| Dear Yeshiva Family:
The Prohibition of Counting Klal Yisrael This week's Parshah begins with the commandment for every Jew to donate a half-shekel as part of a national census:
"When you take a census of Bnei Yisrael according to their numbers, each man shall give Hashem an atonement for his soul when counting them… This is what they shall give, everyone who passes among the counted, half of the shekel…" (Shemos 30:12-13) From here, we learn that there is a prohibition against counting Klal Yisrael directly. Instead, a separate object—such as the half-shekel—must be used, and only through tallying these items can we derive the final number.
The Gemara in Yuma (22b) discusses a similar concept in the procedure used to determine which Kohanim would perform the daily Avodah in the Beis HaMikdash. The Kohanim would stand in a circle, and a lead Kohein would call out a random number and count around the circle until reaching that number. This process, known as the Payis, was a lottery system. However, instead of counting the Kohanim themselves, they would count their outstretched fingers, ensuring that the Kohanim were never directly numbered.
The Gemara then questions the source for this prohibition, citing a story in Sefer Shmuel: When Shaul HaMelech prepared for war against Nachash HaAmoni, he needed to assess the size of his troops. Instead of counting the soldiers directly, he instructed them to each place a piece of pottery in front of them and counted the shards instead. From this episode, the Gemara concludes that there is a clear prohibition against counting Klal Yisrael directly. The Gemara then quotes a third source, a Passuk in Hoshea (2:1):"And the number of Bnei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted."
Why Doesn't the Gemara Cite Our Parshah? The Maharsha raises an obvious question: Why does the Gemara source this prohibition from a story in Nach when there is a clear explicit Passuk in our Parshah prohibiting direct counting?
There is an additional distinction between the counting in our Parshah and the counting in Shaul's time: - In Parshas Ki Sisa, the half-shekel served a dual function: a method of counting and an atonement offering (kaparah).
- In contrast, during Shaul's time, there was no atonement requirement—only a technical need to count the troops.
- Similarly, in the Beis HaMikdash, the Kohanim were counted via their fingers without requiring any atonement.
The Maharsha's Answer The Maharsha resolves both issues with a brilliant insight:
The reason the Gemara in Yuma does not cite our Parshah as the primary source for the prohibition is precisely because the half-shekel served a dual purpose. Since it also functioned as an atonement, one could argue that the prohibition against counting only applied in that specific case, where the donation provided kaparah. If so, perhaps under normal circumstances, there would be no prohibition at all!
To avoid this potential misunderstanding, the Gemara instead sources the prohibition from Shaul HaMelech's census, where there was no atonement involved—proving that the prohibition against direct counting stands on its own, independent of any requirement for kaparah.
The Mistake of Dovid HaMelech However, there is another famous Gemara (Berachos 62b) that raises an apparent contradiction to our earlier discussion. The Gemara states that Dovid HaMelech caused a plague in Klal Yisrael because he violated a Torah prohibition that even schoolchildren know—namely, that counting Klal Yisrael is forbidden, and the Gemara sources the prohibition from our Parshah!
This seems to contradict the Gemara in Yuma, which sourced the prohibition not from our Parshah but from Shaul HaMelech's census. Why, then, does the Gemara in Berachos use Parshas Ki Sisa as the source?
Perhaps we can resolve this contradiction as follows:
Once the Gemara in Yuma clarified that there exists a prohibition to count, we now understand that our Parshah indeed does contain an inherent prohibition against counting Klal Yisrael—and it is not coming just to provide an atonement. And perhaps this was precisely Dovid HaMelech's mistake.
Dovid may have assumed—just as we initially questioned—that the half-shekel was only required because of the kaparah aspect, and that the actual prohibition of counting Klal Yisrael did not apply. However, from the story of Shaul we see that counting is prohibited under all circumstances.
