[Par-lite] Parshat Chukat - shiur #1

Wed Jun 12 13:32:36 EDT 2013

*********************************************
****************

     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]

          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag

*********************************************
****************

                  PARSHAT CHUKAT - Mei Meriva

Ask most anyone:

*   What was Moshe Rabeinu's 'sin' at Mei
Meriva?

       They will answer: He hit the rock
instead of talking to it.

*   What was his punishment?

       They will answer: He was not allowed
to enter Eretz Yisrael.

*   Does this punishment seem fair?

       They'll say: No, but God must be extra
strict with tzadikim.

     Even though there is nothing 'wrong'
about any of the

above answers, they certainly 'oversimplify'
a very complex

topic.

     In this week's shiur, as we carefully
analyze the story

of Mei Meriva, we will see how and why there
are many other

ways to understand both Moshe's 'sin' and his
'punishment'.

In Part One, we undertake a careful textual
analysis to

explain why there are so many different
opinions. In Part Two,

we re-examine this entire topic from a 'wider
angle' to show

how Moshe may not have sinned after all.

INTRODUCTION

     Rashi's explanation - that Moshe is
punished for hitting

the rock instead of talking to it - is
definitely the most

popular explanation of Moshe's sin.  However,
just about every

other commentator disagrees and offers a
different reason

instead. For example:

  *  IBN EZRA -

       claims that he hit the rock TWICE,
instead of once;

  *  RAMBAM -

       argues that Moshe 'lost his temper'
and spoke harshly;

  *  RAMBAN -  (quoting Rabeinu Chananel)

  explains that Moshe was not careful in his
speech, for he

  said: "can WE get water from this rock?"
instead of saying:

  "can GOD get water from this rock?".

     In fact, Abrabanel (commenting on
Devarim 1:37)

summarizes some TEN different opinions; and
proves why each

one is incorrect.

     There is a very simple reason why we
find such a variety

of opinion.  Even though the Torah tells us
WHY Moshe and

Aharon were punished, we are never told WHAT
they did wrong.

To appreciate this distinction, let's
carefully note how the

Torah informs us of their punishment:

     "...because you did not 'believe' in Me
["lo he'emantem

bi"] to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei
Yisrael, therefore you

will not lead Bnei Yisrael into the land...."
(see 20:12)

    [Note that this is a very difficult pasuk
to translate.

    (Note as well that just about every
English translation

    translates this pasuk in a different
manner.]

     Clearly, this pasuk implies that Moshe &
Aharon did

something wrong, but it doesn't tell us
precisely WHAT that

was.  Nevertheless, because this pasuk forms
the conclusion of

the Mei Meriva story, we can safely assume
that somewhere

within that incident there must be a flaw in
their behavior.

Therefore, all the commentators scrutinize
the psukim that

describe that event, in search for some
action that would

warrant this punishment.

     To appreciate their various conclusions,
let's begin by

doing exactly what they did, i.e. let's
carefully study those

psukim that immediately precede the
punishment - Bamidbar 20:7-

11.

  This is very important methodological
point.  Our assumption

is that the variety of conclusions stems from
the analysis of

these psukim by each commentator
[="parshanut"], and not from

a variance in passed down traditions
[="mesora"] from

generation to generation since the time of
Chumash.  This

assumption not only explains why there are so
many different

opinions, it also explains why each new
generation continues

to study Chumash in search of additional
possible

explanations.

THE FIVE COMMANDMENTS!

     As you review 20:7-11, note how 20:7-8
describes God's

command to Moshe and Aharon; while 20:9-11
describes its

fulfillment.

     Therefore, it should be quite simple to
figure out what

they did wrong.  We simply need to compare
what God had

commanded - to what Moshe actually did!
Let's begin with

God's instructions to Moshe, noting how they
contains several

explicit commands:

  "And God spoke to Moshe saying: TAKE the
staff, and GATHER

  the congregation together, you and Aharon
your brother, and

  SPEAK to the rock before their eyes that it
should give

  water, and TAKE OUT for them water from the
rock, and GIVE

  DRINK to the people and their animals."
(20:7-8)

     Review these psukim one more time,
paying attention to

the FIVE commands that Moshe (and Aharon)
must execute:

     (1) TAKE the staff;

     (2) GATHER the congregation;

     (3) SPEAK to the rock... and it will
give water;

     (4) TAKE OUT for them water from the
rock;

     (5) GIVE DRINK to the people.

     Note how each of these five commands
contains an active

verb, and hence requires that Moshe take a
specific action.

[In other words, Moshe must (1) TAKE the
staff, (2) GATHER the

people, and (3) SPEAK to the rock, etc.]

     However, there appears to be a
contradiction between the

third and the fourth command (concerning how
the water would

be taken out of the rock).

     According to command #3, Moshe should
speak to the rock,

whereupon it should immediately start giving
its water.  But

the next command (#4) is for Moshe to 'take
water out of the

rock' (without explaining HOW he should do
it).  But if by

SPEAKING to the rock (3) the rock will
already be giving its

water, how can Moshe fulfill command (4) to
TAKE OUT water

from the rock? The rock is already giving its
water - so what

would command (4) entail?

     As we continue our analysis, keep this
question in mind.

FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS

     The next step of our analysis will help
us understand the

underlying reason for the various opinions.
We begin our

analysis (of 20:9-11) to see how Moshe
fulfilled (or didn't

fulfill) each of these five commands.

     We will compare each command to its
execution in search

of any slight variance that could be
considered a lack of

"emunah" that would  warrant such a severe
punishment (as

described in 20:12).

COMMAND #1 - "TAKE the staff"; (20:8)

MOSHE'S EXECUTION:

  "And Moshe TOOK the staff from before the
Lord, as God had

  commanded him..." (20:9)

     Nothing seems to be wrong here, after
all the pasuk

itself testifies: "as God commanded him".
Certainly, this

could not be a sin.   [Later in the shiur we
will return to

this pasuk.]

====

COMMAND #2 - GATHER the "eydah"
(congregation)... (20:8)

MOSHE'S EXECUTION:

  "And Moshe and Aharon GATHERED the "kahal"
(congregation)

  people together in front of the rock..."
(20:10)

     Here again, nothing appears to have been
done wrong.

[There is slight discrepancy between "kehal"
and "eydah", but

these two words in Chumash are usually
synonymous.  [It should

be noted that Malbim disagrees.]

=====

COMMAND #3 - SPEAK to the rock that it should
give water...

MOSHE'S EXECUTION:

  "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to
the people): Listen

  here you rebellious people, is it possible
that WE can take

  water from this rock?" (20:10)

     Here we finally find our first major
problem.   Even

though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO
the rock- so that

it would give water; instead Moshe speaks to
the PEOPLE -

ABOUT the rock (that it would give water)!
Therefore, most of

the commentators [Rashi, Rambam, Ramban,
Rashbam] will find

fault with some aspect of Moshe's behavior in
this pasuk

(which will be discussed below).

====

COMMAND #4 - TAKE OUT for them water from the
rock... (20:8)

MOSHE'S EXECUTION:

  "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT the
rock with his

  staff TWO times, then much water came
out..." (20:11)

     Even though RASHI claims that this is
Moshe's primary

transgression [for he hit the rock INSTEAD of
'talking' to

it], based on this careful comparison it
becomes clear why

other commentators disagree.  After all, God
commanded him to

'take out water', but didn't tell him HOW to
accomplish this.

It seems as though Moshe understood that he
was supposed to

use his staff to do so (as he had done forty
years earlier).

  Furthermore, God had commanded him to 'take
his staff' (i.e.

command #1) -if he wasn't supposed to hit the
rock, why was he

commanded to take his staff?  Ibn Ezra
advances this argument,

and concludes instead that Moshe erred by
hitting the rock

TWICE instead of once.

======

COMMAND #5 - Give drink to the people and
their animals.

(20:8)

MOSHE'S EXECUTION:

     "...and the people and their animals
drank. (20:11)

Clearly, Moshe does nothing wrong in this
final stage.  After

all, we surely don't expect Moshe to 'pour
drinks' for

everyone; rather he fulfills this command by
allowing the

people to gather the water for their needs.

=====

     This analysis shows that the primary
problem in Moshe's

behavior lies somewhere between his execution
of commands 3 &

4.  Let's return to our discussion of command
#3.  Recall how

God had instructed Moshe:

  "SPEAK to the rock and [or that] it should
[or will] give

  water..."

               [Note the two possible
translations.]

     Considering that we never find that
Moshe actually talked

to the rock (and based on the above parallel
comparison), we

must conclude that the following phrase is
Moshe's execution

of this command:

  "...And he [Moshe] said to THEM (i.e. to
the people): Listen

  here you rebellious people, is it possible
that we can take

  water from this rock?" (20:10)

     At first glance, it even appears as
though there may have

been a small 'misunderstanding'.  As we
explained above, even

though God had instructed Moshe to speak TO
the rock, instead

Moshe speaks to the people ABOUT the rock.
At this point,

there are three different approaches that one
can follow:

a) Moshe indeed misunderstood what God
wanted.

  Hence his transgression would fall under
the category of

  "shogeg" - an unintentional sin / see
Rashbam.

b) Moshe understood God's command; but acted
differently.

  In other words, he acted defiantly
[="mayzid" - an

  intentional transgression]. This leads
Rashi to his

  conclusion that Moshe hit the rock instead
of speaking to

  it.

c) Moshe acted properly (in this regard), and
understood God's

command.

     In other words, speaking to the people
about the rock was

  precisely what God commanded. As Ramban
explains, in the

  phrase "v'dbartem EL ha'sela" - the word
"el" should be

  understood as "odot" (about).  God commands
Moshe to speak to

  the people ABOUT the rock THAT it should
give water; and that

  is exactly what Moshe does!

     Even though this third possibility (that
this was indeed

God's intention) may seem a bit 'stretched',
it definitely can

be supported from the next commandment: "And
you shall TAKE

OUT water for them from the rock" (see 20:8).
As we pointed

out earlier, this fourth command implies that
Moshe must now

do something to 'take out' water from the
rock.

     Therefore, it is possible that hitting
the rock was

exactly what God expected Moshe to do. After
all, this is

exactly how God had instructed him to take
water from the

'rock at Chorev' many years earlier (see
Shmot 17:6).

Furthermore, once Moshe understands that
'speak TO the rock'

means 'speak ABOUT the rock' then obviously
"take out water"

must imply to take a certain action to
extract the water -

i.e. to hit the rock! Certainly, it would be
no less of a

miracle now than it was forty years earlier!

     Because of these considerations, all of
the commentators

(except Rashi) must search elsewhere for a
flaw in Moshe's

behavior.  For example, Rambam and Ramban
take issue with how

Moshe's words his rebuke:

  "...And he [Moshe] said to them: Listen
here you rebellious

  people, is it possible that WE can take
water from this

  rock?" (20:10)

     Rambam takes issue with the TONE of this
rebuke, while

Ramban takes issue with its CONTENT.

     RAMBAM claims that the tone of Moshe's
statement -

"listen you rebels..." - reflects an
unnecessary anger which

caused a "chillul Hashem" (a desecration of
God's Name). [See

Rambam in "shmoneh perakim", or simply see
its quote by Ramban

in his pirush to 20:7.]

     RAMBAN claims that Moshe caused a
"chilul Hashem" by

saying 'we' in their rhetorical question -
"is it possible

that WE can take out water from this rock".
This 'careless'

statement may have caused the people to
conclude that it was

Moshe and Aharon (and not God) who cause the
water to come out

from the rock.

          [See Ramban 20:7 in name of Rabeinu
Chananel.]

     Nonetheless, it remains possible to
understand that

Moshe's rebuke in this pausk was entirely in
order.  This

leads Ibn Ezra to find fault in the next
stage:

     "... and Moshe lifted his hand and HIT
the rock with his

staff TWO times, then much water came out..."
(20:11)

     After refuting all of the other
opinions, Ibn Ezra finds

Moshe's flaw in the fact that he hit the rock
TWICE instead of

only once. [It seems that according to Ibn
Ezra, this reason

'wins by default'.  Note that Ramban (towards
the end of his

commentary) also supports this opinion - to a
certain extent.]

     Thus, by careful comparing Moshe's
execution of each of

God's commands, we are able to find the
underlying reason for

the opinions of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rambam,
Rashbam, Ramban, etc.

     Nonetheless, no matter how we explain
WHAT Moshe's sin

was, a more fundamental question remains -
i.e. WHY was his

punishment so severe?

PART TWO -- DID MOSHE DO ANYTHING 'WRONG' ?

     From the above analysis, a very
interesting possibility

arises. If we combine all of the reasons
advanced by each

commentator to reject the other
interpretations - we could

conclude that Moshe did nothing wrong at all!

  [See the commentaries of Ibn Ezra, Ramban,
and Abrabanel on

  this sugya. Each of them present very
convincing arguments

  why all of the other opinions are wrong.]

     In fact, Abrabanel himself raises this
possibility, then

he advances his own opinion (based on Devarim
1:37) that Moshe

& Aharon are really being punished for
earlier sins - Moshe

for "chet ha'mergalim" and Aharon for "chet
ha'egel". Mei

Meriva, he explains, serves as a kind of
'cover-up' to

differentiate between Moshe & Aharon's
punishment, and the

punishment of the nation.

     Nonetheless, his interpretation remains
difficult because

the text states explicitly that Moshe is
punished because of

the events that took place at MEI MERIVA!
[See not only here

in 20:12-13, but also in 20:24, 27:14 and
Devarim 32:51.]

Therefore, we should be quite reluctant to
look for the

PRIMARY reason elsewhere.

     But, where else can we look to find
Moshe's sin?  On the

one hand, it must be related to the events of
Mei Meriva, but

when we examined those psukim, it was very
hard to pinpoint a

'sin'; and certainly not a sin severe enough
to deserve such a

harsh punishment.

     To answer this question, we must first
take a closer look

at precisely WHAT their punishment was.

CRIME & PUNISHMENT

     It is commonly understood that Moshe and
Aharon's

punishment is that they are forbidden from
ENTERING the land

of Israel. However, this popular assumption
is not precise.

Let's take a look once again how the Chumash
explains their

punishment:

     "And God told Moshe... because you did
not trust Me

enough to sanctify Me... therefore you shall
NOT LEAD THIS

NATION into the LAND which I promised them...
" (20:12)

     Note, that God doesn't say that they
cannot enter the

Land; rather they cannot LEAD the people into
the Land.  In

other words, Moshe and Aharon are not being
punished as

INDIVIDUALS, rather as NATIONAL LEADERS.  As
such, their 'sin'

must relate in some manner to a flaw in their
leadership

traits.

     In fact, the very pasuk that explains
their punishment

already hints to a flaw in leadership:

  "...BECAUSE you did not trust in Me enough
TO SANCTIFY ME in

  the eyes of Bnei Yisrael... (20:12)

     God's statement implies that He had
expected Moshe and

Aharon to take the rebellion at Mei Meriva
and somehow create

from it a "kiddush Hashem" - a sanctification
of God's Name.

Therefore, to find that 'sin', we must
examine the Mei Meriva

once again, in search of leadership crisis.
But this time, we

must begin by studying those events from
their onset.

LET'S START FROM THE VERY BEGINNING

     Recall that the Mei Meriva incident
began when Bnei

Yisrael encountered a terrible water shortage
immediately upon

their arrival at Midbar Tzin.  Let's begin
our study by taking

a closer look at how the Torah described that
crisis:

     "And Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar
Tzin... but there was

not enough water for the people, and they
gathered against

Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe
saying:  It would had

been better had we died with our brethren
"lifnei Hashem"

[before God]...  So - why did you bring us to
this desert to

die?...and why did you take us out of Egypt
to bring us to

this terrible place... - there are no fruits
here and there is

no water to drink."   (see 20:1-5)

     Not only did Bnei Yisrael ask for water,
they expressed

their total disgust with the entire process
of Yetziat

Mitzraim.  Even though they direct these
harsh complaints to

Moshe and Aharon, they can be understood no
less as a

complaint against God; questioning not only
His ability to

save them, but also the very purpose of their
special

relationship.

     How should Moshe and Aharon respond to
these blasphemous

complaints?  Should they not argue by
defending God?  Should

they not encourage the people to remain
faithful?

     Instead, Chumash describes what appears
to be a rather

'pathetic' reaction:

  "And Moshe and Aharon came to the Ohel Moed
[in fear] from

  the congregation, and they fell on their
faces..."  (20:6)

     One could suggest that already at this
stage a leadership

crisis has unfolded.  To clarify this point,
let's compare

this event to the parallel incident that took
place when Bnei

Yisrael complained for water at Refidim many
years earlier

(see Shmot 17:1-7). Note Moshe's immediate
response (at that

time) to an almost identical complaint:

  "mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem"
-Why are you

  arguing with me, why are you TESTING God?
(see 17:2)

     At Refidim, Moshe immediately challenged
the people -

reprimanding them how their complaint
reflected a lack of

faith in God. Afterward, when the people
continued to

complain, Moshe cries out to God, begging for
a solution (see

17:4).

     In contrast, at "Mei Meriva" Moshe's
reaction is quite

different. Instead of confronting these
almost identical

complaints, Moshe & Aharon immediately 'run
away' to the Ohel

Moed and 'fall on their faces' (20:6). [Even
if this means

that they prayed - is this a time for prayer?
Compare with

Shmot 14:15 and its context!]

     Was 'running away' the proper reaction?
Should they not

have assured the people that God will indeed
take care of

their needs. Should they not have challenged
the people's

irreverent statement that "it would have been
better had they

remained in Egypt"?

     One could suggest that already at this
early stage in the

narrative - Moshe & Aharon have already
'failed' as national

leaders, for they do not SANCTIFY God's name
when the

opportunity arose. In fact, this may be
precisely what God is

referring to when He states: "because you did
not trust Me

enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of Bnei
Yisrael..." (20:12).

     Even though God immediately gives Moshe
& Aharon specific

instructions on how to deal with the
situation, it is already

too late. As soon is the incident is over,
even though Moshe &

Aharon may have properly fulfilled all of
God's instructions

when hitting the rock, God informs them that
their days as the

nation's leaders are numbered. Before Bnei
Yisrael will begin

their conquest of Eretz Canaan, it will be
necessary to

appoint new leadership.

  [Note that later in Sefer Devarim when
Moshe begs that he be

  allowed see the land (3:23-26), he does not
ask to LEAD,

  only to ENTER and see for himself.]

     However, if this interpretation is
correct, why do we

need the story of 'hitting the rock'
(20:7-11) in between? Let

the Torah first inform us of Moshe's
punishment, and then let

God provide water for the people.

     To answer this question, and to
understand this entire

incident in its wider perspective, we must
turn back a few

pages to a related event in Parshat Korach.

WHOSE STAFF IS IT?

     To our surprise, the key to
understanding this

complicated sugya lies in its connection to
Parshat Korach! To

appreciate that connection, let's pay careful
attention to how

the narrative continues (after Moshe & Aharon
run away to the

Ohel Moed):

  "And God spoke to Moshe saying: "kach et
ha'mateh" - take

  THE STAFF and gather the people..." (see
20:8)

     It is commonly assumed that Moshe is
instructed to takes

his own staff, i.e. the very same staff with
which he brought

the plagues; split the sea; and brought forth
water from the

rock at Chorev; etc.

     However, it cannot be Moshe's own staff,
for the pasuk

states explicitly:

  "And Moshe took the staff - M'LIFNEI HASHEM
- from before

 God, as God had commanded him..." (20:9)

     In Chumash, "lifnei Hashem" usually
refers to in front of

the ARON, i.e. the ark of the covenant
located in the holiest

domain of the Mishkan (see Shmot
29:11,42;30:8; etc.). Surely,

Moshe would not keep his staff "lifnei
Hashem"! [The "kodesh

kedoshim" is not his personal closet!]

  [Note that God commands Moshe -"kach et
HA'mateh" - THE

  staff, not -"matecha" - YOUR staff. Compare
with Shmot

  14:16, 17:5.]

     If it is not his own staff that Moshe
must take, then

what staff is it? Is there someone else who
keeps his staff in

the "kodesh ha'kedoshim"?!

