The Vilna Gaon continued his explanation by offering a beautiful hint to this law. In listing the formations and configurations of the Jewish encampments in the wilderness, the Torah lists four groups of three tribes, each of which encamped in a different direction around the central Mishkan. In each list of three tribes, the verse which mentions the third tribe always begins with the letter “vav,” which serves to connect that tribe to the preceding tribes.

However, there is one exception. The tribe of Zevulun, which represented the businessmen and merchants, is the third tribe listed in the encampment of Yehuda in the east, yet it doesn’t begin with a connecting letter “vav.” The Gaon explained that this is because the second tribe in the list is that of Yissochar, which consisted of Torah scholars. The Torah intentionally omitted the connecting “vav” to hint to the aforementioned law. When it comes to clarifying and ruling on Torah laws, there may be no connection between the competent Torah scholars and the insufficiently-learned businessmen.

Vayamas Nadav v’Avihu lifnei Hashem b’hakrivam aish zarah lifnei Hashem b’midbar Sinai u’banim lo hayu lahem vay’cha’hein Elazar v’Isomor al p’nei Aharon avihem (3:4)

            The Rav of a town in Europe once passed away. Because his son was too young to fill his position, the leaders of the community hired another Rav to take his place. Several years later, the son matured and reached a level at which he was capable of serving in his father’s stead. The new Rav expressed resistance and argued that although a Rav’s son is legally entitled to inherit his father’s position and fill the role if he is fitting, in this case the son had been too young at the time and therefore lost his right of succession.

            The dispute was brought for resolution to Rav Meir Shapiro. He cited the Medrash (Bamidbar Rabbah 2:26), which explains that the Torah emphasizes the fact that Nadav and Avihu died without any children to teach that if they had indeed had offspring, their children would have precedence in taking their places. It was only because they died without children that the verse concludes that Elozar and Isomar were therefore eligible to serve in their father Aharon’s stead.

Rav Shapiro noted that this Medrash is difficult to understand. The Zohar HaKadosh teaches that Nadav and Avihu were under the age of 20 when they died. Even if they had left descendants, those children would clearly be under the age of Bar Mitzvah at the time of their deaths, which would invalidate them from inheriting the position and serving in the Mishkan. If so, how could the Medrash infer that had Nadav and Avihu left behind progeny, they would have preceded their uncles (Elozar and Isomar) in filling a position for which they were ineligible?

Rav Shapiro concluded that we may deduce from here that even in a case when the inheritors are too young at the time of death to fill the role which is rightfully theirs, they never relinquish their claims to the position, which they are entitled to fill upon their maturity. As a result, Rav Shapiro ruled that the son of the first Rav should now inherit his father’s mantle.

Answers to the weekly Points to Ponder are now available!
To receive the full version with answers email the author at oalport@optonline.net.

Parsha Points to Ponder (and sources which discuss them):

1)     Rav Avrohom of Zunsheim, a little-known Rishon who authored a work called Tikkun Tefillin, points out a number of fascinating parallels between the tefillin which is worn on the head and the encampment of the Jewish people in the wilderness. How many similarities can you find?

2)     Rashi quotes (3:1) the Gemora in Sanhedrin (19b), which states that whoever teaches Torah to others is considered as if he gave birth to them. The Gemora there similarly teaches that whoever raises an orphan in his home is considered to have given birth to him. Can one who is unable to have children fulfill the mitzvah of having children through these methods, as it will be considered as if he gave birth to them? (Chochmas Shlomo Even HaEzer 1:1, Shu”t Chasam Sofer Even HaEzer 76, B’Soraso Yeh’geh Milu’im 25, K’Motzei Shalal Rav)

3)     Rashi writes (3:29) that because the family of Kehas encamped next to the tribe of Reuven, Dasan and Aviram were caught up in Korach’s rebellion and punished. He derives from here the importance of having righteous neighbors. If somebody is forced to choose between living next to a neighbor who publicly desecrates Shabbos and a neighbor who is known to constantly be engaged in fights and disagreements, which neighbor should he choose? (Ayeles HaShachar)

4)     The tribe of Levi contained the holiest Divine servants, yet it numbered only 22,000 (3:30), substantially less than any of the other tribes. What is the reason for this anomaly? (Ramban, Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, HaEmek Davar, MiShulchano Shel Beis HaLevi, Kovetz Maamorim)