Chukat: the sin of hitting the rock

[cellio]

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.

Comments

First, is it a punishment?

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: First, is it a punishment?

[cellio]

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.