The complainers
‘This was the severity of their transgression, that: it was not meat that they desired, but that they desired desire.
The Israeli propensity to complain did not begin with the establishment of the Jewish State.
This past Shabbat's Parasha relates that: (Numbers 11:1-13) ’
The people כמתאוננים: took to seeking complaints; it was evil in the ears of Hashem, and Hashem heard and His wrathflared, and a fire burned against them, and it consumed at the edge of the camp. The people cried out to Moshe: Moshe prayed to Hashem, and the fire died down.
The rabble that was among them cultivated a craving, and the Children of Israel wept once more, and said: ’Who will feed us meat? We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge; the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now, our life is parched, there is nothing; we have nothing to anticipate but the manna.'
Moshe heard the people weeping on their family groups, each one at the entrance of his tent, and the wrath of Hashem flared greatly, and in the eyes of Moshe it was bad.
Moshe said to Hashem: ’Where can I get meat to give to this entire people when they weep to me, saying:’Give us meat that we may eat’.
Abarbanel asks: In saying.’The people were looking to complain’, the Torah does not elucidate what their transgression was - and in saying כמתאוננים: ‘as complaining’, why does it say ‘as if’, and not simply say: ‘complaining’?
Rashi answers: The people were looking to complain:כמתוננים: denotes a pretext . They were seeking a pretext to turn away from Hashem.’
He further comments: ’Rabble’: these were the ערב רב: the mixed multitude, which had attached to them when they left Egypt.
‘Who will feed us meat?’: and did they not have meat, and was it not already said: ’And Bnei Reuben and Bnei Gad had much cattle’? but they were looking for a pretext’.
Which we ate in Egypt free of charge’: If straw was not given free of charge, was fish given to them free of charge?!?
‘We have nothing to anticipate but the manna’: Manna in the morning, manna in the evening’.
‘Weeping with their families’: Families gathered in groups weeping so as to publicize their grievance. Our Sages say that the meaning is:’Concerning family matters’, that is, because intermarriage among family members was forbidden to them’.
The Panim Yafot expounds:’As Rashi points out, certainly Bnei Israel had plenty of cattle’, as it says concerning Bnei Reuben and Bnei Gad, ‘however not so the mixed multitude, for though we read that the plague of hail did not kill any of the cattle of Bnei Israel, the mixed multitude, who were of the Egyptians, had no cattle which was spared, as these all perished in the plagues.
‘They therefore had a yearning to eat meat - as they did not have any; but Bnei Israel, who did have cattle, were fearful that, if they should slaughter theirs, they would soon have none left.
This is the meaning of their words: Who will feed us meat?’ Meaning: if we eat what we now have, what will we eat after it is gone?
Similarly, they said:’We remember the fish we shall eat’ - not ‘which we ate’, meaning: In Egypt they had certainty also as to the future, that they would have fish every day, as it was plentiful.
This was Moshe’s plea, the demand they made of him, their cry as to the future, that that which they had at present, would not suffice for the time till they reached the land - as no matter how much he now gave them, they would cry as to the future.
This was the purport of Hashem’s answer, that He would give them, until it became loathsome in their eyes.
The Netivot Shalom expounds:’Ramban writes, that, what was bad in the eyes of Hashem, was their lack of faith - after all that He had done for them - which should have brought them to go after Him with joy, and trust - this was their transgression, that they should have trusted in His divine providence, that He would continue to sustain them.
‘However, we are still left with the need to understand the severity of their transgression, and the terrible punishment that was wrought on them, for this transgression.
‘We have to answer, that, as we read in the holy tomes, that all the 613 Mitzvot are preparations to the Mitzvah of:’And you shall love Hashem..’ and cleave to Him - in everything that you do, you have to be concerned with only one thing: does it bring you closer to Hashem, or, heaven forfend, distance you from Him.
‘This was the special severity of the complainers, and of those who had desires, which, seemingly, are not such severe transgressions - but, since what determines the severity of a transgression is dependent on only one thing: how it affects our closeness to Hashem, the severity of the complainers can be understood, as Rashi comments: They wanted to separate from behind Hashem.
