Bemidbar 4:5,6 – The golden poles of the aron (ark): Were the poles ever moved?

 במדבר 4:4-6 -זאת עבודת בני קהת באהל מועד קדש הקדשים. ובא אהרן ובניו בנסע המחנה והורידו את פרכת המסך וכסוי בה את ארון העדות. ונתנו עליו כסוי עור תחש ופרשו בגד כליל תכלת מלמעלה ושמו בדיו. 

When the Jewish people travelled in the desert, the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be completely dismantled, and the instructions for this process begin with the aron (ark), which was located in the heart of the mishkan/ ohel moed.

4:5 records that "At the breaking of the camp, Aharon and his sons, shall go in and take down the screening curtain (parokhet) and cover the aron with it" (JPS translation in Milgrom, 1990, p. 25). The parokhet divided the mishkan proper between the Holy of Holies and the anteroom, and apparently, the priests who were coming from the anteroom would pick up the parokhet and place it on the aron without seeing the aron. In all probability the parokhet was much larger than the aron and the items that were on top of the aron. The aron was 1.5 cubits high, 1.5 cubits wide and 2.5 cubits in length, Shemot 25:10. (Each cubit is approximately 18 inches.) On top of the aron was the kapporet and the keruvim, but the Torah does not inform us as to their height. It is believed that the parokhet was ten cubits by ten cubits, which means that if the combined height of the kapporet and the keruvim was less than 3.5 cubits, then some of the parokhet rested on the ground until the aron was lifted up.

On top of the parokhet, two more covers were placed. 4:6 records, "They are to put over it a covering of tanned-leather skin (dugong skin?), and are to spread a cloth entirely of blue-violet on top, putting its poles (in place),” Fox, 1995, p. 672 translation. These extra two covers would stop a person from touching the aron, and protect the parokhet.

The last phrase of 4:6 “putting its poles (in place)” according to Fox or “put in its poles” according to Alter (2004, p. 699) is difficult. The aron contained four rings on its edge, Shemot 25:12, and the end of 4:6 seems to indicate that the golden poles of the aron were to be placed in these rings to enable the aron to be carried by the Levites when transporting the aron. However, Shemot 25:15 records that the poles were never to be removed. If the poles were never removed, how could the priests place them in the rings as indicated in 4:6? Also, how could the poles be put in the rings of the aron if the aron was already covered?

One approach to understanding 4:6 is that the poles were only temporarily moved when the coverings were placed on the aron, Ibn Ezra on 4:6. According to this idea, Shemot 25:15 did not come to preclude removing the poles for just a few minutes when preparing the aron for transport. Furthermore, with this understanding the Levites would have had to lift the covers and then insert the poles. While this is what probably occurred for the other vessels in the mishkan/ ohel moed, by the aron this lifting of the covers could enable one to see the aron and possibly even come in contact with the aron, which is prohibited, 4:15 and 4:20. In addition, it is difficult to understand that Shemot 25:15 allows a person to temporarily remove the poles.

A second approach to understanding 4:6 is that the aron had four poles and eight rings, as opposed to the traditional understanding that there were only two poles and four rings. The Torah does not specify how many poles were attached to the aron, but Shemot 25:12 seems to state that there were only four rings. However, Ibn Ezra (on Shemot 25:12, long and short explanations, also see Bekhor Shor on Shemot 25:12) quotes that some people claimed that the word "and" in Shemot 25:12 could imply that there were eight rings on the aron. Based on this idea, Hizkuni (on 4:6, also see Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv) suggests that there were four poles, one pole for each set of two rings. One could then propose that two of the poles were never removed from the aron as recorded in Shemot 25:15, but the other two poles could be removed, and these were placed in the rings of aron when the aron was to be transported as recorded in Bemidbar 4:6. This approach is difficult, not only due to the problem stated above of inserting the poles after the aron was covered, but also it is not obvious that there were eight rings. The word "and" in Shemot 25:12 can be understood as being explanatory and not additive, which means that there were only four rings, see Rashi on Shemot 25:12. Also, with regard to the other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table (Shemot 25:26) and the incense altar (Shemot 30:4) there were only four rings, which suggests that so too by the aron there were rings. Finally, 4:6 and Shemot 25:15 do not distinguish between different poles that some can be removed and placed in later and others never moved.

A third approach to understanding 4:6 is from the Bekhor Shor (on Shemot 25:15, also see Hizkuni on Shemot 25:15) who suggests that the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 to place the poles in the aron is referring to the first time when the mishkan/ ohel moed would be transported, but after that one time, the poles would never be removed as recorded in Shemot 25:15. The idea here is that G-d wanted the priests to put the poles in their proper place, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported, the priests would be in charge of the re-construction of the mishkan/ ohel moed, which would give them the chance to put the poles in the rings. (Note, Shemot 40:20 implies that Moshe was the person who first put the poles into the aron.) This approach is also difficult since why would G-d specifically want the priests to insert the poles? Also, the instructions in Bemidbar 4:6 do not seem to be limited for just one occasion, as they seem to apply whenever the people traveled in the desert.

A fourth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the verse refers to placing the poles on the Levites and not into the poles of the aron, see Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni on Bemidbar 4:6, and Tosafot Yoma 72a Ketiv. I used to like this approach, but it seems to contradict 4:15 which records that only after Aharon and his sons finished covering all of the items in the mishkan/ ohel moed, could the Levites begin to lift the items. Also, 4:20 seems to record that the Levites should not see the dismantling of the mishkan/ ohel moed, but if the Levites lifted the poles of the aron, then because the aron was the first item covered, they would have seen the remainder of the mishkan/ ohel moed being dismantled. (Could one learn that 4:15 means that the Levites entered after each item was covered and that 4:20 only refers to the aron?) Furthermore, this same phrase of placing the poles in 4:6 occurs by other items in the mishkan/ ohel moed such as the table, 4:8, the incense altar, 4:11, and the outer altar, 4:14. If in 4:6 the phrase means that the Levites picked up the aron, then it would also mean that they picked up the table, the incense altar and the outer altar immediately after they were covered. Yet, there were some items, such as the menorah where the Torah could not say "to place its poles" since there were no rings in these items. Instead, 4:10 records that the menorah and its vessels were tied up in a bundle and placed on a frame, but there is no mention that the Levites immediately entered after the tying of the bundle and picked up the bundle. Why would the Levites immediately lift the aron, the table, and the incense altar but not the menorah? Maybe, the answer is that the goal was to limit the time the covers were on the ground for the aron, the table, and incense altar, but this was not a problem for the menorah which was placed on a frame.

Ramban (on 4:6) varies the above approach. He writes that the poles could have been placed on the priests, who presumably then held the aron until the Levites could enter the mishkan/ ohel moed. This would remove the problems of the Levites having to enter the mishkan/ ohel moed before it was complexly dismantled (see Chavel, 1993, footnotes on Ramban). Yet, there were only three priests (Aharon and his two living sons, El’azar and Itamar) who were able to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, but this was not enough people to hold the aron and finish dismantling the mishkan/ ohel moed. Even if El’azar and Itamar had sons who were old enough to work in the mishkan/ ohel moed, they would have needed to have many sons to hold each item before handing over the item to the Levites. Thus, Chavel quotes an opinion that the Ramban really meant to refer to the Levites and not to the priests.

A fifth approach to understanding 4:6 is that the phrase "putting its poles" means to adjust the poles. Why would the poles need to be adjusted? Ramban (on Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that when the aron was stationary, the poles could have been moved slightly and were not centered. Similarly, Netziv (on 4:6) explains that according to Tosafot Yoma 72a, Ketiv, when the aron was stationary, the poles extended through the parokhet. Thus, maybe when the aron had to be transported, the poles had to be centered to make it easier to carry the aron. While this is possible, I do not understand why the poles would not be centered when the aron was stationary. Hizkuni (on Shemot 25:15 and Bemidbar 4:6) suggests that maybe there were some groves into the rings that held the poles. When the aron was stationary, the poles were not in the grooves, but when the aron had to be transported, the poles were placed in the grooves to ensure that the aron would not fall. The rings would then have had two positions, but I do not understand why the poles would have been removed from the grooves when the aron was stationary. I used to think that maybe the poles needed to be adjusted since maybe when the coverings were placed on the poles, this could have jarred the poles.

Recently, a new simple solution to explaining Bemidbar 4:6 has been proposed based on archaeology. Raanan Eichler (2015 and 2016, also see Sarna, 1991, p. 160) argues, very convincingly, that the aron was similar to Egyptian chests from the 14th century BCE. In February 1923, Howard Carter found King Tutankhamun’s burial chamber (died circa 1325 BCE), along with various items that were buried with the boy King. One of these items was a chest, which had four metal rings at the feet of the chest, and four poles. When the chest was stationary, then the poles would be situated underneath the chest out of sight, and when the chest needed to be moved, the poles could be drawn out, but the rings were made that the poles would not come out completely from the chest. The chest was carried from the bottom, and the length of the chest was long enough that four poles (two in each) direction could slide underneath the chest.

Eichler suggests that this same construction occurred by the aron. He follows Ibn Ezra’s explanation on Shemot 25:12 that the word paamotav in Shemot 25:12 means legs, and that there were four poles, one for each ring. Thus, the poles of the aron would then slide underneath the aron and always remained attached to the aron. The phrase, “putting its poles” in 4:6 would them mean to slide out the poles. This idea differs from the traditional approach, which understands that the two poles were always sticking out, but this traditional understanding is never stated in the Torah.

One can add a few points to Eichler’s wonderful suggestion. One, most likely, this same idea would apply to the other three items, the table, the incense altar and the outer altar, where the phrase “putting its poles” occurs. With regard to the table, the poles could also have been situated under the legs of the table, see Shemot 25:26,27, and even though the poles could have been removed from the table, it probably was easier to store them under the table. With regard to the incense altar and the outer altar, which did not have legs, the poles were on the sides of the respective altars. In this case maybe they were also “stored” on the side of the altar when the mishkan/ ohel moed was at rest, and then when needed they could be slid out. For instance by the outer altar, which also had four rings, the poles could have been in or attached to the mikhbar under the karkov, Shemot 27:4-7.  With regard to the incense altar, which seems only to have had two rings, it could be that poles were stored in a vertical position, and then when the mishkan/ ohel moed had to be transported, the poles were moved to a horizontal position. A possible proof for this is that the height of the incense altar was two amot, while the width and length were only one amah, Shemot 30:2. This double size to the height would have allowed for a two amot pole when the poles were in a vertical position, and then when the poles were horizontal there would have been half an amah sticking out on each side to hold the poles. Or, it could be that the poles for all three items or some them were removed when the mishkan/ ohel moed was not being transported, and when the mishkan/ ohel moed was to be transported then they were placed in their rings. Due to the similarity of the actions of sliding the poles and placing the poles in their rings, the Torah uses the same phrase, “putting its poles,” regarding all the items which had rings.

Two, once the poles of the aron were just being slid out from the bottom of the aron, then this could have been done even though the aron was covered. Once the aron was covered, a person could slide out the poles without touching the aron, as one would hold onto to the cover to slide out the poles. In truth, this seems to be the main point of 4:6 that first the aron was to be covered, and then the poles were moved out from underneath.

Three, the congruence between the chest by King Tut and the aron shows that the mishkan/ ohel moed was based on 14th century BCE Egyptian furniture, which shows the antiquity of the Torah. Would someone from the 6th or 8th century BCE know of the 14th century BCE Egyptian design of furniture?

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Eichler, Raanan, 2015, The meaning of pa’am in the context of furniture, Journal of Semitic Studies, 60:1, pp. 1-18.

Eichler, Raanan, 2016, The poles of the ark: On the ins and outs of a textual contradiction, Journal of Biblical Literature, 135:4, pp. 733-741.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 1:1 – The terms mikdash, mishkan, and ohel moed in the books of Bemidbar and Devarim

In our discussions on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” we attempted to explain that the term mishkan only refers to the walls and ceiling of the special cultic building, which consisted of two rooms containing the aron, the menorah, the inner altar and the table of bread that the Jewish people built in the desert, while the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, the mishkan, the special ritual furniture, and the courtyard around the mishkan. In addition, the term mikdash refers to the collection of ritual items, independent of the building or tent where they are located. Now, we want to examine all cases of these three terms in the book of Bemidbar (Numbers) and the book of Devarim (Deuteronomy, only one verse).

1:1 records that G-d spoke to Moshe in the ohel moed, and according to our understanding this could have been anywhere in the entire complex.

1:50 refers to the mishkan three times, that the Levites would be in charge of the mishkan edut, that they will carry the mishkan, and that they will serve or guard the mishkan (Milgrom, 1990, p. 10). 1:51 continues with this theme, that the Levites would take down and put up the mishkan. 1:53 concludes this short section with another two references to the mishkan (altogether seven from 1:50-53) that the Levites would camp around the mishkan ha-edut and that the Levites would be in charge of watching/ protecting the mishkan ha-edut. (This term mishkan ha-edut appears three times in the section of 1:50-53.) 

1:50 twice refers to the vessels, i.e., the ritual furniture that is situated in the mishkan, and hence we see that the mishkan is the walls but not the items within the walls. Possibly the Torah uses the word mishkan here and not ohel moed because of the second term ha-edut. The term edut is never use in the Torah in conjunction with ohel moed, only ohel edut or the mishkan edut, maybe because ohel moed refers to the entire complex and one should not think that that entire complex is considered edut, testimony. On the other hand, ohel ha-edut refers to the tent by the parochet within the mishkan, which housed the aron, which contained the tablets, which are the edut, see our discussion on Shemot 26:9, 31-33, 36; 27:21, 36:35,36; 40:3, 21, "The parochet: A pavilion and a screen."

2:2 records that the Jewish people were to camp around the ohel moed, and this would mean around the entire complex.

2:17 records that the ohel moed would travel with the people. Again, this is referring to the entire complex, which would be carried with the people travelled, and not just the special building within the complex.

3:7,8 refer to both the ohel moed and the mishkan. Following Milgrom (1990, p. 16, and Levine, 1993, pp. 141,142) the first half of 3:7 records that the Levites are to guard the ohel moed, the entire complex from the Jewish people approaching it inappropriately. In addition, the first half of 3:8 means that the Levites were to guard the items in the ohel moed, the complex, when they were being transported. The end of both 3:7,8 refer to the Levites work in the mishkan, and I would understand that these verses refer first to the taking down of the walls and ceiling of the special building when the people travelled, and then afterwards to the re-assembling of these walls and ceiling when the people reached their next camp.

3:23 records that the Gershonite clan within the Levites, camped on the side of the back of the mishkan, which continues the designation from 1:53, which also used the word mishkan, see our discussion above on the verse.

3:25 records the work of the Levite family, Gershon, in moving parts of the ohel moed when the people travelled in the desert. 3:25 refers to the ohel moed, then the mishkan, then the ohel, and then its cover. The verse indicates that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? 3:25 should be understood to mean that first the verse refers to the entire complex, the ohel moed (see Levine, 1993, p. 159), and then it specifies the mishkan, the walls and the first ceiling of the special building, see 4:25. 

The next term in 3:25 is ha-ohel, the tent, which tent?  The answer is that the word tent refers to the second ceiling/ covering of goat hairs over the mishkan, and this covering is not part of the mishkan, see Shemot 26:7, 36:14 and 40:19, and Rashi on 3:25, on 4:25, and on Shemot 26:14 and 35:11.   

The following word in 3:25 is its cover, and this refers to the cover of the second covering, namely the third and/ or the fourth covering to the area of the mishkan, as recorded in Shemot 26:14, 36:19, and 40:19.

The last phrase in 3:25 is the curtains of the opening, petach, to the ohel moed, and this is the opening to the courtyard coming from the mishkan since the following verse, 3:26, refers to the opening of the courtyard.  (Note as we discuss on Shemot 25:8,9; 27:21, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Shemot,” and on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra,” the phrase petach ohel moed can sometimes refer to the opening to the entire complex from outside the complex.)

3:26 refers to the curtains “on the mishkan” and this refers to the curtain that cordoned off a courtyard that was around the walls of the special cultic building (and the outer altar). Accordingly, the term “on the mishkan” means surrounding the mishkan.

3:29 records that the Kehat clan amongst the Levites camped on the south side of the mishkan, which follows method of designating their camping spot from 3:23 and 1:53. Similarly, 3:35 records that the Merari clan amongst the Levites camped on the north side of the mishkan.

3:36 records that men of Merari were to carry the beams that made up the mishkan, that is to say the walls of the special building.

3:38 refers to Moshe and Aharon camped before the mishkan on the east and before the ohel moed on the east. Again, we see that the ohel moed is distinct from the mishkan since if they are synonyms, why would both terms be mentioned twice, one after each other in the verse? The verse first mentions the camping of Moshe and Aharon in reference to the mishkan, as occurred by the three clans of the Levites, 3:23, 29, 35. Why then does the Torah add that Moshe and Aharon were also before the ohel moed, lifnei ohel moed? The answer is that if the Torah had only written that they were to camp before the mishkan, then one might have thought that they were to camp in the courtyard of the complex. To reject this possibility, the Torah records that they were to camp before the ohel moed, as this is the entire complex, and being before the entire complex means to be outside the complex. The phrase before the mishkan would then mean to camp in the direction of the opening of the special building but not next to the special building. Note, Milgrom (1991, p. 209) argues that from Bemidbar 8:9,10, we see that the phrase lifnei ohel moed means outside of the complex, and see also our discussion on Vayikra 3:8,13 in our discussion on Vayikra 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”

3:38 also refers to the mikdash, and this means the collection of special ritual furniture that was within the mishkan/ ohel moed since Aharon and his sons were responsible for these items being packed when the people travelled, 4:5,15,19.

4:3,4,15 record that the work of the Levite family of Kehat was in the ohel moed, referring to the work of carrying the special ritual furniture that was in the entire special complex when the people travelled in the desert. The verse did not use the term mishkan since the family of Kehat carried the special ritual items within the ohel moed, but not the walls and the ceiling of the special building, which constituted the mishkan.

The first half of 4:16 records that Elazar was to be charge of various items associated with the sacrifices that were not ritual furniture. The second half of 4:16 records that Elazar was in charge of the mishkan, meaning the walls and ceiling of the special building, and all items, the special ritual furniture and supplementary vessels, within the mishkan, ostensibly when the mishkan/ ohel moed was being dismantled. Again, the fact that 4:16 records “within” indicates that the mishkan is just the exterior of the special cultic building. Yet, why does 4:16 refer to the mishkan in 4:16 since Elazar’s brother Itamar was in charge of the Levites families of Gershon and Merari and they carried the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan? 

Milgrom (1990, p. 28) suggests that based on 3:32, Elazar was in charge of his brother, and then overall in charge of the transporting of the mishkan. Thus, his father Aharon was only in charge of covering the special ritual furniture, 4:4,15,19, but not of overseeing the transport of the items. The second half of 4:16 is then a summary sentence not just in reference to the work of the family of Kehat, the preceding verses, and possibly this summary is mentioned at this point due to the first half of 4:16 recording that Elazar was directly in charge of the transport of the various items that were not ritual furniture. (Note it is not obvious that the family of Kehat had to carry the items mentioned in the first half of 4:16.)

4:23 records that the family of Gershon was to work in the ohel moed, which refers to these Levites carrying different parts of the entire complex. If the term ohel moed just means the mishkan, the special building, then this description of their work is difficult since 4:26 records that they were to carry various items from the courtyard. Yet, if the term ohel moed refers to the entire complex, then 4:23 refers both their work carrying items from the special building and from the courtyard, as recorded in 4:25,26.

4:25 is similar to 3:25 and refers to the work of family of Gershon of carrying the curtains (ceilings) of the mishkan and the curtains of the ohel moed. Again, if these terms are synonyms, then it is odd that both are mentioned in the verse. Instead, the first item are the curtains of the mishkan, and this was the first cover on top of the area that had the special cultic furniture, excluding the outer altar.

The second phrase in 4:25 is “and ohel moed” referring to some curtains mentioned in the beginning of the verse, yet what are the curtains of the ohel moed? As noted by Rashi (on 4:25) the reference is probably to the second covering above the enclosed area of the mishkan, which was made from goat’s hair. Shemot 26:7 refers to this covering as a tent to the mishkan, which could imply that this second (third?) covering was not part of the mishkan, but it would be part of the ohel moed. With this idea, only the first covering is part of the mishkan, but not the additional coverings. The additional coverings (third and fourth) of the area enclosed by the mishkan are referred to in the following words of the verse. Accordingly, as the second covering is not considered part of the mishkan, the phrase “and ohel moed” is referring to the second covering of the mishkan.

The end of 4:25 refers to the curtain by the opening of the ohel moed, see our discussion above of this phrase in 3:25.

4:26 has the phrase “on the mishkan” and this has the same meaning as in 3:36.

4:28 concludes the section on the work of the Levite family Gershon, and refers to them working in the ohel moed like in 4:23, the beginning of the section. This term ohel moed is more general than the term mishkan, and some of the items carried by the family of Gershon were part of the ohel moed and not the mishkan.

4:30 records that the work of the family of Merari was also in the ohel moed, just like by the family of Gershon, 4:23.

4:31,32 specify the work in the ohel moed of the family of Merari. They were to carry the walls, bolts and sockets of the mishkan, and the columns that formed the wall of the courtyard, which were not part of the mishkan but are subsumed under the term ohel moed.

4:33 is the concluding verse to the description of the work of the family of Merari, and refers to the ohel moed, as in the beginning of the section, 4:30, and this pattern is similar to the section on the work of the family of Gershon.

4:35,37,39,41,43,47 all refer to the three different Levite families working in the ohel moed, the entire complex, in reference to a count of how many men in each family between the years thirty and fifty. This reference to working in the ohel moed accords with the mention of the ohel moed by the opening and closing verses of the description of the work of each family in chapter four.

5:17 records that the priest was to take some dirt from the mishkan to create some type of drink for the suspected adulteress. This means that the priest was to take some dirt that was between the walls of the special building since there was no floor to this building.

6:10,13 records that the nazir who accidently became tamei needs to bring two birds to the petach ohel moed to offer as sacrifices. As mentioned in our discussion above on 3:25, this place is probably the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

6:18 records that the nazir was also to cut/ shave the hair on his head at the petach ohel moed, and again as 6:10,13, this could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, though it could be the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from outside the complex, as would a person or many people be cutting their head by the opening to the special cultic building?

7:1 records that when Moshe finished putting up the mishkan, meaning the wall and ceiling of the special building, then he anointed it, the vessels that were inside the special building, the outer altar, which was not in the mishkan, and the other vessels in the courtyard.

7:3 then records that the tribal leaders offered sacrifices before the mishkan, which means that they offered sacrifices on the altar in the courtyard. The altar was situated before or in front of the special building, which was the mishkan.

7:5 then records that the tribal leaders gave wagons to Moshe to help the Levites in their work in the ohel moed, which accords with the description of the work of the three Levite families mentioned in chapter four.

7:89 then record that after the sacrifices of the tribal leaders, Moshe went into the ohel moed, and he heard a sound coming from inside the special building, which was G-d speaking to Moshe. While it could be that Moshe went into the special building, it could also be that he was in the courtyard when he heard G-d speaking to him.

8:9 records that as part of the ceremony to induct the Levites, the Levites were to be brought before, lifnei, the ohel moed, and all the people were to gather around. 8:10 then records that the Levites were to be brought closer before G-d, and the people were to place their hands upon them. Milgrom (1991, p. 209) points out that 8:9 should be understood to mean that the Levites were first brought outside the complex, and this where the people gathered. Afterwards, as recorded in 8:10, they entered the courtyard of the mishkan, passing by the people. This explanation accords with the idea that the ohel moed is more encompassing than the mishkan.

(If one wants to claim that the terms mishkan and ohel moed are synonyms, that both terms refer to the enclosed area with the two rooms, then one would understand that 8:9 means that initially the Levites were in the courtyard of the mishkan with the people, and then in 8:10 they either went into the special building with the two rooms or they scrunched up within the courtyard. Both options seem logistically unreasonable.)

8:15, 19, 22, 24, 26 record that after the Levites were inducted, then they were to work in the ohel moed, which again follows the description of their work in chapter four, see our discussion on 4:23.

9:15, records that on the day when the mishkan was constructed (see 7:1) then the cloud of G-d covered the mishkan, and specifically the ohel edut (also mentioned in 9:17). As discussed above on 1:50-53, the ohel edut is the tent made by the parochet which was a type of pavilion, and the cloud of G-d was then above the special building.  9:18, 19, 20, 22 all continue to discuss the cloud of G-d being above the special building. The Torah did not use the term ohel moed in these verses, since the cloud of G-d did not cover the courtyard.

10:3 records that trumpets would be blown to call the people to come to the petach ohel moed. As discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. In this case, my inclination is that the location is the entrance from the outside to the complex since very few people could fit inside the courtyard of the ohel moed.

10:11 again refers to the cloud of G-d on top of the mishkan, like in 9:15-22.

10:17 refers to the taking down of the mishkan, the opposite of 9:15, and the transporting of the mishkan by the families of Gershon and Merari. While one might have expected 10:17 to use the term ohel moed instead of the mishkan, maybe since the main work in transporting the special complex, was the taking down of the walls and the ceiling of the mishkan, so then the Torah refers to the mishkan in 10:17.

10:21 records that the family of Kehat transported the mikdash, which means the collection of special ritual furniture. 10:21 ends by recording that the mishkan was to be re-built when the people got to the new camp, and again putting back up the walls and ceiling of the special building was the most difficult part of the re-constructing the special complex, which could be why the Torah uses the term mishkan and not ohel moed in 10:17. Also, the mishkan needed to be re-assembled in order to house the special cultic items being carried by the family of Kehat.

11:16 refers to ohel moed, but this was a tent that Moshe had outside the camp, and is unrelated to the special building and courtyard that was within the camp, see Benno Jacob, 1992, pp. 960-966.

12:4 records that Moshe, Aharon and Miryam were to meet at the ohel moed, and it is not clear if this was referring to Moshe’s tent outside the camp, or to the entrance to the courtyard of the special building within the camp.

14:10 records that the glory of G-d appeared in the ohel moed. Most likely this vision of the glory of G-d was within the cloud that was on top of the mishkan, and the cloud moved to be over the courtyard. This was a frightening vision to stop the people from stoning Moshe, Aharon, Yehoshua and Calev.

16:9 records that Moshe asked the Levites within Korah’s rebellion that was it not enough that they worked in the mishkan? I think the reference is to the Levites carrying the mishkan when the people travelled in the desert since they did not work in the mishkan. Maybe, Moshe mentioned the mishkan and not ohel moed since the work carrying the mishkan was more special than transporting parts of the courtyard.

16:18 records that Aharon and the 250 men were to stand by the petach ohel moed, and 16:19 records that they were joined by Korah and other people at the petach ohel moed. As we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

16:24,27 refers to the mishkan of Datan, Aviram and Korah, but this means a regular tent as indicated by 16:25, without any cultic functions.

17:7,8 record that the glory of G-d appeared over the ohel moed, and then Moshe and Aharon could only go up to the ohel moed, but not into the ohel moed since they could not approach the glory of G-d. The ohel moed here refers to the entire complex, and the it seems that just like in 14:10, the glory of G-d was within the cloud of G-d and the cloud moved over the courtyard towards the people.

17:9,10 then record that G-d spoke to Moshe, and 17:11 records that Moshe told Aharon to take coals from the outer, apparently from the outer altar. Yet, if the cloud of G-d was over the ohel moed, which encompassed the courtyard of the mishkan, and the outer altar was in the courtyard, how could Aharon go to the outer altar? It must be that the glory of G-d and maybe the cloud of G-d has left the courtyard by the time that Moshe spoke to Aharon.

17:15 records that after going around the people with a pan of incense, Aharon returned to Moshe who was petach ohel moed. Initially Moshe and Aharon had approached the ohel moed in 17:8, and then apparently the cloud of G-d departed from the ohel moed. Moshe was then able to go into the ohel moed and he went to the entrance of the ohel moed, which as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18,19, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

17:19 refers to the ohel moed that the staffs of the tribal leaders and Aharon were to be placed in the ohel moed before the edut, the aron that had the luchot. It is very unlikely that the tribal leaders were to place their staffs in the mishkan since the they could not enter that room. Thus, 17:19 means that the tribal leaders were to put their staffs in the courtyard near the special building, as the courtyard was part of the ohel moed, and then 17:22 records that Moshe took the staffs into the ohel edut, the pavilion created by the parochet.

17:28 records that the people said that they realized that they would die if they entered the mishkan, and this refers to entering the area enclosed by the walls and the ceiling of the special building. This did not include the courtyard surrounding the special building since at certain times or in certain areas, people could enter the courtyard, and hence 17:28 does not use the term ohel moed.

18:1 refers to the mikdash, concerning some sin relating to the collection of the special ritual items.

18:4 refers to the Levites watching or guarding the ohel moed. The following verse. 18:5, refers to watching the altar, and if this refers to the outer altar, then the term ohel moed must refer to the courtyard where the outer altar was situated.

18:6 repeats (a type of bookend) that the Levites were to work in the ohel moed. This could refer to transporting the ohel moed, as recorded in chapter four or maybe it means to stand in the courtyard (see our discussion on Devarim 18:6,7, “To stand before G-d”) since the Levites did not do any work in the mishkan, other than carrying it when the people travelled in the desert.

18:21,23,31 mention the Levites working in the ohel moed, and would have a similar understanding to 18:6.

18:22 records that a regular Jew (i.e., not a priest or a Levite) could not enter the ohel moed, which I understand to mean that they could not regularly enter the courtyard. Most likely there could be exceptions to this rule, as for example by the new mother, Vayikra 12:6, unless one claims that after Korah’s rebellion, even these exceptions were no longer allowed. If one claims that ohel moed means just the mishkan, then it is not clear when any regular Jew would ever have gone into the mishkan. However, during the rebellion of Korah, it might be that many regular Jews entered the courtyard of the mishkan some with permission but many without, see our discussions above on 16:19 and on Chapter 16, “The great rebellion by an unholy coalition.”

19:4 records that the blood of the red cow was to be sprinkled in the direction of the ohel moed, the entire complex.

19:13 records that if a person is tamei and does not purify him/herself, then he/ she has made the mishkan tamei. 19:20 expresses a similar idea, but records that the person has made the mikdash tamei. The mikdash is the collection of special ritual items, and all of them except the outer altar are situated in the area enclosed by the mishkan. Possibly 19:13 refers to the mishkan and not the ohel moed to express the gravity of the person remaining tamei.

20:6 records that when the people were complaining for water, Moshe and Aharon went to the petach ohel moed, and we discussed above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19 this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex.

24:5 records that in Bil’am’s third set of blessing he praised the mishkenotecha of the Jewish people. This word refers to the tents that were the dwellings of the people, and not to the special cultic building.

25:6 records that the leaders of the nation were weeping at the entrance of the ohel moed, petach ohel moed, and as we discuss above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, and 20:6, this phrase could be referring either to the entrance to the courtyard leaving the special building, or the entrance to the courtyard coming from outside the complex. 

Similar to 3:25, 4:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6 and 25:6, 27:2 records that the daughters of Tzelofhad spoke to the leaders of the people and the whole assembly petach ohel moed, and this can either mean the entrance to the entire complex or to the entrance to the courtyard. In this case, I think it means the entrance to the entire complex since I do not think that all these people referred to in 27:2 could be in the courtyard of the ohel moed.

31:30 records the instructions from G-d to Moshe that part of the booty from the war with Midyan was to go to the Levites who guarded the mishkan. This refers back to 1:53, which records that the Levites watched the mishkan ha-edut, and this was their principle area that they guarded. Possibly this guarding is mentioned here since the share of the booty in the verse was from the Jewish people to the Levites, and the people should realize that the Levites were protecting them when they guarded the mishkan, see 1:53 again.

31:47 records that Moshe fulfilled G-d’s instructions in 31:30 that Moshe took some of the booty that the people got from the war with Midyan and gave it to the Levites who guarded the mishkan.

31:54 records that Moshe and Elazar took all the gold from the soldiers who had defeated Midyan and placed it into the ohel moed. It is unlikely that they could put all the gold into the outer room of the mishkan, and then 31:54 means that they put it in the courtyard, or maybe some was put in the courtyard and some in the outer room of the mishkan. This concludes the mention of these three terms, mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed, in the book of Bemidbar.

In the book of Devarim, only the term ohel moed appears (twice) in 31:14. 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua were to go the ohel moed, they went there, and they stood in the ohel moed.

As mentioned above on Bemidbar 11:16, there were two ohel moeds when the people were in the desert, one within the camp connected to the special cultic building, and two, Moshe’s private tent outside the camp. It is not clear which ohel moed is being referred to in Devarim 31:14. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 960-966), believes it is Moshe’s private tent since 31:14 records that Moshe and Yehoshua had to walk to the tent. This could be, but my inclination is that the ohel moed being referred to in 31:14 is within the camp since I think the point of the appearance of the cloud of G-d goal was to show the people that G-d was with Yehoshua, and this lesson could best be shown if the cloud of G-d appeared in the midst of the people.

Following this idea, 31:14 means that Moshe and Yehoshua went to the courtyard of the mishkan. I doubt they went into the special building since Yehoshua who was not a Levite or a priest could not enter the building.

The first half of 31:15 records that the cloud of G-d appeared in the ohel, which from 31:14 would mean the ohel moed (within the camp), and then the second half of 3:15 records that the cloud was by the entrance to the ohel, again apparently the ohel moed (within the camp).  Most likely, the first half of the verse means that the cloud of G-d appeared in the courtyard surrounding the special building, and not inside the special building. The second half of 3:15 then specifies where in the courtyard the cloud of G-d appeared, at the entrance to the courtyard. Again, this entrance could be from outside the complex or the entrance into the courtyard leaving the special building, see our discussions above on 3:25, 6:10-18, 10:3, 16:18, 16:19, 17:15, 20:6, 25:6, and 27:2. Moshe and Yehoshua would have been standing between these two points/ areas, and would have turned to face the cloud of G-d depending on where it was located. Note the Torah needed to specify that the cloud of G-d was by the entrance since if it was in all of the courtyard, Moshe and Yehoshua could not have been in the courtyard, see Shemot 40:34,35. (Note the term ohel could also refer to the ohel edut, the tent made by the parochet. With this possibility,  the first half of 31:15 means that the cloud of G-d appeared above the inside of the special building, and the second half of 31:15 means that the cloud moved from being above the inside the special building to being above the entrance to the building).

Bibliography:

Levine, Baruch A., 1993, Numbers 1-20, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1990, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Milgrom, Jacob, 1991, Leviticus: The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Bemidbar 3:1,2 – A true legacy

Bemidbar 3:1 records, “These are the toledot of Aharon and Moshe on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai.” 3:2 then records “These are the names of the children of Aharon, the eldest Nadav, Avihu, Elazar and Itamar.” These verses raise two questions. One, the word toledot is usually translated as the descendants of a person and hence after the phrase "these are the toledot of Aharon and Moshe" we would expect that the Torah would list Moshe's children (see Shemot 18:3,4), but only Aharon's sons are mentioned. Two, how is the phrase "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai” relevant to the toledot of Aharon and Moshe? Several answers have been suggested.

Rashi (on 3:1) quoting the Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b) explains that the children of Aharon were also considered as the children of Moshe since Moshe taught them Torah, and this is why the Torah records the phrase "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai" since after Moshe spoke to G-d, then he taught Aharon's children. This explanation is difficult for two reasons. One, just because Moshe taught Aharon's children, this does not end Moshe's connection with his own children, as Moshe's sons still should have been mentioned. Two, did not Moshe teach his own children as well? My son, Binyamin, suggested that Rashi’s idea is that Torah is just focusing on Aharon's sons, and Moshe is mentioned because he is also to be considered as their progenitor since he taught them Torah.

The Rashbam (on 3:1, also see Ramban on 3:1) offers a second explanation that the Torah is following the order of the general population, the priests, and then the Levites. Thus, in chapters one and two there is a discussion of the general population, 3:1-4 then discusses the genealogy of Aharon, the priestly family, and then Moshe's family is recorded in 3:27. Furthermore, he suggests that the phrase, "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai" in mentioned in 3:1 because 3:2 records that Aharon had four sons, which was true at the time of the Decalogue, but not afterwards. This approach is difficult since 3:27 does not refer to Moshe's sons, and hence cannot be seen as the reference to toledot Moshe in 3:1. Furthermore, if 3:27 is really the reference to the phrase "toledot Moshe" in 3:1, then the phrase “elleh toledot Moshe” should have been recorded by 3:27 and not in 3:1.

A third approach (Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon and Ha-ketav ve-Hakabbalah both on 3:1) is that the phrase "these are the toledot of Aharon and Moshe" does not refer to the ensuing text but to the count of the people in chapters one and two which was done by Aharon and Moshe. Furthermore, the Ha-ketav ve-Hakabbalah suggests that the phrase "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai" is to inform us that the count of the people was based on their numbers before the mishkan was built. This approach is difficult since when the phrase "these are the toledot" appears in the book of Bereshit in reference to people (Bereshit 6:9, 10:1, 11:10,27, 25:12,19, 36:1,9, 37:2) it always is in connection to the ensuing text, which mentions at least one descendant of the person, and not to the previous narrative. In addition, how does the phrase "these are the toledot of Aharon and Moshe" relate to the counting of the people? Were the people considered the descendants of Aharon and Moshe?

In our discussion on Bereshit, "Introduction: The structure of the book of Bereshit, " I suggested that the word toledot should be interpreted as legacy, and not descendants  (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/10/structure-of-book-of-bereshit.html). A person's legacy can be one's children, descendants, but it can also be one's actions in the world.

This idea suggests a fourth approach to understanding Bemidbar 3:1. In Moshe's case, while he had children, his legacy was that he spoke to G-d, and transmitted the Torah to the people. This legacy is so important that it eclipsed his children, and hence in 3:1, Moshe's children are not mentioned but instead the Torah records, "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai" since on that day, Moshe was established as the true messenger of G-d to transmit the Torah.

With this idea, the structure of 3:1,2 is in the form of ABBA with A referring to Aharon and B referring to Moshe. 3:1 beings by referring to the toledot of Aharon (A), then mentions Moshe (B) and then records the phrase "on the day that G-d spoke to Moshe at Mount Sinai (B), which is the toledot or legacy of Moshe. 3:2 then lists the children of Aharon (A), the toledot of Aharon.

Bemidbar 3:39-43 (Bemidbar) - A baby boom

The first three chapters of the book of Bemidbar record various population data of the people. 1:46 and 2:32 record that as of the second month of the 2nd year of the people's stay in the desert there were 603,550 men age twenty years and up. 3:39 records that there were 22,000 Levites, and 3:43 records that there were 22,273 firstborn sons more than one month old.

One question that arises with these figures is how could there have been just 22,273 firstborn sons out of an adult male population of more than 600,000? If one assumes that that there were an equal number of adult females, and that the population of the people under twenty, both male and female, was equal to half the total adult population, then the population of the people one year after the Exodus was approximately 1.8 million people. If there were 22,273 first born males, then presumably there were also 22,273 firstborn females, which would mean that that there were approximately 45,000 families. The ratio of the total population to the number of families means that each family would have averaged 40 children, which is incredible.

While it is possible that G-d performed a miracle that enabled women to have such large families (see Rashi on Shemot 1:7), it is odd that by any list of children in a family in the Torah, there is a much smaller number of children. For example, Moshe had two siblings, and he had two children while Aharon had four sons. 3:17-20 records the families of the Levities, and there is no family listed with more than four sons. Similarly, Bemidbar 26:9 records that the family of Eliav had three sons. Bemidbar 27:1-3 records that Tzelofhad had five daughters and no sons. Accordingly, it is difficult to understand how there could have so few firstborn sons in 3:43. (One might claim that the firstborn sons died due to disease or due to the Egyptian decrees, but then there would be a corresponding increase in the number of non-firstborn sons who died, and the estimated family size would remain problematic.)

The Ramban (on 3:45) makes an interesting suggestion though he rejects his own suggestion. He writes that one cannot say that the firstborn sons were only those firstborn sons born after the Exodus, in the first year of the people's stay in the desert, since the population did not increase at such a rapid rate. This rejected suggestion is based on the very reasonable idea that the firstborn sons only acquired their special status as firstborn sons after the Exodus. Prior to the Exodus, there were firstborn sons, but there was no special status to being a firstborn son. However, after the tenth plague, when the firstborn sons were saved, then the firstborn sons had a special status (Shemot 13:15, see also Bemidbar 3:13; 8:17). Ramban's suggestion is that the special status was not applied retroactively to the firstborn sons who had already been born but only to the future firstborn sons. Ramban rejects this idea due to the technical problem that this rationale would sharply increase the growth rate of the Jewish population. If 22,000 firstborn sons were born just in the first year of the people's stay in the desert, then this implies that over forty years, the population was booming, but the male population at the end of the forty years in the desert, 601,730, Bemidbar 26:47, had decreased by 1,820 men.

Beller (1992) presents a mathematical model that builds on the Ramban's suggestion and gives a plausible outcome to explain the ratio of firstborn sons to the general population. However, the model, as by all models, is only as good as the assumptions that are the basis for the model, and some of the assumptions as to the growth rate and the length of years are difficult to accept. (For a discussion of the model, see Samet, 2002, Vol. 2, pp. 156-167.) Instead, we will suggest a different variation on the Ramban's suggestion.

In our commentary on Shemot 1:8-22, "Population dynamics," http://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/shemot-18-22-population-dynamics.html, we suggested that Pharaoh did not intend to kill the entire male Jewish population, but that his goal was to control the male Jewish population in order to allow him to benefit from their work as slaves without having to fear that they would rebel. Thus, his decree to kill all the male children (Shemot 1:22) was a temporary recurring decree that was enacted whenever the male population passed some threshold level.

