PARASHAT BEMIDBAR

By Rav David Silverberg

            We read in Parashat Bamidbar that Benei Yisrael were divided into four groups, each of which consisted of three tribes and encamped along one of the four sides of the Mishkan.  The first group was comprised of Yehuda, Yissakhar and Zevulun, and encamped east of the Mishkan.  The tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Gad were situated to the south of the Mishkan, and Efrayim, Menashe and Binyamin were assigned the western side.  Finally, the tribes of Dan, Asher and Naftali were positioned to the north.  The tribe of Levi was not included in this arrangement, as the Levites served as the attendants in the Mishkan and therefore encamped immediately surrounding the sacred site.

            This division of the twelve tribes clearly results from the relationships between Yaakov’s sons, the fathers of the tribes.  Most obviously, Efrayim, Menashe and Binyamin are the three tribes that emerged from Rachel, the mother of Yosef and Binyamin.  (Yosef, of course, was the father of Menashe and Efryaim, who were assigned independent tribal status.)   They therefore naturally formed one of the groups of three tribes.

Regarding the other of Yaakov’s children, however, the division could not be done as neatly.  Leah begot six sons – Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Yissakhar and Zevulun – who, in theory, should have been divided into two groups of three.  However, since the tribe of Levi had to encamp separately from the other tribes, immediately surrounding the Mishkan, only five of Leah’s tribes remained.  Another problem arose concerning the sons of the two maidservants whom Yaakov married – Dan, Naftali, Gad and Asher.  They numbered four tribes – one too many for a group of three.

The obvious solution was to take one of the tribes from the maidservants and add that tribe to Leah’s tribes.  This would bring Leah’s tribes to six, and leave three for the maidservants’ tribes.  Thus, the tribe of Gad was removed from the group of maidservants’ tribes, and added to Leah’s children in Levi’s place.  The result was one group consisting of Leah’s three older sons – Reuven, Shimon, and Levi represented by Gad – and a second group consisting of Leah’s three younger sons – Yehuda, Yissakhar and Zevulun.  The third group consisted of the remaining three tribes of the maidservants (Dan, Naftali and Asher), and the fourth group, as mentioned, was comprised of Rachel’s three tribes (Efrayim, Menashe and Binyamin).

The reason why Gad was chosen over the other maidservants’ tribes to join with Leah’s tribes is obvious.  Gad was the oldest son of Zilpa, who was Leah’s maidservant.  Zilpa’s sons thus clearly had a more natural association to Leah’s sons than did the sons of Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant.  It was only logical, then, that Zilpa’s older son would be selected to join with Leah’s tribes.

Another factor that may have contributed to the selection of Gad over Dan (the older of Bilha’s sons) is population size.  The tribes of Reuven, Shimon and Gad numbered a total of 151,450 men (2:16), and the group of maidservants’ tribes numbered 157,600 (2:31).  Had Dan joined Leah’s tribes instead of Gad, there would have been a larger gap between the two groups, as Dan numbered 62,700 as opposed to Gad’s 45,650.  In the interest of maintaining a balance between the groups, then, it was preferable for Gad to join Leah’s tribes, rather than Dan.

(Based on Rav Yaakov Yosef Reinman’s Abir Yosef [Lakewood, 2008])

*******

            The Torah in Parashat Bamidbar tells of the special role assigned to the tribe of Levi, whose members were chosen to serve in the Mishkan and assist the kohanim.  God commands Moshe, “You shall give the Levites to Aharon and his sons; they are given to him from the Israelites” (3:9).  The Leviyim were chosen from among the rest of the nation to perform certain tasks in the Mishkan that would assist the kohanim in their role as the attendants in the Sanctuary.

            God concludes this command by instructing Moshe, “You shall assign Aharon and his sons, and they shall preserve their priesthood…” (3:10).  What is the meaning of this command to the kohanim to “preserve their priesthood,” and how is it relevant to the context of the Leviyim’s special designation?

            Rashi explains that Moshe was to instruct the kohanim with regard to their ritual duties in the Mishkan – offering sacrifices and the like.  Rashi does not explain, however, why this reminder was necessary at this point.  God had already conveyed to Moshe numerous chapters’ worth of information concerning the sacrifices in Sefer Vayikra, material which Moshe had undoubtedly already taught to the kohanim.  After all, the instructions given here at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar were conveyed on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, a full month after the kohanim had begun serving their role in the Mishkan!

            Shadal suggests that the kohanim may have considered delegating these responsibilities to the Leviyim.  Now that the Levites were assigned to the Mishkan for the purpose of assisting the kohanim, the kohanim may have reached the mistaken conclusion that all roles in the Mishkan could be transferred onto the new assistants.  God therefore urged Moshe to clarify to the kohanim that their jobs have not changed with the introduction of the Leviyim, and they must continue tending to the rituals in the Mishkan as they had done previously.

            It is common in bureaucratic systems for the higher-ranking officials to enjoy easier roles and assume fewer responsibilities.  They feel entitled to delegate as much of the busywork as they can upon the employees under their charge, freeing up their time and avoiding pressure and responsibility.  The hierarchical structure that came into being with the Levites’ assignment gave rise to the concern that the kehuna would be transformed into a bureaucracy of sorts.  Moshe was therefore told to remind the kohanim that their responsibilities were unaffected by the Leviyim’s role, and they should not make any attempt to absolve themselves of their assignments by imposing them upon the new assistants.

*******

            We read in Parashat Bamidbar of God’s designation of the Leviyim as the tribe that would serve in the Mishkan and transport it during the nation’s travels through the wilderness.  The Levite tribe’s special role necessitated that they encamped immediately surrounding the Mishkan.  Curiously, when God first informs Moshe of the Leviyim’s unique role, He twice mentions the fact that this tribe must encamp around the Mishkan:

“…they [the Levites] shall carry the Mishkan and all its appurtenances, and they shall tend to it, and they shall encamp around the Mishkan” (1:50)

“The Israelites shall encamp each with his camp and each by his banner… But the Levites shall encamp around the Mishkan of Testimony…” (1:52-53)

            Rav Meir Simcha Ha-kohen of Dvinsk, in his Meshekh Chokhma, posits a novel theory to explain this seeming redundancy.  Later in Sefer Bamidbar (beginning of chapter 5), the Torah introduces the command of shilu’ach ha-temei’im, which requires people with a status of tum’a (ritual impurity) to avoid entering certain areas of the Israelite camp.  Chazal (as Rashi cites in his commentary to those verses) delineated three different regions in the camp, which were off-limits to three different categories of temei’im.  Metzora’im (people stricken with tzara’at) were to remain outside the Israelite camp altogether, while people who had come in contact with a human corpse were barred only from the area of the Mishkan itself.  The third, middle category consisted of those who became tamei as a result of bodily emissions, who were forbidden from entering not only the Mishkan, but also the machaneh Leviya – the Levite camp.

            This halakha, at first glance, gave rise to a basic question concerning the Leviyim’s encampment in the wilderness.  If a ba’al keri (man who experienced a semenal emission) may not enter the Levite camp, then how were married Leviyim permitted to reside in their camp?  Nowhere do we find any source indicating that the Leviyim were required to abstain from relations during Benei Yisrael’s sojourn in the wilderness, and it certainly seems inconceivable that this would be the case.  How, then, did the Levites conduct marital life during this period, if ba’alei keri were not permitted in the area of the Levite encampment?  (For that matter, we might ask how the Levites’ wives could live in this region, from which they were barred during menstruation.)

            The Meshekh Chokhma explains, quite simply, that two areas of Levite encampment were designated, as indicated by the two verses cited above.  The on-duty Levites would encamp in the area immediately surrounding the Mishkan, without their families, and it was this region that remained off-limits to ba’alei keri and other temei’im of this category.  A bit further from this Levite encampment, the Leviyim pitched tents for their families, and this area did not have the status of the machaneh Leviya.  It was rather no different from the rest of the Israelite camp, where all temei’im could reside with the exception of metzora’im.

