Sedrah Psychology
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. ... י וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם, בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו--אִישׁ, לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה מְאֹד, וּבְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה רָע.
4 And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and the children of Israel also wept on their part, and said: 'Would that we were given flesh to eat! 5 We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to.'-- .... 10 Moses heard the people weeping with their families, each one at the entrance to his tent, The Lord became very angry, and Moses considered it evil.
Rashi (11:10, bocheh) comment:
4 And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting; and the children of Israel also wept on their part, and said: 'Would that we were given flesh to eat! 5 We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; 6 but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to.'-- .... 10 Moses heard the people weeping with their families, each one at the entrance to his tent, The Lord became very angry, and Moses considered it evil.
Rashi (11:10, bocheh) comment:
weeping with their families - Families gathered in groups weeping so as to publicize their grievance.
Then Rashi quotes another explanation from the medrash:
weeping with their families - Our Sages say that the meaning is: concerning family matters, that is, because intermarriage among family members was forbidden to them. [Sifrei Behaalothecha 1:42:10, Yoma 75a]
The problem is quite obvious. The posuk related, not five verses earlier, exactly what the cause of their distress was. (Pasuk 5-6) We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic; but now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all; we have nought save this manna to look to. They were unhappy about the man. They didn't mention a word about arayos. What causes Chazal to put words and ideas into the mouth's of bnei yisroel that bears no resemblance to their explicitly stated complaints?
The answer, says R. Yaakov Kaminetsky, is based on a keen understanding of human nature. Often, a person may be down about something without consciously realizing what it is that's bothering him. He may lash out at those around him with very little provocation and for irrational reasons. The cause of his ire is not really the actions of those around him, that is just the trigger. The real cause is something much deeper that is irking him.
That, explains R. Yaakov, is what Chazal understood from these pesukim. It is inconceivable that a people that were being sustained directly from Hashem, that were eating a most perfect food, would be gathering their families together to cry about fish and cucumbers. There had to be a much deeper reason for their distress. That, say Chazal, was the recently received laws of forbidden relationships.
What I find fascinating about this pshat is that a simple reading of Rashi would lead one to believe that there is no possible way that the two pshatim quoted by Rashi could coexist. The midrashic interpretationtion seems to be so far fetched. R. Yaakov shows us how they both are true on two different levels.
Aylu v'aylu divrai elokim chayim.
Then Rashi quotes another explanation from the medrash:
weeping with their families - Our Sages say that the meaning is: concerning family matters, that is, because intermarriage among family members was forbidden to them. [Sifrei Behaalothecha 1:42:10, Yoma 75a]
The problem is quite obvious. The posuk related, not five verses earlier, exactly what the cause of their distress was. (Pasuk 5-6)
The answer, says R. Yaakov Kaminetsky, is based on a keen understanding of human nature. Often, a person may be down about something without consciously realizing what it is that's bothering him. He may lash out at those around him with very little provocation and for irrational reasons. The cause of his ire is not really the actions of those around him, that is just the trigger. The real cause is something much deeper that is irking him.
That, explains R. Yaakov, is what Chazal understood from these pesukim. It is inconceivable that a people that were being sustained directly from Hashem, that were eating a most perfect food, would be gathering their families together to cry about fish and cucumbers. There had to be a much deeper reason for their distress. That, say Chazal, was the recently received laws of forbidden relationships.
What I find fascinating about this pshat is that a simple reading of Rashi would lead one to believe that there is no possible way that the two pshatim quoted by Rashi could coexist. The midrashic interpretationtion seems to be so far fetched. R. Yaakov shows us how they both are true on two different levels.
Aylu v'aylu divrai elokim chayim.
posted by at 9:39 AM
<< Home