Author: Rabbi Milder

Posted on

Biha’aloscha – Competition

Towards the end of this week’s Torah portion of Biha’aloscha we have the mysterious episode of Eldad and Meidad. Why was there such a reaction from Yehoshua? Did they do anything wrong? The Medrish Tanchuma sheds light on this episode in the desert and it will also clarify an issue I have had for many years, of what is the similarity between jealousy and zealotry, which both have the same Hebrew word, kinah.
This episode took place within the first two years of the Jews’ freedom from Egypt, before the episode of the spies, right after Yisro gave the advice to Moshe to delegate his responsibilities among many courts, shortly after Yisro had left. Hashem told Moshe to gather 70 elders who would help him with taking care of the needs of the people.  The Medrish Tanchuma begins with deliberation on how to choose the elders. There was going to be lots drawn, but each tribe was to be equally represented, and 6 multiplied by 12 is 72, not 70. The Medrish Tanchuma writes: “So what did they do? Rebbe Nechemia said this is what Moshe did. He took 72 tickets, wrote the word ‘elder’ on 70 of them and two of them were left blank. They were mixed up and thrown into a ‘hat’ and he told [each one of the candidates] come and pick your ticket. If it says ‘elder’ on it you know you were chosen and if it is blank then you know you were not chosen. [There was actually someone appointed over the drawing to pick out each ticket. He would then read the ticket and give it to the next person in line.] The appointee would say [to the one standing before him,] ‘Here is one ticket which says ‘elder’ because you are befitting to be picked that is why you received this.’ In this way all the elders were appointed. Eldad and Meidad were there and they excluded themselves. They said ‘we are not worthy to be appointed as elders.’ And for excluding themselves they were given five qualities over the elders. The elders only prophesied the next day as it says ‘And to the nation you shall say you will sanctify them the next day.’ But they prophesied about what will happen at the end of forty years, as it says “And there were left two men etc.” What was their prophesy about? Some say it was about the downfall of Gog. Others say they prophesized and said that Moshe will die in the desert and Yehoshua will bring the Jews into the land. Proof that this was what they prophesized about, for this is what Yehoshua said to Moshe. ‘Yehoshua bin Nun, the servant of Moshe…’ and it writes ‘The youth ran and told Moshe…’ Who was this? Gershom ben Moshe, (Parenthetically on a historical note, the Etz Yosef points out that “the youth” must be referring to someone well known and not some random kid so it must be Gershom, Moshe’s firstborn son, because Eliezer was born on the way back to Egypt after the burning bush so he would only be 3 or 4 at the time of this episode. Also from the fact that Gershom is delivering the news must be that the prophesy was about Moshe’s death.) The elders did not enter the land but Eldad and Meidad did. Eldad is Elidad ben Kislon and Meidad is Kamiel ben Shiftan. We don’t know the elders’ names but we know their names. The elders’ prophecy was temporary for it stemmed from Moshe, as it says that Hashem told Moshe, ‘And I will delegate some of the spirit that is upon you and I will place it on them.’ But these two had prophesy [directly] from Hashem, as it says, ‘And the spirit rested upon them.’ One shouldn’t be mistaken to think that since the elders’ prophesy stemmed from Moshe then he was lacking a bit, for it can be comparable to a candle that was lit and many other candles were lit from it but the flame is not diminished in any way, so to Moshe, even though the prophesy of the 70 elders came from him he wasn’t lacking at all in his level of prophesy as it says, ‘There was no one that ever got up again like Moshe with in the Jewish people’ (Devarim 34:10).” (Click here and here for Hebrew text)
In summary, the Etz Yosef surmises that Eldad and Meidad were better off than the elders in five ways: (1) They prophesied about the future. (2) They entered the Land of Israel. (3) Their names were identified.  (4) There prophesizing did not stop. (5) There prophesy was directly from Hashem.

