Power in Numbers

The majority of this week’s Sedra is of course dedicated to the story of the Meraglim: their selection, the details of their journey, the report they ultimately delivered to Klal Yisroel and the aftermath of their terrible Aveira. This Parsha represents a significant event in the history of Am Yisroel, for as we know, the actions of the Meraglim—and the reaction of the Bnei Yisroel—had repercussions from which we suffer to this very day. One may expect to learn lessons in Mussar and Hashkafa from the Parsha of the Meraglim—and indeed there are many important messages that are rooted in these Pessukim—but we may not necessarily assume that there would much Halacha that comes from this Parsha, this assumption, however, would be incorrect.

The Gemarah—in Brachos and Meggilah—quotes the Halacha that any Davar Shebekedusha, such as Kaddish or Keddusha, must be said in the presence of ten men and cites the source for this Halacha: a “Gezieras Shav.”

While in most cases a Gezeiras Shav is learned from two Pessukim, in this case it is actually learned from three: The first Passuk says “V’Nikdashti B’soch Bnei Yisrael”, the second Passuk says: “Hibadlu M’Toch Ha’Edah Hazos”, and the third Passuk says: “Ad Masi L’Edah Ha’rah Hazos.” The Drasha uses the connection from the first Passuk, which talks of Kedusah and uses the word “Toch” to the second Passuk, which comes from the story of Korach in next week’s Parsha, that uses the word “Toch” and the word “Edah” and the connection from the second Passuk to the third which uses the word Edah. This third Passuk is from this week’s Parsha and refers to the Meraglim, but exclude Yehoshua and Calev, leaving ten men. Thus, the Gemarah proves that the word Edah refers to ten men, and therefore no Davar Shebekusha may be said unless there are ten men present.

This important Halacha—the source for what we call a “Minyan”—is therefore learned from the story of Korach as well as the Meraglim themselves. This seems rather unlikely: why would such a vital building block of our Avodas Hashem, a Halacha that governs our lives thrice daily, be so closely tied to these less-than-auspicious events of our history?

In fact, I am not the first to suggest that this is an incongruous Drasha. The Yerushalmi brings a totally different Drasha: the Passuk in Parshas Miketz says that Bnei Yaakov came to Mitzrayim “B’soch HaBaim,” and in that case Yosef and Binyanim were not counted, so we have an instance of the word “Toch”, which is used with regard to Kedusha, used in reference to ten men. Rabbeinu Bachaya in Parshas Emor quotes Rabbeinu Yaakov, who writes that this version of the Drasha is correct as we would not want to learn about a Davar Shebekedusha from the Meraglim.

We see that there was another way for Chazal to learn this same Halacha—that a Davar Shebekdusha can only be said if there are ten men present—with out coming on to the Parshios of Shelach and Korach. Why then does the Bavli, which we accept as our primary source of Halacha, specifically use the Drasha that includes the Meraglim and Korach? Certainly there is a message for us, a lesson to be learned, from the fact that the Gemarah learns the Drasha in this way.

In order to properly understand this Drasha, we must understand the message of each of these three PEssukim.

The first Passuk that the Gemarah refers to comes from Parshas Emor: “V’Lo Sichalelu Es Shem Kashi V’nikdashti b’Soch Bnei Yisroel.” This is itself a Passuk that is central to Yiddishkeit, as it contains the Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem and and the Issur of Chilul Hahsem. We lead our entire lives in pursuit of Kiddush Hashem, and our every decision should be based on the likelihood of creating a Chilul Hashem.

But besides the imperative to live our lives within these parameters, this Passuk contains a charge that is the basis for much of our history as a nation. Rashi cites the Toras Kohanim that questions why we need a duel Lashon of “V’Lo Sichalelu” and “V’Nikdashti.” Would we not infer that we are to be Mekadesh Shem Shamayim from the fact that we are told not to be Mechalel Shem Shamayim? The Toras Kohanim explains that the words V’Nikdashti teaches us that there is a way to make an active Kiddush Hashem: by willingly sacrificing our lives in the name of Hashem, the Torah and the Mitzvos.

This is obviously a Passuk that has affected the fates of many individuals and indeed the trajectory of Am Yisroel itself. As long as there has been Galus, there have been those who were willing, even eager, to give up their own lives in the name of Kvod Shamayim. From R’ Akiva to the R’ Elchonon, from North Africa to Eastern Europe to Artzenu HaKedosha, so many have made the ultimate sacrifice and earned the title of Kadosh.

But the Toras Kohanim seems to add a conditions that we may not always consider: although one may assume that this Mitzvah of Mesiras Nefesh applies in private as well, the Torah says “V’Nikdashti B’Soch Bnei Yisroel.” The Sfas Emes explains that this qualification is actually a testament to the Kedusha of Klal Yisroel. When one is Moser Nefesh for Kiddush Hashem, he is supposed to do so without any hope of a Nes intercedeing to save him. That being said, there is always the possibility that the power of Kiddush Hashem will in fact cause a Nes to occur. This however, is only possible B’Soch Bnei Yisroel. The Sfas Emes explains that the ultimate Kedusha resides in Klal Yisroel and Klal Yisroel itself is L’maalah Min HaTeva. Therefore, when a display of Mesiras Nefesh occurs B’Soch Bnei Yisroel, the Teva may be suspended and a Nes can occur. An individual, however, cannot access this level of Kedusha and therefore is not commanded to give his life Al Kiddush Hashem in a private settting.

Taking the Toras Kohanim into account, and especially the explanation of the Sfas Emes, we see that this Mitzvah is indeed an indication to the enormous Koach and Kedusha of Am Yisroel. We may, however, assume that this only applies in the presence of the entire Klal Yisroel: B’Soch Bnei Yisroel. Without any further explanation we would have a clear proof that Klal Yisroel as a whole is capable of great Kedusha.

In fact, the next Passuk makes reference to Yetzias Mitzrayim: “HaMotzei Eschem M’Eretz Mitzrayim.” Chazal explain the connection between the Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem and Yitzias Mitzrayim with three words: “Al Minas Ken.” Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim precisely because we have the capability to be Moser Nefesh “B’Soch Bnei Yisroel” and create the ultimate Kedusha. This would also seem to suggest that this ability is on the national scale, that we are capable of Keduasha as an entire nation.

This leads us to the Drasha of Toch and Edah.

The two Pessukim that complete the Gezeiras Shav, as we noted, come from the Korach and the Meraglim, in that order. In the first Passuk, found in next week’s Parsha, Hashem tells Moshe and Aharon: “Hibadlu M’Toch Ha’Edah Hazos, V’Achaleh Osam K’regah: Separate yourselves from this Edah, and I will destroy them in one moment.” The Torah, however, does not tell us who should separate, or who the “Edah” is. Moshe’s response to this Tzivuy is: “HaIsh Echad Yechta V’Al Kol HaEdah Tiktzof: If one man sins, will you be angry at the entire Edah?”

The Medrash HaGadol says that the word “Edah” in this case refers to the entire Klal Yisroel. Because Korach presented his arguments to the entirety of Bnei Yisroel and they did not arise to defend Moshe Rabbeinu, they were all complicit in Korach’s uprising, and were deserving of destruction on that account. This fits well with the response of “Al Kol HaEdah Tiktzof,” as there seems to have been a Teviah on all of Klal Yisroel.

The Ohr Chaim HaKadosh, however, notes that the Passuk says “VaYidaber Hashem El Moshe V’el Aharon Leimor” and the word Leimor indicates that they were to convey the message to others. As such, there must have been a group that Hashem wished to separate from the Adas Korach, as they were not deserving of punishment. It would therefore seem that there was at least a part of Klal Yisroel that did side with Moshe Rabeinnu, thus exempting them from the anger of Hashem and the threat of “V’Achaleh Osam K’regah.”

Taken together, it would seem that in the case of Korach the term Edah refers to a large part of Klal Yisroel, but not the entire nation, as there were those who were on the correct side of the Machlokes. This being the case, it would appear that the first step in the Drasha is to show that the word Toch from the Passuk of V’nikdashti as in “B’Soch Bnei Yisroel” is not limited to the entire nation. This would indicate that the Kedusha of which Klal Yisroel is capable is possible even in a group that is smaller than the whole Klal. We would still however assume that there is a requirement of a large number of people, as the Edah referred to in Parsha Korach was at the very least a large percentage of Bnei Yisroel, as implied by the Medrash HaGadol.

Therefore Chazal go one step further.

The Passuk in our Parsha, “Ad Masi L’Edah Ha’rah Hazos” refers to the Meraglim excluding Yehosuha and Kalev who were not involved in the Atzas HaMeraglim. In this case it is clear that as few as ten men are referred to as an Edah.

Taking this back to the Passuk of “V’Nikdashti B’Soch Bnei Yisroel” the implication would be that the power of B’Soch Bnei Yisroel is possible even when only ten members of Am Yisroel are present—that the Koach and Kedusha of Klal Yisroel, the ultimate Kedusha as the Sfas Emes explains, is accessible in even a small group.

But if we take a step back, there is a question to be asked. Granted the word “Toch” connects the Passuk in Emor with the Passuk in Korach, but in that case, as in the case of the Meraglim, the word Edah is used in a negative, almost pejorative sense. Indeed we see that the words Edah can refer to a group smaller than the entirety of Klal Yisroel, but just from learning these Pessukim, an Edah would seem to be a negative entity, how do we see that there is potential for greatness or even any positivity at all in an Edah, such that we could apply that to the awesome Kedusha of Klal Yisroel refered to in the Passuk “V’Nikdashti B’Soch Bnei Yisroel”? I think the answer lies in the usage of the term “Edah” itself. It is interesting to note that the word Edah is used very often in reference to Bnei Yisroel during their trials in the Midbar. In last week’s Parsha in reference to the Misonanim, in our Parsha with regard to the Meraglim, and of course in Parshas Korach. In each of these instances, the word Edah is referring to a group that was responsible for a negative occurrence, giving the impression that an Edah has a negative connotation.

On the other hand, the Gemarah in Sanhedrin says that Edah refers to the Sanhedrin itself as in “V’Shaftu HaEidah.” That usage would certainly seem to imply that an Edah is something good.

How can we understand the seemingly contradictory implications of this word? We have seen that the size of a group does not affect its standing as an Edah, and that the purity of its intentions do not affect this title either. How then does the Torah decide when to employ this term?

I think that the answer is that an Edah is defined not by its size, but by its mission.

R’ Hirsch, at the beginning of Sefer Bamidbar, explains that the word “Edah” comes from the root “Ya’ad” which means a goal or destination and is very similar to the word “Yachad,” unity. Thus, explains R’ Hirsch, an Edah is defined as a group of people who join together to reach a common goal. When a mutual goal exists, individuals become a group, Yichidim become an Edah.

This is contrasted with a Kahal, which also means group, but refers to a group that has been assembled, when they come together because someone has called them together. Members of an Edah come together not because they are responding to a common call, but because they aim to reach a common destination.

It is therefore understandable why the term Edah is used when referring to Klal Yisroel in Sefer Bamidbar: in each case the groups were working toward a common goal, and that itself has power, that causes an Edah to form.

Perhaps this is the lesson that Chazal are teaching us with the Limud of Toch-Toch and Edah-Edah.

As we saw, when joined together Am Yisroel is capable of generating an immense amount of Kedusha, so much that we can rise above Teva itself. This power is not limited to a large number of Jews, however. As we see from the Pessukim in Sefer Bamidbar, smaller groups were called an Edah, because they joined together to reach a common goal. Thus, if a group of Bnei Yisroel are joined together for the right purposes they can certainly attain great heights, regardless of their small number. The power is in our convictions and dedication, rather than our multitudes.

The lesson of the Meraglim is that ten Jews, joined together, can alter the course of history. Unfortunately the Meraglim used this power, the Koach of an Edah, for the wrong purposes, and for that we suffer a Bechiya Shel Doros to this very day. If we join together for the right purposes, however, we too can impact the world.

Chazal learn the Halacha of Davar Shebekedusha from the same Passuk as Mesiras Nefesh—when we join together for Teffilah, or any cause that is a Davar Shebekedusha, we can be Mikadesh Shem Shamayim even without Mesiras Nefesh, and be a Kiyum of the Passuk “V’Nikdashti B’soch Bnei Yisrael.”