This may seem like a fundamental and obvious mistake, but in reality, it reflects the very reason the Gemara in Yuma did not cite our Passuk as the source for the prohibition. And indeed, this is why Hashem said to Dovid:
"I will cause you to fail in something even schoolchildren know."
Why Was Atonement Required If No Direct Counting Took Place? Even after clarifying the prohibition, one fundamental question remains: If no direct counting was done in our Parshah—since the Bnei Yisrael were counted only through their coins—why was an atonement required[1]?
Rashi explains "And there shall be no plague among them"—for if they were counted directly, a plague would come upon them, as the Ayin Hara affects that which has been counted."
This suggests that the danger lies not only in the physical act of counting but in the mere knowledge and publicizing of the final number itself. Even if no direct census occurs, the exposure of the final tally can still invite Ayin Hara—which is why atonement was needed. The power of Tzedakah provides the necessary protection.
Two Aspects of the Prohibition: Counting vs. Knowing the Final Number Up until now, we have understood the prohibition of counting Klal Yisrael as primarily stemming from the concern of Ayin Hara, or from the potential danger of knowing the final number. However, there seems to be a second dimension to this prohibition—one that applies even when the final number is not known.
This is evident from the case in the Gemara in Yuma (22b) regarding the Payis (lottery) system for the Kohanim that we mentioned. The appointed Kohein would call out a random number, and they would go around counting fingers until landing on the designated Kohein. In this case, the final number was never actually determined, as it was based on an arbitrary starting count. And yet, we see that the act of counting itself was avoided, implying that even the process of numbering people—independent of knowing the total—is problematic.
Understanding the Problematic Nature of Counting Itself To explain why the act of counting alone is problematic, we find an insight from the Sforno. Unlike Rashi, who attributes the prohibition to Ayin Hara, the Sforno explains that any form of individualizing Klal Yisrael is inherently dangerous. Ideally, the world was meant to exist with only Adam HaRishon as a singular being. It was only after his sin that humanity was divided into separate individuals. Thus, by enumerating people, we highlight their individual existence rather than their collective identity, which, in turn, exposes them to din (judgment).
Similarly, the Yaavetz (Yaaros Dvash 1:2) explains that numbers force us to see individuals as separate entities. When people are counted one by one, their personal faults come into focus. In contrast, when viewed as part of a group, individual shortcomings are concealed within the collective merit of the tzibbur.
From both the Sforno and Yaavetz, we see that it is not only knowing the final number that is problematic—it is the very act of counting, because it separates the yachid from the klal, exposing each individual to scrutiny.
Two Distinct Prohibitions With this understanding, we can now differentiate between two separate prohibitions: - Knowing the final number – As seen in our Parshah, even when people are counted indirectly (through coins), there is still a concern of Ayin Hara, which necessitates a kaparah to avoid a plague.
- The act of counting itself – As indicated by the case of the Kohanim, where no final number was determined, yet the Payis still avoided direct counting.
Now that we have clarified the two layers of this prohibition, we can further deepen our understanding by demonstrating that each aspect is prohibited for a different reason. And with this, perhaps we can offer a new approach to answer the Maharsha's question.
But before doing so, we need to introduce one more idea.
Why Was Atonement Required in Our Parshah, but Not in Yuma? We previously established that in Parshas Ki Sisa, a kaparah (atonement) was required when counting Klal Yisrael, while in Yuma, where the Kohanim were counted through their fingers, no kaparah was necessary. This leads to an important question:
What happened to the danger of Ayin Hara in the case of Yuma? Why was no atonement needed there?
Perhaps we can explain that the danger of Ayin Hara does not apply when the counting serves a mitzvah purpose.
In our Parshah, the counting was not inherently a mitzvah. The Sefer Iyun Yaakov explains that there was no obligation to count Klal Yisrael at that time; rather, Hashem was simply instructing how one must count if they ever choose to do so: "When you count them—this is the way to do it."
