Loading...
 

Vol 26.10 - Beshalach 1                    Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 85   Page86   Page87   Page88   Page89   Page90   Page91   Page92   Page93   Page94   Page95   Page96  

Summary:
Moses took Joseph's bones with him (Ex. 13:19) - The connection between taking Joseph's bones and travelling in the desert; The connection to the month of Shvat and the explanation to the form of G-d's name associated with Shvat that results from the Roshei Teivos (acronym) "nor shall he offer a substitute for it. And if he does replace it" (Lev. 27:33) ( Siddur HaArizal) (5745)

 

Synopsis1:

Bread from Heaven

One1 of the fundamental principles a person should continuously endeavor to cultivate is “the belief that his entire sustenance comes to him through Divine Providence.”2 For this reason, our Sages state3 that it is desirable to recite the passage concerning the manna4 every day.5

In the first edition of his Shulchan Aruch,6 the Alter Rebbe elaborates on the above teachings as follows: “One should… read the passage concerning the manna in order to fortify his faith that all his provisions are granted to him by Divine Providence. For the Holy One, blessed be He, specifically provided every man with an omer of manna for every member of his household; as it is written,7 ‘When they measured it by the omer, he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little was lacking nothing.’ ”

In his revision of that text,8 however, the Alter Rebbe gives a somewhat different rationale for the practice of reading the passage about the manna: “It is proper to recite every day… the passage concerning the manna, to spur one’s trust (bitachon) in G‑d Who provides one with his daily bread.”

There are two differences between these two passages:

(a) In the revised version, instead of placing the emphasis on faith (emunah), the Alter Rebbe speaks of trust (bitachon).

(b) He does not focus on the fact that Divine Providence granted every man with “an omer of manna for every member of his household,” but that the ongoing provision of the manna, “every day its daily portion”9 should evoke one’s trust that G‑d will grant every man his daily bread.

These two distinctions appear to be dependent on each other. The concept that “the Holy One, blessed be He, specifically provided every man with an omer of manna for every member of his household — “he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little was lacking nothing” — strengthens a Jew’s faith that his sustenance does not come from his individual strivings, from “my strength and the power of my hand,”10 but from G‑d’s Providence. The daily descent of the manna demonstrated clearly that a man’s activities had no effect on the quantity of food that G‑d ordained and granted him.11

Trust, by contrast, implies not only that a person believes that his sustenance comes from G‑d, but also that we rely on Him, with absolute certainty, to provide it. The concept of trust derives from the fact that G‑d granted people their daily portions of manna constantly and consistently, in a way that allowed them to rely on it utterly, with no tinge of anxiety.

Something, however, remains unexplained: Why does the Alter Rebbe initially focus on the concept of faith, but in his later work place the emphasis on “spurring one’s trust in G‑d Who provides every man with his daily bread”?

Faith is Constant, Trust is Immediate

One of the differences between emunah, faith, and bitachon, trust, is that emunah is a constant factor in one’s life. A believer accepts the axioms he believes in with absolute certainty, seeing them as givens. Therefore they are constant factors in his life.

This applies even when his emunah involves principles that do not immediately affect his actual life,12 e.g., the concept that “one’s provisions are granted to him by Divine Providence.” It is not appropriate to say that one believes this concept only during the time that he is involved with earning his livelihood. On the contrary, this emunah is a constant.

With regard to bitachon, by contrast, a person’s certainty and reliance on G‑d with regard to his livelihood is a feeling that is aroused when he is in need.13 When a person is involved in working to earn his livelihood, he trusts G‑d, confident that “G‑d your L‑rd will bless you in all that you do,”14 aiding his efforts so that they that they will bring him sustenance.

To cite another instance: When a person finds himself in a distressing situation and does not see any possibility of being saved by natural means, he does not wonder in despair,15 “From where will my help come?” Rather, by virtue of his bitachon, he trusts with certainty that G‑d, Who is the Master of nature and can alter any situation as He desires,16 will assuredly help him. He knows that “My assistance is from G‑d, Maker of heaven and earth.”17 Moreover, his bitachon itself serves as a medium that draws down the deliverance from G‑d and the satisfaction of his needs.

To Elicit Divine Blessing

This highlights one of the fundamental dimensions of the quality of bitachon. Bitachon means18 that a person relies on G‑d to bring him the kind of good that is manifestly and recognizably good.19 The intent is not only that G‑d knows that what the person is undergoing is for his good, but also that the person himself should be able to appreciate that his circumstances are good.

Seemingly, the person may have been placed in that distressing situation because his conduct was deficient and he is deserving of Divine retribution. If so, what foundation can there be for his bitachon20 that G‑d will certainly (not punish him, even though the punishment is ultimately for his own good, but instead) will grant him revealed and recognizable good? Moreover, how can his bitachon be absolute and genuine to the extent that his mind is at ease? How can he be certain beyond all doubt that he will not be punished (even though that, too, would be for his good), and instead is certain that he will be granted the kind of good that is recognizable as such?21

This may be explained as follows: When a person displays the above degree of utter bitachon in G‑d and — regardless of the outlook predicted by the workings of nature — has simple and absolute trust that G‑d will provide him with overt and revealed good, G‑d responds, characteristically,22 “measure for measure.”23 Though Divine beneficence would not be warranted according to ordinary calculations, the person’s bitachon itself serves as a medium to draw down positive influence from Above. G‑d grants such a person revealed good,24 without considering at all whether he is worthy of it.25

A Meal from the King’s Hand

The degree of trust asked of man can be understood by considering the conduct of R. Yeissa the Elder.26 Every day, he would prepare his meal only after first having asked that his food come from G‑d. As he would say, “We will not prepare the meal until it is given by the King.”27

Now, this calls for explanation. Since the food for the meal was already in his possession and only needed to be prepared (“He had food for that day”28 ), what is the meaning of his request that G‑d grant him his food?29

This could be understood as follows:

The Sages teach30 that Yosef was punished for having requested of the chief butler, “Mention me to Pharaoh.”31 On this teaching, Rabbeinu Bachaye comments:32 “Heaven forbid that Yosef the Righteous should make his trust depend on the chief butler; he trusted in G‑d alone. He only meant that G‑d had engineered his encounter with the chief butler so that He could perform a miracle through him.”

Why, then, was Yosef punished?

“Because in the chief butler he sought a medium, a causal link33 (through which G‑d would send him his salvation) — and it is not fitting that tzaddikim of his stature should seek a causal link. This is why he was punished. He should have trusted only that the Holy One, blessed be He — the Cause of all causes — would provide him with the appropriate causal link, without his seeking it.”

This comment has been queried:34 Speaking of bitachon (trust),the author of Chovos HaLevavos writes that there is an obligation to be concerned with causal links, and he supports this claim with several proofs.35 Why, then, was Yosef punished?

In resolution, it has been explained36 that trust exists at two levels:

(a) The Natural Mode: Sometimes G‑d relates to a person in such a way that “things such as Divinely-bestowed blessings are elicited — and they proceed to descend — in an orderly manner according to the pattern of nature.”37 (As expressed in the language of Chassidus, this mode of descent characterizes the flow of Divine energy that is called memaleh kol almin — Divinity that is immanent in all the worlds.) When G‑d relates to a person in such a way, he should seek an appropriate medium and create a natural vessel or conduit, because this particular mode ofDivine influence is reaching him in a way that is vested in nature.

(b) The Supernatural Mode: Sometimes a person perceives that G‑d is relating to him in such a way that “things such as Divinely-bestowed blessings are elicited and drawn downward in a manner that does not accord with the pattern of nature.”37 (As expressed in the language of Chassidus, this mode of descent characterizes the flow of Divine energy that is called sovev kol almin — Divinity that transcends all the worlds.) When G‑d relates to a person in such a way, a higher level of trust is demanded of him. He is expected to “trust in G‑d’s direction alone and to take no steps whatever, only to trust that G‑d will certainly help him by arranging an appropriate medium.”38

To revert to the above question as to why Yosef the Righteous should have been punished for seeking a natural medium through which his salvation should come: Since through his avodah he was constantly connected with the latter, supernatural mode of Divine influence,39 he ought to have conducted himself at the loftier level of trust.

Working Within Nature and Stepping Above It

The distinction between the above two levels in the attribute of trust is also apparent while one is fashioning a medium.40

Why, at the first level, is a person required to make a vessel? Because when G‑d relates to him in such a way that “Divinely-bestowed blessings are elicited… according to the pattern of nature,”37 nature and natural processes acquire a certain standing in his mind. This is why he must seek a conduit or a medium through which the Divine blessings will be conveyed.

This is not the case with a person who trusts at a loftier level — who needs “to take no steps whatever, only to trust in G‑d.” In his mind, the processes of nature are of no account. (This is why he needs no medium nor vessel.) Hence, even when a natural medium or conduit for his livelihood exists, he does not consider his livelihood to be any nearer to him than if it did not exist. Because the medium or vessel in their own right are of no account in his eyes, he knows only that he receives everything directly from G‑d — and indeed, the medium or vessel were created for him41 by G‑d, together with his livelihood.

This also explains why R. Yeissa the Elder42 would say, “We will not prepare the meal until it is given by the King,” even though “he had food for that day.” For his trust was such that he perceived every single activity not as his own doing, but as given by G‑d.43 Hence, even when the food was already in his home, in his possession, and needed only to be prepared, he felt that it was not his food — that he was taking his food and preparing it — but that “it was given by the King.” At this present moment, G‑d was giving it to him. This, too, he therefore had to request of G‑d, just as he would ask G‑d for his food when it was not in his possession.

Longing for His Kindness

The above concept enables us to understand another aspect of the conduct of R. Yeissa the Elder.

From the language of the Zohar — “R. Yeissa the Elder would prepare his meal every day only after first having asked…” — it would appear that this was his practice even on Shabbos.44 Now, Shabbos is not a timefor making one’s material requests. How, then, did this sage ask for food even on Shabbos?

In the light of the concept discussed above, the problem is solved. Requesting one’s material needs on Shabbos is out of place when the individual is focusing on himself, when he is requesting that his needs and wants be filled. Not so the prayer of R. Yeissa the Elder. What impelled his prayer was the very fact that he was utterly devoid of self-concern — to the extent that at every single step he felt that everything depended on G‑d, in the spirit of the verse, “G‑d desires… those who long for His kindness.”45 And, as the Zohar46 comments, “These are the people who yearn and wait every single day to ask the Holy One, blessed be He, for their provisions.” In other words, their prayer simply expresses the fact that they are “longing for His kindness.”47 Their prayer voices their feeling that everything comes only as an act of G‑d’s lovingkindness.

And praying for food in this manner is in place even on Shabbos.

Not Only for the Select Few

True, the above-described conduct of R. Yeissa the Elder is not equally appropriate to everyone. Nevertheless, a touch of it48 is applicable to everyone,49 at least at certain times.

And here, it could be suggested, lies the difference between weekdays and Shabbos. During the six weekdays, when a Jew lives his life as set out in the Shulchan Aruch50 — going about his affairs, doing his business honestly, preoccupied with his livelihood — he trusts in G‑d at the level at which one seeks a natural medium,51 because he cannot be expected to utterly transcend nature and to trust at the superior level.52 Shabbos, by contrast, is not a day of activity,53 and at that time a Jew is elevated above everyday work. On that day he is expected to attain, at least to some degree, the superior level of trust, the trust of “those who long for His kindness.”

