English translation — פנחס ב

A.

In the current Torah portion¹

it is told that Moses asked the Most High "Let the L-rd, G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation,"

and the Most High said to him: "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit, and lay your hand upon him,"

and Moses did so — "and he laid his hands upon him and commanded him, as the L-rd spoke by the hand of Moses."

Regarding the appointment of a king,

it states in the Rambam²

: "They do not appoint a king initially except by the court of seventy elders and by a prophet,

<b>as Joshua </b>whom Moses our teacher and his court appointed.”

From this it is proven,

that the Rambam holds that the appointment of Joshua

(which is in our Torah portion),

was a matter of appointing a king³.

must understand⁴

: the Rambam himself rules⁵

however,

that "when they appoint

the king they anoint him with the anointing oil" — why do we not find that Moses our teacher should anoint Joshua with the anointing oil⁶?

although Moshe Rabbeinu "was a king" — as the Rambam rules&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

— but Moshe Rabbeinu became a king &lt;b&gt;before &lt;/b&gt;there was the commandment of the laws of the king and of the anointing oil&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;].

B.

At first glance one could explain&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

According to another ruling of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

"They do not anoint from it

(from the anointing oil)

for generations except ..

(and)

kings of the house

David,”

and since Joshua was not from the kings of the House of David,

therefore they did not anoint him with the anointing oil¹¹.

But,

on the contrary,

according to the opinion of <b>the Rambam</b> this is not an excuse.

Because as a source for this aforementioned law — “When they appoint the king they anoint him with the anointing oil” — the Rambam brings⁵

the verse¹²

“And Samuel took the flask of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him,”

where it speaks about the anointing of <b>Saul</b>,

who was not from the kings of the House of David — and from this [it is evident] that the Rambam holds that Saul was anointed with the anointing oil¹³.

It is proven from this,

that what the Rambam writes "when appointing the king they anoint him with the anointing oil" he means thereby <b>every king</b>,

even not from the kings of the House of David

(plainly)

And that which he rules that "they do not anoint from it for generations except ..

(and)

the kings of the House of David" is specifically after the<b> </b>¹⁴

as "David was anointed

(and

through this)

merited the crown of kingship ..

<b>to him and to his sons</b> the males forever"¹⁵.

And the question returns to its place: Why do we not find that Yehoshua

(who was a king according to the Rambam)

was anointed with the anointing oil,

just as Shaul was anointed

(according to the opinion of the Rambam)?

3.

This will be understood by prefacing the explanation in the words of the Midrash¹⁶

regarding what Moshe Rabbeinu said, "Let the Lord appoint a man over the congregation"¹⁷,

that Moshe considered, "My sons will inherit My glory

(My greatness¹⁸)

and the Almighty said to him: "He who guards a fig tree will eat its fruit"¹⁹,

Your sons will sit for themselves and not engage in Torah,

Yehoshua...

Since²⁰

and he served you with all his strength, he is worthy to serve Israel."

It is seemingly not understandable: since the children of Menashe "sat by themselves and did not engage in Torah" — how does it come that Moshe initially thought that "my sons will inherit my glory"²¹?

In simple terms one could answer,

that with his request "let the Lord, etc., appoint a man over the congregation" Moshe meant

(Not such a "man" who should teach Torah to Jews,

but only,

&lt;b&gt;as explained &lt;/b&gt;in his request&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;)

A king "who goes out before them and who comes in before them" — &lt;b&gt;to war&lt;/b&gt;; and therefore Moses considered that "&lt;b&gt;inherit &lt;/b&gt;my sons My glory"

(even though "they did not engage in Torah")

because the law is that "the kingdom &lt;b&gt;is an inheritance&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;.

Based on this, however, it is not understood why the Most High answered him "He who guards a fig tree will eat its fruit,

your sons will sit for themselves and did not engage in Torah" — in this matter, Torah, who mentioned it?

Here it is speaking, after all, about the inheritance of &lt;b&gt;the kingdom&lt;/b&gt;!

4.

The Megaleh Amukot²⁴

explains the double language in the verse "who will go out before them and who will come in before them

(and afterwards)

and who will bring them out and who will bring them in" — that Moshe wanted that there should be "two men who lead,"

"namely one man over the congregation who will go out before them <b>in war</b> etc. and one man who will bring them out <b>in Torah</b> etc."

And the Most High answered him "<b>that one</b> will lead them ..

Yehoshua who will be king and Av Beit Din²⁵

of Israel and their sage in Torah,"

because "it is impossible for two kings to use one crown²⁶..

for a thing²⁷

one for a generation and not two things."

And based on this, the aforementioned midrash is also resolved: Since Moshe thought that there should be two leaders — one a king and another an “Av Beis Din of Israel” — therefore it came out by him that the appointment to kingship should be inherited by one of his sons,

as above.

The Most High, however, wanted that “One shall lead them”

(He should be both the king and the “Av Beis Din of Israel”)

— and since for the matter of Torah one must be worthy

(“He who guards a fig tree shall eat its fruit”²⁸),

and the sons of Moshe were not suited for this

(because “they did not engage in Torah”),

they could not at all inherit “his honor” of Moshe;

Only specifically Yehoshua,

who was devoted to Torah

(not only to the study of Torah but also to <b>its service</b> of Torah²⁹),

could be the successor of Moshe.

