[Par-reg] for Parshat Chukat - mei meriva

Thu Jun 26 17:53:19 EDT 2014

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

         THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
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
contain 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? After all, 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
(see 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 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
earlier in Parshat Beshalach).  

    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 & 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 on 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 carefully 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
presents a very convincing argument 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, 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 take 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, let's compare this event to a parallel
incident that took place many years earlier,
when Bnei Yisrael complained for water at
Refidim (see Shmot 17:1-7), noting 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).

      Therefore, God immediately gives Moshe
& Aharon specific instructions to rectify the
desecration of His Name; and provide the
nation with water. But as far as their
leadership is concerned, it's already too
late. Therefore, after Moshe & Aharon
properly fulfill Hashem's instructions to
solve the crisis - God informs them that
their days as the nation's leaders are
numbered. Before Bnei Yisrael can 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.]

      To support this interpretation, and to
understand this entire incident in its wider
perspective, let's turn back a few pages to
the 'background' event that took place in
Parshat Korach.

WHOSE STAFF IS IT? 

      To appreciate the connection of the
"mei meriva" incident to Parshat Korach,
let's pay careful attention to God's
immediate command to  Moshe & Aharon, when
they 'run away' to the Ohel Moed:

"And God spoke to Moshe saying: "kach et
ha'mateh" - take THE STAFF and gather the
people..." (see 20:6-8)

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 own 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 one final test to
put an end to Bnei Yisrael's repeated
complaints - by taking the staffs of each of
the tribal leaders (see 17:16-24, especially
17:20) -  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 very 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  earlier by the rock in Chorev, using
his OWN mateh (not Aharon's / read 20:11
carefully -noting the word "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 left Har Sinai,
almost every event which Chumash records
reflects this pattern of faltering
leadership: 

 *    At "kivrot ha'taaveh" Moshe himself
claims that he can no 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
(see 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 been
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-reg/attachments/20140626/84bcb995/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: chukat1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 125725 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20140626/84bcb995/attachment-0001.pdf>