Numbers · Chapter 20

And the children of Israel — the whole congregation — came to the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people dwelt at Rekem. And Miriam died there and was buried there.

כל העדה [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL], EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — The congregation in its entirety, for those who were to die in the wilderness in consequence of their sin had already died, but these had been expressly mentioned for life (cf. Rashi on v. 22). ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — Why is the section narrating the death of Miriam placed immediately after the section treating of the red cow? To suggest to you the following comparison: What is the purpose of the sacrifices? They effect atonement! So, too, does the death of the righteous effect atonement! (Moed Katan 28a). ותמת שם מרים AND MIRIAM DIED THERE — She, too, as Moses and Aaron, died by a Divine Kiss. But why is it not said with reference to her: she died “by the command (lit., mouth) of God”, (this being the Biblical expression from which is derived the Midrashic statement that they died by the Divine Kiss)? Because this would not be a respectful way of speaking about the Most High God, as it would have reference to a woman. But of Aaron it says in the Sedrah אלה מסעי (Numbers 33:38), “By the mouth of the Lord” (Moed Katan 28a).

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, EVEN THE WHOLE CONGREGATION, CAME INTO THE WILDERNESS OF ZIN. “The congregation — an upright congregation, for those who were [punished] with death in the wilderness [on account of sinning in the matter of the spies] had already died, and these were designated to live” [i.e., they were the new generation which was to enter the Land]. This is Rashi’s language, and such is also the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. But if so, why was it necessary to mention this [same expression: even the whole congregation] when they came afterwards unto Mount Hor? Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [there] that Scripture mentioned it because Edom had come out to fight them, therefore it mentions that none of them was missing when they came back from the city of Edom. But this is not correct, since Israel turned away from him [Edom] and did not wage battle with them at all. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it is the Scriptural style to mention [“the whole congregation”] when speaking of complaints, [just as in the following verses]: And all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai; And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, by their stages … and encamped in Rephidim — and Scripture thereby informs us that they all [participated] in the complaint. Similarly, And all the congregation lifted up their voice; And on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured. Scripture uses that expression when they came to Mount Hor in order to tell us that they all took part in the mourning for Aaron, the holy one of the Eternal, just as it is said, and they wept for Aaron … all the house of Israel, and it states [furthermore]: in the sight of all the congregation. In Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah I have seen mentioned the text [quoted above by Rashi] — “an upright congregation etc.” — only in connection with the second verse [speaking] about Mount Hor [i.e., Verses 20 and 27 quoted above, which say that ‘the whole congregation came’ to Mount Hor, and that Moses and Aaron went up into Mount Hor ‘in the sight of all the congregation’], for in the case of the first verse [i.e., the present verse, the expression all the congregation] is used because [Scripture wants to indicate that they all joined in] the murmuring, as I have explained. VAYEISHEV HA’AM’ (AND THE PEOPLE ABODE) IN KADESH. The intention thereof is to tell us that when they had entered the wilderness of Zin as far as Kadesh, Miriam died. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra erred [here] when he commented: “[Scripture states vayeishev ha’am, meaning ‘the people dwelt,’ and does not say vayachanu — ‘and they pitched’] because they stayed there for a long time, for so it is written.” [This is in error] because the place called Kadesh of which it is written, So ye abode in Kadesh many days, according unto the days that ye abode there is Kadesh-barnea, which is in th...

"In the first month" — this was the fortieth year. Now, nowhere in the Torah is any event or prophecy recorded except for the first year and the fortieth year. The meaning of "and the children of Israel, the whole congregation, came" is that the wilderness generation had died, and now those who were to enter the land of Canaan had arrived. "And the people dwelt in Kadesh" — because they stayed there many days, as the text indeed states.

ויבאו בני ישראל, The children of Israel arrived, etc. Why did the Torah have to emphasise that כל העדה, "the whole congregation" arrived in the desert of Tzin? Who would have doubted that the whole people travelled together? We have learned (Bamidbar Rabbah end of Parshat Balak) on a previous occasion that whenever the Jewish people were on a moral/ethical high they are referred to as בני ישראל. On occasions when they were guilty of rebellious behaviour (such as Numbers 14,11 and many others) they are described as עם; the Torah wanted to inform us that at this time they were all entitled to the flattering description. There are also occasions when the Torah describes the people as עם בני ישראל, suggesting that though many of the people were not on the desired moral/ethical plateau at the time, many others were. This interpretation agrees with a statement by our sages that the words כל העדה, mean עדה שלמה, "a perfect congregation." Our sages apparently viewed the expression כל העדה as sufficient by itself to describe the Israelites in the most glowing terms. There are, after all, 70 different ways of interpreting the text. The reason that the Torah would choose the expression העדה here may be threefold. 1) We know that we will read shortly afterwards about the incident with the "waters of strife" which according to Devarim Rabbah was the reason for Moses' punishment. The reason given is that he addressed the Israelites as "listen you rebellious people!" It was important for the Torah to state that at this time the Israelites were all a holy congregation. Had this not been so the Torah could not have faulted Moses for addressing the Israelites as rebellious. 2) It was also designed to raise the image of Miriam in the eyes of the people by showing that although the people themselves were at their spiritual best at that time, their merit was not sufficient to ensure their water supply once Miriam had died (viz. Taanit 9). 3) The Torah informed us that contrary to Aaron's belief that the people assembled in order to show their last respects for Miriam, they actually assembled in order to quarrel with Moses and Aaron (compare Yalkut Shimoni 763 and Tanchuma). Considering the conduct of the Israelites in the verses immediately following our verse there was reason to assume that they had already descended from their spiritual high before Miriam died; the Torah therefore had to describe the Israelites in glowing terms to prevent us from making that mistake. This leaves us with the question of why the Israelites did not pay Miriam the kindness Aaron had assumed they were showing her. According to Moed Katan 28 the manner in which the Torah described Miriam's death as immediately followed by her burial without a word about anyone mourning her showed that due to the failure of the well the people immediately suffered thirst. This preoccupied their minds more than the respect they should have shown Miriam by mourning her properly. The Torah makes this even...

ויבאו בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel arrived, etc.;” the arrival of which the Torah speaks were was during the fortieth year of their wanderings. Their lengthy detour around the territory of Edom who had denied them passage and whom G-d had not allowed them to harass in any way, had now been completed. It had commenced at Kadesh Barnea, and was concluded in the desert of Tzin. The Torah summarises this period here although it comprised 18 separate moves during which the Tabernacle had been erected and taken apart each time. In Numbers 33, 1936, the details of these moves have been recorded for posterity. The first encampment was at a place called Ritmah, the last at the edge of the desert of Tzin. Concerning that period we read Moses recalling in Deuteronomy 2,5: ונפן ונסע המדברה דרך ים סוף ונסב את הר שעיר ימים רבים, “we turned around and journeyed toward the desert in the region of the sea of reeds and marched around Mount Seir, for many years.” That period concluded there in verse 8 with: “we detoured our brethren the children of Esau that dwell in Seir, from the way of the Aravah from Eilat to Etzion Gaver.” From there they arrived at Kadesh, boundary of the Kingdom of Edom, as stated in Numbers 33, 36: “they journeyed from Etzion Gaver and encamped at the desert of Tzin, at Kadesh. What is missing here is only G-d’s warning not to harass the people of Edom (Compare Deuteronomy 2,5). וישב העם בקדש, “the people had settled down at Kadesh;” they remained there for four months until the month of Av when they arrived at Mount Hahar, where Aaron died. This was not the same Kadesh as the one mentioned in Deuteronomy 1,46, as at that Kadesh they stayed for many years. (19 years according to our sages.) It was the Kadesh from where the spies had been dispatched on their ill fated expedition. ותמה שם מרים, ”Miriam died there;” seeing that the dying of the people condemned to die as a result of their acceptance of the spies’ majority report had commenced there, Miriam’s death as well as Aaron’s, is also reported at this juncture.

כל העדה מדבר צן, “the entire congregation to the desert of Tzin.” The reason the Torah speaks of כל העדה, “the whole congregation,” is because in the interval all the people who had to die in the desert had already died and the congregation was “whole” again. Now, in the first month of the fortieth year since the Exodus the new generation was about to enter the land of the Canaanites. You should remember that the Torah basically reports only what had transpired during the first year and during the last year of the Israelites’ wanderings. וישב העם בקדש, ‘the people settled in Kadesh.” Kadesh is the name of a town. The desert Tzin mentioned in our verse is also referred to in the list of all the points where the Israelites made camp in Parshat Massey. (33,36). The “Kadesh” mentioned here is not the same as the “Kadesh-Barneiah” mentioned there. We must not confuse the desert of Tzin with the desert Sin, a word spelled with the letter ס. That wilderness is situated between Eylim and Mount Sinai. Psalms 29,8 mentions יחיל ה' מדבר קדש, “the Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh.” Numbers 33,11-15 enumerates 5 way stations between the desert of Sin and the desert of Sinai. The Jewish people remained in the town called Kadesh for many years as we know from Deut. 1,46. Our sages (Tanchuma Vayeshev 1) have stated that whenever the Torah speaks of וישב, “he settled,” this is an introduction to the people concerned experiencing something painful. This is why the Torah follows the report of the Israelites settling in Kadesh with the report of the death of Miriam. Her death and its ramifications became the direct cause of Moses and Aaron not being allowed to enter the Holy Land.

ויבואו בני ישראל כל העדה מדבר צין, “The Children of Israel, the whole community, arrived at the wilderness of Tzin.” Nachmanides refers to Rashi as well as to Ibn Ezra who see in the words כל העדה an allusion to the nation now being “whole,” seeing that all the people upon whom death in the desert had been decreed had died by now. He queries that if this indeed were so the words כל העדה need not have been written again in verse 22 when the people arrived at הר ההר. Ibn Ezra says that the reason why the Torah repeated the expression כל העדה in verse 22 is that seeing that Edom had begun to war against Israel, the Torah wanted to inform us that no casualties were suffered on account of that. Nachmanides questions this also, disputing that there had been any confrontation between Israel and Edom, seeing that the Torah tells us that the Israelites backed down from their request to cross the Edomites’ territory as we have been informed already in verse 21. Nachmanides therefore arrives at the conclusion that it is customary for the Torah to describe the Israelites as having arrived “whole,” in paragraphs which precede complaints by the people, as in Exodus 16,1, 17,1, Numbers 14,6 Numbers 17,6, etc. The reason that the Torah used the term כל העדה in verse 22 is to inform us that the entire people participated in eulogizing Aaron and mourning him, seeing that he had died there.

ותמת שם מרים, in the first month (Nissan) of the fortieth year. Aaron died after her in the fifth month as detailed in Numbers 33,38.

And there was no water for the congregation, and they assembled against Moses and against Aaron.

ולא היה מים לעדה AND THERE WAS NO WATER FOR THE CONGREGATION — Since this statement follows immediately after the mention of Miriam’s death, we may learn from it that during the entire forty years they had the “well” through Miriam’s merit (Taanit 9a).

"And there was no water for the congregation" — the text here relates two events: the first is the death of Miriam, and the second is the death of Aaron and Moses' not entering the land. It then begins to narrate the cause.

And they joined against Moses and Aharon - they were not punished now as they were in the other complaints, because now they have a case. There really is no water (after Miriam's death).

ולא היה מים לעדה, “The congregation had no water.” As soon as Miriam died, the well which had traveled with the Israelites all these years ceased providing water. The water which the people had enjoyed all these years was due to the merit of Miriam who had stood by watching what would happen to her infant brother when he was in a basket in the reeds at the edge of the river (Exodus 2,4). G’d had rewarded her for that act of kindness by making her the provider of water for Moses’ people. The people had not appreciated this until the well ceased with Miriam’s death. Our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 20 claim that the song Israel sang in Numbers 21,17, i.e. אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת, “then Israel would sing this song, etc.,” was sung at the end of the forty years whereas the well had been provided for them at the beginning of the forty years.

And there was no water for the congregation. As a form of punishment, they lacked water because they did not eulogize her [Miriam] properly. For regarding Moses and Aaron it says, and the children of Israel wept for them, but here it does not say “and they wept for her.” And it says, she died there and was buried there — in the place where she died, there was her burial immediately, and she was forgotten like a dead person from the heart, and they did not feel her absence at all. Therefore, the water was withheld from them so that they would retroactively know that the well was in Miriam’s merit. And our Sages (Moed Katan 28a) said that her death was placed adjacent to the section of the Red Heifer to tell you that just as sacrifices atone, so too the death of the righteous atones. And why was it specifically placed adjacent to the Red Heifer? Because in truth it is not a sacrifice unless we find the scripture calls it a sin-offering Numbers 19:9. But the main reason is that just as the heifer comes to clean its child’s filth, so too the righteous woman, the mother of all living, through her death cleanses the filth of her descendants. The commentaries bring this juxtaposition in four places. First, the juxtaposition of the death of Aaron’s sons to Yom Kippur which atones (Leviticus 16:1). Second, the juxtaposition of Miriam to the red heifer. Third, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the priestly garments which atone (Numbers 20:28), as our Sages explained (Moed Katan 28a). Fourth, the juxtaposition of Aaron’s death to the breaking of the tablets (Deuteronomy 10:2–6), teaching that the death of the righteous is as severe as the breaking of the tablets. This is because from every righteous person, four types of benefits come to the people of his generation. The first is that the entire world is sustained by his merit, as our Sages said (Berakhot 17b), “The entire world is sustained for the sake of my son Chanina, etc.” as we explained in the portion of Vayechi regarding Goren ha-Atad and in the portion of Emor on the verse “except for his relative.” They are like a mother nursing her child, as it is written (Tanchuma Shemot 12:28), “Your two breasts are like Moses and Aaron,” and as Rashi explained (Song of Songs 4:5). Similarly, we find that in Miriam’s merit they had the well which provided for all of Israel’s needs. This is the connection of her death to the red heifer, the mother of the calf that comes to rectify the damage of her offspring. The second benefit is that the righteous person teaches them effectively about the way of God and commandments; therefore, his passing is comparable to the breaking of the tablets. The third benefit is that his merit protects like a shadow and like a garment made to protect from cold and heat. With his death, his protective shadow is removed, and they are left naked without any covering, as it is said (Numbers 20:29), And all the congregation saw that Aaron had died, and our Sages interpreted (Rosh Hashanah 3a) “va-yir’u” [they saw] with the letter yud vocalized with a tzere, meaning “they became visible,” referring to the removal of the cloud which was likened to a garment. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to the priestly garments. The fourth benefit is that he atones for the people through his death. This is [the reason for] the juxtaposition to Yom Kippur, and it is easily understood.

-3. ויקהלו העם על משה ועל אהרן וירב העם עם משה, “The people gathered against Moses and Aaron and they quarreled with Moses.” Although they gathered against both Moses and Aaron, their principal target was Moses with whom they started quarrelling.

And the people quarreled with Moses and said: Would that we had died in the death of our brothers before Hashem.

ולו גוענו — means, WOULD THAT WE HAD DIED. בגוע אחינו means, by the death of our brethren — i.e., by the pestilence. This tells us that death by thirst is worse than that (i.e., than death by pestilence). בגוע — This is a noun and means the same as במיתת אחינו, “by the death of our brethren”; and it would not be correct to explain (translate) it: “when our brethren died”, for if this were so, it should be voweled to read בִּגְוֹעַ.

"And they quarreled" (וַיָּרֶב) — this is of the hif'il conjugation. "When our brethren perished" — the infinitive form, like "when my lord the king lay down." "Our brethren" — these are the wilderness generation who died; they were servants of Hashem.

וירב העם עם משה, the subject of the quarrel was why Moses had brought the people to such a desert as the one they found themselves in at the time. However, there was also a complaint against G’d Himself, as the Torah testifies in verse 13 where the Torah writes: אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה', “in that the Children of Israel quarreled with G’d.” This referred to the words (verse 5) “why did you take us out of Egypt?”

וירב העם עם משה, The people quarrelled with Moses. The people now complained that they would have preferred for Moses to have let them die from the plague than to face death by thirst.

ולו גוענו בגוע אחינו, “if only we had died as our brethren died, etc.;” they referred to the older generation who had died in the desert.

And the people quarreled with Moses. In all the complaints, we do not find the language of quarreling except regarding water matters, twice: here and at Massah and Meribah (Exodus 17:7). This is because from water, division was created, as our Sages said (Bereishit Rabbah 4:6): “Why was ‘it was good’ not said on the second day? Because on it division was created, as it says (Genesis 1:6), And let it be a separation between waters and waters.” And it is explained in the tradition (Proverbs 17:14), The beginning of strife is like releasing water. When the waters were released and separated from each other, this was the beginning of strife and the start of all quarreling. Similarly, the quarrel of Isaac’s shepherds was about water, for all this follows naturally from the primordial waters. And they quarreled with Moses, who was drawn from the water, and whose hand ruled over the waters at the Red Sea and at the rock. [They argued,] “Why can’t he bring forth water for us from the flint rock now as well?” And concerning what they said, “If only we had perished when our brothers perished,” they were not speaking about dying of thirst, for if so, why would they conclude their words with “and there is no water to drink”? Rather, the beginning of their words contains a different and greater complaint, because it had been decreed upon them that in this wilderness they shall be consumed and there they shall die (Numbers 14:35). Our Sages explained (Sanhedrin 110b) that there they shall die means in the World to Come, as the generation that died in the wilderness have no portion in the World to Come. And some say that this is what they meant here by saying to die there, we and our cattle — we are equal to our cattle, just as the spirit of the animal goes downward, so does our spirit. And I add a good lesson, that this is why they prefaced by saying If only we had perished when our brothers perished before the Lord similar to our brothers of the house of Israel who died before the decree that there they shall die in the World to Come, for then we would have been equal to our brothers in the portion of the World to Come. Why have you brought us, etc., to die there? — that we are equal to our cattle, for this is the opposite of when our brothers perished, but rather like the death of our cattle. This explains why they first used the term perishing [gevi’ah] and afterward the term death, [mitah], because the term perishing is used for the righteous (Bava Batra 16b), while death applies even to the less worthy. This is an indication that they were speaking about the perishing of the righteous who have a portion in the World to Come, and when they said to die there, we and our cattle, they meant, “Shall we die like a fool dies?” like other animals. And this is a precious interpretation.

And why have you brought the congregation of Hashem into this wilderness, that we and our cattle should die here?

"And why have you brought" — they were speaking to Moses and Aaron, as it is written, "they gathered against Moses and against Aaron." The meaning of "and the people quarreled with Moses" is that the contention against Moses was particularly fierce.

זלמה הבאתם את קהל ה׳ אל המדבר הזה, "and why did you bring this community to this desert, etc.?" Their second complaint was why Moses had chosen a route through the desert. Their reasoning was that seeing Moses was unable to provide water in the desert, by whose authority had he chosen such a route? They said ולמה העליתנו, "and why did you bring us up from Egypt (verse 5)? They argued that if Moses were to reply that there was no other safe route to bring them to the land of Canaan and he therefore had to bring them to this inhospitable location, why did he bring them out of Egypt altogether? Our sages in Chulin 88 already defined a desert as a place where there is no vegetation. They spoke about אל המקום הזה with the letter ה as a definite article to indicate that the negative qualities of that location had been well known. They added: ומים אין לשתות, "and there is no drinking water," to underline that not even the most basic fundamentals for survival existed in that area. Moses was unable to answer the people and both he and Aaron stood in prayer before the Lord. This is the meaning of "they fell on their faces."

“And why did you bring the congregation of the Lord.” Initially it says, They gathered against Moses and Aaron, and afterward it says, The people quarreled with Moses alone, and then it reverts to saying, And why did you bring to both of them, and afterward, Why did you bring us up to Moses alone (see Baal HaTurim). Furthermore, they should have prioritized the complaints of Why did you bring us up from Egypt before Why did you bring the congregation of the Lord to this wilderness in the order of their occurrence. Additionally, they changed their names several times from assembly, to congregation, to the people, and congregation of the Lord. And the explanation for all this is, that Israel knew that the well was in the merit of Miriam, the manna in the merit of Moses, and the clouds of glory in the merit of Aaron. And if they had gone by way of inhabited land, they would not have needed any of this. And it is known that for the ascent from Egypt, Moses alone was the main factor, as it is written For this Moses, the man who brought us up, etc. (Exodus 32:1). But their willingness to enter the wilderness was because of both of them, for they could not exist there without manna and without the clouds of glory. Therefore it says, They gathered against Moses and Aaron, but it does not yet explain why they gathered against both of them. And afterward it says, The people quarreled with Moses alone, and does not yet explain why they quarreled with him. And afterward it explains the first point first: For they gathered against both of them in order to say to them, Why have you brought the congregation of the Lord to this wilderness? because both of them were the reason for their coming to the wilderness. And regarding the latter point later: What is meant by the people quarreled with Moses is that they said, Why did you bring us up from Egypt, etc., because Moses alone was the one who brought them up. And the reason they prioritized the complaint Why have you brought us, etc. is because this was the greatest grievance of all, for there would have been no harm in being brought up from Egypt if they had not been brought to the wilderness. Therefore, they first complained about being brought to the wilderness, which was bad in itself, even if they had not left an important place like Egypt. And afterward they made a lesser complaint, which was that he forced them from one extreme to the other, for he brought them up from Egypt, a place that was like the garden of God for trees and seeds, to this bad place, not a place of seed or fig trees, etc. And according to what we have explained above, that they complained because they lost their portion in the World to Come, this also explains why they prefaced their complaint with Why have you brought, etc. as this is indeed a significant complaint. And this is what it means The entire assembly came — referring to the complete assembly, as Rashi explains; And the people settled in Kadesh — wherever it says “the people,” it refers to the wicked ones, as Rashi explains in the verse And the people were complaining (Numbers 11:1). It means that the wicked among them sought to establish a permanent settlement in Kadesh and had no desire or wish to go to the Land because they hated the Land. Immediately Miriam died there so that due to the lack of water, they would not seek a permanent settlement [there], and her death was the cause of the well’s disappearance, and “the innocent suffer with the guilty” (Bava Kamma 92a), so that there was no water for the assembly, even for the righteous among them who were called by the name assembly. And the people quarreled — these were the lesser ones, but the good ones remained silent, awaiting God’s salvation. And when they said Why have you brought the congregation of the Lord, these were their own words, because they were righteous in their own eyes.

ולמה הבאתם את קהל ה' אל המדבר הזה “and for what purpose did you bring the congregation of Hashem to this wilderness?” Why, at this juncture, did the people describe themselves as Hashem’s congregation? They implied that up until now when the presence of Hashem had not seen fit to reside with the people until the last of the survivors of the people tainted by the sin of the spies had died, there might have been some justification for their grueling march through these inhospitable deserts; but now after the last of these people had already died, why did they still have to be in the desert although they had regained their status as קהל ה', “Hashem’s congregation? Why would they need to die from thirst?

And why did you bring us up from Egypt to bring us to this evil place? It is no fit place for sowing, nor is there figs, or vines, or pomegranates; and there is no water to drink.

"You have brought us up" (הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ) — a peculiar word.

לא מקום זרע, “not a place where you can plant seed.” From these remarks of the people we can learn that as long as Miriam’s well had supplied them with water, it had been possible, especially in places where they had sojourned for many years, such as Kadesh, to plant seeds and grow crops, for during all the years we never heard the people complaining that they could not even plant any seeds. ותאנה וגפן ורמון, “neither are there fig trees, grape vines or pomegranates.” In another context the order of these trees is reversed, such as the vision of people enjoying tranquil life תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו, “beneath his vineyard and his fig tree.” (Kings I 8,5 and Micah 4,4) There may be an allusion here as to why the firewood for burning the red heifer is traditionally the wood from the fig tree. Seeing that we had just concluded reading about the red heifer, this may explain the source of this tradition. [I have not found a source for this tradition. Ed.]

And Moses and Aaron went from before the congregation to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they fell upon their faces, and the Glory of Hashem was revealed to them.

"And Moses and Aaron came from before the assembly" — as though fleeing. "And they fell upon their faces" — to pray. Others say it was to seek Hashem through prophecy.

ויפלו על פניהם, “They prostrated themselves” in an attitude of prayer. וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “The Lord’s attribute of kavod appeared to them.” To Moses and Aaron but not to the people.

And Moses and Aaron came to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting from before the congregation. That is, because they [the people] gathered and stood [threateningly] against them, they [Moses and Aaron] fled from them to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

And Hashem spoke with Moses, saying:

Take the staff and assemble the congregation — you and Aaron your brother — and speak to the rock before their eyes, and it shall give its water; and you shall bring forth water for them from the rock, and you shall give the congregation and their cattle to drink.

ואת בעירם [SO SHALT THOU GIVE THE CONGREGATION] AND THEIR BEASTS [TO DRINK] From this we may see that the Holy One, blessed be He, has regard for the possessions of Israel (Menachot 76b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

The sin of Moses and Aaron in the [matter of the] waters of Meribah is not clearly expressed in Scripture. Rashi explains that [their sin consisted of hitting the rock], because He had commanded them, and speak ye unto the rock, 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, but they do not clarify [the matter]. For since G-d had commanded Moses: Take the rod, 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 hand it was in order to smite with it; and sometimes He said, Stretch forth thy hand [with thy rod], 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? [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. 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. 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 secret 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, since there was n...

"Take the staff" — there are many interpretations here. One individual commentator says it was because Moses said to Israel "hear now, you rebels" — yet they are children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and if that were the sin, why does the text later still say to them "you were rebellious"? Others say that the word "and you shall speak" (וְדִבַּרְתֶּם) means "and you shall strike," analogous to "and she destroyed all the royal seed" — but this is not correct, for the word derives from the root דבר, or from the verse "He subdues peoples under us," so that "and she destroyed" means "and she wiped out." And so too in the second book, the meaning of "and you shall speak to the rock" would be "and you shall destroy it" — and furthermore, if that is the meaning, why was Moses punished? They also answered that it was because he struck twice — but then why was Aaron punished? Rabbi Moses the Darshan of blessed memory, the Spaniard, said: some signs are performed through speech alone and some through both action and speech, like the deed of Elisha; and Hashem commanded Moses to take the staff to strike the rock in the same manner as was done with the Horeb rock (הצור), and then added the instruction "and you shall speak" in order to bring forth the water by both striking and speaking. Because Israel had angered him, he said to them "shall we bring water for you from this rock?" — his intention being that we have no power to bring water from the rock except through Hashem's strength; yet he did not explain his words well, and people thought in their hearts that he meant Hashem could not bring water from the rock. This is the meaning of "because you did not sanctify Me." He brought proof from the words of the Psalmist who said "for they provoked His spirit and he spoke rashly with his lips" — so the sin was in his rash speech, not in the striking. But this too is not correct, because Moses said this — so why was Aaron punished? Moreover, there is no mention of speech in the narrative, and the proof he brings is not a proof at all, for "they provoked His spirit" refers only to Hashem, as it is written "but they rebelled and grieved His holy spirit" — and that is the meaning of "they provoked Him at the waters of Meribah" — meaning they provoked Hashem, as it is written "these are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel quarreled against Hashem, and it went ill for Moses on their account, for they provoked the spirit of Hashem," and He decreed against Moses that he would not enter the land. Others said that speaking to the rock, which cannot hear, would only be accomplished by striking — and if so, why was Moses punished? Others said it was because they did not sing a song as at "spring up, O well, sing to it" — and that is the meaning of "because you did not sanctify Me." Still others said that Hashem commanded them to speak and they did not speak but only struck — therefore both were punished, and it was said of them: "you trespassed," "you rebelled," "you did not believe," "you did not sanctify Me." And those of sound judgment said that it is inconceivable that Hashem's messenger should alter Hashem's word — and if he did alter it, how can we believe in his Torah? But these also did not speak correctly, for if he had changed a commandment he would have been punished immediately; here, however, he was punished for something that is neither a commandment for all time nor instruction for Israel, and it was done not deliberately but inadvertently, because Israel had provoked him — as he himself said, "Hashem was also angry with me on your account." Others said that Israel called out to draw water from a different rock, and Moses saw — "shall we bring it from this rock?" — and Moses feared to deviate from Hashem's word; it was because he did not believe they could bring water from the rock they had pointed to that he was punished — and that is the meaning of "you did not believe in Me." But this interpretation too is not correct, for the text says "you rebelled against My word," yet they did not rebel. The correct interpretation in my view I will reveal through hints. Know that when the part knows the whole, it cleaves to the whole and renews signs and wonders within the whole. And truly, Hashem said to Moses and Aaron "and you shall speak," yet they did not speak, because of the people's quarreling with Moses — so the part became separate and struck the rock, and no water came out until he struck it a second time. Thus they did not sanctify Hashem and they rebelled and acted faithlessly — though inadvertently. A commentator may also explain "and he spoke rashly with his lips" as referring to Moses, for that is why he was punished — it was not fitting for him to say anything until he had fulfilled Hashem's commission. And there is also the tradition of our early Sages of blessed memory that the sin was in saying "hear now, you rebels" — and they hinted at this secret. "To the rock" — the one I have made known to you, or the one found near the camp. "And it shall give its water" — many have erred over the word "its water" and said that this rock is the Horeb rock; but these are dull of heart, for the Horeb rock was at Horeb, while this rock was at the edge of the land of Edom, for it was at Kadesh. One may also explain "its water" as meaning: the water that I will place within it.

קח את המטה...ודברתם אל הסלע, there are numerous opinions of what precisely Moses’ sin consisted of. Many commentators have difficulty understanding the wordsלא האמנתם, ‘you lacked faith” in verse 12 as well as with the word מעלתם בי, “you trespassed against Me” in Deuteronomy 32,51, as well as the words מריתם את פי “you rebelled against My command” in verse 24 of our chapter here. If it had indeed been G’d’s intention that they were only to speak to the rock, what purpose was served in commanding Moses to take the staff? If the sin consisted in that Moses struck the rock, something he had not been commanded to do, what was Aaron’s sin? However, when we scrutinise the matter (the quarrel) more thoroughly we must remember that G’d’s instructions were designed to bring home to the people how wrong they had been in their rebellious attitude. They were meant not only to become aware of this, but to repent it and to apologise for it, seeing that G’d does not desire the death of the sinner but his rehabilitation by his own efforts. Knowing that this is so, Moses and Aaron’s actions or inaction resulted in G’d’s intention of bringing about the people’s repentance of their conduct was thwarted. G’d punished them for having become the instrument of thwarting His plan. The quarrel of the people with Moses was that they accused him of a failure of leadership that resulted in their finding themselves in a situation where they even lacked water for survival. Their quarrel with G’d consisted in their accusing Him of taking them out of a good land called Egypt and bringing them to a desert instead. G’d had wanted to make it clear to them by means of the miracle that Moses had not acted on their own but had merely been His messenger, had carried out his mission faithfully, and that the One Who had sent him had not caused the people any harm at all. We must remember that there are three distinct kinds of miracles in Scripture 1) The “hidden” miracle such as that rain occurs when needed, or that people are recovering from a variety of life threatening diseases. These are the types of miracles that the righteous can bring about by means of their prayers. The Torah quotes an example of this kind of miracle in Genesis 20,17 when it tells us that Avraham’s prayer resulted in G’d healing the households in Avimelech’s kingdom where an outbreak of a disease had resulted in none of the expectant women being able to give birth to their babies until after Avraham’s prayer. A similar miracle occurred in Numbers 21,7 when Moses prayed on behalf of the people who had acknowledged that they had sinned. 2) The second type of miracle is an “open” miracle, something that could not be produced by nature without a special assist by G’d, although it could conceivably be become a natural phenomenon over a long period of time. Examples of this kind of miracle are Moses throwing his staff to the earth and G’d turning it into a snake (Exodus 4,5) or G’d commanding Moses to raise his st...

קח את המטה…ויקדש בם, "take the staff… and He was sanctified through them." This paragraph has attracted many different interpretations, and most commentators have made a point of offering their comments. Before we will offer our view of the plain meaning of these verses we must first try and understand the nature of Moses' error and the reason underlying G'd's decree. I have come across 10 different approaches to our problem pursued by various commentators. I will list their comments very briefly. 1) Rashi explains that Moses's error was that whereas G'd had told him to speak to the rock he hit the rock instead. 2) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explains that Moses' error caused the rock not to yield water until Moses struck it for a second time, and that Moses had forgotten G'd's precise instructions when he struck the rock the first time due to the vociferous quarrelling by the congregation. 3) G'd's anger was caused by Moses hitting the rock a second time. Had Moses remained content to strike the rock once, G'd would have accepted this as a form of addressing a rock as one does not expect a rock to listen to words. 4) According to this view G'd's anger was caused by the fact that Moses and Aaron did not sing a song of praise after the water materialised. Such a miracle deserved that it should be acknowledged by not less than a song praising G'd and thanking Him. 5) According to this view Moses sinned by talking down to the Israelites and calling them "rebellious." A man of Moses' stature should not have called the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob by a name which belittled them. 6) Maimonides in his treatise שמונה פרקים feels that G'd objected to Moses having "lost his cool" when speaking to the Israelites. When the people observed that Moses was angry at them they concluded that G'd was angry at them also. 7) Rabbeynu Chananel and Nachmanides after him claim that what angered G'd was that Moses portrayed himself and Aaron as producing the water by saying נוציא לכם מים, instead of saying יוציא לכם מים, "He will make water come forth for you." The formula used by Moses created the impression amongst the people that Moses and Aaron produced the water by means of their own devices and know-how. This is why G'd said to them: "because you have not believed Me to make them sanctify Me." 8) Rabbi Moshe Hacohen, quoted by Ibn Ezra also feeels that G'd's anger had to do with Moses' wording of the question: המן הסלע הזה נוציא, "do you expect us to produce water from this rock?" Whereas we know that there are miracles which are produced by G'd's word and others by a combination of G'd's word and an action, Moses misled the people into thinking that G'd could not produce water from this particular rock. He proves his point by quoting Psalms 106,33: "because they rebelled against Him and he spoke rashly." 9) Rabbi Joseph Albo in his ספר העקרים criticises Moses and Aaron for not having proceeded immediately to produce water for their people something he cl...

קח את המטה, “take the staff!” G-d referred to Aaron’s staff. This is clear from what the Torah writes: Moses took the staff that had been in the presence of the Lord, i.e. in the Tabernacle, the staff that had produced almonds in Numbers 17,23. Compare also Numbers 17,25, where Moses had been told to return his staff to the Tabernacle as an ongoing reminder to the obstinate community of Israel that a member of his family had been chosen to be High Priest. It was appropriate for this staff to be used again when dealing with a people that were in a rebellious mood. In this episode Moses committed his first error when he took the wrong staff, seeing that he thought he was supposed to strike the rock. The only reason that G-d had told Moses to take this staff, was that it had been used in conjunction with the rebelliousness of the Jewish people, as opposed to the obstinacy of Pharaoh. ודברתם אל הסלע, “and speak to the rock (pl.).” The prefix ה before the word: הסלע teaches that the rock involved was the one that used to provide water for the people as long as Miriam had been alive. The people would draw their water from that rock. It used to move with the people whenever they moved. This was the rock that Moses now struck and that refused to yield its water on account of Miriam having died. It resumed yielding water due to the merit of Moses and Aaron, as our sages have explained in the Talmud tractate Taanit, folio 9. This is why G-d told both Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock. Some commentators understand what happened during this episode as follows: the words: ודברתם אל הסלע refer to what occurred in Exodus 17,7; this is totally erroneous, if only since there the Torah never used the expression סלע when speaking about the rock, but only the term צור. Moreover, it is clear that that episode occurred near Mount Sinai, as the Torah testifies that the waters emanated from the rock known as Chorev. (Exodus 17,6) ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its natural waters,” i.e. just a few drops, as a result of being spoken to. והוצאת להם מים, “you will extract for them water;” i.e. a great quantity of water, by striking the rock. According to that view, the reason why G-d had told Moses to take along the staff, although on the face of it sounded as if quantities of water would be released from the rock by merely speaking to it, was that it had never been intended that more than a few drops of the rock’s own moisture would be released by speaking to it. Moses had misunderstood G-d, as he was upset at the time so that he had never spoken to the rock at all, apart from not having known which of the numerous rocks all around he was to address. The critical rock was surrounded by many others which all looked alike.

והשקית את העדה ואת בעירם, “you shall provide water for the congregation and for their beasts.” This verse proves G’d’s concern for the Israelites’ possessions. (Tanchuma Chukat 9). ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם, “You will speak to the rock in their presence, etc.” the rock called סלע in our verse here is identical with the one called צור at Mount Chorev. It is also identical with the well of Miriam. This is the opinion of our sages in Taanit 9. We find that this rock appears under four different names סלע, באר עין משפט, צור,. In Genesis 14,7 it is called עין משפט, (the well of judgment) seeing the Torah reports the four kings as returning from a battle to a place known (to the reader) as עין משפט, identical with Kadesh. The former name derived from the fact that Moses was judged there. It was also called צור, seeing that in Exodus 17,6 G’d had told Moses that when he would stand at that rock at Chorev he should strike it with his staff and it would produce water. The name צור, a name for G’d, [instead of סלע, Ed.] was given to this rock as it was a site at which G’d revealed Himself. Seeing that here at Kadesh G’d did not reveal Himself, it is referred to merely as סלע, seeing that G’d instructed Moses and Aaron: “you shall speak to the סלע.” It is also referred to simply as באר, seeing the Torah says (Numbers 21,16) “it is the same באר where G’d had said to Moses: ‘assemble the people so that I can give them water.’” [If, at that point the rock had already been a well as suggested by the word באר, G’d’s instructions would not have made sense. The point was to convert the rock into a well. Ed.]. Seeing that at the death of Miriam this well had ceased providing water, G’d wanted it to resume to function as a well by means of the merit of Moses. The fact that this rock is referred to as הסלע instead of merely as סלע, shows that it had previously functioned as a well. You should know that there are many different opinions concerning the precise nature of Moses’ sin in this portion. Rashi holds that Moses had not been commanded to hit the rock at all but only to speak to it, and to instruct it in the name of the Lord 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 Moses had performed involved his staff although not necessarily that he used the staff to strike something with. For instance, we find in Exodus 4,17 that G’d told Moses 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 Moses and Aaron as apparently they had agreed to use the staff to hit the rock instead of speaking to the rock. By doing so they minimised 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 Moses 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 the Lord! Now that that they saw that the rock responded only to Moses’ physical force as a result of being struck, this gave some of them a chance to use this as an argument that Moses 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 Moses’ hitting the rock. This is why G’d said to both Moses and Aaron: “because you did not have enough faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel” (verse 12). Had they only spoken to the rock this would have resulted in a great sanctification of the Lord’s name. Maimonides, in the fourth chapter of his introduction to tractate Avot, views Moses’ sin as being that he addressed the people as מורים, “rebellious” (verse 10). 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 Moses allows himself to become angry the result is liable to be a desecration of the Lord’s name. Even the bodily motions of a man of Moses’ 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 disciples’ confidence in him. The people were very intelligent as they had experienced visions which even a great prophet such as Ezekiel had not experienced (Mechilta Shirata 50). When the people observed Moses being angry they assumed that Moses’ 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 (verse 24) מריתם את פי, “you defied My word,” He referred to the mistaken image of G’d’s reaction to their request conveyed to them through Moses’ demeanour. Rabbeinu Chananel believes that Moses’ sin consisted of the word נוציא, “we shall extract,” or: “shall we extract?” By using the first person plural Moses created the impression that it was his and Aaron’s task to extract water from the rock. He should have said יוציא, “He, G’d, will extract water for the people from the rock” (verse 10). The moment Moses said: “we shall extract water,” some of the people thought that whereas on the first occasion when Moses had struck the rock this had been a miracle, a demonstration of G’d revealing His power (Exodus 17,5-7), this time there would not be a similar intervention by G’d in their fortunes. These people simply thought that Moses and Aaron 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 להקדישני, “to demonstrate My Holiness before the eyes of the Children of Israel” (verse 12). According to Rabbeinu Chananel the expression להקדישני is reflexive, i.e. to cause G’d to appear as Holy, whereas the words לא האמנתם בי are 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 expressed 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 Moses 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 Moses was angry and displayed anger during this episode. However, the words: שמעו נא המורים, do not necessarily reflect anger on Moses’ part but mean that he addressed the people as a group which needed to be admonished. Aaron, 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 רודף שלום. Why would he suffer the same fate as Moses 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 Moses had said: מן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “we will produce water for you from this rock,” he would be correct. However, this is not what Moses said. He said המן הסלע וגו', “shall we produce water from this rock?” Moses implied that they themselves most certainly did not have the power to produce water from that rock. Moses made it clear that only G’d could orchestrate such a miracle. Still, his words are the most plausible of all the commentators. A kabbalistic approach: The sin is connected to the word פעמים, “twice” (verse 11). This solves all the problems which have been raised previously. The mystical dimension of the whole episode is as follows: The Lord, 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 Moses in Exodus 17,6 where Mount Chorev is identified with the צור, the site also known (Psalms 132,5) as משכנות לאביר יעקב, “an abode for the Mighty One of Yaakov.” The expression צור in connection with G’d revealing Himself to Moses occurs again in Exodus 32,21 where G’d tells Moses to take up a position “next” to Him describing that place as על הצור, “next to the Rock” (the Lord). When G’d had instructed Moses to hit the rock in Exodus 17,6, He had first described His presence in the words הנני, i.e. הנה אני עומד לפניך שם על הצור, “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 י-ה-ו-ה appears frequently in the guise of the word אני. Moses 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 הנני וגו', “here is My attribute אני, etc.” There had not been a manifestation of the glory (attribute) of G’d such as there had been in Exodus. As a result of doubt as to which attribute had issued the instruction Moses and Aaron 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 the attribute צור or the attribute Hashem. They considered it quite likely that the Shechinah was angry at the people [for having blamed Moses for the shortage of water, Ed.]. The people, who had all been privy to manifestations of the Shechinah on the previous occasions associated with the phenomenon described as צור, were aware that this time there had not been such a manifestation of G’d’s glory. In view of all of these considerations Moses and Aaron 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 realise that neither Moses nor Aaron 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 aggrandise His name, i.e. להקדישני לעיני בני ישראל. When Moses, in referring to this incident in Deut. 3,26 as well as in Deut. 1,37 says once ויתעבר ה' בי למענכם, or גם בי התאנף ה' בגללכם, he meant in both instances that the attribute of Hashem had become angry at him for having missed an opportunity למענכם, or בגללכם, “for your sakes,” to strengthen your faith in the Lord. Although their intentions had been good, striking the rock twice could have led the people to believe that Moses’ powers [and by extension G’d’s power, Ed.] 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 verse 12: לא האמנתם בי, “because you did not plant sufficient faith in Me.” G’d referred to His attribute אל-הים, which is usually referred to as שם. This is the G’d known as אלו-ה יעקב ההפכי הצור אגם מים, “the G’d of Yaakov who coverts the rock into a pool of water” (Psalms 114,7-8). The expression מריתם פי also means: “you rebelled against that attribute פי, an alternative name for אלו-הים. We find support in the Midrash (Eicha Rabbati 1,61) for the statement that the word פי is a name for G’d’s attribute אלו-הים. The prophet (Jeremiah in Eycha 1,18) speaks of “Hashem is righteous for I disobeyed His attribute פי” (i.e. אלו-הים). It is as if the prophet described Israel as disobeying G’d’s essence as well as His attributes, i.e. agents. We can understand this better by means of the parable in Bereshit Rabbah 27,6 (described by the author in the latter half of his commentary on Genesis 6,6). In Deut. 32,51 on the other hand, the Torah describes the sin of Moses and Aaron as מעלתם בי, “you have committed a trespass against Me,” meaning: “you have denied My name.” In either event, it appears to us based on all these different expressions that the sin was primarily an indirect one, i.e. that Moses’ and Aaron’s actions resulted in some undesirable fallout in the minds of the people who observed their actions. Sifri Haazinu comments in the same vein. We should reflect on the fact that at the burning bush the miracles which occurred were performed by the attribute of Justice, to wit that Moses’ staff turned into a serpent (as a punishment for his making an inappropriate remark about the faith of the Jewish people). Moses’ hand turned white as a result of his suffering the skin affliction known as tzoraat surely also a miracle orchestrated by the attribute of Justice. Water turning into blood was certainly also a manifestation of the attribute of Justice at work. Our sages in the Midrash and the Talmud (Shemot Rabbah 3,19) are on record that originally “the sela dripped blood,” i.e. that when Moses hit the rock it first produced blood instead of water. This may also be the source of Psalms 78,20 speaking of ”here he struck the rock and water flowed.” The word ויזובו used by the psalmist to describe the flow is one that does not usually describe water flowing but blood flowing (compare Leviticus 15,25). Although Moses himself did not even hint at such a thing in his various references to this episode, we do find allusions to it in the writings of the prophets a well as in the hagiographa. Assaph alluded to it in Psalms 78,20. Isaiah 48,21 hinted at it when he wrote both the word הזיל and the word ויזובו מים in the same verse referring to the same event. (“He made water flow for them from the rock, He cleaved the rock and water gushed forth”). Psalms 114,8 also suggests that the blood turned into water (the word אגם, “a pond,” has the same numerical value as דם, blood). Seeing that the sin of Moses and Aaron involved the צור, another term for the word הארץ in Genesis, their punishment was denial of entry into the ארץ. [Compare our translation to Genesis 6,6 about the kabbalistic approach to G’d being saddened at the need to bring on the deluge. Ed.]. ונתן מימיו, “it will yield its waters.” The Torah should have simply written ונתן מים, “it will yield water.” What is the meaning of the suffix “its?” Had the Torah not written the suffix we might have concluded that there was water beneath the rock which had been freed through Moses’ addressing it, moving it by giving it an order to move. This would not have been a special miracle. The Torah therefore reports that Moses was instructed to release water from the rock itself merely by giving such a command in the name of Hashem. Another way of looking at this suffix is that the potential of this rock producing water goes back to the six days of creation. Now G’d had seen fit to activate this potential. Our sages in Avot 5,6 already mentioned that the well of Miriam was one of the things created at dusk on the sixth day to be activated when the occasion would arise. Seeing that the word מימיו, “its waters,” allows people to think that perhaps the waters of this rock were natural, the Torah had to emphasize “you will produce waters for them out of the rock.” The Torah also chose the expression הוצאה because it is usually associated with supernatural events. When G’d told Avraham that He had taken him out of the fire of the Chaldeans (Genesis 15,7) saying אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, He referred to the miracle of saving him from the furnace of Nimrod. When G’d referred to having taken Israel out of Egypt, He also used the expression הוצאתיך (Exodus 20,2). He referred to the miracles associated with the Exodus. Isaiah 48,21 is similar in nature where the prophet referred to צור to stress the miraculous nature of what occurred. The words והוצאת להם מים indicate that whole rivers of water flowed from the rock seeing that otherwise it would have been impossible for several million Israelites to drink water from that rock as well as to water their beasts. Psalms 78,16 makes this point clear when referring to the event in a second verse: “He brought forth streams from a rock and made them flow down like a river.”

