The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT BAMIDBAR
Rav David Silverberg
In the middle of Parashat Bamidbar the Torah lists the names of Aharon's four sons, and briefly recalls the tragic death of Aharon's two older sons, Nadav and Avihu: "Nadav and Avihu died before the Lord, when they offered a foreign fire [=offering] before the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai" (3:4).
Different Midrashic sources attribute a variety of sins to Nadav and Avihu that accounted for their harsh punishment. Vayikra Rabba (20:9) cites one view that Nadav and Avihu were punished for eagerly anticipating the death of their father and uncle Aharon and Moshe so that they could assume the mantle of leadership. The obvious question as to why Aharon's sons were so covetous of his and his brother's posts that they were eager to see Aharon and Moshe die. Is it possible that the lust for power and authority overtook them to such a degree, that they longed for the death of their father and uncle?
Rav Simcha Bunim Sofer, in his Sha'arei Simcha, suggests that Aharon's sons' desire for leadership was driven by idealistic motives. Already at this point in Benei Yisrael's travels, there had been occasions when they voiced bitter complaints or committed grave transgressions (most notably the golden calf), without evoking any harsh response on the part of the leadership. Regardless of how ungrateful they were to Moshe and Aharon, and even after the unthinkable sin of the golden calf, Moshe and Aharon responded with patience and understanding. And when God Himself decided to destroy the nation, it was Moshe who stood and pleaded their case. Moshe and Aharon tolerated the people's mischief and grumblings with what Nadav and Avihu perceived as unwarranted forbearance. In their view, Moshe and Aharon were simply too weak to take a stand against the nation, to chide and condemn the people's misconduct. They genuinely feared that in the absence of strong authority figures willing to oppose the people, the nation will never grow to the level and stature to which it had been destined. Thus, they eagerly awaited the day when they would replace Moshe and Aharon as the national leaders, and take the firm stance necessary to keep Benei Yisrael from straying from their assigned path.
But however sincere these concerns were, they were mistaken. Jewish leaders must indeed be patient and forbearing, and show the people love and loyalty even in their dark periods of failure. Moshe and Aharon were indeed correct and in fact established the precedent for all their successors to follow, retaining their commitment and devotion to the people regardless of their failures and foibles.
The Sha'arei Simcha suggests a homiletic reading of the verse here in Parashat Bamidbar whereby it alludes to this mistake of Nadav and Avihu. The Torah speaks of Aharon's sons offering a "foreign fire before the Lord." On the level of derush (homiletics), this may be read as an allusion to the "foreign" fire of anger and rage that Nadav and Avihu sought to introduce "before the Lord," as part of the nation's religious leadership. But the Torah deems this kind of leadership "foreign" to the Jewish ideal, which encourages leaders to handle their positions with patience and gentle sensitivity, to inspire and guide with love and acceptance, rather than with anger and rejection.
******
The final section of Parashat Bamidbar discusses the procedure for transporting the sacred articles of the Mishkan during Benei Yisrael's sojourn through the wilderness. In short, as the nation prepared for travel, the kohanim would cover the articles in their specially assigned coverings, and the Kehatite family of Levi'im would then come and carry the articles during travel. The final verse of the parasha reads, "They [the Kehatites] shall not come to look as the sacred [articles] are exposed, [for] they would die" (4:20). As Rashi explains, the kohanim bore the responsibility of properly covering all the sacred articles so as to ensure that the Kehatites would not see the articles exposed.
The Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (81b) understands this verse differently, as the basis for a startling halakha mentioned in the Mishna. The Mishna (there in Sanhedrin) establishes that in a situation where somebody steals "the kisva," we apply the extraordinary rule of kana'in pog'in bo onlookers who feel genuinely zealous for God's honor can kill the violator. The Gemara explains the word kisva as referring to any of the utensils of the Mishkan. This term originates from the word kesot, which refers to one of the utensils used with the shulchan in the Mishkan (Shemot 25:29, Bamidbar 4:7). The Gemara derives this halakha from the verse cited earlier: the phrase "ke-vala et ha-kodesh va-meitu" "as the sacred [articles] are exposed, [for] they would die" may also be read as "when the sacred [articles] are stolen they shall die." As Rashi explains, the root b.l.a., which is generally understood to mean "exposed," may also be interpreted as a reference to theft. Hence, this verse alludes to the halakha licensing sincere zealots to slay a thief who steals one of the sacred articles.
