Commento su Numeri 20:35

כל העדה [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — The congregation in its entirety, for those who were to die in the wilderness in consequence of their sin had already died, but these had been expressly mentioned for life (cf. Rashi on v. 22).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION, CAME INTO THE WILDERNESS OF ZIN. “The congregation — an upright congregation, for those who were [punished] with death in the wilderness [on account of sinning in the matter of the spies] had already died, and these were designated to live” [i.e., they were the new generation which was to enter the Land]. This is Rashi’s language, and such is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, why was it necessary to mention this [same expression: even the whole congregation] when they came afterwards unto Mount Hor?⁶⁸Further, Verse 22: And they journeyed from Kadesh,; and the children of Israel, ‘even the whole congregation,’ came unto Mount Hor. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [there] that Scripture mentioned it because Edom had come out to fight them,⁶⁹Ibid., Verse 20. therefore it mentions that none of them was missing when they came back from the city of Edom. But this is not correct, since Israel turned away from him [Edom]⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 21. and did not wage battle with them at all.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it is the Scriptural style to mention [“the whole congregation”] when speaking of complaints, [just as in the following verses]: And all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai;⁷¹Exodus 16:1. See ibid., Verses 2-3, that they murmured for food. And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, by their stages … and encamped in Rephidim⁷²Ibid., 17:1. There too it is related in Verses 2-3 that they quarrelled with Moses, saying, “Give us water.” — and Scripture thereby informs us that they all [participated] in the complaint. Similarly, And all the congregation lifted up their voice;⁷³Above, 14:1. In that case they were discouraged by the report of the spies, and wanted to return to Egypt. And on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured.⁷⁴Ibid. 17:6. There they complained about the death of Korach and his followers. Scripture uses that expression when they came to Mount Hor⁷⁵Further, Verse 22. in order to tell us that they all took part in the mourning for Aaron, the holy one of the Eternal,⁷⁶Psalms 106:16. just as it is said, and they wept for Aaron … all the house of Israel,⁷⁷Further, Verse 29. and it states [furthermore]: in the sight of all the congregation.⁷⁸Ibid., Verse 27. In Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah⁷⁹Bamidbar Rabbah 19:9. I have seen mentioned the text [quoted above by Rashi] — “an upright congregation etc.” — only in connection with the second verse [speaking] about Mount Hor [i.e., Verses 20 and 27 quoted above, which say that ‘the whole congregation came’ to Mount Hor, and that Moses and Aaron went up into Mount Hor ‘in the sight of all the congregation’], for in the case of the first verse [i.e., the present verse, the expression all the congregation] is used because [Scripture wants to indicate that they all joined in] the murmuring, as I have explained.

ויבאו בני ישראל, The children of Israel arrived, etc. Why did the Torah have to emphasise that כל העדה, "the whole congregation" arrived in the desert of Tzin? Who would have doubted that the whole people travelled together? We have learned (Bamidbar Rabbah end of Parshat Balak) on a previous occasion that whenever the Jewish people were on a moral/ethical high they are referred to as בני ישראל. On occasions when they were guilty of rebellious behaviour (such as Numbers 14,11 and many others) they are described as עם; the Torah wanted to inform us that at this time they were all entitled to the flattering description. There are also occasions when the Torah describes the people as עם בני ישראל, suggesting that though many of the people were not on the desired moral/ethical plateau at the time, many others were. This interpretation agrees with a statement by our sages that the words כל העדה, mean עדה שלמה, "a perfect congregation."

ותמת שם מרים, in the first month (Nissan) of the fortieth year. Aaron died after her in the fifth month as detailed in Numbers 33,38.

ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צין, “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived at the wilderness of Tzin.” Nachmanides refers to Rashi as well as to Ibn Ezra who see in the words כל העדה an allusion to the nation now being “whole,” seeing that all the people upon whom death in the desert had been decreed had died by now. He queries that if this indeed were so the words כל העדה need not have been written again in verse 22 when the people arrived at הר ההר. Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the Torah repeated the expression כל העדה in verse 22 is that seeing that Edom had begun to war against Israel, the Torah wanted to inform us that no casualties were suffered on account of that. Nachmanides questions this also, disputing that there had been any confrontation between Israel and Edom, seeing that the Torah tells us that the Israelites backed down from their request to cross the Edomites’ territory as we have been informed already in verse 21. Nachmanides therefore arrives at the conclusion that it is customary for the Torah to describe the Israelites as having arrived “whole,” in paragraphs which precede complaints by the people, as in Exodus 16,1, 17,1, Numbers 14,6 Numbers 17,6, etc. The reason that the Torah used the term כל העדה in verse 22 is to inform us that the entire people participated in eulogizing Aaron and mourning him, seeing that he had died there.

כל העדה מדבר צן, “the entire congregation to the desert of Tzin.” The reason the Torah speaks of כל העדה, “the whole congregation,” is because in the interval all the people who had to die in the desert had already died and the congregation was “whole” again. Now, in the first month of the fortieth year since the Exodus the new generation was about to enter the land of the Canaanites. You should remember that the Torah basically reports only what had transpired during the first year and during the last year of the Israelites’ wanderings.

Those who were to die in the desert had already perished. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Since the Torah writes “Bnei Yisroel” it is obvious that it was the “entire community.” He answers that “those who were to die in the desert had already perished,” [i.e., “the entire community” refers to those who were not destined to perish in the desert.]

Kap. 20. V. 1. ויבאו וגו׳, der Beisatz כל העדה kann schwerlich sagen wollen, dass das ganze Volk in die Wüste Zin kam und keiner zurückgeblieben war. Abgesehen davon, dass gar keine Veranlassung zu dieser ausdrücklichen Prädizierung des Dorthinkommens von der Gesamtheit des Volkes vorliegt, so würde es auch in diesem Falle nur ויבאו כל עדת בני ישראל wie Schmot 16, 1 heißen, und auch dann würde die Bezeichnung des Gesamtvolkes als עדה ihr besonderes Motiv haben (siehe daselbst). Hier wird aber dieser Begriff ganz eigentlich hervorgehoben. Nachdem bereits בני ישראל genannt sind, werden sie noch besonders als כל העדה charakterisiert. Die בני ישראל, ל welche in die Wüste Zin kamen, waren die כל העדה, waren die "Gesamtgemeinde", sie waren die nun für die gemeinsame Bestimmung — das liegt ja in עדה — Vereinigten, das Kap. 14, 29-35 ausgesprochene Verhängnis war bereits vollzogen. Alle, die in die Wüste Zin kamen, waren die עדה, die nun die neue Zukunft antreten sollten. עדה השלמה, wie מ׳׳ר zu demselben Ausdruck V. 22 (siehe daselbst) erläutert, עדה נכנסה לארץ לפי שמתו יוצאי מצרים ואלו מן אותן שכתוב בהן חיים כולכם היום.

ויבאו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel arrived, etc.;” the arrival of which the Torah speaks were was during the fortieth year of their wanderings. Their lengthy detour around the territory of Edom who had denied them passage and whom G-d had not allowed them to harass in any way, had now been completed. It had commenced at Kadesh Barnea, and was concluded in the desert of Tzin. The Torah summarises this period here although it comprised 18 separate moves during which the Tabernacle had been erected and taken apart each time. In Numbers 33, 1936, the details of these moves have been recorded for posterity. The first encampment was at a place called Ritmah, the last at the edge of the desert of Tzin. Concerning that period we read Moses recalling in Deuteronomy 2,5: ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים, “we turned around and journeyed toward the desert in the region of the sea of reeds and marched around Mount Seir, for many years.” That period concluded there in verse 8 with: “we detoured our brethren the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, from the way of the Aravah from Eilat to Etzion Gaver.” From there they arrived at Kadesh, boundary of the Kingdom of Edom, as stated in Numbers 33, 36: “they journeyed from Etzion Gaver and encamped at the desert of Tzin, at Kadesh. What is missing here is only G-d’s warning not to harass the people of Edom (Compare Deuteronomy 2,5).

ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — Why is the section narrating the death of Miriam placed immediately after the section treating of the red cow? To suggest to you the following comparison: What is the purpose of the sacrifices? They effect atonement! So, too, does the death of the righteous effect atonement! (Moed Katan 28a).

VAYEISHEV HA’AM’ (AND THE PEOPLE ABODE) IN KADESH. The intention thereof is to tell us that when they had entered the wilderness of Zin as far as Kadesh, Miriam died. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred [here] when he commented: “[Scripture states vayeishev ha’am, meaning ‘the people dwelt,’ and does not say vayachanu — ‘and they pitched’] because they stayed there for a long time, for so it is written.”⁸⁰The verse is found in Deuteronomy 1:46: So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there. Rashi there explains that the many days were in fact nineteen years. See the note that follows. [This is in error] because the place called Kadesh of which it is written, So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there⁸⁰The verse is found in Deuteronomy 1:46: So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there. Rashi there explains that the many days were in fact nineteen years. See the note that follows. is Kadesh-barnea,⁸¹Ibid., Verse 19: and we came to Kadesh-barnea. From there the spies were sent to see the Land (further, 32:8). As a result of their sin, it was decreed that the people would remain in the wilderness for the following thirty-eight years, and die therein. The first half of this period they spent in Kadesh, namely Kadesh-barnea. It is this Kadesh-barnea which Ibn Ezra equated with Kadesh [mentioned here], and that is an error, as explained. which is in the wilderness of Paran⁸²Above, 13:26. [and not in the wilderness of Zin, mentioned here]. It was from there that the spies were sent out [to see the Land] in the second year [after the exodus], and thence that they returned. But the Kadesh [mentioned] here is in the wilderness of Zin, and they [only] arrived there in the fortieth year [after the exodus], and there Miriam died. The verses are explicit [on this matter].

Why [is the portion concerning Miriam’s death] adjacent. Meaning that this portion does not belong here, for they made the golden calf in the first year following the exodus from Egypt and in the second year they burned the red cow. But, Miriam’s death occurred at the end of the forty years after the exodus.

Our sages apparently viewed the expression כל העדה as sufficient by itself to describe the Israelites in the most glowing terms. There are, after all, 70 different ways of interpreting the text. The reason that the Torah would choose the expression העדה here may be threefold. 1) We know that we will read shortly afterwards about the incident with the "waters of strife" which according to Devarim Rabbah was the reason for Moses' punishment. The reason given is that he addressed the Israelites as "listen you rebellious people!" It was important for the Torah to state that at this time the Israelites were all a holy congregation. Had this not been so the Torah could not have faulted Moses for addressing the Israelites as rebellious. 2) It was also designed to raise the image of Miriam in the eyes of the people by showing that although the people themselves were at their spiritual best at that time, their merit was not sufficient to ensure their water supply once Miriam had died (viz. Taanit 9). 3) The Torah informed us that contrary to Aaron's belief that the people assembled in order to show their last respects for Miriam, they actually assembled in order to quarrel with Moses and Aaron (compare Yalkut Shimoni 763 and Tanchuma). Considering the conduct of the Israelites in the verses immediately following our verse there was reason to assume that they had already descended from their spiritual high before Miriam died; the Torah therefore had to describe the Israelites in glowing terms to prevent us from making that mistake. This leaves us with the question of why the Israelites did not pay Miriam the kindness Aaron had assumed they were showing her. According to Moed Katan 28 the manner in which the Torah described Miriam's death as immediately followed by her burial without a word about anyone mourning her showed that due to the failure of the well the people immediately suffered thirst. This preoccupied their minds more than the respect they should have shown Miriam by mourning her properly. The Torah makes this even plainer by stating immediately after reporting Miraim's burial that there was no water "for the congregation."

בחדש הראשן, in einer Zeit, die den Boden von Menschen bewohnter Länder in Frucht verheißendem Aufblühen zeigt.

וישב העם בקדש, “the people had settled down at Kadesh;” they remained there for four months until the month of Av when they arrived at Mount Hahar, where Aaron died. This was not the same Kadesh as the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 1,46, as at that Kadesh they stayed for many years. (19 years according to our sages.) It was the Kadesh from where the spies had been dispatched on their ill fated expedition.

ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — She, too, as Moses and Aaron, died by a Divine Kiss. But why is it not said with reference to her: she died “by the command (lit., mouth) of God”, (this being the Biblical expression from which is derived the Midrashic statement that they died by the Divine Kiss)? Because this would not be a respectful way of speaking about the Most High God, as it would have reference to a woman. But of Aaron it says in the Sedrah אלה מסעי (Numbers 33:38), “By the mouth of the Lord” (Moed Katan 28a).

Just as sacrifices bring atonement. You might ask: Was the red cow a sacrifice? Surely they did not offer any part of it [on the altar]! The answer is based on Rashi’s alternative interpretation above (19:9), that the Torah calls it a sin-offering in order to say that it is like the holy sacrifices in that it is forbidden for one to personally benefit from it. From there we learn that it is like a sacrifice.

וישב העם בקדש. The people stayed in Kadesh. The Torah mentions this in order to inform us that the people stayed there for an extended period. This is confirmed in Deut. 1,46. The word ישב always suggests something of relatively long duration.

וישב העם בקדש nicht ויחן, wie das temporäre Rasten in den Wanderstationen immer bezeichnet wird, sondern וישב, der Ausdruck bleibenden Niederlassens, wie Kap. 21, 25 und 31. Kadesch wird V. 16 עיר קצה גבולך, eine Grenzstadt des edomitischen Landes genannt, und wenn sie auch wahrscheinlich noch nicht in der Stadt Kadesch selbst waren, so waren sie doch in deren Gebiet, das schon ihren Namen trug. Das Volk glaubte sich daher bereits an dem Ende ihrer Wüstenwanderung, um nach vierzigjährigem Wandern endlich in Kadesch wieder bewohnbare und von Menschen bewohnte Stätten zu betreten. וישב העם בקדש in diesem Gefühle ließen sie sich dort nieder. Sie glaubten sich am Ziele.

ותמה שם מרים, ”Miriam died there;” seeing that the dying of the people condemned to die as a result of their acceptance of the spies’ majority report had commenced there, Miriam’s death as well as Aaron’s, is also reported at this juncture.

So do the death of the righteous… You might ask: According to this, shouldn't the Torah have juxtaposed her death to the sacrifices themselves? The answer is that it is juxtaposed to the red cow because they are similar. The deaths of the righteous are not sacrifices, and the red cow is also not a sacrifice per se. Thus we learn one from the other, just as this one brings atonement, so too that one brings atonement.

ותמת שם מרים, Miriam died there, etc. Why did the Torah have to write the word שם, "there?" Our sages in Moed Katan 28 say that the people buried Miriam near the place where she died. This interpretation is based on the words ותקבר שם, "she was buried there." Seeing the Torah mentioned the death of this righteous woman it also was concerned with the honour due to the body of such a righteous woman stating she was interred on the spot. We learned in Berachot 18 that the righteous are called "alive" even after they have died a physical death. When the Torah said שם, it wanted to remind us that Miriam was "dead" only "there," i.e. on earth, whereas she lived on in another region, the region reserved for the souls of the righteous. G'd views the righteous as if they were pearls reposing in a jewel box. Whenever it pleases Him He takes out one of these pearls and enjoys looking at it only to replace it at His leasure or to place it in another of His various jewel boxes. A different scholar on the same folio in Moed Katan uses the word שם in our verse as a גזרה שוה, a form of exegesis based on similar words being used in different contexts as proof that Miriam too experienced death in the form of a Divine kiss, i.e. painlessly. All of these explanations are equally valid.

ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם. Da starb dort Mirjam und ward dort begraben. Sie hatte ihre Mission auf der Erde vollendet. Ihr Grab in Kadesch mochte noch den späteren Geschlechtern sagen, dass sie die Erde nicht eher verließ, bis das neue Geschlecht zum Antritt der verheißenen Zukunft bereit stand. Und wenn in der langen, an trüben Erfahrungen so reichen Wanderung an den wiederholten verzweiflungsvollen Abfällen von Gott eben die Frauen am, wenigsten sich beteiligten, die Frauen am meisten das heitere Vertrauen und die ausharrende Hingebung an Gott bewahrten, die Frauen daher auch — nach מ׳׳ר Bamidbar 27, 1 — in das Verhängnis des Aussterbens in der Wüste nicht mitbegriffen waren, und nun in diesem neuen Geschlechte für die neue Zukunft Großmütter und Mütter in das Land der Verheißung mit hineinzogen, die das lebendige Gedächtnis der ägyptischen Vergangenheit und der großen Erlebnisse der Wanderschaft durch die Wüste unter Gottes Schutz und Gottes Führung mit hinüber nahmen in diese neue Zukunft und Enkel und Urenkel mit dem Geiste dieser Gott- schauenden Erlebnisse zu tränken vermochten: so dürfte an dieser ganzen früheren und tieferen Ausrüstung der jüdischen Frauen mit jüdischem Geiste der Wirksamkeit Mirjams, die ihnen als Prophetin voranleuchtete, nicht der geringere Anteil zuzuschreiben sein (siehe zu Schmot 15, 20). Nicht umsonst aber geht wohl diesem Kapitel, das so kurz und schmucklos den Tod der Geschwister Mirjam und Aharon enthält, das große פרה אדומה-Kapitel der jüdischen Unsterblichkeitslehre voran. Dieses Kapitel selbst ist eine große Einleitung zu diesen Toten und sagt: Was in Mirjam Mirjam, was in Aharon Aharon war, das ist mit ihrem Tode nicht gestorben, wie ihr Wirken hienieden in allen Folgegeschlechtern ihrer Nation unsterblich fortlebt, so ist ihr eigenstes Wesen selbst aus irdischer Vergänglichkeit zu Gott, dem Urquell alles Lebens in die Ewigkeit zurückgekehrt. Und wenn das Wort der Weisen (Mo'ed Katan 28 a) lehrt: למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת, dass die Zusammenordnung dieser beiden Kapitel lehre, dem Tode der Gerechten wohnt eben eine solche sühnende Kraft inne, wie dem חטאת־פרה אדומה, so möchte dies wohl auch in diesem Sinne eine Wahrheit sein, dass, wie die פרה אדומה-Institution die Unsterblichkeit und damit die sittliche Freiheit des göttlichen Menschenwesens lehrt, so lehrt beides unmittelbar auch der Tod des Gerechten. Denn wahrlich, der muss geistig blind sein, dem das Sterben eines Gerechten nicht zur lautesten Unsterblichkeitspredigt wird, der in dem, was nun reglos und Verwesungsspuren tragend vor ihm liegt, das noch zu erblicken wagt, was noch soeben in so geistiger Kraft und in sittlich freier Macht Denken und Wollen betätigte, der in der Leiche des Gerechten etwas anderes erblicken kann, als den in den Winkel geworfenen Mantel eines von dannen geschiedenen Mannes. —

By the Divine kiss. Since it is written here שם ["there"], and concerning Aharon it is also written “Aharon died שם ["there"].” Because if it were not for the gezeirah shavah [Scriptural comparison] why does the Torah write “שם” ["there"] twice regarding Miriam. Perforce it was for the gezeirah shavah, to teach that just as there [Aharon died] by the Divine kiss, as it is written, “By the mouth of Hashem,” so too here it was by the Divine kiss.

Why then is it not said concerning her, “By the mouth of Hashem.” There are those who ask: What was Rashi’s difficulty? Didn't he explain that we learn a gezeirah shavah from Aharon through the word שם ["there"]? The answer is that Rashi is asking: Why is the gezeirah shavah necessary? Let the Torah write, “By the mouth of Hashem” explicitly. For we are forced to say that it is not a full gezeirah shavah, because if it is, why is it necessary to write “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon in order to teach that he died by the Divine kiss? We could have learned the gezeirah shavah with the word “there” from Moshe. Rather it is certain that this is not a full gezeirah shavah and therefore the Torah writes “By the mouth of Hashem” regarding Aharon. Consequently it should have also written “By the mouth of Hashem” for Miriam. Nonetheless, the Gemara (Moed Katan 28a) explicitly states that we learn the gezeirah shavah from Moshe. Accordingly one must say that Rashi is saying as follows: “She too died by the Divine kiss” meaning that one learns a gezeirah shavah from the word “there” [stated] regarding Moshe. However, regarding Aharon it says, “By the mouth of Hashem,” thus it is not necessary to learn this from Moshe. This was why Rashi says ובאהרן ["However, concerning Aharon"] rather than שבאהרן ["That was [said] about Aharon"].

ולא היה מים לעדה AND THERE WAS NO WATER FOR THE CONGREGATION — Since this statement follows immediately after the mention of Miriam’s death, we may learn from it that during the entire forty years they had the “well” through Miriam’s merit (Taanit 9a).

-3. ויקהלו העם על משה ועל אהרן וירב העם עם משה, “The people gathered against Moses and Aaron and they quarreled with Moses.” Although they gathered against both Moses and Aaron, their principal target was Moses with whom they started quarrelling.

The well in Miriam’s merit. For immediately after Miriam died they no longer had water. You might ask: Why was the well not in Aharon’s or Moshe’s merit? The answer is that it was in the merit of Miriam waiting for Moshe by the water, to see what would happen to him when he was placed there in the box [as a baby] (Shemos 2:4). In return, this merit of the well, i.e., the water that Hashem provided for the congregation was on her behalf.

V. 2. ולא היה מים לעדה. Wir haben schon zu Schmot 17, 5 angemerkt, dass der aus dem Felsen zu Choreb geöffnete Quell nicht nur das augenblicklich damalige Bedürfnis befriedigte, sondern sie auf ihrer ganzen ferneren Wanderung durch die Wüste begleitete, so dass wir in der Tat ja nie wieder eine Klage über Wassermangel hören. Jetzt aber, nach Tanit 9a, sofort nach Mirjams Hinscheiden — versiegte der Quell, und die eben zum erstenmale sich als die "Gemeinde der Zukunft" fühlende עדה sah sich der allerersten Bedingung der Fortexistenz, sah sich des Wassers beraubt. ולא היה מים לעדה! Auf Grund dieser Aufeinanderfolge, ותמת שם מרים ולא היה מים לעדה wird daher (daselbst) der bisherige Genuss der Wohltat des mit durch die Wüste geleitenden Horebbrunnens dem Verdienste Mirjams zugeschrieben, באר בוכות מרים. Was Mirjams stilles Wirken für die sittliche Zukunft des Volkes gewesen und wie sehr ihr Heimgang ein Nationalverlust war, kündigte sich sofort durch Versiegen des Horebbrunnens nach ihrem Tode an.

And they joined against Moses and Aharon - they were not punished now as they were in the other complaints, because now they have a case. There really is no water (after Miriam's death).

ולו גוענו — means, WOULD THAT WE HAD DIED.

וירב העם עם משה, the subject of the quarrel was why Moses had brought the people to such a desert as the one they found themselves in at the time. However, there was also a complaint against G’d Himself, as the Torah testifies in verse 13 where the Torah writes: אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה', “in that the Children of Israel quarreled with G’d.” This referred to the words (verse 5) “why did you take us out of Egypt?”

וירב העם עם משה, The people quarrelled with Moses. The people now complained that they would have preferred for Moses to have let them die from the plague than to face death by thirst.

ולו גוענו בגוע אחינו, “if only we had died as our brethren died, etc.;” they referred to the older generation who had died in the desert.

We wish that we had died. Meaning that this is similar to הן לו יהי כדבריך ["Would that it be like your words"] (Bereishis 30:34). However it is not in the sense of “perhaps” as in לו ישטמנו יוסף ["Perhaps Yosef bears a grudge against us"] (Bereishis 50:15) and not in the sense of “if” as in לו הקשבת למצותי ["If you had paid attention to my commandments"] (Yeshayahu 48:18).

V. 3. וירב העם, eben das עם, von dem es V. 1 hieß: וישב העם בקדש, dass es Kadesch als den ersten Wiedereintritt in bewohnbares Land begrüßt hatte, glaubte sich durch diesen plötzlichen Wassermangel, den sie auf der ganzen bisherigen Wanderung durch die Wüste nicht empfunden, mit einemmale enttäuscht und von Mosche und Aharon — betrogen! Daher ולו גוענו וגו׳ — .וירב העם עם משה, mit גויעה, dem sanftesten Ausdrucke eines natürlichen Verscheidens (siehe Bereschit 6, 17) bezeichnen sie den Tod aller der in der Wüste Verstorbenen, denen das göttliche Verhängnis den Eintritt ins Land versagte. Sie waren alle gestorben לפני ד׳, die göttliche Fürsorge hatte sie bis zum letzten Atemzuge nicht verlassen. Ihr Tod erfolgte nach dem natürlichsten Sterblichkeitsgesetze des Menschen, ohne durch eine außerordentliche Kalamität herbeigeführt zu sein — wir aber sollen durch Durst umkommen!

בגוע אחינו means, by the death of our brethren — i.e., by the pestilence. This tells us that death by thirst is worse than that (i.e., than death by pestilence).

By our brothers’ death. It is as if Scripture had said בגויעת ["By our brothers’ death"]. For if not so, and [the vav] was part of the root, בגוע should have been spelled with a cholam. And its meaning would be “At the time when our brothers died” like [the kaf] in ויהי כשמוע לבן ["When Lavan heard"] (Bereishis 29:13).

בגוע — This is a noun and means the same as במיתת אחינו, “by the death of our brethren”; and it would not be correct to explain (translate) it: “when our brethren died”, for if this were so, it should be voweled to read בִּגְוֹעַ.

זלמה הבאתם את קהל ה׳ אל המדבר הזה, "and why did you bring this community to this desert, etc.?" Their second complaint was why Moses had chosen a route through the desert. Their reasoning was that seeing Moses was unable to provide water in the desert, by whose authority had he chosen such a route?

ולמה הבאתם את קהל ה' אל המדבר הזה “and for what purpose did you bring the congregation of Hashem to this wilderness?” Why, at this juncture, did the people describe themselves as Hashem’s congregation? They implied that up until now when the presence of Hashem had not seen fit to reside with the people until the last of the survivors of the people tainted by the sin of the spies had died, there might have been some justification for their grueling march through these inhospitable deserts; but now after the last of these people had already died, why did they still have to be in the desert although they had regained their status as קהל ה', “Hashem’s congregation? Why would they need to die from thirst?

V. 4. ולמה הבאתם, das ist nicht Gotteswille, das ist eure Veranstaltung, damit übt ihr Verrat an קהל ד. Gott will uns erhalten, nach Gottes Absicht sollen wir leben bleiben und in das verheißene Land kommen, ihr aber habt dieses ganze Kahal, diesen ganzen Gott eigenen Menschenverein, den Gott für die glücklichste Zukunft erhalten will, in diese Wüste geführt, damit sie und ihre Tiere des schrecklichen Todes sterben. Bezeichnend ist der Ausdruck בעיר gewählt, dass das Tier unter Herrschaft seines Naturtriebes (siehe Schmot 22, 4), hier des unabweisbaren Bedürfnisses zu trinken, vergegenwärtigt. Der Vorwurf lautet: schon um unserer Tiere willen hättet ihr das nicht tun sollen, hättet mit den unschuldigen Kreaturen Erbarmen haben sollen!

They said ולמה העליתנו, "and why did you bring us up from Egypt (verse 5)? They argued that if Moses were to reply that there was no other safe route to bring them to the land of Canaan and he therefore had to bring them to this inhospitable location, why did he bring them out of Egypt altogether? Our sages in Chulin 88 already defined a desert as a place where there is no vegetation.

They spoke about אל המקום הזה with the letter ה as a definite article to indicate that the negative qualities of that location had been well known. They added: ומים אין לשתות, "and there is no drinking water," to underline that not even the most basic fundamentals for survival existed in that area. Moses was unable to answer the people and both he and Aaron stood in prayer before the Lord. This is the meaning of "they fell on their faces."

לא מקום זרע, “not a place where you can plant seed.” From these remarks of the people we can learn that as long as Miriam’s well had supplied them with water, it had been possible, especially in places where they had sojourned for many years, such as Kadesh, to plant seeds and grow crops, for during all the years we never heard the people complaining that they could not even plant any seeds.

V. 5. ולמה העליתנו וגו׳. Das Verhängnis unserer Wanderschaft in der Wüste ist ja zu Ende. Wir sollten doch bereits das verheißene blühende Land betreten, das in dieser Frühlingszeit schon in allem Schmuck der Saaten und Früchte prangen muss — welch ein Kontrast damit dieser Ort —, wo nicht einmal Wasser zum Trunke vorhanden! — Das ist nicht Gottes Wille, das ist euer Werk.

ותאנה וגפן ורמון, “neither are there fig trees, grape vines or pomegranates.” In another context the order of these trees is reversed, such as the vision of people enjoying tranquil life תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו, “beneath his vineyard and his fig tree.” (Kings I 8,5 and Micah 4,4) There may be an allusion here as to why the firewood for burning the red heifer is traditionally the wood from the fig tree. Seeing that we had just concluded reading about the red heifer, this may explain the source of this tradition. [I have not found a source for this tradition. Ed.]

ויפלו על פניהם, “They prostrated themselves” in an attitude of prayer.
וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “The Lord’s attribute of kavod appeared to them.” To Moses and Aaron but not to the people.

V. 6. ויבא וגו׳ מפני וגו׳. Vergl. Bereschit 7, 7: ויבא נח וגו׳ אל התכה מפני מי המבול; Jes.2, 19 u. 21: ובאו במערות וגו׳ מפני וגו׳ לבא בנקרות הצורים וגו׳ מפני פחד ד׳ וגו׳. Sie antworteten nichts, sie flüchteten sich zum אהל מוער, wie immer, wenn die Göttlichkeit ihrer Sendung in Frage gestellt ward.

ואת בעירם [SO SHALT THOU GIVE THE CONGREGATION] AND THEIR BEASTS [TO DRINK] From this we may see that the Holy One, blessed be He, has regard for the possessions of Israel (Menachot 76b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

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.”

קח את המטה...ודברתם אל הסלע, there are numerous opinions of what precisely Moses’ sin consisted of. Many commentators have difficulty understanding the wordsלא האמנתם, ‘you lacked faith” in verse 12 as well as with the word מעלתם בי, “you trespassed against Me” in Deuteronomy 32,51, as well as the words מריתם את פי “you rebelled against My command” in verse 24 of our chapter here.
If it had indeed been G’d’s intention that they were only to speak to the rock, what purpose was served in commanding Moses to take the staff? If the sin consisted in that Moses struck the rock, something he had not been commanded to do, what was Aaron’s sin?
However, when we scrutinise the matter (the quarrel) more thoroughly we must remember that G’d’s instructions were designed to bring home to the people how wrong they had been in their rebellious attitude. They were meant not only to become aware of this, but to repent it and to apologise for it, seeing that G’d does not desire the death of the sinner but his rehabilitation by his own efforts.
Knowing that this is so, Moses and Aaron’s actions or inaction resulted in G’d’s intention of bringing about the people’s repentance of their conduct was thwarted. G’d punished them for having become the instrument of thwarting His plan.
The quarrel of the people with Moses was that they accused him of a failure of leadership that resulted in their finding themselves in a situation where they even lacked water for survival. Their quarrel with G’d consisted in their accusing Him of taking them out of a good land called Egypt and bringing them to a desert instead. G’d had wanted to make it clear to them by means of the miracle that Moses had not acted on their own but had merely been His messenger, had carried out his mission faithfully, and that the One Who had sent him had not caused the people any harm at all. We must remember that there are three distinct kinds of miracles in Scripture
1) The “hidden” miracle such as that rain occurs when needed, or that people are recovering from a variety of life threatening diseases. These are the types of miracles that the righteous can bring about by means of their prayers. The Torah quotes an example of this kind of miracle in Genesis 20,17 when it tells us that Avraham’s prayer resulted in G’d healing the households in Avimelech’s kingdom where an outbreak of a disease had resulted in none of the expectant women being able to give birth to their babies until after Avraham’s prayer. A similar miracle occurred in Numbers 21,7 when Moses prayed on behalf of the people who had acknowledged that they had sinned.
2) The second type of miracle is an “open” miracle, something that could not be produced by nature without a special assist by G’d, although it could conceivably be become a natural phenomenon over a long period of time. Examples of this kind of miracle are Moses throwing his staff to the earth and G’d turning it into a snake (Exodus 4,5) or G’d commanding Moses to raise his staff (Exodus 14,16) and the waters of the sea parting, or Moses striking the rock in Exodus 17,6 in order to produce water from that rock. Kings II 13,17 is a similar miracle where Elisha by letting the king shoot arrows means to assure victory over the armies opposing Israel.
3) The third type of miracle is something that nature could never produce however long it practiced. It is a miracle to accomplish which only words are employed. G’d, by means of His prophet, produces a result by means of mere words which demonstrates that use of intelligence without any physical action can produce phenomenal results. This kind of miracle within a material universe employs an absolute minimum of the tools that are the basic instruments of running this terrestrial universe. This is the type of miracle employed when the earth opened and swallowed Korach, etc. (16,31) or when at Joshua’s command the orbit of both the sun and the moon were arrested (Joshua 10,12).
In our situation G’d was about to provide the Jewish people with the demonstration of such a miracle in order to bring about their repentance when the people would become alert to the uniqueness of the prophet as well as to that of the One Who had made him His emissary, and Moses and Aaron deprived Him of that opportunity by preempting Him through hitting the rock. When G’d said to Moses that the rock ונתן מימיו, “it will give forth its waters,” He meant that it would dissolve into water so that no one could claim that the source of its waters had been elsewhere and that the course of these waters had merely been diverted to make it look as if the stone had turned into water. Moses’ high-handed action in merely striking the rock had been responsible for the fact that this type of miracle had not occurred, and that the aggrandizement of G’d’s name by the performance of such a miracle had not taken place. He himself had testified to this when he said in Deuteronomy 8,15 that G’d is One Who המוציא לך מים מצור החלמיש, “Who has produced water for you from the rock which is as hard as flint.” The reason that he chose this adjective is clear. If the waters that gushed forth from that rock had merely been diverted from somewhere else, what difference would it have made if the rock were soft or hard as flint?
This type of miracle could never be produced by forces concealed within nature irrespective of thousands and millions of years of evolution. [my choice of word, but author’s meaning. Ed.] G’d had commanded that this type of miracle occur as a result of words spoken by His servants. This is the reason for the emphasis on the words ודברתם אל הסלע, “you are to speak to the rock.” The Children of Israel were to be alerted not just to a miracle, but to the specific nature of this kind of miracle. Observing Moses in action in this fashion, they would get an inkling of the Power of the G’d Who had employed him as His emissary.
They were to reflect on the fact that although G’d/Moses had taken the people out of Egypt they had not suffered any harm from that at all seeing that their G’d had been with them every step of the way. He had converted the desert into a pool of water on their behalf, had performed miracles totally beyond the latent powers of nature ever to perform. As long as G’d was with them, i.e. in the words of Sukkah 53,אם אני כאן הכל כאן, “if I, the Lord, is present, everything you need is present.” Jeremiah 2,31 phrased it thus: המדבר הייתי לישראל, “was I G’d then a desert for Israel?” (did I not provide everything that is otherwise lacking in a desert?)
G’d commanded that as soon as the rock would yield up its water, Moses was to use his staff in order to guide separate streams of that water to the various areas in which each tribe had its tents, so that they would not have to leave their homes, as they did to collect the manna, in order to benefit from this vital resource.
This was the meaning of the words “take the staff…..and extract the water for them from the rock and provide water for the congregation” (verse 8). This is also the meaning of 21,18 במחוקק במשענותם, “when they split it with their staff.” Moses and Aaron had agreed between them to carry out the second part of the miracle by bringing water to the people via the rock as they had done at Refidim when the Torah had described what would happen as “when you strike the rock the water will come forth from the rock an the people will drink.” (צור, not סלע), (Exodus 17,6)
The type of miracle we had described as category three earlier is described here with the words והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, what Moses and Aaron agreed to do was the lesser level of miracle as they were not sure G’d meant to perform the third category of miracle, i.e. not involving any action such as striking the rock. The reason why they doubted that G’d was going to perform the latter miracle was that they did not considered the Israelites worthy at the time to experience this kind of miracle seeing they had acted in a rebellious manner, Moses himself having addressed them as ממרים, rebels. By performing the second category of miracle, the one which demonstrates only the elevated stature of the messenger, while failing to perform the third category of miracle which would also have demonstrated the exalted nature of the One Who had instructed them as His emissary they committed a serious error. This is the reason the Torah writes לא האמנתם, “you did not have faith enough” (verse 12). The meaning is not that they considered G’d incapable of producing water from the rock by their merely speaking to it, but they did not believe that the circumstances at the time warranted that G’d would put Himself out to such an extent for these people. Deuteronomy 32,51 makes clear that their sin of omission constituted a desecration of G’d’s honour.

קח את המטה…ויקדש בם, "take the staff… and He was sanctified through them." This paragraph has attracted many different interpretations, and most commentators have made a point of offering their comments. Before we will offer our view of the plain meaning of these verses we must first try and understand the nature of Moses' error and the reason underlying G'd's decree. I have come across 10 different approaches to our problem pursued by various commentators. I will list their comments very briefly.

קח את המטה, which at that time was reposing next to the Tablets. (compare Numbers 17,25)

ודברתם אל הסלע, “you are to speak to the rock.” According to Nachmanides the word אל in our verse is to be understood as על, when in the presence of, meaning that when Moses and Aaron would speak to the rock, the people should all be present to watch the miracle. The people should all know which rock Moses was speaking to. Moses and Aaron complied with the first part of these instructions.

והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם, “you shall provide water for the congregation and for their beasts.” This verse proves G’d’s concern for the Israelites’ possessions. (Tanchuma Chukat 9).

From here … is solicitous of the [Israelites’] property. You might ask: From where did Rashi derive this? Perhaps Hashem was answering their request when they asked why they and their livestock should die there, and Hashem answered, “Give drink to the community and their livestock.” The answer is that the term השקית (lit. "you will give water") refers to animals, as it is written in Parshas Chaye Sarah (Bereishis 24:14) “וגם גמליך אשקה” ["And I will also water your camels"]. Thus the Torah should have said “וישתו העדה” ["Let the community drink"] as it writes shortly (v. 11) “ותשת העדה” ["And the community drank"] because the term שתייה ["drinking"] refers to people, as it is also written “שתה אדוני” ["Let my master drink"] (Bereishis 24:18). However, since Scripture modifies its wording and writes והשקית ["And give drink"] it is certainly because “[Hashem] is solicitous of the Israelites’ property.” (Mahari) Also one may answer that Rashi is answering the question: Why is it necessary for the Torah to state “And their livestock”? For in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 17:3) when Hashem answered Moshe’s request for water, He answered only that the people would drink, and the answer was despite Yisroel having said “To kill me and my children and my livestock [through thirst].” If so, why does it state, “And their livestock”? Rather it was because “[Hashem] is solicitous…” (Kitzur Mizrochi) Hashem said בעירם ["their livestock"] with a mem. Thus we learn that He is solicitous of them because they are the Israelites’ livestock, and not merely because they are animals. For if not so, it should have said “Give drink to the community and the animals”! This answer is also apparent from Divrei Dovid.

V. 8. קח את המטה וגו׳. Seit dem Sieg über Amalek (Schmot 17, 9). finden wir den Stab nicht wieder in Mosche Händen. Er war, wie wir aus V. 9 ersehen, "vor Gott", d. h. im Heiligtum neben dem ארון העדות niedergelegt. Der Gottesstab in Mosche Händen bezeichnete ihn als den von Gott Gesandten. Eine Bewegung mit dem Gottesstab, ein Neigen, ein Schlagen mit demselben vor Eintritt eines angekündigten Ereignisses, bezeichnet dieses Ereignis als Erzeugnis einer augenblicklichen unmittelbar eingreifenden Wirkung Gottes. Sie hatten Mosche und Aharon Verrat an ihrer Gottessendung vorgeworfen. Nicht nach Gottes Willen seien sie an diesem wasserlosen Ort, Mosche und Aharons Böswilligkeit habe sie zu ihrem Unglück dorthin geführt. Gott kann sie nicht wollen verdursten lassen. "Nimm den Stab" sprach Gott zu Mosche, zeige ihnen, dass du noch mein Gesandter bist, keinen Augenblick aufgehört hast, in meinem Dienste zu sein, והקחל את העדה und kraft dieser deiner durch den Stab in deiner Hand sich bekundenden Gottessendung versammle diese "Gemeinde der Zukunft", ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם, aber gebrauche den Stab nicht, לעיניהם, in Gegenwart des ganzen Volkes sollt ihr den Felsen bloß mit Worten auffordern, dass er מימיו: das in ihm bereits vorhandene Wasser herausgebe. Ein Schlag mit dem Stabe, wie Schmot 17, 6. würde das Eintreten des Wassers als Folge einer neuen, erst durch ihren Aufruhr provozierten Einwirkung Gottes begreifen lassen, das soll es eben nicht sein. Sie sollen einsehen, dass nicht Mosche und Aharon, sondern Gott an diesen Ort sie geführt, und dass, wenn Gott an diesen Ort sie geführt und seine Wolke ihnen daher diesen Ort zum Lageraufenthalt angewiesen, es nicht erst ihrer stürmischen Anregung und etwa dadurch veranlassten göttlichen Einschreitens bedurfte, vielmehr das nötige Wasser bereits an der von Gott ihnen angewiesenen Örtlichkeit von Gott gegeben war, und ein Wort von Mosche und Aharon an den Fels genügte, dass er die ihm bereits von Gott für sie bereitgestellten Wasser hergebe, ונתן מימיו; somit והוצאת וגו׳ והשקית וגו׳, ohne neues Gotteswunder, sollst du mit deinem bloßen Worte ihrem unleugbar vorhandenen Bedürfnisse Genüge verschaffen.

קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, “take the staff and assemble the congregation!” According to Rabbi b’chor shor, the instruction to Moses to take the staff was meant in order for him to strike the rock with it which was meant to produce the water. [The instructions addressed to both Moses and Aaron in the same verse, were addressed to both Moses and Aaron who were to speak to the people first Ed.] This was similar to the instructions in Exodus 17,6, except that there the rock was called צור, tzur. At that time G–d was going to provide both bread (heavenly), meat, (quails) and water, each one of which was listed in detail shortly thereafter. The provision of water on both occasions is to be understood as the same miracle, and that is also why the first location was called מסה ומריבה, “trying and strife,” and on this occasion reference is only made to מי מריבה, “waters of strife” (verse 13) When Moses, in retrospect, refers to these events in Deuteronomy 33,8 he uses both expressions in the same verse. They are referred to also in Numbers 20,24:למי מריבה ”at the waters of strife.” Those waters were in the desert of Sin, near Mount Sinai, (during the first year of the Exodus) As far as the instructions here for Moses and Aaron to address the rock by word of mouth, ודברתם אל הסלע, is concerned, they were meant to speak to the people near the rock in order to watch the miracle about to be performed. On the first occasion, Moses took the elders with him, but the people stayed far behind and they did not even witness the striking of the rock. Those elders had long died so that the present generation had not even been told what they had witnessed. (Exodus 17,5) The water at that time formed into a small river and that was where the Israelites filled their buckets from. Moses and Aaron, instead of announcing the miracle about to take place, addressed the people by calling them rebellious, and asking if they really expected that they were worthy of G–d performing such a miracle for them. They should have known that it was not in Moses’ or Aaron’s power to get water out of a stone, so what was the point of accusing them of the shortage of water. Therefore, they should have prayed to G–d in a deferential manner, asking Him to help them in their predicament. If Moses and Aaron had explained all this to them without displaying anger with a thirsty people, the result would have been a great sanctification of the Lord’s name. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses’ and Aaron’s sin consisted of using the word נוציא לכם מים, “We are going to produce water for you,” instead of saying that “G–d is going to produce water for you.”

Take the staff. This refers to the well-known staff of Moshe. Since he was told to take the staff, this shows he no longer carried it consistently. The reason was because the nature of the staff was to perform open miracles, and for that reason the word “signs” refers to the staff, as this was its constant role. I have already explained that in the fortieth year the Bnei Yisroel’s miraculous way of life had nearly ceased.

קח את המטה, “take the staff!” G-d referred to Aaron’s staff. This is clear from what the Torah writes: Moses took the staff that had been in the presence of the Lord, i.e. in the Tabernacle, the staff that had produced almonds in Numbers 17,23. Compare also Numbers 17,25, where Moses had been told to return his staff to the Tabernacle as an ongoing reminder to the obstinate community of Israel that a member of his family had been chosen to be High Priest. It was appropriate for this staff to be used again when dealing with a people that were in a rebellious mood. In this episode Moses committed his first error when he took the wrong staff, seeing that he thought he was supposed to strike the rock. The only reason that G-d had told Moses to take this staff, was that it had been used in conjunction with the rebelliousness of the Jewish people, as opposed to the obstinacy of Pharaoh.

And speak to the rock in their presence. This instruction was for contemplation, to arouse the nation to the knowledge and understanding of the preciousness and importance of Hashem’s words and commandments. Words of Torah are compared to water, as it says (Yishayahu 55:1): “Ho! All who thirst, go to water.” A person’s heart is compared to stone, because it is difficult to inscribe the words of Torah and mitzvos on one’s heart. Therefore, Hashem performed a huge miracle in the Wilderness by bringing forth water from a rock. He could have caused it to rain or opened up springs in the earth. Why did He have to make such wonders? Hashem did this to teach knowledge to Bnei Yisroel. Although the urges of a man’s heart are ignoble, and it is against his nature to study Torah and fulfill mitzvos, nevertheless, with Heavenly help it is possible. Just as a hard rock brought forth water against its nature through Hashem’s power, so too, a person’s heart can be an overflowing spring in Hashem’s commandments. However, at first it will be difficult for a person to devote himself to Torah and mitzvos and he will need much exhortation. When the people quarreled at the waters of Koidesh, Moshe considered them to be lacking, with a heart of stone. Therefore, he told them: “Listen, you rebels!” And in accordance with his thoughts he erred by hitting the rock as he did at Refidim. In truth, though, they were a Generation of Knowledge, and it would have been enough to speak to the rock.

ודברתם אל הסלע, G’d did not command Moses to take the staff in order to strike the rock as he had commanded him in Exodus 17,6. He only commanded Moses to display the staff to remind them that they had again been very obstinate. They had acquired this attribute in Numbers 17,25 when the Torah speaks of למשמרת לאות לבני מרי, “to be kept as a lesson to rebels.” However, the water was to be produced merely by speaking to the rock.

THAT IT GIVE FORTH ITS WATER. The meaning thereof is that a large amount of water should immediately spring forth, just as it is said, and water came forth abundantly,¹⁴⁷Further, Verse 11. for the term “giving” denotes abundance, as in [the verses]: and the Land shall ‘give’ her produce, and the trees of the field shall ‘give’ their fruit;¹⁴⁸Leviticus 26:4. For as the seed of peace, the vine shall ‘give’ her fruit, and the Land shall ‘give’ her increase, and the heavens shall ‘give’ their dew.¹⁴⁹Zechariah 8:12. In all these [verses] He was promising them abundance. And so, it is written, [Behold, He smote the rock, that waters gushed out], and streams overflowed.¹⁵⁰Psalms 78:20. Now the meaning of ‘its’ water [that it give forth ‘its’ water] is not like [the Land] shall give ‘her’ produce, and [the trees] shall give ‘their’ fruit, since it is not in the nature of a rock to have water in it. But its meaning is [that it will give forth] the water which will come out of it, for when G-d turns the flint into a fountain of waters,¹⁵¹Ibid., 114:8. so that they are [contained] in it and come forth out of it, the waters may [indeed] be called ‘its’ water. Similarly, and He will bless ‘thy’ bread, and ‘thy’ water;¹⁵²Exodus 23:25. ‘his’ bread shall be given, ‘his’ waters shall be sure.¹⁵³Isaiah 33:16. He stated it in this way [that it give forth ‘its’ water] in order to inform us that the waters will come forth from the very rock itself, not from the ground beneath it, as occurs naturally in the case of many fountains; but [these waters] will come forth from the middle of the rock. And so it is written, Who turneth the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a fountain of waters.¹⁵¹Ibid., 114:8. He repeated a second time [in this verse], and thou shalt bring forth to them water, meaning that “while you [Moses] are still there, you should bring them forth water from the rock, so that they should all see it gushing forth.” SO THOU SHALT GIVE THE CONGREGATION AND THEIR CATTLE DRINK. [This means] that “you should command them to drink from it in your presence.” All this was for the purpose of publicizing the miracle. In the actual event, [however], it is not mentioned that “he gave the congregation and their cattle to drink;” instead, it says, and the congregation drank, and their cattle,¹⁴⁷Further, Verse 11. because owing to their great thirst, as soon as they saw water gushing out in abundance, they fell upon the river and drank.
Now according to the opinion of our Rabbis about Miriam’s Well,¹⁵⁴This was a moving well in Miriam’s merit which accompanied the Israelites throughout their forty year’s journeys in the desert. “When Miriam died [as mentioned here in Verse 1] the well was taken away.” (Taanith 9a). Hence the crisis of the lack of water. See also Vol. II, pp. 240-241, and Note 436 ibid. this rock [in Kadesh] is the same flint which was in Horeb;¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. therefore they explain [that the expression] ‘its’ water [in that it give forth ‘its’ water] refers to the water which it used to give, for now as a result of Miriam’s death the fountain ceased [and was only restored in the merit of Moses and Aaron].¹⁵⁵Taanith 9a. When Aaron died it continued in the merit of Moses. For when our Rabbis speak of Miriam’s Well, they mean that there was always a miraculous well,¹⁵⁶Ramban here appears to be referring to the tradition mentioned in the Mishnah in Aboth 5:9 that ten things were created in the twilight of the eve of the first Sabbath, amongst them “the mouth of the well.” It was this well which appeared wherever G-d wanted it to, as explained further on. a fountain of living waters,¹⁵⁷Jeremiah 2:13. flowing wherever it was His Will. Thus He caused it to come up for Ishmael in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.¹⁵⁸Genesis 21:14; 19. In Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 30 the tradition is recorded that this was the same well mentioned in connection with Miriam. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 277. It was this rock which became cleft in Horeb,¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. and throughout their travels [water] flowed from the rock wherever they encamped. But when the righteous one [Miriam] died, the fountain stopped, and now it continued through [the merit of] Moses to be a fountain opened¹⁵⁹Zechariah 13:1. for him from that very same rock [which had been in Horeb], this being the meaning of the phrase, and speak ye unto ‘haselah’ (‘the’ rock) — the known rock. According to the plain meaning of Scripture, [however], there was a rock near the camp, and He commanded “and speak ye unto the rock which is before you” [hence the phrase ‘the’ rock]. One can also explain it as “and speak ye unto the rock which is before their eyes,” meaning to say “the first rock that they will see.”

לעיניהם, “before their eyes.” The meaning is the same as לפניהם, in their presence, in front of them. Another meaning of the word לעיניהם could be that it refers to the act of Moses speaking to the rock being performed before the very eyes of the people. This would correspond to what is reported in verse 10 where we read: “Moses and Aaron gathered the people before the rock, and he said to them: etc.” The reason for all this publicity was, as our sages have said, in order that the people would not be able to say later that there had been subterranean wells beneath those rocks. It is also possible that the emphasis is on the words ונתן מימיו, that the rock will immediately respond and produce a lot of water, not as if the rock only reluctantly followed Moses’ instructions. Compare Psalms 78,20 where the psalmist describes how these waters drenched everything in their immediate vicinity. According to our sages this rock was the same rock that the people had already encountered at Mount Chorev. It was Miriam’s well that had moved with the people during all their journeys. [I presume the source for this is both the definitive article ה in front of the word סלע and the word מימיו, “its waters,” i.e. it had already provided water on previous occasions. Ed.] The well had ceased functioning when Miriam died, and was now reactivated. The word נתינה i.e. ונתן it will “give,” always implies that the giver does so in a generous fashion. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text there was a rock situated close to the site where the people had made their camp so that when G’d told Moses to speak to the people, etc., the word לעיניהם means “the one that is before your very eyes.” It is also possible to understand the expression אל הסלע, “to the rock,” to mean that Moses should speak to the first and nearest rock he would encounter in his search. The meaning of the word מימיו would be a reference to the first jet of water the people would witness as coming out of that rock. The deeper reason why the Torah chose this word is that the people would see that this water did not originate on the surface of that rock but from deep with in it, it was integral to the rock. This is different from wells emerging from beneath rocks, the customary scenario.

1) Rashi explains that Moses's error was that whereas G'd had told him to speak to the rock he hit the rock instead. 2) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that Moses' error caused the rock not to yield water until Moses struck it for a second time, and that Moses had forgotten G'd's precise instructions when he struck the rock the first time due to the vociferous quarrelling by the congregation. 3) G'd's anger was caused by Moses hitting the rock a second time. Had Moses remained content to strike the rock once, G'd would have accepted this as a form of addressing a rock as one does not expect a rock to listen to words. 4) According to this view G'd's anger was caused by the fact that Moses and Aaron did not sing a song of praise after the water materialised. Such a miracle deserved that it should be acknowledged by not less than a song praising G'd and thanking Him. 5) According to this view Moses sinned by talking down to the Israelites and calling them "rebellious." A man of Moses' stature should not have called the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by a name which belittled them. 6) Maimonides in his treatise שמונה פרקים feels that G'd objected to Moses having "lost his cool" when speaking to the Israelites. When the people observed that Moses was angry at them they concluded that G'd was angry at them also. 7) Rabbeynu Chananel and Nachmanides after him claim that what angered G'd was that Moses portrayed himself and Aaron as producing the water by saying נוציא לכם מים, instead of saying יוציא לכם מים, "He will make water come forth for you." The formula used by Moses created the impression amongst the people that Moses and Aaron produced the water by means of their own devices and know-how. This is why G'd said to them: "because you have not believed Me to make them sanctify Me." 8) Rabbi Moshe Hacohen, quoted by Ibn Ezra also feeels that G'd's anger had to do with Moses' wording of the question: המן הסלע הזה נוציא, "do you expect us to produce water from this rock?" Whereas we know that there are miracles which are produced by G'd's word and others by a combination of G'd's word and an action, Moses misled the people into thinking that G'd could not produce water from this particular rock. He proves his point by quoting Psalms 106,33: "because they rebelled against Him and he spoke rashly." 9) Rabbi Joseph Albo in his ספר העקרים criticises Moses and Aaron for not having proceeded immediately to produce water for their people something he claims they were capable of; by allowing them to become frightened they undermined the people's faith in G'd. 10) The Baal Maaseh Hashem explains that there had been an argument between Moses and the Israelites. The Israelites demanded that Moses produce the water from a different place where they had dug a hole and that Moses was unwilling to speak to the rock which the Israelites had dug out. As a result Moses became angry and threw his staff, not in order to hit the rock but merely as an angry gesture. It so happened that the staff hit the rock G'd had intended to produce the water from.

Diese Art der Wasserspende aus dem Fels hätte das Volk des tiefen Unrechts vollkommen überführt, das es in seinen Anklagen an Mosche und Aharon geübt, als hätten sie gegen Gottes Willen sie an diesen wasserlosen Ort geführt, während das erst infolge des Schlagens mit dem Stabe hervorströmende Wasser noch immer der Annahme Raum lassen konnte, als wäre in der Tat ursprünglich ihre Führung in die Wüste Zin eine Eigenmächtigkeit Mosche und Aharons gewesen und hätte nur nachher ihr berechtigter Aufstand und ihre Not Gott zu dem erbarmenden Wunder veranlasst. Sie hätte das Volk gelehrt, wie unter Gottes Führung man aller Sorge sich zu entschlagen habe und auch ohne Mosche Wanderstab der rechten Hülfe zur rechten Zeit jederzeit gewiss sein könne. Sie hätte eben damit, wie ich einst die Erläuterung aus des seligen Bernays נ׳׳ע Munde hörte, an der Grenze des verheißenen Landes und der damit zu betretenden neuen Zukunft, in welcher an die Stelle der offenbaren Gotteswunder der Führung durch die Wüste die unsichtbare und doch nicht minder nahe Gottes Leitung durch נסים נסתרים treten sollte, wohl eben zu diesen überleiten und zeigen sollen, dass, was der Moschestab in der Wüste gewesen, das solle fortan das Moschewort für alle Zukunft bleiben. Und wenn — nach der tiefen Auffassung der Weisen — die Wanderschaft in die Wüste mit dem Marawunder betreten wurde, das mit der Erfahrung rüsten sollte, dass דבר מן התורה, dass ein Wort des göttlichen Gesetzes genüge, um das bitterste Wasser zu versüßen (siehe Schmot 15, 25), so würde nach dieser Auffassung die Wanderschaft durch die Wüste haben schließen und die neue Zukunft angetreten werden sollen mit der Erfahrung, dass das Moschewort genüge, um aus dem Fels den frischen Trunk des Lebens zu spenden. —

ודברתם אל הסלע, “and speak to the rock (pl.).” The prefix ה before the word: הסלע teaches that the rock involved was the one that used to provide water for the people as long as Miriam had been alive. The people would draw their water from that rock. It used to move with the people whenever they moved. This was the rock that Moses now struck and that refused to yield its water on account of Miriam having died. It resumed yielding water due to the merit of Moses and Aaron, as our sages have explained in the Talmud tractate Taanit, folio 9. This is why G-d told both Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock. Some commentators understand what happened during this episode as follows: the words: ודברתם אל הסלע refer to what occurred in Exodus 17,7; this is totally erroneous, if only since there the Torah never used the expression סלע when speaking about the rock, but only the term צור. Moreover, it is clear that that episode occurred near Mount Sinai, as the Torah testifies that the waters emanated from the rock known as Chorev. (Exodus 17,6)

והוצאת להם מים, by means of your speaking to the rock.

והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, “you are to bring forth water for them from the rock.” The meaning is that these waters will materialise while you are still standing at the rock. Everybody will witness this impressive spectacle.

None of the ten explanations we have listed really answer all the questions that arise from this paragraph. Nachmanides already pointed out that three of the approaches we have listed are unsatisfactory. Rabbi Ibn Ezra demolished three more of the 10 approaches we have listed. I shall show how the remaining explanations also do not really explain the wording of the Torah satisfactorily. As to the approach of Rabbeynu Chananel shared by Nachmanides, that Moses attributed the production of the water to his own ability, this is patently impossible as Moses was well enough known to the people as a true prophet who had never attributed anything to his own ability. Even granted that Moses' power was such that he could have produced the miracle without calling upon G'd first, it is in the nature of a true servant of the master that his accomplishments reflect credit on his master, in this instance on G'd, not the reverse. Moreover, we find in Exodus 12,21 that Moses did not bother to tell the people that when he instructed them to draw out a lamb for the Passover, etc. that he did so in the name of the Lord. Even at that time the people were well aware that Moses would not have given such instructions unless he had been commanded to do so by G'd. Furthermore, in the situation described here, Moses was forced to use the words נוציא לכם, "we shall extract for you," as they were in fact the ones whom G'd had delegated to do so either by word or by striking the rock I do not concur with the approach of Rabbi Joseph Albo for the simple reason that once Moses had observed that G'd had withheld water from the community upon Miriam's death by letting the well disappear, who was he to countermand G'd's obvious will? How did he know that G'd did not want to discipline the people at that time? This made it imperative for Moses to plead with G'd by prostrating himself rather than by invoking his own powers of prophecy. He had to leave it to G'd to do what He saw fit to do at that time. The approach of the Baal Hamaaseh is full of thorns and thistles containing neither salt nor spices so that I will not even bother to address myself to his arguments, begging his pardon.

The “sin” of hitting was as follows: Chazal teach (Shemot Rabbah 21:9) that at the Splitting of the Sea the Torah says (Shemot 14:16) “And now lift up your staff and outstretch your hand”, this “lifting” is a language of removal, that is to say “Lift up and throw away your staff, outstretch your hand, without the staff.” For the people were murmuring that the staff was the cause for all the miracles through some means of sorcery within the staff, for the people had not seen miracles without this staff. Therefore HaShem instructed Moshe to throw away the staff and remove that doubt from their minds. So when it says (14:31) “Israel saw the Mighty Hand” meaning they saw the miracles that was done by hand, and not through the staff, and therefore “they believed in HaShem and Moshe His servant.” It would seem that until now they were children who did not trust them - they did not believe in HaShem and the prophecy of Moshe His servant because they had reason to assume the staff created miracles.

ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its natural waters,” i.e. just a few drops, as a result of being spoken to.

והשקית את העדה, “you will provide drink for the congregation.” You will order them to drink from this water in your presence. All these details were spelled out in order to provide maximum publicity for this great miracle. Interestingly, when it came to the execution the Torah does not speak about Moses giving the people to drink but about the people drinking of their own accord, without prompting. (Compare verse 11) They were so thirsty that they did not wait to be asked.

In my search for a satisfactory explanation I have only found peace of mind after perusing the words of the ancient scholars as expressed in the Yalkut Shimoni item 764, for instance. The author of that Midrash writes as follows: יען לא האמנתם בי. The Torah refers to four separate sins with this verse. 1) "you did not believe;" 2) "you did not sanctify;" 3) "you trespassed;" 4) "you rebelled;" "you did not believe for I did not tell you to strike the rock but to speak to it." "You did not sanctify Me to demonstrate that I could produce water from any rock of the Israelites' choosing." "You trespassed when you asked: 'should we produce water from this rock?'" "You rebelled for I told you to speak to the rock, i.e. 'teach the rock a chapter concerning Torah and it will produce water; however, you have violated My instructions.'" [My edition of the Yalkut makes the important additional point somewhat earlier that whereas one hits a young child when one wants its obedience, one appeals to his intelligence once he has grown up. Similarly, whereas at the time when the Israelites were in Refidim (Exodus 17,1) 40 years earlier, Moses was instructed to hit the rock, now the rock had matured and it would respond to a more sophisticated approach, i.e. it could be spoken to, i.e. Moses could teach it a chapter of Torah. Ed.] So far the words of the Yalkut.

והוצאת להם מים, “you will extract for them water;” i.e. a great quantity of water, by striking the rock. According to that view, the reason why G-d had told Moses to take along the staff, although on the face of it sounded as if quantities of water would be released from the rock by merely speaking to it, was that it had never been intended that more than a few drops of the rock’s own moisture would be released by speaking to it. Moses had misunderstood G-d, as he was upset at the time so that he had never spoken to the rock at all, apart from not having known which of the numerous rocks all around he was to address. The critical rock was surrounded by many others which all looked alike.

Bearing in mind what the Yalkut said we can understand the meaning of the words: "take the staff and speak to the rock, etc." "and you will produce water for them from the rock." However, first we must clarify some words in the text: 1) Why did G'd command Moses to take his staff if all G'd wanted was for Moses to speak to the rock? 2) Why did G'd repeat the words "and you will produce water for them" after G'd had already said that the rock would yield its water immediately prior to these words? 3) Why did the Torah have to write twice "from the rock" (in verse 8)?

According to the words of the Midrash the words in these earlier verses become clear retroactively. When G'd said to Moses that he should take the staff this was intended to demonstrate that he was empowered to do what he was about to do by the king (G'd Himself). G'd did not mean for him to use the staff to strike the rock, it was merely to serve as the visible sign that he had authority to perform the miracle he was about to perform. It did not occur to G'd to think that Moses would err and use the staff to hit the rock with, seeing He had instructed him specifically to speak to the rock. Moses ignored the instruction to speak and hit the rock instead. This was the first sin Moses committed according to the words of the Yalkut. The second sin was that he failed to teach the rock a lesson by speaking to it. The third sin was that when G'd said "you will produce water for them from the rock," G'd had meant that any rock the Israelites would request to be the source of their water would do; Moses, by singling out a specific rock, i.e. המן הסלע הזה implied that only a particular rock would respond to G'd's command. The reason the Torah wrote twice מן הסלע was to indicate that it did not matter to G'd from which rock the water would eventually come forth. Had the Torah been particular about which rock, it would have written something like ממנו, "from it," i.e. from the rock which had been mentioned already. When Moses addressed the Israelites by saying: "listen you rebellious people" this proves that he considered them as rebellious by insisting that the water be produced from a rock of their choosing, whereas by his very question Moses implied that the rock chosen by the people was not capable of responding to G'd's command to produce water. This then was the fourth sin the Yalkut had in mind. As a result, Moses erred on two more counts, 1) that G'd had said to him to produce water from a rock of the Israelites' choosing, something which he failed to do, 2) he limited the miracle to a particular rock, thereby reducing the image the people would have of G'd's power. These are the sins listed as number two and number three in the Yalkut.

It is our duty to explain how a man of G'd such as Moses could have committed four such gross errors.

I believe that the cause of Moses' errors lies in the very fact that he applied both his wisdom and his reverence for G'd before carrying out G'd's instructions. When G'd told him to take his staff, Moses interpreted this instruction as having a dual meaning; 1) to hit the rock; 2) to demonstrate that he acted at the express command of G'd. He would perform a miracle by means of the staff which had the Ineffable Name of G'd engraved on it. The truth is that there was good reason to interpret the command to take the staff as an order to use the staff to strike the rock with rather than to use it only symbolically. It is true that in Exodus 4,17 G'd instructed Moses to take the staff to perform miracles without mentioning that it be used to strike anything. In this instance, however, the Torah mentioned that the staff would be the instrument by means of which Moses would produce the water. Why else would G'd have appeared to refer to the staff again after having already said: "speak to the rock" when He said "you will produce water from the rock?" Moses thought that what G'd meant was that it was not only the speaking to the rock which would produce the water but also an action he was to perform with the staff. He interpreted the words והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, "you will extract water for them from the rock" to mean that he would perform an act with the staff. In fact, he thought that these words revealed what G'd had had in mind when He told him to take the staff with him. Although Moses may well have been aware that G'd had also intended for him to produce the water from any rock that the Israelites chose, as I have explained earlier, it did not occur to him that G'd would have told him to take the staff unless He intended for him to use it in the manner he was accustomed to. I am aware that this interpretation is not forcing; I will come back to it later to demonstrate that it is the easiest way to explain Moses' error. The words ודברתם אל הסלע meant that in addition to the staff performing an act you are also to speak to the rock and tell it specifically to release its water. It never occurred to Moses that the words "speak to the rock" referred to teaching the rock (as well as the Israelites) a lesson to demonstrate that the rock had matured enough to respond to verbal instructions alone..

ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its waters.” The Torah should have simply written ונתן מים, “it will yield water.” What is the meaning of the suffix “its?” Had the Torah not written the suffix we might have concluded that there was water beneath the rock which had been freed through Moses’ addressing it, moving it by giving it an order to move. This would not have been a special miracle. The Torah therefore reports that Moses was instructed to release water from the rock itself merely by giving such a command in the name of Hashem. Another way of looking at this suffix is that the potential of this rock producing water goes back to the six days of creation. Now G’d had seen fit to activate this potential. Our sages in Avot 5,6 already mentioned that the well of Miriam was one of the things created at dusk on the sixth day to be activated when the occasion would arise. Seeing that the word מימיו, “its waters,” allows people to think that perhaps the waters of this rock were natural, the Torah had to emphasize “you will produce waters for them out of the rock.” The Torah also chose the expression הוצאה because it is usually associated with supernatural events. When G’d told Avraham that He had taken him out of the fire of the Chaldeans (Genesis 15,7) saying אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, He referred to the miracle of saving him from the furnace of Nimrod. When G’d referred to having taken Israel out of Egypt, He also used the expression הוצאתיך (Exodus 20,2). He referred to the miracles associated with the Exodus. Isaiah 48,21 is similar in nature where the prophet referred to צור to stress the miraculous nature of what occurred. The words והוצאת להם מים indicate that whole rivers of water flowed from the rock seeing that otherwise it would have been impossible for several million Israelites to drink water from that rock as well as to water their beasts. Psalms 78,16 makes this point clear when referring to the event in a second verse: “He brought forth streams from a rock and made them flow down like a river.”

A dispassionate reader examining the words simply on their own merits will realise that the meaning of the word ודברתם is modified according to the meaning of the words קח את המטה. Our reason tells us that inert objects such as rocks are not likely to comprehend verbal instructions given to it by Moses except under one of two special circumstances. For instance, it could respond to being struck by a staff on which the Ineffable Name of G'd is engraved which would awaken the highest potential of sensitivity G'd has equipped such inert objects with. I have already explained that such things are possible in connection with plants which also do not display this kind of sensitivity unless they have been especially awakened by G'd or His agent. Moses thought that being struck with a staff on which the Ineffable Name was engraved would "awaken" the dormant potential in that rock so that it could subsequently respond to his verbal instructions. An alternate method of awakening the latent sensitivity of such inert objects would be to "teach it a chapter (of Torah)" in the words of the Yalkut, provided that chapter would be taught by a holy man of the calibre of Moses. Seeing that Torah represents the epitome of life, being taught it by the foremost teacher Moses would bring out all the latent forces of life G'd had imbued the apparently inert objects with. It follows that if we understand the words: "take the staff" to mean that the staff should be used to hit the rock with, there would be no need to speak to it at all as it would already have responded to the impact of the staff which had G'd's name egraved on it. If, on the other hand, we do not interpret the words "take the staff" to mean that it should be used to strike the rock with, the words "and speak to the rock" must be interpreted to mean that Moses was to teach the rock a lesson in Torah which would awaken all its latent potential and enable it to respond to Moses' verbal instructions to release the water it contained. Moses' error consisted in thinking that he was to speak to the rock ordinarily and that in order to elicit a response he first had to hit the rock. G'd, however, had meant that he should instruct the rock in a lesson of Torah thus making it unnecessary to hit the rock first.

At any rate, Moses was aware that the instructions could be interpreted in two different ways. He considered the likelihood that G'd wanted him to teach the rock a lesson in Torah as far-fetched and therefore he reasoned that if he only taught the rock a lesson and it turned out that he had misinterpreted G'd's instructions, the result would be failure and a desecration of the name of G'd. This is why he decided to hit the rock first and speak to it at the same time. He reasoned that if he did this he would not need to worry about the rock failing to yield up its water, and the name of G'd would not be desecrated.

Moses also inclined to interpret the words והוצאת להם מים as referring to the result of striking the rock even though at the back of his mind he did consider that G'd might have referred to a rock of the Israelites' choosing. Nonetheless he reasoned that in the event G'd had not meant for any rock of the Israelites' choosing to produce its water, the wrong rock would not even yield up its water if he were to strike it. In that event too, G'd's image would be tarnished and the people would question His ability and His power to provide them with water. When we think about all these considerations Moses had to weigh before deciding how best to proceed, we realise that Moses at all times was concerned with portraying G'd in the best possible light.

When the people challenged Moses to produce water from a specific rock and Moses responded by saying שמעו נא המורים המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים the word מורים has a dual meaning. On the one hand it refers to rebellious people, המראה, disobedience, people who subject G'd to unnecessary tests; on the other hand, it also means הוראה, instruction. Moses referred to the fact that the people gave him instructions as to which rock to produce the water from as a test to see if G'd could do it. It is not surprising that Moses was angry at the people on account of that.

Do not have any misgivings as to Moses having misunderstood G'd's true intentions. It is not necessary for a prophet always to arrive at the correct conclusion when he studies a subject. In fact this is the reason we are told in Baba Batra 12 that a חכם a wise man, enjoys advantages over a prophet. In our situation, Moses did consider the alternative meanings of G'd's instructions but he decided to "play it safe" from the point of view of ensuring that G'd's image should not emerge tarnished through something he did wrong.

Having explained the motives which prompted Moses to act as he did, we have to understand G'd's reaction. Why did G'd appear to deny the validity of Moses' considerations when He scored him precisely for what would have been Moses' defence when He said: "because you have not had faith in Me to sanctify Me you will not bring these people, etc.?" G'd accused Moses and Aaron of having decided what they had decided because they were afraid that a certain rock would not yield up its water unless it was precisely the rock which had been known previously to do so, and that even then that rock would respond only if it would be struck. G'd did not allow that Moses' real consideration had been to sanctify G'd's name through producing water from any of the rocks the Israelites had chosen for that purpose and without the need to strike that rock. Had they conformed to the people's choice of rock, G'd's name would truly have been sanctified when the people saw that G'd could make any rock produce water without the rock having to be struck by a staff on which the Ineffable Name of G'd was engraved. If it could have been demonstrated that inert objects such as rocks could have their latent potential released by having Moses teach them a chapter of the Torah this would have revealed to the people an additional dimension of G'd's power. Moses and Aaron should have suppressed their fear in order to enable G'd's image to be sanctified in the manner just described.

On a deeper level, we have to appreciate that if Moses and Aaron had carried out G'd's instructions as He had meant them to be carried out, the resultant strengthening of the Israelites' faith in Him would have been so enduring that it would have stood the people in good stead for all subsequent generations. In such an event both Moses and Aaron would have entered the Holy Land, built the Holy Temple so that there would have been a fear that in the event the Israelites were to become guilty of a sin that G'd would pour out His wrath over them. We find that the Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 79 explains why Assaph did not write an elegy when he foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple but wrote a song of thanksgiving. He thanked G'd for having vented most of His anger at the stones of the buildings rather than at the Jewish people. Moses and Aaron missed an opportunity to elevate the Jewish people to a level of faith they had not possessed previously and this is why they were punished so severely.

The word לכן (verse 12) means "on account of this." The word also has the connotation of an oath. G'd foresaw how the Israelites would conduct themselves in the land of Israel many years hence. Even Moses himself had predicted this already in Deut. 31,29. Had He allowed Moses and Aaron to build the Temple, He would have had to vent His anger at the people when the time came that they sinned, seeing they had allowed ideal conditions to go to waste. As it is, the people never lived in the Holy Land under ideal conditions so that G'd could use this as a mitigating circumstance when evaluating their sins.

The Torah was specific in denying Moses and Aaron only leadership of הקהל הזה, that they would not lead "this community" to the Holy Land. The implication is that when the Messiah comes Moses and Aaron will lead the entire Jewish nation to ארץ ישראל. The Yalkut item 764 bases this on Hoseah 2,17 וענתה שמה כימי נעוריה, "there she will respond as in the days of her youth," as well as on Deut. 33,21. From the various comments in the Midrashim it appears that but for Moses' and Aaron's error in not speaking to the rock, the generation of Jews at that time could have overcome any spirit of impurity residual in them and could have therefore qualified to become the generation to whom the Messiah would have been been sent.

והשקית את העדה, "and you (Moses) will give the congregation to drink." The reason the suffix "you" is appended here and the Torah does not simply say that the people will drink (in the third person), is either to tell you that Moses was to ensure that they would not drink too much with resulting damage to their health, or to ensure that they would drink as much as they liked regardless of any potential damage to their health. Considering the fact that the water was "miracle water," drinking too much of it would not carry with it the same hazards as drinking ordinary water would. [I am not aware of the harmful effects of drinking too much water, and assume that the author refers to drinking water which had not been boiled first, i.e. sterilised. Ed.]

העדה ובעירם, "the congregation and their beasts." We have a rule (Berachot 40) that one gives one's animals to drink (and to eat) before drinking oneself. In this instance the Torah reverses the usual order to teach that the rule mentioned applies only when the life of the human being is not in danger. Whenever there is a danger that a human being may come to harm by first looking after the needs of his livestock, such a rule is suspended. I refer the reader to my comments in connection with Rebeccah giving Eliezer to drink before she gave his camels to drink in Genesis 24,19.

כאשר צוהו, "as G'd had commanded him." The Torah had to write this in order for us to know that Moses did not delay in carrying out G'd's instructions and took his staff. On the other hand, the Torah may have wanted to emphasise that the only thing Moses did strictly in accordance with G'd's instructions was that he took the staff with him. Anything he did subsequently was not in accordance with G'd's instructions.

V. 9. ויקח משה את המטה מלפני ד׳ וגו׳ (siehe V. 8).

ויקהלו וגו׳ [AND MOSES AND AARON] ASSEMBLED [THE WHOLE CONGREGATION BEFORE THE ROCK] — This was one of the places where the smaller contained the greater, (the entire congregation being assembled in front of one rock) (Leviticus Rabbah 10:9).

ARE WE TO BRING YOU FORTH WATER OUT OF THIS ROCK? Far be it and [G-d] forbid that [we should explain this] as a question indicating impossibility! For Moses our teacher, who was trusted in all G-d’s house,¹⁶⁰See above, 12:7. [knew] that nothing is too hard for Him;¹⁶¹See Genesis 18:14. and he together with all Israel had seen greater and more wondrous miracles than this, and especially since this [miracle of providing water from a rock] had already been done once before through him at the rock in Horeb!¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. Now the commentators¹⁶²R’dak on I Samuel 2:27. have said that there are certain questions which [by apparently doubting that which cannot be denied], have the force of an [impassioned or indignant] affirmation. Thus we find: Did I reveal Myself to the house of thy father?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” The king said also unto Zadok the priest: ‘Seest thou?’;¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” Wilt thou judge?;¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [that the meaning of the verse is]: “Do we indeed have power to bring you forth water out of the rock?” He means thereby to explain that Moses said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels against G-d, who say, ‘and why have ye brought the assembly of the Eternal¹⁶⁷Above, Verse 4. unto this evil place?’¹⁶⁸Ibid., Verse 5. Do we have the power by natural means to bring you forth water out of this flint? You should therefore recognize that this is all from G-d, for it is He Who took you out of Egypt, and brought you to this place, and it is He Who will feed you here.” This is similar to what he [Moses] told the people in the case of the manna, and ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.¹⁶⁹Exodus 16:6.
In my opinion this letter hei [in the word hamin — “out of”] indicates a [real] query, [and the meaning thereof is as follows]: “Are we to bring you forth water out of this rock or not?” For sometimes Scripture explains a question in its positive and negative aspects, such as: whether there are trees therein or not?’¹⁷⁰Above, 13:20. whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or not?¹⁷¹Deuteronomy 8:2. — and at other times it mentions only the positive aspect, [such as in the following verses]: Is this your youngest brother?;¹⁷²Genssis 43:29. Know ye Laban the son of Nachor?;¹⁷³Ibid., 29:5. Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself?¹⁷⁴Zechariah 7:3. The reference is to the month of Ab, during which the First Temple was destroyed. When the Second Temple was built, the people asked the prophet whether they should still continue to observe the fast of the ninth of Ab. But this question here that Moses asked of them was a probing question [to test their true intention]. He said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels. — What do ye devise against the Eternal?¹⁷⁵Nahum 1:9. — Are we to bring you forth water out of this strong rock? Will this event happen or not?” [i.e., “Do you believe that it is within His power to do it, or not?”] He thus stressed that their [behaviour was a serious] rebellion, telling them they were wanting in faith, and that the reason for their quarrelling with him was because they thought that G-d would not act wondrously for them, in a similar manner to that which it says, And they tried G-d in their heart … ‘Can G-d prepare a table in the wilderness … Can He give bread also?’¹⁷⁶Psalms 78:18-20. Similarly the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁷Aboth 5:4. “Ten times our ancestors in the wilderness tried the Holy One, blessed be He.” [Moses’ question was thus] like a query as to the belief of the person addressed, [of which we find examples] in many places in Scripture: Must I then bring thy son back?¹⁷⁸Genesis 24:5. which means: “Is that your wish?” Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?¹⁷⁹II Chronicles 18:5. which means, “If that is your advice.” Here too, [the meaning of Moses’ question is]: “Do you think that we shall bring you forth water out of this rock?” The same is also my opinion with regard to [the following verses]: Did I reveal Myself?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before Me?¹⁸⁰I Kings 21:29. Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?;¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” Wilt thou judge?¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” For all these are questions, but their purpose is to ask about [the truth of] something well-known, so that the person who is asked is compelled to admit [the truth of the fact] against his will. Thus [Did I reveal Myself?¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” means]: “Have I revealed Myself to your father’s house and chosen you? Since you know this, then Wherefore kick ye at My sacrifice and at Mine offering?”¹⁸¹I Samuel 2:29. Do ye thus requite the Eternal¹⁸²Deuteronomy 32:6. with such a requital! Similarly, “Hast thou eaten of the tree, about which I commanded you¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” [not to eat], and you are ashamed [and therefore you hid yourself],¹⁸³See Genesis 3:8. or [if you did not eat of the tree], why then did you hide?” And in the same way the other [verses are to be explained]. However, the expression Seest thou?¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” is a genuine inquiry about a matter [as to which the questioner is] in doubt, [David saying to Zadok the priest]: “If you ‘advise’ it, then return to the city,” [and the usage of the term ‘seest’ thou? means “do you see fit?”] as in the expression: “I see the words of Admon”¹⁸⁴Kethuboth 109a. [which means: “I find the opinion of Admon correct”]. I have already explained this in Seder Bereshith.¹⁸⁵Genesis 1:4 (Vol. I, p. 30).

ויאמר להם שמעו נא המורים, just as this staff produced almonds as a reminder of the last rebellious generation, are we to produce water from you from this rock?

המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to bring forth water for you from this rock?” Nachmanides writes that we must not misunderstand Moses as saying that it was most unlikely that he could extract water from this or any other rock. He had already produced more impressive miracles than the one he was called upon to perform at this time. Not only that; there were many people alive who had observed him producing a similar miracle at Massa and Merivah in Exodus Moses implied by this question that the people and their conduct did not entitle them to expect such a miracle from him. We find a similar construction in Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגלתי, which according to Kimchi, is a rhetorical question, the questioner being aware that the subject he questions is not at all in any doubt. The question is one that confirms the listener’s expectation. Ibn Ezra writes that Moses was chastising the people who had imagined that it was within the power of himself and Aaron to produce water from a rock, a power reserved for Hashem,” so why had they complained to him instead of to Hashem, who alone is the Provider? It is only G’d Who brought you to this situation, and it is He Who will extricate you from your predicament. According to Kimchi, the introductory letter ה when preceding a question could sometimes be used when the answer is affirmative and sometimes when the expected answer is negative. When Moses charged the spies to report if the Land of Canaan had many trees, and he phrased it as היש בו עץ או אין, it is clear from the second half of the question that both answers were well within the possibilities. Similar questions are sometimes posed without the questioner spelling out the alternative as Moses had done when he sent off the spies. When Joseph asked the brothers who had presented Binyamin to him, if this was the younger brother they had spoken of, he only asked הזה אחיכם הקטון, “is this your younger brother?” He did not add the words: “or not?” When Yaakov asked the shepherds around the well if they knew Lavan, he also left the alternative, i.e. that they did not know him, open. (Compare Genesis) Sometimes such questions are posed only to examine the true state of mind of the people who will answer it. When addressing the Israelites as “rebellious,” Moses implied: “do you really think that it is beyond G’d’s ability to produce water from this rock if He wants to?” He added the word המורים to show the people that he considered their conduct outrageous. He implied that they quarreled with him only because they thought that their situation was beyond G’d’s and His prophet’s Moses ability to resolve? Rashi explains that the rock to which Moses had pointed had in the meantime moved to a spot amongst other rocks, so that the people had become despondent, and demanded that Moses produce the water from a different rock. Moses asked them angrily if they really thought that he could produce water from any rock he wanted to, a rock that G’d had not designated for such a miracle?

Where a small area held… Rashi is answering the question: Would it be possible to assemble the entire community before the rock?

VV. 10 u. 11. ויקהלו וגו׳ ויאמר וגו׳ וירם וגו׳. Dürfen wir es wagen, den Regungen vermutend nachzuspüren, die das Gemüt eines Mosche, dieses treuesten Dieners Gottes, von dem Gott selbst es bezeugte בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, in einem Momente seines Lebens von der entsprechenden Erfüllung seiner Sendung ablenken konnten?? Diese Vermutung wäre: Mosche nahm den Stab aus dem Heiligtum, wo er seit fast vierzig Jahren niedergelegt war, auf Gottes Geheiß wieder in die Hand, und mit diesem Abzeichen seiner göttlichen Sendung versammelte er das Volk. Als er aber nach fast vierzig Jahren sich wieder dem Volke gegenüber mit dem Gottesstab in Händen sah, dessen er vor fast vierzig Jahren beim Antritt seiner Sendung zur Beglaubigung seiner Sendung dem Volke gegenüber bedurfte (siehe Schmot 4, 1 — 15 u. 17), da tat es ihm bitter wehe, dass er in allen diesen vierzig Jahren und mit allem, was er in diesen vierzig Jahren vollbracht hatte, nicht weiter in dem Vertrauen des Volkes gekommen war, und in der Bitterkeit dieses Gefühles vergass er seines Auftrages, redete, statt ruhig den Fels, mit Vorwürfen das Volk an und schlug in heftiger Erregung — וירם וגו׳ ויך וגו׳ פעמים den Fels, worauf Wasser in Fülle ihm entströmte und das Volk und ihre Tiere befriedigte.

?המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “Are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” The Israelites understood Moses’ exclamation at face value, i.e. that he thought that it was quite impossible to extract water from the rock he pointed at, (or they had pointed at). Actually, what Moses had meant to say was: “did you think that what we are going to do to this rock is the same as what we did for your fathers 40 years ago, i.e. by striking it?”G-d’s command to speak to the rock was precisely to teach them that it was not even necessary to strike the rock. Moses had not been precise in his exclamation.

Listen, you rebels! Some of the Sages held the view that Moshe and Aharon’s sin was that they slighted Bnei Yisroel’s honor; they slighted the honor of people who had not sinned. The verse only informs us of the sin of the עם (the people) — a reference to the coarse ones among them, known as the mixed multitude. However, “the community” is the community of the righteous among Yisroel, called “the congregation of Adonoy,” and they had not spoken at all in this matter. They only assembled, and perhaps this was for the sake of requesting Moshe and Aharon to make efforts in prayer in order to satiate their thirst. They did not sin at all, and yet Moshe spoke harshly to them and called them rebels.

AND MOSES AND AARON GATHERED THE "KAHAL" BEFORE THE ROCK: Now we will tell how Moses strayed from the word of Hashem...Because Hashem Said to Moses, "gather the Eidah, you and Aaron, your brother," but they gathered the "Kahal." And I have already explained previously that there is a difference between Eidah and Kahal. And Eidah is called when the Elders of the people are standing at the front. This is when they are called and Eidah, when the Sanhedrin, who are the essence, are at the forefront. A Kahal is called when the multitudes of people are gathered in no particular or correct order and the elders are not at the front. And so at the moment when the water came out of the rock at Chorev, which was also a great miracle...it was important that it was done in front of those who were deserving of seeing a great miracle- the Elders. And so too, it applies here, Hashem wanted this miracle to be performed in front of the Elders who were deserving of seeing this miracle, because the people were rebelling against the Elders. The Tanchuma Explains that when Moses saw them approaching, he said, "What is this gathering?" and Aaron answered, "They came to do Chesed because of Miriam's death (to be menachem avelim)." Moses said, "no, this is not a respectful gathering: this is one of chaos and rebellion. A respectful gathering would have its Elders at the head." At the beginning, it calls them an "Eidah" as the elders were leading, and then they devolved into a "Kahal" who was undeserving of a miracle, Moses and Aaron gathered the wrong group when attempting to perform the miracle. When Moses and Aaron were rebuking them, they said, "Shimu na Homirim! This rock will NOT take out water for you!" IF they had gathered the "Eidah," then water would have been produced immediately.

המן הסלע הזה נוציא MUST WE BRING [WATER] OUT OF THIS ROCK? — They said this because they could not distinguish it (the rock intended by God), for the rock from which the water had hitherto flowed during these forty years had vanished and taken a place amongst the other rocks when the “well” disappeared after Miriam’s death, and Israel said to them, “What difference is it to you from which rock you bring forth water for us?” — It was on this account that he (Moses) said unto them (called them) המרים — which may mean “refractory”, or, as a Greek expression, “foolish people” (µώροι), or, “such as would teach (מורים) their teachers” — from this rock about which we have received no Divine Command can we bring forth water for you?! (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

At the time he raised the staff he struck it twice in succession followed by saying :did you really think that we would produce water from this rock?” Moses said this because he harboured doubt; seeing that G’d had instructed him to take the staff with him (verse 8) he did not think that speaking to the rock was meant to result in the rock yielding up its water, but that striking it may be required, just as he had done at Refidim.
As to the fact that G’d had specifically instructed him to “speak” to the rock, he thought that speaking to a rock, i.e. communicating one’s thoughts to it, consisted of striking the rock. In the absence of certainty about which course to follow, Moses decided to speak to the rock in addition to striking it, but G’d had already indicated that He accepted Moses’ striking the rock by making all that water come forth.
In spite of G’d’s apparent approval of what Moses had done he was punished, seeing that G’d employs more stringent rules in dealing with the righteous such as Moses than He applies to ordinary mortals. This is what He meant when he said in verse 12 “because you did not demonstrate faith in Me to use this opportunity to sanctify Me by means of first having spoken to the rock.”
“Seeing that I, the commentator, am aware that Moses was quite incapable of deliberately countermanding G’d’s instructions, I had to explain the episode as resulting from an error Moses made.”

Because they did not recognize it. Rashi is answering the question: What reason did they have for saying “Can we [extract] from this rock…”? Since Hashem had said it will give water it would certainly happen! He answers that it was “because they did not recognize it.” The Israelites were asking them, “What difference is it to you from which rock you extract [water]?” Meaning: What difference is there between this rock and another one? Therefore he said to them…

Es lautete aber der Vorwurf: שמעו נא המורים וגו׳. Wir haben schon zu Bereschit 26, 35 die Grundbedeutung der Wurzel מרה, wovon ja auch מ ֹ ָרה, das Schermesser, als: entgegenfahren, somit eine gegensätzliche Richtung innenehmen, erkannt. Wir haben im Deutschen einen aus ähnlicher Gedankenanschauung gebildeten Begriff: widerhaarig. Obgleich nun מרה vorzugsweise sich auf Handlungen bezieht und sowohl die positive, als negative Unfolgsamkeit bezeichnet, so kommt es doch auch überhaupt als Bezeichnung eines den Wünschen und Erwartungen völlig entgegengesetzen Verhaltens und Zustandes vor. So heißt es von einem alle Wünsche versagenden Elend: עני ישראל מֹרֶה מאוד (Kön. 11. 14, 26). So bezeichnet Job seine Klagen als גם היום מרי שיחי, מרי (23, 2) er könne seine Äußerungen nicht den Wünschen seiner Freunde gemäß gestalten, denn ידי כבדה על אנחותי, das Leid, das ihn gefasst habe, laste zu schwer auf seinem Seufzen. (Jes.50, 5): ד׳ אלקים פתח לי אזן ואנכי לא מריתי, Gott habe ihm das Ohr geöffnet und er habe sich der göttlichen Belehrung nicht unzugänglich gezeigt. Diese Unzugänglichkeit einer Belehrung gegenüber nennt er מרה. Auch hier dürfte המרים nicht speziell die Ungehorsamen bedeuten, da in dem Vorgang nicht eigentlich tätiger Ungehorsam zu Tage getreten. Vielmehr dürfte damit nur ihre Ungefügigkeit und ihr den gerechten Erwartungen nicht entsprechendes Verhalten im allgemeinen, insbesondere aber ihre Unzugänglichkeit für alle die Belehrung bezeichnet sein, die sie doch aus all den großartigen Erfahrungen bereits geschöpft haben mussten. In diesem Sinne dürfte denn auch die Vieldeutigkeit, die שיטין הרבה, wie im מ ר der Ausdruck lautet, zu fassen sein, die dort in dem Ausdruck המרים gefunden werden, wonach der Vorwurf: סרבנים שוטים ,מורי חצים ,מלמדים את מלמדיהם, Ungehorsam, Unverstand, Anmaßung und Streitlust darin liege. Es kann eben nicht Ungehorsam im engern Sinne, sondern Widerhaarigkeit im allgemeinen ausdrücken wollen. — המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים. Wir glauben, diese Frage also zu verstehen: Werden wir aus diesem Fels euch Wasser herausschaffen: d. h. ihr habt uns vorgeworfen, wir hätten euch אל ,אל המדבר הזה מקום הרע הזה gebracht, woselbst מים אין לשתות! Wohlan, wenn durch unser Wort, wie uns geboten worden, dieser Fels, an dem ihr steht,, euch das nötige Wasser gibt, werdet ihr da endlich aufhören, מרים, zu sein, werdet ihr da endlich der Überzeugung zugänglich sein, dass überall nicht wir, sondern Gott euch hierher geführt? Mit diesen Worten war Mosche noch immer nicht aus der Bahn seines Auftrages gewichen. Ihrem Sinne nach waren sie die geeignete Vorbereitung zu dem, was לעיניהם, vor ihren Augen und zu ihrer Belehrung geschehen sollte. Nur die Erregtheit, in der sie gesprochen wurden, und die ihn dann zum heftigen Staberheben und Schlagen des Felsen führte, wäre die Verirrung gewesen.

פעמים [HE SMOTE THE ROCK] TWICE, because at the first attempt it did not bring forth more than a few drops, for God had not bidden him smite it, but He had said, (v. 8) “and ye shall speak to the rock”. They had, indeed, spoken, but to a different rock (not that which God had intended) and it had not given forth water. They said, “Perhaps it is necessary to smite it as on the former occasion when it says, (Exodus 17:6) ‘and ye shall smite the rock’, and just that rock intended by God happened to be there and they smote it [but without full effect, and so they smote it a second time] (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

במטהו פעמים with his staff, twice. The reason he hit the rock twice was similar to a servant who is eager to carry out his master's instructions. Our sages in Sanhedrin 34 use this verse to illustrate the principle that a single verse yields many diverse insights.

Because at first … only drops. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he strike it twice? He answers that this was because after striking it once it only produced drops. His proof is that if it had not produced anything, why would he have stuck it a second time? Also, why would he not have thought that it was a different rock, about which Hashem had not commanded them? Conversely, if at first it had produced abundant water, they would not have had to strike it a second time. Rather, it is certain that at first it produced drops and therefore he struck it a second time. The reason why it did not produce sufficient water immediately was “Because [the Omnipresent] had not…” Rashi adds “They spoke…” so that Moshe’s mistake be known, that he struck it. Because they had spoken to a different rock and it had not produced water. Consequently he struck the rock, because they said, “Perhaps…” Rashi adds that they happened upon [that rock] because if this were not so, why would it have even produced drops? Even after many strikes it should not have produced even one drop of water! Rather, “They happened upon [that rock]…” There is a minor difficulty based on Rashi’s explanation in Parshas Matos concerning the verse (Bamidbar 31:21) “Elozor the Kohein said…” [There he states]: “Because Moshe fell into a state of anger he fell into a state of error… similar to ‘listen now rebels… he struck the rock’ and because of anger he came to a state of error.” This implies that it was not because they had spoken to another rock and it had not produced water, and that they thought perhaps Hashem’s command was to strike it, like Rashi writes here. The answer may be that these are Midrashim that disagree with each other and Rashi brings both, as is his practice. Re’m.

ויך את הסלע, “he struck the rock with his staff twice.” Rashi’s explanation here is too short when he writes that after the first strike the rock produced only a few drops of water, Moses struck the rock again and then it produced ample amounts of water because G-d had never instructed him to hit the rock at all, but had said to Moses and Aaron: “speak to the rock.” According to Rashi, they then spoke to another rock. The result was that no water emerged from that rock at all. They then thought that this second rock should have been struck just like the first one, and when they proceeded to do this a lot of water came out. When the rock had failed to produce water, they had thought that they must have spoken to the wrong rock. (Our author amends what he thought that Rashi had meant to write)

יען לא האמנתם בי BECAUSE YE BELIEVED ME NOT — Scripture discloses the fact that but for this sin alone, they would have entered the land of Canaan, in order that people should not say of them, “Even as the sin of the generation of the Wilderness (a term used of those who left Egypt) on whom it was decreed that they should not enter the Land was the sin of Moses and Aaron” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 27:13). But was not the doubting question (cf. Rashi on Numbers 11:22), “shall the sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them?” a more grievous lack of faith in God than this? But because that had been said in private (no Israelites being present and therefore it could have no evil influence upon them), Scripture (God) spared him (and did not make his lack of faith public by pronouncing punishment for it), but here, where all Israel were standing by, Scripture does not spare him because of the Hallowing of the Divine Name (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 10).

יען לא האמנתם בי, “because you did not believe in Me, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Moses’ and Aaron’s sins were not spelled out in detail by the Torah. Rashi says the sin was that whereas Hashem had instructed them to speak to the rock, but they had struck it instead. The difficulty with Rashi’s commentary is that seeing that G’d had told Moses to take his staff along, Moses had clearly assumed that the reason for taking the staff along was to hit the rock, similar to the manner in which he had used the staff repeatedly to bring on the plagues upon the Egyptians. Surely, if G’d had only wanted Moses to speak to the rock to what purpose did He tell him to take along his staff? When G’d, in Egypt, had told Moses to take along the staff that had turned into a snake at the burning bush, it was from then on to serve as an instrument with which to bring on the plagues. Furthermore, how would Moses speaking to the rock instead of striking it enhance the quality of the miacle? We have several instances when G’d told Moses to stretch out his staff (in order to bring on a plague) and it is assumed that Moses was to use the staff to strike with, not just to gesture with. Besides, speaking to the rock was meant to inform the rock that this man who was standing before the rock addressed the rock in the name of its Creator Who had given him an order to extract water from it. Moses and Aaron fulfilled this part of the task as we know from when the Torah writes that they made the entire community assemble in front of the rock (verse 10) Furthermore, as far as the rock was concerned what is the difference in the quality of the miracle whether it responds to words or to physical impact with Moses’ staff? Why is the sin of Moses and Aaron described as a מעילה, a term usually reserved for someone who makes unauthorized private use of something belonging to the Temple treasury? Some say that Moses’ sin consisted in his expressing himself unclearly, due to his anger, so that when he said: ”can we extract water from the rock,?” at least some of the people thought that he had included G’d in this question, leaving doubt that even G’d could perform such a miracle. As a result G’d accused them of not sanctifying His name when having had an opportunity to do so. According to the commentators this is what the psalmist had in mind when he said in Psalms 106,33, כי המרו את רוחו ויבטא בשפתיו, “for they had provoked his spirit so that he spoke rashly.” From these words of the psalmist we see that Moses did not sin by hitting the rock but by not phrasing his words carefully enough. Other commentators see the sin not so much in what preceded the miracle of the water but in the failure of the people as well as Moses, who should have led the people singing a song of thanks to G’d for having provided such a miracle. This is the meaning of the words לא קדשתם אותי, “you have not sanctified Me.” Still other commentators see the sin in Moses and Aaron asking: “how can we produce water from this rock,?” i.e. the one the people had chosen, seeing it was not the one G’d had chosen. Moses had been afraid to deviate from the precise instructions he had, thereby missing an opportunity to demonstrate that G’d can provide water from any rock if He so chooses. Maimonides feels that the real sin of Moses was that he lost his composure and addressed people who were thirsty as “rebellious”. A man of Moses’ stature could not permit himself to so lose his composure that he publicly called his people by an insulting term. Such conduct amounted to a public desecration of the Holy name of Hashem, seeing that Moses was the man whose body language, mode of speech, not to mention his actions, etc., all the people were to use as a model for their own behaviour. The people had been hoping that by modeling themselves on their leader they would succeed in life on earth as well as in the hereafter. How could a display of anger possibly contribute to the esteem in which they held this man of G’d? Such displays of anger are presumed to be the sudden manifestation of some negative character trait within the person, something he had been able to conceal up until such time as he lost his “cool.” According to our tradition, the Israelites of that generation were extremely wise, and on a par with prophets, so that they would minutely examine and analyze each word Moses spoke, how he spoke it, how he conducted himself, etc., and draw far reaching conclusions from this. They therefore would mistakenly conclude that unless Moses had been aware that G’d Himself had been angry with the people for having demanded water he would not have allowed himself to reprimand them in the manner in which he did. Moses’ behaviour therefore contributed to the people being mistakenly made to feel that G’d had been angry with them when this had not been the case at all. He had therefore “shortchanged” G’d, another way of describing the sin of מעילה, fraudulent use of someone else’s property. Moses’ technical error had been to interpret the words: “take the staff and assemble the people,” as an instruction to use the staff to strike with. According to Maimonides there is not a single word in the paragraph that could lead us to believe that G’d had been angry with the people. Nachmanides challenges Maimonides’ explanation by pointing out that when punishing Moses and Aaron G’d had said specifically both in Numbers 20,24 and again in Numbers 27,14 that both Moses and Aaron had been guilty of מריתם פי, ”you rebelled against My word.” There was therefore more to Moses’ sin than presenting the people with an image that did not correspond to the facts. G’d also accused them of not having had sufficient faith in Him,לא האמנתם בי, which shows that their punishment had nothing to do with their having allowed themselves to become angry and to display their anger. If the anger had been the major misdemeanour, surely the Torah would have mentioned this directly. Moreover, when in Numbers 31,14 Moses displayed anger at the officers of the punitive campaign against Midian who had allowed women to survive, we do not hear that Moses was punished for that display of anger. Moses’ anger on that occasion had been quite unjustified. Furthermore, the Torah itself on this occasion never accused Moses of having been angry. Addressing the people and describing their conduct as rebellious, does not mean that he had lost his “cool” and was displaying anger. In his parting speech to the nation (Deut. 9,7 and 9,24) he repeatedly reminded the people that they had displayed rebellious tendencies throughout the years he had been their leader, and no one suggested that Moses deserved to be punished for using such language. Besides, we see nowhere that Aaron had displayed anger on this occasion, and yet his punishment is lumped together with that of his brother Moses. Besides, it is psychologically impossible that of all the many occasions when the people had behaved in a rebellious manner ever since the Exodus, this occasion was so severe that it alone should have produced in Moses an unforgivable burst of anger. How many times did the people accuse him of having taken them out of Egypt only to have to face death in the desert when they would not even be buried with dignity? The people had sinned against G’d again and again, and Moses had accused them later that he had been punished on account of their sin as G’d had been angry with him! (Compare Deut. 1,37) From all the above it follows that the people sinned, not Moses. When reading the words of Maimonides we do not find a single word of indictment against the people; he treats the subject as if Moses alone had been at fault in the episode. When Maimonides said that we do not find that G’d had been angry with the people in this episode at all, but that by way of contrast G’d reacted with complete calm saying to Moses: ’take the staff, etc., and provide them with water,’ the reason, as we should know by now, is that whenever the people asked for life’s necessities, even if they did not ask in an appropriate fashion, G’d in His great patience responded positively, instead of chastising them for a relatively minor offence, i.e. the “how” of their request. Usually, G’d reacted only after having supplied the people’s needs, such as naming the location in a manner that recalled the people’s misconduct, examples being מסה ומריבה, קברות התאוה, תבערה. The names were reminders of the people’s sins at that location. On the other hand, when the people voiced totally unjustified complaints, G’d did react with anger. In this instance the phrase וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “Hashem’s glory manifested itself to them,” is an allusion to G’d’s displeasure, similar wording being associated with a pestilence following as a sign of G’d’s displeasure after the revolt of Korach or the episode with the spies. (Numbers 16,19, 17,7) The most serious difficulty with Maimonides’ interpretation is the specific verse in Psalms 106,32 ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם, “They (the Jewish people) provoked wrath at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account.” The psalmist lists that sin of the people as part of the long list enumerated in that chapter. The explanation most likely to meet all the various problems we encounter in the Torah’s description of this episode, is that of Rabbeinu Chananel who writes that Moses’ major error was the use of the pronoun “we” when asking המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “shall we produce water for you from this rock?” If Moses had said “shall He produce water for you?” he would not have created the impression that the power to produce water resided within him. When announcing the impending fall of the manna from heaven, (Exodus 16,8) Moses had announced the fact by crediting G’d with the phenomenon. When he failed to do so here, the people could have thought that he credited himself with the power to produce this water. [Aaron’s presence throughout, and his failure to remind Moses to speak to the rock although he had heard G’d’s instructions to Moses, made him guilty also. Ed.] A comparison with Exodus 17,5-7 shows that on that occasion G’d had announced that He would personally be on Moses’ side, directly above the rock, while Moses would strike the rock and water would come forth. The fact that on this occasion G’d did not indicate His personal involvement in the miracle, may have misled Moses into using language which could be misinterpreted. On the first occasion when the people still had the cloud of G’d traveling with them, the very position of that cloud indicated the Shechinah’s Presence. There had not been a promise this time that this cloud would, instead of resting above the Tabernacle, move to above the rock that would produce its waters. [This was not surprising, as on the first occasion there had not yet been a Tabernacle for the cloud to rest above. Ed.] In lieu of the cloud that showed that the water emerged as a miracle, this time, if the water had come forth from the rock only as a result of Moses addressing the rock, the miracle would have been manifest. By producing (apparently) the water as a result of striking the rock, Moses had missed an opportunity to sanctify the name of Hashem, a major sin of omission. Perhaps the criticism of Moses and Aaron as having מעלתם בי, “fraudulently abused something that is Mine,” refers to the fact that they made personal use of something that is G’d’s, seeing that the people now credited their water supply to Moses instead of to Hashem. The accusation מריתם פי, “you countermanded My order,” may have referred to the fact that neither Moses nor Aaron spoke to the rock as they had been told to do. Alternately, the meaning could be that G’d meant “seeing I did not tell you to speak the line: ‘shall we produce water for you from this rock,’ you in effect substituted your own words for Mine, an act of insubordination.” The meaning of the accusation לא האמנתם בי, “you did not have faith in Me,” is in the causative mode, i.e. your conduct is directly responsible for the fact that the people have less faith in Me.” It is also possible that the additional word להקדישני is meant to define the sin more narrowly not in the sense of the people losing some of their faith in Hashem, but in Moses and Aaron not having strengthened the people’s faith in Hashem, something which would have resulted from their carrying out their orders properly. According to the approach of our sages the fact that Moses had to strike the rock twice instead of only once, as on the previous occasion, resulted in a diminution of the people’s faith in Hashem.

לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Our sages in Pessikta Zutra claim that the expression לכן always denotes a statement equal in force to that of an oath. We find this word introducing G’d’s oath to punish the descendants of the house of Eli in Samuel I 3,14: “Therefore I have sworn, etc.” In our verse it means that G’d swore that neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the Holy Land. This is the reason why the paragraph is followed immediately by Moses sending messengers to the King of the Edomites to let the Israelites pass his country on their way to the Holy Land. In Kadesh Moses had forfeited his right to enter Eretz Yisrael and it was from there that he sent emissaries.

Scripture reveals… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Is it respectful to reveal the disgrace of the righteous? He answers that on the contrary it is to their credit that the Scripture reveals this “so that it would not be said of them…”

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why does the Torah switch from using the relatively harsh וידבר in verse 7 where it did not appear called for, and now portrays G'd as speaking softly, at the very moment when Moses had become guilty of a transgression? It seems ludicrous that at the moment when G'd decrees a harsh penalty on both Moses and Aaron the language this is couched in is most friendly! We may understand this in light of what Bamidbar Rabbah 19,12 writes that Moses said to G'd that seeing He had decreed that he would die in the desert together with all the people who had believed the report of the ten spies, subsequent generations would conclude that he too was no better than they. He therefore pleaded with G'd to record his sin in the Torah to make certain no one would think Moses was guilty at the time the spies returned. This is the reason the Torah wrote the words יען לא האמנתם בי. Thus far the Midrash. The reason that G'd introduced the paragraph dealing with Moses' punishment with the soft ויאמר was to draw our attention to the difference between what had caused the death of the generation of the spies and that of Moses and Aaron respectively. On no account were these leaders to be compared to their flock although they shared the fate of dying in the desert.

יען לא האמנתם בי, the sin consisted in their saying: המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים?, “Are we to extract water for you from this rock?” They should have said instead: יוציא ה' לכם מים, “G’d will extract water for you.” (verse 10). In Exodus 16,8 Moses had been careful to phrase the announcement of the forthcoming phenomenon of manna by attributing it to coming directly from G’d. Similarly, when predicting any of the other miracles which had been announce beforehand, Moses had carefully attributed the miracle to G’d. By failing to do so this time they left the way open for some of the people to think that the water when it would gush forth would be the result of Moses’ and Aaron’s combined knowledge.
This is also the meaning of the words (Moses quoting G’d) לא קדשתם אותי, “you have not sanctified Me” (Deuteronomy 32,51). On the first occasion, almost 40 years earlier, when water would be produced from a rock, (Exodus 17,6) G’d had introduced the miracle by announcing: “Here I will be standing there before you on the rock at Chorev. Strike the rock and water will issue from it and the people will drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.” The seventy elders had observed the cloud of glory moving to above the site of that rock so that the miracle became a public spectacle, lending additional greatness to G’d’s name as the provider. In this instance the people did not observe any evidence of G’d’s involvement so that it was easy to conclude, based on Moses’ and Aaron’s phrasing it, that they themselves had initiated this phenomenon.

V. 12. יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני Wenn wir mit der bisherigen Auffassung nicht ganz irre gegangen, wenn Mosche Erregtheit aus dem bitteren Gefühle des Vergeblichen seiner ganzen bisherigen Arbeit an dem Volke entsprungen, das ihm noch immer als המורים, als die Ungefügigen, jeder Sinnesänderung durch bessere Überzeugung Unzugänglichen gegenüberstand; wenn eine solche Erregtheit einerseits ein in der Stimmung eines Mosche nicht geeignetes Hervortreten der eigenen Persönlichkeit voraussetzen dürfte, die überall vor dem Bewusstsein der Gottessendung zurücktreten, und — wohl die schwerste aller Prüfungen — nie die Geduld verlieren sollte, so lange Gott geduldig bleibt; wenn von ihr ein augenblicklicher Zweifel nicht zu trennen ist an dem Gelingen der Gottessendung und der einstigen endlichen Gewinnung des Volkes für dessen Bestimmung und Sendung auf Erden: sollte dann nicht dieses alles zusammen als momentanes Sinken der אמונה begriffen werden können, die an Gott und seinen Absichten bei allem Widerpart der Erscheinungen festhält und sich da am meisten bewährt, wo eine Gottessendung durch ihren Misserfolg an sich selber irre zu werden versucht sein kann? Sollte dann die gegenteilige Forderung: Gott in der entschiedenen, durch nichts hindernd zu erreichenden Absolutheit seines Wollens und Vollbringens immer gegenwärtig zu haben, und von diesem Bewusstsein aus, durch alle Erfahrung unbeirrt, wie Gott heiligende Engel mit verhülltem Blick und verhülltem Schritt nur die geflügelte Botenkraft im Dienste Gottes, zu betätigen, sollte diese Forderung nicht als höchstes קידוש השם im Kreise der Menschen begriffen werden können, denen eine solche Botschaft gilt? Und sollte, demnach das לא האמנתם בי להקדישני nicht vollkommen den Ausgangspunkt dieser Verirrung, die ungeduldig gewordene Erregteit Mosche, in seinem innersten Wesen treffen?

לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Whenever the expression לכן, appears, it indicates that the speaker is saying something in the nature of an oath. Compare: Samuel I 3,14: לכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, “therefore I have sworn concerning the house of Eli;” compare alsoDeuteronomy 4,21: וישבע לבלתי עברי, “therefore He swore that I may not cross, etc.”If you were to query that we read at the end of Exodus 6,7 that Rashi explains the words: עתה תראה, “now you will see,” that Moses, while witnessing the Exodus from Egypt, will not witness the crossing of the Jordan into the land of Canaan, (as a penalty for having questioned G-d’s handling of the Israelites since his appointment as their leader) he had already forfeited the right to cross into the land of Israel 40 years earlier, so what is new about G-d’s oath here? We may answer that both incidents combined to deny him entry to the Holy land; [alternately, in Exodus, the matter had only been hinted at, (thus preventing Moses from apologizing and doing teshuvah) and had not been confirmed by G-d with an oath thus making it irrevocable. Ed.].

להקדישני TO SANCTIFY ME — For had you spoken to the rock and it had brought forth water I would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, for they would have said: What is the case with this rock which cannot speak and cannot hear and needs no maintenance? It fulfils the bidding of the Omnipresent God! How much more should we do so?

If it had not been for this single sin. Rashi is troubled by the fact that the word יען ["because"] seems to explain what was stated previously. I.e., it has the connotation of, “If it were not for.” He answers that “if it had not been for…” means that it was only because they did this [that they were punished]. Re’m writes: You might ask: Even without this sin he would not have entered the land because a decree had already been place upon him, as it states (Shemos 6:1) “Now you will see…” [and Rashi comments:] “But not what is done to the thirty one kings.” For the answer see Parshas Beha'aloscha (Bamidbar 10:29) where I wrote on the verse, “We are journeying…” that Rashi’s words there are like his answer here. Therefore I have not brought the answer of the Re’m here.

Wer aber könnte wagen, den unausgesprochenen Nexus zu ergänzen, der das יען mit dem לכן in dem Gottesurteil motivierend verbindet? Wer auch den Anteil an dieser Verirrung präzisieren, der auch Aharon vor Gottes Augen der gleichen Verurteilung schuldig erscheinen ließ? Jedenfalls steht die Tatsache in ihrer Großartigkeit da, dass nun die Führer an der Grenze des Landes der Verheißung um einer kleinen, so leicht zu erklärenden אמונה-Schwäche eines Augenblicks willen, dasselbe Verhängnis erleiden, dem fortgesetzte אמונה-Losigkeit das von ihnen geführte Geschlecht der Wüste hat erliegen lassen, und das Grab der Führer neben dem Volke in der Wüste wird nun zum ewigen Zeugnis der Gerechtigkeit der göttlichen Waltung, auf deren Wage die leiseste Verirrung ihr naher, ihrem heiligen Dienste geheiligter Männer größten Verbrechen gewöhnlicher Sterblichen an Schwere gleicht, und die, indem sie selbst eines Mosche und Aharon für die Weitervollbringung ihres Werkes auf Erden zu entraten weiß, sich zugleich in der ganzen קדושה ihrer absoluten Größe zeigt, deren Ziele durch nichts bedingt und der selbst ein Mosche und Aharon nicht unentbehrlich sind. Wenn später Jisraels Nationalgesang Gottes קדושה, Gottes unnahbare Erhabenheit in ihrer ganzen, die Gemüter zum Ernst gewissenhaftester Selbstbeherrschung stimmenden Größe vergegenwärtigen will, singen will, wie sein Thronen über sein Gesetz schirmenden Cherubim die Erde in ihren bisherigen Gängen erschüttern müsse, singen will, welche Größe, welche Fruchtbarkeit, welche Heiligkeit der Huldigung seines Namens innewohnt, wie Seine Macht das Recht liebt und die von Recht und Milde gezeugte Geradheit bei uns erzielen will, besingen will, wie der Gedanke: קדוש הוא "Er ist heilig", unsere gänzliche Hingebung an sein Gesetzesheiligtum fordert: dann weist er auf Mosche und Aharon hin, gibt zu bedenken, wie Mosche und Aharon die hervorragendsten unter seinen Dienern, Samuel unter seinen Verkündern, die Gott für andere anriefen und der Erhörung gewiss waren, mit denen Gott in Wolkensäule sprach, die die Wächter seiner Zeugnisse, die Empfänger seines Gesetzes waren, die Gott erhörte und auf ihre Fürsprache sich als verzeihender Gott für andere erwies — und doch für ihre eigene Verirrung kein Verzeihen hatte: רוממו ד׳ אלקינו והשתחוו להר קדשו כי קדוש ד׳ אלקינו (Ps.99).

