Parshath Bë-Midbar (Numbers I,1-IV,20) 5/27/11

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים לאמר: שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמות כל זכר לגלגתם: (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai desert in the tent of assembly on the first [day] of the second month of the second year of their exodus from Egypt to say: Raise up the head [rosh] of the whole community of bënei Yisra’él to their families, to the house of their fathers in the number of names, every male for their heads [lë-gulgëlotham]”). So begins our parasha.

Rashi offers the following explanation of the Torah’s careful record of the timing of this census: מתוך חבתן לפניו מנה אותם כל שעה כשיצאו ממצרים מנאם וכשנפלו בעגל מנאם לידע מנין הנותרים וכשבא להשרות שכינתו עליהם מנאם. באחד בניסן הוקם המשכן ובאחד באייר מנאם (“Out of affection for them He counted them every hour; when they went out of Egypt He counted them, and when they fell because of the [Golden] Calf He counted them to know the number of those remaining; and when He came to infuse His Presence [Shëchinatho] upon them He counted them. One the first of Nisan the Mishkan was erected, and on the first of Iyyar He counted them”).

The historical context of the census, then, is that it followed shortly after the débâcle of the Golden Calf, as a result of which thousands had perished, and again, just as the Divine Presence, the Shëchina, the soul, as it were, of the universe, was being established in the Mishkan, in Israel’s midst. What G-d was actually telling Moshe, says Rashi, was דע מנין כל שבט ושבט (“Know the count of each and every tribe”). If so, why does the verse noy read that they were to be counted lë-shivteihem, “in their tribes,” rather than lë-mishpëhotham lë-véyth avotham, “by families and father’s house”? Why, instead of using either mana or safar, the more usual terms for “count,” does our passage utilize nasa’, “raise up”? Why are only the males to be counted? And why the peculiar alternation between the most common word for “head,” rosh, near the beginning of the verse, with gulgoleth, a word which more commonly means “skull”?

B.

This is not the first time that we have seen the word nasa’ used to mean “count,” specifically in the context of a census, and the Or ha-Hayyim offers us a clue to its meaning in an earlier verse (Exodus XXX, 12). There, Moshe is commanded, כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל וגו' (“For you will raise up the head of the bënei Yisra’él....”) and the Or ha-Hayyim explains the usage in its context, following the incident of the Golden Calf: כי החוטא גורם בחטאו כפיפת ראשו כי בחינת הרע מהותה "אל ארץ תביט" כי שפלה היא ובחינת הקדושה היא נשיאת ראש והרמת המהות והאיכות וגו' (“For the sinner causes through his sin the bending down of the head, since the test of evil in its essence is ‘you should look down to the ground,’ for it is low, whilst the test of sanctity is the raising of the head and uplifting of the essence and quality....”).

Viewed in this light, we can see that Rashi telling us that each instance of nësi’ath rosh, “raising the head,” is a spiritual ‘aliya, whether from the trough which resulted from the Golden Calf, or, later, the elevation and exaltation which accompanied the hashra’ath ha-Shëchina resulting from the erection of the Mishkan and inauguration of the Divine service therein.

This, it would appear, serves to explain the use of the word nasa’ for “count” in instances such as this one; but what about the rest of the verse?

C.

The debasement or degradation to which the Or ha-Hayyim alludes in his comment refers to the subordination of a person’s spiritual or metaphysical essence to his physical nature. This is what causes sin, the abdication of the nëshama’s control over the urgings and yearnings of the body, expressed through the nefesh. Hence, indeed, evil constitutes “looking down toward the earth,” toward one’s earthier nature, rather than up to the exalted spiritual heights.

The human nëshama is a vast metaphysical structure, and only the smallest portion of it is encased in the body. Hazal refer to the human body as a “shoe,” since just as a shoe encases only a small part of the body (and, indeed, a lower extremity), so does the human body encase only a small part of the nëshama (עיי' ברכות נ"ז: לאור ספר נפש החיים ש"א פ"ה, ובחרת בחיים שם אותיות ה' וו' וע"ע ספר רוח חיים לאסות פ"א מ"א). The root of Israel’s nëshamoth, they tell us, stretches back through the Patriarchs upward to the kissé’ ha-kavod, the collective root of Israel’s souls. Avraham, Yitzhaq, and Ya‘aqov are the pillars on which the universe rests; after it was, as it were, seated firmly upon the patriarchal tripod: ולא הוה מתמוטט. ועם כל דא לא אשתיל בשורשוי עד דאוליד תריסר שבטין ושבעין נפשאן ואשתיל עלמא. ועכ"ד לא אשתלים עד דקבילו ישראל אורייתא בטורא דסיני ואתקם משכנא וגו' (“...it would not totter. And with all that, it was not planted in its roots until [Ya‘aqov] sired the twelve tribes and the seventy souls [cf. Genesis XLVI, 8-34 and Exodus I, 1-5], and the universe was planted. And with all that, it was not complete until Israel had received the Torah on Mt Sinai and the Mishkan was erected....”; זוה"ק ח"ג קי"ז.).

It was this completion of the universe’s metaphysical foundation with the Mishkan’s erection which Moshe to raise up, to elevate and exalt the souls of Israel, which are rooted lë-mishpëhotham, through their families, lë-véyth avotham, to the household of their fathers, the Patriarchs. This is what our verse is intended to remind us.

Why does this elevation through counting involve only kol zachar, every male amongst them?

Because the women were already exalted; as Hazal tell us, they had resisted the blind panic which had led to the Golden Calf, continued to trust that the Al-Mighty had not abandoned them in the howling wilderness at the foot of the mountain. It was the men who required that additional lift (Exodus XXXII, 2-3, Rashi ad loc.).

This exaltation was, as the passage from the Zohar cited supra suggests, not a temporary, fleeting phenomenon. It affected not only the men of that generation, but extended it limbs and branches far into the future, as suggested by the last word in the verse, lë-gulgëlotham, throughout their gilgulim, the reincarnations of the archetypical nëshamoth of the seventy souls who had descended into the crucible of Egypt and endured its purifying fire to perform the transcendent act of sacrificing the Egyptian’s chief idol to Ha-Shem in the qorban Pesah, in whose merit they climbed out of the pit and ascended to receive the Torah and erect the Mishkan.

D.

Here again, in the vaulting exaltation implied in our parasha’s count toward on he inauguration of the Mishkan, we find a relationship and allusion to the edifying and exalting nature of the sëfirath ha-‘omer in which we are now engaged, as we prepare ourselves anew for shavu‘oth and our annual renewal of qabbalath ha-Torah.

Parshath Bë-Midbar (Numbers I,1-IV,20) 5/14/10

A.

The fourth of the hamisha humshei Torah, of which ours is the leading parasha, is called in the Talmud Humash ha-Piqqudim because of the two censuses which bracket the book (סוטה ל"ו). Presumably this also underlies the Greek name of the book, ’Aριθμοί, of which the English name “Numbers ” is the translation. The first of these censuses begins in our parasha.

On completion of the census of eleven of the twelve tribes, we read: והלויים לא התפקדו בתוך בני ישראל כאשר צוה ד' את משה (“And the Lëviyyim were not counted amongst the bënei Yisra’él as Ha-Shem had commanded Moshe”; II, 33). The Lëviyyim were to be counted separately from the others due to their dedication to special duties in the service of the Mishkan.

The census of the Lëviyyim begins: ואלה תולדת אהרן ומשה ביום דבר ד' את משה בהר סיני: ואלה שמות בני אהרן הבכר נדב ואביהוא אלעזר ואיתמר: (“And these are the offspring [toladoth] of Aharon and Moshe on the day Ha-Shem spoke with Moshe on Mt. Sinai, And these are the names of Aharon’s sons: The first-born was Nadav, and Avihu’, El‘azar and Ithamar”; III, 1-2).

Though the text details Aharon’s progeny, Moshe’s sons Gershom and Eli‘ezer are conspicuously absent from the passage. Their absence appears especially odd, since they are explicitly included elsewhere: ומשה איש האלקים בניו יקראו על שבט הלוי (“And the sons of Moshe, the man of G-d, were called out on [the rolls of] the tribe of Lévi”; II Chronicles XXIII, 14). Why, then, do they go unmentioned here?

B.

The question clearly bothered Rashi, who sought an answer in the Talmud (סנהדרין י"ט:). As he summarizes it: ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן ונקראו תולדות משה לפי שלמדן תורה מלמד שכל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו (“And it only mentions Aharon’s sons, and they are called Moshe’s offspring because he taught them Torah, teaching that anyone who teaches his fellow’s son Torah, Scripture considers it as though he gave birth to him”).

The thought is sublimely beautiful, and Hazal appear to echo it again and again, for instance in the Sifrei’s comment on Deuteronomy VI, 7: "ושננתם לבמיך" אלו תלמידיך וכן אתה מוצא בכל מקום שהתלמידים קרויים בנים שנאמר "בנים אתם לד' אלקיכם" (“‘And you will teach them to your sons’; these are your students, and so you find in every place that students are called sons, as it is said, ‘You are sons of Ha-Shem your G-d’ [ibid.]”), adducing in evidence such examples as the phrase בני הנביאים used in reference to the students of the prophets (in, e.g., II Kings II, 3), or King Hizqiyahu’s Torah revival and consequent reference to the Lëviyyim who were to carry it out as his “sons” (II Chronicles XXIX, 11}, as well as the converse, that the teacher is called the student’s father, as in, e.g., Elisha‘’s reference to Eliyahu (II Kings II, 12), or King Yo’ash of Israel’s subsequent reference to Elisha‘ himself (ibid., XIII, 14; ספרי פר' ואתחנן פיסקא ט').

Indeed, Rabbi Baruch ha-Lévi Epstein, in his Torah Tëmima, traces the latter concept all the way back to the beginning of time; we find, for instance, that the Torah calls Yaval אבי כל טיושב אהל ומקנה (“father of all tent-dwellers [with] livestock”), and his brother Yuval אבי כל תופש כנור ועוגב (“father of all who grasp lyre and organ”; Genesis IV, 20-21), in other words, the originators of these arts who taught the requisite skills to others.

But with all of that, it remains the case that Moshe taught Torah to all of këlal Yisra’él, his own sons surely amongst them. The question becomes even stronger: Why are they excluded, and the sons of Aharon so prominently listed?

The Nëtziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzëvi Yëhuda Berlin of Volozhin) offers a suggestion in his Ha‘améq Davar: The teaching of Torah being discussed here is, he says, not merely the imparting of the bare facts of halacha lë-ma‘aseh, “practical halacha,” but rather is concerned בחכמת התלמוד שנעשה עפ"י זה ברי' חדשה כדאיתא עוד בסנהדרין דצ"ט המעשה את חבירו לד"ת מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאו וכו' וכו' ובמדבר לא הרבה חכמו עוד בחכמת התלמוד עד שבאו לעה"י שם באר את התורה לפני כל ישראל כו' אבל במדבר היו בני אהרן המיוחדים בזה מש"ה נחשבו המה תולדות משה (“with the hochmath ha-talmud, through which one is made a new creature, as it is also brought in Sanhedrin 99[b], ‘Anyone who compels his fellow to [learn] words of Torah, Scripture considers him as though he has made him’... And in the dessert [the bënei Yisra-‘él] did not very much engage the hochmath ha-talmud until they arrived at the bank of the Jordan, where [Moshe] explicated the Torah before all of Israel... but in the desert, the bënei Aharon were the ones especially involved in this; for this reason, they were considered Moshe’s toladoth”).

The Nëtziv means by hochmath ha-talmud what is often referred to as “learning how to learn,” the application of the rules of Talmudic logic to ascertain the correct meanings and applications of verses in the written Torah, to tease out their implications and derivations. Understandably, the generation in the desert was primarily concerned with halacha lë-ma‘aseh, since all of the halachoth were new and for a long time nobody but Moshe truly knew what he was doing. It was only afterward, after a generation had come into being on the eve of Israel’s invasion of the Holy Land who had grown up with Torah, for whom halacha was second nature, simply “part of the culture”, that serious learning by the larger mass of the nation could be contemplated. Hence, the hochmath ha-talmud in the desert was the occupation only of certain yëhidei sëgula, certain unique individuals, and in the forefront of that select group were the bënei Aharon.

C.

The transformative power of serious Torah learning cited above by the Nëtziv is most certainly a reality, and none could be better equipped to attest to it than Réysh Laqish, the author of the statement from Sanhedrin which the Nëtziv quotes. As we learn elsewhere in the Talmud (בבא מציעא פ"ד: ) he was, to quote the Torah Tëmima again, an איש גס והמוני מאד (“very coarse member of the masses”; he was in fact leader of a band of bandits), until he began to learn under the influence of Rabbi Yohanan, who saw the potential in him. Truly, Réysh Laqish was a “new creature” from what he had been before.

If we take a more careful look at both Talmudic passages which have been cited above, though, something else catches the eye. The first passage, which Rashi had cited, uses the verb yëlado, “he gave birth to him.” This is most emphatically not the usual verb refer-ring to the fathering or siring of children; that word, used dozens of times in the Torah, is holid, the causative form; because the father is molid, the mother is ordinarily yoledeth.

Réysh Laqish’s statement is similarly forceful. The word which I have poorly translated “compel” above, ‘issa, is literally untranslatable into English. The factitive, pi‘él form of the same root as ‘asa’o, “he made him,” it really means something like “bring into being, initiate a process by which something is made,” so that the sentence implies that one is creating the mental and spiritual infrastructure, making one’s comrade ready and able to learn Torah; it is that which Scripture considers kë-illu ‘asa’o, “as if he had made him.”

Taking the two together, then, we see that Hazal are making a much stronger statement than the simple assertion that a teacher is like a father; rather, a teacher who transmits the Torah’s transformative power stands in place of both parents; it is as though he has given birth to the new creature, made him completely (rather than “merely” contributing the father’s part of the child’s legacy), to emphasize which, in my humble opinion, the Torah deliberately uses the word toladoth, also from the root yud-lamed-dalet, rather than the more prosaic banim (as in the second verse, with Aharon).

Any teacher who teaches a student anything on any level, certainly to include the simplest hora’ath halacha – do this, don’t do that – is acting like a father, and guiding his student, who is in this sense like a son. The rebbe who teaches him how to learn, who makes it possible for him to access the true power of Torah, is doing much more, and stands in loco duorum parentium, in place of both parents.

D.

Rabbi Moshe Yëhi’él ha-Lévi Epstein, the previous Ozherover Rebbe, offers a fascinating perspective on the Torah’s deliberate exclusion of Moshe’s sons from our passage, which throws light on the tremendous personal sacrifice Moshe made to teach Torah to Israel. The oddities concerning Moshe and his sons are not unique to our parasha.

He cites an observation of the Maharal mi-Prag in his Gur Aryeh on Exodus II, 1, וילך איש מבית לוי ויקח בת לוי (“And a man from the house of Lévi went and married a daughter of Lévi”), שנכתב בהעלם ולא נזכר שמם של אבי משה ואמו בגלל היות משה רבינו מתוקן לגאולה ואין לו כל קשר עמם (“that it is written in a concealed fashion and does not mention the names of Moshe’s father and mother, because Moshe was brought into the world to [secure Israel’s] redemption, and so was unconnected to [his parents]”).

He then notes a comment of the holy Zohar on a very peculiar turn of phrase in Exodus XVIII, 2 where we learn that Tzippora came from Midyan to join the camp with “her two sons”: "ואת שני בני' " בני' ולא בניו של משה אלא וכו' מלה דקשוט בני' ודאי (“‘and her two sons’ – her sons and not Moshe’s sons, but... it is a true word, [they were] certainly her sons”; ח"ב ס"ט:) here again emphasizing the distance imposed by Moshe’s unique, historic rôle as the teacher of all Israel, hence less able to be fully involved as the father of his sons.

Even II Chronicles XXIII, 14, by insisting on the phrase ומשה איש האלקים (“And Moshe, the man of G-d”) by emphasizing his historic rôle, and the consequent, if sad, distance from his own children. His sons would indeed take their place amongst the tribe of Lévi, but would not be called specifically by their father’s name.

The message of the transformative nature of Torah, which one accesses by learning how to learn, and then diligently employing that knowledge with commitment and intent, is one most suited to the present season, as we enter the month of Sivan and are on the cusp of the holiday of Mattan Torah. The great, almost superhuman, personal sacrifice which Moshe rabbeinu made to bequeath it to us should serve to make it even more precious, and strengthen our resolve to put it into practice.

Parshath B’Midbar (Numbers I,1-IV,20) 5/22/09

A.

אלה תולדת אהרן ומשה ביום דבר ד' את משה בהר סיני(“These are the offspring of Aharon and Moshe, on the day Ha-Shem spoke with Moshe on Mt. Sinai”; III, 1). The parasha then goes on to list Aharon’s sons – Nadav, Avihu’, El‘azar, and Ithamar – but not Moshe’s. The omission is obvious, and begs elucidation.

Whilst we are asking questions, the wording of our verse is also peculiar – whatever can the Torah mean by informing us that these are “the offspring of Aharon and Moshe on the day Ha-Shem spoke with Moshe on Mt. Sinai” (b’yom dibbér Ha-Shem eth Moshe b’Har Sinai)? Were they not Aharon’s sons before that occasion? What is the verse trying to tell us?

B.

Rashi notes, following the Talmud (סנהדרין י"ט:): ואינו מזכיר אלא בני אהרן ונקראו בני משה לפי שלמדן תורה מלמד שכל המלמד בן חברו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו ילדו (“And it only mentions Aharon’s sons; and they are called Moshe’s sons because he taught them Torah, teaching that anyone who teaches another’s son Torah, Scripture considers [the teacher] as though he gave birth to [the son]”).

This equivalence of the relationship between father and son, on the one hand, and rebbe and talmid, on the other, also finds expression in the midrash, which interprets the phrase ושננתם לבניך (“and you will teach them to your sons”; Deuteronomy VI, 7) to mean אלו תלמידיך (“these are your students”; ספרי ואתחנן פסקא ט'). This relationship finds expression in numerous passages throughout Tanach. For instance, at the dawn of humanity, Yaval is characterised as אבי יושב אהל ומקנה (“father of tent dweller[s] [who have] livestock”), and his brother Yuval is אבי כל תופס כנור ועוגב (“father of everyone who grasps a harp and pipe”; Genesis IV, 20-21), meaning that they originated these arts and are construed as the fathers of all who learn and practice them.

Similarly, the students of the prophets are referred to as bnei nevi’im (cf. e.g. I Kings XX, 35; II Kings II, 3-15; IV, 1, 38; V, 22; VI, 1; IX, 1; and Amos VII, 14); Elisha‘, on seeing his rebbe Eliyahu caught up to the heavens, exclaimed, "Avi, avi!" (“My father, my father!”; II Kings II, 12).

That said, another question presents itself: Moshe taught Torah not only to Aharon’s sons, but to all of Israel; why, then, should only Aharon’s sons be so singled out?

The Ha‘améq Davar offers the suggestion that the instruction under discussion was בחכמת התלמוד שנעשה עפ"י זה ברי' חדשה (“in the science of Talmud, for one is made through this a new creature”), and goes on to cite a statement found elsewhere in the Talmud: כל המעשה את חברו לד"ת מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאו שנאמר "ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן" (“Anyone who compels [m‘asseh] his fellow to divrei Torah, Scripture considers him as though he had made [his fellow; ‘asa’o], as it is written, ‘And the soul[s] which they had made [‘asu] in Charan....’”; [Genesis XII, 5]; סנהדרין צ"ו וע"ע שאלתות דר"א, ריש פר' לך בענין זה), observing that המעשה את חברו כו' הרי דמיירי בגמרא שמביא לידי קיום שאינו אלא תלמוד כו' ובמדבר לא הרבה חכמו עוד בחכמת התלמוד עד בואם לעה"י שם ביאר את התורה לפני בני ישראל כו' אבל במדבר היו בני אהרן המיוחדים בזה מש"ה נחשבו המה תולדות משה (“‘one who compels his fellow...’ is referring to gmara, which brings one to observance [of the mitzvoth], which is nothing other than Talmud... and in the desert the [bnei Yisra’él] did not so much engage in the science of Talmud, until they came to the bank of the Jordan, where Moshe expounded the Torah before the bnei Yisra’él... but in the desert the sons of Aharon were especially involved in [Talmud Torah]; for this reason, they were considered Moshe’s offspring”).

C.

The Torah Tmima makes much the same point, noting that ‘asiya, “making” often bears a connotation of correction and renewal (תקון וחדוש), citing various examples, e.g., Genesis II, 4: אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות ד' אלקים ארץ ושמים (“These are the results of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day Ha-Shem, G-d, made [‘asoth] earth and heavens”), on which Rashi comments that this world was made פתוח לשבים בתשובה, “open to penitents” (based on the “open” form of the tiny letter hé in the word b’hibbar’am, “when they were created”). Hence, the ‘asoth ha-Shem Eloqim, G-d’s “making” of this world, added mercy to judgment and made it amenable to correction and renewal.

The Torah Tmima goes on to note that our second Talmudic passage was said by Reysh Laqish, a great scholar who was originally (in the Torah Tmima’s words) an איש גס והמוני פשוט מאד (“coarse man of the masses, very simple”) before he was influenced to settle down and study Torah, ולאחר שלמד תורה נעשה כברי' חדשה (“and after he had learnt Torah he was made like a new creature”; עיי' בבא מציעא פ"ד.). Hence, he concludes, Reysh Laqish was speaking from personal experience of the transformative power of Torah.

‘Ad kan the Torah Tmima. If we now re-examine the last clause of our verse, a new level of meaning reveals itself. The verb dibbér, conventionally translated “spoke,” is in structure a pi‘él, that is, a factitive verb. A factitive verb is one which establishes or brings into being a condition, state, or thing (in the case of dibbér, the product is a davar, which simultaneously means “word” and “thing,” das Ding an sich). The preposition eth, which I translated “with” above, can also designate the direct object of a transitive verb, and the prefix in b’Har Sinai can also designate instrumentality (“through, by means of”). Hence, the clause can be read “on the day Ha-Shem bought Moshe into being through [His words on] Mt. Sinai.”

The day that Moshe became a briya chadasha, a “new creature,” steeped in Torah, was the day that he became capable of making Aharon’s sons over, as it were, into his.

D.

The ma’amarei Chazal quoted thus far from the Talmud and the Midrash appear to establish an equivalency of relationship between father and son, on the one hand, and rebbe and talmid on the other. In fact, this is not so. Elsewhere in the Talmud, we learn that one’s rebbe takes precedence over one’s father, שאביו הביאו לעולם הזה ורבו שלמדו חכמה מביאו לחיי העולם הבא (“for his father has brought him into this world, but his rebbe, who has taught him wisdom, brings him into the life of the next world”; בבא מציעא ל"ג: במשנה), and this is indeed the halacha (שו"ע יו"ד סי' רמ"ב סעיף א'). How are we to reconcile this with the other statements?

The Ruzhiner Rebbe זצוק"ל observes that the the transformative power of Torah is such that a single word, indeed, a single letter of Torah taught in truth and fullness begins to take its effect; note that Rashi’s comment on Genesis II, 4 was based on the shape of a single letter written in a unique fashion in the séfer Torah so as to catch attention.

