In Jewish history, there existed no greater leaders than Moses and Aaron. The nature of the leadership which each exhibited, however, was very different from the other's and was oriented to the specific needs and consciousness of the Jewish people at specific moments in Jewish history.
The first indication of the delineation of tasks of Moses and Aaron occurred after Moses encountered God in the wilderness at the incident of the burning bush. During this encounter God attempted several times to recruit Moses as his agent in redeeming the Hebrews from Egyptian slavery. Moses constantly refused the task for various reasons until finally God stated to him in anger. “I know that your brother Aaron the Levite knows how to speak . . .speak to him and put the words in his mouth. And I will be with your mouth and his mouth . . .” (Exodus 4:15)
In addition, God adds what appears to be an unusual statement. “And he (Aaron) will speak for you to the nation and he will be your mouth.” (Exodus 4:16). It appears that the roles of Moses and Aaron have been clearly delineated by God. The primary role of Moses is to communicate or speak with God. He is also the one who will speak with Pharaoh. The primary role of Aaron is to speak or interact with the people. Although there are verses which indicate that both Moses and Aaron spoke with Pharaoh together (See Exodus 5:1, and 5:3, 5:4) as we go through the Torah, it is clear that Aaron’s mission is to interact directly with the people of Israel.
Conversely, there were instances where Moses also directly spoke with the people (for example Vayikra 19:2, Bamidbar 16:5, Bamidbar 20:10). Nevertheless, due to the special delineation that was established for them by God, they each developed their own unique form of leadership.
Moses is the Ish Emet, the man of truth, who must and can only tell the truth to the Jewish people; regardless of their feelings or their sensitivities. Aaron is the Ish Shalom, the man who primarily strives after peace. He is thus forced by the frailties of human nature to make allowances when he speaks to the people which at times deviate from the precise and actual truth.
What is it that required Moses to be an Ish Emet and Aaron and Ish Shalom? In the case of Moses, his role is to communicate with God. It was his uniqueness in the nature of his relationship with God which was different from the rest of mankind. Moses could directly speak to God face to face without the intermediary of the imagination or being in a dream state. A person with that experience could only live in this world on the basis of absolute truth after encountering God. The man so intimately acquainted with Divine truth, can in no way compromise, modify or repress it. The nature of his prophesy is to reveal the truth as he had received it. One could see how most other human beings would have great difficulty in accepting that truth.
Aaron’s role was to interact with the people. He lived with the people in Egypt and directly witnessed the degrading and debilitative process of slavery which they were subjected to. His main task was to comfort them and attempt as best as he could to address their needs and improve their lives. He thus concluded, that to achieve that goal, it may require a compromise with the truth which for them was associated with cruelty and pain. What was most needed was a sense of harmony under those trying conditions. Indeed, Hillel tells us, that the only possible way for us to live is, “to be a disciple of Aaron; to be one who loves peace and searches for it; one who loves people and brings them closer to the Torah.” (Avot 1:12.)
We see the distinction between these two leaders in their different reactions to seminal moments of Jewish history recorded in the Torah. The first example is the incident of the golden calf. (See Exodus 32:1-30.) The contrast between Moses and Aaron could not be greater. Aaron does not take direct decisive action when the people demand that he create a god or new leader for them when they believed that Moses would not come back to them. Aaron’s actions at that moment are not motivated by fear, but rather by love. “He says it is better that this abomination will be blamed on me and not on them.” (Rashi, Exodus, 32:5.) Also, “his heart was truly directed towards God. He was certain that Moses would return at any moment and that they (the people) would worship God.” (Rashi, Ibid.)
When Moses does return, he has no hesitation about what to do. Although he was ready to forsake his own life in his petition to God to forgive the people, that does not prevent him from taking draconian steps. He grinds the calf into dust, dilutes it with water, and forces the people to drink as in the case of the Sotah to expose the guilty. (Rashi, 32:20) He then rallies his fellow Levites who kill 3,000 men. This certainly did not endear Moses to the people. They had already demonstrated disdain for him when he was late according to their calculation in returning from Mount Sinai. They refer to him as, “this man Moses” not “our teacher Moses.” (Shemot 32:1). They demonstrated no grief or sadness when they assumed that he was dead. The first thing they desired was a new leader.
In the incident of the rebellion of Korach, the importance of Aaron to the people becomes highlighted. Moses who is already used to the complaints of the people is truly surprised that they are now complaining about Aaron. (See Bamidbar 16:11). He had to argue that it was due to the will of God that Aaron received the priesthood. (See Rashi Ad Locum.)
After the test of the incense, (K’toret) the people became even angrier at both Moses and Aaron and viewed the incense as an instrument of death. That occasioned a plague in which almost 15,000 people died. Moses thus commands Aaron to take the incense pan and stand as a barrier between the dead and the living, between life and death. According to tradition, Aaron took hold of the Angel of Death and stopped his progress. Thus the people saw Aaron as their savior and were extremely grateful to him. (See Bamidbar 17:13 and Rashi Ad Locum.)
It was the reaction of the people to the deaths of Moses and Aaron which fully demonstrated their true feelings. When Moses died the Torah states, “the Children of Israel grieved for Moses in Arvot Moav for 30 days.” (Devarim 34:8.) When Aaron died, the text is different. “All the community saw that Aaron had passed away and they grieved for Aaron 30 days, the whole house of Israel.” (Bamidbar 20:29).
The death of Aaron made a deeper impression on the people than the death of Moses. At first they refused to believe it. “When they saw Moses and Elazar descending from the Mountain without Aaron, they asked Moses, “where is Aaron?” He said to them, “he is dead.” They then said, “is it possible for one who stood against the Angel of Death and stopped the plague (at the incident of Korach) for the Angel of Death to have any power over him?” They finally only believed he was dead when the ministering angels showed them Aaron lying on his death bed. (Rashi Ad Locum.)
The explanation for this great love is explained by the fact that Aaron was the man of peace, always pursued it, and attempted to establish it at every possibility. If he witnessed an argument between two people or a man and his wife, he was not above compromising the truth to establish peace between the warring individuals. (See Avot, 1:12 commentary of Bartenura.) This pursuit of peace of Aaron is further highlighted in the Avot D’Rabbi Natan. “[Aaron] . . .never said to a man ‘you have sinned’ or to woman ‘you have sinned.’ That is why it states ‘the whole house of Israel (both men and women) grieved for him.’ (Upon the death of Moses, however) who chastised them with harsh words, it (only) states ‘the children of Israel grieved for him.’” (Avot D’Rabbi Natan 12:4)
God understood that the people needed both Moses and Aaron. They needed a leader who would be a lawgiver and who would teach and chastise them. But they also needed someone they could relate to on a personal level. How could average people possibly relate to Moses? How could they relate to someone who had to wear a mask because his face was glowing from divine interaction?
Now that we analyzed the different types of leadership of Moses and Aaron, it is interesting to note that they both met their downfall at the same incident, at the Mei Meriva or waters of strife. After the death of Miriam, the people clamor for water. God tells Moses to speak to a rock and it will gush forth with water. Moses and Aaron gather the people. Moses then rebukes them for being rebels. He then hits the rock and it gushes forth water. By hitting the rock instead of talking to it, God is angry with Moses and Aaron and punishes them by not allowing them to enter the land of Israel.
One of the greatest conundrums in the Torah is why Moses and Aaron were punished so severely for this incident. Another difficulty is that although both Moses and Aaron gathered the people together, the damning words were spoken by Moses and the hitting of the rock was done by Moses. Why was it necessary for Aaron to be equally punished?
One possible answer is as follows: Moses was tasked with leading the Jewish people out of slavery in Egypt and into the promised land. Aaron was tasked with assisting Moses. Together, they led the people through the greatest redemption and miracles in history and the greatest revelation in history, as well as through rebellions, war, plagues and ultimately 40 years traveling in the desert. Would it be fitting or historically acceptable for the entire nation that left Egypt to perish in the desert without reaching their goal (except for Joshua and Caleb) while its leaders enter the promised land without them?
God understood that a shepherd does not abandon his flock. The punishment for Moses and Aaron at Mei Meriva was merely a pretext. God needed a reason for keeping Moses and Aaron from leaving their flock behind. And it is for this reason that despite Moses’s protests, God refuses to relent in his punishment. Thus, by dying in the wilderness together with the people they led out of slavery, the leadership of Moses and Aaron was as great in death as it was in life.