Chukat | The Deaths of Miriam, Aaron and Moses

 

 

 

 

And the children of Israel, the whole congregation, came to the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the nation settled in Kadesh. (Num. 20:1)

 

When did this take place? While the verse states that the nation reached the wilderness of Zin in the “first month,” it does not mention the year.

 

The Fortieth Year

 

The commentators attempt to fill the gap left by the verses. Rashbam explains:

 

…“In the first month” – At the end of the forty years. For Aaron died after this, in the fifth month of the fortieth year since the nation left Egypt, as it is written in Parashat Mas’ei. (Rashbam on Num. 20:1)

 

Rashbam explains[1] that this takes place in the fortieth year, since the continuation of the parasha recounts Aaron’s death, and in Parashat Mas’ei[2] the Torah states that Aaron died in the fifth month of the fortieth year.

 

Ibn Ezra interprets the verse in the same way, and adds an interesting point:

 

“In the first month” – of the fortieth year. And behold, there is nothing in the Torah – no act or prophecy – apart from [those that occurred] in the first year and the fortieth year. (Ibn Ezra on Num. 20:1)

 

According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah does not describe anything that took place during the years that the nation wandered in the desert as punishment for the sin of the spies. It recounts only what occurred in the first (and the beginning of the second) year and the fortieth year.

 

According to this view, Parashat Chukat begins the account of the fortieth year – the year in which the nation prepares to enter the Land of Israel.

 

Miriam’s Death in Kadesh

 

How does this year begin? First, the nation arrives in Kadesh, near the border of the Land of Israel. This is the starting point of their journey into the Land.[3] (What is the first thing to happen there?

 

…And the nation settled in Kadesh; and Miriam died there and was buried there. (Num. 20:1)

 

The fortieth year begins with Miriam’s death, just as the nation is preparing to enter the Land of Israel.

 

The Sin at Mei Meriva

 

Immediately following Miriam’s death, the incident at Mei Meriva [lit. “the waters of strife”] occurs. As a result, God decrees that Moses and Aaron will not be allowed to enter the Land of Israel; instead, they will die in the desert:

 

And there was no water for the congregation, and they assembled themselves against Moses and against Aaron…And God said to Moses and to Aaron, “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them…” (Num. 20:2-12)

 

Aaron’s Death

 

Immediately afterwards the verses recount Aaron’s death, which occurs at the next stop on the nation’s route:

 

And they traveled from Kadesh, and the Children of Israel, the whole congregation, came to Mount Hor. And God said to Moses and Aaron at Mount Hor, on the border of the land of Edom, saying, “Aaron shall be gathered to his people, for he shall not enter into the land which I have given to the Children of Israel, because you rebelled against My word at Mei Meriva. Take Aaron and his son Elazar, and bring them up to Mount Hor. And strip Aaron of his garments, and dress his son Elazar in them; and Aaron will be gathered to his people and shall die there.” And Moses did as God commanded; and they went up to Mount Hor before the entire congregation. And Moses stripped Aaron of his garments and dressed his son Elazar in them; and Aaron died there, at the top of the mountain; and Moses and Elazar descended from the mountain. And the entire congregation saw that Aaron was dead; and they wept for Aaron thirty days, the entire House of Israel. (Num. 20:22-29)

 

The Death of the Leaders in the Fortieth Year

 

The Torah begins its description of the fortieth year by recounting the deaths of the nation’s leaders – Miriam dies; Moses and Aaron are destined to die in the desert, and Aaron dies shortly afterward. The year ends with the description of Moses’ death[4] at the end of Deuteronomy. These events characterize the fortieth year as a period of transitions of leadership.

 

Abarbanel writes:

 

And this text comes to teach us that Aaron and Miriam, and Moses as well, died within a short time... (Abarbanel on Num. 20, p. 100)

 

The deaths of the nation’s leaders within a short time of one another, just before the nation entered the Land of Israel, was certainly a cause for distress among the people.

 

Miriam, Aaron, and Moses – The Water, the Clouds of Glory, and the Manna

 

The following midrash describes what happened after the deaths of the nation’s three leaders:

 

The manna was in Moses’ merit. Know that it is in Moses’ merit, as when Moses passed away, “And the manna ceased the next day” (Josh. 5:12).

 

And the Clouds of Glory were in Aaron’s merit, as when Aaron passed away, what does it say? “And the soul of the nation became impatient on the way” (Num. 21:4), for the sun beat down upon them.

 

And the well was in Miriam’s merit, for what does it say? “And Miriam died there and was buried there” (Num. 20:1), and what does it say afterwards? “And there was no water for the congregation” (Num. 20:2) (Bamidbar Rabba [Vilna ed.] 1.

 

The manna (food), the well (water) and the Clouds of Glory (protection) were the three vital elements that allowed the nation to survive in the desert. According to the midrash, the existence of these three elements depended on the merit of the nation’s leaders. This midrash suggests that just as the nation could not survive physically without these three basic elements, they could not have survived spiritually without their leaders – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.

 

These three leaders pass away within a year of one another and can no longer guide the nation. The disappearance of the water, the manna, and the Clouds of Glory reflect the bleak circumstances faced by the nation when their leaders died. The loss of these three figures has left behind a void, and their absence is deeply felt.

 

Thus the Israelites are plunged into an existential crisis, as they lose their leaders on the brink of a momentous journey.

 

 

Miriam’s Death – the Loss of the Water

 

The incident at Mei Meriva follows the account of Miriam’s death. Here the Torah does not indicate the beginning of a new section (e.g., by leaving a white space between the verses); in fact, they are even linked by the word “and”: “And the nation settled in Kadesh, and Miriam died there, and there was no water.” Clearly, it is no coincidence that these two events occurred at the same place and the same time.

 

The midrash quoted above links Miriam’s death and the nation’s complaints regarding the lack of water at Mei Meriva: as long as Miriam was alive, her well accompanied the nation throughout their travels. When she died, the well disappeared, and the people lacked water and began complaining, which led to Moses and Aaron committing a sin.[5]

 

Insensitivity to the Leaders’ Mourning

 

Moses and Aaron’s reaction to the nation’s complaints is puzzling; after all, this is not the first time the nation has complained. In Exodus 17 the nation raises a similar complaint at Rephidim, which results in a similar outcome – Moses strikes a rock, which gives water – but without Moses and Aaron having to disobey God’s command. Why did they ultimately sin here?

 

In the previous section we discussed the nation’s emotional upheaval following Miriam’s death, which signaled the beginning of the end of the current leadership.

 

Inspired by the Sages, Abarbanel adds a complementary perspective: the emotional turmoil experienced by the leaders, Moses and Aaron, in the wake of their sister’s death:

 

And the text condemned Israel, for instead of expressing sympathy for Moses and Aaron and comforting them for the death of their sister the prophetess, they gathered upon them to quarrel with them and not to comfort them.

 

The nation, unaware that its leaders are in mourning, comes to them with demands instead of comforting them. Abarbanel views this as a sin on the Israelites’ part, as they were insensitive to the personal mourning of their leaders. However, a closer look at the midrash reveals that its criticism is actually directed at Moses and Aaron:

 

Personal Mourning vs. (Public Leadership)

 

The well had accompanied them in Miriam’s merit, as it says: “And Miriam died there,” and immediately: “And there was no water for the congregation.” And since the well was gone, they began to converge upon Moses and Aaron, as it says: “And they assembled themselves against Moses and against Aaron,” and Moses and Aaron were sitting and mourning for Miriam. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Shall they die of thirst because you are mourning? Get up and take your staff and give the nation and their animals to drink. (Yalkut Shimoni, remez 763)

 

This midrash explains the juxtaposition of the incident at Mei Meriva and Miriam’s death in a way that judges the nation favorably in a situation where they suddenly find themselves lacking water, and criticizes Moses and Aaron for being preoccupied with their private mourning at a time when the nation sorely needed guidance.

 

Later on, the midrash suggests that not only should the nation be judged favorably for demanding demand water, but that their doing so was divinely ordained in order to cause Moses and Aaron to recognize Miriam’s righteousness and learn from her ways. In this way, their grief for Miriam transforms from personal mourning to a national experience:

 

Another thing: Why did the well disappear when Miriam died? So that all would know how righteous she was and would mourn for her and do a kindness with her. For when Miriam died, and Moses and Aaron were preoccupied with her, and the Israelites searched for water and could not find, they immediately gathered upon them.

 

From Personal Mourning to Public Mourning

 

The well’s disappearance was not only a result of Miriam’s death, as her merit could have sustained the nation even after her death. Rather, it was preordained so that the nation would recognize and absorb Miriam’s righteous behavior.

In practice, this event brings about the opposite result:

 

When they saw them coming,

Moses said to Aaron: Say to them, What is this gathering?

Aaron said to him: Are not the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bringers of kindness?

Moses said to him: Can you not distinguish between [different types of] gatherings? This is not a gathering of reparation but of destruction, for if it were a gathering of reparation they would be led by the rulers of the thousands and the rulers of the hundreds, etc. – and you say they are coming to bring kindness?

Immediately they spoke against him, as it says: “And the nation quarreled with Moses” (Num. 20:3).

 

Harsh Truth and Forgiving Kindness

 

This midrash portrays Moses and Aaron’s differing opinions regarding the nation’s intentions. Perhaps the difference between Moses and Aaron lies in their perception of the events before them. Aaron, with his tendency to view things in a positive light, cannot perceive the negative elements of the situation; instead, he focuses upon the essence of the nation as “bringers of kindness”. Moses, on the other hand, recognizes the harsh reality, the true nature of the nation’s intentions: “a gathering of destruction”. According to this interpretation, the midrash is covertly criticizing Aaron’s forgiving nature.

 

A Forgiving View Affects Reality

 

However, the midrash may be read differently. It is possible that its criticism is actually directed towards Moses’ harsh view of reality. Perhaps an overly exacting perception of reality prevents one from affecting reality. It could be that, had Moses also viewed the nation in a positive light as Aaron did, their conflict with the nation would have been avoided: the nation would have approached, Moses and Aaron would have thanked them for coming to share in their grief and appreciate Miriam’s righteousness, and thus the “gathering of destruction” would have been transformed into a “gathering of reparation.”

Therefore, the midrash emphasizes that immediately after Moses spoke, “immediately they spoke against him.”

 

The midrash concludes its criticism of Moses and Aaron quite harshly:

 

When Moses and Aaron saw that their faces were angry, they fled to the Tent of Meeting. To what may this be compared? To a great statesman at whom the

nation became angered and fled to the king’s palace.

 

“And the glory of God appeared” – the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the public servants: Leave here quickly; My sons are dying of thirst and you are sitting and mourning for the old woman?

 

God’s feelings on the matter are clear: Moses and Aaron acted wrongly. They must lead the nation confidently, even when they are in mourning for their sister.

 

If we accept both sides of the story – Abarbanel’s interpretation, which accuses the nation of insensitivity towards its leaders’ feelings, and the view of the midrash, which blames the leaders for being unwilling or unable to share their grief with the nation and being preoccupied with their own personal mourning – then Miriam’s death is the chief cause of the incident at Mei Meriva, in that it led to both the nation complaining and Moses and Aaron being unable to respond appropriately.

 

Miriam’s Death – Loss of Leadership

 

Ralbag suggests a number of other explanations regarding the connection between Miriam’s death and the incident at Mei Meriva:

 

“And there was no water for the congregation” – behold, this was juxtaposed to Miriam’s death in order to note that the death of the righteous leaves its mark.

 

And I think that Miriam, too, in her wisdom, had influenced the hearts of the nation to serve God, may He be exalted. And it is as though it said that if Miriam had been alive, the nation would not have behaved destructively in this way, asking Moses for water with such belligerent words.

 

Or, the intention of this might be to note that if Miriam had been alive, Moses and Aaron would have consulted with her regarding what God, may He be exalted, commanded them: “And you shall speak to the rock.” And she would have been able to caution them from the failure to obey God’s commandment. For she, too, was a prophetess, and older than both of them, and it seems that they would have honored her and taken her advice. (Ralbag on Num. 20)

 

According to Ralbag, it was not only the absence of water that caused a crisis among the nation, but Miriam’s death itself (“the death of righteous leaves its mark”). Ralbag also attributes Moses and Aaron’s inappropriate reaction on Miriam’s death: Miriam would have been able to influence both the nation and its leaders to behave differently, avoid conflict, and reach a constructive solution.

