~ Our portion opens with the commandment to light the menorah in the Tabernacle. After that it moves to the induction of the Levites, the second chance at the Passover offering and a description of the arrangement of the 12 tribes around the Tabernacle and the leaving of Yitro. Our triennial begins with the inverted nuns (letters, not people) which has some rabbis affirming that it breaks the Torah into seven books. It gets a special place in our service: vayehi binso'a.
~ Questions, as we read: How many complaints can you find? What are the reasons for the complaints, according to the text? And according to you? Why, after receiving the Torah, after experiencing miracles, the people are complaining? Please check the commentaries on our Etz Chayim as well. What do you make of God's response?
For an extra challenge: how does all this connect with Miriam's and Aharon's complaining about Moshe at the end?
Moses heard the people weeping, every family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent. Ad-nai's anger flared, and it was bad in Moses' eyes.
וישמע משה את העם בוכה למשפחותיו איש לפתח אהלו. כי אין לומר שנתקבצו משפחות משפחות ובכו שהרי נאמר איש לפתח אהלו אלא ודאי על עסקי משפחותיו, ויחר אף ה' ובעיני משה רע. דוקא עכשיו אבל קודם לכן היה רע באזני ה' לבד כי משה לא הבין כוונתם. ומ"ש זכרנו לשעבר משמע ואשר נאכל משמע להבא כך אמרו שבכל זמן שאמרנו לשעבר נתנה ראש ונשובה מצרימה. באותו זמן זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל להבא כשנבא שם. ומ"ש חנם מן המצות יתבאר בע"ה לקמן פר' פנחס (כו סד) שעל תרומות ומעשרות אמרו כן.
Moses heard the people weeping, every family apart, each person at the entrance of his tent - one cannot say that they gathered by their families, and cried [together] because it says "each person at the entrance of his tent", so it's obvious that [they were crying] due to each family's affairs, "and the anger of Ad-nai flared and in Moses' eyes it was bad." Precisely now, but before this it was "bad in the ears of Ad-nai" alone, since Moses did not comprehend their intent. And what is written "we remember" has a meaning connected to the past; and "that we used to eat" has a meaning connected to the future, as they said all the time "let's turn our head and return to Egypt" (Numbers 14:4), in that exact moment "we recall the fish" that we will eat when we get there. And what it says "free" it means free from the mitzvot, as I will explain, with God's help, in the portion of Pinchas: it has to do with the gifts [to the Tabernacle] and the ten percent donations.
So Kli Yakar's first idea: they are complaining that they have to share. They do not want to share what they have, and so they sit "each by their tent". What is mine is mine.
ומה שהתחילו בבשר וסיימו בדגה, לפי שלשון דגה מורה יותר על הפריצות בעריות מן לשון בשר לפי שהדגים פרוצים יותר מבשר כל חי, ע"כ אמרו דרך פשרה מי יאכילנו בשר שנהיה מותרים בעריות כשאר בשר כל חי אע"פ שלא נהיה כדגים כי כולי האי לא בקשו, אבל מ"מ אמרו זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים חנם. כי בהיותינו בין המצרים שטופי זמה הותרה לנו הכל אפילו להיות כדגים ועכשיו הלואי ונהיה כשאר בשר כל חי וזה"ש מי יאכילנו בשר. וקרוב לשמוע כי הכל כפשוטו ממש אך כוונתם היתה לבקש הבשר המחמם ביותר ומרבה תאות המשגל וזהו כפול התאוו תאוה. שנתאוו לדבר המרבה תאות המשגל. ....
And the reason they begun with meat and ended with fish is that fish points to promiscuity in sexual relations more than the expression "meat", since fish reproduce more than any animal alive, and they were using the word "flesh" as a compromise: "if only we ate meat" actually means "we want to be uninhibited in sexual relations as the other animals, even though we won't be like the fish - at least they did not ask all of it. But in any instance they did say "we remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt" (Numbers 11:5): when we were in Egypt all was permitted to us, even as to live like the fish, and now, let us at least be like the other animals, and this is what they mean by "if only we ate meat". And if one listens closely [one can see that] all this is very much like the simple meaning of the text, their intent was to ask for meat, which is the food that most warms a person up, and expands the sexual desires, and this is expressed in the language of "gluttonous craving" [the Hebrew expression is doubled 'they craved a craving'], meaning, they craved for a food that would enhance their sexual cravings. ...
And then comes the Kli Yakar with another interesting vision, one that comes from the Talmud and the midrash (see below): it is about being able to do whatever one wants, without regard for how the sexual behavior would affect the connection inside the family. To be like fish, here, is not positive at all. Nor is it like all other animals: animals have no sexual taboos of familial relations.
(א) בפסוק והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וכו' בוכה למשפחותיו:
(ב) ופירש רש"י ז"ל על העריות וכו'. וענין שהקשה לדבר למה הרעות וכו' ואם ככה את עושה לי וכו' ואל אראה ברעתי. ודבריו שש מאות אלף רגלי וכו' ואתה אמרת וכו'.
(ג) והענין הוא על דרך אמרם ז"ל באבות בכל יום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב ומכרזת וכו', הנה ידוע ששים ריבוא נשמות ישראל, כמו כן אותיות התורה כידוע שאורייתא וקב"ה וישראל כולא חד, וישראל הן הן גופי התורה, וידוע באורייתא ברא קודשא בריך הוא עלמא שהן אותיות, ואין לך דבר בעולם בלתי אותיות המחיי' אותו שהם מאמרו של הקב"ה ואם האותיות הם בהעלם ואינם ניכרים, הנה האדם המדבר קודם שמדבר דבר מה הרי הדיבור והאותיות הם בכח ואינם ניכרים, כללא דמילתא שחיות כל דבר הם האותיות שבתוכו. ואם האדם חוטא ח"ו מכניס האותיות שהם החיות ברע ונותן כח ברע הגם שאינו נראה בעיני בשר האמת ידוע, ולכן נותן וידוי דברים באומרו חטאתי במרירות לב מחמת יראת ה' ושותף אהבת ה', הרי מוציא אותיות המחיה מן הרע ונשאר הרע בלתי חיות וממילא בטל.
(ד) והנה אם היה האדם זוכר ומשגיח בשעת לימוד התורה, איך הוא מדבר אותיות התורה שבהם נברא העולם והוא בעצמו היה מתדבק בדברי אותיותיו אל שרשו אותיות התורה שנתנה בזה העולם בקולות וברקים, למען תהיה יראת ה' על פניו לבלתי יחטא כמבואר בפ'. וממילא היה היראה והפחד נופל עליו ובקולות וברקים עליו יופיע שלא יחטא ח"ו, כי איך הוא האפשרות הענין לחטוא בהנה. וזהו ענין בת קול שיוצא וכו' הם אותיות התורה שבכל אדם הוא מזכיר ומכריז אותו בכל יום. ומי שאינו שומע בת קול דהיינו שאינו מכריז אוי לו מעלבונה של תורה שבתוכו וזהו כל מי שאינו עוסק בתורה פירוש שאינו רושם בתורה נקרא נזוף והוא ענין הנזיפה באדם שמשתנה פניו אזל סומקא וכו'.
(ה) אמרו רז"ל שכל נפשות ישראל עד משיח כולם עמדו בסיני וקבלו את התורה שהם האותיות אל שרשם המזכירים אותם אל דמי לכם. והנ ידוע כי משה היה הדעת של כל ישראל שהם ששים רבוא נשמות. והנה המן היה בזכות משה להחיות את ישראל בלחם מן השמים שהוא רוחני טעם לבד, כל מה שירצו לטעום, שהוא החיות לבד בלי שום גשם מפני שמשה היה פרוש מן האשה שהוא הגשמיות, כן היתה השפעת מזונו לכל ישראל, וזהו לא נתנה תורה כי אם לאוכלי המן, שהוא החיות שהם אותיות מה שאין כן באכילה גשמיות שהוא נרגן מפריד אלוף. כמו שהזהיר לאכול לב של בהמה מפני היות נפש בהמה תלוי בה. והנה ישראל שאכלו מן, פסקה זוהמתן ולא נתהוו ונתקשרו לשום תאוה ואהבה גשמיות בלתי לה' לבדו.
(ו) אבל האספסוף אשר לא מבני ישראל המה, הגם שנזדככו באכילת המן שלא להתאוות לשום דבר אעפ"כ התאוו תאוה, פירוש שהתאוו שיהיה להם אהבה גשמיית, כי לא מבני ישראל המה, ואי אפשר להם להיות כל חיותם מן הדעת, ולכן בקשו אוכל למו בשר, וזהו חינם בלא מצות.
(ז) גם בזה ניחא למשפחותיו על עסקי עריות. לכן הרע למשה מאד שהוא הדעת, וכל ששים רבוא נשמות היו דור דעה שהם ענפים שלא התקשרו כולם בנשמות ויכניסו הדעת שהם האותיות והחיות ברע ח"ו, וזהו ואל אראה ברעתי, וזהו שש מאות אלף רגלי העם, פי' שהם ששים רבוא שרשי ישראל התורה שהוא הדעת ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם, ומה יהיה בסופה וזה הרגני נא הרוג וכו', כי הוא והן הכל א' ונחות דרגא קרוי מיתה והריגה, כמבואר בזוהר ע"כ יחננו דיעה והשכל אכי"ר.
(1) The passuk reads " The riffraff in their midst felt a gluttonous craving...they cried for their families"
(2) Rashi z'l comments "on account of the family affairs..." And the notion that [Moshe] spoke strongly "Why have You dealt ill with Your servant... If You would deal thus with me, kill me rather, I beg You, and let me see no more of my wretchedness!”
(3) This idea is in accordance with the saying of the Sages z'l in Ethics of our Fathers (Avot 6:2), "Each day a heavenly voice emerges from mount Horeb and declares ['Woe to the creatures for disparaging the Torah']" For it is known that there are six hundred thousand souls in Israel, accordingly the same [number of] letters in the Torah; as is known that the Torah, the Holy One, and Israel are all one, and Israel is the body of/for the Torah, and it is known that through the Torah the Holy One created the world which is [composed by] letters. And there can be nothing in the world without the letters which bring life to it for they are the speech of the Holy One: if the letters were to disappear and weren't perceptible, what could be said of the speech of the person who speaks prior to their uttering? The letters are in potential and not perceptible - it is a general principle is that the life force of each thing are the letters within it. And if a person sins, God forbid, s/he makes the letters, which are the life-force enter Evil, and give power to Evil, and even though it is not obvious in the eyes of people, this truth is known. And as one makes a confession of [these] things in saying 'I sinned' with bitterness of heart, due to feeling Awe of God combined with Love of God, through this the letters which were providing life-force to Evil leave, and Evil is left without the life-force and is consequently nullified.
(4) And so a person [must] remember [this] and take care during his learning the Torah how he speaks the letters of the Torah, for with them was the world created, and by himself attach the letters to their root letters in the Torah, which was given like this to the world through 'thunder and lightening' in order that 'the fear of God should be upon you and you will be without sin', as explained. In any case, if 'awe' and 'fear' befall a person in 'thunder and lightening', its seems apparent that he would not sing, God forbid. For how could there be the possibility of sin with all that. And this is the idea of the 'heavenly voice which goes forth', they are the letter of the Torah inside every person who recalls and declares them daily. And he who doesn't not hear the heavenly voice [and for whom] it is as if he did not declare, 'woe unto him...for insulting the Torah' which is inside of him. And this is the meaning of 'for anyone who does not involve himself in the Torah' meaning - who is not inscribed in the Torah, "he is called "rebuked"'; for this is the idea of rebuke for a person which changes his 'face to redness'
(5) Our Rabbis z'l said that all the souls of Israel, even [up to] the Mashiach, stood at Sinai and received the Torah, which are the letters, to their soul-roots, and they [the letters] are the "reminders who take no rest" (Isaiah 62:6). It is known that Moshe is the Awareness of all of Israel who are the six hundred thousand souls. And the Manna was on account of Moshe's merit in order to enliven Israel with bread from Heaven which since it was spiritually flavored, any desired taste, which is the life-force itself, without any rain because Moshe was separated from his wife which is a symbol for the aspect of physicality, so thus Israel was provided sustenance - and this is 'the Torah wasn't given except to those who ate Manna' for it is the life-force which are the letters which is not the case in regards to physical eating which is a "whisperer [which] separates familiar friends". This is why we must be careful in regards to not eating the heart of an animal on account of the soul which depends on it. And so upon Israel eating the Manna, they shed their filth and did not have a single [animalistic] urge and their love of physicality was only for God.
(6) But the 'Rabble-rousers' who were not of Israel, but who also were refined upon eating the Manna and ought not have desired any physicality, nonetheless they had such urges. Meaning, that they desired to love of physicality [again], because they were not of Israel, and it was impossible for them to exist entirely with their life-force being Knowledge, and thus they asked to eat meat, and this is "free", without any mitzvot.
(7) And through this one can understand "for his family" - the affairs were sexual. That's why it was really bad in the eyes of Moses, because he is [the symbol of] Awareness, and all the 600,000 souls were the generation of awareness, and they were the branches, and did not connected themselves to the souls that made the letters enter Evil, God forbid, and this is "let me see no more of my wretchedness." And this is "600,000 feet of the people", meaning, that they are the 600,000 roots of Israel. ...
(במדבר יא, ה) זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל במצרים חנם רב ושמואל חד אמר דגים וחד אמר עריות מאן דאמר דגים דכתיב נאכל ומאן דאמר עריות דכתיב חנם ולמאן דאמר עריות הא כתיב נאכל לישנא מעליא נקט דכתיב (משלי ל, כ)
The Gemara cites more verses that pertain to the same issue. Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the following verse: “We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing” (Numbers 11:5). One said: The verse is referring literally to fish. And one said: The verse is referring to incestuous relations that the Torah had not yet forbidden. The people cried once the Torah prohibited certain relatives to them. The Gemara explains: The one who said that the verse is referring to fish bases him explanation on the verse, as it is written “which we ate.” This means what they actually ate. And the one who said that the verse is referring to forbidden sexual relations also bases his explanation on the verse, as it is written “for nothing.” Certainly, the people did not actually eat fish for free. The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that it is referring to forbidden relations, but isn’t it written “which we ate”? The Gemara answers: The Torah employed a euphemistic expression. Eating is used as a euphemism for sexual relations, as it is written: “So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats, and wipes her mouth, and says I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20).
(א) זכרנו את הדגה. וכי יש בענין, שהיו המצרים נותנים להם דגים בחנם? והלא כבר נאמר (שמות ה) ואתם לכו עבדו ותבן לא ינתן לכם. אם תבן לא היו נותנים להם בחנם, דגים היו נותנים להם בחנם? – ומה אני אומר חנם – חנם מן המצות: ואת הקשואים.
ר' שמעון אומר מפני מה המן משתנה להם לכל דבר שהיו רוצים חוץ מחמשת המינים הללו? משל למלך בשר ודם שמסר בנו לפדגוג, והיה יושב ומפקדו ואומר לו: הנראה שלא יאכל מאכל רע, ולא ישתה משקה רע! ובכל כך היה הבן ההוא מתרעם על אביו, לומר: לא מפני שאוהבני, אלא שאי אפשר לו שאוכל. וחכמים אומרים מן היה להם לישראל – לכל דבר שרוצים, אלא שלא היו רואים בעיניהם, שנאמר אין כל בלתי אל המן עינינו. אין לנו אלא מן בשחר ומן בערב:
(1) (Bamidbar 11:5) "We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt, free": Is it possible that the Egyptians gave them fish free? Is it not written (Shemot 5:18) "And now, go and work, and straw will not be given you": If they did not give them straw free, would they give them fish free? How, then, are we to understand "free"? "Free" of mitzvot.
R. Shimon says: The manna would change for them to any flavor they desired, except for (that of) these five things (Ibid "cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic") An analogy: A king hands his son over to a pedagogue and charges him: See to it that he does not eat or drink anything harmful. And the son grumbles at his father, saying: It is not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat! The sages say: The manna changed for Israel to any thing (i.e., any flavor) they desired, but they did not see it (the desired object) with their eyes. And this is the intent of (Ibid. 6) "There is nothing. Only to the manna is our eyes." To our eyes, there is nothing — only manna in the morning, manna in the evening!
Etz Chayim Commentary, page 828:
Why did the people complain about the manna, when the Torah makes a point of telling us how delicious it was? To feel prosperous, it is not enough for a person to have everything that is needed. One must have more than one's neighbors have. The manna was psychologically unsatisfying because everyone had it in abundance (Eybeschuetz).
If asked, most Jews might assert that leadership in Torah is almost exclusively the prerogative of two primary figures, God and Moses…That exclusive possession of power shifts during the second year following the Exodus, when the Jewish people are wandering through the Wilderness…Sinai represents the pinnacle…Not only is it the peak of God’s intimacy with the Jews, but it is also the high-water mark of Moses’ authority. His stature shines so brightly it blinds those who see him…Alone on that mountaintop, Moses does not share his glory with any other human beings….With their wanderings renewed, the people resume their complaints…
Moses, now exhausted by leading these contentious people alone, pleads with God…Recognizing his own limits, Moses’ modesty is a lesson for all aspiring greats. Through the authorization of seventy sages, God establishes diversity as a Jewish virtue. By providing the leadership, the prototype of the Second Temple, and the rabbinic Sanhedrin with dissenting opinions, God assures that every possible view will be articulated and considered. Diversity, then, is not a threat. Instead, the Torah presents diverse viewpoints as a source of richness, stability and vitality for Judaism; indeed the Rambam suggests that this pluralism of viewpoint is at the very center of Jewish law, from the time of Moses to our own day” (Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson, The Bedside Torah, pp. 230-236).