Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND THEY TOOK THEIR JOURNEY FROM ELIM, AND ALL THE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL CAME UNTO THE WILDERNESS OF SIN. Scripture speaks briefly here, for when they journeyed from Elim, they pitched by the Red Sea, and they journeyed from the Red Sea, and they pitched in the wilderness of Sin, since this great wilderness extended from Elim to Sinai. Thus, when they travelled from Elim, they camped beside the Red Sea in that wilderness. Then they journeyed from the edge of the sea and entered into the midst of the wilderness, making the stages of Dophkah and Alush,, Verses 12-13. See Ramban further at beginning of Seder Yithro (Note 25) for how this explanation affects a major problem in Torah exegesis as to when Jethro came, i.e., before or after the Giving of the Torah. and then they journeyed from Alush, which is in the wilderness of Sinai, and they pitched in Rephidim., Verse 14. In the opinion of our Rabbis, the manna began falling in Alush. When the Israelites saw that they were journeying and camping in the wilderness — in Dophkah and Alush — and had not come out of it, they became frightened and began murmuring. This is the meaning of the verse, And they murmured… in the wilderness, for they had not murmured when they came there but only after they were there in the wilderness [for an extended period of time].
THE WILDERNESS OF SIN WHICH IS BETWEEN ELIM AND SINAI. The reason for this [geographic description] is to distinguish between this wilderness of Sin and the other wilderness, Tzin, written with the letter tzade, where the Israelites came in the fortieth year [of their stay in the wilderness] and Miriam died there. This is why Scripture mentions there, And they pitched in the wilderness of Tzin — the same is Kadesh,, 33:36. in order to differentiate it [from the wilderness of Sin mentioned here].

AND THE WHOLE CONGREGATION OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL MURMURED AGAINST MOSES. Scripture should have first narrated the nature of the complaint just as it did in Marah. and Rephidim,. and at all other complaints — and stated here first: “and there was no flesh to eat, nor bread for them to the full, and the people were famished for bread.” Now Rashi explained that the reason Scripture specifically mentions [that the date of their arrival in the wilderness of Sin] was on the fifteenth day of the second month is in order “to make this encampment unique. On that day, there came to an end the provision which the Israelites took along with them from Egypt, and they now needed the manna. It thus informs you that they ate sixty-one meals of the remains of the dough [which they had baked in Egypt on the day of the exodus].” [Thus far the language of Rashi.] This is a tradition received by our Rabbis, and the reason that Scripture did not [first] explain the nature of their complaint was that it had not elaborated on this miracle which was done for them secretively, [i.e., that the remains of the dough furnished sixty-one meals]. And it is as I have already written in Seder Vayigash concerning the reason [that Scripture is disposed to be silent on hidden miracles]. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that Scripture records the date on the fifteenth day of the second month in order to explain that a month’s time had already elapsed since their departure from Egypt. In the meantime, they consumed the bread they took out of Egypt as well as their cattle, since they were a great multitude of people. This was the reason for the murmuring. In my opinion, the reason for their complaint is to be found in the Scriptural expression, and they came… unto the wilderness of Sin. When they came to that wilderness far away from Egypt, they began saying: “What shall we eat? What will this great wilderness into which we have come supply us with?” It may be that at first they had thought that after a few days they would come to the cities round about them. Now that a month had gone by and they found no city of habitation, they said, “We will all die in the great wilderness into which we have come.” This then is the meaning of the verse, And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron in the wilderness, the murmuring being because of the wilderness. And so likewise the people said, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to put to death this whole assembly by famine. Thus they mentioned “the wilderness’ and “the assembly,” therein stating that a large assembly such as this will undoubtedly die of hunger in this great wilderness. The Holy One, blessed be He, hearkened unto them, and He now began to prepare a table for them in the wilderness until they came to a land inhabited.

BEHOLD, I WILL ‘MAMTIR’ (CAUSE TO RAIN) BREAD FROM HEAVEN FOR YOU. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that because the manna came down like rain from heaven, He said mamtir, [which is derived from the root matar (rain)]. But we find: ‘yamteir’ (He will cause to rain) coals, fire and brimstone; And the Eternal ‘himtir’ (caused to rain) upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire. [Brimstone and fire do not come down like rain, and yet Scripture uses the word matar with reference to them!] Perhaps in these cases they accompanied the rain of which the term “coming down” may properly be used. Onkelos’ opinion is that mamtir just means “cause to bring down,” for he translated: “behold, I will cause to bring down.” [However, it has no connection here with rain, as Ibn Ezra would have it.] It is possible that the word mamtir can be associated with the expression ‘kamatarah’ (as a mark) for the arrow, although they are of different roots. (target) is of the root natar (keep), since a target is kept in sight and watched. Mamtir however is of the root matar (rain). Yet, as Ramban concludes, they have a common association, as is explained in the text. Scripture makes use of both terms when speaking of every form of “falling from above.” Thus it is called matarah (target) because they come down like arrows [on a target], and it says, ‘vayamteir’ (And He caused to rain) upon them flesh as the dust, and winged fowl as the sand of the seas. It may be that [Scripture does not use the term mamtir for every form of “falling from above,” but only] for the fowl of heaven. [Therefore, the term, vayamteir in the above — mentioned verse refers only to the winged fowl] because they came down upon them as the rain.
BREAD. Because they made bread out of the manna — as it is written, and they made cakes of it — [Scripture calls it lechem (bread)], for every form of bread is called lechem, not just those of wheat and barley. It says cause to rain bread [although it did not come down in the form of bread, for the meaning thereof is] that He is causing it to come down for them to make it into bread. Similarly: As for the earth, out of it cometh bread, [meaning: “out of it cometh the wheat from which bread is made”]. So also: To bring forth bread out of the earth, which means that He brings forth the wheat from which people make bread. And some scholars. interpret: Behold, I will cause to rain bread, meaning food. Similarly: ‘lechem’ of the offering; For he offereth the ‘lechem’ of thy G-d;, 21:8. When thou sittest ‘lilchom’ with a ruler — all are expressions of food. The correct interpretation is that lilchom means “to eat bread,” and ‘lechem’ of thy G-d, 21:8. is a euphemism, meaning that it is “the food” for G-d even as bread is for man, for we find it said, Man doth not live by bread only.
THAT I MAY TRY THEM, WHETHER THEY WILL WALK IN MY LAW OR NOT. “I.e., whether they will observe the commandments associated with it, such as [the laws] that they should not leave [a remainder] of it until the morning and that they should not go out on the Sabbath to collect it.” Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not correct. (“that” or “for the sake of”) — ‘that’ I may try them — expresses causation in itself, namely, that the manna as such will be their trial, as will be explained, and not the precepts associated with it, as Rashi explained. Rather, the intent [of the trial mentioned here] is as He said, Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not; that He might afflict thee, and that He might try thee, to do thee good at thy latter end. [The manna itself] was a trial to them, since they had no food in the wilderness and were without recourse to any sustenance except the manna, which they knew not from before and had never heard of from their fathers. Each day’s quantity came down on its day, and they were eagerly desirous for it. Yet with all this, they hearkened to walk after G-d to a place of no food. And so indeed He said to them again, And thou shalt remember all the way in which the Eternal thy G-d hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might afflict thee, to try thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no., Verse 2. He could have led them by way of the cities that were round about them. Instead, He led them through the wilderness wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions, and each day’s quantity of food would come to them only from heaven in order to try them and to do them good at the end so that they would believe in Him forever. I have already explained the matter of “trial” in the commentary on the verse, And G-d tried Abraham. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the Moreh Nebuchim i.e., let every one who desires try and see whether it is useful and sufficient to devote himself to the service of G-d.” [on the verse before us, That I may try them, whether they will walk in My law or not, that it means] that “everyone capable of knowledge should know and determine whether there is usefulness in the service of G-d, and whether there is adequate satisfaction in it or not.” But if so, it would have been proper for Him to say, “that He may try them to know!” Now Scripture mentions here only the matter of manna, which was “the bread” which He caused to rain upon them, [and it does not refer to the flesh which He gave them]. However, from that which Moses told them, This shall be, when the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full, we know that everything was told to him. It is only that when a subject is mentioned twice, Scripture shortens it in the report of the command or the narrative, as I have mentioned to you many times. At times, it omits one — [the command or the narrative] — altogether, such a case being the verse written in this section: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it [the manna] be kept throughout your generations, and the command [of G-d to Moses] is not recorded at all. This is also the case in many places. But in the opinion of those scholars who say that lechem here means “all food,” it is possible that by saying, Behold, I will cause to rain ‘lechem,’ the meaning refers to both the manna and to the quail, i.e., that He would fulfill their request for bread and flesh. Moses explained that the flesh would be [available] to eat in the evening, and the bread would be [available] in the morning to the full, as is the customary way.

AT EVEN, THEN YE SHALL KNOW THAT THE ETERNAL HATH BROUGHT YOU OUT FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT. “And it is not we. [i.e., Moses and Aaron] who have taken you out from there, as you have said, for ye have brought us forth.” 7. AND IN THE MORNING, THEN YE SHALL SEE THE GLORY OF THE ETERNAL. This does not refer to G-d’s Glory that appeared in the cloud, [mentioned further in Verse 10], for that occurred [later] in the day when Aaron spoke to them, and they looked toward the wilderness and, behold, the Glory of the Eternal appeared in the cloud. “But,” commented Rashi, “thus did Moses say to them: At even, then ye shall know that His hand has the power to give you your desire, and He will give you flesh. He will not, however, give it to you with ‘a bright countenance,’ since you were improper in asking for it, [inasmuch as one can exist without meat]. Besides, you asked for it out of a full stomach, [i.e., while still having cattle which you took along with you from Egypt]. But as regards the bread for which you properly asked out of necessity, when it falls in the morning, you will see the Glory of His countenance, as He will bring it down for you in a manner indicative of love, i.e., in the morning, while there is yet time to prepare it.” (Verse 13) when there was not much time to prepare it. It was thus given, as the Mechilta — quoted by Ramban — said further on, b’panim chasheichoth (with a ‘dark countenance’), or as Rashi puts it, lo b’panim me’iroth (not with a ‘bright countenance’). But it is not correct to interpret the expression, and in the morning, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal as applying to the gift of the manna because He gave it to them early in the morning. What Glory of the Eternal is made manifest in this? Moreover, how does it logically connect with the phrase following it, for that He hath heard your murmurings? And this Midrash of our Rabbis, [which Rashi mentions, i.e., that there was a difference in the ways the manna and the quail were given to them], is not like a comment upon the expression, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal. Instead, the Rabbis said it [as an explanation of the fact] that He apportioned their sustenance twice a day and did not distribute all of it in the morning. Thus the Rabbis said in the Mechilta: “And Moses said: ‘This shall be, when the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full.’ From here, you learn that He gave them the quail with ‘a dark countenance.’ The manna, however, which they were justified in requesting, He gave them with ‘a bright countenance.’” That is to say, in the morning. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the expression, and in the morning, etc., [beginning in Verse 7], is a continuation of the previous verse. [It constitutes Moses’ answer to] what the Israelites had said, for ye have brought us forth from Egypt. Moses replied: “G-d will now show two signs for you so that you may know that it was He Who brought you out from there. One, [the quail] will come in the evening of this day, and the other, [the manna] will come tomorrow in the morning.” And, [continued Ibn Ezra], it would have been proper for Scripture to say: “At even, and in the morning, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.” The expression in the morning is not connected with then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal, since they saw the Glory [later] on that day [and not in the following morning].. (7) And in the morning, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal. According to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation, the expression of Verse 7, and in the morning, is to be understood together with at even (of Verse 6), thus: “at even and in the morning, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.” The phrase, and in the morning, cannot be connected with then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal, for as narrated in Verses 9-10, the Glory of the Eternal appeared that very same day, and not in the following morning. Ramban will further refute this explanation of Ibn Ezra on the basis of the fact that after all, the verses are not written in the way Ibn Ezra would transpose them. His own exposition will then follow. But this interpretation too does not appear to be correct. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the wonder inherent in the manna was extremely great, whereas He brought the quail in from the sea by a wind which came from Him. The manna, however, was created for them now; [it was] a new creation in heaven, similar to the process of [the original] Creation. This is the intent of what the Rabbis have said with respect to the manna, i.e., that it was created on the sixth day of creation between sundown and nightfall. This is why Scripture said: “By the sign He will perform for you on the coming night, you will know that He brought you out from the land of Egypt, since He prepared a table in the wilderness for you. But by the great wonder He will do for you in the morning, you will see the Glory of His kingdom, for what god is there in heaven or on earth that can do according to His works and according to His mighty acts?” By the great and marvellous things that G-d does, He shows His Glory, similar to that which is written, I will gather all nations, and all tongues, and they shall come, and shall see My Glory. It is further written [there], and they shall declare My Glory,, Verse 19. and there are many other verses similar to this effect. So also is the opinion of Onkelos who rendered [the verse here]: “and you will see the Glory of G-d.” He did not translate it, “and [the Glory of G-d] will