Bnei Yisrael were given hok umishpat at Marah.  Rashi explains that they were given a few mitzvot, including Shabbat. Afterwards, when they got to Eilim, they were given the mann.  Why then, does the piyut of Dayenu in the Haggadah shel Pesah say "Ilu he'echilanu et hamann" before "Ilu natan lanu et HaShabat?"

  • See posul דם להם חק ומשפט – kouty Jan 19 at 23:33
  • @kouty Try שם שם לו חק ומשפט maybe? – DonielF Jan 20 at 1:49
  • +1 I wanted to suggest that since, according to many, they weren’t commanded in Shabbos until Har Sinai, it couldn’t be considered being “given Shabbos” until then, but then why isn’t it after אלו נתן לנו את התורה according to that? And if it’s saying that they received תחומים at that point, the piyut is going against the accepted Halacha that תחומים are דרבנן. If it’s that the מן didn’t fall on Shabbos, how is that giving then Shabbos? – DonielF Jan 20 at 2:06
  • Yes @Doniel..... I..…. – kouty Jan 20 at 2:15

The passage of the Manna goes into detail about proper Shabbos observance, and this is part of the study (according to Ramban) and perhaps also the practice (simple reading of Rashi) of the pre-Sinai Shabbos. This passage is in fact cited in the Gemara in connection with the laws of Shabbos. It was after the Manna first fell, so the order makes sense.

  • They didn’t get Shabbos until Har Sinai. According to the accepted Halacha, Techumin are Rabbinic and the passuk by the Mann is an Asmachta. What was it that they received in that passage that indicates that at that time the mitzvah of Shabbos came to completion? – DonielF Jan 20 at 2:07
  • It says in that passage, "See that Hashem gave you the Shabbos. Let each person remain in his place on the day of the Shabbos." This could be interpreted in two ways: 1 techumim 2 the prohibition on carrying objects in the public domain (i.e., taking the manna back home). Either way, these are the laws of Shabbos. Also see Rashi's commentary on the Chumash, where he cites the view of Chazal that Shabbos was given at Marah, before Sinai. The author of the piyut is not obligated to compose his hymn according to Halachah alone; he may incorporate Midrashic teachings of Chazal as well. – shmu Jan 20 at 5:28
  • 1. Of course he doesn’t have to compose the piyut according to Halacha. But is it that difficult to just swap a couple of lines to accommodate all opinions anyway? 2. See my comment to the OP - Rashi’s not clear, but Ramban understands Rashi as meaning that they were given Shabbos to study, not to learn. In any event, if you’re correct in your understanding of Rashi, you’re just promoting the OP’s question. 3. Where do you get Hotza’ah from? I’ve never heard anyone say that that’s what this passuk means. – DonielF Jan 20 at 14:01
  • (7) תוספות שבת דף ב/א יציאות - הוצאות הוה ליה למתני' אלא נקט יציאות לישנא דקרא אל יצא איש ממקומו (שמות טז) ודרשינן מינה (עירובין דף יז:) הוצאה אל יצא Please note that the exact order is not really the point of the piyut, and since it fits the pesukim and the Midrashim, that's good enough, please note that "Abaye hava mesader" which we recite in korbanos every morning is also not the exact order according to Halachah. In both cases, the main objective is to mention all that needs to be mentioned, and the lamdonim will straighten out the fine points. IMHO. – shmu Jan 20 at 14:08
  • Fine, I’ll take off my -1 if you edit some of these assumptions in. I still say it’s far fetched. – DonielF Jan 20 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .