Moshe's Misstep and Mei Merivah/2

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.

Sources: RashbamBemidbar 20:8About R. Shemuel b. Meir, RambanBemidbar 20:8Bemidbar 20:10About R. Moshe Nachmanides, SefornoBemidbar 20:8About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurBemidbar 20:12About the Biur,¹ R. S"R HirschBemidbar 20:8-9Bemidbar 20:10-11Bemidbar 20:12About R. S"R Hirsch

How was the lack of faith manifest?

• Striking the rock – Rashbam, Seforno and R. Hirsch view Moshe's hitting, rather than speaking to, the rock as the problematic action. According to Rashbam and Seforno, 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, Seforno 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 Seforno, 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.

Sources: Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Bemidbar 20:12About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), R. ChananelCited by R. Ramban Bemidbar 20:8About R. Chananel, RashiBemidbar 20:11-12About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Moshe ibn ChiquitillaCited by Ibn Ezra Bemidbar 20:8About R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 20:8, 10, 11-12Devraim 1:37Devraim 32:51Devraim 33:8About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniBemidbar 20:8, 10, 11About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, Yalkut Shimoni#763About Yalkut Shimoni, R. BachyaBemidbar 20:8Bemidbar 20:13About R. Bachya b. Asher, RalbagBemidbar 20:8, 10-11Bemidbar 20 Toalot 5-9About R. Levi b. Gershon,¹³ R. Yosef AlboSefer HaIkkarim 4:22About R. Yosef Albo, ShadalBemidbar 20:12About R. S.D. Luzzatto

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,¹⁴ and thus a greater sanctification of Hashem.¹⁵
• 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.¹⁶
  • R. Chananel and Chizkuni¹⁷ 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.¹⁸
• 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.¹⁹ This caused a lack of faith in one of the central tenants of Torah, a prophet's power to act above nature.²⁰
• 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 Shimoni²¹ asserts that by refusing to bring the miracle from rock chosen by the people, Moshe encouraged their mistaken belief that he was bringing water via natural means and not due to Hashem.²²

Comparison to Shemot 17

• Identical stories – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor identifies the two stories,²³ allowing him to learn from what is explicit in one to the other.²⁴
• 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.²⁵

The nation's sin – Chizkuni maintains that the nation's complaints were legitimate since there really was a lack of water.²⁶ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, though, assert that nonetheless their combative formulation and grumbling were not appropriate.²⁷

Role of the staff

• Not to be used – Many of these commentators²⁸ assert that Moshe was not supposed to use the staff,²⁹ but they do not address why, then, he was commanded to bring it.³⁰ 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,³¹ while Chizkuni suggests³² that it was a sign for the nation, reminding them of their mutinous nature.
• To be used – R. Yosef Behor Shor and R. Bachya³³ maintain that Moshe is told to bring the staff because he was supposed to use it to hit the rock.³⁴

"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,³⁵ in front of (אֶל" = אל פני") the rock.³⁶

"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.³⁷

"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 exegetes³⁸ view Moshe's formulation here as problematic and causing the nation to doubt God's role in the miracle.³⁹
• 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,⁴⁰ or appeared to have a lack of faith.⁴¹
• "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.⁴² 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 name⁴³ which is considered a major offense.⁴⁴

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.

Sources: Sifre157About Sifre, Pesikta DeRav KahanaShim'u 14:5About Pesikta DeRav Kahana, RambamShemoneh Perakim Chapter 4About R. Moshe Maimonides, R. Yosef ibn KaspiBemidbar 20:8-10Devarim 1:37Devarim 3:26About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi⁴⁵

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."⁴⁶

• 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.⁴⁷
• 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.⁴⁸ 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.

Sources: Avvat NefeshCited by Shadal Bemidbar 20:12, Minchah BelulahBemidbar 20:12About R. Avraham Rappo of Porto, BiurBemidbar 20:12About the Biur, NetzivBemidbar 20:5Bemidbar 20:6,8Bemidbar 20:11-12About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin

The nation's sin – According to the Netziv the lack of water, like many droughts, must have stemmed from some wrongdoing of the nation.⁴⁹

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.⁵⁰
• 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).⁵¹ 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.⁵²

Role of the staff – According to the Minchah Belulah,⁵³ 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.⁵⁴

"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.⁵⁵ He defines this "speech" as learning of Torah and prayers which is the natural way to deal with drought.⁵⁶

"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,⁵⁷Moshe 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,⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹

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.⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹

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.

Sources: TanchumaChukkat 10About the Tanchuma, RalbagBemidbar 20:8, 10-11Bemidbar 20 Toalot 5-9Yehoshua 5 Toelet 3About R. Levi b. Gershon, AbarbanelBemidbar 20, Questions 1-4, 6-7Bemidbar 20About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, Hoil MosheBemidbar 20:10About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi

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 – Abarbanel brings an anonymous opinion 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.

