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. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik writes that gluttony represents a pagan way of life, which stands in contradistinction to a Torah way of life¹.

Sources:RambanBemidbar 11:4About R. Moshe b. Nachman, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 16:4Shemot 16:13Bemidbar 11:5Bemidbar 11:8Bemidbar 11:9Bemidbar 11:10Bemidbar 11:21About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,  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 "בחנם" – 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.² 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.³

בוכה למשפחותיו – R. Avraham Ibn Ezra understands this phrase as expressing as comparing the people's response to those who cry over their dead.⁴

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 בחנם 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 – Shmuel (Yoma 75a) asserts that דגים 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 request⁷. Nonetheless, such a request was not as severe as the one in Bemidbar 11.

העם בוכה למשפחותיו – 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.

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, Malbim #1Bemidbar 11:10Tehillim Beur HaInyan 78:18About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, Seforno, Zedekiah Ben R. Abraham, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, Ralbag #2, Rambam, 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 "בחנם" – 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.

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

תהילים פרק עח – Tehillim 78 retells the story of the nation asking for food in the desert. Verse 18 supports this approach by saying וַיְנַסּוּ־אֵ֥ל בִּלְבָבָ֑ם לִֽשְׁאׇל־אֹ֥כֶל לְנַפְשָֽׁם.

Lack of Appreciation

The request for meat itself was not so problematic. Rather, the way in which the nation expressed their desire caused the punishment. The Israelites showed no appreciation for many miracles Hashem had done for them. Tehillim 78 could be read as a recounting of all the miracles Hashem had done for the people and yet they fail to appreciate them as they constantly ask for more.

For Freedom from Egypt

Hashem punished the Israelites for their lack of appreciation for their freedom from Egypt.

Sources:RashbamBemidbar 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.

Fish or Meat/Eating בחנם – Both of these points reflect the nation's nostalgia towards Egypt.

Severity of Punishments – This approach stays most true to Bemidbar 11:19 where Hashem introduces the severe punishment "כִּי מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת י"י אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּכֶם וַתִּבְכּוּ לְפָנָיו לֵאמֹר לָמָּה זֶּה יָצָאנוּ מִמִּצְרָיִם." While they never clearly expressed that they wanted to return, the regret of leaving is implied by their nostalgia.
Denying the significance of יציאת מצרים perhaps violates one of the most fundamental beliefs of the Torah as expressed in the firsts of the Decalogue. "אנכי ה׳ אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים."  Such a violation may warrant a severe punishment

For the Manna

The Israelites lack of appreciation for and degradation of the Manna warranted a severe punishment from Hashem.

Sources:R. Bachya #1Bemidbar 11:5About R. Bachya b. Asher

Request of Shemot 16 – The manna was not around for the nation to degrade. Therefore, their request was not something negative.

Fish or Meat/Eating "בחנם" – All of these points were methods of degrading the Manna.  
R. Bahya writes the דגה was a disgusting type of fish. קשואים and אבטיחים were examples of bad fruits. These foods were available to the Israelites slaves for free.

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.

¹ 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.

² 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.

³ 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. Radak (Yeshaya 17) 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 7-8

⁴ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor emphasizes the nation's exaggerated cries later in 11:19 where he compares the people to a baby crying over nothing. 

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 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,