Parshat Bahaalotcha Fishful Thinking Rabbi Yehoshua Schechter Parshat Bahaalotcha Fishful Thinking Rabbi Yehoshua Schechter
"Remember a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream" W.C Fields
"We remember the fish that we ate in Egypt free of charge, and the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic." Bamidbar 11:5. The Ramban comments, that not just the "Eirev Rav" (mixed multitude), but the Jews as well articulated the complaint about the "free fish", directly after their complaint about a lack of meat. They wanted what they had in Egypt. Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? We are all aware of what they had in Egypt; it was nothing but misery, pain and back breaking slave labor. Why would they want to return to that type of life? In addition to that, they had the manna falling daily, in which they could experience just about every form of food their hearts desired. Their complaints seem to make no sense at all. Furthermore, what this notion of remembering the fish that was "free of charge"?
Rav Chaim Vital expresses this question in even stronger terms. How can a nation, which is called the "dor deiah"(generation of knowledge, for their profound perception and understanding of the workings of Hashem), ask for the "fish in Egypt". Why would a nation that already had access to everything, degrade themselves by recalling and requesting "free fish". Sounds a bit fishy.
The Talmud in Yoma 75B relates, that the people sought to revoke the prohibition of forbidden relationships, they wanted sexual freedom. The Maharal also states that the word "chinam" (free) could mean "free from the yoke of mitzvoth" (commandments). Incidentally, in ancient mythology fish symbolized fertility and abundance. The Sifri agrees with the Maharal, and expounds further, that it was not just the freedom from mitzvot, but also freedom from obligations and responsibility. They felt that it was too much for them. "We want fish without any strings attached". It wasnt the fish itself that they sought, as food was aplenty in the desert… but receiving the daily manna had a catch…..mitzvot, THAT they could do without.
So here's the $64,000 question. It's not as if these same Jews that left Egypt had no idea what obligation and servitude meant. Compared to the severe oppression and bondage that they suffered in Egypt, the yoke of mitzvot coupled with its Divine light should have felt welcoming and appealing to them. Why then would following a few mitzvot disturb them?
We know that man's nature is to be free, to seek freedom at every opportunity. Constriction and restraint of any kind, can stifle a human being and often cause him to rebel against his constraints. Acquiescing to another's domination , can be a challenging and often antagonistic experience. The Zohar explains, that a person's character his essence, is comprised of two components. One is intrinsic, while the other is external. Man's physical being is his external component, while his "nefesh"(spirit), is his inner being. One can subjugate another person's body, make him a slave, and dominate over him, but one cannot enslave the mind. As it says in Talmud Gittin 13A, a slave will subjugate his body as long as he still has a free mind. No one has the power to suppress another person's thoughts and feelings – unless the individual willingly grants that power to the one who is subjugating him. Therefore, when the Jews were slaves to Pharoh in Egypt…only their bodies belonged to him. Yes, he controlled their physical movements, but he could not get into their minds…unless they allowed him to enter. The mind of the Jewish slave in Egypt, his ability to think what he wanted to think, to feel how he wanted to feel – to love, to hate, to experience any form of emotion, was all his.
And that could be the meaning of the verse "We remember the fish that we had for free in Egypt", as there is only one other place in the Torah that the word "hadaga" (the fish) is used. T In Shmot 7:21 by the plague of blood the Torah states, "And the fish that was in the river died and the river became foul". So by stating those words in Bamidbar 11:5, as a nation they were i in essence stating: 'To such an extent are we not willing to subjugate ourselves to the mitzvot, that we are ready to give up the manna from heaven, and eat instead rotten stinking fish from Egypt, as long as we are still free and retain control over our minds and our thought processes. We're not yet ready to step away from our slave mentality
The entire aspect of the manna from heaven, was to remove "understanding" and "security" from the Jews. Had Hashem fed them vegetables or animal products there would have been a national familiarity and reliance on the procurement of these foods. This would have afforded them security and would have detracted from Hashem's goal of forcing the nation to rely on Him alone. The word manna itself means "what is it". By nature it does not inure a sense of security. That's why its shelf life was only one day - so no emotional security could be attached to it. The alien feeling about the manna, contributed to the feelings of insecurity in themselves - a prerequisite for developing a security in Hashem. Their need for physical security would have to be directed to Hashem alone. The Jew is obligated to serve Hashem with all of his faculties – his body as well as his mind The Torah and the mitzvot penetrate the inner essence of the Jew, instructing him to love and not hate – to not covet – to think proper thoughts. Yes, the Jew's thoughts and emotions also belong to Hashem, not only his physical body. That is what being Jewish is all about. The generation of knowledge thought they knew better. What they had in reality, was fishful thinking. LikeShow more reactionsCommentCommentsWrite a comment... |