Leaving aside the more fundamental issue of why the Torah granted zealots such license, let us address the separate, more technical question of why the Mishna employs in the context of this halakha the term "kisva" rather than the more familiar term, "kelei sharet." As mentioned, this term originates from the word kesot which the Torah lists among the accessories of the shulchan. Thus, by using this term, the Mishna leaves the mistaken impression that this halakha is restricted to this particular utensil. Why, then, did the Mishna not use the more generic and familiar term, kelei sharet?
Rav Yitzchak Zev Diskin, in his work Zivchei Tzedek (
This condition has implications concerning the status of this halakha during Benei Yisrael's travels in the wilderness. The Gemara in Masekhet Menachot (95a)
concludes that during travel, the Mishkan lost its formal halakhic
status as "the Mishkan" with respect to numerous halakhot. Seemingly, then, as Benei Yisrael traveled the keilim were not considered "in the
There is, however, once exception to this rule. The Gemara there in Menachot establishes
that the lechem ha-panim ("show bread") arranged on the shulchan did not become disqualified during
travel. Generally, sacrificial food
that was taken outside the grounds of the
Rav Diskin asserts that this provision affected the halakhic status of the Mishkan during travel. As opposed to all the other articles, which ceased to function as kelei sharet once Benei Yisrael embarked, the shulchan continued to serve its function to hold the lechem ha-panim. Hence, if somebody would have stolen the shulchan or any part of the shulchan during travel, the provision of kana'in pog'in bo would have taken effect.
This, Rav Diskin suggests, accounts for the Mishna's choice of terminology. As mentioned, this halakha concerning the theft of a keli sharet is inferred from the aforementioned verse in Parashat Bamidbar, which deals with the process of Benei Yisrael's embarkation, when the articles of the Mishkan did not function as kelei sharet. As discussed, during this process the halakha of kana'in pog'in bo applied only to the shulchan and its accessories. For this reason, perhaps, the Mishna gives the specific example of a person stealing a kisva, one of the accessories of the shulchan, in order to explain how this halakha could apply even during the periods of travel in the wilderness.
******
Yesterday, we discussed the final verse of Parashat Bamidbar, in which God warns, "They [the Kehatites] shall not come to look as the sacred [articles] are exposed, [for] they would die" (4:20). This verse speaks of the responsibility of the kohanim to cover the sacred articles of the Mishkan in preparation for travel, before the Kehatite family of Levi'im would come to transport the articles. In this way the kohanim prevented the Kehatites from looking upon the articles while they were exposed, which would render them liable to death.
This understanding of the verse follows Rashi's interpretation, which translates the phrase "ke-vala et ha-kodesh" to mean "as the sacred is exposed." The Rashbam, however, interprets the root b.l.a. differently, as a reference to dismantling. According to the Rashbam, the concern is not that the Levi'im might see the keilim (articles) of the Mishkan exposed, but rather that they might see the Mishkan during the process of its dismantling. Looking upon the Mishkan as it is taken apart would constitute an infringement on the honor due to the Mishkan and thus render the Levi'im worthy of harsh punishment.
Rav Shraga Pollack, in his work Tishbi (
Rav Pollack concluded by applying this theme to Am Yisrael: close examination of individual "components" of the nation could easily blind a person to the greatness of the composite whole. The pain we do and should feel over the deplorable spiritual state of individual segments of Am Yisrael mustn't diminish from our pride over our inspiring accomplishments as a nation. As much as we work to improve ourselves and the rest of the Jewish people, we must also recognize the great achievements of Am Yisrael as a composite whole.
