Moshe's Misstep and Mei Merivah

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators throughout the ages have grappled with the challenge of striking a balance between finding a fault serious enough to prevent Moshe and Aharon from entering the Promised Land, but at the same time, one which it is possible to attribute to two of the holiest men to have ever lived. In struggling to accomplish this mission, exegetes have mined almost every word of the somewhat cryptic verses and produced numerous possibilities and variations thereof.

Between Man and God

Moshe and Aharon sinned against Hashem, either through their own lack of faith or by causing the nation to doubt God's capabilities.

Lack of Faith – "יַעַן לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי"

Moshe and Aharon displayed a dearth of confidence in Hashem's powers.

How was the lack of faith manifest?
  • Striking the rock – Rashbam, Sforno and R. Hirsch view Moshe's hitting, rather than speaking to, the rock as the problematic action. According to Rashbam and Sforno, Moshe doubted whether simply talking to the rock would elicit the miracle.2 According to R. Hirsch, hitting the rock was an expression of despair and self-doubt, which stemmed from incomplete faith in Hashem.3
  • Hitting twice – Ramban maintains that Moshe and Aharon's decision to hit the rock twice rather than once stemmed from their doubting Hashem's powers.4
  • Running away – Mendelssohn asserts that Moshe and Aharon did not have enough faith in Hashem to stand up against those who were rebelling. Instead, they capitulated to their fear and ran to the Tent of Meeting.5
The nation's sin – All these commentators view the nation's murmurings as deserving of rebuke.
Role of the staff
  • Not to be used – According to Rashbam and R. Hirsch, Moshe was meant to take the staff, but not to use it to strike the rock. Rashbam asserts that it was meant to remind the people of their rebelliousness,6 while R. Hirsch maintains that it was a sign of status, meant to assert Moshe's leadership.7
  • To be used – Ramban asserts that included in the command to take the staff was the implicit directive to use it; for why else would he need to bring it?8
"וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם"
  • According to Rashbam, Sforno and R. Hirsch, Moshe was supposed to speak directly to the rock so as to bring forth water (and in not doing so, he erred.)
  • Ramban, in contrast, understands the directive to mean that Moshe was to speak to the people regarding (אֶל" = על") the rock.9
"And [they] went... to the Tent of Meeting" – Mendelssohn points to this verse as defining Moshe's sin, viewing Moshe and Aharon's going to the Tent of Meeting as a show of cowardice in face of the people's complaints. R. Hirsch, in contrast, points out that this action is not unique to this story. Often, when faced with controversy, Moshe and Aharon sought refuge in the Tent of Meeting.10
"שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים" – Ramban and R. Hirsch view these words as an appropriate rebuke to the people.11
"הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם"
  • Moshe's doubt – Rashbam maintains that in these words, Moshe is expressing doubt in the ability of the rock to bring forth water.
  • Moshe's rebuke – Ramban asserts that the question was meant to test the nation's beliefs, while R. Hirsch suggests that it was a rhetorical comment to stress to the nation that Moshe and Aharon themselves were not capable of bringing water; only Hashem is.
Why was Aharon punished?
  • He shared Moshe's sin – According to Ramban and Sforno, even though only Moshe actively hit the rock, the decision to do so was a joint one and stemmed from the lack of faith of both Moshe and Aharon. According to Mendelssohn, both brothers actively fled from the nation, demonstrating their shared fear.
  • Unknown – R. Hirsch leaves the issue as a troubling question. It is especially difficult for him as he maintains that the sin emanated from Moshe's despair and sense of failure, which might not have been shared by Aharon.
Hashem's description of the sin
  • "לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי" – This approach fits well with this description of the sin as it emphasizes Moshe and Aharon's lack of faith.
  • "מְרִיתֶם אֶת פִּי" / "מְעַלְתֶּם בִּי" – According to most of these commentators, this "מרי" expressed itself in Moshe's defying Hashem's explicit instructions (whether by hitting twice, striking rather than speaking etc.) These words are difficult for Mendelssohn, though, since according to him, Moshe and Aharon did not act against Hashem's commands in any way.12
"גַּם בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶם" – Ramban asserts that in these words Moshe is referring to his sin at Mei Merivah, which came about due to the nation's complaints (בִּגְלַלְכֶם). In Devarim, he connects it to the sin of the spies since he wanted to collectively mention all those who did not merit entry into the land of Israel.
Severity of punishment – Rashbam, Mendelssohn and R. Hirsch suggest that the severity of the punishment reflects the higher standards that Hashem demands of the righteous.

Not Sanctifying His Name – "עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדַּשְׁתֶּם אוֹתִי"

Moshe and Aharon squandered an opportunity to sanctify Hashem's name before the nation or caused the people to doubt Hashem's capabilities.

How was the desecration of Hashem manifest?
  • Hitting rather than speaking – Midrash Aggadah, Rashi, Ralbag and Shadal assert that Moshe erred in striking the rock rather than speaking to it. The latter would have been a greater miracle,13 and thus a greater sanctification of Hashem.14
  • Faulty formulation
    • According to R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Moshe's posing his words, "...הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה", as a question caused the people to think that he doubted that Hashem could indeed bring forth water from the stone.15
    • R. Chananel and Chizkuni16 point instead to Moshe's problematic use of the word "נוֹצִיא" specifically. Moshe's saying "we will bring forth water" led the nation to wonder whether he and Aharon, rather than Hashem, were the source of the miracle.17
  • No personal initiative – R. Yosef Albo blames Moshe and Aharon for running to the Tent of Meeting to consult with Hashem rather than immediately quelling the nation's murmurings by invoking a miracle on their own.18 This caused a lack of faith in one of the central tenets of Torah, a prophet's power to act above nature.19
  • Hitting twice – According to R. Bachya, the fact that Moshe hit the rock twice rather than once led the nation to question Hashem's powers.
  • Refusal to use nation's rock – Yalkut Shimoni20 asserts that by refusing to bring the miracle from the rock chosen by the people, Moshe encouraged their mistaken belief that he was bringing water via natural means and not due to Hashem.21
Comparison to Shemot 17
  • Identical stories – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor identifies the two stories,22 allowing him to learn from what is explicit in one to the other.23
  • Different episodes – The other commentators view the incidents as distinct, with many noting that in one Moshe was supposed to strike the rock and in the other to speak to it.24
The nation's sin – Chizkuni maintains that the nation's complaints were legitimate since there really was a lack of water.25 R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, though, assert that nonetheless their combative formulation and grumbling were not appropriate.26
Role of the staff
  • Not to be used – Many of these commentators27 assert that Moshe was not supposed to use the staff,28 but they do not address why, then, he was commanded to bring it.29 Ralbag asserts that this is not unique, for elsewhere too, Moshe is told to take the rod with him even though he in not meant to perform any miracles with it,30 while Chizkuni suggests31 that it was a sign for the nation, reminding them of their mutinous nature.
  • To be used – R. Yosef Behor Shor and R. Bachya32 maintain that Moshe is told to bring the staff because he was supposed to use it to hit the rock.33
"וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם" – According to Midrash Aggadah, Rashi, R"Y Albo, and Shadal, Moshe was told to talk to the rock directly, while according to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor he was supposed to talk to the nation,34 in front of (אֶל" = אל פני") the rock.35
"וַיָּבֹא ... אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – Only R. Yosef Albo views this as a blameworthy action, preferring that Moshe call forth a miracle without first consulting Hashem.36
"שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים" – According to R. Yosef Bekhor and R. Bachya, this was a legitimate chastisement of the complaining nation. Shadal asserts, in contrast, that this was an expression of Moshe's inappropriate anger, which is what led him later to err.
"הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם"
  • Problematic formulation – Many of these exegetes37 view Moshe's formulation here as problematic and causing the nation to doubt God's role in the miracle.38
  • Positive lesson – Ralbag and Shadal, in contrast, view Moshe's speech positively. The question is rhetorical and meant to teach the nation that naturally the rock would not bring forth water; only God can.
Hitting twice
Why was Aharon punished?
  • According to R"Y Albo, Moshe and Aharon both ran to the Tent of Meeting rather than proactively responding to the nation by performing their own miracle. Thus they are both at fault.
  • This question is more difficult for the other commentators, who suggest that the problem was either one of formulation or related to striking the rock, both of which were done by Moshe alone and not Aharon. They might suggest that the plural language of "נוֹצִיא" includes Aharon, and connotes a partnership (and thus equal culpability) between the two brothers.
Hashem's description of the sin
  • "עַל אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִדַּשְׁתֶּם אוֹתִי" These words aptly describe this approach which highlights the fact that Moshe sinned in not sanctifying Hashem's name.
  • "לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי" – This position maintains that Moshe himself did not express a lack of belief in Hashem, and therefore must reread this phrase to mean that Moshe either caused a lack of faith,39 or appeared to have a lack of faith.40
  • "מְרִיתֶם אֶת פִּי" / "מְעַלְתֶּם בִּי" – For those commentators who view Moshe's hitting of the rock as problematic, this description is appropriate, for in so doing Moshe transgressed God's command. It is more difficult to view Moshe's problematic language as a "rebellious" action.
  • "וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו" – This works well with the position which claims that the problem was in Moshe's formulation, but not for those who focus on the hitting of the rock.
"גַּם בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶם" – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that Moshe blames the nation for his sin, because had they had more faith, they would not have misunderstood his words.41 he does not clarify why Moshe chooses to say this in the context of the story of the spies. Chizkuni and Shadal, though, explain that when speaking about Calev and Yehoshua, Moshe wanted to mention Yehoshua's upcoming role as leader and thus referred to his own dismissal from office due to the sin.
Severity of punishment – This approach views Moshe's actions, though unintentional, as a desecration of God's name42 which is considered a major offense.43

Between Man and Man

Moshe and Aharon erred in their conduct vis-a-vis the nation. This approach subdivides over whether the problem was in their actions or inaction.

Excessive Anger

Moshe expressed inappropriate anger or disrespect towards the nation of Israel.

The nation's sin – According to Rambam and Ibn Kaspi the nation did not deserve rebuke for their complaints as the lack of water legitimized their murmurings. Though they could have expressed themselves more appropriately, one should be forgiven for such behavior in an hour of distress.
Role of the staff – Ibn Kaspi says that Moshe was supposed to take the staff as a sign of his authority, but not to use it to strike the rock.
"וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם" – According to Ibn Kaspi, Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock. His error in hitting it instead, stemmed from his anger at the nation.
"וַיָּבֹא ... אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – This action is not viewed negatively.
"שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים" – These words constitute the essence of Moshe's sin, as he lost control of his temper and wrongly referred to the nation as "rebels."45
  • Misrepresentation of Hashem - Rambam asserts that Moshe's anger led the nation to wrongly conclude that Hashem must be angry with them, when He, in fact, was not.
  • Disrespect - Pesikta DeRav Kahana, instead, stresses that Moshe's words betrayed a certain lack of respect, inappropriate for a leader dealing with Hashem's children.46
  • Loss of Control - Ibn Kaspi assets that in addition to the fact that anger was a problematic response to the people, it also led Moshe to defy God's instructions as his wrath led him to hit the rock (twice!) rather than speak to it.
"הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם" – Ibn Kaspi point out that this was not an expression of doubt in God's abilities, but a way of showing the nation that such a feat is doable by God.
Hitting twice – According to Ibn Kaspi this, too, stemmed from Moshe's anger.
Why was Aharon punished? Aharon's punishment is difficult for this opinion, as he did not get angry at the nation and should not have been faulted. Ramban and others question this approach on these grounds.
Hashem's description of the sin – – 
  • The verse in Psalms which refers to the sin and states "וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו" would support this understanding of the sin.
  • Ramban, though, points out that Hashem's references to a lack of faith or to a rebellion are somewhat difficult to apply to Moshe's anger.47 Rambam, thus, suggests that Moshe's "rebellion" consisted of his misrepresentation of God as angry, when He was not, and Ibn Kaspi points to the fact that the anger led Moshe to hit the rock contrary to God's directions.
"גַּם בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶם" – According to Ibn Kaspi, Moshe did not make it into the land for two related reasons, one in which he was to blame, and one in which the nation was at fault. Due to the sin of the spies, the entry date into Israel was pushed off for 40 years. By this point Moshe's decreed date of death, set by his sin at Mei Merivah, had already arrived. Thus, had Moshe not sinned, he might have lived long enough to enter with the nation despite the 40 year delay, and had the nation not sinned, he might have entered the land despite his own actions and decree.
Severity of punishment

