Correct peshat in Rashi on Moshe's Sin

Summary: I present what I think is a novel, consistent reading of Rashi on Moshe's sin in striking the rock. It seems at first glance that Rashi contradicts himself, but I believe he actually has a consistent reading.

Post: That reading is: Moshe was instructed to speak to the rock that formed Miriam's well. But when Miriam passed away, it disappeared amidst other rocks. Moshe began to search for that particular rock, the same one that had provided water in the past. The Bnei Yisrael pointed out that as it was a miracle -- perhaps, if it was a miracle -- then any rock should do. At this point, Moshe should have agreed with the Bnei Yisrael, that any rock would do. He should have chosen any rock, or accepted a rock of their choosing, spoken to it, and trusted that Hashem would have brought about the miracle. That would have created a tremendous kiddush Hashem. Instead, he castigated the Israelites and told them that not any rock would do, but only the one he had been instructed to hit, since that would be fulfilling Hashem's comment. The way he told them this was with שמעו נא המורים -- "you obstinate people who think you will teach the teachers". He told them that what they proposed was not possible, and thus missed out on an opportunity for kiddush Hashem, and that was the catastrophic sin. Then, he flubbed the followup. He thought he had the correct rock, and spoke to it, but nothing happened. Then, he hit another rock, and lucked into the correct, original rock which formed the well of Miriam in the past. But he had to hit it twice. The first time, only a few drops came out, because though it was the correct rock, he had not been commanded to hit it. But with persistence, and a second strike, the water flowed.

With that setup, let us backtrack a bit, explore Rashi, and see just how this consistent reading comes out.

Many meforshim offer explanations of Moshe's sin in the incident of striking the rock in parashat Chukat. As Shadal writes,

Moshe Rabbenu only sinned one sin, but the commentators burdened upon him 13 sins and more, for each one invented of his own heart a new sin.

Rashi appears to contradict himself, and offer a different explanation in different places. For example, when he cites Midrash Aggadah, saying:

to sanctify Me: For had you spoken to the rock and it had given forth [water], I would have been sanctified in the eyes of the congregation. They would have said,"If this rock, which neither speaks nor hears, and does not require sustenance, fulfills the word of the Omnipresent, how much more should we! - [Midrash Aggadah]

להקדישני: שאילו דברתם אל הסלע והוציא הייתי מקודש לעיני העדה ואומרים מה סלע זה שאינו מדבר ואינו שומע ואינו צריך לפרנסה מקיים דבורו של מקום, קל וחומר אנו:

the strong implication is that the sin is in striking the rock rather than speaking to it. However, in the immediately preceding Rashi:

Since you did not have faith in Me: Scripture reveals that if it were not for this sin alone, they would have entered the Land, so that it should not be said of them, “The sin of Moses and Aaron was like the sin of the generation of the desert against whom it was decreed that they should not enter [the Land].” But was not [the question asked by Moses] “If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them…” (11:22) [a] more grievous [sin] than this? However, there he [Moses] said it in private, so Scripture spares him [and refrains from punishing him]. Here, on the other hand, it was said in the presence of all Israel, so Scripture does not spare him because of the sanctification of the Name. — [Tanchuma Chukath 10, Num. Rabbah 19:10]

יען לא האמנתם בי: גלה הכתוב שאלולי חטא זה בלבד היו נכנסין לארץ, כדי שלא יאמרו עליהם כעון שאר דור המדבר, שנגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו לארץ, כך היה עון משה ואהרן. והלא (במדבר יא, כב) הצאן ובקר ישחט קשה מזו, אלא לפי שבסתר חסך עליו הכתוב, וכאן שבמעמד כל ישראל, לא חסך עליו הכתוב מפני קדוש השם:

It seems as if he speaks of the sin as if it was some sort of speech, where the disbelieving speech in private is non-problematic while that in public is.

