Skip to content

Following the Rulings of the Rambam: A Recent Discussion of Consistency in Deciding Halakhah

I mostly agree with everything the author writes here.

Forthodoxy

לק”י

Rambam SignatureIn response to a recent article on the topic of taharat ha-mishpahah published on the website, a certain rav objected to my use of the Mishneh Torah in coming to halakhic conclusions. Among other things, relying on the Rambam obviates the need for either invasive internal bedikot or the use of a mokh. Citing the common Haredi claims that “we don’t pasken like the Rambam” and “we follow the Shulchan Aruch,” this rav attempts to invalidate my conclusions for anyone but those who happen to be traditional Yemenites, a conclusion which I vigorously oppose. 

The discussion of these particular issues is central to understanding the gap that divides Mekoriut (and the classical Sefardic approach) from the Haredi world, and clearly displays the halakhic double-standards inherent in their position.

A PDF our exchange is available for download here: A Recent Exchange

View original post

Advertisements

The Prohibition Against Sterilizing Animals

*********,

I wanted to put my answer to you in writing. The question was concerning neutering a female dog, and my answer was that it was unequivocally forbidden. I will first reproduce Maimonides’s codification here, and then point out some notes introduced in the Shulhan Aruch and the commentaries, and then I will present the reasons as to why the decisors reject the Taz’s loophole for allowing neutering, and why I believe Rabbi ***** is mistaken in his analysis and conclusion. I would also like to say at the outset that it is beyond the scope of this response to go into the permissibility of saving an animal’s life through sterilization, as it is even the case that we may save a man’s life if it necessitates castrating him. I am only addressing the question of neutering the dog because the owner wants to prevent it from producing litters.

(Forbidden Relations, Chapter 16)

It is forbidden to destroy a male’s reproductive organs. This applies to humans and also to animals, beasts, and fowl, both from a kosher species and from a non-kosher species, in Eretz Yisrael and in the Diaspora… Whoever castrates [a person or an animal] should be lashed according to Scriptural Law everywhere. Even a person who castrates a person who has been castrated should be lashed… A person who castrates a female – whether a human or other species – is not liable.

Note this last line. This is not permissible. It is just not punished by a humanly court.

It is forbidden to have a man or a member of another species drink a potion that causes him to lose his sexual potency. Lashes are not given, however. A woman is permitted to drink a potion to cause her to lose her sexual potency so that she will not conceive.

So far, this is the only leniency we have encountered, a woman can ingest birth control, but this would still be forbidden to do to animals and of course we could not perform some sort of surgery on a woman. Also note that although I have based my translation on that of Rabbi Touger, there is an error in his published version, which I have corrected here (in bold letters). He had translated “or a male of another species. ”  Maimonides’s ruling appears like this in the original:הַמַּשְׁקֶה עִיקָרִין לָאָדָם, אוֹ לִשְׁאָר מִינִים, כְּדֵי לְסָרְסוֹ–הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר, וְאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו; וְאִשָּׁה מֻתֶּרֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עִיקָרִין שֶׁמְּסָרְסִין אוֹתָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵד. From this you can clearly see that the first rule applies to human men and all animals, while the second rule applies only to human women, and in his translation, we are left guessing what would be the rule regarding giving oral sterilization agents to female animals. The real halacha is implied in the source Gemara, Sabbath 110-111, whereby a distinction is made between people and animals. God told all the animals to multiply, but although he also told mankind to multiply, the sages deduced that just like man was bidden to “conquer (or subdue) the earth,” and only men conquer because women don’t wage war, it stands to reason that women are also excluded from multiplying, and therefore although we can not destroy their capacity to reproduce, we can not stop women from taking some sort of extreme oral contraception.

If a person bound a man and set a dog or other animal upon him until his sexual organs were maimed or he made him sit in water or snow until his sexual organs lost their potency, he is not given lashes unless he castrates him by hand. It is, however, fitting to subject him to stripes for rebellious conduct. It is forbidden to tell a gentile to castrate one of our animals. If the gentile took the animal and castrated it on his own initiative, it is permitted. If a Jew acts deceitfully in this context, he should be punished and required to sell the animal to another Jew. He may [sell it] to his son who is past majority, but not to his son who is below majority, nor may he give it to him.

These laws are basically quoted verbatim in Even Ha’ezer 5:11-14.

Now, in that final paragraph, the R’ma brings up an interesting point. He implies that there were those who felt that if it were obvious to us that a gentile was buying an animal from a Jew and intended to castrate or neuter that animal, we would not be allowed to sell him that animal. The rationale for this stringency is that is forbidden to figuratively place a stumbling block before the blind, i.e., mislead one into transgressing. What transgression? There is an opinion that even gentiles may not harm the reproductive organs of animals. Now, this is not the halacha, as we saw above, because we may sell animals to gentiles, and what they then do is their own business, and we have also seen that the conclusion of the halacha is that gentiles have no prohibition against castrating/neutering animals. (They are still forbidden from physically harming each other.) However, for those who wish to act stringently and not sell their animals to gentiles lest the gentiles sterilize them, the R’ma adds, “However, if the gentile who purchases [the animals] does not sterilize them himself, but rather gives it (sic) to another gentile to sterilize, all would permit.” That is, even if one were worried that he is misleading a gentile by selling to him an animal the gentile will most certainly sterilize, because there is no prohibition to mislead someone into misleading someone else, he should not worry in this case. This is how the Vilna Gaon explains the reasoning of the R’ma.

Now, Rabbi **** misread the quoted line of the R’ma above to mean that if the Jew were somehow looking for a way to cheat the system, namely by selling the animal to a gentile who would then sterilize it and sell it back to the Jews although that exact case was already forbidden, if the deal involves the gentile “buyer” having some other gentile do the deed, then all is permissible. I have tried to point this out to him, but to no avail, and have since ceased corresponding with him due to this. I am of course horrified that he would use this error to publicly rule on a matter involving a Torah prohibition, but then again, he did not permit this outright. Instead, he made this a condition for using another questionable hetter, loophole. It does not make it any better, because it is entirely mistaken.

Which brings us to the hetter he derived from the Taz. The premise is that sterilization is prohibited because it causes the animal suffering. The jump is then made that if some how the animal would not suffer because it under anesthesia, then perhaps the procedure would be permissible. If we then combine this with the fact that the animal is female and another gentile does it for the phony buyer, then we have a hetter. You can now see why this argument would be rejected. Firstly, because no one truly knows why God prohibited sterilization, and even though the Rishonim suggested reasons, all would agree that we could not decide that because we have figured out the reason, we can also devise circumstances whereby the reasons do not apply and by extension, the prohibitions. This, the sages explain, was Solomon’s major mistake. Secondly, were the sages unaware of anesthesia? How do you think people managed to castrate oxen in the olden days? At least if you slaughter an ox, it will eventually die, but if you wish to cut off its testicles (or neuter a cow) you either have to majorly restrain the beast, or knock it out with a lot poppy juice or alcohol or the like. This is old science. The Ancient Egyptians knew about basic anesthesia before Moses was born, and if such a method of permitting sterilization was valid, the sages or the rishonim would have mentioned it. If you look in the section above from Maimonides and the Shulhan Aruch, you would have expected to find this exception where they mention tying down an animal and causing a passive castration. Thirdly, just because sterilizing female animals can not be punished, it does not mean that it can somehow be used as a factor in permitting something. Just because a sin is not as severe as another, it does not follow that it can in any way become permissible. Fourthly, we have already seen the fallacy of finding a secondary gentile to perform the sterilization.

In sum, it is entirely clear that the prohibition against sterilizing animals has no exceptions despite what some may have recently suggested. The only example we have found is gentiles doing so of their own accord, and the sages even prohibited a Jew to somehow find a way to get gentiles to perform sterilizations on their behalf. I pray that God give Rabbi **** the wisdom to see the the error in his logic.

 

An Open Letter To Rabbi Nochum Eisenstein

Sir, recently you made the claim that because R’ Elyashiv was the greatest Torah authority of his time, all of K’lal Yisrael should follow his opinion regarding modern-day attempts to identify the biblical T’cheileth, namely that such an endeavor is impossible because we lack a positive Mesorah. Further, it is your own position that because R’ Elyashiv and other  unnamed gedolim were aware of all the attempted proofs as to the veracity of the newly discovered T’cheileth, and yet, they did not tie it into their own tzitzith or encourage others to do so, it would be an affront to the honor of the Torah and its transmitters to do so.

Although R’ Elyashiv’s own greatness can not be disputed, I would like to bring some historical facts to your consideration.

  1. R’ Elyashiv was not as widely accepted as the greatest in his generation outside of your circles.

2. More importantly, we should have what to say concerning the most widely respected and universally acknowledged sage of his time, someone whom even R’ Elyashiv has acknowledged to be a master of all matters of Torah and natural wisdom, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, our master, Rabbi Isaac Halevi Herzog. Moshe Rabbeinu and Yithro together taught us the test of a true Gadol: when a rav does not know what to answer, who does he ask? And when that rav does not know, who does he consult? And we continue up the pyramid. At the begining of 5701, the Mir Yeshiva found itself in Kobe, Japan, and sent a telegram back to the Gedolei Eretz Yisrael asking when they should observe Yom Kippur, which was in essence a greater question, “where is the halachic dateline?” a matter of halacha that would have consequences for world Jewry. Their telegram, of which I have a copy in my possession, was addressed to, among others, the Gerrer Rebbe, the Brisker Rav, and Rabbi Herzog. They did not even address it to the Chazon Ish! More so, the matter of finding a consensus was personally the responsibility of Rabbi Herzog, and it was ultimately the decision approved under his authority, against the opinion of the Chazon Ish, that carried the day. Here we have an incident that shows that THE Gedolim of 70 years ago acknowledged Rabbi Herzog’s authority to decide for K’lal Yisrael.

Further, it is none other than Rabbi Herzog’s view that in our day and age, we can strive to identify, manufacture, and use T’cheileth without a positive living tradition. He dedicated years of his life to do so.

Therefore, how is it that those who seek to continue following Rav Herzog’s teachings are not following the directives of the gedolim? Are you denying Rav Herzog’s gadlus, chas v’shalom?

Respectfully,

Avi Grossman

The Oral Torah is the Living Torah

Laws of Mamrim. 1:1:

The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem is the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. Concerning them, the Torah promises Deuteronomy 17:11: “You shall do according to the laws which they shall instruct you….” This is a positive commandment. Whoever believes in Moses and in his Torah is obligated to make all of his religious acts dependent on this court and to rely on them.

I highly recommend for everyone to study the subsequent two chapters on his own. As explained by R’ Kappah, ideally, and in the future, the halacha will once again be determined by a Sanhedrin. The sages will not look to the Talmud in order to derive the halacha like we do today (although perhaps we could make an argument that they stopped doing so in the last centuries and have taken on a common-law approach of only following immediate precedent). This got me to thinking about the nature of the living Oral Law and the Written Law.

When we study living organisms, whether flaura or fauna, it is sometimes in our interest to preserve specimens in certain states, but when we use the methods at our disposal to do so, we kill those organisms, taking away their potential for further  growth and propagation. When you stick something in preservatives or freeze it, it may last indefinitely, but it will never more become part of the cycle that characterizes life.

The Torah was given with two components. The written law is frozen and immutable, it may not be added to or detracted from, and is to be copied from generation to generation exactly as is. It is the DNA of the living Torah, but the actual organism is the Oral Law, which was once living and breathing and open to interpretation by its transmitters. Like all life created by God, it was dynamic and adaptable, and capable of encompassing new disciplines. In the words of our sages, it was both a tree of life for those who supported it, and the water that gave life to everything else.

Thus, we could understand why it would be so wrong to commit it to writing, to preserve it exactly as it was at a given point in time. It was only in the most urgent of situations that the sages did freeze it, to seal it as it was, as the only alternative was to let it be lost forever. But it came at a cost. The preserved Oral Law was no longer capable of living, of growing,  or of reproducing, and most unfortunately, we were left with little knowledge as to how, one day, to remove it from the paradoxically necessary yet poisonous formaldehyde and resuscitate it.

 

 

Q&A: Announcing the Molad and Rosh Hodesh

Question: This week in shul, no one had a calendar and when it came time to do birkas hachodesh, we waited until someone could find a calendar so that we could announce when the molad was, and even after we found one, the chazzan then said that Rosh Chodesh Tammuz will be Monday, when it will really be Shabbos and Sunday. What do we do now?

Answer: It seems to me that although announcing Rosh Hodesh is an important practice, it is not critical that it be done. That is, if it was omitted entirely, or announced after the service had ended, there is no problem. Indeed, in medieval times, there were more varied methods of publicly announcing when Rosh Hodesh would be. As for announcing the molad, I believe that not only is it not necessary, it might actually be undesirable according to many older opinions, including that of the Shulhan Aruch.

Some history: The original practice to announce when Rosh Hodesh would be was for the good of the congregation. Later, the two paragraphs, “mi she asa nissim,” right before the announcement, and “y’hadd’sheihu” right after, were added. Sometime about the 17th century, the prayer of Rava, which was not specifically about the new month, was also added, but it was modified to mention the new month. If you look in other prayer books, and especially in older prayer books, you will find that this paragraph is still not there, because it is problematic. As we have written about before, it is considered by the Vilna Gaon and the Ba’al Hatanya to be tahanunim, supplications that are inappropriate for sabbaths and festivals. In their days, the practice was new, and they opposed it. (I believe that this addition, like many others similar to it, persisted in the texts of the prayer books for mainly two reasons: 1. It gave the printers something to distinguish their new offerings from siddurim already on the market. 2. The cantors could use it for their music, and indeed at the Belz School of Jewish Music it is a major component of their Sabbath Prayers course. This is also true of the B’rich Sh’meih prayer said when removing the Torah from the ark.) But once again, none of these are factors in the communal prayers, and therefore if they can not be performed or if they were not performed, there is no problem. Therefore, if the leader announces the wrong day, they just have to correct him sometime, preferably right away. There is certainly no reason to have to repeat any of the prayers.

As for announcing the molad, the practice is so new, it is not mentioned in the vast majority of classic halachic works. It is not mandated by the Torah, nor by sages, nor by the Shulhan Aruch, nor could any of the classic codes support or reject the practice due to its novelty. (“The Mishna B’rura does not rule to say Hallel on Yom Ha’atzma’ut.”) Before recent times, the molad (the average molad, not the true molad) only mattered for 1. determining the  first day of Tishrei every year, and by extension, the rest of the calendar, and 2. according to some Rishonim and the R’ma, to calculate the last time each month that Birkath Hal’vana may be recited. As we saw earlier, the surprising and unprecedented ruling of the Pri M’gadim is that somehow the R’ma would also hold that the starting time for Birkath Hal’vana should be calculated with similar precision, exactly 72 hours after the molad. However, once this error in transmission became ensconced, we can understand why Ashkenazic congregations would announce the molad. However, the Beth Yosef, the author of the Shulhan Aruch, explicitly rejected the R’ma’s use of such an exact measurement for determining the last time for Birkath Hal’vana, and would have been the first to object to attributing the extension of the usage of such an exact measurement to calculate the first time for Birkath Hal’vana to the R’ma and other earlier authorities. The modern calendar printers make the illogical and halachically indefensible jump of declaring that because the Shulhan Aruch rules that the first time for Birkath Hal’vana is “when seven days have passed for the moon,” those seven days should be calculated as precisely as the Pri M’gadim says to calculate a diverging opinion, namely exactly 168 hours after the average, announced molad. The Beth Yosef himself would of course object to this double falsification of his opinion, which was really like that of the sages: Birkath Hal’vana is to be said on Rosh Hodesh, and there is a qabbalisitc practice to wait for seven days, but those seven days should certainly not be calculated using the R’ma’s method of calculating the end of the Bracha! How much more so would our master object to publicly announcing the molad, which gives the people the impression that indeed Birkath Hal’vana may only be recited 168 hours thereafter. I would like to find out when non-Ashkenaic congregations started announcing the molad, and if there are any older congregations or congregants who can still recall when the practice was introduced, because on the surface, it is innocuous and only takes a few seconds, and only after some major contemplation do we realize that it is not in-line with halachic traditions.

Therefore, if no one knows when the molad is supposed to be, better to just continue with the service and not make the community wait. Further, like with regards to kapparois, we should really be asking, “according to the Shulhan Aruch, may we publicly announce the time of the molad when we announce Rosh Hodesh?”

The Bright Ideological Future

A Historical Joke

by Rabbi Amichai Gordin, Yeshivat Har Etzion and Shaalvim High School

At the end of the Six Day War, Ephraim Kishon and Katriel Gorodish (using his regular penname “Dosh”) published a book of cartoons and satire. The last cartoon in the book, which is called “Excuse Us for Winning,” was a very touching drawing. In it, “Srulik” (who represents the State of Israel in Dosh’s cartoons) looks at King Hussein, who is off to one side, with a look of shame and defeat. Srulik proposes to the King in a conciliatory tone: “For two thousand years, keep saying, ‘If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill.’ Then you will get it back.”

* * * * * *

Dosh, who was not religious but was very nationalistic, understood the importance of the long period of yearning for Jerusalem. He understood that the nonreligious paratroopers who freed the Old City with tears in their eyes did not come to the fight alone. They came on the wings of their grandfathers and grandmothers, who kept the memory of Jerusalem alive for thousands of years. If not for the ancient and eternal yearning for the holy and sanctified city, we would not have been privileged to return to the Western Wall and to the Temple Mount.

* * * * * *

Not all the people felt the yearning. The liberal movement which was founded in the beginning of the nineteenth century and later developed into the Reform movement abandoned the belief in the coming of Mashiach and the return to Zion. The return to Jerusalem and Zion was removed from the texts of the Reform prayer books. David Friedlander, one of the founders of the reform movement calmly said, “I pray… for my King, for the citizens of my country, for myself and for my family, but not for a return to Jerusalem.”

In some ways, the Reform movement was the exact opposite of the secular Zionist movement. While the Zionist movement renounced the idea that Judaism is a religion and concentrated only on nationalism, the Reform movement renounced the idea that Judaism is a nationality and kept only the religion (which it also watered down to a great extent).

Prominent philosophers of the Reform movement claimed that “the end of political sovereignty of Yisrael was once thought to be a calamity, but in fact it was a sign of progress – not a fall but rather a strengthening of religion. In this way Israel was getting closer to its true destiny. Clinging to sanctity has replaced the sacrifices. Israel has arrived on the scene in order to disseminate the words of G-d to the ends of the earth.” [David Einhorn, “Olat Tamid”].

While in Europe the Reform movement continued to mention Tisha B’Av (in memory of the destruction of the Temples), this holy day was removed from the Reform siddurim in America. The destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the people in the Diaspora were not seen as a reason for mourning. “The flames which obliterated Zion lit up the hour of the birth of Israel as the Messiah, who suffers for the entire human race.” [Einhorn, ibid].

Based on this understanding, it is not surprising to find that the Reform movement was violently opposed to Zionism. Thus, while Chaim Weizmann fought valiantly to obtain the Balfour Declaration from the British government, Claude Montefiore, the head of the Reform movement in England, tried with all his might to prevent this from happening. It is quite possible that he played a part in the strong objection to the Balfour Declaration voiced by Edwin Montague, who was the Minister for India and the brother of Lilian Montague, a leader of the Reform movement in England. This opposition managed to limit the scope of the declaration and almost succeeded in preventing its publication.

