Chukas-Balak 5759 Steady as You Go
By Rabbi Joshua (The Read Hoffer) Hoffman

   In parshas Chukas, we read of the mistake made by Moshe when he struck the rock to bring water to the people. After the death of Miriam, their water supply, which came miraculously from a well which followed them throughout their travels, in Miriam's merit, left them, and they complained to Moshe and Aharon for water. God told Moshe to take his staff, and address a certain boulder, which would then bring forth water. Moshe took his staff and, with it, hit the rock, instead of speaking to it. As a result, God told Moshe and Aharon that they would not enter the land together with the rest of the nation. There are many explanations among the commentators as to the nature of Moshe's sin, but I would like to focus on the explanation given in the Midrash Rabbah to parshas Vayechi, as quoted by Rabbi Boruch haLevi Epstein in his work Tosefes Beracha to parshas Chukas. The midrash says that Moshe was punished because, when responding to the people's request for water, he said "Shimu Na Ha Morim"- i.e., "listen you rebels." This remark constituted an expression of anger that was inappropriate at the time, and it was for this reason that Moshe was not allowed to enter the land. It is unclear exactly why this was considered such a terrible offense, but I believe that there are at least two possible approaches to explaining it, each one approaching the matter from a different angle. 

    One approach to the midrash in question takes it as a criticism of Moshe's character in his capacity as a private individual. A question asked by thinkers of the mussar school, who emphasized the importance of working on one's character traits, is that God himself told Moshe and Aharon that they would not enter the land of Israel because of a failure in faith- "because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel" (Bamidbar, 19, 11). How, then, can the midrash say that Moshe's failing was in saying "listen you rebels"?  The answer given is that the two are related. Moshe's anger reflected a lack of faith. Someone whose faith in God is absolute will approach whatever confronts him with equanimity, knowing that it all comes from God for a purpose.. This is the idea behind the explanation of the Ba'al Shem Tov to the verse" I have set (shivisi) God before me constantly. The Hebrew word for 'set' - shivisi- comes from the word shaveh, or equal. The verse, therefore, means that through God I have equalized everything that occurs in my life, accepting it all with equanimity. Someone who gets angry over something that happens in his life is therefore lacking this kind of inner peace, and it is in this respect that God told Moshe "because you did not believe in me."  

   Interestingly, the Ba'al Shem Tov himself once defended the practice of some chasidim to flail their arms around during prayer. He said they they are akin to a drowning man, who, in desperation, grabs at whatever is available to save himself. So, too, said the Ba'al Shem, these chasidim feel that they are drowning spiritually, and therefore flail their arms about, seeking God's help. This explanation of the Ba'al Shem is quoted in the work Likutei Torah by Rav Mottl of Chernobyl, as I heard once from R.Mottl's descendant, the late Rabbi Dr. Isadore Twersky, z"l, who was the Talner Rebbe of Boston as well as the director of Jewish Studies at Harvard. Rav Mottl, however, wrote that the Ba'al Shem said that this is not the ideal one should strive for. The ideal, he said, is that described in the usual haftarah to next week's parsha- Pinchas- in which God is experienced by Eliahu as coming in a still, small voice (Kings l, 19,12). Man, too, in emulating God, should strive to relate to Him in the manner of a still, small voice. This approach is similar to that described by the Ba'al Shem in explaining the term shivisi, as we have mentioned. It was this approach that Moshe deviated from when he said, "listen you rebels."

  Another approach to the midrash is presented by the Rambam in his Shmoneh Perakim-or Eight Chapters- which is the introduction to his commentary on Pirkei Avos, the Chapters of the Fathers. He writes that Moshe's remark "listen you sinners" was an expression of anger, and constituted a profanation of God's name, because it gave the impression that it was appropriate for him to get angry at that time, while in actuality it wasn't. Since people, who viewed Moshe as a role model, would learn from his behavior, he misled the entire nation by speaking to them in this way, and, therefore was punished by being denied admittance to the land. What the Rambam appears to be saying is that Moshe was, in actuality, misrepresenting the attitude of God to the complaint of the people. Since proper character traits, according to the Rambam, constitute a fulfillment of the command to "walk in His ways,' it follows that improper behavior constitutes acting in a way other than God's. By getting angry at an inappropriate time Moshe led the people to believe that God Himself was angry with them, and this constituted a profanation of God's name.

     Although it may seem fairly innocuous for the people to imagine that God is angry when in fact He is not, a look at this week's second parsha, Balak, reveals that it is, in fact, a serious matter. In the beginning of the parsha, Balak calls upon Bilam to curse the Israelite nation. There then follow a series of instances of divine intervention, to make sure that Bilam would not be able to harm the Jews. Many commentators ask, why should anything Bilam would say make a difference to the people? Did he really have any power? The rabbis tell us that Bilam was able to align himself with the short moment in time-likened to the bat of an eyelid- in which God, so to speak, becomes angry each day, and pronounce a curse on the people at that time. Still, how much could he accomplish, and kind of curse could he pronounce, in such a small amount of time? There is an opinion that the entire effect was psychological-the people might be psychologically effected by Balak's words, and lose their resolve to continue the journey into the land. If we accept this approach, we can see how damaging Moshe's words to the people were. They now had an exaggerated notion of divine wrath, and, consequently, an inaccurate view of Bilam's ability to harm them. Because of this it was necessary for God to intervene and make sure that Bilam not curse them, in order to prevent a national psychological breakdown from occurring. Perhaps it is for this reason that the parsha of Balak is placed after the parsha of Chukas, to highlight the connection between the sin of Moshe and the attempt by Bilam to curse the nation. 

   The two explanations of the midrash that we have presented, then, approach Moshe's sin from different angles. The first approach views it as a failing in Moshe's own character development, while the second approach views it as a failure in Moshe as a representative to the people of proper character development as a fulfillment of walking in God's ways. Both approaches underscore the negative effect of anger, which is considered by some mussar writers as the worst character trait after arrogance. Although the second approach would seem to have no relevance to us, it is worthwhile to remember the Rambam's comment that everyone has the ability to be a tzaddik, a righteous person, on the level of Moshe. A teacher of mine in Skokie yeshiva, Rabbi Selig Starr, z"l, once told us that everyone of us, no matter how learned or unlearned we are, is a teacher, because people learn from our actions. Thus, by attempting to follow God's lead by conducting ourselves with a still, small voice, we will not only be perfecting our own character, but also be contributing to a more pleasant and productive public atmosphere.