Sinning with Quail/2

Sinning with Quail

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Gluttony

These commentators understand the intense gluttony of the nation as the sin in this narrative.

Sources:R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 16:4Shemot 16:13Bemidbar 11:5Bemidbar 11:8Bemidbar 11:9Bemidbar 11:10Bemidbar 11:21About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanBemidbar 11:4About R. Moshe b. Nachman, R. Bachya #2Bemidbar 11:5About R. Bachya b. Asher, R. Yosef ibn KaspiBemidbar 11:7About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Ralbag #1Bemidbar 11:4Bemidbar Toalot 11About R. Levi b. Gershom, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik

Eating "חִנָּם" – Ramban asserts that Egyptian taskmasters would have the Israelites catch fish for them in the Nile and would allow the slaves to take fish once in a while. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor argues that when the Nile would overflow, fish would remain on the soil and be left ownerless for anyone to take. For these commentators, חנם literally means "free of charge."

Fish or meat – R. Bahya writes that their request for these foods further reflected their gluttonous nature.¹ The request was not exclusively for meat.

Request of Shemot 16 – According to these commentators, it is likely the request in Shemot 16 was not sinful at all. There, the people were fighting for survival in that they had absolutely nothing to eat as the Manna had not been introduced. The people in Bemidbar 11 had the Manna already and yet were still desiring more. Their request was not one of survival but of gluttony.²

בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו – R. Avraham Ibn Ezra understands this phrase as expressing as comparing the people's response to those who cry over their dead.³

Moshe's Response – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor posits that the raining quail of Shemot 16 is actually the same quail of Bemidbar 11. The Torah, once informing the reader of other raining sustenance (namely, the Manna), also informed about other foods that at other points fell from the sky. Thus, Moshe never would have known of such a possible solution to this issue.

Severity of Punishment

• According to this approach, it is still tough to understand why gluttony itself may have caused such an extreme punishment.
• Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik writes that gluttony represents a pagan way of life, which stands in contradistinction to a Torah way of life.⁴

Tehillim 78 – This chapter also reflects the nation's gluttonous nature. The result of the quail was וְתַאֲוָתָם יָבִא לָהֶם in Tehillim 78:18.

Theological Issues

The Israelites' request for meat truly represented a much more severe theological issue they had with Hashem and His Torah.

Burden of Commandments

Desire for food and meat are actually masks for a want of freedom from restrictive commandments.

Sources:Sifre, RashiBemidbar 11:4Bemidbar 11:5Bemidbar 11:10, Daat ZekeinimBemidbar 11:13About Daat Zekeinim, Maharsha.חידושי אגדות יומא עה .חידושי אגדות חולין יז, Malbim #2Tehillim Beur HaInyan 78:29About R. Meir Leibush Weiser

Eating בחנם – These commentators reason that חִנָּם truly means "free from commandments".⁵ In Egypt, before the giving of the Torah, the Israelites were not bound by any eating restrictions and could indulge in any food they pleased.

Fish or meat – Shemuel (Yoma 75a) asserts that הַדָּגָה is actually a reference to illicit sexual relations, which were not yet prohibited to the Israelites in Egypt.⁶ Longing for "fish" is another expression of ridding of restrictive commandments.

Request of Shemot 16 – Rashi argues that the request for meat in Shemot was also a negative, gluttonous request.⁷ Nonetheless, such a request was not as severe as the one in Bemidbar 11.

בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו – The Sifre understands that the crying by families was really a crying about families. Once the prohibitions of illicit sexual relations were introduced, families were forced to split up due to prohibited relationships.

Moshe's Response

• According to these commentators, Moshe's extreme response may be more understandable as this request is questioning the validity of Hashem's commandments.
• Maharsha writes that, in Bemidbar 11:22, Moshe expresses doubt of Hashem's ability to supply meat because of the existing prohibition against eating non-sacrificial meat. 

הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה

• According to some commentators, the request itself for meat was problematic in that it really was a mask for a greater desire to rid themselves of Hashem's commandments.
• Maharsha claims the nation was trying to uproot the prohibition of eating בשר תאוה, non-sacrificial meat. The people wanted to ensure that when it came time to enter the Land of Israel, meat would be permitted.

Tehillim 78 – The words וַיְנַסּוּ אֵל בִּלְבָבָם reflect a more fundamental issue with which the nation challenges Hashem. 

Testing Hashem's Abilities

Complaints about food and meat challenge Hashem's ability to provide food for the hungry nation. Such a lack of belief could be tantamount to idolatry and warrant an extreme punishment.

Sources:Sifre, Rashi, Rambam1 36About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, SefornoBemidbar 11:4About R. Ovadyah Seforno, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBemidbar 11:4About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, Malbim #1Bemidbar 11:10Tehillim Beur HaInyan 78:18About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Zedekiah Ben R. Abraham, Ralbag #2, AbarbanelBemidbar 11:16About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel

Request of Shemot 16 – In Shemot 16, though a similar request was made, it is unlikely that request was sinful. There, the request as directed at Moshe and Aharon. The nation was, perhaps, seeking an answer to their issues. In Bemidbar 11, the request was directed at no one. The people, perhaps, were not looking for a real answer to the request. They merely expressed their lack of faith in Hashem's providence and did not care to verify whether He could provide.
Alternatively, Abrabanel argues Shemot 16 was also  a negative request. However, the nation had not known of the Manna yet and were thus never introduced to messages of the Manna, namely a full belief in Hashem's ability to provide. By Bemidbar 11, the nation was expected to have internalized those messages already. The failure to do so resulted in the punishment

ֵEating "חִנָּם" – Ramban asserts that Egyptian taskmasters would have the Israelites catch fish for them in the Nile and would allow the slaves to take fish once in a while. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor argues that when the Nile would overflow, fish would remain on the soil and be left ownerless for anyone to take. For these commentators, חנם literally means "free of charge."

Fish or meat – The request was not limited to meat. The people also questioned Hashem's ability to provide fish as well.

בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו – RashiBemidbar 11:10About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki writes that the people gathered families together to publicize their complaint against Hashem.

Tehillim 78 – The words וַיְנַסּוּ אֵל בִּלְבָבָם reflect the nation testing Hashem's ability to provide food.

Moshe's response – According to these commentators, Moshe's extreme response may be more understandable as this request is questioning the abilities of Hashem.

הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה – The request itself for meat perhaps was not problematic. R' Zedekiah Ben R. Avraham argues that had the nation made its request in a way that didn't imply testing Hashem, the request may have been granted.

Denying Significance of the Exodus

According to Rashbam, Hashem punished the Israelites for their lack of appreciation for their freedom from Egypt, perhaps a violation of one of the most fundamental beliefs in Judaism.⁸

Sources:Rashbam #2Bemidbar 11:20About R. Shemuel b. Meir

Request of Shemot 16 – Shemot 16 also records the people expressing regret at leaving Egypt. Therefore it is unclear as to why a similar punishment was not given there. Perhaps, their request for מותנו in Egypt is much less severe than a request for the foods they ate as slaves, expressing a longing for life in Egypt itself.

Fish or meat/Eating חִנָּם – For Rashbam, Both of these points reflect the nation's nostalgia towards Egypt.

Consistency with the text – In Bemidbar 11:20, Hashem explicitly references the return to Egypt as the catalyst for His extreme punishment.
"יַעַן כִּי מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת י"י אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וַתִּבְכּוּ לְפָנָיו לֵאמֹר לָמָּה זֶּה יָצָאנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם".

Moshe's response – Moshe too may have understood the severity of this request. The nation was underlying the basis of its relationship with Hashem.

הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה – Rashbam writes that had the nation asked for meat without regretting leaving Egypt, the result would not have been as bad as we seen it was.

Tehillim 78

• R. Moshe HaKohen⁹ states the chapter refers to the Shemot 16 narrative.
• Seen in the context of the whole chapter, the episode of the quail as told in Tehillim 78 may be a manifestation of וַיִּשְׁכְּחוּ עֲלִילוֹתָיו וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר הֶרְאָם, in verse 11. The chapter reiterates how the Israelites did not appreciate the good Hashem did in taking them out of Egypt.

Degradation of the Manna

According to RashbamShemot 16:4Devarim 8:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir, The Manna represented the ability to depend on Hashem for sustenance. An undermining of such a concept through lack of appreciation for and degradation of the Manna warranted a severe punishment from Hashem.

Sources:Rashbam #1Bemidbar 11:8-10About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Bachya #1

Fish or meat/Eating חִנָּם – R. Bahya writes that הַדָּגָה was a disgusting type of fish. הַקִּשֻּׁאִים and הָאֲבַטִּחִים were examples of bad fruits. Because of how lowly these foods were, they were available to the Israelite slaves for free in Egypt. Expressing desire for such foods was meant to degrade the Manna.

הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה

• On the one hand, perhaps the request for meat itself was not deplorable. Only the way the people went about the request did Hashem deem punishable 
• Alternatively, the request for meat may have itself been a degradation to the Manna

Juxtaposition of Passages – R. Bahya argues that this narrative, Miriam's story in Bemidbar 12, and the spies are all juxtaposed one to the other because they all revolve around the sin of speaking poorly about something else. The manna, Moshe, and the Land of Israel were all victims of this לשון הרע.

Manna interlude

• Bemidbar 11:7-9 relates how the Israelites would gather and collect the Manna each day, seemingly interrupting the flow of the narrative. In fact, this interlude may present the contrast of how great the Manna really was and how the people viewed it.
• Alternatively, RashbamBemidbar 11:8-10About R. Shemuel b. Meir argues the Torah describes the nation grinding and cooking the Manna in 11:8 to reflect poorly on how the nation treated the Manna, a food meant to be eaten pure without any human involvement.

Request of Shemot 16 –

The manna was not around for the nation to degrade. Therefore, their request was not something negative.

Moshe's response:

• Perhaps Moshe understood the complaint wasn't as much about the meat as it was about the Manna. Therefore, he was correct in arguing he could not possibly supply enough meat to satisfy the nation's request.
• It is tough to understand why this event pushed Moshe over the edge. Interestingly, we see Moshe also get uncharacteristically angry when the nation violates the rules of Manna collection in Shemot 16:20. Perhaps, Moshe, too, understood the significance of Manna to the relationship between the Israelites and Hashem. 
  

Tehillim 78

• R. Moshe HaKohen¹⁰ states the chapter refers to the Shemot 16 narrative.
  
• Tehillim 78:24 references the Manna and then proceeds to tell of the quail falling in the desert. Perhaps this reflects the Israelites' lack of appreciation or even their degradation of the Manna.

¹ R. Bahya also quotes Sifre, which discusses גילוי עריות as emerging from the reference of דגה (See Theological Issues/Burden of Commandments/ Fish or Meat?). He writes the Sifre, by introducing sexual relations into the picture, is also highlighting the gluttonous nature of the people. דגה, in addition to being fish, also emphasizes how much the people were gluttons.

² The different words used in the Torah for gathering the meat in Bemidbar 11 and gathering the Manna in Shemot 16 and Bemidbar 11:7-8 may reflect this distinction. The root א.ס.פ appears continuously throughout Bemidbar 11. In Shemot 16, the root ל.ק.ט is used. Both of these verbs express the action of gathering. RadakYeshayahu 17:5About R. David Kimchi writes that א.ס.פ is the first reaping done in a field, where one grabs a lot of sheaves in one shot. ל.ק.ט is a reaping done where one picks up one sheaf at a time off the ground. The ambitious reaping, אסיפה, may reflect a more gluttonous gathering of food, as is seen in Bemidbar 11. לקיטה may reflect a more humble, respectful, or simple gathering of food as seen in Shemot 16 and Bemidbar 11:7-8

³ R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 11:10About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor emphasizes the nation's exaggerated cries later in Bemidbar 11:19 where he compares the people to a baby crying over nothing.

⁴ Rabbi Soloveitchik contrasts this sin with that of the Golden Calf. The Sin of re Golden Calf was indeed a violation of a precept of idolatry but it did not represent the nation's lifestyle. The one-time ceremony or ritual of idolatry was only due to the nation's fear of Moshe's death. Here, however, the attitude of the people was a more egregious sin--one that conveyed a lifestyle in contradiction to the Torah.

⁵ The Sifre discounts the possibility that Egyptian taskmasters would have given free sustenance to their slaves if they would not even give straw to make bricks (See Shemot 5). Therefore, חנם must be discusses something else.

⁶ Rashi, Maharsha (Yoma 75a), and Daat Zekeinim (Bemidbar 11) all explain how the root of דגה can also mean sexual relations. (See Bereishit 48:16)

⁷ Yoma 75a-b writes that Hashem gave meat "לא כהוגן," "improperly," because it was asked for "לא כהוגן." Most read this statement a referring to the request for meat in Shemot 16. There, meat was given at night, a more inconvenient time to collect. See עיון יעקב who argues the Gemara refers to Bemidbar 11 instead,

⁸ Such a lack of appreciation perhaps violates the first of the Decalogue communicated to the Israelites in Exodus 20:
"אָנֹכִי י"י אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים".
Denying the significance of leaving Egypt may be undermining the whole relationship Hashem has with the Israelites. Such an idea is closely related to the prohibition of returning to Egypt, which is related in the Torah three times (Shemot 14:17, Devarim 17:16 & 28:68).

⁹ HaKohen questions how Tehillim 78 can record the Torah's events out of order. The chapter first describes the giving of the Manna and only then tells of water flowing from the rock, while in Shemot the Israelites first drink from the rock's water and only then receive the Manna. Furthermore, Hashem does not express anger at the request of Shemot 16. Nonetheless, argues HaKohen, Tehillim 78 needed not to be so exact in its recording of these events since they are explicit for the reader in the Torah.

¹⁰ HaKohen questions how Tehillim can record the Torah's events out of order. The chapter first describes the giving of the Manna and only then tells of water flowing from the rock, while in Shemot the Israelites first drink from the rock's water and only then receive the Manna. Furthermore, Hashem does not express anger at the request of Shemot 16. Nonetheless, argues HaKohen, Tehillim 78 needed not to be so exact in its recording of these events since they are explicit for the reader in the Torah.