Parashas Chukas 5770

            “And G-d said to Moshe and to Aharon, ‘because you did not have faith in Me, to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them‘” (Bamidbar 20:12). Although the Torah never tells us explicitly what Moshe and Aharon did wrong, the commentators suggest numerous possibilities. Nevertheless, there is one standard approach, that of Rashi (20:11-12), which is based on numerous Midrashim (e.g. Midrash Yelamdeinu, quoted by Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Agada and Midrash Lekach Tov): Moshe was commanded to “speak” to the rock, but he hit it instead.

 

            Questions on this explanation abound, questions strong enough that many commentators felt the need to offer more innovative explanations (ground-breaking when they were first suggested, even if all these years later they seem “old hat”). Some of the questions asked are more difficult than others; let’s take a closer look at what led so many commentators to abandon the “standard” approach and try one of their own. It should be noted that many commentators work with the basic idea that Moshe hit the rock instead of speaking to it (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Chizkuni, Sefornu) and try to address many of these issues; by no means should the fact that so many propose alternative approaches indicate that the “standard” has changed.

 

            The most obvious question asked is why, if the whole point was to speak to the rock and not hit it, did G-d command Moshe (20:8) to “take the stick” with him? Doesn’t the necessity to bring his stick indicate that hitting the rock is either what G-d wanted, or that it was at least an option? Additionally, if the problem that resulted from Moshe’s sin was G-d’s name not being sanctified (20:8), the implication is that had Moshe spoken to the rock instead of hitting it, the desired sanctification would have occurred. Since rocks are inanimate objects, water coming out of them after being hit is just as great a miracle as water coming out after being spoken to. How was there such a difference in the level of sanctification because Moshe hit the rock rather than speaking to it? Another major issue that needs to be addressed is how Aharon gets blamed for Moshe’s actions. Both Moshe and Aharon are punished by not being allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land (20:12), and Aharon’s death (i.e. not being allowed to enter the land) is directly attributed to his “rebelling against G-d’s word” (20:24). If the sin was hitting the rock instead of talking to it, why is Aharon culpable for something that only Moshe did?

 

            Which stick did Moshe “take” with him? He hit the rock with “his stick” (20:11), so that must have been the stick he took, the one he followed G-d’s command by taking (20:9), right? However, Moshe wasn’t told to take “his stick,” but “the stick” (20:8), i.e. the “known stick,” the one that was placed in the Mishkan next to the Aron (ark) that held the “Ten Commandments” (17:25), the stick that was “before G-d” (20:9, compare with 17:22-24). As the Rashbam (20:8-10) and Chizkuni (20:8) point out, G-d wanted Moshe to take this stick, the one that blossomed, flowered, and produced almonds, “to show, through it, [the nation’s] difficult rebelliousness, as it says (17:25), [it was kept next to the Aron in the Mishkan] ‘for safeguarding as a sign for those who are rebellious. ‘” G-d didn’t ask Moshe to “take the stick” to hit the rock; it was needed to address “the rebels.”

 

            Although we now know why G-d commanded Moshe to take the stick, we have a different issue to deal with instead. The “stick” proved that Aharon and his sons were chosen by G-d to be the Kohanim (see Rashi on 17:25) and/or that the Tribe of Levi was chosen to serve in place of the first-born (see Ramban). This “rebellion” (if we are to use such a harsh term) was about the conditions in the desert (not enough water), not about who was given the role of serving in the Mishkan. Yes, they asked Moshe and Aharon why they “brought the nation into this desert to die” (20:4), and even why they brought them out of Egypt (20:5), questioning whether this was really G-d’s idea or Moshe and Aharon’s. And it can be suggested that just as “the stick” proved that Moshe didn’t choose Aharon, or the Tribe of Levi, himself, but was only relaying G-d’s commandments, it could, by extension, be a “hint” that Moshe didn’t make the travel plans himself, but was following G-d’s orders. Nevertheless, just showing the nation “the stick” doesn’t really address the aspect they were “rebelling” about; the only real way to address it was to provide them with the water they so desperately needed (which G-d did). Why then did G-d command Moshe to “prove” that Aharon was really chosen to be Kohain and/or the Tribe of Levi to replace the first-born, if that wasn’t what the commotion was about?

 

            “When Miriam died, they did not eulogize her and did not bury her [publicly]. Rather, Moshe [was] at the head and Aharon at the foot, and they went and buried her” (Yalkut Shimoni 787). Wait a second! How could Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, have been Miriam’s pallbearer if even a “regular” Kohain can’t become “tamay” (ritually impure) for a married sister? Tosfos (Kesubos 103b) discusses whether a Kohain would have been allowed to be involved in the burial of Rebbe HaKadosh, and based on this, the Panim Yafos suggests that if it’s true that there are righteous people whose corpses are not “tamay,” there would be no problem with Aharon being involved in Miriam’s burial. After all, the Talmud (Bava Basra 17a) tells us that Miriam was one of only six people that didn’t succumb to the “Malach Ha’muves” (angel of death); her death came through “G-d’s kiss” (as it were), so she would certainly qualify. R’ Eli Steinberg (Minchas Eliyahu) takes it a step further, quoting the Ramban (19:2) who says explicitly that those who die via “neshika” (G-d’s kiss) are not “tamay” since it is the “bite of the snake” (the Malach Ha’muves) that causes the “tumah.” Therefore, Miriam’s body was not “tamay,” and Aharon was allowed to help bury her.

 

            Okay, so now we know that there was no problem with Aharon burying Miriam. But did everyone else know this? What did they think when they heard that Miriam had died and only Moshe and Aharon buried her? They must have wondered how Aharon, the Kohain Gadol, could become “tamay.” When they had no water, and wondered how G-d could lead them to a place where they would die of thirst, the old doubts started to return. Maybe it wasn’t G-d that made Aharon and his sons Kohanim, so there was no issue with his burying Miriam. And maybe G-d didn’t tell Moshe to take the nation out of Egypt and bring them into the desert. The two issues merged together, and G-d was going to deal with each one of them. First He commanded Moshe to take out “the stick,” the one that was “before G-d,” to remind them of the “stick test” that was done 37 years earlier that proved that Aharon was divinely chosen for the Kehuna. Once that was done, all He had to do was provide water, and everyone would know that it was G-d who brought them into the desert.

 

            Did Moshe know this? Did he realize that once the issue of Aharon being chosen Kohain was gone, the “rebellion” against his leadership would also dissipate? Or, did he think that the only “rebellion” the “stick” was meant to neutralize was the one against Aharon? Based on his telling the congregation, “listen up, rebels” before getting the water to start pouring out of the rock, we can assume that Moshe thought that a “rebellion” was still going on, even after having shown them “the stick.”

 

            G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to “gather the assembly” (20:8). However, rather than gathering the “assembly” (“aidah”), we are told (20:10) that they “gathered the congregation” (“kahal”). The word “kahal” is the same word used for “gather,” implying that it is a group comprised of individuals that are gathered together, while the word “aidah” (with the root letters of yud-ayin-daled) means “pre-arranged.” It is the same word used for meeting together (“va’ad”) and “holiday” (“mo-aid”), which is a previously appointed time when people get together. In other words, an “aidah” is a group of people that share a common purpose, an entity onto itself, whereas a “kahal” is a conglomerate of individuals with varying agendas. G-d had told Moshe and Aharon to gather together the nation in order to solve a communal problem (having no water), but they called together all the individuals that comprised the nation, since they viewed them as individuals with personal complaints.

 

            G-d tried to give Moshe another hint that he and Aharon didn’t need to “prove” that their leadership had divine approval, by telling them that after the “rock gives forth its waters,” i.e. on its own after being spoken to, the end result will still be that “you will [have been] the one that brought out water for them from the rock, and you will [have been] the one to give them and their animals to drink” (Bamidbar 20:8). Moshe didn’t need to directly address the validity of his and Aharon’s leadership; once the nation’s needs were met, they would no longer be any reason to doubt whether traveling through the desert was their idea or G-d’s.

 

            Unfortunately, Moshe and Aharon didn’t get the message. They gathered the “kahal,” not the “aidah.” Moshe called them “rebels.” Then came the big moment, the time to actually bring water out of the rock. Moshe and Aharon speak to the rock, but nothing happens. If the only issue is getting water, it makes little difference if it comes out immediately, as long as it comes out. However, if there’s a “rebellion” to deal with, this is devasting. Feeling the need to prove themselves, Moshe and Aharon decide to go to plan “B,” hitting the rock the way Moshe did 38 years earlier. But that doesn’t work either. It’s as if G-d gave them a chance to reconsider their decision to hit the rock, and go back to talking to it. Instead, they decide to hit the rock a second time (20:11). By now, if water doesn’t come out, it would be embarrasing, and people really might start to question their leadership again, so G-d brings out “lots of water” despite the rock being hit rather than spoken to.

 

            Midrash Lekach Tov understands “speaking to the rock” to be, “you (plural) should say to it in My name, ‘this is what G-d says: ‘give forth your waters. ‘” Rashi seems to be following this approach (based on his quoting Midrash Agada), as the “sanctification” that would have occurred had Moshe spoken to the rock was the nation saying, “if this rock, which doesn’t speak, can’t hear, and doesn’t have any financial needs, fulfills G-d’s word, how much more so should we (fulfill G-d’s word).” Hitting the rock indicates that the waters were taken out by force, whereas had the waters come out after G-d’s request was relayed, the desired lesson could be learned (see Mizrachi). All hitting the rock proved was that Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was legitimate. Speaking to the rock, besides validating their leadership, would have inspired the nation, and they might not have had similar complaints the next time they had to face the desert’s harsh conditions (21:4-5). (See Sefornu for his explanation as to how hitting the rock was a “category two” miracle while speaking to the rock would have been a “category three” miracle, and what that means.)

 

            The nation was thirsty, and coupled with seeing Aharon bury Miriam, they started to doubt his and Moshe’s leadership. Rather than calmly reassuring them that G-d would take care of them, they fled to the Mishkan (20:6). This implied lack of confidence could have been reversed by calmly speaking to the rock rather than angrily hitting it, but because they wrongly assessed the situation and thought there was still a “rebellion” to contend with, they decided that hitting the rock instead was warranted. Aharon was an integral part of the decision to hit the rock (rather than trying again to speak to it), and together with Moshe had concluded that there was still a rebellion to deal with, not just a communal need. As a result, even though the nation’s needs were met, and any question about Moshe and Aharon’s leadership was resolved, the level of sanctification that could have occurred did not. And because of this, both Moshe and Aharon were not allowed to lead the nation into the Promised Land.