Midrasz do Liczb 11:34
וַיִּקְרָ֛א אֶת־שֵֽׁם־הַמָּק֥וֹם הַה֖וּא קִבְר֣וֹת הַֽתַּאֲוָ֑ה כִּי־שָׁם֙ קָֽבְר֔וּ אֶת־הָעָ֖ם הַמִּתְאַוִּֽים׃
I nadano miejscowości tej miano: Kibroth-Hataawa, gdyż tam pochowano ludzi pożądliwych.
Sifrei Bamidbar
(Bamidbar 11:2) "And the people cried out to Moses": How would Moses help them? Should it not be "And the people cried out to the L-rd"? — R. Shimon says: An analogy: A king was angry with his son, and he went to the king's loved one and said to him: Please intercede for me with father. Thus, Israel went to him: Please intercede for us with the L-rd. I might think that Moses would demur; it is, therefore, written "and Moses prayed to the L-rd." I might think that the L-rd would demur; it is, therefore, written "and the fire sank" — it sank in its place. If it returned to the heavens, they would revert to their wrong, and if it went to the side, it would raze that entire side, wherefore it sank in its place. (Ibid. 3) "And he called the name of that place 'Taveirah'" ("conflagration"). As one would say: Leave that fire burning in its place. Thus did Moses say to Israel: Repent and the fire will subside; if not, it is still (burning) in its place. "for the fire of the L-rd burned in them": It was called thus because of the event, and not because that was its name in the past. Similarly, (Shemot 17:7) "And he called the name of the place Massah and Merivah." I might think that that was its name in the past; it is, therefore, written "because of the quarrel (riv [as in "Merivah"]) of the children of Israel" — it was thus called because of the event. Similarly, (Bamidbar 11:34) "And he called the name of that place Kivroth Hata'avah." I might think that that was its name in the past; it is, therefore, written "for there they buried (kavru) the people that lusted (hamitavim)" — it was thus called because of the event. But you still do not know who were those who incited them to this transgression. — It is written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 4) "And the asafsuf in its midst (lusted lust"). These are the converts that were "added on" (hanosafim [as in "asafsuf"]) to them — how much more so the common Jews (i.e., the rabble). R. Shimon b. Menassia says: These ("the asafsuf") are the elders, viz. (Ibid. 11:16) "Gather (asfah) unto me seventy men from the elders of Israel." If thus, the elders, how much more so, the commoners! Similarly, (Bereshit 6:2) "And the sons of the judges saw the daughters of man, etc." What did they do? They would seize women from the marketplace and "afflict" them. If thus, the sons of the judges, how much more so the commoners? "they lusted lust": I might think that they lusted something they did not have; it is, therefore, written "Who will feed us flesh," (which implies that they lusted something which they had.) "and the children of Israel also wept again," which teaches us that the first ones (viz. Ibid. 2) were the children of Israel. "And they said: 'Who will feed us flesh?'" Now is it because they did not have flesh that they grumbled? Is it not written (Shemot 12:38) "And also a mixed multitude went up with them, and flocks and herds, etc."? I might think that they had eaten them in the desert, but is it not written upon their entering the land (Bamidbar 32:1) "And much livestock were possessed by the sons of Reuven and the sons of Gad, etc."? But (the truth is that) they were only seeking a pretext to abandon the L-rd.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy