The Torah tells us, "The people would stroll out and gather it" (Numbers 11:8). But did they grumble about the effort? Sifrei Bamidbar cleverly uses another verse, "And the people will go out and gather it" (Exodus 16:4), to suggest the opposite. Imagine this: each person could sit right at their tent door and collect enough manna for themselves and their family. And because it melted in the sun, it was a fresh, daily miracle.
But here's where it gets really interesting. The text asks: "Now (did we not learn that) it never 'descended' to a mill?" Of course, it didn't literally fall into a millstone! The point is that the manna could be transformed into anything one would grind in a mill. Or beat in a mortar. The text emphasizes that the manna adapted to their needs. And it wasn't just limited to these methods. Sifrei Bamidbar stretches our imagination even further.
Think about this: "All the forty years that Israel was in the desert a woman had no need of spices, but was 'decorated' (i.e., perfumed) by the manna!" The manna wasn't just sustenance; it was luxury, fragrance, and everything they needed. The source of this idea? The peculiar phrase "or beat it," which hints at more than just food preparation. We learn that during this time of wandering, the Israelites lacked nothing. As (Deuteronomy 2:7) says, "These forty years the L-rd has been with you. You have lacked nothing." Imagine wanting grapes, and suddenly, there they are! Figs appear just as you crave them. It sounds like paradise!
And what about the taste? The text explains that "its taste was like the 'leshad' of oil." Leshad, we're told, is an acronym for layish (dough), shemen (oil), and dvash (honey). Dough kneaded with oil and honey—that was the inherent, base flavor of manna, meant to be eaten with pure intention. The text offers more interpretations, describing the manna like a breast (shad) to an infant. Just as a breast sustains a baby, so too did the manna sustain the entire nation. And just as a baby can suckle all day without harm, the Israelites could eat manna all day without any ill effects.
Here's a truly beautiful idea: the manna, like a mother's milk, adapted to their needs. It could change into any taste they desired—except for the taste of the five grains forbidden during Passover, as the text notes.
The text adds a sobering thought: The Israelites suffered when the manna ceased (Joshua 5:12), just as an infant suffers when separated from the breast. The manna wasn't just food; it was comfort, security, and a constant reminder of God's presence.
Sifrei Bamidbar also paints a vivid picture of the manna's arrival. It descended with the dew, blanketing the camp at night. It fell "upon the thresholds and the doorposts," implying abundance. We're told that a layer of dew acted as a protective barrier, keeping the manna pure. People would recite the Shema prayer and then collect their portion before the sun melted it away.
Rabbi Shimon asks a profound question: Why didn't the manna fall just once a year? His answer is striking: "So that their hearts turn to their Father in heaven (for their food)." It was a daily reminder of their dependence on God. Imagine a king who feeds his son only once a year—the son would only visit on that day! But if the king feeds him daily, the son will visit every day. The manna was meant to foster a constant connection.
There's a counter-argument to this idea, that people might visit the king only for the stipend. But the text counters that the manna was meant to be eaten fresh, still warm.
Rabbi Dostai b. R. Yannai offers another perspective, wondering why there are no hot springs in Jerusalem like there are in Tiberias. He suggests it’s so that people wouldn't visit Jerusalem solely for the springs, making their pilgrimage opportunistic. The daily manna, similarly, encouraged a constant, genuine connection with the Divine.
So, what does all this tell us? The manna wasn't just about physical sustenance. It was about connection, gratitude, and a daily reminder of the miracle of life itself. It was about turning our hearts toward something greater than ourselves. And perhaps, in our own lives, we can find our own "manna"—those daily blessings that, if we pay attention, can nourish not just our bodies, but our souls.
