In Parshas Chukas, we read of the petirah (passing) of Aharon and Miriam. Let us examine some of the unusual qualities of these great leaders of our nation and try to understand why the deaths of both Aharon and Miriam appear in our parshah.

Although Miriam passed away at the end of the 40-year journey in the desert, the Torah juxtaposes her death to the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah, which is presented at the beginning of our parshah. The Gemara notes that the two are connected: "Just as the Parah Adumah atones, so does the death of tzaddikim (the righteous - i.e. Miriam) atone." (Moed Katan 28a, Rashi on Bamidbar 20:1, Sifsei Chachamim ibid.)

Tosafos (Moed Katan ibid. d.h. "Mah Parah Adumah") notes that the atonement provided by the Parah Adumah was for the Chet Ha-Egel (Sin of the Calf) - that the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah served to rectify the Chet Ha-Egel. (See Rashi on Bamidbar 19:2 from Midrash Agadah and Tanchuma.) The first d'var Torah on Parshas Chukas in this series explained the connection of the Parah Adumah and the Chet Ha-Egel: in commission of the Chet Ha-Egel, the people approached Torah subjectively, reasoning that Moshe Rabbeinu would not return from his ascent to Har Sinai - despite Moshe's indication to the contrary - and the people then creatively deciding on their own how to serve Hashem in the absence of Moshe Rabbeinu, rather that submitting to objective halachic practice. This creative, subjective approach to Halacha led to pure idolatry. The mitzvah of the Parah Adumah serves to rectify this ill, as performance of the Parah Adumah reflects submission to God's Will even though it contradicts human logic (for the Parah Adumah defiles the pure and purifies the defiled - a paradoxical notion which flies in the face of human comprehension).

The passing on of tzaddikim is part of this concept as well. When tzaddikim are in our midst, one is more readily able to feel closer to Hashem, as the inspiration provided by tzaddikim and their holy ways create a stronger awareness of God's presence. When tzaddikim depart from our world, the inspiration and ready awareness of God that their presence engender are lacking. Nonetheless, the community is charged to carry forth in God's service despite the void.

This is the connection to the Parah Adumah. The mitzvah of the Parah Adumah reflects submission to Hashem's command and authority when it is difficult, as the Parah Adumah contradicts human logic. Performance of the Parah Adumah atones for our previous failure in this challenge, as we fulfill the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah and overcome the religious struggle which it presents. So, too, carrying forth to perform mitzvos and live a Torah life, when lacking the inspiration and ready awareness of God's presence which are manifest by the existence of tzaddikim among us, atones for lapses in religious fervor and is a significant zechus (merit) for the community.

Why do we learn this lesson specifically from the petirah of Miriam rather than from the petirah of other tzaddikim?

Chazal relate that the be'er (water spring) which accompanied Bnei Yisroel in the midbar (desert) existed in the zechus of Miriam. (Taanis 9a, Rashi on 20:2) As symbolized by the be'er, Miriam's role was always one of providing for and taking care of her people, as we read regarding her protection and tending to the needs of her infant brother Moshe (Shmos chap. 2) and her position as one of the Jewish midwives, who did her utmost to physically care for and protect the Hebrew babies. (See Rashi on Shmos 1:16.)

The death of Miriam signified the departure of a tzadeikes (righteous woman) whose presence created an awareness of Hashem and whose provision of her people was unparalleled. Carrying on with dedicated service of God in the absence of the inspiring and providing persona of Miriam was the ultimate challenge - for she invoked both physical and spiritual nourishment for her nation - and overcoming this challenge granted atonement of the highest order.

Although Hashem declared at Merivah that Aharon (and Moshe) would not live to enter Eretz Yisroel, the petirah of Aharon occurred somewhat later, immediately after the encounter between Bnei Yisroel and Edom (Eisav). Rashi (on Bamidbar 20:23, from Tanchuma - and see Bamidbar Rabbah 19:16) explains that the attempt by Bnei Yisroel to draw near to the wicked Edom resulted in the passing of Aharon immediately thereafter as a punishment for the people. What does this mean? Was the mere physical proximity of Bnei Yisroel to Edom grounds for punishment? Did the geographical closeness of the two nations pose such problems?

We find that similar to the approach of Bnei Yisroel near Edom and their peaceful overtures to Edom requesting the right of safe passage through its territory (20:14-19), Bnei Yisroel drew near to Sichon King of Moav and made peaceful overtures to him to be granted safe passage through his land (21:21). However, Bnei Yisroel were not chastised or punished for coming close to Sichon or for making peaceful overtures to him. (See Sifsei Chachamim ibid.) Why was it different in the case of Edom? Although Sichon did not enjoy a reputation for wickedness, as far as we know, we can pretty safely assume that he was not a tzaddik. If so, why were Bnei Yisroel not criticized or punished for drawing near to Sichon, his nation and his territory?

Unlike with Sichon, Bnei Yisroel appealed to Edom as family. "Thus says your brother Yisroel: You know the difficulties which we experienced...please let us pass through your land..." (20:14, 17) Although the motivation of the Jews was pure, they invoked family ties in order to gain favor from Edom. Hashem disapproved of the Jews' physical proximity with Edom in the context of brotherly overtures - even for a most worthy and necessary cause. This quasi-familial close encounter with Edom led to punishment, embodied by the petirah of Aharon. The underlying concept here seems to be that one should not enter into fraternal relationships and establish camaraderie with the wicked, regardless of the practical gains from such relationships. How, though, does this relate to Aharon?

Aharon was the paradyne man of peace. He was "rodef sholom, ohaiv sholom, ohaiv as ha-b'riyos u-mekarvan La-Torah" - "a pursuer of peace, one who loves peace, loves people and brings them close to the Torah". (Hillel in Avos 1:14) Aharon would do everything to make peace between spouses and acquaintances, and through his Avodah (sacrificial service), Aharon made peace between God and Man. (See Rashi from Agadah on Shmos 20:22.)

Despite these wonderful character traits of Aharon, he was true to Torah and did not risk or compromise its fulfillment. On the other hand, drawing near to Edom while appealing to him as a brother was a perversion of the idea of sholom. Although it may have seemed to be consistent with Aharon's mission of peace, it jeopardized the religious integrity of the nation and was surely not within the bounds of the paths of peace which Aharon pursued. On the contrary, it was a distortion of the concept of sholom which Aharon embodied, and perhaps this failure to appreciate the genuine concept of sholom for which Aharon stood resulted in his departure from Bnei Yisroel at that juncture.