Parshas Beshalach
1. The Tur1 states that it is "טוב לומר" ("good to say") the passage of the manna2 every day, and the reason for this is given in the Beis Yosef3: "כדי שיאמין שכל מזונותיו באין לו בהשגחה" ("so that he will believe that all his sustenance comes to him by Divine providence").
The Alter Rebbe, in his Shulchan Aruch — in the first edition (Mahadura Kamma)4 — copies the ruling of the Tur together with the reason of the Beis Yosef, and adds (the explanation of the Levush5): "שכן הי' במן שהשגיח הקב"ה לתת לכל אחד עומר לגלגולת לכל נפשות ביתו כמ"ש וימודו בעומר ולא העדיף המרבה והממעיט לא החסיר" ("for so it was with the manna, that the Holy One, blessed be He, saw to it to give each person an omer per head for all the members of his household, as it is written, 'They measured it with an omer, and whoever had taken much had nothing extra, and whoever had taken little did not lack'")6.
However, in his second edition (Mahadura Tinyana)7 he changes this8, and instead of bringing the reason of the Beis Yosef (and the Levush), he says: "ופ' המן לבטח בה' נותן לחם דבר יום ביומו" ("and the passage of the manna — to trust in G‑d, Who gives bread day by day"). That is, there is a change in two details: (a) Instead of the Beis Yosef's wording "שיאמין" ("that he will believe"), the Alter Rebbe says "לבטח" ("to trust"). (b) He does not bring the point about the manna that it was (by individual providence9) "an omer per head for all the members of his household"; rather — that the fact that G‑d gave the manna continually, "דבר יום ביומו" ("each day's portion on its day")10, should arouse the trust that G‑d "gives bread day by day."
Simply put, the two above-mentioned changes depend on each other:
The point regarding the manna, that "the Holy One, blessed be He, saw to it to give each person an omer per head for all the members of his household . . and whoever had taken much had nothing extra, and whoever had taken little did not lack," strengthens a Jew's faith that his sustenance (does not come from "כחי ועוצם ידי" ("my strength and the might of my hand")11, but rather) "comes to him by providence" from G‑d: as was seen tangibly with the manna, that a person's actions did not change12 the amount of manna that G‑d (determined and) gave "to each person."
The matter of trust (bitachon), however, is (not only that one believes that a person's sustenance comes from G‑d, but) that one relies on G‑d, that He will certainly provide him with his sustenance — and this matter of trust is learned from the fact that G‑d gave the manna "each day's portion on its day," in a constant manner, such that one relied entirely on G‑d, without any worry, etc.
This, however, requires explanation: Why is it that in the Beis Yosef (and the Levush) — and likewise in the first edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch — the point "so that he will believe etc." is brought, while (specifically) in the second edition the Alter Rebbe changes this and gives the reason "to trust in G‑d, Who gives bread day by day"?
2. Seemingly, it should follow that there is also a practical halachic difference between the two reasons. To preface:
One of the differences between faith (emunah) and trust (bitachon) is:
Emunah is a constant matter — it is the settledness and certainty within the believer that the thing is so (as he believes), and consequently it is present in him always, even when the belief is not relevant in practice13. For example, in our case: regarding the belief that "all his sustenance comes to him by providence" — it is surely not fitting to say that he believes this only while he is occupied with his livelihood; rather, the belief is constantly in his soul.
Bitachon, by contrast — the certainty and reliance on G‑d regarding one's livelihood — is a feeling that is aroused in a person at the time of need14: when a person is occupied with his work to earn his livelihood, he trusts in G‑d that "וברכך ה' אלקיך בכל אשר תעשה" ("and the L‑rd your G‑d will bless you in all that you do")15 — G‑d will certainly bless his activity (business) in a manner that it will bring him livelihood;
or when someone finds himself, Heaven forfend, in a time of distress and sees no prospect in nature of how he will be saved — he does not fall, G‑d forbid, into despair, "מאין יבוא עזרי" ("from where will my help come?")16, but rather he is certain (trusts in G‑d) that G‑d, Who is Master over nature and in Whose hand it is to change nature, will certainly help him17 — that "עזרי מעם ה' עושה שמים וארץ" ("my help is from the L‑rd, Maker of heaven and earth")18.
