Numbers 11:1-35 Chavurah Shalom Saturday 11/18/17

Vv. 1-3 Complaint at Taberah Our Parashah for this week begins with the pattern of life that will plague Israel throughout their wilderness journeys: Complaint, Divine Judgment, Naming the Place based upon the incident of the complaint. The nature of the complaint seems to be the lack of sumptuous food they were used to back in Egypt. It is as if they were complaining about the journey, the Goodness of God, and His provisions for them in the journey. Rather than look to God, or looking forward to a land flowing with milk and honey, they looked back to the bondage they had just left. Luke 9:62 But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” Specifically our text lists fish, leeks, onions, and garlic. These are items that we use to give our food more flavor. Our text simply begins with a complaint, and nothing is spelled out in the first three verses as to the nature of the complaint. Many scholars separate this issue from the following one concerning the manna verses the fish and vegetables of Egypt. Whatever the complaint, ADONAI answers with fire, here a deadly fire. The fiery presence of God always evokes fear, but does not always result in death. At this time, Israel is confronted with the Fiery Presence of God as both a repre- sentation of His Holiness, and also of His Judgment. The JPS Torah Commentary suggested it was lightning. Some claim it took the form of a plague or that it was actual fire, an interpretation that would be sup- ported by the verb “died down” and by the description of God’s wrath: “You send forth Your fury, it consumes them like straw” (Exod. 15:7). For instances of fire as divine punishment, see Numbers 16:35, Leviticus 10:2, and 2 Kings 1:10, 12. In any case, the outbreak of the fire is the result of a miracle, an indication that miracles can serve as divine punishment as well as salvation. The miracles of the quail in the next episode must be viewed in the same way.--pp. 82-83. The name of the place is called Taberah, literally "a burning." It is so named be- cause of the burning up of the people who murmured and complained against God. That this burning occured at the "edge" of the camp is taken by the Chumash to refer to the mixed multitude which left Egypt with the Israelites, and continued to be a thorn in the nation's side.--p. 76. There is however, nothing in our text to indicate that the "mixed multitude" was divided into those that were non Hebraic,

- 1 - who camped on the outskirts of the main camp. That ADONAI has manifested His Presence as fire and now judges with fire is meant as a lesson for Israel, but here they have not learned from it but instead the murmuring and complaining continues. The Hebrew language is very pictureque. Our text begins with the Wrath of God to ,חָרַה ,from charah ,וַיִּ ֣חַ ר אַפּ֔ וֹ ,and it is pictured as His Nose flared up or burned burn or be angry. We might picture the flaring of the nostrils as a picture of some- one who is extremely agitated. Then we are told that "the fire of ADONAI" burned them and consumed the edge of the camp. Concerning the reference to the "edge of the camp:" This shows that the destructive fire did not come from the Taber- nacle as in cases cited in other (priestly) texts (e. g., Num. 16:35; cf. Lev. 10:2). Hebrew bi-ketseh can also be interpreted to refer to people, either the alien ele- ment who live at the edges of society or the important people of Israel.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 82. There is no indication of a direction of the fire from God, only the location of the burning. There indeed are times when the fire comes down from the heavens, as in the plagues upon Egypt. However, there is no reason to doubt that this fire came from the Mishkan just as it did concerning Nadav and Avihu. We are not given a reference as to the magnitude of this burning. The Chumash noted it was of "the masses of the people," but was concentrated at the edge of the camp.--p. 76. We are simply left to wonder at its magnitude. It was a tremen- dous event, regardless of the number involved. God consumed them by His Fire. Then it was Moshe to the rescue. The people cried out, and Moshe prayed. The result was that the "fire died out." Moshe stands out throughout the journeys of Is- rael as the quintessential intercessor for Israel. In this role Moshe foreshadows our Great High Priest, Yeshua our Messiah, who ever lives to make intercession for the believer, Hebrews 7:25. That Fire represented both His Holy Presence and His Holy Displeasure was to serve to impress His Holy Majesty upon His Chosen People. There is to be both a sense of Honor, Respect, and Rejoicing at His Holy Presence along with a sense of Dread or Fear. Somehow we have lost this sense of dread. We see this theme as a common thread throughout the Scripture. Hebrews 10:31. Now, as this spot is distinctly described as the end or outermost edge of the camp, this “place of burning” must not be regarded, as it is by Knobel and others, as a

- 2 - different station from the “graves of lust.” “Tabeerah was simply the local name give to a distant part of the whole camp, which received soon after the name of Kibroth-Hattaavah, on account of the greater judgment which the people brought upon themselves through their rebellion. This explains not only the omission of the name Tabeerah from the list of encampments in Num. 33:16, but also the circumstance, that nothing is said about any removal from Tabeerah to Kibroth- Hattaavah, and that the account of the murmuring of the people, be- cause of the want of those supplies of food to which they had been accustomed in Egypt, is attached, without anything further, to the preceding narrative. There is nothing very surprising either, in the fact that the people should have given ut- terance to their wish for the luxuries of Egypt, which they had been deprived of so long, immediately after this judgment of God, if we only understand the whole affair as taking place in exact accordance with the words of the texts, viz., that the unbelieving and discontented mass did not discern the chastising hand of God at all in the conflagration which broke out at the end of the camp, because it was not declared to be a punishment from God, and was not preceded by a previ- ous announcement; and therefore that they gave utterance in loud murmurings to the discontent of their hearts respecting the want of flesh, without any regard to what had just befallen them.--Keil & Delitzsch. This is an interesting proposition, that there are two instances of complaint and two judgments occuring at the same place on the same people in a short time from one another. It would suggest that the people did not learn well. We have in fact a se- ries of incidents before us where the people just don't seem to get it, and continue to invoke the Wrath of God. We are supposed to learn from our mistakes, and not continue to make the same mistake again and again. Yet, we find Israel guilty of that very thing! Vv. 4-9 Dissatisfaction with the Manna This is considered, as above, as a second incident hard on the heels of the first one where the Fire of God broke forth upon the people. This incident is far more de- tailed and complex. It originates from the camp's non-Israelite contingent which joined the Israelites in the Exodus, Exodus 12:38. The people crave a more varied diet than just manna, like the one they claim was available in Egypt. As commonly happens, the complaints of a few are echoed by the entire group.-- The Jewish Study Bible, p. 306.

- 3 - riffraff" or "rabble." Perhaps" , א סַ פְ סֻ ף֙ ,Our text refers to these problem people as because our text refers to this "riffraff" who were among them, and then says "also the children of Israel wept again," this has been interpreted to mean the non-Is- raelite contingent. This term is associated with the term for "mixed multitude," -in Exodus 12:38. As you can clearly see, there is no direct connection be עֵ֥רֶ ב רַ֖ב tween these terms. However, they are both hapax legomenon, terms that appear only one time in the Scripture. Nevertheless, it is the common assumption of the Jewish commentators as well as others, that these two terms are used interchage- ably. I however, don't find good reason to make them a separate camp within Is- rael, or on its outskirts, for there is no text indicating this. In this case we find a double emphasis in their complaints. Our text literally says, "they desired a desire." There is nothing negative in the word for desire itself, but it is typically understood as a greediness. The new complaint was especially galling, for not only did they complain that their diet was insufficient - which the Torah testifies to be untrure (vs. 7-9) - they went so far as to say that they pre- ferred Egyptian slavery to the Presence of God, v. 20, and they tested God (Psalm 78:20) to see if He had the ability to satisfy their craving for meat (Sforno).--The Chumash, p. 77. meaning "flesh." It could be any flesh, that of ,בָּשַׂר The word translated meat is what we would typically call meat, such as lamb, goat or cattle. It could be the flesh of fish, or any other animal. By the flesh which they missed, we are not to understand either the fish which they expressly mention in the following verse signifies בָּשָׂר as in Lev. 11:11), or merely oxen, sheep, and goats; but the word) flesh generally, as being a better kind of food than the bread-like manna. It is true they possessed herds of cattle, but these would not have been sufficient to supply their wants, as cattle could not be bought for slaughtering, and it was necessary to spare what they had. The greedy people also longed for other flesh, and said, “We remember the fish which we ate in Egypt for nothing.” Even if fish could not be had for nothing in Egypt, according to the extravagant asser- tions of the murmurers, it is certain that it could be procured for such nominal prices that even the poorest of the people could eat it. The abundance of the fish in the Nile and the neighbouring waters is attested unanimously by both classical writers (e.g., Diod. Sic. i. 36, 52; Herod. ii. 93; Strabo, xvii. p. 829) and modern travellers (cf. Hengstenberg, Egypt, etc., p. 211 Eng. tr.). This also applies to the

