Haazinu. Thoughts on a Yohrtzeit. Passing Away and Dying.

My father's זכר צדיק לברכה Yortzeit is Rosh Hashanna. This Rosh Hashanna marks ten years since he was niftar. With that in mind, I'd like to share something Reb Meir Simcha says about death and life.

Reb Meir Simcha addresses a change in describing Aharon's death. In Parshas Pinchas, it says כאשר נאסף אהרן . Here, in Haazinu, it says כאשר מת אהרן. He explains that when Aharon died, his son, Elazar, was a fitting replacement. .הניח בן כמותו: because Elazar could step into Aharon's shoes, Aharon's passing was not a "death." But later, Elazar failed a test (when he did not show sufficient respect for Moshe Rabbeinu's authority after the war with Midian.) At that point, the matzav changed to לא הניח בן כמותו . Elazar no longer could be considered an equal of his father's.  After that point, Aharon, not having a son that could be considered his equal, was said to have "died." 

So Reb Meir Simcha is telling us that הניח or לא הניח is not just a din at the moment of death. It is ongoing.  A man might pass away, but life goes on, he left a worthy legacy. It's sad, but it is not a tragedy.  But years later, when his son behaves in a manner unfit for his father's successor, then the father dies, and misfortune changes to tragedy. Maybe his son should sit shiva again, on his father and on himself.  

Another insight we may glean is that a son that fails to fill his father's place is responsible for his father's death - at least to the extent of the difference between "gathered unto his people" and "dead." That's probably not רציחה, but maybe it's enough to qualify for מכה אביו, or at least  מקלה אביו.

I suppose that it works the other way, too. If, at the time of death, the sons are nothing, and they later achieve greatness, their father becomes less dead. Or there are cases where it is obvious at the moment of death that one's children are not nearly either as good or as great as the father. In that case, at least, there's the finality of dying and being done with it.  I can only speak from experience about one of the types and not the other two.

(לב:נ) והאסף אל עמיך כאשר מת אהרן אחיך ובפרשת פנחס (כז יג) ונאספת אל עמיך גם אתה כאשר נאסף אהרן אחיך ונראה דאמרו [בבבא בתרא] (קטז א) יואב שלא הניח בן כמותו נאמרה בו מיתה דוד שהניח בן כמותו לא נאמרה בו מיתה והנה אמר (שמות ז א) ואהרן אחיך יהיה נביאך ן ואמרו (שמות ז כו) משה ואהרן אהרן ומשה מלמד שהיו שקולים זה לזה (ויקרא רבה לו א) והנה מקודם אמר השי"ת (במדבר כז כא) ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד ושאל לו במשפט האורים ועל מנת זה הלא היה אלעזר במעלת אהרן וקם תחתיו ולכן לא נאמר בו מיתה ונאמרה בו אסיפה אבל אחרי זה השיב אלעזר לפני משה בגיעולי מדין במדבר לא כא וכפי מה שאמרו בפרק הדר (עירובין סג א) המורה הלכה בפני רבו מורידים אותו מגדולתו שנאמר ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא וגו"' אע"ג דאמר להו לאחי אבא צוה ואותי לא צוה' אפילו הכי איענש דכתיב ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ולא אשכחן דאיצטריך ליה יהושע עכ"ל הגמרא ואינו במעלת אביו לכן אמר כאשר מת אהרן אחיך שלא הניח בן כמותו 

(In the first posting, I said that I don't know why Reb Meir Simcha mixes in the שהיו שקולים זה לזה discussion. As far as I can tell, it is totally irrelevant. More than irrelevant - it muddles the idea that he is discussing.  If Asifa as opposed to Misa means leaving a worthy successor, why does it say asifa by Moshe, whose sons were not like him at all? Maybe because of Yehoshua, who was like a son. But what's the point of bringing it up here at all?
But Reb Avrohom Wagner sent in an explanation that I think is 100% correct.  He said that Elazar's status as "equal to Aharon" was based on Aharon equals Moshe, and Moshe's talmid muvhak is equal to Moshe - because he viewed himself as totally batteil to his rebbi. A = M
Talmid Muvhak = Rebbi
E was TM of M
∴ E = M
∴ E = A. 
But as soon as he showed a pgam in that hisbatlus, he was no longer considered a cheilek of Moshe, and mimeila he was not considered "equal to Aharon.")

Rav Bergman, in his new edition of his Shaarei Orah, points out a slight consolation, if it can be described that way. When the Torah says (Breishis 48:5) אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, that means that grandchildren can reach a madriega of closeness to their grandparent, and greatness in manifesting what the grandparent stood for, that makes the grandchild equal to a child - and, it would appear, the grandchild can be the הניח בן כמותו. My father used to say from Reb Mottel Pagremansky that we see in linear time, so we think a father is most closely related to his son. But the truth is that sometimes, generations are connected non-linnearly, so a grandchild is more closely related that a child. Now there's an example of ניבא ולא ידע מה ניבא..