Overall Pharaoh's plan existed for at least eighty years since Moshe was 80 at the time of the Exodus, Shemot 7:7, but how long would the decree have been in effect each time? It would have to have been for a sufficient amount of time that the growth rate stopped, and this suggests that each set of parents was only allowed to have a limited amount of time to have male children. A possible system could have been that for ten years, all male children were killed, and then for five years the male children were allowed to live. In the "permitted" five years, a family could have had a few sons, but by the time another cycle of "permitted" years came around, the family might not have had more children. (One could lengthen the number of forbidden years or shorten the number of permitted years, but this would have no effect on the argument here.)

What was the reaction of the Jewish people to this decree? A rational response was to wait for the "permitted" years, in order not to have children during the forbidden years that would be killed. (This seems to be the initial response of Moshe's parents, see our discussion on Shemot 2:1, "Moshe’s parent’s marriage." Some parents might have succeeded in having children in the "forbidden" years, as by Moshe's parents, but these successes would have been rare.)

If our assumptions are correct, then the Jewish population at the time of the Exodus was not uniform, but consisted of discrete groups based on certain ages, with almost no population at all for most age groups. A possible example is an adult population consisting of four age groups, 20-24, 35-39, 50-54, and 65-69, with approximately 150,000 males in each age group. In addition, there would be another set of male children between the ages of 5-9, whose parents would be from the age group of 35-39. With such a system, the Exodus could have transpired in the middle of the "forbidden" years, meaning that the group of 20-24 year olds had no children prior to the Exodus. If this is true, then after the Exodus, when the restrictions on having children were abrogated, then the people compromising the age group 20-24 would have had children for the first time. Thus, almost all the children born in the first year after the Exodus were firstborn children. If there were 150,000 males in the age group 20-24, then the birth of 45,000 children (22,000 males) in the first year of the people's stay in the desert is very reasonable.

Thereafter the population would not have increased at a rate of 45,000 children a year since there were many age groups (for instance 10-19) with zero population. In some years of the people's stay in the desert there would have been large increases in the number of children, while in other years few children would have been born. If there were 20 years, of "high" population growth of 20,000 males, and 20 years of "low" population growth, then the adult male population would have been approximately 600,000 after forty years in the desert. Accordingly, the understating of Pharaoh's plan as being a temporary recurring decree not only provides a coherent explanation for chapter one in the book of Shemot but also explains the number of firstborn sons in the first year of the desert and the lack of population growth of the people in the desert.

Bemidbar 1:2 (Bemidbar) - Significant data

1:2 records G-d's command to Moshe to count the people on the 1st day of the 2nd month of the 2nd year of the people’s stay in the desert. Why was the count necessary?

Rashi (on 1:1) explains that the count showed G-d’s love of the people and G-d counted the people in conjunction with important events such as the exodus from Egypt, the sin of the golden calf and here with the completion of the mishkan in the first month of the second year.

Ramban (on 1:45) mentions three reasons. One (see also Rashbam on 1:2), it was to muster an army for the coming invasion of the land of Israel. Two, the census was to show G-d’s goodness to the people that they started from 70 people when Yaakov went to Egypt, Bereshit 46:27, and now they were a large nation. I think this is a likely reason for the count in Bemidbar 26, as the count in Bemidbar 26 follows the exact order of Bereshit 46, but the count in chapter l does not have any literary affinities with the count in Bereshit 46, see our discussion on 26:1-51, "To count again." Three, the count was to show the importance of each person, and this would show that each person/ family was part of the covenant, which was just completed with the laws of the book of Vayikra. (This counting by families might also explain why twenty years was chosen to be youngest age included in the count, as maybe the age marked the person as being a separate household from his parents.)

Another possibility is that this count was to know the census of each tribe, as the previous population data (Shemot 12:37, 38:26) did not provide the population of each tribe. Even thought the count of each tribe could have been calculated from the donations of the shekalim (see our discussion below on 1:46, "Significant data"), this calculation was not simple and not known. Thus, maybe the point of the census in Bemidbar 1 was to publicize the census of each tribe that each person would know how many people were from each tribe.

Why was there a need for people to know the census of each tribe? The information would be important according to the Ramban's first idea that the census was to muster the army. Yet, if the count was for mustering troops, then why was there no upper age limit or exemption from the count for those unable to fight? The lack of an upper age limit is more conspicuous since the Levites had an upper age limit by their work requirements, 4:3. Milgrom (1990, p. 5) claims that the lack of an upper age limit was because everybody had to fight. However, still if a person was too old they could not fight and according to this rationale, the conscription could have started at a younger age. Two, when the people fought with Arad, Sihon and Og (21:1-3,23-25) there is no mention of another count of the people even though these battles happened 39 years after this count. Three, N. Leibowitz (1980, p.12) rejects the military explanation because if that was the reason for the count the Torah could have simply given the total population number without recording all the details of the count.

The answer to these questions depends on how the army was to be organized. From chapter two it seems that the army was based on tribal affiliations, but how was the number of soldiers from each tribe to be chosen. It could not be that everybody went to fight since surely some people stayed on the home front. A different possibility is that each tribe was to supply a fixed number of people, as occurred by the war with Midyan, 31:4, but since the land of Israel was going to be divided based on the number of people this would not be the fairest way. Thus, my guess is that the army was to be organized as a certain percentage from each tribe, for example 90%, 50% or 10% from each tribe.

This idea that the army was a percentage of each tribe can explain why it was important to publicize the census of each population since then it would be known how many soldiers each tribe had to supply. Furthermore, the whole nation had to know these numbers in order that nobody would think that one tribe was providing more or less than other tribes.

In addition, there was no need to have an upper limit since the count was the potential pool of soldiers from each tribe, and then each tribe would choose which soldiers based on the percentage of the total pool of soldiers. The particular soldiers would be chosen based on various factors such as willingness and ability to fight, and then the age cut off would be different for each tribe. However, with the minimum age being twenty, no tribe was allowed to choose soldiers who were less than twenty.

Finally, this system of a percentage of each tribe was appropriate when there was enough time to do a census and /or the goal of the war was to split the land/ booty according to the total number of people in each tribe. However if there was a sudden danger, such as by the war with Arad, Sihon and Og, then a census could not be taken. Also, by Midyan it was sufficient to send a thousand from each tribe since the goal was to stop Midyan from attacking them and not to settle the land of Midyan, see our discussion on 25;14,15 "Ongoing hostilities."