English translation — פנחס א

1.

On the words of the verse¹

"And it was after the plague" Rashi adds etc.*¹

- which hints at that which comes immediately afterwards,

the command to count Jews: "And the Lord said to Moses etc. 'Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel' etc." and explains: "A parable to a shepherd into whose flock wolves entered and killed some of them, and he counts them to know the number of the remaining ones."

Learning simply

(and as the commentators of Rashi explain²)

Rashi wants thereby to safeguard: from the language that the verse emphasizes "And it was after the plague etc." it is understood,

that thereby is meant not only to tell that the counting took place after the previous event*²

(plague),

but also that the counting was in connection with the plague - the question arises: in what does the connection consist between the plague and the counting of the children of Israel?

- So Rashi explains it through the "parable of the shepherd etc. and he counts them to know the number of the remaining ones."

It is however difficult to learn this way,

because this

(the minyan)

is from the outset not a novelty for the student: after Rashi had already explained earlier

(at the beginning of parshas Bamidbar)

: "Out of His affection for them He counts them at every hour",

which "at every hour" means at every time when there was a change in the situation of Bnei Yisrael<sup>3</sup>

- as Rashi continues there: "When they left Egypt etc. and when they fell with the calf etc. when He came to cause His Shechinah to dwell etc." - the student already understands also in our case,

that that which the Almighty commanded to count the Jews after the plague,

is it "Out of His affection for them"

(just as "and when they fell with the calf He counted them to know the number of the survivors").

And even if you say that Rashi does not want to rely on the student remembering what he learned in parshas Bamidbar - then too it would have been enough to

(remind the student of this,

by)

saying in brief: "to know the number of the survivors".

2.

Also one must understand:

a)

What does the mashal contribute,

which Rashi brings,

in the explanation of the nimshal?

the nimshal by itself

(without the "mashal of the shepherd etc.")

is sufficiently clear and simple⁴

: Moshe Rabbeinu,

the shepherd of Israel who sacrificed himself for the sheep of his pasture,

counted the Jews in order to know the "minyan hanozeros" which he needs to shepherd.

b)

The "parable of the shepherd etc. and he counts them to know the number of the remaining" — that the shepherd is the one who wants to know "the number of the remaining" — is,

At first glance,

at first glance,

not directed to the moral,

where the Most High,

the owner of the flock,

commanded to count the Jews

(and not that Moses — the "shepherd" — of his own accord wanted to know their number).

With difficulty one can interpret into the intention of the moral,

that the Most High commanded Moses a matter that was relevant to him

(Moses)

— just as this is relevant to the shepherd in the parable — but it remains difficult:

Rashi could have initially brought a parable

(not from a "shepherd",

but)

from a "master of the flock"?

c)

Furthermore: in Tanchuma⁵

(and Bamidbar Rabbah⁶)

the parable is indeed brought not from a "shepherd",

but a parable "of a wolf that fell upon the flock, the master of the flock needed⁷

to count them etc." - and Rashi changes and writes "a parable of a shepherd etc."⁸.

d)

Even greater is the wonder: Rashi himself brings in parshas Tisa⁹

(when counting the Jews after the "incident of the calf because a plague entered them")

: "A parable of a flock that was dear to its owner, that a plague fell in it, and when it ceased he said to the shepherd, 'Please, count my flock and know how many remain in it, etc.'" — now why does Rashi say here "a parable of a shepherd etc."?

e)

Additional changes:

(a)

In parshas Tisa Rashi says "a parable etc. that a plague fell in it,"

and here — "that wolves entered¹⁰

into his flock"?

(b)

In parshas Tisa he emphasizes in the parable the matter of endearment

("to show that it is dear to him"),

but not so here,

in the parable of the shepherd,

it is not mentioned at all¹¹.

In the midrashim the wording is "upon the flock,"

"into the flock"⁶

— Rashi changes and says "into his flock."

(c)

3.

Afterwards Rashi continues: "Another explanation: When they left Egypt and were handed over to Moses, they were handed over to him with a count; now that he is approaching death and to return his flock, he returns them with a count."

And it is understood why Rashi presents this explanation as "another explanation" - and not as the first and primary explanation - because according to this explanation the connection of "Take a census etc." to "And it was after the plague" is not explained¹².

It is, however, not understandable on the other hand: What is difficult in the first explanation that because of this he brings the second explanation,

according to which the difficulty is not present¹³?

4.

The explanation in this:

Rashi is here not to explain

(only)

the connection between "And it was after the plague" and "Take the sum of" - because,

as above,

this is already known from Rashi in Parshat Tisa and Bamidbar - only a matter that is difficult in the words "And it was after the plague etc." by itself:

At the end of Parshat Balak it is told that those who "joined themselves to Baal Peor" were punished in two ways:

(a)

"And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel - He sent among them a plague"<sup>14</sup>

and "those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand"<sup>15</sup>.

(b)

"And the Lord said to the judges of Israel, 'Slay every man his men'"<sup>16</sup>,

and as Rashi explains it<sup>17</sup>

: "Each and every one of the judges of Israel would kill two, and the judges of Israel were eight<sup>18</sup>

myriads and eight thousand, as it is stated in Sanhedrin"<sup>19</sup>

; and according to this calculation it comes out,

that those slain

(by the judges of Israel)

were over one hundred and seventy<sup>20</sup>

thousand<sup>21</sup>.

On this there is a great difficulty in our verse: why does the verse emphasize "after the plague",

that the counting was in order to know how many were the survivors of the plague — according to the calculation, it should be more important to know the "count of the survivors" from "each man killed his men",

where the number of the slain was more than seven²²

times as much as the number of "those who died in the plague"²³?

And to answer the difficulty, Rashi brings "a parable of a shepherd into whose [flock] wolves entered, etc.",

and as follows.

The difference,

in simple terms,

between a "master of the flock" who commands the shepherd to count his flock "to know the number of the remaining ones,"

and a "shepherd" who counts them on his own

(for that purpose)

When the master of the flock commands to count the flock in order to know "the number of the remaining ones," it comes as a result and he thereby expresses the endearment of the flock

(as Rashi says in Parshat Tisa: "Count My sheep etc. to show that they are dear to him"),

4.

5.

i.e.

It pertains only to that which the

(counted)

flock remained whole; and there is no difference whether the shepherd is guilty in the misfortune of the perished flock or not - the main thing is the wholeness of the flock that "remained in them."

In contrast, when the shepherd counts the flock "from the number of the remaining ones,"

this is primarily

(not in order to show his affection for the "remaining ones,"

but)

from the aspect of the role of a shepherd - with the intention and purpose to occupy himself more with the "remaining flock,"

to prevent them a second time from a similar accident.

And therefore it is understood,

that this is primarily relevant when the shepherd feels guilty about the fact that sheep were missing from the flock; but if it happened in a manner that the shepherd could not have prevented it,

then it is not demanded of him to

(count the sheep and)

know the "number of the remaining ones,"

because in his work as a shepherd of the sheep,

nothing was missing.

And with this the change is understood,

that in the parable of "the owner of the flock"

(in Parsha Tisa)

Rashi says "that a plague fell in it",

and here by the "parable of the shepherd" - "that wolves entered":

A shepherd cannot prevent his flock from "plague",

and is therefore not guilty when "a plague fell in it"; but he can - and on the contrary,

that is his role - to prevent the flock from wolves

(with a staff and the like),

and if it happened that "wolves entered etc. and killed among them" this is the fault of the shepherd.

And therefore,

by the parable of the "owner of the flock",

that in his affection for the flock there is no difference how the flock perished as above,

Rashi says "a plague fell upon it"

(and the situation in Parshat Ki Tisa was

(more)

analogous to "plague"²⁴,

and as below section 6)

; however by the "parable of the shepherd etc." he says "wolves entered etc.",

because in such a case it touches upon the manner of fulfillment of the role of the "shepherd".

6.

According to this, the answer to the above-mentioned difficulty in the words "And it was after the plague" is understood — through the "parable of the shepherd etc.":

That which Jews were lacking, G-d forbid, through the fact that the "judges of Israel" killed "a man his people," it was indeed in a manner that the court judged them and sentenced them to death,

and consequently Moshe Rabbeinu could not feel guilty in their demise and because of this count the "remaining ones."

Different, however, is the "plague,"

whose cessation had a connection with Moshe,

as Rashi brings down at the end of Parshas Balak²⁵

: "The tribe of Shimon gathered etc. Moshe said to them: This one is forbidden etc. The halacha was hidden from him,"

and only after Pinchas "saw the deed and recalled the halacha etc."²⁶

and killed Zimri — "and the plague ceased"²⁷

; and although that which "the halacha was hidden from him" was a matter that came from Above with intention

(as Rashi says²⁶)

"so that Pinchas should come and take what is fitting for him" — this is only before Heaven revealed that Moshe was not guilty in this,

but Moshe himself could think,

that this was with him a matter of forgetfulness²⁸,

which delayed for a while the cessation of the plague²⁹.

And this Rashi says,

that the counting "after the plague" is explained through the "parable of a shepherd into whose flock wolves entered etc. and he counts them to know the number of the remaining": This is a counting that

(a)

is demanded from Moses

(the shepherd),

(b)

"to know the number of the remaining" from the "plague",

a matter that he

(in his opinion)

could have prevented,

analogous to "

(entered)

wolves into his flock etc.'",

or at least make smaller - would have been more remaining.

But not so by the incident of the calf

(in Parshat Tisa),

where Moses was then on the mountain, he indeed had no connection to the consequences of the punishments of the sin,

there there is no place that Moses

(from himself - as a shepherd)

should count the flock of his pasture;

Therefore Rashi brings there

(a)

"A parable of the flock beloved to its owner, etc." — that the counting comes

(not from the side of the "shepherd",

but)

from the side of the "owner of the flock",

the Most High,

(because)

(b)

This is analogous to a flock "that had a plague fall upon it",

in which the shepherd is not guilty; and that which the Most High commands them to count,

is because for the "owner of the flock" the flock is beloved,

and as explained at length.

7.

But the explanation is not smooth:

Jews were then found "in the plains of Moav across the Yarden from Yericho"³⁰

ready to enter Eretz Yisrael,

and there was already the decree of "You shall not bring this congregation into the land etc."³¹

- and consequently also the time³²

of "And you will be gathered

(Moshe)

to your people"³³

- about which it stands immediately after the counting of Bnei Yisrael

(and the chapter of the daughters of Tzelafchad which was in continuation of that counting)

"Ascend this Mount Avarim etc."³⁴

and afterwards the Almighty commanded Moshe to ordain Yehoshua³⁵.

And since the counting of a shepherd is,

as mentioned,

in order to know his conduct with the flock of his pasture for the future - to occupy himself with them and to protect them further from a calamity - then in this counting they had to include also Yehoshua

(like Elazar),

who was immediately to become the shepherd of Israel³⁶?

With difficulty one can say,

that since the Almighty knew that until the passing of Moses it would still last several months — therefore the counting pertains to Moses,

at least for these months that he is still the shepherd³⁷.

However, since the explanation that does not include his Joshua — a shepherd in several months hence in a completely different situation of Jews and for more than fourteen years — is not smooth,

therefore Rashi brings a second interpretation,

that the counting is indeed connected with the death of Moses — "Now that he is close to death and to return his flock, he returns them by counting."

because³⁸

according to this, the counting is not connected with "And it was after the plague" — but with approaching death; and therefore Rashi brings it only as a second explanation,

and the first explanation is the primary explanation in the simple meaning of the verse,

and as explained above in section 3].

8.

One must, however, understand: why was the counting indeed from the perspective of the "shepherd" — Moses our teacher — and not from the perspective of the Above — the Owner of the flock — and with the intention to know "how many remained among them to inform that she is beloved, etc."

(And then it would have been relevant both to the survivors of the "plague" and to those of "each man who killed his men",

and as explained above,

that by the Owner of the flock

(regarding the matter of the counting)

there is no practical difference in what way the flock perished)?

Is the explanation in this:

Jews,

have indeed transgressed the sin of "one who cohabits with a gentile woman",

which from Rashi before that³⁹

that "zealots strike him"

(without any witnesses,

court,

a.

z.

etc.)

already understands the one who is five years old for Scripture the extraordinary severity of the transgression,

until that it brought to the loss of about 200 thousand Jews,

and as Rashi brings⁴⁰

on this "their God of these hates lewdness" - it is understood,

that it is not applicable in this the matter

(and from where)

of endearment.

And it is sweetened according to the halachah: One who cohabits with a gentile woman is a sin that

(in the words of the Rambam<sup>41</sup>)

"there is in it a loss that is not in any of the forbidden relations, for the son from a forbidden relation is his son in every respect and is counted among Israel, etc., but the son from a gentile woman is not his son, etc.,"

and as the Rogatchover<sup>42</sup>

explains,

that through this sin one "causes the loss of souls from Israel, because his seed goes after her";

D.

E.<sup>43</sup>

: Regarding all other transgressions,

whatever they may be,

one does not cross the "boundaries"<sup>44</sup>

which the Most High established between Israel and the nations,

because even after transgressing the sin one remains a Jew<sup>45</sup>

; but not so one who cohabits with a gentile woman,

since the child that should have been from "souls of Israel" he made that "goes after her",

he became a gentile,

is measure for measure,

that he is considered

(regarding belovedness)

as if he went out "from outside" the flock of His pasture,

And as a continuation of the language of the Rambam: And this matter causes attachment to the nations of the world, from whom the Holy One, blessed be He, separated us, etc.

And consequently, there is no count of belovedness "to know the number of the remnants": those who did not sin are not "remnants" of the sinners - it is as if there was no connection

(in belovedness)

between them.

9.

From this emerge the two extreme directives:

On one side, one sees to what extent the sin of one who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman touches,

that the "loss" is not only what "their seed goes after her,"

but also the sinner himself becomes thereby as if excluded from the flock of his pasture of the Holy One, blessed be He;

and even one time,

from falling G-d forbid into this sin - including also those who have already fallen G-d forbid into this]

And on the other hand,

one sees however,

that regarding providing their needs,

protection from wolves etc.,

is Moses our teacher - the faithful shepherd of all Israel,

who sacrifices himself for every Jew⁴⁶

- involves himself also regarding such Jews⁴⁷,

until that also they are in the flock of his pasture,

the counting is "from the number of the remnants"⁴⁸,

also they are a part of "his flock",

and moreover - not a part "at the edge of the camp"⁴⁹

but "within his flock",

And the conduct becomes a

(part of)

Torah and a directive for Jews,

to whom one says⁵⁰

: Remember the Torah of Moshe My servant.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Pinchas 5734)