PARSHAS NOSO
[Until the week when Parshas Bolok is read in Israel and the two Parshos of Chukas and
Bolok are read outside of Israel, there will be a disparity in the weekly Shabbos readings.
Until that date, our Divrei Torah will be according to the reading outside of Israel.]
Though this week’s Parshas Noso is the longest of any of the weekly readings in the Torah
with 176 verses, more than half of those verses deal with one subject-Chanukas HaMizbeach
(Perek 7/P’sukim 1-89). The Torah brings us back to the date of the First of Nissan in the
year following the Exodus so that we can see other events that surrounded that day in which
the Mishkan was officially inaugurated.
In those 89 verses, fully 65 are repetitive completely. For each of the first twelve days of
that month of Nissan, the nosi of each shevet offered a variety of offerings. Since the
offerings offered by each of the nesi’im were identical, it is puzzling that the Torah saw fit to
repeat the same details 11 times. Surely, it would seem, after listing the offerings brought
by Nachshon ben Aminodov, the nosi of Yehuda, the Torah could have indicated to us that
the other shevet-heads followed suit.
Why this enormous amount of repetition?
A second question that is particularly interesting is one that comes to light as an omission.
There are many occasions in our Parsha in which there seems to be a random order between
one event, or one set of Halachos and another. While in many instances Rashi brings us
explanations to justify the juxtaposition of one subject and the other, there is no such
justication for the connection between Bircas Kohanim (Perek 6/P’sukim 22-27) and
Chanukas HaMizbeach.
In order to investigate these questions it is worthwhile to review those identical offerings to
learn what they were.
The following were the gifts brought by each Nosi (listing the verse in which the gift is first
mentioned. Some of the equivalencies are from The Living Torah, translated and annotate
by Rav Aryeh Kaplan ZT”L):











Ka’aras Kesef (Perek 7/Posuk 13)-A silver dish weighing 130 Shekel (6. 5 pounds.
Mizrok Kesef - A silver dish used to throw the blood of Korbonos weighing 70 Shekel.
So’les b’luloh ba’shemen-Fine flour, mixed with oil that filled these dishes.
Kaf achas m’lei’oh k’tores (Posuk 14)-a small bowl weighing 10 shekel, filled with
incense.
Par ben bokor (Posuk 15)-a young bull
A’yil –a ram
Ke’ves ben sh’no’so–a young ram for a Korbon Oloh-burnt offering.
S’ir I’zim (Posuk 16)-a goat for a Korbon Chatos-sin offering.
Bokor (Posuk 17)- two oxen and
Eilim-five rams and
Atudim-five goats and

K’vo’sim-five sheep all of the animals in this verse “l’ze’vach sh’lomim”-a Korbon
Shlomim- “peace offering”.
Rashi (P’sukim 19-23), in the name of Rabi Moshe HaDarshan, tells us that there is a
fathomable meaning for these various objects which may seem random at first glance. [See
Rashi for exact equivalencies and the supra-commentaries for the source of the derivation.]
First, there are allegorical references to Odom HoRishon and to Noach and to the seventy
nations of the world. Those references are followed by others that symbolize Torah, Aseres
HaDibros, the entirety of Taryag Mitzvos and then the Ovos. The reference to the Ovos
concludes with expiation for the selling of Yosef and the final symbols are Moshe, Aharon,
and all of B’nei Yisroel. Those symbols are completed with interchangeable references to
Tanach and other aspects of the Aseres HaDibros.
On the one hand, we can see an all-encompassing message that the Mizbeach is for all
people. That is the message of the seventy sacrifices that are brought during the Yom Tov of
Sukkos (Rashi, Perek 29/Posuk 18), and thus it begins with Odom and Noach.
On the other hand, the Mishkon and the Mizbeach belong to B’nei Yisroel, not to the nations
of the world and we can see the progression of the nations of the world as they relinquished
their opportunities to the descendants of Avraham Ovinu.
In the fifth Perek of Masseches Ovos we read how the ten generations between Odom and
Noach became increasingly evil until Hashem almost destroyed the entire world with the
flood. We can imagine what the following ten generation who were unable to demonstrate
any advantageous behavior over their predecessors would have brought upon the world
were there not have been the Ovos to make that change.
What occurred that enable that change and why does the dedication of the Mizbeach
provide the stage for telling of those events?
It is fascinating and puzzling to note that this commentary of Rashi finds itself in the
offerings of the second day of Nissan, rather than the first.
Since the very same offerings were brought already, it would be expected that their
explication be given immediately. Why did Rashi wait until day two to give us this
information?
If we carefully attend to the precise language of days one and two we will discover some
anomalies.
The most striking of these irregularities is found in the very first Posuk under discussion.
The first Nosi who offers these gifts has his title eliminated. “Va’y’hi ha’mak’riv es kor’bo’no
ba’yom ho’ri’shon Nachshon ben Aminodov l’ma’tei Yehuda” (Posuk 12). Each of the other
nesi’im is referred to by his proper title, Nosi. Why was it eliminated at the outset for
Nachshon?
The second inconsistency is the way that the second day of offerings begins. “Ba’yom
ha’shei’ni hik’riv N’san’el ben Tzu’or n’si Yissochor. Hik’riv es kor’bo’no…” (P’sukim 18-19).
Besides the different syntax to which our attention is drawn, we also note the fact that the
word hikriv is repeated twice. Furthermore, it is written differently the second time from
the first.
In the first instance hikriv is written “mo’lei”-with the letter yud after the letter reish. The
advantage to the “mo’lei” style is that there can be no question regarding the proper
reading of the word.
On the other hand, the second instance of the word hikriv finds it written “cho’ser”-with the
letter missing. Beyond the issue with the inconsistency, the “cho’ser” style leads to an
ambiguous reading. One who would see the letters that form the second appearance of
hikriv could easily read it as hakrev, out of context. Hikriv means he offered a sacrifice.
Hakrev is a command-a person is addressed and told to bring the sacrifice.
Though various commentators offer differing opinions-they do agree on the goal of these
verses. The Torah wanted to demonstrate equality among the various chiefs of the shevatim
and among the shevatim themselves.
Whether it was because the shevatim and their nesi’im tried to avoid calling undue attention
to themselves or because Hashem wanted to assure that there would not be a sense of
superiority and inferiority among the tribes, the outcome was the same. Such
differentiations were avoided.
The primacy of Yehuda stems from many reasons. He literally took the plunge into Yam Suf,
demonstrating loyalty to Hashem on that fateful seventh day following the Exodus. His
descendants will the kings who will establish a dynasty that will last.
For that reason the title of Nosi was deleted from his name. He may have gone first, but the
honor that would accrue to him being the first Nosi was deftly eliminated by erasing his title
from his name.
Yissochor went second. Rashi points out there that though there was a consensus regarding
the primacy of Yehuda, the awarding of the second spot to Yissochor was controversial. The
b’chor Reuven claimed that spot for himself. Hearing the dissension, Yissochor immediately
retreated into the background, making room for another Nosi and another Shevet rather
than being at the focus of dispute.
Hashem thus addressed Yissochor and said “hakrev”. I Hashem have chosen you to go
second. Do so.
[Others point out that the conferral of the title of Nosi to N’sanel was done a little less
prominently than that of the other chiefs. For the others it is written “no’si liv’nei Z’vulum”
(Posuk 24) for example. Here he is titled n’si Yissochor”. Grammatically, the word “nosi” in
regards to Yissochor is downplayed. It does not serve as an independent noun but rather
has a nis’mach, an appendage to another word. This method of titling, though superior to
that of Yehuda, is still less than given to others. The understatement implies that this tribe,
too, had to be put in its place.]
Thus, there is a clear goal. Not only are the offerings identical, the Torah attempts to
moderate the primacy of the order by placing limiting terminology that diminishes the
impact of being the first or second tribe, when it is not justified by birth order. [The third
place awarded to Zevulun is due to their partnership with Yissochor. Praiseworthy as they
may be, it was the second day spot received by Yissochor that led to the awarding of Day
Three to Zevulun. Beginning with Day Four Reuven is chosen and then the order is more
closely related to birth and thus does not award any inherent prestige.]
Why does Rashi teach us regarding the implied symbolism of all of these offerings only on
the second day? The symbolism that Rashi cites tells us that ‘Am Yisroel replaced those who
should have had equal access and opportunity to the special relationship with Hashem that
the Mishkon and Mizbeach offered. They were replaced by ‘Am Yisroel. ‘Am Yisroel implies
unity. [‘Am-translated as People shares the same root as ‘im-with. An ‘Am is a united
people.]
Where in the narrative of this twelve-day series of offerings is it apparent that these are the
offerings of an ‘Am? On the second day when we can see that not only are the offerings the
same, but that the Torah exceptionally changes the language in the descriptions of Yehuda
and Yissochor, then the message has already taken hold. At that point, Rashi is not offering
us Mussar, he is revealing the very p’shat of the verses that come to light when we attend to
them carefully.
[Or HaChaim HaKodosh notes that the very first offering, that of Nachson is introduced with
the word v’korbono-and his offering. “And” is seemingly inappropriate here because this
was the first korban. However, the Torah chooses to use the word “and” to signify that
although his was first, it was not unique. It was another one in the series that he, Nachshon
happened to begin.]
A shallower look at these offerings may lead to a conclusion that the expectation of all of the
tribes is to be one and the same. All should be uniform. After all, when we look at the
korbonos-they are truly identical.
On the other hand, such a shallow initial view is contradicted by the blessings that Yaakov
Ovinu and Moshe Rabbenu offered the Shevatim. The differences in the brachos are
profound. It is clear that they cannot be viewed as identical.
One of the longest pieces in Midrash Rabbah are the multiple drashos of Chazal on our
section. From a shallow point of view it may seem surprising. It is all the same. However,
as Hashem told Shmuel, “Ki ho’o’dom yir’eh lo’ei’na’yim vaShem yir’eh la’lei’vov” (Shmuel I
Perek 16/Posuk 17).
This is how the Midrash (Parshata 13/14) introduces a passage that goes on for 39 pages in
my edition of the Midrash.
“Do’vor a’cher, “v’kor’bo’no”. Moh ro’u ha’n’si’im l’hak’riv kor’bo’nos b’inyan zeh?
Rabbanan om’rin af ‘al pi she’korban sho’veh hik’riv ku’lom, ‘al d’vorim g’do’lim hik’ri’vu
v’chol e’chod v’echo hik’ri’vo l’fi da’to.”
Another explanation. “V’korbono” etc. Why did the chiefs of the tribes see fit to offer
sacrifices in this manner? The Rabbanan said-even though their offerings were identical, it
was for great matters that they brought their offerings-and each every one of the nesi’im
brought their offerings according to their own [independent] judgment.
This means, that the external sameness did not reflect an underlying uniformity. Each nosi
had his own particular intent and kavanah for his offering.
The Midrash continues. “His’chil Nachson v’hik’riv ‘al seder ha’mlu’cho.” Nachson’s
sacrifices were based on the monarchy [that was to be his]. The midrash interprets each
facet to represent the monarchy.
A different meaning was inherent in the offering of Yissochor. “Bo n’si Yissochor v’hik’riv ‘al
shem haTorah”. His korbonos represented Torah for which Yissochor was a particularly
ardent advocate.
So, the Midrash continues, day after day, shevet after shevet, teaching us that superficial
vision does not portray meaning.
So we now have a situation that presents itself in an even more confounding manner. There
is sameness and there is differentiation. There are identical representations that symbolize
totally different ideas and thoughts.
How do these disparate people form a whole? The Posuk tells us that Hashem is “o’seh
sho’lom bim’ro’mov” (Iyov Perek 25/Posuk 2).
Midrash Tanchuma tells us, perhaps as an offshoot to Masseches Rosh Hashanah 23 b, that
there is some type of possible conflict among the heavenly bodies. “…Ho’ro’ki’a shel mayim
v’ha’mal’ochim shel eish v’hem do’rim zeh ‘im zeh…va’a’fi’lu mal’och ‘atz’mo chetz’yo eish
v’chetz’yo mayim, ‘o’seh sholom bo.”
The Heavens are made of water and the angels of fire and they dwell together. And, the
angel himself is part water and part fire-Hashem makes peace within him [and among the
other bodies and thus the verse writes Oseh sholom bimrovov.]
Of course, the addition to that verse that is found in our prayers is a request from G-d. We
beseech Him, “Hu ya’aseh sholom, ‘o’leinu v’al kol Yisroel”. He should make peace for us
and for all of Israel.
It seems that the nesi’im provided an opening. They showed that it was possible to be
different and the same. They made Sholom in this world. It can be done.
Why does Parshas Nesi’im immediately precede Chanukas HaMizbeach? We beseech G-d’s
blessing of Shalom and we demonstrate that we are capable.
We demonstrate our capability in acts that are called Chanukas HaMizbeach because the
altar symbolized the peace among us and between us and Hashem (Rashi Sh’mos Perek
20/Posuk 22 as well as Rashi Vayikro Perek 3/Posuk 1).
Perhaps it is the nature of some of us; perhaps it is the circumstances that surround us. No
matter the cause, we leave in a fractious Torah society. That sad truth undoubtedly leads us
to negativity and skepticism.
Parshas Noso gives lie to a notion that it is inherent to our nature to be argumentative. It
may be a habitual type of behavior, but it does not define who we are.
Each of us can learn from each of the nesi’im. They had their own agendas. They had their
own priorities. They were individuals and their larger families and shevatim had traits which
made them unique and distinctive.
Yet, that inner distinction did not require them to wear their differences on their sleeves. It
was a deeply embedded part of their personality and nature and at the same time they
found a Modus Vivendi that did not require them to sacrifice their individuality for their
People, nor their peoplehood for their individuality.
We can be inspired by them and remember if we rise above pettiness, there will one less
instance of divisiveness in our world and among our people. If we do so, we can sincerely
pray “Hu ya’aseh Sholom oleinu v’al kol Yisroel.
Shabbat Shalom
Rabbi Pollock