Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 1-4/0

Biblical Parallels Index – Bemidbar 1–4

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depthץ

Censuses

Besides the census of our chapter, there are four other places in Torah which speak of counting the nation.  Three of these simply provide a total count of the population, while one, Parashat Pinchas describes an entire census, giving detail similar to that provided in Bemidbar 1.

Tools

• See Makbilot Bamikra for links to each of the verses which discuss the counting of the nation in the Wilderness (Shemot 12:37, Shemot 30:12 / 38:26, Bemidbar 1, Bemidbar 11:21, and Bemidbar 26.  A comparison of the verses highlights that the census of Shemot and Bemidbar 1, taken a  few months apart, resulted in identical tallies. How could this be?  Moreover, what was the need to take two censuses in such a short time frame?
• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two censuses that frame Sefer Bemidbar, that described in Chapters 1-2 and that in Chapter 26. Here, both the total tally and the numbers of the individual tribes change from one count to another, with some tribes growing larger, and others (notable Shimon) shrinking in size. Also, though the objective of the census of Chapter 26 is explicitly stated, to divide the land for inheritance, no purpose is given for the count of Chapter 1.

Articles

• Articles Relating to all the Censuses
• In his article, Rounding of the Numbers of the Censuses of Bnei Yisrael, R"E Samet notes that when comparing the numbers listed in the various censuses, some appeared to be round to hundreds, some to tens and some not at all.  The article looks to both medieval exegetes and modern scholars to attempt to explain the Torah’s methods of rounding

• Articles Relating to the Censuses of Shemot 30 and Bemidbar 1
• See Censuses in the Wilderness for discussion of the relationship between the census of Shemot 30 and that of Bemidbar 1 and why both were necessary. Rashi suggests that there were multiple censuses not from any practical necessity, but due to Hashem's love for the nation.  Others suggest that each had a different goal.  The primary purpose of the census of Shemot 30 was to collect funds for the Tabernacle, while that of Bemidbar was to prepare for war. As such only in Bemidbar was there a need to divide also by tribe and family. Finally, a last approach suggests that the two counts are really one and the same; the census had different stages and spanned several months.  This approach easily accounts for the identical tallies.
• See The Many Census in the Desert, by R. Elchanan Samet, for delineation of many questions that arise from the description of the censuses of Bemidbar and Shemot. As above, he asks why were both counts necessary and how could the tallies be identical, but he also raises questions regarding the numbers themselves. How should one understand the need for the repeated summary tallies, why does the summary tally of the tribe of Levi not match the individual numbers provided beforehand and how is it that of 600,000 people there were only 22,273 firstborns.¹  The article focuses on the first two of these questions.
• Articles Relating to the Censuses of Bemidbar 1 and 26
• See על מפקד בני ישראל לפני הכניסה לארץ, by R. Tamir Granot, which points out that the first census seems unnecessary to record, since its data became irrelevant after the spies’ sin.  Therefore, R. Granot suggests that there is a literary rather than historical significance to the recording of the two censuses.  The second census is a means of repairing that which was religiously problematic in the first. In developing this theory, R. Granot draws on the story of David’s census in Melakhim II 24 as well. 
• See Who Needs This Census?, by R. Elchanan Samet, for contrast of the census in Bemidbar 1, for which no reason is given, and that in Bemidbar 26, which is explicitly for the purpose of dividing the land.  R. Samet explores a wide range of explanations as to the purpose and meaning of the census in Parashat Bemidbar including that it was necessary for war, or for the set up of the camp, that it was a demonstration of Godly love, or that it was needed for God's presence to descend.
• See Not Just Numbers, by R. Yair Kahn, for analysis of the two censuses that frame Sefer Bemidbar and how they express a major theme of the book: the establishment of "the camp of Israel".  As seen in the method of counting "by head", this a united, but not a uniform group, made of unique individuals who each contribute to the whole. The framing of the book with two censuses highlights how though the first attempt at creating a "camp of Israel" failed, with the nation perishing in the wilderness, after 40 years a second generation successfully takes their place.
• Relationship between thee Censuses of Bemidbar 1 and 2, and 3 and 4.
• There appears to be overlap both between Bemidbar 1 and 2 (which both focus on counting the nation) and between Bemidbar 3 and 4 (which both focus on counts of the Levites). See The Census of the Leviim and the Number of the Firstborn, by R. Elchanan Samet, who addresses the issue, noting that Bemidbar 1 focuses on the number of Israelites as necessary for the construction of the Tabernacle, while chapter 2 focuses on the nation's numbers in connection to the upcoming journey, highlighting the set up of the camp.  Similarly Bemidbar 3 speaks of the Levites in their role as servants of the Tabernacle, while chapter 4 highlights their role during the journey (in dismantling, transporting and erecting the Mishkan).  The article also addresses the surprisingly small number of firstborns in proportion to the nation.

¹ Such a small number would imply that every family had about 50-60 children!