But in Behaalotecha (11:22) Rashi records it as:

If sheep and cattle were slaughtered: This is one of the four cases in which R. Akiva expounded, and R. Simeon expounded differently. R. Akiva says,“Six hundred thousand people on foot, and You have said that I will give them meat, and they will eat it for a full month?” The entire verse is expounded literally. The clause, וּמָצָא לָהֶם means, “Would it suffice for them?” This is similar to [the clause,]“and he has sufficient means (וּמָצָא) for redeeming it” (Lev. 25:26). Which [case] is worse? This one, or [when Moses said] “Listen now, you rebels” (20:10)? [Obviously, this one.] However, since [in this case] he [Moses] did not say it in public, Scripture spares him, and refrains from punishing him. But that of Meribah was in public, so Scripture does not spare him. R. Simeon says, God forbid! This never entered the mind of that righteous man. Would the one about whom it says, “he is trusted throughout My house” (12:7) suggest that the Omnipresent cannot provide for us sufficiently? Rather, this is what he meant: “Six hundred thousand… on foot… and You say, 'I will give them meat for a full month’? Then You will kill such a great nation? Will sheep and cattle be slaughtered for them so that they should then be killed, and this meal will satisfy for them forever [i.e., it will be their last]? Is this a credit for you? Do we tell a donkey, 'Eat this measure of barley, and then we will cut off your head’?” God answered him, “If I do not give them, they will say that My power is limited. Would the fact that God’s power appears limited to them please you? Let them and a hundred like them perish, as long as My power is not limited before them for even one moment! ”- [Tosefta Sotah 6:4]

הצאן ובקר ישחט: זה אחד מארבעה דברים שהיה רבי עקיבא דורש ואין רבי שמעון דורש כמותו. רבי עקיבא אומר שש מאות אלף רגלי, ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם ואכלו חדש ימים, הצאן ובקר וגו', הכל כמשמעו, מי יספיק להם, כענין שנאמר (ויקרא כה, כו) ומצא כדי גאולתו. ואיזו קשה, זו או (במדבר כ, י) שמעו נא המורים, אלא לפי שלא אמר ברבים חיסך לו הכתוב ולא נפרע ממנו, וזו של מריבה היתה בגלוי, לפיכך לא חיסך לו הכתוב. רבי שמעון אומר חס ושלום לא עלתה על דעתו של אותו צדיק כך, מי שכתוב בו (במדבר יב, ז) בכל ביתי נאמן הוא, יאמר אין המקום מספיק לנו, אלא כך אמר שש מאות אלף רגלי וגו' ואתה אמרת בשר אתן לחדש ימים, ואחר כך תהרוג אומה גדולה כזו, הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כדי שיהרגו, ותהא אכילה זו מספקתן עד עולם, וכי שבחך הוא זה, אומרים לו לחמור טול כור שעורים ונחתוך ראשך. השיבו הקב"ה ואם לא אתן יאמרו שקצרה ידי, הטוב בעינך שיד ה' תקצר בעיניהם, יאבדו הם ומאה כיוצא בהם ואל תהי ידי קצרה לפניהם אפילו שעה אחת:

with identifying the statement as שמעו נא המורים, which might be the sin of getting angry. Except in context it is could well be a way of referring to the whole statement by citing its beginning, as Gur Aryeh suggests.

There might indeed be inconsistency in Rashi's identification of Moshe's sin. After all, Rashi draws from a wealth of midrashic material, and he often will cite a midrash to make some point local to the pasuk. Incidentally, that midrash might operate on a theory of Moshe's sin which differs from one Rashi, or another midrash cited by Rashi, presents elsewhere. These theories are (sometimes) tangential to Rashi's point in each place, and so should not really concern us as something that needs to be resolved or harmonized.

However, despite this apparent inconsistency in statements of Rashi, I do believe that Rashi has a consistent theory of Moshe's sin. That theory is the one presented in the first paragraph at the very top of this post. Let us work slowly through the pesukim and see how it develops.

First, Moshe is commanded to speak to the rock:

8. "Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water. You shall bring forth water for them from the rock and give the congregation and their livestock to drink."

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:

Moshe takes the staff:

9. Moses took the staff from before the Lord as He had commanded him.

ט. וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה מִלִּפְנֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ:

Then, according to the simplest meaning of the pasuk, Moshe and Aharon gather the congregation and prepare them for the upcoming miracle, asking whether they believe that water can come from a stone.

10. Moses and Aaron assembled the congregation in front of the rock, and he said to them, "Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?"

י. וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶת הַקָּהָל אֶל פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְעוּ נָא הַמֹּרִים הֲמִן הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם:

However, this is NOT how Rashi (based on midrashim) takes it. Rather, as Rashi writes:

Shall we draw water… from this rock?: Since they did not recognize it, for the rock had gone and settled among the other rocks when the well departed. The Israelites said to them,“What difference is it to you from which rock you draw water for us?” Therefore, he said to them, הַמּוֹרִים, obstinate ones; in Greek, ‘fools,’ those who teach (מוֹרִים) their teachers. [He said,] “Can we draw water from this rock regarding which we were not commanded?” - [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 9, Num. Rabbah 19:9]

המן הסלע הזה נוציא: לפי שלא היו מכירין אותו, לפי שהלך הסלע וישב לו בין הסלעים, כשנסתלק הבאר, והיו ישראל אומרים להם מה לכם מאיזה סלע תוציאו לנו מים, לכך אמר להם המורים סרבנים, לשון יוני שוטים, מורים את מוריהם, המן הסלע הזה שלא נצטוינו עליו נוציא לכם מים:

Rashi turns this from a rhetorical question and setup for the miracle into a response to an unspoken challenge. There is focus on the word זה. From this rock, do you really expect us to draw water. That is, Moshe was looking for a specific rock -- that same rock that had provided water in the past. When did it do this? When the well departed, at the death of Miriam. So Moshe was looking for the right rock. And the Israelites challenged him, and said that since (/if) this is a miracle, choose any rock.

This would be a great kiddush Hashem, for Moshe and Aharon to reply "Sure!" Instead, Moshe says shimu na hamorim -- listen now, you obstinate ones. We cannot do this. We can only draw water from the rock we were commanded.

And here is the failing. And this is where the midrash cited by Rashi in Behaalotecha fits in perfectly. Recall that that Rashi identified the statement shimu na hamorim as the sin.

What follows is clumsy follow-through, after having failed to make this kiddush Hashem, and perhaps causing Bnei Yisrael to believe that this is all trickery.

The next pasuk, and Rashi:

11. Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, when an abundance of water gushed forth, and the congregation and their livestock drank.		יא. וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת יָדוֹ וַיַּךְ אֶת הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם וַיֵּצְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים וַתֵּשְׁתְּ הָעֵדָה וּבְעִירָם:
twice: Because the first time he drew out only a few drops, since God had not commanded him to strike it, but, “you shall speak to the rock.” However, they spoke to a different rock, and nothing came out. They said, “Perhaps we ought to strike it first,” as it says, “and strike the rock” (Exod. 17:6). They came upon that very rock and struck it. — [Midrash Tanchuma Chukath 9, Num. Rabbah 19:9]		פעמים: לפי שבראשונה לא הוציא אלא טיפין, לפי שלא צוה המקום להכותו אלא ודברתם אל הסלע, והמה דברו אל סלע אחר ולא הוציא, אמרו שמא צריך להכות כבראשונה, שנאמר (שמות יז, ו) והכית בצור, ונזדמן להם אותו סלע והכהו:

As I understand this Rashi, after yelling at Klal Yisrael that they needed the right rock, they (meaning Moshe went to the wrong rock, and spoke to it. This did not work, because they had disallowed the idea that speaking to any random rock, including this wrong rock, would work. Then, Moshe and Aharon thought, based on the previous incident where Moshe was to strike the rock, that they should do so here as well. And they chose another rock, which turned out to be the proper rock. But that rock they did not speak to, but first hit it. This worked, because though it was the right rock, they were not commanded to strike it. Then Moshe hit it again, and water flowed from it.

Then, Hashem reveals his displeasure at their actions, and their punishment:

12. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.

יב. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל אַהֲרֹן יַעַן לֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לָכֵן לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָהֶם:

Note that this was because Moshe and Aharon did have faith in Hashem to sanctify Him in the eyes of the Bnei Yisrael. The lack of faith was in thinking that Hashem could not work the miracle through any random rock. And the lack of sanctification is the missed opportunity for kiddush Hashem had they replied to Klal Yisrael's challenge with acquiescence, and demonstrating that indeed any old rock would do.

Let us parse Rashi on this pasuk, and see that he says just that:

Since you did not have faith in Me: Scripture reveals that if it were not for this sin alone, they would have entered the Land, so that it should not be said of them, “The sin of Moses and Aaron was like the sin of the generation of the desert against whom it was decreed that they should not enter [the Land].” But was not [the question asked by Moses] “If sheep and cattle were slaughtered for them…” (11:22) [a] more grievous [sin] than this? However, there he [Moses] said it in private, so Scripture spares him [and refrains from punishing him]. Here, on the other hand, it was said in the presence of all Israel, so Scripture does not spare him because of the sanctification of the Name. — [Tanchuma Chukath 10, Num. Rabbah 19:10]

יען לא האמנתם בי: גלה הכתוב שאלולי חטא זה בלבד היו נכנסין לארץ, כדי שלא יאמרו עליהם כעון שאר דור המדבר, שנגזר עליהם שלא יכנסו לארץ, כך היה עון משה ואהרן. והלא (במדבר יא, כב) הצאן ובקר ישחט קשה מזו, אלא לפי שבסתר חסך עליו הכתוב, וכאן שבמעמד כל ישראל, לא חסך עליו הכתוב מפני קדוש השם:

The lack of faith is contrasted with the lack of faith in Hashem's ability to provide food for the Jews. The difference is that that other lack of faith was in private rather than in public. This statement was said in the presence of all Israel. What statement was that? Shimu na hamorim, as Rashi states it in Behaalotecha. And above, Rashi explained what that statement meant, which is not what we would have thought on the simplest peshat level. Its meaning, for Rashi, is a rejection of the Bnei Yisrael's proposal to speak to any rock, because Hashem would / could not follow through with a miracle in such an instance.

Rashi continues:

to sanctify Me: For had you spoken to the rock and it had given forth [water], I would have been sanctified in the eyes of the congregation. They would have said,"If this rock, which neither speaks nor hears, and does not require sustenance, fulfills the word of the Omnipresent, how much more should we! - [Midrash Aggadah]

להקדישני: שאילו דברתם אל הסלע והוציא הייתי מקודש לעיני העדה ואומרים מה סלע זה שאינו מדבר ואינו שומע ואינו צריך לפרנסה מקיים דבורו של מקום, קל וחומר אנו:

Don't be misled. This is where most people are misled, and think that שאילו דברתם אל הסלע והוציא means that the problem was striking the rock, as opposed to speaking to it. Maybe. But we can read this in a different way, consistent with the elaborate setup Rashi established above. "For had you spoken to the rock" that the Bnei Yisrael chose, that is, any random rock, and it had given water, they would have had the reaction specified, that is, awe that a rock would fulfill the sudden decree of Hashem.

To conclude:

13. These are the waters of dispute [Mei Meribah] where the children of Israel contended with the Lord, and He was sanctified through them.

יג. הֵמָּה מֵי מְרִיבָה אֲשֶׁר רָבוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת יְ־הֹוָ־ה וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ בָּם: