At first glance, it appears that on the “night of complaints” the Israelites unleash an unrestrained onslaught of grievances that includes all the complaints in the world: evil for the sake of evil, lust for meat, a desire to return to Egypt, and even a tearful cry over “family matters” (Numbers, Chapter 11). Let us examine one of the arguments that is raised – their complaints about the manna – in order to understand the exact type of distortion that underlies their claims.
"…but now our soul is dry. There is nothing at all to look at except this manna." Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium (11:6-7).
The Torah offers two different perspectives on the manna, that of the Israelites and that of God. While the Israelites claim that the manna leaves their “souls dry,” God bears witness regarding the manna and its unique qualities, which could not have gone unnoticed by the Israelites: It tasted like cakes baked with oil, it was ready to be collected every morning, when the dew fell on the camp, the manna was found resting on it, it had the appearance of coriander seed and bdellium.
It is unusual to find such a defensive posture taken by God. We find Him arguing as if He has placed Himself on the other side of the barricade, paralyzed and frustrated. It is as if He is certain that justice is on His side, but that no one is aware of the truth of His argument, or, even worse, that no one is willing to examine His point of view in a serious manner.
Tractate Bava Metzia devotes a lengthy discussion to the subject of fraud. Two different types of fraud are examined – financial fraud and lingual fraud. Financial fraud refers to cases where an object is sold at a price that is significantly higher or lower than its true value; lingual fraud refers to situations of deliberate insult. Despite the great difference between the two concepts, the Mishnah relates them to each other.
Just as there is fraud regarding commerce, so too there is fraud regarding words. One should not say to a merchant, "How much is this object?" if he does not want to buy. If someone was a penitent, one should not say to him, "Remember your former actions." If someone is the child of converts, one should not say to him: "Remember the deeds of your ancestors." As is written (Exodus 22:20): "You shall neither deceive a stranger, nor oppress him" (Mishna Bava Metzia 4:10).
In his Aggadah Le-Ma’aseh, Rabbi Yehuda Brandes explain the connection as follows:
The main problem of financial fraud is the mistaken assessment of the value of the object ... The violation of a person's dignity is also based on a mistaken assessment of his status. This is the common denominator between the examples mentioned in the Mishnah. (Part II, pp. 33-34)
The concept of fraud as defined above may also be a key concept in understanding our parasha. The problem with the Israelites’ complaints about the manna is not the lies involved or the ingratitude expressed, but the misleading and unfair treatment of the manna itself. The Children of Israel did not say that they were hungry or that they did not receive an appropriate amount of manna. They did not complain about issues that could be measured in a concrete manner. They simply tried to empty the manna of its unique value, changing it from extraordinary bread into simple bread, from a delicacy to a food substitute and a calorie concentrate. This is a violation of the very essence of the manna and its reality. The Israelites – who are the only ones to ever partake in manna – are describing their subjective experience, and it is impossible to argue with an experience. Even God cannot prove that manna is a delicacy for the discerning, since He is not sustained by it.
The dryness of the Israelite soul cannot be satisfied by logical arguments. Even God, who embodies the very essence of truth, cannot defeat lingual fraud.
The discussion in Bava Metzia that deals extensively with the issue of fraud, presents this conclusion by means of the famous story of tanur shel akhnai – the Snake Oven. The Sages were not prepared to accept the view of Rabbi Eliezer regarding the laws of impurity and purity of the oven. R. Eliezer feels that they do not understand the essence of the oven and the laws of impurity and purity. He knows with certainty that he is right. Although the walls of the Bet Midrash and a Heavenly voice support his position, the students of the Bet Midrash reject his words. From their perspective, he is wrong. The question is not what God thinks of the oven, because it is human experience that will determine its status.
Based on this approach, it is easy to understand Moshe's despair in our parasha. It is possible to convince a person that he has made an error of logic or to point out a moral failing, but it is impossible to change someone’s mind about an experience that he had that was personal and authentic. There, in the reality of experience, precision and understanding will only come if they are partnered with true recognition of the awesomeness of God. "Taking a stand" is a moment of purity, an event that takes place, in a sense, in an individual’s personal space. This is where he reveals his opinion to others; this is where his thoughts and beliefs become significant. This space may become a place of violence, created by the attempt to force a subjective experience on the opposite subject, violating his right to be a subject himself, and rejecting his right to unique self-identification that is not defined by the subjective perception of the person standing opposite. The fraud in this case is the focus on a personal experience, which betrays the possibility of recognizing the otherness of the other. In our parasha, this translates into a betrayal of God.
God’s response relates directly to that evil. Gorging them with meat symbolizes the absence of God and the removal of Heavenly gifts.