Parashat Chukas

On the positive side, virtually every Peirush on the Torah agrees that Moshe and Aharon were not allowed to enter into Eretz Yisrael exclusively because of their failure at Mei Merivah; the pasuk (20:12) is rather clear about this fact. Unfortunately, there isn’t much else agreed upon, and the details of this particular failure remain a mystery amidst the whirlwind of proposed explanations. Was Moshe’s failure that he should have spoken to the rock instead of hitting it (Rashi)? Perhaps he should have only hit it once (Ibn Ezra)? Maybe Moshe shouldn’t have spoken so harshly to the nation (Rambam)? Or maybe he shouldn’t have attributed the miracle to his own capacities (Ramban)?

Ya’an Lo He’emantem Bi, but since you have not believed in Me…

The pasuk [makes mention of Moshe’s sin, instead of fully covering it up, in order to] reveal that Moshe and Aharon would have entered into Eretz Yisrael had it not been for this sin, so that no one should [later] claim that their sin was the same as that of their generation [namely, the Cheit HaMiraglim].

Rashi, BaMidbar 20:12

It’s rather ironic when we consider all the dozens of explanations of Moshe’s error that Rashi is of the opinion that the Torah does not intend to disclose the details of this Cheit! That certainly would explain the source of all this confusion! But make no mistake, even Rashi explicitly accords that Moshe committed some sin in this account, whether a disclosed one or not. Rashi even offers two explanations as to the nature of the sin (and two contradictory explanations at that, as we will soon discover).

Rashi’s account of Moshe’s misdeed is certainly confounding, for one would presume that we have as much to learn from the mistakes of our leaders as we do from their teachings. Why then would the Torah wish to hide Moshe’s Cheit and only reveal enough information to let us know that he did sin, and not how he sinned? Furthermore, if we aren’t supposed to know how Moshe sinned, then why does Rashi, in his very next comments, imply towards the very nature of Moshe’s Cheit?

Surely this [statement of “Shimu Na HaMorim, HaMin HaSelah HaZeh Notzee Lachem Mayim”] cannot be worse than [what Moshe accused Hashem of when he said] “HaTzon U’Vakar YiShacheit, [where can you possibly find enough animals to feed the entire nation?!”] so why is Moshe only punished here? But since [his first offense] occurred in private, Hashem had mercy on him [and did not punish him]. Here, Moshe’s offense occurred in public, and so he was not spared, on account of the Kiddush Hashem [he failed to perform].

The Mizrachi takes note of the comparison between Moshe’s words in our parasha, and those in Bi’Ha’alosicha, when the people shamelessly complain for meat. Just as Moshe doubted Hashem’s capabilities there, somehow assuming Hashem could not create enough animals to feed the nation, so too here Moshe doubts Hashem’s ability to draw water from any rock he speaks to, when in reality Hashem could make water come out of any rock if He so chose. In essence, the Mizrachi blames Moshe for rhetorically asking whether he could get water from “this” rock, meaning from “any” rock, when in fact Moshe could have. It was a greater offense to doubt G-d’s powers in a dialogue with HaKadosh Baruch Hu Himself, but this second offense was performed in public, and so Moshe was not spared.

Rashi is clearly not bashful about proposing explanations of his own as to how Moshe failed. In fact, Rashi immediately offers yet another pshat:

Had [they] spoken to the rock [instead of hitting it] and brought forth [water], then [Hashem’s] name would have been ‘Mekudash’ in the eyes of the people, for they would say “Just as this rock, which cannot speak and cannot hear and relies on no subsistence, performs the word of its Maker, all the more so must we!”

Here, Rashi asserts that Moshe and Aharon failed Hashem not through what they said, but rather through what they did. They should have spoken to the rock, but instead Moshe hit it. This leads to some speculation; according to Rashi, which mistake sealed Moshe’s fate. Did he misspeak, or did he misconduct?

The Mizrachi answers that these two Midrashim pose no contradiction to each other; it is very possible the combination of these two errors was cause for Moshe’s punishment. But this answer is hard to swallow, for we must assume that Moshe would not be punished, even if he did not execute the proper Kiddush Hashem, so long as he had not spoken wrongfully of Hashem. Additionally, the reason why Moshe was punished in our parasha would have nothing to do with the fact that he sinned publicly, since speaking badly of Hashem, even publicly, would not have been grounds for punishment without the failure to perform the Kiddush Hashem.

But the most substantial question on the Mizrachi’s approach comes from the Levush HaOrah, who asks whether Rashi believed Moshe could draw water from any rock, or only from one rock. According to Rashi’s first explanation, Moshe was incorrect in assuming that he could not draw water from any rock. But Rashi also writes that Moshe first tried speaking to the wrong rock and it did not respond, and that’s why he started hitting rocks! There is a clear contradiction between Rashi’s two explanations! How does the Mizrachi overlook this blatant inconsistency?!

The Levush HaOrah answers that there is really no difficulty whatsoever, but one must first understand that Moshe Rabbeinu is only capable of that which he believes himself capable of. If Moshe does not believe he can draw water from any rock, then he simply cannot. According to the Levush HaOrah, talking to even the correct rock would not – and presumably did not – work because Hashem’s very instructions in our parasha require the proper accompanying mindset (as opposed to the process of hitting, for which Moshe did have the proper mindset).

Therefore, Moshe’s statement publicly revealed a certain misguided notion that Hashem couldn’t cause water to come from any rock. And this mindset thus denied Moshe any means of drawing water other than to hit one rock, thus preventing him from teaching the Kal ViChomer and performing the Kiddush Hashem.

Such is the understanding of the Levush HaOrah, and we also can now understand why Hashem remarks “you have not believed in Me.” By our original premise, Moshe’s mistake was committed either through speech or action, but not belief; however, we now recognize that every error committed does stem from this so called ‘lack of Emunah.’ One might wonder why exactly Moshe didn’t believe Hashem could cause water to come out of any rock; such a question is perfectly justified, and will later be addressed, but do note that Rashi elsewhere (BaMidbar 31:21) says that Moshe’s anger led him to hit the rock, so it’s possible that his anger and frustration caused this skewed judgment.

But our work is far from done, and there are still many more complications within Rashi’s pshat, for we have not addressed any of the practical differences between hitting the rock and speaking to it. Why is one method of action, namely speaking, all of a sudden desired in our parasha’s story when until now an alternative method, namely hitting, has sufficed? The Ramban, for one, asks how Moshe would make any more of a Kal ViChomer by speaking to the rock than by hitting it, for both require miraculous feats in spite of the rock’s relative shortcomings (namely its lack of speech, hearing and subsistence).

These questions indicate a gap in our understanding of the Kiddush Hashem Moshe failed to perform, and so it should come as little surprise when we consider that the Kal ViChomer Rashi here describes is actually backwards! Do we really believe one can learn lessons of obedience from the behavior of a rock? The rock does not listen to Hashem in spite of its speaking and hearing deficiencies; on the contrary, the rock flawlessly performs Hashem’s will because of these deficiencies!! How can we, as human beings with the potential to disobey, learn to perform what Hashem wants of us from an inanimate object, with no potential to deviate from its Maker’s desires? Granted, we could try to be more like the rock, but such a lesson derives from no Kal ViChomer!

Perhaps we can understand this Kal ViChomer in a slightly different light. By our current understanding, we must somehow explain how ears and a mouth further enable one to fulfill Hashem’s desire in the first place. But as we see from the rock, it is possible to perform Hashem’s will without these faculties altogether. However, if we view these communicative faculties as the very indication that Hashem wishes us to perform His will, to establish some relationship with Him and affect His world for the better, then the Kal ViChomer fits beautifully.

One would rationally think that the rock’s lack of ears or mouth serves as a clear indication that Hashem desires no service from this rock, and yet when Moshe asks it for water on behalf of Klal Yisrael, it still performs the Ribono Shel Olam’s will! Kal ViChomer people – whose mouths and ears serve as clear indication to their duties to establish the desired relationship with Hashem – must act accordingly, and do so through those very senses, as the pasuk in Beraishis indicates.

…ViKol Eisev BaSadeh Terem Yitzmach Ki Lo Himtir Hashem Elokim Al Ha’Aretz ViAdam Ayin La’Avod Es Ha’Adamah.

Beraishis, 2:5

Rashi explains that vegetation could not grow because it had not rained, and it had not rained because man did not yet exist to pray for rain and appreciate its benefits. The world that Hashem puts before us, Rashi implies, is meant to operate by the potency of our Tefilos and the magnitude of our Hakaras HaTov. These faculties enable life for not only us, but also everything around us. Within the hierarchy of creation, even the rocks and trees respond to HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s instructions, but these instructions come about from our desire for interaction. It therefore becomes incumbent upon us to rely on our G-d given senses – the indication of our lofty position within this hierarchy – in order to positively sustain the world around us.

It now becomes evident why Moshe must speak to the rock instead of hitting it, for this Kal ViChomer can only endure if Moshe does not undermine the value of his own communicative faculties. Granted, the rock can miraculously respond to the strike of a staff, but only via a different mechanism, namely that of Zechus.

Until this time, Klal Yisrael received water by the Zechus of Miryam. No prayer was required and no appreciation was due; Hashem delivered water to the entire nation simply by the merit of one individual. But in our story, Hashem commands Moshe to gather the entire nation around the rock, to demonstrate to them the source of their sustenance, and to establish a sense of appreciation for the water they receive. But instead of delivering water through speech, and establishing this sense of appreciation, the Midrash teaches us that the Bnei Yisrael received water through Moshe’s Zechus, regardless of their Hakaras HaTov. Had Moshe only had enough Emunah in Hashem, he would not have relied on his power of Zechus to draw forth the water, and he probably would have then realized that he could speak to the rock – to any rock, for that matter – for the human potential of Tefilah, as opposed to the potential of Zechus, to affect the world around him is truly limitless.

And now to return to our original question. Why does Rashi imply that our parasha does not intend to disclose the details behind Moshe’s Cheit, when Rashi immediately proceds to elaborate on said Cheit? Perhaps, through the comparison to the statement “HaTzon U’Vakar Yishacheit,” Rashi implies that the Torah does not need to specify Moshe’s Cheit here for we can just as easily learn the same lesson from his statement there. And what was Moshe’s error there, when he seemingly doubts Hashem’s capability to provide enough meat for the wayward nation? Are these two sins truly identical?

The Gur Aryeh startlingly answers that Moshe never doubted Hashem’s inherent capabilities what she stated “HaTzon U’Vakar Yishacheit,” but rather doubted Hashem’s desire to give into the verbal requests of a bunch of sinners. Moshe’s argument was that the nation did not bear the Zechus to deserve such massive quantities of meat, that Hashem would not listen to the pleas and requests of an individual with no merits, and this challenge was delivered directly to Hashem Himself. Likewise, in our story, Moshe responds to the “rebellious wayward nation” by drawing water through his own merits, instead of considering that Hashem would still listen to the requests of the meritless Am, and still desire to establish a relationship with them.

And this is not some new attribute of Moshe’s either; we see this flaw emerge already in the closing lines of Parashat Shemos! Moshe returns to HaKadosh Baruch Hu disgusted, and demands “Lama Harei’osah Es Ha’Am HaZeh, ViLama Zeh Shilachtani, why have you bothered sending me to redeem this nation if You were not really ready to take them out yet? If they are ready for redemption, how then could You think of worsening their situation?!” The answer, of course, is that Hashem desires to free the nation, but not solely on account of their or their ancestors’ merits, but also in hopes of establishing a relationship in the near future. No such relationship can be established until they can appreciate their salvation, and no such appreciation would be possible without their situation first worsening.

Amidst Hashem’s response comes a rather untimely quip, “Ata Tir’eh, now you will see what I do to Mitzrayim, but (as Rashi explains) you will not see what I do to the seven nations of Eretz Yisrael when I bring them into the land.” Rashi, quoting Chazal, seems to imply that Moshe Rabbeinu is already banned from Eretz Yisrael in this earliest stage of his leadership! But if we understand that the very flaw which heralded Moshe’s demise in our parasha is reflected through this earlier account as well, then we can easily explain Hashem’s foreshadowing as a simple threat, that unless Moshe learns to change his personality, to fix his flaw and not to rely so heavily upon Zechus, then he will ultimately not survive the long trek through the Midbar.

On a closing note, if we look at the punishment of Moshe Rabbeinu in our parasha, we find it to be twofold.

Lachain Lo Savee’u, therefore you will not bring [the Bnei Yisrael into the land].

[This punishment is sealed] with an oath, like the pasuk “ViLachain Nishbati LiBeis Eli,” [I have sworn that the decendants of Eli will not live a long life]. [Hashem] hastily took an oath so that [Moshe and Aharon] could not pray for [a reversal of this decree, just as Eli’s curse could not be reversed through Tefilah].

Rashi, BaMidbar 20:12

Not only is Moshe denied entry into Eretz Yisrael, but Hashem seals this Onesh with a Shvua. No longer can Moshe and Aharon pray for a change to their fate (though it doesn’t stop Moshe from trying), for their punishment is a direct result of their reliance upon Zechus instead of the power of Tefilah. Midah K’Neged Midah, Moshe assumed the Bnei Yisrael could not reestablish a relationship to Hashem because of their lowly state, and so Moshe was denied to the ability to repent once labeled a sinner.

Ultimately, we can learn a tremendous lesson from the mistakes of Moshe Rabbenu in our parasha, whether the Cheit’s details are disclosed or not. Most of all, we see the power of our speech and ability to be Makir Tov, how we are not merely given what we currently deserve, but even what we will appreciate. Just as the rock – even with its most limited capabilities – works in accord with Hashem’s desires for a better world, so too we can use our cognitive and communicative gifts for a most productive cause.