חקת

Why did Moshe not enter the land?

Read on its own, the episode of Moshe striking the rock at Mei Merivah suggests this was the sole reason why Moshe was barred from entering the land. On the other hand, if one were to read about the fallout from the episode of the spies without prior knowledge of what follows, one would be led to believe that Moshe was already destined to share the same fate as the people and die before entering the land as there is no suggestion in the text to the contrary. 

This seems to be explicitly acknowledged by Moshe when he reviews the events of the spies as related in Sefer Devarim:

וַיִּשְׁמַע ה’ אֶת־קוֹל דִּבְרֵיכֶם וַיִּקְצֹף וַיִּשָּׁבַע לֵאמֹר׃ האִם־יִרְאֶה אִישׁ בָּאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה הַדּוֹר הָרָע הַזֶּה אֵת הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לָתֵת לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם׃ זוּלָתִי כָּלֵב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה הוּא יִרְאֶנָּה וְלוֹ־אֶתֵּן אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר דָּרַךְ־בָּהּ וּלְבָנָיו יַעַן אֲשֶׁר מִלֵּא אַחֲרֵי ה’׃ גַּם־בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה’ בִּגְלַלְכֶם לֵאמֹר גַּם־אַתָּה לֹא־תָבֹא שָׁם׃ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן הָעֹמֵד לְפָנֶיךָ הוּא יָבֹא שָׁמָּה אֹתוֹ חַזֵּק כִּי־הוּא יַנְחִלֶנָּה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (דברים א:לד-לח)

The straightforward meaning is that Moshe is attributing his own fate to the wider decree against the nation as a result of the episode of the spies which is the direct matter under discussion. The Ramban attempts to shift the subject matter (of the bolded words) to the episode of the rock, however this seems forced as pointed out by the Ohr HaChaim, Abarbanel and others.

I would also add that the episode of the rock is immediately preceded by the death of Miriam with a strong emphasis that she died ‘there’ in Mei Merivah:

וַיָּבֹאוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל־הָעֵדָה מִדְבַּר־צִן בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם בְּקָדֵשׁ וַתָּמָת שָׁם מִרְיָם וַתִּקָּבֵר שָׁם (במדבר כ:א)

It seems reasonable to suggest that the death of Miriam, raises an expectation that Moshe too will die before entering the land as a result of the decree against that generation.

There is indeed a sound logic in this position. The decree of the spies was a generational decree which impacted everyone alike, guilty and innocent. It seems obvious that not everyone was complicit, but their fate was nevertheless determined by that of the nation of which they were part.

Moshe’s fate as leader should be no different. On the contrary 'the captain goes down with the ship' and as leader of the people he must take responsibility, deserved or not. This was in fact Moshe’s own response when an offer was made for him to be the designated survivor at the time of the golden calf:

וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ (שמות לב:לב)

It is indeed difficult to imagine a scenario in which Moshe survives to lead the next generation whilst all his followers die out.

One may question whether the silence of Moshe as compared to Yehoshua and Kalev could be construed as a failure of leadership. Could Moshe have acted any differently and would it have made a difference? These questions are difficult to answer. Overall, there seems little evidence of any direct criticism of Moshe himself. Nevertheless, from an objective standpoint, the sin unravelled under his watch and he failed to prevent it. God’s anger is therefore directed at Moshe on account of the people, if only due to him being the leader. This is all I think we can extract but it seems sufficient to explain why his fate was sealed along with the rest of his generation.

Let’s now return to the episode of the rock.

What did Moshe do wrong?

Much ink has been spilt on identifying the transgression of Moshe. It is not possible in this short space to do justice to this complex topic. I would however like to focus briefly on the famous explanation of Rashi that Moshe was supposed to speak to the rock instead of striking it.

Whilst consistent with the literal translation of the words ודברתם אל הסלע it is strange to imagine that God was commanding Moshe to literally speak to the rock. Outside the context of idolatry, there is no other situation, let alone command, involving communication with inanimate objects. On the face of it, the alternative translation of the Ramban, that Moshe was to speak 'concerning' the rock seems compelling:

ועל דעתי טעם ודברתם אל הסלע כמו על הסלע וכן כה אמר ה' צבאות אל העמודים ועל הים ועל המכונות בבלה יובאו (ירמיה כז יט כב) יצוה שיאמרו לעיני העדה בהיותם נקהלים כלם שהשם יוציא להם מים מן הסלע וכן עשה ואל יקשה עליך ודברתם אל הסלע לעיניהם כי טעמו כמו לפניהם שישמעו כלם

This approach, however, does not deal with the fact that the unnatural choice of words gives the impression (even if not intended literally) that Moshe was indeed to speak to the rock. The overall sense of the verse is that the people are onlookers to a give and take dialogue with the rock which is supposed to respond to Moshe's request:

וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל־הַסֶּלַע לְעֵינֵיהֶם וְנָתַן מֵימָיו (במדבר כ:ח)

I would therefore like to adopt a hybrid approach in which the reality accords with the Ramban insofar as Moshe was supposed to speak to the people about the rock, but the explanation of Rashi is nevertheless relevant to detecting the underlying message as will be explained.[1]

The rock as a metaphor for the people

As noted above, it seems obvious that Moshe was instructed to speak to the people rather than the rock. However, the reference to the rock as though it was Moshe's audience establishes it as a metaphor for the people who are the true target audience.

This approach is supported by the subsequent verse in which Moshe becomes angry with the people and 'raises his hand to strike' setting the momentary expectation that he will strike out at the people:

וַיַּקְהִלוּ מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַקָּהָל אֶל־פְּנֵי הַסָּלַע וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם שִׁמְעוּ־נָא הַמֹּרִים הֲמִן־הַסֶּלַע הַזֶּה נוֹצִיא לָכֶם מָיִם׃ וַיָּרֶם מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יָדוֹ וַיַּךְ אֶת־הַסֶּלַע בְּמַטֵּהוּ פַּעֲמָיִם וַיֵּצְאוּ מַיִם רַבִּים וַתֵּשְׁתְּ הָעֵדָה וּבְעִירָם׃ (במדבר כ:י-יא)

Although it turns out that Moshe 'merely' strikes the rock and not the people, the impression created is that the rock is a substitute for the people which supports the identification of the rock as a symbol for the people. However, if this is the case, what meaning lies behind the metaphor?

The notion of speaking in contrast to striking reflects the maturing of the new generation as compared to the previous generation. A slave is beaten whereas a free person is spoken to and reasoned with. He does something because he is asked, not because he is forced. Accordingly, the need to speak to the rock rather than strike it represents this new stage of growth. The people are no longer slaves at this point, however it is only upon entry into the land that the transition to a free and autonomous life will be completed. No longer would they be concentrated around the Mishkan under the tight watch and providence of God. The automatic food supplies, the miraculous protection, as well as the spontaneous punishment of sinners, would no longer be a fact of life. They would need to be spoken to and the people would need to engage and listen carefully to hear the subtle voice of God from within nature.[2]

The intention at Mei Merivah was that Moshe address them so that they are made aware that God is responding to them through the ‘natural’ wonder of the water appearing from the rock just as they need it. The striking of the rock therefore represented a regression to the old modus operandi where miracles were enacted through the waiving of Moshe’s staff to perform nature-defying stunts. This means of education was unsuited to a generation on the cusp of entry into the land that would need to learn to independently discern God’s hand within nature itself, not just when God dominates it.

Moshe had proven himself to be the perfect conduit, enacting miracles and conveying the direct word of God, however he is presented as a man of action rather than words. His adult life commences with revolutionary fervour instinctively killing the attacking Egyptian. Moshe himself says to God at the burning bush that he is not a ‘man of words’ and therefore not fit to be leader:

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־ה’ בִּי אֲדֹנָי לֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי גַּם מִתְּמוֹל גַּם מִשִּׁלְשֹׁם גַּם מֵאָז דַּבֶּרְךָ אֶל־עַבְדֶּךָ כִּי כְבַד־פֶּה וּכְבַד לָשׁוֹן אָנֹכִי׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה’ אֵלָיו מִי שָׂם פֶּה לָאָדָם אוֹ מִי־יָשׂוּם אִלֵּם אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ אוֹ פִקֵּחַ אוֹ עִוֵּר הֲלֹא אָנֹכִי ה’׃ וְעַתָּה לֵךְ וְאָנֹכִי אֶהְיֶה עִם־פִּיךָ וְהוֹרֵיתִיךָ אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר׃ (שמות ד:י:יב)

I think this is more than just a speech impediment, and God’s solution is more than simply technical. If the extent of the meaning is that God will be his speech therapist then the problem is relatively insignificant. Rather, it establishes a model which will accompany us throughout the rest of Moshe’s life. Moshe is associated with the staff - prominently introduced at the burning bush - which reveals the 'strong hand' of God. When Moshe speaks he does so as God’s conduit rather than as an independent agent. Though this would result in a vast spiritual gap between Moshe and the people,[3] it was a vital necessity as they emerged from slavery.

(For further discussion on this point see post: The Voice of Moshe and the 'Voice' of the Signs) 

New leader for new generation

With the emergence of the new generation, a transformation of leadership was also required. Moshe is required to speak to the people to make them understand that, though the rock appears to provide its own source of water (ונתן מימיו), the ultimate source is God. The need to acknowledge God’s hand in nature (which is the goal of prayer) resembles the state of affairs which would prevail upon entering the land. This development can be followed through the subsequent events where we see the activeness of the people stand out in a series of firsts:

The first time the people speak in the collective as the 'children of Israel':

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֱדוֹם לֹא תַעֲבֹר בִּי פֶּן־בַּחֶרֶב אֵצֵא לִקְרָאתֶךָ׃ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמְסִלָּה נַעֲלֶה וְאִם־מֵימֶיךָ נִשְׁתֶּה אֲנִי וּמִקְנַי וְנָתַתִּי מִכְרָם רַק אֵין־דָּבָר בְּרַגְלַי אֶעֱבֹרָה׃ (במדבר כ:יח-יט)

The first time they appeal directly to God in a time of trouble (rather than Moshe):

וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ־עֲרָד יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבִי׃ וַיִּדַּר יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶדֶר לַה’ וַיֹּאמַר אִם־נָתֹן תִּתֵּן אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּיָדִי וְהַחֲרַמְתִּי אֶת־עָרֵיהֶם׃ וַיִּשְׁמַע ה’ בְּקוֹל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתֵּן אֶת־הַכְּנַעֲנִי וַיַּחֲרֵם אֶתְהֶם וְאֶת־עָרֵיהֶם וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם־הַמָּקוֹם חָרְמָה׃ (במדבר כ:א-ג)

The first time they acknowledge their sin as the cause of their suffering:[4]

וַיְשַׁלַּח ה’ בָּעָם אֵת הַנְּחָשִׁים הַשְּׂרָפִים וַיְנַשְּׁכוּ אֶת־הָעָם וַיָּמָת עַם־רָב מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃ וַיָּבֹא הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ חָטָאנוּ כִּי־דִבַּרְנוּ בַה’ וָבָךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל אֶל־ה’ וְיָסֵר מֵעָלֵינוּ אֶת־הַנָּחָשׁ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה בְּעַד הָעָם׃ (במדבר כ:ו-ז)

The first time they sing together in praise of God (in clear contrast to the splitting of the sea where Moshe sings):

אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת עֲלִי בְאֵר עֱנוּ־לָהּ (במדבר כא:יז)

The failure of Moshe to adapt his leadership method demonstrates his unsuitability to lead the new generation. It is perhaps inevitable that someone chosen to lead one generation is not suitable for the next generation which has its own needs and challenges. There appears to have been a deep truth to Moshe’s statement at the burning bush that he was not a ‘man of words’. God's response that Moshe would be the mouthpiece of God was sufficient to take the people to the border of Israel but not beyond. That would require a new generation and a new leader.

Postscript 

One may still wonder as to whether Moshe is refused entry due to the national decree or due to his (personal) failure or inability to adapt his leadership for the new generation as required. 

This touches on a broader question about the role of individual providence in the context of national or even universal providence. How do these reconcile and what happens when they conflict?

The Torah’s approach to this complex topic is to emphasise both values without any attempt at resolution when they conflict. It does this by narrating related stories through the different perspectives, the individual on the one hand, and the national/historic on the other. The perplexity and perceived lack of congruity felt by the reader reflects the inherent mystery of the topic and is intrinsic to the design.

It is possible to point to numerous examples. Was man created last within the natural order (Chapter I) or is the natural world built around him (Chapter II)? Was Noach saved as he was personally worthy or because someone had to be saved to continue the world? Were Avraham and Sarah granted a child to move forward the objective of a chosen nation (as implied by the story of Brit Milah) or because God had mercy on a righteous couple who opened there doors to 3 needy strangers? In all these examples, the values are independent but related.[5] The Torah itself offers no attempt to harmonise the two accounts and allows them to coexist side by side.

The same can be said about Moshe's death. The two accounts provide seemingly self-sufficient reasons.[6] Both shed light on different related aspects but understanding the precise interactions are mysteries which remain in the domain of the Supreme Judge.

 

---

[1] The approach assumed here is that Moshe was commanded to speak concerning the rock but was not instructed to strike it. One may even suggest that Moshe was commanded to bring the staff specifically to show that it is not being used. However, I think it is more correct to focus on what they (Moshe and Aaron) didn't do rather than what they did do. By this I mean that the educational speech was missing and (therefore) the striking took center stage. It should be noted that God's initial command to 'speak' is in the second person plural and therefore addressed to both Moshe and Aaron. If we shift the focus to the missing speech and lost opportunity then it is understandable why both Moshe and Aaron were punished.  

Ramban himself assumes that Moshe was in fact commanded to strike the rock and that was the purpose of the staff. He therefore looks for the problem elsewhere.

[2] With respect to the general distinction between speech and striking the rock, R. Jonathan Sacks z"l makes a similar point - see here. R. Yoel Bin Nun also explains it in this way - see here.  

[3] The vast gap between Moshe and the people is highlighted by the mask which Moshe needed to wear to protect the people from the light of his face – see Shemot 26:30-35

[4] There was also the episode of the מעפילים in which they say חטאנו but that group is generally cast in a negative light as evidenced by the tragic outcome. That is unless one adopts the approaches of either R. Tzadok of Lublin or Levin Kipnis. On the former see R. Elchanan Samet's article here. On the latter see this fascinating blog post. 

[5] See for example R. Yonatan Grossman, אברהם - סיפורו של מסע, p155-170. This is a recurring theme throughout Grossman’s works. The personal/individual stories stand alongside the national stories without one dominating the other.

[6] Three accounts if we also include the natural reason provided by Devarim 31:2:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם בֶּן־מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא

 

שלח

The Symbolism of the Tzitzit

Our parashah concludes with the commandment of Tzitzit, the purpose of which the Torah describes as follows:

וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת ה' וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם (במדבר טו:לב)

Several of the words in this brief verse contain allusions to the episode of the spies which featured at the beginning of the parashah:

מרגלים	ציצית
וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת־הָאָרֶץ מַה־הִוא (במדבר יג:יח)	וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת ה'
שְׁלַח־לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר־אֲנִי נֹתֵן לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל (במדבר יג:ב)	וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ
אָנָה אֲנַחְנוּ עֹלִים אַחֵינוּ הֵמַסּוּ אֶת־לְבָבֵנוּ (דברים א:כח)	אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם
וַנְּהִי בְעֵינֵינוּ כַּחֲגָבִים וְכֵן הָיִינוּ בְּעֵינֵיהֶם (במדבר יג:לג)	וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם
וְנָשְׂאוּ אֶת־זְנוּתֵיכֶם (במדבר יד:לג)	אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים

Rashi picks up on this connection in his commentary on the above verse:

כְּמוֹ "מִתּוּר הָאָרֶץ" הַלֵּב וְהָעֵינַיִם הֵם מְרַגְּלִים לַגּוּף

It is noteworthy that Rashi's use of the word Meraglim in this context deviates from the original source in the Midrash:

 הלב והעינים הן סרסורין לגוף (תנחומא, שלח טו:א)

Seemingly Rashi modified the original text to highlight the link to the spy episode which perhaps he understood the Midrash alluding to.[1] In any event, the link suggests that the Tzitzit are intended to somehow address the shortcomings of the spies. We will consider how this is might be the case.

