Behaalotekha | The Mixed Multitude

 

INTRODUCTION

 

With the opening of Parashat Beha'alotekha, the people's preparations to journey towards the land of Canaan continue apace.  The census of the people and the organization of their camp have already been completed, the Levites have been counted and assigned to their holy tasks, and the Mishkan itself has been inaugurated with the special sacrificial offerings of the princes of Israel.

Our Parasha begins with a brief mention of the command to kindle the Menora, goes on to describe the official investiture of the Levites in place of the first born, and then enumerates some of the concrete measures undertaken by the people at God's behest on the eve of their journey.  First, they celebrate the Passover, the charged ritual recalling their exodus from Egypt scarcely a year earlier.  Then, Moshe is told to fashion two trumpets of silver, to be used to rally the people and to call them to commence their travels.  Finally, the cloud lifts off of the Mishkan signaling the start of the march to Canaan, an event punctuated by Moshe's sincere and heartfelt invitation to his relative Chovav to accompany them to the new land.  The initial journey, three days in duration, then begins immediately.

 

The optimism and promise that permeates the entire account is captured by a concluding couple of pivotal verses, still invoked today in the liturgy of the Torah service.  These verses record Moshe's address towards the Ark of the Covenant, the potent symbol of God's presence among the people of Israel:

 

When the Ark journeyed, Moshe exclaimed: "Arise, God, and let your enemies be scattered, let your foes flee from before You!"  And when the Ark came to rest, Moshe called: "Bring respite, God, to the multitudes of the people of Israel!" (Bemidbar 10:35-36).

 

Clearly, Moshe's invocation, though directed at the Ark and at God that guides its movements, was also a silent prayer spoken concerning the bearers of the Ark, the people of Israel.  Now officially enroute to Canaan, Moshe hoped that the people's entry into its fertile highlands would be swift and uneventful, that the Canaanites would flee rather than fight, that Israel would quickly establish its presence there and achieve peace.

 

 

A CHANGE OF MOOD

 

But how abruptly does the tone of the narrative shift, as the people now noisily and inexplicably begin to complain:

 

The people malevolently complained in God's ears, and when God heard, He was angry.  God's fire flared against them and consumed at the extremities of the camp.  The people cried out to Moshe, and he prayed to God so that the fire died down (Bemidbar 11:1-2).

 

Immediately, though, this unsettling episode is followed by an even more ominous development:

 

The mixed multitude ("hasafsuf") that was in their midst had a craving.  The people of Israel then also cried and said: "Who will feed us meat?  We remember well the fish that we would eat in Egypt for free, the gourds and the melons, the leeks, the onions and the garlic.  But now, our souls are dried up, for we have nothing to hope for, save the manna!" (Bemidbar 11:3-6).

 

In the end, with Moshe's leadership of the people sorely tried by their impudence, God does answer the people's unfounded complaints, but with a harsh and lethal fury:

 

A wind blew from before God and swept up quail from the sea.  They were dumped upon the camp for a day's journey in all directions, two cubits deep.  The people arose all of that day and night, and all of the next day as well and gathered the quail, so that he who gathered the least had amassed ten large piles.  They spread them out all around the camp.  The flesh was yet between their teeth and had not yet been chewed when God's anger flared against them, and God smote the people with a very great plague.  That place was called "Kivrot HaTaavah" (Graves of Craving) because there they buried the people who had craved.  From Kivrot HaTaavah the people journeyed to Chatzerot and they remained in Chatzerot (Bemidbar 11:31-35).

 

These two twinned episodes raise many troubling questions, the most pertinent of them concerning the "why."  Why do the people initially and impetuously complain?  Why do they then suddenly desire meat?  Why do they recall Egypt with such fondness, scarcely a year after they had escaped Pharaoh's murderous clutches?  Why isn't the miraculous manna, that had daily fallen without fail for over a year, good enough?  Why is God's reaction so uncharacteristically severe?  Why is Moshe impotent to avert His anger the second time?  And, perhaps most perplexing, why does all of this occur in the immediate aftermath of the journey from the mountain, while, in contrast, the Torah preserves nary a whisper of any other protest by the people during the entire period of their lengthy sojourn at Sinai?  The commentaries offer a number of approaches to resolving these difficulties, and this time we will consider the view of Rashi.

