Jukat 5775 - English

Moses would not enter the Promised Land.  Even though in his farewell he casts the blame on the incident with the messengers (Deut. 1:37), our parashah is clear in stating that this was a direct consequence of the fatidic event of Meribah when he hit the stone. 

The scene (Num. 20:7-12) is composed of three acts that can be summarized as follows:

1-      God orders Moses to gather the people and to talk to the stone to get water from it.

2-      Moses taps the stone twice and water comes out.

3-      God punishes Moses and Aaron and decrees that they shall not enter the Promised Land.

The sequence presents several questions that demand our attention.  If we were to stay with the first two acts, we could think that they had a happy ending.  It is not the first time Moses taps a rock and water comes out:

“I will be standing there before you on the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock and water will issue from it, and the people will drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.” (Ex. 17:6)

The most challenging part of it I would say, is that the Torah does not explain what exactly was Moses and Aaron’s offense: “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.” (Num. 20:12)

Throughout the centuries, commentators have tried to answer this question.  What was this sin of Moses?  And they have come up with such a variety of answers that Samuel David Luzzatto, known as SHaDaL (Italy, XIX Century), claims with great sarcasm in his commentary about this passage: “Moses committed only one offense but the exegetes have found more than thirteen, since each of them fabricates a different one in his mind.”

Some focus on the procedure and criticize that it was inadequate.  Tapping the rock instead of talking to it was to disobey the will of God (Rashi, France, XI Century), or to diminish the miracle (Ovadia Sforno, Italy, XVI Century); tapping it twice and not once like in the book of Exodus could signal that God had become weaker (Rabeinu Bejaie, Spain, XIV Century).

Others refer to Moses’ attitude in the words he addresses to his people: "Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?" (Num. 20:10)  His arrogant tone would make it seem like God was angry (Maimonides, Spain, XII Century).  The use of the first person “shall we get” could indicate that Moses considered himself part of the miracle (Nahmanides, Spain, XIII Century).

A third line of argument combines both issues.  To tap the rock and to yell at the people proves Moses was angry.  He underestimated the honor of his people and therefore of God himself (Meam Loez, XVIII Century), demonstrating a lack of faith in God (Yehuda Loew ben Betzalel, Prague, XVI Century), and a lack of faith in the people of Israel (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Germany, XIX Century).}

A final group of commentators claim that it was not a punishment but a necessary generational realignment in leadership.  Don Isaac Abravanel (Spain, XV Century) attempts to harmonize the contradiction I mentioned at the beginning of this commentary by saying that the decision of not allowing Moses to enter the promised land was taken after the failure of the mission of the messengers (after the golden calf), but for some reason it was not communicated until this moment. 

The Hassidic master Sfat Emer (Yehuda Aryeh Leib Alter, Poland, XIX Century) says that it was not a punishment.  What happened with the stone simply made evident the need for a new type of leadership for the new generation.  Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut (Germany 1912 – Canada 2012) –who I had the great honor of meeting in Panama– in his extraordinary Torah commentary states that in Meribah the old leadership was destroyed.  New times demanded a new vision, a new faith, and a new ability to sanctify the name of God before the Israelites. 

Abravanel’s words connecting the story of the spies with the punishment of Moses holds a very important concept.  Prolonging the people’s stay in the desert for nearly 40 years decreed the obsolescence of the leadership of Moses and Aaron.   Along this same line of thought, the Sfat Emet and Rabbi Plaut remove the drama from the tale of the rock to remind us about the need of having leadership in keeping with the times. 

We might be able to find a valuable lesson for our time: to know if our leaders (and this applies to all aspects of our lives) respond to the needs of the people and the times, or if they are there just through inertia. 

Sometimes it is in the details or in the small gestures where the need for change becomes visible.

Shabbat Shalom

Gustavo