Although there is room to argue and say that when Hashem told us to count in this Parshah there inherently became a mitzvah to count them at this particular time, the aspect of knowing the final number was not part of the mitzvah. Since this was not mitzvah-driven counting, a kaparah was required to protect against Ayin Hara.
In contrast, when Shaul HaMelech counted his soldiers, the final number was necessary for a mitzvah—preparing for war. Because the count served a mitzvah purpose, the mitzvah itself acted as a protection, and no atonement was required.
If a Mitzvah Protects, Why Count Indirectly at All? If we say that a mitzvah itself provides protection, then why did Shaul HaMelech bother using an indirect method of counting (by counting shards of pottery)? Why not count the soldiers directly, if the mitzvah was sufficient to guard against Ayin Hara?
The answer is that a mitzvah does not permit an aveirah—it only removes the danger associated with the mitzvah.
This distinction is critical: - In our Parshah, the primary concern was not a prohibition against counting, but rather the danger of Ayin Hara. Thus, the mitzvah could have protected against the danger, but since there was no actual mitzvah to count, there was nothing to override the Ayin Hara concern, necessitating kaparah.
- However, the Gemara in Yuma concludes with the passuk in Hoshea:
"And the number of Bnei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted." (Hoshea 2:1)
This passuk teaches that there is a prohibition against counting Klal Yisrael directly, regardless of whether there is a mitzvah involved. A mitzvah may remove a danger, but it does not override a prohibition—especially when an alternative, permissible method exists.
Thus, even when counting serves a mitzvah, one must still avoid direct counting whenever an indirect method is available.
Bringing It All Together: Understanding the Full Picture Now, we can fully understand the distinction between the different aspects of the prohibition and why the Gemara sources the prohibition from Shaul rather than our Parshah!
When Shaul HaMelech conducted his count, the final number was necessary for a mitzvah—preparing for war. Because of this, there was no concern of Ayin Hara, and therefore, no need for atonement through tzedakah. However, despite the mitzvah removing the danger, he still could not count directly and had to use an indirect method.
This understanding explains why the Gemara in Yuma did not source the prohibition from our Parshah. The case of the Kohanim was different in that no final number was known—the Payis system only determined which Kohein was selected, without determining how many Kohanim participated. The Gemara was searching for a prohibition against the very act of counting itself, which is not explicit in our Parshah.
Our Parshah primarily addresses the Ayin Hara danger of having a final number—not the act of counting itself. To establish a prohibition against counting (independent of Ayin Hara concerns), the Gemara needed to find a case where: - The final number was necessary for a mitzvah, meaning Ayin Hara was not a factor (since a mitzvah protects against Ayin Hara).
- Yet, the counting still had to be done indirectly, proving that counting itself—not just revealing a number—was problematic.
This is precisely why the Gemara turned to Shaul's case and ultimately concluded with the Passuk in Hoshea:
"And the number of Bnei Yisrael shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted." (Hoshea 2:1)
Why Isn't This Prohibition Counted Among the 613 Mitzvos? This also explains why the prohibition against counting Klal Yisrael is not included in the 613 mitzvos. Since our Parshah does not present this as an explicit Torah prohibition—only as a precaution against Ayin Hara—it is not counted as a formal aveirah in the Torah. The prohibition against counting stems from the Nevi'im, not from an explicit Issur d'Oraisa.
Dovid HaMelech's Mistake Now, we can also understand what Dovid HaMelech was attempting to do. Dovid only wanted the final number, he assumed that as long as he counted indirectly, it would be permissible. Indeed, both the Ramban and Ohr HaChaim explain that Dovid did not count them directly—he used an alternative method. However, the problem was that he still arrived at a final number, which was precisely what our Parshah warns against. This is why the Gemara cites the Passuk in our parsha which warns against obtaining a final number when there is no mitzvah involved, due to the concern of Ayin Hara.
Thus, in summary: - Our Parshah warns against revealing the final number due to Ayin Hara (which was Dovid's mistake).
