Introduction: Between Requesting a Need and Testing Hashem
We stand in the middle of Psalm 78, in the episode of Israel's complaints in the wilderness. Asaph describes not only their deeds but also what lay in the heart: was the request for meat a simple need, or was it a test and doubt regarding the capability of the Holy One, Blessed be He? From here onward, we will follow the order of the verses and see how the Radak and the Malbim explain the root of the sin, and the response the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave them through the manna and the quail.
"They Spoke Against God" - Speech of the Heart
וַיְדַבְּרוּ בֵּאלֹהִים אָמְרוּ הֲיוּכַל אֵל לַעֲרֹךְ שֻׁלְחָן בַּמִּדְבָּר׃ - "They spoke against God; they said, 'Can God set a table in the wilderness?'"
What did they speak? Radak explains that this speech was in their hearts, in the manner of the verses, "I spoke with my heart" and "I said in my heart." In reality, they outwardly requested the meat as a basic necessity and not as a test, but Scripture reveals what was truly in their hearts - to test Hashem. In their hearts stood the question: "Can He give?" Yet in truth, they had no real need for meat, for herds and cattle had come up with them from Egypt; thus, they asked for the meat as a test, not out of need.
"To set a table in the wilderness" - in a place with no sustenance whatsoever. "To set a table" means a full table, a set banquet lacking nothing, containing all the necessities of life. Their claim was: He gave us samples; He rained down manna for us - one dish, a main course, fine; He also gave water, and after all, there are many rocks from which water emerges; He brought down the manna from heaven like snow and hailstones. But meat, from where could He bring meat? Here, they thought, He would surely be stymied. And all of this was by way of testing Him, in their hearts.
"Behold, He Struck the Rock" - Three Keys
הֵן הִכָּה צוּר וַיָּזוּבוּ מַיִם וּנְחָלִים יִשְׁטֹפוּ הֲגַם לֶחֶם יוּכַל תֵּת אִם יָכִין שְׁאֵר לְעַמּוֹ׃ - "Behold, He struck the rock, and water flowed, and streams gushed; can He also give bread, or prepare meat for His people?"
The Malbim explains: A complete table includes three things - bread, meat, and water - and they claimed that the Holy One, Blessed be He, lacked the ability to provide all three at once. From where did they derive proof? From the fact that the meat had ceased at a certain stage. This implied, as it were, that He could provide two things at once, but not three; as if all three keys were not handed to Him.
The root of the matter is that they harbored doubt whether the One leading them was the God of gods or merely one of the officials, one of the emissaries. For if He is the God of gods, His power is unlimited; but if He is one of the celestial princes, He was not given all the keys, and there are other potentates in that same "government." Therefore, they repeatedly tested whether His power was truly limitless, to see for themselves whether He was indeed the God of gods as Moshe had said, or merely one of the subordinate powers.
This is the meaning of "Behold, He struck the rock, and water flowed": He already expended part of His power on water, and now let us test whether "can He also give bread" together with the rest. According to their calculation, this was why the Holy One, Blessed be He, had stopped providing meat - because had He continued with the meat, now that He needed to give water, He would not have been able to give bread. Thus their question arose: Can He truly give us all three things at once, proving that He is indeed above the realm of ministers and officials?
"Therefore Hashem Heard and Was Enraged" - Two Places and Two Sins
לָכֵן שָׁמַע יְהֹוָה וַיִּתְעַבָּר וְאֵשׁ נִשְּׂקָה בְיַעֲקֹב וְגַם אַף עָלָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - Therefore Hashem heard and became enraged; a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also flared up against Israel.
The Radak explains: "Hashem heard" indicates that these words were not uttered publicly where everyone could hear them. This aligns with his earlier explanation that "they spoke against God; they said: 'Can God...?'" was an internal dialogue of the heart. Explicitly they said, "We are hungry," but in their thoughts they sought to test Hashem. Therefore, the verse emphasizes: even though you said this in your hearts, Hashem heard, for Hashem knows the thoughts of man. Consequently, "He became enraged" (vayit'aber), from the language of wrath (evrah) and anger.
The Radak further explains that the verse encompasses two episodes: the incident of Tav'erah and the incident of Kivrot HaTa'avah, both of which occurred in the same vicinity. Concerning the first event, where they were complaining evilly in the ears of Hashem, it says, "and the fire of Hashem burned among them," which is why the place was named Tav'erah. Regarding the second event, where they craved a craving, the place was named Kivrot HaTa'avah. "A fire was kindled against Jacob" refers to Tav'erah, corresponding to "Hashem heard, and His anger flared"; "and anger also flared up against Israel" refers to their craving, corresponding to "and the anger of Hashem flared against the people."
The word "nis'kah" (kindled) relates to fuel and burning (hasakah and tev'erah), as in "they will kindle and burn" (u-vi'aru ve-hisiku), and like the familiar phrase "a burning hearth" (ha-ach ha-musakat). Here it appears with the letter *shin* (שׂ), whereas in rabbinic Hebrew many such words appear with a *samech* (ס). Chazal established a clear distinction between *shin/sin* and *samech*, as a *samech* leaves no room for ambiguity. Similarly, "a woman you betroth" (te'ares) appears in the Torah with a *shin*, whereas Chazal use *erusin* with a *samech*; likewise "lime kilns" (misrefot sid) in Tanach with a *shin* becomes *samech* in rabbinic Hebrew. Here too, "nis'kah" is like "hasakah", an intense kindling of fire.
In both cases, there was an expression of a lack of faith. The complainers were the ones who said, "Let us send men ahead of us, and let them spy out the land for us" - they did not believe that Hashem would vanquish the enemies for them without battle, and wanted to see if they possessed the strength to withstand them. Yet the One Who took you out of Egypt is the One Who will bring you into the Land; were you mighty when you left Egypt? A higher power brought you out, and that same power accompanies you! Likewise with the demand for meat, the Radak notes that there was a lack of faith: "Can He also give bread?" - where "bread" here means food in general, a comprehensive term for sustenance, referring to the quail and meat. You were doubting whether Hashem has the power to do so.
Jacob and Israel - The Lowly and the Elite
The Malbim explains: "Therefore Hashem heard" - He understood their words and their intent, which was that the Holy One, blessed be He, is allegedly incapable of performing three things simultaneously; therefore "He became enraged." At first, "a fire was kindled against Jacob," for the Jewish people are divided into "Jacob" and "Israel." "Jacob" stems from the word *ekev* (heel), representing the bottom, the lower tier of the nation, often referred to simply as "the people." "Israel" stems from *sar* (prince) and *serarah* (authority), signifying prominence, the elite among them. Initially, the fire burned within Jacob, among the lowliest in Israel, as it is written: "and it consumed the edge of the camp" - the fringes, the lesser ones.
Afterwards, "anger also flared up against Israel" - the elite - when they too joined in demanding meat, as it is written: "and the Children of Israel also wept again, saying: 'Who will feed us meat?'" The prominent ones wept as well, not just the common people. And since they also took part in the weeping over the meat, they were stricken as well. This is the meaning of "also" (ve-gam) - to include that at Kivrot HaTa'avah, Hashem's wrath flared once more against Israel.
"Because They Did Not Believe in God" - The Root of the Wrath
כִּי לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ בֵּאלֹהִים וְלֹא בָטְחוּ בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ׃ - Because they did not believe in God, and did not trust in His salvation.
The Malbim explains: The reason for the wrath was not the craving itself, but the lack of faith. Such intense fury is not aroused over physical desire, for craving stems from bodily needs and is a form of duress. But disbelief - why do you disbelieve? You stood at Mount Sinai, you witnessed Divinity, you experienced an entire year of miracles in Egypt! That was the claim against them. They believed His power was limited, and consequently "and did not trust in His salvation" - they did not trust that He could bring them into the Land. This is what was meant by "for they are stronger than we" (chazak hu mimenu), which Chazal interpret as saying: even the Master of the House cannot remove His vessels from there, meaning, Heaven forbid, that He lacks the power to rule there in the Land.
And the Radak explains "and did not trust in His salvation" - this does not refer to future salvation, but rather to the salvation they had already witnessed time and time again. You have already seen His salvation; why, then, do you not trust that this very same salvation will continue to deliver you going forward?
"And He Commanded the Skies" - The Manna as Proof
וַיְצַו שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל וְדַלְתֵי שָׁמַיִם פָּתָח׃ - And He commanded the skies above, and opened the doors of heaven;
וַיַּמְטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם מָן לֶאֱכֹל וּדְגַן שָׁמַיִם נָתַן לָמוֹ׃ - And He rained down manna upon them to eat, and gave them the grain of heaven.
Come and see how He saved you in the past: He had already commanded the skies to give you manna, and opened the doors of heaven to rain down manna upon them, yet they paid no attention to this. They should have understood - if He had the power to give me this, He certainly has the power to give me meat as well. "The doors of heaven" is spoken allegorically, like "and the floodgates of heaven were opened," for there are no actual doors in heaven; rather, it expresses the immense quantity that descended. Indeed, Chazal derive from the expression "floodgates" the vast amount of manna that fell, and for this reason it is described here as "the doors of heaven." "And gave them the grain of heaven" - instead of having bread from the grain of the earth, He gave you heavenly grain, which is far superior and more pleasant than earthly grain.