 

 

RASHI'S INTERPRETATION

 

Rashi (11^th century, France) attempts to squarely place the blame for the calamity upon the foreign elements in the Israelite camp, the so-called "mixed multitude" that left Egypt with them when liberation dawned.  It will be recalled that when the people of Israel were thrust out of Egypt by their stunned and fearful hosts, they were accompanied by a great crowd of other tribes who took advantage of the temporary Egyptian weakness to flee.  As the relevant verses in Sefer Shemot explain, "The people of Israel journeyed from Ra'amses to Succot, about six hundred thousand men of military age, not including the children.  A great mixed multitude went out with them, also sheep and cattle, very numerous herds" (Shemot 12:37-38).

 

As Rashi explains, it was these "wicked ones" (commentary to 11:1) in the camp who unjustifiably complained.  Though the verse generically refers to "the people" grumbling, Rashi takes the term in accordance with its less flattering sense of the "masses."  In a similar vein, he understands that the "extremities of the camp" that were consumed in the initial outburst of Divine fire were "those who were designated for baseness, namely the mixed multitude" (commentary to 11:1).  For Rashi, the catalyst for their complaints was a desire to "draw away from God," and to cast off the burden of God's commands (commentary to 11:5, 10). 

 

 

ASSEMBLING THE PUZZLE

 

It should be noted that Rashi rarely provides us with a comprehensive reading of a passage, and is instead content to comment upon individual verses that the student must then assemble in order to yield a more cohesive picture.  Our section is no exception.  It is only by taking a number of his comments together that we can construct a more thorough reading of the episode.  Thus, Rashi charges the mixed multitude with instigating the complaints, he sees God's punishment initially exacted of them in particular, and most telling of all, he reads in Israel's subsequent and sarcastic recollections of the tasty luxuries of Egypt the essence of the mixed multitude's grievance.  Commenting on their fond memories of eating fish "for free," Rashi perceptively remarks: "free from the commands." 

 

In other words, while the manna that they disparagingly mocked may have been a relatively effortless and tasty form of sustenance, it came at a great spiritual price.  To merit the manna meant to observe God's directives, both concerning its unique properties (see Shemot Chapter 16) as well as in the more general sense of keeping His laws.  And for Rashi, apparently, the loyalties of this mixed multitude to Israel's elevated mission were tepid at best.  They had left Egypt not at the call of Israel's God but rather in a reasonable act of opportunism.  For lack of any other urgent destination, they then accompanied the people to Sinai and stood with them as they received the Torah.  As long as Israel was encamped at the mountain, fortified by God's constant and ongoing care, the mixed multitude was content, even as He placed upon them His moral and ritual laws.  But as soon as the journey to Canaan commenced and the abstract idea of crafting a state in accordance with Divine demands suddenly took on more substance, the tempers of the mixed multitude were ignited.

 

For Rashi, their complaints here recounted were factually baseless, and he connects the Biblical word "mitonninim" ("complaining," see 11:1) with its usage in the story of Shimshon.  There, the nazirite hero sought out a Philistine wife as a PRETEXT to draw them into hostilities so that he could defeat them, for "he desired a 'toanna' from the Philistines, for the Philistines at that time ruled over Israel" (Shoftim 14:4).  As Rashi explains,

 

"Complaining" means without cause, for they sought a pretext for drawing away from God…as for their cries to eat flesh, is it the case that they had none?  The verse has already told us that "a great mixed multitude went out with them, also sheep and cattle, VERY NUMEROUS HERDS" (Shemot 12:38)!  But perhaps they had already consumed them?  (This cannot be for) at the time of their entry into the land, the verse states that "the tribes of Reuven and Gad had numerous flocks, very large…" (Bemidbar 31:1).  Rather, they only sought a pretext (commentary to 11:4).

 

Quite cleverly, Rashi connects our two episodes, which are clearly linked in the Torah text, by their underlying theme.  Together, they describe the misplaced complaints of the people, who may have been ostensibly upset at the arduous journey or else the seeming lack of meat, but in fact were distressed by something else entirely: the yoke of the commands.  No wonder Rashi can move so seamlessly from the one to the other, for though the second episode clearly names the "hasafsuf" or "mixed multitude" as the culprits, the first only speaks of the "people."  But for Rashi, the linkage is provided by the complaints that animate them both, thus corroborating the common identity of the complainers.  Perhaps circumstantial evidence for Rashi's identification can also be provided by God's consuming fire, for it strikes down the "extremities of the camp" where the non-Israelite element would naturally be expected to have been stationed.

