The Torah records the fact that Moshe Rabbenu was not permitted to enter the Land of Israel because of the mysterious sin he committed at the waters of Meribah four times, twice in Parashat Huqat.

1. But the L-RD said to Moses and Aaron, “because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.” Those are the Waters of Meribah- meaning that the Israelites quarreled with the L-RD- through which He affirmed His sanctity. (Numbers 20:12-13)


2. At Mount Hor, on the boundary of the land of Edom, the L-RD said to Moses and Aaron, “Let Aaron be gathered to his kin: he is not to enter the land that I have give to the Israelite people, because you disobeyed my command about the waters of Meribah.” (Numbers 20:23-24)


3. The L-RD said to Moses, “Ascend these heights of Abarim and view the land that I have given to the Israelite people. When you have seen it, you too shall be gathered to your kin, just as your brother Aaron was. For, in the wilderness of Zin, when the community was contentious, you disobeyed My command to uphold My sanctity in their sight by means of the water.” These are the Waters of Meribath-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin.(Numbers 27:12-14)


4. That very day the L-RD spoke to Moses: “Ascend these heights of Abarim to Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab facing Jericho, and view the land of Canaan which I am giving the Israelites as their holding. You shall die on the mountain that you are about to ascend, and shall be gathered to your kin, as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his kin; for you both broke faith with Me among the Israelite people, at the Waters of Meribath- kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, by failing to uphold My sanctity among the Israelite people.” (Deuteronomy 32:48-51)

The Rambam, in the fourth chapter of Shemoneh Peraqim, his introduction to his commentary on Pirqei Abot, discusses Moshe’s sin in the context of his admonition never to leave the “middle way.” The Rambam writes there how the mitzvoth of the Torah in general act as a discipline for attaining the moral virtues of moderation, generosity, contentment, gentleness and modesty. Moses’ sin was the deviation from the middle path, when he became angry with the children of Israel.

In her Iyyunim Hadashim ‘al Sefer Ba-Midbar, pp. 246ff., Nechama Leibowitz writes how one can discern in Rambam’s remarks two specific subcomponents of the sin of Moshe. First, he committed a personal sin: he departed from the middle path and tilted towards the vice of anger. But it is hard to understand how this by itself was such a heinous crime. Rambam, therefore, adds a second component: by getting angry, Moshe misled the people as to the nature of God. The masses felt that Moses’ anger was reflective of God’s anger. The masses therefore thought that the All-merciful God was in essence a wrathful deity.

According to this approach, Moses’ sin was not just one of middot. It was also one of de’ot (correct doctrinal beliefs that a Jew must possess). I think that this approach is parallel with Rambam’s understanding of the sin of the gossip of Miriam against Moses, depicted in Parashat Be-Ha ‘alotekha, as well and Aaron. In that case Rambam also emphasizes that the punishment of leprosy that Miriam incurred was not the sin of middot per se that (as important as middot are in Judaism!). It was the sin of de’ot, in that case a false equation of the spiritual level attained by Moses in his prophecy, with that of other prophets. In reality, the prophetic level of Moses was sui generis.

This notion can be connected to another feature of Rambam’s understanding of biblical descriptions of God. Rambam believes that not only anthropomorphic descriptions of God are false, but anthropopathic descriptions as well. That is, not only is incorrect to say “God possesses hands, fingers,” etc., for only humans possess bodies, and not God. It is also incorrect to say that God possesses human emotions or feelings, such as anger, jealousy, etc. Consequently, any biblical descriptions of God that contain descriptions of emotions are only to be understood as allegories, but do not describe anything that really exists. (According to the Rambam, what we say every day in the second paragraph of Shema {ve-harah ’af hashem bakhem} is not a literal description of God’s response but an allegorical description!) If Kelal Yisrael were led to understand that God is “really angry,” they would possess a theologically incorrect notion of the incorporeal God that does exist. On the other hand, according to the Rambam, although the middot of rahum ve-hanun of God are not essential positive attributes of God (according to the Rambam, the essence of God can only be described negatively, i.e., what He is not), the terms rahum ve-hanun do represent God’s attributes of action in this world (See Moreh Nevukhim, I:54). And this world is tov me’od; it is a world expressive of God’s actions of rahum ve-hanun.

The Rambam writes that when a father chastises a child, he should “fake anger” in order to instill discipline into him. The notion of “faking” anger is precisely the point. No one should ever depart from the middle path. But a child has to be trained to behave correctly. Therefore, like God Himself, Who, according to the Rambam, led benei Yisrael slowly but surely to the right path, the father leads the child to the right path of Torah and mitzvoth. When a father, a teacher, or any one has successfully extirpated his passions, and any anger that he possesses is only “fake anger,” he can be said to be truly Imitating God.