be made manifest.” the Glory of G-d,” his reference is to the great and wonderful deed G-d will do for them through the manna. Know that the subject of the manna involves a great matter. Our rabbis have alluded to it in Tractate Yoma: “Man did eat bread of ‘abirim’ (the mighty),. i.e., bread which the ministering angels eat! These are the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yishmael said to him, ‘You have made a mistake. Do the ministering angels indeed eat bread? Has it not been said [by Moses], I did neither eat bread nor drink water? Rather, the bread of ‘abirim’ means bread which was absorbed in the eivarim (limbs).’” The purport of Rabbi Akiba’s words is that the existence of the ministering angels is sustained by the Divine Glory. And so the Rabbis interpreted: “And Thou ‘m’chayeh’ (preservest) them all [means] He gives food (‘michyah’) to you all.” It is with reference to this that it is said, And the light is sweet, since through the Light, they perceive good discernment. Now the manna was a product of that Higher Light which became tangible by the will of its Creator, blessed be He, and thus [according to Rabbi Akiba], both the people who ate the manna and the ministering angels were sustained by the same substance. But Rabbi Yishmael criticized him, since the existence of the ministering angels is not dependent upon something tangible evolving from the Light. Their existence is by means of the Higher Light itself. It was for this reason, [i.e., the heavenly origin of the manna], that the Israelites found in the manna every flavor they desired. The rational power of the soul causes it to cleave to the higher worlds, thus finding restful life and obtaining His favor. And thus the Rabbis have said in the Mechilta:. This teaching is that of Rabbi Eleazar Chisma. Ramban will later refer to it by name. “Today, [i.e., in this world], you will not find it, but you will find it in the World to Come.” This text [of the Mechilta] can support two explanations. We may say that among those [inheriting eternal life] in the World to Come, (the World to Come) as referring to the life after the resurrection. It is the life to be in the far hereafter, as distinguished from the olam haneshamoth (the World of the Souls), which is the life in the hereafter immediately following the demise of the body. In olam haba, body and soul will be reunited, and the manner of how the body will sustain itself is here alluded to by Ramban. See also Note 12 in Seder Va’eira. An exhaustive discussion of this whole subject is found in Ramban’s Torath Ha’adam, (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. 2, pp. 283-311). there will be some who have not achieved that high status of sustaining themselves steadily by the Divine Glory. Their existence will be made possible by something tangible evolving from that Glory, like the status of the generation of the wilderness who attained [the beholding of] the Divine Glory at the Red Sea, just as the Rabbis have said: “A maidservant saw at the sea what the prophet Ezekiel never saw.” From that time onward, their souls were elevated to be able to exist by the product [of the Divine Glory], which was the manna. A more correct interpretation is that in the word today — [Verse 25: ‘Today’ ye shall not find it in the field] — Scripture is alluding according to the words of Rabbi Eleazar Chisma, that those [inheriting eternal life in] the World to Come (the World to Come) as referring to the life after the resurrection. It is the life to be in the far hereafter, as distinguished from the olam haneshamoth (the World of the Souls), which is the life in the hereafter immediately following the demise of the body. In olam haba, body and soul will be reunited, and the manner of how the body will sustain itself is here alluded to by Ramban. See also Note 12 in Seder Va’eira. An exhaustive discussion of this whole subject is found in Ramban’s Torath Ha’adam, (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. 2, pp. 283-311). will exist by the substance of the manna which is the Higher Glory, just as the Rabbis have said: “[In the World to Come] there will be neither eating nor drinking. Rather, the righteous [of the World to Come] will sit with their crowns on their heads and enjoy the Divine Glory.” [This means] that those [inheriting] the World to Come will exist by their enjoyment of the Divine Glory, which will cleave to the crowns upon their heads. “The crown” is the attribute so named by Scripture when it says, In that day shall the Eternal of hosts be for a crown of Glory. And it is with reference to it that it is said, Even upon the crown wherewith his mother hath crowned him. Thus [the verses] allude to the manner in which the righteous inheriting the World to Come will be sustained, the hint being to the substance of the manna. Now Scripture says, And He commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; and He caused manna to rain upon them for food, and gave them of the corn of heaven. Man did eat the bread of the mighty, and it further says, And He gave them in plenty the bread of heaven., 105:40. From this, it appears that this “corn” is in heaven, and He caused it to come down for them by opening its doors. The intent thereof is, as I have explained, that the [Higher] Light was made tangible [and assumed the form of the manna], for it is of the Higher Light that Scripture speaks in this language, [such as]: the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of G-d. It may be that the manna was already existing in the heavens [in the form in which it came down], just as the Rabbis have said that it was created on the sixth day of creation between sundown and nightfall.

AND WHAT ARE WE, THAT YE MURMUR AGAINST US. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained it as meaning: “And what power to act is there in our hands? We have only carried out what we have been commanded.” But this is not so. Rather, the sense of the verse here is similar to: What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? Eternal, what is man that Thou takest knowledge of him?, 144:3. For how little is he [man] to be accounted! And this [verse here] is an expression of humility. “For what are we that you should attribute us with bringing you out from the land of Egypt? Behold we are nothing, and our work is vanity., 41:24. And your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal. It is He Who has brought you out from the land of Egypt, not we.” And in the Mechilta we find. “[They said to them]: ‘Are we so distinguished that you arise and murmur against us?’” is one of humility, as explained.

AND MOSES SAID: THIS SHALL BE, WHEN THE ETERNAL SHALL GIVE YOU IN THE EVENING FLESH. Moses is explaining his first statement, [recorded above in Verses 6-7]: When the Eternal shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, then ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt; and when He shall give you in the morning bread to the full, then ye shall see the Glory of the Eternal.

I HAVE HEARD THE MURMURINGS OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. SPEAK UNTO THEM, SAYING: AT DUSK YE SHALL EAT FLESH. This communication [at dusk ye shall eat, etc.], had already been conveyed by Moses to Israel, but it is repeated here only because of that which He said I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. At first, He had said, Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven to you;, Verse 4. He would willingly do it for them as an act of kindness or because of their merits. But now He said that [their murmuring] is accounted to them as sin, and yet because of the very nature of the murmuring, He will do such things for them so that they might know thereby that I am the Eternal your G-d. Until now ye do not believe the Eternal your G-d; this is why you murmur against His prophets. It is possible that at first He did not promise them the manna for all the time that they would be in the wilderness. Thus they thought that perhaps it would be for one day or two, as long as they stayed in that place, and that when they would leave it, they would come to a place of food. But now He said to them, “At dusk ye shall eat flesh always, and in every morning ye shall be filled with bread as long as you will be in the wilderness.” And so also is the opinion of our Rabbis, that the quail were with them from that day on, just like the manna. It is logically so, for they expressed discontent about the two things — [flesh and bread]. — and He hearkened to their murmurings on both matters, and He gave them that which they craved. What would He give them, and what more,, 120:3. if He supplied them with meat for only one day or two? The reason that the chapter [of the Torah] speaks at length about the matter of the manna is that everything about it was of a wondrous nature, whereas with reference to the matter of the quail, it just writes briefly, And it came to pass at even, that the quail came up, because it came in a natural way. [Although the quail were a daily occurrence], the subject of the second [incident of] quail at Kibroth-hata’avah [is singled out for mention in Scripture] because right now [in the wilderness of Sin], they did not receive of them to the full, just as He always says here, flesh to eat, and bread to the full.. This clearly indicates that bread they had to the full, but not flesh. It is possible that only the adults gathered the quail — or it may be that they were marked by chance for the pious ones — while the young craved and hungered for them, since Scripture does not relate concerning the quail, “and they gathered some more, some less,” as it does concerning the manna. It is for this reason that Scripture says there [in the narrative of the second quail]: And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and it further says, and the children of Israel also wept on their part, meaning that some of the children of Israel were also weeping for it, but not all. He then gave them in great quantity, as it says, He that gathered least gathered ten heaps,, Verse 32. and out of that abundance, they ate for a month’s time, Verse 20. and then the quail reverted to their first state. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, the whole affair with the quail happened only at intervals, but since the manna was their staple food, they always had it, for their chief murmuring concerned it, as it is written, for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to put to death this whole assembly by famine.

