Difference between revisions of "Censuses in the Wilderness/2"
m |
m |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Censuses in the Wilderness</h1> | <h1>Censuses in the Wilderness</h1> | ||
− | |||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 16: | Line 14: | ||
<point><b>Were the Levites included in the original census?</b> Rashi maintains that the Levites were not counted in any of the censuses. This is a logical outgrowth of his understanding that the census of Shemot was necessitated by the sin of the Golden Calf. Since the Levites (according to Rashi) did not participate in the sin, they were also unaffected by the ensuing punishment, and thus did not need to be recounted.<fn>Rashi Devarim 10:8 is also of the opinion that the Levites were separated from the nation and chosen to serve in the Tabernacle as a result of their refraining from participation in the sin of the Golden Calf. Thus, already at this point, the Levites would have been counted separately from the nation.</fn></point> | <point><b>Were the Levites included in the original census?</b> Rashi maintains that the Levites were not counted in any of the censuses. This is a logical outgrowth of his understanding that the census of Shemot was necessitated by the sin of the Golden Calf. Since the Levites (according to Rashi) did not participate in the sin, they were also unaffected by the ensuing punishment, and thus did not need to be recounted.<fn>Rashi Devarim 10:8 is also of the opinion that the Levites were separated from the nation and chosen to serve in the Tabernacle as a result of their refraining from participation in the sin of the Golden Calf. Thus, already at this point, the Levites would have been counted separately from the nation.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Identical tallies</b> – To account for this phenomenon, Rashi is compelled to make a number of major assumptions: | <point><b>Identical tallies</b> – To account for this phenomenon, Rashi is compelled to make a number of major assumptions: | ||
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li>For the purpose of both the census in the first year of the wilderness and the one in the second year, people's ages were calculated not by their biological age, but rather by how old they were on the first day of the new year,<fn>Ramban questions this assumption, pointing out that it is much more likely that the verse refers to the calculation of ages based on each person's individual years, from one birthday to the next.</fn> which for this purpose (only) was counted from Tishrei.<fn>It is somewhat confounding that the years in the wilderness would be counted from Nisan, while the years of individual ages would be counted from Tishrei.</fn> As such, no one turned twenty in the period between the census of Shemot 30 (which, according to Rashi, took place in Tishrei after Yom HaKippurim – see above) and that of Bemidbar 1-4 (which took place seven months later in Iyyar).</li> | |
− | + | <li>The Levites were not included in either census – see above.</li> | |
− | + | <li>There were no deaths during the period between the censuses.<fn>See Ramban who raises this question: "ואיך ייתכן שיהיה קהל גדול כמוהו, ולא ימותו בו בחצי שנה למאות ולאלפים?" As evidence that there were, in fact, deaths, Ramban points to Bemidbar 9:6 which speaks of people who were impure due to having touched a dead body. Rashi might maintain, like the opinion in Lekach Tov, that no one died during the building of the Tabernacle, and, like R. Akiva in <multilink><a href="BavliSukkah25a" data-aht="source">Bavli Sukkah</a><a href="BavliSukkah25a" data-aht="source">Sukkah 25a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, that the impurity spoken of arose from carrying the bones of Yosef.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul> | |
− | + | Additionally, if one accepts all of these assumptions, it should then have been self-evident that there would be no change in the number of Israelites. Ostensibly, this would have made the census in the second year redundant. However, this does not trouble Rashi, as he views the counting as a manifestation of Hashem's love rather than as arising from any practical need.<fn>In fact, the seeming redundancy of the census in Bemidbar 1 is likely one of the motivating factors for Rashi's understanding that the reason for the repeated censuses is Hashem's love for the Children of Israel.</fn></point> | |
<point><b>Half-shekels?</b> According to Rashi, the census in Bemidbar 1 was no different than the earlier one in Shemot 30, and it too utilized half-shekels, even though the fact is not mentioned explicitly. See <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?</a>.</point> | <point><b>Half-shekels?</b> According to Rashi, the census in Bemidbar 1 was no different than the earlier one in Shemot 30, and it too utilized half-shekels, even though the fact is not mentioned explicitly. See <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?</a>.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי"</b> – The tally in Shemot 12 was not merely an estimate, but the result of an actual census as well. This census, too, resulted from Hashem's love of the nation.</point> | + | <point><b>"כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי"</b> – The tally in Shemot 12 was not merely an estimate, but the result of an actual census as well.<fn>However, it is possible that according to Rashi, this census was performed solely by Hashem, without any human input.</fn> This census, too, resulted from Hashem's love of the nation.</point> |
