Parshat B’haalotcha 5759 (unedited!

)
“The Asafsuf”
Rabbi Ari Kahn
As the Jews leave Sinai and take up their march toward Israel,
destiny is interrupted when tragedy strikes. The Torah tells of
murmuring in the camp Divine wrath, plague and death. Despite
some fifteen verses dedicated to the description of the events, the
episode remains shrouded in mystery.1

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 burnt among them, and
consumed those who were in the outlying parts of the camp. And the people
cried to Moshe; and when Moshe prayed to the Lord, the fire was quenched.
And he called the name of the place Taberah; because the fire of the Lord
burnt among them. And the Asafsuf that was among them had a strong
craving; and the people of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us
meat to eat? We remember the fish, which we ate in Egypt for nothing; the
cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic. But
now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before
our eyes. (11:1-6)

It is not clear if the Torah is describing one event or two separate

events2. Are the complaints registered in the beginning (11:1)
identical to the cravings articulated in the next part of the narrative
(11:4)? Who are the people that “complained? Are they identical
with the Asafsuf? Who were these inhabitors of the “outlying parts
of the camp” who were struck? A close reading of the entire section
will reveal that both descriptions have certain similarities, as well as
elements which are disparate. One possibility is that the two events
are linked because they happened one after the other, and the
second is a continuation of the first. In other words at first there was
complaining, which G-d responded to swiftly and forcibly. And then
the people not having learned the lesson, continued to complain
focusing their complaints on the Manna.

Rashi identifies the Asafsuf as the Erev Rav, the mixed multitude
who followed the Jews out of Egypt on their historical March.

And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, and
very many cattle. (12:38)

1
See comments of the Kli Yakar
2
See the discussion in the Tosfot Yom Tov in his commentary to Avot 5:4. The Mishna mentions that
the Jews “tested” G-d ten times in the desert, the Tosfot yom tov analyzes which events should be
included, and concludes that the “Murmuring” – or complaints, and the Asafsuf are one event albeit
with two parts. Also see Daat Ziakanim of the Baeli Hatosfot (11:13) who sees the events as one. Other
commentaries see these as two separate failings, perhaps completely disconnected.

1
The term Erev Rav occurs only once in scripture, during the Exodus,
nonetheless in midrashic sources the Erev Rav become more
prominent3. They are blamed for many of the failings in the desert.
Notably the Golden Calf has been blamed on these outsiders and
not on the Jewish nation.

GO, GET THEE DOWN, FOR THY PEOPLE... HATH DEALT CORRUPTLY.
It does not say ‘the people’ but THY PEOPLE, whereupon Moshe said: ' Lord
of the Universe! Whence are they my people? ' G-d replied: ' They are thy
people, for when they were yet still in Egypt, I told thee that I will bring forth
My hosts, My people the children of Israel (Ex. 7:4). Did I not instruct thee
not to allow a mixed multitude to be mingled with them; but thou, being meek
and righteous, didst answer me, "The penitent must always be accepted."
Knowing, however, what they would one day do, I replied: " No," but,
nevertheless, I fulfilled thy request, with the result, that it was just these
people who made the Calf, being idolaters from of old, and who caused My
people to sin.’ For see, it does not say: ' This is our god,’ but ’This is thy god‘.
Why? Because it was the proselytes who went up with Moshe [from Egypt]
that made the Calf and that said to Israel: ’This is thy god.’ It is for this
reason that G-d said to Moshe: GO, GET THEE DOWN, FOR THY
PEOPLE... HATH DEALT CORRUPTLY. (Midrash Rabbah – Shmot 42:6)

These corrupt outsiders, caused all types of problems for G-d’s

people. Therefore it should come as no surprise that once again the
Erev Rav have struck. Armed with false values these base people
cause the spiritual descent of the Israelites. First it is murmurings
and then hedonistic lust, this fifth column infiltrated the Jewish camp
and corrupted them. Rashi makes this identification, and says that
in both episodes, the Asufsuf and the “complaining” it is none
other than these despicable Erev Rav.

At the edge (katzeh) of the camp – by the muktzeh (a term implying

untouchable – or disgusting) among them for depravity – the Erev Rav. (Rashi
11:1)

The Hasafsuf – these are the Erev Rav who joined (shenesfu) with the Jews
when they left Egypt (Rashi 11:4)

In both instances Rashi tells us that it is the Erev Rav who caused
the problems. As far as Rashi is concerned the Hasafsuf is a
synonym for the Erev Rav, these were people who joined the
community – both terms sharing a common root –asaf. While this
seems clear, Rashi in his commentary to Psalms has a radically
different interpretation. In Psalm seventy eight there is a general
reiteration of the events which transpired in the desert, when the
chapter of those who lusted for food is introduced the text uses the
following description:

3
Zohar 1:25a, 1:28b, 2:191b

2
 And they sinned yet more against him, rebelling against the most High in the
wilderness. And they tempted God in their heart by asking food for their
craving. And they spoke against God; they said, Can God spread a table in the
wilderness? Behold, he struck the rock, so that the waters gushed out, and the
streams overflowed; can he give bread also? Can he provide meat for his
people? Therefore the Lord heard this, and was angry; so a fire was kindled
against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel. Because they did not
believe in God, and did not trust in his salvation. Though he had commanded
the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven. And rained down
manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the grain of heaven. Man ate
the bread of angels; he sent them food in abundance. He caused an east wind
to blow in the sky; and by his power he brought on the south wind. And he
rained meat upon them like dust, and feathered birds like the sand of the sea.
And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, around their habitations. So they
ate, and were well filled; for he gave them their own desire. They were not yet
sated with their lust. But while their food was still in their mouths. The wrath
of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and struck down the
chosen men of Israel. (Psalm 78:17-31)

Here it does not sound as if the object of the contempt was the Erev
Rav, rather it is the chosen of Israel. Rashi explains the identity of
the victims:

The Elders for it says (espah) “gather for Me seventy men of the Elders of
Israel”. (Rashi Psalms 78:31)

It seems quite remarkable, that instead of a fringe group Rashi is

identifying the Asafsuf with the Elders of Israel! It seems hard to a
imagine a greater disparity than between the exalted Elders and the
lowly hangers on, who sort of trailed after the chosen people.

Upon analysis the suggestion is not as bizarre as it first seems. Why

was it necessary to gather Elders at this juncture? Did not Moshe
already gather Elders upon Yitro’s advice back in Exodus prior to
Revelation? What happened to those Elders that Moshe must gather
new Elders now? This question is posed in the Midrash:

GATHER UNTO ME. But did they not have Elders before this? Is it not
written in connection with Mount Sinai, ’Then went up Moshe, and Aaron,
Nadav, and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders,’ etc. (Sh’mot 24: 9)? And the
present passage deals with an event subsequent to this! Where then were the
Elders? The fact is that when Israel came to commit the offence alluded to in
the words, And the people were as murmurers (11:1), they were all burned in
that instant. Their burning had been postponed like that of Nadav and Avihu,
for they also had acted with levity when, on ascending Mount Sinai, they saw
the Divine Presence. It says in that connection: And they beheld G-d, and did
eat and drink (Sh’mot 24:11)… Similarly they acted with levity as though
engaged upon eating and drinking. For this the Elders as well as Nadav and
Avihu deserved to be burned instantaneously. As, however, the day of the
giving of the Torah was dear to the Holy One, blessed be He, He did not wish

3
 to harm them on that day by making an inroad on them. Hence it is written,
And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand (ib.); from
this you may infer that they deserved to have a hand laid upon them. At a
subsequent date, however, He collected the debt from them. Nadav and Avihu
were burned when they entered the Tent of Meeting, and the Elders also were
burned when they were filled with that lusting, of which it says, And the mixed
multitude that was among them fell a lusting (11:4). (Midrash Rabbah -
Bamidbar 15:24)

We now understand that the Elders were actually guilty of a

violation some time prior to the events described in this week’s
Parsha. G-d bided His time to wait for the proper context in order to
take vengeance. The crime of eating and drinking while in view of
the deity, seems related to the lust for food described in the
subsequent verses in Bahaalotcha. It seems that the origin of the
behavior displayed in the desert was first enacted on the slope of
Sinai.

Rashi’s identification of the Hasafsuf, with the Elders is mentioned in

the Midrash:

What is implied by ‘The mixed multitude’ (asafsuf)? R. Shimon b. Abba and R.

Shimon b. Menasya offer differing explanations. One of them says that they
were the proselytes who came up with them out of Egypt and were gathered up
(ne'esafim) into one body with them; as it says, And a mixed multitude went up
also with them (Sh’mot 12:38). The other says that the ’asafsuf’ were the
Sanhedrin; as may be inferred from the text, GATHER (ESFAH) UNTO ME
SEVENTY MEN. (Midrash Rabbah - Bamidbar 15:24)

While each of Rashi’s explanations is represented in the Midrash,

how can Rashi utilize two mutually exclusive explanations?
Apparently Rashi did not understand that these positions argue
rather the term “Hasufsaf” possesses a dual meaning – both the
Elders and the mixed multitude. Already in Rashi’s comments to the
term “Katzeh” the edge of the camp Rashi offered two
interpretations:

At the edge (katzeh) of the camp – by the muktzeh (a term implying

untouchable – or disgusting) among them for depravity – the Erev Rav. Rav
Shimon ben Manesh says the officers (kitzinim) and the great people. (Rashi
11:1)

The very term “Katzeh” implies edge, or extreme, the term can
imply either extreme both the lowest, and the greatest4, perhaps it
means both. What however is the connection between the Erev Rav
and the leaders?

4
See the comments of the Kli Yakar 11:1

4
Generally when people think about the Erev Rav the assumption is
that these are people who were on the lowest strata of Egyptian
society, like the Jews they too were slaves. When the opportunity
presented itself to leave, they leaped at it. The fact that they had
joined the Israelites was incidental, it was the only way out of town.
The Midrash however paints a different picture, the Erev Rav seem
to have been attracted to Moshe, and the Jews on an ideological, not
a pragmatic level.

The virtuous among the Egyptians came, celebrated the Passover with Israel,
and went up with them, for it says: And a mixed multitude went up also with
them (ib. 38), but those who did not desire the redemption of the Israelites
died with the firstborn, as it says: ’And He smote all the firstborn in Egypt’
(Ps. LXXVIII, 51). Midrash Rabbah – (Exodus 18:10)

The Midrash calls them “virtuous”; they joined the Jews in the
Pesach seder in Egypt, an act which was fraught with danger. This
heroic action is certainly ideologically significant, for it was
polemical in nature symbolically rejecting the Egyptian culture and
belief. These people do not sound like mere opportunists. Neither do
they sound like slaves, they sound like free people who were
inspired by the events leading up to the Exodus, therefore they cast
their lot with the Jews.

Perhaps this relationship holds the key to proper understanding of

this section. The role of the Elders was to serve as a type of conduit
between Moshe and the people. Moshe could not reasonably deal
with all the issues which would come up on a daily basis within the
Jewish camp, therefore it was the task of the Elders to assist.

We see that the Elders were accused of possessing a lust, it is

possible that they did not view their desires as “lust”, they saw it as
normal living. The eating and drinking on Sinai is not abnormal
merely inopportune. Furthermore the objects of their desire did not
seem overly ambitious:

Who shall give us meat to eat? We remember the fish, which we ate in Egypt
for nothing; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions,
and the garlic. But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all, beside
this manna, before our eyes. (11:5,6)

They did not want excess; they wanted a normal life. Even standing
at the foot of Sinai, unlike Moshe who abstains from food and drink,
they partake of refreshments. The Elders saw their job as bringing
the Torah down to earth to make it a bit more accessible to man.
The Elders figured that this was their task, Moshe was a visionary
with his head in clouds, he enjoyed unparalleled greatness, but they
fancied that they knew the common man, his needs desires and
limitations. Perhaps this was the attraction with the Erev Rav, they
had known a “normal” life in Egypt, and the Elders looked to them

5
for their lead. This is the tragedy of this Parsha, Moshe is right there
in their midst, yet his “assistants” turn to the Erev Rav for lessons in
normalcy. The Elders did not realize that the desire to be normal was
itself a lust, which led them to reject Moshe in favor of the Erev Rav.

This insight will allow us understand the sequence of the Parsha a

little better. Immediately prior to the events described at the outset
– of the complaints, and the Hasafsuf, the torah has two strange
signs surrounding two verses. The Talmud explains that these verses
are written parenthetically since this is not the proper place, rather
the Torah wished to divide between tragedies.

Our Rabbis taught: ‘And it came to pass when the ark set forward that Moshe
said, [etc.]’: for this section the Holy One, blessed be He, provided signs
above and below, to teach that this is not its place. … R. Shimon b. Gamaliel
said: This section is destined to be removed from here and written in its [right
place]. And why is it written here? In order to provide a break between the
first [account of] punishment and the second [account of] punishment. What
is the second [account of] punishment? — And the people were as murmurers,
[etc.]. The first [account of] punishment? — And they ‘moved away from the
mount of the Lord, Talmud – (Shabbath 115b-116a)

The “second punishment” is clear this is the section of the

murmuring, and of the lust, but what is the “first punishment”
leaving the mountain of the Lord? That was the only way to get to
the Promised Land – by traveling on and leaving the mountain. What
did they do wrong? The Ramban cites a Midrash which explains this
point. According to the Midrash Yilamdenu the Jews left Sinai with
the exuberance of a schoolboy after a long day of school. They left
enthusiastically – before G-d changed His mind and gave them any
more commandments. The Ramban sees this as the core behavior
which causes the wandering in the Desert. He writes: Perhaps had it
not been for this they would have entered Israel immediately.5

This is the same philosophy we see exhibited by the erstwhile

leaders, make the Torah more accessible, not too many burdensome
laws, the goal after all was a normal life. At Sinai itself the leaders
tried to make the experience more normal, now in leaving Sinai they
were energized – life can return to normal. Now we understand the
aversion to Manna – food from heaven – perhaps it was heavenly,
but it was not the normal food they ate in Egypt. 6
5
Ramban 10:35
6
If indeed the desire was for meat, this could have been accomplished by bringing offerings in the
Tabernacle, evidently the desire was more for a “normal” existence than it was for meat per se. “Holy
meat would have been no better than manna “holy bread”.
Dear Rabbi Ari Kahn,

RE: MI’ORAY HA-AISH: BE’HALOT’CHA – “The Mixed Multitude”

Firstly I just wanted to thank you for your weekly parsha insights
that are continuously helping me develop my knowledge of Torah.

6
The Erev Rav for their point may have been far more devious, what
begins as a rejection of more holiness becomes transferred into a
full rejection of Torah values which made serious inroads into the
Jewish community. What ostensibly was a cry for food was actually a
rejection of holiness:

When they turned and wept, and asked for flesh. Shall we assume that they
asked for the flesh of animals? But surely the manna changed in their mouth
into any taste they desired; as it says, And He gave them their request (Psalm

The last section of your Dvar Torah helped bring to light a question
that has been on my mind since childhood.

Being a bit of an eccentric when it comes to animals, I have kept

many kinds of birds as a hobby including, believe it or not,
Japanese/Eurasian Quails (these are the only Quail species that
inhabit the region mentioned in the Torah). I would always wonder why
Hashem chose this particular species to fulfil our ancestors’ desire
in the desert. After all there are many native kosher desert birds in
the Mediterranean, e.g. Rock Partridges and Sand Grouse. Quails only
use the desert as a passage to migrate through and hardly ever settle
there, so it would seem illogical for Hashem swoop them down there
through a random natural event.
Whilst reading your article it all seemed to come together. You wrote
of when the Jews cried for ‘flesh’, the word really referred to the
lust for sexual contact, as they already had meat to eat and/or the
manna would taste like anything they desired.

Then, one would ask, WHY DID HASHEM THEN SEND THEM QUAILS IN RESPONSE
TO THEIR REQUEST?
Well I’m sure many Chachamim in the past have come up with the
suggestion I have, or have given an alternative answer to the
question. However, I might as well give it a try.
If there was one thing I would say is unique about this particular
quail species, it would be their ferocious sexual appetite, which
excels those of not only kosher birds, but that of the whole
ornithological kingdom. I write ‘ferocious’ because that is what it
truly is. I kept a pair of these birds in an aviary once and within a
few weeks the female was left tattered with most of her back and head
feathers ripped off due to the male’s continuous attempts to mate
with her. Later, when reading on the subject I learnt of the
recommendation to keep one male with at least three females to
help divide his attention between all of them.

Using this knowledge of quail behaviour, it could be assumed that

Hashem, in response to their lust for sexual intimacy, sent them an
animal that intrinsically manifested that sin – so that they could
eat it until it became nauseating to them (as it says in the
passage).
I would appreciate it if you could comment on what I’ve said and
maybe elaborate on the question I have highlighted above.

Thanking you in advance.

Kind regards,

Ofer Raphael Ambalo

7
 106:15), And He gave them that which they craved (78:29). Shall we say that
they had no oxen or cattle? But surely, it is already written, ’And a mixed
multitude went up also with them’; and flocks and herds (Sh’mot 12:38). Shall
we assume that they had eaten them up in the wilderness? But surely, it is
written, Now the children of Reuven... had a very great multitude of cattle
(32:1). Hence R. Shimon concluded that they did not lust for flesh, but for
sexual contact, as is borne out by the text, He caused flesh (she ‘er) also to
rain upon them as the dust (Ps. 78:27); ’she'er’ cannot but denote near
relationship; as is proved by the text, None of you shall approach to any that
is near of kin (she'er) to him (Lev. 18:6). You must conclude therefore that it is
this that they wanted; viz. that consanguineous marriage should be permitted
to them. Accordingly it says, And Moshe heard the people weeping, family by
family (11:10). When they asked for such a thing, therefore, The anger of the
Lord was kindled greatly; and Moshe was displeased (ib.).

While the Torah spells out the content of their stated desires the
Rabbis pointed out the undercurrent of the actual desires which
were far more nefarious.

The tragedy of leaders who look behind them for inspiration was
described by Rav Elchanan Wasserman, as the phenomenon of the
“face of the generation being the face of a dog”. This obscure
phrase is used in the Talmud to describe the messianic age7. As a
dog runs ahead of his master and then turns to see if he is being
followed, so will failed leadership look to the generation to see what
it wants. The Elders were supposed to learn from Moshe about what
the generation needs and assist him in his Divine mission of
bringing the Torah of G-d down to earth, thereby bringing earth a
little closer to heaven.

© 1999 Rabbi Ari Kahn, All Rights Reserved

7
Sotah 49b
The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father.
So upon whom is it for us to rely? Upon our father who is in heaven.
Sanhedrin 97a
It has been taught, R. Judah said: in the generation when the son of David comes, the house of
assembly will be for harlots, Galilee in ruins, Gablan lie desolate, the border inhabitants wander about
from city to city, receiving no hospitality, the wisdom of scribes in disfavor, God-fearing men despised,
the face of the generation will be dog-faced, and truth entirely lacking.