Parshas Bamidbar- United in Difference

In a world where identity politics and name-calling remains the lay of the land, it is important to understand the idea of genuine achdus and its crucial value. With some analysis, it becomes apparent that the generally perceived perspective about this topic may not be its ultimate reality. 

Bamidbar introduces a new Parsha and Sefer. Aptly called Sefer Hapikudim, it discusses different types of counting’s. Rashi (1:1) states that there were two prior counting’s of the Jewish people. Upon leaving Egypt, there was a census of the newly formed nation. Additionally, following the tragic events of the golden calf, there was a second counting, to determine the number of those who survived. In Parshas Bamidbar, Hashem commanded Moshe to count the Jews a third time. Rashi explains that the multiplicity of counting’s indicates Hashems loves for the Jewish people. 

There are many notable distinctions between this third counting and the earlier ones. The first two counting’s simply recorded (or implied) a general number of the entire Jewish populous. The events of Bamidbar are far more particular and detailed. Moshe was commanded to enjoin the Nesi’im, the Princes of each tribe, to join him in the count. The tribes were to be calculated separately, after which the national total would be presented. There was an emphasis on determining the individual’s father’s tribe, as one’s Shevet is dictated paternally. In order to be recorded in the census, one had to produce documentation of ancestry. These details are unique to this final counting.

Logically, the first time a counting of the people occurred, it would be detailed and thorough. Why does this extended census only take place with the third counting?

After explaining the earlier counting’s, Rashi clarifies the events surrounding the third. “... and when Hashem came to rest His Shechina on them (the Jewish people), he counted them. On the first of Nissan the Mishkan was erected, and on the first of Iyar (a month later) He had them counted.” The implication is that the third counting was related to the Shechina resting on the people, through the medium of the Mishkan.

This idea is difficult on two accounts. If the count was to be performed with the newly functioning Mishkan, why is it only employed a month after? It should have been done on the first of Nissan.

Furthermore, the wording of Rashi is inherently problematic. Rashi states that when Hashem came to rest His Shechina, he counted them. The implication is that the count was to be performed prior to the Mishkan being put up. If so, how can Rashi conclude the thought and state that the counting followed the erection of the Mishkan? The sentence needs an explanation.

In Parshas Va’eira, Moshe is charged with the mission to lead the Jews out of Egypt. The pesukim record the ancestry of the tribes of Reuvein, Shimon, and finally Levi. Rashi (6:14) explains that it was necessary to detail the tribe that Moshe descended from, shevet Levi. Thus, the verses began with Reuvein, the first of the tribes, and concluded with Levi. It would appear that when commanding Moshe about his duties, it was important to place a focus on his tribe, and ancestry. Why is this so?

On the sixth of Sivan, in the first year following the Exodus, the Jews arrived at Sinai. They remained there for nearly a full year. On the twentieth of Iyar of the second year, they journeyed from Sinai (Pashsas Baha’alosicha 10). The plan was for the Jews to immediately enter the Land of Israel. Tragically, the Jews sinned in multiple ways, consummating with the story of the meraglim. Hashem cast a decree that they would wander through the dessert for an additional thirty-eight years. However, the initial idea was to enter the land following the time at Sinai.

The building of the Mishkan and the count of the separate tribes, represent two sides of a crucial philosophy. In erecting a centrally located place of worship, the Jews were directed to realize the mission of the populous as a whole, in the service of Hashem. This was the broad perspective, that we were all to be focused together, in accomplishing the overall avodas Hashem. Counting the separate tribes, and requiring their ancestry, placed a focus on the actions and responsibilities of the separate groups, amidst the sum total. Each tribe had a particular skill-set, and therefore individualized mission. This was highlighted in the focus on the subgroups. In order to produce a complete service of Hashem, both perspectives needed to be fulfilled. This individualized counting was only performed after the erecting of the Mishkan, and the people understood that they need to do their roles, as a part of the greater picture. Had the particular missions been highlighted prior, there was a risk of a subgroup splitting off and disregarding the total kahal. After the communal perspective and responsibility was understood, each shevet was shown its particular role in the greater sum of Hashem’s service.

Perhaps, the resting of Hashem’s presence began with the erecting of the Mishkan. However, its total fulfillment was yet to be realized. Upon entering the land, the consummation of this resting would have occurred. This would have been realized through the individual roles played by the separate shevatim, amidst the overall service. This would have had implications in regards to the division of the land, and each tribe’s personal jobs. Thus, the perfect time to count the Jews, highlighting this important dichotomy, was after the Mishkan was erected, and prior to entering Eretz Yisrael. It was only with the individuals fulfilling their personal missions, with the greater communal awareness, that Hashem’s Shechina could fully rest among the people.

Unfortunatly, we live in a world where some are of the belief that their subgroup, or cultural club, are all that counts. The rest of society are unimportant. Sadly, this exists among Acheinu Bnei Yisrael as well. If a person thinks that their particular brand of Judaism is the only acceptable one, and the rest are to be denigrated and disregarded, they are unable to fulfill a total realization of avodas Hashem. This is somewhat similar to a cult-like mentality. In truth, every subgroup has skills, a mission, and are of prime importance. It is only through the joining of the separate parts that we can genuinely serve Hashem in a complete, and successful manner. May we merit to see this in our days!

The above is based on ideas from HaRav Yaakov Kamenetzky Zatzal, R Yosef Fanco, HaBachur Benyamin Fabien, and the authors Mother. Input is always appreciated.

Please email yshifman1@gmail.com with questions, comments, to be placed on the mailing list, or to receive the weekly WhatsApp Question of the Week