<point><b>Census of Bemidbar 26 in the fortieth year</b> – Rashi maintains that, similarly here, Hashem counted the nation here since there had just been a plague<fn>This is parallel to Rashi's understanding of the census of Shemot 30 as following the punishment of those who sinned with the Golden Calf.</fn> and He wanted to know how many people remained.<fn>The opening words of the verse of Bemidbar 26:1 "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַמַּגֵּפָה" might support this suggestion, as they explicitly connect the census to the events of the previous chapter. [In contrast, the Masoretic division of the parashot petuchot separates these initial three words from the census which follows.] One might question, though, why it was only after certain plagues that beset the nation that God counted them and not after others.</fn></point> | <point><b>Census of Bemidbar 26 in the fortieth year</b> – Rashi maintains that, similarly here, Hashem counted the nation here since there had just been a plague<fn>This is parallel to Rashi's understanding of the census of Shemot 30 as following the punishment of those who sinned with the Golden Calf.</fn> and He wanted to know how many people remained.<fn>The opening words of the verse of Bemidbar 26:1 "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַמַּגֵּפָה" might support this suggestion, as they explicitly connect the census to the events of the previous chapter. [In contrast, the Masoretic division of the parashot petuchot separates these initial three words from the census which follows.] One might question, though, why it was only after certain plagues that beset the nation that God counted them and not after others.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Chronology of the opening chapters of Bemidbar</b> – According to Rashi and Lekach Tov, the census of Bemidbar 1 took place only in the second month of the second year.  Since Bemidbar 7 and 9 are dated to the first month of that year, they derive from here the principle that the Torah is not always written in chronological order ("אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה").  See <a href="Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10" data-aht="page">Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10</a> for elaboration.</point> | <point><b>Chronology of the opening chapters of Bemidbar</b> – According to Rashi and Lekach Tov, the census of Bemidbar 1 took place only in the second month of the second year.  Since Bemidbar 7 and 9 are dated to the first month of that year, they derive from here the principle that the Torah is not always written in chronological order ("אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה").  See <a href="Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10" data-aht="page">Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10</a> for elaboration.</point> | ||
Line 30: | Line 28: | ||
<p>The census in Shemot 30 was a general census which merely provided the total number of Israelites, while the census of Bemidbar 1 was a far more comprehensive one, which collected data about individuals, their families, and tribal affiliations.</p> | <p>The census in Shemot 30 was a general census which merely provided the total number of Israelites, while the census of Bemidbar 1 was a far more comprehensive one, which collected data about individuals, their families, and tribal affiliations.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RambanShemot30-12" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot30-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:12</a><a href="RambanBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2-3</a><a href="RambanBemidbar1-45" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:45</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1Q" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1Q" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1 Questions</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot30-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:11-14</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot30-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:15</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:1</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-3" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-3" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:3</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-46" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:46</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:1</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HoilBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Hoil Moshe</a><a href="HoilBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RambanShemot30-12" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot30-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:12</a><a href="RambanBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2-3</a><a href="RambanBemidbar1-45" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:45</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Nachmanides</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1Q" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1Q" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1 Questions</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot30-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:11-14</a><a href="AbarbanelShemot30-15" data-aht="source">Shemot 30:15</a><a href="AbarbanelBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:1</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-3" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-3" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:3</a><a href="ShadalBemidbar1-46" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:46</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. S.D. Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivBemidbar1-1" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:1</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HoilBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Hoil Moshe</a><a href="HoilBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>Purpose of census</b> – All of these commentators connect the census of Bemidbar 1 to the originally planned imminent entry into the land of Israel. In preparation for the conquest, it was important to know not just the total number of Israelites but to also divide them according to family and tribe.