Moshe will lead the people to the limits of Canaan, but will not cross the Jordan River. That was the Lord’s command. Vaetchanan, and Moshé requested that this severe decree be modified, but his prayers do not obtain the desired response. Mipnei ma nitaveh Moshe leekanes leErets Israel, “Why did Moshe want to enter the Land of Israel?”, asks the Talmud. The reason that Moshe yearned to delight in the abundant and wonderful fruits of that land, is ruled out. After all, the individual who exemplifies devotion to an ideal and total surrender to the necessities of his people will refrain from attempting to alter the Divine will for personal gain. The Chachamim maintain that Moshe knew that many Mitsvot were applicable only in Erets Israel and had an irresistible desire to comply with them, in order to observe all possible ordinances of the Creator.
The Chachamim describe a dialogue with God in which Moshe alleges that whoever saved the Jews from Egypt is the one who must accompany them in the conquest of the Promised Land. But God answers him: Shisha avonot asita, you committed, Moshe, six faults and therefore you cannot enter Canaan. What were these failures of Moshe?
The first offense refers to the fact that at the beginning of his designation to save our ancestors, Moshe reacts saying shelaj na beyad tishlaj, send Your messages by the hand of the one you are to send. This was a manifestation of Moshe’s unwillingness to fulfill the Divine mandate. Perhaps it shows a dose of shyness and a lack of self-esteem and, therefore, Moshe should not be blamed. However, the lesson it must teach is that the response to a burdened society must take precedence over any personal consideration.
Moshe’s impatience in his negotiations with Par’o, that is the Pharaoh, is the subject of his second mistake. Moshe’s intervention before Par’o results in the cessation of delivery of certain materials, and required that the Hebrews make the same quantity of bricks daily. Therefore, Moshé exclaims, “from the moment I appeared before Par’o to speak to him in Your Name, the situation of Your people worsened,” Vehatsel lo hitsalta et ameja, “and you did not liberate Your people.”
Moshe does not know the scope of the Divine plan that includes the “hardening” of Par’os heart, for probable didactic purposes. (This hardening of Par’o’s heart was commented in our installments on Shemot, Exodus, although briefly, due to the collision between the essential principle of human freedom and Divine intervention that alters or influences our will to action). We are faced with one of the main dilemmas in any theological system, because limited human intelligence cannot encompass the ultimate purpose of infinite Divine wisdom. We come to our conclusions, therefore, on the basis of limited knowledge. However, Moshe’s mentioned reaction in this case is a new manifestation of insufficient faith in the Divine conduct of events. Certainty in the Providence of God requires trusting in “kol ma deavid rachmana letav avid”, that the purpose and result of all Divine intervention are for our benefit.
Moshe shows a third doubt when the people demand meat, because they are fed up and tired of “Man”, the manna that descended from above. Moshe’s hesitant reaction to the request of his people, demonstrates uncertainty about the Divine ability to provide the meat that people ask for in the desert.
During the episode of the desert rebellion, Moshe publicly proclaims that if Korach dies a natural death, it can be concluded that lo “HaShem shelajani”, that it was not God who sent me. It follows then that in the event of Korach’s natural death, Moshe would have ceased to be God’s envoy and would have become a political leader who appeals to the national sentiments of the people. From the biblical prism there is no separation between faith and nationalism. For example, for the people the “Regalim”, the religious holidays, have at the same time a national meaning. Samuel Belkin, the late president of Yeshiva University of New York, teaches that for Philo, the ideal system of government for the Jewish people is a theocracy, that is, a democracy based on the principles of the Jewish religious tradition.
In the episode of Marah when the people complain about the lack of water, Moshe hits the rock so that the precious liquid sprouts. In the opinion of some, the transgression consisted in hitting the rock in this case, instead of speaking to it, as the Lord had indicated. Others believe that Moshe’s sin lies in his referring to our ancestors with the expression “Shim’u na hamorim”, “listen to me now, you rebellious people.
A leader dare not disrespect his people and cannot underestimate the dignity of his followers. The adjective “hamorim”, rebels, was a demonstration that Moshe was losing objectivity, as well as respect for his followers, whom he apparently stopped valueing properly. He who guides the destinies of a nation and awakens the inspiration of the masses, must show appreciation and love for his people, at all times.
Moshe’s sixth and final mistake consists in his disregard for the replacement generation that had to expand, deepen and strengthen tradition and the recently acquired notion of freedom. Moshe designates the children of those who left Egypt as “tarbut anashim chataim”, those who want to follow the path of the sinful.
The reasons mentioned do not appear to be sufficient to justify the severe punishment Moshe receives of not setting foot in the land of Canaan. Moshe, according to our Chachamim, presents an additional argument in his dialogue with God. Moshe reasons as follows: Yosef, who devoted his whole life to the development of society and the Egyptian nation, was buried in Israel. Therefore, it is unfair that he, Moshe, who dedicated all his energies to bring the chosen people to the chosen land, should be buried outside Israel, in an unknown place.
God’s response is cutting and hurtful: “Mi shehodé beartsó nikbar beartsó”, he who recognizes his land (his origin) is buried in his land. Yosef identifies himself at all times as a Hebrew. Potiphar’s wife knows him as such, like the baker and butler of Par’o, when Yosef says “gunov gunavti meErets haivrim”, I was kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews. Instead, Moshe at first, did not identify himself as a member of the enslaved people. Upon receiving Moshe’s help, Yitr’o’s daughters tell their father: “Ish mitsrí hitsilanu”, an Egyptian man saved us, because Moshe did not let them know that he was a Hebrew.
Yosef was born in Canaan, but was educated and prospered in Egypt. It is clear that the impact of the years of his childhood and youth was indelible. Therefore, our Chachamim suggest that the wagons that Yosef sends to his elderly father, after seventeen years of absence, remind Yaacov of the law of “egla arufa” that both had commented on years ago. Because Girsa deyankuta dela mishtakjei, “the learning of youth is not forgotten” and apparently Yosef still remembered the theme of the last lesson he had studied with his father. Moshe, on the other hand, was born in Egypt and his cultural environment was the Egyptian Royal Court. In the course of his adult life, Moshe searches for and finds his ancestral roots. Then a metamorphosis occurs in his personality. But Moshe’s “girsa deyankuta”, the guardianship and care he received in his childhood in the court of Par’o are also part of his personal composition. Moshe acquired a regal air and bearing during those formative years alongside Par’o’s daughter, that later allowed him to assume the role of leading the exodus of the Jewish people from slavery to freedom. But those years in the palace were decisive in its formation, leaving a mark that may have also compromised his total identification with the destiny of its people.
