I would rather make my name than inherit it.—William Makepeace Thackeray
Imagine how George H.W. Bush would have felt.
Upon learning that Aharon would pass the title of the priesthood to his children, that humblest of men, Moshe, was pained at the notion that, unlike Aharon, he would not necessarily pass the mantle of leadership to his children (Shemos 28:1 and Shemos Rabba and K’sav Sofer ad loc.).
It is easy to sympathize with Moshe. At one point or another, all people—especially successful ones—engage in a bit of succession planning, often with the hope that their children will carry their hard-fought legacy into the future.
But such designs don’t always come to fruition. When the Baal Shem Tov passed away, there was uncertainty as to whether leadership should pass to his son or to his closest disciple, R’ Dov Ber of Mezritch. Ultimately, his son was chosen, but on the Ba’al Shem Tov’s first yahrzeit, the Ba’al Shem Tov came to his son in a dream and directed him to relinquish the role in favor of the Maggid of Mezritch. Without hesitation, the Ba’al Shem Tov declared R’ Dov Ber the new Rebbe.
A longtime, venerable Rav of a prominent city in Lithuania once passed away, and the city elders sought a distinguished replacement. The late Rav’s son argued that he ought to be appointed as his father’s successor, but the city elders knew the Rav’s son was not fit for the post. They agreed to submit the matter to the Chofetz Chaim.
The Chofetz Chaim listened to both sides patiently, noting that Judaism does recognize succession rights—for example, a king or Kohen Gadol is succeeded by his son (Rambam, K’lei HaMikdash 4:20; Rambam, Melachim 1:7). But the Torah also states, referring to the clothing worn by the Kohen Gadol, that “seven days shall the son that is priest in his stead put them on, he who comes to the Tent of Meeting to serve in the holy place” (Shemos 29:30). The obvious implication is that only the Kohen “who comes to the Tent of Meeting” (i.e., the Kohen Gadol) is succeeded by his son—not, for example, the Priest Anointed for War, whose job did not entail entering the Tent of Meeting (Yoma 72b-73a; Rambam, K’lei HaMikdash 4:21).
The Chofetz Chaim ruled that a rabbi is akin to the Priest Anointed for War, rallying his congregation to safeguard our holy tradition. The city elders were therefore correct to pass over the Rav’s son for a more distinguished replacement.
But things are not quite so straightforward. The Rama rules that a rabbi’s son does inherit his father’s rabbinic position if he is capable of occupying it (Rama, Yoreh Dei’ah 245:22). The Maharshdam and the Rama of Fano, on the other hand, are quoted as ruling that rabbinic positions are not inherited (see e.g. Magen Avraham 53:32).[1]
Whether or not positions of authority are heritable, it is clear that the Torah itself most certainly is. “Moshe commanded the Torah to us, an inheritance for the congregation of Yaakov” (Devarim 33:4). These are the very first words taught to the Jewish child, and they reinforce the notion that the Torah is our inheritance (see Sukka 42a; Rambam, Talmud Torah 1:6; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Dei’ah 245:5). Indeed, “one who withholds the teaching of one halacha from a student robs him of his ancestral inheritance” (Sanhedrin 91b).
A rather poignant story makes the point (Vayikra Rabba 9:3).
R’ Yannai once met a well-dressed man and invited him to his home. Back at R’ Yannai’s place, R’ Yannai questioned him on the Torah and discovered that the man knew nothing. The man could not even recite the Grace Over Meals.
“Can you at least repeat what I tell you?” asked R’ Yannai.
“Yes,” the man answered.
“Say, ‘A dog has eaten Yannai’s bread,’” (the implication being that this man is a dog).
This understandably angered the guest, who demanded, “Where is my inheritance that you are keeping from me?”
“What inheritance?” asked R’ Yannai.
“The Torah is described as ‘the inheritance for the congregation of Yaakov,’” retorted the man, “not ‘the congregation of Yannai.’”
