Why can't Moshe hit the water?

from the Golden Haggadah, Spain, 1300s

An interesting question posed at Judaism.StackExchange (that is, Mi Yodeya):

As a kid I learned that Moshe wasn't allowed to hit the water because it saved him when he was a child and he had to show hakaras hatov (similar answer for why he couldn't hit the sand that saved him by hiding the body of the mitzri he killed). But the water didn't save him, the little basket, the Egyptian lady who yanked him out or even the sister who watched him might have saved him, the water didn't do anything. If someone was in a car accident an survived unharmed they would say the seat belt saved them, not the road. How can we make sense of this ma'amar chazal?

I think that just as you can't ask a kasha on a maaseh, you often can't ask a kasha on a midrash.

On a peshat level, the reason it is Aharon who hits the water and the sand is that Hashem established Aharon as a spokesperson for Moshe, in the 4th perek of Shemot:

יג  וַיֹּאמֶר, בִּי אֲדֹנָי; שְׁלַח-נָא, בְּיַד-תִּשְׁלָח.	13 And he said: 'Oh Lord, send, I pray Thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send.'
יד  וַיִּחַר-אַף ה בְּמֹשֶׁה, וַיֹּאמֶר הֲלֹא אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ הַלֵּוִי--יָדַעְתִּי, כִּי-דַבֵּר יְדַבֵּר הוּא; וְגַם הִנֵּה-הוּא יֹצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ, וְרָאֲךָ וְשָׂמַח בְּלִבּוֹ.	14 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and He said: 'Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.
טו  וְדִבַּרְתָּ אֵלָיו, וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת-הַדְּבָרִים בְּפִיו; וְאָנֹכִי, אֶהְיֶה עִם-פִּיךָ וְעִם-פִּיהוּ, וְהוֹרֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם, אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּן.	15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put the words in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do.
טז  וְדִבֶּר-הוּא לְךָ, אֶל-הָעָם; וְהָיָה הוּא יִהְיֶה-לְּךָ לְפֶה, וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה-לּוֹ לֵאלֹהִים.	16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him in God's stead.
יז  וְאֶת-הַמַּטֶּה הַזֶּה, תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ, אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה-בּוֹ, אֶת-הָאֹתֹת.  {פ}	17 And thou shalt take in thy hand this rod, wherewith thou shalt do the signs.' {P}

and later in perek 7:

א  וַיֹּאמֶר ה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ.	1 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'See, I have set thee in God's stead to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
ב  אַתָּה תְדַבֵּר, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָּ; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יְדַבֵּר אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וְשִׁלַּח אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ.	2 Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Still, it is irregular that sometimes Moshe takes action, and sometimes Aharon takes action, but there are surely peshat resolutions to this issue.

The Midrash is derash and derush. By derush, I mean that it is meant to teach a moral / ethical lesson. On a practical level, on which normal and sane people conduct themselves, people don't need to show gratitude to inanimate objects, which did not mean to assist in any way, and have no senses such that they would be hurt by being hit. And the river was hit anyway, whether by Moshe's direct action or by his command.

But the midrash is highlighting these actions by Aharon as a homiletic way to highlight the important trait of gratitude. And perhaps even gratitude for unintended side effects of other people's actions. Someone did not directly intend to benefit you, but they still effectively helped you out -- you should show, and feel, gratitude. Even if someone benefited you in a limited, transitory way, you should show, and feel, gratitude.

However, in terms of the challenges posed by the question, I think that they are readily surmounted. The sand hid the slain Egyptian. The water hid baby Moshe, such that the Egyptians did not find him. And it kept him their until he was found by the daughter of Pharaoh.

Further, there is a midrash that the astrologers told Pharaoh of one, soon to be born, who would challenge his power,  but that that person would die by water. (Think of Moshe hitting the rock and as a result dying in the midbar.) Therefore, Pharaoh commanding casting all infants into the Nile. The midrash continues that as soon as Moshe was cast into the water, the astrologers informed Pharaoh that they had sensed that this usurper had been cast into the Nile. And immediately, Pharaoh rescinded his decree. Thus, one could say that it was the water itself which had saved Moshe.