- The prohibition against counting itself is derived from Shaul's case and ultimately sourced in Hoshea.
- A mitzvah can protect against Ayin Hara, but it cannot override a prohibition, which is why indirect counting was required even in cases of mitzvah.
A Modern Application—Should We Avoid Jewish Censuses? Based on this understanding, one might wonder: Would it be prohibited for a computer or non-Jew to conduct a census of the Jewish population?
Since the concern is not merely about the act of counting but rather about the awareness and publication of the final number, one could argue that a census conducted by a non-Jew would still pose the same Ayin Hara concern. However, in contemporary censuses—such as those conducted by the Israeli government—the counting does not specifically single out Jews. Even if there is a sub category of Jews one can assume the number is inaccurate (from the standpoint of being exact) and therefore in such cases, it would seemingly be permissible.
That said, seemingly if someone is organizing a local Jewish event—such as a Shul or Yeshiva program—they should avoid specifying an exact number (e.g., "257 people in attendance"). Instead, it is preferable to round up or down and say "around 260 Bochurim in the Yeshiva" to avoid this potential issue.
Practical Applications: Counting for a Minyan & Other Situations The widespread minhag of avoiding direct counting for a minyan—instead using a passuk such as "Hoshia es Amecha" (Tehillim 28:9) or "Va'ani b'rov Chasdecha" (Tehillim 5:8)—stems directly from this concept.
However, one could ask: If, in the end, we still arrive at a final number of ten, why is this allowed?
Like we explained, the answer is that since this is for a mitzvah, the final count is not an issue—as we explained earlier, a mitzvah protects against Ayin Hara. The primary concern here is the method of counting itself, which is why these indirect methods are used.
Some have the custom to count using the words of a beracha, such as reciting "Hamotzi Lechem Min Ha'aretz"—which contains exactly ten words—while pointing to each person. This would also be acceptable, since no direct numerical count is made.
Based on this, other indirect methods—such as counting noses instead of people—should also be permissible.
However, this raises a further question:
How Do Yeshivos & Schools Count Students? In practical settings, such as mosdos chinuch, where teachers and administrators need to count students to track attendance or class sizes, how do they navigate this concern? - The Chasam Sofer was extremely makpid, even avoiding writing down numbers. One would have to merely write a list without a number.
- Perhaps to minimize concern, one might avoid writing a hard number next to a list of names (e.g., instead of ordering "27 balloons for 27 kids," one would simply order "around 30 balloons"). Or perhaps one can order 27 balloons for the kids.
There is what to rely on, as the Pe'as HaShulchan however holds that there is only an issue if the count is done in front of you—based on his understanding of Ayin Hara. Additionally, the Chida maintains that this prohibition only applies when counting all of Klal Yisrael as a whole, but counting a smaller group is not problematic.
Another practical discussion arises: - What if one simply looks around and recognizes how many people are present—such as seeing "three people" or noticing that "we have a minyan"?
- What about realizing the total at the end of the day, without explicitly verbalizing it?
- Or even stating, "We have a minyan", without directly counting?
Based on the distinctions we've established, these would all be permissible when counting for a mitzvah—since final numbers in a mitzvah context are not problematic. However, in a non-mitzvah setting, these nuances would need further consideration.
It should be mentioned that there are various approaches to this discussion, but this is what seems most compelling to me, however since I did not have the time to investigate all the sources on this subject, due to the fact that today is Purim, I am hesitant to rely on this leHalacha Ulemaisha until I can investigate further.
Have a Great Shabbos and Shushan Purim!
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva, HTC - Beis HaMidrash LaTorah mrevah2@touro.edu
____________________________________________________________
[1] One might answer that this atonement was unique to that time, serving as a kaparah for the Chet HaEgel (Golden Calf), as the Ramban learns. However, we are learning like the Mefarshim, including Rashi on our Passuk, who explain that the half-shekel was necessary as an ongoing protection. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment