Why did Klal Yisrael bring the red heifer to Moshe and Aharon?

(19,1) And Hashem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying. This is a statute of the Torah which Hashem commanded, saying: Speak to the children of Yisrael and have them bring to you a perfectly red unblemished cow…And you shall give it to Elozor the Kohen…

The repetition of the word “saying” in this posuk is seemingly superfluous - it should have been sufficient to say “speak to the children of Yisrael…”. But it seems to me that it can be explained as follows:

Chazal said that the red heifer is a statute - a non-understandable law. But actually they gave us a reason for this law, explaining that since it is coming to atone for the sin of the golden calf, let the mother come and clean up the mess that her son made.

So what really makes this law a statute, is the fact that the Kohen Godol is displaced from performing the mitzvah of the red heifer, and it was given to the deputy Kohen Godol. But really this also has a reason: the red heifer is coming to atone for the sin of the calf which could not have been made without Aharon, and since it was made through him, “the accuser cannot become the defender”, and so it had to be done through Elozor. And if in subsequent times it was done by a Kohen Godol, and only Aharon had been displaced, it would have been clear to everybody that he sinned with the calf, and his disgrace would have been very great. Therefore, in order not to shame Aharon, Hashem commanded that for all generations the mitzvah of the red heifer should be performed only by the deputy, and thereby it would not be clear that this was because of Aharon, but rather people would assume that thus did Hashem’s wisdom decree.

Now, since Klal Yisrael are bringing the red heifer, they are the owners, and will therefore receive atonement through it, as is the case with all atonements. But since Aharon also sinned, he also needed to have a portion in this cow. But it was impossible to bring it also from Aharon, because if Aharon gave by himself without Moshe also giving, then his disgrace would be clear. And to have Moshe also give was impossible, because he did not need the atonement, and it would result in someone who is not relevant to this atonement having a portion in the sacrifice, and it would be like changing the owner, and so would prevent the sacrifice from atoning. Thus it was impossible to take either from Moshe or from Aharon, and if so, how would Aharon have a portion in it?

Therefore, Hashem commanded that it be handed over to Aharon, and that he, with his own hand, would hand it over to Elozor, and with this it would be considered that he also has a portion in this atonement. But if it was done like that, Yisrael would still sense that Aharon had a part in the sin of the calf. Therefore, Hashem commanded that Moshe should also join him, and in fact, Yisrael should bring the heifer to Moshe, and Moshe would see to it that he and Aharon would hand it over to Elozor, and Moshe’s participation in such a fashion would not invalidate the sacrifice. Thus, Yisrael will not realise that it is because of Aharon’s sin, since Moshe had no part in the sin of the calf, and yet he is handing it over. Therefore, they will say that the whole mitzvah is a statute, without any reason. But the truth is that it was done for the sake of Aharon, so as not to embarrass him, and therefore Moshe joined him in the handing over.

Thus, the main reason for the red heifer was permitted to be told to Yisrael. But these two matters, that they should bring it to Moshe who had no part in this atonement, and that he and Aharon would hand it over, and also that it should be given to Elozor and not the Kohen Godol, this was to be a statute - that even though Moshe knew the reason, but he was not allowed to tell this reason to Yisrael. This is also the meaning of the Midrash, which says: To you I am revealing the reason of the red heifer, but to others it is a statute.

This is what the posuk is saying “this is a statute of the Torah which Hashem commanded, saying” - saying: that to others it is a statute, even though the reason has been revealed to you. And they will learn that it is a statute from the fact that they have to bring the cow to you. Therefore, the fact that both you and Aharon have to hand it over to Elozor the Kohen, and that the mitzvah is not performed by the Kohen Godol, will also be a statute to them. But the main reason for the red heifer it is permissible to tell them.

Why does it say that Miriam died there?

(20,1) And the children of Yisrael, the whole congregation, arrived at the wilderness of Tzin in the first month, and the people settled in Kadesh; and Miriam died there and was buried there.

Rashi explained that Miriam also died through a kiss from Hashem’s mouth, rather than from the Angel of death. But it is not clear why Rashi is explaining this here, or indeed from where he knows this. However, it seems to me that Rashi is coming to explain the words “and Miriam died there”, because the word ‘there’ is seemingly superfluous, since it is obvious that she died there.

Now, it is explained in several seforim that someone who has had death decreed upon him, even though he still continues to live here on earth, nevertheless, in Heaven he is already considered dead, as it is written in the responsa of the Maharil, and I have already written about this at length in several places. But this is only true about someone who dies through the angel of death, because since the matter is handed over to the angel of death, an announcement is made about him before he is handed over. But someone who dies through Hashem Himself, and his death is not handed over to any creation, no announcement is made about him above, and so he is not considered dead until he actually dies, and not before.

This is what Rashi was coming to explain - “Miriam died there”, and not before, and this can only be if Miriam died with a kiss from Hashem’s mouth.

Why did Yisrael quarrel only with Moshe and not with Aharon?

(20,2) The congregation had no water and they assembled against Moshe and against Aharon. And the people quarrelled with Moshe, and they said: If only we had died with the death of our brothers before Hashem.

The Alshich asked a question here, that in the beginning it wrote that they assembled against both Moshe and Aharon, but afterwards it wrote that they quarrelled with Moshe alone.

It seems to me that to answer this we need to understand what they meant when they said “if only we had died the death of our brothers”. The Ohr HaChaim explained that they were complaining to Moshe for praying for them that they should not die in the plague of pestilence, which occurred earlier. But if so, their complaint was very unreasonable, because Moshe was not to know that Miriam would die and that there would be no water, and so he had obviously prayed for their good.

However, the explanation is that Yisrael made a mistake and thought that the water was in the merit of Moshe and Aharon, and that if they wanted then certainly they would have water. Therefore, it must be that they were holding it back because they hated Yisrael, and were not concerned for their welfare.

According to this they had two complaints. Firstly, they assembled against both Moshe and Aharon to complain to them for holding back good from them, since it was within their power to give water. But it was not pertinent that there should be a quarrel about this - just because somebody holds back some good from his fellow should he quarrel with him because of it? Is he obligated to do him good? But against Moshe they had both a quarrel and a complaint. They said: Either way - if you are not concerned for our welfare, then you should have let us die when our brothers died before Hashem, and you should not have prayed for us. And if you are concerned about our welfare, why did you bring us to this wilderness, and then hold back from us water. So it seems that either way you are not concerned for our welfare. Thus they quarrelled with him. But with Aharon they did not have such an argument, and therefore they did not quarrel with him.