 |
|
 |
Parshat Naso
2004
Gotta Whole Lotta Torah
As we always are when we read Naso, we open this longest of Torah portions with renewed energy and dedication, having just experienced the holiday of Shavuot. Why is it so long? Did the Tradition think we'd be more apt to handle long stretches of Torah after having celebrated receiving the whole Book at Mount Sinai? Does the portion compel our interest with the ordeal of the suspected adulteress (Sotah) or the rules of the one who takes the vow of abstaining from wine (Nazir)? Indeed, both these sections will merit eponymous tractates in the Talmud, and the latter motivates the choice of the Haftorah, the birth of Samson the Nazirite.
But what really makes this parsha long is what happens at the end. The dedication of the mishkan, the Tabernacle, begins, and each tribe, led by its prince, brings an offering for the dedication ceremony.
Torah Text: Numbers 7:11 – 23
"YHWH said to Moshe: One leader per day, one leader per day, let them bring-near their near-offering, for the initiation of the slaughter-site.
So he who brought-near his near-offering on the first day was:
Nahshon son of Amminadav, of the tribe of Yehuda.
His near-offering:
One dish of silver, thirty and a hundred its shekel-weight, one bowl of silver, seventy shekels according to the Holy-Shrine shekel, both of them filled with flour mixed with oil, for a grain-gift, one ladle of ten shekels of gold, filled with smoking-incense, one bull, a young of the herd, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as an offering-up; one hairy goat as a hattat-offering; and as a slaughter offering of shalom: oxen two, rams five, he-goats five, and lambs in the first year five.
That was the near-offering of Nahshon son of Amminadav.
On the second day, Netan'el son of Tzu'ar, leader of Yissakhar, brought-it-near;
He brought near his near-offering:
One dish of silver, thirty and a hundred its shekel-weight, one bowl of silver, seventy shekels according to the Holy-Shrine shekel, both of them filled with flour mixed with oil, for a grain-gift, one ladle of ten shekels of gold, filled with smoking-incense, one bull, a young of the herd, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as an offering-up; one hairy goat as a hattat-offering; and as a slaughter offering of shalom: oxen two, rams five, he-goats five, and lambs in the first year five.
That was the near-offering of Netan'el son of Tzuar."
The Torah continues this way for the other ten tribes; thus we have twelve paragraphs of Torah text that are identical, except for the names of the princes and tribes that offered each gift. Usually, the Torah is assumed to be as concise as possible; why do we need 12 paragraphs, when one, plus a "so too the other tribes" would have sufficed?
Your Torah Navigator
Ramban (Nachmanides) summarizes the Midrashim that explain the gifts as identical:
"The text recalls each set of sacrifices and gifts with its princes, first individually and then all together. This teaches us that every set of sacrifices and gifts was exactly equal one to the other, and they were completely identical one to the other."
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra highlights the grammatical ways of reading the gifts as unique:
"The text says 'and his near-offering', although it already says [in the first paragraph] 'and he brought near.' The vav, the 'and', has the meaning of saying 'and this is his near-offering….' And in the rest of the princes' paragraphs we don't hear 'and he brought near'; we have the word 'his near-offering', to specify, in summary form."
Thus between Ramban and Ibn Ezra we have two opposite ways to explain our verbose Torah reading. Either we hear every gift to establish that no one gave any more or less than anyone else, or we hear every gift to ponder how each prince made their contribution special and distinct.
Questions
1. When do we summarize ourselves in ordinary speech, and when do we spell out all the details? Are there occasions that call for more words and those that call for fewer?
2. There is no command in the Torah to bring these gifts; God simply announces that it is time for the gifts. Each tribe brings exactly the same thing. Is that a remarkable coincidence, or is there some command, not recorded in the Torah, that suggested what they should bring?
3. This is also the Torah reading for each day of Chanukah – just as the tribes dedicated the Tabernacle in the wilderness, so too the Maccabees rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem. In both cases it took many days and involved bringing sacred gifts. Are there other ways that this week's portion and Chanukah are connected?
A Word
The interpretations of Ramban and Ibn Ezra may not be mutually exclusive. It may be that God, or Moses, or the princes themselves established strict guidelines for the gifts. However, if the princes were truly bringing the gifts in the right spirit, to furnish the Mikdash, the Tabernacle where God's very Presence would delight to dwell, then they would have brought them with no less than their full individual, unique, God-given souls.
Prepared by Rabbi Ben Lanckton, Conservative Rabbinic Advisor, MIT Hillel.
Learn More
Additional commentaries and text studies on Naso at MyJewishLearning.com.
|
 |
|
 |