Parshat Bamidbar-How to count the Jewish people/’the evil eye’

The parsha begins with the following command:

ב  שְׂאוּ, אֶת-רֹאשׁ כָּל-עֲדַת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם, לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם--בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת, כָּל-זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם.

2 'Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;

Rashi comments:

לגלגלתם. עַ'יְ שְׁקָלִים — בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת:לגלגלתם BY THEIR POLLS — i. e. by means of shekels — “a beka a head (לגלגלת)”, as was prescribed on a previous occasion (Exodus 38:26).

The counting was to be carried out by means of a coin (donation), as we find in the Mitzvah of the half shekel given to the Mishkan in parshat Ki Tisa:

יג  זֶה יִתְּנוּ, כָּל-הָעֹבֵר עַל-הַפְּקֻדִים--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ:  עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה, הַשֶּׁקֶל--מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל, תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה.

13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary--the shekel is twenty gerahs--half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.

Again Rashi comments:

כי תשא. לְשׁוֹן קַבָּלָה, כְּתַרְגּוּמוֹ; כְּשֶׁתַּחְפּוֹץ לְקַבֵּל סְכוּם מִנְיָנָם לָדַעַת כַּמָּה הֵם, אַל תִּמְנֵם לַגֻּלְגּוֹלֶת, אֶלָּא יִתְּנוּ כָּל אֶחָד מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל וְתִמְנֶה אֶת הַשְּׁקָלִים וְתֵדַע מִנְיָנָם:כי תשא This has the meaning of obtaining: WHEN THOU TAKEST [THE SUM], (not of “lifting up” as in Genesis 40:13); as the Targum has it, תקבל. The sense is: when you wish to obtain the sum total of their number — to know how many they are — do not take their census by their polls but each of them shall give half a shekel, and you shall count these, and so ascertain their number.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The counting of the people was facilitated by using the half shekel coins, as an indirect means of counting the people. This is necessary because:

ולא יהיה בהם נגף. שֶׁהַמִּנְיָן שׁוֹלֵט בּוֹ עַיִן הָרָע, וְהַדֶּבֶר בָּא עֲלֵיהֶם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בִימֵי דָּוִד (שמואל ב כ"ד):ולא יהיה בהם נגף THAT THERE BE NO CALAMITY AMONG THEM — for numbers (i. e. things that have been numbered) are subject to the influence of the “evil eye”, and therefore if you count them by their polls pestilence may befall them, as we find happened, in the days of David (II Samuel 24:10 and 15).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The direct counting of the Jews may bring upon them an ‘ayin hara’ which can become a danger to their physical and spiritual wellbeing.

It is clear that Rashi understands there to be a prohibition to count the Jews directly. This has become the basis of our practice to count the minyan/quorum in shul by using a pasuk and not by counting the people directly. The ‘head count’ in our parsha must also be seen to be indirect, using shekalim, so as to avoid the same negative spiritual outcome.

Rashi alludes to a story at the end of Sefer Shmuel Bet, where David is criticized by his army captain (and nephew) Yoav, for ordering a head count of the Jewish army. The story talks there of a great plague befalling the Jews which is seen as a result of this direct headcount.

Does everyone agree that this is actually prohibited in Jewish practice to count Jews directly?

This is the comment of the Abarbanel(15th Century Spain)

השאלה הג' באמרו שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל למשפחותם לבית אבותם במספר שמות כל זכר לגולגלותם והוא בהפך מה שצותה תורה כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל לפקודיהם ונתנו איש כופר נפשו לה'. ופרש"י (שמות ל' י"ב) כשתרצה לקבל סכום מנינם לדעת כמה הם אל תמנם לגולגולת וכו'. ואיך אם כן צוה כאן שימנם לגולגלותם. והנה רש"י (שם) להשמר מזה פירש לגולגלותם על ידי השקלים בקע לגולגולת אבל זה לא נזכר בכתוב ונזכר ההפך שאמר כל זכר לגולגלותם מורה שלא נמנו ע"י השקלים אלא לגולגלותם:

The Abarbanel’s question on Rashi is a simple one:if the counting was done by using Shekalim, why doesn’t the pasuk say so? It only mentions a ‘head’ count and no mention of coins.

He responds as follows:

והמצוה יתברך במצוה ההוא ישמרם מדבר הוות ועל זה נאמר שימנה את העם ולא יפחד מנצוצות העין הרע המזיקים בראש המנין. ושיהיה המנין למשפחותם לבית אבותם. רוצה לומר שיזכור כל אחד מהם משפחתו ושבטו ובית אביו ויזכור שמו

The Abarbanel fundamentally disagrees with Rashi and says that the count in our parsha was a head count, without fear of ‘ayin hara’. He is clearly convinced that counting heads is not a problem. How does he explain the counting of Shekalim in parshat Ki Tisa? The answer is that he sees that whole parsha as a fundraiser for the Mishkan, and absolutely nothing to do with the counting of the Jewish people.

The remaining question on the Abarbanel is from the story in Sefer Shmuel bet. Why does Yoav criticize his uncle for counting his troops? If this was allowed, what was so bad that it led to years of punishment for the Jewish people?

Nechama Liebowitz z’l gives an answer to this question. She explains that Yoav possibly detected a certain amount of self pride in David’s counting of his soldiers. This would normally be acceptable for any general to know the number of soldiers in his army. However, for David this was a problem. He was expected to be above the regular characteristics of the Jews. He has to be the person without blemish. If any sense of haughtiness creeps in here, it is a blemish on David and his high spiritual standing. This is why Yoav is angry with him and as soon as David is told of his fault here, he is quick to atone and put things right.Our expectation of the King of Israel is very high and any lowering of standards can affect the whole of the Jewish people.

Even though we all seem to avoid direct counting of Jews in our everyday practice, it is interesting to see that the Abarbanel represents a more rational approach , not worrying about the more esoteric issues of ‘ayin hara’.The Talmud tells us that Israel is above ‘mazal’(planetary influences and other such forces) and the Abarbanel takes this very seriously in his ‘spanish’ world, where rationale seems to dictate our approach to Torah.

For Rashi, who comes from medieval Europe, no such freedom of thought exists, and many superstitions existed.

In 18th-20th century Eastern Europe, the sensitivity to ‘ayin hara’ was a reality.

In our 21st century world today, the question must be asked as to why we refer to these matters at all, especially as our scientific based knowledge of the world around us seems so comprehensive. However traditions such as ‘ayin hara’ still abound, especially in Israel. There is definite room for discussion here.