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.

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 Yaakovregarding this.)

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.”

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.

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?

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)

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.

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 .

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.]

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.

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?”].

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.

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.

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

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 .

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”?

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.

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.

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.]

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

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

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. . .”?

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.”

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).

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.

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.

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. . .].

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.

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.

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].

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.

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.]

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.

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)