English translation — בשלח ב

Sicha in <pg>70</pg>

A.

Our master the Alter Rebbe wrote in his Shulchan<sup>1</sup>

Regarding the laws of the Melaveh Malkah meal: "It is good to cook meat or something else on Motzaei Shabbos in honor of this meal,

And in our time, when we delay the third meal so much that we cannot eat on Motzaei Shabbos, we can fulfill this meal with fruits",

And afterwards he continues

(In parentheses<sup>2</sup>)

"And it is not necessary to advance the third meal in order to eat this meal properly<sup>3</sup>

For this meal is not so obligatory, but rather only a mitzvah of the choicest."

And at first glance, it is somewhat difficult [regarding] what is said: "It is not so much an obligation, but rather only a mitzvah of the choicest [kind],"

for at first glance, it should have said that it is "a mere mitzvah"⁴

and the like,

and not that it is "a mitzvah of the choicest [kind],"

which implies that initially, the fulfillment of the mitzvah must be specifically in this manner⁵?

2.

And this will be understood by prefacing an explanation of the source and definition of the meal of Melaveh Malkah,

for the obligation of three meals is derived in the Gemara⁶

from the three times "today" that were said regarding the manna⁷

— "And Moshe said, 'Eat it today, for today is a Shabbos to the Lord; today you will not find it in the field'"

(and some say⁸

that it is an obligation from the Torah),

but not so the meal of Melaveh Malkah, for which we do not find a Scriptural source.

And in the Gemara⁹

it is stated: "A person should always arrange his table on Motza'ei Shabbat even if he only needs a kezayit,"

and in Rashi¹⁰

"On Motza'ei Shabbat,

also the honor of Shabbat is to escort it at its departure in a dignified manner, like a person who escorts the king when he leaves the city,"

and in the continuation of the Gemara there, the story of R. Abahu is brought: on Motza'ei Shabbat they made for him "a third-born calf"

(even though he would only eat a little,

"the kidney").

And simply it implies,

that this is the reason for this meal¹¹,

in order to honor Shabbat at its departure

("like a person<pg>71</pg>

who escorts the king when he leaves the city")

through this meal.

And to note that this statement does not speak about the obligation of eating a meal on motza'ei Shabbos,

but only about the arrangement of the table¹².

And as is proven from the fact that this statement is brought in the Talmud in continuation of the statement of Rabbi Elazar "A person should always arrange his table on Friday evening even if he only needs [to eat] an olive's bulk",

in which it is simple that what it says "a person should arrange his table on Friday evening etc." is not the obligation of the meal of Shabbos night

(which is at night),

but it is an obligation of arranging the table on Friday evening

(before the entrance of Shabbos),

[And it is from the law of honoring Shabbos,

and as the Rambam wrote¹³

(after he brought these two statements as halacha regarding the arrangement of the table on Friday evening¹⁴

and on motza'ei Shabbos)

"in order to honor it at its entrance and at its exit",

and he brings it there in continuation of other matters of preparation that one is obligated to do in the house on Friday evening for the honor of Shabbos¹⁵

— whereas the law of Shabbos meals is not a matter of honoring Shabbos,

but rather of delighting in Shabbos¹⁶],

From this it is understood that also the statement "a person should set his table on motza'ei Shabbos" does not speak about the obligation of eating a meal,

but rather about the manner of setting the table for the meal in order to honor the Shabbos at its departure&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in the wording of the Alter Rebbe here&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

"he should make preparation in the arrangement of the table, such as spreading a tablecloth and the like"

[for although it is not the intention of the person to eat more than an olive-sized portion,

behold, it is from the honor of Shabbos

(also at its departure)

to arrange the table as if he is going to eat a "full meal"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;].

And seemingly there is room to say,

that essentially this meal is not an obligation,

but rather since such is the way of people,

to eat on motza'ei Shabbos,

for even though they already ate the third meal,

behold, since ordinarily night is a time for a meal&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore they eat an additional meal

(at least a small meal)

at night

[and only regarding one who is supported from charity is there a consideration in the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

not to give him a meal for motza'ei Shabbos, "for we say to him: what you wish to eat on motza'ei Shabbos, eat it on Shabbos"]

— and in this is the law of the meal of Melaveh Malkah,

that from the aspect of the obligation of honoring Shabbos,

one is obligated to prepare the table for this meal

(which people eat anyway)

"like&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

for a full meal".

But one who does not eat this meal every night has no obligation to eat.

But one cannot say so,

for it is proven in many places that the body of the meal is a mitzvah,

and as the language of the Alter Rebbe that "one can fulfill this meal with fruits",

and afterwards he wrote "that this meal is not so much an obligation but rather only a mitzvah from the optimal",

from which it is understood that also the body of the meal is somewhat an obligation in any case

(and there are those who say²²

that this meal must be with bread).

And it requires explanation,

what is its source and reason of this meal.

3.

Also it is puzzling in the words of Rashi mentioned above that the arrangement of the table at Melaveh Malkah is "to escort at its departure in a dignified manner, like a person who escorts the king when he leaves the city",

for from this parable it is understood,

that until then the Shabbos had not yet "departed"

(as in the parable,

that when they escort the king, the king is still among the people escorting him).

And at first glance,

although one is obligated to add from the profane onto the holy both at its entrance and at its exit&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless the concept of Melaveh Malkah is specifically after Havdalah and the departure of Shabbos.

And in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

it is written that "there are those who practice..

to say piyutim and zemirot after Havdalah to escort the Shabbos after it has departed, in the manner that they escort the king after he has left the city".

And still it requires explanation as above,

for at first glance,

in the parable the departure of the king is the departure only from the city,

but the escorts are still with the king,

whereas in the analogue,

at first glance after Havdalah&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

the Shabbos is not "together" with the children of Israel.

And it must be said that also after the departure of the Sabbath

(in Havdalah)

it still has not gone completely.

And in the Nosei Keilim the Shulchan Aruch²⁶

brought it in the name of the disciples of the Ariza"l²⁷

"that the extra soul does not go completely until after the Motza'ei Shabbos meal, therefore it is not proper to engage in work that is not for food needs until after the Motza'ei Shabbos meal."

And it requires explanation,

what is the connection between the departure of the extra soul

(and Shabbos in general)

with the meal of Melaveh Malkah,

that until this meal it is like a king when he goes out from the city, who is still found in proximity of place and with the people of the city,

and the people of the city escort him.

4.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

The descent of the manna was in a manner of the night following the day,

and as is explicit in the verse that its descent was in the morning²⁸,

and from the omer of manna that descended in the morning there was food for two meals²⁹,

the morning meal and the evening meal

(and as stated in the Baalei HaTosafos³⁰

"all the days of the year they would make from the omer two loaves of bread").

And from this it is understood also regarding the manna that descended in <pg>72</pg>

There,

"two omers for one"³⁰,

that it was in a manner of "the night follows the day",

for from the first omer³¹

they ate the meal of Friday and the meal of Friday night,

and the second omer sufficed for them not only for the

(two³²)

meals of the Sabbath day but also for the night meal that followed

(the conclusion of the Sabbath)³³.

[And it is forced to say that they did not eat any meal on Motza'ei Shabbat because they already ate the third meal&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

on the Shabbat day itself,

for it is a matter of wonder to say that during the forty years that Israel was in the desert they did not eat any meal on Motza'ei Shabbat

(because they did not have anything to eat)&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

For in addition to this that generally a person eats a meal

(even if it is a small meal)

on Motza'ei Shabbat even when he ate the third meal

(as above sec. 2),

behold furthermore this

(and the main point)

: since from the aspect of the honor of Shabbat one is obligated to escort the Shabbat at its departure by arranging the table for a full meal,

it is obvious that they did so also in the desert

(and it should be noted that it is very forced to say that there is a matter of arranging a table for a full meal without eating at all)].

And it is found,

that the bread of the Motza'ei Shabbat meal was from the omer of manna that was designated for Shabbat.

And based on this, there is to add explanation in the language of Chazal&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

on the verse&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

"And He blessed etc. and He sanctified" — "He blessed them with the manna and sanctified them with the manna,

He blessed them with the manna etc. on Friday evening two omer-measures,

and sanctified them with the manna that it did not descend at all on it",

it is to say,

that the distinction between the two matters of "He blessed" and "He sanctified" is not only whether it is a positive matter

(that two omer-measures descended on Friday evening)

or a negation

(that the manna did not descend on it),

but rather they are two categories

(and times)

different:

"He sanctified them with the manna" means a matter in the manna in connection with the sanctity of Shabbat,

for the sanctity of Shabbat obligates that the manna not descend during this holy time,

and this matter is only during the hours of Shabbat itself,

at the time of the sanctity of Shabbat

(including also the time of adding from the profane onto the holy,

that also then there is the sanctity of Shabbat)

;

But not so "bless Him with the manna",

the blessing of the manna for the day of Shabbat is not limited to the time of the holiness of Shabbat³⁸,

but rather to the time of the meal of Shabbat.

And since the time of the meal regarding the descent of the manna is in the manner of "the night follows the day",

so also regarding the time of the blessing of the manna of Shabbat it is so,

that the blessing of the manna of the day of Shabbat extends to the conclusion of Shabbat.

[And on the contrary,

the meal of the night of holy Shabbat was from the <pg>73</pg>

the first omer³⁹

that fell for the sake of Sabbath eve,

and specifically the meal of motza'ei Shabbat was from the second omer that fell specifically for the sake of the Sabbath day⁴⁰,

in which the miracle occurred that "it did not⁴¹

become foul and there was no worm in it"].

5.

And it may be said,

that this is also the source for the matter that the aspect of Shabbat extends until the time of the meal of motza'ei Shabbat

(as above section 3)

:

Even though the holiness of Shabbos

(literally)

is only until after Havdalah,

when one distinguishes between holy and profane,

nevertheless the blessing of Shabbos

("And God blessed the seventh day"⁴²,

"Therefore God blessed the Shabbos day"⁴³)

is in a manner that it extends until the meal of Motza'ei Shabbos⁴⁴,

just as in "He blessed it with the manna" was included also the blessing and provision of food for the meal of Motza'ei Shabbos.

[And it is understood and simple,

that just as the holiness of Shabbos,

even though Chazal explained that "And He sanctified it" means that "He sanctified it with the manna",

nevertheless the holiness of Shabbos is at all times in all generations,

so too the matter of the blessing of Shabbos was not only at the time of the wilderness when the manna descended, but it is a constant matter every Shabbos in all generations].

And this is the reason that this meal is the "Melaveh Malkah meal,"

that then they escort the Shabbos at its departure,

because in this meal is the completion of the "blessing" of Shabbos.

And according to the above, perhaps one could say further,

that the foundation of this meal is — a remembrance of the manna,

because the omer of manna of Shabbos included also the meal of Motza'ei Shabbos,

therefore,

just as they are obligated in eating the three meals of Shabbos as a remembrance of the manna,

so too this remembrance itself obligates also the eating of this meal

(just as Bnei Yisrael in the desert ate this meal from the manna that descended for the day of Shabbos).

And based on this, one can explain the language of the Alter Rebbe mentioned above, "that this meal is not so much an obligation but rather a mitzvah from the choicest only,"

one can say that his intention in this,

that through the meal of Melaveh Malkah, the mitzvah of three meals is a "mitzvah from the choicest."

That is to say,

the obligation of the meal of Melaveh Malkah is not only a matter in itself

(in order to escort the Shabbat,

which this matter is not related to the other meals of Shabbat whose time is on Shabbat itself),

but rather it is

(also)

a part of the obligation of three meals⁴⁵,

for the fulfillment of the mitzvah of three meals in a manner of "mitzvah from the choicest" is when one also eats the meal of Melaveh Malkah,

for then the remembrance of "Blessed is the manna" is in completeness⁴⁶.

<pg>74</pg>

6.

An explanation of the matter of the meal of Melaveh Malkah in the manner of homiletics,

will be understood by prefacing what is written in the Beit Yosef⁴⁷

that "there is a limb in a person...

and it does not derive benefit from eating except on motza'ei Shabbat",

from this it is understood,

that there is a matter in the meal of Melaveh Malkah that is not in the Shabbat meals,

for this limb — and it is the "luz bone"⁴⁸

— does not derive benefit from any eating

(also from the Shabbat meals)

except that of motza'ei Shabbat alone.

And we must explain the matter based on what is said in Eliyahu Rabbah&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

that the “etzem luz” did not benefit from the Tree of Knowledge

(since “it does not&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

benefit from any eating..

except when it eats at the conclusion of Shabbat”,

therefore it did not benefit from eating of the Tree of Knowledge on the eve of Shabbat),

and “therefore it is not corrupted”,

for the entire matter of death came because of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,

that because of this sin death was decreed in the world,

but the “etzem luz” that did not benefit from the Tree of Knowledge is above the matter of death,

and from this bone the body will be built&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

for the resurrection of the dead.

For at first glance it is puzzling,

since this etzem luz is above the matter of death and does not need eating and drinking for its existence,

then why does it benefit from the meal of Melaveh Malkah&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;?

And on the other hand,

if there is eating and drinking that pertains to this bone,

why is it not from the eating of Shabbat itself&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

whose quality is unique that the eating itself is a mitzvah,

and “the separation of your Shabbat he did not say”&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;,

but only from the meal of the conclusion of Shabbat&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;?

And one can say the explanation of this in the manner of the discourse: The ultimate intention in the creation of the Tree of Knowledge is not only to test Adam the first that he should not eat from it,

but rather that man should transform the Tree of Knowledge and elevate it above the matter of death.

And as explained in the books⁵⁶,

that if Adam the first had waited three hours until the day of Shabbat,

he would have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and there would be no matter of death at all.

And this is because Shabbat is a semblance of the life of the World to Come⁵⁷,

above the category of death,

and if he had waited in eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge until Shabbat,

he would be above the matter of death.

<pg>75</pg>

And now, after the sin,

when the matter of death already exists in the world,

now even though there is Shabbat which is a semblance of the World to Come etc.,

nevertheless,

since the day of Shabbat is separate and holy from the rest of the days,

therefore the "life" of Shabbat is not drawn into the place of death itself,

namely as man lives in a world of the mundane

(where death was decreed upon him).

And one could say,

that this is the inner content of the meal of Melaveh Malkah,

the rectification of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge,

for in this meal there is the connection of Shabbat and weekday,

for on one hand it is after the conclusion of the holiness of Shabbat,

but on the other hand there is in it the blessing

(and the drawing down)

of the day of Shabbat,

by means of which the power of Shabbat is drawn also into a weekday meal⁵⁸,

as explained above at length.

And this is also that which the "bone luz" benefits specifically from the meal of Motzaei Shabbat,

for the actual rectification of the sin is the matter of the resurrection of the dead, when "He will swallow up⁵⁹

death forever",

and this comes about through the bone luz which is above the matter of death as explained above.

That is,

that the significance of this bone is not only that it remains existing,

but rather from it must be built the entire body,

so that even the body which had the boundary of death,

will be refined and rectified until it rises in the resurrection of the dead and lives an eternal life

("He will swallow up death forever").

And the power for this is through one benefiting from the meal of Motza'ei Shabbat,

that even in a meal during a weekday they draw down the blessing of Shabbat,

a taste of the World to Come.

(From the sichot of Motza'ei Shabbat Beshalach,

10 Shevat,

5717; Motza'ei Shabbat Parshat Tzav,

13 Nissan,

5726)