Halakhah zu Schemuel I 15:4
וַיְשַׁמַּ֤ע שָׁאוּל֙ אֶת־הָעָ֔ם וַֽיִּפְקְדֵם֙ בַּטְּלָאִ֔ים מָאתַ֥יִם אֶ֖לֶף רַגְלִ֑י וַעֲשֶׂ֥רֶת אֲלָפִ֖ים אֶת־אִ֥ישׁ יְהוּדָֽה׃
Und Saul rief das Volk herbei und zählte es in Telaim, zweihunderttausend Lakaien und zehntausend Männer Judas.
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
In response to the objection that "bazek" may be a place name, the Gemara cites I Samuel 15:4, "and Saul summoned the people and numbered them by means of lambs (tela'im)." Standard biblical translations similarly render "tela'im" as a place name. Tosafot Yeshanim, Yoma 22b, and Redak, I Samuel 15:4, likewise indicate that such is the "simple meaning" of the verse. However, according to talmudic exegesis, prior to engaging in war against Amalek, Saul did not count the populace at a place known as Tela'im; rather he counted by means of lambs (tela'im). Rashi, I Samuel 15:4, following the interpretation of the Gemara, explains the verse as stating that Saul provided the populace with lambs which he then retrieved in taking the census.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
Addressing the same question, Rabbi Weinberg and Rabbi Waldenberg both suggest that citation of a verse from the prophetic writings is necessary in order to establish a prohibition against the taking of a census "even for purposes of a mizvah" since the pentateuchal verse does not necessarily encompass such contingencies.7R. Chaim Joseph David Azulai, Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b; R. Yehudah Aryeh Leib Alter of Gur, Sefat Emet, Yoma 22b, and R. Yisrael Yehoshua of Kutna, Yeshu’ot Malko, Likkutei Torah, p. 74b, suggest that, in context, Exodus 30:12 refers only to a census of the entire populace. Accordingly, Yoma 22b adduces verses from prophetic sources in establishing a prohibition against counting even a portion of the populace. Cf., however, Ḥiddushei Ḥatam Sofer, Yoma 22b, cited below. See also Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 11, who suggests that other more explicit verses are required because Exodus 30:12 might be interpreted as forbidding a census only when undertaken by a “king or leader of Israel.” Indeed Midrash Talpiyot, no. 20, cites an opinion to the effect that “a ransom is required only when the census is undertaken by a king.
It should however be noted that Rambam, Hilkhot Temidim u-Musafim 4:4, cites only the reference to I Samuel 15:4 discussed in Yoma 22b and omits any reference to Exodus 30:12 as a source for such a prohibition. Unlike Berakhot 62b, Yoma 22b may have regarded Exodus 30:12 as referring only to the census undertaken in the wilderness, but not as establishing a prohibition for posterity. If so, the prohibition against counting would be regarded by Rambam as binding solely by virtue of prophetic tradition (mei-divrei kabbalah) rather than as expressly biblical in nature. See Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 19f; cf., however, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, and Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 1. It is, however difficult to sustain any explanation which posits a conflict between Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22. In Berakhot it is R. Eleazar who cites Exodus 30:12 as the source of the prohibition and it is also R. Eleazar who is quoted in Yoma as establishing the prohibition on the basis of Hosea 2:1. A similar explanation is advanced by lyun Ya'akov and Ez Yosef in their respective commentaries on Ein Ya'akov, Yoma 22b.8See also Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b; cf. Be’er Sheva, Tamid 28a.
It should however be noted that Rambam, Hilkhot Temidim u-Musafim 4:4, cites only the reference to I Samuel 15:4 discussed in Yoma 22b and omits any reference to Exodus 30:12 as a source for such a prohibition. Unlike Berakhot 62b, Yoma 22b may have regarded Exodus 30:12 as referring only to the census undertaken in the wilderness, but not as establishing a prohibition for posterity. If so, the prohibition against counting would be regarded by Rambam as binding solely by virtue of prophetic tradition (mei-divrei kabbalah) rather than as expressly biblical in nature. See Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 19f; cf., however, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, and Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 1. It is, however difficult to sustain any explanation which posits a conflict between Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22. In Berakhot it is R. Eleazar who cites Exodus 30:12 as the source of the prohibition and it is also R. Eleazar who is quoted in Yoma as establishing the prohibition on the basis of Hosea 2:1. A similar explanation is advanced by lyun Ya'akov and Ez Yosef in their respective commentaries on Ein Ya'akov, Yoma 22b.8See also Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b; cf. Be’er Sheva, Tamid 28a.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
4. Rashi, I Chronicles 27:24, seemingly ignoring the sources cited in both Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22b, posits two entirely different verses as sources for this prohibition. The passages "If a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be numbered" (Genesis 13:16) and " 'Look now toward heaven and count the stars if you are able to count them'; and he said unto him, 'So shall your seed be' " (Genesis 15:5) are interpreted by Rashi, not simply as blessings, but as prohibitions against counting the progency of Abraham. In his commentary on I Samuel 15:4, Rashi cites yet a third verse, "I will surely do you good and make your seed as the sand of the sea which cannot be numbered for multitude" (Genesis 32:13) which he renders as "which shall not be numbered for multitide.9Cf., Meshekh Ḥokhmah, Parshat Naso, s.v. be-haftorah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
According to Rashi, who views the verses in Genesis as establishing a prohibition against counting the population of Israel, it may perhaps be presumed that the Gemara, Yoma 22b, adduces prophetic verses because the verses in Genesis refer only to the counting of all members of the community of Israel. The prohibition established on the basis of the prophetic verses cited in Yoma 22b, however, clearly applies to the counting of even a segment of the populace. Thus, Scripture records that when Saul took the census prior to his battle against Ammon "The children of Israel were 300,000, and the men of Judah 30,000" (I Samuel 11:8); later, prior to the war against Amalek, Saul counted "200,000 footmen and 10,000 men of Judah" (I Samuel 15:4). The small numbers recorded, as well as the discrepancy between the figures, clearly indicate that the potential warriors counted by Saul constituted only a portion of the populace. Moreover, the Gemara, Yoma 22b, declares that, in the Temple, each priest extended a finger to be counted because it is forbidden to count people.10Cf., however, Rambam’s novel interpretation recorded in Hilkhot Temedim u-Musafim 4:3. The counting of only the priests in the Temple certainly would not have constituted a census of the entire people. Nevertheless, it was permitted to count only outstretched fingers but not the priests themselves.11R. Meir Dan Plocki, Klei Ḥemdah, Parshat Ki Tissa, explains that although it is forbidden to count individuals directly, the counting of fingers is deemed a permissible form of indirect counting. Translated literally, Exodus 30:12 states “when you count the head of the children of Israel …” The prohibition, explains Klei Ḥemdah, is understood as applying only to the counting of “heads” or of “organs” upon which life is dependent. A similar explanation is advanced by the author of Pe’at ha-Shulḥan and rebutted by Ḥatam Sofer, Koveẓ She’elot u-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 5733), no 8. Cf., Abarbanel, Exodus 30:12. Thus, according to this analysis, the direct counting of even a portion of the populace is forbidden.12As noted earlier Petaḥ Einayim, Sefat Emet and Yeshu’ot Malko independently explain that, in establishing a prohibition against the direct counting of the populace, the Gemara cites the verse describing the census taken by Saul rather than Exodus 30:12 because the latter passage serves to prohibit only the counting of the entire populace while the prophetic verses serve to prohibit the counting of even a portion of the populace.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol III
This is also the position of Tosafot Rid, Yoma 22b; Redak, I Samuel 15:4 and II Samuel 24:1; and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan, Yoma 22b. It should however be noted that Tosafot Rid and Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan speak of indirect counting being permitted for the "purpose of a mizvah" rather than simply for any "purpose." Similarly, R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Meromei Sadeh, Berakhot 62a, stipulates that the counting must be for the purpose of a mizvah.19Cf., however, R. Chaim Kanievsky, Naḥal Eitan 6:10, sec. 7, who understands the concept of counting for the purpose of a miẓvah formulated by Tosafot Ri ha-Lavan as permitting even indirect counting only upon specific divine command, rather than for the purpose of enabling the fulfillment of some other commandment. A similar position is advanced by Petaḥ Einayim, Yoma 22b, in the name of R. Menachem Azariah of Panu. On the other hand, R. Chaim ibn Attar, Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 30:12, permits the indirect counting of even the entire populace by means of half-shekels despite the absence of a legitimate "purpose."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy