The Mishna in Avos ch.5 states that Avraham Avinu was tested 10 times by God, and the manna eaters were likewise tested 10 times. It seems to me that by making this parallel, the author of the mishna wanted to tell us something very basic about the nature and types of nisayon that we'd be faced with in life.
We've seen that the Ramban explains the concept as a sort of trial(I'm still looking for a better word) for the sake of the one being tested to give him the opportunity to turn some talent that he possesses from potential to a real achievement.
This idea is easy to see with the trials of Avraham Avinu that required him to actually do something, but much less obvious in the case of the Jews in the desert, yet the Ramban insists they are basically the same.
Their test was to absorb and withstand the suffering of never knowing where their next meal was coming from. I've talked before about the idea that many things are beyond our control and sometimes the thing to do is to make a decision as to how to accept them gracefully.
That's the way I understand the test of the manna eaters - that they had to come to terms with their desperate situation and realise that their lives were utterly dependent on God and then place their firm trust in Him that He'd provide for them everything they needed. If they received manna, it was His will, and if one day they'd go out and find no manna, so then that too would be His will.
So in terms of the Ramban's definition, their challenge was to achieve a level of actual trust in God that they couldn't have imagined up till then. Once they learned to deal with the manna situation, they could deal with anything.
Yet, within the Ramban's basic framework, I think there are two distinct types of test. When the mishna talks of the trials of Avraham and the tribulations of the Jewish people in the desert, it's teaching us about these two models of test that we are expected to tackle in life.
One is the Avraham model. God gave Avraham trials that asked him to shake himself free of the world around him and take radical action that would set him apart as the ivri - the revolutionary - and at the same time make real, lasting change to the corrupt world around him. Picking up and leaving his childhood home and family estate, rejecting the pagan approaches to understanding and using nature, Avraham was building himself up to become a true leader of people.
The other is the Manna model. Here no radical action is required nor really any action at all. Your challenge is to notice the wave coming, dig in your toes and stand firm in your faith. Annoying and painful things happen and sometimes what's needed is to absorb it with the realisation that God sent it for a reason, which may or may not be apparent to you. You may not be changing the world but you're certainly building your own strength with every passing challenge.
As obvious as it is, I'll repeat it anyway: passing or failing any test depends on making a conscious, thought out decision.
Most real life tests are more difficult to identify than the tests we've been talking about here. You've got to identify exactly what's expected of you in a given situation. Is it simply to dig your feet in and stand firm in the face of some challenge or is it to take some action that will move you forward towards achieving something and turning a raw talent into something tangible.
Does the situation demand that you be an Avraham, a leader of people and a thorn in the side of the complacent and corrupt?
Or does it demand that you stand firm and build your internal strength of character by accepting the frustrations and the pains that God sends you?
It seems to me that it's become very fashionable to assume that the Manna model is the only one available to us. There are so many horrible and corrupt things that we experience on a regular basis, things that cause suffering for most people, and yet I look around and see that there's hardly a single ivri who's prepared to take a stand and become a leader.
Too many people are convinced that their duty in the world is to accept God's doings gracefully and not to show any lack of faith by complaining or speaking up about their suffering. There's no doubt that many, many good folk are living lives of mesirus nefesh - self sacrifice - because of the belief that to try to change their situation or even complain about it would demonstrate a lack of faith.
More disturbing is that those who are assumed to be the leaders of the Jewish people seem to encourage this sort of thinking by their resistance to change and their support for reactionary political ideas.
So how can you know? When something's wrong, when you feel pain, your own or that of others, what cues are there for you to use to figure out whether the challenge calls for an Avraham or a Manna eater?
One thing to think about: is the pain caused by Divine Decree or mischief caused by people? More to the point perhaps: is there something that people can do to ease it? The tests of the desert Jews were clearly dealt out by God. In their situation, there was no human activity that could be done to ease the pain. They were in a desert with no food and water! Avraham, on the other hand was confronted by human evil. He recognised that and took action to destroy it, whether through teaching or through battle if there was no other way.
If people are suffering because of human mischief and corruption, I think it's irresponsible to just accept it and rely on God. This is especially true when it's not you but other people who suffer. You are never entitled to build your own faith on the back of someone else's suffering.
At the end of the day, there's no hard and fast rule and there are no doubt times when there's nothing you can do to change stuff. But I'd like you to at least think about it and not assume that faith demands your silence.
Our little world is crying out for you to get up and be an ivri. Don't disappoint us!
Or hit the orange button to subscribe by RSS Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow me on Twitter
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Feel free to copy, reproduce and distribute any of the articles - all I ask is that you don't make any changes and that you link back here or attribute appropriately. Thanks!