In this way, he observes, a rebbe can be the equivalent of one’s biological father; after all, a single drop suffices to make a man a father. But the rebbe does not stop with a single letter or a single word; he teaches his pupil whole verses, parshiyoth, mishnayoth, gmaroth, halachoth; as he imparts more and more and more Torah to his student, he constantly reshapes and reforms the nascent briya chadasha. For that reason, he concludes, a conscientious rebbe deserves precedence over a merely biological father (מובא בספר אמונת צדיקים, ובשאביו הוא גם רבו המובהק עיי' הגהת הרמ"א שם ביו"ד ובייחוד הש"ך שם).

The proper Jewish father, of course, is not merely his son’s biological instigator; he also teaches the child, he engages the rebbe; his greatest pleasure is eagerly to reviews his son’s studies with him, to encourage him and spur him on to success in learning and observance, for which his dutiful son gratefully calls him avi mori (“my father, my teacher”).

Parshath B’Midbar (Numbers I,1-IV,19) 5/30/08

A.

וידבר ד' אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד באחד לחדש השני בשנה השנית בצאתם מארץ מצרים לאמר: שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל וגו' (“And Ha-Shem spoke to Moshe in the Sinai desert in the Tent of Assembly on the first [day] of the second month of the second year of their exodus from the lamd of Egypt, to say: Raise up the head of the entire community of bnei Yisra’él....”). Thus begins our parasha.

The precision with which the Torah locates this census in time is rather striking: we are left in no doubt that the date was 1 Iyyar 2449. The holy Zohar takes note of this precision as well, and tells us that its purpose is לאשתמודעא דהא כד נפקי ישראל ממצרים בחודש הראשון הוה (“to make known that when Israel left Egypt it was the first month;” ח"ג קי"ז:).

This would be fine, but seems rather odd, given that we have a clear statement in Exodus XII, 2, concerning Nisan, the month of the Exodus: בחדש הזה לכם ראש החדשים ראשון הוא לחדשי השנה (“This month is for you the head of the months, it is the first of the months of the year”). In light of such a clear and unequivocal statement in the written Torah, why does the Zohar see the need for this indirect hint?

B.

Let us begin by considering our second verse, the command itself. The Torah’s expression for a census is nesi’ath rosh, a “raising of the head,” a rather peculiar expression, given that it could have used the verbal noun of either of two verbs meaning “count” instead.

We find this same expression used in Exodus XXX, 12: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקדיהם וגו' (“For you shall raise up the head of the bnei Yisra’él for their ennumeration....”). The Or ha-Chayyim comments: כי החוטא גורם בחטאו כפיפת ראשו כי בחינת הרע מהותה היא אל ארץ תביט כי שפלה היא ובחינת הקדושה היא נשיאת ראש והרמת המהות והאיכות וכו' שהוא לשון מעלה שתשא ראש בני ישראל שראשם נמוך לצד חסרונם במעשה העגל (“that the sinner causes by his sin bending the head, for the essence of the concept of evil is, Look to the ground, for it is base, and the essence of sanctity is a raising of the head and an uplifting of one’s being and quality... For it is an expression of exaltation, that [Moshe] should raise up the heads of the bnei Yisra’él for their heads were low due to their inadequacy in the matter of the Calf....” וע"ע מדרש תנחומא שם סי' ז' שבו אמרינן דנשיאת ראש היא זקיפת ראש ).

To this. the Be’er Moshe adds that the simple knowledge of their importance and value to Ha-Shem, as implied in His desire that they be counted before Him, would itself lift their spirits, וכתוצאה מזה הם נותנים לב להתבונן על הנהגתם שתהא לרצון לו ית' (“and as a result of this they would give heart to meditate on their conduct, that it should be desirous to Him”).

All of which seems appropriate to that earlier instance, coming as it did in the wake of the disaster of the Golden Calf. What was the occasion for the induced uplift this time?

C.

If we read on a bit in the parasha, it becomes clear that the purpose of this census was military, a marshalling of the forces, so to speak, preparatory to receiving the orders to move out for the conquest of the Promised Land. As Sforno puts it, the purpose was: לסדרם שיכנסו לארץ מיד איש על דגלו בלתי מלחמה, אלא יפנו הכנענים מפניהם וגו' (“to order them such that they would enter the land immediately, each man under his flad, without conflict, but rather the Canaanites would evacuate before them....” Cf. in this connection my comments two weeks ago on Parshath B’Har).

But in the event, due to the incident pf the m’ragglim which happened subsequently (cf. Numbers XIII-XIV), it did not happen that way, and after a total of forty years wandering the desert, 14 years of diffiicult warfare were necessary to conquer the Holy Land from its Canaanite squatters.

If so, the census would appear to have been a one-time thing, with no ramifications for future generations. If that is so, why should the Torah have bothered to record it?

Ramban states in the name of the midrash that the verb nasa, raise, has connotations of greatness, and sees in this census a hint שאם יזכו יעלו לגדולה (“that if [Israel] merit it, they will rise to greatness”).

With this in mind, we turn to an incisive comment of the Ba’âl Shém Tov, preseerved in the T’shu’oth Chén (פרשת שופטים): ענין יציאת מצרים שהיו משוקעים כל כך בטומאה עד שכמעט בלתי אפשרי היא שישובו לד' וחתר חתירה מתחת כסא כבודו להתגלות לפניהם והי' לבם בוער לשוב לד' ויצא מגדר הטבע, וזה שנכפל יציאת מצרים כמה פעמים בתורה, כדי שהחוטא ביותר לא יתיאש, וזהו "כי תצא למלחמה על אויביך וראית סוס ורכב עם רב ממך לא תירא מהם כי ד' אלקיך עמך במעלך מארץ מצרים" כו' אל תתיאש ותחזק עצמך מענין יציאת מצרים (“The matter of the Exodus from Egypt is that when [the bnei Yisra’él] were so mired in tum’a that it was nearly impossible that they would return to Ha-Shem, Ha-Shem cut an opening in the throne of His glory to reveal Himself before them, and their hearts were burning to return to Ha-Shem, such that [the desire] exceeded the bounds of nature; and this is why the Exodus from Egypt is repeated several times in the Torah, in order that the worst sinner should not despair. And this is [what is alluded to in the verse]: ‘For you will go out to warfare against your enemies, and you will see horse and chariot, an army greater than you; fear not, for Ha-Shem your G-d is with you, who raises you up from the land of Egypt' [Deuteronomy XX, 1]... Do not despair, and strengthen yourself from the matter of the Exodus from Egypt”).

To appreciate the full force of the Ba‘al Shém Tov’s insight, note that the entire verse from Deuteronomy is couched in the singular, and that the present participle is used; it is directed at each individual one of us, in every generation.

D.

Again we see that every passage of the Torah has layers of meaning, and is eternally relevant to us, in every period of history.

The Ba‘al Shém Tov’s insight, I believe, is preciselt what the Zohar is alluding to: The the beginning of our journey to qdusha is always the Exodus from hedonistic Egypt, the knowledge that Ha-Shem freed us from the tyranny of the yetzer ha-ra and, in granting us the Torah and its mitzvoth, gave us the means to preserve that freedom, שאין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתלמוד תורה (“for none is free who is not involved with Torah study;” אבות פ"ו ב'), and that in consequence of our internalizing such a beginning we become infinitely precious to Ha-Shem, such that He eagerly counts each and every one of us.

Surely this is one of the reasons Chazal mandated that we remind ourselves of the Exodus constantly, morning and night, in our t’filloth, and also mandated that every qiddush, every sanctification of sabbath and holiday, be זכר ליציאת מצרים, a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt, which made it possible.

A worthy thought, as we continue to count up to Shavu‘oth and our rededication to the Torah.