Halakhah sobre Oseas 2:27

3. In the same discussion, the Gemara, Yoma 22b, adduces yet another source for the prohibition against counting the populace. R. Eleazar derives a negative prohibition from Hosea 2:1 which he renders as "The number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea which shall not be measured nor numbered (lo yimad ve-lo yisafer)," rather than as "which cannot be measured nor numbered." R. Nachman bar Yitzchak finds that this verse establishes, not one, but two prohibitions, viz., "shall not be measured" and "shall not be numbered."⁶Cf., Teshuvot Ḥavot Ya’ir, no. 9.

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.

“In that their mother has played the harlot, she that conceived them has acted shamelessly.”⁴⁴Hosea 2:7. The prophet compares Israel’s pursuit of idolatry to an adulterous woman’s pursuit of lovers. Even the most holy images engraved on the face of the people became toxic: “Your new moons and fixed seasons fill me with loathing. They have become a burden to me, and I cannot endure them.”⁴⁵Isa. 1:7. In this passage, God rejects the people’s ritual worship when their moral life is full of oppression and cruelty. When national life became defiled, the power of ethics increased,⁴⁶This statement might appear paradoxical in the context of a passage about the moral collapse of the people. The meaning appears to be that, with the decline of the national, political life of the Jewish people, there were outbursts of moral intensity, but these were unsustainable in the absence of supporting political institutions. Rav Kook may have been thinking of a phenomenon analogous to the proliferation of ascetic Jewish sects toward the end of the Second Temple period. but with the surrounding political turmoil, the result was simply inner anguish and confusion. These two elements—the people and the land, which, when healthy, had given each other so much grace and power for good—made each other sicker and more corrupt. Finally, they had to take the cruel-kind medicine, the dreadful surgical operation of separating the people from the land—“Because of our sins, we were exiled from our country and distanced from our land.”⁴⁷Taken from the musaf prayer for the new moon and festivals.

Now the shmita year has arrived (according to the reckoning that we have). Owing to the poor situation of our settlements in the land, we will have to make do with the temporary expedient that was endorsed some time ago by the greatest authorities of the generation, who understood deeply the situation of the new settlement in our holy land.⁶³Rav Kook refers here to the heter mekhira device of selling the land for the duration of the shmita. They had a penetrating sense of what it could become in the future and knew not to belittle its smallness because they understood that plowing these first furrows on our land could be a “gateway of hope”⁶⁴Hosea 2:17. Rav Kook quotes from the passage that likens Israel’s turn to idolatry to a woman’s adultery, which he has previously cited in his introduction. This verse describes the lovers’ reconciliation. In Hebrew, the phrase is petaḥ tikva, which was the name given to one of the first modern agricultural settlements in Israel (founded in 1878) for similar reasons. for our people and portend the growth of a salvation that “came from the Lord.”⁶⁵Ps. 118:23. They realized their historical obligation to smooth the path of the new settlements and, as much as possible, not to let the mitzvot that are connected to the land be obstacles. God does not make tyrannical and unreasonable demands of His creatures. The circumstances that allow us to be lenient regarding mitzvot pertaining to the whole community when there is the likelihood of significant financial loss, or in a temporary situation of acute need, are all compounded in this case to an extent unparalleled in the annals of legal questions that have arisen throughout our lengthy exile. Despite the suspension of the mitzvah (of shmita) that is entailed by this temporary edict, there are still some halakhot pertaining to shmita that we are required to observe. And those who are especially God-fearing, whose holy love of the mitzvot connected to the land that we have long yearned to observe is so great, are not deterred by the trouble and loss they may incur through fully observing shmita as it should be—and they shall be blessed!

It should be noted, however, that in addition to Hatam Sofer, another authority, Ramat Shmu'el, cited by Ez Yosef in his commentary on Ein Ya'akov, Yoma 22b, forbids even an approximate tabulation. In the view of Ramat Shmu'el, the prohibition against counting the populace applies even when the method employed is inaccurate and hence yields only an approximation. In support of this position Ramat Shmu'el cites Hosea 2:1 which he renders literally as "which shall not be estimated (lo yimad) and shall not be counted."³¹Cf., Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 29, note 10b.