Introduction
Psalm 78 is a "Maskil of Asaph" - an expansive survey of the history of Israel, in which the Psalmist recounts the wonders of Hashem in Egypt, at the Sea, and in the wilderness, set against the people's rebellions. In the passage before us, we focus on the miracle of drawing water from the rock, and from there we proceed to the sin of the complainers and the demand for meat. The key insight that will accompany us throughout this passage is the Malbim's profound explanation: What exactly went through the minds of those people who witnessed overt miracles, yet repeatedly "tested" Hashem?
"He split rocks in the wilderness" - Water from the Depths
יְבַקַּע צֻרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיַּשְׁקְ כִּתְהֹמוֹת רַבָּה׃ - He split rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink abundantly as from the great deep.
"He split rocks in the wilderness" - just as it is written, "and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it." Yet there is a difficulty here: the splitting of the rock is readily understood, but what does the phrase "and gave them drink as from the great deep" add? Rashi explains, based on the Midrash, that even while they were walking through the sea - whose water was salty - the Holy One, blessed be He, sweetened the springs within the deep for them, and they drank as they walked between the divided parts of the sea. This is the allusion in the verse: "and gave them drink as from the great deep," meaning He gave them sweet water to drink from the depths, rather than salty water.
The Radak explains differently: "He split rocks," in the plural, indicates two places - both at Rephidim and at Kadesh. Here the Radak, along with other commentators, points out an important principle: the wonders recorded in the psalm are not listed in chronological order. After all, the manna and the quail were given before they reached Rephidim, back in the Wilderness of Sin. Why, then, is the water mentioned here first and the manna only afterward? The answer is that this is not a chronological sequence, and we will soon see the reason for this.
As for the phrase "as from the great deep" (kitehomot rabba) itself, the Radak explains: He gave them drink from the rocks as though from the great deep. Sometimes water merely trickles from a rock drop by drop, whereas mighty waters surge from the depths - and here He gave them drink in immense abundance, as if the water were welling up from the great deep. Do not wonder at the blending of plural and singular - tehomot is plural while rabba is singular - for we find a similar construction in the verse "the branches run over the wall" (banot tsa'adah alei shur), where the verse opens in the plural and concludes in the singular.
"He brought streams out of a rock" - Water Flowing to Each Tribe
וַיּוֹצִא נוֹזְלִים מִסָּלַע וַיּוֹרֶד כַּנְּהָרוֹת מָיִם׃ - He brought streams out of the rock, and caused water to flow down like rivers.
Rashi explains, based on the Baraita of the Forty-Nine Middot: The water would flow from the well, and the tribal princes would trace lines with their staffs - marking grooves in the ground with a staff - and the water would follow them to the encampment of each and every tribe, in the manner of what is stated, "by the lawgiver, with their staffs." This is the meaning of "and caused water to flow down like rivers": the water that emerged from the rock flowed through the channels engraved in the ground, and each tribe received its water like rivers.
Miriam's Well - A Single Rolling Rock
The Malbim explains: "He split rocks in the wilderness" - even though the wilderness is not a place of springs, Hashem gave them drink abundantly as from the great deep. Nor should one say that perhaps there happened to be a natural spring in that spot; therefore, Scripture adds, "He brought streams out of a rock," in the singular. The Well of Miriam was a single rock, and it rolled along with them everywhere they went. It was not that a different rock split for them at every encampment, but rather that very same rock - a mobile rock that accompanied them constantly.
And where is it today? The Gemara says that its location is in the Sea of Galilee (the Kinneret). Some say that its place is opposite the grave of Rabbi Meir Baal HaNes. And from here stems the practice of drinking water on Motza'ei Shabbat - lest one happen to drink from Miriam's Well, which brings healing and wisdom. It is related about the holy Ari that when he began teaching Rabbi Chaim Vital, he would teach him, but he would forget. He told him: "I do not have enough time to stay with you until you remember." He took him out on a boat to Miriam's Well and told him: "Drink." From the moment he drank from there, he no longer forgot. Not that he never forgot anything at all - for we find in the writings of Rabbeinu Chaim Vital many times: "And my master said to me, and I do not remember whether..." - but he certainly remembered the vast majority of things, showing the tremendous power of memory granted through Miriam's Well. In any event, for our topic: this explains the duplication in the verse - "He brought streams out of the rock," from a single traveling rock that accompanied them constantly, and from there He brought forth water like rivers.
Tzur and Sela, Sea and Dry Land - Two Opposites from a Single Power
The Malbim notes a precision: the text mentions "crags" (tzurim) and it mentions "rock" (sela). A tzur is harder than a sela. At first he struck the tzur at Chorev, and later the sela in the wilderness. Here, the verse juxtaposed the splitting of the Red Sea, which turned water into dry land, with bringing forth water from the rock, which turned dry land into water. With this, the Malbim resolves the difficulty we raised: Why did the text jump from the splitting of the Red Sea to bringing water out of the rock, when the manna and the quail preceded them and are only described later? As the Radak already pointed out, the events are not recorded in chronological order; the verse wanted to juxtapose water to water - the splitting of the sea to the drawing of water from the rock.
And why? Because these are two opposites, and this is an expression of the power of the Creator, blessed be He: that the Holy One, blessed be He, can take water and turn it into dry land - He split the sea into dry ground; and He can take a dry object and turn it into water - He took the rock and produced water from it. The ancients believed in a plurality of deities, and according to their view, two contradictory things cannot stem from a single power: there is a god of evil and a god of good, one who brings death and one who brings life, one who brings suffering and one who bestows abundance. But we maintain that everything emanates from Him, blessed be He. "Do not multiply speaking haughtily, haughtily" - twice "haughtily," referring to two divine powers - "let arrogance not come from your mouth, for Hashem is a God of knowledge": He is one God, not multiple conflicting wills. Sometimes He desires to bestow goodness and sometimes the opposite; Gevurah is among His attributes, and Chesed is among His attributes. "And by Him deeds are weighed" - deeds refer to the dispositions of action, whether the flow of Chesed or the flow of Gevurah. Hashem brings death and gives life, brings down to Sheol and raises up, impoverishes and enriches, "I wound and I heal." Both what appears to you as a force for good and what appears as a force for harm are all one single power. This is what the verse comes to show: the power to take a rock and turn it into water, and the power to take a sea and turn it into dry land - everything stems from Him, blessed be He.
"Yet they sinned still more against Him" - What Was the Addition?
וַיּוֹסִיפוּ עוֹד לַחֲטֹא־לוֹ לַמְרוֹת עֶלְיוֹן בַּצִּיָּה׃ - "Yet they sinned still more against Him, rebelling against the Most High in the arid desert."
Seemingly, no sin was mentioned previously here, so what then is the addition? The Radak explains: the previous miracle, "He brought streams out of the rock," came in the wake of a sin and a complaint - they complained that there was no water for the congregation to drink, and they voiced grievances against Moshe: "Why did you bring us out into the wilderness?" That in itself was a lack of faith: Would the One Who brought you out into the wilderness not provide for you? Why cry and raise accusations? And following that - "Yet they sinned still more against Him."
"Lamrot" (to rebel) - this is in the sense of lehamrot, from the root of rebellion and defiance (meri), and not like the modern Hebrew usage of "despite." It is similar to "litzvot beten" - to cause the belly to swell, and "lanpil yerech" - to cause the thigh to fall, and likewise "lamrot einei chevodo" - to defy His glorious eyes. "Batziah" - in the arid desert. And what is the significance of "Elyon" (the Most High)? That Hashem is supreme and everything is in His hand: just as it is in His power to bring water out of the rock, and in His power to bring down the manna, so too is it in His power to provide them with meat in the wilderness. Yet they did not believe, and felt the need to test everything, as we shall see.
"In the Arid Desert" - Ibn Ezra's Wonderful Insight
Ibn Ezra emphasizes the word "batziah" (in the arid desert). To illustrate the point: If you have countless grievances and complaints against someone, but you know your money is deposited with him, or that he has the power to fire you from your job or harm you in some way - even though you are filled with resentment toward him, you keep your mouth shut. After all, if I anger him, I will lose my money; if I anger him, I will lose my job. And here: you should have considered where you were - stranded in the desert, in parched wasteland. The abilities of the Holy One, blessed be He, had already been proven, and who needed Him now? You did. And if you need Him, keep silent. How do you dare defy the word of the Most High in an arid wilderness? Do you have an alternative? After all, in such a place, even without Hashem actively doing anything, it would be enough for Him to say, as it were, "I have had enough of you; I am leaving you" - and six hundred thousand men, roughly five million souls, would perish in the wilderness without any enemies even attacking. In a place of such dryness, where without a cup of water you become dehydrated within hours - there, at the very least, you should have possessed the sense to hold your tongue. How could anyone defy the Most High in an arid wasteland, a place where their very survival depended entirely upon Him?
Doubting God's Capability - Why Did Such a Thought Even Cross Their Minds?
The Malbim notes: "Yet they sinned still more" - despite all this, they sinned against Him and doubted God's capability. This is a theme that will accompany us throughout this entire psalm: they continually harbored doubts about what Hashem is capable of, what the limits of His power are. On the surface, this is astonishing. If we saw that He took them out of Egypt, and if we saw that He split the sea for them, and we witnessed miracles demonstrating mastery over every hidden realm of nature and creation - what remained to doubt? "Can He do this too? Let us test Him on this." And if a person still doubts, we would not call him part of the "Generation of Knowledge," but rather a simpleton: What, did you not get the point? Do you need more than ten lessons? For Pharaoh, ten lessons were enough, but you need an additional course?
The Malbim explains this wonderfully: if we understand the prevailing notions of that era, it becomes easier to understand what was going on in their minds. The Malbim explains that they were steeped in corrupt beliefs inherited from Egypt. Notice that even regarding Nebuchadnezzar, who waged war against the Beit HaMikdash and destroyed the House of Hashem, we find that he believed in the God of gods. How does this make sense - you believe in the God of gods and yet go and destroy His Temple? Rather, their belief was that there is indeed a supreme God of gods, an immense Supreme Power through Whose power all of creation exists, but that this Supreme Power does not intervene in what takes place down here. In their view, the world was handed over to intermediaries, sub-rulers, who carry things out, while the Supreme Power takes no interest in what happens here.
From this stemmed idolatry (avodat kochavim u'mazalot): this star exerts one influence, that constellation exerts another, and therefore they worshipped many forces in order to receive from each force its particular bounty. There is a god of the sea - if you want an abundance of fish, worship the god of the sea. There is a god of fire - if you want bounty through fire, worship the god of fire. Each deity had the niche over which it ruled. And the Holy One, blessed be He? He is the God of gods, and supposedly does not intervene, for in their view it diminishes Him to suggest that He cares if my back itches.
"Great" and Not Merely "Exalted"
Here lies the difference in perception between us and the nations of the world. We say: "For Hashem is great in Zion, and exalted above all peoples." What is the difference between "gadol" (great) and "ram" (exalted)? "Ram" means up above: an airplane is high, a hot air balloon is high. "Gadol" is like the Eiffel Tower, extending from the bottom all the way to the top. The nations essentially relegated the Master of the Universe to the heavens: He is exalted, He is high and lofty, and He does not look at all at what happens here - so now I can rest easy and do as I please. But we - and this is what the prophets constantly repeat - believe that the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be He, watch over the deeds of mankind. And why do they repeat this? In order to counter that prevalent notion that Hashem is merely exalted and supreme. No: Hashem is great - He knows what occurs in the lowliest reality, down to the dust of the earth, and in the highest reality alike. Not only in the aspect of "exalted," but also "great."
A Limited Intermediary - The Root of the Tests
From this it follows: they believed that the miracles and wonders wrought by Moshe Rabbeinu were not from the power of the Supreme Deity, but rather from the power of a specific sub-deity, an appointed agent through whom these actions were carried out. And an appointed agent is limited. If I am appointed over the dry land, I cannot act in the sea, for that is not within my jurisdiction. What did Titus say to the Master of the Universe? "Master of the Universe, at sea You are mighty - You drowned Pharaoh, You have tremendous victories at sea on Your record; come confront me on dry land." And what did the Holy One, blessed be He, answer him? "I will not even come Myself; I will send a tiny gnat, and it will deal with you." Here again we see that same perception: that this is a lower force, an agent limited to the sea who cannot operate on dry land. Similarly, they believed that everything derives from lower intermediaries - an angel, a celestial sphere, or a subordinate power - and through them bounty can be channeled to a nation, a people, or an individual. However, that bounty is limited and specific, corresponding to the capacity of that agent, and beyond that it has no power.
And see how precise the wording of the verse is: "Yet they continued to sin against Him, to rebel against the Most High in the arid wasteland." Against whom was the rebellion? Against the "Most High" (Elyon) - against the recognition that Hashem is the Cause of all causes and the Source of all bounty. They said: It is not the Most High acting here, but rather the forces of lower agents. And if it is a lower agent, let us test his abilities, for surely he has limitations and a defined domain beyond which he cannot act. Thus, they rebelled against the Most High, against the Holy One, blessed be He, Whose eyes look all the way down and Who oversees everything, and they denied, as it were, that He is the Source of influence, as if lower intermediate causes are responsible, and "Hashem has forsaken the land."
"They Tested God in Their Hearts" - A Request for Meat That Was Not Really for Meat
וַיְנַסּוּ־אֵל בִּלְבָבָם לִשְׁאָל־אֹכֶל לְנַפְשָׁם׃ - And they tested God in their hearts, by asking food for their craving.
"And they tested God in their hearts" - the Radak explains: this was in their thoughts. The intention did not stem from need, but from testing: they asked for meat not because they wanted meat, but in order to know - does He also have the power to give meat? And how do we know it was not out of need? First, the manna was good and pleasant food, and they did not need meat. Second, an additional proof: when they entered the Land, the children of Gad and the children of Reuven requested the land of Yazer and the land of Sichon because they had vast livestock. Thus, thank God, there was no lack of meat. Moshe Rabbeinu also said, "Our livestock shall also go with us" - they had flocks and herds. What, then, did they want? To test the Holy One, blessed be He.
Scripture emphasizes, however: "in their hearts." With their mouths they did not say this; rather, they claimed that they longed for meat and craved it, and they disparaged the manna: "Our soul is dried out; there is nothing at all, nothing but the manna to look upon," and "Our soul loathes this light bread." And what was wrong with the manna? Whatever flavor you thought of, you experienced its taste. And what does "asking food for their soul [lenafsham]" mean? The Radak explains: "nefesh" means desire or craving, as in "if it is your mind [im yesh et nafshechem]" - your will, and as in "to satisfy his hunger [lemale nafsho]" - to satisfy his soul's craving. And in the words of Scripture, "they felt an intense craving [hitavu ta'avah]" - not that they actually lacked something, but that they craved to have a craving.
And why? We have already mentioned several explanations in the past. One of them: the manna was holy food and it sanctified a person, like the eating of sacrificial offerings. And what is the "problem" when a person becomes sanctified? Suddenly he discovers that he has no physical cravings. He could take it or leave it - and he wanted to feel desire. What does he do then? He asks for a different kind of food, so that through it he will experience lust. He will eat meat - and he will feel craving. Therefore it says "they craved a craving": they craved to have a craving. Once again we see that there was no real need here, only a desire to lust.
And a further proof comes from the complaint about the "miserable bread": What a ridiculous claim - we eat and eat and do not excrete; who knows, perhaps it is rotting in our intestines. Could it enter your mind that if the Holy One, Blessed is He, provided you with a meal, He does not know the exact proportions, what is healthy, and what is not? Would He give you something that harms you? After all, you see that it is miraculous, for there is no food a person eats without needing to relieve himself - yet they come and say this is a miracle for the worse! One has to be thoroughly distorted to say such a thing. Rather, it must be that everything stemmed from "They tested God in their heart": the entire matter was a testing of God, not an authentic need, but "our soul is dried up" - they were seeking cravings and could not find them.
The Malbim's Explanation: Three Keys in One Hand
The Malbim returns to the question of chronological order: In the Torah, we find that Hashem gave them the manna and the quail even before He brought forth water from the rock, for the extraction of water took place at Rephidim, whereas here the text mentions the manna and quail later on. The Malbim says: Do not wonder at this, for I have already explained in my commentary on the Torah that the episode of the complainers and the episode of "the rabble in their midst felt a craving" in Parashat Beha'alotcha are all one single event, not two separate narratives. In truth, as the Radak explained, this was not meat that they genuinely craved, but merely a testing of Hashem.
The Malbim explains this according to that same principle: They did not believe that this was the Most High God, Master of all powers, but rather one of the cosmic powers which Moshe Rabbeinu was operating. Their calculation went as follows: Initially, two things descended for them simultaneously - manna and quail, as it is written: "At twilight you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread." When they arrived at Rephidim and asked for water, Hashem gave them water - and immediately the quail ceased. They said: If so, he is incapable of giving three things at once. Thus the powers are limited, and we are dealing with a limited subordinate agent.
The Malbim brings support for their line of thinking: A limited force cannot hold multiple keys simultaneously. Eliyahu could not hold both the key of rain and the key of the resurrection of the dead at once - when he wanted the key of resurrection, he had to release the key of rain. From this they argued that the force leading them was likewise limited, and the proof was: the quail ceased the moment the waters flowed. This is not the Cause of all causes and Reason of all reasons, the Most High God, but an underling - and look, he cannot fulfill our every wish. Therefore, they tested: Let us see if He can bring all three together. If He brings all three without letting go of one key to grasp another - that will be proof that He is not limited. Therefore they asked that He also give them meat, and thereby they would know that all powers are in His hand. This is the meaning of "They tested God in their heart, asking food for their soul": their asking for food was not merely out of craving, but out of a test, for they doubted whether Hashem was capable and able or not.
Why Did Moshe Not Answer Them, "You Have Enough Meat"?
If the entire issue was testing the Creator's abilities, why did Moshe Rabbeinu not simply answer them: Gentlemen, you have plenty of meat, enough with the complaints! But had he answered like that, they would have said: Moshe realizes that the power has run out; he realizes he is working with a limited agent, and therefore he is trying to dismiss us with excuses. For when we asked for meat, the objective was not meat, but to test Hashem - so what kind of answer would that be? And precisely because Moshe knew the underlying motive of their request, he also knew that saying "you have plenty of meat" was no answer at all.
Furthermore, the Torah says, "according to all the desire of your soul you may eat meat" - when you arrive in the Land. Rashi, citing Chazal, notes precisely that here in the wilderness there was no "according to all the desire of your soul you may eat meat," because anything they did not bring to the Tent of Meeting was considered consecrated slaughter outside the Sanctuary. In the wilderness, unconsecrated meat eaten out of desire was not permitted, but only peace offerings - a portion for the altar, a portion for the Kohen, and a portion for the Israelite; whereas in the Land, each person could slaughter at home and eat to his heart's content. And regarding the desires themselves - we cannot measure them by our own yardsticks either. Just as we cannot comprehend the desire of Adam HaRishon and the desire of Chavah, which were desires on their lofty spiritual level and reality, so too here.
In Summary:
In these verses, the Psalmist sets two opposites against each other: the sea that turned into dry land, and the rock that turned into water - to show that everything stems from a single power, from one God of knowledge, Who brings death and gives life, Who impoverishes and enriches. Standing against this is the sin: "to rebel against the Most High in the arid desert" - rebellion against the "Most High" Himself, born of a corrupt conception inherited from Egypt, as though the world is run by limited subordinates and the God of gods does not exercise Divine Providence. Hence the request for meat, which was neither a necessity nor truly a craving, but a test: to see whether He had the power to grant three things at once. And against this stands the truth we continually reaffirm: "For Hashem is great in Zion" - not merely exalted and transcendent, but great, from the very bottom to the very top, Whose eyes gaze upon and oversee every single detail of reality.