The sweet stench of burning feathers

Summary: and how it might relate to rei'ach nicho'ach. From parashat Vayikra.

Post: The following beautiful Rashi from last week's parsha, Vayikra. Regarding the korban of the poor man, which is offered from fowl:

17. And he shall split it open with its wing feathers [intact], but he shall not tear it completely apart. The kohen shall then cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, on top of the wood which is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a fire offering [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.

יז. וְשִׁסַּע אֹתוֹ בִכְנָפָיו לֹא יַבְדִּיל וְהִקְטִיר אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל הָעֵצִים אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאֵשׁ עֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה:

The word kenafav means its wings, but can also also mean its wing feathers. Rashi writes:

By its wings,with its wings; he does not have to pluck off its wing-feathers.		בכנפיו: עם כנפיו, אינו צריך למרוט כנפי נוצתו:
By its wings, means actual feathers. Is there anyone who smells the odor of burning feathers who does not become disgusted? Why [then] does the verse say "he shall offer [it]"? In order that the altar should be satiated and adorned with the sacrifice of a poor man.		בכנפיו: נוצה ממש. והלא אין לך הדיוט שמריח ריח רע של כנפים נשרפים ואין נפשו קצה עליו, ולמה אמר הכתוב והקטיר, כדי שיהא המזבח שבע ומהודר בקרבנו של עני:

Thus, as I would interpret it, it is more important that the altar be satiated and adorned, not because of any ritual concerns, or because it adds to Hashem's glory to have a larger substance on the mizbeyach, but because of how the pauper will feel. He is already bringing quite a small korban, a bird rather than a cow or sheep. Let it look at least somewhat decent.

And, I would note, this is the same verse that ends רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה, "a pleasing fragrance to the Lord". Granted, there is a reason for leaving the feathers on and causing a stench. But how then can it be a pleasing fragrance?

The answer is that רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ is not intended in its most literal sense. Does Hashem have nostrils? Since He does not, what does He care for the fragrance? Indeed, this business about leaving off the feathers can help guide us to the conclusion that "pleasing fragrance" is not literal.

Rashi writes on pasuk 9:

pleasing: satisfaction before Me, for I commanded [that this be done], and My will was carried out.		ניחוח: נחת רוח לפני, שאמרתי ונעשה רצוני:

Thus, the pleasing fragrance has to do with fulfilling Hashem's word, not with actual physical senses. Compare with Yeshaya's message in Yeshaya 1:11, and with other Ancient Near East conceptions of the relationship between man the the gods, where mankind was created to be able to provide food via sacrifices, so that the gods would not starve, and where after the long Deluge in the epic of Gilgamesh, when sacrifices are finally brought by Ur-napishtim, the gods smell the sweet and pleasant odor and swarm like flies around it.

Naso: Seforno on Nazir and Taanis

As a quick follow-up to the Ostrovtze Rebbe's explanation of only someone "sitting" in Taanis being a chotei:

Here is what Sforno has to say on the pasuk. The pesukim state {Bemidbar 6}

ב דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם: אִישׁ אוֹ-אִשָּׁה, כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר--לְהַזִּיר, לַה'שם.	2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD,
ג מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר, חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה; וְכָל-מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה, וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל.	3 he shall abstain from wine and strong drink: he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.

And upon this, Sforno comments:

Thus, a Nazir-ship is a good thing. He wants to separate from the regular taanugim, to separate himself in order that he be entirely dedicated to Hashem, to engage in His Torah, to go in His ways, and to cleave to Him. So what should he do? He should not fast, since this will weaken him from doing the work of heaven. Nor should he engage in makos perushim. See Sotah 22b for more details.

To cite Point By Point Summary:

(l) (Mishnah): Blows of Perushim...
(m) (Beraisa): There are seven types of (improper) Perushim: Shichmi, Nakfi, Kizai, mi'Duchya, one who says 'what is my obligation? I will do it!', from love, and from fear.

