Question: As we now read Sefer Devarim, the Torah tells us that Moses was instructed by Hashem to appoint a successor. Moses wanted his sons to succeed him but Hashem tells him to appoint Yehoshua as the next leader. Why was this request of the greatest and most righteous of men denied? Also, were Yehoshua and Caleb the only named leaders or personalities to enter the land of Canaan?
M. Gorin
Synopsis: At the outset we cited Rambam (Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:1) who states The Jewish people were adorned with the three crowns, Torah; priesthood and royalty. Aaron and his progeny merited priesthood, David and his progeny merited royalty. The crown of Torah is available to all Israel. We noted Moses promise to Jethro that his firstborn son adopt Jethro’s idolatry and thus Moses was punished that his sons would not inherit his leadership. Instead, Joshua his student earned the leadership. Yet Moses saw that if the daughter’s of Tzelophehad could inherit possibly his sons could as well. Yet the reply remained the same. There is a view that his two sons died during his lifetime, thus the question is moot. We noted that Caleb and Joshua were the only one’s of that generation to enter land, but we did note a few exceptions Elazar the high priest, his son Pinchas [Elijah, Bava Metzia 114b, Rashi ad loc.] who served as high priest in the land of Israel. In fact, we noted our Sages’ criticism of both Pinchas and Yiftach the leader at the time in the matter of Yiftach’s daughter.
We then cited numerous scriptural sources thanks to one of our dear readers, Mr. Asher Weingarten, that delineate Moses’ offspring. My uncle, Rabbi Sholom Klass, zt”l, resolved a difficulty with the promise Moses made to Jethro, his father-in-law, that his first-born son (Gershom) adopt his father-in-law’s idolatry, citing Ralbag’s commentary to Judges. Avoda zara is explained here as “work strange to him,” not as idolatry. We also explained that while the mantle of Priesthood is from father to son as is the royal primogeniture – that a king’s son inherits him – the mantle of Torah leadership such as Moses’ unique leadership only passes to one (whether he be a son or not) only if he proves worthy.
* * *
Answer: As we noted previously, we received three responses from readers of The Jewish Press with their input regarding this discussion; we thus far cited only one and now we cite the other two.
Rabbi L. Posner writes:
“I thought of a simple reason why Moses’ children could not assume the leadership. Moses was the king of the nation at the time, and inheriting his position would have been contrary to G-d’s plan that kingship rest with the House of David.”
Rabbi Posner is obviously referring to the verse in Parashat Vezot HaBeracha (Deut. 33:5), “Vayehi [b]iyeshurun melech behit’assef rashei am… – And he was king over Jeshurun (Israel) when the heads of the nation gathered…”
Rashi (ad loc.) explains this verse as referring to G-d. However, in Parashat Beha’alotecha (Numbers 10:2), Rashi cites another view (based on Midrash Tanchuma) stating that our verse refers to Moses, who was considered the nation’s king at the time. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the verse, also agrees with the view that “king” refers to Moses.
“G-d appeared to Moses for the first time in the wilderness, calling out to him from amid a burning bush (Shemot 3:4), and Moses’ response to the call was “Hinneni.” While the literal meaning of hinneni is “Here I am,” the term connotes total readiness to carry out a mission.
Elaborating on Moses’ response, the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 2:6) points out that Moses was really saying, I am ready for priesthood and kingship. He was entreating G-d that priests and kings come forth from him. G-d responded: Your descendants will not be priests, for the priesthood has already been allocated to Aaron and his descendants, and kingship is destined for [the House of] David. Nevertheless, Moses himself attained both [in his lifetime]. He officiated as High Priest during the seven days of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, and he also served as king, as the verse states, “Vayehi [b]iyeshurun melech…”
* * *
Another reader, Moshe Fogel, adds interesting details based on several sources – mainly Judges, the Midrash, and our traditional biblical commentators, as well as statements by the Sages of the Talmud. [Ed. Note: we have included additional details from the above listed sources.]
He writes:
“I read your column with much interest, and in addition to your answer, here are some background notes (Judges Ch. 17).
“Michiyahu, a man of Mount Ephraim (also called Michah), had stolen 1,100 pieces of silver from his mother but restored them to her when he heard her pronounce a curse following the theft. The mother had dedicated the silver to G-d, and accordingly, she gave 200 of the silver pieces to a silversmith who made a molten image which was placed in Michah’s house. Michah thus established a shrine with an idol, an ephod and teraphim, and designated one of his sons to be his priest. ‘In those days there was no king in Israel,” states the verse, ‘and everyone did that which was right in his eyes’ (Judges 17:6).
