And Hashem said to Moshe: Now, I will rain for you bread upon the camp from the heavens. The nation will go forth each day and collect (it). In this manner, I will try them as to whether or not they will go in the way of my laws. (Shemot 16:4)
Parshat BeShalach
provides the Torah’s first mention and a description of the mun – the manna –
that sustained Bnai Yisrael in the wilderness.
One month after the nation’s departure from Egypt, the people arrived at
the Wilderness of Sin. In this
wilderness, there was no obvious source of food. The people bemoaned their plight and grumbled that death in Egypt
would have been preferable to their impending starvation in this wilderness; in
Egypt, at least they had food to eat – even meat. In response to the complaints of the nation, Hashem gave them mun
in the morning. Also, in response to
their longing for meat, Hashem brought the people quail in the evening.
Hashem established a
number of laws related to the daily collection of the mun. The people were only
permitted to collect enough for the day.
They were required to completely consume the daily portion and they were
not permitted to save any for the next day.
If any was hoarded, it spoiled that day and was unusable the next
day. On Friday, they were to collect a
double-portion that would suffice for that day and for the entire Shabbat. It would not spoil. On Shabbat, the mun did not fall and the
people were enjoined against leaving the camp to search for the mun.
In the above passage,
Hashem explains His reason for providing the nation with mun. Through the mun, He will try the nation and
determine whether the people will follow the laws He has established. This is a strange statement. The mun was granted in order to sustain the
people. Testing the people’s obedience
seems to be a secondary objective. Yet,
in Hashem’s explanation of His reason for granting the gift of mun, He does not
mention the people’s legitimate need for sustenance and identifies as His
primary objective the testing of the nation.
A comment of Rashi can
help explain this passage. Rashi
comments that the nation’s request for sustenance was appropriate. However, the longing for meat was not
warranted. This is for two
reasons: First, the people should have
realized that meat is a luxury and not a necessity. Second, the nation left Egypt with all of their cattle. If they truly desired meat, then they could
have slaughtered their own cattle and satisfied their perceived need.[1]
Of course this raises
an interesting question: why did the people not slaughter their own
cattle? If their need for meat was so
intense, they could have easily satisfied it!
Rav Yisroel Chait suggests that apparently the nation was motivated by
greed. They were unwilling to slaughter
their own animals in order to satisfy their desire for meat. He further explained that generally, greed
stems from one of two sources. For some
people, greed is an expression of haughtiness.
These individuals are driven to amass more and more wealth because they
believe that their possessions and resources reflect upon their own greatness
and accomplishments. They are unwilling
or unable to share with others lest they diminish their wealth and thereby, its
representation of their own greatness.
However, for others, greed is an expression of an almost opposite
attitude. It stems from a deep sense of
insecurity. Such individuals are
dominated by fear of impending disaster and they cannot overcome their
anxiety. In response, they devote
themselves to preparing for the potential catastrophe that may come with the
new day. They cannot arrest their need
to amass resources because this is their response to their anxiety and they
cannot share their resources because they believe that this may jeopardize
their own survival when the doom they fear does arrive.
Rav Chait explained
that it is unlikely that the greed of recently liberated slaves was driven by a
fantasy of greatness. However, we can
easily imagine the fears and anxieties of a generation that had barely survived
its generation’s Holocaust – the bondage and persecution of Egypt. They were now in the wilderness. They had no source of sustenance. Yes, they longed for meat; but they were
unwilling to draw upon the one finite source of nourishment that was available
to them – their cattle.
Based upon this
insight, Rav Chait explains that the mun was intended to address the nation’s
sense of anxiety and insecurity. The mun fell each and every day – except
Shabbat. It was a miracle granted by
Hashem. Hashem demonstrated to the
people that He is the only real source of security. The message of the mun was that through their relationship with
Hashem they can achieve the only true security.[2]
It is now possible to
re-approach the above passage. The
objective of the mun was not merely to provide sustenance. Other means could have accomplished the same
end. Instead, the mun was designed to
address the nation’s anxieties and insecurities. It was intended to instill within the people a confidence based
upon reliance upon and trust in Hashem.
The message of the passage seems to be that this objective could not be
accomplished merely through the consistent appearance of the mun on a daily
basis. In other words, even though the
people would see the mun spread upon the ground day-after-day, they would
continue to struggle with their anxiety.
Only through observance of the laws related to the mun would they
overcome their insecurities. Why would
they not be able to overcome their fears through observing Hashem’s constant
care for them and His commitment to their welfare? Why were the laws needed?
Sefer HaChinuch notes
that there is a reciprocal relationship between our thoughts and our actions or
behaviors. We all realize that our
thoughts inform and guide our actions.
For example, when we feel threatened, we may respond through either
engaging in action to defend ourselves or to attack and eliminate our
adversary. But our actions also inform
and influence our thoughts and attitudes.
For example, if we force ourselves to engage in positive behaviors, we
eventually influence and improve our self-image. Often actions have a more powerful impact upon our ideational
reality – our thoughts and attitudes – than can be achieved though reflection
and contemplation.[3] This can be illustrated. Consider a person who suffers from
agoraphobia – fear of open spaces. No
doubt this person has been told by countless friends and colleagues that his
fear is irrational. He probably, at
some level, realizes that this is true.
But despite all of the assurances he has received that his fear is
baseless, he cannot shake his sense of foreboding when challenged to travel
outside of his home. However, if this
person can be persuaded to take a first small step towards confronting his fear
– perhaps, just standing in the doorway of his home and gazing upon the world
outside – he may begin to overcome his anxieties.
Now, the function of
the mitzvot regarding the mun is more clearly grasped. These laws demanded that the people act in a
manner that expressed security in Hashem.
They were commanded to collect only enough mun for the day. They were forbidden from hoarding the
mun. They were commanded to collect a
double portion on Friday and trust that it would not spoil over the course of
the following day. Each and every one
of these laws reinforced through action the ideas and attitudes the mun was
designed to communicate. The people not
only observed Hashem’s constant attention to their well-being. They also, acted in a manner that reinforced
their acceptance of Hashem as their trusted provider. Through this process, the nation was provided the opportunity to
gradually overcome its anxieties.[4]
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary
on Sefer Shemot 16:8.
[2] Rav Yisroel
Chait, Shir al HaYam, YBT TTL #C-059.
[3]
Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 16.
[4] Rav Chait suggests an alternative
explanation for the function of these laws.
He explains that in order to cultivate within the nation a sense of
security based upon its relationship with Hashem, it was necessary for Hashem
to become a reality for them; the people must enter into a relationship with
Hashem. This relationship is created
through the observance of mitzvot and the study of their laws. The mitzvot and their laws reflect
the wisdom of Hashem. Through Torah
observance and study, we draw closer to Hashem and He becomes more real to
us. He points out that in a preceding
similar incident in Marah, Hashem responded to the nation’s fears through
providing mitzvot and requiring their regular study. The Sages identify the mitzvot given
at that time and they are not specifically related to the incident or related
to issues of insecurity. This implies
that the study and observance of mitzvot – any mitzvot – is
helpful in nurturing a person’s sense of reliance upon Hashem and
security. This is because through study
and observance of mitzvot, Hashem becomes more real and a relationship
is forged between Hashem and the person.