In explaining Yehoshua bin Nun’s concern and Moshe’s response, the Etz Yosef says that the elders only delegated prophesy from Moshe in order to work with him in taking care of the burdens of the nation. So Yehoshua didn’t have any kinah (jealousy or zealotry) for Moshe’s sake, since the prophesy was delegated from Moshe’s spirit and that is why their prophesy was temporary. But by Eldad and Meidad it writes: “that it rested on them,” the spirit from Hashem Himself. We know this since it does not write: “his spirit rested on them;” therefore it must be that they merited to have prophesy just like Moshe, straight from Hashem. About this very matter Yehoshua was jealous (or zealous) of them (for Moshe), for making themselves like Moshe. Moshe answered Yehoshua: “Why are you jealous (zealous) for me? Am I jealous of you? [Of course not] because you are my student… and who cares if all the nation of Hashem are prophets like me to go around and prophesize like Eldad and Meidad that Hashem chose to rest His spirit among them and not my spirit, to make them as important as me? I am not jealous of them because every one of them are my students and no one is jealous of their students!”

We see from this medrish that Eldad and Meidad were in fact very righteous people who emulated their teacher, Moshe, in the attribute of humility and merited to receive prophecy straight from Hashem instead of it being delegated through Moshe. It seems apparent that the kinah discussed in the Etz Yosef is not zeal but rather jealousy as inferred from Moshe’s response to Yehoshua of why Yehoshua should not have kinah on behalf of Moshe. This is because there is no reason for it because Moshe himself did not feel it since there is a psychological rule that teachers don’t feel jealousy towards their students. (Unless one can say that Yehoshua was being zealous for Moshe and Moshe is saying I have no jealousy of Eldad and Meidad because they are my students). In any event, we have to ask ourselves: what is jealousy and what is zeal?

Normally we think of jealousy as desiring something that someone else has. But in this case it is clearly not so, for Eldad and Meidad had the same type of prophesy as Moshe did, directly from Hashem, and Moshe even had a higher level of prophesy, face to face; so why is this jealousy? It would even seem that if not for the fact that they were his students Moshe would have felt kinah against them, albeit on his high level of humility, and the feeling would have been very miniscule. So what is this jealousy?
It must be that part of the attribute of kinah is competition and it might even be the underlying reason of kinah as we will see in the Orchos Tzadikim. In this way we will also see a commonality between jealousy and zeal.

In excerpts of Orchos Tzadikim in the Gate of Envy it writes: “Envy is a branch of anger, and no man escapes from it completely. For we see that among men each one tries to keep-up with one’s neighbor. For when he sees that his neighbor acquires food or clothes, or a home or amasses money, then he too endeavors to attain the same, thinking, “My fellow has all this; I must also have it.” And concerning this matter, Solomon hinted: “Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man’s rivalry with his neighbor” (Eccl. 4:4)… Envy is the result of a feeling of inferiority. If one envies another’s beauty, strength or wealth, then he is unhappy with what the Creator, blessed be He, has decreed for him. This is similar to a servant who complains concerning the deeds of his master, and is not pleased with his master’s matters. Such a one is not a faithful servant. All the more so, ought he not to complain against the Creator, may He be Blessed, for all His deeds are righteous and proper, and one ought never to dispute them… Even though jealousy is a very bad quality, there are instances where it can be a very good quality and, in fact, it can be a most noble quality, — when one envies those who revere God, as it is said : “Let not thy heart envy sinners, but those that fear the Lord all the day…” (Prov. 23:17). And in the same way our Sages said : “that the jealousy of wise men increases wisdom” (Baba Bathra 21a)… The Holy One, Blessed be He, said : “Be jealous for My sake, were it not for envy, the world would not stand. A man would not plant a vineyard, marry a wife or build a house (Shoher Tob 37a)… One ought to be zealous against sinners and the wicked, to strife with them and to rebuke them. As our Sages said : “A man who cohabitates with a heathen woman, the zealous ones should smite him” (Sanhedrin 81b). Moses was jealous of the Egyptian, as it is said, “And he smote the Egyptian” (Exod. 2:12). And so we find in the case of Elijah, when he said, “I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken Thy covenant” (I Kings 19:10). And so is it said, “In that he was very jealous for My sake among them” (Num. 25:11), and the Lord, may He be Blessed, gave him his reward for this as it is said: “Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace!” (Num. 25:12).  (Click here for Sefaria’s translation in its totality.)
In summary, the Orchos Tzadikim says the trait of jealousy, or envy, is a natural innate trait that everyone has and it is needed for the world to exist. However, if one gets carried away with being jealous of what others have, it can be very, very bad. He also discusses cases of zealotry like that of Pinchas, or the incident where Moshe killed an Egyptian to save a poor Jewish slave.  The Alay Orech, a commentary on the Orchos Tzadikim, points out that this type of kinah does not stem from strife or, G-D forbid, a bad attribute. Rather, zealotry stems from the perfection of man and his desire to make peace between the Jews and their Father In Heaven.  It would seem that jealousy and zealotry are two totally different  attributes, but are both called the same thing in Hebrew, kinah, and are both discussed in the same chapter of envy in Orchos Tzadikim. So how are they under the same umbrella?

