Nasso: Achieving Perfect Unity

After the Torah concludes its description of the way the nesi’im2 brought their offerings for the dedication of the Altar, it summarizes,3 “This is the dedication offering for the Altar presented by the nesi’im of Israel on the day it was anointed; there were twelve silver bowls…,” and then lists the total number of bowls and other offerings brought by all twelve nesi’im.

The Midrash4 comments on this verse, “Behold, [only] one bowl… was brought on ‘the day it was anointed’…. However, Scripture considers it as if they all brought their offerings on the first day.” Moreover, the Midrash does not content itself with that statement, but continues, “and [Scripture considers it] as if they all brought their offerings on the last day.”

(The commentaries5 explain that the statement, “it is as if… they all brought their offerings on the last day,” is derived from the fact that after listing all the offerings of the nesi’im, the Torah states,6 “This is the dedication offering of the Altar after it was anointed.”)

Clarification is necessary: The positive virtue of it being considered as if the nesi’im all brought their offerings on the first day is understandable. From the point of view of the person involved (the gavra, to borrow Talmudic phraseology), bringing one’s offering first shows that one offering is cherished more7 and is greater8 than the others. Similar concepts apply regarding the objective, the dedication of the Altar,9 the cheftza. There is room to say that the sacrifices brought after the first day are not considered as “the dedication of the Altar,” since the Altar was already dedicated through the sacrifices offered by the nasi who brought his offerings on the first day.10 Therefore, the Midrash underscores that it was as if every nasi was the first11 to bring his offerings and that he was the one who dedicated the Altar.

Nevertheless, clarification is necessary: What is the virtue and new contribution reflected in the statement that it is considered “as if they all brought their offerings on the last day?”12

It is possible to offer the following explanation for the above: Offering sacrifices on the Altar represents the general concept of avodah, sacrificial service,13 which is intended to bring the person offering the sacrifice closer to G‑d. As explained in many sources,14 korbanos, Hebrew for “sacrifices,” shares the same root letters with the Hebrew word kiruv, meaning “closeness.”15

As is well known,16 the division of the Jews into twelve tribes is connected with the different paths of service through which each one was to serve his Creator. As a whole, man’s Divine service17 is divided into twelve general paths. Each nasi and tribe were given their own specific path of Divine service. This concept is alluded to in the verse,18 “He blessed each one according to his blessing,” i.e., Yaakov gave each of his sons, the progenitors of the tribes, a different blessing that served as a guide and a catalyst, indicating the specific type of activities fitting for that tribe and empowering their expression in G‑d’s service.

It can be said that this is the reason why the dedication of the Altar was carried out specifically through the twelve nesi’im19 and not by Moshe and Aharon.20 Moshe and Aharon empowered the Jews through all-encompassing paths of Divine service. By contrast, the nesi’im embodied specific paths of Divine service. Each nasi dedicated the Altar according to his unique path by bringing sacrifices that were fit for that path of service, enabling others to draw close – and be drawn close – to G‑d for all time by following that path of service.

As the Midrash21 explains, although all the nesi’im brought identical offerings, every nasi had different intentions, each one appropriate to his own understanding and the approach to Divine service of his tribe. To cite a parallel: As mentioned above, Yaakov blessed each of his sons “according to his blessing,” i.e., according to the specific blessing appropriate for him. Similarly, every nasi brought his offerings according to his own intent. Thus, we find the Midrash22 specifying different intentions for the specific sacrifices, distinctive for each nasi individually.

Based on the above, we can understand that a new and different dimension of the dedication of the Altar took place on every one of the twelve days;23 the contribution of each of the days had not been made on the other eleven days. Therefore, the dedication of the Altar had not been completed until the twelfth nasi brought his offerings.

Only after each one of the twelve nesi’im brought his offerings according to his individual intent – thereby, dedicating the Altar according to his mode of Divine service and thus enabling that service – was the dedication of the Altar completed. For example, only on the twelfth day was the Altar dedicated according to the approach that would draw close Jews from the tribe of Naftali, Jews whose lives followed the motif reflected in the blessing:24 “Naftali is a swift gazelle, offering pleasant sayings.”