“In the course of time a young Levite from Beit Lechem Yehuda happened to arrive at Michah’s house and was appointed by him as his priest. Later, when some of the Danites set out to look for land (that had been originally apportioned to the tribe of Dan) for their expanding population and were on their way to the northern part of the country, they passed near Michah’s house. They took the priest with them and also captured the molten image, which they subsequently set up in Dan, a city they built in the north, where it continued to be an object of worship.
“Michah is identified by the Rabbis (Sanhedrin 101b) with Sheba, son of Bichri, and with Nebat, the father of Jeroboam. His name is interpreted as “the crushed one,” an appellation due to a miracle that had happened to him. According to an aggada (a legend) relating to the time they were enslaved in Egypt, the Children of Israel, when unable to fill the quota of bricks required by the Egyptians, were compelled to put their children in the wall instead of the bricks that were missing. Moses rescued one child (Michah) who had already been crushed, and revived him; but, as G-d had foretold, he grew up to be an idolater (Tanchuma Yelammedenu, Ki Tissa; see also Rashi ad loc.).
“The Rabbis all agree that Michah was among those who crossed the Sea of Reeds with Moses; but they differ with regard to the idol. According to Sanhedrin 103b and Tanchuma, Michah had the idol with him; but according to Shemot Rabbah (41:1) he took with him only the silver of which the idol was fashioned afterwards. A passage in Psalms (117a) seems to support the latter opinion.
“There is also a tradition that it was Michah who made the golden calf in the wilderness. It happened in the following manner: In order to bring up Joseph’s coffin to the surface of the Nile, Moses wrote on a splinter “Aleh shor” (“Come up, ox,” since Joseph was compared to an ox – see Deuteronomy 33:17) and threw it into the water. Michah retrieved the splinter and later, when Aaron cast the gold into the fire (Exodus 32:24), Michah threw the splinter in after it. As a result, a calf came out (Tanchuma).
“The name of the Levite whom Michah had appointed as priest in his house, we are told at the end of the relevant chapter in Judges (18:30), was Jonathan, son of Gershom, son of Menashe.
“He was, in fact, a direct descendant of Gershom, the son of Moses, but the text (17:30) reads ‘Menashe,’ spelled with a purposeful change. The name appears as ‘Moshe’ (mem, shin, heh) with a suspended nun between the mem and the shin. It was too terrible for the people to read about a direct descendant of Moses who was an idolater. This way, they would be able to read “Menashe” instead of “Moshe.” Jonathan’s sons served as priests for many years in Dan, in spite of the fact that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh, just south of Michah’s house in the hill country of Ephraim.
“There is a discussion among our commentators regarding this Levite from “Beit Lechem Yehuda.” Rashi and Radak opine that he was a Levite on his father’s side and that his mother was of the tribe of Judah. Metzudat David maintains that he lived on land that belonged to families of the tribe of Judah.
“The Ba’al HaTurim, in his commentary to the verses (Exodus 18:3-4) about the names of Moses’ sons – “[T]he name of the one was Gershom, for he said, I was a sojourner…and the name of the other one was Eliezer, for the G-d of my father came to my aid…” – points out the seemingly superfluous phrase “for he said” regarding the naming of Gershom.
“He quotes a Midrash which informs us that when Jethro gave his daughter to Moses in marriage, he made Moses agree to the condition that his first son would be devoted to idol worship. Moses agreed, confident that over the course of time he would be able to show G-d’s truth to his father-in-law and thus would never be held to his promise. That is why Moses did not circumcise his son until the angel encountered him during his journey from Midian and sought to slay him. At that time Zipporah circumcised her son, waiving the commitment to which Moses had agreed.
“The verse emphasizes “for he said…” so that it would be obvious to everyone that Moses had been forced to accept this condition, since he was a stranger in the land and was required to do Jethro’s bidding.
“Nevertheless, Moses was punished for agreeing to this condition: among Gershom’s offspring was one, Jonathan, who served as a priest for Michah’s idol. (See Moshav Zekenim, citing Perush HaRosh.) The Midrash illustrates how the punishment intended for Moses had a lasting effect on many generations.
* * *
As should be clear to all, the readers of The Jewish Press are scholars in their own right. As such, we thank these three readers for their interesting contributions to our discussion. It goes without saying that reader contributions are always welcome.
