ויהי אחרי המגפה It was after the plague had stopped, etc. Why was the beginning of this paragraph written as if it were the conclusion of the previous paragraph, with the dividing symbol פ separating it from chapter 26? If you reflect on what I have written previously you will find that this makes perfect sense. The position of our verse at the end of the previous paragraph reflects the Torah's instruction that only by complying with the command to harass the Midianites in the manner we have explained could the Israelites rehabilitate themselves for having entertained idolatrous thoughts, i.e. the worship of Baal Pe-or. Only then would their positive relationship towards G'd become a natural one. Once this had been accomplished, ויהי אחרי המגפה, they would have put the plague behind them. The true disappearance (instead of mere arrest) of the plague occurred as the result of penitence along the lines G'd had indicated. This is why the new paragraph had to begin in the middle of the verse, as it were. [In editions of the Bible based on the church's divisions into chapters and verses, our verse is part of chapter 26 instead of being verse 19 in the last chapter as it ought to be. In either event, the verse is interrupted by the symbol פ which always indicates that what follows has to be a new line in the Torah scroll. Ed.] You may still ask why the Torah did not make this line a verse by itself? The reason is that the Torah also wanted to link our verse to the subject which follows, i.e. that G'd had decided that the time had come to conduct a new census amongst the 12 tribes exclusive of the tribe of Levi whose members were not to share in the distribution of the land of Canaan.

Another reason why this verse is positioned so peculiarly and why it seems as if slashed in half, may have to do with a comment by Yalkut Shimoni item 773. The Midrash relates our verse to Psalms 94,18 in which Moses is the speaker. According to the Midrash, the nations of the world protested to G'd for having shown preference for the Jewish people by giving them the Torah. G'd countered asking that they produce proof that they were entitled to equal treatment on the basis of their ancestry. These nations were unable to establish the paternity of the men with whom their mothers had lived with any degree of certainty. As a result, G'd told them they had no claim to special treatment. Now that the Israelites had become guilty of "sleeping around," the nations challenged G'd once more about this, claiming Israel had lost its moral "crown." G'd therefore punished by death all the Israelites whose sins had undermined the image of the whole nation. The meaning of the verse in Psalms then may be that wiping out these people whose foot had slipped was an act of kindness by G'd for the remainder of the nation. In view of this, we can understand why our verse was positioned where it was and why it was also the natural introduction to the count of the Israelites. When the Israelites had been counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, we explained the term שאו for numbering as implying moral excellence on the part of the people being numbered. Only when the Israelites were counted again and everyone had been able to point to his father with certainty was the accusation by the Gentile nations that the Israelites were not morally superior disproved. The verse in Psalms mentioned by the author of Yalkut Shimoni means that though Israel had slipped morally, this was only temporary, i.e. מטה רגלי; now that they had repented, G'd's kindness had restored them to their former morally lofty position. The plague, which was related to their moral descent as per chapter 25, now enabled their moral rehabilitation as per the count in chapter 26. The verse therefore is the conceptual bridge between the two paragraphs.

Still another reason for the unusual positioning of this verse, or rather half this verse, may be related to Bamidbar Rabbah 21,7. We are told there that when the people left Egypt and they were entrusted to Moses' leadership, he received them after they had been counted. Now that Moses was close to death and he had to give back the people who had been entrusted to him, he also had to count them before handing them over to a new leader. Thus far the Midrash. Now we understand the meaning of the words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה …שאו. Had the Torah only commenced with verse 1 in chapter 26 instructing Moses to count the people without the half verse "it was after the plague" preceding it without a full stop, we would have assumed that the only reason for this count at this time was what the Midrash had said. By placing the words ויהי אחרי המגפה where it did, the Torah supplied an additional reason for the count, i.e. that it symbolised the rehabilitation of the Jewish people in the eyes of G'd.

וידבר משה..בערבות מואב, And Moses spoke…in the wilderness of Moav, etc. Why did the Torah have to write that Moses addressed the people "in the wilderness of Moav?" If the location really was of the essence to our understanding what Moses had to say it should have been mentioned when the commandment was introduced, i.e. in verse 1. The reason may be connected to the Midrash we have quoted that Moses had to hand over the people entrusted to him after they had been counted. You will find that whenever counts took place the location is mentioned by the Torah. When we heard about the number the Israelites comprised at the time of the Exodus, the Torah supplied the location, i.e. Ramses. When the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers we were told that it was in the desert of Sinai. So it may be no more than natural that here too the Torah decided to supply the location for where the count took place. It was here, near the river Jordan opposite the town of Jericho that the loyal shepherd of the Jewish people, Moses, completed his mission. The Torah mentioned that it was after the plague to show that in spite of the plague which had cost so many Jewish lives the total number of Israelites had not shrunk but had considerably increased when we remember that at the first count the whole tribe of Levi had been included and the number given by the Torah was "approx 600.000." This was a testimony to Moses's leadership who could prove he had not lost any of his sheep. This then is the reason why the Torah did not write the location in verse 1. The location was not related to the count but to the fact that Moses used the count to complete his mission and "hand over his flock" to G'd or to a new leader.

You might argue that the introduction שאו את ראש suggests that G'd did order a census, quite independently of the considerations we have mentioned; the answer is that the words שאו ראש were not intended to demand a census. After all, even if it turned out that the number of the Israelites had shrunk considerably, who would attribute this to their leader? What comparison is there between a shepherd entrusted with sheep and a leader entrusted with people? We would answer that the count now represented the same idea as the one after the golden calf episode. We had been told at the time that when a pack of wolves have attacked a flock, the shepherd counts the remaining sheep to determine the amount of damage he sustained. When many Israelites had died as a result of the golden calf episode, G'd wanted to count how many had survived. In this instance too, many Israelites had died as the result of the debacle at Shittim so that a count to establish how many had remained alive was called for. Moses exploited this opportunity to do his "own thing," i.e. to demonstrate that he had not lost any of "the sheep" under his care. By mentioning the location in connection with what Moses said (verse 3) instead of in connection with what G'd said (verse 1) the Torah was able to make this point. Alternatively, Moses added verse 4 to show that the count was not his own idea but that he carried out G'd's instructions by conducting it.

מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה, from twenty years old and up, etc. Why doesn't the verse tell us the subject matter this number is relevant to as it had done in verse two? Did Moses expect the Israelites to guess the significance of this number? If that were to be assumed, why did the Torah trouble itself in verse two to provide the information that people fit for military service were to be counted? According to what I have explained on verse three that the number (census) and the location i.e. the wilderness of Moav, were interconnected seeing that the objective of the census was to demonstrate that the number of Israelites had not diminished during the years Moses had been in charge, even the younger members of the people ought to have been counted in order to establish Moses' claim. What good would it do the people if the numbers of men fit for military service had not decreased but the number of potential soldiers had decreased due to the families being smaller or mostly girls being bom? Perhaps someone really thought that all the Israelites were counted on this occasion in order to prove Moses' claim that the people were at least as numerous as when Moses had taken over. To prevent us from arriving at that conclusion, the Torah repeated that only males above the age of twenty were included in this census. The reason Moses did not count people younger than twenty was "as G'd had commanded Moses." Had the census been up to Moses' discretion alone, Moses would not have bothered to count the Israelites at all, neither the men of military age nor the ones younger or older. By writing the words: "as G'd commanded Moses," the Torah states that the entire census was G'd's idea. This being so, there was no reason to include any age category in such a census which had not been included in a previous census.

ובני ישראל היוצאים מארץ מצרים, and the children of Israel who took part in the Exodus from Egypt. It is quite unclear what the Torah intended with these words. Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that the Torah meant that many of the people who were being counted now had actually taken part in the Exodus. Even if he is correct, why would the Torah consider it necessary to tell us about this at this point? Moreover, who needed Rabbi Ibn Ezra to tell us this? It is quite clear that many of the people who were below the age of twenty at the Exodus must have been included in this census! After all, the decree that the generation of the Exodus were to die in the desert after the debacle with the spies had applied only to people who had already reached the age of twenty either at the time of the Exodus or at the time the spies came back with their report! Perhaps it was the intention of the Torah to inform us that the result of this census produced a number equal to that of the census at the time the Israelites left Egypt as opposed to the number which resulted at the time the Israelites were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers. At that time the total amounted to 603,550 whereas this time the total was 601,730. In other words, the number was slightly lower than it had been some 38 years ago. The message then would be that Moses was not obligated to hand over to Joshua the same number of fighting men he had been able to muster at the time when he counted them earlier. The important thing was that he could show that he did not hand over fewer men than at the time of the Exodus. The census did prove this. [You will recall that I pointed out that the number at the Exodus included at least approx. 20.000 Levites so that Moses handed over far more men than he had at the time. Ed.] Another meaning of the words in question may be this: The number i.e. the census of Israelites on this occasion followed the same pattern as it had when they left Egypt, i.e. according to the houses of the respective tribal heads; Reuben according to the families of Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Carmi. Similarly, Shimon according to its tribal heads, i.e. Nemuel, Yamin, Yachin, Zerach and Shaul. This was in contrast to the count at the beginning of the Book of Numbers where the families of the tribes are not featured separately at all.

משפחת החנכי, the family of Chanoch. Yalkut Shimoni on our verse (item 773) quotes Rav Idi who says that whenever you have the letter ה at the beginning of a name and the letter י at the end this is a sign that the person named was a son of the person who claimed to be his father. The string of such names here proves that the Israelites practiced marital fidelity. [The two letters discussed here together form the name of G'd i.e. י־ה so that what Rav Idi means is that G'd associated His name with the names of these families. Ed.]

Having read Rav Idi's comment, we need to understand why these two letters appear in the reverse order, i.e. ה־י instead of י־ה. We may understand this with the help of some introductory remarks based on Tikkuney Hazohar 10. We are told there that the overall pool of souls of the Jewish people originates from an area beneath the throne of G'd which is called Heychal Kodsho, the Sanctuary of His Holiness. This aspect of G'd is called in our parlance א־ד־נ־י. Our halachic codifiers such as Tur Shulchan Aruch Or Hachayim 5 have told us that when someone utters the name of G'd during his prayers he must think of each single letter in the name of G'd he utters. When he utters names which we are permitted to utter and which are spelled in the prayerbook with the letters א־ד־נ־י, he must think of G'd in terms of His sovereignty. When he encounters the name of G'd spelled י־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being eternal. When he encounters the Ineffable Name, i.e. י־ה־ו־ה, he is to think of G'd in terms of His being supremely powerful. He should also think of G'd as multifaceted as portrayed by the various ways His name appears in print. We have a verse in Psalms 11,4 where the ineffable name of G'd appears both before and after the words היכל קדשו, "the Sanctuary of His holiness." In that instance you will find that the letter ה at the end of the name of G'd before the expression היכל קדשו and the letter י immediately after the expression היכל קדשו form the reverse of the usual י־ה, i.e. ה־י just as in the sequence of the name החנכי. These two letters then may be viewed as the seal of the היכל קדשו, and together they represent the two letters י־ה which form the name of G'd most often manifest in our lives ever since the destruction of the Temple.

הוא דתן ואבירם, "the same Datan and Aviram, etc." What did the Torah want to teach us by referring to Datan and Aviram at this point? If the Torah merely wanted to tell us that these two were the same Datan and Aviram we have encountered in connection with the rebellion of Korach, we knew this. It was hardly likely that two members of the tribe of Reuven both named Eliav each had two sons called Datan and Aviram. Moreover, their names did not need to appear here at all. None of the other families who had died before this census were mentioned in this sequence. Furthermore, why was the Torah so long-winded in telling us how these two brothers "incited in the company of Korach against Moses and Aaron when they incited against G'd?"

I believe that the reason the Torah recalls what these brothers had done was to inform us that they had been the cause of Korach's rebellion. It was G'd's wish to publicise the names of the wicked people who had orchestrated the evil in question. By writing אשר הצו, the Torah stresses that these two incited others both against Moses and Aaron as well as against G'd. Rashi explains the verse in the same sense. Once we have heard that these two caused the whole Israelite community to sin, it is quite possible to blame them also for having incited Korach. Although the Torah wrote (Numbers 16,1) "Korach took, etc.," which sounds as if Korach had initiated whatever he did, this may have occurred after something the brothers Datan and Aviram had already done, and that they had incited him. When the Torah repeats here once more what it had written in Numbers 16,32 that "the earth opened its mouth and it swallowed them and Korach," it may be that these two were the root cause why Korach and family were swallowed by the earth and why the 250 men who offered incense were burned to death at the time. The Torah also suggests here that but for the two demagogues Datan and Aviram the Israelites who had gathered threateningly against Moses and Aaron would have done תשובה.

The best proof for our theory is the fact that Moses is described as trying to placate only Datan and Aviram when he sent messengers to call them for a chat (Numbers 16,12). When they refused to come, Moses even went to look them up (16,25). The reason was that Moses felt that these two were at the bottom of the whole rebellion. Once we accept this, the death of all the people who perished can be attributed to Datan and Aviram. This results in our being able to find some excuse for both Korach and the 250 men who offered the incense. You find that the Torah wrote in Deut.11,6: "and what He has done to Datan and Aviram, the sons of Eliav, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them, their houses, and their tents and every living thing which followed them." Moses attributed the entire debacle exclusively to Datan and Aviram. Having explained this, we can now understand the scholar in Sanhedrin 110 who holds that the company of Korach does not qualify for life in the hereafter as referring only to Datan and Aviram. The contrary opinion who holds that Korach and company will enjoy life in the hereafter and who base themselves on Samuel I 2,8 that "G'd lowers people to Sheol and brings them up again," must be understood as referring to Korach and companions exclusive of Datan and Aviram to whom the verse does not apply.

ובני קרח לא מתו. However, Korach's sons had not died. It is somewhat surprising that the Torah informs us about this fact here instead of in the story about Korach or in connection with the count of the Levites where we should have been told about which Levites had died. If you accept what we have written it is evident that the Torah chose this occasion to reveal who was the root-cause of Korach's uprising, i.e. Datan and Aviram. If so this was the place to inform us about some other redeeming quality of Korach, namely that his sons were righteous and did not join their father in his rebellion or that they retracted in time. At any rate, whereas Datan and Aviram and all their "houses," i.e. their offspring perished, Korach's sons did not. This is another factor which supports the theory that Datan and Aviram had been the instigators all along.

לשאול משפחת השאולי, "of Shaul the family of the Shaulites." Rabbi Yochanan is quoted in Bamidbar Rabbah 21,3 as having said that Zimri had 5 names, one of which was "Shaul son of the Canaanite." It is difficult to understand that the Shaul mentioned here could have been Zimri seeing we have the principle (Yuma 38) of שם רשעים ירקב, "let the names of the wicked rot;" if so, why would G'd associate His name [i.e. the letters ה and י surrounding the name שאול Ed.] with that of such a wicked person? This especially since the Torah has already referred to his Canaanite connection! One of the ways we suggested as appropriate to understand 25,14 אשר הכה את המדינית, had been that Zimri was struck only while in the company of Kosbi. He did not share his afterlife with her. This would explain why at this stage, i.e. after Zimri was dead already, G'd could associate His name with Zimri's because the latter was in עולם הבא by this time. Perhaps the following words in Bamidbar Rabbah 21,3 lend even more weight to what we have just said. The Midrash explained the name שאול to mean that he had "lent himself out to commit a sin." Seeing that loans are subject to return to their origin, Shaul returned to his erstwhile status after his death.

לאזני, "to Ozni, etc." Rashi says: "this was the family of Etzbaun, and I do not know why he is not called by the same name as he appears in Genesis 46,16." Thus far Rashi. I do not see why he had to invent something without giving a reason for it, especially when we have no tradition concerning this amongst the writings of our sages. Moreover, you will find the following comment in Midrash Tanchuma item 4 on our Parshah: "When you examine the list of the children of Gad you will find seven names although Etzbaun does not appear seeing he was missing having followed Bileam's advice." According to the Midrash then, Ozni must have been a different family which originated with Gad but did not appear in the list in Genesis 46,16. This in itself would not be unusual as surely all the tribes had more families than the ones enumerated here, but these were known by the family names of their more numerous brothers. When these sub-categories became numerous they in turn were given separate names. I have found the following in the Pessikta: Ozni is identical with the Etzbaun mentioned in Genesis 46,16. The name is derived from "Atzit" and "he-ezin." Thus far the Pessikta. Accordingly, it was a proper name and the Torah did not care listing the same person here under a different name. Rashi must have been divinely inspired having guessed what the sages have stated [which he did not quote because he had no access to these writings. Ed.]

בני יהודה, the sons of Yehudah. This whole paragraph (19-22) is full of allusions to the history of the Jewish people. The reason the Torah has chosen to present us with these hints when enumerating the family members of Yehudah is because Yehudah is symbolic of the Jewish people as a whole. We have learned already in Bereshit Rabbah 98,6 that when one used to ask a Jew who was a member of a certain tribe to identify himself he would describe himself first and foremost as a Yehudi, not as a Shimoni or Reuveni, for instance. When our verse starts with the words בני יהודה, the Torah has in mind the descendants of Yehudah, not just his actual sons. Er and Onan respectively are allusions to the premature destruction of both the first and the second Temple. This idea is alluded to in Song of Songs 5,2: "I am asleep but my heart is ער, "awake." This means that while the first Temple was standing G'd was very much "awake," watching over my fate. Onan is an allusion to the second Temple. The Torah refers to it as Onan, an expression denoting אונאה, deception, as many of the holy vessels such as the Holy Ark, etc. were missing during the entire period of the second Temple's operation.

The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare Shabbat 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in Yuma 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred.

The Torah concludes verse 19 by mentioning ארץ כנען, to remind us that these sins were committed on holy soil and that the souls of people who died on such soil because of such sins were returned to the domain of Samael, otherwise known as Canaan. There is also an allusion of a more comprehensive nature here. It is that the reason the Israelites did not hold on to ארץ ישראל permanently was that they never completed the command to drive out or kill the Canaanites completely. Allowing the Canaanites to co-exist with them in the same land enabled the remaining Canaanites to seduce the Israelites into worshiping idols and adopting many of the abominable practices of that nation.

The Torah introduces the sons of Yehudah here with the word ויהיו, a word which usually is a prelude to something painful, some negative experience. The painful experience our verse alludes to is the destruction of the Temple and the exile and persecution which occurred as a corollary of the destruction of the House of G'd. Hail to people who have never had to taste the bitter experience of exile. You will note that the expression ויהיו is not mentioned in connection with any of the other tribes except Yehudah and regarding one of the families of Benjamin, i.e. Bela. The reason for this will be explained in due course.

The Torah writes למשפחותם, according to their "families," as the destruction of the Temple affected all the families of the Jewish nation wherever they were, negatively. Anyone bearing the name Yehudi viewed the Temple's destruction as a personal disaster, i.e. וי היו, they were in a state of mourning.

**** The reference to Shelah is an allusion to the redeemer who will redeem the Jewish people from their final exile. His name is called שלה. Although when Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his death bed he called the same Messiah שילה (with the extra letter י), this detail does not change the name materially. If you will take a close look at the names recorded here and compare them with the ones in Genesis chapter 46, you will find numerous changes in the spelling. Perhaps the formula שלה is a form of the possessive as it belongs together with the words ויהיו בני יהודה i.e. "inasmuch as all of Israel has to mourn on account of what happened to the Temple and to look forward with fervent hope to the coming of the Messiah." We have a parallel for this in the Talmud where Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi was asked by the Messiah if the Israelites were truly aware of his pain and were sick on his account. The Zohar in Parshat Beshalach comments on Isaiah 52,8: קול צפיך נשאו קול….בשוב ה׳ ציון, "the voice of those who wait for you raise their voice (still further)." Here too the expression ויהיו means that all the families are saddened, שלה, on account of the Messiah who has not yet come. When the verse continues speaking of משפחת השלני, "the family of Shelah," this refers to the generation in whose time Shelah (Messiah) will appear. That whole generation will then be called by the name of the Messiah in commemoration of that event.

There may be an additional message in the fact that the Torah added the letter נ when speaking of the family of Shelah, i.e. השלני. Normally only the letters ה or י are used in adding the possessive clause to such names. We must refer to Shabbat 32 where the Talmud explains Zachariah 8,23 אשר יחזיקו עשרה אנשים מכל לשונות הגוים והחזיקו בכנף איש יהודי to mean that in the days of the Messiah 10 people of each of the 70 nations will hold on to the fringes on the garment of a single Jew begging to be allowed to go with him, etc. The same idea is hinted at in the word השלני. All the nations of the world will claim שלו אני, "I belong to him," i.e. to the Messiah."

לפרץ משפחת הפרצי. This is an allusion to the authority wielded by a Jewish king who may infringe on fenced in private property in order to make a roadway (Sanhedrin 20). The verse tells us that the descendants of Peretz will all be kings, enjoying the right to be פורץ גדר, to tear down fences in order to claim a right of way. We are told in Baba Metzia 113 concerning messianic times that every Jew will be considered as a prince. This is supported by Isaiah 49,7: "kings will behold them and rise up (in their honour)." The word פרץ is also an allusion to the great פרצה, "breach," which the Messiah will make amongst the Gentile nations.

לזרח משפחת הזרחי; this is a reference to what is written in Isaiah 60,2 וכבוד ה׳ עליך זרח, "and the glory of the Lord will shine upon you." The prophet goes on in verse 19 of the same chapter: "your light will shine continuously" (not by day only, or by night only, but continuously, forever more). In other words, the family of Zerach will be instrumental in assuring us of G'd's eternal light.

It is also possible that the entire paragraph refers to three manifestations which will occur during the messianic period. 1) the arrival of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim as we learned in Sukkah 52. 2) The Messiah of Davidic origin will reveal himself. 3) The final stage of the redemption when G'd personally and directly will rule over us. The name Shelah is a reference to the advent of the Messiah descended from Ephrayim; the Torah hints that he will be smitten and die as a result of the sins of the Jewish people. The word שלה then must be understood as similar to Samuel II 6,7: ויכהו שם על השל, G'd killed him there (Uzzah) because of the sin." [he had tried to steady the ark instead of letting the ark steady him, an inadvertent sin. Ed.] The word פרץ refers to the Messiah from the house of David who would make a פרצה amongst the Gentile nations. and who would avenge the blood of the Messiah from the tribe of Ephrayim. Concerning G'd's eternal rule over us, the Torah wrote לזרח, alluding to G'd's light which would shine forever from then on.

The reason the Torah writes the word ויהיו in connection with פרץ though he symbolises the Messiah from the house of David, is that the arrival of the Messiah will be accompanied by many painful episodes, so much so that some scholars who lived during the time of the Talmud expressed the wish not to be alive during that time. The expression בני פרץ, allude to two separate phenomena which will originate through the arrival of פרץ, i.e. the arrival of the Messiah. One is that G'd will build the "courtyard of the King," i.e. third Temple, and the Jewish people will all be members of His entourage. This is what is meant by the words לחצרון משפחת החצרוני. [the word חצרון is related to חצר, courtyard. Ed.] The second result is alluded to by the words לחמול משפחת החמולי, i.e. that G'd will relate to us at that time with all the pity (חמלה) possible.

**** When the Torah writes אלה משפחות יהודה, "These are the families of Yehudah," it is a hint that they would experience both the pleasant and the unpleasant aspects of the redemption. לפקדיהם, refers to the fact that being numbered contained positive and negative elements (compare Zohar Chadash volume 1 page 160. [I do not have a Zohar Chadash on Pinchas. Ed.]) Our paragraph mentions two kinds of numberings.

The Torah speaks of 76,500 fighting men who were counted amongst the tribe of Yehudah. [The author indulges in fanciful speculation of the time of the redemption based on the numbers of the tribe of Yehudah. The speculations have proven irrelevant. I do not propose to go into detail. Ed.]

