The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

The haftara for Parashat Bemidbar is taken from the book of Hoshea (2:1-22). The prophet promises in the Name of God that in the future, "You will call [Me] 'Ishi,' and no more will you call Me 'Ba'ali'." "Ishi" and "Ba'ali" share the same basic meaning: "my husband." In the future, when Benei Yisrael come to fully recognize the Almighty and His authority, the relationship between them and Him will be one described by the term, "ish," rather than "ba'al." Wherein lies the difference between these two words, and what does the replacement of "ba'al" with "ish" say about God's relationship with Benei Yisrael?

The answer is provided in the very next verse: "For I will remove the names of the Ba'alim from her mouth, and they shall nevermore be mentioned by name."

In other words, there is no essential difference between the two words for husband - "ish" and "ba'al." However, Benei Yisrael's use of the term "ba'al" to describe their relationship to God reflected their attempt to merge the pagan belief in the god, "Ba'al" (generally identified as the god of rain), with their service of the Almighty. Indeed, in his public refutation of the prophets of Ba'al at Mount Carmel, Eliyahu admonishes the people, "How long will you keep hopping on the two boughs? If the Lord is God, follow Him; and if Ba'al, follow him!" (Melakhim I 18:21). Unable to withstand the foreign influences of their pagan neighbors, but unwilling to forego entirely on the basics of Judaism, Benei Yisrael resorted to a theological compromise of sorts, whereby the worship of Ba'al could complement (Heaven forbid!) the service of God. Hoshea foresees the time when Benei Yisrael will, once and for all, reaffirm their exclusive commitment to the truth of monotheism. The name "Ba'al" will then never be used in reference to the true God.

This prophecy perhaps reminds us to beware of the attempt at a fusion between authentic Judaism and foreign beliefs and values. Influenced as we are by general culture, it is all too easy to fail to draw this distinction between "Ishi" and "Ba'ali," between the values of the Torah and those of the world around us. Belief in the Torah means belief in the exclusivity of the Torah, as the single authority regarding our beliefs and way of life.

(Based in part on an article by Rav Amnon Bazak)

*****

The title of the fourth book of the Torah, "Bemidbar," is generally translated as, "Numbers." This actually has origins in rabbinic tradition, which refers to this sefer as "Chumash ha-Pekudim" ("the Book of Censuses" - see Sota 36). Indeed, Sefer Bemidbar is known for its lengthy censuses of Benei Yisrael. However, a cursory survey of the overall content of Sefer Bemidbar reveals that the census constitutes a very minor component of this book. In fact, only the first several chapters and one towards the end (chapter 26) - out of Bemidbar's 36 chapters - tell of a headcount of the population. Why has the theme of the census become viewed as the primary and defining characteristic of Sefer Bemidbar?

The Netziv, in his introduction to Sefer Bemidbar, explains that the two censuses recorded in Sefer Bemidbar - the first at the beginning, the second towards the end - reflect the fundamental transition that Benei Yisrael undergo over the course of this sefer. The first census was taken as part of the arrangement of Benei Yisrael's travel and encampment through the wilderness. As this process was an entirely supernatural one, this census focuses on the nation's encircling of the Mishkan, representing their dependence on God who led them in miraculous fashion through the wilderness. The second census, recorded in Parashat Pinchas, served as the nation's preparation for settling the Land. This was a far more "earthly" census, as Benei Yisrael must now work within natural means to establish their nation in Eretz Canaan.

Thus, the stark contrast between Parashat Bemidbar and Parashat Pinchas, between the first and second censuses taken in this sefer, underscores the transformation from a supernatural to natural existence. The Netziv cites in this context a comment by the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 3) on the verse, "God separated between light and darkness": "This refers to Sefer Bemidbar, which separates between those who departed Egypt and those who entered the Land." The generation of the Exodus is symbolized by light, by the overt and obvious presence of God who guided and protected them. Their children, however, who entered, conquered, and settled the Land, are represented by "darkness," by the veil of nature under which the Almighty led them. Towards the end of Sefer Bemidbar, Benei Yisrael must fight their own battles and prepare for the conquest and distribution of Eretz Yisrael. They must work "in the dark," without the direct, supernatural intervention of God, while at the same time recognizing that ultimately, only He controls their destiny.

*****

Yesterday, we saw the Netziv's justification for the title Chazal gave to Sefer Bemidbar - "Chumash ha-Pekudim" (the Book of censuses). He explained that the two censuses described at the two ends of Sefer Bemidbar reflect the transformation Benei Yisrael experience over the course of the book, from a supernatural to a natural existence.

Today we will elaborate further on the meaning and significance of this transformation. The experience in the wilderness was meant to prepare Benei Yisrael for their life in Eretz Yisrael, where, unlike in the wilderness, they would have to farm, build and maintain a military, and develop industry and commerce. In the Land, Benei Yisrael were to establish a nation that worked within the confines of nature while acknowledging the supernatural source of nature - the Almighty. For example, as we read in Parashat Behar, once in seven years they must refrain from agricultural activity to demonstrate God's ultimate ownership over the Land. The nation's obligation in the Land involved recognizing the sacred within the mundane, appreciating God's Hand even as it operates through natural means.

God prepared the people for this mission by guiding them supernaturally through the wilderness. The daily descent of food rations from the heavens impressed upon the fledgling nation its dependence on God for sustenance; the protection from the elements afforded to them by the pillar of cloud reminded them that even in the security of one's home, it is the Almighty who provides shelter. And so on. But as the nation drew closer to their entry into the Land, they had to be gradually weaned from this supernatural experience. By the end of Sefer Bemidbar, we find Benei Yisrael preparing the "mundane" necessities for their invasion and settlement of Eretz Yisrael, thus readying themselves for the natural existence that awaited them there.

With this in mind, we can perhaps appreciate the other title with which we refer to this Sefer - "Bemidbar," or "in the wilderness." The nation's preparation for entry into Canaan, by its very nature, required a sojourn through the wilderness, where from a natural perspective, they face the threats of starvation, thirst and loss of direction, which themselves set the stage for internal strife and insurrection. The miraculous sojourn through the wilderness forged an essential quality of Benei Yisrael - their dependence on the Almighty. The challenge which, unfortunately, they failed to meet, was to maintain that same sense of dependence when they enter the Land and live through natural means.

In exile, to one extent or another, the wilderness experience is relived. Life among hostile nations without a homeland would, by the laws of nature, mean the eventual destruction or gradual disappearance of a people. Like in the wilderness, only in less obvious fashion, the Almighty miraculously protects and sustains us through centuries of persecution and oppression, so as to reinfour sense of dependence on Him. Even whewe return to our Land, He shows that through natural means alone, secure Jewish sovereignty in the Land cannot possibly be maintained. Once we firmly establish this realization of our dependence on God, He will bring us back and restore our peaceful, natural existence in the Land of Israel.

*****

Parashat Bemidbar begins with God's command to Moshe to conduct a census of Benei Yisrael. As Rashi briefly notes in his opening comments to this sefer, this census marks the third time Benei Yisrael were counted. The first was immediately upon their departure from Egypt (Shemot 12:37), and the second occurred after the incident of the golden calf, as materials were collected for the construction of the Mishkan (Shemot 30:11-16; 38:26). This third counting took place some seven months later, in Iyyar, after the construction and consecration of the Mishkan.

In his commentary to Shemot 30:16, Rashi notes the obvious difficulty arising from the results of the final two censuses: they are identical. Both in Tishrei and, seven months later, in Iyyar, Benei Yisrael numbered 603,550 males over the age of twenty. How is it possible, Rashi asks, that in the interim no nineteen-year-olds reached their twentieth birthdays, thus qualifying them for inclusion in the Iyyar counting?

Rashi there suggests an insightful answer. Young men did not qualify for inclusion in the census upon reaching their twentieth birthday; rather, an objective cutoff point was used to determine one's age as twenty (similar to the system used by many schools today, in determining to which grade a child is assigned). For purposes of the census, Rashi contends, the new year was, expectedly, Rosh Hashanah - the first of Tishrei. As both censuses, then, took place within the same year - in Tishrei and Iyyar - naturally they would yield precisely identical results. (Rashi notes that the first verse in Sefer Bemidbar describes this census as occurring "in the second year after their departure from the land of Egypt," implying that a new year has begun already before Iyyar. However, Rashi explains, with respect to chronology, which dates according to the Exodus, Nissan - the month of the Exodus, which occurs just before Iyyar - is considered the first month. With regard to formalities such as the census, Tishrei marks the beginning of the new year.)

This, of course, gives rise to the question, what purpose did this census serve? If it was known from the outset that the figures would precisely correspond to the results of the previous census, why did God instruct Moshe to conduct this counting?

Presumably, Rashi had this very question in mind when he began writing his commentary to Sefer Bemidbar, which he begins by commenting, "Out of their love [before God] He counts them always - when they left Egypt He counted them, when they erred with regard to the calf... " Rashi was troubled by the seeming pointlessness of this census. He therefore explains that as a demonstration of love, the Almighty counts Benei Yisrael before every major event, such as now, as He takes residence among the nation. The census is not intended to provide statistical information; rather, the counting itself constitutes an expression of God's affection for His people.

We have assumed all along that no one from among Benei Yisrael died in between the second and third censuses; thus, the only problem we raised involved the nineteen-year-olds turning twenty. Tomorrow we will discuss the Ramban's objection to Rashi's explanation, which assumes that all those included in the counting in Tishrei were still alive in Iyyar.

*****

Yesterday we discussed Rashi's observation that in Parashat Bemidbar, the population of males twenty and above among Benei Yisrael was the same as it was some seven months earlier, when Benei Yisrael were counted before they built the Mishkan (compare Shemot 38:26 with Bemidbar 1:46). Rashi (in his commentary to Parashat Ki-Tisa - Shemot 30:16) explained that age was determined for purposes of the census not according to birthdays, but rather according to the objective cutoff point of Rosh Hashanah. As these two censuses both occurred within the same official year - in Tishrei and Iyyar, respectively, naturally no young men turned twenty in the interim, and hence both censuses yielded the same result.

However, as the Ramban notes, this explanation must assume that no males passed away in between the two censuses. Though one could claim theoretically that this is indeed so, either by coincidence or through some special divine protection, we know from later in Sefer Bemidbar that funerals had occurred during this period. In chapter 9, we read of those who had become tamei (ritually impure) through contact with a dead body, thus disqualifying them from participating in the korban pesach (paschal offering). Now as we know, the korban pesach is brought on the fourteenth of Nissan, and the status of tum'a lasts for only seven days. Thus, these people apparently tended to a dead body in the second week of Nissan - in between the two censuses! For this reason, among others, the Ramban rejects Rashi's approach.

Later commentators, however, upheld Rashi's theory and easily resolved the Ramban's refutation. Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi (in his commentary to Rashi) and the Malbim actually prove Rashi's approach from a discussion in Masekhet Sukka 25a. The Gemara there asks, who were these individuals who could not bring the korban pesach because of their status of tum'a? Why would the Gemara raise such a question? Ever since Adam and Eve ate from the tree, people are destined to pass on from this earth. What is so surprising about the fact that there were people who had come in contact with dead bodies, that prompted the Gemara's question? Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi and the Malbim explain that based on the corresponding results of the censuses, the Gemara assumed - as Rashi claimed - that no one could have died in between Tishrei and Iyyar of that year. It therefore expressed wonder at the occurrence of tum'a during this period. The Gemara cites different views as to the identity of the people involved. According to one view, these were Mishael and Eltzafan, who were commissioned to carry the bodies of Nadav and Avihu, Aharon's sons who had been consumed by fire in the Mishkan. As the tribe of Levi was not included in this census, the deaths of Nadav and Avihu had no bearing on its results. Another view identified these people as the bearers of Yosef's coffin, which was carried from Egypt to Canaan. These people, obviously, became ritually impure without anyone dying (Yosef had died two centuries earlier). A third position argued that these men had buried a "meit mitzva," a dead body with no relatives to care for it. The most common of such cases is the death of a convert, who has no biological relatives among Benei Yisrael. As the census covered only the twelve tribes, it did not include converts, and thus their deaths had no effect on the counting.

We must wonder as to why a far more simpler answer was not suggested: that these people tended to the burial of a woman or child. As the census counted only adult males, the death of women and children would not affect its result. For that matter, the dead body that generated the tum'a could have come from the tribe of Levi, who was not included in the counting. Why, then, did the Gemara (as understood by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi and the Malbim) inquire as to the identity of those who had become tamei? Why did it resort to these very specific situations?

Perhaps the Gemara assumed that if, indeed, no males over the age of twenty passed away in between Tishrei and Iyyar, this can be attributed only to special divine protection. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine that no one from among 603,550 former slaves remained alive. If so, then this protection should have prevented the death of anyone, regardless of gender, age or tribe. Therefore, once we accept the premise that no adult, male, non-Levites died during this period, we must also assume that no females, children or levi'im died,either. Thus the Gemara had to raise other possibilities, such as those tending to the bodieof Yosef, Nadav & Avihu, or converts.

*****

Over the last two days we have discussed the difficulty raised by the commentators concerning the result of the census conducted in Parashat Bemidbar. At the time of this census, which occurred during the month of Iyyar (thirteen months after the Exodus), Benei Yisrael numbered 603,550 males over the age of twenty - the exact number reached by the census held seven months earlier, in Tishrei (see Bemidbar 1:46 and Shemot 38:26). How is this possible? Until now we have discussed Rashi's resolution; today we will look at the Ramban's approach.

The Ramban answers that the censuses did not cover the same segments of the population. Before the construction of the Mishkan, the entirety of Benei Yisrael was counted; here, in Sefer Bemidbar, the Torah states clearly that the total of 603,550 does not include the tribe of Levi, which was counted independently. So, quite possibly, many men passed away during the interim months (whereas, as discussed yesterday, Rashi must assume that nobody died during this period). On the other hand, many more teenagers reached their twentieth birthday over the course of this period. It happened to turn out that the newly-included young men numbered the same as the levi'im over the age of twenty in the initial counting. Thus, as these two groups offset each other, the two censuses yielded the same results.

This debate between Rashi and the Ramban touches upon several different issues, among them the question of whether or not the earlier census, before the construction of the Mishkan, included the tribe of Levi. Rashi believes that it did not, just as the census in Parashat Bemidbar set the Levi'im apart from the rest of the nation. The Ramban, by contrast, argued that the first census included the Levi'im, as they were not assigned special status until after the Mishkan's construction, here, in Sefer Bemidbar. (See also the Ramban's comments to Bemidbar 3:14.) As Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi notes, Rashi follows the view of Rebbi in Masekhet Zevachim 115b, that the firstborn, who were to have officiated in the Mishkan, were replaced by the Levi'im immediately after their participation in the golden calf debacle. Thus, already at the time of the earlier census, the Levi'im had been especially designated, and were thus excluded from the census.

These positions taken by Rashi and the Ramban on this issue may very well correspond to their claims in a different dispute, as well. In their commentaries to Sefer Shemot, Rashi and Ramban argue as to when God ordered the construction of the Mishkan. Rashi claims that this occurred only after the sin of the golden calf, as atonement for this incident. The Ramban strongly disagrees, claiming that, as the presentation in Sefer Shemot suggests, God issued the command to build the Mishkan even before - and independently of - the incident of the golden calf.

As we know, God chose the Levi'im to serve in the Mishkan as reward for their having abstained from the worship of the golden calf. According to Rashi, then, they presumably had no reason to participate in the construction of the Mishkan, the atonement of the sin of the calf. As we know from Parashat Pekudei (Shemot 38:25-31), the silver half-shekel coins, by which Benei Yisrael were counted, were used in the construction of the Mishkan. It stands to reason, then, that only those who required atonement through the construction of the Mishkan participated in this census, which entailed the half-shekel donation. In fact, Rashi explicitly draws a connection between that census and the sin of the golden calf in his opening comments to Sefer Bemidbar. There he indicates that the census came in response to the plague with which God punished the people for that sin, "to know the number of those who remained." Thus, the tribe of Levi was not included in that census.

According to the Ramban, by contrast, the Mishkan had little, if anything, to do with the sin of the golden calf. There is thus no reason to draw any distinction between Levi and the other tribes regarding the required half-shekel contribution to the Mishkan, which also served as the means of counting. Understandably, then, he argues that the census before the building of the Mishkan included the tribe of Levi, as well.

We should briefly mention an entirely different theory on this issue, that of Rabbenu Yosef Bekhor Shor. In several places in his commentary (beginning of Parashat Ki-Tisa, beginning of Parashat Pekudei, beginning of Parashat Bemidbar), he claims that the census taken in Parashat Bemidbar marks the first time Benei Yisrael are counted. He denies there having been a census taken at the time of the Exodus or before the construction of the Mishkan, and thus posits a novel interpretation to the verses in Parashat Pekudei; the reader is referred to his comments there.

For a particularly novel - and somewhat astonishing - resolution to the difficulty raised by Rashi and the Ramban, see the Netziv's "He'amek Davar" towards the beginning of Parashat Bemidbar.

*****

The second chapter of Sefer Bemidbar introduces the division of Benei Yisrael into their various "degalim" - standards. The tribes were divided into four groups, each assuming one direction with respect to the Mishkan and bearing its own standard. The Netziv (He'amek Davar 2:2) claims that in addition, every tribe and even every family within each tribe held its own standard. On the symbolic level, these banners clearly represent the different qualities or tasks of the independent tribes or groups among Benei Yisrael. Our nation is meant to carry different standards, each group representing a certain aspect or quality.

But why does God order this division only now, over a year after the Exodus? If He wanted Benei Yisrael to travel in this specific formation and with these banners, why did He issue this command only now, as Benei Yisrael prepare to depart from Sinai? Why was this not necessary during all their travels from Egypt to Sinai?

Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky zt"l (as recorded in "Emet le-Yaakov") suggests an answer particularly relevant as the festival of Shavuot appears on the horizon. This "division of labor" represented by the standards and travel and encampment formation could easily lead to strife and discord. Different tribes representing different qualities could easily find themselves in conflict with one another. God therefore refrained from imposing these divisions until after the construction of the Mishkan. The Mishkan at the center of the camp signified the unifying force that determined the single goal towards which all the distinct "standards" were geared. Only after a clear destination has been established can God order Benei Yisrael to take different directions to get there.

We view this idea as relevant to Shavuot due to the famous comments of the Ramban at the beginning of Parashat Teruma. The Ramban there explains that the Mishkan served to perpetuate the Sinai experience, Ma'amad Har Sinai - God's revelation to Benei Yisrael. If so, then the idea developed by Rav Yaakov concerning the role of the Mishkan can easily apply to Matan Torah, as well. As we know from Chazal (cited by Rashi to Shemot 19:2), Benei Yisrael arrived at Mount Sinai "as one person, with one heart." The Torah given to us at Sinai brings together the entire nation; it is the primary unifying force, the common denominator share by all the different groups and factions among Am Yisrael. When we embark from Mount Sinai, as we proceed to implement the ideals of the Torah into daily life, we will undoubtedly divide into different tribes, each bearing its own standard and representing different characteristics. But this division must be rooted in Sinai - in the single, indivisible Torah we received from God.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regulabasis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il