[Avodah] TWO COMPELLING QUESTIONS

[Richard Wolberg]

Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
onerous.

The Pasuk clearly commands Moshe to gather the eidah together with him
and Aharon. The fact that the eidah is mentioned first and then followed by
v'dibartem is even a stronger reason to believe that they were all commanded
to speak to the rock. You ask: Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, 
not the entire Benei Yisrael? Why WOULD it? If that were the case, it would have
been more logical to say: "gather the eidah," etc."and you and Aharon speak to the rock."

Also, you didn't address the question that they were told to speak to the rock but
they weren't told WHAT TO SAY.



On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:57:56am EDT, Richard Wolberg wrote:
> ... [2nd "compelling question:]
> : Regarding speaking to the rock, the Torah commands Moshe to gather
> : the eidah and Aharon and speak to the rock so that it will give its
> : waters. First, the Torah doesn't tell him WHAT to say and the commandment
> : is "v'dibartem" which is the plural. Logistically, how were they all
> : to speak together when they weren't even told what to say? Perhaps,
> : Moshe was so overwhelmed not knowing what to say or how they could
> : all speak together that his frustration led him to strike the rock.
> : (B'midbar 20:8).
> 
> Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei
> Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too
> onerous.
> 
> Besides, why guess what Moshe was frustrated without looking at what
> he himself says about it? "Listen now you rebels, from this rock are
> we to bring forth water for you?" I would have said either it was the
> demand for water or this expectation that the gifts come from people
> doing magic -- depending upon whether "for you" (lachem) or "we" (NOtzi)
> was emphasized. Trop has "notzi lakhem" with a mercha-tipcha, so that's
> no help. Rishonim explain it both ways.
> 
> Rabbeinu Chananel's "Do you think WE can bring forth..." harkens back to
> the egel; again they're overly relying on Moses the middleman. Emphasizing
> the "for you" ingrates would be more like the meraglim -- they can't
> picture life without G-d handing them everything on a miraculous silver
> platter.
> 
> There are other rishonim who give other opinions as to what the sin was,
> but they presume that MRAH was angry without telling us why. The Ramban
> says the sin was making it sound like they too were waiting to see if G-d
> could bring forth water. That contradicts Rabbeinu Chananel, but could
> fit the "ingrate" theory. Similarly Rashi (hitting rather than speaking)
> and Ibn Ezra (lack of kavanah and shirah made the speech insufficient,
> necessitating the hitting) just presume his anger motivated a misstep,
> but not what the anger was about.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
> micha at aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
> http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110719/dc24e159/attachment-0002.htm>