In his commentary, Rashi notes the difference between Hashem’s instructions to Moshe Rabbeinu as to the manner of semichah, leaning/placing his hand on Yehoshua, and the actual performance in which Moshe placed both hands upon Yehoshua. Rashi writes: “He leaned his hands” – generously, much more than he had been commanded. For Hashem said to him, “And lean your hand, and he leaned with both hands – like a vessel which is full and brimming over and filled him generously with his wisdom.” Rashi clearly writes that Moshe gave extra wisdom of his own to Yehoshua.
The Talmud (Bava Kamma 92b) asks: “What is the source of the popular adage, “Though the wine belongs to the owner, the thanks is given to the butler (who pours it)”? They reply by citing the pesukim concerning Moshe’s semichah to Yehoshua, which implies that the wisdom which was transferred to Yehoshua was Moshe’s doing – when, in fact, wisdom comes from Hashem. Likewise, in Devarim 34:9, the Torah writes: “And Yehoshua bin Nun was full of the spirit of
wisdom, because Moshe had laid his hands upon him.” The credit is given to Moshe, when, in all reality, he was merely the “butler.”
The Brisker Rav, zl, questions the disparity between Rashi in Chumash and Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud. The Talmud attributes Yehoshua’s wisdom to Hashem, while, in his commentary to Chumash, Rashi writes that Moshe laid both hands on Yehoshua, thus conferring added wisdom to him. Moshe’s generosity with his wisdom went beyond the role of being a “butler.”
The Brisker Rav explains that actually Moshe conferred three entities upon Yehoshua: he gave him semichah, laid his hands upon him; he anointed him with shemen ha’mishchah, anointing oil (This is because Yehoshua was halachically considered to be/have the rank of a Melech Yisrael, king, since whoever did not listen to Yehoshua was liable for capital punishment); and he transmitted the mesorah, tradition, which meant that he would be the conduit (next in line after Moshe) to teach Klal Yisrael, to become (after Moshe) the nation’s next quintessential Rebbe. Semichah, meshichah, mesorah. In other words, Yehoshua was to be much more than a talmid, disciple, of Moshe. He was to become his successor.
Rambam writes that Moshe taught Torah to Yehoshua, Elazar HaKohen and Pinchas. Yet, it was Yehoshua who received the mesorah from Moshe. This is delineated in the opening Mishnah of Pirkei Avos: Moshe kibail Torah mi’Sinai u’mesarah l’Yehoshua;” Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and he gave it to Yehoshua (to continue the chain of transmission). Bnei Yisrael had many teachers, but Yehoshua was responsible for the mesorah, insuring that the Torah would be transmitted in the pristine manner in which it had been received at Sinai.
Yehoshua became the repository of Torah She’Baal Peh, the Oral Law, receiving it from Moshe. Thus, Moshe designated Yehoshua to transmit this mesorah to the next generation. The continuation of the mesorah is proof-positive that Hashem gave both the Written Law and the Oral Law on Har Sinai, and transmitted them throughout the generations by individuals who were responsible leaders of their individual generation. In his introduction to his work, Mishneh Torah, the Rambam lists these Torah giants of whom Yehoshua (following Moshe) was the first. When Chazal compare Moshe to the “butler” who is “pouring” his master’s wine, they refer to the mesorah, to underscore the verity: all chochmah is derived from Hashem via Har Sinai.
Perhaps the easiest way to approach the concept of mesorah is to envision our every Tanna, Amora, Gaon, Rishon, Acharon together with us as we learn Torah. Their writings and teachings are not isolated, abstract didactics, but represent the words of our nation’s greatest and most erudite Torah leaders throughout the generations who come alive with us as we study.
While in most cases mesorah is analogous to Torah, historically it has become the foundation upon which our Torah leaders have stood up to those who would usurp the Torah way of life by creating and introducing change – from discarding customs that have been part of the fiber of Jewish life to introducing modernity; from egalitarianism to all forms of secular incursion. The tension that exists between tradition/mesorah and modification/eradication is not new. It goes back millennia. Never has it reached such proportion, however, as it has in the last two centuries with the introduction of the Haskalah/Enlightenment movement which was the progenitor of the secular streams and their antecedent “isms.”
In more recent times, Horav Elazar M. Shach, zl, whose modus operandi as gadol hador, preeminent Torah leader of his generation, was to be involved in every aspect of building and maintaining Torah life as we know it. He presented his hashkafos in a well-known declaration: “I know nothing on my own. When I need to make a decision concerning an issue, I think (ask myself) what would the Chafetz Chaim, Horav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky, the Chazon Ish and the Brisker Rav have done in this case? We do what we saw from them, and what we did not see, we do not do.”
Rav Shach was wont to say that the greatest curse is when young people see themselves as superior to their leaders and discard all that has been passed down to us throughout the generations. A delegation of lay leaders petitioned his approval to do something that would eventually reap great benefit for the Jewish community. His response was, “No. We saw the Chafetz Chaim act differently.” Hearing his negative response, these lay leaders asked if they could explain and demonstrate that the potential far outweighed the negative side-effects of the slight change.
The Rosh Yeshivah’s reply is telling. “I do not contest your reasoning. Indeed, you may be correct, and logic may support your position. However, we do not lead Klal Yisrael with logic – as sound as it may appear. Klal Yisrael can only be led with mesorah. The tradition we have from the Chafetz Chaim is that what you want to do should not be done, and that tradition overrides all of your logic.”
