פנחס ב

Okay, let's break down this Sicha step-by-step. The Rebbe is exploring a fascinating question about the appointment of Yehoshua (Joshua) as Moshe's (Moses') successor, delving into the nature of Jewish leadership, kingship, and Torah authority. **The Core Topic: Yehoshua's Appointment and the Missing Anointing** The Sicha begins by looking at this week's Torah portion, Parshas Pinchas. 1. **The Story:** Moshe knows his time is ending, and he asks G-d to appoint a new leader for the Jewish people ("May the L-rd... appoint a man over the congregation"). G-d responds, telling Moshe: "Take Yehoshua son of Nun... and lay your hand upon him" (*semicha*). Moshe does exactly this: "He laid his hands upon him..." 2. **Rambam's Perspective (Maimonides):** The Rebbe brings in Maimonides (known as the Rambam), one of the greatest codifiers of Jewish law. In his laws concerning kings (Hilchos Melachim 1:3), Rambam states that appointing a king requires two things: the highest court (the Sanhedrin of 70 elders) and a prophet. As the prime example, Rambam says: "...like Yehoshua, whom Moshe Rabbeinu (our teacher) and his court appointed." * **Key Takeaway:** From Rambam's statement, it's clear he considers Yehoshua's appointment in our Parsha to be the appointment of a *king*. 3. **The Big Question:** Now, the Rebbe points out a seeming contradiction. Rambam *also* rules (in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 1:7, Laws of Temple Vessels, discussing the special anointing oil) that "When appointing a king, he is anointed with the *Shemen HaMishcha* (the sacred anointing oil)." * **What is Shemen HaMishcha?** This was a unique oil mixture prepared by Moshe according to G-d's specific instructions (Exodus 30:22-33). It was used to consecrate the Tabernacle, its vessels, the High Priests (Kohanim Gedolim), and, according to Rambam, kings. * **The Problem:** If Yehoshua was appointed as a king (as Rambam himself indicates), why do we find *no mention anywhere* that Moshe anointed him with this special oil? The Torah only mentions *semicha* (laying of hands). 4. **A Quick Clarification about Moshe:** The Rebbe anticipates a possible counter-question: "What about Moshe himself? He was a king ('Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance... He was king in Yeshurun' - Deuteronomy 33:4-5, cited by Rambam), and we don't find him being anointed either!" The Rebbe explains this isn't a problem because Moshe's kingship began *before* the specific laws of appointing kings and the use of the anointing oil were fully established and commanded in the way they applied later. Yehoshua's appointment, however, happened *after* these laws were in place. So, the question about Yehoshua remains. **Searching for an Answer: Why No Anointing for Yehoshua?** The Rebbe now explores potential solutions and shows why they aren't satisfactory according to Rambam's own views. 1. **Possible Answer #1: The Davidic Dynasty Rule** * There's another ruling by Rambam (Hilchos Klei HaMikdash 1:12) which states: "One does not anoint with it [the Shemen HaMishcha] for generations, except for... the kings of the House of David." This means that *later on*, only kings descended from King David were anointed. * **The Argument:** Maybe Yehoshua wasn't anointed simply because he wasn't from the future Davidic dynasty? * **Why This Doesn't Work (According to the Rebbe):** The Rebbe points out a crucial detail. When Rambam establishes the *general rule* that kings *are* anointed (back in Hilchos Melachim 1:7), what source does he implicitly rely on? The prime example in the Prophets is the anointing of Shaul (Saul) by the prophet Shmuel (Samuel) (I Samuel 10:1). Shaul was the *first* king of Israel and was definitely *not* from the House of David (he was from the tribe of Benjamin, David was from Judah). * **The Conclusion:** Since Rambam clearly holds that Shaul *was* anointed with the special oil, it proves that Rambam's general rule ("When appointing a king, he is anointed...") applies to *any* king being appointed initially, even non-Davidic ones. The restriction ("only... kings of the House of David") must apply only *after* David's dynasty was established by G-d as the permanent line of kingship. Before that point, *any* legitimate king, like Shaul, needed anointing. * **The Question Returns:** If Shaul (non-Davidic) needed anointing, why didn't Yehoshua (also non-Davidic, and appointed even earlier) receive it? **Digging Deeper: Moshe's Request and G-d's Answer** To find a better answer, the Rebbe turns to a Midrash (a classical Rabbinic interpretive text) that sheds light on Moshe's mindset when asking for a successor. 1. **The Midrash:** The Midrash Tanchuma (Pinchas 10) explains what Moshe was thinking when he asked G-d "Yifkod Hashem..." ("May the L-rd... appoint..."). It says Moshe reasoned, "My sons should inherit my honor/greatness (*kevodi/gedulati*)." G-d replied with a proverb from Mishlei (Proverbs 27:18): "*Notzer te'einah yochal piryah*" – "He who guards the fig tree will eat its fruit." G-d explained: "Your sons sat idly and did not engage in Torah study. Yehoshua... since he served you with all his might, he is worthy to serve Israel." * **What does "Guarding the fig tree" mean here?** The fig tree often symbolizes Torah. Guarding it means dedicating oneself to studying and serving Torah and its scholars. Eating its fruit means reaping the reward – in this context, leadership. 2. **A New Question Arises from the Midrash:** This Midrash seems puzzling. If Moshe's sons "did not engage in Torah study," why would Moshe, the ultimate Torah teacher, even *consider* them fit to succeed him in the first place? It seems out of character. 3. **A Simple (but flawed) Explanation:** One might suggest that Moshe wasn't thinking about a *Torah* successor. Maybe he was only thinking about the *political/military* aspect of leadership, as his request emphasizes: "...who shall go out before them and come in before them..." (phrases often associated with leading in war). Jewish law generally states that kingship *can* be inherited ("Ha'malchus yerusha"). So perhaps Moshe thought his sons could inherit the *royal* function, even if they weren't top scholars. * **The Flaw in this Explanation:** If Moshe only wanted a military/political king, why did G-d answer him by talking about *Torah study* ("Notzer te'einah... your sons did not engage in Torah")? G-d's response seems focused on Torah merit, which would be irrelevant if the job description was purely political/military. **Introducing the Megaleh Amukos: Two Leaders or One?** The Rebbe introduces a fascinating commentary by Rabbi Nosson Nota Shapiro (1585-1633), known as the *Megaleh Amukos*, to resolve the Midrash puzzle. 1. **The Double Phrasing:** The *Megaleh Amukos* focuses on the slightly repetitive language in Moshe's request: "who shall **go out before them and come in before them** (*asher yetzei lifneihem v'asher yavo lifneihem*), and who shall **lead them out and bring them in** (*v'asher yotzi'am v'asher yevi'am*)". 2. **The Interpretation:** He explains this isn't just repetition. Moshe was actually requesting *two* leaders: * One "man over the congregation" for the military/political role ("go out... and come in..."). * Another leader "who shall lead them out and bring them in" – meaning, lead them in the path of Torah. 3. **G-d's Response (according to Megaleh Amukos):** G-d replied that there should only be *one* leader fulfilling *both* roles: "Yehoshua, who will be king *and* the *Av Beis Din* (Head of the Court/Chief Justice) of Israel and their Sage in Torah." Why? Because of the principle: "**Two kings cannot use one crown**" (*Ein shnei melachim mishtamshim b'keser echad*), often summarized as "**One leader (davar) for a generation, not two leaders**" (*Davar echad l'dor v'lo shnei devarim*). 4. **Resolving the Midrash Puzzle:** This interpretation explains everything! * Moshe *did* think his sons could inherit, but *only* the kingship role, assuming someone else (like Yehoshua) would handle the Torah leadership. * G-d rejected this split. He insisted on *one* leader for *both* roles. * Since the unified role demanded Torah proficiency ("Notzer te'einah..."), and Moshe's sons lacked it, they were ineligible for the combined position. * Yehoshua, who was dedicated to both serving Moshe (*shimush*, practical application and service, often seen as even greater than just study) and Torah itself, was the only one fit for this unified leadership. **A New Challenge: Why Couldn't the Roles Be Split?** The Rebbe accepts the *Megaleh Amukos*'s explanation but pushes further. 1. **The Problem:** Why did G-d insist on unifying the roles for Yehoshua? The principle "Two kings cannot share one crown" seems specific to *kingship*. Moreover, later Jewish history *proves* that leadership could be split! * **Historical Precedent:** For much of Jewish history (especially during the Second Temple era and afterwards), there often *was* a separation: * **The King:** Handled political, military, and national affairs. * **The Nasi:** The President of the Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court). Rambam describes him as "the greatest scholar among them all," who "stands in place of Moshe Rabbeinu." He was the supreme *Torah* authority. * **The Separation Was Formal:** In fact, Rambam rules that a king was *not allowed* to be a member of the Sanhedrin (Hilchos Sanhedrin 2:5)! This clearly shows a recognized separation of powers. 2. **Initial Thought:** Maybe Kingship (*Malchus*) and Torah Leadership (*Nesi'us ba'Torah*) are just fundamentally different *types* of authority (*srara*). If they are distinct categories, then having both a King and a Nasi doesn't violate the "one leader per generation" principle, as they aren't competing for the *same* crown. 3. **The Lingering Question:** But if they *are* distinct and *can* coexist (as history shows), why, in the specific case of appointing Moshe's successor, did G-d *insist* they be combined in one person, Yehoshua? Why couldn't Moshe's idea of splitting the roles work *then*? **The Rebbe's Core Insight: The Unique Nature of Moshe and Yehoshua's Torah Leadership** Here, the Rebbe introduces his central point, drawing again from Rambam's writings, specifically his *Introduction to the Mishneh Torah*. 1. **Rambam on the Chain of Tradition (Mesorah):** In his Introduction, Rambam traces the unbroken chain of the Oral Torah's transmission from Moshe down through the generations to the compilers of the Talmud. When listing the links in this chain, Rambam typically writes something like: "Rabbi X received the tradition from Rabbi Y **and his court** (*u'veis dino*)." * **The Emphasis:** Rambam explains elsewhere that he uses this phrasing ("and his court") deliberately to stress that the transmission wasn't just from one individual to another, but from the collective body of scholars in one generation to the next ("many from many"). 2. **The Exception: Yehoshua!** There's a striking exception in Rambam's language. When it comes to Yehoshua, Rambam writes: "And many elders received **from Yehoshua**" (without adding "and his court"). 3. **Why the Difference?** Rambam himself explains why earlier in the Introduction. He states that Moshe taught the entire Oral Torah to the 70 elders, Elazar (the Kohen Gadol), Pinchas, and Yehoshua. However, Rambam adds a crucial detail: "...and to Yehoshua, who was the disciple of Moshe Rabbeinu, he **transmitted** (*masar*) the Oral Torah and **commanded** him concerning it." * **Masar (Transmitted):** This word is key. It echoes the first Mishnah in Pirkei Avos (Ethics of the Fathers): "Moshe received Torah from Sinai and **transmitted it** (*u'mesarah*) to Yehoshua..." * **The Implication:** While others learned from Moshe, Yehoshua held a unique position. He wasn't just *one* of the recipients; he was the designated individual to whom Moshe *formally transmitted* the *entirety* of the Oral Torah as the next link in the chain. Moshe essentially entrusted the whole tradition *to him personally*. 4. **The Crucial Distinction:** This reveals a fundamental difference between Moshe/Yehoshua and all subsequent heads of the Sanhedrin (Nesi'im): * **Moshe and Yehoshua:** Each stood as the *individual focal point* for the transmission of the *entire* Oral Torah for their generation. The authority rested singularly with them. * **Later Nesi'im:** While the Nasi was the "greatest scholar" and the "head" of the Sanhedrin, "standing in place of Moshe" as its leader, the *transmission* of the Torah itself flowed through the *entire court* ("many from many"). The Nasi was the leader *of* the transmitting body, not the sole conduit in the same way Moshe and Yehoshua were. **Applying the Distinction: Why Yehoshua's Role Couldn't Be Split** Now the Rebbe connects this back to the question of splitting leadership roles. 1. **Comparing Authority Types:** * **King:** The definition of a king is ultimate authority – "**None is above him except the L-rd his G-d**" (Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 2:6 based on Deut. 17:20). He is the sole ruler in his domain. * **Later Nasi:** Although the Nasi holds the highest rank in Torah ("supreme authority in Torah"), his leadership isn't absolute in the same way as a king's. He is the head *of* the Sanhedrin (a body of 71). His authority, while immense, is inherently tied to that collective body. Therefore, his "Nesi'us" (presidency/leadership) is *not* the same *type* of singular, absolute authority as a king's. Having a Nasi and a King doesn't create a conflict of "two kings" because their types of authority are distinct. 2. **Moshe and Yehoshua's Unique Nesi'us:** Their leadership in Torah was different. It wasn't just being head of the court; it was being the *sole individual transmitter* of the entire Oral Torah. This kind of singular, foundational authority *in the realm of Torah* **is** comparable in its exclusivity and fundamental nature to the authority of a king. 3. **The Conclusion:** Therefore, in the time of Moshe and Yehoshua, splitting the leadership into a military/political king *and* a Torah leader of *this unique, foundational caliber* would indeed have been like having "**two kings using one crown**" or "**two leaders**" in one generation. Their Torah Nesi'us itself had the quality of absolute, singular leadership usually associated with kingship. That's why G-d insisted on one person, Yehoshua, holding both roles. **Refining the Idea: Kingship and Torah are Intertwined** The Rebbe addresses a subtle follow-up question: Even if Yehoshua's Torah role was "king-like" in stature, aren't leading armies and transmitting Torah still fundamentally different *activities*? Why call it "one crown"? 1. **The True Purpose of a Jewish King:** The Rebbe quotes Rambam again (Hilchos Melachim 4:10) on the king's purpose: "His goal and thought should be to **elevate the true religion**, fill the world with **justice**, break the arm of the wicked, and **fight the wars of G-d**. For a king is not appointed initially except to **execute justice and wage wars**." * **Key Insight:** Jewish kingship isn't just about secular governance (providing roads, security, etc.). Its core purpose is intrinsically tied to upholding and implementing the Torah – ensuring justice according to Torah law, defending the nation for G-dly purposes ("wars of G-d"). 2. **Kingship as an Extension of Torah:** This means the king's role is, in essence, the *executive branch* that implements the rulings of the judicial branch (the Sanhedrin). The Sanhedrin are the "pillars of instruction from whom law and justice emerge for all Israel" (Rambam, Hilchos Mamrim 1:1), and the king's job is to put that Torah justice into practice throughout the nation. 3. **Why the King Honors Scholars:** This understanding explains why Jewish law requires the king to honor Torah scholars and stand before the Sanhedrin or the Kohen Gadol (when consulting the Divine guidance of the Urim V'Tumim). He is *receiving* the Torah guidance that forms the basis of his actions. (His requirement not to stand for others *publicly* relates to maintaining the necessary awe for his *executive authority* over the people, ensuring his commands are followed). 4. **Conclusion:** Kingship and Torah leadership (especially the foundational type of Moshe/Yehoshua) are not truly separate domains. They are deeply connected, forming a continuum where Torah provides the blueprint and kingship provides the implementation. Therefore, splitting them *is* like breaking apart a single entity, justifying the description "two kings... in one crown." **The Final Answer: Why Semicha (Laying Hands), Not Mishicha (Anointing)?** Now, the Rebbe returns to the original question with a clear answer. 1. **Recap:** We've established that for Moshe and Yehoshua, their kingship flowed directly from, and was secondary to, their unique, foundational role as the Nasi ba'Torah (the supreme, individual authority and transmitter of Torah). The kingship was the tool to implement the Torah they embodied. 2. **The Function of Semicha vs. Mishicha:** * **Mishicha (Anointing):** Its purpose is specifically to inaugurate and empower *Malchus* (kingship) in its standard sense – the authority to rule and lead militarily, as seen with Shaul. * **Semicha (Laying Hands):** This act is intrinsically linked to the transmission and authorization of *Torah* authority. It's the method used for ordination (granting the authority to rule on Jewish law – "Semuchin ish mipi ish," meaning ordained one tracing back authority generation by generation to Moshe). 3. **The Perfect Fit for Yehoshua:** Since Yehoshua's primary essence was his role as the Nasi ba'Torah ("Notzer te'einah" - the guardian of Torah), and his kingship was a consequence of that, his appointment was appropriately effected through *Semicha*. This act symbolized the transfer and empowerment of the *Torah authority* that was the root of his entire leadership, including his kingship. Anointing, which focuses solely on the external aspects of kingship, wasn't the core requirement for *this type* of leader. **Concluding Insights** The Rebbe concludes by drawing two broader implications from this analysis: 1. **Reconciling "First King":** This explains why some sources (like the Midrash) call Shaul the "first king," even though Rambam and others consider Moshe and Yehoshua kings. They represented two *different types* of kingship. Moshe and Yehoshua's kingship was secondary (*tafel*) to their primary role as supreme Torah authorities. Shaul and David represented the establishment of *Malchus* (kingship) as a distinct institution, where the royal function itself was primary (though still obligated to uphold Torah). 2. **Why Anointing Isn't Explicit in the Torah (Chumash):** Why doesn't the Pentateuch explicitly command the anointing of kings, despite giving other laws of kingship? * **The Answer:** The Torah primarily describes the *ideal* model of leadership as established initially with Moshe and his designated successor, Yehoshua. In *that* model, the leader embodies both supreme Torah authority and kingship, and the appointment is through *Semicha*. The need for *Mishicha* (anointing) only arose *later*, when the standard form of kingship (like Shaul's), separate from that unique, all-encompassing Torah Nesi'us, was instituted. The Torah focuses on the original, ideal blueprint. **In Summary:** The Rebbe brilliantly resolves the question of Yehoshua's missing anointing by revealing the unique and profound nature of his (and Moshe's) leadership. They weren't just kings in the later sense; they were the individual conduits for the entire Oral Torah, a role so foundational and singular that it paralleled kingship. Their authority stemmed primarily from this Torah role ("Notzer te'einah"), making *Semicha* (Torah transmission) the appropriate method of appointment, not *Mishicha* (kingly anointing). This understanding also clarifies the relationship between Torah and Jewish governance, showing them not as separate spheres but as an integrated system, especially in its ideal form embodied by Moshe and Yehoshua.