Moshe, Aharon, and the rock

[cellio]

I'm reading torah this week. The parsha is Chukat, and I'm reading the part where the people demand water, God tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to a rock so that it will bring forth water, they hit it instead (and get water), and God says "ok, no entering Israel for you!".

We had an inconclusive discussion of this topic some months ago at our torah study. What was the real sin? These two have made other mistakes, but only this one is severe enough that God denies them entry into the land as punishment. In fact, Aharon dies soon after (in this parsha). It's not a good week for the family, actually -- Aharon dies, Moshe is told he'll die before they reach the land, and Miriam died at the beginning of the parsha (leading to the water problem).

So why was this particular action so damning? One possibility is that Moshe completely lost his temper in this episode; while people are allowed to have bad days, we hold our leaders to higher standards. Some of the traditional commentaries seem to agree with this view, but I'm not convinced. It wouldn't be the only time Moshe -- or a patriarch, for that matter -- lost his temper.

One idea that came up in our torah study (I don't know if it's supported in traditional commentaries) is that, essentially, if it wasn't this it would have been something elese. Moshe couldn't be allowed to lead the people into the land because he was already a powerful leader (the only prophet to see God face to face) and it was critically important for the people that someone else lead them into the land so they'd understand that others could. So it was a given that Moshe wouldn't lead them in, and we're dickering over the details. It's consistent with the results of the spies incident in Sh'lach L'cha where we're told that none of the current generation (save Caleb and Yehoshua) will enter the land; that presumably meant Moshe and Aharon too. But if that's the case, no act calling for punishment was necessary.

Some commentaries hold that the sin was Moshe and Aharon interfering with a miracle. If they had spoken to the rock as instructed and water had poured out, that clearly would have been a miracle in the eyes of the people. But instead, Moshe hit the rock and water came out; maybe he just got lucky and hit a spring. That might not look like a miracle, and the people needed a miracle. This idea has some appeal, but it still doesn't feel quite right to me. God doesn't need us to make miracles happen, so even if Moshe and Aharon didn't follow orders, God could have given the people a (different) miracle if so inclined.

So I'm still struggling a bit with the sin here, but I've got a couple more days before I need to talk about it. :-) Input is welcome, of course.

Comments

[geekosaur]

IIRC quite a few commentaries take the tack that Moshe's and Aharon's fates had been sealed much earlier, and Hashem only informed them after their failure at Meribah. Most common is indeed that Aharon's fate was sealed for his part in the making of the Golden Calf. For Moshe, it seems like everyone's got a different idea of what early failure might have led to it, examining his every action with a microscope. I think one even claims it's because of his killing the Egyptian overseer at the beginning of Exodus.

Interestingly, the Plaut commentary seems to have the view that Moshe showed that he was past his prime when he complained to Hashem about how the people were too much for him to deal with in Sh'lach-L'cha, thereby making it necessary that someone younger and stronger lead the people into Canaan.

[cellio]

IIRC quite a few commentaries take the tack that Moshe's and Aharon's fates had been sealed much earlier, and Hashem only informed them after their failure at Meribah.

I've seen some comments to that effect too. It's a bit hard to reconcile with the pshat, the plain reading of the text, but that wouldn't be the first time. :-)

Interestingly, the Plaut commentary seems to have the view that Moshe showed that he was past his prime when he complained to Hashem about how the people were too much for him to deal with in Sh'lach-L'cha, thereby making it necessary that someone younger and stronger lead the people into Canaan.

Our associate rabbi talked briefly tonight about an interpretation I hadn't heard before. (He cited a chassidic source, though I can't say which.) All of the rest of the generation that left Egypt (except Caleb and Yehoshua, I presume) had died; the two leaders were all that were left. And just as the younger generation was out of touch with the desert miracles (not having been personally redeemed from Egypt, most of them), Moshe and Aharon were also out of touch with that younger generation. Moshe was close to 120; he couldn't relate to these "kids". So he couldn't continue to lead them; the mutual respect wasn't there. (I'm paraphrasing heavily, but I think I've got the gist of it right.) I'm not sure if I agree, but it's an interesting perspective -- even if Moshe were completely suitable to lead based on his actions, he might still have been unsuitable for other reasons.

[geekosaur]

I think the take-home on the first part is that lots of commentaries have the same "why is this such an issue?" question you do, so they went digging for possible explanations.

BTW, I got to that part of the Rashi commentary today; his take on it is that their previous failures were not (a) before the assembled congregation of Israel (b) in a situation where they were commanded to sanctify Hashem. He specifically brought up as an obviously worse failure Moshe's "tantrum" about whether Hashem could provide enough meat to feed Israel in Sh'lach-L'cha, then dismissed it as not being before the congregation. (That being the other evidence cited in the Plaut commentary for Moshe's declining faculties.)

differing generations

[chaos-wrangler.livejournal.com]

We were at an aufruf this weekend and one of the speech-givers (I don't remember his name) mentioned something similar w/respect to the brass/copper* snake that Moshe is told to make. Moshe put it away as something to be kept for future generations and then many generations later a good king (Chezkiya?) destroyed it, and the gemara says that his doing so was a good thing. The obvious question is how this could be considered good, and the answer the speaker gave was that every generation needs its own style of education, so Moshe wasn't able to set up an educational system/tool that would be effective for all generations to come, and by the time of this king Moshe's system/tool was actually detrimental so getting rid of it then was a good thing.

*I've seen both of these as translations, with one possible reason being that the same word was used for both since copper is a major component of brass.