Faulty Leadership

Moshe and Aharon demonstrated a lack of leadership, either by not standing up to the people or in not adequately preparing them for life in the Land of Israel.

The nation's sin – According to the Netziv the lack of water, like many droughts, must have stemmed from some wrongdoing of the nation.48
How was the lack of leadership manifest?
  • Fear of the nation – According to most of these commentators, Moshe's cowardly "flight" to the Tent of Meeting betrayed his inability to stand up against the nation and respond to, or rebuke, them on his own.49
  • Lost opportunity to prepare the nation – Netziv suggests that Moshe was supposed to teach the nation how to deal with drought in a natural way, through prayer and learning (the "speech" referred to when God commands him to speak before the rock).50 Moshe, instead, brings water through supernatural means, by hitting the rock, thus not helping the nation to wean itself off the miraculous existence in the desert.51
Role of the staff – According to the Minchah Belulah,52 Moshe was to take the staff but not to use it, while according to the Netziv, he was only supposed to use it as a last resort, if his "speech"=prayer was not effective.53
"וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם"
  • To the rock – According to the Minchah Belulah, Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock, as this would be a bigger miracle. This would prevent anyone from suspecting that Moshe, with his staff, had his own miraculous powers and would ensure that they recognized Hashem as the source of the miracle.
  • To the nation – Netziv asserts that Moshe was supposed to talk to the nation in front of (אֶל" = אל פני") the rock.54 He defines this "speech" as learning of Torah and prayers which is the natural way to deal with drought.55
"וַיָּבֹא ... אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד"
  • Problematic flight – Most of these commentators view this as a cowardly and blameworthy flight from the people. Rather than facing the nation and dealing with the crisis on their own,56 Moshe and Aharon sought refuge in the Tent of Meeting. This expressed both an unwarranted fear of the nation and an inability to lead and take initiative.
  • Legitimate consultation - Netziv, in contrast, views the brothers' entering the Tent of Meeting not as a fearful flight, but as stemming from a legitimate desire to pray and ask advice of God.
"שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים" – According to Netziv, this was an inappropriate expression of anger and cased Moshe to err, forgetting the Torah he had meant to teach the nation and leading him not to pray as requested by God. The other commentators do not address the issue.
"הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם"
  • The Minchah Belulah asserts that in these words, Moshe was simply asking the complaining nation whether they wanted water from this rock or another, and that he would provide for them.
  • Netziv maintains that Moshe was rhetorically questioning the nation if they thought that Moshe and Aharon needed to miraculously bring forth water, when the rock of its own accord would naturally do so,57 if not for the people's sins.
Hitting twice – According to Netziv, since Moshe chose to release water miraculously rather than naturally, at first only a few drops were released, leading him to strike it again to get sufficient water. The other commentators do not address the issue.
Why was Aharon punished? One of the advantages of this approach is that it more clearly demonstrates how Aharon shared Moshe's sin. He, together with Moshe, ran to the Tent of Meeting. According to Netziv, Aahron's sin was one of omission. When Moshe failed to speak to the nation and lead them in prayer, he should have stepped in, but did not.58
Hashem's description of the sin – Shadal questions how the position of the Biur, Avvat Nefesh and Minchah Belulah fits with Hashem's description of the sin as being an expression of lack of faith or rebellion, as a show of fear is neither of these.59 The Netziv, though, asserts that in performing a miracle rather than a natural act, Moshe defied God's instructions, and was thus "מועל".
"גַּם בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶם"
Severity of punishment – The punishment is a logical outgrowth of the sin. Moshe and Aharon showed faulty leadership and thus were no longer allowed to lead. Mendelssohn points out, further, that fighting the wars of conquest would require a courageous leader, who could withstand the murmurings of the masses, and not give in to his fears.60

