Bamidbar: Propagating Spiritual Children

When explaining the verse,4 “These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai,” Rashi cites the words “These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe” and comments:

The verse mentions only the sons of Aharon.5 They are called the descendants of Moshe because Moshe taught them the Torah. This clarifies that anyone who teaches the Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him.

The commentaries6 explain that although Moshe taught Torah to the entire Jewish people, this special distinction was given only to the sons of Aharon because Moshe taught them individually, doing so before he taught the Jewish people as a whole.

(Rashi already mentioned this detail earlier, at the end of Parshas Ki Sissa,7 when describing the order of instruction through which Moshe conveyed the Torah to the Jewish people. There, he explained that Moshe taught each passage of the Torah that he received from G‑d four times: first to Aharon, then to his sons, then to the elders, and then to the Jewish people as a whole.)

Moshe was not obligated to teach Aharon’s sons separately. On the contrary, since Moshe had already conveyed the teachings to Aharon, the obligation8 to teach his children9 fell upon Aharon himself. Accordingly, Moshe received a unique reward for this: “Scripture considered it as if he fathered them.”

Rashi then continues his interpretation, beginning a new entry, “ ‘On the day that G‑d spoke to Moshe ’ – [It was on this day that] they became his descendants, because he taught them what he had learned from the mouth of the Almighty.” It appears superfluous to add this explanation in the second entry. Seemingly, Rashi already communicated this concept in the first entry by stating, “because Moshe taught them Torah… Scripture considered it as if he fathered them.”

The commentaries10 explain that Rashi felt it necessary to address the following questions: How does the previous phrase, “These are the descendants of Aharon,” relate to the phrase that immediately follows in this verse, “on the day that G‑d spoke to Moshe…”? What connection do they share? In answer, Rashi explains that the phrase “on the day that G‑d spoke…” refers not to the words, “These are the descendants of Aharon,” but to the inclusion of Moshe in that phrase – that he, too, is regarded as having fathered them. Since Aharon’s sons are also called the descendants of Moshe (because he taught them the Torah, as Rashi mentioned in his previous entry), the Torah clarifies when this happened – “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe,” for it was then that Moshe “taught them what he had learned from the mouth of the Almighty.”

Nevertheless, the emphasis on “the day G‑d spoke to Moshe” still seems somewhat problematic. On the surface, Moshe did not teach Aharon’s sons Torah only on that one day, but throughout the entire time following “the day G‑d spoke to Moshe.” Moreover, Moshe’s principal instruction of the Jewish people as a whole and Aharon’s sons in particular, did not begin until11 the day after Yom Kippur, following the third 40-day period that Moshe spent on Mount Sinai, more than four months after “the day G‑d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai,” when he “taught them what he had learned from the mouth of the Almighty.”

The commentaries offer two possible resolutions of this difficulty:

a) In this instance, the phrase bayom dibar means not “on the day [G‑d] spoke,” but “from the day G‑d spoke.” We find a similar use of the letter beis as a prefix in the verse,12 והנותר בבשר ובלחם, which means “what remains from the meat and the bread.”13

b) By saying “on the day,” the Torah teaches us that “even if a person only teaches [another person’s son] one thing – i.e., he taught them only on one day – he becomes his descendant.”14

In addition to these resolutions appearing forced, it is difficult to say that this is Rashi’s intent because:15

a) What does it matter when Aharon’s sons became Moshe’s descendants “because he taught them Torah”?16

b) More crucially: Moshe also taught the Jews the Torah before the Giving of the Torah at Sinai, i.e., “the day G‑d spoke to Moshe.” As Rashi explains,17 “[Before the Giving of the Torah,] in Marah, he related to them some of the passages of the Torah so that they could occupy themselves with their [study].” Furthermore, even in Egypt, G‑d commanded many laws, as stated in Parshas Bo,18 and Moshe communicated them and taught them to the Jewish people. Why, then, did Aharon’s sons first become Moshe’s descendants on “the day G‑d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai” and not before that time?

It is problematic to say that the order of instruction through which Moshe conveyed the Torah and at which time he taught Aharon’s sons the Torah individually – for which reason they became his descendants, as explained above – began only after Yom Kippur19 and not before then. After all, the reason – whatever it was – for teaching according to this order of instruction and, in particular, for teaching Aharon’s sons individually, was relevant to the same degree also before Moshe taught the people after Yom Kippur. Indeed, this is evident from the very fact that already “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe on Mount Sinai,” i.e., on the sixth or seventh of Sivan,20 Moshe taught Aharon’s sons individually.⁸ (We must say so, because it was then that they became “his descendants.”) Accordingly, it is logical to say that even before the Giving of the Torah,21 Moshe studied with them in the same manner as afterwards.

There also several details in the wording that Rashi uses that raise questions. Among them:

a) From Rashi’s wording in the first entry, “It is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him,” it is evident that the intent is not that Aharon’s sons actually became Moshe’s descendants. Instead, the wording implies that, as their teacher, Moshe is being given a reward – it is “considered as if he fathered them.” By contrast, in the second entry, Rashi says, “they became his descendants,” implying that Aharon’s sons actually became Moshe’s descendants.

The questions multiply when viewing the Talmudic source for Rashi’s commentary,22 “Anyone who teaches another person’s son Torah is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him, as it is stated, ‘These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe’…. Moshe taught [them Torah.] Therefore, they were called by his name.’ ” Rashi adds to the wording of the Talmud, saying not only that “they were called23 the descendants of Moshe,” but also “they became his descendants.”

b) The lengthy wording used by Rashi, “He taught them what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty,” appears superfluous. Seemingly, Rashi should have used the same concise wording he used in the first entry, “He taught them the Torah.”24

Even if one would say that since the verse uses the phrase, “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe,” Rashi sought to emphasize that Moshe taught them what G‑d told him, the wording is still problematic. Were that to be the intent, the following difficulty still remains: Why does Rashi deviate from both the wording and meaning of the verse and say, “what he learned,” not “what he heard”? And why does he say “from the mouth of the Almighty,” not “from the mouth of G‑d” or the like? Why does he refer to G‑d with this term?

To explain all of the above: Rashi cannot remain content with the interpretation, “Anyone who teaches Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him,” because the verse states, “These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe.” If the verse had merely stated these are the descendants of Moshe, it could be explained that the verse is using the term “descendants” figuratively,25 i.e., that by teaching another person’s child the Torah, one is “considered by Scripture as if he fathered him.” To cite a parallel: On the phrase,26 “the souls he made in Charan,” Rashi comments that Avraham, “brought them under the wings of the Divine Presence… and is considered by Scripture as if he made them.” Similarly, later on,27 when – as in the verse at hand – speaking about Torah study, Rashi offers the interpretation, “ ‘You shall teach them to your children ’: This refers to students. Universally, we find that students are called sons.”

However, that interpretation is not appropriate regarding the verse at hand, because it states, “These are the descendants of Aharon and Moshe,” mentioning the two in the same breath, implying that they are Moshe’s descendants to the same degree as they are Aharon’s descendants. That is difficult to understand: How can it be said that Aharon’s sons are Moshe’s descendants just like they are Aharon’s descendants, when in fact their entire existence came about because Aharon fathered them, while Moshe only studied Torah with them? Without minimizing how important that is, it cannot be said that Moshe brought about an entirely new state of being. Seemingly, all that can be said is that because Moshe taught them Torah, “Scripture considers it as if he fathered them.”

For this reason, Rashi explains that the verse clarifies this point by adding the words, “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe.” This verse emphasizes that the Torah Moshe taught Aharon’s sons was “what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty.” As such, this brought about a mighty act, i.e., Aharon’s sons “became his descendants.”28 The implication is that this study transformed and remade their entire existence in a spiritual sense to the extent that they became Moshe’s descendants, as will be explained.

As a preparation for the Giving of the Torah, G‑d instructed Moshe to tell the Jewish people,29 “Now, if you heed My voice and keep My covenant, you shall be a treasure for Me among all peoples…. You shall be for Me a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation.”

The Giving of the Torah, and its acceptance by the Jewish people, brought about a fundamental change in the essential nature of their existence. Beforehand, they were like the other nations. As a result of the Giving of the Torah, they became a distinct and different entity – “a treasure among all peoples” and “a kingdom of kohanim and a holy nation.”

G‑d, therefore, revealed Himself to the Jewish people at the Giving of the Torah with might – there was “thunder… lightning… and the sound of the shofar.”30 This brought about the change in the fundamental being of the Jewish people31 and, therefore, our Sages highlight the fact that the Jews heard the Ten Commandments “from the mouth of the Almighty.”32

Since the Jews’ existence as a “treasure” is connected with the Giving of the Torah and dependent on their keeping G‑d’s covenant – the observance of the Torah33 – it is understood that the power of the Giving of the Torah to bring about a radical change in the very existence of the Jewish people is invested in the Torah itself.

This is reflected in Rashi’s choice of wording mentioned above, that Moshe “taught them what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty.” Since the Torah that he taught specifically to Aharon’s sons was “what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty,” i.e., what Moshe himself heard and learned directly from G‑d, the Torah Moshe taught possessed in an open and evident manner34 the power and might of the Giving of the Torah,35 which has the potential to change the very existence of a Jew. Therefore,36 when Moshe taught Aharon’s sons, they became his descendants, because his teaching brought about their birth in a spiritual sense.

Based on the above – that “the descendants of Moshe” means not only that it is as if Moshe fathered Aharon’s sons, but that his relation to them was actually similar to that of Aharon himself and “they became his descendants,” just like they were Aharon’s descendants – it is possible understand the choice of words in the verse, “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe” and not “from the day….”

When fathering a child in the physical sense, it cannot be said that a child’s conception is repeated several times; conception takes place at the very first moment. From that moment on, he merely grows and develops.

Similarly, when it comes to a spiritual conception, Aharon’s sons became Moshe’s descendants “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe” – through the first teaching that Moshe communicated to them individually, sharing the Torah “he had learned from the mouth of the Almighty.” When Moshe taught them later, it did not make them “his descendants”; it did not bring about a new birth. By teaching them at that later time, he only received the merit of “anyone who teaches Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him,” as will be explained in sec. 7 below.

However, the above explanation gives rise to the following question: At the Giving of the Torah, the Jewish people – including Aharon’s sons – heard the Ten Commandments from G‑d Himself, from the mouth of the Almighty. They heard all ten of the commandments, first as they were delivered all together in one utterance and, again afterwards, as the first two commandments, “I am G‑d, your Lord,” and “You shall not have any other gods” were spelled-out individually by G‑d.37 Thus, all Jews – including Aharon’s sons – were already conceived in a spiritual sense through hearing the commandments “from the mouth of the Almighty.” How then can it be said that Aharon’s sons became Moshe’s descendants as a result of Moshe afterwards conveying to them individually what he heard “from the mouth of the Almighty”? Seemingly, that had already been accomplished by G‑d Himself.

Therefore, Rashi is precise in the wording he uses, stating, “He taught them what he had learned from the mouth of the Almighty.” In order to bring about the spiritual birth that comes about via the Torah, merely hearing38 words of Torah is not sufficient; those words must be learned. Thus, the fact that the Jews merely heard the Ten Commandments from G‑d Himself39 did not bring about their birth. Instead, for that to be achieved, the Torah had to be studied, i.e., accepted, understood, and internalized by the recipients.40 This is what Moshe achieved when he “taught them what he had learned41 from the mouth of the Almighty.” Moshe did not merely relate42 the last eight commandments to the Jews. Instead, he taught43 them all Ten Commandments, with all their laws and detailed requirements.44 Since he taught Aharon’s sons individually, they “became his descendants.”

Nevertheless, the above explanation still requires clarification: Were it to be said that because Moshe taught Torah to Aharon’s sons and, as a reward, Scripture considers it as if he fathered them, it would be possible to understand why Aharon’s sons are specifically referred to as Moshe’s descendants even though he taught the Torah to the entire Jewish people. The reason for this distinction is that – as mentioned previously (in sec. 1) – teaching Aharon’s sons individually went beyond the measure of the law and, therefore, was worthy of a unique reward.

However, it was explained above, (in sections 3 and 5), that Aharon’s sons being considered as Moshe’s descendants was not merely a reward, but rather “they became his descendants” as a result of him “teaching them what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty,” and that brought about a new birth for them in a spiritual sense. Since this was a direct spiritual result of his teaching them, seemingly, there should be no difference whether he was obligated to do so, or he went beyond the measure of the law to do so. If so, what is the difference between Aharon’s sons and the entire Jewish people, whom Moshe also taught? Since Moshe taught the entire Jewish people “what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty,” seemingly, they all should have become “his descendants.”

In resolution: The reason that Torah study brings about a change and a new birth in the student who learns it is not because of the teacher, but rather because of the power of the Torah being studied. The power of the Almighty is invested in the Torah.

Accordingly, even when a person teaches Torah to another person, teaching him “what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty” because of an obligation, in truth, this brings about a new spiritual birth for the student. However, that birth is not associated with the teacher, but rather with the Torah and, more specifically, with “the mouth of the Almighty,” He Who commanded that the Torah be taught and He Whose might can transform existence. To cite a parallel: G‑d refers to the plagues with which the Egyptians were afflicted as “My wonders”45 even though they were brought about by Moshe, for Moshe was merely acting according to G‑d’s command and as His agent. Therefore, the plagues are not attributed to him. Similarly, a teacher receives a reward for carrying out the commandment of the Almighty to teach the Torah to others. However, the fact that his instruction brought about new birth for them in a spiritual sense is not ascribed to him.46

It is only when one teaches the Torah to another person – not because he is obligated to do so by G‑d’s command or the agency with which He charged him – but when, on his own initiative, he teaches a student in a manner that goes beyond the measure of the law, that the student’s new “birth” is ascribed to him.

Clarification is still necessary. According to the above, it would appear that teaching a student in a manner that he “becomes his descendent” is no longer possible. It was possible:

a) only for Moshe; he alone learned from “the mouth of the Almighty,” and, therefore, his teaching Aharon’s sons had the potential to bring about a new spiritual birth within them; and

b) this took place only “on the day G‑d spoke to Moshe,” when he first began teaching “what he learned from the mouth of the Almighty” to Aharon’s sons.

How then can it be said that “anyone who teaches Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him”?

In explanation: Were one to say that by teaching Torah to another person, that person “becomes his descendent” is relevant only to Moshe, by adding his name to the verse, the Torah would merely be relating a story of past history – that it happened only once, i.e., it was only Moshe who achieved this effect by teaching Aharon’s sons.

However, according to a straightforward understanding of Scripture – whenever it is appropriate to do so – it is plausible to say that the story contains a directive and a lesson for all time. Thus, in several places,47 we find Rashi stating that the verse comes to teach a lesson and the like.

Therefore, Rashi interprets the verse under discussion in the same manner. Although in a complete sense the concept that a student will actually become the teacher’s spiritual descendent is relevant only to Moshe, who “learned from the mouth of the Almighty,” and only “on the day that G‑d spoke to Moshe,” nevertheless, it is possible to learn48 from this story that also “anyone who teaches Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture” – at least – “as if he fathered him.”

Since, at all times, every Torah concept that a Jew teaches another person derives “from the mouth of the Almighty” – therefore, even though the teacher did not directly learn it “from the mouth of the Almighty” as Moshe did, and the person being taught is already a learned individual – the teacher receives a unique reward: he is considered as if he fathered him.

However, it is possible to say that Rashi’s precise choice of words – “another person’s son” and not simply “another person”49 – alludes to another point. Primarily, the concept that teaching another person the Torah is considered as if he fathered him does not apply when teaching an independent adult, but rather “another person’s son,” i.e., a child in his initial stages of study.50 Since the teacher begins that child’s Torah study, the teacher’s achievement is a new development, resembling to a certain degree the child’s spiritual birth.51

Tangentially, from the above, it is also possible to derive an explanation of the great importance of “relating a concept in the name of its author.” Our Sages52 highlight the great virtue of doing so, stating that “it brings redemption to the world.”

When a person relates a Torah teaching in the name of its author, he emphasizes that the Torah is a tradition passed on from teacher to student. Just as he received this teaching from his teacher, it is also likely that his teacher also received it from his teacher, in a chain of tradition extending back generation after generation until Moshe our teacher,53 who “learned [it] from the mouth of the Almighty.”

Thus, by connecting the concept in Torah that he is teaching with Moshe as Moshe learned it “from the mouth of the Almighty,” he reveals the power of the Almighty in the Torah that he relates. With this power, he brings about spiritual birth for his students, as explained above.

It is possible to make a further inference: It is for this reason that “he brings redemption to the world,” for redemption is identified with might and with birth, as explained in several sources.54

True, from a straightforward perspective, it cannot be said that whenever anyone teaches Torah to the son of another person he brings about his spiritual birth, as explained above. Nevertheless, since the Torah – which is the Torah of truth – states that he “is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him,” we can understand that this is not merely an external resemblance to an unrelated matter. Instead, from an inner perspective, the teacher has achieved something that bears a similarity55 to that of bringing about the student’s birth.56

To explain: Our Sages57 relate that the severe punishment mandated for a person who neglects Torah study is because “he scorned the word of G‑d… therefore, his soul shall surely be cut off,”58 i.e., that person’s life-force will be cut off, Heaven forbid. A Jew’s life-energy is associated with the Torah, for “it is our life.”59 When a Jew separates himself from the Torah, the outcome is the same as when fish are separated from the sea, their source of life.60

This concept can be amplified through the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov61 that, at every moment, G‑d is renewing the existence and vitality of every created being. Accordingly, it follows that when a person studies the Torah and thus ensures that his soul will not be cut off, he is not merely preventing something negative – that the continued flow of life-energy to him will not be cut off – he is also bringing about a positive influence. Through his study, he causes G‑d to renew his vitality.

Therefore, whoever “teaches Torah to another person’s son is considered by Scripture as if he fathered him.” Whenever one studies the Torah with another person, regardless of whom one studies with, one is connecting that other person with the source of his life. That is equivalent to fathering him, i.e., bringing about his birth. At this moment, he is causing G‑d to renew the existence of that other person.

Adapted from sichos delivered on Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar, 5728 (1968) and 5738 (1978)
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 23, P. 8ff.