Based on the above, it is possible to understand the words of the Midrash,³ “Scripture considers it as if they all brought their offerings on the first day and as if they all brought their offerings on the last day.” True, the offerings brought by the nasi on each of the twelve days brought about a different dimension of the dedication of the Altar. Nevertheless, the first day and the last day possessed an advantage over all the other days. The first day represented the beginning – the opening25 – of the dedication of the Altar. Also, aside from expressing the particular quality associated with the tribe of Yehudah, the offerings of the first day brought about a general accomplishment that is of primary importance. These offerings brought about a breakthrough: an Altar for the sacrifices of the Jewish people had been dedicated. Similarly, there is a positive quality in the offerings of the last day; as a result of this offering, the Altar was dedicated even for the last tribe, the tribe of Naftali and, in that way, in actual fact, dedicated for the Jewish people as a whole, as an inclusive group.26

This is the point emphasized by the Midrash in saying, “Scripture considers it as if they all brought their offerings on the first day and as if they all brought their offerings on the last day.” Every nasi achieved more than the dedication of the Altar associated with his individual offerings. He also attained the virtue of bringing about something of all-inclusive significance – the dedication of the Altar as a whole (and also, the generation of the potential for all the different particular paths to be carried out); these two objectives were achieved on the first day. In addition, each nasi had a portion in the dedication of the Altar as a whole in actual practice; this was the effect of the contribution of the last day.

It is understood that since the Torah of truth states that it is “as if they all brought their offerings on the first day and… on the last day,” in truth, every nasi had a portion in the dedication as an all-inclusive undertaking. Each of them possessed the virtues associated with both the first day and those associated with the last day, as explained above.

On this basis, there are commentaries27 that explain the teaching of the Midrash stated near the previous teaching,28 “No one of them brought more than another, for had one brought more than another, none of their offerings would have superseded the Shabbos prohibitions.” This refers specifically to the offering of the tribe of Efraim, whose offering was brought on Shabbos,29 the seventh of Nissan.

The reason the sacrifices of the dedication of the Altar superseded the Shabbos prohibitions²⁸ is that since “Scripture considers it as if they all brought their offerings on the first day and as if they all brought their offerings on the last day,” their offerings “were considered as a communal sacrifice and thus superseded the Shabbos prohibitions.”²⁶ The communal dimension of these offerings is indicated by the statement, “No one of them brought more than another.” The fact that the same offerings were brought every day shows that each individual offering was not merely a specific offering brought by that nasi, but rather also a communal offering – and, hence, was the same for all the tribes.30

Further clarification is still necessary: How is the concept that all of the nesi’im brought their sacrifices each day as if they were communal offerings consistent with the statement of the Midrash that every nasi brought his offerings according to his own intent?31

Conversely, if the offerings of the nesi’im are also considered as communal offerings, they could have all brought their offerings on the same day. Indeed, initially, the nesi’im thought of doing so,32 as is reflected by the verse,33 “The nesi’im brought [their offerings for] the dedication of the Altar on the day it was anointed, and the nesi’im presented their offerings in front of the Altar.” However, G‑d instructed them otherwise, saying,34 “One nasi each day, one nasi each day, shall present his offering.”

This compels us to say that their offerings possessed both personal and communal dimensions.35 Although all of the sacrifices of the nesi’im were communal offerings, nevertheless, they were brought from the personal resources of each of the nesi’im;36 we do not find that they were required to transfer ownership of the sacrifices to the Jewish people as a whole.37 On the contrary, each nasi offered his sacrifices according to his own personal intent, as emphasized by the Torah’s words,38 “This is the sacrifice of Nachshon ben Aminadav.” The same applies regarding the other nesi’im. Thus, the actual offering of the sacrifices was performed by each nasi with his own distinct intentions. Therefore, the offerings were brought on separate days, as will be explained.

There is another matter related to the offerings of the nesi’im that requires explanation: Before – but on the same day – as the nesi’im brought their offering for the dedication of the Altar, they collectively brought “six covered wagons and twelve oxen.”39 G‑d told Moshe that the wagons and the oxen should be given to the Levites to transport the Sanctuary.40

Clarification is necessary: On the surface, this donation has no connection with the service in the Sanctuary and the dedication of the Altar. Why then did the nesi’im bring this donation at the same time they brought their offerings?41

Another point also requires explanation: Why was it that the nesi’im, who each brought these gifts in a manner that emphasized the generosity of their hearts,42 did not bring a complete entity individually? Instead:

a) Two nesi’im joined together to bring one wagon;³⁸ a nasi did not bring a wagon individually.

b) Similarly, with regard to the oxen that they did bring individually,³⁸ the gift of that ox could still be considered as only a half-entity, because that ox needed another ox to pull the wagon, for each wagon was drawn by two oxen.43

It is possible to explain all the above from an inner and homiletic dimension. Every Jew possesses two different types of general virtues:

a) The virtues that he shares together with all Jews that stem from the fact that we all have one Father, and, furthermore, from the standpoint of the source of their souls, all Jews are a single entity.44

b) Individual virtues that every Jew possesses according to his individual spiritual standing, ranging from “your heads” to “your water-drawers,”45 each one possessing an attribute that another does not.46

These types of virtues also lead to unity among the entire Jewish people. When one knows and feels “that all [Jews] need one another” and no one can attain “perfection without the other,”⁴⁵ this realization leads to unity with other Jews, each one complementing the other. As is well known, together all Jews form “one complete body.”⁴⁵

Each of these two types of unity possesses an advantage over the other.47 The first type of unity reflects a greater and more deeply-rooted unity, for the oneness stems from the fact that all Jews are inherently a single entity. By contrast, in the second type of unity, the oneness comes as a result of contemplating that, to reach perfection, it is necessary to join together with another Jew. As such, fundamentally, each person is an entity unto himself, separate from the others.

Conversely, there is an advantage to the second type of unity, for the bond that it brings about joins together the particular dimensions of the Jews’ personalities. As such, even in those dimensions where one is separate from the other – and even in those qualities where his own particular superiority is felt – he also realizes that he is not complete without another Jew.

The ultimate intent is to fuse together the advantages of both types of unity. Even when one recognizes his individual virtue, at that very same time, not only should he realize that he needs another Jew because he personally is lacking the virtue that the other possesses, he should also feel that he is inherently one with the other Jew in perfect unity.

To explain: When the Alter Rebbe elaborates⁴⁵ on the oneness that prevails among the Jews because “all [Jews] need one another” and no one can attain “perfection without another,” he states that recognizing the positive virtue of other Jews and seeking to join with them will lead to a unity in which “one will not find a beginning or an end.” (As explained in that source, this unity is associated with the lofty mystical level of iggulim, literally, “spheres,” the source of the transcendent light of sovev kol almin, which, like a circle “has no beginning or end.”)

The latter statement requires clarification: The concept that every Jew complements his fellow to the extent that even a person comparable to the feet possesses a positive virtue that one comparable to the head lacks – for a person “needs [his feet] to walk and they support the body and the head” – explains only how every person can provide something for his fellow and, thus, in some sense, serve as a head for him. However, it does not explain how this leads to a unity where there is “no beginning or end.”48 Seemingly, when there is no beginning or end, the individual qualities a person possesses are entirely insignificant; all are entirely equal and neither the head nor the feet are felt as distinct entities.

It is possible to say that by speaking of unity where there is “no beginning or end,” the Alter Rebbe is alluding to a loftier spiritual level that leads to a more comprehensive unity, enabling the fusion of the two perceptions of unity mentioned previously. The fundamental point on which this thesis is based is that the individual qualities and powers possessed by a Jew are not distinct from the essence of his soul. On the contrary, they are rooted in that essence and emerge from it, for the essence carries within it49 the potential for all the particular50 qualities the soul possesses. Accordingly, the different powers of the soul are inclusive of each other, each individual power containing with it all the other powers.

Since the root and source of every power is in the essence of the soul, which carries within it the potential for all the powers, every power – because of the root of the essence within it – includes all the other powers.51

Similar concepts apply regarding the Jewish people as a whole for they are “one complete body.”52 The fact that all the individual virtues of every Jew together form “one complete body” results from the fact that all Jews are innately a single entity due to the source of their souls, and from that essential source they derive all their individual qualities. For this same reason, the individual qualities of a Jew include all the other individual qualities that all other Jews possess.53

As a result of this innate and essential oneness and the interrelation between the particular qualities it brings about, the Jews’ unity – even the unity that relates to their individual virtues – is manifest in a manner where there is “no beginning or end.” Consequently, no one Jew is of greater standing than another. Every Jew possesses all the positive qualities; the difference is only whether these qualities are in a revealed or hidden state. One Jew may manifest the quality of the head in a revealed manner, and all the other positive qualities will be included in it in a concealed manner. Another may manifest a different quality – e.g., that of the heart or the feet – in a revealed manner, and all the other positive qualities will be included in it in a concealed manner.

