The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT BAMIDBAR

Rav David Silverberg

            The second half of Parashat Bamidbar focuses on the tribe of Levi and the role it served in transporting the Mishkan.  Each of the three Levite families – Gershon, Kehat and Merari – was assigned specific parts of the Mishkan and certain accessories that it was responsible to transport during travel.  In presenting the responsibilities of the family of Kehat, the Torah writes, "Their charge: the ark, the table, the menora and the altars, and the sacred utensils used for ministering, and the curtain and all the service connected with it" (3:31).

            Upon reading this verse, an obvious question arises concerning the term masakh ("screen" or "curtain").  In the context of the Mishkan, this word is generally used in reference to the curtain that hung at the entrance to the Mishkan (see Shemot 26:36), which has already been mentioned as part of the charge of Gershon (3:25).  It thus seems difficult to explain why the Torah now includes the masakh under the assignment charged to the Kehat family.

            Rashi resolves this difficulty by suggesting that the Torah refers here not to the curtain at the entrance, but rather to the parokhet, the curtain that divided the Mishkan's interior into two different chambers.  This explanation of masakh appears also in the Midrash Ha-gadol, which adds that later in Parashat Bamidbar (4:5) the Torah indeed refers to the parokhet with the term "parokhet ha-masakh."  It therefore should not necessarily surprise us that here it employs the word masakh in reference to the parokhet.

            The Netziv, in his Ha'amek Davar, likewise follows this interpretation, but raises the question of how we might explain the phrase "ve-khol avodato" – "and all the service connected with it."  The Kehat family was assigned the task of not only transporting the parokhet, but also performing all the work associated with it.  The question thus arises as to what kind of work was associated with the parokhet beyond simply its transportation.

            The Netziv suggests a typically creative answer by drawing our attention to a Mishna in Masekhet Shekalim (8:5), which records that a new parokhet was woven each year (as opposed to the other accessories in the Mikdash, which were replaced only if the original became defective).  It stands to reason, the Netziv comments, that this halakha applied during Benei Yisrael's travels in the wilderness, as well.  If so, then when the Torah speaks of the "service" associated with the parokhet, it quite possibly refers to the responsibility of weaving a new curtain each year.  This verse thus informs us that the family of Kehat was assigned the task of transporting the parokhet during travel and also of producing a new curtain every year, as Halakha requires.

*******

            Yesterday, we discussed a difficulty concerning the verse in Parashat Bamidbar that describes the tasks assigned to the Levite family of Kehat (3:31).  In listing the articles that the Kehatites were responsible for transporting during travel, the Torah includes the masakh ("screen" or "curtain"), which usually refers to the curtain that hung at the entrance to the Mishkan.  Yet, this curtain had already been mentioned previously, in the Torah's list of the articles transported by the family of Gershon (3:25).  Rashi, as we saw, resolves this difficulty by explaining masakh in the context of the Kehatites' responsibilities as a reference to the parokhet, the curtain the divided the interior of the Mishkan into two separate chambers.

            Ibn Ezra, oddly enough, resoundingly dismisses this interpretation, but without proposing any alternative solution: "Many erred in interpreting 'the curtain and all the service connected with it.'  But the truth is clear, that this is the curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, and 'all the service associated with it' is its ropes."  According to Ibn Ezra, this verse indeed refers to the curtain that hung at the entrance.  However, as mentioned, Ibn Ezra does not propose any solution to explain how the Torah assigned this curtain to Kehat once it had already included it in the charge to Gershon.

            Rav Meshulam Rath, in his work Kol Mevaser (2:39), addresses this baffling comment in Ibn Ezra's commentary, and suggests a textual emendation as the only possible key to deciphering this passage.  Rav Rath writes that if we add the letter kaf – "like" – to this passage before the words "masakh petach Ohel Mo'ed" ("the curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting"), then we may explain these comments in an entirely different vein.  Namely, Ibn Ezra accepted the premise that the Torah refers here to the parokhet, and in these comments he addresses the separate issue regarding the phrase "and all the service connected with it."  As we discussed yesterday, it seems difficult to understand what "service" was associated with the parokhet, which was simply hung inside the Mishkan.  Ibn Ezra, according to Rav Rath's reading, answers this question by commenting, "Like the curtain at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting…its ropes."  Meaning, Ibn Ezra contends that the parokhet, like the curtains that hung outside the Mishkan, was held to the ground by ropes so that it could not sway freely.  Even though no wind blew inside the Mishkan, and there was thus no obvious need to pin down the bottom of the parokhet, God nevertheless instructed that this be done in order to maintain the inviolable "privacy" of the kodesh ha-kodashim (inner sanctum) behind the parokhet.  The bottom of the curtain was held down by ropes so that nobody could peer into even the lower area of the kodesh ha-kodashim, and it is to this that the Torah refers when it speaks of the "service" associated with the masakh.

            Thus, according to this speculative reading, Ibn Ezra's comments here relate not to the definition of masakh, which even he explains as a reference to the parokhet, but rather to identifying the "service" associated with the parokhet.

*******

            Parashat Bamidbar records the census taken of Benei Yisrael a year after the Exodus.  Among the peculiar aspects of this census, as noted by many commentators, is the startling population gap it revealed between the tribe of Levi and the other tribes.  The tribe of Levi numbered a mere 22,000 (3:39), a full 10,000 members fewer than the smallest among the other tribes, Menashe (1:35), which in essence constituted but a half-tribe.  This discrepancy becomes all the more striking when we consider the fact that Levi's census included all males aged one month and older, while the other tribes were counted only from the age of twenty.

            The Ramban addresses this enigma and suggests two possible reasons for Levi's relatively sparse numbers.  First, he makes reference to the Midrashic tradition that the tribe of Levi was not subjected to slave labor in Egypt, as were the other tribes.  The Ramban asserts that God saw to it that the Hebrew slaves would procreate at an abnormally rapid pace in order to demonstrate to Pharaoh that his efforts to curb Benei Yisrael's would not only fail, but also be reversed.  Hence, as the Egyptian persecution did not affect the Levites, they were also excluded from this blessing of an accelerated birthrate.  Secondly, the Ramban suggests ascribing Levi's numbers to the curse that Yaakov uttered on his deathbed as he condemned Shimon and Levi's acts of violence.  The result of Yaakov's censure was Levi's low birthrate in Egypt, and the small population of Shimon after the plague of Ba'al Pe'or, as we read later in Sefer Bamidbar (see 25:9 and 26:14).

            The Keli Yakar presents a lengthy discussion of this issue, amidst which he cites a theory claiming that God curbed Levi's population growth so as not to overly burden the other tribes, who supported Levi.  The tribe of Levi was not given any agricultural lands, and instead lived off the gifts given by the rest of the nation.  In order to minimize this burden of responsibility that rested upon the other the tribes, this theory claimed, God saw to it that Levi's population would not grow at the same rate as the rest of the nation.  (Interestingly, the Pardes Yosef Ha-chadash cites this theory in the name of Reb Velvele Soloveitchik.)  The Keli Yakar, however, dismisses this notion, arguing that God could certainly have ensured to provide the other tribes with enough material goods to avoid an overburdening situation.  This certainly would have been far preferable to intervening in order to contain Levi's birthrate.

            The Keli Yakar himself suggests a different theory, based on a novel reading of a famous Talmudic passage in Masekhet Sota (12a).  The Gemara there tells that when Pharaoh issued his decree ordering the murder of all newborn Israelite males, Amram – the father of Moshe Rabbenu and a prominent religious leader – decided to divorce his wife.  He felt that rather than beget children destined to die during infancy, he should instead simply stop reproducing.  In response to this drastic measure, the Gemara relates, "they all went ahead and divorced their wives."  Amram's daughter, Miriam, criticized her father for his resignation and surrendering to persecution, and he acknowledged his mistake.  He decided to remarry his wife, at which point "they all went ahead and remarried their wives."

            It is conventionally understood that the Gemara speaks here of all Benei Yisrael.  As Amram was a prominent and influential figure, the entire nation followed his example by divorcing and subsequently remarrying.  The Keli Yakar, however, explains the Gemara as referring only to Amram's tribe, Levi; it was only the Levites who followed Amram's example and divorced their wives.  Accordingly, the Keli Yakar suggests, the men and women of the entire tribe of Levi spent a significant amount of time in Egypt living separately from one another, and this tribe therefore lagged well behind the rest in population growth.  This perhaps accounts for Levi's small numbers after the Exodus in relation to the rest of the people.  (Of course, this assumes that Amram and other Levite husbands spent enough time away from their wives to have a significant impact on the tribe's growth.  This assumption itself hinges on the premise that Miriam – who was of course already alive when Amram separated from Yokheved – was a good deal older than Moshe, who was of course born only after Amram and Yokheved reunited.)

*******

            Parashat Bamidbar tells of the census taken of Benei Yisrael some thirteen months after the Exodus, which actually consisted of two separate censuses.  The first, which covered all the tribes except Levi, counted all males from the age of twenty and older, whereas the separate census of the tribe of Levi included all males from the age of thirty days.

            The Midrash Tanchuma (16), cited by Rashi (3:16), comments that the census of Levi posed a pragmatic problem in that it included even infants.  Moshe turned to God and asked how he should go about counting all the Levite infants: "How can I enter all their homes and tents to know the number of their nursing babes?"  The Midrash Tanchuma relates that Moshe stood outside every tent of the Leviyim and a heavenly voice announced the number of children in that tent.  For this reason, the Midrash concludes, the verse states that Moshe counted the tribe of Levi "according to the Lord" ("al pi Hashem" – 3:16) – because the census was taken on the basis of the information that God directly provided.

            Many writers have raised the question of why Moshe went through the trouble of visiting each Levite tent if in any event he received the data directly from God.  Once he relied on the Almighty to inform him of the number of males in every family, why did he find it necessary to stand outside each tent?  For that matter, why did Moshe – and the twelve tribal leaders – have to make any effort at all in conducting these censuses?  If God was prepared to disclose the information concerning the Levite children, why did He not simply inform Moshe directly of the number of every family, or every tribe?

            Rav Matis Blum, in his Torah La'da'at – Ba'kodesh Chazitikha (New York, 5761), suggests explaining this procedure in light of Rashi's famous opening comments to Sefer Bamidbar: "He counts them at all times because of their love before Him…"  The censuses taken of Benei Yisrael served as an expression of their special beloved status, God's unique affection for His nation.  To this end, the census had to be conducted in the form of a public display.  Since the census was intended to demonstrate God's love for His people, it had to occur publicly so that the people would be shown their beloved status.  Rav Blum draws our attention in this context to the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Chagiga (26b) that the kohanim would lift the shulchan in the Temple on each of the three pilgrimage festivals.  They wanted to show the people the miracle of the lechem ha-panim, the "show-bread" on the shulchan, which remained warm and fresh for an entire week after it was baked.  The kohanim would declare to the people, "Re'u chibatkhem lifnei ha-Makom" – "See how beloved you are before the Almighty!"  It was important for the people to see firsthand that the Almighty loved and cherished them.  Similarly, the census, which also served as a demonstration of Benei Yisrael's beloved status, had to take place in the form of public spectacle.

            Rav Blum concludes his discussion by noting the practical implication of this notion, namely, the importance of clearly expressing one's affection for his family and friends.  It wasn't enough for God to simply care for and protect Benei Yisrael; He had to make a clear demonstration of His special affection for them.  Similarly, family members should not simply take for granted their mutual feelings of love, admiration and respect; these emotions should be clearly expressed, just as God made a point of clearly demonstrating to Benei Yisrael their unique beloved status.

*******

            Parashat Bamidbar records God's commands to Moshe concerning the proper arrangement of the Israelite camp during travel and encampment.  Their journeys through the wilderness had to follow a specific sequence, and their encampments were held to a particular formation, with each tribe situated at its designated location.  One verse in this parasha encapsulates the basic principle underlying these instructions: "The Israelites shall encamp – each at his camp, and each at his banner" ("Ve-chanu Benei Yisrael ish al machaneihu ve-ish al diglo" – 1:52).  The essential component of this system was the assignment of each tribe and each family to its place, thereby ensuring an orderly and methodical procedure for travel and encampment.

            In a certain sense, it may be said that this description characterizes Benei Yisrael's life in the wilderness generally.  Just as each tribe and family was assigned a particular location, thereby avoiding contention and disputes, so did each member of Benei Yisrael live, broadly speaking, "each at his camp, and each at his banner" – in his assigned place.  During the years of wilderness travel, everybody lived at the same standard and with the same resources.  Each person received his omer-worth of manna every day, and nobody owned land or other assets from which they could try to earn a profit.  The Talmud (Bava Batra 60a) famously notes Bilam's observation that Benei Yisrael's tents did not face one another, that they weren't peering into each other's homes.  Beyond the obvious reference to the quality of privacy and modesty, this comment perhaps relates more generally to the feeling of personal contentment and satisfaction that prevailed during this period.  There was no commercial or social competition; people did not curiously or enviously peer into their neighbors' property to compare and contrast their standards of living.  Benei Yisrael lived "each at his camp, and each at his banner," with tranquil contentment with his lot, without feeling uneasy about the lot of others.

            In this light, perhaps, we might explain a passage in the Kol Mekadesh Shevi'i hymn traditionally sung on Shabbat eve, which asserts that all who properly observe Shabbat will be rewarded abundantly, "each at his camp, and each at his banner."  The reference to this verse is perhaps intended to assure all Shabbat observers ample reward that does not diminish from the blessings of others.  The poet emphasizes that he speaks of "KOL mekadesh shevi'i" – every person who properly observes Shabbat.  He thus guarantees that regardless of how many people meet this criterion, the resources of blessing and prosperity will not be depleted.  Just as Benei Yisrael lived in the wilderness "each with his camp," with each individual feeling contented and perfectly at ease with his share, as no person's portion compromised that of anybody else, so will the rewards for Shabbat observance be distributed limitlessly, without any individual's reward coming at the expense of somebody else's share.

            On Shabbat, we return, so-to-speak, to the wilderness, to a state of complete dependence on the Almighty.  Rather than work for our livelihood, one day a week we come to God's table – as we know, the two chalot of the Shabbat meal are often associated with the manna – and enjoy the blessings He has bestowed upon us.  The reward for Shabbat observance is the ability to live one's entire life "each at his camp," with abundant blessings that obviate the need for struggle and competition with others, to live in peace, prosperity and tranquility as our ancestors did during their years of travel through the wilderness.

*******

            Much of Parashat Bamidbar is devoted to discussing the unique status and role of the Leviyim, who replaced the firstborns as the ones chosen to officiate in the Mishkan.  During the period of Benei Yisrael's travel through the wilderness, the Leviyim were assigned the responsibility of dismantling, transporting and rebuilding the Mishkan each time the nation traveled and encamped.  In addition, the Leviyim were assigned roles that applied even once the permanent Mikdash was built.  The Leviyim's primary jobs, as discussed by Chazal, involved shemira – standing guard around the Temple – and shir –singing songs and playing instruments as musical accompaniment to the service in the Mikdash performed by the kohanim.

            As Rav Asher Zelig Weiss notes in his Minchat Asher – Sichot, these two responsibilities likely reflect the kind of aura that must be maintained with respect to Torah and mitzvot.  The shemira around the Temple was not intended to protect it from thieves or marauders; it rather served as a demonstration of respect and reverence to the sacred site. The presence of Levite guards lent the Mikdash a certain dignified aura, as befitting the representative "residence" of the Almighty.  The shira, of course, served a much different purpose: to create an atmosphere of festivity and excitement.  The music played and sung by the Leviyim had the effect of making a visit to the Beit Ha-mikdash an uplifting, inspirational experience, a source of immense joy of which visitors would want to avail themselves on a regular basis.

            In the effort to live one's life "in the Mikdash," to carry the concepts represented by the Temple into his day-to-day experience, it is imperative to infuse one's avodat Hashem with both these elements: reverence and joy.  Of course, the fusion of these two emotions requires a delicate balance.  We often tend to associate joy with frivolity and light-heartedness, and thus joy would appear, at first glance, incompatible with the experience of awe and reverence.  The service of Leviyim perhaps reminds us that the two are, in fact, perfectly compatible, supplementing one another.  We are able, and indeed required, to approach Torah and mitzvot with a sense of awe and reverence, while at the same time delighting in, and drawing satisfaction from, our service of God.  Just as the Temple was a place of both awe and serenity, so must we approach Torah with both the serious-minded attitude it demands, and the joy and enthusiasm that it should naturally inspire.

*******

            Parashat Bamidbar begins with God's command to conduct a census of Benei Yisrael: "Se'u et rosh kol adat Benei Yisrael…" ("Count the heads of the entire nation of Israelites…" – 1:2).  The Ramban, in his commentary (1:3), cites a Midrash that associates the word se'u ("count," or literally, "lift") in this verse with, of all things, execution.  In Sefer Bereishit (40:19), for example, Yosef interprets the Egyptian baker's dream in the prison cell as forewarning his execution, and he predicts, "yisa Pharaoh et roshekha mei-alekha ve-tala otecha al eitz" – "Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you and hang you on a tree."  Similarly, the Midrash writes, when God tells Moshe to "lift the heads" of Benei Yisrael, He foresees the eventual failure of this generation and their demise in the wilderness.  The Midrash notes that for this reason, God issues the command to count the tribe of Levi with a different verb, "pekod" (3:15).  Since the Leviyim did not participate in the sin of the spies and thus did not share the same fate as the other tribes, their census is not introduced with the portentous term se'u, which alludes to doom and destruction.

            The Ramban comments with regard to this Midrashic passage, "It is not clear to me why they interpreted it negatively."  Indeed, there seems to be no compelling reason to explain this verse in such gloomy, ominous terms.  If anything, the atmosphere created by this narrative is an upbeat one, as Benei Yisrael are called upon to prepare for their eagerly anticipated departure from Sinai to Eretz Yisrael.  Why must the Midrash "spoil" this mood and interpret God's command as a subtle reference to the disaster that occurs later in this sefer?

            A closer look at the Midrashic passage in question would seem to provide the answer (Bamidbar Rabba 1:11):

Rabbi Pinchas bar Idi said: What is written in the beginning of the sefer?  "Se'u et rosh kol adat Benei Yisrael."  It does not say, "Elevate the head" or "Make the head great," but rather "lift the head" – like a person who tells the executioner, "Take the head of so-and-so."  …Similarly, He gave a hint…that if they are meritorious, they will rise to greatness, as it says (Bereishit 40:13), "Pharaoh shall lift your head and return you to your post," and if they are not meritorious, they will all perish, as it says (Bereishit 40:19), "Pharaoh shall lift your head from upon you and hang you on a tree."

The Midrash clearly acknowledged that the verb yisa ("lift") refers to singling out an individual or group either for distinction or for condemnation, as in the case of the Egyptian baker and cupbearer.  The word se'u used in reference to the census, according to the Midrash, is employed specifically because of its dual implication.  God indicates to Moshe that as the nation prepares for its journey to Eretz Yisrael for the purpose of realizing its destiny, the outcome depends on their conduct.  After receiving the Torah and building the Mishkan, Benei Yisrael now have enormous potential for greatness, but also for disaster.  The Almighty's presence grants them the opportunity to fulfill their destiny of establishing a powerful, successful nation that would represent Him to the world, but also makes them accountable should they fail to achieve this goal.

            Thus, the Midrash does not interpret the term se'u exclusively in reference to death and doom, but rather notes how this word connotes both greatness and failure, thereby alluding to the two potential consequences of the Shekhina's presence among Benei Yisrael.