<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei<br>Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too<br>onerous.<br><div><div><br></div><div>The Pasuk clearly commands Moshe to gather the eidah together with him</div><div>and Aharon. The fact that the eidah is mentioned first and then followed by</div><div>v'dibartem is even a stronger reason to believe that they were all commanded</div><div>to speak to the rock. You ask: <font class="Apple-style-span" color="#243AFC">Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, </font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#243AFC">not the entire Benei Yisrael?</font> Why WOULD it? If that were the case, it would have</div><div>been more logical to say: "gather the eidah," etc."and you and Aharon speak to the rock."</div><div><br></div><div>Also, you didn't address the question that they were told to speak to the rock but</div><div>they weren't told WHAT TO SAY.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On Jul 19, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Micha Berger wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 18:57:56am EDT, Richard Wolberg wrote:<br>... [2nd "compelling question:]<br>: Regarding speaking to the rock, the Torah commands Moshe to gather<br>: the eidah and Aharon and speak to the rock so that it will give its<br>: waters. First, the Torah doesn't tell him WHAT to say and the commandment<br>: is "v'dibartem" which is the plural. Logistically, how were they all<br>: to speak together when they weren't even told what to say? Perhaps,<br>: Moshe was so overwhelmed not knowing what to say or how they could<br>: all speak together that his frustration led him to strike the rock.<br>: (B'midbar 20:8).<br><br>Wouldn't "vedibartem" refer to Moshe and Aharon, not the entire Benei<br>Yisrael? In which case, planning while walking to the rock wasn't too<br>onerous.<br><br>Besides, why guess what Moshe was frustrated without looking at what<br>he himself says about it? "Listen now you rebels, from this rock are<br>we to bring forth water for you?" I would have said either it was the<br>demand for water or this expectation that the gifts come from people<br>doing magic -- depending upon whether "for you" (lachem) or "we" (NOtzi)<br>was emphasized. Trop has "notzi lakhem" with a mercha-tipcha, so that's<br>no help. Rishonim explain it both ways.<br><br>Rabbeinu Chananel's "Do you think WE can bring forth..." harkens back to<br>the egel; again they're overly relying on Moses the middleman. Emphasizing<br>the "for you" ingrates would be more like the meraglim -- they can't<br>picture life without G-d handing them everything on a miraculous silver<br>platter.<br><br>There are other rishonim who give other opinions as to what the sin was,<br>but they presume that MRAH was angry without telling us why. The Ramban<br>says the sin was making it sound like they too were waiting to see if G-d<br>could bring forth water. That contradicts Rabbeinu Chananel, but could<br>fit the "ingrate" theory. Similarly Rashi (hitting rather than speaking)<br>and Ibn Ezra (lack of kavanah and shirah made the speech insufficient,<br>necessitating the hitting) just presume his anger motivated a misstep,<br>but not what the anger was about.<br><br>Tir'u baTov!<br>-Micha<br><br>-- <br>Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten<br><a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a> your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,<br><a href="http://www.aishdas.org">http://www.aishdas.org</a> and it flies away.<br>Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter<br></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>