Take the staff and gather the congregation, etc. If God commanded him to speak to the rock, then why did he need this staff? Since it doesn’t say “take your staff” but rather the staff, it implies that it’s referring to a specific, known staff. And what is meant by from before the Lord — was Moses’ staff standing before the Lord? And why did He call them rebels specifically in this complaint? Regarding the nature of this sin, there are 11 opinions mentioned by Abarbanel in his book, and there you will find many opinions that are far from the simple meaning. Now, look to the right and see, and set your heart to my opinion. You should know and understand that I found in Chizkuni that this staff was Aaron’s staff which was placed before God. But his words are not well-seasoned, for he doesn’t explain what the purpose of Aaron’s staff was here. And I say that indeed the language indicates that this staff was Aaron’s staff, as it is written the staff, which implies the known one that was kept before God. It was a dry piece of wood without any moisture of water at all, and nevertheless it produced a flower and a blossom. And there is no flower and blossom without water, except that the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed that it should produce water, and God made the dry wood produce flowers through the water that came out by the decree of God, blessed be He. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted Moses to take Aaron’s staff and show it to all of Israel, to say: Just as God brought forth water from this dry wood, so will He bring forth water from this flinty rock that is dry. And what it says, and speak to the rock and it will yield its water, means that you should speak to the rock that it should also do as this staff did. And since the exact wording that Moses should speak to the rock is not specified in the text, certainly the wording is the two words and it will yield/yielded its water [venatan meimav]. For and it yielded refers to the past, and he should speak to the rock about the staff that produced a blossom and yielded its water, because normally a flower and blossom contain moisture of water. And when the rock hears that the staff has already yielded its water, then it will also do likewise. And through this, you shall bring forth water for them from the rock. A hint to this is that the numerical value of rock [sela] equals wood [etz], suggesting that it should learn from the dry wood to do as it did. But God did not command to strike it at all. And when Moses struck it, it is written with his staff, implying that he struck with his own staff and not with Aaron’s staff. And Moses took the staff from before God, as He commanded him. Because he understood this from the fact that it says the staff, the known one, and not “your staff. ”And the text informs us that only this taking was as God commanded him, but what he did from here on was not as God commanded him. The issue of the sin of striking is, that we find in the words of our Sages (Shemot Rabbah 21:9) regarding the splitting of the Red Sea, it is written And you, lift up your staff and stretch out your hand (Exodus 14:16), and this lifting is an expression of removal and giving, meaning “lift up your staff and set it aside, and stretch out your hand” — not with your staff — because they [the Israelites] were murmuring about the staff and said that all the miracles that Moses performed with his staff were all done through some form of sorcery that he had in this staff, because “we see that his power is only through this staff.” Therefore, it was said lift up your staff in order to remove this notion from their hearts. And therefore it is said And Israel saw the great hand (Exodus 14:31), meaning that they saw that this miracle was performed by hand and not with the staff. Therefore they believed in God and in Moses His servant, implying that until now they were children in whom there is no faith, because they did not believe in God and in the prophecy of Moses His servant, as they had reason to attribute the miracles to the staff. Now at this time, many days had passed for Israel since the splitting of the sea, and this generation did not know whether Moses performed that miracle with his hand or with his staff. They assumed that just as all the miracles in Egypt were performed with the staff, so too was the splitting of the sea. And because he struck the rock with his staff, he brought Israel back to a lack of faith, as they again said that it was not God who did all this, but rather there was some aspect of sorcery in his staff. And there [at the splitting of the sea] it was said, And you, lift up your staff and stretch out your hand. The language of “lifting” and removal was used regarding the staff, and the language of “stretching” regarding the hand, and through this they believed in God. But here [with the rock] it states exactly the opposite: And Moses lifted his hand and struck with his staff. The language of “lifting” and removal is used regarding the hand, because since he did not perform this act with a mere stretching out of his hand, it is as if he removed his hand and struck with his staff. Through this, he brought back the lack of faith to its original place, just as there was murmuring about the staff before the splitting of the sea. Therefore it says, Because you did not believe in Me. It does not [actually] say “lo emanntem” [you did not believe] but rather “lo he’emanntem” [you did not cause to believe], which is a transitive verb [affecting others], meaning that they caused others not to believe in Me but to say that he did this by the power of the staff, and it was not God who did all this. In this, they committed two evils: they did not speak to the rock at all, and Aaron was also guilty in this matter, as it says, and you [plural] shall speak to the rock. If they had spoken to the rock about the matter of Aaron’s staff and what it did, and the rock had listened and acted accordingly, there would be no greater sanctification of God’s name than this, as everyone would learn a fortiori [all the more so] from the rock. But not only did they not speak at all to strengthen faith, but he struck it with his staff and weakened faith. And this is what is meant by because you did not believe in Me — you did not cause others to believe in Me. And if you object that the statement “Shall sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them?” (Numbers 11:22) is more difficult than this, to this He responded, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, because that [previous incident] was in private and this one in public, before the eyes of all Israel. For this is the measure regarding desecration of God’s Name, that whoever desecrates the Name of Heaven in private will be punished in public (Avot 4:5). This means that the Holy One, blessed be He, arranges circumstances for him to commit [such a sin] in public so that people will know why He, blessed be He, is punishing him. And as for why He began with the Children of Israel and afterward said therefore you shall not bring this congregation, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses as follows: “If all those entering the Land were Children of Israel, descendants of Abraham about whom it is said (Genesis 15:6) And he believed in God, I would have remained silent. For since they are believers, the children of believers, even if you did not perform miracles before their eyes to strengthen their faith, nevertheless they would remain strong in faith and not deviate from it. However, among those entering the Land there are a congregation of converts, the mixed multitude, who are not from the Children of Israel, for they are evil, and they could easily return to their old ways since they are ‘children in whom there is no faithfulness.’ Therefore, those entering the Land need a leader who can walk against the spirit of each and every person and continually perform miracles before them to strengthen their faith. And it is not your way to be exacting about this, therefore you shall not bring this congregation — that congregation of converts — into the Land.” Therefore it was said regarding Joshua (Deuteronomy 31:7), Before the eyes of all Israel, be strong and courageous, for you will bring this people to the land. Here too He begins with Israel and concludes with the people. For He said: Train yourself before the eyes of all Israel to be strong and courageous in the word of God, so that they will not come through you to a lack of faith. And if you say that Israel is not suspected by you of this, [God] said, For you will bring this people, as it includes among them also the mixed multitude who are called by the name “the people,” and they need strengthening even more. This matter will be further explained below in Parashat Vayelech, God willing. And this interpretation is more precious than all that the commentators have said about it, which your eyes will see in the book of Abarbanel. And I will further say about what is written, “and he struck the rock with his staff twice.” This led to a diminishment of faith, as Israel would not listen to the voice of God and His prophets except after many strikes, for a rebuke enters more into a wise man than a hundred stripes into a fool (Proverbs 17:10), as concluded in Yalkut Shimoni sign 763, which states: Speak to the rock — it does not say “strike it” but rather “speak to it.” When a child is young, his teacher instructs him and strikes him; once he has grown, he disciplines him through speech. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: “When the rock was small, you struck it, as it says, and you shall strike the rock, but now that it has grown, speak to the rock.”Every intelligent person would be astonished at this sight — does this rock have eyes of flesh? Is it not the same whether small or large? How can it be compared to a youth? Certainly, the intent is only toward what is represented — that Israel should learn from this that there is a difference between verbal instruction and discipline through the rod of oppression, for [with the latter,] when the compulsion is removed, one returns to their waywardness, as will be explained, God willing, later in Parashat Vayelech. The Holy One, blessed be He, showed us that although this concept does not apply to a rock, nevertheless, these matters were presented to demonstrate that it is only appropriate to strike a youth or an ignorant person with a rod. But when one matures, a rebuke is sufficient for the understanding person. If one does not listen to the voice of instruction and needs to be struck with suffering, undoubtedly as soon as relief comes, they will return to their waywardness — just as it was necessary to strike the rock twice, and it did not respond to the first strike. Similarly, whatever is done through striking and compulsion, the outcome of the action is not quickly achieved. This is the desecration of God’s name — that the children of Israel would not learn to listen to the voice of instruction except after a hundred stripes into a fool. This is a very appropriate allusion according to this midrash.

ודברתם אל הסלע, “you are to speak to the rock.” According to Nachmanides the word אל in our verse is to be understood as על, when in the presence of, meaning that when Moses and Aaron would speak to the rock, the people should all be present to watch the miracle. The people should all know which rock Moses was speaking to. Moses and Aaron complied with the first part of these instructions. לעיניהם, “before their eyes.” The meaning is the same as לפניהם, in their presence, in front of them. Another meaning of the word לעיניהם could be that it refers to the act of Moses speaking to the rock being performed before the very eyes of the people. This would correspond to what is reported in verse 10 where we read: “Moses and Aaron gathered the people before the rock, and he said to them: etc.” The reason for all this publicity was, as our sages have said, in order that the people would not be able to say later that there had been subterranean wells beneath those rocks. It is also possible that the emphasis is on the words ונתן מימיו, that the rock will immediately respond and produce a lot of water, not as if the rock only reluctantly followed Moses’ instructions. Compare Psalms 78,20 where the psalmist describes how these waters drenched everything in their immediate vicinity. According to our sages this rock was the same rock that the people had already encountered at Mount Chorev. It was Miriam’s well that had moved with the people during all their journeys. [I presume the source for this is both the definitive article ה in front of the word סלע and the word מימיו, “its waters,” i.e. it had already provided water on previous occasions. Ed.] The well had ceased functioning when Miriam died, and was now reactivated. The word נתינה i.e. ונתן it will “give,” always implies that the giver does so in a generous fashion. Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text there was a rock situated close to the site where the people had made their camp so that when G’d told Moses to speak to the people, etc., the word לעיניהם means “the one that is before your very eyes.” It is also possible to understand the expression אל הסלע, “to the rock,” to mean that Moses should speak to the first and nearest rock he would encounter in his search. The meaning of the word מימיו would be a reference to the first jet of water the people would witness as coming out of that rock. The deeper reason why the Torah chose this word is that the people would see that this water did not originate on the surface of that rock but from deep with in it, it was integral to the rock. This is different from wells emerging from beneath rocks, the customary scenario. והוצאת להם מים מן הסלע, “you are to bring forth water for them from the rock.” The meaning is that these waters will materialise while you are still standing at the rock. Everybody will witness this impressive spectacle. והשקית את העדה, “you will provide drink for the congregation.” You will order them to drink from this water in your presence. All these details were spelled out in order to provide maximum publicity for this great miracle. Interestingly, when it came to the execution the Torah does not speak about Moses giving the people to drink but about the people drinking of their own accord, without prompting. (Compare verse 11) They were so thirsty that they did not wait to be asked.

קח את המטה, which at that time was reposing next to the Tablets. (compare Numbers 17,25) ודברתם אל הסלע, G’d did not command Moses to take the staff in order to strike the rock as he had commanded him in Exodus 17,6. He only commanded Moses to display the staff to remind them that they had again been very obstinate. They had acquired this attribute in Numbers 17,25 when the Torah speaks of למשמרת לאות לבני מרי, “to be kept as a lesson to rebels.” However, the water was to be produced merely by speaking to the rock. והוצאת להם מים, by means of your speaking to the rock.

קח את המטה והקהל את העדה, “take the staff and assemble the congregation!” According to Rabbi b’chor shor, the instruction to Moses to take the staff was meant in order for him to strike the rock with it which was meant to produce the water. [The instructions addressed to both Moses and Aaron in the same verse, were addressed to both Moses and Aaron who were to speak to the people first Ed.] This was similar to the instructions in Exodus 17,6, except that there the rock was called צור, tzur. At that time G–d was going to provide both bread (heavenly), meat, (quails) and water, each one of which was listed in detail shortly thereafter. The provision of water on both occasions is to be understood as the same miracle, and that is also why the first location was called מסה ומריבה, “trying and strife,” and on this occasion reference is only made to מי מריבה, “waters of strife” (verse 13) When Moses, in retrospect, refers to these events in Deuteronomy 33,8 he uses both expressions in the same verse. They are referred to also in Numbers 20,24:למי מריבה ”at the waters of strife.” Those waters were in the desert of Sin, near Mount Sinai, (during the first year of the Exodus) As far as the instructions here for Moses and Aaron to address the rock by word of mouth, ודברתם אל הסלע, is concerned, they were meant to speak to the people near the rock in order to watch the miracle about to be performed. On the first occasion, Moses took the elders with him, but the people stayed far behind and they did not even witness the striking of the rock. Those elders had long died so that the present generation had not even been told what they had witnessed. (Exodus 17,5) The water at that time formed into a small river and that was where the Israelites filled their buckets from. Moses and Aaron, instead of announcing the miracle about to take place, addressed the people by calling them rebellious, and asking if they really expected that they were worthy of G–d performing such a miracle for them. They should have known that it was not in Moses’ or Aaron’s power to get water out of a stone, so what was the point of accusing them of the shortage of water. Therefore, they should have prayed to G–d in a deferential manner, asking Him to help them in their predicament. If Moses and Aaron had explained all this to them without displaying anger with a thirsty people, the result would have been a great sanctification of the Lord’s name. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses’ and Aaron’s sin consisted of using the word נוציא לכם מים, “We are going to produce water for you,” instead of saying that “G–d is going to produce water for you.”

And Moses took the staff from before Hashem, as He had commanded him.

"The staff from before Hashem" — this is the staff of God, the one that was placed before the Testimony.

כאשר צוהו, "as G'd had commanded him." The Torah had to write this in order for us to know that Moses did not delay in carrying out G'd's instructions and took his staff. On the other hand, the Torah may have wanted to emphasise that the only thing Moses did strictly in accordance with G'd's instructions was that he took the staff with him. Anything he did subsequently was not in accordance with G'd's instructions.

And Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation before the rock, and he said to them: Hear now, O rebels — shall we bring forth water for you from this rock?

ויקהלו וגו׳ [AND MOSES AND AARON] ASSEMBLED [THE WHOLE CONGREGATION BEFORE THE ROCK] — This was one of the places where the smaller contained the greater, (the entire congregation being assembled in front of one rock) (Leviticus Rabbah 10:9). המן הסלע הזה נוציא MUST WE BRING [WATER] OUT OF THIS ROCK? — They said this because they could not distinguish it (the rock intended by God), for the rock from which the water had hitherto flowed during these forty years had vanished and taken a place amongst the other rocks when the “well” disappeared after Miriam’s death, and Israel said to them, “What difference is it to you from which rock you bring forth water for us?” — It was on this account that he (Moses) said unto them (called them) המרים — which may mean “refractory”, or, as a Greek expression, “foolish people” (µώροι), or, “such as would teach (מורים) their teachers” — from this rock about which we have received no Divine Command can we bring forth water for you?! (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

ARE WE TO BRING YOU FORTH WATER OUT OF THIS ROCK? Far be it and [G-d] forbid that [we should explain this] as a question indicating impossibility! For Moses our teacher, who was trusted in all G-d’s house, [knew] that nothing is too hard for Him; and he together with all Israel had seen greater and more wondrous miracles than this, and especially since this [miracle of providing water from a rock] had already been done once before through him at the rock in Horeb! Now the commentators have said that there are certain questions which [by apparently doubting that which cannot be denied], have the force of an [impassioned or indignant] affirmation. Thus we find: Did I reveal Myself to the house of thy father?; The king said also unto Zadok the priest: ‘Seest thou?’; Wilt thou judge?; Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [that the meaning of the verse is]: “Do we indeed have power to bring you forth water out of the rock?” He means thereby to explain that Moses said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels against G-d, who say, ‘and why have ye brought the assembly of the Eternal unto this evil place?’ Do we have the power by natural means to bring you forth water out of this flint? You should therefore recognize that this is all from G-d, for it is He Who took you out of Egypt, and brought you to this place, and it is He Who will feed you here.” This is similar to what he [Moses] told the people in the case of the manna, and ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt. In my opinion this letter hei [in the word hamin — “out of”] indicates a [real] query, [and the meaning thereof is as follows]: “Are we to bring you forth water out of this rock or not?” For sometimes Scripture explains a question in its positive and negative aspects, such as: whether there are trees therein or not? whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or not? — and at other times it mentions only the positive aspect, [such as in the following verses]: Is this your youngest brother?; Know ye Laban the son of Nachor?; Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself? But this question here that Moses asked of them was a probing question [to test their true intention]. He said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels. — What do ye devise against the Eternal? — Are we to bring you forth water out of this strong rock? Will this event happen or not?” [i.e., “Do you believe that it is within His power to do it, or not?”] He thus stressed that their [behaviour was a serious] rebellion, telling them they were wanting in faith, and that the reason for their quarrelling with him was because they thought that G-d would not act wondrously for them, in a similar manner to that which it says, And they tried G-d in their heart … ‘Can G-d prepare a table in the wilderness … Can He give bread also?’ Similarly the Rabbis have said: “Ten times our ancestors in the wilderness tried the Holy One, blessed ...

"Shall we bring water for you from this rock?" — meaning: do we have the power to bring water for you from it?

?המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “Are we supposed to extract water for you from this rock?” The Israelites understood Moses’ exclamation at face value, i.e. that he thought that it was quite impossible to extract water from the rock he pointed at, (or they had pointed at). Actually, what Moses had meant to say was: “did you think that what we are going to do to this rock is the same as what we did for your fathers 40 years ago, i.e. by striking it?”G-d’s command to speak to the rock was precisely to teach them that it was not even necessary to strike the rock. Moses had not been precise in his exclamation.

המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “are we supposed to bring forth water for you from this rock?” Nachmanides writes that we must not misunderstand Moses as saying that it was most unlikely that he could extract water from this or any other rock. He had already produced more impressive miracles than the one he was called upon to perform at this time. Not only that; there were many people alive who had observed him producing a similar miracle at Massa and Merivah in Exodus Moses implied by this question that the people and their conduct did not entitle them to expect such a miracle from him. We find a similar construction in Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגלתי, which according to Kimchi, is a rhetorical question, the questioner being aware that the subject he questions is not at all in any doubt. The question is one that confirms the listener’s expectation. Ibn Ezra writes that Moses was chastising the people who had imagined that it was within the power of himself and Aaron to produce water from a rock, a power reserved for Hashem,” so why had they complained to him instead of to Hashem, who alone is the Provider? It is only G’d Who brought you to this situation, and it is He Who will extricate you from your predicament. According to Kimchi, the introductory letter ה when preceding a question could sometimes be used when the answer is affirmative and sometimes when the expected answer is negative. When Moses charged the spies to report if the Land of Canaan had many trees, and he phrased it as היש בו עץ או אין, it is clear from the second half of the question that both answers were well within the possibilities. Similar questions are sometimes posed without the questioner spelling out the alternative as Moses had done when he sent off the spies. When Joseph asked the brothers who had presented Binyamin to him, if this was the younger brother they had spoken of, he only asked הזה אחיכם הקטון, “is this your younger brother?” He did not add the words: “or not?” When Yaakov asked the shepherds around the well if they knew Lavan, he also left the alternative, i.e. that they did not know him, open. (Compare Genesis) Sometimes such questions are posed only to examine the true state of mind of the people who will answer it. When addressing the Israelites as “rebellious,” Moses implied: “do you really think that it is beyond G’d’s ability to produce water from this rock if He wants to?” He added the word המורים to show the people that he considered their conduct outrageous. He implied that they quarreled with him only because they thought that their situation was beyond G’d’s and His prophet’s Moses ability to resolve? Rashi explains that the rock to which Moses had pointed had in the meantime moved to a spot amongst other rocks, so that the people had become despondent, and demanded that Moses produce the water from a different rock. Moses asked them angrily if they really thought that he could produce water from any rock he wanted to, a rock that G’d had not designated for such a miracle?

ויאמר להם שמעו נא המורים, just as this staff produced almonds as a reminder of the last rebellious generation, are we to produce water from you from this rock? At the time he raised the staff he struck it twice in succession followed by saying :did you really think that we would produce water from this rock?” Moses said this because he harboured doubt; seeing that G’d had instructed him to take the staff with him (verse 8) he did not think that speaking to the rock was meant to result in the rock yielding up its water, but that striking it may be required, just as he had done at Refidim. As to the fact that G’d had specifically instructed him to “speak” to the rock, he thought that speaking to a rock, i.e. communicating one’s thoughts to it, consisted of striking the rock. In the absence of certainty about which course to follow, Moses decided to speak to the rock in addition to striking it, but G’d had already indicated that He accepted Moses’ striking the rock by making all that water come forth. In spite of G’d’s apparent approval of what Moses had done he was punished, seeing that G’d employs more stringent rules in dealing with the righteous such as Moses than He applies to ordinary mortals. This is what He meant when he said in verse 12 “because you did not demonstrate faith in Me to use this opportunity to sanctify Me by means of first having spoken to the rock.” “Seeing that I, the commentator, am aware that Moses was quite incapable of deliberately countermanding G’d’s instructions, I had to explain the episode as resulting from an error Moses made.”