¹ See below that he faults Moshe for his lack of leadership.

² Seforno maintains that Moshe and Aharon viewed the complaining nation as undeserving of a large miracle, the likes of a rock heeding the word of man. They thought that Hashem would only ensure a miracle which was closer to nature, such as hitting the rock. Hashem was angry that they did not trust His word and doubted that He would do as He said.

³ Hearing the complaints of the people filled Moshe with a sense of personal failure, that after so many years of leadership, he had still not earned their trust. R. Hirsch suggests that a true believer should never feel such doubts or that his mission is for naught. He writes, " כי המאמין לא יחיש והוא יחזיק במעוזו למרות כל ההתנגדות של התופעות, וגם אחרי שנכשל בשליחותו לא יטיל ספק בעצמו ובייעודו - וזה כל עיקר מבחן אמונתו."

⁴ The absence of Hashem's presence at the rock (in contrast to His presence the first time around at Chorev), led Moshe and Aharon to question whether hitting once would suffice to bring the miracle.

⁵ See the similar suggestion raised by R"A Bibago, as brought in Shadal. Though R"A Bibago himself thinks that Moshe and Aharon did not sin at all, he raises the possibility that running from the people demonstrated that the brothers did not trust that Hashem would protect them from the rebelling nation. Cf. the Minchah Belulah and Avvat Nefesh below who also point to Moshe and Aharon's fear, but do not see in it as much a lack of belief as a show of faulty leadership. Mendelssohn, too, concludes that this fear was not worthy of such leaders and cast doubt on their ability to later fight wars in the Land of Israel.

⁶ He believes that the staff taken from "before Hashem" = The Tent of Meeting, was the staff of Aharon that had blossomed almonds after the sin of Korach. Seeing it would remind the nation of their recent grumblings and punishment.

⁷ One who held the staff was known to be a messenger of Hashem.

⁸ He points out that by the plagues on Egypt, whenever Moshe was told to take the staff, he used it to bring the miracle.

⁹ Ramban points to Yirmeyahu 27:19 as evidence for this usage of the word "אל". He also raises the possibility that the verse is a מקרא מסורס (has misplaced word/s) and should really read "הקהל את העדה אל הסלע ודברתם לעיניהם". All these commentators are consistent with their understanding of Moshe's sin and its relevance to not speaking to the rock.

¹⁰ As such, this could not be Moshe and Aharon's sin. The other commentators do not address the verse at all, and apparently also do not see anything troubling in this action of Moshe. They might propose that Moshe entered the tent to pray or consult with Hashem about what was to be done, both legitimate responses to the nation's murmurings.

¹¹ In combating the position of Rambam (below) who asserts that they were said in anger and in opposition to Hashem's will, Ramban maintains that there is no hint in the text that Moshe was expressing himself in anger, and even if he was, such a tone would not be problematic. In many similar situations Hashem was angry at the people as well.

¹² Mendelssohn highlights only Moshe and Aharon's fear and flight from the nation, not a disregard for Hashem's instructions. See Shadal who raises this objection and says that although he originally agreed with Mendelssohn's approach, he abandoned it for this reason. He adds that nowhere does Hashem reprimand Moshe and Aharon for their fear.

¹³ See the first suggestion he brings. His second possibility is discussed below.

¹⁴ Ramban questions this assertion, since both talking and striking should be equivalent to the inanimate rock. Ralbag, though, points out that hitting the rock is a lesser miracle because it leaves room for the nation to assume that the released water was just a natural phenomenon. [See Seforno above who explains similarly.]

¹⁵ Rashi adds that the decision provided an opportunity for national introspection. Seeing the inanimate rock heed the words of Hashem would have taught them how they too should fulfill His commandments.

¹⁶ Thus, even when the miracle happened some held it up to a coincidence rather than a miracle of Hashem. Shadal questions whther the nation could really have come to such a conclusion, for if Moshe had really been in doubt regarding the miracle he would never have gathered the nation to witness it.

¹⁷ See also R. Yehuda HeChassid who brings this in the name of "and there are those who say" and R. Y"S Reggio, below, who similarly faults Moshe, but claims that his anger led to his mistaken formulation, and it was that trait which he was punished for.

¹⁸ All these commentators stress that this was not Moshe's intention, and, that he in fact, had the exact opposite message to impart, that only Hashem could release water from a rock. Nonetheless since his words might have misled the people, they were problematic.

¹⁹ He gives examples of many others who initiate miracles such as Eliyahu, Yehoshua, R. Chanina b. Dosa, and even Moshe himself when punishing Datan and Aviram.

²⁰ He asserts that Moshe's lack of action actually stemmed from his humility and desire to act only with Hashem's permission but it appeared to the nation that he doubted this central principle, and thus caused a desecration of Hashem's name. R"Y Albo adds that the Moshe and Aharon later added to their sin by striking the rock rather than speaking to it as commanded. This could have corrected some of their previous mistake as it would have served to sanctify Hashem.

²¹ Cf. the similar midrash in TanchumaChukat 9About the Tanchuma, which is somewhat more ambiguous and the Midrash Hagadol above, which emphasizes Moshe's own doubts rather than the nation's.

²² The midrash suggests that the people thought that Moshe, being a shepherd, knew which rocks naturally held water and so they wanted to choose the rock themselves to see if Moshe could really perform the miracle. Moshe, angered by their antics, refused and thus lost an opportunity to strengthen their faith in Hashem. See also R. Yehuda HeChassid, in the name of his father, who suggests that Moshe's sin lay in hitting the rock in private rather than in front of the congregation. When they all gathered around the rock, Moshe felt that Hashem's presence was absent and attributed this to the presence of impure or sinful people. He thus left with Aharon to bring the miracle from a different stone. The nation, thus, did not witness the miracle, leaving them in doubt as to the supernatural nature of the water.

²³ He bases his interpretation on the similarities in the narrative, the identical location[He assumes that מדבר סין=מדבר צין], and the parallel new names [מסה ומריבה of Shemot matches Devarim's description, "אֲשֶׁר נִסִּיתוֹ בְּמַסָּה תְּרִיבֵהוּ עַל מֵי מְרִיבָה"]. The story is mentioned twice, once in the context of all the miracles of sustenance in the desert (Shemot), and once where it happened (Bemidbar). R. Yosef Bekhor Shor does not actually date the story, though, and from the Biblical text it is ambiguous and could have occurred at any point in the last 38 years of the wanderings.

²⁴ See below, for example, how he asserts that Moshe was told to strike the rock as mentioned in Shemot.

²⁵ Chizkuni questions R. Yosef's Bekhor Shor's claim pointing out that the first incident occurred at Chorev while the second was was in Kadesh, near Edom.

²⁶ He points out that this is why here they are not punished, while elsewhere they are.

²⁷ Instead of expressing ingratitude, they should have prayed to God for help.

²⁸ See Midrash Aggadah, Rashi, Chizkuni, Ralbag, R"Y Albo, and Shadal.

²⁹ According to Shadal, he was supposed to hold it while bringing the miracle, but not actually hit the rock.

³⁰ This is especially difficult if one explains that "וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה מִלִּפְנֵי ה'" means that Moshe had to actively retrieve the staff from the Tent of Meeting. Why put him through the hassle if it was to serve no function?

³¹ As an example he points to the plague of hail, in which Moshe lifts his staff but does use it to strike anything. One might question this evidence as Moshe is explicitly told to lift the staff in bringing the plague, while in Bemidbar it would seem to serve no purpose whatsoever.

³² See Rashbam above.

³³ We do not have the full commentaries of R. Chananel or R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla so it is not clear what they think regarding the issue, but since they, too, do not blame Moshe for hitting the rock, they might also assume that Moshe was meant to use the staff.

³⁴ According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Tanakh is sometimes terse in one place and lengthy in another. Since this story is identical to that described in Shemot 17, where it is explicit that Moshe is to hit the rock, Tanakh just alluded to the fact here.

³⁵ Moshe was supposed to tell the nation that Hashem was to give them water, so they would recognize the source of the miracle.

³⁶ Cf. the explanation of Ramban above. R. Bachya does not address the issue but would likely read the verse similarly. Ralbag also suggests that Hashem had not commanded Moshe to speak directly to the rock (which, according to him, could have included hitting the rock, a form of communication directed at the rock itself) but rather to speak on behalf of it.

³⁷ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ralbag, and R. Bachya assert that Moshe went to pray and presumably think that so doing was a proper response.

³⁸ See R. Chananel, R. Moshe ibn Chiquitilla, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Chizkuni, and R. Bachya

³⁹ See above for the differences amongst the individual commentators.

⁴⁰ See Ralbag.

⁴¹ See Shadal who suggests that this is a form of metonymy, where a word or phrase might stand in for another because of some understood association or from a desire for brevity. He compares it to other verses where there is also an assumed "as if" such as חושך שבטו שונא בנו. The father does not really hate his son, but it is as if he does.

⁴² Ralbag similarly claims that had the nation had greater faith, there would have been nothing lost when the rock was struck rather than spoken to.

⁴³ See Rashi who points to the public nature of the sin as being particularly problematic. He contrasts it with Moshe's personal doubting of God's miracle of the quail, which did not cause a larger desecration and was therefore not as blameworthy an action.

⁴⁴ R"Y Albo points to Yoma which states that neither repentance nor tribulations can erase sins of חילול ה'. Thus, despite Moshe's prayers his decree was not revoked.

⁴⁵ see also first opinion brought by Ibn Ezra.

⁴⁶ For an exploration of other instances in which Moshe's temper gets the better of him see Moshe – Overview

⁴⁷ He uses a parable of a king who entrusts his son to a teacher and instructs the teacher to speak respectfully and patiently to his son.

⁴⁸ In addition, no where does Hashem point explicitly to Moshe's anger as being problematic.

⁴⁹ He asserts that the natural state of the rock was to bring forth water, but due to some sin of the nation, no water was being released.

⁵⁰ Cf. the similar opinion of R"Y Albo above. He, though, focuses less on how Moshe's lack of initiative was a flaw in leadership than on how it impacted the nation's view of a prophet's ability to act above nature, and in turn, how that impacted on their belief in general.

⁵¹ See below.

⁵² This is consistent with Netziv's general approach regarding the second half of Sefer Bemidbar, in which he often points to this "weaning" process away from miracles and reliance on Moshe in preparation for their arrival in Israel. [Though the story is undated, he asserts that it took place in the fortieth year, not long before they were to enter the Land.]

⁵³ The other commentators do not address the issue, perhaps because it is not relevant to their understanding of the sin.

⁵⁴ Since prayer is not always effective (it might not be a proper time or the like), and might not lead to a natural release of water, Hashem told him to also take the staff and use it only in case supernatural means were required.

⁵⁵ See the explanations of Ramban and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor above.

⁵⁶ Since, according to the Netziv, the rock, by nature, would have given forth water, and was only dry due to the nation's sins, prayer was required to restore it to its natural state. Striking the rock, in contrast would be a supernatural means of achieving the same goal.

⁵⁷ The Minchah Belulah brings many examples where leaders took matters into their own hands rather than waiting for God's opinion, pointing to Moshe when faced with Korach's rebellion, Eliayhu on Mt. Carmel, and Shemuel when the nation requested a king. Cf. R"Y Albo who brings a similar list.

⁵⁸ Netziv differs here from most commentators who view Moshe as attempting to teach the people that only via Hashem's miracle would the rock bring forth water.

⁵⁹ The original command, "וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם" was directed at both Moshe and Aharon.

⁶⁰ Mendelssohn himself claims that Moshe betrayed a lack of faith in not recognizing that God would protect him from the people. See the first approach above.

⁶¹ Netziv adds that there was a measure for measure component in the punishment. Moshe did not train the people to lead themselves when he would no longer be around to provide miracles, so he was not given an opportunity to be there for them.

⁶² Hoil Moshe explains that its presence was supposed to serve as a threat to the nation, reminding them that they should listen to Hashem and not deserve to be struck. He asserts, like Rashbam, that it was the staff of Aharon which had blossomed in the wake of Korach's rebellion, and was thus a reminder not to complain.

⁶³ Hoil Moshe points out that there was much room to err since Hashem had told them to take the staff and previously it had been used to perform a similar miracle. Thus, it was a very natural and minor mistake.

⁶⁴ Hoil Moshe asserts that even though Moshe wanted to aid the nation, they first needed to be chastised for their inappropriate quarreling, so they could repent and merit the miracle.

⁶⁵ See also the anonymous 10th opinion brought by Abarbanel.

⁶⁶ He asserts that had Moshe led the conquest instead of Yehoshua, it would have been much more successful.

⁶⁷ Ralbag is not trouble by the principle of collective punishment, which he views as being built into the natural order of the world, and thus is not troubled here by Moshe's being included in the punishment of the nation.

⁶⁸ According to Abarbanel, the nation requested spies to determine the route of the conquest and which cities they should attack, but Moshe, on his own, added that they should also evaluate the strength of the people and the fortifications o fthe cities and the like. Though Moshe had good intentions, it was this further scrutiny that led to the spies' failure.

⁶⁹ He compares it to a father who will sometimes let a big blunder of a child go unpunished just to get very angry at a much slighter fault that occurs later on.

⁷⁰ See Devarim 3:26 and 4:21 similarly.

⁷¹ According to most of these commentators, he is punished for the nation's role, while according to Abarbanel he is being punished for his own role as well.

⁷² This is compared to Hashem's saying "ומעלו בני ישראל" by the sin of Achan, even though only Achan had sinned.