‘As this was the objective of all the Mitzvot, it was a very severe transgression.
‘However, they had a yearning to yearn for desires - the manna was a holy food, and, therefore, did not give rise to desire - and their yearning was for food that would create desire - their complaint was for ‘real meat’, when they said;:’Who will feed us meat?’
‘This was the severity of their transgression, that: it was not meat that they desired, but that they desired desire.
‘This is the severity of their transgression, as desire distances one from Hashem, being the negation of cleaving to Hashem, which is the objective of all the Mitzvot: ‘for Hashem to be with us’.
Rav Yosef Salant offers a different understanding of their yearning for meat: How could their complaint for meat, be a cover for their desire to ‘turn away from Hashem’, as Rashi states?
‘When they had meat near at hand, their complaint for meat seems laughable.
‘The gemara (Chulin 15:) provides the answer: in the desert, when the Sanctuary was erected, the only meat that was permitted to them, was the meat of the offerings - other meat, which would give rise to desire, was forbidden.
‘This severely limited the meat that was available to them - first, because when the Sanctuary was taken apart, and all its vessels covered up, and carried, there was no opportunity to bring offerings - which was the only meat that was permitted to them in the desert.
‘Also, since the meat of the offerings could not be eaten until the people were purified from the impurity of conjugal relations, this limited the time they were permitted to eat of it.
‘Further, this affected the women - in regard to the meat of the altar offerings - because for three days from having conjugal relations- due to their impurity from ejection - they were forbidden to partake of sanctified meat.
‘Now, on the very first journey that the people traveled from the Mount of G-d, a journey of three days, ‘the people were as complainers’ - they began to murmur, saying: how difficult these three days were, when we had no rest from the travel, and sought an excuse to depart from behind Hashem.
‘In these three days, the Sanctuary and its vessels were dismantled, it was not possible to make offerings from the meat of which they could partake.
‘They therefore began to complain as to the absence of meat in general - and, because the shortage was linked with the separation from their wives - as we have explained - the mixed multitude in their midst, ‘had a desire for desire’ - meaning: a double desire: for meat which would lead to desire, and for conjugal relations.
‘Bnei Israel returned to crying, saying:’’Who will feed us meat’, that we should be able to eat meat, and not be restricted to eating only the meat when offerings can be brought.
‘They adorned their complaint, by recalling the fish they ate in Egypt without charge - one sage seeing this as an allusion to conjugal relations, fish being prolific in this matter - saying, as our Sages comment - which we ate ‘free’ in Egypt: free from mitzvot, bemoaning the meat they were permitted affecting their conjugal relations.
‘In this matter, they found an excuse to stray from Hashem - which, considering their elevated status at this time, was a great descent, considering that the manna was a purified spiritual food, unlike the coarse meat they yearned to be permitted - and far from the sanctified meat of the offerings, the consumption of which was both a Mitzvah and an atonement.
‘Further, that which bothered then as to their conjugal relations, in fact gave them greater sanctity in their family life.’
Haktav veHakabalah brings a further reason for the yearning for meat:’From a commentary to Sifrei, we learn that since those born in the desert were not circumcised’, presumably because of the health danger posed, ‘ they were not permitted to partake of the meat of the offerings - and though were not forbidden to eat other meat - they were as complainers, as their real intention was to depart from Hashem.
‘Theyfelt that they were removed from Hashem’s divine providence, and that this resulted in misfortunes befalling them.
‘The Torah added the letter כ: ‘as’, in referring to them as כ:מתאוננים, meaning ‘like’ complainers, because they did not openly reveal their evil thoughts - this being ‘hidden’ within them - so that, whilst they spoke regarding the meat of the offerings being forbidden, and the like, this was not their real complaint - but only an excuse to stray from behind Hashem.
‘This is alluded to - according to Sifrei - in the Torah referring to them as כמאתוננים- ‘as’ complainers.
‘The Psalmist (Ps’ 78) elucidates that not to desire per se they yearned, but that they were complete unbelievers in the powers of Hashem, querying- according to the Psalmist- ‘whether Hashem could provide a laden table in the desert, for them’.
‘In this context, the word תאוה means - not desire, as is its primary connotation - but גבול: limit, as saying: this He can do, but this is beyond Him.
‘This is why the Torah does not say that ‘they had a desire for meat’, as it wanted to include in התאוו: also a desire to allude to the rebellion in their hearts against Hashem.
‘Therefore our Sages, in Sifrei say: ‘Regarding whether the Hand of Hashem תקצר:is too short - they are but seeking an excuse, which is why they ask ‘is the Hand of Hashem too short’- that He does not have the power to give that which we seek.’
‘As to their ‘souls being dry’, their complaint was that the manna was not a food which created moisture in the body, to revive a dry soul.
‘As the manna was totally absorbed within the body- and none of it extruded- they said that it surely was destined at some future time, to expand within them - and kill them.
‘Any food that was consumed, and not extruded, would surely expand within the body and explode in the innards.’
The Kli Yakar asks:’The exposition of the Sages, that their complaint was ‘as to family matters’ - alluding to the restrictions on forbidden relations - raises the question as to why they complained now - and not earlier, when the restrictions were imposed.
‘Further query:Why did they first bemoan: We remember the fish we ate freely in Egypt’, and then ask:’Who will feed us meat’?
‘Our Sages expound that both these expressions allude to conjugal relations, using - as our Sages do - ‘clean’ language, in place of unsavory expressions.
‘Here we return to our first query: Why was this complaint raised now, and not immediately these relationships were forbidden?
‘The answer is, that when the prohibition was imposed, the people were not greatly perturbed, thinking that they would be able to restrain themselves.
‘However, when they then heard that whoever was not engaged in procreation, causes the Shechina to depart from Israel, a new concern arose in their minds:If they were permitted to have unlimited relationships, like the fish, they could surely procreate abundantly, and not cause the Shechina to depart.’
‘Now that these relationships were forbidden to them, they will inevitably be the opposite’ of the fish, in the matter of procreation.
‘They immediately had second thoughts as to the prohibition on relationships, and became כמתאונים:‘like complainers’ - not ‘complainers’, but ‘like complainers’, seeing themselves as אוננים: who are forbidden to engage in conjugal relations due to the death of a relative.
‘Since this feeling was, at this point, concealed within their hearts - and not openly stated - Moshe did not sense it, but Hashem did - as all thoughts are revealed to Him - and the Torah therefore states that ‘it was bad in the eyes of Hashem’.
‘As it was the fire of desire that burned in them, measure-for-measure they were punished by the ‘fire of Hashem’ - whereas Moshe, who was - as we said - unaware of their thoughts, responded to their entreaties, and prayed for them.
‘The change in their words- from ‘meat’, to: ‘fish, is due to ‘fish more strongly alluding to sexual immorality than meat’.
‘They said - as by way of compromise:’Who will feed us meat’ - that we be permitted all relationships like all flesh and blood and - though we will not, in that regard, be as unlimited’ as fish, they still said: though:’We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt, free’, as when we were in the midst of that people who were steeped in immorality, and all was permitted to us, now, if only we can be כשאר בשר:like the rest of other people - this being alluded to, in their plea:Who will feed us meat?’.
The Be’er Mayim Chaim adds:’Bnei Israel only complained initially as to meat, being stirred by the mixed multitude, and had no thoughts as to matters of forbidden relationships, in their pure naivete not being wise enough to see what this would give birth to - that their desire for meat, would inevitably lead to their desire for all earthly pleasures - including forbidden ones, including immorality.
‘This is why Hashem did not alert them to this danger, and they set off on this way that was bad.
‘With regard to them, the Torah states that the people were כמתאוננים: ‘as complainers’ in a bad way, in the Ears of Hashem - ‘the people’ alluding to both the mixed multitude and Bnei Israel, as we have elucidated.
‘Meaning: In the Ears of Hashem, the people became as those for whom people mourn, seeing them setting off on a bad path, without knowing it - but known to the Ears of Hashem.’
Todah Rabah https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/410040
No comments:
Post a Comment