Vol 18.36 - Pinchas 1 Spanish French Audio Video |
Hebrew Text:
Page 326 Page327 Page328 Page329 Page330 Page331 Page332 Page333 Chumash |
Summary: This can be compared to a shepherd whose flock was intruded by wolves who killed some of them his sheep. He counted them to know how many were left. Another interpretation: When they left Egypt and were entrusted to Moses, they were delivered to him with a number. Now that he was close to death and would soon have to return his flock, he returns them with a number. — Mid. Tanchuma Pinchas 4, Num. Rabbah 21:7 |
Translation: 1. WHY DOES RASHI CONNECT THE CENSUS TO THE PLAGUE “It was after the plague,” Rashi adds the word, “etc.” (וגו׳) alluding to that which immediately follows — G-d’s command to count the Jewish people, as it states: "This is analogous to a shepherd, into whose flock wolves entered and killed some of them {his sheep}; he counts them to know the number remaining". Understood simply (as in fact the commentators on Rashi do), Rashi’s intent is to address the following: This begs the question: What is the connection between the plague and the counting of the Jewish people? For Rashi has already explained (at the beginning of Parshat Bamidbar), “Because of their dearness to Him, He counts them at all times.” “At all times” includes any time that a {significant}change occurred to the Jewish nation’s situation. As Rashi continues there, “When they departed from Egypt… when they fell at the {sin of the Golden} Calf… when he came to rest his Divine presence….” Thus, the student already assumes likewise in our context. Namely, that the reason that G-d commanded Moshe to count the Yidden following the plague is “because of their dearness to Him” (just as, “when they fell at the {sin of the Golden} Calf, He counted them to determine the number of those remaining”). 2. QUESTIONS ON RASHI’S ANALOGY Additionally, we need to clarify: a) How does Rashi’s analogy help us understand the analogue? Seemingly, the analogue is, by itself (without the “analogy of shepherd, etc.”), clear and simple enough: b) In the "analogy of a shepherd . . who counts them to know the number remaining,” it is the shepherd who wants to know “the number remaining.” Seemingly, this does not correspond to the analogue, in which G-d, the owner of the sheep, commands a census of the Jewish people to be taken. (Not that Moshe, their "shepherd", on his own, wanted to know their number.) c) Furthermore, Tanchuma (and Bamidbar Rabbah) indeed bring an analogy. However, not from a "shepherd", but rather an analogy to: d) Even greater is this puzzlement: e) Some further disparities: a) In Parshat Tisa, Rashi says, “An analogy…stricken by pestilence,” whereas here he says, “into whose flock wolves entered.” b) In Parshat Tisa, Rashi emphasizes G-d’s affection for the Jewish people in the analogy (“to make it known that the flock is precious to him”). Whereas, here in the analogy of the shepherd, this concept does not appear, at all. c) The wording in the Midrashim says, “upon the sheep,” or, “among the sheep,” But Rashi deviates from this wording and writes, “into his flock.” 3. WHY THE SECOND INTERPRETATION? "Another interpretation: When they left Egypt and were given over to Moshe, they were given over to him by number. Now that he was approaching death and the need to return his flock, he gave them back by number." It is understood why Rashi presents this interpretation as “another interpretation,” and not as the first and primary interpretation. For according to this interpretation, the connection between “count…” and “it was after the plague”, is not explained. However, it is also not understood from the opposite perspective: 4. WHY NOT COUNT THE REMAINDERS FROM THE CIVIL WAR Rashi here seeks to clarify not (only) the connection between “it was after the plague" and “count…,” for, as aforementioned, we already know this from Rashi’s commentary on Parshat Tisa and Parshat Bamidbar. Rather Rashi to explain an aspect that is difficult in the words, “it was after the plague…” themselves. a) “The wrath of G-d flared up against Israel - He sent a plague upon them” and “Those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand.” b) “Moshe said to the judges of Israel, ‘let each man kill his men.’” As Rashi explains, “Each and every one of the judges of Israel would kill two, and the judges of Israel were eight myriads and eight thousand {eighty-eight thousand}, as stated in (Tractate) Sanhedrin.” Thus, according to this calculation, it emerges that (the judges of Israel) killed more than one hundred and seventy thousand. Consequently, we find something very baffling in our verse. Why does the verse emphasize “after the plague,” i.e., that the Jewish people were counted in order to determine how many remained alive after the plague? According to the numbers mentioned earlier, it would have been more important to know the “number remaining” after the command to “let each man kill his men” where the number of dead was more than seven times the number of “those who died in the plague”!? 5. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY DO THEY CARE (As Rashi writes in Parshat Tisa, “Count my sheep… in order to make known that they are dear to Him.”) In contrast, when a shepherd counts his sheep “to know the number remaining,” he does so primarily (not to display how dear the remaining sheep are to him, but rather) because of his role as a shepherd. With the intention and purpose to better devote himself to the remaining sheep and to protect them from a similar misfortune occurring again. Therefore, it is understood, that this is primarily relevant when the shepherd feels responsible for the loss of sheep in the flock. However, if it happened that the shepherd could not have prevented the mishap, then he feels no urge to (count the sheep and to)ascertain the "number remaining", since in his role as a shepherd of the flock, he has done nothing wrong. Now we can understand the difference between the the analogy of the "sheep-owner" (in Parshat Tisa) where Rashi writes, “stricken by pestilence,” versus here in "the analogy of a shepherd", where Rashi writes, “wolves entered.” A shepherd cannot protect his sheep from "pestilence". Therefore he is blameless if they were "stricken by pestilence". However, he can, and on the contrary, it is his job - to protect the sheep from wolves (using a stick, or something similar). So if “wolves entered… and killed some of them,” the shepherd is responsible. Therefore, in the context of the analogy of the "sheep-owner", where the dearness of the sheep to him is unrelated to how the sheep were afflicted, as aforementioned, Rashi writes, “stricken by pestilence.” (In fact, the situation in Parshat Tisa was (more) similar to pestilence, as will be explained in Par 6.) 6. MOSHE THOUGHT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLAGUE The loss of Jewish lives, Heaven forfend, caused by the "judges of Israel" killing "their men" was in a manner where the Jewish court judged and sentenced them to death. Therefore, Moshe could not have felt responsible for their demise, for which reason he would have counted the remainder. Not so regarding the plague whose prevention was linked to Moshe. As Rashi writes in the end of Parshat Balak, “The tribe of Shimon gathered… he said to Moshe, ‘Is this woman forbidden?’... the law was hidden from Moshe….” Only afterward, when Pinchas saw the incident, recalled the law, and killed Zimri, was “the plague was halted.” Although the fact that “the law was hidden from Moshe” was orchestrated from On High so that (as Rashi writes) “Pinchas would come and take that which was fit for him,” only Heaven knew that Moshe was not responsible. But Moshe himself could have thought that his forgetfulness had delayed the plague from being halted in the meantime. Rashi, in fact, tells us this by explaining about the census following the plague, when he relates “This is analogous to a shepherd into whose flock wolves entered…, he counts them to know the number remaining.” The census was: a) initiated by Moshe (the shepherd) on his own accord; and b) “to know the number remaining” from the plague, which Moshe (thought he) could have prevented, similar to, “into whose flock wolves (entered)”; or at least he could reduced the severity of the plague, thereby enabling more people to remain alive. In contrast to the narrative of the Golden Calf (in Parshat Tisa), at the time of the sin, Moshe found himself upon the mountain. Consequently, he could not have had an impact on the punishment of the sinners. There, Moshe (on his own, as their shepherd) had no reason to count his sheep. Therefore, in that case, Rashi brings: a) an analogy to a flock of “sheep precious to its owner,” i.e., G-d, the sheep-owner, initiated the census. (It was not initiated by the shepherd, because) b) the events were similar to “sheep stricken by pestilence,” where the shepherd is not to blame. Therefore, G-d’s instruction for them to be counted sprung from the sheep-owner’s affection for his sheep, as discussed above at length. 7. WHY NOT INVOLVE YEHOSHUA At that time, the Jewish people were stationed “in the plains of Moav, opposite the Jordan, near Yericho,” ready to enter Israel. Additionally, G-d had already decreed: “You will not bring this congregation to the land that I have given them.” Thus, the time had come for {G-d to declare:} “you (Moshe) shall be gathered to your people.” In fact, immediately following the census of the Jewish people (and the narrative of the daughters of Tzelafchad which happened following the census). The verse states, “Go up to the mountain of Avarim….” And subsequently, G-d instructs Moshe to lean his hands upon Yehoshua. Since, as mentioned, a shepherd takes a tally of his sheep to know how to manage the sheep in the future — i.e., to devote himself to protect them better so that no misfortune occurs to them. Thus, Yehoshua (like Elazar) should have played a role in this census, for he would very soon become the shepherd of the Jewish people. A strained solution: Since G-d knew that a few months would still pass before Moshe’s passing, the census was relevant to Moshe, at least for the coming few months when he would still be the shepherd. 8. HE WHO MARRIES A NON-JEW DOES NOT BELONG IN THE COUNT The explanation is as follows: This idea will become more satisfying when considered from the perspective of halachah: Meaning as follows: If a person transgresses any other sin, no matter which, he does not breach the boundaries that G-d created between Jews and non-Jews; for even after sinning, he remains a Jew. However, when a person engages in relations with a non-Jew, the child, who should have been from among “the souls of the nation of Israel,” instead is sent “to follow the mother,” and he becomes a non-Jew. Thus, measure for measure, G-d considers the sinner (in regards to G-d’s affection for the Jewish nation) as an outsider compared with his flock of sheep. As Rambam continues: “This matter causes one to cling to the gentile nations from whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has separated us….” Thus, it is not feasible to know “the number remaining,” since those who did not sin are not regarded as the “remainder” of those who did. Rather, G-d considers it as if there is no relationship (in respect to the affection) between them. 9. THE DIRECTIVE Thus, two seemingly antithetical lessons emerge: On the one hand, we see the far-reaching negative impact of the sin of having relations with a gentile. This is detrimental not only because “the offspring follows the {religion of his} mother,” but even moreso, because the sinner himself is barred from G-d’s flock. This is also a lesson for those people who have the great merit and responsibility of being in a position in which they can prevent even a single person, even once, from G-d forbid falling prey to this sin. This includes even those who have already fallen, Heaven forfend, into this sin. -Based on talks delivered on Shabbos Parshat Pinchas, 5734 (1974) (From https://projectlikkuteisichos.org/18pinchas1/) |
Links: |
Date Delivered: | Reviewer: | ||
Date Modified: | Date Reviewed: | ||
Contributor: |