(Bamidbar 11:8) "The people would stroll out and gather it": I might think that they railed against Him because it was difficult to gather; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:4) "And the people will go out and gather it." One would sit at the door of his house and gather his share and the share of his household, and when the sun came out, it melted. "and they would grind it in a mill": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to a mill? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is ground in a mill. "or beat it in a mortar": Now (did we not learn that) it was never beaten in a mortar? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is beaten in a mortar. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone. Whence is it derived that all the forty years that Israel was in the desert a woman had no need of spices, but was "decorated" (i.e., perfumed) by the manna? From "or" beat it." "or cook it in a pot": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to a pot? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is cooked in a pot. "and they made cakes of it": Now (did we not learn that) it never "descended" to an oven? The intent is, rather, that it was converted for them to everything that is baked in an oven. I might think that it was converted only into these things alone. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the things gathered in a field? From "and they would gather it." And it is written (Devarim 2:7) "These forty years the L-rd has been with you. You have lacked nothing." As if a man would say I want to eat grapes, and they were given to him; I want to eat figs, and they were given to him. "and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil": "leshad": an acronymic for three words: "layish" (dough), "shemen" (oil), and "dvash" (honey). As dough kneaded with oil and honey, such was the inherent taste of the manna, and thus (i.e., with intent for this taste) did the upright of Israel eat it. Variantly: "and its taste was like the 'sap' (leshad) of oil": Just as the breast (shad) is "primary" to an infant, and everything else, secondary. Variantly: Just as the breast, if an infant sucks it the whole day, it does not harm it, so, the manna; if Israel ate it a whole day, it would not harm them. Variantly: Just as the breast, which produces one kind, which changes into many kinds, so, the (taste of the) manna changed for Israel into any taste that they desired, except for that of the five kinds (viz. Ibid. 5). An analogy: (A doctor) tells a (nursing) woman: Do not eat garlic and onion for the sake of the infant. Variantly: Just as the breast, an infant suffers when it withdraws from it, so, Israel suffered when they withdrew from the manna, viz. (Joshua 5:12) "And the manna ceased the following day, when they ate from the grain of the land." An analogy: A man is asked: Why are you eating barley bread? He answers: Because I don't have wheat bread. Why are you eating carobs? Because I don't have figs. Similarly, if Israel had that handful (of manna) that they took on the day of Moses' death, from which they ate all forty days, they would not desire to eat of the grain of the land of Canaan. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 9) "And when the dew descended upon the camp at night, the manna descended upon it.": We are hereby taught that it descended upon the thresholds and the doorposts. I might think that the manna was eaten sullied; it is, therefore, written (Shemot 16:14) "and, behold, on the face of the desert it was spread thin." It (the dew) descended as a kind of hoarfrost and became a kind of layer upon the ground on which the manna descended. And from it Israel took and ate. This accounts for the lower level; but couldn't the reptiles and the flies infest it from above? It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "and the dew layer ascended," whence it follows that it was enclosed in a kind of casing. And they would recite the Shema and pray; and one would go out to the entrance of his house and take his share and that of his household, after which the sun would come out and melt it. Similarly, R. Shimon says: Why didn't the manna descend once a year? So that their hearts turn to their Father in heaven (for their food). An analogy: A king decreed that his son be fed once a year — and he visited his father only on the day of his stipend! Once he decreed that he be fed every day — and he visited him every day. So with Israel. If a man had five sons or five daughters, he would sit and worry, thinking: If the manna does not fall tomorrow, we will all die of hunger! — So that they all turned their hearts to their Father in heaven. R. Dostai b. R. Yannai said: If so, the son will say: Even if I visit my father only for the sake of my stipend it is sufficient for me! So that the visit becomes entirely opportunistic. Rather, (the manna fell every day) so that it could be eaten while it was still warm. Variantly: (It did not fall once for a long period of time) so that it would not be a burden on the road. Similarly, R. Dostai b. R. Yannai says: Why did the L-rd not create hot springs in Jerusalem as He did in Tiberias? So that one not say to his friend: Let us go up to the hot springs of Jerusalem. If we go up for only one dousing, it will be sufficient for us. So that the ascent becomes entirely opportunistic.