On this basis, it is possible to explain the difference between the wording the Alter Rebbe originally chose and the wording that he employed in his later work with regard to the recitation of the passage concerning the manna. The Alter Rebbe originally composed his Shulchan Aruch according to the rulings of the Talmud and the halachic authorities.54 On an apparent level (according to the revealed dimensions of Torah Law), bitachon involves preparing a medium for G‑d’s blessings. Accordingly, were the Alter Rebbe to explain that the rationale for the recitation of the passage concerning the manna was “to spur one’s trust in G‑d,” the recitation of this passage would be appropriate only on weekdays.

Therefore in his original version,55 the Alter Rebbe states that the rationale for the recitation of the passage concerning the manna every day is “to fortify his faith that all his provisions are granted to him by Divine Providence.” For, as stated above, this faith is a constant, relevant at all times and places.

In his later version, the Alter Rebbe ruled according to the Kabbalists.56 Accordingly, he also includes a course of conduct that reflects higher levels of Divine service. He therefore57 cites the rationale, “to spur one’s trust in G‑d Who provides every man with his daily bread.” For according to the higher level of bitachon displayed by “those who long for His kindness,” it is appropriate to recite the passage concerning the manna every day — even on Shabbos.

(From https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2419913/jewish/Faith-and-Trust.htm. Footnotes in link)

Synopsis2:

I.

The Tur states1 that it is desirable to recite the passage concerning the manna every day.2 The Beis Yosef3 explains the rationale for this ruling: “So that one will believe that his entire sustenance comes to him through Divine providence.”

In his Shulchan Aruch, the Alter Rebbe — in the Mahadura Kama4 — quotes the ruling of the Tur and the rationale of the Beis Yosef, and adds (an explanation from the Levush5 ): “One should also read the passage concerning the manna, to fortify his faith that all his provisions are granted to him by Divine providence. For the Holy One, blessed be He, specifically provided every man with an omer of manna for every member of his household; as it is written, ‘When they measured it by the omer, he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little was lacking nothing.’”6

In his Mahadura Basra,7 however, the Alter Rebbe changes his ruling. Instead of citing the Beis Yosef (and the Levush), he states: “It is proper to recite... the passage concerning the manna to spur one’s trust in G‑d Who provides every man with his daily bread.”8

There are two differences between these passages:

a) In the Mahadura Basra, instead of using the wording of the Beis Yosef that speaks of faith emunah, the Alter Rebbe speaks of trust bitachon;

b) He does not focus on the fact that the manna was distributed (by Divine providence)9 “an omer of manna for every member of his household,” but that the fact that G‑d continually granted the manna, “each day, its daily portion”10 should evoke one’s trust that G‑d will grant each person his daily bread.

Seemingly, these two distinctions are dependent one on the other: The concept that “the Holy One, blessed be He, specifically provided every man with an omer of manna for every member of his household... ‘he who had gathered much had no excess, and he who had gathered little was lacking nothing,’” strengthens a Jew’s faith that his sustenance (does not come from “my strength and the power of my hand,”11 but instead,) from G‑d’s providence. This was manifest in the daily descent of the manna. For we saw that man’s activities had no effect on the quantity of manna which G‑d (ordained and) granted each person.12

Trust (bitachon), however, implies (not only that we believe that a person’s sustenance comes from G‑d, but also) that we rely on G‑d to certainly provide us with our sustenance. The concept of trust is derived from the fact that G‑d gave the manna in consistent, daily portions, in a manner where one could rely entirely upon Him, without worrying.

Explanation is, however, necessary: What is the reason that the Beis Yosef (and the Levush) — and similarly, the Mahadura Kama of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav — focus on the concept of faith, while in the Mahadura Basra, the Alter Rebbe gives a different rationale: “to spur one’s trust in G‑d Who provides every man with his daily bread”?

II.

On the surface, it would appear that there must also be an actual difference in the application of halachah between these two rationales. To reach that conclusion, the following preface is necessary:

One of the differences between emunah, faith, and bitachon, trust, is that emunah is a constant factor in one’s life. A believer accepts the points he believes in with absolute certainty, seeing them as givens. Therefore they are constant factors in his life.

