". . . had fled (ki barach)" – According to the Masora, this appears twice – "that Yaakov had fled" and "that the people had fled".

" . . .that the people fled." Did they flee?! It was previously stated that on the morrow of the paschal sacrifice "the Children of Israel were going out with a high hand". What, then, are we to learn from "the people fled"? Because they had beaten Pharaoh's officials, the officials went and told Pharaoh, saying: "See, Israel has beaten some of us, killed some of us, wounded some of us, and not one (of them) has protested – they have neither ruler nor governor." This is similar to that which is written [in Proverbs 30:27] "The locusts have no king, yet they all march forth in formation."

(Mekhilta, Parashat B'shalach, Chapter "Vayehi", Parasha 1)

And in the midrash they said "The king of Egypt was told" –he was told about the prophecy of the Covenant Between the Pieces -- "Your seed will be sojourners . . . for four hundred years" – yet they were enslaved only 210 years. 210 is the numerical equivalent of "he fled". Thus did it become evident to him that the people had fled.

*************************************

Israel asked for bread. They were hungry, for the kneading-troughs were empty of matzoth.

God, aware of his children's distress, answered immediately. "God said to Moshe: Here, I will rain down bread for you from the heavens, the people shall go out and glean, each day's amount in its day, in order that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my Instruction or not." (Shmot 16:4) Bread, accompanied by a test. The aim: Daily life of faith and trust that "He who created day, created its sustenance." (Mechilta, Beshalach, 2)

Just like the testing waters of Marah. Moshe, our teacher, added that not only will bread be given – there will also be meat. "Moshe said: Since God gives you flesh to eat at sunset, and at daybreak, bread to satisfy (yourselves); since God hearkens to your grumblings . . ." (Ibid 16:8) Why did Moshe add meat to the menu? And if he judged the addition favorably, – and God acquiesced ("Speak to them and say: Between the setting-times you shall eat flesh, and at daybreak you shall be satisfied with bread, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God.") (Ibid.16:12), why was God's wrath aroused? Why did Moshe disapprove when, a year later, they requested that meat accompany the manna? (Bemidbar 11:10) Why did they choke to death then, whereas here, in our parasha, evening found a layer of quail on their tables, safely reaching its esophageal destination? Comparison of these two events provides much food for thought.

We shall study Moshe's addition and wonder whether it eventually proved to be harmful.

The meat Moshe requested was not intended to embellish the bread; its purpose was educational – to instill in the Children of Israel the message that "It is God who delivered you from the land of Egypt." "At sunset you know that it is God who brought you out of the land of Egypt; at daybreak you will see the Glory of God; when he hearkens to your grumblings against God – what are we, that you grumble against us? Moshe said: Since God gives you flesh to eat at sunset, and at daybreak, bread to satisfy (yourselves); since God hearkens to your grumblings which you grumble against him . . ." (Shmot 16:6-8)

Bread is given by God as a challenge, and in order to educate them towards standing fast as they are tested – "In order that I may test them." The educational and faith-instilling purpose of the quail, as explained by Moshe, is to be a testament to God's ability, and a demonstration that He was the emancipator of the Jews from Egypt. Thus did Moshe attempt to deflect criticism from himself and from Aharon, protesting, "What are we, that you grumble against us?" First of all, Moshe classifies the request of the Children of Israel as 'grumbling' (four times). "Since God hearkens to your grumblings which you grumble against him" Secondly, the grumbling is directed at himself and at Aharon, when actually the correct address is God, who alone is responsible for the situation. "Not against us are your grumblings, but against God." Thirdly, Moshe understands that the Children of Israel are accusing their leaders of misleading them as if there were no God, no divine directive to set out to the terrible desert. It was the quail (accompanying the manna) in particular – in its miraculous nature, which was chosen as being most suitable for addressing these problems.

Let us not take this lightly. Even Moshe found the miraculous nature of the quail to be problematic. When the nation repeats the request for quail meat, a troubled Moshe reacts to God's promise of a month's supply with an exclamation of wonder: "Six hundred thousand on foot (are) the (fighting-)people among whom I am, yet you, you say: Meat I will give them, and they are to eat (it) for a monthful of days? Are there flocks and herds that my be slain for them, that they would find-them- sufficient? Or are there all the fish of the sea to be caught for them, that they would find-them-sufficient?" (Bemidbar 11, 21-22)

Two weighty puzzlements. The first – how could Moshe, who experienced and recognized all of God's actions (including the daily manna), doubt the possibility of a month's supply of quail? The second – this was not the first time that quail had settled in the camp (even though it seems to have been limited to only twenty days the first time)?

God's answer to Moshe, "Is the arm of God too short? Now you shall see whether my word happens to you or not," (Ibid., 11:23) implies a lack of faith on Moshe's part; these seem to have been among the severest words of reproach ever leveled at Moshe.

And similarly in the Tosefta: "But whoever desecrates the Name of Heaven in secret - is spared, but in public – he is punished; he who did so in private, God covers over him." (Tosefta Sotah, 6: 7)

Moshe, beset with doubts about Israel, used the quail as an instrument to test their faith in God's historical supervision. Then Moshe himself falters in this test, and is punished. Rabbi Akiva teaches that God's words "Because you did not have trust in me to treat-me-as-holy before the eyes of the children of Israel" was the heart of Moshe's and Aharon's sin. The sentence imposed upon Moshe and Aharon was already determined in the second occurrence of the quail, for which the accusation "Because you did not have trust in me" is most apt.

"Now you will see" appearing here, in the second quail story, ties in with the "Now you will see," God's reply to Moshe as he doubted God's ability to deliver Israel from Egypt (Shmot 6:1) . "Now you will see" -- you will see that which will be done to Pharaoh, but not that which will be done to the kings of the seven nations, when I bring them into the land." (Sandhedrin 111a)

The nature of the punishment continues to puzzle; where is the "measure for measure"?

"And they acted-like-prophets in the camp." -- What did they prophesy? They said, Moshe is dying; Yehoshua will bring Israel into the Land. Abba Chanin said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer; They weprophesying regarding the quail – "Rise up, quail! Rise , quail!" (Sanhedrin 17a)

From whence this prophecy of Eldad and Medad?

Eldad and Medad appear at the peak of a leadership crisis. The ruach (spirit) which rests upon them is the ruach which emanated from Moshe's prophecy and authority. It would seem that this is the same ruach [Note: the Hebrew ruach means both 'spirit' and 'wind'] which swept in the quails from the sea which Moshe had parted. The second request for quail was the cause of Moshe's leadership crisis. Moshe is aware that the quail test is a test of himself – as leader, prophet, and messenger. It seems that the banal and human request for meat leads him to such a human response, negatively affecting his leadership qualities, resulting in the following outburst:

It is doubtful whether there exists another so sensitive a statement by Moshe as that which here erupts from the depths of his heart. The anger which emerged with great restraint through the crack created by the 'first quail', ("And what are we . . ."), now -- with 'the second quail' -- gushes into a torrent, the likes of which we have heretofore not seen.

The demand for quail creates a leadership crisis. Moshe's recoil from the burden of such demanding leadership, leads to a regression which results in the delegation of authority and the widening of the circle of prophetic leadership.

The closing passage "To the soil about which you swore to their fathers" may be Moshe's first thought of regret regarding his mission of bringing the Children of Israel to settlement in the land of their fathers. Perhaps the division of leadership responsibility – "Moshe took out, and Yehoshua will bring in" – is the expression of God's response to the first part of Moshe's request, i.e., apportioning the burden of management among others. Here, in the soil of Kivrot Hataava – Graves of the Craving – sprouted the seed which was hidden in the bush in Midian, which was watered with the first quail, and which now grew to deny Moshe entry to the land which was promised to his fathers. Eldad and Medad prophesied in the spirit of the quail; they were able to see what Scripture covered from Israel's public view.

Moshe's addition of meat for the people derived from a mistrust of their faith and loyalty. He did not discern in their request a simple statement of need; he sensed a complaint which put his leadership and his faith in God to the test. Moshe chose an instrument which would remove all complaints and doubt – the quail. With that very instrument did he fail in his leadership and in his faith in God's power.

How do leaders become blameworthy of the very faults of which they suspect their followers! And there was none greater than Moshe, yet he knew not why bad things happen to righteous people . . . nor why the tzaddik does himself harm. One wonders.

Reuven HaCohen-Uriah is a member of the staff and moderator of "Kolot"

*************************************

Said Rabbi Meir: Where do we find a source for resurrection in the Torah? It is written: "Then sang Moshe and the Children of Israel this song to God" - it does not say "shar" (sang), but "yashir" (will sing); this is the source for resurrection in the Torah. (Bavli, Sanhedrin 92b)

(The words which) tzaddikim use to censure, they later use to mend. Know that when Moshe complained, with "Az" ('then') he complained, as is written "u-me-az ('since') – "Since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has dealt only ill with this people . . ." (Shmot 5:23). Said Moshe, I transgressed with "az" -- with "az" will I mend and will praise with song. Therefore does it say "Az yashir Moshe" – "Then sang Moshe." (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach, 24)

*************************************

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MITZVOTH AND CHARACTER TRAITS (Middot), AND SOCIAL CONVENTION (Nimmusim)

Study of Torah policy reveals that the punishments meted out for violation of 'active' mitzvot (mitvot maasiyot) – such as idolatry – are karet [extermination as a Divine punishment], stoning and other forms of death, and lashes. Such is not the case with offenses involving social civility and character – such as contention, defamation, theft; these are never punished by flogging because they are (in the category) of "lav ha-nitan le-tashlumim" [a Biblical prohibition, which is resolved by monetary reparation] or "lav she-eyn bo maasah" [a Biblical transgression which does not involve a physical act]. This applies only when an individual transgresses. When a community is corrupt, the opposite holds true – so we learn in the Yerushalmi, Peah:

But (regarding a community marked by) social transgressions, low character, slander and controversy, it is written "Exalt yourself over the heavens" – as though to say "Remove your presence from them." They went further and said that in the times of the first Temple, Jews engaged in idolatry and sexual immorality (and bloodshed); in the second Temple they engaged in torah and mitzvot, (and righteous deeds, so why was it destroyed?) Because of baseless hatred (to teach that baseless hatred is the equivalent of the sins – idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed). The Talmud asks, "Who are the greater [the Jews of the First Temple or of the Second)" "Look at the Temple; it returned to the (Jews of the) first, but not to the (Jews of the) second". Thus we see that a community corrupted by anti-social behavior is worse than a community corrupted by (violation of) mitzvot. Therefore did Rabbi Yochanan say (Sanhedrin108a) Come and see how great is the power of corruption. The generation of the Deluge transgressed all mitzvot, but they were not sentenced to annihilation until they began to steal, as is written (Bereishit 6:13): "An end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with wrongdoing". Sexual offenses are judged as communal offenses, and He had mercy on them. But this cannot be so with social offenses. Therefore, punishment for Sabbath desecration is delayed; since the phenomenon is so widespread, it is a community offence. Even with regard to idolatry the Sifri teaches "and the soul will be cut off" -- but not the community. But because the social norms have been breached, people with swords and arrows go to plunder and steal, and their characters have become corrupt because they are like beasts of prey, God will take revenge without delay.

*************************************

The "SHIUR" (Measurement) RELEVANT TO THE BREACHING OF BOUNDARIES WHICH INVITES EXTERNAL THREAT

It would have seemed fitting to define the measurements of the omer earlier (in the Torah) – either through a Divine command or through action – saying "An omer per head, which is the tenth of an ephah" or "They measured out the omer, which is the tenth of an ephah". The reason for the delay in defining the measure of the "omer" is that our entire parasha explains the subject of the manna. After completing the narrative about the manna, it now became necessary to dthe measure. Or, alternatively, the delay was so that the measure be juxtaposed to the Rephidim incident. As a rule,abundance of tranquillity and profusion of favor result in one's laxity in work and weakening in Torah. If one's needs are met in adequate and moderate measure, he will not do so [he will not become lax and weak] -- but will become stronger. Therefore Scripture informs us that because their hands weakened at Refidim [Trans. note: The Hebrew for "their hands weakened" is "rafu yedeyhem" – almost identical with "Refidim"] despite the fact that their needs were met in adequate and moderate measure, i.e., a tenth of an ephah daily, they were punished by "Now Amalek came and made-war upon Israel in Refidim," and this is the reason for the proximity of the two parshiyot.