The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT Bemidbar
by
Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Bamidbar opens with God's command that Moshe conduct a tribe-by-tribe census of Benei Yisrael. The first verse of the parasha tells that God issued this command to Moshe "be-Ohel Moed" – in the Tent of Meeting, or the Mishkan. The Keli Yakar perceptively notes that this introduction differs slightly from the opening verse of Sefer Vayikra, which also specifies where God conveyed to Moshe the instructions that follow. There we are told that God called to Moshe "mei-Ohel Moed" – from the Mishkan. Meaning, God transmitted the laws of Sefer Vayikra to Moshe as he stood outside the Mishkan. (See Rashi on that introductory verse to Sefer Vayikra.) Here, by contrast, God speaks to Moshe "in the Tent of Meeting" – as Moshe stands inside the Mishkan, together with God, as it were. Wherein lies the significance of this subtle but critical distinction?
The Keli Yakar explains by noting a seeming peculiarity in the opening verse to Sefer Bamidbar: it provides the precise date of this instruction regarding the census (Rosh Chodesh Iyar, just over a year after the Exodus). Very rarely does the Torah go through the trouble of specifying precisely when God issues a command to Moshe. Some writers (see Gur Aryeh, Levush Ha-ora) explain that this difficulty prompted Rashi to comment on this verse, "He counts them always [= often] because of His love for them." Rashi, these commentators explain, sought to provide a reason for the Torah's specification of the date of this instruction. He thus suggests that the Torah found it necessary to provide the date because of the importance with which it views this instruction – the counting of Benei Yisrael – which can only be attributed to God's immense love for His people.
The Keli Yakar, however, explains the need for a date in this verse differently. The date gives us a clue as to why God here speaks to Moshe "in the Ohel Moed," whereas in the previous sefer Moshe heard the divine word while standing outside the Mishkan. This instruction occurred on Rosh Chodesh Iyar – exactly one month since the final completion of the Mishkan and the descent of the Shekhina, as it were, into the Mishkan. (See Shemot 40:2, 17.) Now in several areas of Halakha, a one-month stay in a given location establishes permanence, and renders the person a full-fledged resident of that location. Similarly, the Shekhina's presence among Benei Yisrael could not be considered firmly established and permanent until one month after its initial arrival, that is, until Rosh Chodesh Iyar. At this point, God has taken permanent residence among the nation; an abode for God has finally, for the first time, been established on earth. Moshe could not speak to God inside the Mishkan, the Keli Yakar claims, until this point. This intense level of communication could take place only once God's presence has become rooted in the Israelite camp. Only at this point, when the process of hashra'at ha-Shekhina (the resting of God's presence in the Mishkan) has been finally completed, can Moshe hear God's word inside the Mishkan.
This approach may help resolve a difficulty addressed by several writers concerning Rashi's comments to this first verse of Parashat Bamidbar. In his list of the different occasions on which God ordered a census of Benei Yisrael, Rashi mentions, in reference to the current census, "When he came to have His Shekhina reside among them, He counted them." This implies that the current census took place when God planned or prepared to have His Shekhina reside in the Mishkan. But didn't the Shekhina already descend one month earlier, on Rosh Chodesh Nissan? Why does Rashi describe the Shekhina as only about to arrive? The answer, perhaps, is that on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, one month after the Shekhina's initial descent, God is about to establish permanent residence among Benei Yisrael, as the Keli Yakar explained, and thus Rashi speaks of the Shekhina's imminent residence among the people, despite its having arrived already thirty days earlier.
David Silverberg
*****
The final section of Parashat Bamidbar and opening section of Parashat Naso (chapter 4) outline the specific responsibilities assigned to the three Levite families when Benei Yisrael would travel. The family of Kehat was charged with the task of covering and transporting the sacred keilim (appurtenances) of the Mishkan: the two altars, menorah, shulchan (table) and aron (ark). The second family, Gershon, was responsible for transporting all the cloths, curtains and tapestries used in and around Mishkan (with the exception of the parokhet, the curtain that separated between the two chambers in the Mishkan, which the Kehatites used to cover the ark). Finally, the family of Merari would carry all the beams, boards and pillars used in and around the Mishkan.
The Rambam, in his Sefer Ha-mitzvot (mitzvat asei 34), claims that although the entire tribe of Levi was assigned to transport the Mishkan in the wilderness, once Benei Yisrael arrived in Canaan only the kohanim would carry the ark. He explains that in truth, even in the wilderness this obligation should have fallen specifically upon the kohanim, rather than upon the entire tribe of Levi. However, due to the relatively small number of kohanim during the period of the wilderness, God commanded as a temporary measure that the entire tribe of Levi, not only the kohanim, would participate in the transportation of the ark and the other keilim. Once Benei Yisrael arrived in the land, this obligation reentered the exclusive domain of the kohanim.
The
Ramban (in his comments on shoresh
3 of the Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot) disagrees, and claims that the system established
in the wilderness remained in force in Eretz Yisrael, as well. He challenges the Rambam's
assumption that the laws formulated in Sefer Bamidbar could suddenly change upon the nation's entry into
The Megilat Ester (a work on the Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot defending the Rambam's positions from the Ramban's objections) suggests a simple explanation for the Rambam's view. The Rambam here speaks only of transporting the aron, not the other articles of the Mishkan. In Eretz Yisrael, only the transportation of the aron is subject to specific rules and guidelines, and only it must, according to the Rambam, be carried specifically by kohanim. Now this does not mark a drastic deviation from the system in the wilderness, when the Levi'im transported the ark, because as we saw, not all the Levi'im carried the ark – only the family of Kehat, which includes the kohanim. As the Rambam writes, even in the wilderness the kohanim should have been solely responsible for transporting the aron, only due to their small numbers, others from the family Kehat joined in this task. This role was not assigned to any other Levi'im, because fundamentally it should have been reserved for the kohanim. Only due to practical concerns was the circle expanded, and even then ever so slightly, to include only the family of Kehat.
This point not only defends the Rambam's position, but also raises a difficult problem for the Ramban's view. According to the Ramban, the entire tribe of Levi may transport the ark once Benei Yisrael enter the land. But if in the wilderness only the family of Kehat was designated for this role, how was it expanded to include all other Levi'im? If the Ramban feels so strongly about maintaining the initial arrangement even after Benei Yisrael's entry into the land, how could the families of Gershon and Merari also take part in the transportation of the ark?
The answer perhaps lies in a basic question concerning the division of labor between the three Levite families, as outlined in Sefer Bamidbar. How formal were these specific assignments? One might claim that the Torah designates three entirely separate groups for three entirely unrelated tasks. The family of Kehat is selected purely to transport the sacred keilim, and not for any other purpose, and likewise Gershon and Merari. As far as the Mishkan's transportation is concerned, the three families share nothing in common other than their having all descended from Levi. If so, then it would be very difficult to explain how after Benei Yisrael entered the land the Gershonites and Merarites would suddenly be given the opportunity to transport the aron, which had previously been the exclusive domain of Kehat. But the Ramban presumably held that the division of labor was purely pragmatic in nature, and did not reflect an essential difference in status between the three families. It was simply for organizational purposes that God assigned the three families different roles; fundamentally, all Levi'im shared the same status. Therefore, it should not surprise us that these divisions would no longer apply once Benei Yisrael enter the land.
Indeed,
the Sifrei Zuta in Parashat Korach cites a debate
among the Tanna'im as to whether or not a Levite who
transported in the wilderness an item assigned to a different family was in
violation of Torah law. In the
David Silverberg
*****
Parashat Bamidbar begins with the census taken of all the tribes of Benei Yisrael other than the tribe of Levi. God specifically orders Moshe to count the Levites separately (1:49). The Levite population was not included in the final population count of Benei Yisrael, and, additionally, the accounting of the Levi'im included all males thirty-days and older, whereas the rest of Benei Yisrael were counted only from age twenty.
Rashi (1:49) gives two explanations as to why the Levi'im had to be counted separately. Firstly, their stature as "ligyono shel Melekh" – the King's personal legion – rendered them worthy of special distinction and thus their own census. Secondly, Rashi adds (based on the Midrash), God foresaw the decree He would issue in the wake of the sin of the scouts (Bamidbar, chapters 13-14) condemning all males age twenty and older to death in the wilderness. God did not want this decree to apply to the tribe of Levi, because they had not participated in the sin of the golden calf a year earlier. He therefore excluded them from the "20 and older" census, so that they would be excluded from the "20 and older" decree of death that God would declare after the sin of the scouts.
Rashi's second approach to the Levi'im's distinct census requires explanation. He writes that God did not include the Levi'im in the Benei Yisrael's punishment for the sin of the scouts because they did not take part in the earlier sin of the golden calf. What does one sin have to do with the other? If God decides to harshly punish Benei Yisrael for their defiance upon hearing the report of the scouts, why should the Levi'im escape punishment due to their prior refusal to worship the golden calf?
Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on Rashi's commentary, develops on the basis of this comment of Rashi a fundamental theory concerning the punishment for the sin of the scouts. God's decree that the current generation would perish in the wilderness served as a punishment not for the sin of the scouts itself, but rather for the combination of that sin and the incident of the golden calf. Had only one of these two tragic events occurred, the nation would not have been punished so harshly. But these two grave misdeeds together rendered Benei Yisrael unworthy of entering Eretz Yisrael. The Levi'im sinned in the incident of the scouts but had not participated in the worship of the calf, and were therefore spared the harsh decree of death. Truth be told, Rashi himself makes this point explicitly, in his commentary to Parashat Shelach (14:33). There God tells Moshe that as punishment for the sin of the spies, Benei Yisrael would remain in the wilderness for forty years, one year for every day the spies spent on their mission in the land. Now given that this incident occurred a year (and a few months) after the Exodus, the forty-year decree should have meant that Benei Yisrael would spend a total of forty-one years in the wilderness. In truth, however, they spent only forty years traveling through the desert. Rashi therefore explains that this decree was initially conceived by the Almighty after the sin of the golden calf, but He suspended the punishment, pending on Benei Yisrael's subsequent conduct. Once they betrayed Him and their mission as His people by refusing to continue to Eretz Yisrael, the punishment was reinstated.
Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi does not, however, explain the conceptual relationship between these two grave sins – the calf and the spies. If the sin of the spies undermined the atonement Benei Yisrael earned through Moshe's intervention after the sin of the scouts, then presumably the two events are somehow related. In a sense, the sin of the spies must be seen, according to Rashi, as a repeat or continuation of the sin of the golden calf. How?
Many writers have struggled to identify the reason why God did not excuse Benei Yisrael's response to the scouts' report as the result of understandable panic or mass hysteria. The spies shuddered upon seeing the sophisticated weaponry and fortresses of the Canaanite peoples, and they realized that through natural means alone Benei Yisrael could not possibly defeat them. Couldn't we justify their fears and concerns in light of the Canaanites' military and technological superiority?
Perhaps
we could – had Benei Yisrael never betrayed the
Almighty in the past. Theoretically, Benei Yisrael's cry "Let us
appoint a leader and return to
David Silverberg
*****
Yesterday, we discussed Rashi's comments concerning the Levi'im's exclusion from the census taken of Benei Yisrael in Parashat Bamidbar. Rashi's grandson, the Rashbam, in his comments to 1:47, gives a different explanation, namely, that the tribe of Levi did not participate in the nation's wars. Earlier (verse 2), the Rashbam had explained that the national census was necessary as part of Benei Yisrael's preparations for battle against the Canaanite nations. Here the Rashbam informs us that the Levi'im were not drafted into the army, given their responsibilities in the Mishkan, and were therefore not included in the census. Later in the parasha they are counted for a different purpose, having to do with the fact that they replaced the firstborn as the ones chosen to serve in the Mishkan (see the Rashbam's comments to 3:15). Chizkuni (1:49, as a "davar acheir") likewise attributes the separate census to the Levi'im's exemption from military service.
This assumption, that the tribe of Levi did not participate in military combat, is perhaps most famously articulated by the Rambam, at the end of his Hilkhot Shemita Ve-yovel (13:12). The Rambam explains that the Levi'im were to devote themselves entirely to the service of God in the Temple and throughout the country, teaching and inspiring Benei Yisrael, and were therefore freed from other responsibilities, such as army service and agriculture. The Rambam adds (13:13) that those from other tribes may also devote themselves to the service of God, and the nation should exempt them from military and economic responsibilities and enable them to focus their energies on their spiritual pursuits.
At least two sources in Chazal, however, explicitly indicate the even the tribe of Levi went to battle. In Parashat Matot, we read of the battle ordered by the Almighty against Midyan, to avenge that nation's successful scheme to lure Benei Yisrael to sin. The Torah tells (31:4) that one thousand men were drafted from each tribe to wage this war, and Rashi, citing the Sifrei, comments that the tribe of Levi, too, was required to send a thousand troops. Lest one think that this battle marked an exception to the rule, and from that time on the Levi'im were excused from military service, the mishna in Masekhet Sota (43a) appears to imply otherwise. The mishna there discusses the laws concerning the "chozrim mei-orkhei ha-milchama," those soldiers sent home from the army prior to battle, as outlined in the Torah, in Parashat Shoftim (Devarim 20:1-9). The Torah requires sending home any soldier who had betrothed a woman but had yet to marry her. The mishna restricts this provision to situations were the marriage is halakhically permissible. Marriages that are not sanctioned by Halakha do not allow for a soldier's exemption, even if the betrothal formally takes effect ("tefisat kidushin," as opposed to situations such as incestuous marriages, for example, where the betrothal from the outset is halakhically meaningless). Among the examples given by the mishna is the case of a kohen who betrothed a divorcee, or a kohen gadol who betrothed a widow, marriages which the Torah forbids in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 21:7,14). A kohen who had betrothed a divorcee before going to war is not excused from military service to marry his bride, since the Torah forbade such a marriage. The need for such a halakha clearly shows that the mishna foresaw a situation of a kohen in the army preparing for warfare – despite the fact that the kohanim are obviously from the tribe of Levi.
These conflicting sources perhaps call upon us to distinguish between different categories of warfare. Rav Yehuda Gershuni, in an extensive article on the halakhot of warfare, published in the prestigious journal "Techumin" (vol. 4), contends that the Levi'im are exempt specifically from battles wages for the purpose of kibush ha-aretz – capturing Eretz Yisrael. On other occasions when war becomes necessary, such as in Parashat Matot, when God ordered taking revenge from Midyan, or when Am Yisrael must defend itself against enemy attack, even the tribe of Levi must take up arms and join the rest of the nation in battle. Thus, Rav Gershuni suggests, those sources exempting Levi'im from military service refer specifically to wars fought to capture Eretz Yisrael. When, however, Benei Yisrael must fight for other purposes, all tribes, including Levi, must participate in combat.
David Silverberg
*****
A
famous passage in the Midrash Bamidbar
Rabba (chapter 2) describes the 200,000+ angels that
descended with the Almighty onto
Numerous approaches have been taken over the ages to explain the meaning of this Midrash and particularly the significance of these "banners." We might suggest that this account in the Midrash involves a fundamental decision made by Benei Yisrael concerning their relationship with God in the aftermath of Matan Torah. To what did Benei Yisrael commit themselves by accepting the Torah? On the one hand, they could have, potentially, taken upon themselves nothing more than the observance of the mitzvot, agreeing simply to become God's subjects, which naturally required them to abide by His laws. Alternatively, Benei Yisrael could have approached Matan Torah far more ambitiously, desiring not only to become the Almighty's subjects, but to join His inner circle, so-to-speak, to serve in His court and as the royal entourage.
The "banners" carried by the angels perhaps symbolize the honor and distinction of royal service. As God presented His Torah to Benei Yisrael, they decided that they would be the earthly equivalent of the hosts of angels surrounding the Almighty in the heavens. They wanted to be not only obedient subjects of the King, but His closest servants, attendants and guards. They did not want to simply go about their business while ensuring to obey God's commandments, but rather desired the honor and distinction of joining the royal court, which of course entailed devoting themselves exclusively to His service. This, perhaps, is how the Midrash wants us to view the first several chapters of Sefer Bamidbar. The formalities required as Benei Yisrael accompany the Shekhina towards Eretz Yisrael resulted from this basic decision to serve as the Almighty's entourage, rather than simply being loyal subjects. Like royal courtiers, Benei Yisrael had to march in a specific formation surrounding the King, carrying banners as a sign of grandeur and distinction.
The Midrash continues by telling that the gentile nations attempted to lure Benei Yisrael away from God and His Torah: "Stick with us, come to us, and we will make you leaders and governors… " Benei Yisrael replied, "What type of prestige will you give us… perhaps you can grant us the greatness granted to us by God in the wilderness?" It often appears that in order to achieve prominence and glory, Am Yisrael must abandon God and distance itself from the mitzvot. In truth, however, this is but an illusion. The greatest honor and prestige for which we can aspire are the "banners" of Sinai, the privilege of serving as God's personal entourage and servants.
David Silverberg
*****
After
recording the census taken of Benei Yisrael and
describing their formation when traveling and encamping, the Torah in Parashat Bamidbar says,
"This is the line of Aharon and Moshe at the
time that the Lord spoke with Moshe on
Far more famous, however, is Rashi's comment to this verse, that from here Chazal deduced the principle, "Whoever teaches his fellow's son Torah is considered by the Torah as having begotten him." Meaning, the Torah here intended to present only the names of Aharon's sons, the kohanim, presumably to set them apart from the rest of the tribe of Levi, which is counted and assigned unique tasks in the ensuing chapters. The Torah introduces the kohanim as the children of both Aharon and Moshe because Moshe taught them Torah and thereby became their spiritual "father."
Several difficulties arise from this famous comment of Rashi. Most obviously, perhaps, why is Moshe considered having "begotten" only Aharon's sons? Did he not teach Torah to all of Kelal Yisrael? Once we are told the rule that a Torah teacher becomes like a "parent" to his students, shouldn't all of Benei Yisrael achieve this status of Moshe's children?
The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh, explains that there was one basic difference between Moshe's instruction of Torah to Benei Yisrael in general, and to Aharon's sons. God ordered Moshe to teach the commandments to all of Benei Yisrael; Moshe was not instructed to invest extra time and effort teaching Aharon's sons. A person becomes someone else's parent when he works above and beyond the call of duty for that other person. Moshe is a parent to Aharon's sons because he taught them beyond what he was required to teach them by virtue of their inclusion in Am Yisrael.
The Netziv, in his "Ha'amek Davar," suggests a different explanation for the unique "parent-child" relationship that Moshe formed with his nephews. When Chazal consider a teacher as having begotten his student, they refer only to a specific type of instruction: teaching the methodology of the Oral Law, or, in our terminology, Talmud. A teacher does not become his student's "parent" by simply transmitting straightforward halakhic information. He does so only when he establishes his student's academic independence by developing his skills of Talmudic analysis. Now the Netziv claims that throughout Benei Yisrael's travel in the wilderness, Moshe did not engage in the in-depth study of the Oral Law with the entire nation; he simply conveyed to them the bottom-line rules and principles they needed to know. It was only when Benei Yisrael arrived in Ever Ha-yarden, on the east bank of the Jordan River, just prior to their entry to the land, when Moshe began developing their Talmudic skills. During the previous thirty-eight years, however, only the kohanim applied themselves to the intensive study of halakhic reasoning. Therefore, only with regard to them is Moshe considered a "parent" for having taught Torah.
The Chatam Sofer suggests yet a different explanation, which resolves as well another difficulty arising from Rashi's comment. What exactly is the significance of this "parent-child" relationship between teacher and disciple? We already know that one is rewarded for transmitting and disseminating Torah knowledge. What additional dimension is expressed through this comparison between teacher and parent? The Chatam Sofer explains that the significance of this comparison involves the famous concept of "bera mezakeh abba" – a son brings merit to his father through his observance and performance of mitzvot. (This concept forms the basis of many customs observed after a parent's passing, such as the recitation of kaddish, leading the services, and so on.) Chazal here tell us that a student brings merit to his teacher much as a child does to his parent. Once we identify this notion as the underlying message of the parent-teacher analogy, we can explain, the Chatam Sofer claims, why the Torah considers only Aharon's sons Moshe's own children. Moshe was clearly far greater than anybody among Benei Yisrael and hardly needed any of their merits. However, as Rashi cites from Chazal in his commentary to Parashat Shemini (Vayikra 10:3), Nadav and Avihu, Aharon's two sons who died for bringing an unwarranted incense offering, had attained a higher spiritual level than Moshe and Aharon (despite the gravity of their particular sin). Given their supreme religious stature, Nadav and Avihu's merit was indeed significant even with respect to Moshe Rabbenu, and thus specifically regarding them Moshe's status as their parent became meaningful.
Of course, the Chatam Sofer's approach assumes that Chazal describe Moshe as the parent of Aharon's sons only with regard to two of Aharon's sons – Nadav and Avihu – and not Elazar and Itamar. Clearly, the straightforward reading of Rashi implies that Moshe earned this status with respect to all four of Aharon's sons, and not merely Nadav and Avihu.
We conclude our discussion by mentioning an entirely different approach to this verse cited by Rav Shemuel Alter, in his "Likutei Batar Likutei" to this parasha. He explains that the phrase, "This is the line of Aharon and Moshe… " refers not to the names listed later, but rather to the previous chapters – the discussion of the census and the arrangement of the camp. (This approach actually has origins in Rav Sa'adya Gaon's commentary to this verse.) All of Benei Yisrael, whose tribes and families were enumerated in the previous chapters, constitute the descendants of Moshe and Aharon. Moshe transmitted to them the Torah, and Aharon, as Chazal describe, instilled social harmony among the people. In this sense, the entire nation may be seen as their progeny. The next verse then proceeds to list the biological children of Aharon – Nadav, Avihu, Elazar and Itamar. But the first verse, "This is the line of Aharon and Moshe," does not introduce the listing of Aharon's sons, but rather summarizes the previous section – the census taken of all of Benei Yisrael.
