וַיָּ֨רֶם מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־יָד֗וֹ וַיַּ֧ךְ אֶת־הַסֶּ֛לַע בְּמַטֵּ֖הוּ פַּעֲמָ֑יִם וַיֵּצְאוּ֙ מַ֣יִם רַבִּ֔ים וַתֵּ֥שְׁתְּ הָעֵדָ֖ה וּבְעִירָֽם׃ (ס)
At itinaas ni Moises ang kanyang kamay, at hinampas niya ang bato ng kanyang tungkod nang makalawang ulit; at lumabas ang maraming tubig, at uminom ang kapulungan at ang kanilang mga hayop.
Rabbeinu Bahya
This is also mentioned in Midrash Tehillim on Psalm 68,6 (on verse 11 in that Psalm) on the words א-ד-נ-י יתן אומר המבשרות צבא רב. “The Lord gives a command; the women who bring the news are a great host.” When G’d (attribute גבורה) spoke His words, the sound was split into seven voices which in turned were subdivided into seventy voices, i.e. the seventy languages of the seventy nations to enable all of them to hear part of G’d’s voice. The process may be compared to a person who strikes an anvil and sparks fly in all directions. This is the meaning of the words המבשרות צבא רב.
Having understood this it is possible to understand the mystical dimensions of שבועה and נדר, commonly translated as “oath” and “vow” respectively. The word שבועה is derived from the word שבע, “seven,” whereas the word נדר is related to the three emanations “above” the seven represented by the קולות ה' as we described previously. A נדר ranks higher in Jewish law than an oath, שבועה. Seeing that the Torah (in its aspect as a Book of laws) does not concern itself with matters beyond the seven lower emanations and the Torah itself is a product of those seven emanations, it makes sense that in Jewish law an oath would never be overriding one of the already existing Torah commandments, i.e. someone who swore an oath not to observe one or several of the Torah’s commandments would not thereby have obligated himself to keep his oath. Any such oath is as if the person who uttered it had not said anything.
Regarding a נדר the matter is quite different, seeing that basically the concept ofנדר emanates from a domain higher than the lower seven emanations. In principle, a נדר, a vow of a certain type, is able to override a מצוה. The very wording which our sages have assigned to the respective formulations of vows and oaths reflect their legal status in Jewish law. By definition, a נדר is unlimited, i.e. person says “I accept for myself a certain duty,“ such as when David said in Psalms 56,13 עלי אלו-הים נדרך אשלם “it is up to me to pay my vows to You G’d.” There was no time-limit to that obligation, nor was there any kind of contingency which might have rendered the vow as invalid. The word נדר is related to דירה dwelling, as I will explain in greater detail on Numbers 30,3. David understands that the obligation to fulfill his vow is not contingent on pre-existing contrary obligations which would invalidate it. The same is the case in Numbers 30,7 where the Torah describes the absolute duty of a woman, who has not had a husband or the authority of a father who could have objected to her vow at the time she made it, to make good on her vow. When we will discuss the third of the Ten Commandments, I will elaborate on the seriousness of the failure to keep an oath and how it is related to the seven emanations, while in Numbers 30,3 I will discuss the difference between that prohibition and the sin of not honoring a vow one has made. Seeing that I have explained some basic principles of the Torah here I will not need to elaborate on these principles again.
Having understood this it is possible to understand the mystical dimensions of שבועה and נדר, commonly translated as “oath” and “vow” respectively. The word שבועה is derived from the word שבע, “seven,” whereas the word נדר is related to the three emanations “above” the seven represented by the קולות ה' as we described previously. A נדר ranks higher in Jewish law than an oath, שבועה. Seeing that the Torah (in its aspect as a Book of laws) does not concern itself with matters beyond the seven lower emanations and the Torah itself is a product of those seven emanations, it makes sense that in Jewish law an oath would never be overriding one of the already existing Torah commandments, i.e. someone who swore an oath not to observe one or several of the Torah’s commandments would not thereby have obligated himself to keep his oath. Any such oath is as if the person who uttered it had not said anything.