No Sin at Mei Merivah

Moshe and Aharon were not punished specifically for their actions at Mei Merivah, but were rather denied entry into the land because of their own previous sins or due to the sins of the nation.

Role of the staff – According to Ralbag, Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe, Moshe was supposed to take the staff but not to strike the rock with it.62 They maintain, though, that the fact that Moshe erred and struck the rock was not a grave enough sin to deserve the punishment meted out,63 and thus, the punishment must have been for a different reason.
"וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם" – According to Hoil Moshe, speaking to rather than striking the rock, was supposed to teach the nation, that they, like the rock, should heed Hashem's words without the need to be prodded via physical punishment.
"וַיָּבֹא ... אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד" – This is not seen as a problematic action. Hoil Moshe stresses that Moshe was not running from the nation to seek refuge in the Tent of Meeting but was rather filled with mercy for the thirsty Israelites and praying that they be aided.
"שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים" – Moshe's words were an appropriate rebuke to the complaining nation.64
"הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם" – Ralbag explains that this is not an expression of doubt but a lesson to the nation that only God can bring forth water from rocks.
Hitting twice – This issue is not addressed.
Why were Moshe and Aharon punished?
  • Unworthy nation – Ralbag65 explains that the sinning nation was not worthy of Moshe leading them into the Land of Israel, necessitating that he die beforehand.66 Tanchuma adds that the fates of a leader and his flock are intertwined. Though Moshe was innocent, he was collectively punished with the sinning nation.67
  • Previous sins – Abarbanel says that Moshe and Aharon were punished for previous transgressions, their roles in the Sin of the Spies68 and the sin of the Golden Calf, respectively. Out of respect, Hashem did not punish them together with the nation at the moment of the sin, but only later, when they very slightly transgressed the command at Mei Merivah.69
  • Natural death – Hoil Moshe claims that Moshe and Aharon did not sin at all, and simply died when their time came. The masses, though, believed that there is no death without sin, and would not be able to comprehend their leaders' deaths. Since Hashem found this belief beneficial for the people, albeit untrue, He attributed this small error to Moshe and Aharon.
"גַּם בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה' בִּגְלַלְכֶם" – This verse70 is one of the main textual motivations for this approach. Its context hints that Moshe's punishment was related to the episode of the spies. In these words, Moshe is not trying to hide his role at Mei Merivah, but telling the people the truth, that he was punished for that sin.71
Hashem's description of the sin – R"A Bibago suggests that Hashem's words "לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי" and "מְעַלְתֶּם בִּי" refer not to Moshe's actions but to the nation's lack of belief and rebelliousness. Hashem included the innocent Moshe in the comment since he is part of the collective.72
Severity of punishment
  • According to Abarbanel, Moshe and Aharon are being punished not for a minor infraction, but a major sin. Moshe's punishment, moreover, fits the crime measure for measure. Since Moshe led the nation to err in the sin of the spies, resulting in their non-entry into the land, it is decreed that he, too, die in the desert.
  • According to the other commentators, the punishment is a collective one, determined by the severity of the nation's sins.
×