ויהי העם כמתאוננים, “It happened when the people were in a frustrated mood looking for things to complain about;” Nachmanides, quoting Ibn Ezra who considers that the root of the word מתאוננים is און, (as in Job 15,35) does not agree, saying that there is no reason why the Torah should gloss over the people’s sinful behaviour by being so oblique. We have no other instance where the Torah downplays the people’s errant conduct. Nachmanides therefore believes that the correct interpretation is that when the people now faced the terrible desert, they became full of misgivings and fear as to how they would fare on the journey ahead of them. He therefore understands the word מתאוננים as in Lamentations 3,39 מה יתאונן אדם חי גבר על חטאיו?, “Of what shall a living man complain? Each one of his own sins.” Such a negative attitude by a nation that should have looked forward with joyful anticipation to coming ever closer to the promised land, was considered as sinful by Hashem. He had shown them ample proof of making their lives tolerable even in the desert, and they had no reason to be despondent. When we view matters from this perspective we can understand why the Torah writes in verse 4 וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל, that the Children of Israel wept a second time, etc.” The first time had been what we read about in verse 1. The people had not learned a lesson from the heavenly fire that had claimed many lives among the people.

ויקרא שם המקום ההוא תבערה, “He called the name of that place Taveyrah.” According to Nachmanides theמקום ההוא refers to the edge of the camp where the heavenly fire had descended the people called Taveyrah, and they did not move on from that place, as it was at that very same location that they cultivated their craving for meat. Subsequently, they called that whole town or that place קברות התאווה, “graves where the victims of inordinate desire were buried.”

התאוו תאוה, “they induced a craving in themselves.” Nachmanides writes that actually they did not lack anything at all as they had enough manna to satisfy each one of them, and they were able to satisfy their palates by wishing how that manna should taste each time they ate it. However, they abused these powers of imagination and wished the manna to taste revoltingly in order to have an excuse to complain about not getting proper food.

ויאמרו מי יאכילנו בשר, “they said: ‘who is going to feed us meat?’” Nachmanides explains this request by saying that not all the people had meat to eat on a daily basis, even though most of them had access to meat on frequent occasions, as a good part of the people owned livestock and they would slaughter them regularly. The adults would eat of these animals, whereas the younger people were not so lucky. The fact is that, seeing that they spoke of “remembering we used to eat fish in Egypt without needing to pay for them,” (verse 5) indicates that as far as even fish were concerned they could do no more than ”remember” it

זכרנו את הדגה אשר נאכל, “we remember the fish we used to eat, etc.” Nachmanides understands these words literally, pointing out that the Egyptian fishermen would employ the Jews and would let them eat the fish they did not think they could sell at the local fish market. The various vegetables mentioned in our verse were so plentiful in Egypt that even Hebrew slaves could afford them, or that they dug them out of the ground and no one would protest this. We have the Torah on record as comparing the whole of the land of Egypt to a garden full of greens. (Genesis 13,10) [The author paints one or two additional scenarios that would explain the words in our text. They are of speculative character. Ed.] Some commentators do not understand the word דגה as fish at all, but view it as a simile describing abundance, as in Genesis 48,16 וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, “may they proliferate abundantly.” Accordingly, the people would have been complaining about the abundant sources of food they had enjoyed in Egypt and the variety, compared to what they condescendingly described as the monotonous diet of manna.

נפשנו יבשה, “our life is parched;” Nachmanides describes the emotional state of the Israelites as having “died out,” due to the many different cravings they had been experiencing. Alternately, he writes, the meaning of the phrase could be that whereas natural foods provide the body with moisture, lubricating it, they did not experience such feelings when eating manna, but felt parched instead.

בלתי אל המן עינינו, “we have nothing to look forward to but manna.” Even the food that we live on now, i.e. the manna, we must always hopefully and expectantly look for it if it will materialise, and we have no stored surplus enabling us to experience peace of mind; rather we need to crave for it, never knowing if it will materialise. In response to these spurious complaints the Torah gives us details in verse 7-9 of the multifaceted uses the manna could be put to. Even its external appearance was extremely pleasing to the eye.

טעמו כטעם לשד השמן, “it tasted like a dough kneaded with oil.” The Torah testifies that this answers the accusation that the manna was completely dry-tasting, saying that, on the contrary, it contained elements which made it taste moist without requiring the people to even have to add an additive in order to make it moist tasting. After eating it the person having eaten it would feel very refreshed.

האנכי הריתי, “did I conceive this people?” Nachmanides writes that Onkelos’ opinion that the words mean “am I their father,” which is based on the phrase ברכות הורי, “the blessings of my fathers” (Genesis 49,26) is an expanded version of the role of fathers who are viewed as if they had conceived, as without the insertion of their semen in the mother’s womb the mother could not have conceived.

אם אנכי ילידיתיהו, “did I perhaps give birth to them?” Am I their mother the one who has given birth to them? The scholars who concentrate primarily on the plain meaning, פשט, take the opposite approach, saying that the word הריתי should be understood as referring to a mother, Moses asking if he, a man, should really be expected to relate to the Jewish people as a mother is expected to relate to them, i.e. to carry them in his bosom as a mother carries her baby, etc. The verb ילד is used by Moses to describe a father’s part in producing a child, as in ויולד את נח, (Genesis 5,28) whereas the verb הרה is used by Moses to describe the mother’s input, as in ותהר את מרים “she became pregnant with Miriam.” (Chronicles I 4,17) This is why Moses illustrates further כאשר ישא האומן את היונק, “as the nurse carries a suckling.” I believe that Moses spoke in terms of what mothers have to go through before they have a baby, followed by the possibly far greater difficulties in raising their children. A mother is constantly reminded of her pre-natal pains, etc. whenever the children do not act in a manner that compensates her for the pains endured before they came into this world.

לא אוכל לבדי שאת, “I cannot carry this burden all by myself.” Nachmanides writes that Moses did not request that the elders become his assistants in his supplying meat for the people, for where would they take it from? Moreover, he was quite aware that even if a large number of providers would be appointed, whenever they would find reason to complain these complaints would continue to be addressed to him, seeing that it had been he who had taken them out of Egypt, and the source of all their complaints were always traced to that event. What Moses hoped to accomplish by having the elders appointed was that if the people had a number of leaders, by the time the complaints would be transmitted to him if they proved beyond the competence of the elders to deal with, the people’s anger and fury would have at least partially spent itself seeing that the elders would have tried to blunt their anger and frustration. It is also possible that Moses thought that once the people found out that the elders possessed holy spirit and were able to prophesy, they would show loyalty to these prophets and not gang up on Moses as they had been in the habit of doing. They would therefore demand from these divinely inspired elders to satisfy their various cravings.

ואם ככה את עושה לי, “and if this is how You deal with me, etc.” Rashi says that the feminine mode in the word את instead of אתה when addressing Hashem, is an allusion to the fact that Moses’ spiritual reserves were close to being exhausted. Nachmanides writes that he did not understand Rashi’s conclusions about the use of the word את, seeing that Moses employed this pronoun of G’d while addressing Him. According to the plain meaning of the text the pronoun את is indeed found being used when addressing a male as in Ezekiel 28,14: את כרוב ממשח הסוכך, “You-who have been anointed to act as protector, etc.” [According to this Moses would accuse G’d of treating him as no longer deserving to be regarded as possessing the strength expected of a male. Of course, Moses would have brought this upon himself by his self-admitted inability to deal with the people’s challenges. Ed. Rabbi Chavel cites an interesting commentary on our verse by Rabbi Wolf Heidenheim.]

הרגני נא הרוג, “”then kill me now!” Moses requested that G’d dispatch one of His agents to kill him even by the sword used by a human being, as he considered it preferable to die at the hands of a human being to continuing to live a life full of frustration. Alternately, he asked for a different mode of death, and he used the word הרג, as one would say המיתני, “arrange for my death forthwith.”

ואל אראה ברעתי, “so that I will not have to watch my wretchedness.” The words call to mind when Jonah said to G’d repeatedly טוב מותי מ.., It is better that I die (now) than…” (Jonah)

אשר ידעת כי הם זקני העם ושומריו, “whom you know to be the elders of the people and its officers.” Ibn Ezra writes that there are elders who are not qualified to perform both the tasks G’d describes here.

וירדתי ודברתי עמך שם, “I will descend and speak with you there.” Nachmanides writes that the meaning of this verse is that at the time when G’d would speak with Moses the transfer of some of his Holy Spirit to the elders concerned would take place, with these elders experiencing part of the conversation between G’d and Moses. This is not equivalent to what G’d had described in Numbers 27,20 as מהודך, “part of your glory,” when He instructed Moses to appoint Joshua as his successor. Interestingly, when G’d carries out in verse 25 what He had said to Moses here, we do not read a single word about the subject of G’d’s conversation with Moses. This was a departure from all other occasions when G’d was described as speaking to Moses. The reason is that here the whole purpose was for G’d to address these elders via Moses. The latter neither heard G’d’s voice, nor did they have any visual communication such as a dream in which G’d appeared to them. G’d spoke to Moses, and the elders, thanks to the transfer of some of Moses’ Holy Spirit, became instantly aware of a conversation between G’d and Moses being in progress. This is also the meaning of what we read in verse 25: ויתנבאו ולא יספו, “they prophesied but did not continue to do so.” In other words, they were not able to call on their prophetic spirit themselves but had been given such inspiration only with Moses as the vehicle. The meaning of the words

ואצלתי מן הרוח אשר עליך, “I will deposit some of the spirit that is upon you placing it on them.” The meaning of the word אצל wherever it occurs is that that which is described as being נאצל is being arrested in a certain static condition, forever remaining dependent on its source. A well known example of the use and meaning of that word is found in Kohelet 2,10, “וכל אשר שאלו עיני לא אצלתי מהם, “and I did not deny, hold back from granting, anything which my eyes desired of the joys available in this world.” Similarly, when we read in Exodus chapter 24 about the אצילי בני ישראל, the reference is to the aristocracy of the Israelites, the ones who considered themselves apart from the multitude. When the word נבואה is used, however, the Torah speaks about a divine inspiration which comes from G’d directly, is not dependent on the input by another human being. Ibn Ezra understands the word ואצלתי as meaning something similar to אקח מאשר אצלך, “I will take something which is beside you, i.e. I will not thereby diminish what is yours.” Some commentators understand the meaning of אצילות as being similar to המשכה, “drawing something away.” Personally, I tend to believe that as long as the elders were being indirectly inspired via Moses that they could divine what it was that G’d expected of them and would command the people in any matters relating to the welfare of the people in all the happenings that the Torah reports as having occurred in the desert. This is the meaning of the words: ונשאו אתך במשא העם, “they will assist you in carrying the burden of the people.” They were informed of all that Moses would instruct the people to do; everyone would share this knowledge with his tribe. As a result, Moses would no longer carry the weight of their complaints all by himself.

לא יום אחד, “not for one day, etc.” The meaning is “not for one day only are you going to eat meat;” Nachmanides holds that if someone eats, אוכל something for a number of consecutive days, or performs other tasks עושה, for a number of consecutive days, this is not described by the word אוכל or עושה respectively, and if someone eats something for 30 days consecutively it would be inappropriate to say that he has eaten for 20 days. [According to Rabbi Chavell, Nachmanides’ problem is why the Torah wasted time writing “not one day, not two days, not five days, not ten days, not twenty days, but a whole month of days.” He concludes that unless the Torah had added the words עד חודש ימים, “until a whole month of days,” I might have understood the days mentioned previous to that as not being consecutive days. In that event, eating meat at intervals for, say, twenty days would not have resulted in one’s becoming revolted at the mere sight of meat. It follows that the meaning of the words לא יום אחד, ולא חמשה ימים is not to be understood as we might think at first glance, but that they mean that if someone eats meat for a day, or he eats meat five days out of seven days in the week, his reaction to such a diet is completely different to someone who eats meat for 30 days consecutively. Alternatively, the Torah emphasized that the people would learn that when their craving would be indulged by G’d in accordance with their wishes, they would find out to their distress that what they thought would be a blessing could turn into a curse. Indulging a craving for meat without restraint has negative consequences that are not experienced when one eats vegetables or fish for the same number of days consecutively. G’d did not provide the people with a corresponding amount of fish and vegetables, although they had yearned for this also, as what had caused them to break out in weeping had been their unsatisfied craving for meat. Ibn Ezra writes that the choice of the Torah of the numbers 2,5,10,20 is not arbitrary but “two” is double of “one.” “Five” represents the number of fingers on one hand, “ten” is double that number, i.e. the fingers on two hands, twenty” is double that number again, i.e the number of fingers plus the number of toes.

עד אשר יצא מאפכם, “until it comes out of your nose, etc.” They would gorge themselves on such large quantities of meat for an entire month that they would finally become revolted by it, and would vomit it. Eventually, they would view meat as something not fit to eat.

הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle going to be slaughtered for them?” Nachmanides writes that there can be no question but that the plain meaning of the verse corresponds to the opinion voiced by Rabbi Akiva in Chulin 16-17 where he stated that the emphasis in our verse is on the word ישחט, as he holds that in the desert it had been permitted to kill animals by stabbing instead of slaughtering. The Torah now draws attention to the fact that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai this was no longer the case. He also holds that the eating of meat that had not first bee consecrated as an offering on the Altar had never been forbidden. Moses, in this instance queried if the herds of the Israelites were sufficient for their needs for a whole month even if all their livestock were to be slaughtered. The idea that they deserved a miracle did not even cross his mind. Onkelos also thinks that way. However, the subject is problematic as pointed out by Rabbi Shimon who said: “how can we even suspect that a person such as Moses whom G’d Himself had described as trustworthy in His entire house, should harbour any suspicions of G’d’s inadequacy in any domain? The very question Moses voiced creates the impression that he queried G’d’s ability to provide what He had said He would provide, no matter how He would go about it?” Ibn Ezra answers the problem by saying that Moses’ premise had been that surely the problem faced by the people was not the kind that would cause G’d to employ supernatural means in order to solve it. He thought that G’d reserves resorting to miracles only in order to demonstrate that predictions of His prophets will come true, and the prophet will be legitimized when that happens. This explanation also does not satisfy me, seeing that G’d had already performed miracles to prove the authenticity of Moses as a prophet when He provided the people with the quail in Exodus 16,11-13 as well as when He responded to the people’s complaints that they did not have what to eat, by supplying them with the heavenly bread, the manna, starting in Exodus The same was true when G’d had told Moses to strike the rock at Massa um’rivah and produce a constant flow of drinking water for the people. (Exodus 17,7) I believe that the correct approach is that whenever G’d takes the trouble to perform miracles for the Children of Israel the purpose is for their benefit, i.e. they can recognize the miracle as being for their benefit. The only times G’d employed miracles as an act of the מדת הדין, the Attribute of Justice, is when He punished Israel’s enemies or oppressors by intervening in their fate by miracles, such as the ten plagues, or the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. Therefore, when G’d predicted that the people will ultimately be revolted by the very meat they were craving, Moses had no reason to believe that G’d planned to perform a miracle for them by providing them with a liberal meat diet. As soon as G’d told Moses that the meat He would provide would become revolting to the people, he realized that G’d did not plan to intervene by miraculous means. This is what evoked Moses’ wondering how this gigantic undertaking could possibly be performed by natural means. G’d informed Moses that he had been mistaken, that G’d was able to meet the demands of the people even without invoking supernatural means. This is why He asked the rhetorical question: היד ה' תקצר, “Is Hashem’s power inadequate then?” You will note that here the Torah does not phrase G’d’s answer as had the angels who promised Avraham that he would be the father of a baby boy a year hence. (Genesis 18,14) At that time, this was the answer to an unspoken question by Sarah that she had first denied thinking. The angels employed the phrase היפלא מה' דבר, “Is anything too wonderful for Hashem to do?” This referred to G’d performing miracles, as the Torah had been on record repeatedly that Sarah was not only barren but did not even possess a womb. (Genesis 11,30, Yevamot 64) In the event, G’d did not even have to divert the wind so that the quails touched down around the area where the Israelites were encamped, as opposed to when He brought on the plague of locusts, (Exodus 10,13) or when He dried out the bottom of the Sea of Reeds. (Exodus 14,21) The only new element in what occurred here was the inordinately large number of quails that landed around the camp of the Israelites.

משרת משה מבחוריו, “the servant of Moses from his youth.” Ibn Ezra writes that some commentators understand the word מבחוריו to mean that Joshua was one of Moses’ most devoted servants, whereas others view the word מבחוריו as if it were glued to the words משרת משה, meaning that he had been a servant of Moses from his earliest youth. This latter explanation cannot be correct as what is described here occurred only in the second year of the people’s being in the desert, and we have no evidence that Joshua who was only about 24 years younger than Moses already served in that function in Egypt. I believe that the proper explanation is that Joshua was one of several men who attended to Moses’ needs.

אדוני משה כלאם, ”my lord Moses, lock them up!” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Joshua said this was that Moses was in the habit of communicating G’d’s words to the people and he thereby also caused some of his spirit to devolve on the elders who stood around him at the Tent of Meeting. By prophesying in a location far removed from the Tabernacle, the two men, Eldod and Meydod, had presumed to arrogate to themselves a status similar to that of the elders. He therefore wanted them confined, as they behaved as if challenging Moses’ authority. Alternately, Joshua suspected these two men to be false prophets or that they were out of their minds and deserved to be locked up to prevent them causing further harm. Moses, in his characteristic modesty, replied:

ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים כי יתן ה' את רוחו עליהם", “Would that the entire people of Hashem were prophets! If Hashem would only place His spirit upon them!” Moses wished that G’d were to inspire the people with prophetic spirit without having recourse to his own spirit from which such Holy Spirit would be diverted “second hand,” so to speak. He expressed the wish that the entire people be so endowed. Judging from the writings on the subject by our sages, it was an old established custom in Israel that no one would make prophetic announcements regarding future events while there was a prophet of greater stature alive. The reason for this custom was that anyone failing to abide by this custom would appear as if he were handing down halachic decisions in the presence of his teachers, something absolutely forbidden, possibly on pain of death at the hands of Heaven. [Compare Berachot 31. Ed.] People endowed with such spirit would form part of the entourage of their spiritual mentor, and they are generally referred to in the Books of the Prophets as בני הנביאים, disciples of the prophets. Moses apparently held that when a Rabbi or prophet does not stand on ceremony and does not feel insulted when someone junior to him makes such pronouncements, then his personal attitude governs the matter and the disciple is not held culpable although other Rabbis or prophets would have taken exception to what they considered a lack of respect towards people known as more learned or endowed with greater prophetic spirit. In the Jerusalem Targum the words כלאם are translated as “deny them holy spirit,” based on Psalms 40,12 לא תכלא רחמיך ממני, “do not withhold Your Mercy from me.” The deeper significance of the incident is that Joshua thought that seeing that both Eldod and Meydod were amongst the people whose names had been submitted as candidates for membership in the council of the 70 elders that their ability to prophesy was of the same category as that of the other 70 elders who had received their “holy spirit” via Moses and not directly from Hashem. Seeing that only 70 people were meant to form this illustrious council, Joshua thought that these men had to be stopped from walking around the camp prophesying, as the other elders could do so only while next to Moses and the Tabernacle. Moses responded that it was wrong to assume that it was in Moses’ interest that the seventy men should be able to prophesy only while next to him and next to the Tabernacle; on the contrary, if he had his way the entire people would be endowed with a far more comprehensive layer of Holy Spirit, and there was no need to assume that Moses was interested in keeping the monopoly of Holy Spirit for himself. He was most certainly not jealous of anyone so endowed by G’d.

ויגז שלוים מן הים, “it blew the quail from the sea.” The quail had not now been created for the benefit of the Jewish people, in fact nothing new had been created. The only extraordinary aspect of the whole phenomenon was the unusually large number of quail.