<p>There's an interesting typographical oddity in this week's parasha:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p><span style=font-size:larger>׆</span></p> <p><b>לה</b> ויהי בנסע הארן ויאמר משה: קומה ה׳ ויפצו איביך וינסו משנאיך מפניך׃ <b>לו</b> ובנחה יאמר: שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל׃ </p> <p><span style=font-size:larger>׆</span></p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק י</footer></blockquote> <p>The inverted נs only appear here in the Torah (they appear in <a href="http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%9E%D7%A9:Dovi/%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%99%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%A4%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94/%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8_%D7%AA%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A7%D7%96">תהילים קז</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex">Allepo Codex</a>, though I don't know what they mean there). The gemara discusses these marks, which are taken as a form of punctuation (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=U1UfMyO-RiEC&dq=inverted%20nunim&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q=inverted%20nunim&f=false">scholars</a> connect these to similar ancient Greek marks, sigma and antisigma, which marked off texts and are the origin of modern parentheses):</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>(במדבר י) <em>ויהי בנסוע הארון ויאמר משה</em> פרשה זו עשה לה הקב״ה סימניות מלמעלה ולמטה לומר שאין זה מקומה. ר׳ אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו</p> <footer class=source>שבת קטו,ב-קטז,א</footer></blockquote> <blockquote lang=he><p>אין טעם זה עיקר</p> <footer class=source>רש״י, מכות דף ד,ב, ד״ה לא מן השם הוא זה</footer></blockquote> <p>Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's comment indicates that simply being "out of place" would not warrant marking it; there are innumerable examples of אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. He adds that this case is even more extreme: these pesukim are actually considered a separate book of "חומש" in their own right:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>הא דא״ר שמואל בר נחמן א״ר יונתן (משלי ט) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה</p> <footer class=source>שבת קטז,א</footer></blockquote> <div class=compare> <blockquote lang=en>Wisdom hath builded her house; <br/>she hath hewn out her seven pillars.</blockquote> <blockquote lang=he><p>חָכְמוֹת בָּנְתָה בֵיתָהּ; <br/>חָצְבָה עַמּוּדֶיהָ שִׁבְעָה׃ </p> <footer class=source>משלי ט:א</footer></blockquote> </div> <p>We will have to see what this idea of a separate, 2-verse "book" means.</p> <hr/> <p>The gemara goes on to analyze the misplacement:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>דתניא רשב״ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה. ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה</p> <footer class=source>שבת קטז,א</footer></blockquote> <p>I think it would be too radical for רשב״ג to propose actually emending the text of the Torah. We will see what it means to say that "in the future" this paragraph will be restored to its place. But what does it mean, to separate between פורענות ראשונה and פורענות שנייה? What פורענות are there in our parasha?</p> | Verses | Topic | |-|-| |8: 1-4 | Menorah |8: 5-22 | Inauguration of the Leviim |8: 23-26 | Age limits for Leviim |9: 1-8 | Pesach and the complaints of the impure |9: 9-14 | Pesach Sheni |9: 15-23 | Travel procedures |10: 1-10 | Trumpets |10: 11-28 | The journey begins |10: 29-34 | The appeal to Yitro | Verses | Topic | |-|-| |10: 35-36|ויהי בנסע הארן | Verses | Topic | |-|-| 11: 1-15|Complaints 11: 16-22|Moshe's complaints 11: 23-35|קברות התאוה 12: 1-3|Miriam's slander 12: 4-13|Miriam's punishment 12: 14-16|Waiting for Miriam <p>And then we go on to the spies, the decree of 40 years wandering, the מעפלים, the מקשש עצים, קרח and on. There are lots of פורענות (translate that as "troubles") after, but everything before seems benign.</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא:א) <em>ויהי העם כמתאוננים</em> פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י:לג) <em>ויסעו מהר ה׳</em> וא״ר חמא בר׳ חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה׳ והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים</p> <footer class=source>שבת קטז,א</footer></blockquote> <p>The Ramban explains that the Torah didn't want to establish a חזקה of sin. The rest of ספר במדבר may be a litany of misbehavior, but at least let the Jews take the first step away from Sinai without making it clear that they missed the point of the entire experience.</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>ענין המדרש הזה מצאו אותו באגדה שנסעו מהר סיני בשמחה כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר אמרו שמא ירבה ויתן לנו מצות וזהו ויסעו מהר ה׳ שהיה מחשבתם להסיע עצמן משם מפני שהוא הר ה׳ וזהו פורענות ראשונה. והפסיק שלא יהיו שלש פורעניות סמוכות זו לזו ונמצאו מוחזקים בפורענות וקרא החטא ”פורענות“ אע״פ שלא אירע להם ממנו פורענות ושמא אלמלא חטאם זה היה מכניסם לארץ מיד .