The pasuk says, “For a seven-day period he shall don them—he who serves in his stead from among his sons, who shall enter the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary.” [Shemos 29:30] Rashi explains this pasuk to mean that the son of the previous Kohein Gadol has the right to become Kohein Gadol after his father (provided he is worthy of serving in the position). The pasuk concludes with the words “Asher yavo el Ohel Moed l’shares b’Kodesh” (who shall enter the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary).
The Talmud [Yoma 72b] says, “I might think that the son of the Kohein Anointed for War (Mashuach Milchama) will succeed his father in the same way that the son of a Kohein Gadol succeeds his father...” The Gemara teaches, however, that this is not the case. The Gemara learns this exclusion from the very pasuk we just quoted: Only one who is “fit to enter the Tent of Meeting to serve in the Sanctuary” succeeds his father, but one who does not enter into the Tent of Meeting (because he is out on the battlefield) is not fit to serve in place of his father.
Why is this so? If the High Priesthood passes from father to son, why shouldn’t the office of Mashuach Milchama also pass from father to son? It is true that the Gemara derives this rule from a pasuk, but what is the rationale?
I heard an explanation in the name of Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, zt”l, regarding why we do not pass down the office of the Kohein Anointed for War through inheritance. Rav Kook explains that inheritance is all about continuity. It passes from father to son, from son to grandson, from grandson to great-grandson. It is about “hemshech” (continuity). This is appropriate for Kehuna Gedola. The Gemara says it is also appropriate for rabbinic leadership. Ideally, Rabbanus should go from father to son. Ideally, the position of being head of a Talmudic academy (rosh yeshiva) should go from father to son, if the son is worthy of the position. Continuity.
However, there is one area of Jewish life where continuity is not appropriate. On the contrary, we do not want to emphasize continuity. That area is the area of war. War is not supposed to be a permanent function of Jewish life. War is an exception to the rule. It is an anomaly. We do not want it to happen. There should not be a need for a Kohein Anointed for War. Linking inheritance with the role of Kohein Mashuach Milchama is saying that we view war as part of the eternal continuity of Jewish existence. We do not want that.
The Mishna states, “A man should not go out on Shabbos (into the public domain) with his sword. Rav Eliezer says that it is considered an ornament (and he may go out into the public domain wearing it). The Rabbis (disagree with Rav Eliezer and say it is not an ornament) but, rather, it is something that is unseemly (a g’nai), as it is written: ‘They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare’ [Yeshaya 2:4].” [Shabbos 63a]
The Rabbis reject the idea that a sword should be considered an ornament. A weapon should be an ornament? This is not what we live for! This is not supposed to be a function of our lives! It is true that when war occurs, we need to fight the war and be successful in our battles. However, to make it a permanent institution—to say the position of Masuach Milchama should pass down to son and grandson—that would send the wrong message. That would send the message that war needs to be a part of our lives. That is not the case. Our goal is that nation should not lift sword against nation and that they should no longer study warfare.
