English translation — בהעלותך ג

Sicha 3<pg>71</pg>

A.

"We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for free, the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic"<sup>1</sup>,

And Rashi — on the words "the cucumbers"<sup>2</sup>

— brings

(from the Sifrei<sup>3</sup>)

"Said Rabbi Shimon: Why does the manna change into everything except these? Because they are harmful for nursing women,

They say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onion because of the infant,

A parable of a king etc. as it is brought in the Sifrei."

And behold, in the Ramban he explained the claim of Bnei Yisrael: "Remember us, etc., which we ate in Egypt, etc.,"

that this is "like forgotten things,

for they did not eat fish from the day they left Egypt until now,

and the reason..

free, according to its simple meaning, because the Egyptian fishermen would employ them to pull the fish, etc., and they would give them some of the fish<sup>4</sup>

etc., and the cucumbers and the melons and the leeks and the onions and the garlics in Egypt were very abundant, for it is like a garden of vegetables<sup>5</sup>

"And when they would dig for them in the gardens, they would eat from the vegetables."

And according to his explanation, there was here only one claim,

that in the desert they lacked those foods which they ate in Egypt "for free"

(And in this manner most of the simple commentators of Scripture explained<sup>6</sup>)

;

But Rashi divided the verse into two,

that on the words "which we ate in Egypt for free" he explained

(based on the Sifri<sup>7</sup>)

"free from the commandments"<sup>8</sup>,

and on "the cucumbers" he explains

(as above)

that the manna did not change its taste to the five<sup>9</sup>

these species

(cucumbers,

melons,

leeks,

onions,

garlics)

— meaning that there were here two claims against the "manna": a)

that the manna was dependent on the performance of commandments<sup>10</sup>,

unlike the fish that they ate in Egypt, which was "free from the commandments"<sup>11</sup>,

b)

In Egypt they also had the five species of cucumbers, etc.,

while in the desert these species were lacking,

because "the manna changes into anything except these."

And one must say,

that Rashi's necessity to divide the verse into two,

is hinted in the words that he quoted from the verse — "the cucumbers",

for according to the Ramban's explanation that the entire verse is a continuation<pg>72</pg>

it should have said "one"<sup>12</sup>

"and the cucumbers"; and from this that it says "et",

it is proven that from here a matter begins

(claim)

new<sup>13</sup>.

2.

But it is puzzling regarding the actual explanation of it:

For behold, the language of the statement of R. Shimon in the Sifri: "R. Shimon says: For what reason did the manna change for them for every thing that they wanted, except for these five species,

a parable to a king of flesh and blood who handed over his son to a tutor and was sitting and commanding him and saying to him: 'See to it that he does not eat bad food, etc.' And with all this, that son was complaining against his father, saying that it is not because he loves me, but because he cannot

[that it is not His will]

that I eat."

Behold, there is here a great difference between the language of the Sifri and the language of Rashi — that in the Sifri only the parable was brought,

whereas Rashi adds explanation and commentary¹⁴

(in the words of R' Shimon)

"Because they are hard for nursing women,

they say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onion because of the infant."

And it requires examination: from where did Rashi [get] to explain that the intention of R' Shimon is,

that these foods are hard only for nursing women,

and not according to the simple meaning of the parable that they are simply bad foods — for everyone¹⁵?

And even more perplexing: In the Gemara¹⁶

it is explicit: "Why are they called kishuim? Because they are as hard for a person's entire body as swords,"

behold it is explicit that kishuim are a bad food for every person

(and for his entire body),

and even that this is hinted at in their name¹⁷

; and if so, certainly the words of R. Shimon can be interpreted simply,

that these species are "bad foods" in general

[And the Rambam in Hilchos Deos¹⁸

lists "lettuce, onions, and garlic"

(the three latter species here)

among "bad foods...

(that)

it is not proper for a person to eat of these except very little, and in the rainy season"]

— and from where does Rashi derive to limit the general statements of R. Shimon,

and say that his intention is that they are hard only for nursing women?

!

[The source of this matter "They say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onion because of the infant" — is in the Sifri

(as also brought in Rashi on the Talmud¹⁹),

except that it is in the Sifri later — on the verse²⁰

"And its taste was like the taste of a rich cream,"

that one of the interpretations in the Sifri is²¹

"Just as this breast

[“shad” is the language of breasts]

which is one species and changes into many species,

so the manna changed for Israel into everything they wanted,

a parable: They say to a woman: Do not eat garlic and onion because of the infant"

(and as explained in the commentaries²²,

that <pg>73</pg>

The intention of the Sifri that it would change to every taste except those that are hard for nursing women "because of the infant")

But this matter was not brought in the discourse of R. Sh.²³.

Moreover: There were brought only two kinds "garlic and onion" — and there is no proof from this that also the other three kinds are hard for nursing women].

3.

Also, one must understand several precise points in the language of Rashi,

and they are:

a)

Rashi did not copy the main statement of R’ Shimon,

which is the parable of a king of flesh and blood etc.,

and he brings only its beginning,

“A parable of a king etc. as it is brought in the Sifri.”

And even though Rashi adds the explanation why the taste of the manna did not change for these types

(as above),

nevertheless,

there is in Rashi’s words no reasoning for the content of the complaint of Bnei Yisrael,

which is explained only in the parable of R’ Shimon,

that the son thinks that the reason his father commanded not to give him these foods is because he does not want him to enjoy the goodness of these foods

(“It is impossible for him to eat”).

b)

Why does Rashi also cite the name of the author of the statement — Rabbi Shimon?

And as explained many times,

that Rashi's intention in bringing the name of the author of the statement in a few places in his commentary

(even though in most places he does not bring a thing in the name of its speaker)

is to hint at an addition of reasoning in the content of his commentary,

through the knowledge that this statement was said by a Tanna

(or an Amora)

so-and-so.

[And these two nuances are more prominent,

when comparing this Rashi to his commentary a few verses earlier,

on the verse²⁴

"And the people cried out to Moses",

where he writes there "A parable to a king of flesh and blood who became angry at his son and the son went to his father's friend and said to him 'Go out and plead for me from father'",

that also this parable originates in the Sifri on the spot and the author of the statement is Rabbi Shimon — and there

(a)

Rashi copied the entire parable

(and did not note that its source is in the Sifri),

(b)

he omitted there the author of the statement!].

3)

Here Rashi wrote "because they are hard for nursing women",

but in his commentary on the Talmud²⁵

he wrote that the manna was not changed into these five species because they are "hard for pregnant and nursing women".

And it requires examination why Rashi omitted in his commentary on the Torah "for pregnant women"²⁶

[For the reason "because of the infant" seemingly applies to pregnant women as to nursing women.

And furthermore: it stands to reason — and especially in study according to the simple meaning — to increase as much as possible the number of Bnei Yisrael because of whom the manna was not changed into these species,

and if so certainly Rashi should have added in his commentary on the Torah that also for pregnant women they are hard].

4)

Why does Rashi place "shum" before "batzal"

("Do not eat shum and batzal")

— the opposite of their order in the verse²⁷

— "and the batzals and the shums".

4.

And one can say the explanation of all this — simply:

In this verse is explained the claim of Bnei Yisrael on&lt;pg&gt;74&lt;/pg&gt;

Moshe Rabbeinu that there is a deficiency in their situation in the desert relative to their situation in Egypt.

And according to this,

if you say that these foods are bad and hard foods for a person's body — there is no place for the claim "We remember etc. which we ate in Egypt"²⁸,

And on the contrary,

they should have thanked that now there is no place for bad foods!

And even though about this R. Shimon brought a parable of the king's son who "complained to his father, saying that not because He loves me

[and wants to prevent me from bad foods]

but that it is impossible for him to eat",

and likewise in the allegory,

that Bnei Yisrael complained to the Holy One, blessed be He, "saying that not because He loves me but that it is impossible for Him to eat" — at first glance this is not a sufficient explanation,

for it is understandable in the parable that it speaks of a small son,

it is understood that he complains to his father

(even though his "pedagogue" tells him that this is a bad food)

because he craves bad foods; but in the allegory it is difficult to say that Bnei Yisrael would make a claim that has no basis

(since according to the well-known reality,

in reality all this was for their good,

to prevent them from bad foods that are harmful to a person's body).

And in any case, it was incumbent upon Moshe to answer them that their claim is based on an error,

and on the contrary,

the prevention of these foods is for their benefit.

And one cannot answer according to Rashi's commentary on the verse

(before this²⁹)

"Who will feed us meat" — "And did they not have meat? Was it not already said..

and flock and cattle..

but they seek a pretext" — for it is not comparable to our matter,

for that they had flock and cattle was in a limited number,

so much so that even Moshe Rabbeinu said to the Holy One, blessed be He, "Six hundred thousand footmen of the people etc. shall flock and cattle be slaughtered for them and suffice for them etc."³⁰,

and thus there was some place for this pretext; but not so here,

behold the entire complaint has no basis,

for on the contrary,

this is from the goodness and kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He, that He prevented them from bad foods!

And therefore Rashi explains,

that these types are difficult only for nursing women alone,

but they are not bad foods for every person.

And this was the complaint of the children of Israel: why was the taste of these foods withheld from them only because they are not good foods for nursing women — and could not the Holy One, blessed be He, have made that only for the nursing women the manna would not change into these types,

while for all of Israel the goodness of those foods would not be lacking³¹.

And for this reason Rashi did not copy the entire parable of Rabbi Shimon — because the parable does not correspond to the moral,

that the intention of the father

(in the parable)

is to prevent his son from bad foods,

while in the moral these foods were withheld from all of the children of Israel

(not because they are not good for them,

but)

only because of the minority of the children of Israel,

the nursing women,

for whom they are difficult

("because of the infant").

And therefore Rashi brings only the beginning of the parable

(and refers to the Sifri),

as a hint,

that the content of the complaint of Bnei Yisrael is similar to the complaint of the son³²,

that — <pg>75</pg>

that the intention of the father in withholding these foods from him is only to afflict him and punish him

(and not for his benefit),

and likewise in our case,

that Bnei Yisrael complained that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not want them to enjoy these foods

(except that in the parable the father's reason is for the benefit of the son,

all his sons,

and in the allegory — it is for the good of the minority,

the nursing women,

as will be explained below).

5.

And based on this, the above-mentioned precise points in Rashi are also resolved:

a)

He precedes "garlic" to "onion"

("Do not eat garlic and onion")

— because in "garlic" it is emphasized and forced that it is a hard food only for nursing women and not for all Israel — for the Sages³³

enumerated several good qualities in eating garlic,

to the extent that Ezra instituted that "they eat garlic on Friday evening"³⁴

(and because of this all Israel are called "garlic-eaters"³⁵),

and it must be said that garlic is a hard food only for nursing women,

and from this we learn about the rest,

that they are hard foods only for nursing women and not for all Israel.

2)

Rashi omits "pregnant women" — because according to the simple meaning of the verse, it is logical to minimize as much as possible the number of Bnei Yisrael for whom these foods are bad,

for only then is their complaint of Israel understood.

And it can be said that Rashi holds,

that according to the plain sense it is not applicable to say

(definitively)

regarding the manna that these types

(as they were in the manna)

are hard for pregnant women,

because the harm from foods to pregnant women can be said to be

(primarily)

from the smell of the foods,

as it is brought in the Gemara³⁶

that in a pregnant woman, what she smells touches and takes hold,

"a pregnant woman who smelled".

And therefore this does not apply regarding the manna, for only its taste changed and not its smell³⁷.

And in this way one can also resolve another precision in the continuation of Rashi's language in this verse,

that he explains the first three species: "the cucumbers — they are kukombrush in la'az.

Watermelons — burkash.

The leeks — kerishin porilsh,

and its Targum is yat butzinia etc."

And it is not understood:

a)

What is the precise language of Rashi regarding "קשואים" — "they are קוקומברו"ש",

that he did not write thus regarding melons and leeks?

b)

What is Rashi's intention in bringing "and its Targum is yas butsiniya etc.",

that he brings only the Targum on "kishu'im"

("yas butsiniya"),

and the rest he only hints at with "etc."?

For whichever way you look at it,

either he should have quoted the Targum also on avatichim and chatsir

[and especially since "chatsir" can be interpreted from the word for grass³⁸,

as it is written³⁹

He makes grass grow on the mountains,

and if so surely Rashi should have proven that here its meaning is "kerishin" from the Targum that wrote "kartei"⁴⁰]

— or if he relied that the student would look himself in the Targum

(and as we find in several places that Rashi only refers to the Targum),

why did he quote

(the beginning)

of the Targum's wording "yas butsiniya"⁴¹?

<pg>76</pg>

And based on the above, it can be said,

that the main novelty of Rashi is indeed regarding kishu'im.

For behold, in Rashi on the Talmud⁴²

he explains "butsin" — "dela'at",

and we do not find that "dela'at" is harmful for nursing women.

Therefore Rashi explains,

in a novel way,

that "kishu'im" here "are cucumbrus in the vernacular"

(which are harmful for nursing women,

as is explicit in Rashi),

and on this he concludes that "its Targum is yas butsiniya",

that the Targum disagrees with this⁴³,

for it translates kishu'im "yas butsiniya"⁴⁴,

which are not harmful for nursing women⁴⁵,

and thus according to the explanation of the Targum,

the common denominator among these five species is not that they are harmful for nursing women

(and it must be said that the Targum explains the complaint of the Israelites in a different manner).

And this is also the intention of Rashi, who quoted in his commentary only "the wick" and the rest he hinted at with "etc." — because regarding the explanation of the species,

Rashi differs from the Targum only regarding the gourds,

but from this itself there derives a practical difference in the explanation of the entire verse

(the "etc."),

what was the content of Israel's complaint regarding these five species.

6.

However, after all this there is room for a question

(at least for a "sharp" student)

— why did Hashem actually do thus,

to withhold from all of Israel the taste of these species because of the nursing women, who are a minority of a minority of all of Israel³¹?

And therefore Rashi there quotes the author of the maamar — R. Shimon — who follows his own approach,

that sometimes it is possible that the minority overrides the majority⁴⁶.

And as we find emphasized by R. Shimon,

who said⁴⁷

"I can exempt the entire world from judgment from the day I was created until now,

and were it not for Elazar my son who is with me,

from the day the world was created until now,

and were it not for Yotam ben Uziyahu who is with us from the day the world was created until its end."

For even though they are truly individuals,

nevertheless they have the ability to tip the scales for the entire world.

And this is because Rashbi "sees" all of Israel,

and of all generations entirely,

that they are truly one entity,

and therefore the action of each individual and particular in Israel affects the entire collective.

And likewise, Rabbi Shimon holds the opposite,

that when there is something that can harm the minority,

it is worthwhile to prevent this matter also from the majority,

so that there should be no concern or even a remote concern that this harm will reach the minority.

And simply⁴⁸

: so that the nursing women should not notice that all of Israel are enjoying these good foods and will desire them, etc.,

it is worthwhile to prevent these foods from the majority of the children of Israel.

And from this, a lesson to what extent must be the effort for the good of an individual person,

And furthermore — even when it is about a Jewish infant,

And as in our discussion,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, withheld good foods&lt;pg&gt;77&lt;/pg&gt;

these from all the Children of Israel so that there would be no concern of harm to nursing infants — and all the more so that there must be effort to the point of self-sacrifice for the spiritual welfare of Jewish boys and girls,

to take care of them, and especially that each one of them should receive an education in holiness,

in a manner of "even when he grows old he will not depart from it"&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Beha'aloscha and Shabbos Parshas Sh'lach 5728)