Moreover: bitachon itself is (the "vessel" that) draws down the salvation from G‑d and the fulfillment of his needs.
[This is one of the explanations of the trait of bitachon. For seemingly it is not understood:
Bitachon means19 that a Jew trusts that G‑d will benefit him with good that is specifically visible and revealed. That is, in addition to G‑d knowing that this is good for the person, it is in a manner that the person, too, will see that it is good for him.
Seemingly: the very fact that the person finds himself, Heaven forfend, in distress could be because his conduct is not as it should be, and therefore the punishment comes upon him. So what is the basis of his trust20 — and with complete and true trust, meaning that for him there is no doubt at all about it, to the point that he is entirely at ease21 — that G‑d will certainly (not punish him, even though this too is a kindness for him, but rather) benefit him with good that is specifically visible and revealed?
The explanation of this: when a Jew displays his complete trust in G‑d, and for him it is simple that G‑d will benefit him with visible and revealed good, despite its not matching the natural calculations and prospects — this itself draws down from Above that G‑d should conduct Himself with him measure for measure, which the Torah makes known and rules is the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He22, and G‑d benefits him with visible and revealed good23, without regard at all to the calculations of whether he is worthy of it24.]
3. From the above it is understood that the trait of bitachon — that is, the arousal of the trait in actuality — is connected with requesting one's needs: when a person is occupied with obtaining the things he needs, he trusts in G‑d that He, blessed be He, will fulfill them.
Accordingly, according to the reason that the recitation of the passage of the manna is so that a person should thereby be aroused "to trust in G‑d," there is room to say25 that the passage of the manna should be said —
(a) only on weekdays, but not on Shabbos26, when there should not be the matter of requesting one's needs27 [similar to the manna itself, which did not come down on Shabbos28, even though it was "each day's portion on its day"].
(b) Even on weekdays, one should not say it at the beginning of the prayers. This is similar to requesting one's needs, regarding which it must be that "יסדר אדם שבחו של הקב"ה ואח"כ יתפלל" ("a person should first set out the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, and afterwards pray")29 (request his needs). And indeed we find in several siddurim30 that the passage of the manna was placed after the prayers (and — together with a prayer and request for livelihood).
By contrast, according to the reason "so that he will believe etc.," one may say it even on Shabbos26, and also before the prayers (in which there is the setting out of the praises of the Omnipresent) — because31 faith in G‑d (also as it relates to one's sustenance) is a matter that must be constant.
But this requires examination, because also in the second edition (where the reason "to trust in G‑d etc." appears) the Alter Rebbe writes explicitly "טוב לומר בכל יום . . ופ' המן" ("it is good to say every day . . and the passage of the manna"), and from this wording it is implied that this means "every day," including Shabbos32.
Also regarding the detail of the place of its recitation on weekdays, it is implied from the unqualified wording in the second edition that the only difference (compared to his ruling in the first edition) concerns the reason for the recitation, but not that, because of this, there is a change — a limitation on when one may say it. Especially since in the second edition, too, the Alter Rebbe includes the law of reciting the passage of the manna together with reciting the passage of the Akeidah (and the Ten Commandments) and also with the passage of the offerings33 (which are said before the prayers34).
— The (above-mentioned) question thus remains: What is the reason for the change in the second edition compared to the first edition (and the Beis Yosef, etc.)?
4. This will be understood by first explaining the conduct of R. Yeisa35 Saba (which is related in the Zohar on this week's Torah portion36, in connection with the matter of the manna) —
that he would prepare his meal each day only after he had first asked G‑d for sustenance, saying: "לא נתקין סעודתא עד דתתיהיב מבי מלכא" ("We will not prepare the meal until it is given from the King's house") (he will not prepare his meal until it is given to him by G‑d).
This requires explanation: Since the food (from which he prepared his meal) was already in his possession, and all that was lacking was the preparation of the food for the meal ("הוה לי' מיכלא דההוא יומא למיכל" ("he had food for that day to eat")37) — what is the meaning38 of his asking G‑d to give him the food?
The explanation of this:
Well known is the explanation of Rabbeinu Bachya39 on the saying of our Sages40 that Yosef was punished because he asked the chief butler, "והזכרתני אל פרעה" ("and mention me to Pharaoh")41 — that "ח"ו שיתלה יוסף הצדיק בטחונו בשר המשקים רק בה' לבדו, אבל היתה כוונתו שהשם ית' הזמין אליו שר המשקים זה כדי שיעשה לו נס על ידו" ("Heaven forfend that Yosef the tzaddik would have placed his trust in the chief butler rather than in G‑d alone; rather, his intent was that G‑d, blessed be He, had arranged this chief butler for him in order to perform a miracle for him through him"); and the reason Yosef was punished for this is "לפי שבקש סבה בשר המשקים . . ואין ראוי לצדיקים כיוצא בו לבקש סבה, לכך נענש בזה כי הי' לו לבטוח בהקב"ה לבדו שהוא בעל הסבות כולן שהוא יזמין אליו הסבה מבלתי שיבקש הוא אותה" ("because he sought a cause in the chief butler (through whom G‑d would send his rescue) . . and it is not fitting for tzaddikim like him to seek a cause; therefore he was punished for this, for he should have trusted in the Holy One, blessed be He, alone, Who is the Master of all causes, that He would arrange the cause for him without his seeking it").
The question is asked on this42: It is explained (in Chovos HaLevavos43) regarding bitachon that there is an obligation to engage in natural causes (and he brings several proofs for this) — so why was Yosef punished "because he sought a cause"?
And it is explained44 that there are two modes (levels) in bitachon:
a) When the conduct from Above is in a manner that "נמשכין הדברים שהולכין כסדרן שע"פ הטבע" ("matters proceed in their order, according to nature")45 (in the language of Chassidus: as it is from the aspect of memalei kol almin, the light that fills all worlds), then one must seek a cause and make a vessel in nature, because the influence from Above comes specifically through the garments of nature.
b) When one sees that the conduct from Above is in a manner that "matters proceed . . not according to nature"45 (in the language of Chassidus: from the aspect of sovev kol almin, the light that encompasses all worlds), a higher mode in the trait of bitachon is demanded — to rely entirely "על הנהגת ה' לבדו ושלא לעשות שום דבר כ"א לבטוח בה' שבטח יעזור השי"ת בדרך סיבה" ("on G‑d's conduct alone, and not to do anything except trust in G‑d that G‑d, blessed be He, will surely help by way of a cause")46.
[And Yosef the tzaddik, who was (always) connected in his Divine service with the level that is above nature47, should have conducted himself by holding to the higher mode of bitachon.]
5. The difference between the two modes of bitachon exists also when one does make a "vessel"48:
That it is demanded (in the first mode) that a person make a vessel is because, from the perspective of the conduct from Above when "matters proceed . . according to nature"49 — nature and the ways of nature have significance, and therefore a person must seek a vessel and cause through which G‑d's blessing will be drawn down to him.
By contrast, for one who holds to the higher mode of bitachon, where he need not do "anything except trust in G‑d," the ways of nature have no significance at all (which is why he need not seek a cause and vessel). And therefore, even when there is a cause and vessel in nature for his livelihood, his livelihood has not thereby become "closer" to him than if he had no cause and vessel. For the cause and vessel do not have significance for him as an independent thing; he sees only how he receives everything directly from G‑d; so the cause and vessel, too, are something that G‑d makes for him50 together with his livelihood.
And this is also the explanation of the conduct of R. Yeisa Saba50, who said, "We will not prepare the meal until it is given from the King's house" (even though "he had food for that day"):
R. Yeisa Saba's mode of bitachon was that he saw in every action (individually) that it is (not his own action, but rather) a gift from G‑d51. Consequently, even when he has the food with him at home and needs only to take it and prepare it, he feels that this is not his food that he takes (of his own) and prepares, but rather that "it is given from the King's house": G‑d is giving it to him now. Consequently he must also ask before the Holy One, blessed be He, for this (just as he asks for his sustenance when he does not yet have food at home).
6. With this one can also answer another point in the above-mentioned conduct of R. Yeisa Saba:
From the unqualified wording of the Zohar — "לא אתקין סעודתא בכל יומא עד דבעא בעותי' כו'" ("he would not prepare a meal each day until he had made his request etc.") — it is implied that he conducted himself this way even on Shabbos52. This is problematic: Shabbos is not a time for requesting one's needs, so how is it that R. Yeisa "בעא בעותי' קמי קב"ה על מזוני'" ("made his request before the Holy One, blessed be He, for his sustenance") (even) on Shabbos?
According to the above this is understood: the request for one's needs that should not be made on Shabbos is specifically when the person is concerned thereby with himself, his own existence — that his needs and lack be filled.
R. Yeisa Saba, by contrast — his prayer came specifically because his own existence had no significance for him at all, to the point that he felt at every step and stride that everything depends on G‑d. And as the Zohar explains there53, concerning such conduct it is written54 "את המיחלים לחסדו" ("those who hope for His kindness") — "דמצפאן ומחכאן בכל יומא ויומא למבעי מזונייהו מן קב"ה" ("who look forward and wait each and every day to ask for their sustenance from the Holy One, blessed be He"). That is, the content of the prayer is solely to express the "hoping for His kindness"55 — that they feel how everything is only the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He.
— And such a mode of prayer (for sustenance) can be even on Shabbos.
7. Although this conduct of R. Yeisa Saba is not something equally applicable to every soul, nevertheless "אפס קצהו ושמץ מנהו" ("a minute portion and a tiny particle of it")56 applies to everyone57, and at least — at designated times.
One may say that this is the difference between the weekdays and Shabbos: during the six weekdays, when a Jew is — as and in the manner explained in the Shulchan Aruch58, "ילך לעסקיו כו' וישא ויתן באמונה" ("he shall go to his business etc. and deal faithfully") — occupied with matters of livelihood, his bitachon is in a manner that he seeks a cause and vessel, because one cannot demand of him that he then rise entirely above nature and hold to the above-mentioned higher mode of bitachon. Whereas on Shabbos, which is not a "day of work"59, when a Jew is above work — there must be in him (at least a glimmer) of the higher mode of bitachon, "those who hope for His kindness."
Accordingly one may say that this is the explanation of the difference between the first edition and the second edition of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch regarding the recitation of the passage of the manna:
The first edition the Alter Rebbe wrote according to the decision of the "Gemara" and the "Poskim"60. And since the matter of bitachon as it is in its simple sense (in nigleh, the revealed dimension of the Torah) is in a manner that one must make a vessel, if one were to give as the reason for reciting the passage of the manna "to trust in G‑d etc.," its recitation would be only on weekdays and specifically after the prayers (as above, section 3).
Therefore the Alter Rebbe says in that edition61 that the reason for reciting the passage of the manna (every day) is "so that he will believe that all his sustenance comes to him by providence."
By contrast, in the second edition the Alter Rebbe decided according to "the Kabbalists"62, and consequently this includes also practices connected with higher levels in the service of G‑d.
And therefore63 he gives the reason "to trust in G‑d, Who gives bread day by day," because from the perspective of the higher mode of bitachon — "those who hope for His kindness" — there can be the recitation of the passage of the manna "every day," also on Shabbos (and — before the prayers).
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5723 and Shabbos Parshas Devarim 5734)
Notes
1) Orach Chaim, siman 1. And likewise in the Shulchan Aruch there, par. 5.
2) See the Prisha there (from Yerushalmi Berachos): "Whoever says the passage of the manna every day is assured etc."* And so is the wording of the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch, both in the first edition (there, par. 10) and in the second edition (there, par. 9). And see Taz there, subpar. 4. And see below in the text and note 32. And compare Ohr HaTorah, Beshalach (p. 644; and see Maamarei Admur HaZaken – Maamarei Razal, p. 35): "every day or at intervals."
*) Sefer HaManhig, Laws of Shabbos, siman 44, cites this statement from "the end of Yoma" of the Yerushalmi.** And the Tashbetz (rulings of the Maharam of Rothenburg), Laws of Prayer, §250, cites it "from the Yerushalmi." — It has already been noted that it is not found in our Yerushalmi. And Rabbeinu Bachya on our parsha, 16:16, writes: "and it is a tradition in the hands of the Sages."
**) This is according to one version of the manuscripts (see Sefer HaManhig, Jerusalem edition 5738, in the variant readings): "(at the end of Yoma) of the Yerushalmi." But according to the version before us, it is possible that the words "at the end of Yoma" continue the preceding statement etc., about the manna ". . that is placed in a box" (Yoma 75b). And this is necessarily so according to the version of the manuscript (see the above-mentioned edition there): "in a box, as they say at the end of Yoma" (and the words "Yerushalmi: whoever says . . and that his sustenance will not be diminished" are missing there).
3) On the Tur there.
4) Orach Chaim, there, par. 10.
5) There, par. 5.
6) Our parsha, 16:18. — The citation of this verse is the Alter Rebbe's addition to the wording of the Levush. And see below, note 12.
7) Orach Chaim, there, par. 9.
8) Note that throughout this paragraph the Alter Rebbe abbreviates compared with his wording in the first edition: the passage of the Akeidah — in the first edition there he cites the two reasons (found in the Beis Yosef there), "to recall the merit of the Patriarchs before the Holy One, blessed be He, and also to subdue his inclination etc., as Yitzchak gave over his soul," while in the second edition — "to recall the merit of the Patriarchs" (and no more)*; the Ten Commandments — he omitted (in the second edition) the reason, as well as all the lengthy discussion about reciting them (in public, etc.) found in the first edition there; the passage of the offerings — (in addition to including it in the same paragraph, unlike the first edition, which divides the details of the laws into several paragraphs) he omitted in the second edition several details of law found in the first edition (see the first edition there, par. 15ff.). — Nevertheless, in our case (the passage of the manna) it is not merely an abbreviation but a change, as explained at length below.
*) These changes were explained at a farbrengen (in the manner of Chassidus).
9) So the Levush adds there (to the wording of the Beis Yosef). And it requires examination why the Alter Rebbe did not copy this (from the Levush) in his Shulchan Aruch (first edition). And see below, note 12.
10) Our parsha, 16:4.
11) Eikev 8:17. — And it comes in continuation of what is written before it (there, v. 16): "Who fed you manna etc."
12) According to this, the Alter Rebbe's addition (see note 6) — "as it is written, 'They measured it with an omer, and whoever had taken much had nothing extra, and whoever had taken little did not lack'" — is better understood. Especially since the fact that it was "an omer per head for all the members of his household" is stated explicitly in the preceding verse, "an omer per head, according to the number of your souls" — for this verse emphasizes how human action does not change etc. And one may say that for this reason the Alter Rebbe did not copy (from the Levush) the word "individual" in "(by) individual (providence)" (see note 9) — because the emphasis according to the Alter Rebbe is (not that the manna was given by individual providence (exactly "an omer per head"), but rather) that the manna was given in a manner in which it was openly evident that it came from Above, and that human action does not change it, etc.*
*) Whereas according to the Levush the emphasis is that sustenance comes "by individual providence." According to this, the difference between the wording of the Levush and the wording of the Alter Rebbe is also understood: in the Levush — "an omer according to the number of heads of the members of his household" (and this also resembles the wording of the verse, as in the text of the note), while in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch — "an omer per head for all the members of his household."
13) And likewise conversely: emunah is an encompassing (makif) power, which is why even when it is relevant in practice, it is possible to be "a thief at the mouth of the tunnel who calls upon the Merciful One" (Berachos 63a, according to the reading of the Ein Yaakov), which is not so regarding bitachon.
14) That is, although bitachon is constantly present in the one who trusts — nevertheless, the arousal and revelation of the trait of bitachon (in actuality) occurs specifically when it is relevant in practice. And compare Nesivos Olam (of the Maharal), Nesiv HaBitachon, at its beginning.
15) Re'eh 15:18.
16) Tehillim 121:1.
17) See Rabbeinu Yonah — cited in Kad HaKemach, entry "Bitachon." And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 883, and the copy in the gloss there (printed in the Igros Kodesh of the Previous Rebbe, vol. 7, p. 398ff.). And see below, section 4, and the sources cited in note 42.
18) Tehillim there, v. 2.
19) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, there ff.
20) And see Kad HaKemach there: "Everyone who trusts is a believer . . but a believer may not trust, for sometimes he fears lest sin cause etc." See there. And see Biurei HaZohar of the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 189; there, p. 192.
21) See Chovos HaLevavos, in its introduction to Shaar HaBitachon, at length, that this is the essence of bitachon.
22) Mishnah, Sotah (8b), and the sources cited there.
23) See at length Nesivos Olam there. And compare Iggeres HaKodesh, end of epistle 11: "And with this faith, truly everything becomes good, even openly etc." (cited also in Biurei HaZohar there (p. 194), where it states: "that through faith and trust etc.").
24) And since G‑d's conduct is measure for measure, the person trusts from the outset that it will be so. And compare Kad HaKemach there: "The matter of bitachon . . his heart is strong in his trust, as if G‑d, blessed be He, had assured him." And see also Chovos HaLevavos there (chs. 1–2). — And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 34, p. 3ff.
25) And likewise according to the reason in the Prisha (cited above in note 2), that its recitation is so "that his sustenance will not be diminished."
26) The Be'er Heitev, Orach Chaim there, subpar. 9, cites that one may say it also on Shabbos. And so it is seemingly implied from Sefer HaManhig (cited above in the gloss to note 2), which brings the statement "whoever says the passage of the manna every day etc." in the Laws of Shabbos. And see below in the text.
27) And one may say that this is not comparable to the passages of the individual offerings, of which it is said that "there is no loss in saying them, as one who reads in the Torah" (the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, [OCR unclear] edition, there, par. 16, from the Magen Avraham there, end of subpar. 1) — for there it is only so that it be as if he had offered etc., but in our case, where one says it in order to be aroused (in actuality) "to trust in G‑d," one may say that it should not be said on Shabbos. This requires further examination.
28) Whether the manna fell on Yom Tov — see the Mechilta, Mechilta de-Rashbi, and Rashi (and others) on our parsha, 16:26; Tosafos, s.v. "Vehaya," Beitzah 2b. And see Torah Sheleimah on our parsha there, and the sources cited there. — And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 36, p. 77ff.
29) Berachos 32a, end. Tur and the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of siman 51.
30) Siddur Yaavetz, Avodas Yisrael, and others. And see what is cited in Orchos Chaim (the new one), Orach Chaim, siman 1 there: that one who prays for livelihood after this passage, as written in the siddurim, should postpone it until after Shemoneh Esreh, because it is written in the Zohar, Pinchas, not to pray for livelihood before the Shacharis prayer. And so writes also the sefer Mekor Chaim on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim (by the author of Responsa Chavos Yair; printed Jerusalem 5742), there.
31) See also Olas Tamid (Orach Chaim there), mentioned in the Be'er Heitev there.
32) In its simple sense, this is the Alter Rebbe's intent in adding the words "every day" (which are not in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch) — to include also Shabbos (and likewise regarding the passage of the Akeidah), in accord with the conclusion of the sefarim cited in the Be'er Heitev there.
33) In the first edition, the passage of the offerings is discussed in a separate paragraph (par. 10ff.).
34) Note that some have the custom (cited in Me'asef LeChol HaMachanos, Orach Chaim there, subpar. 9) of saying the passage of the Akeidah, too, after the prayers (like the passage of the manna).
35) In several places (Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5565, vol. 2 (pp. 647, 653); Siddur, 112d; Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek, the mitzvah of the shaving of the metzora, ch. 2; and elsewhere) — Rav Hamnuna Saba. And in Kuntres U'Maayan (maamar 17, ch. 1, and elsewhere) — R. Yeiva Saba.
36) 62b. And similarly in Zohar I, 199b.
37) Zohar I, there. And see also Zohar II, there, side a.
38) Compare the saying of our Sages, "whoever says Hallel every day etc." (Shabbos 118b).
39) End of Parshas Vayeshev.
40) Bereishis Rabbah, beginning of Mikeitz. Rashi, end of Vayeshev.
41) Vayeshev 40:14.
42) Ohr HaTorah (Yahel Ohr) on Tehillim 40:5. Discourse beginning "Velo Zachar," 5697 and 5688. And see also Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5565, vol. 1, p. 200; 5608, Vayechi, discourse beginning "Ben Poras Yosef," ch. 3.
43) Shaar HaBitachon, ch. 3, fifth introduction; there, ch. 4. And so in many places. And see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, p. 486ff.
44) See the above-mentioned discourse beginning "Velo Zachar."
45) Wording of Hemshech 5672, vol. 1, ch. 62 (regarding the two modes of bitachon — "טוב לחסות בה' מבטוח באדם" ("It is better to take refuge in G‑d than to trust in man") — which are cited in the discourse beginning "Velo Zachar" there).
46) See Hemshech 5672 there: "And when one sees that the conduct must be in such a manner, this is not included in [the principle] 'we do not rely on miracles.'"
47) See in the places cited in note 42 the difference between Yosef and Yaakov. See there.
48) On what follows, see also Likkutei Sichos vol. 15, end of p. 174ff. (and see note 5 there!); vol. 8, p. 295ff.
49) As is known, the explanation of our Sages on "והוא יכלכלך" ("and He will sustain you") (the above-mentioned discourse beginning "Velo Zachar").
50) See also the places cited in note 35. And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 1, p. 6ff. (in a different manner).
51) The connection to the matter of the manna is understood according to what is explained in Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, there (p. 176), on "הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים" ("Behold, I will rain down for you bread from heaven"), and that the manna, too, involved some exertion on the part of the person. See there.
52) And compare Zohar II, there: "Day by day" specifically — except from the Eve of Shabbos for Shabbos.
53) Zohar II, there, side b. And see Ohr HaTorah on our parsha, p. 644 (quoted in Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, there, p. 177, note 35).
54) Tehillim 147:11.
55) Compare [OCR unclear] (beginning of Vayigash, and elsewhere; and see Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 6 (22a)) on "one may stand to pray only with a serious frame of mind" — that his intent should be that nothing be lacking Above, G‑d forbid. Likewise compare what is explained (Haggadah shel Pesach with commentaries, 5747, p. 633ff.) regarding the manner of eating for the sake of Heaven, in which the eating becomes secondary to the recitation of the blessing — his benefit from this world being only so that he can bless. See there.
56) Wording of the Alter Rebbe — Tanya, beginning of ch. 44 (regarding Moshe. — And see the Zohar (I, Introduction, 7b, and Mikdash Melech there; Shaar HaGilgulim, Introduction 36) on the connection of [OCR unclear] to Moshe).
57) See Sotah 48b, end; Yoma 76a; Mechilta and Tanchuma on our parsha, on the verse "each day's portion on its day"; Zohar there (62a; 63a, beginning); the Ohr HaTorah cited in note 53.
58) Orach Chaim, beginning of siman 156.
59) Yechezkel 46:1.
60) See the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, §28.
61) And likewise in the Beis Yosef etc. — even though it is stated in many places (in nigleh) that the manna was for the sake of bitachon — see the sources cited in note 57, and elsewhere.
62) See Shaar HaKollel, at its beginning (printed also in the additions to the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (Kehot), Orach Chaim, 31a [183a]; 32b [184b]). — And note that, according to the Siddur, the Arizal did not say the passage of the manna (Siddur HaArizal (of R. Shabsai of Rashkov) [OCR unclear]. And see Shaar HaKavanos, the matter of Birchos HaShachar; Pri Etz Chaim, Shaar Olam HaAsiyah, end of ch. 3). And likewise it is omitted in the Alter Rebbe's Siddur. And compare Ohr HaTorah there: "The counsel for this is that a person should say the passage of the manna every day or at intervals, with concentration."
63) And this requires further examination, for this category is a minority (and "many acted like R. Yishmael" specifically — Berachos 35b).
Key Lesson
Faith that all sustenance comes from G‑d is constant, while trust in G‑d is aroused at the time of need and usually works through natural means. Yet everyone, at least on Shabbos and at designated times, can rise to a higher trust, feeling that even what is already in hand is given anew by G‑d — "those who hope for His kindness."