5.

One must, however, understand

(according to the explanation of the Megaleh Amukot)

the reason why the Above did not accept the reasoning of Moshe "that there should be two men as leaders,"

for seemingly: although "it is impossible for two kings to use one crown," the emphasis is indeed on the crown <b>one</b>; and furthermore — we find indeed in later generations that it was so — kingship through one leader and the Av Beit Din of Israel a second leader: the leader in Torah and in the language of the Rambam³⁰

"the greatest in wisdom of them all

(of the members of the Sanhedrin)

they seat him as head over them ..

and he is the one whom the sages call <b>Nasi</b> ..

<b>and he is the one who stands under our teacher Moshe</b>"; and another a king who will bring them out etc.,

who led with the needs of the people etc.

seat a king of Israel in the Sanhedrin"]³².

One must say,

that היא הנותנת — since Torah and kingship are two &lt;b&gt;separate &lt;/b&gt;types of authority,

therefore it is no contradiction to the rule of "one thing for a generation and not two things" —

ועפ”ז the question stands in its place: why in our case could they not separate the appointment of king from the appointment

"Father" of Israel — and it had to be "that one will lead them ...

Joshua"?

6.

And one must say the explanation in this:

In his introduction to the Book of the Hand,

the Rambam writes the order of the transmission of the Oral Torah from Moses until Rav Ashi,

and when counting the recipients of the Torah, the Rambam is precise in his language that so-and-so received from the previous recipient "&lt;b&gt;and his court&lt;/b&gt;"

(or — &lt;b&gt;his colleagues &lt;/b&gt;of the previous recipient).

And as the Rambam explains elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

that by this he wanted to emphasize "that the reception by many increases, not an individual from an individual."

One finds, however, in this an exception — regarding Joshua,

where the Rambam &lt;b&gt;changes &lt;/b&gt;and is precise "and many elders received from Joshua"

(and &lt;b&gt;does not &lt;/b&gt;add "and his court" and the like).

And the reason for the difference is understood from the words of the Rambam there previously: "The Oral Torah, Moses our teacher taught all of it in his court to the seventy elders,

and Elazar and Pinchas and Joshua, all three received from Moses,

and to Joshua, who was the student of Moses our teacher, <b>he transmitted</b> the Oral Torah <b>and commanded him</b> concerning it."

D.

E.

That Joshua was not only a recipient from Moses our teacher

(like Elazar and Pinchas and the seventy elders),

to Joshua specifically did Moses <b>transmit</b> the Oral Torah

(all of it),

and as the statement of the Mishnah³⁴

: Moses received

the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua,

and he received a command concerning it, special³⁵.

And therefore the Rambam does not say "and his court" regarding Yehoshua — because regarding the &lt;b&gt;transmission of&lt;/b&gt; the Torah,

the receiving was from Yehoshua alone,

but to him did Moshe transmit the entire Oral Torah.

It follows,

that there is a fundamental difference between Moshe and Yehoshua regarding the nasi of the Sanhedrin in the generations after this: Yehoshua and Moshe Rabbeinu are equal in that the mesorah of the entire Oral Torah was to and from

(each of)

them &lt;b&gt;alone&lt;/b&gt;;

Not so that which the Nasi Sanhedrin is "standing in place of Moshe Rabbeinu"

(as above)

— it is in this detail,

that just as Moshe was "above them"³⁶

of the seventy elders,

so too³⁶

is also every Nasi the "head" above them of the Sanhedrin

(being the "great in wisdom of all of them")

; but in the matter of "transmission of the Torah" he is <b>not</b> "standing in place of Moshe Rabbeinu" — this goes through the <b>entire</b> Beis Din,

"the many increase".

7.

And this is the difference between the later generations

(when the king and "Av Beis Din of Israel" were two separate leaders)

and the time of Moshe and Yehoshua:

Even though that "the prince of the Sanhedrin is in the highest level in the rulership of the Torah"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless he does not come to the

level of the presidency of a &lt;b&gt;king&lt;/b&gt;.

For the definition of a king is — "there is none above him except the Lord his God"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

; and not only is "there is none above him in his kingship"&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

but,

even more — he is the &lt;b&gt;sole &lt;/b&gt;ruler,

who does not need to reckon with anyone

(and as above "one thing for a generation and not two things"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;),

because a king is only one.

But not so a nasi of the Sanhedrin,

since because he is one of a beis din of <b>seventy-one</b>

(only because he is the “greatest in wisdom of them all” is he their “head”),

his presidency is not in the category of the presidency of a king.

And therefore a nasi of the Sanhedrin is no contradiction to the king,

and consequently it is not a matter of “two kings”,

“two things”.

But not so by Moshe and Yehoshua,

is <b>their</b> “presidency” in Torah constituted

(not only in his being the nasi of the Sanhedrin,

but also)

in that “Moshe received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Yehoshua” — and such a presidency in Torah is in the level of the presidency of a king⁴¹

And therefore,

If one would separate "that they be two ..

one man ..

in war and one man ..

in Torah",

this would be "two kings who use one crown ..

two things"⁴².

8.

At first glance, however, this is not entirely understood: after all, these are two separate types of authority: leading them out to war etc. and Torah

(as above section 5)

; why should this be called "two kings ..

with <b>one</b> crown"?

And it is explained, the explanation in this:

Regarding the role of a king, the Rambam says⁴³

: "And his goal and thought shall be to raise the true religion and to fill the world with righteousness and to break the arm of the wicked and to wage the wars of the Lord, for they do not appoint a king initially except to execute justice and wars."

D.

E.

That kingship

(among Jews)

its subject is not merely to provide the nation with physical needs etc.⁴⁴,

but all this begins and is connected with the fulfillment and elevation of the Torah — "to raise the true religion",

to carry out the judgments of the Torah⁴⁵,

until that also the

Wars that he needs to wage,

they are "wars of <b>G-d</b>"⁴⁶.

It turns out,

that the concept of kingship is a continuation of the role of the Great Sanhedrin: the Great Sanhedrin are the "pillars of instruction and from them law and judgment go out to all Israel"⁴⁷,

and the role of the king is,

that the judgment of the Torah that the Great Sanhedrin issues he must implement among the people of Israel⁴⁸,

that "it is a commandment upon the king to honor those who study Torah,

and when the Sanhedrin and the sages of Israel enter before him &lt;b&gt;he shall stand before them &lt;/b&gt;etc.’"

(And likewise "the king stands before the High Priest ..

when he asks him &lt;b&gt;by the judgment of the Urim&lt;/b&gt;")

— because the king is a "receiver" from them:

But regarding the matter of &lt;b&gt;the dominion &lt;/b&gt;of the king &lt;b&gt;over the people&lt;/b&gt;,

is "there is none above him except the Lord his God" and "there is none above him in his kingdom",

therefore "in public before the people &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;..

&lt;b&gt;shall he stand &lt;/b&gt;before any person etc. so that his fear be upon the hearts of all"&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;].

And from this reason a king and "leadership" in Torah are not two separate rulerships

(that one does not touch its fellow),

rather they are one continuum;

And when one separates them from each other it is called "two kings ..

<b>in one crown</b>"⁵⁰.

9.

Based on this one will also understand why the appointment of Yehoshua was specifically through semichah and not through anointing.

Since a king is a "recipient" from the Great Sanhedrin

(which issues the judgment of the Torah),

as mentioned above — from this it is understandable regarding the leadership of Yehoshua

(and likewise of Moshe),

that he had <b>both</b> aspects of leadership

(both a king and leadership of the Torah in the level of a king as mentioned above),

that the leadership of the monarchy was for him a <b>continuation and result</b> of his leadership <b>in Torah</b>.

4.

5.

His main essence is that he is a Nasi in Torah — he is “transmits” the entire Torah to Jews; and in addition to this, there was with him the aspect of kingship in order to carry out the judgment of the Torah among the Jewish people.

And therefore his appointment was through Semichah: the anointing that a king needs has as its purpose to effect the aspect of kingship

(in the manner of the kingship of Shaul — the view of the Rambam as above)

; but not so the kingship of Yehoshua

(Noser T’einah)

its &lt;b&gt;main &lt;/b&gt;aspect is — leadership in the matter of Torah,

and therefore it is effected through &lt;b&gt;Semichah&lt;/b&gt;,

which is connected specifically with Torah — specifically regarding Torah

(and instruction)

one says&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

Semuchin ish mipi ish,

samchu l’na etc.

Yud.

According to the above explanation it is also understandable,

that what stands in the Midrash⁵²

that Shaul was the "first king" is not at all a contradiction to what is said in the Rambam

(and in several Midrashim of Chazal⁵³)

that Moshe Rabbeinu and likewise Yehoshua had the status of a king — because the definition of kingship of Moshe and Yehoshua was an entirely different definition from the kingship of Shaul and David⁵⁴

— by Moshe and Yehoshua the presidency of kingship was secondary to their presidency in Torah⁵⁵.

And based on this it is also answered why we do not find in Chumash explicitly⁵⁶

that one must anoint a king with anointing oil — which at first glance is perplexing: since the appointment of a king is an explicit commandment and with several details in it,

it should have been stated in the Torah that his appointment comes through anointing oil⁵⁷

(in the manner that the law of anointing the Kohen Gadol and the Kohen anointed for war is stated)?

And according to the above it is understood: the matter of kingship as it is set forth &lt;b&gt;from the outset &lt;/b&gt;according to &lt;b&gt;Torah &lt;/b&gt;— which is how it was by Moshe and by his successor Yehoshua — is in a manner&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

that the king is also a prince &lt;b&gt;in Torah&lt;/b&gt;,

and consequently one does not need to come to the anointing oil&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;

And that which the appointment of a king must be specifically through the anointing oil came about later,

when Shaul needed to become the king&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah and Shabbos Parshas Va'eira 5743)