שלח ג

Okay, let's break down this Sicha (discourse) from the Rebbe. The goal is to understand the Rebbe's points clearly, step-by-step, even if you're new to these kinds of texts. **The Core Issue: The Ten Tests** The Sicha starts with a verse from this week's Torah portion, Parshas Shelach. After the spies return with a negative report about the Land of Israel, causing the people to despair, G-d says: "...they have **tested Me** these **ten times** (וַיְנַסּוּ אֹתִי זֶה עֶשֶׂר פְּעָמִים - *Vayenasu Osi zeh eser pe'amim*) and have not obeyed My voice" (Numbers 14:22). Our Sages (known as *Chazal*) learn from this verse that the Israelites tested G-d ten specific times in the desert. The Sicha immediately points out that there isn't just one list of what these ten tests were; different sources in Jewish tradition identify different incidents. **Section Aleph (א): Three Different Lists of the Ten Tests** The Rebbe presents three main opinions on what constituted these ten tests: 1. **The Talmud (Tractate Eruchin):** This is a major work of Jewish law and discussion. In Tractate Eruchin (page 15a), the Gemara (the main body of the Talmud) lists the ten tests as follows: * **Two at the Sea:** One when going *down* into the splitting Sea of Reeds (doubting if they should enter – "Are there no graves in Egypt?" Exodus 14:11), and one when coming *up* on the other side (fearing the Egyptians might have survived too – "Just as we are ascending from this side, so the Egyptians are ascending from the other side"). * **Two concerning Water:** At Marah (where the water was bitter, and they complained, "What shall we drink?" Exodus 15:24) and at Rephidim (where there was no water, and they quarreled with Moses, Exodus 17:1-7). * **Two concerning Manna:** The miraculous "bread from heaven." One test was when some people disobeyed the command *not* to leave leftovers until the morning (Exodus 16:19-20), and the other was when some disobeyed the command *not* to go out to gather it on Shabbat (Exodus 16:27-29). * **Two concerning Quail:** One instance was early on, in Parshas Beshalach (Exodus 16:1-13), and the second was later, in Parshas Behaalosecha (Numbers 11:4-34, associated with Kivros HaTaavah, the "Graves of Craving"). * **One with the Golden Calf:** The infamous incident of idolatry while Moses was on Mount Sinai (Exodus 32). * **One in the Wilderness of Paran:** This refers to the incident of the Spies (Meraglim), which is the event currently happening in the Torah portion where G-d mentions the "ten times." 2. **Avos DeRabbi Nassan:** This is an ancient commentary on Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers). It offers a slightly different list: * The Golden Calf * Water at Rephidim ("The people thirsted there for water," Exodus 17:3) * Rebelling at the Sea of Reeds (referring to the initial complaint) * The Spies * Speaking improperly about the Manna ("Tiflu al ha'man" - possibly referring to the complaints in Numbers 11 or Numbers 21:5) * Korach's Rebellion (Numbers 16) * The Quail (presumably the second instance) * Three incidents mentioned together in Deuteronomy 9:22: Taveirah (the "Complainers" in Numbers 11:1-3), Massah (often identified with the water at Rephidim, but here perhaps linked to Manna gathering based on some interpretations), and Kivros HaTaavah (the second quail incident). *Notice the differences:* This list includes the incident of the Complainers (Taveirah), Korach's rebellion, and "speaking improperly about the Manna," which weren't explicitly on the Eruchin list. It *omits* the test at Marah, one of the tests at the Sea, and one of the Manna tests (leaving leftovers). 3. **Rambam (Maimonides):** The great philosopher and codifier, in his Commentary on the Mishnah (specifically on Pirkei Avos, Chapter 5), lists these ten: * At the Sea of Reeds (the initial complaint) * At Marah (bitter water) * Asking for Manna in the Wilderness of Sin (the initial request for food, Exodus 16:2-3) * Leaving Manna leftovers ("Al Totiru") * Going out for Manna on Shabbat ("Al Teitzeu") * Water at Rephidim * The Golden Calf * Taveirah (the Complainers) * Kivros HaTaavah (the second quail incident) * The Sin of the Spies *Notice the differences:* Compared to Eruchin, Rambam *adds* Taveirah (like Avos DeRabbi Nassan) and also counts the *initial request* for Manna as a test. He *omits* one test at the Sea (the one coming up) and one test with the Quail (the first one). **Section Beis (ב): Rashi's Choice and the Rebbe's Questions** Now, the Sicha turns to **Rashi**, the most fundamental commentator on the Torah. When Rashi explains the phrase "these ten times" in our verse (Numbers 14:22), he writes: *"Two at the Sea, two with Manna, two with Quail, etc., as stated in Tractate Eruchin."* So, Rashi clearly sides with the first opinion, the list from the Talmud. The Rebbe asks: Why did Rashi choose this specific list? * **Why not Avos DeRabbi Nassan?** This is relatively easy to understand. Rashi's primary method is *Pshat* – explaining the plain, contextual meaning of the text. The verse "ten times" is spoken *at the time of the Spies*. Avos DeRabbi Nassan includes Korach's rebellion and the incident of "speaking improperly about the Manna" (likely referring to the complaint in Numbers 21), both of which happened *after* the Spies. Rashi wouldn't include events that hadn't happened yet when counting the "ten times." * **But why not Rambam's list?** This is the core question. * The Rebbe acknowledges one point in Rambam's list that Rashi logically rejects: Rambam counts the initial *request* for Manna as a test. Rashi, in his commentary on Exodus 16:3-4, explains that the people asked for bread appropriately ("leshon hogen") because it was a necessity, and G-d gave the Manna "out of affection" ("derech chibah"), not because they sinned by asking. In contrast, Rashi (following Eruchin) *does* count the *first* request for quail/meat (Exodus 16) as a test because, according to Rashi's explanation there, they asked for meat inappropriately ("shelo kehogen"). So, it makes sense for Rashi not to count the *request* for Manna. * **However, the Rebbe raises two major problems with Rashi choosing Eruchin over Rambam:** 1. **The Mit'oninim (Taveirah):** The incident of the "Complainers" (Numbers 11:1-3) is *explicitly described* in the Torah *before* the Spies incident. Rambam includes it in his list. The list in Eruchin (which Rashi follows) *omits* it. Why would Rashi, the master of *Pshat* (plain meaning), ignore an explicit incident mentioned in the text right before the Spies? 2. **The Second Test at the Sea:** The Eruchin list (which Rashi follows) includes a test when the Israelites were *coming up* from the Sea, fearing the Egyptians had also survived. This specific doubt or complaint is *not mentioned* in the plain text of the Torah (*Pshuto shel Mikra*). In fact, Rashi's *own commentary* back in Parshas Beshalach (on Exodus 14:30) suggests the opposite: G-d *specifically* washed the Egyptian bodies ashore precisely *so that* the Israelites wouldn't say, "Just as we ascend... so do they..." This implies that, according to Rashi himself, this second test *didn't actually happen* in a way that constituted a sin or test, because G-d preempted it! * **The Contradiction Magnified:** If Rashi follows Eruchin (including the textually dubious second Sea test) but *should* logically also include the textually explicit Mit'oninim incident (like Rambam does), then we'd have *eleven* tests before the Spies (2 Sea + 2 Water + 2 Manna + 2 Quail + Calf + Mit'oninim + Spies = 11)! This contradicts the verse's explicit "ten times." **So, the puzzle is: Why does Rashi choose the Eruchin list, which seems to include a non-textual test (Sea #2) and omit a clearly textual one (Mit'oninim), over Rambam's list, which seems more aligned with the plain text that Rashi usually prioritizes?