DAK’ (A FINE) ‘MECHUSPAS’ (PEELED THING). In the opinion of Onkelos, [who translated the word mechuspas as meaning “peeled,” the word] is associated with the expressions: ‘machsoph’ (streaks making bare) the white; ‘chasaph hashem’ (the Eternal hath made bare) His holy arm. The letter sin [in the words machsoph and chasaph] is interchanged for the letter samach [in the word mechuspas], and the second root-letter of the verb [chasaph] of the verb.” Following the theory of Dunash ben Labrat, the great Hebrew grammarian of the tenth century, we call the three letters of the root of any verb by the names of the three letters of the Hebrew ‘po’al’ (verb) [which is spelled pei, ayin and lamed]. Thus the first letter of any verb is called the pei of the verb, the second is called the ayin, the third is called the lamed. In the verb chasaph before us, the second root-letter is the sin or its interchange, the samach, as explained in the text. In the word mechuspas, the samach appears twice. This then is the meaning of Ramban’s saying, “and the ayin (second letter) of the verb is doubled.” is doubled, [thus making it mechuspas].
DAK’ (FINE) ‘KAK’PHOR’ (AS THE HOAR-FROST). K’phor is the covering [of minute ice-particles] upon the ground in cold weather. It is similar in usage to the expression, He scattered ‘k’phor’ (hoar-frost) like ashes. Now Onkelos rendered [the Hebrew dak kak’phor al ha’aretz] into Aramaic thus: da’adak k’gir kig’lida al ar’a. On this, Rashi wrote [as an interpretation of Onkelos, that the word gir occurs in the expression], “as stones of ‘gir,’ which is a kind of black color. This is just as we say in connection with the covering of the blood [of a slaughtered wild animal or fowl, which the Torah specified must be done with earth. The Rabbis enumerate amongst the kinds of earth that can be used]: ‘gir (powdered chalk) and arsenic (or orpiment).’ [Onkelos’ Aramaic rendition da’adak k’gir kig’lida al ar’a thus means:] ‘thin [and brittle] like powdered chalk, and lying congealed as frost on the ground.’ And this is the meaning of the Hebrew dak kak’phor: spread out fine and connected like hoar-frost. Dak means that there was a thin incrustation on top. And that which Onkelos translated, k’gir (as powdered chalk), is an addition to the Hebrew text, there being no word corresponding to it in the verse.” [These are the words of Rashi.] But all this is not correct. Gir [is not a kind of black color, as Rashi wrote, but instead it] is a white earth which sticks to stone, and when crushed, it is used as plaster upon walls. It is very white and is better for the plastering of walls than lime, [which does not have the admixture of that white earth]. And so it is written, upon the ‘gira’ (plaster) of the wall of the king’s palace. This is why the manna which was white and spread out upon the earth could be associated with that crushed white earth. Onkelos then translated the Hebrew word k’phor in two ways. First, he derived it from the expression, and thou shalt pitch it within and without ‘bakopher’ (with pitch). Hence, he said k’gir (as the white earth) with which [the stones] are fastened and covered. Then he derived it also from the expression, He scattered ‘k’phor’ like ashes, which is the covering of minute ice needles which form in a cold atmosphere, just as he translated [the Hebrew] ‘v’kerach’ (and the frost) by night,, 31:40. “ug’lida (and frost) came down upon me at night.” in Onkelos’ translation has no corresponding word in the Hebrew text. According to Ramban, both Aramaic words, k’gir and kig’lida (“as powdered white earth” and “as frost”), are two renditions of the one Hebrew word kak’phor. Such was Onkelos’ style, to give two translations of one Hebrew word. The word can be used in the plural [g’lidin], (ices have sorrounded me), a metaphoric expression of a person describing that the hairs of his mustache and beard have turned gray (Rashi, ibid.) while the singular is called g’lid (ice), just as we have been taught in the Mishnah in Mikvaoth: “These are the things which only serve to fill up the immersion-pool [to its prescribed measure of forty s’ah] and do not render it invalid: snow, hail, hoar-frost, v’hag’lid (and ice).” And so indeed does Onkelos translate many Scriptural texts in two ways. But in carefully-edited texts of Targum Onkelos, it is written, da’adak d’gir, as we have assumed the reading in Onkelos to be until now. The reading of k’gir had forced Ramban to interpret that Onkelos simultaneously used two different translations of the Hebrew word kak’phor, namely, “as powdered white earth” and “as frost,” as explained above. This is clearly a difficult position. But with this present reading in Onkelos — d’gir, which means a heap — the Aramaic text leads to one unified thought: the manna was piled up in heaps as ice upon the earth. kig’lida al ar’a, and the meaning thereof is that the manna was piled up in heaps as ice upon the earth. This is the truth, for if [the word k’gir in the Targum] were of the root gir (powdered white earth or plaster), as we assumed at first], the Aramaic translation should have been: k’gira d’g'lida (as the powdered flakes of the ice), [and not, as we have it, k’gira ‘kig’lida], for such is the style of the Aramaic language. (“as” ice), and not d’g'lida (“of” the ice), it shows that the antecedent word is d’gir (a heap) and not k’gir (as powdered white earth). Thus the thought conveyed by the Targum is that the manna lay powdered in heaps as ice upon the ground.

AND IT BRED WORMS, AND IT STANK. “This is a verse that is to be transposed, because [the manna that was left over until the morning] must have first stunk and afterwards become wormy, just as it is said, and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein, this being the way of all things that become wormy.” Thus Rashi’s language. Now if the manna had become wormy in a natural way, as is the way of all things that become wormy, Rashi’s statement would be correct. But since the manna became wormy in a miraculous way, it is possible that it bred worms first, and there is thus no need for inverting] the verse. Moreover, the verse which states [concerning the manna which they retained for Sabbath morning], and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein, proves that it was so, [i.e., that the manna left over by Dathan and Abiram bred worms first and then stank]. Had it not become wormy until it first stank, when Scripture says [concerning the manna left for the Sabbath], and it did not stink, it would thereby have already assured us that there was no worm therein. Why then should it repeat afterwards, neither was there any worm therein? If however, as the plain meaning of Scripture indicates, the manna that was left over until the morning by Dathan and Abiram became wormy first [in a supernatural way], it became necessary for Scripture to state that this manna [that was left over for the Sabbath] did not stink, nor did any worm come therein at all. Even things which become wormy in a natural way do not give off a stench unless they are warm and moist, but dry things only become wormy and do not give off an odor at all, just as wormy wood or fruits that become wormy when still growing or [immediately] afterwards. Thus Scripture relates that this manna [which Dathan and Abiram left over on a weekday, also stank [in the morning] by a miracle. And in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah we find that the Rabbis have said: “Is there anything that first becomes wormy and then gives off a stench? It is only that the Holy One, blessed be He, wanting to expose the deeds [of Dathan and Abiram] to the people, therefore caused [the left-over manna] to give off no stench at night lest they throw it out. Instead, during the entire night, it formed rows upon rows of worms, and at once Moses was wroth with them.”

BAKE THAT WHICH YE WILL BAKE. Rashi explained: “Whatever you wish to bake in the oven or boil in water, bake and boil today — all [that you require] for two days.” If so, the purport of the verse is as follows: “That which you would bake of the two omers you have, bake today, and that which you would boil of the two omers, boil now, and all that remaineth for you after eating to the full today, lay up for you to be kept until the morning.” In the morning [of the Sabbath-day], when the Israelites saw that it did not spoil, they came before Moses, since they did not want to eat the manna of yesterday even though Moses had permitted it to be kept until the morning. Then Moses permitted them to eat it on that Sabbath-day only “because it was for that purpose of which I said to keep it for a charge.” He further informed them of the reason of the commandment, for today ye shall not find it in the field, since G-d does it so because it is a holy Sabbath unto the Eternal. It is possible that by saying and all that remaineth over, He did not set any measure for that. Rather, they could eat at will on the sixth day, as the remainder would suffice for the Sabbath, because it is the blessing of the Eternal. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “That which you would bake ordinarily — namely, the [daily] omer known to you — bake for your use today; and all that remaineth, namely, the second omer, lay up for you to be kept until the morning. At that time, Moses did not tell them what to do with the second omer. It was on the following morning [the Sabbath], that he told them, eat that today.” But if so, they ate the manna on the Sabbath raw, without baking it or seething it in pots and making cakes of it as it was their custom to do. The first interpretation, [that of Rashi], is more correct, and so is the opinion of Onkelos. (intend), Onkelos intimated his understanding of the verse to be similar to that of Rashi: “that which you intend baking of the two omers, bake today, etc.” This is unlike the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who interpreted the verse as meaning: “that which you would bake ordinarily — [i.e., one omer] — bake today, and the other omer leave over till the morning,” thus resulting in their eating the omer on the Sabbath in an unprepared state.