            The Meshekh Chokhma finds a source for his theory in a comment of Ibn Ezra later in Sefer Bamidbar, in the context of the story of Korach (16:24).  The Torah makes reference to “the tent(s) of Korach, Datan and Aviram,” indicating that Korach, a Levite, lived next to Datan and Aviram, who belonged to the tribe of Reuven.  Ibn Ezra explains that the Levites encamped in two locations: in the machaneh Leviya, immediately surrounding the Mishkan, and further away from the Mishkan, where their families resided and where their property was kept.  When the Torah speaks of Korach’s residence near Datan and Aviram, it refers to this second encampment, where Korach’s family resided with his property, and this tent was indeed in close proximity to the tribe of Reuven.  Thus, the Meshekh Chokhma’s theory concerning the two encampments of the Leviyim has a basis already in the writings of the Rishonim.

*******

            In their comments to the opening verse of Sefer Bamidbar, a number of Midrashim note the significance of the fact that God had His presence reside among Benei Yisrael specifically in a barren desert.  One such Midrashic passage reads as follows:

This may be compared to a chieftain who came to a province, and the people of the province saw him and fled.  He entered another, desolate city, and they greeted him and applauded him.  The chieftain said: This province is better than all other provinces; this is where I will build my residence!

Similarly, when the Almighty came to the sea, it fled from Him… He came to a desolate desert and it gave praise to the Almighty… He then said: This is a good city; he is where I shall build a residence and live in its midst.

(Bamidbar Rabba 1:2)

Why did the king in the parable choose to live in the desolate city, and how does this relate to God’s decision to have His Shekhina reside among Benei Yisrael in the wilderness?  More generally, and perhaps more importantly, what broader message does the Midrash seek to convey?

            Rav Yissachar Frand suggested that the answer lies in the reaction of the people in the first province where the chieftain arrived.  Why did they flee?  What did they have to fear?  Would the king’s residence not have brought their region honor and prestige?  Apparently, the townspeople felt comfortable with their lifestyle and had no desire to change.  They understood that building the king’s palace in their region would bring a drastic change to the area.  Once it becomes the royal seat, things would never be the same.  The city would be the hub of political and diplomatic activity, and dozens of public figures would move in.  They fled, quite simply, out of fear of change.

            The king was able to establish his palace only in a sparsely populated ghost-town, a place that had nothing that could be changed.  The small handful of villagers gladly welcomed the king and invited him to build and develop the area as he saw fit.  As the town had no established character or contours, the king was invited to shape and mold the new capital as he pleased.

            The Midrash teaches that God’s reign, too, can take hold only among those who resemble the ghost-town, among people who are open to change.  A person who feels set in his ways and refuses to change, to grow, to accept the possibility that he has what to improve, cannot properly accept upon himself the yoke of divine Kingship.  The Shekhina’s presence requires a desert, a state of “desolation” characterized by an openness and willingness to grow and develop.  Committing oneself to Torah entails keeping an open mind and acknowledging that he still has what to learn, there is still room for improvement, that he does not yet have all the answers.  God therefore began His residence among Benei Yisrael in the desert – an eternal symbol of the vast potential for development, which each person must recognize within himself as a prerequisite for sincere kabbalat ol malkhut Shamayim.

********

            The Torah in Parashat Bamidbar speaks about the special stature of the Leviyim, who were assigned as attendants to the Mishkan and encamped around the Mishkan.  To the east of the Mishkan, we are told, was the encampment of Moshe, Aharon and Aharon’s sons, whom the Torah describes in this context as “shomerim mishmeret ha-Mikdash” (“watchmen of the sacred guard” – 3:38).  The Gemara in Masekhet Tamid (26a) explains this phrase as a reference (or perhaps allusion) to the obligation of shemirat ha-Mikdash – the Temple guard.  As the first Mishna in Tamid states, the kohanim and Leviyim would be positioned at various locations in and around the Temple to stand guard.  One source suggested for this obligation is the description of Moshe and the kohanim as “watchmen of the sacred guard.”  This description is used for Moshe – a Levite – and for the kohanim, indicating that this duty was shared among the kohanim and the Leviyim.

            Among the issues that have been addressed in reference to this mitzva is the question of whether the guarding had the formal halakhic status of an avoda – a Temple ritual.  If we classify shemirat ha-Mikdash under this category, then the same restrictions that apply to the sacrificial rituals in the Temple would also pertain to guarding.

            The Avnei Neizer (Y.D. 2:449) addresses this question amidst his response to a certain writer in Eretz Yisrael who called for reinstating shemirat ha-Mikdash in his time.  Among the arguments posed by the Avnei Neizer in rejection of this proposal was the fact that shemirat ha-Mikdash qualifies as a formal avoda.  As such, he claimed, it requires a state of tahara (ritual purity) which cannot be attained in the absence of the para aduma waters which are required to divest one of tum’at meit (the ritual impurity caused by contact with a human corpse).

            The Avnei Neizer draws proof to his view from the Rambam’s discussion in the third chapter of Hilkhot Kelei Ha-mikdash, where he lists the three “avodot” assigned to the Leviyim: opening and closing the Temple gates, guarding the Temple, and singing in the Temple.  This listing would suggest that guarding the Temple is no less an avoda ritual than the other functions performed in the Beit Ha-mikdash.

            The Avnei Neizer draws further proof from the Rambam’s comment earlier, in Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira (8:6): “The kohanim guarding [the Temple] would not sleep in their priestly garments, but would rather fold them and place them near their head and wear their own clothing…”  The Mishneh Le-melekh explained this to mean that the kohanim would take shifts during the night, as some would sleep while the others stood guard.  The Rambam here teaches that the kohanim whose time it was to sleep would not sleep with their bigdei kehuna, and would have to change into their ordinary clothes.  The obvious implication of the Rambam’s comment is that the kohanim wore the priestly vestments while standing guard; it was only when they slept that they had to remove the bigdei kehuna.

            This likely indicates that guarding constituted a formal avoda, and belonged to the standard framework of Temple rituals.  The Rambam explicitly rules elsewhere (Hilkhot Kelei Ha-mikdash 8:12) that a kohen may not wear his priestly garments when he does not perform the avoda.  The bigdei kehuna contained a combination of wool and linen, and wearing them thus violated the prohibition of sha’atnez except when the Torah authorized wearing the garments.  Clearly, then, if the kohanim wore the priestly garments while standing guard, we must conclude that the guard duty was a standard avoda, just like the other Temple rituals, and would therefore require a state of ritual purity, as well.

*********

            We read in Parashat Bamidbar of the Levite tribe’s “substitution” for the firstborn of Benei Yisrael.  God tells Moshe (3:12-13) that the firstborn had been selected as the group that would be devoted to the ritual service in the Mikdash, by virtue of their having been spared the plague of the firstborn in Egypt.  The Leviyim, however, would now replace the firstborn and enter the service in their stead.  Tradition teaches that the firstborn forfeited their privileges by participating in the sin of the golden calf.  The Leviyim, who did not take part in the worship of the calf, were then chosen God’s attendants in the Mishkan and, later, in the Beit Ha-mikdash.

            The Or Ha-chayim (3:45) cites a startling comment in the name of Chazal that the firstborns will, in the future, reclaim their status as the attendants in the Mikdash.  Even though they were replaced by the Leviyim after the sin of the golden calf, they will eventually return to their previous sacred status and be invited to perform the avoda (service) in the Beit Ha-mikdash.  The Or Ha-chayim explains on this basis the verse, “Take the Levites in place of all the firstborns among the Israelites…and the Levites shall be designated for Me, I am the Lord.”  In the final phrase of this verse, the Or Ha-chayim explains, God emphasizes the Levites’ eternal stature.  Despite the fact that the firstborns’ right to the priesthood will be restored, they will serve in addition to, and not in place of, the kohanim and Leviyim.  God therefore proclaims that “the Levites shall be designated for Me, I am the Lord.”  Just as He is “the Lord” for all eternity, similarly, the Levites’ stature will remain for all time, even once the firstborns reclaim their privileges.

            The Pardes Yosef He-chadash cites a source that introduces the Or Ha-chayim’s theory in a halakhic context, regarding the custom for firstborns to fast on Erev Pesach.  This fast is observed despite the fact that the day of Erev Pesach will be celebrated as a festive occasion when the Temple is rebuilt.  At first glance, it might seem improper for the firstborns to accustom themselves to observing a fast on a day that will become a day of celebration, which might lead them to forget about this day’s future status as a festive occasion.  The Pardes Yosef cites a commentary who explained that since, as the Or Ha-chayim wrote, the firstborns will serve as kohanim in the rebuilt Temple, we need not be concerned that they will forget the festive nature of this day, as they will take part in the korban pesach sacrifices and will thus be directly involved in the day’s celebration.  It is therefore acceptable for the firstborns to observe this fast day.

            The Pardes Yosef adds, however, that the Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik) reportedly rejected the Or Ha-chayim’s claim that the firstborns will again earn the privileges of priesthood.  He noted that although the Or Ha-chayim cited this theory in the name of Chazal, no source in Chazal exists to this effect, and there is no basis for the contention that the privileges of the avoda will return to the firstborns.

*******

            As we discussed yesterday, Parashat Bamidbar describes the process whereby the tribe of Levi replaced the firstborns, assuming their role and status with regard to serving in the Mishkan.  Each of the 22,000 Leviyim replaced one firstborn, and the remaining firstborns were required to “redeem” themselves by paying a sum of five shekels to the kohanim.

            The Panim Yafot notes that when God instructs Moshe regarding the five-shekel “redemption” of the firstborn, He repeats the word “five”: “Ve-lakachta chameishet chameishet shekalim.”  The simple explanation of the phrase “chameishet chameishet” is “five from each,” emphasizing that each of the remaining firstborns bore a personal obligation to pay this sum.  The Panim Yafot, however, contends that God here alludes to the requirement to pay the five shekels to a single kohen, as opposed to giving them to two or more kohanim to share.  This precluded the possibility of Moshe collecting the entire sum of shekels from all the firstborns and giving that total sum to the kohanim for distribution.  This would inevitably result in the five shekels of any given firstborn being divided among two or more kohanim, in which case he would not have fulfilled his obligation.  The money therefore had to be transferred in separate five-shekel amounts, each to one kohen.  God indicated this requirement to Moshe by specifying “chameishet chameishet,” emphasizing that the money had to be transferred in separate five-shekel sums.

            Later writers challenged this reading of the Panim Yafot, noting that it appears to directly contradict an explicit comment in the Gemara, concerning the obligation of pidyon ha-ben – a father’s symbolic “redemption” of a firstborn son by paying five coins to a kohen.  In Masekhet Bekhorot (51b), the Gemara writes that one fulfills the obligation of pidyon ha-ben by giving five coins even to a large group of kohanim.  This halakha is presented as a unanimous ruling, and is codified unchallenged in the Shulchan Arukh (Y.D. 305:7).  And, according to the Chokhmat Adam, a father may perform the mitzva in this fashion even le-khetechila – on the optimal level of observance.  (Other authorities disagree; see Pitchei Teshuva.)  Why, then, according to the Panim Yafot, were the firstborns in the wilderness required to give the full five-shekel sum to one kohen?

            Apparently, the Panim Yafot distinguished in this regard between the “redemption” of the firstborn that occurred in the wilderness, and the mitzva of pidyon ha-ben that applies in all generations.  The requirement to give all five shekels to one kohen applied only in the process described here in Parashat Bamidbar, when the firstborns were formally replaced by the kohanim.  This requirement has no bearing on the mitzva of pidyon ha-ben observed by every father of a firstborn male. 

It remains unclear, however, as to why the Panim Yafot drew such a distinction.  Rav Avraham Binyamin Zilberberg, in his Hadrat Melekh (Pittsburgh, 5705) attributes this distinction to the fundamental difference between the “redemption” of the firstborn in the wilderness and the normal obligation of pidyon ha-ben.  The firstborns in the wilderness were actually endowed with a status of kedusha, designated for the service in the Mishkan, and each firstborn’s status of designation had to be transferred onto a Levite.  Thereafter, however, firstborns are “redeemed” only in the symbolic sense; there is no need to transfer a formal status of sanctity.  Hence, as these two processes resemble each other only outwardly, but not in terms of their essential function and purpose, we should not expect the detailed laws and guidelines that apply to one to pertain to the other.