Ultimately, R’ Yannai conceded the point and chastised himself for referring to this man as a dog.
Here was a man who clearly had no Jewish education, unable to recite even the Grace Over Meals. But one thing he knew: the Torah was his inheritance too.
Unlike the rights to priesthood and to royalty, the rights to the Torah are a universal entitlement. The Jewish people were adorned with three crowns—“the crown of priesthood, the crown of royalty, and the crown of Torah”—but while “the crown of priesthood went to Aharon” and “the crown of royalty went to Dovid,” “the crown of Torah rests and waits, ready for all” and “anyone who wants it may come along and take it” (Rambam, Talmud Torah 3:1). Likewise, “there were three rims in the Bais HaMikdash: one of the Mizbei’ach (Altar), which was taken by Aharon (i.e., the Kohanim); one of the Shulchan (Table), which was taken by Dovid (i.e., the kings); and one of the Aron (Ark), which remains accessible—anyone who wants to take it can come and take it” (Yoma 72b). Indeed, when G-d directed Moshe to build the Mishkan, he commanded him in the singular voice (see e.g. Shemos 25:13, 17, 18), with one notable exception: the Aron (Ark). When it came to that vessel—representing the Torah—G-d commanded, “And they shall make” (Shemos 25:10). G-d used the plural voice so that no Jew would be able to say to another, “I have given a lot for the Ark, and therefore I study more and have a greater share in it” (Tanchuma, Vayakhel 8). No. When it comes to Torah study, all are entitled to equal access.
But this entitlement is not without cost. “Fix (i.e., prepare) yourself to learn Torah, for it is not an inheritance” (Avos (2:17). (Note to Open “Orthodoxy”: Don’t “fix” the Torah; it is “yourself” that needs fixing. The Torah does not derive its complexion from the times; it is the times that must derive their complexion from the Torah.)
While the Torah certainly is something of value passed down through the generations, it does not come without effort. It is an “inheritance” in the sense that it is transmitted by our forebears, but it also is an inheritance in the sense that we must strive and work to earn it and transmit it to the next generation. It may be true that the Torah constantly seeks to “return to its host” (Bava Metzia 85a), but only where it finds the welcome mat rolled out (Ruach Chaim, Avos 2:17).
Our entitlement to the Torah cannot be taken for granted. When the mother of R’ Eliyahu Klatzkin (later the head of the rabbinical court in Lublin) found her children spending excessive time poring over the detailed family tree of their illustrious lineage, she burned it, reasoning that it was better for her children to be ignorant of their lineage and toil to continue it rather than to rest on their laurels and let it fade away.
There is therefore a certain duality to the Torah as an inheritance. On the one hand, the Torah belongs to each and every one of us; no one is barred from acquiring it and all have the same obligation to master it. But it also is an inheritance accessible not merely by virtue of our parentage but also because of our efforts to attain and transmit it.
This duality—equal access to the Torah and an enduring obligation to work to attain it—is reflected in the Torah’s description as an “inheritance” (Devarim 33:4). Whereas the S’forno explains the inheritance as one that passes automatically from generation to generation (S’forno ad loc.), Rashi implies that it still must be earned and “grasped” (Rashi ad loc.).
Purim brings both aspects of this inheritance into focus. Although the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Sinai, they did not do so willingly until the time of Purim, when “they fulfilled that which they previously had accepted” (Shabbos 88a). What they accepted at Sinai was an entitlement guaranteed to them with or without sacrifice; only during the time of Purim did they accept the Torah willingly despite the sacrifices necessary to attain it (see Meshech Chochma, Devarim 33:4). Only through our willingness to make such sacrifices does the Torah truly become “an inheritance for the congregation of Yaakov.”
_________________________________________
[1] See also Responsa of Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim 12; Responsa of Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim 13; Avnei Nezer, Yoreh Dei’ah 312; S’dei Chemed, Vol. 8, Chazaka B’Mitzvos, 7:15-61.