Parsha: Discussion before complaints

Parshat Beha'alotcha

By Rabbi Avi Billet

Three incidents indicate a breakdown of the rosy image of idyllic travel, and lead up to the devastating event of the spies in chapters 13-14, that causes the generation of the exodus to slowly die out over forty years, never to reach the promised land.

Let us examine the first of these incidents.

"The people began to complain, and it was evil in G-d's ears. When G-d heard it, He displayed His anger, and G-d's fire flared out, consuming the edge of the camp. The people cried out to Moses, and when Moses prayed to G-d, the fire died down. " (11:1-2)

Firstly, the language that describes this fire is very similar to the language describing the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu in Vayikra 10. Perhaps the "consuming fire" in both cases strikes down those who were meant to die from a previous incident.

In Shmot 24:10-11, Nadav, Avihu, and the elders all catch a glimpse of G-d, which Rashi explains as requiring a death sentence (most likely related to Shmot 33:20), which was commuted at that time - but carried out later. Nadav and Avihu died at the dedication of the Mishkan, and the elders died here (Rashi in Shmot 24; see also Chizkuni here).

Perhaps we can say, "You can run, but you can never hide" from your past. Those guilty of misdeeds eventually have it catch up to them, particularly when other people were involved or hurt by their deeds.

But there are other interpretations of the complainers' identity, their complaints and why all was considered evil.

Many commentaries focus on the prefix and root of "k'mit'on'nim," suggesting different shorashim (possible roots) and questioning why the people were "as if," and not "actual" complainers.

Different interpretations of their complaint include: they wanted to separate from G-d (Rashi); now that they were sojourning, they were concerned about the difficulties of the journey (many commentaries); they thought the world predated G-d, which would mean there is no reason to fear G-d (Toldot Yitzchak); that Mishkan work had been taken from the firstborns of all the tribes and given to the Levites (which makes this a preview to Korach's complaint, where fire will again consume the guilty) (Meshekh Chokhmah).

Most interesting are those who say the root of the word is "Onen," as in a person who has yet to bury a deceased relative. According to the Daat Zekenim, this kind of mourning is the negativity they carried with them to their desert travels.

Kli Yakar, on the other hand, focuses on the backward letters "nun" which comes immediately before our tale, and also appear doubled in the word "k'mit'on'nim." He examines complaints that follow in this chapter about lack of meat, and about the laws of sexual conduct, as delineated in Vayikra 18 and 20.

He claims the people accepted a suppressed desire after learning the latter rules, until the hidden message of "Vayhi Binsoa Ha'Aron" (end of chapter 10) reminded them of the importance of procreation. Men were now "willing" to procreate with every woman, until they remembered the laws of Vayikra 18 and 20. They now became like "Onenim" - new mourners who separate from their spouses, complaining of their catch-22. "We want to procreate, but we are limited in possible partners."

The result of their complaints against Moshe and G-d for curbing their enthusiasm to fulfill the commandment, a fire of G-d consumed their fire of passion, says Kli Yakar, and those on the fringes were killed.

The beauty of halakhah lies in the fact that much is still up for discussion - kashrut standards, medical ethics, the role of women, definitions of zmanim (times) and sizes of "shiurim" (amounts).

Rules that are explicit in the Torah, however, are not up for discussion. Whether they be of an appropriate way: for a person to see G-d, to violate the arayot of Vayikra 18 and 20, to suggest anything pre-dated G-d, or to complain about the Levites receiving special privileges, or any one of the Torah's prohibitions, Jews who follow the Torah are going to have an impossible task declaring them void and unbinding.

In our free country, everything boils down to choices. One can choose to be or not to be part of the system. Once in the system, the unequivocal rules are dead-set. Those that might still be open to discussion should be front-burner discussions.

But if we're going to complain (instead of participating in the give-and-take of dialogue) or flat out reject, then we're pitting ourselves in the camp of those on the fringes who were destroyed by a fire, mourning over their "loss of freedom" that comes with being part of a collective whole, under G-d.