Reflections on the Book of Numbers

By Martin Sicker

Perusing this biblical book through a theopolitical prism, it may be seen that another unifying theme that courses through the diverse contents of this biblical work is that of molding the diverse tribes of the children of Israel into a functioning confederacy presided over by an increasingly strong central authority. For forty years, Moses wrestled with the problem of retaining the tribal structure of the children of Israel as a vehicle for the transmission of traditional teachings and values from the generation of the exodus to their descendants and, at the same time, attempting to restructure intertribal relationships within the confederacy by the nationalization and centralization of the evolving religion, focused on the Tabernacle and its rites that served as the adhesive that bound them to each other. What the narrative also illustrates is the challenge of exercising the effective central leadership essential to containing the centripetal social forces that tended to impede the transition from a tribal confederacy to a unified nation, a challenge that purportedly caused an eleven-day trip from Mount Sinai to the Promised Land to take thirty-eight years to complete.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Dec 30, 2014
• ISBN: 9781496961006

Martin Sicker

Dr. Martin Sicker is a writer and lecturer on the Middle East and Jewish history and religion. His is the author of 42 previous books including Reading Genesis Politically; The Trials of Abraham; The Ordeals of Isaac and Jacob; Aspects of Jewish Metarational Thought; The Exodus and the Reluctant Prophet; The Convocation at Sinai; The Theopolitical Discourses of Moses; and Pondering the Imponderable.

Book preview

Reflections on the Book

of

Numbers

MARTIN SICKER

64263.png

AuthorHouse™

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.authorhouse.com

Phone: [phone]

© 2015 MARTIN SICKER. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse   12/29/2014

ISBN: 978-1-4969-6099-3 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4969-6100-6 (e)

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the Holy Bible, King James Version (Authorized Version). First published in 1611. Quoted from the KJV Classic Reference Bible, Copyright © 1983 by The Zondervan Corporation.

Contents

Preface

1    Bemidbar

2    Naso

3    Behaalotekha

4    Shelah-lekha

5    Korah

6    Hukkat

7    Balak

8    Phinehas

9    Matot

10  Maasei

References

Notes

About the Author

Preface

The fourth of the Five Books of Moses, the Torah, was traditionally known to the sages of Israel in the talmudic era as Homesh haPekudim (Book of the Musterings), reflecting the various censuses of the children of Israel detailed in the book, and is commonly referred to in modern times as the Book of Numbers. The English names commonly assigned to the five books of the Torah, as well as those similarly employed in the Romance languages, derive from the Latin, which in turn derive from the names employed by the Greek-speaking Jews who translated into Greek the Hebrew designations commonly applied to the works in ancient Judea. An alternate approach taken in antiquity was to name a book either by its opening word or words, or by its first significant word. Accordingly, the book was also traditionally known as Bemidbar (In the Wilderness), from the first verse of the book, And the Lord spoke unto Moses (bemidbar) in the wilderness of Sinai. This method of naming the books of the Torah ultimately prevailed among Jews and is today the preeminent manner in which the books of the Torah are identified in Jewish literature. Thus the book is commonly referred to by the Hebrew title of Sefer Bemidbar.

At first glance, this biblical book may be seen as a hodgepodge of relatively unconnected narratives, laws, and poems. However, on closer examination it may be seen as a coherent composite of discrete elements that are tied together by unifying themes, one of which is the eleven-day journey from Mount Sinai to the promised land that actually took some thirty-eight years to complete. The saga of that journey, as one commentator put it, functions both through time (by its chronology of events) and space (by the geographical placement of the events along the route of travel) to organize the episodes into a related story. Elements of language and recurring themes contribute to this unity. Most of all, though, the events of the journey themselves bind the story, for they are not a collection of unrelated episodes. A connecting line of cause and effect runs through them so that they can be read as individual stories and as a meaningful chain of events.¹

Perusing the text through a theopolitical prism, it may be seen that another unifying theme that courses through the diverse contents of this biblical work is that of molding the diverse tribes of the children of Israel into a functioning confederacy presided over by an increasingly strong central authority. It may be seen that Moses wrestled with the problem of retaining the tribal structure of the children of Israel as a vehicle for the transmission of traditional teachings and values from the generation of the exodus to their descendants, and at the same time attempting to restructure inter-tribal relationships within the confederacy by the nationalization and centralization of the evolving religion, focused on the Tabernacle and its rites that served as the adhesive that bound them to each other. What the narrative also highlights is the challenge of effective central leadership essential to containing the centripetal social forces that tended to impede the transition from the tribal confederacy to a unified nation, a challenge that purportedly caused an eleven-day trip to take thirty-eight years to complete.

Explaining the biblical text, which is written in the terse mode of expression typical of the Torah, presents a number of problems for the modern commentator, especially one writing in English. First of all, there is the problem of language. While there is an abundance of English translations currently available, every translation of necessity is also an interpretation, and for this reason I have resisted the temptation to add yet another translation of the texts. Ideally, the biblical text should be presented in its Hebrew version and the interpretation presented in English or any other language. However, because this is impractical for a work intended for readers who may not have adequate knowledge of the original language, I have chosen what I consider to be the least problematic of English translations currently available, principally because it is the most literal, notwithstanding that it may not be the easiest to read. Accordingly, passages cited from the Torah in this book are based on the King James Version as modified by the old Jewish Publication Society version, with further modifications introduced where deemed appropriate for purposes of clarification. Although some of the language used is now archaic it has the advantage of sharply differentiating between the biblical text and commentary. It also offers linguistic distinctions that tend to be blurred in modern English, especially with regard to the use of second person pronouns, which in modern English employ you and your for both singular and plural, whereas using thou and thy for the singular and you and your for the plural better capture the meaning of the Hebrew which does distinguish between the singular and the plural, and there are instances where the distinction is important to comprehension of the text. However, because every translation is also an interpretation, the translation employed in this study is often problematic. Accordingly, wherever necessary, I will point out the difficulties that need to be resolved to capture what most likely is the intent of a particular verse or expression.

A second problem results from the fact that one can hardly construct a sensible analysis of a biblical text that has been studied almost to exhaustion over a period of more than two millennia without referring to the work of those who preceded him. The difficulty one encounters in doing this lies in the fact that there is little if any consensus among the commentators, ancient, medieval, or modern, as to the meaning or significance of the texts. To deal with this problem, on occasion I will propose alternate interpretations that reflect different but plausible approaches to the text, indicating my own preferences as appropriate.

A third problem concerns the wide number of differing interpretations of any given text that are available. Since it is not my purpose to compile a compendium of interpretations, it was necessary to set some parameters for inclusion, by mere mention or actual citation, irrespective of whether or not I agree with them. Therefore, in this study I have elected to consider only those interpretations that expound or contribute to the understanding of the plain meaning of the given text. In other words, with rare exceptions, no consideration is given here to mystical, esoteric, or homiletic interpretations that tend to take a particular text out of its context for rhetorical purposes. I have also avoided any reference to source criticism, which, although of interest from both a literary and historical point of view, contributes little if anything to understanding the straightforward meaning of the texts as they have been transmitted through the ages to us. However, because of the importance of these texts to the unfolding of Jewish law as formulated by the sages of the talmudic and midrashic literature, and their rabbinic successors, in a number of instances I have taken the liberty of illustrating how the precepts and other teachings presented in the biblical text were elaborated upon in the rabbinic literature. Regrettably, there also are a few biblical texts that seem to defy rational explanation, and I must leave attempts at their explication to others.

This problem in itself should not be too surprising when considering writings dating back centuries let alone millennia. Although it may be asserted that the biblical texts have eternal meaning and significance, it seems self-evident that those writings, to have survived the generation in which they first appeared, would of necessity had to be comprehensible to their readers, or more realistically to their listeners as these texts were read to them in the absence of many copies of such works in antiquity. It seems reasonable to suggest that if this had not been the case, those writings would have been ignored, and failing to be copied they would have soon disappeared. The problem for any subsequent reader is that language is dynamic and the meaning of words in one era may have very different connotations in another. The implication of this is that if one reads a passage of the Hebrew Bible, it may not mean the same thing in Modern or Medieval Hebrew as it did in Biblical Hebrew, even though the words literally may be the same.

Moreover, it is not only a question of the meaning attached to the individual words but also their connotation, that is, the idea that the words are being used to convey to the reader. How does one determine the meaning of a biblical word or phrase that does not appear self-evident in the context in which it is found? The usual method of doing so is by analogy to its use in other texts where its meaning is unambiguous, or by its similarity to words in cognate languages. Although this approach is by no means certain or flawless, it does represent an attempt to understand the text objectively, that is, what it conveyed to the reader of the period in which it was written. An alternative approach to the biblical texts is more subjective in nature, namely, that of asserting what the text is attempting to convey to its reader by its choice of language, not only by what it actually states but also what it may be understood as implying. These two alternate approaches, the objective or straightforward reading of the text, called the peshat and the subjective interpretive reading called derash in Hebrew respectively, can lead to very different understandings of the biblical word.

The ancient rabbinic sages, whose understandings of the biblical texts are recorded in the Talmud and the classical midrashic literature that will be cited or referred to frequently in this study, were well aware of the intellectual dangers inherent in the subjective approach to the texts, which might not only involve exegesis, drawing out the author’s ideas from the text, but also eisegesis, reading one’s own ideas into the text. To prevent distorting the biblical text by failing to be appropriately circumspect in applying the subjective approach, they generally adopted the interpretive principle that although one may infer subtexts from a particular word or passage, the text itself never loses its objective meaning. In other words, they accepted the notion that a biblical text might contain layers of meaning that might be extruded from it in addition to its objective meaning, but not in place of it.

In a sense, the objective approach is historical in that it conveyed a particular meaning to the audience to which it was originally addressed. By contrast, the subjective approach is ahistorical, divorced from time and place, but perhaps containing a message for future generations. The interplay of these alternate approaches can also produce incompatible results that may prove to be troublesome, especially when the biblical texts being interpreted are legal in nature or have normative implications.

Finally, a word about sources used in the study. In approaching the biblical narrative, I initially drafted my impressions of what the texts were relating, without reference to any commentary, a process that left me with great gaps in my understanding and a host of questions. I then turned more or less systematically to the classic rabbinic commentaries imbedded in the talmudic and midrashic literature, as well as to a substantial number of major as well as minor commentaries on the biblical texts composed in both the medieval and modern periods, to fill the gaps. Unfortunately, there are very few modern non-traditional commentators that do not seem to be obsessed with source criticism, which in my opinion has proved to have little if anything to contribute to an understanding of the traditional Hebrew text as it has come down to us since remote antiquity. As a result, I make scant reference to their very considerable body of work.

The references listed at the end of the book reflect those works either cited in the book or those which led me to the interpretations considered in the following pages. As a matter of practice, whenever I found that an earlier commentator had already noted my own initial impression of a text, I have referenced that work. However, the reader should be aware that when I actually cite a commentator or a work, I do so for the most part because of the felicity of expression it reflects and not necessarily because I agree with the context in which the original statement was made. In other words, the context in which I use a citation may not conform to the actual view of the author or work cited, much as the biblical writer’s use of extraneous source material may have little or no correspondence to its original meaning or intent.

Finally, because of the volume and variety of material contained in the biblical book, it is difficult to find a way of sensibly dividing the work into discrete coherent sections for the benefit of the modern reader. Because there are some problems in this regard with the placement of breaks in the text in the commonly accepted chapter subdivisions of Scripture adopted in the medieval period, I have elected to follow traditional rabbinic practice and subdivide the work according to the named standard parshiot or sections of the text of the Torah as read in the synagogue throughout the annual cycle of weekly recitals of the texts that comprise the Pentateuch.

1

Bemidbar

(1:1-4:20)

The Book of Numbers continues the narrative of the formation of the nation of Israel that began with the exodus of the children of Israel from bondage in Egypt, recounted at length in the Book of Exodus. Beginning with the exodus, and for the year that followed, the biblical account of story of the children of Israel reflects a period of disorientation and virtual helplessness and almost total reliance on divine benevolence. By the beginning of the second year after their liberation, the time had come for the children of Israel to take an active role in determining the course of their future existence as a nation, which could not reach fruition as long as they were ensconced in the wilderness of Sinai. It was time for them to begin to move toward the land promised to their forefathers, and this meant becoming much more self-reliant and realistic about the challenges they would confront along the way. Moreover, although God would not abandon them even after the notorious affair of the Golden Calf, it was clear that they could no longer depend entirely upon divine intervention to preserve them, as had been the case during and immediately following the exodus.

The children of Israel’s first taste of what awaited them as they would move toward their destination was their successful encounter with Amalekite raiders that attacked them for no other reason than they appeared vulnerable. Struggles with more numerous and more powerful antagonists awaited them as they moved from the remote wilderness of Sinai toward their ultimate destination, and for this they had to prepare themselves. To deal with the Amalekite raiders it was sufficient for Moses to instruct Joshua, Choose out men, and go out, fight with Amalek (Ex. 17:9). Such an ad hoc mobilization of a small fighting force would not do in the face of more powerful and motivated foes. The next necessary step in fashioning a nation was the formation of an army of sufficient size and strength to enable the children of Israel to take responsibility for their future viability as a distinct nation.

What the following text describes is the extraordinary step taken at divine instruction to create the required army. Moses is told not to emulate the composition of the typical armed forces of the ancient world, which consisted primarily of slaves, mercenaries, and adventurers. Instead, and possibly for the first time in human history, Moses is instructed to raise an army out of the general population of the congregation of the children of Israel, one in which every able-bodied citizen would be required to participate, not a professional army of career soldiers but a citizens’ army committed to the collective security of the families, clans, and tribes that made up the nation in formation. No such army existed anywhere in the ancient world; not in Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Persia, or even Rome. Indeed, no such army appeared anywhere else until the advent of the modern nation-state.²

Moses Instructed to Take a Military Census

¹.¹ And the Lord spoke unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ¹.² ‘Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their father’s houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls; ¹.³ from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: ye shall number them by their hosts, even thou and Aaron. ¹.⁴ And with you there shall be a man of every tribe, every one head of his fathers’ house.

The text begins by specifying the time and place of the divine command to take a military census of the congregation. This occurred a month after the completion of the Tabernacle, as reported earlier: And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month that the Tabernacle was reared up (Ex. 40:17). The completion of the Tabernacle brought about a dramatic change in the process of divine revelation of the elements of the covenant, that is, the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai (Lev. 27:34). From that point onward, the divine encounter with Moses would take place in the Tent of Meeting, as noted in the present text. This suggests that virtually all of the divine instructions recorded in the Book of Leviticus were issued during the intervening month between the completion of the Tabernacle and the present call for a military census that emanated from the Tabernacle. The sole exceptions are the instructions found in the final three chapters of Leviticus, which clearly state that they were given at Mount Sinai (Lev. 25:1; 26:46; 27:34). At this point in the narrative, the Tabernacle was located bemidbar sinai or in the wilderness of Sinai. The Hebrew term midbar, properly translated as wilderness, rather than ‘desert,’ indicates that although the sparse rainfall could not support crop cultivation in the area, it was sufficient to provide adequate pasturage for flocks and herds that the children of Israel brought with them in the exodus from Egypt.

The procedure for taking a census was set forth in an earlier text where Moses was instructed: When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered … half a shekel for an offering to the Lord … to make atonement for your souls (Ex. 30:12-15). The concept underlying this biblical rule may be seen in its use of the phrase kofer nafsho or a ransom for his soul. This technical expression for ‘ransom’ occurs three times in the Torah, and each time it refers to the money paid by one who is guilty of taking human life in circumstances that do not constitute murder … The soldier who is ready to march into battle is in the eyes of Heaven a potential taker of life, though not a deliberate murderer. Hence he requires a ransom for his life.³ Moreover, the half-shekel provided when the troops were mustered turned the war into a holy cause; all worldly and egoistical purposes had thereby been renounced.⁴ Presumably, the census that Moses is about to undertake here would be carried out in accordance with the earlier stipulation.

Why such a census at this particular time? The self-evident reason is that the moment was coming for the children of Israel to move northward to Canaan from the wilderness of Sinai through other wilderness areas, frequented by nomadic tribes, through which they might have to fight their way. The prospects for even greater impediments to their passage would be encountered once they crossed into Canaan, where their very large scale intrusion would be resisted, fiercely in some instances. Accordingly, it was essential to establish mobilization protocols so that every able-bodied man knew to whom he was to report when a call to arms was sounded, and for those in command of the mobilized forces to know how many reliable armed men they could field when called upon. The need for such mobilization planning was critical because the number of potentially armed men was dwarfed by the number of non-combatants, the women, children, and the physically unfit for battle that constituted the families of those men, whom they had to care for and assist as they moved northward.

Bearing in mind that there were numerous non-Israelites that had joined the children of Israel in their exodus from Egypt simply to escape servitude there, this ‘mixed multitude’ had no stake in an Israelite future for which they were prepared to risk their lives. Accordingly, the census was limited to all the congregation of the children of Israel, thus excluding the non-Israelite sojourners that were deemed unreliable. The term edah, translated as congregation, designates people joined together for a common calling, and held together by the solidarity of that calling.⁵ Reflecting this sectarian understanding of the term, edah has also been translated as witness community.⁶

The census was to be taken by their families, by their fathers’ houses according to the number of names, every male, by their polls. That is, the census was to be conducted in a manner consistent with the prevailing tribal structure, each tribe consisting of a varying number of fathers’ houses or clans which in turn consisted of a number of families, from among which every male would be registered by their polls, that is, by a head count. (It should be noted that the Hebrew terminology employed here, beit av, translated as father’s house and mishpahah, translated as family, is imprecise and has been rendered both in use and in translation in a variety of ways, of which none are critical to a reasonable comprehension of the text.)⁷ It has been suggested that one reason for the specification of the structure of the census was to assure that every one of the children of Israel knew his place in the tribal order, and therefore to be perceived as an integral part of an ordered society prepared to defend itself, as opposed to appearing as a random collection of runaway slaves.⁸

The phrase according to the number of names has been understood to mean that the identity of each one counted was to be recorded in a registry that would subsequently be used in the allocation of the land to the tribes and then to the families of which they were composed. What is important to note is that at this stage in the history of the nation, it was not individuals but families within the framework of clan and tribe that constituted membership of the congregation, thereby perpetuating the tribal structure of the nation and preventing the emergence of a strong central government for centuries following the deaths of Moses and Joshua.

It is noteworthy that it has been suggested the instructions for conducting the census may be read in a rather different manner than that presented above. The Hebrew text se’u et rosh kol adat b’nei yisrael, translated as take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, may be rendered literally as take ye the head of all the congregation of the children of Israel, the term rosh or head referring to the leadership cadre of the children of Israel and not to the sum of all the congregation. It will be recalled that following the exodus Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads [rashim] over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens (Ex. 18:25) to provide a leadership structure for the people as they sought to reconstitute their lives in the wilderness of Sinai.⁹

As the time had arrived to proceed to the promised land, which was yet to be conquered and settled, with the land to be distributed equitably among the tribes, it became imperative to know as clearly as possible who belonged to what family and clan within each tribe that would constitute a discrete division within the overall army of the children of Israel. In the earlier census, the primary concern was with the aggregate number of the Israelites that partook in the exodus. Now it was clear that the tribal structure of the children of Israel had to be acknowledged, making it essential that the census be taken by their families, by their fathers’ houses and to number them by their hosts.

Accordingly, the first step in the military census was to identify the leaders of the people within the tribal structure starting with the tribal leadership that would identify the clan leaders, who would in turn identify the family heads, who would identify the family members eligible for military mobilization, making them available for a head count. These would be registered by name and unit assignment within the tribal framework of units of ten, fifty, a hundred, and one thousand. Evidently, one of the concerns this arrangement was intended to deal with was a member of one tribe coming under the orders of a member of a different tribe, which could cause morale problems. In other words, the tribal units were intended fight as discrete units under a coordinated high command at the tribal level, there being four major commands each consisting of three tribes, as indicated later in the text.

The men polled were to include those from twenty years old and upward; all that are able to go forth to war in Israel. It is noteworthy that with regard to those subject to the military census no upper age limit is mentioned. It has been suggested that this omission is because the conquest of the promised land was considered of such importance that any older person, regardless of age, capable of bearing arms was to be conscripted for service.¹⁰ It should be noted, however, that it has been argued, on the basis of an unrelated biblical text (Lev. 27:3-7), that one over sixty years of age is like [one] under twenty years of age.¹¹ Accordingly, it has been suggested that the phrase all that are able to go forth to war, that is, to serve as a combatant, did not apply to anyone over the age of sixty.¹²

It also has been suggested that the Hebrew phrase kol yotzei tzava, translated as all that are able to go forth to war, may also be understood as referring to everyone who is in duty bound to step out of his simple life into the public service of the community whenever it is demanded of him to do so. In other words, the term tzava, commonly understood as referring to the military, may also be understood as referring to any united body under higher orders for public service.¹³ Although it seems reasonably clear that in the present context tzava refers primarily to military service, not all males over the age of twenty are able to go forth to war, that is, to serve as actual combatants. According to the sages, those excused from combat roles may remain behind and provide water and food and repair the roads, acknowledging that those who serve in support roles also perform a function important to successful military operations.¹⁴

Alternatively, it has been suggested that there is a profound idea reflected in the absence of any upper age limit for those inducted into the army, and that is to assure that a nation can mobilize a military force when necessary without becoming intrinsically militaristic. Specifying the specific age bracket for military service is generally indicative of a standing army, occupied solely with the training for and practical activity on behalf of the nation. What Moses is instructed to do is to organize a ‘reserve’ army, whose members normally are occupied with non-military affairs but are trained and ready to be mobilized for war when required, regardless of age as long as they are capable of bearing arms. The army of the children of Israel is to be a civilian army rather than a professional military force. The calculus of national leaders differs significantly when they decide to call up their reserves, disrupting normal economic and social life, than when they merely have to give orders to a standing professional army.¹⁵

With regard to those subject to mobilization, ye shall number them by their hosts, that is, they are to be registered by name, family, and clan, within each tribe. Moses and Aaron were personally to oversee the census, with the active and direct participation of a man of every tribe, every one head of his fathers’ house, whoever representing a tribe to be at the least the head of a clan.

The Tribal Leaders Assisting in the Census

¹.⁵ And these are the names of the men that shall stand with you: of Reuben, Elizur the son of Shedeur. ¹.⁶ Of Simeon, Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. ¹.⁷ Of Judah, Nahshon the son of Amminadab. ¹.⁸ Of Issachar, Nethanel the son of Zuar. ¹.⁹ Of Zebulun, Eliab the son of Helon. ¹.¹⁰ Of the children of Joseph: of Ephraim, Elishama the son of Ammihud; of Manasseh, Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur. ¹.¹¹ Of Benjamin, Abidan the son of Gideoni. ¹.¹² Of Dan, Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai. ¹.¹³ Of Asher, Pagiel the son of Ochran. ¹.¹⁴ Of Gad, Eliasaph the son of Deuel. ¹.¹⁵ Of Naphtali, Ahira the son of Enan.’ ¹.¹⁶ These were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel.

It is of interest to note that the persons to serve as assistants to Moses and Aaron in conducting the census are all divinely designated. It seems reasonable to assume that Moses could not have had sufficient interpersonal relations with the tribal leaders to know which of them would be best fit to carry out the census with greatest integrity, that is, without internal tribal politics granting unwarranted exemptions from military service in the critical struggles that awaited the children of Israel, a burden that was to be shared by all men above twenty years of age capable of bearing arms. Only God could make such a determination and did so here. It also is noteworthy that the list of the tribes is arranged in the chronological order of birth of Jacob’s sons grouped according to the matriarchs Leah and Rachel. The mothers of last named four tribes on the list are Jacob’s concubines, the mother of first and last of the four being Bihah, and the mother of the middle two tribes being Zilpah. Conspicuous by its absence is the tribe of Levi, which is explained a bit later in the text.

The named aides to Moses were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel. In this instance the Hebrew term edah, translated as congregation cannot refer to the entire body of the children of Israel, as it did earlier, but more likely to a national assembly of notables that presumably voiced collective approval of those divinely nominated to represent the tribes in the management of the census. The men selected were rashei alfei yisrael, translated as the heads of the thousands of Israel but better rendered as heads of the contingents of Israel (New JPS). The Hebrew term elef, frequently translated as thousand, is also used in Scripture to refer to a substantial military unit of unspecified size, and in this instance as the largest tribal subdivision, better rendered as ‘clan.’¹⁶ There appears to be an implicit indication in these texts that the designated clan chieftains were also the most prominent members of each tribal council of the heads of clans, which gave them the ability to assure compliance with Moses’ directives regarding the census.

Results of the Census

¹.¹⁷ And Moses and Aaron took these men that are appointed by name. ¹.¹⁸ And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of second month, and they declared their pedigrees after their families, by their fathers; houses, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. ¹.¹⁹ As the Lord commanded Moses, so did he number them in the wilderness of Sinai. ¹.²⁰-²¹ … . every male from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, of the tribe of Reuben, were forty and six thousand and five hundred. ¹.²²-²³ Of the children of Simeon … were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred. ¹.²⁴-²⁵ Of the children of Gad … were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty. ¹.²⁶-²⁷ Of the children of Judah … were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred. ¹.²⁸-²⁹ Of the children of Issachar … were fifty and four thousand and four hundred. ¹.³⁰-³¹ Of the children of Zebulun … were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred. ¹.³²-³³ Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim … were forty thousand and five hundred. ¹.³⁴-³⁵ Of the children of Manasseh … were thirty and two thousand and two hundred. ¹.³⁶-³⁷ Of the children of Benjamin … were thirty and five thousand and four hundred. ¹.³⁸-³⁹ Of the children of Dan … were threescore and two thousand and seven hundred. ¹.⁴⁰-⁴¹ Of the children of Asher … were forty and one thousand and five hundred. ¹.⁴²-⁴³ Of the children of Naphtali … were fifty and three thousand and four hundred. ¹.⁴⁴ These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men; they were each one for his fathers’ house. ¹.⁴⁵ And all those were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers; houses, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel; ¹.⁴⁶ even all those that were numbered were six hundred thousand and five hundred and fifty. ¹.⁴⁷ But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them.

Moses and Aaron and the tribal leaders assembled all the congregation together on the first day of second month, that is, the census-taking began on the very same day that they received the divine instruction, although there is no indication in the text as to when it was completed. The assertion that they declared their pedigrees may be understood as saying that inquiry was made as to the age of those to be registered for military service by their families and by their fathers’ houses or clans. In the absence of birth certificates, it was necessary for the heads of families and the clans to identify those who met the minimum age requirement and were capable of serving as soldiers. Once this was done and the candidates for service identified, the names of those determined to be from twenty years old and upward were brought forward for a visual head count and listed in a registry. It is noteworthy that commentators have struggled with the question of how the determination is made that all persons to be inducted for military service met the minimum age criterion. If a person’s birth date is used, the situation would surely arise that while one may be ineligible when the census began he might turn twenty before it was concluded. Accordingly it has been suggested that the method implicitly used in the census was to select a fixed date in that year and consider everyone who turned twenty in the year preceding that date would be counted as meeting the minimum age of eligibility criterion.¹⁷ Presumably, applying such a methodology, as the Lord commanded Moses, so did he number them in the wilderness of Sinai.

The result of the military census of the twelve tribes was that Moses and the children of Israel could muster a force of six hundred thousand and five hundred and fifty men capable of bearing arms. It is noteworthy that the contribution from the tribe of Judah, which numbered seventy-four thousand and six hundred men, was significantly larger than any other tribal contingent, which may account for the leading role Judah played in the march northward. It will be noted that the tribal order in this listing differs in some respects from that given earlier concerning the designated tribal leaders that assisted in the census. Thus, whereas in the earlier listing by tribal foremothers Judah followed Simeon, in the present listing the third tribe is Gad, the foremother of which was Zilpah, the maid-servant of Leah, while the latter’s son Judah is listed in fourth position. Although several explanations of this anomaly have been offered, none are sufficiently compelling to lay the matter to rest.¹⁸

What is missing from both lists is any mention of the tribe of Levi, which is explained in the present passage by the note that the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them. It has been suggested that the rationale for this omission is that the Levites were to serve as the palace guard for the divine king, and it is not consonant with the dignity of a king that his own legion should be numbered with the other legions. Israel, therefore, were numbered separately, and the tribe of Levi separately.¹⁹ In this regard, it has been pointed out that the Hebrew lo hotpakdu, translated as were not numbered, is an odd mixture of verb forms suggesting that they were not allowed or were not induced to number themselves, implying that they were ready to participate in the military census but were divinely prevented from so doing, as we are informed in the following text.²⁰ The sages speculated that the reason for this was "if the tribe of Levi is numbered with the rest of Israel and is mixed up with them, the Angel of Death, coming to slay Israel when the decree goes forth against them that they should not enter into the [promised] land but die in the wilderness, in accordance with the text, your carcasses shall fall in this wilderness, and all that were numbered of you according to your whole number (14:29), will find the tribe of Levi mixed up with them and will put them to death together with Israel.²¹ The implication of this is that God foresaw that unlike their brethren they would not succumb to despair at the report of the spies returning from Canaan. Hence they were not sentenced to die in the wilderness, but would live to enter the promised land."²²

Assignment of Special Responsibilities to the Levites

¹.⁴⁸ And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: ¹.⁴⁹ ‘Howbeit the tribe of Levi thou shalt not number, neither shalt thou take the sum of them among the children of Israel; ¹.⁵⁰ but appoint thou the Levites over the Tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof, and over all that belongeth to it; they shall bear the Tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the Tabernacle. ¹.⁵¹ And when the Tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down; and when the Tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death. ¹.⁵² And the children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man with his own camp, and every man with his own standard, according to their hosts. ¹.⁵³ But the Levites shall pitch round about the Tabernacle of the testimony, that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel; and Levites shall keep the charge of the Tabernacle of the testimony.’ ¹.⁵⁴ Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did they.

This passage evidently speaks of what Moses was told before the arrangements for the census were adopted. The tribe of Levi was not to be included in the military census because they have been assigned tasks that only they may perform. They alone are to be appointed over the Tabernacle of the testimony, and over all the furniture thereof, and over all that belongeth to it. They were to serve as the ‘palace guard’ and as such they alone shall bear the Tabernacle, and all the furniture thereof whenever it became necessary to relocate the Tabernacle; and they shall minister unto it, providing support for the needs of the sanctuary and the officiating priests. It has been suggested that the phrase and they shall minister unto it also means that the Levites were responsible for any repairs to the Tabernacle structure that may have occurred during its disassembly and reassembly.²³ Moreover, they shall encamp round about the Tabernacle to assure its inviolability. More specifically, when the Tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down; and when the Tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up.

The question that begs response is why the tribe of Levi was chosen for this special role. It is generally assumed that the reason was because of the role that the Levites played in the affair of the Golden Calf when Moses called for those who remained faithful to God to join him, and all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him and complied with his instruction to slay those who worshipped the calf, killing that day about three thousand men (Ex. 32:26-28). In effect, the Levites were now being rewarded for their steadfastness by being singled out to serve the Tabernacle exclusively. However, it has been suggested, there may be a deeper reason for their being excluded from participation in military service along with the other tribes, and this relates to their apparent penchant for violence as a first resort rather than as a last resort. In this regard, one need not but recall the role of Levi, along with Simeon, in the deceptive slaughter of all the Hivite males in the city of Shechem because of the rape of their sister Dinah (Gen. 34). Their action in that regard clearly went against the wishes of their father Jacob, so much so that on his deathbed Jacob declared: Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel; I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel (Gen. 49:7).

It has been suggested that Moses could not negate the deathbed declaration of the patriarch, and so, the descendants of Levi would be assigned a national mission that would channel their proclivity to zealotry from warfare to spirituality and thus in fact divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.²⁴ They were divided from Simeon, whose descendants followed a different path and were ultimately decimated by plague for their part in the betrayal of the covenant (25:1-18) and subsequently absorbed by Judah. In the view of both the patriarch and Moses, himself a Levite who had been prone to violence earlier in his life (Ex. 2:11-12), while there are times when extreme violence may be necessary and appropriate it should not be the first response to a complex problem. Accordingly, the exclusion of the Levites from the people’s army may be seen as sending that same message to the children of Israel as they prepare to leave the wilderness and enter the promised land. They will be confronted by many difficulties with the nations they will encounter on their journey and after their arrival, not all of which may need to be resolved by extreme violence.²⁵

Recording the information regarding the role of the Levites in this delayed and offhanded manner would appear to be consistent with the cautious approach, presumably because of its sensitive political implications, that Moses took to accomplishing the task of separating the tribe of Levi from the rest of the children of Israel and assigning to them the newly conceived exclusive roles of priests, guardians, and adjunct staff of the sanctuary. It should be noted in this regard that although the biblical texts nowhere explicitly state that prior to establishment of the Tabernacle the firstborn males served as priests, consistent with religious practices common in the ancient region, the sages evidently believed this to be the case: Before the Tabernacle was set up, the high places were permitted and the [sacrificial] service was fulfilled by the firstborn.²⁶ Moreover, Israelite tribal and clan leaders most likely also played prominent roles in worship rituals. The officiating roles of the firstborn and the leadership classes were being completely obliterated by their exclusion from direct participation in the performance of the sacred rites of the sanctuary, the responsibility for which was being entirely vested in the priesthood of Aaron and his descendants, with the direct and exclusive support of the rest of the tribe of Levi, in accordance with explicit divine instruction in this regard. As already suggested, this transformation did not meet with universal approbation by those affected by it in one way or another.

The concluding clause of the previously cited biblical verse states: and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death, translating the Hebrew word zar as common man. However, the Hebrew term would be better rendered as ‘stranger,’ referring to one who does not belong there. The thrust of this clause is that anyone other than a Levite who encroaches on the sacred precinct with the object of concerning himself with the service of the Levites, is committing an act meriting capital punishment.²⁷ It is noteworthy that the sages also considered the term zar to apply to a Levite who performed a levitical task for which he was not authorized; a transgression for which he was to be punished, albeit not with death.²⁸

With regard to encroachment by a common man, the sages were sharply divided over the question of by whom such punishment was to be inflicted, by the hand of God, the view of the majority, or by the hand of man, in the opinion of a minority.²⁹ Some modern biblical scholarship has argued that the minority opinion of the sages reflects more accurately the biblical intent because illicit contact with sancta produces divine wrath (1:53) or plague (8:19), which not only is liable to strike down the sinner but to engulf the entire community as well … It is therefore crucial that the intruder be stopped before he carries out his intended encroachment lest he trigger the deadly consequences.³⁰ In other words, such encroachment becomes perceived as an imminent threat to public safety that must be dealt with expeditiously and therefore extra-judicially by the guardians of the sanctuary.

Reinforcing the underlying purpose of the military census, and to assure optimum efficiency in the event that there be a need for rapid mobilization, there is the further instruction that the children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man with his own camp, and every man with his own standard, according to their hosts. In effect, the children of Israel are told that they are to remain continually in close contact with their fellow clansmen, to facilitate their ability to mobilize in their assigned units as rapidly as possible. The Israelite camp was to be arranged, as discussed below, in four divisions each consisting of three tribes, encircling the Tabernacle but at some distance from it. By contrast, the Levites were instructed to fill the space between the Tabernacle and the surrounding Israelite camp with a security cordon: the Levites shall pitch round about the Tabernacle of the testimony, that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel because of intentional or accidental encroachment on the sacred precinct. The security of the Tabernacle from such encroachment was to be the responsibility of the Levites, as it states: the Levites shall keep the charge of the Tabernacle of the testimony.

Thus did the children of Israel; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, as further specified in the following passage, so did they. It has been suggested that the arrangement of the Israelite camp is an expression of the author’s understanding of the theology of the divine presence. There are barriers which divide a holy God from a fallible Israel. The structure of the Tent itself and the construction of a sophisticated priestly hierarchy has the effect … of emphasizing the difference and distance between man and God. This is important from a theological perspective, but needs to be compensated by providing a means for reaching closer to the divine, which is achieved by the text’s insistence that God is to be found, tabernacled among his people, at the center of their life as a community.³¹

Arrangement of the Camp and the Order of March

².¹ And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying: ².² ‘The children of Israel shall pitch by their fathers’ houses; every man with his own standard, according to the ensigns; a good way off shall they pitch round about the Tent of Meeting. ².³-⁴ Now those that pitch on the east side toward the sunrising shall be they of the standard of the camp of Judah, … ².⁵-⁶ and those that pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Issachar … ².⁷-⁸ and the tribe of Zebulun … ².⁹ all that were numbered of the camp of Judah being a hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, according to their hosts; they shall set forth first. ².¹⁰-¹¹ On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben … ².¹²-¹³ and those that pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Simeon … ².¹⁴-¹⁵ and the tribe of Gad … ².¹⁶ all that were numbered of the camp of Reuben being a hundred thousand and fifty and one thousand and four hundred and fifty, according to their hosts; and they shall set forth second. ².¹⁷ Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall set forward in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they set forward, every man in his place, by their standards. ².¹⁸-¹⁹ On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim … ².²⁰-²¹ and next unto him shall be the tribe of Manasseh … ².²²-²³ and the tribe of Benjamin … ².²⁴ all that were numbered of the camp of Ephraim being a hundred thousand and eight thousand and a hundred, according to their hosts; and they shall set forth third. ².²⁵-²⁶ On the north side shall be the standard of the camp of Dan … ².²⁷-²⁸ and those that pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Asher … ².²⁹-³⁰ and the tribe of Naphtali … ².³¹ all that were numbered of the camp of Dan being a hundred thousand and fifty and seven thousand and six hundred; they shall set forth hindmost by their standards.’ ².³² These are they that were numbered of the children of Israel by their fathers’ houses; all that were numbered of the camps according to their host were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. ².³³ But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses. ².³⁴ This did the children of Israel: according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so they pitched by their standards, and so they set forward, each one according to its families, and according to its fathers’ houses.

The text makes clear that the children of Israel shall pitch by their fathers’ houses … a good way off shall they pitch round about the Tent of Meeting, affirming that the children of Israel were to remain in encampments arranged by tribe, clan, and family. Their encampments were to be a good way off to provide an empty area surrounding the Tabernacle at the center of the camp, thereby precluding casual encroachment on sacred space. Early commentators on the text suggested that the empty area around the Tabernacle was likely to correspond to the depth of open space the text later calls to be provided for the cities to be assigned to the otherwise landless Levites for their cattle, and for their substance, a space of two thousand cubits in all directions (35:3-5). They found corroboration for their view in the later assertion that Joshua ordered the Israelites to maintain a distance of two thousand cubits from the Ark of the Covenant (Josh. 3:4).³²

For purposes of organizational identification every man was to be marked with his own [degel, or] standard, as well as indicating the unit to which he was assigned for military purposes, according to the ensigns or distinctive banners marking his tribe. It has been observed that there are two Hebrew terms for a standard or banner, degel, as in the present text, and nes, as in the prophetic verse, He will set up an ensign [nes] for the nations (Isa. 11:12). "Nes is an external symbol, a sign to others; it is meant for outsiders … Degel, on the other hand, is a symbol of the fulfillment of one’s own purpose, his own destiny, the meaning of his own life … Degel implies communion with yourself; you identify yourself to yourself—it is a symbol of self-identity."³³ What this implicitly suggests is that although each man is to be considered part of a larger body for national purposes, his personal degel was to serve as a constant reminder that he was more than a mere cog in a mechanism over which he had very little if any control. He was also a distinctive personality, a man of purpose whose dignity was not to be belittled.

It also has been suggested that each tribe had a banner of a color corresponding to the color of the stone representing that tribe that was mounted in the high priest’s breastplate (Ex. 39:14).³⁴ It is noteworthy that according to the ancient War Scroll of the Dead Sea sect, the standard of each unit from the columns of the four contingents of three tribes, described in the text, to the smallest unit of ten men, each standard was to be inscribed with the name of the leader and the names of those under his direct command.³⁵

With regard to the design of the encampment, it has been suggested that the revelations to Moses in the Tabernacle represented a substitute for the Heavenly Presence that rested upon Israel at Sinai. By making the Tabernacle central to the nation, not only geographically but conceptually, the people would keep ‘Mount Sinai’ among them always. Just as they had surrounded the mountain, longing for closeness to God, they would encamp around the Tabernacle symbolizing that their very existence was predicated on their closeness to the Torah.³⁶ At least, this may have been the intention behind these instructions.

The text goes on to describe the disposition of the tribes as they encamped around the Tabernacle in groups of three, the first listed of each group serving as the leader of the contingent. The eastern flank of the Tabernacle was to be covered by the tribes of Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, and proceeding clockwise, the southern flank was covered by Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, the western flank was covered by Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, and the northern flank was covered by Dan, Asher, and Naphtali. It is noteworthy that these groupings, with one exception, appear to be based on the eponymous ancestors of the tribal groups being of the same mother. Thus, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were sons of Leah, as were Reuben and Simeon. Because Levi, the third son of Leah, was not included at all, his place was taken by Gad, who was the son of Zilpah, Leah’s maidservant. Ephraim and Manasseh, grandsons of Rachel, represented Joseph, who was the son of Rachel, as was Benjamin. Finally, Dan, Asher and Naftali were sons of the handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah, who seemed always to have gotten along well because of the subordinate status of their mothers. The distribution appears to be based on the supposition that brothers of a common mother tend to be more harmonious than half-brothers of a common father because the issues concerning inheritance, which create internecine strife, are far less frequent. Accordingly, the grouping of the tribes appears designed to minimize inter-tribal frictions.³⁷

The text goes on to list the combined number of troops in each group, the strength of the camp of Judah being a hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, according to their hosts. Moreover, when the Israelite camp is to move, they shall set forth first. Being the most numerous three tribe contingent, it is understandable that they should serve as the spearhead for the Israelite forces. However, at this point in the narrative’s timeline the direction of the march to the promised land is northward, not eastward where the camp of Judah is to be positioned. It is therefore unclear why this awkward arrangement of forces was done unless it was assumed that the most serious security threat when encamped would come from marauding tribes raiding from the east. In this case, placing the largest contingent led by Judah on the eastern flank of the encampment would make good tactical sense. Similarly, placing the next strongest contingent led by Dan on the northern flank in anticipation of increasing probing raids from the north as the Israelites moved closer to the frontier of the promised land was a prudent move. It would seem that there was much less concern about the security of the western and southern flanks of the encampment.

However, while the disposition of the tribes when encamped may have been tactically prudent, it would seem that it would create problems when the