Regarding a נדר the matter is quite different, seeing that basically the concept ofנדר emanates from a domain higher than the lower seven emanations. In principle, a נדר, a vow of a certain type, is able to override a מצוה. The very wording which our sages have assigned to the respective formulations of vows and oaths reflect their legal status in Jewish law. By definition, a נדר is unlimited, i.e. person says “I accept for myself a certain duty,“ such as when David said in Psalms 56,13 עלי אלו-הים נדרך אשלם “it is up to me to pay my vows to You G’d.” There was no time-limit to that obligation, nor was there any kind of contingency which might have rendered the vow as invalid. The word נדר is related to דירה dwelling, as I will explain in greater detail on Numbers 30,3. David understands that the obligation to fulfill his vow is not contingent on pre-existing contrary obligations which would invalidate it. The same is the case in Numbers 30,7 where the Torah describes the absolute duty of a woman, who has not had a husband or the authority of a father who could have objected to her vow at the time she made it, to make good on her vow. When we will discuss the third of the Ten Commandments, I will elaborate on the seriousness of the failure to keep an oath and how it is related to the seven emanations, while in Numbers 30,3 I will discuss the difference between that prohibition and the sin of not honoring a vow one has made. Seeing that I have explained some basic principles of the Torah here I will not need to elaborate on these principles again.
Ramban
TO PUT US AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR CATTLE TO DEATH WITH THIRST. In their complaint, they mentioned the cattle too, thus telling Moses that they need a lot of water and it is therefore necessary to take counsel on the whole matter. This is why it says at the second time [when the incident at the waters of Meribah is recorded], and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.414Ibid., 20:11. Now here it is not mentioned but it is self-understood that when the rock was turned into a pool of water, they drank and they watered their flocks (Ramban in Verse 5 further). In the instance of the waters of Meribah at Kadesh, it is mentioned on account of the mishap that resulted from the entire affair, as explained there; see also Ramban here in Verse 5 for another interpretation. And our Rabbis have said:415Mechilta on the verse here. “They made their cattle equal in importance to themselves. They said: ‘A man’s beast is as his life. If a man travels on the road and his beast is not with him, he suffers.’”
Now the reason they mentioned us and our children and did not say generally: “to put us to death with thirst” or “to put to death this whole assembly,” [an expression] which would have included men, women and the little ones, as they said in other places,416Such as above, 16:3, to put to death this whole assembly by famine. is that by mentioning the children to him, they emphasized their murmuring against him so that he should make haste in the matter, since the young ones could not suffer thirst at all and they would thus die before the eyes of their parents. This is something like the expression, The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst.417Lamentations 4:4.
Now the reason they mentioned us and our children and did not say generally: “to put us to death with thirst” or “to put to death this whole assembly,” [an expression] which would have included men, women and the little ones, as they said in other places,416Such as above, 16:3, to put to death this whole assembly by famine. is that by mentioning the children to him, they emphasized their murmuring against him so that he should make haste in the matter, since the young ones could not suffer thirst at all and they would thus die before the eyes of their parents. This is something like the expression, The tongue of the sucking child cleaveth to the roof of his mouth for thirst.417Lamentations 4:4.
Tur HaArokh
את בני ואת מקני, “my children and my herds.” The reason why they mentioned the herds, separately, was to remind Moses that a great deal of water was needed, seeing that the animals consumed a lot of water. This is why the Torah makes a point that after Moses struck the rock lots of water gushed forth, enough for both the people and their herds. (Numbers 20,11)
Rashi
יקח נא LET BE FETCHED, I PRAY THEE — This implies bringing by a messenger: therefore did the Holy One, blessed be He, recompense his (Abraham’s) children by a messenger when they required water, as it is said, (Numbers 20:11) “And Moses lifted up his hand and smote the rock etc.” (Bava Metzia 86b)