Comentario citado sobre Pirkei Avot 5:4

ARE WE TO BRING YOU FORTH WATER OUT OF THIS ROCK? Far be it and [G-d] forbid that [we should explain this] as a question indicating impossibility! For Moses our teacher, who was trusted in all G-d’s house,¹⁶⁰See above, 12:7. [knew] that nothing is too hard for Him;¹⁶¹See Genesis 18:14. and he together with all Israel had seen greater and more wondrous miracles than this, and especially since this [miracle of providing water from a rock] had already been done once before through him at the rock in Horeb!¹²⁴Exodus 17:6. Now the commentators¹⁶²R’dak on I Samuel 2:27. have said that there are certain questions which [by apparently doubting that which cannot be denied], have the force of an [impassioned or indignant] affirmation. Thus we find: Did I reveal Myself to the house of thy father?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” The king said also unto Zadok the priest: ‘Seest thou?’;¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” Wilt thou judge?;¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote [that the meaning of the verse is]: “Do we indeed have power to bring you forth water out of the rock?” He means thereby to explain that Moses said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels against G-d, who say, ‘and why have ye brought the assembly of the Eternal¹⁶⁷Above, Verse 4. unto this evil place?’¹⁶⁸Ibid., Verse 5. Do we have the power by natural means to bring you forth water out of this flint? You should therefore recognize that this is all from G-d, for it is He Who took you out of Egypt, and brought you to this place, and it is He Who will feed you here.” This is similar to what he [Moses] told the people in the case of the manna, and ye shall know that the Eternal hath brought you out from the land of Egypt.¹⁶⁹Exodus 16:6.
In my opinion this letter hei [in the word hamin — “out of”] indicates a [real] query, [and the meaning thereof is as follows]: “Are we to bring you forth water out of this rock or not?” For sometimes Scripture explains a question in its positive and negative aspects, such as: whether there are trees therein or not?¹⁷⁰Above, 13:20. whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or not?¹⁷¹Deuteronomy 8:2. — and at other times it mentions only the positive aspect, [such as in the following verses]: Is this your youngest brother?;¹⁷²Genssis 43:29. Know ye Laban the son of Nachor?;¹⁷³Ibid., 29:5. Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself?¹⁷⁴Zechariah 7:3. The reference is to the month of Ab, during which the First Temple was destroyed. When the Second Temple was built, the people asked the prophet whether they should still continue to observe the fast of the ninth of Ab. But this question here that Moses asked of them was a probing question [to test their true intention]. He said to them: “Hear now, ye rebels. — What do ye devise against the Eternal?¹⁷⁵Nahum 1:9. — Are we to bring you forth water out of this strong rock? Will this event happen or not?” [i.e., “Do you believe that it is within His power to do it, or not?”] He thus stressed that their [behaviour was a serious] rebellion, telling them they were wanting in faith, and that the reason for their quarrelling with him was because they thought that G-d would not act wondrously for them, in a similar manner to that which it says, And they tried G-d in their heart … ‘Can G-d prepare a table in the wilderness … Can He give bread also?’¹⁷⁶Psalms 78:18-20. Similarly the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁷Aboth 5:4. “Ten times our ancestors in the wilderness tried the Holy One, blessed be He.” [Moses’ question was thus] like a query as to the belief of the person addressed, [of which we find examples] in many places in Scripture: Must I then bring thy son back?¹⁷⁸Genesis 24:5. which means: “Is that your wish?” Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall I forbear?¹⁷⁹II Chronicles 18:5. which means, “If that is your advice.” Here too, [the meaning of Moses’ question is]: “Do you think that we shall bring you forth water out of this rock?” The same is also my opinion with regard to [the following verses]: Did I reveal Myself?;¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before Me?¹⁸⁰I Kings 21:29. Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?;¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” Wilt thou judge?¹⁶⁵Ezekiel 22:2. The meaning is: “Wilt thou not judge? Of course you will judge!” For all these are questions, but their purpose is to ask about [the truth of] something well-known, so that the person who is asked is compelled to admit [the truth of the fact] against his will. Thus [Did I reveal Myself?¹⁶³Ibid. The sense is: “Did I not reveal Myself, although your sons, by their actions appear to belie it!” means]: “Have I revealed Myself to your father’s house and chosen you? Since you know this, then Wherefore kick ye at My sacrifice and at Mine offering?”¹⁸¹I Samuel 2:29. Do ye thus requite the Eternal¹⁸²Deuteronomy 32:6. with such a requital! Similarly, “Hast thou eaten of the tree, about which I commanded you¹⁶⁶Genesis 3:11. The meaning is: “Have you not eaten? Of course you have eaten!” [not to eat], and you are ashamed [and therefore you hid yourself],¹⁸³See Genesis 3:8. or [if you did not eat of the tree], why then did you hide?” And in the same way the other [verses are to be explained]. However, the expression Seest thou?¹⁶⁴II Samuel 15:27. The sense here is: “Do you not see [that it is best that you return to the city in peace]!” is a genuine inquiry about a matter [as to which the questioner is] in doubt, [David saying to Zadok the priest]: “If you ‘advise’ it, then return to the city,” [and the usage of the term ‘seest’ thou? means “do you see fit?”] as in the expression: “I see the words of Admon”¹⁸⁴Kethuboth 109a. [which means: “I find the opinion of Admon correct”]. I have already explained this in Seder Bereshith.¹⁸⁵Genesis 1:4 (Vol. I, p. 30).

Background
The plagues become almost ridiculous here as they multiply from ten to fifty to two hundred fifty. But more serious from Rabbi Lorberbaum’s perspective is the fact that these statements appear to contradict a statement in the Mishnah that plainly says that there ten plagues in Egypt and ten at the Red Sea. As the fundamental code of Jewish law, the Mishnah is the official opinion of the sages. So can we reconcile the opinion of these sages with the one in the Mishnah? Rabbi Lorberbaum draws on the Kabbalistic notion that there are not only ten Sephirot of holiness but also ten anti-Sephirot of impurity that give vitality to the world of darkness and judgment. These Sephirot are sometimes referred to as crowns (Ketarin). They are also referred to in the Zohar as the fifty gates of impurity. When Israel was redeemed from Egypt, the nation had already descended almost to the lowest of these gates of impurity, which would have made it impossible to redeem her from slavery. That is why, according to the Kabbalah, they had to leave in such haste. If Israel had stayed in Egypt one more day, they would have become unredeemable!
Rabbi Yosi the Galilean said: How do you know that each plague…is equivalent to four plagues? Rabbi Yosi’s strange statement has inspired many different questions:
How do we reconcile this statement with the one in the Mishnah, Pirke Avot, which says that there were only ten plagues at the Red Sea? (See Avot, 5:5).
The numbers ten and fifty should not be taken literally. This number, like the number ten, is an allegorical way of referring to the spiritual state of the Israelites while they were in Egypt (?) and how they experienced the presence of God during the plagues and at the sea. Egypt was a place of darkness and impurity, where the forces of evil reigned. The nation had already descended to the lowest levels of impurity in Egypt. There are fifty gates of impurity, which are some times referred to as the ten crowns of impurity, and Israel had already descended to the fiftieth gate. Beyond this gate, there is no redemption because the spiritual dark angel of Egypt would now have complete control over the nation. When Rabbi Yosi said that there were fifty plagues at the sea, it was a way of saying that God vanquished the dark angel of Egypt before the people so that they were freed of the forces of evil. Ten and fifty are really the same, then.
How can we conclude that all the plagues were each a “finger of God” since this expression is used for only one particular plague and not for all of them?
The word Etzba, finger, refers not only to one plague but really to all the ten plagues. Just as each of the Sephirot in Kabbalah contain elements of the other nine Sephirot, so too the ten Sephirot, or Crowns of Evil, contain elements of the other ten crowns. In Egypt, however, the people of Israel were incapable of seeing that God had the ability to vanquish all the forces of evil in the land. Each plague appeared to be an attack on one particular force of evil. It was only at the Red Sea that the people of Israel saw that God had the power to vanquish all the forces of evil in Egypt; so they now saw God’s hand (since each finger represents ten, a hand is fifty plagues) descend and destroy the fifty gates of impurity. Etzba and Yad, then, are references not only to the nature of God, but to how Israel perceived God.
The proof that Rabbi Yosi offers does not appear to make a lot of sense. Can we really conclude that Etzba, finger, is one or ten plagues and that Yad, hand, is five times as many plagues? The Bible does not show such mathematical exactness. If God is all-powerful, surely he could also perform fifty plagues with “a finger.” Surely these expressions have some metaphorical meaning and should not be taken literally!
That is exactly the point. The hand and the finger of God are allegorical ways of speaking about the power of God and the ability to perceive God’s presence in the world. Only at the sea did the people get the whole picture, and that is why they “believed in God and Moses His servant.” The plagues were meant to be an object lesson, not just for the Egyptians, but for the Israelites as well. It was at this point that the people began to understand God as the first cause and creator of the universe who is All-powerful.