The Cow and the Rock

 Rashi, in his commentary on the Chumash, often asks why certain sections were placed near each other if, as is often taught, the text need not be presented in strictly chronological order. Once the timeline is not the defining feature, there must be a reason why certain stories, laws or events are related in the text when and where they are. One such question is presented in the beginning of Parshat Chukat. The laws surrounding the Red Heifer are followed immediately by the story of Miriam's death. Rashi asks why they are contiguous and explains that it shows the power of the death of a righteous person to help bring about atonement in a way similar to that of the ashes of the heifer.

I'm a big fan of Rashi and I don't totally object to his point but I think he misses a bigger picture here. No offense Rashi.

The story of Miriam's death can't be taken in a vacuum. The text says nothing about atonement and the story, in fact, has significantly larger implications -- what Rashi should be discussing is the proximity of the Red Heifer laws to the events surrounding the consequences of Miriam's death which are the continuation of that section of the parsha -- Moshe's hitting a rock.

So first, let's set up the situation. The people have been in the desert for 40 or so years and are ready to take on the task of moving in to the land of K'na'an and worshipping God there, in the place that he has chosen. They have been raised from the servitude of Egypt and are now on a lofty height (thus the text has them say that God "lifted them up"). They know that their state of ritual purity is incredibly important and are ready to be pure and follow God's will (yes, I know that this overly charitable presentation of their collective personality ignores certain problems but hey, I'm just a guy with an idea). They/we are told of an important law which they learned 38 years earlier (according to notes in the Stone edition Chumash) - that of the Red Heifer. An essential component of this and other purification rituals is water but with the death of Miriam, the guaranteed source of water disappears. The people are disconsolate and complain -- the Ha'amek Davar says that this was Hashem's way of getting them ready to deal with normal and natural cycles of the year -- (and, again, being charitable, I would assume not that they lack faith and think they will simply die but that they fear they would die in a state of ritual impurity as all the functions of purification dependent on water would be impossible).

[I'm not expert in the Chatam Sofer, but he seems to be saying that not having water is equated to not having Torah and the fruits listed in Bamidbar 20:5 relate to specific commandments that are impossible to fulfill in the desert. And if I'm misunderstanding, well then, I'm gonna stick with my reading anyway.]

Now, Moshe had a little experience making water out of nothing at all. In Sh'mot 17:5-7, Hashem tells Moshe to hit a rock and bring forth water. There is no particular explanation in the text as to why hitting is the method chosen -- God says hit, you hit. The Malbim makes the case that, had the people been deserving, talking to the rock would have sufficed but they weren't on that level yet. That subtlety does not appear to have been given to Moshe, or else he would have known that Hashem's telling him to speak to the rock in Chukat was a compliment to the people, that they are on that higher level. So Moshe, without knowing a particular reason, does what God commands and hits the rock, and he does so in public. It makes no sense (the staff had been used to change the water of the Nile and Moshe lifted it up to bring about the splitting of the Reed Sea) but God says so, so that's what you do. You do it in public and you show that God's command is powerful. This will be really important in a moment -- stick with me.

So in Chukat, Moshe is told to speak to the rock. No reason why speaking is now the method, but that's God's will. According to some commentators, Moshe didn't know which rock was the right one so he spoke to a few and nothing happened so he fell back on the tried and true method of hitting. So now, what do the people see? They see Moshe second guessing God's command! Hashem's telling Moshe to speak or hit is a prime example of a chok -- a law that has no particular stated explanation or reason and might not even make logical sense. But we do it because God said so. So when Moshe hits the rock instead of speaking to it, he is undermining the authority of the chok, questioning it and replacing it with his own logical reasoning.

Why is this story told here? Because the driving point of the beginning, the Red Heifer section is that power and primacy of Hashem's laws even when we don't know the reason. By using his personal thinking and hitting the rock, Moshe undercuts the power of that chok, and by extension, every chok, as typified by the quintessential chok, that of the Red Heifer. When Hashem castigates Moshe and Aharon it is for not believing (accepting without evidence) and therefore not sanctifying Hashem in public. When they hit the rock all those years ago, they WERE sanctifying Hashem by doing what he told them to, in public. But now, in public, they tried to out think Hashem and rely on experiential evidence instead of doing what the current chok demanded. Why then, Hashem is saying, would anyone of the people listen to any chok, if the leaders don't? What's the point of teaching the Red Heifer laws and expecting compliance if the leadership teaches that it is ok to use personal and human reasoning to decide what laws mean and when we have to follow them?

This wasn't about water, but about a missed opportunity to do what Hashem commanded. The series of chukim are equivalent -- we are supposed to do them without questioning and trying to figure them out. When Moshe hit the rock, he set the faith of the people back and this compromises the value and authority of all Torah laws.

At least that's my take on why the stories are related next to each other.