민수기 20:33의 Musar

And they also expounded (in Vayikra Rabbah 16) the verse (Koheleth 5:5): "Do not allow your mouth to cause sin to your flesh" — do not speak lashon hara with your mouth to punish all of your flesh with this sin. The Rabbis applied this verse to Miriam: "Do not allow your mouth" — you, Miriam, as it is written (Numbers 12:10): "And, behold, Miriam was leprous, [white] as snow." (Koheleth, Ibid.): "that it was an error" — as it is written (Numbers 12:11): "wherein we [(Aaron and Miriam)] have erred and wherein we have sinned." (Koheleth, Ibid.): "Why should G-d be angry at your voice?" — at the lashon hara you have spoken against Moses, as it is written (Numbers 12:9): "and the anger of the L-rd burned against them, and He departed." (Koheleth, Ibid.): "and [He shall] destroy the work of your hands." R. Yochanan said: "With her mouth she sinned, and all her limbs were smitten, as it is written (Numbers 12:10): 'And the cloud departed from the tent, and, behold, Miriam was leprous, [white] as snow.' This is the intent of: "Do not allow your mouth to cause sin to [destroy] your flesh" … (Mishlei 21:33): 'He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from troubles.'"

Now we also understand the word "לאמר" in 25,10. At first glance that word seems totally superfluous, since the Torah goes on to say in verse 12: "לכן אמר." I believe that the first time the Torah writes "לאמר," it is the instruction to inform Israel that Pinchas was of noble descent for he was the son of Eleazar who in turn was the son of Aaron. The second time was to tell Moses to inform the Jewish people that Pinchas was a priest of the Lord.

Anger leads to mistakes. Who is a greater man than Moses, our teacher? Moses, upon him be peace, was angry in three places, and he made what would generally be termed "mistakes". As it is said : "And he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar" (Lev. 10:16), and it is written : "Why did you not eat the sin-offering in the sacred area?" (Lev. 10:17). And it is said : "Listen, you rebels" (Num. 20:10) and it is said : "And he struck the rock" (Ib. : 11). And it is said : "Moses became angry with the commanders of the army" (Num. 31:14), and it is written : "And Eleazar the priest said to the troops who had taken part in the fighting This is the ritual law' " (Num. 31:21). Which teaches that Moses forgot the law (while angry) (Leviticus Rabbah 13:1). And so, you can understand that if these things happened to Moses peace be upon him, when he was angry, what can happen to fools who are angry! And therefore Solomon said, "Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry" (Eccl. 7:9).

I have already pointed out that Moses was appointed אלהים over all the שרים in the Celestial Regions, and that the Ineffable Name is reserved for The deity who controls and suspends laws of nature at will. We pay tribute to this fact in the Haggadah shel Pessach, where we describe G–d's interference in the line: "I, and not an angel, I, and not a Seraph, I, and not any agent." In view of the above, how are we to understand the verse in Numbers 20,16: וישלח מלאך ויוציאנו ממצרים, "He sent an angel and took us out of Egypt?" Clearly the "angel" was Moses. G–d transferred His power העבר, as the Torah says in Exodus 12,23: "ועבר ה' G–d will pass through Egypt to strike, but will see the blood, etc." We have a similar verse in 12,12: ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה, "I shall pass through the land of Egypt during this night." The expression עבר, is a way of transferring power. This explains the threefold statement תדע which we quoted at the very beginning of our commentary (page 409). All three verses describe that there is no one like the Lord our G–d. The first one emphasizes His existence, whereas the second one emphasizes that He exercises control everywhere in His universe. The third statement features the word בעבור תדע, instead of למען תדע. The expression בעבור must be understood as העברה, transfer of His authority via Moses.

Keeping this in mind, we can understand the statements of Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini in Chulin 91a who says that Samael appeared to Jacob as a pagan, whereas Rav Shmuel bar Acha thought that Samael appeared to Jacob in the guise of a Torah scholar. These two views need not conflict with one another, Considering the impurity that radiates from Esau, Samael appeared like a pagan; considering the holiness that radiates from the angelic aspect of Samael, he appeared like a Torah scholar. Just as the features of Jacob are engraved on the throne of G–d, so the features of Esau must be perceived as engraved on Samael. More than once in Scripture are Torah scholars equated with angels, to quote only וישלח מלאך ויוציאנו, "G–d sent an angel and he took us out” (Numbers 20,16, the angel being Moses). Rashi, commenting on that verse, also quotes Chronicles 11, 36, 16: ויהיו מלעיבים במלאכי האלהים, "They insulted the "angels" of G–d," as referring to the prophets. At that particular time, Samael decided to don human garments in order to wrestle with Jacob physically. After Jacob had bested him, Samael concealed the evil part of himself and became a "good" angel. In that latter capacity he confirmed that Jacob had deserved Isaac's blessing and then himself blessed him. As soon as that happened, peace between Jacob and Esau was restored in our world.

