민수기 11:22의 주석

הצאן והבקר ישחט SHALL THE FLOCKS AND HERDS BE SLAUGHTERED [FOR THEM TO SUFFICE THEM?] — This is one of those four things (Biblical passages) which R. Akiba interpreted in a certain way but R. Simeon did not interpret them similarly. Rabbi Akiba says: שש מאות אלף רגלי ... ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים הצאן ובקר — all this is to be taken literally and the words ומצא להם should be rendered by “would it suffice for them?”, in the same sense as we find this word used in (Leviticus 25:26) “and he have sufficient (ומצא כדי) for redeeming it" (ומצא להם is taken as the equivalent of ומצא כדי להם). Now — R. Akiba continued — which case was worse? This or that when Moses exclaimed, (Numbers 20:10) Hear now, ye rebels!?” Obviously this case here was worse, only because he did not utter his doubt in public, Scripture (God) showed some regard for him and did not punish him, whilst that sin at Meriba took place in public, therefore Scripture does not show any regard for him. Rabbi Simeon, however, says: “God forbid!” — “Such an idea never entered the mind of that righteous man! He of whom Scripture writes, (Numbers 12:7) ‘He is faithful in all my house’ — would he have said, ‘The Omnipresent cannot supply sufficient for us!’ But what he said was this: ‘[the people, amongst whom I am, are] six hundred thousand footmen; and Thou hast said, I will give them flesh, for a whole month — and then You want to kill a nation so great as this is?! Shall the flocks and the herds be slaughtered for them that they (the people) should immediately be killed, and this eating should be their last (lit., should satisfy them for ever: ומצא להם)?! Is this Your praise? Do people say to an ass, take (eat) this Kor of barley and then we will cut off thy head!’? The Holy One, blessed be He, thereupon said to him, ‘But if I do not give them flesh, they will say that My hand has waxed short; would it be pleasing to you that the hand of the Lord should appear in their eyes to have waxed short? — Let them and a hundred like them perish but let not My hand appear to them to have waxed short even for a single moment’!” (Tosefta Sotah 6:4)

At any rate, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם? how will that suffice to assuage their complaints, seeing that what they are really asking for is only in order to provoke, as pointed out in Psalms 78,18 וינסו א-ל בלבבם, “they provoked G’d in their hearts.” No doubt, just as they provoked, tested Your patience with this, they will do this with other foods, for no valid reason. The problem is that You will not deprive them of their freedom of will, as we know from the axiom “all is within the power of heaven except control of who will possess reverence for G’d.” (B’rachot 33).

הצאן ובקר ישחט להם, “are sheep and cattle going to be slaughtered for them?” Nachmanides writes that there can be no question but that the plain meaning of the verse corresponds to the opinion voiced by Rabbi Akiva in Chulin 16-17 where he stated that the emphasis in our verse is on the word ישחט, as he holds that in the desert it had been permitted to kill animals by stabbing instead of slaughtering. The Torah now draws attention to the fact that after the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai this was no longer the case. He also holds that the eating of meat that had not first bee consecrated as an offering on the Altar had never been forbidden. Moses, in this instance queried if the herds of the Israelites were sufficient for their needs for a whole month even if all their livestock were to be slaughtered. The idea that they deserved a miracle did not even cross his mind. Onkelos also thinks that way. However, the subject is problematic as pointed out by Rabbi Shimon who said: “how can we even suspect that a person such as Moses whom G’d Himself had described as trustworthy in His entire house, should harbour any suspicions of G’d’s inadequacy in any domain? The very question Moses voiced creates the impression that he queried G’d’s ability to provide what He had said He would provide, no matter how He would go about it?” Ibn Ezra answers the problem by saying that Moses’ premise had been that surely the problem faced by the people was not the kind that would cause G’d to employ supernatural means in order to solve it. He thought that G’d reserves resorting to miracles only in order to demonstrate that predictions of His prophets will come true, and the prophet will be legitimized when that happens. This explanation also does not satisfy me, seeing that G’d had already performed miracles to prove the authenticity of Moses as a prophet when He provided the people with the quail in Exodus 16,11-13 as well as when He responded to the people’s complaints that they did not have what to eat, by supplying them with the heavenly bread, the manna, starting in Exodus The same was true when G’d had told Moses to strike the rock at Massa um’rivah and produce a constant flow of drinking water for the people. (Exodus 17,7) I believe that the correct approach is that whenever G’d takes the trouble to perform miracles for the Children of Israel the purpose is for their benefit, i.e. they can recognize the miracle as being for their benefit. The only times G’d employed miracles as an act of the מדת הדין, the Attribute of Justice, is when He punished Israel’s enemies or oppressors by intervening in their fate by miracles, such as the ten plagues, or the drowning of the Egyptians in the Sea of Reeds. Therefore, when G’d predicted that the people will ultimately be revolted by the very meat they were craving, Moses had no reason to believe that G’d planned to perform a miracle for them by providing them with a liberal meat diet. As soon as G’d told Moses that the meat He would provide would become revolting to the people, he realized that G’d did not plan to intervene by miraculous means. This is what evoked Moses’ wondering how this gigantic undertaking could possibly be performed by natural means. G’d informed Moses that he had been mistaken, that G’d was able to meet the demands of the people even without invoking supernatural means. This is why He asked the rhetorical question: היד ה' תקצר, “Is Hashem’s power inadequate then?” You will note that here the Torah does not phrase G’d’s answer as had the angels who promised Avraham that he would be the father of a baby boy a year hence. (Genesis 18,14) At that time, this was the answer to an unspoken question by Sarah that she had first denied thinking. The angels employed the phrase היפלא מה' דבר, “Is anything too wonderful for Hashem to do?” This referred to G’d performing miracles, as the Torah had been on record repeatedly that Sarah was not only barren but did not even possess a womb. (Genesis 11,30, Yevamot 64) In the event, G’d did not even have to divert the wind so that the quails touched down around the area where the Israelites were encamped, as opposed to when He brought on the plague of locusts, (Exodus 10,13) or when He dried out the bottom of the Sea of Reeds. (Exodus 14,21) The only new element in what occurred here was the inordinately large number of quails that landed around the camp of the Israelites.

Now, which is worse? One would have said that “will sheep and cattle” was worse than “listen here rebels,” meaning that if he was punished for that speech then all the more so he should have been punished for this. But why was he not punished? — since…

הצאן ובקר shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered? (seeing that they had asked for meat)

ואם כל דגי הים, “or shall all the fish in the ocean (be caught)? (seeing they had recalled the fish they had eaten in Egypt with such nostalgia)

ישחט להם...יאסף להם, “be either slaughtered for them, or caught for them?” Shall all of this be done by a mere seventy people?

ומצא להם, “where could all this even be found, never mind slaughtered, in order to feed them for a whole month?!