Beshalach: Moshe’s Role in the Mahn Confusion and its Implications for Teachers

This article explores one of the most perplexing narratives in Shemos, addressing a key question: How was Moshe at fault for the fiasco with the mahn? It concludes with five takeaways for teachers.

Feb 07, 2025

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-17:27

The Torah content for the entire month of February has been sponsored by Y.K. with gratitude to Rabbi Schneeweiss for providing a clear and easily accessible path to personal growth via his reliably interesting and inspiring Torah content.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Adobe Firefly 3.0’s response to the prompt: “cubist painting of Moses in the desert surrounded by tribal leaders looking at white frost on the ground”

Beshalach: Moshe’s Role in the Mahn Confusion and its Implications for Teachers

Preface

I happen to agree with the Italian Bible scholar who wrote that “Chapter 16 is one of the most difficult chapters in [Sefer Shemos].” When my chavrusa and I set out to read it, hoping to find something interesting to analyze, we were immediately confronted with dozens of questions—major and minor—each one compounding the last.

One of the most persistent difficulties is the confusing way Moshe Rabbeinu introduces the laws of gathering mahn (manna). To illustrate the confusion I experienced when reading this, I will deviate from my usual practice of citing the full excerpt and analyzing it. Instead, I’ll omit all the verses that do not directly address this topic, and I’ll take you on a walkthrough of the most pertinent passages, noting the thoughts and surprises I encountered along the way. Readers are encouraged to review the full context independently.

Walkthrough of the Relevant Verses

In response to Bnei Yisrael’s food-related complaints and yearning for Egypt, Hashem tells Moshe:

“Behold, I will rain down bread for you from the heavens and the people shall go out and gather their daily portion each day, so that I can test them whether they will go by My teaching or not. On the sixth day, they will prepare what they bring in, and it will be twice what they gather each day.” (Shemos 16:4-5)

It is unclear which elements of this statement are prescriptive and which are descriptive. Is Hashem instructing Moshe to convey specific laws to Bnei Yisrael, or is He merely informing him of what will happen and how this bread will be incorporated into their routine? Regardless, we can assume that Moshe understood His intent.

Given the unrest in the camp, we would expect Moshe to relay these words to Bnei Yisrael immediately—but he doesn’t. Instead, seven intervening verses provide context for the upcoming miracle. Four declarations are made: one from Moshe and Aharon to Bnei Yisrael, another from Moshe alone, a third from Moshe to Aharon, and a fourth in which Hashem tells Moshe: “I have heard the grumblings of Bnei Yisrael. Speak to them, saying, ‘In the evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall have your fill of bread; and you shall know that I am Hashem, your God’” (16:12). Yet even after this, Moshe does not relay Hashem’s message to the people.

Hashem follows through, bringing quail in the evening and mahn in the morning:

Bnei Yisrael saw and they said one to another, “What is it?” for they did not know what it was. Moshe said to them, “This is the bread that Hashem has given you to eat. This is what Hashem has commanded: gather from it, each according to what he can eat, an omer-measure per head according to the number of your people; each shall take for those in his tent.” (16:15-16)

Despite his grand introduction, “This is what Hashem has commanded,” Moshe does not relay Hashem’s instructions verbatim. Instead, he expands upon them. Hashem had told him, “the people shall go out and gather their daily portion each day,” but Moshe breaks this general command into its component laws: the obligation to gather—“gather from it”; the required measurement—“each according to what he can eat, an omer-measure per head”; and who should gather for whom—not that each individual Israelite should collect their own portion, but rather, that the head of each household should gather, “according to the number of your people, each shall take for those in his tent.” So how do Bnei Yisrael respond?

Bnei Yisrael did so, and they gathered—some more, some less.⁠ They measured it by the omer, and the one who gathered more had no surplus, and the one who gathered less had no shortage;⁠ each person gathered according to what they were able to eat. (16:17-18)

So far, so good! But immediately afterward, Moshe adds another detail to the laws of the mahn, and that’s when things take a turn for the worse:

Moshe said to them, “Let no one leave over from it until morning.” But they did not listen to Moshe; some people left over from it until morning, and it bred worms,⁠ and reeked. And Moshe was furious at them. (16:19-20)

The Torah makes no further comment on this seemingly open defiance. The narrative continues:

They gathered it every morning, each according to what he could eat, and when the sun grew hot, it would melt. On the sixth day, they gathered twice the amount of bread, two omers for each one, and all the princes of the congregation came and told Moshe. (16:21-22)

Why did the princes tell Moshe that the people had gathered twice the amount of mahn? Presumably, because Moshe had just instructed the people to gather only what they needed and not to leave any over—and when they violated this, he was furious! Naturally, the princes were nervous about what seemed to be a repeat offense. But Moshe reassures them by informing them—for the first time explicitly[1] in the text!—about Shabbos:

He said to them, “This is what Hashem said. Tomorrow is a complete day of rest, a holy Shabbos for Hashem. What you bake, bake, and what you cook, cook, and all that is left, set aside for safekeeping until the morning.” They set it aside until morning as Moshe commanded, and it did not reek and there were no worms in it. (16:23-24)

Only now, in response to the princes, does Moshe relay what Hashem told him nineteen (!) verses earlier: “On the sixth day, they will prepare what they bring in, and it will be twice what they gather each day” (16:5). One might think that at this point, Moshe would explain everything the people need to know about the mahn and Shabbos in an orderly presentation—but he doesn’t! Instead:

Moshe said, “Eat it today because today is a Shabbos for Hashem. Today you won't find it in the field. Six days you shall gather it, but on the seventh day, the Shabbos, there will not be any.” (16:25-26)

Note the time skip: verse 24 takes place on Friday—“Tomorrow is a complete day of rest.” But verse 25 takes place on Shabbos—“Today is a Shabbos for Hashem.” Why didn’t Moshe tell them everything in advance, on Friday, if not earlier? Wouldn’t it make sense to tell them how to keep Shabbos before it starts? But it gets worse:

On the seventh day, some of the people went out to gather and did not find it. (16:27)

On its surface, this seems like another act of defiance. We’d expect Moshe to be furious once again. Yet instead of Moshe reacting in anger, Hashem intervenes with a harsh rebuke of Bnei Yisrael with Moshe included:

Hashem said to Moshe, “For how long will you (plural) refuse to keep My commandments and teachings? See that Hashem has given you the Shabbos; therefore, He gives you bread on the sixth day for two days. Let each person stay in his place; let no one go forth from his place on the seventh day.” (16:28-29)

It’s almost as if Hashem was frustrated with Moshe’s staggered presentation of how the mahn should be gathered for Shabbos and decided to clarify the law Himself. And guess what? Hashem’s presentation works:

The people ceased [from work] on the seventh day. (16:30)

The chapter concludes with additional verses about the mahn, each raising its own difficulties. But for now, we have enough to analyze. Rather than tackling all these issues, let’s focus on one major problem.

The Major Problem

To my mind, the greatest difficulty is Hashem’s statement to Moshe: “For how long will you (plural) refuse to keep My commandments and teachings?” Bnei Yisrael certainly deserved this rebuke, having violating Hashem’s commandments and teachings multiple times over the month since the Exodus. But if Hashem’s rebuke were intended only for them, He would have said, “For how long will they refuse to keep My commandments and teachings?” The use of “you (plural)” suggests that Moshe was included in the rebuke.

Ibn Ezra (16:28) takes the easy way out by interpreting the verse in a way that excludes Moshe from Hashem’s criticism:

“Hashem said to Moshe”—as a representative of all Israel; the meaning [of our verse is: “Hashem said to Moshe] that he should say the following to Israel.”

But nearly all other commentators take Hashem’s statement at face value. How are we to understand this?

Approach #1: Moshe Forgot

Rashi on our verse (16:28) is terse, conveying his explanation through a cryptic proverb quoted by Chazal:

For how long will you refuse—a common proverb says: “With the thorn, the cabbage [that grows near it] is also stricken”—through the wicked, the righteous are brought into disgrace. (Bava Kamma 92a).

Taken in isolation, this suggests that Moshe was not at fault but nonetheless suffered consequences because of the wicked members of Bnei Yisrael. However, Rashi’s comments on an earlier verse reveal his full explanation:

“[all the princes of the congregation came] and told Moshe” (16:22). They asked him, “How is this day different from other days?” From here we learn that Moshe had not yet told them the section [of laws] regarding Shabbos, which he had been commanded to convey: “On the sixth day they will prepare etc.” until they asked him this. Then he said to them, “This is what Hashem said”—[meaning] this is what I was commanded to tell you. On account [of this delay] Scripture punished him, as He said, “For how long will you (plural) refuse,” and He did not exclude him from the general body [by saying, “for how long will they refuse etc.”]

According to Rashi, Hashem placed some of the blame on Moshe for failing to inform the princes about the Erev Shabbos mahn procedures until they inquired. The obvious question is: Why didn’t he tell them beforehand?

The Midrash (Shemos Rabbah 25:10) offers an explanation:

Immediately, Moshe became furious at them, and because he got angry, he forgot to tell them to gather two omers per person on Friday. Once [the people] went out to gather on Friday and found a double portion, the princes came and told Moshe, as it is stated, “all the princes of the congregation came and told Moshe.” What did he say to them? “This is what Hashem said.” He did not say, “This is what I said” but “This is what He said,” because he had forgotten. Because of this, it was said, “For how long will you (plural) refuse”—He included Moshe along with them.

This aligns with Chazal’s teaching in Pesachim 66b: “One who becomes angry—if he is wise, his wisdom departs; if he is a prophet, his prophecy leaves him.” The Gemara there cites another instance in which Moshe became angry and forgot a halacha (see Bamidbar 31:14).

Approach #2: Moshe was Unclear

The most common answer as to why Hashem rebuked Moshe is for his failure to present the halachos with adequate clarity. We’ll examine three variants on this explanation.

Bechor Shor (16:28) explains:

“For how long will you refuse”—because Moshe didn’t [explicitly] warn them not to go out, but [instead] said, “[on Shabbos] there will not be any [mahn out on the ground]” (16:26), he was included with them [in Hashem’s rebuke].

According to Bechor Shor, Moshe relied on Bnei Yisrael to infer the prohibition from his statement. To his mind, “on the seventh day, on Shabbos, there will not be any” clearly implied that they shouldn’t go out. Apparently, this wasn’t clear enough, as evidenced by the fact that Hashem concluded His rebuke by stating this prohibition explicitly: “Let each person stay in his place; let no one go forth from his place on the seventh day.”

The Netziv (16:22) offers a similar criticism of Moshe’s presentation of these laws:

It astonishing to suggest that Moshe would forget to relay Hashem’s word to Bnei Yisrael, Heaven forbid! … [Rather,] he certainly transmitted the command verbatim, but he simply did not explain it fully, and they misunderstood “it will be double”—thinking this referred to the preparation for Friday night rather than to the actual gathering process. This was due to Oneg Shabbos (Shabbos enjoyment), as they had already practiced Oneg Shabbos in Egypt, even though they were unaware of any prohibitions or commandments regarding melachah (labor).

In other words, when the people heard Moshe say they would receive a double portion on Erev Shabbos and urged them, “What you bake, bake, and what you cook, cook,” they assumed he was referring to the mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos, which—according to the Netziv—they were already familiar with in Egypt. It didn’t occur to them that melachah was prohibited because they had yet to be introduced to that concept explicitly.

Sforno (16:28) has the harshest critique of Moshe’s mistake:

[Hashem rebuked Moshe and Israel, saying:] The sin in [Shabbos] observance was committed by all of you together, for even though you (Moshe) did not go out with them to gather, you caused them to go out by failing to teach them the laws of Shabbos and their concepts. You only said, “for six days you shall gather it” and not seven. In this, they disobeyed you. You said, “on the seventh day, there will not be any,” and they did not believe your words. But you did not teach them “My commandments”—that gathering the mahn would be considered a melachah, making the gatherer liable under the category of “tolesh” (detaching) and carrying from one domain to another, which is also one of the melachos. [Likewise, you did not instruct them in] “My teachings”—the concept of Shabbos, its rationale, and its reward and punishment, for without a doubt, all those who know this will be careful to rest [properly] on Shabbos.

Sforno provides a compelling justification for Hashem’s double rebuke: Moshe not only failed to convey the halachic details of Shabbos (“My commandments”) but he also neglected to teach its conceptual and philosophical underpinnings (“My teachings”), which would have reinforced its observance.

(Parenthetically, I’ll note that Approaches #1 and #2 vindicate my initial impression upon reading this chapter: I found Moshe’s presentation confusing because it actually was confusing!)

Approach #3: Moshe Should Have Stopped Them

R’ Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann (16:28) theorizes that “Moshe was included here along with the people, perhaps because it was his responsibility to prevent these men from going out.” This echoes the view of his predecessor, R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (16:28):

“[For how long] will you refuse” apparently includes Moshe. It appears that God hinted to him that perhaps he could have done more to keep the people from transgression. The implication is that the warnings and safeguards of the Sages of Israel are themselves an integral part of mitzvah observance.

This is the most conservative explanation, as it does not fault Moshe for an active mistake, but rather for failing to prevent others from sinning. It aligns with Chazal’s teaching in Shabbos 54b, codified by the Rambam in Hilchos Deios 6:7: “Whoever has the possibility to [effectively] protest [a violation of halacha] and fails to do so is considered responsible for that sin, for he had the opportunity to protest.”

Summary and Takeaways

My rebbi, Rabbi Moskowitz zt”l, trained me to look for practical applications in everything I learn, and because I’m an educator, I can’t help but notice that all the faults ascribed to Moshe here are lessons that apply to teachers:

According to Rashi and the Midrash, Moshe became angry, and his anger led him to err in his teaching. While I like to think I’ve matured as a teacher, I’m sure I’ve occasionally allowed my frustration with my students to impair my ability to teach—especially in my rookie years, when I was still struggling with classroom management.
Bechor Shor faults Moshe for expecting Bnei Yisrael to infer the prohibition rather than stating it explicitly—an assumption that led to confusion and transgression. This is an easy mistake to make as a teacher: assuming something is too obvious to require explicit instruction, even though it may not be obvious to the student.
Netziv contends that Moshe’s wording lacked crucial context, causing Bnei Yisrael to mistakenly interpret his instruction as reinforcing an existing practice rather than introducing a new prohibition. This, too, is an easy mistake for teachers: forgetting that students operate within the context of their own limited knowledge and experience.
Sforno sees Moshe’s failure as twofold: his presentation of the halachos was incomplete, and—more critically—he neglected to teach the underlying philosophy that would have reinforced observance. This, perhaps, is one of the greatest shortcomings in Jewish education today: an overemphasis on the “What?” at the expense of the “Why?”
According to R’ Hoffmann and R’ Hirsch, Moshe failed to do everything he could to keep his flock on the right path. This is the recurring question that keeps teachers up at night: Am I doing enough for my students, or should I be doing more?

It’s always a dangerous game to analyze the faults of tzadikim, especially Moshe, Ish ha’Elokim (man of God). Shadal (Bamidbar 20:12) prefaces his analysis of Moshe’s sin—the one that prevented him from entering Eretz Yisrael—with the following observation:

Moshe Rabbeinu sinned one sin, but the commentators have heaped upon him thirteen sins or more, for each one of them invented a new transgression … As a result, all my life I have refrained from investigating this matter in depth, for fear that perhaps, as a result of my investigation, there might come forth from me a new interpretation, and I too would have found myself adding on a new sin upon Moshe Rabbeinu.

Still, Hashem would not have rebuked Moshe openly in the Torah if He didn’t intend for us to learn from it. I’m grateful that the lessons I’ve drawn from this episode can help me become a better teacher. I also find it reassuring that my initial sense of confusion about Moshe’s presentation was well-founded: his wording was indeed unclear, and these commentaries directly address the very questions that sparked this investigation.

[1] Rashi (15:25) maintains that Moshe introduced Shabbos to Bnei Yisrael at the end of the previous chapter, at Marah.

Which answer do you find the most compelling? Are there other answers you’ve learned which aren’t represented here? (I wanted to write about the Ohr ha’Chayim’s answer, but there wasn’t enough room.) Let me know in the comments!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post