Or HaChaim on Exodus 30:12/אור החיים על שמות ל׳:י״ב

1 כי תשא את ראש, "When you count the sum, etc." Why did the Torah choose the expression תשא to describe counting instead of the customary תפקד as we find in Numbers 3,15? Why did the Torah mention ראש and did not content itself with writing כי תשא את בני ישראל, seeing that the Israelites were not to be counted by means of a head count? Besides, what did the Torah have in mind with the word לפקדיהם?

2Our sages comment that a sinner causes his head to be bowed as a result of his sins. Evil is defined as something which causes man to look only at what is below him, at the ground, whereas קדושה, sanctity, results in raising up one's head and elevating a person spiritually. We note that the Torah describes even the cave of Machpelah as undergoing an elevation after Abraham purchased it (Genesis 23,17). Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 describe the cave as undergoing an elevation. Inasmuch as the Torah commands this count after the sin of the golden calf as Rashi concluded based on the words ונתת אותו על עבודת אהל מועד "and you will appoint it for the service of the Tent of Meeting" in verse 16, we can understand why the expression כי תשא, "when you will raise," is appropriate. We encounter a similar use of the word תשא in Genesis 40,13 when the Torah refers to Pharaoh "raising" the head of the chief of the butlers who would be reinstated into his position. In our case, the Israelites will be enabled to hold their heads high again as a result of this count which served as atonement for the sin of the golden calf. Up until this time they had not felt able to raise their heads due to the shame of having had a part in that sin. לפקדיהם, "according to their number;" this is to be understood as parallel to Numbers 31,49 where the Torah states that not a single one of the 12,000 men whom Moses had sent on the punitive expedition against the Midianites had become a casualty during that war. There too the words נשאו את ראש meant that "they counted the sum." Shabbat 64 explains that the words ולא נפקד ממנו איש, meant that not a single one of those soldiers was guilty of a sin. ונתנו איש כפר נפשו, "each one will give (this) as ransom for his soul to G'd." This is a reference to the Israelites each having forfeited their lives through participation in the sin of the golden calf. בפקד אותם, "when numbering them." The meaning is literal.

3The reason the Torah added the conjunctive letter ו before the word נתנו, is that in order to be effective as ransom each Israelite first had to acknowledge his guilt; only after he had done so could he contribute the half-shekel as ransom for his life.

4Another meaning of the word לפקדיהס is that the only reason a count was justified at all was the fact that their number had diminished (due to the people who had either died or been executed during that episode). The count was meant to establish how many of the people had survived. The count in Numbers 31,49 we mentioned was also undertaken only to determine if and how many soldiers had become casualties during that campaign. Basically, a census was to be undertaken only in order to count the number of soldiers going to war or returning from war. The extra letter ו in ונתנו is to tell us of an additional condition, i.e. that these people were not only to be counted but that they also had to contribute a half-shekel as ransom for their souls. This was a unique occurrence. Future counts of the Jewish people were never accompanied by the handing over of a half-shekel of every person to be counted.

5ולא יהיה בהם נגף בפקד אותם, "so that there not be a plague amongst them when numbering them." Why did the Torah write the expression בפקד אותם twice in the same verse? Seeing that at the time when the commandment of this count was given Israel was already guilty of the sin of the golden calf, one could assume that at other times it would not matter if the count would be a head count instead of counting the number of half-shekel coins, the Torah had to refer to the future by saying: "so that there will not be a plague when they are being counted."

6There is also an assurance here that not only would the Israelites obtain their atonement by means of this count and the manner in which it was conducted, but it would protect them against a plague in the future. We learn by inference that a head count would be liable to result in a plague for those so counted.

7There may well be yet another message in our verse. G'd commanded two things. 1) The number of the Israelites should be arrived at by means of each person to be numbered handing over an object, i.e. ונתנו, as the Torah stated in verse 13: זה יתנו, "this is what they shall give." This was the atonement factor of this count. The second commandment implied here is that a count should never be a head count but should be conducted by means of some other object. This is why the Torah had to add: "so that there shall not be a plague on them, etc." The latter condition is not one that enhances the objective of the census, it merely ensures that there will be no negative fall-out. We find this confirmed when King Saul numbered the people he mobilised in his war against the men of Yavesh Gilead, where we are told (Samuel I 11,8) "he numbered them by means of shards" (based on Rashi, Yuma 22)." Unless you interpret the verse in this fashion we must ask who permitted Saul to conduct the count by means of shards seeing that the Torah had spoken of each person handing over a half-shekel? When you accept our interpretation that in future people to be counted would simply hand over some object (other than a coin) you will have no difficulty.

8I have examined the count David conducted (Samuel II 24). According to scripture there it appears that David (or better Yoav at David's command) conducted a head count. How could King David be guilty of such a gross error? While it is true that our sages in Berachot 62 claim that David was misled by Heaven into committing an error which every student in an elementary school would not become guilty of, the meaning there is somewhat different than appears at first glance. The Talmud applied to David the verse in Samuel I 26,19 (which he himself had coined when proclaiming his loyalty to Saul) "If the Lord has incited you against me, etc." The fact that David suggested that G'd would incite Saul against him, an intolerable thought, produced an evil force (angel) in accordance with a general statement to that effect in Avot 4,13. The force the sinner creates will eventually be used against him who has created it. Thus it was not G'd who seduced David into sinning by letting him forget such an elementary prohibition but David was the author of his own seduction. All of this is part of the syndrome which our sages called עברה גוררת עברה, "one sin brings another sin in its wake." Inasmuch as a person of the calibre of David most certainly would not intentionally accuse G'd of inciting people's minds to do something wrong, the kind of "evil angel" his exclamation produced could not retaliate by causing him to commit a sin other than an unintentional one. In this instance the vehicle chosen was to cause him to forget a basic halachah concerning the conduct of a census.

9While this explanation enables us to understand why David committed such an oversight, it does not explain why Yoav, his commander-in-chief, did not mention David's error to him before accepting the directive to perform a head count of the people. If he understood David's directive to count the people as an order to comply with the traditional method of counting by means of a half-shekel to be handed over by each person being counted, why did he not do so? On the other hand, if David specifically ordered a head count why did Yoav not remonstrate with him reminding him of the halachah? Why did Yoav carry out a command which contravened Torah law? In situations like this we apply the principle of דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעים, that when the instruction by a human king (or human being) are contrary to standing orders of a senior king, i.e. G'd, we must obey the orders of the senior king, i.e. G'd. Maimonides spells out this rule very clearly in chapter 3 of his treatise on Hilchot Melachim. Even assuming that both David and Yoav had been ignorant of the halachah at the time, why did not the Jewish Supreme Court intervene before allowing a head count to take place? Even every individual about to be counted should have objected to the procedure, if only for fear of the plague threatened by the Torah against such a procedure! If their compliance was due to their considering the saving of the half-shekel as more important than jeopardising their lives, they should at least have argued that they could be counted by means of the shards as Saul had done when he counted the soldiers he mobilised against the Ammonites! How could it be that the entire nation was so careless and submitted to a procedure endangering their lives needlessly?

10I believe we must assume that David ordered a census without mentioning whether it should be a head count or otherwise. He did not think he needed to specify the details of how to conduct the census seeing Yoav was a learned man and could be assumed to know the relevant halachot. He therefore assumed that Yoav would conduct the counting of the people in a manner similar to the count performed by Saul by means of shards. When the Talmud in Berachot 62 points to the fact that David's count was not by means of the "ransom for the soul," this means that whereas Yoav did not take a half-shekel from the people whom he numbered, he did take something else such as Saul did. We have already stated that the meaning of "counts should not be conducted בלא דבר," is that unless there was a genuine reason for conducting a census it should not be undertaken. In the case of David, no such reason was evident. Yoav himself protested the need to count the people when David directed him to undertake a census. Perhaps the plague could have been avoided if Yoav had counted the people by means of the half-shekel contribution as in our portion here. You will note that we read in Samuel II 24,1: "G'd continued to be angry at Israel and He enticed David against them to say: "go and count Israel and Yehudah." It is evident from this verse that Israel had already been guilty of another (undisclosed) sin. When they were counted for no good reason they attracted to themselves the attribute of Justice and were punished for their sin.

11We may view the matter thus. Seeing that one of the conditions for counting the Jewish people is that there is a genuine reason for the count, the moment even one of the conditions justifying the count is absent, the people being counted are subject to a plague. David's error was that he had forgotten this. This also explains why Yoav questioned the need to take a census and tried to dissuade David (24,3) from counting the people. Had Yoav seen a genuine need to count the people he would not have objected to it. Clearly, if Yoav objected to the count because he saw no need for it, he would have objected even more strenuously if the census was to be a head count, something expressly prohibited. Perhaps when Yoav saw that David was very insistent to go through with the count, he concluded that the king must have an adequate reason justifying him in giving such a directive; he complied [though incompletely, Ed.] believing David must have a good reason for wanting to know the number of Israelites bearing arms. He may have feared to appear like a rebel if he refused point blank. At any rate, Yoav did not conduct a head count. We cannot fault the individual Israelites for not raising objections as they were not even aware individually that a census was being taken. Besides, they did not have to know which were good reasons for conducting a census and which were not. Since when does each individual Jew have to subject every single directive of the king to his personal scrutiny?

12We may say that there are three הלכות which govern census taking. The first הלכה concerns the census taken after the episode of the golden calf at which time there was a need not only to count heads but each person subject to the census had to contribute a half-shekel in order to atone for his share in that sin. The second הלכה concerns a census which is taken whenever there is a legitimate reason to count the people. At such times there is no need for half-shekel contributions, a shard is just as good to avoid making a head count of the individuals. This is what Saul did when he counted the people. The third הלכה concerns a census which is not justified by legitimate considerations. Such counts are to be avoided at all costs. David's error was that he forgot this particular הלכה because of G'd allowing him to be misled. In such cases, however, if the people to be counted were to each give a half-shekel at the time this would protect them against a plague. You may well ask why David needed to count the people instead of relying on the annual half-shekel contribution for the communal sacrifices which every male over 20 years of age had to contribute? We would have to answer that the half-shekel contributions were not a reliable instrument since even minors used to contribute the half-shekel as we are told in Shekalim 1,3, whereas the numbers counted by Yoav were men who were trained in warfare (Samuel II 24,9). David wanted to know how many men he could send into battle, if the need arose.