Exodus · Chapter 16

They journeyed from Elim, and the entire congregation of the children of Israel came to the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their going out from the land of Egypt.

בחמשה עשר יום ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY — The day of this encampment is specially mentioned because on that day there came to an end the cake (provisions) they had brought with them from Egypt and they now needed the Manna, thus informing us that of the remains of the dough they had prepared in Egypt (cf. Rashi on Exodus 12:33) they ate sixty-one meals. For the Manna fell for them on the sixteenth day of Iyar, which was the first day of the week, just as is stated in the Treatise Shabbat 87b.

AND THEY TOOK THEIR JOURNEY FROM ELIM, AND ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CAME UNTO THE WILDERNESS OF SIN. Scripture speaks briefly here, for when they journeyed from Elim, they pitched by the Red Sea, and they journeyed from the Red Sea, and they pitched in the wilderness of Sin, since this great wilderness extended from Elim to Sinai. Thus, when they travelled from Elim, they camped beside the Red Sea in that wilderness. Then they journeyed from the edge of the sea and entered into the midst of the wilderness, making the stages of Dophkah and Alush, and then they journeyed from Alush, which is in the wilderness of Sinai, and they pitched in Rephidim. In the opinion of our Rabbis, the manna began falling in Alush. When the Israelites saw that they were journeying and camping in the wilderness — in Dophkah and Alush — and had not come out of it, they became frightened and began murmuring. This is the meaning of the verse, And they murmured… in the wilderness, for they had not murmured when they came there but only after they were there in the wilderness [for an extended period of time]. THE WILDERNESS OF SIN WHICH IS BETWEEN ELIM AND SINAI. The reason for this [geographic description] is to distinguish between this wilderness of Sin and the other wilderness, Tzin, written with the letter tzade, where the Israelites came in the fortieth year [of their stay in the wilderness] and Miriam died there. This is why Scripture mentions there, And they pitched in the wilderness of Tzin — the same is Kadesh, in order to differentiate it [from the wilderness of Sin mentioned here].

"And they journeyed." The Gaon R. Saadia stated that the reason the text specifies "on the fifteenth day of the second month" is to inform us that Israel departed Egypt on a Thursday — for the first of Nisan fell on a Thursday, and Iyyar [began on] a Friday. [Counting forward,] Shabbat [fell next], and on that Shabbat they arrived at the Wilderness of Sin, complained when they encamped, and Moses told them that in the evening they would eat meat and in the morning the manna would descend. It is fitting that this was a Sunday, because the text says, "And it shall be on the sixth day" (v. 5), meaning it was a Friday — the sixth day from when the manna began to fall. Now, what the Gaon says we may accept on the basis of received tradition, but not on the basis of his reasoning, for who told him that the manna descended the very day after they arrived at the Wilderness of Sin? Perhaps they stayed there four days or more, and the manna began to fall on a Sunday — from the day of its descent they began counting, since all the nations depend upon Israel for this count. The non-Jews named the days of the week after the names of the celestial ministers; but the Sabbath day they did not name in this manner. In Arabic, they named five days by the method of numbering, and the sixth day they called al-Jum'a, meaning "assembly," for it is the honored day of their week. The Sabbath they called Sabt, since shin and samekh interchange in their writing — and they learned this from Israel. For indeed the people of India, who do not acknowledge the work of Creation, begin their week on Wednesday, because the star governing that day is the star of the sun [in their reckoning], and they claim it has dominion over them.

ויסעו מאלים...אל מדבר סין, this is what Jeremiah had in mind when he spoke of G’d remembering fondly how Israel had followed Him into the inhospitable desert (Jeremiah 2,2).

ויבאו כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of Israel arrived, etc.” the unusual formulation is meant to emphasise that since the departure from Egypt until this point not a single Israelite who had left Egypt was found missing. בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השני “on the fifteenth day of the second month.” We had learned already that the first day of the month of Nissan during which the people left Egypt had occurred on a Thursday. It follows that the 15th day of Iyar the day on which they arrived at the desert of Sin must have been a Sabbath. They used this fact to complain to Moses by wishing they had rather died in Egypt than have had to face the problems they had to contend with [since having become a “free” people. Ed.] Moses reassured them that as soon as the Sabbath was over they would be provided with meat to eat, and that on the following morning they would be given manna. [It had been the day on which the dough/matzot they had taken with them had run out. Ed.] The Talmud in Shabbat folio 87, states that they had left Refidim on a Sabbath, even though they had been given the basic laws of the Sabbath at Marah. [One opinion there claims that the restriction of travelling more than 2000 cubits on the Sabbath away from an inhabited area, was not yet applicable. Ed.]

בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השני, “on the fifteenth day of the second month, etc.” this was the month of Iyar; the verse teaches by inference that the dough the Israelites had slung over their shoulders (Exodus 12,39) and which had turned into unleavened cakes had lasted them for a whole month. On the night of the 15-16th of Iyar they still ate from that, whereas on the 16th of Iyar during the day the first installment of manna descended from heaven. In that particular year the 16th of Iyar occurred on Sunday (first day after the Sabbath). This is why the Torah (verse 22) writes that on the sixth day they collected a double-portion. It was the sixth day after the manna had started to descend (compare Mechilta Yayissa section 1).

ויסעו מאלים ויבואו...מדבר סין,”they journeyed from Eylim….and they arrived in the desert of Sin.” Nachmanides writes that the Torah in this instance uses a form of abbreviation, seeing that when they departed from Eylim they had been at a location on the shores of the Sea of Reeds, and they now moved inland to the desert of Sin. The desert of Sin is a large desert extending from the sea until the edge of the desert of Sinai. There were several stations where the Israelites made camp on the way, which, however, were not mentioned at this point. [only in Numbers Ed.] According to a tradition mentioned by our sages, the manna fist descended when the Israelites were encamped at Alush, the second stop in the desert of Sin. The need for the manna was triggered by the fact that at Alush they encamped already for a second time without making any noticeable progress toward their ultimate objective. As a result, the people expressed their dissatisfaction. By describing the people’s complaint as occurring במדבר, the Torah hints that they did not complain on arrival at the first station in the desert, but at a later stage.

בחמשה עשר יום לחודש השני, this was the day when they ran out of the unleavened bread they had flung over their shoulders as dough when they left Egypt.

The entire congregation of the children of Israel complained against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness.

וילנו AND THEY MURMURED, because the bread had come to an end.

AND THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MURMURED AGAINST MOSES. Scripture should have first narrated the nature of the complaint just as it did in Marah and Rephidim, and at all other complaints — and stated here first: “and there was no flesh to eat, nor bread for them to the full, and the people were famished for bread.” Now Rashi explained that the reason Scripture specifically mentions [that the date of their arrival in the wilderness of Sin] was on the fifteenth day of the second month is in order “to make this encampment unique. On that day, there came to an end the provision which the Israelites took along with them from Egypt, and they now needed the manna. It thus informs you that they ate sixty-one meals of the remains of the dough [which they had baked in Egypt on the day of the exodus].” [Thus far the language of Rashi.] This is a tradition received by our Rabbis, and the reason that Scripture did not [first] explain the nature of their complaint was that it had not elaborated on this miracle which was done for them secretively, [i.e., that the remains of the dough furnished sixty-one meals]. And it is as I have already written in Seder Vayigash concerning the reason [that Scripture is disposed to be silent on hidden miracles].Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that Scripture records the date on the fifteenth day of the second month in order to explain that a month’s time had already elapsed since their departure from Egypt. In the meantime, they consumed the bread they took out of Egypt as well as their cattle, since they were a great multitude of people. This was the reason for the murmuring. In my opinion, the reason for their complaint is to be found in the Scriptural expression, and they came… unto the wilderness of Sin. When they came to that wilderness far away from Egypt, they began saying: “What shall we eat? What will this great wilderness into which we have come supply us with?” It may be that at first they had thought that after a few days they would come to the cities round about them. Now that a month had gone by and they found no city of habitation, they said, “We will all die in the great wilderness into which we have come.” This then is the meaning of the verse, And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness, the murmuring being because of the wilderness. And so likewise the people said, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to put to death this whole assembly by famine. Thus they mentioned “the wilderness’ and “the assembly,” therein stating that a large assembly such as this will undoubtedly die of hunger in this great wilderness. The Holy One, blessed be He, hearkened unto them, and He now began to prepare a table for them in the wilderness until they came to a land inhabited.

"And they complained." At Marah they complained against Moses alone, for he alone had led them — yet not all Israel complained, only some of them; hence it is written, "the people complained" (above, 15:24). But now, in the Wilderness of Sin, "the entire congregation of Israel complained against Moses and against Aaron," because both of them had brought them out. At Marah they complained about the water; now they complain about meat and bread, for they had already consumed most of their livestock, and with such a great outcry they would not find bread to buy except at great cost — for thirty days had passed since the day they departed.

וילונו כל עדת בני ישראל…במדבר, The entire congregation of Israel murmured…in the desert. Their complaint was addressed to the fact that they had to wander through the desert. The route to the land of Canaan was well known and they had expected that Moses would take them along that route. G'd had His own reasons why He did not lead them along the accepted route. The Israelites believed that it was Moses' choice to lead them on this strange route through the desert.

וילינו כל עדת, “the entire community complained;” the word: וילינו while written with the letter י after the letter ל is read as if that letter י had been the letter ו.

וילונו כל עדת בני ישראל, “The entire community of the Children of Israel complained, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that at Marah only a small section of the people the people had complained, the Torah writing:וילונו העם על משה, ”the people” as opposed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the whole community of the Children of Israel,” i.e. including the elite of the people. At that point they also complained to Aaron. Nachmanides writes that actually the Torah should have written the reason for the people’s complaint, such as that there was no meat to eat, and that there was not enough bread to satisfy their needs, as the Torah had done both when they complained at Refidim and when they complained at Marah. Rashi writes that when the Torah mentions that this station occurred on the 15th day of the second month, i.e. exactly a month after their departure from Ramses, this was the day that the dough that they had brought with them from Egypt that had been baked on the way into unleavened bread, ran out. This made it superfluous for the Torah to spell out the nature of their complaint. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah mentions the date is to inform us that already a whole month had passed since the people had left Egypt. During that entire period they had subsisted on the bread they had with them and on the meat of the large herds of cattle and sheep they had brought with them. Now they faced real deprivations. Personally, I think that the complaints were sparked by the realization of the Israelites now that they would not be marching along well-traveled routes, encountering towns and villages along the way, but they were headed deeper and deeper into an arid unpopulated desert. The word במדבר in our verse does not so much describe a specific location as the cause for their complaints. The very fact that they kept moving further and further into the desert led them to accuse Moses and Aaron that they had been brought there to die in the desert. If they had to die, they would have preferred to die in a place where they could have been buried with dignity. They spelled all this out when they said: “you have taken us out into this desert to kill this whole community by letting them starve to death.” G’d immediately listened to their complaint and set about to prepare food for them for the duration of their stay in the desert.

The children of Israel said to them: Would that we had died before Hashem in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meat, when we ate bread and were satisfied — for you have brought us out to this wilderness to kill this entire assembly with hunger.

מי יתן מותנו WOULD THAT WE HAD DIED — The word מותנו means “that we should die”; it is not a noun with the same meaning as מיתתנו “our death”, but it is an infinitive like עשותנו and חנותנו and שובנו which signify “that we should make”, “that we should encamp”, “that we should return”. In the Targum it is rendered by לוי דמיתנא which is really the Targum rendering of (Numbers 14:2) לו מתנו “Would that we were dead” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 14:12).

מי יתן מותנו...בשבתנו על סיר הבשר, they did not want to die. What they said was that if it had been G’d’s plan all along to let them die, why had He not arranged for them to die while they were still satiated from their last meal? A similar thought is expressed in Lamentations 4,9טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב, “the ones killed by the sword were better off than the ones who died from hunger.”

ביד ה׳ בארץ מצרים, "by the hand of G'd, in the land of Egypt." They meant that if they had still been in Egypt and would have refused to leave they would have died by the hand of G'd in Egypt. They preferred to have died for that sin rather than to die in the desert from hunger without having sinned. The situation is reminiscent of Lamentations 4,9: "those who died by the sword are better off than those who died from hunger." בשבתנו על סיר הבשר, "while we sat by the flesh-pots, etc." This verse clearly shows that the people who uttered this slander were not the ones who had performed slave labour, but had been overseers. The labourers had never had anything to eat but unleavened bread. Possibly the speakers were the well known Datan and Aviram who were known for their wickedness. בשבתנו על, "when we sat by, etc." Possibly the reason they felt satisfaction when they ate bread was because they also had meat to eat with it. Alternatively, it may mean that though they had already stilled their hunger by eating bread, they ate meat after having had their fill of bread. It is possible that the detail "by the flesh-pots" as opposed to "we ate meat," means that they did not eat the meat for some considerable time after it had been cooked and had already lost some of its taste, but that they sat by the pots waiting for the meat to be thoroughly cooked and then eating it at once. These people may have hinted to Moses that though he might tell them to go ahead and slaughter their livestock so that they would have meat to eat, this would not represent a permanent solution, seeing that in Egypt they had enjoyed a regular meat-based diet. The verse may also explain why the Torah had previously described the whole congregation of Israel as complaining against Moses and Aaron. Under normal circumstances it is most unlikely that everyone in such a large group of people should be of the same mind when it came to complaining against G'd and Moses, His prophet. The fact that they were all of one mind in this case required the existence of two preconditions. There were two groups of people of which one demanded bread whereas the other demanded meat. The group of people which mentioned the time they sat by the flesh-pots were the wealthy Jews. Although they were a small minority, the Torah mentioned them first as in times of negative developments one usually mentions the extremists first. Afterwards the Torah mentioned the people whose principal diet had been bread, though they had enjoyed an abundant supply of that, i.e. "we ate bread to our satisfaction." Now that these people found themselves in an uninhabited desert they grew restless pending their leader providing them with their necessities.

מותנו ביד ה, “if we had died directly as an act of Hashem;” they meant that they rather would have died at their appointed time, instead of having had their lives cut short through dying from starvation. בשבתנו על סיר בשר, “when we had been sitting besides a pot of meat.” They did not imply that they actually had meat in Egypt, but that they had adequate food. Another example of where לחם does not literally mean “bread,” but a meal, is found in Genesis 37,25. The same is true for the expression סיר בשר.

מי יתן מותנו ביד ה' “who would give that we had died by the hand of the Lord, etc.!” They referred to the three days of darkness during which most of the Israelites had died, (compare Rabbeinu Chananel).

'ביד ה, a kind of death described in Job 5,26 as בכלח אלי קבר, “coming to the grave in ripe old age,” not from hunger. על סיר הבשר, the word על here means “next to,” as it does in Numbers 2,20 ועליו מטה מנשה, “and next to him the tribe of Menashe.”

Hashem said to Moses: Behold, I am raining down for you bread from the heavens, and the people shall go out and gather the portion of each day on its day, so that I may test them whether they will walk in My Torah or not.

דבר יום ביומו THE THING OF THE DAY ON ITS DAY — what is needed for a day’s eating shall they collect on its (that) day, and they shall not today collect what will be needed tomorrow (cf. Mekhilta). למען אנסנו הילך בתורתי THAT I MAY TRY THEM WHETHER THEY WILL WALK IN MY LAW — whether they will observe the commands associated with it: viz., that they should not leave any overnight, and that they should not go out on the Sabbath to collect it.

BEHOLD, I WILL ‘MAMTIR’ (CAUSE TO RAIN) BREAD FROM HEAVEN FOR YOU. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that because the manna came down like rain from heaven, He said mamtir, [which is derived from the root matar (rain)]. But we find: ‘yamteir’ (He will cause to rain) coals, fire and brimstone; And the Eternal ‘himtir’ (caused to rain) upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire. [Brimstone and fire do not come down like rain, and yet Scripture uses the word matar with reference to them!] Perhaps in these cases they accompanied the rain of which the term “coming down” may properly be used. Onkelos’ opinion is that mamtir just means “cause to bring down,” for he translated: “behold, I will cause to bring down.” [However, it has no connection here with rain, as Ibn Ezra would have it.]It is possible that the word mamtir can be associated with the expression ‘kamatarah’ (as a mark) for the arrow, although they are of different roots. Scripture makes use of both terms when speaking of every form of “falling from above.” Thus it is called matarah (target) because they come down like arrows [on a target], and it says, ‘vayamteir’ (And He caused to rain) upon them flesh as the dust, and winged fowl as the sand of the seas. It may be that [Scripture does not use the term mamtir for every form of “falling from above,” but only] for the fowl of heaven. [Therefore, the term, vayamteir in the above — mentioned verse refers only to the winged fowl] because they came down upon them as the rain. BREAD. Because they made bread out of the manna — as it is written, and they made cakes of it — [Scripture calls it lechem (bread)], for every form of bread is called lechem, not just those of wheat and barley. It says cause to rain bread [although it did not come down in the form of bread, for the meaning thereof is] that He is causing it to come down for them to make it into bread. Similarly: As for the earth, out of it cometh bread, [meaning: “out of it cometh the wheat from which bread is made”]. So also: To bring forth bread out of the earth, which means that He brings forth the wheat from which people make bread. And some scholars interpret: Behold, I will cause to rain bread, meaning food. Similarly: ‘lechem’ of the offering; For he offereth the ‘lechem’ of thy G-d; When thou sittest ‘lilchom’ with a ruler — all are expressions of food. The correct interpretation is that lilchom means “to eat bread,” and ‘lechem’ of thy G-d is a euphemism, meaning that it is “the food” for G-d even as bread is for man, for we find it said, Man doth not live by bread only. THAT I MAY TRY THEM, WHETHER THEY WILL WALK IN MY LAW OR NOT. “I.e., whether they will observe the commandments associated with it, such as [the laws] that they should not leave [a remainder] of it until the morning and that they should not go out on the Sabbath to collect it.” Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not correct. Rather, the intent [of the trial mentioned here] is as He said, Who fed thee in the...

"Behold, I will rain." Like the likeness of rain descending from the heavens. The word "lechem" [bread]: the word for food is found meaning bread in its literal sense, but also meat, as in "the food of an offering [lechem] by fire" (Leviticus 3:11), and also fruit, as in "Let us destroy the tree with its bread" (Jeremiah 11:19). The meaning of "I will test them": that they will be dependent upon Me every day.

והכינו את אשר יביאו והיה משנה, not literally: “bread,” but מזון, “food.” למען אנסנו הילך בתורתי, if when receiving their food without effort they will take care to keep My commandments, seeing they will then not have any excuses not to. This idea has been formulated in the classic statement by our sages in the Mechilta, section ויסע chapter 2 “the Torah, as an instrument of profound study, has been given only to the generation who ate the manna.” [no other generation had so little to distract it from devoting time to Torah study. Ed.]

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים, G'd said to Moses: "I am about to cause bread to rain down for you from heaven." It is interesting that in this instance G'd did not instruct Moses to tell the people the news by saying לאמור. It is also interesting that whereas G'd started out by addressing Moses directly, He ended by referring to the people in the third person, i.e. to "find out if the people will walk in My ways or not." We can best explain this on the basis of Yuma 75 that the manna fell for the righteous in front of his tent so that the צדיק did not have to trouble himself to go outside the camp to collect it, whereas the manna for the majority of the people fell in a single area outside the camp and they went outside in order to collect it. The words: "here I shall cause it to rain down for you," were addressed to the righteous, whereas for the people who had displayed a lack of faith the manna fell outside the camp so that they experienced some effort in collecting it. The reason that G'd did not preface the prophecy with the customary לאמור was because G'd would command them once more with all the details concerning the manna in the paragraph following. This is why at this moment G'd simply provided Moses with an answer to the people's request, whereas in verse eleven G'd tells Moses to address the people concerning both their demands for bread and meat. The glory of G'd appeared immediately after Moses told the people what was about to happen. למען אנסנו, "in order that I may prove them, etc." The heavenly bread required no further preparation by the people to make it fit to eat. This would allow them unlimited time to study G'd's laws. Having this time at their disposal they could show G'd if they would put it to good use. Another meaning of the word "I will test them," is the fact that they would only receive a day's supply at a time, דבר יום ביומו; in this way they would remain dependent on G'd's goodwill on a daily basis.

לחם מן השמים, “bread originating in the celestial regions.” The word שמים, both here and in numerous other instances describes any region in the universe inaccessible to human beings. The expression שמים, “heaven,” is used to remind the people daily that their needs will be met from heaven. ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, “which they will collect on a daily basis;” if you were to ask why would they not get a large supply all at one time, instead of having to collect it on a daily basis, G-d immediately answers this question before it could even be raised: למען אנסנו הילך בתורותי אם לא, “if the people will live according to My teachings or not. To this end, I will command them not to keep in storage any of the daily quantity of manna overnight, and I will let it go rotten, in order to teach them to have faith that I will supply an additional amount on the next day. Anyone following My instructions not to save any of it for the following day will be considered by Me as having displayed his faith in Me. Consequently R. Elazar of Modi’in said that a person who has enough to eat for one day, and is worried about the morrow, is considered as having displayed lack of faith in Me. Another explanation of הילך בתורותי is: The Israelites have to learn that He Who created the universe also has created the means for His creatures in it to remain alive and well, so they will have the time to devote for learning Torah. למען אנסנו, “in order that I may test etc.” As far as the Lord is concerned there is no such thing as testing for a result, since being omniscient He knows all the results beforehand. Whenever the Torah uses this terminology it is to be understood as G-d satisfying the attribute of Justice that what He is about to do is justified in response to an accusation by that attribute against the individual to be tested. Alternately, He uses that means in order to justify denial of a demand for mercy by the attribute of Mercy on behalf of a certain individual when in G-d’s opinion that he has already received more mercy than is due to him. [The author has explained this already in his commentary of G-d ”testing Avraham” before the binding of Yitzchok. Ed.] ויצא העם ולקטו...והיה ביום השישי...והיה משנה, The people went out and collected;...... and it was on the sixth day.....and there was an amount twice as much as regular; these verses are not part of the commandment, but G-d had told Moses: I shall do such and such, and they will do such and such. The following will occur, i.e. they will find that each had collected an amount appropriate for the requisite needs of the number of members of his family. It happened that on the sixth day the leaders of the people came to Moses to find out why they had each received a double daily portion of manna, although they had only expected to collect the regular amount, not intending to take to their tents more than that.

הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים, “I am about to make bread rain down for you from heaven.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word לחם is appropriate because the people would make bread out of the manna though the manna itself was not bread. It is well to remember that the manna consisted of small grain-like crystals which were collected individually. This is why the expression לקיטה, “gleanings,” was an appropriate description for the manner in which it was collected. ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, “they would gather it on a daily basis;” it looked like granules covered by a husk, more or less globular in appearance. This is what the Torah means when it described it (verse 14) as דק מחוספס, “fine, peeled.” The word מחוספס is similar in meaning to קלוף, derived from מחשוף הלבן, (the letter ש and ס are often interchangeable, compare Genesis 30,37). Onkelos also translates it in this sense, i.e. דעדק מקלף דעדק. The meaning of the second word דק in verse 14 is דעדק i.e.: “white as chalk.” It fell in heaps. Onkelos has translated Exodus 8,10 חמרים, as דגורין. The manna was white like frost, and sweet. A later verse sums up all its qualities in one expression when the Torah compares it to זרע גד לבן, “white coriander seed tasting like wafers with honey” (verse 31). Perhaps the repetition of the letter ס, (60) in the word מחוספס is what prompted Rabbi Eleazar Hamodai in Mechilta Vayissa section 1 to suggest that the layer of manna was more than 60 sa'ah high. He made a comparison to what the Torah wrote in connection with the deluge, In Genesis 7,11 the Torah spoke about the ארבות השמים נפתחו, “the windows of heaven being opened (in order to release all that rain). In connection with the manna, Assaph, a contemporary of that event, speaks in Psalm 78,23 of the “doors of heaven being opened.” In both instances Scripture uses the expression פתח, “opened.” In Yuma 76 the Talmud describes that the manna descended during the night while the people were asleep so that they would be able to find it all ready for them when they awoke in the morning. They would find their livelihood had already been provided for them. During the period when the Temple was being built (Taanit 23) something analogous took place. Rain fell only on the nights of Tuesday to Wednesday and on Friday nights. This was designed to ensure the rain did not interfere with the Israelites’ normal activities. During the reign of King Chizkiyah G’d was also active on behalf of the people as in his prayer Chizkiyah said: “I am unable to kill, to pursue the enemy, or even to sing a song of praise. All I am able to do is lie down and sleep and leave my problems in Your hands.” G’d replied: “I am going to look after things.” This is the meaning of Kings II 19,35: ”on that night an angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp, and the following morning they were all dead corpses.” This has all been explained in the introduction to Eichah Rabbati chapter 30. There is a single verse in Psalms 127,2 which sums it all up: “He provides as much for His loved ones while they sleep.” The psalmist teaches that what all the people who rise early and stay up late (beginning of same verse) achieve only after expending much energy and not even enjoying the bread they eat, the Jewish people (who observe G’d’s commandments) find that G’d provides for them without any effort on their part. In other words, those people’s toil and fatigue was really all in vain. What is the meaning of the words ועינו כעין הבדולח “its appearance was like the color of bedolach” in Numbers 11,7 where we are given another aspect of the appearance of the manna? This is an indication that the color of the manna was of an extraordinary nature, similar to the diamond known as perla as described in Exodus 28,18. It is a derivative of a supernatural light described by Ezekiel 1,24. On the breastplate of the High Priest the precious stone called יהלום had the name of the tribe Zevulun engraved upon it. This stone emitted this light. It is recorded in a book by R' David Kimchi called Sefer Michlol under the root בדולח. The manna descended in the form of a fine drizzle, similar to what is meant by Psalms 147,16-17: “He scatters frost like ashes, He tosses down hail like crumbs.” This is why David explained in Psalms 78,23: “He commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven, and rained manna upon them to eat, giving them heavenly grain.” This teaches that the origin of the (color) light of the manna was supernatural which prompted David to describe it as “heavenly grain.” David mentioned further that G’d opened the doors of heaven in order to cause it to rain down from those regions because concerning this supernatural light we have been told in Ezekiel 1,1: “the heavens opened and I beheld visions of the Divine.” You will note that this paragraph which acquaints us with the manna contains the word מן five times. This corresponds to the five occasions that the word אור, “light,” is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Book of Genesis (Genesis 1,1-5). This teaches that the manna is a derivative of G’d’s first physical creation, of the original light which was withdrawn after Adam sinned. Just as the light was created on the first day, so the manna was released on the first day (compare what we wrote on verse 1). In interpreting the meaning of Psalms 78,25 לחם אבירים אכל איש, “each man ate a hero’s meal,” our sages (Yuma 75) comment that the reference is to the kind of food which the angels consume (view of Rabbi Akiva). Rabbi Yishmael countered saying that the angels do not consume any material food at all. He based himself on Moses who had said that during the forty days he had been in heaven, in the domain of the angels, he had neither eaten bread nor drunk water. The idea was that when in celestial regions one conducts oneself like celestial beings whereas when the angels visited earth, i.e. Avraham or Lot, the Torah reports them as partaking of the food offered to them by earthly beings (compare Deut. 9,9 and Genesis 18,8 as well as 19,3). Rabbi Yishmael understood the meaning of the word אבירים as food which was totally absorbed by the organs of those who ate it, there being no need to excrete any of it. [The word אבירים is equated with אברים, organs, human tissue.] As a result of this discussion our sages in Yuma found that the numerical value of the word מחספס is 248, i.e. the number of bones in the human skeleton. This is the background to the claim that people eating an exclusive manna diet did not ever have to excrete any of their food intake. We have a further comment in Bamidbar Rabbah 7,4 on Numbers 14,11 “how long will this people spurn Me and how long will they not have faith in Me after the all the miracles I have performed ‘within them?’” The word בקרבו, “inside it” is a reference to all the manna dissolving in their tissue instead of in their entrails. Nachmanides writes as follows concerning the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael about the angels’ eating habits. “It is well known that the continued existence of the angels is dependent on the זיו השכינה, “the brilliance of the Divine Presence” as explained by Shemot Rabbah 32,4 in connection with Nechemyah 9,6 ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive” [the “host of heaven” mentioned in that verse, Ed.]. The Midrash takes its cue from Exodus 23,21 where G’d speaks of the angel He will send with the Jewish people as “My name is בקרבו, inside it.” [We have the same word as we have in Numbers 14 11. In other words, what the manna did for the Jewish people, G’d’s name did for the angels, i.e. it kept them alive. Ed.] Nachmanides quotes Kohelet 11,7 “sweet is the light” as a source for the assumption that the angels feed on the brilliance of the Presence of the Shechinah. [I suppose the reason is that since “light” cannot be “sweet” in the culinary sense of the word, it represents something equivalent to the sweetness of food in the terrestrial regions. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides Rabbi Akiva holds that the source of food for the angels and the Jews in the desert was one and the same. He therefore concluded that manna was a derivative of “light,” seeing the angels being disembodied beings do not consume three-dimensional food, however refined. Rabbi Yishmael’s objection concerned consumption of actual light as distinct from derivatives of light. He disagreed that the Israelites had become capable of feeding on actual light. [In fact had they been able to, Moses’ feat of going without food for forty days in the celestial regions would not have been so impressive. Ed.] Rabbi Yishmael holds that seeing the Israelites had been granted visions of the brilliance of the Shechinah at the sea, they had qualified ever since for this food that the angels partake of. Thus far Nachmanides. I believe we may have to pay closer attention to the wording we see in our paragraph i.e. “this is the word of G’d: ‘collect from it on a daily basis’” this indicates a linkage with the words: “this is my G’d and I want to exalt Him” (which the Israelites had said while at the sea). Ever since then they had been able to refer to G’d as “this,” the Israelites had become worthy of eating the same kind of “food” as do the angels. It is important to appreciate that inasmuch as the manna was definitely physical food it nonetheless enabled the derivative of the supernatural light to survive in terrestrial surroundings. G’d supplied this food to the people who received His Torah in order to refine their abstract intelligence and enable it to attain deeper spiritual insights into the mysteries of the Torah. It is not strange that physical food can have this effect. We have evidence of this on several occasions. Not only that. Our sages speak of physical food which G’d will feed disembodied spirits (human) in the hereafter when He will provide the flesh of the Leviathan which He has stored for this purpose (compare our commentary on Genesis 1,21). Unless such food could enhance the spirits of the departed souls, what would be the point in our sages telling us about such meals in the heavenly regions? Perhaps we are to assume that the creatures such as the Leviathan and the bird called בר יוכני are themselves derivatives of this original light, and that this is the reason they would be able to survive in this world until needed to provide food for the righteous in a future when life on earth will be different from today. Let us examine the creation of Leviathan and Bar Yuchni and what we know about them. Both these creatures were created on the fifth day of creation. Baba Batra 74, basing itself on the plural in the words התנינם הגדולים, states that one of them was to serve as food for the righteous in the hereafter. The same applies to the בהמות בהררי אלף, “the beasts on a thousand mountains,” (a reference to what is known as שור הבור, designated for consumption by the righteous (their souls) in the future. It has been described in Psalms as “of a thousand mountains” to reflect Psalms 105,8 דבר צוה לאלף דור, “something G’d has commanded to come true after 1000 generations,” (in the hereafter). According to Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer this tremendous ox consumes the grass on 1000 hills daily. By night the grass grows again so as not to denude the environment. The beast exists in anticipation of the righteous in the world to come when G’d will feed its meat to them. On the other hand, the point of all this is may well be that there are creatures on this earth whose remains can serve as physical food for the bodies of the righteous in a period described by Isaiah 11,9 as a time when “the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Lord like water which covers the oceans.” At that time we, (terrestrial man spiritually refined), will be able to consume such food. No doubt, the meat of these creatures is the kind of refined food which resembles that of the manna and which had a spiritualizing effect on those who consumed it. A Midrashic approach. The words: “Here I will make it rain down for you bread from heaven” are an expression of G’d’s fondness of the Jewish people; He was so fond of them that He changed the laws of nature on their account. Normally, dew descends from the sky and the vegetation providing food grows from the earth. This time the bread came down from heaven and the dew rose towards the sky. ויצא העם ולקטו, “let the people go out and collect it.” They would go out of the camp into the desert. דבר יום ביומו, “on a daily basis;” because G’d would create it anew every single day just as He does with the livelihood of mankind. This insight prompted Rabbi Eliezer Hamodai to say that anyone who has enough food for the day and asks “what will I eat tomorrow? has thereby displayed a deficiency in his faith in G’d.” Let us put his words into their proper perspective. He who asks the question concerning where his food for the next day will come from has demonstrated that he only believes what his eyes can see, what is already under his control, at his disposal. The main ingredient of having faith in the Lord is to consider that which one cannot see as part of reality. A believing person is convinced of G’d’s mercy, of the fact that the same G’d who has created this very day and what it brings also created the means to provide for His creatures on this day and on subsequent days. We have been told in Yuma 76 that the disciples asked Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai why G’d did not simply provide a year’s supply of manna at one time? The Rabbi answered his students that G’d wanted to teach the Jewish people that they are dependent upon His goodwill every day of the year. If they would reflect on the fact that maybe on the morrow there would be no manna and they and their families would face starvation they would turn to their father in heaven in supplication. Another reason given why the manna descended only one day’s supply at a time was so that they would eat it while it was fresh. A third reason given is that by receiving only one day’s supply at a time they would be saved the trouble of carrying their food supply with them all the time. The following folio (75) in the Talmud also relates that the manna displayed different properties for different categories of people. The righteous would eat it in the form of bread; the average Israelite would prepare it into cakes. The wicked would grind it in a mortar or other utensil described in Numbers 11,7-9 (compare our comments there). The righteous would find it at their doorsteps; the average Israelite would leave his tent and collect it a little further away; the wicked would have to leave camp to search for it and to collect it. This explains the various verses describing all this in Numbers chapter 11. When Assaph, a contemporary of these events, described the manna in Psalm 78,27, he describes things in a similar manner: “He rained it upon them like dust;” a reference to the righteous. “He made it fall upon inside his camp;” (a reference to the average Israelite); “around his dwelling place;” (this was a reference to the wicked). A kabbalistic approach: The word ממטיר in the verse “here I will make it rain from the heaven,” is similar to משמרת, the attribute of Mercy which is a recipient of largesse from heaven. [which the Targum renders as מטרת (similar to מטר, rain.) The word מטרת is reminiscent of Mattatron, the angel in charge of running the universe on behalf of G’d]. Concerning this attribute Solomon wrote in Proverbs 31,14: ”She (this attribute) rises when it is still night and supplies provisions for her household and statutes for her maid-servants.” The meaning of the word הנני is intransitive, whereas the word ממטיר is transitive, referring to the Shechinah. In other words: “The Lord will instruct the attribute Shechinah which provides the פרנסה for all creatures on earth to make manna rain down from השמים, ‘heaven.’” There was actually no need for the Torah to mention that the manna would come from השמים, seeing that rain always comes from “heaven.” If the Torah nonetheless made special mention of the words מן השמים, “from the heaven,” the intention is to tell us that this manna comes from an attribute known as השמים, or רחמים. I believe that this is the meaning of Job 39,27: “does the eagle soar at your command?” Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 20,4 say that G’d said to Job: “if I were to either direct the Shechinah to settle on the Holy Ark or to remove itself from there by your command? You would then be greater than Aaron!” Verse 29 in Job continues with the words “‘from there he (the eagle) spies out his food, his eyes see it from afar.” These words closely parallel what Solomon said in Proverbs 31,14: “from afar she brings her bread.” Both verses tell us that the livelihood (food) for G’d’s creatures on earth is provided by the attribute Shechinah. In Song of Songs 5,2 Solomon calls the same attribute אחותי רעיתי, “my sister (beloved), my dove.” Our sages comment on this expression in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,3 by saying that the sacrifices were offered to this attribute as this is the spiritual region from which parnassah, livelihood, emanates. It is the region from which all blessings flow to earth. It becomes active during the last of the three watches the night is divided into. In other words, the manna fell during the final hours of the night. (Berachot 3 discusses the three watches of the night). The three watches represent the three (emanations) attributes גדולה גבורה,,תפארת in that order. Our sages (on that folio) provided us with a reminder of the three watches by telling us how to recognize them. During the first watch the donkeys bray; during the second watch the dogs bark; during the third watch the infants suckle at the breasts of their mothers. All of the above helps you understand that the origin of the manna was in those regions reserved for mercy, regions in which the original light is at home, and that this is what the words מן השמים allude to. The word השמים has been used by Solomon in the same sense in his prayer on the occasion of the opening of the Holy Temple (Kings I 8,32). He said ואתה תשמע השמים, instead of ואתה תשמע בשמים. The former means “You, the שמים will hear” (respond to prayer), instead of “You will hear in the heavens.” Psalms 78,24 continues with ודגן שמים נתן למו, “giving them heavenly grain.” When we read in Numbers 11,9: “and when the dew descended on the camp at night the manna would descend upon it,” the Torah makes the point that whereas the manna was received at night it was not collected until the daylight hours in accordance with G’d’s promise of “bread in the morning to satisfy” (Exodus 16,8). למען אנסנו הילך בתורותי אם לו, “so that I can test them whether they will follow My teaching or not.” The verse teaches that anyone who has ample food supplies, a comfortable lifestyle, is obligated to devote his time to Torah-study. This is what G’d had in mind when He said: “to test them if they follow My Torah or if not.” This is also the reason the Torah provided that the Levites and Priests be given various tithes and other gifts from the farmers so as to leave them free to devote themselves to Torah as we know from Chronicles II 31,4: “so that they might devote themselves to the Teaching of the Lord.” The sages have seen fit to introduce similar contributions to be made to support non-priest Torah scholars, basing themselves on Proverbs 31,14: “she is like the merchant ships; she brings food from afar.” Remember that the principal test G’d subjects His creatures to is designed to strengthen their faith in the fact that He provides for those loyal to Him and that He punishes those who willfully transgress His laws. These tests and trials are not designed in order for G’d to find out who has faith in Him and who does not; He is well aware of that, being familiar with the workings of the hearts of all His creatures. He conducts these trials in order to demonstrate to the world, i.e. to His creatures, that He is indeed aware of all this. This is why the righteous are being tested as we know from Psalms 11,5: “The Lord tests the righteous man” in order that it will become common knowledge that the righteous has displayed faith in Him, has passed the test. We find that G’d tests not only the wealthy but also the poor by means of reward and punishment. He tests the wealthy in order to find out how they use their wealth, if they are generous in giving charity, etc. He tests the poor by giving him a chance to accept his poverty without losing his faith in G’d and his reverence for G’d. It is understood that the reason man’s body is equipped with a soul is to test whether he will allow his body to accept the counsel of his soul or whether he will use his body to stifle the urgings of his soul and to behave like an animal which is interested only in physical matters. Every human being who passes these tests thereby adds to the greatness of G’d’s name on earth. People will recognize by means of the responses to G’d’s tests by their peers that He does indeed operate a system of reward and punishment applicable both to life on earth and to life in the hereafter. The amount of reward or punishment depends on man’s actions (Avot 3,15).

“In order to test whether they will follow My teaching or not.” Rashi explains [this refers to] whether they will observe the commandments that depend on it [the manna]: not to leave any over and not to go out on Sabbath to gather. And all this [these tests] is related to the trait of trust [in God], for if they do not leave any over, this is proof that they are complete in the trait of trust, because whoever has bread in his basket and says, “What will I eat tomorrow?” is of little faith. And similarly, if they do not go out on Sabbath to gather, they are confident that what they gathered yesterday will suffice for them also for the next day. And then they will follow My teaching, because one who is not complete in the trait of trust spends all his days gathering and collecting, and when will he work for the house of God to engage in Torah? This is well-known from the ways of most people who pursue vanity and become vain, making Torah study secondary to them. Another explanation, Since the pursuit of Torah has obstacles from within and without. From within, it is due to coarse foods that impair the purity and clarity of the intellect, to the point where one’s intellectual power passes through a murky valley and is not sufficiently pure to engage with intellectual matters. For this reason, Moses did not eat on the mountain for 40 days so that his intellect would be pure and clean to understand intellectual matters. And it is written And the cloud covered him for six days (Exodus 24:16), and our Rabbis said (Yoma 4a) that this was to purge the food and drink from his intestines. And from the outside, there are obstacles beyond the Jordan, as one traverses seas and rivers, and his feet are like deer’s feet rushing after his sustenance, in the wilderness, on the mountain, in the plain, and in the lowland, and this pursuit distracts him from engaging in Torah study. This manna was spiritual food; all who ate it were saved from these two obstacles. From the external obstacle, because they did not need to search after it, but each one found his sustenance every day at the entrance of his tent. And from the internal obstacle, because it was pure food, clean from all waste. Our Rabbis (ibid. 75b) called it “bread of the mighty” that the ministering angels eat. Although they do not actually eat, nevertheless they are nourished from the radiance of the Divine Presence, and this is that spiritual element that was in the manna, for it contained a spark also of spirituality. Its appearance was like that of bdellium (Numbers 11:7), shining and gleaming, and it had no waste, and therefore it was absorbed directly into the limbs. And thus both obstacles were removed. And a third obstacle on top of all: one who has much more than he needs is also not free to engage in Torah study because his abundant wealth and possessions, and “the satiety of the rich” does not allow him to engage in Torah. From this obstacle as well they were saved through this manna, because only “each man’s daily portion” descended for them each day. And God said, That I may test them, whether they will follow My instruction or not (Exodus 16:4). For with the removal of all obstacles, the table is set before them to engage in Torah with nothing preventing them. And if despite all this they do not walk in God’s Torah, it is only due to the wickedness of a foolish heart that has led them to reject God’s Torah. And at that point they would certainly not be worthy of receiving the Torah. This will be further explained shortly.

הנני ממטיר לכם, “I am ready to make it rain down for you, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why the Torah uses the word ממטיר, a word associated with rainfall, not with solids, was that seeing that the manna originated in the celestial regions it had that much in common with rainfall. At first glance, the people thought that what was descending was rain. [This seems strange, as it descended during the night when the people were asleep, and they only found it in the morning, unsuspecting. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that we find the expression ממטיר associated with the wicked people, such as the wicked people of Sodom, for instance, upon whom G’d rained down fire and brimstone. Perhaps we must assume that there the expression המטיר was used as the harmful substances described were accompanied by normal rainfall. Onkelos is of the opinion that the word המטיר describes anything in the process of falling, regardless if the substance is welcome or unwelcome. He translates the words הנני ממטיר as הא אנא מחית, “I make descend.” לחם, “bread.” It is described as “bread” seeing that this is what the people tried to make it substitute for. Every kind of פת is called לחם, not only baked goods made from wheat or barley. We also encounter the term עוגות as describing bread, as in Genesis 18,6, and Numbers The term ממטיר is justified, as the Torah describes ingredients which rained down which would subsequently be converted into bread. Our benediction over bread is המוציא לחם מן הארץ, which also does not mean that G’d produces ready-made bread as emerging from the earth, but we thank Him for having the earth produce ingredients fit to convert into bread, i. e.the staff of life. Some commentators claim that the word לחם does not refer specifically to bread, but to food in general, and G’d was saying to Moses that the people’s food would rain down from the heaven. The meat G’d was going to provide was also included in the line הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים. We encounter the expression לחם אשה, “food being burned up on the altar,” many times, and it never refers to bread, but to sacrificial meat. (compare Leviticus 3,11; 3,16; Numbers 28,2) Both the selav and the manna materialized for the people as if dropped literally from “heaven.” For some reason, G’d enlarged on the gift of the manna, which was a necessity, whereas He did not elaborate on the selav, which was a luxury. למען אנסנו, “so that I may test it,” (the people) According to Rashi the test would consist of seeing if the people would indeed observe the rules laid down by G’d in connection with this food. According to Nachmanides the test consisted of the fact that the people would be left without food that could be stored against future shortages, so that they would be dependent on G’d’s largesse literally from hour to hour. Except for Fridays, they would never receive more than a day’s ration, and anyone trying to put some aside would find that it simply rotted. Anyone would be heard asking “what am I going to eat tomorrow?” would be considered as lacking in faith.

ויצא העם ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, even if it had been a man’s intention to collect what he perceived to be a large quantity (far more than the appropriate amount) it would turn out to be no more than was required for each day. This is what is described in verse 18, that when they measured it after returning to their respective tents they found that each person had returned to his tent with the daily ration of an omer multiplied by the number of people in his immediate family. למען אנסנו, the trial consisted in the fact that the people had to look to G’d on a daily basis for their immediate food supplies. This experience would bring home to them that on the one hand they could rely on G’d, and on the other hand, as stated in Deuteronomy 8,3 such a lesson was only learned when, even briefly, for a day, they had been “starved” by G’d.

And on the sixth day, they shall prepare what they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as what they gather day by day.

והיה משנה AND IT SHALL BE DOUBLE — for today and for tomorrow. משנה DOUBLE of what they were accustomed to collect on each day of the other days of the week. I say that the words, אשר יביאו והיה משנה “what they bring shall be double”, imply that after they have brought it home they will find it double in measure of what they had been gathering and measuring each day. This is the force of: “they collected double bread” (v. 22) — when it was collected it was found by them to be double food, and this is the meaning of (v. 29), “therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days”: He gives you a blessing — old French foison, — abundance in the house that you may fill the Omer twice, as bread for two days.

The explanation of "double portion" [mishneh]: two omers for each one, as is written.

והכינו את אשר, even after having prepared the food from the raw manna it will still be twice the quantity it had been on the previous days. It will not shrink in the course of preparation. The reason G’d speaks of והכינו, “they will prepare it,” is to encourage the people to prepare for the Sabbath by observing it with delicacies, especially tasty food. They should concentrate on all this on the Sabbath eve.

והכינו את אשר יביאו, "and they shall prepare that which they shall bring in, etc." The "bringing of the manna into the camp was in itself part of the process called "preparation." They had to do this on Friday so as not to violate the Sabbath by bringing the manna into the camp on that day. This is why Moses phrased the Sabbath legislation as including: "let no one go outside his place" (i.e. the camp, verse 29).

והכינו את אשר יביאו, “let them prepare (for the morrow) that which they shall bring home. The word והכינו does not only mean: “to prepare,” but also to conceal after having prepared something for presenting it at a later date. We find this expression in Genesis 43,25, when the brothers of Joseph, already in his private residence after having been invited for lunch, arranged the gift they had brought with them from their father before revealing it when he came into the house. [Chizkuni adds another example from 2 Chronicles 29:19 in which the word is used in a quite different manner: we have restored all the vessels which King Ahaz had caused to be abandoned.]

והיה ביום הששי והכינו, “it will be on the sixth day when they prepare, etc.” This was the sixth day after the manna had started falling, as well as the sixth day of the week. It had begun to fall on the first day of the week as we explained on verse 1.

והכינו, they are to prepare (ahead of time, on the Friday) by baking, cooking, or whatever, their needs for the Sabbath as outlined in verse 23. והיה משנה, it will prove to be double even though you have found and brought home a single omer per person in your tent. On the sixth day of the week they will find twice the amount.

Moses and Aaron said to all the children of Israel: In the evening you shall know that it is Hashem who brought you out from the land of Egypt.

ערב is the same as לערב AT EVENING וידעתם כי ה׳ הוציא אתכם מארץ מצרים YE SHALL KNOW THAT THE LORD HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT — Since you said to us, (v. 3) “for ye have brought us forth” you shall know that it was not we who brought you forth, but it was God who brought you forth for He will bring quails for you.

AT EVEN, THEN YE SHALL KNOW THAT THE ETERNAL HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT. “And it is not we. [i.e., Moses and Aaron] who have taken you out from there, as you have said, for ye have brought us forth.” 7. AND IN THE MORNING, THEN YE SHALL SEE THE GLORY OF THE ETERNAL. This does not refer to G-d’s Glory that appeared in the cloud, [mentioned further in Verse 10], for that occurred [later] in the day when Aaron spoke to them, and they looked toward the wilderness and, behold, the Glory of the Eternal appeared in the cloud. “But,” commented Rashi, “thus did Moses say to them: At even, then ye shall know that His hand has the power to give you your desire, and He will give you flesh. He will not, however, give it to you with ‘a bright countenance,’ since you were improper in asking for it, [inasmuch as one can exist without meat]. Besides, you asked for it out of a full stomach, [i.e., while still having cattle which you took along with you from Egypt]. But as regards the bread for which you properly asked out of necessity, when it falls in the morning, you will see the Glory of His countenance, as He will bring it down for you in a manner indicative of love, i.e., in the morning, while there is yet time to prepare it.”But it is not correct to interpret the expression, and in the morning, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal as applying to the gift of the manna because He gave it to them early in the morning. What Glory of the Eternal is made manifest in this? Moreover, how does it logically connect with the phrase following it, for that He hath heard your murmurings? And this Midrash of our Rabbis, [which Rashi mentions, i.e., that there was a difference in the ways the manna and the quail were given to them], is not like a comment upon the expression, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal. Instead, the Rabbis said it [as an explanation of the fact] that He apportioned their sustenance twice a day and did not distribute all of it in the morning. Thus the Rabbis said in the Mechilta: “And Moses said: ‘This shall be, when the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full.’ From here, you learn that He gave them the quail with ‘a dark countenance.’ The manna, however, which they were justified in requesting, He gave them with ‘a bright countenance.’” That is to say, in the morning. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the expression, and in the morning, etc., [beginning in Verse 7], is a continuation of the previous verse. [It constitutes Moses’ answer to] what the Israelites had said, for ye have brought us forth from Egypt. Moses replied: “G-d will now show two signs for you so that you may know that it was He Who brought you out from there. One, [the quail] will come in the evening of this day, and the other, [the manna] will come tomorrow in the morning.” And, [continued Ibn Ezra], it would have been proper for Scripture to say: “At even, and in the morning, then ye shall know tha...

"And Moses and Aaron said." The sense is: "It is Hashem who brought you out" — [this was said] because they had claimed that [Moses and Aaron] brought them out. And behold, two signs will be done for you so that you may know that He brought you out: the first in the evening — this very day — and the second the following morning. It would have been fitting to say: "In the evening and in the morning you shall know" — because "and in the morning" is not connected [in the verse] to "and you shall see the glory of Hashem," for they saw the glory that very day, as will be explained.

ערב וידעתם, may it be G’d’s will that what He said about giving you food will be such that in the evening you will receive enough for that evening so that you will all know that He has taken you out of Egypt, totally and irrevocably. You have also exited from the political leaders of that country. True, you had been sitting near the fleshpots there, but you had never been given enough time to enjoy any of the meat in these pots. You had been treated like animals which have no fixed times when they eat. This is the meaning of the passage in Yuma 75 in which we are told that at the beginning of your history (of the enslavement) you were like hens that are only able to hastily pick at the kernels given them as food. They even had to look for it in the refuse heaps. Only after Moses, their redeemer, took over their affairs did they begin to enjoy regular meals at regular times.

ערב וידעתם כי ה׳ הוציא אתכם, "in the evening you will realise that G'd took you out, etc." The fact that the Israelites had not previously asked for meat is proof that they had considered such a request unrealistic, that they did not believe that they would ever be supplied with meat in the desert. They did not even mention the word meat until they wished they had died in proximity to the flesh-pots, etc. G'd now was anxious to demonstrate that He Who had taken them out of Egypt and crushed their enemies could also provide for them wherever they were. G'd intended to teach the Israelites a moral lesson, such as we find in Isaiah 44,18 where the prophet scores the people for "having besmeared their eyes so that they neither saw nor understood." G'd insisted that they would realise that He had taken them out of Egypt when they observed what would happen in the evening as opposed to what would happen in the morning (seeing that they had considered the supply of meat the most unlikely thing that could happen).

ערב וידעתם, “by evening you will know; and in the morning you will see;” this sounds somewhat inverted as usually you see something before you know it. Actually, G-d is simply saying that they will see and become conscious of both blessings, meat and bread. We find a similar inverted construction in Zecharyah 9,17: דגן בחורים ותירוש ינובב בתולות, “producing young men like grain, young women like new wine.” The meaning of that verse is: “G-d will enable the young men and virgins to be receiving blessings appropriate to both genders, instead of each sex receiving only what it had hoped to receive.

“Evening, and you shall know that the Lord brought you out, etc.” We have already stated that the manna was a spiritual food and was related to intellectual light, and as the light of morning when the sun rises (Second Samuel 23:4), therefore the manna was given morning after morning given that they asked for it properly. But the quail was a coarse and material food, thus it was given in the evening, because intellect relates to morning and materiality to evening. The quail was only given to them temporarily, as evidenced by the fact that in Kivroth Hataavah they asked for it again. This is similar to what we wrote above in Parshat Vayechi on the verse In the morning he shall consume prey, and in the evening he shall divide spoil (Genesis 49:27). The explanation is that what a person properly asks for, the necessities, are given in the morning, with a shining countenance, and that is what he “consumes” — meaning just enough for his consumption. And the term ad [until/forever] implies that his soul will never lack anything, rather it is given to him permanently and eternally. However, in the evening — meaning the excesses that a person improperly asks for — are given in the evening with a darkened countenance, and these are the things he “divides” to others, abandoning his wealth to strangers. He becomes deprived [meshulal] and distanced from his possessions, as indicated by the term spoil [shalal]. Furthermore, such things are only given temporarily, like the quail that was only given temporarily, for the Lord does not grant the desires of the wicked forever. Rather, today He gives to them to remove their complaints from Him, but tomorrow their soul desires and there is nothing. For this reason, the manna descended from heaven, the place of light, while the quail came up from the earth, the place of darkness, as each one comes from its source according to what it is. Therefore it says, and in the morning, you shall see the glory of the Lord — meaning with a shining countenance, for the Lord appeared to them eye to eye. But in the evening it says, you shall know the glory of the Lord — knowledge being inferior to sight, like a king who grants someone’s requests but whose face the person did not see. Even though he knows the gift is from the king, nevertheless, the one whose eyes behold the king in his beauty is certainly better off. And yet the text has not explained, how they would know in the evening that the Lord brought them out, etc., until it explained and said, When the Lord gives you meat in the evening to eat with darkened faces, by this you shall know that the Lord brought you out from Egypt, from the place where you sat by the fleshpots, in order that you would despise eating excesses which the animal power desires, and that you would be occupied with spiritual perfection. And not as you said, If only we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, when we ate bread to satisfaction, for you have brought us out to the wilderness. The intention of this complaint was that when they sat by the fleshpots, there was an aspect of perfection in it, and [they claimed that] “we [Moses and Aaron] are the ones who brought you out from a place where you had this perfection to a place lacking it.” And behold, in the Lord giving you meat in the evening, by this you shall know that it is not we who brought you out. And in what He will give you in the morning, bread to satisfaction, through this you will see the glory of the Lord eye to eye, for He gives with a radiant countenance to all who ask properly.

כי ה' הוציא אתכם, not as you claimed or thought that Aaron and I took you out of Egypt.

And in the morning you shall see the Glory of Hashem, for your complaints against the Word of Hashem have been heard before Him — and who are we, that you complain against us?

ובקר וראיתם AND IN THE MORNING YE SHALL SEE [THE GLORY OF THE LORD] — Not in reference to that glory of which it stated, (v. 10) “And behold the glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud” is this said, but thus, in effect, did he say to them: In the evening ye shall know that His hand has the power to give you your desire and He will give you flesh; but not with a radiant countenance will He give it to you, because you have asked Him something that is not proper (since one can exist without eating meat), and out of a full stomach (i. e. you really have meat for you have an abundance of cattle); but the bread for which you have asked out of necessity — when it falls in the morning you will behold the glory of the radiance of His countenance (His glory), because He will make it fall for you in a manner that is indicative of His love (Mekhilta) — in the morning, whilst there is yet time to prepare it, and there shall be dew above it and dew below it as though it were carefully packed in a chest (Yoma 75b). את תלנתיכם על ה׳ this is the same as תלנתיכם] אשר על ה׳] YOUR MURMURINGS WHICH ARE AGAINST THE LORD. ונחנו מה (lit., and we, what?) means AND WE, WHAT ARE WE accounted (of what importance are we?), כי תלינו עלינו THAT YOU MAKE everyone MURMUR AGAINST US — your sons, and your wives, and your daughters and the mixed multitude. — And whether I like it or not I am forced to explain the word תַלִּינוּ in the sense of “you make (people) do something”, viz., murmur (i. e. what we call the Hiphil conjugation), because of its (the ל) be eshed and because of the קרי. For if it (the ל) were weak (i. e. without a Dagesh), I would explain it in the sense of “ye do something” (our Kal), just as, (Exodus 17:3) “And the people murmured (וַיָלֶן) against Moses”, or, if there was still a Dagesh but there was no י in it, so that it could be read תִלּוֹנוּ, I would explain it as meaning “ye put yourself in a state of murmuring” (our Niphal; cf. Rashi on Exodus 15:24). Now, however, it being as it is, it must imply “you make others murmur”, just as in the case of the spies it states, (Numbers 14:36) “And they made all the congregation to murmur (וַיַּלִּינוּ) against him” (where וַיַּלִּינוּ is the same grammatical form, so far as conjugation is concerned, as תַלִּינוּ, but as it has an object, כל העדה, it cannot mean “And they murmured”, and must necessarily mean “they made the congregation murmur).

AND WHAT ARE WE, THAT YE MURMUR AGAINST US. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as meaning: “And what power to act is there in our hands? We have only carried out what we have been commanded.” But this is not so. Rather, the sense of the verse here is similar to: What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Eternal, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him? For how little is he [man] to be accounted! And this [verse here] is an expression of humility. “For what are we that you should attribute us with bringing you out from the land of Egypt? Behold we are nothing, and our work is vanity. And your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal. It is He Who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, not we.” And in the Mechilta we find. “[They said to them]: ‘Are we so distinguished that you arise and murmur against us?’”.

"And in the morning." I have already explained this. "When He hears your complaints" — this is connected to "and you shall see the glory of Hashem." "And what are we" — what is in our power to do? We did nothing except what we were commanded. "Ve-nachnu" [and we]: the alef is missing [i.e., the spelling is defective].

ובוקר, in the morning you will have bread, 'וראיתם את כבוד ה, and may it be G’d’s will that you will see Hashem’s glory when He will set limits to various times of the day, so that you will know that your complaints addressed to Aaron and myself should really have been addressed to Him, seeing it is He who will remove the cause of these complaints.

ובקר וראיתם את כבוד השם. "And in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord." The "morning" referred to is the one referred to in verses 8-10. This appearance of G'd's glory occurred on the day following. According to this interpretation the letter ו in the word וראיתם must be understood as a conjunctive letter, i.e. "in addition to what G'd had said you will also experience some kind of revelation of the glory of G'd." Alternatively, the meaning of the word ובקר, "in the morning also," is that at that time the Israelites would have another opportunity to realise that it was G'd (and not Moses) who had taken them out of Egypt. The verse then is a continuation of verse 6: "in the evening you will realise, etc." According to this interpretation the letter ו in וראיתם is not a conjunctive but introduces a new thought.

כי תלונו, this word (on this occasion as opposed to verse 2) is spelled with the letter ו in the middle, whereas it is read as if that letter had been a י.

בשמוע את תלונותיכם על ה' ונחנו מה, “that He has heard your complaints against G’d, and what are we?” Moses made reference to the “glory” of G’d, i.e 'כבוד ה', the attribute of Justice. This terminology is found also in Exodus 24,17 ומראה כבוד ה' כאש אוכלת, “and the appearance of the glory of G’d was like a consuming fire,” where it is clear that it refers to the attribute of Justice. This is also the reason that the name of G’d is alluded to here backwards, (in the acrostic of the words ה' ונחנו מה). Whenever the letters in the name of G’d appear in a reverse order this is an allusion to the attribute of Justice (compare our commentary on Exodus 3,1).

ובוקר וראיתם את כבוד ה', “and in the morning you will see the glory of Hashem.” This verse does not refer to the manifestation of G’d’s glory in the shape of the ענני הכבוד the clouds of glory, something that accompanied them on a regular and daily basis. Aaron’s addressing the people advising them of all this (verse 10) occurred on the very same day, and suddenly an additional aspect of G’d’s glory appeared, framed by the cloud. G’d’s benevolence was visible in that the people received the first day’s manna portion during the day when there was still time to prepare it into food before evening. [according to Rashi, based on the Mechilta we need to understand the word בוקר here as an expression of visible goodwill, as opposed to the selav which was supplied in the “evening,” i.e. reluctantly, seeing that it was a luxury, not a necessity, and the people should not have demanded it. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s explanation cannot be correct as the Torah specifically wrote that the manifestation of G’d’s glory would take place in the morning, בבוקר. Seeing the manna was not a manifestation of G’d’s glory, but the fact that G’d had created a special food for His special people was such a manifestation. According to Ibn Ezra the words ובוקר וראיתם do not belong to what follows, but to what had been written previously, i.e. seeing that the people had accused Moses and Aaron of having led them out of Egypt to die in the desert, G’d was going to prove to them how wrong they had been in making such an accusation against Moses and Aaron. They would see evidence, both in the evening and on the following morning, that not Moses and Aaron but Hashem had taken them out of Egypt. The manna, something new in the world, was appropriately revealed in the morning, when a “new” day breaks forth. The word ובוקר is quite separate from the word וראיתם. The fact that G’d’s glory became visible in full daylight was something extraordinary, also. Nachmanides writes that the manna was indeed a great miracle, as opposed to the selav, whose appearance in such quantities was remarkable indeed, but it materialized by natural means, i.e. it was the wind that brought the birds. Moreover, the birds had existed and were part of nature, as opposed to the manna which had neither existed nor been sent by natural means, for manna dropping from heaven is not the same as rain falling from the sky. According to our sages in the 5th chapter of Avot, Manna was one of the items created during the dusk of the sixth day of creation, and preserved in a state of suspended animation up until the Jewish people were in need of it during their wanderings in the desert. No wonder that Moses used quite different language in describing the selav that would arrive toward evening, and the manna that the people would experience on the following morning. Experiencing the latter for the first time, was indeed an overwhelming manifestation of the glory of Hashem becoming visible to man. Our sages, in referring to the manna as לחם אבירים, hinted that this was the food that the ministering angels in the celestial spheres depend on for their sustenance. They did not mean this in a literal sense, but they drew a comparison between the angels and the Israelites during those years, saying that just as the sustenance of the angels is their proximity to the radiation of the waves of Hashem’s presence, so the Israelites in the desert were kept alive in body and spirit by this visible manifestation that Hashem was close to each one of them. ונחנו מה, “and what are we (worth)?” Ibn Ezra comments on this rhetorical question that Moses and Aaron referred to their total impotence in influencing events, indicating that they were merely tools in the hands of Hashem. These words reflect the psalmist saying: מה אדם כי תדעהו, “what is the value of man that You should bother to become intimately familiar with him?” (Psalms 144,3)

'ובקר וראיתם את כבוד ה, when He will make bread rain down for you in the morning.

Moses said: When Hashem gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to satisfy you — for your complaints have been heard before Hashem, which you complain against Him — and who are we? Your complaints are not against us, but against the Word of Hashem.

בשר לאכל FLESH TO EAT— but it does not add as it does in the next phrase לִשְׂבֹּעַ, “to satisfaction”; the Torah thus teaches us a rule of conduct — that one should not eat meat to satiety. And what did He see (what reason had He) that He made bread fall for them in the morning and flesh at evening? Because the bread they asked for was a proper thing to demand since it is impossible for a person to exist without bread; but meat they asked for improperly, for they had abundant cattle, and besides it was possible for them to exist without flesh. On this account He gave it to them at evening, at a time of (when it would cause them) trouble, a manner which was not favourable to them (Mekhilta; Yoma 75). אשר אתם מלינים עליו means [YOUR MURMURINGS] WHICH YOU MAKE others who hear you murmuring MURMUR AGAINST HIM.

AND MOSES SAID: THIS SHALL BE, WHEN THE ETERNAL SHALL GIVE YOU IN THE EVENING FLESH. Moses is explaining his first statement, [recorded above in Verses 6-7]: When the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt; and when He shall give you in the morning bread to the full, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal.

"And Moses said." Here he explained to them the two signs.

ויאמר משה בתת ה' לכם, Moses said: as far as your prayer to G’d to give you food in the evening in a way which makes it plain that that G’d took you out of Egypt and not we, is that we had in mind בערב בשר לאכול, He will give you meat to eat in the evening; to eat, but not to satiate yourself on; unlike the Egyptians who are only concerned with the cravings of their bodies; therefore only בבקר לשובע only in the morning will G’d give you bread to satiate your body’s requirements. As to our having prayed that G’d would show you His glory, this referred to His answering your complaints. בשמוע ה' את תלונותיכם, concerning our prayer that you will be able to see the glory of Hashem our intention was that you will realise from His reaction that your complaints were not addressed to us, or should not have been addressed to us, but to Him. Moreover, by providing, He has demonstrated that He has heard your complaints.

ויאמר משה בתת ה׳ לכם, Moses said: "when G'd gives you, etc." Whereas previously Moses had not spelled out what would happen in the evening and in the morning, he now spelled this out in detail.

ויאמר משה: בתת ה' לכם, “Moses said: “when Hashem gives you, etc.” this refers to an announcement he had already commenced with in verse 6, but these words have been repeated here as the announcement is longer than usual. The whole announcement is: “in the evening you will know when the Lord will give you meat to eat and in the morning you will see when He gives you bread to satisfy yourselves with, that your complaints should not have been directed at us when you accused us being to blame for your deprivations by saying that we had taken you out of Egypt. You will become aware that your deprivations were caused by G-d and taken care of by Him to teach you several lessons.”Moses reminded the people that when a person has a complaint against a master, he dares not blame the master to his face, but prefers to blame his servant instead.

בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבקר לשובע, “when the Lord will give you in the evening meat to eat, and bread in the morning to the full.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verse reflects the fact that most people eat twice a day, in the evening and in the morning. This is why G’d did not supply a whole day’s food in the morning. Our sages in their commentary on the word תשבו in Leviticus 23,42 have already pointed out that the meaning of the word is “similar to normal dwelling,” i.e. that we are to eat in the Sukkah once in the morning and once in the evening (Sukkah 27). A Midrashic approach: one may read the words together as follows: בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבוקר, “in the evening to eat meat and bread in the morning.” This is a hint that G’d granted the meat with a “dark face,” i.e. unwillingly, when it was night, whereas He supplied the bread with a lit up face, i.e. willingly, when it was daylight. The Israelites had been perfectly entitled to ask for the bread. After all, one cannot survive without basic food. By giving them the manna in the morning, G’d left them enough time during the day to prepare it. By giving them the meat in the evening, He did not leave them time to prepare it so that they could eat it at supper time. A kabbalistic approach: we read the words together as follows: בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבוקר, “the parnassah was divided into two times of the day, the evening and the day. The evening corresponded to the attribute of Justice, the morning to the attribute of Mercy. The verse tells us that provision of meat is reserved for the evenings whereas provision of bread is reserved for the mornings. When the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 3) describes the daily activities of G’d during the twelve hours of the day, Rabbi Yehudah assigned the third section of three hours as devoted to G’d providing sustenance for all His creatures. In the words of the Talmud this included the needs of the horns of the beasts known as Re-emim, as well as the requirements of fleas’ eggs in order for them to hatch. It appears therefore that Rabbi Yehudah refers to the provision of meat, not bread. Why did this occur during the day? This is perfectly in order as the third section of three hours commences immediately after noon, a period called by the Torah “evening” as we know from the time when the Passover lamb is to be slaughtered. The Torah (Numbers 9,11) speaks of preparing the Passover בין הערבים, literally “between the evenings,” suggesting that there are two periods called “evening” (compare also Leviticus 23,5 and Nachmanides’ comment on Exodus 12,6). The first evening is composed of the period immediately following noon, whereas the second “evening” ends with sunset. The first “evening” is allocated to the slaughtering of the Passover lamb, whereas the second “evening” is the period during which the Passover may be consumed until midnight. The meat was allocated to the Jewish people between these two periods of “evening,” whereas the manna became available to them in the morning as a gift from the attribute of Mercy. The fact that the manna could be eaten “as is,” without further preparation, signaled that it had been given to the Jewish people wholeheartedly rather than reluctantly. לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על ה', “your complaints are not directed at us but at the Lord.” This verse teaches us that anyone who quarrels with a prophet or even with an accredited Torah authority is compared to someone who quarrels with the Shechinah. This type of complaint by the Israelites was not an isolated instance but occurred already in 16,2 and in 17,2.

ויאמר משה בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר, “Moses said: ‘when the Lord gives you meat in the evening, etc’.” the Torah reverts back to explaining more details about the line “in the evening you will know that Hashem took you out of Egypt by His giving you meat in the evening and bread in the morning, etc.”

Moses said to Aaron: Say to the entire congregation of the children of Israel: Draw near before Hashem, for your complaints have been heard before Him.

קרבו APPROACH [BEFORE THE LORD] — to the place where the cloud will descend.

"Draw near before Hashem" — toward the wilderness.

אמור אל כל עדת, seeing that Moses knew that their prayer had been accepted, as in the case of Rabbi Chanina who claimed that while praying for the sick he could feel if G’d responded positively.(Berachot 34). 'קרבו לפני ה, “come close to the proximity of Hashem,” Moses referred to the pillar of cloud which traveled in front of the Israelites and represented the presence of G’d.

ויאמר משה אל אהרון, Moses said to Aaron, etc. It is possible that Moses spoke this verse on the first day when he said to the people that they would recognise that it was G'd who had taken them out of Egypt and not he or Aaron. It is also possible that Moses spoke to Aaron only on the following day and that the reference to "evening" in verse 6 did not refer to the evening of that day, but to the evening following provision of the quail; in that case Moses refrained from mentioning what happened in the morning.

And it came to pass, when Aaron spoke to the entire congregation of the children of Israel, that they turned toward the wilderness — and behold, the Glory of Hashem was revealed in the cloud.

"And it came to pass." It became clear to them that at the very moment Aaron spoke to them and told them to draw near, immediately the cloud came and the glory appeared within it.

ויפנו אל המדבר, seeing that the direction of that pillar was toward the desert, the direction in which the people had been marching.

ויהי כדבר אהרון, It came to pass, as Aaron spoke, etc. G'd is described as if He was sitting waiting for the Israelites to look in His direction. He appeared through the cloud immediately after Aaron had delivered Moses' message to the people.

And it was while Aharon was speaking with all the congregation of Israel that they turned towards the desert, and, behold, the glory of the majesty of the Lord was revealed in the cloud of glory.

Hashem spoke to Moses, saying:

"And Hashem spoke." And they saw that Moses went to the glory and spoke with it.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd told Moses to say: It is difficult to understand why the Torah writes לאמור in verse 11 when G'd had not yet completed the instructions He gave to Moses. The word לאמור in verse 12 would have been perfectly adequate. We may have to explain this by remembering what we learned in Yuma 4 according to which one must not reveal anything one has been told by anyone unless given specific permission to do so. Accordingly, when G'd said: "I have heard, etc." these were G'd's words to Moses, and as such Moses would not have had permission to reveal them to anyone unless he was given permission to do so. The word לאמור in verse 11 was that permission. Permitting someone to reveal something does not mean a directive to do so. When G'd wanted to ensure that Moses used this permission to reveal his conversation with Him, G'd had to instruct him to do so. Hence we find in verse 12: דבר אליהם, "speak to them," that Moses was to relate those parts of the conversation between himself and G'd which had a direct bearing on the Israelites' activities. The first לאמור indicated merely permission to say something, whereas the לאמור in verse 12 introduces things Moses was obligated to communicate to the Israelites. This is also the reason there is a subtle change in the manner G'd speaks of the Israelites. Whereas prior to the instructions דבר אליהם, G'd spoke about the Israelites, from that moment on He addresses them (תאכלו not יאכלו) even while speaking through Moses. Moses was to first address the Israelites, i.e. דבר אליהם telling them what G'd had said to him, namely that He had heard the complaints of the Israelites. He was not to tell them the part about his being G'd's messenger. The second message Moses was to relate, the one introduced by the word לאמור, concerned the fact that the Israelites would eat meat on the evening of that day. The word לאמור was necessary although it followed דבר אליהם to ensure that Moses would tell the Israelites this in the name of G'd. The whole sequence then means: "tell the Israelites that I am telling them 'you will eat meat by evening.'" In this instance the word לאמור replaces the normal expression כה אמר השם. The concluding words of the verse: כי אני השם אלוקיכם, are justified then. Had it not been not for the word לאמור one could have assumed that Moses promised the meat on his own authority.

וידבר ה' אל משה, “Hashem spoke to Moses; actually we have been told this already in verse 4. [This may have been repeated as Moses and Aaron had not immediately included what G-d had said concerning the manna on Friday being a double portion. Therefore here we have a stronger command, Hashem being quoted as וידבר instead of the softer ויאמר, Ed.]

The complaints of the children of Israel have been heard before Me. Speak to them, saying: In the twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be satisfied with bread — and you shall know that I am Hashem your God.

I HAVE HEARD THE MURMURINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. SPEAK UNTO THEM, SAYING: AT DUSK YE SHALL EAT FLESH. This communication [at dusk ye shall eat, etc.], had already been conveyed by Moses to Israel, but it is repeated here only because of that which He said I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. At first, He had said, Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven to you; He would willingly do it for them as an act of kindness or because of their merits. But now He said that [their murmuring] is accounted to them as sin, and yet because of the very nature of the murmuring, He will do such things for them so that they might know thereby that I am the Eternal your G-d. Until now ye do not believe the Eternal your G-d; this is why you murmur against His prophets. It is possible that at first He did not promise them the manna for all the time that they would be in the wilderness. Thus they thought that perhaps it would be for one day or two, as long as they stayed in that place, and that when they would leave it, they would come to a place of food. But now He said to them, “At dusk ye shall eat flesh always, and in every morning ye shall be filled with bread as long as you will be in the wilderness.” And so also is the opinion of our Rabbis, that the quail were with them from that day on, just like the manna. It is logically so, for they expressed discontent about the two things — [flesh and bread] — and He hearkened to their murmurings on both matters, and He gave them that which they craved. What would He give them, and what more, if He supplied them with meat for only one day or two?The reason that the chapter [of the Torah] speaks at length about the matter of the manna is that everything about it was of a wondrous nature, whereas with reference to the matter of the quail, it just writes briefly, And it came to pass at even, that the quail came up, because it came in a natural way. [Although the quail were a daily occurrence], the subject of the second [incident of] quail at Kibroth-hata’avah [is singled out for mention in Scripture] because right now [in the wilderness of Sin], they did not receive of them to the full, just as He always says here, flesh to eat, and bread to the full. It is possible that only the adults gathered the quail — or it may be that they were marked by chance for the pious ones — while the young craved and hungered for them, since Scripture does not relate concerning the quail, “and they gathered some more, some less,” as it does concerning the manna. It is for this reason that Scripture says there [in the narrative of the second quail]: And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and it further says, and the children of Israel also wept on their part, meaning that some of the children of Israel were also weeping for it, but not all. He then gave them in great quantity, as it says, He that gathered least gathered ten heaps, and out of that abundance, they ate for a month’s time and ...

"I have heard." The word "telunnat" [complaint] is unusual in having the nun doubled [with a dagesh]. This prophecy is a repetition [of what was already stated], for Moses had already mentioned it: "In Hashem's giving you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning" (v. 8); it was repeated only so that Israel would see the glory. The phrase "between the evenings" means "in the evening," as I have explained. And from this verse the meaning of "and in the morning you shall see the glory of Hashem" (v. 7) is clarified — for here it is written: "in the evenings you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be satisfied with bread."

בין הערבים תאכלו בשר וגו, from this verse we learn that basically, the Israelites were to eat a meal twice daily, in the evening and on the morning following.

שמעתי את תלונות בני ישראל, “I have heard the complaints of the Children of Israel, etc.” Our sages in Pessikta zutrata on this verse said that G’d refers to the Israelites as “Children of Israel,” a complimentary title, in spite of the fact that they had uttered complaints. What is the meaning of the word לאמור here after the words דבר אל בני ישראל? The message in the repetition is that Moses was to address the Israelites twice; once in a friendly tone, concerning their complaint about not having bread, and in a sterner tone concerning their demands for more than necessities, i.e. meat. Whereas the word וידבר refers to stern talk, the use of the word לאמור, denotes a friendly tone. We have proof of this in Genesis 42,30 דבר האיש אדוני הארץ אתנו קשות, “the man, the ruler of the land spoke with us harsh words.” The Talmud in Makkot 11 states that the word דבר already implies קשות, tough talk. ובבוקר תשבעו לחם וידעתם כי אני ה' אלו-היכם, “and in the morning you will be satisfied with bread and you will know that I am the Lord your G’d.” You will bless My name for supplying your food. This is the first indication of the legislation we read about in Deut. 8,10: “you will eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your G’d.” Our verse prompted our sages (Berachot 48) to conclude that Moses formulated the first benediction in the ברכת המזון prayer after meals at the time when the manna descended. Whereas thanking G’d for the food one has eaten is a Biblical requirement, reciting the benediction prior to eating is a Rabbinical law. The Rabbis arrived at the logic of this by an “a fortiori,” קל וחומר, saying that if one needs to thank the Lord after one has already had one’s fill, how much more must one do so prior to eating for having found food available at a time when one is hungry!

דבר אל בני ישראל לאמור בין הערבים תאכלו בשר, “speak to the Children of Israel, saying that ‘in the evening you will eat meat, etc.’” Nachmanides writes that what Moses is instructed to say here has already been recorded previously. The reason why it has been repeated here once more is because G’d had stated (verse 4) that He would rain bread from the heavens as if this would be the first item of the agenda and as if He would perform an act of kindness for the people, something not related at all to the people’s complaints. Now, the Torah relates that the people’s conduct in complaining was considered sinful, and that Hashem would do what He was going to do only in response to their complaint. He would do so in order to demonstrate how unjustified their complaint against Moses and Aaron had been. It is possible that originally, G’d had not promised that the supply of manna would be for the duration of their journey through the desert, and that the people had believed that this would be a short-term solution of their problems, lasting possibly only for a few days, and that the miracle involved was somehow tied only to that particular location. Now, we hear more details, including the announcement of the meat they would eat in the evening, i.e. as a regular diet every evening, and that in the morning they would receive heavenly bread on a regular basis. It is the opinion of our sages that just as the people had manna every morning so they had the selav every evening. The reason why the Torah gives many more details about the manna than about the selav, is that the former was supernatural, incomparable to phenomena that exist on earth. This leaves us with the question that if the Israelites actually had a meat diet on a daily basis, what brought on the demand for meat in Numbers 11 and the supply of selav there as a result of which thousands of Israelites died due to overindulging, and the location was named קברות התאוה, ”the burial sites due to craving?” Very possibly, the supply of selav prior to what is described as a surfeit in Numbers chapters 11 and 12, was meager, not nearly enough to satisfy large numbers of the people. By mentioning that the supply of bread in the morning would be לשובע, sufficient to satiate, and failing to make a similar comment regarding the selav, the Torah indicated that there would be a quantitative difference between the supply of bread and the supply of meat. Perhaps only the pious Israelites collected selav on a regular basis. It is also noteworthy that when Israelites in Numbers are described as weeping over the absence of meat, the Torah never mentioned that the people at large indulged in weeping over the absence of meat, only some did, i.e. some בני ישראל of the elite, and all of the rabble were the most dissatisfied. (Numbers 11,4) On that occasion, and presumably on that occasion only, G’d supplied meat in such quantities that the whole people were literally swamped by meat. According to the plain meaning of the text, supply of meat on both occasions was on a strictly temporary basis, whereas the supply of heavenly bread became a daily norm. The people’s principal complaint had been that Moses and Aaron had taken them into the desert to die by hunger. It is also possible that Moses had told the people originally that they would be provided for, but that they had not believed him. The reason they did not believe him then was that he had not referred to G’d doing the providing. Only after Moses and Aaron had made it plain by saying נחנו מה that they had not meant to imply that they would do the providing, and had promised the people that they would see the glory of G’d in action, as it were, did the people become convinced that their problems would be solved.

וידעתם כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, Who has taken you out of Egypt.

And it came to pass in the evening that quail came up and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a falling of dew surrounding the camp.

השליו THE QUAILS — a species of fowl which is very fatty (cf. Yoma 75b). היתה שכבת הטל THERE WAS A LAYER OF DEW — Consequently the dew was lying upon the Manna. In another passage, however, it says, (Numbers 11:9) “And when the dew came down [upon the camp at night, the manna fell upon it]” and so there was dew under the Manna! Thus we see that the dew fell upon the ground and the Manna fell upon it, and then dew fell again upon this, and so it was as though it were carefully packed in a chest (Yoma 75b).

"And it came to pass in the evening." At the end of that very day. "And the quail came up" — perhaps they came up from the direction of the sea. "A layer of dew" [shkhavat ha-tal]: similar to "and who can lay to rest the bottles of heaven?" (Job 38:37), with the sense of descent; and elsewhere it is written, "when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it" (Numbers 11:9). May the name of that Hivite rot who said that the manna is what is called in Persian tarnjabin, and in Arabic mann, and in the vernacular manna — for many objections stand against him: first, that it does not fall today in the Sinai desert, though the mountain is well known; and I myself saw something resembling manna in the kingdom of al-Zakhir, and it falls in Nisan and Iyyar but not in other months. Moreover, if you put it in the sun it does not melt. Furthermore, it does not spoil in the night. Furthermore, it is not solid — there is no need for a person to pound it in a mortar in order to make cakes from it. Furthermore, when placed on the tongue it melts. Furthermore, it does not provide nourishment that produces good blood; rather it is used as a medicine. Furthermore, on the sixth day it fell in double measure. Furthermore, it did not fall on the Sabbath. Furthermore, it fell wherever they encamped. Furthermore, it crossed the Jordan with them, and by the plain sense of Scripture did not cease until mid-Nisan.

ותעל השלו, “the quail appeared;” the gift of quails was a one time occurrence, which explains the people’s complaint in Numbers 11,4 where they craved meat. On that occasion G-d provided them with meat a second time as stated in the Talmud Erchin folio 15. Rashi writes that the demand by the people for meat in their diet described in Numbers was more insistent. The manna was provided by G-d daily for forty years. [After the disastrous results of many people dying from overeating on meat in the second year of their wanderings, and dying as a result, we never hear of such a request again. Ed.]

ויהי בערב ותעל השלו...ובבוקר היתה שכבת הטל, “it happened in the evening that the quails ascended,....and in the morning there was a layer of dew, etc.” Both the quail and the manna appeared for the first time on a Sunday (compare our comment on verse 1 and 5). The quails formed a daily diet of the Israelites for 40 years (based on Tossaphot Erchin 15 on the word התאוו). As long as the Israelites had the manna they also had the quails. Concerning verse 38: “the Israelites ate the manna for 40 years,” (where no such particulars are given for the quails), we must assume that the same applied to the supply of quails which became available every evening. The reason the Torah only refers to the continued supply of the manna for 40 years is that seeing it was heavenly food it required a daily supernatural miracle during all those years. The availability of the quails by comparison, was a much less impressive miracle, not having required that something out of the ordinary be “manufactured” in the celestial regions. Making the quails available is described by the Torah as a more or less natural phenomenon in Numbers 11,31 when the Torah reported: “a wind went out from Hashem and blew quails from the sea and spread them over the camp.” The fact that the quails were something extant in the terrestrial part of the world is the reason the Torah did not apply to its becoming available the word ותהי, which always refers to the coming into existence of something new (a derivative of what we previously described as the אור עליון, a light in the celestial regions), but wrote only ותעל, the same word used to describe the sudden manifestation of the frogs (Exodus 8,2). When describing the major miracle of the arrival of the manna from the celestial regions the Torah considered it appropriate to use wording normally reserved for the six days of G’d’s creative activity, i.e. היתה, “it had come into existence.” When the original light materialised the Torah also described this by using the verb הוה, by writing יהי אור, ויהי אור. A Midrashic approach (Mechilta Vayissa section 3): “how exactly did the manna descend? First a north wind descended and cleared away all the dust on the earth; afterwards a layer of dew descended smoothing out the surface of the earth. Following this, the manna descended on to this layer of dew. Please note that the Torah does not speak of the manna ascending, i.e. ויעל המן, but the Torah writes ותעל שכבת הטל, “the layer of dew ascended” (verse 14). This teaches that a layer of dew descended form heaven in order to cover the manna, i.e. it ascended on to the layer of manna which had fallen immediately before. As a result the manna was protected from below and from above. When we keep this in mind we can understand why the sages demanded (Pesachim 30) that when placing the two challot on the Sabbath table we must place a serviette or other base both below and above the bread to symbolize how it was in the desert with the manna. Rashi explains the words ותעל שכבת הטל to mean that when the dew was lying above the manna facing the sun, it suddenly became visible; this is the meaning of the words והנה על פני המדבר דק מחספס, “and here!, on the face of the desert something fine and exposed.”

When the falling of dew lifted, there upon the surface of the wilderness was something fine and flaky, fine as hoarfrost upon the ground.

ותעל שכבת הטל וגו׳ AND WHEN THE LAYER OF DEW WENT UP etc. — When the sun rose the dew which was lying upon the Manna ascended sunward, as is the manner of dew — that it ascends sunward; even if you were to fill an egg-shell with dew and close up its opening and place it in the sun, it (the egg-shell with the dew in it) will rise of its own accord into the air, (in consequence of the tendency of the dew to rise upwards). — But our Rabbis explained that these words imply that the dew rose from the ground into the air. — When the layer of dew went up the Manna became visible, and they looked, (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 20; Shemot Rabbah 38:4) והנה על המדבר דק AND BEHOLD, UPON THE SURFACE OF THE DESERT there was etc. דק, a THIN object, מחספס uncovered — and there is no other example of this word in the Scriptures. One may also explain מחספס as having the same meaning as חפיסה in (Mishna Bava Metzia 1:8) חפיסה ודלוסקמא, “a valise and chest”, in Mishnaic Hebrew, and the meaning would be, that when it became uncovered from the layer of dew they saw that there had been a thin object enclosed in it i. e. enclosed between the two layers of dew. Onkelos translates it by מקלף peeled (flaky), taking מחספס in the sense of, and from a similar root as, (Genesis 30:37) “peeling off (מחשף) the white”. ככפר AS HOAR FORST — כפר is old French gelide. The Targum renders דק by דעדק כגיר, the word גיר occurring in (Isaiah 27:9) “גיר-stones” — this is a kind of black colour — just as we enumerate amongst the kinds of earth which may be used for covering the blood of a wild animal or bird after it has been slaughtered “powdered chalk (גיר) and orpiment” (Chullin 88b). Onkelos renders the entire phrase by “powdered like גיר, like hoar-frost upon the ground”, meaning that it was as fine as גיר and lay congealed as frost in the ground. This is therefore the meaning of דק ככפור: “spread out fine but yet one atom hanging to another like hoar-frost”. דק is old French tenuis — meaning that it formed a thin incrustation on top. The word וכגיר which Onkelos has in his translation is an addition to the Hebrew text, there being no word corresponding to it in the verse.

DAK’ (A FINE) ‘MECHUSPAS’ (PEELED THING). In the opinion of Onkelos, [who translated the word mechuspas as meaning “peeled,” the word] is associated with the expressions: ‘machsoph’ (streaks making bare) the white; ‘chasaph hashem’ (the Eternal hath made bare) His holy arm. The letter sin [in the words machsoph and chasaph] is interchanged for the letter samach [in the word mechuspas], and the second root-letter of the verb [chasaph] is doubled, [thus making it mechuspas]. DAK’ (FINE) ‘KAK’PHOR’ (AS THE HOAR-FROST). K’phor is the covering [of minute ice-particles] upon the ground in cold weather. It is similar in usage to the expression, He scattered ‘k’phor’ (hoar-frost) like ashes. Now Onkelos rendered [the Hebrew dak kak’phor al ha’aretz] into Aramaic thus: da’adak k’gir kig’lida al ar’a. On this, Rashi wrote [as an interpretation of Onkelos, that the word gir occurs in the expression], “as stones of ‘gir,’ which is a kind of black color. This is just as we say in connection with the covering of the blood [of a slaughtered wild animal or fowl, which the Torah specified must be done with earth. The Rabbis enumerate amongst the kinds of earth that can be used]: ‘gir (powdered chalk) and arsenic (or orpiment).’ [Onkelos’ Aramaic rendition da’adak k’gir kig’lida al ar’a thus means:] ‘thin [and brittle] like powdered chalk, and lying congealed as frost on the ground.’ And this is the meaning of the Hebrew dak kak’phor: spread out fine and connected like hoar-frost. Dak means that there was a thin incrustation on top. And that which Onkelos translated, k’gir (as powdered chalk), is an addition to the Hebrew text, there being no word corresponding to it in the verse.” [These are the words of Rashi.]But all this is not correct. Gir [is not a kind of black color, as Rashi wrote, but instead it] is a white earth which sticks to stone, and when crushed, it is used as plaster upon walls. It is very white and is better for the plastering of walls than lime, [which does not have the admixture of that white earth]. And so it is written, upon the ‘gira’ (plaster) of the wall of the king’s palace. This is why the manna which was white and spread out upon the earth could be associated with that crushed white earth. Onkelos then translated the Hebrew word k’phor in two ways. First, he derived it from the expression, and thou shalt pitch it within and without ‘bakopher’ (with pitch). Hence, he said k’gir (as the white earth) with which [the stones] are fastened and covered. Then he derived it also from the expression, He scattered ‘k’phor’ like ashes, which is the covering of minute ice needles which form in a cold atmosphere, just as he translated [the Hebrew] ‘v’kerach’ (and the frost) by night, “ug’lida (and frost) came down upon me at night.” The word can be used in the plural [g’lidin], while the singular is called g’lid (ice), just as we have been taught in the Mishnah in Mikvaoth: “These are the things which only serve to fill up the immersion-pool [to ...

"And it went up" [va-ta'al]: the meaning is that it ceased, like "then you defiled it — my couch went up" (Genesis 49:4), where the sense is: "from the time you defiled my couch, it was removed from me and ceased." Similarly, "Do not take me up in the midst of my days" (Psalm 102:24). The dew descended first to purify the ground, and when the dew lifted, the manna descended — as it is indeed written: "when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it" (Numbers 11:9). "Fine and scaly" [dak me-chuspas]: meaning round, and this word has no parallel. The one who says it is like makhsof (Genesis 30:37) — which has a shin — is incorrect, for the rule of the language is that [in quadriliteral formations from triliteral roots] the pe and the ayin are doubled, as in yafyafita (Psalm 45:3), or the ayin and the lamed, as in yerakrak (Leviticus 13:49), or the lamed alone, as in sagrir (Proverbs 27:15). But the ayin alone doubled — we do not find this except in forms where the he is elided, as in higgigi (Psalm 5:2), where after the he drops out the gimel appears as though it were the lamed [i.e., the third root-letter], and so they doubled it. But in forms where the letters are fully spelled out, we have not found the ayin doubled.

והנה על פני המדבר, kernels in the shape and texture of very fine crystals as described in Numbers 11,7 כזרע גז הוא, similar to the seeds of Gad.

ותעל שכבת טל, “when the daily layer of dew lifted, there was left a flaky substance on the surface of the desert.” The words: ותעל שכבת הטל, are interrupted here to prepare us for what follows. We encounter a similar construction in Psalms 102,25: אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “Do not take me away in the midst of my days.” The words: שכבת הטל, (especially with the prefix ה indicating that the dew was a well known phenomenon,) refer to the daily descent previously of that layer of dew; we have a similar construction in Job 38,37: ונבלי שמים מי ישכיב, “who can tilt the “bottles” of the sky?” (a hint at the phenomenon of dew) The root שכב, “to come to rest in a prone condition,” is used in both these verses. (Ibn Era)

ותעל שכבת הטל, “a layer of dew ascended;” Ibn Ezra explains that the word means (here) that the dew while dissolving into the atmosphere, revealed what was below it, i.e. a layer of manna. The word תעלני appears in a similar context when David asks not to die before his time, i.e. Psalms 102,25, אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not let me ascend to the celestial regions prematurely.” דק מחוספס, “something thin, exposed;” some commen-tators explain the word מחוספס as something globular, however there is no similar word in Scriptures to which we could compare this expression. Onkelos translates it as something visible through exposure. It would be similar to Genesis 30,37 מחשף הלבן, “exposing the white beneath.” דק ככפור על הארץ, “thin as the frost on the ground.” Onkelos translates it as above. Rashi claims that when Onkelos adds the word גיר this is not a translation of a word that appears in the text, but a word used to illustrate the meaning of כפור. In Isaiah 27,9 we find the expression אבני גיר, the prophet describing the black colour of those stones Nachmanides writes that גיר, “chalk,” in Hebrew, is not black but white, and that the Torah describes this white colour as sticking to the white limestone, the ones use to grind into what is used in whitewash, but that this exterior is even whiter than the whiteness of the chalk stones themselves. This thin layer appeared to stick to the manna in the manner of a layer of frost. He goes on to draw a comparison between the word כפור, hoary frost, and the word כופר, the insulating, waterproofing material G’d told Noach to employ both on the outside and the inside of the ark. (Genesis 6,14) The common denominator between both words would be that they describe material that is pasted on to seal something off and protect it against harmful substances penetrating it. The word כפור is also understood as being analogous to כאפר, “like ash,” i.e. extremely small particles such as the particles of ash. [the smaller each particle, the more easy it is to create a waterproof and even airproof protective layer made from that substance. Ed.] Hoary frost found on the ground in the early mornings is such an impenetrable substance until it melts. There are some other versions where the word דק does not appear but the word is כעדק דגיר, when the connection to the word גלידא as חמרים, small little heaps of frozen water or snow is so much more obvious. This is probably a truer version of Onkelos.

ותעל שכבת הטל, which covered the manna from above. It is in the nature of dew to rise toward the atmosphere as the air gets thinner after sunrise. מחספס, a word appearing only here. It has to be understood in its context, “tiny crystals like hoary frost.”

The children of Israel saw it and said to one another: What is this? — for they did not know what it was. Moses said to them: It is the bread that Hashem has given you to eat.

מן הוא means this is something prepared for food, as in (Daniel 1:5) “And the king appointed (וימן) for them,”. כי לא ידעו מה הוא FOR THEY KNEW NOT WHAT IS WAS so that they could call it by its name.

"And they saw." Our master Solomon [Rashi] said that in the Arabic language the translation of mah hu ["what is it?"] is man hu. But whoever told him this did not speak correctly, for the Arabic translation of mah hu is mah hawi, whereas man hu in Arabic means "who is she?" — for man in their language falls only upon a person [not a thing]. For the meaning of man hu [in Hebrew] derives from the root of "who portioned out your food" [asher manah et ma'akhalekhem] (Daniel 1:10). R. Moses ha-Kohen said: we know that there is no strict chronological order in the Torah, for "and Moses said to them" — he had already said it, and there are many such cases; and in this very passage, "and it bred worms and stank" (v. 20) — it had already stunk; and likewise it is written, "and it did not stink, nor was there a worm in it" (v. 24). The text delayed reporting Moses's words here because it needed to extend the account and say, "this is the thing that Hashem has commanded."

ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא, They said to one another it is manna, etc. We need to understand why this whole verse is necessary. Perhaps G'd caused them to say מן instead of מה, and this remained the name of this heavenly bread. This would correspond to a commentary on Psalms 46,9 in Berachot 7 where the word Shammot, desolation, is read instead as Shemot, names. According to the Talmud, G'd Himself named different phenomena in His world. The words כי לא ידעו, "for he (the people) did not know what it was," would be the reason why G'd had to supply the name. This may have been the reason the Israelites eventually lamented the nature of the manna. Perhaps the Israelites were very clever calling it מן as they realised (verse 31) that this word itself was something unusual and reflected the Spirit of G'd.

מן הוא, in the Egyptian language this word is equivalent to the Hebrew: מה, “what?” People were asking one another about the nature of this layer of a flaky substance above the layer of dew.

מן הוא, “it is a portion (of food)!” The word is derived from מנה, a gift.” we find the word in Samuel I 1,8 מנה אחת אפים, “a double-portion (of gifts).” Here too the arrival of the manna was a gift for Moses (who had not even had to ask G’d for it). The Torah had to explain this as the Israelites did not know what to make of this new phenomenon. Seeing that they did not know what it was they named it “a gift” (from heaven). Rabbeinu Chananel writes: the words מן הוא mean מאין הוא “where does it come from,” as they did not know its origin.

“And they said to one another, it is manna.” Some say that because the letters of man [manna] are the same as the letters of the nose [in Hebrew, these letters are mem and nun], for when a person closes his nose, he cannot pronounce the letters “mem” and “nun” clearly. The manna contained the aroma of all foods in the world, but with their eyes they only saw this manna, as it is written our eyes see nothing but this manna. They called it man [manna] to say that just as these two letters cannot be pronounced clearly when the nose is closed, so too the manna, which only contains the aroma of all foods, loses its perfection when the nose is closed. However, our Sages of blessed memory said (Yoma 75) that it [the manna] also had the sense of taste of all types of food, that the palate could taste in it all types of flavors. Therefore, they said to one another “man hu” [what is it?], a language of food preparation, meaning that it had the potential for all types of food in the world, for one who tasted it was like one who ate from everything. They did not yet give it its designated name because they did not know what it was. Also, they did not yet call it by the name “man” [manna], rather they only said among themselves “man hu,” but they did not call it by this name yet, until after the Sabbath day, as it is said, And the people rested on the seventh day (Exodus 16:30), and afterwards it is written, And they called its name man (Exodus 16:31). This is because on the sixth day a double portion of bread descended, therefore they called it by the name man because these are from the doubled letters when you write mem-nun [the m sound appearing twice in mem and the n sound appearing twice in nun], named after this miracle that it descended doubled on the sixth day. And what is written “The house of Israel called its name manna.” And it does not say “the children of Israel,” because the house of Israel refers to the women, as Rashi explained on the verse Thus shall you say to the house of Jacob — these are the women (Exodus 19:3). And it means that the women especially cherished the manna, therefore they called it by a name indicating the permanence of the thing, because they wanted it to remain as it revealed the righteousness of the women, as mentioned in tractate Yoma (75a): And the manna was like coriander seed — indicating who had sinned against whom — whether the husband against his wife or the wife against him. If the manna was found at her father’s house, then certainly her husband had sinned against her, and vice versa, etc. Therefore, the women cherished it in order to demonstrate their righteousness, because generally women are overcome by men. And this is the meaning of each man according to those in his tent shall take — for the needs of his wife who is in his tent. Because if it seemed to him that his wife was rebelling against him and there were no witnesses to the matter, then he would take the manna, as it would reveal all the events that occurred in his tent. And with this, the phrasing “for those who are in his tent” is precise, and immediately after it states And the manna was like coriander seed, because these depend on each other. And based on this, it seems to me that the term man is as written (Exodus 10:8) Who and who are going which Targum translates as “man uman,” so here too it would indicate who sinned against whom, which is the meaning of man. And according to the conclusion in the Talmud there that it would indicate whether a child was born after nine months to the first husband or after seven months to the second husband, it seems to me that man is from the language of counting, because through it they could count whether it was a nine-month child or a seven-month child.

ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא?, they said to one another: ”what is it?” some commentators believe that the word מן is derived from the root מנה as in Daniel 1,10 מנה את מאכלכם, “he has provided your food,” although here the word appears in the text before Moses had told the people that this was to serve as their bread. Other commentators link the word to the expression מנה אחת אפים, “a gift of SPECIAL value.” (Samuel I 1,5) The final letter ה is missing in the word מן, according to that interpretation.

ויאמרו איש אל אחיו מן הוא, seeing that they did not know what it was; this is also the interpretation offered by Dunash in a book called “answers of Dunash,’ aimed at the commentary of Menachem, arguing that the end of the verse proves that this must be the meaning. I say that the meaning of the words מן הוא is simply: “whose is it?” Seeing that this is an Egyptian expression, and in that tongue the meaning of מן is the same as the meaning of מה “what,” in Hebrew, the reason why Moses used the Egyptian term is simply because there was no comparable Hebrew word for that phenomenon. It is not so out of character for the Torah when quoting people, to describe what they said in the language in which it was said. Examples are: Genesis 31,47 where the words יגר שהדותא for the monument erected by Lavan and called Galed by Yaakov, is repeated verbatim in the local language Lavan spoke. When, in the Book of Esther 3,7 we read about a פור, which means “lots” in English, but is the Persian equivalent, this reflects what was familiar to people in that region and at that time. Esther and Mordechai did not have to use this Persian term at all. All they had to write was what they did write in explaining the meaning of the word, i.e. הוא הגורל, “that is the lot.” After all, the entire Book of Esther with the exception of a couple of words is written in Hebrew. However, if the Book of Esther had not first mentioned the word פור we would not have understood why the festival was called פורים. The word מן therefore is quite understandable in light of the circumstances.

This is the thing that Hashem has commanded: Gather from it, each man according to what he eats — an omer per head, according to the number of your persons; each man shall take for those in his tent.

עמר — the name of a measure. מספר נפשתיכם — The second half of the verse means ACCORDING TO (supply כ before מספר) THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHOM A MAN HAS (איש לאשר being the same as אשר לאיש) IN HIS TENT SHALL YE TAKE AN OMER FOR EVERY HEAD (לַגֻּלגֹּלֶת the definite article with the ל having distributive force: each and every).

This [the omer per head] is by way of estimation — an omer per head for one who is grown in years, and for children according to their eating.

'זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, and in the morning you will eat bread (food) to satisfy yourselves. (compare verse 12) לקטו ממנו, everyone to his heart’s desire. Some would take more, others less but איש לפי אכלו עומר לגלגלת, מספר נפשותיכם איש לאשר באהלו תקחו, it would not matter how much they would collect, for when they would measure it they would find that each one had exactly one omer per family member in his tent. Every Israelite would receive (ultimately) an equal share of the heavenly food G’d would provide. It would satisfy him in accordance with the amount of food he was used to consume regularly. If someone was in the habit of eating relatively little, he would not now be able to change his eating habits and gorge himself. On the other hand, if someone was a glutton, receiving heavenly food would not require him to downsize his appetite.

איש לפי אכלו, everyone according to his capacity to eat. This does not refer to the individual's eating capacity but to the number of people in his household. The reason the Torah speaks about a single individual's capacity to eat, i.e. אכלו is because the head of the household determines how many people depend on him. Nonetheless he could collect on behalf of people who though dwelling in his tent did not depend on him. You will find confirmation of this approach when you study the way the Torah describes who collected how much. In verse 17 we are told that each person had collected an amount corresponding to individual need, whereas in verse 16 we are told that after they measured what they had collected they found that each one had collected exactly one Omer per head. If that is all that mattered, why did the Torah have to add: "according to the number of persons in his tent?" Clearly, the Torah wanted to include persons in a tent for whose maintenance the head of the household was not responsible. You will find studying what the Talmud Yuma 75 has to say on the subject very illuminating.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, “this is the subject concerning which Hashem has commanded: “collect some of it!” We must not misunderstand this verse as a commandment to collect ail the manna. We know from what follows that each personregardless of how much he thought he had collectedhad collected only one omer per family member. This is why the Torah could report that the people had fulfilled this command with the words: ויעשו כן בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel did so. The socalled commandment was to be an ongoing commandment valid as long as the manna descended from the celestial regions on a regular basis. The ongoing miracle, in addition to being “heavenly bread,” was that it was meant to be לשובע, “to eat enough to be satiated,” not to gorge oneself. Therefore, even an Israelite who thought that he had collected two omers, upon returning to his tent found that he had collected only one omer. The word צוה here is to be understood just as the word צוה in Psalms 33,9: הוא צוה ויעמוד, “He commanded and it endured.” In other words, the commandment in question had no time limit attached to it. It applied equally in the reverse; if someone had intended to collect only half an omer, and was sure that he had done so, upon measuring it after he came home, he found that he had in fact collected a whole omer.

זה הדבר אשר צוה ה': לקטו ממנו איש לפי אכלו, “this is the thing G’d has commanded: “gather from it, each person according to how much he can eat.” Our sages in Mechilta Vayissa section 4 explained that Moses said to the people: “do not be afraid that Nachshon ben Aminadav and other powerful men will come and gather so much of it that hardly any of it will be left for the poor; each Israelite will have as much as he can eat.” What was the quantity that every Israelite could eat (or, better, required)? “One omer per head.” The meaning of this statement in the text is that if one ate an omer of manna per day one maintained one’s health. If one ate less it would be injurious to one’s health, and if one ate more than an omer it would also be injurious to one’s health. As to the words מספר נפשותיכם איש לאשר באהלו, “according to the number of persons in each man’s tent you will take,” these words refer to one’s wife whose proper place is within the tent. We know this from Sarah who is described as being inside the tent (Genesis 18,9) and we have a verse in Psalms 45,14 “that the true honor of the king’s daughter is reflected by the fact that she remains indoors.” One of the halachic messages of this verse is that a husband/father is obligated to look after the requirements of his wife and children while they are minors. This is why the Torah speaks of “the number of your souls (persons).” This is the way Rabbeinu Chananel explains the wording of our verse. This verse contains two extremely significant themes, each one of which has ramifications in the terrestrial as well as the celestial spheres. The themes are: 1) the significance of the letters in our alpha-bet (22); 2) the subject of parnassah (livelihood). There is nothing in this world which is not rooted in some letter or letters of the א-ב. Neither is there anything in either the terrestrial or the celestial spheres which does not require continued input by a heavenly force in order to survive. We call this input פרנסה. Anyone or anything which is not self-sustaining is in need of פרנסה, benevolent, life-sustaining input by G’d. Our sages in Berachot 4 told us about the value of reciting Psalm 145 three times daily by promising that he who recites it three times daily is assured of life in the hereafter. They have revealed to us that the principal features of the Psalm are that it is organised according to the letters of the א-ב, each line starting with a different letter; secondly, it deals with the fact that G’d provides פרנסה, i.e. the line starting with פותח את ידך ומשביע לכל-חי רצון, “You give it open-handedly, feeding every creature to its heart’s content.” Our verse here also includes both of these themes seeing it contains all the 22 letters of the א-ב, and it also has as its theme that G‘d provides פרנסה. This led the sages (Mechilta Vayissa section 2) to say that the Torah was given only to the people who depended on the manna as their daily food, i.e. who depended on their פרנסה coming directly from Hashem. It is appropriate then that one recites the paragraph dealing with G’d providing the manna at least once daily to help stave off famine, etc., in our world.

עומר לגלגולת, “one omer (measure) per head.” According to Ibn Ezra this was the amount intended for an adult, whereas there would be a commensurably smaller amount for each child, an amount that would correspond to the nutritional needs of each child.

The children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more and some less.

המרבה והממעיט SOME MUCH, SOME LITTLE — There were some who gathered much and there were some who gathered little; and when they came home they measured it out by an Omer, each what he had gathered, and they then found that he who had gathered much had no excess over an Omer for each head that was in his tent, and that he who had gathered less did not find less than an Omer for each head, and this was a great miracle that was wrought in respect of it (the Manna).

"And they did so." According to the plain sense: the one who took much and the one who took little [took] according to the number of the souls of his household. But our ancestors said this was a miracle.

ויעשו כן, “they did accordingly.” According to the plain meaning of the text, each collector gathered in accordance with the quantity appropriate for the number of people that were part of his household. Our sages say that something miraculous happened, i.e. that even people who had misjudged the quantity they thought they needed, found out when they returned to their respective tents or huts that they had collected exactly the amount appropriate for their respective families.

וילקטו, at random, without measuring any of it.

When they measured it by the omer, the one who had gathered more had nothing left over, and the one who had gathered less was not lacking — each man gathered according to what he eats.

"And they measured by the omer" — each one found [exactly] as much as he had estimated.

ולא העדיף המרבה, “these words have to be taken at their face value, i.e. if someone found that he had collected more than an omer he would throw out the excess, and if someone found he had collected less, he went back to gather the balance.

“And the one who gathered more did not have too much, and the one who gathered less did not have too little.” The Akeidah wrote, and similarly the Abarbanel wrote, that this is a miracle demonstrating that a person’s sustenance is allotted to them according to their needs for life. When a person departs from this world, the one who accumulated much wealth will not have an excess because they cannot take everything with them in death, and the one who has fewer possessions will not lack because God provides for all flesh according to their needs. For this reason, a miracle was performed with the manna in its measurement, as they all found an equal amount, and what was left over until the next day bred worms. This indicates that whatever a person wants to save for the next day is something that perishes and decays, ultimately becoming worm food. Everything one leaves behind from their wealth goes to others, perhaps to the one who marries his widow, for he leaves to others the wealth and walls he built and what he planted. The seeds he sowed with toil and trouble will not be his. Therefore it says, Each one according to those in his tent shall take, for the needs of his household, to bring sustenance to satisfy the hunger of his home. And therefore the Torah was only given to those who ate the manna, because this is the path trodden by all who engage in God’s Torah, who reject excesses that ultimately lead to decay. Except for what they set aside for the Sabbath day, it did not spoil and no worms appeared in it. For this is a miracle demonstrating that what a person sets aside from his food for the day that is entirely Sabbath in the World to Come — by feeding his bread to the hungry — this thing endures eternally and does not spoil. Such a hint is sufficient for those who fear God and give importance to His name, and the wicked will not understand, but the wise will understand their future. And for this instruction, God commanded to place a jar of manna for safekeeping before the testimony, the place of the tablets, to make known that the testimony of the tablets was given only to those who ate the manna.

וימודו, after they had come home. The construction of the word וימודו from the root מדד is similar to the word ויסובו, they circled, from the root סבב.

Moses said to them: No man shall leave any of it until morning.

"And Moses said." The meaning is that they should not leave over from it to eat tomorrow, but should trust in Hashem, for tomorrow it would descend. He was not commanding them to eat it all — rather, if some remained that one could not eat, he should cast it outside his tent.

ויאמר משה…אל יותר ממנו עד בקר, Moses said…not to leave over from it till the following morning. It is possible that Moses issued this directive on his own. He did so because he knew that G'd would provide daily rations. He interpreted G'd's intention as being that one day's food supply should not serve as preparation for the following day's needs. This may be why the Torah phrases Israel's disobedience as "they did not listen to Moses," instead of simply saying: "they left some over till the morning." Furthermore, why was it not sufficient to say: "they did not listen and left some over?" This would have told us that they did not listen to the one who had given the instructions. According to our interpretation the meaning of "and they did not listen" means the reason they ignored Moses' instructions was that they were clever enough to perceive that the instructions originated with Moses and not with G'd. This also explains the fact that Moses had introduced the instructions he gave concerning collecting the manna in verse 16 as being in the name of G'd. He had not done so previously. If the manna turned bad and sprouted worms this shows that G'd agreed with Moses' intiative. It is also possible that every instruction Moses issued originated with G'd; seeing Moses had already introduced his directives concerning collection of the manna as instructions given to him by G'd, he did not see the need to re-emphasize this at every juncture. The Israelites misunderstood this, thinking Moses had acted on his own. They also did not know that instructions issued by a prophet are to be obeyed even if the prophet did not receive specific instructions concerning them from G'd.

אל יותר, “do not leave any over!” The word יותר is word is to be understood as if it had been spelled in the transitive mode אל יותיר. We have other examples of such a formulation, as in Genesis 24,53, where Avraham’s servant Eliezer is described as taking jewelry out of his pocket or luggage, to give to Rivkah, and instead of the Torah writing: ויוציא העבד, it wrote: ויוצא העבד, “which literally translated would mean ”he went out,“ instead of “he took out.” These formulations of the root יצא also occur in the opposite direction as in Psalms 105,43: “He led His people out in gladness, “מוצא רוח מאוצרותיו ויוציא עמו בששון,“ or in Psalms 135 7: מוצא רוח מאורותיו, “He releases the wind from His vaults.”

אל יותר ממנו, “do not leave any leftovers from it.” Moses meant that no one should deliberately leave over from his portion meaning to eat the leftover on the day following. He did not mean that it was compulsory to eat up his whole portion. Anyone who found it impossible to eat up his entire portion was supposed to throw the leftover into the garbage.

They did not heed Moses, and some of the men left part of it until morning — and it bred worms and became putrid, and Moses was angry with them.

ויותרו אנשים BUT SOME MEN LEFT OF IT — Dathan and Abiram (Shemot Rabbah 24:10; cf. Rashi on Exodus 2:13). וירם תולעים AND IT BRED WORMS — the word וירם is of the same meaning and root as רִמָּה, worm. ויבאש AND IT STANK — This is an inverted verse, because first it must have stunk and afterwards have become wormy, just as it is said, (v. 24) “And it did not stink and there was no worm therein — for this is the way of all things that become wormy (Mekhilta).

AND IT BRED WORMS, AND IT STANK. “This is a verse that is to be transposed, because [the manna that was left over until the morning] must have first stunk and afterwards become wormy, just as it is said, and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein, this being the way of all things that become wormy.” Thus Rashi’s language. Now if the manna had become wormy in a natural way, as is the way of all things that become wormy, Rashi’s statement would be correct. But since the manna became wormy in a miraculous way, it is possible that it bred worms first, and there is thus no need for inverting] the verse. Moreover, the verse which states [concerning the manna which they retained for Sabbath morning], and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein, proves that it was so, [i.e., that the manna left over by Dathan and Abiram bred worms first and then stank]. Had it not become wormy until it first stank, when Scripture says [concerning the manna left for the Sabbath], and it did not stink, it would thereby have already assured us that there was no worm therein. Why then should it repeat afterwards, neither was there any worm therein? If however, as the plain meaning of Scripture indicates, the manna that was left over until the morning by Dathan and Abiram became wormy first [in a supernatural way], it became necessary for Scripture to state that this manna [that was left over for the Sabbath] did not stink, nor did any worm come therein at all. Even things which become wormy in a natural way do not give off a stench unless they are warm and moist, but dry things only become wormy and do not give off an odor at all, just as wormy wood or fruits that become wormy when still growing or [immediately] afterwards. Thus Scripture relates that this manna [which Dathan and Abiram left over on a weekday, also stank [in the morning] by a miracle. And in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah we find that the Rabbis have said: “Is there anything that first becomes wormy and then gives off a stench? It is only that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanting to expose the deeds [of Dathan and Abiram] to the people, therefore caused [the left-over manna] to give off no stench at night lest they throw it out. Instead, during the entire night, it formed rows upon rows of worms, and at once Moses was wroth with them.”

"But they did not listen to Moses." The word "men" is connected to "did not listen to Moses" — for they were [only] a few men. R. Marinus said that va-yarum derives from the root remah ["worm"].

ויקצף עליהם משה, the reason that Moses was angry was that the leftover manna was not the result of it being more than the people could eat, but because it represented an attempt by the people to find out if what they had been warned of would really happen.

וירם תולעים, it developed worms. The reason the Torah tells us about this prior to telling us that the left-over manna rotted is, that normally we find worms develop only in foods which are sweet whereas these do not rot and stink. Since we have been told that the normal taste of the manna was like that of wafers covered with honey, we would have expected it to develop worms but not to rot and to give off a foul odour. The Torah therefore tells us that not only did it develop worms but it also rotted and began to stink. Verse 24 proves that our interpretation is correct, seeing that in that verse the absence of the foul odour is mentioned prior to the absence of worms. By reporting matters in that sequence the Torah tells us that even the worms which would normally develop did not develop overnight. I have noted that the Mechilta does not explain things the way we do; perhaps the author felt that the development of the worms preceded the decomposure of the manna although usually decomposure is the cause of the worms emerging (even though sweet foods do not rot and create foul odours). I believe it is likely that the Mechilta felt that the message of the Torah in relating these details was that worms by definition are the product of something which has gone rotten. Onkelos translates the word ויבאש as רע ביש, "bad and evil." Evil may be defined as the result of ignoring or violating the commandments of the Torah; a person who commits sins will eventually sprout worms. The mystical dimension of the existence of worms, i.e. parasites, is the sin committed by Adam when he ate from the tree of knowledge. It was an interaction of the fruit and the air (which he had polluted by his sin) which produced the first worm. All this is alluded to in the strangely worded וירם תולעים, "it raised worms," the cause being ויבאש, that something sinful had been committed with the manna. The Torah confirms this by its long-winded report in verse 24 where the Israelites are described as conforming with the instructions Moses had given concerning the treatment of the manna which had fallen on Friday. The thrust of that whole verse is to inform us that since no violation of the law had been committed there was no rotting and no worms were generated. When we are told in various stories in the Talmud that the bodies of certain righteous people did not produce worms after death, this merely confirms the nature and origin of worms. Compare Baba Metzia 84 about the single worm that grew out of the ear of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. That single worm was attributed to a sin committed with that ear.

וירם תולעים ויבאש, “it became infested with worms and stank.” Rashi claims that the Torah reports matters in inverted order, i.e. that it began to stink before worms infested it. He bases himself on the following sequence (16,24) ולא הבאיש ורמה לא היתה בו “it did not cause a stink, and had not produced worms.” Nachmanides writes that Rashi would be correct if matters had occurred in a natural sequence. Seeing that nothing connected to the manna could be judged by phenomena we are familiar with in our world, there is nothing strange in the Torah also reporting the process of manna going to rot as not conforming to natural phenomena. The reason why G’d arranged for the sequence of decomposition followed by stench, followed by worms, to be reversed, was that had the usual sequence been followed the stench during the night would already have alerted the Israelites and they would have discarded all the leftover manna immediately. In such an event Moses would not have any chance to vent his anger on those people who had disobeyed his instructions. By writing the inverted sequence on one occasion and the normal sequence on the other occasion, the Torah refers to this very point that we are dealing with another supernatural phenomenon and makes this quite clear.

They gathered it each morning, each man according to what he eats; and what remained of it upon the surface of the field melted when the sun shone upon it.

וחם השמש ונמס AND WHEN THE SUN WAXED HOT, IT MELTED — What was left in the field (outside the inhabited camp) melted and ran in streams; the harts and the roes drank therefrom, and the nations of the world hunted them and experienced through them the taste of the Manna, and thereby understood how great was Israel’s excellency (Mekhilta). ונמס Onkelos translates by פָּשָׁר, having the same meaning as פושרים, tepid waters: through the sun it became warm and turned into tepid water; old French détemperer. An example of it (פשר) occurs in Treatise Sanhedrin at the end of the chapter that begins, ארבע מיתות (Sanhedrin 67b).

"And they gathered, etc." The meaning of "and the sun grew hot": like the heat of the day, for the sun does not produce heat [by itself, but through the atmosphere]. "And it melted" — from the nif'al binyan, of the doubled [root] verbs.

בבקר בבקר, each morning; the syntax is similar to that in Genesis 39,10 where the words כדברה אל יוסף יום יום mean: “when she spoke to him (thus) each and every day.” We also have a similar line in Exodus 30,7 when the Torah speaks about the daily procedure of cleaning the candelabra, writing בבקר בבקר בהיטיבו את הנרות, “every morning when he would clean out the lamps, etc.” וחם השמש ונמס, this was the reason that the people would gather it up early in the morning so that it did not yet have a chance to melt from the heat.

וילקטו אותו בבקר בבקר, “they collected it morning after morning.” They rose to collect the manna before it started melting when the sun became hot. At that time it was impossible to collect it.

וילקטו אותו בבקר בבקר, “they collected it morning after morning.” Had the word בקר been written only once it would have meant two hours after sunrise. The repetition of the word בקר means that it could be collected until he end of four hours after sunrise. After that time the words: “when the sun was hot it would melt” would apply. Anyone who had failed to collect the manna by that time had to receive it as a charitable gift from people who had collected their share on time. A great miracle occurred in connection with the manna. Just as it was the function of the prophet to reveal to people matters otherwise concealed from them, so the manna served as a source of information (Yuma 75). If someone’s slave had fled and was found in some other household, and the householder claimed that the first owner had sold the slave to him, whereas the first householder claimed that the slave in question had fled from him, the number of omers of manna in the two households would reveal who had spoken the truth. If the first household wound up with an extra omer of manna it was evident that the slave had escaped from that household and had not been sold. If an extra portion of manna was found in the second household however, it was proof that the owner of that household had bought the slave, that he had not run away from the first household. The same would apply to a woman who had run away from her husband. If she were to claim that her husband had kicked her out and she would demand her כתובה, financial settlement, whereas her husband declared her guilty of the kind of infidelity by which she forfeits her כתובה, the presence or absence of an extra portion of manna would help to determine whose claim was true. Moses would announce that on the following morning when the husband went out to collect the daily manna ration for the family the truth would become evident. This is how the sages in Yuma 75 describe the judicial help which the manna represented. They base this on the wording of Numbers 11,7 that the manna כזרע גד הוא, “was like the seed of gad;” the Hebrew word גד being similar to מגיד, “telling, revealing.” It revealed many matters which had previously been hidden.

On the sixth day they gathered bread, twice as much — two omers for each person — and all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses.

לקטו לחם משנה THEY COLLECTED DOUBLE BREAD — when they measured in their tents what they had gathered they found it double — two Omers for each person (cf. Rashi on v. 5). (Rashi appears to supply אשר before לקטו: It came to pass on the sixth day, what they gathered אשר לַקטו, was double bread.) A Midrashic explanation is that משנה in לחם משנה signifies מְשֻׁנָּה different, changed, — that day it was changed for the better as regards its smell and its taste (Tanchuma Yashan). ויגידו למשה AND THEY TOLD IT TO MOSES — They asked him, “How is this day different from other days?” — From this we may learn that Moses had not yet told them the section regarding the Sabbath which he had been commanded to say to them: (v. 5) “And it shall come to pass on the sixth day they shall prepare etc.” — he did not do this until they asked him, “What is this?” Then he said to them, (v. 23) “This is that which the Lord hath said” this is that which I was commanded to say to you previously, but I forgot to do so (Cf. Shemot Rabbah 25:10). On this account Scripture (God) punished him, in that He said to him, (v. 28) “How long will ye refuse [to keep my commandments]”, and He did not exclude him from the general body, by saying, “how long will they refuse etc.”

"And it came to pass." The manna descended in greater measure than usual, as will be explained. And Israel gathered a double portion of bread, for Moses had commanded them to do so — though they did not know why. Moreover, the text says they "gathered" [lakatu], not that they "found" — they had to gather it. The princes came and reported to Moses that Israel had done as he commanded them, and they asked him what they should do, since why had he commanded them to gather a double portion, and how could they eat it all?

ויגידו למשה, they told Moses about it. This proves that Moses had not previously informed them of what G'd had said. It is hard to reconcile this with the well known prohibition for a prophet to suppress a prophecy that has been revealed to him (Sanhedrin 89). Moses' failure to inform the people seems especially peculiar seeing that by withholding such information he would prevent the performance of a מצוה. The author cites a variety of reasons why we cannot assume that Moses had forgotten to communicate part of G'd's instructions to the people. Actually, Moses did have good reason to act as he did. He made this plain when he said: "this is what G'd has said: 'tomorrow is a solemn day of rest for G'd;'" You will observe that Moses did not include the customary לאמור when he referred to what G'd had said. By omitting the word "to say," Moses hinted that G'd had not instructed him to communicate this commandment to the Israelites already earlier during the week. In view of what we have learned in Yuma 4 Moses was under obligation not to reveal any communication from G'd unless he had been given either permission to do so or he had been commanded to do so. In this instance G'd had done neither. We have discussed all this in our commentary on verse 11 of this chapter. The proof of the correctness of Moses' conduct is evident from verse 5 where G'd neither told him to tell the people nor permitted him to convey the information at that time. Moses had simply not been appointed as G'd's messenger concerning this detail of the Shabbat/manna legislation. This is why after the Israelites reported to him that a double measure of manna had fallen Moses merely acknowledged that he had known about this all along. He implied that G'd had sealed his lips in this regard. We now have to analyse who gave Moses permission to reveal even at this stage that G'd had already told him about all this previously. I believe that Moses was clever enough to figure out why G'd had not wanted him to tell the people about this at the time. He reasoned that G'd wanted to implant faith in the people that the whole Sabbath legislation was fair and justified. If they would experience the way G'd provided for them on the Sabbath by an event orchestrated by G'd Himself, as opposed to a message relayed by a prophet, the psychological effect would be so much greater. They had to be surprised to find provision for the Sabbath already on Friday. If G'd would command them not to commit certain types of work on the Sabbath after He had already made the performance of such work unnecessary, it would be easy to accept the restrictions which are part of the Sabbath. This why Shemot Rabbah 25,11 considers that observance of the Sabbath is equivalent to observing all the commandments. It was a commandment the Israelites embraced wholeheartedly after seeing that it was really a gift from G'd to them. Had Moses told the people that no manna would fall on the Sabbath and as a result the people w...

לחם משנה, from the expression לחם משנה we can deduce that each person unwittingly collected two omers. Seeing that this is so, why did the Torah have to add the words: “two omers for each person?” The reason is that the second portion of manna collected on that day was destined especially for consumption on the Sabbath, and that is the reason why the letter ל at the beginning of the word לכם has the full vowel kametz under it instead of the semivowel sh’vah which we would have expected. ויגידו, “They told;” the people told Moses about this phenomenon as they were afraid that if they were to hide the extra portion until the following morning he would become angry at them, as he had already previously been angry at any of the people who had saved some manna overnight against his warning not to do so. He had not informed them beforehand about the rules governing the manna on the Sabbath in order that they should not go out on the Sabbath eve to collect one omer only to find that they had come with two omers each.

ויהי ביום הששי לקטו לחם משנה, “when it came to Friday, they found that they had collected a double measure of bread.” Our sages interpret the wording of this verse as proving that only after the people collecting manna had returned to their respective tents, did they become aware that they had gathered twice the normal quantity. At that point Moses had not yet informed them of this. Ibn Ezra claims that according to the plain meaning of the text Moses had instructed them to collect double the usual amount; he uses the words לקטו ממנו, “they collected of it, etc.” to prove his point. Had the matter been a miracle, the Torah would have described their activity on that day as something they had ”found,” as opposed to something that they had expected to be there. As it was, the princes told Moses that the people had done what Moses had told them to do, i.e. collected double the usual amount. They then asked Moses what to do with the surplus, seeing that in their experience any surplus would rot and become worm-eaten. Moses replied that G’d had already commanded him and Aaron concerning the work stoppage to be observed on the Sabbath, and that as a result all the food needed for the Sabbath had to be prepared on Friday. He told them to conserve the second omer until the morning of the Sabbath, at which time he told them to go ahead and to eat it, as there would not be any new manna on that day. Rashi writes that the words את אשר תבשלו וגו' applied to both days, in other words they were told to prepare food for two days instead of for one. The reason why the people came to Moses on the Sabbath in the morning was that they were not willing to eat stale food, food that had been prepared on the previous day. Moses then explained that this food was not stale food, and that the reason he had asked the people to prepare all of it on Friday was precisely so that it would not be stale food on the Sabbath. The honour of the Sabbath demanded that no new manna descend on that holy day. It is possible that Moses told the people that they could eat as much of the total as they wanted on the Friday, and that any leftover, however small, proved to be adequate for their needs on the Sabbath.

ויגידו למשה, what they had found, i.e. that each of them had found double the usual ration. Moses had been told this by G’d already on the first day, but had withheld this information up until now.

שני העומר, “two measures known as omer,” (per person). During all the weekdays in the year they made two loaves of bread from one measure of flour called omer. It follows that they were able to make four loaves from the amount of manna which fell on the Sabbath eve. The first of these were meant to be eaten on the Sabbath eve. The next two loaves were used on the meal after Kiddush on Friday night, when one of these loaves would be eaten. It was the people’s custom to eat one loaf of bread each during each meal. This left them with two loaves for the Sabbath day. This enabled them to again have two loaves at the Sabbath day meal. This serves as proof that there is no halachic requirement to have two loaves of bread for the Sabbath afternoon meal. (Compare Tur shulchan aruch, orach chayim, paragraph 298) However, I have seen a very learned Rabbi in Merinon who insisted on having two whole loaves of bread for his afternoon meal on the Sabbath, and I have been told of Rabbi Avraham that the origin of that custom is verse 29 are the words: כי ה' נתן לכם את השבת, “for the Lord has given you the Sabbath,” which were interpreted by Rabbi Yitzchok as follows: “if the gentiles ask you why you are so meticulous in observing the laws of the Sabbath, tell them of the great miracle we experienced while in the desert when on account of the Sabbath G–d gave us an extra portion of manna.” (Compare Yalkut Shimoni, section 1 paragraph 261) According to what is stated there, not only is there no need to have two loaves for the Sabbath afternoon meal, but it is even doubtful if kiddush need to be recited over wine unless one interprets the superfluous words יום השבת (Exodus 20,8) as suggested by the Talmud tractate Beytzah and Pessachim, folio 106.

He said to them: This is what Hashem has spoken: A Sabbath, a holy Sabbath before Hashem, is tomorrow. Whatever you intend to bake, bake it, and whatever you intend to cook, cook it; and all that remains, set aside for yourselves to keep until morning.

את אשר תאפו אפו THAT WHICH YOU WOULD BAKE, BAKE whatever you wish to bake (cf. Onkelos: די אתון עתידין למפא and Rashi on אז ישיר משה) in the oven bake to-day — all that you will need for two days; and what you require to boil of it in water boil to-day. The expression baking applies to bread, (cf. Rashi on Genesis 40:1) and the expression boiling to a cooked dish. למשמרת means as something put by (to be kept).

BAKE THAT WHICH YE WILL BAKE. Rashi explained: “Whatever you wish to bake in the oven or boil in water, bake and boil today — all [that you require] for two days.” If so, the purport of the verse is as follows: “That which you would bake of the two omers you have, bake today, and that which you would boil of the two omers, boil now, and all that remaineth for you after eating to the full today, lay up for you to be kept until the morning.” In the morning [of the Sabbath-day], when the Israelites saw that it did not spoil, they came before Moses, since they did not want to eat the manna of yesterday even though Moses had permitted it to be kept until the morning. Then Moses permitted them to eat it on that Sabbath-day only “because it was for that purpose of which I said to keep it for a charge.” He further informed them of the reason of the commandment, for today ye shall not find it in the field, since G-d does it so because it is a holy Sabbath unto the Eternal. It is possible that by saying and all that remaineth over, He did not set any measure for that. Rather, they could eat at will on the sixth day, as the remainder would suffice for the Sabbath, because it is the blessing of the Eternal. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “That which you would bake ordinarily — namely, the [daily] omer known to you — bake for your use today; and all that remaineth, namely, the second omer, lay up for you to be kept until the morning. At that time, Moses did not tell them what to do with the second omer. It was on the following morning [the Sabbath], that he told them, eat that today.” But if so, they ate the manna on the Sabbath raw, without baking it or seething it in pots and making cakes of it as it was their custom to do. The first interpretation, [that of Rashi], is more correct, and so is the opinion of Onkelos.

"And he said." Hashem had already told me that you are obligated to rest tomorrow and to perform no labor — not even the preparation of food — for tomorrow is a Sabbath to Hashem. This day is attached to that name [Shabbat] because He rested from all His work on the seventh day; and similarly, in the Sabbatical year, "the land shall keep a Sabbath to Hashem" (Leviticus 25:2). The word "Shabbat" is grammatically difficult, for it does not follow the pattern of ganav [a qal verbal noun], since the tav of Shabbat is a marker of the feminine gender — the proof being "it is a Sabbath [hi] to Hashem" (Leviticus 23:3). The word shabbat is a noun like the word shevitah ["resting"]. By strict grammatical rule, the form ought to have been shabbetet, on the pattern of daleket (Deuteronomy 28:22); when the final tav was dropped, the bet was vowelized with a patach to indicate the feminine — and similarly the word achat ["one," feminine], as I will explain. The word afu ["that you bake"] is unusual, for it should by rights follow the pattern of asu ["that you do"]. Now Moses was telling the princes what to do: "What you would bake" — as you normally would — "bake" [enough] to eat today; and likewise, "what you would cook, cook"; for from a single omer you have done all this: cook everything as you wish and eat what suffices you. "And all that is left over" — set it aside until the morning, [when] I will tell you what to do. He did not reveal to them that the manna would not fall on the Sabbath day; only in the morning did he disclose this secret to them.

את אשר תאפו, the portion of each day’s ration which they would bake in an oven. The subject has been referred to again in Numbers 11,8 as ועשו אותו עוגות “they would make it into cakes.” אפו!, now, on the Sabbath eve. ואת אשר תבשלו, and the portion of it which you want to prepare boiled, parallel to what is described in the corresponding chapter in Numbers as ובשלו בפרד, “they boiled it in a pot.”

הוא אשר דבר ה, “this is precisely what Hashem had said;” Moses refers to what we have read in verse 5 that the people on the Sabbath eve were to prepare the manna in anticipation of eating it on he Sabbath. ואת כל העודף, “and any excess of the regular amount of manna” was intended for the two meals to be consumed on the Sabbath. It was not to be consumed on the night that had already passed. G-d had decreed especially that contrary to what had occurred during the week days, the excess had not become smelly and unfit to eat and worm ridden.

שבתון שבת קודש לה' מחר, “a rest day, a holy Sabbath for the Lord tomorrow.” According to the plain meaning of the text the reason why the word Sabbath is repeated is because there are two distinct aspects to each and every Sabbath. One is to do with the עומר, which will be dealt with in verse 29, the other with the special מוסף offering which was offered in the Temple on every Sabbath accompanied by the recital of a special hymn (Psalm 92) sung by the Levites on that occasion. A Kabbalistic approach: the combination of the words שבתון שבת קודש לה' מחר mean that the Sabbath on the day following Moses’ announcement would be parallel to the Sabbath observed in the celestial regions.

'ויאמר אליהם הוא אשר דבר ה, already on the first day, but I did not tell you about it. Moses had deliberately waited until they would express their amazement at the phenomenon of a double portion on Friday in order to be able to explain to them that this was all in honour of the forthcoming Sabbath. אפו, actually, the letter א in אפו should have been written with a chataf segol just as in אכל, echol, from the root אכל, or emor, from the root אמר. This would have been a normal imperative mode. However, seeing that the tone-sign does not link it to the word following, this resulted in the vowel tzeyre, a longer sounding vowel, instead of the chataf segol we would have expected. I have not really found any other parallel of this construction in the Bible other than the word heyvu in Hoseah 4,18 אהבו הבו קלון מגיניה, “they love beyond measure-disgrace is the gift.”[a reproof to the priests who demanded too much from the people. Ed.]

They set it aside until morning, as Moses had commanded, and it did not become putrid, and there were no worms in it.

ורמה לא היתה בו, “and no worms had developed on it.” This verse is an allusion to our tradition that on the Sabbath the corpses are not being disturbed by worms (compare Torah Shleimah note 132). The expression ורמה occurs only twice in the whole Bible, once here and the other time in Job 21,26 ורמה תכסה עליהם, “and worms cover them.” The verse in Job describes the state of corpses during the six days of the week; our verse describes the state of corpses on the Sabbath.

ולא הבאיש, even the worms which would normally become manifest in short order. לא היתה בו, did not materialise on it.

Moses said: Eat it today, for today is a Sabbath before Hashem; today you will not find it in the field.

ויאמר משה אכלהו היום AND MOSES SAID, EAT THAT THIS DAY etc. — In the morning, when they had been accustomed to go forth and gather it, they came to enquire, “Shall we go out or not?” He replied to them, “What you have in your possession eat (אכלהו היום)”. In the evening they again came before him and asked him, “How is it now about going out?” He answered them, שבת היום “Today is the Sabbath”. He saw that they were worried believing perhaps the Manna had stopped and would not again fall; he therefore said to them, “Today ye shall not find it [in the field]”. What reason was there to say “Today”? — Today you will not find it, but tomorrow you will find it (Mekhilta).

