Bamidbar: Moshe's Non-Biological Sons
Who were Moshe's sons? You may be tempted to answer, "Gershom and Eliezer" - but that's not what it says in Bamidbar's census. The answer given by the pesukim sheds light on what makes a good teacher.
For those who haven’t heard, I started dabbling in creating Torah content for Instagram! Check it out, and if you like what you see, follow me for IG-specific Torah content!
This week's Torah content has been sponsored by the following individuals:
- by Marci in loving memory of Rabbi Moskowitz zt"l with gratitude for enriching the lives of his many students.
- by my mom, Terri Schneeweiss, in loving memory of Rabbi Moskowitz for showing us the light of Reality and giving us the courage and confidence to grow (and warmest aloha to Leya).
- by Ann, Hadassah & Shmuel in memory of Rabbi Moskowitz zt"l with love and a sea of gratitude.
Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for the podcast version.
Bamidbar: Moshe's Non-Biological Sons
It is easy to get lost in the census data of Parashas Bamidbar and miss the glaring difficulties in the text, such as:
These are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe on the day Hashem spoke with Moshe at Har Sinai. These are the names of the sons of Aharon: the firstborn was Nadav, and Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar. These were the names of the sons of Aharon, the anointed Kohanim, whom he inaugurated to minister. (Bamidbar 3:1-2)
The problem is that the Torah declares its intent to list the offspring of both Aharon and Moshe, but then it only lists the sons of Aharon! Moshe’s offspring, Gershom and Eliezer, are subsumed under a general heading in the census of the Leviim: “Kehas had the family of Amram” (ibid. 3:27). They aren’t even mentioned by name. What are we to make of this? The most oft-cited answer mentioned in the commentaries is the one given by Chazal:
Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of his friend, Scripture considers it as though he begot him (yelado), as it is stated: "these are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe," followed by "these are the names of the sons of Aharon." This teaches us that Aharon begat [them,] but Moshe taught [them]. Therefore, they are called by his name. (Sanhedrin 19b)
The Rambam (Moreh 1:7) explains that although the primary meaning of the word Y.L.D. is "to bear children," it is "likewise used figuratively with reference to the formation of thoughts, and the opinions and views they entail." “It is in this sense,” the Rambam continues, “that whoever teaches an individual in some matter and transmits knowledge to him, has ‘begat’ that person, insofar as he has provided him with that knowledge.”
There is a major problem with applying this understanding to Chazal’s resolution of our difficulty: if Aharon’s sons were considered Moshe’s offspring because he taught them, shouldn’t all the Jews be considered Moshe’s offspring as well? After all, we call him Moshe Rabbeinu (our teacher) because he taught Torah to everyone! This question is raised by the Sifsei Chachamim (R’ Shabbsai ben Yosef Bass) who offers the following answer:
One can answer by saying that Moshe taught the entire Jewish people because he was commanded by Hashem … therefore, it is not relevant to say, “anyone who teaches Torah [to the son of his friend, it is as if he begot him].” But regarding the sons of Aharon, with whom Moshe was not obligated to learn – for the father is obligated to teach Torah to his own son – because of this they are called the offspring of Moshe. Likewise, it seems one can infer this from the language: “anyone who teaches Torah to the son of his friend” (i.e. implying that his friend is not discharging his obligation to teach his own son).
According to the Sifsei Chachamim, it is not the act of teaching per se which produces this non-biological father-son relationship; rather, it is the decision to teach by choice rather than by obligation.
Why does this distinction matter? My chavrusa, Chaim, suggested that it is because this type of teaching results in a different sort of teacher-student relationship. Those whose teaching is dictated by duty will tend not to exceed those duties, but those who teach freely will develop a qualitatively different dynamic with their students, and will nurture their growth without limitation, just as parents do with their children.
Being that today is the first yahrzeit of my rebbi, Rabbi Morton Moskowitz zt”l, I can’t help but think about this idea as it applies to my relationship with him. I certainly gained from Rabbi Moskowitz’s high school classes, but my special relationship with him is due to the learning we did outside of school: the free classes he gave for students and their parents at his home on Sundays, the group learning (and hangout sessions) we enjoyed during the summers, and our regular chavrusa-learning we carried on until his health prevented him from doing so. It was through this “extra-curricular” learning that Rabbi Moskowitz became like a father to me, and it is this type of learning that I endeavor to provide for my own students.
If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at www.patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.
If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.
-----
Substack: rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/
Patreon: patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss
YouTube: youtube.com/rabbischneeweiss
Instagram: instagram.com/rabbischneeweiss/
"The Stoic Jew" Podcast: thestoicjew.buzzsprout.com
"Machshavah Lab" Podcast: machshavahlab.buzzsprout.com
"The Mishlei Podcast": mishlei.buzzsprout.com
"Rambam Bekius" Podcast: rambambekius.buzzsprout.com
"The Tefilah Podcast": tefilah.buzzsprout.com
Old Blog: kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/
WhatsApp Group: https://chat.whatsapp.com/GEB1EPIAarsELfHWuI2k0H
Amazon Wishlist: amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/Y72CSP86S24W?ref_=wl_sharel
Hi, I just listened to the Judaism Demystified podcast on God doing the impossible. Comments were turned off so I'm leaving leaving a comment here instead. I'm not sure I understand how you can make the statement that a person cannot believe in concepts that are impossible to the mind (eg square circle) when Rambam himself posits such things - eg the belief in free will while maintaining divine foreknowledge or even the concept of divine knowledge itself which in yesodei hatorah 2:10 Rambam stated that the mind cannot conceive of God being 3 things which are one (ugh oh!)
הוּא הַיּוֹדֵעַ וְהוּא הַיָּדוּעַ וְהוּא הַדֵּעָה עַצְמָהּ הַכּל אֶחָד. וְדָבָר זֶה אֵין כֹּחַ בַּפֶּה לְאָמְרוֹ וְלֹא בָּאֹזֶן לְשָׁמְעוֹ וְלֹא בְּלֵב הָאָדָם לְהַכִּירוֹ עַל בֻּרְיוֹ