Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 11

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.

Complaints in the Wilderness

Bemidbar 11 is one of a series of Israelite complaints in the desert which began already in Shemot 14 and continue throughout Sefer Bemidbar. In particular, there is a parallel between the demand for meat in Shemot 16 and in Bemidbar 11:4. Comparing the two narratives, however, highlights that there is a much harsher and more negative evaluation of the nation in Bemidbar than in Shemot.

Tools

Use Makbilot Bamikra to find links to the many verses which speak of the nation's various complaints, including Shemot 14:10-14, Shemot 15:22-25, Shemot 16:2-4, Shemot 17:1-7, Bemidbar 14:2-3, Bemidbar 20:1-6, and Bemidbar 21:4-7.

Sources

Several exegetes attempt to explain the difference in reaction to the complaints of Shemot and Bemidbar.

Ramban suggest that after the revelation at Sinai, the people were held more responsible for their deeds.
Rashi Bemidbar 14:33About R. Shelomo Yitzchakimaintains that God had already set a harsh decree upon the people after the sin of the golden calf, but this was suspended. When they repeated their rebellious acts in Bemidbar, "violating probation", the punishment went into effect

Articles

Survey of Multiple Complaints – Several articles survey all the complaints, attempting to find common denominators or differences and to thereby evaluate the nation's progression (or regression) from Shemot to Bemidbar:

Listen to Sefer Bemidbar: From Doubt to Debate, by Atara Snowbell, for a close reading and analysis of the evolution of the Israelites’ complaints from Shemot 15 through Bemidbar 21, reflecting their increasing faith and independence.
See מסע בעקבות תלונות עם ישראל במדבר, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur, for a nuanced comparison and contrast of the complaints in the desert along six different parameters: the situation that prompted the complaint, the way that the Torah describes the people and their complaint, the content of their request, the way that the nation relates to Egypt, and the consequences of the complaint.

Harsher Reactions of Sefer Bemidbar – Many articles attempt to explain why both Moshe and Hashem have harsher and more distraught reactions to the complaints of Sefer Bemidbar than to those of Shemot:

Listen to Of Lusts and Laments, by R. Chanoch Waxman, who suggests that the short narrative of Moshe’s conversation with Chovav (Bemidbar 10) is key to understanding Moshe's new frustration and disappointment in Bemidbar. It is possible that the loss of Chovav and his wise advice caused Moshe to despair. Alternatively, the narrative illustrates the historic and religious significance of this juncture in the Israelites’ journey, where the people, like Chovav, are given an opportunity to choose "the good" that Hashem proffers,¹ yet they reject it, capable of seeing only bad.²
In his article, פרשת יתרו, R. Yaakov Medan notes that the the demand for meat in Bemidbar represents a rejection of the Torah’s lessons and values. Whereas gathering the manna had taught the people the need for limits, sensitivity to the other, and a sense of justice and fairness, the request for and gathering of the meat in Bemidbar betrayed that the people had forgotten these lessons. They gather without restriction and hoard with no regard for the other.The realization that the people have not internalized the lessons of the Manna leads to Moshe's despondency.
In his article, Beha’alotecha: Flesh or Spirit?, R. Alex Israel maintains that the people's request for meat in Bemidbar is judged so harshly by both Hashem and Moshe since it demonstrated that the people had not learned the lessons they should have from their experiences since Shemot 16. The chapter's play between the words "flesh" and "spirit" imply that the people's lusting after meat represents a focus on the physical and is antithetical to Torah values, which instead put precedence on the spiritual.
See The Two Journeys, by R. Jonathan Sacks, for a comparison and contrast of the narratives of Shemot and Bemidbar.³ The rebellions of Bemidbar seem more grave, Moshe seems more shaken, and the tone of the book as a whole is less optimistic. In the view of R. Sacks, this is due to the fundamental difference between the psychological experience of a "journey from" and a "journey to". Fleeing from danger is much easier than heading towards the unknown.

Sin of Kivrot HaTa'avah and the Calf –The following article compares the stories of the sin of the calf and the sin of requesting meat, explaining why Moshe is so distraught specifically after the latter:

In Teaching With Clarity and Empathy, R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik explains that while the sin of the calf is one of idol worship, the sin at Kivrot HaTa'avah represents a desire to live a pagan lifestyle. As the latter is more entrenched and reprehensible, it was this sin led Moshe to realize the overwhelming personal responsibility of leading the people away from such a mindset. This would necessitate not just being a "teacher", but also a "nurse" who needs to actively carry her child at her chest.

Appointing Assistants

Three different chapters in the Torah (Shemot 18, Bemidbar 11, and Devarim 1) describe how Moshe was overwhelmed by the needs of the Children of Israel, and needed to appoint assistants to share in the burden.What is the relationship between the three stories? In Devarim, is Moshe recounting the appointments of Shemot or Bemidbar?

Tools

Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the various stories. Compare Devarim with Shemot here, and Devarim with Bemidbar here.
For an interactive table allowing for easy comparison and contrast of all three stories, see here.

Articles

See Appointing Moshe's Assistants for discussion and analysis of commentator's approaches to the above questions. Some assume that the stories of Shemot and Bemidbar are totally distinct, while others equate them (or suggest that they at least occurred simultaneously).
See פרשת יתרו, by R. Yaakov Medan, for analysis of the relationship of the three narratives. In Shemot, Yitro, coming with his experiences as a leader in Midyan, thought that the nation simply needed judges, people who would arbitrate cases in court, and for that task, delegating "officers of hundreds" would suffice. Moshe, however, saw his job differently; he understood that "the nation comes to inquire of God", a task which only Moshe could fulfill. For a year he thus led on his own. But in the second year, as the nation complained about lack of food and water, Moshe broke. Hashem suggested that he appoint 70 elders to help carry the burden and then Moshe recalled Yitro's suggestion and implemented it as well.

Challenges to Authority: Bemidbar 11 and 12

There are a number of thematic and linguistic connections between Bemidbar 11 and Bemidbar 12, which tell two stories of complaints about Moshe’s leadership.

Tools

Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two narratives here. A comparison highlights several parallels. In both stories, Moshe enters the Tent of Meeting (11:16, 12:4), Hashem descends in a cloud to speak (11:25, 12:5), Hashem is angry (11:10, 12:9), there is repeated use of the root “‎‏אסף” and there mention of imprisonment and banishment (11:28, 12:14-15). Finally both stories emphasize the nature of Moshe’s prophecy (11:28-29, 12:2, 6-8).

Articles

See Beha’alotekha: Zealousness for Moshe, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, which points out these literary parallels. He notes that they highlight the common theme of the chapters, the uniqueness of Moshe’s prophecy even as spiritual leadership is shared with others.