Ralbag’s interpretation emphasizes that Miriam’s death left a void in the national leadership, perhaps reflected by the nation’s lack of water.

 

 

The interpretations cited above assume that Miriam’s death brought about the decree that Moses and Aaron would die in the desert, but only indirectly: since the nation lacked water they complained, and since Moses and Aaron could not respond appropriately due to their mourning, or due to the lack of Miriam’s influence, they sinned and were subsequently punished.

 

However, there may be a deeper connection between Miriam’s death and the decree regarding Moses and Aaron’s deaths.

 

A Fundamental Connection between Miriam’s Death and the Deaths of Moses and Aaron

 

Ralbag writes:

 

Or this juxtaposition might indicate that their three deaths were decreed together, for at the time of her death this incident occurred which brought about the decrees of Moses and Aaron’s deaths, and in this short time they all died…

 

According to this interpretation, the incident at Mei Meriva occurred immediately after Miriam’s death not because this led to a national crisis, but because her death is closely related to Moses and Aaron’s ultimate fate, which was decided at Mei Meriva.

 

Death at Kadesh – On the Border of the Land of Israel

 

Abarbanel also suggests a close connection between the deaths of the three leaders at this point:

 

…And also to indicate that the complaint and the decree that the generation of the spies would die [before they reached the Land of Israel] took place in Kadesh Barnea, and so too in this Kadesh, which was in the wilderness of Zin, there was another decree and a complaint of death that Moses and Aaron would not enter the Land of Israel; as though God was always angered against His nation and His righteous ones at Kadesh.

 

Abarbanel points out that the Israelites camped twice in a place called Kadesh on the border of the Land of Israel; both times, a fateful sin is committed, which results in a decree prohibiting the sinners from entering the Land.[6]

 

According to this interpretation, on the border of the Land the nation is tested in order to find out who is worthy of entering; those who are not allowed to enter are fated to die before the nation crosses the border.[7]

 

Were Moses, Aaron, and Miriam unworthy of entering the Land of Israel?

 

 

Until this point we have discussed the factors that contributed to Moses and Aaron’s sin. We have yet to examine the sin itself which resulted in Moses and Aaron being forbidden to enter the Land of Israel. The Torah does not explicitly state the nature of the sin; as a result, numerous commentators suggest possible explanations. Samuel David Luzzatto expresses a sense of confusion in his commentary:

 

Our teacher Moses sinned once, and the commentators have heaped upon him thirteen sins and more, for each one invented a new sin… Thus, all of my days I have abstained from investigating this point deeply, for fear that my investigations would result in a new explanations and I too would add a new sin upon Moses. (S. D. Luzzatto [Shadal] on Num. 20:12)

 

Following Luzzatto, we shall not attempt to understand the exact nature of Moses and Aaron’s sin either.

 

Abarbanel writes a similar criticism of the tendency to heap sins on Moses and Aaron:

 

Why was it decreed that Moses and Aaron would not come to the Land? …It is not fitting that this punishment be given to two generals of Israel for anything but a great reason, and not for a small matter, as was the matter at Mei Meriva, as all of the opinions regarding it have stated…

 

The second question: behold, one of the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is to mete out punishment measure for measure… And regarding the matter of Mei Meriva the punishment is not proportionate, for how is striking a rock or speaking to it proportional to not entering the Land?

 

Abarbanel lists 10 opinions regarding the nature of Moses and Aaron’s sin at Mei Meriva, and rejects them all. In the end, he returns to his original stance that their sin was not at Mei Meriva at all:

 

And my opinion on this is that Moses and Aaron both were punished for sins they committed: Aaron for the sin of the Golden Calf, and Moses our master for the spies.

 

Abarbanel explains that while Aaron did not actively participate in worshiping the Golden Calf and his intentions were good – he intended to delay the nation until Moses returned – but in practice, he lost control of the situation and the Israelites sinned because of him.

