In this week's Torah portion we read how Moshe asked G-d to "appoint a person upon the congregation"
[529] as his successor, so that the Jewish people not be left as "sheep without a shepherd." G-d responded to Moshe's request by stating that Yehoshua would be Moshe's successor -- "Take unto you Yehoshua, and place your hand upon him."
The Midrash[530] relates that when Moshe said, "appoint a person upon the congregation," he figured that his children would inherit the mantle of leadership. G-d, however, told him: "'He who plants the fig-tree will get to eat its fruit.'[531] Your children sat around and didn't occupy themselves in the study of Torah. Since Yehoshua served you with all his energy, he is worthy to serve Israel."
Since Moshe was aware of his sons' lack of Torah study, why did he entertain the thought that one of them would inherit his mantle of leadership?
One could say that Moshe did not desire for one of his progeny to teach the Jewish people Torah, but -- as explicitly stated in his request -- to serve as their king "who will go out and come before them"[532] in battle. Since kingship is inherited,[533] Moshe felt that his role as king should be passed on to his children.
However, if Moshe only requested kingship for his progeny and not leadership in Torah, then what are we to make of G-d's response "Your children didn't occupy themselves in the study of Torah" -- the issue here is inheriting kingship and has nothing at all to do with Torah leadership?!
In requesting a new leader after his passing, Moshe seemingly uses a redundant expression, "who will go out and come before them" and "who will take them out and bring them in." The Megaleh Amukos[534] explains that Moshe in fact desired that there be two leaders, one "who will go out before them" in battle, and one "who will take them out" in Torah.
G-d told Moshe that there could be only one leader, one who was both the king and the leading Torah scholar, since "it is impossible for two kings to share the same crown"[535] and "there can be but one spokesman for a generation, and not two."[536]
The Midrash will be understood accordingly: Since Moshe thought that there should be two leaders, one a king and the other a Torah leader, he felt that the kingship should be inherited by one of his sons. G-d, however, desired that there be but one individual who would be charged with both these tasks. Since Moshe's children lacked Torah scholarship, they obviously couldn't inherit the mantle of this all-inclusive leadership.
Still, we must understand why G-d wasn't satisfied with Moshe's request for two leaders; after all, they wouldn't be "sharing the same crown" -- one of them would wear the "crown of kingship," the other, the "crown of Torah"? Moreover, for many generations this was exactly the manner of Jewish leadership: one individual was king, while another individual -- the head of the High Court -- was the Torah leader.[537]
In his introduction to Yad HaChazakah, the Rambam describes the manner in which Jewish tradition was handed down from Moshe until R. Ashe. In enumerating the receivers of the Tradition, the Rambam is careful to note that the receiver obtained the Tradition from the previous receiver "and his court" or "colleagues," thereby emphasizing[538] that the Tradition was handed down from multitude to multitude, not merely from one individual to another.
We find, however, one notable exception to the above: with regard to receiving the Tradition from Yehoshua, the Rambam changes his wording and is most exact in stating that "many elders received from Yehoshua," without adding "and his court" or "colleagues."
This is because -- as the Rambam notes earlier on -- unlike others of his generation, Yehoshua not only learned Torah from Moshe, but Moshe transmitted the entire Oral Law to Yehoshua -- "Moshe received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua."[539] Thus, it was Yehoshua alone who subsequently transmitted the entire Oral Torah to the elders.
Moshe and Yehoshua then, were unique in that they alone had the entire Tradition of the Oral Torah transmitted solely to them, while the other Torah leaders received the Torah as but one of a multitude -- they were entirely unlike Moshe and Yehoshua.
Therefore, in subsequent generations, when the king would rule supreme[540] and the Torah leader -- the head of the Sanhedrin -- would be but one of a court of seventy-one, albeit the court's head,[541] there was no contradiction between kingship and head of the Sanhedrin -- the concept of "two kings..." and "but one spokesman" didn't apply.
This was not the case concerning Moshe and Yehoshua, for their Torah leadership was of such magnitude that it earned them the level of leadership of a king. Thus, were there to have been two leaders, one for battle and one for Torah, it would have resulted in "two kings sharing the same crown."
Based on Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXIII, pp. 190-195
Notes:
- (Back to text) Bamidbar 27:15-23.
- (Back to text) Bamidbar Rabbah 21:14; Tanchuma, Pinchas 11. See also Rashi on this verse.
- (Back to text) Mishlei 27:18.
- (Back to text) Ibid., verse 17 and Rashi; Sifri and Sifri Zuta, ibid.
- (Back to text) Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 1:7.
- (Back to text) Ofan Alef, quoted in Yalkut Reuveni, on the verse. See also Klei Yakar, ibid. 27:18.
- (Back to text) Chulin 60b.
- (Back to text) Sanhedrin 8a -- with regard to Yehoshua.
- (Back to text) See Rambam, Hilchos Sanhedrin, 1:3
- (Back to text) In a letter to Rabbi Pinchas ben R. Mishulim HaDayan.
- (Back to text) Avos 1:1.
- (Back to text) See Sifra, Vayikra 4:22; Horiyos 10a, 11b.
- (Back to text) See Sanhedrin 2a.
Balak