Epilogue to the Manna Story/2

Epilogue to the Manna Story

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

First Through Forty-first Year

The epilogue covers events that transpired from the first year in the wilderness, through to the nation's arrival in Israel in the forty-first year.  This position subdivides regarding how to understand the timing of the various details relating to the manna's storage.

Stages of Storage

Verses 32-34 describe two stages regarding the preservation of the manna, the command and initial storage in the first year and then its transfer in the second year.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 16:34About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor

Moshe's commands of verse 32-33 – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor the two commands of Moshe both occurred in the first year, right before their fulfillment by Aharon.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor distinguishes between the two terms, allowing him to posit that there were two distinct phases of storage.  "לִפְנֵי י"י" refers to the altar where sacrifices were brought,¹ while "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" refers to the Ark of Testimony in the Mishkan.  Thus, the verses teach that at first the manna was placed near the altar for safekeeping,² but after the Mishkan was built, it was transferred there.  Though verses 32-33 are in their chronological place, verse 34 is not and comes here only to complete the story.

Role of Aharon – Since at this point in Sefer Shemot, Aharon has not yet been appointed as a high priest, and the altar would have been accessible to all, it is not clear why the task of storing the manna was given to him specifically.  Perhaps he was chosen not in any cultic capacity, but in his leadership role as Moshe's spokesman and assistant.

Why now? If the container of manna was supposed to serve as a relic for future generations then why was it collected already in the first year, rather than the fortieth?

• Prior to the Sin of the Golden Calf, the nation was scheduled to enter the land immediately after the revelation at Sinai. As such, now was the time to collect a sample, while the manna was still raining down.
• It is also possible that Hashem specifically wanted to preserve the manna at the outset of the miracle, when the people were still marveling at and in awe of the phenomenon.  By the fortieth year, the nation were no longer appreciative of the miracle, but tired and disgusted by it.³  Announcing then that they should preserve the manna so as to show their children this wonderful gift might have been counter-productive.

Chronology of verse 35 – R"Y Bekhor Shor would agree that verse 35 is recorded here only to close the story.  R. Yosef KaraShemot 16:35About R. Yosef Kara further notes that the mentioning of the manna's forty year duration already here teaches that the selav, in contrast, was only a one-time occurrence.  This provides the backdrop for understanding why in Bemidbar 11 the nation once again complains about not having meat.⁴

"קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" versus "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" – R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the meaning of these terms and what they imply about when the manna ceased, but he maintains thatt he manna forst stopped in .  He could say, like R. Yosef KaraShemot 16:35About R. Yosef Kara, that both terms refer to the land of Israel, with the second phrase ("קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן") serving to explicate the first ("אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת").‎⁵  The verse would then be compatible with the description of the cessation of the manna in Yehoshua 5:10-12.⁶

When was this epilogue written?

R"Y Bekhor Shor might suggest that each part of the epilogue was written when it happened, verses 32-33 in the first year, verse 34 in the second, and verse 35 in the fortieth.⁷  However, since verse 35 speaks of events after Moshe's death, he would have to posit that either it was written by Moshe via prophecy, or by Yehoshua (similar to the opinion in Bavli Bava BatraBava Batra 15aAbout the Bavli regarding the last verses of Torah).⁸

Second Year Storage

Sources:AbarbanelShemot 16Bemidbar 21About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Second and Fortieth Years

Aharon put the container of manna in the Ark of Testimony after the Mishkan was built in the second year.

Sources:RashiShemot 16:33-35About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamShemot 16:33-35About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 16:35Shemot Short Commentary 16:33-35About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, AbarbanelShemot 16About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 16:32-35About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, NetzivShemot 16:32-35About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, R. David Zvi HoffmannShemot 16:32-36About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

"לִפְנֵי י"י" = "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – These sources identify the two terms, with both referring to the Ark.  Ibn Ezra explains that since Hashem's presence was felt between the cherubs atop the ark, this was considered "before Hashem."  It is this mention of the ark, which was built only in the second year, that motivates this position to date the story then.

Why now?

• R. D"Z Hoffmann points out that the original plan was to enter the land soon after the Tabernacle was constructed.⁹  As such, this is the logical time to collect a sample for future generations.   
• Alternatively, Hashem simply waited until there was an appropriate place to store the manna, and only then issued the command. 

Role of Aharon – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, since the manna was being placed in the Ark, Aharon was charged with the task of placing the container there, as he was the guardian of the Holy of Holies.  Similarly, at the end of his life (Devarim 31:9,25-26), Moshe gives the Torah which was to be placed next to the Ark to the priests who were responsible for carrying the Ark.

Chronology of the commands in verses 32-33 – Though these sources agree regarding the timing of Aharon's actions in verse 34, they disagree concerning when the initial commands of verses 32-33 were given:

• Connected to fulfillment – Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert that the commands were given in proximity to their fulfillment, and the entire passage only occurred after the construction of the Tabernacle.¹⁰
• Disconnected from fulfillment – According to Shadal,¹¹ in contrast, Moshe's pronouncement to the people (verse 32) is in its proper place and occurred as they gathered the manna, but Moshe only gave Aharon his specific instructions when the time came for him to fulfill them in the second year.¹²

Chronology of verse 35 – All these sources agree that this verse is out of chronological place, and is only found here so as to provide closure to the narrative.  They disagree, however, regarding both to what time period it refers and when it was written – see below.

Eating manna – "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" versus "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת"

• Distinct terms – Many of these sources assume that the different terms refer to two distinct places, and hence separate stages in the cessation of the manna:
• Gradual Cessation – Ibn Ezra understands "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" to refer to the lands of Sichon and Og, and suggests that at that point there was an option of eating either manna or natural bread.¹³  Only when they got to "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן", to Gilgal, did the manna cease totally.¹⁴ R. D"Z Hoffmann explains similarly that when they had reached civilization, the manna only fell when there was not ample natural food to feed the nation, but it only completely stopped when they crossed the Jordan.
• Falling versus eating – Rashi reads the phrases in the opposite way, suggesting that "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" means Israel proper, and that "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" refers to Arvot Moav.  He claims that the manna stopped falling with the death of Moshe, but what had been collected lasted and was eaten until the arrival in Gilgal.¹⁵
• Identical terms – In contrast to the above, Shadal identifies the two terms, suggesting that both refer to Arvot Moav, which is on the eastern edge of Canaan. Thus, the verse is not informing the reader when the manna ceased,¹⁶ but simply remarking that the nation ate it until the end of the period discussed in Torah.  The doubling is explained as the Torah's attempt to clarify an ambiguous term.

When was this epilogue written?

• First year – Abarbanel might claim that the entire epilogue was written in the first year, despite some of the events not yet having happened, and some (cessation of the manna) not taking place until after his death.¹⁷  Moshe simply wrote about the future via prophecy, just as he had regarding his own death.  If so, this would mean that before the Spies had actually sinned and their punishment was decreed, Hashem already hinted to Moshe that the nation was to wander in the desert for forty years.¹⁸
• Fortieth year – In contrast, according to Shadal,¹⁹ verses 33-35 (those which he regards as achronological) were all written by Moshe in the fortieth year.  According to him, Moshe wrote nothing via prophecy, but rather recorded everything after the fact. Thus he writes of the placement of the manna in the Mishkan only years later, and when discussing the length of time that the manna was eaten, he speaks only of that which he had knowledge, that the nation ate it until they arrived at the border of Canaan.

Only Fortieth Year

The manna was first put aside for storage in the fortieth year.

Sources:rejected possibility in Mekhilta16:32About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot and AbarbanelShemot 16About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Commands of verses 32-33 – This approach would posit that the commands (and not just their fulfillment) were first relayed in the fortieth year.  When the people began to prepare for entry into the land and its accompanying natural mode of subsistence, Moshe told the nation (verse 32) to preserve some of the  manna for posterity.  He then turned to Aharon with the specifics of how this was to be accomplished (verse 33).

Why now? According to this position, the command was given immediately when the nation moved out of the Wilderness to civilized land.²⁰ Although the nation was still provided for by the manna until they entered Israel, at this point they once again encountered and had the potential to eat from natural sources.  Thus, it is at this transition point, when the necessity for manna began to diminish, that Hashem commanded them to save a sample of the miraculous provision.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – According to this position, both these terms refer to the Ark of Testimony.

Role of Aharon – Even though by the fortieth year it was already known that Aharon was not going to be entering the land of Israel, he was still the high priest.  Since the manna was stored with the Ark, Aharon was the natural candidate for this assignment.

Chronology of verse 35 – "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" versus "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" – This position might suggest, like Shadal above, that both terms refer to the lands east of the Jordan.  Even though the manna was also eaten afterwards, Moshe is only speaking of the events that occurred in his own lifetime.

When was this epilogue written? This position would probably assert that these verses were all written after the events that they describe happened.  As such, the entire epilogue both occurred and was recorded in the fortieth year.

¹ According to him "לִפְנֵי י"י" means being in front of a specific place where there was a Divine presence.  As evidence, he points to the similar phrase "לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" in Shemot 18:12 where it appears in the context of sacrifices.

² It should be noted that according to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, this initial fulfillment of Moshe's command is not explicit in the verses and must be assumed by the reader.  Such a phenomenon (where only the directive is mentioned and not its fulfillment) is not uncommon. See, for example: Shemot 4:22-23 (though perhaps related to 11:5), 7:15-18, 7:26-29, 8:16-19, 9:1-4, 9:13-19, 11:2 and 14:2.

³ See their complaints, "וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל" (Bemidbar 21:5).

⁴ Even without the contrast to selav, one might suggest that it is important for the reader to know that the manna was a continuous event throughout the wilderness experience.

⁵ Without the clarification, a reader might have though that "settled land" referred to Arvot Moav.

⁶ He could also take any of the options below, since how one reads this verse is not mandated by how the previous verses were read.

⁷ This would work with R. Yochanan's understanding that the Torah was transmitted one portion at at time ("מגילה מגילה ניתנה").

⁸ See Abarbanel who raises, but then rejects, this possibility.

⁹ The entry was delayed only due to the Sin of the Spies.

¹⁰ Cassuto suggests that even the naming of the manna described in verse 31 is not part of the current story but refers to an event that occurred later.  The unusual epithet "בֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל" refers not to the people collecting the manna, but to the nation as a whole throughout the generations who called this miraculous food, manna.  Thus, according to him, the story's appendix extends from verse 31-36 and is comprised of a variety of fact and events from different periods.

¹¹ Rashi and Rashbam are less explicit but would seem to agree.

¹² This would explain the need for two separate speeches of Moshe. The first was aimed at the nation when the manna initially came down so they would know that the miracle was to be memorialized, while the second was a practical command to Aharon alone, given a year later.
Abarbanel goes a step further to suggest that even Moshe's instructions to Aharon (verse 33) took place in the first year, where written.  It is not clear, however, even if Moshe knew what was to happen, why it would make sense to share such instructions so long before they could be fulfilled.

¹³ See Seforno similarly.

¹⁴ Cf. Netziv who highlights that those who tired of the manna stopped eating it already in Arvot Moav, while the "righteous" people continued to eat it until they arrived in Gilgal.

¹⁵ This position is difficult in light of Yehoshua 5:11, "וַיִּשְׁבֹּת הַמָּן מִמׇּחֳרָת", which speaks not of the manna running out, but of it stopping to fall on the morrow of the Pesach.

¹⁶ This is shared only in Yehoshua 5.

¹⁷ His words are ambiguous, and though he claims that Moshe wrote about events that did not yet happen, it is not clear if he is referring to Moshe writing in the fortieth year about the manna lasting after his death until the nation reached Giglal, or about Moshe writing in the first year.

¹⁸ This could be compared to the epilogue to the story of the war with Amalek where Hashem tells Moshe, "כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאׇזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ". According to Rashi, this is another case where Moshe is told to write something which hints to a future event, that it will be Yehoshua rather than Moshe who was to bring the nation into Israel. Cf. Ibn Ezra there (like Shadal here) who prefers to simply say that the verse was first written in the fortieth year.

¹⁹ He is preceded by R. Yehuda HeChasid, who cites it in the name of his father and Rashbam.  [This position, however, is not found in the extant commentary of Rashbam.]

²⁰ The nation reaches the borders of Edom right before Aharon dies.