(1) יען לא האמנתם בי BECAUSE YE BELIEVED ME NOT — Scripture discloses the fact that but for this sin alone, they would have entered the land of Canaan, in order that people should not say of them, “Even as the sin of the generation of the Wilderness (a term used of those who left Egypt) on whom it was decreed that they should not enter the Land was the sin of Moses and Aaron” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 27:13). But was not the doubting question (cf. Rashi on Numbers 11:22), “shall the sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them?” a more grievous lack of faith in God than this? But because that had been said in private (no Israelites being present and therefore it could have no evil influence upon them), Scripture (God) spared him (and did not make his lack of faith public by pronouncing punishment for it), but here, where all Israel were standing by, Scripture does not spare him because of the Hallowing of the Divine Name (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 10).(2) להקדישני TO SANCTIFY ME — For had you spoken to the rock and it had brought forth water I would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, for they would have said: What is the case with this rock which cannot speak and cannot hear and needs no maintenance? It fulfils the bidding of the Omnipresent God! How much more should we do so?(3) לכן לא תביאו THEREFORE YE SHALL NOT BRING — This expression (“therefore”) is used by way of an oath, just as (I Samuel 3:14), “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli”. Here He was quick to take an oath in order that they should not pray at length about it (that He should withdraw the decree) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 2).

(13) Thou knowest, also, that God said to our teacher Moses, the master of former and later ages, "Because ye have not confided in me, to sanctity me", "because ye rebelled against my order at the waters of Meribah", "because ye did not sanctify me". All this (God said) although the sin of Moses consisted merely in that he departed from the moral mean of patience to the extreme of wrath in so far as he exclaimed, "Hear now ye rebels" etc., yet for this God found fault with him that such a man as he should show anger in the presence of the entire community of Israel, where wrath is unbecoming. This was a profanation of God's name, because men imitated the words and conduct of Moses, hoping thereby to attain temporal and eternal happiness. How could he, then, allow his wrath free play, since it is a pernicious characteristic, arising, as we have shown, from an evil psychic condition? The divine words, "Ye (Israel) have rebelled against me" are, however, to be explained as follows. Moses was not speaking to ignorant and vicious people, but to an assembly...

So, when Moses said or did anything, they subjected his words or actions to the most searching examination. Therefore, when they saw that he waxed wrathful, they said, "He has no moral imperfection, and did he not know that God is angry with us for demanding water, and that we have stirred up the wrath of God, he would not have been angry with us". However, we do not find that when God spoke to Moses about this matter He was angry, but on the contrary, said, "Take the staff . . . and give drink to the congregation and their cattle"...

(1) יען לא האמנתם בי, the sin consisted in their saying: המן הסלע הזה נוציא לכם מים?, “Are we to extract water for you from this rock?” They should have said instead: יוציא יהוה לכם מים, “G’d will extract water for you.” (verse 10). In Exodus 16,8 Moses had been careful to phrase the announcement of the forthcoming phenomenon of manna by attributing it to coming directly from G’d. Similarly, when predicting any of the other miracles which had been announce beforehand, Moses had carefully attributed the miracle to G’d. By failing to do so this time they left the way open for some of the people to think that the water when it would gush forth would be the result of Moses’ and Aaron’s combined knowledge.
This is also the meaning of the words (Moses quoting G’d) לא קדשתם אותי, “you have not sanctified Me” (Deuteronomy 32,51). On the first occasion, almost 40 years earlier, when water would be produced from a rock, (Exodus 17,6) G’d had introduced the miracle by announcing: “Here I will be standing there before you on the rock at Chorev. Strike the rock and water will issue from it and the people will drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.” The seventy elders had observed the cloud of glory moving to above the site of that rock so that the miracle became a public spectacle, lending additional greatness to G’d’s name as the provider. In this instance the people did not observe any evidence of G’d’s involvement so that it was easy to conclude, based on Moses’ and Aaron’s phrasing it, that they themselves had initiated this phenomenon.

(1) We must, however, explain the reason why the decision concerning Moses was accompanied by an oath, so that his prayer was not accepted. According to the Rabbis the essence of Moses’ sin at the waters of Meribah was the expression: “Hear now, ye rebels,” used by Moses, which was an insult to the honor of Israel. And they infer from this that he who insults the honor of a community is guilty of an offence equal to that of profaning the name of God. But it is very difficult to suppose that such a sin should not be capable of atonement. Besides we find in Deuteronomy that Moses again says to Israel: “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord.” If Moses had been punished for saying to them: “Hear now, ye rebels,” he would scarcely have used a similar expression again.

(2) The explanation of the sin of the waters of Meribah has given the commentators a great deal of dufficulty, so much so that Maimonides gave a far fetched explanation, saying that the sin of Moses consisted in becoming angry with Israel for no sufficient reason, when God was not angry with them. For God was not angry with them when they asked for things that were necessities, like water or the manna. According to Maimonides, then, there was here a profanation of the Holy Name, for the people would think that God was angry with them because they asked for water, although they needed it. Else, they would say, Moses would not have been angry with them for no reason. For anger is an unworthy quality, and it is not likely that the head of the prophets would give way to such a low impulse without reason, far be it! Hence the people would come to think ill of God, assuming that He was angry for no good reason. This is the gist of Maimonides’ interpretation, but it is far fetched.

(3) Nahmanides refuted this opinion in his commentary on the Torah. It appears, however, from his words that he, too, agrees with Maimonides that the sin did not consist in the fact that they did not speak to the rock; and for the following reasons: either because the rock is not a rational being to receive a command from God, or because, since Moses was told: “Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock …,” it seems that he was expected to strike the rock, since he was told to take the rod, else why was it necessary to mention the rod? But this is no proof, for in Horeb he was told: “And thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river …,” and yet it was found necessary to state specifically in the sequel: “And thou shalt smite the rock.” Here too therefore he should have been told to strike the rock if that was the intention, as he was told the first time. The taking of the rod is no proof that he would have to strike, for the rod does not cause the flow of the water by the force of striking, for it is not the natural property of a rod when it strikes a rock to split it and bring out water by the force of the blow. The phenomenon is a miracle, and the waters come out by decree of God when the rod is near the rock. In the beginning of his prophetic career Moses was told: “And thou shalt take in thy hand thisrod, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.” This shows plainly that the rod was endowed with the property of being the instrument in the performance of the signs, according to the decree of God as commanded through Moses. The proof is as follows: In connection with the plague of hail Moses was told: “Stretch forth thy hand toward heaven, that there may be hail …” and in the sequel it says: “And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven; and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire ran down unto the earth.” Now the hail was not produced by the rod’s striking the air. But the miracle of the hail was produced in the air by the will of God when the rod in the hand of Moses was in contact with the air. Here too, therefore, the taking of the rod is no proof that it had to be used to strike.

(4) As for the first argument that God would give a command only to a rational being, and the rock was not a rational being to receive a command from God to give forth its waters (this is the opinion of Maimonides, as can be seen in “Pirke Moshe,” ch. 25), it is not valid, for matter does not become affected by itself, but is acted upon by a mover which moves it and prepares it to receive the form. Now when God commands the matter to receive a form or undergo a certain change, as in the verse: “Let the earth bring forth the living creature …;” “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures” …, and similar passages, the command is not given to the matter, but to the mover that he should prepare the matter to receive the form or to undergo the change which God has decreed. Now the command which is directed to the mover is given to a rational being undoubtedly.

(5) My opinion is that the sin at the waters of Meribah was that they [Moses and Aaron] did not speak to the rock, as the Bible literally says. The text proves it, which says: “Because ye rebelled against My word at the waters of Meribah.” Such an expression cannot apply to the words: “Hear now, ye rebels,” nor to Moses’ anger, but only to their violation of God’s command. The essence of the sin, however, which caused God to take an oath, was that the act evinced a lack of faith, as we read: “Because ye believed not in Me … therefore ye shall not bring …”

(6) The explanation is as follows: One great principle of the Torah and foundation of faith which is contained in the belief in God’s Providence, is that God subjects nature to the control of believers, as Moses says in the Psalm following his prayer. In the name of God he assures him who dwells “in the covert of the Most High,” and abides “in the shadow of the Almighty,” that God will deliver him from the snare of the fowler and from pestilence and from natural accidents, so that he shall tread “upon the lion and asp,” and trample under feet “the young lion and the serpent.”

(7) We find this verified in the lives of some of the pious men. For example, we are told about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he set his foot on the hole of a lizard and was bitten; but the lizard died, a reversal of the natural course. Rabbi Hanina then said to his disciples: My children, it is not the lizard that kills, but sin it is that kills. We thus see that by the command of the righteous changes occur in nature. We are also told concerning R. Hanina that he said: “He who said that oil should burn, will command vinegar to burn,” and it was so, and we find other similar cases. Similarly the Rabbis say concerning Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair that by his command he divided a river many times. A river is not a rational being, and yet it was divided for those who fulfil the divine commandments and those who associate with them. We are also told of a great many miracles that were performed by Nahum of Gamzo and other righteous men by a mere word without prophecy or divine speech or command. Similarly, Eliphaz said to Job: “Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee.” From this it appears that the prophets and those who speak with the Holy Spirit, like Eliphaz, agree that nature changes by the command of the righteous according to their will, not to speak of the prophets, who performed miracles by their commands. Thus Elijah said: “As the Lord, the God of Israel, liveth … there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.” He also said: “If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty,” and it was so. Elisha said: “To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel …,” and it was so. Also he “made the iron to swim,” and performed other miracles without a previous prophetic message or divine commandment concerning the matter. The same is true of the other prophets. Moses himself said: “If these men die the common death of all men … But if the Lord make a new thing … And it came to pass, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the ground did cleave asunder that was under them. And the earth opened her mouth …” But we are not told that God commanded him to do this. Isaiah also says: “That confirmeth the word of His servant, and performeth the counsel of His messengers.”

(8) He, therefore, who doubts that God performs the will of the prophet or the righteous or the pious man that is worthy, is virtually casting doubt upon the Torah and one of its principles. Particularly on an occasion for the sanctification of the divine name is it incumbent upon one to publish the fact that nature is subject to, and is compelled to do the will of those who observe the Torah and fulfil its commandments. A prophet therefore who is worthy to perform miracles and refuses to do so when he can save thereby a nation or a community, is surely responsible for casting a doubt upon the belief. For the bystander will think that there is no truth in the biblical statements, made in many places, that nature is subject to those who perform the commandments of the Torah, and this will lead to doubting the Torah.

(9) This is especially the case when people see that the very same prophet through whom the Torah was given does not rely upon this belief to make a decree against nature so as to change its course or to perform a miracle, though the prophet in question is more worthy to perform miracles than any one else. This no doubt leads to profanation of the Holy Name and to the casting of doubt upon the faith. It looks as if the prophet himself were in doubt whether it is true that nature can be changed by his word, as the Torah promises. This is why it says: “Because ye believed not in Me.” For if, when the Israelites asked for water, Moses and Aaron had decreed that the rock should split and water should flow, God would without doubt have “confirmed the word of His servant and performed the counsel of His messengers,” and He would thus have been sanctified in the eyes of all the people.

(10) But Moses and Aaron did not do so, instead they went to the door of the tent of meeting as though they were fleeing from the people, as Ibn Ezra explains, and as though they had no idea what to do. This was no doubt a profanation of the divine name, and was likely to cause lack of faith in God and His Torah on the part of those who witnessed the affair. Therefore the Bible says: “Ye believed not in Me.” For if you had believed you would have decreed a change in the course of nature, in order that My name might be sanctified through you, when all people would see that I “confirm the words of My servant and perform the counsel of My messengers.”

(11) And though Moses and Aaron acted as they did by reason of their great humility, not wishing to take any credit unto themselves without the command of God, nevertheless it was accounted to them as an iniquity and a lack of faith because of the profanation of the divine name which resulted from it, as we have explained. Hence we find that when Joshua was in a similar predicament, he did not wait for divine permission or advice, but relied on God that He would do his will, and said: “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon …” As the Bible testifies: “Then spoke Joshua to the Lord …; and he said in the sight of Israel: ‘Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon …’ ” God confirmed his word, and the Bible even says that such a great thing did not happen even in the days of Moses, namely that Moses should of his own accord have given so great a command and it should be fulfilled. The Bible says: “And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man,” i. e. that God should confirm such an important command given by a man of his own accord. This is an allusion to the lack of faith which the Bible imputes to Moses and Aaron because they refused to act of their own accord without divine authority. Then again when they were told: “And ye shall speak unto the rock,” and they did not speak, but struck it instead, they sinned again in that they transgressed the command of God. For if they had spoken, the name of God would have been sanctified and they would have made good part of their error. But not having spoken, they added to their sin.

(12) The reason they committed the sin was that they thought that as in Horeb the waters came out by striking, they would in this case too come out only by striking. But God had intended otherwise. At the first time the Torah had not yet been given and nature was not as yet subject to Israel to such an extent. But now in the fortieth year they were worthy of having miracles done for them and of having nature submit to them by the mere word of Moses. Therefore there was rebellion in the fact that they did not speak to the rock as they had been commanded, and lack of faith and profanation of the Holy Name in that they did not, on their own responsibility and without divine command, decree that the rock should give forth its water. Similarly we find when God said to Moses: “Get thee up into this mountain of Abarim … and be gathered unto thy people,” that the Bible mentions two things: “Because ye trespassed against Me …” and “Because ye sanctified Me not,” alluding thereby to the two sins.

(13) Now since the sin involved lack of faith and profanation of the Holy Name, it was not subject to forgiveness, as we find in the treatise Yoma: “But if one is guilty of profanation of the Holy Name, repentance has no power to suspend punishment, nor can suffering wipe out the guilt, death alone erases the stain.” Therefore God made a decree with an oath, and for this reason neither Moses’ prayer nor his repentance availed him in this sin. Study this chapter very carefully that you may understand it, for it contains the best that has been said on this subject, and may God in His mercy deliver us from error, amen.