אבן עזרא — שמלתך לא בלתה מעליך ורגלך לא בצקה זה ארבעים שנה

Q — "Your garments did not wear out and your foot did not swell, these forty years." Rashi (citing Chazal) reads both clauses as supernatural: the ananei hakavod ironed and pressed their clothing, the clothing grew with the children, and their feet did not swell as bare feet otherwise would. Is this a *necessary* reading, or do natural explanations exist?

A — Ibn Ezra characteristically offers *both* — and lets the natural readings stand alongside the miraculous. (1) On the garments: "יש אומרים, דרך אות" (yes, a miracle) — but also "ואחרים אומרים, כי הוציאו מלבושים רבים ממצרים" (they brought enough clothing out of Egypt for 40 years of changes) — and Ibn Ezra adds his own natural reading: "ויתכן שאין בתולדת המן להוליד זיעה" — the manna may not produce sweat, and sweat is what wears out fabric; so clothing lasted naturally as a *consequence* of the manna in the previous verse, no separate miracle required. (2) On the feet not swelling: "שנתן להם ה' כח" (God gave strength — miraculous) *or* "הוליכם אט" (He led them slowly — natural pacing prevents swelling). The methodological principle: where the text admits a natural reading, that reading should be on the table. The Ramban attacks Ibn Ezra fiercely here ("ואין דבריו נכונים") — the whole point, Ramban says, is to record the open miracle, and fabric covering a beam decays in 40 years even without sweat. Ibn Ezra's stance is preserved: minimizing miracles where the text permits is itself a peshat value ("ממעט בנס").