     The answer, as Rashbam and Chizkuni so
beautifully

explain (see their commentaries to 20:8), is
quite simple - it

is AHARON's special staff!

     Recall from Parshat Korach that God had
commanded Moshe

to conduct a test between the staffs of each
of the tribal

leaders (see 17:16-24) -  to establish that
the tribe of Levi

is indeed chosen. Carefully note God's
command to Moshe after

Aharon's staff wins that test:

  "... return the STAFF OF AHARON - "lifnei
ha'eydut" - [in

  front of the 'tablets of testimony', i.e.
the ARON ] for

  safe keeping, in order that it be a SIGN
FOR ANY REBELLIOUS

  GROUP ["ot l'bnei meri"]- so that they will
stop complaining

  and not die..." (17:25-26)

     In other words, God tells Moshe - NEXT
TIME that Bnei

Yisrael complain or rebel, take out Aharon's
staff from the

Ohel Moed and REMIND them of what happened to
Korach's

rebellion.

     And sure enough - the next complaint in
Chumash is the

incident at Mei Meriva!

     This not only explains Rashbam's pirush,
but it also

neatly explains why the Torah (in 20:9) must
inform us that

Moshe takes specifically the staff "m'lifnei
Hashem" - from

before God.  Moshe doesn't take his own staff
- he takes the

staff of AHARON that was kept "lifnei Hashem"
- for it was set

aside for specifically for this purpose.

     In other words, in 20:8 God instructs
Moshe to do exactly

what Moshe should have done on his own!

     This also beautifully explains why Moshe
prefaces his

rebuke with: "shimu na ha'MORIM" [listen o'
you rebellious

ones /see 20:10]. Considering that God had
instructed Moshe to

take the "mateh Aharon" which was set aside
for an "ot l'bnei

MERI", it is only appropriate that he would
rebuke the people

by saying: "shimu na ha'MORIM"!  [See
Chizkuni on 20:10, note

also that "meri" & "morim" are derived from
the same shoresh.]

     In a similar manner, the Torah's use of
the word GAVANU

in both these parshiot provides additional
(textual) support

for this interpretation. Recall how the
complaints at Mei

Meriva first began:

  "And the people quarrelled with Moshe
saying: 'loo GAVANU

  B'GVA acheinu...' - if only we had perished
with our

  brothers" (20:3)

     This complaint echoes the cry of Bnei
Yisrael in the

aftermath of Korach's rebellion (immediately
after Aharon's

staff is set aside/ see 17:25-27):

  "And Bnei Yisrael said to Moshe: 'heyn
GAVANU avadnu' - lo,

  we perish, we are lost... anyone who comes
close to the

  Mishkan will die, alas we are doomed to
perish..." (17:27-

  28)   [Compare also 20:4-5 with 16:13-14.]

MAKING NO MISTAKES

     Once we explain that Moshe was commanded
to take MATEH

AHARON - almost every following action that
he takes makes

perfect sense. Let's explain why:

     As we explained earlier, because MATEH
AHARON is an "ot

l'bnei meri", it is only logical that Moshe
understands "speak

to the rock" as "speak ABOUT the rock" and
therefore begins

his rebuke with "SHIMU NA HA'MORIM".

     Then, Moshe's next statement: "Can we
take water from

this rock?" can be explained as precisely
what God commanded

him to do: i.e. to speak about (or at) the
rock - "v'natan

meimav" - THAT IT SHOULD give water. In other
words, God

instructs Moshe is to challenge the people's
belief, to ask

them - is it possible for a rock to give
water? - And that's

exactly what he does!

     This also explains why Moshe hit the
rock. Once he

understands that "speak TO the rock" means
"speak ABOUT the

rock", then God's next instruction:
"v'hotzeita" [you shall

TAKE OUT water] must imply that Moshe himself
must cause the

water to come out. How? Exactly as he did
forty years earlier

by the rock in Chorev, using his OWN mateh
(not Aharon's /

read 20:11 carefully -"matey'hu").

