Parshath B’Midbar (Numbers I,1-IV,20) 5/22/09

A.

אלה תולדת אהרן ומשה ביום דבר ד' את משה בהר סיני(“These are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe, on the day Ha-Shem spoke with Moshe on Mt. Sinai”; III, 1). The parasha then goes on to list Aharon’s sons – Nadav, Avihu’, El‘azar, and Ithamar – but not Moshe’s. The omission is obvious, and begs elucidation.

Whilst we are asking questions, the wording of our verse is also peculiar – whatever can the Torah mean by informing us that these are “the offspring of Aharon and Moshe on the day Ha-Shem spoke with Moshe on Mt. Sinai” (b’yom dibbér Ha-Shem eth Moshe b’Har Sinai)? Were they not Aharon’s sons before that occasion? What is the verse trying to tell us?

B.

Rashi notes, following the Talmud (סנהדרין י"ט:): ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן ונקראו בני משה לפי שלמדן תורה מלמד שכל המלמד בן חברו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו (“And it only mentions Aharon’s sons; and they are called Moshe’s sons because he taught them Torah, teaching that anyone who teaches another’s son Torah, Scripture considers [the teacher] as though he gave birth to [the son]”).

This equivalence of the relationship between father and son, on the one hand, and rebbe and talmid, on the other, also finds expression in the midrash, which interprets the phrase ושננתם לבניך (“and you will teach them to your sons”; Deuteronomy VI, 7) to mean אלו תלמידיך (“these are your students”; ספרי ואתחנן פסקא ט'). This relationship finds expression in numerous passages throughout Tanach. For instance, at the dawn of humanity, Yaval is characterised as אבי יושב אהל ומקנה (“father of tent dweller[s] [who have] livestock”), and his brother Yuval is אבי כל תופס כנור ועוגב (“father of everyone who grasps a harp and pipe”; Genesis IV, 20-21), meaning that they originated these arts and are construed as the fathers of all who learn and practice them.

Similarly, the students of the prophets are referred to as bnei nevi’im (cf. e.g. I Kings XX, 35; II Kings II, 3-15; IV, 1, 38; V, 22; VI, 1; IX, 1; and Amos VII, 14); Elisha‘, on seeing his rebbe Eliyahu caught up to the heavens, exclaimed, "Avi, avi!" (“My father, my father!”; II Kings II, 12).

That said, another question presents itself: Moshe taught Torah not only to Aharon’s sons, but to all of Israel; why, then, should only Aharon’s sons be so singled out?

The Ha‘améq Davar offers the suggestion that the instruction under discussion was בחכמת התלמוד שנעשה עפ"י זה ברי' חדשה (“in the science of Talmud, for one is made through this a new creature”), and goes on to cite a statement found elsewhere in the Talmud: כל המעשה את חברו לד"ת מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאו שנאמר "ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן" (“Anyone who compels [m‘asseh] his fellow to divrei Torah, Scripture considers him as though he had made [his fellow; ‘asa’o], as it is written, ‘And the soul[s] which they had made [‘asu] in Charan....’”; [Genesis XII, 5]; סנהדרין צ"ו וע"ע שאלתות דר"א, ריש פר' לך בענין זה), observing that המעשה את חברו כו' הרי דמיירי בגמרא שמביא לידי קיום שאינו אלא תלמוד כו' ובמדבר לא הרבה חכמו עוד בחכמת התלמוד עד בואם לעה"י שם ביאר את התורה לפני בני ישראל כו' אבל במדבר היו בני אהרן המיוחדים בזה מש"ה נחשבו המה תולדות משה (“‘one who compels his fellow...’ is referring to gmara, which brings one to observance [of the mitzvoth], which is nothing other than Talmud... and in the desert the [bnei Yisra’él] did not so much engage in the science of Talmud, until they came to the bank of the Jordan, where Moshe expounded the Torah before the bnei Yisra’él... but in the desert the sons of Aharon were especially involved in [Talmud Torah]; for this reason, they were considered Moshe’s offspring”).

C.

The Torah Tmima makes much the same point, noting that ‘asiya, “making” often bears a connotation of correction and renewal (תקון וחדוש), citing various examples, e.g., Genesis II, 4: אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות ד' אלקים ארץ ושמים (“These are the results of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day Ha-Shem, G-d, made [‘asoth] earth and heavens”), on which Rashi comments that this world was made פתוח לשבים בתשובה, “open to penitents” (based on the “open” form of the tiny letter hé in the word b’hibbar’am, “when they were created”). Hence, the ‘asoth ha-Shem Eloqim, G-d’s “making” of this world, added mercy to judgment and made it amenable to correction and renewal.

The Torah Tmima goes on to note that our second Talmudic passage was said by Reysh Laqish, a great scholar who was originally (in the Torah Tmima’s words) an איש גס והמוני פשוט מאד (“coarse man of the masses, very simple”) before he was influenced to settle down and study Torah, ולאחר שלמד תורה נעשה כברי' חדשה (“and after he had learnt Torah he was made like a new creature”; עיי' בבא מציעא פ"ד.). Hence, he concludes, Reysh Laqish was speaking from personal experience of the transformative power of Torah.

‘Ad kan the Torah Tmima. If we now re-examine the last clause of our verse, a new level of meaning reveals itself. The verb dibbér, conventionally translated “spoke,” is in structure a pi‘él, that is, a factitive verb. A factitive verb is one which establishes or brings into being a condition, state, or thing (in the case of dibbér, the product is a davar, which simultaneously means “word” and “thing,” das Ding an sich). The preposition eth, which I translated “with” above, can also designate the direct object of a transitive verb, and the prefix in b’Har Sinai can also designate instrumentality (“through, by means of”). Hence, the clause can be read “on the day Ha-Shem bought Moshe into being through [His words on] Mt. Sinai.”

The day that Moshe became a briya chadasha, a “new creature,” steeped in Torah, was the day that he became capable of making Aharon’s sons over, as it were, into his.

D.

The ma’amarei Chazal quoted thus far from the Talmud and the Midrash appear to establish an equivalency of relationship between father and son, on the one hand, and rebbe and talmid on the other. In fact, this is not so. Elsewhere in the Talmud, we learn that one’s rebbe takes precedence over one’s father, שאביו הביאו לעולם הזה ורבו שלמדו חכמה מביאו לחיי העולם הבא (“for his father has brought him into this world, but his rebbe, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the life of the next world”; בבא מציעא ל"ג: במשנה), and this is indeed the halacha (שו"ע יו"ד סי' רמ"ב סעיף א'). How are we to reconcile this with the other statements?

The Ruzhiner Rebbe זצוק"ל observes that the the transformative power of Torah is such that a single word, indeed, a single letter of Torah taught in truth and fullness begins to take its effect; note that Rashi’s comment on Genesis II, 4 was based on the shape of a single letter written in a unique fashion in the séfer Torah so as to catch attention.

In this way, he observes, a rebbe can be the equivalent of one’s biological father; after all, a single drop suffices to make a man a father. But the rebbe does not stop with a single letter or a single word; he teaches his pupil whole verses, parshiyoth, mishnayoth, gmaroth, halachoth; as he imparts more and more and more Torah to his student, he constantly reshapes and reforms the nascent briya chadasha. For that reason, he concludes, a conscientious rebbe deserves precedence over a merely biological father (מובא בספר אמונת צדיקים, ובשאביו הוא גם רבו המובהק עיי' הגהת הרמ"א שם ביו"ד ובייחוד הש"ך שם).

The proper Jewish father, of course, is not merely his son’s biological instigator; he also teaches the child, he engages the rebbe; his greatest pleasure is eagerly to reviews his son’s studies with him, to encourage him and spur him on to success in learning and observance, for which his dutiful son gratefully calls him avi mori (“my father, my teacher”).