We know the Jews in the wilderness complained quite a bit. Did they have justification for doing so?

Our Gemara on Amud describes a scenario where Reuven sold a field to Shimon with a stipulation that he will bear no responsibility if a prior creditor comes with a lien on the field and repossesses it. If that occurs, there is a question as to whether Reuven could offer claims in the court case as co-defendant, since essentially he is not a Baal Davar. That is, since he is free of financial liability and any vested interest, he has no business offering defenses or arguments for lack of relevance to the case. However, the Gemara says that he may still engage in the legal discussion as any defendant because Reuven can say to the creditor: It is not amenable to me that Shimon will have a grievance against me for having sold him land that was then repossessed.

This is not a financial grievance, as Shimon cannot hold him financially liable as per the conditions stipulated at the time of sale. Rather, it is a just a matter of him not wanting Shimon to have complaints against him. 

In Shulkhan Arukh (CM 226) an opinion of the Rashba is quoted that this ruling only applies to a sale, but not a gift. That is, if Reuven gave a gift of a field to Shimon and it was repossessed by a creditor, Reuven cannot become a Co-defendant in a Din Torah to hold onto the property in dispute. The reason is that unlike a purchase, Shimon can’t have complaints about a gift.

I personally find this difficult to understand. Most people would feel duped if someone gave them a gift and then it was repossessed. Yes, technically, in the case where Shimon bought the field with no guarantees, as he lost money his grievance was certainly more substantial than the case of a gift. Yet, there should be plenty of grievance by a loss of a gift too. I suppose the Rashba’s sevara is, אין לך בו אלא חידושו, that is if the Gemara only gave the case of a sale, then a gift is not included. However, linguistically I have a proof to the opposite.

The Aramaic word for complaints used by our Gemara is תרעומת Taromes.

Another famous usage of this word form is in Onkelos’ translation of this verse (Shemos 16:7):

וּבֹ֗קֶר וּרְאִיתֶם֙ אֶת־כְּב֣וֹד ה׳ בְּשׇׁמְע֥וֹ אֶת־תְּלֻנֹּתֵיכֶ֖ם עַל ה׳ וְנַ֣חְנוּ מָ֔ה כִּ֥י (תלונו) [תַלִּ֖ינוּ] עָלֵֽינוּ׃

וּבְצַפְרָא וְתֶחֱזוּן יָת יְקָרָא דה׳ שְׁמִיעַ (קֳדָמוֹהִי) יָת תֻּרְעֲמוּתְכוֹן עַל מֵימְרָא דה׳ וְנַחְנָא מָא אֲרֵי אַתְרַעַמְתּוּן עֲלָנָא   

And in the morning you will see the glory of Hashem , for He has heard your complaints [are heard (before Him)] against [regarding the Word of] Hashem But what are we that you cause complaints against us?”

In this context, taromes means complaints even about a gift, as here the Jews are complaining that God should supply them with food. Pashtus, the use of the word taromes here means complaints without justification or entitlement. If so, I submit there is a mild proof contrary to the Rashba׳s position. The Jews who were complaining about lack of food should not have more validity than a person complaining about a gifted parcel of land being repossessed. Perhaps Rashba felt that since the Jews claimed that they had fish and cucumbers (Shemos 16:3) in Egypt and God brought them out it was more than a gift. Instead it was an implicit trade of their status as “servants of Pharaoh” to “servants of God” (see Rashi Shemos 21:6) and thus had some legal claim toward sustenance in the desert. 

But if so, why were the Jews’ grievances in the wilderness so grievous? Perhaps it wasn’t their claims but their tone of voice. We should keep that in mind when we address grievances with those we love.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)