How Moshe's Punishment Has Very Little to Do With a Rock

There is very compelling evidence that Moshe was never supposed to go into the land. So why does the Torah keep harping on the incident of Mei Merivah (Bamidbar 20)?

Parshat Ha'azinu

by Rabbi Avi Billet

The song of Haazinu is troubling because it seems to describe actions and behaviors of the nation of Israel that we have never seen before in the Torah. The punishments God declares He has given and will give seem unequal to the violations committed.

 Equally disturbing is how the punishment to Moshe is described in our parsha – because it is not an accurate reflection of what happened in Bamidbar 20. In 32:50 Moshe is told he will die as his brother Aharon had died (see Bamaidbar 20:22-28). In 32:51, the reason is given: “because you broke faith with me (‘m’altem bi’) in the midst of the Israelites at the Waters of Dispute at Kadesh in the Tzin Desert, and because you did not sanctify Me (‘lo kidashtem oti’) among the Israelites.”

 While it is true that the event described took place, the way it is described in Bamidbar is quite different from how it is presented here.

 In Bamidbar 20:12-13 the Torah tells us “God said to Moses and Aaron, 'You did not cause there to be enough faith in Me (lo he’emantem’) to cause Me to be sanctified (‘l’hakdisheini’) in the presence of the Israelites! Therefore, you shall not bring this assembly to the land that I have given you.' These are the Waters of Dispute (Mey Meribhah) where the Israelites disputed with God, and where He was [nevertheless] sanctified (‘va’y’kadesh bam’).” Eleven verses later we are told that “'Aaron will [now die and] be gathered up to his people. He will not come to the land that I am giving the Israelites because you rebelled against My word (‘asher m’ritem et pi’) at the Waters of Dispute.”

 It is important to note that when referring to this incident in Bamidbar 27:14, Moshe is also told “m’ritem pi” and that you failed “l’hakdisheini.”

 Strangely, some of these formulations appear once more in the Torah, in Devarim 9:23, when Moshe recounts the events surrounding the Golden Calf, and he describes the guilt of the people as “but you rebelled against the word (“vatamru et pi”) of God your Lord, and did not have faith in Him (“lo he’emantem lo”) or obey Him.

 To summarize, using the Hebrew verbs describing Moshe’s and Aharon’s guilt:
At the incident with the rock - lo he’emantem and l’hakdisheini, though the latter seems to be countered by v’y’kadesh bam 
Aharon’s death – m’ritem et pi 
Moshe’s first direct accusation of non-compliance other than the actual event, when he was told he could not bring the nation into the land – m’ritem pi and l’hakdisheini 
Moshe reminding the people of their sin at Golden Calf – vatamru and lo he’emantem 
Our parsha – m’altem bi and lo kidashtem oti

 It is also noteworthy that until now Moshe has been told he will not bring the people to the land (Bamidbar 20:12), and that he will see the land and then die (Bamidbar 27:13). Both options leave open the possibility that he will enter the land as a private citizen (leader emeritus, perhaps) and that he can die shortly after he sees the land for himself, even from the inside. Only in our parsha, Devarim 32:52, is Moshe finally told point-blank, you will not be going into the land (in Devarim 1:37, Moshe says he was told he will not enter the land, but we never saw God actually tell him that). In Devarim 3:27, Moshe reported that God said “you will not be crossing the Jordan” – but Moshe still had hopes that he while he might not enter the Land alive, he would be buried in the Land. The idea of seeing the land from a distance and being buried outside the land is clarified for Moshe immediately before he dies, in Devarim 34:4.

 So what is going on? Why do the reasons for not entering the land differ from explanation to explanation, and from person to person?

 Abravanel’s approach to the punishment meted to Aharon and Moshe pins their non-entry status on the Golden Calf and the Spies incidents, respectively. He explains God’s constant reference to the Rock incident as a cover for the real reasons, to avoid embarrassment. But the Rock episode was very mild in comparison to those other nation-shattering events. [He compares this to the mystery surrounding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The Torah gives us very sketchy information, while the rabbis heap a slew of accusations upon the lads, indicating the real reason for their deaths was hidden by the Torah, as it was pinned on a minor violation.]

Considering that the verse tells us in Bamidbar 20:13 (Rock incident) that God was nonetheless sanctified, it is hard to imagine that they failed to cause the people to have faith in God there. Therefore the “lo heemantem” must be linked to the other time it appears, Devarim 9:23, referring to the Sin of the Golden Calf, when the people indeed lost their faith in God. Interestingly, Moshe reports about Aharon’s death there in 10:6, after recounting how he brought down the second Tablets, even though Aharon’s death occurred 40 years later.

 The act of “Me’i’lah,” of which Moshe is accused in our parsha, refers to using something holy for a mundane act. Reading Devarim 1:19-38, it is clear that the holiness of the Land was rejected for mundane reasons by the people. Additionally, they are accused of “vatamru et pi Hashem” (rebelling against God) in Devarim 1:26, smack in the middle of the description of the Spies story. And, most obviously, Moshe attaches his non-entry to the land to this incident (1:37)

 There are certainly eyebrow raising details in the Rock story of Bamidbar 20. But all told, God’s name IS sanctified there – as the verse plainly states – and the rebellion of Moshe and Aharon, the misuse of something holy, and the causing a lack of faith are simply not present. Those accusations refer to these other incidents of the Spies and Golden Calf.

 Referring specifically to our Parsha, Abravanel says the following, as he utilizes a creative reading to understand the text: “There are two reasons attached to the deaths of Moshe and Aharon. An impersonal one – Mei Meribah (the Rock incident), and a personal one, their earlier sins [of Golden Calf and Spies]. For both of those they are accused of “Me’i’lah,” (using holy for mundane purposes), not sanctifying, rebelling, etc… Aharon had the opportunity to sanctify God’s Name through giving up his life in place of succumbing to making the Golden Calf. This is his special mitzvah, (Vayikra 22:32) to sanctify God’s Name and not desecrate it…. Moshe rebelled and caused lack of faith first when he added to questions for what the spies should be looking for, all of which caused the people not to have faith that the Land to which they were going was a good land.”

 We now understand why the accusation hurled at Moshe in our parsha does not reflect what happened in Bamidbar 20. The Rock incident was minor and was a cover to shield Moshe and Aharon from more embarrassing episodes in their lives.

 Even at the final hour, when there’s nothing to lose from getting everything out on the table, God still chooses to go the route of not embarrassing His most beloved Moshe. What a lesson in piety and respect in seeing that a person’s worth and dignity is worth preserving through death!

Modeling is Teaching

Parshat Haazinu

By Rabbi Avi Billet

The song of Haazinu is quite poetic, complete with imagery which invites the most lyrical interpretation.

           
In the context of describing how amazing and incredible God is, Devarim 32:5 reads, "ShiHet lo lo banav mumam, dor ikesh u'f'taltol." In the Living Torah, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan follows the interpretations of Ralbag; Malbim and HaKethav VeHaKabbalah in his chosen interpretation, "Destruction is His children's fault, not His own, you warped and twisted generation."

            
But in the large footnote, he demonstrates the discrepancy of opinion as to what this verse means.

            
"Literally, 'Destruction to Him not His children their defect.' Or, 'They have hurt themselves, not Him, faulted children' (Targum); 'The defect of His non-children is that they have been corrupt to Him' (Ibn Ezra; Ramban; Sforno); 'They were corrupt to Him, not [like] children; this is the defect of the warped and twisted generation' (Saadia; cf. Lekach Tov); 'They have been corrupt, not Him, it is His children's defect' (Ralbag); 'The ones who have corrupted His [name] are not His children because of their defect' (Abarbanel); 'Is destruction His? No! It is the fault of His children' (Moreh Nevukhim 3:12; Chizzkuni); 'Have they corrupted Him? No. It is [merely] their own defect' (Abarbanel); 'He destroyed His non-children, but it was their own fault' (Chizzkuni); 'Their defect has corrupted it so that they are no longer His children' (Hirsch); or, 'They were corrupt, not [pleasing] Him, defective children' (Septuagint)."

           

 As comprehensive as he is in explaining the verse, Rabbi Kaplan did not get to the Chafetz Chaim, who explained the verse as an important introspective lesson – not with regard to Him (God), but him, a father, who ought to model a proper Jewish existence to his children.

            

"If a person conducts himself in such a manner that he mocks mitzvot, he should know that  'He is not just destroying himself ('lo lo' meaning "not only to himself"), but "banav mumam," he brings blemishes upon his children as well. Because if the father dismisses a light or easy mitzvah, the child will learn to make light of more difficult or more important mitzvot (mitzvot chamurot). This results in a "dor ikesh u'f'taltol," a generation that is warped and twisted."

           
Now that we are past Yom Kippur and about to commence the holiday of Sukkot, this message is more poignant than ever. While we live in a time in which the parents currently raising children are of the most well-yeshiva-educated of the last few generations, the challenges which face today's kids are like nothing that ever existed before.

           

One need only look at films made in the 1980s and 1990s to see how different our world is, from cellphones and computers to text messaging and email. We communicate differently. Most kids today don't know what a cord on a telephone is for, and wonder what purpose pay phones ever served. This is one minute example of how things are different. Over 300 channels on the television exacerbates many people's abilities to think creatively and to find more meaningful ways of occupying down time.

And so when it comes to the transmission of our heritage, we face an even different challenge. The breakdown of real communication has been amplified into different areas of Jewish life. We had a tradition of respect for people older than us that is fading. I grew up calling adults Mr. or Mrs. LastName. Kids today call adults by their first names.

The speed of television and film, the constant changing of angles and images, gives people even shorter attention spans than we can imagine. We are not training the same "zittsfleisch" that may have been more developed in previous generations. (Here's a shout out to two of my friends who have told me 'We are working on getting rid of the TV in the house.' Chazak Ve'Ematz!)

Most important, following the lesson of the Chafetz Chaim, we must reaffirm our commitment to having reverence for the Torah lifestyle we hold so dear. Those who talk in shul, men who don't wear tzitzis, those who don't prepare for Shabbos properly, those who gossip all the time, who complain about the school, who criticize the rabbi, who have bad tempers, who demonstrate over and over how they are not model Torah-citizens, who don't understand that being an observant Jew is about a whole lot more than only buying kosher, sending your kids to yeshiva, and keeping shabbos can not effectively transmit the best "chinuch" to their children and raise a generation that will be respectful of the things we know to respect, even if at times we are lax about them.

We must teach respect of elders, prioritize the environment we want to create in our homes, and respect every aspect of a Jewish life that can help protect our children from becoming a warped and twisted generation.

We can start by fulfilling the mitzvah "to rejoice in your holiday... [with your children and every person who is part of our community]" (Devarim 16:14) If we model it every day, the message will strike home. It always does.

Lashon Hara - the easiest of sins - a Haazinu thought

This week's contribution to the Jewish Star - complete with a Yom Kippur wish for all.

Unblinking, heaven and earth bear witness

Parshat Ha’azinu

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Issue of September 25, 2009/ 7 Tishrei 5770

There are a number of verses in Tanach that call upon the heavens and the earth to bear witness, or to at least lend an ear to the proceedings. In the Torah, they are all in Devarim: 4:26, 30:19, 31:28 and 32:1 — the last one is the first verse in Ha’azinu.

In Navi, the most famous example (because it is the second verse of the haftarah of Shabbos Chazon) is in Yeshayahu 1:2.

Commentaries discuss why the heavens and earth are appointed witnesses. They last forever (Rashi); they can give reward or mete out punishment (also Rashi); they include the angels and all of humanity (Ibn Ezra); Moshe was close to the heavens at that point in his life (Rabeinu Bachaya); The heavens house all souls and earth houses physical bodies (Sha”kh).

In anticipation of Yom Kippur, many of us look back on the previous year and reflect. We may have had a good year — births, bar or bat mitzvah, a wedding. Maybe your child graduated, you graduated, or someone began a new chapter in life, in a new job, profession, or vocation.

Some of us may have had a difficult year — financial setbacks, unemployment, a death in the family, disappointment in schooling, a breakup of an intense relationship.

I have never been a fan of finger pointing. In the sociological history of Judaism, different generations have tried to blame the ills of their times on certain behaviors of the Jewish community.

Perhaps most famously, the destructions of the two great Temples in Jerusalem were blamed, respectively, on murder, idolatry and promiscuity (Temple I) and on baseless hatred (Temple II). As these reasons come from the prophets and the rabbis of the Talmud, who contained a different gestalt of G-d than exists today, we can accept these as truth.

But when modern ills are blamed on certain misdeeds, it takes a certain faith in those making such proclamations to accept their postulations as truth.

So instead of blaming bad tidings on talking during davening or mixed dancing at weddings or co-ed pizza stores, let us just say good things sometimes happen and bad things sometimes happen.

And yet, there is one thing we all do that is so hard to overcome. So difficult that I feel if we were to improve in this area, the merits in our favor could only stem the tide for the good.

Close to half of the “Al Chets” we recite in Viduy on Yom Kippur relate to this one overarching theme of bad behavior. Yes, there are admissions we make to bad business ethics and to not being careful regarding the food we put in our mouths. But the major theme that repeats itself over and over is similar lack of care regarding what comes out of our mouths, also known as lashon hara.

As clichéd as it sounds, it is the truth.

Perhaps this is why we call upon the heavens and earth to bear witness. Of all witnesses in the world, the heavens and earth see what they see, observe what they observe, but they do not have the power of speech. They cannot speak ill of the things we say or do. They can merely bear witness and act accordingly, as per the whim of the Creator of the World.

Furthermore, the first verse of our parsha reads: “Listen heaven! I will speak! Earth! Hear the words of my mouth!” (Devarim 32:1)

When we specifically call upon heaven and earth to hear the “words of my mouth” as they bear witness, would it not behoove us to be certain that the “words of our mouths” are worthy of being heard by witnesses who last forever and who will never forget the things we’ve said?

It is extremely hard to check ourselves and to consider everything we say all the time, before we say it. So let us start small. Would we want what we say to be repeated? Would we say it in front of the person about whom we are speaking? Is our conversation serving a purpose beyond idle chatter?

When the answer is “no,” it is better not to say it. Remember, the heavens and the earth are bearing witness.