THEN MOSES LIFTED HIS HAND AND HIT

THE ROCK WITH HIS STAFF TWICE,

AND MUCH WATER CAME OUT AND THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR LIVESTOCK WERE GIVEN DRINK.

(Bamidbar 20:11)

"When our Rabbi Moses

became angry, he also erred"

And Elazar

the Torah – Because

Moses became angry, he also erred. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses became

angry three times and he erred three times. One example is where it says, he

Aaron's remaining sons, saying… What did he say? Why did you not eat

the sin offering, etc. (Vayikra 10:17). Another example is where it

says, and he told them, "Listen, you rebels, shall I extract water from

this rock for you?" – What does it say further? Then Moses lifted

his hand and hit the rock with his staff twice (Bamidbar 20:11). Here too, it says: Moses became

of hundreds, who had come back from the military campaign. What does it

say? And Elazar the priest told the men who had

commanded Moses. When our Rabbi Moses became angry, he also erred.

(Sifrei Bamidbar 157)

And you shall

speak to the rock

– …the intention of this command was not that he should speak but not hit,

otherwise – why did he take the staff in his hand?… Rather, Moses and Aaron

were punished for something else… his words left room for Israel to believe

that Moses and Aaron extracted water for them through their own powers and that

it was not God's action… the Name of Heaven was thus desecrated by Moses'

words in the eyes of the people. That is why he was given the punishment that

he would not be allowed to enter the land, and his sin consisted entirely of

anger, upon becoming angry, he erred…

Twice – the plain meaning of the text

suggests that one hit would have sufficed to bring forth the water, but in his

anger he struck it twice, as an enraged man who does not act in proper measure,

but who rather repeats himself for no purpose.

(Rabbi Yitzhak Shemuel Reggio Bamidbar 20: 10-11)

"There

(RaMBaM)

Aviad Stolman

Every

year parashat Hukat raises

afresh the question of reasons for the commandments [ta'amei

ha'mitzvot]. Explaining the words this is the

law of the Torah, Rashi made his famous

statement: "Satan and the nations of the world taunt Israel,

saying, ‘What is this commandment and what is the

reason for it?' That is why regarding it, it is written hukah

– it is a decree of Mine and you have no

permission to question it!" This statement appears to be based upon a Tannaitic dictum quoted in braita

which appears in Yoma 67b, where various apparently

incomprehensible commandments are cited, including the prohibition upon wearing

sha'atnez [mixed wool and linen]. The nations

of the world taunt Israel

and wonder "What reason is there for these commandments!?" Not only

do the nations of the world question these commandments; so does Satan, i.e., the

personal evil inclination, who wonders if there is any advantage to observing

them.

There

is an interesting source-text that deals with the red heifer. It presents two

different approaches to this commandment, one popular, the other elitist:

A

certain idolater asked Rabban Yohanan

ben Zakai: "These

things that you do look like a kind of magic! You take a cow, burn it, pulverize

it, and take its ashes. Then you sprinkle two or three drops on one of you who

has been defiled by a corpse, and you tell him that he has been purified!"

He

told him: "Have you ever seen someone possessed by an evil spirit?

He

said: "Yes."

He

said to him: "And what do you do to it?"

He

said to him: "We take roots, smoke them, throw water on them, and it [the

evil spirit] flees.

He

said to him: Let you ears hear what your mouth is saying! This spirit is a

spirit of defilement… we sprinkle the special water upon it and it flees."

After

he [the idolater] left, his students said to him: "Our Rabbi, you pushed

that one off with a straw [a weak explanation], but what do you say to us?"

He

told them: "By your lives! The corpse does not defile,

and the water does not purify, rather the Holy One blessed be He says, ‘I have made a law, I have decreed a

decree, you are not permitted to transgress my decrees, for it is

written this is the law of the Torah.'"

(Bamidbar Rabbah 19)

R. Yohanan ben Zakai

gave the idolater an answer that seemed rational in terms of the idolater's own

conceptual framework. However, he offered his own more sophisticated students a

different answer: "By your lives! The corpse does not defile, and the

water does not purify, rather the Holy One blessed be

He says, ‘I have made a law, I have decreed a decree." According to R. Yohanan, some commandments (perhaps all of them?) lack a

rational explanation. Another well-known rabbinic dictum states: "What

does the Holy One blessed be He care whether slaughter is done from the throat

or from the back of the neck? Rather, [one should] say it [the law of slaughter]

is meant to purify people [i.e., to pose a purifying spiritual challenge to

them] (Bereishit

Rabbah 44, Theodore-Albek

edition pp. 424-5). Concerning this dictum, The RaMBaM

wrote in his Guide of the Perplexed (3:26), "These are very strange words." He

held that the dictum does not reflect the mainstream view of the Sages. In that

chapter, which is devoted to the question of the rationale of the commandments,

RaMBaM wrote forcefully that there are reasons for

the commandments: "There are some of them whose utility is clear to us,

such as the prohibition of murder and theft, and some of them whose utility has

not become clear to us, such as the prohibition of orlah

and kelai ha'kerem…

"

Elsewhere

in the Guide (3:31), the RaMBaM attacks those people "who find the offering of

a reason for a commandment to be difficult," and calls them "weak-minded"

for thinking that God "commands us to do that which is of no benefit to

us, and prohibits us from doing that which does no harm to us." The RaMBaM fought those who, for theological reasons, thought

that no rational should be given for the commandments. They believed that

Divine commands cannot be given rational explanations because only people act and command for rational

reasons. In the twentieth century, Yeshayahu Leibowitz passionately rejected – for theological reasons –

the formulation of explanations for the commandments. In contrast, The RaMBaN did not only believe that commandments were

purposeful and not arbitrary; he also believed that it was possible for human

beings to understand those purposes.

The RaMBaN, one of the Jewish People's great men of spirit, was

very alert to the connection between reasons and action. In several places, the

RaMBaN points to the Torah's general commandments. For

example, he understood the commandment to do what is

upright and good in the eyes of the Lord to be a general

commandment requiring that we behave honestly and decently even in

circumstances where the law does not delineate precise rules. If we adopt a

purely positivist attitude towards the halakhah, we

will indeed know how to behave in certain specific situations to which the

Torah relates explicitly, but we will not know how to behave honestly and

decently in situations that are not explicitly dealt with by the law. It seems

that clarification of the rationale standing behind the commandments is

necessary for us to be able to act "in the spirit of the law."

The RaMBaN

does not only write in this vein in relation to ethical commandments. Consider

his famous interpretation of the verse be holy (Vayikra 19:2):

The

point is that while the Torah prohibited illicit sexual relationships and

banned certain foods, it also permits intercourse between man and wife and the

consumption of meat and wine. Thus, a voracious person can find room to be

awash in sensuality with his wife or many wives, to be drunk with wine and

stuffed with meat, and will speak as he wishes about all disgusting things, for

there is no prohibition of this in the Torah. And so he shall be a scoundrel

with the Torah's permission. That is why after delineating the absolute

prohibitions Scripture came and commanded the general principle that we should limit

ourselves regarding that which is permitted to us.

Only

one who is involved with the rationale of commandments and identifies with it can

behave "in the spirit of the law" and can avoid being "a

scoundrel with the Torah's permission." For instance, it is possible to

allow someone to perform heavy labor on Shabbat and the festivals, to allow

them to lift heavy objects, since it is not included in the thirty-nine

categories of work prohibited on Shabbat. True to his line of thought, the RaMBaN (on Vayikra 23:24) states: "We have been commanded

by the Torah to rest on the festivals – even from activities that are not work

all day measuring grain, weighing fruits and portions, and filing wine barrels,

moving artifacts and stones from house to house and from place to place." Thus

we find that according to the RaMBAN, a halakhic authority must pay attention to the spirit, as

well as to the fine-print, of the law. Understanding of the "spirit of the

law" depends, of course, on understanding the purpose of the law; it is

this which allows the authority to correctly interpret the law.

Frequently,

an explicit rationale is nowhere to be found, making the "spirit of the

law" unclear as well. What is one to do when you do not know the way of

the wind [ruah, also "spirit'] (Kohelet 11:5)? Such

cases call for deep thought and great effort in order to try and determine the

rationale and the "spirit of the law." Even after all honest efforts

are exhausted, it may be that no man can control the spirit to capture the

spirit (Kohelet

8:8), and the authority can never be sure that he understood correctly. Who

can be certain that he has discerned the "spirit of the Lord" rather

than the "spirit of falsehood"? This seems to be the source of the great debate over whether and to what extent

we should "explicate the rationale of Scripture" (see Encyclopedia Talmudit

on Ta'ama de'Kra).

Nevertheless, there is no escaping hard decisions, as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein z"l wrote in the introduction to his collection of responsa, Igrot Moshe:

"The Holy One blessed be He gave the Torah to Israel in order that they act

in accordance with their understanding of the text and of that which was

transmitted orally from Sinai as they understand it… even if it may not be

God's own understanding."

Inspection

of any Talmudic discussion will demonstrate that formulation of halakhic rulings is based upon an understanding of the

rationale of the law; if the rationale changes – so does the ruling. The Beraita (Sotah

22a) refers to those who rule from the set laws of the Mishnah rather than from in-depth investigation are called "wearers-down"

or "destroyers." There are some halakhic authorities

who are aware of the rationale of the commandments – of the foundations of the

law – but who not rise up to the higher plane of the meta-halakhah.

Their decisions are not based upon the principles which guide the halakhah, both in its generalities, as well as in its particulars.

In contrast to the many authorities of our day who have adopted a positivistic

approach to halakhah and who ignore the "spirit

of the law," the RaMBaN and the RaMBaM seem to have believed that the authority must take

meta-halakhic concerns into account when formulating a

decision.

