Loading...
 

Vol 16.19 - Beshalach 2       Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page 161   Page162   Page163   Page164   Page165   Page166   Page167   Page168   Page169   Page170   Page171   Page172  

Chumash

Summary:
 
Rashi (Ex. 16:6-8) "You shall know that the Lord brought you out of the land of Egypt", "And in the morning, you shall see" ,"meat to eat". - Explanation of the repitition,  lengthiness, and diffrences in Rashi; Difference between "Manna" and "Quails" according  to Pnimiyut - Two levels in Pnimiyut of Torah, The reason that the request for meat was "not proper" (5739)
 

Translation:

1. In Rashi’s comment on our Parsha (Ex. 1: 6-8), one finds a puzzling thing:

Rashi, notes the same aspect twice, and repeats a portion of the previous comment, with all its details. Moreover, together with this – it is in two verses that follow each other.

In the answer to the complaints of the Yidden (after the “bread was depleted” (כלה הלחם)), who said:

“If only we had died . . when we sat by pots of meat, when we ate bread to our fill etc.”

The verse states:

“Moshe and Aharon said to all the children of Israel, (In the) evening, you shall know that the L-rd brought you out of the land of Egypt. And (in the) morning, you shall see the glory of the L-rd when He hears your complaints against the L-rd etc.”

Rashi comments:

“This is what he (Moshe) said to them: In the evening you shall know that He has the ability to grant your desire, and He will give (you) meat; but He will not give it to you with a smiling countenance, because you requested it inappropriately and with a full stomach. As for the bread, which you requested out of necessity, however, when it comes down in the morning, you shall see the glory of the radiance of His countenance. For He will bring it down to you lovingly, in the morning, when there is time to prepare it, and with dew over it and dew under it as if it were lying in a box”.

In the verse that immediately follows, it states:

“And Moshe said, When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated, when the L-rd hears your complaints, which you are making (the people) complain against Him etc.”

Rashi asks

(After explaining, “meat to eat: But not to be satiated. The Torah (here) teaches us a rule of behavior we should not eat meat to satiety”),

“What did He see (what reason did He have) to bring down bread in the morning and meat in the evening?”

(And Rashi answers),

“Because they requested bread appropriately . . but they requested meat inappropriately. . Therefore, He gave it to them at a time when it would be a burden for them to prepare it, (at an) inappropriate (time)”.

This is puzzling:

Why does Rashi repeat this a second time?

2. Seemingly, one could say that Rashi’s two explanations speak of different aspects:

The first time – Rashi comes to answer why, by the giving of the bread (in the morning), it states “you shall see etc.” yet with the meat (in the evening) it states, “you shall know”.

And he explains the difference in the manner of the giving:

  • The meat was given, “not with a smiling countenance” (one did not see, “the glory of the L-rd”)
  • And the bread was given in a manner that, “when it comes down in the morning, you shall see the glory of the radiance of His countenance. For He will bring it down to you lovingly etc.”

The second time – Rashi comes to explain the reason for the difference in the time of the giving:

(“What did He see to bring down bread in the morning and meat in the evening?”)

The bread (which was “requested appropriately”) would be in the morning because this is an “appropriate” time and the meat (which was “requested inappropriately”) would be in the evening, “at a time when it would be a burden for them to prepare it -an inappropriate time”.

However, this is not sufficient.

For

(In addition to the primary aspect, that this does not answer why Rashi must repeat the details that he already said in the First Comment

(that the request for bread was appropriate, and the request for meat was not appropriate etc.))

from that which Rashi states (immediately in the First Comment),

“As for the bread, which you requested out of necessity. . He will bring it down to you lovingly, in the morning, when there is time to prepare it etc.”

this proves that, already in the First Comment, there is a reason why, “He brought down to them bread in the morning (and meat in the evening)”.

and

(Not just because evening alludes to “a dark countenance” (“not with a smiling countenance”)

 And “in the morning” on “with a smiling countenance”, but)

indeed because of the same aspect that Rashi says in the Second Comment, that morning is a time that “there is time to prepare it”.

(And from this it is already understood, that the giving of meat in the evening is because (as a result of  “He will give it to you, not with a smiling countenance”, the time of the giving is such that) “there is no time to prepare it”)

Since, even this is also the difference between meat and bread (whether it was given, “at a time when it would be a burden for them” or not), it is already included in Rashi’s First Comment. Therefore, the question returns: Why must Rashi repeat this?

Moreover, Rashi begins the Second Comment in the form of a question”

What did He see to bring down bread in the morning and meat in the evening?”

Even when it is fitting to repeat the explanation again – it is not fitting to ask, “What did He see etc.?” after he has just explained this in the previous verse?

3. In the two explanations of Rashi, there are also many differences and precise wordings (שינויי ודיוקי לשונות).

Therefore, there is a general question: What is the reason for the differences and precise wordings?

Moreover:

At first glance, logic dictates that many of them should have specifically been written in the opposite order:

  1. Since Rashi translates in the First Comment that the “smiling countenance” at the giving of the bread is that which this was given, “in the morning, when there is time to prepare it etc.”

He should have said, there, regarding the meat that the “not with a smiling countenance” is in that which it’s giving was in the evening “at a burdensome time”.

Why does Rashi states first state this aspect in the Second Comment?

  1. Plainly, the order is that beforehand, one tells something with all the important details (נייטיגע פרטים), and when it is repeated, one suffices with a synopsis.

However, in our case, regarding the explanation of “they requested bread appropriately” and “they requested meat inappropriately”, one sees in Rashi’s explanation the opposite order:

In the First Comment, Rashi states this concisely,

“As for the bread, which you requested out of necessity. . meat . . that you requested inappropriately and with a full stomach”

                Whereas in the Second Comment, Rashi elaborates and explains,

“They requested bread appropriately, since it is impossible for a person to get along without bread, but they requested meat inappropriately, because they had many animals, and furthermore, it was possible for them to get along without meat”.

  1. In the First Comment, Rashi, beforehand, explains regarding meat and afterward regarding bread.

This fits the order of the verse,

“(In the) evening, you shall know . . And (in the) morning, you shall see etc.”

Whereas, in the Second Comment, Rashi reverses the order,

“What did He see to bring down bread in the morning and meat in the evening?”

(So too, in the conclusion (אויספיר),

“Because they requested bread appropriately . . (and afterward) but they requested meat inappropriately”)

However, it is even more problematic:

This is opposite of the order in the verse itself:

“When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat (and afterward) and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated etc.”

4. In addition to that which Rashi elaborates more in the Second Comment, than in the First Comment, there are also (regarding the explanation in the aspect of the meat) in them differences in the wording (and meaning):

  1. From Rashi’s wording (in the First Comment) “because you requested it inappropriately and with a full stomach”, it proves that “a full stomach” is not a reason why their request is “inappropriate”, but rather an additional reason why the request for meat did not help (געטויגט).

This is as the commentators explain, that with the words, “(requested) inappropriately”, Rashi means that the request was “unnecessary” (שלא לצורך). For “it was possible for them to get along without meat”

(As Rashi states in the Second Comment) “With a full stomach” means (as Rashi states in the Second Comment) “they had many animals”.

                One must understand:

                In Rashi’s First Comment, “requested inappropriately”

(Which means, “it was possible for them to get along without meat”, as aforementioned)

is written before “a full stomach”.

Yet in the Second Comment, Rashi reverses the order:

First, he writes, “they had many animals” and afterward, “furthermore, it was possible for them to get along without meat”?

  1. In the First Comment, Rashi states, “and with a full stomach” – with an additional “Vav”

(Meaning that this is also a primary reason)

In the Second Comment, he states that “they had many animals, and furthermore (ועוד), it was possible for them etc.”, which emphasizes that this comes as a subordinate reason (טפל) to the main reason (“they had many animals”.

  1. In the First Comment, the wording, “and with a full stomach” is stated plainly, without mentioning how it was full. Whereas in the Second Comment, it details that, “they had many animals”.

5. One can understand this by prefacing a general puzzlement in these verses:

Beforehand, it states in the verse:

“Moshe and Aharon said . . (In the) evening, you shall know . . And (in the) morning, you shall see etc.”

Immediately afterward it states:

“And Moshe said, When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated etc.”

Why is this aspect split into two separate verses:

  • Beforehand, a plain statement “(In the) evening, you shall know . . And (in the) morning, you shall see etc.” (without explaining why it will be “you shall know . . and . . you shall see etc.”)
  • And afterward, in a separate, verse – in a detailed manner, “When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated etc.”

Why is it not stated in one verse:

“When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat and you shall know . .and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated and you shall see etc.”?

