In this parashah, the people of Israel are once again experiencing hardship and fear. They complain; they demand meat. Despondent, Moses wonders aloud to God where he is supposed to find it for them – and more broadly, how he is supposed to keep bearing the full weight of this people on his shoulders. Irritated, God bows to these demands by flooding the camp with meat through a downpour of quail, but warns the people that the meat will end up “coming out of their nostrils.” And then there is the obligatory punishment: God strikes down some of the people, and they are buried in a place that comes to be known as Kibroth Hattaavah – the Graves of Craving.
Reading this parashah, I found myself unable to understand the lack of empathy that both Moses and God display toward the Israelites’ complaints. More than a million people – including infants, children, and the elderly – are wandering through the desert, under a blazing sun by day and sometimes in bitter cold by night, uncertain where the next source of water will be, eating nothing but manna day after day, and knowing that war is on its way, sooner or later. It is entirely normal to feel afraid and to complain. And yet God grows angry and resorts to killing.
“And when the people complained, it displeased the Lord: and the Lord heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the Lord burned among them, and consumed those who were in the uttermost parts of the camp. And the people cried out to Moses; but Moses prayed to the Lord, and the fire was quenched. And he called the name of the place Taberah: because the fire of the Lord burned among them.” (Numbers 11:1–3)
A genuine protest?
Rashi attempts an explanation: “‘Complained’ is strictly a term referring to a pretext. They seek a pretext in order to turn away from [following] after the Omnipresent.” According to Rashi, these were not genuine grievances, but a fabrication. What the people truly wanted was to rebel against God, to break free – and so they staged a kind of false protest, grounded in nothing; a manufactured, fake outcry. That is why God was so enraged.
I think a plain reading of the verses makes it difficult to characterize this as fabrication. More convincing is the interpretation offered by Ramban, who wrote: “They spoke in the bitterness of their soul as do people who suffer pain, and this was evil in the sight of the Eternal, since they should have followed Him with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart by reason of the abundance of all good things which He gave them, but they behaved like people acting under duress and compulsion, murmuring and complaining about their condition.” Rather than feeling gratitude for all that God had done on their behalf, they gave voice to their pain. They focused on the half-empty cup – and so disappointed and angered God.
Quality of life as a commodity
All of this makes me think about the relationship between leaders and their flock. The dynamic portrayed in this week’s portion – between the people of Israel and Moses and God – resembles a relationship between a consumer and a service provider. The leaders are expected to deliver quality of life as if it were a commodity. Is that the kind of relationship we aspire to between citizen and government?
The consumer is perpetually evaluating the quality of the product that they receive – feeling shortchanged, looking to swap out the product for something better every so often, wondering about value for money, becoming a whiner. They exist in a relationship built on power and mistrust; they threaten boycotts, call people out publicly, strong-arm them, and stand against rather than with. The consumer is indifferent to anything not directly related to the quality of the product they receive. They are, by design, an egoist – thinking and caring only about their own welfare. They take no part in deliberation or decision-making.
Alternatively, one can sketch a very different portrait: that of a partner. The partner feels that the quality of the service and the product – but also the quality of the path being taken and the goals being pursued – are partly their own responsibility. They naturally expect every officeholder to perform their role properly, but rather than simply complaining, they seek to help improve things. The partner exists in a relationship grounded in dialogue and trust; they stand with those in positions of responsibility, not against them or in opposition to them. They are motivated by genuine concern and a sense of mutual accountability. They feel that they belong.
In a society of partners, government does not conduct itself as a service provider but as a public servant. Leadership in a partnership understands that all citizens – those who voted for it and those who did not – are partners. It seeks to chart a shared path for the benefit of everyone. It approaches its work as a public calling. It is a leadership that strives to include the public every step of the way and to take the public’s opinion into account. It is a leadership that sees people, not statistics.
Perhaps what is happening in this week’s portion is that God expects the people of Israel, at this stage of the journey, to conduct themselves as partners – and they insist on remaining consumers and complainers. Perhaps that is why God is so angry. Perhaps that is why Moses says to Joshua: “Are you wrought up on my account? Would that all God’s people were prophets, that God inspired them!” (ibid., 29). Moses has no desire to be a solitary, authoritarian ruler. He is searching for partnership, not power. He wants a nation of prophets – not a nation of consumers.
Lior Tal Sadeh is an educator, writer, and author of “What Is Above, What Is Below” (Carmel, 2022). He hosts the daily “Source of Inspiration” podcast, produced by Beit Avi Chai.
"For more insights into Parashat Behaalotecha, listen to “Source of Inspiration
Translation of most Hebrew texts sourced from Sefaria.org
Main Photo: AI