 

 

EARLIER OMINOUS INTIMATIONS

 

Not surprisingly, Rashi traces the harmful effects of the mixed multitude to an earlier incident, the singular failure that marred the giving of the Torah to the people at Sinai, namely the episode of the Golden Calf.  Recall that scarcely six weeks after the Revelation of the Decalogue, while Moshe was still stationed with God on Sinai's summit, the people became anxious.  Fearing that perhaps Moshe would never return, they gathered around Aharon and demanded that he fashion a molten image for them:

 

The people saw that Moshe tarried in coming down from the mountain, so the people gathered around Aharon and said to him: "arise and make us a god, for we know not what has become of this man Moshe who took us out of the land of Egypt!"

 

God, privy to the unfolding tragedy in the Israelite camp before Moshe is aware, tells him to descend forthwith:

 

God spoke to Moshe: "Get thee down, for your people whom you have taken out of the land of Egypt have acted with corruption.  Quickly they have turned away from the way that I have commanded, they have made a molten calf, they now bow down to it and offer sacrifice to it, saying: these are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" (Shemot 32:1-9).

 

Rashi, noticing God's harsh and detached description of His people Israel as "your people" (i.e. Moshe's), comments:

 

The text does not state "the people" but rather "your people."  (It is a reference to) the mixed multitude whom you accepted of your own accord and converted without My counsel, for you had said: "it is fitting that converts should cleave to God."  But it is they who have acted with corruption and have caused the people of Israel to become corrupt as well (Commentary to 32:7).

 

Therefore, for Rashi, just as the passage of the Golden Calf broadly speaks of "the people" but narrowly refers to a disreputable component of that whole, so too our section singles out the mixed multitude for special censure.  Significantly, Rashi traces their ignoble behavior to the fact that though they took on the trappings of Israelite practice, they were never animated by a sincere identification with Israel's mission.  Thus, just as the opportunity provided by the Exodus had initially moved them to cast their lot with Israel, so too it now moved them, as they journeyed from Sinai's protective embrace towards the new land, to negate Israel's special mission in the world.

 

 

CONSIDERING RASHI

 

It may of course be tempting for us to discard Rashi's provocative identification as unprogressive and cruel, a convenient designation of a fifth column that has the happy effect of deflecting blame from where it ought to lodge.  But Rashi's explanation is more subtle and profound than that, for it highlights not so much the understandable disloyalty of the mixed multitude as much as Moshe's culpability in the reckless decision to admit them.  But of course we can understand his motives.  When we are placed in the unenviable position of being besieged champions of a just cause, be it the birthright of all men to freedom from Pharaoh's slavery, or else the inherent right of the Jewish state to exist, or any of the other less significant but myriad missions that have always animated members of our people, we are frequently relieved to accept support from wherever it may materialize.  The sincerity of that support strikes us as far less important than its ardor.  Such an approach, though clearly beneficial in the short term, is often counterproductive as time goes on. 

 

Shrill statements of assistance and identification that are not informed by a genuine appreciation of Israel's unique destiny eventually are exposed for what they truly are: hollow expressions of opportunism that are motivated by self-interest.  And such support inevitably comes back to haunt us, as surely as the mixed multitude broke ranks when it sees fit and then brought destruction upon all of Israel. 

 

Of course, we cannot help our own cause if we too are unsure of what exactly is the nature of Israel's "unique destiny"!  Many Israelis themselves, detached from any appreciation for or loyalty to the legacy of the Torah of Israel, are also hard-pressed to explain why our tiny, democratic state should continue to exist in the midst of a vast and raging sea of Arab hostility.  In the end they are frequently forced to feebly invoke the inadequate notion of "nationalism," as if that shallow term could begin to explain our ancient and intrinsic connection to this place or our loyalty to a mission that has been unfolding inexorably for three thousand years! 

 

Our task, then, is to become not only champions of the people of Israel, but knowledgeable, informed and genuine champions as well, adept at enlisting not just any support, but the sincere support of all those who truly appreciate the special mission of the people of Israel in the world.

 

Shabbat Shalom