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.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם
בֶּן־מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם לֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא
No comments:
Post a Comment