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 IbnEzra 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.

-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.

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?

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.]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.