Posts so far for parashat Bemidbar

2012

1. Bemidbar sources, 2012 edition. And for 2013.

2. YUTorah on Bemidbar.

3. What was עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם? Nadav and Avihu's death, or Eleazar and Itamar's service? One can parse the pasuk so that this phrase,  עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם, goes on Nadav and Avihu's death. Or, we can parse it so that it goes on the service of Eleazer and Itamar. This is a case of trup vs. Divrei Hayamim.

From 2013: Daas Soferim and random sparked thoughts

2011

1. Bamidbar sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi. I also just started restructuring the Targum section.
   .
2. The pesik after ועל -- And how these are not actually pesiks, but rather munach legarmeihs. As such, perhaps we should not be darshening them. See also the Bamidbar 2009 Baal HaTurim post, below, though.
   .
3. Ibn Caspi, and the dots over Aharon; also, a Torah Codes connection! See the two previous posts from Bamidbar 2009, on the dots over ואהרן. Ibn Caspi's note that plural and singular of pakad and pakdu would both be acceptable verbs might shed light on just how the variant of משה vs. משה ואהרן came about. Also, how Aharon's absence would mess up the Torah codes.
   .
4. YU Torah on parshas Bamidbar.
   .
5. Does Onkelos translate וַיִּקַּח as וּדְבַר or ונסב? The answer is that it is the latter, despite R' Meir Wolf's variant nusach. Shadal and Lechem Abirim explain.
   .
6. Why the trup alternation in Yisachar, Binyamin, and Naftali?  Congratulations to Mi Yodeya are in order for getting their proposal accepted. They are now part of StackExchange. Here is a question on the trup of Bamidbar I answered over there this morning. If we examine the trup in the beginning of parashat Bemidbar, we find some slight alternations on the first word of a more or less repeating clause, though the rest of the trup is the same:
   
   
   
   .
7. Elaborating מעמר's theory of נסיב vs. דבר --  Much as I intuited. Baruch Shekivanti! Basically, directing vs. every other usage.
   .
8. Further thoughts on translating ויקח as ונסיב vs. ודבר --  As discussed in two previous posts, there are two competing theories of when דבר and when נסב is due. Lechem Abirim vs. (the words of the printer in) Maamar. The former is, roughly, 'taking' humans vs. taking objects; the latter is, roughly, conveying people vs. every other use. We saw each side. Now, to consider further proof to either side, from some rather old Chumashim.
   .
9. Yet more on נסיב vs. ודבר --  Perhaps evidence from the Samaritan Targum and the Peshitta can put this matter to rest. Or perhaps not. This, BTW, on parashat Bamidbar.  Except I erred in thinking that a certain online source was the Peshitta. So most of the conclusions of this post should be disregarded.
   .
10. Can the Zohar teach us about acceptable Targumic Aramaic?  Maamar brings it as a counter-proof to Shadal, but would Shadal accept this as evidence?

2010

1. Bemidbar sources -- revamped, with over 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
   a
2. What is bothering Rashi? Why specify nesiim? Rashi appears to make a rather simplistic statement, and so his supercommentators trip over themselves trying to explain just what is bothering Rashi, and why he should go out of his way to point out the obvious. But they arrive at an incorrect solution. Here, I offer just what is motivating Rashi, and how Rashi is very much a pashtan, rather than the darshan they end up making him.
   a
3. What is bothering Rashi? part ii -- After composing the previous post, I saw that Aish HaTorah posted a selection from Rabbi Dr. Avigdor Bonchek on the same topic, how to understand this particular Rashi, about the nesiim. My comments is interspersed with the text of his article. Much I like, but some I disagree with.
   a
4. How the Jews merited mattan Torah -- Trying to trace a midrash, and its meaning. As far as I can tell, the idea that they traced their lineage via sifrei yuchsin is a late midrash, and the midrash itself tells us the import.
   .
5. How should we spell vehachonim? A divergence among Masoretes about how to spell the word, in the context of the tribe of Shimon. That the Samaritan Torah, at odds with the masoretic text, is like one side in the dispute, does not really matter and is no evidence at all, for a reason I explain.

