Moses Strikes the Rock: His Sin Depends on Your Worldview

Commentators read the Bible closely to make sense of problematic passages. Nevertheless, their explanations are rarely purely textual, but reflect their own ideologies. A parade example is determining the precise sin of Moses and Aaron at the waters of Meribah—a sin that resulted in YHWH barring them from entering the Promised Land.

Setting the Scene: Water from the Rock

When the Israelites in the wilderness complain that they lack water and wish that they had died along with their brethren, Moses and Aaron consult with YHWH, who says to them:

^{במדבר כ:ח} קַח אֶת הַמַּטֶּה וְהַקְהֵל אֶת הָעֵדָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְנָתַן מֵימָיו וְהוֹצֵאתָ לָהֶם מַיִם מִן הַסֶּלַע וְהִשְׁקִיתָ אֶת הָעֵדָה וְאֶת בְּעִירָם.

^{Num 20:8} “You and your brother Aaron take the rod and assemble the community, and before their very eyes order the rock to yield its water. Thus you shall produce water for them from the rock and provide drink for the congregation and their beasts.”^[1]

Moses then heads over to the rock, ostensibly to fulfill YHWH’s command:

^{במדבר כ:ט} וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה מִלִּפְנֵי יְ־הוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ. ^כ:י וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶת הַקָּהָל אֶל פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם. ^כ:יא וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת יָדוֹ וַיַּךְ אֶת הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם וַיֵּצְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים וַתֵּשְׁתְּ הָעֵדָה וּבְעִירָם.

^{Num 20:9} Moses took the rod from before YHWH, as He had commanded him. ^20:10 Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock; and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” ^20:11 And Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod. Out came copious water, and the community and their beasts drank.

At first glance, it seems like a miraculous and successful ending to the story, but YHWH turns out to be furious:

^{במדבר כ:יב} וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן יַעַן לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָכֵן לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָהֶם.

^{Num 20:12} YHWH said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My Sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.”

What did Moses and Aaron do that displayed a lack of trust in YHWH that resulted in a failure to publicly affirm YHWH’s sanctity? And why did they merit such a harsh punishment?

Rashi: Weakening the Miracle

The most famous explanation regarding how Moses deviated from God’s command is by Rashi (R. Shlomo Yitzhaki, ca. 1040–ca. 1105), who argues that by lessening the greatness of the miracle by actively hitting the rock instead of speaking to it, Moses and Aaron failed to strengthen the commitment of the Israelites to obey God’s commands:

^{רש"י במדבר כ:יב} "להקדישני"—שאילו דברתם אל הסלע והוציא הייתי מקודש לעיני העדה, ואומרים: "מה סלע זה שאינו מדבר ושומע ואינו צריך לפרנסה מקיים דברו של מקום, קל וחומר אנו."

^{Rashi Num 20:12} “To affirm My Sanctity”—If you had spoken to the rock, and it brought forth [water] – My Sanctity would have been affirmed in the eyes of the Congregation. They would have said: “This rock which does not speak and hear, nor does it require sustenance, still fulfills the words of God [lit., the Place], all the more so is the case by us.”

In Rashi’s view, miracles are necessary to ensure the faith of the people in God and devotion to the divine Law. The greater the miracle, the greater the faith it instills in its beholders. Hence it was important that Moses and Aaron fulfill the divine command to the letter, thereby producing a more wondrous miracle. By not doing so, Moses and Aaron proved themselves unworthy of being the leaders who will bring Israel to its final destination.

Maimonides: Miracles Do Not Strengthen Faith; It was Unjustified Anger

In contrast to Rashi, R. Moses Maimonides (ca. 1135–1204), the greatest of the medieval Jewish philosophers, did not view miracles as the desirable way to strengthen faith in God. As he famously declares:

^{משנה תורה, ספר מדע, הלכות יסודי התורה ח:א} משה רבנו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני האותות שעשה שהמאמין על פי האותות יש בלבו דפי שאפשר שיעשה האות בלאט וכשוף.

^{Mishneh Torah, Mada “Laws of the Principles of the Torah” 8:1} Israel did not believe in Moses our Master due to the miracles that he performed, since the one who believes on the basis of miracles has a defect in his understanding [lit. heart], for it is possible for a miracle to be performed by means of trickery or sorcery.

Miracles, in Maimonides’ view, are performed only to fulfill physical needs, not to strengthen faith. This includes the miracle of bringing forth water from the rock, whose only goal was to quench the thirst of the people.

Maimonides, in his introduction to the Mishnah’s Tractate Avot (Eight Chapters), in his discussion of the greatness of the sin of unjustified anger, explains that Moses’ sin lies not in deflating the grandeur of the miracle, but in his improper speech due to anger:^[2]

^{רמב"ם שמונה פרקים פרק ד' (שורץ)} אתה יודע שהוא יתעלה אמר לאדון הראשונים והאחרונים, משה רבינו: "יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני" (במדבר כ:יב) "על אשר מריתם" (שם כ:כד) "על אשר לא קדשתם" (דברים לב:נא).

^{Maimonides, Eight Chapters, ch. 4 (Butterworth and Weiss)} You know that God, may He be exalted, said to the master of the first and the last men, Moses our master, peace be upon him: “Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me” (Num 20:12), “Because you rebelled against My word” (Num 20:24), “Because you did not sanctify” (Deut 32:51).

כל זאת בהיות חטאוֹ, עליו השלום, היה שנטה אל אחד הקצוות ממעלה ממעלות האופי, והיא המתינות, בנטותו אל הרוגז, באומרו: "שמעו נא המורים" (במדבר כ:י). אלהים ביקר אותו על שאדם כמותו כעס בנוכחות קהל ישראל במקום שבו לא היה ראוי לרגוז.

His sin, peace be upon him, in all this was that he inclined toward one of the two extremes away from one of the moral virtues – that is to say, gentleness – when he inclined toward irascibility and said: “Hear now you rebels” (Num 20:10). God disapproved of a man like him becoming irascible in the presence of the community of Israel, when irascibility was not proper.

Maimonides further argues that this immoral act had dire consequences on the people’s behavior:

דבר מעין זה הוא לגבי אותו אדם חילול השם. כי היו מחקים את כל תנועותיו, ואמירותיו היו מקור לחיקוי ובאמצעותן ציפו לאושר בעולם הזה והבא. כיצד ייראה אפוא עליו הרוגז בעוד שהוא מן המעשים הרעים, כאשר הבהרנו, ואינו נובע אלא מתכונה גרועה מתכונות הנפש.

For this individual something like that was a profanation of the Name, because they would imitate his every movement and speech and would wish thereby to attain the happiness of this world and the other [world]. How could irascibility, which (as we have explained) is among bad actions, stem from him and not originate from one of the evil states of the soul?

Maimonides goes on to explain that the people would falsely conclude from Moses’ castigation of them that, despite the legitimacy of their request, God was angry with them. In this manner Moses’ unjustifiable anger against the people was a rebellion against the divine word which contained no censure of the people.^[3]

Ibn Ezra: Lack of Equanimity Lost Moses the Power to Perform Miracles

Between these two approaches stands that of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164), who knows Rashi’s view and to a degree anticipates that of Maimonides. In his commentary, Ibn Ezra brings numerous possible explanations for the sin, rejecting all of them, before he hints to his naturalistic approach to miracles: The prophet himself performs miracles as a result of his apprehension of all reality and his conjunction with God, which transforms the prophet into a universal intellect that can make changes in the physical world:

^{אבן עזרא במדבר כ:ח} והפרוש הנכון בעיני, אגלנו ברמיזות. דע: כי כאשר ידע החלק את הכל, ידבק בכל, ויחדש בכל אותות ומופתים.

^{Ibn Ezra Num 20:8} And the correct explanation in my eyes, I will reveal in hints: Know, that when the part knows the All [or: everything], he conjoins with the All, and generates in everything signs and wonders.

ואמת, כי השם אמר למשה ולאהרן: ודברתם, ולא דברו בעבור מריבת העם עם משה, והנה החלק חלק.

Verily, God told Moses and Aaron: “Speak [to the rock],” and they did not speak due to the quarrel of the people with Moses. The part remained a part.

והנה הכה הסלע, ולא יצאו מים עד שהכהו פעם שנית. והנה לא קדשו השם, ומרו, ועברו בשגגה.

He struck the rock and no water emerged until he struck it a second time. They did not sanctify the Name, and they rebelled and transgressed inadvertently.

The quarrel with the people, as reflected by his sharp speech against them, interfered with Moses’ equanimity, which is necessary for achieving and maintaining the state of conjunction. Moses’ intellect, rather than being universal, remained particular. Hence, he was not able to perform the miracle in the optimal manner by simply talking to the rock and having it bring forth water. Instead, he hit it more than once, presumably in order to regain the equanimity necessary for performing the miracle.

For Ibn Ezra, as for Rashi, the grandeur of the miracle is all important in ensuring the people’s faith in God. Unlike Rashi, he substitutes a naturalistic explanation for how the miracle comes about. Anticipating Maimonides, he also hints to a moral dimension in Moses’ failure, namely, the inability to maintain the equanimity that is necessary for conjunction as evidenced by his speech to the people.

Avvat Nephesh: Consulting God Instead of Solving the Problem Themselves

Well aware of the views of his predecessors but dissatisfied with all of them, the unnamed author of the 14th century Provençal supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, Avvat Nephesh,^[4] argues that the sin lies in how Moses and Aaron do not take immediate action when the nation complained of the lack of water. Instead, they wasted critical time by retreating to the Tent of Meeting in order to pray and learn what they were to do:

^{אַוַּת נפש במדבר כ:ח} ...כאשר נקהלו ישראל על משה ואהרן ובקשו מהם המים, אף על פי שלא בקשו אותם בדרך נכונה אבל בריב ובמסה, היתה התשובה הראויה להם להבטיחם על שאלתם ולומר להם: אל תיראו, כי לא ימית אתכם השם ואת מקניכם בצמא. הלא כלכל אתכם במן זה ארבעים שנה? והכה צור ויזובו מים ולא חסרתם דבר? לכן ביי אל תמרודו.

^{Avvat Nephesh Numbers 20:8} When Israel assembled around Moses and Aaron and requested from them water, even though they did not request it in a proper manner, but rather by quarrel and testing, the appropriate response to their request would have been to assure them and say: “Do not fear, for God will not allow you and your herds to die of thirst. Did God not provide you with manna for forty years, and struck the rock and brought forth water, and you did not want for anything? Therefore, ‘do not rebel against God.’”

ואחר כך, לגעור בהם ולכהות על המריבה, לא שירפו ידיהם ויבהלו להשיב... והם, רצה לומר משה ואהרן, לא תמצא שהשיבו להם שום דבר, בהקהלם עליהם על דבר המים. אבל רפו ידיהם, ומן המערכה נסו, והלכו אל אהל מועד...

Afterwards they [Moses and Aaron] should have reprimanded [the people] and reproached them for their quarrel, rather than be disheartened and too frightened to respond. […] One does not find that they – that is to say, Moses and Aaron – said to them anything at all when they assembled in regard to the matter of the water. Rather they were disheartened and fled the conflict, and went to the Tent of Meeting. […]

ויחסו העם זה להם לחסרון גדול ומיעוט יכולת השם יתברך לתת להם שאלתם, עד שנואשו ולא קוו אל יי, עד שבאה להם הנבואה וצוו לעשות מה שעשו, רצה לומר להכות בסלע...

The people attributed this [response] to a great deficiency and lack of ability on the part of God to grant them their request. This resulted in their becoming despondent and not placing their hope in God, until the prophecy reached them [Moses and Aaron] and commanded that they do what they did – namely, strike the rock. […]

Avvat Nephesh then offers a long proof that Moses was actually told to hit the rock, after which he returns to theme of Moses stalling:

ובהתמהמה משה ואהרן לעשות כל זה, רצה לומר לכתם אל אהל מועד ונפילתם על פניהם והתפללם והגלות דבר השם אליהם, ארך הזמן ונואשו ישראל, ונפרדו איש מעל אחיו ועמדו נבהלים ובאפס תקוה, ולא היה זה קדוש השם.

Due to Moses and Aaron tarrying by doing all this – that is to say, going to the Tent of the Meeting, falling on their faces and praying, and afterwards the revelation of the word of God coming to them – the time dragged out, and the [people of] Israel despaired and parted from each other scared and without hope. This was not a sanctification of the Name.

ונצטרכו להקהילם ולאמר להם דבר השם, באמרו "ויקהילו משה ואהרן את הקהל" (במדבר כ:י). וזהו שאמר להם השם "יען לא האמנתם בי להקדשני" (במדבר כ:יב). רצה לומר לא נשענתם בי ולא התחזקתם בי להבטיח ישראל על שאלתם להראות קדושתי בעולם...

They [Moses and Aaron] then had to [re]assemble them and inform them of the word of God, as it states: “Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation.” This is why God says to them: “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My Sanctity” – that is to say, you did not rely upon Me and were not strong enough [in your belief of Me] to ensure Israel their request [immediately], in order to show My Sanctity in the world […].

אבל הלכתם ונסתרתם אל אהל מועד, כאלו עצה אבדה מכם ואין עזרתכם בכם, ולכן לא נקדשתי על ידיכם. וזהו "להקדישני במים לעיניהם" (במדבר כז:יד).

Rather you went and concealed yourselves in the Tent of the Meeting, as though you were at a loss and incapable of helping. Therefore, I was not sanctified by you. This is the meaning of: “To uphold My sanctity in their sight by means of the water” (Numbers 27:14).

In this case, the faithless act was their passiveness, i.e., their not acting immediately:

על כן הושוו שניהם במרי [נ"א בשגגה], והיה ענשם מדה כנגד מדה, רצה לומר, כי כאשר לא נהגו בזה הנהגה נאותית, נענשו שלא יהיו עוד מנהיגים...

For this reason, both of them [Moses and Aaron] were considered as equally inadvertently rebelling. Their punishment was measure for measure – that is to say, since they did not exhibit proper leadership in this matter, they were punished by no longer remaining the leaders...

Previously in his discussion, Avvat Nephesh contrasts Moses’ and Aaron’s problematic hesitant behavior with the decisive action taken by Elijah in organizing a test between God and Baʿal (1 Kings 18). Elijah, in Avvat Nephesh’s view, received no command in this matter, but was confident that given the stakes involved, God would heed his prayer and perform the requisite miracle. It is this confidence that Moses and Aaron lacked when they entered the Tent of Meeting.

In cases of doubt, the best path normally, in rabbinic parlance, is שב ועל תעשה, “sit and do not act.” At times, however, it is the task of the leader to understand precisely which situations call for quick and decisive action despite the uncertainty involved, even if at the same time it means that one must rely on miracles.

Four Approaches to the Sin, Each Reflecting the Author’s World View

In sum, for Rashi the sin of Moses and Aaron lies in their failure to maximize the divine miracle by observing the divine command to the letter by hitting the rock rather than just talking to it. God’s miraculous activity for Rashi is the basis for faith—the greater the miracle, the greater the faith in God it induces.

For Maimonides, on the other hand, their sin lies in unjustified anger on their part, leading the nation to draw the false conclusion that God too is angry at them for their demands for water. In this manner Moses failed to affirm God's sanctity due to his moral lapse, made all the greater by the fact that he represented to the people the paragon of virtue. In Maimonides’ view, faith should not be anchored in miracles but in the proper understanding of God’s ordering of the world, and in showing people the way to attain the good and live a life of virtue. In this incident, Moses and Aaron failed in their leadership role of showing the people how to behave properly.

Ibn Ezra, like Rashi, ties Moses’ sin to the greatness of the miracle, but differs with him on the nature of miracles and how they come about. For Ibn Ezra, the bringing about of miracles has a strong natural component — it is dependent upon the level of conjunction with the divine that one achieves. At the same time, Ibn Ezra also in part anticipates Maimonides’ subsequent approach, by viewing Moses’ lapse as due to his lack of equanimity resulting from the nation’s complaints. His moral shortcoming in this case resulted in a loss of perfection, and his ability to perform the miracle flawlessly.

Finally, Avvat Nephesh adopts a novel approach to the nature of the sin. The sin was not one of commission but omission. It was a failure of leadership by not acting immediately and trusting in God to support their action, when immediate action was called for. Their flaw did not lie in failing to heed the letter of God’s command, but a failure to understand when they must immediately take independent action to avert a major crisis of faith, and not wait for the divine command to show them the way.