In Memory of our beloved David Schwartz, who fell in battle sanctifying God’s name, on 27 Tevet, 5784 (8 January 2024).
“Le’David Barchi Nafshi” is a compilation of essays written on the weekly Torah reading by David Schwartz, of blessed memory. First published on the occasion of his marriage to Meital, David’s unique Torah thoughts that delve into the depths of the Torah are shared now to elevate his memory and sanctify his soul.
“But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm my sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land that I have given them.” (Numbers 20:12)
Torah scholars have long wondered about the punishment above that was meted out to Moshe and Aaron. It does not need to be said that Moshe and Aaron were the greatest leaders of the people. How is it possible then that on account of their striking the rock that these tzaddikim received such a great punishment, when clearly what they yearned for most of all was to enter the Land of Israel?
Rashi explains God’s standpoint in a well-known interpretation: “If they had spoken to the rock and brought forth water, I would have been sanctified before the people.” However, the Ramban questions this interpretation by noting that if God wished that Moshe should speak to the rock, there would have been no need to tell Moshe to ‘take a staff’ as well, since the only thing necessary was speech.” In addition, the Ramban and others note that there is no fundamental difference between a miracle that draws water out of a rock through hitting it versus speaking to it. Is there a lack of sanctification of God’s name through hitting a rock? Therefore, we need to clarify what difference there is between speaking and hitting in the matter of “sanctifying Me,” as both are certainly miraculous actions.
We could certainly say that the sin did not arise from a lack of faith or from an intention to rebel against God, and that this action alone is not such a serious matter. The reason Moshe and Aaron were punished with such a severe penalty then was because of God’s sharp focus on the actions of the righteous, and presumably no one else would have been punished with such severity. From this interpretation, it follows that this was an arbitrary decision of God that does not stem from the severity of the sin in an objective manner, but rather from the specific focus on it.
It seems to me that this way of interpreting the passage is not completely satisfying, and perhaps even avoids the central problem, namely the apparent lack of fairness in what was done to Moshe and Aaron.
Rav Amnon Bazak explains that the people of Israel are about to go into the land, at a time when they are transitioning from experimental leadership and absolute dependence on God and Moshe to independent conduct in a natural way, a new leader is needed.
Now, a leader who fits the spirit of the times is needed. The people of Israel cannot enter the land while being entirely dependent on a leader who performs miracles. At this time, the people of Israel needed to learn to conduct themselves independently. According to this understanding, the sin of Moshe and Aaron is seemingly nothing more than an excuse for leaving Moshe and Aaron outside the Land of Israel, as this would have happened regardless. It turns out then that the sin in itself really did not justify the severity of the disproportionate punishment.
Rav Bazak explains that what happened was not a punishment, since God could well have forgiven them for that sin, but the basis of the complaint still shows that leadership change was necessary. We may see this from the language in Deuteronomy 3:26 - “The Lord was wrathful with me for your sake,” and in chapter 4, verse 21: “And the Lord was angry at me on your account.” The people were the central focus in the matter.
To me from the spirit of the words, there is a greater process that stands behind the severity of the sin, and I will attempt, God willing, to explain the matter in a different way.
The people of Israel after the exodus from Egypt fall again and again into grievous sins, which are based on a lack of faith in the Lord of the world. Immediately after leaving, the people complain about the bitterness of the water. After this comes the sin of the murmurers, and then more complaints about meat (Num. 11) and then complaints about the bitter water.
The nation of Israel falls into a poor state of faith once more, even though its entire existence is nothing but a miracle, for they ate bread from heaven every day. It seems that the great sense of trust in God that prevailed during the Song of the Sea has dissipated, such that the faith in God has become weaker. From a careful look at the language of Rashi, it is possible to understand a literal reading of the verse: “that if you spoke to the rock, God would have been sanctified before the eyes of the congregation.” In the view of Rashi, the act of speaking to the rock shows that speech is more important than hitting.
Using one’s speech to draw water out of a rock expresses a level of faith that is clearer, perhaps because there is no action at all, only speech alone.
The people after their sins at the time of entering Israel need to return to faith in God without any doubts. It was mandatory that this take place, since their miraculous guidance from above was coming to an end. God wanted this great confidence to take root in Israel before they entered the land. In order to reach this lofty rank, it was necessary to speak to the rock.
This great act of speech was critical at that hour.
It is clear that the sin of Moshe and Aaron in truth can not be seen as grievous if it had taken place at a different moment in time. But at that hour specifically the severity of the sin was greater. It may be possible to see this as well in the language that God uses: “On account of the fact that you did not trust in me.” That is, on account of the fact that you did not cause Israel to trust in me with a higher level of faith.” In this interpretation, the severity of the punishment is just, since the sin at that moment and lack of precision was indeed critical as they were ready to enter Israel.
Still, the question arises, that if there was an essential need to bring Israel to a great faith through speech, what was the eventual substitute for this? In other words, the sin prevented the nation from entering into a higher and necessary faith, so how was that accomplished?
The answer can be seen in the death of Aaron. The Gemara in Sanhedrin (37a) teaches that when the sage Rabbi Zeira passed away, the people who were known for their wickedness had a change of heart. They cried out: “Until now he [Rabbi Zeira] would pray for compassion for us, but who will pray for us now? They reflected in their hearts and repented.”
In the story from Tractate Sanhedrin, the neighbors of Rabbi Zeira only realized their need to repent when the great sage passed away. In the same way, we can understand how the death of Aaron brought the people of Israel to repentance. This matter is expressed through the words, “we have sinned.” It is only said by the people then, for the first time after all the sins in the desert it is expressed after his death.
Apparently then, the deaths of Moshe and Aaron bring the people to a higher level of atonement, alongside with being an atonement for the act of hitting the rock. That action which did not cause a higher level of faith was atoned for as well with Aaron’s death. We may conclude that the punishment provides purification for Moshe and Aaron through measure for measure. The sin of hitting the rock did not bring the people to the level necessary for entering the land, and therefore they also did not merit to enter the land at all.