Dry Spell

The first Rashi in Parshas Massei addresses a fundamental question: why are so many Pessukim devoted to a to a listing of the Massos Bnei Yisroel, their travels in the Midbar? Rashi offers two answers to this question, one from R’ Moshe Hadarshan and the second based on a Medrash Tanchuma. The crux of this second answer is that the stops were reviewed to show Bnei Yisroel what it had taken, and what was required for them the reach the point they were at. The Massos are not listed for the purposes of historical record—they are there to teach us about the time in the Midbar, and these Pessukim, which may seem rather factual, must be learned with that in mind.

The Pessukim of the Massos follow something of a patter: each Passuk tells us where Bnei Yisroel traveled from and where they stopped: “VaYisu MEilim Vayachanu Al Yam Suf.” With few exception, the Torah does not discuss what happened in any of these locations, just the names of the encampments. Based on the words of Rashi, however, it is clear that any time the Torah diverges from this pattern, and includes additional details, there is a specific and meaningful reason for doing so.

One such location is Refidim, which is the tenth stop mentioned. Here the Torah tells us: “Vayisu M’Alush Vayachanu B’Rifidim V’Lo Haya Sham Mayim L’Am Lishtos.” When Bnei Yisroel reached Refidim, there was no water for them to drink. We learn about Refidim in Parshas Beshalach, where the Torah speaks at length about the lack of water and the response of Bnei Yisroel, which led to Moshe bringing forth water from the rock. There were, however, many stops in the Midbar at which events of note took place, but nothing is mentioned in the Masaaos, why is Refidim different?

The Ramban asks this question, noting a variety of places in which seemingly more impactful events occurred, and explains that Refidim was perhaps different because the lack of water caused Bnei Yisroel to challenge Hashem, and in fact the location was called Masah U’Meriva on that account. This uprising also led to a Nes—the water coming from the rock—which was done openly, and it was also the place that Amalek came to fight them. Therefore, explains the Ramban, the Torah mentions briefly that there was no water to be had “Ki Hu Hamakom Hanikar H’Hanoda Bo”, for this is how the location was identified.

The simple understanding of the Ramban is that there were many events that transpired in Refidim—the Masa U’Meriva of Klal Yisroel, the Nes of the water, and the war with Amalek—and the Torah therefore chose to highlight this location. This approach certainly answers the question, but there are a few questions to be asked on this Ramban, however.

First, if the Torah chose to speak about Refidim because of all that happened there, why did it not mention any of those things? Only the cause—the lack of water—is noted, but not the effects thereof. Why not?

Additionally, the Passuk there tells us that the location was renamed, and called Masa U’Meriva because of the complaining that happened there. Why then does the Torah refer to it as Refidim here, using the original name, and not Masa U’Meriva which would allude the circumstance the Torah wishes to highlight? Later on the Torah mentions Kivros HaTava, which was the name given following the incident with the as one of the Masaaos, rather than the original name of the location. Why here does the Torah revert to calling it Refidim?

The final words of the Ramban are hard to uderstand as well. He writes “Ki Hu Hamakom Hanikar H’Hanoda Bo”, which seems to mean that the place, Refidim, was identified by the lack of water, and that’s why the Torah mentions this fact specifically. It is not clear, however, why this is might be the case—why it wouldn’t be identified by one of the other three things that happened there—and how the Ramban knows this. These words therefore require more examination.

What does arise from the words of the Ramban is that the occurrences at Refidim were in some way more notable than those that happened elsewhere in the Midbar, and that at the root of it all is in the lack of water. In order to fully understand this Passuk, then, we must examine the Pessukim in Parshas Beshalach to better understand what exactly happened in Refidim.

The story of Refidim begins with the words: “Vayisu Kol Adas Bnei Yisroel MiMidbar Sin L’Maseihem Al Pi Hahsem VaYachanu B’Rifidim V’Ain Mayim Lishtos HaAm.” All of Bnei Yisroel traveled, Al Pi Hashem, and arrived in Rifidim, where there was no water to drink. The Pessukim go on to tell us that Bnei Yisroel complained about this to Moshe Rabbeinu, but his response is surprising: “Mah Tirivun Imadi, Mah Tinasun Es Hashem.” Moshe seems almost indifferent to the pleas of Bnei Yisroel for water, asking why they are complaining to him, or fighting with Hashem.

Besides seeming generally uncharacteristic of Moshe Rabbeinu, this response is much different than other times Bnei Yisroel approached him with similar complaints. In Parhas Chukas, when Bnei Yisroel again complains about a lack of water, Moshe and Aron go to the Ohel Moed to Daven that the situation be rectified, and earlier in Parshas Beshalach, when the complaints were about food, the Passuk seems to indicate that Moshe immediately received the a Tzviuy about the Mon. It is therefore notable that here Moshe pushes back on Klal Yisroel the way he did.

The next Passuk tells us that Klal Yisroel returned to Moshe with a more expansive complaint, at which point Moshe turned to Hashem. At this point Hashem tells Moshe how to obtain water on behalf of Klal Yisroel: he is to take the ZIknei Yisroel and his Matteh, and strike the “Tzur”, for all to see, at which point water will flow from the rock. Though these instructions, and their outcome, are well known, the way in which the Torah refers to the Matteh is notable: “UMatteh Asher Hikisa Bo Es Hayeor Tikach Beyadech.” The Matteh Moshe is referred to as the one that was used for the Makkah of Dam, when the Nile was struck. Besides the fact that it was not Moshe who hit the Yeor, but Aron, why does the Torah even make reference to the Makkos at this point? Clealrly there is a message in the fact that the Makkos were brought up at this juncture.

Sforno answers this question, and through his words we can perhaps begin to understand what happened in Refidim. One might have thought that the nature of the Matteh Moshe was that had the ability to bring negative effects: turning water into blood. By using that same Matteh to now bring about positive result—extracting water from a rock—all would know that there was no Teva to the Matteh other than what Hashem willed, and it was therefore capable of either positive or negative effects.

Obviously there were many other instances in which this lesson could have been taught, and Bnei Yisroel shown that the Matteh was in control of Hashem. That it was important that this be done in Refidim seems to indicate that it was here that Klal Yisroel needed this lesson the most. Perhaps this can help us explain what exactly occurred there.

Really, there is an overarching question to be asked when thinking about Refidim: why, in fact, was there no water? This was, as we mentioned, the tenth place that Klal Yisroel camped, and they had been in the Midbar for some time—what had they been drinking until this point and why could they no longer quench their thrist from that source?

To answer this question, it may be helpful to understand a little more about the source and origin of that most ubiquitous substance—Mayim.

In Mizmor L’Dovid on Sukkos, R’ Dovid Cohen, Shlit”a, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivas Chevron offers a deep explanation of how we obtain water, which usually comes through rain. Based on the words of the Gra and Nesivos, he explains, that there are two types of water: that which comes through supernatural means, and that which comes through Teva. When Klal Yisroel is Ossin Retzono Shel Makom, when we act as we should, we are Zoche to the first type of Geshem. When we fall short, however, and do not live up to our responsibilities, we are subject to Teva.

This dichotomy is illustrated through the way that we Daven for rain three times a day. We first mention our need for the Bracha of rain at the beginning of Shemonah Esrei, in the Bracha of Gevuros. This is a request for the rain that come L’Malah Min HaTeva, through the Gevurah of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Later we ask for rain again, in the Bracha of Barech Aleinu, in recognition of the fact that our shortcomings may render us fit only for the natural rain.

Chazal tell us that the name Refidim reflects the state of Klal Yisroel at the time: “Al Sherafu Yideihem Min Hatorah”, their grasp on Torah had weakened. In some way, their Shemiras Hatorah V’Hamitzvos had wavered, and perhaps they therefore fell into the category of “Ain Osin Retzono Shel Makom.” While they had previously enjoyed water that was brought in a way that was L’Malah Min HaTeva, this could no longer be the case, and so as they reached Refidim they were subject to the natural elements: an arid desert, bereft of potable water.

Thus, when they approached Moshe he responded to them in a practical manner: their complaint was not with him or Hashem—they were the ones to blame and they could themselves bring back their source of water by tighting their grasp on Torah and Mitzvos.

When he was approached a second time, however, Moshe realized that Bnei Yisroel had not been successful. The second complaint is in the singular, “L’Hamis Osi V’es Banai V’Es Banai Batzama,” a sign that each one was thinking only about himself, and not his fellow man. Klal Yisroel, as a whole, has a protection from the laws of Teva that individuals do not. In seeing that BNei Yisroel was acting every man for himself, Moshe realized that they were moving toward a dependence on Teva and not away from it—hardly a promising indication. It was at this point that he turned to Hashem, realzing that only Rachmei Shamayim could help bring the water that was so desperately needed.

This is why the Tzivuy to Moshe was to bring water using the Mateh, in a way that made a point about the limitations of Teva. By using the Matteh, Moshe exhibited that it was not the Teva of the staff that brought the Nissim, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu. In this way, Bnei Yisroel received the water, but also a much-needed lesson—they could rely on Teva, but had to understand that it was limited, and their survival would be ensured only if they could reach a level of Osin Retzono Shel Makom, and thus be Zoche to the Gishmei Gevurah.

This approach helps us understand why, right after the Torah tells us that the place was called Masah Meriva, we are told that Amalek came in Refidim: because the arrival of Amalek was tied to the Rifyon in Torah as well. Chazal tell us that the Koach of Amalek is Teva, as the Passuk in Ki Tzeitzei says “Asher Korcha Baderech.” Because Bnei YIsroel were not Osin Retzono Shel Makom, they were vunerable to Amalek, the embodiment of Teva.

Based on this, we can well understand the Passuk in our Parsha, and the words of the Ramban.

The Torah wished to highlight what happened in Refidim because it is instructional to all future generations. “Vayachanu B’Rifidim”, they came to a place of “Rrafu Yideihem Min Hatorah”, a situation of Ainam Osin Retzono Shel Makom, and therefore “Lo Haya Sham Mayim L’Am Lishtos.” Everything else that happened there—the Masa U’Meriva, the Nes and even the war with Amalek—resulted from the subjugation to Teva that came about because of the Rifyon in Torah. This what the Ramban means when he says “Ki Hu Hamakom Hanikar H’Hanoda Bo”: the place was defined by the Rifyon in Torah that led to a lack of water.

This is such an important lesson for the period of time we find ourselves in. We yearn for the Geulah, yet we know that it can only come in a way that is L’Malah Min HaTeva. The message of Refidim resonates: if we ensure that we are indeed Osin Retzono Shel Makom, and that our Teffilos and hopes are in the plural--if we are united as a Klal—we can rise to the level required to break free of Teva, and bring the Massaos of Galus to an end.