******
The opening chapter of Sefer Bamidbar records the national census conducted by Moshe as commanded by God, and this section concludes by noting that Moshe did not include the tribe of Levi in this census (verse 47). Oddly enough, the Torah immediately thereafter tells of God's instruction to Moshe to exclude the Levi'im when counting the nation. (Later in the parasha, God orders conducting a separate census of the Levites.) The question that arises from this sequence is twofold: how did Moshe know to exclude the tribe of Levi if God had yet to instruct him in this regard, and, once Moshe intuited or somehow knew to exclude Levi, why was it necessary for God to then issue this command?
Ibn Ezra explains that when the Torah records God's instruction to Moshe to exclude Levi from the census, it does so to explain the earlier verse, which tells that Moshe did not include the Levi'im. It is as if the Torah had written, "Moshe did not include the Levi'im because God had commanded him, 'Do not count the tribe of Levi'."
The Ramban, however, explains differently, claiming that Moshe indeed understood on his own that Levi was to be excluded from the census. When God commanded Moshe to conduct the national census, He designated one man from each tribe to assist in counting the people (1:4-16). A quick review of the Torah's list of these appointed men reveals that no representative was appointed from the tribe of Levi. Moshe thus understood that this census was not to include Levi, and God then confirmed to Moshe that Levi was to be counted separately.
Rabbenu Meyuchas (as cited in the work Sha'arei Aharon) advanced an entirely different approach, claiming, quite simply, that these verses are not written in chronological sequence. The basis for such a claim is a passage in Masekhet Gittin (60a) which makes reference to eight Biblical sections that were taught to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the day on which the Mishkan was consecrated. The information contained in these eight sections was, for one reason or another, necessary for the various events that took place that day or for the subsequent functioning of the Mishkan, and God therefore transmitted this information to Moshe on that day. One of the sections named in this passage is parashat Levi'im, the "section of the Levites." Rashi identifies this reference as a section in Parashat Beha'alotekha (8:5-22) in which Moshe is commanded to perform a special ritual to formally consecrate the Levi'im for their role to serve in the Mishkan. Rabbenu Meyuchas, however, claims that the Gemara refers to the section here in Parashat Bamidbar, which begins with God's command that Levi be excluded from the census. The ensuing verses designate Levi as the tribe assigned to serve in the Mishkan, and it is to this designation that the Talmud refers when it speaks of the "section of the Levi'im" being taught to Moshe on Rosh Chodesh Nissan.
As we know from the first verse of Sefer Bamidbar, God issued the command to conduct a census on Rosh Chodesh Iyar, exactly one month after Rosh Chodesh Nissan. Hence, the section in which God excludes the Levi'im from the census was according to Rabbenu Meyuchas presented to Moshe a month before the census. God told Moshe that when Benei Yisrael is to be counted, the tribe of Levi should not be included in the census. It was thus on the basis of this instruction that Moshe knew not to include the Levi'im when he counted the rest of the nation.
******
Towards the end of Parashat Bamidbar (4:19), God issues a command to the kohanim to oversee the procedure of the transportation of the sacred articles during travel. The Levite family of Kehat was assigned the task of transporting these articles, and the kohanim bore the responsibility to assign each individual Kehatite to a particular article. The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 5:1) explains (according to one view) that the kohanim's administration of this procedure was necessary because the Levi'im were overly zealous with regard to the aron, to the exclusion of the other appurtenances. They all vied for the privilege of transporting the ark, which resulted in bickering and the neglect of the other sacred articles. To avoid this disgrace to the Mishkan, God appointed the kohanim to oversee this process and assign individual Levi'im to specific tasks.
Rav Moshe Chayim Lutzatto ("Ramchal") cites this Midrash in the twentieth
chapter of his Mesilat Yesharim, as an example of what he terms
mishkal ha-chasidut (loosely translated as "balanced piety"). The quality of chasidut in
Mesilat Yesharim refers to the zealous quest for spiritual greatness
beyond that which the Torah demands.
The Torah's laws and obligations are charged upon each and every member
of Benei Yisrael, but those who are infused with genuine
love of God will seek to perform beyond the strict letter of the law and reach
greater heights in avodat
Hashem. Amidst his exposition of this quality,
the Ramchal devotes a chapter to the critical need for mishkal, "balance," in this regard. He stresses that whenever a person
chooses to adopt a measure of piety beyond the strict halakhic requirements, he
must exercise careful judgment to assess the potential ramifications of the
practices entailed, and other values and concerns that might be compromised as a
result. In this instance, the
Levi'im's otherwise inspiring display of zeal and
enthusiasm for the aron came at the expense of the other sacred
articles, and of the atmosphere of mutual love and camaraderie that this holy
task warranted.
The Ramchal cites numerous other examples of this unfortunate phenomenon,
where a perceived measure of piety is not properly weighed against conflicting
values and concerns. In the famous
story of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza, Rabbi Zekharya Ben Avkulas issued a ruling
forbidding the kohanim from offering an animal sacrifice sent by
the emperor because the animal was blemished. He was legitimately concerned about the
halakhic misunderstandings that could result from this drastic change in
policy. However, this strict
attitude overlooked the disastrous repercussions of refusing to offer the
sacrifice, which the emperor interpreted as confirmation of the rumors of the
Jews' planned insurrection.
The Ramchal draws our attention in this context also to the Mishna in Masekhet Berakhot (10b) which tells of Rabbi Tarfon's insistence on reciting the evening shema in a reclining position, in accordance with Beit Shammai's view. Beit Hillel allows one to recite shema in any position, and although Halakha follows this view, Rabbi Tarfon chose to act stringently and abide by Beit Shammai's position. His colleagues sharply criticized his practice, going so far as to say that he was deserving of death for disobeying Beit Hillel. The Ramchal explains that the concern for firmly establishing Beit Hillel as the authoritative school outweighed the personal piety expressed by ensuring to satisfy Beit Shammai's view. Once again, a practice that itself constituted a genuine expression of piety, zeal and halakhic fastidiousness, earned condemnation for its failure to take into account conflicting values.
Similarly, the Ramchal emphasizes that although one must abide by all demands of Halakha regardless of the scorn or humiliation he will suffer as a result, this does not necessarily apply to additional measures of stringency and piety. In situations where such measures will likely invite ridicule, it is best to refrain from these practices rather than lead the onlookers to the sin of deriding and humiliating other people.
The Ramchal thus asserts that a person who wishes to conduct himself with an additional measure of piety is encouraged to do so on three conditions: he is sincerely and genuinely motivated by a desire to do what it is pleasing in God's eyes; he thoroughly studies and considers all angles of the situation to ensure that this is indeed pleasing in God's eyes; he turns to the Almighty in prayer asking for His assistance in determining the correct path to follow.
******
Parashat Bamidbar begins with a record of the national census that God
ordered Moshe to conduct at Mount Sinai a year after the Exodus, before Benei Yisrael embarked on what was to have been their
journey to
Abarbanel, however, in his commentary here in Parashat Bamidbar as well as in Parashat Ki-Tisa, argues that the half-shekel was not required for every census. Although a verse in Parashat Ki-Tisa (Shemot 30:12) warns of the potential for a plague when the nation is counted directly, without the half-shekel medium, Abarbanel interprets this verse as advising, rather than commanding, the use of this medium. God advises Moshe to conduct a census in this way in order to avoid the effects of the ayin ha-ra ("evil eye") that might surface as a result of a direct census. (In his commentary to Parashat Ki-Tisa, Abarbanel elaborates on his understanding of the concept of ayin ha-ra.) Hence, in situations such as here in Parashat Bamidbar, where God specifically ordered that a census be taken, Moshe did not find it necessary to employ the medium of the half-shekel. Certainly no harm could result from fulfilling the Divine command, and Moshe thus counted the nation directly, as he had no reason to fear any harmful effects of the ayin ha-ra.
Thus, whereas Rashi and the Ramban held that the half-shekel medium is obligatory whenever a census is taken, Abarbanel maintained that this was advisable, but not mandatory, given the possible effects of the ayin ha-ra. But in situations where this concern is not relevant, there is no reason at all to employ the medium of the half-shekel.
Abarbanel's
position gives rise to the question of why Benei Yisrael were severely
punished for the census ordered by King David towards the end of his reign, as
told in Sefer Shemuel II (24). It
is commonly understood that David counted the people directly, rather than
through the collection of half-shekels, and was punished for this
transgression. It is clear from the
narrative of this event that the plague which ravaged the nation was a
punishment, and not merely a natural consequence of ayin ha-ra.
It states clearly that God was angry at David and punished him through
the plague. Does this not prove
that using the half-shekel medium is obligatory, and not merely
advisable?
Abarbanel addresses this question and
responds by advancing a radically different theory regarding the plague that God
brought upon Benei
Yisrael in David's time. In his view, the plague served as a
punishment not for the census, but rather for the revolt against David's rule
led by Sheva ben Bikhri (Shemuel II, 20).
The narrative of the census begins by telling that God "incited" David to
count the people (Shemuel II 24:1), suggesting that this event was initiated by
God. Abarbanel claims that in order
to punish
******
Yesterday we discussed the debate among the Torah commentators concerning
the procedure for taking national censuses, such as the census taken in the
beginning of Sefer Bamidbar.
According to Rashi (1:2) and the Ramban (1:3), the Torah forbids counting
the nation directly, rather than through the medium of the half-shekel tax. Abarbanel, however, maintains that the
Torah merely advises but does not require using the half-shekel medium, as
it avoids the potential for calamity resulting from the ayin ha-ra ("evil eye") that would arise from a direct
census. Hence, in situations such
as in Parashat Bamidbar, when God commands Moshe to take a census, the census
may be taken directly, without the half-shekel tax. Since no harmful ayin ha-ra would result from obeying God's command,
there is no reason not to conduct a direct census.
As we discussed, Abarbanel's approach gives rise to the question of why
God punished Benei
Yisrael after the census conducted
by King David, as recorded in the final chapter of Sefer Shemuel II. Interestingly enough, the Ramban, who,
as mentioned, disagrees with Abarbanel's position, asks this very question in
his commentary to Parashat Bamidbar (1:3).
He finds it difficult to imagine that King David would commit such an
egregious mistake as conducting a direct census. The Ramban therefore insists that King
David did, in fact, count the nation through the half-shekel medium, and the
nation was punished for some other reason.
Among the explanations suggested by the Ramban, and for which he finds
support in a passage in Bamidbar
Rabba (2:17), is that David
counted the people for no practical purpose. He did not count them in preparation for
battle or for any other practical purpose, but merely for the purpose of
national pride, and for this he and the people were
punished.
Professor Nechama Leibowitz elaborates on David's sin in her Studies to Parashat Bamidbar, and notes that it
appears, at first glance, that David's census was, in fact, conducted for
military purposes. For one thing,
he assigned this task to Yoav, his general, and the other military officers
(Shemuel II 24:2,4), indicating that the census was integrally related to the
military. Furthermore, in
presenting the findings of the census, the verse emphasizes that the census
included every "man of war, who draws a sword" (ibid. 24:9), which would
certainly suggest that David counted the people for the purpose of mobilizing
the army. Why, then, would David
and the nation be deserving of punishment?
Was this census truly unnecessary, as the Ramban claimed, if it was done
for the purpose of mobilizing a military?
Professor Leibowitz explained that although David indeed conducted this
census in order to assemble an army, the Ramban is correct in noting that
It may be suggested that this puzzling story
of King David's census is meant to teach us the important lesson of the
difference between an army formed as a legitimate means for defense and as a
body existing for its own sake. The
census which David ordered was for the creation of a permanent force, after the
Almighty had given him peace from all his enemies round about and he had no
longer any need of military defense.
But he wished
to boast and pride himself before his
enemies.
Thus, this census was indeed conducted for
the purpose of assembling an army, but not for the purpose of self defense. God found the people guilty of an
exaggerated sense of pride in their military power, as expressed by the creation
of an unnecessary military body, and for this they were severely
punished.