English translation — נשא ג

A.

The Rambam¹

rules: "When they transport the ark from place to place, they do not transport it on an animal nor on wagons, but it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder..

as it is said²

and in the count of the commandments³

the Rambam counts the mitzvah — "to carry the ark on the shoulder"⁴

— as a separate mitzvah⁵.

The question is known⁶

: In the verse that the Rambam brings it is explicitly stated "and to the sons of Kehat he did not give

(wagons)

for the holy service upon them they shall carry on the shoulder",

for the holy service upon them they shall carry on the shoulder",

and as Rashi explains it "the burden of the holy thing, the ark and the table etc."/ d.

i.

the command "they shall carry on the shoulder" refers not only to the ark,

but also to the other vessels of the Temple

(table, menorah, and altars etc.)⁷,

so why does the Rambam rule that the mitzvah is only "to carry the <b>ark</b> on the shoulder"?

In simple terms: In the counting of the commandments, the Rambam counts only the commandments which are practiced for generations.

And therefore he counts only "carrying the ark",

because the verses and the words of our Sages that the Rambam brings about "they shall carry on the shoulder" for generations,

are only regarding the ark and not regarding the other vessels of the Temple

which were in the burden of the sons of Kehat — as one sees from the proofs that he brings in Sefer HaMitzvot.

Furthermore: R. Avraham ben HaRambam

explains that from this verse

(where it speaks about the hiding of the ark by Josiah)

"And he said to the Levites ..

Place the holy ark in the house that Solomon built etc. You have no burden on the shoulder" it proves both things,

that at that time

(after the building of the Temple)

was

(a)

regarding the ark there was still the obligation of burden on the shoulder; and

(b)

regarding the other vessels

The Sanctuary was &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;there,

because the obligation of carrying on the shoulder regarding them &lt;b&gt;became nullified &lt;/b&gt;

(in the building of the Temple*&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;).

does not nullify the commandment,

that because of this carrying the Ark on the shoulder should not be called a commandment that is practiced for generations — because,

it is practiced in all generations whenever they will need carrying, for there is no nullification of a commandment except because it is not practiced, not because it is not needed by us"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

as the Rambam explains in Sefer HaMitzvot&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;].

2.

This, however, is seemingly not sufficient,

for how does it come that the Rambam should not mention at all and not even hint about the distinction between the Ark and the other vessels of the Temple in the matter of carrying on the shoulder?

The difficulty is only stronger regarding the Book of Commandments,

where his way is to bring proofs etc.¹⁵

— and in this very commandment he details "And although this command came to the Levites at that time, nevertheless this was for the count of the few priests obligated in the commandment etc." — and nevertheless he does not even hint about the distinction between the Ark and the other holy vessels.

And further: According to the above, from the verse "You have no burden on the shoulder" there is a stronger proof that carrying the Ark on the shoulder was also after the building of the <b>Temple — </b>and <b>this </b>the Rambam does not bring.

From this it is understood,

that the Rambam assumes,

that the difference between carrying on the shoulder of the other vessels and carrying the <b>Ark</b> on the shoulder is not only that regarding the other vessels the mitzvah became nullified and regarding the Ark it is a mitzvah for generations¹⁶,

but it is

(also,

and primarily)

a difference in the very definition of the mitzvah

(also as it was by the sons of Kehat in the desert).

And furthermore one could say,

that the Rambam learns that the primary command "the service of the holy upon them on the shoulder they shall carry"

(indispensable¹⁷)

is only regarding the Ark and not regarding the other vessels.

And as it is explicit in Midrash Rabbah¹⁸

: "The tribe of Levi, the family of Kehath, were superior, for a son of Levi would place his load, either the boards or the bars or the sockets or any item on the wagons, but the families of Kehath would carry on their shoulders, for they did not have permission to place the Ark on the wagons, as it is said, 'But to the sons of Kehath he did not give' etc.,"

From this it is understood that the

(main)

reason why "But to the sons of Kehath he did not give

(wagons)

is because of the Ark,

"that they did not

have permission to place <b>the Ark</b> on the wagons" — regarding the Ark there is the commandment of "they shall carry on the shoulder"¹⁹.

regarding the law after this in Rambam&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

there "when they carry him on the shoulder they carry faces opposite faces and their backs outward and their faces inward",

then the source for this is from the Midrash Rabbah&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

(where he continues: "And in another matter they were superior etc. the sons of Kehath would walk with their backs and faces toward the Ark so as not to turn their backs to the Ark")

— it turns out,

that the sources of both laws in Rambam are from the same Midrash,

where both matters stand one after the other].

Based on this it is understood what distinguishes in several places the sons of Kehath as "carriers of &lt;b&gt;the Ark"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;,

although they also carried the other holy vessels: this is not only because the Ark is superior to all vessels and the holiest among them&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

that &lt;b&gt;therefore &lt;/b&gt;they are called by its name — but because this was their

(primary)

mitzvah,

"carriers of the Ark".

One must however understand the explanation in this: It is indeed in Scripture that one fulfills the plain meaning, and since that "And to the sons of Kehat he did not give

(wagons)

they therefore had to carry also the other holy vessels on the shoulder,

And what is the reason for the distinction between them.

3.

One will understand this with the introduction of the explanation in the words of the Rambam in the aforementioned law in the laws of the Temple vessels,

And this is his language:

When they transport the ark from place to place, they do not transport it on an animal nor on wagons, but it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder.

And because David forgot²⁴

and carried it on

the wagon, a breach was breached at Uzzah²⁵.

Rather, it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder, as it is said: "For the holy service is upon them; they shall carry on the shoulder."

One must understand: the Rambam is after all a book of "halachos halachos"²⁶

And what is relevant here to halacha the explanation "And because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was breached at Uzza"?

At first glance one can say,

that from this the Rambam proves that carrying the ark on the shoulder was an obligation and commandment also after the time of the wilderness — if they were carrying the sanctuary from place to place,

And consequently it is understood that this is a commandment for generations.

But it is a great difficulty to say that this is the entire reason,

because then it lacks explanation: why specifically in Sefer HaMitzvot does he bring the proof,

whereas in Sefer HaMitzvot the Rambam brings other proofs?

From the plain language of the Rambam,

and especially from the fact that he repeats again

(after saying "and because he forgot etc.")

"but rather a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder" is understandable,

that the Rambam is about to bring proofs

On both details²⁷

that he says at the beginning of the halacha²⁸

: on the negation — "They do not lead it neither on the animal nor on the wagons,"

he brings the proof "And because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was breached against Uzzah"; and on the second detail,

the obligation — "but it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder,"

he elaborates "

(but it is a mitzvah to carry it²⁹

on the shoulder)

<b>as it is said </b>for the holy service upon them they shall carry on the shoulder."

One must however understand: why does the Rambam teach that "They do not lead it neither on the animal nor on the wagons" is a <b>separate matter</b>

(and that <b>therefore</b> "a breach was breached against Uzzah"),

and moreover — he precedes it to the command "they shall carry on the shoulder"

And not

(as the plain meaning of the verses)

that this is only a result,

And it broke out only because they did not fulfill the commandment of "on the shoulder they shall carry"?

it is indeed explicit "that they did not have permission to place the ark

On the wagon",

But: the Midrash brings on this the proof from the beginning of the verse in our portion "that it is said 'And to the sons of Kehat he did not give etc.'" — the Rambam however does not bring the proof³⁰,

Rather "And because David forgot about it etc."

And at first glance,

If the Rambam assumes that from the beginning of the verse "And to the sons of Kehat he did not give etc." there is no compulsion that "one does not transport it etc."

(the negation),

Because the verse continues "For

(that the reason for this is because)

the holy service upon them they shall carry on the shoulder" — which is the emphasis

(and from where is the proof)

that this is a separate command and it comes before the command "they shall carry on the shoulder"].

Yet one must understand

(as the Radbaz³¹

asks)

: Why did the Rambam insert the laws regarding carrying the Ark in the Laws of the Temple Vessels,

where he speaks

(in chapter 1)

regarding the making of the anointing oil and what one does with it,

and

(in chapter 2)

— regarding the making of the incense³²

and that which pertains to it

— apparently³³

he should have

placed in the <b>later </b>chapters: in chapter 3 where he speaks about the Levites³⁴

and their service,

or in chapter 4 — speaking about the priests³⁵.

Another question about this: The Rambam does not mention at all in the halacha &lt;b&gt;that &lt;/b&gt;the people had to carry the Ark,

He only says simply "When they transport the Ark there is no... but a mitzvah to take it on the shoulder."

Why does he not explain that this is the mitzvah upon the Kohanim,

as he elaborates in detail in Sefer HaMitzvos&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;?

From this it is understood,

that according to the Rambam, the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder is not

A detail in the obligations of the person,

but a law in the object of the Ark and its carrying³⁷.

D.

The explanation in this:

In the service of the Levites,

at the time when they carried the Sanctuary from place to place,

— the work of the burden to carry it from place to place — was of two manners: The burden of the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari,

who carried

(the parts of the Tabernacle)

on the wagons,

and the burden of the sons of Kehot who carried the holy vessels

(the Table, etc.)

on the shoulder.

But regarding the Ark — there is a law concerning the Ark: "They shall carry on the shoulder",

that is the "place" of the Ark at the time when one carries it from place to place.

That is: just as during the resting there is the "place of the Ark" and that is in the Holy of Holies⁴⁰,

so too "when they carry the Ark from place to place" the Ark has a <b>place</b>

(special)

— on the shoulder*⁴⁰.

And this is indicated by the Rambam with that which he writes the commandment and laws of carrying the Ark at the end of chapter 2 of

Laws of the vessels of the Temple,

before he speaks about "those who serve in it"⁴¹

(in the Temple),

and moreover — he does not mention at all who should have been the carriers of the Ark,

all this emphasizes that the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder is not a law and detail in the obligations of the person

(those who serve in the Temple)

but in the object

("vessels of the Temple")

of the Ark itself,

it is a law of "the place of the Ark",

when they <b>carry </b>the Ark — it is "on the shoulder".

5.

Based on this, the difference between the other holy vessels in the burden of the sons of Kehat and the burden of the Ark on the shoulder is understood simply:

The burden of the other holy vessels on the shoulder by the sons of Kehas is in the same category as the carrying of the other parts of the Temple on wagons by the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari.

And this is not a detail in the parts of the Temple themselves,

but only — the <b>manner</b> of <b>carrying</b> and transporting it from place to place of the Tent of Meeting.

And just as the carrying of the parts of the Mishkan by the sons of Gershon and the sons of Merari is not a commandment for generations

(when they went out from the places in the wilderness*⁴¹),

so too the carrying on the shoulder by the sons of Kehas of the other holy vessels is not a commandment for generations

(although the Temple vessels were in the Beis HaMikdash later after the "Tent of Meeting, its planks...

its sockets" were hidden⁴²).

But not so that which "on the shoulder they shall carry",

regarding the Ark is in the essence of the Ark

(not

a detail and law in the manner of its carrying from place to place),

it is understood that this is not dependent on the place

(and time)

"that they would carry the Sanctuary from place to place",

but on the object of the Ark.

and consequently, as long as the Ark exists,

there exists the obligation of "its place" — in the Holy Temple in the Holy of Holies and when they carry it from place to place on the shoulder.

6.

The distinctiveness of the Ark regarding the other holy vessels in the carrying of the sons of Kehat,

the Rambam learns from the aforementioned midrashim of Chazal themselves,

since the virtue of Kehat is "carrier of the Ark in which the Torah is placed"⁴³,

although they carried on the shoulder also the rest of the holy vessels,

it is therefore understandable,

that the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder is not

(only)

(only)

because it is one of the holy vessels,

but because "the Torah is placed there"⁴⁴

— tablets

(and Torah scroll)⁴⁵

that are in the Ark⁴⁶

The importance and honor of the Torah demands that &lt;b&gt;always,&lt;/b&gt;

even when he goes

(one leads him)

from one place to another — he must

he

(even then)

have a "place"

(special).

And it can be said that this is also one of the reasons that the Rambam brings in the halacha in Hilchos Klei HaMikdash regarding the negation "one does not carry it on an animal nor on wagons" and brings the proof "and because David forgot and carried it on the wagon, a breach was breached against Uzzah":

With this it is brought out,

that when one carries the Ark on a wagon,

one is

(not only nullifying a &lt;b&gt;mitzvah &lt;/b&gt;of carrying on the shoulder,

rather one is)

nullifying the matter of the fixed &lt;b&gt;place &lt;/b&gt;of the Ark — Torah: carrying

(on an animal or)

on &lt;b&gt;wagons &lt;/b&gt;emphasizes the opposite of fixed place,

and the matter that "they carried it on the wagon",

which is the opposite of the honor of the Torah,

brought about "a breach was breached against Uzzah".

And this itself is the reason why the Rambam precedes the negation of "we do not carry him etc." before the positive command "it is a mitzvah to carry it on the shoulder etc." — to emphasize,

that the prohibition is not a result of the positive command "they shall carry on the shoulder"*⁴⁶,

but a separate prohibition⁴⁷,

because of

disrespect for the honor of the Torah

(upon which comes the specific punishment,

"a breach was breached through Uzza").

7.

The reason and proof for all the above — one can learn from the Rambam himself at the end of Hilchos Sefer Torah*⁴⁷

Regarding the honor of a Sefer Torah⁴⁸,

And this is his language⁴⁹

It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it and adorn it exceedingly; the matters of the tablets of the covenant are they, in every single book.

And superficially it is not understandable: This halacha the Rambam says close to the end of the chapter,

and in the previous halachos the Rambam discusses <b>many many</b> details of laws regarding honor of a Sefer Torah,

beginning from halacha 2: A kosher Sefer Torah, one conducts with it extra holiness and great honor,

until he elaborates in halacha 9 "Whoever sees a Sefer Torah when it is being carried is obligated to stand before it,

and everyone should stand until the one who is carrying it passes etc." — then how does it fit afterwards to <b>begin</b> in halacha <b>10,</b>

with something that is a new topic: "It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it and beautify it etc.",

and he adds further "The matters that are in the tablets of the covenant, they are in every single book"⁵⁰?

The same question one can ask on the halacha after this in the Rambam

(the last halacha of this chapter),

And this is its language: If one was traveling from place to place and a Sefer Torah was with him, he should not place the Sefer Torah inside a sack and put it on the donkey and ride on it..

He places it in his bosom opposite his heart and he rides on the animal and goes

— At first glance: the law

(as one must hold a Sefer Torah while riding on a donkey)

would have fit better in continuation of the previous laws⁵¹,

where he speaks about the detailed laws of how one must conduct oneself with a Sefer Torah when entering a bathhouse etc.⁵²,

and likewise regarding the prohibition "to sit on a bed upon which a Sefer Torah is"⁵³

— why does the Rambam place <b>this</b> law only <b>at the end</b> of the chapter

(after the law of "It is a mitzvah to designate a place for a Sefer Torah and to honor it etc.")?

Also one must understand: from where does the Rambam derive this law that "he places it in his bosom opposite his heart⁵⁴

and he rides etc."?

In simplicity, the source is

(as commentators&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

say)

from Masekhet Berakhot&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

"One who transports bones from place to place, behold, he should not place them in a sack and place them on a donkey and ride on them, because he treats them with contempt..

And just as they said regarding bones, so they said regarding a Torah scroll"&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

— but there it does not state*&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

(the detail)

that "he places it in his bosom opposite his heart"&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;.

but there it is discussing&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;

(not about traveling from place to place,

but)

when removing them for the bathroom in order to guard against the opposite of honor&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;].

8.

Is the explanation in this:

In the laws in this chapter until the law

(10)

"It is a mitzvah to designate etc." the Rambam speaks mainly about the obligations of honor of a Sefer Torah which are upon the person⁶²,

"They conduct with it extra sanctity and great honor"⁶³.

In law 10, however, he begins a new subject: "It is a mitzvah to <b>designate</b> for a Sefer Torah a <b>place</b> and to honor it and glorify it more than [these] things; the words of the tablets of the covenant, they are they that are in every scroll and scroll."

That is: here begins the discussion

(mainly)

about a law of honor from the perspective of the object of a Torah scroll.

Since "the matters that are in the tablets of the covenant, they are in every single scroll"⁶⁴,

therefore,

just as regarding the Ark

(from the perspective of the tablets of the covenant within it)

there is a law of "place" from the perspective of the honor of the Torah,

so too from the perspective of the object of a Torah scroll there exists a "commandment <b>to designate</b> for a Torah scroll a <b>place</b> and to honor it etc."⁶⁵

(also that place⁶⁶

<b> </b>to honor)⁶⁷.

And this is also the continuation⁶⁸

in the law afterwards "If one was traveling from place to place with a Torah scroll with him" — that also in traveling from place to place there is a law of "place"⁶⁸

in the object of a Torah scroll,

and consequently — "if there is no fear <b>he places it in his bosom opposite his heart";</b> just as regarding the Ark

(in which were the tablets of the covenant),

where there is a law of "place" also when they carry it from place to place — he carries it on the shoulder⁷⁰.

9.

Here one sees the correspondence of the revealed part of Torah with the inner dimension of Torah.

— and as spoken several times⁷

that since the revealed and inner dimensions of Torah are compared to a body and soul⁷²,

it is just as the body corresponds in all its details to the soul which is clothed within it,

so too are all the matters of the revealed part of Torah in correspondence to their matter and explanation in the soul of Torah:

Chassidus⁷³

explains that the reason

On "the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder" is,

because the concept of the Ark is the Tablets of the Covenant that are in it,

and the Tablets are "entirely face",

for "from this and from that they are inscribed",

"from both their sides",

there is in them no

(face and)

back⁷⁴

; and the physical concept derives from that which spiritually the Tablets are the aspect of face above,

in which there is no aspect of back.

And for this reason one must carry the Ark specifically on the shoulder,

because, from the side of the Tablets that are in the Ark, one connects and unites the air of the shoulders to the holy service,

the aspect of face⁷⁵.

And this is the reason why the carrying of the Ark is

(as above from the Rambam)

in a manner of "face to face ...

and their faces to the face" — which shows that this is entirely face.

— one sees,

that the reason for the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder is not merely a law in the &lt;b&gt;honor &lt;/b&gt;of the Ark

(which applies also to the other vessels of the Temple)

— rather "shoulder" is the specific place that is suited &lt;b&gt;in its content &lt;/b&gt;to the matter of the Ark specifically

(due to the tablets that are in it,

the Torah as it is in the Ark).

And from this emerges the law in the revealed part of Torah,

that the carrying of the Ark on the shoulder is a law that is connected with the essence of the Ark — the essence of the Ark demands a specific "place"

(even at the time of its carrying)

due to the matter of the Torah that is in it,

and that is — specifically "on the shoulder."

Yud.

Based on this, the special connection of Parsha Nasso to the time of the giving of our Torah⁷⁶ is understood.

or the Shabbat before Shavuot

(as in the calendar of this year — 5744⁷⁷]

It is explained in Chassidus

(in the aforementioned places⁷⁸),

that the concept of the drawing down of the aspect of face

(connected with Torah)

was revealed at the time of the Giving of the Torah,

when "face to face G-d spoke with you."

And when the time of the Giving of the Torah arrives each and every year, it is the propitious time that every Jew receives an <b>additional </b>power to effect in himself that he should be his face toward the Ark,

and His back to the outside,

so that the use of the matters necessary for the existence of the world and the existence of his body are only out of necessity,

without inwardness⁷⁹

and delight⁸⁰],

And in particular begins the giving of power in the three days of restriction,

which come

(in this year — 5744)

after Shabbos Parshas Nasso es Rosh.

And through the preparation,

one receives the Torah with joy and with inwardness.

(From the sichos of Motzaei Shabbos Kodesh Parshas Nasso 5739,

<b>Motzaei Shabbat Kodesh, Yud Shevat 5730)</b>