Commentaire de citation sur Les Psaumes 106:7

אלה הדברים אשר דבר משה אל כל ישראל בעבר הירדן במדבר בערבה מול סוף בין פארן ובין תפל ולבן וחצרות ודי זהב, “These are the words which Moses addressed to the whole of the people of Israel, on the east bank of the Jordan, in the desert, in the wilderness of Moav, opposite Suf, between Paran and Tafel; at Lavan, Chatzerot, and Dee Zahav.” The reason the Torah writes the word במדבר, is not to repeat that the people were in the desert, but to tell us that Moses rebuked the people for sins committed in the desert. Compare Psalms 78,40: “How often did they defy Him in the wilderness, did they grieve Him in the wasteland!” Concerning the expression בערבה, Rashi comments that the word is to be understood as בשביל הערבה, that on account of being in the wilderness they sinned at Baal Peor, Shittim, sins which occurred in the area described as ערבות מואב. The word מול סוף was meant as a reminder of the Israelites having said sarcastically at the ים סוף, the Sea of Reeds: “did you take us here to die because there was a shortage of burial places in Egypt?” The people again complained when moving away from the Sea of Reeds as we know from Psalms 106,7: “they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds.” The words בין פארן is an oblique reference to the episode of the spies; the words ובין תפל ולבן are references to the complaints uttered against the manna (Numbers 21,5) and the word חצרות is a reference to what occurred when Korach and his supporters rebelled, as well as to the inappropriate comments made by Miriam against her brother Moses. The words די זהב are a reference to the sin of the golden calf, a sin which was possible because they had a surfeit of gold. Compare Hoseah 2,10 who attributes sin to excess material wealth, “I who lavished silver on her and gold, which they used for the Baal.”

מול סוף OVER AGAINST SUPH — i.e. he reproved them regarding that in which they had shown themselves rebellious at the Red Sea (סוף): viz., on their arrival at the Red Sea — that they said, (Exodus 14:11) “Is it because there are no graves in Egypt [that thou hast brought us to die in the wilderness?]"; and similarly when they left the midst of the Sea, as it is said, (Psalms 106:7) “They murmured because of the Sea, at the Red Sea”, as it is related in Treatise Arakhin 15a (cf. Rashi on Numbers 14:22 and Sifrei 1:14).

OUR ANCESTORS TRIED G-D WITH TEN TRIALS IN THE DESERT. Even though the Golden Calf was a sin it is called a “trial” because the notion of a “trial” of G-d is doubt and lack of faith in Him, and the sin of the calf was that they did not believe and trust in Him that they would go securely on their way in the desert through which He had guided them from Egypt until that point.
Rav does not list them chronologically, putting them in pairs instead. But there is difficulty with Rav saying that the trial at their “ascent from the sea” was that of “and they came to Marah” (Exodus 15:23)—how can this be called “ascent from the sea” when it happened three days after they had crossed? And Rambam, whose commentary Rav is quoting here, does not say that the trial at Marah had anything to do with the ascent from the sea.
The Talmud in Arachin 15a, when it says that one of the ten trials was at the ascent from the sea, explains that this trial occurred immediately upon their ascending from the sea: “They said: just as we have ascended at this point, so have the Egyptians ascended at some other point!” And the Talmud quotes the verse “And they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”²⁰²We have translated yam suf as “Red Sea” in deference to convention. It is actually uncertain which sea yam suf was. (Psalms 106:7) in support of this. The Talmud’s count, despite this addition, is balanced by the omission of the trial of the “complainers”.
But why, indeed, does the Talmud not count the complainers? It seems that the Talmud understood the “complainers” (Numbers 11:1) and the “rabble” (Number 11:4) to have been one thing—even though G-d sent fire upon them they were not quieted, “and the rabble in [the nation’s] midst etc.” This is why the verse says that they “went back and wept,” for they returned to the initial complaint of the “complainers”. This accords with the Talmud in Shabbat 116a: R. Shimon ben Gamliel says: in the future, this section [“And when the ark traveled” (Numbers 10:35), which the Talmud is discussing there] will be removed from here and written in its proper place. Why was it written here? To provide a pause between the first story of punishment and the second. What is the second story of punishment? “And the people were like complainers” (Numbers 11:1). The first story of punishment is “And they travelled from the mountain of G-d [Heb. vayis`u mehar Hashem]” (Numbers 10:33), as R. Chama bar Chanina said, for they turned away from G-d [Heb. saru me'acharei Hashem]. Tosafot raise the question that the text still ends up putting two stories of punishment adjacent to one another, and offer a very forced answer.²⁰³It is unclear which Tosafot is being referred to, as our editions of the Talmud do not have Tosafot raising this question. But according to what I wrote earlier, this is precisely the point the Talmud is making: that the “complainers” and the “rabble” are just parts of one story of punishment.
We can show this as follows. For the Talmud there asks “what is the second story of punishment” but does not first ask “what is the first story”, from which we can infer that the Talmud had an idea of what the first story was. And when the line “the first story of punishment is ‘And they travelled from the mountain of G-d’” following that was subsequently put into the text it was not phrased as a question, “what is the first story of punishment”, for it was the redactor of the text who was clarifying for us what the first story was, but the question as it was originally asked in the study hall was only concerning the second story. For the original assumption in the question was that the “complainers” were complaining about the amount of Torah they had learnt at the mountain of G-d—see below—and there is no break in the text [between the punishment of the “complainers” and the punishment of the “rabble”]. The Talmud answers by saying that the second punishment is actually that of the “complainers”, and the entire succeeding text, including the story of the “rabble”, is one long story of punishment.²⁰⁴And the first story is the separate story of their travelling away from the mountain of G-d.
This is unlike Rashi’s approach, that the Talmud answers that the story of the “rabble” is the first story of punishment, which had started after they turned away from G-d. Tosafot there already take issue with his approach and quote the Midrash Vayechulu saying that the first punishment is that they turned away from G-d because they had learned much Torah at Sinai, like a child running out of school.
[*I found support for this in Midrash Rabbah on parashat Metzora (Vayikra Rabbah 18:4), which asks why Israel was punished with the afflictions of emissions and leprosy and quotes several amoraic opinions. One of them is that of R. Yehudah berabbi Shimon who says that they come from the “complainers”, for the verse there says “until it comes out of your noses and becomes nauseating [Heb. lezara] to you” (Numbers 11:20): “What is zara? It will be zorna and bisna for you.” Matnot Kehuna there explains in the name of Aruch that these are types of swelling and boils. And numerous other amoraim there explain lezara as somehow referring to such things. Now if the “complainers” and the “rabble” were not both part of the same story, how could the midrash say that the source is from the “complainers” and proceed to bring a proof from “it will become nauseating to you”, a verse that was said in the story of the “rabble”? It must be that the whole thing is one story, and this is a strong proof of my position.
Also, I say that the plain meaning of the verses indicates as much, for the text says “and the rabble… went back and wept”, and the meaning of “went back” is that they went back to what they had already been doing. And otherwise, what is the purpose of writing that they “went back” altogether? This is also a clear proof.]
For Rambam and Rav, who see the “complainers” and “rabble” as two separate trials, one might say that they hold like Rabbi in that passage in Shabbat 116a who says that the section “and when the ark travelled” is in its proper place and does not see it as a break between two stories of punishment,²⁰⁵He must hold, in general, that there is no need for a break between two stories of punishment. The stories of the “complainers” and the “rabble” can then also be seen as two stories, even though there is no break between them. and the mishna in Yadayim 3:5 goes according to Rabbi. In any case, I feel that the Golden Calf should not be included in this count at all,²⁰⁶If we follow Rav and Rambam’s position of counting the “complainers” and the “rabble” as two, we cannot also include the trials at the ascent from the sea and at Marah as two separate trials—as Tosafot Yom Tov has shown they are—for then the count comes to eleven. Tosafot Yom Tov proposes deleting the sin of the Golden Calf from the list of trials and preserving the trials at the ascent from the sea and Marah as separate ones. for it is a sin, not a trial. In its stead I would count what the Talmud says in Arachin based on the verse “and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea”. And the Torah has seventy facets.²⁰⁷I.e., there are many different ways to count the ten trials throughout the midrashic and medieval literature, and Tosafot Yom Tov is merely adding another.