</p> <footer class=source>רמב״ן, במדבר י:לה</footer></blockquote> <p>And where should these pesukim have been written? With the other description of the movement of the camp, with the דגלים at the beginning of the ספר:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>ונסע אהל מועד מחנה הלוים בתוך המחנת; כאשר יחנו כן יסעו איש על ידו לדגליהם׃</p> <footer class=source>במדבר ב:יז</footer></blockquote> <hr/> <p>But why put these particular verses, right here? Rabbi Leibtag explains that this is what ספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו really means:</p> <blockquote lang=en><p> One could suggest that these two psukim serve as more than just a buffer. Albeit their brevity, they do describe the ideal fashion in which Bnei Yisrael should have traveled on their journey to inherit the Land. [For example, compare with Shmot 23:20-27, which describes God's original plan for how Bnei Yisrael would conquer the land.]</p> <p>To emphasize what "could have been" in contrast to what actually took place, the Torah intentionally delimits these two psukim with upside down nun's.</p> <p>If so, then the "three books" of Sefer Bamidbar would be:</p> <p>BOOK ONE: Bnei Yisrael's preparation for their journey (1-10) This 'book' is followed by two "versions" of that journey:</p> <p>BOOK TWO: the ideal (two psukim)--what "could have been"</p> <p>BOOK THREE: the actual journey that "failed" (i.e. chapters 11-36)</p> <p> To accent the tragedy of book three, the Torah first presents a "glimpse" of what "could have been" in book two--the glorious manner in which Bnei Yisrael could have travelled, had they not sinned.</p> <footer class=source><a href="http://tanach.org/bamidbar/bhal/bhals1.htm">Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, <cite>Parshat Bha'alotcha</cite></a></footer></blockquote> <p>ספר במדבר could actually have ended right here, with ובנחה יאמר if we had not looked at the Torah כתינוק הבורח מבית הספר, eager to complain about every little mishap. The Torah puts the "could have been" between our first two failures: ויסעו מהר ה׳ and ויהי העם כמתאוננים as a sort of favor to not embarrass us (the way Rashi understands the commands of the משכן are interposed between מעמד הר סיני and the עגל הזהב). But it also subtly reminds us of our failure, and of an attitude that we still feel today.</p> <hr/> <p>What about the place in the Torah that it "should have been"? The whole book is out of order:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p><b>א</b> וידבר ה׳ אל משה במדבר סיני באהל מועד; באחד לחדש השני בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים לאמר׃ <b>ב</b> שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל למשפחתם לבית אבתם במספר שמות כל זכר לגלגלתם׃</p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק א</footer></blockquote> <blockquote lang=he><p><b>א</b> וידבר ה׳ אל משה במדבר סיני בשנה השנית לצאתם מארץ מצרים בחדש הראשון לאמר׃ <b>ב</b> ויעשו בני ישראל את הפסח במועדו׃ </p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק ט</footer></blockquote> <p>Rashi explains that this is another instance where the Torah is trying to save us embarassment:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p>פרשה שבראש הספר לא נאמרה עד אייר, למדת שאין סדר מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. ולמה לא פתח בזו, מפני שהוא גנותן של ישראל, שכל ארבעים שנה שהיו ישראל במדבר לא הקריבו אלא פסח זה בלבד</p> <footer class=source>רש״י, במדבר ט:א, ד״ה בחדש הראשון</footer></blockquote> <p>But there's a problem with understanding this גנות. First let's look at the continuation of the command to celebrate this single Passover in the wilderness:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p><b>ו</b> ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם ולא יכלו לעשת הפסח ביום ההוא; ויקרבו לפני משה ולפני אהרן ביום ההוא׃ <b>ז</b> ויאמרו האנשים ההמה אליו אנחנו טמאים לנפש אדם; <em>למה נגרע</em> לבלתי הקריב את קרבן ה׳ במעדו בתוך בני ישראל׃</p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק ט</footer></blockquote> <p>גרע means to be lacking. It is used in תנ״ך for a lack of a mitzvah, specifically a mitzvah that a certain person or group cannot fulfill:</p> <blockquote lang=he><p><b>א</b> ותקרבנה בנות צלפחד בן חפר בן גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה למשפחת מנשה בן יוסף; ואלה שמות בנתיו מחלה נעה וחגלה ומלכה ותרצה׃ <b>ב</b> ותעמדנה לפני משה ולפני אלעזר הכהן ולפני הנשיאם וכל העדה פתח אהל מועד לאמר׃ <b>ג</b> אבינו מת במדבר והוא לא היה בתוך העדה הנועדים על ה׳ בעדת קרח; כי בחטאו מת ובנים לא היו לו׃ <b>ד</b> <em>למה יגרע</em> שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו כי אין לו בן; תנה לנו אחזה בתוך אחי אבינו׃</p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק כז</footer></blockquote> <blockquote lang=he><p><b>א</b> ויקרבו ראשי האבות למשפחת בני גלעד בן מכיר בן מנשה ממשפחת בני יוסף; וידברו לפני משה ולפני הנשאים ראשי אבות לבני ישראל׃ <b>ב</b> ויאמרו את אדני צוה ה׳ לתת את הארץ בנחלה בגורל לבני ישראל; ואדני צוה בה׳ לתת את נחלת צלפחד אחינו לבנתיו׃ <b>ג</b> והיו לאחד מבני שבטי בני ישראל לנשים ונגרעה נחלתן מנחלת אבתינו ונוסף על נחלת המטה אשר תהיינה להם; <em>ומגרל נחלתנו יגרע</em>׃ </p> <footer class=source>במדבר פרק לו</footer></blockquote> <p>Rabbi Frand explains the problem:</p> <blockquote lang=en><p>Tosfos in Tractate Kiddushin [37b] says that when the Torah describes Pesach Sheni [the "makeup" Paschal offering], it is actually implying an indictment of the Jewish people for not offering the Korban Pesach during the next 39 years. The fact is that during the next 39 years--after the offering of the Pesach sacrifice that year--they never again offered a Korban Pesach. This was the first and only time they brought a Paschal sacrifice during their 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. The Haftorah of the first day of Pesach [Yehoshua Chapter 5] describes the next time that they offered a Korban Pesach, after they had already entered the Land of Israel.</p> <p>The Chiddushei HaRim (1799-1866) questions Tosfos' assertion that this was an indictment of the Jewish people. The reason why they did not offer the Pesach during the years in the wilderness was not because they did not care about the Korban Pesach. Rather, they did not offer the Korban Pesach for a technical reason. The Halacha requires that everyone who brings a Korban Pesach must be circumcised and all the male members of his family must be circumcised. During the 40 years in the wilderness, they were unable to perform circumcision as a result of the adverse conditions that existed in the desert. Such an operation would have presented a danger to the child.</p> <p>For forty years, their hands were tied. They were victims of circumstances beyond their control (anusim). This was a technicality. It was not due to callousness or a bad attitude on their part. So why, asks the Chiddushei HaRim, does Tosfos call this an indictment of the Jewish people?</p> <p>The Chiddushei HaRim answers that the indictment consists of the contrast in attitude, between the people who brought the makeup Pesach that year and all of the Jewish people for the next 39 years.</p> <p>What happened in the story of the "make-up" Paschal offering? Certain individuals came to Moshe and complained, "We are ritually impure due to contact with the dead. Why should we lose out (lamah nigarah) on the opportunity to bring the Korban Pesach?" [Bamidbar 9:7]</p> <p>What is the meaning of the question "Lamah Nigarah?" They just explained why they should lose out--because of the technicality that someone who is ritually impure could not bring a Korban Pesach! They were Tameh Mes. That is why they could not bring the Korban Pesach. So what is their question?</p> <p>The Chiddushei HaRim explains that they were pained by the fact that they were losing out. They understood the technicalities of the Halacha, but they were pleading in desperation "...but what about our spiritual welfare? What is going to be with us? How are we going to manage without being able to bring a Korban Pesach?" They were not challenging the halacha. They were sharing their pain.</p> <p>The people who brought the make-up Pesach in that second year expressed their anguish at being told that they could not bring the Korban Pesach. Even if one is unable to fulfill a commandment for valid reasons, he should at least feel bad about it.</p> <p>This was the indictment of the Jewish People. True, for the balance of the 40 years, they could not bring the sacrifice due to halachic technicalities. However, it should have bothered them! It should hurt! The status quo should feel intolerable!</p> <footer class=source><a href="http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5762/behaaloscha.html">Rabbi Yissocher Frand, <cite>When One Is In Pain He Says "Ouch"</cite></a></footer></blockquote> <p>So the גנות was not so much that they did not celebrate Pesach, but that they did not <em>complain</em> about not being able to celebrate. The contrast with the טמאים, who were also exempt from that year's Pesach, put all the rest of the Jews in a bad light. It is exactly the same problem that we discussed before, seeing the Torah as a burden rather than an opportunity. So the real contrast is between the two complainers: those who complained about missing out on the opportunity to do a mitzvah, and those who ran away from the mitzvot to complain about the journey.</p> <p>And our paragraph really belongs with the description of the דגלים, but that description really belongs <em>here</em>. אין זה מקומה really refers to the entire first half of the ספר. One almost gets the impression that ה׳ was giving בני ישראל as much time as possible, delaying the story of ויהי בנסע הארן with the hope that they would finally understand and they would be able to enter ארץ ישראל and ספר במדבר could end right there. But when it got the point of ויהי העם כמתאוננים it was all over, and a new generation would have to grow up in the wilderness before they could enter.</p> <p>And that, perhaps is the meaning of עתידה פרשה זו שתכתב במקומה. The onus is on us, the future generations, to undo the damage that led to the displacement of this paragraph. We have to look at the mitzvot not as a burden, celebrating every קולא but as an opportunity to serve ה׳. We should, like the טמאים, feel pain if we are exempt from a mitzvah. And then we will merit שובה ה׳ רבבות אלפי ישראל, the return of the שכינה and our return to ארץ ישראל.</p>