* * * * * *

These guiding principles of the Reform movement disappeared during the last generation. The more the Zionist movement broadened its base and garnered support among the Jewish community, the more the Reform opposition to Zionism waned. The Reform movement, which raised high a banner of ignoring traditions and past heritage for the good of a modern spirit, treated its founders in the same way that they treated Jewish tradition. They threw their former leaders into the dustbin of history. After waiting for way to long, the movement brought Zion and Jerusalem back into its siddurim. In 1975, some thirty years after the State of Israel was established, the Reform movement finally joined the World Zionist Organization.

In view of all of this, the demand by the Reform movement to be given an area of their own near the Western Wall can best be described as a rare historical joke. Just imagine if Zehava Galon (of the leftist Meretz Party) and Yariv Oppenheimer (of the Betzelem organization) would petition the Supreme Court to allow them to buy a house in Kiryat Arba, near Chevron. The Reform movement, which firmly opposed any mention of Zion and Jerusalem and which up to 80 years ago fought tooth and nail against Zionism, is now part of a campaign to give them a section in the palace of prayer near the Western Wall. Who can say that the Angel of History doesn’t have a sense of humor?

Our mentor, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, liked to quote a Gentile wise man, who warned that anybody who marries within his own generation will remain a widower in the next generation. That is exactly what happened to the founders of the Reform movement, and that is what will happen to the leaders of the struggle for alternative marriages in Israel and for defining a new brand of Judaism.

“Her clothing is strength and dignity, and she will be happy in the days to come” [Mishlei 31:25].

יישוב פקודי שבט הלוי

ברכת משה ללוי: הָאֹמֵר לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא רְאִיתִיו וְאֶת אֶחָיו לֹא הִכִּיר וְאֶת בָּנָו לֹא יָדָע כִּי שָׁמְרוּ אִמְרָתֶךָ וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרוּ והביא רש׳׳י מדברי המדרש, כשחטאו בעגל ואמרתי מי לה’ אלי, נאספו אלי כל בני לוי וצויתים להרוג את אבי אמו והוא מישראל, או את אחיו מאמו, או את בן בתו, וכן עשו. והמשיך מרע׳׳ה ברך ה׳ חילו וכו׳ מחץ מתנים קמיו וכו׳ וראינו שלמרות שבני לוי עבדו את עבודת המקדש ולא יצאו חלוצים בכיבוש הארץ, מכל מקום בני לוי היו הלוחמים הכי עזים בישראל, כלוי אבותם, ועל הלויים והכהנים לא להילחם במלחמות גשמיות אלא לצאת לעזרת ה׳ בגבורים, מתי שנאספים שונאיו נגד התורה והמצוות אותות הברית בין הקב׳׳ה לעמו.

ויש לומר שמספר הלויים היה קטן מכל השבטים בגלל שהרבה מהלויים עזבו את העם כי שמעו שהם לא יקבלו אחוזת נחלה בארץ כנען, ואפילו לא יֻתָּר להם לנסות להלחם כדי לקבל חלק יותר מעריהם המצוצמות. ולזה יש הוכחות מהפסוקים ודברי המפרשים.

וכתב הנצי׳׳ב לפסוק המקדים את הפקודים בפר׳ פנחס וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה וְאֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן, אֹתָם–בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב:  עַל-יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ, לֵאמֹר, מלשון הנהגה. שהיו מפוזרים בערי עבר הירדן. ורק המחנה ואהל מועד היה במקום אחד. וכאשר נצטוו להמנות. הכריז משה ואלעזר שכל מי מבן עשרים שנה יבא

למקום המיועד. ונדברו כולם לערבות מואב. עכ׳׳ל. וזה בעקבות כיבוש ארץ סיחון ועוג, וַיַּכֵּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִי-חָרֶב; וַיִּירַשׁ אֶת-אַרְצוֹ מֵאַרְנֹן, עַד-יַבֹּק עַד-בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן–כִּי עַז, גְּבוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן.  וַיִּקַּח, יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֵת כָּל-הֶעָרִים, הָאֵלֶּה; וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל-עָרֵי הָאֱמֹרִי, בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן וּבְכָל-בְּנֹתֶיהָ. וכו׳ וַיֵּשֶׁב, יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֶרֶץ, הָאֱמֹרִי. המורם מהם, שכל פקודי השבטים אם רב אם מעט, ייתלו על ביאתם למפקד, ולא בכדִי שהשבטים הגדולים כמו יוסף ויהודה הם גם היו השבטים המובילים, והנה מרגל שבט יהודה, כלב בן יפונה, לא הלך בעצת הרשעים ונהיה לנשיא שבטו לפני הכניסה לארץ, ומרגל שבט אפרים, יהושע, גם התנגד לשאר המרגלים ונהיה לראש העם כולו. ולעומת זאת שבטי ראובן גד ושמעון בכל ספר במדבר ובדברי חז׳׳ל קנאו במנהיגים והצטרפו למרדים עד שבסוף ראינו שבני שמעון, שגם  הם לא היו אמורים לקבל נחלה אמיתית, נהיו כ׳׳ד אלפים למרות היותם נ׳׳ט אל׳ בתחילת המסעות, וקשה להתייחס ירידתם לכל כ׳׳ד האלפים שנפלו על דבר פעור, חדא דמשמע מכל השבטים נפלו, ותרי שלפחות יהיו בני שמעון כמ׳ אלפים בערך. וגם שבטי ראובן וגד בקשו לא להכנס לארץ. ופירוש הנצי׳׳ב מתיר עוד ספקות רבות בספרנו.

ובקשר ללויים, איתא בפרשת במדבר פעמיים וְהַלְוִיִּם, לְמַטֵּה אֲבֹתָם–לֹא הָתְפָּקְדוּ, בְּתוֹכָם. והראה האבע׳׳ז שהמלה הָתפָקדו היא מורכבת, נכתבת בבנין התפעל ומנוקדת בבנין הָפעל, ואלו בבנין התפעל תנוקד הִתְפַּקְּדוּ ובבנין הפעל תנוקד הֻפְקְדוּ. ובנעוריי בגלות ארה׳׳ב ל׳׳ע בהגיה האשכנזית-אמריקאית קראוה הוֹס-פוֹק-דוּ ״hus-puk-DOO״, שאינה נשמעת כמלה עברית בכלל וצ׳׳ע. ופירוש הספורנו שם: לא הֻפְקְדוּ עַל יְדֵי הַפּוקְדִים וְלא הִתְפַּקְּדוּ מֵעַצְמָם, שֶׁלּא הֵכִינוּ עַצְמָם כִּשְׁאָר הָעָם לְהִקָּהֵל וּלְהִתְיַחֵס. וְזֶה הָיָה קדֶם שֶׁיּאמַר הָאֵ-ל יִתְבָּרַךְ לְמשֶׁה: “אַךְ אֶת מַטֵּה לֵוִי לא תִפְקד”. כִּי אָמְנָם הִמְתִּינוּ לִרְאות מַה יְּצַוֶּה ה’ לָהֶם, מֵאַחַר שֶׁלּא הִזְכִּיר שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי עִם שְׁאַר הַשְּׁבָטִים בְּאָמְרו “וְאִתְּכֶם יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אִישׁ לַמַּטֶּה”. ונראה שלא רק שהלויים לא נפקדו (בבנין נפעל) אלא מכמה סיבות לא שָֹמו עצמם במצב הנכון כדי לההצטרף לכל העניין.

במפקד השני אנחנו גם רואים שהם לא הָתפקדו: וַיִּהְיוּ פְקֻדֵיהֶם, שְׁלֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף–כָּל-זָכָר, מִבֶּן-חֹדֶשׁ וָמָעְלָה:  כִּי לֹא הָתְפָּקְדוּ, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי לֹא-נִתַּן לָהֶם נַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. ומפורש כאן השתשלות הדבר בסוף המסעות. השבט שלהם היה אפילו יותר קטן משמעון בגלל שהם לא באו מעצמם למפקד בגלל שהם לא היו אמורים לקבל נחלה. במפקד הראשון הם לא באו משום השיבוש וחידוש מעמדם, ולבסוף לא באו כי לא רצו.