<fn>This was necessary for both military preparations as well as for the division of the land. Ramban lists other benefits of the individual count, such as the ability for the layman to have direct contact with Moshe and thereby merit his protection and blessing. He further suggests that one of Hashem's purposes in commanding the census was to show the nation how much they had grown from the "seventy souls" who had gone down to Egypt. Both of these goals, however, could have been achieved already through the original census in Shemot 30, and it is unclear why they required a separate census.</fn> The main goal of the census of Shemot 30, in contrast,<fn>See Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe.</fn> was to raise funds for the construction of the Tabernacle and the count itself was only secondary.<fn>See <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle</a> for elaboration.</fn> Thus, the census in Shemot 30 included only a collection of half-shekels without a headcount and naming of individuals.</point> | + | <point><b>Purpose of census</b> – All of these commentators connect the census of Bemidbar 1 to the originally planned imminent entry into the land of Israel.<fn>See similarly <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-47" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:47</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>.</fn> In preparation for the conquest, it was important to know not just the total number of Israelites but to also divide them according to family and tribe.<fn>This was necessary for both military preparations as well as for the division of the land. Ramban lists other benefits of the individual count, such as the ability for the layman to have direct contact with Moshe and thereby merit his protection and blessing. He further suggests that one of Hashem's purposes in commanding the census was to show the nation how much they had grown from the "seventy souls" who had gone down to Egypt. Both of these goals, however, could have been achieved already through the original census in Shemot 30, and it is unclear why they required a separate census.</fn> The main goal of the census of Shemot 30, in contrast,<fn>See Abarbanel and Hoil Moshe.</fn> was to raise funds for the construction of the Tabernacle and the count itself was only secondary.<fn>See <a href="Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle" data-aht="page">Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle</a> for elaboration.</fn> Thus, the census in Shemot 30 included only a collection of half-shekels without a headcount and naming of individuals.</point> |
<point><b>Above the age of twenty</b> – The census of Bemidbar included only those who were old enough to wage war.</point> | <point><b>Above the age of twenty</b> – The census of Bemidbar included only those who were old enough to wage war.</point> | ||
<point><b>"כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא"</b> – This phrase, too, supports the notion that the census was military in nature.</point> | <point><b>"כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא"</b> – This phrase, too, supports the notion that the census was military in nature.</point> | ||
Line 57: | Line 55: | ||
<point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – According to this position, the command in Shemot 30, "When you count..." was not a command to immediately take a census, but only a general command dictating what one should do in future censuses.<fn>Chizkuni points out that if the command were immediate, the verse should have read "שאו" (command form) rather than "כִּי תִשָּׂא" (future form).</fn></point> | <point><b>"כִּי תִשָּׂא"</b> – According to this position, the command in Shemot 30, "When you count..." was not a command to immediately take a census, but only a general command dictating what one should do in future censuses.<fn>Chizkuni points out that if the command were immediate, the verse should have read "שאו" (command form) rather than "כִּי תִשָּׂא" (future form).</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Half-shekels</b><ul> | <point><b>Half-shekels</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li><b>Prevention of plague</b> – Chizkuni asserts that the shekel donations were a necessary contribution to prevent plagues in future censuses, but their initial collection in Shemot 30 did not constitute a census in its own right.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Contribution to Mishkan</b> – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and the GR"A, the command to give half-shekels was wholly unconnected to the census and solely for the building of and service of the Mishkan. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests that the shekalim were not even counted; the number of half-shekels totaled in Shemot 38 is the Torah's omniscient parenthetical statement regarding the future total which had not yet occurred.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
− | <point><b>Purpose of census</b> – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Chizkuni the count was necessary since the nation was soon to go to war.</point> | + | <point><b>Purpose of census</b> – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Chizkuni the count was necessary since the nation was soon to go to war.<fn>See similarly <multilink><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-2" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:2</a><a href="RashbamBemidbar1-47" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 1:47</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Above the age of twenty / "כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא"</b> – The count was limited to the men eligible to fight in the wars of conquest.</point> | <point><b>Above the age of twenty / "כָּל יֹצֵא צָבָא"</b> – The count was limited to the men eligible to fight in the wars of conquest.</point> | ||
<point><b>Identical tallies</b> – This problem is the main motivating factor leading R. Yosef Bekhor Shor to posit that there must have been only one census. He explains that the precise number of half-shekel coins collected was only known after the census of Bemidbar 1,<fn>At that point, after tallying the Israelites, they were able to calculate how much silver had been donated.</fn> and so there was really only one total.</point> | <point><b>Identical tallies</b> – This problem is the main motivating factor leading R. Yosef Bekhor Shor to posit that there must have been only one census. He explains that the precise number of half-shekel coins collected was only known after the census of Bemidbar 1,<fn>At that point, after tallying the Israelites, they were able to calculate how much silver had been donated.</fn> and so there was really only one total.</point> | ||
Line 79: | Line 77: | ||
<point><b>Half-shekels?</b> The census began with a half-shekel count (as described in Shemot 30) and concluded with a more detailed analysis of families and individuals (as found in Bemidbar 1).</point> | <point><b>Half-shekels?</b> The census began with a half-shekel count (as described in Shemot 30) and concluded with a more detailed analysis of families and individuals (as found in Bemidbar 1).</point> | ||
<point><b>"כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי"</b> – Cassuto views this number as an estimate and not the result of an actual census.</point> | <point><b>"כְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף רַגְלִי"</b> – Cassuto views this number as an estimate and not the result of an actual census.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Chronology of the opening chapters of Bemidbar</b> – According to Cassuto, Bemidbar 1 describes the culmination of a process which began already in the first year and only ended in the second month of the second year.  This reading also allows for an innovative understanding which would preserve chronological order in the opening chapters of Bemidbar.  See <a href="Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10" data-aht="page">Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10</a> for elaboration.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Latest revision as of 06:21, 2 June 2019
Censuses in the Wilderness
Exegetical Approaches
Multiple Censuses
There were two or more distinct censuses during the first two years of the Israelites' sojourn through the wilderness.
- For the purpose of both the census in the first year of the wilderness and the one in the second year, people's ages were calculated not by their biological age, but rather by how old they were on the first day of the new year,8 which for this purpose (only) was counted from Tishrei.9 As such, no one turned twenty in the period between the census of Shemot 30 (which, according to Rashi, took place in Tishrei after Yom HaKippurim – see above) and that of Bemidbar 1-4 (which took place seven months later in Iyyar).
- The Levites were not included in either census – see above.
- There were no deaths during the period between the censuses.10
One Full and One Partial Census
The census in Shemot 30 was a general census which merely provided the total number of Israelites, while the census of Bemidbar 1 was a far more comprehensive one, which collected data about individuals, their families, and tribal affiliations.
- Intentional – The Netziv suggests that after the first census, the total of 603,550 was set as the necessary number for the army, and for God's presence to dwell amongst the nation. Thus, during the second census, the people were not counted to see how many they were, but to ensure that they met the proper quota.20
- Coincidence – The other commentators suggest that the identical numbers were a coincidence, but they differ in their understandings of the details of how this worked:
- Deaths match those coming of age – Ramban (first explanation) proposes that by happenstance the number of men who turned twenty equaled the number of men who had died.21
- Levites included or omitted – Ramban (second proposal) and Abarbanel explain that the coincidence was possible because the Levites were included in the first census, but not the second. This would allow for approximately 22,000 people to turn twenty in the intervening months.22
- Levites replace firstborns – According to Shadal, the Levites were included in the first census, but the firstborns were not.23 As these two groups were close in number, the omission of the Levites from the second count did not have any significant affect on the census24 and by complete chance it turned out that with the small discrepancy between Levites and firstborns, the number of deaths equaled the number of men turning twenty.
Only One Census
There was only a single census during the first two years in the wilderness. This approach subdivides as to when this census transpired:
In the Second Year
Shemot 30 did not constitute a command to immediately count the nation, and there was only a single census which took place in the second year as described in Bemidbar 1.
- Prevention of plague – Chizkuni asserts that the shekel donations were a necessary contribution to prevent plagues in future censuses, but their initial collection in Shemot 30 did not constitute a census in its own right.
- Contribution to Mishkan – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and the GR"A, the command to give half-shekels was wholly unconnected to the census and solely for the building of and service of the Mishkan. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggests that the shekalim were not even counted; the number of half-shekels totaled in Shemot 38 is the Torah's omniscient parenthetical statement regarding the future total which had not yet occurred.
Spanning Both the First and Second Years
The censuses described in Shemot 30 and Bemidbar 1 were both part of a single extended process which began when the Tabernacle was being constructed and continued through the second month of the second year.