Based on this Medrish Tanchuma and Etz Yosef we can say that all types of kinah boil down to competition. It doesn’t make a difference if someone has something you don’t have, or they have the same thing as you, or even similar to you, or whether it’s competing for the good of mankind, who will win good or evil, and being zealous to wipe out the evil. For good or for bad competition is the underlying impetus of all kinah.

Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Dovid Shmuel Milder

Posted on

Vayelech – Comfort Zone

There are 613 mitzvos [commandments] in the Torah. The last of which  is taught in this week’s Torah portion of Vayelech: “And now write for you this Song and teach it to the Children of Israel” (Devarim 31:19). In this verse the Torah is commanding every Jewish man to ‘have’ a Torah. This is source of the mitzvah of writing a Torah scroll. Practically, for those who are not trained scribes, one can fulfill this mitzvah simply by being involved in the writing of a Torah scroll, even just one letter..
The Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 613) discusses the root of this mitzvah: “Since it is known about mankind that the effort they put into doing something is based on the preparation needed for it, therefore Hashem commanded each and every Jew to have a Torah by him so he can constantly be reading it and he will not have to go to his friend’s house to find one. This is in order to learn to fear Hashem and to know and be enlightened in His dear and precious mitzvos which are like a great treasure of gold. It was commanded of every Jew to put in the effort to have one, even if his father bequeathed one to him in order so that there will be many Torah books amongst us and we can lend them out to those who cannot afford to buy their own. Another benefit to having new books is so that each Jew can read from them and not be disgusted [or turned off] from old prints that there father had left them. And you should know my son, that even though the main Torah obligation is only to have a Torah scroll, there is no doubt that other Torah books which were published as commentary on the Torah, one should acquire them if it is within his means for the reason we said above even if his father left him a collection. This is the way of any formidable person who is also G-D fearing who is able to establish a beis medrish in their house for authors to write many Torah books according to the blessing Hashem has given them.” (Click here for Hebrew text)
We learn from this Sefer HaChinuch that the final mitzvah of the Torah is not just to write a Torah scroll, but rather to have a large collection of sefarim, for example a Chumash and a Tanach, as well as the Talmud, other explanations on the Torah, and commentaries on the commentaries. Basically, whatever is needed to teach a fear of Hashem, and to appreciate fulfilling His Torah and mitzvos.

What is interesting to note is that even if one inherits a vast collection of sefarim, he still has a mitzvah to grow his own collection. One of the reasons for this is that in the event that the print is old or crumbly, the worn out conditions of the old sefarim might be displeasing for his heart’s content. Why should this be of a concern?

There is a gemara in Brachos 63b which states in the name of Reish Lakish: “How do we know that Torah can only survive within someone who kills himself over it? The Torah states: ‘This is the Torah, a person who dies in a tent’” (Bamidbar 19:14). The Torah Temimah (note 63) explains that this gemara is referring to a person who toils very hard to acquire Torah knowledge. What it means to kill oneself over Torah is to weaken oneself through his learning. (Click here for Hebrew text)

True Torah learning and delving into the profundities of the Torah can only be done through such grueling study that it could break a person and physically weaken his body through such diligent learning. One would think that if it takes such self-sacrifice to pummel the depths of Torah it should not make a difference what kind of book he is learning out of. Nothing should faze him or get in the way of attaining the truth of Torah; however we learn from this Sefer HaChinuch that in order to be successful in one’s learning a person should be attuned to his  comfort zone, and he must effectively sink into the depths of the Torah and submerge himself in its back breaking toil.

We even find in Pirkei Avos (6:4) that when it says “This is the way of Torah: bread with salt you shall eat, and water in measure to drink, and on the ground you shall sleep, and a life of suffering you shall live, and in Torah you shall toil. And if you do this happy you will be and good for you,” Rashi says on this Mishna that it is not referring to the rich. They do not need to suffer in order to learn Torah; rather, what it means is that even if a person only has bread and salt etc. and no mattress or pillow to sleep on, he still should not stop his involvement in Torah study, for in the end he will learn Torah in wealth. (Click here for Hebrew text)

We see from here that there is no concept of torturing oneself to learn Torah. A person must be in his comfort zone, and that will help him learn diligently. He has to be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of learning, but he still has to find his comfort zone to be successful. The litmus test is his diligence; the drive to keep on learning and getting clarity in Torah and mitzvos. Once one gets into the groove of learning then he will get so involved it could take a toll on him, but the feeling of elation and success will be overwhelming inside him and he will thirst for more.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 2 halacha 11

Today we discussed a very important concept. A judge, government official, board member, and anyone of that sort cannot revealed how he or she voted especially if it takes off blame on him or herself and dumps the blame on the others it is rechilus or lashon hara. Certainly to say I disagree with the ruling or the vote, which will ensue negativity and hatred is forbidden but even to say I originally held this way but I was forced to vote another way, or even if one says, this is what I originally thought but now I see I was wrong and I voted otherwise is rechilus according to the Yad HaKetana. 

Bottom line transparency isn’t always proper and can very likely be lashon hara/rechilus. The Chofetz Chaim had a very logical reasoning behind why the minority can’t reveal what they felt as well as why individual’s statements from a meeting shouldn’t be shared with anyone outside the meeting. Many times a statement of an individual might not be fully correct, or might even be a knee jerk reaction which was not meant to be said and it is only a part of a picture that is being painted in a meeting which can only be revealed and publicized in it’s finished product. The Chofetz Chaim says that the truth is usually on the side of the majority because when putting all heads together and analyzing everything, taking things into account which an individual might have overlooked causes the truth to come out and therefore the majority of a vote is most likely the closest thing to the truth.

That being said, is only true assuming you are dealing with a group which is trying to come up with the truth and has the means to do so. Therefore, for example, if the majority of the world disagrees with the notion that there is G-D in the world or if the Torah was divinely given to the Jews and should be observed that does not mean they are correct. A misguided, ignorant majority is not considered a majority.

What’s important here to know is that the minority opinion in a situation where there is a valid majority does not have the right to publicize their opinion after the vote is cast because they will just spread salt on an open wound which otherwise would have healed after sometime after that whomever lost.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #46

  1. Question: If someone stole an esrog on Sukkos and returns a different one of lesser value during Sukkos why is that ok but if one stole a garment with tzitzis on it and he returns a garment with tzitzis on it of lesser value it is not good enough? Background:
  2. The Mishna LiMelech (Hilchos Maaseh Korbanos 16:7) questioned whether the owner can claim I want to perform the mitzvah in the best possible way which is why I bought this expensive esrog, or can the thief claim back that since you already fulfilled the mitzvah at least once, the first time being the Torah level mitzvah and the rest rabbinic then he isn’t obligated in giving him back the nicest esrog. The Mishna LiMelech brought down the Maharam Mintz who proved from the 7th chapter of Bava Metzia that the owner has no right to claim that he wanted to perform the mitzvah in the best possible way.

Answer: The esrog itself is really not worth anymore that a few dollars but because of the holiday it is worth a lot more so one cannot claim the full amount he bought it for since it is inflated he just is entitled to a kosher esrog that can be used on Sukkos. However the garment has an intrinsic value and the tzitzis tied onto it just adds to its intrinsic beauty and value so the full value has to be paid back.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #45

  1. Question: What is the difference between taking out shaatnez from the collar of a four cornered garment after one has already tied tzitzis on it and removing an oath from the garment you swore you wouldn’t wear after you put tzitzis on it, according to the Pri Megadim?

Background:

A. The Pri Megadim (Mishbetzos Zahav 18:1) says that if one first put on tzitzis onto the garment and then removed the shaatnez one has to restring the tzitzis because the Torah says that one has to put on tzitzis on a garment ready to be worn, not make it obligated in tzitzis once the strings are already on, therefore if it has shaatnez on it, it is not wearable yet.

B. The Imray Binah mentions the case of a garment that one has sworn not to wear and then gets his oath annulled after putting on tzitzis. Why wouldn’t that be an issue of making it wearable after tzitzis is tied on it just like the shaatnez case?

Answer: The garment with shaatnez is forbidden to everyone so it is totally unwearable until fixed but the garment he swore not to wear is only forbidden to the one who made the oath but is permited to anyone else so it is considered ready to have tzitzis put on even before the owner is  able to wear it. You can also say that even if it was forbidden by an oath to the entire world it is different because it was a side issue which did not make it wearable but shaatnez is a fundamental issue in the garment itself so you must first take care of the issue then tie on the tzitzis.

Posted on

Consciences about What Others Think

At the end of last week’s Torah portion of Bamidbar, the Torah counts and discusses the role of the family of Kehas in the carrying of the mishkan. Then in the first two pesukim of this week’s Torah portion of Naso, it begins: “Hashem spoke to Moshe saying: Raise up the head of the children of Gershon them also according to their father’s house, according to their family” (Bamidbar 4:21, 22).

The Daas Zekeinim, and the Rosh in a bit more detail, were wondering why the pasuk says “them also,” as if we would have thought otherwise. They answer: “for because of the earlier census (3:17) which was from one month old and older, the children of Gershon were counted first since he was the oldest of the tribe of Levi, as it says ‘And the children of Levi, Gershon, Kehas, and Merrari’ (Breishis 46:11). But this census of age 30 and up the children of Kehas were counted first because the main service was upon them, i.e. they carried the aron (ark), shulchan (table of the showbread), and the alters (see earlier 3:31). This is why it mentions “them also” by the children of Gershon, meaning that even though the children of Kehas were commanded to be counted first, the children of Gershon were not left out and not fully counted, rather they also were counted. [Click here and here for Hebrew text.] 

The family of Gershon was the first to be counted in the general census of the tribe of Levi, from one month of age and older, because Gershon was the firstborn of Levi. But when it came time to count the census of those doing the service for the Mishkan, from ages 30 to 50, the family of Kehas was counted first. Therefore the Torah says to not worry, the family of Gershon will also be counted in this census of the workers. The simple and obvious question is what is the concern? A few pesukim later in pasuk 38 the count for the family of Gershon is counted amongst those who are able to serve. They didn’t do anything wrong; there is nothing to suspect them about. The family of Kehas just had a more important role in the Mishkan than the family of Gershon, so why did the Torah have to waste two extra words just to tell us don’t worry they will be counted?

It must be, then, that people have a natural tendency of being suspicious of change when something different happens. We learn from here that one has a responsibility to quell the suspicions as much as possible at the very least in cases where there is no reason for anyone to be suspect as in this scenario. For this reason Hashem felt compelled to foreshadow at the beginning of the Torah portion that the family of Gershon will be counted in the second census even though, with enough patience we would see in the next aliyah that they are counted.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim, Chapter 2, Halachos 8-10

In halacha 8 we saw that it makes no difference how the speaker said don’t repeat it to anyone. A secret is a secret, even when said in a group of at least 3. However in the footnote, the Chofetz Chaim said, that it might be possible to repeat it to others if the speaker only said to not repeat it to the one being talked about, but he wasn’t sure. He also said that if two people are speaking and two are listening that does not count as a group of 3. The 3 must be only listeners not also speaking. The reason being, and this is an interesting but important psychology, is that Chaza”l say that bad people often regret what they do or say, therefore in this case if two were speaking an only two listening then it is very possible that those speaking might regret the negative they said about there fellow and wouldn’t want to repeat it so the news would never spread.

In halacha 9 we learned that adding anything to what one hear in front of 3 is absolutely forbidden whether it is just adding an acknowledgement that what you heard sounds nice or must be true and definitely embellishing what you heard is absolutely forbidden.

In halacha 10 the Chofetz Chaim warns that if you know that if one of the people listening is someone who is known to accept everything on face value as truth and has a tendency to spread it then you must be very careful not to speak to him anything even a hint of negativity about anyone. He concludes that the chances of being able to check off all that has to be checked off in order to use the leniency of apie tlasa is very far-fetched and even if you do there are poskim that say the leniency should not be used because it has no source in the Talmud. So stay far away. We concluded that even in a case where the statement made can be taken in two ways, should also be avoided, therefore if you want to bring your message across be as clear and positive as possible, like in a case where someone asks where he can get a good meal, be straight forward, don’t say this family always has something boiling up in there pot.

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test #44

Question: When creating a habit why would the fact that you made a mistake and said morid hageshem in your shemone esray after Pesach not disrupt and force you to start all over again the 30 day count of creating a habit but if an ox gores a cow one day then stops when he sees other cows for a couple of days then gores two more cows on consecutive days that does not create a habit of a muad, a habitual goring cow?

Background:

 A. The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 114:8) says that after 30 days of not saying morid hageshem in the summer or vice versa in the winter then one can assume that he said it if he is unsure but within 30 days he must go back and repeat shemone esray if he is unsure because he hasn’t yet created a habit to say or ignore morid hageshem.

 B. The Machatzis Hashekel is wondering why if one makes a mistake he doesn’t have to start the 30 days all over again in order to create the habit.

 C. The Gemara in Bava Kama daf 36 says that if an ox gores one day and the next day does not gore then gores for another two consecutive days it is not habitual because the first goring doesn’t combine with the other two (3 are needed to create a habit) since in between he saw cows and didn’t gore them.

Answer: The ox has to show that he formed a consistent pattern of an assumption that it will constantly gore if faced with the situation to gore if it doesn’t create the pattern it does not become a muad, habitual. Whereas the 30 days one needs to get use to saying morid hageshem or vice versa is creating a habit one is not used to so each time one does it correctly it compounded and combines with the previous time to create an amplifying affect which turns into a habit after 30 days so if one missed one or two days it is alright because he is not used to it yet but the cumulative effect is still building up until he is use to it after 30 days. (It has nothing to do with a pattern.)

Posted on

Torah Riddles Test # 43

1. Question: Why does the Gemara in Yevamos find fault in nullifying the mitzvah of Yibum if one creates a situation where it is forbidden for it to be done but if that is the case it should be forbidden to take off your four corner garment because one is nullifying the mitzvah of tzitzis?

Background:

 A. The Gemara in Yevamos says that there is a view who holds that it is forbidden to nullify the mitzvah of yibum for example: If there are four brothers, two of them married two sisters and died and we say that the other two brothers should do chalitza not yibum for if one of the remaining brothers do yibum and then dies then the last brother cannot do yibum or chalitza after he die yibum to one of the sisters before because the Yevama would be the sister of his wife.

B. The mitzvah of tzitzis is to don tzitzis on a four cornered garment one is wearing or wrapped in.

C. The mitzvah of yibum is to marry the wife of your childless brother with the intention of upholding his name by having a child through his widowed wife.

Answer: The mitzvah of yibum is still there his brother still died childless it is just that he can’t fulfill it because it would be his wife’s sister who is forbidden to him, so there would be an overriding exemption. The Gemara is saying that one is not allowed to put in himself into a position that he would be forced to be exempt from the mitzvah. Whereas when one takes off his garment the entire mitzvah is gone it’s not like it is there but there is an exemption therefore it is not considered nullifying the mitzvah to take off one’s tzitzis garment.

Posted on

Bamidbar – Proper Respect

For Food for Thought in Spanish: Haga clic aquí para leer en español. Please share this with your Jewish Spanish speaking family, friends, and associates.

There is a lesson in this week’s Torah portion of Bamidbar, the beginning of the Torah’s fourth book, which might not sound so profound at first glance. Yet if the Torah decided to emphasize it, it is worth taking the time to analyze and appreciate its lesson.
In the beginning of the third perek of Bamidbar, the Torah states:

1These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe on the day that the Lord spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai.אוְאֵ֛לֶּה תּֽוֹלְדֹ֥ת אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן וּמשֶׁ֑ה בְּי֗וֹם דִּבֶּ֧ר ד’ אֶת־משֶׁ֖ה בְּהַ֥ר סִינָֽי:
2These are the names of the sons of Aharon: Nadav the firstborn Avihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.בוְאֵ֛לֶּה שְׁמ֥וֹת בְּנֵי־אַֽהֲרֹ֖ן הַבְּכֹ֣ר | נָדָ֑ב וַֽאֲבִיה֕וּא אֶלְעָזָ֖ר וְאִֽיתָמָֽר:

 The Maharam from Rottenberg, a Rishon, asks: what difference does it make for the Torah to mention that Nadav was the firstborn? He did not get a double portion in the distribution of the land, since the kohanim did not receive any share in the land [of Israel when they conquered it]?

The Maharam explains that in fact there is a separation between the word “bechor” (which means first born) and the name “Nadav” [denoted by a line in our chumashim as seen above. We know this through a tradition dating back to when we received the Torah on Har Sinai]. This means the word “firstborn” is referring to Aharon, telling us that Aharon was older than Moshe. We shouldn’t wonder why the previous pasuk started off listing Aharon then Moshe, for Aharon was older than Moshe and when the lineage was being counted it was counted in order of age, not wisdom. This also happened earlier in the book of Shemos, in the Torah portion of Vaera; when stating the lineage [of Amram] the Torah writes: “And he bore Aharon and Moshe” (Shemos 6:20). After that in pasuk 26 it is written: “it is Aharon and Moshe” who were mentioned earlier by the lineage. Then after that, in pasuk 27 the Torah says: “They were the ones who spoke to Pharaoh… Moshe and Aharon,” meaning when it came to mentioning them talking to the king as well as bringing the Jews out of Egypt, Moshe comes before Aharon. (Click here and here for Hebrew text.)

Shavuos is upon us, the day we received the Torah on Har Sinai. Moshe Rabbeinu, who chaza”l considered the king of the Jewish people in the desert, brought down the Torah from Heaven to teach it to us. He was on the mountain top for forty days and forty nights without eating or drinking. He sacrificed his life for Torah and for that reason it is called ‘Toras Moshe,’ Moshe’s Torah. That being said, one would think Moshe, chosen by G-d to be the leader and king of the Jewish People, would have earned the right to be written first every time he is mentioned alongside anyone else; isn’t that just and proper respect of a king?

Furthermore, even if Hashem wanted to acknowledge and teach us that Aharon was born first, He need only tell us that a single time. The Torah even says that Moshe was 80 and Aharon was 83 (in that order) when first confronting Pharaoh to let the Jewish people go (Shemos 7:7). Why then must Hashem put Aharon first before Moshe when each time lineage is discussed?

However it would seem that Hashem is driving home an important lesson in respect and honor to our fellow man. Granted, respect and honor can be earned through diligence in Torah study and good deeds, and must be acknowledged by others, but there are also innate and natural times of respect that cannot be ignored, such as when the lineage is being counted and Aharon, the older brother, was mentioned first each time in the Torah because in respect to family lineage that respect and honor needs to be identified each time. Yet when it came to speaking to Pharaoh and leading the Jews out of Egypt, Moshe was always mentioned before Aharon because he earned that respect, and was therefore appointed to be the leader and king of the Jewish people.

Similarly, the Ramban in the Torah portion of Kedoshim clearly says by the verse: “You shall rise before a venerable person and you shall respect the elderly, and you shall fear your God. I am the Lord” (Vayikra 19:32), that one has a mitzvah to stand before the elderly even if he is a layman. Granted, for a sage, at whatever age, there is a mitzvah to stand up when they enter the room because they earned that status of honor and respect. But even a person who isn’t so learned, but simply has the experience of years, has a natural, innate honor that should be respected, and therefore there is a mitzvah to stand when an elderly person, be it even a simple layman, enters the room (as long as he is not wicked).

The lesson is clear. We have to show proper respect and honor when and where it is due. The trick, though, which is not so easy, is to acknowledge this fact so one can properly act on it when the situation arises.