Much needed then and now: New leadership

The Torah, in Parashat Chukat that we read this week, tells us of another complaint of the Israelite people about the lack of water in the desert and about their disgruntlement with the Exodus in general. They turn to Moses (and presumably to Aaron as well although his name does not appear explicitly in the text), “Why have you brought the Lord’s congregation into this wilderness for us and our beasts to die there? Why did you make us leave Egypt to bring us to this wretched place, a place with no grain or figs or vines or pomegranates? There is not even water to drink!” (Numbers 20:4-5). In response to this complaint, God tells Moses (Aaron joins him of his own accord) to take a rod, assemble the community, and order the rock to yield its water in front of their very eyes.

Moses then takes the rod, as God had commanded, assembles the people, and after a brief rebuke “Listen you rebels, shall we get water for you out of the rock?” (Numbers 20:10) lifts his hand and strikes the rock with the rod twice. Water then pours out in abundance and the people and their animals drink their fill. Although the people by now are content, God is not. God reprimands Moses and Aaron, “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” (Numbers 20:12). For Moses and Aaron this was the most devastating punishment imaginable. After all, from the time that Moses was appointed as leader, and Aaron as his spokesperson, through the period of the Exodus, the splitting of the sea and the subsequent trek through the desert, the final destination was, and remained, the land of Canaan. To deny Moses and Aaron the right to enter the land was to deny them the right to fulfill their life’s mission and the realization of their hopes and aspirations. Thus, we may wonder, what was so wrong with their behavior that warranted such a harsh punishment?

This question has baffled the commentators for centuries. Some say that the problem was that they hit the rock rather than merely speaking to it (Rashi), others contend that they sinned in displaying anger towards the people (Rambam), while yet others maintain that the sin can be found in their ascribing the miracle to themselves—“shall we get water for you—rather than to God (Ramban). While proofs for each of these approaches can be adduced from the text, I believe that the key to understanding this story is in the comparison to a strikingly similar story that appears in Exodus 17.

In the parallel story there was no water (vs. 1), the people complained to Moses (and presumably to Aaron as well because their complaint is framed in the plural), Moses responded first by castigating them (vs. 2) and they used the shortage of water as an excuse to complain about the Exodus as a whole (vs. 3). Furthermore, in that story, God told him to take some of the elders, along with a rod, and then hit the rock in the presence of both God and the elders, and water would miraculously come forth. Moses proceeded to do just as he was told and the story came to a peaceful conclusion.

Against the background, two of the above explanations for the sin and punishment in our story are difficult to sustain. After all, if the last time God told Moses him to take a rod he also told him to hit the rock, then what else was Moses supposed to think when God had told him to take the rod once again? Furthermore, in Exodus 17 Moses seemed to get angry with the people but was not punished so why should he be punished now? While the third explanation above may still be plausible, I believe the key to understanding our story lies in the difference in the time-frame between the two events.

According to most of the commentaries, the events described in Exodus occurred during the first year after the Exodus, whereas the events described in our parasha occurred in year 40. In other words, the earlier episode involved the people who had left Egypt whereas our episode involved their children who were on the verge of entering the land. The problem, however, is that Moses was still the same Moses, and he apparently assumed that the response to the current situation should be the same as the last. But the new generation has its own needs, challenges, and expectations, and the leader must take these into account if he seeks to address the problems that arise effectively. The fact that Moses relied on his past to address the problems in the present turned out to be his undoing, and helps explain why God sought another leader for the people as they embark upon their journey into the land.

October 7 marked a dramatic turning point in the history of the State of Israel and ushered in a new era. The Israel that existed before then is not the Israel of today nor of the foreseeable future. Thus, the issues that concerned us in the past and that threatened to tear us apart can no longer occupy center stage, and the military and political leaders who were responsible for the catastrophic failure must be forced to step aside. What we need now is a new type of leadership, one that looks at the current reality with a fresh set of eyes, free of past biases and partisan agendas; that is sensitive to the trauma we have undergone and prioritizes our collective healing; that recognizes that we are, to a great extent, in the midst of a second war of independence and that our ability to emerge victorious will depend on our willingness, without exception, to put our lives and those of our loved ones on the line; that is determined to preserve the spirit of camaraderie and brotherhood that have been on display since October 7; and that has a clear vision of how to take a nation that has been battered and beaten, help it recover, and guide it towards a better future.