על אשר מעלתם בו בתוך בני ישראל במי מריבת קדש מדבר צן על אשר לא קדשתם אותו בתוך בני ישראל
(דברים כב:נא)
“Because you betrayed Me in the midst of Bnei Yisroel at Mei Merivah, (in) the desert of Tzin, (and) because you did not sanctify Me in the midst of the Bnei Yisroel,” (Devarim 32:51).
The midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:9) asks: Why was Aharon punished for Moshe’s hitting the rock at Mei Merivah? What did he do to deserve to be punished and not being able to enter Eretz Yisroel? The midrash answers with a mashal, an analogy: What happened can be compared to a lender who came to collect what was owed to him from the grains of the borrower. He didn’t find enough grains in the house of the borrower, so he also took from the borrower’s neighbor. The borrower said to the lender, “It’s true that I owe you money, but why does my neighbor owe you money?”
The midrash learns from this case that not only do wrongdoers have to pay for their actions but, sometimes, other people also pay for the misdeeds of others. Therefore, just like the neighbor had to pay the borrower’s debt, even though he never borrowed anything from him; so too, Aharon was punished for Moshe’s hitting of the rock, even though he didn’t do anything wrong.
Zera Shimshon says that the exact case of this mashal has to be understood further. It makes no sense! How can the one who lent the money collect his debt from the neighbor? It is simply thievery! And, if for some reason he has the right, why did the borrower complain and not the neighbor? The borrower really owed money and it is the neighbor who was losing money illegally and not the borrower.
He answers—in light of the halacha in Choshen Mishpat (99:6)—that if Shimon owes money to Reuven and Shimon gives his possessions to Levi in order that Reuven—the lender—will not be able to collect his debt, the gift to Shimon is invalid and not binding. Reuven, therefore, can collect the possessions from Levi.
According to this, Zera Shimshon explains that the incident of the analogy is speaking about such a case. The borrower gave his grains to his neighbor in order that his lender would not be able to collect them. The neighbor made a mistake to allow him to do this because he was helping the borrower doing something against halacha. Now that, however, it is done, he cannot stop the lender from taking those grains—even though he also took some of the neighbor’s grains, since the borrower can’t discern which grains were owned by the borrower and which ones were the neighbor’s.
The lender really didn’t do anything wrong, he was only trying to get what was rightfully and halachically his, and, therefore, the neighbor cannot prevent the lender from taking his grain. In addition to this, the neighbor’s loss is only temporary; he will eventually bring witnesses that the lender didn’t only take the grains of the one who owed him money, but he also took from his grains and the lender will have to return all that he took of the neighbor’s grains.
The borrower, however, could complain. In order that the neighbor would not have complaints against him that his misdeed caused, he would have to spend money to find those witnesses who saw the exact amount of grains were the borrower’s.
According to this, Zera Shimshon explains how the analogy corresponds to Aharon’s punishment in the following way: Obviously, the one who owes money corresponds to Moshe—in that both deserve to be punished for what they did—and the neighbor corresponds to Aharon who were both punished for someone else’s actions.
Although it would seem that both the neighbor and Aharon didn’t do anything wrong, this isn’t totally true. In both cases, they should have prevented the primary wrongdoer from doing what he did; Aharon should have prevented Moshe from hitting the rock and the neighbor should have prevented the borrower from mixing his grains with his.
The truth is that Aharon’s mistake was really very small. As, before Bnei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel, there was no mitzvah to rebuke. The obligation to rebuke only began after Bnei Yisroel crossed the Yarden River. This being so, it comes out that there is even an issur to rebuke since the wrongdoer will be embarrassed for no reason! When the Torah gave the commandment to rebuke, included in this obligation, the Torah waived the prohibition to embarrass (as much as possible). If this is true, why then was Aharon punished?
The answer is that the fact that Moshe hit the rock was a chillul Hashem, like it is written, “asher lo kidashtem osoh—because you didn’t sanctify Him …” and the opposite of to sanctify is to disgrace. It is written in the Gemara, “Bemakom chillul Hashem, ain cholkim kavod lerav—When there is a chillul Hashem, we do not give honor to the rebbe.” In other words, one must prevent the aveira of chillul Hashem, even at the cost of causing embarrassment to the wrongdoer. Therefore, even though it looks like Aharon didn’t do anything wrong at all, since he could have prevented Moshe’s chillul Hashem and he didn’t, he was also punished.
Zera Shimshon uses this understanding that Aharon’s sin was a mistake—in the understanding of the mitzvah to rebuke—to answer another well-known question: Why did Hashem punish Moshe and Aharon by not letting them enter Eretz Yisroel for hitting the rock? How is not coming into Eretz Yisroel at all connected to hitting the rock?
Zera Shimshon explains that since Aharon’s mistake was because there was not yet the mitzvah to rebuke wrongdoers and this mitzvah started when Bnei Yisroel entered Eretz Yisroel, Hashem had him pass away in the desert, so people wouldn’t discuss his aveira. And since Aharon’s sin was only secondary to Moshe’s, there was also a decree that Moshe couldn’t enter Eretz Yisroel.
To automatically receive a dvar Torah from Zera Shimshon every week, email [email protected].
