And the people were as those who complain, etc. We do not find explicitly in Scripture what this complaint was, yet the verse does not come to conceal but to explain. However, since we find two explicit complaints in Scripture — the first, We remember the fish, etc. and the second, weeping among their families regarding matters of forbidden relationships, etc. — therefore, certainly the entire passage speaks about one matter, and it was all one complaint originating from the passage And it came to pass when the Ark set forward, which is the mystery of the inverted letter nun at the end of the passage and in the word kemitonnenim [as those who complain]. For it is surprising in the eyes of many, and also in my eyes it is surprising, what our Sages interpreted (Tractate Shabbat 130a): And Moses heard the people weeping among their families — concerning matters of forbidden relationships that were prohibited to them. What is the connection of this complaint to here? And why did they not weep at the time when the forbidden relationships were prohibited to them? And if at that time they were silent and each of them accepted it, now what happened to them that they came to mention the past and to regret the past which they had already accepted and upheld? Furthermore, they explicitly said, We remember the fish, and they said, Who will feed us meat? And without doubt, all these verses from and the Children of Israel also wept again until And Moses heard the people weeping are all speaking about one weeping. For this reason, our Sages endeavored to interpret the complaint in a distant way, for in Tractate Yoma (75a), Rav and Shmuel disagree about it — one says it refers to actual fish, and one says it refers to forbidden relationships, using a euphemistic expression, as it is written (Proverbs 30:20), She eats and wipes her mouth. According to his view, it is also simple to say that Who will feed us meat is also a euphemistic expression. And even according to his words, we need to provide a good reason and understanding of what this complaint has to do here, and why they were silent when the forbidden relationships were prohibited to them.

Indeed, according to what we have explained above regarding the entire section of “When the Ark traveled.” It was written only to encourage Israel regarding the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, that they should multiply abundantly like these fish. [Hence] the entire section will be properly understood, and its companion will attest to it — the inverted nun at the end of the section and the inverted nun in the word “kemitonnenim,” because nun represents a fish, and fish are extremely prolific in reproduction. Now, initially when sexual prohibitions were imposed upon them, they did not object to this because they thought there was [now] an impediment to their spirit [and they would not be held accountable if they did not engage in reproduction], until they heard the section of When the Ark traveled, which explained to them that whoever does not engage in being fruitful and multiplying causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel. Then, resentment entered their hearts and they said: “It would be understandable if we could be fruitful and multiply like these fish with all women, we would be confident that we would never cause the departure of the Divine Presence. However, since forbidden relationships have been prohibited to us, we are the opposite of fish” — which is represented by the inverted nun.

And this is an explanation of the passage: After they heard Return, O Lord, to the myriads of thousands of Israel (Numbers 10:36), which encouraged them regarding the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, to be like these fish, they immediately had thoughts in their hearts about forbidden sexual relations, for this is the inverted nun. Therefore, and the people were as complainers — it does not say “complainers” but rather as complainers [kemitonnenim], with the comparative letter kaf, saying: Behold, we are like this Onan [a mourner in grief] who is forbidden marital relations, so too we are not permitted marital relations with all women. And since grief [aninut] is only in the heart, for they had not yet expressed their complaint outwardly, therefore Moshe did not yet sense their complaint. However, God heard and listened to the voice of their complaint. Therefore it says evil in the ears of the Lord, and the fire of the Lord burned among them (Numbers 11:1). For they sinned with heat [passion], and the fire of desire and sexual arousal burned within them. Therefore, measure for measure, the fire of the Lord burned among them and consumed at the edge [ketzeh] of the camp — or among the leaders [ketzinim], or among those who were set apart [muktzim]. And this matter will be explained further on.

And the people cried out to Moses. And not to God, because they thought that since Moses had not yet perceived their sin, they would think that it was a coincidence happening to them, and he would pray for them. And that is what Moses did, thinking that the place had caused this to them, for there are places in the earth where a great hidden wind causes the ground to quake, and there are places where there is hidden fire. Therefore, Moses called the name of the place Tav’erah because he thought that the place had caused this to them, and not their sin.

“And the mixed multitude that was within it [Israel] lusted a lust.” All these words are connected, and their explanation is as follows: The Children of Israel knew the truth that the fire of God burned in them as a punishment, not by chance. Therefore, they ceased their complaints. But the mixed multitude, whose origin was from the Egyptians who were steeped in immorality, did not accept discipline and further added rebellion and expressed outwardly what they had initially contemplated in their hearts. This is what it means: And the mixed multitude that was initially within them, in their hearts, lusted a lust, and they returned — meaning they returned to their wayward behavior and brought their complaints outward and cried. And the Children of Israel also wept — from the fact that it says also, we learn that the mixed multitude were crying first and made the Children of Israel cry with them. The repetition of the phrase lusted a lust reflects the nature of sexual immorality, where desire leads to more desire, as the Sages said (Sukkah 52b): “To satisfy it is to make it hungry.” And they said with a full mouth, Who will feed us meat? — referring to the “flesh” of immorality, using a euphemistic expression, as we say in the Talmud “we remember the fish” is a euphemistic expression, and all the more so the term “meat/flesh” can be interpreted this way.

And why they began with meat and ended with fish, is because the term fish indicates more promiscuity in sexual matters than the term “meat,” since fish are more sexually unrestrained than the flesh of any living creature. Therefore, they said as a compromise, Who will feed us meat, meaning that they wanted to be permitted in sexual matters like other living flesh, although not to the extent of fish, for they did not ask for that much. Nevertheless, they said, We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt for free. Because while we were among the Egyptians who were immersed in sexual depravity, everything was permitted to us, even to be like fish, and now we wish we could at least be like other living flesh. This is the meaning of Who will feed us meat. And it is plausible to understand that this is all quite literal, but their intention was to request meat which heats the body more and increases sexual desire. This is the meaning of the double expression they craved a craving — they craved something that would increase sexual desire. And although fish are cooling, they still increase bodily fluids and semen as well, and furthermore, one who eats fish adopts its nature of being sexually unrestrained. Fish have these two negative aspects, therefore they said as a compromise, Who will feed us meat which sustains desire, and we remember the fish which sustains even greater promiscuity. Nevertheless, they wished, If only we had meat as a compromise. According to this interpretation, what Moses said, Where would I get meat… if all the fish of the sea can be understood literally, for they complained about these two things that assist in procreation. And God gave them quail, which heats the body even more and fulfills their request. And so it says in the Midrash (Tanchuma 16) that it is written (Psalms 78:27), He rained meat upon them like dust, and it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 18:6), No man shall approach any flesh of his flesh — referring to forbidden sexual relations, for this is what their souls desired.

And if you say that fish nevertheless cool and reduce desire, then you should interpret the verses as follows: They asked for meat which warms and increases desire, and they said We remember the fish, etc., and the cucumbers and the watermelons, for all these things cool [the body]. Nevertheless, they were not harmful to reproduction because we also had leeks, onions, and garlic which are very warming and cancel out the cooling effect. But now “our soul is dried up, etc.”

Or they said that in Egypt those cooling things did not harm us. Also the leeks, garlic, and onions, even though they are harmful to pregnant women and nursing mothers, nevertheless we were fruitful and multiplying, and none of these things that counteract procreation harmed us at all, neither for men nor for women. And now our soul is dry because we don’t have enough fluids that increase seed, as our eyes are only toward the manna, and it is absorbed into the limbs and is not digested in the stomach and liver, therefore it is not a basis for procreation. But the verse testifies to the opposite and says and the manna was like coriander seed. For its appearance was like seed to tell you that it increases seed, and it was “gad” [coriander], as our Sages said (Yoma 75a) that it would tell [magid] whether a child was nine months from the first husband or seven months from the second, like the numerical value of “gad” which indicated if he was a seven-month child. And all these are things that assist procreation. They said that the manna causes dryness because it has no moisture, but the verse says and its taste was like the taste of fresh oil - meaning moisture, which is the opposite of dryness.

And what they said, “There is nothing at all.” Some say that this is what they said: “Even though it [the manna] has the taste of all types of food, nonetheless, there is nothing at all (Numbers 11:6) — it doesn’t have the taste of all foods, for it doesn’t have the taste of leeks and onions, etc.” And in the Akeidah [Rabbi Yitzchak Arama’s commentary], he explains except for the manna our eyes [see] (Numbers 11:6) — even though it has all tastes, nevertheless, our eyes see only the manna, and a blind person eats but is not satisfied.

“And Moses heard the people weeping by their families, each at the entrance of his tent.” For one cannot say that families gathered together in groups and wept, since it says each at the entrance of his tent. Rather, certainly [they were weeping] about matters of their families. And the anger of the Lord was kindled, and in Moses’ eyes it was bad. Specifically now [it was bad in Moses’ eyes], but before that it was bad only in the ears of the Lord, because Moses did not understand their intention. And regarding what it says, we remember [which refers to] the past, and that we would/will eat [nochal] which implies the future, this is what they said: that whenever we said in the past Let us appoint a leader and return to Egypt, at that time we remembered the fish that we will eat in the future when we arrive there. And regarding what it says free from the commandments, this will be explained, God willing, later in Parashat Pinchas (26:64), that they said this about tithes and offerings.

And it consumed at the edge of the camp. Literally at the edge, therefore all the people fled from the edge when they saw that around the camp it was extremely turbulent, and they fled into the camp because they were afraid to be at the edges. Therefore it is said, And the asafsuf that was among them. We do not find anywhere in the Torah that the mixed multitude is called “asafsuf” except here, because “sifsef” [meaning “gathered”] has twice the word “sof” [end], and they meant to say that all the people who were found at every end and extremity of the camp, seeing that around them the fire of God burned, therefore fled to the midst of the camp. This is what is meant by that was among them — in the middle, as mentioned.

And our Sages of blessed memory (Sifrei 11:1) interpreted it [the phrase “at the edge of the camp”] as referring to the officers of the camp or the outcasts of the camp, but the language is not clear to me because the word “edge” [katzeh] does not connote an officer [katzin], nor an outcast [muktzeh]. It seems to me that everyone agrees that the word edge does not depart from its simple meaning, which refers to the extremity of the camp, as every instance of “ketz” [edge] denotes an end. However, every edge has two extremities — a beginning and an end. In the normal course of the world, the officers of the people walk at the head of the camp, which is the first edge, while the outcasts walk at the end of the camp, which is the last edge. According to all opinions, the edge of the camp does not depart from its simple meaning, but the Scripture does not specify which edge — whether it refers to the officers of the people who walk first at the first edge, or to the outcasts of the camp who walk at the last edge. Therefore, our Sages disagree on this matter — some say it refers to the officers, and others say it refers to the outcasts. Their disagreement depends on what our Sages said (Bava Kamma 60a) that calamity comes to the world only because of the wicked, but it always begins with the righteous, as it is said If a fire breaks out and catches in thorns, and a stack of grain is consumed (Exodus 22:5). The stack of grain has already been consumed. According to this, the one who says it refers to the officers of the camp holds that this verse speaks of those with whom the calamity begins, while the one who says it refers to the outcasts holds that this verse speaks of those who cause the calamity. But since it says the mixed multitude [ha’asafsuf] with a double “sof” [end], this implies that it refers to both the officers and the outcasts, for both are at an “end” — one at the first end and one at the final end. This is also implied by the language of the verse and catches in thorns [u’matzah kotzim], meaning two extremities, as “kotzim” [thorns] is related to “ketz” [end], and a stack of grain is consumed — everything is included, even the average people in the middle. Therefore it says “ha’asafsuf” — meaning two ends. That was among them is like “and that which was among them” [ve’asher bekirbo], referring to the average people, similar to The sun [and] moon stood still in their habitation (Habakkuk 3:11) where the conjunction “and” is missing, is as if it said “the sun and the moon.” So too here, it is as if it said “the mixed multitude and those who were among them” — all turned away together, they became corrupt from the sole of the foot to the head; all of them craved a craving.

According to the midrashic approach, one can say that this is the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He: In times when creatures are evil and sinful, the Holy One, blessed be He, stretches forth His hand to both extremes — to the good and to the evil — so that all those in the middle will learn a moral lesson through a fortiori reasoning [kal vachomer]. For if He were to affect only the lowly ones, then the righteous among them would attribute it to their good deeds, saying, “Evil will not approach us because we are not sinners like them.” Therefore, He affects even the most perfect among them, and then those of lesser stature will draw a fortiori reasoning, saying, “If fire has seized the moist [wood], what will happen to the dry thorns?” And if He were to affect only the righteous among them, the lesser ones would say, “Of course these deserve to be punished since they are close to God, and around Him it is exceedingly turbulent (Psalms 50:3), for whoever is closer to God must be more meticulous in his actions, since one who rebels against the king within his palace is not comparable to one who rebels outside his palace.” Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, grasps both extremes, thus nullifying all these arguments, and everyone between the extremes will fear God and not return to folly. This matter is explained by Ezekiel (15:2-4): Son of man, what will become of the wood of the vine… both its ends were consumed by fire and its middle is charred; can it still be useful for any work? For he compared Israel to a vine whose fire consumes its two ends while its middle is charred and shaken. So the Holy One, blessed be He, grasps the asafsuf, the chiefs and the outcasts, so that those in the midst will be shaken and afraid. And when they all turned away from the path, then the fire consumed them all, both the asafsuf and those in the midst, which is its interior. Perhaps the “chiefs” are not the righteous but rather the hypocrites who present themselves as virtuous so that they might be appointed as leaders and chiefs, while inwardly they set their ambush. The Holy One, blessed be He, exposed these hypocrites and caused them to bring their wickedness out into the open, for he who covers hatred deceitfully, his wickedness will be revealed in the assembly (Proverbs 26:26).

And if this is what You do to me. Rashi explained that Moses’ strength was weakened [tashash] like a female, and many who saw this were puzzled by this interpretation — for why would Moses use the feminine pronoun At [You — feminine form] toward the Almighty just because his strength was weakened like a female? But I say there is no difficulty at all, because our Sages of blessed memory said (Yalkut Shimoni Ha’azinu 945) that the righteous add strength to the Power above, as it is said And now, I pray, let the power of the Lord be great (Numbers 14:17), while the wicked weaken His strength, as it is said You neglected [teshi, here understand as weakened] the Rock who begot you (Deuteronomy 32:18). The explanation of this matter is that due to the cessation of divine influence because of the actions of the wicked, it appears as if there is weakness in strength, so to speak. And here, because the hands of the lover [Moses] became weak and his strength diminished like a female, he did not have the strength to add power to the Might above. Therefore, he used the feminine pronoun At toward the Almighty to indicate that one thing depends on the other, and this is a precious interpretation.

And it is reasonable to understand that this refers to what was written “as a nursing father carries,” and it did not say “nurse” [female form]. Abarbanel explained that You make me like a male nursemaid who carries the infant but has no breasts to nurse the child when he cries; similarly, I have no means to fulfill their requests. And regarding this it says, if You [At] deal thus with me — for this feminine comparison is applicable to You, as it were, because it is in Your power to quench their thirst, and You are able as a man [with power], so how can You impose the female likeness upon me when I am male without breasts to nurse? The comparison to You, the Most High, is not about weakness, God forbid, but rather indicates capability, like a female who has breasts to nurse.

Should sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them? The understanding from Rashi’s commentary is as if Moses doubted God’s ability, heaven forbid. And because this was said in private, the Holy One, blessed be He, spared him. But all commentators disagree with this interpretation and tried to justify Moses’s words, each according to his understanding. The most correct interpretation of all is derived from the phrase and it would suffice for them, because the meaning implies that slaughtering and gathering for them is possible in itself, but “sufficing them” is not possible. Since they are only seeking a pretext, even if you give them all the sheep and cattle and all the fish in the sea in the world, it would not suffice for them — it would not be enough for them because they would continue to rebel and seek pretexts. This seems to be the meaning from the statement if all the fish in the sea were gathered for them and suffice for them. Why repeat for them twice? He could have combined them and said “if all the fish in the sea were gathered and suffice for them.” But he made two distinct parts because one of them is possible and the other is impossible, since they are seeking a pretext. It’s possible that Rashi also believed that Moses never doubted God’s ability at all, and understood from his words the aforementioned interpretation or some other interpretation offered by the commentators. However, Rashi criticized him for saying his words in a manner that could give mistaken people room to err and say that he doubted God’s ability, heaven forbid, which would lead to desecration of God’s name. But since it was said in private, and he wasn’t concerned that the blind ones in the Hebrew camp might hear, he wasn’t careful with his language, as he was speaking with God, who understands his intentions, and not with those who err. But Listen, you rebels was said in public and all Israel heard it, as is known, therefore he was punished.

Another explanation is that Moses spoke according to the natural order. For according to the natural order, they certainly would not find in the wilderness a sufficient supply of meat and fish unless through a miracle. And based on the magnitude of the miracle, they would deserve a greater punishment for burdening their Creator with their complaints. Therefore he said, Six hundred thousand foot soldiers, etc. and for this large population, providing sustenance would be a great miracle, and for a month of days is a long time, and You want to magnify the miracle in order to magnify their punishment — this is not appropriate. The Lord answered him: “If so, they will say that the Lord’s hand is shortened [unable to provide]. Better that they should perish than for them to say the Lord’s hand is shortened.”

Regarding the allegorical interpretation, this verse calls for explanation, as one must question why the terms slaughtered and gathered are necessary. Is this verse now coming to teach us the laws of slaughtering animals and gathering fish? Furthermore, in their complaints they mentioned meat and fish, yet the Holy One, blessed be He, gave them a third species, as birds are not called “meat.” In a more distant interpretation, it can be said that there is an allusion here to what the ancients said: that the wicked are compared to cattle that require two simanim [signs] for kosher slaughter, just as the wicked are banished from both this world and the World to Come. The average people are compared to birds that are permitted with just one sign, just as they, after receiving their punishment in this world, have a portion in the World to Come. And the righteous are compared to fish, for which mere gathering suffices, and thus it is said of the righteous, “he was gathered to his people” (for example, Genesis 25:8), for their death is by divine kiss. And here, the fire of God had already burned among the chiefs and the outcasts, and they did not return to their folly. The craving ones were the average people, as understood from the phrase who were in their midst, meaning the middle or the center. They asked for meat and fish that were not of their kind, for meat of animals is fitting for the wicked and fish for the righteous. Therefore, the verse specifies slaughtered and gathered, and adds the word for them to say that cattle, which require slaughter, and fish, which only require gathering, will not be found sufficient for them — these do not correspond to them because they are not of their kind at all. And God answered him, Now you will see whether My word happens to you, for it is in My power to match them with what is of their kind, as understood from the term happens to you, for God caused the quail to come to them, and like found like. And all this is by way of homiletical interpretation and far from the plain meaning.

“Are you jealous for my sake, etc.” Joshua, because he was young in days, held onto the trait of jealousy, as it is written, And Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant from his youth, answered. Due to being one of his young men, he said this, whereas if he had been an elder, advanced in days, he would not have been concerned about two companions having authority together. And therefore they said (Bava Batra 75a): “The face of Moses was like the face of the sun, and Joshua like the moon.” For just as the moon complained and said, “It is impossible for two kings to use one crown,” so too Joshua complained and said, Eldad and Medad are prophesying. But Moses was like the sun that did not complain at all; thus Moses said, Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets.

And he said, “Would that the Lord might place His spirit upon them.” The Akeidah [commentary] explained: It’s obvious that if they were to receive from the spirit that is upon me, I would not be jealous of them, because a person is jealous of everyone except his son and his student (Sanhedrin 105b). Rather, even if the Lord were to place His spirit upon them directly and they would not be my students, nonetheless I would not be jealous of them. And some say that he [Moses] was being precise, because specifically when the Lord places His spirit upon them, it is possible that all the people of the Lord would be prophets, but if He were to emanate upon them from the spirit that is upon me, it would be impossible for all of them to be prophets. Because that which is emanated must resemble the emanator in every way, and our Sages said (Nedarim 38a) that the Divine Presence rests only upon one who is strong, wise, wealthy, and humble, and all these were in Moses. They meant by this that since all these qualities were in Moses, therefore it is necessary that whoever receives emanation from him must resemble him in every way, and this is impossible for all of Israel to be equal in all these four attributes. For if so, what makes one person greater than another? But if the Lord places His spirit upon them without an intermediary, then there is no need for all of them to be equal in these four attributes, and one cannot say that they must resemble Him, as it were, for how can anyone be compared to Him? Therefore it is said, if the Lord places His spirit upon them.