Musar for Bava Batra 149:16

Our sages in Baba Batra 75a comment on Numbers 27,20: ונתתה מהודך עליו, "you will invest him with some of your glory" (when Moses is told to appoint Joshua), that Moses was to invest Joshua only with part of his glory, not all of it. The elders of that generation are reported there as having compared Moses' face to that of the sun, whereas they compared Joshua's face to that of the moon. The change in the quality of leadership of the Jewish people was felt by these elders to be a shame and an affront. Why did G–d withhold some of His goodness from the people at that time? In the Midrash Shocher Tov 21, the author elaborates on the verse in Numbers 27,20 that Joshua experienced that part of Moses' glory granted to him on the occasion of the miraculous crossing of the river Jordan. We read in Joshua 4,14: "On that day the Lord exalted Joshua in the sight of all of Israel, so that they revered him all his days as they had revered Moses." The Midrash continues that the glory of the Messiah will equal that of teacher and disciple (Moses and Joshua), since it is said of him in Psalms 21,6: הוד והדר תשוה עליו, You have endowed him with splendor and glory." This statement obviously needs clarification. Besides, since "one hundred" is part of "two hundred," how does the addition of Joshua's glory increase the glory of the Messiah?

Alternatively, the word הבל as used by the Yalkut, refers to Adam's son הבל, who on the surface at least seemed to have pleased G–d since the Torah reports G–d as favoring his offering, i.e. וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו (Genesis 4,4). This indicates that the true beauty of Adam was Abel; Cain was rooted in the סטרא אחרא, as we have pointed out previously. Abel had a soul of a higher calibre, and Kabbalists consider that Moses was the reincarnation of הבל. According to that view, הבל-שת-משה, shared the same soul. The reason הבל represented Adam's beauty is that whereas Adam's "heel" was responsible for "darkening the light of the sun," the face of Moses is considered as having restored that darkened light; our sages compare him to the sun itself (Baba Batra 75). The personalities of הבל and subsequently שת developed through these reincarnations until eventually in the person of Moses they reached their zenith on which the Torah reports: ומשה עלה אל האלוקים, "and Moses ascended to G–d" (Exodus 19,3) and separated from his wife. At that point Moses became the "husband" of מטרוניתא [a heavenly being that was his זווג ראשון, ideal mate. Ed.], as mentioned in the Zohar. This is what the Yalkut had in mind when it explained the meaning of אשה יראת ה' היא תתהלל.

We must assume that the Mishnah speaks about the hidden aspects of the Torah and describes four categories of people, Joshua, the elders, the prophets and the men of the Great Assembly entering the aforementioned פרדס in order to acquire these secrets of the Torah. These four categories of people were not all on the same spiritual level. The men of the Great Assembly did not match the groups mentioned before them. Moses, of course, towered above them all spiritually, and it was not appropriate to describe him as "entering" the orchard. He was at home there, as G–d had testified (Numbers 12,7), בכל ביתי נאמן הוא. When someone enters or leaves his own home one does not bother to mention it. His ability to enter and leave his home without suffering spiritual harm is taken for granted. Joshua entered the orchard and returned from it unharmed. This is alluded to in Exodus 33,11 when the Torah describes Joshua as never departing fom the "tent," i.e. the Tent of Testimony (home of Torah). Our sages described the face of Moses as like that of the sun, whereas the face of Joshua, by comparison, is described as like that of the moon. The former radiates its own light, whereas the latter only reflects light received from another source.

My father of blessed memory (author's), explained a Rashi on Deut. 3,26, in which the word רב is understood as "G–d has a great deal more in store for you, more than merely crossing the Jordan." At first glance Rashi's comment seems quite unrelated to the text. My father explained Rashi's description of the conversation between G–d and Moses as follows: G–d to Moses: "You surely did not think that by not crossing the river Jordan you will merely be denied to taste the fruit of the Holy Land, but what you aimed for was fulfilling the commandments which can only be fulfilled in that land. If this is your concern, רב לך, there are many more commandments which you would not be able to fulfill even if I allowed you to cross the river Jordan. You cannot fulfill the string of commandments applicable only to priests, etc. You cannot fulfill the commandment of the levirate marriage, neither many other commandments." Rashi therefore means that G–d reassured Moses: "just as you will receive credit for fulfilling the commandments relating to residence in the Holy Land, so you will also receive credit for all the other commandments you have not fulfilled in practice but have studied." This whole subject matter has been discussed at length in קול בוכים on Lamentations 4,16: פני ה' חלקם, "The Lord's countenance has turned away from them." The author claims that just as terrestrial man's body has 248 limbs so his soul – which represents Torah study – has 248 parts. This is the meaning of רב טוב אור הגנוז, "there is a wealth of good light stored up in the heavens for Moses", and this is why the sages described the face of Moses as comparable to the "face" of the sun, whereas the face of Joshua was as the "face" of the moon. The difference was due to the fact that Moses received the Torah directly from its Source. It was a relatively easy matter for Moses to understand all parts of the Torah and therefore to fulfill the requirements of residence in the land of Israel on a spiritual plane employing all 248 parts of his soul. Joshua, on the other hand, observed those commandments in practice. The fulfillment of the commandments on a spiritual plane seems of still greater value. In Proverbs 6,23 Solomon speaks of נר מצוה ותורה אור, that the relationship between individual commandments and the totality of Torah is like the relationship between a single candle and a luminary.