2009

1. Bamidbar sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
   .
2. Was Nadav, or Aharon, the firstborn? An analysis of the role of a pasek. Baal Haturim claims that this is to associate habechor with Aharon, and not with Nadav, who died childless. I disagree with Baal Haturim as to its purpose, and I bring pesukim to prove it.
   .
3. Two faced humans -- as a quick followup to the two hundred foot tall, two-headed hermaphrodites envisioned for yemos hamashiach in a previous post, here a Zohar about Adam and Chava intially one.
   .
4. The dots over Aharon, the meaning of Rashi's explanation according to the supercommentaries, and how really their purpose is to mark the word's doubtful status. The Samaritan Torah omits the word veAharon. And in a followup post, the implications of such an approach, in terms of ikkarei emunah and in terms of the age of trup.
   .
5. The pasek between Moshe, and Aharon and his sons: Once again I disagree with Baal HaTurim. Simply put, that is no pasek. It is an entirely expected munach legarmeih, and so does not shout out darsheini!
   .
6. The krei of kru'ei. Baal HaTurim ascribes it to the presence of Zimri. Unsatisfied with that answer, I explore other possibilities.
   .
7. The kametz in the zakef on tikkach -- and why the variant nikkud makes so much sense.

2008

1. Bemidbar Sinai: Why mention it, and how is it different from Behar Sinai? Is it to date it, to distinguish it from Behar Sinai, just the standard way of beginning a Biblical book, or something else?
   .
2. How the sums of two separate censuses can be identical -- as per Shadal, and my expansion upon him.
   .
3. Eleph as military unit -- rather than thousand. And how this would shrink the number of Israelites in the desert to non-miraculous size. And in the comment section, why I don't find this necessarily compelling, nor am I troubled by the initial "problem".

2007

• In the presence of Aharon their father
• whether this phrase is connected to service or death, associated with the beginning or end of the pasuk, and how that interacts with trup. I was about to recreate this post in 2008, but then realized that I had already done it in 2007. One extra point is that the note about redrawing the trup appears to be based on Mendelssohn's Biur.
• Mah Inyan Shemitta Etzel Har Sinai
• cross-listed with Behar. I consider Rashi's explanation that this is just one example of many, and then cite Rashbam (echoed by Shadal) on Bamidbar that for the first year, it always said Behar Sinai, and this changes to beMidbar Sinai beOhel Moed once the Mishkan is constructed. Other Rashbams are that the count was to assemble an army to enter Eretz Yisrael.
• haftarat Bamidbar
• How the mashal in the haftara from Hoshea seems ahalachic; how "you will not call me 'my Baal' is a pun; the irregular word vayadaat.

2006

• The Duel Between Deuel and Reuel
• how to account for the discrepancy? Shadal and Cassuto both suggest the name had both letters, but one letter was dropped in different instances, and gives parallels to this. The letters are also similar, so one might intuit a scribal error. The fact that the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah have opposites, but are consistent across the board, is evidence that these are not attestations of alternate girsaot but rather harmonizations. Finally, I suggest that this was a deliberate change from one theophoric name to another, to eliminate reference to the Egyptian deity Ra.
  I consider other evidence of this in a post on Shelach, about the names of the spies in the parsha.

2005

• Lift Up The Heads
• in its various connotations
• cross-listed from Parshat Pinchas: A Real Shlumiel
• Why is Shlumiel ben Tzurishaddai the namesake of all Shlumiels?

2004

• The count as an excel spreadsheet and as a graph

to be continued...

Bamidbar: Daas Soferim and random sparked thoughts

For parashat Bamidbar, let us focus on a few things from Daas Soferim, by Rav Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (1909-2001). You can read about Rabbi Rabinowitz on Wikipedia or at Dei'ah veDibur.

I've never learned through Daas Soferim, but here is how Wikipedia characterizes the work:

Rabinowitz's magnus opum (Daat Sofrim), a commentary on all of the Hebrew Bible. There are several distinguishing features to this work. The first is his courageous attempt to de-emphasize the negative aspects of ancient Jewish life that appear in the Bible. R' Rabinowitz in his role of "Defender of Israel" emphasizes that seen within the correct context, and with a proper understanding of the historical background, the negative stories are scarcely as bad as they appear. (See for example his explanation defining the differences between the story of the levite concubine at Giveah and the story of Sodom)

A second interesting feature are his (possibly the only Haredi) attempts to resolve some of the issues raised by Biblical criticism. Thus he identifies the second part of the book of Isaiah as possibly being written by a different author based on an Oral tradition from Isaiah.

Let us hook at a few of his comments on parshas Bamidbar. Of course, this won't really give us enough of a sense of the work, first because it is a small sample and second because of selection bias, in that I am choosing those bits that I find most interesting. That reflects more upon me than upon him.

Also, in terms of my interspersed comments, these are not necessarily a reflection on the underlying thought-process of Daas Soferim. My comments are more along the lines of free-association.

Reading it in Hebrew books, the form of it is as a typical Chumash, with the pesukim, Rashi, and Unkelos on each opposing page. And then, on a single page or a few pages by themselves, he writes his own commentary. This is useful because one can read the relevant pesukim and get the standard traditional commentary first.

The first comment I will highlight is regarding the keruay ha'eidah, who were appointed to perform the counting. The pasuk in the first perek of Bemidbar reads:

טז  אֵלֶּה קריאי (קְרוּאֵי) הָעֵדָה, נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם:  רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֵם.

16 These were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel.

The ketiv has a yud, as if the word were keri'ei, while the krei has keru'ei, with a shuruk. We could understand this in different ways. One is that there was no regularized spelling, such that we often find hi (meaning "her" or "she") spelled with a vav, and we see final heh even where it should make an o sound. Alternatively, this reflects a change in Biblical usage, such that the form (an adjective, but working as a passive verb, "those who were called") used to be spelled and pronounced with a chirik but now is pronounced and spelled with a vav. May of the extremely rare kal passive form discussed by Biblical Hebrew linguists? Alternatively, that there are different messages encoded in the consonantal written form and the pronounced form, e.g., callers vs. callees. See what various meforshim had to say about this issue here. For example, see Targum that they called others, rather than that they were called.

Here is what Daas Sofrim has to say about it:

"These are the קריאי of the congregation: The Torah returns and testifies that the men who were appointed for this purpose based on the say-so of God were extremely honored. They were "kri'ey ha'eida", that is, men who because of their wisdom were ready / designated at any time, so that they were ready to render advice.

There is here a krei and a ketiv. The ketiv is kri'ey and the krei is kru'ei. This is because of Zimri ben Salu, who was called here by the name Shlumiel ben Tzurishadai, for he was fit for this purpose at this time, but not based on his actions in the future. He caused the reduction of the honor of the princes of Israel."

The basis of equating Zimri with Shlumiel is that they are both designated as nasi of Shimon. See my discussion here. Thus, he handily relates the krei and ketiv switchoff with the Zimri / Shlumiel switchoff, with one explaining the other. And does it in a way consistent with Chazal, who equate the two and explain the names based on actions.

I am not sure how he is precisely defining kru'ei vs. kri'ei. Is he suggesting this is past tense vs. future tense? Or is he saying something about the name change, such that kri'ei or kru'ei means that the person is called by something other than his actual name? Or is one a lesser level of honor than the other. I admit I am left a bit confused.

Let us consider another comment by Rav Rabinowitz, on the pasuk in perek 3. First, the pesukim:

ב  וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-אַהֲרֹן, הַבְּכֹר נָדָב, וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	2 And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the first-born, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
ג  אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן.	3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.
ד  וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם.  {פ}	4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

How many sons did Aharon have? Only four? Consider the explosive growth of bnei Yisrael, moving in a short 210 years from seventy souls to six hundred thousand males of an age fit to head a household. Chazal said that this was because the Israelite women had six children in each birth. So why are there only four?

If I may, I will advance a position, only to provide contrast to Daas Soferim. (Though I don't know that he was reacting to this possibility.)

We can say that Aharon really had more than four sons. These other sons came along with the beit av of the other brothers for the sake of nachala. Compare to Yaakov's blessing of Ephraim and Menasheh, that these two are to be reckoned as his own sons, and any future children shall be accrued to Ephraim and Menashe.

If so, we can read pasuk 3 as stating that the four mentioned sons in pasuk 2 are specifically those sons הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן. But there were others. Otherwise, there is apparent repetition for no purpose. Unless it is to relate the famous personages in the genealogy to Biblical events and to point out the importance of this or that figure, which does seem to be a common approach.

Separate from this, note that the Leviim were not included in the count. The Torah explains that they are counted separately. But the overall count of the tribe of Levi is twenty-two thousand, which is much less than  other tribes. How are we to account for this?

Here is what Daas Soferim has to say:

"2. And these are the names, etc.: Aharon only had four sons. All the families of the Leviim were small. Similar to this was the family of Yitzchak [with only two sons], and even the house of Yaakov grew only because of the actions of Lavan [such that he married two wives] and the barrenness of Rachel [such that he also took Rachel and Leah's maidservants in order to have more children]. In the eminent families, they only married a single woman, and it is possible that they only married at not-a-young age because of their involvement in Torah, just as we find by Yitzchak and Yaakov. And so it appears that Hashem's blessing of the fruit of the womb has hidden rules, which drive the precise barrenness and fruitfulness. This is the portion of the select people in all generation, and see later on in 39 in the count of the Leviim."

These are good words of comfort to those who have fertility problems.

He also addresses the seeming repetition from pasuk 2 to pasuk 3, as follows:

"3. אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, etc.: The first four words in this pasuk are similar to the first words in the previous pasuk. The Torah does not spare words here, wherever there is in them to establish the idea with greater clarity the lineage of the families of the Kohanim, who served in the Mikdash of Hashem for all generations. "אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת" [with eileh rather than with a vav, that is, ve'eileh]-- the intent is to restrict and 'invalidate' all those who preceded, including Moshe and his descendants, that they not be anointed to serve as kohanim."

Note that pasuk 1 in this perek mentioned the generations of Moshe and Aharon, and in fact we never see descendants of Moshe listed later:

א  וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן, וּמֹשֶׁה:  בְּיוֹם, דִּבֶּר ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--בְּהַר סִינָי.

1 Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that the LORD spoke with Moses in mount Sinai.

And Rashi (/Chazal) often make a distinction between eileh and ve'eileh, and the first pasuk has the inclusive ve'eileh while this has the exclusive eileh. There is also the assumption which guides much of midrash that the Torah does not generally waste words. It is therefore a 'big deal' when the Torah repeats the story with Eliezer (because of Hashem's great love for the avos) or uses extra words to choose clean language ("that which is not tahor' rather than 'that which is tamei'). Indeed, if extra words are always just dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam, then we could not deduce anything from those extra words.

If I may propose another explanation for this "needless" repetition. The Torah was written in 'megillot', and then organized into a single unit at the end. And it quotes extra-Biblical material, such as contemporary poems (see Cheshbon, or Kayin). I suspect that genealogical scrolls existed separate from the Torah material, and this is a quote. The larger original scroll recorded the full genealogy of Moshe and Aharon, in like manner to what we find in I Divrei Hayamim 5, but with Moshe included. And it did not see fit to quote the portion about Moshe's descendants. And pasuk 3, besides being in the original source, discussing the role of the specific named people. And pasuk 4, in discussing who had children, is critical for establishing the genealogical lines.

Note that the statement that they had no children:

ד  וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם.  {פ}

4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

is taken by a midrash as an explanation of their "hidden" true sin. E.g. that they refused to marry, because they were better than any candidates. On a peshat level, we are not being told their sin. The purpose of mentioning it has entirely to do with establishing genealogy.

YUTorah on parashat Bamidbar

Audio Shiurim on Bamidbar Rabbi Nisson Lippa Alpert: How to Count the Jews Rabbi Hanan Balk: The Torah Perspective of an Army and Warfare Dr. Moshe Bernstein: Four Introductions to Sefer Bemidbar Rabbi Kenneth Brander: In Search for the Sixth Book of the Bible An Overview of Sefer Bamidbar Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Ke-Bala et HaKodesh - Enwrapped in Holiness Rabbi Avishai David: Striving for Kedusha Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Crying Over The Death Of Bnei Aharon Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Kedushat seforim in halacha and machshava Rabbi Moshe Feinstein: Kedusha Must Be Revealed (Yiddish) Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: G-d Centered Relationships Rabbi Asher Friedman: The Missing Sons Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Valuing Diversity, Celebrating Unity Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: The Torah Center Rabbi Ephraim Greene: The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Shavuot The Real Battlefield Rabbi Jesse Horn: Entering into the secular world Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: The Chosson and Kallah at Har Sinai Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: The requirement for the Kohanim to guard the Mikdash Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Intuiting Ratzon Hashem Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: The Mitzvah Sections in Bamidbar When & Why they were given vs. When & Why they Were Written Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: The Counting of the Leviim Rabbi Dovid Miller: The Mishkan and Unity Rabbi Hershel Reichman: The Army of Yisrael and the Army of Levi'im Rabbi Zev Reichman: What is your Mission? Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: The Relationship between Bamidbar and Shavuot Rabbi Avi Schneider: Man's Best Friend Rabbi Baruch Simon: Being an Am Kadosh Mrs. Shira Smiles: Everyone Counts Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Special Kedusha of Women Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Protecting Holiness Rabbi Moshe Stav: קדושת המחנה Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Fire, Water and the Desert Rabbi Michael Taubes: Status of a Levi today Rabbi Mayer Twersky: Preparing for Kabbalas HaTorah Rabbi Shmuel Wagner: The Chidush of Bamidbar Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: It's All from Hashem Rabbi Andi Yudin: We all Count Rabbi Ari Zahtz: The Degalim of Bnei Yisroel Articles on Bamidbar Rabbi Solomon Drillman: The Connection between Bamidbar and Shavuos Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Good and Bad Neighbors Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Book of Transition Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Chinuch: School & Home Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: איש על דגלו Rabbi Josh Hoffman: My World Rabbi David Horwitz: Ramban’s Introduction to the Book of Numbers Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Striving for Kedusha Parsha Sheets on Bamidbar MTA (YU High School for Boys): Shema Koleinu HALB: Dvarim HaYotzim Min HaLev YU-Torah miTzion Toronto Kollel: Toronto Torah YULA Boys High School: Likutei Ohr Haftorah shiurim on Bamidbar Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: The Haftara for Parashat BaMidbar and the Mitzva of Bikkurim Rabbi Avraham Rivlin : וארשתיך לי לעולם Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Bamidbar See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Bamidbar

New This Week Entering the Temple Mount in Our Time Rabbi Shlomo Amar The Importance of Emunah Rabbi Josh Blass Preparation for Shavuos--Transforming the Material into Spiritual Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Why doesn't the Torah mention that Shavuos is Yom Matan Torah? Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg   The Circle of Life: Considering the Ethical and Halakhic Parameters of Caring for Aging Parents Rabbi Dr Aaron Glatt, Rabbi Dr. Richard Weiss Mysterious Moments: The Ambiguous Timing of Matan Torah Mrs. Leah Herzog Yom Yerushalayim: Understanding the Significance of Yerushalayim without the Beis HaMikdash Rabbi Eli Ozarowski The Dual Message of Har K'Gigis Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter Ruth and Return to Roots Rabbi Allen Schwartz Rav Kook, the Satmar Rebbe and Zionsim Rabbi Tzvi Sinensky Shavuos: Milchig Mystery Mrs. Shira Smiles Yom Yerushalayim 2013: 3 Reasons to Rejoice Rabbi Moshe Taragin Would Hashem Give US the Torah?! Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg

YUTorah on parashat Bamidbar

Audio Shiurim on Bamidbar Rabbi Nisson Lippa Alpert: How to Count the Jews Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster: The Haftara for Parashat BaMidbar and the Mitzva of Bikkurim Dr. Moshe Bernstein: Four Introductions to Sefer Bemidbar Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Ke-Bala et HaKodesh - Enwrapped in Holiness Rabbi Ally Ehrman: Flags: A Statement Of Purpose Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein: Kedushat seforim in halacha and machshava Rabbi Moshe Feinstein: Kedusha Must Be Revealed (Yiddish)  Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: G-d Centered Relationships Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: Valuing Diversity, Celebrating Unity Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: The Torah Center Rabbi Ephraim Greene: The Whole is Greater than the Sum of its Parts  Rabbi Jesse Horn: Entering into the secular world Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Torah in the Desert Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: The requirement to guard the Mikdash Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: Intuiting Ratzon Hashem Mrs. Yael Leibowitz: A Precipice in the Desert Rabbi Menachem Leibtag: The Mitzvah Sections in Bamidbar When & Why they were given vs. When & Why they Were Written Rabbi Dovid Miller: The Mishkan and Unity Rabbi Hershel Reichman: The Army of Yisrael and the Army of Levi'im Rabbi Zev Reichman: What is your Mission? Rabbi Dr. Jacob J Schacter: The Relationship between Bamidbar and Shavuot Rabbi Avi Schneider: Man's Best Friend Rabbi Baruch Simon: Emes: The Prerequisite to Kabbalas HaTorah Mrs. Shira Smiles: Everyone Counts Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik: The Special Kedusha of Women Rabbi Reuven Spolter: Protecting Holiness Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Fire, Water and the Desert Rabbi Michael Taubes: Status of a Levi today Rabbi Mayer Twersky: Preparing for Kabbalas HaTorah  Rabbi Shmuel Wagner: The Chidush of Bamidbar Rabbi Andi Yudin: We all Count Rabbi Ari Zahtz: The Degalim of Bnei Yisroel Articles on Bamidbar Rabbi Solomon Drillman: The Connection between Bamidbar and Shavuos Rabbi Avraham Gordimer: Good and Bad Neighbors Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: The Book of Transition Rabbi Maury Grebenau: Chinuch: School and Home Rabbi Josh Hoffman: My World Rabbi David Horwitz: Ramban’s Introduction to the Book of Numbers Rabbis Stanley Wagner and Israel Drazin: Reflections on the Census Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Striving for Kedusha Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Bamidbar See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Bamidbar

New This Week Birkas Hamazon Rabbi Avishai David The Fire of Kabbalas HaTorah: From Lag B'omer to Shavuos  Rabbi Chaim Eisenstein Scorpion Guards, Heavenly Dew, and the Secret of Kabbalos haTorah Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz Separation Between Religion and State  Rabbi Yona Reiss Preparation for Shavuos Rabbi Zvi Romm The Prohibition of Eating before Shacharis Rabbi Baruch Simon   Ruth: Core of Chesed Mrs. Shira Smiles Prioritizing Various Forms of Talmud Torah  Rabbi Moshe Taragin The Parallels Between Yom Yerushalayim and Shavuot  Mrs. Shani Taragin Yom Yerushalayim as a preparation to Shavuot Rabbi Mordechai Willig Megillas Rus or Megillas Naomi  Rabbi Ari Zahtz

What was עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם? Nadav and Avihu's death, or Eleazar and Itamar's service?

Summary: One can parse the pasuk so that this phrase,  עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם, goes on Nadav and Avihu's death. Or, we can parse it so that it goes on the service of Eleazer and Itamar. This is a case of trup vs. Divrei Hayamim.

Post:


Consider the following pasuk, with its trup. Bemidbar 3:4. ד. וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם: 

Rashi explains עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם as בחייו, in his [=Aharon's] lifetime. And his basis is [Num. Rabbah 2:26, Lev. Rabbah 20:11, Pesikta d’Rav Kahana p. 173b]. So we can look there to get a sense of what he means.

Basically, the obvious ambiguity would be whether עַל פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם refers to Nadav and Avihu's death {or bringing the esh zara}, or Eleazar and Itamar's serving as kohanim.

Ramban writes:

ד): על פני אהרן אביהם - 

בחייו, לשון רש"י. 

ואין העניין להגיד שכהנו בחיי אביהם, כי כל איש מבני אהרן הכהנים יכהן בחיי אביו, רק בעבור שאמר "הכהנים המשוחים" שהיו גם הם ככהנים גדולים נמשחים כמוהו בחייו ולא יעשה כן לדורות. 

והנכון, כי "על פני" יחזור על הרחוק, וימת נדב ואביהוא לפני ה' על פני אהרן אביהם בהקריבם אש זרה, וכך נאמר בדברי הימים (א כד ב): וימת נדב ואביהו לפני אביהם ובנים לא היו להם ויכהנו אלעזר ואיתמר. וטעם"לפני ה'", שמתו בנס שבא מאתו, וכן נאמר במרגלים (להלן יד לז): במגפה לפני ה':

"Upon the face of Aharon their father -- 'in his lifetime' -- the language of Rashi. And the import of this is not to relate that they served in their father's lifetime, for every man of the sons of Aharon the kohanim serves in his father's lifetime. Rather, since it states 'the anointed kohanim, who were kohanim gedolim as well, who were anointed like him in his lifetime, and such was not done for generations.


And the correct explanation is that על פני binds to the distant phrase, of וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה. And so is stated in I Divrei HaYamim 24:2:

א  וְלִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן, מַחְלְקוֹתָם:  בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	1 And the courses of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.
ב  וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי אֲבִיהֶם, וּבָנִים לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֲנוּ, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	2 But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children; therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office.

And the meaning of לִפְנֵי ה is that they died by a miracle which came from Him. And so is stated by the scouts {later on, Bemidbar 14:37}

לז  וַיָּמֻתוּ, הָאֲנָשִׁים, מוֹצִאֵי דִבַּת-הָאָרֶץ, רָעָה--בַּמַּגֵּפָה, לִפְנֵי ה.

37 even those men that did bring up an evil report of the land, died by the plague before the LORD.

"

End quote of the Ramban. Shadal cites Mendelsohnn, who takes note of this, and writes:
 [ד] על פני אהרון אביהם: לדעת רמב"ן חוזר למעלה, וימת נדב ואביהוא על פני אהרן אביהם, וכן הוא בד"ה א' כ"ד ב ', והאתנח ראוי תחת ואיתמר (נתה"ש).ש

His point here is that by putting the etnachta on veItamar, the al penei Aharon avihem would be parenthetical, and could bind distantly above. But placing it where it is, on lahem, it makes it seem like al pnei Aharon avihem is modifying the kehuna of Eleazar and Itamar.

This is a valid point. And so we Divrei Hayamim (and Ramban) arguing against the trup (and Rashi and Chazal). Neither these is necessarily compelling and dispositive. That is, perhaps the author of Divrei Hayamim did not have the trup, and interpreted the pasuk in his own way. And perhaps the author of the trup was unaware of the parsing given in Divrei Hayamim.

Still, must we say that this is an absolute machlokes? While these are alternate parsings of the same pasuk, the interpretations are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, we can say that Rashi + Chazal were making a derasha, but know that the mikra also maintained its peshat value. And that the trup was parsing the pasuk according to that derasha. And meanwhile, Ramban + Divrei Hayamim were giving the peshat interpretation.

My leanings towards interpreting this pasuk is certainly more in the direction of Ramban + Divrei Hayamim. This is genealogy. And I am reminded of the genealogy involving Er + Onan, and of Datan and Aviram. The very point would be that these died at this time, and so the genealogy will focus only on the other descendants, and their numbers and their roles. (On the other hand, their is a focus on roles and thus the shimush.)

Bamidbar sources -- 2012 edition

מראי מקומות ללימוד פרשת במדבר, תשע"א

by aliyah

rishon (Bemidbar 1:1)

sheni (1:20)

shelishi (2:1)

revii (3:1)

chamishi (3:14)

shishi (3:40)

shevii (4:1)

maftir (4:17), Haftarah (Hoshea 2)

by perek

perek 1 ; perek 2 ; perek 3 ; perek 4

meforshim - מפרשים

Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew (France, 1040 - 1105) -- ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא, דבר דבור על אופניו

Chizkuni (France, 13th century) -- see Wikipedia
Shadal (1800-1865) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. In plain text   here  , though not encoding some of the trup and nikkud, and omitting certain references to non-Jewish scholars.
2. In Google book form   here , but with all that was omitted above. Also, with Shadal's Italian translation of the Chumash text.
3. Mishtadel, an earlier and shorter commentary
4. In determining the correct girsa of Targum Onkelos,  Ohev Ger

Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+, Gilyonot

Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew) -- 1905-1997 -- see Wikipedia

Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz (1690-1764) -- see Wikipedia entry:

1. Tiferes Yehonasan
2. Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Behaalosecha  -- chiddushim and pilpulim on midrashim, Toras Kohanim, Sifrei, and Rashi al haTorah. With supercommentary of R' Yaakov Goldshlag.
3. Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz -- not until Bechukosai
4. Divrei Yehonasan -- discussing halacha and aggada together, interpreting difficult midrashim
5. Nefesh Yehonasan -- commentary on midrashim and pilpulim + Tanchuma, and suygot in Shas connected to each parsha.
6. Midrash Yehonasan -- on difficult midrashim

Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich