In Psalms we read: “And he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down upon them manna to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven. Man ate of the bread of the angels; he sent them food in abundance” (Psalms 78:23-25). From these verses, the sages deduced: “The skies is where the millstones stand and grind manna for the righteous, for it is said: And he commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven; and he rained down upon them manna to eat” (Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 12b). And we also find in Psalms: “They asked, and he brought quails, and gave them bread from heaven in abundance” (105:40). In the Talmudic Tractate Yoma (75a) the sages disagree as to the miraculous taste of manna: “R. Ami and R. Asi, one said: They found in the manna the taste of every kind of food, but not the taste of these five [“the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic” (Numbers 11:5) that they ate in Egypt]. The other said: Of all kinds of food they felt both taste and substance, but of these the taste was without substance.”

Manna – the grain of heaven, the bread of angels, which had the taste of every kind of food – was not the favorite food of the Israelites: “Now our gullets are shriveled. There is nothing at all! Nothing but this manna to look to!” (Numbers 11:6), and one gets the impression that they were ingrates. Yet in parashat Ekev we are told: “And He afflicted you and made you hunger and fed you the manna, which you did not know nor did your fathers know, in order to make you know that not on bread alone does the human live but on every utterance of the Lord’s mouth does the human live” (Deut. 8:3). This verse gives the impression that the manna may not have been quite so wonderful. On the contrary, its purpose was to test the Israelites.

And so the Talmud tells us: “R. Ami and R. Asi, one said: You cannot compare one who has bread in his basket with one who has no bread in his basket. The other said: You cannot compare one who sees what he eats with one who does not see what he is eating” (Yoma 74b). Rashi explains: “One who has no bread in his basket – he eats today and worries about tomorrow. Does not see what he is eating – eating manna, one tastes every flavor but sees only manna”. In other words, the sages also understood the verse as saying that the Israelites suffered from eating manna. According to one view, the source of that suffering was that the manna would fall every day, but it could not be saved up or kept over night (Exodus 16:19-20), so the liberated slaves could not be certain that they would have food on the following day. According to the other view, they suffered because although the manna was miraculous and comprised every flavor, no matter what its flavor, it always looked like manna.

1. What did R. Ami and R. Asi wish to convey in saying that the manna lacked the taste of the five items, or that it comprised those tastes but lacked their substance? What is the textual basis for saying “but sees only manna”?

2. As slaves, the Israelites were deprived of hope. This would appear to be the idea behind the opinion that they suffered from not being able to keep manna over night. Why was it important that manna could not be saved up or stored? Why did God use this to test Israel? What is the difference between the value lesson conveyed by the approach “he eats today and worries about tomorrow” and the view “but sees only manna”? Is the view “but sees only manna” similar to the view “the taste was without substance”?

3. In context, does the phrase “not on bread alone does the human live” mean that a person needs more, or does it mean that one can be suffice with less?