Shemot 16:2-4 – The mahn: A double test for the Jewish people

Shemot 16:2,3 records that after the Jewish people left Egypt they complained that they were now starving while in Egypt they had been well-fed. It is not clear if the people really had so much food in Egypt, but this is a good example of relativism, that when people are starving, even small but sufficient quantities of food would be viewed relatively as being copious. This complaint was after being one month in the desert, 16:1. Maybe the people saw the depletion of their flocks, and hence they feared that their supply of food could not last that long in the desert. This idea might explain the mention of the 15th of the month in 16:1, as the full moon enabled the people to calculate the monthly depletion rate of their flocks.

In any event, G-d responded to these complaints by telling Moshe, “Here, I will make rain down upon you bread from the heavens, the people shall go out and glean, each day’s amount in its day, in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my Instruction or not,” (Fox translation), 16:4. This bread from the heavens would later be called mahn, 16:15, and would supply the Jewish people with their food throughout their stay in the desert, 16:35. The mahn would appear to be a wonderful gift from G-d to the people, but 16:4 refers to the mahn as a test. This idea is repeated in Devarim 8:16, but what was the mahn testing?

Furthermore, the idea of G-d instituting a test is problematic (see Rambam, Moreh, 3:24) since if G-d knows the outcome of the test, what is the point of a test? One answer is that the test is really for the educational benefit of the person being tested. To return to the test of the mahn, the question then is what educational benefit did the Jewish people learn from their experience with the mahn?

Rashi (on Shemot 16:4) writes that the test of the mahn was whether the Jewish people would follow the laws involved with the eating of the mahn, such as not leaving any food over for the next day, 16:19, and not going out on Shabbat to search for mahn, 16:27,28. The educational lesson would then be that the Jewish people would know what it means to follow the laws of G-d.

N. Leibowitz twice criticizes Rashi’s view. Once, she (1976a, p. 266) writes that Rashi’s approach “is forced since the text plainly indicates that the actual giving of the mahn indicates the trial, not the additional instructions associated therewith.” (I believe that here she is referring to the verse in Devarim 8:16, as in Shemot 16:4 the phrase “in order that I may test them” follows the phrase “the people shall go out and glean, each day’s amount in its day,” which indicates that the test is related to the gleaning, as Rashi writes.) Secondly, (1980a, p. 86) she writes, “by the same token, surely every precept in the Torah can be termed a test or trial!” Instead, she prefers Ramban’s approach.

The Ramban (on Shemot 16:4), based on Devarim 8:16, explains that the test of the mahn was because it could not be stored. Therefore, every day the Jewish people had to show their trust in G-d that they would have food to eat the next day.

While the approaches of the Ramban and Rashi appear to conflict, maybe they apply to different times. The first time the mahn is referred to as a test is in Shemot 16 before the giving of the Torah, and the test of the mahn here could follow Rashi’s approach. The second time the mahn is referred to as a test is in Devarim 8 at the end of the people’s forty years in the desert, and then the test of the mahn could follow Ramban’s approach.

When the people left Egypt, they had listened to Moshe with regard to the giving of the korban pesach, but as they were about to make a covenant with G-d, they had to learn about following G-d on a daily basis. Therefore, following Rashi’s approach, the mahn at that period was an educational lesson for the Jewish people to teach them what it means to follow G-d on a daily basis. Thus, the end of the verse, “whether they will walk according to my instruction or not” refers to following the law and not to a belief in G-d.

With regard to the test in Shemot 16:4, I understand Rashi to mean that the test was not with regard to leaving the food over for the next day, but with not collecting more than was needed each day, and not to collect on Shabbat. Thus, the test just referred to gleaning, as the most immediate antecedent to the phrase, “in order that I may test them” in 16:4 is the daily gleaning. The Torah records that the people passed both aspects of the test. 16:21 records that the people left the extra mahn in the field, and 16:30 records that after failing the first time, the people did not go out to look for the mahn on the following Shabbat.

Accordingly, the mahn taught the people about following G-d on a daily basis to prepare the people for the ensuing covenant at Mount Sinai. N. Leibowitz is correct that this same type of test would apply to all the laws, but for the period prior to the covenant, it was this law, maybe because it was related to the Shabbat, that was chosen to be the one to inculcate into the people the need to follow G-d on a daily basis.

The mahn continued for the next forty years, and during this extended period, the test of the mahn was to teach the people faith in G-d as suggested by the Ramban, see our discussion on Devarim 28:69, 29:3-5 "Full covenantal knowledge." Thus Devarim 8:16, at the end of the forty years, refers to the mahn itself and not to following G-d’s law as recorded in Shemot 16:4. The lesson of belief in G-d needed an extended period, and the people passed this test, as while they complained about the taste of the mahn, Bemidbar 11:6 and 21:5, the Torah never records that they doubted the mahn would arrive each day. This lesson in belief in G-d from the mahn was also applicable to the future generations, and thus the mahn was set aside for future generations to see, Shemot 16:33.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

-----, 1980a, Studies in Devarim, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization