The Sin of Moses: The Two Ways to Communicate

Advertisements
Advertisements
July 5, 2022

5 min read

FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintFriendlyShare

Chukat (Numbers 19:1-22:1 )

Bamidbar, 20: 9-13: “Moshe took the staff from before Hashem, as He had commanded him. Moshe and Aaron gathered the congregation before the rock and he said to them, ‘Listen now, rebels, shall we bring forth water for you from this rock? Then Moshe raised his arm and struck the rock with his staff twice; abundant water came forth and the assembly and their animals drank. Hashem said to Moshe and to Aaron, ‘because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this congregation to the Land that I have given them. They are the waters of strife, where the Children of Israel contended with Hashem, and He was sanctified through them.”
Rashi, Bamidbar, 19:12, Dh: Lehakdisheini: “Because if you had spoken to the rock and brought out water, I would have been sanctified in front of the congregation, and they would say, just like this rock that does not speak and does not hear, and does not need a livelihood, fulfils the word of the Makom (God), all the more so us.”

One of the most enigmatic incidents in the entire Torah is the sin of Moshe Rabbeinu at Mei Merivah (the waters of Meriva). The most difficult aspect of this sin is that it is not at all apparent what exactly it was. Consequently, there are numerous, disparate explanations of what exactly happened and what Moshe did wrong.1 A number of commentaries follow the approach of Rashi2: He understands that Moshe’s sin was the fact that he did not speak to the rock as God commanded, rather he struck the rock. God had wanted the people to see that even an inanimate rock listens to God’s word, and all the more so, should human beings, but when Moshe struck the rock, this lesson was lost.3

A number of commentaries focus on the difference between striking and speaking: The Mei Marom4 offers an interesting approach. In his words:5

“We invest heavily in our link to the past – to our forebears, and to the events in their lives. That is a very good thing. Except when it isn’t. Had Moshe understood the exact prescription for connecting to what came before, he would not have struck the rock. Want to get someone to act according to a higher consciousness than they usually do? Generally, you have two options. You can speak convincingly, so that they come to internalize the value that you promote. All of the resistance to a higher truth melts away when you demonstrate to them the majesty and splendor contained in their own souls. Alternatively, you can speak reprovingly, from a position of authority. If you choose the latter, your audience accepts the reproach sufficiently to refrain from some dastardly deed – but their spiritual consciousness remains where it was before.”

God wanted Moshe to see that the Jewish people had the potential to reach the higher consciousness through communication and therefore, God instructed Moshe that he should speak to the rock, alluding to this form of communication. However, Moshe did not believe that the people were not at this level, and could not attain this level. Accordingly, he chose the more forceful approach of hitting the rock.

However, a question remains on Rashi’s explanation of Mei Merivah that the key mistake was hitting the rock as opposed to speaking to it. Many years earlier, soon after the Jewish people left Egypt, God did indeed command Moshe to hit the rock. Accordingly, why was hitting the rock at Mei Merivah so problematic?

The Yalkut Shimoni6 addresses this question. Its answer is based on an important principle: When a child is young, one needs to be more forceful in teaching them the correct way to act, because he is too young to understand rational explanations, and he won’t rebel.7 However, when he grows up, he won’t respond well to force, rather he needs to be spoken to and given reasons for what he is being asked to do. In this vein, the Yalkut explains that when the Jews left Egypt they were equivalent to children in terms of their level of Emunah and spiritual level, and so the more forceful approach was appropriate. However, after forty years in the desert, they had ‘grown up’ so to speak, and were comparable to an older child who needs speech.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein applies this idea to guiding one’s community and parenting. He says that sometimes a leader or educator needs to speak to people who seem unreceptive to what we have to say. Likewise, in parenting, sometimes it is necessary to speak again and again to our children even if they don’t immediately seem to accept the message. This is in contrast to the ‘easier’ approach of forcing them to do something. This may work when they are young, but does not work when they grow older and need things to be explained to them, rather than blindly following rules. Indeed, forcing at the wrong time is normally counter-productive in the long-term as it breeds resentment, and as soon as the child is old enough, he will break free. In this vein, Mei Merivah teaches that using the ‘striking’ approach when one should use the ‘speaking’ approach is counter-productive.

May we all merit to internalize the lessons of Rashi’s explanation of Mei Merivah.

  1. See Abarbanel for a summary of many of the opinions.
  2. There are a number of questions posed by the Ramban on Rashi – they will not be addressed here.
  3. See Ayelet HaShachar, ibid for questions on this aspect of Rashi.
  4. Written by Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap.
  5. Adapted and translated by Rabbi Yitzchak Adlerstein.
  6. Yalkut Shimoni, Chukas, 20.
  7. Of course, even forcing a child to do something should not be done in the wrong way.
Click here to comment on this article
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EXPLORE
LEARN
MORE
Explore
Learn
Resources
Next Steps
About
Donate
Menu
Languages
Menu
oo
Social
.