Orach Chayim Way of Life - Jewish Life - Torah Insights - Current Events

[Miriam HaNeviah - Artist Yoram Raanan]

We must understand why the death of Miriam is recorded immediately after the chapter dealing with the commandment of the Red Cow, althought this commandment was give to the Benei Yisrael on the day that the Mishkan was completed - the first of Nissan, in the second year after the Exodus - and that the death of Miriam occurred in the fortieth year. (Rashi; Mizrachi)

The answer is that the Torah does so, despite the time lag of so many years between one event and the other, in order to teach us that just as the Red Cow served to bring atonement upon the Benei Yisrael for their sin of the Golden Calf, so does the death of righteous persons bring forgiveness. (Ibid. and end of Moed Katan, cf. Tosefot ad loc. See Abarbanel)

Now the words, "The entire community of Benei Yisrael came," tell us that they were the survivors of the desert generation who would be entering the Land of Yisrael, all those who had been twenty years of age and over at the time of the Exodus having already died. That is, they were that "entire community" who were set apart for life.

When they arrived at this location, the waters of the well that had accompanied them during those forty years came to an end. (Yalkut Shemoni; Rashi; Divrei Shlomo, Chapter 28; See Ramban)

The Benei Yisrael in the wilderness enjoyed three benefits, bestowed upon them in the merit of Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam. The manna they were given on account of Moshe; the Clouds of Glory were present on account of Aharon; and the well of waters they had on account of Miriam.

This well was her reward for having waited by the river to see what would happen with Moshe when he was cast adrift in the river (Shemot 2:4), lingering there until the daugther of Pharaoh came and took him. Since this was the reason that the Benei Yisrael were given that source of water, when she died the well came to an end and it then became clear to everyone that it had been made available to them on her account. Now that it was gone, they all assembled in protest against Moshe and Aharon. (Yalkut Shemoni; Bachya)

There are many different opinions concerning the precise nature of Moshe's sin in this portion. Rashi holds that Moshe had not been commanded to hit the rock at all but only speak to it, and to instruct it in the name of Hashem to produce water. He bases himself on the words, "you shall speak to the rock." If we were to ask what was the point of his being told to take his staff if not in order to strike the rock, this is no argument seeing that practically all the miracles Moshe had performed involved his staff although not necessary that he used the staff to strike something with. For instance, we find in Shemot 4:17 that G-d told Moshe to take his staff in order to perform the miracles with it but no mention is made of his using the staff to strike something or somebody. His sin therefore (according to Rashi) consisted in his striking the rock without having been commanded to do so.

The penalty was applied to both Moshe and Aharon as apparently they had agreed to use the staff to hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock. By doing so they minimized the impact of the miracle, seeing that G-d had wanted to demonstrate that the rock would respond to G-d's command even if merely spoken to. Had Moshe carried out G-d's instructions the people would have said to themselves that if a mere rock responds to verbal instructions by G-d to completely change its nature by turning into a well, how much more must intelligent people like themselves heed all instructions given to them by Hashem! Now that they saw that the rock responded only to Moshe's physical force as a result of being struck, this gave some of them a chance to use this as an argument that Moshe had achieved his objective by superior wisdom and machinations but that there was no question of the rock having responded to a command from its Creator. The people's faith in G-d's ability had been undermined by Moshe's hitting the rock. This is why G-d said to both Moshe and Aharon: "because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Benei Yisrael" (v12). Had they only *spoken* to the Rock this would have resulted in a great sanctification of G-d's Name.

Maimonides, in the fourth chapter of his introduction to Tractate Avot, views Moshe's sin as being that he addressed the people as "morim" (rebellious) (v10). Had he not been angry at the people which caused him to use such an unflattering description of them he would not have forgotten the instruction that he was to speak to the rock. When a man of the stature of Moshe allows himself to become angry the result is liable to be a desecration of G-d's Name. Even the bodily motions of a man of Moshe's caliber normally inspire people who see him, give them confidence of their progress towards a better world, the hereafter. When people observe that their leader reveals frustration such confidence is undermined. Public display of frustration displays an internal conflict in man. This in turn reduces his student's confidence in him. The people were very intelligent as they had experienced visions which even a great prophet such as Yechezkel had not experienced (Mechilta Shirata 50). When the people observed Moshe being angry they assumed that Moshe's anger at them reflected G-d's anger at them for having demanded water. This was an erroneous conclusion as the Torah does not indicate with a single syllable that G-d considered their request as inappropriate. When G-d said (v24) "you defied My word," He referred to the mistaken image of G-d's reaction to their request conveyed to them through Moshe's demeanor. 

Rabbeinu Chananel believes that Moshe's sin consisted of the word "notzi" - "we shall extract" or "shall we extract?" By using the first person plural Moshe created the impression that it was his and Aharon's task to extract the water from the rock. He should have said "He, G-d, will extract water for the people from the rock" (v10). The moment Moshe said: "We shall extract water," some of the people thought that whereas on the first occasion when Moshe had struck the rock this had been a miracle, a demonstration of G-d revealing His power (Shemot 17:5-7), this time there would not be a similar intervention by G-d in their fortunes. These people simply thought that Moshe and Aharon used their own devices in order to produce water from the rock. This is reflected in the Torah writing: "because you have missed an opportunity, "to demonstrate My Holiness before the eyes of the Benei Yisrael" (v12). According to Rabbeinu Chananel the expression "lehakdisheni" (to demonstrate My Holiness) is reflexive, i.e. to cause G-d to appear as Holy, whereas the words "lo-he'emantem bi" are not to be understood as transitive, i.e. "you have failed [to exploit the opportunity] to instill in the people an additional dimension of faith in Me."

The verses in front of us all support PARTS of the opinions express by Rashi, Maimonides, and Rabbeinu Chananel. But the overall meaning of the subject discussed in our paragraph is not explained satisfactorily by either one of these illustrious Rabbis. Rashi's approach would be acceptable if the speaking to the rock would be the only miracle at issue and not the striking of the rock. However, how can we ignore the fact that if water emerges from a rock after the rock has been struck that this is by itself a powerful miracle? Is there then a qualitative difference between the two kinds of miracle? Seeing G-d had instructed Moshe to take his staff (instead of leaving it in his tent) surely he was meant to use it to strike the rock!

Also the words of Maimonides do not clarify all the problems raised by the text. He was himself aware of this as he said that he clarified *one of the problems* in our paragraph by his comments. His comments would be acceptable if indeed there were proof that Moshe was angry and displayed anger during this episode. However, the words "shimu-na hamorim" (hear now you rebellious [rebels]) do not necessarily reflect anger on Moshe's part but mean that he addressed the people as a group which needed to be admonished. Aharon, who stood beside him, certainly had never been angry during his career. He was known as always pursuing peaceful means. Had he permitted himself to become angry and display anger he would not have qualified for the title "Rodef Shalom" (Pursuer of Peace). Why would he suffer the same fate as Moshe if he had not been angry, had not displayed anger, had not said anything inappropriate?

Also the words of Rabbeinu Chananel are not totally convincing. If Moshe had said "We will produce water for you from this rock," he would be correct. However, this is not what Moshe said. He said, "shall we produce water from this rock?" Moshe implied that they themselves most certainly did not have the power to produce water from that rock. Moshe made it clear that only G-d could orchestrate such a miracle. Still, his words are the most plausible from all the commentators. (Me'am Lo'ez)

A Kabbalistic approach:

The sin is connected to the word "pa'amayim" (twice) (v11). This solves all the problems which have been raised previously. They mystical dimension of the whole episode is as follows:

Hashem, the Unique One, Who had descended to the mountain, i.e. Mount Sinai at the time He gave the Ten Commandments, was the same attribute that had revealed Himself to Moshe in Shemot 17:6 where Mount Chorev is identified with "tzur" (rock), the site also known (Tehillim 132:5) as "an abode for the Mighty One of Yaakov." The expression "tzur" in connection with G-d revealing Himself to Moshe occurs again in Shemot 33:21 where G-d tells Moshe to take up a position "next" to Him describing that place as "al-hatzur" (next to the Rock) Hashem. When G-d had instructed Moshe to hit the rock in Shemot 17:6, He had first described His presence in the words "hineni" i.e. "Here I am standing in front of you by the rock at Chorev and when you strike the rock water will emerge, etc." The attribute of YKVK appears frequently in the guise of the word "Ani." Moshe had struck the rock only a single time, seeing he had been receiving his instructions from a single attribute of Hashem. Here at Kadesh G-d had not spelled out which attribute of His had issued the instructions as He had not said "here is My attribute Ani, etc." There had not been a manifestation of the glory (attribute) of G-d such as there had been in Shemot. As a result of doubt as to which attribute had issued the instruction Moshe and Aharon both agreed to hit the rock twice, i.e. once in respect of each attribute which could have issued such an instruction, i.e. either to attribute "tzur" or the attribute Hashem. They considered it quite likely that the Shechinah was angry at the people (for having blamed Moshe for the shortage of water). The people, who had all been privy to manifestations of the Shechinah on the previous occasions associated with the phenomenon described as "tzur," were aware that that this time there had not been such a manifestation of G-d's glory. In view of all of these considerations Moshe and Aharon felt the need to attract the attribute of Hashem, attribute of Mercy, hence they struck the rock twice (instead of merely once). It is important to realize that neither Moshe nor Aharon entertained any wrongful thoughts in any of this. Their sin resulted exclusively from the fact that *by their action* they missed an opportunity presented to them by G-d to aggrandize His Name, i.e. "lehakdisheni le'einei Benei Yisrael" (to demonstrate My Holiness before the eyes of the Benei Yisrael) (v12). 

Although their intentions had been good, striking the rock twice could have led the people to believe that Moshe's powers [and by extension G-d's powers] had waned and that this was why he had to strike the rock twice instead of merely once. His sin was inadequate faith in G-d. He should have had faith enough not to hit the rock twice. This is why the Torah writes in v12 "because you did not plant sufficient faith in Me." (Bachya)