Moshe Begins to
Take a Back Seat
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parshat Matot,
5765
The latter portion of the book of
BaMidbar describes a profound changing of the guard in terms of Jewish
leadership. Parshat Chukat first relates the death of Miriam
(20:1) followed by the Divine Decree that neither Moshe nor Aharon will enter
In Parshat Matot (BaMidbar
31:21-24), we read about Aharon’s son Elazar’s first solo course of
action[2]
in his new position, i.e., his issuing of instructions to the returning
combatants from the war against Midian.
And Elazar the Priest said to the
men of war which went to the battle: This is the statute of the Tora
that HaShem Commanded Moshe.
Only the gold, the silver, the
brass, the iron, the tin and the lead, everything that can pass through the
fire, you shall make it go through the fire and it shall be ritually pure.
Nevertheless it shall (also) be
purified with the “waters of sprinkling” (a reference to the waters in which are
mixed the ashes of the Red Heifer—see BaMidbar 19:1-22) and all that does not
pass through the fire you shall (at least) make go through the water.
And you shall wash your clothes on
the seventh day and you shall be ritually pure, and afterwards you shall come
into the camp.
Since the Kohanim[3]
are the group in charge of the process of restoring ritual purity to anyone and
anything that have come into contact with dead bodies by means of sprinkling
water mixed with the ashes of a Red Heifer, it comes as no surprise that Elazar,
in his capacity as newly-appointed High Priest, would be conversant with the
rules that apply to those who have just returned from war and the spoils from
such a war that might have become ritually contaminated.
However, what is striking and
unique about this series of verses is Elazar taking the lead in
speaking to the warriors about the “Halachot”
(Jewish laws) that apply to their situation. For Elazar to play this role is
strange on at least three counts:
1) According to the Biblical text, Elazar’s
father Aharon never gave Halachic instructions on his own,[4]
and seems to always defer to Moshe in this regard. If Elazar is supposed to
replace his father, why in terms of publicly teaching Jewish law does he now
appear to surpass him?
2) Is it appropriate for Elazar to teach
Halacha in the presence of Moshe? Should he not have deferred to his uncle,
under the rubric of the principle, “Ein Talmid Rashai Lomar Davar Lifnai
Rabo” (a student is not to teach a matter [of Halacha] in the presence of
his teacher)?[5],[6]
2) Elazar never again is
quoted in the bible in any speaking context, Halachic or
otherwise.[7]
Consequently, one wonders why it is this particular matter in which he acts so
forthrightly and publicly.
An interesting ostensible clash of
Midrashic interpretations appears in the Oral Tradition, as part of an attempt
to try to account for Elazar’s presenting these Halachot at this particular
point in time. On the one hand, some sources identify a shortcoming in Moshe as
the catalyst for Elazar’s having to suddenly step in and
teach.
Sifre on BaMidbar 31:21 (cited by
RaShI)
Moshe Rabbeinu, because he became
angry (at the fact that the soldiers had taken Midianite women captive instead
of killing them, suggesting that the dangers of Ba’al Pe’or were still at
hand—see BaMidbar 25:1 ff.), erred (with regard to the proper Halacha).
R. Elazar says: In three places he
becomes angry which in turn causes him to err.
1) In a similar manner (VaYikra
2) In a similar manner (BaMidbar
3) So also here, (BaMidbar 31:14)
“And Moshe was angry with the officers of the army, the officers of the
thousands and the officers of the hundreds, who were coming from the war.”
Moshe Rabbeinu, because he became
angry, came to make an error...[9]
Whereas Sifre suggests that the
incident involving the returning soldiers from the Midianite war was part of a
consistent pattern of emotional upheavals leading to errors on Moshe’s part,
Pesachim points to the case of BaMidbar 31 as the prototypical example of this
principle regarding Moshe.
Pesachim
66b
Reish Lakish said: Regarding every
person who becomes angry, if he is a Sage, his wisdom departs from
him…
We learn this from Moshe. For it
is written (BaMidbar 31:14) “And Moshe was angry with the officers of the
army…”, and it is written, (Ibid. v. 21) “And Elazar the Priest said to the men
of war which went to the battle: This is the statute of the Tora that HaShem
Commanded Moshe,” where it follows that it had been forgotten by
Moshe…
According to MaLBIM’s
interpretation of the Sifre, as soon as it becomes apparent to Elazar that Moshe
was incapacitated by his anger from teaching the relevant Halachot properly,
Aharon’s son relied upon a principle delineated by Rava in Eiruvin
63a followed by an anecdote involving Ravina and R. Ashi, to justify
his action.
When it is a question of
preventing one from committing a transgression (in this case, had Elazar not
issued instructions regarding what to do with the captured vessels, they might
have been introduced into the encampment without the proper Kashering and
Purifying), it is quite proper for a student to teach a Halacha even in his
teacher’s presence (thereby taking away from the respect that he is obligated to
show for his teacher).
Ravina (the student) once sat in
the presence of R. Ashi (the teacher) when he (Ravina) observed that a certain
person was tying his donkey to a palm tree on Shabbat. He (Ravina) called out to
him, but the other took no notice. “Let this man”, he (Ravina) called out, “be
placed under the ban of excommunication” (a Halachic pronouncement that should
have been undertaken only by R. Ashi).[10]
“Does such an act as mine”, he
(Ravina) asked R. Ashi, “appear as disrespectful (to you, R.
Ashi)?”
(R. Ashi responded:) “(Mishlei
21:30) ‘There is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against
HaShem’—wherever the Divine Name is being profaned, no respect is to be shown
even to one’s teacher.”
Therefore the Sifre and Pesachim
would answer the three questions that we posed regarding Elazar’s precipitous
public teaching in the following manner:
1) Although Aharon may never have taught in
this way, it was necessary for Elazar to do so because otherwise HaShem’s Tora
would have been violated by improper use of the captured
vessels.
2) The honor of the teacher (Moshe) is
trumped by God’s Honor which would be violated if first Moshe and then Elazar
would not have spoken up.
3) For the rest of Moshe’s life, Elazar
never again found himself in such a situation and therefore he deferred to his
teacher in future Halachic matters.
The Sifre and Pesachim are
countered by a passage in Eiruvin, that finds fault not with Moshe, but rather
with Elazar.
Eiruvin 63a (cited by Chizkuni)
R. Eliezer said: He (who gives a
legal decision in the presence of his teacher) is deprived of his greatness.
For it is said, “And Elazar the
Priest said to the men of war which went to the battle: This is the statute of
the Tora that HaShem Commanded Moshe.”
Even though he said to them,
“HaShem Commanded my father’s brother (Moshe) and not me,” he was nevertheless
punished, as it is written, (BaMidbar 27:21) “And he (Yehoshua) shall stand
before Elazar the Priest”, and yet we never find that Yehoshua needed his
guidance.
It appears that according to R.
Eliezer in Eiruvin, simply paying lip service to one’s teacher, as Elazar
appears to do vis-à-vis Moshe, is not the same as receiving explicit permission
from him to publicly teach or decide Halacha. While the final view in
Kiddushin 32a is in accordance with R. Yosef who is of the opinion that a
teacher who voluntarily waives his right to being honored by his student, may do
so, R. Yitzchak ben Shila in the name of R. Matena in the name of R. Chisda
argues that a teacher’s honor is never his to renounce. The dispute in Kiddushin
centers on the premise that since the honor due to the teacher directly derives
from the Tora that he has learned and now represents, is the Tora ever truly
“his” to do with as he wishes?[11]
Consequently, if there is a Talmudic dispute even in a situation where the
teacher clearly articulates his intention to forgo any honor that a student
might want to extend towards him, it should be obvious that a student can never
simply presume that his teacher won’t mind if he would teach in his presence,
even after carefully to quoting the teacher as the source for his
pronouncements.[12]
The approach of Eiruvin would then
generate the following set of answers to our questions:
1) Just as Aharon was never presumptuous to
teach in the presence of Moshe without specific permission, Elazar should not
have been either.
2) Elazar could have asked Moshe for
permission, however pressing the situation may have appeared to him to
be.
3) Elazar regretted what he had done, and
never did it again.
It is not necessary to insist that
the two Talmudical sources are mutually exclusive. Whereas it is possible that
Moshe froze due to his anguish over the Midianite female war captives,
nevertheless, Elazar should have followed a protocol of asking Moshe’s
permission before teaching, in order to clarify whether he had the right to fill
the vacuum that his teacher had created. Perhaps it comes down to the time frame
with which Elazar was working, i.e., if he was afraid that at any moment someone
would improperly use some of the captured vessels, he did not have a moment to
lose, niceties and etiquette had to be ignored in order to protect HaShem’s
Honor in terms of observance of the Commandments. On the other hand, how long
could it have possibly taken to simply acknowledge Moshe’s presence and ask
permission to proceed? Great people are given a very narrow margin for error,[13]
and therefore whether the fault lay more with Moshe or with Elazar may be an
incredibly nuanced sort of issue.
Finally, Ibn Ezra on
BaMidbar 31:21 suggests that when in BaMidbar 19:3-5 Elazar is mentioned
specifically as the one who will prepare the first Red Heifer so that its ashes
can be used for purifying people and articles that are “Tamei Meit” (ritually
defiled by contact with the dead),
And you will give it (the Red
Heifer) to Elazar the Priest, that he may bring it outside the
camp, and that it will be slaughtered before him.
And Elazar the Priest will
take some of its blood with his finger, and he will sprinkle some
of its blood towards the front of the Tent of Meeting seven
times.
And the Heifer will be burnt in
his sight…
in effect Aharon’s oldest son is
put in charge of all matters relating to this topic,[14]
entitling him to explicate the details of how the Red Heifer was to be employed
by the soldiers returning from the Midianite war. Ibn Ezra’s view would appear
to be a development of an alternate reading of the story suggested by the
Sifre, following the Midrash Halacha’s original critique of Moshe’s
anger.
And there are those who say: Moshe
gave permission to Elazar the Priest to speak, in anticipation of the time when
Moshe would depart from this world, they (the people) shouldn’t say to him
(Elazar), “During the lifetime of Moshe your teacher you did not speak; now how
can you come to say (anything authoritatively)?”
Abrabanel parallels Ibn Ezra in his
commentary, and adds, in accordance with R. Yoshiya’s interpretation in Sifre,[15]
that in order that people not be misled to think that the laws being discussed
by Elazar constituted a Revelation that came directly to him and bypassing
Moshe, Elazar is careful to state at the very outset of his presentation of
these rules:
BaMidbar
31:21
…This is the statute of the Tora[16]
that Hashem Commanded Moshe.
Both Ibn Ezra and Abrabanel appear
to ignore both Talmudic passages in Pesachim and Eiruvin. They contend that
neither Moshe nor Elazar were acting improperly, and if anything, Elazar was
simply doing his job. Whereas the Midrashim are intent on drawing ethical and
psychological lessons from Elazar’s Halachic presentation by means of critiquing
one or the other of the two protagonists in the story, Ibn Ezra and Abrabanel
are more intent on reading a simple account of events, which in their view
indicates that more and more of the responsibility of leadership for the Jewish
nation prior to their entering Canaan, is being handed over to the younger
generation.
Shabbat Shalom, and may we learn
the multiple lessons that our primary sources as well as commentators try to
impart to us by means of the story of Elazar’s teaching, that we strive to
maintain emotional even temperedness particularly when difficult decisions have
to be made, that we stand at the ready to assist someone whose emotions have
gotten the best of him/her, that we constantly demonstrate respect to those who
are entitled to it without assuming that they are indifferent to such matters,
and that when the time comes the older generation should be ready to step back
and the younger generation to step forward to assure that Jewish leadership
continues enthusiastically and unabated.
[1] No details are supplied concerning
the death of Miriam, e.g., where it took place, who was involved in her
burial, who mourned for her, etc.
With respect to Moshe, in
Devarim 34 we read that he dies and is buried, but the text is unclear regarding
who buried him. Talmudic tradition (Sota 14a) asserts that HaShem Himself
Buried Moshe, thereby demonstrating and modeling the high value placed upon
taking care of the dead. Although the text in Devarim (34:9) mentions that
Yehoshua received “Semicha” from Moshe, a ritual transfer of authority
that parallels what took place on Har HaHar where Elazar succeeds Aharon, the
actual conferring of leadership upon Yehoshua is recorded much earlier in
BaMidbar 27:23, and appears to have preceded Moshe’s death by some days.
Furthermore, the text in Devarim 34:6 stresses that no one knows the exact
location of Moshe’s burial site, in contrast to Aharon, since he was accompanied
to the place by Moshe and Elazar, who witnessed his demise. Furthermore, a
literal understanding of BaMidbar 20:27, “…And they went up on Har HaHar
before the eyes of the Children of Israel” may not only refer to the fact
that they went up the mountain in full view of the people, but that the people
may have been able to observe from afar Aharon’s death and burial as well. No
such terminology appears in connection with Moshe’s death.
[2] Elazar is mentioned in three prior
contexts, but as the passive representative of the Priesthood, rather
than in any active capacity. a) BaMidbar 26:1 mentions him as the
recipient, along with Moshe, of the Divine Directive to conduct a census of the
people, a practice that often appears following a plague during which a
significant portion of the people die—in this case the plague that resulted from
the sin of Ba’al Pe’or (BaMidbar 25:8-9); b) BaMidbar 27:2 lists
Elazar among the Jewish leadership before whom Zelophchad’s daughters presented
their arguments for inheritance of the land of Canaan; and c) BaMidbar
27:19-22 cites Elazar as one of the Jewish leaders before whom Yehoshua is
publicly introduced as Moshe’s successor.
[3] In BaMidbar 19:1, not only is Moshe addressed by HaShem, but Aharon is mentioned as an equal in the introduction to the Parsha of the “Para Aduma” (the Red Heifer). Elazar is then referred to as the individual who oversees the preparation of the Red Heifer’s ashes (19:3,4), although when it comes to the actual sprinkling of the water and ash mixture, the more anonymous “HaKohen” (the priest) (19:6, 7) appears in the biblical text. The changeover from a specific mention of Elazar to the more generic “priest” is particularly understandable in light of the logical observation that the ashes from a single Red Heifer would be sufficient for creating the required ritual liquid mixture for many years to come.
[4] The specific instances where
Aharon either addresses the Jewish people or
Moshe are as follows:
a) Shemot 4:30 Aharon relays Moshe’s
instructions regarding the wonders that will be done to impress the Jews that
Moshe and Aharon were sent by HaShem to redeem them from
b) Shemot 32:5 Aharon tells the
people to delay the festival for the Golden Calf until the next day (in the hope
that Moshe would return before that and put an end to the
idolatry.)
c) Shemot 32:22 Aharon pleads with
Moshe not to blame him for his participation in the fabrication of the Golden
Calf.
d) VaYikra 10:19 Aharon defends the
rest of his family from Moshe’s criticism regarding offering sacrifices while in
mourning.
e) BaMidbar 12:11 Aharon pleads with Moshe to pray so that Miriam’s Tzora’at will heal.
There are instances where Aharon is
included with Moshe when HaShem Reveals or Clarifies some type of Mitzva to
either the people of Israel as a whole, or the Kohanim and Levi’im in
particular, and it would be reasonable to assume that this is intended to
indicate that he played some sort of role in not only receiving the information,
but disseminating it as well. However, this is never clearly indicated in the
text.
f) Shemot 12:1 “Rosh Chodesh”
(the new month) of Nissan and the Mitzvot of Pesach.
g) VaYikra 11:1 The laws of
“Kashrut”.
h) VaYikra 13:1;
i) VaYikra 15:1 The laws of
“Zav”, “Zava” (men and women who experience unnatural emissions from their
bodies).
j) BaMidbar 2:1 The arrangement
of the tribes in the encampment.
k) BaMidbar 4:1 Assignments for
Kohanim and Levi’im with regard to carrying the components of the Tabernacle
from place to place.
l) BaMidbar 4:17 Special
instructions regarding the dissembling of the “Kodesh HaKodashim” (the Holy of
Holies) for travel.
m) BaMidbar 19:1 The laws of the “Para
Aduma” (Red Heifer, whose ashes were mixed in water and then sprinkled on those
who have become ritually defiled by contact with the dead in order to effect
their purification).
Aharon’s direct involvement in the
instances h), i), k), l), and m) are understandable since matters of ritual
purity and impurity, as well as responsibilities associated with disassembling
and assembling the Tabernacle were the specific purview of the Kohanim and
Levi’im. It is more difficult to account for Aharon’s being included in f), g),
and j).
Finally, Eiruvin 54b describes how
not only Aharon, but also his sons Elazar and Itamar, would participate in
reviewing with the Jewish people any new Halacha revealed to Moshe by HaShem.
However, according to this Talmudic source, this was only immediately
after Moshe would first publicly teach the law himself, and therefore it
would be clear that Moshe was the one who received the initial Revelation. There
is no indication in BaMidbar 31:21, that such is the case in this
instance.
[5] According to RaShI on VaYikra 10:2,
this is one of the possible explanations for the death penalty incurred by Nadav
and Avihu, i.e., instead of consulting with Moshe regarding the appropriateness
of offering a certain sacrifice, they proceeded on their own, as if taking for
themselves the right to make such a decision and thereby disrespecting their
teacher publicly.
[6] Not only should Elazar have
considered Moshe his teacher in the same manner that all of the Children of
Israel refer to him as “Moshe Rabbeinu” (our teacher), but Rabbinic
tradition assumes that Moshe had an especially close teaching relationship with
his nephews, as reflected in RaShI on BaMidbar 3:1.
[7] In two specific contexts, it is
implied by the text that Elazar would have to issue pronouncements; however what
he actually says is never quoted.
a) BaMidbar 27:21 Yehoshua is
instructed that he is to stand before Elazar who in turn would consult with the
“Urim VeTumim” (the High Priest’s Breastplate, which was to miraculously reveal
the Divine Will by means of its jewels lighting up in encoded sequences—see http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Tzav1.html
) regarding when and how far the Jewish encampment was to journey first in the
desert, and then in Canaan.
b) BaMidbar 26:53-56; 34:13, 17 The
division of the land according to a lottery was to involve Elazar who again
using the “Urim VeTumim” would predict supernaturally which tribe would be
linked with which parcel of land prior to their being picked from a box
containing all of the tribes and land parcels—see RaShI on 26:54, based upon
Bava Batra 122a.
[8] RaShI on VaYikra 10:19 cites
BaMidbar 31:21 as a proof text regarding Elazar’s
abilities:
“And Aharon said”—The term “saying”
here denotes a harsh utterance…
Is it likely that when Moshe
expresses his indignation with Elazar and Itamar, Aharon would reply to him with
such harsh language? You must consequently know that it is only by way of
respect that these remained silent. They thought, “It would not be right for our
father Aharon should be sitting here and we should speak in his presence, not
would it be right for a student to reply to his teacher (Moshe). You might
think, however, that Elazar did not possess the ability to reply, and that on
this account he was silent? This was not so, for it is stated, “And Elazar the
Priest said to the men of war who went to battle…”, so you see that when he
wished to do so, he did speak in the presence of Moshe and in the presence of
the princes…
[9] Technically, one could question the
language of Sifre in contrast to Pesachim 66b’s presentation of this situation.
Whereas the Talmudic passage merely states that “his wisdom departs from him”,
which appears to be an accurate description of Moshe’s cognitive state, the
Midrash Halacha’s suggestion that Moshe “erred” does not appear to be precise,
since in fact he said nothing. NeTzIV, in his commentary on Sifre, Emek
HaNeTzIV, contends that since Moshe was unclear about the Halacha, he was not
entitled to speak in public about his views since he was liable to make
an error. Having the potential to err therefore according to Sifre, is
tantamount to making the error itself. This then sheds additional light upon the
dictum in Avot 3:8 “R. Dostai BeRabbi Yanai in the name of R. Meir would
say—Anyone who forgets a single thing that he has learned, he is culpable for
his life…” Not retaining clarity of understanding inevitably leads to error in
terms of one’s own practice as well as the directives that one might give to
others.
[10] When Rabbinic authority was
ignored, the Rabbis had the power in Talmudic times to declare someone
off-limits socially and communally until s/he repented
properly.
[11] The derivation proving that the
Tora indeed is considered to be the possession of the individual who has learned
it, and consequently subject to his deciding to not insist on his honor, is
Tehillim 1:2.
But his delight is in the Tora of
HaShem; and in his (His?) Tora he meditates day and night.
Although the antecedent of the
second part of the verse could be understood to be HaShem, i.e., “His” Tora is
parallel to “Tora of HaShem” in the
first part of the verse, Rava opines that in fact it refers to the individual
who has internalized and thereby
“acquired” the Tora for himself.
[12] This Talmudic discussion in
Kiddushin forms the basis for the custom that when someone gives a “D’var Tora”
in the presence of the Halachic authority of the community, s/he begins,
“B’Reshut HaRav” (with the permission of the Rav). By at least tacitly asking
for permission, the Halachic problem is obviated.
[13] e.g., see Yevamot
121b.
[14] Due to the intrinsic holiness of
the rite of the “Para Aduma”, major debates take place among the commentators
attempting to ascertain the significance of assigning Elazar this task, even
while his father Aharon was still alive. RaMBaN on BaMidbar 19:3 offers three
widely differing hypotheses:
a) Since the preparation and burning
of the Red Heifer was to take place outside of the Tabernacle, it was considered
undignified to require Aharon to do this Service. (The Sifre contains a dispute
with regards to whether giving Elazar the responsibility of the “Para Aduma”
sets a precedent whereby the “Segan Kohen Gadol” (the assistant High Priest) is
always assigned this particular task, or whether this was purely a temporal
decision that has no bearing on who will take care of this Mitzva in the future,
and in fact not only can the actual “Kohen Gadol” prepare the ashes, but even a
most ordinary Kohen can also do so.)
b) Elazar’s involvement in the Red
Heifer was a means by which Elazar could be publicly introduced as Aharon’s
successor, and he would be able to gain experience during his father’s lifetime
with regard to at least one of the Mitzvot that he would be expected to perform
in the future. (Meshech Chachma on BaMidbar 31:21 expands this particular
approach, and suggests that Moshe wished to give Elazar the opportunity to teach
about “Para Aduma” so that even after Moshe’s death, people will not question
Elazar’s authority in this area.
c) Because of Aharon’s disgrace with
respect to his participation in the fabrication of the Golden Calf, he was
deprived of the privilege to prepare the “Para
Aduma”.
[15]R. Yoshiya says: (BaMidbar 31:21)
“…This is the statute of the Tora that HaShem Commanded Moshe.” He (Elazar) said
the matter in the name of the person (Moshe) who originally said it (after
receiving the information from Hashem.)
[16] The language is directly parallel
to that used when the Red Heifer is first introduced in BaMidbar 19:2, further
reinforcing the impression that Elazar is merely following Moshe’s lead, rather
than contributing something not covered
before.