Parashat Hukkat study sheet

Ibn Ezra, Numbers, 20:1

On the first new moon. Of the 40th year. Notice that there is not a single event or prophecy in the Torah dated to any year of the wilderness period other than the 1st or the 40th.

Michael Carasik, Numbers, The Commentators’ Bible; Accordance electronic ed. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2011), paragraph 2692.

https://accordance.bible/link/read/CB-Numbers#2692

IBN EZRA, Numbers 20:2

The community was without water. The notion that a well followed the Israelites around the desert on account of the merit of Miriam is some individual’s midrash. If such a miracle occurred, why is it not mentioned in the Torah? Instead, we are told plainly, “He split rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink as if from the great deep” (Ps. 78:15). The inventor of the midrash based himself on the juxtaposition of vv. 1 and 2, but this is no proof; these are two separate events that happened at the same place. If he disagrees, let him tell us who died at Rephidim, where “there was no water for the people to drink” (17:1)! So the community being without water has nothing to do with Miriam’s death. But it does have to do with the deaths of Moses and Aaron before they could enter the land. The text will now tell us why and how that happened.

Michael Carasik, paragraph 2697. https://accordance.bible/link/read/CB-Numbers#2697

Ibn Ezra, Numbers 20:3

When our brothers perished. The translations are correct. The word used here is the infinitive of the verb. “Our brothers” are the generation of the wilderness.

Michael Carasik, paragraph 2701. https://accordance.bible/link/read/CB-Numbers#2701

IBN EZRA, Numbers 20:8

... There are many different explanations of exactly why Moses is punished for this episode. One explanation (rabbinic, but offered by an individual) is that his sin was addressing the Israelites as “you rebels” (v. 10), when they were in fact the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But if that was his crime, why is he still calling them “rebellious” in Deut. 9:7? Others say that they are not being told here to “order” the rock to give water, with the standard verb for “speaking” (see OJPS), but that the verb is a homonym that means “smiting.” (This verb is found in 2 Chron. 22:10, “Athaliah … promptly did away with all who were of the royal stock of the house of Judah.” But this cannot be correct, for that verb is connected to dever, “plague.” ... But to “do away with” someone does not mean “to strike” them; compare 2 Kings 11:1 which is parallel to Chronicles: “Athaliah...promptly killed off all who were of royal stock.” Were Moses and Aaron being instructed to kill off the rock? (~RK - Simply put, Moses was instructed to hit the rock and his sin was to hit it twice. But this doesn't explain why Aaron was punished.)

Moses Gikatilla (Moses b. Samuel ha-Kohen Gikatilla — 11^th-c. Spanish grammarian) says: Some miracles are invoked by speech alone; some by speech and action, as when Elisha threw salt into a spring and said, “Thus said the LORD: I heal this water; no longer shall death and bereavement come from it!” (2 Kings 2:21). In this case, God told Moses to take the rod in order to hit the rock (as he had the previous time), but added the command to “order” the rock to produce water—thus combining speech and action in performing the miracle. Moses’ question to the Israelites was prompted by his anger at them, according to this explanation. What he meant was, “We have no ability to get water from a rock; it can be done only by the power of God.” But he did not make his meaning sufficiently clear to the Israelites. Some of them thought he meant that God could not get water from the rock. This is what God was referring to when He accused Moses and Aaron of “failing to uphold My sanctity among the Israelite people” (Deut. 32:51). All of this is the explanation of Gikatilla, who supports it by citing the words of the poet: “They provoked wrath at the waters of Meribah and Moses suffered on their account, because they rebelled against him and he spoke rashly” (Ps. 106:32–33). Moses’ sin, therefore, was his rash remark—not striking the rock. But this too is incorrect. It was Moses who spoke “rashly”—why was Aaron punished? Moreover, when he actually strikes the rock, he does not also speak to it. And it was not Moses whom the Israelites “rebelled against” according to the psalm, but God Himself: “But they rebelled, and grieved His holy spirit” (Isa. 63:10), which explains “They provoked wrath at the waters of Meribah.” It was God’s wrath that they provoked, as v. 13 is about to tell us. But “Moses suffered” on their account, because it was decreed that he should not enter the land of Israel.

Still others think that, since a rock cannot hear, one can only “order” it to do something by striking it. But then why would Moses be punished for doing so? Yet others think Moses and Aaron “failed to uphold God’s sanctity” by not singing God’s praises, as the Israelites do in 21:17–18. Others think they were punished because both of them were commanded to speak to the rock—but they did not do so. Moses (alone) simply hit it. ...

Others think the Israelites told him to get water from some other rock, a view they derive from understanding Moses’ question as follows: “Shall we get water for you out of this rock?” (v. 10). But Moses was afraid to change God’s word in any way—so he was punished for not believing that he could get water out of the rock that the Israelites had picked. This is how they explain God’s telling Moses, “You did not trust Me” (v. 12). But this explanation is not correct either. For in v. 24 He tells them, “You disobeyed My command”—which they did not do, according to this explanation.

Now I will reveal the explanation that I think is correct—at least, I will hint at it. You must understand that when a part knows the Whole, it cleaves to the Whole and can perform wonders by means of the Whole. The truth is that God told Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock, but they did not do so because of the people’s quarreling with Moses. The part, therefore, remained apart. He struck the rock, but no water came forth until he had struck it a second time. Thus their “failure to uphold God’s sanctity,” their “disobedience,” their “breaking faith,” was all done in error. Moses certainly “spoke rashly” (Ps. 106:33), and that is why he was punished—he should have said nothing until he had performed the task assigned him by God. Our predecessors (of blessed memory) explained it this way as well. For they said Moses’ sin was in calling the Israelites “you rebels” (v. 10)—by which they hinted at the idea to which I have alluded.

Michael Carasik, paragraph 2714. https://accordance.bible/link/read/CB-Numbers#2714

NAHMANIDES, Numbers 20:7

Exactly what sin Moses and Aaron committed at the Waters of Meribah is not stated in the text. ... Why would they be told to “take the rod” (v. 8) if not to hit the rock? If what God wanted was for Moses just to speak to the rock, why must he be holding the rod? In Exod. 7:15, Moses is told to take the rod because he is going to strike the water in the Nile with it. (The same is true in Exod. 8:1–2 with the miracle of the frogs; it is not explicitly stated because by now the implication was obvious.) It is not as if speaking to the rock would be a greater miracle than hitting it; it was all the same to the rock. Note also that what God says to them is that “you both broke faith with Me” (Deut. 32:51). The problem could not be that they did not speak, as they were commanded, to the rock. For Moses and Aaron assembled the people right “in front of the rock” (v. 10), and Moses told them they would get water from the rock—so the rock certainly heard them speak this. As Joshua says later in a different context, “This very stone shall be a witness against us, for it heard all the words that the LORD spoke to us” (Josh. 24:27).

In any case, the commentators claim a great many things about this sin. Ibn Ezra has disposed of most of them in his comment to v. 8. But Ibn Ezra’s own mysterious explanation is not correct either. The sin would have been the first time Moses struck the rock, when his intention to fulfill the will of the Holy One was disturbed because he was distracted by the people’s quarreling. But it would not be right for God to say that “you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity” (v. 12); there is no lack of faith in such a situation. Maimonides concluded that Moses’ sin was his anger in calling the people “rebels” (v. 10). The Holy One dealt very strictly with him—a man like him, growing angry in front of the community of Israel in a situation where there was no reason for anger! This would be a profanation of God’s name, because everyone learns from such a man’s words and deeds how they too should act to attain success both in this world and in the World to Come. They would imagine that if Moses were angry at them, God too must have been angry at them for demanding water. V. 8, however, shows that God was not angry at all. ... But this is just so much hot air. ... Moses’ calling the people rebels was not a sign of anger; he was reproving them. And Aaron never lost his temper in his entire life: “He walked with Me in peace and uprightness” (Mal. 2:6). God, for His part, must indeed have been angry at the people as He was every time they quarreled with Moses or even questioned him. They were called “the Waters of Meribah” because “the Israelites quarreled with the LORD” (v. 13)—and “shame on him who argues with his Maker” (Isa. 45:9). As Moses told the people later, “Because of you the LORD was incensed with me too” (Deut. 1:37) .... The most plausible explanation ... is that of Rabbenu Hananel (11th-c. North African), who wrote that the sin of Moses and Aaron was their suggesting (in v. 10) that they, and not God, would get water from the rock. If the people thought Moses and Aaron had themselves figured out how to do this, that would indeed be “failing to uphold My sanctity among the Israelite people” (Deut. 32:51). It would be “trespassing” ... against the divine prerogative in the technical meaning of that verb, for they would be taking credit for an achievement that in fact belonged to God.

But the Truth is that this is one of the great mysteries of the Torah. In the original case, when God told Moses, “I will be standing there before you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock and water will issue from it” (Exod. 17:6), what He meant by “I” was “My great Name,” that is “the Presence of the LORD,” which appeared “as a consuming fire” (Exod. 24:17). That is why Moses needed only to strike the rock once. But here God told him nothing of the sort. So he and Aaron agreed that he had better strike the rock twice—and that was the sin. This was their lack of faith, their failure to obey, and their trespass. For trespass is a denial of God’s truth. So their sin is stated quite plainly in the text. As the poet says, it was “the God of Jacob who turned the rock into a pool of water” (Ps. 114:7–8). You can observe this as well in Moses’ own plea to be allowed to cross into the land, which he addresses to the great Name (see Deut. 3:24–25). Since our Sages do ascribe anger to Moses in this affair, perhaps they thought that just a few drops came out when he first struck the rock (because he was so distracted by his anger). Moses and Aaron would have been surprised by this and would have mutually agreed to strike the rock a second time (as I mentioned), which would explain why both are considered to have sinned.

Michael Carasik, paragraph 2711.​​​​​​​ https://accordance.bible/link/read/CB-Numbers#2711