And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and abundant water came forth, and the congregation and their cattle drank.

פעמים [HE SMOTE THE ROCK] TWICE, because at the first attempt it did not bring forth more than a few drops, for God had not bidden him smite it, but He had said, (v. 8) “and ye shall speak to the rock”. They had, indeed, spoken, but to a different rock (not that which God had intended) and it had not given forth water. They said, “Perhaps it is necessary to smite it as on the former occasion when it says, (Exodus 17:6) ‘and ye shall smite the rock’, and just that rock intended by God happened to be there and they smote it [but without full effect, and so they smote it a second time] (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 9).

במטהו פעמים with his staff, twice. The reason he hit the rock twice was similar to a servant who is eager to carry out his master's instructions. Our sages in Sanhedrin 34 use this verse to illustrate the principle that a single verse yields many diverse insights.

ויך את הסלע, “he struck the rock with his staff twice.” Rashi’s explanation here is too short when he writes that after the first strike the rock produced only a few drops of water, Moses struck the rock again and then it produced ample amounts of water because G-d had never instructed him to hit the rock at all, but had said to Moses and Aaron: “speak to the rock.” According to Rashi, they then spoke to another rock. The result was that no water emerged from that rock at all. They then thought that this second rock should have been struck just like the first one, and when they proceeded to do this a lot of water came out. When the rock had failed to produce water, they had thought that they must have spoken to the wrong rock. (Our author amends what he thought that Rashi had meant to write)

And Hashem said to Moses and to Aaron: Because you did not believe in My Word, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them.

יען לא האמנתם בי BECAUSE YE BELIEVED ME NOT — Scripture discloses the fact that but for this sin alone, they would have entered the land of Canaan, in order that people should not say of them, “Even as the sin of the generation of the Wilderness (a term used of those who left Egypt) on whom it was decreed that they should not enter the Land was the sin of Moses and Aaron” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 27:13). But was not the doubting question (cf. Rashi on Numbers 11:22), “shall the sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them?” a more grievous lack of faith in God than this? But because that had been said in private (no Israelites being present and therefore it could have no evil influence upon them), Scripture (God) spared him (and did not make his lack of faith public by pronouncing punishment for it), but here, where all Israel were standing by, Scripture does not spare him because of the Hallowing of the Divine Name (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 10). להקדישני TO SANCTIFY ME — For had you spoken to the rock and it had brought forth water I would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, for they would have said: What is the case with this rock which cannot speak and cannot hear and needs no maintenance? It fulfils the bidding of the Omnipresent God! How much more should we do so? לכן לא תביאו THEREFORE YE SHALL NOT BRING — This expression (“therefore”) is used by way of an oath, just as (I Samuel 3:14), “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli”. Here He was quick to take an oath in order that they should not pray at length about it (that He should withdraw the decree) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 2).

"Because you did not believe in Me" — this is the secret to which I alluded: that Hashem was not sanctified through them.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. Why does the Torah switch from using the relatively harsh וידבר in verse 7 where it did not appear called for, and now portrays G'd as speaking softly, at the very moment when Moses had become guilty of a transgression? It seems ludicrous that at the moment when G'd decrees a harsh penalty on both Moses and Aaron the language this is couched in is most friendly! We may understand this in light of what Bamidbar Rabbah 19,12 writes that Moses said to G'd that seeing He had decreed that he would die in the desert together with all the people who had believed the report of the ten spies, subsequent generations would conclude that he too was no better than they. He therefore pleaded with G'd to record his sin in the Torah to make certain no one would think Moses was guilty at the time the spies returned. This is the reason the Torah wrote the words יען לא האמנתם בי. Thus far the Midrash. The reason that G'd introduced the paragraph dealing with Moses' punishment with the soft ויאמר was to draw our attention to the difference between what had caused the death of the generation of the spies and that of Moses and Aaron respectively. On no account were these leaders to be compared to their flock although they shared the fate of dying in the desert.

לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Whenever the expression לכן, appears, it indicates that the speaker is saying something in the nature of an oath. Compare: Samuel I 3,14: לכן נשבעתי לבית עלי, “therefore I have sworn concerning the house of Eli;” compare alsoDeuteronomy 4,21: וישבע לבלתי עברי, “therefore He swore that I may not cross, etc.”If you were to query that we read at the end of Exodus 6,7 that Rashi explains the words: עתה תראה, “now you will see,” that Moses, while witnessing the Exodus from Egypt, will not witness the crossing of the Jordan into the land of Canaan, (as a penalty for having questioned G-d’s handling of the Israelites since his appointment as their leader) he had already forfeited the right to cross into the land of Israel 40 years earlier, so what is new about G-d’s oath here? We may answer that both incidents combined to deny him entry to the Holy land; [alternately, in Exodus, the matter had only been hinted at, (thus preventing Moses from apologizing and doing teshuvah) and had not been confirmed by G-d with an oath thus making it irrevocable. Ed.].

לכן לא תביאו, “therefore you will not bring, etc.” Our sages in Pessikta Zutra claim that the expression לכן always denotes a statement equal in force to that of an oath. We find this word introducing G’d’s oath to punish the descendants of the house of Eli in Samuel I 3,14: “Therefore I have sworn, etc.” In our verse it means that G’d swore that neither Moses nor Aaron would enter the Holy Land. This is the reason why the paragraph is followed immediately by Moses sending messengers to the King of the Edomites to let the Israelites pass his country on their way to the Holy Land. In Kadesh Moses had forfeited his right to enter Eretz Yisrael and it was from there that he sent emissaries.

יען לא האמנתם בי, “because you did not believe in Me, etc.” Nachmanides writes that Moses’ and Aaron’s sins were not spelled out in detail by the Torah. Rashi says the sin was that whereas Hashem had instructed them to speak to the rock, but they had struck it instead. The difficulty with Rashi’s commentary is that seeing that G’d had told Moses to take his staff along, Moses had clearly assumed that the reason for taking the staff along was to hit the rock, similar to the manner in which he had used the staff repeatedly to bring on the plagues upon the Egyptians. Surely, if G’d had only wanted Moses to speak to the rock to what purpose did He tell him to take along his staff? When G’d, in Egypt, had told Moses to take along the staff that had turned into a snake at the burning bush, it was from then on to serve as an instrument with which to bring on the plagues. Furthermore, how would Moses speaking to the rock instead of striking it enhance the quality of the miacle? We have several instances when G’d told Moses to stretch out his staff (in order to bring on a plague) and it is assumed that Moses was to use the staff to strike with, not just to gesture with. Besides, speaking to the rock was meant to inform the rock that this man who was standing before the rock addressed the rock in the name of its Creator Who had given him an order to extract water from it. Moses and Aaron fulfilled this part of the task as we know from when the Torah writes that they made the entire community assemble in front of the rock (verse 10) Furthermore, as far as the rock was concerned what is the difference in the quality of the miracle whether it responds to words or to physical impact with Moses’ staff? Why is the sin of Moses and Aaron described as a מעילה, a term usually reserved for someone who makes unauthorized private use of something belonging to the Temple treasury? Some say that Moses’ sin consisted in his expressing himself unclearly, due to his anger, so that when he said: ”can we extract water from the rock,?” at least some of the people thought that he had included G’d in this question, leaving doubt that even G’d could perform such a miracle. As a result G’d accused them of not sanctifying His name when having had an opportunity to do so. According to the commentators this is what the psalmist had in mind when he said in Psalms 106,33, כי המרו את רוחו ויבטא בשפתיו, “for they had provoked his spirit so that he spoke rashly.” From these words of the psalmist we see that Moses did not sin by hitting the rock but by not phrasing his words carefully enough. Other commentators see the sin not so much in what preceded the miracle of the water but in the failure of the people as well as Moses, who should have led the people singing a song of thanks to G’d for having provided such a miracle. This is the meaning of the words לא קדשתם אותי, “you have not sanctified Me.” Still other commentators see the sin in Moses and Aaron asking: “how can we produce water from this rock,?” i.e. the one the people had chosen, seeing it was not the one G’d had chosen. Moses had been afraid to deviate from the precise instructions he had, thereby missing an opportunity to demonstrate that G’d can provide water from any rock if He so chooses. Maimonides feels that the real sin of Moses was that he lost his composure and addressed people who were thirsty as “rebellious”. A man of Moses’ stature could not permit himself to so lose his composure that he publicly called his people by an insulting term. Such conduct amounted to a public desecration of the Holy name of Hashem, seeing that Moses was the man whose body language, mode of speech, not to mention his actions, etc., all the people were to use as a model for their own behaviour. The people had been hoping that by modeling themselves on their leader they would succeed in life on earth as well as in the hereafter. How could a display of anger possibly contribute to the esteem in which they held this man of G’d? Such displays of anger are presumed to be the sudden manifestation of some negative character trait within the person, something he had been able to conceal up until such time as he lost his “cool.” According to our tradition, the Israelites of that generation were extremely wise, and on a par with prophets, so that they would minutely examine and analyze each word Moses spoke, how he spoke it, how he conducted himself, etc., and draw far reaching conclusions from this. They therefore would mistakenly conclude that unless Moses had been aware that G’d Himself had been angry with the people for having demanded water he would not have allowed himself to reprimand them in the manner in which he did. Moses’ behaviour therefore contributed to the people being mistakenly made to feel that G’d had been angry with them when this had not been the case at all. He had therefore “shortchanged” G’d, another way of describing the sin of מעילה, fraudulent use of someone else’s property. Moses’ technical error had been to interpret the words: “take the staff and assemble the people,” as an instruction to use the staff to strike with. According to Maimonides there is not a single word in the paragraph that could lead us to believe that G’d had been angry with the people. Nachmanides challenges Maimonides’ explanation by pointing out that when punishing Moses and Aaron G’d had said specifically both in Numbers 20,24 and again in Numbers 27,14 that both Moses and Aaron had been guilty of מריתם פי, ”you rebelled against My word.” There was therefore more to Moses’ sin than presenting the people with an image that did not correspond to the facts. G’d also accused them of not having had sufficient faith in Him,לא האמנתם בי, which shows that their punishment had nothing to do with their having allowed themselves to become angry and to display their anger. If the anger had been the major misdemeanour, surely the Torah would have mentioned this directly. Moreover, when in Numbers 31,14 Moses displayed anger at the officers of the punitive campaign against Midian who had allowed women to survive, we do not hear that Moses was punished for that display of anger. Moses’ anger on that occasion had been quite unjustified. Furthermore, the Torah itself on this occasion never accused Moses of having been angry. Addressing the people and describing their conduct as rebellious, does not mean that he had lost his “cool” and was displaying anger. In his parting speech to the nation (Deut. 9,7 and 9,24) he repeatedly reminded the people that they had displayed rebellious tendencies throughout the years he had been their leader, and no one suggested that Moses deserved to be punished for using such language. Besides, we see nowhere that Aaron had displayed anger on this occasion, and yet his punishment is lumped together with that of his brother Moses. Besides, it is psychologically impossible that of all the many occasions when the people had behaved in a rebellious manner ever since the Exodus, this occasion was so severe that it alone should have produced in Moses an unforgivable burst of anger. How many times did the people accuse him of having taken them out of Egypt only to have to face death in the desert when they would not even be buried with dignity? The people had sinned against G’d again and again, and Moses had accused them later that he had been punished on account of their sin as G’d had been angry with him! (Compare Deut. 1,37) From all the above it follows that the people sinned, not Moses. When reading the words of Maimonides we do not find a single word of indictment against the people; he treats the subject as if Moses alone had been at fault in the episode. When Maimonides said that we do not find that G’d had been angry with the people in this episode at all, but that by way of contrast G’d reacted with complete calm saying to Moses: ’take the staff, etc., and provide them with water,’ the reason, as we should know by now, is that whenever the people asked for life’s necessities, even if they did not ask in an appropriate fashion, G’d in His great patience responded positively, instead of chastising them for a relatively minor offence, i.e. the “how” of their request. Usually, G’d reacted only after having supplied the people’s needs, such as naming the location in a manner that recalled the people’s misconduct, examples being מסה ומריבה, קברות התאוה, תבערה. The names were reminders of the people’s sins at that location. On the other hand, when the people voiced totally unjustified complaints, G’d did react with anger. In this instance the phrase וירא כבוד ה' אליהם, “Hashem’s glory manifested itself to them,” is an allusion to G’d’s displeasure, similar wording being associated with a pestilence following as a sign of G’d’s displeasure after the revolt of Korach or the episode with the spies. (Numbers 16,19, 17,7) The most serious difficulty with Maimonides’ interpretation is the specific verse in Psalms 106,32 ויקציפו על מי מריבה וירע למשה בעבורם, “They (the Jewish people) provoked wrath at the waters of Merivah, and Moses suffered on their account.” The psalmist lists that sin of the people as part of the long list enumerated in that chapter. The explanation most likely to meet all the various problems we encounter in the Torah’s description of this episode, is that of Rabbeinu Chananel who writes that Moses’ major error was the use of the pronoun “we” when asking המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים, “shall we produce water for you from this rock?” If Moses had said “shall He produce water for you?” he would not have created the impression that the power to produce water resided within him. When announcing the impending fall of the manna from heaven, (Exodus 16,8) Moses had announced the fact by crediting G’d with the phenomenon. When he failed to do so here, the people could have thought that he credited himself with the power to produce this water. [Aaron’s presence throughout, and his failure to remind Moses to speak to the rock although he had heard G’d’s instructions to Moses, made him guilty also. Ed.] A comparison with Exodus 17,5-7 shows that on that occasion G’d had announced that He would personally be on Moses’ side, directly above the rock, while Moses would strike the rock and water would come forth. The fact that on this occasion G’d did not indicate His personal involvement in the miracle, may have misled Moses into using language which could be misinterpreted. On the first occasion when the people still had the cloud of G’d traveling with them, the very position of that cloud indicated the Shechinah’s Presence. There had not been a promise this time that this cloud would, instead of resting above the Tabernacle, move to above the rock that would produce its waters. [This was not surprising, as on the first occasion there had not yet been a Tabernacle for the cloud to rest above. Ed.] In lieu of the cloud that showed that the water emerged as a miracle, this time, if the water had come forth from the rock only as a result of Moses addressing the rock, the miracle would have been manifest. By producing (apparently) the water as a result of striking the rock, Moses had missed an opportunity to sanctify the name of Hashem, a major sin of omission. Perhaps the criticism of Moses and Aaron as having מעלתם בי, “fraudulently abused something that is Mine,” refers to the fact that they made personal use of something that is G’d’s, seeing that the people now credited their water supply to Moses instead of to Hashem. The accusation מריתם פי, “you countermanded My order,” may have referred to the fact that neither Moses nor Aaron spoke to the rock as they had been told to do. Alternately, the meaning could be that G’d meant “seeing I did not tell you to speak the line: ‘shall we produce water for you from this rock,’ you in effect substituted your own words for Mine, an act of insubordination.” The meaning of the accusation לא האמנתם בי, “you did not have faith in Me,” is in the causative mode, i.e. your conduct is directly responsible for the fact that the people have less faith in Me.” It is also possible that the additional word להקדישני is meant to define the sin more narrowly not in the sense of the people losing some of their faith in Hashem, but in Moses and Aaron not having strengthened the people’s faith in Hashem, something which would have resulted from their carrying out their orders properly. According to the approach of our sages the fact that Moses had to strike the rock twice instead of only once, as on the previous occasion, resulted in a diminution of the people’s faith in Hashem.

These are the waters of contention, where the children of Israel contended before Hashem, and He was sanctified through them.

המה מי מריבה THESE ARE THE WATERS OF MERIBAH — These are they that were alluded to, though unwittingly, on another occasion: these it was that Pharaoh’s astrologers foresaw, saying that Israel’s deliverer would be punished through water. On that account they decreed (Exodus 1:22) “Every son that is born shall ye cast into the river” (Sanhedrin 101b). ויקדש בם AND HE WAS SANCTIFIED IN THEM — For Moses and Aaron died on account of them (cf. Targum Jonathan on). When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgement upon those who are holy to Him he is revered and sanctified by mankind. Similarly does it state, (Psalms 68:36) “Revered art Thou when Thou showest Thyself אלהים, Judge, in consequence of thy hallowed ones”; and similarly, too, does it state, (Leviticus 10:3) “Through those that draw near unto me shall I be sanctified” (see Rashi on that verse; Zevachim 115b).

