Difference between revisions of "Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 16/0"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
<category>Manna | <category>Manna | ||
+ | The manna is spoken of in several places in Tanakh, at times in the context of the trials and tribulations of the wilderness period and at times as a demonstration of Hashem's benevolence. | ||
<subcategory>Tools | <subcategory>Tools | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li>Makbilot BaMikra | + | <li>See <a href="https://mg.alhatorah.org/Dual/Biblical_Parallels/Shemot/16.4#m5e1n6">Makbilot BaMikra</a> for sources that both speak of the Israelites’ eating of manna is described in two other places in the Torah: Devarim 8:3 and 8:16. In both of those places, as well as here in Shemot 16, there is an allusion to a divine test or chastisement (see Shemot 16:4, Devarim 8:5, and Devarim 8:16). By contrast, a number of texts focus not on the eating of the manna but on it sbeing rained down, highlighting the the divine gift of manna. and many of these focus on manna as a show of divine beneficence (for example, see Tehillim 78:23-25, Tehillim 105:40, Nehemia 9:15, Nehemia 9:20). Both of these perspectives on the manna are intertwined throughout its presentation in Tanakh.</li> |
</ul> | </ul> | ||
</subcategory> | </subcategory> |
Version as of 07:55, 14 November 2023
Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 16
Israelites’ Complaints
Shemot 16:2-4 is one of a series of Israelite complaints in the desert. Other complaints can be found in Shemot 14:10-14, Shemot 15:22-25, Shemot 17:1-7, Bemidbar 11:5-6, Bemidbar 14:2-3, Bemidbar 20:1-6, and Bemidbar 21:4-7.
Tools
- Use Makbilot BaMikra to find links to the many verses which speak of the nation's various complaints, including descriptions of the events in Tehillim.
Articles and Lectures
- Listen to Sefer Bemidbar: From Doubt to Debate, by Atara Snowbell, for an insightful analysis and close reading of the evolution of the Israelites’ complaints from Shemot 15 through Bemidbar 21, reflecting their increasing faith and independence.
- See מסע בעקבות תלונות עם ישראל במדבר, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur, for a nuanced comparison and contrast of the complaints in the desert along six different parameters: the situation that prompted the complaint, the way that the Torah describes the people and their complaint, the content of their request, the way that the nation relates to Egypt, and the consequences of the complaint.
Manna The manna is spoken of in several places in Tanakh, at times in the context of the trials and tribulations of the wilderness period and at times as a demonstration of Hashem's benevolence.
Tools
- See Makbilot BaMikra for sources that both speak of the Israelites’ eating of manna is described in two other places in the Torah: Devarim 8:3 and 8:16. In both of those places, as well as here in Shemot 16, there is an allusion to a divine test or chastisement (see Shemot 16:4, Devarim 8:5, and Devarim 8:16). By contrast, a number of texts focus not on the eating of the manna but on it sbeing rained down, highlighting the the divine gift of manna. and many of these focus on manna as a show of divine beneficence (for example, see Tehillim 78:23-25, Tehillim 105:40, Nehemia 9:15, Nehemia 9:20). Both of these perspectives on the manna are intertwined throughout its presentation in Tanakh.
Anger
The Torah explicitly notes Moshe's wrath in three places, and commentators suggest several more instances in which his anger might have expressed itself. Comparing the stories is useful in understanding Moshe. What leads him to get angry? When is it not only warranted but perhaps necessary, and when not.
Tools
- See Makbilot BaMikra for links to verses which describe Moshe's anger, including Shemot 16:20, Vayikra 10:16 and Bemidbar 31:14.
Articles
- See Moshe - Overview for an essay about Moshe’s character and leadership, including analysis of those times that the Torah ascribes anger to him either explicitly or implicitly. The piece presents contrasting evaluations of commentators on each occurrence of anger, with some justifying the emotion and others deploring it.1