In Parshas Chukas, we read of the petirah (passing on) 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", citing the Medrash) notes that the atonement provided by the Parah Adumah is for the Chet Ha-Egel (Sin of the Golden Calf) - the mitzvah of the Parah Adumah serves as expiation for the Chet Ha-Egel. The first d'var Torah on Parshas Chukas in this series explained the connection of the Parah Adumah with 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 thereupon creatively decided on their own how to serve Hashem in the absence of Moshe Rabbeinu, rather than submitting to objective halachic mandate. 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 mitzvah of Parah Adumah reflects submission to God's Will even when 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 close to Hashem, as the inspiration provided by tzaddikim and their holy ways creates a stronger awareness of God's presence. When tzaddikim depart from the world, the inspiration and ready awareness of God that their presence engenders 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. 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 heightened 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 B'nei Yisroel in the Midbar (Desert) existed in the zechus of Miriam. (Taanis 9a, Rashi on Bamidbar 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 (Shemos ch. 2) and her position as one of the Jewish midwives, who did her utmost to physically care for and protect the Jewish babies. (V. Rashi on Shemos 1:16.)

The death of Miriam signified the departure of a tzadeikes (righteous woman) and nevi'ah (prophetess) whose presence created an awareness of Hashem and whose provision of her people was unparalleled. Carrying forth the Divine mandate in the Desert in the absence of the inspiring and providing persona of Miriam was a substantial challenge - for Miriam 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 B'nei Yisroel and Edom (Eisav). Rashi (on Bamidbar 20:23, from Tanchuma - and v. Bamidbar Rabbah 19:16) explains that the attempt by B'nei 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 B'nei 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 B'nei Yisroel near Edom and the peaceful overtures of B'nei Yisroel to Edom requesting the right of safe passage through its territory (Bamidbar 20:14-19), B'nei 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, B'nei Yisroel were not chastised or punished for coming close to Sichon or for making peaceful overtures to him. (V. 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 B'nei Yisroel not criticized or punished for drawing near to Sichon, his nation and his territory?

Unlike with Sichon, B'nei 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 B'nei Yisroel was pure, they invoked family ties in order to find favor with Edom. Hashem disapproved of the physical proximity of B'nei Yisroel with Edom in the context of brotherly overtures, even for a most worthy and necessary cause, as Edom represented the spiritual antithesis of B'nei Yisroel, and B'nei Yisroel ought to have avoided any familial-phyiscal proximity with Edom, as did Yaakov Avinu (Bereshis 33:12-17), who was well aware of the pernicious religious effects of forging a bond with Eisav (Edom) when he was invited to unite with him in his land. This quasi-familial close encounter of B'nei Yisroel 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? In what way is his petirah linked with any of this? 

Aharon was the quintessential man of peace. He was "rodef sholom, ohaiv sholom, ohaiv as ha-beriyos 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 between acquaintances, and through his Avodah (sacrificial service), Aharon made peace between God and man. (V. Rashi from Agadah on Shemos 20:22.)

Despite these wonderful character traits of Aharon, he was true to the Torah and did not risk or compromise its fulfillment; Aharon's acts pf peacemaking were in consonance with the Torah and never at its expense. In contrast, drawing near to Edom while appealing to him as a brother was a perversion of the idea of sholom. It was not consistent with Aharon's mission of peace, as it jeopardized the religious integrity of the nation and was thus a distortion of the concept of sholom which Aharon embodied.

Perhaps we can now better understand Chazal's explanation that Aharon passed away as a punishment for B'nei Yisroel drawing near to Edom - for the failure to appreciate the genuine concept of sholom for which Aharon stood, and the contravention of the notion of true sholom as represented by Aharon when B'nei Yisroel approached Edom, resulted in Aharon's departure from B'nei Yisroel at that specific juncture.