Halakhah к Бамидбар 1:42

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.