The She'iltos in this week's parsha begins with a reminder of the great potential of a good shidduch. He says that one benefit is the access to an additional source of Zechus Avos, and another is a mother's predominant role in her child's middos and spirituality.
This is particularly relevant to our parsha because of 6:23, "Aharon married Elisheva bas Aminadav the sister of Nachshon," Rashi brings the Gemara (BB 110a) that derives from this passuk that the mother is the source of a person's middos.
Based on the ibn Ezra, briefly here and at length in Tetzaveh, Rav Shternbuch says that the fact that Aharon was zocheh to Kehuna was in large part because of who he married - and that the negative is true as well: The reason Moshe was not zocheh to any kind of gadlus that goes over with yerusha is because he married someone that was not like Elisheva.
He brings the ibn Ezra in Teztavah, Shemos 28:1.
When R Sternbuch said that this is alluded to in the passuk itself (מרומז הוא בפסוק עצמו), he's got to be referring to our passuk in 6:23, because that's the only place where it mentions Elisheva and her brother
Also, Medrash
This is particularly relevant to our parsha because of 6:23, "Aharon married Elisheva bas Aminadav the sister of Nachshon," Rashi brings the Gemara (BB 110a) that derives from this passuk that the mother is the source of a person's middos.
בבא בתרא ק"י.
אמר רבא: הנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה, שנאמר: 'ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון', ממשמע שנאמר 'בת עמינדב' איני יודע שאחות נחשון היא? מה תלמוד לומר 'אחות נחשון'. מכאן, שהנושא אשה צריך שיבדוק באחיה. תנא: רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם
Based on the ibn Ezra, briefly here and at length in Tetzaveh, Rav Shternbuch says that the fact that Aharon was zocheh to Kehuna was in large part because of who he married - and that the negative is true as well: The reason Moshe was not zocheh to any kind of gadlus that goes over with yerusha is because he married someone that was not like Elisheva.
He brings the ibn Ezra in Teztavah, Shemos 28:1.
ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו מתוך בני ישראל לכהנו לי (כ"ח , א)
כתב הראב"ע : וכבר רמזתי לך למה נבחר אהרן להקדישו לשם, בעבור כבוד משפחת נחשון שיהיו הבנים מכפרים על בני ישראל.
Rav Sternbuch expands on the ibn Ezra, and says
טעם זה של הראב"ע יש לפרש כי מרומז הוא בפסוק עצמו. כי לכאורה יתמה הרואה, מה ענין אשתו של אהרן לכאן , וכי מפני שאשתו של אהרן היא אחות נחשון , עדיף אהרן על פני משה רבנו שאשתו היא בת יתרו ברם, הכהונה זכה בה אהרן לדורותיו אחריו , וכל זרעו לעולם כהנים מכהנים בהיכל ה', ומכפרים על בני ישראל. והנה הממלאים את ידם לכהן משפיעים רב טוב וברכה לבית ישראל, כי הכהונה יסודה ממדת החסד, ולכן צריכים הכהנים להיות מצויינים במדה זו.
אדם יורש את מדותיו מאמו, וכמו שאמרו חז"ל שרוב בנים דומים לאחי האם לכן הכהונה תלויה לא רק באהרן הכהן. אלא גם באשתו, שמעלתה משלימה למעלתו של אהרן הכהן, שיהיו כל זרעם אחריהם ראויים לכבוד הגדול הזה.
זה מה שנרמז בפסוק . "ואתה הקרב אליך את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו", כי לפיכך נבחר אהרן דוקא ולא משה, מפני שגם בניו אתו בכלל בחירת הכהונה, ולכן צריכים הם להיות ראויים גם מצד אמם
When R Sternbuch said that this is alluded to in the passuk itself (מרומז הוא בפסוק עצמו), he's got to be referring to our passuk in 6:23, because that's the only place where it mentions Elisheva and her brother
ויקח אהרן את אלישבע בת עמינדב אחות נחשון לו לאשה ותלד לו את נדב ואת אביהוא את אלעזר ואת איתמר
and the Ibn Ezra here says
[ו, כג]
ויקח - הזכיר אשת אהרן בעבור כבוד אלעזר והזכיר אחות נחשון בעבור כבוד הכהונה.
ג.
ד"א "רְאוּ קָרָא ה' בְּשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל בֶּן אוּרִי בֶן חוּר" מה ראה להזכיר כאן חור אלא בשעה שביקשו ישראל לעבוד עבודת כוכבים נתן נפשו על הקב"ה ולא הניחן עמדו והרגוהו אמר לו הקב"ה חייך שאני פורע לך משל למלך שמרדו עליו לגיונותיו עמד שר הצבא שלו ונלחם עמהם אמר להם על המלך אתם מורדים עמדו והרגו אותו אמר המלך אילו ממון נתן לא הייתי צריך לפרוע לו עאכ"ו שנפשו נתן עלי מה אני עושה לו אלא כל בנים שיצאו ממנו אני מעמידם דוכסים ואפרכים כך בשעה שעשו ישראל העגל עמד חור ונתן נפשו על הקב"ה אמר לו חייך כל בנים היוצאים ממך אני מגדלם שם טוב בעולם שנאמר "רְאוּ קָרָא ה' בְּשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל [וגו'] וַיְמַלֵּא אוֹתוֹ רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים" ולא זה בלבד אלא כל מי שנתעסק במלאכת המשכן נתן בו הקב"ה חכמה ובינה ודעת שנאמר (שמות לו, ח): "ויעשו כל חכם לב" ולא בבני אדם אלא אפי' בבהמה ובחיה שנאמר (שם, א) "חכמה ותבונה בָּהֵמָּה" בְּהֵמָה כתיב שנתנה חכמה באדם ובבהמה ולא נתפרסם מכלם אלא בצלאל הוי "קָרָא ה' בְּשֵׁם בְּצַלְאֵל":
ד.
וכל השבח הזה מנין לו? משבט יהודה. ומהיכן זכה לכל החכמה הזאת? בזכות מרים שנאמר (שמות א, כא): "ויעש להם בתים" ומה היו הבתים בית הכהונה ובית המלכות יוכבד נטלה כהונה ומלכות אהרן כ"ג משה מלך שנאמר (דברים לג, ה): "ויהי בישורון מלך" ומרים נטלה חכמה שהעמידה בצלאל ויצא ממנו דוד שהיה מלך שנאמר (דה"א ב, יט): "ותלד לו (אפרת) את חור" וכתיב (ש"א יז, יב): "ודוד בן איש אפרתי" שבא מן מרים שנקראת אפרת.
The Medrash seems to be saying that the zechus to have malchus or kehuna was achieved by the family's matriarchs. Malchus and Kehuna express themselves patrilineally, but they were achieved, they were earned, by women.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion. All the above, even "מהיכן זכה," and even "רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם", does not necessarily mean that Elisheva or Miriam were the source of their descendants' particular type of gadlus. There are too many places that Chazal say that it was Aharon's or Yehuda's qualities that made them who they were. But while the men embodied the qualities that entitled them to be the great progenitors of Kehuna and Malchus, their wives brought the ability to engender in their descendants middos and spirituality that would naturally echo those sublime qualities. The point is that some people have a natural predilection for certain behaviors. Yaakov and Eisav were born different. Some people naturally take to a spiritual and empathetic life, while others do not. The mother alone ensured that the child would have a natural propensity for a matarah elokis.
But I can see that one might disagree with me on this.
The inimitable Ibn Ezra (28:21) says that Moshe Rabbeinu's choice of a woman who was unfit to be the progenitor of malchus or kehuna was sad, but one may not criticize him for doing so. "He was a refugee, who was going to give him a nice Jewish girl?"
He adds that another reason Moshe Rabbeinu's descendants were not granted gadlus as a yerusha was that Moshe Rabbeinu had to teach Torah to all of Klal Yisrael, and he was too busy to be a father to his own children.
