민수기 1:34의 인용 해설

Indeed, the difference between these two enumerations is discernable [from Scripture], for although they were operationally similar, they were dissimilar in their result,¹⁶The words chomer and tzurah have been translated similar to how they are used by Rabbi Eliyahu of Vilna in his commentary to the first verse of Proverbs. as [the Israelites] were enumerated according to how Israel’s affairs were manifest. This is why with the first enumeration, the [tribes were positioned] in four formations in four directions,¹⁷When the tribes traveled through the wilderness, they would travel and camp in a precise pattern. The Tabernacle would be in the middle of the pattern, while the twelve tribes would form a square surrounding it from all four sides, with three tribes on each side. The formation, i.e. banner of Ephraim, included the tribes of Ephraim, Menashe and Dan. functioning as a Merkavah DeShechinah, a Chariot of the Divine Presence¹⁸See Bemidbar Rabbah 2:3, that these banners mirrored the banners of the celestial angels. See also Ibn Ezra on Num. 2:2, who states that the banners of the four formations correspond to the four celestial beings of the Divine Chariot described in the first chapter of Ezekiel. Hence Ephraim is listed as the head of the formation and preceding Menashe.¹⁹The members of the tribe of Ephraim are enumerated in Num. 1:32-33 before Menashe, the latter being listed in verses 34-35. This is unlike the enumeration of their fortieth year [in the wilderness] as described in the parasha of Pinchus,²⁰The members of Menashe are enumerated in Num. 26:29-34 followed by Ephraim, the latter being counted in verses 35-37. as I wrote on verse 2:20.²¹Ephraim and Menashe were each great in different ways; Ephraim was immersed in the Torah and spiritual matters, while Menashe was great in the ways of the world and caring for the community. Thus Ephraim’s affairs were experienced in a manner transcending nature whereas Menashe operated more in accordance with nature. When traveling in the wilderness, where Israel’s experiences transcended nature, Ephraim is listed first; whereas when they neared entering the Land of Israel, Ephraim is listed first – since the Nation began to function more in accordance with nature. In addition, the enumerations in the parasha of Bemidbar required the tribal leaders to be restricted to their own tribes, unlike the enumeration in the parasha of Pinchas, as I wrote at verse 1:2.²²Num. 1:2-3, when introducing the census the Torah, states, “Take the sum (Se-u es rosh) of all the congregation of the children of Israel by families, following their fathers' houses; a head count of every male according to the number of their names. From twenty years old and upwards, all who are fit to go out to the army in Israel, you shall count them by their legions, you and Aaron.” The Netziv comments that the counting in verse 2 appears to be a different counting then what is described in verse 3, as the counting can be described simply as stated in Num. 26:2, “Take the sum (Se-u es rosh) of all the congregation of the children of Israel from twenty years old and upwards, following their fathers' houses, all that are fit to go out to war in Israel.” Thus the phrase, se-u es rosh, of verse 1:2 – which is usually translated as “take the sum” – should be translated in this context as “count the heads,” i.e. count the heads of the tribes who the Torah describes as “leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties and leaders of tens.” Verse 2 is stating that the heads of the tribes are to be counted “by families following their father’s houses,” meaning, they are to be of the same tribe. Num. 26:2 is describing the census used for calculating the amount of territory each tribe would receive in the Land of Israel. Unlike verses 1:2-3 there is no requirement stated that any of the heads needed to be from the same tribe. One example the Netziv cites is that Yair ben Menashe from the tribe of Yehuda became the head of the tribe of Menashe. See Ibn Ezra to Ex. 30:20 explaining that the word rosh is translated as “sum” as it is customary for those taking a census to first count various subgroups associated with “heads” (i.e. heads of families or organizations of persons) and then to take the summation of all the different groups associated with these “heads” to arrive at a grand total. This underlying theme of great significance led the Sages of blessed memory to call this book Chumash HaPekudim, (The Book of Numbers).

For until now so much has Adonoy blessed me. For you have seen that my population has increased from the first counting to the second counting by twenty thousand, five hundred, which is the numerical equivilent of כּה (25). In the first counting you found the number of Menashe, stated in Seifer Bamidbar,⁷Parshas Bamidbar 1:35. to be thirty two thousand, two hundred, and in Parshes Pinchos⁸ Bamidbar 26:34. their number was fifty two thousand, seven hundred. Another explanation is: until now, until כּה referring to the blessing that was said to Avrohom, “So (כּה) shall be your seed.”⁹Bereishis 15:5. This blessing has been fulfilled in my tribe. And according to its plain meaning, until now-as I am now— until I am the multitude you see now.

OF THE CHILDREN OF JOSEPH, NAMELY, OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM. Scripture mentioned Ephraim before Menasheh, and stated Joseph’s relationship to him [which it does not do in the case of Menasheh],⁶⁴Verse 34. and similarly later [Scripture gave Ephraim precedence] at the [division of the tribes according to their] standards, by making him master of the standard, [whilst Menasheh is mentioned merely as one of the two tribes gathered around him], because in accordance with Jacob’s blessing⁶⁵Genesis 48:20. he was to be [given the honor accorded to] the firstborn, and his brother [Menasheh] was to be second to him. Moreover, the sons of Ephraim were more numerous than those of Menasheh⁶⁶Ephraim totalled 40,500 (Verse 33), whilst Menasheh numbered 32,200 (Verse 35). [and hence Ephraim was mentioned first]. But at the second census in the plains of Moab⁶⁷Further, 26:3. Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, because at that time his sons were more numerous [than those of Ephraim],⁶⁸The children of Menasheh were then 52,700 (ibid., Verse 34), whilst Ephraim had only 32,500 (ibid., Verse 37). and [also because] they took their inheritance first.⁶⁹Half of the tribe of Menasheh joined the tribes of Gad and Reuben in settling during the lifetime of Moses on the east side of the Jordan (ibid., 32:33). Similarly when mentioning the princes of the Land [who were to take possession of the Land for their respective tribes] Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, and also Joseph’s relationship to him.⁷⁰Ibid., 34:23: Of the children of Joseph; of the tribe of the children of Menasheh. In the following verse Scripture mentions the prince of the children of Ephraim. In [the story of] the spies, however, Scripture mentioned Ephraim first, and Joseph’s relationship it stated only in referring to the tribe of Menasheh.⁷¹Ibid., 13:8, 11. It appears to me by way of homiletic exposition that it is on account of the evil report that Joseph brought [to his father] concerning his brothers⁷²Genesis 37: 2. that Scripture, [in the story of the spies], associates with him the spy who [was among those who] spread the evil report [about the Land, namely the spy from the tribe of Menasheh, whereas the spy from the tribe of Ephraim was Joshua the son of Nun, who was not among those who spread the evil report]. Or it may be that Scripture [in relating the story of the spies] gave honor to both [tribes who were descended from Joseph], and Ephraim had sufficient honor in its prince [Joshua the son of Nun who ministered to Moses, therefore Scripture mentioned the honor of descent from Joseph only in the case of Menasheh].