Parshat Behaalotecha4 min read

Chovav Kept His Land While Israel Craved Free Fish

Moses asked his father-in-law to march. Chovav named his land, his kin, and his altar in Midian, and turned the camels toward home.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. Moses Asked Him to Come
  2. Chovav Named What He Would Not Leave
  3. The People Wept for Fish
  4. Manna Would Not Taste of Onions
  5. The Camels Shrank on the Horizon
Chovav Kept His Land While Israel Craved Free Fish Click for full size

Moses Asked Him to Come

Moses stood in the wilderness dust and asked his father-in-law to throw his life into Israel's future.

"Come with us," he said. "We are marching toward a promise large enough to remake maps."

Chovav looked back toward Midian and shook his head.

Chovav Named What He Would Not Leave

"I will not go," Chovav said. "I have land. I have possessions. I have kindred. I was a priest in my place. If I will not go because of my land, I will go because of my possessions. If not for those, I will go because of my family."

Some men have land without wealth. Some have wealth without family. Chovav had all three, and an altar that answered to his name. A complete life does not pack easily.

Moses had not invited a tourist. He had invited a man who knew water and roads, a relative whose honor would strengthen the camp. Chovav heard the honor and still heard home louder. He was not fleeing danger. He was choosing a finished world over an unfinished nation.

Priest of Midian. Father of a household. Owner of ground. Against that inventory Moses could offer manna, cloud, and a mountain still smoking in memory. Chovav chose what he could touch without a miracle.

He turned the camels. The camp moved on without him. Even Moses could not recruit every good man into the march. Some goodness is local. It stays and tends its own altar.

The People Wept for Fish

Later the people wept for Egypt. "We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt free" (Numbers 11:5).

Free? Egypt had not even given straw for bricks (Exodus 5:18). It had not handed out fish as charity. What they missed was not a market with good prices. In the house of bondage they had not been bound to the mitzvot (מצוות), the commandments that now structured every dawn. The fish tasted of a calendar with no Sinai clock on it. Cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, garlic. A menu of days no law had touched.

They stood in a camp fed from heaven and cried for a kitchen they had not owned. Slavery of the body can still feel like liberty of the calendar when no commandment rings the morning.

Manna Would Not Taste of Onions

A man in the camp shut his eyes and asked the manna for onion. The manna stayed manna. He asked for melon. It would not come. He named leek, cucumber, garlic. Each time the stuff on his tongue stayed what it was.

The manna could become any other taste the mouth imagined. It would not lick Egypt's free onions out of the air. They could invent a hundred sacred flavors and still wake to coriander seed on the ground, morning and evening, and nothing else for the eye to see.

Heaven would feed them wonders. Heaven would not counterfeit those five thin flavors. The gift refused to impersonate the lie.

The Camels Shrank on the Horizon

Moses watched Chovav's caravan shrink until the last camel was a speck. The cloud still led. The ark still traveled. A skilled Midianite priest would have been useful among the tents. Usefulness is not destiny. Chovav's altar at home still needed him.

When the complaints about fish rose, Moses heard a different refusal. Not home's completeness, but Egypt's sales pitch. He stood between a relative who had enough and a nation that misremembered slavery as a free market.

On nights when the camp smelled of coriander seed and oil, someone still whispered melons. Completeness stayed in Midian. Complaint pitched its tent in Israel. Moses carried both losses like jars that never quite balanced.

He watched until the speck was gone. Later he stood in a camp that wept for onion. The manna still fell. It would not taste like Egypt.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

2 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Sifrei Bamidbar 79:1Sifrei Bamidbar

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

The verse Who is "he," and why won't he go? This "he" is Chovav, the father-in-law of Moses. Moses is trying to convince Chovav to join the Israelites on their journey through the wilderness. He's inviting him to be part of something monumental, a nation forging its destiny.

Chovav resists. Why? Because he's got roots. Deep roots.

In Sifrei Bamidbar, Chovav essentially tells Moses, "I'm not going anywhere. My land calls to me, and so do my family." But the commentary doesn't stop there. It explores the reasons behind this reluctance. It paints a picture of a man deeply content with his life. "Both because of my land and because of my kindred I will not go (with you)," Chovav insists.

The commentary then breaks down the nuances of Chovav’s attachment. It isn't just one thing holding him back. "There are some who have a land, but no possessions; others who have possessions, but no family." He's saying that some people might have a place to call home, but lack the means to truly thrive there. Others might be wealthy, but lack the warmth of a loving family.

But Chovav? He's got it all. "But I have a land, possessions, and family." He's blessed with a complete life. He has a place, the means to live comfortably, and the people he loves around him.

And there's one more layer to this. The text adds, "and I was a priest in my land." He wasn't just from there; he had a respected role and a sense of purpose. He held a position of honor and responsibility within his community. This isn’t just about comfort; it's about belonging and purpose.

Chovav emphasizes his point, almost as if arguing with himself: "If I will not go (home) because of my land, I will go because of my possessions; and if I will not go because of my possessions, I will go because of my family." He's saying that even if one of these ties were to weaken, the others would still be strong enough to keep him rooted.

So, what does this all mean? It's a reminder that sometimes, the greatest adventures aren't about forging new paths, but about appreciating the blessings we already have. It's about recognizing the value of home, family, and community. It's a question we all face at some point: do we chase the unknown, or do we cherish the known? And is there a right answer?

Full source
Sifrei Bamidbar 87:1Sifrei Bamidbar

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sifrei by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein · CC-BY

It seems the Israelites did just that after their exodus from Egypt. In the book of Bamidbar (Numbers), chapter 11, verse 5, we hear them complaining, "We remember the fish that we would eat in Egypt, free..."

Free? Really?

The ancient rabbis of the Sifrei Bamidbar, a collection of legal and ethical teachings on the Book of Numbers, certainly raised an eyebrow at that claim. "Is it possible," they ask, "that the Egyptians gave them fish free?" After all, as it's written in Shemot (Exodus) 5:18, "Go and work, and straw will not be given you." If the Egyptians weren't handing out straw for brickmaking, what makes them think they were giving away fish for free?

So, what did they really mean by "free"? The rabbis propose a clever interpretation: "Free of mitzvot (commandments)." They weren’t paying with currency, but with something far more precious: their spiritual freedom. In Egypt, weighed down by slavery, they weren’t obligated to follow God's commandments, the mitzvot.

Sometimes, what seems like a good deal on the surface comes at a hidden cost.

But the complaining doesn't stop there. They whine about the lack of cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic in the desert. Oy vey! Rabbi Shimon offers a fascinating perspective on this. He says that the manna, that miraculous food from heaven, could transform into any flavor they desired… except for those five things.

Why those specific vegetables?

Rabbi Shimon uses an analogy to illustrate the point. If the son then grumbles, "He doesn't love me; he just wants to deprive me!" he's missing the bigger picture. God, in his infinite wisdom, was providing them with sustenance perfectly suited to their needs in the desert. These other foods, while tasty, may not have been the best choice for their delicate system in this new environment.

There's something so human about this grumbling, isn't there? Even when provided with literal miracles, we find something to complain about.

The sages take it even further. The manna could take on any flavor, but they didn't actually see the desired object. As they lament in (Numbers 11:6), "There is nothing. Only to the manna is our eyes." What they were really saying was, "All we see is manna in the morning, manna in the evening!"

They were so focused on what they didn't have that they couldn't appreciate the miracle right in front of them. The taste was there, the satisfaction, but the visual reminder of "real food" was missing.

Perhaps it’s a reminder to be mindful of the "fish we ate in Egypt" – those things we might be tempted to romanticize from the past. Are we truly remembering them accurately, or are we forgetting the price we paid for them? And are we so focused on what we lack that we’re missing the miracles, the manna

Full source