1. Shichmi do not act for Hashem's sake;
2. Nakfi shuffle their feet like humble people, and stub their toes;
3. (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Kizai bleed from bumping into walls, like one who closes his eyes to avoid looking at women;
4. (Rabah bar Shilo): Mi'Duchya walk bent.

and so on... but see inside, on Sotah 22b:

ומכות פרושין וכו': ת"ר שבעה פרושין הן פרוש שיכמי פרוש נקפי פרוש קיזאי פרוש מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה פרוש שיכמי זה העושה מעשה שכם פרוש נקפי זה המנקיף את רגליו פרוש קיזאי א"ר נחמן בר יצחק זה המקיז דם לכתלים פרוש מדוכיא אמר רבה בר שילא דמשפע כי מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה הא מעליותא היא אלא דאמר מה חובתי תו ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה אמרו ליה אביי ורבא לתנא לא תיתני פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפי' שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דמטמרא מטמרא ודמגליא מגליא בי דינא רבה ליתפרע מהני דחפו גונדי אמר לה ינאי מלכא לדביתיה אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין אלא מן הצבועין שדומין לפרושין שמעשיהן כמעשה זמרי ומבקשין שכר כפנחס:

Rather, continues Seforno, he separates himself from wine. In this way, he reduces his desires and subdues his yetzer.

This idea that the Nazir is doing something good, and that other paths are not good, can fit with the gemara somewhat. Of course, Sforno considers fasting to be a type which is not good, because it weakens one from being able to accomplish avodas Hashem.

However, to reiterate, this might be in accord with other opinions, such as Rabbi Eleazar in the gemara, or Resh Lakish. But Shmuel is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer haKappar who cited Rabbi, on Taanis 11a:

1. (R. Elazar ha'Kafar citing Rebbi): The Pasuk refers to the Nazir as having sinned, because he deprived himself from wine.
2. If he is called a sinner just for abstaining from wine, how much more so someone who abstains from all food.

Thus, he not only holds that fasting is sinful, but becoming a nazir and abstaining from wine is also sinful. (and that is why later on, we have the words we may cite out of context, וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו, מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא.)

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that Shmuel's perspective is that the Torah prohibits certain actions, and one should not add on to them. Just as elsewhere anyone who takes a vow is as if he built a private altar, and whoever fulfills the vow is as if he sacrificed upon it an offering. And with the issur bamos, this is a bad thing -- the Torah dictates a place for a central altar, where everyone goes, and a place where offerings are wanted, and elsewhere it is improper to bring it. So too, the Torah dictates behavior. Aside from that, Hashem wants us to enjoy His world, and this ascetic attitude is not a positive one.

Other Amoraim, and other Tannaim, can of course argue. But I think this approach is what is guiding Shmuel in his statement.

Which is also why I don't see the Ostrovtze Rebbe's response about "nikra chotei" as being correct.

Extrospective vs. Introspective Derashot

Recently, I have seen too many divrei Torah with the message of "here is why we are great and those other people are entirely without merit." Those other people are on occasion religious Zionists, secular Israelis, people who don't belong to a particular end-of-times kabbalistic cult, and so on. This annoys and offends me -- first because I think it is not true, and second because even if it were true, is this really what one should be expending energy on? How is this productive? It just boosts feelings of superiority rather than introspection and true love for one's fellow man. There are indeed times and places when there is a need for such derashos, but I do not think the present situation warrants it.

I think that Rabbi Yochanan felt the same way, in an exchange in Kesubos 111b with Rabbi Eliezer. And I think that the proper way to learn this gemara is to realize what is happening on this meta-level, an almost homiletic level, rather than the actual interpretation of texts.

Ketubot 111b reads:

R. Eleazar said; The illiterate will not be resurrected, for it is said in Scripture, The dead will not live etc. So it was also taught: The dead will not live. As this might [be assumed to refer] to all, it was specifically stated, The lax will not rise, [thus indicating] that the text speaks only of such a man as was lax in the study of the words of the Torah.

{The pasuk was Yeshaya 26:14:

יד מֵתִים, בַּל-יִחְיוּ--רְפָאִים, בַּל-יָקֻמוּ; לָכֵן פָּקַדְתָּ וַתַּשְׁמִידֵם, וַתְּאַבֵּד כָּל-זֵכֶר לָמוֹ.

14 The dead live not, the shades rise not; to that end hast Thou punished and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.

and refaim, "shades," is understood here as lax.
First the statement was that the dead shall not live, but this is not all the dead, only the refaim -- the lax.
}

Said R. Johanan to him: it is no satisfaction to their Master that you should speak to them in this manner. That text was written of a man who was so lax as to worship idols.

'I', the other replied, 'make an exposition [to the same effect] from another text. For it is written in Scripture, For thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the dead. him who makes use of the 'light' of the Torah will the 'light' of the Torah revive, but him who makes no use of the light of the Torah the light of the Torah will not revive'.

{This is a verse a few pesukim later in the same perek:

יט יִחְיוּ מֵתֶיךָ, נְבֵלָתִי יְקוּמוּן; הָקִיצוּ וְרַנְּנוּ שֹׁכְנֵי עָפָר, כִּי טַל אוֹרֹת טַלֶּךָ, וָאָרֶץ, רְפָאִים תַּפִּיל. {פ}

19 Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise--awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust--for Thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades.

}

Observing, however, that he was distressed, he said to him, 'Master, I have found for them a remedy in the Pentateuch: But ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day;

{ Devarim 4:4:

ד וְאַתֶּם, הַדְּבֵקִים, בַּה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם, הַיּוֹם.

4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.

}

now is it possible to 'cleave' to the divine presence concerning which it is written in Scripture, For the Lord thy God is a devouring fire? But [the meaning is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade on behalf of scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence. Similarly you read in Scripture, To love the Lord thy God, [to hearken to His voice,] and to cleave unto Him. Is it possible for a human being to 'cleave' unto the divine presence? But [what was meant is this:] Any man who marries his daughter to a scholar, or carries on a trade for scholars, or benefits scholars from his estate is regarded by Scripture as if he had cleaved to the divine presence.

The "illiterate" refers to amaratzim, and in fact soon Shadal will be discussing Rabbi Eliezer's first derasha in the context of the philosophical notion that only intellectual study will allow the soul to be everlasting, instead of being cut off.

The problem with Rabbi Eliezer's derasha is not that something about the pasuk which acts as a prooftext works correctly, or better, about idolaters than an interpretation about not learning Torah -- even though the previous pasuk is:

יג ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, בְּעָלוּנוּ אֲדֹנִים זוּלָתֶךָ; לְבַד-בְּךָ, נַזְכִּיר שְׁמֶךָ.

13 O LORD our God, other lords beside Thee have had dominion over us; but by Thee only do we make mention of Thy name.

But this is not Rabbi Yochanan's issue, I think. Rather, he states his issue -- " it is no satisfaction to their Master that you should speak to them in this manner."

Homiletic derashos such are this are in the hands of man, and this is an unproductive and possibly hurtful path to take. I doubt that an am haaretz hear this derasha and so, "Oh noes! I had better start studying!" Rather, it makes those who learn Torah feel more accomplished, but more than that, that they solely will be getting reward. As opposed to the unlearned man in the market, who is their fellow Jew. I don't know how Hashem will reward effort, though I hope all good people, even if unlearned, will get their just reward. But in terms of my own attitude, it is not positive to think of other people, who in general will not be changing, with disdain, and to consider their lives of little or no value. Even if the derasha, and the actual facts, are true, it is not to the satisfaction of their Master that I speak of them in this manner. Rather, I should value them as fellow human beings, and regard them with love and respect. Even if my priorities and judgments differ.

If one does not make such a derasha, the pasuk still stands waiting for a derasha. And Rabbi Yochanan provides one. And it is one against idolatry. This places those not to be resurrected at a greater extreme, for those do not worship Hashem at all, but worship other gods. But in terms of fellow Jews, even those who do not commit themselves to the study of Torah, they still will merit resurrection. But I do not think the point was the alternate derasha.

