Commentary for Numbers 15:32

ויהיו ... במדבר וימצאו AND [WHEN THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] WERE IN THE DESERT, THEY FOUND [A MAN THAT PICKED UP WOOD ON THE SABBATH DAY] — (This must mean when they first came into the wilderness, and) Scripture is speaking here to the disparagement of the Israelites viz., that they kept the first Sabbath only, for on the second this man came and desecrated it (Sifrei Bamidbar 113).

He placed next to this section the subject of the man who gathered sticks [on the Sabbath day] because it happened at this time, after the incident of the spies — this in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture. And this is the meaning of [the phrase], and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness,²¹⁶Verse 32. for it was because the people tarried there on account of the above-mentioned decree, that this event happened. Afterwards He commanded the precept of Tzitzith (Fringes) in order that they would remember through it all the commandments, and not forget the Sabbath [as did the man who gathered the sticks], or any of the other Commandments.
Now the reason why Tzitzith have this [power of] reminding one of all the commandments is, as Rashi wrote,²¹⁷In Verse 39. because the total numerical value of the letters of the [Scriptural] word tzitzith is six hundred, and together with the eighth threads and five knots, you have six hundred and thirteen [corresponding to taryag, the six hundred and thirteen commandments]. But I have not understood this, for the word tzitzith in the Torah is written without a [second] yod,²¹⁸It is written with these letters: tzade = 90, yod = 10, tzade = 90, tav = 400. The sum total is thus 590 [and not 600 as Rashi wrote]. so the total numerical value is only five hundred and ninety! Moreover, the number of threads [to be used for each of the Fringes] in the opinion of the school of Hillel²¹⁹Menachoth 41b. is only three [which, when passed through the hole at the corner form six threads — not eight, as Rashi mentioned], and the knots by law of the Torah [need only] be two; as the Rabbis have said:²²⁰Ibid., 39a. See Vol. III, pp. 298-9, Notes 116-19, where this whole text of the Talmud is fully explained. “You must deduce from this that the upper knots in the Fringes are required by Scriptural law. For if you should think that they are not obligatory by Scriptural law, why then did the Torah have to state a [special] permission to use mingled stuff [of wool and linen] in Fringes! Do we not accept as the established law that if one joins two pieces together with only one stitch, it is not considered joined?”
Rather, the remembrance [of the commandments] is through the blue thread, which alludes to the all-inclusive attribute, which is bakol²²¹See Vol. I, pp. 290-291. and which is the aim of All. Therefore He said, that ye may look upon it, and remember ‘kol’ (all),²²²Verse 39 here. — And since Kol (All) is the all-inclusive attribute it therefore contains all the commandments of the Eternal, and hence the Rabbis have said that the commandment of Tzitzith is of equal importance to the total number of the commandments (Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti, quoting the text of Ramban). which is the commandments of the Eternal. This is why the Rabbis said:²²³Menachoth 43b. “[Why was blue chosen rather than any other color?] Because blue resembles the sea, the sea resembles heaven, and heaven resembles the Throne of Glory, etc.” The likeness is in the name,²²⁴Since the word t’cheileth contains in it the word kol (all) it alludes by its very name to that all-inclusive attribute of Kol. as also in the shade of the color which is the termination of all colors [and which leads one from the blue in the Fringes to the blue of the sea etc., and finally to think of Him Who is on high], for in the distance all colors appear to be that shade. That is why it is called t’cheileth [which is also suggestive of the word tachlith (termination) since this is the end of all colors].

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, While the children of Israel were in the desert, etc. Why did the Torah have to let us know that the children of Israel were in the desert? This may be understood in conjunction with what we learned in Shabbat 96. Rav Yehudah is quoted as saying that the sin of the person collecting the firewood consisted of his carrying it a distance of 4 cubits in the public domain. We have aslo learned in Shabbat 6 that a Seratya or a Platyah i.e. a camp or a busy highway, constitute a public domain. The Talmud asks there why the Baraitha which mentioned the examples of a camp or busy highway did not include a desert as a further example of a public domain? Abbaye answered that this was not really an appropriate question as the desert constituted a public domain only while the Israelites (600,000 plus) marched through the desert, whereas the Baraitha was concerned with conditions at the time. Rashi comments on this as follows: "In those days the desert was considered a public domain whereas in our time it is not considered an area traversed by many people. When a Baraitha did mention that a desert may also be a public domain this is based on the assumption that the desert once more became a route used by multitudes of people on a regular basis."

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “The Children of Israel were in the wilderness.” This verse that apparently does not tell us anything we did not know, appears here as explaining how what will be described here could have happened. It was all due to the decree that the people had to keep wandering in the desert. This is followed by the legislation about Tzitzit, the fringes to be appended to four cornered garments, a device designed to remind the wearer of all of the Torah’s commandments whenever he looks at these fringes. Nachmanides comments on the commentary of Rashi in which he refers to the numerical of the word amounting to 600 (ציצית) When we add the 8 strings involved and the 5 knots used in tying them we arrive at 613, i.e. the umber of laws in the Torah. He questions this whole explanation, pointing out that the spelling in the Torah of the word ציצת [without the letter י in front of the letter ת leaves us with only 590.] He adds further, that according to the school of Hillel, the number of strings is three and not eight. The Torah also requires only 2 knots, not 5. [Nachmanides’ query has already been raised by Tossaphot in Menachot, 39 and is not directed at Rashi who did not originate the explanation, but at any rate the answer given there is that the letter ל in the word לציצת in our paragraph makes up (30) for the three letters י missing in the three words spelled ציצת in the text of the Torah in our paragraph. Ed.] At any rate, according to Nachmanides, the “remembering” of the Torah’s commandments mentioned in our paragraph is due to the colour of the thread of תכלת, ocean-blue wool, and not to any numerical values of any of the letters in the paragraph. Ocean-blue reminds us of the blue sky, which in turn makes us think of the Creator presiding over His universe on His throne in heaven.

They kept only the first Shabbos. Meaning that if not so, why does the Torah mention that they were in the desert? Rather it is to teach that immediately after they came to the desert this man desecrated Shabbos, but not beforehand. One may ask: In chapter Kol Kisvei (Shabbos 118b) it says “If Yisroel had observed the first Shabbos, no nation or tongue could overpower them.” The answer is that these Midrashim disagree with one another. One may ask: It states (Sanhedrin 56b) Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: “As I commanded you” (Devarim 5:12) — this refers to Shabbos and monetary laws which I commanded you at Marah. This means that this it not their first Shabbos, as Tosafos ask (Shabbos 87b). The answer is that Rashi avoids this question because in Parshas Beshalach he explains “There he gave them” (Shemos 15:25) — in Marah he gave them some laws to involve themselves with, Shabbos, the red heifer and monetary laws. This implies that he informed them of these laws and taught them that Hashem would in the future command them so. Ramban also gives this explanation in Parshas Beshalach. Thus they had not yet been commanded to abstain from forbidden work on Shabbos, only to learn about the positive mitzvah of Shabbos (Kitzur Mizrochi). In my opinion this is not a question at all, because there the Torah does not say that they did any forbidden work, rather they went out to gather but did not collect anything. Thus they did not physically sin at all. Rather they did not observe Shabbos in thought, which is not considered a desecration. Therefore the Gemara says “if [Yisroel] had observed…” meaning that had they observed it in thought as in action, then no one could overpower them. However, here the Torah says that this man came and physically desecrated Shabbos.

V. 32. Das vorangehende Gesetz hatte die ע׳׳ז-Versündigung als Abfall von Gott und seinem Gesetze behandelt, und in dem darauf bezüglichen Opfer liegt der Schwerpunkt auf der Huldigung Gottes als Leiters unserer Taten und Lenkers unseres Geschickes, wie dies in עולה und מנחה ונסך zum Ausdruck gelangt. Es schloss zugleich mit Besprechung des Falles, dass das ע׳׳ז-Verbrechen במזיד, aber ohne עדים והתראה geschehen und so sich der menschenrichterlichen Kognition entziehe, aber dem göttlichen Gerichte verbleibe, das כרת über ע׳׳ז und ברכת ד׳ verhänge.

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “While the Children of Israel were in the desert, etc.;” our sages say that if the Israelites had (all of them) observed a second Sabbath in a row, no nation could ever have achieve mastery over them. (Talmud, tractate Shabbat, folio 118). Whence do we know that the Sabbath on which they found the man gathering sticks was that second Sabbath? This is clear from the sequence of the words: ויהיו וימצאו, which means that as soon as they had been commanded all the rules of Sabbath observance, they found this man violating it. How do we know that this man was Tzelofchod? The letters in the sequence עצים ביום have the same numerical value as the letters in the name צלפחד. [The Israelites desecrated already the first Sabbath, when some of them went out to gather manna, compare Exodus 16,27. Ed.] Why has the paragraph about Tzelofchod been inserted in the Torah at this point? At the time when this man desecrated the Sabbath Moses had been saying to Hashem “Lord of the universe, it is written in the phylacteries that wearing them is in order to remind the wearer to talk about the Commandments, (Exodus 13,9) and You have forbidden the phylacteries being worn on the Sabbath.” (Talmud, tractate Menachot folio 36) If only Tzelofchod had worn his phylacteries on that Sabbath, he would have reminded himself of the prohibition of gathering sticks on the Sabbath.” Hashem answered him that He had already commanded the people a commandment to remind them of the laws of the Sabbath, and that is the wearing of the tzitzit on their prayer shawls. (four cornered garment requiring these fringes).

