English translation — בשלח ג

Sicha 3<pg>85</pg>

A.

In our parshah,

near the end of the section of the manna — after the story of the details<sup>1</sup>

of the descent of the manna and the manner of its gathering,

and the details of the events of the sixth day and Shabbos,

that on the sixth day they gathered double bread and on the Shabbos day the manna did not descend,

until the conclusion of the matter that "the people rested on the seventh day"<sup>2</sup>

— it is said<sup>3</sup>

: "And the house of Israel called its name manna, and it was like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey,"

and afterwards comes the command to put aside from it "for safekeeping for your generations etc."<sup>4</sup>.

And it requires explanation:

A)

Why did the text delay in explaining and describing the manna

("And it is like coriander seed etc.")

until the conclusion of the entire matter,

including the events of the week of days⁵

— and did not explain it at the beginning of the account of the manna

(and in particular when Moses said to Bnei Yisrael⁶

"It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat")⁷?

2)

What is written here "And the house of Israel called its name man" implies,

that only after all the events in the meantime

(including the details of the events of the sixth day and the Sabbath)

they decided that they should call it by this name; and it is not understood: immediately when Bnei Yisrael saw the man for the first time they inquired and said "A man to his brother, man is it"<sup>6</sup>

and in Rashi "preparation of food"<sup>8</sup>,

except that then it was not in the category of naming as a continuation of the verse "because they did not know what it was",

and as Rashi explains "they did not know..

to call it by its name"<sup>9</sup>.

And what was newly revealed to them in the meantime that they knew and decided to call it by the name "man"<sup>10</sup>?

3)

Similarly it is difficult regarding the command to leave from it "for a keepsake for your generations" — for seemingly the command should have been at the beginning of the descent of the man,

when Bnei Yisrael saw that the Holy One, blessed be He, prepares for them food etc.

[for this is the intention of the command of "a keepsake for your generations",

as explained in Rashi<sup>11</sup>

that "in the days of Yirmeyahu when he was..

rebuking them: why are you not engaging in Torah, and they said..

from where will we be sustained, he brought out to them the jar of man, said to them: you see the word of Hashem..

see with this your ancestors were sustained, many agents does the Omnipresent have to prepare food for those who fear Him"]

— and not to postpone it until after the details of the events of the sixth day and the Sabbath day<sup>12</sup>.

<pg>86</pg>

And it must be said,

that the events between the beginning of the descent of the manna and the end of the portion,

including Friday and Shabbos — "brought" to the understanding of the essence of the manna and consequently — the choice and fixing of its name,

and therefore the text waited until here to describe it and to command to put aside from it "for a safekeeping for your generations."

2.

And one can say the point of the explanation in this — that the details of the events of Friday and Shabbos are not an additional and peripheral matter in the matter of the manna,

but rather they belong to the content of the matter of the manna,

and in our matter: the definition of this food requires that it not descend on Shabbos.

That is: the reason that the manna did not descend on Shabbos is not only because of the Shabbos prohibitions related to gathering the manna and its preparation

(according to this, this is

(only a secondary matter and)

a lion lies upon it¹³,

and prevents its descent on Shabbos),

but rather this is from the aspect of the manna,

that the content of the matter of the manna requires that it not descend on Shabbos¹⁴

(and as below section 4 and onward).

And accordingly — it is found that until Shabbos

(when then the manna did not descend and they ate the "double bread" that descended on the sixth day)

the perfection of the manna was not yet completed.

And this is the point of the reason that the naming of the name "Mahn" by Bnei Yisrael was only after that "the people rested on the seventh day":

That at first Bnei Yisrael said a man to his brother "Mahn hu"

("preparation of food")

this is not in the category of naming a name,

rather

(the opposite)

— that because of the lack of knowledge

("because they did not know..

that they would call it by its name"),

since it was immediately at its beginning and they did not yet know the essence of this food and its details,

therefore they said only "Mahn hu",

that there is here "preparation of food";

And only after the completion of the cycle

(week)

complete⁵

of the descent of the manna

(and in particular — the two parts in this — its descent on weekdays,

and the cessation of its descent on Shabbat)

— came to Bnei Yisrael the knowledge

(they knew)

and recognition of the manna,

and they were able to call it by name

(which indicates its content and essence).

And this is also the reason that the description of the manna

("like coriander seed etc.")

and the command to take from it "for safekeeping for your generations" came in the verse only after the account about the absence and cessation of its descent on Shabbat — at first the verse concludes the account about the descent of the manna

(which ends with the account about the cessation of the descent of the manna on Shabbat,

as above),

and afterwards comes the description of the manna itself

(and at the end — the command for generations).

3.

The matter mentioned,

that the absence of the descent of the manna on Shabbat is not caused by the prohibitions of Shabbat,

is understood and compelled according to Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah,

for it implies that he holds that the entire concept of Shabbat was innovated only at the time of the descent of the manna:

After Bnei Yisrael gathered the manna for several days,

on the sixth day they gathered a double portion of bread and then "and all the leaders of the congregation came<sup>15</sup>

and told Moshe",

and Rashi explains<sup>16</sup>

: and they told Moshe,

they asked him: What is today different from other days?

And from here there is to learn that Moshe had not yet told them<pg>87</pg>

The portion of Shabbat that was commanded to tell them: "And it was on the sixth day, and they shall prepare etc."<sup>17</sup>

Until they asked<sup>18</sup>

This etc.

And the words are astonishing,

for it is explicit in Rashi above<sup>19</sup>

that the portion of Shabbat was already given to Israel in Marah — and what place is there for the question "What is today different from [other] days?"

That is, that the leaders of the congregation do not know at all about the uniqueness of the sixth day,

on which they are obligated to prepare Shabbat foods etc.,

until they wondered "What is today different from [other] days?" and Moshe had to tell them and innovate "A Sabbath, a holy Sabbath to the Lord tomorrow; that which you will bake etc. and that which you will cook etc."<sup>20</sup>?

But this question is resolved precisely by the language of Rashi himself¹⁹

— who wrote that in Marah "he gave them some portions of the Torah to occupy themselves with, Shabbos etc.,"

that is,

in Marah they were not commanded

(according to Rashi)

about Shabbos, but rather only the portion of Shabbos was given to them to occupy themselves with it

(the study of the portion²¹),

that there was not yet the matter of actual observance of Shabbos

(and only the study of the portion of Shabbos in the Torah)

— and therefore they asked "What is this day different from [other] days"²².

And based on this, one can resolve²³

another incomprehensible thing: in the continuation of the matter, it is related that even after Moshe informed Bnei Yisrael that "a rest, a holy Shabbos to Hashem, tomorrow",

"and

(the manna)

will not be in it"²⁴

— "some of the people went out to gather"²⁵.

And seemingly: the going out to the field in order to gather the manna was certainly with vessels to bring in them the manna home,

and it is found that they transgressed in this going out the prohibition of carrying out<sup>26</sup>?

And one cannot answer that this is the intention of the saying of Hashem to Moshe<sup>27</sup>

"Until when will you refuse to keep My commandments and My teachings,

see that Hashem has given you the Sabbath etc. let each man remain in his place, let no man go out from his place on the seventh day",

that they transgressed in this "to keep My commandments" — because from the plain sense of the verse

(language of the verse)

it is understood,

that only then after they went out to gather they were commanded "let each man remain in his place, let no man go out",

that they should not go out to gather the manna on Shabbos<sup>28</sup>

(for in the verses before this it was said only that the manna will not be in it,

but the prohibition did not come

(explicitly)

<pg>88</pg>

to go out to gather),

And it is found that Bnei Yisrael did not transgress the command of Hashem²⁹.

[And the intention of the speech "Until when will you refuse etc." is

(not that Bnei Yisrael transgressed the command of Hashem,

but rather)

only that they were lacking in faith,

for since they saw that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them a double portion of bread on the sixth day, stating the reason explicitly that on the seventh day "you will not find it in the field..

there will not be any in it"³⁰,

there is no place to go out to the field to find manna].

And it is puzzling — since Moshe had already told them that "the holy Shabbos is for Hashem tomorrow,"

behold they were prohibited from going out to gather the manna on Shabbos because of the prohibition of carrying out

(And even though they did not find it in the field,

behold they took out the vessels as mentioned above)?

And according to the above, it can be said: according to the simple explanation,

the command about keeping Shabbos in its completeness did not come until the Giving of the Torah,

and what is here regarding the manna it was said to them "a rest, a holy Shabbos for Hashem tomorrow" — this is not a command about keeping Shabbos in its completeness,

but only regarding its observance in matters related to gathering the manna and its preparation<sup>31</sup>.

And therefore,

since initially it was said to Bnei Yisrael only about the prohibition of baking and cooking<sup>20</sup>,

they were not prohibited

(yet)

regarding carrying out from domain to domain etc.,

and they were permitted according to the law to go out etc.,

and only when Hashem said explicitly "let each man remain in his place, let him not go out etc." they were prohibited in this.

4.

We have thus learned,

that the explanation is not that the prohibitions of Shabbat caused that the manna did not fall on Shabbat

(for at the time of the beginning of the descent of the manna, Israel had not yet been prohibited in this work of Shabbat),

but rather the opposite: the content of the matter of the manna is that it caused that the mitzvah of Shabbat be given to Israel

(at least in the labors related to gathering the manna and preparing it).

Simply, it would be possible to explain this according to Rashi on the verse³²

"Behold I will rain down for you bread from the heavens etc. in order that I may test them, whether they will go in My Torah etc." — "if they will keep the commandments dependent upon it: that they not leave over from it and not go out on Shabbat to gather,"

behold that one of the tests of the manna

(that Hashem rained down bread from the heavens "in order that I may test them")

was in the matter of its gathering on Shabbat.

But this itself requires a reason: what is the explanation that the test of Haman was specifically in the matter of Shabbos?

And especially

(according to the above)

that this would be the reason that Shabbos was then given to Israel.

That it must be said that the content of the matter of the manna is connected with the content of the matter of Shabbos.

And one can explain the elucidation in this:

Above on the verse³³

"And in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord" Rashi explained that "the bread that you asked for the need of its descent in the morning³⁴

you will see the glory of the light of His countenance that He will bring it down to you in a manner of affection in the morning when there is time to prepare it, and dew above and dew below like placed in a box."

From this it is understood,

that besides the entirety of the novelty in the giving of the manna — that it was "bread from the heavens",

<pg>89</pg>

which came to Bnei Yisrael without any exertion

(at least without the exertion required for bread from the earth)

— there is yet this further point,

that this very thing the Holy One, blessed be He, gave in a manner of "a way of affection",

to minimize as much as possible the exertion of Bnei Yisrael in obtaining this food.

And it is found,

that the definition of the matter of the manna is one with the matter of Shabbat — because manna is the bread that comes to Bnei Yisrael in a manner of cessation and rest and delight,

without toil and exertion on their part³⁵.

And therefore,

the perfection of the affection in the giving of the manna is in this,

that together with the giving of the manna,

the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Bnei Yisrael the Shabbat,

and in the manner of "See that the Lord has given you the Shabbat",

"See with your eyes that the Lord in His glory warns you about the Shabbat, for a miracle was performed every Friday to give you double bread"³⁶

— that is,

that their sustenance was given to them in its perfection on the sixth day so that on the Shabbat day they would have complete rest,

without any trouble or worry about their sustenance for this day.

5.

And based on this will be understood the continuation of the verses³⁷,

that only after the account of the matter of Shabbos

("and the people rested on the seventh day")

— then "they called etc. its name man",

for this name indicates the matter of unlimited delight that is in it,

that "each one of Israel tasted whatever he wanted"³⁸

without limitation — therefore it cannot be described with a limited description,

and it can be called only "man",

"preparation of food"³⁹

— and the recognition of the matter of the "delight" in the man came to its completeness only after "and the people rested on the seventh day";

And the verse continues to emphasize the greatness of the pleasure in the manna — "and its taste was like a cake with honey"⁴⁰

(because only then did they feel the complete pleasure⁴¹

of the manna)

;

And afterwards came the command to set aside from it "for safekeeping for your generations",

because the "safekeeping for your generations" relates to the knowledge that the manna was given in such a way that not only during the six weekdays were there only the minimal efforts,

but moreover,

that when Shabbos came, the Holy One, blessed be He, prepared their food from before Shabbos,

in a manner that on Shabbos they had rest<pg>90</pg>

Tea and complete rest,

"And the people rested on the seventh day."

In this is the perfection of the knowledge and the recognition

(to the level of seeing — "so that they may see the bread"¹¹)

that the Holy One, blessed be He, can sustain Israel in a way that they will not need to engage in any work and they will be able to keep

(to engage)

in Torah with complete rest.

6.

The above explanation regarding the connection of the matter of the manna to the Sabbath day — aligns with the words of the Zohar⁴²,

that although the manna did not descend on the Sabbath,

this is only in its descent and drawing down below in this world,

but above it is the opposite — that the blessing of the manna was specifically on the Sabbath day,

and from it all the days are blessed,

that through this blessing on the Sabbath day the manna descended below during the six weekdays that follow it.

And superficially, it requires explanation: since "they sanctified [it] with the manna that did not descend at all on Shabbat"⁴³

— why is its blessing above specifically on the day of Shabbat?

And according to what was said above, it is understood: since the content of the matter of the manna is — the bestowal of food in a manner of delight,

"with a luminous countenance..

in a way of affection"⁴⁴,

therefore the appropriate time for the blessing on this bestowal is specifically on the day of Shabbat,

for then is the time of rest and delight.

7.

And behold, in addition to this that the entire Torah is eternal,

it may be said that this that the physical manna is "a preserved thing for your generations,"

eternal

(and as our sages, of blessed memory,⁴⁵

that it was hidden with the Ark)

— there is in it a special emphasis that its content exists always in every single one of Israel.

