Moshe Rabbeinu was denied entrance into the Eretz Yisroel as a result of the incident that is known as “Mei Merivah”, “Waters of Merivah”. All the meforshim try to discover what Moshe did wrong. Rashi’s well-known interpretation is that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it. The Rambam in Shemonah Perokim explains that Moshe sinned when he publicly lost his temper and said “Listen here you rebels (shimu nah ha’morim), shall we bring forth water for you from this rock?” (Bamidbar 20:10). It is as if Moshe lost his patience with his flock and addressed them in too sharp a manner.
We need to analyze the Rambam’s explanation. Moshe Rabbeinu had a very legitimate reason to be angry. From a historical perspective, it certainly must have been frustrating. This was the second incident regarding this “Well”. The same thing happened forty years earlier.
Moshe Rabbeinu could justifiably say, “I have had it with these people! They have not come an iota closer to belief in the Ribbono Shel Olam after forty years under my tutelage.” Was it not understandable that Moshe needed to “let off a little steam” at them under such frustrating circumstances? And yet, the Rambam says that this was held against him. He should not have lost his patience.
In order to gain a better understanding of the Rambam’s interpretation, it helps to note a subtle contrast between the two incidents in which Bnei Yisroel complained about lack of water.
Regarding the first incident in Parshas Beshalach (Shemos 17:3), the complaint was phrased as follows: “The people thirsted there for water, and the people complained against Moshe and said, ‘Why is this that you have brought us up from Egypt to kill me and my children and my livestock through thirst?'”
Here in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 20:4) the complaint was “And why have you brought the congregation of Hashem to this wilderness to die there, we and our animals?” The texts are almost identical – except for one word. In Parshas Beshalach the charge was that Moshe brought them into the wilderness to KILL them. In Chukas, they only charged that he brought them there to DIE. In other words, in Parshas Beshalach they were charging Moshe with murder. Here they are only charging him with negligence — they would die in the wilderness because they had no water. However, they did not complain that Moshe was trying to KILL them.
This is a subtle but very significant difference. This does represent “progress” on their part. If forty years earlier they accused their leader of being a murderer and now they were somewhat more respectful in how they talked to him, that is a step forward. According to the Rambam, Moshe was punished for failing to take note of this subtle, miniscule difference. Moshe should have appreciated that difference. He should not have spoken down to them as “rebellious ones”.
There is a great lesson here. These are tremendous words of encouragement for anyone who is in the teaching profession — or anyone who is in the ‘parenting business’. Sometimes we may tell something to our child at age 10 and then need to repeat it to them when they are 15. They appear to be at the exact same level that they were at five years ago. We can give instructions to students at the beginning of the year and we do not necessarily notice progress. At the end of the school year, the students will still sometimes act incorrectly without constant correcting. However, this is a misperception on our part.
We sometimes need to be on the lookout for such a small thing as the way something is articulated, and even for the body language of the way something is said. Even a subtle change in attitude can be called progress. That is a level of progress that should be appreciated, not summarily dismissed.
This is difficult. It is frustrating. We want to see major progress. We want to see overnight dramatic change. But it does not always happen like that. Progress comes in incremental steps. This is something that Moshe Rabbeinu had to recognize and his failure to recognize it by losing his temper with the words “Shimu nah ha’Morim” is perhaps the reason that — for all his greatness — he was held accountable. (R’ Frand)