And (Sanhedrin 101a): "R. Chisda said: 'If one argues against his Rabbi, it is as if he would argue against the Shechinah, viz. (Numbers 26:9) ["who strove against Moses and Aaron with the congregation of Korach] when they strove against the L-rd."' And R. Chamma b. Chanina said: "If one quarrels with his Rabbi it is as if he would quarrel with the Shechinah, viz. (Numbers 20:13): "They are the waters of Merivah (contention), whereby the children of Israel strove with the L-rd" [in striving with Moses].'" And, along the same lines: "R. Chaina b. Pappa said: 'If one rails against his Rabbi, it is as if he would rail against the Shechinah, etc.' … R. Avihu said: 'If one arraigns his Rabbi, it is as if he would arraign the Shechinah, etc.'" And the four levels that the Gemara mentions below are meant to apprise us that even thinking alone [against one's Rabbi] is also a great issur.

In the words of our sages there: "Surely Moses did not plead with G–d to let him enter the Holy Land merely to taste its fruit!" While on this subject let me explain Rashi's comment on 3,24. He divides his comment into פשט and דרוש. As far as the דרוש is concerned I find it difficult to follow him because, if he is correct, the Torah should have written אתה החילות והראית, "You have begun and shown me." I therefore prefer to deal with the פשט part of his commentary: that Moses felt that because he had been allowed to defeat the kings Sichon and Og on the East bank of the Jordan, this was a sign that G–d had rescinded His decree (Numbers 20,12) that he, Moses would not be allowed to lead Israel to the Holy Land. He considered the lands ruled by these kings as part of the land of Israel. Rashi quotes 2,31 where G–d had said: ראה החילותי תת לפניך את סיחון as proof that Moses thought that the decree had been rescinded. If Rashi's reasoning is correct, why did the Torah add the words בעת ההיא "at that time," in 3,23?

Rashi as well as other commentators also explain the words רב לך אל תוסף דבר אלי עוד בדבר הזה "Enough for you; do not continue to speak to me about this subject" in a variety of ways. Seeing that so many commentators have had their say on this subject, I will add something of my own. This was part of the wars of conquest. The fact that Moses distributed these lands to some of the tribes who made their homes there proved that it was part of the land of Israel. If G–d did not allow all the land to be conquered by Joshua surely this was because He had relented from the decree in Numbers 20,12! Moses had good reason to believe this. When Moses quoted G–d (3,27) as having said to him: "You will not cross this Jordan," he was guilty of an inaccuracy. The Torah had not mentioned this. When he quoted G–d as saying: "instruct Joshua, imbue him with strength and courage, for he shall go across at the head of the people, and he shall allot to them the land that you only see," this too is something that seems quite irrelevant at this juncture. Moses said: "You have begun," i.e. the beginning of conquest and distribution of the land of Israel has been carried out by me. Why did You not let Joshua do the whole thing seeing that he is prepared for this task? Moses' reasoning here is similar to what he had said to G–d (Exodus 4,13) at the burning bush: שלח נא ביד תשלח, which the Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel understands as a reference to Pinchas, i.e. the prophet Elijah who will proclaim the advent of the final Redemption in the future. Moses had felt then that Pinchas was the suitable candidate to lead the Jewish people into the Holy Land also on the first occasion. When considering the fact that he had been allowed to commence the conquest and the distribution of the land we understand why Moses thought that the decree to deny him this task had been lifted. Although Moses had been told the exact boundaries of ארץ ישראל in Numbers 34,3-12, and these boundaries did not include the lands formerly occupied by Sichon and Og, Moses thought that there had been no need for the Torah to list those boundaries as the lands had already been distributed Moses was convinced that these lands were part of the Holy Land, and he was proven right when the Jews returning from the Babylonian exile sanctified them. Moses surmised that the reason that G–d had rescinded His decree against his leading the Jewish people in the conquest could only have been to enable him to acquire still greater insights into the phenomenon of a G–d who rules in Heaven and on Earth as described in 3,24. As a result of such considerations he prayed: "Please let me cross and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan, the good Mountain and the Lebanon" (3,25). He prayed to remain the leader. The expression אעברה is basically the same as when Moses said in Numbers 27,17 that the leader of the Jewish people should be at their head when going to war and should be the last one to return from war. Moses' major concern was not that he wanted to continue to exercise authority, but that this authority would be the means whereby he would gain greater insights. As a result of Moses, Israel's leader, gaining greater spiritual insights, the spiritual level of the whole people would also be raised. When we look at Moses' request in this light we appreciate that he asked not only for himself but also for his people.