בני יששכר, The members of the tribe of Issachar, etc. Inasmuch as the tribe of Issachar is distinguished by intensive Torah study, the Torah alluded to this in its very name, יש שכר, "there is a reward," i.e. this tribe more than any other qualifies for reward. Any benefit secured in this life other than reward for Torah study is not worth the name, as it is transient. Our sages in Berachot 28 tell us that one needs to recite a short prayer when leaving the house of study in which one acknowledges that whereas both the secular people and the Torah scholars invest a great deal of effort in their respective pursuits, the former waste their efforts, whereas the Torah students do not labour in vain. The reason is simple. All comforts and riches in this life are transient, do not accompany man to the hereafter. The reward called שכר which one receives in return for Torah study does endure and one can take it with him to the hereafter. By using the word שכר the Torah also indicates that everything in the world which G'd has created, He created only for the sake of Issachar, i.e. the people studying Torah. We find this thought already in Bereshit Rabbah 1, i.e. that the word בראשית ברא implies that G'd only created the universe for the sake of Torah, i.e. the people who study it. Another allusion contained in this verse is related to what we learned in Uktzin 3,12 that in the messianic future (or even later) G'd will make every righteous person inherit 310 "worlds." The author of that Mishnah bases this on the numerical value of the word יש, from the promise in Jeremiah 31,16 יש שכר לפעולתיך, "there is a reward for your accomplishments."

When the Torah continues: לתולע, etc., the Torah utilises the names of the respective families of the tribe of Issachar to describe the conditions which need to be met by the Torah student to qualify for the reward we have described. We are taught in Avot 6,5 that Torah knowledge can be acquired via 48 different paths. The meaning of the name תולע alludes to two of these paths. 1) The student must develop the characteristics of a noble, elegant person, עדין. Our sages in Moed Katan 16 describe David as having possessed this virtue and that is why he was called עדינו העצני (Samuel II 23,8). [This is a completely homiletical interpretation of that whole verse by Rav who describes David as having made himself as delicate as a worm when studying Torah. Ed.] The second aspect of the meaning of תולע is that one needs to make oneself as insignificant as a worm whose only power is its mouth. These two virtues combined represent the ultimate simile for humility, especially when applied to a mighty warrior such as David. If one possesses this virtue one has no need to cultivate any of the other 48 qualities mentioned in that Mishnah.

The Torah goes on לפוה משפחת הפוני. We must first explain why the Torah saw fit to add the letter נ in the word הפוני, although this letter is not one found in the name of G'd. We would have expected the Torah to write הפוי. We suggest therefore that the Torah wanted to allude to the other qualities mentioned in the above-mentioned Mishnah in Avot 6,5 which are recommended for the student who wishes to acquire Torah. One of them is מיעוט שיחה, a minimal amount of unnecessary conversation, plus other such suggestions. By referring to פוה משפחת הפוני the Torah alludes to the mouth seeing the word פוה is related to פה, mouth. The Torah added the letter ו which is the mystical dimension of the עץ החיים, "the tree of life," the activity the mouths of the members of the tribe are busy with when studying Torah more than the mouths of secularly oriented people. The fact that this letter ו appears next to the letter ה suggests the mystical dimension of good characteristics combining within the persons studying Torah. The words משפחת הפוני suggest that one needs to divest oneself of all extraneous concerns, even from idle talk, if one wants to attain the maximum Torah knowledge and observance one is capable of achieving. I have found a comment by Rabbi Moshe Alshich on Exodus 28,31 according to which the mouths of Torah students are in the same category as the holy vessels used in the Temple. This is because of all the things that are sacred nothing is more sacred than Torah. Once the mouth has become a holy vessel it must not be abused to serve secular matters, even if the conversation one conducts is not slanderous or otherwise concerned with forbidden matters. This is precisely what the Torah hints at with the word לפוה, i.e. that any conversation not related to Torah should be avoided. As to the expression משפחת הפוני, the latter נ converts this word into פנות i.e. the turning aside or clearing out of all matters which interfere with the mouth being used for disseminating Torah.

The Torah continues לישוב, which suggests "sitting," i.e. that in order to study Torah in depth one has to sit down, one cannot study haphazardly a few minutes here and a few minutes there. This too is one of the 48 methods described in the Mishnah as a way to acquire Torah. Sitting down enables one to also activate other qualities useful in the acquisition and retention of Torah.

The Torah continues with the fourth son of Issachar לשמרן משפחת השמרני. The word שמרני suggest שמירה, "observance," something that the Torah student is even more duty-bound to be careful with than the average Jew. A sage in Yuma 86 was asked to give an example for the sin of חלול השם, a desecration of G'd's name. He answered: "if I were to buy meat and not pay cash on the spot." This gives us an inkling of how circumspect a Torah scholar has to be in every single one of his actions. We read in Chovat Halevavot in the fifth section of the chapter dealing with repentance that the pious people in former generations used to rather forego seventy things which are permissible in order to avoid violating even a single thing which is forbidden.

When the Torah continues: אלה משפחות יששכר לפקדיהם, the word פקדיהם is meant in a positive sense. The Torah describes the פקידה as 64,300. [The word Pekidah has a dual meaning; in addition to numbering or appointing, the plain meaning in our verse, it also means keeping something in mind, Ed.] The Torah hinted at two potential achievements here. 1) The terrestrial world can be fit to be the carrier of G'd's Presence, שכינה. This is alluded to in the number 64 being only one less than the numerical value of the name of G'd spelled א־ד־נ־י. The number 64 is the numerical value of the attribute of Justice, דין. Our task is to "sweeten" this attribute by means of Torah study so that we close the gap between what is represented by 64 and to achieve what is represented by the number 65 (compare Zohar volume 2 page 9). This is based on Deut. 22,6: "and the mother (bird) is sittting on the chicks (eggs)." 2) the attainment of life in the hreafter which is alluded to in the Mishnah by the mention of 310 worlds. In our verse this is alluded to by the words אלף ושלש מאות, 1300. [I believe the idea is that we are to imagine the number א=1 inserted within the number 300 making a total of 310. Ed.]

Before explaining the reason behind all this, let me first examine the statement of Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi in Uktzin 3,12 according to which the righteous will inherit 310 worlds. If the Rabbi meant to emphasise the number, why did the word in the Bible (Proverbs 8,21) which Rabbi Yoshua uses, i.e. יש, list the number ten before the number 300? It would have been more convincing if Solomon had written שי instead of יש! I have heard a beautiful explanation about this. The number 310 actually comprises 4 worlds, i.e. the worlds of אצילות, בריאה, יצירה and עשיה. Each one of these words contains or is dependent on the number 10, i.e. the 10 emanations [each emanation is divided into ten parts also. Ed.]. Rabbi Yoshua wanted to tell us that the righteous will enjoy the harmony in four different worlds. However, not every righteous person will enjoy this harmony in equal measure. All the righteous will experience all there is to experience in the lower three of these four worlds. When it comes to the highest of these worlds, the עולם האצילות, however, different souls of the righteous will experience only a fraction of the potentially ten parts of harmony to be experienced in that domain. Each of these parts is again divided into ten, so that Rabbi Yoshua assures the righteous that the minimum of the possible total of 400 "worlds" that each of the righteous will attain is 310, i.e. the total available in the lower three worlds and not less than one tenth of the potential attainable in the עולם האצילות. We need to appreciate further that the "tenth" part which one attains in the highest world is by itself worth more than all the spiritual achievements one has attained in the three lower worlds combined. This is what Solomon alluded to when instead of speaking of שי he spoke of יש, i.e. to remind us that the ultimate tenth one has attained in the fourth world is superior to the 300, i.e. 3×10×10 in the lower three worlds. In view of the aforegoing the אלף (1) which precedes the number 300 in the word אלף ושלש מאות, alludes to the small part of the potential available in the עולם האצילות and is parallel to the letter י in the word יש in Proverbs 8,21. The number 300 may be understood at its face value. The idea that every emanation is divided into ten parts itself so that every "world" is comprised of 100 units is found in Tikkuney Ha-Zohar chapter 69. This then is what is alluded to in the letters שכר in the name יששכר.

בני זבלון, The sons of Zevulun, etc. The verse alludes to Zevulun's particular contribution and to that tribe's spiritual achievements. The name סרד containing the same letters as the word סדר, "order or arrangement," means the same thing as סדר, just as the Torah on occasion reverses the order of the letters in the word כשב, "sheep," and spells it כבש. The idea is that Zevulun arranges all the material needs for Issachar so that the latter can study Torah without interruption. אלון is an expression for strength, i.e the oak tree; Proverbs 3,18 describes Torah as the tree of life for those who grasp it and support it. Vayikra Rabbah 25,1 elaborates that instead of speaking of the people who study Torah, Solomon spoke of those who support Torah, i.e. מחזיקים בה. Seeing that Zevulun supported Issachar's Torah study financially, the Torah alludes to this with the letters in the name of one of his sons אלון.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה לאמור. G'd spoke to Moses to say. Moses was to tell Joshua and the elders that Joshua would lead them into the land to take possession of it. The word לאמור in this instance does not refer to the people at large. If this were not so, the word לאלה in the next verse would not make sense.

לאלה תחלק הארץ בנחלה, "To these the land will be shared out as an inheritance, etc." On the word לאלה our sages in Baba Batra 117 comment as follows: Rabbi Yoshiah holds that the subject of the word are the people who participated in the Exodus. He bases himself on the additional data in verse 55 לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, 'they shall inherit according to the names of the tribes of their fathers.' How do I then fulfil the instruction of the Torah which wrote לאלה, i.e. 'to these' i.e. to people present now at this time? The word is meant to exclude people who were not yet 20 years of age at the time they left Egypt." Rabbi Yonathan holds that the land was distributed only to the people who actually set foot in the land, i.e. the men under the leadership of Joshua. He bases himself on the word לאלה. As to the meaning of the words לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan feels that in this instance the Torah applied yardsticks other than the normal ones to the laws of inheritance. Usually the living inherit the dead; in this instance the dead inherited the living. Thus far the statements of these two scholars.

I have seen a Baraitha in the Sifri which offers a third approach to our verse. The word לאלה is understood to exclude the unworthy members of the Jewish people, the wicked. As proof they cite the sons of the spies and the people who had complained against Moses and G'd on various occasions. In order to bring the approach of the Baraitha into accord with that of Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed to the people who participated in the Exodus, we have to translate the word לאלה as כאלה, i.e. "to people such as these righteous ones who make up the nation as of this day." Just as only the righteous ones who left Egypt share in the inheritance, seeing they and their children died already, so also at this time only Israelites who were righteous would receive their share of the land. It would appear that this exegesis which denies the wicked their share in the Holy Land is not at odds with our own approach (that of Rabbi Yoshiah) that the word was intended to exclude the people who were below the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. The word לאלה simply excludes anyone who does not meet the standards, be it because he was too young or because he was too wicked.

I have noted that Rashi explains the word לאלה as reflecting the approach of Rabbi Yonathan i.e. not to those who are below 20 even though they had reached that age before the actual distribution took place. This seems hard to understand. After all, Rabbi Yonathan already exploited the exegetical value of the word ואלה to inform us that the land was distributed according to the present number of Israelites as distinct from the number of Israelites (of comparable age) who participated in the Exodus. By referring to the line לשמות מטות אבותם ינחלו, Rabbi Yonathan had already proved that the number of people present now were not the only criterion in determining who was to get how much. How then can Rabbi Yonathan use the word לאלה to teach us also that youngsters under the age of twenty did not participate in the division of the land?

I am certainly not prepared to quarrel with Rashi regarding the principle that people under twenty were not included in the lottery for distribution of the land even though Rabbi Yonathan did not say so specifically. It is possible that the word לאלה could supply us with two separate למודים, exegetical insights. However, it does not necessarily have to be so. It is equally possible that the word only excluded the principle that the key to the distribution were the people who had participated in the Exodus. What we have to examine is why Rashi did not follow the accepted way of understanding Rabbi Yonathan's words.

I have seen a comment by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi who explains the words of Rashi and did not even mention the difficulty there is in Rashi's commentary when we consider the words of the Baraitha. I claim that Rashi was perfectly aware of the thrust of Rabbi Yonathan's interpretation. However, Rashi thought that the words לאלה prove conclusively that the land was to be distributed only to people who were alive at that time and who had reached the age of twenty. It was the latter detail Rashi wanted to tell us as something new. Rashi took for granted that the land was to be distributed only to people who actually would enter the Holy Land.

במספר שמות, according to the number of names. The Torah means that the number of families which have been enumerated in chapter 26 were to be the basis for the distribution, i.e. 57 families. Each of these 57 families was to be given a tract of land commensurate with the size of the family. This can be reconciled only with the opinion of Rabbi Yonathan. According to Rabbi Yoshiah who holds that the land was distributed basically to the people who left Egypt the land should have been distributed between 63 families instead of between 57 as we have learned from Bamidbar Rabbah 21 that 6 families of those enumerated at the time of the first count no longer appeared in the count. According to Rabbi Yoshiah the tribes of these 6 families would be accorded their share instead. It is, possible however, that even Rabbi Yoshiah would agree that the words "according to the number of families" would refer to the families who participated in the Exodus. [I believe there is a misprint here and it should say that even Rabbi Yonathan agreed that only the words במספר שמות refer to the people who participated in the Exodus taking part in the distribution. Ed.]

לרב תרבה נחלתו, "to the more numerous you will give a larger share in his inheritance, etc." Baba Batra 117 has Rav Pappa ask Abbaye: "according to the theory of Rabbi Yoshiah that the land was distributed to the people who partook in the Exodus, this verse makes sense; however, how does one explain these instructions according to the view of Rabbi Yonathan who holds that only the generation who was counted in the wilderness would share in the distribution of the land? What purpose was there for the Torah to distinguish between the numerous ones and the less numerous ones?" Whereas Abbaye is not reported as having furnished Rav Pappa with an answer, this question is not so serious that no answer could have been found in the very text itself. Moreover, these words (Rabbi Yonathan's) were not the ones of an Amora (teacher of the Talmud) but of a Tanna, a teacher of the Mishnah. As an Amora, Rav Pappa was not allowed to challenge the words of a Tanna, hence it was not urgent to answer a question which would not result in changes of the halachah even if it went unanswered. We have a principle that whenever the Talmud concludes a question with the word קשיא (as in this instance), there is an answer but it did not suit the editors to provide it at this point.

According to my commentary that the words במספר שמות mean that the land should be distributed amongst the 57 families enumerated in the count here in our Parshah, the words לרב תרבה mean that they were not to make 57 equal shares according to the number of the families, but that they were to consider also the size of the respective families before distributing land to each family. A family comprising 20,000 souls was to receive a share twice as large as a family comprising only 10,000 souls.

Furthermore, if we adopt Rashi's approach that Rabbi Yonathan included only people who were counted -meaning they had reached the age of twenty- at the time of the present census, the following situation could arise. Suppose a father had ten sons each above the age of 20 at this time, and another father had 8 sons, 4 of whom were above the age of twenty the other 4 being younger. By the time they all entered the Holy land the first father had lost 4 of his sons because they had died, whereas the other father's sons by then had all reached the age of 20, the last mentioned family would have received a larger share than the family which had ten eligible sons at this time. To prevent such a mistake from being made the Torah wrote לרב תרבה, i.e. that the determining criterion was the respective number of eligible sons a family comprised at the time the commandment was given, i.e. at the time of this census. Any change in the status of the family between now and the actual time of distribution was to be disregarded. Perhaps Rashi's commentary was designed to answer this question before it was even articulated.

איש לפי פקודיו, each one according to those that were numbered of it, etc. Sifri on this verse comments as follows: "the land was distributed to the tribes in accordance with their present number." This does not contradict what I have written that the words "according to the number of names" refer to the 57 families enumerated in this count. The distribution of the land between the tribes on the one hand and the families on the other may have proceeded along the following lines: The land was divided up into 12 sections, one each for each tribe. These sections in turn were divided up into 57 parcels. A tribe which comprised 2 families would receive 2 parcels whereas a tribe comprising 4 families would receive 4 parcels of land. According to Rabbi Yoshiah each parcel would be sized in accordance with the number of families at the time of the present census, whereas according to Rabbi Yonathan it would be sized according to the number of families at the time of the Exodus. As to the question that if the families were the decisive factor, why was the number of tribes relevant to the distribution at all, the answer is that each tribe was accorded a parcel in accordance with the lottery, something that would not be the case if the only factor determining the distribution would have been the total number of families. Without the lottery families of different tribes might wind up being situated next to each other instead of their parcel of land being situated within the tribal area allocated to each tribe separately.

Baba Batra 121 raises the point that the scholars were not certain whether the land was distributed in accordance with the number of tribes or in accordance with the number of individual people. They tried to answer this by reference to the verse in our portion where the Torah said "be they numerous or few" meaning that it was not divided in accordance with the number of individuals over the age of twenty (verse 36). They quoted a Baraitha according to which the land of Israel will be divided up amongst 13 tribes in messianic times, whereas in Joshua's time it was divided amongst 12 tribes. Thus far the Talmud there. The Talmud apparently was unaware of the Baraitha we mentioned in the Sifri, where this point is derived from the words איש לפי פקודיו. It is reasonable to assume that the scholar in the Talmud who said that in the future the land of Israel would be shared out between thirteen tribes also based his opinion on these words.

According to Rabbi Yonathan who holds that the division was based on the people actually entering the land, we still need to find out if he referred to people over twenty only or if he meant that even youngsters who had not attained that age were qualified to receive a separate share in the land. The Torah therefore had to write the words לפי פקודיו to let us know that only men over the age of twenty were assigned separate shares.

לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the tribes of their respective fathers, etc. According to the view of Rabbi Yoshiah this verse merely demolishes the apparent meaning of the word לאלה. It tells us that the word לאלה was not meant to apply to the people counted in the wilderness of Moav but rather meant כאלה, that the people to be given land were to be כאלה like the ones who were counted at the Exodus, i.e. the ones who were twenty and over. Rabbi Yonathan, however, holds that although in the first instance the people who had been counted now were to inherit the land, they in turn would confer rights of inheritance on the people who had participated in the Exodus as has been explained in the Baraitha in the Sifri. The exact wording there is as follows: Assuming one (family) would inherit 1 acre and another (family) of the same בית אב, branch of this tribe, 3 acres by applying the yardstick of the number of 20 year olds in the families at present, then the combined amount would be inherited by the previous generation (the dead) of this family. This inheritance in turn would now be allocated on an equal basis to the younger generation so that both families of the younger generation would receive 2 acres although one family was more numerous than the other at this time. [Our example assumes that there had been only two sons of the family which participated in the Exodus. Ed.] By following this approach the word ינחלו "they will inherit" at the end of verse 35 becomes very relevant as it refers to the people who had now been counted not inheriting now, but only via their fathers. This also explains why the Torah wrote תחלק הארץ, "the land will be divided," instead of writing "they will divide the land." The same consideration also prompted the Torah to write the words תרבה נחלתו in the future tense. Also the expression יותן נחלתו "his inheritance will be given," instead of יקח נחלתו "he will take his inheritance" points to the explanation of Rabbi Yonathan that the generation of the people who left Egypt were the key to the distribution of the land is correct. Our verse teaches then that up until this point the Torah speaks about what Joshua is to do at the time he will make the Israelites inherit the land. From this point on, however, the people who do the inheriting have to consider their share in terms of לשמות מטות אבותם, according to the names of the members of the family groups who had left Egypt.

בין רב למעט, be they numerous or few. We have already referred to the discussion in Baba Batra 122 about how the division was to proceed, if according to the number of individuals or according to the number of tribes, and we have mentioned that in the future the land would be divided between 13 tribes. In addition to that the Talmud stated that the key to the division was the monetary value of a piece of land, not just its size. Rabbi Yehudah adds that the amount of land needed to grow a bushel of wheat in the tribal area of Yehudah was one fifth of the amount of land needed to produce the same amount of wheat in the Galil. Rashbam comments on the words בין רב למעט that every tribe had to accept the piece of land allocated in the general הגרלה, lottery, regardless of whether they thought they ought to have received a larger share due to the number of men over 20 in that tribe, as all the tribes received equal shares. The difficulty with this approach is that there is no need to accept such a simplistic view based on the text seeing we have a Baraitha according to which the words בין רב למעט are understood to refer to the relative distance from Jerusalem of the various parcels of land allocated to the tribes, i.e. that land close to Jerusalem was considered worth more than land which was a long way from Jerusalem. According to the Baraitha the word רב would refer to land close to Jerusalem being worth more.

In addition, an examination of the text by the Talmud leads us to conclude that the Talmud is self-contradictory. At the outset the Talmud understands the words to mean that the lottery had to be accepted and there was no compensation for the apparent injustice if a tribe with a large population had drawn a smaller parcel of land in the lottery. The parcels of land were equal in size. In the course of the Talmud's discussion, when it emerges that the words בין רב למעט refer to the distance of the land from Jerusalem, it is clear that the principle of each tribe inheriting equally was not accepted, and would be rectified in the distribution of the land in the future when 12 equal shares would go to the 12 tribes and the ruler would receive the thirteenth share. How could the same words in our verse be used to support both theories?

Furthermore, once we accept the principle that the land was divided into 12 equal shares to the 12 tribes, the argument between Rabbi Yoshiah and Rabbi Yonathan would apply to each tribe as the numbers varied between the first count and the census in our portion. If all this were correct, why does the Talmud in Baba Batra 118 raise the problem of the complaints of the tribe of Joseph in Joshua 17,14? If the land had been divided according to the present number of men over 20 why would the tribe of Joseph complain? They received an allocation in accordance with their number. Their complaint would only make sense if their allocation was based on the number of men they had at the time of the Exodus; if the land was distributed according to the present census why did they complain? The Talmud answers that they complained that too many of their number had turned twenty between the present census and the actual distribution and many of those had no father who would have qualified in their stead at this time. I do not understand the problem. Seeing that according to all opinions all tribes received an equal amount of land, i.e. everyone is agreed that the tribe of Joseph received an amount equal to that of each of the other tribes, their complaint would be equally justified regardless of whether we accept the principle of distribution according to Rabbi Yoshiah or that according to Rabbi Yonathan. We are forced to conclude therefore that the Talmud bases the complaint of the tribe of Joseph on a lottery which allocated differently sized parcels of lands to different tribes according to both the view of Rabbi Yoshia and Rabbi Yonathan. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the tribes all received the same amount of land, it was the tribe of Yehudah who should have complained as they were the most numerous and had not received more land than the least numerous tribe. The result of such a distribution would have been that Yehudah who numbered 76,500 fighting men received one parcel of land whereas the two tribes Menashe and Ephrayim who numbered only some 8,700 men more received double the amount of land!

As a result of these considerations I have concluded that the Talmud never meant to imply that the 12 tribes each received the same amount of land as described by Rashbam. The correct interpretation of the Talmud's paragraph starting with the words תא שמע is that the words בין רב למעט mean that the Torah confirms that indeed some tribes received a larger share of land than did others. The reason for this was that the distribution was by lottery. This was the major reason why the lottery was necessary in order to head off complaints. If you even envisaged the possibility that the land was distributed in accordance with the number of people in the present census, what point was there to engage in a lottery at all? Why would the Torah have to mention:- "be they many or few?" The meaning of these words is: "regardless of whether the tribe in question is numerous or small in number the distribution will be based on the lottery concerning the location of their land allocation." The second Baraitha where we are told something about the distribution of the land in the future means to clarify the matter still further by telling us that the lack of consideration for numbers refers only to the fact that the basic consideration is the number of tribes and not the number of individuals in the nation. Such clarification was necessary as one could have argued, based on the wording of the Torah, that the only thing the words בין רב למעט prove is that the land was not going to be distributed on the basis of the individual number of people in the nation, but that it would still be possible to adjust the size of the tribal allocations according to the number of families. This is why the Talmud quotes the Baraitha that even in the future the basic approach to the distribution of the land will be the number of tribes. There would be 12 distinct areas, [like provinces, Ed.] but that the tribal areas would not be identical in size but there would be larger areas (which presumably would be drawn in the lottery by the more numerous tribes) as well as smaller tribal areas. All this is in agreement with the Sifri on the words איש לפי פקודיו which I have mentioned earlier.