Halakhah su Numeri 1:55

The purity of the family unit is the cornerstone of the sanctity of the community of Israel. The Gemara, Kiddushin 70a, declares, "The Divine Presence does not rest other than upon genealogically pure families of Israel." In that succinct statement the Sages eloquently underscore the importance of the family and its genealogical purity in the Jewish system of values. At the very inception of the Jewish faith-community in the wilderness of Sinai our ancestors "declared their pedigrees according to their families" (Num. 1:8) and the family assumed its position as the most fundamental of Jewish institutions.

The problem of Jewish identity is by no means a new one; it is as old as Judaism itself. Yalkut Shim'oni¹Bemidbar, 684. reports that at the time of the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai the gentile nations became exceedingly jealous. They, too, wished to be the recipients of the revealed word of God and to share in the prophetic experience at Sinai. The Midrash depicts God as brusquely rejecting their claim with the retort, "Bring me the record of your pedigree as My children are bringing." This, declare the Sages, is the meaning of the verse "and they declared their pedigrees after their families …" (Num. 1:18). In order to be counted among the members of the community of Israel and to be granted recognition as a Jew it was necessary for each of the wanderers in the wilderness to present documentary proof or to adduce witnesses prepared to testify with regard to the genealogical purity of the petitioner's lineage. Apparently, even at that early date, there were individuals who sought to identify themselves as Jews but whose claims to lineal descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were spurious. An authentic claim with regard to genealogical identity, then as now, was the sine qua non for recognition as a member of the Jewish faith-community by virtue of birth. The sole—but crucial—condition which must be met by a claim to Jewish identity by virtue of birth is that it be predicated upon authentic Jewish parentage, i.e., birth into a family whose claim to Jewish identity is recognized as having already been confirmed, perhaps as far back in the family history as on the occasion of the original census taken by Moses when all families were required to "declare their pedigrees."

Rabbi Goren presents a general discussion of the classical distinction between obligatory wars, permissible wars and wars of defense. More noteworthy is his presentation of sources pertaining to the establishment of minimum and maximum ages with regard to the conscription of soldiers. The chief difficulty in establishing a minimum age is that although Rashi, in his commentary on the Pentateuch (Exod. 30:14 and Num. 1:3), states that warriors must be "twenty years old and upward," Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, is silent with regard to any such provision. The question of a maximum age limit centers upon the proper textual reading of the Sifre, Numbers 197, which establishes an upper limit of either forty or sixty years of age, depending upon which of the variant readings is accepted as accurate. Another problem to be resolved is whether these limits pertain only to permissible wars (milḥemet reshut) or are applicable to obligatory wars (milḥemet ḥovah) as well.

On the other hand, whenever the Torah takes a census of those who are fit to wage war ("kol yotzei tzava"), it excludes the tribe of Levi, implying that this tribe does not fight in the army. The Rashbam (Bemidbar 1:47) even refers explicitly to their exclusion for the army. Hence, using the Levites as a paradigm for excusing Torah scholars from serving in the army remains debatable, for the status of Levi is itself uncertain.⁴For a complete discussion of the status of Levi in the army, see Rav Yehoshua Hagar-Lau's Ha'oz Veha'anavah (pp.127-141).

This also might explain why Chazal do not criticize Yoav for not resisting David Hamelech’s order to count the nation (see Shmuel II ch.24). Rav Itamar Warhaftig (Techumin 15:153) suggests that Yoav assumed that David felt that it was permissible to do so, as there are certain situations where counting the nation is permitted (see, for example, Ramban to Shemot 30:12 and Bemidbar 1:3). Therefore, a military order that is unambiguously wrong, such as gratuitously harming a peaceful demonstrator who is not endangering anyone, should be disregarded. If, however, the Prime Minister orders Tzahal to do something that is halachically ambiguous, it seems that the order must be obeyed.

Rashi, in his commentary to Numbers 1:18, indicates that in the wilderness either of two modes of proof of genealogical identity was acceptable: a written document certifying the family pedigree or witnesses testifying to ḥezkat leidatam, i.e., witnesses presenting presumptive evidence with regard to birth. In Great Britain, prior to the reign of Queen Victoria, it was the practice for both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord President of the Council to be in attendance at every royal birth in order to certify the identity of the newly-born princeling. Jewish law makes no such requirement. Witnesses are not required to be present at the moment of parturition in order to testify to the identity of the infant. A Jew is known and accepted as a Jew on the basis of ḥazakah, presumptive evidence based upon deportment and interpersonal behavior. Such presumptive evidence is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, accepted with absolute credibility.

