Loved to Death

And Hashem spoke unto Moshe and unto Elazar the son of Aharon the priest, saying: Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers' houses, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel. (Sefer BeMidbar 26:1-2)

1. Sefer BeMidbar is the Book of Censuses

Sefer BeMidbar is also referred to as Chumash HaPikudim – the Book of Censuses. Sefer BeMidbar opens with a census of Bnai Yisrael taken during the second year of their sojourn in the wilderness. That census was taken with the expectation that the nation would proceed to and soon take possession of the Land of Israel. This aspiration was not achieved. The generation that left Egypt, because of its failings, forfeited the opportunity to take possession of the Land of Israel. Instead, the children of that condemned generation were led into the land.

The second census in Sefer BeMidbar is described in Parshat Pinchas. This census took place after the generation of the wilderness had perished. This census was taken of their children and their descendents who had been born during the intervening 38 years.

And the sons of Yehudah after their families were: of Sheylah, the family of the Shelanites; of Peretz, the family of the Perezites; of Zerach, the family of the Zerahites. And the sons of Peretz were: of Chetzron, the family of the Chezronites; of Chamul, the family of the Chamulites. These are the families of Yehudah according to those that were numbered of them, seventy-six thousand and five hundred. (Sefer BeMidbar 26:20-22)

2. A significant difference between the two censuses

In many ways, these two censuses are similar. However, in one significant respect they are very different from one another. The first census tallied the members of each tribe. The census identified the population of Shevet Reuven, Shevet Shimon, and each of the other tribes. The census described in Parshat Pinchas is more detailed. Like the first census, it provides a population total for each tribe but it also lists the various families within each shevet. For example, it reveals that Shevet Reuven consists of 43,730 members. These members are divided among four families – Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Karmi. A fixed pattern is followed in the Torah’s report on the population of each tribe. The tribe is identified; its families are enumerated, and the total population of the tribe is reported.

How did these families form? In general, the families are the descendants of the sons of the shevet’s patriarch. Returning to the example of Shevet Reuven, the families are identified as Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Karmi. Each of these is named for a son of Reuven – the shevet’s patriarch. In other words, the descendants of each son of Reuven formed a family within the shevet.

However, there are a number of exceptions to this principle. Sometimes, families are formed from the descendants of a grandson of the shevet’s patriarch. For example, Shevet Yehudah is composed of five families. Three of the families are named for the sons of Yehdah – Sheylah, Peretz, and Zerach. Two are named for grandsons – children of Peretz. Presumably, these two families which are named for grandsons are composed of the grandson’s descendants. The other descendents of Peretz are members of the family bearing his name. The Sheylah and Zerech families are composed of their respective descendants. Why are families generally composed of the descendants of a son of the shevet’s patriarch but sometimes from the descendants of a grandson?

The sons of Binyamin after their families: of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Achiram, the family of the Ahiramites, of Shefufam, the family of the Shufamites; of Chufam, the family of the Chufamites. And the sons of Bela were Ard and Na’aman; of Ard, the family of the Ardites; of Na’aman, the family of the Na’amites. These are the sons of Binyamin after their families; and they that were numbered of them were forty and five thousand and six hundred. (Sefer BeMidbar 26:38-41)

3. The midrash’s understanding of the unique status of Yaakov’s company

This is a complex issue. It will become evident in the course of this discussion that possibly more than one factor determine the formation of families within each shevet. However, let us focus on one aspect that is discussed by the commentators. The midrash explains that the two sons of Peretz – Chetzron and Chamul were among the seventy individuals who accompanied Yaakov when he descended from the Land of Cana’an to Egypt. The midrash explains that every grandson of Yaakov among the seventy exiles who entered Egypt had the opportunity to create his own family within his father’s shevet. However, this opportunity was not limited to them. The opportunity extended to all those who were among this group of seventy. Even great-grandchildren of Yaakov who were among this group had the opportunity – depending upon the number of their descendants – to form a family within the shevet. Therefore, the descendants of the sons of Yehudah – Sheylah, Peretz, and Zerach – formed families. Two of Peretz’s sons were also among the seventy initial exiles who came to Egypt. The descendants of these sons – Chetzron and Chamul also were numerous and they formed their own families.[1]

This insight offered by the midrash does not seem to explain the families enumerated within Shevet Binyamin. Binyamin descended to Egypt with ten sons. The descendants of five of these sons formed families. One of these sons was Bela. The descendants of Bela’s sons – Ard and Na’aman also formed families. However, these sons of Binyamin were not among the seventy individuals who were the initial descendants to Egypt! According to the principle developed by the midrash, their descendants should not have formed independent families within the shevet.

And the sons of Binyamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Na’aman, Echi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Chuppim, and Ard. (Sefer Beresheit 46:21)

4. Two sets of Ard and Na’aman

Nachmanides offers a number of responses to this problem. The solution that is perhaps the simplest is based upon an apparent contradiction between this census and the listing of the seventy individuals who accompanied Yaakov into Egypt. In that listing in Sefer Beresheit, Ard and Na’aman are identified as sons of Binyamin and not as his grandsons through Bela.[2] In other words, in our parasha, Ard and Na’aman are identified as sons of Bela and grandchildren of Binyamin. In Sefer Bereseheit, they are listed among the sons of Binyamin.

Nachmanides explains that these two accounts do not contradict one another. Binyamin had ten sons. These included Ard and Na’aman. Ard and Na’aman died without children. Bela – who was the oldest of Binyamin’s sons did not want his brothers to be forgotten by Bnai Yisrael. He wished to preserve their memory. He accomplished this by naming two of his own sons after his departed brothers. Ard and Na’aman – the sons of Bela – were named after Bela’s brothers who bore those names.

Bela acted properly in preserving his brothers’ memories through his own sons. These sons succeeded in not only preserving the memory of Bela’s brothers but they also were provided the opportunity to form families within the shevet that would be regarded as the families of these departed sons of Binyamin. In other words, these departed sons continued to be identified as progenators of Bnai Yisrael through the families that bore their names.[3]

Rashi partially agrees with Nachmanides. He agrees that there were two sets of sons who shared the names Ard and Na’aman. One set were children of Binyamin. Also, Bela had two sons whose names were Ard and Na’aman. However, he does not accept Nachmanides suggestion that the latter Ard and Na’aman assumed the role of their departed uncles and therefore, their descendants were permitted to form families within the shevet. Rashi argues that these two sons of Bela represent a unique phenomenon that required special treatment in regard to forming families. All of those who descended with Yaakov were able to form families. All those who were “children of Egypt” were not founders of families. Ard and Na’aman did not fit cleanly into either of these categories. They were born in exile. However, they were conceived in the Land of Cana’an. Therefore, they were not counted among those who accompanied Yaakov in his descent into exile. However, because they were conceived in the Land of Cana’an their descendants were permitted to form families within Shevet Binyamin.[4]

The sons of Rachel, Yaakov's wife: Yosef and Binyamin. And unto Yosef in the Land of Egypt were born Menashe and Efraim, whom Asenat the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On bore unto him. (Sefer Beresheit 46:19-20)

5. Shevet Efraim and Shevet Menashe and their families

Nachmaindes offers an alternative and final explanation for the Torah’s treatment of Ard and Na’aman. He begins by referring us to another strange aspect of the census in our parasha. Yosef’s sons Efraim and Menashe were each the progenitors of their own shevet. Their shevatim were also composed of family units. However, in their instances these families were composed of the descendants of individuals born in Egypt. In other words, the midrash’s principle cannot be applied to the tribes of Efraim and Menashe. Ephraim and Menashe were themselves born to Yosef in Egypt. Their sons and even some of their grandchildren became the progenitors of the families that make up their respective tribes. Nachmanides argues that according to the midrash, Efraim and Menashe should be unique tribes. Because their children were not among the seventy individuals who accompanied Yaakov into exile, these tribes should not have component families.

Nachmanides concludes that the examples of Efraim and Menashe demonstrate that the principle outlined in the midrash is not intended as an absolute rule. Those who accompanied Yaakov had the opportunity to form families. Those who did not accompany Yaakov, in general, were not afforded this opportunity. However, obviously there were exceptions. There were cases in which those who were not among Yaakov’s company of seventy were afforded the opportunity to form families.[5] What was the basis for granting these exceptions?

6. The message of the midrash

Before we consider Nachmanides’ response, let us return once more to the midrash. Nachmanides in his earlier answer, and Rashi in his treatment of these issues, regard the midrash’s principle as absolute. Only those who accompanied Yaakov were the founders of families. According to Rashi, Ard and Na’aman represent a special case. They were conceived in the Land of Cana’an so their descendants formed families within Shevet Binyamin.

Let us consider this issue more carefully. What is the reason for this special status assigned to those who accompanied Yaakov into Egypt? Furthermore, why was this status extended to Ard and Na’aman? They were conceived in the Land of Cana’an but they were not actually among the seventy individuals who composed Yaakov’s company.

It seems that the special status assigned to those individuals who accompanied Yaakov was intended to communicate a message. This message was that the nation that would develop in Egypt was a nation in exile. Each family that developed in Egypt was composed of the descendants of an individual who left the Land of Cana’an. Even Ard and Na’aman acquired their special status as progenitors of families because of their association with the Land of Cana’an. They were conceived there and not in Egypt. The fact that only those who were born in the Land of Cana’an, or conceived there, could be the patriarchs of families, constantly reinforced the message that the Land of Israel was the home of the people and in Egypt they were exiles.

Of course, according to this interpretation, Shevet Efraim and Shevet Menashe are exceptions. Their members could not identify with a progenitor of their tribe who was from the Land of Cana’an. Even Efraim and Menashe were born in Egypt. The message of connectedness to the Land of Israel could not be communicated through identification with the progenitors of these two tribes.

The underlying concept that emerges from this strict interpretation of the midrash is that the identities of the families was designed to communicate a message. According to the strict interpretation of the midrash’s principle, this message was that they were exiles and the Land of Cana’an was their only true home. According to Nachmanides, the identities communicate an additional message.

7. Challenges of exile

He explains that even some of those who were born in Egypt were afforded the opportunity to form their own families. Who were these individuals provided with this opportunity? He explains that these must have been very special individuals whose memory was to be preserved through the association of their name with their family of descendants. He explains that these were individuals who were role models for the people. Role models were very important in the Land of Egypt. Life in Egypt presented a serious challenge to the continuity of the nation.

Why did the experience in Egypt present such a severe threat to the Jewish people? When Yaakov and his family came to Egypt they were welcomed and invited into their host community. Egyptian society accepted the descendants of Yaakov into its midst. However, the values and religious outlook of Egyptian society were antagonistic to the ideas developed by the patriarchs and taught to their children. How would the nation resist assimilation into the host culture that eagerly welcomed it? Role models would be needed. The creation of families from the descendants of the most outstanding role models preserved the memory of these special individuals and, more importantly, communicated the lesson of resistance against assimilation into the Egyptian culture.[6]

8. The plight of the American Jewish community

Both of these interpretations are valid and both are relevant to us. We are blessed to live in a society that provides us with equal rights and access to all of its privileges. However, the culture in which we live is hostile to religious values and specifically antagonistic toward Judaism. How do we prevent our children from assimilating into this welcoming society and abandoning meaningful Jewish life? The discussion above suggests that we need to focus on two strategies.

We must remember that we are exiles. This means that when we educate our young people about Israel and we encourage them to support Israel we must carefully explain our objective. Israel is not important because of its immense Jewish community. Its importance is not that it is the refuge for every Jew in need. It is important because it is our home. We live in a country that has been and continues to be a remarkable host for our people. But this is not home. Israel is home.

Second, we must provide our sons and daughters with role models. This is difficult to accomplish in a culture that is dominated by skepticism and cynicism. Our perspective is particularly jaundiced in regard to religious leaders and figures. Maybe this is because too many have disappointed us. Maybe, this is because we tend to more easily notice the faults of others than their positive attributes. But we must provide inspirational examples of individuals who embrace their role as citizens of our host community but remain completely committed to their Jewish lives.

 

[1] Midrash Agadah, quoted by Rav Menachem Mendel Kasher, Torah Shelymah on Sefer BeMidbar 26:29.

[2] Sefer Beresheit 46:21.

[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 26:13.

[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 26:24.

[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 26:13.

[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 26:13.