Meta-halakhic arguments are made up of particular and general

factors. Particular factors relate to each individual commandment, such as the

principle of rest on Shabbat in the laws of Shabbat or of avoiding cruelty to

animals in connection with the commandment of proper slaughter and of sending

away the mother bird. General factors include: "Its ways are ways of

pleasantness", "great is the dignity of human beings," "a

scoundrel with the Torah's permission," "do what is upright and good,"

"the ways of peace." It appears that these two types of factors do

not have any real standing as far as the current authorities are concerned. Unfortunately,

many authorities prefer to adopt a positivistic approach and serve as a kind of

halakhic technician. When these fundamental factors

are not studied or taken into account, the Torah becomes a fraud.

Rabbi Dr. Aviad Stollman

is the rabbi of the Zemer Ha'Zayit

Congregation in Efrat.

Miriam died there, and she

was buried there. Now there was no water for the community – The

lack of water was punishment for not having properly eulogized Miriam. There

Miriam died and there she was buried. And there was no water for the assembly. Regarding

Moses and Aaron it is written and the children of Israel wept over them – here

it does not say they wept over her; it says there Miriam died and

there she was buried for at the place where she died, she was buried

immediately, and forgotten, and her absence was not felt. Therefore, they were

deprived of water, so that they would learn – after the fact – that the well existed

thanks to Miriam's merit. The Sages taught that the report of her death was

placed next to the chapter of the [red] heifer, to teach us that just as

sacrifices atone, so the death of the righteous atones. Why was it placed next

to the heifer chapter in particular? Because the heifer is not really a

sacrifice, even though the Torah terms it a hattat – a sin offering. But

the main point is that just as the heifer comes to to clean it's calf's feces,

(the heifer atones for the sin of the Golden Calf), so the righeous woman,

mother of living, cleansed the filth of her children upon her death.

(Kli

Yakar, Bemidbar 20:1-2)

The fountain which was hewn from

the rock at Horev provided not only the needs of the immediate hour, but it

accompanied the Children of Israel throughout the duration of their wilderness

trek. That is the reason we hear no more complaints about lack of water. But

now, immediately after Miriam's demise, the fountain dries up, and the

community which saw itself for the first time as "the assembly of the

future" lacks the basic requirement for continued existence: And there

was no water for the community. Regarding the juxtaposition of And there

Miriam died with And there was no water for the assembly the Talmud (Ta'anit

9a) states "The well – [existed] in Miriam's merit."

The well which accompanied them from Horev through the wilderness was given

them in Miriam's merit. Miriam's quiet activity on behalf of the nation's moral

future now became public knowledge. Her death was a national loss, and this

became evident following her death, when the waters of the Horev well ceased to

flow.

(Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, Bamidbar

20:2)

They have built

which I never commanded, never

decreed, and which never came to My mind.

 (Jeremiah 19:5)

R. Shemuel

bar Nahmani said in the name of R. Yonatan: Three made improper requests, two received proper

responses, and one received a harsh response. They are: Eliezer,

servant to Abraham; Saul son of Kish, and Yiftah the Gileadi.

Eliezer, servant to Abraham – for

it is written: and the maiden to whom I say ‘Lower your jar, etc."

(Bereishit

24). Even if she was crippled or blind?

But He responded properly, and brought him Rebecca.

Saul son of Kish

– for it is written: The man who kills him [Goliath] will be rewarded by the

king with great riches; he will also give him his daughter (I Samuel 17). Even if he is

a slave or a bastard? But He responded properly, and sent him David.

Yiftah

the Gileadi – for it is written: And whatsoever

leaves the door of my house, etc (Judges 11).

Even an unclean thing? He answered him harshly, and

sent his daughter. This is as the prophet said to Israel

Is there no balm in Gilead?

Can no physician be found there? (Jeremiah 8). And it is written: Which I did not command, and of which I did not

speak, and which did not enter my mind (Jeremiah 19). Which

I did not command – that is the son of Misha,

King of Moav, for it is said, and he took his

firstborn son who was to rule after him, and offered him up as a burnt offering

(II Kings 3); and of which I did

not speak – that was Yiftah; and which did not

enter my mind – that is Abraham's son Isaac.

(Ta'anit 4a)

Yiftah is not to be regarded

as a national hero. His deed is not to be admired as one of self-sacrifice and

greatness prompted by patriotic feeling. It was a cruel and unwarranted deed.

We may rely on our Sages who saw him as an ignorant and unlettered person, a

boor, empty, and rash. Enthusiasm by itself is no guarantee of the desirability

of a cause. Enthusiasm that is not backed by conscience and the self-discipline

of Torah is liable to bring disaster. "What caused Yiftah

to take the life of his own daughter? His failure to read and

understand Torah."

(Studies in Bamidbar

by Nehama Leibowitz, tr. A.

Newman, p.279.)

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $700

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel,

checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem

91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel

Fund of Great Britain,

26 Enford Street, London

W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER

$100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317

Madison Ave., Suite 607, New

York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be

marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of

tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always been central to

Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious

value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national

obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law

clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence

between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to

issues of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web

site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's

society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance, and to the

furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to

engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli

Arabs and with Palestinians.