Commento su Esodo 16:37

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,²⁷⁷Numbers 33:10-11. 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,²⁷⁸Ibid., Verses 12-13. See Ramban further at beginning of Seder Yithro (Note 25) for how this explanation affects a major problem in Torah exegesis as to when Jethro came, i.e., before or after the Giving of the Torah. and then they journeyed from Alush, which is in the wilderness of Sinai, and they pitched in Rephidim.²⁷⁹Ibid., Verse 14.
In the opinion of our Rabbis,²⁸⁰Shemoth Rabbah 25:5. 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,²⁸¹Verse 2. for they had not murmured when they came there but only after they were there in the wilderness [for an extended period of time].

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.

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).

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, “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).

Sixty one meals. . . There were sixteen days of Nisan and fifteen days of Iyar until the manna first descended. This makes sixty-two meals. However, they ate their first meal in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth, and went out that morning.

(Exodus 16:1) "And they journeyed from Eilim, and they came … on the fifteenth day of the second month of their going out from the land of Egypt": Why is "day" mentioned? We are hereby apprised that on that day Sabbath fell out, it having recurred from the six days of creation until the giving of Torah to Israel. Variantly: "on the fifteenth day of the second month": Why is "day" mentioned? To know on which day the Torah was given to Israel. (Rosh Chodesh of the) Nissan on which Israel left Egypt fell out on the fifth day of the week. Nissan was a complete month (thirty days, so that Rosh Chodesh) Iyyar fell out on the Sabbath. Iyyar was a defective month (twenty-nine days, so that Rosh Chodesh) Sivan fell out on the first day of the week. And it is written (Numbers 33:3) "On the morrow of the Pesach, the children of Israel went out," and (here) "on the fifteenth day of the second month," and (Exodus 19:1) "On the third month of the exodus of the children of Israel, they came to the desert of Sinai," whence it is derived (that the sixth day of their encampment was on the third month (Sivan), on the sixth day of the month, on the eve of the Sabbath, (and the Torah was given the next day, Sabbath [viz. Shabbath 87b-88a]). Variantly: "on the fifteenth day of the second month": Why is the day mentioned? To know on which day the manna descended for Israel. Israel ate from the wafer that they took out of Egypt for thirty-one days, viz. (Exodus 12:39) "And they baked the dough which they had taken out of Egypt, etc.", and (here) "on the fifteenth day of the second month of their going out from the land of Egypt." And what is written at its side (Ibid. 5)? "Behold, I shall rain down for you bread from heaven," (the wafer having sufficed for thirty-one days, from the fifteenth of Nissan until the sixteenth of Iyyar.) R. Shila says: It sufficed for sixty-one meals.

Kap. 16. V. 1. In dieser Erzählung von V. 1 — 10 wechseln die Ausdrücke: כל עדת בני ישראל ,כל בני ישראל ,בני ישראל wohl nicht ohne Grund. כל עדת בני ישראל begreift die jüdische Gesamtheit in ihrer höchsten Bedeutung, als die durch ihre gemeinsame Bestimmung vereinigte Gesamtheit. Es ist die zur Gottesgemeine bestimmte Gesamtheit, und indem dieses Prädikat gleich hier am Eingang hervorgehoben wird, sind wir vorbereitet, dass hier Begebenheiten berichtet werden, die das Interesse der Gesamtbestimmung der jüdischen Gesamtheit in hohem Grade berühren. Es wird uns daher auch ganz genau die Örtlichkeit und das Datum angegeben. Es war gerade ein Monat nach ihrer Befreiung und sie standen am 15. des zweiten Monats nach ihrem Auszuge aus Mizrajim, das sie am 15. des ersten Monats verlassen hatten. Es war wieder ein fünfzehnter, allein anderer Art, ein "Peßach katon" nach dem Peßach gadol ( — trat ja auch später der Abend zum 15. Ijar subsidiarisch für den Abend zum 15. Nissan ein, Bamidbar 9, 11 — ). Es galt nicht dem Brechen äußerer Fesseln, nicht dem Aufbau und der Rettung der Häuser aus Knechtschaft und Tod, sondern der Freimachung des Geistes und des Gemütes von den Fesseln der Sorge um die leibliche Nahrung durch Unterstellung der individuellen und Familienexistenz unter die Gottesherrschaft und Gottesleitung im Schabbat. Denn nichts Geringeres, als die durch eine vierzigjährige ununterbrochene Wundererfahrung eingeführte und eingelebte, die ganze Judenheit und das ganze Judentum tragende Institution des Schabbats, wird hier bekundet. Wenn das Peßach die jüdischen Häuser für Gott aufgebaut, so hat der Schabbat die jüdischen Häuser für Gott erhalten.

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.

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.²⁸²Numbers 20:1. This is why Scripture mentions there, And they pitched in the wilderness of Tzin — the same is Kadesh,²⁸³Ibid., 33:36. in order to differentiate it [from the wilderness of Sin mentioned here].

Which was on the first day of the week. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day” from when it began to descend “is Shabbos, there will be none on that day” (16:26). Re”m asks: Our verse shows that the fifteenth of Iyar, when they traveled from Eilim to the desert of Sin, was Shabbos. [For the manna started to fall the next morning, on Sunday]. But were they not commanded already at Marah to keep Shabbos [and certain other mitzvos? If so, how could they carry their possessions, and go beyond the Shabbos boundary? Re”m] answers: Perhaps the fifteenth of the month mentioned in our verse is when they arrived, but they actually journeyed on Friday the fourteenth. (See the Nachalas Yaakov regarding this.)

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.]

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 Marah²⁸⁴Above 15:23-24, And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter…. And the people murmured against Moses. and Rephidim,²⁸⁵Further, 17:1-2. And they encamped in Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. And the people strove with Moses. 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 month²⁸⁶Verse 1. 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 meals²⁸⁷The manna first came down on the sixteenth day of Iyar, the second month (see Verse 4), thirty-one days after the exodus. Since two meals are ordinarily eaten daily (see Verse 8), this period required sixty-two meals. The first meal, however, was taken in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth day of Nisan, thus leaving sixty-one meals, which were furnished by the provisions they brought out of Egypt. of the remains of the dough [which they had baked in Egypt on the day of the exodus].”²⁸⁸Above 12:39. [Thus far the language of Rashi.] This is a tradition received by our Rabbis,²⁸⁹Mechilta on Verse 1 here. 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].²⁹⁰See Vol. I, pp. 556-558.
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.²⁸⁶Verse 1. 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,²⁹¹Psalms 107:4. 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.²⁹²Verse 3. 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 wilderness²⁹³Psalms 78:19. until they came to a land inhabited.²⁹⁴Further, Verse 35.

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.

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.

The entire community … complained. There were several differences between this complaint and the previous one (15:24). In the earlier instance it is written that “the people” complained, referring to the masses, where as here it is written that “the entire community” complained, including the elders. On the previous occasion the complaint was directed towards Moshe alone because they believed he had the power to provide them with water through his prayers.

(Ibid. 2) "And the entire congregation of the children of Israel caviled against Moses and Aaron in the desert": R. Yehoshua says: Israel should have sought counsel from their leader (Moses) — "What shall we eat?" Instead, they caviled against Moses. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: Israel were accustomed to cavil against Moses. And not against Moses alone, but also against Aaron.

V. 2. Wir lernen zuerst das Bedürfnis einer solchen Institution in seiner ganzen Wucht kennen. כל עדת בני ישראל, die ganze, doch die edlen Keime jener großen Bestimmungsreife in sich tragende Gesamtheit fing sofort, als sie von dem nahrungsreichen Elim sich wieder in der Wüste befand, über Mosche und Aaron zu murren an. Es nützt alles nichts, die Erlösungs- und Rettungswunder in Mizrajim und im Meere samt der propädeutischen Erfahrung in Mara, alles schwindet im Anblick des drohenden Hungergespenstes für Weib und Kind, und auch in dieser Beziehung mag das Wort gelten: קשין מזונותיו של אדם יותר מקריעת ים סוף, die Nahrung des Menschen ist härter als das Auseinanderreißen des roten Meeres. Die wirkliche oder vermeintliche Gefahr des Verhungerns macht alle Grundsätze schwankend, bringt alle besseren Vorsätze zum Schweigen, und so lange der Mensch nicht, nicht von der Sorge, sondern von der Gewalt der Sorge um die leibliche Existenz erlöst ist, ist für eine durchgreifende Verwirklichung des Gottesgesetzes der Raum nicht gewonnen. Die Befreiung von dem Alp dieses Gespenstes ist jedoch nur möglich durch tiefe Einpflanzung des Bewusstseins, dass auch diese erste aller menschlichen Sorgen, die Sorge für die leibliche Existenz, nicht allein und nicht zunächst auf seinen Schultern zu ruhen hat, dass auch für dieses Ziel der Mensch nur das Seine, d. h. das, was Gott von ihm für dieses Ziel erwartet, tun könne, tun solle, der genügende Erfolg aber Gott anheim zu stellen sei, der jede Menschenseele und jedes Haus mit allen seinen hungernden Seelen und Seelchen Gegenstand seiner stets wachen, allmächtig fürsorgenden Liebe sein lässt; dass überhaupt die menschliche Tätigkeit für die Existenz nicht als ein Recht, sondern als eine Pflicht zu betrachten sei.

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.

Here, by contrast, they complained against both Moshe and Aharon because they regretted leaving Egypt altogether. Thus the phrase, “in the desert,” indicates that they resented being in the desert.

Ohne dies Bewusstsein, so lange der Mensch sich, sich allein mit seinen beschränkten Kräften in das Joch des Strebens für das seine und der Seinen Existenz sichernde Brot geschmiedet fühlt, hat diese Sorge keine Grenzen, und nicht eben in einer Wüste, mitten in der mittel- aber auch konkurrenzreichsten sozialen Welt, kann diese Sorge dem Menschen seine Welt zur Wüste machen, kann diese Sorge nicht nur den morgenden Tag, kann die ganze Zukunft, die Zukunft der Kinder, der Enkel, dann der Urenkel und so fort umspannen zu müssen glauben und dem Menschen die rastlose und daher dann die rücksichtslose Eroberung eines immer größeren Anteils an der Welt für sich und die Seinen zur Notwendigkeit erscheinen lassen, neben welcher bald für andere Ziele und andere Zwecke kaum noch ein Raum gegeben bleibt.

In die wirkliche, nahrungsloseste Wüste führt Gott daher das künftige Volk seines Gesetzes, lässt sie dort zuerst die ganze Angst einer nahrungslosen Gegenwart und einer aussichtslosen Zukunft fühlen, lässt sie an sich, für sich und alle ihre Nachkommen, zuerst die Erfahrung machen, zu welcher Rücksichtslosigkeit die Gewalt einer solchen auch nur momentanen Lage hinzureißen vermag. War ja, wie aus dem folgenden Verse zu vermuten ist, das ganze damalige Geschlecht der Sorge für die nackte Existenz völlig entwöhnt. Als Sklaven hatte das Interesse der Herren für die Existenz ihrer Leibeignen zu sorgen gehabt, wie der Besitzer für Dasein und Kraft seines Last- und Arbeitstieres. In der Wüste fing die ganze Israelgemeine über Mosche und Aaron zu murren an.

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."

'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.

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).

Onkelos translates it לוי דמיתנא . . . Meaning: Onkelos translates מי יתן מותנו just as he translates the verse לו מתנו (Bamidbar 14:2). And לו מתנו clearly means, “If only that we should die.” Thus our verse also means, “If only that we should die.”

'מי יתן מותנו ביד ה, a reference to the three days of intense darkness when all the Jews not deserving redemption had been killed by G’d and been buried by their brethren.

(Ibid. 3) "And the children of Israel said to them: Would that we had died by the hand of the L rd, etc.": Would that we had died in the three days of darkness in Egypt. (Ibid.) "when we sat over the flesh-pot": Israel lusted to eat. R. Elazar Hamodai says: Israel were servants to kings in Egypt. When they went out to market they could take bread, meat, fish, and all other things, and no one would stop them. They could go out to the field and take grapes, figs, and pomegranates, and no one would stop them. R. Yossi Hamodai says: Know this to be so, for they were given kishuim last (i.e., as a last alternative), wherefore it is written "kishuim" last (viz. Numbers 11:5), in that they were hard ("kashim") on their stomachs. "that you have taken us out to this desert": They said to them: You have taken us out to this desert "in vain" — There is nothing in it. "to kill this entire congregation by famine": R. Yehoshua b. Karcha says: There is no death worse than famine, viz. (Eichah 4:9) "Better the slain by the sword than the slain by famine!" R. Elazar Hamodai says: (lit., "in the famine"): There has come upon us famine after famine, pestilence after pestilence, darkness after darkness.

V. 3. בני ישראל, einzelne, die Kecksten in der Gemeine, liehen der allgemeinen Unzufriedenheit das offene Wort des Vorwurfs und der Anklage gegen Mosche und Aaron. ביד ד׳, dort in Mizrajim wären wir durch Gottes Hand eines natürlichen Todes gestorben. Hier sterben wir durch eure Schuld. Unmöglich hat Gott euch aufgetragen, uns hierher in die Wüste zu führen, wo uns allen der Hungertod gewiss ist!

'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.

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.”

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 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.

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.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:4).

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;²⁹⁵Psalms 11:6. And the Eternal ‘himtir’ (caused to rain) upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire.²⁹⁶Genesis 19:24. [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,²⁹⁷Lamentations 3:12. although they are of different roots.²⁹⁸For the word matarah (target) is of the root natar (keep), since a target is kept in sight and watched. Mamtir however is of the root matar (rain). Yet, as Ramban concludes, they have a common association, as is explained in the text. 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.²⁹⁹Psalms 78:27. 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.

והכינו את אשר יביאו והיה משנה, not literally: “bread,” but מזון, “food.”

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.

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.

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.”

The food requirements for the day. . . דבר means “matter” or “requirements.” Since the day’s requirement comprises many things, Rashi explains that here it pertains to the day’s food requirements. And Rashi inserts "ילקטו" in between יום and ביומו . This is to tell us that ביומו refers back to ולקטו , rather than to יום which immediately precedes it. [Thus it means: “They shall gather on that day the food requirements for the day”]. Otherwise it would mean, “They shall gather the requirements of the day of that day.” This is not understandable. Furthermore, it does not tell us the time of the manna’s gathering. Rashi also [adds, “They may not gather today for tomorrow’s needs.”] This tells us that ולקטו does not mean there is an obligation to gather manna. Rather, there is a prohibition to gather today for tomorrow’s needs.

Bread … from heaven. Ever since the sin of Adam the bread of human beings has contained an admixture of chaff and bran. Furthermore, a great deal of labor is required for its preparation. But now Hashem was going to pour down upon them bread that was free of waste, just like the bread from before the sin and in the time to come. Moreover, since ordinary bread comes from the earth it is very physical, whereas this bread, coming from heaven, would be more spiritual than physical.

V. 4. הנני V. 4. הנני. Nicht erst in Folge dieser Unzufriedenheit — die darauf bezügliche Gottesrede an das Volk folgt erst im V. 11 u. 12 — gleichzeitig mit der laut werdenden Unzufriedenheit, und ohne dass Mosche sich deshalb, wie oben Kap. 15, 25, bittend an Gott wandte, ward ihm dieses Wort: הנני, ich bin schon bereit. Indem ich das Volk in die Wüste führte, hatte ich beschlossen, sie in dieser Weise mit Nahrung zu versorgen. — לכם es ist möglich, dass sich dieses לכם auf Mosche und Aaron bezieht. Mein Beschluss, das Volk mit Manna zu versorgen, kommt euch rettend und rechtfertigend zur Seite. הילך בתורתי, die Trägerschaft meines Gesetzes ist dadurch bedingt, dass ich Menschen finde, denen es genügt, je nur auf einen Tag mit Weib und Kind versorgt zu sein, heiter und froh heute zu genießen und heute ihre Pflicht zu tun, und die Sorge für den morgenden Dem anheimzustellen, der den heutigen Tag und für ihn das Brot gegeben und der auch den morgenden Tag und für ihn das Brot geben werde. Nur diese rückhaltlose Zuversicht in Gott sichert die Erfüllung seines Gesetzes gegen Übertretungen aus vermeintlicher oder wirklicher Sorge um materielle Not. Wer nicht gelernt hat, für den morgenden Tag Gott zu vertrauen, den wird endlich auch die auf Jahre hinausblickende Sorge von Gott und seinem Gesetze abführen. Hier daher die großen Sätze des R. Elieser Hamodai: דבר יום ביומו ,מי שברא היום ברא פרנסתו ,מכאן היה ר׳ אליעזר אומר כל מי שיש לו מה שיאכל היום ואומר מה אני אוכל למחר הרי זה מקטני אמנה: wer den Tag schafft, schafft auch seine Nahrung, und: wer für heute zu essen hat, und spricht, was werde ich morgen zu essen haben! der gehört zu den Vertrauensarmen.

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.

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.

BREAD. Because they made bread out of the manna — as it is written, and they made cakes of it³⁰⁰Numbers 11:8. — [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,³⁰¹Job 28:5. [meaning: “out of it cometh the wheat from which bread is made”]. So also: To bring forth bread out of the earth,³⁰²Psalms 104:14. which means that He brings forth the wheat from which people make bread. And some scholars³⁰³Ibn Ezra, and R’dak in his Sefer Hashorashim, under the root lechem. interpret: Behold, I will cause to rain bread, meaning food. Similarly: ‘lechem’ of the offering;³⁰⁴Leviticus 3:16. For he offereth the ‘lechem’ of thy G-d;³⁰⁵Ibid., 21:8. When thou sittest ‘lilchom’ with a ruler³⁰⁶Proverbs 23:1. — all are expressions of food.³⁰⁷Thus is the opinion of Ibn Ezra and R’dak (see Note 303). But, continues Ramban, the correct interpretation is, etc. The correct interpretation is that lilchom³⁰⁶Proverbs 23:1. means “to eat bread,” and ‘lechem’ of thy G-d³⁰⁵Ibid., 21:8. 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.³⁰⁸Deuteronomy 8:3.

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.]

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.

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.

Whether they will keep. . . Re”m writes that the correct text of Rashi includes the words בו אנסנו — “That I may test them through it” — referring back to, “I will make bread rain from heaven.” In other words, I will test them through the mitzvos dealing with the manna, which are: 1. keeping Shabbos 2. not gathering [manna] today for tomorrow’s needs. Accordingly, בו אנסנו does not refer to the immediately preceding phrase, “Gather enough for each day.” For then it would mean that [only] the mitzvah of not gathering today for tomorrow’s needs was used to test them if they will keep mitzvos. This is not logical, for why would Hashem wish to test them in the mitzvah of not leaving manna overnight, but not in the mitzvah of keeping Shabbos?

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.

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 no his faith in Me. A person who has enough to eat for one day, and is worried about the morrow, is considered by Me as having displayed lack of faith in Me. 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.

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 morning³⁰⁹Further, Verse 19. and that they should not go out on the Sabbath to collect it.”³¹⁰Verse 26. Thus the language of Rashi.
But this is not correct.³¹¹Ramban’s objection seems to be that the word l’ma’an (“that” or “for the sake of”) — ‘that’ I may try them — expresses causation in itself, namely, that the manna as such will be their trial, as will be explained, and not the precepts associated with it, as Rashi explained. Rather, the intent [of the trial mentioned here] is as He said, Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not; that He might afflict thee, and that He might try thee, to do thee good at thy latter end.³¹²Deuteronomy 8:16. [The manna itself] was a trial to them, since they had no food in the wilderness and were without recourse to any sustenance except the manna, which they knew not from before and had never heard of from their fathers. Each day’s quantity came down on its day, and they were eagerly desirous for it. Yet with all this, they hearkened to walk after G-d to a place of no food. And so indeed He said to them again, And thou shalt remember all the way in which the Eternal thy G-d hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might afflict thee, to try thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no.³¹³Ibid., Verse 2. He could have led them by way of the cities that were round about them.³¹⁴Genesis 35:5. Instead, He led them through the wilderness wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions,³¹⁵Deuteronomy 8:15. and each day’s quantity of food would come to them only from heaven in order to try them and to do them good at the end so that they would believe in Him forever. I have already explained the matter of “trial” in the commentary on the verse, And G-d tried Abraham.³¹⁶Genesis 22:1 (Vol. I, p. 275).
The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the Moreh Nebuchim³¹⁷III, 24. Ramban is following Al Charizi’s translation of the Moreh Nebuchim. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation, (as rendered by Friedlander, III, p. 114): “That I may prove them whether they will walk in My law or not; i.e., let every one who desires try and see whether it is useful and sufficient to devote himself to the service of G-d.” [on the verse before us, That I may try them, whether they will walk in My law or not, that it means] that “everyone capable of knowledge should know and determine whether there is usefulness in the service of G-d, and whether there is adequate satisfaction in it or not.” But if so, it would have been proper for Him to say, “that He may try them to know!”
Now Scripture mentions here only the matter of manna, which was “the bread” which He caused to rain upon them, [and it does not refer to the flesh which He gave them]. However, from that which Moses told them, This shall be, when the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full,³¹⁸Further, Verse 8. we know that everything was told to him. It is only that when a subject is mentioned twice, Scripture shortens it in the report of the command or the narrative, as I have mentioned to you many times.³¹⁹See above, 10:2 and 11:1. At times, it omits one — [the command or the narrative] — altogether, such a case being the verse written in this section: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it [the manna] be kept throughout your generations,³²⁰Further, Verse 32. and the command [of G-d to Moses] is not recorded at all. This is also the case in many places. But in the opinion of those scholars³²¹See above, Note 303. who say that lechem here means “all food,” it is possible that by saying, Behold, I will cause to rain ‘lechem,’ the meaning refers to both the manna and to the quail, i.e., that He would fulfill their request for bread and flesh. Moses explained that the flesh would be [available] to eat in the evening, and the bread would be [available] in the morning to the full, as is the customary way.

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.

Mitzvos dealing with it. . . [Rashi is saying that the test here] is not like what he explained on, “To test you to know if you will keep His mitzvos” (Devarim 8:2). Rashi there explains that it means: “That you not test Him and question His ways.” [Rashi knows this because] there, the test is connected to previously mentioned affliction. And a test by an affliction is to determine that you do not question His ways. But since no pain or affliction is mentioned here, the test cannot be to determine that you do not question His ways. [Re”m] For if a person is told, “I am testing you to see if you will question My ways,” it is not a test! [Once the person knows why Hashem is doing it, there is no point in questioning His ways.] But it is logical to say, “I will test you to see if you will keep My mitzvos,” [because one’s dedication to mitzvos is being tested]. However in Devarim, it is Moshe who is saying [about past events], “He afflicted you. . . to test you” if you will question His ways. (Gur Aryeh)

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.

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 attribute had exceeded the function allotted to it. [The author has explained this already in his commentary of G-d ”testing Avraham” before the binding of Yitzchok. Ed.]

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.

ויצא העם ולקטו...והיה ביום השישי...והיה משנה, The peoplewent 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.

והיה משנה AND IT SHALL BE DOUBLE — for today and for tomorrow.

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, 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 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.

As they usually gathered. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it “twice as much”? Perhaps this amount normally comes down [on Friday]. Rashi answers: It is “twice as much” when compared to what they usually gathered each day. In other words, it was not twice as much as they gathered the whole week — which would be ten omers — as the verse seems to imply.

"and it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare what they shall bring": From here it is derived that one makes an eruv on the eve of a festival for the Sabbath. (Exodus 16:5) "and it shall be mem-shin-nun-heh": bread that is "meshuneh" (different). You say, bread that is different, but perhaps (the intent is) bread that is double (mishneh)? (this is not so, for) (Ibid. 22) "two omers for each one" (on the sixth day) already speaks of bread that is double. How, then, am I to understand "bread that is mem-shin-nun-heh"? As bread that is "meshuneh" ("different"). How so? Each day it was one omer; on the Sabbath, two. Each day it was aromatic; on the Sabbath, more so. Each day it was gilt-like; on the Sabbath, more so.

V. 5. והכינו את אשר יביאו , sie werden in dem Heimgebrachten gar keine größere Quantität erblicken und es wie gewöhnlich für den Bedarf des Tages zubereiten, und dann wird es sich als ein doppeltes Quantum herausstellen. In diesen beiden Versen kündigt somit Gott Mosche an, was auch ohne Murren des Volkes geschehen wäre, dass ihm täglich nur das Tägliche gegeben werden solle, um es an das zu Gott für das sogenannte kleine tägliche Leben aufblickende Vertrauen und an das Bewusstsein zu gewöhnen, dass jeder Mensch und jede Menschenhütte ein besonderes Augenmerk der göttlichen Waltung sei, und durch die doppelte Spende am sechsten Tage, dass Gott auch für das durch die besonderen Anforderungen seines Gesetzes erzeugte jüdische Bedürfnis zu sorgen wisse.

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 37,25, 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.

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.

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.

ערב is the same as לערב AT EVENING

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.”³²²Above, Verse 3. 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.³²³Further, Verse 10. “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.”³²⁴In the printed Rashi text, it concludes: “and there shall be dew above it and dew below it as though it were packed in a chest.” The quail, on the other hand, came down at even (Verse 13) when there was not much time to prepare it. It was thus given, as the Mechilta — quoted by Ramban — said further on, b’panim chasheichoth (with a ‘dark countenance’), or as Rashi puts it, lo b’panim me’iroth (not with a ‘bright countenance’).
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:³²⁵Mechilta on Verse 8. “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 forth³²⁶Verse 3. 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 that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.” The expression in the morning is not connected with then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal, since they saw the Glory [later] on that day [and not in the following morning].³²⁷To grasp the boldness of Ibn Ezra’s explanation, one must note the following sequence of language in the two verses: (6) And Moses and Aaron said… At even, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt. (7) And in the morning, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal. According to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, the expression of Verse 7, and in the morning, is to be understood together with at even (of Verse 6), thus: “at even and in the morning, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.” The phrase, and in the morning, cannot be connected with then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal, for as narrated in Verses 9-10, the Glory of the Eternal appeared that very same day, and not in the following morning. Ramban will further refute this explanation of Ibn Ezra on the basis of the fact that after all, the verses are not written in the way Ibn Ezra would transpose them. His own exposition will then follow. But this interpretation too does not appear to be correct.³²⁸See end of above Note.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the wonder inherent in the manna was extremely great, whereas He brought the quail in from the sea by a wind which came from Him.³²⁹Numbers 11:31. The manna, however, was created for them now; [it was] a new creation in heaven, similar to the process of [the original] Creation. This is the intent of what the Rabbis have said with respect to the manna, i.e., that it was created on the sixth day of creation between sundown and nightfall.³³⁰Aboth 5:6. This is why Scripture said: “By the sign He will perform for you on the coming night, you will know that He brought you out from the land of Egypt, since He prepared a table in the wilderness for you.³³¹See Psalms 78:19. But by the great wonder He will do for you in the morning, you will see the Glory of His kingdom, for what god is there in heaven or on earth that can do according to His works and according to His mighty acts?”³³²Deuteronomy 3:24. By the great and marvellous things that G-d does, He shows His Glory, similar to that which is written, I will gather all nations, and all tongues, and they shall come, and shall see My Glory.³³³Isaiah 66:18. It is further written [there], and they shall declare My Glory,³³⁴Ibid., Verse 19. and there are many other verses similar to this effect. So also is the opinion of Onkelos who rendered [the verse here]: “and you will see the Glory of G-d.” He did not translate it, “and [the Glory of G-d] will be made manifest.”³³⁵Had Onkelos translated “and the Glory of G-d will be made manifest,” it would have comprised Onkelos’ effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality. But now that he translated, “and you will see the Glory of G-d,” his reference is to the great and wonderful deed G-d will do for them through the manna.
Know that the subject of the manna involves a great matter.³³⁶“Matter.” In the Ricanti quoting Ramban: “secret.” Our rabbis have alluded to it in Tractate Yoma:³³⁷Yoma 75b. “Man did eat bread of ‘abirim’ (the mighty),³³⁸Psalms 78:25. A reference to the manna which the Israelites ate in the wilderness. The question arises about the meaning of the word abirim. i.e., bread which the ministering angels eat! These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yishmael said to him, ‘You have made a mistake. Do the ministering angels indeed eat bread? Has it not been said [by Moses], I did neither eat bread nor drink water?³³⁹Deuteronomy 9:9. Rather, the bread of ‘abirim’ means bread which was absorbed in the eivarim (limbs).’”³⁴⁰See Vol. I, p. 76, on the fruits of the Garden of Eden.
The purport of Rabbi Akiba’s words is that the existence of the ministering angels is sustained by the Divine Glory. And so the Rabbis interpreted:³⁴¹Shemoth Rabbah 32:4. “And Thou ‘m’chayeh’ (preservest) them all³⁴²Nehemiah 9:6. [means] He gives food (‘michyah’) to you all.” It is with reference to this that it is said, And the light is sweet,³⁴³Ecclesiastes 11:7. since through the Light, they perceive good discernment. Now the manna was a product of that Higher Light which became tangible by the will of its Creator, blessed be He, and thus [according to Rabbi Akiba], both the people who ate the manna and the ministering angels were sustained by the same substance. But Rabbi Yishmael criticized him, since the existence of the ministering angels is not dependent upon something tangible evolving from the Light. Their existence is by means of the Higher Light itself.
It was for this reason, [i.e., the heavenly origin of the manna], that the Israelites found in the manna every flavor they desired. The rational power of the soul causes it to cleave to the higher worlds, thus finding restful life and obtaining His favor.³⁴⁴See Proverbs 8:35.
And thus the Rabbis have said in the Mechilta:³⁴⁵Mechilta on Verse 25: Today ye shall not find it in the field. This teaching is that of Rabbi Eleazar Chisma. Ramban will later refer to it by name. “Today, [i.e., in this world], you will not find it, but you will find it in the World to Come.” This text [of the Mechilta] can support two explanations. We may say that among those [inheriting eternal life] in the World to Come,³⁴⁶Ramban clearly uses the concept of olam haba (the World to Come) as referring to the life after the resurrection. It is the life to be in the far hereafter, as distinguished from the olam haneshamoth (the World of the Souls), which is the life in the hereafter immediately following the demise of the body. In olam haba, body and soul will be reunited, and the manner of how the body will sustain itself is here alluded to by Ramban. See also Note 12 in Seder Va’eira. An exhaustive discussion of this whole subject is found in Ramban’s Torath Ha’adam, (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. 2, pp. 283-311). there will be some who have not achieved that high status of sustaining themselves steadily by the Divine Glory. Their existence will be made possible by something tangible evolving from that Glory, like the status of the generation of the wilderness who attained [the beholding of] the Divine Glory at the Red Sea, just as the Rabbis have said:³⁴⁷Mechilta 15:2. “A maidservant saw at the sea what the prophet Ezekiel³⁴⁸Reference is to Ezekiel, Chapter 1. In our Mechilta it states, “Isaiah and Ezekiel.” See Isaiah 6:1-6. Rashi (above. 15:2) just has: “prophets.” never saw.” From that time onward, their souls were elevated to be able to exist by the product [of the Divine Glory], which was the manna.
A more correct interpretation is that in the word today — [Verse 25: ‘Today’ ye shall not find it in the field] — Scripture is alluding according to the words of Rabbi Eleazar Chisma,³⁴⁹See above, Note 345. that those [inheriting eternal life in] the World to Come³⁴⁶Ramban clearly uses the concept of olam haba (the World to Come) as referring to the life after the resurrection. It is the life to be in the far hereafter, as distinguished from the olam haneshamoth (the World of the Souls), which is the life in the hereafter immediately following the demise of the body. In olam haba, body and soul will be reunited, and the manner of how the body will sustain itself is here alluded to by Ramban. See also Note 12 in Seder Va’eira. An exhaustive discussion of this whole subject is found in Ramban’s Torath Ha’adam, (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. 2, pp. 283-311). will exist by the substance of the manna which is the Higher Glory, just as the Rabbis have said:³⁵⁰Berachoth 17a. “[In the World to Come] there will be neither eating nor drinking. Rather, the righteous [of the World to Come] will sit with their crowns on their heads and enjoy the Divine Glory.” [This means] that those [inheriting] the World to Come will exist by their enjoyment of the Divine Glory, which will cleave to the crowns upon their heads. “The crown” is the attribute so named by Scripture when it says, In that day shall the Eternal of hosts be for a crown of Glory.³⁵¹Isaiah 28:5. And it is with reference to it that it is said, Even upon the crown wherewith his mother hath crowned him.³⁵²Song of Songs 3:11. Thus [the verses] allude to the manner in which the righteous inheriting the World to Come will be sustained, the hint being to the substance of the manna.
Now Scripture says, And He commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; and He caused manna to rain upon them for food, and gave them of the corn of heaven. Man did eat the bread of the mighty,³⁵³Psalms 78:23-25. and it further says, And He gave them in plenty the bread of heaven.³⁵⁴Ibid., 105:40. From this, it appears that this “corn” is in heaven, and He caused it to come down for them by opening its doors. The intent thereof is, as I have explained, that the [Higher] Light was made tangible [and assumed the form of the manna], for it is of the Higher Light that Scripture speaks in this language, [such as]: the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of G-d.³⁵⁵Ezekiel 1:1. It may be that the manna was already existing in the heavens [in the form in which it came down], just as the Rabbis have said³³⁰Aboth 5:6. that it was created on the sixth day of creation between sundown and nightfall.

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).

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

The same as “in the evening.” [Instead of לערב ,] the correct text of Rashi reads בערב — as it says afterward (v. 8): ויאמר משה בתת ה' לכם בערב .

V. 6. אל כל בני ישראל, sowohl zu denen, die im Kreise der Ihrigen über Mosche und Aaron gemurrt, als zu denen, die mit der Anklage offen gegen Mosche und Aaron aufgetreten. ערב: noch heute Abend werdet ihr euren Irrtum einsehen, dass ihr den Auszug aus Mizrajim uns und nicht Gott zugeschrieben. Die Abendspende der Wachteln erhalten sie nur in Folge ihres Murrens, ihnen zu zeigen, dass Gott jedes Wort vernimmt. Wie gewöhnlich ist in dem Berichte der Worte Gottes an Mosche V. 4 u. 5. die Ankündigung der Wachteln nicht ausgedrückt, weil wir dies sofort aus Mosche Rede an das Volk erfahren.

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.

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.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:7) — 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).

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?³⁵⁶Psalms 8:5. Eternal, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him?³⁵⁷Ibid., 144:3. For how little is he [man] to be accounted!³⁵⁸Isaiah 2:22. 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.³⁵⁹See ibid., 41:24. And your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal.³⁶⁰Verse 8. It is He Who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, not we.” And in the Mechilta we find.³⁶¹Mechilta on the verse here. “[They said to them]: ‘Are we so distinguished that you arise and murmur against us?’”³⁶²This bears out Ramban’s interpretation that the expression, and what are we? is one of humility, as explained.

ובוקר, in the morning you will have bread,

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.

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

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.

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).

Not a reference to the glory that is mentioned: “and behold. . .” [Rashi knows this] because it is not written, “And behold the glory of Hashem was visible in the cloud in the morning.” [Rather, the glory was visible in the cloud that same day.]

(Exodus 16:7) "and in the morning you will see": From here you learn that it was with a "radiant countenance" that the manna was given to Israel. The quail, which they requested with a full stomach, was given to them with a "darkened countenance." The manna, which they requested legitimately (i.e., from hunger) was given to them with a "radiant countenance." "for He hears your cavilings, which are against the L rd.": And of what significance are we that you stand and rail against us?

V. 7. ובקר וראיתם את כבוד ד׳. Wie כבוד, als die geistige Schwere, den Eindruck bezeichnet, den der geistig sittliche Gehalt eines Wesens macht, dessen Wahrnehmung ebenso den geistig sittlichen Gehalt desselben ermessen lässt, wie die Schwere das Maß für einen materiellen Gehalt abgibt: so heißt von Gott כבוד der Eindruck, die Spur, die sein Einwirken in irdischen Verhältnissen zurücklässt, aus welchen man eine Ahnung seiner Gegenwart und seiner Größe zu gewinnen vermag. So bittet Mosche: הראני נא את כבודך und es wird ihm "טובו" das ganze Walten der "Gottesgüte" in den Menschenverhältnissen offenbar, die Spuren der Gotteswege — דרכך — in der Menschengeschichte, die eine Ahnung der Gottesgegenwart und der Gottesgröße in der Menschengeschichte gewähren. So heißt die Erscheinung der Wolke: כבוד ד׳, weil sie als der Eindruck der Gottesgegenwart in der Wolke diese Gegenwart ahnen lässt. Nirgends erscheint aber der Eindruck dieser Gegenwart größer und deren Wirkung überwältigender, als wenn ein trostloser, öder Zustand, eine trostlose Öde durch Gott in einen Paradieseszustand, in eine Paradiesesaue umwandelt ist. Dieser Eindruck ist deshalb so groß, weil der Gegensatz ein so großer und dem Menschengemüte dabei das Bewusstsein sich aufdrängt, wie an all dem gegenwärtigen Herrlichen die Erde doch so gar keinen Anteil habe und alles auf Gott hinweise. So Jesaias 35, 1 ישושום מדבר וציה ותגל ערבה ותפרח כחבצלת פרח תפרח ותגל אף גילת ורנן כבוד הלבנון נתן לה הדר הכרמל והשרון המה יראו כבוד ד׳ הדר אלקינו: "Ihnen wird Wüste und Steppe fröhlich, es freut sich die Öde, sie blüht auf wie eine Lilie, blühet, blühet, wird fröhlich bis zu allgemeinem Frohsein und Jauchzen, die Herrlichkeit des Libanons ist ihr verliehen, die Pracht Karmels und Sarons: die sehen die "Ehre" Gottes, die Pracht unseres Gottes!" Und so auch hier. Heute Abend werdet ihr nur einen Beweis erhalten, dass Gott euer Führer ist, und dass er jedes eurer Worte vernimmt. Der Morgen aber bringt euch einen Anblick, der euch die ganze Größe eures Gottes ahnen lässt. Die Wüste, die euch jetzt mit ihrer trostlosen Öde bis zur Verzweiflung anstarrt, seht ihr mit einem Male von Gottes Wunderhand als einen glänzend gedeckten Tisch für euch mit Weibern und Kindern vor euch. — בשמעו את תלונתיכם וגו׳, und das, indem er euch gleichzeitig heute Abend zeigt, dass er sehr wohl euer Murren vernommen und ihr euch sehr wohl sagen könnt, dass ihr durch dieses Murren eigentlich die Sorge seiner fürsorgenden Güte verscherzt hättet. ונחנו מה, wir aber, wie verschwindet bei allem diesem unser Anteil an der Gestaltung eures Geschickes zur vollendeten Bedeutungslosigkeit, und wie wenig sind wir es wert, dass ihr über uns murret oder doch Unzufriedenheit über uns rege macht, wenn ihr auch nicht offen damit hervortretet; denn das haben nur einige im Volke getan (siehe V. 31). Wir sind ja nur die völlig verschwindenden Werkzeuge! — תַלִינו: eine ungewöhnliche Form des הפעיל's der נ׳׳ע für תָלִינו. Vielleicht weil תָלִינו auch als קל erscheinen könnte, hier aber das Veranlassen deutlich hervorzuheben war, ist dafür die Form תָלינו gebraucht und dann auch allen andern הפעיל-Zeiten konsequent geblieben. V. 2 ist das וילונו :קרי und das וילינו :כתיב. Hier ist es umgekehrt. Dort wird gesagt, dass das Murren ein allgemeines war, obgleich ein großer Teil nur indirekt den offenen Aufruhr mit veranlasste. Mosche Milde macht allen nur den Vorwurf indirekter Veranlassung des Aufruhrs, obgleich er ja auch in der Tat zum offenen Ausbruch gekommen.

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.

את תלנתיכם על ה׳ this is the same as תלנתיכם] אשר על ה׳] YOUR MURMURINGS WHICH ARE AGAINST THE LORD.

'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.

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)

For you asked for something improperly. . . I.e., you asked it unnecessarily because a person can survive without meat. Furthermore, you made your request “on a full stomach,” i.e., they had much livestock.

ונחנו מה (lit., and we, what?) means AND WE, WHAT ARE WE accounted (of what importance are we?),

Is the same as: that are against Hashem. [Rashi is answering the question:] The apparent meaning of בשמעו את תלונותיכם על ה' is: now He will hear that your complaints are against Him. But Hashem knows this! [Thus Rashi explains:] It rather comes to tell us against whom these complaints really were. [Although they ostensibly were “against Moshe and Aharon” (v. 2), in truth] they were against Hashem. [For “what are we that you cause complaints against us?”].

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).

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:8; Yoma 75).

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;³⁶³Above, Verse 6. and when He shall give you in the morning bread to the full, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal.³⁶⁴Verse 7.

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.

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 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.”

(16:8) "And Moses said: When the L rd gives you in the evening flesh to eat, etc." — whence we are apprised that it was with a "darkened countenance" that the quail was given to Israel and that the manna, which was requested legitimately, was given with a "radiant countenance." "for the L rd hears your cavilings, whereby you cavil against Him, etc." They said: If it were against us that you stood and railed, we would tolerate you. But you do so against the Living, eternal G d! (16:9) "And Moses said to Aaron: Say to the entire congregation of the children of Israel: Draw near before the L rd": R. Yehoshua says: (The intent is) draw near to (the place of) G d's revelation (i.e., to the place where the cloud will descend). R. Elazar says: (The intent is) draw near to render an accounting (for your complaints).

V. 8. Nichts charakterisiert den "Mann Mosche" diesen ענו מאוד מכל אדם, der so gar nichts für sich in Anspruch nimmt, so gar nichts für sich sein wollte, so ganz und gar in seinen "Dienst Gottes" aufging, als dieses Wort! Was hätte nicht ein anderer, zu dessen Rechten, um mit dem Propheten zu sprechen, Gott seinen Wunderarm in aller Herrlichkeit geführt — מוליך לימין משה את זרוע תפארתו — für sich aus einer solchen Gnadenstellung gemacht! Wie hätte er nicht mindestens einen schwachen Wiederschein von dem blendenden Strahlenglanze einer solchen Wunderwirkung auf seine Person fallen lassen! Was sind alle die Brotspeisungen und sonstigen Wunderwerke aller der Wundermänner, von welchen eine gläubige Menschheit erzählt, gegen diese vierzig Jahre lang fortgesetzte regelmäßige, und in ihrer Versorgung selbst sich als höchste Providenz verkündende Speisung von dritthalb Millionen Seelen auf einem Zuge mitten durch die Wüste! Man braucht wahrlich nur um ein Haar breit weniger "Mosche" zu sein, als Mosche gewesen, um der Versuchung eines solchen Nimbus sondergleichen nicht zu widerstehen! Und siehe, "der Mann Mosche" zittert ganz eigentlich vor solchem Nimbus. Ihm genügt es nicht, im Verein mit seinem Bruder nur so nebenher (V. 7) darauf aufmerksam gemacht zu haben, dass ihr Murren doch eigentlich gegen Gott und nicht gegen sie gerichtet sei, die doch nur Gotteswerkzeuge wären; er greift selbständig dieses letzte Wort auf und fordert sie noch ganz besonders (V. 8) auf, aus der Erfahrung, die sie zu machen im Begriffe stehen, dass Gott sie abends und morgens speisen werde, dass Gott — ohne dass Mosche sich deshalb an ihn gewandt — unmittelbar ihr Murren gehört, nicht nur כבוד ד׳, die Größe Gottes, sondern gleichzeitig auch die Tatsache schöpfen sollen, dass sie unmittelbar unter Gottes Leitung stehen, Mosche nicht einmal als Mittler notwendig sei, und seine und seines Bruders Bedeutung für sie gänzlich zu verschwinden habe. Und in der Tat, Mosche ganze Sendung ist davon bedingt, dass sie durch und durch rein als unmittelbares Gotteswerk erkannt werde, und dass in unserm Bewusstsein menschliches Zutun auch keine Faser Anteil daran habe. Ein solcher Zug in die Wüste, ein solcher Schabbat wie der "mosaische" Schabbat, wie gar die späteren Schabbatjahre des "mosaischen" Gesetzes, und wie noch viele andere Institutionen dieses Gesetzes, wären nicht nur eine Torheit, wären geradezu ein Verbrechen, wenn ein Mensch, wenn nicht Gott sie geboten. Es darf kein Mensch Weib und Kind hoffnungslos in die Wüste führen, es darf kein Mensch sich für einen Tag, oder gar von Zeit zu Zeit für ganze Jahre, der Pflicht der Arbeit entziehen. Gott als deren Erteiler weg gedacht, sind das, wie der Prophet es ausspricht, חוקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם (Jechesk. 20. 25). und es ist das Wort unserer Weisen: גוי ששבת חייב מיתה ein Nichtjude, der sich einen jüdischen Schabbat zur Pflicht machen würde, beginge ein strafwürdiges Verbrechen, durchaus ein Wort begründeter Wahrheit. Allein, von Gott geboten, von Gott gefordert als Zeichen und Übung rückhaltlosen Anerkennens und Vertrauens, wird, was sonst Torheit wäre, höchste Weisheit, was sonst Verbrechen, menschenwürdigste Tugend, deren Nichterfüllung Gott verleugnen und sich entehren wäre. — Ganz besonders aber bedarf die Institution, deren Grundlegung mit dieser vierzigjährigen Mannaerfahrung gegeben werden sollte, bedarf der שבת des unerschütterlichen Bewusstseins, dass der Mensch mit allen seinen kleinen und doch so unerlässlichen Bedürfnissen des täglichen Familienlebens unmittelbar unter Gott stehe, alle seine Wünsche und Sorgen unmittelbar Ihm zuzuhauchen habe und er keines Mittlers und Fürsprechers bedürfe, um Gott seine kleinen und großen Anliegen nahe zu legen. Der Schabbat wie das ganze Gesetz soll ja den Mosche überleben. Daher die ängstliche Sorge dieses "Mannes Mosche", dessen erhabenste Größe eben darin bestand, dass er nur Mensch und nichts weiter sein wollte, dass in den Anschauungen seines Volkes er völlig zwischen ihnen und ihrem Gotte verschwinde.

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.

אשר אתם מלינים עליו means [YOUR MURMURINGS] WHICH YOU MAKE others who hear you murmuring MURMUR AGAINST HIM.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Come near before Ad-noy. Their complaints revealed a general weariness of obeying Hashem’s word and following Him through the wilderness, which in turn caused them to become distanced from Him. Therefore Moshe told Aharon to reproach them in order to bring them near again as they were before. For He has heard. Because He has heard your complaints you must be sure to repent lest He distance Himself from you on this account.

V. 9. כי שמע וגו׳, er hat schon gehört, er bedarf dazu nicht erst meiner Vermittlung.

'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.

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.

(16:10) "And it was, as Aaron spoke, etc.": What is the intent of this? We are hereby apprised that at the very time Aaron spoke this, so it transpired. "and they turned to the desert": R. Yehoshua says: They had no sooner turned than the Shechinah had appeared. R. Elazar says: They turned to the deeds of the forefathers (i.e., to repentance), it being written ("they turned to) 'the desert'" — Just as the desert is void of all, so the early fathers were void of all transgression and sin. "and, behold, the glory of the L rd appeared in the cloud": R. Yossi Haglili says: So long as Israel railed against Moses and Aaron, at once, "the glory of the L rd appeared in the cloud." Elsewhere it is written (Numbers 14:10) "and the entire congregation sought to stone them (Yehoshua and Calev)." What is written (of this)? "The glory of the L rd appeared in the tent of meeting," the Holy One Blessed be He saying here, (as it were,) "Better that the pillar of cloud be struck than that Moses and Aaron be stoned!"

V. 10. ויפנו אל המדבד , sie hatten sich von der Wüste, deren Anblick ihnen Schrecken erregte, abgewendet. Allein die Wolke, die sie führte, hatte bereits die Wüste betreten und, indem Gottes Herrlichkeit in der Wolke sichtbar ward, wird ihnen klar, daß Gott vermittelst der Wolke ihr Führer war.

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.

V. 11. Alles, was Mosche und Aaron bis jetzt zum Volke geredet hatten, war nur Vorbereitung auf dieses Gotteswort, damit sie es in dem rechten Sinne auffassen und daraus die beabsichtigte Belehrung schöpfen mögen.

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.]

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.

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,³⁶⁵Above, Verse 8. 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;³⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 4. 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;³⁶⁷Deuteronomy 1:32. 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,³⁶⁸Arakhin 15 b, Tosafoth. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 366. 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]³⁶⁹Above, Verse 3: … when we sat by the flesh-pots, when we did eat bread to the full. — and He hearkened to their murmurings on both matters, and He gave them that which they craved.³⁷⁰Psalms 78:29. What would He give them, and what more,³⁷¹See ibid., 120:3. 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,³⁷²Verse 13. because it came in a natural way.³⁷³See Ramban above, Verse 6, beginning with: “The correct interpretation.” [Although the quail were a daily occurrence], the subject of the second [incident of] quail at Kibroth-hata’avah³⁷⁴Numbers 11:31-34. [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.³⁷⁵Verse 8. And also in Verse 12 here: At dusk ye shall eat flesh, and in the morning ye shall be filled with bread. This clearly indicates that bread they had to the full, but not flesh.
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.³⁷⁶Further, Verse 17. 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,³⁷⁷Numbers 11:4. and it further says, and the children of Israel also wept on their part,³⁷⁷Numbers 11:4. 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,³⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 32. and out of that abundance, they ate for a month’s time³⁷⁹Ibid., Verse 20. and then the quail reverted to their first state.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the whole affair with the quail happened only at intervals, but since the manna was their staple food, they always had it, for their chief murmuring concerned it, as it is written, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to put to death this whole assembly by famine.³⁸⁰Above, Verse 3.

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

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.

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.

(Exodus 16:12) "I have heard the cavilings of the children of Israel": The Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: It is revealed to Me what the congregation of Israel have said and what they are destined to say (viz. Numbers 11:4). "Speak to them, saying: Towards evening you will eat flesh": He said to them: You have asked for two things: You have asked for bread; for it is impossible for flesh and blood (to survive) without bread. And I have granted it to you. And, in addition, you have asked for stomach-filling flesh. I have granted that also to you. Why? So that you not say: He cannot give it to us. I will give it to you, but in the end I will exact punishment of you "and you will know that I am the L rd your G d ("Elokeichem") — I am a Judge to exact punishment of you.

'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.

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!

השליו THE QUAILS — a species of fowl which is very fatty (cf. Yoma 75b).

(16:13) "And it was in the evening that the quail arose" — whence you learn that the quail was given to them with a "darkened countenance." "and it (the quail) covered the camp": I would not know to what extent. It is, therefore, written elsewhere (Numbers 11:31) "and about two cubits deep on the ground." And it was two cubits high above the ground so that a man standing (on the ground) could take it with ease. For (the distance) from his heart down is two cubits, and from his heart up, one cubit. R. Yossi Haglili says: (Ibid.) "And it was spread around the camp about a day's journey on one side and a day's journey on the other side" for a distance of three parasangs on every side, "and about two cubits deep on the ground", and (Psalms 78:28) "and He made them (the quail) fall in the midst of their camp around their dwellings." R. Yoshiyah says (Numbers 11:31) "And He spread them over the camp": three parasangs on each side. And what is the intent of (Ibid.) "about a day's journey on this side and a day's journey on that side"? In height. Three by three, making nine (parasangs on each side). Nine and nine, eighteen (all together.) (And thus on all the sides roundabout the camp, as it is written ) (Ibid.) "and about two cubits deep on the ground" (roundabout the camp.) And it is written "And He made them fall in the midst of the camp around their dwellings." Others say: "And it was spread around the camp about a day's journey, etc.": the average (walking distance per day), ten parasangs. "and a day's journey on that side," making it twenty parasangs (all together). And it is written (Psalms 23:5) "You set a table before me in full view of my foes." I might think (that some of the quail fell) on uneven ground, (hard to come by). It is, therefore, written (Numbers 11:31, lit.,) "on the face of all the ground" — on level ground. One verse (Numbers 11:31) states "around the camp," and another (Psalms 78:28) "around their dwellings." (How are these verses to be reconciled?) It circled each dwelling. R. Eliezer says: "and about two cubits above the earth": the quail were two cubits above the ground, and Israel took them from the top (layer). Come and see how the manna descended for Israel: A north wind would come and "sweep" the desert. Then rain would come and clean the ground, and the dew would rise and the wind would blow on it and make it like golden tables, on which the manna descended. And Israel would eat it, saying: If this is what the L rd provides for those who angered Him (by their caviling), what must be the reward for the tzaddikim in the world to come! (Numbers 11:33) "the flesh was still between their teeth": They said: The "kosher" one among them ate it and became immediately diarrhetic. The wicked one among them ate it and suffered up to thirty days, viz. (Ibid.) "and the wrath of the L rd burned against them … an extremely sore plague." (Ibid. 35) "And the people journeyed from Chatzeiroth and they abode in Chatzeiroth": Now did they journey from Chatzeiroth and abide there? We are hereby apprised that they journeyed back for the sake of Miriam. (See Ibid. Chapter 12)

V. 13. Joma 75 b. werden vier Arten Selaw aufgerechnet, darunter פסיוני, wahrscheinlich Fasanen. Selaw wird als die geringste Art und als ein überaus fetter Vogel bezeichnet. Man hält Selaw für eine Wachtelart. Der Selaw ward ihnen in das Lager geworfen, sie hatten sich nicht darum zu bemühen, wie um das Manna, das sie vom Felde aufsammeln mussten. Es ist höchst bezeichnend, dass der Selaw, der ihnen nicht zum Segen, sondern nur zur Belehrung, dass Gott ihr Murren vernommen, gesendet wird, ihnen ohne Mühe, gleichsam vor die Füße geworfen wird, was ihnen aber die liebende Fürsorge Gottes spendet, nur durch ihre Mittätigkeit erreicht wird. —שכבת הטל, der Niederschlag des Taues. טל, von טלל, verwandt mit דלל, wovon דל, aus einer Höhe herabsinken, הלל, wovon תל, niederfallen in Trümmer; daher ַטל , der Niederschlag der zuvor aufgestiegenen Dünste. In den Wüsten überhaupt, in den asiatischen und afrikanischen Wüsten, wo die Ausdünstung fehlt, insbesondere, ist Tau nicht gewöhnlich. Wenn dem Manna, wie aus Bamidbar 11, 9 ersichtlich, immer ein Tauniederschlag voranging und, wie hier berichtet wird, nachfolgte, so dass das Manna zwischen zwei Lagen Tau zu liegen kam, so müssen beide besonders für das Manna gesendet, somit dafür wichtig gewesen sein. Wir vermuten, dass durch die vorangehende Tauniederlagerung der Wüstensand erst getränkt und dadurch fest wurde, so dass die Mannakörner nicht in den Sand fielen und sandig wurden. Der zweite Niederschlag reinigte die Körner vollends von allem, was sich im Niederfallen an sie angesetzt haben mochte.

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.]

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).

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.

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;³⁸¹Genesis 30:37. ‘chasaph has hem’ (the Eternal hath made bare) His holy arm.³⁸²Isaiah 52:10. 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]³⁸³“The second root-letter of the verb.” Literally: “the ayin of the verb.” Following the theory of Dunash ben Labrat, the great Hebrew grammarian of the tenth century, we call the three letters of the root of any verb by the names of the three letters of the Hebrew ‘po’al’ (verb) [which is spelled pei, ayin and lamed]. Thus the first letter of any verb is called the pei of the verb, the second is called the ayin, the third is called the lamed. In the verb chasaph before us, the second root-letter is the sin or its interchange, the samach, as explained in the text. In the word mechuspas, the samach appears twice. This then is the meaning of Ramban’s saying, “and the ayin (second letter) of the verb is doubled.” is doubled, [thus making it mechuspas].

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 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.

Thin uncovered matter, thin like frost: It is fitting to know that one should wonder about the picking up of the manna - as there descended an omer quantity for an adult and [also] an omer for a child of three - how is it possible that their eating would be the same? And if we say that this too is miraculous, that the child should eat like the adult - if so, how does the bareita in Eruvin 83b prove that the measurement of a meal is an omer - and is it not that here it was not like the way of eating other things? And also there is an objection [from] the expression later, "a man according to his eating" - which implies that according to his ability did it descend, [according to] how [much] he needed, if it were little or much; and [yet] behold, the same [amount] descended for everyone. But rather the answer for all of this is that the manna 'was like a gad seed' - which is a flax seed - the crust of which is above, and within it, it is full of granules. And like this did the manna descend, but some of them were empty and only the very thin upper crust was eaten. And this is what was said, "thin uncovered matter (mechuspas)" - that the thin crust was like a box and like the expression, "chafisa (small container)," like the explanation of Rashi. And some of them are "thin like frost," which is empty inside and it is possible to make with much frost one handful. And it was through providence that there descended for each one according to his eating; and [so] for the child they were completely empty. Yet according to the size of the picking, there was an omer for everyone. And [so] it [comes out] fine that the gemara proves [the amount of a meal] from that the measurement was an omer, and [even] for the most, there was only this measurement; we understand from this that this was the measurement required for an average man [for a meal].

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.”

The dew rose from the earth into the air. . . Meaning: The world’s natural order is that bread comes up from the earth, and water descends from the heavens. But here it was the opposite. The manna — bread — descended from heaven, and the dew came up from the earth, as it says in Midrash Tanchuma.

(Exodus 16:13) "and in the morning there was a layer of dew": Scripture comes to apprise us how the manna descended for Israel: A north wind would come and "sweep" the desert. Then rain would come and clean the ground, and the dew would rise and the wind would blow on it and make it like golden tables, on which the manna descended. (Ibid. 14) "and, behold, on the face of the desert": Not on the whole desert, but on part of it. (Ibid.) "thin as hoarfrost": We are hereby apprised that it descended like ice on the ground. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: "And the dew layer ascended": (homiletically) there arose the prayers of our forefathers who were buried in the earth, on the face of the ground. "and, behold, on the face of the desert": Not on the whole desert, but on part of it. "dak like hoarfrost": It descended from the firmament, as it is written (Isaiah 40:22) "… who stretches out the heavens like dak." Since it descended from the firmament, I might think it descended cold. It is, therefore, written "cham" ("warm" [i.e., the samech in mechuspas looks very much like a mem]). I might think it descended with a great din. Whence is it derived that it descended silently? It is, therefore, written "hass" ("hush" [i.e., the cheth in mechuspas reads very much like a heh]). I might think that it descended on vessels. Whence do I derive that it descended only on the ground? From "as hoarfrost upon the ground." R. Tarfon says: It descended, as it were, on the palms of the L rd ("pas" in "mechuspas" is a palm). The Holy One Blessed be He stretched out His hand took the prayers of our forefathers buried in the earth and brought down the manna which is like the dew for Israel, viz. (Iyyov 33:24) "Then He will be gracious to him and will say: 'Redeem him from descending to the pit, for I have found his ransom ("kofer," as in the description of the dew, "dak kakfor.") Once, R. Tarfon and the elders were sitting, and R. Elazar Hamodai was sitting before them, when he said to them: The height of the manna was sixty cubits. R. Tarfon: "Modai, until when will you continue to confound us with your wonders?" R. Elazar: "It is a verse in the Torah! Which 'measure' (of the Holy One Blessed be He) is greater? That for evil (i.e., punishment) or that for good (i.e., reward)? That of good. It is written (re the flood, Genesis 7:11 and 7:20) "And the windows of the heavens were opened … Fifteen cubits did the waters increase" (above the mountains). And of the measure of good, what is written? (Psalms 78:23-24) 'And He commanded the skies above, and He opened the doors of heaven, and He rained upon them manna for food, and the grain of heaven did He give them.' As it relates to our subject, the windows in a door being four, then two doors give us eight windows, (so that if two windows provide fifteen cubits,) then the height of the manna must have been (at least) sixty cubits." Issi b. Yehudah says: When the manna descended for Israel, all of the peoples saw it, as it is written (Psalms 23:5) "You spread a table before me in full view of my foes."

V. 14. והנה, weist darauf hin, dass vor der Verdunstung des Taues das Manna nicht sichtbar war. Es muss somit entweder überhaupt durchsichtig gewesen, oder, wie manche Körper, durch Benetzung durchsichtig geworden und so von den Tautropfen nicht unterscheidbar gewesen sein. Darauf weist auch die Beschreibung Bamidbar 11, 7 hin: ועינו כעין הבדלח, das, nach Raschi, Kristall bedeutet. — מחספס, Wurzel von חסף, gleichbedeutend mit חשׂף, entblößen, enthüllen, also: von aller Hülle oder Hülse befreit. Es war durch den doppelten Tauniederschlag von allem fremdartigen Ansatz frei. Da חשף nicht nur: von einer festen, ansitzenden Hülle frei machen, sondern auch: aus einer Flüssigkeit herausschöpfen heißt, לחשוף מים מגבא (Jesaias 30, 14), so ist es möglich, dass es auch hier in dieser Bedeutung stehe. Nach der Verdunstung des Taus lag das Manna als etwas feines "aus der Flüssigkeit Abgeschöpftes" da. Möglich, dass das Manna spezifisch leichter als die Flüssigkeit des Taus war und daher in dieser Flüssigkeit gleichsam schwamm. Die Mannakörner wären dann durch die doppelten Niederschläge des Taus von dem Boden abgehoben und vor Berührung des Bodens geschützt gewesen. כפר, Reif, von כפר, schützend decken, wovon כפרת, der Deckel.

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.”

דק, a THIN object,

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.³⁸⁴Psalms 147:16. 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,’³⁸⁵Isaiah 27:9. Translated: “chalkstones.” 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.³⁸⁶Leviticus 17:13. The Rabbis enumerate amongst the kinds of earth that can be used]:³⁸⁷Chullin 88b. See further my Hebrew commentary, p. 367, Note 7. ‘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.³⁸⁸Daniel 5:5. 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).³⁸⁹Genesis 5:14. 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,³⁸⁴Psalms 147:16. 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,³⁹⁰Ibid., 31:40. “ug’lida (and frost) came down upon me at night.”³⁹¹Thus it is not necessary to say, as Rashi did, that the Aramaic word k’gir in Onkelos’ translation has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. According to Ramban, both Aramaic words, k’gir and kig’lida (“as powdered white earth” and “as frost”), are two renditions of the one Hebrew word kak’phor. Such was Onkelos’ style, to give two translations of one Hebrew word. The word can be used in the plural [g’lidin],³⁹²Shabbath 152 a: sacharuni g’lidin (ices have sorrounded me), a metaphoric expression of a person describing that the hairs of his mustache and beard have turned gray (Rashi, ibid.) while the singular is called g’lid (ice), just as we have been taught in the Mishnah in Mikvaoth:³⁹³Mikvaoth 7:1. “These are the things which only serve to fill up the immersion-pool [to its prescribed measure of forty s’ah] and do not render it invalid: snow, hail, hoar-frost, v’hag’lid (and ice).” And so indeed does Onkelos translate many Scriptural texts in two ways. But in carefully-edited texts of Targum Onkelos, it is written, da’adak d’gir³⁹⁴And not k’gir, as we have assumed the reading in Onkelos to be until now. The reading of k’gir had forced Ramban to interpret that Onkelos simultaneously used two different translations of the Hebrew word kak’phor, namely, “as powdered white earth” and “as frost,” as explained above. This is clearly a difficult position. But with this present reading in Onkelos — d’gir, which means a heap — the Aramaic text leads to one unified thought: the manna was piled up in heaps as ice upon the earth. kig’lida al ar’a, and the meaning thereof is that the manna was piled up in heaps as ice upon the earth. This is the truth, for if [the word k’gir in the Targum] were of the root gir (powdered white earth or plaster), as we assumed at first], the Aramaic translation should have been: k’gira d’g'lida (as the powdered flakes of the ice), [and not, as we have it, k’gira ‘kig’lida], for such is the style of the Aramaic language.³⁹⁵In other words, since all readings in the Targum have kig’lida (“as” ice), and not d’g'lida (“of” the ice), it shows that the antecedent word is d’gir (a heap) and not k’gir (as powdered white earth). Thus the thought conveyed by the Targum is that the manna lay powdered in heaps as ice upon the ground.

מחספס, a word appearing only here. It has to be understood in its context, “tiny crystals like hoary frost.”

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.”

And when the layer of dew rose up, the manna appeared and they saw. . . Rashi explained before: “When the sun shone then the dew which was on the manna rose.” Accordingly, he now explains that the verse is saying that when the dew rose, the manna was revealed and they saw it — not that it came into existence when the dew rose. However, according to the Sages’ explanation that the dew came up from the earth, “Behold on the surface of the desert” means that the manna actually came into existence, i.e., when the dew rose from the earth, the manna descended onto the surface of the desert.

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)

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 המיסה in (Mishna Bava Metzia 1:8) חפיסה ודלוסקמא, “a valise and chest”, in Mishnaic Heberw, 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 tranlates 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”.

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.

Comes from the phrase “a box and a chest.” חפיסה ודלוסקמא are various jugs and flasks.

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.

It was as fine as גיר and lay. . . I.e., the manna did not look like גיר , for גיר is black while the manna was white. Rather, it means the manna was as fine as גיר .

מן הוא means this is something prepared for food, as in (Daniel 1:5) “And the king appointed (וימן) for them,”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

מן הוא; as if the Torah had written מאין הוא?, “where did it come from?”

(Exodus 16:15) "And the children of Israel saw it, and each said to his neighbor 'man hu.'" As one says to his friend "mah hu" ("What is it?") The expounders of metaphors said: Israel called it "man" ("sustenance"), as it is written (Ibid.) "And Moses said to them: This is the 'bread' that the L-d has given to you to eat." (viz. Ibid. 4) R. Yehoshua says: Moses said it to the elders, and the elders, to all of Israel. From here, R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Israel "stuffed" themselves like horses at that time, it being written here "to eat," and elsewhere (re the manna) (Psalms 78:25) "Each man ate the bread of abirim." Read it not "abirim," but "eivarim" ("limbs") — bread that is absorbed by the limbs. He said to them: This "man" that you are eating is being absorbed by your limbs. (Psalms, Ibid.) "He sent them sustenance to satiety": This refers to Joshua the son of Nun, for whom the manna descended over and against all of Israel. Others say: On his limbs it descended, and from his limbs he took it to eat. Thus, "The bread of abirim was eaten by man ("ish")" (i.e., Joshua, viz. Numbers 27:15)

V. 15. מן, von מנה, zuzählen, von einem Gegenstande eine gewisse Anzahl für einen Zweck bestimmen. Daher מְנָת ,מָנָה und hier מָן: eine jemandem zugeteilte Gabe.

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.

כי לא ידעו מה הוא FOR THEY KNEW NOT WHAT IS WAS so that they could call it by its name.

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.

עמר — the name of a measure.

'זה הדבר אשר צוה ה, and in the morning you will eat bread (food) to satisfy yourselves. (compare verse 12)

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.

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.

מספר נפשותיכם איש לאשר באהלו תקחו, as if the Torah had written לאשר באהלו, “for those who are (entitled to be) in his tent.” These include: his wife who is his legal spouse according to Jewish law. When the angel asked Avraham about the whereabouts of his wife, (Genesis 18,8) he replied: הנה באהל, “she is in the tent which is her rightful place.” We have learned from Psalms 45,14 כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה, that the entire measure of female dignity (a Jewish wife being equated with a princess) is within her home. Our verse also teaches as a corollary that the father is obliged to look after the needs of his wife and children. The Torah phrases this as מספר נפשותיכם, “the number of persons belonging to you.”

(Exodus 16:16) "This is the thing that the L rd has commanded. Gather of it, each man, etc.": They said: Now Nachshon ben Aminadav and his household will go out and will gather a lot, and an Israelite pauper will go out and gather little. And when they came to measure it (Ibid. 17) "and they gathered it, some taking more than an omer (for a head), some less," (Ibid. 18) "when they measured it in the omer" (vessel), (they found that) "he who had taken more did not exceed (the omer measure), and he who had taken less, did not diminish."

VV. 16 —18. Sie sollten in der Absicht sammeln, hinlänglich für ihren Hausbedarf, und zwar ein Omer für jedes Haupt, heimzubringen, und wenn dann dies bis zur Zeit des Verschwindens des Manna (V. 21) dem einen mehr, dem andern weniger gelungen war, so hatten sie doch alle zuletzt im Verhältnis das Gleiche, nicht mehr und nicht weniger, gesammelt. Allein die Absicht, das entsprechende Quantum zu sammeln, scheint doch wohl eine unerlässliche Bedingung gewesen zu sein, sonst hätte nach der ersten Erfahrung des Resultates jeder sich nur mit dem Aufsammeln eines Minimums zu begnügen brauchen, da doch jedenfalls der Erfolg hinreichend und keinesfalls mehr gewesen wäre. Es liegt hierin die ganze Lehre des gewissenhaften Fleißes und des providentiellen Segens für den Nahrung suchenden Menschen und Familienvater. — לקט, verwandt mit לכד fangen: aus dem herrenlosen Zustande einsammeln. — עדף, verwandt mit עטף, etwas anderes einhüllen, somit es mit seiner eigenen Masse überragen; ערף: überragen, mehr als ein anderes, gegebenes Maß sein. — לפי אכלו, eigentlich nach dem Munde, d. h. dem Ausspruch, der Anforderung seiner Nahrung.

'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.

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).

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.

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).

וילקטו, at random, without measuring any of it.

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.

Some gathered much, some gathered little. . . It does not mean that some transgressed Moshe’s command and gathered more or less than an omer per person. For if so, why would it say, “The B’nei Yisrael did so”?

"and they measured it in the omer … each according to his eating had they gathered": From here they derived that one who ate according to the omer measure remained healthy and nourished; one who took less suffered intestinal disorder.

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.

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.

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."

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.

V. 19. יותר. Es scheint ein Unterschied zwischen הותיר und השאיר zu sein. Da יתר seiner Grundbedeutung nach spannen heißt, daher יתר die Bogensehne und מיתר das fest angezogene Seil, somit etwas über das natürliche Maß ausdehnen, so wird ein unberechtigtes Übriglassen, d. h. ein von der gebührenden, berechtigten Vernichtung Verschontseinlassen, zunächst mit הותיר ausgedrückt: das Dasein eines Gegenstandes über die Gebühr ausdehnen. השאי hingegen drückt mehr das berechtigte Übriglassen, das von unberechtigter Vernichtung Verschontseinlassen aus. Dieses Verbot macht den Genuss des dem redlichen Fleiße von Gott Gewährten zur Pflicht und stempelt den aus Kleinmut den Genuss des gewährten Gegenwärtigen sich versagenden oder verkümmernden Geiz zur Sünde, sowie in den vorhergehenden Versen die Trägheit und die Habgier als verwerflich erscheinen.

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.”

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.

ויותרו אנשים BUT SOME MEN LEFT OF IT — Dathan and Abiram (Shemot Rabbah 24:10; cf. Rashi on Exodus 2:13).

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,³⁹⁶Further, Verse 24. 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,³⁹⁷For had it given off a stench first, they would have sensed it at night, and they would have disposed of it. This was why it became wormy first, and Dathan and Abiram, who left it until the morning, contrary to Moses’ command, did not know it. In the morning it stank and it became known to all, and Moses was angry with them (Tur). The source of this reasoning is found in Shemoth Rabbah, mentioned further on in the text. 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,³⁹⁶Further, Verse 24. 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:³⁹⁸Shemoth Rabbah 25:14. “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.”

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.

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.

Dosson and Aviram. [Rashi knows this] because it is written אנשים . Anywhere that it says “ אנשים ” [in a negative context], or נצים , it refers to Dosson and Aviram.

(Exodus 16:19-20) "And Moses said to them: Let no man leave over of it until morning. And they did not heed Moses": These were the faithless in Israel. "and men left over of it": Good men did not leave over; men who were not good, did. "and it raised worms and it was rotted": This verse is inverted. Does it raise worms and then rot? First it rots, and then it raises worms, as in (Ibid. 24) "and it did not rot and there was no worm in it." "and Moses was wroth with them": He manifested anger against them and asked them "Why did you do this?"

V. 20. וירם וגו׳, rad. רמם im Kal und Niphal, וירם כבוד וגו׳ Jecheskiel 10, 4 הרמו מתוך העדה Bamidbar 17, 10: sich von der Stelle erheben. Der Übergang einer leblosen, somit bewegungslosen, am Boden ruhenden Masse in lebendige, sich selbst bewegende Wesen, wie diese Erscheinung bei der Fäulnis hervortritt, kann nicht treffender als durch רמם ausgedrückt werden. Das bis dahin durch die Schwerkraft der Materie an den Boden gefesselte Pünktchen fängt an, sich vom Boden zu erheben: es lebt! Daher heißt רִמָה der in Fäulnis sich erzeugende Wurm, und das Sicherheben der toten Masse zum Leben heißt: רמם. Aus diesem Ausdrucke ist übrigens nichts hinsichtlich der großen Streitfrage einer Generatio äquivoca zu folgern, da, selbst wenn eine solche Erzeugung aus Eiern entstehen sollte, der Ausdruck der lebendig gewordenen toten Masse den Vorgang schildert, wie er sich den Sinnen darstellt. — תולעת ,תולע aber, entweder von ילע, gleichbedeutend mit ושמת שכין בלועך ,לוע (Prov. 23, 2) dem Chald. für לחי Kinnbacken, oder von תלע, der Wurzel von מתלעות עול (Job 29, 17) מתלעות לביא (Joel 1.6) ebenfalls Kinnbacken, Name für die von außen kommenden, die Stoffe zerfressenden Würmer, אין כחה אלא בפה, wie חז׳׳ל sich zur Stelle אל תיראי תולעת יעקב ausdrücken. Die im Manna sich erzeugenden Würmer waren nicht solche, wie sie gewöhnlich aus Fäulnis entstehen, vielmehr umgekehrt, sie waren nicht die Folge, sondern die Ursache der Fäulnis, sie gingen der Fäulnis voran, nicht ובאש וירם תולעים, sondern וירם תולעים ויבאש, was daher keineswegs ein מקרא מסורס zu sein scheint. Der Beweis aus V. 24 scheint vielmehr dagegen zu sprechen. Wenn die Würmer aus der Fäulnis entstanden wären, so hätte es nur heißen dürfen ולא הבאיש, dass dann keine Würmer darin sich gezeigt hätten, verstände sich von selbst; oder es hätte dann eben umgekehrt heißen müssen: es zeigte sich nicht nur kein Wurm darin, sondern es war nicht einmal faul geworden. So aber heißt es: es war nicht nur nicht faul geworden, sondern es war nicht einmal ein Wurm darin. — Diese Erscheinung lehrte für das Nahrungsstreben: was der Mensch gegen Gottes Willen, in Besitz vergötterndem, Gott verleugnendem Sinne aufspeichert, das macht Gott den Würmern verfallen und es wird faul.

וירם תולעים AND IT BRED WORMS — the word וירם is of the same meaning and root as רִמָּה, worm.

Derived from רמה . [ רמה and תולעים are synonyms, so] it is like saying והתליעו תולעים . וירם is not derived from הורמה , in which case it would mean: “the manna brought up worms,” for we never find וירם as a transitive verb.

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.

Die bei dem sechstägigen Mannalesen zu machenden Erfahrungen geben somit bei dem dadurch konstituierten jüdischen Nahrungssystem sofort die bedeutsamsten Lehren für dasselbe in alle Zukunft hin. Es wird die Trägheit, die Habgier, der Geiz und der verkümmernde Kleinmut gegeißelt, und es wird der Fleiß, die Genügsamkeit, der genießende Frohsinn und die gottvertrauende Zuversicht gekrönt.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:20).

This verse is inverted. . . It seems to me that it is not inverted. The manna was a heavenly food (see Tehillim 78:25), and it was not natural for it to become putrid. So first it became wormy, and because of the worms it became putrid. (Maharshal) But what he says seems incorrect, for it is written, “. . .As Moshe had commanded. It did not become putrid, and it had no worms” (v. 24). [This shows that the order was first putrid and then wormy, as Rashi said.]

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.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:21).

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.”

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.

That which remained in the field. . . I.e., it was not the manna they gathered that melted. For if so, what would they eat?

(16:21) "And they gathered it baboker, baboker": in the morning time. The expounders of metaphors said: From here we see that (Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread" applied to the manna (too). "and when the sun was hot (i.e., strong), it melted: in the fourth hour (of the day). You say, in the fourth hour; but perhaps (the intent is) in the sixth hour? (This is not so, for) "when the sun was hot" implies when the sun (i.e., an unshaded spot) was hot and the shade was cool — the fourth hour (and not the sixth.) "and it melted": When the sun shone upon it, it melted and streams formed from it which led to the Great Sea (the Mediterranean), where harts, roebuck, fallow-deer, and other beasts came to them and drank from them, after which they were hunted by the (peoples of the) nations, who ate them and tasted the taste of the manna which descended to Israel.

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.

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).

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.

פשר is from פושרים — lukewarm water. Onkelos translates נמס as פושרין because the sun turns it into lukewarm water.

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, 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.

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.

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.

They measured what they gathered. . . [Rashi is saying:] It does not mean that because they knew the manna would not descend tomorrow they intentionally gathered double, for today and tomorrow. Because if so, why did the leaders come to tell Moshe when they saw they had a double portion, to which Moshe replied, “This is what Hashem had said. . .”?

(Exodus 16:22) "And it was, on the sixth day they gathered, etc.": R. Yehoshua says: This is the "doubled" bread, two omers instead of one. "and all the princes of the congregation came, etc.": They said to Moses our teacher: Why is this day different from all the other days?

V. 22. Die bereits V. 5 dem Mosche angekündigte Erfahrung des sechsten Tages hatte Mosche dem Volke noch nicht mitzuteilen gehabt. Sie sollten die überraschende, die Tatsächlichkeit des Schabbats und die göttliche Fürsorge für das jüdische Bedürfnis bekundende Erfahrung erst völlig unvorbereitet machen, damit sich ihnen diese Tatsachen um so tiefer einprägen.

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.

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 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.”

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.

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.

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 would have tried to collect more than the usual amount on Friday, they would not have considered the fact that they came home with twice the usual amount as a miracle. By not telling them in advance, the people collected what they thought was the normal amount. When they came home and measured it and found that it was twice the usual amount they realised that G'd had performed a miracle for them and the Sabbath assumed great significance.

Should you argue that in the end Moses did issue instructions to the people not to collect more than the regular amount, this was only in order to keep them aware of the miracle that G'd provided on Fridays for the needs of the Sabbath. A miracle did not need to be performed in order to demonstrate that Moses' conduct had been justified.

Furthermore, even if G'd had informed the Israelites through Moses of the commandments for Sabbath well in advance, there would still have remained room for error. We have learned in Menachot 65 that when Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had dealings with the heretic sect of Bayssus and he challenged them for proof of their contention that the festival of Shavuot must occur on a Sunday, one of their elders claimed that seeing that Moses loved the Jewish people and he was aware that the holiday of Shavuot is only one day, he determined that it should occur on Sunday in order for the Jews to enjoy two successive days of rest. Tossaphot on that folio comment as follows: "he (Moses) ruled that this should be so, and G'd agreed with him." This proves that there are people who believe that even though a halachic ruling originated with Moses, G'd had to give His consent to such a ruling.

You might still ask why Moses had to tell the Israelites all this at this stage. Surely the miracle they had just witnessed would have convinced them that the Sabbath legislation had originated with G'd? The fact is that once the Israelites noticed that no manna fell on the Sabbath they might have concluded that the whole manna supply had come to an end. Moses therefore had to explain to them that the only reason there was no manna on the Sabbath was because G'd had said so; there was no other reason. This would be proved to the people conclusively as soon as the manna began to descend again on the day after that Sabbath. Moses had to tell the people things that he normally should not have revealed in order to prevent them from going to collect manna on the Sabbath. Moses did not tell the people explicitly not to go out and collect manna. He only told them that they would not find any manna in the field if they went to collect it.

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.

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,³⁹⁹Verse 25. since G-d does it so because it is a holy Sabbath unto the Eternal.⁴⁰⁰Verse 23 before us. 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.⁴⁰¹Proverbs 10:22.
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.”³⁹⁹Verse 25. 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.⁴⁰²Numbers 11:8. The first interpretation, [that of Rashi], is more correct, and so is the opinion of Onkelos.⁴⁰³Onkelos translated: “That which you intend baking, etc.” By adding the word athidin (intend), Onkelos intimated his understanding of the verse to be similar to that of Rashi: “that which you intend baking of the two omers, bake today, etc.” This is unlike the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who interpreted the verse as meaning: “that which you would bake ordinarily — [i.e., one omer] — bake today, and the other omer leave over till the morning,” thus resulting in their eating the omer on the Sabbath in an unprepared state.

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.”

'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.

What you wish to bake. . . Rashi is answering the question: What is the difference between תאפו and בשלו ? It seems redundant. [Rashi is also answering the question:] את אשר implies an action that had already been taken; otherwise it should say אם תאפו אפו . So if they had already baked and cooked, why should they bake and cook it again? Therefore Rashi explains that את אשר תאפו means, “What you wish to bake.”

(16:23) "And he said to them: This is what the L rd had spoken" (viz. Ibid. 5), whereupon they asked him "When" (is Sabbath)? And he said to them (Ibid. 23) "Tomorrow." "What you would bake, bake": R. Yehoshua says: One who wanted "baked," would have it baked for him (of itself), and one who wanted "cooked" would have it cooked for him. R. Elazar Hamodai says: One who wanted something baked would taste all the "bakings" in the world (that he desired), and one who wanted "cooked" would taste all the "cookings" in the world. R. Elazar says: "on what is baked, bake; and on what is cooked, cook." How so? A festival that falls out on Friday, whence is it derived that it is forbidden to bake or to cook on it (for the Sabbath) unless he had made an eruv (tavshilin on Thursday for that purpose)? From "What you would bake, bake, etc." (i.e., bake on the strength of what you have already baked, and cook on the strength of what you have already cooked, so that the Friday baking or cooking is regarded as a continuation of that begun on Thursday and not as a preparation on the festival for the Sabbath).

V. 23. שבתון. Wie bereits zu Bereschit 2, 2 entwickelt, ist שבת nicht ein Ausruhen von Anstrengung, sondern das Innehalten einer bis dahin fortgesetzten Tätigkeit. Es ist verwandt mit שפט ,שבט ,שפר ,שפת ,שות, die alle ein an die gehörige Stelle setzen bedeuten. Der שובת lässt die Hand von den bis dahin von ihm verändernd gehandhabten Dingen. Sie haben für ihn bereits die ihnen gebührende Gestalt und Stellung erreicht. Wie unvollendet sie auch noch an sich sein mögen, für die Zeit der שביתה hat er bereits das Seinige an ihnen getan, und, subjektiv betrachtet, d. h. im Verhältnis zu der von ihm zu lösenden Aufgabe, ist sie immer eine vollendete, sobald er seine volle Kraft im redlichen Dienste Gottes daran gesetzt. Ruft ihn Gott mitten aus der unvollendeten Arbeit ab, er hat sein Werk vollendet. Das ist die eine Seite der Idee des שבתון, der Werklosigkeit, die hier für den siebten Tag von dem jüdischen Menschen gefordert wird.

'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.

למשמרת means as something put by (to be kept).

אפו!, now, on the Sabbath eve.

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.]

For storage. As in, “It shall be stored away ( למשמרת ) for the B’nei Yisrael” (Bamidbar 19:9). But not as in, “Keep the watch ( משמרת ) of the Mishkon and the watch of the altar” (ibid. 18:5).

Der siebte Tag als Denkmal der Weltschöpfung und Weltherrschaft Gottes war bereits seit dem ersten siebten Welttag bekannt. Vielleicht trug er auch schon seitdem den Namen Schabbat, als Gottesschabbat, als der Tag כי כו שבת מכל מלאכתו, an welchem Gott die Schöpferhand von seinem Weltenwerk zurückzog und sie fortan in der ihr verliehenen Vollendung bestehen lässt. Wir haben schon zu dem ersten Schabbat (Bereschit 2, 1) den Gedanken entwickelt, wie eben die Negation, die Tatsache, dass seitdem Schabbat in der Schöpfung ist, d. h. dass vor unsern Augen keine neuen Schöpfungen entstehen und die gewordene Welt ein Ziel ihres Werdens gefunden, die Tatsache eben unabweisbar den frei schaffenden Schöpfer der Welt offenbare. Und Tag und Name mochte auch bis hierher im Kreise der Abrahamssöhne das Gottesbewusstsein wach und lebendig erhalten haben. Allein es war der Gottesschabbat noch nicht zum Menschenschabbat geworden, es war diesem Gottesbewusstsein noch nicht der Ausdruck gotthuldigenden Tatensymbols geworden, und es war gleichzeitig in diesem gotthuldigenden Tatensymbol noch nicht die Konsequenz aus diesem Gottesbewusstsein für die Weltstellung und Beziehung des Menschen zu Gott gezogen und dem Gottesbewusstsein in engster Beziehung zugesellt. Beides wird durch die hier beginnende Einführung des Schabbats in den jüdischen Menschenkreis und die Institution der Schabbatheiligung durch den Menschen vollbracht. Der Schabbat war längst da, das שבתון, die Begehung desselben durch das Menschen-Schabbatfeiern, war das Neue, darum steht es voran.

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.

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.”

שבת קדש לד׳ מחר erscheint als das Objekt von שבתון. Anordnend würde es heißen: תשבתו שבת קרש וגו׳, den Gott heiligen Schabbat sollt ihr durch שביתה begehen. der Gott heilige Schabbat soll durch eure שביתה zum Ausdruck kommen. שבתון שבת וגו׳ heißt somit: eine den Gott heiligen Schabbat begehende Werklosigkeit ist morgen. Der Schabbat, der in der Gesetzgebung am Sinai die ganze werkschaffende Tätigkeit des Menschen zu seinem Ausdruck beanspruchen soll, wird zuerst hier in die Nahrung suchende und Nahrung schaffende Tätigkeit des Menschen eingeführt. Durch Sistirung derselben — שבתון — soll sich der jüdische Mensch zuerst mit seinem Nahrungsstreben — diesem ersten und mächtigsten Antrieb zur Eroberung der Welt — Gott unterordnen, und wie der Gottesschabbat der Welt das Siegel der freien Gottesschöpfung aufdrückt, so drückt der Menschenschabbat der Menschenschöpfung, d. i. dem weltbezwingenden Schaffen des Menschen das Siegel der Gotteshörigkeit auf. Mit dem Schabbat stellt der Mensch sich und sein Werk in den Dienst Gottes. — Wie aber die für das Nahrungsstreben bedeutsamen Wahrheiten, die Warnung vor Trägheit und Habgier wie die Ermunterung zum Fleiße, die Warnung vor bekümmernder Sorge und vor gottverleugnendem Geiz in ihren einzelnen Momenten, gleichsam schrittweise dem Volke zum Bewusstsein gebracht wurden, also sehen wir auch die Momente der Schabbatwahrheiten einzeln dem Volke in Erfahrung gebracht. Hier zuerst die Bedeutung des Schabbats für die vorangehenden Werktage. Wenn sonst die Sorge für den andern Tag nicht der Sporn der Tätigkeit sein soll, so wird hier die Sorge für den Schabbat mit in die Obliegenheiten des jüdischen, Nahrung suchenden Menschen eingeführt. Nicht nur das Bedürfnis des Menschendaseins, auch das jüdische Bedürfnis soll Gegenstand unserer Sorge sein, und was wir über das menschliche Bedürfnis hinaus für מצות, für die Lösung jüdischer Aufgaben sammeln, verfällt nicht dem Wurm, steht unter Obhut göttlichen schützenden Segens.

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

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:7).

אכלוהו היום, at fixed times, from this date onward.

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.

In the morning, when they were accustomed. . . Rashi is answering the question: How does [“For today is Shabbos”] give a reason for the preceding statement, [“Eat it today”]? If they asked, “Shall we eat it or not?” then Moshe needed only to answer, “Eat it today.” Whereas if they asked, “Shall we go out or not?” then Moshe’s answer is understandable. Moshe was saying, “Eat what you have, for today is Shabbos and you will not find it [if you go out].” Possibly, they were misled by Moshe’s instructions (v. 23): “Whatever is left over, put aside for yourselves,” and Rashi explains this as, “For storage.” So they thought it meant for long term storage — as in, “It shall be stored away for you for all your generations” — rather than meaning they should [set it aside to] eat the next day. That is why they inquired about going out and not about eating.

(Exodus 16:25) "And Moses said: Eat it today. For it is Sabbath today. For it is Sabbath today to the L rd. Today you shall not find it in the field": Because they were wont to go out in the morning (to gather the manna), they said to him: Moses, our teacher, shall we go out in the morning? Moses: "Eat it today." They: Since we did not go out in the morning, shall we go out at twilight? Moses: "for it is Sabbath today to the L rd." And why did Moses say "Today you will not find it in the field"? They said: The hearts of our fathers failed at that time. They said: Since we did not find it today, perhaps we will not find it tomorrow? Moses, (therefore,) said to them: This day you will not find it, but you will find it tomorrow. R. Elazar b. Chasma says: He said: In this world you will not find it, but in the world to come, you will find it. "And Moses said: Eat it today. For it is Sabbath today. Today you shall not find it in the field": R. Zrika said: From here (we learn to eat) three meals on the Sabbath. "And Moses said: Eat it today, etc.": R. Yehoshua says: If you merit observing the Sabbath, the Holy One Blessed be He is destined to give you three festivals: Pesach, Atzereth (Shavuoth) and Succoth. Thus, "Eat it today, etc." ("Eat it today," followed by [26] "Six days shall you gather it":) R. Elazar Hamodai says: If you merit observing the Sabbath, the Holy One Blessed be He is destined to confer upon you six goodly "measures": Eretz Yisrael, the world to come, the new world, the kingdom of the house of David, the Kehunah and the Leviyah. Thus, "Eat it today, etc." R. Elazar says: If you merit observing the Sabbath, you will be saved from three dire punishments: the day of Gog and Magog, the pangs of the (advent of the) Messiah, and the great day of judgment.

V. 25. אכלהו היום כי שבת היום לד׳. Während sonst nur das heute durch Fleiß Errungene zu genießen war, ist am Schabbat ohne vorgängige Nahrungstätigkeit zu genießen; denn diese Untätigkeit ist keine sträfliche, selbstgewählte Trägheit, sie ist eine gottgebotene, gottgeweihte, und daher von so positivem, hohem Wert wie gottgebotene Tätigkeit. Zugleich wird damit der Genuss am Schabbat selbst eine מצוה, eine von Gott gebotene, Gott zugewendete, den Menschen selbst beglückende und veredelnde Tat. Die Unterordnung des Nahrung suchenden Menschen unter Gott soll nicht Verkümmerung des irdischen Daseins bringen, im Gegenteil, sie soll ihm eben den Genuss des irdischen Daseins erhöhen und selbst seinen sinnlichen Genuss also in den Kreis sittlich freier, Gott dienender Handlungen erheben, dass er selbst mit seinem sinnlichen Genuss sich Gott nahe fühle. In dieser Erhebung des sinnlichen Genusses zu einer Gott dienenden, Gott geweihten Tat liegt eines der charakteristischen Unterscheidungsmerkmale der jüdischen Gotteslehre. Überall ist der Gedanke an die Macht der Götter ein niederschlagender, und das heitere Lächeln hat den Zorn der Gottheit zu fürchten. Der jüdische Gedanke an die Macht Gottes ist ein aufrichtender, an ihm ringt sich der Mensch in seiner Winzigkeit empor, in den Dienst dieser Macht eingetreten mit seiner Schwäche, nimmt er gleichsam Teil an dieser Macht, findet sein kleines irdisches Dasein Bedeutung und Schutz in dieser Macht und es erfüllt ihn das Bewusstsein, dass sein großer Gott sich freut an der Freude seines kleinen Geschöpfes. Daher knüpft sich denn auch an diese Stelle das Bedeutsame des dritten Mahles am Schabbat. Nicht um uns das Leben zu verkümmern, hat uns Gott das Gewinnen und Schaffen der Genussesmittel am Schabbat untersagt, sondern um diesem Schaffen und Genießen erst durch die Unterordnung unter Gott die menschenwürdige Weihe und Bedeutung zu geben. Und wohl ist ein solcher Sinn und dessen Gewinnung geeignet, den Menschen über alle Leiden unangetastet emporzuheben, die sonst Gottes erziehende Waltung, einem solchen Sinne Bahn brechend, über den jüdischen Kreis, über das Individuum, über die politisch- soziale Gesamtwelt, läuternd und reinigend herbeiführt: אמר ר׳ שמעון בן פזי אמר ר׳ יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא כל המקיים שלש סעודות בשבת ניצול משלש פורעניות מחבלו של משיח ומדינה של גיהנם וממלחמת גוג מגוג מחבלו של משיח כתיב הכא יום וכתיב התם הנה אנכי שולח לכם את אליהו הנביא לפני בא יום וגו׳ (Schabbat 118 a) — היום לא תמצאהו וגו׳. Auf dem Felde sollt ihr es heute nicht finden, aber in eurem Hause. Nicht weil ihr heute nichts essen sollt, sondern weil ihr es heute nicht vom Felde auflesen sollt, lässt Gott es heute nicht fallen. Da מצא nicht nur ein zufälliges Erreichen: finden, sondern auch ein absichtliches: suchen bedeutet, wie מצא את החצים Sam. I. 20. 36. נח מצא חן und sonst, so kann es auch geradezu heißen: heute sollt ihr es nicht auf dem Felde suchen, und wäre dann hier das, wie aus V. 28 ersichtlich, gegebene Verbot des Auflesens ausdrücklich ausgesprochen, welches sonst nur im שבתון V. 23 allgemein enthalten, oder in dem folgenden ששת ימים תלקטהו durch den Gegensatz ausgedrückt wäre.

'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.

In the evening they again came before him and asked him. . . This was because they reasoned: perhaps it is only for the Shabbos meal that we should not go out to gather, but for the [post-Shabbos] night meal, we should go out. This is because Friday prepares for Shabbos, but not for the weekday. Therefore, they asked Moshe again.

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.

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.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:26).

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."

לא יהיה בו, on the manna.

This verse comes only to add. . . Otherwise [it is superfluous, for] it is already written (v. 25), “For today is Shabbos to Hashem. Today you will not find it.” Perforce, [this verse comes only to add. . .].

(Exodus 16:26) "Six days shall you gather it, etc.": We are hereby apprised that the manna does not descend on Sabbath. Whence do we derive (the same for) a festival? From (the superfluous) "Sabbath there will not be (manna) on it." R. Elazar Hamodai says: We are hereby apprised that it does not descend on Sabbath. Whence do we derive that it does not descend on Yom Kippur? (From the fact that) Yom Kippur is referred to as "Sabbath" (viz. Leviticus 23:32).

V. 26. שבת לא יהיה בו gehört den Akzenten nach zusammen, wohl um auszudrücken, daß das לא יהיה בו eine reine Konsequenz aus der Natur des Tages ist am siebten Tage ist Schabbat, an welchem daher er nicht entsteht, nicht ins Dasein kommt. Das Manna war täglich eine neue Schöpfung, es widerspräche dem Begriffe des שבת, wenn an ihm etwas neu entstünde. Wie der Schöpfungsschabbat die Welt als freie Gottesschöpfung signalisiert, so dokumentiert auch das Nichtentstehen des Manna am Schabbat dessen Eintreten an den übrigen sechs Tagen als freie Gottesspende. Durch dieses Nichteintreten des Manna am siebten Tage ist gleichzeitig der jüdische Schabbat als der wirkliche von Gott eingesetzte Schabbat über allen Zweifel hinaus gleich bei dem Beginne der Schabbatinstitution dokumentiert.

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.

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.

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

(Exodus 16:27) "And it was on the seventh day that there went of the people to gather, and they did not find": These were the faithless of Israel.

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)

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.

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)

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).

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.

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?

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.

There is a proverb among common people. . . The proverb is that when thorns, weeds and vegetables grow together in a field, a bit of the good cabbage sometimes gets pulled out along with the thorns — “The cabbage is stricken with the weeds.” So too here: along with B’nei Yisrael who sinned, those who did not sin [i.e., Moshe] were also stricken. You might ask: Did Rashi not himself explain on v. 22 that the sin was attributed to Moshe because he did not tell them about the laws of [Shabbos pertaining to] the manna, until they asked? The answer is: Both factors contributed. [The proof is as follows:] if the only reason was for failing to tell them the mitzvah of Shabbos, why did Hashem not reprove him right away, rather than waiting until now? Perforce, because “the cabbage is stricken with the weeds.” And if the only reason was because “the cabbage is stricken with the weeds,” why then was Moshe singled out here and included with the wicked, rather than the other times B’nei Yisrael sinned? We therefore must conclude that both factors contributed.

(Exodus 16:28) "And the L rd said to Moses: How long will you refuse to keep, etc.": R. Yehoshua says: The Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: Moses, say to Israel: I took you out of Egypt and I split the sea for you, and I brought down the manna for you, and I brought up the well, and I swept in the quail for you, and I fought the war with Amalek for you, and I wrought miracles and mighty acts for you — "How long will you refuse to keep My mitzvoth and My laws?" Lest you say that I have imposed too many mitzvoth upon you, this Sabbath (alone) did I charge you with at Marah to keep it, and you have not kept it! Lest you say: What reward is received by the keeper of the Sabbath? It is written (Isaiah 56:2) "Happy is the man who does this, and the son of man who holds fast to it — who keeps Sabbath not to profane it — He keeps his hand from doing all evil." We are hereby apprised that one who keeps the Sabbath is kept far from transgression.

V. 28. Wer am Schabbat gegen Gottes Willen seine Nahrung sucht, leugnet, dass überhaupt seine Nahrung von Gott gespendet werde, legt die Zuversicht an den Tag, er könne ohne Gottes Willen, ja wider Gottes Willen, sein Nahrungsziel erreichen und es sei nicht das göttliche Wohlgefallen, sondern lediglich sein Bemühen und das in dem Erreichten nach physischem Gesetze liegende Mittel, das ihn erhalte und nähre. Er brauche nur zu suchen um zu finden, zu finden um zu haben, zu haben um glücklich zu sein, von Gott sei weder das eine noch das andere bedingt. Der am Schabbat Nahrung suchende Jude kehrt damit ganz Gott und der Befolgung seines Willens den Rücken, stellt sich auf sich selbst und hat das Band mit seinem ganzen Gesetze zerrissen. Daher das Wort: עד אנה מאנתם לשמר מצותי ותורתי; denn mit חלול שבת ist überhaupt die Weigerung ausgesprochen, Gottes Gebote und Lehren zu achten. Speziell ist der Schabbat eine מצוה und eine תורה, wie jedes symbolische Gebot. Er fordert ein konkretes Tun oder Unterlassen (מצוה), um damit eine Wahrheit zu veranschaulichen und sie dem Geiste und Gemüte einzuprägen (תורה). — Wenn hier in dem Vorwurf מאנתם Mosche mit eingeschlossen erscheint, so dürfte ihm damit wohl die Andeutung gegeben worden sein, er habe vielleicht vorsorglicher das Volk vor Übertretung warnen und damit die Übertretung verhüten können. Eine solche vorbeugende Fürsorge gehört ja ganz eigentlich zu der שמירת המצות.

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.”

ותורותי, the general tenor of Sabbath observance and the reward and punishment associated with proper Sabbath observance.

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 not believe that Moses' omission constituted enough of an error for G'd to have included him in such a serious accusation as "how long will you refuse to observe My commandments?" After all, Moses had not been commanded to inform the people of these regulations. While it is true that Moses should have extrapolated from what G'd had told him and should have warned the people of what they were not to do, failure to extrapolate was certainly not something punishable. This explains then why the sages in Baba Kama felt called upon to describe Moses' inclusion in G'd's complaint as merely due to the fact that "the good suffer with the bad."

מצותי ותורותי, "My commandments and My laws." What did G'd mean when He used the plural? We find that the Israelites violated two commandments. 1) G'd told them not to leave any of the manna for the following day. Some people defied this commandment. 2) G'd told them not to go out and collect on the Sabbath. Some people went out in order to collect. As to the expression ותורותי, this too referred to two separate instructions. 1) G'd had instructed them to collect 1 Omer per member of each household, whereas the people collected more (tried to). On the Sabbath some people demonstrated that the fact G'd had already given them a double ration on Friday was not enough for them; they went out in search of more on the morrow. Had they found some they would have wound up with more than 1 Omer per head per day. 2) They did not believe G'd who had said that there would not be any manna on the Sabbath but they went out to collect, etc. There is no greater sin than not to believe either in G'd or in Moses His servant.

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.

ראו!, “try and understand!”

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.

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.

With your own eyes that. . . Meaning: See with your own eyes that Hashem gives you double bread on Shabbos eve. Re”m asked: How does this prove Shabbos’s sanctity? Perhaps Friday is more blessed, and that is why Hashem gave it double bread. For any blessing is manifested by an increase of goodness. And if the proof is that the manna did not descend on Shabbos, the verse should have said: “Therefore the manna did not descend on the Shabbos.” Re”m gives his answer, but it seems to me [that the answer is]: They gathered it on Friday, some much more, some much less, but when they measured it at home they all found that they had only double bread, two omers per person. But, if the reason for the extra manna is attributed that Friday is [more] blessed, why did they have just double bread and no more? Let Friday’s blessing enrich them! Perforce, double bread descended on Friday in order for them to eat it on Friday and Shabbos. Therefore Rashi writes that a miracle occurs every Shabbos eve when He gives you bread for two days. Rashi is emphasizing that it was just enough for two days and not any more.

(Exodus 16:29) "See that the L rd has given the Sabbath to you": Moses said to Israel: Take care, for the L rd has given you the Sabbath to keep it, wherefore He gives you on the sixth day bread for two days.": As R. Yehoshua was wont to say: "Double bread," two omers for each one. "Let each man sit in his place": four cubits. "Let a man not go out of his place": two thousand cubits. And whence do we know that they heard this and accepted it? From (Ibid. 30) "And the people rested on the seventh day."

V. 29. ראו, jedes Wort ist in diesem Satze zu betonen. ראו: ihr könnt euch doch durch eigene Erfahrung der für den Schabbat veränderten Mannaspende, als auch durch die innere Erfahrung des durch den Schabbat gewährten Segens vergewissern, כי ד׳, dass der Schabbat eine göttliche Institution ist, und נתן, dass er nicht eine Last, eine Beschränkung, ein Verlust, dass er das köstlichste Geschenk ist, das Gott לכם, euch, nicht um seinetwillen, sondern euch, zu eurem glückspendendsten Heile gegeben hat. In der Tat gibt es ja auch kaum ein geistiges und sittliches Gut — Gott-, Welt- und Selbsterkenntnis, Pflichtbewusstsein, Trost, Tatfreudigkeit, Heiterkeit des Seins und Schaffens — das nicht durch die gottgebotene Unterordnung des Nahrung suchenden und schaffenden Menschen am Schabbat zu gewinnen und immer aufs neue wieder zu gewinnen wäre! על כן הוא וגו׳ Gott will euch mit dem Schabbat nichts entziehen, er setzt euch durch den Wochensegen in den Stand, den Schabbat halten zu können. —

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.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:7; Eruvin 51a).

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.

From here the Sages found an allusion. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “Every man must remain in his place,” implying it is forbidden to move around [on Shabbos]. But this is not so, for it is written, “They found a man chopping wood” (Bamidbar 15:32). It is evident that those who found him were moving around, and this implies it is permitted to move around. Thus Rashi explains that our verse alludes [specifically to “someone who had gone out of the Shabbos limit.” This individual is restricted to his place and he may not move beyond his four amos].

אל יצא איש וגו׳. Wenn nach dem ירושלמי (siehe עירובין ,ריף . I. Ende) und nach der von רמב׳׳ם als Halacha rezipierten Ansicht תחומי יב׳ מיל דאוריתא sind, so bezieht sich hier dies Verbot auf die Entfernung des Menschen am Schabbat aus dem mit Eintritt des Schabbats innegehabten Wohnkreise, und es umfasste sodann das gesetzliche Schabbatverbot nicht nur die produzierende Tätigkeit des Menschen an den Dingen, sondern auch die Selbstentscheidung des Menschen hinsichtlich des persönlichen Kreises seines Seins und Wirkens. Es umfasste dann die Unterordnung der Person an sich, sowie deren ihre Weltherrschaft bekundendes Schaffen an den Dingen. Gleichwohl wäre ersteres nur בלאו und nicht במיתה. Ist aber תחומין überhaupt nur דרבנן, dann bezieht sich dieses Verbot nur auf das Hinausgehen zu sammeln, somit auf das Hinaustragen Des Gerätes und das Heimbringen des Gesammelten, הוצאה und הכנסה.

אל יצא איש ממקמו LET NO MAN GO OUT OF HIS PLACE — These are the 2,000 cubits of the Sabbath limit (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:29); 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).

Three for his body. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is written שבו איש תחתיו , implying he must remain in the area that is תחתיו (under him). And how much area is under him? Four amos. Three for his body, and one amoh to stretch his arms and legs.

Es dürfte nicht überflüssig erscheinen, hier anzumerken, durch das Verbot welcher Werktätigkeit hier der Schabbat sofort bei seiner ersten Einführung in das Leben des jüdischen Volkes charakterisiert ist. Allen denen gegenüber, die unserm Volke den Schabbat zu stehlen und uns zu bereden versuchen, unter dem לא תעשה כל מלאכה der "Zehngebote" sei nur schwere, mit körperlicher Anstrengung verbundene Arbeit verstanden, sei hier darauf hingewiesen, wie gleich bei erster Begründung des Schabbats ausdrücklich das Aufsuchen der Nahrung, Kochen und Backen, überhaupt Bereiten des täglichen Mahles, Aus- und Einbringen aus dem freien allgemeinen Raum in den privaten und umgekehrt, oder auch das Verlassen des Wohnortsrayons verboten ist. Alles Tätigkeiten, die die Herren von der Schabbatreform als nicht "der Heiligkeit des Schabbats widerstehend" erklären möchten. Dabei bedenke man, dass es sich nur um das Auflesen der fertig daliegenden Nahrung handelte und sehr wahrscheinlich das ganze Geschäft des Mannalesens innerhalb einer, höchstens zweier Stunden zu vollbringen war und vollbracht werden musste, somit der ganze übrige Teil des Tages für sogenannten Gottesdienst mit obligatem Chor und Predigt völlig frei geblieben wäre, und doch ist das einfache Mannaauflesen "Schabbatentweihung!" V. 21 gibt uns nämlich als Zeitgrenze des Mannalesens: וחם השמש ונמס an; חם השמש, die Zeit aber, in welcher es in der Sonne heiß und im Schatten, im Gegensatz zu חום היום, noch kühl ist, ist die vierte Stunde (Berachoth 27 a). Beginnen konnte man aber das Mannalesen nach V. 14 erst, nachdem der Tau wieder aufgestiegen. Also jedenfalls eine geraume Zeit nach Sonnenaufgang. Es war also das Auflesen nur auf diese kurze Zwischenzeit beschränkt. — Es ist aber überhaupt nicht zu übersehen, wie der Begriff שבתון, welcher hier an die Spitze aller Bestimmungen für die Schabbatinstitution gestellt ist, von vornherein eine Beschränkung der Tätigkeit statuiert, die weit über den Begriff des איסור מלאכה hinausgeht. Während das ¬עשית מלאכה Verbot nur das eigentliche menschliche Schaffen, das Produzieren einer kunstgerechten Veränderung eines Stoffes, dies aber dann als das höchste, todeswürdige חלול שבת verpönt, ist שבתון der substantivische Begriff des Schabbatgebotes: תשבות, und gebietet seiner etymologischen Bedeutung gemäß und in der Allgemeinheit, ohne Objekt: Stillstand der wochentägigen Tätigkeit überhaupt, auch wo sie nicht unmittelbar produktiv ist. Der Begriff שביתה umfasst somit alle Erwerbs- und Gewerbstätigkeit, alles, was der Prophet (Jes. 58, 13) in dem Satze: אם תשיב משבת רגלך וגו׳ "Wenn du vom Schabbat deinen Fuß zurückhältst, nicht deinen Willen an meinem heiligen Tage auszuführen usw. und du ihn ehrest, indem du deine Wege nicht machest, deinen Willen nicht suchest und nicht einmal ein Wort davon sprichst," als Entweihung des Schabbats bezeichnet, alles ferner, was schon aus der allgemeinen Pflicht der שמירת התורה und speziell der שמירת השבת als Gesetzeshut im Prinzipe gegeben und von חזייל in den גזרות und שבותים nur näher präzisiert worden. So wird der Begriff שבתון in der מכילתא und im ספרא verstanden. Siehe רמב׳׳ן zu Wajikra 23, 24. Es sind somit alle שבותים, wie ja auch ohnehin alle תקנות und גזרות unserer חכמים im Prinzipe ראורי׳, und wenn sie, z. B. in Zweifelfällen, leichter als איסורי דאורי׳ behandelt werden, so ist das eben eine Selbstbeschränkung, die die anordnenden Weisen ihren Anordnungen, insbesondere wo sie nur Gesetzesschutz bezwecken (גזרות), selbst von vornherein erteilt haben.

Wie der Prophet (Amos 9, 11) bei der Wiederaufrichtung der "fallenden Davidshütte" erst die Umzäunung wieder herstellen und dann sie wieder erbauen lässt, weil ja nur innerhalb eines geschützten Gebietes sich der Bau gesichert für immer vollbringen lässt, also sehen wir auch für den wöchentlich aufs neue zu vollziehenden großen Aufbau des Schabbats erst das ganze Gebiet der Menschentätigkeit für den Schabbat in Anspruch genommen, innerhalb dessen sodann der große Bau des איסור מלאכה gesichert aufgeführt werden kann, der die weltbeherrschende Menschentat zu Bausteinen eines ברית ,אות und קדש, eines Gott verkündenden, Gott und Menschen verbindenden Heiligtums hinnimmt und nur innerhalb der über das ganze Gebiet der Menschentätigkeit sich erstreckenden Schabbatweihe sicher für die Ewigkeit vollzogen werden kann. Daher sehen wir denn auch eben hier gleich in dem Begründungskapitel des Schabbats alle הכנה :שבותי דרבנן, נולד ,מוקצה, auch תחומין, soweit sie דרבנן, in ihren Wurzeln bereits gegeben.

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

R. Yehoshua says: He said to Israel: If you keep this Sabbath the Holy One Blessed be He is destined to give you three festivals: the festival of Nissan (Pesach), the festival of Sivan (Shavuoth), and the festival of Tishrei (Succoth). When they heard this, they accepted it and rested. R. Eliezer Hamodai says: The L rd said to them: If you keep this Sabbath, I am destined to give you six goodly "measures": Eretz Yisrael, etc. (see above). R. Elazar says: If you keep this Sabbath, you will be saved from three dire punishments: the pangs of (the advent of) the Messiah, the day of Gog and Magog, and the day of the great judgment. And when they heard this, they accepted it and rested.

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

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).

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.

(Exodus 16:31) "And it was like coriander seed, white ('gad')": I do not know (from this) what it was like. R. Yehoshua says: It was like coriander seed. (But then I would think:) Just as coriander seed is red, so, this. It is, therefore, written "white." R. Eliezer says: It was like "haggadah" (from "gad"), which "pulls" a person's heart. Others say: It testifies ("maggid," from "gad") about itself that it is manna, for it falls neither on Sabbath, or festival, or Yom Kippur. R. Yossi says: Just as the prophet reveals ("maggid," like "gad") what is hidden, so, did the manna reveal it. How so? (see Yoma 75a) (Exodus 16:31) "and its taste was like dough fried in honey": R. Yehoshua says: like stewed eskriti. R. Eliezer says: Like fine flour floated on a sieve and kneaded with honey. (16:32) "And Moses said: This is the thing, etc.": I might think that Aaron placed it there in the fortieth year. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 34) "And Aaron placed it before the (ark of) testimony." When was the ark made? In the second year (of the exodus). Thus, Aaron placed it there in the second year. And this is one of the ten things created on Sabbath eve (of the creation) at twilight: the rainbow, the manna, the staff (with which the signs were performed), the writing, (the form of the letters carved on the tablets), the shamir (a miraculous stone-cutting worm), the tablets, the opening of the mouth of the earth to swallow up the wicked, the opening of the mouth of (Bilam's) ass, the grave of Moses, and the cave where Moses and Eliyahu stood. Others say: Also the vestments of the first man and the staff of Aaron, its almonds and blossoms. Seven things are concealed from the eyes of man: the day of death, the day of consolation, the depth of judgment, the source of his livelihood, what is in the heart of his neighbor, the restoration of the kingdom of the house of David, and the uprooting of the kingdom of the "liable one" (i.e., Rome).

V. 31. בית ישראל, Israel als Familie und die Träger des Familienlebens, die Frauen, nannten ihn Man: die von Gott zugeteilte Nahrung! Den Satz haben schon die ältesten "Forscher der Schriftfeinheiten", דורשי רשומות, als bedeutsam hervorgehoben. (מכילתא) דורשי רשומות אמרו בית ישראל קראו את שמו מן. Die Gewinnung und Erhaltung des durch die Mannaspende zu erzielenden Sinnes einer in Gott vertrauenden, der Gottesführung heiter frohen Genügsamkeit ist vor allem von dem Eingehen der Frauen in diese Gesinnung und von ihrer Pflege und Wartung derselben abhängig; es ist daher bedeutsam, dass eben die Frauen zuerst das Manna als Gottes jedem das ihm Zukommende und Genügende zuteilende Spende begriffen und diesen Begriff durch den Namen zur Beherzigung festhielten. — גד, dem Namen nach etwas klein Geteiltes, von גדר einschneiden, teilen, wie ברד die Hagelkörner von פרד) ברד usw) trennen.

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;”

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.

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.

צפיחת. Nach den Kommentatoren ein Kuchenteig. R. Elieser erläutert es in der Mechilta: כסולת זו שהיא צפה על גבי נפה, wie das feinste Mehl, das auf dem Siebe schwebend bleibt. Die Prozedur der Mehlgewinnung aus dem Getreide geschah nämlich, wie aus Menach. 76 b. ersichtlich, so, dass die enthülsten Getreidekörner so lange in einem Siebe geschüttelt wurden, bis all der gröbere Mehlstaub (קמה) abstäubte und durch das Sieb hinunter fiel und zuletzt nur der innere, das feinste Amylon haltende Kern im Siebe zurückblieb, der dann erst gemahlen wurde. Dies Sieben hieß daher ריקוד, eigentlich Tanzenlassen der Körner im Siebe. Vielleicht heißt daher auch סלת also, verwandt mit סלד: heftig springen. Demgemäß wäre צפח (ohnehin schon verwandt mit צפה, Überzug, in צפחת, Behälter, und so auch צפח anschließen) identisch mit צפה: Überzug sein, bedecken, und hätte dieselbe Bedeutung, wie das verwandte צוף: oben aufschweben, und hätten wir in צפיחת dasselbe vor uns, was Ps. 19, 11 durch נפת צופים ausgedrückt ist, welches Sota 48 b. ebenfalls durch סלת שצפה על גבי נפה also "das Gesiebe der oben bleibenden Körner" erklärt wird.

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).

גד, a round globular shaped legume, similar to the seed of coriander

דבש ist vielleicht mit דוש: dreschen, somit: heraustreiben des Innern, verwandt, und bezeichnet so den aus der Frucht gepressten Saft, wie ja auch gesetzlich סחיטה unter den Begriff דישה subsumiert wird. דבש ist in der Regel nicht Honig, sondern Fruchtsaft, und wird wohl Honig nur deshalb auch also bezeichnet, weil er ja auch nur der von den Bienen ausgesogene Blütensaft ist. Wieso דבשת auch den Kamelhöcker bezeichnet, ist dunkel. Vielleicht bezeichnet es nicht den Höcker, sondern die durch den Höcker, zumal beim Dromedar, gebildete Vertiefung, die als das "Ausgehöhlte" erscheint. Vermutlich ist es ja nicht der Höcker, sondern eben diese Vertiefung, die das Kamel zum Reit- und Lasttier geeignet macht.

כזרע, the letter כ has the semivowel sh’va, and the letter ז is vocalised with a segol.

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.

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.

למשמרת means to put by.

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.

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.

Fill an omer [measure] with it. This was to show that the principle of the manna applied for all generations. Thus whoever dedicates himself to study will receive support from heaven, just as the members of the tribe of Yissachar were supported by their brethren from the tribe of Zevulun. Significantly, this verse is introduced by phrase, “This is what Ad-noy has commanded,” rather merely “spoken.” According to the Sifra (Parashas Tzav) the word “command” always indicates an obligation applying for all generations.

V. 32. Die Anordnung dieser Aufbewahrung sagte dem Geschlechte der Wüste, dass diese Wüstenwanderung ein Ende nehmen und sie endlich in normale Nahrungszustände führen werde, dass sie und ihre Nachkommen aber auch in diesen normalen Zuständen den durch die Mannanahrung anerzogenen Sinn bewahren und auch die sonst der sozialen und physischen Welt als טרף ,לחם und צידה "abgekämpfte und abgejagte" Nahrung, auch dann nur als מן, als von Gott "Beschiedenes und Zuerteiltes", gewinnen und betrachten sollen. Daher ward auch die צנצנת המן, "die Bewahrflasche des Manna" לפני הערות, unmittelbar mit den das Gesetz als Gottesspende bezeugenden Tafeln zugleich aufbewahrt. Gott, der das Gesetz gegeben, gibt auch die das Leben für die Erfüllung dieses Gesetzes erhaltende Nahrung. Gott, der die Nahrung gibt, hat auch das die Verwendung des mit der Nahrung zu erhaltenden Lebens bestimmende Gesetz gegeben. Das Bewusstsein beider Tatsachen gehört zusammen und ergänzt sich gegenseitig.

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:33).

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 in its proper sequence. He then found himself unable to determine who should fill the bottle and where it was to be stored. In fact he did not know how to carry out this commandment. He then received further detailed instructions from G'd so that all his doubts were resolved. This is the reason that we find at the end of the paragraph (verse 34) that Moses did as G'd had commanded and that as a result Aaron placed the bottle in front of the Holy Ark. The reason the Torah states this detail is to tell us that Moses did not arrange the details on his own, but that just as the detail about where the bottle was to be placed had been communicated by G'd, so the other details which G'd is not on record as having spelled out were also communicated to Moses by G'd Himself.

If we follow our first approach then the words כאשר צוה ה׳ אל משה mean that G'd considered whatever Moses decided on his own as if He Himself had directed Moses to do it.

למשמרת לדרתיכם, "to be preserved throughout your generations." The reason the Torah speaks of the plural is that this bottle of manna would be featured twice in the future; once during the lifetime of the prophet Jeremiah, and in the still more distant future according to Mechilta 21 and Tanchuma 3 on our verse. Jeremiah used the bottle to answer the Jews who claimed that they could not devote time to Torah study as they would not then have time to earn their livelihood. He reminded them that those who study Torah would have their needs taken care of by G'd just as He had done when the Israelites were in th desert. The same would hold true in messianic times. This bottle of manna is reputed to be one of three items which the prophet Elijah will restore to the Israelites prior to the arrival of the Messiah.

צנצנת is an earthern flask, as it is translated in the Targum (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 16:33).

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.

In front of the Ark. . . [Rashi knows this] because wherever it is, it is before Hashem since the whole world is His. [Thus, the verse must be referring to Hashem’s special place.]

(Exodus 16:33) "And Moses said to Aaron: Take one tzintzeneth": I would not know what it is — whether of silver, or iron, or lead, or copper, or tin. It is, therefore, written "tzintzeneth" — something that can be seen through ("metztith"), i.e., an earthenware vessel (from which glass is made). "and put therein a full omer of manna and place it before the L rd as a keeping for your generations": R. Yehoshua says: for the fathers (i.e., for those of that generation). R. Eliezer says: for the days of the prophet Jeremiah. For when Jeremiah said to Israel: Why are you not studying Torah, they said to him: How will we feed ourselves? He took out the flask of manna and said to them (Jeremiah 2:31) "O generation, see the word of the L-td, etc." Your fathers, who studied Torah, see how they were fed. You, too, if you study Torah, the Holy One Blessed be He will feed you of this. And this is one of the three things that Eliyahu is destined to present to Israel: the flask of manna, the flask of the sprinkling waters (viz. Numbers 19:9), and the flask of the anointing oil, (viz. Exodus 30:31). Others say: Also the staff of Aaron, its almonds and its blossoms, (viz. Numbers 17:25).

V. 33. צנצנת, von צנן, eigentlich: scharf sein, spitz sein (das verstärkte שנן), daher צנינים: Stacheln und צנָה: Stachelschild. Dann auch die stechende Kälte צנַת שלג (Prov. 25, 13). Daher צנצנת: eine Kühlflasche. Wärme war, wie wir wissen, der Konsistenz des Manna schädlich. Das Gefäß, in welchem es so lange erhalten bleiben sollte, musste der Wärme am wenigsten Zugang lassen. Vielleicht ein Steingefäß. —

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.

‘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.

לפני העדות, in front of the Holy Ark.

V. 34. Wie Gott Mosche längst beim ersten Spenden des Manna geboten hatte, legte später Aaron, als die Bundestafellade bereits vorhanden war, die Mannaflasche vor diese nieder.

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).

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.”

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.

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.

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.

For on the fifteenth day of Iyar. . . You might ask: Did not Rashi explain before in v. 1 that the manna first descended on the sixteenth? The answer is: There Rashi meant the beginning of the sixteenth. And here he means at the end of the fifteenth, for he is counting the night after the previous day, because the manna descended right away on the sixteenth before morning.

(Exodus 16:35) "And the children of Israel ate the manna for forty years": R. Yehoshua says: for forty days they ate the manna after the death of Moses. How so? Moses died on the seventh of Adar (when the manna ceased falling), and they ate of it (i.e., of what was left in their vessels) twenty-four days of the first Adar and sixteen of Nissan, making forty. As it is written (Joshua 5:12) "And the manna ceased (from their vessels) on the morrow" (of the first day of Pesach), and (Ibid. 11) "And they ate of the old corn of the land on the morrow of the Pesach, matzoth and parched corn." R. Eliezer Hamodai says: They ate the manna for seventy days after the death of Moses. How so? Moses died on the seventh of Adar, and they ate of it (i.e., of what was left in their vessels) twenty-four days of the first Adar and thirty of the second Adar, that year being intercalated, and sixteen of Nissan, making seventy days, viz. "And the manna ceased (from their vessels) on the morrow." R. Yossi says: Israel ate the manna for fifty-four years, forty years in the lifetime of Moses and fourteen years after his death, it being written "And the children of Israel ate the manna for forty years until they came to an inhabited land." Let this not be written, for it is already written (Ibid.) "until they came to the edge of the land of Canaan." __ The reference is to the fourteen years that they ate it after the death of Moses — the seven years of conquest and the seven years of apportionment. R. Yehoshua says: When Miriam died, the well was removed, and it was restored in the merit of Moses and Aaron. When Aaron died, the pillar of cloud was removed, and both (the well and the pillar) were restored in the merit of Moses. When Moses died, all were removed and were not restored. And the tzirah (the hornet swarm, viz. (Exodus 23:28) did not cross the Jordan with them, (it having obtained in the merit of Moses). (Exodus 16:36) "And the omer is one-tenth of an ephah": And how much is one-tenth of an ephah? Seven quarters of a kav and something more. How much is that? A fifth of a quarter of a kav.

V. 35. Es wird erst berichtet, dass Israels Söhne sich von Manna genährt haben und dieses ihnen vollständige Nahrung gewährte, so lange sie dessen bedurften, d. h. so lange sie in unbebautem Lande waren. Sodann: dass sie bis zum wirklichen Eintritt in das verheißene Land Kanaan, also im Anblicke des verheißenen Landes, noch Manna aßen, somit unmittelbar von der Mannanahrung zum Genuss des Erträgnisses dieses Landes übergingen, ihnen somit das Erträgnis dieses ihnen nur zum Dienste Gottes verliehenen Landes "Manna" bleiben, und sie auch das Erträgnis dieses Landes als מן, als von Gott gesendete Nahrung weiter genießen sollten.

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.”

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”].

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.]

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 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).

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.”

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).

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.”

Consequently 1/10. . . [Rashi knows this] because an eiphoh is 432 eggs in total. A tenth of 400 is 40, and a tenth of 30 is 3. 2 eggs remain. If you divide each remaining eggs into 5 parts, then 2 eggs make 10 parts. A tenth of this is 1/5 of an egg. (Maharshal)

V. 36. עשירית האיפה ward später das normale Grundmaß aller מנחות, somit Ausdruck des die Nahrung einer Menschenpersönlichkeit repräsentierenden Quantums vor Gott. Dieses Maß selbst überträgt somit schon die Mannagesinnung auf die vor Gott zu gedenkende Menschennahrung. Ist ja vielleicht selbst מנחה, wenn das מ zur Wurzel gehört, also מנה selbst mit מנה, der Wurzel von מן, und sodann in der Bedeutung als מָנָה, verwandt.

והעומר, “and the amount known as omer, etc;

עשירת האיפה הוא, is equivalent to the well known measure eypha, a measure used for measuring grain.