<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT CHUKAT - Mei Meriva</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ask most anyone:<BR> * What was
Moshe Rabeinu's 'sin' at Mei Meriva?<BR>
They will answer: He hit the rock instead of talking to it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * What was his
punishment?<BR> They will answer: He was not
allowed to enter Eretz Yisrael.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * Does this punishment seem
fair?<BR> They'll say: No, but God must be
extra strict with tzadikim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though there is
nothing 'wrong' about any of the<BR>above answers, they certainly 'oversimplify'
a very complex<BR>topic.<BR> In this week's shiur, as we
carefully analyze the story<BR>of Mei Meriva, we will see how and why there are
many other<BR>ways to understand both Moshe's 'sin' and his 'punishment'.<BR>In
Part One, we undertake a careful textual analysis to<BR>explain why there are so
many different opinions. In Part Two,<BR>we re-examine this entire topic from a
'wider angle' to show<BR>how Moshe may not have sinned after all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> Rashi's
explanation - that Moshe is punished for hitting<BR>the rock instead of talking
to it - is definitely the most<BR>popular explanation of Moshe's sin.
However, just about every<BR>other commentator disagrees and offers a different
reason<BR>instead. For example:<BR> * IBN EZRA
-<BR> claims that he hit the rock TWICE,
instead of once;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * RAMBAM
-<BR> argues that Moshe 'lost his temper'
and spoke harshly;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> * RAMBAN - (quoting Rabeinu
Chananel)<BR> explains that Moshe was not careful in his speech, for
he<BR> said: "can WE get water from this rock?" instead of
saying:<BR> "can GOD get water from this rock?".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In fact, Abrabanel
(commenting on Devarim 1:37)<BR>summarizes some TEN different opinions; and
proves why each<BR>one is incorrect.<BR> There is a very
simple reason why we find such a variety<BR>of opinion. Even though the
Torah tells us WHY Moshe and<BR>Aharon were punished, we are never told WHAT
they did wrong.<BR>To appreciate this distinction, let's carefully note how
the<BR>Torah informs us of their punishment:<BR>
"...because you did not 'believe' in Me ["lo he'emantem<BR>bi"] to sanctify Me
in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael, therefore you<BR>will not lead Bnei Yisrael into
the land...." (see 20:12)<BR> [Note that this is a very
difficult pasuk to translate.<BR> (Note as well that just
about every English translation<BR> translates this pasuk in a
different manner.]<BR> <BR> Clearly,
this pasuk implies that Moshe & Aharon did<BR>something wrong, but it
doesn't tell us precisely WHAT that<BR>was. Nevertheless, because this
pasuk forms the conclusion of<BR>the Mei Meriva story, we can safely assume that
somewhere<BR>within that incident there must be a flaw in their
behavior.<BR>Therefore, all the commentators scrutinize the psukim
that<BR>describe that event, in search for some action that would<BR>warrant
this punishment.<BR> To appreciate their various
conclusions, let's begin by<BR>doing exactly what they did, i.e. let's carefully
study those<BR>psukim that immediately precede the punishment - Bamidbar
20:7-<BR>11.<BR> This is very important methodological point. Our
assumption<BR>is that the variety of conclusions stems from the analysis
of<BR>these psukim by each commentator [="parshanut"], and not from<BR>a
variance in passed down traditions [="mesora"] from<BR>generation to generation
since the time of Chumash. This<BR>assumption not only explains why there
are so many different<BR>opinions, it also explains why each new generation
continues<BR>to study Chumash in search of additional
possible<BR>explanations.<BR> <BR>THE FIVE
COMMANDMENTS!<BR> As you review 20:7-11, note how 20:7-8
describes God's<BR>command to Moshe and Aharon; while 20:9-11 describes
its<BR>fulfillment.<BR> Therefore, it should be quite
simple to figure out what<BR>they did wrong. We simply need to compare
what God had<BR>commanded - to what Moshe actually did! Let's begin
with<BR>God's instructions to Moshe, noting how they contains
several<BR>explicit commands:<BR> "And God spoke to Moshe saying: TAKE the
staff, and GATHER<BR> the congregation together, you and Aharon your
brother, and<BR> SPEAK to the rock before their eyes that it should
give<BR> water, and TAKE OUT for them water from the rock, and
GIVE<BR> DRINK to the people and their animals." (20:7-8)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Review these psukim one
more time, paying attention to<BR>the FIVE commands that Moshe (and Aharon) must
execute:<BR> (1) TAKE the
staff;<BR> (2) GATHER the
congregation;<BR> (3) SPEAK to the rock... and it will
give water;<BR> (4) TAKE OUT for them water from the
rock;<BR> (5) GIVE DRINK to the people.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note how each of these
five commands contains an active<BR>verb, and hence requires that Moshe take a
specific action.<BR>[In other words, Moshe must (1) TAKE the staff, (2) GATHER
the<BR>people, and (3) SPEAK to the rock, etc.]<BR>
However, there appears to be a contradiction between the<BR>third and the fourth
command (concerning how the water would<BR>be taken out of the
rock).<BR> According to command #3, Moshe should speak
to the rock,<BR>whereupon it should immediately start giving its water.
But<BR>the next command (#4) is for Moshe to 'take water out of the<BR>rock'
(without explaining HOW he should do it). But if by<BR>SPEAKING to the
rock (3) the rock will already be giving its<BR>water, how can Moshe fulfill
command (4) to TAKE OUT water<BR>from the rock? The rock is already giving its
water - so what<BR>would command (4) entail?<BR> As we
continue our analysis, keep this question in mind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS<BR>
The next step of our analysis will help us understand the<BR>underlying reason
for the various opinions. We begin our<BR>analysis (of 20:9-11) to see how
Moshe fulfilled (or didn't<BR>fulfill) each of these five
commands.<BR> We will compare each command to its
execution in search<BR>of any slight variance that could be considered a lack
of<BR>"emunah" that would warrant such a severe punishment
(as<BR>described in 20:12).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMAND #1 - "TAKE the staff"; (20:8)<BR>MOSHE'S
EXECUTION:<BR> "And Moshe TOOK the staff from before the Lord, as God
had<BR> commanded him..." (20:9)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Nothing seems to be wrong
here, after all the pasuk<BR>itself testifies: "as God commanded him".
Certainly, this<BR>could not be a sin. [Later in the shiur we will
return to<BR>this pasuk.]<BR>====</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMAND #2 - GATHER the "eydah" (congregation)...
(20:8)<BR>MOSHE'S EXECUTION:<BR> "And Moshe and Aharon GATHERED the
"kahal" (congregation)<BR> people together in front of the rock..."
(20:10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Here again, nothing
appears to have been done wrong.<BR>[There is slight discrepancy between "kehal"
and "eydah", but<BR>these two words in Chumash are usually synonymous. [It
should<BR>be noted that Malbim disagrees.]<BR>=====</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMAND #3 - SPEAK to the rock that it should give
water...<BR>MOSHE'S EXECUTION:<BR> "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e.
to the people): Listen<BR> here you rebellious people, is it possible that
WE can take<BR> water from this rock?" (20:10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Here we finally find our
first major problem. Even<BR>though God had instructed Moshe to
speak TO the rock- so that<BR>it would give water; instead Moshe speaks to the
PEOPLE -<BR>ABOUT the rock (that it would give water)! Therefore, most
of<BR>the commentators [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, Rashbam] will find<BR>fault with
some aspect of Moshe's behavior in this pasuk<BR>(which will be discussed
below).<BR>====</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMAND #4 - TAKE OUT for them water from the
rock... (20:8)<BR>MOSHE'S EXECUTION:<BR> "... and Moshe lifted his hand
and HIT the rock with his<BR> staff TWO times, then much water came
out..." (20:11)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though RASHI claims
that this is Moshe's primary<BR>transgression [for he hit the rock INSTEAD of
'talking' to<BR>it], based on this careful comparison it becomes clear
why<BR>other commentators disagree. After all, God commanded him
to<BR>'take out water', but didn't tell him HOW to accomplish this.<BR>It seems
as though Moshe understood that he was supposed to<BR>use his staff to do so (as
he had done forty years earlier).<BR> Furthermore, God had commanded him
to 'take his staff' (i.e.<BR>command #1) -if he wasn't supposed to hit the rock,
why was he<BR>commanded to take his staff? Ibn Ezra advances this
argument,<BR>and concludes instead that Moshe erred by hitting the rock<BR>TWICE
instead of once.<BR>======</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>COMMAND #5 - Give drink to the people and their
animals.<BR>(20:8)<BR>MOSHE'S EXECUTION:<BR> "...and the
people and their animals drank. (20:11)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Clearly, Moshe does nothing wrong in this final
stage. After<BR>all, we surely don't expect Moshe to 'pour drinks'
for<BR>everyone; rather he fulfills this command by allowing the<BR>people to
gather the water for their needs.<BR>=====</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This analysis shows that
the primary problem in Moshe's<BR>behavior lies somewhere between his execution
of commands 3 &<BR>4. Let's return to our discussion of command
#3. Recall how<BR>God had instructed Moshe:<BR> "SPEAK to the rock
and [or that] it should [or will] give<BR>
water..."<BR>
[Note the two possible translations.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Considering that we never
find that Moshe actually talked<BR>to the rock (and based on the above parallel
comparison), we<BR>must conclude that the following phrase is Moshe's
execution<BR>of this command:<BR> "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to
the people): Listen<BR> here you rebellious people, is it possible that we
can take<BR> water from this rock?" (20:10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> At first glance, it even
appears as though there may have<BR>been a small 'misunderstanding'. As we
explained above, even<BR>though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO the rock,
instead<BR>Moshe speaks to the people ABOUT the rock. At this
point,<BR>there are three different approaches that one can follow:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>a) Moshe indeed misunderstood what God
wanted.<BR> Hence his transgression would fall under the category
of<BR> "shogeg" - an unintentional sin / see Rashbam.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>b) Moshe understood God's command; but acted
differently.<BR> In other words, he acted defiantly [="mayzid" -
an<BR> intentional transgression]. This leads Rashi to his<BR>
conclusion that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to<BR>
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>c) Moshe acted properly (in this regard), and
understood God's<BR>command.<BR> In other words,
speaking to the people about the rock was<BR> precisely what God
commanded. As Ramban explains, in the<BR> phrase "v'dbartem EL ha'sela" -
the word "el" should be<BR> understood as "odot" (about). God
commands Moshe to speak to<BR> the people ABOUT the rock THAT it should
give water; and that<BR> is exactly what Moshe does!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though this third
possibility (that this was indeed<BR>God's intention) may seem a bit
'stretched', it definitely can<BR>be supported from the next commandment: "And
you shall TAKE<BR>OUT water for them from the rock" (see 20:8). As we
pointed<BR>out earlier, this fourth command implies that Moshe must now<BR>do
something to 'take out' water from the rock.<BR>
Therefore, it is possible that hitting the rock was<BR>exactly what God expected
Moshe to do. After all, this is<BR>exactly how God had instructed him to take
water from the<BR>'rock at Chorev' many years earlier (see Shmot
17:6).<BR>Furthermore, once Moshe understands that 'speak TO the rock'<BR>means
'speak ABOUT the rock' then obviously "take out water"<BR>must imply to take a
certain action to extract the water -<BR>i.e. to hit the rock! Certainly, it
would be no less of a<BR>miracle now than it was forty years
earlier!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Because of these
considerations, all of the commentators<BR>(except Rashi) must search elsewhere
for a flaw in Moshe's<BR>behavior. For example, Rambam and Ramban take
issue with how<BR>Moshe's words his rebuke:<BR> "...And he [Moshe] said to
them: Listen here you rebellious<BR> people, is it possible that WE can
take water from this<BR> rock?" (20:10)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Rambam takes issue with
the TONE of this rebuke, while<BR>Ramban takes issue with its
CONTENT.<BR> RAMBAM claims that the tone of Moshe's
statement -<BR>"listen you rebels..." - reflects an unnecessary anger
which<BR>caused a "chillul Hashem" (a desecration of God's Name). [See<BR>Rambam
in "shmoneh perakim", or simply see its quote by Ramban<BR>in his pirush to
20:7.]<BR> RAMBAN claims that Moshe caused a "chilul
Hashem" by<BR>saying 'we' in their rhetorical question - "is it possible<BR>that
WE can take out water from this rock". This 'careless'<BR>statement may
have caused the people to conclude that it was<BR>Moshe and Aharon (and not God)
who cause the water to come out<BR>from the
rock.<BR> [See Ramban 20:7
in name of Rabeinu Chananel.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Nonetheless, it remains
possible to understand that<BR>Moshe's rebuke in this pausk was entirely in
order. This<BR>leads Ibn Ezra to find fault in the next
stage:<BR> "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the
rock with his<BR>staff TWO times, then much water came out..."
(20:11)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> After refuting all of the
other opinions, Ibn Ezra finds<BR>Moshe's flaw in the fact that he hit the rock
TWICE instead of<BR>only once. [It seems that according to Ibn Ezra, this
reason<BR>'wins by default'. Note that Ramban (towards the end of
his<BR>commentary) also supports this opinion - to a certain
extent.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Thus, by careful comparing
Moshe's execution of each of<BR>God's commands, we are able to find the
underlying reason for<BR>the opinions of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Rashbam,
Ramban, etc.<BR> Nonetheless, no matter how we explain
WHAT Moshe's sin<BR>was, a more fundamental question remains - i.e. WHY was
his<BR>punishment so severe?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR>PART TWO -- DID MOSHE DO ANYTHING 'WRONG' ?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> From the above analysis, a very interesting
possibility<BR>arises. If we combine all of the reasons advanced by
each<BR>commentator to reject the other interpretations - we could<BR>conclude
that Moshe did nothing wrong at all!<BR> [See the commentaries of Ibn
Ezra, Ramban, and Abrabanel on<BR> this sugya. Each of them present very
convincing arguments<BR> why all of the other opinions are wrong.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In fact, Abrabanel himself raises this
possibility, then<BR>he advances his own opinion (based on Devarim 1:37) that
Moshe<BR>& Aharon are really being punished for earlier sins - Moshe<BR>for
"chet ha'mergalim" and Aharon for "chet ha'egel". Mei<BR>Meriva, he explains,
serves as a kind of 'cover-up' to<BR>differentiate between Moshe & Aharon's
punishment, and the<BR>punishment of the nation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Nonetheless, his interpretation remains difficult
because<BR>the text states explicitly that Moshe is punished because of<BR>the
events that took place at MEI MERIVA! [See not only here<BR>in 20:12-13, but
also in 20:24, 27:14 and Devarim 32:51.]<BR>Therefore, we should be quite
reluctant to look for the<BR>PRIMARY reason
elsewhere.<BR> But, where else can we look to find
Moshe's sin? On the<BR>one hand, it must be related to the events of Mei
Meriva, but<BR>when we examined those psukim, it was very hard to pinpoint
a<BR>'sin'; and certainly not a sin severe enough to deserve such a<BR>harsh
punishment.<BR> To answer this question, we must first
take a closer look<BR>at precisely WHAT their punishment was.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>CRIME & PUNISHMENT<BR> It is commonly
understood that Moshe and Aharon's<BR>punishment is that they are forbidden from
ENTERING the land<BR>of Israel. However, this popular assumption is not
precise.<BR>Let's take a look once again how the Chumash explains
their<BR>punishment:<BR> "And God told Moshe... because
you did not trust Me<BR>enough to sanctify Me... therefore you shall NOT LEAD
THIS<BR>NATION into the LAND which I promised them... " (20:12)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Note, that God doesn't say that they cannot enter
the<BR>Land; rather they cannot LEAD the people into the Land. In<BR>other
words, Moshe and Aharon are not being punished as<BR>INDIVIDUALS, rather as
NATIONAL LEADERS. As such, their 'sin'<BR>must relate in some manner to a
flaw in their leadership<BR>traits.<BR> In fact, the
very pasuk that explains their punishment<BR>already hints to a flaw in
leadership:<BR> "...BECAUSE you did not trust in Me enough TO SANCTIFY ME
in<BR> the eyes of Bnei Yisrael... (20:12)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> God's statement implies that He had expected Moshe
and<BR>Aharon to take the rebellion at Mei Meriva and somehow create<BR>from it
a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification of God's Name.<BR>Therefore, to find that
'sin', we must examine the Mei Meriva<BR>once again, in search of leadership
crisis. But this time, we<BR>must begin by studying those events from
their onset.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>LET'S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING<BR> Recall that
the Mei Meriva incident began when Bnei<BR>Yisrael encountered a terrible water
shortage immediately upon<BR>their arrival at Midbar Tzin. Let's begin our
study by taking<BR>a closer look at how the Torah described that
crisis:<BR> "And Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar Tzin...
