From Sermon to Commentary: Expounding the Bible in Talmudic Babylonia

8. The Fish

b. Yoma 75a: “We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely” (Numbers 11:5). Rav and Samuel1— One says: Fish.2 And one says: Illicit sexual relations.3 The one4 who says Fish—because it says: we did eat. And5 the one who says Illicit sexual relations—because it is written : “freely.” And for the one6 who says Illicit sexual relations—what is7 we did eat? —It is a euphemism,8 as it is written: “she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness” (Proverbs 30:20). And9 for the one who says Fish—what is freely?10 —That they used to find them11 and bring them from unowned property; as the master stated: When Israel used to draw water, the Holy One would cause small fish to appear in their pitchers.12 It is well for the one who says Fish—but they were not promiscuous with respect to illicit sexual relations; this is what is written “A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed” (Song of Songs 4:12).13 But according to the one who says Illicit sexual relations— what is a fountain sealed?14 —With regard to those relations that are permitted15 they were not promiscuous.16 It is well for the one who says Illicit sexual relations—this is what is written “Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families” (Numbers 21:10)—regarding matters of their families.17 51 8: The Fish However, for the one who says Fish—what is “weep throughout their families”? —It was both things. The interpretation of fish as an allusion to incest or other sexual relations forbidden by the Torah underlies the following discourse in Tanh·uma, Beha‘alotekha, 16:18 And if you should say: What they were demanding was fresh meat—was it not the case that the manna would become whatever they desired inside their mouths, as it says: “And he gave them their request” (Psalm 106:16)? If you should say: They had no cattle or kine, does it not already say “And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:38)? And if we should say: They consumed them in the wilderness—Is it not written regarding their entry into the land “Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle” (Numbers 32:1)? Because of this Rabbi Simeon ben Yoh· ai19 said: It was not for meat that they lusted, seeing that it states “He rained flesh [she’er] also upon them as dust” (Psalm 78:27). And she’er means nothing other than illicit sexual relations, as it says “None of you ... to any that is near of kin [she’er] to him.” And thus does it state: “Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families .” And when they asked in this way, therefore “and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased” (Numbers 11:10). The basic content of both traditions is similar, in spite of the significant dissimilarities in their forms. Although the Tanh·uma version does not bear the marks of a rhetorically crafted homily, it is made up of a straightforward stringing together of biblical paraphrase, midrashic embellishments, and proof texts. This is very different from the Babylonian Talmud, where interpretations are challenged on exegetical grounds, and each must be defended and justified. Since there are no parallels in the classical Palestinian aggadic compendia, we have no easy way of knowing whether or not the Tanh·uma versions have been influenced by the Babylonian Talmud. In neither tradition is a homiletical purpose spelled out. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to discern in the rabbis’ depictions of the ancient Israelites an implied criticism of contemporary Jews who might regard their own religious observance as a burden rather than a privilege, looking with a measure of envy at the easygoing lives of their gentile neighbors whose conduct was not constricted by so many moral or ritual rules.20 52 8 : The Fish The literal reading of the verse as a reference to real fish,21 an interpretation that is hermeneutically uninteresting and homiletically unproductive,22 is not developed in the Palestinian amoraic tradition.23 However the tannaitic midrashic compendia expound the verse somewhat differently, as...