Responding To Words, Responding To Blows: Parashah Insights Rabbi Yaakov Hillel
Responding To Words, Responding To Blows: Parashah Insights Rabbi Yaakov Hillel
by
Parashat Hukat
After Miriams death years later, the miraculous rock dried up. Once again, the people complained to Moshe and Aharon, but this time, Moshes instructions were somewhat different: Take the stick and gather together the people, you and your brother Aharon, and speak to the rock before their eyes and it will give forth its waters (Bamidbar 20:8). Now too, he was to take his stick in hand, but rather than hitting the rock, he was to speak to it; then it would produce the necessary water as before. Instead of speaking to the rock, however, Moshe did as he had at Refidim, and struck it with his stick. While the rock did yield water, Moshe was chastised and punished by Hashem for his digression: Because you did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore you will not bring this people to the land which I gave you (20:12). After so many years of waiting to reach Eretz Yisrael, Moshe would not be the one to bring the people to the land. Was Moshes deed really so terrible? The first time he had been told to hit the rock, and now too, he was told to take along the same stick he had used then. The first time, he had obeyed Hashems commandment when he struck the rock. The second time, this exact same act was a grave sin, a terrible desecration of Hashems Name warranting grave punishment. What is more, Rashi tells us that Moshe actually did first speak to the rock, without results. It was only then that he did what he had done earlier at Masah UMerivah by Hashems command and struck the rock (20:11; see Bamidbar Rabbah 19:9). It is true that Moshe erred, but his error was understandable. Why does the Torah describe his mistake in judgment in such harsh terms, saying You did not believe in Me to sanctify Me before the eyes of the Children of Israel? And if Moshe was only to speak to the rock, not strike it, why was he instructed to bring his stick along to begin with?
Drawing Conclusions
Let us look again at Rashis words. If you had spoken to the rock and it had produced [water], I would have been sanctified in the eyes of the people, and they would have said, This rock which does not speak and does not hear and does not need sustenance, fulfilled the word of G-d. How much more so should we (Bamidbar 20:12). Had Moshe obeyed Hashem, a powerful moral lesson could have been derived from this incident by the type of reasoning known as kal vhomer: if it is so in a lenient case, how much more is it so in a serious case. A rock, an inanimate object, devoid of all sense and feeling, and with no physical needs requiring Hashems mercy, had only to hear G-ds Word and it immediately obeyed. How much more so should thinking, feeling, flesh and blood human beings, who desperately need Divine mercy at every moment, obey G-ds Word when they hear it!
2
Even so, this is surprising. Had the opportunity to make the point really been lost? Surely it was still possible to derive a compelling kal vhomer. What would have been wrong with saying, An inanimate rock with neither feelings nor needs has only to be hit, and it immediately responds by obeying Hashems Word. How much more so should we. What real difference was there in learning the lesson from a few words spoken to the rock rather than from a blow applied to that same rock?
Words or Blows?
To answer this question, we must understand an important principle. The Almighty deals with the Jewish people in one of two ways, as we learn from the words of the Prophet Zechariah. I took for Myself two staffs. One I called makel noam (the staff of pleasantness), and the other I called makel hovlim (the rod of punishment), and I pastured the flock (11:7). These two methods are in fact two different approaches towards instruction. The staff of pleasantness is verbal rebuke and chastisement. When Hashem uses this staff, He sends His prophets to reprove the people and set them on the right path by means of oral instruction and rebuke. The rod of punishment is instruction by the much harsher means of punishment and suffering. We find these two approaches elsewhere in the Torah as well. The term rod is used to mean a stick which hits and prods, while a staff is a stick which is leaned on for support. Your rod and Your staff will comfort me (Tehillim 23:4). Our Sages (Midrash Tehillim 1) explain: Your rod is suffering, as it says, And I will punish their transgression with a rod (Tehillim 89:33). And your staff is Torah, as it says through a lawgiver with their staffs (Bamidbar 21:18). Foolishness is bound in the heart of a youth. The staff of rebuke will distance it from him (Mishle 22:15). This means that at times, rebuke will suffice to distance a youth from wrongdoing; a good talking-to, with penetrating words of reproof that go to the heart, will have the power to distance him from sin. At other times, however, he will only respond to punishment in the form of blows (see Derech Etz Hayyim by the Ramhal). Hashem can teach us with words, and He can teach us with blows. As we saw in Midrash Tehillim, the instrument of oral reproof is Torah. It follows that prior to the Giving of the Torah, the option of the makel noam, the staff of pleasantness, did not yet exist. The hard way, the punishment and blows of the makel hovlim, was the only way. As we see, this is how Hashem dealt with the Generation of the Flood, the Generation of the Dispersal, and the cities of Sodom and Amorah in earlier times. After the Torah was given, however, there was another possibility. Rebuke could now be administered with the staff of pleasantness. Our people could be taught to
repent through words rather than blows. The teachings of the Torah and the reproof of the prophets would now be the tool to bring the Jews back to Hashem.