Exodus 17

Sugya Map

• Issue: The nature of Bnei Yisrael's complaint at Rephidim concerning water, its spiritual implications, and its immediate aftermath. Was their clamor a genuine expression of need, or a cynical test of Divine Providence? The textual juxtaposition with Amalek's attack immediately following this episode raises questions about cause and effect.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The severity of Bnei Yisrael's sin at Massah U'Merivah, impacting their standing before G-d.
  • Moshe's role and emotional state in mediating between the people and Hashem.
  • The rationale for Amalek's subsequent attack: was it a direct middah k'neged middah punishment for the lack of faith, or an independent event highlighting their inherent malice?
  • Understanding the unique command to "blot out the memory of Amalek."
• Primary Sources:
  • Exodus 17:1-7 (The water at Rephidim, Massah U'Merivah)
  • Exodus 17:8-16 (The war with Amalek)
  • Numbers 33:12-14 (Journey from Sin to Rephidim)
  • Deuteronomy 25:17-19 (Commandment of Zachor Amalek)
  • Psalms 78:30 (Reference to Bnei Yisrael testing G-d)
  • Sifrei Devarim 317 (on Deut. 25:17)
  • Talmud Bavli, Bechorot 5a (Etymology of Rephidim)

Text Snapshot

The narrative opens with Israel's journey and encampment:

וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּדְבַּר סִין לְמַסְעֵיהֶם עַל פִּי ה' וַיַּחֲנוּ בִּרְפִידִים וְאֵין מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת הָעָם׃ From the wilderness of Sin the whole Israelite community continued by stages as יהוה would command. They encamped at Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink. (Exodus 17:1)

The people's reaction is swift and severe:

וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם וְנִשְׁתֶּה וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה מַה תְּרִיבוּן עִמָּדִי מַה תְּנַסּוּן אֶת ה'׃ The people quarreled with Moses. “Give us water to drink,” they said; and Moses replied to them, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you try יהוה?” (Exodus 17:2)

The concluding verse of the water incident encapsulates the gravity:

וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה עַל רִיב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַל נַסֹּתָם אֶת ה' לֵאמֹר הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן׃ The place was named Massah and Meribah, because the Israelites quarreled and because they tried יהוה, saying, “Is יהוה present among us or not?” (Exodus 17:7)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The phrase "וְאֵין מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת הָעָם" (Exodus 17:1) presents a curious grammatical construction. Rather than the expected "לָעָם" (for the people) or "לִשְׁתִּיַּת הָעָם" (for the drinking of the people), it uses the infinitive construct "לִשְׁתּוֹת" followed by a nominative "הָעָם." This might imply a subtle distinction, as explored by commentators. Similarly, the shift from "וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם מֹשֶׁה" (they quarreled with Moses) in v. 2 to "וַיִּלֹּן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה" (the people grumbled against Moses) in v. 3 is significant, suggesting a progression in the nature of their discontent.

Readings

Ramban: Distinction between "Quarrel" and "Murmur" as a Test of Faith

Ramban, in his commentary on Exodus 17:1, offers a meticulous distinction between "וַיָּרֶב" (and they quarreled) and "וַיִּלֹּן" (and they murmured). He argues that "וַיָּרֶב" denotes an active, confrontational dispute, explicitly stating "Give us water, you and Aaron your brother, for you are responsible, our blood is upon you."¹ This "quarrel" is characterized by Moshe as a direct "trial" or "testing" of G-d (מַה תְּנַסּוּן אֶת ה'). Ramban asserts that their intent was to test whether G-d could indeed provide water, or if He was truly among them, as explicitly stated in the naming of Massah and Meribah: "הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן."² This initial quarrel, therefore, is a profound lack of faith.

In contrast, Ramban explains that the subsequent "וַיִּלֹּן הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה" in v. 3, which occurred after their initial water supply (from Alush) ran out, was more akin to their earlier complaints for bread (Exodus 16:2). These "murmurings" were grievances about their condition ("What shall we do? What shall we eat, and what shall we drink?") rather than a direct challenge to G-d's presence or power. Ramban explicitly rejects Ibn Ezra's view (as implied) that there were two distinct groups, one genuinely thirsty and one testing G-d, insisting that the entire community's initial "quarrel" was a test. His chiddush lies in parsing the psychological and theological nuances behind the different verbs, highlighting a severe spiritual failing in the "quarrel" that goes beyond mere complaint.

Ibn Ezra: The Brevity of Scripture and Multiple Stages

Ibn Ezra, commenting on Exodus 17:1, focuses on the phrase "לְמַסְעֵיהֶם" (by their stages). He clarifies that this seemingly brief statement implies multiple intermediate encampments between the Wilderness of Sin and Rephidim, specifically Dophkah and Alush, citing Numbers 33:12-14.³ His chiddush here is primarily linguistic and geographical, explaining that the Torah often condenses narratives, expecting the reader to fill in the gaps from other accounts. While Ramban alludes to Ibn Ezra's interpretation regarding two groups (and rejects it), Ibn Ezra's own commentary on 17:1 primarily focuses on the geographical movement, not directly on the nature of the people's complaint, though his overall approach often seeks simpler, more literal readings.

Or HaChaim: "Rephidim" as a Spiritual Allusion

R' Chaim ben Attar, the Or HaChaim, offers a profound allegorical interpretation for the location itself. On Exodus 17:1, he connects the name "רְפִידִים" (Rephidim) to the root ר-פ-ה (to slacken or weaken), specifically drawing from the Gemara in Bechorot 5a, which states: "רפיון ידים מן התורה" (a slackening of hands from Torah).⁴ The Or HaChaim's chiddush is to link the physical lack of water—which itself is compared to Torah ("אין מים אלא תורה" - Bava Kama 82a)⁵—to a spiritual deficiency. He posits that because the Israelites neglected Torah study, G-d reciprocated by withholding the physical manifestation of "water," thereby creating the very thirst that led to their quarrel. This offers a moral explanation for the crisis, suggesting that the external hardship was a consequence of an internal spiritual failing.

Haamek Davar: The Nuance of "לשתות העם" and Unified Travel

R' Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, the Netziv, in his Haamek Davar, delves into two subtle textual points in Exodus 17:1-2. Firstly, regarding "וְאֵין מַיִם לִשְׁתּוֹת הָעָם" (there was no water for the people to drink, v. 1), he questions the grammar, noting it should ideally be "לָעָם" or "לִשְׁתִּיַּת הָעָם." He proposes that this unusual construction implies that the people weren't yet desperately thirsty. Rather, they claimed there was no water for them to drink if they were to continue, preemptively complaining.⁶ This suggests an element of pre-meditation or lack of trust, even before acute suffering.

Secondly, on "וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּדְבַּר סִין לְמַסְעֵיהֶם" (v. 1), the Netziv contrasts this with their earlier journey from Elim (Exodus 16:1), where the text reads "וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל." He infers that from Elim, they traveled in a less unified manner. However, from the Wilderness of Sin to Rephidim, the use of "וַיִּסְעוּ כָּל עֲדַת" implies they traveled together. He suggests this unity was either because they feared not finding manna outside Moshe's immediate encampment, or, more profoundly, because they had received the mitzvah of Shabbat (Exodus 16:23) and were careful not to separate, lest Shabbat arrival find them dispersed and unable to congregate with Moshe.⁷ This chiddush adds a layer of positive spiritual context to their travel, making their subsequent complaints at Rephidim even more jarring against this backdrop of newfound unity and observance.

Shadal: Grammatical Parallel for "לשתות העם"

Shadal (R' Shmuel David Luzzatto), like Ibn Ezra and Ramban, acknowledges the brevity of "לְמַסְעֵיהֶם" (Exodus 17:1), explaining it as multiple journeys from Sin to Dophkah, then Alush, then Rephidim.⁸ His main chiddush for our purposes, however, is on "לִשְׁתּוֹת הָעָם" (Exodus 17:2). He identifies this as a common grammatical construction in Biblical Hebrew, where the infinitive construct is followed by the subject, meaning "that the people may drink." He provides a parallel from Psalms 104:27: "כֻּלָּם אֵלֶיךָ יְשַׂבֵּרוּן לָתֵת אָכְלָם בְּעִתּוֹ" (All of them look to You to give their food in its season), which he interprets as "that You may give their food."⁹ This clarifies that the construction is not anomalous but a standard idiom, thus offering a different reading from the Haamek Davar's nuanced interpretation, suggesting the plain meaning is simply that there was no water for the people to drink.

Friction

The Immediate Juxtaposition of Massah U'Merivah and Amalek's Attack

One of the most striking textual features of Exodus 17 is the immediate and abrupt transition from the account of the water at Rephidim and the people's faithlessness to the onset of Amalek's attack. The narrative flows directly: "וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם מַסָּה וּמְרִיבָה... הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן׃ וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם."¹⁰ (Exodus 17:7-8). This proximity begs the question: Is Amalek's attack a direct, divinely orchestrated punishment for the people's lack of faith at Massah U'Merivah, or merely a chronological sequence of events, a separate challenge that happened to occur next? If it is a punishment, what is the middah k'neged middah (measure for measure) connection between questioning G-d's presence and an attack by Amalek?

Terutz: Amalek as the "Dog" of Divine Punishment

The classic resolution to this friction is found in the Midrashic tradition, articulated most clearly by Rashi and the Sifrei, which posits a direct causal link.

Rashi's "Dog" Metaphor

Rashi, commenting on "וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק" (Exodus 17:8), connects the attack directly to the Israelites' cynical query, "הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן" (Is G-d present among us or not?). He explains: "אני ה' אלקיכם ואני קרוב לכם כה' אלהיכם בקרבכם ואין אתם שומעים בקולי, הריני מזמין עליכם את הכלב ומכיש אתכם."¹¹ Rashi interprets the divine response as: "I am G-d your G-d, and I am close to you as G-d your G-d among you, and you do not listen to My voice. Behold, I will appoint against you 'the dog' and he will bite you." The "dog" here is a metaphor for a weak, opportunistic, and contemptible enemy – Amalek. Just as a dog bites when its master is distracted or perceived as absent, so too Amalek attacks when Israel questions G-d's presence and protection. The punishment is tailored: they doubted G-d's immanence, so G-d allowed an external force to make them feel vulnerable and question their own existence and security. The attack highlights their newfound spiritual weakness.

Sifrei's "Robber" Analogy

The Sifrei Devarim provides a powerful parable reinforcing this idea: "מה דרכו של מלך? כשהוא הולך, בניו מלווים אותו. אם בניו מלווים אותו, אין שום אדם יכול לנגוע בהם. אם בניו מפקפקין, 'היש ה' בקרבנו אם אין?' מיד בא לסטים ופורק מהם."¹² (What is the way of a king? When he goes, his children escort him. If his children escort him, no one can touch them. If his children doubt, 'Is G-d among us or not?' immediately a robber comes and strips them.) This analogy brilliantly illustrates the middah k'neged middah. When Israel maintains faith and "escorts" G-d, they are inviolable. But when they express doubt and question His presence, it's as if they've momentarily abandoned their King, leaving themselves exposed to "robbers" like Amalek, who exploit this spiritual vulnerability. The king (G-d) does not directly send the robber, but by withdrawing His explicit protection due to their doubt, He allows the natural consequences of an unprotected journey to unfold. Amalek, therefore, is not merely a chronological next event, but a direct spiritual consequence, a stark reminder that emunah is their ultimate shield.

Intertext

Mei Merivah (Numbers 20:1-13)

The incident at Rephidim (Massah U'Merivah) bears a striking resemblance to the later event of Mei Merivah (Waters of Strife) in the Wilderness of Zin, forty years later (Numbers 20:1-13). Both involve a lack of water, the people quarreling, and Moshe being commanded to bring forth water from a rock. The shared name "Merivah" itself highlights the parallel. However, a critical distinction lies in the severity of the people's sin and Moshe's response. At Rephidim, the people's sin was explicitly "נסותם את ה'" (testing G-d) by questioning His presence. Moshe's reaction, though distressed, was to cry out to Hashem, and he was commanded to strike the rock. At Mei Merivah, the people's complaint was still severe, but Moshe's own error—striking the rock twice instead of speaking to it, thereby sanctifying G-d's name insufficiently—was the focus of divine wrath, leading to his exclusion from Eretz Yisrael.¹³ This comparison underscores the recurring challenge of faith in the wilderness, but also distinguishes between the people's collective sin of testing G-d (which invited Amalek) and Moshe's individual failing in a similar context.

The Commandment to Blot Out Amalek (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

The war with Amalek at Rephidim is not just a historical event; it forms the foundation for one of the Torah's most unique and enduring commandments: Zachor et asher asah lecha Amalek (Remember what Amalek did to you) and Timcheh et zecher Amalek mitachat ha'shamayim (You shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven).¹⁴ This command in Devarim 25:17-19 explicitly references Amalek's cowardly attack on the "fainting ones in your rear, when you were tired and weary," and how they "did not fear G-d." The incident at Rephidim thus goes beyond a mere punishment for Israel's lack of faith; it reveals an intrinsic, unprovoked evil in Amalek that warranted eternal enmity. Their attack was not merely opportunistic; it was a cold, calculated strike against the most vulnerable, demonstrating a profound lack of fear of G-d and a desire to undermine G-d's plan for Israel. This intertextual reference elevates the Rephidim incident from a moment of Israelite failing to a foundational narrative about the nature of good and evil in history.

Psak/Practice

The narrative of Massah U'Merivah and the subsequent Amalek attack, as interpreted by our Sages, profoundly impacts our understanding of emunah (faith) and bitachon (trust) in Divine Providence.

The Imperative of Emunah

The primary lesson is the grave severity of questioning Hashem's presence, especially after witnessing the miracles of the Exodus and the manna. The people's rhetorical "הֲיֵשׁ ה' בְּקִרְבֵּנוּ אִם אָיִן" is not merely a question of logistics but a challenge to G-d's very immanence and commitment. Halachically, while there is no specific mitzvah lo ta'aseh (negative commandment) against such questioning, the consequences of this spiritual lapse (Amalek's attack) serve as a meta-psak, demonstrating the dire implications of wavering faith. It underscores that true bitachon means trusting G-d even when circumstances appear bleak, and refraining from testing Him.

Torah Study as a Shield

The Or HaChaim's interpretation of "Rephidim" as "רפיון ידים מן התורה" (slackening of hands from Torah) (Exodus 17:1) introduces a critical dimension for halachic practice. It suggests that a community's spiritual laxity, specifically in Torah study, can manifest in physical deprivations and vulnerabilities. This reinforces the paramount importance of limmud Torah as a spiritual safeguard and a source of blessing. Neglecting Torah is not a neutral act; it can open the door to hardship and endanger the community. While not a direct halachic ruling on how to prevent thirst, it offers a deep heuristic for understanding the causes of communal suffering and the spiritual remedies.

The Weight of Communal Responsibility

The episode also highlights communal responsibility. The entire community's questioning led to the collective punishment of Amalek's attack. This informs the halachic concept of arevut (mutual responsibility) and the need for communal spiritual vigilance. The psak here is less about individual actions and more about the collective spiritual state and its impact on the nation's security and well-being.

Takeaway

The narrative at Rephidim underscores the fragile yet formative relationship between Bnei Yisrael and Hashem, where even legitimate physical needs can become a conduit for profound spiritual failing, with immediate and lasting repercussions. Amalek's attack serves as a stark middah k'neged middah response to the doubt expressed at Massah U'Merivah, emphasizing that questioning divine presence invites external threats and that emunah is the ultimate communal shield.

---

¹ Ramban on Exodus 17:1:1. ² Exodus 17:7. ³ Ibn Ezra on Exodus 17:1:1. ⁴ Or HaChaim on Exodus 17:1:1, citing Bechorot 5a. ⁵ Bava Kama 82a. ⁶ Haamek Davar on Exodus 17:1:2. ⁷ Haamek Davar on Exodus 17:1:1. ⁸ Shadal on Exodus 17:1:1. ⁹ Shadal on Exodus 17:1:2, citing Psalms 104:27. ¹⁰ Exodus 17:7-8. ¹¹ Rashi on Exodus 17:8 s.v. וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק. ¹² Sifrei Devarim 317 on Deuteronomy 25:17. ¹³ Numbers 20:1-13. ¹⁴ Deuteronomy 25:17-19.