Behaalotcha answers

BaHa’alotcha 5723.

Alef.

1.

במדבר פרק יא

(א) וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְקֹוָק וַיִּשְׁמַע יְקֹוָק וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ וַתִּבְעַר בָּם אֵשׁ יְקֹוָק וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה:

And the people were as murmurers, speaking evil in the ears of the LORD; and when the LORD heard it, His anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and devoured in the uttermost part of the camp.

(ב) וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְקֹוָק וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ:

(ג) וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא תַּבְעֵרָה כִּי בָעֲרָה בָם אֵשׁ יְקֹוָק:

(ד) וְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר:

(ה) זָכַרְנוּ אֶת הַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם חִנָּם אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים וְאֶת הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת הַבְּצָלִים וְאֶת הַשּׁוּמִים:

(ו) וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה אֵין כֹּל בִּלְתִּי אֶל הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ:

(ז) וְהַמָּן כִּזְרַע גַּד הוּא וְעֵינוֹ כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח:

(ח) שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן:

(ט) וּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל הַמַּחֲנֶה לָיְלָה יֵרֵד הַמָּן עָלָיו:

(י) וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָעָם בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו אִישׁ לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ וַיִּחַר אַף יְקֹוָק מְאֹד וּבְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה רָע:

According to Sephorno, as opposed to the later problem beginning with v. 4, which focused upon food, this earlier issue was a general displeasure not really based upon anything substantive regarding how they were going to manage in the desert in general, leading to a questioning of God’s entire Plan for the Jewish people. Consequently it came out of an inner feeling rather than some tangible deprivation. Moshe is not privy to inner feelings; HaShem is.

ספורנו במדבר פרשת בהעלתך פרק יא פסוק א

(א) כמתאוננים. על טורח הדרך לא מתאוננים בלבם באמת כי לא היתה אצלם שום סבה ראויה לזה שיתאוננו אבל היו מתאוננים בדבריהם לנסות:

Perhaps one could say that whereas the second issue was something tangible and specific, i.e., the food supply, something that had merit and for which Moshe could and should take responsibility, this was not the case in terms of why they were in the desert in the first place. Since this was just the complaint of malcontents, this was not considered Moshe’s issue and the complaints were more generally directed at HaShem.

Beit.

1. Sifrei:

i. Tanna Kama: Looking for a pretense by which to accuse God of malfeasance.

 ii. R. Eliezer: Acting out of a persecution complex. Feeling that God is out  to Get him. (Based upon MaLBIM on Mishlei 18:8—

“The words of a whisperer are as dainty morsels, and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly.” 

מלבי"ם משלי פרק יח פסוק ח

(ח) דברי נרגן כמתלהמים, מן השאלה הזאת יעמוד נרגן, שגדרו מי שמתלונן תמיד על ה' שבראו לרעתו ושהרעות בעולם הם רב מן הטובות, ושטוב לו שלא נברא, ובזה יתלונן תמיד על הנהגת ה' עמו כי עזבו אל המקרה, ודבריו כמתלהמים, כאילו ה' מכה אותו תמיד ועושה עמו רעות, והם ירדו חדרי בטן, ר"ל שהרעות ומהלומות האלה אינם חוצה לו רק נמצאים בחדרי בטנו ובמצפון מחשבותיו, שהוא בדמיונו דואג תמיד ומתלונן ומצייר לו שכל מה שיש לזולתו חסר לו, וכל טובות ה' כאילו הם רעות, כמשל העורים שהזכיר בחבה"ל, וכמ"ש במורה על כי האלהים עשה את האדם ישר, באופן שמקור הרעות הם בעצמו ובדמיונו, ודבריו בעצמם מכים ומהלימים אותו, לא מכות מבחוץ, שאם לא ירגן ימצא בהפך שהכל לטובה, והכל חסד וברכה וישמח בחלקו ונפשו תגיל בישועת ה', שה' ברא את האדם ישר והכין הכל לתועלתו:

NeTzIV (cited in Alon HaDeracha) suggests that the word connotes verbal complainers, who directed their barbs against Moshe for taking them out of Egypt into the desert.

               iii. R. Yehuda: Self-mourning. Feeling that the situation is so dire that it’s just a matter of time before they all die.

          iv. Rabi: Believing in other gods.

     a) Onkelos: Tanna Kama.

     b) Targum Yonatan: Rabi.

     c) RaShI: Tanna Kama.

     d) Ibn Ezra: Rabi.

     e) RaMBaN: R. Yehuda.

2.  Rabi appears to take the verb “Mitonnenim” as essentially neutral in terms of conveying the nature of the sin. It is only the word “Ra” that he associates with a particular sin, i.e., idolatry, that leads to the identification of their iniquity. The other commentators seem to feel that “Mitonnenim” on its own already contains an indication of the problem.

3.  According to NeTzIV, R. Eliezer reverses the letters of the Shoresh (root) from “Lamed-Heh-Mem” to “Heh-Lamed-Mem”, meaning “striking”, in this case verbal blows, as opposed to the physical blows that are suggested in the verse in Mishlei.

4. 

מלכים ב פרק ה

(ה) וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם לֶךְ בֹּא וְאֶשְׁלְחָה סֵפֶר אֶל מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּקַּח בְּיָדוֹ עֶשֶׂר כִּכְּרֵי כֶסֶף וְשֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים זָהָב וְעֶשֶׂר חֲלִיפוֹת בְּגָדִים:

(ו) וַיָּבֵא הַסֵּפֶר אֶל מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר וְעַתָּה כְּבוֹא הַסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה אֵלֶיךָ הִנֵּה שָׁלַחְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ אֶת נַעֲמָן עַבְדִּי וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ מִצָּרַעְתּוֹ:

(ז) וַיְהִי כִּקְרֹא מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַסֵּפֶר וַיִּקְרַע בְּגָדָיו וַיֹּאמֶר הַאֱלֹקים אָנִי לְהָמִית וּלְהַחֲיוֹת כִּי זֶה שֹׁלֵחַ אֵלַי לֶאֱסֹף אִישׁ מִצָּרַעְתּוֹ כִּי אַךְ דְּעוּ נָא וּרְאוּ כִּי מִתְאַנֶּה הוּא לִי:

שופטים פרק יד

(א) וַיֵּרֶד שִׁמְשׁוֹן תִּמְנָתָה וַיַּרְא אִשָּׁה בְּתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים:

(ב) וַיַּעַל וַיַּגֵּד לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אִשָּׁה רָאִיתִי בְתִמְנָתָה מִבְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְעַתָּה קְחוּ אוֹתָהּ לִי לְאִשָּׁה:

(ג) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ הַאֵין בִּבְנוֹת אַחֶיךָ וּבְכָל עַמִּי אִשָּׁה כִּי אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ לָקַחַת אִשָּׁה מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים הָעֲרֵלִים וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁמְשׁוֹן אֶל אָבִיו אוֹתָהּ קַח לִי כִּי הִיא יָשְׁרָה בְעֵינָי:

(ד) וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לֹא יָדְעוּ כִּי מֵיְקֹוָק הִיא כִּי תֹאֲנָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים וּבָעֵת הַהִיא פְּלִשְׁתִּים מֹשְׁלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל: פ

The Sifrei cites the verse from Shoftim after Melachim because whereas in the case of the King of Aram and Na’aman, it wasn’t true that they were plotting against the king of Israel, so too what the people were saying about HaShem and Moshe was also not true. It was a pretense to cause trouble. The case in Shoftim is not someone’s impression, but rather God’s actual Intention, to set the Philistines up in order to give Shimshon a pretense to attack them.

From RashI’s point of view, we are not interested in one person’s impression regarding the the intentions of another, but rather what was actually taking place. Consequently, just as Hashem was actually Creating a situation whereby the Philistines would be exposed to Shimshon’s anger, the Jews in the desert were looking for excuses to impugn God’s and Moshe’s intentions in bringing them into the desert.

5. In addition to defining “Mitonenim” RaMBaN also addresses the following:

a. Assuming that the people were in fact bemoaning their state of affairs, what specific sin does that reflect? (Lack of appreciation of how good they had it.)

b. What is the connotation of “VaYashuvu” (and they went back) in v. 4? (They should have learned a lesson when their original displeasure led to a plague of fire. The fact that they proceeded to complain along the lines of the “Asafsuf” reflected that they had learned nothing from the orginal experience.)

6. RaMBaN is stating that the verb “Mitonenim” not only describes how the people were acting, but also how this behavior constituted a sin. The people were culpable for ingratitude when they felt so sorry for themselves despite the good conditions in which they found themselves. Certainly compared to their condition in Egypt, they had nothing to complain about.

7.  RaMBaN disagrees with Ibn Ezra who defines “Mitonenim” as a general sinful talk. RaMBaN feels that in other cases, the specific subject matter of the people’s complaints, e.g., having no water to drink, lacking meat, wondering why they had been taken out to the desert to die, was always mentioned.

RaShI’s position can also be challenged in the sense of if what they were doing was looking for an excuse to complain, as long as they didn’t find one, is that so terrible? Once they have a reason to complain, then one could say that they were ingrates, but not before. At the very least, looking for an excuse is less serious than actually making a specific complaint.

Gimel.

1.  It seems to me that Ibn Kaspi is closest to—but not identical with—Rabi. What the people were saying was intrinsically flawed. While Rabi uses the hermeneutic principle of Gezeira Shava to identify what the fallacy in their complaint was, Ibn Kaspi could contend that the fallacy was simply that they were misleading themselves and refusing to recognize the truth.

2.  Perhaps the proof text from II Melachim 5:7 would lead Ibn Kaspi to his conclusion, i.e., the King of Israel thought that a false pretense was being fabricated in order to give Aram an excuse to be displeased and even attack.

Daled.

1. RaMBaN would understand the “Chaf” as delimiting the word “Mitonenim” in the sense that while they acted like complainers, they actually had nothing to complain about.

     Ibn Kaspi interprets the “Chaf” as referencing the time lapse between their complaints and God’s Reaction, i.e., none, these things happened virtually simultaneously.

     Avraham Kahana hypothesizes that the “Chaf” indicates that this wasn’t just an impression, but rather something that was true in fact, i.e., there was no question that the people were complaining about their situation and treatment by HaShem.

2.  Since HaShem, in terms of the principle of “Hashgacha Pratit” is believed to be aware of both outward actions as well as inner thoughts, and because He does not Operate within a time continuum, what is the mistaken impression that otherwise would have been thought had the Tora not stated that God’s Impression was simultaneous with the people’s actions?

3.  The example from Hoshea 4:4 appears not to be the best for Avraham Kahana’s point since the prophet is making a comparison in order to describe the people, but not necessarily that this is what they are doing:

“Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.”

Heh.

1. The phrase “BeOznai HaShem” appears to be superfluous. If HaShem is Aware of what people are doing, saying and thinking, why does the text have to say “in HaShem’s ‘Ears’”? The Sifre suggests that they deliberately conducted themselves in an open manner so that there would be no doubt about how they were feeling.

2.  R. Shimon’s view parallels R. Yehuda’s interpretation in the earlier cited passage of the Sifre. It was as if they were trying to get themselves punished or even killed due to their situation.

     Ibn Kaspi would appear to be closer to R. Eliezer who according to NeTzIV sees the people as speaking out their upset and dismay. While R. Eliezer does not offer a reason for them doing so—other than presumed frustration and malcontentedness—Ibn Kaspi is “Dan BeKaf Zechut” and suggests that they were looking to elicit compassion from God Who might respond positively to their complaints. (Perhaps just as God had finally Responded to their screams in Egypt and taken them out, the people hoped that a similar sequence of events would relieve them of their angst at this point as well. In light of the end of the verse, they seriously miscalculated.)

3.  The last four verses that immediately precede 11:1, particularly 10:33

במדבר פרק י

(לג) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהַר יְקֹוָק דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְקֹוָק נֹסֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לָתוּר לָהֶם מְנוּחָה:

(לד) וַעֲנַן יְקֹוָק עֲלֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּנָסְעָם מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה: ס

(לה) וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה קוּמָה יְקֹוָק וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ:

(לו) וּבְנֻחֹה יֹאמַר שׁוּבָה יְקֹוָק רִבְבוֹת אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: פ

suggest that the people understood that what lay ahead of them was journeying in the desert, and they were fearful that this would prove too much for them. RaMBaN describes the reasons why they were feeling sorry for themselves just being out in the desert, let alone having to journey from place to place in it.

Vav.

1. The simple answer would seem to be that when “Ami” appears without any further modification, as in Micha 6, then it is to be assumed that HaShem is Demonstrating His Affection for the people. But when “Ami” is associated with all sorts of shortcomings, as in the examples brought by the commentators on RaShI, “Ein Mikra Yotzeh MiYedai Peshuto” and then you have to follow the sense that is established by the text in question.

2.  “Mitonenim Ra” does not have to connote that anything was verbalized (except for R. Eliezer’s view according to NeTzIV). RaShI, in order to account for “BeOznai HaShem” specifically interprets that they verbalized their complaints to make sure that HaShem Takes note of their complaints. (Perhaps based upon the principle “Hirhurim Mutarim”  they did not feel that disloyal thoughts were sufficient. Halachically, while usually we invoke “Devarim SheBeLeiv Einam Devarim”, when it comes to Emuna BaShem and Avoda Zara, thinking is sufficient to constitute either a Mitzva or a sin.)