When we look at what happened at מי מריבה, "the waters of strife," in the passage beginning in Numbers 20,7 we are faced with many difficulties, and there are many commentators offering all kinds of reasons. Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel alone cites ten different explanations offered on this strange passage. Later commentators have added their own comments. I shall add my own comments also, seeing that anyone has the right to claim the "crown" of Torah. I have heard a beautiful commentary on this passage in the name of Rabbi Moshe Isserless, better known as the famous Rema, commentator on the שלחן ערוך. I will quote it and add a personal thought. This will answer why the names עם and בני ישראל are used in that passage in what appears to be a haphazard fashion. It will also explain why Moses called the people מורים, "rebellious," in conjunction with my explanation of the nature of Moses' and Aaron's sin. If we were to follow Maimonides in his commentary שמונה פרקים, we would have to say that Moses' only error was that he called the people מורים. I hope to prove that Moses did not commit an error by calling the people מורים.

I have already published on that subject when explaining Deut. 34,11, which describes all the wonders and miracles that Moses performed as remaining forever unparalleled, that Moses' great מעלה, merit, was that the miracles he performed were under the aegis of the Ineffable Name of G–d, and that therefore the people at large were not able to recognize this as they had not attained that spiritual level. Only the elite of the people would be able to perceive the spiritual domain from which the miracles performed by Moses had originated. Such miracles were to be performed only for the eyes of a holy nation that were true servants of the Lord, not before the eyes of those who denied His powers and were not firmly attached to G–d. On this occasion an עדה שלימה who had access to the level of Torah that we had described as תורת ידוד תמימה congregated with others of the caliber קהל ה' and the Torah thereupon refers to both groups jointly as בני ישראל. The Torah commences its report in 20,3, with the words: וירב העם, "The people quarreled with Moses, saying if only we had died in the desert with our brothers in the presence of G–d." In other words, the lowest group of people, the ones who had originally been fellow travelers, started the quarrel. They continued: "Why did you bring the congregation of G–d to this desert that we might die there, both we and our beasts?" They tried to gain support, by making it appear that their main concern was the קהל ה', the spiritual elite of the nation. They accused Moses and Aaron of indifference to the fate of the spiritual elite of the Jewish people. By reading the next verse as a continuation of verse 5, we see their true meaning: "Moses and Aaron came to the entrance of the tent of meeting on account of the קהל," meaning that Moses interceded even on account of the קהל. At this point, G–d commanded Moses and Aaron to assemble the עדה, i.e. a level of people lower than the קהל ידוד, the spiritual elite, and of course also the קהל ידוד, who were on a higher spiritual niveau than the עדה, as pointed out earlier, and who were certainly worthy to witness the miracle about to be performed. It would appear that the sin of Moses and Aaron was that they had approached G–d even for the sake of the קהל, the group inferior to the עדה, (who had felt the lack of water as described in verse 2). Moses did not sin then by calling the people מורים. The only people whom he called מורים, were descendants of Gentiles, not the descendants of Abraham. It certainly was not sinful to call people who regressed to their spiritual level prior to their conversion "rebellious." When punishing Moses and Aaron, G–d says in 20,12: לא תביאו את הקהל הזה אל הארץ, "Because you did not keep faith with Me, you will not lead this congregation to the land." This means that Moses was not going to be worthy to lead the category of קהל to the Holy land, much less the spiritually higher categories of the people such as עדה. Moses was no longer considered fit to lead even the קהל, a spiritually inferior group of people, who, though they would live in the Holy Land, would not receive a hereditary share therein. Moses and Aaron would accordingly no longer be considered suitable to lead the עדה and קהל ידוד sections of the people. The words אשר נתתי להם, "to whom I have given the land," refer to these upper echelons of the people. This creates the impression that the majority of the people qualified as בני ישראל rather than as goy or קהל. On the other hand, and from various other occasions, we are entitled to conclude that the עם were the most numerous section of the nation. I have explained elsewhere the meaning of the statement attributed to Rav Huna that a person is remarkably insensitive to the help he receives from G–d. Saul was considered personally more pious than David, as we know from the statement by G–d that "if you had been Saul, and he had been David, I would have killed many Davids on his account."