 

Similarly, Moses did not actually sin during the episode of the spies – he continued to believe in God’s ability to bring the Israelites into the Land despite the spies’ negative reports. Moses’ mistake lay in the fact that he had commanded the spies to check the strength of the nations and the cities in Canaan, which caused the spies to sin and cause panic among the nation with their reports. Although Moses had good intentions, he was still punished, since his leadership caused the nation to sin.

 

Moses and Aaron’s sin at Mei Meriva was fundamentally similar. The absence of proper guidance on Moses and Aaron’s part caused the nation to commit a grave sin, which led to the divine decree that that entire generation would die in the desert.[8] Therefore, it is only fair that Moses and Aaron, too, would die in the desert. However, they were not included in the nation’s punishment), due to their honor and status and the fact that they were acting with good intentions. Their sin had not been a result of rebellion but of lack of leadership.

 

The incident at Mei Meriva was not Moses and Aaron’s actual sin, but a means of publicly revealing their absence of leadership and thus allowing them to be punished for their lack of leadership) in the past, which had disastrous results. Abarbanel writes: “And therefore, the incident of Mei Meriva at Kadesh was a means in this case and not itself a reason.”

 

 

The Leaders’ Responsibility for the Nation’s Sins

 

We might expand Abarbanel’s interpretation and suggest that the divine decree that Moses and Aaron would die in the desert is not a punishment per se, nor is it a direct – or even an indirect – result of their actions. As the leaders of the nation, they must take responsibility for the people and ensure that they do not sin. When the nation commits such grave transgressions as the sins of the spies and the Golden Calf, and the leaders are unable to curb this trend and prevent the nation from deteriorating further – this insufficient assumption of responsibility is considered a sin on the leaders’ part.

 

Moses and Aaron’s “punishment” is not simply a punishment. If the entire nation is prohibited from entering the Land of Israel as a result of their sins, the leaders cannot be completely exempted and enter the Land alone, without their people. They cannot cast off all responsibility for the actions of the nation they led. While they did not personally sin and so did not receive a decree of death at the same time as the nation, it was at that point that their fate was decided: they would not enter the Land of Israel. God saw to it that their absence of leadership would be revealed publicly, which would lead to their being banned from entering the Land of Israel.

 

At Kadesh, on the threshold of the Land of Israel, it becomes apparent that Moses and Aaron, the leaders of the nation who helped the nation survive their years in the wilderness and led them through many fateful encounters, cannot enter the Land of Israel. They must remain in the wilderness.

 

Their personal greatness notwithstanding, these leaders are still members of the nation. If the entire nation must remain in the wilderness, their leaders cannot enter the Land of Israel without them. We noted above that this is because they are responsible for the transgressions committed at the national level.[9]

 

 

Yet there may be another reason that the nation’s leaders died outside of the Land of Israel.

 

Moses, Aaron, and Miriam – Miraculous Leadership

 

The midrash quoted above describes what the nation received in their leaders’ merit: the well, the Clouds of Glory and the manna. In our discussion above, we related to these elements as expressions of leadership and the nation’s dependence on their leaders. Now we may add another layer of meaning. The leadership of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam in the desert was of a miraculous nature: there were no natural sources of water in the wilderness; therefore, the nation needed the miraculous appearance of Miriam’s well – a limitless supply of water in the wilderness. The oppressive heat, obstacles and wild animals made traveling difficult; Aaron’s merit brought the nation the Clouds of Glory, miraculously easing the nation’s journey. Finding palatable food in the wilderness would have been impossible – were it not for Moses’ (miraculous leadership), which (fed the nation via manna/brought the nation manna to eat).

 

In The Land of Israel – Natural Leadership

 

As the journey through the wilderness comes to an end the nation camps in Kadesh, on the border of the Land of Israel. In the Promised Land, they will no longer need such miracles. Life is guided by natural principles: rain falls from the heavens and flows from springs and rivers; food grows from the earth; the nation will settle into permanent homes, no longer wandering through wilderness under difficult conditions. They will, of course, still be dependent on God‘s assistance, and the lessons they learned in the wilderness regarding their dependence on God will remain with them forever. However, from this point on, God’s assistance is granted via nature, not through open miracles. This signifies a transition to a state of natural leadership, as opposed to miraculous leadership.

 

The Death of the Leaders and the Transition of Leadership

 

This transition is apparent in the deaths of the nation’s three leaders, whose leadership was characterized by miraculous events. The following generations of leaders will guide the nation with God’s assistance, but through natural means.

In the fortieth year of wandering in the desert, as the nation prepares to enter the Land of Israel, the role of the miraculous leadership comes to an end. The nation stands on the brink of a new era.

 

The deaths of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam cause a national crisis in this sense as well: God’s method of leading the nation is about to change drastically. The nation already begins to sense this when Miriam dies. As described in the midrash, upon Miriam’s death the miraculous well disappears. Aaron’s death causes the disappearance of the Clouds of Glory, which protected the nation’s every step. Upon Moses’ death the nation stops receiving manna, the miraculous food that the sustained them in the wilderness.

 

The nation faces this monumental change without knowing how they will support themselves from this point on. They have no experience with natural leadership; what are they to do now? It is no wonder that Miriam’s death leads to bitter complaints on the part of the nation.

 

 

The Miracle – Speaking to the Rock

 

Following Miriam’s death, the nation fears the difficulties that arise without her miraculous intervention. God knows that the nation is not yet ready to handle a natural mode of leadership – certainly not while they are still in the wilderness. Therefore, God commanded Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock and extract water from it in a miraculous manner, so that the people would continue feeling secure and confident in their leadership. The nation cannot adapt to a natural form of leadership overnight; they must gradually adjust to this new reality.

 

Perhaps Moses’ speaking to the rock in order to extract water from it was an intermediary stage between Miriam’s well – a constant, miraculous source of water – and the springs of the Land of Israel, where spring water can only be reached by digging wells. Here Moses is commanded to speak to the rock[10] (and is perhaps even commanded to strike it, according to some commentators) in order to teach the nation that in the Land of Israel water is not simply available. One must put in effort and dig in order to bring forth water from the earth – all while remaining dependent upon God, Who controls the rain.

 

The War Against the Canaanites – With Divine Assistance

 

Afterwards, Aaron dies, and the Clouds of Glory leave the people. They stand defenseless before the hostile Canaanites. Here they do not complain; instead, they turn to God and ask for His help. God grants them not-quite-miraculous assistance: they wage war against the Canaanites, and with God’s help, they win.

Rescue from the Snakes – Through Prayer

 

The following narrative recounts further complaints from the nation, which result in the nation being attacked by snakes (Num. 21:4-9). Until now, the Clouds of Glory prevented snakes and other creatures from harming the nation. After Aaron’s death, when the Clouds have disappeared, the snakes are able to attack.[11]

 

Here, too, God ultimately proves to the nation that although Aaron is dead, the miraculous leadership of the nation has not disappeared entirely. Turning to God in prayer can still help. While this protection is not constant or automatic, as the Clouds of Glory were, genuine prayer and efforts towards God can bring about miraculous protection.[12]

 

Finally, after Moses’ death, when the nation enters the land of Israel, the manna stops falling:

 

And the manna ceased the next day, when they had eaten of the produce of the land… (Josh. 5:12)

 

A Gradual Transition from Miraculous to Natural Existence

 

The nation undergoes a process of transition from their miraculous existence to a new stage of natural existence.[13] This process continues through their last year in the wilderness, as their leaders pass away and they must slowly adjust to a new, independent way of life, without great leaders or open miracles.

 

This process continues even after the nation enters the Land of Israel. At first, the manna continues to fall. The Israelites’ first victory at Jericho is entirely miraculous. The war at Ai is fought in a natural way, but with divine assistance. Thus the nation becomes accustomed to life with fewer open miracles.[14]

 

 

The juxtaposition of Miriam’s death to the sin at Mei Meriva is not coincidental. Miriam’s death is closely linked to the deaths of Moses and Aaron. Her death begins the transition away from the leaders of the generation of Israelites that wandered through the wilderness. These three leaders pass away before the nation enters the Land of Israel not only because they sinned, but as part of the transition to a new form of leadership more suited to the generation entering the Land. Through their deaths, the miraculous leadership that guided the nation through the wilderness is brought to a gradual end, and the generation entering the Land of Israel begins a new era of natural leadership.