David Silverberg
*****
The
haftara for Parashat Bamidbar, which is taken from the second chapter of Sefer Hoshea, begins, "The
number of the people of Israel shall be like that of the sands of the sea,
which cannot be measured or counted; and instead of being told, 'You are
Not-My-People,' they shall be called Children-of-the-Living-God." Chazal and later
commentaries have noted the peculiar, drastic shift which this verse marks in Hoshea's prophecy.
The first chapter of Sefer Hoshea
tells that God instructed the prophet to marry "a wife of whoredom"
and beget from her "children of whoredom." These children were to be given names
symbolizing the destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. For example, the two daughters born from this
wife were named "Lo-Ruchama"
– referring to the cessation of divine mercy upon Benei
Yisrael – and "Lo-Ami" – literally, "not my nation,"
referring to the Almighty's decision to dissociate Himself, as it were, from
His people. The first chapter of Hoshea thus ends on a most painfully somber note: "for
you are not My people, and I will not be your
God." How strange it is, therefore,
for the prophet to immediately exclaim, "The number of the people of
The Gemara in Masekhet Pesachim (87a-87b) explains the connection between these two prophecies by providing us with some missing information. In between the first and second chapters of Sefer Hoshea, God orders the prophet to divorce this woman whom he had married and who bore him three children. Hoshea protests, arguing that he cannot abandon his wife and children. The Almighty then responds, "If this is how it is with you, whose wife is a harlot and whose children are children of harlotry, and you do not know if they are yours or someone else's, then Yisrael, who are My children… the children of Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov… how can you tell me to exchange them for a different people!" According to the Gemara's explanation, Hoshea had recommended destroying Am Yisrael due to their misconduct, and replacing them with another nation. The Almighty therefore had Hoshea build a family and then instructed him to leave them. Hoshea thus understood what it means for God to similarly reject His nation, and he then prays to God on Benei Yisrael's behalf. Therefore, his second prophecy begins with a wish for Benei Yisrael's prosperity and ongoing relationship with the Almighty. (We should point out that the commentators disagree as to whether Hoshea actually married this woman and had these children, or if this all occurred in a dream. Ibn Ezra emphatically insists that God would never had ordered the prophet to actually marry a harlot.)
Other sources, however, explain differently. The Sifrei (in Parashat Balak) cites Rabbi Yehuda Ha-nasi as interpreting these two prophecies as reflecting a change of heart, as it were, on God's part. He compares God to a man who, having grown angry at his wife, summons a scribe to write a bill of divorce, but changes his mind by the time the scribe arrives. Similarly, though Benei Yisrael anger the Almighty to the point where He considers disowning them, His love for them does not allow Him to do so, and He instead changes His words of condemnation into words of comfort and encouragement.
Rashi, in his commentary to Sefer Hoshea, cites the Gemara's explanation and then suggests his own approach. He claims that the two prophecies refer to two different time periods. At present, when Hoshea receives this prophecy, Benei Yisrael are indeed rejected by the Almighty and condemned to exile. But once they are driven into exile, God promises, they will flourish and prosper, and ultimately perform teshuva. Thus, chapter 1 describes God's condemnation of Benei Yisrael in the present, whereas chapter 2 foresees their future, which is full of promise and hope.
Rashi's approach to Hoshea's prophecies may add new meaning to an idea developed by the Meshekh Chokhma, in his commentary to this haftara. The Meshekh Chokhma explains that the prophet here likens Benei Yisrael to "the sands of the sea" because they will successfully withstand the religious pressures placed upon them by other nations, just as the sand on the beach withstands the ocean's tide. This explanation works well with Rashi's approach, which interprets this verse as a prediction of Benei Yisrael's prosperity and repentance during their long and difficult period of exile. Despite the pressures of assimilation and persecution, the Jewish people's numbers have continued to increase, and its heritage and tradition have withstood even the fiercest cultural tidal waves.
Incidentally,
the Malbim suggests a different explanation for Hoshea's analogy between Am Yisrael and sand. The verse reads, "The number of the
people of
David Silverberg
|
|
|
|
||
|
To see this year's S.A.L.T. selections: |
|
www.vbm-torah.org/salt.htm |
||
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 regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual
Beit Midrash
(c) Yeshivat Har Etzion2002 All rights reserved to Yeshivat
Har Etzion
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il