In view of this we can also understand Deut. 1,37, when Moses said: "G–d was also angry with me on your account." Moses employs the expression בי, against me. We find the same expression here when G–d said to him יען כי לא האמנתם בי להקדישני, "because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me" (20,12). In Deut. 1,32, however, the wording is ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים. The true significance is as I have explained, that a decree already existed, but the actions needed to trigger this decree had not yet occurred. Because of a previous sin Moses had committed, G–d had already become angry at Moses on account of Israel. Now this anger, i.e. decree, became translated into effective reality. This is the reason why the Torah stresses המה מי מריבה אשר רבו בני ישראל, "these are the very same waters of strife the children of Israel quarreled (already previously)." If it were not so, the expression המה, would be uncalled for. Now the various commentaries that have been offered on this passage.

In view of this we can also understand Deut. 1,37, when Moses said: "G–d was also angry with me on your account." Moses employs the expression בי, against me. We find the same expression here when G–d said to him יען כי לא האמנתם בי להקדישני, "because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me" (20,12). In Deut. 1,32, however, the wording is ובדבר הזה אינכם מאמינים. The true significance is as I have explained, that a decree already existed, but the actions needed to trigger this decree had not yet occurred. Because of a previous sin Moses had committed, G–d had already become angry at Moses on account of Israel. Now this anger, i.e. decree, became translated into effective reality. This is the reason why the Torah stresses המה מי מריבה אשר רבו בני ישראל, "these are the very same waters of strife the children of Israel quarreled (already previously)." If it were not so, the expression המה, would be uncalled for. Now the various commentaries that have been offered on this passage.

We have learned in Kidushin 41: The commandment to be מקדש את האשה devolves first and foremost on the actual groom, though it may be performed by anyone he designates. When the Jewish people left Egypt, G–d (the groom) personally performed the act of קדושין: The Torah says of G–d: ועברתי בארץ מצרים (Exodus 12,12). The ceremony was, however, also performed by a messenger whom G–d had designated, viz: וישלח מלאך ויוציאני, "He sent an angel (messenger) and took me out" (Numbers 20,16). The actual wedding ceremony, the נישואין, must be carried out by the groom personally, not a stand-in. The giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai symbolised this wedding ceremony between G–d and the Jewish people. This wedding took place on the Sabbath, an occasion when G–d spoke to Israel פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם, "Face to face did G–d speak with you" (Deut. 5,4). The usual time for man and his wife to join conjugally is on the Sabbath. This is part of the mystical aspect of marriage.

There are numerous references to this in our Midrashic literature. Shemot Rabbah 30,11, quoting Job 23,3-4, "would that I could find Him, reach His dwelling place, I would set out my case, משפט, before Him, fill my mouth with arguments," explains this in the following parable. A drunken prison guard rebelled, opened the gates to let the prisoners escape, cursed the picture of the ruler, and demanded to see the king, threatening that he would tell the king to his face what he thought true justice should be. He even went as far as stoning the king's image. He was shown the ruler sitting on a platform, dispensing punishment to a lady of aristocratic bearing, he observed the king handing down a verdict against his provincial governor, etc. At that point the palace guard became frightened and apologised, explaining that his drunken stupor had been the reason for his outrageous conduct, which included not recognising his king when he saw him. Similarly Job 23,4. When Job cursed the day he was born (Job 3,3/4) he in fact cursed the angel in charge of who will be born when and under what mazzal. This angel is called לילה. Later on Job reflected how G–d had punished Miriam for speaking out against Moses (Numbers 12,10); he further observed how G–d had punished Moses not allowing him to enter the Holy Land because he had struck the rock instead of merely speaking to it (Numbers 20,12). He also noted that G–d had blinded Isaac (for having loved the wicked Esau), see Genesis 27,1. He realised moreover that G–d had punished Abraham for having asked: "how do I know that I will inherit?" (Genesis 15,8) G–d had responded by telling Abraham that his descendants would be slaves in a foreign land for four hundred years before being liberated (Genesis 15,13). G–d had also קרב קיסין, struck at Jacob with a piece of wood, causing the latter to limp as a result of the nocturnal encounter with the שרו של עשו, the guardian angel of Esau, to use the words of the Midrash. When Job had reflected on all this, he begged G–d's forgiveness for having spoken out rebelliously, and he excused himself by having been drunk. This is why it says in Job 19,4: “ואף אמנם שגיתי, אתי תלין משוגתי,” If indeed I have erred, my error stays with me overnight." All of this, because he did not realise the power of דין. So far the Midrash.