  [This implies that there were actually TWO
staffs at Mei

  Meriva: (1) The staff of Aharon - was taken
by Moshe and

  most probably given to Aharon to hold up in
front of the

  people during this entire event. And (2)-
the staff of Moshe

  - which he himself used to hit the rock to
bring forth

  water.]

     The only detail that remains to be
explained is why Moshe

hit the rock twice (see Ibn Ezra').  However,
as Ramban asks,

could it be that hitting the rock twice
instead of once makes

the miracle any less impressive? Furthermore,
God did not tell

Moshe to hit the rock ONCE or TWICE! He just
commanded him to

'take out water'. Certainly, Moshe should
have the leeway to

hit the rock as many times as he feels
necessary.

  [Even at Chorev, it never mentions how many
times Moshe hit

  the rock. And even if this action was
incorrect, could this

  slight 'transgression' warrant such a
severe punishment?]

     This explanation of "mateh AHARON" only
strengthens our

claim that Moshe indeed followed God's
instructions properly -

but he and Aharon are punished for not
sanctifying God's Name

earlier - when Bnei Yisrael FIRST complained
at Mei Meriva.

     With this background, it becomes easier
to understand why

their punishment relates to this leadership
crisis.  Failure

in leadership is not necessarily because the
leader does

something 'wrong', nor is it a sin.
Leadership, as its name

implies, must LEAD the people - i.e. it must
do something

right, it must take an initiative.

     As individuals, Moshe & Aharon never
'sinned' at Mei

Meriva, but as leaders they failed.
Therefore, God reaches

the conclusion that they will not be able to
succeed should

they be the leaders who will take Bnei
Yisrael into the

Promised Land.

BELIEVING or SUPPORTING

     Based on this interpretation, we can
suggest an alternate

understanding of the word "EMUNAH" (used in
the pasuk which

explains the reason for their punishment):

 "ya'an lo he'EMANTEM BI" - because you did
not have FAITH IN

  ME in the EYES of Bnei Yisrael" (see
20:12).

     The word "emunah" in this pasuk may not
refer to belief

in God in the theological sense. Surely,
Moshe and Aharon

'believe' in God. However, they were not
'supportive' enough

of God in the eyes of the people. The Hebrew
word "emunah"

stems from the shoresh aleph.mem.nun which
means to support or

sustain.

[For example, in Shmot 17:12 - "v'haya yadav
emunah..." in the

war against Amalek, when Aharon & Chur
support Moshe's arm, or

in Megilat Esther (2:7) -"va'yehi OMEYN et
Hadassah..." - i.e.

Mordechei supported (or adopted) Esther, or
"omnot ha'bayit"

the pillars supporting the Beit Ha'Mikdash
(II Melachim

18:16), or the word "amen", which confirms or
supports a

bracha or statement made by others, etc.]  .

     In hindsight, the reason for Moshe's
'punishment' may

even be quite logical. Considering the many
difficulties that

will face Bnei Yisrael once they begin
conquest of the Land,

it is only inevitable that many more
rebellious situations

such as these will arise. Leadership, which
can deal with such

complaints, is essential.

THE FINAL STRAW

     Had this been the only incident where
Moshe & Aharon's

leadership faltered, their punishment may not
have been so

harsh. However, this problem of leadership
had already

surfaced numerous times in Sefer Bamidbar. In
fact it could

almost be considered its secondary theme.
Recall, that from

the time Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, almost
every event

which Chumash records reflects this pattern
of faltering

leadership:

*   At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe himself
claims that he can

longer lead the people (11:11-15).

*   Later, even Miriam, Moshe's own sister,
complains about

his leadership (12:1-3).

*   When the "meraglim" return, Moshe and
Aharon fall on

their faces (14:5); Kalev and Yehoshua take
leadership

positions.

*   In the rebellion of Korach (chapter 16),
again Moshe and

Aharon's leadership is challenged, again they
fall on their

faces (16:4,22).

  [This approach also explains why later in
Sefer Devarim,

  Moshe claims that it was because of "chet
ha'meraglim" that

  he could not enter the land (see Devarim
1:37).]

     As we have explained, surely as
individuals, Moshe and

Aharon are "tzadikim"; they do nothing
'wrong'. However, as

happens over and over again in Sefer
Bamidbar, their

leadership fails. At Mei Meriva, possibly a
personal example

of patience, stamina, confidence, and calm
rebuke may have

able to create the necessary "kiddush
Hashem"; but this did

not happen.