Rabbi Eliezer's response is to seize on a pasuk a bit later in the same perek in Yeshaya, and darshen it in the same manner as he first attempted.

Rabbi Yochanan is not happy. This is not because of a problem with linguistic merits of the derasha. Rather, Rabbi Yochanan is vexed by the conclusion of the derasha. And if presses, surely one could come up with an alternative homiletic derasha here. But Rabbi Eliezer has certainly not won the argument against Rabbi Yochanan. Rather, Rabbi Yochanan blocked his first derasha by showing an alternative interpretation, and Rabbi Eliezer (perhaps tone-deaf) circumvents this block by showing that he will just take another verse (and perhaps another verse, and another verse, and so on) and apply it to this class of people.

It is indeed the conclusion that vexes Rabbi Yochanan. How could Rabbi Eliezer write out so many of his fellow Jews, who simply did not merit to learn Torah? Rabbi Eliezer senses this, and is willing to meet Rabbi Yochanan half-way. Those Jews who agree to the general program and priorities, and even though they do not themselves learn, respect learning and do what they can to support it -- they can also be resurrected. Thus the pasuk in Devarim reads

ד וְאַתֶּם, הַדְּבֵקִים, בַּה, אֱלֹהֵיכֶם--חַיִּים כֻּלְּכֶם, הַיּוֹם.

4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.

which is interpreted as those who attach to Talmidei Chachamim. Those will be alive on that day, hayom.

This is a more inclusive picture, though not an entirely inclusive one. Still, it answers to the problem of superiority and sinas chinam, for these also have their place and are valued by Hashem values them. And it gives a role to those who are not cut out to study, because of whatever life-circumstances. And it is productive in that it brings these people from the outside in to the mission, in a way they can participate.

A while ago, when discussing a similar derasha made by Rabbi Yochanan (in comparison to statements made by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef), someone suggested that this was all self-serving of Rabbi Yochanan, as a way of garnering support for himself and other Torah scholars. But we can see from this exchange that it was not this. Rather, it is out of love for a fellow Jew and a desire to find a place for others of different backgrounds in the service of Hashem.

This actually brings us to that other derasha, which occurs in Berachot 34b:

וא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא למשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ולעושה פרקמטיא לתלמיד חכם ולמהנה תלמיד חכם מנכסיו אבל תלמידי חכמים עצמן עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך

This is remarkably similar to Rabbi Eliezer's derasha, but Rabbi Eliezer was Rabbi Yochanan's student, and he made the derasha in conversation with Rabbi Yochanan. What is happening here?

I do not think this is the general trend some claim that statements from Eretz Yisrael are attributed to Rabbi Yochanan. No. I think that it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer knew of Rabbi Yochanan's derasha, and patterned his own after it. Or potentially vice versa.

Rabbi Yochanan's derasha in Berachos is in fact different in slight ways, which are really major ways.

1. Here, Rabbi Yochanan is not merely allowing them to be resurrected in techiyas hameisim, but rather is saying that all the rewards mentioned in Tanach are going to them.
2. Of course, Rabbi Yochanan is not talking about those who do not contribute in this manner, but I would not read that as agreeing with Rabbi Eliezer about such people. Such people as e.g. do chessed, but are not committed to learning Torah.
3. It is entirely positive all around. Not only does it encourage everybody to take part in this great Torah-learning endeavor, but it also encourages the Talmidei Chachamim by saying they will get even more, something which is unimaginable. You do not need to knock down others to promote your own group as doing something more important.

Maharatz Chayos actually treats this derasha as homiletic, and as a guzma, in order to encourage certain attitudes one should take. But I think it would be unfortunate if someone takes Rabbi Yochanan's derasha, meant to encourage each group, in order to foster attitudes of low-worth to e.g. those who do not commit themselves to learning while working, or (in from another person's perspective) those who do not commit themselves to kollel-only, but instead work for a living. Not everyone is cut out for such a life, or such a direction to their efforts. Personalities are different, and abilities are different. Some people may be well-suited for hours of intensive Talmud study, and others might have talents in creative endeavors such as painting, or in working with people in a bein adam lachaveiro realm.