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.

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.

הנני ממטיר לכם, “I am ready to make it rain down for you, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why the Torah uses the word ממטיר, a word associated with rainfall, not with solids, was that seeing that the manna originated in the celestial regions it had that much in common with rainfall. At first glance, the people thought that what was descending was rain. [This seems strange, as it descended during the night when the people were asleep, and they only found it in the morning, unsuspecting. Ed.] Nachmanides writes that we find the expression ממטיר associated with the wicked people, such as the wicked people of Sodom, for instance, upon whom G’d rained down fire and brimstone. Perhaps we must assume that there the expression המטיר was used as the harmful substances described were accompanied by normal rainfall. Onkelos is of the opinion that the word המטיר describes anything in the process of falling, regardless if the substance is welcome or unwelcome. He translates the words הנני ממטיר as הא אנא מחית, “I make descend.”

לחם, “bread.” It is described as “bread” seeing that this is what the people tried to make it substitute for. Every kind of פת is called לחם, not only baked goods made from wheat or barley. We also encounter the term עוגות as describing bread, as in Genesis 18,6, and Numbers The term ממטיר is justified, as the Torah describes ingredients which rained down which would subsequently be converted into bread. Our benediction over bread is המוציא לחם מן הארץ, which also does not mean that G’d produces ready-made bread as emerging from the earth, but we thank Him for having the earth produce ingredients fit to convert into bread, i. e .the staff of life. Some commentators claim that the word לחם does not refer specifically to bread, but to food in general, and G’d was saying to Moses that the people’s food would rain down from the heaven. The meat G’d was going to provide was also included in the line הנני ממטיר לכם לחם מן השמים. We encounter the expression לחם אשה, “food being burned up on the altar,” many times, and it never refers to bread, but to sacrificial meat. (compare Leviticus 3,11; 3,16; Numbers 28,2) Both the selav and the manna materialized for the people as if dropped literally from “heaven.” For some reason, G’d enlarged on the gift of the manna, which was a necessity, whereas He did not elaborate on the selav, which was a luxury.

למען אנסנו, “so that I may test it,” (the people) According to Rashi the test would consist of seeing if the people would indeed observe the rules laid down by G’d in connection with this food. According to Nachmanides the test consisted of the fact that the people would be left without food that could be stored against future shortages, so that they would be dependent on G’d’s largesse literally from hour to hour. Except for Fridays, they would never receive more than a day’s ration, and anyone trying to put some aside would find that it simply rotted. Anyone would be heard asking “what am I going to eat tomorrow?” would be considered as lacking in faith.

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

ונחנו מה, “and what are we (worth)?” Ibn Ezra comments on this rhetorical question that Moses and Aaron referred to their total impotence in influencing events, indicating that they were merely tools in the hands of Hashem. These words reflect the psalmist saying: מה אדם כי תדעהו, “what is the value of man that You should bother to become intimately familiar with him?” (Psalms 144,3)

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.”

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.

ותעל שכבת הטל, “a layer of dew ascended;” Ibn Ezra explains that the word means (here) that the dew while dissolving into the atmosphere, revealed what was below it, i.e. a layer of manna. The word תעלני appears in a similar context when David asks not to die before his time, i.e. Psalms 102,25, אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not let me ascend to the celestial regions prematurely.”

דק מחוספס, “something thin, exposed;” some commen-tators explain the word מחוספס as something globular, however there is no similar word in Scriptures to which we could compare this expression. Onkelos translates it as something visible through exposure. It would be similar to Genesis 30,37 מחשף הלבן, “exposing the white beneath.”

דק ככפור על הארץ, “thin as the frost on the ground.” Onkelos translates it as above. Rashi claims that when Onkelos adds the word גיר this is not a translation of a word that appears in the text, but a word used to illustrate the meaning of כפור. In Isaiah 27,9 we find the expression אבני גיר, the prophet describing the black colour of those stones Nachmanides writes that גיר, “chalk,” in Hebrew, is not black but white, and that the Torah describes this white colour as sticking to the white limestone, the ones use to grind into what is used in whitewash, but that this exterior is even whiter than the whiteness of the chalk stones themselves. This thin layer appeared to stick to the manna in the manner of a layer of frost. He goes on to draw a comparison between the word כפור, hoary frost, and the word כופר, the insulating, waterproofing material G’d told Noach to employ both on the outside and the inside of the ark. (Genesis 6,14) The common denominator between both words would be that they describe material that is pasted on to seal something off and protect it against harmful substances penetrating it. The word כפור is also understood as being analogous to כאפר, “like ash,” i.e. extremely small particles such as the particles of ash. [the smaller each particle, the more easy it is to create a waterproof and even airproof protective layer made from that substance. Ed.] Hoary frost found on the ground in the early mornings is such an impenetrable substance until it melts. There are some other versions where the word דק does not appear but the word is כעדק דגיר, when the connection to the word גלידא as חמרים, small little heaps of frozen water or snow is so much more obvious. This is probably a truer version of Onkelos.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.