Epilogue to the Manna Story/2

Epilogue to the Manna Story

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

1st Through 41st Year

The epilogue covers events that transpired from the first year in the wilderness all the way through to the nation's arrival in Israel in the forty-first year.

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

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor distinguishes between these two terms, allowing him to posit that there were two distinct phases of the storage of the manna.  "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 moved to be near the Ark.  Accordingly, though verses 32-33 are in their chronological place, verse 34 is not, and it comes here only to complete the story.

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

Role of Aharon – At this point in Sefer Shemot, Aharon has not yet been appointed as high priest, and the altar was accessible to all.  Thus, the task of storing the manna was assigned specifically to Aharon because of his leadership responsibilities as Moshe's spokesman and assistant, rather than because of his later ritual role.

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

• 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 counterproductive.

Verse 35: "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" and "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" – R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the meaning of these terms, but he does maintain that the "forty years" of the manna extended to the sixteenth of Nissan, and thus include events that happened after crossing the Jordan.  As such, he might 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").‎⁴

When was this epilogue written?

R"Y Bekhor Shor does not address the issue. He could suggest, like AbarbanelShemot 16Bemidbar 21About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel apparently does,⁵ that the entire epilogue was written in the first year, and the events which did not yet happen (including those which happened after Moshe's death) were simply recorded via prophecy.  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.⁶

Biblical Parallels – In the epilogue to the story of the war with Amalek, 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.⁷  As another example, Ramban points to Moshe's listing of the leaders who were to apportion the land, even though he could not be sure that they were to live that long.

2nd Through 41st Years

The appendix includes events from the second to the forty-first year, but none of it occurred in the first year.

Sources:RashiShemot 16:33-35About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,⁸ RashbamShemot 16:33-35cited by R. Yehuda HeChasid Shemot 16:32About R. Shemuel b. Meir,⁹  Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 16:35Shemot Short Commentary 16:33-35About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, 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 verses regarding the storage of the manna to that point.

Moshe's commands in verses 32-33 – Ibn Ezra and R. D"Z Hoffmann assert that the commands were given in proximity to their fulfillment, and that all of verses 32-34 only occurred after the construction of the Tabernacle.

Why now?

• R. D"Z Hoffmann points out that the original plan was to enter the land soon after the Tabernacle was constructed.¹⁰  As such, right then would have been 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.

Verse 35 – "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" versus "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" – All of these sources assume that the different terms refer to two distinct places, and hence that the verse discusses events of both the fortieth and forty-first years.  They differ, though, in the details:

• Gradual cessation – Ibn Ezra understands "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" to refer to the lands of Sichon and Og, and suggests that upon arrival there, the people had the option of eating either manna or natural bread.¹¹  Only when they got to "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" in Gilgal, in the forty-first year, did the manna cease totally.¹²  R. D"Z Hoffmann explains similarly that when they had reached civilization, the manna began to fall only when there was a dearth of natural food to feed the nation, but it completely stopped only when they crossed the Jordan after Moshe's death.
• Ate even after manna ceased to fall –  Rashi¹³ claims that the manna stopped falling with the death of Moshe, but what had been collected lasted and was eaten until the nation's arrival in Gilgal.¹⁴ 

When was this epilogue written?

• According to Rashbam (as cited by R. Yehuda HeChasid), everything was first recorded in the fortieth year, after the events happened.  Though Rashbam does not say so explicitly, he presumably assumes that Moshe prophetically writes of the events after his death.
• The other sources do not address the question, and could either agree or suggest that each part of the epilogue was written after the particular event described occurred.¹⁵  Thus, verses 32-34 were written in the second year, while verse 35 was either prophetically written by Moshe in the fortieth year, or by Yehoshua in the forty-first year (cf. an opinion cited and rejected by AbarbanelShemot 16Bemidbar 21About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel).

Biblical Paralells – Other events that occurred after Moshe's death and are nonetheless included as an epilogue to other stories in Tanakh have been explained similarly: 

• According to one opinion in Bavli Bava Batra, the last verses of Torah describing Moshe's death were written as an appendix by Moshe via prophecy, while another opinion asserts that they were added after the fact by Yehoshua. 
• According to RambanBemidbar 21:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman, the destruction of Arad described in Bemidbar 21 may have happened only in the time of Yehoshua.  AbarbanelShemot 16Bemidbar 21About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel understands Ramban to be claiming that these verses were added by Yehoshua,¹⁶ however Ramban appears to be simply saying that Moshe prophetically added these verses.¹⁷

1st Through 40th Years

The appendix includes events from the first to the fortieth year, and does not relate to the forty-first at all.

Sources:ShadalShemot 16:32-35About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

"לִפְנֵי י"י" = "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – Shadal identifies both of these two terms as referring to the Ark, leading to his conclusion that the manna was first stored in the second year.

Moshe's commands in verses 32-33 – In contrast to the above approach, Shadal disconnects Moshe's first command to the nation from both his directive to Aharon and Aharon's implementation.  He claims that the pronouncement of verse 32 is in its proper place and was relayed to the people as a whole when they first gathered the manna.  However, Moshe only gave Aharon his specific instructions when it was possible for him to fulfill them in the second year.¹⁸

Why now? The initial announcement to the people takes place in the first year when they first encounter the miracle so that, in their moment of wonder, they recognize the need to memorialize it for future generations. The command to Aharon, however, is given when practical for its fulfillment.

Role of Aharon – Aharon was charged with this responsibility because he was the guardian of the Holy of Holies where the jar of manna would be safeguarded.

Verse 35 : "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" versus "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" – According to Shadal, the two terms are identical and both refer to Arvot Moav, which is on the eastern edge of Canaan.¹⁹  Thus, the verse speaks only of events which occurred in the fortieth year, The events of Yehoshua are not addressed, as the narrator is not interested in discussing the cessation of the manna but only in telling the reader that it was eaten until the end of the period discussed in Torah.

When was this epilogue written? According to Shadal,²⁰ verses 33-35 (or all of the verses 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. When discussing the length of time that the manna was eaten, he speaks only of that which he had firsthand knowledge, that the nation ate it until they arrived at the border of Canaan.

Only 40th Year

All the events discussed in the epilogue are limited to the fortieth year.

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

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – According to this position, both of these terms refer to the Ark of Testimony.  This, however, does not mean that the manna was stored immediately after the Ark's construction. This approach maintains instead that Aharon brought the manna to the Tabernacle only in the fortieth year.

Moshe's Commands of verses 32-33 – This approach would posit that the commands to both the nation and Aharon specifically were relayed right before Aharon implemented them in the fortieth year.

Why now? According to this position, the command was given immediately when the nation began to transition from the wilderness existence back to civilization, in preparation for the natural mode of subsistence of Canaan.  This occurred when they first approached the land of Edom, shortly before Aharon's death.²¹  At this point, when the necessity for manna began to diminish, Hashem commanded them to save a sample of the miraculous manna provisions.²²

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.

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 eaten also after his death, 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 which 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.  For more, see Yitro's Sacrifices and Eating Bread Before God.

² It should be noted that this initial fulfillment of the command is not mentioned in the text and must be assumed by the reader to have taken place in verse 33. Such a phenomenon (where only the directive is mentioned without its fulfillment) is not uncommon.  For other examples, see 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.  See also Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

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

⁴ Without the additional clarification, a reader might have thought that "settled land" referred to Arvot Moav.

⁵ His comments on Shemot 16 are a bit ambiguous, but he might be suggesting this.

⁶ Alternatively, 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, partially via prophecy.

⁷ Cf. Ibn Ezra there who prefers to simply say that the verse was first written in the fortieth year.

⁸ Rashi does not say when Moshe's words of verse 32 were relayed, but he otherwise agrees with this approach.

⁹ In the printed editions of Rashbam based on MS Breslau 103, Rashbam does not say explicitly when Moshe's words of verse 32 were relayed.  However, see the citation of Rashbam in the commentary of R. Yehuda HeChasidShemot 16:32,35About R. Yehuda HeChasid.

¹⁰ The entry was delayed only due to the Sin of the Spies.

¹¹ See Seforno similarly.

¹² 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.

¹³ Though Rashi also distinguishes between the terms, he reads the phrases in the opposite way of most commentators, suggesting that "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" means Israel proper, and that "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" refers to Arvot Moav.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ They cannot be assuming that Moshe wrote the events in the first year since they claim that Moshe was first commanded regarding the manna's storage in the second year, and if he were already told to write the directive, this would mean that in effect he was already commanded.

¹⁶ Cf. the opinion cited by Ibn EzraBemidbar 21:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra there.

¹⁷ This is also Abarbanel's own reading.  Abarbanel is consistent with his position in Shemot 16, in being untroubled by Moshe writing or talking about the future before it happens.

¹⁸ 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 and suggests that even Moshe's instructions to Aharon (verse 33) took place in the first year.

¹⁹ The doubling can be explained as the Torah's attempt to clarify an ambiguous term (cf. R"Y Kara above).

²⁰ He is preceded by R. Yehuda HeChasidR. Yehuda HeChasid, who cites it in the name of his father and Rashbam.  [This position, however, is not found in the printed commentary of Rashbam.]  Cf. R. Yehuda HeChasid Vayikra 23:42-43.

²¹ Bemidbar 21 recounts how the nation reaches the borders of Edom right before Aharon dies.

²² Even though they were still to be provided for by the manna until they entered Israel, at this point they already began to re-encounter natural food sources.