ekev: do not give me my daily bread
sholem aleichem,
Hi friends! Welcome to another Friday. Lots to discuss.
First, thank you to everyone who replied to last week's newsletter -- I promise I have read them and will respond shortly.
I've been listening to Margaret Killjoy's history of Food Not Bombs this week, so let's jump right in with a classic food verse from our Torah portion this week:
ויענך וירעבך ויאכלך את־המן אשר לא־ידעת ולא ידעון אבתיך למען הודיעך כי לא על־הלחם לבדו יחיה האדם כי על־כל־מוצא פי־יהוה יחיה האדם
He afflicted you, he made you hunger, he fed you manna that you did not know and your fathers did not know -- to make you know that a human does not live on bread alone, a human lives on everything that comes from the mouth of Hashem
It isn't clear in this verse what the affliction is (wandering in the desert? being hungry?), but verse 16 clarifies:
המאכלך מן במדבר אשר לא־ידעון אבתיך למען ענתך ולמען
who fed you manna in the wilderness that your fathers did not know in order to afflict you
How is manna an affliction? We read in Yoma [content warning for ableism in a part of the sugye I'm not quoting]:
אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו
there is no likeness between one who has a piece of bread in his basket and one who has no piece of bread in his basket
In other words, having just enough to make it through each day is such an affliction that having even one slice of bread left over to store is an incomparable experience. And the Israelites only ever had manna for one day at a time (except the day before Shabbos, which we can talk about another time).
Understanding this also helps understand the behavior of the Israelites. There's a temptation when reading the story of Bamidbar to belittle the Israelite's affliction in the wilderness: "but you had enough food every day, and your clothes never wore out -- what are you complaining about?" But lacking all control over your life and safety -- being unable to prepare at all for the future -- is a deep kind of suffering.
This is a lesson we can learn from our Rabbis, who are careful to not diminish even mild pains. For example, there's this sugye in Arakhin, where they try to define the least amount of pain that still counts as suffering, and almost seem to be competing to find the most minimal definition:
The gemara: עד היכן תכלית יסורין / what is the beginning-limit of suffering?
Rabbi Elazar: if they wove a garment for you and it doesn’t fit
The Sages: if you wanted your wine diluted with cold water but it was diluted with hot, and vice versa
Mar bar Ravina: if your cloak turns around (thereby causing you difficulty putting it on)
Rava, or Rav Hisda, or Rabbi Yitzhak, or a baraisa: if you reach your hand into your pocket to take out three coins, and find only two
So why is haShem afflicting the Israelites? To teach them that not on bread alone do humans live.
The gematria of לא על לבדו/not-on-alone is the same as מגפן/from-grapevines. Again, there's a temptation to say "you have enough to stay alive, you've got bread, what are you complaining about." But we need more to live as humans: not just bread, but also wine (figuratively speaking). As the Mishnah teaches:
ולא יפחתו לו מארבע כוסות של יין, ואפלו מן התמחוי
and they will not diminish for him from the four cups of wine, even from the soup kitchen
It is not enough, in other words, to give the poor only the rations they need to survive.
An objection: "But Ada," you might say, "isn't that what haShem did in our verse? Do you think you're better than gd?"
I mean....
A story: the evil Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva, "which are the greater works: those of the holy one of blessings or those of flesh and blood?" And Rabbi Akiva said to him: "the greater are of flesh and blood."
Turnus Rufus responded: "look at the heavens -- could a human make anything like that?" Rabbi Akiva responded: "do not talk to me of matters high above creatures, talk to me about matters among human beings." And Rabbi Akiva pointed to wheat and to bread to say: "is not the latter more beautiful".
So Turnus Rufus asked why a Jew is not born circumsized, and Rabbi Akiva responded:
לפי שלא נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא את המצות לישראל אלא לצרף אותם בהם
because the holy one of blessings did not give the mitzvos to Israel except to change them with them
(As Julian K Jarboe teaches:
God blessed me by making me transsexual for the same reason he made wheat but not bread and fruit but not wine: because he wants humanity to share in the act of creation. I am only doing the Good Works here on Earth as intended!)
The gematria of לבדו (alone) is the same as בלי/without. Humans do not live on bread alone, but humans also do not live without bread -- without the things we make from that which is given to us.
So in fact our verse contains its own reversal: human beings do not live only on what issues directly from the mouth of haShem, but also on bread -- on the things we make with what haShem has given us. The affliction of manna was not only that they received just daily amounts, but also that they were not participating in that act of creation.
To answer the earlier objection, then: it is true that (in the wilderness) haShem only gave the Israelites what they needed to survive each day on its own -- manna, and not bread. And it is true that on our best days, this is the limit of what many of our communities do for the poor: provide just enough to survive for a day. But as Rabbi Akiva said to Turnus Rufus: do not talk to me about the heavens. Don't talk to me about acts of haShem. Talk to me about what matters among human beings.
For human beings, receiving only daily bread is an affliction. For human beings, receiving only enough to consume and not to create is suffering.
Let's make the works of flesh and blood truly greater than those of the holy one of blessings. Let's take what we're given and change with it.
In solidarity and not charity,
ada