[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
In our parsha (Masei), the borders of Israel are discussed, as well as the mechanism of how the land will be divided among the tribes, and their respective families. It says, “And these are the names of the men who will inherit the land for you, Elazar the Cohen and Yehoshua ben Nun. And you should appoint the singular leader, the prince of each tribe in order to inherit the land” (Numbers 34:17-18). Rashi launches into a long explanation: “To inherit’ – meaning on your behalf. Each and every prince was the trustee of his tribe, who would divide the inheritance of the tribe among the families and the individuals, and would choose the appropriate portion for each individual. And what he did was considered as if executed by appointment [of the individuals of the tribe]. It is not appropriate to understand the word “You” in this case the same way as in every other case in the scripture, for then it should have read yanchilu – “bequeath” to you. Since the verse says yinchalu – “inherit” – it means that [the trustee] will inherit on your behalf and in your placeŔ
If Rashi simply meant to point out that “you” in this verse (34:17) means “on your behalf” (of the people of the tribe) it would have sufficed to explain that “each and every prince divided the inheritance of his tribe and chose the appropriate section for each individual.” Why did Rashi add that “each and every prince was the trustee of his tribe,” and explain that what he did “was considered as if executed by appointment”? These would seem to be halachic details, pertaining to the legal interpretation (drosh) of the verse, rather to the simple meaning of the text (pshat) that Rashi comes to explain. Furthermore, why does Rashi go out of his way to explain that “you” in this verse is used differently than in any other verse, when in reality we find that “you” means “on your behalf” in other cases as well (i.e., Rashi in Ex. 14:14 and 4:16 and elsewhere)?
More questions:
1) The words “inherit…for you” seem to pertain to Elazar the Cohen and to Yehoshua ben Nun, who are mentioned in the same verse (17). It is the next verse that mentions the heads of the tribes, once more repeating the act of inheritance. So, why does Rashi explain that “inherit…for you” applies to the tribes, and not to Elazar and Yehoshua?
2) What forces Rashi, on the simple level of the text, to explain that the appointment of the heads of the tribes was in order to divide up the land according to families and individual men? At first glance, it would have made more sense to explain that the purpose was to divide up the land in general, among the tribes. Our section follows upon the discussion in the Torah of the borders of the land of Israel, which was to be divided among the tribes. So, wouldn’t it have made more sense to explain that the present purpose was to divide the land among the tribes, rather than among their families and individuals?
What forces Rashi to explain that the words “inherit…for you” means to divide the land among the families, etc (and not among the tribes), is that the words are in the verse mentioning Elazar and Yehoshua. This implies that they were among those who would inherit the land. However, we know this could not have been the case, since Elazar was a Cohen (and the Cohanim had no portion of their own in the land) and Yehoshua was not in a position to be the inheritor for his tribe because he was not the head of his tribe (even though he was the head of all the Jews). Therefore, Rashi was forced to learn that “inherit…for you” applies to the next verse – which happens to mention the heads of the tribes. According to Rashi, it is they who will inherit the land on behalf of their tribal brethren, and then divide it among their respective families and individuals. Had the Torah used the word yanchilu – bequeath – it would have been understood that Elazar and Yehoshua bequeathed the land to the tribes. However, since the word used is yinchalu - “inherit” - it can only apply to those who had the potential to inherit, meaning the heads of the tribes (on behalf of their brethren).
If so, however, we’re left with the question of why “inherit” was written in the first verse, regarding Elazar and Yehoshua (since according to Rashi, it really applies to the second verse, regarding the tribes). This is what forces Rashi to say that “inherit” refers not to dividing the land among the tribes, but to each leader of the tribe serving as a “trustee” on behalf of his tribe, apportioning it according to family and individual. Only in this way does it make sense that “inherit” applies to the tribes, even though it appears in the verse regarding Elazar and Yehoshua.
There were two facets to the task of being a tribal leader. One facet concerned his responsibility to his tribe, in meeting their overall needs and desires. The other facet was delegated from the One above, through Moshe Rabeinu. Just as Moshe (and Yehoshua after him) was appointed by G-d over all the Jews, so the leader of each tribe was appointed by G-d (via Moshe) over his tribe. In regard to the leader’s responsibilities toward the tribe, his actions are considered as if they were the actions of the members of the tribes themselves. In reality, it is he who takes the necessary steps, but it is as if the people of the tribe themselves are acting. However, in his capacity as leader appointed by G-d, he is not responsible to the members of his tribe; he acts as their leader and decision maker, but in his capacity as the appointee of G-d, he is not considered to be “standing in” for his tribal fellows. (Perhaps this is why two different terms are used for the leaders of the tribes; “ish” in his capacity as representative and trustee of the people, and “nasi” in his capacity as appointee of G-d over the tribe).
In his capacity as leader of the entire tribe, the head of the tribe had to worry about the overall, general needs of the tribe. (Just as any body of people will appoint a leader whose job is concern himself with their overall welfare, while the individuals of the group concern themselves with their own pursuit of health, wealth and happiness). However, in his capacity as appointee of G-d, it was the job of the tribal leader to be concerned with the individuals of the tribe, and not only with the tribe as a whole. Since, from Above, the leader of the tribe “is the entire tribe” (language of Rashi in Num. 21:21), he must be responsive to every individual, as well as to the tribe as a whole.
Now, we can understand Rashi from the beginning to the end. Since the words “inherit…for you” appear in the first verse, wherein appear Elazar and Yehoshua as well, Rashi understood that “inherit” here (referring to the tribal leaders) pertains to the same facet of leadership that applied to Elazar and Yehoshua. That is, since they were appointed by G-d (not “elected” or somehow chosen by the people), so “inherit” mentioned in this verse refers to the divine aspect of leadership, determined by G-d. Just as Elazar and Yehoshua were appointed from Above, so were the leaders of the tribes appointed from Above over their tribes. And in this capacity, Rashi explains, the princes of the tribes were the trustees of their respective tribes to divide and distribute the inheritance among all the families and individuals of the tribe. (The act of dividing the land according to the tribes was something that they did as the representatives of the tribes, not as appointees from Above.)
However, if so, why are the leaders described as among those who inherit the land? Here, they were acting more like agents to bequeath the land to others, rather than to inherit it themselves? Therefore, Rashi explains that all that the leaders did was “act as the emissaries of the people themselves.” There was no need for further action; whatever the leaders did on behalf of the tribes was as if the tribes themselves did it. Since the apportioning of the land by the leaders of the tribes fulfilled the full extent of “inheritance,” therefore the leaders themselves were described as “inheritors.” Those who received land did so according to the act of the leader of the tribe, and since the leaders acted on behalf of the members of the tribe, they as well were called “inheritors.”
Nevertheless, after all the explanation, it is still difficult to accept that “inherit…for you” applies to the tribal leaders in the following verse, and not to Elazar and Yehoshua in the same verse. And therefore, Rashi explains at length, “Lachem – you – in this verse is not to be explained as in other cases in the ScriptureŔ since if so, the verse should have said yanchilu…Here, the verse utilizes exceptional language to let us know that “inherit…for you” applies to the protagonists of the following verse, and not the verse in which it falls.
There is an important lesson that emerges from this explanation of Rashi, and that is that it is not sufficient for a leader (of a family, of an institution, or congregation) to relate to the group for which he is responsible simply as a group. He must relate, as well, to the individuals among them, and “choose for them the appropriate portion.” He must put himself in their individual shoes and choose what is good for them, not only in general, but for their particular situation. Similarly, when a leader appoints or delegates someone to do a specific job, it is not only for the benefit of the group, but for that individual as well. And in that way, he will not only fulfill his ability to act on behalf of the group, but he will actualize his G-d-given abilities to relate to and help others. In this way, he will transcend his own ego and individual existence, and fulfill himself in the larger picture of the Jewish people achieving their historical goal of bringing meshiach – the Jewish messiah – and building the third and permanent Temple.
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 33, pp. 199-205
Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem