English translation — במדבר א

1.

On the verse¹

"These are the called ones of the assembly, the princes of the tribes of their fathers, the heads of the thousands of Israel are they" Rashi stands on the words "These are the called ones of the assembly" and explains: "Those who are called for every matter of importance of the assembly."

Among the commentators one finds two types of explanations in the intention of Rashi:

a)

Rashi comes to reject that one should not learn that "קרואי העדה" means that they call

(together)

the עדה,

and thus one cannot learn because this is not the importance of princes<sup>2</sup>.

b)

The expression "קרואי העדה" implies that they are called from the עדה,

which does not fit to say about princes that they are the called ones and the עדה are the ones who "קוראים

(decree)

the ones who call the princes,

as if the עדה is higher than the princes<sup>3</sup>.

Therefore Rashi explains that this means "those called for every matter of importance that is in the community" - they are indeed called

(possibly also by the community)

but for a "counsel and correction",

for every matter of importance that the community has,

or needs to have.

B.

It is however difficult to learn into Rashi both explanations mentioned above:

According to the first explanation that Rashi comes to negate that one should have no mistake in the <b>translation</b> of the <b>word</b> "קרואי" - Rashi would have needed to copy from the verse

only the word "קרואי" and explain "הנקראים"

(and the like).

because this

(that they call the congregation)

indicates their importance,

and therefore Rashi explains that the importance is a different one - "those called for every matter of importance in the congregation" - this itself is not understood: why does Rashi actually reject the explanation?

This is after all a matter of importance,

fitting to the matter here,

one gathers the congregation together to count them.

One must say,

that what Rashi does not learn the explanation in the verse that they &lt;b&gt;call &lt;/b&gt;the congregation is not

(so)

because of the &lt;b&gt;content &lt;/b&gt;of the explanation,

but because this is opposite of the explanation of the word "Kru'ei": "Kru'ei" means that they are called,

not that they call the congregation.

It is not understood: why does Rashi need to negate this at all,

this is after all understood by itself].

Also the second explanation mentioned above is not understood: in the content of "קרואי" it is not hinted that the called ones are lower

(because of the fact that they are called)

than the callers.

So why is the learning negated thus?

It can after all be that one calls them and turns to them because of their importance⁴.

3.

Further on the second verse "And Moses and Aaron took these men who

were designated by name",

Rashi stands on the words "these men" and explains: "the twelve princes."

Afterwards he stands on the words "who were designated" and explains: "only here by names."

explain

explain,

that from the length of the language of the verse — "And Moses and Aaron took these men etc." and not "And Moses and Aaron took them" and the like

(since we are speaking about these princes),

there could have been a possibility to err,

that these are <b>other</b> men

(not the twelve princes who are enumerated <b>earlier</b>),

and "which were expressed by name" means other men whose names the Almighty had designated <b>to Moses our teacher</b> earlier "in another place."

Rashi refutes this,

and says,

that here are meant "these twelve princes,"

and "which were expressed by name" means

(not — in another place but)

"<b>here</b>"

(to Moses and here on the spot).

It is however very difficult to say&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

that were it not for Rashi’s commentary there would be a possibility to think that this verse here,

in the middle of the speech at length about the twelve princes,

means with “And Moshe took the men &lt;b&gt;these&lt;/b&gt;” - &lt;b&gt;other &lt;/b&gt;men,

not “these”,

the aforementioned ones whom the Almighty had commanded; and moreover - the verse should not say explicitly who they are,

but should allude to them with a &lt;b&gt;hint &lt;/b&gt;- “the men these who were designated by name”,

not saying about whom it is speaking,

and Rashi would need to reject the interpretation!

4.

Other commentators&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

learn,

that Rashi here does not reject a possibility in the verse that this means other men,

but a matter in understanding the Scriptures:

From the language "And Moses and Aaron took &lt;b&gt;these men&lt;/b&gt;" it implies that these are just "men",

they took them not because they were princes,

and this is guarded by Rashi,

that these are "the twelve princes",

that they took them as princes.

According to this, however, one must understand,

why does it indeed say in the verse "the men" simply&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

(not "princes"),

and one must arrive at Rashi's commentary that they were taken as "the twelve princes"?

5.

will one understand this with an introduction after questions that arise in understanding the verses⁹

a)

the two verses "These are the called ones etc." and "And Moses and Aaron took etc." are seemingly entirely superfluous:

Regarding the first verse: It already stands at the beginning of the matter "And with you they shall be, each man according to his tribe, each man a head of his father's house is he."

So what does the verse come here

(again)

to describe

(and at length)?

Further, it is not understood what is the point of the second verse: It is after all simple that Moses and Aaron fulfilled what the Most High commanded them,

that

With them should be the princes to count the Jews; and as in many places in the Torah where the Torah does not relate after the command that Moshe fulfilled the command of Hashem,

Because it is understood by itself¹⁰.

Even if the verse wants here

(for some reason)

to specify that Moshe and Aharon fulfilled the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, in practice,

it would have been enough to say "And Moshe and Aharon did so"¹¹

or at least "And Moshe and Aharon took these men"; what is necessary the continuation "who were designated by name",

as if one needs a sign whom they took?

b)

In general, it is not understood the continuation of the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe: After the verse¹²

: "And with you they shall be, each man according to his tribe, etc." The Almighty said¹³

"And these are the names of the men who shall stand with you: for Reuben, etc.,"

and specifies the names of each prince of the tribe individually.

And at first glance,

the speech was indeed "on the first of the second month in the second year,"

i.e.,

that is,

on the first of Iyar,

a month after the Tabernacle was erected¹⁴,

when then the same princes had offered sacrifices for the dedication of the altar¹⁵

— now why did the Almighty add "And these are the names of the men, etc.,"

as if He is revealing and informing Moshe the names of the princes,

when they were

Known to Moses from before¹⁶

(which then is understood the informing of the names,

since in the Torah are still until now not mentioned the names of the princes,

they are enumerated only in Parsha Nasso),

but a part of the speech of the Holy One blessed be He to Moses - "And these are the names of the men who <b>shall stand with you </b>etc."]¹⁷.

6.

To answer these questions,

Rashi says "קרואי העדה - the called ones for every important matter of the community": here a <b>new</b> matter was revealed regarding the princes,

which had not been with them previously.

And this comes as a continuation to the previous commentary in Rashi: on the verse "ואתכם יהיו איש איש למטה" Rashi explains: "when you count them, the prince of each tribe and tribe shall be with you",

which simply Rashi comes to explain,

that that which the princes were together with Moses and Aaron in the counting of the children of Israel,

is not the explanation that each prince participated only in the counting of <b>his tribe</b>,

but that the princes of <b>all</b> the tribes participated in the counting of each tribe and tribe¹⁸.

and it does not say

(continuing to the language in the previous verse)

"you shall count them by their legions, you and Aaron and the princes of the tribes" etc.,

and as explained in the commentaries in detail&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;].

needs explanation: what connection does the prince of one tribe have to the counting of a second tribe

(of which he is not its prince)?

Moses and Aaron are the ones who are the "leaders" of <b>all</b> Jews

(Moses is the redeemer and leader and Aaron is the Kohen Gadol - of <b>all</b> Jews),

therefore they count <b>all</b> the tribes of Israel;

But the princes are indeed each related only to the tribe whose prince he is,

and from that side there is a place to include each of them in the count of his tribe,

from the side of the honor of the prince,

or because he needed to confirm that the counted one belonged to his tribe

(there can be a doubt about the lineage of a Jew,

it is resolved through the prince)²⁰

What connection does however the prince have to the other tribes of Israel,

that because of this he must participate in their minyan?

About this was the word of Hashem "These are the called ones of the assembly": then the Almighty appointed them with a new appointment,

that in addition to this that each one of them is a prince to his tribe,

they became the "called ones for every important matter that is in the assembly": they have a connection

And they are connected with the entire congregation,

with all Jews

(not only with his tribe).

7.

Based on this one will also understand what when describing the princes the verse says "princes of the tribes of their fathers, heads of the thousands of Israel are they".

At first glance,

Here it is only relevant that they are "princes of the tribes of their fathers"; why does the verse add and emphasize "heads of the thousands of Israel are they"?

But the verse wants thereby to emphasize their greatness &lt;b&gt;in general&lt;/b&gt;,

that they are „&lt;b&gt;heads of the thousands of Israel&lt;/b&gt;”,

and consequently they are worthy to become „called ones of the congregation” and they are included in the minyan of all Jews.

that this means — heads over the „chiefs of &lt;b&gt;thousands&lt;/b&gt;”&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

: the total sum of the count of each tribe was indeed several hundreds etc. in excess of the thousands&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

So in order to complete a number of thousands,

that there should also be a „chief of the thousand” over the hundreds etc.,

they had to combine the hundreds etc. from different tribes&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;.

It turns out,

that the princes,

being princes over the heads of thousands,

their principality was not only over the children of their <b>tribe</b>,

but also over others].

8.

Based on this it is also understandable why the Above enumerated here the names of all the princes — because,

as we have already learned <b>earlier</b>,

the Above appoints

(and gives the necessary powers for this),

through calling by name,

as it says²⁴

"See <b>I have called by name Bezalel</b> etc. and I will fill him with the spirit of God etc."

And so too in our matter: through that which the Most High called the names of the princes

(to Moses)²⁵,

this effected in them an appointment and a new matter which was not previously in them; they became "the called ones of the congregation - called for every important matter of the congregation"

(from the <b>entire</b> congregation,

as above).

And with this is also understood the second verse here "And Moses and Aaron took these men who were designated by name": since then a new appointment and granting of special power from the Most High to the princes was instituted,

there also needed to be a renewal of "and he took",

as "the called ones of the congregation"

(in addition to the previous appointment as princes of the tribes).

And this is the intention of Rashi "Ha'anashim ha'eleh - et shneim asar nesi'im halalu,

asher nikvu lo kan bashmot".

These are not two separate dibur hamatchil's in Rashi,

rather it is one continuation of the dibur²⁶.

Rashi quotes the language of the verse and inserts in between the commentary: <b>Ha'anashim ha'eleh </b>- et shneim asar nesi'im halalu - <b>asher nikvu </b>- lo kan - <b>bashmot</b>.

With this he warns - not

(as the above interpretations)

that one does not mean &lt;b&gt;other people&lt;/b&gt;,

rather he explains the details of the taking of Moshe and Aharon: these men are the twelve princes &lt;b&gt;from before&lt;/b&gt;,

but the taking is

from the aspect of the appointment which was &lt;b&gt;renewed&lt;/b&gt; by them now - which were called &lt;b&gt;to him here&lt;/b&gt; by name,

although that as &lt;b&gt;princes&lt;/b&gt; they were already known from before.

And therefore it stands in the verse "And Moshe and Aharon took &lt;b&gt;these men&lt;/b&gt;" - because that which "Moshe and Aharon took" the princes with themselves to count the Jews,

was not as a result

(rather)

of that which they are princes of the tribes,

the connection to his tribe&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

but as "&lt;b&gt;these men&lt;/b&gt;",

these very men -

(also)

(also)

as the called ones of the congregation,

as men designated from the entire congregation.

9.

It is however still not entirely smooth: after all,

for what need did one have that each prince should participate in the minyan of the rest of the tribes,

and because of that one needed to institute a new appointment — "the called ones of the congregation" — that they should have a

connection

(not only to <b>their</b> tribe,

but)

to the entire congregation?

At first glance,

from either side:

From the aspect of the <b>general</b> concept of the counting,

which encompasses all of the Children of Israel as one,

and consequently it is required that it be carried out by those who have a connection to the entire collective <b>as one</b> - it is sufficient that the counting be carried out

(like the <b>previous</b> countings)

by Moshe himself

(and at most - also by Aharon the Kohen Gadol)

And from the aspect of the distinctness of each tribe by itself,

that here they counted each tribe separately

(to know the sum of Jews "according to their families, according to their fathers' house"),

and consequently they had to join together the princes of the tribes

(as above)

- then in <b>this</b> it is not relevant,

apparently,

that the princes also have a connection to the entire congregation?

Yud.

Is the explanation in this:

The concept of counting is

(in the language of Rashi²⁸)

- "To show their belovedness etc.",

It brings out the love of Jews.

As the Shelah²⁹

explains,

that through counting Jews become a significant thing

(a thing that is counted)

and consequently it is not nullified³⁰.

And in this there are two ways³¹

The earlier censuses,

by which they counted all Jews as one collective

(without the division into tribes)

- came "to make known"

(reveal)

the superiority and affection of Jews which is above division.

That this is the superiority from the essence of the soul of every Jew,

in which there is no difference between one Jew and another.

The census of our portion³²,

came to reveal

("to make known")

<b>Also </b>the particular <b> </b>virtues of Jews,

in which there is division among Jews

(the particular virtues of one Jew are not comparable to the particular virtues of another Jew)

And therefore they counted here also each tribe separately,

because the twelve tribes were divided in their manner of living,

study of Torah,

their livelihood etc. - as we see it in the blessings of Yaakov

(and as in Rashi there),

from this it is understood that they were also divided in the service of God,

and in general - they are twelve general paths in the service of God in which all of Israel divides&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

("Reuven" - the service of "see",

seeing,

"Shimon" - hearing&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

etc.).

Yes.

Nevertheless, also in this counting <b>every</b> Jew was counted as <b>one</b> - no more and no less.

Which shows

(as discussed several times&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;)

that in this counting there is a matter in which all are equal,

although

What one is divided and counted by their families according to their fathers' house.

It turns out,

that in this there is a thing and its opposite: despite the fact that the count is connected with the particular virtues of Jews

- That in this there are differences of levels: the one who possesses a higher virtue

(for example: your heads your tribes etc.),

has more importance than the one who has a lesser virtue

(hewer of your wood and drawer of your water etc.)

; and consequently there is no place,

seemingly,

to count them all equally

(with the same importance)

And nevertheless every Jew is counted

(also)

equally to all other Jews.

And it can be said the explanation of <b>the combination</b> of both together: That which one <b>counts</b> Jews from the aspect of their particular virtues,

is this not

(only)

in order to bring out the virtue of each Jew

(or tribe)

<b>for itself alone</b>,

but — as all these particular virtues together compose with themselves <b>one complete structure</b>³⁶.

That in <b>this</b> matter — that each particular virtue completes the collective — there is no division³⁷

: exactly as the

A "complete stature" must reach the level of the head and the brain in order to achieve its completeness,

so must it reach the level of the foot.

And therefore each one is counted

(equally)

as one - because in the allegory of the collective, all are <b>equal</b>.

And this is also the explanation why the princes of the tribes had to participate in the counting of all Jews

(through their becoming "the called ones of the congregation" - "those who are called for every matter of importance <b>that is in the congregation</b>")

- because in the counting of each tribe individually there had to be

(also)

felt, as it is not

(but)

a separate counting

(as a separate entity),

but also the individual counting is counted as a part of the collective³⁸.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar 5736)