So, I was looking for parsha posts for my parsha roundup and I came across ADDeRabbi's post, in which he cites Rashi that cites the Sifrei citing Rabbi Shimon that theit did not turn to these tastes because it was bad for nursing mothers. He asks:
Needless to say, at first glance Rashi’s answer has some pretty gaping holes. To wit, the manna didn’t become whatever one wanted it to become; it merely tasted like it. So even if nursing mothers shouldn’t eat watermelon, what’s the big deal if something tastes like watermelon? Furthermore, the examples of onion and garlic are familiar, but fish? Cucumbers? Melons? And finally, why shouldn’t men or non-nursing mothers not taste a bit of eggplant? Why should we all suffer on their count?He gives a somewhat homiletic answer about the development of klal yisrael as the development of an infant. Interesting. However, I believe it is ultimately incorrect (and some of his questions are incorrect), and would like to present my own solution, which will drastically change the way everyone reads this Rashi. Indeed, ADDeRabbi's post presents a great foil. In this post, I may seem to be unduly harsh to him, but no insult is intended.
First, let us see the Rashi inside (in English, courtesy of Chabad and Judaica Press):
the cucumbers R. Simeon says: Why did the manna change into everything except these? Because they are harmful for nursing mothers. We tell a [nursing] woman, “Do not eat any garlic or onion, for the baby’s sake. This can be compared to a king [who gave his son over to a teacher. He sat down and ordered him and said to him, ”See that he does not eat any harmful food and does not drink any harmful drink. Because of this, the son complained about his father, saying,“Not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat,”] as it is written in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:5).But it is not enough to look at Rashi. We must look at Rashi's source - namely, the Sifrei, and see what Rashi changed, deliberately or accidentally.
The first obvious change is that while Rashi says chutz meiElu, Sifrei has chutz mieChameshet haMinim halalu. This was just done to shorten, but we see that Rabbi Shimon is only speaking of 5 things. Fish are not included, so when ADDeRabbi asks:
Furthermore, the examples of onion and garlic are familiar, but fish? Cucumbers? Melons?Fish is no question because this is not part of Rabbi Shimon's statement. (He could probably say that the manna could taste like fish, but this did not come free, as in free from the precepts - see the previous Rashi, which is based in fact on the Sifrei which leads up immediately to Rabbi Shimon.)
Another major change is that nursing mothers are not mentioned in the midrash at all. In fact, it goes directly from the question to the mashal. In fact, I would perhaps even disagree with Judaica Press's parsing. They write:
the cucumbers R. Simeon says: Why did the manna change into everything except these? Because they are harmful for nursing mothers. We tell a [nursing] woman, “Do not eat any garlic or onion, for the baby’s sake. This can be compared to a king [who gave his son over to a teacher. He sat down and ordered him and said to him, ”See that he does not eat any harmful food and does not drink any harmful drink. Because of this, the son complained about his father, saying,“Not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat,”] as it is written in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:5).The bolded portion is Rashi's insertion. I would parse it instead: Because they are harsh to nursing mothers, we tell a woman "Do not eat any garlic or onion for the baby's sake."
That is, the bolded portion shows that all these five are harsh, and evidence of this is that we tell nursing women not to eat them. And garlic and onion are just examples. We would also tell a nursing mother not to eat the other three items in the pasuk.
Thus, ADDeRabbi's question:
Furthermore, the examples of onion and garlic are familiar, but fish? Cucumbers? Melons?has been answered. Fish we would not tell her. Cucumbers and melons we would tell her not to eat. Leeks, which ADDeRabbi did not mention, we would tell her not to eat. {I would add that is assuming "melon" is the correct translation here, according to Rabbi Shimon. Perhaps he had a harsher vegetable in mind.}
Of course, the problem with these is that they are harsh {kashim}. While pregnant women and more specifically their infants are most susceptible, it still takes a minor toll on those who are not infants - people who are perfectly healthy, it still weakens their constitution. Thus,
This can be compared to a king [who gave his son over to a teacher. He sat down and ordered him and said to him, ”See that he does not eat any harmful food and does not drink any harmful drink. Because of this, the son complained about his father, saying,“Not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat,”] as it is written in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:5).-- thus, Hashem had in mind to be gentle to all the Israelites.
This also answers ADDeRabbi's other question:
And finally, why shouldn’t men or non-nursing mothers not taste a bit of eggplant? Why should we all suffer on their count?Since nursing mothers were never the focus, and that is why they are not even mentioned in the Sifrei.
(In terms of the taste and not the substance, it seems that this is not a question that would bother Rabbi Shimon. Either he held it did take some aspect of the actual substance or else he felt that it was the harsh taste itself that was injurious.)
Rashi meant to elaborate upon the Sifrei to make it clearer to us, and instead confused us. This is why it is important to see sources inside.
As you might imagine, I do not subscribe to ADDeRabbi's homily based on this reading of Rashi.
One might, however, read this Sifrei allegorically. This is not to say that it was not intended literally (or for that matter that it was), but rather that there is perhaps something we can learn from this midrash.
This Rashi continues from the previous, and in fact both are citations of the same Sifrei.
which we ate in Egypt free of charge If you say that the Egyptians gave them fish free of charge, does it not already say, “Straw shall not be given to you” (Exod. 5:18)? Now if straw was not given free of charge, was fish given to them free of charge? So what does “free of charge” mean? Free from [the burden of] precepts. — [Sifrei Beha’alothecha 1:42:5]The beginning of the Sifrei interprets free to mean "free of the precepts," rather than free of cost. This dual definition of "free" manifests itself today in terms of free software - do you mean free (like beer) or free (like speech)?
the cucumbers R. Simeon says: Why did the manna change into everything except these? Because they are harmful for nursing mothers. We tell a [nursing] woman, “Do not eat any garlic or onion, for the baby’s sake. This can be compared to a king [who gave his son over to a teacher. He sat down and ordered him and said to him, ”See that he does not eat any harmful food and does not drink any harmful drink. Because of this, the son complained about his father, saying,“Not because he loves me, but because he does not want me to eat,”] as it is written in the Sifrei (Beha’alothecha 1:42:5).
Thus, one aspect of the Israelite's complaint was that they got their fish but did not have to be bound by the commandments.
The continuation in the Sifrei may be read in this light. They are complaining that they cannot eat any of this harsh food in the manna. The reason for this is that they are in fact somewhat injurious to the constitution of anyone who eats it. Thus, the restriction is there for their own good. Similarly, the negative commandments are there for their own good. Indeed, looking at the midrash again, this allegorical interpretation almost jumps off the page. We can read this allegorical interpretation while assuming that the manna actually did turn to these items (or their taste), or we can see this allegorical interpretation while maintaining a literal reading of the midrash.
Update: From another post, setting the record straight:
In a previous post on parshat Behaalotecha, I argued against ADDeRabbi's interpretation (and the standard interpretation) of a Rashi, arguing based on comparison with Rashi's source, the Sifrei, the intent was not that the manna did not taste like the five items at the end of the pasuk in Bemidbar 11:5:
However, over Shabbat I saw a source that led me to reevaluate this. Namely, there is a Rashi on Yoma 75a. The gemara discusses why the manna could not become these 5 species. Rashi explains:
Thus, it is evident that this mention of nursing mothers and infants was no insertion by Rashi, but was present in Rashi's version of the Sifrei. Apparently, we have a different version of the Sifrei.
If so, Rashi, in citing the Sifrei, may well think that it is on account of nursing mothers and infants as opposed to on account of its deleterious effects on every Israelite. (Maharsha also maintains this nursing mother connection.)
I still can maintain that the difference in girsa was the result of someone inserting this illustration, likely on the margin, and then copied into the actual body of the manuscript, in which case Rabbi Shimon would still say what I claim he says. The alternative is that for some reason the passage about nursing mothers was accidentally deleted by a copyist, yielding our girsa.
While looking at this gemara, I saw an answer to another of ADDeRabbi's questions. Namely, why were these 5 species problematic if it was just the taste of them? I suggested that the harsh taste itself would be sufficient to cause whatever harm to the constitution.
In fact, this is a talking point in the gemara on Yoma 75a. The gemara records a dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi. One holds that the manna could assume the taste of anything save these 5 species, while the other holds that the manna could assume both the taste and substance {taamo umamasho} of anything save these 5 species, and for these 5 species it could assume the taste {taam} but not substance {mamash}.
This dispute seems designed to directly address this concern.
