You Can Neither Run nor Hide
You Can Neither Run nor Hide

This week's Torah portion, Chukat, contains the story of Moshe and the striking of the rock. First the Torah deals with is the death of Miriam. The people had no water (Midrashim speak of the Well of Miriam that miraculously accompanied the people during their wanderings. This well disappeared upon Miriam's death, since it was in her merit - because she had watched over baby Moshe at the Nile - that they had the well.) The People complain bitterly to Moshe and Aharon.

In response, God tells Moshe to take the staff, gather the people, and that he (Moshe) and Aharon should speak to the rock in the presence of the people, so that the rock shall give forth its water for the people and their flocks. Moshe gathers the people and admonishes them to witness another of God's miracles. He lifts the staff and strikes the rock twice; water flows from it in abundance. 

God is "angry" at Moshe and Aharon for missing a chance to sanctify God's name by having the people see water come from the rock by speaking to it. (The People had previously seen water come from a struck rock some 40 years earlier.) God decrees that neither Moshe nor Aharon shall lead the people into the land of Israel. God's decree seems excessively harsh on Moshe and Aharon. Commentators point to this as an example of how strictly G-d judges the greatest of our people. 

Although we are most familiar with Rashi's explanation of Moshe's sin - that he hits the rock instead of talking to it - other commentators offer numerous different opinions.

For example: Ibn Ezra claims that Moshe hits the rock twice, instead of once.

Rambam argues that Moshe 'loses his temper' and speaks harshly. He claims that Moshe's harsh scolding of the people with the words "listen you rebels..." - reflects an inappropriately angry tone that caused a "Chillul Hashem" (a desecration of God's Name).

Ramban (Nahmanides) explains that Moshe's sin lies in his comments prior to hitting the rock. Instead of saying: "can God get water from this rock?" he says: "can we get water from this rock?" [thus suggesting that he and Aharon, not God, draw the water].

But let's now take a closer look at the opening events at Mei Meriva:

"And Bnei Yisrael arrived at Midbar Tzin... but there was not enough water for the people, and they gathered against Moshe and Aharon. They argued with Moshe saying: It would had been better had we died with our brethren 'lifnei Hashem' [before God]... So - why did you bring us to this desert to die?... and why did you take us out of Egypt to bring us to this terrible place... there are no fruits here and there is no water to drink." (Numbers 20:1-5)

How do Moshe and Aharon respond to these blasphemous complaints? Do they argue? Do they defend God? Do they offer the people encouragement? Let's see how Chumash describes their reaction [or rather lack thereof]:

"And Moshe and Aharon came to the Ohel Moed [in fear] from the congregation, and they fell on their faces..." (20:6)

Is it not precisely in situations such as these when leadership must take a stand? Take for example a very similar incident, when the people complained for water at Refidim many years earlier (Exodus 17:1-7). Note Moshe's immediate response:

"Mah trivun iy'madi, mah t'nasun et Hashem? Why are you arguing with me, why are you testing God?" At Refidim, Moshe immediately challenges their complaints and condemns their criticism as a reflection of their lack of faith. Only afterward, when the people continue to complain, does Moshe cry out to God and beg for a solution.

At Mei Meriva Moshe's reaction is quite different. Instead of confronting these complaints, Moshe and Aharon immediately 'run away' to the Ohel Moed and 'fall on their faces'. [Even if this means that they 'prayed,' is this a time for prayer? (Compare with Exodus 14:15 and its context!)

Is 'running away' the proper reaction? Should they not have assured the people that God will indeed take care of their needs? Should they not have challenged the people's brazen assertion that "it would have been better had they remained in Egypt?"

One could suggest that already at this stage Moshe and Aharon already showed flaws in their leadership by running away from the people, seeking 'sanctuary' in the Ohel Moed. This may have been the real sin of Moshe and Aharon, running away.

What came next, speaking harshly at the people and striking the rock, may have been the last straw, but their running away from the legitimately thirsty Israelites may have been their real downfall.

Leaders cannot live in fear of the people they are leading. A perfect example is found in case of King Saul. When he fought against the Amalekites, he disobeyed God.  Rather than completely destroying the Amalekites like God had commanded, Saul saved their king, Agag, and some of the spoil to sacrifice to God. 

Saul even confessed that he did this because "he feared the people and listened to their voice". In the end, the kingdom of Israel was taken away from Saul and his descendants.

But there is an epilogue to this story. Years, later, when King David finally returned the Ark to where it belonged, he danced with all his might in front of the crowds of people, but his wife, Michal, the daughter of the previous king, Saul, disapproved.

"And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal, Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart. …And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovered himself!

So David said to Michal, "It was before the Lord, who chose me above your father and above all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel; therefore I will celebrate before the Lord..

I can understand why Michal disapproved of the King dancing publicly the way he did, but why did King David's response to her have to be so harsh? Why did he have to mention, "It was before the Lord, who chose me ABOVE YOUR FATHER and above all his house, to appoint me ruler …"

Why does King David have to 'rub it in' to Saul's daughter, that he replaced him? Is it really necessary?

The point King David is making here is that the reason he is dancing with wild abandon before God, is because he is doing it for God, he doesn’t care what the people think. He doesn't care if his actions are viewed by the people as not very 'kinglike' right now.

He is telling Michal that he, unlike King Saul, does not 'fear the people and listen to their voice', and that's precisely why he is dancing, because he fears God, not the people.

A leader cannot run away from his people, nor can he hide from them. But he cannot follow them blindly either. If he does, he is no leader at all.

Our leaders today should take note!