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

Re: One other thing

[cellio]

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.

Re: One other thing

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

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?

Re: One other thing

[cellio]

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