     Can we be critical of Moshe and Aharon
for their

behavior?  Should we consider their actions
as sinful? Not

necessarily! This leadership crisis does not
have to be

considered a question of 'good or bad'
behavior. Rather, it

could be considered a tragedy - a problem of
compatibility.

     As we explained in our shiur on Parshat
Shlach, already

when Bnei Yisrael first left Har Sinai, there
we signs of a

lack of compatibility between Moshe Rabeinu
and Bnei Yisrael.

After all, Moshe had spent months on Har
Sinai with the

SHCHINA, and was no longer capable of dealing
with complaints

concerning mundane manners. [Note also Shmot
34:35.  See also

commentary of the Sfat Emet on the Mei Meriva
incident.]

     To meet the challenges of taking Am
Yisrael into the

Promised Land, new leadership was essential.
Not necessarily

because Moshe and Aharon did anything
'wrong', rather because

Am Yisrael were not worthy of their
leadership.

                              shabbat shalom,

                              menachem

=======================

FOR FURTHER IYUN

A. One could even go one step further and
suggest that Moshe,

even before God's command, should have taken
MATEH AHARON and

shown it to the people and rebuked them. If
so, then God's

first command to Moshe - "kach et ha'mateh"
may simply be a

reminder to Moshe of what he SHOULD HAVE DONE
on his own (as

he was instructed in Parshat Korach)! This
could explain

"ka'asher tzivahu" in 20:9. It may imply: as
God commanded him

- not just now, but earlier - in PARSHAT
KORACH!]

B. Later in the Parsha, a similar situation
where the people

need water, arises at "B'ey'rah" (21:16-18).
There Moshe

gathers the people together, God provides
water, and the

people respond with a song of praise! This
shows that given

the proper circumstances, such a situation
can result in a

"kiddush Hashem". Moshe may have learned his
lesson, however,

by then it is already too late for God to
change His

decision.]

C. REASONS OR INDICATORS

     Our interpretation in the shiur (part
two) does not

necessarily have to conflict with the various
opinions raised

by the "rishonim" which we discussed in Part
One. One could

suggest that each of those reasons can be
understood as

INDICATORS of this faltering leadership, not
just REASONS for

Moshe's punishment. For example, Moshe and
Aharon's use of a

harsh tone; their quick anger; their lack of
patience hitting

the rock twice instead of once; their running
away to the Ohel

Moed, etc. All of these opinions point to the
same general

problem of leadership.

D. According to our explanation above, the
most difficult

pasuk to explain is 20:24, in relation to
Aharon's death at

Hor haHar:

     "... al asher m'ritem et pi, lmei
m'riva"

"meri" implies more than not doing something
right, it seems

as though something of a rebellious nature
was done.

1. Explain why this pasuk led many
commentators to explain the

sin as hitting the rock instead of speaking
to it.

2. How else can one explain this pasuk?

3. Explain the "lamed" in "l'mei mriva".

4. Read Devarim 32:51. What does "m'altem"
mean?

          ( What is "me'ilah", in general)?

     Relate this pasuk to Bamidbar 20:24 and
20:12-13, and

     use it to explain your answer to 1 & 2
above.

E. See the Netziv's pirush in Emek Davar to
Bamidbar 20:8-11.

Note how he insists that the mateh is Moshe's
mateh, and hence

he must explain that "ka'asher tzivayhu" - is
that God had

sometime earlier commanded Moshe to take his
"mateh" and put

it next to the Aron.  He also solves the
problem of the

contradiction between command 3 and 4 by
explaining that God

gave Moshe TWO options for bringing water: 1)
speak to the

people that they should pray for water, and
it that didn't

work, as a back up - he could alternately hit
the rock, and

that would also bring forth water.  Even
though our shiur has

followed a very different approach, it is
interesting to note

the originality of the Netziv's approach, and
how he deals

with many of the questions that we raised in
the above shiur.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20130612/d786e007/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53115 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20130612/d786e007/attachment-0001.pdf>