Kedushas Levi on Parshat Chukat

(1) יען לא האמנתם בי "Because you did not trust in Me" — Scripture discloses the fact that but for this sin alone, they would have entered the land of Canaan, in order that people should not say of them, “Even as the sin of the generation of the Wilderness (a term used of those who left Egypt) on whom it was decreed that they should not enter the Land was the sin of Moshe and Aharon” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 27:13). But was not the doubting question (cf. Rashi on Numbers 11:22), “shall the sheep and oxen be slaughtered for them?” a more grievous lack of faith in God than this? But because that had been said in private (no Israelites being present and therefore it could have no evil influence upon them), Scripture (God) spared him (and did not make his lack of faith public by pronouncing punishment for it). Here, where all Israel were standing by, Scripture does not spare him because of the Hallowing of the Divine Name (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 10). (2) להקדישני TO SANCTIFY ME — For had you spoken to the rock and it had brought forth water I would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, for they would have said: What is the case with this rock which cannot speak and cannot hear and needs no maintenance? It fulfils the bidding of the Omnipresent God! How much more should we do so?

The sin of Moshe and Aharon in the [matter of the] waters of Meribah is not clearly expressed in Scripture. Rashi explains that [their sin consisted of hitting the rock], because He had commanded them, and speak ye unto the rock, and did not say “and ye shall strike it.” For had they spoken [to the rock and it had brought forth water] the Holy One of Blessing, would have been sanctified before the whole congregation, since the people would have said: “If [even] this rock, which does not hear and does not speak, nonetheless obeys the command of the Holy One of Blessing, how much more so should we do so!” These words are [in the nature of] a homiletic interpretation, but they do not clarify [the matter]. For since ha-Shem had commanded Moshe: Take the rod, it implied that he should smite [the rock] with it, for had ha-Shem only wanted that he should speak to it, what was [the point of] this rod in his hand?...Furthermore [if the sin consisted of smiting the rock], why did ha-Shem say about this: ye [Moshe and Aharon] trespassed against Me? [It cannot be because they failed to speak to the rock], for the [fulfillment of the] command to [Moshe to] speak to the rock is indeed [also] mentioned at the occurrence [of the event]!...

Now Rabbeinu Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] advanced the following reasoning, and explained “that the sin of Moshe our teacher, of blessed memory, consisted of tending towards anger, when he said, Hear now ye rebels, and ha-Shem, blessed be, treated this as a failing, that a man like him should show anger in front of the congregation of Israel, in a situation in which anger was not warranted. All similar actions of such a man are treated as a profanation of Shem ha-Shem, because the people take an example from all his [Moshe’s] movements and words, hoping thereby to achieve successes in this world and the World to Come. How could he [permit himself to] appear angry, since it [anger] is an evil trait, and is derived only from a bad characteristic of the features of the soul! But when ha-Shem said of this sin: ye trespassed against Me, [the meaning thereof] is as I shall explain. Moshe was not speaking to simpletons, nor to those of insignificant status, for the least important of their women was [equal in prophetic vision] to [the prophet] Ezekiel the son of Buzi, as the Sages have mentioned. Thus whatever Moshe said or did the people would examine, so that when they saw him becoming angry, they said that he — may his memory be blessed — did not lack moral perfection, and therefore ‘unless he knew that ha-Shem was angry with us for demanding water, and that we have aroused the anger of ha-Shem, blessed be, Moshe also would not have been angry with us.’ But we do not find that ha-Shem was angry [with the people] when speaking to Moshe on this matter. But [instead] ha-Shem said: Take the rod, and assemble the congregation, you, and Aharon thy brother, and speak to the rock before their eyes, that it give forth its water; and you shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock; so you shall give the congregation and their cattle drink. [This statement does not indicate that ha-Shem was angry with the people for having demanded water, and hence Moshe's anger was unjustified.] Thus we have solved one of the most difficult problems in the Torah, concerning which many things have been said, and which has been asked many times, namely: ‘what was the sin which Moshe committed?’ Consider what has been said [by others] about it, and what we ourselves have explained, and let the truth prevail.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] of blessed memory.

But if they see that the sinner is one of the foolish scoffers who hate their reprovers, as it is written (Mishlei 9:8): "Do not reprove the scoffer, lest he hate you," and their words will certainly not be accepted, and men such as these readily return to their folly, so that he may very likely come to sin again — if so, it is better for them if they tell it to the judges of the city, so that they chastise him for his sin and keep him from future transgression. And it would seem that the same holds true for [telling] the relatives of the sinner if [we know that] their words [of reproof] will be accepted by him [see Be'er Mayim Chayim]. And the entire intent of the teller should be for the sake of Heaven and in zeal for ha-Shem, and not because of their hatred of him for something else. And the judges, too, should chastise the sinner in secret and not "whiten his face" in public, as it is written (Vayikra 19:17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him."