Meaning of the word 'Tzitzit'

The word Tzitzit is related to the word ציץ meaning to glance or look, as in the verse:

הִנֵּה־זֶה עוֹמֵד אַחַר כָּתְלֵנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן־הַחֲלֹּנוֹת מֵצִיץ מִן־הַחֲרַכִּים (שיר השירים ב:ט)

As already noted by Rashi (second explanation), the adjoining phrase וראיתם אותו contains an allusion to this interpretation.[2] But what is the object of the 'seeing' referred to in the verse?

The primary object appears to be the Tzitzit themselves.[3] However, the use of the masculine (whilst Tzitzit is feminine), appears to hint at to a different type of seeing – 'seeing' God.

The Midrash depicts the stream of consciousness to obtain this higher vision:

שֶׁהַתְּכֵלֶת דּוֹמֶה לְיָם, וְיָם דּוֹמֶה לָרָקִיעַ, וְהָרָקִיעַ דּוֹמֶה לְכִסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד. וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ, זוֹכֵר אֶת קוֹנוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת אֱלֹקי יִשְׂרָאֵל (שמות כד, י)

The principle is that the sight of the Tzitzit leads, or should lead, to a deeper awareness of God. The notion of seeing God (figuratively of course) should not surprise us as the above Midrash demonstrates through its prooftext that the elders "saw the God of Israel…". Elsewhere, we are told that Moshe asks to 'see' God's glory (הראני נא את כבודך), and on the festivals we are invited to 'see' God's face (יראו פני).

Returning to the spies, as discussed in the last post, it was their impulsive reaction to what they saw which led to widespread mutiny and the tragic consequences which followed. Their report exposed a materialistic outlook in which only physical size and strength matters as evident from their fear of the exceptionally large fruit and 'giants'.

In contrast, the purpose of the Tzitzit is to promote a spiritual perspective capable of asserting control over the materialistic instinct. This requires significant mental effort as alluded to in the Midrash by its use of distant associations to get from the Techelet to the throne of glory. 

Comparison to Kohen Gadol

It has been pointed out that the Tzitzit also contain many parallels to the Kohen Gadol's Tzitz.[4] First and foremost, is the similarity in name which signifies its purpose. The role of Tzitzit as explained above is to facilitate a deeper spiritual vision, whilst the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol was similarly intended to focus the Kohen Gadol's mind exclusively on God as he performed the Avodah. The Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol was engraved with the words קדש לה' which corresponds to the function of Tzitzit to effect a state of והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם. Both items also had a special Petil Techelet attached to them the significance of which is heightened by the fact that its only other usage in the Torah relates to the breastplate worn by the Kohen Gadol.

This reinforces the principle (previously discussed in the context of the Nazir) that the holiness vested in the Kohanim needs to be mirrored onto the rest of the nation. Holiness is not the exclusive domain of the Kohanim; it can and must be generated by every individual in every walk of life. Only then can the nation accomplish the goal of becoming a Mamlechet Kohanim. Alongside the parallels listed above between the Tzitz and the Tzitzit, there is one obvious difference. The Kohen Gadol wears the Tzitz on his forehead only whilst carrying out the Avodah whereas the Tzitzit are meant to be worn by everyone and attached to regular clothes. The conclusion to be drawn is that holiness should be a continuous state of being and not limited to specific people, places, or times.  

Connection to Korach

The explanation above promoting the principle of spiritual equality is somewhat paradoxical in view of the exclusivity of the Avodah in the Mishkan and the hereditary selection of the Kohanim. The episode of Korach which follows immediately after the parashah of Tzitzit highlights this tension:

כִּי כָל־הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים וּבְתוֹכָם ה' וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ עַל־קְהַל ה' (במדבר טז:ג)

Korach purports to embrace the principle of spiritual equality (exemplified by the Tzitzit) as he challenges the selection of the Kohanim. No doubt the statement that 'everyone is holy' is intended to recall the final verse in the Tzitzit passage:

לְמַעַן תִּזְכְּרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺתָי וִהְיִיתֶם קְדֹשִׁים לֵאלֹהֵיכֶם (במדבר טו:מ)

Korach thus uses the message of the Tzitzit as a springboard for his rebellion. This correspondence is presumably the basis for the Midrash which links the two episodes through additional narrative:

מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן, דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵיהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת (במדבר טו, לח). קָפַץ קֹרַח וְאָמַר לְמֹשֶׁה, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת וְגוֹ' (שם). טַלִּית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת, מַה הִיא שֶׁיְּהֵא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית. אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה, חַיֶּבֶת בְּצִיצִית. אָמַר לוֹ קֹרַח, טַלִּית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ (תנחומא, קרח ב:א)[5]

Indeed, it does seem strange that if a garment is all Techelet that a specific Techelet thread should still be required. If we really are a Mamlechet Kohanim then why is there a need for the appointment of Kohanim? The use of the Petil Techelet to symbolize the distinction of the Kohanim is particularly noteworthy as it is the Petil Techelet which recalls the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol as discussed above.

The reality, however, is that both are necessary - the Tzitz and the Tzitzit - as without the former, the latter is devoid of meaning. The purpose of the exclusivity of the Kohanim and the Mishkan is to heighten recognition and awareness of the Divine presence through differentiation. As the Rambam writes:

This is the great principle which you must never lose sight of. After having stated this principle, I repeat that the object of the Sanctuary was to create in the hearts of those who enter it certain feelings of awe and reverence, in accordance with the command, "You shall reverence my sanctuary" (Lev. xix. 30). But when we continually see an object, however sublime it may be, our regard for that object will be lessened, and the impression we have received of it will be weakened. Our Sages, considering this fact, said that we should not enter the Temple whenever we liked, and pointed to the words: "Make thy foot rare in the house of thy friend" (Prov. xxv. 17). For this reason the unclean were not allowed to enter the Sanctuary, although there are so many kinds of uncleanliness, that [at a time] only a few people are clean… All this serves to keep people away from the Sanctuary, and to prevent them from entering it whenever they liked… By such acts the reverence [for the Sanctuary] will continue, the right impression will be produced which leads man, as is intended, to humility. (Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim III:47, Friedlander translation)

A select group to serve in the Mishkan is necessary to protect the sense of awe and prevent degeneration into spiritual anarchy. A free-for-all system with no boundaries and no restrictions eliminates the submissive character replacing it with a form of self-worship – a trajectory which is evidenced in the thinly disguised egocentrism at the heart of Korach's contentions.

Interestingly, the debate is settled once and for all when Aaron's staff is the only one which blossoms when left in the Mishkan overnight. The blossoming of the staff is described in the verse as ויצץ ציץ clearly alluding to the Tzitz worn by the Kohen Gadol and thereby validating the appointment of Aaron and his descendants. Nevertheless, in view of our discussion we may suggest that the Tzitz referred to here is intended to link back to the Tzitzit which immediately preceded the episode of Korach. It thereby closes the circle on Korach's complaint by recognizing that alongside the Tzitzit - reflecting the ideal of universal holiness - comes a need for the focus, discipline and even exclusivity, represented by the Tzitz.

---

[1] R. Amnon Bazak, Nekudat Petichah, p.327

[2] See also Rashbam who considers the first interpretation of Rashi (Tzitzit = tassels) correct with respect to the references in the first verse and the "seeing" meaning for the second verse.

[3] Possibly the object is the Petil (which is masculine), however the word Tzitzit is the immediately preceding noun.

[4] See R. Moshe Shamah – Recalling The Covenant p.757-761. Whilst not specifying the connections, the Zohar (Shelach 175) also links the Tzitzit and the Tzitz:

ציצית איהו נוקבא, רזא דעלמא תתאה. אסתכלותא לאדכרא. ציץ דכר, ציצית נוקבא, ודא לכל בר נש. ציץ לכהנא.

From a halachic perspective too there is a similarity insofar as both the Tzitzit and the clothes of the Kohanim are not subject to the prohibition of Shatnez.

[5] Interestingly, one of the Bigdei Kehunah in particular – the Me'il - was all techelet - ועשית את מעיל האפוד כליל תכלת. This description recalls the words used by Korach who asked about a טלית שכולה תכלת. According to the Rambam (Klei Ha'mikdash 9:3) the Me'il had four corners yet did not require Tzitzit. Radvaz and Minchat Chinuch provide possible explanations, but perhaps this was the inspiration for Korach's challenge described in the Midrash.

