5) RASHI interpreted, “Did they not have meat? Rather, they sought to slander.” We should understand that it is not the conduct of one who abuses to ask for something that can be given to him right away, meaning meat, which was in their possession.

To explain all this, we must first bring the discernments that apply to transgressors: “To anger,” and “for good appetite.” There is also a medium, meaning although he has no lust, he woos cures and remedies so as to have lust and to enjoy.

Eats with good appetite means that he is unable to conquer the inclination because lust has stung him. The medium discernment is that he searches for lust in order to enjoy. This is worse than one who already has lust.

Conversely, “to anger” means that even though he has no lust, he does it in order to vex, as our sages said about King Amon who had intercourse with his mother. They asked him, “What pleasure did you derive from what you did?” He replied, “I do this only to anger my Creator.”

It seems we should interpret the above words that they became lustful, meaning that they searched for things that would bring them lust, like the above-mentioned medium. Although they had meat, they did not have lust. Conversely, in Egypt they had acrid things that invoked in them the lust for eating.

This is why it is written, “fish for free,” meaning that even though it was free, namely that they would throw them away because they were not good anymore, they could still eat it because through the garlic and the onions, such great lust awakened in them that they could eat anything. But now, “we only see the manna” (Yesod HaTorah, Rabbi Baruch Kasov).