King Menashe and the Crust of Bread
Those who do not have a share in the World-to-Come
The Mishna states[i] there are three (3) kings and four (4) regular people who have no portion in the world to come. The three kings are:
- Yeravam,
- Aĉav,
- Menashe.
Rabbi Yehuda says Menashe has a portion in the world to come as it says in the verse[ii] וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל אֵלָיו וַיִּשְׁמַע תְּחִנָּתוֹ וַיְשִׁיבֵהוּ יְרוּשָׁלִַים לְמַלְכוּתוֹ to which the sages answered, he was returned to his sovereignty, but not to his portion in the world to come.
In discussing this, the Gemara[iii] notes that the name Menashe signifies שנשה י-ה – he forgot G-d. Alternatively, שהנשי את ישראל לאביהם שבשמים – he caused the Jewish people to forget their Father in Heaven. (Thus, the Gemara sets forth the principal that the sins of Menashe are either related to him personally or to his people.)
Query: How do we know that Menashe has no portion in the world to come.
Answer: Because the verse[iv] compares him to Aĉav, who does not have a portion in the world to come.
Discussion: Why does Rabbi Yehuda differ.
Both the sages and Rabbi Yehuda derive their position from the same verse[v] ונתתים… בגלל מנשה בן יחזקיהו: Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion the Jewish people of that generation were punished, because they were compared to Menashe who did Teshuva, but they didn’t.
While the sages state they were punished because of the sin of Menashe (as he caused them to sin, and) did not do Teshuva.
- Side point: According to Rabbi Yehuda, it would seem that for Menashe to perform Teshuva was more difficult than that required of the rest of his generation, which is why when compared to Menashe, his people were judged wanting.
According to the sages though, the Teshuva required of Menashe was more difficult because he caused others to sin – and, as we know from Yeravam, causing others to sin does not grant one the opportunity to do Teshuva. And as we know from Tanya the only way to do Teshuva in that case, if for the person to try harder than naturally possible.
The Gemara continues by recording that once Rav Ashi finished his lecture before discussing (the Mishna) of the three kings, stating, ‘tomorrow we will discuss our colleagues.’
That night Menashe appeared to him in a dream criticizing him for identifying himself as a colleague of Menashe. To illustrate his point, he challenged Rav Ashi, ‘from where do we cut (the bread for) Hamotzi.’ Rav Ashi admitted that he did not know. Menashe berated him saying, ‘You didn’t learn where to cut (the bread for) Hamotzi, but you call yourself a colleague.’ Rav Ashi said, ‘teach me, and tomorrow I will repeat the teaching in your name.’ Menashe stated, ‘from where it crusts from the baking.’ Rav Ashi asked him, ‘since you are so smart, why did you pray to idolatry.’ Menashe answered him, ‘were you there, you would have lifted your skirts to run after me. (Due to the strong desire for idolatry at the time.)
The next day, Rav Ashi started his lecture saying, ‘let us talk about our Rabbis.’ (Referring of course to Menashe)
QUESTION
The strong implication from the Gemara is that the reason Menashe ‘prayed to idolatry’ is because of the strong desire to do so. However, this contradicts the description of him in the verse[vi] הרבה לעשות הרע בעיני ה’ להכעיס.
If Menashe did his sins to anger G-d, why would he respond to Rav Ashi that it was due to the strong desire to perform idolatry that caused the sin.
In other words, which one was it:
- Did Menashe sin to anger G-d, or out of personal desire.
ANSWER:
Menashe personally sinned out of a desire to anger G-d, but the people of his generation sinned out of an animalistic desire to be idolatrous.
Basis for the Answer:
Besides for the plain statement of the verse, we cannot say that Menashe sinned out of desire based on both the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the sages:
- According to Rabbi Yehuda, Menashe’s sins were more difficult to do Teshuva for, and since he nevertheless did Teshuva, that means that those of generation should have done so as well. If we equate the cause of their sin as being born of desire, then why would it automatically imply that Menashe’s Teshuva was more difficult? Perhaps the desires of the regular people were stronger and therefore they shouldn’t be held to his standard. However, if Menashe didn’t sin out of desire, but rather to anger G-d, then this comparison makes sense. Since one who does a sin in order to cause others to sin is not granted the opportunity to do Teshuva, and yet Menashe did so, therefore, his people, who were only sinning out of desire should have certainly been able to do Teshuva, as they would have been granted the opportunity to do so.
- According to the sages, Menashe himself never did Teshuva. The proof for this is the people never did Teshuva. Since the effect of Menashe’s idolatry was to cause others to sin, his Teshuva could only be complete if he effectuated the Teshuva of the people. So long as the evil he perpetrated existed, his Teshuva could not be considered complete. The only way for Menashe to be held accountable for his people’s sin is if he directly caused them to sin. One who sins out of personal desire does not seek to cause others to sin. It is only when they wish to rebel and lash out against G-d that their sins are insufficient, and they seek to drag others to sin.
Furthermore, by understanding Menashe in this manner, we can understand as well his conversation with Rav Ashi. Menashe fundamentally objected to being considered a colleague of Rav Ashi. Therefore, Menashe considered him on par with the members of his (Menashe’s) generation. His statement therefore follows that Rav Ashi would have ‘lifted his skirts’ in seeking idolatry.
Furthermore, Menashe states ‘to run after me’. He doesn’t say that Rav Ashi would have run after the idols, but rather after Menashe himself. Which fits to the answer above that Menashe was the instigator for his generation to sin, and he considered that Rav Ashi would have had the desire to sin unlike Menashe who sought to anger G-d and didn’t act out of desire.
This also explains Menashe’s strange challenge and response. Menashe doesn’t ask, where do you cut the bread. Instead, he asks, ‘where do you cut the Hamotzi.’ Nor does his response seem to be anything more than flippant, ‘from where it crusts from the baking’.
The Maharsha explains that the ברכה of Hamotzi is different from the other Beraĉos. The ברכה of Hamotzi is recited using phrasing that isn’t exact. For G-d does not in fact bring forth ‘bread from the earth’. Rather, people do. They take the wheat and process it to make the bread. All the other Beraĉos reflect exactly what we are making the ברכה on. But not this one. Why?
(Paraphrasing the Maharsha) Initially, in Gan Eden, Adam and Ĉava had all their food naturally being produced without the need for human processing. It was only after the eating from the Tree of Knowledge that the requirement to process wheat into bread became necessary. Really, since (according to one opinion) the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge was wheat, we shouldn’t be able to eat it at all. But, because of the Teshuva of Adam and Ĉava and our ongoing quest for Teshuva, we are able to take the wheat and process it into the staple of our sustenance – bread. This is hinted at in the ברכה itself. Thanks to G-d’s mercy, we ‘find sustaining bread from the earth’. And not thorns and thistles. True we still need to refine it as we need to refine ourselves, but we have at least begun the process of Teshuva. This is what Menashe was hinting at with his question. He may have caused a great sin, for which we are still paying for it somewhat today. But he also did Teshuva, which is why we have the ability to process the raw material of the exile world and turn it into sustenance worthy of a ברכה.
Rav Ashi though asked to be taught from him, to which Menashe replied ‘from where it crusts from the baking.’ This seems to be a Klutz answer. How else are we to cut the bread if not cutting the crust first. It’s not like we can cut the bread inside out.
Menashe was continuing his explanation by noting that it is due to G-d’s kindness that bread is designed to develop a crust allowing the interior to remain soft to eat while the crust hardens to protect it. Meaning, G-d arranged that even when placed in the fire to cook it, it shouldn’t be burnt. Or if it has to burn, only the outer edges burn but in a way that not only does it protect the interior, but it allows the interior to convert itself from inedible dough to bread. So too, it is G-d’s kindness that sees to it that at the start of being placed in the flame, we the people of אוד מוצל מאש (from this past Haftorah of בהעלותך) are not burnt. And not only not burnt, but we become the people who bring about the era of Moshiaĉ, like dough which initially is inedible but through the fire becomes the staple of sustenance.
Rav Ashi though still did not appreciate that answer, so he asked, ‘If you are so smart, why then did you sin.’ Rav Ashi was still approaching this as an intellectual exercise, and therefore, Menashe responded that if the natural desire in Rav Ashi would have been as strong as it was during the times of Menashe, he, Rav Ashi would have run after Menashe to sin.
Intelligence isn’t always the answer to combat sin. As we see in this weeks Parsha of בהעלותך, the spies had great intellectual arguments as to why they should not seek to enter the land of Israel. Yehoshua, blessed with the extra letter Yud, corresponding to wisdom, could not counter those arguments and sway the people. Granted the wisdom from the extra letter Yud saved Yehoshua himself from being swayed, as Menashe’s wisdom swayed him, but it could not sway people overcome by passion and desire.
Instead, it was Kalev who was able to silence the people. כלב whose name means כל לב – all heart. His heartfelt statement, without any logic, ‘we can do it’ was the only counter that the Jewish people heard. They heard him, not because he disagreed logically, but because he made the statement that ‘Moshe said we could’. And, he argued, if Moshe had told them to build ladders to heaven they would have done so and been successful. Granted the generation of the wilderness, the דור דעה, failed at that cry of קבלת עול, but our generation did not. And Rav Ashi, who attempted to understand this as an intellectual exercise, would have failed, and lifted his skirts to run after Menashe.
Once he was rebuked by Menashe – as Moshe himself rebuked the Jewish people, after which they woke up the next morning with a complete reversal of attitude – Rav Ashi immediately accepted Menashe with קבלת עול and began his next lecture with ‘let us talk about our Rabbis.’
[i] Gem. Sanhedrin 90a
[ii] Divrei Hayamim II 33:13
[iii] Gem. Sanhedrin 102b
[iv] Melaĉim II 21:1-3
[v] Yirmiyahu 15:4
[vi] Melaĉim II 21:6