- 4 - -or cucum ,קִשֻּׁאִ ים vegetables for which the Israelites longed in the desert. The bers, which are still called katteh or chate in the present day, are a species differ- ing from the ordinary cucumbers in size and colour, and distinguished for soft- ness and sweet flavour, and are described by Forskal (Flor. Aeg. p. 168), as -water :אֲ בַטִּחִ ים .fructus in Aegypto omnium vulgatissimus, totis plantatus agris melons, which are still called battieh in modern Egypt, and are both cultivated in immense quantities and sold so cheaply in the market, that the poor as well as the rich can enjoy their refreshing flesh and cooling juice (see Sonnini in Heng- does not signify grass here, but, according to the חָ צִ יר .(stenberg, ut sup. p. 212 ancient versions, chives, from their grass-like appearance; laudatissimus porrus onions, which flourish better in Egypt :בְּצָלִ ים .(in Aegypto (Plin. h. n. 19, 33 than elsewhere, and have a mild and pleasant taste. According to Herod. ii. 125, they were the ordinary food of the workmen at the pyramids; and, according to Hasselquist, Sonnini, and others, they still form almost the only food of the poor, and are also a favourite dish with all classes, either roasted, or boiled as a veg- garlic, which is still called tum, tom :שׁוּמִ ים .etable, and eaten with animal food in the East (Seetzen, iii. p. 234), and is mentioned by Herodotus in connection with onions, as forming a leading article of food with the Egyptian workmen. Of all these things, which had been cheap as well as refreshing, not one was to be had in the desert. Hence the people complained still further, “and now our soul is dried away,” i.e., faint for want of strong and refreshing food, and wanting in -there is noth ,אֵ ין כֹּל) fresh vital power (cf. Ps. 22:16; 102:5): “we have nothing ing in existence, equivalent to nothing to be had) except that our eye (falls) upon this manna,” i.e., we see nothing else before us but the manna, sc., which has no juice, and supplies no vital force. Greediness longs for juicy and savoury food, and in fact, as a rule, for change of food and stimulating flavour. “This is the perverted nature of man, which cannot continue in the quiet enjoyment of what is clean and unmixed, but, from its own inward discord, desires a stimulating ad- mixture of what is sharp and sour” (Baumgarten ). To point out this inward per- version on the part of the murmuring people, Moses once more described the na- ture, form, and taste of the manna, and its mode of preparation, as a pleasant food which God sent down to His people with the dew of heaven (see at Ex. 16:14, 15, and 31). But this sweet bread of heaven wanted “the sharp and sour, which are required to give a stimulating flavour to the food of man, on account of his sinful, restless desires, and the incessant changes of his earthly life.” In

- 5 - this respect the manna resembled the spiritual food supplied by the word of God, of which the sinful heart of man may also speedily become weary, and turn to the more piquant productions of the spirit of the world.--Keil & Delitzsch. At times Keil & Delitzsch goes into great detail explaining the flora and fauna of the Ancient Near East to give us a better picture of what our text is referring to. What we are establishing is the nature of life back in Egypt, even for those who were poor or oppressed. It would seem that there were indeed many vegetables available. For Egypt as a “vegetable garden,” compare Deuteronomy 11:10. Around the year 1900, an authority on Egypt wrote that its poor subsist on “bread (made of millet or maize), milk, new cheese, eggs, small salted fish, cucumbers and melons and gourds of a great variety of kinds, onions and leeks, beans, chick peas, the fruit of the black egg-plant, lentils, etc.” The regret at leaving Egypt is a constant motif of the wilderness rebellion. Here, however, a deeper level of meaning is struck. Egypt symbolizes materialism, the craving for food produced of the earth in contrast to the manna, the “heavenly grain/bread,” food produced of faith (Pss. 78:24; 105:40).--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 83-84. We should remember again the statement above, No one having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven. We also remember Lot's wife. God never promised that life would be full of comfort or sumptuous living in following after the Messiah. He did promise that His Kingdom is worth the effort of our journey. We first find manna at Exodus 16:1-36. The craving for meat was previously voiced after the crossing of the Red Sea (Exod. 16:3), and the divine answer came in the form of manna and quail, which arrived together (Exod. 16:14, 31; cf. Ps. 78:21–31). In this narrative it is clear that the quail constitute the new ele- ment, whereas the manna (whose appearance and taste is described differently; cf. vv. 7–9 with Exod. 16:14, 31) is regarded as a familiar phenomenon (v. 6).-- JPS Torah Commentary, p. 83. Here they are on their journey between Egypt and Sinai. It would appear that there are two events concerning the quail, as our com- mentators also assert. Psalm 78:9-53; 106:13-15 are commentary upon our passage.

- 6 - This botanical and culinary description of the manna was deliberately inserted here to refute each point in the people’s complaint. The manna was (1) a seed, hence easy to pick; (2) white (Exod. 16:31), hence easy to spot; (3) clean, since it fell on a layer of dew; (4) eaten raw or cooked, hence not monotonous fare, and (5) like cream in taste and hence would not shrivel the gullet. The manna has been identified with a natural substance formed in the wilderness of northern Arabia. “There forms from the sap of the tamarisk tree a species of yellowish-white flake or ball, which results from the activity of a type of plant lice (Trabutina mannipara and Najococcus serpentinus). The insect punctures the fruit of the tree and excretes a substance from this juice. During the warmth of the day it (the substance) melts, but it congeals when cold. It has a sweet taste. These pellets or cakes are gathered by the natives in the early morning and, when cooked, provide a sort of bread. The food decays quickly and attracts ants. The annual crop in the Sinai Peninsula is exceedingly small and some years fails completely.” If the identification is correct, its ephemeral nature and its undependableness—appearing irregularly and only for several hours each day—would have stamped it as supernatural, originating in heaven. In Scripture, however, the food itself, as well as its appearance, is a miracle.-- JPS Torah Commentary, p. 84. I do not include this to suggest that there is any natural explanation for the manna. It is simply the human tendency to explain things. We want to know How, Why, What, and When. At times we must simply accept things God's way without all of the questioning. The manna was from Heaven and not from the earth. Psalm 78:25 Man did eat the bread of angels; He sent them food in abundance. Yeshua Himself answers to this in John 6:26-34. The manna was either ground between two millstones or with a mortar and pestle. The word for "handmills" is found at Exodus 11:5, 8; Deuteronomy 24:6; Isaiah 47:2; and Jeremiah 25:10. Hebrew rehayim is a dual form. The utensil with which the grain was ground into flour was the quern and muller type. The grain was placed between two pieces of stone. The smaller, upper one (Heb. rekhev, literally “rider” in Deut. 24:6) was moved by hand forward and backward over the larger, stationary stone. This tedious, menial labor was performed by slave girls and captives.--JPS Torah Commentary, Exodus, p. 52. I have seen before some idea of the measurements of these two stones, but I was