The Malbim explains that there is a distinction between shechakim (skies) and shamayim (heavens). Chazal taught that shechakim is the place where they grind manna for the righteous; and the Malbim explains that shechakim denotes a realm higher than shamayim, signifying miraculous divine influence. Shamayim represents influence channeled through nature, like rain falling from the sky, which operates within the natural framework; but something coming from shechakim originates from a higher sphere - "for one higher than the high watches" - meaning through a miraculous providence that transcends nature.
Therefore, the manna did not descend simply from shamayim, for it did not originate from the natural system - since manna does not exist in nature - but rather from the shechakim above. It was as though it descended from the shechakim into the shamayim, to the doors, and the Holy One, Blessed is He, opened the doors of heaven, and from there it fell down to us. This is the meaning of "And He rained down manna upon them to eat."
"The Grain of Heaven" - Refuting the Deniers
There are naturalists who present pictures and examples from places in the desert where certain granules fall that are called "manna," and through this they attempt to offer an explanation for the manna that fell for Israel in the wilderness. This is certainly a misconception and entirely untrue. For the manna of which we speak could take on any taste one desired, and it fell and settled upon the camp immediately when needed; when they did not eat it, "the sun grew hot and it melted," whereas natural manna does not melt when the sun shines; furthermore, on Friday they received a double portion for Shabbat, and on Shabbat none fell at all. It is evident, then, that the entire phenomenon was miraculous.
Regarding this, the Malbim explains: although a natural substance also falls in that desert during two months of the year, Scripture comes to refute the deniers, so they would not claim that this was merely the natural food found in the desert even today. Therefore, Scripture provides clear indications showing that this was grain of heaven, and not natural produce.
"Bread of the Mighty" - Food for the Healthy and Satiating
לֶחֶם אַבִּירִים אָכַל אִישׁ צֵידָה שָׁלַח לָהֶם לָשֹׂבַע׃ - Man ate the bread of the mighty; He sent them provisions to the full.
The Malbim continues: the natural manna that falls in the desert is not a food that healthy people eat to satiety, but rather food used for the sick, and it cannot replace bread. But the bread that Hashem brought down from heaven was "bread of the mighty," bread fitting and suitable for strong, vigorous people. Furthermore, natural manna does not satisfy hunger; it falls only in tiny quantities and small granules, and could never suffice for every single person, let alone for six hundred thousand men. Yet here it says, "Man ate the bread of the mighty," meaning it fully sufficed for each person, and "He sent them provisions to the full." This would be entirely impossible with the natural substance that researchers attempt to identify as the manna that fell in the wilderness.
Rashi cites the derashah of Chazal: "Bread of the mighty" (lechem abbirim) - the bread of angels, for angels are called abbirim. Another explanation: do not read abbirim, but rather evarim (limbs), for it was bread that was absorbed directly into the limbs, and they did not need to relieve themselves; rather, it was absorbed into their organs. The Radak explains that this refers back to the heavens (shechakim), which are called "abbirim," meaning exceedingly strong, as it says in Iyov regarding the heavens, "strong as a molten mirror." "Man ate the bread of the mighty" - bread that descended from the heavens. And this is a wonder: "Man ate" - man, a mortal formed from the earth, eats heavenly bread, and this is the marvel that Hashem performed for them there.
"He sent them provisions to the full" - wherever they went, their provisions were ready for them. Understand this: those specific places where some claim something called "manna" naturally falls are very specific locations in the desert, not everywhere you go. Yet the Jewish people wandered in the desert for forty years, and wherever they went, there was manna for everyone, in a nourishing and abundant manner that sufficed for every member of the family. No one ever complained of being hungry; the only complaint was whether this was "miserable bread" that might rot and swell in the intestines, but no one ever claimed that the bread did not satisfy. Furthermore, the fact that a double portion fell on Friday for Shabbat - all of this proves that this was not a natural phenomenon.
"He caused an east wind to blow" - The Reverse Wind
יַסַּע קָדִים בַּשָּׁמָיִם וַיְנַהֵג בְּעֻזּוֹ תֵימָן׃ - He caused an east wind to blow in the heavens, and by His strength He led the south wind.
Which wind is this referring to? To what is stated, "A wind went forth from Hashem and swept quails from the sea." Radak explains that this refers both to the east wind and the south wind: "He caused an east wind to blow" is an easterly wind, and "by His strength He led the south wind" is a southerly wind, as Teiman means south; the wind was a southeasterly wind, which accounts for the dual phrasing.
The Malbim explains: although He gave them manna, He also gave them meat; and lest they say that the wind that swept the quails from the sea was coincidental and natural, Scripture shows that it was miraculous. For the sea lay to the west and north of Israel, and naturally, only a westerly or northerly wind could have carried the quails toward the camp. Yet here, "He caused an east wind to blow" - an easterly wind, "and by His strength He led the south wind" - a southerly wind, which naturally should have driven the quails away from them, but instead brought them closer! Scripture emphasizes these wind directions to tell you that the wind did not bring the quails here by natural means, and one cannot claim that the meat arrived by mere chance.
And parenthetically, their food back then was perfectly tailored to the body. What we eat today is not tailored, which is why if you overeat, you gain weight. But what they ate back then was tailor-made; the body absorbed exactly what it needed and nothing more. And do not forget that these were people walking all day, akin to someone engaging in exercise every single day.
"He rained down meat upon them like dust"
וַיַּמְטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם כֶּעָפָר שְׁאֵר וּכְחוֹל יַמִּים עוֹף כָּנָף׃ - He rained down meat upon them like dust, and winged fowl like the sand of the seas.
"She'er" means meat, as in "she'ero" (his flesh). And what is meant by "vayamter" (He rained down)? Radak explains that it came like rain; tremendous quantities fell like a downpour, and this is astonishing - He rained down meat for them! "And winged fowl like the sand of the seas" - the meat was winged birds, and although they had wings, they lacked the strength to fly hither and thither, landing right inside the camp. This is another wonder, for naturally they should have fled; no bird willingly enters a place where it will be hunted and captured. Chazal taught that they flew at eye level, so that everyone could simply grab them. What natural sense does that make? Every animal possesses an instinctual defense mechanism to flee from human beings - just try catching a pigeon! Yet here, on the contrary, winged fowl delivered themselves straight into your hands.
The Malbim notes that this was the second miracle. "He rained down" - from above to below, like dust falling downward, and they were as numerous as the sand of the seas. This is the meaning of "He let them fall in the midst of their camp, all around their dwellings."
A Grammatical Note: A Sheva Following a Vav
This presents an opportunity to address a common mistake made by many: when reading the letter vav [with a shuruk] followed by a sheva, many pronounce the sheva as a vocal sheva (sheva na). However, a vocal sheva never follows a short vowel unless there are specific grammatical exceptions; ordinarily, after a short vowel, the sheva is silent (sheva nach). Therefore, the correct reading is "וּכְחול ימים" (uch'chol yamim) with a silent sheva, and likewise "הטוב שמך וּלְךָ נאה להודות" (ulcha) - the lamed has a silent sheva, and should not be read as "ולָךְ"; and similarly "וּבְךָ" (uvcha). Curiously, even someone who tends to read many shevas as silent will often vocalize the sheva after a shuruk, but this is an outright error rather than an acceptable alternate variant.
Furthermore, regarding the vocal sheva: in Sephardic tradition, it is pronounced like a tzeirei, whereas in Yemenite tradition, it leans slightly toward a patach. For example, in "בְּקרב מחנהו" (b'kerev machaneihu), Sephardim pronounce it like a tzeirei, while Yemenites pronounce it like a patach. The exception is when it is followed by one of the guttural letters (aleph, hei, chet, ayin). Radak cites this rule: a guttural letter pulls the vocal sheva preceding it toward its own vowel sound. Therefore, here in "כעפר שְׁאֵר" - according to the general rule, the shin should have been pronounced like a patach, but since it is followed by an alef vocalized with a tzeirei, the alef draws the preceding sheva to be pronounced like a tzeirei. Had the alef been vocalized with a chirik, as in "שְׂעִיר", it would have been pronounced like a chirik. Similarly, in "זוֹבְחִים" (zovechim), a Sephardi will pronounce the sheva like a tzeirei, whereas a Yemenite will pronounce it slightly like a chirik, because of the guttural chet that follows it. This is a rule formulated by Radak, and Yemenites are the only ones who actively preserve it in practice.
In summary: The complaint regarding meat was not a complaint born of hunger, but an inner test of faith: Is the power of the Holy One, blessed be He, truly limitless, or is He like one of the celestial ministers who was not entrusted with all the keys to provide bread, meat, and water all at once? It was over this thought that "Hashem heard and was enraged" - first against Jacob, the simpler folk among the people, and subsequently against Israel as well, the elite who joined in the weeping. It was not the physical craving itself that aroused His wrath, but the underlying heresy: "Because they did not believe in God and did not trust in His salvation" - in the salvation they had already witnessed with their own eyes. And the response of the Holy One, blessed be He, came through deeds: manna from the skies, above the laws of nature, the bread of the mighty that satisfies each person and accompanied them throughout all their journeys, and alongside it, quail brought specifically by an east and south wind - the very winds that should have driven it away. This teaches that His power is not limited in the slightest: the One Who gives bread also gives meat, and the One Who saved in the past is the One Who will save in the future.