 

בהעלותך

Yitro's Departure from the Camp

As they are departing Mt. Sinai Moshe proposes to Yitro[1] that he join the people on their onward journey to Israel with all the benefits this will entail. Yitro politely but firmly refuses saying he will return to his own land:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֹא אֵלֵךְ כִּי אִם־אֶל־אַרְצִי וְאֶל־מוֹלַדְתִּי אֵלֵךְ[2] (במדבר י:ל)

Moshe tries again, this time emphasising Yitro's ability to guide them through the wilderness, tactically shifting the focus to the value Yitro can provide, instead of what he stands to gain:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם (במדבר י:לא)

Surprisingly, the passage does not inform us of Yitro's response. This raises two important questions - what indeed was his response and, of equal importance, why was the response not recorded? Much has been written on the former, but it is the latter which I would like to focus on.

The real guide – Yitro or the Ark?

We first ought to flip the question on its head. Since the overarching purpose of the Torah is to convey the human/national story, the conversation between Moshe and Yitro must serve a purpose in this broader context. The life story and personal relationships of Moshe, as interesting as they may be, are not part of the Torah's agenda. The question which should be asked, therefore, is not why the response was omitted but why was such a personal dialogue included in the first place.

The omission of Yitro's response seems to be a way to encourage us to seek the meaning elsewhere. By blocking out the personal story, the Torah highlights the significance of the juxtaposition with the subsequent verse:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם (במדבר י:לא)

וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהַר ה' דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית־ה' נֹסֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לָתוּר לָהֶם מְנוּחָה (במדבר י:לב)

Read side by side the contrast between these two verses comes into focus. Moshe implies they are reliant on Yitro as a guide ('do not forsake us') whereas the next verse immediately rebuts this assumption by describing how the Ark (i.e. God) guided them through the wilderness.[3] The description of the Ark travelling three days ahead to seek out a resting place for the nation certainly sounds like the quality of guide which Moshe was seeking in Yitro.

In other words, it is not Yitro's response which is the main story here but God's response. The sudden and abrupt displacement of Yitro within the narrative demonstrates his dispensability, creating the sense that God has stepped into the position sought out for Yitro.[4]

It is noteworthy that the root ת-ו-ר appearing in this verse is the same as used throughout the episode of the spies at the beginning of next week's parashah. Relevant for our purposes is the fact that the word is used only 13 times in the Torah, 12 of which are in these two related narratives. The purpose of the connection is related to the fact that the lack of appreciation of God as the ultimate guide was the root cause of the error of the spies.

One might add, as some have suggested, that a trace of the failings of the spies can already be discerned in this dialogue between Moshe and Yitro. In this conversation, Moshe himself appears to underestimate, or at least understate, the role of God as the true guide, placing reliance on man instead.[5] Indeed, from the perspective of sefer Devarim (see 1:37 and 4:21), the denial of Moshe's entry to the land seems directly related to the sin of the spies (a matter for separate discussion).

Given all the above, this is a tempting suggestion. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced as within the very same dialogue Moshe demonstrates steadfast belief that they will succeed: 'for God has spoken good about the people'. Altogether, the word טוב is mentioned no less than five times in this brief passage by Moshe evidencing his unwavering faith in the success of the mission.

It seems more likely, therefore, that there was nothing inherently wrong in Moshe's request for Yitro's guidance. On the contrary, as always, it is fully appropriate to engage in maximum human effort. Rather, the educational message is that since God was leading the people, the personal decision of Yitro would have no bearing on the success or failure of the journey. Providence would guide them into the land with or without him. Moshe seems to have understood this very well as demonstrated within his appeal to Yitro. His opening point is that God will deliver on his promise and bring them into the land; Yitro is invited to join the party, but the result is not dependent on him. 

 

---

[1] Assuming that Yitro is identical to Chovav in accordance with the view of Rashi, Rashbam and Ramban. For the alternative view that Chovav was Moshe’s brother in law, see Ibn Ezra.

[2] It is noteworthy that this was the exact language that Avraham used to press Eliezer to leave Israel to find a wife for Yitzchak.

[3] See  R. Yonatan Grossman, פרשת בהעלותך - והיית לנו לעינים, VBM

[4] This an example of where the literary form of the story (as distinct from its content) helps shape the underlying message. 

[5] R. Amnon Bazak, נקודת פתיחה, p.314. Grossman does not go as far as reading it as a literal criticism, but rather as an educational device as described above.