ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “the people were like murmurers;” the people were already mourning the potential casualties they would incur when going into battle against the Canaanites in order to conquer their land. They were lacking in faith and dreading warfare.

זכרנו את הדגה, “we remember the fish, etc.” the word דגה for fish, we have found already in Yaakov’s blessing for Joseph and his children in Genesis 48,13: וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they multiply as fish on the face of the earth.” The Torah then lists details of the food the Israelites claimed to have had in abundance in Egypt, all for free.

כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך, that You should say to me: “carry them in your bosom;” Moses implies that if he had not been commanded to carry on in his position, he would by now have quit.

!תנו לנו בשר, “give us meat!” Their request was inappropriate, seeing that one of the qualities of the manna was that it assumed the taste of whatever the person consuming it wished it to taste like. We know this from Psalms 106,15: ויתן להם שאלתם, בשר., “He gave them whatever they had asked for.” The people had meat from sheep and oxen, as they had taken herds with them from Egypt, as stated Exodus 12,38: “and a mixed multitude went up with them, as well as very much livestock, both flocks and herds.” If you were to say that they had consumed all these herds and flocks in the desert, we have a verse in Numbers 32,1 according to which the tribes of Reuven and Gad had a surfeit of flocks and cattle. Seeing that this was so prompted Rabbi Shmuel to state that what they really lusted for were the women that had now become forbidden for them as wives, (sexual partners) since these laws had been promulgated. If they were described as lusting for “meat,” this shows how they saw in marital unions primarily the element of sexual unions. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 75, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 15, section 24). The Midrash there quotes Psalms 78,27: וימטר עליהם כעפר שאר, וכחול ימים עוף כנף, “He made it rain upon them meat like dust, winged birds like the sands of the sea. Whenever the word שאר appears in the Torah, it is a euphemism for the sexual aspect of marriage, as we know from Leviticus 18,6: איש איש אל כך שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, “none of you must approach sexually any kin of his,” The Midrash reinforces its interpretation by pointing out that the Torah, apparently gratuitously, added that the people cried למשפחותם, “on account of their families,” i.e. family members now out of bounds for them for the purpose of sexual union. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130). It was this that caused Hashem’s anger in verse 10, and Moses” displeasure. At that time Moses said to Hashem that up until that time he had the seventy elders who had been appointed already when he made ready to ascend Mount Sinai for the first time, as we know from Exodus 24,9, where Nadav and Avihu had been named as his assistants as well as seventy unnamed elders. Now, he said, there was no one left that he could call on to assist him. This is why he exclaimed: “I alone am unable to continue to carry this burden!” Nonetheless we are bound to ask what had happened to the seventy elders mentioned in Exodus chapter 24. We must conclude that they had been amongst the people who had been described as murmurers in verse one of our chapter where many people had died by heavenly fire as stated. We had read there in verse four that not only the mixed multitude of Egyptians who had joined the bandwagon of the Jewish people at the Exodus, but also בני ישראל, always an expression describing the elite of the Jewish people, had been included amongst those who had died then. There is a dispute amongst the sages if the people there described as אספסף, had been part of the mixed multitude or had been these seventy elders. According to one view the expression בקצה המחנה, normally translated as “at the outer edge of the camp,” had in fact been the elders whom at this point the Torah referred to euphemistically. Actually, they had been guilty of death by heavenly fire already from the event described in Exodus chapter 24. They too had been guilty of disrespect when experiencing a vision of the Divine glory, not only Nadav and Avihu, who had been named there. (Exodus 24,11) At the time, i.e. the revelation at Mount Sinai and the joyful atmosphere prevailing then, G–d did not wish to disturb these festivities by killing them. We find an allusion to this episode in Psalms 106,18: ותבער אש בעדתם, “fire consumed their congregation.” The expression עדה, “congregation,” is always reserved for describing the highest court of seventy. Compare Numbers15,24: ואם מעיני העדה נעשתה לשגגה, “and if an error was committed because the true situation had been hidden from the eyes of the עדה, i.e. the highest court, Sanhedrin. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 15,24)

ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I do not have to look at my wretchedness.” Moses prefers to die immediately instead of his fate remaining tied to theirs.

אספה לי שבעים איש, “assemble seventy men for Me.” Why did G–d say: “for Me,” and why did He say: איש, “man,” singular mode, instead of אנשים, “men,”? In both instances the wording implies that the men selected were to be especially outstanding people. G–d Himself is described by Moses in his song of gratitude for the Israelites’ deliverance from the armies of Pharaoh as איש מלחמה, “man of war.” (Exodus 15,3) and when the Torah wishes to compliment his humility, it does so by calling him: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “and the man Moses, was exceedingly humble.” We did not need to be told that Moses was a man; the Torah wished to add this word as a mark of Moses’ outstanding distinction. The Talmud, in tractate Sanhedrin, folio 36, understands Numbers 11,16: והתיצבו שם עמך, “so that they may stand there with you,” as meaning that these men should be of a stature similar to that of Moses. [The word עמך in that verse was not really necessary, as it would have been understood automatically that these men were to stand there alongside Moses. Ed.] An alternate interpretation: the word לי, refers to the fact that the whole universe belongs to Hashem. The function of the seventy men to be selected by Moses is to ensure that the universe and its people created by G–d will endure, i.e. that His rules for it should be observed. We have a verse in Amos 9,6: הבונה בשמים מעלותו ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה, “He Who builds His chambers in the heavens, and founded His vault on the earth.” The prophet means that G–d’s creative work regarding the earth, was conditioned on people helping Him to keep it in shape. If earth were to collapse due to man’s failings, G–d would have no reason to keep the heavens going either. Bamidbar Rabbah, on Numbers 15,24 illustrates this by the following parable. When palaces have been built on the decks of ships, as long as these palaces are connected to their bases, the ships, all is well, once the palaces have been detached from the ships, these ships have no reason for further existence.

אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם, “whom you have known to be the elders of the people;” they allowed themselves to be beaten rather than to impose more hardships on their fellow Jews. Compare Exodus 5,14, regarding this. We have a tradition that anyone who deliberately suffers in order to spare fellow Jews suffering, will eventually be rewarded by being appointed to an important position, and will be granted a measure of Holy Spirit.

וירדתי, “and I (the Lord) will descend, etc.” from this we learn that this day was as important for G–d as the day when He gave the Jewish people the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. We know this as it is the only day that has also been described as G–d descending. Compare Exodus 19,11, where the Lord has been described as descending to Mount Sinai on the third day of the people preparing for that event. (Bamidbar Rabbah 15,25)

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will draw on the spirit that is on you, etc.;” what transpired now could be compared to a King who owned a beautiful orchard and had hired an expert to look after it all by himself. After a while this expert said to the owner that he could no longer fulfill this task all by himself, but that he wanted other guardians to share the burden with him The owner agreed with the condition that this expert would share the wages that had been paid to him thus far with his helpers as the King was not prepared to budget for additional expense for this orchard. G–d made it clear that he had equipped Moses with sufficient Holy Spirit for the task at hand, but that if he were prepared to distribute this mount of Holy Spirit also among the elders this was acceptable to Him. G–d had resented Moses’ implication that he had not been equipped with the tools necessary to lead this people successfully without additional helpers. Proof that this had been G–d’s attitude can be found by the fact that 40 years later when Moses appointed a successor, Joshua, G–d told him to appoint only one single successor, not a team of leaders. (Numbers 27,18) When Moses transferred his authority to Joshua after forty years to Joshua, as described in Numbers 27,18, this did not result in Moses “losing” any of the Holy Spirit residing within him. According to Bamidbar Rabbah,15,25, we must simply understand this as if a candle imparted its light to another candle, without thereby becoming even one iota less capable of giving of its light to its surroundings.

לא יום אחד ....ולא עשרים יום, “not one day or even not twenty days, etc.” Why did the Torah have to give us all these details, instead of simply writing that the people got quails lasting for thirty days? The days listed by the Torah here have to be viewed cumulatively, so that the quail episode extended for a period of 67 days. In the Jewish calendar year there are a total of 67 days which are holidays, i.e. the Sabbath days and the festivals. [This applies when the year has 354 days, seeing that it does not always have the same number of days. Ed.] The message is that on each of these days the consumption of meat is a mitzvah; on other days meat consumed on these days may have negative effects, as opposed to meat consumed in honour of the Sabbath or a festival. Personally, I prefer to understand the expression: לא יום אחד, “not one day, that there is one of those days, i.e. the Day of Atonement on which consumption of meat is forbidden. [The author continues in a somewhat forced manner to find justifications for each individual number listed. Since he has to resort to numbers which are appropriate only for the additional days for a festival observed in the Diaspora, and since at the same time he does not consider Purim as a day deserving be honoured by the eating of meat, I decided to skip this. Ed.]

'ויאמר משה שש מאות אלף וגו, “Moses said: six hundred thousand (men plus their families You will provide with meat?)” Many people are appalled at how Moses apparently questioned G–d’s ability to provide the people with such an amount of meat. This is why hagaon ha-rav Nissim suggests the following interpretation of this verse. Moses asked that while he was well aware of G–d’s ability to provide a quantity of meat to last the people for 30 days, but that seeing this meat was not provided by G–d as a gift but in order to make the meat something that revolted them, what was the point in letting so much meat rot, after a day or two, seeing they had no means to keep it edible? Not only that, but how could they collect all that meat in the single day that it materialized for them? Moses drew a comparison when he spoke about the fish in the ocean, saying that even if all of them could be trapped in a single net, no one could remove sufficient fish from that net in a single day to last the nation for thirty days.

?ויאמר ה' אל משה: היד ה' תקצר, Hashem said to Moses: “is there then a limit to the Lord’s power? You will see presently if My power is inadequate!” G–d implied that just as it was within His power to provide what He had said He would provide, so it was in His power to see to it that they collect it until His word has become fulfilled. This is the meaning of 11,31: ויטש על המחנה בדרך יום כה ובדרך יום כה סביבות המחנה וכאמתים על פני כל הארץ , “and He strewed them over the camp, a distance of a day’s walk in each direction and to the height of two cubits above the face of the earth.” The people did not even need to stretch out their hands and bow down in order to take hold of the quails. An alternate interpretation of Moses’ question if sheep and cattle were to be slaughtered for them, how could there be sufficient for their needs. Moses knew that at that time any meat which was not the result of having been slaughtered as a sacrifice for the Lord was forbidden for the people to eat. There were only a total of three priests available to slaughter the animals required on sacred soil, i.e. Aaron and his two surviving sons. How could they slaughter enough animals in one day to satisfy the craving of all the people? And, even supposing this could be done, seeing there was a strict time limit, maximum two days and a night, during which sacrificial meat was allowed to be eaten, how could they eat meat for thirty days? (verse 21) Moses’ statement regarding fish as an alternative to supplying meat was not meant as a question, but as a comment that such an alternative, not involving ritual killing of the fish which would not require priests, would also have presented great difficulties albeit miracles of a different kind. The people could never have collected enough fish in a day to last them for a month. G–d’s answer to Moses was simply that He would provide birds which did not require ritual slaughter by priests, as did cattle or flocks.

וירץ הנער, “the lad ran;” the lad was Moses’ son Gershom.

ויגד למשה אלדוד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה “he told Moses: “Eldod and Meydod are prophesying within the boundaries of the camp.” These two men were (half) brothers of Moses. When the Torah was given, and certain types of family members were no longer allowed to live in married union together, such couples separated in accordance with the law. This caused sorrow among such families as we know from verse 10 in our chapter where Moses is portrayed as listening to the weeping of families which had been broken up as a result of the new laws. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 130.) Amram, Moses’ father, was also affected by these new laws, as when Pharaoh had decreed that all male Jewish babies were to be downed, he had divorced his wife Yocheved, who was his aunt. He had remarried and Eldod and Meydod were sons sired by him from this marriage. Their named reflected that they were compensations for a marriage broken up as a result of the prohibition to marry one’s aunt. [I find this hard to understand as the new laws came into existence after Moses, son of Yocheved, was at least 81 years old, and any children his father could have sired from another wife subsequently could not have been more than babies at the time when the demand aired by the Israelites for meat could have happened. How could such babies have prophesied, much less have been taken seriously if they did? Besides we have no reason to assume that Amram had left Egypt at the Exodus as his son Moses by Yocheved, who had married him at the age of 130, so how old must he have been at the time of the Exodus? Ed.] Our author claims to have found a manuscript of a certain Rabbi Amram, son of a Rabbi Hillel, who had lived in the land of Israel, in which the author writes as follows: “I have personally seen the graves of Eldod and Meydod brother of Aaron through his father’s side but not from the same mother.”’ Some scholars claim that Eldod is identical with a certain Elidod son of Kisslon, mentioned in Numbers 34,21. Meydod is supposed to be identical with Kemuel son of Shifton in verse 24 in that chapter. According to Midrash Tanchuma, section 12 on our portion both these men had humbled themselves in five different ways. Whereas the other seventy men who had drawn lots making them elders, practiced prophecy only on that day, (as indicated in verse 25 when the prophecy concerned the imminent arrival of the quails). Eldod and Meydad prophesied what would happen at the end of the forty years, i.e. Moses’ death and Joshua becoming his successor. They were rewarded by enjoying prophetic status for an indefinite period. According to some opinions they predicted details of the last war before the coming of the messiah, the war involving Gog and Magog. Whereas the other seventy elders did not enter the Holy Land, these two men did. We know that Kisslon and Kemuel entered the Holy Land (Numbers 34). The names of the other seventy elders were not mentioned by the Torah, whereas the names of these men were mentioned. The reason why the prophetic powers of the seventy elders ceased, was that they had been a “’branch” of Moses’ prophetic powers, whereas these two men received their prophetic power directly from G–d. The Holy Spirit is described as functioning when they were not in the vicinity of Moses. This is why the Torah describes their prophesying “inside the camp” not only while on sacred ground next to the Tabernacle. This is the conclusion arrived at in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 17. The author finds it difficult to believe that these two men had been half-brothers of Moses seeing that according to the Torah in Numbers chapter 34, Elidod and Kisslon were members of the tribe of Binyamin. Kemuel is described there as a member of the tribe of Ephrayim.

!ויאמר: אדוני משה כלאם, he said: “my lord Moses”. lock them up!” according to the plain meaning of the text, that only seventy elders were to be chosen according to G–d, the man described here as הנער, assumed that these two men must be false prophets, as there were already seventy such men apart from Eldod and Meydod. As a result, they deserved to be locked up pending judgment by the court.

'ויאמר לו משה וגו'...ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו, “and Moses said to him (the (נער, “I wish that all of the Lord’s people were prophets, etc.” Moses meant that possibly what these two men had prophesied was true. The reason that he felt that way was that the prophetic insights granted to the seventy men were part of what had been his portion of Holy Spirit, whereas the two men had received Holy Spirit directly from the source. In the first chapter of tractate Sanhedrin folio 17, the conclusion of the sages after a lengthy discussion of this episode is that if Eldod and Meydod had only predicted that Moses would die, the demand to lock up such a person would make sense, but if they also predicted that Joshua would lead the people into the Holy land, this would have violated the rule that no one is allowed to make new rules in the presence of his Mentor, i.e. to give Moses instructions whom to punish and whom not to punish. If Eldod and Meydod had predicted only that there would be a war involving Gog and Magog, what was wrong with that? Why should they have been locked up? The answer to this rhetorical question given is that such a prediction violates the rules of good manners. They would have given the impression that their prophetic insights extended way beyond those of Moses, their teacher and King. Perhaps, as suggested there in the Talmud, the meaning of the word כלאם, is: “impose upon them to become servants of the community,” and you will find that they will break down and die under that burden without any external assistance.

הבשר עודנו בין שניהם, “while the meat was still between their teeth, before it had been chewed, etc.;” to the question of why G–d waited this long before displaying His anger, the answer is that if He had reacted angrily sooner, the people would have interpreted His anger as proof that He was unable to meet their requests. Once He had proved that He could provide not only what they had asked for but more, He reacted with the anger that He had withheld up to then. We find an interesting verse in Psalms 78.31:ויהרוג במשמניהם, “He killed the healthy, fat ones among them.” The psalmist considers that the healthy young men amongst the people at that time, were more guilty than any other section of the people as they had lacked absolutely nothing, as testified to by their continued health and vitality even in the desert. The Torah describes some people dying while not even having swallowed the meat yet, others are described as eating from it for a whole month. How do we understand this? The moral level of different Israelites varied. The ones on the lowest level did not even get to swallow it, whereas those on higher levels died at a time appropriate to their respective moral standing.