Parashat Pinchas
The Sequence of Bamidbar 26-30
By Yitzchak Etshalom
I
INTRODUCTION:
PARASHAT T’MIDIN UMUSAFIN
Chapters 28-29 in Bamidbar
present the “Mishkan-calendar” of set, public
offerings, in the following order:
Hence, this section (including its
concluding verse, at 30:1) is called “Parashat T’midin uMusafin”.
The immediate oddity that strikes the reader
is one of location – why is Parashat T’midin uMusafin placed near the
end of Sefer Bamidbar; it’s
natural location would be in the middle of Sefer Vayyikra, either at the conclusion of the “Torat haKorbanot” (chs. 1-7) or in the parallel treatment of the calendar in
Ch. 23. Indeed, the calendar so closely approximates that of Vayyikra 23 that it would have been an “easy fit” to
integrate the two parashot by including the specific Korban of each day as an expansion of the general command “v’hikravtem isheh l’Hashem” (you shall offer a burnt-offering to Hashem).
The issue of location raises a larger
question about the sequence of commands in the latter chapters of Bamidbar. Beginning from ch. 20:
1)
Death
of Miriam/Mei M’rivah
(20:1-13)
2)
3)
Death
of Aharon (
4)
War
with K’na’ani (21:1-3)
5)
Travels
(complaints, plague, song of the well) (21:4-20)
6)
Sichon/Og (
7)
Balak/Bil’am
(22:2-24:25)
8)
P’or/Pinchas
(25:1-15)
9)
Command
to Harass the Midianites (25:16-18)
10) Census (26:1-51)
11) Division of the Land (26:52-56)
12) Levite Census (26:57-65)
13) Daughters of Tzlafchad
(27:1-11)
14) Imminence of Death of Mosheh
(27:12-14)
15) Mosheh’s request re: continued leadership (27:15-23)
16) T’midin uMusafin (28:1-30:1)
17) Nedarim (vows) (30:2-17)
18) War with Midian
(31)
19) Apportionment of East Bank to Gad and Reuven (32)
Understanding the rhyme behind the sequence
here is a challenge; for purposes of this shiur we
will confine ourselves to items 8-18. The problem is exacerbated once we note the
following conundrum:
Since God commanded B’nei
Yisra’el to act with enmity towards Midian (something which, one would assume, is doubly
difficult for Mosheh considering that his wife and
esteemed father-in-law are Midianites) in the
immediate aftermath of the Midinaite-inspired whoring
after the Moavites and their god, why is that command
interrupted (in text, if not in time), with two censuses, two passages dealing
with the division of the land, God’s command to Mosheh
that he ascend the mountain, Mosheh’s “demand” of God
that He appoint a successor, T’midin and Musafin and the laws of personal vows?
This question may be asked in two fashions,
depending on how strictly we apply chronological fidelity to the text.
If we assume that the events in the Torah
are presented in the order in which they happened (except where impossible –
compare Bamidbar 1:1 and ibid. 9:1; see Ramban at Sh’mot 18:1), then
these commands were given and these interactions took place between God’s
command to harass the Midianites and the direct
command to wage a war of vengeance against them.
If, following Ibn
Ezra (Sh’mot 18:1 and elsewhere), Rashi
(ibid.) and others, we make no assumption about the relationship between chronos and textus, the question becomes
even stronger. Why did the Torah choose to interrupt the command regarding the
war against Midian with these other passages, which
may have happened at an earlier time?
II
STRUCTURE OF THE INTERVENING SECTIONS
A review of the “interrupting” passages
which break up the commands regarding the war against Midian
reveals a curious structure, once we utilize the Parashot
of the Masoretic text as our guide:
(War against Midian)
*******************************************
Census of the army (12 Parashot)
Command to Divide the Land (1 Parashah)
Census of the Levi’im
(1 Parashah)
Interaction with B’not
Tz’laf’had (2 Parashot)
*******************************************
Command regarding impending death of Mosheh (1 Parashah)
Mosheh’s “demand” that God appoint a successor (1 Parashah)
********************************************
T’midin uMusafin (15 Parashot)
Nedarim (1 Parashah)
*********************************************
(War against Midian)
The “interjection” includes 16 Parashot relating to various aspects of the national
census, 2 Parashot which are associated with the
transfer of leadership and another 16 which deal with offerings (and vows – see
the end of the Ramban’s comments at Bamidbar 30:2).