Although, we find in many places that beforehand, an aspect is stated in general and afterward it is stated in more detail. However, it is difficult to learn so here, because,

(In addition to that which, in our case:

  1. One could have spared (פארשפארט) the entire second verse by just adding a few words in the first verse.
  2. This does not answer why the second part of the verse,

(“when the L-rd hears your complaints, . . what (significance) are we etc.”)

is repeated, which is already expressly stated in the prior verse,

(“when He hears your complaints against the L-rd but what (significance) are we”)

Since the first verse states “Moshe and Aharon said”, whereas in the second verse it states (solely) “And Moshe said”, this proves that these are two separate aspects:

The First verse is an aspect which has a relation to Moshe as well as to Aharon. Whereas the Second verse – just to Moshe, as will be explained.

6. The explanation of all this is:

In the general complaint of the Yidden (because the “bread was depleted”) there are two aspects, which G-d answered:

  1. Regarding providing the (physical) needs of the Yidden – through establishing that which is necessary (נויטיק) for them and which is not necessary (for this is the difference between bread and meat, as will be explained Par. 9).
  1. Regarding providing and correcting the conduct of the Yidden, in this case - since the Yidden’s complaints depicted that they are in a spiritual condition that requires rectifying.

This is the general difference between the two verses (and Rashi’s two comments):

  • In the First verse, Moshe and Aharon conveyed to the Yidden how G-d would act with them to improve their conduct. This aspect is related to Moshe and to Aharon, since G-d stated to both of them,

“Bring B'nei Yisrael out of the land of Egypt with their multitudes”,

and both of them had the task to lead the Yidden in the straightforward path.

  • The Second verse, however, speaks regarding that which G-d would give the Yidden their needs, “in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning (with which) to become sated”.

This aspect is related to Moshe, for he is the Shepard of Yisroel (רועה ישראל) who provides (באזארגט) for the Yidden with their needs – “as a nurse carries an infant”.

Therefore, there is no place, that the aspect of “When the L-rd gives you . . meat to eat and bread etc.” should be in the First verse. For there, it does not speak of needs that the Yidden will receive, rather an aspect of teaching and instruction (הוראה ומוסר) regarding the Yidden’s conduct.

7. The complaints of the Yidden showed a contradiction (דבר והיפוכו):

  • On one hand, their request of bread and meat was in the manner of a complaint. This depicts a condition that is not appropriate.
  • On the other hand, however, the essence of the complaint emphasizes – in their demand of G-d for their needs – that they believe that G-d can provide this, and that it is He who sustains and provides nourishment for all (זן ומפרנס לכל). Of whom one must request and demand.

In conjunction to these two aspects (that the complaints convey), come the two verses, which address these two manners of G-d’s conduct with the Yidden:

  • Regarding their complaint and claim,

“If only we had died . . in the land of Egypt. . For you have brought us out into this desert etc.”,

came the answer,

“(In the) evening, you shall know that the L-rd brought you out of the land of Egypt”.

G-d would

(Negate the aforementioned complaint and would)

show that “the L-rd brought you out of the land of Egypt” (and that he leads them in the desert).

  • As an answer to their complaint and claim that G-d must provide for them and sustain them, which conveys their faith in Him – there will be the conduct, measure for measure (Middah K’neged Middah) of “you shall see the glory of the L-rd”. G-d will show them “the glory of the L-rd”.

(With this, the question why the words,

“when He hears your complaints against the L-rd etc.”

come in continuation to,

“And (in the) morning, you shall see the glory of the L-rd”

is answered.

For seemingly, this (the words, “when He hears your complaints etc.”) is a reason for the opposite (Note: a reason not to see G-d’s glory).

However, since, with these words, Moshe and Aharon intended (primarily) to emphasize G-d’s satisfaction (צופרידנקייט) in “hearing” (הערן), within their demand,

(as it states, “when He hears your complaints (which are) against the L-rd”

their faith that He is the sustainer and provider for all that require that their needs be supplied (צושטעלן זייערע צרכים), Therefore it is “you shall see the glory of the L-rd”).

8. According to all the aforementioned, the difference between Rashi’s two aforementioned comments – with regard to the aforementioned difference between the two verses, is understood:

  • In the First verse, Rashi explains the relation of, “you shall know . . and . . you shall see etc.”

(the two manners of G-d’s conduct with the Yidden)

to the two givings of meat and bread

(Which is why “In the evening (specifically), you shall know etc.” - through the giving of the meat. And “in the morning (specifically), you shall see” – through the giving of the bread).

These complaints of the Yidden

(“If only we had died etc.”) – which evoked the answer and aspect of “you shall know that the L-rd brought you out of the land of Egypt” -

manifested in their request for meat, which was requested “inappropriately”. Therefore, the giving was in a manner of “not with a smiling countenance”.

However, their request of bread, which was “a necessity”, is a result of their faith (that G-d provides their needs). Therefore, “when it comes down in the morning, you shall see the glory of the radiance of His countenance”.

(Moreover, since it is an innovation to say that the fulfillment of their request of bread (the giving of the Manna) was “with a smiling countenance. For the general request of the Yidden (even for bread) was in a manner of “complaint” – Therefore, Rashi comments and explains, how G-d’s dearness (חיבה) was displayed to them in the giving of the Manna. It was given:

  1. In the morning, when there is time to prepare it, and
  2. With dew over it and dew under it as if it were lying in a box.

Whereas regarding the “meat”, Rashi states plainly (סתם) “He will not give it to you with a smiling countenance” without translating how this was actually manifested (through the giving of the meat).

For in this verse, it is not relevant to specifically regarding the manner of the giving of the meat, rather just to convey the detail that the giving was connected with dissatisfaction (ניט־צופרידנקייט) (“not with a smiling countenance”)).

Whereas in Rashi’s explanation on the verse “When the L-rd gives you etc.” – where it speaks about how G-d will provide the needs for the Yidden – his intent is to explain how the difference between the giving of bread in the morning and meat in the evening - is also related in this aspect. Namely, that according to the necessity (נויטיקייט) of their request, there was the difference in the manner of how they were fulfilled.

G-d gave the bread which they “requested appropriately” in the morning (in a tranquil time) (באקוועמער) “when there is time to prepare it”

Whereas regarding the meat which they “requested inappropriately” - “He gave it to them at a burdensome time“.

9. According to this, the differences in the wordings of Rashi’s comments, is understood, plainly:

In the First Comment Rashi plainly states,

“Meat . . that they requested inappropriately and with a full stomach . . bread, which you requested out of necessity”.

For he does not mean to explain the reasons why the request was necessary or not. Here, the sole matter is the scope of the request:

  • The request for bread was a desirable aspect (since it is “necessary”). This, therefore, brought “you shall see the glory of the L-rd”.
  • Whereas the request for meat was
  1. Requested inappropriately (with complaints etc.)
  2. “With a full stomach” – For requesting meat when one has a “full stomach” depicts a lowly condition (שפל המצב) – Therefore this caused that is was given, “not with a smiling countenance etc.”

Whereas in the Second Comment, Rashi explains the difference between meat and bread with regard to their necessity (נויטיקייט) for Yidden:

  • The request for bread was “appropriate” since “it is impossible for a person to get along without bread” (they must have food).
  • Whereas the request for meat was requested inappropriately. For “they had many animals”: There is no reason to give them meat, a thing that they already have.

Therefore, Rashi afterward adds, “and furthermore, it was possible for them to get along without meat”

Even if they did not possess animals, nevertheless their request for meat is not as “appropriate”, as the request for bread. For meat is not so much of a necessity, that one cannot do without, for “it was possible for them to get along without meat”.

10. The reason for the two types of giving - “in the evening meat” (in a “burdensome time”) and “bread in the morning” – is emphasized in the continuation of the verse, “when the L-rd hears your complaints, which you are making (the people) complain against Him”.

“When the L-rd hears your complaints” – that the gist of the request of the Yidden is such that G-d hears and accepts (נעמט אן) (as aforementioned Par. 7) – is a reason for “When the L-rd gives you . . bread in the morning”.

And “which you are making (the people) complain against Him” –

The others You are making) others who hear you complaining (complain” which brings out the negative conduct (הנהגה לא טובה) of the Yidden –

is the reason for “in the evening meat to eat” is a “burdensome time”.

According to this, one could say that this is why Rashi reverses the order in the Second Comment (“What did He see to bring down bread in the morning (and afterward) meat in the evening?” – for this fits the order in the verse, in the reason for the difference:

“When the L-rd hears etc.” – is the reason for “bread in the morning” and afterward “which you are making (the people) complain against Him,” – is the reason for “meat in the evening”.

With this (with the reversal of the order) Rashi means to clarify, that “What did He see etc.” is not a question that Rashi has (for Rashi has already answered this question in the previous verse (as aforementioned Par. 2). Rather, it is as if the question is a part of the verse:

After saying, “When the L-rd gives you in the evening meat to eat and bread in the morning etc.”, the verse, “What did He see to bring down bread in the morning and meat in the evening?” is difficult:

This question (primarily) is:

Since G-d overlooked (נאכגעגעבן) Bnei Yisroel’s complaints when the “bread was depleted” and therefore said “I am going to rain down for you bread”

(Without mentioning at that time, meat, at all), He should have immediately acted, not waiting until the morning, “What did He see to bring down bread in the morning?”

(And since it was one cause – the complaints – why is the second cause) “meat in the evening” (not joined with it)?)

the verse explains:

“when the L-rd hears your complaints” – this means (as Rashi explains) that the request for bread was appropriate and therefore it was given in the morning,

“which you are making (the people) complain against Him” – this request for meat was requested inappropriately, and therefore, it was giveng in the evening, “at a burdensome time”.

11. From the homiletic style of Torah in Rashi's commentary (Yayina shel Torah) which is alluded to in this comment of Rashi:

The difference between bread and meat (quail) in Pnimiyut is:

  • Bread refers to Niglah (the exoteric part) of Torah.
  • Whereas quail – which is (a fowl) and very fatty, refers to the level of oil (שמן) - the oil of Torah (שמן שבתורה) which is Pnimiyut HaTorah (the esoteric part of Torah). In this itself – the utmost secrets (רזי דרזין דאורייתא) of the Torah.

This aspect of “oil” as it pertains to the level of “meat” means that the utmost secrets of Torah come down in (a manner of eating) understanding and comprehension (הבנה והשגה) (for then it has a taste and enjoyment (געשמאק)).

Although even the Manna, being bread from Heaven, alludes to Pnimiyut HaTorah – there is a difference between Manna and quail:

The Manna which came down as bread (which depicts, as aforementioned Niglah d’Torah) is the level of Pnimiyut HaTorah which is enclothed in Niglah d’Torah.

Whereas the quail which (also) came down was visibly in a form of oil (שמן) (very fatty), refers to Pnimiyut HaTorah, in and of itself.

With this, one can understand the differences between Manna and quail:

  1. Even though the Manna is also, when descending below, remained an entity (מהות) which was not, so much, bound to the boundary of place and border (גדר מקום וגבול) (and therefore – “whoever gathered much did not have more, and whoever gathered little did not have less”).

Nevertheless, it was given with a measure (מידה) – “an omer for each person etc.”

This was not so with the quail. For we do not find that there was a measure, how much each person could take.

Since Niglah d’Torah “is the level of measure and boundary”, it is understood that even this level of Pnimiyut HaTorah which is enclothed in Niglah d’Torah, contains a measure and boundary. Whereas Pnimiyut HaTorah, in and of itself, is the “infinite” (בלי גבול) of Torah.

  1. Even though, the effluence of the Manna was effected on Shabbat (since, Shabbat has a connection to Pnimiyut HaTorah) – it is only that which its drawing down, Above, was on Shabbat.

However, its descent below (as “bread”, as aforementioned) was specifically during the weekdays.

Which was not so with the quail. Its effluence and drawing down below began (according to Rashi’s view) on the day of Shabbat. Moreover - the afternoon of Shabbat (שבת בין הערביים), the time of the most favorable Supernal Will (רעווא דרעווין). Which is Shabbat itself, is the time of Shabbat that is related in a special manner to Pnimiyut HaTorah.

12. On this, Rashi states that the request for bread was “necessary” and “appropriate”. For “it is impossible for a person to get along without bread”.

For without Niglah d’Torah, one cannot know how to practically act and practically refrain. However, in order for Niglah d’Torah to be proper (כדבעי), one must come to Pnimiyut HaTorah – which is why the Manna was given – bread from Heaven.

 However, the request for meat was requested “inappropriately”, and this was due to two reasons:

  1. “They had many animals”. This proves that according to Rashi, the Yidden requested the meat of animals (בשר בהמה) which is very coarse (חומרי ביותר) (and not so much a receptacle for “oil”, which depicts bitul).

Regarding Torah, this means, that Yidden wanted to “take” (נעמען) Pnimiyut HaTorah as it comes down into the intellect of the Animal Soul (נפש הבהמית), where the G-dly light of the intellect is not so manifest (הערט זיך ניט אן אזוי דער אור אלקי פון דער השגה).

(Therefore, quail was given – “a type of fowl”. For the meat of fowl is not so coarse as animal meat, and therefore it is a receptacle to the level of oil.

