Timeless Torah

Miriam had died; so had Aaron. Now Moses himself was within sight of the angel of death. Who would be his heir? Had he given the issue of succession any thought? One clue can be found in Moses’ prayer to G-d “The time has come that I should make a request of my own, that my sons inherit my position.” G-d replied, “This is not what I have decided. Joshua deserves to receive reward for serving you and never leaving your tent.” As King Solomon said, “He that keeps the vineyard shall eat its fruit and he that waits on his master shall be honored.” (Rashi)
How poignant! Not only was Moses fated not to enter Israel, he also saw his sons relegated to obscurity. This was a personal tragedy. Was he disappointed, angry? Listen carefully. G-d to Moses, “You also will be gathered to your people, as your brother Aaron was.” Rashi, intrigued by the superfluous word also, comments that, “Moses desired to die as Aaron had.”
In what sense? Did he wish to die painlessly like Aaron? Clearly, the avoidance of pain alone was not Moses’ concern! Was it Aaron’s popularity who was mourned by, “All the children of Israel?” This too cannot be. Surely Moses did not seek popularity.
The Ksav Sofer explains: Aaron had the privilege of knowing that his son, Elazar, would follow in his footsteps as high priest. Similarly, Moses longed to see one of his sons take his place as leader of the people. It was not to be, and his prayer was not granted.
Moses and Aaron epitomize the two great roles in Jewish continuity - horim and morim - parents and teachers. A parent passes on the Jewish heritage to children; a teacher to disciples. Aaron was the archetypal parent; Moses was the teacher (to this day we call him Moshe Rabbenu-Moses our teacher). Aaron was succeeded by his son; Moses by his student.
Leadership in Torah does not pass automatically. The Talmud states: Be careful not to neglect the children of the poor, for from them Torah goes forth...Why is it not usual for scholars to give birth to children who are scholars? So that it might not be said that Torah is their legacy...That they not be arrogant...Because they act high-handedly. (Nedarim 81a)
Were Torah leadership to be dynastic, a matter of inheritance, Judaism would quickly become a society of privilege and hierarchy. Judaism was utterly opposed to this. Everyone has a share in Torah. Nowhere is this more clearly emphasized than while both the crowns of priesthood and sovereignty were handed down from father to son, the crown of Torah was the province of all Israel.
And yet, we do find in the sources a paradox: Torah indeed describes itself as an inheritance. “Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance (morashah)...” In truth, our Sages also said, “Prepare yourself to learn Torah, for it is not given to you as an inheritance (yerusha).”
The simple resolution is that there are two kinds of inheritance. In Biblical Hebrew a legacy is either a yerushah or nachalah. Nachalah, related to the word nachal - a river, signifies something passed down automatically through the generations, as river water flows downstream. Yerushah is from the root yarash-to take possession. It refers to something to which you have legitimate title, but for which you need positive action to acquire.
A hereditary title, such as being a duke, is passed from father to son. So too is a family business. The difference is that the first needs no effort on the part of the heir, but the second requires hard work if the business is to continue to be worth something. Torah is serious business, not merely a title. One can possess it, but for it to be worth something it must be earned.
The Sages put it more beautifully: Moses commanded us the Torah as an inheritance-morashah - read not inheritance-morashah but betrothed-m’orasah. By a simple change in pronunciation - turning a shin-ש into a sin-ש, “inheritance” into “betrothal” - the Rabbis signaled that there is an inheritance relationship between Torah and the Jew, but the first has to be loved by the second (with earnest study) if its value is to be realized.
This too was hinted at by the wise Solomon, “He who keeps the fig tree shall eats its fruit...he that waits on his master shall be honored.” (Proverbs 27:28). To be teacher, it is first necessary to be student; to be a leader it is essential that prior one was a follower. Because Joshua served faithfully, he was worthy to lead.
So while other societies sought to create equality by evenly distributing power or wealth; none succeeded. The Jewish approach was different. A society of equal dignity was one in which knowledge was available to all. Jews were the first to democratize education. From earliest times to today, our communities have been built around schools, sustained by communal funds so that none should be excluded.
Moses was therefore denied the chance to see his children inherit his role, so that his personal disappointment would become a source of hope to future generations. Torah leadership was not the prerogative of the elite. It was not confined to those descended from great scholars. It was, and is, open to all; if we will it and give it our best effort. Our world is defined and created by Torah. Everyone can wear the crown of Torah.
And that was Moses’ greatest consolation and his true inheritance. Just as, to this day, cohanim-priests are the sons of Aaron, so are all who study Torah the disciples of Moses. Some are given the privilege of being a parent; others, that of being a teacher. These are Judaism’s greatest roles, one immortalized in Aaron, the other made eternal in Moshe Rabbenu - Moses our teacher.