help is from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth"¹⁸.

Further: the trust itself is

(the "vessel" which is)

<b>draws down </b>the salvation from Above and fulfillment of his needs.

For superficially it is not understood:

Bitachon means indeed¹⁹,

that a Jew trusts that the Almighty will do good to <b>him</b> specifically with a good that is <b>visible and revealed</b>.

D.

H.

In addition to this, that the <b>Almighty</b> knows that this is good for the person,

it is in a manner that also the <b>person will see</b> that it is good for him.

And seemingly: This very thing that the person finds himself, G-d forbid, in a trouble, can indeed be because his conduct is not proper and therefore the punishment comes to him.

So what is the foundation of his bitachon²⁰

— and with complete and true bitachon, which means that with him there is absolutely no doubt about it, until he is entirely calm²¹

— that the Almighty will <b>surely</b> [do] to him

(not punish,

although this too is a goodness for him,

but)

do good with a good that is <b>visible and revealed</b> specifically?

And one could say the explanation in this: When a Jew shows his complete trust in the Most High and for him it is &lt;b&gt;simple &lt;/b&gt;that the Most High will benefit him with a good that is seen and revealed,

despite that it is not fitting to the natural calculations and prospects — this itself draws down from above,

that the Most High should conduct Himself with him measure for measure,

which Torah informs and &lt;b&gt;rules &lt;/b&gt;that this is the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

and God benefits him with a good that is seen and revealed&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

not looking &lt;b&gt;at all &lt;/b&gt;at the calculations whether he is worthy of it&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;].

3.

From the above it is understood,

that the matter of the attribute of trust — 4.

5.

the arousal of the attribute in actuality — is connected with &lt;b&gt;asking for one's needs&lt;/b&gt;: When a person is occupied with obtaining the things in which he is in need,

he trusts in God,

that He, may He be blessed, will fulfill them.

And based on this,

According to the reason that the recitation of Parshat HaMan is so that through it a person should be aroused “to trust in G‑d” — there is room to say²⁵,

that Parshat HaMan should be recited —

(a)

Only on weekdays,

But not on the Sabbath day²⁶

When there need not be the matter of requesting one’s needs²⁷

Which did <b>not</b> descend on the Sabbath day²⁸,

Even though it was “the matter of a day in its day”.]

(b)

Also on weekdays,

one must not say it at the beginning of the prayer.

And in the manner of the request of one's needs,

which it must be "a person should arrange the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, &lt;b&gt;and afterwards &lt;/b&gt;pray"&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

(the request of one's needs).

And as one indeed finds in several siddurim&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

that they placed the portion of the manna &lt;b&gt;after &lt;/b&gt;the prayer

(and — together with a prayer and request for livelihood).

However, according to the reason "so that he should believe etc.",

one can say this even on Shabbat,

and also before prayer

(in which it is — the order of praises of the Place)

— because

the faith in the Supreme One

(also — in relation to one's sustenance)

is a matter that needs to be constant.

But it is questionable regarding this,

because also in the second edition

(where the reason of "to trust in the Lord etc." is stated)

the Alter Rebbe writes explicitly "it is good to say every day...

and the verse of the manna",

which from this language it implies that this means "every day",

including Shabbat.

Also regarding the detail of the place of its recitation on weekdays,

it is from the unqualified language in the second edition implied that the only difference

(regarding his ruling in the first edition)

is regarding the <b>reason</b> for the recitation,

but not that because of this there is a change — a limitation when one can it

say.

And especially that also in the second edition the Alter Rebbe includes the law of reciting Parshat HaMan with reciting Parshat HaAkeidah

(and the Ten Commandments)

and also with Parshat HaKorbanot³³

(which one says before the prayer³⁴).

— remains the question

(the above)

: What is the reason for the change in the later edition relative to the earlier edition

(and the Baal HaItur etc.)?

D.

One will understand this by prefacing the explanation in the conduct of Rabbi Yissa³⁵

the Elder

(which is told in the Zohar of the current Torah portion³⁶,

continuing to the matter of the manna)

That he would prepare his meal each day only after he had first requested sustenance from the Most High,

saying: לא נתקין סעודתא עד דתתיהיב מבי מלכא

(He will not prepare his meal until it will be given to him from the Most High).

It requires explanation: Since the eater

(from which he had prepared his meal)

was already in his possession and only the preparation of the food for the meal was lacking

("&lt;b&gt;הוה &lt;/b&gt;לי׳ מיכלא דההוא יומא למיכל"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;)

— What is the

Explanation³⁸

that he asks from the Most High that He should give him <b>the food</b>?

And it can be explained, the explanation in this:

It is known the explanation of Bachya

on the Chazal

that Yosef was punished for that which he asked the Sar HaMashkim "and you will mention me to Pharaoh"

— that "Heaven forbid that Yosef the righteous would place his trust in the Sar HaMashkim only in Hashem alone,

but his intention was that Hashem arranged for him this Sar HaMashkim so that He should perform a miracle for him through him"; and that which Yosef was punished for this,

it is "because he sought a cause in the Sar HaMashkim

(through which the Almighty should send his salvation)..

And it is not fitting for righteous ones like him to seek a cause,

therefore he was punished in this because he should have trusted in the Holy One blessed be He alone that He is the Master of all causes that He would arrange for him the cause without him seeking it".

One asks on this

: it is indeed explained

(in Chovot HaLevavot)

regarding trust,

that it is an obligation to engage in causes

(and he brings on this several proofs)

— then why was Yosef punished "because he sought a cause"?

And one explains⁴⁴,

that there are

two ways

(levels)

in trust:

a)

During the conduct from Above is in a manner that "the things that proceed in order according to nature are drawn forth"⁴⁵

(In the language of Chassidus: as this is from the aspect of Memaleh Kol Almin)

then one must seek a cause and make a vessel in nature,

because the influence from Above comes specifically through the garments of nature.

b)

When one sees that the conduct from Above is in a manner that "the things are drawn forth ...

<b>not</b> according to nature"⁴⁵

(In the language of Chassidus: from the aspect of Sovev Kol Almin),

a higher manner in the attribute of trust is required — to rely <b>entirely</b> "upon⁴⁵

the conduct of Hashem alone and not to do anything at all except to trust in Hashem that surely the Almighty will help in a natural way"⁴⁶.

who is

(always)

was connected in his service with the level that is above nature&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;,

had to conduct himself,

hold to the higher manner in trust].

H.

The difference between the two manners in trust is here also when one does make a "vessel"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

That which it requires

(in manner a)

that the man should make a vessel,

is it because from the side of the conduct from above,

when "things are drawn ..

according to nature"&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;

— does nature and the ways of nature have a grasp,

and therefore the man must seek a vessel and cause through which will be drawn to him the blessing of G‑d.

But not so the one who holds at the higher manner in trust,

that he need not do "any thing except to trust in G‑d",

the ways of nature have by him no grasp at all

(for which he need not seek a cause and vessel).

And therefore,

even when there &lt;b&gt;is &lt;/b&gt;a cause and vessel in nature for his livelihood,

is his livelihood through this not become "closer" to him than if he would &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;have had a cause and vessel.

Because the cause and vessel is by him not occupying place as a thing in itself,

he sees only that he receives everything directly from the Upper One; so also the cause and vessel is a thing that the Upper One makes for him&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

together with his livelihood.

And this is also the explanation in the conduct of R' Yissa Saba⁵⁰

that he said "we did not arrange the meal until <b>it was given </b>from the king's house"

(although that "he had food for that day")

By R' Yissa Saba was the manner of trust that he saw in <b>every </b>action

(in itself)

that this is

(not his own

Asiyah,

but)

a <b>giving from G‑d</b>⁵¹.

And consequently,

even when he has the food <b>by him</b> in the house and only needs to take it and prepare it,

he feels that this is not <b>his</b> food that <b>he</b> takes

(his own)

and prepares it,

but that — “<b>it is given</b> from the King”: this <b>gives</b> him <b>now the Almighty</b>.

And consequently he must also ask about <b>this</b> before the Holy One, blessed be He,

(just as he prays for his sustenance when he does not yet have food in the house).

6.

With this one can also explain another matter in the conduct of R’ Yisa Saba mentioned above:

From the conclusion of the language of the Zohar — "I did not prepare the meal &lt;b&gt;every day &lt;/b&gt;until I requested my requests etc." — it implies,

that he conducted himself thus also even on &lt;b&gt;Shabbat&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;.

It is not smooth: Shabbat is indeed not a time of requesting one's needs,

so how does it come that Rabbi Yisa "requested his requests before the Holy One, blessed be He, for &lt;b&gt;his sustenance&lt;/b&gt;"

(even)

on Shabbat?

And according to the above, this is understandable: the requesting of one's needs that need not be on the day of Shabbat is specifically when the person is outside of it &lt;b&gt;himself&lt;/b&gt;,

his existence,

that his needs and lacks should be fulfilled for him&lt;b&gt;no&lt;/b&gt;.

But not so R' Yisa Saba,

his prayer came specifically because his existence did not at all occupy place within him,

until he felt on every step and stride that everything

is dependent upon the Above.

And as the Zohar there⁵³

explains,

that upon such conduct it is written⁵⁴

"those who hope for His kindness" — "who wait and anticipate every single day to ask for their sustenance from the Holy One, blessed be He."

D.

H.

That the content of prayer is solely to express the "those who hope for His kindness"⁵⁵,

who feel that everything is only the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He.

— and such a manner in prayer

(for sustenance)

can be even on Shabbos.

7.

Although this conduct of R' Yisa Saba is not a thing equal for every soul,

nevertheless "the edge of it and a semblance of it"⁵⁶

pertains to each one⁵⁷,

and at least — at designated times.

And one could say,

that this is the difference between weekdays and the Sabbath day: during the six weekdays when a Jew is as and in the manner explained in Shulchan Aruch⁵⁸

— he goes to his business etc. and he shall conduct business faithfully occupied with matters of livelihood,

is by him the trust in a manner that he seeks a cause and vessel,

because one

cannot demand of him that he should then lift himself up entirely above nature and hold to the higher manner mentioned above in trust; but not so on the Sabbath day,

which is not a day of &lt;b&gt;work&lt;/b&gt;⁵⁹,

when a Jew is above work — there must be by him

(at least a &lt;b&gt;semblance&lt;/b&gt;)

of the higher manner in trust,

"those who hope for His kindness."

And based on this, it can be said,

that this is the explanation of the difference between the first edition and the second edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch regarding the recitation of Parshat HaMan:

The first edition the Alter Rebbe wrote according to the ruling of the "Gemara" and "Poskim"⁶⁰.

And since the matter of bitachon as it is simply

(in the revealed part of Torah)

is in a manner that one must make a vessel,

then if one were to bring as a reason for reciting Parshat HaMan "to trust in Hashem etc.",

its recitation would be only on weekdays and specifically after the prayer

(as above, section 3).

Therefore the Alter Rebbe says in his Mahadura Kama⁶¹,

that the reason of "Ami-

ras" of Parshat HaMan

(<b>In every day</b>)

is "so that <b>he will believe </b>that all his sustenance comes to him through Providence".

Not so in the second edition, the Alter Rebbe ruled "like the Kabbalists"⁶²,

and consequently this includes also practices which are connected with higher levels in the service of G‑d.

And therefore⁶³

he gives the reason for "trust in the Lord, who gives bread day by day",

because from the aspect of the <b>higher</b> manner in trust — "those who hope for His kindness" — the recitation of the portion of the manna "every day" can be,

also on Shabbat

(and — before the prayer).

(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5723 and Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5734)