AND HE WAS SANCTIFIED IN THEM — “in that Moses and Aaron died on account of them [i.e., the waters of Meribah]. When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon those who are holy [i.e., near] to Him, He becomes revered and sanctified in people’s eyes, as it is said, In them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified, and similarly it is stated, Revered is G-d ‘mimikdashecha’ (out of Thy holy places).” This is Rashi’s language, and it is also Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s interpretation. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for Moses and Aaron had not yet died and it was not commonly known amongst people that they were to die on account of this sin, so that G-d would become revered as a result of it, as happened with Nadab and Abihu, and at Perez-uzzah. Besides, Scripture states, These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal, and He was sanctified ‘by them,’ meaning to say that He was sanctified by those who did the striving [and not through the punishment of Moses and Aaron, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra said], this being related to the expression ‘In them’ that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified. And according to their explanation [i.e., that of Rashi and Ibn Ezra], it should have said, [These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal] “and He became honored in front of them” [the children of Israel].The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the incident with the first rock took place in the sight of the elders of Israel alone, as it is expressly stated there. But here [in Verse 10] it is said, And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together etc. Therefore Scripture states that these waters of Meribah [Strife] which brought about the Divine decree against Moses and Aaron [that they would not enter the Land], were the same waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal and He was sanctified in them in the presence of all of them, similar to that which is written, and I shall gather them out of their enemies’ lands, and will be sanctified in them in the sight of many nations. Know that at the first [incident with the rock] the people quarrelled with Moses — as it is said, And the people strove with Moses, and so also did Moses say, They are almost ready to stone me — and they [also] tried G-d, saying, Is the Eternal among us, or not? But here they strove with Him Who is on high, but they did riot test Him. Therefore [Scripture] says that these waters of Meribah [Strife] which were the cause of this decree [against Moses and Aaron] are the same waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove with the Eternal, and He was sanctified in them in their presence, and they were not the first [waters of the rock in Horeb], where they tried the Eternal, and He was sanctified only in the sight of the elders of Israel. And since there were two incidents with a rock, Scripture had to explain for which one [of these two events] the...

"And He was sanctified through them" — through Moses and Aaron, in keeping with the meaning of "through those who are near Me I will be sanctified."

ויקדש בם, by these very waters G’d did become sanctified later on in the incident which occurred at the river Arnon when He showed these people these unnatural waters as testified to by the Israelites in their song (21,19) ומנחליאל במות that these waters instead of flowing downwards in accordance with the laws of gravity, actually flowed uphill.

המה מי מריבה, they are the waters of strife, etc. Why did the Torah mention "strife" twice in this verse, first מי מריבה, and then אשר רבו בני ישראל? The first word מריבה could easily have been skipped. Furthermore, from the words אשר רבו בני ישראל את השם I gain the impression that the subject in the words are the children of Israel, whereas from the words ויקדש בם it appears that the subject of the verse are Moses and Aaron? It appears that our verse wanted to explain why in this instance G'd had been so adamant about the sanctification of His name. The Torah writes המה מי מריבה to tell us that the strife justifies G'd's being adamant. By repeating the words אשר רבו the Torah wished to tell us that in this instance the Israelites were justified to quarrel with G'd (as they were entitled to water). The words ויקדש בם mean that G'd responded by taking action in order that His name should be sanctified amongst them, i.e. through the Israelites. G'd did this by instructing Moses to speak to the rock which the Israelites suggested because if that rock would produce water His name would be greatly enhanced seeing that He had demonstrated complete control even in the desert, and that the desert did not need to be an area spawning nothing but death as the people had thought so far. Now that Moses and Aaron had prevented G'd from demonstrating all this, G'd had become very angry that the opportunity had been missed to sanctify His name. Other sages interpret the words ויקדש בם as a reference to Moses and Aaron. G'd's name was sanctified through the punishment of Moses and Aaron as G'd demonstrated that He does not allow even those closest to Him to ignore His instructions without being punished.

ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” The phenomenon that caused G-d to become sanctified here was the water that came forth from the rock. (Not in accordance with Rashi) As a result, the name of this place henceforth was Kadesh, a sanctified location.

המה מי מריבה, “They are the waters of strife, etc.” According to Tanchuma Chukat 11 this is proof that the location Kadesh was instrumental in G’d associating Moses’ punishment with water. We read in Genesis 14,7: “they turned around and came to the well of judgment which is Kadesh.” It was called thus as it had been predestined to serve as a place to sanctify the Lord’s name. ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them,” (Moses and Aaron). G’d’s characteristic is to make the punishment fit the crime. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had been the cause that G’d’s name was not sanctified there by them, it had to be sanctified through them. Just as G’d’s name was sanctified through exacting judgment from Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu through killing them, and the Torah describes this as an example of בקרובי אקדש, “I will be sanctified through those who are near Me,” (Leviticus 10,3) so He was sanctified here through the decree not to let Moses and Aaron go unpunished. Seeing the sin began through the Israelites, they were the cause that Moses and Aaron committed an unintentional trespass. Psalms 106,32 makes it plain that G’d was angry at Moses and Aaron on “their account,” i.e. on account of the Israelites. It was they who were the root cause of this tragic episode. The matter may be understood by means of a parable: There were two women both of whom were sentenced to corporal punishment by their king, one for unchaste behavior, the other for eating unripe figs of the shemittah year (a minor offense). The latter woman asked the King to make public the cause of her punishment so that people should not think that she was guilty of a serious crime such as that of her companion. Similarly, Moses himself asked G’d to make public the sin for which he had been condemned to die outside the Holy Land so that people would not speculate that he was guilty of a far greater sin than he had actually been punished for. Moses’ downfall was the indirect result of G’d’s anger with His people in first withholding water from them. Seeing that the tribe of Levi was not included in the decree issued against the people on account of the spies, Moses too would not have had to die in the desert had it not been for his error at the rock. Numbers 14,29 speaks of כל פקודיכם למספרכם, ”of all of you who were recorded in your various lists from the age of twenty and up, etc.” In other words, only the men of military age who would have had to form part of the invading armies were doomed to die in the desert, not the Levites who 1) were counted from one month and up, 2) would not have served in the army. The Levites had been counted as if they were a separate people.

המה מי מריבה, “they are the waters of strife;” in Parshat Pinchas (Numbers 27,14) we read about מי מריבת קדש “the waters of the strife at Kadesh,” the letter ה in the word מריבה being missing. This is a hint at 5 errors Moses had committed. 1) Instead of assembling עדה a congregation of elders, as G’;d had commanded, he had assembled the whole community, כל הקהל. This resulted in the manifestation of G’d’s glory not taking place as it had on the occasion of the rock near Chorev. On that occasion G’d had promised Moses to be personally manifest (Exodus 17,5-7) The reason why G’d did not manifest Himself this time was that He could not do so in the presence of people who were ritually impure due to seminal discharges by people who had not purified themselves first, As a result of this absence of a manifestation of G’d’s presence Moses and Aaron asked: “do you expect us to produce water from this rock?” 2) He struck the rock. 3) He called the people: “rebellious people.” 4) He struck the rock twice. 5) He asked: ”are we to produce water from this rock?” ויקדש בם, “He was sanctified through them.” According to Rashi Moses’ and Aaron’s death for their sin was a way of sanctifying G’d’s name as when people observe that G’d applies strict yardsticks of justice even to His chosen people this will make them more G’d-fearing. Concerning the above Nachmanides writes that he does not agree with this explanation seeing that the people had not yet witnessed the death of either Moses or Aaron. Neither had the decree of Moses and Aaron’s impending death been made public at this stage. When they would die eventually, it was not clear what sin had brought about their death. When Uzzah, who had sinfully steadied the Holy Ark, died on the spot, this was a death that induced fear of the Lord as it occurred immediately after the sin. (Compare Samuel II 6,8) The same held true when Nadav and Avihu, the two sons of Aaron who took unauthorized fire in their censers died on the spot. Such deaths contributed to increased fear of the Lord, and the expression ויקדש בם, that G’d’s name became sanctified by their deaths, is appropriate in such instances. [Compare the expression בקרובי אקדש as a similar expression, in Leviticus Ed.] Furthermore, seeing that the Torah wrote explicitly אשר רבו בני ישראל את ה' ויקדש בם, “where the Children of Israel quarreled with Hashem and He was sanctified by them,” we cannot make Moses and Aaron the subjects of this verse. In my opinion, we must understand the verse by comparing it to the first occasion when water from a rock was produced miraculously. On that occasion Moses had assembled only the elders, whereas on this occasion he had assembled all the people. The first time the miracle had been witnessed only by a small group of people, whereas this time the entire nation had witnessed it. It is therefore appropriate for the Torah to refer to these latter waters as the ones through which G’d had become sanctified as all the people had witnessed the miracle and had been impressed by what they had seen. We have a similar verse where G’d is described as having become sanctified as a result of the multitude having witnessed something. (Compare Ezekiel 39,27: וקבצתי אותם מארץ אויביהם ונקדשתי בהם לעיני הגוים, “when I have brought them back from the land of their enemies I will be sanctified in the presence of all the nations.”) You should realize that the confrontation the Torah speaks about began with the people quarreling with Moses, as the Torah wrote: וירב העם עם משה, and as it continues when Moses complained to G’d when he said: ”if they continue in this way they will stone me to death.” (Exodus 17,4) At that time they had sorely tested the patience of G’d when they said: “we want to see if G’d is indeed in our midst or not.” This time around they addressed their complaints also against G’d, but there was no נסיון, testing of G’d’s power or ability involved. This is why this time the waters are only referred to as מי מריבה, waters of strife, whereas the first time the waters were called מי מסה ומריבה, waters where a test of G’d and a quarrel had occurred. On the first occasion G’d had become sanctified only in the presence of the elders, whereas this time He had become sanctified before the eyes of all the people. Seeing that there had been two similar occurrences involving water coming out of a rock, it was necessary for the Torah to tell which of these events caused Moses’ premature death.

ויקדש בם, G’d’s name had still become sanctified by means of the water which came forth from the rock even though Moses and Aaron had not spoken to the rock.

And Moses sent messengers from Rekem to the king of Edom, saying thus: Your brother Israel says: You know all the hardship that has befallen us.

אחיך ישראל THY BROTHER ISRAEL — What reason had he to mention here their brotherhood? But in effect he said to him: We are brothers, sons of Abraham to whom it was said, (Genesis 15:13) “know for a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger [in a land not theirs]”, and upon both of us, being of Abraham’s seed, was the duty of paying that debt (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12). אתה ידעת את כל התלאה THOU KNOWEST ALL THE TRAVAIL — It was on this account that your father separated himself from our father, as it is said, (Genesis 36:6), "And he (Esau) went to another land on account of Jacob, his brother” — on account of the bond which devolved upon both of them, and he cast the whole of it upon Jacob (Genesis Rabbah 82:13; cf. Rashi on Genesis 36.7.2).

AND MOSES SENT MESSENGERS FROM KADESH UNTO THE KING OF EDOM. Scripture did not mention the king’s name, because there was no necessity to do so. It did, however, mention Sihon and Og, the kings of the Amorites, by name, because they were famous for their strength, and they had a name among the nations; [therefore it stresses] that we should give thanks to Him, blessed be He, for having dealt wondrously with us, as it is said, To Him that smote great kings; for His mercy endureth for ever … Sihon king of the Amorites; for His mercy endureth for ever. And Og king of Bashan; for His mercy endureth for ever. And it is customary for Scripture to mention the names of the great kings whose lands we inherited, just as it mentioned in [the Book of] Joshua the five kings of the Amorites: Adoni-zedek king of Jerusalem, and Hoham king of Hebron, and Piram king of Jarmuth, and Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon. [It mentioned also] Jabin king of Hazor, but the rest of the kings it mentioned only by number, not by name [because they were not famous for their strength]. Scripture states [here], And ‘Edom’ said unto him [and it does not say: “and ‘the king’ of Edom said”], because the whole people agreed with their ruler in his refusal [to allow the Israelites to pass through their land].

"Kadesh" — this is a place-name, a city; it is not Kadesh Barnea, for that one is in the wilderness — as the text states: "Hashem shook the wilderness of Kadesh." "The hardship" (הַתְּלָאָה) — I have already explained this word.

אחיך ישראל, אתה ידעת "your brother Israel; you are aware, etc." The reason that Moses underlined the brotherly connection between Edom and Israel was to remind Edom that the discomfort of travel Israel experienced now was not due to recent events but to their respective ancestor and that he considered both Israel and Edom as being involved in this equally. Abraham's descendants were supposed to experience exile according to Genesis 15. However, only the descendants of one of Isaac's sons had paid the price by being enslaved in Egypt. Esau and his descendants had not experienced any of that suffering. The least the Edomites could do now was to display some degree of brotherliness by allowing the Jewish people passage to their own heritage. Compare Bereshit Rabbah 82, on Genesis 36,8 where it is explained that the reason Esau emigrated was that he did not want to pay the debt Abraham had contracted for at the covenant between the pieces. אתה ידעת, these words were Moses' reminder to Edom that they had been well aware of the decree which was part of the above-mentioned covenant that Abraham's descendants were to be enslaved in a foreign country for an extended period. This was something that only the descendants of Esau knew about. All the other pagans had considered the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt as one of the many accidents of history, and had thought that if the family of Jacob had not voluntarily migrated to Egypt they would never have wound up as slaves. וירדו אבותנו, "our ancestors descended, etc." This was in addition to the exile they experienced in Egypt. We have to understand this in light of Shabbat 10 where we are told that a person should not show favoritism to one of his children over the others; had Jacob not spent five pieces of silver more to make a coloured coat for Joseph our ancestors might not have had to descend to Egypt and to have wound up in exile there." Tossaphot already question that statement saying that G'd had decreed this exile long before Joseph and his brothers had been born, going back to the covenant between the pieces in Genesis 15. They answer that but for Jacob's' open display of discrimination between his sons, the decree could have been fulfilled in some other country where it would not have been accompanied by nearly the same degree of cruelty that the Jews experienced in Egypt. The fact that the location where G'ds's decree came true was Egypt added untold suffering. This is why Moses described the migration to Egypt as a "descent," adding וירעו אותנו המצרים, how the Egyptians had mistreated the Jewish people Moses also conveyed to the Edomites by his lengthy explanantion that the Israelites had paid the debt arising from that covenant in full and that this was why they were now entitled to take possession of the land of Canaan. When Moses added the words ימים רבים, he meant that it had taken the people a long time to discharge their debt under that covenant in full.

וישלח משה מלאכים, “Moses dispatched messengers;” the Torah here explains in detail what Moses refers to in Deuteronomy at the beginning of chapter two there. Some details missing there have been supplied here, whereas others have been augmented there but omitted here.

מקדש אל מלך אדום, “from Kadesh to the king of Edom.” The Torah means the town Kadesh, as opposed to Kadesh-Barneya. The latter is not a town but a desert as we know from Psalms 28,8 יחיל ה' מדבר קדש, “the Lord convulses the wilderness of Kadesh.” I have already mentioned this previously כה אמר אחיך ישראל, “thus said your brother Israel, etc.” Moses referred to the time when Esau and Yaakov were brothers, described as the sons of Avraham. Seeing that in Genesis 15,13 G’d had told Avraham: “your descendants will be strangers, etc.,” it is clear that Esau too was included in that prediction. It had therefore been Esau’s fate to share this status of being strangers and being enslaved. אתה ידעת את כל התלאה אשר מצאתנו “You know of all the hardship that has befallen us” This is why Esau parted ways with his brother Jacob, so as to avoid sharing in the predicted difficulties. The least he could do to help his erstwhile brother complete his redemption was to allow the Israelites passage. Moses’ argument was that seeing that the Israelites, i.e. a single member of Avraham’s offspring had paid the whole price of the prediction at the covenant of the pieces, the least the Edomites could do was to let them pass through their land.

Thus said your brother Israel, etc. You know all the hardship, etc. For this hardship was meant to be shared by you, to pay the debt of your descendants will be strangers [in a land not theirs], but we endured all the hardship, even your portion. He hinted at this in the word “hatela’ah” [hardship], tav equaling 400, corresponding to the 400 [years] of exile, plus [the numerical equivalent of the remaining letters being] 40 for their wandering in the desert, and the [letter] alef is not counted. And just as you have no share in paying the debt, you also have no share in the land, because it is as if we purchased your portion from you. So it is fitting that you too give the purchase into our hands and help us come to the land quickly.

אל מלך אדום, “to the King of Edom.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah does not bother to tell us the name of that king, as in the case of the King of Moav, Balak, whom the Torah named, or the names of such kings as Sichon King of the Emorites, and Og, King of Bashan, is simply that there was no need for us to know his name. The King of Edom was not known for any outstanding qualities, such as bravery, successful conquest, etc. Those kings, whom the Israelites defeated with Hashem’s help, were named in the Israelites’ prayers of thanksgiving. It is the Torah’s, respectively the Book of Joshua’s, custom to mention by name the kings whose countries the Israelites conquered.

And our fathers went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt many days, and the Egyptians dealt harshly with us and with our fathers.

וירעו לנו AND [THE EGYPTIANS] DID EVIL TO US — we have borne many adversities. ולאבתינו [THEY DID EVIL TO US] AND TO OUR FATHERS — From here we may learn that the patriarchs grieve in their graves when punishment comes upon Israel (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

"Egypt dealt harshly with us and with our fathers" — those who had died. The meaning is that the long era of affliction has now ended.

ולאבותנו, “and to our forefathers,” this was a reference to the Israelites who, though enslaved in Egypt, had not lived long enough to experience the redemption. According to our sages in Tanchuma Chukat 12, the word is a direct reference to the patriarchs, all of whom are described as participating in the pain of the enslavement their offspring had endured in Egypt even in their graves.

And we prayed before Hashem, and He received our prayer and sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt; and behold, we are at Rekem, the city on the edge of your border.

וישמע קלנו HE HEARD OUR VOICE — through the blessing with which our father, Jacob, had blessed us — “the voice is Jacob’s voice” (Genesis 27:22), because whenever we cry we are answered (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח). מלאך A MESSENGER (or an angel) — This was Moses; from this we may learn that the prophets are termed “angel”; so, too, it says, (II Chronicles 36:16) “And they grieved the angels (מלאכי) of God” (Leviticus Rabbah 1:1).

"And He sent an angel" — according to its plain meaning; and so the text says "and the angel of His presence saved them." Many have interpreted this as referring to Moses, since they found the verse "Haggai, the angel of Hashem" — but this is not my view.

בקדש עיר גבולך, “at Kadesh, a town on the border of your Kingdom.” This was at the southeastern end of the land of Canaan.

וישמע את קולנו, “He listened to our voice (prayer).” This was a reference to the power of prayer i.e. הקול קול יעקב, “the voice is the voice of Yaakov,” bequeathed by Yitzchak to his son Yaakov (Genesis 27,22). וישלח מלאך, “He dispatched an angel, etc.” A supernatural being, not an emissary such as Moses (Ibn Ezra). This is based on Isaiah 63,9 ומלאך פניו הושיעם, “and the angel of His Presence delivered them.” It is also possible to see in the word מלאך a reference by Moses to himself (Rashi) as we find in Chagai 1,13: ויאמר חגי מלאך ה', “and Chagai, the Lord’s messenger said to the people.” In the eyes of the people Moses enjoyed the status of an angel in that he was so totally devoid of preoccupation with matters pertaining to the body. We have proof that this is how the people had viewed him as at the time when they thought he would not come back from Mount Sinai they said: “this man Moses who has taken us out of Egypt we do not know what happened to him.” Apparently, until Moses’ failure to return on time the thought that Moses could be an ordinary mortal had not occurred to them (compare Exodus 32,1). [As soon as Moses did return they clearly thought of him as an angel even more, seeing he went without food or drink for 40 days. Ed.].

Let us pass now through your land; we will not pass through field or vineyard, nor will we drink water from a cistern. On the king's highway we will travel; we will not turn to the right or to the left, until we have passed through your border.

נעברה נא בארצך LET US PASS, I PRAY THEE, THROUGH THY COUNTRY — You have no right to lay claim to the land of Israel as an inheritance, just the same as you have not paid the debt (see Rashi v. 14); render us therefore a little assistance by permitting us to pass through your land. ולא נשתה מי באר NEITHER WILL WE DRINK OF THE WATER OF THE SPRINGS — He should have said “water of the cisterns (בורות)”; but this was what Moses meant to say: Although we have manna to eat, and a well of which to drink, (that which followed them through the wilderness), we will not drink of it, but we will buy food and water from you to your advantage. From here we may learn a rule for a guest (one lodging in an inn): although he has in his possession something to eat, he should yet purchase something from the local tradesman in order to benefit his host (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12). דרך המלך נלך וגו׳ WE WILL KEEP TO THE KING’S HIGHWAY etc. — we will muzzle our cattle, and so they will not turn aside into the fields on this side or that to eat (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 12).

"Through field or vineyard" — so as not to cause damage; and even the water of your wells we will not drink. "The king's highway we will travel" — either this means the road along which the king travels, or it means the road that the king — namely the king of Edom — designates.

דרך המלך, the route which the king would command them to travel. It was an established custom that when foreign armies were given permission to traverse a neutral country’s territory that they were assigned a specific route for that purpose. Such armies would also be assigned a guide advising them of possible pitfalls en route.

ולא נשתה מי באר, “and we will not drink water from your wells.” Moses reassures the Edomites that the Israelites will not deprive them of water they had had to dig for, but would only drink from water which flowed in the streams coursing through their territory, water that would not be used by them anyways. These waters are not owned by anyone. דרך המלך נלך, “we will march along the king’s highway.” We will march along a route indicated by the King.

נעברה נא בארצך, “let us pass through your land.” This is a hint to Edom not to challenge Yaakov’s inheritance of the land of the Canaanites seeing the Edomites had not fulfilled the other half of the condition, i.e. to endure being strangers and being enslaved in a foreign land. לא נעבור בשדה או כרם, “we will not traverse field or vineyard.” We will not cause any damage. לא נשתה מי באר, “we will not drink water from wells.” According to the plain meaning this means that Moses undertook not to drink from sources of water belonging to the Edomites. According to Tanchuma Chukat 12, Moses made a more far-reaching promise saying that while on their march through the land of the Edomites the Israelites would not even drink from their own well. They would buy water from the Edomites instead. דרך המלך נלך, “we will only travel along the King’s highway.” This may mean that they would only make use of the road used by the King himself; or it could mean that they would only travel a route allocated to them by the King of Edom. עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have traversed the far side of your borders.” Moses did not say: “until we come to the land G’d has promised us, etc.,” although this is what he had in mind. He felt it was better not to mention that land altogether so as not to annoy the King who might reopen the subject of Yaakov having stolen Esau’s birthright. You will note that later on when Moses asks similar permission to pass through the land of Sichon, Moses was not shy to spell out his intention (Deut. 2,29).

“We will not drink water from the well,” is stated as an emphasis, because regarding cistern water it’s obvious that we wouldn’t drink, as there would be effort to refill them. But even well water, where the spring replenishes itself naturally — a situation where one benefits while the other does not lose — nevertheless, we will not drink from what is yours. And afterward, they added, I will pay for their food to benefit the host. Similarly, at first they said, We will go on the king’s road, which is the path that the king typically travels on. And he [Edom] responded, Lest I come out against you with the sword, meaning: Since the road is trodden for the king, if Esau encounters you, who should yield to whom? And [Israel] responded, We will go up by the highway.

נעברה נא בארצך, “please allow us to traverse your land.” If you will compare a similar request made by the Israelites in connection with Sichon, King of the Emorites, you will find that there was no: “please,” and “let us,” but that the Torah reports the formula אעברה, “I wish to cross.” The reason is that by using a formula Esau himself had used in Genesis 33,12, i.e. נסעה ונלכה, emphasizing that they had similar interests, had something in common, Moses hoped to secure the king’s consent. Moses reminded the King of Edom that basically the two peoples were related by blood, and should have common interests. עד אשר נעבור גבולך, “until we have completed crossing your territory.” Nachmanides points out that Moses made no mention of the Israelites’ purpose in all being to reach the land promised by Hashem to their forefathers and to settle in it. He did not want to give that king any cause for being jealous of the Jewish people by making reference to their future. He did not want to open an age-old rivalry between Yaakov and Esau and thereby to renew ancient animosities. The Edomites might have disputed the validity of their forefather Esau having sold his birthright to Yaakov. Seeing that no such considerations applied to Moses’ dealings with Sichon and Og, he did not conceal from them why the Israelites needed to cross their respective countries.

ולא נשתה מי באר, water from your wells. Water was very precious and hence expensive in that land. דרך המלך, the public highway, a road which may be traveled by everybody without restriction.

And the Edomite said to him: You shall not pass through my border, lest with those who kill by the sword I come out to meet you.

פן בחרב אצא לקראתך LEST I COME OUT AGAINST THEE WITH THE SWORD — You pride yourselves on the “voice” which your father bequeathed you as a blessing, saying, “And we cried unto the Lord and He heard our voice” (cf. Rashi on v. 16); I, therefore, will come out against you with that which my father bequeathed me when he said, (Genesis 27:40) “And by thy sword shalt thou live” (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח)

פן בחרב אצא לקראתך, most of the people of Edom were bloodthirsty people and did not need more than the slightest pretext in order to start a war.

לא תעבור בי, “do not trespass on anything that I own; even though the Israelites offered to pay the King of Edom a head tax for every Israelite who would use the King’s highway, a huge income for him, the King refused adamantly. He was afraid that the Israelites would use the opportunity to invade and conquer his Kingdom.

לא תעבור בי, “You will not pass through me!” He meant his country (political entity). The King referred to the direct route to the land of Canaan. Neither he nor his people made any attempt to hinder the progress of the Israelites when they straddled his country marching around it through the region known as Mount Seir. This is why Moses referred to this in a positive sense when he said in Deut. 2,29: “as did for me the sons of Esau who dwell in the Mountain of Seir.” When the Israelites asked permission from Sichon, King of the Emorites, to pass through his land they meant “in the same way as we passed through the land of Edom.” I will elaborate on this theme when we discuss that passage.

ויאמר אליו אדום, “Edom said to him, etc.” The Torah no longer adds the title “king” when speaking of Edom, indicating that the whole nation concurred with their King’s refusal to allow the Israelites passage through their country.

And the children of Israel said to him: On the paved road we will go up; and if we drink your water, I and my cattle, I will pay their price. Only let there be no evil matter — on foot I will pass through.

רק אין דבר lit., ONLY NO THING — i.e., nothing will do you any harm.

AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SAID UNTO HIM: ‘WE WILL GO UP BY THE HIGHWAY.’ At first they had said that they would come into the cities, but would take care not to enter fields and vineyards as armies [consisting of] many people are wont to do, in order to plunder the threshing-floors and to invade the vineyards. Instead, they [promised] to go along the king’s highway, which is a public thoroughfare, not a private road. Furthermore they said [at first] that they would not drink any of the water which they [the Edomites] have in their wells for their own needs. Afterwards the Israelites sent them a message [saying] that they would not [even] approach the cities at all, but they would go by the highway which leads up to the land of Canaan, which is a paved road traversed by all people, and if they or their animals drink [even] of the waters of the rivers on the way, whilst passing through the rivers, they would pay them for the benefit they derived from them. Therefore Moses said [here in Verse 19] there is no hurt, meaning that in [passing through their land] there would be no damage of any sort. Other scholars explain [that they meant to say] we shall not drink of the water of the wells unless we pay for it. But this is not correct, for [if so] why would he [Moses] propose to them again that which he [the king of Edom] had already refused at the beginning? [as explained in Verses 17-18]. The Midrashic interpretation is: “We shall not drink of the waters of [our own] well, but instead we will buy from you,” as Rashi wrote. Israel said to Edom, until we have passed thy border and they did not say to him [“and we will reach] the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us” [as they told Sihon king of Heshbon], in order that Edom should not be jealous of them [taking possession] of the Land, and [should not] claim that it would be theirs [the Edomites’], had not [Jacob] taken [Esau’s] birthright and blessing from him with guile. But to Sihon they did mention, until I shall pass over the Jordan into the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us, as Moses stated in the Book of Deuteronomy.

"We will go up by the highway" — what harm will come to you if we go up by the highway? And if we need water, sell it to us — and that is the meaning of "their price," meaning their monetary value.

במסלה נעלה, Moses argued that if they were to cross through towns and come into contact with the inhabitants there might be concern about possible friction, but it was their intention to cross the land in areas that were totally uninhabited so that there could not be a question of possible friction and war. רק אין דבר ברגלי, we have not even with us anything that could become the focus of a quarrel. אעבורה, seeing that your only concern is possible friction and you do not object basically to our traversing your territory we will proceed to cross it seeing that you have nothing to fear.

ויאמרו אליו במסילה נעלה, “they said to him: we will go up by the highway and we will pay for everything, etc.” they even offered to pay for water drunk from the rivers.

במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Originally, Moses had asked permission to travel through their cities, assuring them that they would not cause any damage. After being denied permission to traverse any urban areas of the country, Moses tried once more to obtain permission to travel on what was the equivalent of an international highway, away from urban areas, a highway used by different nationalities freely without the need to obtain special travel permits. According to Nachmanides the words אין דבר mean that no possible inconvenience or negative political fallout could be caused to the king by the Israelites taking such a route (for which they did not even need to ask permission). Only when the king refused this too and assumed a threatening posture did the Israelites accept his decision. ברגלי אעברה, “let me pass through on foot!” Clearly, the word ברגלי means “with my troops.” This expression at this point also enables us to understand the meaning of Zecharyah 14,4: ועמדו רגליו על הר הזיתים, “His legs stood on Mount Olives.” The word רגליו is a simile for “His Hosts.” All those like Onkelos who are careful not to translate anthropomorphic expressions literally will interpret the word in this vein. You might counter that there is no comparison as the armies of mortals march literally on their feet, something not applicable to G’d’s “armies.” The fact is that when we speak of celestial phenomena we apply the term רגלים “feet”, to the lowest part of the manifestation and the word ראש, head, to the highest part of such a manifestation. The word does not have to be understood literally as we do here in our terrestrial spheres. Seeing that the Creator is always the highest form of celestial manifestations it is clear that all manifestations of a lower level are automatically described as רגליו, as compared to the ראש, i.e. G’d Himself, they are like “feet.” Alternatively, we can understand the word רגליו in Zecharyah to refer to the results of G’d’s planning, something described as סבותיו, For instance, the words: ויברך ה' אותך לרגלי, (which Yaakov said to Lavan (Genesis 30,30) do not mean: “the Lord blessed you at my feet,” but “the Lord blessed you on my account.” I have already dealt with this whole problem in Genesis 6,6 on the words ויתעצב אל לבו, (the commentary of “the plain meaning”).

במסלה נעלה, “we shall go up on the highway.” Nachmandes writes that in the initial request Moses implied that the people would enter the cities and but they would be careful not to enter rural areas and cause ecological damage. They would thereby distinguish themselves favourably when compared to undisciplined hordes of men and beasts invading a country. Now he narrowed this down even further implying that they would not even consume any of the drinking water available in that country except that which was freely offered for sale. רק אין דבר, “nothing negative will happen (due to our passage).” Moses tried to calm the fears of the Edomites as best he could. Ibn Ezra writes that that the expression דרך המלך refers to the route taken by the king himself, and that just as the king does not veer to the right or to the left, neither would the Jewish people. Alternatively, Moses meant that whatever route the king would assign to them they would be willing to abide by.

And he said: You shall not pass through. And the Edomite came out to meet them with a great force and with a mighty hand.

וביד חזקה AND WITH A STRONG HAND — relying upon our ancestors’ assurance: (Genesis 27:22) “and the hands are the hands of Esau” (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 9 on בשלח)

ויצא אדום לקראתו, to face them at the border.

ויאמר לא תעבור, “the King said: “you must not cross (the boundary).” After confronting soldiers at the borders, the Israelites decided, in conformity with G-d’s command, not to violate Edom’s territory.

And the Edomite refused to allow Israel to pass through his border, and Israel turned away from him.

AND ISRAEL TURNED AWAY FROM HIM. Scripture here shortened [the account, omitting to say] that it was by word of the Almighty that they were commanded, Take ye good heed unto yourselves; contend not with them, as Moses explained to them. Thus they turned away from Edom by Divine command, since they could not do anything else because Edom did not let them pass through [his border].

ויט ישראל מעליו, “Israel turned away from him.” The Torah uses an abbreviated text, seeing that the Israelites desisted only because G’d had commanded them to desist and had forbidden them to provoke any confrontation wit the Edomites.

So Edomea would not suffer Israel to pass through his coast; and Israel turned away from him, because it was commanded from before the Word of the Heavens that they should not set battle in array against them, forasmuch as the time was not yet come when the punishment of Edom should be given into their hands.

And they journeyed from Rekem, and the children of Israel — the whole congregation — came to Hor the mountain.

כל העדה THE WHOLE CONGREGATION — all of them perfect, and destined to enter the promised land, for among them there was not even one of those upon whom it had been decreed that they should not enter the land, because those who were to die in the wilderness had already ceased to exist, and these belonged to those about whom it is written, (Deuteronomy 4:4) ‘[But ye who did cleave to the Lord your God] are all of you alive this day” (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14) הר ההר MOUNT HOR (more lit., the mount of the mount) — This was a mount on top of a mount, like a small apple on top of a large apple. — Although the cloud went before them and levelled the mountains (cf. Rashi on 10:34), yet three of them remained: Mount Sinai for the giving of the Torah, Mount Hor for Aaron’s burial place, and Mount Nebo for Moses’ burial place (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14).

The meaning of "the children of Israel, the whole congregation" — because Edom had come out to fight them, the text tells us that not a single man of the children of Israel was missing when they came from the city of Edom to Mount Hor.

כל העדה הר ההר, “the entire congregation, to Hor Hahar.” Even though the King of Edom had sent troops with an aggressive posture the Israelites did not incur a single casualty.

כל העדה, the entire congregation.” Seeing that we had been told that the King of Edom confronted the Israelites with all his military might, the Torah wanted to tell us that the people’s arrival at Hor Hahar found all of them intact. They had not suffered a single casualty. According to Tanchuma Chukat 14 the meaning of the word הר ההר is: “a small mountain atop a bigger mountain.” Aaron was buried in the part referred to by our text as הר. We derive this from the words: “Aaron died there at the top of the mountain.” Even though the cloud which traveled in front of the Israelites was in the habit of leveling all mountains and valleys, three mountains remained in the desert which the Israelites traversed. They are: Mount Sinai (in order to give the Torah to the people), Mount Hor Hahar as the burial place of Aaron, and Mount Nevo as burial site for Moses.

And Hashem said to Moses and to Aaron at Hor the mountain, on the border of the land of Edom, saying:

על גבול ארץ אדום BY THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND OF EDOM — This (the statement that Aaron died here) tells us that because they here wished to join themselves in close friendship with the wicked, a breach was made in their works and they had to lose this righteous man, Aaron. Similarly does the prophet say, (II Chronicles 20:37) “Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the Lord hath made a breach in thy works” (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 14).

ויאמר ה׳…על גבול ארץ אדום. G'd said to Moses…on the border of the land of Edom, etc. The reason the Torah described the location as the border of the land of Edom was to show that the proximity of the wicked Edomites contributed to Aaron's death at that time. I have found a somewhat puzzling statement in the Yalkut Shimoni on our verse (item 764). The Midrash accuses: "because you befriended yourself with the wicked," Aaron died as a result of the Israelites (or Moses and Aaron?) befriending Edom." Thus far the Yalkut. It is clear to me that this is a reference to the words על גבול. This also explains why the Torah added the word לאמר in our verse. G'd commanded Moses to tell the Israelites about this little detail, i.e. that because they made a point of befriending the wicked this contributed to the untimely death of the righteous. But for that incident Aaron might have lived a few months longer although death had been decreed for him previously. There may also be a moral/ethical dimension to our verse. We know from Shabbat 10 that Moses and Aaron will lead the Israelites to the Holy Land at the time of the resurrection as we explained earlier. The future redemption ushering in that idyllic era will be the redemption from the exile under the yoke of Edom, which symbolises the kingdom of Satan. The word גבול maybe a reference to the time when G'd puts an end to the rule of the kingdom of Satan and delivers it into the hands of Israel. Aaron's dying at this time and at the border of the kingdom of Edom, was to remind the Israelites of the glory in store for them in the distant future. This is why the Torah also mentioned that Aaron joined אל עמיו, "his people," something we would have assumed even if the Torah had not spelled it out. It is an allusion to the time "Aaron's people" would inherit the lands of Edom.

Aaron shall be gathered to his people, for he shall not enter the land that I have given to the children of Israel, because you rebelled against My Word at the waters of contention.

"Aaron shall be gathered" — like dying on the mountain; he is to prepare himself for death and ascend the mountain. "You rebelled" — I have already explained this. "At the waters of Meribah" — meaning either "at" (beit of place) the waters of Meribah, or "on account of" the waters of Meribah.

על אשר מריתם את פי, "because you rebelled against My word, etc." According to the words of the Midrash which I have quoted in connection with my commentary starting on verse 8, Moses had been instructed to teach the rock a chapter of the Torah as a result of which it would release its water. Moses and Aaron had failed to do so. In this instance, the Torah seems to blame Aaron for this and to justify his death now by his failure to sanctify G'd on this occasion. The reason is that when Moses failed to carry out G'd's instructions it was up to Aaron to rectify Moses' error. His failure to do so constituted an act of rebellion against G'd. Concerning the other 3 failures of Moses we described above in the name of the Midrash, Aaron was guilty of agreeing with Moses by not having objected or attempted to correct Moses. Whereas Moses alone was guilty of striking the rock, it was also only Moses who had refused to address the rock the Israelites had chosen. It was also only Moses who had called the Israelites rebellious and challenged them about producing water from a specific rock they had chosen. G'd told Moses in Deut. 32,48 to get ready to die on Mount Nevo, telling him that this was because he and Aaron had trespassed in connection with the water of strife (Deut. 32,51). According to the Midrash the Torah's reference in Deut. is to Moses' challenge to the Israelites: "shall we produce water for you from this rock?" In view of this why did G'd use the plural when He said על אשר מעלתם? If Aaron was not involved in that act why was he held responsible for words spoken by Moses? Granted that he shared responsibility in the matter of striking the rock, something which contravened Moses' and Aaron's joint שליחות, mission. However, how could Aaron have anticipated and therefore have prevented Moses from saying the words המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים? The answer is that G'd included Aaron in the collective responsibility for the failure of the mission because basically both he and Moses had erred jointly.

Take Aaron and Eleazar his son, and bring them up to Hor the mountain.

קח את אהרן TAKE AARON by consoling words — say to him: Happy art thou that thou wilt see thy crown being given to thy son, something to which I am not privileged (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17).

קח את אהרן, “take Aaron, etc.” The Torah employs the same term it had employed when Aaron was appointed as High Priest where G’d had also said to Moses: “take Aaron” (Leviticus 8,2).

And strip Aaron of his garments and clothe them upon Eleazar his son, and Aaron shall be gathered and shall die there.

את בגדיו [AND STRIP AARON OF] HIS GARMENTS — i.e., the garments of the high priesthood. — He clothed him in these and stripped them off him to place them on his son in his presence. He (Moses) said to him (Aaron), “Enter the cave”, and he entered. — He saw a bed already made (more lit., outspread, i.e., with its sheets, etc.) and a light burning. He said to him, “Ascend the bed”, and he ascended. — “Stretch out your hands”, and he stretched them out. — “Close your mouth”, and he closed it. — “Close your eyes”, and he closed them. At that moment Moses longed for that self-same death, and this is what was said to him (Deuteronomy 32:50), “[And die] … as Aaron thy brother died” — the death, for which you longed (Siphre on that verse).

AND STRIP AARON OF HIS GARMENTS. These are the garments [reserved only] for the High Priest, with which Eleazar his son was now appointed [High Priest in his stead]. It is likely that when Aaron came down from offering the Daily Whole-offering, and burnt the incense and kindled the lamps, Moses took him up to Mount Hor whilst he was still dressed in the garments of the [High] Priest, and [then] he stripped him of them. And according to the plain meaning of Scripture [the verse is to be interpreted: And strip Aaron of his garments in order to] put on him the shrouds of a dead man which he had prepared for him, and then he stripped Eleazar of his ordinary clothes and put the sacred garments upon him, as he did to him on the day of initiation. And according to the Midrashic interpretation of our Rabbis, various miracles occurred in connection with these garments. Thus they said: “How could Moses strip Aaron of his garments in their proper order? Are not the upper ones always on top, and the lower ones always underneath? But G-d did miraculous deeds for Aaron at the time of his death, even more so than during his lifetime. Thus Moses put Aaron upon the rock and stripped him of the priestly garments, and [alternative] celestial garments clothed themselves [upon him] underneath them. And he put them upon Eleazar his son. But how could Moses put the garments upon Eleazar in their proper order? [We must say that this was not natural], but that G-d bestowed a great honor upon Aaron at the time of his death, even more so than during his lifetime, in that celestial garments first [miraculously] clothed themselves underneath [the other garments], and then Moses stripped Aaron of the priestly garments in their proper order, and [also] put them on Eleazar in their proper order.” So it is taught in the Torath Kohanim.

"And strip" (וְהַפְשֵׁט) and "and you shall clothe them upon him" (וְהִלְבַּשְׁתָּם) — these are two hifil (causative) verb forms. The meaning of "and Aaron shall be gathered" is that at the very moment you strip the garments from him, he will immediately die. "And Aaron was gathered to his people" — I have already explained this.

והפשט אהרן את בגדיו, the garments that were exclusively those of a High Priest, i.e. those in addition to the garments worn by the ordinary priest. והלבשתם את אלעזר, who was already wearing the standard four garments which every priest wore. As a result, Aaron would remain wearing the basic four garments worn by every priest. It is precisely these four garments which he would wear any time he had occasion to enter the Holy of Holies, so that he in no way was deprived of status by not wearing the garments which were meant only for his image among his peers, not for his image when facing G’d. In fact, basically, what he remained with were the kind of garments angels appear in when they appear to human beings.

והפשט את אהרן את בגדיו, "and strip Aaron of his garments." The fact that the Torah wrote the word את twice, both in connection with Aaron and in connection with his garments suggests that there were two separate "strippings." We might have thought that the garments that Aaron was to be stripped of were the priestly garments, not his personal clothing. This is why the Torah also had to write: "strip Aaron" to indicate that he was to be stripped also of his personal garments. It was only concerning the priestly garments that the Torah continued: והלבשתם את אלעזר בנו, "and put them on his son Eleazar. Had the Torah merely written והפשט אהרן את בגדיו, I would not have had the extra word את from which I could have deduced the proper meaning of the verse. On the other hand, if the Torah had only written והפשט אהרן בגדיו (without either word את), I would have simply understood that Aaron was to be stripped naked, and the words את בגדיו would have become meaningless. We may also interpret these words slightly differently. The words הפשט את אהרן refer only to his personal clothing. The Torah added the words את בגדיו to teach us that he would immediately be robed in different garments. This is what the Yalkut Shimoni on our verse had in mind when the author wrote: "While Aaron was being undressed he was immediately enveloped by the clouds of glory." As a result, Aaron was never in a state of undress even while Moses undressed him as parts of the clouds of glory enveloped any part of his body from which Moses removed his clothing.

ואהרן יאסף, “and Aaron will die (be gathered in to his forefathers). In verse 24 it stated this specifically. At that point we had not been told where Aaron would die. This information is being supplied in our verse.

והפשט את אהרן, “and disrobe Aaron;” the reference is to the removal of his priestly garments, the ones that were worn in addition to the four garments worn by ordinary priests. These garments were to be worn henceforth by Eleazar. According to the plain meaning of the text, Aaron was to exchange the normal garments for a shroud, a garment he already had at the ready. Eleazar stripped off his ordinary garments and exchanged them for the garments befitting a priest as he had done on the day he had been anointed as a priest.

And Moses did as Hashem had commanded, and they went up to Hor the mountain in the sight of the whole congregation.

ויעש משה AND MOSES DID [AS THE LORD COMMANDED] — Although this thing was hard for him he did not delay to do so (Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17).

And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and clothed them upon Eleazar his son, and Aaron died there on the summit of the mountain. And Moses and Eleazar came down from the mountain.

ויפשט משה את אהרון את בגדיו, “Moses stripped Aaron’s garments from him;” he removed the garments he wore in his capacity of High Priest and gave them to Eleazar his son in his presence. At this point Moses took back what he had given Aaron, i.e. the clothes, as we know from Leviticus 8,7, and G’d took back what He had given Aaron, i.e. his soul. Moses instructed Aaron to enter a cave in that mountain and Aaron entered it. He saw that a bed stood all prepared with fresh linen and that a light was burning beside it. Moses told Aaron to lie on the bed and Aaron complied. He then told him to stretch out his hands and Aaron did so. He told him to close his mouth and Aaron did so. He then told Aaron to close his eyes. Aaron complied. At that point Moses became desirous of dying in the same manner that he observed his brother dying. This is the meaning of G’d saying to him in Deut. 32,3: “just like your brother Aaron died,” i.e. the kind of death you wished for yourself. The sages in Torat Kohanim (96,130) explain that some miraculous events took place with Aaron’s priestly garments. Under normal circumstances outer garments remain outer garments and underwear remains underwear. Moses undressed Aaron in the same order in which he had originally dressed him (compare similarities in the wording here and in Leviticus 8,7) in a miraculous manner to show G-d's honor of Aaron in death even more than during his lifetime. The location where Aaron was buried, i.e. on a mountain facing south, near the boundary of Edom was especially suitable for him as he represented the “right” attribute, [חסד, an emanation on the right side of the diagram, Ed.] i.e. “south.” It was equally appropriate for Miriam to have been buried at Kadesh, a location midway between south and north. Moses’ grave on Mount Nevo was situated between Kadesh and Hor Hahar so that from Moses’ grave (if its exact location were known) one could have easily reached either one of the other two graves. This is the reason that Mount Nevo is also known as הר העברים, “the mountain of passage”, i.e. it was open for passage in either direction. The reason that the three were not buried in the same location was to make their grave site fit their dominating attributes. An additional reason was to enable their graves to serve as some kind of protection for the Jewish people and to afford them some atonement for the sins which had been committed nearby. [Compare all this in Zohar Chukat, Sulam edition page 23. Ed.]. According to Tanchuma Chukat 14 the reason why the paragraph dealing with the death of Aaron was written adjoining that of the refusal of the king of Edom to allow the Israelites passage reflects a criticism by the Torah of the attempt made by Moses to establish friendly relations with this wicked King by obtaining his permission to rub shoulders with his people on their way through his land. As a result, the Jewish people lost one of their leaders, i.e. Aaron. The Midrash quotes Chronicles II 20,37 “as you have made partnership with Achazziah (King Jehoshaphat of Yehudah) the Lord will break up your work,” as support for its view. וימת אהרן שם בראש ההר, “Aaron died there at the top of the mountain.” We have a tradition that three people died by the divine “kiss”: Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. In connection with Aaron and Moses the Torah spells this out when it wrote that they died על פי ה', literally: “by the mouth of the Lord.” In connection with Miriam this is not spelled out, (seeing she was female, and the Lord is perceived as male) it would not be appropriate to write this explicitly). It is somewhat puzzling that in our verse the Torah does not write the words על פי ה' in connection with Aaron’s death although in Numbers 33,38 we do find this expression in connection with Aaron’s death. Presumably, the Torah did not want to write it in our paragraph as this paragraph had dealt with the sin causing his death; it would have sounded almost like a reward for his sin if the Torah had described his death as a kiss from G’d so shortly after reporting his fatal error. Seeing the Torah had omitted this vital detail of Aaron’s death at this point, it was necessary to make mention of it in 33,38.

And the whole congregation saw that Aaron had died, and all the house of Israel wept for Aaron thirty days.

ויראו כל העדה AND ALL THE CONGREGATION SAW [THAT AARON HAD DIED] — When they saw Moses and Eleazar descending and that Aaron was not descending with them, they said, “Where, then, is Aaron?” — He replied to them, “He is dead!” They thereupon said, “Is it possible that a man who stood up against the Angel and stayed the plague, — that over him the Angel of Death should have power?!” — Moses at once offered prayer and the ministering angels showed him (Aaron) to them lying upon the bier. They saw and believed (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 17). כל בית ישראל [THEY WEPT FOR AARON …] EVEN ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL — all: both men and women, because Aaron used to pursue peace and promoted love between contending parties, and between man and wife (cf. The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan 12). כי גוע THAT (or because) HE HAD DIED — I say that he who translates these words in the Targum (i.e., anyone who holds that this is the correct rendering) by דהא מית, “because he had died”, is in error unless he also translates in the Targum the word ויראו by ואתחזיאו “they were seen (exposed)”, for our Rabbis stated that this word כי is used here in the sense of “because” only in accordance with a Midrash which relates that the clouds of glory which hitherto enveloped Israel disappeared at Aaron's death, (so that all the congregation were now exposed to the sight of their enemies), and in accordance with what R. Abuhu said (Rosh Hashanah 3a), “Read here not וַיִּרְאוּ but וַיֵּרָאוּ, “they were seen”. It is to this sense of the verb that the meaning of “because” is applicable to the word כי, since that gives the reason for what precedes it: Why were they seen? Because, behold, Aaron had died, and the clouds disappeared. But to the translation in the Targum, וחזו כל כנשתא (“and all the congregation saw”), the meaning of “because” (for the word כי) is not applicable, but only the meaning אשר, “that”, which is one of the usages of the word אי (the Aramaic equivalent of אם, which itself is one of the four classifications of the usage of כי; see ibid). For we find אם used in the sense of אשר “that”, as e.g., (Job 21:4) “so that (ואם) why should I not be impatient?” And many passages where אם occurs may be explained in this sense, as (Job 14:5), “that (אם) his days are determined”.

"And the whole congregation saw" — when they saw what had happened they wept for thirty days. The word "dying" (גְּוִיעָה) — I have already explained it.

ויראו כל העדה, “the entire congregation saw, etc.” since this verse cannot be understood literally, the Jerusalem Targum renders it as meaning that when the people witnessed Moses and Elazar returning without Aaron, they drew the appropriate conclusions, [especially, seeing that Elazar wore the garments of the High Priest, as described in verse 28. Ed.] They observed Moses having ash on his head and having rent his garments, calling out to Elazar, “woe for my brother Aaron!”An alternate interpretation: we find that the expression ראיה, “seeing” is also used to describe “knowing,” i.e. seeing with one’s mental eye. Prominent examples are: Genesis 40,16, where the chief of the bakers is described as “seeing” that Joseph had properly explained the dream of the chief of the cup bearers. Another example of the root: ראה describing “understanding,” rather than seeing with one’s eyes, is found in Genesis 42,1 where our patriarch Yaakov is credited with seeing that there was grain for sale in far off Egypt, i.e. וירא יעקב כי יש שבר במצרים, “Yaakov “saw” that there was trading in grain going on in Egypt.” The author cites more examples.

ויבכו את אהרן שלשים יום כל בית ישראל, “the entire house of Israel wept for the passing of Aaron for thirty days.” The expression בית ישראל includes men and women. When the Torah reports the mourning of Moses the word בית is absent, as the Torah writes ויבכו בני ישראל את משה, “the Children of Israel wept for the passing of Moses in the fields of Moav for thirty days” (Deut. 34,8). The difference was that Aaron, in his capacity of striving always to restore harmonious relations between people patched up many marriages. This is why men and women alike wept for his passing (compare Rashi).