Vol 18.36 - Pinchas 1                          Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 326   Page327   Page328   Page329   Page330   Page331   Page332   Page333  

Summary:
 
(5737) Rashi (Num. 26:1): "It was after the plague"

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
In his commentary on the verse:

“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: 
“G-d said to Moshe… take a census of the entire assembly of the children of Israel….” 
where Rashi comments:

"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: 
The verse emphasizes that “It was after the plague….” This wording emphasizes that Torah does not mean just to convey that the census occurred after the previous event (the plague), but also to convey that the census occurred in connection with the plague. 

This begs the question: What is the connection between the plague and the counting of the Jewish people? 
Rashi explains this with the "analogy of a shepherd: “He counts them to know the number remaining.”
However, this interpretation is difficult, for this (the census) is, from the outset, not an innovation to a Torah student.

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”).
Even were we to posit that Rashi does not rely on a student remembering what he learned in Parshat Bamidbar, Rashi could have sufficed by (remindingthe student by) writing succinctly, 
“to determine the number 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: 
Moshe Rabbeinu, the Jewish nation’s shepherd, who had self-sacrifice for his flock, counted the Jewish people in order to know “the number of those who remained” whom he had to shepherd.

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.)
With difficulty we could answer that the intention in the analogue is as follows: G-d told Moshe to do something that mattered to him (Moshe), just as in the analogy it mattered to the shepherd. 
However, it remains difficult: Rashi could have, from the onset, brought an analogy (not of a "shepherd", but rather) of a "sheep-owner"?

c) Furthermore, Tanchuma (and Bamidbar Rabbah) indeed bring an analogy. However, not from a "shepherd", but rather an analogy to:
“a wolf that preyed upon the sheep. The sheep-owner must count them….”
Yet Rashi deviatesfrom this wording, and writes, “This is analogous to a shepherd.”

d) Even greater is this puzzlement: 
Rashi himself, in Parshat Tisa (regarding counting the Jewish people, “after the incident of the Golden Calf, because a plague entered among them”) states:
(This is) "An analogy of a flock of sheep precious to its owner that had been stricken by pestilence. Once the pestilence ended, the owner said to the shepherd, “Please count my sheep and ascertain how many of them are left {to let it be known that the flock was precious to him}.”
Why, then, does Rashi say here, “This is analogous to a shepherd…”?

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?
Afterward Rashi continues:

"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: 
What is difficult in the first interpretation (that does not have this difficulty) that required Rashi to bring a second interpretation?

4. WHY NOT COUNT THE REMAINDERS FROM THE CIVIL WAR
The explanation if this is:

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.
At the end of Parshat Balak, the Torah recounts how the “men who were attached to Baal Peor” were punished in two ways: 

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”!?
To address this puzzlement Rashi draws an analogy to “a shepherd, into whose flock wolves entered,” as will be explained.

5. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE AND WHY DO THEY CARE
This difference, plainly,  between a "sheep-owner" who instructs a shepherd to count the sheep “to know the number remaining” and a "shepherd" who counts them on his own accord (for this purpose) is:
When a  sheep-owner instructs that the sheep be counted in order to know “the number remaining” it comes about as a result with this, he wants to show the dearness of the sheep.

(As Rashi writes in Parshat Tisa, “Count my sheep… in order to make known that they are dear to Him.”) 
This means, here what matters is solely that the (counted) sheep have remained intact; it does not matter whether or not the shepherd was at fault for the misfortune causing the sheep to perish. Of primary importance is the integrity of the "remaining sheep".

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.)
In contrast, in the "analogy of the shepherd", Rashi writes, “wolves entered…”. For in this situation the shepherd’s performance of his job is relevant.

6. MOSHE THOUGHT HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PLAGUE
On this basis, the answer to the aforementioned puzzling words, “and it was after the plague,” using "the analogy of the shepherd" - is understood:

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
This explanation, however, is not altogether smooth.

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.
However, the reason to not involve Yehoshua — who in but a few months time would become the shepherd, leading the Jewish people in an entirely new environment, different to that in which the Jewish people had been for forty years — is not smooth; therefore, Rashi offers a second interpretation. The census was connected with Moshe’s passing, “Now that he was approaching death and the need to return his flock, he gave them back by number.”

However, the second interpretation is even more challenging than the first. According to the second interpretation, the census was not connected to being “after the plague,” but rather to “approaching death.” Therefore, Rashi only brings this interpretation as the second one, and the first interpretation serves as the primary one, from the perspective of pshuto shel mikra, as mentioned above in section 3.

8. HE WHO MARRIES A NON-JEW DOES NOT BELONG IN THE COUNT
We still need to clarify:
Why, in fact, was the census done on the shepherd’s — Moshe’s — volition, and not on the volition of the sheep-owner — G-d? G-d could have done so with the intent “to know the number remaining, in order to show the dearness….” (Had this been the case, the numbers both of those remaining after the plague and of those remaining after the instruction, “let each man kill his men,” would have been relevant. As mentioned above, the sheep owner does not care (in the context of counting) how the sheep were lost.)

The explanation is as follows:
At that time, the Jewish people transgressed the sin of having relations with a gentile woman. The law in this case is, as Rashi has already mentioned, “zealots may kill him” (without first hearing the testimony and going to court, etc.). Therefore, the novice student of Scripture already understands the tremendous weight of this sin, to the extent that it brought to the death of close to two hundred thousand Jews. As Rashi writes, “The G-d of these people {the Jewish people} hates promiscuity.” Thus, there cannot possibly be room for the matter of (and census motivated by) dearness.

This idea will become more satisfying when considered from the perspective of halachah:
The sin of having relations with a gentile woman is a sin which (in the words of Rambam) “leads to a detriment that has no parallel among all the other forbidden relations. For a child conceived from any other forbidden union is considered the father's son with regard to all matters and is considered a member of the Jewish people.... A son conceived by a gentile woman, by contrast, is not considered his son….” As the Rogatchover Gaon explains, through this sin, “he removes souls from the nation of Israel, for the offspring follows the mother.”

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.
On the other hand, we see that Moshe Rabbeinu — the faithful shepherd of the Jewish nation, who had self-sacrifice for every Jew — devoted himself to care for the needs of, and provide “protection from wolves” for, even these Jews. This was true to the extent that they, too, are counted as part of his flock. And so he counts them, “to know the number remaining,” since they, too, are part of his flock, and not just a part at “the edge of the camp,” but rather, “amongst the flock.”
Moshe’s {loving} behavior {with errant Jews} becomes (part of) Torah and a lesson for every Jew to whom we say: “Remember the Torah of Moshe, My servant.”

-Based on talks delivered on Shabbos Parshat Pinchas, 5734 (1974)

(From https://projectlikkuteisichos.org/18pinchas1/)