cellio: (torah scroll)
Monica ([personal profile] cellio) wrote2006-06-08 09:08 am
Entry tags:

parsha bit: B'ha'alot'cha

(Try saying that three times quickly. :-) )

In the second year after the Exodus the people begin their journey from Har Sinai, and soon they begin to complain about the lack of meat and fish like they had back in Mitzrayim. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says that they do not complain out of nostalgia; rather, they are bored. All their needs are met with no effort on their part: manna and water are delivered daily, and they have the mishkan and divine protection. They feel, Hirsch says, as if they have no challenges. (Commentary on Num 11:1-11)

On a personal note, I have trouble understanding boredom. Yes, I've been in situations where I was bored and couldn't escape, but for the most part, I fill my days -- if not with activity, then at least with thinking. It can be a challenge sometimes to get my brain to shut up sometimes. I certainly remember the dull "are we there yet?" moments of my childhood, but I'm not sure Rabbi Hirsch isn't doing the Israelites a disservice with this interpretation. But on the other hand, they do act like whiny brats sometimes. :-)

[identity profile] goldsquare.livejournal.com 2006-06-08 01:48 pm (UTC)(link)
Having had my diet "monkeyed with" and made far more monotonous and bland - I don't think it is boredom, so much. Food does affect mood, and we talk about "home cooking" and "comfort food" and we understand what it means.

It's true that being "chased by a bear" takes ones mind off of smaller miseries. But that doesn't mean the smaller miseries are insincere or inappropriate. A strong analogy - I had a serious bicycle accident some years ago, and shattered my wrist, badly. When the Doctor applied a local anaesthetic (prior to trying to reset the many bones), I suddenly realized that I'd dislocated my shoulder as well. :-)

[identity profile] magid.livejournal.com 2006-06-08 01:50 pm (UTC)(link)
According to one interpretation, the mannah could taste like whatever one wanted it to taste like. (But yeah, working with other interpretations that disagree, I'd not be happy eating the same thing day in, day out, either.)

[identity profile] goldsquare.livejournal.com 2006-06-08 01:52 pm (UTC)(link)
According to one interpretation, the mannah could taste like whatever one wanted it to taste like.

Upon what reasonable basis could such a conclusion be made?

(What if someone wanted to know what pork tasted like? LOL)

[identity profile] magid.livejournal.com 2006-06-08 02:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry to say, I don't remember specifically, though some of it might have been "well, there's this food provided by G-d, Who can make anything happen". I assume there's some sort of linguistic hook to hang it on, though.

There's nothing banning tasting like pork, without the actual pig in it.... (plus, weren't the kashrut laws given only at Sinai, so before then, no prob!).
geekosaur: spiral galaxy (galaxy)

[personal profile] geekosaur 2006-06-08 05:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Apparently it comes from this parasha: the Hebrew for Num 11:6 can be read as comparing the manna to "nothing everything", a nothing which is everything. Then it goes on in 11:8 to say "its taste was like an item mixed with oil" — with no referent, the Hebrew "an item" can be understood as "any item". Therefore the Gemara (Yoma 75a) concluded that manna could take on any taste.

"Could the manna take on the unique taste of a non-kosher item? The Chid"o in Chomas Anoch says that it could." (commentary on Num 11:8; the above also came from that page)