** **Section Gimmel (ג): A Discrepancy with Rashi's Commentary in Devarim** The Rebbe introduces another layer of complexity. * He notes that both Avos DeRabbi Nassan and another source (the *Sifrei*, an ancient Midrashic commentary) connect the ten tests to the list of place names mentioned in the very first verse of the Book of Deuteronomy (Devarim 1:1): "These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel... in the **wilderness**, in the **Arabah**, opposite **Suph**, between **Paran** and **Tophel** and **Lavan** and **Chatzeroth** and **Di Zahav**." These sources understand this verse not just as a geographical description, but as Moses *rebuking* the Israelites by alluding to the places where they sinned – sins corresponding to the ten tests. * Rashi, in his commentary on that verse in Devarim, *also* interprets it as rebuke ("Divrei Tochachot" - words of rebuke). He explicitly states that Moses "listed here all the places where they angered [G-d]." Rashi then explains the allusions: * "In the wilderness": Refers to their complaint in the wilderness, "If only we had died..." (Exodus 16:3). * "In the Arabah": Alludes to their sin with Baal Peor in the plains (Arabah) of Moab (Numbers 25). * "Opposite Suph": Refers to their rebellion at the Sea of Reeds (*Yam Suf*). * "Between Paran and Tophel and Lavan": Rashi connects this to complaining ("tiflu" from Tophel) about the Manna (which was white - "lavan") and to the Spies sent from the Wilderness of Paran. * "Chatzeroth": Alludes to Korach's rebellion, which occurred near Chatzeroth (based on interpretations connecting locations). * "Di Zahav": Literally "enough gold," alluding to the sin of the Golden Calf. * **The Problem:** Notice that the sins Rashi lists here in Devarim (complaint about dying, Baal Peor, Sea rebellion, Manna complaint/Spies, Korach, Golden Calf) do *not* perfectly match the ten tests Rashi cited from Eruchin back in Parshas Shelach! For instance, Baal Peor and Korach are mentioned here, but weren't in the Eruchin list. The specific Manna/Quail/Water tests from Eruchin aren't all clearly delineated here. **The Question:** Why doesn't Rashi harmonize his explanations? Why, when explaining Moses' rebuke in Devarim, doesn't he connect it to the *same* ten incidents that G-d referred to as the "ten tests" in Shelach (according to the Eruchin list Rashi himself cited)? Why two different sets of highlighted sins? **Section Daled (ד): Puzzling Aspects of Rashi's Phrasing in Shelach** The Rebbe zooms in on the exact wording Rashi uses in his comment on "ten times" in Shelach: *"Two at the Sea, two with Manna, two with Quail, etc., as stated in Tractate Eruchin."* * **Question 1:** If Rashi is just going to refer us to Eruchin for the full list anyway, why bother listing the first six (2 Sea, 2 Manna, 2 Quail)? Why not simply say, "These are the ten tests, see Tractate Eruchin for details"? Listing some but not all seems redundant if the reader still needs to look up the source. Rashi usually only includes details necessary for understanding the *Pshat* right here. * **Question 2:** The order in Tractate Eruchin is: Sea, Water, Manna, Quail. Rashi quotes: Sea, Manna, Quail... He *skips over* "two with water" and bundles it into the "etc." Why omit the water tests specifically? * **The Omission is Striking:** This omission is particularly strange because one of the water tests – the one at Rephidim (also called Massah) – is the *only* one of the ten incidents where the Torah itself explicitly uses the verb "to test" (נ.ס.ה - N.S.H.) in relation to the people's actions: "...because they **tested** (נַסֹּתָם - *nassotam*) G-d, saying, 'Is G-d among us or not?'" (Exodus 17:7). Why would Rashi, when explaining the verse "Vayenasu Oti" (They **tested** Me), explicitly list other tests but omit the one the Torah itself labels as *the* testing place ("Massah")? **Section Hei (ה): A Possible Explanation (and Why It's Weak)** The Rebbe considers a possible defense for Rashi's phrasing. * **The Idea:** Maybe Rashi isn't listing the six tests just to inform us what they are. Perhaps he's highlighting these specific pairs to address potential confusion for the young student ("Ben Chamesh L'Mikra" - the traditional age for starting Torah study). The student might read the Torah and find *other* potential tests, or be unsure *which* incidents fall under these categories. Rashi lists these six to clarify ambiguities, while assuming the others (Water, Calf, Spies) are clear enough from the text itself. The reference to Eruchin then serves mainly to confirm the *specifics* within the categories Rashi *did* mention. * *Sea:* The text clearly mentions the complaint *before* entering