Comentario citado sobre Números 16:19

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;⁷⁵Further 48:15. and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶Above, 32:10. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷Ibid., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸94:5. When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹Above, 31:53. in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 28:17.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹Zebachim 116a. that Noachides⁸²See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³Above 8:20. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸94:5. i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac.
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷I Kings 18:38. and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸Deuteronomy 4:24. Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰Micah 7:20. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹Verse 2 here. with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹²Verse 3 here. for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;⁹³Above, 31:13. it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴Verse 4 here.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴Verse 4 here. [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵Exodus 19:20. as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶Above, 18:21. as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹Verse 2 here. thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said⁹⁷Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸Above, 29:33. as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹Exodus 22:22. as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰²Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;¹⁰³Above 16:2. Hear the voice of my supplications;¹⁰⁴Psalms 28:2. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;¹⁰⁵Isaiah 1:15. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:1. And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷I Kings 3:9. (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸Above, 29:32. [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹Exodus 3:7. [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰Ibid., 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. and two other verses,¹¹²And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³Exodus 34:6. as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸Ibid., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 33:2. in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹Exodus 15:12. as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;¹²²Ibid., Verse 6. Thy strong hand;¹²³Deuteronomy 3:24. By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;¹²⁴Ibid., 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;¹²⁵Ibid., 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶Ibid., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷Above, 28:12-13. as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹Above, 28:15. as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰Exodus 4:12. [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³²Above, 20:3. And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³Ibid., 31:24. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵See Note 152 in Seder Noach. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶Above, 41:22. is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷Daniel 2:31.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸Exodus 16:8. as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹Numbers 21:5. as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰Above, 9:12. and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴²Ibid., 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴Ibid., 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶Zechariah 14:4. as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷Exodus 17:6.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹Numbers 16:19. as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰Exodus 19:20. “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹Onkelos, ibid., 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵²Above, 32:31. as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³Exodus 33:15. as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵Ibid., 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶Ibid., 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 3:12. Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰Exodus 33:18. which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶²Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵Ibid., 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 5:4. unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹Jeremiah 49:38. Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰Verse 3 here. and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹Above, 28:15. because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

The correct version of this in Onkelos is: ואכניש . Re”m writes: “I do not understand what Rashi means by this.” Nachalas Yaakov writes: It seems to me that Rashi wrote this because he saw two versions of Onkelos. Therefore he proves that the correct version is [the causative form] ואכניש , not וכנש . Similarly in Bamidbar 16:19, וַיַקְהֵל עליהם קרח , Onkelos writes ואכניש . But in Bamidbar 20:10, וַיַּקְהִילוּ . . . אל פני הסלע , Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan both say וכנשו .

The sin of Moses and Aaron in the [matter of the] waters of Meribah⁸³Further, Verses 7-13. I.e., the verses do not state explicitly what constituted the sin of Moses and Aaron, but it was clearly considered a grave one. Ramban proceeds to discuss various explanations at length. is not clearly expressed in Scripture. Rashi explains⁸⁴Verses 11-12. that [their sin consisted of hitting the rock], because He had commanded them, and speak ye unto the rock,⁸⁵Verse 8. and did not say “and ye shall strike it.” For had they spoken [to the rock and it had brought forth water] the Holy One, blessed be He, would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, since the people would have said: “If [even] this rock, which does not hear and does not speak, nonetheless obeys the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, how much more so should we [obey His commands]!” These words are [in the nature of] a homiletic interpretation,⁸⁶Found in Midrash Agadah, here on Verse 8. — In other words, Ramban does not question the homiletic truth of this interpretation, for it is surely conducive to gaining the proper awe for the word of G-d. But it does not clarify the matter of the verses. but they do not clarify [the matter]. For since G-d had commanded Moses: Take the rod,⁸⁵Verse 8. it implied that he should smite [the rock] with it, for had He only wanted that he should speak to it, what was [the point of] this rod in his hand? Similarly, in the [case of the] plagues of Egypt where He said, and the rod which was turned to a serpent shalt thou take in thy hand⁸⁷Exodus 7:15. it was in order to smite with it;⁸⁸Ibid., Verse 17: I will smite with the rod that is in my hand upon the waters which are in the river. and sometimes He said, Stretch forth thy hand [with thy rod],⁸⁹Ibid., 8:1. when the meaning is: “to smite with the rod,” since Scripture writes briefly when the subject-matter is self-understood. Moreover, the miracle [involved in the rock giving forth water] is no greater if [accomplished] by speech than by smiting, for as far as the rock is concerned both are equal. Furthermore [if the sin consisted of smiting the rock], why did He say about this: ye [Moses and Aaron] trespassed against Me?⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. [It cannot be because they failed to speak to the rock], for the [fulfillment of the] command to [Moses to] speak to the rock is indeed [also] mentioned at the occurrence [of the event]! Thus He commanded [Moses and Aaron] to say whilst the rock “listens” that G-d will bring forth water out of this rock, similar to [that which Joshua said about a stone which he put up as a witness to the covenant which he made with the people], for ‘it hath heard’ all the words of the Eternal.⁹¹Joshua 24:27. And they [Moses and Aaron] indeed did so, as Scripture states, And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them etc.⁹²Further, Verse 10. Thus it is obvious that Moses did utter the Divine message whilst the rock “listened.” And so why did Rashi attribute to Moses the lack of speaking in this event! Thus the rock did “hear” when he [Moses] spoke these words to all the people!
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already refuted many claims of the commentators in [their explanations of the nature of] this sin. But the secret⁹³Ibn Ezra alludes to the Cabalistic concept that when a person’s mind cleaves solely to G-d, he can accomplish miracles. Now G-d told Moses to speak to the rock, and had he done so with single-minded devotion to G-d, he would have been able thereby to bring forth water. But when he began rebuking the people for their complaints, he lost that complete concentration of mind which was required for invoking G-d’s miraculous intervention to bring forth water, and he then proceeded to smite the rock. When this failed to produce any water, he smote it a second time, by which time he had regained his original complete concentration of mind on G-d, so that the water then came forth. Ramban rejects this interpretation. to which he alluded is also incorrect. For if Moses lost his concentration of mind because of the strife of the people, and [therefore] did not speak to the rock, so that the water did not come forth [when he smote the rock] the first time, and only when he hit the rock again, a second time, with concentration of cleaving unto [the Creator of] all, did the water come forth [as Ibn Ezra explains] — then they [indeed] sinned the first time, but it was not such [a sin] about which He would say: ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me,⁹⁴Verse 12. since there was no lack of “faith” here at all!
Now Rabbeinu Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] advanced the following reasoning,⁹⁵In his Shemonah Perakim (The Eight Chapters), Chapter 4. These chapters are Maimonides’ introduction to the Tractate Aboth, which contains the roots of ethical and moral teachings of the Rabbis of the Mishnah. and explained “that the sin of Moses our teacher, of blessed memory, consisted of tending towards anger, when he said, Hear now ye rebels,⁹⁶Verse 10. and G-d, blessed be He, treated this as a failing, that a man like him should show anger in front of the congregation of Israel, in a situation in which anger was not warranted. All similar actions of such a man are treated as a profanation of G-d’s Name, because the people take an example from all his [Moses’] movements and words, hoping thereby to achieve successes⁹⁷In our “Shemonah Perakim” it is in the singular: “success.” The word is here indicative of achievement of those qualities of character which make one’s life “a success” in the noblest sense of the word. in this world and the World to Come. How could he [permit himself to] appear angry, since it [anger] is an evil trait, and is derived only from a bad characteristic of the features of the soul! But when He said of this sin: ye trespassed against Me,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. [the meaning thereof] is as I shall explain. Moses was not speaking to simpletons, nor to those of insignificant status, for the least important of their women was [equal in prophetic vision] to [the prophet] Ezekiel the son of Buzi, as the Sages have mentioned.⁹⁸“A maidservant saw at the [splitting of the Red] Sea what the prophet Ezekiel never saw” (Mechilta, Exodus 15:25). See Vol. II, p. 228. Thus whatever Moses said or did the people would examine, so that when they saw him becoming angry, they said that he — may his memory be blessed — did not lack moral perfection, and therefore ‘unless he knew that G-d was angry with us for demanding water, and that we have aroused His anger, blessed be He, Moses also would not have been angry with us.’ But we do not find that G-d, praised be He, was angry [with the people] when He spoke to Moses on this matter. But [instead] He said: Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so thou shalt give the congregation and their cattle drink.⁸⁵Verse 8. [This statement does not indicate that G-d was angry with the people for having demanded water, and hence Moses’ anger was unjustified.] Thus we have solved one of the most difficult problems in the Torah, concerning which many things have been said, and which has been asked many times, namely: ‘what was the sin which Moses committed?’ Consider what has been said [by others] about it, and what we ourselves have explained, and let the truth prevail.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] of blessed memory.
