ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף דברים 2:7

(1) The people were "as if complaining," refers to a trumped up charge, one not voiced openly. They were ashamed to voice their real complaint, and instead they voiced some diversionary complaint. Their real complaint, of course, had reached the ears of G'd who is familiar with what goes on in people's hearts. For this reason, G'd says later "you have wept in the earshot of G'd, who will feed us meat?" G'd had heard and was angry. At the time Abraham had weighed the money to Ephron for the burial ground he was purchasing for Sarah, he had also "heard" Ephron's unspoken words, not only the flattering offer of a gift. Despite Moses' prayer, which had stopped the fire consuming the people at tav-eyrah, the people sinned again for an entirely unprovoked reason. The assafsuff, the fringe elements, did not lust after meat. They induced in themselves lust after meat, a most despicable trait. Aristotele in chapter 9 of his book of ethics deals with this trait. When a person sees someone else enjoying something that he himself neither feels the lack of, nor the need for, he desires to be possessed of the urge to enjoy the same thing. If one observes a thirsty person slake his thirst with ice cold water, then such a person wishes to become thirsty in order to be able to quench his thirst. This is the basest way of enslaving oneself to physical greed and passions. Such people cannot even claim in defence of their behaviour that an outsider tempted them as Eve had done in Genesis 3,13. When the rest of the people observed the lust of the assafsuf, they wept again as they had done previously. This time however, they articulated their lust for meat. What displeased G'd most, was, that they had chosen to be free from moral imperatives (Torah) over freedom from enslavement to their physical urges. In Egypt, while they had been enslaved physically, Torah legislation had not yet regulated their freedom to partake of all the physical gratifications that presented themselves. Their food intake, sex life etc. had not yet become subject to Torah law and guidance. The fact that they now disdained the very thing that would lift them to the level of being truly free persons, particularly angered G'd. Whenever the Torah reports Israel as displaying a preference for Egypt, i.e. "we were better off in Egypt," the reference is to the exchange of physical freedom for the sacrifice of moral licentiousness. (see comment of Sifri on the word chinam, i.e. free from the yoke of the mitzvot,) The right to eat any fish without examining if such fish was equipped with fins and scales, was more important to them than to harbour the shechinah, Presence of G'd in their midst. After all, that shechinah, guided their destiny. (2+3) By their own admission,they had never eaten meat to their satisfaction; they only talk about sitting close to other people's fleshpots. But, even the memory of their erstwhile proximity to meat, was preferable to the availability of man, Heavenly food. At Refidim, when they did get quail, apparently it had not been to satisfy their bellies, since the fowl had not been described as performing that function. (as distinct from the "bread" which is described as lasovah, to satisfy. Exodus 16,8) Their complaint that they had nothing to look at but the man, underlined that they felt dependent daily on its re-appearance. The Torah says "who feeds you manna in the desert to keep you afflicted, unsatisfied, to test you, so that in the end you will be well off." (Deut. 8,17) G'd did not want Israel to gorge themselves on food, not even on man. When our sages in Yuma 74, tell us that blind people are never satisfied after having eaten, the reason is that they did not see the food. This places Israel's complaint into focus. "The only thing we can see is the manna." In other words, the only thing that they get their fill of is the manna. Abaye, in the same discussion in the Talmud, suggests that banquets should not be held at night, as one cannot enjoy one's food in the dark. Since the people had expressed themselves in a derogatory fashion about the manna, its appearance, its feel, etc.,the Torah proceeds to give us an objective report about its properties. In Proverbs 16,17, Solomon writes "better a dish of vegetables that is served and eaten with love, than a fatted ox which is served and eaten with hatred." He illustrates the attitude of the people towards the most delectable of dishes, handpicked by G'd Himself. The Torah's description of the layer of dew upon which the manna descended nightly, proves that the people's state of mind was not due to an inherent shortcoming of the manna.

The list of all the journeys the Jewish people made in the desert, is to illustrate all the goodness they received at the hands of G'd during all those long years. After listing a review of the last forty years, the Torah gives instructions for the future, i.e. to drive out the Canaanites, division of the land by lottery, the reason why former residents must not be tolerated in their midst, i.e. to insure their religious and national purity. Spiritual well being is even more important than the physical amenities the land had to offer. For that reason, G'd is apparently cruel, in insisting that all the survivors of the seven nations in Canaan be killed, i.e. an act of kindness towards Israel. They are warned that survivors would become "pricks in their eyes" (33,55) blinding them concerning their real interests if they would be tolerated. In the book of Judges 2,3, we find details about how toleration of the remnants of the Canaanites spelled trouble for Israel in its homeland for many hundreds of years. After that we read about the laws concerning murder in its varying degrees. In discussing the nuances of awareness by the murderer of the severity of his crime, one point needs special emphasis. Any killer, however innocent, must be aware that the victim would revenge himself, were he but able to do so. For this reason, the relative of the victim can be expected to take the place of the murdered person and execute this revenge. Even the avenger, however, is duty bound to consider the killer's motivation, degree of awareness etc. Therefore, the Torah establishes some objective criteria by describing the weapon that caused the death. If the instrument of death is one that would not normally be used to commit murder, then surely the killer's intent had not been murderous. If bad blood had existed between the victim and the killer, even a harmless looking instrument might have been rigged to become lethal. If, however, neither the instrument of death could be classified as a weapon, nor was there evidence that animosity had existed between the victim and the killer, then no criminal intent is presumed to have existed.

The Midrash quoted at the outset of this chapter, listing a variety of comparisons for the Israel/G-d relationship, refers to the various temples. The first example, the shepherd and his dwelling, refers to the tabernacle in the desert. G-d’s function in the desert was to provide all the needs of the people directly. (Manna-water-meat) Solomon's temple,-since it did not endure-, was referred to as a hut, the need of the guardian to keep manning his observation post. Israel was referred to as the vineyard during that epoch. (Compare Isaiah chapter five or Song of Songs chapters one and eight) In the first chapter of Isaiah we find that after the destruction of Solomon's temple, Israel is described as having been abandoned like a hut in a vineyard. These various prophecies envisage the rebuilding of something permanent. None of the prophecies concerning rebuilding can be matched to historic events that have already occurred. A temple that lacked the holy ark, to mention but one of the many items missing in the second temple, and one that had been built at the direction of, or at least with the consent of a gentile government to which Israel owed allegiance, cannot possibly be something that manifests G-d’s reign on earth. Chaggai and Ezekiel clearly refer to the temple of the future. If it is an honour for the father to be surrounded by his children as the Midrash says, the small number of Jews that returned to Israel during the reign of Cyrus etc., surely cannot confer much honour on the father. This latter condition will only come about as we read in Psalms 126, "when the Lord returns to Zion we shall be as dreamers," during an era of which we can truly say "then our mouth will be full of laughter and our tongue will be filled with jubilation." That the expanded temple in the days of Herod- a slave of the Hasmoneans-, his hands bloodstained by much Jewish blood, could not be the temple envisaged by our prophets, goes without saying. One must therefore view the entire relationship between Israel and G-d as that between groom and betrothed. The proper husband/wife relationship is to be consummated when the permanent temple will be built. An alternate view of the opening Midrash would be that it refers to parts of the tabernacle. The inner sanctuary would be referred to as the house, the sanctuary proper, heychal, as the hut, and the courtyard as the enclosure, the pen. In the latter event, "enclosure," G-d has a claim on us because He provides food and shelter. In the case of "hut, He can demand more, since He has also given us the Torah. In the case of "house," since He is prepared to act as our father, providing All, He can expect that we prepare His abode accordingly. The author clearly refers the first approach.