In other words, squarely placed in the
middle of the “interrupting section” are the two Parashot
which deal with the end of Mosheh’s leadership and
the onset of Yehoshua’s.
Having identified the structure, we can see
that this entire section as made up of two sub-sections (Census and T’midin) with the transfer of leadership as the fulcrum
around which they revolve. As such, we would expect a single message to emerge
from each of the sub-sections, a message which is somehow made clearer by the
14 verses at its axis.
Let’s begin from the inside out – from the
command to Mosheh that he ascend the mountain and Mosheh’s response:
12. And
Hashem said to Mosheh, Get
up into this Mount Abarim, and see the land which I
have given to the people of
13. And when you have seen it, you also
shall be gathered to your people, as Aharon your brother was gathered.
14. For you rebelled against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife of the congregation, to sanctify me at
the water before their eyes; that is the water of Meribah
in Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin.
15. And
Mosheh spoke to Hashem,
saying,
16. Let Hashem, the God of the spirits
of all flesh, set a man over the congregation,
17. Who may go out before them, and who may go in before them,
and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of Hashem be not as sheep which have no shepherd.
18. And Hashem said to Mosheh, Take Yehoshua the son of
Nun, a man in whom is spirit, and lay your hand upon him;
19. And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before the entire congregation; and
give him a charge in their sight.
20. And you shall put some of your
honor upon him, that the entire congregation of the people of
21. And he shall stand before Eleazar
the priest, who shall ask counsel for him according to the judgment of Urim before Hashem; at his word
shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the
people of Israel with him, the entire congregation.
22. And Mosheh did as Hashem commanded him; and he took Yehoshua,
and set him before Eleazar the priest, and before the
entire congregation;
23. And he laid his hands upon him, and
gave him a charge, as Hashem commanded by the hand of
Mosheh.
The first thing for us to note here is that Mosheh is commanded to ascend the mountain at this point,
never to return. That would mean that his glorious career has come to an end
now, in Moav, just after having conducted a final
census and seen to the complete disposition of the Land. This is, however, not
the way that matters play out: Mosheh goes on to
oversee the war with Midian, the division of the East
Bank of the
III
“AS AHARON YOUR BROTHER WAS GATHERED”
Mosheh was told that he would be gathered unto his people “as Aharon
your brother was gathered”. This comparison is ambiguous – does it mean that he
would die in the same manner? (see Rashi
ad loc.) Could it be referring to the single violation in which both Mosheh and Aharon participated that caused their premature
removal from the leadership of B’nei Yisra’el?
There is yet another aspect to this
comparison which will illuminate our understanding of Mosheh’s
response and the evident “extension” he received as a result.
There are two basic models of leadership in T’nakh – dynamic and dynastic.
The entire book of Shoftim
deals with a form of dynamic leadership whereby Hashem’s
response to B’nei Yisra’el’s
suffering and attendant calling out in pain is to inspire a new leader
(invariably a member of the tribe “under fire” at the time). That leader
rallies the troops to defeat the oppressor, loosen the bonds of persecution and
then retains his position for life. Upon his death, however, the position
becomes a void – until the next time when B’nei Yisra’el find themselves in need
of salvation.
Dynastic leadership (the focus of Sefer Sh’muel),
contradistinctively, establishes a built-in system where the impending death of
a leader is accompanied by the appointment of a successor (usually from among
the sons of the dying monarch), such that there never need be a void of
leadership. See, for instance, the opening chapter of Sefer
Melakhim – where the succession of David’s throne is
being contested while the hoary king is on his death-bed.
What sort of leadership is the lot of Aharon?
It is clear that his was dynastic. For example, when he is charged with
maintaining the sanctified areas and items:
And Hashem said
to Aharon, You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear the
iniquity of the sanctuary; and you and your sons with you shall bear the
iniquity of your priesthood. (Bamdibar 18:1)
Throughout the commands to Aharon, the
phrase “Aharon uvanav” (Aharon and his sons – see,
e.g. Sh’mot 27:21, Vayyikra
6:9, Bamidbar 4:5) is found with great frequency.
Furthermore, in the command regarding the Parah Adumah (Bamidbar 19), given while
Aharon is still alive, his son El’azar is mentioned
by name as responsible for the sprinkling of the blood (vv. 3-4).
Ostensibly, Mosheh’s
leadership was of a dynamic sort; he was selected to lead B’nei
Yisra’el out of Mitzrayim
(i.e. in response to oppression) and, now that his career was to end, there
would not necessarily be a need for another leader until the next “crisis” came
about. Much as the leadership operated in a post-Yehoshua
(in response to the
anticipated temptation among B’nei Yisra’el to consult soothsayers)
Hashem your God will raise to you a prophet from your midst,
from your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; According to all that you
desired of Hashem your God in Horev
in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Hashem my God, neither let me see this great fire any more,
that I die not. And Hashem
said to me, They have well spoken that which they have
spoken. I will raise them a prophet from among their brothers, like you, and
will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I shall
command him. (D’varim
18:15-18)
As such, Hashem’s
command that Mosheh ascend the mountain – alone – signaled
the end of that glorious career and an impending void of leadership.
Although the Divine intent in the phrase “as
Aharon your brother died” may have been associated with the manner of death (or
the violation, as above), Mosheh extended it to
relate to the manner of succession.
What was the manner of succession of Aharon’s leadership?
And Hashem spoke
to Mosheh and Aharon in Hor
haHar, by the border of the land of Edom, saying, Aharon
shall be gathered to his people; for he shall not enter into the land which I
have given to the people of Israel, because you rebelled against my word at the
water of Merivah. Take Aharon and El’azar
his son, and bring them up to
As Rashi (quoting
the Midrash Tanhuma) points
out (ad loc. v. 25), Mosheh consoled Aharon that at
least he could see his “crown” given to his son while he was alive (that Mosheh would never see). A critical point in this entire
scene is the presence of El’azar, whose donning of
the garments established an unbroken chain of Kehunah
which effectively outlived the person of Aharon.
That is how Mosheh
“turned” the phrase “ka’asher meit
Aharon ahikhah” – that if I am to die as did my
brother Aharon, I should see the inauguration of my
successor while I live. Mosheh effectively turned his leadership into a potential
quasi-dynasty and “steered” the Divine command from a statement of the type of
death he would experience into a statement about his entire career.
As such, Mosheh’s
reaction is understandable. Since God commanded him to ascend the mountain and
die as did his brother, Mosheh “calls Him on it” and
insists that the similarity between their deaths be complete: That he see his
successor inaugurated before his death.
Hashem responded to this “request”, indicating Divine
acceptance (if not favor) to the Mosaic initiative. Indeed, the mention of El’azar in the context of Yehoshua’s
appointment creates the immediate association with Aharon’s
death.
Compare:
21. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him according
to the judgment of Urim before Hashem;
at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and
all the people of Israel with him, the entire congregation.
22.
And Mosheh did as Hashem
commanded him; and he took Yehoshua, and set him
before Eleazar the priest, and before the entire congregation;
with
And Mosheh
stripped Aharon of his garments, and put them upon El’azar
his son; and Aharon died there in the top of the mount; and Mosheh
and El’azar came down from the mount. And when the entire
congregation saw that Aharon was dead...
The two cited passages share the presence of
Mosheh, El’azar and “the
entire congregation” (kol ha’edah),
along with a mention of the priestly garb worn by El’azar,
solidifying the association created by the phrase “as did Aharon your brother”.
IV
THE NEW LEADERSHIP
What changed as a result of Mosheh’s insistence on creating a quasi-dynasty?
(I refer to it as a quasi-dynasty because,
in spite of the continuity of leadership, the absence of filial ascension renders
it something less than a full dynasty. This may be the reason that there was no
concern about Yehoshua’s children and their worthiness
for the post – if he had any – since the position of “next shepherd of B’nei Yisra’el” would not be
filled by a family member but by the man most fit for the job.)
To ask the question more clearly – what
would have happened had Mosheh not responded as he
did?
First of all, there is no reason to think
that Mosheh would have had to lead the people to the
point of entry in to the Land; the decree was never stated that he would have
to die just before they entered (enhancing the drama and personal frustration).
Witness Aharon, whose death was decreed at the same time and for the same
purpose (but cf. Abravanel, D’varim
1:37) but who died at some point earlier than “the very last moment of the
desert wandering”, before the East Bank of the Jordan was captured from the Emorite kings of Heshbon and Bashan.
Second, the orientation of Mosheh’s farewell would likely have been more
“past-oriented”, reflecting on the Exodus and wanderings, without creating the
continuity with the next stage of national existence in the Land.
Now that a succession has been established, the
“rules” have changed.
Mosheh’s leadership must continue until the point where Yehoshua is ready to take over, since, under the new
scheme, that leadership is to be a continuum.
Since the next “crisis” to be faced is
entering the Land and disinheriting its people, that is the point at which Yehoshua is to take over; hence, Mosheh
will live until that point (unlike Aharon) – taking the decree until the last
minute and the final kilometer, so to speak.
As a result of that, any wars to be fought
on the East Bank must now be fought under Mosheh’s
leadership. Since the war with Midian was not a
“crisis” but rather the result of a Divine command in response to the Midianite/Moabite treachery associated with P’or-worship, there is no need for Yehoshua
to be installed at that point. In fact, Yehoshua
plays no role in that war – rather, Mosheh and El’azar are the central figures in Ch. 31.
It follows, then, that the war against Midian was originally given to be carried out by B’nei Yisra’el after Mosheh’s death. Hence, they were commanded to “harass” them
in Ch. 25 but that command was not given a clear form until after Mosheh was told to ascend the mountain. Since Mosheh reoriented the leadership scheme, however, he would
remain through that war and, as the text states:
Avenge the people of Yisra’el
of the Midianim; afterwards shall you be gathered to
your people. (31:2)
V
THE CENSUS AND THE DIV ISION OF THE LAND
The analysis suggested above brings us back
to our original question regarding the odd placement of the Parashot
of T’midin uMusafin.
Before directly addressing the question,
let’s return to the Parashot of the census. One of
the remarkable features of the census is the startling result: 601,730 soldiers
counted just before entering the land (Bamidbar
26:51). Compare this number with the census of nearly 39 years previous: 603,550
(ibid.
It might be assumed that the representative
participation of each tribe remained constant – but note the changes over the
39 years in the desert:
Tribe 2nd
Year 40th Year
|
Reuven |
46,500 |
43,730 |
|
Shim’on |
59,300 |
22,200 |
|
Gad |
45,650 |
40,500 |
|
Yehudah |
74,600 |
76,500 |
|
Yissachar |
54,400 |
64,300 |
|
Zevulun |
57,400 |
60,500 |
|
Ephraim |
40,500 |
32,500 |
|
Menasheh |
32,200 |
52,700 |
|
Binyamin |
35,400 |
45,600 |
|
Dan |
62,700 |
64,400 |
|
Asher |
41,500 |
53,400 |
|
Naphtali |
53,400 |
45,400 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total: |
603,500 |
601,730 |
In spite of the severe depletion of Shim’on’s soldiers (likely as a result of the plague
following the P’or-worship), the marked drop-off in
Ephraim’s army and the significant diminution of Naphtali’s
fighting force, the total remains nearly the same – a bit over the “magic”
number of 600,000 (see BT Berakhot 58a).
One message that emerges from the comparison
of these two censuses is the consistency of B’nei Yisra’el’s existence and the phenomenon of “making up for
losses” accomplished by the corporate whole. To wit, people are born, people
die, but corporate
This message is strengthened by the census
of the Levi’im, which totals 23,000 men from one
month and up in the 40th year (26:62), and totals 22,000 at the
beginning of the second year (
Thus, the first 12 paragraphs, as well as
#14, underscore the basic message of Israelite continuity in spite of the cycle
of death and birth which takes its toll on every member.
Paragraph #13 deals with the division of the
Land. Note that Mosheh is somewhat excluded from the
process and the division will be based not on the households headed by “live”
members, rather by those who left Egypt (and are now buried between Kadesh and Moav) – again, the nation
that left Egypt lives on, even if the individuals do not.
The final two parashot
in this section deal with the daughters of Tz’lafhad
– the inclusion here is most appropriate, as it deals with the division of the
land and the loophole which needs to be closed in the case of a man who dies,
leaving only daughters.
Yet there is a short phrase that is very
instructive in the presentation of B’not Tz’lafhad which serves to highlight what is new about this
second generation – and what they share with their forebears.
When the young women approach Mosheh with their petition, they use the phrase: Lamah Yigara’ - why should (our father’s
name) be left out? (27:4). This word combination
appears only one other place in T’nakh. When the men
come before Mosheh (at the very beginning of the
second year) complaining that due to ritual impurity they are being excluded
from the Korban Pesach (Bamidbar
9:7), they state Lamah Nigara’
– why should we be left out?
The common phrasing here (which I addressed
in the Siyyum on Sefer Bamidbar in a different vein) serves to tie the two generations
together, while setting them far apart.
The generation that knew slavery, that
experienced the Exodus first hand and that stood, as adults, at the foot of
Sinai – continued to use
The people, as well, continued to refer to
The impure men of Chapter 7 feel cheated by
their exclusion from the offering and ask Mosheh to
find them a solution (which turns out to be the Pesach Sheni). These
men long to participate in the Korban Pesach – an
offering which celebrates the Exodus from
When the daughters of Tz’laf’had,
raised in the desert without adult memories (if any)
of
The common phrase Lamah
Nigara’/Yigara’ serves to demonstrate the great
change which has taken place over 38 years – along with the consistency which
accompanies that change.
What is the nature of the consistency? A great desire to be included with the community (see the Siyyum on Sefer Bamidbar) and to fully partake in the experience of K’lal Yisra’el.
Thus, the entire section bridging the
command to harass the Midianites and the command to Mosheh to ascend the mountain is defined by the constant
nature of Am Yisra’el throughout the desert – at once
affirming Mosheh’s success as a leader and teacher,
and denying the need for him to remain present, since the nation goes on
regardless of the fate of the individual.
VI
T’MIDIN UMUSAFIN
The sixteen paragraphs following the “turn”
in leadership are devoted to the calendar of public offerings; following the
reasoning outlined above (and noting the neatly balanced number of Parashot bridging the appointment of Yehoshua
and the command to wreak vengeance on Midian) we would expect
some underlying message to be found in these paragraphs which associates with
the common theme.
Each paragraph is imbued with significant
concepts and ideas – and perhaps we will address them in a separate essay. For
purposes of this analysis, however, we will simply note that which is common
throughout the first fifteen
- the Korban haTamid.
In 28:1-8, we are commanded to offer up one
lamb in the morning and one in the afternoon, parallel or modeled after the
offering at Sinai (28:6). This is the “constant Korban”
which is brought daily, including Shabbat, holidays and even overriding ritual
impurity (BT Menahot 72b). Each Musaf
concludes with some form of the statement Al Olat haTamid – accompanying the Olat
Tamid.
The constancy of worship – that each special
day is framed within the contours of “Tamid” (the
morning Tamid is brought before all other Korbanot and the afternoon brought after all others
excepting the Korban Pesach), is something which is
quite remarkable within the context of Mikdash
worship. Normally, that which is special, festive etc. trumps the mundane and
regular experience – but the message of the T’midin
is the very opposite. The primacy of constancy as emerging from Parashat haTamid is a message which
is adopted by Haza”l:
Ben Zoma says: we
have found an encompassing verse: “Sh’ma Yisra’el”; Ben Nanas says: we have found an even more
encompassing verse: “v’Ahavta l’Re’akha
Kamokha”. Shim’on ben Pazi says: We have found a
yet more encompassing verse, namely: The one lamb you shall offer in the
morning…” (Maharal, quoting an
otherwise unknown Midrash, Netivot
Olam, Netiv Ahavat Re’a Ch. 1).
This message of constancy of worship is the
ideal balance to the message identified in the 16 paragraphs dealing with the
census and the land.
As such, these parashot
of the power of constancy – the constancy of Am Yisra’el
as a nation on the one side and the constancy of Am Yisra’el’s
relationship to haKadosh Barukh
Hu on the other, serve to perfectly frame the
dialogue between Mosheh and Hashem
during which the dynamic leadership of a Shofet/Navi
becomes the quasi-dynastic leadership of a Melekh – constant
and seamlessly passing to the next leader, just as his brother did on Hor haHar.