"And Moses said." Many who lack faith have stumbled over this verse, saying that a person is obligated to observe the Sabbath day and the night that follows it, since Moses said "today is a Sabbath to Hashem" — and not the preceding night. They also interpreted "and there was evening and there was morning" (Genesis 1:5) as they wished, claiming that the first day did not end until the morning of the second day. But they did not speak correctly. Moses was speaking to Israel only according to their [normal] custom, as I have noted for you — for the customs of non-Jewish lands differ from the customs of the Land of Israel in their food, clothing, building, and practices; and it is no one's custom to bake or cook in summer or winter, nor to do any labor, except by day. That is why he said "tomorrow." Now attend carefully to grasp the foolishness of those interpreters of "and there was evening and there was morning" that I have mentioned, for the text says, "and God called the light 'day'" (Genesis 1:5) — that is, from the moment the sun rises until it sets; "and the darkness He called 'night'" — from sunset until sunrise. Night is thus the opposite of day, just as darkness is the opposite of light. How then can the period from evening — that is, the setting of the sun — until the morning of the day be called a "day"? It is night! — and concerning these things it is said: "they call night day." Know that the word "day" [yom] in the holy tongue is used in two senses: the first as I stated — all the time that the light of the sun stands upon the earth for any given place; therefore it is written "night and day" (Esther 4:16) and "day and night" (Genesis 8:22) and "three days and three nights" (Jonah 2:1) — for if the measure of "day" included the night within it, why would one mention night at all? This cannot stand by any sound logic of language, whereby a single noun encompasses two things that are opposites of each other. The second sense: the word "day" falls upon a time near or far — "on the day I struck every firstborn" (Numbers 3:13), "you are crossing today" (Deuteronomy 9:1), "to another land as this day" (ibid. 29:27), "and it shall come to pass on that day" (Isaiah 7:21), and many like these. Let us now set all these points aside and seek the [definition of] "day" [meant] in Torah law: as I have said, our [calendar] years are not fixed by the course of sun and moon alone but by the determination of the court. And we find that it says "seven days you shall eat matzot" (above, 12:15), and it explains that this count runs from "the fourteenth of the month in the evening" (ibid. 12:18); and it is written "from evening to evening you shall rest your Sabbath" (Leviticus 23:32). Furthermore, one who has a nocturnal emission at night or by day — as it is written, "a nocturnal occurrence" (Deuteronomy 23:11) — does not become pure until sunset, which is the end of the first day. If it were so that [the unit] extends until the morning of the second day, he should immerse in the morning, since they claim that the day together with the night following it constitutes a [single] "day" — [in that case] half of the day would be impure and half pure. And one who has an emission at the beginning of the night would have half of the previous day impure and half of the coming day [impure] as well. These are the words of those who go astray. I have already explained "and there was evening and there was morning" in its own place. "And Moses said": here he explained what they should do with the leftover that had been set aside, and revealed the secret to them — that they would not find it that day, for none would fall.

אכלוהו היום, at fixed times, from this date onward. 'כי שבת היום לה, this entire day is a Sabbath in honour of G’d. It was permitted to eat any manna left over from Friday on the entire Sabbath. However, if any was left over after the Sabbath it could not be eaten anymore. היום לא תמצאוהו, on the entire Sabbath you will not find any manna on the ground anywhere just as you did not on this Sabbath.

אכלהו היום כי שבת היום, "eat it to-day for to-day is a Sabbath, etc." Why did Moses have to command the people to eat the manna? Perhaps this was because he had previously told them to leave aside what was left to keep it till the following morning. He had not spelled out to them that they not only could keep it but were also allowed to eat it. Although we do not have Moses on record as having forbidden the consumption of any left-over manna on other days, it seems evident from the verses about the way to treat the manna on the Sabbath that he must have forbidden the left-overs. Perhaps the prohibition of such left-overs stems from the same consideration as the prohibition to consume meat from sacrificial offerings after the time limit allocated to such a sacrifice has expired. Compare Chulin 114 where our sages state that "anything which I have declared as rejected by Me, you must not eat." Moses' emphasis on "eat it to-day," clearly indicates that it was not to be eaten after to-day. Moses added the words "for to-day is a Sabbath," in order that the Israelites should not form the impression that the prohibition to eat yesterday's manna on the morrow also applied to the Sabbath. The last words in the verse may also be understood as the rationale for the people not being able to find manna in the field on that day. In other words: "the reason you will not find manna in the field to-morrow is that to-morrow is a Sabbath for G'd." We may have an allusion here to what Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said in the Zohar second part page 88: "The food supply for the six weekdays descends from the celestial spheres on the Sabbath; this supply then descends further on a daily basis." Moses only excluded the manna from being found on the Sabbath in our world, i.e. בשדה, in the celestial world it could be found on the Sabbath.

אכלהו היום כי שבת היום לה' לא תמצאוהו בשדה, “Eat it today, for today is the Sabbath for Hashem; you will not find it in the field.” Mechilta Vayissa section 4 understands the emphasis on the word היום, today, in our verse to mean that whereas in this terrestrial universe you will not find the manna on the Sabbath, in the hereafter you will be able to find it, i.e. you will be able to locate the source from which it had emanated. This is a reference to the אור העליון, the celestial light, we have discussed already. The word היום, today, occurs three times in our verse. This is an allusion to the halachah that we are to eat three meals on the Sabbath. (Shabbat 117). Let me reveal to you a secret which our sages the Kabbalists have discovered to be part of that legislation to consume three meals on the Sabbath: The first meal, the one to be consumed at night, corresponds to the attribute (commandment) שמור, to observe the negative commandments of the Sabbath, work prohibitions, etc. This attribute (emanation) is better known as מלכות, [the emanation which is the connection between the world of disembodied creatures and our own world, עולם העשיה, Ed.] Kabbalists have introduced the custom of going out of one’s house at the onset of the Sabbath to welcome the כלה שבת מלכתא, the bride “queen Sabbath,” with the words באי כלה, באי כלה, “welcome O bride, welcome O bride.” [In our countries we turn around at the end of the לכה דודי hymn in order to symbolize the same thought. Ed.] This is why Moses first said [even before mentioning the word Sabbath, Ed.] אכלהו היום, “eat it this day.” The word אכלהו contains the word כלה, a hint that we are to relate to the Sabbath as a groom relates to the bride, i.e. he sanctifies her by giving her a gift. The second meal, the Sabbath morning meal, is an allusion to the emanation יסוד, the one immediately above that of מלכות, also known as שבת הגדול. The principal sanctification of the Sabbath occurs by day and that is why that קדוש is generally known as קדושא רבא, (compare Pesachim 105 and 106). These considerations also account for the fact that in the daily evening prayer we recite the introductory paragraph before the קריאת שמע commencing with the words אהבת עולם, whereas the parallel paragraph before the קריאת שמע in the morning commences with the words אהבה רבה to indicate the greater importance of what is done by day (compare Berachot 11). It is well known that night is the period reserved primarily for שמור, passive observance, whereas day is reserved for זכור, active observance. This consideration prompted Moses to say in our verse כי שבת היום לה'. The third meal which is to be consumed after the מנחה prayer represents the conclusion of the day. It is an allusion to ראשית, i.e. the mainstay of all constructive activities, בנין, and its head, in the language of Kabbalists [a reference to the entire “structure” of the universe both physical and meta-physical. Ed.] To signify this Moses said: היום לא תמצאוהו, the word לא is similar to the word אין, as in Job 28,12 והחכמה מ-”אין" תמצא, “as to ‘wisdom’ it can only be found in a domain called “אין” (more on this on 17,7). The spiritual significance of the three meals on the Sabbath proceeds from the lowest emanation to the next higher one יסוד, etc. and from there to the next higher one, הוד. One ascends spiritually in accordance with consumption of these three meals in the right spirit. When you keep this in mind you will have an inkling of the spiritually elevating phenomenon called Sabbath and the importance of eating three meals on that day.

Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath — there will be none of it on that day.

וביום השביעי שבת means but on the seventh day is a day of rest (supply the word הוא); and לא יהיה בו means the Manna shall not be on it; and this verse comes (is written) only to include the Day of Atonement and the Festivals [as being also days when no Manna would fall] (Mekhilta).

"Six [days]." So it shall be always, for as long as you are in the wilderness, just as it was now when you gathered it six days. "And on the seventh day there will be none" — manna descending. The text adds here an additional clarification, similar to "but of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it" (Genesis 2:17).

ששת ימים תלקטהו, "During six days you will collect it, etc." This is meant as a warning not to go out on the Sabbath in order to collect manna; the meaning of the words לא יהיה בו, refers to the activity of collection. Moses had already announced that there would not be any manna when He said: "you will not find it in the field." This is the reason that G'd became so angry (verse 28) asking "how long will you refuse to observe My commandments?" He referred to the people violating a negative commandment. Where else do we find that G'd had forbidden the attempt to collect manna on the Sabbath if not in verse 25? If you were to assume that the prohibition was to be derived from verse 26, this is hardly possible seeing that our verse speaks only about what to do, not about what not to do. At best it would be considered as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, a negative commandment which is a corollary of a positive commandment (Pessachim 41). It would not be justifiable to refer to a violation of such a commandment with the words "you have refused, etc."

וביום השביעי שבת, “and the seventh day is to be a day of rest called Sabbath; the people who were lacking in faith however, were saying that Friday and the following night were called Sabbath; the proof that this is what they thought is that when Moses upbraided them he says to them: “it is Sabbath today;” the emphasis on the word: “today” is meant as opposed to yesterday and last night. He had also told them on Friday: “tomorrow is the holy day Sabbath you will not find any.” (verse 23) The people who believed that the night follows the day in the Jewish calendar had been wrong all along, as Moses had made plain from the way he described the law concerning the eating of matzo on the Passover festival, that it would be from the evening of the 14/15th of Nissan until the 21st day of the month. In addition he had said to them in Leviticus 23,32 that the Day of Atonement commences on the evening and lasts until the following evening.

לא יהיה בו, on the manna.

It came to pass on the seventh day that some of the people went out to gather, but they did not find any.

"And it came to pass on the seventh day" — [on the seventh day] for the manna to fall. "They went out to gather" — to see whether Moses's words would hold.

יצאו מן העם, from their camp to the area where during the week the manna had been falling. These people thought that they would find some manna, possibly outside the usual parameter. This was a demonstration of lack of faith in the word of G’d. ללקוט, this would have been an outright desecration of the Sabbath. Even carrying their containers was a desecration of the Sabbath. The Talmud Shabbat 107 states that even something only peripherally attached to the ground, i.e. something which had not actually had grown in the earth, had roots, is nonetheless considered halachically as if it had been uprooted from the soil.

ולא מצאו, and they did not find any. The Torah means that these people would have collected it if they had found some.

ויהי ביום השביעי, “it was on the seventh day;” the seventh day after the manna had descended for the first time. This was a Sabbath (counting from when the Israelites had been given a lunar calendar on the first day of Nissan) יצאו מן העם ללקוט, “some of the people left the camp intending to gather in manna;” they desecrated the Sabbath by doing so because they took their containers with them. They had already been told that this day was the day of the Sabbath when Moses had told them: “tomorrow is a holy day to G-d.” (verse 23)

Hashem said to Moses: Until when do you refuse to observe My commandments and My Torah?

עד אנה מאנתם HOW LONG WILL YE REFUSE — A common proverb says: with the thorn the cabbage which is near it, is also stricken — through the wicked the good are brought into disgrace (cf. Rashi on v. 22) (Bava Kamma 92a).

"And Hashem said" [to Moses] — [Moses speaks] on behalf of all Israel; the meaning is that he should say to Israel accordingly. "My commandments" refers to the men who left over [manna] until morning. "And my Torah" — that Hashem had instructed them [in] the reason for the Sabbath, and so they gathered a double portion of bread. The use of plural forms — "my commandments" and "my Torah" — is because all the commandments and all the teachings are certainly true in their plain sense, and they have secrets in matters of the soul, understood only by the discerning; and therefore every commandment is [in effect] twofold.

עד אנה מאנתם לשמור, the rebuke included Moses; although Moses, of course, had not gone out to look for manna on the Sabbbath, who is held co-responsible for the people going out as he had withheld information concerning the Sabbath given to him already at the beginning of the week. During the intervening days Moses should have used the time to teach the people the laws concerning the Sabbath. Moses’ specific error is recorded by the Torah in verse 26 when he told the people “you will gather it for six days and on the seventh day there will not be any.” He had not told the people that they must not go out looking for it. The people did not so much rebel against G’d as against the instructions they had received from Moses, when they did not believe him, assuming that he merely did not want them to waste their time looking for something that was not there. Moses should have taught the people that even gathering up manna was considered a forbidden activity on the Sabbath, that the one doing this was considered as if he had harvested it, cut it, on the Sabbath. Not only that, he would also become guilty for transporting it from the public domain to the private domain, another one of the 39 categories of activities on the Sabbath which are disallowed. ותורותי, the general tenor of Sabbath observance and the reward and punishment associated with proper Sabbath observance.

עד אנה מאנתם, "how long are you going to refuse?" Since I have have explained (verse 22) that Moses did not commit a mistake by not telling the people earlier about the Sabbath restrictions, why did G'd include him in the people whom He accused of repeatedly refusing to keep His commandments? Our sages in Baba Kama 92 cite a proverb according to which "the good suffer with the bad." This statement seems to confirm that the fact that Moses did not tell the Israelites about the Sabbath restrictions earlier was not something which caused the Israelites to commit a sin. Nonetheless I believe G'd would not have included Moses in His accusation unless He had some complaint against Moses himself. I have taken a look at verse 29 where Moses tells the people that G'd has given them the Sabbath as a gift, and that this was the reason He provided a double portion of manna on Friday. This is also why they should stay at home on the Sabbath. The question we must answer is when did G'd inform Moses of the rules laid down in that verse? If G'd told Moses about all this after He had asked: "how long will you refuse, etc.?" then the problem is why did G'd not tell Moses sooner to inform Israel of these restrictions on the Sabbath? If G'd told Moses already several days earlier, how is it that Moses did not inform the people sooner? I believe that here we have touched on the point where Moses erred. He thought that G'd's failure to tell him: "tell the Israelites, etc.," was reason enough for him to confirm only that part of G'd's revelation to him which the people had already found out. Thus, when the people told him their surprise at finding a double portion of manna on Friday (verse 22), Moses only confirmed the fact that he had known about this (verse 23). He did not add that the fact that a double portion of manna had fallen on that day meant that they were not to go out in search of it on the Sabbath. He was therefore indirectly responsible for some of the people going out in search of manna on the Sabbath. These people were not bent on violating G'd's commandment. They felt that since they had not been told specifically that it was forbidden to go out of the camp in search of manna (or anything else for that matter), they did not commit a wrong. As far as they were concerned the prohibition only took effect when Moses told them in verse 29 that leaving the camp on the Sabbath was forbidden. It was only after Moses' announcement that the people "rested on the seventh day" as reported in verse 30. We now understand why G'd had not exempted Moses from the accusation of: "how long are you going to refuse to observe My commandments, etc.?" As soon as Moses heard G'd's accusation and he realised that G'd had included him in it, he immediately proceeded to tell the people about the regulations pertaining to the Sabbath. All of these were the natural corollary of when G'd had told him in verse 5 "they shall prepare whatever they will bring (into the camp). I do n...

מצותי, “My commandments;” a) they had left over manna for the following day;b) ותורותי, “and My teachings;” they had been given the reason why the Sabbath was to be a day of rest. An example of the use of the word Torah meaning “teachings,” is found in Exodus 18,16: והודעתי את חוקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, “and I will make known the laws and teachings of G-d.”

עד אנה מאנתם, “how long will you still refuse?” Rashi explains that in the Talmud Baba Kamma 92, the sage Rava is reported to have asked Rabbah bar Meri for the origin of the popular proverb that it happens that in order to remove a thorn one has to extract the plant around it also. He was told that the source is a verse in Jeremiah [the application to our verse is that G’d addresses the entire nation, instead of the few who had not obeyed the instructions of Moses not to go looking for manna on the Sabbath. Ed.] Actually, G’d blamed Moses for not having instructed the people about the laws of the Sabbath already on the day G’d had revealed them to him. Ibn Ezra writes that G’d addressed Moses in verse 29 as if he were the representative of the whole nation. The message was that Moses should tell all the people to stay at home on the Sabbath, i.e. not to go out to collect manna that fell outside the perimeter of the camp. The apparently very restrictive language was the result of some of the people having disregarded the instructions not to look for manna on that day.

See that Hashem has given you the Sabbath; therefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days. Let each man remain in his place — no man shall go out from his place on the seventh day.

ראו SEE with your very eyes (i. e. the word is used literally and not figuratively in the sense of “consider”) that the Lord in His glory (i. e. the Lord Himself) admonishes you regarding the Sabbath, for, behold, a miracle is performed for you on the eve of every Sabbath in that He gives you then bread for two days. שבו איש תחתיו ABIDE YE EVERY MAN IN HIS PLACE (lit., beneath himself) — From here the Sages derived a support for the permission that a person who has gone beyond the Sabbath limit may move within a space of four cubits (Mekhilta; Eruvin 51a). אל יצא איש ממקמו LET NO MAN GO OUT OF HIS PLACE — These are the 2,000 cubits of the Sabbath limit (Mekhilta); but this is not expressly mentioned here, because the command relating to the Sabbath limits is only an institution of the Sopherim. The text itself was really spoken about those who gathered the Manna (i. e., it does not constitute a prohibition regarding the Sabbath for all men and at all periods but was intended to forbid anyone to go out into the field to gather the Manna; cf. Sotah 30b).

"See." The meaning: see this sign that Hashem gives you, by which it will be made clear to you that He commanded you to rest just as He rested at the Creation; therefore He gives [a sign] that the manna falls today in double the usual daily measure. "Each man shall stay in his place" — in his tent. The meaning of "let no man go out from his place" is: to gather the manna, as those men went out to gather.

ראו!, “try and understand!” כי ה' נתן לכם השבת, the Sabbath regulations are not merely prohibitions, etc, but first and foremost the Sabbath is a gift from G’d to you, a gift for you exclusively, something G’d did not give to any other nation. The Talmud Shabbat 10 phrases it thus: “I have a precious gift in my treasure chamber, its name is “Sabbath.” I want to give it to the people of Israel.” Based on this concept of what the Sabbath is all about, the sages who formulated the Sabbath morning prayer, עמידה, emphasised that “You did not give it to the nations of the world, in fact they are not even allowed, being uncircumcised, to partake in the מנוחה, “the constructive rest, which is so characteristic of the Sabbath.” This is also echoed in Exodus 31,16 ושמרו בני ישרל את השבת לעשות את השבת לדוררותם. “The Children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath to constructively make of it the Sabbath throughout their generations.” The implication is that proper observance of the Sabbath, its concept, will ensure that we will be around throughout the generations, will partake in the redemption.

ראו כי ה׳ נתן לכם השבת, "See that the Lord has given you the Sabbath, etc." I have already explained that Moses felt that he did not have to spell out this commandment for the people as they had witnessed what happened and surely could draw the right conclusions therefrom. Seeing that G'd personally had revealed this commandment to them, he felt that they had absorbed it with the most potent of their senses, the sense of sight. When he said to the people: "let no one leave his place (of abode), he merely explained that the reason that G'd had not made any manna fall on that day was to save the people the bother to go and pick it up.

אל יצא איש ממקומו, “None is to leave his place on the seventh day.” There is no need for anyone to leave his home in order to seek his sustenance as I have provided it already yesterday.

ראו כי ה' נתן לכם השבת, “See that Hashem has given you the Sabbath.” We find a comment in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 92, where the author asks about the significance of the word ראו in our verse. What precisely did the people of Israel “see” in this gift of the Sabbath? Rabbi Yossi quotes: “behold this pearl which He has given to you.” Rabbi Yitzchak says that it is a reference to the fact that everything connected with the Sabbath is repeated, i.e. has more than one dimension. The usual omer, measure of manna per person, was doubled. The Torah wrote in verse 22 “two omers for everyone.” The daily communal sacrifice consisted of two sheep instead of one sheep (Numbers 28,9). The penalty for desecrating the Sabbath is worded doubly, i.e. מות יומת (Exodus 31,14). The reward for observing the Sabbath is also worded twofold; Isaiah 58,13 writes: “If you call the Sabbath ‘delight,’ the Lord’s holy day ‘honoured,’ etc., etc.” The exhortation to observe the Sabbath is also couched in two words זכור ושמור, (compare Exodus 20,8 and Deut. 5,12). The hymn to be sung on the Sabbath is called by that name twice, i.e. מזמור שיר ליום השבת, (Psalms 92). When we examine the way Kohelet refers to the “vanities” of this world when he lists the word הבל or הבלים a total of seven times (Kohelet 1,2), these expressions are perceived as applying to the first 7 days of the universe. Solomon related to these days as follows: “what was created on the first day? Heaven and Earth. What will be their end? Look at Isaiah 51,6 who writes: “raise your eyes to the heavens and look upon the earth beneath; though the heavens should melt away like smoke and the earth wear out like a garment, etc., etc.” Solomon proceeds to find similar negative phenomena regarding everything that has been created up to and including the sixth day. Every creature created on any day was doomed sooner or later, hence הבל הבלים, it was all vanity; none of it would endure. When he came to evaluating the Sabbath, Solomon tried to find something negative but could not. The reason he could not do so was that the Sabbath is all sanctity and rest. Rabbi Yitzchak said that finally, Solomon observed that when a person desecrates the Sabbath he forfeits his life; then he exclaimed: הכל הבל, “everything is vanity, i.e. there is nothing on earth which does not have a potentially deadly ending!” This gives us a total of seven vanities.

The people rested on the seventh day.

"And the people rested." The text reports that from that day forward no person went out to gather on the Sabbath day.

וישבתו העם ביום השביעי, “the people remained inactive on the seventh day.” henceforth and forever.

וישבתו העם, from that day onwards the people made it a rule to observe rest ביום השביעי, every seventh day.

The house of Israel called its name manna; it was like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers made with honey.

והוא כזרע גד לבן AND IT WAS LIKE THE CORIANDER SEED, WHITE — a herb, the name of which is (in old French) coriandre; its seed is round and is not white, whilst the Manna was white. It follows therefore, that it is compared to coriander seed only in respect to its roundness — so that the meaning is: it was like coriander seed, and it was white (Yoma 75a). כצפיחת LIKE FLAT CAKES — dough which is fried in honey. In the Mishnaic speech it is called אסקריטין (Pesachim 37a), and this is the translation of Onkelos here.

"And the House of Israel called [its name manna]." The text already mentioned above the miracles performed with the manna, and now returns to describe its qualities. Some say that "like coriander seed, white" means coriander — called in Arabic kasbir — and some say mustard; but I do not know, for it has no parallel in Scripture except in connection with the manna. Likewise, tzapichit ["wafer"] has no parallel. The Gaon said it was a thin unleavened wafer. When it was eaten as it fell, it was like a wafer in honey; when cooked, its taste was like the richness of oil — these two tastes the text showed us.

ויקראו שמו ״מן״, “they named it “manna.” The reason was that the first time when they had put it into their mouth they had asked one another: מן הוא. (Exodus 16,15) By naming it thus they meant to say that their first reaction to it at the time had been justified, seeing that it was something no one had ever seen or tasted. Since that time the meaning of that word has been: “preparing food,” as in Daniel 1,5: וימן להם המלך דבר יום ביומו, “the King prepared food for them on a daily basis;” והוא כזרע גד, “it was similar to coriander seed;” the Torah had described it in verse 14 as being thin like hoary frost; the frost referred to is distinct by not having definite dimensions, sometimes it is a thicker layer than at other times. והוא כזרע גד, “and it is like coriander seed;” seeing that the Torah had previously described the manna as also being thin, in varying degrees, it wished to compare it also to something else, so that the reader who has never seen it, and is unlikely to ever see it, can get a better mental image of it. It was like the seed of a plant known as coriander. This plant is better known as cilantro (Spanish). כזרע, the letter כ has the semivowel sh’va, and the letter ז is vocalised with a segol. וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש, its taste resembled a wafer smeared with honey, i.e. it is eaten without further preparation. When we read elsewhere in Numbers 11,8 that its taste was like sweet cake with cream, that described its taste after it had been ground and baked.

וטעמו כצפיחית. Later on in Numbers 11,8 the Torah describes the taste of the manna as like לשד השמן, some kind of cake made with a lot of oil. Our Rabbis (Yuma 75) explain that to children it tasted like wafers smeared with honey, whereas to the elderly it tasted like these oily cakes. כצפיחית בדבש. Like walnuts before they have been ground when they taste sweet. In Numbers, when the Torah describes the manna as being ground in a mill or being treated in a variety of other ways, its oily taste would come to the fore. Nuts yield their oil as a result of grinding or pounding just as do olives. This is the reason why here the Torah describes וטעמו וגו', whereas in Numbers the Torah writes והיה טעמו, the word והיה alluding to the change in the taste after grinding it. That is when it began to taste more oily. כצפיחית, the letter כ at the beginning, meaning similar to, suggests that there is no other phenomenon in the universe which tasted exactly like the manna. The word צפחת מים in Samuel I 26,11 is a vessel, has nothing to do with the word צפיחית. גד, a round globular shaped legume, similar to the seed of coriander לבן, Coriander seed is not white, whereas the manna is described as such. This is why the Torah adds another description in Numbers 11,7, i.e. bdellium.

Moses said: This is the thing that Hashem has commanded: Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations, so that they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilderness when I brought you out from the land of Egypt.

למשמרת means to put by. לדרתיכם FOR YOUR GENERATIONS e. g., in the days of Jeremiah: when Jeremiah was rebuking them (the people), saying, “Why do you not engage yourselves with the Torah?”, and they answered him, “Shall we leave our work and engage ourselves with the Torah? From where shall we earn a living?”, he brought out to them the cruse of Manna and said to them, (Jeremiah 2:31) “[O Generation], see ye the thing of the Lord!” It is not said “Hear the word” but “See the thing”! — This thing is what your fathers were fed with. The Omnipresent God has many messengers (many means) to provide food for those who fear Him (Mekhilta).

"And Moses said." This passage ought by right to have been written after the Tabernacle was made; it is written here only to record this miracle — that the manna was preserved for future generations. Moses said this to Israel, and that is why he said "which I fed you."

ויאמר משה זה הדבר אשר צוה השם, Moses said: "This is the thing which G'd has commanded, etc." Why did the Torah have to write the word דבר, thing? Furthermore, to whom did Moses address this commandment? If he addressed it to Aaron, why is it not part of verse 33 where Moses commands Aaron to fill a bottle with manna? There seems to be a duplication here. I believe we must understand Moses' intention as follows. "This is the thing that G'd commanded: 'fill one Omer of it.'" G'd did not say who was supposed to take the Omer of manna and fill it. G'd did not even say in which manner this Omer of manna should be taken, neither did He specify where it was to be deposited. All that emanated from G'd's mouth were the words: "fill an Omer of it." When Moses spoke to Aaron on the subject he used his own intelligence to guide him. The word למשמרת can have two meanings. We have a rule that when a word is capable of being interpreted in two ways we give equal weight to either possibility; as a result, any action that has to be undertaken in response to a commandment which is ambiguous has to satisfy the requirements of either interpretation because we are not competent to exclude either interpretation. In this instance the two possible meanings of the words are: A) to safeguard the manna which has been set aside from becoming ritually defiled; B) to safeguard it against anyone stealing it or otherwise misappropriating it. Moses secured it against possible theft by decreeing that the bottle of manna should be stored in the Holy Tabernacle; after all this was the place where other nationally important properties such as the tablets with the Ten Commandments as well as the original Torah scroll would be being kept. It was clear to Moses that the place to keep something that G'd wanted the people to see after many generations was the Temple or its equivalent. You will find later on that G'd also instructed the staff of Aaron which had flowered to be preserved in the Holy Tabernacle. The censers of the 250 men who had sided with Korach in his uprising were also kept within the precincts of the Holy Tabernacle as covers for the altar (compare Numbers 17,25, and 17,3-4). The Mechilta on our verse speculates on the material that the bottle was made of and concludes it was of a transparent nature, i.e. silica- based earthenware. When such a container made of earthenware has a tight-fitting lid, its contents are not subject to ritual impurity. When G'd had spoken about the function of the manna in the bottle being למשמרת, Moses understood this word to possess both meanings. The reason Aaron was to take the bottle and fill it was because he was a Priest who perfomed the service in the Holy Tabernacle. He would also ensure that this bottle and its contents would remain ritually pure. We may also follow a different approach. When Moses first heard the prophecy about the bottle of manna to be preserved for future generations, he arranged to tell the Israelites all this...

למשמרת לדורותיכם, to be kept throughout your generations.” The word משמרת, “safekeeping, memento,” occurs three times in connection with the manna. The first time the Torah writes למשמרת לדורותיכם in our verse here. Seeing the Torah adds the words “in order that they see the bread which I have fed them,” this is intended for the generation who actually were sustained by this bread. The second time (in verse 33) the wording is לפני ה' למשמרת לדורותיכם, “in front of G’d as a memorial throughout your generations.” This is a reference to the generations who would live in the land of Israel in the future. Thirdly, the Torah writes in verse 34 לפני העדות למשמרת, “before the Holy Ark as a memorial.” This is a reference to the latter years of the Holy Temple when King Yoshiyahu hid both the bottle of manna and the staff of Aaron to ensure it would not fall into the hands of the enemy if and when Jerusalem would be destroyed (compare Horiot 12). At that time the bottle containing the anointing oil (for Kings of Davidic descent) was also hidden to prevent it being applied to someone else. All of this happened when the High Priest Chilkiyah found an “opened” Torah scroll in the Sanctuary. (It was open at the verse describing the Israelites going into exile Deut. 28,36). He interpreted this as a bad omen and hid the Holy Ark, the tablets with the Ten Commandments and the items we have already listed. Also the box in which the Philistines had sent a gift to the G’d of Israel at the time when they returned the Holy Ark in the days of the Judges (Samuel I 6,8) was hidden at that time. We have a record of this in Chronicles II 35,3: “He (King Yoshiyahu) said to the Levites, consecrated to the Lord, who taught all Israel, ‘put the Holy Ark in the House that Solomon son of David, King of Israel built;’” Rabbi Eleazar said that there are textural indications that the staff of Aaron and the bottle of manna were to be treated on a similar basis as in each case the Torah used words such as משמרת, דורות, which suggest that these items should be kept where the Holy Ark was being kept. Hence when it came time to hide the one, the other items would be hidden in the same place.

Moses said to Aaron: Take one jar and put there a full omer of manna, and place it before Hashem to be kept for your generations.

צנצנת is an earthern flask, as it is translated in the Targum (cf. Mekhilta). ‘והנח אתו לפני ה AND LAY IT UP BEFORE THE LORD — before the Ark; this verse, of course, was not spoken until the tent of meeting had been built and the Ark was placed therein, but it is written here in the chapter about the Manna, as being its appropriate place.

"Tzintzeneth" [a jar]: a vessel of clay or copper; this word has no parallel. The meaning of "before Hashem" is: in honor of the divine Presence, which rests upon the cherubim.

ויאמר משה אל אהרן קח צנצנת אחת, “Moses said to Aaron: ‘take one bottle, etc.,’” note that the Torah did not say that “Moses took a bottle and placed it there.” (although G’d had told Moses about this and Aaron had not yet been anointed High Priest). We find at a later stage that Moses was offering sacrifices and that he even offered the incense until Aaron had been appointed. It is possible to explain this apparent discrepancy by seeing in this statement an allusion to an assurance that the descendants of Aaron, the priests of the future, would enjoy a comfortable lifestyle, would not have to live on a day-to-day basis as had the generation who had to subsist on the daily allocation of manna. Their parnassah would be governed by what we read in Chronicles Ii 31,4-5 where King Chizkiyah ordered “the people, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to deliver the portions to the priests and Levites so that they might devote themselves to Teaching of the Lord. When the word spread, the Israelites brought large quantities of grain, wine, oil, honey and all kinds of agricultural produce and tithes in large amounts.” Moses first mentioned: “deposit it before the Lord.” This was a hint that the provision of a livelihood for the Torah scholars in each and every generation is something left to the Almighty. It is “so to speak” placed at G’d’s disposal. This is why he added the words “for your generations,” as G’d is the One who will endure during all these generations. It was necessary to provide us with an allusion to the fact that the Torah is the source of celestial wisdom, and that wisdom is to be found in celestial regions, in spiritually higher regions (compare Kohelet 7,12). It is the source of true blessings and true life. David referred to this when he said (Psalm 134,2) “lift your hands toward the Sanctuary and bless the Lord.” It is appropriate therefore that physical life on earth, i.e. parnassah, should be linked to Torah which supplies the life of the soul, spiritual life. Afterwards the Torah reports לפני העדות, that Aaron placed the bottle containing manna in front of the Holy Ark (verse 34). This was much later, as at this time the Holy Ark did not exist yet. This is the reason the Torah had to mention in between “as G’d had commanded Moses.” Actually, we would have expected the Torah to write: “Aaron placed it (the bottle) in front of the Ark as a memorial as G’d had commanded Moses.” However, the Torah wanted to make the point that the parnassah of Torah scholars is always under the exclusive care and protection of G’d Himself as G’d had commanded Moses at Mount Sinai when He had said to him: פסל לך שני לוחות אבנים, “carve for yourself two stone-tablets” (Exodus 34,1). The word “for yourself,” meant that the splinters from the stones out of which Moses carved the tablets remained his personal property. According to Shemot Rabbah 46,2 this became the source of Moses’ personal wealth. According to Pessikta Zutrata the words קח צנצנת אחת, “take one bottle, etc.” are one of ten items which were created at dusk just before the first Sabbath (Avot 5,6). When G’d told Moses to take a צנצנת, Moses did not know what material that bottle was to be made of. He arrived at the correct material by deducing it from the meaning of the word, i.e. it is something cold, i.e. צונן, something that keeps its contents cool, preserves its contents indefinitely in earth. It must therefore be an earthen vessel. We have a verse in Jeremiah 32,14 where the prophet is told specifically by G’d to put certain documents in an earthen jar so that the documents would last a long time. The same thing applies to aged wine when it has been aged in earthen jars. In fact it ages well only in those kinds of jars. This then is the meaning of the words (verse 33) והנח אותו לפני ה' למשמרת, “and place it before Hashem as a safekeeping.” Jeremiah took out these documents from an earthen jar, saying to the people: “O generation, behold, the word of the Lord! Have I been like a desert to Israel, or like a land of gloom?” (Jeremiah 2,31). He said to the people: “why are you not busy with the Torah?” They responded by asking: “if we study Torah how will we live?” When hearing this Jeremiah took out the bottle of manna and said to the people: “take a look! your forefathers were in the desert and they busied themselves studying Torah; where did their livelihood come from? If you will busy yourselves with studying Torah G’d will provide your livelihood just as He provided it for your forefathers. Why do My people say: ‘we have broken loose, we will not come to You any more?’”

ויאמר משה אל אהרן, Moses said this to Aaron only after the Sanctuary had been built and inaugurated, i.e. at least about 11 months later. Until then there had not been a Holy Ark.

קח צנצנת אחת, “take a jar;” our author claims that the expression צנצנת suggests that it is made from a material from which something can sprout forth and be seen, in other words from earthenware as it is made from the earth.

As Hashem commanded Moses, Aaron placed it before the Testimony to be kept.

"As." Here it explains that "before Hashem" means before the Testimony — that is, the Ark, which is called the Ark of the Testimony on account of the tablets of the covenant that were in it.

לפני העדות, in front of the Holy Ark.

The children of Israel ate the manna for forty years, until they came to an inhabited land; they ate the manna until they came to the border of the land of Canaan.

ארבעים שנה FORTY YEARS — But was not this period short of thirty days, since it was on the sixteenth of Iyar that the Manna fell for them for the first time and on the fifteenth of Nisan that it ceased, as it is said, (Joshua 5:12) “And the Manna ceased on the morrow”? (cf. the preceding verse which speaks of the day when they ate unleavened bread). But this tells us that in the cakes that Israel had brought out of Egypt and which they ate from the 15th of Nisan to the 16th of Iyar after they left Egypt they experienced the taste of Manna (so that the 40 years mentioned here as those during which they ate Manna may be regarded as complete) (Kiddushin 38a). אל ארץ נושבת TO A LAND INHABITED — after they had crossed the Jordan, [for that territory on the other side of the Jordan was cultivated (מְיֻשֶׁבֶת, which is regarded as the equivalent of נושבת; cf. Rashi on Genesis 36:20) and good, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 3:25) “Let me pass over, I pray thee, and see the good land that is on the other side of the Jordan”. And the translation of נושבת by Onkelos is יתבתא which means to say מיושבת, “settled”]. אל קצה ארץ כנען UNTO THE EXTREMITY OF THE LAND OF CANAAN — at the beginning of the border before they passed over the Jordan, that is, in the plains of Moab — consequently they (these two descriptions of the locality) contradict each other! But the explanation is that in the plains of Moab, when Moses died (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1) on the seventh of Adar, the Manna really ceased to fall but they had a sufficient supply from the Manna which they had gathered on that day to last until they had brought the Omer on the sixteenth of Nisan in Canaan itself, the cultivated land, as it is said, (Joshua 5:11) “And they did eat of the produce of the land on the morrow after the Passover” (Kiddushin 38a).

"And the children of Israel." This miracle was greater than all the miracles performed through Moses, for the manna's miracles were numerous and they lasted forty years — unlike all the other miracles. "To an inhabited land": because they had been in the wilderness, "in a land no man had crossed" (Jeremiah 2:6). When they crossed the Jordan they ate the grain they found there; it was therefore necessary to say "the manna they ate until they came to the border of the Land of Canaan," for the manna continued with them until they reached Gilgal, which is the border of the Land of Canaan — and there the new grain was with them, and then the manna ceased.

אכלו את המן, in lieu of bread made from wheat or other cereals. The Israelites themselves testified to this in Numbers 11,6 when they said (complainingly) בלתי אל המן עינינו, “all we have to look at is the manna.” עד בואם אל ארץ נושבת, inhabited countries, i.e. the lands conquered from Sichon and Og on the east bank of the Jordan river. Once they had taken over these lands they also ate regular bread. [a period of possibly six months before they crossed the Jordan. Ed.] את המן אכלו עד בואם אל קצה ארץ כנען, the word את, meaning “with, in addition,” alludes to the fact that they no longer ate manna exclusively. We find further confirmation of this in Joshua 5,11-12 ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ממחרת הפסח...וישבות המן ממחרת, “they ate from the produce of the land, etc.,…the manna stopped on the morrow after the Passover.”

את המן אכלו ארבעים שנה, they ate the manna for forty years. There is a good reason why the Torah refers twice to the Israelites eating manna for forty years. Once the people entered the Holy Land they ate manna which had been stored in their vessels, whereas up to the time they crossed the river Jordan they ate manna which had come from heaven on that same day. We have no difficulty in understanding that the longer something of celestial origin remains in our atmosphere, our domain, the more terrestrial it became in nature. The Torah therefore was forced to mention that the manna which the Israelites ate in the desert was in a class by itself. In Kidushin 38 the Talmud asks: "how can the Torah speak about the Israelites eating manna for forty years? They did not receive the first portion of manna until 30 days after the Exodus! The answer given is that their cakes (the unleavened bread they took out of Egypt) tasted like manna. It has occurred to me that there must be a reason why the Torah describes the eating of the first manna as אכלו את המן, whereas the second eating is described in the reverse order, i.e. את המן אכלו. I suggest that when the Torah emphasises the length of time the Israelites ate the manna, i.e. forty years, the emphasis is on the taste, i.e. the eating. Hence the Torah first mentions the word אכלו. When the Torah wishes to describe the precise time frame during which the manna fell it places the word המן in front of the word אכלו, seeing that the Israelites consumed "canned manna" for some time afterwards. It emerges that they did not eat "first rate" manna either during the first 30 days after the Exodus or during the thirty odd days after Moses' death.

אל ארץ נושבת, to a land that was inhabited, as opposed to a desert. Compare Deuteronomy 12,7: ועברתם את הירדן וישבתם בארץ וגו', as soon as you cross the river Jordan you will dwell in a land, etc.”

ובני ישראל אכלו את המן ארבעים שנה, “and the Children of Israel ate the manna for forty years.” At first glance there could not have been forty whole years as the first month after the Exodus they did not have any manna. It did not start descending until the middle of Iyar and the dough they had taken out of Egypt had lasted them for a month. If the report of the Torah is correct the manna should not have stopped until the middle of Iyar after Moses’ death, i.e. more than a month after the Israelites crossed the Jordan. We have a report in Joshua 5,11-12. that on the morrow of the Passover i.e. on the sixteenth of Nissan they ate from the produce of the land both unleavened bread and parched grain! The verse continues by reporting that on the day the Israelites ate from that produce the manna ceased. We are forced to understand the words “for forty years” in our verse as an approximate figure. In order to make certain that we do not misunderstand and believe that the manna was eaten for a full forty years, the Torah repeats giving further details by saying “they ate the manna until they came to an inhabited land, the edge of the land of Canaan.” You will find that this information corresponds exactly to what is written in Joshua 5,12: “on that same day, when they ate of the produce of the land, the manna ceased. The Israelites got no more manna.” According to our tradition the manna fell from the 15th of Iyar in the first year of the people’s wanderings and ceased falling the day after Moses died on the seventh day of Adar. For the next 38 days when the Israelites were already under the authority of Joshua no manna fell. The first thirty days were observed as mourning for Moses. They were followed by three days of preparing to cross the Jordan (Joshua 1,10) after which they crossed the Jordan on the 10th of Nissan. This was followed by the male Israelites born since the Exodus being circumcised at Gilgal (Joshua 5,9). According to Rashi (verse 35), however, the number “forty years“ is to be considered as a full forty years. He explains the words in two ways. 1) The dough the Israelites took with them out of Egypt tasted like manna. 2) The manna which fell on the day Moses died miraculously lasted them until the 16th of Nissan, the day after the Passover observance in Gilgal. The Torah was correct in saying then that “they ate the manna for forty years.”

עד בואם אל ארץ נושבת, “until they arrived in the land they would inhabit.” The part of the desert the Israelites were walking through had not been home to anyone, ever. They ate manna until they crossed the river Jordan when they found part of the new barley harvest and could make bread from it. Actually, the last portion of manna lasted the Israelites until they made camp at Gilgal, at the border of the land of Canaan.

אל קצה ארץ כנען, compare Joshua 5,12 where the cessation of the manna is described as occurring on the day following the Passover, three days after crossing of the river Jordan.

An omer is one-tenth of three seahs.

עשירית האפה [THE OMER] IS THE TENTH PART OF AN EPHAH — The Ephah is three Seahs, and the Seah is six Kabs, and the Kab is four Logs and the Log has the capacity of six eggs: it follows, therefore, that the tenth of an Ephah has the capacity of forty-three and a fifth eggs — and this is the minimum quantity of dough for the Challa (the minimum quantity to which applies the injunction to separate a portion of the dough; cf. Numbers 15:20), and the measure for the meal offering (cf. Rashi on Eruvin 83b).

"Now the omer." The text mentions this measure because an omer per head was ample for satiety.

והעומר, “and the amount known as omer, etc; omer is the measure of man that they collected every day”. עשירת האיפה הוא, It is equivalent to the well known measure eypha, a measure used for measuring grain.

והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא, “the omer was equivalent to one tenth of the measure known as eyphah.” Rashi in Kidushin 15 explains that 1 איפה =3 סאין, which in turn =6 קבין, which are equivalent to 4 לוגין, each לוג equaling 6 eggs; this means that the daily ration of manna per Israelite was equivalent to a quantity equaling 43,2 eggs. Based on this fact the sages determined that a dough of that amount is subject to the provisions of challah; this is also the maximum amount of dough to be prepared in one lot for baking matzot for Passover. The reason that the Torah waited until the end of the whole paragraph to tell us the amount of manna G’d assigned to each person daily instead of telling us this when we were told that each person found he had collected 1 omer per head (household member) in verse 16, is because the Torah did not want to interrupt the train of thought we are to entertain when reading about the manna and what is connected with it. If you will examine the paragraph you will find that there were actually three logical points at which this information would have been pertinent. If the Torah deliberately refrained from using any of these opportunities it clearly had a reason for this. It is also possible that the Torah reserved mentioning this information in order to link it to what follows, i.e. the events at Refidim. It is a well known psychological fact that when a person enjoys material blessings in abundance he becomes less meticulous in serving the Lord and he develops a certain laxity in his approach to Mitzvah-performance, just as he can afford to be lax in his concern for his daily bread. He will not be likely to develop this laxity if he is only just able to feed himself and his family as he is constantly aware of the need of G’d’s goodwill on a daily basis and will make an effort to remain in G’d’s good graces. The Torah tells us that the Israelites became delinquent in their Mitzvah-performance although their daily ration was not so abundant that they could have been expected to develop laxity. As a result of this unwarranted laxity, Amalek (17,8) attacked them. The name רפידים is equated by our sages with רפה, weak, i.e. their Torah-observance weakened. This is the conceptual linkage between this new paragraph and the story about the manna preceding it. The Torah could have described the amount of manna the Israelites received daily in terms other than “1 tenth of an eiphah.” Why did it choose to mention that it was “1 tenth“ of something? Perhaps the reason for mentioning “1 tenth” is the same as the fact that מעשר, “the tithe” which the farmer has to give to the Levite is “1 tenth.” The Israelites, while in the desert were considered as “sacred bodies,” something akin to angels with bodies. When they would consume this delicate heavenly food their thoughts may have concentrated on the “tenth” emanation and all the holy concepts involved in such contemplations. Perhaps the best example is Exodus 24,11: “they beheld (a vision) of G’d and they ate and they drank.” Perhaps their very eating of such celestial food as the manna is what enabled those אצילי בני ישראל, the most noble group of Israelites, to become privy to such visions at such a time. When we couple this with the proximity to the הר האלו-הים, the mountain of G’d, Sinai, around which all this took place it is not really so remarkable at all. They joined the select elite of which Isaiah said יילכו ולא ייעפו, “they keep walking without becoming fatigued.”