2. However, in a subsequent comment, Ramban contradicts his own earlier interpretation. In his commentary on Numbers 1:3 Ramban remarks, "To me it [appears] unlikely that David should not be careful with regard to that which Scripture states, 'that there be no plague among them when you number them.' If perhaps David did err why did Joab not do [the census by means of] shekels … so that he should not sin?" Ramban proceeds to explain that a census such as was undertaken by David is forbidden even when conducted by means of counting half-shekels since it was unnecessary and not designed to serve a valid need or "purpose" (zorekh). David's census, asserts Ramban, was not designed to serve a military purpose or any other national need. That census, he declares, was undertaken by David simply in order to "gladden his heart" by demonstrating that he reigned over a large populace. In support of this thesis Ramban cites Bemidbar Rabbah 2:17:

3. Advancing an alternative explanation in his comments on Numbers 1:3, Ramban declares that the entire populace may not be counted even by indirect means. Therefore, even when undertaken by means of counting half-shekels, a census may include only those twenty years of age and older.²⁰See also Maharit, Ẓafnat Pa’aneaḥ, Parshat Ki Tissa, derush 1, and Naḥal Eitan 6:10, sec. 7. David, however, commanded that all above the age of thirteen be counted. Such a census yields a population count of the entire people which is forbidden under all circumstances.²¹Surprisingly, Rabbi Goren fails to cite Ramban’s comments in this regard but does indicate that Rashi, in citing the various verses in Genesis rather than those adduced in Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22b, intended to establish the basis for a prohibition against counting the entire populace. According to this explanation, David erred in assuming that a census of the entire populace, including even those under twenty years of age, is permitted when undertaken in an indirect manner.

Ramban further cites a "midrash aggadah"—presumably a reference to the earlier cited aggadic statement recorded in Berakhot 62b—which explains that David sinned in taking the census directly rather than by means of half-shekels. Thus the diverse explanations advanced by Ramban in his commentary on Numbers 1:3 reflect different strands of midrashic interpretation.²²See, however, Meromei Sadeh, Berakhot 62b, and Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 15, who resolve the apparent contradiction between the two aggadic sources by suggesting that Berakhot 62b ascribes a two-fold error to David: census-taking in the absence of a legitimate purpose which was compounded by failure to collect half-shekels. Cf., however, Tosafot Rid, Yoma 22b, who remarks that Joab did not require the collection of half-shekels because the census was not undertaken for a legitimate purpose and, accordingly, collection of half-shekels would not have mitigated the transgression.

(Hay-Nun) ‘Behold man is the one’ in which there is one shrine, as we have elucidated in most of the sections of this introduction of ours. And [it is] as it is [found] in the Zohar, Parashat Korach 94 (3:176a-b), “The One only dwells among the one.” See there. And the unity that [comes] as a result of the commandments permitted the Divine Presence to dwell among Israel through the twenty-two letters of the Torah. As included in it are the six hundred and thirteen commandments – the three hundred sixty-five positive commandments and the two hundred and forty-eight negative commandments – corresponding to the sinews and limbs of a man.⁹⁷Targum Yonatan on Genesis 1:27; Zohar 1:170b. And so was it explained in Paragraph Tzaddi in explanation of the verse (Isaiah 59:2) “But your iniquities have been a barrier between you,” that [the Jews] are united through the commandments and divided one from another through sins.⁹⁸This specific verse is not explained in our text. However the topic is broached in Paragraph Tsadi, and it is possible that this is the reference here, and not Paragraph Bet, as appears in the printed editions. However, it is even more likely that the reference is to Binah Le’Etim (Drash 48) of Rabbi Azariah Figo, as per the correction found in the New York Shivelei David edition, as both the verse and the idea are found there. (Hence the notation Si. Bet, which was understood as a reference to Siman Bet, should have been S. Bet, which could mean Sefer Binah Le’Etim.) And this was the intention of Hillel who said to the convert, “[‘And you shall love your neighbor as yourself’ (Lev. 19:18)] – that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its explanation. Go study.”⁹⁹Shabbat 31a. [Its] explanation is that the other commandments are explanations of the unity through which Israel joins together and becomes one. And this is also elucidated in the midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 13:3) that says, “What does the Holy One, blessed be He care if he slaughters, etc.? Behold, [the commandments] were only given to refine (letsaref, which can also mean, unite) the creatures, as it is stated (Prov. 30:5), ‘the word of God is refined.’” [Its] explanation is that through the commandments, the Children of Israel will be unified. And also there in Midrash Rabbah on Parashat Vayechi,¹⁰⁰The reference seems to be to Bereishit Rabbah 98:3. Differing versions of the midrash are brought in several other places such as Midrash Tanchuma, Vayehi 8:2. “Yaakov said to his sons, ‘Maybe because you come from four mothers, you have a tinge of idolatry?’ They said to him, ‘It is written (Num. 1:20), “according to the house of their fathers” – just like there is only One in your heart.’” And the author of the Yafeh Toar¹⁰¹A commentary on Bereishit Rabbah by Rabbi Shmuel Yafeh Ashkenazi (Turkey, 16th century). did not know its explanation. But it appears to me that [it can be explained] according to what [Maharal] writes in Netsach Yisrael¹⁰²See Netsach Yisrael, Chapter 32 (p. 153 in London edition). – [that the] reason that Rachel gave the signs to Leah¹⁰³In Bava Batra 123a, the rabbis write that Yaakov had given Rachel a type of code (signs) in case an impostor be sent to his tent in her place on their wedding night. When Rachel found out the plot to have Leah be that impostor, she gave Leah the signs to prevent her from being embarrassed. was because she knew that it was not fitting for Yaakov to father all twelve of the tribes from one woman. And had it been so, they would have all been one, whereas that is not fitting for this lowly [world] – as its nature inclines away from the way of oneness. And this causes sin in Israel until the future to come (messianic times) speedily in our days. See there. And this is [the meaning of that which Yaakov said to his sons, “Maybe because you come from four mothers, it is impossible that you will be unified; and sin caused it, as the One can only dwell among one.” But they answered him, “It is written, ‘according to the house of their fathers’ – and there is one Father to all of us and there is One in our hearts. And God, may He be blessed, will be unified through us.” And it is as our teacher Rabbi Yitschak Abarbanel writes in explanation of the verse (Gen. 2:24), “and they shall become one flesh,” like Rashi explained – through the embryo that is created from both of them. And the portion of each one is in the many limbs. Even though the embryo loves itself; yet through this the father and the mother [also] love each other, as a branch produces love in [its] roots. And this is the intention of the statement of [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, “‘And you shall love [the Lord your God], etc.’ (Deut. 6:5) – [that the name of the Heavens be loved through you¹⁰⁴This is the text found in the Talmud, and it is possibly what was written by the author. However, most versions of the Shev Shmat’ta have, “both of them will be beloved through the Torah scholar,” possibly relating to the mother and father.]” (Yoma 86a). And that means that the higher forces become unified, as all of them gave their portion to man and he is a branch from them – and love will sprout from the roots. And hence one should have intention for this unification before every [Torah] study [session] and good deed, as a fulfillment of the commandment of “and you shall love your neighbor, etc.” And [then] all of Israel will be one, and also all of the ones that gave birth to them will love each other and be unified.¹⁰⁵The author returns here to the theme with which he began this essay in the introductory paragraph and Paragraph Gimmel. And with what I have elucidated, their statement at the end of Tractate Eduyot is understood, “[Eliyahu] will not come to make distant or to bring close, but to make peace [among them], as it is stated (Mal. 3:23-24), ‘Behold, I will send, etc. [He shall bring back the hearts of the children to their fathers’” (Mishnah Eduyot 8:7). [This is] meaning that [the children] will be called by the name of their fathers, but there is [only] one Father to us all. And the world will then be fit for it. And then we shall see the joy of Zion and the building of Jerusalem, speedily in our days. Amen, Selah.