- 7 - not able to find it for these notes in a timely manner. They would not be large, and my memory wants to say a 6 to 9 inch upper stone. But I don't remember for sure. Much of our discussion thus far is to point out that God is Good! He does Good for us and not evil. The original complaint in v. 1 is literally, from the Hebrew, that they "complained of evil in the ears of God." In other words, much like HaSatan put into the ears of Eve, Is God really Good? Does He really want whats best for you? They were really complaining that God had evil intent for them in the wilderness, and withheld the good things they used to crave and enjoy in Egypt. But God provided a food pleasant to the sight and to the taste. It sustained them because it was a heavenly food, and as we have already mentioned, it was the food of the angels. Vv. 10-15 Moshe's Complaint Our text literally says that when Moshe heard the people weeping by their families, their Mishpocha, each man at the doorway of his tent, then "the Anger of ADONAI burned much," and "in the eyes of Moshe evil." The phrase "each family apart" as in the JPS Translation is the same as in Zechariah 12:12-14, which expresses the universal nature of the complaint. It is interesting to conjecture how it is that Moshe could have heard each man at the doorway of his own tent murmuring and complaining. However, that is what our text implies. Moshe himself then complains to God. Many point out that here it is Moshe who employs the term "this people," where it was God who earlier, at the Golden Calf incident, that referred to Israel in this way while Moshe argued, they are "Your people." In the use of this term, Moshe is pulling away from the people emotionally. Utterly frustrated, Moses questions his heavy burden of leadership and his ability to succeed at it. He is ready to die if no relief comes. The point of this episode, including Moses' desire to satisfy the people, is to elicit divine solutions for the problems. Most important is the appointment of seventy elders to assist Moses. The judicial roles of Israel's elders are legitimated for all time because of their endowment with Moses' spirit. Simultaneously, this scene affirms Moses' human traits and limitations. God's solution to the meat crisis differs from an earlier rendetion of the story. In Exodus ch. 16, quail and manna are God's gift to Israel; here in Numbers the wording of their greivance bespeaks their desire to return to Egypt, clearly a rejection of God that warrants punishment.

- 8 - Therefore, when the quail finally arrive, many people become fatally ill from gorging themselves with meat. Appropriately, the place name for this even becomes Kibroth-hattaavah, "burials of the craving."--The Jewish Study Bible, p. 307. Most of our commentators regard Moshe's complaint as a means to prevail upon God's Mercy and Grace, and not as a disregard of the people altogether. It is hard however, not to miss Moshe's genuine human limits. Most also suggest Moshe is siding with the people, that God should care for them, rather than have them subsist only on bread and water. We should remember that Moshe is eating the same as they are and we have no hint of his own dissatisfaction with this provision of ADONAI. Vv. 16-17 God's Solution for Moshe - 70 Elders The number seventy is not accidental. There are seventy nations (cf. Gen. 10), each having its guardian angel. The number seventy is also found in the following instances, among others: the descendants of Jacob (Exod. 1:5; Deut. 10:22), the elders of Israel (Exod. 24:1; Ezek. 8:11), the submissive kings (Judg. 1:7), those struck by the Lord (1 Sam. 6:19), the sons or brothers of a judge or king (Judg. 8:30; 12:14; 2 Kings 10:1–7). As a symbolic number, like seven, it is not intended as an exact number but only as an approximation of a large group of people.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 86. With Moshe's selection of 70 capable men out of all the elders of the Children of Israel, God nevertheless came down and spoke to Moshe, and not to these 70 men. Moshe gathered these men to meet with him and ADONAI at the Ohel Moed, Tent of Meeting. There they would be ordained by God Himself to serve as assistants to Moshe, but most certainly not in any wise put on the same level as Moshe held with God, or over the people. Most of the commentators either see no reason to equate these 70 with the earlier group of 70 mentioned in Egypt, or else they reckon the earlier group of 70 to have sinned and died. Because our text uses the same term for "officers" as does Exodus 5:14, etc. for the "foremen" of the Israelites during their bongage in Egypt, some suggest that these 70 were indeed made up of the more faithful of those foremen. The Mishnah (Sanhedrin 2a) regards these seventy men as constituting the Great Sanhedrin. Rambam (Hil. Sanhedrin 4:1) states that "Moses ordained the seventy sages, and the Divine Presence then rested upon them."

- 9 - This new court was not needed to perform judicial functions; that task was being done by the hierarchy of leaders and judges appointed in response to Jethro's advice (Exodus 18:13). Rather, the Sanhedrin was needed to assist Moses in leading the nation. Similarly, although the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem was the highest judicial authority, that was not its primary function, for there was an elaborate and authoritative system of highly qualified courts throughout the Land. Rather, that Sanhedrin, like this one, provided guidance and leadership. ...Moses was like a candle that is used to light others; though it gives them light, its own flame is undiminished (Rashi). By saying that Moses' spirit would inspire the elders, God was telling him that their vision and understanding would come about through him, but they would not exercise the prophetic spirit independent of him (Ramban).--The Chumash, p. 80. The Chumash does two things. First, it is asserting the beginning of the Sanhedrin as if it becomes a permanent structure for the leadership of Israel at this time, even though they are at this point under the authority of Moshe. This is often regarded as a permanent institution from this point through the 2nd Temple Period. Second, it is asserting that Moshe is in no wise diminished by lighting the lights of the Elders who would now assist him in the leading of Israel in the wilderness. Just as a candle can give light without diminishing its own light, so Moshe was understood to give light to the Elders. They are quick to assert that these Elders do not function as the Prophet like unto Moshe. The divine spirit will either be drawn from Moses, thereby diminishing him (as his authority was diminished when it was transferred to Joshua, 27:2, and as Elijah’s spirit was transferred to Elisha, 2 Kings 2:10) or the divine spirit that has been bestowed on Moses will now also rest on the elders. According to the latter explanation, the divine spirit, like wisdom or candlelight, can be given to others without any diminution of its source. Note the example of Samuel who, as the head of a band of ecstatics, was able to transmit “the spirit of God”—not his own—to the messengers of Saul (1 Sam. 19:20). However, from the fact that Joshua attempts to stifle Eldad and Medad (v. 28), it is clear that the elders derive their spirit from Moses.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 87. One thing we simply cannot understand today is what does it mean to act like a prophet, or to prophecy in such a way that all the people will recognize the utterance or the actions. Something happened when the Spirit was placed upon

- 10 - them that set them apart both visually and audibly before the people. It was something that they could recognize. A survey of the verb hitnabbeʾ, “act like a prophet, exhibit the behavior characteristic of a prophet,” a Hitpael denominative from naviʾ, “prophet,” shows that it sometimes designates ecstatic or trance behavior but not always. Thus, the seventy elders literally “act like prophets” (Num. 11:24–25), as do Eldad and Medad who remain in the camp (Num. 11:26–27). In either case, the precise nature of their behavior is not clear, although it is recognized by the people as prophetic. It was not their speech that marked them as prophets but their behaving in recognizable patterns by which true prophets can be distinguished from pretenders and the mentally disturbed. Clearly their behavior was evaluated positively: Possessing spirit was not demonic but stemmed from the Lord. Joshua did not object to their behavior per se but, on the contrary, he recognized in it a validation of the divine choice and, hence, a potential threat to Moses. Moses counters Joshua’s fears by asserting that the sharing of prophecy is indeed the divine will (Num. 11:28–29). A second early reference to possession behavior occurs in 1 Samuel 10:1–13. Saul is told that he will encounter a band of prophets exhibiting characteristic prophetic behavior (mitnabbeʾim). That they play musical instruments suggests that trance may be involved, although it does not incapacitate them since they engage in normal human activities such as walking and playing music. Saul enters the group and exhibits similar behavior (va-yitnabbeʾ betokham). Indeed, it is his behavior that marks him as a prophet and prompts his acquaintances to ask, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”—thus suggesting that prophets at that particular time exhibited stereotypical behavior that was evaluated positively. If their behavior involved ecstasy, it was controlled and not incapacitating.--JPS Torah Commentary, Excursus 25. Vv. 18-23 God's Response to the People - The Judgment of the Meat The people are to consecrate themselves for the next day, for a great miracle was about to take place. ADONAI was going to reveal His greatness and His Glory in the giving of meat for the people. We have come to understand this expression "to consecrate" to mean both a washing of the clothes and a mikveh: Hitkaddesh, “sanctify oneself,” is a technical term used by the nonpriestly texts for the process of purification through bathing in order to receive the Presence

- 11 - of the Lord the following day either in the sanctuary or in a theophany. The locus classicus for this phenomenon is the theophany at Sinai. In preparation for this event Moses is commanded: “Go to the people and sanctify them (ve-kiddashtam) today and tomorrow. Let them wash their clothes. . . . For on the third day the Lord will come down, in the sight of all the people, on Mount Sinai. . . . Moses came down from the mountain to the people and sanctified (va-yekaddesh) the people, and they washed their clothes. And he said to the people, ‘Be ready for the third day: do not go near a woman’” (Exod. 19:10–15). It is clear from this text that the sanctification is accompanied by a laundering and that sexual congress (causing ritual impurity; cf. Lev. 15:18; 1 Sam. 21:5–6) is forbidden. The notion of this sanctification is qualified by the priestly texts, for wherever laundering is commanded so is ritual bathing (Num. 19:19; cf. Lev. 15:5–11, 21–22, 27). That the term hitkaddesh in the epic narratives refers to the ritual bath of purification is attested by the story of David and Bathsheba: “From the roof he saw a woman bathing. . . . She had just purified herself (mitkaddeshet, lit. sanctified herself) after her period” (2 Sam. 11:2, 4).--JPS Torah Commentary, Excursus 27. God both judges the people with the giving of the quail and at the same time proves to Moshe His ability to provide for the people. Not only would they eat meat tomorrow, but for a whole month. They would at the end of the month, have it coming out of their noses, and it would become loathsome to them. The word for nose, 'af, is the general expression for "anger." There is another word, a dual word in Hebrew, that describes the nostrils. Therefore, it may well here reflect anger, and perhaps God's Anger at them. The reason for this occurence is that they have rejected God who has dwelt among them, and have wept before His Face, wondering, "Why did we ever leave Egypt?" Thus God identifies this as a judgment. But then, ADONAI deals also with Moshe's question as to the manner in which God will give meat for a month. Moshe accounts a number of 600,000 men. After all that he had witnessed, apparently Moshe is astonished at trying to feed this multitude for a month. Moshe postulates the slaying of all the flocks and herds to meet this tremendous need, or to gather all the fish of the sea. Perhaps a reference to the Red Sea which they had crossed? However, Targum Jonathan has the Great Sea, the Mediterranean. ADONAI then aswered Moshe, "Is the Hand of ADONAI shortened? Now you

- 12 - will see if My word will not come true!" Isaiah 55:11. Vv. 24-30 The Spirit is given to the Elders We have an aside detailing the giving of the Spirit unto the 70 Elders. Then we get back to the response of God upon the people. We have already dealt with the concept of these 70 men prophesying, something that visibly gave them legitimacy as Moshe's helpers in leading this mass of people into the Promised Land. Whether or not this product of the filling of the Spirit was a one time event or one that did not cease has been argued for a long time. Rashi and Sifre translate it as a one time occurence. The Targum Onkelos reckoned that it did not cease. The Chumash relegated the whole experience to the result of a lottery. This was seen as a selection of 6 men from each of the 12 tribes. There were then 70 lots inscribed "elder" and two were blank. Each of the 72 were to draw a lot so that th choice would be God's. Eldad and Medad did not attend, either because they were so humble or felt too inadequate. However, they were of the 70 and two others drew the blank lots. Thus they prophesied in the camp. The pophesy of these two is said to be, "Moses will die, and Joshua will bring Israel into the Land." This then is why Joshua was so upset.--p. 82. Others resoned that Joshua, loyal to Moshe, was upset at the challenge to Moshe's position by the prophesying of all. Our text clearly states that these two who remained in the camp were to be included in the ones to serve as Elders. Why they did not go to the Ohel Moed we are left to speculate. Mark 9:38-41, a similar type of situation with Yeshua and the Talmidim. No account has been handed down of the further action of this committee of elders. It is impossible to determine, therefore, in what way they assisted Moses in bearing the burden of governing the people. All that can be regarded as following unquestionably from the purpose given here is, that they did not form a permanent body, which continued from the time of Moses to the Captivity, and after the Captivity was revived again in the Sanhedrim, as Talmudists, Rabbins, and many of the earlier theologians suppose.--Keil & Delitzsch. Vv. 31-35 The Quail This is the fulfillment of the promise of verses 18–23, a point emphasized by the brief reference to the incident in Psalms 105:40: “They asked and He brought them quail.” Psalms 78:26–31 gives a fuller poetic summary: “He set the east

- 13 - wind moving in heaven, and drove the south wind by His might. He rained meat on them like dust, winged birds like the sands of the sea, making them come down inside His camp, around His dwelling-place. They ate till they were sated; He gave them what they craved. They had not yet wearied of what they craved, the food was still in their mouths when God’s anger flared up at them. He slew their sturdiest, struck down the youth of Israel.” Quail migrate in great numbers across the Sinai Peninsula, northward in the spring and southward in the fall, propelled by winds from the Red Sea or the Mediterranean. Once they fall, exhausted, upon the Sinai sands, they are easy prey for the hunter. (Since the quail land near the shore, it must be assumed that Israel was still near the Gulf of Suez and had not yet penetrated into the interior of Sinai.) The fourteenth-century Arab writer Al-Qazwini relates that the natives of El-‘Arish, near Gaza, caught and slaughtered quail in wholesale fashion during the seasonal flights from Europe. The phenomenon of the quail would not in itself be a miracle but, as the text emphasizes, it is Moses’ prayer for flesh and the immediate answer in the form of these birds—caused by “a wind from the Lord”—that constitutes the divine intervention. God answers both Moses and the people through His ruah, a term that means either spirit or wind. God’s spirit on Moses has been shared by the elders. Now it is God’s wind that brings meat to the people. Wind and spirit are two aspects of the same divine agency (cf. 1 Kings 22:19–23). God employs a wind to drive back the waters of Creation (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:4), the Flood (Gen. 8:1), and the Red Sea (Exod. 14:21), to endanger Jonah’s ship (Jon. 1:4), and to remove the plague of the locusts (Exod. 10:13, 19). That quail follow the prevailing winds was already noted by Aristotle. Psalms 78:26 speaks of an east wind. Also implied is that they ate the meat raw: They were so lustful for meat that as soon as they slaughtered the birds they gorged themselves on the raw flesh. Hebrew ba-ʿam literally means “among the people,” implying that only some of the people were smitten, presumably the riffraff. This rendering would also resolve the theological difficulty that the Lord, on the one hand, promised meat for thirty days (v. 19) but, on the other hand, struck down the Israelites on the very first day they ate of the quail. What then actually transpired was that only the instigators of Israel’s discontent, the riffraff, were summarily punished, whereas, presumably, the Israelites continued to eat quail for a whole month or

- 14 - until it became loathsome.--JPS Torah Commentary, p. 91-92. There is much in this note. Suffice it to say, God provided a miracle even if He did so through taking advantage of the Created Order concerning Quail. He provided for them with a Ruach, a Wind. The Spirit can be described at times as a wind, just as on the day of Shavuot in Acts 2. So we begin with the affirmation of a miraculous provision from God. Second, I would agree that the main instigators of this complaint were the ones who were struck down as they began to eat the meat. This was not simply the result of their gorging themselves, or overeating to the point of death. This was a Divine Act of Punishment upon the people. It is a picture of man giving full vent to the lust of the flesh, this time in relation to food. Whether they did not take time to properly drain the blood, or to even cook the food, are both discussed. Either would be a violation of the Torah. Again we are not told how many died. But once again, we have a name associated with the place they complained and were judged. Kibroth Hataavah means "graves of greediness." Again, this place name would serve as a reminder whenever they heard the name of the sins of the people that resulted in their death and burial. We all need reminders! We need to remember what caused parents or God to become angry in the past, so that we don't repeat that in the future! The moral of the story is to be content in that which our God provides for us! God is preparing us to be with Him. God is the most important thing in our lives. We must seek to please Him, to Know Him, and to Love Him. Yeshua said, the one who loves me is the one who keeps My commandments. When we believe and trust God, He will take care of us, and prepare us to be with Him in Heaven. We call Heaven the Olam Haba, the place we will be in the personal presence of God for ever.

There are none of the typical 613 Mitzvot taken from this week's Parashah!

- 15 -