Komentarz do Liczb 20:12

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.