the Sea. Rashi specifies "Two at the Sea" to alert the student that there's *another* one (coming up), detailed in Eruchin. * *Manna:* The student might think *asking* for Manna was a test (like Rambam). Rashi specifies "Two with Manna" and points to Eruchin to clarify it means *leaving leftovers* and *going out on Shabbat*, not the initial request. * *Quail:* Some commentators debated if the two quail stories (Exodus 16 and Numbers 11) were separate incidents. Rashi specifies "Two with Quail" to confirm they were two distinct tests, as detailed in Eruchin. * *Water, Calf, Spies:* These are arguably clearer in the text, so Rashi lets the "etc." cover them. * **Why This Explanation is Weak ("Dochak Gadol" - A Forced Reading):** The Rebbe finds this explanation unconvincing. * Just as one might question if *asking* for Manna was a test (since bread is essential), one could equally question if complaining at Marah ("What shall we drink?") was a true "test" (since water is essential). Why would Manna need clarification but not Marah? * Similarly, one could wonder if the Mit'oninim incident should be counted. * The logic doesn't hold up consistently. The idea that Rashi is only clarifying potential ambiguities doesn't fully explain why he'd list *these specific six* and omit the very explicit "testing" at Massah/Rephidim. **Section Vav (ו): The Rebbe's Core Explanation - The Meaning of "Vayenasu"** Here, the Rebbe offers his primary solution to the earlier puzzles (Sections Beis and Gimmel). * **Key Insight:** Rashi's commentary on "ten times" immediately follows his comment on the word "Vayenasu" (וַיְנַסּוּ - "and they tested"). Rashi's comment on "Vayenasu" is simply: "**כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ**" (*K'mashmao*) - **"According to its plain meaning."** * **Why is this significant?** As the Rebbe notes, commentators point out that the root N.S.H. (נ.ס.ה) could potentially also mean "to anger," "to provoke," or "to lift up/rebel against." Rashi explicitly *rejects* these nuances here and insists: No, it means "testing" in the straightforward sense – they put G-d to the test. * **Solving Rashi vs. Rambam (Section Beis):** This insistence on the meaning "testing" is precisely why Rashi *cannot* accept Rambam's inclusion of the **Mit'oninim (Taveirah)** incident. Why? Because according to Rashi's own understanding of *that* incident (in his commentary on Numbers 11:1), it wasn't about *testing* G-d. Rashi says the Mit'oninim were looking for an "**עֲלִילָה**" (*alilah*) – a **pretext**, a fabricated excuse – "how to separate themselves from following G-d." It was an act of seeking separation and expressing discontent, perhaps anger or rebellion, but *not* a "test" of G-d's ability or faithfulness in the sense Rashi requires here. * **Why Rashi Chooses Eruchin:** Rashi adopts the Eruchin list because *precisely those ten incidents* uniquely embody the specific sin of "**Vayenasu Oti**" – *testing G-d* specifically stemming from a **weakness in faith** (*chilushus b'emunah*) and a doubt about His capabilities or promises, despite His proven track record. * **Solving the Devarim Discrepancy (Section Gimmel):** This also explains why Rashi's list of sins alluded to in Devarim 1:1 differs from the "ten tests" in Shelach. * In Parshas Shelach, the context is G-d specifically identifying the sin of *testing Him* ("Vayenasu Oti"). Rashi therefore cites the list (Eruchin's) that purely reflects this specific type of failing. * In Devarim, the context is Moses delivering a broader rebuke ("Divrei Tochachot"). He isn't limited to just the "tests." He is highlighting *major, representative sins* of the desert generation – key moments of failure that defined their journey. This includes things like Baal Peor (idolatry and immorality) and Korach's Rebellion (challenging authority), which might not fit the narrow definition of "testing G-d due to weak faith" but were certainly central failings. Rashi there lists the *archetypal sins* (Sea rebellion, Golden Calf, Spies, Korach, etc.), not strictly the "ten tests" as defined in Shelach. **Section Zayin (ז): A Deeper Question about "Vayenasu"** The Rebbe raises a subtle challenge to his own explanation. * **The Problem:** Okay, Rashi insists "Vayenasu" means "testing." But the verse immediately continues: "...they have tested Me these ten times **and have not listened to My voice**" (*v'lo shamu b'koli*). The fact that the testing is linked directly to *disobedience* seems to strengthen the possibility that "Vayenasu" here *does* carry a connotation of "anger" or "provocation" leading to disobedience, rather than just "testing" out of weak faith. After all, one can theoretically test G-d (e.g., by doubting His power) without disobeying a specific command. Indeed, several incidents on the Eruchin list (like the doubts at the Sea or Marah) didn't involve violating an explicit instruction. So, why does the verse link the "testing" to "not listening," and why does Rashi still insist on the pure meaning of "testing"? * **The Rebbe's Pivot:** The Rebbe suggests Rashi's insistence on "K'mashmao" (testing) isn't *only* based on the dictionary definition of the word "Vayenasu." It's driven by the **entire narrative context** of the Parsha. And Rashi *hints* at this deeper context by the specific way he quotes the list from Eruchin – namely, by highlighting the **three pairs** of tests (Sea, Manna, Quail). There must be something crucial about these pairs that reveals the true nature of the "Vayenasu" in this story. **Section Ches (ח): Two Major Questions about the Narrative Flow** To understand that deeper context, the Rebbe asks two fundamental questions about the story of the Spies itself: 1. **Moshe's Prayer:** After the people cried upon hearing the spies' report, G-d declared He would strike them with a plague and disinherit them, starting a new nation from Moshe (Numbers 14:12). Moshe pleaded with G-d not to do this. His main argument was: "The Egyptians will hear... and the inhabitants of this land... will say, 'Because G-d was **unable** (*mibli yecholes*) to bring this people into the land... He slaughtered them in the wilderness'" (Numbers 14:13-16). **The Question:** Is that the *strongest* argument Moshe could make? He's trying to save hundreds of thousands of people (600,000 men aged 20-60, plus women, children, and other men) from annihilation. Couldn't he find *any merit* (*zechus*) in the people themselves? Any reason based on their positive qualities or potential? Why rely almost entirely on the argument about G-d's reputation among the nations ("What will the neighbors think?")? It seems strangely external. 2. **G-d's Forgiveness:** Moshe continued his prayer, invoking G-d's mercy: "Please forgive the iniquity of this people according to the greatness of Your kindness, just as You have borne this people from Egypt until now" (Numbers 14:19). G-d responded: "**סָלַחְתִּי כִּדְבָרֶךָ**" (*Salachti kidvarecha*) – "**I have forgiven according to your word**" (Numbers 14:20). **The Question:** If G-d truly forgave them "according to Moshe's word," why did He immediately follow up with the decree that this entire generation *would not* see the Land? "But as I live... none of the men who have seen My glory and My signs... shall see the land..." (Numbers 14:21-23). What kind of forgiveness leaves the primary consequence intact? What did the forgiveness actually accomplish? **Section Tes (ט): The Rebbe's Explanation of the Narrative's Logic** The Rebbe provides a profound understanding of the events: * **The Decree Was Not (Just) Punishment:** The decree that the generation of the wilderness would not enter the Land of Israel wasn't merely an external punishment ("ones tzidi") tacked onto their sin. It was, in a sense, a **"natural" consequence** (*totza'ah tiv'is*) stemming from their **spiritual state** (*matzav*) after the sin of the Spies. * **The Reality of Entering Israel:** What the spies reported about the powerful inhabitants and fortified cities *was true*. Conquering the Land wasn't going to be a simple military campaign. It absolutely *required* operating on a **miraculous level** (*derech nes*). It demanded unwavering **trust** (*bitachon chazak*) in G-d's ability (*yecholes Hashem*) and His signs (*otot*), believing that *despite* the natural impossibility, G-d could grant them victory supernaturally. (The Rebbe refers to Rashi citing Caleb's words: "Let us go up... even if [the land] is in heaven and He says, 'Make ladders and ascend,' we will succeed..." – emphasizing total reliance on G-d's miracles). * **G-d's Initial Reaction Explained:** This understanding illuminates G-d's first words to Moshe after the people's despair: "...How long will they **not believe in Me**, despite **all the signs** I performed in their midst! I will strike them with the plague..." (Numbers 14:11-12). G-d is saying: Because they have reached a state where they "don't believe in Me despite all the signs," they are no longer a suitable **vessel** (*keili*) for a **miraculous mode of existence** (*hanhagah nissis*). They cannot be led into the Land of Israel *miraculously*, the way it needed to happen. This relates to the principle found elsewhere (Lev. 26): "If you walk with Me casually/opposingly (*keri*)... I too will walk with you casually/opposingly (*b'keri*)." G-d's relationship mirrors ours; if they lack faith in miracles, they cannot receive that level of miraculous intervention. Therefore, the seemingly logical outcome is "I will strike them down..." * **Moshe's Argument Explained:** Now Moshe's argument makes perfect sense. He counters G-d: You say the core problem is their lack of faith ("lo ya'aminu bi"). But if You destroy them now ("v'hemaytah es ha'am hazeh k'ish echad" - kill them as one man), it will cause an *even greater* lack of faith! The nations (Egypt, etc.) will conclude it was due to G-d's *inability* ("mibli yecholes Hashem"). Your proposed solution actually *worsens* the very problem You identified (lack of faith in G-d's power)! * **G-d's Forgiveness Explained:** G-d accepts Moshe's logic: "**Salachti kidvarecha**" (I have forgiven according to your word). Rashi explains this means: I forgive *because of what you said* (lest the nations say G-d lacked power). This forgiveness **removed the immediate threat of total annihilation** ("hemaytah k'ish echad"). It addressed the "Chillul Hashem" (desecration of G-d's name) aspect. **However,** it did *not* change the underlying reality regarding entering the Land. That inability wasn't a "punishment" that could simply be forgiven away. It was a consequence of their *state*. Being in a state of "not believing despite all the signs," they were unsuited for the *miraculous* conquest. The only alternative would be a *natural* conquest (*derech ha'teva*). But **naturally**, the inhabitants *were* too strong ("az ha'am"), and *this generation*, in their current spiritual state, *could not* conquer the Land naturally. Therefore, the decree that *they* wouldn't enter remained, not as a lingering punishment, but as an inescapable result of their condition. **Section Yud (י): Connecting Back to Rashi and "Vayenasu"** Now, with this understanding of the narrative, the Rebbe connects back to the initial questions about Rashi: * **Why Rashi MUST Say "Vayenasu = Testing":** Given this context, it's clear why Rashi *had* to interpret "Vayenasu" as "testing," specifically testing born of weak faith. Even though the verse links it to disobedience ("v'lo shamu b'koli"), the *fundamental reason* for the decree ("they shall not see the land") was the generation's **weakness of faith** (*chilushus ha'emunah*). It was their inability to trust G-d's power despite seeing His signs, which is the very essence of "testing" Him in this context. This state of "Vayenasu Oti" made them unfit for the Land. * **Why Rashi Lists the Six Specific Tests (Answering Section Daled):** Now we can understand why Rashi specifically highlights the **six** tests (the three pairs: Sea, Manna, Quail) from Eruchin. It's because *these specific incidents* most powerfully **underscore the depth and nature of the Israelites' lack of faith** – the kind of ingrained weakness that explains why even Moshe's powerful prayer couldn't fully avert the decree about entering the Land. These six tests reveal the core problem most vividly. **Section Yud Aleph (יא): The Severity of "Vayenasu" Compared to "Lo Ha'aminu"** The Rebbe delves deeper into why "Vayenasu Oti" (testing Me) might be considered even more problematic *in this specific context* than