Parashat Pinchas

“LiAzni Mishpachas HaAzni.” I say that the family of Azni is the family of Etzbon, though I do not know why this family is not called by its original name.

Rashi, BaMidbar 26:16

A very curious Rashi. Is there something esoteric about the name Azni that escapes Rashi, something to which he can provide no plausible explanation? Perhaps, but perhaps not. What difficulty does Rashi attempt to resolve here? In Parashat VaYigash, we listed all the 70 families that traveled down to Mitzrayim, and here we recount them, minus a few lost divisions. But the name Azni is nowhere to be found in the original census. Rashi therefore explains that the family Etzbon, a family omitted from our narrative, is really present but with a different name. Granted Rashi would love to provide us with some explanation behind this change of name, but is that really what he’s out to accomplish? Why can’t he simply assert: “Azni, Zu Mishpachas Etzbon,” and leave the rest to our own speculation?

But that’s not what makes this such a curious Rashi.

“…But the [Shimonite] family of Ohad perished, as did five families from Shevet Binyamin… and Etzbon, from Shevet Gad. That makes seven familes. I found in the Talmud Yerushalmi that when Aharon died, the Ananei HaKaod dispersed and the Cana’anim came to battle with Yisrael. The Nation retreated… and the Bnei Levi chased after them to bring them back, and [in the civil skirmish] killed [these] seven families…”

Rashi, BaMidmar 26:14

Now we are told that the family of Etzbon perished in a scuffle with Shevet Levi. Of course, they can’t be renamed Azni and dead at the same time. Rashi’s two comments seem hopelessly irreconcilable. So much for this Yerushalmi that Rashi quotes.

“…and four Levite families [also omitted from our parasha’s census] fell: Shimi; Azi’eli; and from the sons of Yitzhar, only the Bnei Korach are mentioned. As for the fourth family, I do not know who it was.”

Rashi (ibid.)

The Yerushalmi’s already difficult account borders on the inexplicable. Quite simply, counting four dead families is logistically impossible if only three families are omitted from the census. Yet the Agada claims that a fourth family of Levi’s was killed, and not surprisingly fails to support its claim.

The Sefer Zikaron resolves Rashi’s inconsistencies with a redaction. He changes the name Etzbon to Yishveh (from Shevet Asher), another family mysteriously omitted from our parasha’s census. Etzbon is then counted as Azni, Yishveh was killed by Shevet Levi, and the contradiction is resolved. It’s a quick patch. It’s simple, but not entirely satisfying. Let’s see if we can do better.

Rashi elsewhere (pasuk 24) comments that the families Ard and Na’aman (both from Shevet Binyamin) are not the children of Binyamin but rather are his grandchildren – children of Belah – and are named after their uncles. Although they were not among the seventy individuals who descended to Mitzrayim, they presently constitute their own families due to their relative size. The same is true of I’ezer and Cheilek, Yoseif’s great great grandchildren, who certainly weren’t born until long after Ya’akov arrived and yet are counted as their own Mishpachot.

It is therefore possible, the Levush HaOrah speculates, that Azni was a descendant of Etzbon’s whose family had grown large enough to be counted by its own name. The rest of Etzbon’s family was then killed by Shevet Levi, and so the Yerushalmi considers the family of Etzbon to have been wiped out although some of Etzbon’s actual descendants did survive.

Rashi continues, “I do not know why Azni is not called by its [larger] family’s name.” In other words, the Levush HaOrah reasons, one would expect the family of Azni to uphold the legacy of their descendants, Mishpachat Etzbon; yet they do not, and why they do not is unclear. And there is nothing mysterious or obscure about the name Azni.

Now one might question why Rashi scratches his head as to why Azni does not uphold Etzbon’s legacy whereas we have no questions why Korach does not uphold Yitzhar’s family name. However, the Levush HaOrah adds, the Torah elsewhere informs us that Korach is the son of Yitzhar, so our parasha does not need to fill in any details. By telling us Korach’s family is counted, we can easily infer that Yitzhar’s family – or at least a part of it – survived. However, we cannot so definitively infer Etzbon’s survival from Azni’s existence.

Rashi’s comments are curious indeed, but for an entirely different reason. Rashi could have easily explained the presence of Azni’s name in our parasha as the Torah’s terse way of informing us that the rest of Mishpachat Etzbon died out. But alas, the Torah does not count the Jews to tell us who is missing; rather, we count the ones who remain and forget the ones lost.

The Yerushalmi tells us four families from Shevet Levi perished, but we can only ascertain the names of three. Borrowing from the logic of the Levush HaOrah, perhaps what the Yerushalmi means is that one of Levi’s later descendants grew large enough to constitute its own family, and then died out, yet we are left with no method by which to determine which descendant this was.

“Mah SheHaya Haya,” what was no longer is, in the words of the Levush HaOrah. This presents a shocking counterpoint to our parasha’s emphasis on individual deaths, such as Dasan’s and Aviram’s, Eir’s and Onan’s, and Tzelofchad’s. Somehow a few single deaths – of sinners no less – are more noteworthy than a miniature genocide, and this sounds eerily similar to the opening of our parasha, where the Nasi of Shevet Shimon, Zimri ben Salu, is singled out from among 24,000 as the victim of Avodas Ba’al Peor.

But what does this all mean? The Torah seems to distinguish between the legacy of an individual and that of a populous. When the former is punished or killed, his environment does not drastically change, there is no startling shift in culture or perspective, and those who survive him can examine his life, his actions, and his legacy within the same environment he constructed it. U’Vnei Korach Lo Maisu. The latter grants no such luxury. And so Yisrael retains 601,000 men and 65 families, but the identities and perspectives of Ohad and Etzbon and Shimi and Yitzhar are lost forever.

The identity and collective spirit of Klal Yisrael is an ever changing beast. Mistakes are made, families are lost, and legacies change. Hopefully for the better.