Epilogue to the Manna Story/2

Epilogue to the Manna Story

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

First Year

Moshe's command to Aharon that he store a portion of manna "before Hashem" was fulfilled already in the first year, soon after the command was issued.

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

Moshe's command of verse 32 – This position could posit that these words of Moshe were addressed to the nation at large, perhaps as they gathered the manna in the first days that it fell.  Afterwards (in  verse 33) Moshe turned specifically to Aharon with the details of how and where the manna was to be stored.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor distinguishes between the two terms.  "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, 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?

• It is 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 .² Announcing at that point that they show their children this wonderful gift might have been counter-productive.
• Alternatively, at this point of the story the nation was still supposed to enter the land after the revelation at Sinai. As such, collecting a sample now would make sense.

Chronology of verse 35 – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor would agree that verse 35 is found here only to close the story.

When was this epilogue written? R. Yosef 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.

Second Year

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, U. CassutoShemot 16About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

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 the chronology of the initial commands of verses 32-33:

• All achronological – Ibn Ezra, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Cassuto assert that the commands were given in proximity to their fulfillment, and the entire passage only occurred after the construction of the Tabernacle.³  According to Ibn Ezra and R. Hoffmann, it is possible that both verses 32 and 33 are addressed to Aharon alone.⁴
• Verses 33-35 achronological – According to Shadal,⁵ in contrast, Moshe's pronouncement of verse 32 is in its proper place, but Moshe only gave Aharon his specific instructions when the time came for him to fulfill them in the second year. 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.
• Only verse 34-35 are achronological – Abarbanel goes a step further to suggest that even Moshe's pronouncement to Aharon (verse 33) took place in the first year, where written. Since Moshe knew that they were eventually going to receive the Tablets and make an ark, there was nothing preventing him from also telling Aharon now what he would need to do in the future.   When speaking to the nation in verse 32, he makes no mention of where the manna is to be stored and even hen speaking to Aharon, he use the more general phrase "לִפְנֵי י"י", since "הָעֵדֻת" would not as yet mean anything.⁶

Why now? R. D"Z Hoffmann points out that the original plan was to enter the land (when the manna would cease to fall) soon after the Tabernacle was constructed.⁷  As such, this is the logical time to collect a sample for future generations.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" versus "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת" –

This approach identifies 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."

Role of Aharon – Since the manna was being placed in the Ark, it is clear why Aharon was charged with the task of placing the container there. Only he had access to the Holy of Holies.

Chronology of Verse 35 – All these sources agree that this verse is obviously 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.

Until when did they eat the 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.⁸  When they got to "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן", to Gilgal, the manna ceased totally.⁹ 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 only completely stopped in Israel.
• Falling versus eating – Rashi reads the phrases in the opposite way, suggesting that "אֶרֶץ נוֹשָׁבֶת" refers to Israel, and "קְצֵה אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן" to Arvot Moav.  He claims that the manna stopped falling with the death of Moshe, but whatever they collected lasted and was eaten until the Pesach in Gilgal.¹⁰
• 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. The verse is not informing the reader when the manna ceased,¹¹ 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 all 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.¹²  Moshe simply wrote about the future via prophecy, just as he had regarding his own death.  If so, this would mean that Hashem hinted to Moshe already in the first year that the nation was to wander in the desert for forty years, before the Spies had actually sinned and the decree was formally given.
• ¹³
• Fortieth Year – According to Shadal,¹⁴ 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  he only writes of the placement of the manna in the Mishkan 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.

Biblical Parallels – There are many other cases in Torah where an event is recorded achronologically for literary reasons, to complete a story.  Thus, the deaths of Noach, Terach, Avraham and Yitzchak are all mentioned at the end of the narrative cycle of stories focusing on them, even if they died later.

Fortieth Year

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

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 הָאֱ-לֹהִי in Shemot 18:12 where it appears in the context of sacrifices.

² See their complaints, "וְנַפְשֵׁנוּ קָצָה בַּלֶּחֶם הַקְּלֹקֵל" (Bemidbar 21).

³ 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.

⁴ If so, however, the double opening is difficult. Cassuto, thus maintains, that Moshe first addressed the nation regarding the need to preserve the manna, and then turned to Aharon to detail how this would be accomplished.

⁵ Rashi and Rashbam are less explicit but would seem to agree.

⁶ Abarbanel does not make this last point.

⁷ The entry was delayed only due to the Sin of the Spies.

⁸ See Seforno similarly.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ This will only be shared in Yehoshua.

¹² 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 reachedGiglal, or about Moshe writing in the first year.

¹³ 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 wirte something in the present which hints to a future event, that it will be Yehoshua rather than Moshe who was to bring the nation into Israel.  Ibn Ezra there (like Shadal here) prefers to simply say that the verse was first written in the fortieth year.

¹⁴ He is preceded by R. Yehuda HaChassid, writing in the name of his father and Rashbam.  [However, this position is not found in the extant commentary of Rashbam.]