cellio | Chukat: the sin of hitting the rock

Entry tags:

torah: my talks

Chukat: the sin of hitting the rock

On Shabbat I read the third aliya of Chukat. I spoke from a sparse outline, so this isn't exactly what I said, but this post is composed from the same outline. That'll have to do. :-)

In this portion the people demand water, and God tells Moshe and Aharon to speak to a rock and water will issue forth. Instead, though, Moshe yells at the people and hits the rock, and while the people do get water from it, God tells Moshe and Aharon "no Eretz Yisrael for you". But what was the big deal? This doesn't seem like the most severe sin either of them has committed; what was the sin in this act that warrants such a punishment?

Some commentaries argue that it's that Moshe lost his temper, lashing out at the people and calling them rebels. Not only that, but he did it very publicly, in front of the whole congregation. Some in this group have argued that surely breaking the first tablets was a greater sin, but there's a key diference. In that case, Moshe came down from the mountain, saw the people dancing around the golden calf, and in an instant of grief flung down the tablets. In this case, though, he had time to hear the complaints, go to God to ask what to do, receive an answer, and assemble the people before he lashed out at them. This was not an immediate emotional reaction like the earlier incident. That said, though, I don't think that's all of it.

Some have suggested that the sin was taking the miracle away from God. If they had spoken to the rock and gotten water that would have been an unambiguous miracle; while most rocks do not contain reserves of water that can quench the thirst of two million people and their animals, there is still room for people to say "Moshe did that" instead of "God did that". This is a problem, but I don't think that's the whole problem either.

Some have suggested that it was just plain necessary for Moshe and Aharon to step down, and if it hadn't been this it would have been something else. In other words, the consequences aren't so much a punishment for this sin; rather, this sin is an excuse for the consequences that would have been necessary anyway. If Moshe, who led the people out of Egypt and has had a face-to-face relationship with God for the last 40 years, were to lead the people into the land as well, would it ever be possible for another leader to take over? Would we end up with the cult of Moshe instead of the followers of God? It's a real possibility.

In addition, it seems likely that Moshe and Aharon were by now having trouble relating to this generation. They are close to 120 years old; the oldest in the congregation are less than half their age and most are less than a third their age. Moshe and Aharon personally experienced the exodus; the congregation did not. They have a different perspective, and the people might need leaders who share their experiences. I'm not saying that old leaders are bad, but relationship-building is key and there may have been a failure here to do that.

It also seems plausible that this transition was mandated years ago. Back in Sh'lach L'cha, after the report of the spies, God condemned all of this generation except Caleb and Joshua. Note that he didn't actually say "and Moshe and Aharon". I think this change in leadership was determined all the way back then.

And if that's correct, I have a beef with God.

It is certainly true that Moshe and Aharon made serious mistakes. We hold our leaders to higher standards, and rightly so. Attacking the people you're supposed to be leading, when you've had time to cool down and should know better, is a serious mistake; so is taking undue credit for good outcomes. But where was God's compassion in all of this? He could have taken Moshe and Aharon aside and said "it's time for new leaders", privately. He didn't have to set them up to fail. As a member of our congregation pointed out to me after the service, their sister has just died; they're probably already a little off-kilter from that.

It is entirely appropriate that we set high standards for our leaders, but we must also remember that they are human beings who are every bit as deserving of compassionate treatment as anyone else is. Of course there are times when we must make a problem public, but we should always try to resolve it privately first -- not just because it's expedient but because it's what caring people do.

Edit 7/13/2005: On further reflection I believe that my understanding of this incident is wrong and osewalrus has it right.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, there is a possibility I've thought of occasionally, but am unsure it's actually supported by the text....

Anyway, this was not the first time Moshe had lost his patience with Israel and done something not-so-nice; specifically, grabbing a sword and chopping a bunch of them to pieces when he entered the camp to find the Israelites worshipping the Golden Calf. Immediately after that event, he went back up Har Sinai, and there followed the odd exchaneg where G-d says He will destroy them and start over — in a way which is almost begging Moshe to talk Him out of it, which he proceeded to do.

My thought is that that was actually a lesson for Moshe, and a warning: rein in the temper, or else. And if so, then the events at Meribah were evidence that he hadn't learned. Which quite possibly was a sufficient sin to deny him entrance to the Land, and removes the argument that Moshe had no warning (since the warning came after the Sin of the Golden Calf — and it may be possible to infer additional warnings from some of his later losses of temper which occurred only before G-d).

(As for Aharon: his claim to fame, and (according to the commentators) the main reason he was chosen as kohein gadol, was that he always worked to foster peace between quarreling people. Yet, in this case (with Moshe irrationally angry at the entire Israelite people) he failed to do so. (This is Rashi's argument, actually.) Plaut goes one step further and claims that Aharon had lost his rapport with the people of Israel and thereby showed it was time for him to step down.)

My thought is that that was actually a lesson for Moshe, and a warning: rein in the temper, or else. And if so, then the events at Meribah were evidence that he hadn't learned.

That's a good point.

Plaut goes one step further and claims that Aharon had lost his rapport with the people of Israel and thereby showed it was time for him to step down.)

Our associate rabbi quoted a Chassidic source that said something similar, though I didn't manage to remember which one.

I've been reading through the first 5 books of what I'd call the Old Testament. The Books of Moshe, as it were.

Evolution is the least of my problems. Moshe getting banned from the Promised Land for rock-smacking is a bit higher. God's walking along and happens to run into Moshe and almost whacks him for having a foreskin? More of a problem. Aharon's two older sons? The ones that goofed up the protocols by doing some unauthorized fire? The ones that got zapped like a red-shirt on Star Trek (and with less compassion)? Much more of a problem. The whole thing about "If you're raped in the country, the guy dies, if you're raped in the city, you both die, because better you should die at his hands screaming for help than be forced to have sex with him and save your life. In System International units, we're up to at least the "kilo" prefix of me having problems.

I haven't quite gotten to Yeshua (gee, that name sounds familiar) and the genocidal conquest. The one thing that makes me feel "not too bad" about that one is that an analysis of the DNA of the inhabitants long before the Israelites could have shown up and long after shows that there was no population change. Of course, that creates some other problems.

I am so in trouble for saying this, aren't I?

Rob of UnSpace (http://www.unspace.net/)

No, your just a run of the mill troll. Peace out dude and get a life.

Actually, Bob's commented here before and I don't think he's a troll. He obviously comes from a different background, and I think he may have confused two similar-sounding names.

The name my Bible translates as "Joshua" is the same Hebrew name as the one that's translated "Jesus" in the New Testament.

Translators do funky things with names. The Book of James, in the New Testament, was written by Judas (not Iscariot). To cut down on the confusion, they translate the name as James.

The worst example of mistranslation is a female leader's name in the early Christian church that is deliberately mistranslated as a man's name to avoid the problem of a female leader in the early Church.

Rob

Joshua is "Yehoshua" in the Hebrew, and it's clearly a different word. Did the word undergo some mutation when it passed through the Greek?

Thanks for the information on the mistranslations. I hadn't heard of the woman-becoming-a-man one before. (Who was it?)

First, I apologize. I didn't mean to disrupt your blog. My heart is rather unsettled, having finished off Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and almost all of Deuteronomy in my reading. The picture those books present of God is, at best, disturbing.

I went with the Pittsburghese version of Yehoshua! After saying "Gianiggle" all these years, it's no wonder. Seriously, the Hebrew "Yehoshua" and the Greek "Iesous" are the same name. It causes some translation problems for English-speaking readers when the translators goof up which English name to use in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. If they used the same name for both, it would eliminate one set of confusions and create another. They both mean "God is Salvation," with the actual word for "God" being His name.

At the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, when I took a survey course for laity, the prof was real big on names. In what I'd call the OT, so many of the names are puns. Being a "punmonster" myself, this was something I get a kick out of.

Junia is listed as an apostle in Romans 16:7 (http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B45C016.htm)

Notice how many of the translations translate her name as Junias, instead of Junia, even though it's consistently feminine in the Greek. A lot of Christians have problems with women leaders. I'm from a more liberal tradition that recognizes that God chose women leaders in the Old Testament. So we have female ministers, deacons, and elders, although we do prefer that they leave their tent pegs and hammers at home when attending meetings.

Actually, at your typical session meeting, everyone needs to leave the tent pegs and hammers at home. The temptation would be too great. No one needs to go to Jael. (Sorry, had to do it).

First, I apologize. I didn't mean to disrupt your blog.

Don't sweat it. If everyone agreed with me all the time, life would be boring -- and if I can't handle feedback, I shouldn't enable it.

The picture those books present of God is, at best, disturbing.

There is a large body of interpretation out there, for what that's worth to you. The plain meaning of the text is important, but sometimes the additional layers of interpretation help one to see it in new ways.

Thanks for the info about Junia.

Actually, at your typical session meeting, everyone needs to leave the tent pegs and hammers at home.

Yeah, I can see that being a good idea. :-)

IIRC, there's also some gender confusion of names along about the place where Jesus tells Peter that he's the rock upon which he'll build the church, with a single source word being translated "petros" in one place and as "petra" in another, ostensibly because the author wanted to avoid Peter having a feminine name. I consequently have little faith in any language-gender argument that went through Greek at some point. :)

Strange, I don't feel like a troll. Sorry if I seem that way to you.

I do feel like someone who's taken a fresh look at these books and is very disturbed by what he sees. I can't make sense of the portrait of God that's presented.

Moshe not making it into the Promised Land is symptomatic of the much bigger problem that I see.

Maybe I do need to "Peace out," but right now, trying to see a just God in this is difficult.

The ones that goofed up the protocols by doing some unauthorized fire? The ones that got zapped like a red-shirt on Star Trek (and with less compassion)?

My recollection isn't that they "goofed up." They were intoxicated, and thought, "Hey! If we can offer X, and we like Y too, then we can offer Y as well." There were still intoxicated when they made the offering, and were executed on the spot as an example to others.

To me, this clearly says, "Don't do priestly things while incapacitated." or "Don't deliberately violate the holy of holies." (Both really good ideas.) One could also argue that it's a message about the abuse of intoxicants (alcohol or other drugs). (Another good idea.)

Since humans were deliberately created with imperfections, an honest "Oops" gets a lesser punishment, meant to encourage the aspiration toward better understanding of the law, rather than discourage turning away because the task might be impossible.

I'm not so familiar with the other things, so I don't have an opinion to offer yet.

They were intoxicated

That's not in the plain reading of the text, but it is an inference that the rabbis draw based on proximity. We have this incident and then the next thing we get is "don't do the service while drunk", so the rabbis see a connection the same way they derive the 39 categories of melacha (forbidden work) from the proximity of "don't work on Shabbat" and "here's what goes into building the mishkan".

It's not my first problem with God; it's just the one that goes with this parsha. Fortunately, arguing with and about God is ok, particularly when it creates a dialogue that helps with further understanding.

By the way, Yehoshua (Joshua) and Yeshua are different names.

I am so in trouble for saying this, aren't I?

Not with me. I can't speak to any trouble you're in within your own religion. :-)

That Moses and Aaharon were potentially unfit to lead the people was not necessarily manifest until they demonstrated their inability to do so. You postulate that the transition was mandated years ago, but there is no textual support for this. We first hear of God's decision to have someone else take the Children of Israel into the the promised land after the event with the rock.

The language also implies causality. 20:12 states "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron because [ya'an] you did not believe in me to sanctify me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore [lachain] you shall not bring this congregation [et hakahal hazeh] to the land that I shall give them."
This language says nothing of punishment, but it does point to cause and effect and to a specificity of circumstances. Somehow, Moshe and Aaron had a failure of belief in *God* that pompted conduct that failed to sanctify God "in the eyes of the Children of Israel." However, the generic Children of Israel are impliedly different from this congregation that God will give land to.

Also of note is verse 13 immediately following: "These are the waters of strife [merivah], where the Children of Israel fought [rivu] with God [et Hashem], and He was sanctified in them [bam]."

A very linguistically difficult sentence, and apparently at odds with the previous sentence. Why use "et" rather than "im?" This usage is not uncommon in the Tanach, but it creates ambiguity. Similarly, if Moses and Aaron's conduct failed to sanctify God, how was it that God was, in fact sanctified in them? Also, we are back to the Children of Israel rather than this specific congregation.

In all of this, there is no mention of punishment. Only causality. Moses, however, clearly interprets this as punishment and blames the people for it. In Deut. 3:23-29, Moses reports that he begged God for permission to go into the land, but "but the Lord was angry with me for your sakes, and would not hear me." 3:26. (Curiously, 1:36-38 implies that Moses was punished for his agreeing to allow the spies to go up and spy out the land of Israel.)

To the extent that 1:36-38 implies that the decision was made years earlier, as you suggest, then Moses was informed at that time. But if we are to read Deut. in conjunction with Num., and take 1:36-38 as an eliptical aside in Moses historical narrative, then there is no indicator that there was a decision until Moses conduct made it clear he was to step down.

In any event, even in Moses' p.o.v., there is a clear causality between the decision that Yehoshua will lead the people in and Moses' actions. I am afraid I think your "beef" with God is entirely unjustified as a textual matter. At worst, God may have "known" (however we are to apply this to an omnipotent, omniscient being) that Moses and Aaron could no longer properly relate to the current "congregation," but he gave them their chance to try to swing it. Had God simply relieved Moses of command, before Moses' conduct displayed his unfitness for the next task, would that have been fair? God gave Moses his shot. Moses muffed it, by refusing to relate to this generation as different from the previous one. God therefore relieved him of command, since Moses' and Aaron's leadership no longer "sanctified God" with the Children of Israel. But, by installing Yehoshua to complete the Divine mission, God did, in fact continue to be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.

Thank you. These are really good comments.

You're right that Moshe seeing it as punishment (which he clearly does in D'varim) doesn't make it so. I think "consequence" is a better description.

I still have a question about whether God would have allowed Moshe and Aharon to lead the people in. If they'd passed this test, would there have just been another for them to fail? Maybe this is my modern perspective, but it seems dangerous -- to the people as a whole, I mean -- for the delivery from Egypt into the promised land to appear to be a one-man (or two-man) show. Was a change in leadership necessary? If not, I grant your point that they had a chance to prove themselves and goofed; if so, were there better ways to do it?

A very linguistically difficult sentence, and apparently at odds with the previous sentence. Why use "et" rather than "im?" This usage is not uncommon in the Tanach, but it creates ambiguity. Similarly, if Moses and Aaron's conduct failed to sanctify God, how was it that God was, in fact sanctified in them? Also, we are back to the Children of Israel rather than this specific congregation.

I had a lot of trouble with that too. I have no answers.

I also have problems with your "set them up to fail" notion. Either we except the timing of Deut. 1:36-38, in which case God told Moses at the time that he was not going to lead the people in to Israel, and teh events of Numbers are merely illustrative, or we accept the events of Numbers as definitive. But if Num. is definitive, then it is not God "setting up" Moshe and Aaron. Unless we are to assume, without any textual support, that God manufactured the crisis of the moment, then we must accept that what occured was a natural response of the Children of Israel to which Moses, as leader, must respond.

Yeah, his sister had just died. Should God have abrogated the free will of the Children of Israel until Moshe and Aaron had a chance to get their heads together?

"Compassion" does not mean changing the rules of reality to make things nice. Being leader is not a reward, it is a job.

Nor do I see the "public" part. Num. 20:12 merely states that God spoke to Moses and Aaron. The text does not relate whether it was publicly or privately. Moses, when recounting to the Children of Israel in Deut., never clarifies the issue, instead informing the Children of Israel that God was mad at him "on their account."

Returning to our current text, we have the new generation confronted with its first significant challenge. They have moved for the first time in 38 years, indeed, in their adult memories, and Moses and Aaron have apparently led them to an arid place. Notably, their complaint is not against God, as their parents had complained, but against Moses and Aaron. Nor do they threaten physical harm, as their parents had done. Instead, they berate Moses and Aaron for their apparent lack of leadership.

God recognizes that this is an important moment. Rather than threaten to destroy the people or punish them, He orders Moses to produce a miracle without rebuke. Instead, Moses calls them "rebells." But while they have criticized Moshe, they have NOT rebelled. To the contrary, they have remained loyal to Moses and more importantly, to God.

Worse, Moses and aaron do not invoke God at all in bringing forth water from the rock. "Behold you rebells, shall we bring forth water from this rock!" Moshe has become concerned with preserving his political leadership, so concerned that he (a) equates criticsm of himself with rebellion, and (b) that he utterly fails to glorify God in bringing forth water, instead bringing all the credit on himself and Aaron.

It is this combination of a failure to believe in God's judgement that the current generation are not "rebells" and the subsequent glorification of Moses and Aaron for themselves rather than sanctifying God (possibly out of another failure of trust, that God would protect their political position) that marks Moshe and aaron as unfit to lead. This unfitness must be addressed. It is not compassion, either to Moshe and Aaron or to the Children of Israel, to allow Moshe to lead the peopl into the Holy Land.

Indeed, one can argue that God demonstrated compassion for Moshe by providing water when Moshe hit the rock. you argue that God somehow embarassed Moshe publicly. But what if God had simply refused to bring forth the water? Moshe had not done what God had ordered. God could simply have let Moshe suffer the consequence of disobediance by not bringing forth water and allowing the people to react accordingly (either by rising against Moshe or from losing faith in Moshe).

Instead, God showed great compassion to Moshe and Aaron by preserving their public stature with the people. God did a tremendous kindness and miracle by bringing forth the water despite Moshe's and Aaron's disobediance and failure to sanctify God. Only later, and (I would argue) privately, did God inform Moshe and Aaron of the consequence of their action. Even then, he did not show anger toward Moshe and Aaron. He just informed that, because of the failure of their belief and failure to sanctify God, they would not lead the people into Israel.

They have moved for the first time in 38 years, indeed, in their adult memories
This is not the traditional understanding; IIRC, Rashi derives from various statements a full list of camps which they made during the 38 years, and infers that they moved every 2 years or so. It wasn't so much "stayed in one place" as it was "aimless wandering".

(The traditional understanding also has it that the rock from which the water had been coming since they entered the desert was linked to Miriam, so her death precipitated the water crisis at Meribah. As such, G-d's commandment to speak to the rock was intended to ask it to produce water despite Miriam's death.)

Thanks for these good comments. I see your point that this rebellion was different and that it called for leadership that didn't happen.

Nor do I see the "public" part. Num. 20:12 merely states that God spoke to Moses and Aaron. The text does not relate whether it was publicly or privately. Moses, when recounting to the Children of Israel in Deut., never clarifies the issue, instead informing the Children of Israel that God was mad at him "on their account."

Hmm. Somewhere along the line (not recently, alas) I heard an interpretation that this was a public reprimand, but now I see that the text is not clear on that point. That would make a big difference.

It is not compassion, either to Moshe and Aaron or to the Children of Israel, to allow Moshe to lead the peopl into the Holy Land.

I wasn't arguing for letting him keep the job. My argument was that if it had already been determined that he wouldn't keep the job (and I realize that point is in question), then it was not compassionate to test him anyway when the answer is a foregone conclusion. If he's to step down, it seems kinder to just tell him to step down.

If he's to step down, it seems kinder to just tell him to step down.

Would he have done so, without a demonstration of why it was necessary?

Even as it's described in the torah he argued with God about the verdict. I think protests would have happened either way.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Chukat: the sin of hitting the rock

no subject

no subject

This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

names

Re: names

Re: names

Re: names

Re: This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

Re: This is your first problem with God?

First, is it a punishment?

Re: First, is it a punishment?

One other thing

Re: One other thing

Re: One other thing

Re: One other thing

Re: One other thing