Several questions about the manna are set forth [in] Exod. 16; but this [one] is proper to this place — to which, if the year be regarded, [it] is plain from the [things] said hitherto (especially ch. 3, part 3, quaest. 2) what must be said; but if the month and year [be regarded], the text so responds (v. 12): “And the manna ceased [defecit] after they ate of the fruits of the land.” But a twofold cessation of the manna can be conceived. One, that [it] cease to fall from heaven; the other, that [it] cease to be in the nature of things [i.e. to exist / be found]. [There] were, therefore, Rabbis in the Talmud (Sotah, Tosaphta, and in the Mechilta) who say [that], Moses dying, the manna ceased in the prior manner; yet [that] the Israelites so filled their vessels with a heap of it [that], up to this very time, for sustaining them, [there] was abundantly enough; and thus [that] not until [at last, it] ceased also in the latter manner, when [they] began to eat Canaanite bread. [It] will be worth the labor to hear the Jewish Seder Olam (ch. 10). “Three,” [it] says, “excellent shepherds and nurturers stood by the Israelites — namely, Moses, Aaron, and Mary [Miriam]. Three signal gifts [were] granted by their intervention: the Well, the pillar of cloud, and the Manna. The Manna indeed [by] Moses’s [merit]; the pillar of cloud [by] Aaron’s; the Well [by] Mary’s merits. (Whence) Mary being dead, the Well was taken away — recovered, however, afterward, by the merits of Aaron and Moses. Aaron being dead—
(col. 620 — right column; printed “627”)
—the pillar of cloud disappeared, although afterward [it] was, by the merit of that Moses, restored. Moses being dead, these three perished, nor [were they] recovered. For [it] is written, ‘And three shepherds were cut off in one month.’ And even if in one month — and finally in the same [month] — these three departed by no means out of this life, but rather in the same year (for Miriam yielded to the fates on the 10th day of Nisan; Aaron on the first [day] of Ab; Moses on the 7th [day] of Adar) — nevertheless, because on the day on which Moses underwent death these three [things] fell away, so that no more [did they] appear, [the] three shepherds are said [to have been] cut off in one month. [Those] who meanwhile had collected Manna on the 7th day of Adar, used it up to the 16th [day of] Nisan. For [it] is read: ‘And the Manna ceased after they ate of the fruits of the land; nor was [there] any more Manna to the sons of Israel, but [they] ate of the fruits of the present year of the land of Canaan.’ And hence can be expounded what was commemorated in Exodus: ‘And the sons of Israel ate Man [manna] forty years, until they came into the inhabitable land’ — that is, until the day of Moses’s death. For on that day the Manna ceased to fall from heaven. ‘But with this food [they] were fed, until [they] should touch the borders of the land of Canaan’ — that is, until that day on which the Manna was consumed in their own hands.”
But this opinion is very inept. First: because beyond one day — unless the Sabbath followed — the Manna could not be conserved (Exod. 16 v. 20 & 29), except if God had commanded some small [portion] to be set apart, for the demonstration of so great a miracle, and afterward had, [by] a great miracle, guarded [it] from all putrefaction (same ch. v. 33, 34). Secondly: because the Hebrew verb which our [translator] here renders “defecit [ceased]” signifies not the latter cessation — by which something ceases to be at all — but rather that by which [it] “ceases to be made,” as, against those [Rabbis], Ralbag here notes. For [it] is שבת [shabath], from which [comes] “Sabbath.” Thirdly: [it] seems [that] the author of this book studiously wished to explain that which in Exodus ch. 16 v. 35 was written. For when there [Moses] had first said [that] the Manna was wont to rain on each of the days, nor could [it] be conserved beyond a day — by this very [fact], that [it] is straightway added [that] the Israelites ate [it] “until the borders of the land of Canaan,” the cause is sufficiently shown by the effect (or the latter by the prior — by the eating, I say, [and] that celestial rain). Fourthly: if, [with] Moses dying, this [manna] had had [its] end, how [is it that] nowhere, while his death and praises are recounted in Scripture, is any mention made [of it]? For if not in Deuteronomy, certainly in the beginning of this book, and elsewhere more often, if not explained, at least something could have been insinuated — since [it] would be far greater [that] that falling of the manna [ceased], than [that] the eating of the same should come to rest. [It] must be established, therefore — which both the Christians, and all the other Rabbis, rightly understand from that text — [that] now, first of all, both [things] ceased at once: [both] the falling, I say, and the eating of the manna. But since the Greek text says μετὰ τὸ βεβρωκέναι [meta to bebrōkenai, “after they had eaten”], and ours “to have ceased after they ate the fruits of this land” — how long after they ate? The very manner of speaking indicates [that], as soon as [they] tasted those other, common foods, [the] end [was] made by God of that other angelic [food]. Yet expressly in the Hebrew the time is noted thus: “And the manna ceased on the morrow, when they themselves ate of the fruits of this land.” But that “morrow” — of what day [is it] the morrow? [There are] two opinions. The prior [is] of Masius: [that it] is the postridian [morrow] of the Passover itself. “Since about the same day,” [he] says, “this verse speaks, of which [also] the preceding—”
(col. 621 — left column; printed “628”)
—the preceding [verse] — whether we establish [it] to have been the 15th or the 16th, to me [there] is no doubt.” And the same [is] Abulensis’s opinion, in ch. 1 of this book (quaest. 68), and ch. 2 (quaest. 58 & 61), where [he] constantly asserts [that] on the 15th day of the first month the manna ceased — although, by inquiring through disjunction, [he] says (quaest. 58): “on the 15th, or 13th” — where nevertheless 15 must be substituted for 13, just as also (q. 57) [15 for] 18. The latter [opinion] is of Vatablus, and of those Rabbis who — rightly — teach [that] the manna-rain perished not together with Moses. These assert [it to be] the postridian [morrow] of the day on which the sheaf of first-fruits [was] offered; so that on the 17th day of the month the cessation of the manna would have been. And to these [I have] sub-indicated [that] I assent (question 31 above). For the manna ceased not before [they] began to eat of that land’s grain. But [they] did not begin before its first ears [were] given to God; nor [were they] given before the accustomed hour of the daily sacrifice — that is, before the day [was] a little more grown. But the manna fell by night, and was gathered at sunrise, as [was] expounded (quaest. 3, on Exod. 16). Therefore on the 16th day [it] had still descended, and manna had been gathered. But after those first-fruits [were] tasted, [and the grain] thenceforth eaten from the crop, thus [it was] not except on the morrow of this 16th [day that] the end of the manna could be. And [it] is confirmed, first: because in the Hebrew [it] is not said, as before, “on the morrow of the Passover,” but “on the morrow” [without qualification], which without doubt is to be understood in respect of that day of which the speech had been immediately [before], as always elsewhere. But [the speech] had been of the postridian of the Passover. Therefore on the morrow of this postridian the manna ceased. Secondly. The same [thing] too is sufficiently expressed in the same Hebrew text, when [it] is said, “on the morrow, in [when] they themselves eating” — or truly (because thus [it] is less conveniently discerned [as] a past [tense], in which manner the Hebrews lack the infinitive), “in their eating,” that is (as our [translator], and the 70 cited above, signified), “after they had eaten.” And here [it] is understood, first, how v. 35 of ch. 16 of Exodus is to be understood: “The sons of Israel ate Man 40 years, until they came into the inhabitable land — [with] this food [they] were nourished, until [they] should touch the borders of the land of Canaan.” Where, in the Hebrew, for “until” and “up to,” [there] is the one particle had [ʿad], thus: “until their coming into the inhabited land they ate man; up to their coming to the extremity of the land of Canaan” — that is, for the same cause which, in the Hebrew infinitives, I said a little before: “until they should have come” — not so that, at the very first moment, or the day when [they] touched that [land] and its extremity, [they] would straightway at once cease to eat manna, but [rather] that [they] should then cease, when first — through the abundance of the land’s crops, and by God’s laws and nod — [it] would be lawful. [It] is understood, secondly, how [it] is to be taken, that which S. Augustine says (quaest. 63 on Exodus), and Origen (homily 1 on Joshua): “the food of manna [was] taken away from the Israelites, as soon as [they] crossed the Jordan.” For a brief time is signified, of which kind one [such] is a week — especially if [it] be compared to the 40 years in which they used that nourishment: a certain comparison is instituted.