English translation — תשא א

Sicha 1<pg>172</pg>

A.

It is stated in the Gemara<sup>1</sup>

: "A person should never deviate from the custom<sup>2</sup>

for Moses ascended to heaven and did not eat bread<sup>3</sup>

The ministering angels descended below and ate<sup>4</sup>

bread,

and they ate — you might think? Rather, say: they appeared as if they ate and drank."

And likewise it is stated in Shemot Rabbah our parshah⁵

(on the verse³

"And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights, bread he did not eat and water he did not drink")

: "But is it possible for a person to be forty days without food and without drink?

Rabbi Tanchuma in the name of Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Avin in the name of Rabbi Meir says: the proverb says: you went to a city, follow its customs

(If you come into a city, you must follow its custom.

as written elsewhere)

Above where there is no eating and drinking, Moses ascended and became like them; below where there is eating and drinking, the ministering angels descended and ate and drank, as it is said⁴

And he stood over them under the tree and they ate. Said Rabbi Yochanan: they appeared as if eating, the first first departs."

And one must be precise about the difference between the language of the Gemara and the language of the Midrash,

that in the Gemara it is stated in a negative language — "a person should not deviate from the custom",

whereas in the Midrash it is stated in a positive language — "you went to a city, follow its customs".

And superficially it seems that the difference between the Gemara and the Midrash is in the category of this, that one must act according to the custom of the place,

for according to the Talmud

(one could say that his intention is an obligation according to halacha)

it is a decree for the sake of peace and the like<sup>6</sup>,

and therefore it used the language "a person should not deviate from the custom",

because it is a negative law

("a person should not deviate etc.")

; but the Midrash

(which speaks in every place about conduct according to the custom of Chassidus)

adds that it is an obligation,

that everyone who comes to a specific place is obligated to act according to the custom of the people of the place<sup>7</sup>,

and therefore it used language of obligation,

"You went to a city, follow its customs".

And with this one can also explain the intention of the Tosafos in the Gemara there<sup>8</sup>,

that on the language of the Talmud "and they ate, you might think? Rather say: it appears as if they ate and drank",

they brought that "in Seder Eliyahu Rabbah<sup>9</sup>

it teaches: not like the one who says they appear as eating and drinking<pg>173</pg>

Rather, they actually ate and drank for the honor of Avraham<sup>10</sup>,

And it disagrees with here" — that according to the above,

The intention of Tosafos is not that they disagree whether they actually ate or only "appeared<sup>11</sup>

as eating",

Rather, this is a disagreement in halacha<sup>12</sup>.

For the Gemara holds that it is only a negation,

That "a person should not deviate from the custom",

And therefore it is sufficient that the angels "appeared as eating" so that there would be no dispute<sup>13</sup>

; but according to the Seder Eliyahu Rabbah it is an obligation to conduct oneself according to the custom of the place,

And therefore they needed to actually eat and drink.

And the Midrash,

which holds

(as above)

that it is an obligation

("goes according to its customs"),

wrote

(like the Seder Eliyahu Rabbah)

"And they ate and drank"

(And only R' Yochanan disagrees and says "they appeared as eating, the first one departed"),

That they actually ate and drank.

And based on this, the precise language of the Midrash regarding the absence of Moshe's eating on the mountain is understood — "Above, where there is no eating and drinking,

Moshe ascended and resembled them"

(And not like the language of the Gemara "and he did not eat bread"),

Because it is not sufficient only that he not eat,

Rather it must be in a manner of obligation,

That "he resembled them".

2.

And behold the statement of Rabbi Tanchuma in the Midrash, also brought in Bereishis Rabbah¹⁴,

and there the wording: "Enter the city, follow its custom. Above there is no eating and drinking. Moses ascended on high and did not eat, as it is stated¹⁵

And I stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights; bread I did not eat and water I did not drink,

but below there is eating and drinking, and he stood over them under the tree and they ate. But were they eating? Rather they appeared as eating, the first one departed."

Behold that there the wording is "and did not eat" as in the Gemara

(and not "and it appeared to them" as in Shemos Rabbah).

And further,

in the Midrash it concludes "But were they eating? Rather they appeared as eating etc.",

meaning that this is not an independent opinion

(as in Shemos Rabbah that this is the view of Rabbi Yochanan)

but a continuation of this statement.

But on the other hand, there too the language "ascended to the city, follow its custom,"

which is a language of obligation,

that it is not like all of the Talmud.

And one can say,

that the method of the B"R is a third method,

for this that "you went to the city, follow its custom" can be explained in two ways: a)

this is a law in actual conduct^*15,

that one must behave according to the custom of the place,

b)

that this is not a matter of conduct alone,

but rather the boundaries of this place apply to him¹⁶,

that he becomes like one of the people of the place,

and consequently he must act according to the custom of the place.

And this is the point of difference between the Shmu"R which is precise that Moshe Rabbeinu "appeared to them" and the BeR which only states that Moshe "did not eat": according to the BeR the basis of the law to act according to the custom of the place is a matter of conduct alone, and therefore it is sufficient that Moshe Rabbeinu "did not eat",

and according to the Shmu"R it is a law and obligation that since he became like the people of the place, he is obligated to act according to the custom of the place,

and therefore it emphasizes that "he appeared to them",

and as follows.

<pg>174</pg>

[And one can say a practical difference between the three aforementioned approaches<sup>17</sup>

[(a)

it is only a negation of "he should not change",

(b)

it is a positive obligation,

to conduct himself like the people of the place,

(c)

that he becomes like one of the people of the place]

: according to the first approach,

not only is it sufficient that he only appears to conduct himself like the people of the place,

but we are not concerned with the reason for his conduct,

if his conduct is not in a manner different from the people of the place, this is sufficient

(since no dispute will arise through this<sup>18</sup>)

; according to the second approach — the reason for the conduct must be because he wants to be equal to the people of the place

(for then he fulfills "he goes according to its custom"),

but it is sufficient that he appears<sup>*18</sup>

to the people of the place that he is equal to them; whereas according to the third approach he must conduct himself thus on his own,

for he must be like them].

3.

And it must be said,

that this dispute

(between the Gemara,

Shemos Rabbah and Bereishis Rabbah)

is also regarding the definition of the lack of eating of Moshe Rabbeinu on the mountain — that according to halachah it is impossible for a person to live without eating for more than seven days,

and as the Rambam rules¹⁹

that one who swears that he will not eat anything for seven days, it is a vain oath²⁰

— that it is to be explained in three ways:

A)

According to the explanation of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim²¹,

who wrote: "One who places all his thought after his perfection in divinity and he inclines entirely to the Blessed Name..

turns his thought away from anything else..

among them are those who came to the king's house and this is the level of the prophets,

there are among them those who reached, from the abundance of their perception and the turning of their thought from everything other than the Blessed Name, until it was said about him 'And he was there with the L-rd etc.'..

And from the abundance of his joy²²

in what he perceived, bread he did not eat and water he did not drink,

for the intellect strengthened until every physical power in the body was nullified" — according to this way it is found,

that this was as a natural matter

(and as explained in the commentaries²³

"for he did not feel any hunger and therefore did not eat").

And based on this, it must be said,

that this which is ruled as halacha that one who swears that he will not eat for seven days, this is a vain oath,

is because the Torah speaks of the majority²⁴,

but a situation is possible according to nature that the body does not need eating and drinking for more than seven days,

as Moses our teacher on the mountain].

b)

When he ascended the mountain with G-d, the nature of his body changed to be like an angel in a manner that he did not need eating and drinking

(just as angels do not need eating and drinking)²⁵.

<pg>175</pg>

And one must say a practical difference between these two possibilities — in the above law of one who swore not to eat anything for seven days — for there is an inquiry regarding the law of Moshe Rabbeinu after the forty days if he swore then immediately not to eat

(less than seven days),

if it is in the category of a vain oath: according to the first possibility that the nature of Moshe's body did not change,

and furthermore — that also during the forty days the body was

(in itself)

hungry for bread but it did not act and rule over Moshe and therefore he did not eat,

it is reasonable to say,

that after the forty days when he descended from the mountain,

Moshe's body was not

(which had been afflicted forty days)

able to fast further and it is a vain oath; but according to the opinion that the nature of Moshe's body changed to be like an angel,

behold after the forty days,

when the nature of his body returned anew,

a new count begins,

and it is not a vain oath until he swears not to eat for seven days²⁶.

3)

That he did not need eating and drinking was in a miraculous way that continued the entire time,

that is,

from the perspective of his body's nature he needed eating and drinking,

except that there was a miracle in this for forty days that he did not eat or drink

[for the second possibility above there was not a miracle that continued all forty days

(because according to his nature then he did not need to eat),

and only at the first moment did Hashem perform a miracle that changed the nature of Moshe's body; but according to the third possibility this was a continuous miracle throughout all forty days]²⁷.

4.

And this is the difference between the three opinions — Gemara,

Shemos Rabbah and Bereishis Rabbah:

to the Talmud that the law is only that he should not change<pg>176</pg>

A person [follows] the custom of the place,

it is sufficient that he does not eat in practice,

and accordingly he holds that the lack of eating of Moshe was not a miracle but like a natural matter,

that from the greatness of his joy and his absorption in receiving the Torah

(and his being "with G-d")

he did not feel the hunger of the body.

[And this is similar to that the angels only "appear as if they ate and drank",

for they did not change and did not need eating and drinking — and likewise here,

that the body of Moshe

(also during these forty days)

was in need of eating and drinking,

except that it appeared as if he did not need [it] because of the greatness of Moshe's involvement in receiving the Torah].

And although according to this the lack of eating and drinking by Moshe is not comparable to the lack of eating and drinking of the angels

(who are spiritual that from the outset are not in need of eating and drinking)

— this is sufficient to fulfill "a person should not deviate from the custom",

since Moshe was not eating and drinking

(and as above sec. 2,

that in this manner we are not concerned with the reason that he does not deviate from the custom of the place,

for the main thing is only that there should not be a change that can arouse dispute).

According to the Shemot Rabbah that holds that "he went in the customs of" means that he became like one of the people of the place,

it is not sufficient that he did not actually eat,

rather it must be that there was a change in the nature of the body of Moshe Rabbeinu,

that he became like an angel^*27

who is not in need of eating and drinking

[and in the manner of this that the angels actually ate and drank],

and this is the precise language of the Shemot Rabbah "and he appeared to them"

(as above)

;

And the Beraisa which holds that the law of "he goes according to its custom" is only a matter in the conduct of man,

held that there was in this a constant miracle,

for even though the nature of his body was not changed,

nevertheless,

since in actuality the "conduct" of Moshe's body was like the conduct of angels

(from the aspect of the constant miracle that was performed in his body),

behold this too is called fulfillment of "he goes according to its custom",

since the cause of this miracle was that it should be in the conduct of the supernal ones.

[But since it is not necessary to become exactly like the people of the place,

and it is sufficient that he resembles them in his conduct,

therefore when the angels descended below it sufficed that they were "appearing as if eating",

even though they did not actually eat

(in the manner mentioned above in the opinion of the Talmud)].

5.

And it is explained in the manner of the three aspects mentioned above in the Midrash itself²⁸,

in our portion on the verse²⁹

"And the Lord said to Moses: Write for yourself these words",

and this is its language:

This is what is written: It is good for me that I was afflicted, in order that I might learn Your statutes³⁰,

For the benefit of Moses he fasted one hundred and twenty days when he received the Torah,

And from where did Moses eat from the radiance of the Shechinah, as it is said³¹

And You give life to them all. Another interpretation: From where did he eat from the Torah, as it is said³²

Son of man, that which you find, eat, etc. Another interpretation: The bread of the Torah, as it is written³³

Come, eat of my bread. From where that he did not sleep nor slumber? A parable: A king who loved a certain

(appointed over the king's treasury.

Manuscript copy)

He said to him: Count for yourself golden dinars. From his joy he did not ask to eat nor to drink; he asked to sleep. He said: If I sleep, I lose these,

So Moses measured the Torah; he forgot and did not eat nor drink; he asked to sleep. He said: If I sleep, I lose, for He said to me only forty days alone. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: You have suffered; by your life, you do not lose. On the first tablets there were only the Ten Commandments alone; now that you have suffered, I give you laws, midrashim, and aggadot, etc.

<pg>177</pg>

And it needs clarification: in what do they disagree — whether he ate from the radiance of the Shechinah or from the Torah or from the bread of Torah.

And behold, from the distinctions among the three interpretations: In the first interpretation, it says that he ate "from the radiance of the Shechinah, as it is written 'and You give life to them all'"; in the second interpretation, it brings the verse "Son of man, that which you find etc."; in the third interpretation, the lesson is from the verse "Come, eat of my bread,"

and continues³⁴

"From where that he should not sleep etc.",

and elaborates on the aforementioned parable that "from his joy he did not seek to eat nor to drink..

he forgot and did not eat nor drink..

the Holy One, blessed be He, said: 'You have suffered etc.'"

And based on this, it can be said,

that these three explanations of what was Moses' food,

they correspond to the three above-mentioned modes in the category of Moses' abstention from eating and drinking on the mountain³⁵

:

In the third explanation it is emphasized that the absence of eating and drinking

(and also sleep)

of Moses was only due to his preoccupation with receiving the Torah,

and this is in the manner of the words of the aforementioned Guide for the Perplexed,

that according to this there was no miracle here,

and Moses' body was in need of eating and drinking and was hungry,

but Moses our teacher did not feel hunger and did not eat.

And this is also the explanation of the words of the Midrash that Moshe Rabbeinu was distressed — for at first glance it is puzzling,

how can it be said that Moshe Rabbeinu would be distressed over the lack of eating and drinking when he ascended to receive the Torah from the Holy One, blessed be He?

— Rather, the intent of the Midrash is,

that the body of Moshe Rabbeinu in itself was in affliction and pain, but Moshe Rabbeinu did not feel the pain of the body due to his great preoccupation and joy in receiving the Torah;

According to the second interpretation, it can be said,

that the nature of the body of Moshe Rabbeinu changed to be like the nature of an angel,

rather, he holds,

that just as with an angel there exists the category of eating and drinking³⁶,

and its food is spiritual food,

so too was the food of Moshe during these forty days spiritual food — Torah.

And therefore the verse brings "Son of man, that which you find, eat etc.",

which emphasizes that the nature remained in him

(of "son of man")

that he needs to eat,

except that when he ascended the mountain, his food and sustenance was from the Torah.

[And this is the difference between the third interpretation "bread of Torah" and the second interpretation "from the Torah",

for "from the Torah" emphasizes that his sustenance is from the Torah itself,

but "bread of Torah" can be said that this is that the Torah is in place of physical bread,

namely that due to the preoccupation with Torah one does not feel the need for physical food.

And this is difficult for him]

;

But according to the first interpretation "that he ate from the radiance of the Shechinah" and brings the verse "and You give life to them all",

there was no act of eating here,

but only a miraculous matter on the part of the Holy One blessed be He,

that "and You give life to them all"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the vitality of Moses' body was exactly like the existence of a person's soul

(and so too of the angels according to this view),

that they have no need for eating and drinking and only enjoy the radiance of the Shechinah&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;pg&gt;178&lt;/pg&gt;

And this is their existence and vitality³⁹.

6.

And it can be said,

that since these and those are words of the living God,

behold each of these three modes was in the forty days that Moses was on the mountain:

Moshe's ascent in the first forty days was to receive the first tablets,

which were the work of G-d and the writing of G-d⁴⁰,

a miracle entirely above nature,

and correspondingly also the absence of eating, drinking, and sleeping of Moshe was not within the category of nature,

and even not from the aspect that his body was elevated to be like the nature of angels — rather it was a miraculous matter from the Holy One, blessed be He;

In the middle forty days

(which were in anger⁴¹)

there was not a miraculous conduct,

and the absence of eating, drinking, and sleeping of Moshe was a natural matter,

that from the abundance of his preoccupation and his occupation while being with G-d he did not feel his body's needs;

And in the forty last days,

when he ascended to receive the second tablets,

and they were "with will"⁴¹

(like the first days),

the absence of eating, drinking, and sleeping of his was a miracle,

except that just as the second tablets were not the work of God,

so too the absence of eating, drinking, and sleeping of Moses on the mountain,

was not a constant miracle from God,

but rather his body was refined to be like the body of an angel that does not need eating, drinking, and sleeping

(physical).

And based on this, another distinction is precise between the Shemot Rabbah and Bereishit Rabbah mentioned above — that in Bereishit Rabbah it brings the verse of Parshat Eikev⁴²

"And I stayed on the mountain etc. bread I did not eat etc." which speaks of the forty first days,

whereas in Shemot Rabbah it refers⁴³

to the verse of our Parsha that speaks of the forty last days⁴⁴

— because Bereishit Rabbah holds that it was in a miraculous manner as above,

and therefore it brought the verse of Parshat Eikev that speaks about the ascent of Moses the forty first days; but not so Shemot Rabbah which holds that the nature of Moses' body changed until "he appeared to them" — it refers to the verse of our Parsha in the forty last days.

But on the other hand,

just as there is an advantage in the second tablets over the first tablets,

for although the first tablets were in a higher level,

nevertheless,

breaking was possible in them&lt;sup&gt;45&lt;/sup&gt;,

but not so the second tablets&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;,

endure forever — similarly regarding the matter of the absence of eating, drinking, and sleep of Moshe,

that although in the one manner this is a greater miracle,

nevertheless it is not connected to the nature of Moshe's body,

but not so when&lt;pg&gt;179&lt;/pg&gt;

that Moshe's body was refined to be like an angel,

this is a more internal matter.

And one must say that this is the reason that "the skin of his face shone"&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

of Moses specifically upon his descent from the mountain with the last tablets on Yom Kippur,

and not upon his descent from the mountain with the first tablets after the first forty days&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

— because&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

this that Moses' face shines with rays of glory indicates the refinement of the material itself,

until his face shines like a soul&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore this came specifically after his being on the mountain in the last forty days,

when then Moses' body was refined,

until "the skin of his face shone."

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Nasso 5746)