That is to say,

just as when a person's food is "bread from the earth,"

and in a manner that he himself must toil in this

(and as the saying⁴⁶

: many did like R. Yishmael — that it should say "and you shall gather your grain" etc.⁴⁷

— and it succeeded⁴⁸

in their hand)

— nevertheless,

also in this food there is the content of the matter of the manna⁴⁹.

And the explanation of this matter:

It is known⁵⁰

the difference between Israel and the nations,

that to the nations of the world an abundance of influence flows,

because by them the influence is not by calculation and comes to them "for free — from the commandments"⁵¹,

without work

(spiritual),

and therefore the influence is in abundance,

since it is not dependent on work; unlike the influence to Israel which is a measured influence,

because it flows according to their work,

and as it is written⁵²

"If in My statutes you will walk etc. I will give your rains in their time."

And since the influence is by calculation,

therefore it is a limited and measured influence,

according to the work of Israel.

But,

the abundance of influence that is by the nations is only an abundance in quantity,

but there is no delight in this influence,

in the language of the Tanya⁵³

that the Holy One, blessed be He, influences them with vitality only "like one who throws [food] behind the shoulder of his enemy against his will"; unlike the influence to the children of Israel,

even though it is a measured influence,

in this influence there is "delight",

including the supernal delight,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, delights from the <pg>91</pg>

This time is for the children of Israel, a nation close to Him,

and "in the light&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;

of the face of the King of life".

And this is also the virtue of Israel that they choose the Holy One, blessed be He,&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;,

namely that they forgo the abundance of influence that they could receive in the manner of the nations of the world,

and they choose to receive their vitality and their abundance specifically from the side of holiness,

even though it is a diminished influence,

since only in this influence is there the pleasure from above,

"the light of the face of the King of life".

8.

And this quality in the influence to Israel,

came to expression and revelation in the matter of the manna:

On one hand, there is no abundance in quantity in the manna,

on the contrary,

the manna was given in the most precise measurement,

only for one day,

and only an omer per person,

he who gathered much did not have more and he who gathered little did not lack⁵⁶

; but on the other hand,

this omer was given "with a shining countenance..

in a loving manner",

that the children of Israel saw in this "the glory of the light of His face"⁵⁷

(for in the light of the king's face is life)⁵⁸.

And just as it is from the aspect of "above",

that in the influence from the side of holiness is clothed the delight of above — so too is it from the aspect of Israel

(the recipients of the influence),

that the influence is received by them in a manner of delight.

And as it comes in revelation and simplicity in the manna,

that besides that it came to them without toil,

they would taste in the manna any taste that they wanted&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;,

and furthermore,

that together with the manna there descended to them precious stones and pearls&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

whose

(essential)

purpose is only for delight.

And therefore the manna did not descend on Shabbat

(even though the blessing of the manna above is specifically on Shabbat as above),

for the matter of the clothing of the delight in this influence — its purpose is to effect in Israel the matter of delight,

and therefore specifically through this that there is on Shabbat a blessing upon the influence of the manna,

this effects that it does not descend below to Israel on the day of Shabbat,

in a manner that the rest of Israel on the day of Shabbat will be in the ultimate perfection.

And this is one of the explanations of the difference between Israel and the nations regarding Shabbat — that the children of Israel are obligated in the observance of Shabbat,

whereas a non-Jew who rests is liable to death&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

: Among Israel,

since the essential matter in their influence is the matter of delight,

therefore it causes and brings about the delight of the person,

a day of rest and delight

[and likewise conversely: in order for a Jewish person to be a vessel to receive this influence, the matter of desisting from work must be present]

; but not so among the nations,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, influences them "like one who casts..

against his will",

the matter of "will" and rest is negated for them,

but rather specifically toil and exertion.

And this is also the eternal lesson from the matter of the manna for all generations

("a preservation for your generations")

— that among the children of Israel the influence from the side of holiness, which is in a manner of "the light of the king's face [gives] life", must be precious,

even if because of this they must forgo the abundance of influence from the side of "that casts behind His shoulders",

and specifically through this they arrive at true rest and delight,

&lt;pg&gt;92&lt;/pg&gt;

And the little bit

(in physicality)

at first immediately is blessed to satiety⁶¹,

until they merit from the outset — ample sustenance,

to an abundance of physical influences⁶²,

until the abundance of influence that will be "at that time",

and as explained and clarified and detailed in the Rambam at the conclusion and seal of his book{63} — and speedily in our days, literally.

(From talks of Shabbat Parshat Beshalach 5728,

Shabbat Parshat Bechukotai 5746)