In man’s soul, “fowl” and specifically quail represent how the G-dly Soul (נפש האלקית) is enclothed in the Intellectual Soul (נפש השכלית).

(Note: Since the Divine soul and the Animal Soul are opposites, the Intellectual Soul (Human intellect) is the intermediary between the two . Though the intellectual soul is also from nogah, it is from the higher states of nogah, i.e., the intellect).

The quail is like Pnimiyut HaTorah coming down into the intellect of the G-dly Soul and through it into the intellectual soul (נפש השכלית).

  1. “And furthermore, it was possible for them to get along without meat”. Since they were before Matan Torah It was not necessary to reveal to them, the Hidden Treasure (חמדה גנוזה) – the understanding and comprehension of Pnimiyut HaTorah.

Moreover, it was before the nullification of the decree between the upper worlds “Elyonim” and the lower worlds “Tachtonim”, there could not, at that time, be an attachment between “elyon” and “tachton” – that Pnimiyut HaTorah (the level of “elyonim” of Torah) should descend, as it is, into intellect. And especially not into the intellect of the Animal Soul (נפש הבהמית) (the level of “Tachtonim”).

(Note: Before Matan Torah, there was a decree that “The upper worlds (Elyonim) not descend to the lower worlds (Tachtonim) (עליונים לא ירדו לתתתונים); and conversely that the lower worlds (Tachtonim) not ascend to the upper worlds (Elyonim) (תחתונים לא יעלו לעליונים). At Matan Torah, this decree was nullified.)

(Therefore the quail was given “not with a smiling countenance” – the Supernal Pnimiyut did not illuminate into the meat of the quail).

According to this, it comes out, that the aspect of the quail (drawing down the level of “oil” of Torah into “meat” – intellect) was, at that time, connected with an aspect of descent (ירידה).

Whereas, after Matan Torah, and especially after the revelation of the Arizal and his statement that it is a “Mitzvah to reveal this wisdom” and even more especially after the revelation of (Torat HaChassidut, and especially) Torat Chassidut Chabad - the utmost secrets of the Torah were given in a manner that every person should be able to understand it - with the Wisdom, understanding and comprehension of his soul (Chabad Sb’Nefesh).

13. This explanation – that “it was possible for them to get along without meat”, namely that it is because they were before Matan Torah only conforms with the view (ואת״ל) that the quail, which is spoken of in our Sidra, was for only a short period (solely before Matan Torah).

 However, from that which Rashi does not mention the difference between Manna and the quail,

(Namely, that the quail in the evening was when the bread in the morning was only for three weeks, even though the bread continued for forty years)

Even though Rashi (in his commentary on Torah) maintains that the difference between them is just with regard to the time of the giving (in the evening or in the morning). However, also the quail was in effect, the entire time that the Manna came down (this also follows the majority of the opinions).

This explanation of, “it was possible for them to get along without meat”, according to these views, (including Rashi) is:

Just as Moshe‘s level is “seeing” (ראי׳) G-dliness, and he asked with puzzlement “From where do I have meat” (since he was higher than the level of meat (בחי׳ בשר)),

So too, was it with the generation of the desert, the generation of knowledge, the generation of Moshe (דור המדבר, דור דעה, דורו של משה).

They also possessed seeing G-dliness (ראי׳ אין אלקות) and were surrounded by the clouds of glory and were the generation of the desert (דור המדבר) (the level of thought (בחי׳ מחשבה)) etc. (Note: Desert is the same letters as speech and is related to thought).

For them, the aspect of meat (including the meat of the quail) – understanding and comprehension in G-dliness – was an aspect of descent (ירידה).

(This is also why it states that the quail was given at “a burdensome time” - for compared to seeing G-dliness, intellect (השגה) is an aspect of “burden”).

Whereas, in the later generations, and especially in these - our generations – of the heel of Moshiach (עקבתא דמשיחא), the “request for meat”, is especially appropriate (כהוגן וכהוגן).

On the contrary – specifically through spreading your wellsprings outward – the wellsprings of Torah - will the master come – King Moshiach (אתי מר דא מלכא משיחא). And in the words of the Raya Mehemna: “With your book . . the Sefer haZohar, we will go out of Galut, with mercy” (בהאי חבורא דילך . .ספר הזהר יפקון בי׳ מן גלותא ברחמי).

MSichas Shabbat Parshat Beshalach 5734, 5726

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