ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “The people were as if looking for a pretext to complain.” The word מתאונן occurs in Lamentations 3,39 where it means “complain.” As the people entered the desert they experienced a variety of uncomfortable sensations. These complaints were very displeasing in the ears of the Lord, seeing they were caused by the fact that instead of marching joyfully towards their destiny and the Holy Land, the people marched only grudgingly. The reason the word מתאוננים is spelled with the prefix כ i.e. a preposition describing something in relative terms, i.e. “as if,” is because at that stage they did not yet dare verbalize their feelings of discontent. They did not want Moses to hear their complaint. This is why the Torah describes G’d as “hearing” unspoken complaints by the people. Moses had not heard these complaints.

והאספסף, “and the rabble,” these people were the fellow travelers, they were not natural born Israelites. They were described elsewhere as ערב רב, “a mixed multitude.” The word אספסף, is a doubling of certain letters just as we find in the word סחרחר, or חמרמרו מעי in Psalms 38,11 (reeling) or in Lamentations 1,20 (my entrails are distressed).

את הקשואים ואת האבטיחים, “the cucumbers and the melons, etc.” The people spoke in a desultory way of the superior food the Lord had provided, the manna. In order to belittle the manna they compared it unfavorably to such food as is universally considered as inferior such as cucumbers and melons. We know that the land of Egypt produced excellent food, seeing the Torah had described the land of Egypt as “a garden of the Lord” in Genesis 13,10 when describing the fertility of the Jordan valley. In order to emphasize their disdain for the manna the people did not compare it unfavorably with Egypt’s best produce but they compared it to Egypt’s most inferior produce. Moreover, the fact that they mentioned fish was an outright insult against the manna seeing the only kind of fish the Israelites had been given in Egypt were the fish which had already begun to decompose and to stink. They were given only fish which had been caught at least 4 or 5 days previously. This is the reason they spoke about remembering הדגה instead of דגים or הדג, “the fish.” The word הדגה means that these fish were recognizable only as a species not individually. We know that this is an appropriate distinction from Jonah 2,1 where the prophet describes G’d as commanding דג גדול, “a large fish” to swallow Jonah. However, when the Torah refers to the fish in the river Nile at the time the river was turned into blood, the dead fish are described as דגה. The river is described as “stinking with these dead fish.” (Exodus 7,17). When Jonah prayed inside the belly of the fish, that fish is described as דגה, because Jonah describes himself as praying from “Sheol,” i.e. from the grave (Jonah 2,3). If someone sits inside a dead belly he is equivalent to sitting in a grave. If, later on, we read that G’d commanded Jonah to be spewed out and to be swallowed by a second (smaller) fish, this was only because it was not dignified for Jonah to sit inside a dead fish. The second fish was then ordered to spew out Jonah on dry land (Jonah 2,11). To get back to our main subject: The Israelites expressed their disgust at what was a most valuable gift from G’d. The people were not so much wanting something as expressing their dissatisfaction with what they had. Significantly, throughout this episode the Torah speaks of the people as העם, “the people,” a term describing the lowest common denominator. They are not referred to as either עדה or בני ישראל, which would have pointed at people on a spiritually higher level. Eventually (verse 5) the בני ישראל, the elite of the people, also became infected with this discontent. The place referred to in verse 34 as קברות התאוה is none other than תבערה which was mentioned in verse 3. The meaning both times is that at the very site where their unjustified desires surfaced they were punished. The “fire” is none other than their “burning desire.” The reason these two paragraphs dealing with תאוה desire, is written adjacent to the story of Miriam making uncalled for comments about Moses and his family life or lack thereof, is because Miriam too made inadmissible comments, just as had the people who had denigrated the manna or who had wanted to stuff themselves on a meat diet. The paragraph reporting Miriam’s inadmissible comments is followed by the one with the spies who also made inadmissible comments about Eretz Yisrael being a country which devours its inhabitants, etc.

It is also possible to see in the fact that the Israelites referred to cucumbers and melons at this time proof of their bad character and the strength of their desire. Not only the rabble but also some of the elite of the people were caught up in this irrational desire. This is reflected in the doubling of the words התאוו תאוה with which the Torah describes these feelings of the people. It means that the people drew on reservoirs of desire, the source of their animalistic soul. They allowed their feeling free reign. Our sages in commenting on the words בוכה למשפחותיו captured the underlying feelings of the people when they translated these words as: “they cried because certain incestuous sexual unions had become forbidden at Mount Sinai” (Yuma 75). When they said בלתי אל המן עינינו, “our eyes are focused only on the manna,” they meant that just as the manna was composed of a single element as distinct from earth which is composed of four elements, they felt very keenly they had been denied these other elements and what they would contribute to their well being. The fact is that the very fact that the manna was not מורכב, composed of several elements, made it close to abstract, helping to sharpen the people’s wits seeing it was intellectual in essence. Instead of appreciating this aspect of the manna as a valuable asset, they considered it as a serious shortcoming to their well being. In picking on specific examples of food that they were nostalgic about, i.e. fish and cucumbers, one reminiscent of the element of earth, dust, the other of the element of water, they indicated their desire to feel close to these elements. This is the reason they made no mention of fruit grown on trees. Fruit grown on trees also contains parts of the element רוח, the very element they felt they already had too much of. The Talmud in Yuma 75 explains that the reason the Israelites mentioned five categories of food here, i.e. cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic was that although the manna could assume the taste of any food under the sun, it could not assume the taste of these five plants. G’d had arranged it thus as the taste of these five plants is potentially harmful to both pregnant women and women who are nursing babies. We know ourselves that doctors recommend that pregnant women and nursing mothers should abstain from certain foods out of consideration for their babies or fetuses.

Nachmanides adds that the reason the Torah adds the word חנם when the people described the conditions under which they ate fish, i.e. “for free, without having to pay for them,” was because the Egyptians employed the Israelites to pull the fish out of their nets and instead of paying them wages, they gave the Israelites some of the fish for free. This was an established custom in Egypt. Thus far Nachmanides. Our sages in Yuma do not see it in this light at all. They say that the word חנם, “for free,” means that these fish had not had owners and G’d arranged for the fish to be caught in the nets or jugs of the Israelites. This is spelled out in Sotah 11.

A Midrashic approach based on Sifri Behaalotcha 87. The Midrash asks: how could the Israelites’ argument that they ate these fruit and fish for free be taken at face value when we know that the Egyptians did not even supply the Jewish labourers with the straw they needed for their brickmaking for free (Exodus 5,18)? Therefore we cannot understand the word חנם to mean “free” in the sense of “without payment;” rather the meaning is that they did not have to undertake any obligations of a ritual nature in order to eat fish. By using the word חנם here, the people indicated that the commandments of the Torah were a burden for them and that they wished themselves free from that burden. It is a reminder of the description of the Exodus when the Torah mentioned how difficult it was to extract one nation from amidst another nation, i.e. the Jews and the Egyptians had been so intermingled culturally (Deut. 4,34). The Israelites had practiced idolatry no less than their masters the Egyptians.

שטו העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או דכו, “the people would stroll and gather it, and grind it in a mill or pound it in a mortar.” We know the expression שטו from Job 1,7 when Satan described himself as roaming all over earth. This indicates that when the people went out to collect the manna they did not do so in groups, but each one pursued a different path. The word ולקטו “and they collected,” means that the manna was ready to be eaten forthwith. It did not have to be cooked, baked, or fried.

Most foods lend themselves to one method of preparation for eating it. If a new method is tried this food will often not be tasty. Not so with the manna. This food was amenable to all known ways of preparing food and it would be equally tasty. It would be at least as tasty as baked goods made with dough kneaded with oil. The Torah quotes this example to contrast it with what some of the people had said, i.e. “our soul is dried out” (from eating manna, verse 6). The Torah provides objective rather than subjective yardsticks. According to the Torah’s description it would be impossible for a person to “dry out” from dough which contained both oil and honey. According to one opinion the word לשד is an acronym of the three words לישת שמן דבש, “something kneaded from oil and honey.” According to another opinion the letter ל in the words לשד השמן is part of the root of the word לשד. We find that word in Psalms 32,4 לשדי בחרבוני קיץ, “my vital juices in the summer drought.” Applied to our verse it would mean that far from dehydrating a person the manna would do the reverse as it tasted like something soaked in oil. The word השמן as opposed to merely שמן, suggests that this was the highest quality oil. In this verse you will find an interesting allusion if you take one letter each from the words העם ולקטו וטחנו ברחים או and ending with the word השמן, yielding מטטרו-ן, the name of the angel running the universe on behalf of G’d and responsible for rainfall, i.e. ממטיר which is mentioned in connection with the מן. The word שטו is an allusion to the “employer” of Mattatron who sends him to “roam” (לשוט) over earth in his efforts to discharge his duties.

ואם ככה את עושה לי, ”And if this is how You will deal with me, etc.” The word את in this verse is a reference to the attribute of Justice. Moses refers to the reaction of G’d described in verse 10 where the Torah wrote ויחר אף ה' מאד, that “G’d had become exceedingly angry.” The word את as describing the attribute of Justice is also found in Deut. 5,24 when the people expressed their inability to endure the sound of the voice of G’d. It is also found in Ezekiel 28,14 את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You are a great protective cherub.” This is a pseudonym for the second highest ranking angel known as כבוד, his partner being the angel known as תפארת. [compare author’s comment on Exodus 25,18 on the subject of the cherubs. Ed.] I have already explained that seeing the written text of the Torah does not contain vowels, it is possible to supply the vowel kametz when reading the word עושה with the vowel kametz under the letter ש, so that it sounds as “ossah.” The reason we have been forbidden to write the vowels in the written text of the Torah scroll is to enable a person to understand a variety of meanings in the text which he could not find if he were bound to a specific vowel pattern under or over the consonants. For instance, in Genesis 22,12 the word ידעתי in the sequence עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלוהים אתה, normally translated as “now I know that you are truly G’d-fearing,” would have a different meaning if the letter ד in ידעתי had a dagesh in it. It would become transitive in meaning, i.e. “Avraham made known (to the world) who and what he was in relation to G’d.” Another example where a minor change in vocalization makes a substantial difference in meaning is found in Exodus 2,5 in connection with how the daughter of Pharaoh saved Moses. The conventional reading of the words is ותשלח את אמתה ותקחה, “she dispatched her maid and took it (the basket).” The word אמה then would have the same meaning as the word שפחה. However, one can understand the word אמתה as meaning “her arm” indicating a miraculous lengthening of her arm; this is the way the sages in Sotah 12 understood it as if the letter מ had a dagesh in it. There are numerous such examples throughout the Torah.

הרגני נא הרוג, “please kill me (now).” It is possible to explain the repetition of the infinitive here as referring to the original person whose soul had been reincarnated in Moses’ body, i.e. Hevel. He meant that he preferred to be killed by G’d now and not by the hands of mortal man later on.

According to the Midrash, Moses pleaded with G’d to “kill the one who was already dead” [seeing that his original incarnation had been killed this would not account as a death wish which is halachically inadmissible. Ed.] He implied: “if I speak to the Israelites opposing their demand they will kill me. If I fail to carry out Your instructions I will make myself liable to the death penalty. In other words, I am dead already.”

אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושוטריו, “gather for Me 70 men from among the elders of Israel whom you know to be elders of the people and its officers.” G’d meant that Moses was aware that the people in question had demonstrated empathy for the people in Egypt absorbing physical punishment on their own bodies rather than inflicting it on their charges. The officers were the ones of whom we read in Exodus 5,14 that “they were beaten by their Egyptian counterparts” for having displayed sympathy for the Jews they were in charge of. They had acquired experience in the qualities needed to deal with the people, and they had established a reputation for fair play.

Even though the wording “gather for me” suggests that the people who were being selected now were a new phenomenon, this was not so. The number of Israelites who originally descended to Egypt was 70; this was the number of people who could spread blessing on their offspring. The number attained great symbolic significance, became an example of the concept that there were never fewer than 70 people devoted to the study of the Abrahamitic tradition. They were the ones whom Moses was commanded in Exodus 3,16 to take along for his first interview with Pharaoh, although there we are not given a number (compare Yuma 28). These same 70 elders mentioned here were also the ones mentioned in Exodus 24,8 where they are linked with Nadav and Avihu, Moses and Aaron, as the elite of the Jewish people. In spite of these seventy elders who had already practiced their leadership qualities, the ones whom G’d wanted Moses to gather now were not the same as the ones with whom we are familiar. Those 70 elders had died at Taveyrah having been slated to die already from the time at Mount Sinai mentioned in Exodus 24 when they had feasted their eyes on a vision of G’d and had continued to eat and drink as if nothing extraordinary were taking place. G’d had not killed them at the time as it was a time of joy for the people. Although the Torah describes the elders Moses is to gather now as people whom Moses was personally familiar with, this must not mislead us into thinking that they were the same elders who were mentioned in Exodus. From the days the Israelites moved to Egypt throughout the period of even the first and second Temple there were never fewer than 70 such people who possessed all these qualifications for being the senior presidium of the people.

These seventy people now selected plus Moses, i.e. a total of 71, corresponded to a similar quorum in the celestial spheres where 70 angels presided over by G’d Himself function as the highest tribunal. At the time when Yaakov descended to Egypt he also was the 71st person who presided over the 70 biological descendants of him who traveled with him.

You find a statement in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 24 according to which when G’d said in Genesis 11,7: “come, let us descend and confuse their language,” the reference was to G’d and these seventy angels who form His inner cabinet, also known as His Sanhedrin. We derive this from the verse there starting with the word 'וה', i.e. G’d and some one else. Every time we encounter such a verse it means that G’d together with His Sanhedrin were involved in what follows.

Having appreciated this we can also understand the first verse in the Book of Exodus where the Torah writes: “and these are the names of the Children of Israel who came to Egypt with Yaakov, etc.” The words: “with Yaakov” mean that their arrival and continued successful existence in Egypt was due to their patriarch Yaakov. When the Torah there adds the words איש וביתו באו, these words have an additional meaning, i.e. that the Shechinah and its entourage also accompanied the Israelites to Egypt, as I pointed out in my commentary on that verse. There are several occasions when the euphemism for the great name of G’d א-ד-נ-י is spelled with an additional letter ו in the middle to give us the numerical value of 71, i.e. the attribute of Justice with its full complement of the celestial Sanhedrin (compare Amos 7,7 where the word אנך also has the numerical value of 71 to make our point still stronger.) [The prophet described a vision of the attribute of Justice threatening to lay waste Jerusalem Ed.]. When the Torah in our chapter verse 24 instructs Moses to position these seventy elders around the Tent of Meeting, this is to symbolize the seventy angels which surround the throne of the Lord in the celestial regions.

The greatness of Moses can be discerned from the fact that G-d asked him to confer some of his Holy Spirit onto these seventy elders, just as G-d himself equips the seventy angels in heaven with His Holy Spirit. This is the meaning of ויעמד אותם סביבות האהל "He stood them around the Tent of Meeting", for the Holy Ark inside the Tent of Meeting represented the throne of G’d in the celestial regions as I have explained in Parashat Terumah (Exodus 25,10).

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Behaalotcha 11: the words אספה לי are reminiscent of 13 different items which G’d has an exclusive claim on as they are all associated directly with the name of the Lord. They are: silver, gold, the priests, the Levites, the Jewish people, the firstborn, the altar, the terumah., (first tithe of the grain harvest for the priests), the oil of anointing, the Tabernacle, the dynasty of David, the sacrificial offerings, the land of Israel, and the elders. The author lists 13 verses in each of which the word לי appears to signify that the phenomenon mentioned is G’d’s. The Midrash interprets Amos 9,6: “Who builds His chambers in heaven, and founded His vault on earth,” as describing a palace built on a number of ships which are tied together. As long as these ships remain closely linked together the walls of the palace remain intact. G’d built the heavens on the assumption that the twelve tribes of the Jewish people remain closely linked to one another. The celestial structure’s integrity is linked inextricably to the fate of the Jewish people, i.e. to their conduct. The Midrash extrapolates further on the appropriateness of the word אספה, “gather, assemble,” by quoting from Deut. 33,5: “then he became king in Israel when the people assembled.” The Midrash goes on to explain the function of these elders by quoting Kohelet 12,11: “the words of the sages are like goads.” Just as it is the function of the goads to prompt the animal to plough straight lines, so the function of the elders is to see to it that the Jewish people “toe the line,” i.e. obey the commandments of the Torah meticulously. They are to reveal different aspects of the Torah to the people. There are three Hebrew words, each of which means “goad;” they are דרבן, מלמד, מרדע. The word דרבן suggests that the sages instill some דר, i.e. בינה, insight, in the cow (people). The word מלמד suggests that the goad teaches the animal to plough properly. Finally, the word מרדע, suggests that the goad imbues the cow with some דעה, knowledge.

The Talmud Chagigah 3, in commenting on these words of Solomon, says that the comparison of the words of the sages to a goad is because just as the goad ensures that the cow will contribute to life on earth through ploughing, etc., so the function of the teachings of the sages is to bring life into the world. After all, the whole purpose of Torah is to enrich life, to ensure that life continues, etc. They are to steer its students away from paths which lead to death to paths which lead to life. Just as the goad causes the cow to move forward, so the words of the sages teaching Torah prompt their listeners to move forward spiritually. The word used there, i.e. מיטלטל, also can be understood as משמרות נטועים, “firmly embedded nails,” (continuation of the verse from Kohelet quoted above). Just as a well driven nail is permanent so should be the words of the sages. The word נטועים used by Solomon for the nails can also mean that just as that which is planted will produce new plants, fruit, so the words of the sages when properly planted will produce “offspring” in due course. Another view concludes that Solomon means that one must not study books other than those of the Bible as the word משמרות used here for “nails” is not spelled with the customary letter ס but with the letter ש, an allusion to the different divisions of the priests which were divided into 24 such משמרות parallel to the 24 Books of the Bible. The בעלי אסופות, “masters of collections” mentioned by Solomon in that same verse are the people in charge of arranging these compositions of the groups of priests were the Sanhedrin seeing the Torah used the expression אספה לי here in connection with the selection of the elders. Solomon concludes his verse saying “they have all been given by one shepherd (G’d),” in order to forestall the thought that the different sages will arrive at different meanings of the Torah and would contribute disunity rather than unity. The sages are not to be classified as one group which issues edicts prohibiting things whereas a competing group concentrates on permitting that which is forbidden. If they were perceived as doing so the people would throw up their hands in despair asking how they could possibly study authentic Torah!?

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “and I will increase some of the spirit which is upon you, etc.” Basically G’d is saying that at the very moment He will be speaking with Moses He will transfer some of Moses’ spirit onto these elders so that they will be able to be true partners in carrying the burden of leadership. This was G’d’s answer to Moses’ complaint: “I cannot carry the burden all by myself.” When G’d said: “when I speak with you there,” He meant that these seventy people would hear G’d speak with Moses, something that had not happened before seeing that G’d’s voice used to be audible only to Moses. The whole procedure was a reward for Moses who had said הרגני נא הרוג thereby indicating that he was willing to give his life on behalf of the people. Moses had also said ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to see my evil,” when in fact he had meant “I do not want to see the evil which will befall them!”

Through this procedure Moses’ stature was greatly enhanced in that he and his quorum of seventy elders from now on could be perceived as parallel to the celestial quorum which we described earlier. Moses’ position relative to the seventy elders compared to G’d’s position relative to the seventy angels who form His Sanhedrin. Any transfer of Holy Spirit from Moses occurred only at times when G’d would speak with Moses. This is clear from the wording of the Torah, i.e. “when I descend to speak with you there (at the tent of Meeting) I will increase from the spirit which is upon you, and place some on them so that they will carry with you the burden of the people and you do not have to carry the burden of the people all by yourself.” This is also exactly what happened. We read in verse 25 that G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him (Moses) and He increased some of the spirit which was on Moses and transferred it to the seventy elders; when this occurred they began to prophesy but they did not do so again.” This verse was the answer to Moses’ question: “where can so much meat be found for them (in a natural manner, without miracle)?” G’d implied that seeing Moses’ spirit was only that of one man he could not understand what the combined spirits of seventy men could understand. Seeing that G’d was able to increase the perceptions of all these people, supplying them with additional spirit from Moses without depriving Moses of any of his spirit, surely G’d could similarly increase the amount of meat available in a natural way without creating “miracle” meat! At this point the author raises the technical question of how the people constituting Moses’ Sanhedrin were seated, etc., if similar to what the Mishnah describes that there was a נשיא, president, and an אב בית דין, a senior member of the Sanhedrin, sort of a deputy and the other members were seated opposite these two senior members in a semi-circle so that every member could see every other member of that quorum. Apparently, when someone was ordained a similar procedure was followed, all those participating in the procedure having full view of what was going on. (Sanhedrin 36 and Maimonides Hilchot Sanhedrin 1,3)

You should know that the principal meaning of the word ואצלתי, is “the drawing forth,” i.e. continuing something by increasing it quantitatively. Clearly, this is the opinion of Onkelos who translates the word ואצלתי as וארבי, “I will increase.” Onkelos again translates the word ויאצל in verse 25 as ורבי, “He increased.” This is the reason that the word appears as denoting something G’d gave, i.e. ויתן על שבעים זקנים וגו'. When the Torah speaks of ועץ השדה יתן פריו, “that the tree(s) of the field will ‘give’ its fruit”- as part of a special blessing- the meaning is that it will give more than its normal amount of fruit (Leviticus 26,4). The word אצל means “an increase of spiritual values,” whereas the word יתן פריו refers to an increased material contribution. This is also the opinion of the philological experts, i.e. that ויאצל refers to המשכה, a continued and therefore increased presence of something. It is well known that the term אצילות and ויאצל is distinct in that increasing, giving, transferring described by this term imply that the original source or owner of what is being given or increased does not suffer a reduction in what he had before. In Sifri Behaalotcha 93 Moses is described as similar to a Menorah at that time from which many people draw light without the light of the Menorah being in any way diminished.

Another description quoted by Tanchuma compares what occurred in our passage to the owner of an orchard who had hired a manager to supervise it. After a while, the supervisor told the owner that the task of looking after the entire orchard was too much for him and that he needed assistants The owner told the supervisor: “I have handed the orchard to you and now you tell me to give you assistants! O.K. I agree; however, you should know that the salaries needed to pay the assistants will be deducted from your salary. I am not going to allocate additional funds to supervising the orchard. The remarkable thing in this situation was that although the seventy elders derived their spiritual inspiration from Moses, Moses’ own Holy Spirit was in no way diminished. You should know that when after forty years G’d told Moses to place his hand on Joshua and to transfer to him some of his Holy Spirit (Numbers 27,18), the Torah describes what happened in these words: “Joshua, son of Nun, was filled with a spirit of wisdom because Moses had placed his hands upon him” (Deut. 34,9). G’d said: “in this present imperfect word only select individuals are given the gift of prophecy. There will come a time, however, when all the Israelites will prophesy.” We know this from Yoel 3,1: “it will be after that time I will pour out My spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your elders will dream visionary dreams and your young men will experience visions.”

You have to realize that there is another dimension to the word and concept of אצילות, i.e. it is a concept which preceded the creation of the physical universe, the three stages of the coming into existence of the physical universe, i.e. בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. The world of אצילות combines within itself all the powers of the three worlds which we just mentioned seeing that it preceded them. The Torah had referred to the seventy elders who had been killed at Taveyra as אצילי בני ישראל, indicating that these people had possessed knowledge of such a world and had seen the full extent of it. The subject of אצילות has been dealt with both in scripture and in the writings of our sages but it appears under different headings. The terms used change according to the general context of where they appear. In Song of Songs 3,9 Solomon speaks about אפריון הנעשה מעצי הלבנון, “a palanquin made from wood of the Lebanon.” He means that something was derived from something else making it into something more valuable. The most important thing to remember when the term אצילות is used is that the one who “gives, provides, endows,” does not himself incur any loss through his conferring whatever it is he confers on someone else.

Kabbalists use the term עקירה, “uprooting,” when they speak of something which experiences אצילות. The term “uprooting” is used in the sense of “transplanting” not in the sense of “destroying.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 15,1 speak of the verse in Psalms 104,16 “the trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon, His own planting.” According to the Midrash G’d uprooted the cedars and moved them to Gan Eden where He replanted them (i.e. in an even more ideal environment, thus adding to their stature, giving them אצילות) Rabbi Chaninah said that prior to being transplanted to Gan Eden these “cedars of the Lebanon were no taller than the feelers on certain types of grasshoppers. We must remember that vegetation on earth was the result of a directive from G’d to earth: “let the earth bring forth all manner of plants, etc.” (Genesis 1,11-12). When the psalmist speaks about G’d personally having planted these cedars there is obviously a question why G’d had to do this. Furthermore, when G’d is reported as having planted a garden in Eden (Genesis 2,8-9) the Torah does not say from where G’d took the plants for that garden. Solomon provided a partial answer to this question when he said that G’d planted these cedars in a place where G’d had done planting. Rabbi Yehudah describes the “promotion” of these cedars in the Lebanon as occurring in three stages, i.e. first according to the verse in Psalms “they drink their fill;” secondly, seeing that every plant requires irrigation, the trees enjoyed a sufficient amount of life-giving water; thirdly they were transplanted to near the source of life itself. At any rate we deal with a form of אצילות experienced by these trees.

ואל העם תאמר התקדשו למחר, “and tell the people: ‘sanctify yourselves for tomorrow.’” According to Nachmanides, from the fact that G’d told Moses to tell the people to sanctify themselves without telling them what this sanctification was for (as he had done at Mount Sinai, or when the manna was about to descend), Moses understood that G’d was not going to provide meat by means of a miracle but by natural means.

לא יום אחד תאכלון ולא יומים, “You will not only eat it for a single day or two days, etc.” The numbers here are usually doubled up, i.e. not one but two, not five but ten, not ten but twenty. It is as if G’d were saying they will eat as much as they could, employing all the fingers on hands and feet in the process. The final statement “until a full month of days,” suggests that until the moon has come full circle the people will still be busy wolfing down the meat. The words: “until it will come out of your nose,” suggests that until the smell of the meat evaporates seeing that the smell is concentrated in the nose. The words: “it will become nauseating for you,” refer to the fact that that which had previously been the object of your irrepressible desire will instead become something nauseating for you. We find a similar phenomenon after Amnon had raped his half-sister Tamar when his erstwhile love for her turned into an abiding hatred (Samuel II 13,15). The reason the word לזרא is spelled with the letter א at the end instead of the letter ה, is to describe the intense repugnance the people felt for the very meat they had craved so much only a month ago. Every time a word which is normally spelled with the letter ה is spelled with the letter א instead, the idea is to show the intensified measure of what the word represents. Examples are: when Naomi says she should be called the “bitter” one, meaning מרה, the author of the Book of Ruth spelled the word with the letter א at the end to demonstrate the depth of Naomi’s embitteredness. She spelled it out saying המר שדי לי מאד, “G’d has caused me much to be bitter about.” A similar example is found in Daniel 11,44 where the word חמא, for anger or alarm, normally spelled חמה, is spelled with the letter א at the end to describe the profound alarm caused by the news described in that verse. What happened to the Israelites in this instance is only typical of what happens to people who overindulge their lust and craving for physical pleasures. They start out by complaining about physical pleasures denied them and neglect spiritual values in their headlong pursuit of these “apparent” pleasures only to find in the end that their very pleasures are the reason that they die prematurely. Solomon defined such supposedly sweet pleasure as נפת, saying of the seductress נפת תטופנה שפתי זרה וחלק משמן חכה, “her lips drip honey; her mouth is smoother than oil” (Proverbs 5,3). In the verse following Solomon describes the conclusion of that seduction as “in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.”

שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו, “six hundred thousand footmen are the people in whose midst I am, etc.” Moses did not bother to include the 3550 people who were in excess of the round number 600,000. When he mentioned that the task of finding meat for all these people was truly phenomenal, he did not mean to suggest that it was something beyond G’d’s ability to provide. He meant that such a large number of people deficient in faith in the Lord surely do not qualify for a miracle which G’d would have to perform to satisfy their request. He did not think that the required amount of meat could be found and served up by natural means. He did not think that all the livestock which the people had taken out of Egypt plus all the fish that could be hunted in the neighboring rivers where they were marching would supply a sufficiently adequate meat diet for them. All of these comments were phrased as a question.

Moses’ whole approach to the subject was that he considered the demands of the people totally unjustified; this was not asking for bread or water but for luxuries! Asaph echoes these sentiments in Psalms 78,18 where he writes of the Israelites at that time: “to test G’d was in their mind when they demanded food for themselves.” They had demanded something which they thought was impossible to provide by natural means. When G’d replied to Moses: “is then the power of the Lord inadequate?” He meant not only am I able to provide all this for them by means of a miracle, but I am able to provide it even by natural means. He told Moses that he would witness that this was the case. He quoted the very fact that Moses would imbue seventy additional men with Holy Spirit without his own spirit being diminished thereby as proof that what did not appear to be available could become available without even depleting the source where the meat came from. As soon as Moses heard this he went and told the people what G’d had said; he gathered the seventy mean and positioned them around the Tabernacle as he had been instructed to do in verse 16 already. The next thing that happened was that G’d descended in a cloud and provided the seventy men with prophetic powers. The Torah then deals with Eldad and Meidad at length. The lesson to Moses was that although his spirit (רוח) was only one and yet it was sufficient to supply from it to seventy elders so G’d can provide sufficient meat for the people from a single natural source. This is the meaning of the verse that “a רוח went forth from Hashem and blew, etc.” The quails which flew in from the direction of the sea appeared to be a totally natural phenomenon. They had previously been congregating on the beaches at the sea and now were carried by the wind in the direction of the camp of the Jewish people. The expression ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew quail from the sea,” is related to the expression in Psalms 90,10 כי גז חיש ונעופה, “for it is soon cut off and we fly away.”

This whole paragraph is a demonstration that G’d’s “hand,” (power) is unlimited, that He is able to provide such large quantities of meat not only by natural means but practically immediately, (so explains Maimonides). Regarding the expression היד ה' תקצר, “is the hand of G’d too short?” Why did G’d speak of His hand in the third person instead of saying: “is My hand too short?” Actually, the construction is not so unusual; we have already encountered it in Exodus 24,1 where the Torah wrote ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: ‘ascend toward the Lord.’” There too the question would have been in place, why did G’d not say: “ascend to Me?”

Rashi explains the words הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle to be slaughtered for them?” (verse 22) as Moses asking: “why do the beasts have to die if instead of feeding the people and the food keeping them alive, the meat will actually cause their death!?” Moses based his question on G’d having told him previously that the meat would come out of the people’s noses (verse 20). He understood the words ומצא להם as “it will be their final meal!” Moses suggested it would not enhance G’d’s stature amongst mankind if He killed the people in the process of demonstrating His ability to provide them with meat. It is like saying to a horse: “eat a large measure of excellent barley and then we will cut off your head.” G’d answered him: “Do you think it is better for the people to think that I am unable to meet their demands? It is better that some of them die and not all of them think that I am unable to provide their requests.” G’d added: “now you will see whether My word comes to pass or not!” Rabban Gamliel, son of Rabbi Yehudah the prince (editor of the Mishnah), interpreted Moses’ question to mean that it is impossible to grant the people’s demands as they were not legitimate demands but attempts to discredit G’d. If G’d were to provide fowl, they would say that they wanted lamb; if He were to provide lamb, they would say they wanted beef. Seeing it was impossible to satisfy their demands, what was the point in even trying. They would anyway conclude that G’d was unable to meet their desires.

Rabbi David Kimchi, quoting his father, has this to say on the subject: at the time when the Israelites uttered their demand for meat they possessed substantial herds of beef and large flocks of sheep. They could not eat any of these animals until they had been brought to the Tabernacle as sacrificial offerings (peace-offerings) first. After the slaughter the blood had to be sprinkled on the Altar and certain fat parts of the animals had to be burned there. A further restriction was the fact that anyone suffering from ritual impurity could not eat of such sacrificial meat until he had purified himself, a procedure which could take as long as seven days in the case of ritual impurity incurred through contact with the dead. Sacrificial meat must be consumed no later than 2 days after slaughter. This meant that many people would not be able to eat even the meat of their own animals. When Moses asked: “shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?” He meant: “will the restriction that the people can consume only sacrificial meat be rescinded on account of their request?” When he added ומצא להם, “and be found for them,” he implied that in such an event there could indeed be an adequate supply of meat for the people by natural means. Moses implied that unless these restrictions were to be rescinded there could hardly be sufficient meat for all the people by natural means. G’d answered him that he would see that He was able to comply with the people’s request in a natural way without rescinding Torah legislation. There would not be a need to either provide sheep or beef or fish, and still the needs of the people would be met in full. The author accepts the part of the interpretation applicable to צאן ובקר, but does not think that it answers Moses’ question “if all the fish in the sea would be adequate?”

וירד ה' בענן וידבר אליו ויאצל מן הרוח אשר עליו ויתן על שבעים איש הזקנים, “G’d descended in a cloud and spoke to him, and He increased some of the spirit that was upon him and gave it to the seventy men, the elders.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that Moses took six men from each tribe, a total of 72. Since G’d had told him to take 70 men, two of them were left out. This is correct. Thus far the wording of Ibn Ezra.

According to Tanchuma Behaalotcha 12 Moses took 72 pieces of paper. On seventy of them he wrote the word “elder,” whereas two pieces of paper he left blank. Every man drawing a slip of paper with the word “elder” knew he had been appointed. The two men who would draw blanks would have to conclude that they had not been found worthy. Seeing Eldod and Meydod were aware of this and were very humble, they remained in the camp without either returning to their private tents nor assembling around the Tabernacle before the drawing of these slips of paper to ensure that none of the participants would be embarrassed by drawing a blank (seeing now Moses only had to prepare 70 such slips). They knew that if they had participated they would have been chosen as the Torah had testified והמה בכתובים, “they had been among the recorded ones” (verse 26). Seeing that they were so modest and humble they were rewarded with a measure of Holy Spirit. Concerning this the Torah wrote (verse 26) “they did not go to the ‘Tent,’ but prophesied in the camp (the general encampment of the Israelites).” The ability to prophesy in an area of a lesser degree of sanctity than the proximity of the Tabernacle was remarkable. There is an explicit verse in Isaiah 61,1 indicating that the virtue of modesty and humility leads to its owner being imbued with prophetic spirit. The prophet writes: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; He has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble.” The merit of their humility resulted in these two people Eldod and Meydod enjoying a higher degree of Holy Spirit than the seventy elders. Whereas the elders were able to prophesy only concerning events on the following day, i.e. telling the people to sanctify themselves in anticipation of events which would occur on the morrow (verse 18), Eldad and Meidad enjoyed prophetic visions extending to the time when the Messiah would arrive. They made statements regarding the downfall of Gog and Magog. as is written in Ezekiel 38,17: “Thus said the Lord G’d: ‘why, you are the one I spoke of in ancient days through My servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied for years (שנים) in those days that I would bring you against them.’” Our sages in Sanhedrin 17 suggest that the word שנים, ”years” in that verse be read as שנים, “two,” the reference being to the two people Eldad and Meidad in our verse here. [There is good reason for this as throughout the verse the word the prophet uses for “years” is ימים, not שנים. Ed.] Additional proof that Eldad and Meidad possessed superior Holy Spirit is the fact that whereas the Torah does not mention the names of the seventy elders, the names of these two men are recorded for all posterity. Furthermore, whereas the elders received their Holy Spirit via a human being, i.e. Moses, Eldad and Meidad had received it from G’d directly seeing Moses had not placed his hand on either of them. In addition to this, the 70 elders all died in the desert whereas Eldad and Meidad entered the Holy Land (Eldad was referred to as אלידד בן כסלון , and Meidad as קמואל בן שפטן, in Numbers 34,21 and 24). These men are described as having been appointed to help in allocating the land of Canaan to the Israelites. All this teaches you that they were richly rewarded for their humility. ויהי כנח עליהם הרוח, “it was when the spirit rested upon them, etc.” This refers to the spirit of Moses which they received. Concerning the Holy Spirit received by Eldad and Meidad the Torah writes ותנח עליהם הרוח (verse 26), meaning this spirit came directly from G’d.

וירץ הנער, “The disciple ran.” The lad in question was Gershon, son of Moses. The reason the Torah adds the words “the servant of Moses since his youth” in verse 28 is that he was one of the choicest among a number of men who acted as Moses’ disciples.

אדני משה כלאם, “My lord Moses, lock them up!” The reason Joshua said this was because Eldad and Meidad had prophesied that Moses would die (in the desert). Joshua would lead the people into the land of Canaan.

Nachmanides feels that the reason Joshua wanted these men locked up was because they had refused Moses’ instructions to present themselves at the Tabernacle together with the other seventy men. They had failed to obey an order. He considered it possible that what they prophesied was a lie and that they were irrational, and had to be put under guard. Moses, in a typical display of humility, said that he wished that G’d would bestow prophetic spirit on the entire nation directly not merely using him as an intermediary. Another nuance in the exclamation by Joshua “lock them up” is that it was against accepted practice to prophesy in the presence of Moses. It had become an accepted norm that no prophet would prophesy about something in the future when there were prophets of greater stature alive among the people. The minor prophets would deport themselves as disciples of the leading prophet of that generation. They were the people often referred to in the Book of Kings as בני הנביאים, “the sons of the prophets” (Kings I 2,35). The Talmud Sanhedrin 17 also says that according to the opinion that what these two men prophesied, i.e. that Moses would die and that Joshua would lead the people to the Holy Land, we can understand why Joshua felt compelled to call for the incarceration of these two men. However, according to the opinion that Eldad and Meidad prophesied concerning matters related to the quails, why would Joshua be so concerned? His demand that these men be locked up would be tantamount to giving a ruling in the presence of a higher authority, something strictly forbidden (maybe even on pain of the death penalty). The Talmud in Megillah 14 raises the same question when it asks by what right the prophetess Hulda prophesied at a time when Jeremiah was the leading prophet? The answer given there is that Hulda was biologically related to Jeremiah so that he did not mind.

ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים, “would that the entire people of G’d be prophets!” It is possible that Moses alluded to the time of the Messiah when his wish would be realised. He wished for that time to occur soon so that the status of the people would be raised to the level of prophets. At such a time, the evil urge would disappear and jealousy would be unknown. In the words of Yoel 3,1: “at that time I will pour My spirit over all flesh.” It is also the time of which Isaiah 11,9 spoke when he said: “and the whole earth will be filled with a measure of the knowledge of the Lord like the waters which cover the oceans.” Even though these prophecies have not yet been fulfilled in our terrestrial universe, they will be fulfilled in due course in a world which will be more perfect.

I have found a hint of this in Psalms 14,7 where the psalmist writes: “O that the deliverance of Israel might come from Zion! When the Lord restores the fortunes of His people, Jacob will exalt, Israel will rejoice.” Why did this same verse occur twice in the Book of Psalms, once here in the first Book, and then again in 53,7 in the second Book? You will have to answer that the first time the verse was spoken by the “teacher,” i.e. G’d, whereas the second time it was repeated by the student, i.e. by Moses.

ויאסף משה אל המחנה הוא וזקני ישראל, “Moses then reentered the camp, he and the elders of Israel.” He went with the elders to accord them honour. The disaster did not strike until each one had returned to his tent.

מכה רבה מאד, “a very great blow.” It was pestilence. We must ask why Moses did not pray to G’d to stop the plague as he had done at Taveyrah when G’d had sent fire? Perhaps he was ashamed seeing the sin was so great and the people’s faith so small, their guilt being their ingratitude. They had kept piling guilt upon guilt ever since they had moved from Sinai into the desert and had tried to induce physical desires in themselves. They had failed to learn the lesson from what had happened at Taveyrah where many of them had been burned to death. Moses was also ashamed so that he had been provoked into saying to G’d: “why have You done evil with Your servant?” (verse 11) He was afraid that if he started to pray he would give the attribute of Justice an opening against the people, seeing he had already noticed ויחר אף ה' מאד, “that G’d had become very angry” (verse 10).

ויהיו בחצרות, “And they remained at Chatzerot.” These words belong to the next paragraph, as the people remained in Chatzerot until Miriam had been cured.