He has added vanity upon vanities!⁹⁹See Ecclesiastes 1:2. — In other words, yet another interpretation has been added to those of the previous commentators which are not satisfactory. For Scripture says ye trespassed against Me,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 32:51. meaning that they transgressed His command, and He [further] stated, ye believed not in Me,⁹⁴Verse 12. meaning that they lacked faith in Him, [and if so] the punishment [of Moses] was not because he showed anger! [Were this to be his sin], Moses would have deserved punishment [not so much here as] when he was wroth with the officers of the host¹⁰⁰Further, 31:14. for no reason. Moreover, Scripture [here] does not mention anything about him being angry, for the expression Hear now, ye rebels⁹⁶Verse 10. is [merely a form of] rebuke, similar to that which he [Moses] said: Ye have been rebellious against the Eternal.¹⁰¹Deuteronomy 9:24. Furthermore, Aaron never in his life became angry, for he always walked in peace and uprightness.¹⁰²Malachi 2:6. — Yet Verse 12 clearly states that Aaron too, was to be punished, although according to Rambam’s explanation he had not sinned! Besides, it is impossible [to suggest, as Rambam does], that G-d was not very angry with them [the people] for their strife with Moses! For throughout all their [previous] trials in the wilderness, their greatest sin was when they said, wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt?¹⁰³Exodus 17:3. and they preferred to be slaves to their enemies doing rigorous work, rather than to be G-d’s [people], like a son who serves his father. Thus Scripture says: because that ye have rejected the Eternal Who is among you, and have troubled Him with weeping, saying: ‘Why, now, came we forth out of Egypt?’¹⁰⁴Above, 11:20. On the first occasion they said even less than this, [namely], Wherefore hast thou brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?¹⁰³Exodus 17:3. and yet there was great [Divine] wrath against them, and [it was considered] a great sin, just as it is said, And the name of the place was called Massah [Trying] and Meribah [Strife], because of the striving of the children of Israel etc.¹⁰⁵Exodus 17:7. And here it says expressly, These are the waters of Meribah [Strife], where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal!¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 13. Thus Scripture here emphasizes that the people’s sin consisted of striving with the Eternal, and this is not so according to Maimonides’ explanation, as Ramban continues. What greater transgression can there be than this! Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker!¹⁰⁷Isaiah 45:9. And Moses said, Also the Eternal was angry with me for your sakes, saying: ‘Thou also shalt not go in thither.’¹⁰⁸Deuteronomy 1:37. If so, it was they [the people] who sinned and brought about all this misfortune! But according to the explanation of the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon], they did not commit any transgression and sin at all in this whole affair! And as for that which Rabbi Moshe said: “We do not find that G-d, praised be He, was angry [with the people when He spoke to Moses on this matter], but instead He said: Take the rod etc.”⁸⁶Found in Midrash Agadah, here on Verse 8. — In other words, Ramban does not question the homiletic truth of this interpretation, for it is surely conducive to gaining the proper awe for the word of G-d. But it does not clarify the matter of the verses. — know that whenever the people needed something for their sustenance, even though they murmured and transgressed [in asking] for it, He, being full of compassion, forgiveth iniquity … and does not stir up all His wrath,¹⁰⁹Psalms 78:38. nor does He hold [their sin against them], but He gives them their request.¹¹⁰See ibid., 106:15. Similarly in the [case of the] first [request for] water He said in a peaceful manner, Pass on before the people etc.,¹¹¹Exodus 17:5. even though there was trial and strife there,¹⁰⁵Exodus 17:7. such that He warned them [not to try G-d] in future generations [using it as an example].¹¹²Deuteronomy 6:16 — Ye shall not try the Eternal your G-d, as ye tried Him in Massah. (See also “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 63-64). So also in connection with the manna [He said], Behold, I will cause to rain bread from heaven for you,¹¹³Exodus 16:4. Thus G-d showed them love and affection although they sinned in murmuring and complaining. in a phrase indicating love and affection. Only at the end, in the second communication, He said, I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel,¹¹⁴Ibid., Verse 12. merely in order to tell them that they had sinned. But [it is only] when they complained for no [good] reason, that He poured upon them the fury of His anger.¹¹⁵Isaiah 42:25. And here there is an additional allusion to great wrath, and [the people] being liable to a plague, as it is said, and the glory of the Eternal appeared unto them.¹¹⁶Verse 6. [The expression unto them] refers to the assembly mentioned [in the first part of the verse], which indicates “the hand of the Eternal” that is present in plagues, as you may note in [incidents of] the spies,¹¹⁷Above, 14:10-12: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … ‘I will smite them with the pestilence.’ the day of Korach’s punishment,¹¹⁸Ibid., 16:19: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … The destruction of Korach and his company followed, as related ibid., (Verses 31-33). and the following day.¹¹⁹Ibid., 17:7: and the glory of the Eternal appeared … This was followed by a plague, as related there in Verses 11-14. And one must [moreover] wonder at the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon, who wrote that the people committed no sin in this affair] since the verse explicitly states, They angered Him also at the waters of Meribah, and it went ill with Moses because of them!¹²⁰Psalms 106:32. — See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 274-276 for various defenses of Rambam’s interpretation of Moses’ sin at Meribah. In his Sefer Hazikaron (see Vol. I, Preface pp. x-xi) Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham (Ritba) concludes his defense of Rambam’s opinion as follows: “And although I know that the tradition of our master, Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban) of blessed memory, in the matter of Moses’ sin is the true tradition which one cannot criticize, yet there are seventy [different] interpretations of the Torah, and they are all the words of the living G-d.” Ramban’s own explanation follows now in the text. And the verse [there] counts this sin amongst the great trials with which they [the people] tested G-d in the wilderness!
The most likely explanation amongst all those that have been said about this matter, and the one best suited to answer a questioner, is that of Rabbeinu Chananel,¹²¹See above, Seder Korach, Note 48. who wrote [in his commentary] that the sin consisted of their saying, are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock?⁹⁶Verse 10. They should [not have said “are we”, but] “shall the Eternal bring you forth water?” just as they had said when ‘the Eternal shall give’ you in the evening flesh to eat etc.,¹²²Exodus 16:8. and similarly in [the case of all the] miracles they [Moses and Aaron] informed them that the Eternal would do wonders for them. And [since they did not say so here], perhaps the people thought that Moses and Aaron brought forth the water for them out of the rock through their own wisdom [and that it was not a Divine miracle]. This is [what G-d referred to in saying], ye sanctified Me not.¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. Now in the case of the first episode with the rock, He said, Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb,¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. and the seventy elders saw the pillar of the cloud¹²⁵Ibid., 13:21. hovering over the rock, and thus it was made apparent to all that the miracle was the deed of the Great G-d. But here, since the people saw nothing, they misunderstood the words of Moses and Aaron [as explained above].¹²⁶See the comments of later scholars on Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation of this topic, quoted in my edition of Rabbeinu Chananel al Hatorah (Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, 5732).
It is possible that He said ‘m’altem bi’ (ye ‘trespassed’ against Me),¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. because if one derives benefit from a sacred object, it is called me’ilah.¹²⁷Here too, a deed which was in reality a Divine miracle came to be ascribed to Moses’ and Aaron’s own doing, as explained above, because they said, are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock? In a way, then, Moses and Aaron thereby “derived benefit” from a sanctified matter. Similarly, He said ‘m’rithem pi’ (ye rebelled against My commandment)¹²⁸Further, 27:14. because He had commanded them to speak unto the rock before their eyes,¹²⁹Verse 8. in order that I should become sanctified in their eyes. Or [it may be that m’rithem pi¹²⁸Further, 27:14. means] “you have ‘changed’ My commandment,” related to the expression ‘vatemer’ (and she changed) My ordinances,¹³⁰Ezekiel 5:6. since I did not command you to speak in this manner [are ‘we’ to bring you forth water out of this rock?]. And [according to Rabbeinu Chananel’s explanation, the criticism that] lo he’emantem bi¹³¹Verse 12. (ye believed not in Me) refers [not to Moses and Aaron themselves lacking in belief, but] to the children of Israel [i.e., it does not mean, as it is generally translated, “ye believed not in Me,” but “‘ye did not cause the children of Israel to believe in Me’ because you did not attribute to Me the bringing forth of the water from the rock”]. Or [the word he’emantem] may mean “strengthening,” as if to say: “you did not strengthen yourselves to sanctify Me in their eyes,” related to these expressions: ‘va’amanah’ (and a ‘sure’ ordinance) concerning the singers;¹³²Nehemiah 11:23. Meaning: “a strong” ordinance. the peg that was fastened ‘bimkom ne’eman’ (in a ‘sure’ place).¹³³Isaiah 22:25. Meaning “a strong” place.
The Truth [Cabalistic explanation] is that this subject [i.e., the nature of Moses’ sin in the incident of the waters of Meribah] is one of the great secrets amongst the mysteries of the Torah. For on the first [occasion with the rock] He said to Moses, Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock,¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. meaning to say: “My Great Name will be upon the rock in Horeb,” which is the Glory of the Eternal, the devouring fire on the top of the mount.¹³⁴Exodus 24:17. The verse reads: ‘like’ devouring fire. Therefore he only hit it there once, and a great amount of water came forth. But here He did not tell him so, and so both of them [Moses and Aaron] agreed that they would smite the rock twice — and that was their sin. Therefore He said, lo he’emantem bi,¹³¹Verse 12. “you did not put faith in My Name [when you should have known]¹³⁵Abusaula. See my Hebrew commentary p. 276. that by faith [alone] the miracle will be done.” It states, ‘m’rithem pi’ (ye rebelled against My commandment),¹²⁸Further, 27:14. because they rebelled against His holy spirit,¹³⁶See Isaiah 63:10. which is always called pi Hashem (the commandment of the Eternal).¹³⁷See Ramban above, 10:6. Therefore He said, ‘m’altem’ bi,¹²³Deuteronomy 32:51. and the term me’ilah always denotes “untruth.”¹³⁸In this case the “untruth” consisted of thinking that there would be no water unless they would hit the rock twice (Abusaula). Thus the sin [of Moses and Aaron] is clearly expressed in Scripture. And so did the Psalmist say, [Tremble thou earth …] at the presence of the G-d of Jacob; Who turneth the rock into a pool of water.¹³⁹Psalms 114:7-8. And you can understand this from Moses’ prayer, when he said, O G-d Eternal, Thou hast begun,¹⁴⁰Deuteronomy 3:24. pleading before the Glorious Name¹⁴¹Ibid., 28:58. to forgive him.
And in the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁴²Sifre, Matoth 157. who mention Moses’ anger [as a factor in his sin], it is possible that he hit the rock but [only] a few drops came forth as a result of the diminution in his concentration because of his anger, and they both [Moses and Aaron] were astonished at this, and decided to hit the rock a second time, as I have mentioned, and that was the sin of both of them.
In my opinion, the meaning of the phrase, and speak ye ‘el’ (unto) the rock¹²⁹Verse 8. is like ‘al’ (concerning) the rock. Similarly, Thus saith the Eternal of hosts ‘el’ the pillars, and concerning the sea, and concerning the bases … they shall be carried unto Babylon.¹⁴³Jeremiah 27:19; 22. The verse clearly does not mean “unto the pillars,” but “concerning the pillars.” Thus He commanded them [Moses and Aaron] to say in the presence of the congregation, when they are all gathered together, that G-d will bring them forth water out of the rock, as He indeed did. Now do not find a difficulty¹⁴⁴The difficulty is as follows: If we explain [as we have done hitherto] that speak ye ‘el’ the rock means “to” the rock, and the rock will listen, then the following word l’eineihem (before their eyes) fits in perfectly. The speaking by Moses and Aaron with the rock listening, is to be done before “the eyes” of the people. But if as we now explain speak ye ‘el’ the rock as meaning ‘al’ the rock [“concerning” the rock] while the people are to listen, how is the word l’eineihem in accord with the thought, since people do not listen with “their eyes?” Hence Ramban proceeds to remove this difficulty by pointing out that the word l’eineihem is Scripturally not always used in a literal sense and here it means “in their presence.” in the verse, and ‘speak’ ye unto the rock ‘before their eyes,’¹²⁹Verse 8. for the meaning thereof is like “in their presence”, so that they should all hear it. Similarly [we find]: And Hananiah ‘spoke before the eyes of’ [which means: “in the presence of”] all the people, saying: ‘Thus saith the Eternal: Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon etc.’¹⁴⁵Jeremiah 28:11. There are many cases like this. Or the meaning of the word l’eineihem (before their eyes) here may be that [Moses’] speaking [to the rock] should be when the people are all gathered there, and the rock is before their eyes, as it says when the event [actually took place], And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together ‘before the rock’.⁹⁶Verse 10. For when they had gathered together there and saw the rock face to face, they [Moses and Aaron] said, are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?⁹⁶Verse 10. — as the Sages have mentioned¹⁴⁶Tanchuma, Chukath 6. — so that they should not say that there were springs [hidden at that place]. It is possible that the verse is to be [interpreted] as if it were transposed, meaning: “assemble the congregation unto the rock, and speak ye before their eyes, that it give forth water.”

ובני קרח לא מתו BUT THE SONS OF KORAH DID NOT DIE — They were in the plot originally, but at the moment when the rebellion broke out they had thoughts of repentance in their hearts; therefore a high spot was fenced round for them in Gehinnom and they stayed there (Sanhedrin 110a).