To cite a parallel: Our Rabbis54 explain the reason for the law,55 “A person involved in the fulfillment of one mitzvah is exempt from other mitzvos,” is that every mitzvah includes all the other mitzvos.56 Therefore, although in actual fact a person may be fulfilling only one individual mitzvah, it is as if he is fulfilling all the mitzvos, because they are all included in the mitzvah he is fulfilling, but in a hidden manner.

The above concepts help explain the order and manner in which the nesi’im presented their offerings for the dedication of the Altar. For the dedication of the Altar to be carried out in a consummate manner, it was necessary to unify the two seemingly contradictory approaches mentioned above:

a) On the one hand, the nasi of every tribe carried out the sacrificial service associated with the dedication offerings in a manner that reflected his own particular virtue; as stated above, every nasi brought his offerings according to his own intent. Therefore, there was a difference in the times when they brought their offerings – each one brought his offerings on a separate day.

b) On the other hand, the offerings that every nasi brought had to emphasize that his own individual service and that of his tribe were one with all the other nesi’im and tribes. The Midrash underscores this point by saying, “It is as if they all brought their offerings on the first day… and on the last day.” As mentioned above (sec. 4), the latter point stems from the fact that the sacrifices of each day were communal offerings. Therefore, the sacrifices of each day included also the communal dimension of the sacrificial service that was common to all the tribes.

For this same reason, all the nesi’im brought the same offerings. Every one of the offerings alluded to the communal service required of all of them. The difference was merely which dimension of service was manifest in a revealed manner, as explained above.57

On this basis, we can also understand the connection between the donation of the wagons and the dedication of the Altar. In order to bring about this loftier degree of unity – to the extent that it is impossible to find the beginning or end – while simultaneously being involved in their individual Divine service, it was necessary that, before bringing their individual offerings, for the nesi’im to bring an offering that stemmed from and expressed unity that was above any sense of division.58

This was the intent of donating the wagons first. This empowered them to bring about complete unity even within their individual Divine service.

Every nasi gave only half a wagon and, moreover, the ox that he brought could only be used together with an ox brought by another, as stated above (sec. 6). This expresses the principle59 that every individual nasi could bring about his personal achievement only when it was complemented by that of another.60 Therefore, the nesi’im brought the wagons and oxen together, all at the same time, as one all-inclusive donation. Similarly, when Moshe accepted these offerings from them, there was no difference between the offering of one nasi and another.61

Only afterwards,62 during the actual dedication of the Altar, did every nasi bring his own particular sacrifices individually. Making the offering in this manner63 elicited complete unity and caused it to be reflected in their individual offerings as well.

As explained above, there are three dimensions present in the inner makeup of every Jew:

a) From the outset, he and all Jews are one unified whole, without any division.

b) He also possesses an individual virtue.

c) That individual virtue is united with his essence, as explained above.

These three dimensions also exist with regard to the Sanctuary:64

a) The Sanctuary was characterized by an inclusive aspect of holiness that encompassed the entire Sanctuary and all its elements and individual details equally.

b) Every one of the elements of the Sanctuary possessed an individual degree of sanctity. Thus, the courtyard of the Sanctuary, the Tent of Meeting itself, and the Holy of Holies each possessed its own level of holiness.

c) These two aspects of holiness synergistically influenced each other; the general sanctity that pervaded the Sanctuary as a whole elevated the individual sanctity of each of its elements to a higher level.

On this basis, it is possible to explain the statement of the Midrash regarding the sacrifices brought by the nasi of the tribe of Shimon,65 who brought his sacrifices to reflect the order of the design of Sanctuary, as stated there:66

“A bowl” – this corresponds to the courtyard of the Sanctuary which surrounded it.

“Weighing 130” – as it is written, “the length of the courtyard, 100 cubits”;67 the Sanctuary located within it was 30 cubits long; [this is the allusion] implied by 130.

“One silver sprinkling basin weighing 70” – this corresponds to [the length of] the courtyard without the Sanctuary, which was 70 cubits (100 - 30), just as the weight of the sprinkling basin was 70 shekelim (Matnos Kehunah).

Alternatively, the courtyard was 100 cubits long and 50 cubits wide…. Take the 50 [cubits] by which the length [of the courtyard] exceeded its width and, [as it were,] add them as strips around [its] width68 …. thus, there will be a square whose length and width are 70 cubits....69 Concerning this, the Torah says, “70 shekelim….”

On the surface, that interpretation raises several points that require clarification:

a) The 30 cubits of the length of the Sanctuary were included in the hundred cubits of the length of the courtyard. How then can the 30 cubits be counted again, being combined with the 100 cubits to reach a sum of 130 cubits?

b) Since the number 130 includes the measure of the courtyard and the Sanctuary, why was it necessary to bring another offering that corresponded to the courtyard without the Sanctuary?

c) What is the reason for the opinion that the 70 shekelim do not correspond to the courtyard without the Sanctuary, but rather to the area of the entire courtyard? (In particular, this approach involves a difficulty because it is necessary to add a new point – that the fractions slightly less than 1/5 of a cubit must be ignored.)⁶⁷

Based on the explanations given above, an inference can be drawn from the three ways of describing the length of the courtyard mentioned above:

a) 130 cubits – a number that includes both the length of the courtyard (100) and the Sanctuary (30) together, and also, the length of the Sanctuary alone;

b) 70 cubits – the length of the courtyard without the Sanctuary (100 - 30);

c) 100 cubits – the length of the courtyard, including within it the length of the Sanctuary.

These three calculations parallel the three conceptions of the holiness of the Sanctuary:

When speaking about the all-encompassing holiness of the Sanctuary, the length of the courtyard is measured as 100 cubits, including the entire Sanctuary as a single entity.

When one wants to emphasize the particular holiness of each of the elements of the Sanctuary, the courtyard is considered as a distinct entity and 70 cubits – its length without reckoning the Sanctuary – is featured, thus highlighting the holiness of the courtyard in and of itself.

The unity of these two conceptions of holiness is expressed by the number 130. That number includes the all-encompassing holiness symbolized by 100 – in which there is no focus on 30 cubits of the Sanctuary as a distinct entity but rather as part of the whole – and 30, where the holiness of the Sanctuary is distinguished as an entity in its own right. The offerings for the dedication of the Altar brought by the nesi’im relate to these three approaches as they apply regarding – and are expressed within – the Jewish people, as explained above at length. Therefore, when the nasi of the tribe of Shimon brought his offerings to reflect the design of the Sanctuary, he intended to express these same concepts as they relate to the Sanctuary.

The above concepts also explain the two approaches regarding whether the 70 shekalim are reckoned as corresponding to the length of the courtyard without the Sanctuary, or whether the courtyard is considered according to its full length and width, 100 cubits and 50 cubits respectively, as they are made into a square.

According to the first approach, the fundamental emphasis regarding the dedication of the Altar is on the advantage of the individual elements, and the goal is to enable unity to be manifest within them. Therefore, the all-pervading holiness of the Sanctuary as a distinct entity is not highlighted. That element relates to the allusion implicit in the donation of the wagons and oxen, as explained in sec. 11 above.

By contrast, according to the second approach, the fundamental emphasis is on the positive virtue of the whole. Therefore, the achievement of the dedication of the Altar is to express the manner in which the particular elements are subsumed within the whole and reflect its positive virtue.

According to this approach, the individual holiness is not alluded to as a distinct entity. Therefore, the emphasis is placed on 70 – the square-root of the entire area of the courtyard including the Sanctuary. (This did not include the area of the Sanctuary as a separate and distinct entity because it manifested a further individual aspect of holiness and that was not the focus here.) Instead, this approach highlights the positive virtue of the whole.

Adapted from sichos delivered on Shabbos Parshas Tzav, 5740 (1980), Simchas Torah, 5742 (1981), and Shabbos Parshas Vayikra, 5 Nissan, 5743 (1983)
Likkutei Sichos, Volume 23, P. 53ff.