but there was<BR>not enough water for the people, and they gathered
against<BR>Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe saying: It would
had<BR>been better had we died with our brethren "lifnei Hashem"<BR>[before
God]... So - why did you bring us to this desert to<BR>die?...and why did
you take us out of Egypt to bring us to<BR>this terrible place... - there are no
fruits here and there is<BR>no water to drink." (see
20:1-5)<BR> Not only did Bnei Yisrael ask for water,
they expressed<BR>their total disgust with the entire process of
Yetziat<BR>Mitzraim. Even though they direct these harsh complaints
to<BR>Moshe and Aharon, they can be understood no less as a<BR>complaint against
God; questioning not only His ability to<BR>save them, but also the very purpose
of their special<BR>relationship.<BR> How should Moshe
and Aharon respond to these blasphemous<BR>complaints? Should they not
argue by defending God? Should<BR>they not encourage the people to remain
faithful?<BR> Instead, Chumash describes what appears to
be a rather<BR>'pathetic' reaction:<BR> "And Moshe and Aharon came to the
Ohel Moed [in fear] from<BR> the congregation, and they fell on their
faces..." (20:6)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> One could suggest that already at this stage a
leadership<BR>crisis has unfolded. To clarify this point, let's
compare<BR>this event to the parallel incident that took place when
Bnei<BR>Yisrael complained for water at Refidim many years earlier<BR>(see Shmot
17:1-7). Note Moshe's immediate response (at that<BR>time) to an almost
identical complaint:<BR> "mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem"
-Why are you<BR> arguing with me, why are you TESTING God? (see
17:2)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> At Refidim, Moshe immediately challenged the
people -<BR>reprimanding them how their complaint reflected a lack of<BR>faith
in God. Afterward, when the people continued to<BR>complain, Moshe cries out to
God, begging for a solution (see<BR>17:4).<BR> In
contrast, at "Mei Meriva" Moshe's reaction is quite<BR>different. Instead of
confronting these almost identical<BR>complaints, Moshe & Aharon immediately
'run away' to the Ohel<BR>Moed and 'fall on their faces' (20:6). [Even if this
means<BR>that they prayed - is this a time for prayer? Compare with<BR>Shmot
14:15 and its context!]<BR> Was 'running away' the
proper reaction? Should they not<BR>have assured the people that God will indeed
take care of<BR>their needs. Should they not have challenged the
people's<BR>irreverent statement that "it would have been better had
they<BR>remained in Egypt"?<BR> One could suggest that
already at this early stage in the<BR>narrative - Moshe & Aharon have
already 'failed' as national<BR>leaders, for they do not SANCTIFY God's name
when the<BR>opportunity arose. In fact, this may be precisely what God
is<BR>referring to when He states: "because you did not trust Me<BR>enough to
sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei Yisrael..." (20:12).<BR>
Even though God immediately gives Moshe & Aharon specific<BR>instructions on
how to deal with the situation, it is already<BR>too late. As soon is the
incident is over, even though Moshe &<BR>Aharon may have properly fulfilled
all of God's instructions<BR>when hitting the rock, God informs them that their
days as the<BR>nation's leaders are numbered. Before Bnei Yisrael will
begin<BR>their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be necessary to<BR>appoint new
leadership.<BR> [Note that later in Sefer Devarim when Moshe begs that he
be<BR> allowed see the land (3:23-26), he does not ask to LEAD,<BR>
only to ENTER and see for himself.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> However, if this interpretation is correct, why do
we<BR>need the story of 'hitting the rock' (20:7-11) in between? Let<BR>the
Torah first inform us of Moshe's punishment, and then let<BR>God provide water
for the people.<BR> To answer this question, and to
understand this entire<BR>incident in its wider perspective, we must turn back a
few<BR>pages to a related event in Parshat Korach.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>WHOSE STAFF IS IT?<BR> To our surprise, the key to
understanding this<BR>complicated sugya lies in its connection to Parshat
Korach! To<BR>appreciate that connection, let's pay careful attention to
how<BR>the narrative continues (after Moshe & Aharon run away to the<BR>Ohel
Moed):<BR> "And God spoke to Moshe saying: "kach et ha'mateh" -
take<BR> THE STAFF and gather the people..." (see 20:8)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> It is commonly assumed that Moshe is instructed to
takes<BR>his own staff, i.e. the very same staff with which he brought<BR>the
plagues; split the sea; and brought forth water from the<BR>rock at Chorev;
etc.<BR> However, it cannot be Moshe's own staff, for
the pasuk<BR>states explicitly:<BR> "And Moshe took the staff - M'LIFNEI
HASHEM - from before<BR> God, as God had commanded him..." (20:9)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In Chumash, "lifnei Hashem" usually refers to in
front of<BR>the ARON, i.e. the ark of the covenant located in the
holiest<BR>domain of the Mishkan (see Shmot 29:11,42;30:8; etc.).
Surely,<BR>Moshe would not keep his staff "lifnei Hashem"! [The
"kodesh<BR>kedoshim" is not his personal closet!]<BR> [Note that God
commands Moshe -"kach et HA'mateh" - THE<BR> staff, not -"matecha" - YOUR
staff. Compare with Shmot<BR> 14:16, 17:5.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> If it is not his own staff that Moshe must take,
then<BR>what staff is it? Is there someone else who keeps his staff in<BR>the
"kodesh ha'kedoshim"?!<BR> The answer, as Rashbam and
Chizkuni so beautifully<BR>explain (see their commentaries to 20:8), is quite
simple - it<BR>is AHARON's special staff!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Recall from Parshat Korach that God had commanded
Moshe<BR>to conduct a test between the staffs of each of the tribal<BR>leaders
(see 17:16-24) - to establish that the tribe of Levi<BR>is indeed chosen.
Carefully note God's command to Moshe after<BR>Aharon's staff wins that
test:<BR> "... return the STAFF OF AHARON - "lifnei ha'eydut" -
[in<BR> front of the 'tablets of testimony', i.e. the ARON ] for<BR>
safe keeping, in order that it be a SIGN FOR ANY REBELLIOUS<BR> GROUP ["ot
l'bnei meri"]- so that they will stop complaining<BR> and not die..."
(17:25-26)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In other words, God tells Moshe - NEXT TIME that
Bnei<BR>Yisrael complain or rebel, take out Aharon's staff from the<BR>Ohel Moed
and REMIND them of what happened to
Korach's<BR>rebellion.<BR> And sure enough - the next
complaint in Chumash is the<BR>incident at Mei
Meriva!<BR> This not only explains Rashbam's pirush, but
it also<BR>neatly explains why the Torah (in 20:9) must inform us that<BR>Moshe
takes specifically the staff "m'lifnei Hashem" - from<BR>before God. Moshe
doesn't take his own staff - he takes the<BR>staff of AHARON that was kept
"lifnei Hashem" - for it was set<BR>aside for specifically for this
purpose.<BR> In other words, in 20:8 God instructs Moshe
to do exactly<BR>what Moshe should have done on his
own!<BR> This also beautifully explains why Moshe
prefaces his<BR>rebuke with: "shimu na ha'MORIM" [listen o' you
rebellious<BR>ones /see 20:10]. Considering that God had instructed Moshe
to<BR>take the "mateh Aharon" which was set aside for an "ot l'bnei<BR>MERI", it
is only appropriate that he would rebuke the people<BR>by saying: "shimu na
ha'MORIM"! [See Chizkuni on 20:10, note<BR>also that "meri" & "morim"
are derived from the same shoresh.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In a similar manner, the Torah's use of the word
GAVANU<BR>in both these parshiot provides additional (textual) support<BR>for
this interpretation. Recall how the complaints at Mei<BR>Meriva first
began:<BR> "And the people quarrelled with Moshe saying: 'loo
GAVANU<BR> B'GVA acheinu...' - if only we had perished with our<BR>
brothers" (20:3)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This complaint echoes the cry of Bnei Yisrael in
the<BR>aftermath of Korach's rebellion (immediately after Aharon's<BR>staff is
set aside/ see 17:25-27):<BR> "And Bnei Yisrael said to Moshe: 'heyn
GAVANU avadnu' - lo,<BR> we perish, we are lost... anyone who comes close
to the<BR> Mishkan will die, alas we are doomed to perish..."
(17:27-<BR> 28) [Compare also 20:4-5 with 16:13-14.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>MAKING NO MISTAKES<BR> Once we explain that Moshe
was commanded to take MATEH<BR>AHARON - almost every following action that he
takes makes<BR>perfect sense. Let's explain why:<BR> As
we explained earlier, because MATEH AHARON is an "ot<BR>l'bnei meri", it is only
logical that Moshe understands "speak<BR>to the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock"
and therefore begins<BR>his rebuke with "SHIMU NA
HA'MORIM".<BR> Then, Moshe's next statement: "Can we
take water from<BR>this rock?" can be explained as precisely what God
commanded<BR>him to do: i.e. to speak about (or at) the rock -
"v'natan<BR>meimav" - THAT IT SHOULD give water. In other words,
God<BR>instructs Moshe is to challenge the people's belief, to ask<BR>them - is
it possible for a rock to give water? - And that's<BR>exactly what he
does!<BR> This also explains why Moshe hit the rock.
Once he<BR>understands that "speak TO the rock" means "speak ABOUT the<BR>rock",
then God's next instruction: "v'hotzeita" [you shall<BR>TAKE OUT water] must
imply that Moshe himself must cause the<BR>water to come out. How? Exactly as he
did forty years earlier<BR>by the rock in Chorev, using his OWN mateh (not
Aharon's /<BR>read 20:11 carefully -"matey'hu").<BR> [This implies that
there were actually TWO staffs at Mei<BR> Meriva: (1) The staff of Aharon
- was taken by Moshe and<BR> most probably given to Aharon to hold up in
front of the<BR> people during this entire event. And (2)- the staff of
Moshe<BR> - which he himself used to hit the rock to bring forth<BR>
water.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The only detail that remains to be explained is
why Moshe<BR>hit the rock twice (see Ibn Ezra'). However, as Ramban
asks,<BR>could it be that hitting the rock twice instead of once makes<BR>the
miracle any less impressive? Furthermore, God did not tell<BR>Moshe to hit the
rock ONCE or TWICE! He just commanded him to<BR>'take out water'. Certainly,
Moshe should have the leeway to<BR>hit the rock as many times as he feels
necessary.<BR> [Even at Chorev, it never mentions how many times Moshe
hit<BR> the rock. And even if this action was incorrect, could
this<BR> slight 'transgression' warrant such a severe punishment?]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This explanation of "mateh AHARON" only
strengthens our<BR>claim that Moshe indeed followed God's instructions properly
-<BR>but he and Aharon are punished for not sanctifying God's Name<BR>earlier -
when Bnei Yisrael FIRST complained at Mei Meriva.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> With this background, it becomes easier to
understand why<BR>their punishment relates to this leadership crisis.
Failure<BR>in leadership is not necessarily because the leader does<BR>something
'wrong', nor is it a sin. Leadership, as its name<BR>implies, must LEAD the
people - i.e. it must do something<BR>right, it must take an
initiative.<BR> As individuals, Moshe & Aharon never
'sinned' at Mei<BR>Meriva, but as leaders they failed. Therefore, God
reaches<BR>the conclusion that they will not be able to succeed should<BR>they
be the leaders who will take Bnei Yisrael into the<BR>Promised Land.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>BELIEVING or SUPPORTING<BR> Based on this
interpretation, we can suggest an alternate<BR>understanding of the word
"EMUNAH" (used in the pasuk which<BR>explains the reason for their
punishment):<BR> "ya'an lo he'EMANTEM BI" - because you did not have FAITH
IN<BR> ME in the EYES of Bnei Yisrael" (see 20:12).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The word "emunah" in this pasuk may not refer to
belief<BR>in God in the theological sense. Surely, Moshe and Aharon<BR>'believe'
in God. However, they were not 'supportive' enough<BR>of God in the eyes of the
people. The Hebrew word "emunah"<BR>stems from the shoresh aleph.mem.nun which
means to support or<BR>sustain.<BR>[For example, in Shmot 17:12 - "v'haya yadav
emunah..." in the<BR>war against Amalek, when Aharon & Chur support Moshe's
arm, or<BR>in Megilat Esther (2:7) -"va'yehi OMEYN et Hadassah..." -
i.e.<BR>Mordechei supported (or adopted) Esther, or "omnot ha'bayit"<BR>the
pillars supporting the Beit Ha'Mikdash (II Melachim<BR>18:16), or the word
"amen", which confirms or supports a<BR>bracha or statement made by others,
etc.] .</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In hindsight, the reason for Moshe's 'punishment'
may<BR>even be quite logical. Considering the many difficulties that<BR>will
face Bnei Yisrael once they begin conquest of the Land,<BR>it is only inevitable
that many more rebellious situations<BR>such as these will arise. Leadership,
which can deal with such<BR>complaints, is essential.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>THE FINAL STRAW<BR> Had this been the only incident
where Moshe & Aharon's<BR>leadership faltered, their punishment may not have
been so<BR>harsh. However, this problem of leadership had already<BR>surfaced
numerous times in Sefer Bamidbar. In fact it could<BR>almost be considered its
secondary theme. Recall, that from<BR>the time Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai,
almost every event<BR>which Chumash records reflects this pattern of
faltering<BR>leadership:<BR> * At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe
himself claims that he can<BR>longer lead the people
(11:11-15).<BR> * Later, even Miriam, Moshe's own sister,
complains about<BR>his leadership (12:1-3).<BR> * When the
"meraglim" return, Moshe and Aharon fall on<BR>their faces (14:5); Kalev and
Yehoshua take leadership<BR>positions.<BR> * In the rebellion
of Korach (chapter 16), again Moshe and<BR>Aharon's leadership is challenged,
again they fall on their<BR>faces (16:4,22).<BR> [This approach also
explains why later in Sefer Devarim,<BR> Moshe claims that it was because
of "chet ha'meraglim" that<BR> he could not enter the land (see Devarim
1:37).]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> As we have explained, surely as individuals, Moshe
and<BR>Aharon are "tzadikim"; they do nothing 'wrong'. However, as<BR>happens
over and over again in Sefer Bamidbar, their<BR>leadership fails. At Mei Meriva,
possibly a personal example<BR>of patience, stamina, confidence, and calm rebuke
may have<BR>able to create the necessary "kiddush Hashem"; but this did<BR>not
happen.<BR> Can we be critical of Moshe and Aharon for
their<BR>behavior? Should we consider their actions as sinful?
Not<BR>necessarily! This leadership crisis does not have to be<BR>considered a
question of 'good or bad' behavior. Rather, it<BR>could be considered a tragedy
- a problem of compatibility.<BR> As we explained in our
shiur on Parshat Shlach, already<BR>when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai,
there we signs of a<BR>lack of compatibility between Moshe Rabeinu and Bnei
Yisrael.<BR>After all, Moshe had spent months on Har Sinai with the<BR>SHCHINA,
and was no longer capable of dealing with complaints<BR>concerning mundane
manners. [Note also Shmot 34:35. See also<BR>commentary of the Sfat Emet
on the Mei Meriva incident.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> To meet the challenges of taking Am Yisrael into
the<BR>Promised Land, new leadership was essential. Not necessarily<BR>because
Moshe and Aharon did anything 'wrong', rather because<BR>Am Yisrael were not
worthy of their leadership.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>=======================<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN<BR>A. One could even go one
step further and suggest that Moshe,<BR>even before God's command, should have
taken MATEH AHARON and<BR>shown it to the people and rebuked them. If so, then
God's<BR>first command to Moshe - "kach et ha'mateh" may simply be a<BR>reminder
to Moshe of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE on his own (as<BR>he was instructed in
Parshat Korach)! This could explain<BR>"ka'asher tzivahu" in 20:9. It may imply:
as God commanded him<BR>- not just now, but earlier - in PARSHAT KORACH!]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>B. Later in the Parsha, a similar situation where the people<BR>need water,
arises at "B'ey'rah" (21:16-18). There Moshe<BR>gathers the people together, God
provides water, and the<BR>people respond with a song of praise! This shows that
given<BR>the proper circumstances, such a situation can result in a<BR>"kiddush
Hashem". Moshe may have learned his lesson, however,<BR>by then it is already
too late for God to change His<BR>decision.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>C. REASONS OR INDICATORS<BR> Our interpretation in
the shiur (part two) does not<BR>necessarily have to conflict with the various
opinions raised<BR>by the "rishonim" which we discussed in Part One. One
could<BR>suggest that each of those reasons can be understood as<BR>INDICATORS
of this faltering leadership, not just REASONS for<BR>Moshe's punishment. For
example, Moshe and Aharon's use of a<BR>harsh tone; their quick anger; their
lack of patience hitting<BR>the rock twice instead of once; their running away
to the Ohel<BR>Moed, etc. All of these opinions point to the same
general<BR>problem of leadership.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>D. According to our explanation above, the most difficult<BR>pasuk to
explain is 20:24, in relation to Aharon's death at<BR>Hor
haHar:<BR> "... al asher m'ritem et pi, lmei
m'riva"<BR>"meri" implies more than not doing something right, it seems<BR>as
though something of a rebellious nature was done.<BR>1. Explain why this pasuk
led many commentators to explain the<BR>sin as hitting the rock instead of
speaking to it.<BR>2. How else can one explain this pasuk?<BR>3. Explain the
"lamed" in "l'mei mriva".<BR>4. Read Devarim 32:51. What does "m'altem"
mean?<BR> ( What is
"me'ilah", in general)?<BR> Relate this pasuk to
Bamidbar 20:24 and 20:12-13, and<BR> use it to explain
your answer to 1 & 2 above.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>E. See the Netziv's pirush in Emek Davar to Bamidbar 20:8-11.<BR>Note how
he insists that the mateh is Moshe's mateh, and hence<BR>he must explain that
"ka'asher tzivayhu" - is that God had<BR>sometime earlier commanded Moshe to
take his "mateh" and put<BR>it next to the Aron. He also solves the
problem of the<BR>contradiction between command 3 and 4 by explaining that
God<BR>gave Moshe TWO options for bringing water: 1) speak to the<BR>people that
they should pray for water, and it that didn't<BR>work, as a back up - he could
alternately hit the rock, and<BR>that would also bring forth water. Even
though our shiur has<BR>followed a very different approach, it is interesting to
note<BR>the originality of the Netziv's approach, and how he deals<BR>with many
of the questions that we raised in the above
shiur.<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>