לכן לא תביאו THEREFORE YE SHALL NOT BRING — This expression (“therefore”) is used by way of an oath, just as (I Samuel 3:14), “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli”. Here He was quick to take an oath in order that they should not pray at length about it (that He should withdraw the decree) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 2).

Like the transgressions of the rest of the generation of the desert. Meaning: One should not explain that they were also guilty of the sins of the generation of the desert, for they were great sins such as those who complained and the other matters as well.

Was not “Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered” worse than this? For there Moshe implied that Hashem did not have the power to give them enough meat. Here Moshe merely said that he did not have permission to bring water from a [different] rock [than the one] about which he had been commanded. [The answer is:] This [statement about the rock] gave the people reason to believe that the water came out because of the rock and its own attributes, not because of Hashem’s decree. Because what difference does it make to Hashem whether it is this rock or another. Thus their sin was only that they did not rely on Hashem, that He would bring water out from any rock they wished, even though it was not the one about which they had been commanded.

He swore precipitously. Meaning on His own, without any need — for surely they had not [yet] stood before Him in prayer.

המה מי מריבה THESE ARE THE WATERS OF MERIBAH — These are they that were alluded to, though unwittingly, on another occasion: these it was that Pharaoh’s astrologers foresaw, saying that Israel’s deliverer would be punished through water. On that account they decreed (Exodus 1:22) “Every son that is born shall ye cast into the river” (Sanhedrin 101b).

AND HE WAS SANCTIFIED IN THEM — “in that Moses and Aaron died on account of them [i.e., the waters of Meribah]. When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon those who are holy [i.e., near] to Him, He becomes revered and sanctified in people’s eyes, as it is said, In them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified,¹⁸⁶Leviticus 10:3. and similarly it is stated, Revered is G-d ‘mimikdashecha’ (out of Thy holy places).”¹⁸⁷Psalms 68:36. “Read not mimikdashecha (‘out of Thy holy places’) but mim’kudashecha [‘out of Thy sanctified ones’ — out of those who are holy to His Name, upon whom He executes judgment]” (Rashi, Leviticus 10:3). This is Rashi’s language, and it is also Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s interpretation. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for Moses and Aaron had not yet died and it was not commonly known amongst people that they were to die on account of this sin, so that G-d would become revered as a result of it, as happened with Nadab and Abihu,¹⁸⁸Leviticus 10:1-2. and at Perez-uzzah.¹⁸⁹II Samuel 6:8. Besides, Scripture states, These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal, and He was sanctified ‘by them,’ meaning to say that He was sanctified by those who did the striving [and not through the punishment of Moses and Aaron, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra said], this being related to the expression ‘In them’ that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified.¹⁸⁶Leviticus 10:3. And according to their explanation [i.e., that of Rashi and Ibn Ezra], it should have said, [These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal] “and He became honored in front of them” [the children of Israel].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the incident with the first rock took place in the sight of the elders of Israel¹⁹⁰Exodus 17:6. alone, as it is expressly stated there. But here [in Verse 10] it is said, And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together etc. Therefore Scripture states that these waters of Meribah [Strife] which brought about the Divine decree against Moses and Aaron [that they would not enter the Land], were the same waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal and He was sanctified in them in the presence of all of them, similar to that which is written, and I shall gather them out of their enemies’ lands, and will be sanctified in them in the sight of many nations.¹⁹¹Ezekiel 39:27.
Know that at the first [incident with the rock] the people quarrelled with Moses — as it is said, And the people strove with Moses,¹⁹²Exodus 17:2. and so also did Moses say, They are almost ready to stone me¹⁹³Ibid., Verse 4. — and they [also] tried G-d, saying, Is the Eternal among us, or not?¹⁹⁴Ibid., Verse 7. But here they strove with Him Who is on high, but they did riot test Him. Therefore [Scripture] says that these waters of Meribah [Strife] which were the cause of this decree [against Moses and Aaron] are the same waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal, and He was sanctified in them in their presence, and they were not the first [waters of the rock in Horeb],¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. where they tried the Eternal, and He was sanctified only in the sight of the elders of Israel.¹⁹⁰Exodus 17:6. And since there were two incidents with a rock, Scripture had to explain for which one [of these two events] these righteous men [Moses and Aaron] were punished.

ויקדש בם, by these very waters G’d did become sanctified later on in the incident which occurred at the river Arnon when He showed these people these unnatural waters as testified to by the Israelites in their song (21,19) ומנחליאל במות that these waters instead of flowing downwards in accordance with the laws of gravity, actually flowed uphill.

המה מי מריבה, they are the waters of strife, etc. Why did the Torah mention "strife" twice in this verse, first מי מריבה, and then אשר רבו בני ישראל? The first word מריבה could easily have been skipped. Furthermore, from the words אשר רבו בני ישראל את השם I gain the impression that the subject in the words are the children of Israel, whereas from the words ויקדש בם it appears that the subject of the verse are Moses and Aaron?

ויקדש בם, G’d’s name had still become sanctified by means of the water which came fort from the rock even though Moses and Aaron had not spoken to the rock.

המה מי מריבה, “they are the waters of strife;” in Parshat Pinchas (Numbers 27,14) we read about מי מריבת קדש “the waters of the strife at Kadesh,” the letter ה in the word מריבה being missing. This is a hint at 5 errors Moses had committed. 1) Instead of assembling עדה a congregation of elders, as G’;d had commanded, he had assembled the whole community, כל הקהל. This resulted in the manifestation of G’d’s glory not taking place as it had on the occasion of the rock near Chorev. On that occasion G’d had promised Moses to be personally manifest (Exodus 17,5-7) The reason why G’d did not manifest Himself this time was that He could not do so in the presence of people who were ritually impure due to seminal discharges by people who had not purified themselves first, As a result of this absence of a manifestation of G’d’s presence Moses and Aaron asked: “do you expect us to produce water from this rock?” 2) He struck the rock. 3) He called the people: “rebellious people.” 4) He struck the rock twice. 5) He asked: ”are we to produce water from this rock?”

המה מי מריבה, “They are the waters of strife, etc.” According to Tanchuma Chukat 11 this is proof that the location Kadesh was instrumental in G’d associating Moses’ punishment with water. We read in Genesis 14,7: “they turned around and came to the well of judgment which is Kadesh.” It was called thus as it had been predestined to serve as a place to sanctify the Lord’s name.

V. 13. בם .ויקדש בם bezieht sich wahrscheinlich auf Mosche und Aharon, die in dem vorigen Verse genannt sind, und ist diese Heiligung in dem zu V. 12 entwickelten Sinne zu verstehen. Mosche und Aharons Tod in der Wüste ist die dauerndste Besiegelung der Göttlichkeit ihrer Sendung und der unverbrüchlichsten Heiligkeit und unnahbaren Unantastbarkeit des durch ihre Vermittlung uns offenbar gewordenen göttlichen Willens für unseren Wandel auf Erden. רוממו ד׳ אלקינו והשתחוו להר קדשו כי קדוש ד׳ אלקינו tönt als mahnender Weltenruf von ihren Gräbern durch alle Zeiten und Räume an alle Geschlechter ihres Volkes. —

ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” The phenomenon that caused G-d to become sanctified here was the water that came forth from the rock. (Not in accordance with Rashi) As a result, the name of this place henceforth was Kadesh, a sanctified location.

ויקדש בם AND HE WAS SANCTIFIED IN THEM — For Moses and Aaron died on account of them (cf. Targum Jonathan on). When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgement upon those who are holy to Him he is revered and sanctified by mankind. Similarly does it state, (Psalms 68:36) “Revered art Thou when Thou showest Thyself אלהים, Judge, in consequence of thy hallowed ones”; and similarly, too, does it state, (Leviticus 10:3) “Through those that draw near unto me shall I be sanctified” (see Rashi on that verse; Zevachim 115b).

ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” According to Rashi Moses’ and Aaron’s death for their sin was a way of sanctifying G’d’s name as when people observe that G’d applies strict yardsticks of justice even to His chosen people this will make them more G’d-fearing. Concerning the above Nachmanides writes that he does not agree with this explanation seeing that the people had not yet witnessed the death of either Moses or Aaron. Neither had the decree of Moses and Aaron’s impending death been made public at this stage. When they would die eventually, it was not clear what sin had brought about their death. When Uzzah, who had sinfully steadied the Holy Ark, died on the spot, this was a death that induced fear of the Lord as it occurred immediately after the sin. (Compare Samuel II 6,8) The same held true when Nadav and Avihu, the two sons of Aaron who took unauthorized fire in their censers died on the spot. Such deaths contributed to increased fear of the Lord, and the expression ויקדש בם, that G’d’s name became sanctified by their deaths, is appropriate in such instances. [Compare the expression בקרובי אקדש as a similar expression, in Leviticus Ed.] Furthermore, seeing that the Torah wrote explicitly אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה' ויקדש בם, “where the Children of Israel quarreled with Hashem and He was sanctified by them,” we cannot make Moses and Aaron the subjects of this verse. In my opinion, we must understand the verse by comparing it to the first occasion when water from a rock was produced miraculously. On that occasion Moses had assembled only the elders, whereas on this occasion he had assembled all the people. The first time the miracle had been witnessed only by a small group of people, whereas this time the entire nation had witnessed it. It is therefore appropriate for the Torah to refer to these latter waters as the ones through which G’d had become sanctified as all the people had witnessed the miracle and had been impressed by what they had seen. We have a similar verse where G’d is described as having become sanctified as a result of the multitude having witnessed something. (Compare Ezekiel 39,27: וקבצתי אותם מארץ אויביהם ונקדשתי בהם לעיני הגוים, “when I have brought them back from the land of their enemies I will be sanctified in the presence of all the nations.”) You should realize that the confrontation the Torah speaks about began with the people quarreling with Moses, as the Torah wrote: וירב העם עם משה, and as it continues when Moses complained to G’d when he said: ”if they continue in this way they will stone me to death.” (Exodus 17,4) At that time they had sorely tested the patience of G’d when they said: “we want to see if G’d is indeed in our midst or not.” This time around they addressed their complaints also against G’d, but there was no נסיון, testing of G’d’s power or ability involved. This is why this time the waters are only referred to as מי מריבה, waters of strife, whereas the first time the waters were called מי מסה ומריבה, waters where a test of G’d and a quarrel had occurred. On the first occasion G’d had become sanctified only in the presence of the elders, whereas this time He had become sanctified before the eyes of all the people. Seeing that there had been two similar occurrences involving water coming out of a rock, it was necessary for the Torah to tell which of these events caused Moses’ premature death.

ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them,” (Moses and Aaron). G’d’s characteristic is to make the punishment fit the crime. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had been the cause that G’d’s name was not sanctified there by them, it had to be sanctified through them. Just as G’d’s name was sanctified through exacting judgment from Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu through killing them, and the Torah describes this as an example of בקרובי אקדש, “I will be sanctified through those who are near Me,” (Leviticus 10,3) so He was sanctified here through the decree not to let Moses and Aaron go unpunished. Seeing the sin began through the Israelites, they were the cause that Moses and Aaron committed an unintentional trespass. Psalms 106,32 makes it plain that G’d was angry at Moses and Aaron on “their account,” i.e. on account of the Israelites. It was they who were the root cause of this tragic episode.
The matter may be understood by means of a parable: There were two women both of whom were sentenced to corporal punishment by their king, one for unchaste behavior, the other for eating unripe figs of the shemittah year (a minor offense). The latter woman asked the King to make public the cause of her punishment so that people should not think that she was guilty of a serious crime such as that of her companion. Similarly, Moses himself asked G’d to make public the sin for which he had been condemned to die outside the Holy Land so that people would not speculate that he was guilty of a far greater sin than he had actually been punished for. Moses’ downfall was the indirect result of G’d’s anger with His people in first withholding water from them. Seeing that the tribe of Levi was not included in the decree issued against the people on account of the spies, Moses too would not have had to die in the desert had it not been for his error at the rock. Numbers 14,29 speaks of כל פקודיכם למספרכם, ”of all of you who were recorded in your various lists from the age of twenty and up, etc.” In other words, only the men of military age who would have had to form part of the invading armies were doomed to die in the desert, not the Levites who 1) were counted from one month and up, 2) would not have served in the army. The Levites had been counted as if they were a separate people.

It appears that our verse wanted to explain why in this instance G'd had been so adamant about the sanctification of His name. The Torah writes המה מי מריבה to tell us that the strife justifies G'd's being adamant. By repeating the words אשר רבו the Torah wished to tell us that in this instance the Israelites were justified to quarrel with G'd (as they were entitled to water). The words ויקדש בם mean that G'd responded by taking action in order that His name should be sanctified amongst them, i.e. through the Israelites. G'd did this by instructing Moses to speak to the rock which the Israelites suggested because if that rock would produce water His name would be greatly enhanced seeing that He had demonstrated complete control even in the desert, and that the desert did not need to be an area spawning nothing but death as the people had thought so far. Now that Moses and Aaron had prevented G'd from demonstrating all this, G'd had become very angry that the opportunity had been missed to sanctify His name. Other sages interpret the words ויקדש בם as a reference to Moses and Aaron. G'd's name was sanctified through the punishment of Moses and Aaron as G'd demonstrated that He does not allow even those closest to Him to ignore His instructions without being punished.

Tief bedeutsam ist aber die Zusammenstellung: Jisraels Söhne hatten mit Gott gehadert — und Mosche und Aharon traf eine Verurteilung. Dieser Gegensatz bekundet eben die קדושת ד׳ in ihrer ganzen Größe (siehe zu V. 12).

Das המה unterscheidet diese מי מריבה des vierzigsten Jahres von denen des ersten (Schmot Kap.17).

אחיך ישראל THY BROTHER ISRAEL — What reason had he to mention here their brotherhood? But in effect he said to him: We are brothers, sons of Abraham to whom it was said, (Genesis 15:13) “know for a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger [in a land not theirs]”, and upon both of us, being of Abraham’s seed, was the duty of paying that debt (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

AND MOSES SENT MESSENGERS FROM KADESH UNTO THE KING OF EDOM. Scripture did not mention the king’s name, because there was no necessity to do so. It did, however, mention Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, by name, because they were famous for their strength, and they had a name among¹⁹⁵See II Samuel 23:18. the nations; [therefore it stresses] that we should give thanks to Him, blessed be He, for having dealt wondrously with us, as it is said, To Him that smote great kings; for His mercy endureth for ever … Sihon king of the Amorites; for His mercy endureth for ever. And Og king of Bashan; for His mercy endureth for ever.¹⁹⁶Psalms 136:17-20. And it is customary for Scripture to mention the names of the great kings whose lands we inherited, just as it mentioned in [the Book of] Joshua the five kings of the Amorites:¹⁹⁷Joshua 10:5. Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem, and Hoham king of Hebron, and Piram king of Jarmuth, and Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon.¹⁹⁸Ibid., Verse 3. [It mentioned also] Jabin king of Hazor,¹⁹⁹Ibid., 11:1. but the rest of the kings it mentioned only by number,²⁰⁰Ibid., 12:9-24. not by name [because they were not famous for their strength]. Scripture states [here], And ‘Edom’ said unto him²⁰¹Verse 18. ‘Thou shalt not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against thee.’ [and it does not say: “and ‘the king’ of Edom said”], because the whole people agreed with their ruler in his refusal [to allow the Israelites to pass through their land].

אחיך ישראל, אתה ידעת "your brother Israel; you are aware, etc." The reason that Moses underlined the brotherly connection between Edom and Israel was to remind Edom that the discomfort of travel Israel experienced now was not due to recent events but to their respective ancestor and that he considered both Israel and Edom as being involved in this equally. Abraham's descendants were supposed to experience exile according to Genesis 15. However, only the descendants of one of Isaac's sons had paid the price by being enslaved in Egypt. Esau and his descendants had not experienced any of that suffering. The least the Edomites could do now was to display some degree of brotherliness by allowing the Jewish people passage to their own heritage. Compare Bereshit Rabbah 82, on Genesis 36,8 where it is explained that the reason Esau emigrated was that he did not want to pay the debt Abraham had contracted for at the covenant between the pieces.

אל מלך אדום, “to the King of Edom.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah does not bother to tell us the name of that king, as in the case of the King of Moav, Balak, whom the Torah named, or the names of such kings as Sichon King of the Emorites, and Og, King of Bashan, is simply that there was no need for us to know his name. The King of Edom was not known for any outstanding qualities, such as bravery, successful conquest, etc. Those kings, whom the Israelites defeated with Hashem’s help, were named in the Israelites’ prayers of thanksgiving. It is the Torah’s, respectively the Book of Joshua’s, custom to mention by name the kings whose countries the Israelites conquered.

מקדש אל מלך אדום, “from Kadesh to the king of Edom.” The Torah means the town Kadesh, as opposed to Kadesh-Barneya. The latter is not a town but a desert as we know from Psalms 28,8 יחיל ה' מדבר קדש, “the Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh.” I have already mentioned this previously

Because of the bill of debt… Meaning: Hashem said to Avraham, “Your offspring will be strangers…” (Bereishis 15:13). However He placed the decree of being slaves in the land of Egypt upon Yaakov and his sons alone. Thus, "We endured the suffering of the enslavement on behalf of Esav your father, and his children. Consequently it is fitting for you to allow us passage through your land." Rashi explains this shortly [in his commentary] on the words, “Let us pass through your land…” (v. 17).

V. 14. וישלח, unbeirrt von der über ihn verhängten Bestimmung, die ihm persönlich die Aussicht auf Erreichung des so lange angestrebten Zieles versagte, fuhr Mosche fort, so lange ihn Gott bei seinem Volke ließ, rüstig der Lösung seiner Aufgabe zu leben. — אחיך ישראל erinnert ihn an die gemeinsame Abstammung, nach מ׳׳ר zugleich an die Schicksalsverschiedenheit, die die beiden Zwillingszweige des abrahamitischen Stammes getroffen.

They were hoping for a little compassion from Edom, their brother.

וישלח משה מלאכים, “Moses dispatched messengers;” the Torah here explains in detail what Moses refers to in Deuteronomy at the beginning of chapter two there. Some details missing there have been supplied here, whereas others have been augmented there but omitted here.

אתה ידעת את כל התלאה THOU KNOWEST ALL THE TRAVAIL — It was on this account that your father separated himself from our father, as it is said, (Genesis 36:6), "And he (Esau) went to another land on account of Jacob, his brother” — on account of the bond which devolved upon both of them, and he cast the whole of it upon Jacob (Genesis Rabbah 82:13; cf. Rashi on Genesis 36.7.2).

כה אמר אחיך ישראל, “thus said your brother Israel, etc.” Moses referred to the time when Esau and Yaakov were brothers, described as the sons of Avraham. Seeing that in Genesis 15,13 G’d had told Avraham: “your descendants will be strangers, etc.,” it is clear that Esau too was included in that prediction. It had therefore been Esau’s fate to share this status of being strangers and being enslaved.
אתה ידעת את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו “You know of all the hardship that has befallen us” This is why Esau parted ways with his brother Jacob, so as to avoid sharing in the predicted difficulties. The least he could do to help his erstwhile brother complete his redemption was to allow the Israelites passage. Moses’ argument was that seeing that the Israelites, i.e. a single member of Avraham’s offspring had paid the whole price of the prediction at the covenant of the pieces, the least the Edomites could do was to let them pass through their land.

אתה ידעת, these words were Moses' reminder to Edom that they had been well aware of the decree which was part of the above-mentioned covenant that Abraham's descendants were to be enslaved in a foreign country for an extended period. This was something that only the descendants of Esau knew about. All the other pagans had considered the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt as one of the many accidents of history, and had thought that if the family of Jacob had not voluntarily migrated to Egypt they would never have wound up as slaves.

וירדו אבותנו, "our ancestors descended, etc." This was in addition to the exile they experienced in Egypt. We have to understand this in light of Shabbat 10 where we are told that a person should not show favoritism to one of his children over the others; had Jacob not spent five pieces of silver more to make a coloured coat for Joseph our ancestors might not have had to descend to Egypt and to have wound up in exile there." Tossaphot already question that statement saying that G'd had decreed this exile long before Joseph and his brothers had been born, going back to the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15. They answer that but for Jacob's' open display of discrimination between his sons, the decree could have been fulfilled in some other country where it would not have been accompanied by nearly the same degree of cruelty that the Jews experienced in Egypt. The fact that the location where G'ds's decree came true was Egypt added untold suffering. This is why Moses described the migration to Egypt as a "descent," adding וירעו אותנו המצרים, how the Egyptians had mistreated the Jewish people

Moses also conveyed to the Edomites by his lengthy explanantion that the Israelites had paid the debt arising from that covenant in full and that this was why they were now entitled to take possession of the land of Canaan. When Moses added the words ימים רבים, he meant that it had taken the people a long time to discharge their debt under that covenant in full.

וירעו לנו AND [THE EGYPTIANS] DID EVIL TO US — we have borne many adversities.

ולאבותנו, “and to our forefathers,” this was a reference to the Israelites who, though enslaved in Egypt, had not lived long enough to experience the redemption. According to our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 12, the word is a direct reference to the patriarchs, all of whom are described as participating in the pain of the enslavement their offspring had endured in Egypt even in their graves.

We endured much suffering. (Gur Aryeh) Though the term וירעו ["they mistreated"] merely implies that they did one evil act to them, but elsewhere (Devarim 26:6) it is written, “They mistreated us and afflicted us…” Therefore Rashi explains that וירעו includes much suffering, and thus all afflictions are included.

V. 15. ולאבותינו: nicht erst jetzt dem jüngsten, aus Mizrajim ziehenden Geschlechte, von dem ihr meinen könntet, es habe die Misshandlung irgendwie verschuldet, sondern sie hatte bereits bei unseren Vorfahren begonnen, deren ehrbarer Charakter euch wohl noch aus der Überlieferung bekannt sein wird, und war somit ein über unseren ganzen Volksstamm als solchen zur Vererbung von Vorfahren auf Nachkommen dekretiertes gewalttätiges Unrecht.

ולאבתינו [THEY DID EVIL TO US] AND TO OUR FATHERS — From here we may learn that the patriarchs grieve in their graves when punishment comes upon Israel (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

That the forefathers suffer. Because if it is referring to the forefathers who were in the land of Egypt, Scripture should have placed “forefathers” before “us” and said, “They mistreated our forefathers and us.” However, since Scripture wrote “forefathers” at the end, it implies that it refers to a something else (Mahari). (Nachalas Yaakov) For one cannot explain that it refers to the forefathers who were enslaved in Egypt, given that this is so obvious that one would not have to mention it. Rather, it certainly refers to the forefathers who are mentioned at the beginning of the verse that states, “Our forefathers went down to Egypt.” This raises the following difficulty: During the period that any one of the sons of Yaakov was alive there was no enslavement, if so what is meant by “they mistreated […our forefathers]”? Perforce it is to say that “the forefathers suffer…” and accordingly one is able to explain that Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov also suffer.

וישמע קלנו HE HEARD OUR VOICE — through the blessing with which our father, Jacob, had blessed us — “the voice is Jacob’s voice” (Genesis 27:22), because whenever we cry we are answered (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח).

וישמע את קולנו, “He listened to our voice (prayer).” This was a reference to the power of prayer i.e. הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is the voice of Yaakov,” bequeathed by Yitzchak to his son Yaakov (Genesis 27,22).

Through the blessing … “The voice is the voice of Yaakov.” From the answer that the king of Edom gave to Moshe we see that Moshe said to him, “Through the blessing…” Meaning: The Torah writes shortly (v.18), “Lest I go out against you with the sword.” There Rashi explains the reason that he responded, “You pride yourselves…” This proves that Moshe [first] said to him, “Through the blessing…” (Devek Tov) For if not so, when Moshe said, “We cried out to Hashem…” he should merely have said, “Hashem heard and He sent…” Why did he mention “our voice”? Rather, it was “through the blessing…”

בקדש עיר גבולך, “at Kadesh, a town on the border of your Kingdom.” This was at the southeastern end of the land of Canaan.

מלאך A MESSENGER (or an angel) — This was Moses; from this we may learn that the prophets are termed “angel”; so, too, it says, (II Chronicles 36:16) “And they grieved the angels (מלאכי) of God” (Leviticus Rabbah 1:1).

וישלח מלאך, “He dispatched an angel, etc.” A supernatural being, not an emissary such as Moses (Ibn Ezra). This is based on Isaiah 63,9 ומלאך פניו הושיעם, “and the angel of His Presence delivered them.” It is also possible to see in the word מלאך a reference by Moses to himself (Rashi) as we find in Chagai 1,13: ויאמר חגי מלאך ה', “and Chagai, the Lord’s messenger said to the people.” In the eyes of the people Moses enjoyed the status of an angel in that he was so totally devoid of preoccupation with matters pertaining to the body. We have proof that this is how the people had viewed him as at the time when they thought he would not come back from Mount Sinai they said: “this man Moses who has taken us out of Egypt we do not know what happened to him.” Apparently, until Moses’ failure to return on time the thought that Moses could be an ordinary mortal had not occurred to them (compare Exodus 32,1). [As soon as Moses did return they clearly thought of him as an angel even more, seeing he went without food or drink for 40 days. Ed.].

This refers to Moshe. Rashi is answering the question: But it was Moshe who took them out! So Rashi explains “from here…”

נעברה נא בארצך LET US PASS, I PRAY THEE, THROUGH THY COUNTRY — You have no right to lay claim to the land of Israel as an inheritance, just the same as you have not paid the debt (see Rashi v. 14); render us therefore a little assistance by permitting us to pass through your land.

דרך המלך, the route which the king would command them to travel. It was an established custom that when foreign armies were given permission to traverse a neutral country’s territory that they were assigned a specific route for that purpose. Such armies would also be assigned a guide advising them of possible pitfalls en route.

ולא נשתה מי באר, water from your wells. Water was very precious and hence expensive in that land.

נעברה נא בארצך, “please allow us to traverse your land.” If you will compare a similar request made by the Israelites in connection with Sichon, King of the Emorites, you will find that there was no: “please,” and “let us,” but that the Torah reports the formula אעברה, “I wish to cross.” The reason is that by using a formula Esau himself had used in Genesis 33,12, i.e. נסעה ונלכה, emphasizing that they had similar interests, had something in common, Moses hoped to secure the king’s consent. Moses reminded the King of Edom that basically the two peoples were related by blood, and should have common interests.

נעברה נא בארצך, “let us pass through your land.” This is a hint to Edom not to challenge Yaakov’s inheritance of the land of the Canaanites seeing the Edomites had not fulfilled the other half of the condition, i.e. to endure being strangers and being enslaved in a foreign land.

You should not challenge… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did Moshe need to mention to the king of Edom about the exodus from Egypt as well as the entire section written beforehand?

V. 17. ולא נשתה מי באר: Wir wollen kein Privateigentum antasten. דרך המלך: eine vom "Könige", d.h. von der Gesamtheit angelegte, der Öffentlichkeit angehörende Straße, die kein Privateigentum, vielleicht nicht einmal Eigentum einer Kommune ist, kein Kommunalweg.

ולא נשתה מי באר, “and we will not drink water from your wells.” Moses reassures the Edomites that the Israelites will not deprive them of water they had had to dig for, but would only drink from water which flowed in the streams coursing through their territory, water that would not be used by them anyways. These waters are not owned by anyone.

ולא נשתה מי באר NEITHER WILL WE DRINK OF THE WATER OF THE SPRINGS — He should have said “water of the cisterns (בורות)”; but this was what Moses meant to say: Although we have manna to eat, and a well of which to drink, (that which followed them through the wilderness), we will not drink of it, but we will buy food and water from you to your advantage. From here we may learn a rule for a guest (one lodging in an inn): although he has in his possession something to eat, he should yet purchase something from the local tradesman in order to benefit his host (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

דרך המלך, the public highway, a road which may be traveled by everybody without restriction.

עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have completed crossing your territory.” Nachmanides points out that Moses made no mention of the Israelites’ purpose in all being to reach the land promised by Hashem to their forefathers and to settle in it. He did not want to give that king any cause for being jealous of the Jewish people by making reference to their future. He did not want to open an age-old rivalry between Yaakov and Esau and thereby to renew ancient animosities. The Edomites might have disputed the validity of their forefather Esau having sold his birthright to Yaakov. Seeing that no such considerations applied to Moses’ dealings with Sichon and Og, he did not conceal from them why the Israelites needed to cross their respective countries.

לא נעבור בשדה או כרם, “we will not traverse field or vineyard.” We will not cause any damage.
לא נשתה מי באר, “we will not drink water from wells.” According to the plain meaning this means that Moses undertook not to drink from sources of water belonging to the Edomites. According to Tanchuma Chukat 12, Moses made a more far-reaching promise saying that while on their march through the land of the Edomites the Israelites would not even drink from their own well. They would buy water from the Edomites instead.

Although we have in our possession manna to eat. Rashi mentions “manna to eat” even though the verse only writes about water, because Rashi is answering the question: If he had not spoken the king of Edom about food, what benefit would they have in them purchasing water, since this was of minor benefit to them? Rather, Moshe must have also said that they would purchase food from them. The reason that the verse specifically mentions water was to teach something additional; that they also wished to purchase water from them, even though it was not customary to purchase water. We see that from Yirmeyahu who lamented (Eichah 5:4), “We drank our water for money” (Mahari).

דרך המלך נלך, “we will march along the king’s highway.” We will march along a route indicated by the King.

דרך המלך נלך וגו׳ WE WILL KEEP TO THE KING’S HIGHWAY etc. — we will muzzle our cattle, and so they will not turn aside into the fields on this side or that to eat (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

דרך המלך נלך, “we will only travel along the King’s highway.” This may mean that they would only make use of the road used by the King himself; or it could mean that they would only travel a route allocated to them by the King of Edom.

We will muzzle. (Nachalas Yaakov) Rashi is answering the question: Had they not already said, “We will not pass through any field or vineyard”? [The answer is] that certainly above it refers to their passage on foot but here it is referring to a diversion [from the road] to eat.

עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have traversed the far side of your borders.” Moses did not say: “until we come to the land G’d has promised us, etc.,” although this is what he had in mind. He felt it was better not to mention that land altogether so as not to annoy the King who might reopen the subject of Yaakov having stolen Esau’s birthright. You will note that later on when Moses asks similar permission to pass through the land of Sichon, Moses was not shy to spell out his intention (Deut. 2,29).

פן בחרב אצא לקראתך LEST I COME OUT AGAINST THEE WITH THE SWORD — You pride yourselves on the “voice” which your father bequeathed you as a blessing, saying, “And we cried unto the Lord and He heard our voice” (cf. Rashi on v. 16); I, therefore, will come out against you with that which my father bequeathed me when he said, (Genesis 27:40) “And by thy sword shalt thou live” (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח)

פן בחרב אצא לקראתך, most of the people of Edom were bloodthirsty people and did not need more than the slightest pretext in order to start a war.

ויאמר אליו אדום, “Edom said to him, etc.” The Torah no longer adds the title “king” when speaking of Edom, indicating that the whole nation concurred with their King’s refusal to allow the Israelites passage through their country.

לא תעבור בי, “You will not pass through me!” He meant his country (political entity). The King referred to the direct route to the land of Canaan. Neither he nor his people made any attempt to hinder the progress of the Israelites when they straddled his country marching around it through the region known as Mount Seir. This is why Moses referred to this in a positive sense when he said in Deut. 2,29: “as did for me the sons of Esau who dwell in the Mountain of Seir.” When the Israelites asked permission from Sichon, King of the Emorites, to pass through his land they meant “in the same way as we passed through the land of Edom.” I will elaborate on this theme when we discuss that passage.

With my forefather’s legacy. For if not so, why mention the sword. He should have said, “I will go out against you to war.”

לא תעבור בי, “do not trespass on anything that I own; even though the Israelites offered to pay the King of Edom a head tax for every Israelite who would use the King’s highway, a huge income for him, the King refused adamantly. He was afraid that the Israelites would use the opportunity to invade and conquer his Kingdom.

רק אין דבר lit., ONLY NO THING — i.e., nothing will do you any harm.

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SAID UNTO HIM: ‘WE WILL GO UP BY THE HIGHWAY.’ At first they had said²⁰²As stated in Verse 17: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land; we will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells; we will go along the king’s highway … that they would come into the cities, but would take care not to enter fields and vineyards as armies [consisting of] many people are wont to do, in order to plunder the threshing-floors and to invade the vineyards. Instead, they [promised] to go along the king’s highway,²⁰²As stated in Verse 17: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land; we will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells; we will go along the king’s highway … which is a public thoroughfare,²⁰³See “The Land of Israel in Biblical Times” by Yohanan Aharoni, pp. 42-45, where the term derech hamelech (the king’s highway) is explained as a definite official highway which followed the eastern bank of the Jordan. Ramban’s interpretation is thus unlike Ibn Ezra’s who explains it to mean the way which the king of Edom will specify for their passage. not a private road. Furthermore they said [at first] that they would not drink any of the water which they [the Edomites] have in their wells for their own needs. Afterwards the Israelites sent them a message [saying] that they would not [even] approach the cities at all, but they would go by the highway which leads up to the land of Canaan, which is a paved road traversed by all people, and if they or their animals drink [even] of the waters of the rivers on the way, whilst passing through the rivers, they would pay them for the benefit they derived from them. Therefore Moses said [here in Verse 19] there is no hurt, meaning that in [passing through their land] there would be no damage of any sort. Other scholars²⁰⁴This explanation is found in Ibn Ezra. explain [that they meant to say] we shall not drink of the water of the wells²⁰²As stated in Verse 17: Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land; we will not pass through field or through vineyard, neither will we drink of the water of the wells; we will go along the king’s highway … unless we pay for it. But this is not correct, for [if so] why would he [Moses] propose to them again that which he [the king of Edom] had already refused at the beginning? [as explained in Verses 17-18]. The Midrashic interpretation²⁰⁵Tanchuma, Chukath 12. According to this explanation Moses was offering to buy from the Edomites their water, although the Israelites could have drunk freely from Miriam’s Well. is: “We shall not drink of the waters of [our own] well,²⁰⁶See above, Note 154. but instead we will buy from you,” as Rashi wrote.
Israel said to Edom, until we have passed thy border²⁰⁷Verse 17. and they did not say to him [“and we will reach] the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us” [as they told Sihon king of Heshbon],²⁰⁸Deuteronomy 2:29. in order that Edom should not be jealous of them [taking possession] of the Land, and [should not] claim that it would be theirs [the Edomites’], had not [Jacob] taken [Esau’s] birthright and blessing from him with guile.²⁰⁹Genesis 27:35. But to Sihon they did mention, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us,²⁰⁸Deuteronomy 2:29. as Moses stated in the Book of Deuteronomy.

במסלה נעלה, Moses argued that if they were to cross through towns and come into contact with the inhabitants there might be concern about possible friction, but it was their intention to cross the land in areas that were totally uninhabited so that there could not be a question of possible friction and war.

במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Nachmandes writes that in the initial request Moses implied that the people would enter the cities and but they would be careful not to enter rural areas and cause ecological damage. They would thereby distinguish themselves favourably when compared to undisciplined hordes of men and beasts invading a country. Now he narrowed this down even further implying that they would not even consume any of the drinking water available in that country except that which was freely offered for sale.

במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Originally, Moses had asked permission to travel through their cities, assuring them that they would not cause any damage. After being denied permission to traverse any urban areas of the country, Moses tried once more to obtain permission to travel on what was the equivalent of an international highway, away from urban areas, a highway used by different nationalities freely without the need to obtain special travel permits. According to Nachmanides the words אין דבר mean that no possible inconvenience or negative political fallout could be caused to the king by the Israelites taking such a route (for which they did not even need to ask permission). Only when the king refused this too and assumed a threatening posture did the Israelites accept his decision.

V. 19. ויאמרו וגו׳ במסילה נעלה. Die Bedeutung הסתולל. (Schmot 9, 17). sich erheben, סלסל (Prov. 4, 8) erheben, סוללה (Jirmijah 6, 6) Schanzenaufwurf, auch סלם (Bereschit 28, 12) Leiter, und selbst סל (daselbst 40, 17) Korb, als Mittel zum Aufheben und tragen, lässt entschieden in סלל die Grundbedeutung hinaufsteigen erkennen und würde demnach מסלה einen Höhenweg, eine aufwärts führende Straße bezeichnen. In der Tat finden wir auch, wie hier mit מסלה auch sonst den Ausdruck עלה verbunden. So מסלה העולה בית אל (Richter 21, 19). Der Weg aus der philistäischen Meeresniederung ostwärts nach בית שמש ist ansteigend. Sam. I. 6, 9 daher: אם דרך גבולו יעלה וגו׳ und wird dieser Weg (daselbst 12) מסלה genannt. Chron. I. 26, 16 במסלה העולה משמר. Ebenso scheint die מסלת שדה כובס (Jes. 7. 3 u. 36, 2) ein ansteigender Weg gewesen zu sein. Kön. II. 18, 17 heißt es davon ויעלו ויבאו ירושלם ויעלו ויבאו ויעמדו בתעלת ברכה העליונה במסלת שדה כובס. Der Weg von Jerusalem zum שדה כובס wird also auch עליה genannt. Nach allem diesen glauben wir auch hier, in der מסלה, zu deren Benutzung sie sich bei der zweiten Sendung erboten, einen Gebirgsweg erkennen zu dürfen. Edom, Seir ist ja entschieden eine Gebirgsgegend, das ganze Gebiet wird ja darum auch הר שעיר genannt. Durch Edom nach Palästina gab es zwei Wege. Der bequemere, durch Täler führende, war der דרך המלך, auf welchem es rechts und links Acker und Weinberge und gegrabene Brunnen gab. Diesen benutzen zu dürfen, war die erste von Mosche gesandte Bitte; daher dabei von vornherein die selbst gesetzte Bedingung: לא נעבר בשדה וכרם ולא נשתה מי באר דרך המלך נלך לא נטה ימין ושמאל. Als ihnen dies abgeschlagen wurde, erbot sich das Volk, den beschwerlicheren Weg über das Gebirge zu benutzen. במסלה נעלה, und wenn sie oder ihr Vieh von den Gebirgswassern, die ja frei fließen, allerdings aber streng genommen מימיך: Edoms Eigentum sind, trinken, so wollen sie entsprechende Vergütung auch dafür leisten, so dass Edom ihnen nichts, als den bloßen Schritt ihrer Füße zu gewähren haben würde.

ויאמרו אליו במסילה נעלה, “they said to him: we will go up by the highway and we will pay for everything, etc.” they even offered to pay for water drunk from the rivers.

רק אין דבר ברגלי, we have not even with us anything that could become the focus of a quarrel.

רק אין דבר, “nothing negative will happen (due to our passage).” Moses tried to calm the fears of the Edomites as best he could. Ibn Ezra writes that that the expression דרך המלך refers to the route taken by the king himself, and that just as the king does not veer to the right or to the left, neither would the Jewish people. Alternatively, Moses meant that whatever route the king would assign to them they would be willing to abide by.

ברגלי אעברה, “let me pass through on foot!” Clearly, the word ברגלי means “with my troops.” This expression at this point also enables us to understand the meaning of Zecharyah 14,4: ועמדו רגליו על הר הזיתים, “His legs stood on Mount Olives.” The word רגליו is a simile for “His Hosts.” All those like Onkelos who are careful not to translate anthropomorphic expressions literally will interpret the word in this vein. You might counter that there is no comparison as the armies of mortals march literally on their feet, something not applicable to G’d’s “armies.” The fact is that when we speak of celestial phenomena we apply the term רגלים “feet”, to the lowest part of the manifestation and the word ראש, head, to the highest part of such a manifestation. The word does not have to be understood literally as we do here in our terrestrial spheres. Seeing that the Creator is always the highest form of celestial manifestations it is clear that all manifestations of a lower level are automatically described as רגליו, as compared to the ראש, i.e. G’d Himself, they are like “feet.”
Alternatively, we can understand the word רגליו in Zecharyah to refer to the results of G’d’s planning, something described as סבותיו, For instance, the words: ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, (which Yaakov said to Lavan (Genesis 30,30) do not mean: “the Lord blessed you at my feet,” but “the Lord blessed you on my account.” I have already dealt with this whole problem in Genesis 6,6 on the words ויתעצב אל לבו, (the commentary of “the plain meaning”).

אעבורה, seeing that your only concern is possible friction and you do not object basically to our traversing your territory we will proceed to cross it seeing that you have nothing to fear.

וביד חזקה AND WITH A STRONG HAND — relying upon our ancestors’ assurance: (Genesis 27:22) “and the hands are the hands of Esau” (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח)

ויצא אדום לקראתו, to face them at the border.

With our grandfather’s assurance. For if not so, why does it say “a strong hand.” Any massive number of people constitutes a strong hand.

ויאמר לא תעבור, “the King said: “you must not cross (the boundary).” After confronting soldiers at the borders, the Israelites decided, in conformity with G-d’s command, not to violate Edom’s territory.

AND ISRAEL TURNED AWAY FROM HIM. Scripture here shortened [the account, omitting to say] that it was by word of the Almighty that they were commanded, Take ye good heed unto yourselves; contend not with them,²¹⁰Deuteronomy 2:4-5. as Moses explained to them. Thus they turned away from Edom by Divine command, since they could not do anything else because Edom did not let them pass through [his border].

ויט ישראל מעליו, “Israel turned away from him.” The Torah uses an abbreviated text, seeing that the Israelites desisted only because G’d had commanded them to desist and had forbidden them to provoke any confrontation wit the Edomites.

V. 21. ויט ישראל מעליו. Aus Dewarim 2, 4 f. wissen wir, dass ihnen feindselige Gewalt gegen Edom verboten war.

כל העדה THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — all of them perfect, and destined to enter the promised land, for among them there was not even one of those upon whom it had been decreed that they should not enter the land, because those who were to die in the wilderness had already ceased to exist, and these belonged to those about whom it is written, (Deuteronomy 4:4) ‘[But ye who did cleave to the Lord your God] are all of you alive this day” (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14)

All of them, perfect. You might ask: Why does Rashi not comment in the same manner he did above on the phrase “The entire community” (v. 1)? Also, why is it necessary to mention that all of them were perfect [and ready] to enter the land? Furthermore, it was not necessary to explain that “these were among those…” The answer is that it was [necessary] so that you would not ask: Why does Scripture write, “The entire community” teaching that the entire community is designated for life, since those who were destined to die in the wilderness had already perished, since the Torah had written above “the entire community”? Therefore Rashi explains that it is to tell you that even at the time they entered the land, which was some time after the death of the generation of the desert, “All of them were perfect…”

V. 22. כל העדה (siehe V. 1). Es dürfte diese Bemerkung hier vor dem Tode Aharons erkennen lassen sollen, dass, obgleich in der Wüste gestorben, doch Aharon nicht in Folge des allgemeinen, den Eintritt in das verheißene Land versagenden Verhängnisses sein Grab in der Wüste gefunden. Als die Gegend um Hor betreten wurde, war dies Verhängnis bereits gelöst und nur der Vorgang in Kadesch bei מי מריבה war die Veranlassung seines Todes.

כל העדה הר ההר, “the entire congregation, to Hor Hahar.” Even though the King of Edom had sent troops with an aggressive posture the Israelites did not incur a single casualty.

הר ההר MOUNT HOR (more lit., the mount of the mount) — This was a mount on top of a mount, like a small apple on top of a large apple. — Although the cloud went before them and levelled the mountains (cf. Rashi on 10:34), yet three of them remained: Mount Sinai for the giving of the Torah, Mount Hor for Aaron’s burial place, and Mount Nebo for Moses’ burial place (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14).

הר ההר: nach הר על גבי הר כתפוח קטן על גבי תפוח גדול ,מ׳׳ר, ein Berg auf einem Berge, eine sich auf einem Berge erhebende kleinere Bergkuppe.

על גבול ארץ אדום BY THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF EDOM — This (the statement that Aaron died here) tells us that because they here wished to join themselves in close friendship with the wicked, a breach was made in their works and they had to lose this righteous man, Aaron. Similarly does the prophet say, (II Chronicles 20:37) “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath made a breach in thy works” (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14).

ויאמר ה׳…על גבול ארץ אדום. G'd said to Moses…on the border of the land of Edom, etc. The reason the Torah described the location as the border of the land of Edom was to show that the proximity of the wicked Edomites contributed to Aaron's death at that time. I have found a somewhat puzzling statement in the Yalkut Shimoni on our verse (item 764). The Midrash accuses: "because you befriended yourself with the wicked," Aaron died as a result of the Israelites (or Moses and Aaron?) befriending Edom." Thus far the Yalkut. It is clear to me that this is a reference to the words על גבול. This also explains why the Torah added the word לאמר in our verse. G'd commanded Moses to tell the Israelites about this little detail, i.e. that because they made a point of befriending the wicked this contributed to the untimely death of the righteous. But for that incident Aaron might have lived a few months longer although death had been decreed for him previously.

V. 23. על גבול ארץ אדום, so auch Kap. 33, 38: בקצה ארץ אדום. Es gab noch einen Berg Hor an der Nordwestgrenze von Palästina (Kap. 34, 7), weshalb diese nähere Bezeichnung notwendig war.

There may also be a moral/ethical dimension to our verse. We know from Shabbat 10 that Moses and Aaron will lead the Israelites to the Holy Land at the time of the resurrection as we explained earlier. The future redemption ushering in that idyllic era will be the redemption from the exile under the yoke of Edom, which symbolises the kingdom of Satan. The word גבול maybe a reference to the time when G'd puts an end to the rule of the kingdom of Satan and delivers it into the hands of Israel. Aaron's dying at this time and at the border of the kingdom of Edom, was to remind the Israelites of the glory in store for them in the distant future. This is why the Torah also mentioned that Aaron joined אל עמיו, "his people," something we would have assumed even if the Torah had not spelled it out. It is an allusion to the time "Aaron's people" would inherit the lands of Edom.

על אשר מריתם את פי, "because you rebelled against My word, etc." According to the words of the Midrash which I have quoted in connection with my commentary starting on verse 8, Moses had been instructed to teach the rock a chapter of the Torah as a result of which it would release its water. Moses and Aaron had failed to do so. In this instance, the Torah seems to blame Aaron for this and to justify his death now by his failure to sanctify G'd on this occasion. The reason is that when Moses failed to carry out G'd's instructions it was up to Aaron to rectify Moses' error. His failure to do so constituted an act of rebellion against G'd. Concerning the other 3 failures of Moses we described above in the name of the Midrash, Aaron was guilty of agreeing with Moses by not having objected or attempted to correct Moses. Whereas Moses alone was guilty of striking the rock, it was also only Moses who had refused to address the rock the Israelites had chosen. It was also only Moses who had called the Israelites rebellious and challenged them about producing water from a specific rock they had chosen. G'd told Moses in Deut. 32,48 to get ready to die on Mount Nevo, telling him that this was because he and Aaron had trespassed in connection with the water of strife (Deut. 32,51). According to the Midrash the Torah's reference in Deut. is to Moses' challenge to the Israelites: "shall we produce water for you from this rock?" In view of this why did G'd use the plural when He said על אשר מעלתם? If Aaron was not involved in that act why was he held responsible for words spoken by Moses? Granted that he shared responsibility in the matter of striking the rock, something which contravened Moses' and Aaron's joint שליחות, mission. However, how could Aaron have anticipated and therefore have prevented Moses from saying the words המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים? The answer is that G'd included Aaron in the collective responsibility for the failure of the mission because basically both he and Moses had erred jointly.

V. 24. יאסף אהרן וגו׳ (siehe Bereschit 25, 8).

קח את אהרן TAKE AARON by consoling words — say to him: Happy art thou that thou wilt see thy crown being given to thy son, something to which I am not privileged (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17).

קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” The Torah employs the same term it had employed when Aaron was appointed as High Priest where G’d had also said to Moses: “take Aaron” (Leviticus 8,2).

את בגדיו [AND STRIP AARON OF] HIS GARMENTS — i.e., the garments of the high priesthood. — He clothed him in these and stripped them off him to place them on his son in his presence. He (Moses) said to him (Aaron), “Enter the cave”, and he entered. — He saw a bed already made (more lit., outspread, i.e., with its sheets, etc.) and a light burning. He said to him, “Ascend the bed”, and he ascended. — “Stretch out your hands”, and he stretched them out. — “Close your mouth”, and he closed it. — “Close your eyes”, and he closed them. At that moment Moses longed for that self-same death, and this is what was said to him (Deuteronomy 32:50), “[And die] … as Aaron thy brother died” — the death, for which you longed (Siphre on that verse).

AND STRIP AARON OF HIS GARMENTS. These are the garments [reserved only] for the High Priest, with which Eleazar his son was now appointed [High Priest in his stead]. It is likely that when Aaron came down from offering the Daily Whole-offering, and burnt the incense and kindled the lamps, Moses took him up to Mount Hor whilst he was still dressed in the garments of the [High] Priest, and [then] he stripped him of them. And according to the plain meaning of Scripture [the verse is to be interpreted: And strip Aaron of his garments in order to] put on him the shrouds of a dead man which he had prepared for him, and then he stripped Eleazar of his ordinary clothes and put the sacred garments upon him, as he did to him on the day of initiation. And according to the Midrashic interpretation of our Rabbis,²¹¹Sifra, Tzav Milu’im 1:6. various miracles occurred in connection with these garments.²¹²The miraculous nature of the event which occurred here has been explained in various ways, but from Ramban’s quotation of it the explanation is as follows: Since it is obvious that Aaron would not be left naked for even one moment, we must say that as soon as the uppermost garment was removed from him, the Divine Glory wrapped him with a corresponding celestial garment. But if so, how could Moses proceed to remove the lower garments “in their proper order,” since there was now a [celestial] upper garment upon them? The answer is given in the following text of the Torath Kohanim [Sifra]. See the following note. Thus they said: “How could Moses strip Aaron of his garments in their proper order? Are not the upper ones always on top, and the lower ones always underneath? But G-d did miraculous deeds for Aaron at the time of his death, even more so than during his lifetime. Thus Moses put Aaron upon the rock and stripped him of the priestly garments, and [alternative] celestial garments clothed themselves [upon him] underneath them.²¹³“Underneath them.” Thus as Aaron was stripped of his upper robe, he was covered with a corresponding celestial garment underneath his tunic [which was the lower garment directly on his body]. Moses could then proceed to remove the tunic [which was now above the celestial “upper” robe, thereby fulfilling the Divine command of stripping Aaron of his garments “in their proper order.” As he removed the tunic, a corresponding celestial tunic likewise clothed itself underneath the celestial robe. This interpretation of the Torath Kohanim is based upon Malbim’s commentary. And he put them upon Eleazar his son.²¹⁴Verse 28. But how could Moses put the garments upon Eleazar in their proper order?²¹⁵For as soon as he stripped Aaron of the upper robe, Moses had to put it upon Eleazar, so that he would be clothed in the order in which the clothes are worn. If so, how could he later on put the lower garments [such as the tunic] underneath? In answer to this question the Torath Kohanim presents a second miracle, namely, that Aaron found himself arrayed in eight celestial garments and then he put on the eight garments of the high priesthood in opposite order, first the robe and finally the tunic. [Ordinarily this is not permitted, but since he was now attired already in the celestial garments underneath it was permissible for him to do it.] When Moses removed the tunic from upon Aaron and put it upon Eleazar it was thus done in proper order. See my Hebrew commentary pp. 380-381. [We must say that this was not natural], but that G-d bestowed a great honor upon Aaron at the time of his death, even more so than during his lifetime, in that celestial garments first [miraculously] clothed themselves underneath [the other garments], and then Moses stripped Aaron of the priestly garments in their proper order,²¹⁶I.e., in the order he had put them on after he found himself arrayed in the eight celestial garments, which as explained above (Note 215), was in the opposite order: first the robe and finally the tunic as the uppermost garment. and [also] put them on Eleazar in their proper order.” So it is taught in the Torath Kohanim.²¹¹Sifra, Tzav Milu’im 1:6.

והפשט אהרן את בגדיו, the garments that were exclusively those of a High Priest, i.e. those in addition to the garments worn by the ordinary priest.

והפשט את אהרן את בגדיו, "and strip Aaron of his garments." The fact that the Torah wrote the word את twice, both in connection with Aaron and in connection with his garments suggests that there were two separate "strippings." We might have thought that the garments that Aaron was to be stripped of were the priestly garments, not his personal clothing. This is why the Torah also had to write: "strip Aaron" to indicate that he was to be stripped also of his personal garments. It was only concerning the priestly garments that the Torah continued: והלבשתם את אלעזר בנו, "and put them on his son Eleazar. Had the Torah merely written והפשט אהרן את בגדיו, I would not have had the extra word את from which I could have deduced the proper meaning of the verse. On the other hand, if the Torah had only written והפשט אהרן בגדיו (without either word את), I would have simply understood that Aaron was to be stripped naked, and the words את בגדיו would have become meaningless.

והפשט את אהרן, “and disrobe Aaron;” the reference is to the removal of his priestly garments, the ones that were worn in addition to the four garments worn by ordinary priests. These garments were to be worn henceforth by Eleazar. According to the plain meaning of the text, Aaron was to exchange the normal garments for a shroud, a garment he already had at the ready. Eleazar stripped off his ordinary garments and exchanged them for the garments befitting a priest as he had done on the day he had been anointed as a priest.

In the vestments of the Kehunah Gedolah. Rashi wishes to answer the question: If it was his regular clothes, why did Hashem command Moshe to dress Elozor in [Aharon's] clothes in his presence. Re’m answers that one must say that this refers to the vestments of the Kehunah [Gedolah]. If not so, how would this be a sign that [Elozor] merited the Kehunah Gedolah? It is possible that [he meant] my answer within his.

V. 26. והפשט וגו׳ והלבשתם וגו׳. Damit war Elasar an Aharons Stelle zum hohen Priester eingesetzt (siehe Schmot 29, 29), und hatte Aharon die Genugtuung, vor seinem Tode sich in seinem Sohne fortlebend zu erblicken.

ואהרן יאסף, “and Aaron will die (be gathered in to his forefathers). In verse 24 it stated this specifically. At that point we had not been told where Aaron would die. This information is being supplied in our verse.

והלבשתם את אלעזר, who was already wearing the standard four garments which every priest wore. As a result, Aaron would remain wearing the basic four garments worn by every priest. It is precisely these four garments which he would wear any time he had occasion to enter the Holy of Holies, so that he in no way was deprived of status by not wearing the garments which were meant only for his image among his peers, not for his image when facing G’d. In fact, basically, what he remained with were the kind of garments angels appear in when they appear to human beings.

He dressed him and then removed them from him. Even though it does not write here that Hashem commanded this, for it is only written, “Remove Aharon’s [vestments].” Otherwise, if Moshe had not dressed him first, how could Aharon have worn the vestments of the kehunah during a time when he was not performing any service? Surely one who leaves the Temple Mount wearing the vestments of kehunah receives forty lashes [for transgressing a Torah prohibition]. Rather one must say that Moshe dressed him per Hashem’s instruction in order that he could remove them and place them on Elozor in Aharon’s presence. This was to demonstrate that his son Elozor had merited the Kehunah Gedolah in Aharon’s place.

We may also interpret these words slightly differently. The words הפשט את אהרן refer only to his personal clothing. The Torah added the words את בגדיו to teach us that he would immediately be robed in different garments. This is what the Yalkut Shimoni on our verse had in mind when the author wrote: "While Aaron was being undressed he was immediately enveloped by the clouds of glory." As a result, Aaron was never in a state of undress even while Moses undressed him as parts of the clouds of glory enveloped any part of his body from which Moses removed his clothing.

He said to him “Enter the cave.” Rashi is answering the question: Why did Aharon himself not remove his clothes and place them on Elozor? It seems insulting for Moshe to have to serve them. He answers that, “He said to him…” Would it not have been sufficient without mentioning Moshe’s words? Rather, it was to demonstrate the commandment of doing kindness to the dead, and that Moshe himself dealt with all matters pertaining to the death of Aharon.

ויעש משה AND MOSES DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED] — Although this thing was hard for him he did not delay to do so (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17).

Although the matter was difficult for him. For if not so, why is it necessary to say “Moshe did…”? Would one have thought that he would transgress the charge of the Omnipresent? Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi did not make this comment in Parshas Korach where it is written (Bamidbar 17:26) “Moshe did as Hashem commanded Moshe, so he did.” It is possible that he did not comment there because one may say that he did so happily and for his own benefit, so that Bnei Yisroel would not again come to dispute the elevation of the tribe of Levi. There [the happiness due to] the love over his tribe’s elevation was joined with his performance of this commandment, even though he was also doing the command of Hashem. Consequently there Rashi did not wish to make any comment.

In the presence of the entire community. Everyone watched this wondrous event — three gedolei hador ascended the mountain — and no one knew why. They were even more perplexed when they noticed that Aharon wore the priestly vestments, which are prohibited to be worn outside the Mishkan since they are a mixture of wool and linen. They understood that this was a sublime matter based on the word of Hashem, and they watched to see what would come of it.

ויראו כל העדה AND ALL THE CONGREGATION SAW [THAT AARON HAD DIED] — When they saw Moses and Eleazar descending and that Aaron was not descending with them, they said, “Where, then, is Aaron?” — He replied to them, “He is dead!” They thereupon said, “Is it possible that a man who stood up against the Angel and stayed the plague, — that over him the Angel of Death should have power?!” — Moses at once offered prayer and the ministering angels showed him (Aaron) to them lying upon the bier. They saw and believed (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17).

ויבכו את אהרן שלשים יום כל בית ישראל, “the entire house of Israel wept for the passing of Aaron for thirty days.” The expression בית ישראל includes men and women. When the Torah reports the mourning of Moses the word בית is absent, as the Torah writes ויבכו בני ישראל את משה, “the Children of Israel wept for the passing of Moses in the fields of Moav for thirty days” (Deut. 34,8). The difference was that Aaron, in his capacity of striving always to restore harmonious relations between people patched up many marriages. This is why men and women alike wept for his passing (compare Rashi).

When they saw Moshe… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely they did not see Aharon’s death, for only Moshe and Elozor [witnessed it]. The Torah then should have said “they heard…” given that they heard this from Moshe and Elozor. Rashi explains, “When they saw…” [Rashi continues:] The ministering angels showed them. This is what was meant by “the entire community saw.”

V. 29. ויראו וגו׳. Wie nach Mirjams Tode sich deren Verlust für die Nation durch Versiegen des Brunnens kundgegeben, so war, nach der Lehre der Weisen (Tanit 9a), auch Aharons Tod durch eine solche äußere Kundgebung "sichtbar" geworden. Die Wolkenumgebung, die sie bis dahin schützend und wegbahnend durch die Wüste begleitete, verliess sie mit Aharons Tod, נסתלקו ענני כבוד, eine Schutzlosigkeit, die auch sofort den in der Nähe wohnenden kanaanitischen König (Kap. 21, 1) zum Angriff ermunterte. (Es dürfte dies einfach in dem ויראו des Textes liegen, und das א׳׳ת ויראו אלא וייראו nur Erläuterung sein). ג׳ פרנסים טובים heißt es daselbst, עמדו לישראל אלו הן משה אהרן ומרים .וג׳ מתנות טובות נתנו על ידם ואלו הן באר וענן ומן, באר בזכות מרים עמוד ענן בזכות אהרון מן בזכות משה וכו׳ Ihren drei Führern: Mosche, Aharon und Mirjam verdankte die Nation auch drei ihrer Existenz in der Wüste fürsorgende Wohltaten, den Brunnen, die Wolke und das Manna. Den Brunnen dem Verdienste Mirjams, die Wolke dem Verdienste Aharons, das Manna dem Verdienste Mosche. Auf diese drei Führer der Nation weist noch Micha 6, 4 seine Zeitgenossen hin, die nimmer sich beklagen durften, dass Gott sie getäuscht, dass nicht von vornherein sie darüber aufgeklärt worden wären, worin das Heil ihrer Zukunft bestände; dass sie etwa in irgend andere Veranstaltungen und nicht in sittliche Stärke allein Bedingung und Stütze ihres nationalen Daseins zu setzen hätten berechtigt sein mögen. "Mein Volk", was habe ich dir getan, und worin habe ich dich vergeblich abgemüht?" spricht Gott durch Michas Mund, "sofort, als Ich aus Mizrajims Land dich heraufführte und aus der Sklavenheimat dich erlöste, sandte ich einen Mosche, einen Aharon, eine Mirjam vor dir her!". Diese Persönlichkeiten, deren Wirken, die einzige Wirksamkeit, für welche sie geeignet waren, der belehrende und erziehende Einfluss auf Geist und Herz, waren von vornherein die sprechendste Bezeugung, von der Lösung welcher Aufgabe Ich eure Zukunft bedingt sein lassen wollte. Eine Aufgabe, die daselbst (V. 8) als עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלקיך zum Ausdruck kommt: Verwirklichung des Rechts, hingebende Liebesfreundlichkeit und keuscher Wandel im Stillen mit Gott. Sofort springt es aber wohl in die Augen, dass mit diesen drei Momenten unserer sittlichen Aufgabe zugleich die Wirksamkeiten jener drei Führer unserer Nation sich charakterisiert finden. משפט: die Rechtsnorm für die gesetzliche Gestaltung unseres ganzen Lebens nach Gottes Willen, bildet das charakteristische Augenmerk der Sendung Mosches, חסד und zwar אהבת חסד, das Lieben der Liebe, die Hinneigung der ganzen Charakterbildung zum freudigen Rechtsverzicht, zur Milde und zu opferfreudiger Liebestätigkeit, charakterisiert Aharons Wirksamkeit. So wird auch Sanhedrin 6b Aharons Wirken Mosche zur Seite gezeichnet: משה היה אומר יקוב הדין את ההר אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום ומשים שלום בין אדם לחברו Mosche hatte das bergedurchbohrende Rechtsprinzip zu vertreten, Aharon jedoch die aufopfernde Friedensgesinnung, die Frieden sucht und Frieden stiftet zwischen Mensch und Mensch. הצנע לכת עם אלקים, das stillverborgene, sittenreine keusche Wandeln mit Gott, צניעות, der Grundcharakter jüdischer Weiblichkeit, hat wohl unter מתנות Mirjams Einfluss die erfolgreichste Pflege gefunden. Sollten nicht vielleicht jene טובות für die materielle Wohlfahrt des jüdischen Volkslebens diesen geistig sittlichen מתנות parallel erscheinen, welchen eben diese drei פרנסים טובים für die geistige Wohlfahrt des jüdischen Volkslebens ihre besondere Pflege zuwandten? Ist es irrig zu sagen: צניעות,ist der stillverborgene "Born", aus dessen Tiefe alle Heiligung des Lebens quillt — חסד die spendende, kühlende und schützende "Wolke", mit welcher der Lichtstrahl des Rechts sich vermählen muss, um die Saaten des Heiles und des Glückes auf dem Acker der Menschheit zu zeitigen, — משפט aber, das Recht, das Himmelsbrot, das "Manna", welches das Mark und die Kraft, die Existenz und die Dauer alles Menschen- und Völkerlebens bedingt? Und daher: באר durch das זכות Mirjams, der צניעות-Pflegerin, ענני כבוד durch das זכות Aharons, des Pflegers der מן ,חסד aber durch das זבות Mosches, des Überbringers und Pflegers der משפט-Lehre von Gott? —

ויראו כל העדה, “the entire congregation saw, etc.” since this verse cannot be understood literally, the Jerusalem Targum renders it as meaning that when the people witnessed Moses and Elazar returning without Aaron, they drew the appropriate conclusions, [especially, seeing that Elazar wore the garments of the High Priest, as described in verse 28. Ed.] They observed Moses having ash on his head and having rent his garments, calling out to Elazar, “woe for my brother Aaron!”An alternate interpretation: we find that the expression ראיה, “seeing” is also used to describe “knowing,” i.e. seeing with one’s mental eye. Prominent examples are: Genesis 40,16, where the chief of the bakers is described as “seeing” that Joseph had properly explained the dream of the chief of the cup bearers. Another example of the root: ראה describing “understanding,” rather than seeing with one’s eyes, is found in Genesis 42,1 where our patriarch Yaakov is credited with seeing that there was grain for sale in far off Egypt, i.e. וירא יעקב כי יש שבר במצרים, “Yaakov “saw” that there was trading in grain going on in Egypt.” The author cites more examples.

כל בית ישראל [THEY WEPT FOR AARON …] EVEN ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL — all: both men and women, because Aaron used to pursue peace and promoted love between contending parties, and between man and wife (cf. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 12).

Because Aharon… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why concerning the death of Moshe is it written “all of Yisroel cried” while here concerning [the death of] Aharon it is written “the entire house of Yisroel”? He explains that here even the women cried, because Aharon [pursued peace…].

ויבכו את אהרן שלשים יום כל בית ישראל. Nach Mosches Heimgang heißt es, wie die Weisen bemerken, ויבכו בני ישראל את משה וגו׳. (Dewarim 33, 8), hier aber um Aharon: כל בית ישראל. Eben um jener, die Milde und den Frieden pflegenden Wirksamkeit Aharons willen, ward sein Verlust noch tiefer und allgemeiner gefühlt und gewürdigt, als selbst Mosche, des Mannes, der — manchem unbequemen — göttlichen Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit.

כי גוע THAT (or because) HE HAD DIED — I say that he who translates these words in the Targum (i.e., anyone who holds that this is the correct rendering) by דהא מית, “because he had died”, is in error unless he also translates in the Targum the word ויראו by ואתחזיאו “they were seen (exposed)”, for our Rabbis stated that this word כי is used here in the sense of “because” only in accordance with a Midrash which relates that the clouds of glory which hitherto enveloped Israel disappeared at Aaron's death, (so that all the congregation were now exposed to the sight of their enemies), and in accordance with what R. Abuhu said (Rosh Hashanah 3a), “Read here not וַיִּרְאוּ but וַיֵּרָאוּ, “they were seen”. It is to this sense of the verb that the meaning of “because” is applicable to the word כי, since that gives the reason for what precedes it: Why were they seen? Because, behold, Aaron had died, and the clouds disappeared. But to the translation in the Targum, וחזו כל כנשתא (“and all the congregation saw”), the meaning of “because” (for the word כי) is not applicable, but only the meaning אשר, “that”, which is one of the usages of the word אי (the Aramaic equivalent of אם, which itself is one of the four classifications of the usage of כי; see ibid). For we find אם used in the sense of אשר “that”, as e.g., (Job 21:4) “so that (ואם) why should I not be impatient?” And many passages where אם occurs may be explained in this sense, as (Job 14:5), “that (אם) his days are determined”.

Nicht übersehen dürfte aber auch noch dieses werden: Noch vor wenigen Tagen hatte dieses selbige Volk diesen Mann, den es jetzt so tief und in allen seinen Schichten beweinte, mit den schwersten ungerechten Vorwürfen und Anklagen überhäuft (V. 2 f.), und mag doch diese so bald darauf folgende tiefe Trauer um Aharon doch erkennen lassen, wie jene Volksaufstände, welche Aharons und Mosche Leben trübten, doch wohl nur vorübergehende, aus momentaner verzweifelnder Stimmung hervorgegangene Aufregungen gewesen sein werden, denen gegenüber die normale Volksgesinnung wohl den Wert und die Verdienste ihrer großen Führer zu würdigen wusste. —