בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא נְאֻם֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת תָּמוּשׁ֙ הַיָּתֵ֔ד הַתְּקוּעָ֖ה בְּמָק֣וֹם נֶאֱמָ֑ן וְנִגְדְּעָ֣ה וְנָפְלָ֗ה וְנִכְרַת֙ הַמַּשָּׂ֣א אֲשֶׁר־עָלֶ֔יהָ כִּ֥י יְהוָ֖ה דִּבֵּֽר׃ (ס)
Sa araw na iyon, sabi ng Walang-Hanggan ng mga Hukbo, maaalis ang tulos na nakabaon sa matibay na dako; at ito'y puputulin at babagsak, at mapuputol ang pasaning nakasabit doon, sapagkat ang Walang-Hanggan ang nagsalita.
Rabbeinu Bahya
You know that the Levites were the most “holy” tribe of the Israelites and that the Torah appointed them to walk behind the wagons transporting the components of the Tabernacle whenever the people were on the move. Walking behind the wagons was certainly a very minor kind of duty, something more appropriate to the least skilled and educated amongst the people. We read in Numbers 7,6-8: “Moses (personally) took the carts and the oxen and gave them to the Levites. Two carts and four oxen he gave to the Gershonites, as required for their service, and four carts and eight oxen he gave to the Merarites, as required for their service.” These verses teach you that a person (Moses as well as the Levites) has to “lower” his own dignity in order to accord honour to the Lord. These verses prompted our sages (Bamidbar Rabbah 4,20) to say “when someone does indeed diminish his own stature in order to enhance the stature of heaven then not only will heaven’s stature be enhanced through his actions but his own stature will be enhanced also. Conversely, if someone tries to enhance his own stature at the expense of heaven’s stature, his own stature will suffer whereas heaven’s stature remains unimpaired.”
In connection with this subject we find that a man by the name of Issachar, a resident of a village called Barkai, was punished as he was desecrating sacred property while bestowing honour upon himself. Our sages in Pessachim 57 speak of four indignities which occurred in the courtyard of the Temple. [The Talmud presents the matter as if the courtyard were a person and gave voice to its feelings. Ed.] The result of the first indignity was the expulsion of the sons of the High Priest Eli from the holy precincts because they had caused defilement inside those precincts with their conduct. A second occasion when the courtyard banned someone from its precincts was an incident involving this Issachar from the village of Barkai who had “used” the Temple to enhance is own stature at the expense of the sacred contents of the Temple. His sin consisted in the fact that he was too considerate of his own hands, wrapping them in silk before performing his priestly duties. A third occasion which provoked protest by the courtyard was when the courtyard called out protesting angrily שאו שערים ראשיכם, “raise your heads o gates and observe how Yochanan son of Narbai, disciple of Pankai enters the sacred precincts and stuffs his belly with the meat of the sacrifices.” They said of this man that he had a daily intake of 300 calves and that he drank three hundred jars of wine daily and had 40 measures of pigeons as dessert. [Whenever the number 300 appears in the Talmud it is a figure of speech employed to describe unbelievably big quantities. Ed.] They say furthermore that as long as this Yochanan son of Narbai was alive there was never any leftover sacrificial meat to which the law that it had to be burned needed to be applied. What happened to this Issachar from Barkai? Another person concerning whose conduct in the holy precincts the courtyard protested was a certain Yishmael son of Pabi, disciple of Pinchas whom the courtyard was instrumental in appointing as High Priest in lieu of the infamous Issachar. It happened once during his time that the king and queen sat at the table arguing whether the taste of a young goat or that of a young sheep was superior. The queen favoured the taste of the young sheep (lamb) whereas her husband the king preferred the taste of the kid (young male goat). In order to settle their argument they called in this Issachar and seeing that he had eaten plenty of either animal in his capacity as High Priest they asked him which tasted better. Thereupon this Issachar made a disrespectful motion with his hand indicating that the question was silly as if the goat’s meat were better surely the Torah would have stipulated that the daily public burnt-offering should consist of a male young goat. When the king observed that the High Priest had failed to observe good manners and had waved his hand about, he decreed that the offending hand of the High Priest be cut off. Issachar bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead of his right hand. When the matter of the bribe became known he lost his right hand also. Upon hearing about this, Rabbi Yossi asked his students the rhetorical question of what caused the High Priest Issachar to become a victim of such cruelty? The student Rabbi Ashi said that it was his failure to have studied the relevant Mishnah in which it is stated that sheep always take precedence over goats. Nonetheless, Rabbi Ashi added that he thanked the Lord who punished this Issachar in this world so that he could enter the hereafter having already paid his dues. This is not the only time that someone in Biblical times was punished while on earth in order to preserve his reward in the hereafter intact. During the period of the prophet Isaiah and King Chiskiyahu (compare Isaiah 22,15) there was a certain scribe by the name of Shevna who according to some scholars was also the High Priest. At any rate, he was a highly placed individual who, if not the High Priest, was in charge of the King’s palace. Seeing he had treated sacrificial offerings with disdain, he was killed by Sancheriv, King of Assyra. Concerning this Shevna the prophet Isaiah said quoting G’d: (Isaiah 22,25) “the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way.” Isaiah had prophesied his downfall and it had been fulfilled in his lifetime in order for Shevna’s merits for the hereafter to be preserved intact. [The nature of Shevna’s sin has been the subject of much disagreement. Our author’s assumption that he was remiss in his attitude to the Altar is difficult to substantiate. Ed.]
The third matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the great and ongoing miracle which was an adjunct of this Altar. We are speaking about the so-called copper altar which was overlaid with a sheet of copper the thickness of the coin called dinar in those days. The fire on top of the Altar never ceased to burn. Neither the wood underneath the copper was burned by the heat nor did the copper crack, melt, or otherwise lose its effectiveness. This was one of the 18 miracles which occurred in connection with the Tabernacle and the first Temple (they are listed in Pirke Avot chapter 5,7 and another eight in Yuma 21). The Torah draws attention to this miracle by repeating the fact that the fire on the Altar was never to go out. (verses 2 and 5). Seeing the Torah had already stipulated in verse 2 that the fire had to be kept going, what need was there to repeat this in verse 5? Clearly, what is a commandment in verse 2 is a promise in verse 5, i.e. the fire would never go out. Not only that, but the Altar itself would remain undamaged.
The fourth matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the magnitude of the punishment suffered by the wicked during their stay in gehinom. This explains why the fire on the Altar is mentioned a third time in our paragraph in verse 6., where the Torah writes: “a permanent fire shall remain aflame on the Altar; it shall not be extinguished.” Seeing that the purpose of the Altar is to secure atonement the wicked are not in line for such atonement because they had denied the power and function of the Altar and the sacrificial offering thereon. The Torah therefore hints by repeating this message about the never-dying fire that it is a hint to the wicked of what is in store for them. The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 33,14) remonstrated with the people saying to them: “Sinners in Zion are frightened, the godless are seized with trembling; ‘who of us can dwell with the never-dying blaze?’” These sinners had become frightened of the very fire whose power they had been in the habit of mocking when they refused to repent and to accept atonement. This is also what the verse in Isaiah 33,14 is all about which means that the wicked are to be made afraid of the fires of gehinom concerning which it is written in Isaiah 66,24 that their worms shall not die, nor their fires quenched, they shall be a horror to all flesh.” The meaning of “it shall not be quenched” in Isaiah is parallel to the words “it shall not go out or die” in our verse here.
In connection with this subject we find that a man by the name of Issachar, a resident of a village called Barkai, was punished as he was desecrating sacred property while bestowing honour upon himself. Our sages in Pessachim 57 speak of four indignities which occurred in the courtyard of the Temple. [The Talmud presents the matter as if the courtyard were a person and gave voice to its feelings. Ed.] The result of the first indignity was the expulsion of the sons of the High Priest Eli from the holy precincts because they had caused defilement inside those precincts with their conduct. A second occasion when the courtyard banned someone from its precincts was an incident involving this Issachar from the village of Barkai who had “used” the Temple to enhance is own stature at the expense of the sacred contents of the Temple. His sin consisted in the fact that he was too considerate of his own hands, wrapping them in silk before performing his priestly duties. A third occasion which provoked protest by the courtyard was when the courtyard called out protesting angrily שאו שערים ראשיכם, “raise your heads o gates and observe how Yochanan son of Narbai, disciple of Pankai enters the sacred precincts and stuffs his belly with the meat of the sacrifices.” They said of this man that he had a daily intake of 300 calves and that he drank three hundred jars of wine daily and had 40 measures of pigeons as dessert. [Whenever the number 300 appears in the Talmud it is a figure of speech employed to describe unbelievably big quantities. Ed.] They say furthermore that as long as this Yochanan son of Narbai was alive there was never any leftover sacrificial meat to which the law that it had to be burned needed to be applied. What happened to this Issachar from Barkai? Another person concerning whose conduct in the holy precincts the courtyard protested was a certain Yishmael son of Pabi, disciple of Pinchas whom the courtyard was instrumental in appointing as High Priest in lieu of the infamous Issachar. It happened once during his time that the king and queen sat at the table arguing whether the taste of a young goat or that of a young sheep was superior. The queen favoured the taste of the young sheep (lamb) whereas her husband the king preferred the taste of the kid (young male goat). In order to settle their argument they called in this Issachar and seeing that he had eaten plenty of either animal in his capacity as High Priest they asked him which tasted better. Thereupon this Issachar made a disrespectful motion with his hand indicating that the question was silly as if the goat’s meat were better surely the Torah would have stipulated that the daily public burnt-offering should consist of a male young goat. When the king observed that the High Priest had failed to observe good manners and had waved his hand about, he decreed that the offending hand of the High Priest be cut off. Issachar bribed the executioner to cut off his left hand instead of his right hand. When the matter of the bribe became known he lost his right hand also. Upon hearing about this, Rabbi Yossi asked his students the rhetorical question of what caused the High Priest Issachar to become a victim of such cruelty? The student Rabbi Ashi said that it was his failure to have studied the relevant Mishnah in which it is stated that sheep always take precedence over goats. Nonetheless, Rabbi Ashi added that he thanked the Lord who punished this Issachar in this world so that he could enter the hereafter having already paid his dues. This is not the only time that someone in Biblical times was punished while on earth in order to preserve his reward in the hereafter intact. During the period of the prophet Isaiah and King Chiskiyahu (compare Isaiah 22,15) there was a certain scribe by the name of Shevna who according to some scholars was also the High Priest. At any rate, he was a highly placed individual who, if not the High Priest, was in charge of the King’s palace. Seeing he had treated sacrificial offerings with disdain, he was killed by Sancheriv, King of Assyra. Concerning this Shevna the prophet Isaiah said quoting G’d: (Isaiah 22,25) “the peg fixed in a firm place shall give way.” Isaiah had prophesied his downfall and it had been fulfilled in his lifetime in order for Shevna’s merits for the hereafter to be preserved intact. [The nature of Shevna’s sin has been the subject of much disagreement. Our author’s assumption that he was remiss in his attitude to the Altar is difficult to substantiate. Ed.]
The third matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the great and ongoing miracle which was an adjunct of this Altar. We are speaking about the so-called copper altar which was overlaid with a sheet of copper the thickness of the coin called dinar in those days. The fire on top of the Altar never ceased to burn. Neither the wood underneath the copper was burned by the heat nor did the copper crack, melt, or otherwise lose its effectiveness. This was one of the 18 miracles which occurred in connection with the Tabernacle and the first Temple (they are listed in Pirke Avot chapter 5,7 and another eight in Yuma 21). The Torah draws attention to this miracle by repeating the fact that the fire on the Altar was never to go out. (verses 2 and 5). Seeing the Torah had already stipulated in verse 2 that the fire had to be kept going, what need was there to repeat this in verse 5? Clearly, what is a commandment in verse 2 is a promise in verse 5, i.e. the fire would never go out. Not only that, but the Altar itself would remain undamaged.
The fourth matter which this paragraph of the Torah teaches us is the magnitude of the punishment suffered by the wicked during their stay in gehinom. This explains why the fire on the Altar is mentioned a third time in our paragraph in verse 6., where the Torah writes: “a permanent fire shall remain aflame on the Altar; it shall not be extinguished.” Seeing that the purpose of the Altar is to secure atonement the wicked are not in line for such atonement because they had denied the power and function of the Altar and the sacrificial offering thereon. The Torah therefore hints by repeating this message about the never-dying fire that it is a hint to the wicked of what is in store for them. The prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 33,14) remonstrated with the people saying to them: “Sinners in Zion are frightened, the godless are seized with trembling; ‘who of us can dwell with the never-dying blaze?’” These sinners had become frightened of the very fire whose power they had been in the habit of mocking when they refused to repent and to accept atonement. This is also what the verse in Isaiah 33,14 is all about which means that the wicked are to be made afraid of the fires of gehinom concerning which it is written in Isaiah 66,24 that their worms shall not die, nor their fires quenched, they shall be a horror to all flesh.” The meaning of “it shall not be quenched” in Isaiah is parallel to the words “it shall not go out or die” in our verse here.
Ramban
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.”
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.”
Rav Hirsch
וימש חשך: Hiphil von מוש. Simson bat in seiner Blindheit seinen Führer: המישני את העמדים (Richter 16, 26) lass mich die Säulen betasten, und hieße dem nach: ימש חשך, die Finsternis wird alle Ägypter "tasten" lassen, sie werden sich in keiner Weise des Augenlichtes bedienen können, und zur Erkennung von Gegenständen lediglich auf das Tastgefühl angewiesen sein. Es involviert dies allerdings, daß ihnen auch mit künstlicher Beleuchtung nicht zu helfen war. Eigentümlich ists, daß מוש zugleich auch: weichen heißt, also zugleich das Gegenteil von Tasten. Tasten bezeichnet ja die unmittelbarste Annäherung an den Gegenstand. Vergleichen wir alle Stellen, in welchen מוש weichen bedeutet, so ergibt sich, daß מוש, nicht wie סור im allgemeinen sich entfernen heißt, sondern immer nur: aus der nächsten Nähe weichen. Es kommt daher vorzugsweise nur negativ in diesem Sinne vor: לא ימוש, nicht von der Stelle weichen, nicht von etwas loslassen. Positiv von dem Lockerwerden eines eingeschlagenen Nagels: תמוש היתד התקועה (Jes. 22, 25) oder; אם ימושו החקים האלה so wenig wie die Naturgesetze je im geringsten schwankend werden usw. (Jirm. 31, 36). מוש muss somit die unmittelbarste lose Umgebung einer Sache bedeuten, ein Berühren ohne zu fassen, eine Berührung ohne Verbindung, das ist einerseits: Tasten, — ist ja Tasten, ein unsicheres Berühren, das den berührten Gegenstand immer wieder losläßt, um erst sich zu vergewissern, daß es der gesuchte sei. Es liegt darin eben so sehr ein Entfernen, als eine Annäherung zum Gegenstande — andererseits für etwas bis dahin Verbundenes: lose werden, aus der Verbindung weichen. Ganz entsprechend heißt daher auch מוץ: Hülse.