For what it's worth, here's my opinion. All the above, even "מהיכן זכה," and even "רוב בנים דומין לאחי האם", does not necessarily mean that Elisheva or Miriam were the source of their descendants' particular type of gadlus. There are too many places that Chazal say that it was Aharon's or Yehuda's qualities that made them who they were. But while the men embodied the qualities that entitled them to be the great progenitors of Kehuna and Malchus, their wives brought the ability to engender in their descendants middos and spirituality that would naturally echo those sublime qualities. The point is that some people have a natural predilection for certain behaviors. Yaakov and Eisav were born different. Some people naturally take to a spiritual and empathetic life, while others do not. The mother alone ensured that the child would have a natural propensity for a matarah elokis.
But I can see that one might disagree with me on this.
The inimitable Ibn Ezra (28:21) says that Moshe Rabbeinu's choice of a woman who was unfit to be the progenitor of malchus or kehuna was sad, but one may not criticize him for doing so. "He was a refugee, who was going to give him a nice Jewish girl?"
He adds that another reason Moshe Rabbeinu's descendants were not granted gadlus as a yerusha was that Moshe Rabbeinu had to teach Torah to all of Klal Yisrael, and he was too busy to be a father to his own children.
ואתה. בעבור היות משה כהן הכהנים בתחלה. על כן טעם הקרב אליך. וכבר רמזתי לך למה נבחר אהרן להקדישו לשם בעבור כבוד משפחת נחשון. שיהיו הכהנים מכפרים על בני ישראל. ואין לדבר על משה אדוננו כי בורח היה ומי יתן לו עברית. ועוד כי טורח כל ישראל על משה ללמדם המצות ולדון כל דבר קשה.
All of this seems very harsh and seems to denigrate Tziporah. But in fact, Tziporah was an unimaginably great woman. She was referred to as Kushis (Bamidbar 12:1) because of her extraordinary righteousness (MK 16b.) Although the Ibn Ezra famously explains Kushis very differently, there is no reason to say he disagrees with Chazal's presentation of her as a tzadeikes. She willingly took her children and left the safety of her father's house to go with Moshe to Mitzrayim, the Beis Avadim, where he was a wanted man. She was mal Eliezer, or had the milah done, to save him and Moshe Rabbeinu. I think the ibn Ezra just means to point out that she was not an equal of Elisheva. Elisheva was among the greatest, on the level of Yocheved and Miriam. according to Shmuel in Sotah 11b.
And yet her two eldest sons ended up struck down, for overstepping the bounds of religious fervor, at the least. Perhaps there is a note of caution there as well, for he who would wed the Rosh Yeshiva's daughter.
ReplyDelete"Aharon achicha ha'levi" as Rashi learns implies that Moshe was first choice to be kohen, but he lost the position. This was after Moshe and (I assume) Aharon were already married to their respective wives, so I don't see the choice of wife, according to Rashi, as carrying that much weight.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, see Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 19 who writes that Tziporah was completely unaffected by the taint of Midyan ("ain ra'uy she'tikra Midyanis..."). Far from being a b'dieved choice, as Ibn Ezra implies, she is the l'chatchila only one who could be a match for Moshe, as Maharal explains there. This is not a question -- the Ibn Ezra says what I says. I'm just saying that there are other perspectives.
You're right, of course. It's amazing, what the ibn Ezra was able to say without being demonized. The Rishonim must have known that his tremendous gadlus and yiras shamayim meant that his opinions fall within the boundaries of eilu v'eilu, even where they strongly disagreed. I guess it's like the Rambam. If all he ever wrote would have been the Moreh, it would have been rejected from the canon of Orthodox philosophy.
DeleteYour he'ara from Moshe's losing the Kehuna that would otherwise have been his is only a proof if the ibn Ezra holds that is the pshat. You can't really bring rayos to shlog ohp an ibn Ezra, because he could just wave your mekoros away - "The Chachmei HaTalmud darshenned what they darshenned, but I hold not like that."