Problematic Terminology of the Manna Pericope (Exod 16:14-15) in the Light of Medieval Jewish Commentators and Biblical Hebrew Philology

In this article, I shall discuss the adjective ספסוחמ and the word ןמ in the phrase ןמ אוה , which both appear in the manna pericope in Exod 16:1415. I will present the different interpretations suggested by medieval Jewish commentators as well as modern scholars and dictionaries, and I shall attempt to show which one of the medieval interpretations is the most appropriate in the light of modern biblical philology. Medieval Jewish commentators suggested four different interpretations of the word ספסוחמ, two of which, "rounded" and "uncovered", have also been supported by the findings of modern biblical philology. Two medieval commentators rightly interpreted the word ןמ in the phrase ןמ אוה as an interrogative pronoun. This is also the commonly accepted interpretation in contemporary modern biblical philology.


INTRODUCTION
When modern scholars of the Bible and biblical philology interpret unique or difficult words or phrases, they often rely exclusively on modern biblical exegesis and lexicology, and do not take into consideration the interpretations offered by medieval exegetes, grammarians and lexicographers. 1 In not a few cases, the explanation commonly accepted in modern biblical philology has * Submitted: 04/11/2019; peer-reviewed: 10/03/2020; accepted: 10/03/2020. Haim Deihi, "Problematic Terminology of the Manna Pericope (Exod 16:14-15) in the Light of Medieval Jewish Commentators and Biblical Hebrew Philology", Old Testament Essays 33 no. 2 (2020): 189 -206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2020/ v33n2a3. already been suggested hundreds of years ago by medieval exegetes and grammarians. True, these scholars did not have at their disposal modern philological tools, such as comparative Semitic linguistics and archaeological findings, often used by modern scholars. They also had no knowledge about the various Semitic and non-Semitic languages on which many modern scholars rely, such as Akkadian, Ugaritic, Canaanite, Aramaic, Arabic, and Egyptian. However, despite these "disadvantages", sometimes medieval scholars nevertheless arrived at the true or most probable explanation of a difficult word, by force of their developed linguistic sense and outstanding ability to understand the biblical text. 2 For these reasons, it is befitting for any modern philological research, alongside the use of modern linguistic tools, to make systematic and critical use of medieval exegetical and grammatical works. In many cases, it will become apparent that the true explanation of those words or expressions is already found there. In the first part of the present study, I will examine how the medieval exegetes and grammarians explained the unique adjective ‫מחוספס‬ and the phrase ‫מן‬ -‫הוא‬ , which also appears only in this biblical story. In the second part, I will present the modern exegesis of the word ‫מחוספס‬ and the phrase ‫מן‬ -‫הוא‬ , and finally, I will show which of the medieval explanations is consistent with modern exegesis. As stated, the purpose of the study is two-fold: to provide the medieval exegetes and grammarians with a platform and to voice their opinions, and to demonstrate the great benefit modern philology may derive from the findings of medieval scholars.

B THE ADJECTIVE ‫מחוספס‬
The term ‫ן‬ ‫,מָ‬ the manna that the people of Israel ate in the desert, occurs fourteen times in the Bible: five times in Exodus 16, three times in Numbers 11, twice in Deuteronomy 8, twice in Joshua 5, once in Ps 78:24, and once in Neh 9:20.
In the book of Exodus 16:14, manna is described by two adjectives: ‫דק‬ "fine" (as frost) and ‫:מחוספס‬ On the contribution of the medieval exegetes and grammarians to biblical philology and the need to consult their writings, see for example Cohen,"Medieval Exegesis," 1,[4][5][6][8][9][10][11]idem "When the layer of dew had evaporated, behold, on the surface of the wilderness lay a fine and ‫ָס‬ ‫פ‬ ‫ֻסְּ‬ ‫ח‬ ‫מְּ‬ substance, as fine as frost on the ground".
Likewise, in the same chapter, v. 31, the manna is described as ‫לבן‬ ‫גד‬ ‫כזרע‬ "white like coriander seed" and its taste is said to resemble the taste of ‫צפחית‬ ‫,בדבש‬ apparently meaning "wafers in honey". 3 The adjective ‫מחוספס‬ appears only once in Biblical Hebrew, in this pericope. In Num 11:8, the manna is again likened to coriander seed and also to ‫.בדולח‬ 4 Its taste is likened there to the ‫לשד‬ ‫השמן‬ "rich cream". 5 Relying on these attributes of the manna, we shall attempt, at the end of the discussion of this word, to point out the most reasonable interpretations of the word ‫.מחוספס‬ ("Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The people would go about and gather it and grind it between millstones, or pound it in a mortar, and boil it in a pot, and make cakes of it. It tasted like rich cream" ).
In Modern Hebrew, the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ is usually explained as meaning "not smooth, rough, bumpy" or "coarse, unrefined, unpolished". 6 The Talmud 7 interpreted the noun homiletically: "What is the meaning of the word ‫?מחספס‬ Resh Lakish said: It is something that melts on the wrist of the hand. 8 Johanan said: [It means] something which is absorbed by the two hundred and forty-eight limbs". 9 We shall now turn to the medieval Jewish commentators in order to observe how they interpreted this adjective. As we shall see below, many explanations have been offered for the adjective ‫,מחוספס‬ both in the middle ages and in modern times, which in fact shows that the exegetes found this word difficult to understand. In my opinion, the main reason for this difficulty lies in the fact that it appears only once in the entire Bible, as an adjective of the heavenly food called ‫מן‬ ("manna"), the nature, shape and appearance of which are entirely unknown. This claim is reinforced by the fact that the Septuagint does not translate the word. Instead of translating it, the Septuagint brings the word ‫,גד‬ which is used to describe the manna in Exod 16:31 and Num 11:7. 10

Medieval Exegesis
Among medieval Jewish commentators we find four different interpretations:

1a First Interpretation: "Roundish"
This is the interpretation suggested by Rav Sa'adya Gaon. He translates the word ‫מחוספס‬ into the Arabic word ‫ﻣﺪﺣﺮﺝ‬ (mudaḥraj), which means "rounded 6 Thus, for example, the dictionaries of Even-Shoshan (Avraham Even-Shoshan, Hāmmilôn Hāḥādāš (The New Dictionary) (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1980) and Rāb-Millîm (Yaakov Choueka, Rab-Millîm [Melingo Ltd, 2000-2010, https://www.ravm ilim.co.il/naerr.asp.), entry ‫.מחספס‬ 7 B. Yoma 75b. 8 In Hebrew: ‫היד‬ ‫פיסת‬ ‫על‬ ‫,נימח‬ Resh Lakish clearly interpreted ‫מחוספס‬ as an acronym (see Rashi ad loc.). 9 The numerical value of the word ‫מחוספס‬ is 248, which is the number of limbs in the human body. 10 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς ἐρήμου λεπτὸν ὡσεὶ κόριον λευκόν, ὡσεὶ πάγος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆ (="and behold, on the face of the wilderness [was] a thin thing like coriander, white as frost upon the earth"). https://biblehub.com/interlinear/apostolic/exodus/16.htm. It should be noted that some of the ancient translations, such as the Peshitta and Onkelos, did translate this word as they understood it on the basis of its context and etymology. In the Peshitta, the word ‫מחוספס‬ is translated into the word ‫מקלף‬ which means "peeled". Also, Onkelos uses this word (see below). The Peshitta adds another description to the ‫מן‬ that does not appear in the Masoretic Text. Instead of the word ‫דק‬ ("thin") which according to the Masoretic text is repeated twice in the verse, the Peshitta translates the second appearance of the word ‫מן‬ into the word ‫,קרים‬ which means "covered". The two translations of the Peshitta -"peeled" (uncovered) and "covered"seem to contradict each other. like a small ball"/"roundish". 11 This is also the opinion of R. Abraham ibn Ezra, who rejects the interpretation "uncovered" (see below). He claims that there are no cases in which only the second root letter is doubled. R. Yonah ibn Janāḥ interprets the noun ‫מחוספס‬ in a similar manner, as meaning "rolled up", "round". 12 In Sefaer Hahaśśāgā he claims that there exist original quadrilateral roots, as for example the adjective ‫.מחוספס‬ 13 Ibn Janāḥ also discusses the root of this word in three different places in Sefaer Hāriqmā. 14 Radaq, in his dictionary, mentions the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ as a quadrilateral root ‫,)חספס(‬ and explains it in the same manner: "rolled up", "round". 15 Radaq also mentions the translation of Onqelos, who derives the adjective from the root ‫חש"ף‬ "to uncover". 16 He notes that the letters ‫ש/ס‬ often interchange. 20 ‫הפועל‬ ‫ועי"ן‬ ‫בסמ"ך,‬ ‫השי"ן‬ ‫בחלוף‬ ‫ה'",‬ ‫"חשף‬ ‫הלבן";‬ ‫"מחשף‬ ‫מן‬ ‫אונקלוס,‬ ‫דעת‬ ‫על‬ -‫מחספס"‬ ‫דק‬ ‫"כפולה‬ ‫מחספס"(‬ ‫דק‬according to Onkelos, it is derived from [the same root as] ‫מחשף‬ ‫הלבן‬ ['the white of the rods']; ‫ה'‬ ‫חשף‬ ['God has exposed'], the sin having interchanged with the [homophonous] sāmaek, and the second radical (the sāmaek of ‫)חסף‬ is doubled dictionary of Menahem b. Saruq. 21 He derives the adjective from the root ‫חס"ף‬ (= ‫.)חש"ף‬ 22 1c Third Interpretation: "Wrapped" This is the second interpretation suggested by Rashi. He derives the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ from the root ‫חפ‬ ‫"ס‬ (to wrap). The manna was placed between the two layers of dew like in a wrapping or a package. 23 1d Fourth Interpretation: "Scattered" Rashbam suggests this interpretation on the basis of the context. The manna was scattered on the earth like frost. 24

Modern Scholarship
We shall now turn to the findings of modern scholarship, in order to see which, if any, of the medieval interpretations is the most suitable or close to these findings.

22
This opinion is also found among modern translators. For example, the YLT (Young's Literal Translation) translates the words ‫מחספס‬ ‫דק‬ -"a thin, bare thing" (online: https://biblehub.com/exodus/16-14.htm). 23 In his commentary on Exod 16:14 (Mikraot Gedolot Ha-Keter, Exodus, 1:136) Rashi wrote: ‫"מחוספס"‬ ‫לומר:‬ ‫ויש‬ -‫הטל,‬ ‫משכבת‬ ‫כשנתגלה‬ ‫משנה;‬ ‫בלשון‬ ‫א,‬ ‫מָ‬ ‫קָ‬ ‫לֹוסְּ‬ ‫ודְּ‬ ‫"חפיסה"‬ ‫לשון‬ ‫הטל‬ ‫בות‬ ‫כְּ‬ ‫שִּ‬ ‫שתי‬ ‫בין‬ ‫בתוכו,‬ ‫מחוספס‬ ‫דק‬ ‫דבר‬ ‫שהיה‬ ‫ראו‬ ("But the more probable explanation is that ‫מחספס‬ is related to the term ‫חפיסה‬ in the phrase 'a valise and a satchel', which is found in the language of the Mishna; when part of the layer of dew had been uncovered, they saw that there was something thin contained within it, between the two layers of dew"). This explanation is already found in the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 75b). On the two explanations offered by Rashi and his preference towards the second one, see: Gamliel, "Rashi," 443. parallels the biblical root ‫,חש"ף‬ means "to be revealed". 26 The root ‫חס"ף‬ (with sāmaek) does not exist in Biblical Hebrew. In Aramaic it means "clay, potsherd". In Biblical Hebrew the root ‫חש"ף‬ (with sin) means "to uncover/expose". 27 However, it should be noted that the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ occurs in a book from First Temple times, while the interchanging of the letters ‫ש/ס‬ does not characterize Classical Biblical Hebrew of the First Temple times, only the Late Biblical Hebrew of the Second Temple times. 28 BDB explains the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ as the result of the doubling of the root ‫.חס"ף‬ The adjective ‫מחוספס‬ is a shortened form of the noun ‫.מחספסף‬ 29 The dictionary explains the adjective to mean "scale-like" or "scaled off". Etymologically, it compares the adjective to the Arabic verb ‫خشف‬ (chashafa), which means "to be scabby", "to scratch oneself". The dictionary notes that in general the Arabic consonant ‫ش‬ (sh) does not turn into ‫ס‬ (s) in Hebrew. It also points out the Aramaic word ‫,חספינתא‬ which means "scale (of fish), scurf". 30 Ben-Yehuda 31 finds the aforementioned suggestions unsound both etymologically 32 and semantically. 33 He suggests explaining the adjective as meaning "formed like more or less round grains". He notes that the first one to 26 Ugaritic indeed contains the verb "taḥspn" (taḥsupuna), which mostly carries the meaning "to draw water, drain liquid", but not the general meaning "to be uncovered, , there is a semantic connection between the roots ‫חש"ף//ער"ה‬they can mean both "to uncover//expose" and "to pour from one vessel to another". In Ugaritic, there is an additional root ‫ח2ש"ף‬ [ḫsp], which means "to dry up" (it implies a sickly state in plants), a meaning which does not fit our context (Olmo Lete and Sanmartin, Dictionary, 1:410). 27 Also, Gesenius followed a similar path. He derived the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ from the root ‫,חש"ף/חס"ף‬ which means "uncovered" (alongside another suggestion: "like scales"  (Berlin: Schöneberg, 1909-1959, 3:1676-1677 (in Hebrew). 32 For example, he rejects the claim that the word cannot possibly be derived from the quadrilateral root ‫,חספ"ס‬ or from the root ‫.חס"ף‬ interpret in this manner was Rav Sa'adya Gaon (see above). Ben-Yehuda notes that an etymological parallel exists in Arabic haysafuj ( ‫ﺣيسفوﺝ‬ ) . This word refers to a kind of seed that has the form of small balls. 34 Qaddari, in his dictionary, explains the adjective as carrying the modern day meaning of "not smooth", "a thing with protrusions and cracks in it". He notes that the noun ‫מחוספס‬ is a shortened form of ‫.מחספסף‬ He also refers to the Jewish Aramaic parallel ‫,חספינתא‬ which means "scale". 35 The dictionary HALOT derives the adjective from the root ‫.חספ"ס‬ 36 It explains this adjective to mean "crackling", comparing it to the Arabic verb hasafa ( ‫,)خسف‬ which means "to crackle".
