The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT BAMIDBAR

By Rav David Silverberg

            In the third chapter of Sefer Bamidbar, the Torah records the census taken of the tribe of Levi.  The Torah lists the names of the heads of the Levite families and mentions the family name derived from the name of each family head.  For example, the family of Amram was known as mishpachat ha-Amrami (3:27), and this family and the families of Amram's brothers together comprised mishpechot ha-Kehati – the families of Kehat, a son of Levi.

            Another of Levi's three sons was Gershon, and the Torah refers to his offspring as mishpechot ha-Gershuni.  The question arises as to why Gershon's name was changed to "Gershun" for the purpose of naming his family.  All the other family names are established by simply adding a chirik vowel and letter yud after the name: Kehat-Kehati; Amram-Amrami, Yitzhar-Yitzhari, etc.  Seemingly, then, the family of Gershon's descendants should have been named "Gershoni," rather than "Gershuni."

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his Emet Le-Yaakov, infers from this subtle change that "Gershon" was not the real name of Levi's son.  Rav Yaakov notes that the suffix on (vav-nun) would occasionally be appended to the end of a name to form a kind of nickname (similar to how nowadays many men named "Shemuel" are called "Shemuelik," for example).  In Megilat Rut (4:20), we are introduced to Boaz's father, Salma, who in the very next verse is called "Salmon."  Conceivably, the same might have been true of the name "Gershon."  The original name was perhaps "Gersha," and the suffix on was then added, resulting in the name "Gershon."  Hence, the family name "Gershuni" is based not on the name "Gershon," but rather on the name "Gersha."  (Rav Yaakov does not explain why the Torah chose to refer to the family as "Gershuni" rather than "Gershani.")

            On this basis, Rav Yaakov suggests a possible explanation for the controversial position of the Beit Shemuel (E.H. 129), that if the name "Gershon" was written in a get (divorce contract) without the letter vav, the contract is nevertheless valid.  Other authorities disputed this position, noting that nowhere in Tanakh is this name spelled without a vav.  Seemingly, then, this spelling is incorrect, and the get should be invalid.  Rav Yaakov suggested that if the final vav-nun at the end of the name "Gershon" is but an addition, and not part of the actual name, it stands to reason that we may approach its spelling with greater flexibility.  Therefore, even though the name is generally written with the vav, since the vav does not constitute part of the actual name, its absence does not render the name's spelling technically incorrect as far as the get's validity is concerned.

******

            In the final verses of Parashat Bamidbar, the Torah records God's special exhortation to the kohanim concerning the transportation of the Mishkan during travel.  The Levite family of Kehat was responsible for transporting the most sacred articles of the Mishkan; in these verses, God orders the kohanim to ensure that each member of this family is very clearly assigned to his particular task.  The gravity and importance of this instruction clearly emerges from God's introductory warning in issuing this command: "Al takhritu et shevet mishpechot ha-Kehati mi-tokh Benei Yisrael" ("Do not allow the tribe of the families of Kehat to be cut off from among Benei Yisrael" – 4:18).

            Different approaches appear in the Midrashim and commentaries in identifying the precise concern that prompted such a stern warning.  According to one view in the Midrash (that of Rav Shemuel Bar Nachman, in Bamidbar Rabba, 5:1), the fear was that the Levi'im would fight over the privilege of transporting the aron:

For they knew that whoever bore the ark would receive great reward…and they would all run to the aron to receive reward… And as a result, one person would fight and say, "I am carrying here," and the other one would fight and say, "I am carrying here," and as a result of this they would conduct themselves irreverently, and the Shekhina would strike them.

Knowing the immense reward promised to those who transported the ark, the Kehatites would quarrel with one another, each vying for this privilege.  This would lead to kalut rosh, irreverence, for which they would be liable to death.  God therefore ordered the kohanim to have a very clear arrangement whereby each Levi would be assigned a particular task, so that they would not fight over the privilege of carrying the aron.

            Rav Yitzchak Rosenblat, in his Chedvat Yotzer (Jerusalem, 5753), notes that according to this description, the Levi'im's desire for reward resulted in an attitude of kalut rosh towards their sacred duty.  Had they longed for the privilege of transporting the aron for purer reasons, out of a sincere desire to draw close to God, then their "fighting" would have undoubtedly taken on a much different character.  Had they been driven by a sense of awe, then the situation would never have degenerated to the point of kalut rosh.  But God foresaw that the Levi'im would perceive the aron as primarily a means of accruing reward, of earning good health and prosperity.  Hence, when arguments erupted, the Levi'im turned out to be fighting over health and prosperity, not over the inherent zekhut (privilege) of performing such a sacred task.  God sought to avoid such a situation by ensuring that the Levi'im would be assigned ahead of time to their respective duties.

This message, of course, can be applied to Torah and mitzvot in general, beyond the narrow context of the transportation of the aron.  When mitzva performance is reduced to a means of accumulating "points" in heaven, the natural result is kalut rosh, an irreverent attitude that fails to acknowledge the intrinsic value and meaning in the service of the Almighty. 

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the final verses of Parashat Bamidbar, which tell of God's command to the kohanim to assign the individual members of the Levite family of Kehat to their posts when the Mishkan is to be transported.  The family of Kehat was charged with the responsibility of transporting the most sacred articles of the Mishkan, and the kohanim were the ones who instructed each Kehatite which article specifically he must transport.  God introduces this command by admonishing, "Do not allow the tribe of the families of Kehat to be cut off from among Benei Yisrael" (4:18), which indicates that without the kohanim's instruction the Kehatites would be at risk.  Yesterday we discussed one view in the Midrash which explained that God feared that the Levi'im would quarrel with one another over the privilege of transporting the aron, the most sacred of the articles in the Mishkan.  This fighting would lead to a degree of kalut rosh, lightheadedness, or irreverence, towards the Mishkan, for which the Levi'im would be punished.  God therefore charged the kohanim with the task of assigning each Levi to his post so as to avoid this danger.

            Interestingly, however, a different view in the Midrash claims that the precise opposite concern motivated God's command to the kohanim.  Transporting the aron required a strict standard of reverence; the slightest degree of disrespect towards the aron during transport resulted in harsh retribution (as we know from the famous and tragic story of Uza – Shemuel II 6:6-7).  Therefore, the members of Kehat would likely all refuse to carry the ark, and insist upon transporting one of the other articles of the Mishkan, regarding which the demands are not quite as exacting and the "stakes" not as high.  To avoid this situation, God ordered the kohanim to arrange a system whereby each Levi would be assigned his particular role.

            Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov, insightfully observed that these two views in the Midrash reflect – or correspond to – two different problems that the Jewish people encounters in the area of religious leadership.  On the one hand, there are those who recklessly rush to the "aron," to the very delicate and demanding realm of halakhic decision-making and religious leadership, insisting upon their right and ability to render important decisions and determine religious policy.  This attitude is one of kalut rosh – a display of irreverence towards the sanctity of the Torah, and sheer disregard of its exacting standards and demands.  Not everybody deserves the privilege of "transporting the ark," of bearing the immense burden of responsibility involved in interpreting the Torah for the Jewish people.

            Conversely, however, we find as well the unfortunate phenomenon of those who flee from this responsibility, who are intimidated by the demands of Torah leadership and therefore choose to pursue other fields.  Just as our nation suffers when unqualified people rush to "carry the aron," so are we hurt when capable and talented people run away from the aron, preferring not to shoulder this burden of responsibility.  In the absence of kohanim to precisely assign individuals to their respective tasks, each person must carefully assess his qualifications and talents in choosing his course in life, bearing in mind both the enormity of the responsibility entailed in religious leadership, as well as the loss Am Yisrael will suffer if capable candidates fail to accept this responsibility.

******

            At one point in Parashat Bamidbar, the Torah speaks of the tribe of Levi with the expression shomerei mishmeret ha-kodesh ("watchmen of the sacred guard" – 3:38) – which the Rambam understood as a reference to this tribe's responsibility to guard the Beit Ha-mikdash (Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira 8:3).

Later in this chapter (8:6), the Rambam describes how the kohanim standing guard inside the Mikdash would sleep: "The kohanim who guarded would not sleep in the priestly garments; rather, they would fold them and place them near their heads, wear their personal clothing, and sleep on the floor – like all guards of royal courtyards, who do not sleep on beds."  The straightforward implication of the Rambam's description is that the watchmen were allowed to sleep as they "stood guard."  While at first it may appear difficult to understand how "watchmen" could fulfill their duties while sleeping, this becomes somewhat more tenable in light of the Rambam's comments in the beginning of this chapter.  There he clarifies that the Temple did not require protection from thieves and the like, but rather as a display of honor to the holy site.  Conceivably, then, since the guards were not necessary to protect the Mikdash, but rather as a means of showing honor, it was perhaps permissible for them to sleep during their shift.

Indeed, the Chelkat Yoav (2:43) understood the Rambam as allowing the watchmen to sleep in the Temple, and he enlists this ruling as a precedent to the possibility of performing a mitzva while sleeping.  The context of his discussion is the question of whether circumcision may be performed on an infant while he is sleeping.  One might have argued that since this mitzva is being performed on the child's behalf, some minimal level of involvement is required, if only that he be awake.  The Chelkat Yoav demonstrates from the Rambam's ruling that Halakha recognizes the possibility of fulfilling a mitzva even during sleep, and hence an infant's slumber does not invalidate a circumcision.

Most other Acharonim, however, read the Rambam differently.  After all, later in this same chapter in Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira (8:10), the Rambam codifies the Mishna in Masekhet Midot (1:2) which tells that an official was appointed to oversee the watchmen and ensure that they were all awake.  In fact, the official was authorized to strike a watchman found to be asleep during guard duty, or even burn his clothing.  How can this ruling be reconciled with the Rambam's earlier comments, where he describes how the watchmen would sleep in the Beit Ha-mikdash?

For this reason, several Acharonim (including the Mishneh Le-melekh, the Ma'asai Le-melekh, and the work Be'er Sheva on Masekhet Tamid) explain that the Temple watchmen worked on a rotation system, whereby at every point during the night some kohanim stood guard while the others slept.  When the Rambam describes how the watchmen slept, he refers to the "off-duty" watchmen, whereas later, when he tells of the official who made his rounds to ensure that all the watchmen were awake, he refers to the guards working their shifts, who were not permitted to sleep.

******

            The final verse of Parashat Bamidbar says regarding the Levite family of Kehat, which was charged with the responsibility of transporting the most sacred articles of the Mishkan, "Ve-lo yavo'u li-r'ot ke-vala et ha-kodesh va-metu."  We find several different interpretations of this verse among the commentators; the most common approach reads this to mean, "They shall not look as the sacred [articles] are covered, lest they die."  Meaning, when the time came for transporting the Mishkan, the Levi'im were to come to take the sacred articles only after the kohanim completed their work of covering them.  The Levi'im were not permitted to look upon the ark before the kohanim covered it in its casing.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (81b) mentions a different reading of this verse, whereby the word bala refers to theft.  According to the Gemara, this verse alludes to the extraordinary halakha mentioned in the Mishna allowing zealots (kana'im) to kill a person who steals one of the kelei ha-Mikdash (sacred articles of the Temple).  The verse thus reads as follows: "They shall not come to steal the sacred [articles]; and if they do – they shall die."

            Of course, the entire notion of kana'im pog'im bo, that Halakha licenses individual zealots under certain extenuating circumstances to kill a violator, is a difficult concept about which much has been written.  But leaving aside this difficult issue, it is striking that the Torah treated this crime with such severity.  Why is stealing from the Temple deemed so grievous a crime, warranting the extreme measure of kana'im pog'im bo?

            Rav Moshe Feinstein, as cited in Kol Ram (vol. 1), suggested that this prohibition bears symbolic significance for which it is treated with such severity.  A person who steals a sacred article from the Beit Ha-mikdash likely does so for the purpose of lending credibility to his deviant ideas.  Figures who arise and advocate a breach from tradition must hold on to some "sacred article," to some authentic element, in order to earn the trust and respect of their prospective constituents.  The Torah's harsh treatment of these thieves perhaps serves as a warning to beware of those who "steal" ideas and concepts from the "Mikdash," from the sacred domain of authentic Jewish tradition, in an attempt to win support for their innovations and distortions.

            Rav Moshe extended this notion to explain the Torah's strict prohibition against bamot, private altars.  The Torah insisted that all sacred articles be located together, in the single site of the Beit Ha-mikdash, to convey the message that authentic "sanctity" stems from only one source.  As we read in Sefer Melakhim, throughout the First Temple period bamot were widespread; even the kings who succeeded in eliminating idol worship were unsuccessful in eliminating the private bamot (with the notable exception of Chizkiyahu – Melakhim II 18:4).  The presence of a personal bama in one's home allows him to sell his false spiritual wares under the guise of authenticity; it provides a veneer of holiness for activities and ideas that are far from holy.  The Torah therefore so strongly insists that all the keilim of the Temple be situated in one site, and reacts so strongly to those who steal the sacred articles from the Mikdash in order to "sanctify" deviant conduct and beliefs.

******

            The opening section of Parashat Bamidbar tells of the census taken of each of the twelve tribes of Benei Yisrael at Mount Sinai.  Rashi (1:18) writes that the census required that each person produce documents affirming his lineage (sifrei yichuseihem) as well as witnesses testifying to his having been born into the given tribe.  The Ramban disagrees, claiming that it was not necessary to prove one's affiliation with his tribe; rather, each person came forward and informed Moshe of his name and to which family and tribe he was born.  He was believed even without formal proof and his name was entered in the official registry of that tribe.

            Rav Elchanan Wasserman Hy"d, in his Kovetz Shiurim (Bava Batra 621), questions the rationale behind the Ramban's position.  He notes that Halakha very clearly requires that a person who claims to be an inheritor of a deceased person must produce testimony to this effect.  Since he seeks a share in the inheritance with the deceased's children, he must bring proof that he, too, is a son of the deceased.  In Parashat Bamidbar, Rav Elchanan argued, the census was taken to determine who would receive a share in the portion of Eretz Yisrael designated to each tribe.  Thus, every person who approached Moshe and claimed membership in a given tribe was, in effect, vying for a portion of that tribe's "inheritance," and should reasonably be required to produce official documentation and witnesses to his membership in the given tribe.

            Rav David Mandelbaum, in his Pardes Yosef He-chadash, cites those who refute Rav Elchanan's arguments against the Ramban.  For one thing, it is far from clear that this census was taken for the purpose of the land's distribution.  Seforno, for example, writes explicitly that this census was conducted as preparation for warfare, for which Benei Yisrael depended upon zekhut avot – the merit of their illustrious ancestors, and it was therefore necessary to confirm the lineage of each recruit.  The Ramban perhaps accepted Seforno's basic premise concerning the purpose of this census, while denying the need for official documentation and witnesses to confirm each recruit's pedigree.

            Secondly, even if Rav Elchanan is correct in assuming that God ordered this census for the purpose of distributing Eretz Yisrael, one might easily distinguish between this distribution and the distribution of a person's estate among his inheritors.  As soon as a person passes on, his presumed inheritors automatically enjoy a chazaka (a presumed claim) with respect to his estate.  Understandably, then, if somebody arrives on the scene and claims to be another inheritor, he must produce evidence to his status, since he makes a claim to property that is presumed to belong to others (in the spirit of the famous rule, ha-motzi mei-chaveiro alav ha-re'aya).  At the foot of Mount Sinai, however, no members of Benei Yisrael had yet to establish any sort of chazaka on territory in the Land of Israel.  At this point the nation establishes an official registry of the twelve tribes for the very first time, and thus nobody has any more of a presumed status as "inheritor" than anybody else.  Hence, we have no reason to apply to this situation the laws governing the case of a person who arrives after a person's death and claims inheritance rights, and the Ramban therefore legitimately contends that no official verification is necessary.

******

            The final section of Parashat Bamidbar tells of the procedure for covering the sacred articles of the Mishkan in preparation for travel.  When Benei Yisrael would prepare to disembark, the kohanim would enter the Mishkan and cover the various sacred articles with the prescribed coverings, as outlined in this section, before the Levi'im would come to transport them.  In describing the procedure for preparing the ark for travel, the Torah includes as part of its instructions to the kohanim the command, "ve-samu badav" – "they shall put its poles in place" (4:6).  This instruction seemingly indicates that until now the transport poles had not been affixed to the sides of the aron.  As many commentators noted, this appears to violate the explicit command in Parashat Teruma (Shemot 25:15), "lo yasuru mimenu," which forbids removing the poles from the sides of the aron, even while it is at rest.

            One answer, mentioned by Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni and the Ramban, reads the words ve-samu badav to mean that the kohanim would place the poles on the shoulders of the Levi'im.  It refers not to placing the poles alongside the ark, but rather to placing them on the Levi'im's shoulders for transport.

            Ibn Ezra also suggests a different solution, namely, that the kohanim had to remove the poles from alongside the ark before they covered it.  One can easily imagine the difficulty of covering the ark with its transport poles affixed to its sides.  It seems reasonable to assume that the kohanim would have to first remove the poles before covering the aron, and thus this verse refers to their reaffixing the poles to the sides of the ark afterward.  Of course, Ibn Ezra's reading presumes that the Torah's admonition in Parashat Teruma not to remove the poles is not absolute, as it allows for the poles' removal as part of the ark's preparation for transport.

            The Panim Yafot explains that the materials used for covering of the aron had holes through which the poles would protrude to allow the Levi'im to easily transport the ark.  Now the poles were not tightly fastened in the rings affixed to the ark, and they could be shifted to and fro along the sides of the aron.  Thus, the Panim Yafot explains, ve-samu badav means that the kohanim would adjust the poles so that they protruded through the holes in the material covering the aron.

            Others, including the Peirush Ha-Tur, suggest that the kohanim would adjust the poles so that they were positioned in a manner suitable for transport.  Meaning, they would ensure that exactly half the length of each pole extended in each direction, so that the ark would be evenly balanced on the Levi'im's shoulders.  (This appears to be the Ramban's intent, as well, in his second explanation.)

            Chizkuni suggests two novel approaches.  First, he claims that there were four poles, two of which remained permanently alongside the ark, and two others which were used for transport.  In Parashat Teruma, the Torah refers to the two permanent poles, which were to remain at all times affixed to the sides of the aron, whereas here the Torah speaks of the poles used for transporting the ark, which were inserted before travel.  Secondly, Chizkuni claims that although, as mentioned, the poles were not tightly fastened to the rings of the ark and could therefore be shifted to and fro, this was not the case during the travel.  The transport poles had to be firmly fastened to the aron during travel, for otherwise the aron would fall when the Levi'im would ascend or descend an incline as they traveled.  Therefore, ve-samu badav means that the kohanim would firmly fasten the poles in place so that the ark could not be jostled during travel.  Chizkuni explains that this was done through crevices in the poles into which the rings were tightly inserted, such that the poles were held firmly in place.