In 1:4 the Posuk says (וְאִתְּכֶם יִהְיוּ, אִישׁ אִישׁ לַמַּטֶּה--אִישׁ רֹאשׁ לְבֵית-אֲבֹתָיו, הוּא). Hakadosh Baruch Hu says I am going to get you somebody from each Sheivet to be a leader to be counted. Who are they? (וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים) these are the names of them and we go through the list of names.
We can only picture the drum rolls and the suspense of who in each Sheivet will be chosen to be a Nasi. There is a problem. This counting took place in the second year on Rosh Chodesh Iyar in the Midbar. Prior to that there had been a Chanukas Hamishkan during the first 12 days of Nissan. What happens there actually took place at the end of Parshas Naso and although it is later in the Chumash it actually took place earlier. We know Ein Mukdam U’muchar BaTorah. There at the end of Parshas Naso we read that 12 Nesiim brought Korbanos one each day in the beginning of Nissan.
What do you know, those 12 Nesiim are exactly the same as the 12 Nesiim in Parshas Bamidbar. Well if you read Chumash consecutively everything makes sense, however, if you read it chronologically we know that what happens at the end of Parshas Naso was first. So now Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe Rabbeinu (אִישׁ אִישׁ לַמַּטֶּה--אִישׁ רֹאשׁ לְבֵית-אֲבֹתָיו, הוּא). Hashem says to Moshe use the Nasi and then (וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים). Who needs it, Moshe Rabbienu knew their names, they had just brought Korbanos. Why did Moshe Rabbeinu need Hashem to tell him who the names of these people are? Tzorech Iyun Gadol!
The third Vort for today involves a slight contradiction between 2 Rashi’s. 3:15 & 3:40 (טו פְּקֹד אֶת-בְּנֵי לֵוִי, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם: כָּל-זָכָר מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה, תִּפְקְדֵם). We have Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s command to count the Leviim and then the command to count all the Bechorim of the Jewish People and then do a Pidyon Haben of sorts where each Levi would redeem one B’chor of Bnei Yisrael and would take his place in the Kedusha of Sheivet Levi. That was the command, count the Leviim from one month and older, count the Bechorim from a month and older, and then we will see how many Leviim and how many Yisraeilim and the Leviim will be in the place of the Bechorim and whatever remains they will have to be Po’de themselves using money. This is the theme of this part of Perek Gimmel. Here we find a nuance of a difference in Rashi and as we know Rashi is Midakdeik M’od. Rashi is very careful to do things exactly so and that is the Mussar of the Dvar Torah which we are going to share now.
In 3:15 where the Posuk says to count the Leviim from one month and older Rashi is bothered why from a month and older why not from a day and older, why are you staring from Ben Chodesh? (מבן חדש ומעלה: משיצא מכלל נפלים הוא נמנה ליקרא שומר משמרת הקדש. אמר ר' יהודה ברבי שלום למוד הוא אותו השבט להיות נמנה מן הבטן, שנאמר (במד' כו, כט) אשר ילדה אותה ללוי במצרים, עם כניסתה בפתח מצרים ילדה אותה. ונמנית בשבעים נפש, שכשאתה מונה חשבונם לא תמצאם אלא שבעים חסר אחת, והיא השלימה את המנין:) Rashi explains that a neifel is someone who is not well enough in order to live for 30 days and is not considered a living human being. So you have to make sure that he is 30 days in order to make sure that he is not a Neifel.
Later in 3:40 the Posuk says to count the Bechor Zachar of Bnei Yisrael and that they are counted from a month and older. (וַיֹּאמֶר יְרוָר אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, פְּקֹד כָּל-בְּכֹר זָכָר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ, וָמָעְלָה; וְשָׂא, אֵת מִסְפַּר שְׁמֹתָם). Rashi says (פקד כל בכור זכר וגו' מבן חדש ומעלה: משיצא מכלל ספק נפלים) that they are counted from a month and older so that they should be out of Safeik Nefalim. That needs explanation. Rashi shouldn’t have mentioned the word Safeik (ספק). That when they are 30 days old they are no longer Nefalim. Why does Rashi change the language from (משיצא מכלל נפלים) to (משיצא מכלל ספק נפלים) when the Posuk switches in 3:15 from talking about Leviim to 3:40 where the Posuk is talking about Klal Yisrael?
The Har Tzvi (Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873–1960)) says an absolutely brilliant Vort. In order to
understand this I have to be Makdim a Halacha in Hilchos Pidyon Haben. In the rule of Pidyon Haben we say Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya. The Kohen only gets his money if it is absolutely certain that he is entitled to the money. If there is any Safeik, we treat Safeik Pidyon Haben different than almost every other Safeik D’oraissa. Every Safeik D’oraissa is L’chumra, however, for reasons that we are not going to go into today, a Safeik in Pidyon Haben is Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya. There is no Pidyon Haben unless it is certain that there is an obligation.
Mimeila says the Har Tzvi, it is beautiful. In a case of Yisraeilim the Bechor Yisrael, these are people who needed Pidyon. From when do they need Pidyon? They have to be Yatza Michlal Safeik Neifel (משיצא מכלל ספק נפל). Even if they are Safeik Neifel they still are Patur from Pidyon Haben. They have to go out and not only shouldn’t they be a Vadai Neifel they should also not be even a Safeik Neifel. Once they are not a Safeik Neifel then and only then do they need a Pidyon.
In the case of the Leviim the reverse is true. Each Levi worked to Patur a Yisrael. So that the Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya would make that there should be more Leviim that are counted. In other words, if you have a Levi and he is a Safeik Neifel he could Patur a Yisrael from Pidyon. Because Hamotzi Maichavairo Alav Haraya a Yisrael could say it is a Safeik and I will consider it that he Paturs me. So by the Leviim they had to be Yatza Michlal Neifel (יצא מכלל נפל). If they are a Vadai Neifel then they can’t Patur. However, a Safeik Neifel you don’t need (משיצא מכלל ספק נפל) all you need is Yatza Michlal Vadai Neifel.
As a PS what is a Safeik Neifel? The Gemara in Maseches Bechoros 49a (it is a discussion, Ayin Sham) says that on the 30th day itself a child is a Safeik Neifel. So that there is a category of exactly 30 days old and in that category this would be the difference between the two counting’s that is what is says in the Har Tzvi.
Let’s move on to a second Rashi. We find that the Posuk in 1:49 says, (אַךְ אֶת-מַטֵּה לֵוִי לֹא תִפְקֹד, וְאֶת-רֹאשָׁם לֹא תִשָּׂא, בְּתוֹךְ, בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל). The Ribbono Shel Olam tells Moshe not to count Sheivet Levi. Why not? Rashi explains (אך את מטה לוי לא תפקד: כדאי הוא לגיון של מלך להיות נמנה לבדו. דבר אחר, צפה הקב"ה שעתידה לעמוד גזירה על כל הנמנין מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה שימותו במדבר, אמר אל יהיו אלו בכלל, לפי שהם שלי, שלא טעו בעגל) in the Davar Achar that all those who were counted were destined to die in the Midbar. So the Ribbono Shel Olam said do not include these in the counting because they (Sheivet Levi) are mine and didn’t sin with the Eigel.
The difficulty with this Rashi is addressed by the Meforshim of Rashi including the Mizrachi and others who say that the sin of the Eigel is not what caused the Yidden to die in the Midbar. The sin of the Meraglim caused the Yidden to die in the Midbar and not the Eigel. If so, why does Rashi say that Levi should not be included because they didn’t sin with the Eigel, Rashi should have said because they didn’t sin by the Miraglim? This is a difficulty in this Rashi.
The standard Teretz that is usually given is that had Klal Yisrael sinned only by the Meraglim they would not have to die in the Midbar. It was because they had sinned at the Eigel and now they once again sinned with the Meraglim that they were punished. The Leviim who did not sin by the Eigel, even had they sinned by the Meraglim nevertheless they were not Chayuv Misah because they didn’t sin by the Eigel as Rashi says. This is the standard Teretz and it is certainly an acceptable Teretz.
The Satmar Rebbe in Divrei Yoel offers a different Pshat. I will be Makdim to that a Kasha. He asks what is the difference if they were all counted together or not. If all 12 Shevatim were counted together and 11 Shevatim sinned and one didn’t why should that Sheivet die in the Midbar? If a complete Sheivet didn’t sin they should be exempt from the Gizaira. Why is being counted together something which is Kovea?
The Satmar Rebbe answers with a beautiful understanding, Divrei Mussar, certainly something appropriate L’mi She’amaro, the Satmar Rebbe. He says Sheivet Levi didn’t sin by the Eigel. Therefore they deserved some sort of protection for the Cheit Hamiraglim. The protection is not to mix with people who do Aveiros, it is to stay separate. A person has to guard himself from coming to close to someone who does Aveiros. Even when a person’s intention is to be Mikareiv the other one, it is usually the Yeitzer Hora that is Mikareiv, which brings a better person down rather than the better person bringing the weaker person up. It is the job of a person to be careful and to keep themselves at arms distance from others (even Yidden) who do Aveiros.
Says the Satmar Rebbe. Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s intention with not counting Levi separately here was to make a Pirud, to make some sort of separation, some divide, a statement that there is Sheivet Levi and there is everyone else. They are not all the same. Sheivet Levi would hopefully live that way. They would see themselves as different. In the Parsha of the Degalim, which is the way the camp was set up in the Midbar, we see that the Leviim were indeed not one of the Shevatim who had the usual setup around the Mishkan, however, the Leviim were at the place of the Mishkan. Again, the idea is to make a Pirud.
He says beautifully. In their mind they didn’t sin at the Eigel, therefore, I don’t want to count them and put them together with everyone else. Because if I do, then when it comes to the sin of the Meraglim they may G-d forbid be pulled along. Therefore, this is the Pirud that was made and that was the Satmar Rebbe’s Shitas Hachaim to warn Yidden and his followers to keep themselves separate and different than others who do Aveiros.
A
beautiful thought and it explains why later we will find in Sefer Yehosha that Sheivet Yehuda stayed to itself,
it was separate many many years, 500 years before the 10 Shevatim and the 2
Shevatim split into a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom with the 10
Shevatim going to Galus. Why? We talk about Achdus Yisrael shouldn’t they have
all been together? The answer is that even within the Achdus Yisrael and the
Ahavas Yisrael a person has to be smart enough, wise enough to know that when
it comes to close friendship which happens only with certain people, if you are
smart enough to chose and know who is going to drag you down and who is going
help you rise. This is a very important lesson as well.
(וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן, אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה, אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת). Moshe and Aaron gathered these individuals who had been designated by their names. Rashi says something that is extremely strange and difficult to understand. Rashi says (אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות). That they were designated to him here by their names. What is Rashi adding more to the Posuk? A very puzzling Rashi.
I once saw a Teretz, however, I don’t recall where. Rashi is intending to answer a question as is always his style. The Nasi of Sheivet Shimon we will find later in the episode where he is killed by Pinchas, was Zimri Ben Salu who was the leader of Sheivet Shimon.
We find in the Posuk that it is Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi. The Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 82b (17 lines from the bottom) says Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi is Zimri Ben Salu (א"ר יוחנן חמשה שמות יש לו זמרי ובן סלוא ושאול ובן הכנענית ושלומיאל בן צורי שדי). They are the same person. It may well be that that is why the custom in Yiddish is to refer to somebody who tends to make a lot of mistakes as a Shlimiel. Somebody who tends to drop things as he goes is a Shlimiel. Why such a nickname? Perhaps because Shilumiel Ben Tzurishadoi is Zimri Ben Salu an infamous individual.
At any rate, Rashi here is bothered why was Zimri Ben Salu who was such a Rasha designated as a leader of Klal Yisrael?
Rashi is saying ( אשר נקבו: לו כאן בשמות). We know that the Ribbono Shel Olam works with a person Ba’asher Hu Sham. So here they were designated by their names. At this time they were still people of stature and this is even though one of them in this case was Zimri Ben Salu who was not.
1:2 & בשְׂאוּ, אֶת-רֹאשׁכָּל-עֲדַתבְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵיתאֲבֹתָם--בְּמִסְפַּרשֵׁמוֹת, כָּל-זָכָרלְגֻלְגְּלֹתָםThe Posuk says L’gulgiloisam by each Sheivet. However, when the Leviim are counted the Posuk does not use L’gulgiloisam. R’ Yonason Eibishitz explains thatL’gulgiloisam means to their heads. The question is, if you have a person with 2 heads how would he be counted in this counting, as one person or as two? Logically, he should be counted as one. However, the word L’gulgiloisam implies that he is counted as two.
There is a concept by Traifois that if someone has an extra limb it affects him as if that original limb was missing. So for example if someone has two heads the understanding is that he is a Traifa as he could not survive. Therefore, by the other Shevatim that were counted from the age of 20 and older, if someone had been born with two heads he would not be alive at the age of 20. So the expression L’gulgiloisam is very appropriate. The Leviim however, that are counted from the age of 30 days, it is theoretically possible that there would be someone with two heads and therefore the L’gulgiloisam method of counting would be inaccurate and that is why the Posuk doesn’t use that term.
In 2:32 (אֵלֶּהפְּקוּדֵיבְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְבֵיתאֲבֹתָם: כָּל-פְּקוּדֵיהַמַּחֲנֹת, לְצִבְאֹתָם--שֵׁשׁ-מֵאוֹתאֶלֶףוּשְׁלֹשֶׁתאֲלָפִים, וַחֲמֵשׁמֵאוֹתוַחֲמִשִּׁים), we see that there were 603,550 Yidden. In 3:43 (וַיְהִיכָל-בְּכוֹרזָכָרבְּמִסְפַּרשֵׁמֹת, מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁוָמַעְלָה--לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם: שְׁנַיִםוְעֶשְׂרִיםאֶלֶף, שְׁלֹשָׁהוְשִׁבְעִיםוּמָאתָיִם), we see that there were 22,273 Bechoirim. The ratio of Bechoirim to men is 1 to 30. In other words, in that group of between the ages of 20 and 60, for every Bechor, there were 30 other men. That ratio means every person had 30 siblings. Now if you would tell me that there were sometimes women that were born first, then I can say if there were another 22,000 women born first then there were another 600,000 women in Klal Yisrael. It wouldn’t change the ratio which is 1 to 30, and that is extraordinary. So every person had 30 siblings. Maybe you will say it is not shver as they gave birth 6 at a time. If we look at 3:39 (כָּל-פְּקוּדֵיהַלְוִיִּםאֲשֶׁרפָּקַדמֹשֶׁהוְאַהֲרֹן, עַל-פִּייְרוָר--לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם: כָּל-זָכָרמִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁוָמַעְלָה, שְׁנַיִםוְעֶשְׂרִיםאָלֶף), we see that there were 22,000 Leviim. As Rashi brings down, there were 300 Leviim that were Bechoirim. This poses a real problem as the ratio is 1 Levi Bechor for every 73 male siblings. Leviim did not have the Bracha of Shisha B’keres Echad so you can’t attribute it to that?
In the Ma’ayon Beis Hasho’aiva, from Rav Schwab, he says it must be that there were a great proportion of families that had daughters that were born first. So it was not the same amount of women born first as men born first. We know, Bas Techila Siman Yafa L’bonim, part of the Bracha is Bas Techila. This was a generation that had Bracha. So it must be that this generation had a disproportionate amount of daughters born first. So if there were 22,000 men Leviim, there most probably was 22,000 women Bas Leviim, however, there were many more first born Bas Leviim, and this would even out the Cheshbon.
In the Parsha we learn that Aharon Hakohen participated in the creation of the Eigel. Chazal are troubled by Aharon’s participation. What is often quoted is a Gemara in Maseches Sanhedrin 7a (7 lines from the top) (ופליגאדרביתנחוםברחנילאידאמררביתנחוםברחנילאילאנאמרמקראזהאלאכנגדמעשההעגלשנאמרויראאהרןויבןמזבחלפניומהראהא"רבנימיןבריפתא"ראלעזרראהחורשזבוחלפניואמראילאשמענאלהוהשתאעבדוליכדעבדובחורומיקייםביאםיהרגבמקדשה' כהןונביאולאהויאלהותקנתאלעולםמוטבדליעבדולעגלאפשרהויאלהותקנתאבתשובה). The Gemara Darshuns the Posuk 32:5 (וַיַּרְאאַהֲרֹן, וַיִּבֶןמִזְבֵּחַלְפָנָיו; וַיִּקְרָאאַהֲרֹןוַיֹּאמַר, חַגלַירוָרמָחָר)
Aharon saw, the Gemara asks what did Aharon see? The Gemara relates that Chur had refused to participate and Chur was killed by the mob. Aharon was afraid that if he too would be killed, there would be terrible repercussions on Klal Yisrael. There is a concept of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא).
There is an Inyan if the Kohen and Navi are killed in the Mikdash Hashem it is a terrible thing. Therefore Aharon Hakohen chose to participate rather than to be killed as this would be a terrible Kitrug on Klal Yisrael. This is a well known Vort and is actually a Gemara in Sanhedrin 7 as has been stated already.
My question for the week is, this Gemara that says Aharon and Chur would be the Kohen and Navi seems to be inconsistent to something that we all know.
It is well known that until the time of the Eigel, the Kehunah was supposed to be given over to the Bechorim of Klal Yisrael (the first born). It was only as a consequence of the Cheit Ha’eigel that it was taken away from the Bechorim.
This idea is almost B’feirush in the Pesukim in Parshas Bamidbar and Behaloscha. There we read that Moshe Rabbeinu counts the number of Leviim and counts the number of Bechorim and is Podeh (makes an exchange) one for the other. As Rashi says in Parshas Bamidbar (מתוךבניישראל: שיהיוישראלשוכריןאותןלשירותשלי. עלידיהבכורותזכיתיבהםולקחתיםתמורתם, לפישהיתההעבודהבבכורות, וכשחטאובעגלנפסלו, והלויםשלאעבדועבודהזרהנבחרותחתיהם) the Bechorim should have done the Avodah up until this point. Therefore we have a major problem. If Aharon would be killed, that would not be the death of a Kohen and Navi. Aharon at that point before the Cheit Ha’eigel was not yet a Kohen, so it is not a case of Kohen V’navi. This seems to be an exceedingly difficult problem and a Kasha that begs resolution.
I had this Kasha and as I continued learning the Parsha I came to something else that will shed light on this. So let’s begin a second discussion.
Was the Cheit Ha’eigel something that took place before the building of the Mishkan, before the commandment to build the Mishkan or is it something that took place afterwards. As you know Parshas Ki Sisa is sandwiched between the Parshios of Terumah and Tetzaveh that discuss the Mishkan and Parshas Vayakhel Pekudai that discusses the Mishkan. Which took place first? The Cheit Ha’eigel or the commandment to build the Mishkan?
This is a Machlokes Rashi and Ramban. In 31:18 Rashi (ויתןאלמשהוגו': איןמוקדםומאוחרבתורה. מעשההעגלקודםלצווימלאכתהמשכןימיםרביםהיה, שהריבשבעהעשרבתמוזנשתברוהלוחות, וביוםהכפוריםנתרצההקב"הלישראל, ולמחרתהתחילובנדבתהמשכןוהוקםבאחדבניסן) brings a Medrash Tanchuma that says the Cheit Ha’eigel preceded the commandment to build the Mishkan. So according to Rashi the Cheit Haeigel took place before the Parsha of Terumah and Tetzaveh and we use the principle of (אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה) and the Parshiyos are not always in order of the sequence of events.
The Ramban however in many places including the beginning of Parshas Vayakhel disagrees and says that the commandment to build the Mishkan was before the building of the Eigel. Klal Yisrael was commanded to build the Mishkan and after the Cheit Haeigel they were deemed unworthy of the Mishkan residing among them and only later when Moshe Rabbeinu came down on Yom Kippur with the second set of Luchos was the commandment actually fulfilled and the people built the Mishkan. This Ramban is the Shitta of the Zohar.
So we have 2 opinions. Rashi says the Cheit Ha’eigel was before the commandment to build the Mishkan and the Ramban says that the commandment to build a Mishkan preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel. Of course the Ramban fits better with the order of the Parshiyos of the Torah.
There is a problem here because in Parshas Tetzaveh when there was a commandment to make the Bigdei Kehunah we have mentioned numerous times that it was for Aharon and his children as Kohanim. According to Rashi it is fine, after the Eigel Aharon and his children are going to be Kohanim. However, according to the Ramban where the Parshiyos of Terumah and Tetzaveh preceded the Cheit Ha’eigel we have a serious difficulty. Before the Eigel was built, the Bigdei Kehunah were going to be for the Bechorim. So the question then is, why does it say for Aharon and his children? This is a Kasha on the Shitta of the Ramban.
The grandchildren of the Steipler printed some of his notes and letters in a Sefer called Rishumai Kehillas Yaakov. In there, there is a letter that addresses this and the Steipler says something that is an extraordinary Chiddush, not something that we would have understood on our own, but once we hear it many things come out good.
The Steipler says the following Chiddush. Aharon and his descendents were going to be Kohanim in any event. We learn this in Parshas Shemos when Rashi says (וראך ושמח בלבו: לא כשאתה סבור שיהא מקפיד עליך שאתה עולה לגדולה. ומשם זכה אהרן לעדי החשן הנתון על הלב) that Aharon saw Moshe Rabbeinu when he was returning to Mitzrayim and he rejoiced with the good fortune of Moshe Rabbeinu. The Schar for that was that the Kehuna went to Aharon.
Aharon was going to be Kohen anyway. The whole issue of Bechor or Sheivet Levi had to do with the Leviim alone. Only the Leviim were people who achieved their status because of the Cheit Ha’eigel, because they refrained from participating. So that Aharon would have been Kohen anyway. The whole Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha was a tradeoff of Bechorim against Leviim. It was only the Leviim who were Zoche after the Cheit Ha’eigel.
A Raya to this is if the Bechorim were to be Kohanim why were the Bechorim of Sheivet Levi deprived of that privilege? If the Bechorim were supposed to be Kohanim so then a Bechor from Sheivet Levi should have been a Kohen even after the Cheit Ha’eigel?
Therefore says the Steipler, it must be that the Kohanim were going to be Kohanim anyway and it had nothing to do with the Cheit Ha’eigel and the whole issue is a tradeoff of Leviim and Bechorim and that is it. This of course answers both questions the question (that was supposed to be the question of the week) of (אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא) and the question of Aharon and his children from Parshas Tetzaveh.
There is a bonus, because it answers something else as well. It is known in the name of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh that the Bechorim will return to do the Avodah when Moshiach comes. We don’t know where the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh learned that from because we don’t have Midrashim that say it. However, we are relying in the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh.
It is a problem because the Gemara says how do we know that there will be Techiyas Hameisim? We know it because the Posuk says Terumah will be given to Aharon Hakohen. The problem is that Aharon never lived to enter Eretz Yisrael to receive Terumah. The Gemara says in the Yemos Hamashiach he will receive Terumah. If Kohanim will no longer be Kohanim after Moshiach comes as the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh seems to say, why would Aharon get Terumah? According to the Steipler’s Yesod it is beautiful, the Kohanim are Kohanim. The entire issue is an issue of Leviim alone.
There are other questions that are answered by this. If you bear this in mind in Parshas Bamidbar and Parshas Behaloscha you will see that other difficulties are answered as well. It is a beautiful Yesod.