This applies even when his emunah involves not only abstract principles, but also points that affect his actual life,13 e.g., the point under discussion, that “his provisions are granted to him by Divine providence.” It is not appropriate to say that he believes this concept only during the time that he is involved with his livelihood. On the contrary, this emunah is a constant.

With regard to bitachon, by contrast, a person’s certainty and reliance on G‑d with regard to his livelihood is a feeling that is aroused when a person is in need.14 When a person is involved in his work to earn his livelihood, he trusts G‑d, confident that “G‑d your L‑rd will bless you in all that you do.”15 He trusts that G‑d will certainly bless his efforts in a manner that they will bring him sustenance.

To cite another instance: When a person finds himself in a difficult situation and does not see any natural way of being saved, he does not despair and ask:16 “Where will my assistance come from?” Instead, he is certain (because of his bitachon in G‑d,) and trusts that G‑d — Who is the Master of nature and can alter the situation as He desires17 — will certainly help him. He knows: “My assistance is from G‑d, Maker of heaven and earth.”18

Moreover, the person’s bitachon itself (serves as a medium that) draws down the deliverance from G‑d and the satisfaction of the person’s needs.

{This is one of the explanations with regard to the attribute of bitachon. On the surface, there is a point requiring explanation. Bitachon means19 that a person relies on G‑d to bring him good in an overtly revealed manner. The intent is not only that G‑d knows in a manner that transcends human understanding that what he is undergoing is for his good, but also that the person himself should be able to appreciate that it is good.

Seemingly, the fact that a person finds himself in a difficult situa­tion could be because his conduct is not appropriate and therefore he is worthy of being punished. How can it be a foundation of a person’s bitachon in G‑d20 that G‑d will certainly (not punish him, even though the punishment is ultimately for his own good, but instead will) grant him overtly revealed good? Moreover, how can his bitachon be absolute and genuine to the extent that he has no doubt and is entirely serene?21

It is possible to explain as follows: When a person displays utter bitachon in G‑d and has simple and absolute trust that G‑d will provide him with overtly revealed good — despite the fact that this is inap­propriate according to ordinary calculations and circumstances — his bitachon itself serves as a medium to draw down influence from Above. G‑d responds to him “measure for measure,” for the Torah declares and rules that this is His characteristic.22 And He grants him overtly revealed good,23 without considering at all whether he is worthy of it.24 }

III.

From the above, it is clear that the attribute of bitachon, i.e., one’s actual arousal of bitachon, has to do with asking for one’s needs. When a person is involved with seeking his necessities, he trusts in G‑d, confident that G‑d will fulfill his needs.

Based on the above, since the recitation of the passage of the manna was instituted so that a person will be aroused to trust G‑d,25 it is possible to say:

a) This passage should be recited only on weekdays, but not on Shabbos26 when we do not request our needs.27 {A parallel can be drawn to the manna itself which did not descend on Shabbos28 although it provided man with his daily sustenance.}

b) Even during the week, the passage concerning the manna should not be recited in the initial portion of one’s prayers. With regard to the request for one’s needs, our Sages teach:29 “A person should always set forth his praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, and then pray (i.e., request his needs).” Indeed, we find this pattern in several siddurim.30 The passage concerning the manna is positioned after prayer (together with a prayer and a request for one’s livelihood).

Following the rationale that the passage is recited: “to fortify his faith...,” by contrast, it is appropriate to recite this passage on Shabbos as well and also beforeprayer (which represents “G‑d’s praise”). For31 faith in G‑d (including, also, faith with regard to one’s sustenance) must be a constant matter.

This distinction, however, requires clarification. For even in the Mahadura Basra (which states the rationale: “to spur one’s trust in G‑d”), the Alter Rebbe writes: “It is proper to recite every day... the passage concerning the manna.” The wording, “every day,” seemingly includes Shabbos.32

Similarly, this distinction is not borne out with regard to the place in prayer where the passage should be recited: The wording of the Mahadura Basra appears to indicate that the only difference (between its ruling and that of the Mahadura Kama) is with regard to the rationale for reciting the passage, but not that the rationale brings about a difference and a limitation with regard to when the passage may be recited. This is also indicated by the fact that in the Mahadura Basra, the Alter Rebbe includes the law regarding the recitation of the passage concerning the manna with that regarding the passages concerning the Akeidah,(the Ten Commandments,)33 and the sacrifices34 (which are recited before prayer).35

The question thus remains: For what reason is a different rationale stated in the Mahadura Basra than in the Mahadura Kama (and in the Beis Yosef)?

IV.

The above question can be resolved through the explanation of the conduct of Rabbi Yeisa the Elder36 (as described in the Zohar of this week’s Torah reading37 in connection with the manna).

Rabbi Yeisa would not prepare his meal every day until after he had requested his sustenance from G‑d. As he would explain: “A meal should not be prepared until it has been given from the King.”

Clarification is required: Since the food (from which he prepared his meal) was already within his possession (as that passage states: “I am in possession of my food for this day”)38 and lacked only prepara­tion, what did he mean39 by saying that he is asking G‑d to give him that meal?

It is possible to explain the passage based on the interpretation given by Rabbeinu Bacheya40 of our Sages’ statement41 that Yosef was punished for asking Pharaoh’s steward to mention him to Pharaoh.42 Rabbeinu Bacheya states: “Heaven forbid that Yosef the righteous would place his trust in the steward. Instead, his trust was focused on G‑d alone. His intent, however, was that G‑d ordained that he would meet the steward so that through him a miracle could be accomplished.”

Why then was Yosef punished?

Because he saw the steward as an instrument (through which G‑d could send His deliverance).... And it is not appropriate for the righteous and the like to seek an instrument. There­fore he was punished for this. For he should have trusted in the Holy One, blessed be He, alone, for He is the Master of all instruments. Yosef should have trusted that He would send him an instrument without him having to seek one.

This explanation provokes the question:43 With regard to bitachon, it is explained (in Chovos HaLevavos44 ) that we are obligated to find instruments through which G‑d works, (and many proofs are brought for this concept). Why then was Yosef punished for seeking “an instrument”?

It is explained45 that there are two expressions (and levels) of bitachon:

a) When Divine influence is drawn down in an ordinary manner, according to the pattern of nature46 {to use the terminology of Chassidus: influence coming from the level of memale kol almin (the Divine light which invests itself in the worlds)}. On this level, it is necessary to seek “an instrument” and to find mediums within nature. For this form of Divine influence is conveyed through the natural order.

b) When it is obvious that the Divine influence is drawn down in a manner that does not follow the natural order {to use the terminology of Chassidus: influence coming from the level of sovev kol almin (the Divine light that transcends the worlds)}. Such influence calls forth a higher level of bitachon, that “one rely entirely on G‑d’s providence alone, without doing anything. Instead, one should trust entirely that G‑d will certainly help through a medium.”47

{Yosef the righteous who, through his Divine service, was (at all times) connected with a level that transcends nature48 should have conducted himself in a manner that reflected the higher level of bitachon.}

V.

The difference between these two levels of bitachon is apparent even while one seeks a medium.49 According to the first approach, the necessity for a person to employ a medium is due to the fact that the Divine influence is drawn down according to the natural order. Hence nature and its rules are significant. Therefore a person must seek a medium and an instrument through which G‑d’s blessing will be drawn down.

When, however, a person follows the second approach of bitachon, “to do nothing but to trust in G‑d,” the natural order is not at all significant for him. (Therefore it is not necessary for him to seek an instrument or medium.) Accordingly, even if he possesses a natural instrument or a medium through which he could receive his liveli­hood, his livelihood is no closer to him than it would have been had he not had that instrument or medium. For he does not attach any inde­pendent importance to that medium. His sole perception of the situation is that he receives everything directly from G‑d. And the instrument and the medium is also made for him by G‑d together with his livelihood.50

This is also the explanation of the conduct of Rabbi Yeisa the Elder51 who said: “A meal should not be prepared until it has been given from the King” (although he already possessed his food for that day).

Rabbi Yeisa’s approach to bitachon was that he looked at every act (individually), (not as his own deed, but rather) as a gift from G‑d.52 Accordingly, from such a perspective, even when one possesses the food at home and all that is necessary is for him to take it and prepare it, he does not feel that he is taking and preparing his own food, but instead, that he is (— in the present tense —) being given something by G‑d. Therefore he must request these needs from G‑d, (just as he would request his sustenance if he did not have food at home).

VI.

This explanation enables us to clarify another aspect in the conduct of Rabbi Yeisa the Elder. The wording of the Zohar: “Rabbi Yeisa would not prepare his meal every day until after he had made his request...” implies that Rabbi Yeisa conducted himself in this manner even on Shabbos.53 There is a difficulty in this case. Shabbos is not a day when we request our needs. Why then would Rabbi Yeisa pray for his daily sustenance from G‑d, even on Shabbos?

Based on the above, his conduct can be understood: The re­quests for one’s needs that are considered inappropriate on Shabbos involve situations where the person is concerned with himself: that his needs and lacks be fulfilled. The prayer of Rabbi Yeisa the Elder, by contrast, was aroused by the fact that his own existence was entirely insignificant. Instead, he felt every dimension of his existence was dependent on G‑d. The Zohar54 describes such conduct by referring to the phrase:55 “Those who long for His kindness,” interpreting it as “those who every day await and anticipate the opportunity to re­quest their sustenance from the Holy One, blessed be He.” The intent of their prayers is only to express how they “long for His kindness”56 ; how they feel that everything they receive is an expression of G‑d’s kindness.

Praying for one’s sustenance in this manner is acceptable even on Shabbos.

VII.

The conduct of Rabbi Yeisa the Elder is not — in its entirety — a matter that can be emulated by every person. Nevertheless, in microcosm,57 his approach is relevant to everyone,58 at the very least, at specific times.

It is possible to say that this is the difference between Shabbos and the weekdays. During the six days of the week, a person is involved with earning his livelihood.59 Thus his trust is expressed in seeking an instrument and a medium for G‑d’s blessing. For during the week we cannot ask him to lift himself entirely above the natural order and express the higher level of bitachon. Shabbos, by contrast, is not a day of work.60 And when a person is removed from work, he must express (at least on a smaller scale) the higher level of bitachon, conducting himself as “those who long for Your kindness.”

On this basis, it is possible to explain the difference between the wording of the Mahadura Kama and the Mahadura Basra of the Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch with regard to the recitation of the passage concerning the manna. The Alter Rebbe composed the Mahadura Kama of his Shulchan Aruch according to the rulings of the Talmud and the halachic authorities.61 On an apparent level (according to the revealed dimensions of Torah Law), bitachon involves preparing a medium for G‑d’s blessings. Accordingly, were he to explain the rationale for the recitation of the passage concerning the manna as “to spur one’s trust in G‑d,” the recitation of this passage would be appropriate only during the week and only after prayer (as stated in sec. III).

Therefore in his Mahadura Kama,62 the Alter Rebbe states that the rationale for the recitation of the passage concerning the manna (every day) is “to fortify his faith that all his provisions are granted to him by Divine providence.”

In his Mahadura Basra, the Alter Rebbe rules according to the Kabbalists.63 Accordingly, he also includes a course of conduct that reflects higher levels of Divine service. Therefore64 he mentions the rationale: “to spur one’s trust in G‑d Who provides every man with his daily bread.” For according to the higher level of bitachon displayed by “those who long for His kindness,” it is appropriate to recite the passage concerning the manna every day — even on Shabbos (and even before prayer).

(From  https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2419930/jewish/A-Knowing-Heart-Parshas-Beshalach.htm. Likkutei Sicho\s, Vol. XXVI, p. 95ff. Adapted from Sichos Shabbos Parshas Beshalach, 5723)

(Footnotes in link)


Synopsis 3:

The Manna — Enhancing Belief & Trust in G‑d
The Torah portion of Beshallach recounts the story of the heavenly food that nurtured the Jewish people in the desert for 40 years, until they arrived at the border of Canaan.

The Tur states1 that it is beneficial to recite the passage about the manna daily. The salutary effect of this repetition is twofold:

a) It strengthens belief2 in G‑d, helping man realize that all his sustenance derives from Providence. This was clearly evident with the manna: human activity had absolutely no effect on the amount G‑d deemed fit to provide each individual — “the one who had taken more did not have any extra, and the one who had taken less did not have too little.”3

b) It helps strengthen man’s trust4 in G‑d. Not only is a person prompted to recognize that his subsistence derives from G‑d, but equally important, man comes to rely on G‑d, trusting that He will provide. The daily collection of manna amply developed this aspect of trust, for G‑d provided it on a constant and ongoing basis. Thus Jews were able to become aware of the fact that every living thing relies completely on G‑d for its food.

Although belief in G‑d and trust in Him seem to be similar, they are two different traits, each possessing qualities that the other lacks. What are the major differences between these two attributes?

Belief is a constant — it is the nature of the Divine soul to express an innate belief in G‑d. For example, the absolute confidence that one’s sustenance will be provided by G‑d is found within every believer at all times; it makes no sense to say a man believes this only while actually earning his livelihood.

But while belief is unceasing, it is peripheral, and does not necessarily translate into action. Thus the Gemara5 informs us that it is possible for a thief to pray that his thievery will be successful; the purity of his faith is not affected by the impurity of his deeds.

In contrast, man’s trust in G‑d is aroused only in times of need.6 Yet although man’s trust is not in the same constant state of revelation as is his belief, when trust is aroused it penetrates every fiber of his being.

This will be better understood by offering a more acute example:

When a person finds himself — Heaven forfend — in a life-threatening situation and sees no way of surviving by natural means, he will not despair, for he trusts that G‑d will help him, since He is the Master of nature and able to change it at will.7

The ability to put one’s trust in G‑d, to be confident that He will rescue one from extreme difficulties — “natural” physical reality notwithstanding — indicates that such trust completely permeates a person.

Moreover, this very trust serves as the vessel that draws down Divine assistance and blessing:

When a Jew displays absolute trust in G‑d and is confident that G‑d will release him from his dire straits — although this seems to fly in the face of reason — this causes G‑d to act toward this individual in a like manner; G‑d helps that person by freeing him in a supernatural manner.

This also explains how it is possible for man to possess such absolute trust in G‑d: Since we know that G‑d responds to man measure for measure,8 we are able to feel certain9 that by placing our implicit trust in G‑d, He will surely help us in our time of need.

(From   https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/91584/jewish/Chassidic-Dimension-Volume-2-Beshallach.htm .Based on Likkutei Sichos XXVI, pp. 95-97.)
FOOTNOTES
1.    Orach Chayim 1; also in Shulchan Aruch ibid. sub-section 5.

2.    See commentary of Beis Yosef on Tur ibid.; Shulchan Aruch Admur HaZakein, Me’hadura Kamma 1:8.

3.    Shmos 16:18.

4.    Shulchan Aruch Admur HaZakein, Me’hadura Tenyana 1:8.

5.    Berachos 63a.

6.    See Nesivos Olam of the Meharal, beginning of Nesiv HaBetachon.

7.    See Rabbeinu Yonah , quoted in Kad HaKemach entry Betachon. See also Likkutei Sichos III , p. 833.

8.    See Mishnah Sotah (8b).


Translation:

 

 

Links:

https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2468737/jewish/86-Faith-and-Trust.htm

https://www.sie.org/templates/sie/article_cdo/aid/2347791/jewish/Beshallach.htm

 

 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: