Bamidbar: Numbers by Division

While Mt. Sinai’s covenant was a unifying, the Torah Portion Bamidbar’s happenings were dividing.

With the nation’s birth-sanctified with a community of code of conduct- the Ten Commandments – unity was abound. In Bamidbar, a nation’s realities are confronted. The Torah Portion Bamidbar is about organization, allocation, and bean counting; it is the moment upon which governmental structure and support were addressed.

Bamidbar presents as an opportunity to examine the Torah’s political structure plan. Did the proposed blueprint actually work? Is the plan relevant in modernity? This post explores Bamidbar’s greater reality.

The Greater Reality

The Israelite nation’s reality was that their Promised Land was in the Levant; the landmass bridging the continents of Africa, Asian and Europe.

Strategically and commercially, for Empires, the area was and remains a precious piece on the world’s chess board. As such, any presence in the land required an organized military. Thus, with Bamidbar, there is an accounting of the Israelite nation’s potential military force. Each tribes’ numbers are accounted for with one notable exception.

The other Israelite reality was the religious cult’s maintenance- the Tabernacle. In essence, a support staff was required for their Chief Executive Officer Deity- the Israelite God. Thus, beyond the military, dedicated Tabernacle staffing was essential.

To begin appreciating Bamidbar’s efforts to organize, the Mt. Sinai moment is worthy of revisiting.

The Ten Commandments Division

With Mt. Sinai, the covenant uniquely tied the Israelite Deity directly to the people. At that point, although there was the Prophet- Moses, he was an intermediary.

The political structure- at that point- was binary; it was a You and an I. The You being the descendants of Jacob; the people of Israel. See Exodus 19:3. The I being the Almighty. See Exodus 20:2.

The Ten Commandments, despite recognizing different social strata- i.e. the Sabbath commandment: parents, children, servants and foreigners, Exodus 20:10- it did not create any additional government structures. The relationship was purely Deity-Nation.

Once this covenant was established, the realities of running a government began. The Torah Portion Bamidbar addressed two governmental concerns: the military and the religious cult. Additionally, tribal affiliation – something not an issue in the Decalogue- mattered.

The Bamidbar Division

Bamidbar, in contrast to Mt. Sinai, is not binary a binary event; it was tribal. Military men are accounted for with respect to the civic duties- military service- by familial relations. This accounting, however, had an exception- the Levites. The Tribe of Levi was to be assigned different responsibilities.

Beyond this accounting, within the campground, an arrangement was made. “And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “The Children of Israel shall camp, each by his flag with the signs of their fathers’ house; they shall camp opposite, all around the tent of meeting.” Numbers 2:1-2.

While this was a camp and not the actual territory, the arrangement was arguably preparing them for their future as individual tribes forming a confederation.

The Levite Exception

Bamidbar indicated that “the Levites were not counted among the Children of Israel, as the Lord had commanded Moses.” Numbers 2:33. Impliedly, they would not serve in the military like other tribes.

Instead, there was a different assignment for the Levites. “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Bring forward the tribe of Levi and stand it in front of Aaron, the priest, so that they will attend to him. And they shall keep his charge and the charge of all the congregation in front of the Tent of Meeting, to do the work of the Tabernacle. And they shall keep all the equipment of the Tent of Meeting and the charge of the Children of Israel, to do the work of the Tabernacle.'” Numbers 3:5-8.

With respect to property holdings, the Book of Deuteronomy provides that: “[t][he Levite priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall not have a portion and legacy with Israel.” Deuteronomy 18:1. In essence, the Levites’ ability to hold property was different than for all of the other tribes.

Did it make any sense to separate one tribe from the others?

Make It Make Sense?

There are multiple ways to understand this configuration; one, within the Torah’s scheme; and the other, in history.

In modernity, governments have professional armies. Likewise, many governments are supported by civil servants. Thus, regardless of party affiliation, there are people charged with national defense. As well, there are designated individuals running the government irrespective of elected officials- civil servants.

The Torah’s scheme, however, was abandoned before the end of scripture. In antiquity; King David’s success was in part due to the fact that he established a professional military.

While this remains the case in modernity, despite a professional army, the United States maintains a national guard. With the national guard, the United States maintains have militia unit in each state, territory and district. This concept connects with the notion that each tribal territory would have some military force.

Making Sense of the Levites

With respect to the Levites, an argument can be made that they were akin to civil servants. Thus, they played a role in continuity of governance.

With respect to the Tabernacle, and matters of holiness upon which the mere touching of an object can be deadly, it was perhaps best to keep one family well instructed in ritual matters.

Further, as it would turn out, in antiquity, the Levites played a major role in preserving the Israelite legacy. They played an essential role with the establishment of the Second Temple period. One the day upon which Ezra returns from exile to Jerusalem and first reads the Torah, it is the Levites who instruct the people on the law, give it meaning, and provide understanding as to what was read. Nehemiah 8:7-8. In sum, their legacy preserved and revived Judaism.

In modernity, however, an argument can be made that the transformation in the field of education has allowed for others to be educators. Further, without any Temple, there is no need for individuals dedicated with respect to procedures and maintenance of the Tabernacle. Thus, some Levite roles have been taken on by others.

Conclusion

The Torah Portion Bamidbar presents as both a national number’s game and organizational division time. The nation, without a human Chief Executive Officer, was configured in a way that is quite foreign from present day configurations. The organization’s methodology was quite divine; perhaps, it was something to not be completely understood by mere mortals.

It appears that perpetual tribal landownership came with responsibilities with respect to serving social needs as well as staffing the Israelite defenses. Each tribal army unit was logical in that it would allow the whole country to be staffed with a local fighting force. In modernity, the national guard concept follows suit.

Are Bamidbar’s organization concepts relevant in modernity? To some degree, they exist in mutated forms. For instance, while there may be no tribal militias, state militias still exist alongside the professional military in the United States. Likewise, with respect to government functioning, the civil service class was invented to maintain continuity; to assist those newly elected into office perform their job.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share