Parenthetically, it should be noted that Levush, Mizraḥi, Maharal and Rashbam apparently maintain that the collection of half-shekels serves to permit a direct head count of the populace. Such a position is entirely compatible with a literal reading of Exodus 30:12 and Numbers 1:2. Similary, Yalkut Shim'oni, Parshat Ki Tissa, speaks of individuals passing beyond a wooden platform, presumably for purposes of being counted directly. However, Rashi, Exodus 30:12, carefully explains that the collection of half-shekels was designed to enable the census to be taken indirectly by means of counting the half-shekel coins rather than by a direct count of individuals. According to Rashi, direct counting of people is never permissible.

Rabbi Weinberg, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, finds that a census undertaken in Israel under contemporary conditions is permitted because such a census is conducted by means of questionnaires which are filled out by individual householders. The names inserted in the blank spaces provided on the forms are then tabulated in order to reach a final count. The tallying of names, rules Rabbi Weinberg, is an indirect means of counting. He further contends that the considerations of economic planning and national security which require an accurate census suffice to constitute a "purpose." Accordingly, Rabbi Weinberg concludes that the taking of a census is permitted even according to the first analysis presented by Ramban in his commentary on Numbers 1:3. Rabbi Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi'el, Hoshen Mishpat, kelalim, no. 2, also permits the taking of a census on the grounds that it is conducted indirectly by means of written documents and is undertaken for a legitimate purpose. This is also the opinion of both Rabbi Friedman and Rabbi Kasher.²⁶See also Einayim la-Mishpat, millu’im, Berakhot 62b. Rabbi Kasher adds further support to this conclusion by citing the comments of Ralbag, Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53, who declares categorically that the counting of written names is not encompassed within the prohibition. Contradicting the view of other biblical commentators, Ralbag states that the later censuses undertaken by Moses were not conducted by means of collection of half-shekels but "according to the number of names" as indicated in Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53.²⁷Rabbi Kasher, Torah Sheleimah, XXI, 168, further contends that tabulation by mechanical means is not prohibited since the actual counting is not accomplished by a human act. This view is disputed by Rabbi Schwartz, Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 29. It should be noted that R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, in his biblical commentary Ha'amek Davar, also interprets both verses in an identical manner.²⁸In his commentary on Numbers 1:42, Ha’amek Davar cites an intriguing oral tradition attributed to the Ari ha-Kadosh. Ari advances a resolution to a textual difficulty in which he clearly assumes that those censuses were undertaken by counting slips of paper or the like upon which the names and tribal identification were recorded. Ari ha-Kadosh explains that these slips were collected from the entire community of Israel and deposited in a single place. Thereupon the nasi of each tribe came and selected those bearing the names of the members of his tribe and placed them in a separate receptacle. The slips in each of those receptacles were then counted in order to arrive at a census for each tribe. With the removal of the slips bearing the names of the members of the first eleven tribes, all remaining names were perforce known to be names of persons belonging to the twelfth tribe without need for any further selection. Accordingly, explains Ari ha-Kadosh, with regard to each of the first eleven tribes, Scripture states “Of the sons of … according to the number of names,” whereas with regard to Naphtali, the last tribe to be counted, Scripture states simply, “The sons of Naphtali….” With regard to each of the first eleven tribes, explains Ari, the names counted were of the sons of that tribe only, to the exclusion of slips bearing names of members of other tribes. Hence the phrase “of the sons …” which excludes all others. However, when it came time to count the tribe of Naphtali, all names remaining in the hands of Moses were counted since no other names remained.

Rabbi Weinberg, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, finds that a census undertaken in Israel under contemporary conditions is permitted because such a census is conducted by means of questionnaires which are filled out by individual householders. The names inserted in the blank spaces provided on the forms are then tabulated in order to reach a final count. The tallying of names, rules Rabbi Weinberg, is an indirect means of counting. He further contends that the considerations of economic planning and national security which require an accurate census suffice to constitute a "purpose." Accordingly, Rabbi Weinberg concludes that the taking of a census is permitted even according to the first analysis presented by Ramban in his commentary on Numbers 1:3. Rabbi Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi'el, Hoshen Mishpat, kelalim, no. 2, also permits the taking of a census on the grounds that it is conducted indirectly by means of written documents and is undertaken for a legitimate purpose. This is also the opinion of both Rabbi Friedman and Rabbi Kasher.²⁶See also Einayim la-Mishpat, millu’im, Berakhot 62b. Rabbi Kasher adds further support to this conclusion by citing the comments of Ralbag, Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53, who declares categorically that the counting of written names is not encompassed within the prohibition. Contradicting the view of other biblical commentators, Ralbag states that the later censuses undertaken by Moses were not conducted by means of collection of half-shekels but "according to the number of names" as indicated in Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53.²⁷Rabbi Kasher, Torah Sheleimah, XXI, 168, further contends that tabulation by mechanical means is not prohibited since the actual counting is not accomplished by a human act. This view is disputed by Rabbi Schwartz, Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 29. It should be noted that R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, in his biblical commentary Ha'amek Davar, also interprets both verses in an identical manner.²⁸In his commentary on Numbers 1:42, Ha’amek Davar cites an intriguing oral tradition attributed to the Ari ha-Kadosh. Ari advances a resolution to a textual difficulty in which he clearly assumes that those censuses were undertaken by counting slips of paper or the like upon which the names and tribal identification were recorded. Ari ha-Kadosh explains that these slips were collected from the entire community of Israel and deposited in a single place. Thereupon the nasi of each tribe came and selected those bearing the names of the members of his tribe and placed them in a separate receptacle. The slips in each of those receptacles were then counted in order to arrive at a census for each tribe. With the removal of the slips bearing the names of the members of the first eleven tribes, all remaining names were perforce known to be names of persons belonging to the twelfth tribe without need for any further selection. Accordingly, explains Ari ha-Kadosh, with regard to each of the first eleven tribes, Scripture states “Of the sons of … according to the number of names,” whereas with regard to Naphtali, the last tribe to be counted, Scripture states simply, “The sons of Naphtali….” With regard to each of the first eleven tribes, explains Ari, the names counted were of the sons of that tribe only, to the exclusion of slips bearing names of members of other tribes. Hence the phrase “of the sons …” which excludes all others. However, when it came time to count the tribe of Naphtali, all names remaining in the hands of Moses were counted since no other names remained.

Rabbi Weinberg, Seridei Esh, II, no. 48, finds that a census undertaken in Israel under contemporary conditions is permitted because such a census is conducted by means of questionnaires which are filled out by individual householders. The names inserted in the blank spaces provided on the forms are then tabulated in order to reach a final count. The tallying of names, rules Rabbi Weinberg, is an indirect means of counting. He further contends that the considerations of economic planning and national security which require an accurate census suffice to constitute a "purpose." Accordingly, Rabbi Weinberg concludes that the taking of a census is permitted even according to the first analysis presented by Ramban in his commentary on Numbers 1:3. Rabbi Uziel, Mishpetei Uzi'el, Hoshen Mishpat, kelalim, no. 2, also permits the taking of a census on the grounds that it is conducted indirectly by means of written documents and is undertaken for a legitimate purpose. This is also the opinion of both Rabbi Friedman and Rabbi Kasher.²⁶See also Einayim la-Mishpat, millu’im, Berakhot 62b. Rabbi Kasher adds further support to this conclusion by citing the comments of Ralbag, Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53, who declares categorically that the counting of written names is not encompassed within the prohibition. Contradicting the view of other biblical commentators, Ralbag states that the later censuses undertaken by Moses were not conducted by means of collection of half-shekels but "according to the number of names" as indicated in Numbers 1:2 and Numbers 26:53.²⁷Rabbi Kasher, Torah Sheleimah, XXI, 168, further contends that tabulation by mechanical means is not prohibited since the actual counting is not accomplished by a human act. This view is disputed by Rabbi Schwartz, Mispar Bnei Yisra’el, p. 29. It should be noted that R. Naphtali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, in his biblical commentary Ha'amek Davar, also interprets both verses in an identical manner.²⁸In his commentary on Numbers 1:42, Ha’amek Davar cites an intriguing oral tradition attributed to the Ari ha-Kadosh. Ari advances a resolution to a textual difficulty in which he clearly assumes that those censuses were undertaken by counting slips of paper or the like upon which the names and tribal identification were recorded. Ari ha-Kadosh explains that these slips were collected from the entire community of Israel and deposited in a single place. Thereupon the nasi of each tribe came and selected those bearing the names of the members of his tribe and placed them in a separate receptacle. The slips in each of those receptacles were then counted in order to arrive at a census for each tribe. With the removal of the slips bearing the names of the members of the first eleven tribes, all remaining names were perforce known to be names of persons belonging to the twelfth tribe without need for any further selection. Accordingly, explains Ari ha-Kadosh, with regard to each of the first eleven tribes, Scripture states “Of the sons of … according to the number of names,” whereas with regard to Naphtali, the last tribe to be counted, Scripture states simply, “The sons of Naphtali….” With regard to each of the first eleven tribes, explains Ari, the names counted were of the sons of that tribe only, to the exclusion of slips bearing names of members of other tribes. Hence the phrase “of the sons …” which excludes all others. However, when it came time to count the tribe of Naphtali, all names remaining in the hands of Moses were counted since no other names remained.

It is noteworthy that a thesis similar to that advanced by Rabbi Goren is propounded by one biblical commentator in order to resolve the contradictory midrashic explanations of the nature of King David's transgression. Or ha-Hayyim, Exodus 30—12, explains that David erred in conducting a census which was not undertaken for a valid purpose. In advancing this explanation Or ha-Hayyim follows Ramban, Numbers 1:3, and the midrashic sources cited by the latter. As noted earlier, the Gemara, Berakhot 62b, indicates that, had David followed the procedure stipulated in Exodus 30:12 and taken the census by means of a collection of half-shekels, he would have incurred no transgression even though the census was undertaken in the absence of a legitimate purpose. Ramban regards this contradiction as reflecting diverse midrashic traditions. Or ha-Hayyim, however, resolves the contradiction by postulating that, when undertaken by means of half-shekels which are contributed to the sanctuary as a "ransom," a census may be undertaken even in the absence of a valid "purpose."³²See Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 22, cited above, note 16. Or ha-Hayyim, however, does not restrictively define the concept of "purpose" as limited to a matter involving danger to life.

4. Rabbi Goren further contends that a census of the population of the State of Israel may constitute a counting of "all of Israel" which he argues (without citing the second analysis presented by Ramban, Numbers 1:3) is forbidden under all circumstances, With regard to an entirely different matter, Rambam, Hilkhot Shegagot 13:2, basing himself upon Horiyot 3a, declares that the halakhic concept of a "community" is limited to Jews who reside in Israel. This point is made by Rabbi A. I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, no. 143, p. 308, and by other authorities with regard to other facets of Halakhah, but is the subject of considerable dispute.³³See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabi‘a Omer, VI, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 41, and Contemporary Halakhic Problems, II, 180. Parenthetically, it should be noted that counting the majority of the Jewish people is tantamount to a census of the entire community of Israel. See Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 24. This is evident from the categorization of the census conducted by Joab as a violation of the prohibition despite the fact that Joab excluded the tribes of Levi and Benjamin and hence his census involved only ten tribes. See Rashi and Redak, II Samuel 24:9 and Marharit, Ẓafnat Pa’aneaḥ, Ki Tissa, derush 1. Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, secs. 20 and 37, maintains that, for purposes of this prohibition, the counting of inhabitants of an entire city and, a fortiori, of an entire country, constitutes the counting of an entire “community.” Naḥal Eitan 6:10, sec. 7, opines that the counting of any specific class of individuals, e.g., potential conscripts for military service, is similarly encompassed within the ambit of this prohibition.
The counting of the population of local areas and subsequent tabulation of the population of the entire community on the basis of those figures is forbidden according to all authorities. Indeed, as recorded by Yalkut Shim’oni, II Samuel 24, Joab conducted his census by means of compiling the aggregate tabulation of family groups.
Ẓiẓ Eli’ezer, VII, no. 3, sec. 2, declares that, even in the event that figures for specific groups or areas have already been obtained, it is forbidden to tabulate the total population by combining the previously ascertained figures.

Jacob of the city of Naburaya went to Tyre. They came and asked him, "What [is the law with regard to] circumcising the son of a gentile woman [born of a Jewish father] on the Sabbath?" [Jacob] thought to permit them [to do so] on the basis of this [verse]: "And they declared their pedigrees after their families, by their fathers' houses" (Numbers 1:18). R. Haggi heard [and] said, "Let him come and be flogged." [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "On what basis do you flog me?" [R. Haggi said to him, "From this [verse]: 'And now let us make a covenant to put away all the foreign wives and such as are born of them' (Ezra 10:3)." [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "And would you flog me on the basis of the [prophetic] tradition?" [R. Haggi] said to him, " '… and let it be done according to the Torah' (Ezra 10:3.)" [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "From which law?" [ R. Haggi] said to him, "From that which R. Yoḥanan declared in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, 'Thou shalt not make marriage with them…. nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods.' (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)." [Jacob] said to R. Haggi, "Flog me with your lashes for that is better than death."

A priest that has intercourse with a possibly licentious woman, such as a possible convert or freed [maidservant], or with a possible divorcee; and so [too,] a high priest who has intercourse with a possible widow - behold this is a doubtfully profaned woman and the offspring is a doubtfully profaned priest. It comes out that there are three [types of] profaned priests: a profaned priest from Torah writ; a profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis]; and a doubtfully profaned priest. And we give upon any doubtfully profaned priest or profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis], the stringencies of the priests and the stringencies of the Israelites. He does not eat from the priestly tithe and does not become impure for the dead and he must marry a woman that is fitting for a priest. And if he ate priestly tithe or became impure or married a divorcee, a profaned woman [or a] licentious woman, we strike him with rabbinic lashes of rebellion. But behold, a certainly profaned priest from Torah writ is like a non-priest and marries a divorcee and becomes impure for the dead; as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon" - even though they are sons of Aharon, [not] until they are in the [their] priesthood. And they, may their memory be blessed, also received (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:2) as the explanation of that verse, "'The sons of Aharon,' and not the daughters of Aharon - from here that fit women are not warned (prohibited) from marrying disqualified ones." And so a priestess is permitted to marry a profaned priest, a convert and a freed [slave]. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 73a) that a convert is permitted to marry a priestess and a mamzeret: a priestess for the reason we said, that they were not warned from marrying ones disqualified; and a mamzeret on account that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation - and with the prohibition of the mamzer, it is written (Deuteronomy 23:3), "A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord." And that which they said (Kiddushin 77a) that all the seed of a profaned priest that married a fit woman are profaned priests and disqualified to the priesthood; since the offspring goes after the father in this matter, as it is stated (Numbers 1:18), "and they shall be pedigreed by their families [according to the houses of their fathers]." And any widow from a family into which a possible profaned priest was mixed is forbidden to a priest at the outset. But if she married [him], she should not leave (be divorced) - since there is a double doubt. And we are not concerned about a double doubt, even in a [law] of Torah writ. But if a certainly profaned priest is mixed into a family, every woman from it is forbidden to marry a priest, until he examines [her lineage]. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.

The commandment of fearing God: That the fear of God, may He be blessed, should always be on our faces, that we not sin; meaning to say that we fear with a fear of His punishment and that our hearts not be without fear of Him, the whole day. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 10:13), "The Lord, your God, you shall fear." And the proof that this is a positive commandment from the tally of the six hundred and thirteen commandments that we were commanded is that which they said in Sanhedrin 56a by way of the debate about the understanding of "And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord, etc." (Leviticus 24:16): "I will say [that it is] to express, [like that] which is written (Numbers 1:17), 'And Moshe and Aharon took these men that are expressed by name'; and its prohibition is from 'The Lord, your God shall you fear.'" It means to say by way of the debate that maybe we should explain "blaspheme" (nokev), as the expression of [God's] name, alone, without him 'blessing' [it]; and the sin that there would be in this is because he loses the fear - as it is from the fear of God not to mention His name in vain. And they answered there, that one should not say like this, as there are two answers to the thing, "One is that it is necessary that [it involve] the name of God with the name of God, and there is not [this in such a case]" - meaning to say that he must 'bless' the Name with the Name, as in, "Yose should strike Yose!" "And also it is a [prohibition] of a positive commandment, and a [prohibition] of a positive commandment [is not called] a prohibition" - meaning to say that the verse of "The Lord, your God shall you fear" is a positive commandment.