Tal 37 suggests that ‫מחוספס‬ may mean "white" or "shining", on the basis of the Tosefta, which states that before the manna was cursed it would fall down on stubble and straw and turn white. 38 According to Tal, a similar idea lies at the basis of the translation of Onqelos ‫מקלף‬ "peeled, uncovered". 39 When the peel is removed, the matter that is exposed is shiny or white. In the margins of the Targum Neofiti, ‫מחוספס‬ is translated into the word ‫חיור‬ "white". In the text itself we find the rendering: ‫מפספס‬ "striped". 40 Another way of interpreting ‫מפספס‬ is "smashed", like the meaning of the root ‫פספ"ס‬ in Talmudic literature, which resembles the meaning of ‫פר"ך‬ -"to squeeze", "to squash". 41 34 With regard to the interchanging of the Arabic letter ‫ﺝ‬ (jim) with the Hebrew ‫(ס‬sāmaek), Ben-Yehuda, relying on Brockelmann (Carl Brockelmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprache, vol. 1 [Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1961] §45g), notes that this interchanging has certain precedents. 35 Qaddari, Dictionary, 329. A similar version is found in the Arabic translation of the Samarians, where the word 42 ‫מפרוך‬ has the same meaning. In two other manuscripts of the Arabic translation 43 we find the word ‫מפרום‬ in the same meaning. 44 In the adaptation of the Arabic translation 45 is found the Arabic word, ‫ﻣﺑﺻﺑﺹ‬ mubaṣbaṣ, which means "to watch" and "to look out", although its root (bṣṣ) means "glow" and "radiance". 46 In the Samaritan Aramaic translation we find the verb ‫,מנצנץ‬ which may mean both "blossoming" and "shining". 47 To sum up: it seems difficult to determine the exact meaning of the adjective ‫.מחוספס‬ However, what we can say is that some of the interpretations suggested by modern biblical philology had already been suggested by medieval Jewish commentators. For example, the explanation "rounded", suggested by Rav Sa'adya Gaon, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Janāḥ, and Radaq, was endorsed by Ben- Yehuda. 48 The interpretation suggested by Rashi (his first explanation), Menahem, and Nachmanides, which is based on Onqelos "peeled, uncovered" ‫,)מקלף(‬ is supported by one of the interpretations suggested by Gesenius, and perhaps also by Cassuto. One of the reasons for the difficulty in deciding between the different suggestions is that the identity of the manna remains unclear. 49 Likewise,42 According to MS Barberini Or I. 43 MSs Nablus 4 and 6. On the different versions of the Arabic translations of the Samarians, see Haseeb Shehadeh, The Arabic Translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences andHumanities, 1989-2002), 1:332. 44 Tal notes that in the Samaritan script the consonants ‫מ‬ and ‫כ‬ frequently interchange. 45 This adaptation was carried out by Abu-Said in the 13 th century. On the adaptation of the Arabic translation, see Shehadeh,Translation,1:333;Tal,"Lexicographic Studies",326. 46 On this root in Arabic, see Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1955-1956 [Tal,Dictionary,2:544]). Tal notes that there exists a semantic connection between the meanings "growth" and "light", cf. the root ‫צי"ץ/צו"ץ‬ -"blossom" and "shine" (BDB,847;Qaddari,Dictionary,909). The Samaritan translates ‫ככפור‬ with the word ‫כחול‬ ("like sand"). Tal surmises that the translator might have understood this noun like Rav Sa'adya Gaon (it is well known that the Samarians made use of Sa'adya's translation)round like the sand of the seashore. 48 This is also the way taken by the following modern translations of the Bible: Nkjv; Kjb; Nheb; Akjv; Asv; Dbt; Erv; Wbt; Web. They translate the word ‫מחוספס‬ into the words "round" or "granular. For the modern translations of the Bible, see online: https://biblehub.com/exodus/16-14.htm. 49 Attempts have been made to identify it, but a convincing solution has yet to be found. One of the attempts was made by the scholars Bodenheimer, Kaiser, and Ubach. according to Held's method of Comparative Semitic Philology, etymological parallels do not in themselves constitute sufficient evidence. 50 It is necessary to examine whether the Arabic and Aramaic parallels that have been suggested also serve in the context of food, and not only in the context of animals and skin afflictions (the word which means "scales").
Among the different solutions suggested, the one which equals the meaning of ‫מחוספס‬ in Modern Hebrew -"not smooth", "coarse"as already suggested by some of the modern dictionaries (BDB, HALOT, Kaddari) seems to be the least suitable. 51 This becomes clear in the light of the manna's remaining They tried to identify the manna with a food found in the Sinai Peninsula created from the secretion of insects (=coccoidea) covering the trees, especially the tree named Tamarix Mannifera or Tamarix Gallica. The insects discharge small drops the size of a pinhead or pea, which look like water drops and glitter in the sun like dew (this secretion dripping from the tree is called "resin"). The drops dry and turn into whitish-orangebrown coloured sticky crystals. These drops serve as sustenance for various types of flying insects, particularly flies, which lay their eggs on them, which subsequently turn into maggots. The drops are also eaten by desert dwellers, who, due to their sweet, honey-like taste, consider them to be a delicacy. The Arabs call the food man or man min sama (man from Heaven; also in the Bible it is called "grain of Heaven" [Ps 78:24] and "bread of Heaven" [Ps 105:40]). This is the reason why the biblical story likens the appearance of the manna to crystal (see above n. 4), and notes that its taste resembles that of wafers made with honey. Others identify the manna with a certain desert bush. This bush breaks off and is carried away by the wind, and its branches have a sweet taste. On the attempts to identify the manna, see for example Cassuto,Commentary,135;Martin Noth,Exodus This is the direction taken by many of the English translations: Niv; Nlt; Esv; Bsb; Nasb; Ctb; Cev; Gnt; Hcsb; Isv; Nb; Gwj; Jps; Nas (online: https://biblehub .com/exodus/16-14.htm). They translated the word ‫מחוספס‬ into the word "flaky", which may be understood to mean thin and flat as a flake, or alternatively, rough as scales, which is the modern meaning of this adjective. If the modern translations intended to convey the first possibility, thin and flat, then they were probably relying on the additional descriptions of the ‫;מן‬ but if their intention was to convey the meaning scales/rough, like the modern meaning of the word -"scaly"then they seem to have been influenced by the modern biblical dictionaries mentioned above. It is also possible that they deliberately chose to translate into "flaky" and not "scaly" in order to keep characteristics: ‫דק‬ "well ground"; 52 ‫ככפור‬ "like frost"; 53 ‫לבן‬ ‫גד‬ ‫כזרע‬ "white like coriander seed"; 54 ‫הבדולח‬ ‫כעין‬ ‫עינו‬ "its appearance was like that of bdellium". 55 Loewenstamm notes that the resemblance to ‫,בדולח‬ when explained as aromatic resin, refers both to the sticky nature and to the light brown-yellow colour of the two materials, which do not possess characteristics such as "the opposite of smooth" or "coarse". 56 It may thus be inferred that the characteristics of ‫מחוספס‬ must resemble one of the latter descriptions. "When the Israelites saw it, they said to one another: ‫הּוא‬ ‫ן‬ ‫מָ‬for they did not know what it was. And Moses said to them: 'This is the bread that God has given you to eat'".

‫מן‬ -‫הוא‬
Likewise, only in this verse does the word ‫מן‬ appear as an interrogative word with the meaning "what".
Among medieval Jewish commentators we find four different interpretations:

1a
First Interpretation: "Sustenance" Rav Sa'adya Gaon explains ‫מן‬ as meaning "sustenance", paralleling the Arabic word ‫ﻣان‬ (mān) and ‫ﻣونة‬ (mûna), which means "sustenance". 57 their translation open to both possibilitiesthe form of the ‫מן‬ was thin and flat, and its texture was the opposite of smooth 52 The opposite of thick (Qaddari,Dictionary,193). 53 Water which has frozen into a thin layer of ice or snow (Qaddari,Dictionary,527). 54 According to Qaddari, "the manna is likened to coriander seed due to the ball-like form of its fruits" (Qaddari,Dictionary,141). ‫גד‬ is mentioned twice in Scripture, in both cases it describes the manna. See above, n.3. 55 ‫בדולח‬ is mentioned twice in Scripture: Gen 2:12; Num 11:7. See above, n.4. 56 Loewenstamm,"Manna",[9][10] Haʼegron, Entry II ‫מן‬ (Nĕḥemya Allony, Haʼegron, Kitāb ʼuṣūl Al-Shi῾r Al-῾ibr῾ānī)  Rashi connects the word ‫מן‬ to Dan 1:5: ‫המלך‬ ‫להם‬ ‫,וימן‬ which he apparently understands to mean "and the king prepared for them", since he explains ‫מן‬ to mean ‫מזון‬ ‫הכנת‬ -"preparation of food". 58 Before him, Menahem seems to have explained the word in a similar way, explaining it to mean ‫ערך‬ -"arrangement" or "preparation". 59 According to this explanation, the manna fell down from the sky already fit to be eaten.
Ibn Ezra rejects the possibility of explaining ‫מן‬ as the Hebrew parallel of the Arabic word meaning "what". He claims that the Arabic word means "who" and is used only in connection with human beings. Like Rashi, he derives the word from the root ‫,מנ"י‬ but explains it to mean ‫זימון‬ -"summoning" or "providing". 60 According to this understanding, the word ‫מן‬ does not come to emphasize that the manna fell down fit to be eaten (although Ibn Ezra most probably agreed to this), but the sheer fact that it was provided by Heaven.

1c Third Interpretation: "what"
Rashbam explains ‫מן‬ as meaning "what". He claims that this is an Egyptian word, a language which the people of Israel knew. 61 Rashbam refers to additional Kjv (English) and the Dutch State Translationunderstand ‫מן‬ as a noun functioning as predicate, and the pronoun ‫הוא‬ as the syntactic subject of the sentence. From the point of view of content and syntax, this possibility is less probable. In a nominal clause, the subject (here, the pronoun ‫)הוא‬ usually precedes the predicate, while in the verse under discussion an exceptional word order seems to have been employed, the predicate preceding the subject. If, indeed, ‫מן‬ is a noun functioning as predicate, the word order should have been: ‫מן‬ ‫הוא‬ and not ‫הוא‬ ‫מן‬ (on the nominal clause and its characteristic word order, see for example: Joüon and Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 531-538, §154ea-h). 58 In his commentary on Exod 16:15 Rashi wrote: ‫להם‬ ‫"וימן‬ ‫כמו‬ ‫הוא,‬ ‫מזון‬ ‫הכנת‬ -‫הוא"‬ ‫"מן‬ ‫הוא"‬ ‫מה‬ ‫ידעו‬ ‫לא‬ ‫"כי‬ ‫המלך".‬ -‫בשמו‬ ‫שיקראוהו‬ ‫הוא"(‬ ‫מן‬ -[this phrase means:] it is preparation of nourishment, like in the phrase 'and the king prepared portions for them' (Dan 1:5). 'For they did know what it was'so that they could call it by its proper name"). It should be noted that the use of the root ‫מנ"י‬ in the pi‛el conjugation with the meaning of "to allot, prepare food", "to appoint, assign, designate" is found mainly in books from the Second Temple period (Daniel, Chronicles. It occurs also in the book of Jonah and in late poetic texts). On this root, see for example Atalya Brenner, "The language of the book of Jonah as a measure for determining the time of its composition", Beit Mikra 24  (Esth 3:7), and the phrase ‫שהדותא‬ ‫,יגר‬ appearing alongside the phrase ‫גל-עד‬ (Gen 31:46). Rashbam notes that also Dunash 62 explained the word to mean "what", but in his opinion it is the Aramaic interrogative word ‫,מן‬ which usually means "who" but in this particular case it means "what". 63

1d
Fourth Interpretation: "Kind" Ibn Janāḥ, in his dictionary, suggests three different interpretations of the word ‫.מן‬ 64 1. ‫מין‬ "species", "kind". He adds that although ‫מין‬ contains the letter ‫,י‬ which is not found in ‫,מן‬ there exist additional examples of this kind of change. 65 2. "To count", "to allot". 3. The Aramaic interrogative word ‫,מן‬ usually means "who", but in this case it carries the meaning "what". Ibn Janāḥ notes that all the interpretations are valid, but he personally prefers the first one: "kind". The people of Israel said about the manna, the unknown food, that it was a kind of food which they did not know. By preferring the first interpretation, Ibn Janāḥ ignores the immediate context.

Modern Scholarship
Ben-Yehuda explains the word ‫מן‬ to mean "what", noting that this use is unique to the verse in Exodus. 66 According to the currently accepted opinion, ‫מן‬ is an interrogative particle meaning "what". This interrogative particle, which is a regular Akk term mannu ‫ה‬ ‫לשון‬ ‫ובאותו‬ ‫שלפ‬ ‫להודיענו‬ ‫שאמרו,‬ ‫לשון‬ ‫באותו‬ ‫משה‬ ‫כתבו‬ ‫'מה',‬ ‫כמו‬ ‫שהוא‬ ‫רגילין‬ ‫יו‬ ... ‫"ויקראו‬ ‫יכך‬ ‫הוא‬ ‫מן‬ ‫ואומרים‬ ‫תמהים‬ ‫שהיו‬ ‫על‬ ‫מן",‬ ‫שמו‬ ‫את‬ ‫ישראל‬ -‫הוא'".‬ ‫'מה‬ ‫כמו‬ ("'They said one to another man hu' [which means 'what is it?]because they did not know what it was; also Dunash explained [the phrase] in this way, relying on the continuation of the verse: 'for they did not know what it was'. In my opinion, however, man hu is the [Aramaic] translation of 'who'; but since this phrase is written in the Egyptian language, and in that language the common meaning of man is 'what', Moses wrote the phrase in the precise language that people said it, in order to inform us that they were wondering [what is was], and they said man huwhat is it?..." [the translation relies partly on Lockshin, Rashbam, 173-174]). Scholars have noted that Rashbam, obviously, did not know ancient Egyptian, and that his interpretation is based purely on conjecture (Lockshin, Rashbam, 174). 62 the context and additional languages (Aramaic and hypothetical ancient Egyptian).

D CONCLUSION
The present study has presented the interpretations of the adjective ‫מחוספס‬ and the interrogative ‫מן‬ in the phrase ‫הוא‬ ‫מן‬ of both medieval exegetes and grammarians as well as of modern Bible scholars. The purpose of the study was to demonstrate that some of the interpretations of modern scholars, which are based on the novel tools of research of biblical philology (Semitic languages, archaeological findings, etc.), had already been put forth hundreds of years before by medieval exegetes and grammarians. With regard to the adjective ‫,מחוספס‬ occurring only once in the Bible, medieval exegetes and grammarians have offered four different explanations: roundish (Rav Sa'adya Gaon, Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra, Radaq); uncovered (Menachem, Rashi [first explanation, relying on Onkelos] Nachmanides); wrapped (Rashi, second explanation, which he himself prefers); scattered (Rashbam). Two of the explanations suggested by medieval exegetes have found support in modern biblical philology. The explanation "roundish", suggested by Rav Sa'adya Gaon, Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra, Radaq, is supported also by Ben-Yehuda (as noted above, this is also the way taken by some of the modern translations into English); and the explanation "uncovered", suggested by Rashi (first explanation), Menahem, and Nachmanides, relying on Onkelos ‫,)מקלף(‬ is supported by Gesenius and Cassuto. Also with regard to the interrogative ‫,מן‬ which forms part of the phrase ‫מן‬ -‫הוא‬ , also occurring once in the Bible, four explanations have been suggested: food (Rav Sa'adya Gaon); to prepare and arrange food (Menahem, Rashi, Ibn Janach, Ibn Ezra); interrogative "what" (Rashbam, Ibn Janach); kind and type (Ibn Janach). Also in this case, the explanation suggested by Rashbam and Ibn Janach, an interrogative meaning "what", constitutes the commonly accepted explanation in modern biblical philology. Although the medieval scholars had no access to those Semitic languages to which modern scholars have access (Akkadian, Canaanite, Ugaritic), and on which they base and enforce their analysis, the medieval scholars nevertheless arrived at the true explanation. These two examples, as well as numerous others suggested in various studies presented in this study, illustrate how the medieval exegetes, through their linguistic knowledge and the exegetical tools at their disposal, arrived at the true explanations of difficult biblical words and phrases, explanations that in many instances match the findings of modern biblical philology. The conclusion of this is that it is indeed appropriate for any modern research on biblical philology to take medieval exegesis into consideration, and often it will become clear that the modern explanations may be enforced by the findings of medieval exegetes and grammarians.