simply "Lo Ha'aminu Bi" (not believing in Me). * **Comparing G-d's Language:** Notice the shift. Earlier (v. 11), G-d laments their *lack of belief* ("**Lo Ya'aminu Bi** b'chol ha'otos" - not believing in Me despite all the signs). But when stating the reason for the decree (v. 22-23), He says, "...all the men who have seen My glory and My signs... yet have **tested Me** (**Vayenasu Oti**) these ten times..." He switches to the term "tested Me." * **Rashi's Focus Implies Severity:** Rashi's insistence on "Vayenasu" suggests that this "testing" represents a more profound or intractable failure than simple lack of belief, explaining why the decree remained even after G-d said, "I have forgiven *according to your word*." * **What's the Difference?** * **Lack of Belief ("Lo Ha'aminu Bi"):** If someone doesn't believe because they haven't seen enough proof, or the signs weren't convincing *enough*, there's potentially a remedy: show them a *greater*, more undeniable sign or miracle. As the Torah says regarding Moshe's signs in Egypt, "If they will not believe you and will not heed the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the later sign" (Exodus 4:8). Lack of belief might be overcome with more evidence. * **Testing Despite Seeing ("Vayenasu Oti"):** This describes a much deeper issue. G-d says it refers to people who *are seeing* ("ha'ro'im" - present tense participle, implying continuous seeing) His glory and signs performed in Egypt and the wilderness. They *acknowledge* the miracles happened! And **despite** this ongoing experience and knowledge, they **still** test Him. This testing happened repeatedly ("these ten times"), culminating in outright disobedience ("and have not listened to My voice"). If constantly witnessing G-d's glory and signs doesn't secure their faith, what will? Showing them *more* signs won't necessarily help, because the problem isn't a lack of evidence, but a persistent, ingrained tendency to doubt and test *in spite of* the evidence. This fundamental state makes them unfit for the miracle-dependent reality of entering and conquering the Land. **Section Yud Beis (יב): Why These Six Tests Epitomize "Vayenasu"** The Rebbe explains *why* the three pairs Rashi quotes (Sea, Manna, Quail) are the ultimate examples of this severe form of "Vayenasu." * **The Defining Characteristic:** In these six incidents, the paradox – **seeing G-d's glory/signs *and* testing Him** – happened almost simultaneously, concerning the **very same subject matter**. The test wasn't about something unrelated; it directly undermined the miracle or the miracle-giver *as the miracle was unfolding* or in direct relation to it. * **"Two at the Sea":** The second test (fearing the Egyptians survived) occurred *as they were emerging from the miraculously split sea*. At the absolute peak of witnessing divine power saving them, they doubted *that very salvation* and tested G-d's thoroughness. (*Note: The Rebbe acknowledges this specific doubt isn't explicit in the text but is the tradition recorded in Eruchin, highlighting the mindset.*) * **"Two with Manna":** The Manna was an undeniable, daily miracle – "bread from heaven," a new creation. Yet, *regarding the Manna itself*, they tested G-d. G-d commanded, "Don't leave leftovers," and they tested Him by *disobeying* and leaving leftovers. G-d said Manna wouldn't fall on Shabbat, therefore "Don't go out" to gather. They tested Him by *going out anyway*, checking if maybe G-d's word wasn't reliable, if maybe the miracle *would* defy His prediction. They were testing the Giver concerning His gift. * **"Two with Quail":** They cried, "Who will feed us meat?" (Numbers 11:4). This wasn't just a simple request. It came after they were *already* receiving the miraculous Manna daily, and (according to the Eruchin/Rashi view counting both quail incidents) after they had *already* received quail once before. Yet, when they felt a craving ("hitavu ta'avah") for *more* or different meat, doubt crept in, leading them to test G-d ("Vayenasu"): "Who will feed us meat?" – implying that *this* desire, this *additional* request, might be beyond G-d's power, despite the ongoing miracles they lived on. * **Contrast with Other Tests:** The other tests on the Eruchin list (the two water incidents, the Golden Calf, the Spies) didn't have this same intense quality of the "seeing/experiencing the miracle" and the "testing/doubting" being fused together about the *exact same thing at the same time*. The Golden Calf was a separate act of betrayal. The water complaints were about a need, but perhaps less of a direct challenge to an ongoing, visible miracle like the Manna. The Spies' sin was about doubting the *future* ability to conquer, not directly testing a miracle happening right then. * **Conclusion:** Rashi selectively quoted the three pairs (Sea, Manna, Quail) because they most acutely demonstrate the problematic state of "Vayenasu Oti" – seeing and acknowledging G-d's power, yet simultaneously testing Him regarding that very power. This deep-seated lack of faith explains why the generation was unfit for the Land. **Section Yud Gimmel (יג): Practical Lessons for Us Today (Hora'os)** The Sicha concludes, as always in Chassidus, with practical takeaways for our own lives and service of G-d (*Avodas Hashem*). 1. **Be Aware and Diligent:** We must recognize how crucial it is to be extremely careful, alert, and diligent (*gehit, zahir, v'zariz*) to ensure that the "signs" – the miracles, blessings, instances of Divine Providence G-d shows us, both collectively as a people and individually in our lives – have their full intended impact. They shouldn't just be observed; they must penetrate us deeply, leading to concrete changes in our actions (*l'maaseh b'po'al*) and transforming our inner character (*pnimiyus*). 2. **Learn from the Past (A Fortiori):** If the "Dor Deah" (the Generation of Knowledge), who witnessed the Exodus, the splitting of the Sea, and received the Torah at Sinai, could still experience such profound signs and yet fall into the state of "Vayenasu Oti zeh eser pe'amim," then how much more so must *we* – living in the "Ikvesa d'Meshicha" (the "footsteps of Moshiach," the spiritually challenging era preceding the Redemption) – constantly strive to internalize G-d's kindnesses and interventions? We need continuous effort to ensure these experiences genuinely strengthen our faith and guard us against complacency, doubt, or testing G-d. 3. **The Method: Contemplation:** The way to achieve this is through deep contemplation (*hisbonenus*). Each person should reflect deeply on the signs G-d has performed for the Jewish people throughout history and for them personally in their own lives. This reflection shouldn't be superficial; it must be done in a way that "takes him over completely" (*nimmt ihm durch ingantzen*), affecting his core being. 4. **The Goal: Redemption:** This profound contemplation and internalization of G-d's signs is what prepares us, as individuals and as a people, for entering the Land of Israel with *Moshiach Tzidkeinu* (our righteous Moshiach) in the **true and final Redemption** (*Geulah ha'amitis ha'nitzchis*) – a redemption after which there will be no more exile (*she'ein achareha galus*). 5. **The Promise:** This future redemption will mirror the Exodus from Egypt, as the prophet promises (Micah 7:15): "**As in the days of your departure from the land of Egypt**" – which was accomplished through G-d's awesome **signs** ("**Ososai** asher asisi b'Mitzrayim" - My signs that I performed in Egypt, borrowing the language from our Parsha) – "**I will show him wonders**" (*Arenu niflaos*). This ultimate redemption, filled with wonders, will happen very soon (*b'karov mamash*). In essence, the Rebbe uses the intricate details of Rashi's commentary and the differing lists of the Ten Tests to explore the profound psychological and spiritual state of the generation of the wilderness. Their failure wasn't just disobedience, but a deep-seated inability to fully trust G-d despite overwhelming evidence – a state called "Vayenasu Oti." Understanding this state explains the narrative of the spies, Moshe's prayer, G-d's forgiveness, and the tragic decree. The ultimate lesson is for us to actively internalize G-d's presence and actions in our lives, thereby strengthening our faith and preparing ourselves for the final Redemption.