And they found a man. It should say they saw him. From this the Sages derived (Sifrei) that Moshe established guards for Shabbos observance, because the generation was not careful in keeping Shabbos, as we find in Yechezkel 20. Nechemiah also did this in his time because the people were lax in keeping Shabbos. We find as such in the Shulchan Aruch Orech Chaim at the end of Hilchos Yom Tov: Beis Din is obligated to establish guards on Yom Tov so that the people will not transgress.

ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, “While the Children of Israel were in the desert, etc.;” they remained there as G-d had decreed that they could not enter the Land of Israel. The commandments that have been listed immediately preceding this paragraph were all commandments that could not be fulfilled outside that land. This is why they had been introduced with the words: וכי תבאו אל הארץ, “when you will come to the land.” The only one discussed here that was not only applicable in the Holy Land were the laws of the Sabbath which apply universally, wherever Jews happen to be, even when they are in the desert. This is why the fact that the man who collected kindling on the Sabbath was in the desert was written, as we would have known that he was in the desert, where else could he have been? (B’chor shor on verse 34.)

This is basically what the words "while the Israelites were in the desert" wanted to convey to us. The reason that the מקשש עצים, the person gathering firewood, was guilty of violating the Sabbath, was because at that time the desert was a proper public domain and carrying in it for a distance of four cubits or more was forbidden on pain of death. If the Israelites had not at that time travelled through the desert, the act of the מקשש would not have been punishable.

Nun gibt es aber noch eine Mizwa, in welcher Gott eine Handlung, oder vielmehr eine Unterlassung zu einer Bekenntnistat unserer Gotteshuldigung zugleich als Gebieters über unsere Geschicke und unsere Tat gemacht hat, so dass deren Leistung: Huldigung, und deren Versagung: Verleugnung der Gottesherrschaft über Geschick und Tat ausspricht, deren Höhnung daher ebenso wie ע׳׳ז und מגדף mit כרת und סקילה verpönt ist, und diese מצוה ist: שבת. Indem der Schabbat auf Gottes Geheiß unserem Schaffen Einhalt gebietet, legen wir mit dieser einzigen שביתה unsere Tat und unsere Welt zu gleicher Zeit Gott zu Füßen. Unser Nichtschaffen am Schabbat ist eben diese Doppelhuldigung, wie ein jedes Werkschaffen am Schabbat eine Doppelleugnung der Gottesherrschaft ist. In innigstem Zusammenhange steht daher der hier folgende konkrete Vorgang eines חילול שבת mit den vorangehenden Gesetzen und Vorgängen, und zwar sehen wir da dieselben בני ישראל, dieselbe עדה, dasselbe Volk, das wir im Beginne dieses Abschnittes in vollendetem Aufruhr gegen Gott und seine Leitung erblicken, wieder gesinnungstreu, und obgleich במדבר, obgleich für sein gegenwärtiges Geschlecht dem hoffnungslosen Wandern in der Wüste verfallen, doch sich seiner gotthuldigenden Aufgabe wieder bewusst und die Huldigung Gottes und seines Gesetzes mit Ernst gegen alle seine Angehörigen vertreten. Die einleitenden Worte: ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר, sowie die ganze Fassung dieses Berichtes, verglichen mit dem des מקלל im Wajikra 24, 10 f.. weist darauf hin, dass hier auf die stattgefundene Initiative des Volkes ein besonderer Nachdruck gelegt ist. Es heißt nicht: ויצא איש ויקושש עצים ביום השבת ויביאו אותו אל משה וגו׳, sondern: ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר וימצאו וגו׳ ויקריבו אתו המצאים אתו וגו׳ damit richtet der Bericht unser Augenmerk offenbar mehr auf die Tätigkeit der Söhne des Volkes und deren Intervention zur Vertretung des Gesetzes als auf den Verbrecher.

וימצאו איש מקושש עצים, “they found a man collecting kindling.” According to Rashi, this line is written as a critique of the Israelites, seeing that at least one of them did not even observe the second Sabbath already. [Actually, some Israelites who went out of the camp with containers to collect manna on the first Sabbath also violated the Sabbath legislation, although this was before the Torah had been given. Ed.] From Rashi’s comment we must assume that this incident occurred already during the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings. On the other hand, the incident of the blasphemer recorded in Leviticus chapter 24, took place in the second year, as in the first year the Israelites had not yet arranged their tribal positions around the Tabernacle according to their tribal flags.

According to the opinion of Maimonides in Hilchot Shabbat chapter 14 there does not seem to be a difference between the status of the desert in the days of the Israelites' trek through the desert and nowadays. I explained this in a volume called Chefetz Hashem which I composed during my youth. Maimonides understood the words of Abbaye to mean that the scholar who included the desert as an example of the public domain spoke of a period when the Israelites travelled through the desert. The other scholar who did not list the desert as a public domain was only concerned with conditions prevailing during his lifetime. Seeing that during his lifetime the desert was not travelled by many people he did not bother to define its status. In actual fact, however, the desert must be regarded as a public domain even in our own times. If this is the correct interpretation of what Abbaye had in mind we are back to square one, i.e. why did the Torah have to tell us that the Israelites were in the desert when this incident took place?

מקשש עצים (siehe Schmot 5, 7). Wir haben es dort zweifelhaft gelassen, ob קשש verwandt mit גזז ,קצץ, schneiden, kurzschneiden, oder verwandt mit גשש, herumtasten, etwas Greifbares auflesen, ursprünglich bedeutet. So bleibt es auch (Schabbat 96b) zweifelhaft, in welcher מלאכה das Sabbatverbrechen des מקושש bestanden, ob תולש ,מעביר ד׳ אמות ברה׳׳ר oder מעמר, ob im Schneiden, Auflesen oder Transportieren der Hölzer vier Ellen im רשות הרבים (siehe Schmot 35, 1-2). War es dies letztere, so dürfte die einleitende Bemerkung: ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר in sehr wesentlicher Beziehung zu dem ganzen Ereignis stehen. Es ist nämlich aus Schabbat 6b ersichtlich, dass מדבר, die Wüste, an sich nicht den Charakter eines Gesamtheitsraumes, דשות הרבים, hat, und nur בזמן שישראל שרויין במדבר, durch Israels Anwesenheit und während derselben die Bedeutung als רה׳׳ר hatte. Durch die Notiz ויהיו בני ישראל במדבר dürfte somit der Handlung des מקושש, vorausgesetzt, dass diese in העברת ד׳ אמות ברה׳׳ר bestanden, erst die Gesetzwidrigkeit begründet, und damit zugleich dem Irrtum vorgebeugt sein, daraus einen Präzedenzfall zur Beurteilung der מדבר בזמן הזה herzuleiten. Wir knüpfen hieran noch eine Bemerkung. Wenn nach der rezipierten Halacha der Schabbat die einzige Institution ist, deren Verletzung erst durch die Öffentlichkeit, פרהסיא, in der sie geschieht, zu der ע׳׳ז-gleichen Prägnanz gesteigert wird, und מומר לחלל שבת בפרהסיא, ebenso wie מומר לע׳׳ז als מומר לכל התורה כולה zu achten ist (Chulin 5a): so dürfte eben hier, wo durch die Zusammenstellung mit dem Vorhergehenden diese Gleichheit des חילול שבת mit ע׳׳ז hervortritt, die Bemerkung, dass בני ישראל an der Stelle des Verbrechens gegenwärtig waren und das Verbrechen in deren Gegenwart, המצאים אתו מקשש עצים (siehe V. 33) verübt wurde, von wesentlichster Bedeutung sein. Bedenken wir, dass der Begriff, der Öffentlichkeit, פרסום ,פרהסיא, nicht auf die konkrete Anwesenheit von עשרה ישראל beschränkt, sondern auch dann gegeben ist, wenn der Verbrecher weiß, dass seine Tat publik wird, יודע שיתפרסם (Aboda Sara 74b; 160 שו׳׳ת מהרי׳׳ק ), so ist ja eben wie hier, jedes der menschlichen Strafgerechtigkeit verfallende חילול שבת eben ein solches, das im Anblick der Publizität verübt worden und somit der ע׳׳ז gleich steht. Die עדים והתראה, die dem Verbrecher Gesetz und Strafe entgegenhalten, vergegenwärtigen ihm ja im Augenblick der Tat die größte Öffentlichkeit der Gesamtheit, deren Tribunal er sich ja mit seinem אף על פי כן preisgibt und in deren Vergegenwärtigung er mit Bewusstsein das Verbrechen begeht. Der Nachdruck daher, den, wie eben bemerkt, unsere Stelle auf die Gegenwart der בני ישראל bei dem Verbrechen des מקושש legt, dürfte daher wohl geeignet sein, die gesetzliche Tatsache zu motivieren, dass nur חילול שבת בפרהסיא dem ע׳׳ז-Verbrechen gleichgestellt wird. Vielleicht ist dies auch der Sinn des schwer erklärlichen Satzes des ר׳ יצחק im ספרי zum folgenden Verse:ויקריבו אתו המצאים אתו מקשש וגו׳ מגיד שהתרו בו מעין מלאכתו מכאן לכל וכו׳ , darauf: ר׳ יצחק אומר אינו צריך וכו׳ ומה ת׳׳ל ויקריבו מלמד התרו בו ואחד כך הקריבו. Es dürfte nach Obigem ר׳ יצחק haben sagen wollen, es stehe hier das המצאים אותו מקשש (siehe zu V. 33) nicht, um hier die bereits anderweitig resultierende Lehre von der bei jeder Kriminalzeugenfunktion notwendigen התראה zu geben, sondern um das fortan zu konstatieren, daß bei dem מקשש die zu dessen Vorführung vor das Gericht notwendige התראה, im Momente der Tatverübung geschehen, sein Verbrechen somit ein חילול שבת בפרהסיא gewesen, woraus dann weiter die gesetzlich wichtige Folgerung sich ergibt, dass aus der hier gegebenen Zusammenstellung mit ע׳׳ז eine solche Gleichstellung nur für חילול שבת כבפרהסיא zu entnehmen sei.

מקושש עצים ביום השבת, “collecting kindling on the Sabbath day.” According to one opinion, the violation consisted of his carrying the kindling a distance greater than four cubits in the public domain. According to another opinion the sin consisted of his having cut the kindling from the tree’s trunk on the Sabbath. A third opinion holds that he was guilty of the sin of bundling these kindling together as in making sheaves. (Talmud tractate Shabbat folio 96.)

We may be able to explain our verse with the help of another statement in Shabbat 96 where a Baraitha is quoted which defines the sin of the מקשש as lopping the wood off the tree rather than carrying it a distance of 4 cubits. This appears difficult in view of a halachah in Chulin 88 that earth taken from the desert is unfit to be used to cover the blood of wild beasts or birds after their having been slaughtered. The reason given is that such earth is salty and incapable of supporting growth of plants. If this is so, where did the מקשש find trees in the desert that he could lop branches off? The Torah answers this question by writing that the Israelites had been in the desert for quite a while when the incident under discussion occurred. During the years preceding the incident with the מקשש the travelling well accompanying the Israelites had irrigated the desert around their camp so that that part of the desert became capable of producing a variety of plants. It was from these plants that the מקשש lopped off some firewood. This interpretation even fits the opinion offered by Rabbi Acha in Shabbat 96 that the מקשש was gathering in firewood lying on the ground, making a pile of them. This too would have been possible once we assume that the well of Miriam had irrigated the desert around the camp of the Israelites.

וימצאו, “they found;” this teaches that Moses must have appointed men especially appointed to look for lawbreakers on the Sabbath. One or more of these guards found the culprit, and the cautioned him. (Sifri)

וימצאו איש מקשש עצים, they found a man collecting firewood. The reason that the Torah employs the word "they found" is because according to Yalkut Shimoni Moses had instructed the people to spread out and search for any one who was violating the Sabbath. The word מצא is used in a similar sense in Esther 2,23 where the plot to assassinate Ahasverus was being investigated.

מקשש עצים ביום השבת, gathering firewood on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah first mentioned the deed before mentioning the day when it occurred is to tell us that the man was well aware that it was the Sabbath. If the Torah had reported this in the reverse order the meaning would have been that they found him on a day which they (the searchers) knew to be the Sabbath. The present phraseology makes it clear that the man gathering the firewood knew that it was the Sabbath. Our sages in the Sifri have cleverly deduced that the man was aware that it was the Sabbath from the repetition of the word מקשש עצים in verse 23. That repetition indicates that even after the man had been found collecting the firewood and had been warned about it he continued to do it. According to our own approach the repetition of the words מקשש עצים proves that the man had not erred in thinking that his activity was one which was permitted on the Sabbath. The men who found him warned him immediately about the fact that what he was doing was forbidden on pain of judicial execution. The man was guilty of being aware that it was the Sabbath (on which certain work prohibitions apply) as well as that the work he was performing was one of the forbidden categories.