We often think of the lack of food or water, but there's a fascinating, and perhaps a little scandalous, rabbinic interpretation that sheds a different light on their discontent.
The verse in Bamidbar (Numbers 11:10) states, "And Moses heard the people weeping by its families." Now, Rabbi Nehorai, whose teachings are preserved in Sifrei Bamidbar, offers a rather surprising explanation. He suggests that the Israelites were actually upset because Moses had instructed them to abstain from illicit relations. According to Rabbi Nehorai, before this decree, it was apparently common practice for a man to marry his sister, his father's sister, or his mother's sister! Can you imagine the social implications? This, of course, flies in the face of later established laws prohibiting such unions, but this interpretation paints a picture of a society undergoing significant moral and social transformation.
The text continues, "weeping by its families… because their hearts swelled in this sin." It implies that multiple families were involved and invested in these practices. Moses, in his role as leader and lawgiver, publicly prohibited these relationships, causing widespread grief and resentment. They were, in essence, being asked to change deeply ingrained customs.
And where did this discontent manifest itself? "Each at the door of his tent," the verse tells us. Sifrei Bamidbar interprets this to mean that the people waited for Moses to leave the beit midrash – the house of study – so they could complain and grumble. They were, in a way, holding him captive with their disapproval. Imagine the atmosphere: the air thick with resentment, the constant murmur of discontent following Moses everywhere.
The verse concludes, "And the L-rd was extremely wroth, and in the eyes of Moses it was evil." This sets up an interesting contrast, doesn't it? God is angry, and Moses is also deeply troubled by the people's reaction.
And here's where it gets even more interesting. Sifrei Bamidbar points out a fascinating difference between this situation and the incident of the Golden Calf. In our verse, "the Holy One Blessed be He attenuates (His manifestation of wrath) and Moses exacerbates, whereas in the instance of the golden calf, the Holy One Blessed be He exacerbates and Moses attenuates.” In other words, in this situation, God's anger is somewhat tempered, while Moses seems to amplify the seriousness of the situation. Conversely, with the Golden Calf, God's anger is intense, but Moses pleads for leniency.
Why this difference? Perhaps it suggests that some sins are more offensive to human sensibilities while others are more offensive to divine ones. Maybe it's about the specific roles Moses played in each situation: as lawgiver versus intercessor. We can only speculate.
So, what does this all mean for us? It reminds us that even in sacred texts, human behavior is complex and often messy. It shows us that change, even when divinely mandated, isn't always easy or welcomed. And perhaps most importantly, it highlights the difficult and sometimes contradictory roles that leaders must play when guiding a people through moral and spiritual evolution. It also reminds us that the Torah, when read carefully, can reveal the most unexpected and human of stories.